Tell me that D&D 3.0/3.5 isn't really like this
- Thread starter Vindicator
- Start date
- Status
Rev. Jesse
First Post
Obviously the quote that started this thread is a GM issue. The correct course of action (well, one of them) would be to have the DM give his book to the bored guy who can look up the damn rule and then run the game for the rest of the party. Duh.
LOL That is close to what we do in our games. If we get to an unknown rule area, one of the rules lawyers grabs the DMG (we have a couple of copies of it and the MM around the table) and start looking it up while the DM continues on with something else.Rev. Jesse said:
Seems to work well for us.
tetsujin28
First Post
Same here.
wedgeski
Adventurer
Any DM that allows one rules niggle to swallow an hour of game time doesn't know the first thing about GM'ing *anything* let alone 3.x. More likely is that the group has players who relish the letter of the law and a DM who is trying to prove a point. Stalemate is the only outcome.
Zappo
Explorer
No, 3.x isn't like that, and it isn't like C&C either... or it could be for that matter, because the system is totally irrelevant. This is yet another case of applying double mindsets to different editions/games (the other common case is [insert system, eg Storyteller] players claiming that you can't do good roleplaying in D&D).
The poster sees that the DM makes a quick ruling in C&C but spends an hour looking for a rule in D&D, and thinks that this is an issue with the system. The idea that there is nothing in D&D that prevents quick rulings and that therefore the cause must be elsewhere flies over her head.
The poster sees that the DM makes a quick ruling in C&C but spends an hour looking for a rule in D&D, and thinks that this is an issue with the system. The idea that there is nothing in D&D that prevents quick rulings and that therefore the cause must be elsewhere flies over her head.
Q: Is 3.X really like this ?
A: It can be.
Caveat: The following relates entirely to my experience, and your experiences may be different (so we may see things differently
)
I learned D&D in what would be termed an 'old skool' manner (yes, with the 'k' and all).
2E, DM (thought he) ruled with an iron fist. The most I saw of the DMG for my first few years as a player was the front cover! Also, many of the rules of 3.0 did not exist. [Edit: Yes obviously - I mean there are entire situations that have rules in 3.x, nut did not in previous editions]
This meant that dispute resolution happened in one of two ways: The DM just gave us an order (you were/were not that close) or we argued about what seemed reasonable. Sometimes for a very. long. time.
Then 3.0 comes out. Suddenly everything changed: A lot of DM 'arbitrariness' goes, but added is a massive, technically brilliant, computer program of a gaming system. My group is composed of lawyers, philosphers, and sneaky 'technically focused' IT guys. And yes, we spent a lot of time checking rules - not so much to win; but because there was, for once, an objectively right way to make a ruling, or interpret or govern a game event. Fantastic !
BUT: whilst we stopped having those screaming 'interpretive' arguments (we outgrew all that anyway) suddenly there was a lot of 'letter of the law' style issues. And not just players trying to 'get' the DM - DMs trying to be fair to the players because (Theoretically) all class abilities and options were "balanced" in light of what some spell or other wacky thing did, and it wasn't FAIR to anyone to not comply with THE RULES.
There is hope however: we are still all the same technically [mechanically?] focused people, but in recent years I think we are remembering the lessons of our youth - that the point is to have fun. There has been an almost tacit agreement (not by comittee!) that it isn't entirely the point to produce a math paper with all the answers right.
In short (what, you'd all prefer short ?) it is very possible to choose to not play 3.X like that, and I think many, many posters would say that they have 'overcome' the 3.X rules mired play style.
Rassilon.
A: It can be.
Caveat: The following relates entirely to my experience, and your experiences may be different (so we may see things differently
)I learned D&D in what would be termed an 'old skool' manner (yes, with the 'k' and all).
2E, DM (thought he) ruled with an iron fist. The most I saw of the DMG for my first few years as a player was the front cover! Also, many of the rules of 3.0 did not exist. [Edit: Yes obviously - I mean there are entire situations that have rules in 3.x, nut did not in previous editions]
This meant that dispute resolution happened in one of two ways: The DM just gave us an order (you were/were not that close) or we argued about what seemed reasonable. Sometimes for a very. long. time.
