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

[Hussar]

You missed my point, so I'll restate it. Gygax, Arneson, et cetera pulled in the stuff they liked from the books and films they enjoyed and created something that gave them the opportunity to do the things they thought were cool. Remember, Dungeons and Dragons was released in 1974 after years of "playtesting" these elements. 1e AD&D wasn't even on the horizon at that point - and OD&D was six years before Deities and Demigods.

No, I didn't miss your point. You have repeatedly stated that the writing style of the 1e was somehow superior to current styles. That plain English explainations of rules is inferior to convoluted and wordy styles. That by using plain English, the game somehow panders to the lowest common denominator. After all, the inspirations for 1e were Tolkein and company, so, the writing style of the game should appeal to those who jones on that style.

The problem with that is that the inspirations for D&D were drawn from every possible source they could get their hands on. From Tolkein all the way down to the Creature from the Black Lagoon. Yes, some of the inspirations were high literature, but, a large number of them certainly weren't.

There's a problem with this elitist attitude though.

On one side people complain that 3e is pandering to the lowest common denominator. That by using plain speach we've lowered the bar and turned the game very bland.

On the other side people complain that 3e is far too complicated to run and too much work.

So, which is it? Is 3e too complex or too simple?

As far as looking at the rules section for problems with the rules, I would point out that 3e has more publications by a large margin than 1e ever saw. Yet, the problems are almost universally corner cases of the "can my monk take improved natural weapon" kind rather than every other group in the area using a completely different initiative mechanic. Or simply dropping very large swaths of the rules in search of simplicity or coherence.

Just to illustrate my point, as I write this, the following ten topics are being discussed on the Rules board:

• Can You Empower Claws of the Beast?
• Prestige classes and multiclassing XP
• How do you run surprise?
• Ledgendary Artisan question
• Can you voluntary lower the Save DCs as you cast a spell?
• Why aren't potions labeled?
• Fox's cunning and oozes?
• Spell Penetration or Arcane Mastery: Which is better?
• Some feats for flail users?
• Gestalt Mulitclassing?

Let's see, 10 topics, half of which are outside of core, two that aren't even really questions about the rules. Three actual questions regarding core - casting Fox's cunning on an ooze, XP awards and PrC's and Lowering Save DC's. I'm sure that any of those three would come up far more often than rolling initiative.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

So, which is it? Is 3e too complex or too simple?

It's not too complex, it's too detailed and too slow in play.

 

[The Shaman]

No, I didn't miss your point. You have repeatedly stated that the writing style of the 1e was somehow superior to current styles.

No, that's not what I stated at all - again, either your misread my post or you are willfully misquoting me.

Here's exactly what I wrote, from post 689:

His evocative language maps to the game's source material. IMO this is why so many gamers write fondly about "1e flavor": because reading the rule books felt like reading a fantasy novel, not a tech manual.

At no point did I say that the 1e writing is "superior" to anything - I said that the two styles are different from one another, and that many gamers like the style of the 1e rules.

There's nothing I can do about you misquoting the rules except offer more corrections, but I will ask you to take more care in how you represent what I've written in my posts.

 

[Thurbane]

I'm seeing a lot of that in this thread, on both sides. People are reading any examples of why an individual prefers edition X as a direct assault on edition Y.

The only time I have really got annoyed with anyone in this thread is when they claim that older editions were unplayable and/or unfun, which was blatantly untrue - otherwise it wouldn't have sold a fraction as well as it did (note: I am aware of the irony of this statement considering some of my previous comments about sales not equalling better product ).

But from my own firsthand experience playing 1E and 2E for well over 15 years with 20 or more people, I only encountered one who didn't like the game after one session and decided not to come back. Others gradually fell off due to other commitments, until I'm left with a core of 5 or so of us now - but that one guy was the only one who walked because he didn't like the game itself.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

On one side people complain that 3e is pandering to the lowest common denominator.

One argument that is very commonly given in support of 3E is that it "lowers the barrier for entry" for DMs, or that it makes "poor DMs into adequate DMs" by supplying the necessary rules/detail for consistency, or that it "protects the players from a bad DM" by supplying rules that prevent "arbitrary DM judgments." IMO, that's a more significant indicator of the "lowest common denominator" approach than the language used.

(While I agree the language used in 3E is plain, simple, and perfectly adequate, I prefer the more colorful and evocative approach used in the 1E rules. I like the Gygaxian prose. I do wish some of the 1E rules had been better designed or defined, though -- e.g. initiative).

On the other side people complain that 3e is far too complicated to run and too much work. So, which is it? Is 3e too complex or too simple?

