D&D 3E/3.5 In Favor of 3.5, With One Reservation.

[Ahnehnois]

Another whole topic is the comment that 3.0/3.5 prefers a weak DM--a DM that is more an interpreter of the rules than the 1E/2E Ever-powerful-CREATOR who's word is written in stone and becomes law.

But, that's another topic and thread, I think.

That it is. My experience with the 2e-3e transition was exactly the opposite (though this is probably more a function of my group than of the game itself). Certainly, if 3e really "wants" a weak DM, I must be doing it wrong.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Cool alternative definition, but that's not how most people use the phrase.

I, of course, am not claiming to be most people. Most people can disagree with me a lot.

 

[Desdichado]

An old style game is when you run the game the way YOU want the game to be run, not the way the rules want the game to be run. If you need to bend, fold and spindle the rules to make it happen - do it. I certainly hope you're not hesitating to change the rules simply because you're afraid to break them. You think game designers don't screw up their own rules?

"Old School" says every DM is a game designer. It says every DM is MORE IMPORTANT than the game designer. If it's all working for you just fine then you should game and be happy. If any part of it doesn't meet your needs or expectations, change it.

That may be OSR now, but it's not old school. The AD&D books, and lots of commentary in Dragon and elsewhere from back in the day, clearly indicate that the point of AD&D was to be played as written. To the point of being actively obnoxious about it, and calling out folks who "did it wrong" as having games that weren't worthy of being called AD&D games.

Curiously, when 3e was launched, it's motto was "Tools, not rules."

And yet the OSR has attempted to hijack this playstyle as if it were always a property of pre-3e D&D and no longer is one of the 3e era. If 1e is included as a "core" part of the OSR, that's just plain wrong. For whatever reason, it seems retro-clones that have more in common with OD&D or B/X D&D are more common in the OSR today, though. But the idea that it's a perspective that originated with 3e is flat-out wrong. It originated with 1e; 3e specifically eschewed that paradigm. Why folks run around claiming that it embraced it is completely mystifying to me.

To the situation in the OP, I'd say first off there's a problem with what the player asks. If the player says, "I'm going to make an Appraise check, what's the DC?" I'll say, "DCs are my business; what's your roll?" Then, I'll give him information based on what he rolls. Most likely, it would closely mimic what the salesman says about the sword, except maybe with some hints about what the PC knows about its accuracy (the jewels adorning the hilt are clearly flawed; some of them are replacements and are, in fact, fake, etc.)

But the point of having these checks available is that most players don't want to roleplaying haggling with a used sword merchant. They want to just make a quick roll and move on.

Also, I see the descriptions in the rules of skill use as examples, not mandates. They're examples of how skill checks could be made, how to come up with a reasonable DC, and what the designers think about how skills were meant to work. It's nice to know. Helpful, even. It's not a hard, oblivatory stand on exactly how they have to work every time.

 

[Desdichado]

To a point, you're exactly right. And, I heartedly endorse that style of play. But don't forget that Gygax also warned a DM to be careful what he changed. A change in one part of the game can have unforseen consequences in another part of the game. So, really, the DM is the game, true. The DM is the rulebook. But, if the DM starts using 5d4's for the main attack procedure instead of 1d20, the DM may not understand how he's just changed the distribution of results--which will have a lot of consequences (maybe unforseen consequences) throughout the game.

I don't care what Gygax said. Gygax never ran a game for me, nor me for him. His playstyle preferences clearly were not very well aligned with mine. Hence, his GMing advice is only applicable to either people who actually played with him, or people who actively mimicked or mirrored his style. I'd submit that the majority of gamers--to some degree or another--do not do those things.

A DM, even an old school DM, shouldn't just change things willy-nilly. Any change from RAW should be heavily considered.

Sure, not willy-nilly. But c'mon, changing rules isn't any big deal. I do it all the time. I always have and always will. They're not sacred. And I am far from considering myself old school. Am I honestly the only one who thought that when 3e launched with the motto, "Tools, not rules" that that shouldn't even needed to have been said? Am I honestly the only one who still remembers that motto at all? I feel like whenever I refer to playing the game that way, in spite of the fact that it was the official motto of the edition! I'm speaking a foreign language to most people. 3e requires a weak GM? With that motto? Uh... absolutely not. Not even close. In fact, the exact opposite of that.

And honestly; do we need to say RAW? Are we cooking these rules? Is it really easier to hold the shift key down and type RAW than it is to simply type "rules"? It isn't for me. Although I freely admit that this is just a minor, esoteric pet peeve of mine, and not an actual issue...

