What did we do before feats, skills, and prestige classes?

[teitan]

But that's the DMs and players not knowing the rules. The mentality isn't connected to the system, because the system contradicts the mentality.

-Hyp.

See, there was no need for you to say this because I said "I know it isn't in the Rules as Written" but that with the explosion of rules that many people are starting to quantify EVERYTHING. I also said it happened in previous editions and said 3e was the best incarnation of the game though I disliked how 3.5 seems to have reduced 3e to a wargame with the nerfing of the buff spells.

Jason

 

[Akrasia]

... I'm moving to a rules-lite approach for my main game. Here's why:

1. Time for play
...
2. Time for preparation
...
3. Coarse-grained vs. Fine-grained

... In practice, however, I find that the rules-lite systems have a different style and feel; it feels like a different kind of game. Try it, you might like it. You don't have to pick one approach or one system; there's room for more than one around the gaming table, IMO.

I certainly agree with your main points here.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

See, there was no need for you to say this because I said "I know it isn't in the Rules as Written" but that with the explosion of rules that many people are starting to quantify EVERYTHING. I also said it happened in previous editions and said 3e was the best incarnation of the game though I disliked how 3.5 seems to have reduced 3e to a wargame with the nerfing of the buff spells.

But, the actions you described ARE in the Rules As Written. In one case, you can use the skill untrained with a +1 bonus, according to the RAW. In the other, you can use the uzi but take a -4 nonproficiency penalty. The GM's desire to "quantify" those already existing rules is either a desire for house rules that go AGAINST the explicitly stated RAW, or a misreading (or lack of reading) of those rules.

 

[teitan]

But, the actions you described ARE in the Rules As Written. In one case, you can use the skill untrained with a +1 bonus, according to the RAW. In the other, you can use the uzi but take a -4 nonproficiency penalty. The GM's desire to "quantify" those already existing rules is either a desire for house rules that go AGAINST the explicitly stated RAW, or a misreading (or lack of reading) of those rules.

You missed my point. I said you can do those things and players are saying you can't. Not to sound snarky but am I the only person capable of understanding English here? To repeat myself a third time, PLAYERS, not me or the rules, are starting to want everything QUANTIFIED or written on the character sheet. They have started forgetting about untrained skill use and the idea of FUN. They think because you don't have a specific feat chain you can't fire an Uzi or if you don't have Martial Proficiency Longsword as a wizard that the wizard can't attack with a longsword or wear armour or whatnot. According to the rules it is perfectly possible with -4 penalties but to these players because they don't want these penalties and want EVERYTHING quantified they think it means they CAN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is ruining a LOT of the fun for me. It has happened in previous editions but it seems to be a bigger factor in complex games like D20 (simple execution but all the exception via feats and skills etc complicate things butnot in a bad way, you understand what I mean... er well...), Hero etc.

Jason

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

You missed my point. I said you can do those things and players are saying you can't. Not to sound snarky but am I the only person capable of understanding English here? To repeat myself a third time, PLAYERS, not me or the rules, are starting to want everything QUANTIFIED or written on the character sheet. They have started forgetting about untrained skill use and the idea of FUN. They think because you don't have a specific feat chain you can't fire an Uzi or if you don't have Martial Proficiency Longsword as a wizard that the wizard can't attack with a longsword or wear armour or whatnot. According to the rules it is perfectly possible with -4 penalties but to these players because they don't want these penalties and want EVERYTHING quantified they think it means they CAN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is ruining a LOT of the fun for me. It has happened in previous editions but it seems to be a bigger factor in complex games like D20 (simple execution but all the exception via feats and skills etc complicate things butnot in a bad way, you understand what I mean... er well...), Hero etc.

Whereas I've almost never seen this happen in a rules-heavy system, which EXPLICITLY TELLS YOU THE ANSWER. If the other players object, open your rulebook and point them to the line. It ain't rocket science.

Indeed, this is one of the main issues rules-heavy systems seek to address: removing interpretation/DM rules call issues by providing explicit answers to questions such as 'can I grab a chandelier and swing across the room.' In my experience, this tends to work.

I would suggest that the problem is purely with the limited subset of players you, personally, have the misfortune of playing with.

 

[Lorehead]

"If it's not in the rules, you can't do it" isn't new, or even on the rise. The 3.0 DMG even did what it could to put that style of play out to pasture right in the introduction. In fact, swinging on a chandelier is one of Monte Cook's examples of an action not covered by the rules, yet which a DM should allow (p 63). The consistent resolution made it easier, not harder, to come up with a resolution mechanic on the fly.

I haven't met those DMs who won't let players take actions allowed by the rules because it's not on the character sheet, but I very much doubt that those DMs were more willing to make up house rules on the spot for 1E or 2E than for the more streamlined rules we have today.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

We kicked open the door, killed the monster, grabbed the treasure, and ran away again!

The Auld Grump

 

[FireLance]

You missed my point. I said you can do those things and players are saying you can't. Not to sound snarky but am I the only person capable of understanding English here? To repeat myself a third time, PLAYERS, not me or the rules, are starting to want everything QUANTIFIED or written on the character sheet. They have started forgetting about untrained skill use and the idea of FUN. They think because you don't have a specific feat chain you can't fire an Uzi or if you don't have Martial Proficiency Longsword as a wizard that the wizard can't attack with a longsword or wear armour or whatnot. According to the rules it is perfectly possible with -4 penalties but to these players because they don't want these penalties and want EVERYTHING quantified they think it means they CAN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is ruining a LOT of the fun for me. It has happened in previous editions but it seems to be a bigger factor in complex games like D20 (simple execution but all the exception via feats and skills etc complicate things butnot in a bad way, you understand what I mean... er well...), Hero etc.

Seriously, I don't think it's a 3e problem. I think it's a holdover from previous edition where there were absolute restrictions. A wizard couldn't use a longsword, ever*. Even with a -4 penalty. A wizard couldn't cast spells in armor. Even leather armor effectively had a 100% chance of arcane spell failure.

3e no longer has these restictions, but it looks like these players are still stuck in 2e's absolute no mindset.

* Gandalf's ability to wield Glamdring was often cited as "proof" that he was a dual-classed Fighter/Wizard.

 

[teitan]

I didn't say it was a 3e problem but that it is becoming a problem again with 3.5 because of the vast amount of rules available and people wanting things quanitified. Do I need to repeat myself AGAIN on that? It happens in EVERY game but it has happened faster in 3e because of the weird interpretations that people are starting to develop. The only thing I fault 3.5 with (it is an improvement in many ways of 3e) is the fact that D&D is slowly becoming more of a wargame with the nerfing of a lot of magic spells and emphasis on tactical combat.

They also didn't play 2e, note in my post I said I taught the one group how to play with 3e. They haven't played any previous editions since and won't.

J

 

[Piratecat]

It sounds obvious, but have you tried explicitly telling your players that they can use skills untrained and try stuff not in the rules?

Adding action points might help, too, especially if you specify that you have to describe something really cool when you spend one.