The Culture of Third Edition- Good or Bad?

[hong]

do you want me telling you, whippersnapper.

Go right ahead, gramps.

 

[Treebore]

I think what the original poster said is true if you are a DM with players who falsely believe all the rules are there to be used. As is repeated many times throughout the rulebooks, the DM decides which rules are used, not just those labeled "optional". So when you, the DM, don't like the wide open rules approach, narrow them down to what you find acceptable.

Like an ealier poster said, the DM does 10x's as much work for the game to happen, a least, so if the player still wants to have a problem with said limitations hand them the DMG and tell them to do it. Otherwise, concentrate on having fun within the parameters given by the books and the DM.

Despite how well written the rules may be they still don't tell you how to deal with establishing yourself as a DM among your players. That is still something you need to figure out and do for yourself.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Right - but those are not the core rules! They are campaign settings, which restrict the rules for the reasons of specific, campaign theme reasons.

Again, though, this is half the problem: some players don't think a "themed" campaign world should "restrict" what the Core Rules give the false impression of entitlement to unless it's in print (print=playtested and valid, houseruled=arbitrary and broken). Yes, I agree with your earlier statement that they should be told to go GM their own game (although I have, at times, told certain individuals to go do something else that I won't mention here). However, this isn't the entirety of the issue. For instance, my mention earlier about the way I handle Prestige Classes getting me ripped on in several threads. This isn't a case of not allowing a person join my table, but rather of being publicly prosecuted for being incompetant, fearful of PC empowerment, railroading, power-mad, and so forth, by several posters that have absolutely no idea what gaming it my table is really like. They didn't see "campaign world conditions" or "playing style preferences" being discussed; rather, they saw only "restrictions" that they don't feel are valid within the gaming community at all and did their (pathetically) best to make it look like I was some kind of villain that the 3rd Edition rules are designed to "protect" players from (and thus how it relates to this discussion).

This is why, "don't play with such people" doesn't end the debate occuring here even though it seems like it should; The problem isn't isolated to the gaming table but is an attitude that has no hesitation to intrude into otherwise productive, meaningful message board and chat room discussions.

 

[hong]

By how steadfastly and fanatically he embraced the new rules and hailed them for allowing the group to suck even more.

The great thing about a sample of one is that unanimity is guaranteed.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Sepulchrave touches on this issue in his Rogue's Gallery thread. He's probably not going to weigh in here because he's too busy determining the metaphysical ramifications of the orxodoxy of the belief sytem that one of his minor NPCs is considering. However, it's still a good summary of a lot of the thoughts here:

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1472703&postcount=446

If you are DMing a 'Dark Ages' campaign - with byrnies, pattern-welded swords, skalds, ogres etc., you don't want a PC wandering around in a suit of full plate with a masterwork halberd and a compound bow - it doesn't fit. If the player appeals to the rules by saying 'but it says I can buy these for X gold,' you merely point out that it doesn't gel with the campaign you have created.

You could, of course, make extensive lists of house-rules in order to cover these contingencies. But why bother? Just make rulings on a case-by-case basis, and save yourself the hassle. You want a rapier? - No. You want a scimitar? - hmm, maybe. But that means I'll have to give some thought to culture XYZ - which I'd hoped to put off for a while. Sigh. (But the player also stimulates the DM to creativity, which is a good thing.)

 

[BSF]

I am just in a contentious mood today.

I still think that options over restrictions is the implied nature of the game. Restricting things like classes, feats, PRCs is seen as inherently bad.

For example, ow many people have you see over the last few years have used the "GMs should not have the power to make arbitrary decisions." This gets used whenever a GM says that they are restricting anything, even if the reason is not arbitrary.

In fact, most of these people consider "flavor" to be arbitrary.

Whoa! One of my first, deep discussions here on EN World involved you and woodelf. I was almost sure you were advocating that the newer versions of DnD were restrictive on the RP side because of the implied restrictions.

IIRC - Things like certain actions are implied to not be doable because of the nature of feats. Since Feats "break the rules", if there isn't a feat to do X,Y or Z, then it must not be possible. I remember this conversation so well because it really made me stop and think how my players might see it from their side of the field. Unless I communicate that this implied nature doesn't necessarily exist, how will they know that I might allow it?

But really, I don't think this is what you are talking about in this discussion.

I think the issue is that the Core rules are relatively light on "flavor". They provide just enough flavor to allow you to play the game and have a cleric, or to have a gnome, or whatever. This is what new players are being introduced to if they pick up the books and read. The reason a lot of people like Forgotten Realms is because it has deep "flavor" presented in books that are readily accessible. (As accessible as books in our hobby get at least.) This means you have more flavor, you have books that you can point your players at, and everyone will accept it as canon.

