Was 3rd edition fundamentaly flawed?

[howandwhy99]

No, gaming the DM is not much better than gaming the system.

We call that Roleplay.

 

[hong]

We call that Roleplay.

No, we call that gaming the DM.

 

[Alt Boy!]

Post on your MAIN!

lol wut?

 

[howandwhy99]

No, we call that gaming the DM.

Perhaps you could explain. Not to be argumentative, but because this whole "Gaming the DM" paradigm seems like a never explained, detailed, or exampled counterargument.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

They could have done that, sure. They could have created a single-stat game. You add this stat to a d20 roll. If you beat the other guy's d20 roll (plus his one stat) you win. But all simplicity comes at the cost of options. Options are complexity and complexity is options. If you want customization, then you'll get the complexity that comes with it. If you can do with less, you can have a simpler, lighter, faster game. I'll believe WotC created a system with more options and less complexity when they unveil their giant laser built on the moon.

You're confusing complexity and difficulty of use. You can make a very complex game that's easy to use, and part of that comes from focusing on the metadesign issue of "how to get results into the user's hands with minimum user interaction with the rules". This is important to computer software, and it's important to game design.

Drudge work is entirely subjective. I really, really hate rules-light systems. I'd rather not play than play rules-light. I can't think of a worse kind of gaming drudgery. Not every system is right for every person. 4e obviously is not going to be right for me. 3.5 isn't right for you. That's fine. I didn't claim that we have identical gaming tastes.

You've tried to claim that there's nothing wrong with the rules if some of us find them to be too much time and effort to use, and implied that there's something wrong with those using the rules instead. You can't hide behind "oh, it's just a matter of taste" at this point.

What takes fifty minutes? I've applied extremely fiddly templates in half the time. The speed at which one creates characters or NPCs of equivalent complexity is a function of system familiarity.

Which would mean something if I made the same characters all the time using the same races, classes and templates. But I like to keep things fresh. Also, what Hong said about system mastery is bang on. I don't want to have to master a system in order to use it. That's the opposite of good game design. A good game should come to me with my desired results on a silver platter alongside a couple ounces of scotch and some dark chocolate. I shouldn't have to wrestle a system to the ground to get it to function.

Maybe if you've made some kind of mistake you have to go back under the hood, but a D&D game isn't your hair. It doesn't need to be washed daily. What makes you go back under the hood? I really doubt that 4e is going to eliminate human error, so you can't be complaining about that. What drives you back under the hood?

Constructing mid- to high-level NPCs from races, classes, and templates. Ad-hoc encounter balance. Anything that forces me to do research in order to implement it.

 

[Bacris]

Not to mention, if you remove rules from the province of the Players, you remove their ability to Rules Lawyer. If they do not know the rules, but only "how the world works", they can only become curious when things don't work consistently and look for explanations. Not turn the game into repeated arguments. I'm hoping they take this kind of Rules Mastery out of the game too.

There's a very big difference between wondering how something works and it never working consistently.

Personally, I like that the players know the rules. My DMs ask me how something works, rather than ad hoc it, because they want to be consistent in how the game works. If they want a certain NPC to use different rules, they use different rules, but what you're describing is much closer to 1st / 2nd Ed, where so much was left undocumented that the DM had to make ad hoc or house rules for everything - and that not only meant DMs had to figure out a lot more on the fly, but also that gaming experience from group to group was grossly different, even if using the same game system.

Personally, I hope they keep the 3E style of documenting how situations work, but streamline them.

My character may not realize that to do a Grapple attack, he first provokes an attack of opportunity, then has to make a touch attack, then has to win an opposed check, but I do and my DM does, so it's not always a rules mystery that can then lead to annoyance when one DM does it some way that helps the player and another DM does it in a way that helps the monster - either because of intentional or unintentional rules bias. I like that it's standardized. Now I can worry about the mysteries of the plot, not the mysteries of what this DM is going to rule when my character tries to lock wrists with the BBEG.

 

[jeffh]

Perhaps you could explain. Not to be argumentative, but because this whole "Gaming the DM" paradigm seems like a never explained, detailed, or exampled counterargument.

Are you really saying that you don't understand how (a) playing on the basis of what your character would do and (b) playing on the basis of guessing what the DM wants you to do or will respond positively to, differ?

