Is WotC D&D Really D&D?

[deuxhero]

Challenge Rating is a tool to quickly figure out the rough power of a monster or other obstacle (there's obviously a difference between a Kobold, a lich, and a nest full of newly hatched dragons), not a straight jacket

These sorts of questions and analyses allow you to judge monsters, encounters, and adventures and determine whether they are appropriate for your group. Challenge Rating assignments for such obstacles will help, but no one knows your group of characters as well as you do.

 

[Tacgnol]

Yeah CR is just supposed to be a handy tool to help you design reasonable/viable encounters.

You can do whatever the fuck you want.

 

[Morblot]

The system removed the ability for the DM to make rulings on what they thought was best

Bullshit. WotC are indeed a bunch of horrible cunts and 3e is in many ways DECLINE but not once have they broken down the door and stopped us from playing their game with whatever changes we've felt like making to it. I've certainly made plenty of rulings, and so have the other DMs I know.

 

[Alex]

Yeah CR is just supposed to be a handy tool to help you design reasonable/viable encounters.

You can do whatever the fuck you want.

The system removed the ability for the DM to make rulings on what they thought was best

Bullshit. WotC are indeed a bunch of horrible cunts and 3e is in many ways DECLINE but not once have they broken down the door and stopped us from playing their game with whatever changes we've felt like making to it. I've certainly made plenty of rulings, and so have the other DMs I know.

Anyone can, obviously, play the game however they want. If you are DMing 3e and decide to just throw the skill system out of the window for instance; you of course can. There is, however, the issue of expectations. In the above example; if you decided that mid-game while the people group you assembled decided to play because they like how 3e do things (apparently such people do exist), they too would be free to just walk away from the game as well. In fact, they might decide you are the one being out of line and decide to oust you from being DM instead.

My point is that there are plenty of expectations set up by 3e that GMs might not want to bother changing since it could create needless drama; or make your game incompatible with other books you might want to use in the future. The CR thing is, of course, a tool for the DM. But there was a lot of people with the expectation that there would be X many encounters at Y CR in an adventure and this would give you Z% of the XP needed for the next level; so that you could measure the number of adventures needed to go from level 1 to level 20. In fact, this is in part how the Adventure Paths from Pathfinder work. So if you design a very different kind of adventure; say like a sandbox where the PCs are supposed to look for the adventure themselves; people playing might become annoyed at the culture shock from both games. Another example of that would be if you decided to allow a PC to research metamagic spells from 2e, for instance, or the enchant item spells, so that you can use a spell instead of a feat. If another player is focused on the character building aspect of 3e, which arguably is where it was strongest; he would be right in being annoyed at this.

 

[JamesDixon]

The system removed the ability for the DM to make rulings on what they thought was best

Bullshit. WotC are indeed a bunch of horrible cunts and 3e is in many ways DECLINE but not once have they broken down the door and stopped us from playing their game with whatever changes we've felt like making to it. I've certainly made plenty of rulings, and so have the other DMs I know.

From Rusty's post a few pages back by the main writer of 3.x abomination.

"There's a third concept that we took from Magic-style rules design, though. Only with six years of hindsight to I call the concept "Ivory Tower Game Design." (Perhaps a bit of misnomer, but it's got a ring to it."" This is the approach we took in 3rd Edition: basically just laying out the rules without a lot of advice or help. This strategy relates tangentially to the second point above. This idea here is that the game just gives the rules, and players figure out the ins and outs for themselves -- players are rewarded for achieving master of the rules and making good choices rather than poor ones."

There is the matter of the DMG itself on page 9 under the section of Adjudicating. It lays out that the DM has to follow the rules as presented and changing the rules is implied to be bad DMing. Here's the final three rules of the section.

"If you come upon an apparent contradiction in the rules, consider these factors when adjudicating:

A rule in the Player's Handbook Monster Manual, or Dungeon Master's Guide takes precedence over any other published D&D product. These three books are referred to as the core rulebooks.

