Third Edition Culture- Is is sustainable?

[barsoomcore]

To be perfectly honest, the number one thing that turned me OFF GURPS was the GURPS players I met. Same thing with Rolemaster. They just... creeped me out, somehow.

No offense to any GURPS players I haven't met, I'm sure you're fine folk. But the people I met back in the day just weren't the sort of people I wanted to play with...

And for me, the game is primarily a social thing (which is one reason why computer-based versions don't appeal to me -- kind of defeats the whole point of playing the game in the first place, for me), so WHO I play with is much more important than WHAT I play with.

Er, that sounds incredibly non-Grandma-friendly. Wasn't meant to.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Random thoughts sparked by this thread:

I think part of the issue may be that 3.0/3.5 D&D is the most D&Dish D&D that there ever has been. I came in with 2E, which was probably the 'least D&Dish' version. What I mean by that is that 3.X adopts the core model of D&D--venture into dungeons, kill dragons and other monsters, take their stuff and level up, repeat--and focuses the game system around that to a degree unseen before, both in focus and in sophistication. I'm not saying that that's _all_ it can do, but judging from statements by WotC designers and other elements, I do think that that's what the game is optimized for. This has grown even more evident in some ways over the past few years--compare the 3.0 PH introduction to the 3.5 one.

Regarding the "Third Edition Culture", there is one thing I've noticed. There seems to be a school of thought that holds the game to be balanced on a knife's edge, and yet riddled with imbalanced, 'broken', or 'nerfed' items. I'm curious to how 'real' this problem is, and how much it affects the game and the community. Thoughts?

Matthew L. Martin

 

[MerricB]

Worthier in the sense that it's more likely (IMO) to make more customers happy. As I asked somewhat rhetorically, without a tournament scene, what value is there in rigidly standardizing the rules? What purpose does it serve, and who does it satisfy?

Well, there are two reasons:

One, even without a tournament scene (which I believe there definitely is, even if most gamers most gamers don't participate - hands up who here went to GenCon?), there definitely are people who move from campaign to campaign. Thus, standardisation of the rules is necessary - and it's not "rigid", but instead giving a very solid base from which people can move.

Two, it comes down to the RPG industry today. If individual games use any house rule they like (and in that, I'm talking about major changes to the system), then any supplemental book is rendered extremely problematic.

You could see this in 2E: the Complete Priest's Handbook provided a new way of creating customised priests which had no relationship whatsoever to how the cleric was balanced in the core books.

You can see this in Monte Cook's variant bard in the BoEM2 - by introducing the mechanic of "spell-songs" rather than the existing bardic spell structure, you cut yourself off from the supplemental material for bards in other books. Sure, your DM might allow you access to modified spells, but if you try to use the character with another DM, multiple issues will probably arise.

When inconsistencies arrive with rules that are rarely used, then it's not a major problem. When it starts occuring with core rules that are used all the times, then the problems multiply.

For instance, imagine if 3e did not have an initiative system (oD&D didn't!) In 3 books you get people devising their own initiative systems... and then those systems are built upon. CPM vs. MSDOS! Betamax vs. VHS!

Cheers!

 

[Spatula]

Right, rule zero, obviously. The problem is - I want to tailor everything about the system.

Then go ahead and do it, if your players are willing to try new things.

In most cases, masterwork weapons are never purchased because of the common prevalance of +1 magical weapons. I want a game where the players actually save up for better versions of mundane equipment because magical options just don't readily exist.

I'm generally sympathetic to your dislike of D&D economics. But have you ever compared the price of a masterwork weapon to a +1 weapon? Those plusses ain't cheap.

At this stage of my life, I'm beyond the concept of alignment. I could remove alignment, but it is so ingrained in the system that to do so would require significant tweaking.

No, not really. It's a bit harder in 3.5 than 3.0, maybe, because of the introduction of alignment-based DR. Still, I can't think of any problem that would arise that couldn't be solved in a few seconds. Spells with alignment-specific components lose those components (possibly rendering the spell worthless, in which case it no longer exists). Alignment-based DR becomes magic-based. There, you're done - no more alignment.

Baseline is this - I want a system that provides players options, not restrictions. D&D 3e went a LOOONG ways towards that by removing racial level limits, and racial class restrictions, and even some alignment restrictions. I want to take it a step further. I want a game that allows the player to construct his vision of a character. Currently, D&D works the opposite - the players have to fit their ideas into the molds that D&D provides.

That's true of any game system, though. Some systems are more flexible than others out of the box, of course. And any system can be modified to fit the group's needs. But 3E is so easy to modify, that I don't have a problem with its built-in restrictions.