These are totally different concepts and the common assumption that the latter somehow facilitates the former - much less your apparent view that they're the same thing - has always seemed bizarre to me. It is people who make that assumption that owe everyone else an explanation, not the other way around, because on the face of it it's a non sequitur.

 

[ZappoHisbane]

Are you really saying that you don't understand how (a) playing on the basis of what your character would do and (b) playing on the basis of guessing what the DM wants you to do or will respond positively to, differ?[/I].

Actually I think he, like me, was simply not sure what exactly was meant by 'Gaming the DM'. Now we both know, thanks for that. For the snark, not so much.

 

[WayneLigon]

Perhaps you could explain. Not to be argumentative, but because this whole "Gaming the DM" paradigm seems like a never explained, detailed, or exampled counterargument.

'Gaming the DM' is also called metagaming; ie, using personal real-world knowledge that your character could not possibly possess to weigh things to your advantage.

Examples: I know that my DM Bob loves elves. He reveres them and thinks that they are the greatest thing since sliced bread. He never says anything bad about elves and defends the race against anyone who does say something bad about elves. In having gamed with Bob for a number of years, I have noticed that elves are never the bad guys.

Now, we go to the current game that night. Bob has an adventure in which we find ourselves having to choose between two apparently equal bad guys: Greenleaf the Elf and Cooksgrits the Halfling, in fight. We can bring down ONE of them, but that will ensure the other one will get away. If we choose wrong, we lose the Foozle or whatever we're after and have to go through all sorts of trouble to get it back.

my character, Conray the rogue, has no reason on God's green earth to choose one over the other based on the information that has been presented to us. Bob has been a crafty DM and we have no clues as to which of these people is the real bad guy. It's a pure crapshoot as to which one to go after.

Or is it?

Since I-the-player know there is no way in Hell that Bob will let Greenleaf be a bad guy, I seemingly casually choose Cooksgrits to shoot at in the fight, finally killing him. I check Cooksgrit's body and Gasp! There is the Foozle we need! I chose correctly. People at the table congratulate me on my luck. I-the-player know there was no luck involved at all: I have successfully 'gamed the DM'.

 

[howandwhy99]

There's a very big difference between wondering how something works and it never working consistently.

The rules are there to aid the DM to insure consistency in his or her actions. Determining how things in the world operate is part of the exploration in "gaming the world". Just like we frequently need to operate not on pre-known laws, but on trial and error judgments about this world, the players/characters learn how the world works through trial and error in the gaming world.

Personally, I like that the players know the rules. My DMs ask me how something works, rather than ad hoc it, because they want to be consistent in how the game works. If they want a certain NPC to use different rules, they use different rules, but what you're describing is much closer to 1st / 2nd Ed, where so much was left undocumented that the DM had to make ad hoc or house rules for everything - and that not only meant DMs had to figure out a lot more on the fly, but also that gaming experience from group to group was grossly different, even if using the same game system.

Yes, the gaming experience from group to group is going to differ based on each group's preferences. Allowing flexibility of rules offers this more customized experience.

Personally, I hope they keep the 3E style of documenting how situations work, but streamline them.

My character may not realize that to do a Grapple attack, he first provokes an attack of opportunity, then has to make a touch attack, then has to win an opposed check, but I do and my DM does, so it's not always a rules mystery that can then lead to annoyance when one DM does it some way that helps the player and another DM does it in a way that helps the monster - either because of intentional or unintentional rules bias. I like that it's standardized. Now I can worry about the mysteries of the plot, not the mysteries of what this DM is going to rule when my character tries to lock wrists with the BBEG.

Standardized rules are the basis of consistent rules at a table. The game will be house ruled by practically every D&D group. That's not something one can expect not to happen. RAW can certainly still be played at conventions of course, but the game doesn't need to require every home game to follow the same pattern. In fact, allowing multiple supplements to cover a very wide breadth and depth for each, is a fine way to sell more products. In addition, not every group will be satisfied by the wargame rules, the naval battle rules, or economic system. Nor does any one publisher need only to publish one. Options means that extra optional breadth and depth can have plenty of overlap to choose from. Not every group is satisfied by every design. Offering more than one allows customization and makes the game better for everyone involved.

The mystery of the world will be learned at a table with a rules consistent DM. Not every world will be the same nor will how every world works. But mysteries learned are like learning the rules from not playing, the more you know the better off you'll be. But knowing those rules beforehand isn't required for play. It is part of play.