A rule found in a rulebook overrules one found in a published adventure, unless the rule presented in the published adventure deals with something specific and limited to the adventure itself.

Choose the rule you like the best, then stick with it for the rest of the campaign. Consistency is a critical aspect of rules adjudication."

As you can see the DM is prohibited by the rules from changing them and is shackled by what WotC wrote. Compare that to the AD&D 1E and 2E DMG. Both of them let the DM run the game as they see fit and to let them write the rules themselves that fit their gaming group. You can argue you that you did change the rules and there is no question that you did. You did it in violation of the DMG though which is my point. DMs got shackled to rule adherence and removed their ability to judge things at their table with their own common sense.

 

[JamesDixon]

A follow up thought comparing 3.x abomination's DMG with AD&D 1E and 2E's DMG.

1E:

Know the game systems, and you will know how and when to take upon yourself the ultimate power. To become the final arbiter, rather than the interpreter of the rules, can be a difficult and demanding task, and it cannot be undertaken lightly, for your players expect to play this game, not one made up on the spot. By the same token, they are playing the game the way you, their DM, imagines and creates it. Remembering that the game is greater than its parts, and knowing all of the parts, you will have overcome the greater part of the challenge of being a referee. Being a true DM requires cleverness and imagination which no set of rules books can bestow. Seeing that you were clever enough to buy this volume, and you have enough imagination to desire to become the maker of a fantasy world, you are almost there already! Read and become familiar with the contents of this work and the one written for players, learn your monsters, and spice things up with some pantheons of super-powerful beings. Then put your judging and refereeing ability into the creation of your own personal milieu, and you have donned the mantle of Dungeon Master. Welcome to the exalted ranks of the overworked and harassed, whose cleverness and imagination are all too often underappreciated by cloddish characters whose only thought in life is to loot, pillage, slay, and who fail to appreciate the hours of preparation which went into the creation of what they aim to destroy as cheaply and quickly as possible. As a DM you must live by the immortal words of the sage who said: "Never give a sucker an even break." Also, don't be a sucker for your players, for you'd better be sure to they follow sage advice too. As the DM, you have to prove in every game that you are still the best. This book is dedicated to helping to assure you are.

2E:

Besides rules, you'll find a large portion of this book devoted to discussions of the principles behind the rules. Along with this are examinations of the pros and cons of changing the rules to fit your campaign. The purpose of this book, after all, is to better prepare you for your role as game moderation and referee. The better you understand the game, the better equipped you'll be to handle unforeseen developments and unusual circumstances.

One of the principles guiding this project from the very beginning, and which is expressed through this book, is this: The DM has the primary responsibility for the success of his campaign, and he must take an active hand in guiding it. This is an important concept. If you are skimming through this introduction, slow down and read it again. It is crucial you understand what you are getting into.

The DM's "active hand" extends even to the rules. Many decisions about your campaign can be made by only one person: you. Tailor your campaign to fit your own style and the style of your players.

You will find a lot of information in this book, but you won't find pat answers to all your questions and easy solutions for all your game problems. What you will find instead is a discussion of various problems and numerous triggers intended to guide you through a thoughtful analysis of situations that pertain to your campaign.

The rules to the AD&D game are balanced and easy to use. No role-playing game we of has been playtested more heavily than this one. But that doesn't mean it's perfect. What we consider to be right may be unbalance or anachronistic in your campaign. The only thing that can make the AD&D game "right" for all players is the intelligent application of DM discretion.

As you can see there is a tonal and functional difference in the role of the DM. In AD&D 1E and 2E it's uniform and basically says the DM can rule how he needs to as it fits his campaign. In the 3.X abomination it's the DM can't do that and must adhere to the rules as presented. He must have mastery over them.

