-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
The Culture of Third Edition- Good or Bad?
- Thread starter Belen
- Start date
ShadowDenizen
Explorer
Well, I've stayed out of this argument so far, but I've been lurking and reading as it went along, and I feel compelled to chime in.
I agree with BelenUmaria's asessment here (though I'll qualify that I love the CORESET rules, not so much the add-ons.) I think that the Core ruleset did a reasonable job of laying out rules for common (and some uncommon) situations that might arise, without taking away a DM's free-will in adjudicating disputes, devising fiendish plots, well-rounded NPC's and villians, and cool adventures. However, as the years pass and more and more supplements come out from WotC and other 3rd party publishers, there seems to be A) an advancement of the "Why can't I?" mindset, where players rail against any "restrictions" (Arbitrary or otherwise) that they feel are "imposed" upon them, and B) too much crunch, where the rules are TOO detailed, attempting to list every possible rule for every possible situation, essentially devolving the game down into mindlessness with no room for human thought/creativity. (I think whoever brought up the Computer RP'in vs. Tabletop RP'ing was right on the mark.)
IMHO, the DM is the sole-arbiter for his campaign. He is the one who spends time developing a world, writing an adventure, and generally trying to please the players. Of course, he should listen to the input of his players, but if the DM feels that what they like would unbalance the campaign (a fiendish half-dragon ranger, Chocobo Knight, whatever) or not meet his view of the world, he can (and should) feel free to politely explain that the character wouldn't fit in the chronicle, and then perhaps offer alternatives. The player, for his part, should accept that the DM has these "restrictions" and adjust accordingly: there's likely still plenty of variety out there. Otherwise, the two should mutually agree to part ways.
Role-playing, by it's very nature, encourages diversity, and encourages you to be someone other than who you really are for a brief time each week. So, instead of asking "Why can't I be the only child of Drizzt Do'Urden?" consider playing something you never even thought of before.
Last edited:
barsoomcore
Unattainable Ideal
Of course not. Everyone knows half-dragon fiendish Minotaur bad guys are dull as dishwater.trilobite said:
Obviously you've had 180-degree-different experiences than I. I have always found that there is a set of people in this hobby who are primarily in it for the "power" -- they are always seeking to min-max the rules, employ as much tactical rules use as possible in order to be able to write very large numbers on their character sheet. Some people like that -- and there's always been people like that in this hobby.BelenUmeria said:
I don't find there are more of them now than ever before. I don't see how the current spate of rulebooks "encourages" them. I'm not worried about it.
Not sure what you're going to be able to do about it, if you're convinced it's the case. Not much is my guess. Sorry about that. Come to Vancouver!
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
trilobite said:
A character like that certainly could have a true agenda and personality, in fact, some parts of his oddball background could drive those. I think what BelenUmeria was getting at was more of a why that creature happens to be the choice of villains. Was it because that's a cool combination because of the number and ability crunching? Or was it because there's some other conceptualization at work behind it?
In many ways, I think that's kind of a false choice. Why do we DMs come up with specific villains and why do players come up with specific PCs? Various reasons, really. Sometimes it's because of the crunch ("A lich would be a good villain this time, I think I'll use one." or "I haven't played a sorcerer before, I think I'll give it a try because I'm getting tired of front-line fighters."). Sometimes it's because of a specific plot idea ("OK, I've want a disaffected immortal who wants to inflict that curse on others now." or "I want to play a character who's really fascinated with magic but hasn't studied it formally.").
Now, is there really a good difference between those types of motivations? Not as I see it. Go ahead and pick that half-dragon, fiendish minotaur for your villain because you think it's cool crunch. But to make it a good game, now make that character interesting beyond just the crunch unless he's just an incidental encounter.
The_Gneech
Explorer
trilobite said:
Actually, I can't help but think such an oddball would have quite an interesting personality! But I do admit that 3.x has gone a little template-happy, like a kid with a new toy. Okay, the vampiric gibbering mouther was an interesting idea ... but randomly applying the fiendish template to anything and everything is getting a little old. (It's not uncommon in Dungeon to read something like, "If the encounter is not enough of a challenge to your party, consider applying the fiendish template to the blind kobold.")
-The Gneech
trilobite
Explorer
barsoomcore said:
Very true! You can find power gamers and such from 1e and on. I even bet you could find a Amber Diceless power gamer around somewhere.
But I don't think you can blame the "death" of role-play because on 3e rule set. I guess I have been lucky to (for the most part) be able to play with good friends. They have run the gambit from master roleplayers to master min-maxers but it has been a fun ride so far!
Last edited:
Henry
Autoexreginated
I think that most of the experiences I've had with obnoxious players come from just that -- obnoxious players. I haven't seen it any more widespread than ever before. I have even run into guys in my 2E days who used to get mad if I didn't let them play something off-the-wall. Nowadays, there are rules laid down for the off-the-wall types, so there is something for those same player types to wave in a DM's face now.
