D&D 1st and 2nd Ed. sure was one crappy game, wasn't it?

[PhoneLobster]

Again, this is up to your DM to decide. While you can make a case for it allowing memories, ultimately there's no text to back that up.

Dude. "in all respects" its utterly explicit and its a quote right from the spell. Only by pulling rule zero to contradict the rules as written is it "up to your DM" to exclude ANYTHING that the original/template creature has.

Now if you intend to continue to pretend that the intent of 2nd edition polymorph was to turn everyone into mewling adult baby gold dragons who wet their nappies because they haven't learnt bladder control go ahead but you are rather clearly contradicting the spell description as it was written as well as championing a really dumb interpretation rules intent, even if it did have any kind of basis, which it doesn't.

[RandomCasualty]

1130793253[/unixtime]]
Vague or ambigious rules on the other hand are those where you are not sure how they are supposed to work (example: what are "natural" abilities for the purposes of 3rd edition polymorph?). So Monk/natural attack interaction is ambigious, spell inheritance is vague, but prestidigitation is actually very clear. "Do anything listed here or what your DM thinks is appropriate" works just fine and apart from that also has no bearing at all on your original argument, namely "vague rules are better than bad rules", seeing as there are no bad-but-explicit prestidigitation, wish or even polymorph rules to compare them to. Heck, if anything polymorph was more explicit in 2nd edition.

Well effectively having it be ambiguous allows the DM to make a given call and gives him an escape clause so to speak that he can use to balance the spell without resorting to directly using rule 0.

Now, I'd have preferred if they just put in "A DM can and should restrict any monstrous ability he deems too powerful" right in the spell description. But ambiguity sort of allows that without directly saying it.

As for polymorph in 2E, I think it was less explicit because the DM has a lot of room to maneuver. In 3E, poly is giving you direct bonuses, there's no way to escape that, because it's all numeric. In 2E, you're using it to try to create gold dragon allies, whom you have no control over.

What happens when you create this gold dragon? Does it automatically know how it came into the world? Does it have any loyalty to you? Can it even speak? What knowledge does it have? Can you copy the mind of an existing creature and get all its memories or is it just a new gold dragon? Can you even create a great wyrm dragon or does it become a dragon with the age of the creature you transformed (so a 1 year old mouse or cockroach only becomes a little hatchling)?

All those questions are totally open for the DM to answer.

While it's true that 2E poly is probably more abusable if your DM allows you to create armies of solars to aid you and so on, but it's much easier to dodge such abuse by filling in an ambiguity with some restrictions. Creating a solar for instance may actually piss it off, because the wizard is playing god. So creating the army of solars or gold dragons may not be a great idea because they may turn on you.

In 3E of course, you're just getting bonuses. So you dont' have a solar or gold dragon army to worry about, but you do have huge bonuses to deal with and those bonuses must be rule 0ed away. You must change the rules or you are freakin' screwed.

[Crissa]

Phone seems to have not read the spell... It says it doesn't create a specific person, just someone 'of that race' - so every mouse you turn into a humn (assuming it doesn't explode) turns into a completely different person.

Also, clone and PO'd creatures are not the player. Once a PC or NPC turns into a different creature, and gains that new mentality - it is now an NPC. Undeniably, whenever a mental change was placed on a PC, that PC became an NPC without DM intervention - these were the rules.

So if you manage to make a Gold Dragon with mouse stats - it doesn't know why it's there, how it got there - you now have a delusional, powerful, and unaligned NPC in your midst.

The PO'd creature gains the belief and abilities - but no skills or knowledge it did not previously have. At best, it thinks you rescued it from being a mouse - at worse it thinks you just brought it here against its will and in a cage.

That's a benefit somehow?

-Crissa

[Murtak]

So if you manage to make a Gold Dragon with mouse stats - it doesn't know why it's there, how it got there - you now have a delusional, powerful, and unaligned NPC in your midst.

The PO'd creature gains the belief and abilities - but no skills or knowledge it did not previously have. At best, it thinks you rescued it from being a mouse - at worse it thinks you just brought it here against its will and in a cage.

