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

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Heck, I started gaming when I gave the Blue Box to my brother. In order to DM, I had to borrow the book from him. When I started with AD&D 1e, I didn't own a DMG, so I had to borrow it overnight from one of my players to set up the game!

(Mind you, I was awfully glad when I bought my own books!)

RC

 

[WizarDru]

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.

Truthfully, I never knew anyone who did, either. I think this may highlight the difference that the Internet has made. In 1982, I could write a letter to Dragon magazine, and maybe, MAYBE four months later I MIGHT see a reply to such a question in the reader mail or a continued discussion in the Forum section.

Now I can just pop over the the Colonel Playdoh thread and ask the designer himself (or ask any number of creators directly, such as Rich Baker, Chris Pramas, Monte Cook, Ben Durbin, Steve Kenson and more). Not to mention I can directly interact and ask players and DMs from across the WORLD for their experiences. Hell, I remember when White Dwarf was a big deal, as it was the SECOND magazine in the world that dealt with stuff like D&D that I knew of at the time (I mean, the General didn't count).

 

[Thurbane]

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!

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.

Another one to add to my QFT stockpile...

 

[Thurbane]

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.

I thought I had already debunked this myth of players hands being slapped away from MM & DMG back in the "bad old days"...

Still, even in the hallowed halls of 3.X, I still don't let the players pick up a MM during an encounter just to "brush up" on the stats of an opponent. Unless the character has an encyclopedic knowledge of the creature in question, it completely ruins the suspension of disbelief. I like to play D&D as an RPG rather than a tactical simulator - but if another group does allow perusal of materials during a battle, I have no particular problem with it.

 

[Lanefan]

I thought I had already debunked this myth of players hands being slapped away from MM & DMG back in the "bad old days"...

Still, even in the hallowed halls of 3.X, I still don't let the players pick up a MM during an encounter just to "brush up" on the stats of an opponent. Unless the character has an encyclopedic knowledge of the creature in question, it completely ruins the suspension of disbelief. I like to play D&D as an RPG rather than a tactical simulator - but if another group does allow perusal of materials during a battle, I have no particular problem with it.

And if the DM is using non-standard stats for the monsters, looking at the book matters even less.

Though perusing the DMG to find out what your new magic item might do is strictly verboten.

Lanefan

 

[MerricB]

I thought I had already debunked this myth of players hands being slapped away from MM & DMG back in the "bad old days"...

Slapping hands? We had summary executions!

I was rereading that section of the DMG the other day, and it seems fairly clear that it mostly applies to new players; by looking in the MM and DMG, they're spoiling the fun of discovering the game through play.

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.

My ongoing problem with 2e NWPs comes from the fact that they're On/Off for the most part. Improving them, though possible within the rules, was really not worth it. Player's Option made everything a lot better, though I prefer the 3e system. (Opposed checks with skills were odd in 2e: the higher roll won, unless it failed).

Oh, and that most of them had no relevance to the play of the game.

Cheers!

 

[Raven Crowking]

My ongoing problem with 2e NWPs comes from the fact that they're On/Off for the most part. Improving them, though possible within the rules, was really not worth it. Player's Option made everything a lot better, though I prefer the 3e system. (Opposed checks with skills were odd in 2e: the higher roll won, unless it failed).

Sure. I agree that the 3.X ruleset is very good, and the skills excel the old NWP system. However, the old NWP system and the specialty priest are not evidence of the types of problems that Hussar claimed they are.


RC

 

[Thurbane]

I was rereading that section of the DMG the other day, and it seems fairly clear that it mostly applies to new players; by looking in the MM and DMG, they're spoiling the fun of discovering the game through play.

Exactly. I tried to do the same thing when we first switched from 2E to 3.5E - when I was playing and before I had my first go at DMing under the new rules, I made a point of NOT reading the MM myself. I wanted to be surprised and challenged by mosters without having memorized every last little detail of their stats, as I had in 1E and 2E.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Now, whether you think DM dependency is a good thing or not is up for grabs. Personally, I would rather focus on the fun stuff of DMing - runnign monsters, designing adventures and whatnot - and not bother rewriting rules. Some people enjoy rewriting the rules. More power to them. It still doesn't actualy affect my base point which is that removing some DM authority and vesting into the rules means that the DM's abilities become somewhat less important to the quality of the game being run.

I'll agree with pretty much all of Hussar's post, saying that earlier editions were more DM dependant. I'll back this up further by saying that less DM dependance makes the game BETTER, by which I mean able to be enjoyed by a wider and more discerning (because it is wider) audience.