 

[NJClaw]

As you can see the DM is prohibited by the rules from changing them and is shackled by what WotC wrote. Compare that to the AD&D 1E and 2E DMG. Both of them let the DM run the game as they see fit and to let them write the rules themselves that fit their gaming group. You can argue you that you did change the rules and there is no question that you did. You did it in violation of the DMG though which is my point. DMs got shackled to rule adherence and removed their ability to judge things at their table with their own common sense.

I'm not sure you've actually ever read the D&D 3.x Dungeon Master's Guide (and, I mean, good for you: it's shit). Otherwise, you wouldn't say anything like "the DM is prohibited by the rules from changing them", because that's simply false.

This is how the first page of the book ends:

You are the master of the game—the rules, the setting, the action, and ultimately, the fun. This is a great deal of power, and you must use it wisely. This book shows you how

Then there's the Changing the rules paragraph, at page 10 14:

Beyond simply adjudicating, sometimes you are going to want to change things. That’s okay. However, changing the rules is a challenge for a DM with only a little experience.

Every rule in the Player’s Handbook was written for a reason. That doesn’t mean you can’t change some rules for your own game. Perhaps your players don’t like the way initiative is determined, or you find that the rules for learning new spells are too limiting. Rules that you change for your own game are called house rules. Given the creativity of gamers, almost every campaign will, in time, develop its own house rules. The ability to use the mechanics as you wish is paramount to the way roleplaying games work—providing a framework for you and the players to create a campaign. Still, changing the way the game does something shouldn’t be taken lightly. If the Player’s Handbook presents the rules, then throughout the Dungeon Master’s Guide you will find explanations for why those rules are the way they are. Read these explanations carefully, and realize the implications for making changes.

Obviously the 3rd edition is a very different game and it has very little in common with what Dungeons & Dragons was before, but saying that the DM doesn't have the power to change the rules is just a misinformed and biased opinion. The 3.x DMG absolutely lets the DM run the game as they see fit and write the rules themselves. I mean, that's almost word for word what the above paragraph says. The book constantly reminds the DM that he has the power to do anything with the game and its rules, provided that his decisions don't go against the main reason why everyone sits around the table: having fun. I mean, the 3.x DMG even sticks to the old "A DM only rolls the dice because of the noise they make":

You’re the arbiter of everything that happens in the game. Period.

Terrible things can happen in the game because the dice just go awry. Everything might be going fine, when suddenly the players have a run of bad luck. A round later, half the party’s down for the count and the other half almost certainly can’t take on the foes that remain. If everyone dies, the campaign might very well end then and there, and that’s bad for everyone. Do you stand by and watch them get slaughtered, or do you “cheat” and have the foes run off, or fudge the die rolls so that the PCs still miraculously win in the end? There are really two issues at hand. Do you cheat? The answer: The DM really can’t cheat. You’re the umpire, and what you say goes. As such, it’s certainly within your rights to sway things one way or another to keep people happy or keep things running smoothly. It’s no fun losing a longterm character who gets run over by a cart. A good rule of thumb is that a character shouldn’t die in a trivial way because of some fluke of the dice unless he or she was doing something really stupid at the time.

 

[JamesDixon]

As you can see the DM is prohibited by the rules from changing them and is shackled by what WotC wrote. Compare that to the AD&D 1E and 2E DMG. Both of them let the DM run the game as they see fit and to let them write the rules themselves that fit their gaming group. You can argue you that you did change the rules and there is no question that you did. You did it in violation of the DMG though which is my point. DMs got shackled to rule adherence and removed their ability to judge things at their table with their own common sense.

I'm not sure you've actually ever read the D&D 3.x Dungeon Master's Guide (and, I mean, good for you: it's shit). Otherwise, you wouldn't say anything like "the DM is prohibited by the rules from changing them", because that's simply false.