That's a benefit somehow?

Yes. Having a creature which is the very embodiment of lawful goodness on a neverending quest to save the world around will work just fine for your typical party. At best it will think you saved it from a horrible fate and will help you to repay that debt. At worst it will be indifferent to you and will just leave.

Why the heck would it think ill of you? Even if it somehow remembered being a mouse, why would it think you did anything wrong? Because you bring more powerful good creatures into the world? Because you gave it extra powers? I can not see how you are doing anything bad or even morally questionable by polymorphing little bunnies into dragons.

[RandomCasualty]

1130888958[/unixtime]]
Why the heck would it think ill of you? Even if it somehow remembered being a mouse, why would it think you did anything wrong? Because you bring more powerful good creatures into the world? Because you gave it extra powers? I can not see how you are doing anything bad or even morally questionable by polymorphing little bunnies into dragons.

Also, the whole dragon thing wouldn't work anyway, since it would just be a hatchling (or a dragon egg) depending on what your DM rules. "Great wyrm" isnt' a separate creature type anymore than "venerable human" is a separate creature type.

So if you cast it on a mouse, which has probably onyl been alive a few months, it'll only be a months old dragon (not too helpful). While you could potentially create a heck of a lot of young dragons, you're going to need to find ways to feed all those dragons and will likely attract someone's attention with your dragon nursery. At the very least the DM doesn't care because they won't mature for hundreds of years.

Really, the powerful things you can create with this will tend to be celestials, who will resent you playing god by creating them, as that's the right of the gods to do so.

[Crissa]

Oh, that's a good point, Random, as PO doesn't say you can turn someone into a younger or older version, though you could attempt to disguise.

And while Gold Dragons are Lawful Good, someone needs to re-read the 2ed Dragon entries and books.

That Gold dragon might decide that since you're there, you'd better serve it...

-Crissa

[PhoneLobster]

Phone seems to have not read the spell... It says it doesn't create a specific person, just someone 'of that race' - so every mouse you turn into a humn (assuming it doesn't explode) turns into a completely different person.

There is no such text in the spell. 2nd Edition Advanced, players handbook, 11th printing. I'm holding it my hands right this moment.

Also, clone and PO'd creatures are not the player. Once a PC or NPC turns into a different creature, and gains that new mentality - it is now an NPC. Undeniably, whenever a mental change was placed on a PC, that PC became an NPC without DM intervention - these were the rules.

Actually the spell very specifically states that should a creatures mentality change due to this spell it became an NPC under the DM's control. (Though that primarily exists for the situation of turning the PC fighter into a Red Dragon and regretting it later).

But that is no excuse to screw the party over. An exact mental copy of a helpful person or creature had better damn well be helpful or else the DM is being a jerk.

And if my narcissistic wizard creates mentally identical clone I damn well expect it to hold as much affection and respect for him as he has for it.

So if you manage to make a Gold Dragon with mouse stats -

Due to the 100% possibility of the mental change occuring in that circumstance it is impossible to ever make a Gold Dragon that actually retains even mental mouse stats.

it doesn't know why it's there, how it got there - you now have a delusional, powerful, and unaligned NPC in your midst.

Unaligned hey? Why? Alignment rules were pretty strict really. Didn't 2nd edition recommend Gygaxian tortures for anyone or anything that dared bend or break alignment?

The PO'd creature gains the belief and abilities - but no skills or knowledge it did not previously have.

No, once the mental change occurs it gains EVERYTHING.

At best, it thinks you rescued it from being a mouse - at worse it thinks you just brought it here against its will and in a cage.

The spell specifically states that the creature believes it is what it mentally becomes, and for instance should the physical aspect of the change be reversed it will strive to return to its true form (which actually isn't its true form).

Gain from that what you will.

But if you believe changing mentally and completely into another being means you keep your old memories and grudges, well who cares. Then you just need to treat the white bunny nice and feed sugar cubes to your horses and camels.

