The Culture of Third Edition- Good or Bad?

[rounser]

KM, you still haven't addressed the "Dragonlance response". Would you seriously put halflings into Krynn?

 

[wingsandsword]

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".

I think this is fueled by the d20/OGL aspect of the "3e" culture.

In 3e, we have seen the following "Official" settings:
Dragonlance
Greyhawk
Forgotten Realms
Kalamar (I'll be nice and acknowledge it, although many do not since it's not from WotC)
Eberron

The first Four are classical fantasy settings, roughly the same general Tolkienish concepts. The fifth is something new, different, and quite honestly, very controversial. Eberron is very controversial (just read these boards or any other set of RPG boards, like GamingReport or Wizards.com) because while it doesn't remove options (not that I have seen), but because it challenges some of the basic assumptions people have of what is "D&D". (Oh, when I was talking about no paladins in 2e, I was talking about Dark Sun, which didn't have Paladins, and was as far afield as D&D has ever gotten in terms of changing things)

In 2e, official materials presumed that all D&D settings are part of an overarching cosmology which makes infinite crossovers possible via Spelljammer and Planescape. Dark Sun was particularly hard to reach, and Dragonlance sealed itself off for 5th Age, but the general model was there that D&D was one solid multiverse and everything was parts of a whole.

Now, thanks to the d20 system and the OGL, lots of fantasy themed games have been released which are not D&D and step far away from the basic conceptions of D&D. If somebody was running an OGL Ancients, Testament or even Conan game they might not refer to it as "D&D" except maybe when trying to explain it to someone only vaguely aware of gaming "Yeah mom, we're playing D&D tonight.". However, to some people "D&D" is used generically by some to refer to anything fantasy using the d20 system, and by others to refer to the Official WotC D&D books and things directly compatible with them.

If someone says "I'm running a D&D game", I presume it's a game in one of the official worlds, or something in a similar style with similar elements. If someone says "I'm running a game, it's in a homebrew world using the d20 system", I don't have a lot of preconceptions of what the game is and what the setting is.

I think this dichotomy is a real part of the "Third Edition Culture", "D&D" is presumed to include all the core classes and races with at most minor modifications (or one or two may be removed or changed at the very most, ala Halflings/Kender). New classes may be added, but subtracting is poorly tolerated. However, the gloves are off if you just call it "d20", and as long as it uses just the same basic mechanics people will accept almost anything (or at least I would).

I am stepping away from the issue of GM'ing styles; I think there is too much difference in philosophy and style of roleplaying and gamemastering to do much more than Agree to Disagree in this thread. Suffice it to say, players and GM's should have the same general philosophy before gaming together, and if they don't, they should seek others to game with.

 

[Gothmog]

For Kamikaze Midget and those in that camp, if you were a player coming into the following worlds, would you find it unreasonable to make the following demands on the DM?

1) In a Conan/Hyborea game, insisting on playing a drow wizard.

2) In a Midnight game, insisting on playing a LG cleric of Pelor.

3) In a Scarred Lands game, insisting on playing a kender.

Hopefully you can see that a player demanding any of these three characters in these settings is being unreasonable. Why? Because those races/classes don't exist in those worlds, or are not suitable concepts for those worlds.

All three of these worlds use D&D/d20 rules, but have very different flavors and parameters that differ from core D&D. These differences and limitations are what give these worlds flavor and make them what they are- unique. If every campaign adhered slavishly to the guidelines in the PHB, every world out there would be extremely boring and identical. Heck, I guess I would be EXTREMELY unreasonable by your standards since I ONLY allow human PCs in my homebrew, and have modified all of the spellcasting classes to reflect how I want magic to work in my world. Do I have good reasons for doing this? Yes- I want my homebrew world to be different, unique, and carry my own take on fantasy rather than being the generic vanilla fantasy of the PHB. Not all of the classes, races, spells, or equipment listed in the PHB should be available in every world, because not all concepts fit into all worlds. its the DMs job to define the parameters of his world and provide his players with the options available, not to make EVERY option available.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

The problem is the question itself. There's no reason to ask it, because no one was saying you should, and the answer is obvious (as you pointed out). It's just detracting from both of our actual arguments.

