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

[Raven Crowking]

Now, if you look at the knock-on consquences of failure then yes, removing the more serious consequences of failure will put a cap on the relative difficulty of subsequent challenges. Hence, on a per adventure or per session basis, the game could get less challenging.

The key issue is what happens during the next adventure or the next session. If the DM takes into account the PC's reduced circumstances, the challenge level effectively "resets" - the player creates an equally powerful new PC, the DM replaces the PC's equipment, the DM ratchets down the level of challenge, etc. In other words, the game becomes about as challenging as it used to be.

This is exactly, btw, what I disagree with. Somehow, during the time between sessions, the world changes, the challenge level "resets", and the negative consequences of failure are effectively removed. This reduces, perforce, both the negative consequences of failure, and hence the level of challenge. It is true that the game is "about as challenging" as it was before the failure occurred, but the simple fact that the players know and can expect that the game will "reset" means that it was less challenging in the first place.

Numion, in your werewolf example, your personal investment created a meaningful consequence of failure. This is obviously possible, even where the rules might nerf meaningful consequence utterly. However, this is different from consequences provided by the rules, and is certainly nothing that we should be expecting from those "poor DMs" who are made better by the ruleset.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, if you want to rewrite the game, go for it.

As you well know, I am engaged in exactly that same project.

However, OTOH, there are large swaths of gamers who are quite content to play with RAW (or fairly close to it) and don't feel inclined to spend large amounts of time going beyond what's there. Should that sort of player or DM be barred from the game? Why not instead craft rules that work the majority of the time and allow those DM's to run games as well?

Why would that sort of player or DM be barred from the game, if the game was more proactive toward the first sort of DM? There are parts of the ruleset that I think are weak, either because they are overcomplicated or because they are undercomplicated, and if the ruleset created by addressing these issues was better overall, why wouldn't that ruleset allow gamers to play with the (revised) RAW?

There is nothing inherent in rules revision that prevents people from being less creative, if that is what they want. And, let's face it, there are times when almost everyone wants a McGame over a homemade gameburger.

Neither position, however, requires that the McGame has to suck. I would go so far as to say that the higher the standard baseline, the better the McGame is going to be. As a result, it is not conducive to cater to everyone when designing anything. It is far better to choose an approriate level, and then invite everyone who desires to to at the very least attempt to achieve it.

You may believe that the Candyland reference is a "strawman", but games designed for small children are designed with the concept that everyone can play, and that no one feels left out. There is a reason that Snakes And Ladders relies entirely on dice, and has no element of skill (unless you add multiple pieces). Games like Sorry raise that bar, by adding multiple pieces, hence choice and skill, to the mix. Monopoly is even more complex. Is it any wonder that the suggested age range for these games runs, lowest to highest, from Snakes And Ladders (or Candyland) to Monopoly?

If you are going to make the argument, as KM did, that D&D should cater to everyone, then my comment about Candyland is not a strawman.

What RC claims as inspiration, I see as leg irons shackling me to a specific game. I was 14 years old playing 1e. Who the heck was I to tell EGG that he was wrong and that dwarves should be able to be wizards?

Yeah, and I was 13. Yet I was able to change the rules however I desired (starting with the Blue Box), including filling a notebook with new monsters taken from novels, folklore, and real-world animals (many of which, as it turned out, appeared in the Monster Manual, because apparently EGG was as interested in dinosaurs and mythology as I was).

I don't think that this is related to age, but rather to self-confidence.

I also think that, again and again in the text of the 1e books, EGG made a concerted effort to raise the self-confidence of individual DMs. You might feel that, in your particular case, he failed at this. I feel that he at least made the effort. I would like to see that effort made again in future editions.

Also, it is fairly obvious that if you felt shackled by no dwarven wizards, even though the rules told you explicitly and repeatedly that you could change anything, how much more shackled to allowing dwarven wizards must this new generation of DMs feel, bereft of such strongly worded advice?


RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

Failure itself is not a negative consequence unless that failure has some meaningful effect. When the monster has an AC of 24, and my combined roll is 22, it doesn't matter that I failed to hit the monster if the DM tells me to roll damage anyway.

So, yes, there are many potential types of failure. Some are more meaningful than others. The more you remove, or limit, the consequence of the most meaningful types of failure, the less meaningful they will be.
...

Hence the statement, I am curious how fewer negative consequences for failure could fail to make the game less challenging.

(a) Failure itself is a negative consequence. It's pretty basic psychology -- knowing you did something bad is a self-punishment, even if you don't get punishment from some authority. The PC's are playing heroes, after all. For a hero to fail -- for an icon of what is good in the world to show their flaws -- is part of the drama involved. They are the Good Guys, they should Win. I don't care what kind of pointless skill check it is, I've never seen anyone not care about rolling a "1." Because a 1 means you fail, and failure is something to be avoided.

(b) My point was that there are not fewer negative consequences for failure in 3e in comparison to earlier editions, but rather an encouragement of a broader sweep of possible negative consequences that do not result in permenant character death or damage, and that the consequences for failure have not been lessened, merely transferred. In Mearl's re-write of the Rust Monster, for instance, there is still a consequence for failure -- you get rusted, you become much less effective for a time (same consequence as the original rust monster, just for less time). During that time, if you need to accomplish something (say, fight the BBEG) you will have less of a chance of doing it, more of a chance of failure. And if you fail at that something (the BBEG escapes or, even worse, manages to chase the party off), then the failure begins to snowball.

You know what this argument reminds me of? The Incredibles. Everybody's special, which is another way of saying no one is. You should always try your best, unless your best is really, really good, in which case you shouldn't try your best. Etc., etc., etc. At some point, our culture decided that, for fear of leaving someone out, we should all be mediocre.

And I don't mean to say that 3e is mediocre; I like the ruleset. What I question here is, why would you want it to be?

No one is a special unique snowflake. And when you want to be entertained, you want SOMEONE ELSE to do their best to entertain you...that's why you're paying them, after all. I'm not going to try to be entertained. I don't go to a movie expecting to have to cast, direct, and plot the darn thing. As a PnPRPG, D&D will need that kind of thing; the challenge, for D&D, is to make that as easy as possible so I spend time playing the game instead of re-designing the game.

I was probably too broad when speaking about "everyone." What I guess I meant was "everyone with an interest in re-creating pop fantasy in a table-top RPG environment." It's still pretty niche, but at least it's a broad niche, big enough to trap at least a significant fraction of the WoW audience, I'd think.

I've never said I want D&D to be mediocre. You're the one who believes that somehow the "common person" is the "lowest common denominator," implying that by allowing them into our precious hallowed halls we will defame this game. I don't buy that, not for one second. A D&D for "everyone" would be the best D&D it could be. It adheres to democratic, capitalistic, and evolutionary standards of quality. It would entertain me in the ways I want, because I paid it to, and if it didn't do it for me, at least I could change it so it did.

What the heck is "preserved equipment"? And what do you mean by "consistent characters"? Characters who never die, no matter how much foolishness they perform?

Sure. Why not? After all, D&D is a game, not a teaching tool. As long as there's the possibility of failure and the possibility of success, death is only one potential iteration of that, and a VERY extremist one at that. Losing something I've spent four hours crafting is like taking my macaroni picture and burning it because I failed to account for my audience being blue-green colorblind when I used blue and green food coloring.

I don't pay the designers to punish my foolishness. I date girls for that experience.

So, in my experience -- which is extensive -- I'd have to say that more challenging works. I'd have to say that more challenging works because, having done both with the same people, there has never in my experience been an instance where any player has ever told me that they preferred less challenging.