And if your critters are going around mysteriously retaining mental stuff (for which there is no supporting text as compared to the supporting text for gaining memories), extra plus bonus, polymorph your friendly familiar into a vastly powerful monster (or identical spell casting clone of yourself) empathically bonded to you, yay! If you clone yourself your familiar can get another familiar and do the same thing to it. Double yay!

Also, the whole dragon thing wouldn't work anyway, since it would just be a hatchling (or a dragon egg) depending on what your DM rules. "Great wyrm" isnt' a separate creature type anymore than "venerable human" is a separate creature type.

Ah, still with the "2nd edition designers intended things to be polymorphed into bed wetting babies" line of argument I see.

I'd walk out on that DM in 5 seconds flat, as would most sane players. Especially since this perfectly unreasonable ruling of yours will cripple the spell in its direct intended and mapped out by means of example intent.

And there continues to be zero basis for your age not being part of physical form thing.

I mean considering the polymorph example discusses polymorphing an orc into a white dragon why is it it doesn't mention that the white dragon is a mewling babe due to age and age bracket disparities between orcs and dragons? Hmm, could it be the reason is that you are making stuff up?

As for venerable human... 2nd edition was the system under which "human, middle class" was a separate monster to "human, pirate/buccaneer". So good luck with that.

as PO doesn't say you can turn someone into a younger or older version, though you could attempt to disguise.

Which version of this are you reading? I don't think the word disguise even makes an appearance in the spell description I have.

And while Gold Dragons are Lawful Good, someone needs to re-read the 2ed Dragon entries and books.

That Gold dragon might decide that since you're there, you'd better serve it...

A) We are already serving it. We're fighting evil.

B) It can get in line behind all the other bunny rabbits we turned into Gold Dragons from the last five times we got cornered by something a bit scary.

C) There's bound to be someone more qualified than us, after all we have to resort to spontaneously creating Gold Dragons to solve all our problems.

D) Thats what rats polymorphed into Red Dragons are for.

[Crissa]

Where do you get exact?

Class and level (paragraph three) are not part of of the transformation. Intelligence isn't part of the transformation - even with a mental switch.

So you change a mouse into a human - you can't even make it be as strong as Bussman the Baker, nor does the spell say it even looks like Bussman the Baker. Heck, it has no skills, animal intelligence, and believe steadfastedly it is a human, maybe even Bussman the Baker, but he doesn't even know how to bake.

Now, paragrpah seven says 'full mental ability' but still doesn't include skills and 'full range of magical abilities' (See paragraph six; this requires a wish).

So. Why do you think you can make mental clones when you can't even specify how strong the resulting creature is?

-Crissa

[Murtak]

So. Why do you think you can make mental clones when you can't even specify how strong the resulting creature is?

Because the spell does in fact state you can make mental clones? Because 2nd edition monsters do not have strength scores to begin with?

[RandomCasualty]

1130911816[/unixtime]]
Ah, still with the "2nd edition designers intended things to be polymorphed into bed wetting babies" line of argument I see.

I'd walk out on that DM in 5 seconds flat, as would most sane players. Especially since this perfectly unreasonable ruling of yours will cripple the spell in its direct intended and mapped out by means of example intent.

If by "sane players" you mean munchkins, then yes. Most players tend to be pretty accepting when a DM makes a ruling to prevent a spell from breaking his game. Do you also walk out on DMs who don't let you abuse infintie wealth loops in 3rd edition? Seriously, we aren't talking about some DM megalomaniac here, this is a ruling made to save the game.


As for crippling the spell, it doesn't cripple it. It just prevents people from abusing it to create great wyrm dragon armies. Which is in fact a perfectly legal ruling. And besides, crippling a spell is infinitely superior to allowing a spell to totally break the game.

[PhoneLobster]

Class and level (paragraph three) are not part of of the transformation.

The wording on that part is exceptionally bad.

On the one hand it says you just plain can't get it from the spell. Then on the other it says you don't get it because its not part of the physical form and goes on later to talk about how you get everything else and entirely become the target creature when you make the mental switch.

Go figure.