Now this gets a little rambly, but I haven't posted in a while, so please bear with me.

RC made the point that the more successful game doesn't nessecarily indicate the best quality game. Quality, such as it is, is always a relative concept and cannot possibly be judged by some 100 different people to be the same thing. Which is why consensus is key. The idea is that if 75 out of 100 people think X is better than Y, then, really, something about X must be more fundamentally enjoyable for more people than Y. The 25 other people are your basic statistic anomoly -- there are ALWAYS outcasts, counter-culturalists, and those who really can't make use of X, for instance. It's not that X is objectively better than Y (because that's impossible), it's that X is considered by the majority of people to be better than Y. And it's important, in my head, to find out why that could be.

3e obviously fits this definition, where "Y" is "All earlier editions." 3e sells better than earlier editions, it supports a stronger market, and it appeals to a wider audience.

If 2e and 1e and OD&D, et al were perfectly fine games that any competent person could have loads of fun with on a Sunday evening, this would not have happened. I'm not saying that the quality of the game (meaning, the quality one precieves in it) is the sole determining factor, but I believe it is one of the most important -- those 75 out of 100 people are motivated by many factors, but one that I have been hearing for six years of 3e has been "It has better rules."

Unless we are to assume that people are inherently dishonest or stupid (or at least that 75 out of every 100 people are thus), this should be taken at face value (and if you do assume that, I'd wonder if you agree with Democracy and Capitalism..or if you're just one of those 25 people). Most people think 3e has better rules, and therefore they buy more of 3e than they do of out-of-print OD&D (for instance). This means, in a very Darwinian sense, that it is a "more fit, more successful, better adapted" game than previous editions, at least at this point in time.

People criticize 3e for a variety of invented and actual flaws, ranging from "videogame mentality" (inaccurate) to "over-codified rules" (accurate but relative), to "making players less subject to the DM" (inaccurate) to "not being D&D" (judging by this thread, inaccurate).

If the ways 3e have "perverted the soul of D&D" have been to put some authority into the rulebooks, to grant an amazing level of customizability, and make the game (though better rules) easier to actually play, then I can't see the original soul of D&D being any more worthwhile today than the soul of the Dodo bird, because it does it's job to a higher quality than it has ever done it's job before.

And it's job has always been to sell itself to players -- to get as many people out of 100 playing that will play.

3e does what it sets out to do (sell D&D) better than any previous edition, and that is what makes me call it a better game.

So I ask: What is there worth saving in the old editions? What experience can they provide that 3e cannot? What ancient wisdom has 3e discarded in it's hunger for money and high schoolers?

I'm trying, as little as possible, to not get subject to individual preferences and get at the key of the real difference between the editions, and whether or not 3e actually *did* leave anything worthwhile behind before, worth going back, picking up, and reconsidering.

We all know 3e has it's flaws, it can't appeal to everyone, it's not the second coming of Gygax. We know earlier editions had problems, too. Many of us are well aware of 3e's virtues. But what exclusive claim do other editions have on any virtues? Is there something 2e or 1e or OD&D or whatever does better than 3e, that 3e cannot also do?

....and this last part is important: is it in the rules, or in your head? Can you back it up with evidence from the books, or is it just a feeling, an inkling, a tendancy, an opinion? Is it something that would make more people play without loosing some people?

Because the point isn't to restrict D&D to some elite echelon of enlightenment and gamer nerdvana. The point *is* broad-based appeal, while still being D&D.

 

[Thurbane]

more discerning (because it is wider) audience.

Riiight, like how RnB fans are "more discerning" than classical music fans, just because there are more of them.

RC made the point that the more successful game doesn't nessecarily indicate the best quality game. Quality, such as it is, is always a relative concept and cannot possibly be judged by some 100 different people to be the same thing.

Which I agree with 138%

Which is why consensus is key. The idea is that if 75 out of 100 people think X is better than Y, then, really, something about X must be more fundamentally enjoyable for more people than Y. The 25 other people are your basic statistic anomoly -- there are ALWAYS outcasts, counter-culturalists, and those who really can't make use of X, for instance. It's not that X is objectively better than Y (because that's impossible), it's that X is considered by the majority of people to be better than Y. And it's important, in my head, to find out why that could be.

Agreed - more popular does not equate to better. It is scientifically provable that Beta video was technically a better format than VHS, but VHS won the marketing war, and therefore the popularity war. Some people say the same thing about Apples and IBMs.

3e obviously fits this definition, where "Y" is "All earlier editions." 3e sells better than earlier editions, it supports a stronger market, and it appeals to a wider audience.

