When I began playing back in the mid-eighties there seemed to be a far greater reduction on the players use of RAW the game. In fact I had never run into a "rules Lawyer" till 3.5. When I began play the GM was god of the game and you never questioned a call made during play and often it never happened after the game. Also, there was far less talk of "broken" classes, builds, spells, ect. When someone in a party rocked it was a good thing (not something to be mad about) and the GM's job; as GM, to balance the party/challenge so that it seemed equal.
My question is: When did the player gain as much power over the game as they seem to have today? Was it the rise of the internet that caused the shift in gaming? Or was it the invention of RPG video games that pushed it in that direction? Or was it a reslut of the introduction of the 3.x games? Or maybe was it is the MMO effect that caused this type of style to arise? This post is mostly for those who started their gaming carrier during the early years of DND. The 1.0/2.0 crowd. My first system was the brown box chainmail that I bought at a yard sale with the knight on the cover. (If you know what I am talking about then you are an old-school gamer.)
Yeah, back in the day it was understood that DM was king. Most DMs had their own interpretation of the rules and variants thereof. I lived out in the sticks 5 miles from my closest gaming buddies, so I spent most of my free time reading the books. Again and again. I was kind of the default 'rules guru' and if I couldn't quote a rule verbatim, I could tell you exactly where to find it in which book. Even so, I would defer to the DM when he made a call since it was 'his' game.
While likely another inherited trait from miniature battle games, RPG specific rules lawyering can probably be traced to the origin of tournament style organized play. Especially when teams were actually competing against each other. It certainly grew more prevalent in the 3ed era, but it's been around forever.
I remember those days ... back then the rules were so bad that we HAD to house-rule everything. As such, you depended much more on the DM to adjudicate everything and in effect to make the rules up a lot of the time. A lot of the supplementary material was released for DM's, rather than for players, and they had the handle on it.
Since then rule sets have improved a great deal. With 3.x they were clearer and better written and more sensible. Players had a better idea of the rules and what was expected. On top of that, a lot of supplements were being made for players rather than DM's. Splatbooks are player-fodder, in effect, a way to offer the largest number of people new toys to buy. I'm not saying that's why they are written, but it's the way it's come across. As such, when a player buys new toys he wants to use them - after all, they are written for the game, right? Hence you get more of a 'sense of entitlement' from some players.
It hasn't actually changed anything. If you don't feel comfortable running a game for some people, you don't have to. If they contend your rulings and say they 'won't take it' you can just smile, fold the book closed and leave the table. Of course no one wants to do that or play that way, but at the end of the day the vast majority of the players I know are laid back and clued in enough to know that the guy taking the effort to run the game is the guy who calls the shots, and if they don't like the way he does it they don't play.
I remember those days ... back then the rules were so bad that we HAD to house-rule everything. As such, you depended much more on the DM to adjudicate everything and in effect to make the rules up a lot of the time. A lot of the supplementary material was released for DM's, rather than for players, and they had the handle on it.
Since then rule sets have improved a great deal. With 3.x they were clearer and better written and more sensible. Players had a better idea of the rules and what was expected. On top of that, a lot of supplements were being made for players rather than DM's. Splatbooks are player-fodder, in effect, a way to offer the largest number of people new toys to buy. I'm not saying that's why they are written, but it's the way it's come across. As such, when a player buys new toys he wants to use them - after all, they are written for the game, right? Hence you get more of a 'sense of entitlement' from some players.
This is true. The older books were for the GM more than the player. Also the splat for 3.0 had alot more player options and the rules set was vastly improved. I have gotten adjusted to the way that younger players play and if anything it has forced me to learn the rules better to keep game flow and arguements low. I was just wanting to see if others could see where the shift occured for the average gamer.
When I began playing back in the mid-eighties there seemed to be a far greater reduction on the players use of RAW the game. In fact I had never run into a "rules Lawyer" till 3.5. When I began play the GM was god of the game and you never questioned a call made during play and often it never happened after the game. Also, there was far less talk of "broken" classes, builds, spells, ect. When someone in a party rocked it was a good thing (not something to be mad about) and the GM's job; as GM, to balance the party/challenge so that it seemed equal.
My question is: When did the player gain as much power over the game as they seem to have today? Was it the rise of the internet that caused the shift in gaming? Or was it the invention of RPG video games that pushed it in that direction? Or was it a reslut of the introduction of the 3.x games? Or maybe was it is the MMO effect that caused this type of style to arise? This post is mostly for those who started their gaming carrier during the early years of DND. The 1.0/2.0 crowd. My first system was the brown box chainmail that I bought at a yard sale with the knight on the cover. (If you know what I am talking about then you are an old-school gamer.)
Happy to contribute to this "geezer" thread because, well, I am one. I started playing in the late 70s. While I didn't have the Chainmail rules myself, I've certainly heard of them. I still have one of the old original bozed sets.
I agree with your basic premise that over the years and editions, the DM's former absolute power has waned (everywhere but my gaming table, anyway) a bit. Unfortunately, rules lawyers have been around for a long time, although perhaps not as prevalent. Used to be that the DM was frequently the only one who knew the rules. Players reading the DMG or the MM was strictly verboten. When the DM screwed up a rule, no one knew, and the game moved on blissfully ignorant. Fun was still had. Now I think it is very common to have players just as, if not more, knowledgable about the rules as their DMs, and it seems everybody has read the books. I think this may have started to break down with the release of the original Unearthed Arcana (which was also coincidentially one of the most unbalanced blsaphemies of game design ever IMHO), which contained DM and player material in the same book. With PF there is not even a pretense that some of the material in the Core Rulebook is DM only. Regardless, there is no going back, to paraphrase the old song, there's no keeping them down on the farm, once they've seen gay Paree.
