The Culture of Third Edition- Good or Bad?

[rounser]

I don't think "Why no halfling rangers?" is beyond the scope of questions that the DM should have to answer.

Sure, and here's your answer: "This game is Dragonlance, halflings don't exist on Krynn. You can play a kender ranger if you like, though."

 

[barsoomcore]

I don't think "Why no halfling rangers?" is beyond the scope of questions that the DM should have to answer. You read the manual, you know halfling rangers are allowed, so when you can't be one, you deserve to know why they're changing it. There could be thousands of responses. "Halfling rangers are overpowered." "Only munchkin rollplayers like halfling rangers." "The culture of halflings in my campaign have never been outside of the major city." "Halflings are gypsies, not woodsmen."

What about, "I don't like them?"

I don't have halflings in my world for one reason only: I don't like them. I don't want them in my campaign setting. Sure, you can ask, but don't expect much more of answer than that, because I don't have one. There are no halflings in my campaign setting.

Many players rightfully fear the DM who pulls out that trump on every occasion as if it was their first taste of power in the world, just like many DM's rightfully fear the 'rules lawyer.'

Where does this notion of a power struggle come from? Why should players "fear the DM who pulls out that trump"? How is designing a campaign setting some kind of crazed power trip?

When as a DM I come up with a setting I'm interested in running a game in, pretty much the first thing I do is think about how I'm going to have to adjust the D&D rules to get the effect or the kind of storytelling I want. Which classes and races are appropriate, how the magic system ought to work, all that. I'm not powertripping, and any player who "fears" my houserules should probably stay a million miles away from me, because they're obviously way too immature to enjoy my games. I'm just performing one of my basic DM functions -- creating a fun and unique setting the players and I can use to tell exciting stories.

If you, as a player, want to create a character that doesn't fit into the setting, then I've done a bad job of communicating what the concept is. I'll try again. If you just don't want to create a character that fits into my world, well, see ya. Play in a campaign where your desired character will fit -- I'm fine with that. There's no power struggle going on here and nothing to fear. Just people coming up with ideas for fun games and either sharing them or not.

It seems like people are confusing plain old bad DMing, with inconsistent rules and poorly-thought-out campaigns, with basic campaign setting design. That players should be annoyed by bad DMing is obvious. That there are good and bad houserules, equally obvious.

That doesn't place any "burden" on a DM other than to be a good DM. It doesn't mean anyone has to explain anything.

 

[Kormydigar]

Where does this notion of a power struggle come from? Why should players "fear the DM who pulls out that trump"? How is designing a campaign setting some kind of crazed power trip?

When as a DM I come up with a setting I'm interested in running a game in, pretty much the first thing I do is think about how I'm going to have to adjust the D&D rules to get the effect or the kind of storytelling I want. Which classes and races are appropriate, how the magic system ought to work, all that. I'm not powertripping, and any player who "fears" my houserules should probably stay a million miles away from me, because they're obviously way too immature to enjoy my games. I'm just performing one of my basic DM functions -- creating a fun and unique setting the players and I can use to tell exciting stories.

If you, as a player, want to create a character that doesn't fit into the setting, then I've done a bad job of communicating what the concept is. I'll try again. If you just don't want to create a character that fits into my world, well, see ya. Play in a campaign where your desired character will fit -- I'm fine with that. There's no power struggle going on here and nothing to fear. Just people coming up with ideas for fun games and either sharing them or not.

It seems like people are confusing plain old bad DMing, with inconsistent rules and poorly-thought-out campaigns, with basic campaign setting design. That players should be annoyed by bad DMing is obvious. That there are good and bad houserules, equally obvious.

That doesn't place any "burden" on a DM other than to be a good DM. It doesn't mean anyone has to explain anything.

Exactly. Very well said. The notion of a power struggle being possible implies a DM vs. player mentality that is just regawd-darned- diculous in a roleplaying game. The game is not, in my opinion, a tactical contest betwen players and DM.

 

[Kormydigar]

I'm not going to respond point by point in the interest of keeping it civil, and becuase I think I'm just repeating my main point ad nauseum right now.