This is how the first page of the book ends:

You are the master of the game—the rules, the setting, the action, and ultimately, the fun. This is a great deal of power, and you must use it wisely. This book shows you how

Then there's the Changing the rules paragraph, at page 10:

Beyond simply adjudicating, sometimes you are going to want to change things. That’s okay. However, changing the rules is a challenge for a DM with only a little experience.

Every rule in the Player’s Handbook was written for a reason. That doesn’t mean you can’t change some rules for your own game. Perhaps your players don’t like the way initiative is determined, or you find that the rules for learning new spells are too limiting. Rules that you change for your own game are called house rules. Given the creativity of gamers, almost every campaign will, in time, develop its own house rules. The ability to use the mechanics as you wish is paramount to the way roleplaying games work—providing a framework for you and the players to create a campaign. Still, changing the way the game does something shouldn’t be taken lightly. If the Player’s Handbook presents the rules, then throughout the Dungeon Master’s Guide you will find explanations for why those rules are the way they are. Read these explanations carefully, and realize the implications for making changes.

Obviously the 3rd edition is a very different game and it has very little in common with what Dungeons & Dragons was before, but saying that the DM doesn't have the power to change the rules is just a misinformed and biased opinion. The 3.x DMG absolutely lets the DM run the game as they see fit and write the rules themselves. I mean, that's almost word for word what the above paragraph says. The book constantly reminds the DM that he has the power to do anything with the game and its rules, provided that his decisions don't go against the main reason why everyone sits around the table: having fun. I mean, the 3.x DMG even sticks to the old "A DM only rolls the dice because of the noise they make":

You’re the arbiter of everything that happens in the game. Period.

Terrible things can happen in the game because the dice just go awry. Everything might be going fine, when suddenly the players have a run of bad luck. A round later, half the party’s down for the count and the other half almost certainly can’t take on the foes that remain. If everyone dies, the campaign might very well end then and there, and that’s bad for everyone. Do you stand by and watch them get slaughtered, or do you “cheat” and have the foes run off, or fudge the die rolls so that the PCs still miraculously win in the end? There are really two issues at hand. Do you cheat? The answer: The DM really can’t cheat. You’re the umpire, and what you say goes. As such, it’s certainly within your rights to sway things one way or another to keep people happy or keep things running smoothly. It’s no fun losing a longterm character who gets run over by a cart. A good rule of thumb is that a character shouldn’t die in a trivial way because of some fluke of the dice unless he or she was doing something really stupid at the time.

I did read it. That's why I cited page 9 where it says what I quoted. This is the 3.0 DMG not the 3.5 one.

There is no Changing the rules paragraph on page 10 of the 3.0 DMG. In fact, everything you cited is from 3.5 not 3.0. If you want to argue it feel free, but in the original 3.0 is what I said it was.

This is the full Adjucating section from page 9.

When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you're in charge. That doesn't mean you can tell people what to do outside the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you're the final arbiter of the rules within the game. Good players will always recognize that you have the ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DMs know not to change or overturn an existing rule without a good, logical justification so that the players don't grow dissatisfied (more on that later). To carry out this responsibility, you need to know the rules. You're not required to memorize the rulebooks, but you should have a clear idea of what's in the rules, so that when a situation comes up that requires a ruling, you know where to reference the proper rule in the book. Often a situation will arise that isn't explicitly covered by the rules. In such a situation, you need to provide guidance as to how it should be resolved. When you come upon an instance where there seems to be no rule to cover a situation:

• Look to any similar situation that is covered in a rulebook. Try to extrapolate from what you see presented there and apply it to the current circumstance.
• If you have to make something up, stick with it for the rest of the campaign. (This is called a house rule.) Consistency keeps players satisfied and gives them the feeling that they adventure in a stable, predictable universe and not in some random, nonsensical place subject only to the DM's whims.
• When in doubt, remember this handy little rule: Favorable conditions add +2 to any d20 roll, and unfavorable conditions penalize the roll by -2. You'll be surprised how often this "DM's secret rule" will solve problems. If you come upon an apparent contradiction in the rules, consider these factors when adjudicating:

Everything you do as a DM is overseen by your players. You are shackled to them and cannot do things without their permission.

