The Culture of Third Edition- Good or Bad?

[barsoomcore]

Pardon me? I was never talking about you or really even read any of your posts. I just ran across this thread today and was replying to some things Bendris Noulg said. I didn't mean to insult anyone in specific, only a specific style of DM'ing I don't like.

Pardon me? You described a type of person and said you think they're jerks. Since I happen to fit the description you gave, by extension, you think I'm jerk.

I realise I'm jumping on your head for something you didn't ACTUALLY say, but I'm doing it to make a point -- you're painting with a broad brush, and you're getting paint on me. If you don't want to be insulting, then either narrow your brush or don't apply such insulting terms to those you're painting.

I'm doing the same to you, KM, I know. There's just a lot of generalizing going on in this thread and I find discussions more interesting when they focus on more, er, focussed stuff.

That was going to make a lot more sense when I started typing.

Anyway, KM, you and I are in total agreement, for the most part -- there's just more of those really big brushes getting used in your posts, and I think it's hurting your reasoning.

Some of us agree on the following, I think:

Not everybody likes the same sort of games.
Everybody ought to play the sort of games they like.
It's not a stupid idea to sometimes try something you're not sure if you like or not.
Just because somebody likes or dislikes something you feel differently about doesn't make them (or you) stupid or a jerk.
Except Julie Andrews. If you dislike Julie Andrews, you're a jerk. And Golden Retriever puppies.

Corrollaries:
Find out what sort of game a DM is running before you decide to play it.
Decide what kind of game you're running before you recruit players -- unless you're willing to change things according to player ideas.
Watch Mary Poppins.

Did I miss anything?

 

[barsoomcore]

As a note: Any DM who tells prospective players that his campaign is "D&D" and says nothing more about it should not be surprised if players get cranky when they discover it's "D&D plus a zillion houserules I cooked up."

Barsoom is not advertised as "D&D". It uses D&D rules, but certainly nobody came to the campaign thinking they could play a Druid.

Indeed, I advertised one campaign as "Just D&D" precisely because for people used to playing with me and my mad imaginings, the idea of me running an ordinary D&D campaign was pretty crazy.

 

[Ulrick]

Good Culture? Bad Culture?

It doesn't matter.

Just play.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

This isn't side-stepping the issue, because that is not the issue. Again, no one is making you change to accomodate them. Again, this is a straw man argument.

Let's go back over the statements here...

Me: Now, can someone explain why on Earth anyone would spend that much time building and running a game they don't like just for the sake of catering to every little whim or fancy that a player comes up with?

You: <First Point Removed> Second, the DM spends that much time building a campaign setting and plot because, presumably, they enjoy doing it. If it stops being fun for them, they should give up the reigns to someone who will have fun doing it, I think. This is assuming that the group is compatible to begin with, of course.

So, yes, you are side-stepping the issue because you aren't answering the question. So I'll ask it again: If I have a table with three happy, fun-havin' players that understand the campaign world and its conditions, why should I change the game to something they and I won't like because a new player wants to play a member of a non-existant race?

Never mind, I'll answer it: Only an absolute fool would change the game because one hard-headed soon-to-be-ex-player isn't worth changing the campaign for.

No, I believe that the players play the game, and the DM runs the game, and whatever helps them have fun is okay by me. There isn't a struggle for power, but there are things that are "in the game" and things that are "not in the game," and if something is standard in the game, but it's not in your game, when you're soliciting new players, that an explanation should not be beyond the scope of requests.

An explanation? Sure. But you've already made it clear that, in your opinion, "they don't fit" is not an acceptable reason, and you've also made it clear that such an answer is, in your view, the sign of a poor GM who hasn't thought things through.

'm sorry, barsoomcore, if you feel insulted -- I actually have mad respect for you and the game you run. It wasn't my desire to paint you as some iron-fisted overlord of d20's, and I wasn't specifically targeting you. Your group is okay with not having an explanation, and it works for you guys, and you don't need to feel guilty about it. But not everyone is comfortable with that level, and not everyone has to be. You're okay with people saying that "level of authority" (you saying "It is what it is, either take it or leave it") is not cool with them, and leaving the game. Some others seem to think that not accepting that authority is tantamount to throwing a hissy fit, and that 3e specifically encourages this non-acceptance, and that it is somehow something that should be quashed out of the game. That's what I've got a problem with.

A problem with this statement: It's back peddling, meaning that this wasn't your stance earlier. Rather than saying, "you want an explaination", your stance was more akin to "not having a reason I am willing to accept is poor GMing". Really, do you think we'd be on the 9th (10th) page of this thread if your statements earlier came across as this reasonable?

[Edit: Only 7 pages? I thought this thread was longer... Maybe it's just dragging on forever...]

Someone not liking my game because of certain conditions and leaving it isn't throwing a hissy fit; he's moving on to find a game he better fits.

Telling me I'm a poor GM because they choose not to accept the reason given for certain conditions is throwing a hissy fit and will often get the person booted before they can even consider looking for another group.

See the difference?

Except that if the players aren't fans of DM's ousting something on a whim (which "I don't like them," is), then they aren't going to trust the DM, and they aren't going to be compatible with each other. If the players do trust the DM not to oust something on a whim, they're suspicious from the start. If they just don't care if the DM would oust something on a whim, then they're not the type of player we're talking about.