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.

Well, if I've given that impression, I've surely misspoke. "They don't fit", to me, as a player, is a cop out answer, just like saying "Cuz I'm the DM." If you explain *why* they don't fit, then I am more likely to accept your judgement. If there is no reason beyond "They Don't Fit," then I am not, because that is too heavy handed and aparently arbitrary to me. I, personally, need a better answer than that. It's like the argument against Paladins in Dark Sun -- saying "they don't fit" as the only reason is not good enough for me. Tell me *why* they don't fit (no non-elemental clerical magic, you can play a noble psywarrior just as easily, etc.), and I can accept it.

As is usual, I think we're both storming at the different sides when we, at a baseline, agree, because I'm pretty sure you'd help people in general play what is fun for them (as long as what is fun for them meshes with what is fun for your group).

It's back peddling, meaning that this wasn't your stance earlier.

Well, it's been my stance all along (my opinion hasn't changed), but perhaps I did get more than a bit reckless when I was being called a hypocrite and a whiner and shooting down straw men arguments while being written off as a bad player. Funny how that can happen.

And as for specific settings that are not homebrews, in general, no, I don't find the decisions unreasonable. Because, say, to play Conan, Testament, or Dragonlance, you're not playing D&D. You're playing a game that specifically emulates literature or movies or history, and because you're having fun emulating that, you don't need the 'extra baggage.' If someone has fun emulating that, then they don't need it; if someone needs it, they don't want to emulate that. By saying "I'm playing a Final Fantasy d20 Game," I've also in essence said that I'll be obeying the general tropes of the world (no horses, philosophical metaplots, characters with spikey hair, etc.) Just like by saying "I'm playing a D&D game," by standard, refers to a game using the core three rules (and perhaps non-setting-specific supplements). People use it for other things, but people call all sodas "Coke," sometimes too. People have played Amber Diceless on D&D night, I'm sure.

For a setting that's not emulating something else, it's still mostly a matter of just establishing a flavor, and that *is* a good reason. From what I know, Midnight is a game where evil wins (more often than not), so having a champion of Good would not easily mesh with the flavor of the world. The Scarred Lands is gritty mytho-fantasy, so playing micheif makers for a laugh would not easily mesh with the flavor of the world. People who want to be moral warriors in Midnight have other viens to persue, just as people who want to make mischief in the Scarred Lands can do so and still survive with the right take on it. In this case, it's not so much the DM's job to allow everything wholeheartedly (again, a strawman argument), but to help the player play something that's fun. If someone really wants to play Midsummer Night's Dream Puck in the Scarred Lands, though, it is an immutable issue of styles not meshing, and you can part ways. This isn't the player being stubborn and storming off home, nor is it the DM being iron-fisted and arbitrary.

That said, there are some published settings that I feel are too narrow in their definitions. OA, for one, identifying many of the D&D classes as "western," (which is kind of insane since we're not supposed to identify the Monk as "eastern," for instance) has got the wrong of it, and while it is in almost all respects a stupendous and useful supplement, that's one of the chioces that I deeply disagree with, and it would lead me to not playing an "OA" game, in all likelihood. Of course, that doesn't preclude including what's in it in an otherwise 'normal' D&D campaign, or in even having an 'oriental feel' to a D&D campaign.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Kalamar (I'll be nice and acknowledge it, although many do not since it's not from WotC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Kalamar a licensed product during 2E?

Oh, when I was talking about no paladins in 2e, I was talking about Dark Sun, which didn't have Paladins, and was as far afield as D&D has ever gotten in terms of changing things

Ah... It was the "2E and Dark Sun" that confused me... No problem.

Now, thanks to the d20 system and the OGL, lots of fantasy themed games have been released which are not D&D and step far away from the basic conceptions of D&D. If somebody was running an OGL Ancients, Testament or even Conan game they might not refer to it as "D&D" except maybe when trying to explain it to someone only vaguely aware of gaming "Yeah mom, we're playing D&D tonight.". However, to some people "D&D" is used generically by some to refer to anything fantasy using the d20 system, and by others to refer to the Official WotC D&D books and things directly compatible with them.