At low levels, the 3E approach works okay for me. It's not too complex, it's just detailed and "rules-comprehensive." As the levels go up, I find that 3E's detailed and crunchy approach becomes more unwiedly; things start to bog down. (YMMV)

:shrugs: Like many, here, I've been DMing for several decades. At this point, I just don't need (or want) the level of detail and crunch that 3E provides. I don't need the rules to provide consistency, so I don't like the added bookkeeping, etc. that comes with more rules. I like to exercise "DM judgment"; it's part of the fun of the game, for me. I don't consider 1E perfect, by any means, but it's a better fit for me than 3E is, in most cases. Actually, 1E isn't the best fit for me, either. My ideal would be a mix of 1E and B/X rules, with clear rules presented in High Gygaxian style. I can do that with house-ruled B/X, or house-ruled 1E. The Basic Fantasy system fits me pretty well, rules-wise. So does Castles & Crusades. Other games that I've played and enjoyed over the years (e.g. RoleMaster, 3E) are not a great fit, at this point.

 

[Hussar]

I'm seeing a lot of that in this thread, on both sides. People are reading any examples of why an individual prefers edition X as a direct assault on edition Y.

The only time I have really got annoyed with anyone in this thread is when they claim that older editions were unplayable and/or unfun, which was blatantly untrue - otherwise it wouldn't have sold a fraction as well as it did (note: I am aware of the irony of this statement considering some of my previous comments about sales not equalling better product ).

But from my own firsthand experience playing 1E and 2E for well over 15 years with 20 or more people, I only encountered one who didn't like the game after one session and decided not to come back. Others gradually fell off due to other commitments, until I'm left with a core of 5 or so of us now - but that one guy was the only one who walked because he didn't like the game itself.

Y'know what? I'm probably very guilty of what you are talking about and for that I appologise. My experiences pretty much exactly mirror your own, so there must have been something I liked about older editions. Honestly, it's not that 1e or 2e are unplayable or unfun. They are neither. I had loads of fun with both versions.

I have loads of fun with 3e. Yes, I do believe that plain English writing and comprehensive rulesets lower the barrier to DMing. Not to play. As a player, none of the three editions are terribly more difficult or easy. The number of players stays the same, but, the number of DM's increase. To me, that can only be a good thing.

 

[Hussar]

As usual, someone else is saying what I've been trying to say much better than me. Over in the DM's Fiat thread, Buzz said the following:

What I have gathered from this thread, Monte's most recent article in Dungeon, the DMG, DMG2, what I've seen of Dungeon Master for Dummies, and the host of articles on DM'ing I've read over the years is this:

Running D&D is about the art of using DM power responsibly, consistently, and fairly, i.e., always making sure that the players have a choice. So, to back away from the side-trek I took us on earlier: Yes, fiat is part of D&D. Especially outside of combat, the game can't move forward without it.

So, what makes a DM "good" or "bad" is their understanding and application of the above, and the players' reaction towards it. Ergo, D&D is very dependent, IMO, on the people at the table.

As I've seen many times IRL and online, peoples' conception of "what D&D is" or "how D&D works" will vary wildly depending on that mix of people. My point about Burning Wheel and similar games was how that variance is often diminished in games with more focused, less-fiat-dependent systems.

I've found that I enjoy D&D the most when the DM is sticking pretty closely to the rules as-written, and using their power of fiat to enhance the core game D&D describes: fighting and looting in interesting locales. The further a group deviates from this core game, especially when the rules start taking a back seat to DM fiat, the more I find myself feeling unsatisfied.

(This is why I really like finding rules add-ons that flesh out some of the non-combat stuff, like Dynasties & Demagogues debate rules, or Affiliations from PHB2, and so on. Ditto actually making use of social skills like Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive, etc. These make me feel a lot more comfortable when the game strays away from the battlemat.)

Which is what I was trying to get at before with the idea that comprehensive rulesets make poorer DM's better. That should be ammended to better for me. With a more comprehensive ruleset, the DM doesn't have to come up with rules to cover more actions. Assuming of course that the RAW actually works (and I've played more than a few games where that's not a given), a bad DM can simply lean on the rules to run the game.

That's why I feel that 3e helps people to become better DM's. I'm firmly of the opinion that there are at least as many bad DM's out there as good. The good DM's don't really need any help because, well, they're good DM's. So, how about helping out the other half of the gamer population?

Is that pandering to the lowest common denominator? Perhaps. I wouldn't phrase it in such negative terms since the ruleset is geared to helping such a small fraction of the gamer population, namely DM's. Anyone who's DMing is already a step and a half above any regular gamer anyway.

 

[Thurbane]

Y'know what? I'm probably very guilty of what you are talking about and for that I appologise. My experiences pretty much exactly mirror your own, so there must have been something I liked about older editions. Honestly, it's not that 1e or 2e are unplayable or unfun. They are neither. I had loads of fun with both versions.

