The Culture of Third Edition- Good or Bad?

[BiggusGeekus]

As an aside: in college (yes ... I experimented with AD&D in college) I opened up all classes to all races. One guy played a halfling ranger with a high DEX. Well, rangers had a pretty decent advancement for Moving Silently and Hide In Shadows in 2e and halflings, of course, had increidble bonuses. So by 4th level, I had to essentially deal with a melee warrior who could walk around invisible half the time. Halfling rangers were quite powerful in 2e because the rules never took that combination into account, it was simply prohibited.

So when I found out that in 3e that those options were all opend up and more-or-less balanced with each other, I was overjoyed. Options are good.

 

[The_Gneech]

Maximize options, minimize restrictions.

How does this seem to translate? Personally, I feel that this means: Maximize player options, while minimize the ability of GMs to provide restrictions that would challenge their players.

WTF? Any GM worth their salt can challenge the players at any time. What "maximize options, minimize restrictions" means is not arbitrarily saying that wizards cannot possibly wield a sword, to pick a popular example.

The implication is that NPCs and Monsters should be the only challenges players’ face. The environment, the world, and the campaign should have no ability to restrict the players in any meaningful way other than combat. In fact, a die roll can handle social interaction as well.

Again, WTF? I suppose my players weren't challenged when they were trying to cross that narrow glass bridge during a blinding thunderstorm? Oh, and convincing the hostile wood elves to give them shelter and resurrect one of their slain comrades, that was a cakewalk, too.

In 3e, a GM is not more than a computer automaton designed to throw monsters at PCs. Flavor is secondary to the rules. Flavor that could limit “options” is bad. Why? Because the implied nature of 3e doctrine says that players cannot be happy unless they do anything they desire.

Dude, I don't know what got you so riled up, but this is just out there.

3e is the first time since its inception that the rules of D&D make a lick of sense. To use a simple example, in previous editions a 5th level fighter was a 5th level fighter was a 5th level fighter -- the difference between them was primarily a matter of which weapon they specialized in. In 3e, you can have an archer, a living wall, a grappler, somebody who jumps into a group and mows 'em down, a one-on-one duelist, etc., determined solely by your selection of feats. This is somehow a BAD thing? I don't think so!

If you want arbitrary restrictions (along the "wizards can't ever possibly wield swords" line), it's simple as pie: you make that a house rule. Fortunately, all those other GMs out there who don't want that particular restriction, don't have to deal with it now. In a recent campaign I ran, there were no dwarves, gnomes, or halflings -- as arbitrary a restriction as they come -- and there was no difficulty whatsoever.

3e rules! And 3.5 is even better. D&D is finally worth playing!

-The Gneech

 

[diaglo]

And I don't think his players are complaining about his great game at all!

they are n00bs. give them time.

besides they are also stewardesses..... they haven't even progressed to airline travel customer service representatives.

 

[Belen]

WTF? Any GM worth their salt can challenge the players at any time. What "maximize options, minimize restrictions" means is not arbitrarily saying that wizards cannot possibly wield a sword, to pick a popular example.



Again, WTF? I suppose my players weren't challenged when they were trying to cross that narrow glass bridge during a blinding thunderstorm? Oh, and convincing the hostile wood elves to give them shelter and resurrect one of their slain comrades, that was a cakewalk, too.



Dude, I don't know what got you so riled up, but this is just out there.

3e is the first time since its inception that the rules of D&D make a lick of sense. To use a simple example, in previous editions a 5th level fighter was a 5th level fighter was a 5th level fighter -- the difference between them was primarily a matter of which weapon they specialized in. In 3e, you can have an archer, a living wall, a grappler, somebody who jumps into a group and mows 'em down, a one-on-one duelist, etc., determined solely by your selection of feats. This is somehow a BAD thing? I don't think so!

If you want arbitrary restrictions (along the "wizards can't ever possibly wield swords" line), it's simple as pie: you make that a house rule. Fortunately, all those other GMs out there who don't want that particular restriction, don't have to deal with it now. In a recent campaign I ran, there were no dwarves, gnomes, or halflings -- as arbitrary a restriction as they come -- and there was no difficulty whatsoever.

3e rules! And 3.5 is even better. D&D is finally worth playing!