And as mentioned elsewhere even despite that it is hard to say if certain class based features, notably spell use. Are for odd reasons exempt from the uncertain innability to have class abilities once you mental switch "in all respects".

Which is why I said some time way back that character clones are questionable under this spell. Because on the one hand it basically says you can't, then goes and says you can.

This is one aspect where the ruling DOES fall to the DM, does he rule that the cannot gain from this spell bit was referring to the effect of the spell without the mental switch (the easiest reading) or does he rule that all the rest of the spell description from the spell description from the means of determining chance of mental switch onward is wrong AND that the bit specifically granting magical abilities and spell stuff is ALSO wrong.

What isn't in question is that you can create copies of characters and specific characters in all respects (maybe or maybe not barring class abilities) and can definitely create gold dragons or specific gold dragons (who have no class abilities).

Your creatures may even gain abilities gained from training but not specifically from class related abilities.

Intelligence isn't part of the transformation - even with a mental switch. So you change a mouse into a human - you can't even make it be as strong as Bussman the Baker,

Wrong.

Firstly because it isn't clear if this still applies after the mental switch effect.

Secondly because even without the mental switch depending on the way Bussman is described by the game he either has no strength or alternately the mouse gains a strength stat which may or may not be as good as, or even better than Bussman's.

Now, paragrpah seven says 'full mental ability' but still doesn't include skills and 'full range of magical abilities' (See paragraph six; this requires a wish).

Your reading of the spell continues to be remarkably confusing.

I assume the text you refer to is this paragraph...

A subject acquiring the mentality of the new form has effectively become the creature whose form was assumed...

Good support for me so far...

...and comes under the control of the DM until recoverd by a wish spell or similar magic.

See the wish is about reversing the effect of the spell.

Indeed that line is so poorly written that in effect the wish spell isn't needed to reverse the mental effect, it can just be "I wish that character weren't under the DM's control" and bing! It isn't. But it can still be mentally and physically transformed. (Now theres some 2nd edition rules inferiority for you).

...Once this final change has taken place, the creature has the full range of magical and special abilities.

This line is talking about the mental change. Also seen in such performances as the end of the prior paragraph, where it is even referred to as the change that takes place.

I mean you COULD interpret it to be about any change the prior line talked about, the mental change, the change where the DM resumes control, or yes indeed the wish to "recover" the character (apparently from the DM's control of all things).

But if you assume it is the wish you either assume A) the character gains the magical and special abilities when it falls into player control due to a wish to that regards. or B) the wish reverses the whole spell, except that the now original form original mentality creature suddenly gains the magical and special abilities of the new form it just ceased to be.

Lets not go with the wish being the trigger on that magical abilitiy line there.

Of course this doesn't talk about memories or skills specifically, so since we aren't sure what "effectively becoming" a creature mentally means lets refer to the example.

it is 85% likely to become one in all respects

See thats ALL respects. Heck it continues to confuse the issue saying...

but in any case has the dragon's physical and mental capabilities.

Which actually contradicts most of the original spell description itself by suggesting for some inexplicable reason the orc gains all the mental benefits of being a dragon gained from having the mental change with none of the drawbacks when the change does not take place.

Which is such a bunch of contradictory insanity that surely this is a prime example of how useless 2nd edition was.

It does kindly tell us that a creature that does not mentally change (which it just half kinda told us it does even when it doesn't) it retains its old memories. But thats kind of redundant really. I mean "And if its mind doesn't change, its mind is unchanged.". Thank you 2nd ed. we needed to hear that.

As for crippling the spell, it doesn't cripple it.

Yes it damn well does cripple the spell.

You said that because adult mice are like totally only months old an adult mouse turned into a dragon is totally only like months old as well, and is therefore a hatchling. At best (heck by that reckoning its probably an egg).

But here is the thing. Different critters in D&D have this sucky thing where some of them take like forever to grow up.

Do you seriously intend for "I disguise Joe as an elf so he can sneak into the fortress of elfy doom" to result in joe the human turning into a babe in swaddling?

