The Culture of Third Edition- Good or Bad?

[Kormydigar]

Actually, though, this raises the question (yet again) of why a published setting (with it's own flavor) is held to a different standard than a homebrew setting (with it's own flavor)? The fact that a "professional" campaign is accepted as-is and that a GM's campaign is questioned shows a lack of trust towards the GM, and anyone that doesn't trust their GM shouldn't be at that GM's table to begin with.

Honestly, folks should just trust their GMs more... If he really does suck or is a jerk, it won't take long to figure it out. Come to think of it, "restrictions" or not, if he sucks or is a jerk, you're not going to hang out long anyways, so why make a fuss about it?

If he's good, it will work; but it can only work if the GM is given a chance to prove it and himself. In my book, good GMs with good ideas not being given that chance is a shame, and seeing campaign world conditions only in terms of "restrictions" is the primary reason for that happening.

Very well said Kudos to you

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Actually, I did type a reply to this before, but the web was acting up and it was lost...

I wonder if there is perhaps a vocal minority that enjoyed the older editions' "rule on the fly," concept? Certianly that did make it more important to trust the DM, since when there wasn't a rule, the DM had to be trusted to generate a fair one.....

The concept itself? No. If that were true, we'd likely still be playing 2E (or, at the very least, not "running" 3E/d20 games); If anything, I switched to d20 because the rules did mesh better and were more complete. However, the result of that condition (2E) was distinctly a less hostile environment in regards to changes and alterations.

3E, on the other hand, does its best to be comprehensive and balanced, and the two of these together seem more inclined to generate an atmosphere of "it works, don't change it" than anything else, particularly amongst players that have been "burned" by poor GMing habits and new players that, while possibly never having had a poor GM themselves, have read the numerous horror-stories that are presented as the inevitable and unavoidable results of rules-changes and accept that perception as fact (and thus pass it on to other new players).

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't nessecarily hold published settings to higher standards than homebrews. After all, it was a published setting's forbiddance/acceptance that started this whole thing. I'm not speaking for others, though.

It is true, though, that a published setting has more chances to earn the trust of the player. It's got feats, PrC's, history, setting info, and an entire company's funds riding on it. It's got a *shiny* hard cover. While that doesn't mean that it's nessecarily any good, it does mean that before you ever invest in it, the DM (the writer) has to answer to your demanding nature as a consumer. It's more than a post at the FLGS that says 'players wanted.' It's something presumably someone somewhere with access to capital and a publisher, thought a good amount of people would shell out $40 for. It has about 300 pages to justify itself, and only has to do it maybe 60-70% of the time (how many people buy campaign settings with the simple intent of homebrew cannibalization?). Part of the reason that a CS has it easier is because it has a lot of chances to show me that it's writer(s) are people whose rules I can happily play under.

One DM, however, pretty much has that first impression. And, I feel, my trust as a player has to be earned. I feel that the DM has to make me want to play in their game. It's not a matter of them accepting me -- it's a matter of me accepting their judgement. And I, personally, will only give someone the benefit of the doubt if they prove to me that I should. If I know nothing about them coming in, one of the best ways that they can do that is by being free with information, and telling me why they made the changes to D&D that they did.

I guess I might view it backwards from some. Whereas Bendris has an interview process for players, I'd rather have an interview process for DM's. It's my view that a single bad player ruins the game most strongly for himself, a single bad DM ruins the game most strongly for 3-5 other people he's playing with. It's much more important for me to have a good DM than to have a good player.

 

[rounser]

Actually, though, this raises the question (yet again) of why a published setting (with it's own flavor) is held to a different standard than a homebrew setting (with it's own flavor)?

He's already sidestepped that one by claiming that settings like Dragonlance aren't D&D. Now he's trying another angle by saying they have more credibility than homebrews. I wonder what he'll think of next?

 

[Belen]

I don't nessecarily hold published settings to higher standards than homebrews. After all, it was a published setting's forbiddance/acceptance that started this whole thing. I'm not speaking for others, though.

It is true, though, that a published setting has more chances to earn the trust of the player. It's got feats, PrC's, history, setting info, and an entire company's funds riding on it. It's got a *shiny* hard cover. While that doesn't mean that it's nessecarily any good, it does mean that before you ever invest in it, the DM (the writer) has to answer to your demanding nature as a consumer. It's more than a post at the FLGS that says 'players wanted.' It's something presumably someone somewhere with access to capital and a publisher, thought a good amount of people would shell out $40 for. It has about 300 pages to justify itself, and only has to do it maybe 60-70% of the time (how many people buy campaign settings with the simple intent of homebrew cannibalization?). Part of the reason that a CS has it easier is because it has a lot of chances to show me that it's writer(s) are people whose rules I can happily play under.

