The Culture of Third Edition- Good or Bad?

[billd91]

<snip>
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?

That clearly would depend, not on the DM running the campaign who always has the choice, but on the editorial policies and plans of the publication who, producing an "official" publication perhaps, might feel that they should provide for all of the standard options so that the DMs reading the article can make those decisions for themselves. In other words, the burden of being an official magazine might make them feel that they do have to provide information for all of the official options in the game, whether the average DM and gaming table is actually going to use them or not.
There's a big difference between a major publication including such information in an attempt to provide a complete look at things in the core, and a DM restricting things at the gaming table.
I suppose you could look at it from the point of view of catering to the fan base in the sense that we DMs like to have broad options to pick from when designing out campaigns and deciding what to include and what not to include without having to do all the extra work of kitting some of the options up in the first place. It depends on how you spin it whether it's a service to us busy DMs or a nightmare to DMs because it caters to the base, immature, munchkin players.
In most things in life, choice is a good thing. I'd rather have that choice pushed out to me rather than have somebody else do it for me.

 

[jasamcarl]

Oh jeez. I'm seeing the same baseless, stupid arguments here as in other threads. I think the posters know who they are, so I won't take the time and risk to bash said dumb arguments down yet again.

 

[buzz]

The thing I find the goofiest about this whole discussion is that D&D, in comaprison to a *lot* of RPGs on the market, imposes *way* more restrictions on PCs.

I mean, it's only just with 3e that players can bring PCs outside of a small handful of archetypes, and even then there's still limitations. In HERO, the only thing preventing a player from creating anything from an AI toaster to a planet-sized spacefaring bluegill is the GM. I don't see a lot of HERO players getting all up in arms that the system is provding "too many options" that hamper the ability of GMs to run their campaigns as they see fit.

Belen, I think you're just the victim of some sucky players, and sucky players who throw a fit whenever the GM imposes their will are as old as gaming itself. If you're not happy with 3e, that's cool. Really, though, I think you just need to find a different group of poeple.

 

[buzz]

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.

Booyah, sir. Booyah.

I think it's obvious: Paizo knows that they have to cater to a lot of different tastes. Ergo, when they present something like Dark Sun, they're going to lean towards being inclusive rather than exclusive. Individual players can then tweak as they see fit. Heck, people usually toss out whatever they don't like anyway*, so why not give them the kicthen sink, rather than making them go get the kitchen sink.

It might have semi-backfired for Dark Sun (if some complaints on a Web forum can be seen as "backfiring"), but it seems to work well for them in general.

*E.g., the decision to get rid of racial class restrictions in 3e. Freaking everybody had tossed them in their own games, so WotC, rightfully, said "Why don't we just toss these and let individual DMs make that call?" One of the many brilliant decisions that went into 3e.

 

[jessemock]

That clearly would depend, not on the DM running the campaign who always has the choice, but on the editorial policies and plans of the publication who, producing an "official" publication perhaps, might feel that they should provide for all of the standard options so that the DMs reading the article can make those decisions for themselves. In other words, the burden of being an official magazine might make them feel that they do have to provide information for all of the official options in the game, whether the average DM and gaming table is actually going to use them or not.
There's a big difference between a major publication including such information in an attempt to provide a complete look at things in the core, and a DM restricting things at the gaming table.
...
In most things in life, choice is a good thing. I'd rather have that choice pushed out to me rather than have somebody else do it for me.

Then, perhaps, an official magazine ought to make it a policynot to publish articles that, if they concerned themselves at all with any consideration of tone or theme, would, of a necessity, require a restriction or two?

Or: I don't see how a paladin in full plate surfing around on a silt skimmer amounts to a triumph for the marketplace of ideas.

But feel free to explain how this and other anachorisms liberate us from the tyranny of a consistent game world.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

But feel free to explain how this and other anachorisms liberate us from the tyranny of a consistent game world.

Oh, thank you very much... I can now go off to lunch wearing my happy face.

 

[The_Gneech]

Or: I don't see how a paladin in full plate surfing around on a silt skimmer amounts to a triumph for the marketplace of ideas.

Well for starters, it's a hilarious mental image!

-The Gneech

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't see how a paladin in full plate surfing around on a silt skimmer amounts to a triumph for the marketplace of ideas.

Other than the full plate, I don't see how it amounts to 'not Dark Sun.'

 

[jessemock]

Other than the full plate, I don't see how it amounts to 'not Dark Sun.'

1. Dark Sun always excluded paladins.

2. If you agree that the full plate is inappropriate, well, voila?

 

[Piratecat]

Oh jeez. I'm seeing the same baseless, stupid arguments here as in other threads. I think the posters know who they are, so I won't take the time and risk to bash said dumb arguments down yet again.

This is both rude and inappropriate. Jasamcarl, time to stop -- now.