I think computer games and other forms of gaming that either have a computer being the arbiter or no arbiter at all have also had an effect, by encouraging the view of DM as opponent rather than DM as neutral arbiter/creator/story teller. Easier to argue with someone you see as an opponent.
Actually, I don't find it a bad thing that players know the rules. In my games, if someone thinks I've made the wrong decision or interpreted a rule wrong, they are welcome to bring it to my attention and I'll consider it quickly. I'm sometimes wrong, as I have neither the time nor the inclination to memorize the rulebooks, and I'll reverse an obviously wrong decision, particularly if it unfairly hurt the PCs. What I can't abide is the folks who, after the DM has considered their points and made a final decision, continue to fume and whine for the rest of the night (or longer), and challenge the DM's ruling. That wastes the time of everyone else at the table. Just give it up and move on. Then, if you still think it was a mistake, buy the DM a beer and discuss it later to your heart's content, when you're not wasting everyone's time.
|
It's been around since the inception of the game, but I would say that the over-codification of 3.0 was a major factor in its increase and a bit of entitlement that went with it.
In basic, 1st or 2nd ed if a player told you he should have X +1 item at this level, and Y amount of gold per level/per encounter you would laugh at him. Sure there were some suggestions but nothing compared with the 13.3 encounters to gain a level, wealth expectations per level, treasure per encounter, etc, these were all 3.0 inventions. When you support these as expectations, you are then supporting the sense of entitlement - players now had hard references on what they should get, how creature’s abilities should work within certain limitations, the fairness of creature or encounter design at CR and so on.
That all being said, wouldn't you expect players to cite and use the rules to their advantage - with a direct quantified reward as listed by RAW?
Remember, these were the guys who brought you MtG, and as much as I liked 3.0/3.5 the rules themselves did not support or focus on story or adventure, more so on builds, combos, exploits and grinds, bizarre situated encounters with silly templated creatures. Most of these things were there before - they were now just reinforced, supported and given fixed incentives (undermines the DM) in the wotc version of the game.
When we started playing, only one of us dmed, and he was god. His word was law. Not to mention he was the only one that owned a dmg. None of us even knew what was in it, let alone had memorized every word. None of us new the rules very well and we stumbled along together. All was well.
Years later, everyone at my table dms. In fact we rotate games off and on, so no one is god, because its kind of hard to have that kind of reverence for a particular dm when we all do. So it has become a collective thing really. In addition, we all know the rules, we've all read them, and we all know each of us makes mistakes in our interpretations, and thus when we see something out of sorts, we call eachother on it.
Add to that the desire for MORE from our product. When i was a kid in middle school i didnt really care if the rules were perfect. I had one book, and wasnt really worried if it was perfect. We shell out alot more money for our products now a days, and as an adult, i expect more from my books, better rules means less need for hte dm to be inventer of rules, and more for him to just be the arbiter.
Rules lawyers have been around since the early days. What I think has really changed is our ability to communicate quickly about them. When people hit the internet, they see a lot of posts about things going on in the gaming community they might not see at their home table. But those of us who used to be into the gamer magazines like Dragon, Different Worlds, White Wolf, Shadis, or others over the years have known about many of these things for a very long time.
I don't think much has changed. Sure you have more rules, more guidelines and more options today but the game hasn't really changed. The players have. I've noticed younger players come in with this WOW concept and sense of entitlement. My group is all old school RPGers and we play just like we always have.
I had a different experience I guess.
Back around 1980 or so, I had a gaming group that consisted of my two best friends as permanent members, and we'd rotate in some other players, some of whom lasted a while, others were short-timers. My two best friends also DMed (we often had 3 campaigns going simultaneously), so all three of us knew the rules well, and we were all more than willing to point out each others' mistakes.
Also, most of the rotation of other players who came and went did not invest in books or spend any real time studying or learning or mastering the game rules, but we did have one long-term player who did exactly that, even though he never DMed - he became as fluent with the rules system as the three of us.
So at any given time we had as many as 4 people (DM + 3 players) who were system masters and who could contribute to rules discussions more or less equally. Call us rules-lawyers if you wish; we were more than willing to discuss, debate, debunk, and deliberate on rules at great length, and game balance was a concern we all shared.
I think what the OP is remembering is a gaming group that had only 1 DM and no book-buying players.
Each to their own.
I don't blame video games or later editions for changing the mindset of the players. But I will note that back then, we thought about game balance but we weren't very good at it. Now we are. Maybe we learned something from video games and recent editions that helped us refine our notion of balance.
But as for our willingness to master systems and step up to the plate as rules lawyers, that behavior began around 1980 or so, with Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (none of us cared for Basic, or the older rules, which we all three had but left them there collecting dust on the shelf).
When we started playing, only one of us dmed, and he was god. His word was law. Not to mention he was the only one that owned a dmg. None of us even knew what was in it, let alone had memorized every word. None of us new the rules very well and we stumbled along together. All was well.
Years later, everyone at my table dms. In fact we rotate games off and on, so no one is god, because its kind of hard to have that kind of reverence for a particular dm when we all do. So it has become a collective thing really. In addition, we all know the rules, we've all read them, and we all know each of us makes mistakes in our interpretations, and thus when we see something out of sorts, we call eachother on it.
Add to that the desire for MORE from our product. When i was a kid in middle school i didnt really care if the rules were perfect. I had one book, and wasnt really worried if it was perfect. We shell out alot more money for our products now a days, and as an adult, i expect more from my books, better rules means less need for hte dm to be inventer of rules, and more for him to just be the arbiter.