One DM, however, pretty much has that first impression. And, I feel, my trust as a player has to be earned. I feel that the DM has to make me want to play in their game. It's not a matter of them accepting me -- it's a matter of me accepting their judgement. And I, personally, will only give someone the benefit of the doubt if they prove to me that I should. If I know nothing about them coming in, one of the best ways that they can do that is by being free with information, and telling me why they made the changes to D&D that they did.

I guess I might view it backwards from some. Whereas Bendris has an interview process for players, I'd rather have an interview process for DM's. It's my view that a single bad player ruins the game most strongly for himself, a single bad DM ruins the game most strongly for 3-5 other people he's playing with. It's much more important for me to have a good DM than to have a good player.

Now you're throwing out your own straw man argument. A single bad player ruins the game for everyone just as does a single bad GM. I have heard FAR more stories about nightmare players than bad GMs.

Basically, your post says that a published setting has a lot of crunch that helps alleviate any restrictions on a player. You justify this setting, not in the flavor it provides, in terms of the mechanics that a group of designers created.

You completely discount most homebrews because they were created in terms of flavor rather than crunch. However, I happen to be someone who buys a lot of settings in order to mine them for my homebrew. I have a wealth of d20 information written by "designers" that is included within my game.

I ever have feats, magic items etc written by my players that have become a part of my homebrew. The worlds I create are at least as detailed at 80% of the published campaign worlds. The rules are on a web site for any player to read, including goodies like feats, templates etc.

You, as a player, want to arbitrarily decide the game that everyone must play.

However, sometimes, a GM just does not like gnomes so they do not have them in the game. In your book, that automatically makes them a bad GM.

You seem to be the type of player who would have to play the one concept that would not mesh with the rest of the party whether it is restricted or not. No clue if you are the type of player who have to ruin the game, or constantly complain if they do not get everything they want.

However, your arguments mirror the arguments that those types of players always give me whenever I say no.

 

[Rel]

I guess I might view it backwards from some. Whereas Bendris has an interview process for players, I'd rather have an interview process for DM's. It's my view that a single bad player ruins the game most strongly for himself, a single bad DM ruins the game most strongly for 3-5 other people he's playing with. It's much more important for me to have a good DM than to have a good player.

Well then this is a simple supply and demand issue that really has nothing to do with the D&D community as a whole. If, in your area, there are plenty of DM's that you can audition at will, then you have the luxury of shopping around and having them prove themselves. Presumably with so few players and so many DM's looking to run games, they'll cater more to your personal style and desires because they want to attract and retain players.

If, on the other hand, it is DM's that are in short supply, they have the option to be more choosy about the players they want to accept into their group. If a player seems too choosy or demanding about the DM altering or justifying his setting then this DM and his existing group of players should have no compunctions about telling the prospective player to take a hike. After all, there are plenty of applicants.

Which brings me back to saying again that I think this "problem" is entirely situational, if not to a particular player or group then to a small "market area" where a DM is desperately in need of players and finds himself forced to meet their demands or risk losing them. As it happens, I share the same general "market area" as Belen Umeria (I've even gotten to game with him at the last NC Game Day and probably will at future NCGD's too) but the group I'm in has been stable for the last several years. We've really not added a player for at least 7-8 years. So I can't say I've got my finger on the pulse of the DM/Player ratios around here.

I'm curious, Belen Umeria, do you think our area is oversupplied with players or DM's?

 

[Belen]

I'm curious, Belen Umeria, do you think our area is oversupplied with players or DM's?

Players. We have a definite overabundance of people who want to game in the triangle. I can name at least 3 yahoo groups dedicated to local area gamers with somewhere between 80-150 members each.

We also have a wealth of universities in the area, so we have a lot of younger gamers mixed with older. I usually get between 10-20 replies when I begin looking to add a member to my group.

The only turnover I've had has been due to people moving out of the area to pursue jobs or post-bachelors degrees.

Luckily, the last person we had join the group was a fellow EnWorlder (lola) who I met through the NC Game Day. That is working out very well. While she is a new to the game, she is a very good roleplayer.

