Nathal
Explorer
"Maybe I'm just getting too old to want to have to deal with a heap o' rules amid the steaming heap o' rules lawyers who go with them."
--Gary Gygax
I've been reading the various threads on the general feeling of impending doom many players have regarding 3.5. They fear their characters are about to get 'nerfed', their powers lessened, and thus less useful to their adventuring party. Others argue that the revised edition is more balanced while the opposition argues that 3.5 shatters current character concepts. Both can at once be true I suppose, but I think the debate over power balancing ignores a more important issue.
I agree with Robin Laws when he wrote that the success of a campaign has much more to do with the stylistic composition of the gaming group than the rule set. What I mean by 'stylistic composition' is the degree of resonance between individual player preferences for play and the style of the Game Master.
Law's archetypal player types are a useful contrivance if we allow for much overlap in real life and I'll repeat those types here before going on with my silliness. He listed The Power Gamer, The Butt-Kicker, The Tactician, The Specialist, The Method Actor, and The Story-Teller. Mind you, none of these types are intended to be derogatory labels in his book.
Now if I apply these types to the debate on 3.5 a few possibilities emerge in my mind. Most players of D&D have at least a small percentage of the Power Gamer in his heart, but a player who is an avid fan of "crunchy stuff", and has a powerful character, will likely loathe changes that threaten his character's preeminence, an understandable attitude (to an extent) because in most cases these powers are earned through level acquisition. It will be of scant assurance to such players that 'nerfed' spells and abilities in 3.5 apply to not only them but NPCs and monsters as well!
The Butt-Kicker will be pissed off for sure if he plays a mage who has grown accustomed to his position of superiority in the balance of power, or any other character that gets scaled down in power. Butt-Kickers enjoy the game most when winning a fight, so any rule which reduces their effectiveness in mêlée is likely a threat to their entire character concept! Game Masters are likely to face players saying things like, "my character SUX now! I would NEVER have created this character if knew you'd be converting to these 3.5 rules which make me a wuss..." And so on. Debate on the ripple effect, that NPCs and monsters are likewise effected and so balance ought to be maintained in the whole will be of no avail here. Perhaps the player had a character who was more powerful than the average player's character. In such a case I doubt there is a good way to convince him that 'balancing' the game, thereby making his character less effective at least in a relative way, should make him happy. It just won't.
The Tactician's reaction will depend on the percentage of Power Gamer or Butt-Kicker in his blood I suppose. A Tactician may be anywhere from annoyed to angry if playing a character that relies heavily on those spells which had longer durations in 3.0 than 3.5, or any scaled down Feat or ability that would have given him a tactical edge, anything providing that warm feeling of preparedness. A Tactician may enjoy the challenge--in principle--of dealing with new restrictions but resent the jarring contrast between his once phenomenal character's abilities now nonexistent or mysteriously reduced.
The Specialist won't give a damn what edition of the rules he plays so long as his favorite concept is preserved. You know the kind...the guy who always plays the Elven Ranger. In fact I had a player REFUSE to convert to 3.0 after he saw what they had done with two-weapon fighting, and it really didn't matter to him what other improvements had been made. As a Specialist he was going to play his favorite character concept as he envisioned it and if the GM or game system doesn't allow it, he will find another GM or game system. A little strange perhaps but acceptable if the player is honest about it and refrains from whining too much.
The Method Actor will get upset if certain key abilities are stripped from his character class which was bound up in some way with his character's personal history and background. In fact, any change to the rules or any character class which threatens a reasonable concept is bad to the Method Actor. This is why class-and-level systems did not appeal as much to the Method Actors, most of whom go on to become LARPERs and leave us benighted table-top gamers in the dust.
The Story-Teller is not to be confused with Game Master of the Storyteller game systems like Vampire. The Story-Teller player is one who cares more for contributing to the overall plot as it evolves through group action than for discovering his character's inner child as with the Method Actor.
The Method Actor is not always a great team player (unless their concept calls for team effort), another reason one is more likely to see them playing Amber than D&D. The Story Teller, on the other hand, tends to work with the group in coming up with reasons for his character to get involved rather than making the GM sweat too much. The complaint Story-Tellers have with rules changes is when an alternation will make some event in the past improbable or impossible. Story-Tellers do not like to revise game history and so if 3.5 would change how their characters' would have reacted to certain challenges they may be uncomfortable with the changes. Likely their own character concept will be increasingly important as the campaign builds history and the more radical the rules changes the more likely it will create paradox between what is possible today and what was once available options to the characters. A good way to handle such radical change is exemplified in The Time of Troubles of the Forgotten Realms, which was a brilliant way of accommodating the change from 1st Edition to 2nd Edition. Pure Story Teller players would have applauded such a plot arc.
What is the point of all this? The fact is that the important thing is not whether your group "upgrades" to 3.5 but how your group responds in general to rules changes, or even system changes, and the reasons behind it. The Game Master has no hope of keeping a game together if he doesn't understand his player's preferences and how they may differ from his own. A balance must be struck between personal styles for the sake of entertainment for the whole group or the fun is likely to evaporate at an alarming rate. Rule Zero is not important just because it reminds us that the DMs Rule is Law but because it reminds us that the Game Master MUST have the eternal license to change things to suit his particular game group. No new edition should ever threaten progress made in that direction, or else the fun of the game will get siphoned out as the rules debates eclipse the fact that it is a GAME played for FUN.