Since they changed it in 3.5 it doesn't make my point moot.

 

[mediocrepoet]

As you can see the DM is prohibited by the rules from changing them and is shackled by what WotC wrote. Compare that to the AD&D 1E and 2E DMG. Both of them let the DM run the game as they see fit and to let them write the rules themselves that fit their gaming group. You can argue you that you did change the rules and there is no question that you did. You did it in violation of the DMG though which is my point. DMs got shackled to rule adherence and removed their ability to judge things at their table with their own common sense.

I'm not sure you've actually ever read the D&D 3.x Dungeon Master's Guide (and, I mean, good for you: it's shit). Otherwise, you wouldn't say anything like "the DM is prohibited by the rules from changing them", because that's simply false.

Cut lengthy conversation.

Rule Zero is always a part of every TTRPG whether codified in the book or not. There may be some sort of restrictions binding you if you're part of one of the adventurer's league type of games, but most people aren't and don't care about any of that. One of the only places I could see rule zero being completely ignored is in 4E and that's because its mechanics are so rigid, it basically isn't even a true TTRPG in my mind anymore, but probably people who have more experience with it than I do could come up with places where it can and did apply.

Even something as rules-centric as Rolemaster will want to use Rule Zero so the climactic battle of your campaign doesn't have the big bad roll a crit failure, pull his groin and then die by falling down the stairs on the first round of combat. Yet, if you go by their tables, that could happen. On the other end of the spectrum, there are games like Amber which don't use dice at all and everything is ruled by roleplay and negotiation between the players and GM, guided by character traits and the like. I would suggest that if you really need Rule Zero to be codified, you probably shouldn't be looking to D&D or its spinoffs, you should be looking to Amber. I mean, rules heavy, the dice will fall as they will, open rolling style of play goes back to 1E and was lampooned in many spaces such as the Knights of the Dinner Table comic.

Even if you wanted some dice, so ruled out Amber, there are games for your tastes. There have been so many TTRPGs over the years, it's almost impossible to list them all or their approaches and settings. One that I fondly remember was called Over the Edge which was extremely rules light. Even character attributes were defined by discussion between player and the GM, where you had 3 positive traits and 1 negative one. The positive traits were defined by being: broad (something like a D&D attribute such as "Agile") which rolled 2D to determine success, narrow (something like a D&D skill or profession such as "Carpentry") which rolled 4D (I think, might've been 3D) to determine success, and esoteric traits which were basically anything psychic or mystical that governed things that normally couldn't happen, you got 1D for those. I had a character that had that trait and it was defined as "Street Poet", basically, if he could agitate or otherwise address people, he could impart psychic suggestions to influence people to do whatever he was rambling about, whether "Fight the Power!" or "You should all toilet paper the governor's house."

Anyway, tl;dr, ignoring rules zero is odd in the tabletop space and I don't think I've ever seen someone seriously claim it shouldn't be used. If anything, sometimes new players don't know it's a thing and have to get advice from more experienced players in that regard. It's a TTRPG with a DM/GM, not a board game that lacks such a role at the table.

 

[NJClaw]

I did read it. That's why I cited page 9 where it says what I quoted. This is the 3.0 DMG not the 3.5 one.

There is no Changing the rules paragraph on page 10 of the 3.0 DMG. In fact, everything you cited is from 3.5 not 3.0. If you want to argue it feel free, but in the original 3.0 is what I said it was.

[...]

Everything you do as a DM is overseen by your players. You are shackled to them and cannot do things without their permission.

Since they changed it in 3.5 it doesn't make my point moot.

Everything I cited is also in the 3.0 DMG. The section is on page 11 (and I was wrong about the 3.5 book, it's on page 14 there, not 10). It's everything there, word for word.

