[EDITION WARZ] Selling Out D&D's Soul?

[Crothian]

I disagree. The rules in 3e will handhold you well enough that you can play a playable game, even if the DM isn't very good. It may not be a great game, it may be pure hack, but, it's still playable.

Same with the early games. THe rules of 3e are not so simple as one can see in our own rules forum. And if you want to bring in optional materiual I know 3e gets more complex then 1e since there is twenty times the material and enough of it is suspect that it can destroy a game.
I know at age ten I had an easier time with 1e then my 10 year old nephew is having with 3e.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Wow. I'd love to see that. No, seriously, I'd love to see it. I don't suppose I could convince you to send it to me?

I have shared portions of it with people on EN World. Some of my reworking of classes and races is available here as well.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Take this as a f'instance. In the 2e PHB there is a section for playing priests of a specific mythos. It states right in that section that the DM and player will have to sit down and hammer out the class. Beyond that, not much guidance is given.

Priests are optional. The 2e PHB also had a regular cleric. 3e has the option of creating new prestige classes. Can you guess where this is going?

 

[Thurbane]

Same with the early games. THe rules of 3e are not so simple as one can see in our own rules forum. And if you want to bring in optional materiual I know 3e gets more complex then 1e since there is twenty times the material and enough of it is suspect that it can destroy a game.
I know at age ten I had an easier time with 1e then my 10 year old nephew is having with 3e.

I agree. I can honestly say I found 1E and 2E no more challenging to learn than what I have 3.5E. I will concede that the rules in 3.5 are probably somewhat better organised and presented, but not the quantum leap in comprehensiveness and ease of implementation that is being implied by some.

I also think that the ruleset is a relatively minor point in determining the worth of a DM - IMHO, a good DM, average DM and poor DM will still be so despite the ruleset being used. I would even go so far as to say despite the game system being used, whether it was D20, GURPS, Vampire etc.

 

[Hussar]

3e has the option of creating new prestige classes. Can you guess where this is going?

But, there is a significant difference. PrC's are entirely the responsibility of the DM. There's absolutely nothing about PrC's in the PHB. Priests were called out in the PHB, meaning that players might actually think that they are for playing.

Take another example then of how poor rules + poor dming can destroy a game.

In 1e, if my fighter in plate mail wants to jump a 10 foot pit, there are no rules. A good DM will think, "Ok, 18 Str, and I want to get on with the adventure" and say, "Make a Str check at -4". Not too difficult for the player and keeps things moving.

A bad DM might say, "No, you cannot jump in plate mail. Spend the next hour trying to fumbly your way past this trap. Hahahaha."

In 2e, by the rules, unless I had the jump NWP, I shouldn't be able to jump at all. So, the bad DM does the same thing and forces the players to fumble about coming up with ways to bypass something that should take 23 seconds.

In 3e, the player looks on his character sheet, notes his jump check modified by armor and whatnot, looks at the PHB for the DC and rolls. The DM isn't even involved.

I think that, right there, is what people object to. The fact that as a player, I can resolve an action without any input from the DM. In earlier editions, there were practically no actions I could take without input from the DM, which placed the DM very squarely on the top of the pyramid. There was nothing I could do without his express permission. 3e allows me as a player to perform a fairly large number of acts, without any input from the DM.

And I think this scares DM's.

 

[Crothian]

And I think this scares DM's.

It might now, but it didn't then. You seem to be using todays standards to judge older games. Your examples show the game to be more player friendly, but not more DM friendly.

 

[Hussar]

Well, of course it didn't then. Why would it? The DM had absolute authority in the game and the game was structured so that the DM was integral to nearly every aspect of the game. Why would the DM be afraid of that? His word, his law. Player looks in the DMG, smite him. Player looks in the Monster Manual, the great flaming booger of god kills his character.

I'm not using todays standards. What I'm doing is saying that todays game has removed some of the DM's authority over the rules, which also removes some of the DM's authority over the players. Now, it hasn't given that authority to the players, that's where many of the critics get it wrong. No, the authority now rests with the rules.

Because the authority now rests in a codified set of rules that is known by all players poor and average DM's can have an easier time by simply relying on the rules. My jump example and the priest example show this. I'm sure that we could come up with more.

When the rules are known by all players, then the game becomes less dependent on the one person to know or make up the rules. This allows for better games by less able DM's.

 

[Crothian]

When the rules are known by all players, then the game becomes less dependent on the one person to know or make up the rules. This allows for better games by less able DM's.

I see it as allowing for players that think they know the rules and feel like they can correct the DM when he gets it wrong. That kind of pressure and experience can really make DMing 3ed harder. Now, you don't only need to know all the rules you have to put up with players that think they do as well. Players knowing the rules does not replace the responsibility of the DMing knowing the rules.

 

[Thurbane]

Well, of course it didn't then. Why would it? The DM had absolute authority in the game and the game was structured so that the DM was integral to nearly every aspect of the game. Why would the DM be afraid of that? His word, his law. Player looks in the DMG, smite him. Player looks in the Monster Manual, the great flaming booger of god kills his character.

I'm not using todays standards. What I'm doing is saying that todays game has removed some of the DM's authority over the rules, which also removes some of the DM's authority over the players. Now, it hasn't given that authority to the players, that's where many of the critics get it wrong. No, the authority now rests with the rules.

Because the authority now rests in a codified set of rules that is known by all players poor and average DM's can have an easier time by simply relying on the rules. My jump example and the priest example show this. I'm sure that we could come up with more.

When the rules are known by all players, then the game becomes less dependent on the one person to know or make up the rules. This allows for better games by less able DM's.

This was honestly never my experience in any 1E or 2E games I was involved with. Sure, we all had a healthy dose of respect for the man who ran the game and controlled the "known world", but there was never a feeling of our characters being little more than puppets in His "Great and Secret Show". Not to mention that in the vast majority of groups I played with, and had contact with, people took turns in being DM, so this whole myth of players having their hands slapped away from the DMG & MM is just that - a myth. What's the point of doing that if the person has his own copies for when he DMs? Yes, these editions might have suggested that the delineation between player resources and DM resources be more strongly enforced than it is now, but that was more in an attempt to help preserve the players "sense of wonder" than some nefarious plot device for DMs to keep players misinformed and under their iron fist.

Unsurprisingly, I suppose, it sounds like some of the players who are the most vocal supporters of 3.X had bad experiences with bad DMs under older editions. I (again) strongly refute the fact that 3.X makes mediocre DMs any more capable than they would have been in earlier editions.

 

[Thurbane]

I see it as allowing for players that think they know the rules and feel like they can correct the DM when he gets it wrong. That kind of pressure and experience can really make DMing 3ed harder. Now, you don't only need to know all the rules you have to put up with players that think they do as well. Players knowing the rules does not replace the responsibility of the DMing knowing the rules.

I agree - 3.X has enabled the rules lawyers to a degree they've never had before. In turn, it is my firm belief that this has lead to an "arms race" of sorts, with the DM and players both trying to stockpile the most RAW knowledge to slap the other down with.

How many threads do you read along the lines of "My DM ruled such-and-such, is he right?" or "My player is trying to create such-and-such character, can he do this?". To me, this is entirely the wrong mindset to game with. Maybe if we were talking about tournament chess, but certainly not in a game where the primary objective is for all to have fun...