BelenUmeria said:
My argument distilled to the basic level is: Does the implied nature of the 3e say that crunch is the primary factor of the game, while flavor is secondary.
I say yes... There is a distinctly negative attitude from a large number of people that will rip on a GM for even mentioning the possibility of restrictions (with "restrictions" being little more than a negative term applied to what is actually "campaign world conditions"). I have been in numerous debates (both here and at the WotC boards while I still wasting time there) about whether or not I, as the GM, had the
right to introduce Prestige Classes to the players
only through role-play. I was ripped on
harshly for getting in the player's way and preventing them from making an "effective character" (translation: "I can't min/max my character into an over-efficient nigh-unstopple killing machine under these conditions so you must suck as a GM.").
Even the Dark Sun debate shows this: Paizo felt there was an imperative to include Sorcerers, Monks, Paladins, and other features to make the game "more compatible" to Core 3E. This, naturally, shows that even Paizo doesn't have a clue as they assumed that the lack of these classes made the game non-3E in some way or manner and that this effect would make the article less popular amongst the masses. (And we all know what happens when we assume, right?)
Yes, there is a lot of validity in the "if you have an established group" discussion... Heck, I've got a guy that, due to his dislike of PBEM, is
flying from Chicago to Tampa
four times a year to play in two-week marathon sessions (I'm currently prepping for the second one to take place in late May... Seven sessions is
not an easy thing to prep for given all the possibilities, so most of it will be "winged" or written up on the "in-between" days). The primary reason being, in his words, "every game I've found since you moved has been flavorless crap." When asked to describe them more accurately, there are several repetitious themes: Core Rules only, Players not allowing the GM to tweak the choices available*, zero emphasis on role-play or gaming environment.
When looking for new players, it is
always emphasised that the game
is not Core and that most Core assumptions should be tossed out the window before sitting at the table (Translation: Setting first, plot second, rules supporting not dictating, as it
should be). Does this mean that it takes more time and effort to gain new players? Yes. But I'd rather have decent players that are willing to trust their GM and get a quality game than have a bunch of over-pampered whining babies ruining the fun for the rest of the group.
However, I don't think the problem is the rules themselves, although I see the rules as supplying further amunition. Instead of having a player thump the rule-books, frothing at the mouth about "but the book says..." as they did in 2E, they now do that
reinforced by terms like "balance", "options are good", "restrictions are bad", and of course, my favorite line of stinky, smouldering, bullpatty, "role-play and rules are seperate" (all of which simply generates more mouth frothing). The attitude has shifted from "This GM let's us do more, he's cool", to "This GM won't let me play a Half-Celestial Minotaur Samurai Weapons Master, he sucks".
Over-all, if given the choice between gaming with people that are all about the crunch and not gaming at all, I'll take the no-game option. It would be better to go two years without a game and then find a good group than it would be to play for two years with a bad group and then quit the game entirely because of it (and, yes, I've done it).
On a side-note, I have recently gotten into contact with an individual I went to High School with due to an upcoming reunion. This is an individual I played 1E with and, to a lesser extent, 2E shortly after its release. To date, this was also the
worst group I ever played with. Constant back stabbing. Constant one-upmanship. Constant railroading. Constant DM+PC vs PC collaboration ("The 5th Level Cleric of St. Cuthbert you've been adventuring with is really a 10th Level Anti-Paladin... Save vs. Poison!"). When the subject of gaming came up, he mentioned that he still played with the same group, relating stories that are nearly identicle to the old ones (except with more options!). When asked if I was still gaming, I emailed him a summarized list of the changes I made. His response? "Why did you change
anything? 3E's perfect! You're not even playing D&D anymore."
Obviously, this only reinforced my opinion, both of the mentality 3E generates and the lack of good players I knew earlier in life.
In the end, though, I don't really let it bother me. I play my game, have happy players that wouldn't accept anything
less than what I provide, and (despite some folks here probably wishing I'd just shut up) post things as I see them and feel them to be (gladly discussing/debating with those posters that prove worthy of discussion and ignoring those whom are entirely ill mannered and irrelevant). Life goes on, and those that have turned down the opportunity to join my table are the ones loosing out. At most, my game's better off without them.
* I have recently suggested that my friend approach this GM about a solo game. I've yet to hear back on it. However, I'm of the opinion that the GM should drop the other players like a hot brick. I would have
long ago, preferably into a galaxy far, far away, and as close to a black hole as possible.
). There was, as has been shown, no real reason that you need the wholesale rejection of many of the classes within the campaign setting itself. Just because they didn't fit in 2e doesn't mean they won't fit in 3e. It's a new game. In re-thinking the setting, they found out what I've suspected since 2e: that with the right flavor text, there isn't so much of a reason to do a lot of the things the 2e designers did. 
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