I share the problem with whiney players crying when they can't get their specific case in a certain campaign and demand it unflinchingly. However, I have the exact same problem with the other side of the cardboard screen, too. It works both ways. Just as players won't be welcomed to my game if they cry and complain about their specific character and how you suck if you're not giving it to them, DM's won't be welcomed to my game if they are arbitrary, heavy-handed, and condescending, with more interest in their own story than in making the group have fun.

I'm reasonably sure everyone can agree on that.

Now, the books needed to play D&D are the baseline, especially the PH. This is the instruction manual for playing D&D, just like that little pamphlet you get with Monopoly is the instruction manual for playing Monopoly. The two share another similarity: they encouarage you to play with the rules themselves, to change the way the game is played. A majority of DM's change the way the "D&D game," as presented in the Core Rules, is played. Just like I think I'd be hardpressed to find any family that plays Monopoly the way the manual says (y'know, without the Free Parking Fund). It's not any worse, but it is a change. It is an alteration. It is a House Rule. It might make the game better, it might just change the way it's played, but it's all a House Rule. It's not the way the game was *designed* to be played, but it's no less a *valid* way to play it. If someone plays without Chance cards, or if the DM allows antimatter rifles, these are house rules. There is an instruction manual.

Now, here's where it gets into things that are not generally fairly objective realities. And here may be the part where I part ways with some people, but also what I think may be part of the cause behind this much-decried "third edition culture" that is being bemoaned here.

Say, one family plays Monopoly with one dice, instead of two. Say one DM plays without halfling rangers. These are both house rules. They're changes from the norm. They both remove something that is in the instruction manual. Ditch it, nix it, boil it alive in a pot of acid, whatever you wanna say.

If the family was looking for people to play Monopoly with (putting up flyers at the local Kay-Bee Toys), I don't think "So, why only one dice?" is some volatile question. You read the manual, you expect two dice, so when there is only one, you deserve to know why they're changing it There are thousands of things they could say in response. "We lost one." "Beacause it means more properties get baught up earlier, and we enjoy the period of the game when everybody owns stuff to the pre-buying stage." "Because two dice is just too many to hold in your hand." " Because math is hard."

Of course, if the potential player is really attatched to two dice for some reason (say, he likes the clicking noise they make when he rolls, which one die just doesn't do), there are only two really narrowminded options, and a host of potentially accepting ones.

Family: "Because that's the way it is, that's the way it has been, and that's the only way we like it, and if you don't like it, too bad, it's our game, you go pout over there if you want two dice you stupid math-lover!" (narrowminded, though still valid).

Player: "You've gotta use two dice! If you don't, you're not playing real monopoly! I can't believe you'd break the rules like that! It says you use two dice here in the manual! You've gotta use two dice! Or at least let me do it! Come on, adding is totally awesome!" (narrowminded, but also valid)

Player: "Hu...well, I agree math is hard, but I'd like the game to last a little longer. I've got a d8 here, can we use that instead of a d6?" (one of the many potentially accepting ones).

Player: "Okay, whatever, let's just play." (one of the most common responses)

Player: "Sorry, I love math, I don't think I'd have a lot of fun in your game. Good luck finding a player." (another very common response)

Similarly, if the DM is looking for people to play D&D with (putting up flyers at the FLGS), I don't think "Why no halfling rangers?" is beyond the scope of questions that the DM should have to answer. You read the manual, you know halfling rangers are allowed, so when you can't be one, you deserve to know why they're changing it. There could be thousands of responses. "Halfling rangers are overpowered." "Only munchkin rollplayers like halfling rangers." "The culture of halflings in my campaign have never been outside of the major city." "Halflings are gypsies, not woodsmen."

Of course, if the player is particularly attatched to halfling rangers for some reason (the concept of a halfling sling-archer is appealing to him), there are only two really narrowminded options, and a host of potentially accepting ones.

DM: "That's the way we play this game, that's the way it is, and that's the way it always has been, I'm not going to move for you or anyone else. I am the DM, and I say no halfling rangers, so forget it. You're playing in my game, and what I say goes." (narrowminded, though still valid).

Player: "No halfling rangers?! What are you thinking?! I can't live without my midget wooodsmen! How will I ever have my drow have a halfling ranger dipped in black paint so I can call him mini-me! The book says there are halfling rangers, and you have to obey the laws!" (narrowminded, though still valid).

Player: "Okay, can I change all of a ranger's wilderness abilities to city-based abilities and play an urban halfling ranger?" (one of the many potentially accepting ones).