 

[Akrasia]

This does a good job of explaining why some DMs (e.g. myself) are frustrated by 3E:

......

NPCs also possess this problem, but magnified, as they are built as the PCs are. Where having 20 abilities for a PC is fun and managable, having so many for an NPC is a pain.

AD&D solved this problem in two ways: Monsters were asymmetric to the rest of the game, they were only meant to be used as Monsters, and had only the very basic information about them. And PCs were limited in what they could do - and very uncustomisable.

However, the drawback of this was a system with much fewer options. The ability to customise the game without changing the rules was extremely limited. One of the best features of 3e, monsters with classes, was only done in an extremely ad-hoc fashion.

I'll emphasise here that the asymmetrical approach of 1e is a perfectly valid way of having a game. Many people (maybe most!) don't actually need the power of 3e. It's like using Microsoft Word: the program has a lot of functions, but most do people use most of them? No!

It's worth noting that 3e allows the simple use of its system, like MS Word does: just don't change the stats in the Monster Manual. Unfortunately, its NPC system took a beating with the loss of the pre-generated NPCs of 3e. (I prefer the new format, but that's because I customise my NPCs - it isn't so great for other people).

As I understand it, C&C has a better core system than 1e, but maintains the asymmetrical monster approach and the simpler PCs. (I'll reserve judgement on how it handles special combat options until I see it). This sounds a valid approach to the game. Of course, it has given up part of what makes 3e so attractive to many people.

Conversely, it doesn't overwhelm the DM or players with options, which can be a great drawback of 3e. Not a drawback for me, though!

So, there you have it: my views on the choices between simplicity and the complexity fostered by more options and choices in the game. Hopefully, you'll find it of some interest.

Cheers!

Merric, I think that you have done a very good job here in summarizing the trade-offs between 3E and a simpler system (like C&C).

Whether one feels "overwhelmed" by the options available in 3E (even just in the core rules) -- and especially the work required in order to construct NPCs, etc. -- is simply a matter of what one wants in a game. I don't have the time to construct adequately fleshed-out NPCs and monsters for my 3E campaign, at least not once the characters pass level 5 (or so). And even if I did have the time, I just don't enjoy it -- it feels too much like work. In addition, I would like the option of running my campaign into the high levels (12+), but would not dream of doing this in 3E.

DMs who do enjoy this 'prep work' might find this mystifying. But different people want to focus on different things in their campaigns. I am happy to play in a 3E campaign with a DM willing to do all this 'gearhead' work for NPCs, monsters, and so forth. But I just don't enjoy doing it myself.

A system that is more 'rules lite' requires less prep work. Such a system also allows me to focus more on the kind of prep work that I enjoy (campaign design, plots, etc.).

And while a 'rules lite' system does not give players as many "mechanical" ways to customize their characters (different feats, skills, prestige classes, etc.), it has certain other virtues. For one, 'rules lite' game sessions generally progress more quickly -- combat is much faster, and most tasks can be resolved easily. Another advantage: with less focus on "mechanical" matters, more attention can be devoted to the role-playing aspects of the game. IME there are many characters in 'rules lite' games that, by virtue of how they are played, are every bit as distinctive and interesting as characters in 3E.

At least this has been my experience, having run two 3E campaigns in recent years, as well as RC D&D and C&C games during that time. With a good enough DM, I am happy to play in any of those systems. But as a DM, I just find running 3E not enough fun.

 

[Akrasia]

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree then, because I firmly beleive that less robust systems invariably result in less consistency. Unless you are a master of memory (in which case, half these complaints disolve anyways), a system that relies on the GM making ad hoc calls as opposed to referring to a codified method will result in different calls in similar situations at different times. There simply is no way around it and no denying it.

You might "firmly believe" that less robust systems invariably result in less consistency, but this does not make your belief true.

You seem to be identifying a "more general rules system" with "a rules system that requires more ad hoc calls". This identification is mistaken.

Compare two systems for resolving non-combat tasks. One (the rules lite) system, holds that you resolve every task by determining which ability score is appropriate (e.g. Strength, Intelligence, etc.), and making an 'ability score check' (say, rolling a d20 and adding the ability score modifier, plus/minus additional modifiers for difficulty). The other (rules 'robust') system has a list of 20+ skills, and holds that you resolve every task by determining which skill is appropriate (e.g. Climb, Knowledge aracana, etc.), and making a 'skill check' (say, rolling a d20 and adding the skill modifier, plus/minus additional modifiers for difficulty).

I fail completely to see why the former system is more 'ad hoc' than the latter. It is simply more general: it uses 'dexterity' for all dexterity-related tasks, rather than breaking those tasks down into individual skills.

