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.
If failure itself is a fear, the quality of the DM is only relevant in as much as they provide a potential for failure. As long as the DM is making you roll dice for things, there is a fear of failure in that thing. The failure need not have "meaningful" consequences because rolling the dice and seeing a 1 and not accomplishing what you want to accomplish is a meaningful consequence. Exactly how that plays out will determine what roll was made, but the RAW provides many consequences for failing the rolls without clever DM intervention.
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.
Again, I'll repeat my point: 3e has
no fewer negative consequences than 1e.
But, sure, I can mention a few negative consequences for failure that occur in 3e and not earlier (by RAW):
1 - Failure on a Diplomacy check for a paladin will fail to sway an opponent.
2 - Failure on a Craft check for a wizard will waste time and money.
3 - Failure on a Bluff check to fient for a druid will mean the enemy retains his Dex bonus to AC
4 - Failure by 5 or more on a Disable Device check for a monk may spring the trap.
These all revolve around the Skill system. While 1e had thief skills, no paladin, wizard, druid, or monk could experience those consequences, thus broadening the scope of possible negative things that can happen to characters.
Note that few of these involve direct punishment for error, too. They don't have to. Failure by itself is avoided, even if you're not going to die from it.
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.
Certainly 3e is not the holy grail of gaming systems, but it is the best edition of D&D to support both the customization and rules fiddling for those who desire it (as one who loves it myself, having rules logic explained makes it immensely easier) as well as minimizing the need to do it for those who don't care to do it to get the game they want.
It's not perfect, but it is the best D&D we have for that.
I have never, in my life, encountered a democratic, capitalistic, or evolutionary standard of quality.
Funny, because those are the standards of quality *least* likely to be based mostly on subjective personal accounts. Democratic standards allow the game to be answerable to it's customer base. Capitalistic standards similarly force the game to meet a popular need. Evolutionary standards force the game to change along with that need and customer base or become irrelevant. And chess, for that particular point, has lasted because it's need has not changed. Much like the crocodile, it does what it does well enough that it doesn't need to change.
The needs of those enacting pop fantasy certainly have changed, as MMOs and the Harry Potter movies can help show, and as the immense popularity of 3e can provide evidence for.
They're still very culturally subjective, but rather than depending upon one core collective's opinion of greatness, it attempts to get as many people as possible to share that opinion, and that group then sways the product's development, resulting in a product suited for it's niche (capitalistic), with as broad a niche as possible (evolutionary), who is subject to change based on popular opinion (democratic).
Those standards met, you have a high-quality product. All successful and popular things meet those standards, though some do through design, and some do through accident.
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.
The nature of your "if you build it, they will come" method of attracting players means that you have minimized the players that disagree with your methods from the outset, because these players do not seek you out. They could exist in great numbers.
All I'm really saying is that your experience, good as it is, has a filter on it that weeds out those you wouldn't have fun with. That doesn't mean that those people should be excluded from the study, though. And it does mean your experience is less than the 1,000 strong that WotC's is.
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.
Okay.
There is a very big difference between the flavour and attitude of 1e and 3e, which examining the rulebooks makes quite clear.
I'm asking you to show me where the rulebooks make it clear. It should be a simple excersise in comparison. Give me a passage from 1e including it's "flavor and attitude," and give me a passage from 3e including it's different "flavor and attitude."
Give me more than one, if you'd like to *really* convince me.
Otherwise, I can only assume the difference is, as I have been told before, in the DMs, not in the editions.
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.
I believe the composers, singers, and creators of those jingles would certainly call themselves artists. You're going to take away that title because it's not grand high art of powerful and eternal cultural significance? It's pop art, but D&D is pop fantasy, not grand high creativity on par with perfection of the human form or a representation of dramatic emotion. There are some Andy Warhols in D&D who can create high pop art, but even Andy knew that commercial and crass things need to be considered and woven into the work, not ignored in favor of some concept of purity and ultimate purpose.
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.
Where this falls short is the idea that the quality of D&D is not falsifiable, subject to tests, or otherwise scientifically verifiable. No one individual can, in any controlled experiement or logic test, objectively determine what the "best D&D game" is. What the best D&D game is falls then to statistical determination, which, while still subjective, is at least subjective to a great number. As a product that is sold, the greater the number, the more successful the product, the better suited that product is for it's audience.
Unless you have a "theorm for D&D quality," popular opinion is a perfectly valid way to measure the quality of D&D.
What other measure could one possibly use that would be less subject to individual variance?
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