Interestingly, to me at least, we have several DMs at our table as well, and rotate between us, but we find that reinforces the DM's authority, because we all back each other up and all understand the challenges of being a DM and cut each other some slack. The worst rules lawyers I've encountered have been people who rarely, if ever, DM.
I agree with you that with more rules laid out, the DM has to invent less on the fly, and in general that leads to better play. However, I would contend that no set of rules can ever be comprehensive enough to consider every possible situation, so DMs will always have to do a fair amount of "winging it". I know at my table, when I'm DMing, my players will come up with the strangest ideas that no one could ever possibly foresee at least twice a night.
And that doesn't even touch the other DM challenge, the player who knows the rules intimately, but deliberately misinterprets/stretches/abuses them to gain more power for his own character with no care in the world for game balance or party balance. (Those at my table know who I'm talking about, Weasel). The DM needs to have the authority to stomp on those guys quickly before they ruin everyone's fun.
I think another issue is corruption. When the game first started, dms were few. They were the ones that REALLY wanted to play, being the ones to get the books, host the games etc. Since then I at least have run aground of a fair number of less then great dms who were either control freaks, or very adversarial. That experience has without question colored my view on the absoluteness of dm power, because well we all know what happens with absolute power. In the hands of the perfect dm it works great, but at least in my experience they are few and far between. As it turns up those godly individuals of the early stages of the game are just as flawed as everyone else. And if you lose faith in the fairness of dm rulings, the letter of the rules becomes far more important.
I had a different experience I guess.
So at any given time we had as many as 4 people (DM + 3 players) who were system masters and who could contribute to rules discussions more or less equally. Call us rules-lawyers if you wish; we were more than willing to discuss, debate, debunk, and deliberate on rules at great length, and game balance was a concern we all shared.
I agree with you that I don't mind a rules discussion now and again, as long as it doesn't cut into my play time too much. My preference though is that it be short and to the point, that the DM be the final arbiter, and then everyone move on and play. My time to play is limited and I'd prefer not to spend it in a fruitless back and forth between the DM and players. So make your points, let the DM decide and move on. Save the endless discussions for forums like this, which are better suited for it.
It's been around since the inception of the game, but I would say that the over-codification of 3.0 was a major factor in its increase and a bit of entitlement that went with it.
In basic, 1st or 2nd ed if a player told you he should have X +1 item at this level, and Y amount of gold per level/per encounter you would laugh at him. Sure there were some suggestions but nothing compared with the 13.3 encounters to gain a level, wealth expectations per level, treasure per encounter, etc, these were all 3.0 inventions. When you support these as expectations, you are then supporting the sense of entitlement - players now had hard references on what they should get, how creature’s abilities should work within certain limitations, the fairness of creature or encounter design at CR and so on.
+1.
The idea that there weren't splat books before 3.0 is erronious. In fact to me it seemed most of the 3.0/3.5 expansion was just rewriting the old Completes and applying them to over-simplified rules.
I honestly think a lot was lost in the stream-lining and over-simplification of the rules. Sure now it can reach a wider audience, but the more people you get involved the more codification you need, and the more conflict there will be. Especially once online rules forums are constructed.
I personally miss the 'kit' approach to customizing classes. You set aside a concept you list what you take away from the original class and list what they gain in its place. It seemed much easier for a DM to digest. They could take a quick look at the kit and say, "Uhm, that doesn't look like a fair trade, how about this?".
Then again it has been a decade since I played 2e, maybe I am remembering wrong.
In the past finding a DM was akin to finding a martial arts instructor of some lost style, but these days, with the popularity of the game, organized events, and the Internet, the whole ball game has changed. More interest leads to more discussion, and rules are bound to be the focus.
But back in the day, it was about exploring new worlds, and the more you played, the harder it is to capture those original moments. We then started to experiment with rules (level of complexity), and eventually it leads to using the rules to justify our own experiences and how you define yourself in relation to other games or people (ala edition wars).
We all strive to go back to our original experience, but I am not sure if it is obtainable, regardless of the system. Because it is the people you play with, and different perspectives, that tend to open new doors.
The problem is with all the splatbooks and options books. Back in the day, I think I only had two PHs? Some games, we had only the core rules. Players use splatbooks to powergame, but as DM it's impossible to know all the rules from all of the optional material, so they lose a little bit of their power.
The worst part of any gaming system, D&D included, is when everyone is focused so much on the rules that we forget the reason we play: the story, the drama, and fun. Rules don't make the game fun. Rules DO sell books though, which is why publishers keep putting out more rule books. And we keep buying them thinking more rules will make our games better when in fact, less rules would be better imo.
Ever read "The Window". Hardly any rules yet you get more and you get the same experience imo.
http://www.mimgames.com/window/
It's also why a lot of people prefer low level games. It's simple and you don't need complex rules to have fun roleplaying.
I think there's always been rules lawyers, even back in the old days (well, maybe not full blown lawyers, but more like rules-amici or rules-paralegals). ;)
When did the player gain as much power over the game as they seem to have today? Was it the rise of the internet that caused the shift in gaming? Or was it the invention of RPG video games that pushed it in that direction? Or was it a reslut of the introduction of the 3.x games? Or maybe was it is the MMO effect that caused this type of style to arise?
The more rules there are - the greater the rules lawyering potential.
The more contradictory the rules are - the greater the rules lawyering potential.
The more disparately authored the rules are - the greater the rules lawyering potential.
The corpus of "law" grew dramatically in 3.x, as evidenced by the dramatically larger number of books available for players and refs alike. Back in the old days most supplemental books were highly optional - with refs exerting more control over what flys and what doesn't. Most material put out by TSR were modules and campaign settings, and had less direct affect into the game, generally speaking. Plus these books were mostly directed towards refs.
