I've finally figured out why 3rd edition bugs me

[diaglo]

I meant only that it is typical of what I, personally, have experienced in the past three years. I'm sincerely hoping to be shown that my typical experience is in fact far from typical for others!

no. it is typical of my experience with the new editions also over the last 4 + years.

 

[Psion]

I meant only that it is typical of what I, personally, have experienced in the past three years. I'm sincerely hoping to be shown that my typical experience is in fact far from typical for others!

Fair enough.

Let me ask, though: what is your GMing style like? Do you find yourself fairly passive?

I mean, I consider myself fairly flexible. I try to let my players run their characters how they like, but there are certain boundaries I won't cross (eg., NO dragon disciples, no kenders or other races from speicific campaign settings without approval, if you are a half dragon you ARE from the dragon kings, etc.) Is it possible that you are just getting stepped on, or not approaching the situation proactively enough.

Just wondering, presuming that the audience that we have to work with doesn't differ substantially, if there is a difference in our approaches to the game that might be at the root of the problem.

 

[Incenjucar]

no. it is typical of my experience with the new editions also over the last 4 + years.

Thats your own fault from straying from the only real game: Chainmail. Everything else is just a poor imitation.

But yeah, they do need to have some books... flavor suppliments, you might say, that are add-ons to the core books for people who want to put more emphasis on certain things. But there is that hinted-at magic item book.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Problem is, for newbies who don't know about role-playing, 3e doesn't give the flavour and atmosphere that previous editions did. Part of that, no doubt, is due to the increased emphasis on rules structure. For those with active imaginations it's not a problem, but for those without 3e looks pretty much like the instruction book to a console game.

Personally, I really like 3e. I love how the actual system has been explained and can be tailored to so many different uses. But I do miss the flavourful stuff of ages past.

To me, that leaves the perfect niche market for a D&D role-playing guide. Seriously, if you were new to the game and weren't introduced to the role-playing (vs. rule-playing) aspects of it, by the time you met role-players you'd have already established in your mind what the game is (for good or for bad). Such a sourcebook could be a great opportunity for the legends of the game (designers) to contribute little excerpts of (in)famous role-playing encounters they're had over the years. It would make for a great read while showing how much potential the game has, beyond merely the rules.

 

[Storm Raven]

To me, that leaves the perfect niche market for a D&D role-playing guide.

We have those. They are in the fantasy section of your local bookstore. They are also called "novels".

 

[Henry]

I meant only that it is typical of what I, personally, have experienced in the past three years. I'm sincerely hoping to be shown that my typical experience is in fact far from typical for others!

I'm telling you, not beating those players hard enough!

Seriously, I've experienced some of each, and our games are more lax than a hard-core RP campaign, but I've only had one or two players over the years really bust my chops over rules, and when I'm DM I make the final call, so if I say it needs manticore blood, then it needs manticore blood. But largely, I don't make it hard because I WANT my players making scrolls and potions - I WANT them spending those resources to make items, because it shows a deeper level of interest in the game world rather than what "fate just hands them."

One PC in our Eberron game is an artificer, and magic item creation is his lifeblood - if I made it so every item component had to be quested for, he'd be unfairly disadvantaged. As it is, it's a big sacrifice to decide what to make and when, because time can be more precious than resources in the campaign we are playing. If a psychotic Warforged, let's say, is planning to blow up the world in twenty days, do you stop for 3 days and make scrolls?

What if you are the only one who can cast war-magics on a large scale, and the party desparately needs those three scrolls? Do you search for someone who can make them, or do you take the time and effort yourself? I think he's secretly rueing taking the artisan feat that saves money instead of taking the feat that saves time, because every time he turns around he's blowing off scrolls to save the party's bacon, and only has precious few days to make more

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

We have those. They are in the fantasy section of your local bookstore. They are also called "novels".

Great attitude there.

 

[Turjan]

I'd be happy if they let first someone compile the rules who actually knows them and then someone else make a readable text out of this. I think this would appease both sides in this argument, as it would protect us from, on the one hand, endless ramblings with wonky rules and, on the other hand, dry as dust rules lists, triggering sleep spells on the reader, as we have them now.

