The Culture of Third Edition- Good or Bad?

[BSF]

Yeah... I didn't get too flamy, did I? Ranty, yes...

Well, I didn't think it was flaming yet...

It is interesting, looking one-past back for you, that you present your campaign conditions with the opportunities they offer. Discover about the new races. Learn about the history. Uncover the mystery. These are shortened and abridged, yes, but they show that "restrictions" can present more "options", even though these options are a part of game-play rather than mechanical.

Thanks. I tried to make them opportunities for the characters. There were several storylines they could have investigated in that campaign. Though, they never figured out what happened to the Elves, nor did they find a way to allow halfbloods. No surprise on that second one though. The player's weren' all that keen on romance storylines in general. No romance, no reason to want kids, much less halfbloods. But, it was an option...

In a recent thread about Low/High Magic, I made similar points: That by me saying "These spells don't exist", I wasn't banning the spells, but rather presenting the players of spellcasting PCs in-game options: Discover (or recover!) the magic yourself. Become the great wizard that unravels the greatest secrets of the Arcane Arts rather than being just another spellslinger casting the same-old ho-hum in the shadow of setting iconics like Elminster and the Circle of Eight...

That's interesting, in the above campaign, 9th level magics were banned from mortal use in general. To gain access to 9th level magic, the PC's would have had to undertake a specific quest and prove to the gods that they should wield such power. Several NPC's told the PC's this. But, they let certain storylines get too far ahead of them and essentially ran out of time before they could make that journey. The highest level PC was 15th at the end of that campaign, so that particular restriction really didn't crop up. (Well, except that two of the villians did complete this quest. Still, the PC's prevailed. Good job on their part.)

To summarize, I don't believe that any of the Core assumptions (races, classes, feats) need to be "true" in order for the game to remain "the" game. There should be plentiful variety, yes, but the lacking of a few races or a class or two that are part of the Core set isn't that big of a deal rules-wise. What should be present is that which "fits" the feel, flavor, and themes of the setting. Character options should be fairly equal, but need not be all inclusive.

It's interesting to see what people consider to be DnD. I suppose it would be more accurate to summarize my current game as D20 using elements from the following books: (I won't list them here because the document I crafted at the time this campaign started had a listing of roughly 60-70 books & PDF's. I've added more since then.) Right now, the game has 8 players. 2 of the PC's are non-human. 4 of the PC's are using non-core classes. It really isn't DnD, but I hope it is fun for the DM (me) and the players.

 

[billd91]

<snip>
And again, OA's single explaination for no Bards, Paladins, and Wizards is simply, "they don't fit." Sorry, but it seems you expect more from a homebrewing GM than you do from WotC.

"They don't fit." Good enough for WotC to use in Oriental Adventures, and therefore good enough for any GM.

You know, you really might want to recheck your OA book again about why the banned classes don't fit. There's an explanation that goes into a bit more detail about why these classes don't fit. There's also a bit in there leaving the option open for specific DM's campaigns.
So I don't think I'd hold up the OA book as an example of a WotC publication saying simply, "they don't fit."

 

[Zappo]

Sorry for jumping in the thread so late. My opinion is that restrictions are good when they make sense - and what 3E does is avoiding arbitrary, irrational, built-in restrictions that are very difficult to remove (example: the aforementioned halfling ranger). In favor of options that are modular and very easy to limit for campaign purposes (example: Barsoom). All the good and none of the bad.

Unless one happens to be a pushover DM who can't bring himself to say no unless it's in the rules. And unless one happens to be a rules-lawyering player who can't accept a ruling unless it's black on white somewhere. Well, that's a user problem really. Complaining about 3E having some kind of mystical aura that prevents rule 0 won't help, really.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

There's an explanation that goes into a bit more detail about why these classes don't fit.

Well, pardon me for not giving more detail about why these classes don't fit. However, short of re-typing entire paragraphs from OA, the fact is simple: They don't fit and adding them is an option.