In 3.x, you could have a *player* with a significant layout of actual cash invested in books - supplemental rules books, not just alternate campaign stuff with an "optional" rules blurb. I think players may have developed a sense of empowerment when they've actually put out money for a product containing some form of rule or concept they directly wished to play or wished to see in the game. Right or wrong, good or bad, just or unjustly, it's a bit of an entitlement mindset. Frankly, I can understand it if I paid 25 bucks for a book - but I also have a higher respect for refs.
--
Additionally, we are talking WotC here.
Their flagship product... their trailblazing development... their claim to fame, the "big thing" they pioneered was Magic the Gathering.
MtG was an ever expanding, ever contradicting, ever erratta'd, ever ballooning mess of rules, rules restrictions, "types" of rules, rules clarifications, rules redactions, and rules revisions. Each new expansion pushed the envelope and had the potential for breaking existing rules, causing conflicts, creating broken or infinite loops, and required new, official rules clarification to be issued forth from Renton like Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai. The booklet of rules, errata, and clarifications my friend printed out for MtG was literally inches thick.
MtG was also a moneymaking powerhouse - as each new expansion was absolutely coveted by players because of the ever-upwardly-expanding degree of power needed to crush your opponents. It's a great business model, in a sense.
This was their background and their experience - and when they acquired D&D, they applied this model - to a degree - to the RPG. A side effect of this is the effect of having such a huge body of rules and the corresponding increase on overall rules lawyering you're witnessing in the game.
This is my opinion.
I remember those days ... back then the rules were so bad that we HAD to house-rule everything. As such, you depended much more on the DM to adjudicate everything and in effect to make the rules up a lot of the time.
Back in the day, the rules were NOT systematic. You couldn't lawyer a system that didn't make sense in the first place.
As an example, you had ridiculous things like "A creature that can't be surprised, and surprises other creatures 2 in 6 times runs into another creature that can't be surprised and surprises other creatures 10% of the time"
Or, Does a breath weapon that releases a paralyzing gas call for a breath weapon save, or a paralysis save? Go ahead, make an argument about the RAW now.
You HAD to rely on DM judgement. Or break out a calculator to see if 10% of 2/6 is more than 2/6 of 10%. Or go home.
From my experience the rules lawyering actually started with 2nd edition. The red books caused a lot of it, as I had several players that started bringing Complete Fighter or Complete Elf. "But it says I can use my NWP to get Weapon Proficiencies, and they introduced all of these way unbalanced abilities, I want to try." Bladesinger Kit, and Bladesong proficiency for example. I have gamed with too many power gamers I guess. So I am used to saying no.
Additionally, we are talking WotC here.
Their flagship product... their trailblazing development... their claim to fame, the "big thing" they pioneered was Magic the Gathering.
MtG was an ever expanding, ever contradicting, ever erratta'd, ever ballooning mess of rules, rules restrictions, "types" of rules, rules clarifications, rules redactions, and rules revisions. Each new expansion pushed the envelope and had the potential for breaking existing rules, causing conflicts, creating broken or infinite loops, and required new, official rules clarification to be issued forth from Renton like Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai. The booklet of rules, errata, and clarifications my friend printed out for MtG was literally inches thick.
MtG was also a moneymaking powerhouse - as each new expansion was absolutely coveted by players because of the ever-upwardly-expanding degree of power needed to crush your opponents. It's a great business model, in a sense.
This was their background and their experience - and when they acquired D&D, they applied this model - to a degree - to the RPG. A side effect of this is the effect of having such a huge body of rules and the corresponding increase on overall rules lawyering you're witnessing in the game.
This is my opinion.
+1, +1, +1, +1. This is exactly the reason I stopped playing MtG, and I noticed this with it's reincarnation of DnD.
Although, even in 2e there was a sense of entitlement. I know we started with one absolute DM. But eventually every had there opportunities at being DM and everyone bought the books, or borrowed them. There were splat books designed for players, which once they dropped the $20 they wanted to see some content in action (i.e. they felt entitled to see it in action). I know I had a host of Complete books from 2e, I had campaign settings, we used Psionics, there was a lot going on. If you think about it when Wizards bought DnD once they messed up the rules completely and over-simplified things they had years of product already lined up that all they had to do was adapt to their new rules. It didn't take a lot of 'new ideas', just new rules to adapt all the old ideas to.
|
|
In the past finding a DM was akin to finding a martial arts instructor of some lost style, but these days, with the popularity of the game, organized events, and the Internet, the whole ball game has changed. More interest leads to more discussion, and rules are bound to be the focus.
But back in the day, it was about exploring new worlds, and the more you played, the harder it is to capture those original moments. We then started to experiment with rules (level of complexity), and eventually it leads to using the rules to justify our own experiences and how you define yourself in relation to other games or people (ala edition wars).
We all strive to go back to our original experience, but I am not sure if it is obtainable, regardless of the system. Because it is the people you play with, and different perspectives, that tend to open new doors.
I agree and disagree
I agree on the finding a good DM part, but I would also extend that to players. As a kid DMing in 1980 I ran across tons of players, some good, but many were horrid. I find fewer faults in bad DMs and players back then due to lack of communication (besides cons and mags) and there not being a tremendous amount of DM/player non-crunch play style guides.
Things improved as time went by, but it wasn't so much the rules as the philosophy and attitude behind the rules. The 2nd ed set added a great amount of detail to the rules in 1st, but in reality besides a few structured additions (weapon and non-weapon profs) the game wasn't that different. People did have more time under their belts playing though the game, but the rules didn’t change very much. You had more experienced players carrying on with the game, and this helped any influx of new players in adjusting and learning the game.
