The Culture of Third Edition- Good or Bad?

[I'm A Banana]

I wonder if there is perhaps a vocal minority that enjoyed the older editions' "rule on the fly," concept? Certianly that did make it more important to trust the DM, since when there wasn't a rule, the DM had to be trusted to generate a fair one.....

 

[BSF]

I wonder if there is perhaps a vocal minority that enjoyed the older editions' "rule on the fly," concept? Certianly that did make it more important to trust the DM, since when there wasn't a rule, the DM had to be trusted to generate a fair one.....

Well, there were a lot of rules that weren't covered in previous editions. -You want to push him off the cliff? Sure, what the heck, let me make something up." - But, there were a lot of rules that were in the books and were not very easy to find. Coupled with the changing nature of the resolution (OK, do I want a high roll or a low roll this time?) I don't think previous editions were as strong. That being said, I still rule on the fly. I just don't need to do it as often. I can focus my time on other aspects of the game rather than worrying about the mechanics of how 4 characters are going to escape a canyon by climbing up a rock chimney before the bad guys trap them. It's in the books and the people that have good Str and put skill points into climb will be more likely to succeed. The players can worry about those mechanics while I figure out why the bad guys are going to be chasing the PC's into said canyon and what they will do if the PC's get away, or if they don't. (Then, when the dissenting player cries out "If you had let me have my halfling rockhound PrC (From the Complete Spelunkers Handbook) I would be able to climb that without a problem." I can inform said player that we are still playing a Conan game, which never had halflings.)

 

[Spatula]

The rules support the flavor.

Agreed! Hence the various changes to the basic game in unusual settings such as Dark Sun.

What's the point of playing a moral wizard if playing an immoral or amoral one works exactly the same way?

Because your character concept is that of a moral wizard?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Because your character concept is that of a moral wizard?

Heh, yeah, I should maybe have contextualized that better. The original statement was that if you wanted to play a 'paladin-like' character, you could do it with a wizard. I said, basically, 'sure, you can, but it's more fun to do it with an actual paladin, as long as there's no reason to exclude them'

Agreed! Hence the various changes to the basic game in unusual settings such as Dark Sun.

Well, the thing is that the rules as they exist can support the flavor of Dark Sun in places where historically they have been considered not able to. There is little in the 'rules' of a paladin that exclude them from Dark Sun, and thus they can be used, with a few minor alterations, to support the flavor of Dark Sun. When changed, it is eerily similar to another core class anyway, though, so in this case it'd generally be more productive to use what the setting offers than to change the Paladin to fit the setting. That's hardly always true, though.

 

[barsoomcore]

But, there were a lot of rules that were in the books and were not very easy to find. Coupled with the changing nature of the resolution (OK, do I want a high roll or a low roll this time?) I don't think previous editions were as strong. That being said, I still rule on the fly. I just don't need to do it as often.

You know, I think I do it as much as ever -- it's just so much easier in 3E.

"You want to push him off the cliff? Okay, um, opposed strength checks." I mean, AD&D didn't even have a mechanic to do that with.

I don't really know the 3E rules. I just know the principle. Push off cliff -- opposed strength checks, maybe a bonus for somebody extra stable, probably an AoO on the way in, ta-da! Oh, wait, that's a Bull Rush. But I don't need to remember the rules for Bull Rush (and indeed I don't) -- I just put it together using my common sense and the basic ideas of the game and lo and behold I get a useful, easy to manage mechanic that turns out reasonable results.

One of the things I really like about 3E is how... "squishy" it is. I mean, I can sqooze it and squeeze it into all sort of odd shapes and it still pretty much works okay. I don't need to know dozens of rules, just a few principles that hold it all together. I can wing the rest.

 

[The_Gneech]

You know, I think I do it as much as ever -- it's just so much easier in 3E.

"You want to push him off the cliff? Okay, um, opposed strength checks." I mean, AD&D didn't even have a mechanic to do that with.

I don't really know the 3E rules. I just know the principle. Push off cliff -- opposed strength checks, maybe a bonus for somebody extra stable, probably an AoO on the way in, ta-da! Oh, wait, that's a Bull Rush. But I don't need to remember the rules for Bull Rush (and indeed I don't) -- I just put it together using my common sense and the basic ideas of the game and lo and behold I get a useful, easy to manage mechanic that turns out reasonable results.

One of the things I really like about 3E is how... "squishy" it is. I mean, I can sqooze it and squeeze it into all sort of odd shapes and it still pretty much works okay. I don't need to know dozens of rules, just a few principles that hold it all together. I can wing the rest.

*applauds*

-The Gneech

 

[Bendris Noulg]

*applauds*

Indeed! Bravo!

 

[barsoomcore]

*looks around, startled*

My mom would be so proud. If she'd understood a word of what I'd said.

*cough cough*

Now perhaps a recitation of an autobiographical poem in seven parts? Written when I was seventeen? Hm?

 

[billd91]

For Kamikaze Midget and those in that camp, if you were a player coming into the following worlds, would you find it unreasonable to make the following demands on the DM?

1) In a Conan/Hyborea game, insisting on playing a drow wizard.

2) In a Midnight game, insisting on playing a LG cleric of Pelor.

3) In a Scarred Lands game, insisting on playing a kender.

Hopefully you can see that a player demanding any of these three characters in these settings is being unreasonable. Why? Because those races/classes don't exist in those worlds, or are not suitable concepts for those worlds.

All three of these worlds use D&D/d20 rules, but have very different flavors and parameters that differ from core D&D. These differences and limitations are what give these worlds flavor and make them what they are- unique. <snip>

I don't really think there's been much argument that a DM should let those various character concepts in those games. But then, the detailed settings provides the justification for the restriction. "This world has a different flavor and here's the flavor text to let you know that. Yadda yadda."

What people have been arguing against is a DM just saying "Nope. Not here. I said so." Putting it in such terms is an attitude problem even if there is some other justification at work that the DM just doesn't want to share.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I don't really think there's been much argument that a DM should let those various character concepts in those games. But then, the detailed settings provides the justification for the restriction. "This world has a different flavor and here's the flavor text to let you know that. Yadda yadda."

What people have been arguing against is a DM just saying "Nope. Not here. I said so." Putting it in such terms is an attitude problem even if there is some other justification at work that the DM just doesn't want to share.

Actually, though, this raises the question (yet again) of why a published setting (with it's own flavor) is held to a different standard than a homebrew setting (with it's own flavor)? The fact that a "professional" campaign is accepted as-is and that a GM's campaign is questioned shows a lack of trust towards the GM, and anyone that doesn't trust their GM shouldn't be at that GM's table to begin with.

Honestly, folks should just trust their GMs more... If he really does suck or is a jerk, it won't take long to figure it out. Come to think of it, "restrictions" or not, if he sucks or is a jerk, you're not going to hang out long anyways, so why make a fuss about it?

If he's good, it will work; but it can only work if the GM is given a chance to prove it and himself. In my book, good GMs with good ideas not being given that chance is a shame, and seeing campaign world conditions only in terms of "restrictions" is the primary reason for that happening.