Of course not. Any time a player chooses not to trust their GM, their's bound to be a problem. Granted, there are a lot of GMs out there that suck, and there's plenty of reason for a player to be "apprehensive" of some changes. However, the GM should be given the chance to prove that things are on the "up and up" rather than just being written off because "elves don't fit" or some other (extremely trivial) reason.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I realise I'm jumping on your head for something you didn't ACTUALLY say, but I'm doing it to make a point -- you're painting with a broad brush, and you're getting paint on me.

That about sums up 9/10th of the debates on this forum, don't it?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

A GM can make his settings as unique as he wants, but to prevent misleading players perhaps he should just refer to it as [setting name] d20, or [setting name] RPG or something. If you didn't call your Barsoom game "D&D" (which I presume that you are, since that appears to be part of the problem from what I can see) then probably there wouldn't be as much confusion/resentment about all the restrictions.

Actually, I think it's the opposite: People assume D&D when this is, in fact, a forum called General RPG Discussion.

In addition, the previous Editions have a previously established standard that divergence from the Core is still D&D (Planescape, Birthright, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, etc.), so the idea that D&D means Core Only as an "official" view is, again, something new to the "3E Culture". (Yes, I know some folks, including EGG, held the opposite view, but how do you argue with a half-dozen published settings with the D&D logo on it? Come to think of it, don't Ravenloft and Kalamar still have the D&D logo? Why, yes, they do... And Athas.org still has the 3E logo on it... And the recent Dark Sun article wasn't a d20 Minigame, as Spelljammer was, but a "D&D setting update".)

So, there are, in my view, two problems...

1. The assumption that any time a thread begins regarding fantasy elements, D&D is incorrectly used as a standard of comparison.
2. The assumption that anytime anyone says D&D that it's in reference to the specific conditions of the d20 System established in the Core Rulebooks.

For instance, in plugging for my 4th Group, I'm posting it as the "Aedon RPG". However, for me and my friends, we still call it "D&D night". Why? Because the two are one and the same. See, the "default setting" is just that: "default". It's like when you buy a car and there are channels preset on the car stereo. You change the settings, the bass level, the treble, possibly balance and fade, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a stereo. So we don't exactly see Aedon as not being D&D, but rather D&D with conditions that aren't "default".

(Well, that and Aedon is being "fan published" under the OGL and it would be, technically, illegal to post it as a D&D game, but that's an entirely different can of worms, ain't it?)

 

[d4]

2. The assumption that anytime anyone says D&D that it's in reference to the specific conditions of the d20 System established in the Core Rulebooks.

i agree that one can change the default assumptions of D&D and still call it D&D. however, if one is trying to hold a discussion with someone else who has a different set of assumptions, then things can get messy. that's why in these online discussions it is useful to label "D&D with the default assumptions of the core rulebooks" as "D&D" -- it's something everyone can agree on. if one diverges from the core then that needs to be explicitly stated or else things can get confusing.

for example, someone like barsoomcore could say, "In D&D, humans are the only playable race." -- and that is absolutely true for his home game of D&D. of course, such a statement will seem confusing and wrong to the many of the rest of us, because it doesn't match our assumptions of D&D. obviously he is better stating, "In my home game of D&D..."

when one just states "something is like X in D&D" the assumption everyone should make is "in the core rules" because without other information it is the only baseline we know we all share.

 

[trilobite]

Based on the posts in several threads that I have read for BelenUmeria, he is certainly not above trying to help a Player find a character concept they can play. I think part of his current grief stems from players that are unwilling to compromise.

So, while your advice is good advice in a general manner, it might not be applicable to every situation.

However, you can read my above posts to see that there are also times when I, as a DM, will not compromise. If you are stuck on playing a Dwarf in my game, and you will not consider other options, you are stuck. I have created races that might fill that niche for you, but if they don't, then your character concept won't work. This is the same if somebody wants to come to the table and wants to play a 6 armed bug race and the game is a Core Rulebook only game. I also would not expect to see much leeway on playing a horse-mounted, heavy armor cavalier in a greek era mythology game.

Even with compromise, some character concepts are not going to work and if the player wants to play in the game, then they would do better to shelve the concept for a different game.

Of course, that brings up the issue once again of what *exactly* is DnD? Is it the rules as written in the Core rulebooks? Is anything that deviates from the Core rulebooks better described as D20 Fantasy X?

Oh agree totally and I didn't mean that a DM has to compromise his vision of his/her campaign world just because a player had to play X race or class. I was just trying to point out that players can add to a campaign world too. Input from players is a big source of neat ideas and it should not be disregarded.

 

[barsoomcore]

Input from players is a big source of neat ideas and it should not be disregarded.

Yes. My players provide me with endless amusement as they attempt to justify their pathetic desires for self-fulfillment, or try to wiggle out of the fate I have determined for them.

Good players are those who accept that they exist for the amusement of the DM, and whole-heartedly submit themselves to his will.

I have spoken. I am the DM. My word is law. Fear me.

If you have questions, prepare for bitter, crushing disappointment.

 

[trilobite]

Except Julie Andrews. If you dislike Julie Andrews, you're a jerk. And Golden Retriever puppies.


Watch Mary Poppins.

That is exactly what this thread needs!!! Thanks BC!!

I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and relax abit. It is getting abit serious in here!