--Gary Gygax
I've been reading the various threads on the general feeling of impending doom many players have regarding 3.5. They fear their characters are about to get 'nerfed', their powers lessened, and thus less useful to their adventuring party. Others argue that the revised edition is more balanced while the opposition argues that 3.5 shatters current character concepts. Both can at once be true I suppose, but I think the debate over power balancing ignores a more important issue.
I agree with Robin Laws when he wrote that the success of a campaign has much more to do with the stylistic composition of the gaming group than the rule set. What I mean by 'stylistic composition' is the degree of resonance between individual player preferences for play and the style of the Game Master.
Law's archetypal player types are a useful contrivance if we allow for much overlap in real life and I'll repeat those types here before going on with my silliness. He listed The Power Gamer, The Butt-Kicker, The Tactician, The Specialist, The Method Actor, and The Story-Teller. Mind you, none of these types are intended to be derogatory labels in his book.
Now if I apply these types to the debate on 3.5 a few possibilities emerge in my mind. Most players of D&D have at least a small percentage of the Power Gamer in his heart, but a player who is an avid fan of "crunchy stuff", and has a powerful character, will likely loathe changes that threaten his character's preeminence, an understandable attitude (to an extent) because in most cases these powers are earned through level acquisition. It will be of scant assurance to such players that 'nerfed' spells and abilities in 3.5 apply to not only them but NPCs and monsters as well!
The Butt-Kicker will be pissed off for sure if he plays a mage who has grown accustomed to his position of superiority in the balance of power, or any other character that gets scaled down in power. Butt-Kickers enjoy the game most when winning a fight, so any rule which reduces their effectiveness in mêlée is likely a threat to their entire character concept! Game Masters are likely to face players saying things like, "my character SUX now! I would NEVER have created this character if knew you'd be converting to these 3.5 rules which make me a wuss..." And so on. Debate on the ripple effect, that NPCs and monsters are likewise effected and so balance ought to be maintained in the whole will be of no avail here. Perhaps the player had a character who was more powerful than the average player's character. In such a case I doubt there is a good way to convince him that 'balancing' the game, thereby making his character less effective at least in a relative way, should make him happy. It just won't.
The Tactician's reaction will depend on the percentage of Power Gamer or Butt-Kicker in his blood I suppose. A Tactician may be anywhere from annoyed to angry if playing a character that relies heavily on those spells which had longer durations in 3.0 than 3.5, or any scaled down Feat or ability that would have given him a tactical edge, anything providing that warm feeling of preparedness. A Tactician may enjoy the challenge--in principle--of dealing with new restrictions but resent the jarring contrast between his once phenomenal character's abilities now nonexistent or mysteriously reduced.
The Specialist won't give a damn what edition of the rules he plays so long as his favorite concept is preserved. You know the kind...the guy who always plays the Elven Ranger. In fact I had a player REFUSE to convert to 3.0 after he saw what they had done with two-weapon fighting, and it really didn't matter to him what other improvements had been made. As a Specialist he was going to play his favorite character concept as he envisioned it and if the GM or game system doesn't allow it, he will find another GM or game system. A little strange perhaps but acceptable if the player is honest about it and refrains from whining too much.
The Method Actor will get upset if certain key abilities are stripped from his character class which was bound up in some way with his character's personal history and background. In fact, any change to the rules or any character class which threatens a reasonable concept is bad to the Method Actor. This is why class-and-level systems did not appeal as much to the Method Actors, most of whom go on to become LARPERs and leave us benighted table-top gamers in the dust.
The Story-Teller is not to be confused with Game Master of the Storyteller game systems like Vampire. The Story-Teller player is one who cares more for contributing to the overall plot as it evolves through group action than for discovering his character's inner child as with the Method Actor.
The Method Actor is not always a great team player (unless their concept calls for team effort), another reason one is more likely to see them playing Amber than D&D. The Story Teller, on the other hand, tends to work with the group in coming up with reasons for his character to get involved rather than making the GM sweat too much. The complaint Story-Tellers have with rules changes is when an alternation will make some event in the past improbable or impossible. Story-Tellers do not like to revise game history and so if 3.5 would change how their characters' would have reacted to certain challenges they may be uncomfortable with the changes. Likely their own character concept will be increasingly important as the campaign builds history and the more radical the rules changes the more likely it will create paradox between what is possible today and what was once available options to the characters. A good way to handle such radical change is exemplified in The Time of Troubles of the Forgotten Realms, which was a brilliant way of accommodating the change from 1st Edition to 2nd Edition. Pure Story Teller players would have applauded such a plot arc.What is the point of all this? The fact is that the important thing is not whether your group "upgrades" to 3.5 but how your group responds in general to rules changes, or even system changes, and the reasons behind it. The Game Master has no hope of keeping a game together if he doesn't understand his player's preferences and how they may differ from his own. A balance must be struck between personal styles for the sake of entertainment for the whole group or the fun is likely to evaporate at an alarming rate. Rule Zero is not important just because it reminds us that the DMs Rule is Law but because it reminds us that the Game Master MUST have the eternal license to change things to suit his particular game group. No new edition should ever threaten progress made in that direction, or else the fun of the game will get siphoned out as the rules debates eclipse the fact that it is a GAME played for FUN.