What I disagree with is passing off the OPs observation/concern as nostalgia or the onset of advanced grognardism. This isn't about edition wars per se, I think most who have posted so far have at least played 2nd over to 3.5 and then PFRPG. I have fond memories of each incarnation. I also have observed issues with each rule set which is not framed by a sense of nostalgia. If I am saying that 3.0/3.5/PFrpg wealth by level expectations leads to a sense of entitlement it isn't because I hate young people or new school gamers. It's because I see it as a realistic issue which has caused many other problems when trying to run a current game and interacting with different gamers and their approach and philosophy to gaming. That also extends to gaming companies that put out product perpetuating these systems and what happens over the life (and death) of an edition.
So it isn't me longing to go back to '82 and stomping orcs in the Bone March, it’s about game mechanics, philosophies and designs - possible bad designs, and some concerns about the changes they have wrought on the game.
Yerv Kinkash wrote:
My question is: When did the player gain as much power over the game as they seem to have today?
zotpox answers:
My answer is: The very moment when a player cracked open a dmg for the first time.
No matter what there motivation was the very moment that they opened that book they stopped being a player and started down the path of the DM.
now dont get me wrong its nice to play every once and a while but while playing it is extreemly diffocult to keep your dm instincts constently in check.
suspension of disbelief is extreemly diffocult for those who have stood behind the screen.
The problem is with all the splatbooks and options books. Back in the day, I think I only had two PHs? Some games, we had only the core rules. Players use splatbooks to powergame, but as DM it's impossible to know all the rules from all of the optional material, so they lose a little bit of their power.
The worst part of any gaming system, D&D included, is when everyone is focused so much on the rules that we forget the reason we play: the story, the drama, and fun. Rules don't make the game fun. Rules DO sell books though, which is why publishers keep putting out more rule books. And we keep buying them thinking more rules will make our games better when in fact, less rules would be better imo.
Ever read "The Window". Hardly any rules yet you get more and you get the same experience imo.
http://www.mimgames.com/window/It's also why a lot of people prefer low level games. It's simple and you don't need complex rules to have fun roleplaying.
I actually play for both the story/drama, and the mechanics. There are many people that like mechanics for themselves. So saying the reason why 'we' play is for story alone is a falsehood.
Also fewere rules dont neccessarily make for a 'better' game. As an example, in my group a player that tried to restrict availability of rules wholesale (core only) found relatively disinterested players since for the most part the core classes have played mostly the same for more then a decade. The core rules have been extremely similar for the same period of time. The game eventually petered out for lack of interest. Eventually the game part of roleplaying game can get old if you dont have new mechanical aspects of the game. So in the end its entirely relative. And I say it often, for those who dont like new rules and think it hurts the game, dont use them. Its much easier to restrict your game if you prefer fewer rules, then it is for those of us that like new rules to write their own. (the whole we are not proffessional game designers bit).
When I began playing back in the mid-eighties there seemed to be a far greater reduction on the players use of RAW the game. In fact I had never run into a "rules Lawyer" till 3.5. When I began play the GM was god of the game and you never questioned a call made during play and often it never happened after the game. Also, there was far less talk of "broken" classes, builds, spells, ect.
You had me up until this point; I didn't know any AD&D DMs who used the psionics system, for instance, because it was broken. (Although, in those days they didn't use the word "broken"; they used different terms like "munchkin" or whatever.)
By the way, the Wikipedia entry for "rules lawyer" suggests that "the habit of players to argue in a legal fashion over rule implementation was noted early on in the history of Dungeons and Dragons", and references an article from Different Worlds magazine in 1979.
Yerv Kinkash wrote:My question is: When did the player gain as much power over the game as they seem to have today?
zotpox answers:
My answer is: The very moment when a player cracked open a dmg for the first time.
No matter what there motivation was the very moment that they opened that book they stopped being a player and started down the path of the DM.
now dont get me wrong its nice to play every once and a while but while playing it is extreemly diffocult to keep your dm instincts constently in check.
suspension of disbelief is extreemly diffocult for those who have stood behind the screen.
I would agree that alot of the wonder and reverence was lost when most players cracked open the dmg for the first time.
As others mentioned, RAW was often vague and/or contradictory "in the old days." The very reason much more of D&D has become codified over the years was to clarify the once-vague.
As for "the GM is king"--I think the difference there is not the game system, but the experience of the gamers in question.
When you're a newb, and you're only just learning how to play your character, you're more likely to trust the GM at face value.
When you become more experienced, try new characters, or perhaps have decided to GM a session or campaign yourself, you get a whole new perspective on the rules. All of a sudden you begin to trust your perspective as much if not more than other GMs. You begin to argue your POV more with your GM not because of the game system you're using, but because of your own experiences.
It doesn't matter if your first game was 1st edition or 4th edition or Big Eyes Small Mouth or West End Star Wars; you'll likely remember that game as when "the GM was king" but only because of what you yourself was like as a player back then.
I've seen some absolutely wanky rules debates over 1st and 2nd Edition Rules, and I've seen people accept the GM's word without question in 3.x. The edition doesn't matter, and in this particular area, I doubt it ever will.
I think the way the Internet has played into D&D and other game discussion is simply that it is much easier than before to discuss alternate points of view. A gaming group in 1982 who had a rules debate only had each other to sort it out at least on the short term, before the issue was perhaps covered in Dungeon magazine or if someone wrote a letter to TSR. Now someone can check online to see if someone else brought it up pretty easily and see what suggested made-calls are to be. Sure, on one hand, this leads to a lot of arguments and re-interpretations, but on the other hand, it probably ultimately clarifies issues that doesn't have to go unsorted or house ruled.