Your experience hinges on a few things. First, that less character death = less challenging. Your definition of "challenge" is very narrow. Second, that less consequences = less challenging. Your definition of "consequences" is also very narrow. Third, that those who chose to play with you did so because they like to be challenged, leaving those who wanted simple fun out of your experience (lots of experience isn't extremely significant if you only get one end of the bell curve, kind of like asking 1 million Mormons if they approve of gay marriage).

Finally, it's important to note that your extensive experience is still paltry when compared to WotC's market research, so if we're measuring statistics here, I'll take their word over yours.

There is a very big difference between the flavour and attitude of 1e and 3e, which examining the rulebooks makes quite clear. You may choose to "go against the grain" of this flavour and attitude, just as you may choose to rewrite rules you do not like, but that is a far cry from claiming that either doesn't exist.

So where, then, in the rules, is this "flavor and attitude" difference? Before, it was claimed that the rules could not show this difference. If they can, show me where. Quote me chapter and verse. Give me evidence to support this claim, since it runs counter to previous claims that I can't get specific rules examples of playstyle differences.

Neither position, however, requires that the McGame has to suck. I would go so far as to say that the higher the standard baseline, the better the McGame is going to be. As a result, it is not conducive to cater to everyone when designing anything. It is far better to choose an approriate level, and then invite everyone who desires to to at the very least attempt to achieve it.

This is, however, a very ineffective way to run a successful company. I believe Kevin over at RIFTS operates under this philosophy, and how, would you say, RIFTS compares to D&D? Is it a homemade gameburger? Is it high-quality, choice rules and delicious supplements untained by the need to appeal to a mass market? Or is it one man's exclusive idea of excellence, defended rabidly against all comers?

No, just like a good politician, a good product should listen to it's audience. It needs it's audience to survive. If it doesn't give it's audience what 75/100 people want, it will not exist. Coke listened to their audience when they got rid of New Coke. McD's listened to their audience when they carried salads and yogurt. FOX listened to it's audience when it picked up another few seasons of Family Guy. And D&D listens to it's audience when it makes the game more accessible.

Heck, even in the creation of art, we don't find your business model. Commercial art, paperback mystery and romance (and scifi/fantasy) novels, adverstising design, a new Ford Truck jingle....it's not like Dan Brown sits down and tries to create some magnum opus of quality and suspense (a quick read through any of his books will tell you that) that will inevitably attract a die-hard audience. He sits down to make a good book that people will buy. Then it gets optioned for a movie, and everyone's happy.

The game cannot suck if it appeals to it's widest possible audience. I mean, maybe you'll be one of those 25 people who thinks it does, but there's 25/100 people who don't get Picasso and who think that Techno is dumb, too.

I don't think that this is related to age, but rather to self-confidence.

I think it relates to interest in fiddling with the rules. Hussar said he *still* doesn't like fiddling with the rules. Most people don't want to design monopoly, they want to play it. Most people don't want to design dwarven wizards if the learned experts told them it sholdn't be done. Especially if there's an option for less money at the local videogame store that will supply that need for me without having to fiddle with the rules. Most people don't like fiddling with the rules. We'd rather pay someone to deliver us good rules right off the bat.

A good game will give most people what they want, and most people want the rules to be done FOR THEM. Because they're paying someone to entertain them.

 

[Ourph]

But the consequence is that random encounters are not a complete waste loot-wise even in 1E.

It depends on the creature. Another party of evil NPCs is likely going to be a bonanza of loot. If players attack a giant snake slithering down the corridor hoping it will be "carrying" some of its loot with it, they deserve what they get.

 

[Raven Crowking]

(a) Failure itself is a negative consequence.

Meaningful failure is a negative consequence. This is obviously possible, even where the rules might nerf meaningful consequence utterly. However, this is different from consequences provided by the rules, and is certainly nothing that we should be expecting from those "poor DMs" who are made better by the ruleset.

(b) My point was that there are not fewer negative consequences for failure in 3e in comparison to earlier editions,

Can you supply examples of negative consequences for failure in 3e that do not occur in 1e? Because this thread contains several examples of the reverse.