Obviously many people prefer the more complex system. But it is incorrect to claim that the more complex system is necessarily more consistent than the more general system.

 

[Desdichado]

To be perfectly honest, the number one thing that turned me OFF GURPS was the GURPS players I met. Same thing with Rolemaster. They just... creeped me out, somehow.

No offense to any GURPS players I haven't met, I'm sure you're fine folk. But the people I met back in the day just weren't the sort of people I wanted to play with...

Oh, I'd play it with the same people I play with now. They've at least expressed some interest in GURPS as well.

 

[Desdichado]

One, even without a tournament scene (which I believe there definitely is, even if most gamers most gamers don't participate - hands up who here went to GenCon?), there definitely are people who move from campaign to campaign. Thus, standardisation of the rules is necessary - and it's not "rigid", but instead giving a very solid base from which people can move.

GenCon has a lot of games, but does it have D&D tournaments? I've never heard that it does, and if so, participation has got to be extremely small. I think the whole tournament mindset was based on the old wargame roots of the game and it's been decades since anyone cared one way or another about D&D tournaments. As for moving from game to game; I don't know why consistent rules between games is important, or even desirable. I move from campaign to campaign too, but more often than not, not only are we using inconsistent rules, we're not even playing in the same system between campaigns. As long as rules are consistent within a campaign, having them be consistent between campaigns seems unimportant.

You could see this in 2E: the Complete Priest's Handbook provided a new way of creating customised priests which had no relationship whatsoever to how the cleric was balanced in the core books.

Yes, you could see that in 2e. You can see that in any RPG ever published. I don't think that's a significant issue, though. For your example with the bard; so what? If I've got a bard that uses a spellsong system rather than bard spells, then the release of a book o' bard spells is meaningless to me. You seem to be implying that the existence of this book means I have to buy it, read it, and incorporate it into my campaign, therefore giving myself all kinds of grief because I've got a house-ruled or alternate bard. The reality is, I simply ignore the new book, most likely. So what?

See, the thing is, I don't think I've ever been in a game that didn't have some houserules. I wouldn't claim that there aren't no houserule games out there, but I certainly believe that such groups are extremely rare. Therefore, the problem you describe is extremely widespread, and judging by the reactions of most of the gamers I've ever met, is not even considered a problem.

 

[Psion]

To be perfectly honest, the number one thing that turned me OFF GURPS was the GURPS players I met. Same thing with Rolemaster. They just... creeped me out, somehow.

Yeah, I can relate to that. I mean I could play rolemaster (though I think it's a bit of a paper tiger) (I don't think I could play GURPS, though), but it does seem like there is a solid 50% ratio of RM and GURPS players who wear their hate-on for D&D on their sleeve.

 

[Psion]

You might "firmly believe" that less robust systems invariably result in less consistency, but this does not make your belief true.

Nor yours. I could just as easily state that I think you are flat out wrong. In fact, I think I just did.

You seem to be identifying a "more general rules system" with "a rules system that requires more ad hoc calls". This identification is mistaken.

Compare two systems for resolving non-combat tasks. One (the rules lite) system, holds that you resolve every task by determining which ability score is appropriate (e.g. Strength, Intelligence, etc.), and making an 'ability score check' (say, rolling a d20 and adding the ability score modifier, plus/minus additional modifiers for difficulty). The other (rules 'robust') system has a list of 20+ skills, and holds that you resolve every task by determining which skill is appropriate (e.g. Climb, Knowledge aracana, etc.), and making a 'skill check' (say, rolling a d20 and adding the skill modifier, plus/minus additional modifiers for difficulty).

I fail completely to see why the former system is more 'ad hoc' than the latter.

The issue here is that a more general system is less completely defined. Now don't get me wrong; I certainly see the advantages of having general skills and have taken the time to criticize publishers who too easily engage in skill proliferation. And I even admit a certain fondness for Dream Park, a game that did what C&C did years ago.

But the simple matter is that, the less completely you have defined what exactly each of your character's capabilities, the more situations will crop that will make you make a decision at the table. And the more such decisions you have to rely on that are not codified, the more likely you are to make different rulings from time to time. That will result in less consistency unless you codify your decisions (which is de facto extending the rules) or you have a vice-like memory (which is also extending the rules, with the additional disadvantage that the players do not have accessed to the codified calls.) That's a fact.

The other issue (and one I had with Dream Park as well, and this goes ten times for games like Over The Edge) is that the fewer widgets you have to define your character, the more "pixelated" the acting definition of the character is. When all wizards with a 15 intelligence have the exact same intelligence have the exact same chance to puzzle out a script, that is too hazily defined for my tastes.