Of course, I have found that recruitment in the area can be seasonal. The best time to add new players to a game is either in the spring or summer months. Never had trouble finding players, but more are available to choose from during that time.

I think it would be cool if a EnWorld NC group could get together for a game on a bimonthly basis. I wouldn't mind seeing if we could get five ot six Enworlders for a game every other week on a weeknight....

 

[Rel]

Players. We have a definite overabundance of people who want to game in the triangle. I can name at least 3 yahoo groups dedicated to local area gamers with somewhere between 80-150 members each.

If that is the case then I'm somewhat at a loss as to why you perceive a problem with players being demanding. It seems to me that if you want to place certain restrictions in your campaign that pare down the options from the core rules, all you'd have to do is post at one of the yahoo groups as to what sort of game you are looking to run (including the restrictions) and players willing to abide by those restrictions would flock to the game. You'd still have to cull out those who's personalities or gaming style were not compatible with your group of course. But at least you'd have the "I'm entitled to play a (whatever), regardless of whether your campaign was designed to accomodate that." folks cut out from the start.

I think it would be cool if a EnWorld NC group could get together for a game on a bimonthly basis. I wouldn't mind seeing if we could get five ot six Enworlders for a game every other week on a weeknight....

I'm not opposed to the idea but it is tough finding the time with a young child at home. I'd be willing to entertain the idea after I make it through the next Game Day though. If something comes together before then, let me know.

 

[jessemock]

There is little in the 'rules' of a paladin that exclude them from Dark Sun, and thus they can be used, with a few minor alterations, to support the flavor of Dark Sun.

You're looking at this as if it were a conflict of rules; it isn't: it's a conflict of mood.

The exclusion of paladins from Dark Sun is, in part, a rhetorical tactic: the authours communicate something about their setting by way of it.

They mean to offer a particular experience; it seems completely unreasonable to me that anyone should declare such a purpose illegitimate. If a person disapproves of what the writers offer, then he shouldn't play, either by not purchasing the setting or by altering the setting to fit his own mood.

On the other hand, of course, authours should know their publishers and their audience. Some people imprint rather easily and to ask of them that they alter their stamp is likely futile.

Whether the latest incarnation of D&D-dominated RPG culture mass-produces this brand of player remains an open question.

 

[Belen]

If that is the case then I'm somewhat at a loss as to why you perceive a problem with players being demanding. It seems to me that if you want to place certain restrictions in your campaign that pare down the options from the core rules, all you'd have to do is post at one of the yahoo groups as to what sort of game you are looking to run (including the restrictions) and players willing to abide by those restrictions would flock to the game. You'd still have to cull out those who's personalities or gaming style were not compatible with your group of course. But at least you'd have the "I'm entitled to play a (whatever), regardless of whether your campaign was designed to accomodate that." folks cut out from the start.

No one said that I did not have someone in my current group who thinks/ argues like KM. The argument usually goes:

Player: "That rule nerfs this or that class or ability."
GM: "You told me that you wanted to play x class. I decided for this particular campaign to limit y class, race etc."
Player: "yeah, but I been thinking about switching to y class."
GM (thinking): (Yep....that desire started after I banned it.)
GM: "You can play z class an simulate that effect."
Player: "That's not optimal. Why should I spend my feats on A, when class y gives it for free?"
GM: "I think class x is fine. We can work together on a PrC that will fit my flavor later on and help you justify the non-optimal feats."

I find it slightly annoying. However, I will not explain why I banned class y nor am I willing to change my campaign to suit one person. Luckily, the person is a good friend who has been gaming with me since I began GMing. He usually trusts my judgement, and I can depend on him to speak up if he thinks I am wrong or made a mistake, even if there is a less than healthy paranoia that any and all "GMs are out to get you."

I have had trouble in the past when recruiting extra players. I refuse to ever allow someone in my group again whose entire gaming experience has been with computers, and I have seen a fair number of people in the last 10 years who have outright lied about what they wanted for a few sessions before their real personality shows and I have to boot them, which is always diruptive to the group.

I'm not opposed to the idea but it is tough finding the time with a young child at home. I'd be willing to entertain the idea after I make it through the next Game Day though. If something comes together before then, let me know.

Cool. I can wait until after game day. It's just a thought, but I figured it could be cool to just hang out with fellow EnWorlders on more than just game day.