If you would like to retype them, feel free.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

At any rate, I can imagine how "3 step interview" probably sounded more akin to getting a position in upper corporate management than it does to joining a gaming group. Sorry to confuse.

No worries. I was mostly just curious, as it sounded pretty involved, but it sounds a lot less intense when you describe it like you just did. As I said before, if it works, that's cool.

thanks,
Nick

 

[rounser]

My opinion is that restrictions are good when they make sense - and what 3E does is avoiding arbitrary, irrational, built-in restrictions that are very difficult to remove (example: the aforementioned halfling ranger).

Or, put another way:

- Arbitrary restrictions in the D&D core rules implied setting = bad
but...
- Removing all restrictions from a setting that needs them = bad

Best not to confuse the two - what's good for leaving variety and possibilities open to all worlds is not necessarily any good for any one specific world.

 

[Kormydigar]

Maximize options, minimize restrictions.

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

Hmmmm.........very interesting posts here. It seems to me that a lot of problems with " this new generation of gamers" come not from the fact that some players are new to the game, but rather about preconceived notions concerning what constitutes a D&D game. I am an old fart and have gamed with the old hands and with new players these past 24 years or so. I believe part of the problem comes from those who play computer RPG type games, become accustomed to certain rules and structure, and then migrate to pen and paper games. The mindset, approach to play, and expectations are (or should be) vastly different. I am not saying that computer games are a bad thing at all, they are a fine form of entertainment, and have thier place.

When a player insists that this or that rule, class, feat, ect. must be included in every DM's game he or she is essentially saying to the DM " I am a player. You are my EQ server. Play by the established rules and gimmie my XP." This is of course an over exaggerated example but the mindset my be there even if the words are not. I have seen this kind of thinking manifest itself to one degree or another and wondered what could be causing it. By refusing to accept changes the DM has made for a campaign one is in some way, expecting that DM to be a "server" to a player's style of game. In no way do I mean to say that all new gamers are whiny computer gamers, just that I have witnessed this attitude in SOME individuals and thought perhaps others might have as well. The general culture of 3E/3.5E does seem ( to me at least) to promote this mindset though not nessessarily on purpose. Because the rules are more carefully thought out and balanced than in previous editions, some may believe that they should not be altered in any major way. It has become a culture of "the rules are like this, so the DM only has option A,B,C, or D....do we have our bases covered?" All hell breaks loose when the DM announces option E. To me this is very similar to computer game tactical thinking. Back in my day your character reacted to what was happening instead of throwing a fit because thats not supposed to happen.

I play as well as DM so I can relate to a bit of disappointment upon discovering that my favorite class, race, feat, ect. is not included in a particular campaign. I also know that the DM is a busy person, just like me, and I am grateful for the work that gets put into a campaign. If the rules for a particular campaign are soooooo out there that I know I would not enjoy myself, then I elect to sit that one out, and go to movies on those game nights. The DM puts more work and effort into the campaign so his or her opinion of what rules are included or excluded SHOULD count for more than the players. On either side of the fence I don't see this as heavy handed at all. For me its all about having respect for the DM and more specifically for the time and effort he DM gives to the game. As a player I understand that the DM is a person with creative needs, not a game server that exists to provide adventure, treasure, and XP

 

[barsoomcore]

By saying that you're going to be running the game in a Barsoom setting, you've already justified why some things are cut out of the game. Because they didn't exist in Burroughs's original works, they aren't appropriate for the game setting.

Sorry, but while that probably seemed like a really good argument, unfortunately my campaign setting has very little to do with Edgar Rice Burrough's fine works. Except that it's called "Barsoom". Cause I think it sounds cool.

So, no, no justification from me.

Players have the core books and maybe whatever else you've allowed as sources and can and should be expected to plan out their characters based on those rules... what other sources do they have? House rules need to be communicated to the players effectively and, I think, you need to explain why you're using them.

You don't have to explain anything in order to be consistent. I don't have to explain WHY I don't allow clerics, but it's futile of me to expect players to be able to read my mind. If they create characters without knowing my houserules, they're going to be naturally annoyed when I outlaw the characters they've spent a day creating.