Player: "Okay, whatever, let's just play." (one of the most common responses)

Player: "Y'know, I'm not sure I'd fit in with a group that thinks halfling rangers are a representative of munchkin rollplaying. Sorry, but good luck." (another very common response)

So there it is. Just as I don't think players should wave the core rules in a DM's face and demand they accept it, I don't think DM's should wave their house rules in a player's face and demand they accept it. The only difference is that the DM has a trump, so to speak. Many players rightfully fear the DM who pulls out that trump on every occasion as if it was their first taste of power in the world, just like many DM's rightfully fear the 'rules lawyer.' But a DM who uses that trump only to help shape their setting is a good DM, just like a player who uses the rules to aid the story of their character is a good player.

[/QUOTE=Kamikaze Midget]Just as players won't be welcomed to my game if they cry and complain about their specific character and how you suck if you're not giving it to them, DM's won't be welcomed to my game if they are arbitrary, heavy-handed, and condescending, with more interest in their own story than in making the group have fun.

I'm reasonably sure everyone can agree on that.[/QUOTE]


I am inclined to disagree. If you are not the the one running the game then what makes it yours? How does one suddenly include a DM to a game already in progress? Without a DM , you have no game to invite anyone to. When a DM prepares to run a campaign he invites players, not the other way around. A group of players shopping around for a DM who will run exactly the game they want is effectively browsing for the right Server on the net as I have mentioned on another post.

, Now, the books needed to play D&D are the baseline, especially the PH. This is the instruction manual for playing D&D, just like that little pamphlet you get with Monopoly is the instruction manual for playing Monopoly.

This is the subject I find to be at the heart of the matter. By equating D&D with Monopoly you are admitting that you think D&D is competitive. Monopoly has a winner and loser. You do not WIN a game of D&D per se. I would agree to your theory most readily if we were talking about a wargame here. It is important in a competitive environment for all parties involved to agree on which rules are used and which are not. This is not so in a roleplaying game. If a fun time is achieved then everyone wins, if not everyone loses.

 

[FireLance]

This is the subject I find to be at the heart of the matter. By equating D&D with Monopoly you are admitting that you think D&D is competitive. Monopoly has a winner and loser. You do not WIN a game of D&D per se. I would agree to your theory most readily if we were talking about a wargame here. It is important in a competitive environment for all parties involved to agree on which rules are used and which are not. This is not so in a roleplaying game. If a fun time is achieved then everyone wins, if not everyone loses.

An interesting point, but I don't quite agree. Rules can serve the function of resolution and these are the types of rules that tend to surface only in competitive situations.

However, rules also serve the purpose of standardisation. Standardisation rules may occur in competitive situations, e.g. a tennis game may dictate what types of racquets may be used by the players. However, these may occur even in a non-competitive situation. For example, in a vegetarian restaurant, the "rule" may be that no meat is served. In a particular country, there may be rules on the configuration of electrical plugs and the voltage and current for electrical devices. Other standardisation rules include the number of lines and rhyming schemes of haiku, limericks and sonnets.

The original question seemed to be about standardisation rules, and asked whether too many options is a bad thing. Thinking about it, though, there is really no easy answer because it all boils down to a matter of taste. If I may make an analogy, it's like a customer (the player) going to a restaurant (the DM) and ordering his favorite meal. This can be a problem if it's a vegetarian restaurant, the customer's favorite meal is roast beef, and it's the only restaurant in town. It's not really the fault of either the restaurant or the customer, but unless the two are able to come to some kind of agreement, the restaurant doesn't make a sale and the customer goes hungry. However, it does seem to me that it's pointless to complain about the existance of roast beef, or that there are too many types of food.

 

[Belen]

Whew...it has been busy since I left for the holiday.

KM: You seem to be making a very circular argument. While I agree that a GM should work with his group in order for them to have fun, I disagree that a player must be able to play class x or race y in that particular campaign just because they want to play that archetype at the moment in time. In my experience, if a player wants to play a particular class that is banned, it comes from either of the following:

A: I have found a particular nasty combo and I need this class to qualify for certain pre-reqs as soon as possible.

B: I want to play that class because it does not fit with the theme of the campaign. (ie. Some people just have to be an outsider.)