I do know, however, that players whose only frame of reference is a computer game or an MMORPG are more likely to balk at setting changes or on-the-fly rulings. It's a framework of prior exposure, that plays into expectations.
You see, just ten years ago, it wasn't the "no restrictions" culture that was getting on DM's nerves; it was instead the "Role Model" culture. These were the guys who said, "I want to be a dual-wielding ranger with dark skin who is a loner but the deadliest swordsman on the planet." They also tried to sneak in every rules supplement they could find that duplicated their prime character, because their exposure to fantasy was not through online computer games, but through pulp novels. It was through tormented vampires, cool swordsmen, or powerful wizards whom they wanted to emulate. Same idea today, just different ruleset to try it under.
I personally don't see 3E promoting this any more than 2E promoted wannabees with wish-fulfillment complexes.
I do know, however, that players whose only frame of reference is a computer game or an MMORPG are more likely to balk at setting changes or on-the-fly rulings. It's a framework of prior exposure, that plays into expectations.
You see, just ten years ago, it wasn't the "no restrictions" culture that was getting on DM's nerves; it was instead the "Role Model" culture. These were the guys who said, "I want to be a dual-wielding ranger with dark skin who is a loner but the deadliest swordsman on the planet." They also tried to sneak in every rules supplement they could find that duplicated their prime character, because their exposure to fantasy was not through online computer games, but through pulp novels. It was through tormented vampires, cool swordsmen, or powerful wizards whom they wanted to emulate. Same idea today, just different ruleset to try it under.
I personally don't see 3E promoting this any more than 2E promoted wannabees with wish-fulfillment complexes.
Bendris Noulg
First Post
Sorry for the absence... We got a killer storm last night and the power was out; When it came back on, the DSL was still offline. Glad to see things are progressing though...
).
However, my reference earlier wasn't so much about that but rather about the balance between different elements. For instance, I feel that death-cures are too readily available in 3E. However, their availability in the Core Rules is balanced against a multitude of insta-death effects that are also present (and which I also feel are too readily available, particularly for the GM). Thus, to reduce, restrict, or remove one, you must be sure you have also reduced, restricted or removed the other in equal fashion or the game turns against the PCs (Die too easily, cured hardly ever). It's in tracking down these elements in-total and ensuring that the game remains fair and fun while performing these changes that is the difficulty.
Sure, having 23 years of gaming experience, it's going to be easier for me to do than for the GM with only 1-3 years experience (i.e., I can look at a rule and be 90% certain of its effects on game play). However, if said GM is strong-armed by players with a "play the way it's written or you'll have no group", than how does this GM get the experience necessary (which includes a certain degree of trial and error) to discover these ramifications and get it right? Granted, it may be that many players would rather play than feel they've wasted their time with a faulty experiment that is a motivator (leaving the trial and error to "professionals" and their playtesters), but this attitude is also restricting the possibility of doing something different that can also be as much (if not more!) fun.
A little anecdote of my own... When 3E came out, I started "hanging" in the WotC chat room. I got in a debate there about how most of 3rd Edition's assumptions are simply the conditions of a single world and that the game engine could be extracted and applied to a multitude of other conditions. Many of the people in this conversation thought I was nuts. However, what do we have alongside 3E? The SRD, OGL, and d20STL, which allows fans and publishers to do exactly what I was talking about (granted, they were already there, but I was as-yet unaware of that and no one in the chat room at that time seemed to know either or simply didn't mention it).
It's kind of ironic that one of the people that steadfastly argued against what I was saying turned around 3 years later and released a highly-divergent setting (one that is growing in popularity due to its divergence). Not that I hold a grudge against said fan-turned-designer, I just found it humorous that things turned out that way. (And, yes, said person does post on these boards, so I won't name him specifically, but he knows who he is... )
The second group (resisting the game world's conditions) often come from the "troublemakers" I described earlier: They feigned acceptance of these conditions just to be disruptive in-game. Petty? Yes. But also a waste of my time and the time of my fellow players, and often the cause of situations akin to "we'll pretend events C, E, and G from the last 3 sessions never happened" because C, E and G are the direct result of disruption rather than cooperative story-making.
A comparible anecdote of my own was a player that joined us while we were still using many of the Player's Options for 2E. Granted, the "main group" usually just added a few little tweaks and twists, but this guy went all-out with some of his choices. Throughout character creation, I constantly asked, "Are you sure? Is this what you want?" He seemed commited to his choices, which all centered around RP-hindrances and mechanical-boons. Later, when he started playing with the group, he came to realize that when we said we were more story-focused then combat-focused, we really meant it, and therefore all of his hindrances effected him far more than his mechanical gains ever benefited him (to which I believe that this was the intent of many of 2E's rules, although it was presumptive that everyone played that way, which was obviously incorrect).