-The Gneech

Never said it was a bad thing. I said that the implied nature and the attitude that it generates can be a bad thing.

I did not say that I disliked the rules set in the least.

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.

That's all.

 

[hong]

Never said it was a bad thing. I said that the implied nature and the attitude that it generates can be a bad thing.

I did not say that I disliked the rules set in the least.

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.

Oh, crapola. This is what you said before conveniently editing it:

Personally, I feel that this means: Maximize player options, while minimize the ability of GMs to provide restrictions that would challenge their players.

Here's a hint. Wanting to have restrictions for the purpose of challenging your players is _not_ a flavour issue. There are games out there whose power levels leave D&D in the dust, yet are also oozing with flavour (eg Nobilis, RIFTS, Exalted). This is a DM control/confidence issue, and your slip is showing.

 

[Greydt]

Maximize options, minimize restrictions.

What do you think? “What is in YOUR wallet!?”

I'd throw in my vote for "Not my decision as a player".

Like others have said before, any really bad problems usually stem from people rather than the rules.

I've gotten to the point where I think it's basically all about the DM. After spending 2-3 years playing in some middling to bad 3e games face to face, online, or PBP, I've finally found one darn good group of people to play with face to face, and another darn good group of people to play several PBP games with on another board (and yup, I consider myself very, VERY lucky). In both cases, it's the DM that's the significant factor. One controls the game very tightly, while the other is more flexible. However, while both approaches are different, both GMs are fair and consistent which is reflected in their game.

With that said, the options and restrictions all depends on what my GM would allow or dis-allow. In my case as a player:
Good GM (and players) + more restrictions: good game
Good Gm (and players) + more options: good game

Good times either way!

Side Note:
Based on your posts (BU), it seems like you got really burned as a GM by a bunch of players (or you've played with other player(s) who were toal jerk(s)). Would that be a fair assessment?

 

[Rel]

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.

The answer to that question, in my opinion and experience, is "no" but I'd also ask, "compared to what?"

A system that says, "If you want to add flavor to your game, have the combats take place in interesting locales (underwater, in a burning building, on a narrow bridge, etc.)." is not superior IMO, to one that says, If you want to add flavor to your game, have the combats take place in interesting locales (underwater, in a burning building, on a narrow bridge, etc.). Below are some rules to handle those situations."

 

[Belen]

Side Note: Based on your posts (BU), it seems like you got really burned as a GM by a bunch of players (or you've played with other player(s) who were toal jerk(s)). Would that be a fair assessment?

My generally nice disposition has been abused in the past.

I will say that in 10 years as a GM; I have burned out twice. Both have happened since 3e was released.

 

[jessemock]

I love the freedom of 3e, which allows the DM to impose strictures instead of the rulebook.

This, I do not understand. The rulebook imposes restrictions, clearly.

By freedom, do you mean to refer to rule Zero, the inclusion of which proves that the rulebook imposes restrictions?

From what I understand, B. means to say that the emphasis on options in D&D-iana fosters a culture reluctant to play under more severe restrictions--that is: it's harder now than it was before to find an audience for materials that use a narrower set of options.

Basically, the kids have been spoiled.

That's probably true, but relevant only insofar as we concern ourselves with petty annoyances.

Or the timid editorial practices of certain publishers.

Let's be concerned for a moment. Did Team Paizo alter the Dark Sun article in order to serve the tastes of children fattened on the sweets of 3.x? Yes.

Does this mean that there's no room for leaner products? Conan and Midnight say no.

 

[Nighthawk]

IME so far, the groups I have been with for the 3E game are far more mechanically oriented rather than story or flavor oriented. Some of these groups I was with during the 1E or 2E days and they were more into the story rather than the mechanics. That changed for whatever reason. I think part of the reason is the open acknowledgement (by the rules) of how much emphasis there is on combat. There is no right or wrong here, for it's all a matter of preferences. It's when those preferences don't match that issues may arise.

Please note that I am referring to my experiences alone. I am not claiming that this is true of the majority of playing groups or that it is a situation pertaining to D&D alone.

What I am saying is that if a person who is more inclined to playing in a campaign where the story style is more important than the game mechanic style, it will be tough to do so successfully in my area (that I am aware of).
I suspect, based on my personal belief only, that this is more common than some may realize and does apply to other areas as well.