No problem, I'm glad to hear that you did enjoy older editions.

I have loads of fun with 3e. Yes, I do believe that plain English writing and comprehensive rulesets lower the barrier to DMing. Not to play. As a player, none of the three editions are terribly more difficult or easy. The number of players stays the same, but, the number of DM's increase. To me, that can only be a good thing.

I really enjoy 3.5 as well (I never actualy played 3E), and I can honestly see that it is more clearly written and concise in many areas that earlier editions were. I also agree that getting more potential DMs interested in the game can be a good thing.

The fact that I find the 3.5 rulebooks a little too "clinical", and not as evocative as, say, 1E, is purely a matter of personal taste, and not a failing of 3.5 as such.

 

[Numion]

The fact that I find the 3.5 rulebooks a little too "clinical", and not as evocative as, say, 1E, is purely a matter of personal taste, and not a failing of 3.5 as such.

C'mon, they got mutant sea bass. Mutant sea bass!

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's certainly true, but that doesn't necessarily make the game any less challenging or enjoyable. What if players have more fun when there is less danger of death or other permanent consequences? This isn't like eating broccoli or brussel sprouts. An increased risk of dying in the game doesn't develop moral fiber or make you a better person. Some people may not enjoy playing or running such a game, but that doesn't make it bad.

I am curious how fewer negative consequences for failure could fail to make the game less challenging. That seems like a pretty obvious relationship to me.

Your point about some players having more fun in less challenging games is certainly valid. Surely, though, you can see that for some people meeting a harder challenge is more fun than meeting an easier one? Both groups want challenges that they have a reasonable chance of beating, but they define "challenges", "reasonable chance", and potentially even "beating" in different ways.

This is true even within a given edition. Some of us cut our teeth on slaying the monsters we could, while others avoided the monsters and went for the treasure. Some of us encountered monsters based upon their frequency within a given terrain, others tried to measure what the PCs were capable of defeating (effectively using Monster Levels based of XP as an early CR system). Some of us could think of only one use for a rust monster; others were creative with the beasties.

The time you want to invest in any given activity is, of course, a purely personal matter. So is the amount of effort, and the level of challenge you wish to face. A person who only enjoys playing chess with players worse than himself is unlikely to enjoy facing a grandmasters tournament, but most people who play chess IME like to play against people who are reasonably challenging, so as to have a chance to grow and develop their own game.

D&D (any edition) is a game about overcoming challenges. It is reasonable to assume that players of that game, therefore, want to overcome challenges. It is my overwhelming experience, having played with hundreds of players in six US states and one Canadian province over a period of over 25 years, that players are more satisfied when they believe that they have a real chance of failure, and when they believe that failure has real (in a game sense), permanent consequences.

When 2e came out, you may recall, there was a spate of DM advice that effectively said "Fudge the dice so that the players succeed" and "When the dice would say that a PC dies, have something else happen instead". Fool that I am, I tried that advice. The end result was that satisfaction with the game dropped like a fighter falling into a 100-foot pit, and there were nasty sharp spikes at the bottom, too.

I have run games for as few as 1 player, and for as many as 26 (and never will I do that again!). I have run the Blue Box, BD&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, and 3.5e, as well as a smattering of other rpgs. In all of those games, for all of those editions, for all of those people, I would say that well over 9 out of 10 players have preferred a real chance of success, and a real chance of death, over hand-holding. Because, by far, most of those people could have been playing in another, less challenging, game, and were not.

Obviously, there is a cut-off point here, too. At some point, the challenges become too steep, and the rewards are not worth the effort. Finding that "sweet spot" -- where the reward is worth the risk, and the risk is as thrilling as you can make it -- is the real goal, in any edition.

And yes, KM, I am willing to work really hard in order to meet that goal as closely as I can. In part, I do this by shuffing the decision to the players ("Here's what you know; which of these challenges do you wish to pursue?") and in part I do this by letting the dice fall where they may -- and making sure that the players know it.

Again, this can be done in any edition. Some might even find things like the CR system aiding them in creating this effect....in fact I personally use the CR system to aid in guaging how a particular area might be created, and what might be found therein. I used the monster levels/XP in 1e the same way, with the same ease (because, really, how hard is this to guage by eye in 1e?), and with the same effects.

I do think that the 3e system is good. I also think that the flavour and attitude of 1e is better. For my game, I mesh the two. And I tweak both as much as I like. I am the DM; I get to do that. But please do not tell me that I have to make things easier for the poor players, or that rust monsters are too scary for the shiny-metal guys to cope with, or that I have to change the rules of the game world to allow some poor schmoe to play a warforged ninja. It isn't going to happen.

And please don't tell me that 1e wasn't a playable game. It was, and it is. I got years of happiness out of those books, and I still use them to this day.


RC