No one is a special unique snowflake. And when you want to be entertained, you want SOMEONE ELSE to do their best to entertain you...

Obviously, we differ here. When I want to be entertained, I don't necessarily expect someone else to do it. Which is actually one of the reasons I enjoy DMing....World creation is fun in its own right. At other times, such as when playing games ranging from chess to D&D, I expect that a lot of the work for entertainment comes from me. In fact, in those cases, I expect that the work of the players can and will create something greater than the sum of its parts. Because when I sit at the table, I assume that everyone there is a special and unique person that has unique contributions to make.

This isn't the same as your "special snowflake" twinkiness. What I get from your "special snowflake" poodoo is that the person believes that they are so special that others have to work to entertain them. Like the player who expects that the DM has to work to make a world that meets his warforged ninja specifications.

Expecting to be able to determine how you spend your energies in an rpg (as player or DM) isn't being a "special snowflake". Assuming that you are able to direct others' energies is.

Now, some forms of entertainment, such as books and movies, are areas in which I can and do expect a certain level of quality. I also expect a certain level of quality from rpg books. I expect this because I pay for them. Money spent represents a certain level of effort that you have put into some other area (job), the benefit from which you are transferring to another (to the writer, etc., via money).

I certainly agree with you that, from a design standpoint and up to a certain point "the challenge, for D&D, is to make that as easy as possible so I spend time playing the game instead of re-designing the game." The game should be both playable "as is" and should encourage customization for those who want to put in the effort. Who find the effort...entertaining.

What I do not think, though, is that 3e is "as easy as possible" to play "as is". Many, many of the changes that I have made to the rules are intended specifically to ease certain parts of play, and to make other parts of play more fun. I would go so far as to say that ALL of the changes I have made are for that purpose.

I've never said I want D&D to be mediocre. You're the one who believes that somehow the "common person" is the "lowest common denominator," implying that by allowing them into our precious hallowed halls we will defame this game. I don't buy that, not for one second. A D&D for "everyone" would be the best D&D it could be. It adheres to democratic, capitalistic, and evolutionary standards of quality.

I have never, in my life, encountered a democratic, capitalistic, or evolutionary standard of quality. One of the major reasons that the US went with representational democracy was that it was impossible for the average person 200 or so years ago to keep up with the information needed to make the best informed decision. As a result, people hired specialists to make those decisions on their behalf. Regardless of how you feel about the results, it is pretty clear that a "democratic standard of quality" would only work in the most limited of cases. In fact, the belief that something is right because many people believe it, and that something is better because many people believe it to be so, are specific logical fallacies.

The idea that capitalism results in a standard of quality is equally laughable. First off, capitalism itself relies upon the same sort of representational expertise that representational democracy does. Second off, capitalism is concerned with the bottom line -- profit -- rather than quality. There are, in fact, current laws that make it illegal for corporations to consider quality or ethics more than they do shareholder interest. A capitalistic standard of quality is no standard at all. It is, again, the idea that McDonalds is a better burger than Licks (rather than a cheaper, easier, and crappier burger).

Finally, what is an "evolutionary standard of quality"? Darwin's famous principle (The Fittest Survive) is hampered by the fact that it makes no qualititive distinction whatsoever. What exactly is the fittest? How are the fittest defined? Are they faster, stronger, better? Not necessarily. They are simply those that survive.

The basic idea, of course, is that if a creature survives, especially in competition with other creatures, it must have some adaptive advantage within a given environment. However, there is no way to determine at any given point which species will succeed or fail within a given environment unless they are almost literally fish out of water.

There is no "evolutionary standard of quality".

These things simply do not exist.

I don't pay the designers to punish my foolishness. I date girls for that experience.

Levity noted.