That's basically what I'm talking about in my last post, yes. Generally, I see two other forums here: Rules and House Rules. The Rules Forum, by its very nature, is "for D&D Rules questions and queries about character design/tweaking." I consider that forum to be "sacred ground" for the Core Rules. Anyone going in their waving about Homebrew stuff is likely in for a world of trouble, and, I will admit, deservably so (especially if their posts are negative). By the same token, the House Rules forum is distinctly of the opposite nature, and anyone waving the Core Flag around in there is likewise in for trouble.

Here, though, I feel we should be able to just relax about the whole issue. Both are here, have been here since... Well, I've been posting here just over 2 years, and they've both been here the entire time, so I'm going to assume since Eric opened the forums to begin with. The "Core Game" wouldn't exist if it wasn't able to grow and change, and the homebrews/variants wouldn't be here without the Core Rules to be built off of. They need each other, and are, in essence, one and the same. Kind of a Law/Chaos thing; One provides stability, the other change and growth.

(Heh... I half-hoped that WotC releasing it's book of "official variants", Unearthed Arcana, might have mellowed some of this, but that seems not to be the case.)

I am stepping away from the issue of GM'ing styles; I think there is too much difference in philosophy and style of roleplaying and gamemastering to do much more than Agree to Disagree in this thread. Suffice it to say, players and GM's should have the same general philosophy before gaming together, and if they don't, they should seek others to game with.

It is getting this way, yeah... I think the issue isn't so much about What Is Available vs What Should Be Available anymore, though, but has become one of Campaign Concepts vs Player Expectations. I know that I'm mostly still involved because of comments akin to:

-GMs should put player wants before campaign concepts (which denies the GM the ability to build a divergent world that he will enjoy running as much as the players will enjoy playing)

-GMs that don't include certain Races, Classes, Prestige Classes, etc., are tight-fisted (which is little more than giving the GM the same tight-fisted treatment that is being complained about)

-Assumptions about what my table, Barsoomcore's table, Gothmog's table, or any other homebrewer's table is like (which is presumptious and arrogant on the part of those making the assumptions as they have no way of knowing what our games are really like)

And, to be honest, the first two I could probably hand-wave away and ignore easily enough (having been able to for years), though one can always hope that, perhaps, such attitudes might change.

It's the last one that grates my nerves the most, though... Very much.

 

[rounser]

Because, say, to play...Dragonlance, you're not playing D&D.

Thank you, no more questions.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Well, if I've given that impression, I've surely misspoke. "They don't fit", to me, as a player, is a cop out answer, just like saying "Cuz I'm the DM." If you explain *why* they don't fit, then I am more likely to accept your judgement. If there is no reason beyond "They Don't Fit," then I am not, because that is too heavy handed and aparently arbitrary to me. I, personally, need a better answer than that. It's like the argument against Paladins in Dark Sun -- saying "they don't fit" as the only reason is not good enough for me. Tell me *why* they don't fit (no non-elemental clerical magic, you can play a noble psywarrior just as easily, etc.), and I can accept it.

Okay, as I know that none of my players do the 'net thing, I'm going to post an Aedon Spoiler (if you live near Cape Coral, Fl, and are interested in playing in an "Aedon RPG" game, don't read):

Spoiler

I don't have Elves on Aedon because the are not native to Aedon. They are, however, native to another world and are, through a post-d20-evolved version of SpellJammer that I call The Azure Sea (a new Transitive Plane) about to stage a major invasion, resulting in a massive war that, in the simplest terms, will be focused on the followers of "deities" (Elves) versus the children of "God" (The race of Man, which includes Humans, Halflings, Dwarves, and Gnomes). In addition, the Elves are actually a thrall-race (Genetically and Psionicly enslaved) under the domination of the Zhival (Eden Studio's Liber Bestarius, although originally intended to be Illithid prior to Mind Flayers being removed from the "official release" of the SRD).