Heh, I remember reading an article (it might have been at the Escapist Magazine) that recounted that an old D&D bestiary listed a monster stat "% in liar." It was a typo--it was supposed to be "% in lair," suggesting the chance you would find the creature in its lair. But some people took the typo literally, and in their home games, the DM would roll the percentile dice to see if the next statement the creature would make would be true or not. Some players would have no idea that this was a mistake until they met other gamers at a gaming convention, and then the arguments would break out over what this would mean. Frankly, those are the kind of "good old days" I am glad we are past.
Quite frankly I'm glad the rules are no longer so bizarre and terrilbe that DM's are required to make houserules. I no longer need to relearn how to play the entire game just because I move to a different DM. And "DM is god!" is only good under nostalgia glasses - DMs weren't god, and unless you had a really excellent DM, things could get terrible.
Quite frankly I'm glad the rules are no longer so bizarre and terrilbe that DM's are required to make houserules. I no longer need to relearn how to play the entire game just because I move to a different DM. And "DM is god!" is only good under nostalgia glasses - DMs weren't god, and unless you had a really excellent DM, things could get terrible.
Hear hear!
I remember someone arguing with me repeatedly that 1st/2nd Ed was "the best" because the DM just "made up the rules" so "players could accomplish whatever they wanted." Meaning that if a player wanted to, say, jump off the table, swing off a chandelier, and kick a bad guy before landing on his head, their DM would make up some random on the spot ability score check for the various attemps.
The problem was I once had a DM that would respond: "You can't do that. It's not on your character sheet." Everything was played as, if there was a written rule for it, you could do it (if it was on your character sheet), and if there was no rule for it, you couldn't do it.
What made the early editions so great for that first player and horrid for me wasn't the ruleset, it was that the first player had a GM who was fast thinking, creative, and capable of making something out of nothing. Which a great GM can do with any system.
I would agree that alot of the wonder and reverence was lost when most players cracked open the dmg for the first time.
Yerv Kinkash wrote:My question is: When did the player gain as much power over the game as they seem to have today?
zotpox answers:
My answer is: The very moment when a player cracked open a dmg for the first time.
No matter what there motivation was the very moment that they opened that book they stopped being a player and started down the path of the DM.
now dont get me wrong its nice to play every once and a while but while playing it is extreemly diffocult to keep your dm instincts constently in check.
suspension of disbelief is extreemly diffocult for those who have stood behind the screen.
I agree on that point, and admit to being somewhat nostalgic for the days when all players did not have access to all the rules. Made it much easier on DMs to create an immersive experience. That said, I think the core rules have gotten stronger with each edition of the game, from 1st Ed to PF (haven't tried 4E, as initial impression received from the materials WOTC put out online was not positive). I also understand the business imperative behind constantly putting out new material, but frankly in most cases the supplementary material in every edition has struck me as being not as well-balanced. So you end up with what seems like inevitable power creep that challenges DMs to adapt - and of course feeds the rules lawyers. That's why we have a pretty firm rule that everything not in core rulebooks is always optional and up to each DM as to whether they allow it, and that they can alter that material as they see fit if they do allow it. We like it that way, but I think it would drive many of the posters who inhabit these parts nuts, as it would inhibit their ability to create their ubermensch armored ninja spellcasting half-dragon, half-celestial they've always dreamed of (or at least have dreamed of since they read the requisite splat books and figured out a new way to abuse the rules to create a character so powerful even their inept play couldn't keep it from succeeding).
I agree on that point, and admit to being somewhat nostalgic for the days when all players did not have access to all the rules. Made it much easier on DMs to create an immersive experience. That said, I think the core rules have gotten stronger with each edition of the game, from 1st Ed to PF (haven't tried 4E, as initial impression received from the materials WOTC put out online was not positive). I also understand the business imperative behind constantly putting out new material, but frankly in most cases the supplementary material in every edition has struck me as being not as well-balanced. So you end up with what seems like inevitable power creep that challenges DMs to adapt - and of course feeds the rules lawyers. That's why we have a pretty firm rule that everything not in core rulebooks is always optional and up to each DM as to whether they allow it, and that they can alter that material as they see fit if they do allow it. We like it that way, but I think it would drive many of the posters who inhabit these parts nuts, as it would inhibit their ability to create their ubermensch armored ninja spellcasting half-dragon, half-celestial they've always dreamed of (or at least have dreamed of since they...
Its not always about power, most of the time it is about something new and different. I like trying new options, new classes for the fact that they are new, and not neccessarily that they are powerful. And while I am an optimizer, I do not seek for ways to 'break' the game. Just ways to make an interesting but still effective character.
I also find it amusing when people say supplementary rules are unbalanced, and that causes a problem when the core rules themselves arent balanced. There are inequities in the system because it is seeking to create a cohesive system (and world building tool) first, and seeking balance and parity among classes and options second. We shall see if there is 'power creep' in pathfinder material, but i dont expect there will be since avoiding it is one of the goals of paizo's team.
In the past finding a DM was akin to finding a martial arts instructor of some lost style, but these days, with the popularity of the game, organized events, and the Internet, the whole ball game has changed. More interest leads to more discussion, and rules are bound to be the focus.
But back in the day, it was about exploring new worlds, and the more you played, the harder it is to capture those original moments. We then started to experiment with rules (level of complexity), and eventually it leads to using the rules to justify our own experiences and how you define yourself in relation to other games or people (ala edition wars).
We all strive to go back to our original experience, but I am not sure if it is obtainable, regardless of the system. Because it is the people you play with, and different perspectives, that tend to open new doors.