Your experience hinges on a few things. First, that less character death = less challenging. Your definition of "challenge" is very narrow. Second, that less consequences = less challenging. Your definition of "consequences" is also very narrow. Third, that those who chose to play with you did so because they like to be challenged, leaving those who wanted simple fun out of your experience (lots of experience isn't extremely significant if you only get one end of the bell curve, kind of like asking 1 million Mormons if they approve of gay marriage).

It is, of course, possible that I've only gotten experience with one half of the bell curve, but it is far less likely considering the range of locations and players my experience encompasses.

Lets look at some of the statements you eroneously attribute to me:

Less character death = less challenging: Character death is not required to make the game challenging; all that is required is the reasonable possibility of meaningful and relevant consequence for failure. Character death is only one of several types of possible meaningful consequence. However, it is an important potential consequence in certain contexts. Mortal combat without the possiblity of death is not mortal combat.

My definition of "challenge" is narrow: I am not sure what you base this on. If your game is based on rising from bed, trying to get dressed, and tying your shoes, then no, I would not find that challenging. If you find the idea of playing basketball against preschoolers to be equally challenging to playing basketball against the Lakers, then I imagine that you will find my definition of challenge too narrow. Otherwise, what I think you mean is that my opinion of the most desireable level of challenge is different than yours. And, if that is what you mean, you'd be right.

Finally, it's important to note that your extensive experience is still paltry when compared to WotC's market research, so if we're measuring statistics here, I'll take their word over yours.

More power to you.

There is a very big difference between the flavour and attitude of 1e and 3e, which examining the rulebooks makes quite clear. You may choose to "go against the grain" of this flavour and attitude, just as you may choose to rewrite rules you do not like, but that is a far cry from claiming that either doesn't exist.

So where, then, in the rules, is this "flavor and attitude" difference? Before, it was claimed that the rules could not show this difference. If they can, show me where. Quote me chapter and verse. Give me evidence to support this claim, since it runs counter to previous claims that I can't get specific rules examples of playstyle differences.

Please read the quote that you are responding to and tell me where I said that it was based upon a specific rule or series of rules.

Heck, even in the creation of art, we don't find your business model. Commercial art, paperback mystery and romance (and scifi/fantasy) novels, adverstising design, a new Ford Truck jingle....it's not like Dan Brown sits down and tries to create some magnum opus of quality and suspense (a quick read through any of his books will tell you that) that will inevitably attract a die-hard audience. He sits down to make a good book that people will buy. Then it gets optioned for a movie, and everyone's happy.

You and I define "Art" very differently. We'll see how many Ford Truck jingles last as long as The Scream or the Mona Lisa.

The game cannot suck if it appeals to it's widest possible audience.

From http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity

Also Known as: Ad Populum

Description of Appeal to Popularity

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).

Therefore X is true.​

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.

This fallacy is vaguely similar to such fallacies as Appeal to Belief and Appeal to Common Practice. However, in the case of an Ad Populum the appeal is to the fact that most people approve of a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Belief, the appeal is to the fact that most people believe a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Common Practice, the appeal is to the fact that many people take the action in question.

This fallacy is closely related to the Appeal to Emotion fallacy, as discussed in the entry for that fallacy.

Examples of Appeal to Popularity

"My fellow Americans...there has been some talk that the government is overstepping its bounds by allowing police to enter peoples' homes without the warrants traditionally required by the Constitution. However, these are dangerous times and dangerous times require appropriate actions. I have in my office thousands of letters from people who let me know, in no uncertain terms, that they heartily endorse the war against crime in these United States. Because of this overwhelming approval, it is evident that the police are doing the right thing."

"I read the other day that most people really like the new gun control laws. I was sort of suspicious of them, but I guess if most people like them, then they must be okay."

Jill and Jane have some concerns that the rules their sorority has set are racist in character. Since Jill is a decent person, she brings her concerns up in the next meeting. The president of the sorority assures her that there is nothing wrong with the rules, since the majority of the sisters like them. Jane accepts this ruling but Jill decides to leave the sorority.​

Who the heck was I to tell EGG that he was wrong and that dwarves should be able to be wizards?