However, from a player viewpoint, there is no such thing as an Elf. Why? Because they've never existed on Aedon. Ever. And creating a reason for them not to exist beyond that would be, to me, akin to being deceitful to the players (i.e., how do I "remove" something that was "never there" when they are, in fact, somewhere else but have never been to Aedon?). It will then be a primary campaign focus to discover the invasion, unite those that can fight against them, defend Aedon, uncover the "true" rulers of the Elves, and then defeat them (possibly freeing the Elves or ensuring a conflict that will span ages).

In short, "They don't fit Aedon" is the truth of the matter and anything else is either lying (which I am loath to do if there isn't a specific in-game reason for it, akin to a false rumor, half-remembered legend, or completely mixed up myth) or giving away part of the plot ("They exist, but not here"). The later brings serious baggage with it: It opens the door for a player who wants to be "the only elf" or "the exception" or "the strange, long-eared infant found in the woods". Over all, "they don't fit" is the best answer possible: It's true and eliminates potential pestering from new group members that, quite frankly, I'd simply prefer not having to deal with.

And, to be honest, I came up with the idea of making them an "alien" race when two of my players both said "Good, I hate Elves" upon hearing that the world didn't have Elves... That inspired me to use Elves as a major enemy-race as I determined that they would very much enjoy seeing them as evil villains (especially with game-play heading in the direction of Mass Combat via Fields of Blood).

As is usual, I think we're both storming at the different sides when we, at a baseline, agree, because I'm pretty sure you'd help people in general play what is fun for them (as long as what is fun for them meshes with what is fun for your group).

Absolutely!

Well, it's been my stance all along (my opinion hasn't changed), but perhaps I did get more than a bit reckless when I was being called a hypocrite and a whiner and shooting down straw men arguments while being written off as a bad player. Funny how that can happen.

Kinda like being "tight fisted" over a "precious campaign" that is really "poorly thought out"? Some strawmen on both sides of the fence, I'd say.

And as for specific settings that are not homebrews, in general, no, I don't find the decisions unreasonable. Because, say, to play Conan, Testament, or Dragonlance, you're not playing D&D. You're playing a game that specifically emulates literature or movies or history, and because you're having fun emulating that, you don't need the 'extra baggage.' If someone has fun emulating that, then they don't need it; if someone needs it, they don't want to emulate that. By saying "I'm playing a Final Fantasy d20 Game," I've also in essence said that I'll be obeying the general tropes of the world (no horses, philosophical metaplots, characters with spikey hair, etc.) Just like by saying "I'm playing a D&D game," by standard, refers to a game using the core three rules (and perhaps non-setting-specific supplements). People use it for other things, but people call all sodas "Coke," sometimes too. People have played Amber Diceless on D&D night, I'm sure.

Actually, the Core Books have more than a bit of spikey hair, don't you think?

And my dad (aka, "Pa, the educated redneck") called Coke "Sody" (don't ask, it's a southern Illinois thing... I think...).

For a setting that's not emulating something else, it's still mostly a matter of just establishing a flavor, and that *is* a good reason. From what I know, Midnight is a game where evil wins (more often than not), so having a champion of Good would not easily mesh with the flavor of the world. The Scarred Lands is gritty mytho-fantasy, so playing micheif makers for a laugh would not easily mesh with the flavor of the world. People who want to be moral warriors in Midnight have other viens to persue, just as people who want to make mischief in the Scarred Lands can do so and still survive with the right take on it. In this case, it's not so much the DM's job to allow everything wholeheartedly (again, a strawman argument), but to help the player play something that's fun. If someone really wants to play Midsummer Night's Dream Puck in the Scarred Lands, though, it is an immutable issue of styles not meshing, and you can part ways. This isn't the player being stubborn and storming off home, nor is it the DM being iron-fisted and arbitrary.

Well, if the player gets mad and huffy, than yes, it's being stubborn and storming off. More or less, it's the player's attitude about it ("Oh, I see..." vs "WTF?! Why not!?") that counts.

