Quote from: Exploderwizard;540214"BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NEXT, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE. "

The part I have referenced above is where I differ with Gary. As the sole arbiter of my game what the heck do I care about "THE GAME AS A WHOLE". This seems an awful lot like rules-first 4E thinking IMHO. I put ensuring that all participants (myself included) are enjoying the campaign as first and foremost. What the game as a whole is doing is at best a tertiary concern.

The way I understand it, what matters most is the game as a game, including all its moving parts ("the game as a whole") first, then the campaign (and milieu) that is used as a vehicle to the game itself, and then the participants which may vary from session to session as they take part in the game as previously ordained. Which means the players don't get to override the campaign and game itself just because, that the campaign should remain a means to an end (the act of play itself), not the end itself, and that what matters ultimately is to play the game while being conscious that no particular part (players, DMs, communication, adjudication, rules, metagame, in-game, etc etc) makes for the whole experience itself.

Being conscious of the different moving parts of a role playing game and being able to play with them to create a superior alloy in the game itself being played is actually how I would define excellent DMing and/or playing.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;540211But Skip appears to be more in the strict rules lawyer camp of codifying everything so the players can use that against the GM making his own judgment calls.

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. But 3e didn't nueter GM's. And AD&D was just as full of codified, exacting minutia (% chance of disease in a swamp, weapons vs. armor table, treasure tables). And rules lawyering was just as much a problem "back in the day".

People like what they like. You can debate it. But cleanly written, and well organized rules are an aid to GM's. And even if the edition didn't suit your needs—didn't make your games any better, maybe even got in your way—they clearly suited the needs of some percentage of the D&D player base.

IMHO, YMMV.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;540221Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. But 3e didn't nueter GM's. And AD&D was just as full of codified, exacting minutia (% chance of disease in a swamp, weapons vs. armor table, treasure tables). And rules lawyering was just as much a problem "back in the day".

People like what they like. You can debate it. But cleanly written, and well organized rules are an aid to GM's. And even if the edition didn't suit your needs—didn't make your games any better, maybe even got in your way—they clearly suited the needs of some percentage of the D&D player base.

IMHO, YMMV.

I think where 3E went further though was how it handled stuff like skill and movement on the battlefield. It definitely created more hard rules for tactical movements and that sort of thing.

Again I am not at all opposed to cleanly written and well organized rules. Regardless of granularity I want my rules to be well presented. And I do understand that some people want that kind of detail. For me personally it isn't what I am after. With 3E, this is a common enough complaint I think they need to consider it as they make 5E. But I do understand (a bit like 4E powers and healing surges) what is a bug to some is a feature for others and the level of codification in 3E was popular with many players. How they reconcile that is a judgment call the designers have to make in light of playtest feedback.

Just giving my position on it, and my experience with 3E. Which I am not saying was a terrible system, but the two things that detracted most from my enjoyment of it (as a player and a GM) was its seeming friendliness to rules laywering and optimization.

My experience with rules lawyering was it was much less of a problem back in the day (but then I started in 86, can't speak to the 70s or early 80s). Could have just been the players I encountered post 2000. But I tend to think the 3E system had something to do with it (it certainly had something to do with the surge in min/maxing).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;540222Just giving my position on it, and my experience with 3E.

I get that. I'm not saying you should like it. I'm not saying you're a bad person for disliking it.

Your games. Your rules. Your fun.

People should play their game the way they want it to be played. That's what this hobby is about. Edition warring just gets in the way.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;540223I get that. I'm not saying you should like it. I'm not saying you're a bad person for disliking it.

Your games. Your rules. Your fun.

People should play their game the way they want it to be played. That's what this hobby is about. Edition warring just gets in the way.

Sure, i don't like to attack people for not holding my view of an edition, but people should be able to share opinions on what editions and mechanics they like or dislike. To me, there is nothing wrong with saying you find an edition to be too X. When I say such a thing I have no expectation others will agree or feel the need to agree.

God forbid gamers would actually have gaming preferences and would want to talk about them. Even more insulting is the nerve these people have to want to try and explain why it is they might prefer this to that, or enjoy this game rather than that game. This is all badwrongtalk. We should all sing kumbaya together, wear those "I am with D&D, all editions" T Shirts proudly and just pray with the enlightened masses. Game design will only yield superior products from there.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;540231To me, there is nothing wrong with saying you find an edition to be too X.

I don't think that's wrong. But that's not edition warring. That's just discussion. But edition warring does occur, and it's obnoxious and tedious.

It's why a thread about roleplaying as a whole became one about D&D solely, and one that features posts which, when boiled down, are "D&D edition X is bad" and "people who like D&D edition X are bad".

Seriously? That's the most insightful comment we can come up with? Why is it we can't even look at discussing design principles of contemporary games without it degenerating into a D&D edition war?

No clue. But it is obnoxious and tedious.