I don't think that this is related to age, but rather to self-confidence.

I think it relates to interest in fiddling with the rules.

'Nuff said.

It's easier to respond to posts you read.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Re: Flavour and Attitude

I tried to find the post where I quoted a large part of the 1e PHB advice to players. Do I really need to do a quote-by-quote comparison of 1e & 3e in terms of flavour and attitude, or is this just a KM thing? Enquiring minds want to know.

 

[Hussar]

I think it relates to interest in fiddling with the rules. Hussar said he *still* doesn't like fiddling with the rules. Most people don't want to design monopoly, they want to play it. Most people don't want to design dwarven wizards if the learned experts told them it sholdn't be done. Especially if there's an option for less money at the local videogame store that will supply that need for me without having to fiddle with the rules. Most people don't like fiddling with the rules. We'd rather pay someone to deliver us good rules right off the bat.

Wut he said.

Obviously, we differ here. When I want to be entertained, I don't necessarily expect someone else to do it. Which is actually one of the reasons I enjoy DMing....World creation is fun in its own right.

For you maybe. Although the enduring success of Forgotten Realms points to a very large audience that disagrees. Me, I think world creation was fun when I was in my teens and had lots of free time. Now, not so much. This is why I truly love "campaign in a box" modules like the AP's from Paizo or the World's Largest Dungeon. I can run a multiyear campaign without doing any of the world creation work. Bonus!

What I do not think, though, is that 3e is "as easy as possible" to play "as is". Many, many of the changes that I have made to the rules are intended specifically to ease certain parts of play, and to make other parts of play more fun. I would go so far as to say that ALL of the changes I have made are for that purpose.

But, from the changes you listed above, I would say that the changes you made appeal to you. I've never seen a PC actually try to craft anything (not that it can't be done, it's just that I've never seen it) so, the crafting rules are fine as is. I've very, very rarely seen any PC try crafting any magic item other than scrolls, so, again, the rules work perfectly fine for me. The combat rules are a breeze for my group and we run fairly large combats (one recent combat featured 6 PC's, 15 rasts and an advanced Celestial Queen Rast, fight took 40 minutes of real time to resolve) without a hitch.

To me, the rules do work as written.

If the rules say that X is forbidden, I'm not very comfortable stripping that out. After all, there should be a pretty good reason why that's forbidden. 3e makes special effort usually (not always) to call out why X is forbidden. There is a difference between making the game as accessible as possible and actually succeeding.

Deliberately misinterpreting KM's point about everyone is just silly. You know when he says everyone it means gamers, not 5 year olds. There's a funky latin word for that, but because I belong to the lowest common denominator, I don't actually know it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think it relates to interest in fiddling with the rules. Hussar said he *still* doesn't like fiddling with the rules. Most people don't want to design monopoly, they want to play it. Most people don't want to design dwarven wizards if the learned experts told them it sholdn't be done. Especially if there's an option for less money at the local videogame store that will supply that need for me without having to fiddle with the rules. Most people don't like fiddling with the rules. We'd rather pay someone to deliver us good rules right off the bat.

Wut he said.

So we can therefore disregard your "Who the heck was I to tell EGG that he was wrong and that dwarves should be able to be wizards?" line, and all the related lines? Including anything that leads to AD&D 1e not being alterable?

In other words, are you saying that you did not feel like you were shackled by the 1e RAW, but merely didn't like "fiddling with the rules"?

Because these are two different kettles of fish.

Deliberately misinterpreting KM's point about everyone is just silly. You know when he says everyone it means gamers, not 5 year olds. There's a funky latin word for that, but because I belong to the lowest common denominator, I don't actually know it.