 

[Dandu]

What an interesting history lesson.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

That may be OSR now, but it's not old school.

Neither of those terms have a dictionary definition. I say it is old school. Just because it is old school doesn't mean that the "new school" cannot or does not feature elements of old school approaches to play. However, I do think that older versions of the game did indeed feature and emphasize things that newer versions choose to disregard and deemphasize and that that does have an effect upon how people learn to approach the game. In plenty of instances the things that newer versions chose to deemphasize, alter or remove were right to be treated that way.

[qoute]The AD&D books, and lots of commentary in Dragon and elsewhere from back in the day, clearly indicate that the point of AD&D was to be played as written. To the point of being actively obnoxious about it, and calling out folks who "did it wrong" as having games that weren't worthy of being called AD&D games.[/quote]There certainly was an attempt by Gygax and others to build a ruleset that would be used consistently and which would have a solid core of rules which everyone did use. They wanted something that could be run at conventions where people from any part of the country could sit down at a table and not have to read through 30 pages of house rules, additions and deletions before being able to play. That had become something of an issue with D&D and which explains why 1E AD&D is so much more complicated and thick with rules making basic D&D look like a pamphlet. There were prodigious amounts of house rules being assembled and they wanted to pull some order back out of the chaos.

There was the rather infamous comment by Gygax (I forget exactly where - The Strategic Review maybe?) where he said something to the effect of, "If you're not playing the rules as written you're not actually playing D&D." My impression has long been that it was seen quite readily as hyperbole, and in any case he wasn't trying to say, "play it MY way or you're doing it wrong," but that he was still trying to create an accepted core of rules to facilitate tournament play.

The idea of, "Do it THIS way or you're doing it WRONG," was a more recent phenomenon. Certainly in 1E Gygax made it quite clear that he accepted and expected that everyone would continue to make whatever changes they considered to be improvements on the rules.

And yet the OSR has attempted to hijack this playstyle as if it were always a property of pre-3e D&D and no longer is one of the 3e era. If 1e is included as a "core" part of the OSR, that's just plain wrong. For whatever reason, it seems retro-clones that have more in common with OD&D or B/X D&D are more common in the OSR today, though. But the idea that it's a perspective that originated with 3e is flat-out wrong. It originated with 1e; 3e specifically eschewed that paradigm. Why folks run around claiming that it embraced it is completely mystifying to me.

I would have to see some citations to begin to accept the idea that "my way [btb] or the highway" originated with 1E. And I wouldn't say that 3E EMPHASIZED that. It did, however, by omission of emphasis upon DM creation and control of rules governing their individual games, and by emphaisis of WotC as the sole source of "official" (and thus "correct") answers to rules questions, create in new players the impression that it WAS supposed to be, "Play by the rules or you're doing it wrong." That is the impression that it was VERY easy to take away from 3E whether they intended that to be the case or not.

 

[Desdichado]

Neither of those terms have a dictionary definition. I say it is old school.

Just because it lacks a dictionary definition doesn't mean you can call whatever you want old school and expect anyone to understand you.

There was the rather infamous comment by Gygax (I forget exactly where - The Strategic Review maybe?) where he said something to the effect of, "If you're not playing the rules as written you're not actually playing D&D." My impression has long been that it was seen quite readily as hyperbole, and in any case he wasn't trying to say, "play it MY way or you're doing it wrong," but that he was still trying to create an accepted core of rules to facilitate tournament play.

I've actually read the quote in question in the column it originally featured in, with context and everything. It's quite clear. And it's not singular, either. Gygax made plenty of other comments in plenty of other places that reinforced that mindset.

If your contention is that it was a single line that's being misinterpreted due to being taken out of context, I heartily disagree.

Now, whether or not players in general paid any attention to that sentiment or not is perhaps altogether a different issue. But it absolutely was the official line.

The idea of, "Do it THIS way or you're doing it WRONG," was a more recent phenomenon. Certainly in 1E Gygax made it quite clear that he accepted and expected that everyone would continue to make whatever changes they considered to be improvements on the rules.

No, it absolutely was not more recent.

I would have to see some citations to begin to accept the idea that "my way [btb] or the highway" originated with 1E.

:shrug: then you won't accept it. I don't care enough to convince you that I'm going to go research it. But that doesn't mean that you aren't wrong. The quotations are out there. Heck, you referred to one yourself.

And I wouldn't say that 3E EMPHASIZED that. It did, however, by omission of emphasis upon DM creation and control of rules governing their individual games, and by emphaisis of WotC as the sole source of "official" (and thus "correct") answers to rules questions, create in new players the impression that it WAS supposed to be, "Play by the rules or you're doing it wrong." That is the impression that it was VERY easy to take away from 3E whether they intended that to be the case or not.

