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

[Tetsubo]

Frankly I don't see how you *could* play the rules as written without being interpreted by a GM and their players. There are far, far too many things not covered by the rules.

I once got into a looooooong and pointless argument with someone on the Wizards boards about holy symbols. He actually believed that a Holy Symbol not constructed from a listed material would not function for a PC within the game. It was a VERY strict view of RAW. It also showed that RAW is often very, very silly.

Tools, not Rules. If a rule gets in the way, lose it...

 

[MerricB]

D&D, as far as the rules go, is designed to be played as written. Although it doesn't cover absolutely everything, you really don't have to spend a lot of time coming up with house rules as the basic game works.

However, as far as the adventures that occur with D&D, they are not limited by the rules, although the rules aid more with designing dungeon adventures.

Cheers!

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I prefer to play the game as written. I think the game is designed to function well as written without modification.

But I'm also certain the designers envisioned that gamers would continue to tweak/modify/house rule, and built the game with that in mind. If they didn't intend that, there wouldn't be as many alternate rules in the core rulebooks, nor would new options be introduced, nor would the core rulebooks have the sidebars that explain how the game works to aid DMs in modifying it. Why have rule 0, otherwise?

In other words, modification is not required, but certainly forseen and allowable.

 

[tx7321]

3E/3.5 are designed to be played as written. They are a wonderfully complete and logical rules set. You couldn't easily remove feats from fighters for instance.

Anyhow, as one of the people who does not care for 3E anymore, I can tell you for a fact, that the things I think are 3Es biggest (and also fundamental and unchangable) problems are to others its biggest assets (namely a D20 system, feats and skills, and flexible character creation). These 3 things are the foundation to the game, and they can't be excluded.

One can't argue that 3E is a better or worse game then 1E or OD&D. All that can be said is that they are different, and thus attract different sorts of players. What everyone got so upset over when it was released (and during the next few years) is how WOTC basically lied about 3E being a return to 1E when it was far from it. And we also got P.O.ed because we purchased the books trusting it would produce 1E results (which it does not, there unique to itself). Also, the attempt by WOTC to get all camps (1E, 2E, 3E, OD&D) into one target market amounted to a slap in the face. I never bought the arguement that new 1E material would compete with the active system. Luckily we now have OSRIC and new 1E compatable stuff coming out regularly from PPP and Exp R and others.

 

[Felix]

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.

This is the first, most concise answer. And if McLaughlin were a DnD'er, he'd say it was the right answer.

The core book mechanics certainly can work without fiddling with them: they can be played as written. The only way to discuss DnD mechanics is to use a standard: the core books provide a standard to work from.

 

[Celebrim]

AFAIC, the RAW exists to help me run the game in as enjoyable fashion as possible. A game system exists largely because it is conveinent and easy if the amount of fiat rulings, judgement calls, and on the spot rule smithing I have to do is minimized.

But AFAIC, the RAW are completely subject to:

Rule #-1: The game should be fun.
Rule #0: The DM makes the rules.

If the RAW gets in the way of fun, then I'm going to use my judgement. Alot of players on the boards seem to believe that the DM is bound by a social contract to use the RAW written. I tend to see the social contract as more abstract. I feel its my job to be consistant, fair, and entertaining. If I'm doing that, then I'm doing my job. Sometimes using the RAW leads to situations that I think are less satisfying for everyone involved, because ultimately even most players don't enjoy abusing a poorly thought out rule.

(A few players try to get in an adversarial role with the DM and see rule loophole as weapons to be exploited, edges that they can get on the DM. I consider this a form of anti-social and dysfunctional role play. If I the DM tried to exploit the players, and it would be easy to do so, nobody would have fun. Since I'm not exploiting the players, the least I think I deserve is the same consideration, and actually I think the DM always deserves more - because its the DM that puts the most effort into the session.)

I feel that most of the time the D20 rules help me do that job, otherwise I wouldn't be using them at all. But despite the high quality of the current rules, there are still glaring holes in the rules all over the place where the game just doesn't handle all situations well - the properties of inanimate objects, the profession and craft skils, the diplomacy skill - to name just a few. Anyone that thinks the RAW written are complete and logical probably hasn't questioned the outcome they produce all that much. In many of those cases I've not come up with a set of house rules that handles the situation well and I've seen some valiant attempts, even those fail in one fashion or another. Fortunately, these sitautions don't come up alot, but when and if they do I'll have no cumpuctions against not using the RAW.

I notice that every second poster states the D20 rules are complete, and the rest of the posters state that they are most certainly not. I suspect that is a gulf of perception not easily bridged.

 

[JVisgaitis]

I'm sure it is or why bother writing it? With an RPG you get a lot of freedom in how its played, but the baseline is designed to work off of what is in the rules.

 

[billd91]

Since the rule books do pretty much say that they are meant to be guidelines to be adjusted as necessary, I'd say they're NOT meant to be played as written. They are meant to be good and fully PLAYABLE as written. I think there's a significant difference in the two.

 

[Li Shenron]

There is always a certain assumption in RPGs that the gaming group can and will probably change something to accomodate their style of play, to write their own material and adventures, or just because they like tinkering with the rules.

But overall I think that the core rules are designed as a whole, and so they are quite supposed to be played as is, at least as long as it doesn't cause problems such as detracting too much attention from the playing itself.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I don't think it was designed to be played 'as written', but for different reasons to Odhanan.

Why?

Because I compare it with AD&D (1e), which was laced through with dire warnings that you change any of the rules contained therein at your peril! That was designed to be played 'as written' and woe betide anyone who did otherwise Of course, most of us probably changed what we fancied anyway.

By contrast, 3e was a breath of fresh air - reading rule books that expressly expect and encourage the DM to change things to suit their game. Written right there in the books!

Extensions within the 3e framework are relatively easy, changes to fundamentals of the framework are relatively harder because of the greater interconnectivity of the rules. But the fact is the 3e rules expect and allow - nay encourage - gamers to NOT play 'as written', but to make the changes they want to for greater fun.

Cheers