But I don't have to justify the rules -- I just have to communicate them. Very different notions.

Letting your players know what's going in behind the curtain with respect to your rule changing ideas isn't a bad thing because they can apply their additional experience and devious brains to finding where there may be exploitable cheese and loopholes.

Well, sure. You might get lots of good ideas from your players. But to suggest that it's "unfair" to keep your reasoning to yourself (or in fact to have no reasoning whatsoever beyond simple whimsy) is just silly.

And then, to address BD's point about my assertion that the notion that 3e makes implementing houserules difficult is silly:

I don't think this is so silly, being that many of the rules are balanced/countered by other rules now more than in previous editions. Can it be changed? Yes. But it only becomes easy via experience. Issue being: Players not accepting houserules make it difficult for GMs to gain that experience.

Well, we have very different experiences as to how hard it is to change the rules of 3e. I completely rebuilt the magic system, changed the armour rules, threw out all of the races and nearly all the classes, created a multitude of new feats and whole new core classes (not to mention my own Prestige classes) and threw it all together over a couple of afternoons and said, "Let's go!"

Sure, it didn't work so great at times but we've all had a blast and figured some things out along the way. I would never characterize the experience as "difficult".

And unlike you, I've never encountered a player who wouldn't accept a DM's authority on their own campaign setting. I've maybe met players who weren't interested in the same sorts of settings as I am, but that's not the same thing.

But then, clearly I'm blessed. I DM stewardesses.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not going to respond point by point in the interest of keeping it civil, and becuase I think I'm just repeating my main point ad nauseum right now.

I share the problem with whiney players crying when they can't get their specific case in a certain campaign and demand it unflinchingly. However, I have the exact same problem with the other side of the cardboard screen, too. It works both ways. Just as players won't be welcomed to my game if they cry and complain about their specific character and how you suck if you're not giving it to them, DM's won't be welcomed to my game if they are arbitrary, heavy-handed, and condescending, with more interest in their own story than in making the group have fun.

I'm reasonably sure everyone can agree on that.

Now, the books needed to play D&D are the baseline, especially the PH. This is the instruction manual for playing D&D, just like that little pamphlet you get with Monopoly is the instruction manual for playing Monopoly. The two share another similarity: they encouarage you to play with the rules themselves, to change the way the game is played. A majority of DM's change the way the "D&D game," as presented in the Core Rules, is played. Just like I think I'd be hardpressed to find any family that plays Monopoly the way the manual says (y'know, without the Free Parking Fund). It's not any worse, but it is a change. It is an alteration. It is a House Rule. It might make the game better, it might just change the way it's played, but it's all a House Rule. It's not the way the game was *designed* to be played, but it's no less a *valid* way to play it. If someone plays without Chance cards, or if the DM allows antimatter rifles, these are house rules. There is an instruction manual.

Now, here's where it gets into things that are not generally fairly objective realities. And here may be the part where I part ways with some people, but also what I think may be part of the cause behind this much-decried "third edition culture" that is being bemoaned here.

Say, one family plays Monopoly with one dice, instead of two. Say one DM plays without halfling rangers. These are both house rules. They're changes from the norm. They both remove something that is in the instruction manual. Ditch it, nix it, boil it alive in a pot of acid, whatever you wanna say.

If the family was looking for people to play Monopoly with (putting up flyers at the local Kay-Bee Toys), I don't think "So, why only one dice?" is some volatile question. You read the manual, you expect two dice, so when there is only one, you deserve to know why they're changing it There are thousands of things they could say in response. "We lost one." "Beacause it means more properties get baught up earlier, and we enjoy the period of the game when everybody owns stuff to the pre-buying stage." "Because two dice is just too many to hold in your hand." " Because math is hard."

Of course, if the potential player is really attatched to two dice for some reason (say, he likes the clicking noise they make when he rolls, which one die just doesn't do), there are only two really narrowminded options, and a host of potentially accepting ones.