 

[JamesDixon]

I did read it. That's why I cited page 9 where it says what I quoted. This is the 3.0 DMG not the 3.5 one.

There is no Changing the rules paragraph on page 10 of the 3.0 DMG. In fact, everything you cited is from 3.5 not 3.0. If you want to argue it feel free, but in the original 3.0 is what I said it was.

[...]

Everything you do as a DM is overseen by your players. You are shackled to them and cannot do things without their permission.

Since they changed it in 3.5 it doesn't make my point moot.

Everything I cited is also in the 3.0 DMG. The section is on page 11 (and I was wrong about the 3.5 book, it's on page 14 there, not 10). It's everything there, word for word.

Well then I must have had a terrible DM because every time I wanted to do something creative it was you can't do this because you lack X feat and Y skill.

It still doesn't change the fact that WotC abominations are not D&D. That died when TSR did and only lives on in old school rulesets.

 

[NJClaw]

Well then I must have had a terrible DM because every time I wanted to do something creative it was you can't do this because you lack X feat and Y skill.

That goes to show that the DM's actions and arbitraments are so important that, without them, any ruleset can be shit.

It still doesn't change the fact that WotC abominations are not D&D. That died when TSR did and only lives on in old school rulesets.

Yeah, the DMG also sort of acknowledges this:

It's "based" on the original D&D, but it's not the same game. They had the opportunity to use that name and took it, but everyone who played any previous edition knows (and knew) that it was just a publicity stunt.

 

[deuxhero]

A follow up thought comparing 3.x abomination's DMG with AD&D 1E and 2E's DMG.

1E:

Know the game systems, and you will know how and when to take upon yourself the ultimate power. To become the final arbiter, rather than the interpreter of the rules, can be a difficult and demanding task, and it cannot be undertaken lightly, for your players expect to play this game, not one made up on the spot. By the same token, they are playing the game the way you, their DM, imagines and creates it. Remembering that the game is greater than its parts, and knowing all of the parts, you will have overcome the greater part of the challenge of being a referee. Being a true DM requires cleverness and imagination which no set of rules books can bestow. Seeing that you were clever enough to buy this volume, and you have enough imagination to desire to become the maker of a fantasy world, you are almost there already! Read and become familiar with the contents of this work and the one written for players, learn your monsters, and spice things up with some pantheons of super-powerful beings. Then put your judging and refereeing ability into the creation of your own personal milieu, and you have donned the mantle of Dungeon Master. Welcome to the exalted ranks of the overworked and harassed, whose cleverness and imagination are all too often underappreciated by cloddish characters whose only thought in life is to loot, pillage, slay, and who fail to appreciate the hours of preparation which went into the creation of what they aim to destroy as cheaply and quickly as possible. As a DM you must live by the immortal words of the sage who said: "Never give a sucker an even break." Also, don't be a sucker for your players, for you'd better be sure to they follow sage advice too. As the DM, you have to prove in every game that you are still the best. This book is dedicated to helping to assure you are.

2E:

Besides rules, you'll find a large portion of this book devoted to discussions of the principles behind the rules. Along with this are examinations of the pros and cons of changing the rules to fit your campaign. The purpose of this book, after all, is to better prepare you for your role as game moderation and referee. The better you understand the game, the better equipped you'll be to handle unforeseen developments and unusual circumstances.

One of the principles guiding this project from the very beginning, and which is expressed through this book, is this: The DM has the primary responsibility for the success of his campaign, and he must take an active hand in guiding it. This is an important concept. If you are skimming through this introduction, slow down and read it again. It is crucial you understand what you are getting into.

The DM's "active hand" extends even to the rules. Many decisions about your campaign can be made by only one person: you. Tailor your campaign to fit your own style and the style of your players.

You will find a lot of information in this book, but you won't find pat answers to all your questions and easy solutions for all your game problems. What you will find instead is a discussion of various problems and numerous triggers intended to guide you through a thoughtful analysis of situations that pertain to your campaign.