Then 3.0 comes out. Suddenly everything changed: A lot of DM 'arbitrariness' goes, but added is a massive, technically brilliant, computer program of a gaming system. My group is composed of lawyers, philosphers, and sneaky 'technically focused' IT guys. And yes, we spent a lot of time checking rules - not so much to win; but because there was, for once, an objectively right way to make a ruling, or interpret or govern a game event. Fantastic !
BUT: whilst we stopped having those screaming 'interpretive' arguments (we outgrew all that anyway) suddenly there was a lot of 'letter of the law' style issues. And not just players trying to 'get' the DM - DMs trying to be fair to the players because (Theoretically) all class abilities and options were "balanced" in light of what some spell or other wacky thing did, and it wasn't FAIR to anyone to not comply with THE RULES.
There is hope however: we are still all the same technically [mechanically?] focused people, but in recent years I think we are remembering the lessons of our youth - that the point is to have fun. There has been an almost tacit agreement (not by comittee!) that it isn't entirely the point to produce a math paper with all the answers right.
In short (what, you'd all prefer short ?) it is very possible to choose to not play 3.X like that, and I think many, many posters would say that they have 'overcome' the 3.X rules mired play style.
Rassilon.
greywulf
First Post
I agree, it's a mindset issue. D&D/d20 above all should make the game flow faster, rather than bog it down. After all, it's the much touted "one rule to rule them all" d20 thing, isn't it?!
A part of the problem is that the rulesbooks do too much hand holding, and just cover too much ground. It gives the impression that they should cover everything, and if it's not in, you can't do it. I'd like to see a single book "pro" version of D&D which contains just the important stuff with none of the Sage Advice ass-covering rules-lawyer fodder inside. Kinda like the D&D Cyclopedia for the d20 age. I'd buy one for every gamer I know.
As it stands, Rule 0 is just another paragraph of text in thousands. That said, I don't think the problem is with the system at all, but with the mindset of the gamer group. Pacing is everything when playing. IMExp, the more complex situations happen when play is at it's fastest, like when the mage wants to swing on the rope and cast levitate at the same time so he lifts the rope up to the balcony to save the paladin who's on 1HP and about to be pushed over the edge by an umber hulk. Reaching for the rulesbooks would have killed the tension.
A part of the problem is that the rulesbooks do too much hand holding, and just cover too much ground. It gives the impression that they should cover everything, and if it's not in, you can't do it. I'd like to see a single book "pro" version of D&D which contains just the important stuff with none of the Sage Advice ass-covering rules-lawyer fodder inside. Kinda like the D&D Cyclopedia for the d20 age. I'd buy one for every gamer I know.
As it stands, Rule 0 is just another paragraph of text in thousands. That said, I don't think the problem is with the system at all, but with the mindset of the gamer group. Pacing is everything when playing. IMExp, the more complex situations happen when play is at it's fastest, like when the mage wants to swing on the rope and cast levitate at the same time so he lifts the rope up to the balcony to save the paladin who's on 1HP and about to be pushed over the edge by an umber hulk. Reaching for the rulesbooks would have killed the tension.
It's not all in our minds . . .
As a kind of addendum to my post above, which includes that assuption the 3.X actually is more 'rulesy' and 'democratic' than previous editions . . .
A couple of years ago I was reading both the 3.0 and 2nd Ed. AD&D DMGs at the same time ('cause that's just what I do). In the same part of the book (something like "How to DM rules") they each had this to say (paraphrasing):
3.0: It may be helpful to show your players the additional rules in the DMG, and ask them to look up other rules if you have to check a rule mid game.
2.0: NEVER let a player see this book, or know the GM only rules. Perhaps kill a player's character if they look at the DMG without your permission (so they know how important this is). These rules are for the GM only, and only the GM can make a ruling in a game . . .
Rassilon.
As a kind of addendum to my post above, which includes that assuption the 3.X actually is more 'rulesy' and 'democratic' than previous editions . . .
A couple of years ago I was reading both the 3.0 and 2nd Ed. AD&D DMGs at the same time ('cause that's just what I do). In the same part of the book (something like "How to DM rules") they each had this to say (paraphrasing):
3.0: It may be helpful to show your players the additional rules in the DMG, and ask them to look up other rules if you have to check a rule mid game.
2.0: NEVER let a player see this book, or know the GM only rules. Perhaps kill a player's character if they look at the DMG without your permission (so they know how important this is). These rules are for the GM only, and only the GM can make a ruling in a game . . .
Rassilon.
- Status
