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

[Numion]

Just one question - can you point me to the 3.X rules on the effects of lack of sleep? Surely such a majestic system has detailed rules on something so trivial, that is likely to crop in the daily life of an adventurer on the road...

It don't have rules for taking a dump, either. We had to stop our last session dead on its tracks and make up some rules on the fly, in the best tradition of 1E DMs. I'm telling ya, it's the mark of a great DM when you can make rules for that on the fly. I'm glad that the power of dump is still firmly in hands of the DM.

I can screw over my players with that one for years to come

My mind boggles that there are people out there who actually played 1E and 2E and apparently found them such cumbersome, unfair and unplayable systems, seriously...in 15 years, we never had a fraction of the problems some people here seemed to. :\

I just stopped playing 2E instead of having the problems.

 

[Maggan]

You're storytelling when you describe the room the party just entered. The players are storytelling when they go to the King to claim their reward for defeating the Gnoll threat on the eastern border. Granted, some people get a bit more flowery and theatrical with their story elements, but when you beat it all down the game is in essence a collaborative story. I fail to see a problem...

Lanefan

QFT. Being a good story teller when playing rpgs is not equal to using theatrics or railroading, or forcing the story down your players throats, or railroading.

Those are elements any story teller can chose to use, together with e.g. the use of NPCs and NPC motivations, locations, hooks and pushes, consequences from PC actions and much more. Including knowledge of the rules, if the DM has such knowledge.

And input from the players, of course.

Painting storytelling as only theatrics and railroading is simply wrong.

It is not that I do not present "stories"; it is simply that I provide a lot of potential stories, and that the background stories are largely about NPCs until the PCs become involved. There are a few exceptions. In one ruin, a ghost was the lover of a character's grandmother in life. Other storylines revolve around PC backgrounds supplied by the players. Does Locke want to know who he really is? Does Nift want to avenge his parents?

The important thing, IMHO, is that the world moves with the PCs or without them, that PC backgrounds are given significance (if the player in question supplied enough to work with), and that the PCs get to choose how they deal with ongoing events.

Good example of how I view good storytelling in RPGs.

/M

 

[Thurbane]

It don't have rules for taking a dump, either. We had to stop our last session dead on its tracks and make up some rules on the fly, in the best tradition of 1E DMs. I'm telling ya, it's the mark of a great DM when you can make rules for that on the fly. I'm glad that the power of dump is still firmly in hands of the DM.

Respect my authoritah! Regdar, give me a ranged touch attack and a reflex save!

 

[BroccoliRage]

I can't, Mialee! I just used Uber Munchkin Great Cleave, and I'm shooting for my Epic Perv prestige class! Ohhh, look out! An abyssal/fiendish/dragonwrought/aberrant/half kobold/half dragon/half vampire/bad anime adaptation/Dire Koala! Assist, Lidda!

And it's accompanied by a Gelatinous Cube Monk, a joke from WOTC that's official and totally a joke, but not really!

XD

While it's not a system complaint, I do find the style of writing in the newer books a tad ridiculous. Seriously, did some chick at WOTC get upset at the lack of enlightenment in gaming books read by nerds? "She" in place of "he" in the generic. Christ. That's not liberation, it's improper use of English. And the standardized group is a bit gay, as well. Not to mention that I had a fighter named Ragdar that I can't even use with my current group. (My current group is kids raised on 3e who keep coming to my games and think they are somehow going to get me to update).

Does the standardized group of Jozan, Regdar, Mialee, Lidda, Tordek, Krusk and Co. actually contribute anything to the game? Is there a purpose to them that I missed when I read those rulebooks?

Like I said, these aren't system complaints, just complaints on WOTC's treatment of their product.

That being said, I do like alot of WOTC's newer artwork, at least that which isn't anime in flavor. (I hate anime, the characters all have the same face with different hair, the dialogue is lame, Inuyasha is a retarded show. So is Dragon Ball Z. Full Metal Alchemist is tolerable, and Ghost in The Shell, every series, is the only total exception.)

I don't play AD&D for nostalgia's sake. I play AD&D because it's a perfectly fine system and has served me well for years.

 

[DestroyYouAlot]

It don't have rules for taking a dump, either. We had to stop our last session dead on its tracks and make up some rules on the fly, in the best tradition of 1E DMs. I'm telling ya, it's the mark of a great DM when you can make rules for that on the fly. I'm glad that the power of dump is still firmly in hands of the DM.

I can screw over my players with that one for years to come

Dumps fall, everyone dies!

I can't, Mialee! I just used Uber Munchkin Great Cleave (el clippo)

Not for nothing, but I was using "cleave" (or a rule that would pass on a quick glance) since about 1992.

Does the standardized group of Jozan, Regdar, Mialee, Lidda, Tordek, Krusk and Co. actually contribute anything to the game? Is there a purpose to them that I missed when I read those rulebooks?

It always struck me as a relatively intuitive way of illustrating how to make a character with the new rules. One of the best aids to a DM making the switch from 2e to 3e, IMHO, was the "iconic characters at X level" write-ups in the "Enemies and Allies" book. Or, you can just look at them as a way of describing in-game scenarios in the course of explaining the rules. Of course, you may remember Delsenora, Rath, Ragnar, Cwell the Fine, and friends, the "iconic characters" from the 2e PHB. (Or you may not, depending on how many levels in the Grognard prc you have. )

 

[Raven Crowking]

Pardon? I never denied any such thing.

