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

[Philotomy Jurament]

The game was not for everyone.

Just like Hungry Hungry Hippos! Damn, I hated that game; I could never get the most marbles.

 

[Umbran]

In no case have I ever removed a ruling I felt strongly about, or confident in, merely because any member (or all members) of a group felt otherwise. Of course, I've never actually run into much "all members of a group felt otherwise" but I'd rather get a new group than be told what I can and cannot do as DM. In fact, I'd rather not DM.

Wow, you're either lucky (to not have been in such a situation) or unlucky (to not have a group you loved so much that your GM-perogative could be overriden by that love).

I was playing Mage: The Ascension some years ago. Long-standing campaign of many years, all good friends. The GM put us in a position, which, by definition, had only two ways out. Those were the rules.

Before we knew the possibilities, we accidentally eliminated one of them. The other was abhorrent to all the PCs. No discussion was necessary - we agreed that we would not take the second option. We offered the GM seven other ways we could think of to get out. He did not agree to any of them. We told him then that, if that were the case, this game was over, as the characters could no longer be played. We seriously started considering playing other things...

Oddly enough, the GM chose to allow us an out. Not because we were right, but because it would end the fun for everyone otherwise.

When the players are friends, absolutism goes out the door. "My way or the highway" only works if your way actually works for the folks you want to play with, and players are not always expendable. While he doesn't have to do it constantly, occasionally a GM can feel he was in the right, but need to change anyway for the good of the group.

 

[Umbran]

You come up with some data, sparky.

I see a distinct rise in acrimony, and a distinct drop in the level of respect being shown in this thread. Please, folks, do not continue along this path.

 

[Mark CMG]

Just like Hungry Hungry Hippos! Damn, I hated that game; I could never get the most marbles.

It helps to play hungry, to think like a hippo . . . and to have lost your marbles . . .

 

[Mark CMG]

Pop Quiz Hot shot!!

The players all disagree with your ruling : What do you do?

Remind them that they do not have full knowledge of all the circumstances as the DM does. Remind them that they have the choice to play things out, in-game, even if they disagree with things, or they can discover things out-of-game, in a meta-game discussion, and spoil any surprises or fun that might have been attached to the circumstances. Remind them that a level or trust must exist between the players and the DM for maximum fun to be gleaned. Remind them I prefer playing with players who trust me. Remind them that WotC surveys have shown that millions of people play D&D.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

post deleted

 

[MerricB]

But, if I were to jump into this Brave New System, two things would have to happen: 1, I'd have to leave behind a 1e-based system it's taken 25 years to develop (between my own modifications and those of DM's before me) - yes, that's perhaps partly an ego thing, but hey... ,

If a game is working for you, why change it?

and 2, unless I started making changes, some aspects of the game I quite like would be lost, and that to me is more significant. A few examples:

- potions, scrolls, and magic items that just do what they do, and aren't tied to any particular spell or creation method;

Hmm. There's nothing really stopping you from doing that.

- some rather elegant mechanics dealing with coming back from the dead, system-shock, etc.;

Heh. That 3e doesn't have Resurrection Survival chances says a lot about how the game has changed. AD&D was created very much in the dungeon & play daily style. By 3e, adventures tend to be a lot more diverse, and often players only get to play 1/fortnight or 1/month. There's a big difference between the two styles.

- a simple undead-turning system;

Hmm. Well, AD&D had a simple system primarily because there were only a few undead and you can have them all on the same table. I don't think 3e's system is much clunkier.

- spells taking time to cast rather than resolving immediately;

Interestingly, there are spells that take time to cast, only completing 1 or more rounds after the spell is begun. (And even for the "resolve immediately" type, the time to cast is abstracted into the Concentration check to cast them successfully).
etc.

Now, obviously any of these could be houseruled in, but by what I'm reading above 3.5e doesn't need houserules. And there's the Dreaded Knock On Effect to consider...

Rubbish! 3.5e allows houserules (it even says so in the DMG). It just doesn't need them to be playable. Play with an AD&D 4th level monk and roll surprise, and then you need a houserule.

Someone mentioned earlier about 1e classes not being balanced. One difference between 1e and 3e is that in 3e there seems to be a general expectation that the classes will be played about evenly;

The expectation is rather that all four types of PC will adventure (Cleric, Fighter, Wizard, Rogue). Any additional PCs could be of any type.

in 1e there was a general expectation that about 40% of PC's would be Fighters, 30% Clerics, 20% Thieves, and 10% Wizards*...

See White Plume Mountain. The actual values were 40% Fighters, 30% Magic-Users, 20% Clerics and 10% Thieves.

in other words, that the classes would not be played in the same amount. In the games our crew have played, with various class-race restrictions removed, it's worked out much closer to 40-20-20-20...but there's still a strong shift toward Fighters.

From personal observation, I believe Fighter-types are much more popular in 3E as well; clerics being the least popular. However, 3e has a lot of viable classes, so it becomes a lot more difficult to categorise the groups into the simple AD&D method.

Consider my Ulek group:
* Bard 5/Druid 1/Rogue 2 (moving toward Fochluchan Lyrist, an old-school bard type)
* Incarnate 8 (acting somewhat like a cleric)
* Soulborn 8 (similar to a paladin)
* Druid 3/Wizard 3/Arcane Heirophant 2 (effectively a Druid 5/Wizard 5)
* Knight 8 (cavalier!)
* Soulknife 8 (psychic fighter-type)

So, 3 Fighter-types, 1.5 cleric types, 1.0 wizard types, and 0.5 Rogue type. Sort of. Possibly.

Cheers!

 

[diaglo]

post deleted

i don't get this.

posts were included in all of the editions of the game. they helped hold up the the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, Keep on the Borderlands, the Castle in Barovia, even the 2edADnD version of Castle Greyhawk.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

i don't get this.

posts were included in all of the editions of the game. they helped hold up the the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, Keep on the Borderlands, the Castle in Barovia, even the 2edADnD version of Castle Greyhawk.

When converting over to 3e, we converted over to hex maps as well. The posts ended up in all kinds of weird places relative to the hex grid. So we deleted them. The posts have not been missed.

Just one more way that 3e is infinitely superior to everything that ever can before and ever will come henceforth.

 

[diaglo]

When converting over to 3e, we converted over to hex maps as well. The posts ended up in all kinds of weird places relative to the hex grid. So we deleted them. The posts have not been missed.

Just one more way that 3e is infinitely superior to everything that ever can before and ever will come henceforth.

see now you are talking my lingo.

hex maps harken back to Chainmail.

and Outdoor Survival.

and thus OD&D(1974)