That said, there are some published settings that I feel are too narrow in their definitions. OA, for one, identifying many of the D&D classes as "western," (which is kind of insane since we're not supposed to identify the Monk as "eastern," for instance) has got the wrong of it, and while it is in almost all respects a stupendous and useful supplement, that's one of the chioces that I deeply disagree with, and it would lead me to not playing an "OA" game, in all likelihood. Of course, that doesn't preclude including what's in it in an otherwise 'normal' D&D campaign, or in even having an 'oriental feel' to a D&D campaign.

I think most of these comments are intended for two reasons.

1. Not a part of Rokugan, which is acceptable to me; i.e., Rokugan supplements would have a harder time being dual-system since the d20 Races, Classes, and Feats in OA all have Lot5R counter-parts...

2. "Western" holds true for Forgotten Realms where OA is the baseline (with minor changes) for Kara-Tur (FRCS actually describes Monks, or rather, their traditions, as coming from the East, IIRC, so the two coincide in that regard). It also suggests for Kara-Tur, IIRC, things like removing the Shugenja Class completely and renaming Shaman as Shugenja because that's more "historically/mythically" accurate and closer to the 1E Kara-Tur (which, when expanded to a box set, became a part of Toril).

Now, the reason why we aren't supposed to consider Monks as "Eastern" in the default setting (Greyhawk) is actually related to the history of Oerth: There were two empires in the west that, in a war of great and powerful magic, laid waste to their lands (the southern is now the Sea of Dust, I believe, and the northern one is now a kind of barren, broken land with few resources and populated by wild barbarians). This mass destruction drove the survivors of these lands into the East, where another group of people already lived. It is this third group of people (whom were the Crimson Brotherhood in the original Gazetteer, don't know if that changed in later revisions of the setting) that the Monk class originates. So, in the default setting, the Monk isn't considered "Eastern" because the people of the West actually migrated into the East and there's nowhere east of that to come from.

I'm sure someone more "up to date" with the setting can probably give more detail (as well as cultural names); I've not looked at a GH supplement since the initial 2E conversion Greyhawk Adventures, so my GH lore is a bit rusty, but I'm fairly sure I got the general events correct.

 

[BSF]

I think the issue isn't so much about What Is Available vs What Should Be Available anymore, though, but has become one of Campaign Concepts vs Player Expectations. I know that I'm mostly still involved because of comments akin to:

-GMs should put player wants before campaign concepts (which denies the GM the ability to build a divergent world that he will enjoy running as much as the players will enjoy playing)

-GMs that don't include certain Races, Classes, Prestige Classes, etc., are tight-fisted (which is little more than giving the GM the same tight-fisted treatment that is being complained about)

-Assumptions about what my table, Barsoomcore's table, Gothmog's table, or any other homebrewer's table is like (which is presumptious and arrogant on the part of those making the assumptions as they have no way of knowing what our games are really like)

And, to be honest, the first two I could probably hand-wave away and ignore easily enough (having been able to for years), though one can always hope that, perhaps, such attitudes might change.

It's the last one that grates my nerves the most, though... Very much.

Ok, I can understand your perspective on this. Though, as a homebrewer with a little zany world of my own, the third point is the one I can most easily dismiss. Why? Because it is an assumption and is not based on any real perception. What it might show me is the bad experiences that somebody else has experienced. I'm not the Greatest DM in the World, but it does sound like I run a better game than some people.

So, let's look at the other two arguments because they seem to have more relevance to what Belen_Umeria originally posted about.

I do believe that there is a subset of the population that represents the worst of these two points.

There are players that believe the GM should cater to their desires. For these players, the GM should be designing the game around them and it doesn't matter what the GM wants to do. These people, unfortunately, are giving other players a bad rep.

There are GM's out there that do have arbitrary rules. These are a little more insidious because they make other GMs with campaign design conditions look frighteningly arbitrary as well.

This is a potential problem for all of us if we have ever gone looking for a new game/player. The original question is asking if the latest versions of D&D foster the "bad player" mentality. Obviously, many, many of us have seen this mentality. And it is not relegated to just bad players. Bad GM's are a problem as well. The mixture of the two can sometimes make joining a new game/bringing in a new player an uncomfortable proposition.

But, this has always been the case. In Belen_Umeria's case, I think he might have had a bad string of problem players. It is not easy to grow a strong table of people that you like to game with. But, I think we know what a lot of the solution really is. It's communication.