Should Billy the vigorous elf wizard in his prime desperately transformed into a raging lion to devour the enemies surrounding him suddenly roll over into a helpless ball because of arthritis then pass away from old age?

Yikes.

And it doesn't even make creating gold dragons of mad hit dice difficult. Because you STILL get 10 hit dice minimum on your gold and can still go way higher (at least up to 20 Hit dice and all its magical abilities for a gold dragon) just by using a 1 hit dice dumb yokel commoner of one of the "and I retire to make a profit farming for 50 years" races.

Like I said. Argue that thats the intent if you like but THAT is the reason I'd walk from a DM stupid enough to make that ruling.

Call me a munchkin if you like but I call that kind of DM an ass. And if he can't see whats wrong with that ruling and how it causes more problems than it fails to solve, at least once its explained to him, then he doesn't have any business running a game that I want to be involved in.

2nd edition polymorph is broken beyond all usefulness. It contains at least several contradictions and ambiguities within its body alone without exterior reference and there is basically no sane way to interpret its actual application. 3rd edition polymorph is underpowered and easy to read in comparison, which says a lot.

[Crissa]

Where does it say you can make mental clones? OR even physical ones?

If you can't specify what the clone looks like, what makes you think you can make clones think they're someone (not some thing) else?

Where does it say you get skills, and not just abilities?

Murtak, Phone, I really, really, doesn't see that in any book.

Sure, it's very vague wording, and could've been written better. But one would expect that the exceptions wouldn't be washed away after so specifically listing them.

-Crissa

[PhoneLobster]

Where does it say you can make mental clones? OR even physical ones?

This isn't just a matter of where does it say you can't its more than that.

The wording talks about polmorphing a creature into A different creature sometimes referred to as THE creature. Not into new race or species or type, A creature.

The way it talks about it there is more support for a claim that you cannot in fact polymorph something into a generic creature than there is for a claim that you cannot polymorph something into a specific creature.

Not that there is much support for ruling out generic forms.

If you can't specify what the clone looks like

Yes you can. It looks like the creature you are turning it into.

And as vague as the guidelines on this spell are that basically means it looks like whatever or whoever the heck you want.

But one would expect that the exceptions wouldn't be washed away after so specifically listing them.

Those exceptions may, and to all appearances do, seem to be specific to the situation where a creature is physically transformed only. As repeatedly explained once the mental switch occurs the target becomes the creature "in all respects" which includes you know, everything. And that part of the spell description does not actually include any exclusions or exceptions at all. None whatsoever.

[RandomCasualty]

1130984042[/unixtime]]
The way it talks about it there is more support for a claim that you cannot in fact polymorph something into a generic creature than there is for a claim that you cannot polymorph something into a specific creature.

But this is 2nd edition. This isn't about a preponderance of the evidence. Unless something is proven beyond all reasonable doubt, it's up to the DM to decide if it's possible or not. That's the "advantage" of a vague rules set. Unless stated specifically, the DM decides.

And so the DM listens to your idea to break his game, says "that doesn't work." and end of story.

You can't exactly say the DM ruled against the rules, because nothing directly supports your position. You have an opinion, he has an opinion, but he's the DM and he wins. If you DM, you can run it your way and let people break your game, that's your perrogative.

That's how 2nd edition, white wolf RPGs and the majority of other RPG systems work.

Personally I always loved the old idea that the DM was an absolute power. So much time is wasted in 3rd edition challenging the DM and otherwise screwing with him. All I know is that in 2nd edition, I dont' think I had one rules argument with a PC, ever. In 3rd edition I have an average of at least 10 a game, and I know the rules pretty well.

[Lago_AM3P]

But this is 2nd edition. This isn't about a preponderance of the evidence. Unless something is proven beyond all reasonable doubt, it's up to the DM to decide if it's possible or not. That's the "advantage" of a vague rules set. Unless stated specifically, the DM decides.

And so the DM listens to your idea to break his game, says "that doesn't work." and end of story.

