Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sanguinemetaldawn" data-source="post: 2378235" data-attributes="member: 23390">A new trend...?Not sure if this should be a different topic...The questions you ask here raise an issue I saw in-game yesterday...Our party was in a combat that included an enemy warrior/rogue type and a mage.  The DM states the mage is moving to a position such that 2 characters are in a straight line for the lightning bolt she is about to fire.  Now there are no obstructions/cover/concealment or anthing like that along the 80' line that would be drawn from caster, through first target, and through second target.One of the players argued that because of the position of the 2 targets and the layout of the grid, the caster could not occupy a square that put the 2 targets along in a straight casting line.Now you can criticize the player as much as you like, but he isn't rules lawyering, he saw it as "following the rules".My opinion that is beginning to form is that 3E D&D is great for people played previous versions of D&D and want more rules specificity/clarity.  The thing is, such players and DMs incorporate unwritten conventions and understandings.The second part of this opinion is that 3E is very very Bad for people learning D&D for the first time.  Its not just the flood of complexity as a barrier to entry.  Its also "rules thinking", as in: rules trump common sense.Unless I am gravely mistaken, this was never the way of earlier editions.  The rules were attempting to emulate reality.  This meant (and everyone understood) common sense overrides the rules.  Make a common sense argument to the DM and it would be accepted, and he would rule on the situation based on the argument.This wasn't just for conflict questions either.  This applied to character creation.  If you had interesting character concept that didn't fit the rules, you talked to your DM about it and worked up something new.What I saw yesterday is true, classical "rules lawyering", that is: rules trump reality and common sense, i.e. "The rules say *blank*, so even if in this situation it makes no sense whatsoever and everyone thinks its BS, you have to do it this way.  Because of the rules."This of course returns to the question posed by the OP.When I was discussing the issue with my fellow player my statement was simple:"Two points give you a line.  The caster moves onto that line, and casts the spell...its that simple."His argument was:"If I have to follow the rules, so do they.  They don't get to break the rules just because he is DM controlled.  The caster has to occupy a square.  She can't be partly in one and partly in another, just so she can hit both targets."The tone of his argument indicated he considered that cheating.  Leaving aside the ridiculousness of it...I think there is a kind of unspoken resentment of the rules...along the lines of: "I have to follow the rules (and if I have to, so do you)."I think a core ruleset is necessary, simply because people need some kind of shared baseline to work from.  Without that, what you get is total chaos, as people invent all kinds of different rules, and you end up with each participant having totally different "rules" for even the simplest task resolution....Player 1: "I think *this* is how we should do this"  Player 2: "No, we should do it *this* way"But even understanding the rules so that you can play a single session of the game requires an investment of time and energy.  After being essentially forced to conform to rules (a LOT of complex and interconnected rules) in order to play, some players likely resent being told other characters *don't* have to conform to the rules..."That's cheating".Then it gets ugly when "My rules fu is the best!" pops up, and the game is subverted into a male dominance contest for, as Ab3 called it in Achy Breaky Mythos, "establishment of the alpha geek".Yes, I know rules-alpha-geek-ism (rules lawyering) is a problem with the player, but the tons of complex rules give them more ammunition and encourage them.  And complex rules that try (and inevitably fail) to cover reality can end up turning people into "rules-adherents" who otherwise wouldn't be.I think this is the real change between 3E and previous editions.  In previous editions, everyone understood that the rules simply could not perfectly simulate reality, and overrule by common sense was expected.This is no longer true.There is an implied sense (at least with new players) that 3E D&D does simulate reality (because there is a rule for everything), and to not follow the rules is cheating.  This creates the new class of rules guys I mentioned above "rules adherents".  People who think you have to follow the rules because not doing so would be cheating, or disrupt game balance, or whatever.</blockquote>

Verification