Quote from: Benoist;540234God forbid gamers would actually have gaming preferences and would want to talk about them.

If you actually did that, I wouldn't have a problem. But you didn't. By your own admission.

(I guess this is the point at which I'm supposed to refer to you in a derogatory manner, probably using the word "cunt". Because apparently that's "mature discussion of gaming preferences" that will materially advance the hobby. Yeah...)

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;540238If you actually did that, I wouldn't have a problem. But you didn't. By your own admission.

Whatever dude. I did make a point, which you took with some politically correct "ad hominem" bullshit, completely discarding the fact this actually is relevant to the way Skip Williams thinks about game design, and how by his own admission this participated to the design of 3rd edition, a point which I have actually substantiated with an actual quote from a guy who both played with him back in the day and was his boy scout patrol leader.

The point is that I was making a remark out of actual knowledge and that you reacted in a completely PC manner on me, which then landed me a fair helping of condescension on your part, which is the point at which I told you to fuck off (that is, immediately after your very first answer to me). So again, I'll tell you to go fuck yourself.

Quote from: Benoist;540241you reacted in a completely PC manner on me

Right. Suggesting that personal abuse might not be the most productive course, and that mature adults might want to behave with a slight hint of politeness, is "completely PC".

Because politeness and respect for other posters materially hampers the advancement of the hobby. (Your words.)

Quote from: Benoist;540241which is the point at which I told you to fuck off... So again, I'll tell you to go fuck yourself.

Well, I can see how the hobby has been materially advanced by your penchant for personal abuse. Great new mechanics are surely on the way because of these two statements.

I feel terrible that I ever thought telling people to "fuck off" might not be the absolute best way to engage in conversation. "Fuck off" 's for everyone!

Do you like AD&D? "Fuck off!" Do you like 3e? "Fuck off!" Do you like anything, anywhere, for any reason? "Fuck off!"

Wow, look at the speed the hobby is advancing! If only we could create a macro to spam the forum with "fuck off" 's, imagine how fast the hobby would advance!

Sure it will.

The point is this: you want me to not tell you to go fuck yourself? Drop the condescension. Then we'll see.

Running a character focused game requires a different set of skills as a DM than an exploration focused game IMO. One could speculate that the rules for D&D evolved in response to D&D becoming more of a character focused game over time.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;540249Running a character focused game requires a different set of skills as a DM than an exploration focused game IMO. One could speculate that the rules for D&D evolved in response to D&D becoming more of a character focused game over time.

You are full of more shit than a Christmas turkey on this one.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;540249Running a character focused game requires a different set of skills as a DM than an exploration focused game IMO. One could speculate that the rules for D&D evolved in response to D&D becoming more of a character focused game over time.

I don't think so.

Quote from: RandallS;540069I think the 3e player base stopped considering rules lawyers and min-maxers as "annoying." Many -- if not most -- pre-3e campaigns tended to consider at least extreme rules lawyers and min-maxers as annoying and undesirable players. WOTC-era D&D campaigns seemed much more likely to welcome such players (or even consider them excellent examples). Tossing them from campaigns would have stopped many 3e problems in their tracks.

I didn't really see any point at which min-maxers or rules lawyers were accepted during 3e's run. Never enough to have them kicked out of games, but banned classes/feats/spells/whatever lists followed the rules bits that became problematic.

One DM from back then still won't allow necromancy because a player used zombies to set off traps for example. He allowed it at the time, but he decided it wasn't how he wanted his games to go from then on and gave it the axe.

Quote from: Benoist;540105Skip Williams was a rules lawyer and a whiny player in the early days.

It carried through in 3e's design.

Bringing this back to the original point of discussion: Can you point to any actual examples in the rules that you believe could only have existed for this reason?

It's all well and good to attack Skip, and I really don't give a shit about all that, but if you can't demonstrate how his influence affected the design it's not terribly useful.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;540142Maybe use of player knowledge/skill to resolve actions, instead of a character skill check. Its not crappy if there is no skill system, or if its vague, but in the context of 3.x it becomes bad practice because many skills become pointless if you're going to let people roleplay through them instead (Diplomacy). Or, tasks become more difficult because you have to do both: finding something requiring you to both say you search the dead guy's pants and make a Search check.

See, this is something I actually saw now and again. That fuzzy line of what to roll for and what to roleplay did occasionally become a problem. Personally, I prefer a system where either each option is viable (so the item's in a specific place and searching there will find it, or searching the area has a chance to find it), where roleplay weights rolling odds (think bluff, where the plausibility of the lie determined the DC), and where only things in doubt get rolled / rolls in combat are minimized (game I'm working on tends to take rolls out of movement in combat).

If there was a common problem in GMing during the 3e era it was the use of the rules as a crutch by the DM. Also failure to prep enough or wing it, but I think that had to do with failures of advice more than rules.