You can't exactly say the DM ruled against the rules, because nothing directly supports your position. You have an opinion, he has an opinion, but he's the DM and he wins. If you DM, you can run it your way and let people break your game, that's your perrogative.

A game where there isn't any player input allowed because the rules are so poorly written that people can't figure out what's going on without making stuff up sounds exceptionally shitty to me.

It sounds like the advantage of 2ed rulesets is that since rules required a DM call to begin with, you look like less of a tyrant by enforcing whatever you wanted to begin with. You know, the advantage you has is simply psychological backing.

It seems to me that these boards are famous for ripping into digitty-ass DMs and putting power back in the hands of players. I think FrankTrollman put it best way back on the Nifty Message Boards: a big part of roleplaying is knowing what your character would do, and that's impossible unless you know what your character CAN do. If a DM purposely left the rules in a flux so that he could pull any deus ex machina he wanted to, he would walk. And given my experience, so would I.

I totally wasted my money here.

[RandomCasualty]

1131029242[/unixtime]]
It sounds like the advantage of 2ed rulesets is that since rules required a DM call to begin with, you look like less of a tyrant by enforcing whatever you wanted to begin with. You know, the advantage you has is simply psychological backing.

Well, it's not so much not appearing to be a tyrant so much as it keeps the players from making an argument about it.

As far as DMing styles go, people are either going to like the game or not like your game, and the rules set probably isn't going to impact that all that much. A DM who constantly abuses his power is going to lose players, but having clear rules doesn't really help that all that much.

If there's one thing I've noticed about 3rd edition it's that it's brought out a lot more PC/DM arguments that bog down the game. Stuff that generally nobody would have argued about in 2nd edition become hot beds of argument in 3rd.

Rules arguments come up way more often in 3E than in pretty much any RPG I've ever played. This includes Shadowrun, any white wolf game and of course 2nd/1st edition AD&D.

I mean I'm all for clear rules, but when it turns players into whiners... well lets just say I miss the "good old days" sometimes.

But I don't think that 2nd edition is even remotely playable by someone who cut their teeth on 3rd, so I completely understand why you'd think you wasted your money. Honestly, you probably did. I just couldn't see myself ever playing 2nd edition if I'd started on 3rd. There's just far too much annoying illogical crap in 2nd. Crazy non-uniform tables for everything, a saving throw system that can best be described as completely inane and just plain stupid rules like demihuman level caps.

Most of 2nd edition for me comes from the feel and the nostalgia as opposed to any real rules preferences. 2nd undeniably had a different sort of style than 3rd, and while for the most part, the style gave the DM more improvisation power and made the rules more uncertain, it gave the sense of discovery.

I think FrankTrollman put it best way back on the Nifty Message Boards: a big part of roleplaying is knowing what your character would do, and that's impossible unless you know what your character CAN do.

I will in part disagree with this to a degree. While you have to know what your character can do in a general case, you need not know it in every specific case per se. The main thing with 3rd edition that tends to feel different is that players pretty much know all the mechanics and how everything works. Not merely their character abilities, but all the monstrous abilities too.

The fun thing about prior editions is that you had all kinds of crazy mechanics running around. This sort of made every experience a unique one and you had a sense of discovery. You really didn't know how any given trap or effect was going to work. It made you sort of afraid to open that next door. Similarly, magical items in 2E and 1E didn't follow any real pattern, and had all sorts of cool powers. You weren't quite sure what crazy stuff a magic item was going to do either.

Sense of discovery is actually kinda cool in an RPG, and if there's one thing 3rd edition lacks, I think it's that sense of discovery you got. The problem with 3rd is that everything is so off the shelf standardized. You don't really find magical items anymore, you just find gold and buy or make the items you want. You tend to know exactly where your character will be in 5 levels, 10 levels or 20 levels... and that's kinda boring to me.

In 2nd edition you were never quite sure what you'd find, so every adventure was.... well an adventure.

[Crissa]

I find rules arguments come up less in 3e than in prior editions.

Being an employee of a games store during this change over made it abundantly clear - either it was in the rules, or it wasn't.