However, I have my own campaign world. And there are no books for the players to read to learn all about it. I am sure it is sometimes frustrating for them, but they also seem to enjoy the game. The previous campaign has become a significant portion of history. They like that. They understand that there are no dwarves. They realize that elves are different. They know that I might not accept anything that they want to bring in. Or I might, they should talk to me about it.

I do have a fair amount of trust with my players, but I have earned it. Then, having an established game, it is easier for new players to share some of that trust. To be honest, it sounds like you are dealing with bad players. The system isn't the problem, but it might contribute to the symptoms. Some players will look at the system and decide that any game should be open, simply because the system is designed with some openess.

To put it another way: Just because HERO is point buy and can be used in any environment does not give a player the flexibility to make a spell-casting mage for a cyberpunk style campaign. By the same token, just because the Iron Monks of the Burning Lung* exist in a splatbook, does not mean you can play one in my game. If you have players that cannot accept these "flavor" restrictions, it is because of the person, not the system. But, they will fall back to the system to support their perspective.

I'm sorry you have gone through burnout. But, if it helps,you have offered good advice to me in the past and it doesn't sound like you are a "bad" GM. You just might be having a string of "bad" player experiences.

*Iron Monks of the Burning Lung do not, as far as I know, exist. But, if they did, I expect that high levels of the PrC would grant some sort of wacky DR and probably fire breathing. Heck, maybe even Energy Resistance against fire. Hence, they are very attractive to a player, but probably unbalanced. Hmm, I wonder if I could make a PrC like that and keep it balanced?

 

[jessemock]

Yes - but far less restrictions than previous editions, which is the comparison point.

Indeed. It was, in fact, the point I compared it to in the stuff that appeared in my post between the two sections you quoted.

Right - but those are not the core rules! They are campaign settings, which restrict the rules for the reasons of specific, campaign theme reasons.

Okay.

Let's say--just hypothetically, of course-- that somebody writes up an article outlining a campaign setting, then contributes this article to some sort of gaming publication. Now, the editors of this publication take a look at the setting and decide that, with regard to the newly-developed appetites of their supposed fan-base, the restrictions presented in the campaign setting are too much. In fact, these editors believe that any restriction not in accord with the core rules is too much.

So, they change the article to reflect their views.

Would such a thing, should it ever happen, indicate a broader trend? Would it mean that the new edition of D&D has produced a consumer-base that has been conditioned to disapprove of restrictions that conflict with the core rules--even in a campaign setting?

Should, in other words, full agreement with all of the options presented in the core rules always and forever trump any consideration of the tone of a campaign setting?

 

[Kaji]

I think the point of "options not restrictions" is that the GM can provide restrictions instead of the system.

AFAIAC, this is a good thing. I'd rather be in the role of saying Dwarves can't be wizards (for example) than having the book tell me that and then see all material that would accomodate such a decision assume this is the case.

Psion has made the point I wanted to make. Thank you kindly.

As for DM's resticting options, as long as everything is made clear up front, there should be no problems. Now, if I've built a character with the intention of multi-classing as a wizard at 6th with my dwarf, and THEN my DM tells me dwarves can't be wizards in his campaign, yeah, that would be crappy.

 

[silentspace]

3E is more rules-centric. Published adventures before 3E were filled with monsters, traps, magic, etc, that basically did amazing things, no explanations necessary. Since 3E, you need an explanation.

That monster has those abilities because it is an 8 HD outsider. Even if its a new template or something, you can learn about it (Commune).

This BBEG has these abilities because its part of this prestige class. Yes, you can join that prestige class too. Make a knowledge check to learn the requirements.

This is more work for the DM, but is much fairer to the players. You can always challenge the players, though, you just can't do it with stuff that's beyond the rules!

 

[The_Gneech]

Let's say--just hypothetically, of course-- that somebody writes up an article outlining a campaign setting, then contributes this article to some sort of gaming publication. Now, the editors of this publication take a look at the setting and decide that, with regard to the newly-developed appetites of their supposed fan-base, the restrictions presented in the campaign setting are too much. In fact, these editors believe that any restriction not in accord with the core rules is too much.

So, they change the article to reflect their views.

Would such a thing, should it ever happen, indicate a broader trend? Would it mean that the new edition of D&D has produced a consumer-base that has been conditioned to disapprove of restrictions that conflict with the core rules--even in a campaign setting?

Should, in other words, full agreement with all of the options presented in the core rules always and forever trump any consideration of the tone of a campaign setting?

Gee, what could you possibly be NOT referring to, here?

Given the fact that such a purely-hypothetical occurence would generate a huge firestorm within its own little teapot, I'd say if anything the indication is precisely the opposite -- that the consumer base likes such restrictions in a campaign setting and that the publication was out-of-synch with their desires in this particular nonexistent case.

-The Gneech