I agree and disagree
I agree on the finding a good DM part, but I would also extend that to players. As a kid DMing in 1980 I ran across tons of players, some good, but many were horrid. I find fewer faults in bad DMs and players back then due to lack of communication (besides cons and mags) and there not being a tremendous amount of DM/player non-crunch play style guides.
Things improved as time went by, but it wasn't so much the rules as the philosophy and attitude behind the rules. The 2nd ed set added a great amount of detail to the rules in 1st, but in reality besides a few structured additions (weapon and non-weapon profs) the game wasn't that different. People did have more time under their belts playing though the game, but the rules didn’t change very much. You had more experienced players carrying on with the game, and this helped any influx of new players in adjusting and learning the game.What I disagree with is passing off the OPs observation/concern as nostalgia or the onset of advanced grognardism. This isn't about edition wars per se, I think most who have posted so far have at least played 2nd over to 3.5 and...
I see your point, and what I was trying to express, starting with bluebox all the way up to 4E, is when I focused on the rules I would always find something I didn't like, whether a mechanic, randomness of D20, versus multiple dice, etc. and upon reflecting, it was more important to experience something new. Because over time there are only so many original experiences to be found. Therefore, I often find I borrow rules from every game I play, but in the same respect, I would find it difficult to play with those that followed rules to the letter. So I could have probably left the edition wars comment out, but only noted it as a side affect of having so many versions of the rules, and perhaps people using the rule set to define their experience.
|
|
I remember someone arguing with me repeatedly that 1st/2nd Ed was "the best" because the DM just "made up the rules" so "players could accomplish whatever they wanted." Meaning that if a player wanted to, say, jump off the table, swing off a chandelier, and kick a bad guy before landing on his head, their DM would make up some random on the spot ability score check for the various attemps.
Sorry more rules do not = good game, and less rules do not = bad game.
You still can't do what you described under the 3.5 or PF ruleset.
So a current DM who says "you can't do all that" is bad because he isn't fast thinking, or are the rules bad because they don't cover those mechanics or have those mechanics work in a suitably cinematic way and have them executed by the player as he imagines?
See the problem for all those opining for more rules; more detail, more balance or player power is that it will never be enough. There will never be enough rules to cover every situation and in fact more rules interpretations may burn both players and DM alike. Say a given spell works one way, both the DM and players are happy with this, then a ruling or change comes out and all people in the group hate it. Is it ok for them to ignore the ruling?
What if its just the DM who hates the ruling? How should he proceed? Or worse, what if the players (gasp!) are the ones who hate the ruling and the DM likes the new rule or interpretation? At what point is the DM playing God? When he goes against the groups wishes, breaks the rules, changes the rules for his game?
but I think it would drive many of the posters who inhabit these parts nuts, as it would inhibit their ability to create their ubermensch armored ninja spellcasting half-dragon, half-celestial they've always dreamed of (or at least have dreamed of since they read the requisite splat books and figured out a new way to abuse the rules to create a character so powerful even their inept play couldn't keep it from succeeding).
LOL
I have a rather unique experince to share.
I picked up D&D books when I was very young (late 80's). I entered junior high with no friends, low self esteem and was social awkward (still got that going against me). One of the many bullies who would always pick on me found out I had D&D books and basically forced me to DM for he and his friends. I couldn't use a DM screen because they wanted to check my rolls (to be sure I wasn't cheating) and at first I could only use monsters in the monster manual. A couple of them had DMed for the group in the past, but they wanted to play since they viewed DMing as a burden.
After awhile I developed a reputation for running good games (not much of an accolade considering the competition), but it certainly helped my self esteem. Eventually I was allowed to make up monsters and magic items for the players and gained a fair amount of freedom running the games. I had gained their trust.
This group of power gamers would usually only play the same characters for a couple sessions before getting bored. We also had a very large pool of players and the roster would change almost daily. I had nothing even resembling a campaign since no one wanted to play a game if all the players from the previous session weren't there. It was a chaotic mess, but I dealt with it because I had no friends.
My one shining moment of glory was when the group one day pulled out their most powerful characters and told me to put them up against a tarrasque. These same players had already defeated it once before under a different DM and wanted to test themselves against me running it. I was kinda honered. I also proceeded to decimate them with it. The kensai with an insane number of attacks went down first IIRC, then the dragonking player and so on. They saw the rolls so they new the vorpal bites were legit. At the end they voted and decided the whole thing was a bad dream. I didn't argue it because it was all democratic, though I didn't get a say.
I have a new, much better group these days. Though it took me 15 years to find them. I also game with 3 (soon to he four) women, and the rules "lawyers" of the group (including myself sad to say) all respect the heck out of one another. Rules lawyering for us keeps the game side of things honest. It grants us a sense of fair play. If someone's character dies, gets screwed over or seems overpowered we have each to back up. If there was only one rules lawyer, whether accepted as such or not, then people might stop trusting the game side of things.
I've never known the reverence that many older DM's had. My opening perspective was that it was something no one wanted to get stuck doing. The rules lawyer back then was to keep me honest and I thrived in that enviorment. To me, honesty in the game side is paramount. I want the players to feel like I'm being fair. I want them to trust me. No one likes to have their authority questioned, but you must first have real authority before you can call foul on it being questioned.
D&D in the old days wasn't about the rules. It was about being cool or powerful and doing this with your friends. I wouldn't feel comfortable with a group that didn't question me from time to time.
Maybe it's my upbringing "shrugs"
Its not always about power, most of the time it is about something new and different. I like trying new options, new classes for the fact that they are new, and not neccessarily that they are powerful. And while I am an optimizer, I do not seek for ways to 'break' the game. Just ways to make an interesting but still effective character.