"You folks are to advanced for me," was the reason he gave for leaving. I must admit to a little bit of disappointment, as I'd have hoped that he might have just reconsidered his character choices and made something more viable to the setting. But, in the end, it was his choice to leave, and I passed his name on to a few other people whom I felt his style was more compatible with (and thus far, to my knowledge, they've been gaming happily ever after).
By comparison, I had another individual join us that was rather routine with some of his actions, typically starting bar fights and a few instances of grand larceny. I allowed it to go at first, figuring the guy was having fun, but eventually there came a point where his exploits were having a detrimental effect on the rest of the group: 90% of a night was spent resolving a bar fight (which I usually had to stat-out on the fly), while the rest of the party (wanting to move forward in the plot, investigate, search, interogate, etc.) were sitting around being bored. Finally, after the 3rd instance, I pulled out a few high level Bounty Hunters that were looking for him. The player immediately got mad because I had determined that his actions (fighting, theft, etc.) would have ramifications (a bounty put upon him, arrest, interdiction from the Church, trial, and punishment) and stormed off never to return with an attitude reminescent of the "I'm taking my toys and going home" attitude of a small child.
And, of course, there was much rejoicing.
This has got to be one of the most brilliant comparisons of the difference between CRPGs and table-top RPGs I've ever seen.WayneLigon said:
Hmmm... I'd say my own difficulties stem from the fact that my setting was already so radically different from a standard 2E campaign, although 90% was simply a mix of various elements found in different 2E sources (most notibly being a single premise from the Shaman accessory that inspired an entire cosmic-condition that shaped the game's themes and premises, but toss in Al'Qadim Sorcery, PO:S&P Psionics + Dark Sun expansions as a central feature of the setting rather than magic, Planescape's "Belief=Power" theme meshing splendedly with the Shaman concept that inspired the setting to begin with, etc.). Many of 3E's assumptions (such as Clerical channeling of Positive/Negative Energy based on alignment, free magic for Wizards leveling, Sorcerers spontaneously generating magic, Psionics new magicky-feel, the level of magic and availability as part of the rules, etc.) was all in contradiction to what we had built. It was tempting to stick with 2E (since the mechanics were 99% complete), but the actual improvement regarding mechanics (i.e., the d20 System) was too good to ignore or dismiss. I knew conversion would improve my game if I could get the concepts to mesh well with the mechanics, and that hasn't been the easiest of tasks (although, admittedly, a career, constant relocation due to contracting, and 3 kids have likely been the primary reason for it taking so long to complete, and hanging out at message boards and posting thesis-long replies doesn't help eitherbarsoomcore said:
).However, my reference earlier wasn't so much about that but rather about the balance between different elements. For instance, I feel that death-cures are too readily available in 3E. However, their availability in the Core Rules is balanced against a multitude of insta-death effects that are also present (and which I also feel are too readily available, particularly for the GM). Thus, to reduce, restrict, or remove one, you must be sure you have also reduced, restricted or removed the other in equal fashion or the game turns against the PCs (Die too easily, cured hardly ever). It's in tracking down these elements in-total and ensuring that the game remains fair and fun while performing these changes that is the difficulty.
Sure, having 23 years of gaming experience, it's going to be easier for me to do than for the GM with only 1-3 years experience (i.e., I can look at a rule and be 90% certain of its effects on game play). However, if said GM is strong-armed by players with a "play the way it's written or you'll have no group", than how does this GM get the experience necessary (which includes a certain degree of trial and error) to discover these ramifications and get it right? Granted, it may be that many players would rather play than feel they've wasted their time with a faulty experiment that is a motivator (leaving the trial and error to "professionals" and their playtesters), but this attitude is also restricting the possibility of doing something different that can also be as much (if not more!) fun.
A little anecdote of my own... When 3E came out, I started "hanging" in the WotC chat room. I got in a debate there about how most of 3rd Edition's assumptions are simply the conditions of a single world and that the game engine could be extracted and applied to a multitude of other conditions. Many of the people in this conversation thought I was nuts. However, what do we have alongside 3E? The SRD, OGL, and d20STL, which allows fans and publishers to do exactly what I was talking about (granted, they were already there, but I was as-yet unaware of that and no one in the chat room at that time seemed to know either or simply didn't mention it).
It's kind of ironic that one of the people that steadfastly argued against what I was saying turned around 3 years later and released a highly-divergent setting (one that is growing in popularity due to its divergence). Not that I hold a grudge against said fan-turned-designer, I just found it humorous that things turned out that way. (And, yes, said person does post on these boards, so I won't name him specifically, but he knows who he is...
)Well, of the first group (not interested in the parameters), these folks are usually "filtered out" prior to entering the game. The feeling is often mutual and no one begrudges anyone else for it, and we part happily in pursuit of those game elements that interest us most (which, as far as I'm concerned, is how it should be).
