Is D&D 3.X intended to be played "as written"?

[Odhanan]

In almost all the debates we have on ENWorld about 3.X, edition wars and such, there are people coming up with arguments based on the premise that "if you play 3.X as written, then..."

That kind of premise always makes me uneasy. When I read the DMG, whether it is in 3.0 or 3.5, I can see that a style of play is suggested, along with XP Charts, how to build adventures based on Sites or Events, and such, but there are always some suggestions to play the game differently, or referring to the idea that in the end, you're the one, as the DM, who's calling the shots regarding play styles so long as your aim is to provide a good entertainment for everyone involved.

So in my mind, you actually cannot play 3.X "as written", since the only fact of using the core books, and the DMG in particular, means that you will decide as a DM what you want to use and not use, what kind of options you use and not use, how you award XPs, build your adventures et cetera. There is a menu of options, with a couple that are deemed better than others by the designers of the game, but there doesn't seem to be a single way to play the game enforced (as opposed to 'advised') by the books.

What do you think?

 

[Crothian]

Ya, I think it is intended to be played as written. I don't thing a game can enforce a way to be played though. It's just a book and all a book can do is advise. And using certain options is using the game as written. Unless by as written you actually mean use everything there.

 

[delericho]

I think the answer is that yes, it is intended to be played as written, but that the designers knew that many of not most groups would change the game somewhat to suit themselves.

As for conversations about rules here and on other public forums... since we all use different house rules, the only way to have a sensible discussion is to use a common base point. And, for better or worse, that pretty much has to be the rules as written in the various books.

 

[BlackMoria]

Well, if people are claiming that 3.X assumes a certain style of play, I don't see it.

It is a "tool set" that allows people to play however they want. I don't see a 'default' style unless people are talking 'high' magic vs 'low' magic. And the choice of 'high magic' vs 'low magic' is not a function of the rule set in and of themselves, it is a function of the tastes of the DM and the players and how those rules are implemented.

 

[molonel]

The game is intended to be played however you intend to play it. The assumption is that you will probably use the rules mostly as written, hence the attempt at some sense of totality in the rules set. But the very existence of the OGL is for people to modify, publish and change the game to suit their own tastes. Ditto, Unearthed Arcana.

I don't know anyone who plays the 3rd Edition rules completely as written. Everyone has house rules, personal pet peeves, modifications, etc. In my opinion, 3rd Edition is starting to mature and people are becoming more comfortable with house rules and direct changes and modifications of the game at the kernel level.

 

[Shades of Green]

I do not think that the 3.x core books enforce a specific style of play, but they are based on certain play-style assumptions; the system is also balanced towards play under this assumptions - and the CR/EL mechanism is the prime example of this. So, the further you go away from the 'core assumptions', the more work you'll have to commit to modifying the system.

In other words, '3.x as written' means to me '3.x under the defaut assumptions', which basically are:
1) Combat (rather than stealth or diplomacy) is the solution to most hostile encounters.
2) The game involves a large amount of combat and treasure-finding.
3) Magic is common.
4) The players play a party of several (4 by default) PCs with diverse abilities, covering combat, healing, trap/lock disarming and, in most cases, arcane magic.
5) High-level NPCs abound.
6) Pseudo-medieval tech level, roughly ranging from Roman-era technology to early renaissance (pre-gunpowder).

The books (DMG especially) do suggest other styes of play, but most work in these directions falls on the DM; detailed variant rules are rarely given.

 

[Ranger REG]

In almost all the debates we have on ENWorld about 3.X, edition wars and such, there are people coming up with arguments based on the premise that "if you play 3.X as written, then..."

That kind of premise always makes me uneasy. When I read the DMG, whether it is in 3.0 or 3.5, I can see that a style of play is suggested, along with XP Charts, how to build adventures based on Sites or Events, and such, but there are always some suggestions to play the game differently, or referring to the idea that in the end, you're the one, as the DM, who's calling the shots regarding play styles so long as your aim is to provide a good entertainment for everyone involved.

So in my mind, you actually cannot play 3.X "as written", since the only fact of using the core books, and the DMG in particular, means that you will decide as a DM what you want to use and not use, what kind of options you use and not use, how you award XPs, build your adventures et cetera. There is a menu of options, with a couple that are deemed better than others by the designers of the game, but there doesn't seem to be a single way to play the game enforced (as opposed to 'advised') by the books.

What do you think?

Tools, Not Rules.^TM

If you can accept the Rules As Written, minus the variant rules the DMG suggests, it can be playable.

But not every gamers are that conformists or traditionalists ... heh, or even Lawful. Sooner or later, gamers are going to tweak the rules that would be more suitable to their style of gameplay. Eberron is a prime example of deviating from the baseline D&D rules.

There are many ways to play D&D, just as there are many ways to play Poker.

 

[jdrakeh]

Ya, I think it is intended to be played as written.

I agree, seeing as how that's the purpose of a rule book where all games are concerned (from Clue to AD&D). That said, you're always free to ignore what you don't like and make changes, because Hasbro doesn't have a gun-toting goon squad that will kick in your front door if you choose to do so (despite what some people would have you believe). This is, similarly true of all games.

A given game may suggest a style of play, but the idea that it enforces a certain style of play? That's crap. Enforcing something requires. . . well. . . a deliberate application of force. And a rule book (i.e., an inanimate object) can't exert force. If your GM enforces a certain style of play, that's different. That's entirely on him, not the system. The system didn't force him to make that choice.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I think - I *hope* - D&D 3.5 is intended to be used 'as written.' Most modern RPGs are, in fact, intended as complete packages that can be used as such, whether their rulebooks are 2000 pages (rare in this day and age) or 2 pages. Houserules and published expansions should be options a particular group adds to the game, not the default and still less a requirement.

Obviously, however, being a book it doesn't *enforce* using all the rules or using them as written. It's not exactly the Necronomicon.

 

[Greg K]

As per RAW, I would never play or DM. Lots of good mechanical changes to the system, but the flavor built in by the designers and some decisions I do not like