The problem is choice

[billd91]

By only one way I meant 75% role playing 25% mechanics. Third edition seems to be the other way around.

Ultimately, that's up to the players and their style. It's entirely possible to play 2e with 25% role playing, 75% mechanics. 3e has more character build choices to it, but there's absolutely no reason that they can't all be fit within a role playing perspective except for what the players themselves bring to the table. If they can't come up with a role playing means to implement the mechanics, then they're not trying very hard to do so (which may be OK with them and the style of play they prefer).

 

[Dwimmerlied]

3e has more character build choices to it, but there's absolutely no reason that they can't all be fit within a role playing perspective except for what the players themselves bring to the table.

Yep; they are supposed to. That those choices, all of them, would be used in the context of roleplaying, was a core assumption with all the options.

Its pretty humorous that the roleplaying requirements are sometimes seen as the chink in the anti-charop armour; "speak language, druidic? man just kidnap a druid and torture them until they teach you!" But it certainly wasn't the intention. I know that b/c I read rool zero, man.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

The problem is different people have different expectations of the game, not that the game itself is inherently flawed. That's not to say 3E doesn't have flaws, it's just that the group needs to agree on how they're going to handle those flaws. If some in the group disagree on what the flaws might be and aren't willing to compromise or work with each other to figure out a solution then things are not going to go well.

 

[Dwimmerlied]

The problem is different people have different expectations of the game, not that the game itself is inherently flawed. That's not to say 3E doesn't have flaws, it's just that the group needs to agree on how they're going to handle those flaws. If some in the group disagree on what the flaws might be and aren't willing to compromise or work with each other to figure out a solution then things are not going to go well.

Absolutely. I'd go further and say that the problem isn't just differing expectations, but the dialogue that occurs when anyone tries to enforce this idea that their expectations are the only right way, and implying (or outright arguing) that others are wrong, or are not endorsed by the system and therefore illegitimate and irrelevant. It happens on all sides of the argument and can often be seen as the underlying seed of many of the debates.

Given that the forums are all about interesting debate, I don't see it in itself a problem (though rudeness and jerkisms might be), but the underlying ideas are interesting to observe.

 

[MJS]

Rather than reboot all the characters, I think the OP DM should just alter the mechanics on the one character causing all the problems. Min/maxers are the bane of all good games. This is the nature of a rules heavy system - the illusion of "balance". Change the rules, whenever and wherever needed. Never play BtB, regardless of edition.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Rather than reboot all the characters, I think the OP DM should just alter the mechanics on the one character causing all the problems. Min/maxers are the bane of all good games. This is the nature of a rules heavy system - the illusion of "balance". Change the rules, whenever and wherever needed. Never play BtB, regardless of edition.

Define "min/maxers" and "good games." There are plenty of groups that do have min/max players, and even the entire group can be made of them. Does that mean it's not a good game? Maybe for you, but the fact they're playing that way and likely enjoying it means chances are they think it's a good game.

 

[MJS]

Define "min/maxers" and "good games." There are plenty of groups that do have min/max players, and even the entire group can be made of them. Does that mean it's not a good game? Maybe for you, but the fact they're playing that way and likely enjoying it means chances are they think it's a good game.

I probably should have said "Rules Lawyers", which I associate with min/maxing, but is quite a different thing. A Rules Lawyer is a bane to any table, whereas min/maxing depends on the tone of the group.

 

[Ryujin]

I probably should have said "Rules Lawyers", which I associate with min/maxing, but is quite a different thing. A Rules Lawyer is a bane to any table, whereas min/maxing depends on the tone of the group.

They frequently do, however, go hand-in-hand.

 

[pemerton]

A Rules Lawyer is a bane to any table

In a good rules system I want players who know and use the rules. If using the rules, or pushing them hard, makes the game fall over, then it's not a game that I'm that keen on playing.

 

[Cadence]

In a good rules system I want players who know and use the rules. If using the rules, or pushing them hard, makes the game fall over, then it's not a game that I'm that keen on playing.

How does this mesh with your comments in the thread-that-shall-not-be-named that even legal documents drafted by multiple skilled professionals often run into a "plurality of meanings across a single term or set of synymous terms" and that "it is utterly unrealistic to expect RPG rules, drafted with much less care by people who are not professional drafters, to avoid the problem."?

Or is it that you just want them to not occur too often and to generally be about things that are absurd enough to be discarded?