In 2ed, everyon ehad house rules. Sometimes these rules made no sense. But sure, you couldn't argue against them by the text...

...Which only left Design Intent and Flavour; because nothing was Balanced. And Design Intent and Flavour are opinions only, meaning arguments never ended with a line from the book - they ended with the gamers being seperated into different tables, never the twain shall meet.

And the arguments went on and on about what exactly one could do with a suppliment, instead of actually having building blocks and arguing over that.

You may think there are more arguments now - because there are more things to fill arguments - but when the DM had to decide, you had to argue with each and every DM to understand what your character might be able to do.

And that was alot of arguing.

We're just spoiled now that we've forgotten how vague rules meant every action meant a long involved argument with the DM to find out if it could happen, let alone did happen.

I still wonder, though, how you expect to make a mental clone of a Baker when you can't specify that the creature is a Baker, let alone a strong or weak Baker.

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty]

1131067300[/unixtime]]
You may think there are more arguments now - because there are more things to fill arguments - but when the DM had to decide, you had to argue with each and every DM to understand what your character might be able to do.

Perhaps in your experiences, I don't know... but in my experience I don't remember seeing any arguments at all in a 2E game. The DM just said "This is how it works." and you listened and followed along (or sometimes left the game).

But I never found myself getting into prolonged rules arguments.

3rd edition is a freaking battlefield though. I don't think I've ever went through a session as a PC or a DM without getting involved in at least one rules argument.

[Username17]

That sounds like rosy hindsight to me. 2nd edition had those long "discussions" about just what he fvck was going on. All the time.

All the time.

---

3rd edition games sometimes have rules discussions. But usually they are pretty short. AD&D was basically just a continuous cock fight. Even if people were going out of their way to be accomodating, they still had to constantly stop the action to ask how shit worked, because they didn't know because the DM had to ad hoc it all the time.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1131076650[/unixtime]]
3rd edition games sometimes have rules discussions. But usually they are pretty short. AD&D was basically just a continuous cock fight. Even if people were going out of their way to be accomodating, they still had to constantly stop the action to ask how shit worked, because they didn't know because the DM had to ad hoc it all the time.

Well all I can say is that our games must have been drastically different. My 3rd edition rules debates seem to take forever as people are flipping through books, quoting passages and so on. In 2nd edition it was a quick "what would happen if I did this?" question and then people got on to playing.

In 3rd edition its back and forth rules lawyering, much like a message board debate on a subject. And if you want to actually convince someone of something it's going to take 15 minutes minimum. If you want to just move the game along, you have to pull rank as the DM and just tell them that's the way you're running it (usually with some ill feelings from people who thought they were right).

In 2nd edition, that sort of thing was the norm, so nobody got ill feelings about it, where in 3rd everyone seems to take it as a personal attack that you're screwing them over when you rule against them.

If anything the message boards have proven (with numerous rules disputes), it's that 3rd edition is much like the bible in that it can be interpreted multiple ways. Pretty much you can find passages supporting almost any argument. And that's actually much worse than second edition where everyone accepted the ambiguity of the rules. The problem with 3rd edition rules is that people think they can "prove" their case using the rules, and often times both sides in an argument think that way. That's what leads to crazy rules lawyer stunts. And the "cock fight" so to speak is way worse in 3rd edition with the attempt to place the DM on even ground with the PCs.

In 2nd, everyone pretty much knew there wasn't enough evidence to prove anything, so rules lawyering wasn't nearly as prevalent, at least not in any of my games. In 2nd edition mostly people were asking questions instead of arguing a side. "How does spell X work?" is a lot more passive a question than. "Spell X works like this and pages A, B, and C prove it. Don't forget to also look up paragraph 5 which staes that..."

One is answered in a few minutes or less, the other begins a large scale message board style debate until one side backs down.

I suspect it may have been different for other people since some 2E people did complain about rules lawyers. But that being said I encountered one rules lawyer in my entire time running 2E and it seems that in 3E, 80+% of the people I play wtih rules lawyer at one point or another. The difference is huge.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

Frank's completly right.