The rules to the AD&D game are balanced and easy to use. No role-playing game we of has been playtested more heavily than this one. But that doesn't mean it's perfect. What we consider to be right may be unbalance or anachronistic in your campaign. The only thing that can make the AD&D game "right" for all players is the intelligent application of DM discretion.

As you can see there is a tonal and functional difference in the role of the DM. In AD&D 1E and 2E it's uniform and basically says the DM can rule how he needs to as it fits his campaign. In the 3.X abomination it's the DM can't do that and must adhere to the rules as presented. He must have mastery over them.

Even ignoring the question of if you're right or not: If the book says "make it up yourself", just what did you spend money/bandwith on? It sure wasn't going to be sold as Incomplete Dungeons & Dragons, so why should it be written with the expectation that people not use the book's content?

Imagine buying a video game and you just got some uncompiled source code and partial graphics, then were told to make up the player physics and weapons yourself. (Don't be a smartass and point to things that are sold as coding lessons)

 

[JamesDixon]

Well then I must have had a terrible DM because every time I wanted to do something creative it was you can't do this because you lack X feat and Y skill.

That goes to show that the DM's actions and arbitraments are so important that, without them, any ruleset can be shit.

It still doesn't change the fact that WotC abominations are not D&D. That died when TSR did and only lives on in old school rulesets.

Yeah, the DMG also sort of acknowledges this:

It's "based" on the original D&D, but it's not the same game. They had the opportunity to use that name and took it, but everyone who played any previous edition knows (and knew) that it was just a publicity stunt.

It's not even based upon original D&D. It shares none of the mechanics etc...

 

[JamesDixon]

A follow up thought comparing 3.x abomination's DMG with AD&D 1E and 2E's DMG.

1E:

Know the game systems, and you will know how and when to take upon yourself the ultimate power. To become the final arbiter, rather than the interpreter of the rules, can be a difficult and demanding task, and it cannot be undertaken lightly, for your players expect to play this game, not one made up on the spot. By the same token, they are playing the game the way you, their DM, imagines and creates it. Remembering that the game is greater than its parts, and knowing all of the parts, you will have overcome the greater part of the challenge of being a referee. Being a true DM requires cleverness and imagination which no set of rules books can bestow. Seeing that you were clever enough to buy this volume, and you have enough imagination to desire to become the maker of a fantasy world, you are almost there already! Read and become familiar with the contents of this work and the one written for players, learn your monsters, and spice things up with some pantheons of super-powerful beings. Then put your judging and refereeing ability into the creation of your own personal milieu, and you have donned the mantle of Dungeon Master. Welcome to the exalted ranks of the overworked and harassed, whose cleverness and imagination are all too often underappreciated by cloddish characters whose only thought in life is to loot, pillage, slay, and who fail to appreciate the hours of preparation which went into the creation of what they aim to destroy as cheaply and quickly as possible. As a DM you must live by the immortal words of the sage who said: "Never give a sucker an even break." Also, don't be a sucker for your players, for you'd better be sure to they follow sage advice too. As the DM, you have to prove in every game that you are still the best. This book is dedicated to helping to assure you are.

2E:

Besides rules, you'll find a large portion of this book devoted to discussions of the principles behind the rules. Along with this are examinations of the pros and cons of changing the rules to fit your campaign. The purpose of this book, after all, is to better prepare you for your role as game moderation and referee. The better you understand the game, the better equipped you'll be to handle unforeseen developments and unusual circumstances.

One of the principles guiding this project from the very beginning, and which is expressed through this book, is this: The DM has the primary responsibility for the success of his campaign, and he must take an active hand in guiding it. This is an important concept. If you are skimming through this introduction, slow down and read it again. It is crucial you understand what you are getting into.

