The True Rule 0.

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

THAT is rule 0. (IMO)

...alright, so now we've got Rule i, Rule ∞, and Rule 0.

All is well in the universe.

 

[Quasqueton]

Rule -1? Buy a PHB.

Quasqueton

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I'm just sick and tired of the [loud] whines that the RAW is not to their liking, only to be followed by yet another [loud] whines about having to work up houserules to fix "WotC's flaws."

Even worse to me is how disgruntled some people seem to be with anything WotC publishes beyond the core books. It's as though these folk think one has to use everything WotC publishes in order for them to be playing D&D. Hey guys, the core rules are all you need. The rest is optional.

 

[jmucchiello]

But the question remains: Should D&D standard ruleset be designed for "realistic roleplaying" in the first place?

Of course, a game with magic and elves and dragons and where only swords with powerful magic can take your head off should be realistic.

You want realistic. Play GURPS. Realistic requires that a sword strike that hits, probably cripples. Wounds linger for days.

Me, I prefer that D&D be just as unrealistic as it is now.

 

[S'mon]

It's a symbiotic relationship. Players and DM's need each other. And even though the DM puts more effort into the game doesn't mean that he can do as he pleases, the players be damned. Some DM's forget that.

Well IMO the GM will have a better time with happy players. However there is a danger, which seems to have become greater with 3e, that the players demand authority over the GM and his/her game, which I think is a bad idea.

 

[Cerbie]

But the question remains: Should D&D standard ruleset be designed for "realistic roleplaying" in the first place?

I'm just sick and tired of the [loud] whines that the RAW is not to their liking, only to be followed by yet another [loud] whines about having to work up houserules to fix "WotC's flaws."

It should have been designed with low magic characters in mind (especially the DMG content), like the literature that inspired it, and even the books that have come out based on it (let's see, how loaded up were those Dragonlance guys?).

...realism, however, is pointless; it's fantasy. Even if you play a game where there aren't real dragons, or swords that can cut heads off of their own accord, it's still fantasy. Realism is generally not fun.

There are rules we don't like. That's what house rules are for. However, such major undertakings as changing CR for low magic, or changing classes to match current CRs, is such a PITA, when it should have been included in the core rulebooks, IMO.

 

[S'mon]

Cerbie - I agree, genre-simulation is a better idea than reality-simulation in a fantasy game.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Well IMO the GM will have a better time with happy players. However there is a danger, which seems to have become greater with 3e, that the players demand authority over the GM and his/her game, which I think is a bad idea.

I think it is not too bad at all, if the players are reasonable. DM wants to play Ravenloft with very low magic, 22 point characters, almost no gear, and all the character flaws enforced by Ravenloft 3.5, but the players prefer heroic character (or, in some cases, don't like characters that cannot win if their life depends on it)? They either can demand authority over the GM, telling him that they don't like that sort of game, or they can leave the group. If the latter happens, the DM is alone. Won't help him, either.

Rule -1? Buy a PHB.

I say. I have almost as many D&D 3 PHB's as all other people I play with have together.

But the question remains: Should D&D standard ruleset be designed for "realistic roleplaying" in the first place?

I think not. Not just because of magic (which is, by definition, not realistic), but also because this will make things very complicated, and D&D is supposed to have a very simple core mechanic: roll d20, add modifiers, beat target number. If you start rolling for hit zones, and "realistic" expansion of fireballs and whatever, combat rounds will last even longer than they do now.

 

[S'mon]

I think it is not too bad at all, if the players are reasonable. DM wants to play Ravenloft with very low magic, 22 point characters, almost no gear, and all the character flaws enforced by Ravenloft 3.5, but the players prefer heroic character (or, in some cases, don't like characters that cannot win if their life depends on it)? They either can demand authority over the GM, telling him that they don't like that sort of game, or they can leave the group. If the latter happens, the DM is alone. Won't help him, either.

Well, if the GM decides he's happy to scrap his idea and run a heroic character game, that's fine. But GMing takes far far more effort than playing and in my experience it's far more important that a group is playing what the GM wants than what the players want, players can compromise a lot and still have an enjoyable game, a GM who has to compromise on what they want is likely to burn out quickly and cease to enjoy the game, which usually means a swift end to the game or, worse, a miserable experience for everyone.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Even worse to me is how disgruntled some people seem to be with anything WotC publishes beyond the core books. It's as though these folk think one has to use everything WotC publishes in order for them to be playing D&D. Hey guys, the core rules are all you need. The rest is optional.

Well, we all know WotC has shock troops that they send to your house whenever you don't buy the newest book. I mean, I've gotten to know some of them by name even, and they still beat me within an inch of my life. And then they take thirty dollars from my wallet and drop a book on my bleeding, broken body with a sneer of contempt. "See you next time, Robb," he says, and spits on me as he leaves.