Oh, I get where RC is coming from. In 2e the GM gives you the situation and then you say "I do [X]". Unless X was a narrowly defined set of actions, the GM had to tell you how to do what you want to do. This is not an arguement, but it achieves the same purpouse. Instead of the GM stopping the game to explain why he's using the system he is, likely over the objections of people who either liked it better the old way, misread the rulebook, or simply thinks that system is retarded and the developers were smoking crack when they wrote it, the GM has to explain the system to players (Possibly over the objections of people who think their system is retarded and they were smoking crack when they wrote it). It might be a smaller interruption overall, but since there was a narrow band of actions mechanically statted out, there were more of them.

-Desdan

[Crissa]

So in other words, RC never doubted his DM, but now he does...

...For no reason.

Yay.

-Crissa

[Crissa]

I want to play a centaur. In 2ed, there was one possible way: Humanoids or DM fiat. In 3e, there's about six ways including DM fiat - not all pleasant, but they do exist, and you just choose one and go on. How is this harder? There's a much more likely chance the DM is doing something you at least have seen before.

However, all of this is dealt out of game.

But there's no reason the argument about a DM using the wrong attack progression in 2ed would be any shorter than in 3e. There isn't. But that's the last argument I got into in 2ed.

The rules were there, if the DM made shit up by the seat of their pants, you had to ask lots of questions - in 3e, most of those questions already have answers.

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty]

1131079878[/unixtime]]I want to play a centaur. In 2ed, there was one possible way: Humanoids or DM fiat. In 3e, there's about six ways including DM fiat - not all pleasant, but they do exist, and you just choose one and go on. How is this harder? There's a much more likely chance the DM is doing something you at least have seen before.

It's not, so long as it's done pregame. 3E is a great pregame game, because it has a lot of documented options and it's ok to spend all the time you want looking stuff up at character creation.

DUring the game, you just dont' want to be bogged down with all that garbage.

The rules were there, if the DM made shit up by the seat of their pants, you had to ask lots of questions - in 3e, most of those questions already have answers.

True, but the problem is that those answers aren't necessarily easily referenced. Knowing those answers are there means someone is going to want to look them up. Looking them up takes time and that's time you arne't playing. What's worse is when the answer isn't obvious but rather something people can argue about. And we know these kind of arguments because we see them on message boards like this one all the time.

Suppose your wizard finds a cleric scroll and tries to scribe it into his spell book. Uh oh... there's an hour or longer argument brewing. In 2nd edition, takes a few seconds to resolve.

[erik]

1131091308[/unixtime]]
Suppose your wizard finds a cleric scroll and tries to scribe it into his spell book. Uh oh... there's an hour or longer argument brewing. In 2nd edition, takes a few seconds to resolve.

It takes a few seconds to resolve in 3e too. Accept the DM's ruling or get out. You can debate it after or before the game, but nobody wants to bog down the game in session.

While I do find that there is usually a rules discussion or contested ruling at least once per game I've played in, it is really very very short, as one player who isn't "on screen" can flip through the PHB and find the actual rule as the game progresses without bringing things to a standstill. Any larger fuzzy rules issue fall to the DM to adjudicate during play. If a group wants to consider using a rule differently, they may discuss that when not playing.

Example: during a game with folks who didn't know each other, one guy wanted to use a druid spell to gain blindsense 120' (from dolphin echo location), and the DM said nay, when asked why not, the DM offered to let him use the bat's range only when not under water. The player immediately acceded and life went on. A ruling was contested and the whole thing lasted less than a minute.

Those are the kind of things I see in 3e. Any of the really grey area rulings just go to whatever side the DM is on. Even if you disagree with the DM, you can at least understand what his side is and continue play. This is not at all the case with vague rulesets.

So take your pick:

1) Short clarifications of what rule interpretation is being used, and players understanding the rule, even if they prefer another interpretation.

2) Long explanations of what system is being used, so that the players can learn what the system actually entails.

Knowing the ruling only helps if you understand what the ruling means. Which is easy to do in 3e, less so in prior versions.