The DM's "active hand" extends even to the rules. Many decisions about your campaign can be made by only one person: you. Tailor your campaign to fit your own style and the style of your players.

You will find a lot of information in this book, but you won't find pat answers to all your questions and easy solutions for all your game problems. What you will find instead is a discussion of various problems and numerous triggers intended to guide you through a thoughtful analysis of situations that pertain to your campaign.

The rules to the AD&D game are balanced and easy to use. No role-playing game we of has been playtested more heavily than this one. But that doesn't mean it's perfect. What we consider to be right may be unbalance or anachronistic in your campaign. The only thing that can make the AD&D game "right" for all players is the intelligent application of DM discretion.

As you can see there is a tonal and functional difference in the role of the DM. In AD&D 1E and 2E it's uniform and basically says the DM can rule how he needs to as it fits his campaign. In the 3.X abomination it's the DM can't do that and must adhere to the rules as presented. He must have mastery over them.

Even ignoring the question of if you're right or not: That a product you (in theory) paid good money for really should be be written with the expectation you'll be following its instructions most of the time, otherwise what the fuck did you spend money/bandwith on?

You obviously didn't read what was written as it answered the question. The rules are guidelines and nothing more.

 

[deuxhero]

Even then, I expect the guidelines to actually include guidelines on as much as possible.

 

[JamesDixon]

Even then, I expect the guidelines to actually include guidelines on as much as possible.

They do. You haven't read the books which is obvious.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

guys, guys
there's no reason to argue

you can just play superior rolemaster instead of d&d

 

[JamesDixon]

guys, guys
there's no reason to argue

you can just play superior rolemaster instead of d&d

You misspelled Rollmaster...

 

[rusty_shackleford]

guys, guys
there's no reason to argue

you can just play superior rolemaster instead of d&d

You misspelled Rollmaster...

name one thing wrong with having to roll dice in an rpg

 

[JamesDixon]

guys, guys
there's no reason to argue

you can just play superior rolemaster instead of d&d

You misspelled Rollmaster...

name one thing wrong with having to roll dice in an rpg

Nothing, except when it comes to having to roll on 15 different charts to get a result for 1 swing of your sword.

 

[NJClaw]

guys, guys
there's no reason to argue

you can just play superior rolemaster instead of d&d

I just want to play a game where the rules clearly state that being trans is a mental disorder and that trans people are unpleasant:

Generic-Giant-Spider and you say D&D 3.5 isn't based.

 

[Morblot]

It's not even based upon original D&D. It shares none of the mechanics etc...

Didn't we already go through this? In this very thread?

It has you roll the d20 when you attack someone or when you try to save vs. something. Longswords do 1d8 damage on hit and that damage is then subtracted from hit points. Player characters have levels, monsters have hit dice. Etc. Etc. Are these not mechanics?

It's one thing to dislike or hate something and another to make up reasons for doing so. I mean, it'd be easy enough to bash 3.x based on qualities it actually has; I, for one, haven't played or ran it for a long time and for good reason.

 

[JamesDixon]

It's not even based upon original D&D. It shares none of the mechanics etc...

Didn't we already go through this? In this very thread?

It has you roll the d20 when you attack someone or when you try to save vs. something. Longswords do 1d8 damage on hit and that damage is then subtracted from hit points. Player characters have levels, monsters have hit dice. Etc. Etc. Are these not mechanics?

It's one thing to dislike or hate something and another to make up reasons for doing so. I mean, it'd be easy enough to bash 3.x based on qualities it actually has; I, for one, haven't played or ran it for a long time and for good reason.

It's not D&D or even AD&D. Gary even said it's not D&D. The authors of WotC 3.x abomination state it's not D&D. There are plenty of other systems out there that have the same things that D&D does, but it doesn't make it D&D.

D&D uses d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20, and d100 to resolve things. There is no unified mechanic using the d20 only in it.

 

[Morblot]

There's no way to get through to you, is there? I give up.