I think that it unreasonable to get huffy about one missing class or race when you can choose from 10 other classes and 6 other races for the game. If you really want to play that class or race, then you can find another game in order to play that combo. Or just wait until the next campaign!

In my world, I use none of the PHB races. I have been playing DnD so long that I am tired of the stereotypes, so I redesigned the culture etc of each race. IMC, Elves are gypsy rogues, Halflings are uber-mages, dwarves are nature-loving druids, and I have a humanoid bear race to replace half-orcs.

If someone asks about half-orcs, then I say "I am tired of the stereotypical dumb half-orc barb who says Me this, Me that, and I really did not want an entire race of rape-get."

In my next campaign, I have 15 total classes available. However, fighter, wizard and Paladin are banned. It is a nature-based campaign set at the dawn of time. No one has had time to spend their life training with weapons, or dedicate their lives to good or study when they are just learning to grow food etc.

Next campaign? Those classes with be back, and I let my players know it.

The thing is, I am not willing to spend 10-20 hours a week outside of the game session to run a game that will not interest me.

In fact, when I ran a game that was for the players, then I burned out. Why? Because the more you give, the more a player expects and wants. If they know that can get it, then they will make sure to go after it. I got taken, and I know that I got taken.

Guess what? It was not their fault. I should have placed restrictions on them no matter how much they complained that this rule was written in WOTC Book 10 etc.

In fact, the more options I allowed, the more I let the players advance their "concept" the more generic, flavorless, and crunchy the game got.

The problem is that the current 3e culture is centered around providing more and more crunch to the players, while not according the same level of support for the GM.

Heck, the culture would rather say "create a half-dragon fiendish Minotaur (WTF?) than a villain that has a true agenda and personality. Why? Because crunch is king!

Why do I dislike your argument? Because it is a gimme argument. You want the GM to justify why a certain amount of crunch is not allowed. However, a flavor reason is not acceptable. You really want a crunch reason (ie. You want the GM to come up with a crunchy combo that it just as good as the denied crunchy combo.)

That is the type of flawed culture I find in 3e.

Do I love the ruleset? Yes.
Do I hate the mindset? Yep.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

This is the subject I find to be at the heart of the matter. By equating D&D with Monopoly you are admitting that you think D&D is competitive. Monopoly has a winner and loser. You do not WIN a game of D&D per se. I would agree to your theory most readily if we were talking about a wargame here. It is important in a competitive environment for all parties involved to agree on which rules are used and which are not. This is not so in a roleplaying game. If a fun time is achieved then everyone wins, if not everyone loses.

Although I've agreed with most of your points throughout this thread, I think you might be putting some words into Kamikaze's mouth here. I don't think that's a fair conclusion to come to based on the fact that he probably just grabbed Monopoly off the top of his head and didn't think much about it except in that he could make an analogy using it (at least as I read his posts that's what I thought).

Edit: Just read Firelance's post, which makes some good points on this, too.

Best,
Nick

 

[Belen]

Although I've agreed with most of your points throughout this thread, I think you might be putting some words into Kamikaze's mouth here. I don't think that's a fair conclusion to come to based on the fact that he probably just grabbed Monopoly off the top of his head and didn't think much about it except in that he could make an analogy using it (at least as I read his posts that's what I thought).

Edit: Just read Firelance's post, which makes some good points on this, too.

Best,
Nick

Well, Monopoly is a particularly bad example.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Point taken.

Best,
Nick

 

[WayneLigon]

...I do find it easy to imagine that people who approach D&D from a computer game mindset might have some preconceptions that don't really work in the "face to face" world, but surely it only takes one or two experiences to wipe that away?

A friend of mine is GMing games for her young (13yo) son and his friends; except for the son, very few of the kids have ever encountered gaming that has not been on the PC.

Slowly but surely she's prying them out of this mentality. Or rather.. 'mentality' is a bad word to use. They have certain expectations and worldviews that she's having to train out of them. The one I find particularly amusing is that they often refuse to leave an encounter area for fear they won't be able to get back to it, or it will no longer be there.

It's really interesting to read her emails on the subject. The sheer epiphany the kids have when they finally realize 'I really can do anything; I'm not bound by a scenario or victory conditions, or.. or anything' is just joyous. She said they are having an absolute ball. In her words, it's like they were introduced to a gourmet meal after a lifetime of unseasoned rice.