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

[Hussar]

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.

I disagree. I see 3.x as enabling rules gurus whom the DM can rely upon without having to have encyclopedic knowledge of the rules. In other words, the game becomes far more cooperative than adversarial.

 

[Crothian]

I disagree. I see 3.x as enabling rules gurus whom the DM can rely upon without having to have encyclopedic knowledge of the rules. In other words, the game becomes far more cooperative than adversarial.

That depends on the players. The rules don't make people cooperative or adversarial; that's a personality trait. But even still, a DM that has to goto his players for the rules is not a good DM.

 

[BroccoliRage]

I dunno about that, Crothian. There's nothing wrong with occasoinally forgetting how a spell works and asking the player to remind you. It saves time, you won't have to look the rule up. Most of my players have not been interested in "winning" at AD&D as much as playing. Good players are an asset to DM's. I'm pretty faimliar with B/X to 2e, but when I'm having a brain fart and player reminds me of how a spell works, I don't think that makes me a bad DM. Besides, I encourage that from players. If I'm wrong on something integral, I'm wrong on something integral.

This is not the same as rules lawyering. And it isn't the same as relying on a player to know the rules. The games I run tend to be 1e AD&D as the sun with 2e AD&D, B/X, Hackmaster, Dragonfist, and The Arcanum in orbit. With all of those various similiar systems smashed together using 1e as default, occasionally I need to be reminded of things. I offer an expansive game with a TON of player options, so if i forget for a second exactly how many 1 hit die monsters are affected by the wizard's sleep spell (that happened yesterday) and I ask, that's pretty forgivable.

If I misunderstood your point, I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be combative.

 

[Thurbane]

I disagree. I see 3.x as enabling rules gurus whom the DM can rely upon without having to have encyclopedic knowledge of the rules. In other words, the game becomes far more cooperative than adversarial.

Well, that's another take on it, yes.

 

[wedgeski]

...But even still, a DM that has to goto his players for the rules is not a good DM.

I can hardly agree with that. First, I don't want an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules because I would rather spend my time on what I consider more productive pursuits, like inking in the details on my campaign or planning the next session; and second, it certainly *does* give the players a stronger sense of game ownership and participation if they know the ins and outs of their character's abilties a little better than the DM. I have a minimum water mark of rules knowledge that I would be disappointed and embarrassed to fall below (and it has happened on occasion), but above that level I really don't mind who comes up with the goods, me, or the players.

 

[Hussar]

I dunno about that, Crothian. There's nothing wrong with occasoinally forgetting how a spell works and asking the player to remind you. It saves time, you won't have to look the rule up. Most of my players have not been interested in "winning" at AD&D as much as playing. Good players are an asset to DM's. I'm pretty faimliar with B/X to 2e, but when I'm having a brain fart and player reminds me of how a spell works, I don't think that makes me a bad DM. Besides, I encourage that from players. If I'm wrong on something integral, I'm wrong on something integral.

This is not the same as rules lawyering. And it isn't the same as relying on a player to know the rules. The games I run tend to be 1e AD&D as the sun with 2e AD&D, B/X, Hackmaster, Dragonfist, and The Arcanum in orbit. With all of those various similiar systems smashed together using 1e as default, occasionally I need to be reminded of things. I offer an expansive game with a TON of player options, so if i forget for a second exactly how many 1 hit die monsters are affected by the wizard's sleep spell (that happened yesterday) and I ask, that's pretty forgivable.

If I misunderstood your point, I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be combative.

Just because I always like to do something new, I agree with BR 100% here.

 

[MerricB]

As I recall, I ran a couple of rather successful original AD&D campaigns - well, mostly 2e campaigns - before the advent of 3e. What I think is particularly notable about those campaigns compared to my 3e campaigns was their levels - neither reached past about 7th level. I played AD&D to 13th level, but never at the higher levels with DM-created adventures.

When I look at 3e, I see a refinement of the adventuring experience at the higher levels of play. I've run original 3.5e games at 12th+ level. I am convinced that although the CR system is more wayward at high levels, it is actually of more benefit. The link between Hit Dice and danger is very tenuous at those levels. Having a value to indicate the danger of the monster is very, very useful.