That isn't a "deliberate misinterpretation"....and I do not even believe it is a misinterpretation. Am I wrong in thinking that we are discussing the individual who, in a previous thread about DM rights, claimed that DMs only have the right to say "No" when the players said it was okay? Who then claimed that he didn't mean that the DM never had the right to say "No" without consulting the players? Who then could not come up with a single example of when a DM could say "No" without player approval?

Perhaps I am confused here, but I think I pegged exactly what he meant. Certainly, his "clarification" does nothing to change that impression. And it is "silly" to pretend otherwise. How far upthread do you think I will have to go before I can find a reference by KM to that inclusiveness referring not just to gamers, but to anyone who might potentially become a gamer?


RC

 

[Thurbane]

If the rules say that X is forbidden, I'm not very comfortable stripping that out. After all, there should be a pretty good reason why that's forbidden. 3e makes special effort usually (not always) to call out why X is forbidden. There is a difference between making the game as accessible as possible and actually succeeding.

I think that is one of the fundamental differences between 1E and 3E - 1E put a lot more emphasis on certain restrictions for inherent flavour reasons (with somewhat of an expectation that a DM would houserule what he didn't like), whereas 3E seems to mainly steer clear of flavour based restrictions, and only put restrictions in place for purely mechanical or balance reasons.

Not saying this is a good thing or bad thing, just that the editions approach these points fairly differently. I never had a problem that 1E didn't allow dwarven Wizards by the RAW - if it was something I wanted in a campaign, I would simply houserule that any race can be Wizards.

I think it's fair to say the the RAW of 3E encourages more of an "anything goes" attitude to character options than earlier editions did. Which in and of itself isn't a bad thing - it only becomes an issue if the players and DM can't agree just how far this policy goes. A player may be quite keen to try out a Half-Celestial Paladin, but a DM may not be comfortable with such a character as a PC in his game. IMHO, this was less of an occurence in earlier editions due to the more strict policy of RAW in relation to "unusual" character options.

Like I said, though, this only becomes a problem if a player and a DM can't agree with what constitutes a "reasonable" character.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Just to set the record straight about WotC market research, according to http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html,

All of the people who indicated a strong interest in RPGs identified eight "core values" that they look for in the RPG experience. These 8 core values are more important than the segments; that is, if these 8 things aren't present in the play experience it won't matter if the game generally supports a given segment's interests - the players will find the experience dissatisfying. These 8 core values are:

* Strong Characters and Exciting Story
* Role Playing
* Complexity Increases over Time
* Requires Strategic Thinking
* Competitive
* Add on sets/New versions available
* Uses imagination
* Mentally challenging

In other words, even the players who enjoy a "Tactical Focus" still want to be challenged to use Strategic Thinking; likewise, even the Combat Focus player wants a Strong Character and Exciting Story. A person who segments into a "Tactical Focus" segment, when compared to the population as a whole is likely to be perceived as someone who enjoys Strategy; only when compared to the population of people who enjoy RPGs is the difference visible between the hard-core strategic players and the slightly less hard-core tactical players.

Similarly, people who play RPGs don't want to just play DOOM. The most hard-core fan of melee combat still wants to fight opponents that are meaningful and wants his or her character to act in a way proscribed by the archetypes of the genre or property being simulated.​

And according to http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/WotCMarketResearchSummary.html, 80% of D&D players from "white box" to the 3e playtest used house rules.

This data tells us that the longer a person plays the game, the longer the game sessions get, the more people play in the game, and the longer the game progresses before a character restart. In fact, if you look at the >5 year group, you realize that the big jump in long sessions and in average sessions before a restart means that the 5+ year gamers are playing the same characters, on average, vastly longer than anyone else.​

This seems to dovetail with what EEG said in the 1e DMG about long-lasting campaigns, and how the benefits of background could only be fully appreciated after a campaign had existed for some time.

There's a poll floating around right now about how important setting is to players, but I can't find a link to it right now. Still, it is interesting reading if you can find it pertaining to this subject.

Also, see this thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=178759

RC