If by that you mean to say that 1) the motto at 3e's release wasn't actually "Tools, not rules", 2) The Player's Handbook didn't say somewhere within the first couple of pages that the rules are suggestions only and that the GM is the final arbiter of how they work (paraphrasing of course; I haven't read that in years and don't remember exactly what it says), and 3) that it didn't specifically give direction in the DMG that GM's should feel free to modify the rules as they pleased, even going so far as to give us some advice on things to look out for, and give us an example with the case of the Witch class, then yeah.

But since actually all of those things were done, I'm going to go with you're just completely wrong there.

EDIT: I take it back. I got curious and did some quick Google searches. Dragon #16, July '78. Hooboy, that's a venomous condemnation of the very concept of house-ruling or changing the rules (and this was before much of the AD&D was even in print yet!) And #26 from June '79, he's at it again--and clearly referring to jumping from home game to home game, not tournament games (although he does mention them too.)

And even then, I know I've read others. Those two are not in isolation. And as for 3e being specifically designed to be modified and house-ruled, try this on for size: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/br/br20010518a

 

[Water Bob]

To the situation in the OP, I'd say first off there's a problem with what the player asks. If the player says, "I'm going to make an Appraise check, what's the DC?" I'll say, "DCs are my business; what's your roll?" Then, I'll give him information based on what he rolls.

Keeping the DC hidden. That's a good idea.

But, all the time?

Plus, players know about what an average DC should be. They know about what a tough DC should be. In some cases, I'm not sure the what the point is of hiding DCs.

But the point of having these checks available is that most players don't want to roleplaying haggling with a used sword merchant. They want to just make a quick roll and move on.

Not in my game. Not in the multitude of gamers I've gamed with over the decades. Sure, they don't want to do it if every freakin' time you go into a town it's another boring roleplaying encounter. But, as I said above, the good DM keeps his finger on the pulse of the game and knows when to dip in and out of roleplaying.

In fact, if you don't do this in your games, I suggest that you try it. Some of the most incredible nights of gaming that I've experienced sprouted out of impromptu roleplaying encounters like this--the kind of stuff that keeps you coming back and lives in your memory forever.

No, I find that players don't like it when it's overused. At the right time, it's priceless.

 

[Desdichado]

Keeping the DC hidden. That's a good idea.

But, all the time?

Plus, players know about what an average DC should be. They know about what a tough DC should be. In some cases, I'm not sure the what the point is of hiding DCs.

The point is, you make a roll like that, there's always a bit of uncertainty as to what exactly you discovered and exactly how confident you are in what you think you discovered, which means that there's still an opportunity for roleplaying. Sure, you roll a really low number or a really high number, then the player probably is sure of their results. But a more average number? They they're not quite so sure. So they have to use their judgement, and proceed... well, pretty much as they would if they were actually in that situation, instead of just playing a game and they just rolled a number and moved on.

In fact, if you don't do this in your games, I suggest that you try it. Some of the most incredible nights of gaming that I've experienced sprouted out of impromptu roleplaying encounters like this--the kind of stuff that keeps you coming back and lives in your memory forever.

No, I find that players don't like it when it's overused. At the right time, it's priceless.

I've never really had shopping be a very interesting experience. But sure, some of the more roleplaying moments are almost always much more satisfying than the more combatish ones. And the skill system has always helped encourage roleplaying in my group, because it gives them new ways to define their characers and hone in on what kind of characters they are, and what kinds of small and unexpected abilities and interests they might have (the dandy womanizer with a few ranks in Craft (lace) so he could keep his clothes as foppish as possible being one notable example.) But in the spirit of "tools, not rules" if the skill system is not giving you the result you want, you need to find another way to make it work for you. There's no point in using a tool that gives you an unhappy result.

 

[Water Bob]

The point is, you make a roll like that, there's always a bit of uncertainty as to what exactly you discovered and exactly how confident you are in what you think you discovered, which means that there's still an opportunity for roleplaying.

I see what you're saying, and I think it's another tool in the DM's bag of tricks. But, I don't see it as a strong default as much as I do defaulting to roleplaying.

I've had many more interesting, memorable nights gaming through a roleplaying experience than I have a dicing experience.

I've never really had shopping be a very interesting experience.

Man, I have. Tons of them over the years. Sometimes, the merchants exceed their original purpose, becoming much more to the group, either friend or foe, that I had intended when I made the guy up on the spot and started roleplaying him.