However, this will never happen, as this is an expensive approach. Ideally, both aspects are combined in the same writer, but this is unfortunately a rare gift.

 

[Rel]

One PC in our Eberron game is an artificer, and magic item creation is his lifeblood - if I made it so every item component had to be quested for, he'd be unfairly disadvantaged.

Or, worse yet, unfairly given an advantage in that the WHOLE STORY must revolve around his character's quest for power components.

See, that to me is the problem that I perceive as the crux of all the Item Creation discussions. At either end of the spectrum you have one group going, "I've got XP to burn and GP that I can spin into magic items! The Rules say I can do it so screw you, GM!" and the other end says, "Magic Items are only ever FOUND in my game (and then only rarely!). No crafting! And damn sure no BUYING!" The problem with the first is that it lacks flavor. The problem with the second is that it lacks verisimilitude.

The first house rule that I implemented with 3E was that you couldn't simply spin gold into magic items with the creation feats. You had to have components to do it. BUT then I (gasp) allowed the purchase of these components using the same general guidelines presented in the DMG for the buying and selling of stuff. In other words bit cities were places where it was easy to buy these components and little hamlets would likely have none for sale.

The effect this had on my campaign was that I had just created a new kind of treasure. So now I was in the position to say things like:

"Amid the Wizard's belongings you find some Wyvern Blood, Ground Wyvern Stinger and some Manticore Quills. The first two are worth 200 GP toward crafting magical Wands and the Quills are worth 75 GP toward scribing Scrolls."

"You find some strange flakes of metal that radiate faint magic. You believe (Knowledge - Aracana check) that if disolved in acid these might provide you with some components for crafting Magical Arms and Armor. That would require some time and an Alchemy check however."

"A search of the magical oak grove reveals some magical mushrooms (Knowlege - Nature/Wilderness Lore for knowing about their possible presence and finding them). If they were ground and boiled in a bit of Holy Water (Alchemy or Craft Brewing check) then they would be worth 150 GP toward brewing any sort of healing potions."

It would have required multiple pages of explanation and examples to add that kind of flavor in the PHB so it is (IMHO) better left out. But it isn't that hard to add it in and I think that a book giving these sorts of examples would be very useful for GM's old and new.

 

[barsoomcore]

I think one could describe the 3E rules as "D&D for D&D Players"

I'm not alone in having coming BACK to D&D as a result of 3E -- 2E seemed like just a simple cash grab, lots of changes for no real reason, no vision, lots of "DM - play THIS way" sort of products, so I bailed and made up my own games, played Fantasy Hero and so on, or just stuck with 1E AD&D.

3E was just what I wanted -- a sophisticated, nicely integrated ruleset that applied a very small number of simple mechanics across a wide variety of applications. It felt like 1E but without all the impossible to understand or even use rules that filled the 1E texts.

I don't need flavour -- my games are full of flavour, they're as far from wargaming as you can imagine -- since because the 3E rules are so straightforward, I don't need to remember them much. Whatever I rule on the spot, basing my judgement on the basics of the rules, is pretty likely to be close to the actual rules. So I can spend my time on what's FUN about DMing for me -- coming up with a rich campaign full of fun details, crazy NPCs, cool schemes and plots for the heroes to foil (or not).

BUT....

I think it's fair to say that having read Gary Gygax's wonderful, imagination-stirring material in OD&D and 1e AD&D had a big impact on me. He was a good writer, there's no denying it, and it was to no small degree that skill he possessed that got so many of us hooked.

3E doesn't have that "hookability" that the earlier games had, I think. I'm not sure about that, but I can see where some people are coming from in this. The rules are clear, and I LIKE that, and it makes the game easier (and thus more fun) to play, but is it all really as attractive to the unwashed masses as earlier editions? I don't know.

I do know that 1E PHB CALLED to me. I HAD to have that book. I HAD to play that game. I wonder if the 3E PHB does the same to inexperienced players.