Kamikaze, and others, advocates a very open environment where questions are asked and answered. To those of us that have encountered pushy players, this sounds like he is advocating a need to justify every design decision of a game. However, I suspect his approach is partially based around weeding out the arbitrary DMs. It is also probably based around a desire to work with the game setting and trying to understand the setting helps.

Bendris, and some others, is advocating that players should trust the GM to create an interesting, viable setting. For those of us that put work into creating settings with a unique vision and personality, it is frustrating to have somebody that wants to join the game start demanding justifications for all the changes. Some changes might be to address specific balance issues. Some might be completely arbitrary to provide a different vision of a game. Some might be part of a Big Secret that is part of the core mystery to a campaign. When we hear somebody immediately demanding explanations, it makes us wonder if we are also going to have rules arguements and discussions over RP requirements, consequences of actions, etc.

We are all tending to see the worst examples that we have seen/heard. But, I doubt that any of the homebrewers here would hesitate to work with a player to find a concept that comes alive. Heck, I have more books than most of my players. I want them to come to me with a concept first so I can help them realize that most effectively. I want to point out loopholes that they can exploit and house rules they can leverage. I want people to make an interesting character to match my (hopefully) interesting world.

Anyway, I am just rambling now. I am not sure the Culture of 3.0 is creating players with a gimme attitude. But, 3.0 has established a stronger baseline of what to expect when somebody says "Do you want to play in my DnD game?" If you want to deviate from the book standard (And I certainly see no reason not to) then you are probably going to need to be a bit more clear on your changes.

 

[BSF]

Okay, as I know that none of my players do the 'net thing, I'm going to post an Aedon Spoiler (if you live near Cape Coral, Fl, and are interested in playing in an "Aedon RPG" game, don't read):

OK, I see where Aedon and my game world have some vague parallels. Interesting.

I'm sure someone more "up to date" with the setting can probably give more detail (as well as cultural names); I've not looked at a GH supplement since the initial 2E conversion Greyhawk Adventures, so my GH lore is a bit rusty, but I'm fairly sure I got the general events correct.

Close enough, that's for sure. But, I haven't visited Greyhawk Canon since '87 or so. Hmm, maybe earlier.

 

[I'm A Banana]

1. Not a part of Rokugan, which is acceptable to me; i.e., Rokugan supplements would have a harder time being dual-system since the d20 Races, Classes, and Feats in OA all have Lot5R counter-parts...

Which relates back to the Conan/Dragonlance/Final Fantasy idea of playing a d20 game that emulates some other entertainment specifically. So people who play in Dragonlance won't really miss Halflings, because those who like to play in Dragonlance already like the world without halflings, and have a million and one other ideas to try. People who play in a Final Fantasy 7 campaign setting likewise won't miss horses, because those who like FF7 already like the world without horses, and have a million and one other ideas to try.

2. "Western" holds true for Forgotten Realms where OA is the baseline (with minor changes) for Kara-Tur (FRCS actually describes Monks, or rather, their traditions, as coming from the East, IIRC, so the two coincide in that regard). It also suggests for Kara-Tur, IIRC, things like removing the Shugenja Class completely and renaming Shaman as Shugenja because that's more "historically/mythically" accurate and closer to the 1E Kara-Tur (which, when expanded to a box set, became a part of Toril).

Well, looking at it again now, OA goes into a bit more detail on 'it doesn't fit' than some others, and I think something like the entries on pages 16 and 32 would be good additions to *any* setting. It does a pretty fine job of explaining the choices the "DM" (in this case, James Wyatt) made, and why he made them, and where people looking for similar experiences can go within the setting for them. He goes a step beyond "it doesn't fit," and that's a great thing.

Of course, I'm still free to disagree with his assumptions (I don't think that the Druid and Paladin are particularly "western" idioms, as page 32 says. I think the entire 'samurai' class could have been rolled into a variant Paladin. Etc.), but I'm more inclined to roll with the punches, and the character concepts of a noble warrior or nature-worshiping spellcaster are not invalidated in the setting.