The second group (resisting the game world's conditions) often come from the "troublemakers" I described earlier: They feigned acceptance of these conditions just to be disruptive in-game. Petty? Yes. But also a waste of my time and the time of my fellow players, and often the cause of situations akin to "we'll pretend events C, E, and G from the last 3 sessions never happened" because C, E and G are the direct result of disruption rather than cooperative story-making.
A comparible anecdote of my own was a player that joined us while we were still using many of the Player's Options for 2E. Granted, the "main group" usually just added a few little tweaks and twists, but this guy went all-out with some of his choices. Throughout character creation, I constantly asked, "Are you sure? Is this what you want?" He seemed commited to his choices, which all centered around RP-hindrances and mechanical-boons. Later, when he started playing with the group, he came to realize that when we said we were more story-focused then combat-focused, we really meant it, and therefore all of his hindrances effected him far more than his mechanical gains ever benefited him (to which I believe that this was the intent of many of 2E's rules, although it was presumptive that everyone played that way, which was obviously incorrect).
"You folks are to advanced for me," was the reason he gave for leaving. I must admit to a little bit of disappointment, as I'd have hoped that he might have just reconsidered his character choices and made something more viable to the setting. But, in the end, it was his choice to leave, and I passed his name on to a few other people whom I felt his style was more compatible with (and thus far, to my knowledge, they've been gaming happily ever after).
By comparison, I had another individual join us that was rather routine with some of his actions, typically starting bar fights and a few instances of grand larceny. I allowed it to go at first, figuring the guy was having fun, but eventually there came a point where his exploits were having a detrimental effect on the rest of the group: 90% of a night was spent resolving a bar fight (which I usually had to stat-out on the fly), while the rest of the party (wanting to move forward in the plot, investigate, search, interogate, etc.) were sitting around being bored. Finally, after the 3rd instance, I pulled out a few high level Bounty Hunters that were looking for him. The player immediately got mad because I had determined that his actions (fighting, theft, etc.) would have ramifications (a bounty put upon him, arrest, interdiction from the Church, trial, and punishment) and stormed off never to return with an attitude reminescent of the "I'm taking my toys and going home" attitude of a small child.
And, of course, there was much rejoicing.
Belen
Legend
BN: I have had some similar experiences since the advent of 3e. Mainly, some players use the rules as an excuse to avoid roleplay entirely, such as "I'm a fighter, I cannot be diplomatic" etc.
And I keep having to boot players who would rather solve an RP situation with a die roll, which is highly annoying. Rolling should not be a crutch and I see too many instances of hiding behind numbers in order to get past the RP and on to combat.
The RP skills are the only major failing I see with the ruleset, but also contribute to the "culture" or mindset of many of the newest players and more than a few of the powergamers from 2e who can use this particular ruleset more effectively than rulesets that were not as complete.
Also, I think there are a large number of people who use very permissive published worlds as an excuse to try and argue against homebrews. Ever had an LG player in your game. They try to change the game to LG standards at every chance.
Why? Because the mechanics/ crunch is very prevalent in WOTC worlds and they allow player to do everything written by WOTC.
I wish Wizards would come out with a world that had restrictions rather than making every world as permissive as possible. Then maybe these newer players would accept restrictions because "that's the way the world works."
And I do not mean arbitrary restrictions. I just mean the ability to have slightly different races or restrict classes etc without the need to endure complaints.
Also, I think that WOTC and others have talked about the GM railroading so much while promoting the 3e rules that their is an idea that players have to defend the "rules" because a GM is out to get them.
Way too much player vs. GM attitude these days.
And I keep having to boot players who would rather solve an RP situation with a die roll, which is highly annoying. Rolling should not be a crutch and I see too many instances of hiding behind numbers in order to get past the RP and on to combat.
The RP skills are the only major failing I see with the ruleset, but also contribute to the "culture" or mindset of many of the newest players and more than a few of the powergamers from 2e who can use this particular ruleset more effectively than rulesets that were not as complete.
Also, I think there are a large number of people who use very permissive published worlds as an excuse to try and argue against homebrews. Ever had an LG player in your game. They try to change the game to LG standards at every chance.
Why? Because the mechanics/ crunch is very prevalent in WOTC worlds and they allow player to do everything written by WOTC.
I wish Wizards would come out with a world that had restrictions rather than making every world as permissive as possible. Then maybe these newer players would accept restrictions because "that's the way the world works."
And I do not mean arbitrary restrictions. I just mean the ability to have slightly different races or restrict classes etc without the need to endure complaints.
Also, I think that WOTC and others have talked about the GM railroading so much while promoting the 3e rules that their is an idea that players have to defend the "rules" because a GM is out to get them.
Way too much player vs. GM attitude these days.
Similar Threads