There is also a benefit at the lowest levels. In one of my first AD&D experiences, I played a 1st level magic-user. According to the random tables in the DMG, my lone spell was Shocking Grasp. Needless to say, the result was not an enjoyable experience - especially after the ogre. I am extremely grateful to 3e for making low-level characters not "one shot wonders"... although my magic-user didn't even have the wonder about him.

One of the major benefits of 3e's unified skill system - and especially the codification of skills like Climb and Jump - comes in convention play with unfamiliar DMs or players. What they do is provide a standardisation of resolution that allows players to travel from one DM to another without needing to learn an entirely new way of doing things - which, in fact, was one of the reasons for AD&D in the first place, as even combat in oD&D was nowhere near standardised.

There are too many who look at the skills and assume that they negate the need for thought. Nothing could be further from the truth. A rogue may have sneak attack, but rushing recklessly into the middle of 6 hill giants so he can sneak attack one will spell certain doom for the rogue; so too with skill use. (Many Living Greyhawk adventures are investigative in their form; you might be able to gather a few clues with Gather Information, but you still have to put them together yourself!)

P&P mentioned that he'd been with his group for a long, long time. That is not my experience with the game. Although I've been involved with D&D since 1982 or so, the longest continuous player with me has lasted 5 years. This is not because I'm a bad DM, but because of the way of life in Ballarat. My players, many of whom are university students, graduate and move away. The older ones finish up their jobs and move away. Heck, I moved to Ballarat in 1995, which removed me from the players I'd played with for the past 5 or so years!

In that context, with most of my groups (I have three or four, depending on how you count it) meeting once per fortnight, the assumptions of 3e work extremely well!

Neither AD&D nor 3e are particularly good rulesets to learn D&D from (although 3e is superior in that regard). Both really require the basic sets. I'm unconvinced by the 3e Basic Game -> Player's Kit -> Core Game transition, but OTOH, I see a few young boys currently learning from the core books and they're having a ball. I really enjoyed learning from the Moldvay Basic edition in the day, but that's a flawed transition as well due to the fact that AD&D and Basic D&D are different games!

Cheers!

 

[Crothian]

I dunno about that, Crothian. There's nothing wrong with occasoinally forgetting how a spell works and asking the player to remind you.

To me there is a big difference between not knowing a spell and having to goto the players to know how the rules work. There is nothing wrong with the players knowing the rules especially how their own characters work. But the general rules of the game, the basic stuff that applies to everyone are the rules I'm referring to.

 

[WizarDru]

I understand, though I disagree. We opend the 1e PHB and just played. It was easy and simple for us. Character options were a lot less so character creation was a lot faster. Basically we rolled out attributes then picked a race and class that helped reach a concept and mach the scores we had. The game has changed a lot since then.

So have it's players. In 1982, when I encountered something like the initiative system, which was just confusing to me, I jettisoned the whole system willy-nilly and used my own. I did that with quite a few systems in the game. I didn't have the wherewithall to bother trying to understand EGG's esoteric system for rule X, I just improvised and moved on...much as the DMG told me to do. Understand, this is not a criticism of AD&D, but a feature. When I was 14, I did things differently and the environment was different, too. I really enjoyed the hell out of Missle Command on my Atari VCS...but it's a minigame to me, now. Which is not to imply that AD&D matches the differences of Missle Command versus Shadow of the Collosus, but more that features that I would expect in a game today were not even thought of back then. The games have changed in reaction to it's players innovations. One of AD&D's strengths remains it's ease of customization.

All of which is going a long way to say that I don't judge 3E by how I played AD&D, because a lot more than just the rules have changed in the years between 1987 (when I stopped playing D&D) and 2000 (when I resumed).

But even still, a DM that has to goto his players for the rules is not a good DM.

I don't think I could disagree more.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

That depends on the players. The rules don't make people cooperative or adversarial; that's a personality trait. But even still, a DM that has to goto his players for the rules is not a good DM.

This statement is endorsed by the PapersAndPaychecks school of DMing.

The idea that a DM can get away without knowing the rules is a bit pathetic, frankly. It's like a judge who doesn't know the law. Sure, there might be times when you have to check a detail, but you'd better have everything important sitting in readily-accessible memory.

Trying to DM a game without rules knowledge is like trying to use the internet via AOL.