Which is like saying that Hyundai Hatchbacks are better than Pontiac Trans-ams because more are sold today. You are comparing different eras.

If 2e and 1e and OD&D, et al were perfectly fine games that any competent person could have loads of fun with on a Sunday evening, this would not have happened.

Wrong, for the reasons I have already posted. Again I ask, did you ever actually play or DM under earlier editions, or are you going on hearsay? The 15 years of experience I and a good dozen or more people I have gamed with contradict your assumption.

I'm not saying that the quality of the game (meaning, the quality one precieves in it) is the sole determining factor, but I believe it is one of the most important -- those 75 out of 100 people are motivated by many factors, but one that I have been hearing for six years of 3e has been "It has better rules."

Which is your prerogative, but it is still opinion, and not fact.

Unless we are to assume that people are inherently dishonest or stupid (or at least that 75 out of every 100 people are thus), this should be taken at face value (and if you do assume that, I'd wonder if you agree with Democracy and Capitalism..or if you're just one of those 25 people). Most people think 3e has better rules, and therefore they buy more of 3e than they do of out-of-print OD&D (for instance). This means, in a very Darwinian sense, that it is a "more fit, more successful, better adapted" game than previous editions, at least at this point in time.

Yep, and Aqua's "Barbie Girl" is a better song than Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" because it sold more copies.

People criticize 3e for a variety of invented and actual flaws, ranging from "videogame mentality" (inaccurate)

How can an opinion be inaccurate? just curious...(and BTW, I still stand by the comment)

to "over-codified rules" (accurate but relative),

Agree with you on this one.

to "making players less subject to the DM" (inaccurate)

Your side of the debate really need to get your stories straight - half of you are pushing this bandwagon, and half are refuting it.

to "not being D&D" (judging by this thread, inaccurate).

Again, nought but opinions, on both sides.

If the ways 3e have "perverted the soul of D&D" have been to put some authority into the rulebooks, to grant an amazing level of customizability, and make the game (though better rules) easier to actually play, then I can't see the original soul of D&D being any more worthwhile today than the soul of the Dodo bird, because it does it's job to a higher quality than it has ever done it's job before.

And it's job has always been to sell itself to players -- to get as many people out of 100 playing that will play.

So easier and more played equals better. Therefore, checkers is a better game than chess. OooooK.

3e does what it sets out to do (sell D&D) better than any previous edition, and that is what makes me call it a better game.

Once again, more copies sold does not equate to better, simply more popular.

So I ask: What is there worth saving in the old editions? What experience can they provide that 3e cannot? What ancient wisdom has 3e discarded in it's hunger for money and high schoolers?

My point all along has not been that earlier editions are inherently better than 3.X, simply that it is inherently better either. As "better" is a totally subjective quality, you cannot prove or disprove this point any more than I can.

I'm trying, as little as possible, to not get subject to individual preferences and get at the key of the real difference between the editions, and whether or not 3e actually *did* leave anything worthwhile behind before, worth going back, picking up, and reconsidering.

Well, if you are looking for a scientific formula that rates various aspects of the various systems, you aren't going to find it. Again, total subjectivity. Different aspects will work better or worse for groups and individuals, that simple. To categorically state that any edition was better than other at some particular point or mechanic again wanders into the realm of subjectivity.

We all know 3e has it's flaws, it can't appeal to everyone, it's not the second coming of Gygax. We know earlier editions had problems, too. Many of us are well aware of 3e's virtues. But what exclusive claim do other editions have on any virtues? Is there something 2e or 1e or OD&D or whatever does better than 3e, that 3e cannot also do?

Nope. See above.

....and this last part is important: is it in the rules, or in your head? Can you back it up with evidence from the books, or is it just a feeling, an inkling, a tendancy, an opinion? Is it something that would make more people play without loosing some people?

Read back through this thread, many examples have been cited by both sides, Few have been agreed upon.

Because the point isn't to restrict D&D to some elite echelon of enlightenment and gamer nerdvana. The point *is* broad-based appeal, while still being D&D.

Agreed. And my point, as always, has been that I don't hate 3.X, or think it's not D&D - it just has some aspects that I personally don't enjoy and think other editions did better. I'm not going to rehash these again, they are freely readable throughout this thread.

My main point, and point of some of the others on my side, has been that even if 3.X is a great system, it does not diminish earlier editions or made them any less fun or playable. In many ways, 3.X is a refinement of points that earlier editions arguably did not cover as well, but in many others it is a divergence from some key concepts that were ingrained in earlier eds. Whether this is good or bad is completely subjective - to argue otherwise is pointless.