Family: "Because that's the way it is, that's the way it has been, and that's the only way we like it, and if you don't like it, too bad, it's our game, you go pout over there if you want two dice you stupid math-lover!" (narrowminded, though still valid).

Player: "You've gotta use two dice! If you don't, you're not playing real monopoly! I can't believe you'd break the rules like that! It says you use two dice here in the manual! You've gotta use two dice! Or at least let me do it! Come on, adding is totally awesome!" (narrowminded, but also valid)

Player: "Hu...well, I agree math is hard, but I'd like the game to last a little longer. I've got a d8 here, can we use that instead of a d6?" (one of the many potentially accepting ones).

Player: "Okay, whatever, let's just play." (one of the most common responses)

Player: "Sorry, I love math, I don't think I'd have a lot of fun in your game. Good luck finding a player." (another very common response)

Similarly, if the DM is looking for people to play D&D with (putting up flyers at the FLGS), I don't think "Why no halfling rangers?" is beyond the scope of questions that the DM should have to answer. You read the manual, you know halfling rangers are allowed, so when you can't be one, you deserve to know why they're changing it. There could be thousands of responses. "Halfling rangers are overpowered." "Only munchkin rollplayers like halfling rangers." "The culture of halflings in my campaign have never been outside of the major city." "Halflings are gypsies, not woodsmen."

Of course, if the player is particularly attatched to halfling rangers for some reason (the concept of a halfling sling-archer is appealing to him), there are only two really narrowminded options, and a host of potentially accepting ones.

DM: "That's the way we play this game, that's the way it is, and that's the way it always has been, I'm not going to move for you or anyone else. I am the DM, and I say no halfling rangers, so forget it. You're playing in my game, and what I say goes." (narrowminded, though still valid).

Player: "No halfling rangers?! What are you thinking?! I can't live without my midget wooodsmen! How will I ever have my drow have a halfling ranger dipped in black paint so I can call him mini-me! The book says there are halfling rangers, and you have to obey the laws!" (narrowminded, though still valid).

Player: "Okay, can I change all of a ranger's wilderness abilities to city-based abilities and play an urban halfling ranger?" (one of the many potentially accepting ones).

Player: "Okay, whatever, let's just play." (one of the most common responses)

Player: "Y'know, I'm not sure I'd fit in with a group that thinks halfling rangers are a representative of munchkin rollplaying. Sorry, but good luck." (another very common response)

So there it is. Just as I don't think players should wave the core rules in a DM's face and demand they accept it, I don't think DM's should wave their house rules in a player's face and demand they accept it. The only difference is that the DM has a trump, so to speak. Many players rightfully fear the DM who pulls out that trump on every occasion as if it was their first taste of power in the world, just like many DM's rightfully fear the 'rules lawyer.' But a DM who uses that trump only to help shape their setting is a good DM, just like a player who uses the rules to aid the story of their character is a good player.

 

[barsoomcore]

The general culture of 3E/3.5E does seem ( to me at least) to promote this mindset though not nessessarily on purpose. Because the rules are more carefully thought out and balanced than in previous editions, some may believe that they should not be altered in any major way.

I'd want to see some actual data before I accepted that notion at all. I find it difficult to believe that better-balanced rules lead to a mindset of "Don't mess with them."

I do find it easy to imagine that people who approach D&D from a computer game mindset might have some preconceptions that don't really work in the "face to face" world, but surely it only takes one or two experiences to wipe that away?

If the rules for a particular campaign are soooooo out there that I know I would not enjoy myself, then I elect to sit that one out, and go to movies on those game nights.

Exactly. This has been my experience. Sometimes people aren't into it, for whatever reason, and that's fine. This has been true in every game system I've ever run stuff in. Some people didn't want to play Shadowrun. Some people hate dungeon crawls. Some people think Rolemaster is a waste of time. That's okay. But I have never encountered anyone who would say, "Barsoomcore, you have to use ruleset X." I can't even imagine what I would say to someone who said that -- beyond laughing indulgently, and saying, "Whadda maroon," in my best Bugs Bunny voice.