The Culture of Third Edition- Good or Bad?

[Melan]

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!

Well put. Aside from the insanely huge stat blocks, this is what drives me up the wall the quickest. Essentially, for a challenge, you need a justification, but does that add to the enjoyment of the players so much? If the skill points of a gnoll guard are off, does it ruin a product or a game? Is it worth the time to make up a mechanical explanation for a concept that the players will never be able to dissect - only experience as a player? Especially if said time could be spent on something else...

IMHO, this trend is a reaction to arbitrary rulings by incompetent DMs in older games ("so... Make a save vs. death or you choke on the beer"). Many of 3e's rules reflect a desire to close loopholes, especially with the 3.5 revision. There is one thing the designers didn't realize - more rules mean more gaps between them, and more unexpected results. Does a game really need to place its focus on DMs who can't use it competently? I feel that most of us are better than that.

I do know I am not playing 3e anymore.

 

[I'm A Banana]

1. Dark Sun always excluded paladins.

That doesn't mean that it has to.

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

Eh, only stupid, which any character in DS would be dead trying. I mean, it could happen, but it's not likely to. Just removing the armor does wonders for it, without invalidating the entire article.

 

[tsadkiel]

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 anachronisms liberate us from the tyranny of a consistent game world.

If someone really wants to play said paladin, and the rest of that player's group don't mind, then what exactly is the problem here? I don't see how someone, somewhere playing Dark Sun in a manner you don't approve of is a blow to the marketplace of ideas.

 

[Melan]

And a corollary, originally posted by Belen Umbria:

The game should not fit the rules, the rules should fit the game.

 

[Gothmog]

I agree with you to a point BelenU. There is an erroneous strong expectation by D&D players nowdays that anything in the core books is sacred and cannot and should not be modified by the DM. When a DM restricts certain options in his campaign world for whatever purpose, the less mature (and I'm not just talking age-wise here) players throw temper tantrums. However, thats not a problem with the system, but defective players. I think that having the core rules be open enough to allow lots of option is a good thing so that many possibilities and play styles can be accomodated. However, when the core rules and the "options not restrictions" design model are held as sacred by some people is when the problem develops.

 

[buzz]

You can always challenge the players, though, you just can't do it with stuff that's beyond the rules!

I must have missed the part of the DMG where it says this.

 

[buzz]

And a corollary, originally posted by Belen Umbria:
The game should not fit the rules, the rules should fit the game.

A very nice summary of why 3e is so cool.

 

[jessemock]

I don't see how someone, somewhere playing Dark Sun in a manner you don't approve of is a blow to the marketplace of ideas.

I don't either, which is why I never said such a thing.

The notion to which I was responding is that it's better to deviate from the tone of a setting (or to make it inconsistent) than to deprive any potential players of any options presented in the core rules.

What I said was that I don't see what's so great about that.

Further, this has nothing to do with what I approve of, but with the character of the Dark Sun setting. It was initially offered as a dark setting, you see: 'Dark Sun'--get it? The setting had many ways of conveying this mood, one of them was the exclusion of paladins from the game world. The idea, if I recall aright, was that the sort of selflessness that paladinhood entails is simply inconceivable in this world. Heavy.

Now, if some kid wants to re-introduce some Galahads to the place, fine--it makes as much sense as playing some kind of Elminster in a Conan game, but let them have their way, why not? In fact, why not make that paladin a champion swimmer? Go nuts!

But why does the setting need to kowtow to such whimsies, as a matter of principle?

 

[SSquirrel]

I think you couldn't be more wrong. I love the freedom of 3e, which allows the DM to impose strictures instead of the rulebook. Maximizing player options certainly doesn't lessen the ability of the DM to create challenges.

Agree with Piratecat completely.

Also, wouldn't this be the point in Happy Days where Mouth (Diaglo) gets told to sit on it (shut up about OD&D on a 3E specific thread)? I thought so too.

Hagen

 

[Ranger REG]

Maximize options, minimize restrictions.

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

"Tool, not rules."

That's the other slogan that WotC try to strive for. And that's great because your group have options. But it is still up to the DM to decide which options are appropriate for their game or campaign.

So, even if you disagree with what some publishers (or editors) are doing to campaign settings, it's up to you -- the DM -- to make it tailored specifically for your own group.