My apologies. It certainly seemed to me like you did when Thurbane brought it up earlier. It also seems to me that you are doing the same when you say "However, the point of those thread, by and large, is a to clarify the rules." IMHO, there are a great many threads that do exist to judge whether or not the DM is applying the rules correctly, regardless of what the rule or application is. I have participated in many myself.

You say: "If the DM decided that the DC for a 10 foot jump was 35 and had no reason for it, then I can say that that was a bad DM call. It was a complete misreading of the Jump skill."

I say: If the example is not so extreme, how do you know if there was no reason for it? How do you know that "the DM is simply pulling the number out of the air"?

You misunderstand. PrC's are entirely the responsibility of the DM. It specifically says so in the DMG. If the DM doesn't want to allow a PrC in the game, he doesn't have to. However, specialty priests are called out in the 2e PHB, with almost no guidance on how to create them. It does say that you have to work with the DM to create one, but, it doesn't say that that DM should nix ideas if he doesn't like them.

Did I misunderstand that?

Specialty priests weren't specifically optional? The DMG didn't contain a section on creating balanced classes? The 2e rules were vague on the idea that the DM could (and should) nix ideas he didn't like?


EDIT: If you claim that prestige classes are entirely in the provence of the DM, but that specialty priests are not, how does that make 3.X less DM-dependent, anyway? Not that I accept the initial premise, but I have a hard time seeing where that premise leads to the conclusion you are proposing.

"Less DM dependent" is an illusion, IMHO & IME.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Also, just for the record, what is said in the 2e PHB is:

In the simplest version of the AD&D game, clerics serve religions that can be generally described as "good" or "evil". Nothing more needs to be said about it; the game will play perfectly well at this level. However, a DM who has taken the time to create a detailed campaign world has often spent some of that time devising elaborate pantheons; either unique creations or adaptations from history or literature. If this option is open (and only your DM can decide), you may want your character to adhere to a particular mythos, taking advantage of the detail and color your DM has provided. If your character follows a particular mythos, expect him to have abilities, spells, and restrictions different from the generic cleric.​

It then goes on to describe what priests might be like. Oddly enough, nowhere in this section does it say anything about players making any choices as to what these abilities, spells, powers, and restrictions are. What it does say are things like "The DM has final choice in all situations." Perhaps we are reading a different book.

Interestingly enough, I just re-read the Jumping NWP on p. 61, and I find that to be quite clear as well. In fact, you just determine how far you can jump, and you can make the check without any DM input....until it comes time to find out what the actual outcome is. Same as 3.X.

The biggest difference is that the proficiency is required to make "extraordinary" jumps, and the term is not defined. However, in 3.X there are jumps that require no checks, and it seems likely (and was certainly how we played it) that the NWP is required for any jump that requires a check.

OTOH, 2nd Ed jumping doesn't take into account circumstance penalties or bonuses. You just roll dice and add your level, to you maximum jumping distance. In 3.X, the DM is required to set (or not set) these modifiers. So, overall, these examples require the exact same level of DM adjudication.


RC

 

[WizarDru]

Let me see if I understand where you are coming from.

(1) One of the really great things about 3.x is that the players can know the rules as well as the DM, and the DMG is not off-limits to the players.

Side note: this highlights a concept some held that I always thought was somewhat ridiculous; namely the idea that the DMG and MM were sacrosanct and untouchable by players in any and all circumstances and that any player who had knowledge of them was, in whole or part, effectively cheating to some degree.

I realized this the first time I chose to be a player, rather than a DM. In hindsight, the very idea seemed odd, when you consider that EGG's co-DMs were his players and vice-versa from day one. This isn't to say that I allowed free access to those books during my games...but at the same time, the DMG wasn't some book of arcane lore to be hoarded. My general rule always was that players merely couldn't consult those books during the game, not that they couldn't own or look at them, otherwise.

 

[DestroyYouAlot]

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'll tell ya one thing, though - some of my players get to play (whether as DMs or players) a lot more than I do. If I'm a little fuzzy on the grapple rules, or how many rounds sleep lasts, I call down the table for an assist. Which disrupts the flow of the game 0.00000004 times as much as having everyone stare at me for five minutes (or less, I engage in hyperbole) flipping through the rulebook that only I'm allowed to crack. I like having my players know the rules, sometimes better than I do - it lets me worry more about what the evil cult is planning, or where the bugbear is setting an ambush, or which chest has gold and which has neatly-packaged flasks of green slime. Which, in effect, amounts to me having to be less of an "interface between the players and the rulebook," and more of a "evil overgod of plot devices and pit traps," which is (apparently) what some people who are knocking 3e want out of the game.

Edit: What's not a given, however, but does apply to my group, is that I have awesome players, all of whom predate 3e by more than a few years. None of them are going to ruin their own enjoyment by cheating, none of them have ever questioned my authority as a DM (and this extends to my on-the-spot rulings and changes to the RAW), and I place at least as much control (and therefore responsibility) over where our (our) game goes in their hands as I hold in mine.

 

[Henry]

My general rule always was that players merely couldn't consult those books during the game, not that they couldn't own or look at them, otherwise.

And this was my rule, and the rule of the group I joined later in the 1980's, before I had ever joined them. I don't ever recall having met anyone who listened to the "the DMG/MM is untouchable by players" line and took it that literally, even with it being in the DMG itself. Having come from groups where every player had tried his hand at DM'ing at least once, it really didn't make sense to interpret it that way.