I also find it amusing when people say supplementary rules are unbalanced, and that causes a problem when the core rules themselves arent balanced. There are inequities in the system because it is seeking to create a cohesive system (and world building tool) first, and seeking balance and parity among classes and options second. We shall see if there is 'power creep' in pathfinder material, but i dont expect there will...
I hear you, and agree that many players are just looking for something new to try. Perhaps I'm more easily amused, but I've generally found the core classes broad enough, with enough possible variations, to keep me satisfied. Not that I haven't enjoyed and used some of the supplementary material in all editions. You have to admit, though, that there are a lot of players out there who are looking for every advantage they can get, game balance be damned, and the additional material certainly feeds those with that inclination.
I admit the core rulebooks have never been perfectly balanced, and probably never will be, although I do think, as I said earlier, that they have gotten better with each edition. I suspect that is because they spend much longer in development and are play-tested much more thoroughly. The fact that power enhancing rules supplements also undoubtedly sell well is also a factor, obviously.
I join you in hoping PF can resist the creep.
Yeah, back in the day, where the players played in steam tunnels. The DM was not only god in the game, but also cult leader and the main qualification for the job was that his social skills were even worse than everyone else's. Back, in those days, there were less rulebooks and more hexing your parents with Mind Bondage Spells or laughing at weak players who hanged themselves after Blackleaf died.
;-P
Today, it is understood that the game is there for the enjoyment of all, the olden days of tyranny have passed and democracy rules at last!
I, for one, welcome the New Golden Age of roleplaying and will gladly accept the title of Supreme Elect of Game Mastering whenever the group elects me! For good roleplaying! For Andoran! For Freedom!
The best game is one with a strong rule foundation so that both players and DMs know where they stand on most things, and a DM that isn't afraid to bend them when needed.
All this talk about power creep is hilarious, because - at least in 3.5 - the power creep and newer and newer base classes were arguably more balanced then the Core classes. The only problem and power creep that hit in 3.5 was the bizarre fetish of putting new spells in every book.
For that matter, there was no wonder and revere lost when players opened the DMG. How could it be lost in older editions - all they'd do is confirm "Wow, yeah, the DM has to BS mostly everything 'cause this book sure as hell doesn't have the rules for that." Or they'd learn "Wow, no wonder my fighter isn't getting crap for magic items, they're all bloody longswords!" Or perhaps the elf would say "What, what the hell?! I stop leveling at level 6? That's next level! What am I supposed to do after that?!"
Then again, I never saw that problem, because the idea that the DMG was sacred and could never be read by players was bizarro world.
None of the wonder or immersion has been lost. You can still easily - more easily, perhaps - make a full setting and storyline for you and your players. You can still sandbox or dungeon crawl or be a linear or non-linear as you want. The only difference is, the current editions don't have nostalgia glasses to back themselves up.
I roll my dice in the open now, viva la revolution!
I hear you, and agree that many players are just looking for something new to try. Perhaps I'm more easily amused, but I've generally found the core classes broad enough, with enough possible variations, to keep me satisfied. Not that I haven't enjoyed and used some of the supplementary material in all editions. You have to admit, though, that there are a lot of players out there who are looking for every advantage they can get, game balance be damned, and the additional material certainly feeds those with that inclination.
I admit the core rulebooks have never been perfectly balanced, and probably never will be, although I do think, as I said earlier, that they have gotten better with each edition. I suspect that is because they spend much longer in development and are play-tested much more thoroughly. The fact that power enhancing rules supplements also undoubtedly sell well is also a factor, obviously.
I join you in hoping PF can resist the creep.
Oh there are definately players that are just looking for an edge. And I believe it is part of the dm's job to reign those things in. But it is generally some obscure combination of abilities that makes this happen. Its never any single option that does it. In my experience the best route is for the dm to keep an eye on combinations of abilities, and not the individual options. I have seen recomendations on limiting the numbers of books an individual player can use, i may consider using that, because its usually when you mix and match splat books that the real abuse comes around.
As for being satisfied with just the core. It depends on the players and the groups. My group tends to have shorter and more frequent games, we always have, which means alot of characters. I had a look at some of my old folders the other day and i have maybe 50 character sheets that i've saved, and that doesnt count the ones ive lost and discarded which are numerous. I realize alot of players have longstanding characters that last years, which obviously would make it far more likely that you wouldnt get bored with the core. I definately dont feel like there is anything mechanically in the core classes I still wish to explore.
Yeah, back in the day, where the players played in steam tunnels. The DM was not only god in the game, but also cult leader and the main qualification for the job was that his social skills were even worse than everyone else's. Back, in those days, there were less rulebooks and more hexing your parents with Mind Bondage Spells or laughing at weak players who hanged themselves after Blackleaf died.
;-P
Today, it is understood that the game is there for the enjoyment of all, the olden days of tyranny have passed and democracy rules at last!
I, for one, welcome the New Golden Age of roleplaying and will gladly accept the title of Supreme Elect of Game Mastering whenever the group elects me! For good roleplaying! For Andoran! For Freedom!
Does your "all" include those of us who are bored to tears by arguments at the table over rules? Or those of us who like having the DM (and it isn't always me) run a tight ship? If so, I'm with you.
Also, my mom told me I had to break up my cult back in the day because she didn't like what I was mixing into the Koolaid. And honest, I did have social skills, I did, I did!!! I even kissed a girl who wasn't my sister a couple of times before college. :)
Does your "all" include those of us who are bored to tears by arguments at the table over rules? Or those of us who like having the DM (and it isn't always me) run a tight ship? If so, I'm with you.
Well i think if you have good rules lawyers rules arguments are actually really short. At my table if i dont know a rule or it is in question, i assign one of our rules lawyers (we have many) to look it up. He then reads the requisite quote and generally we have a resolution in under a minute or two (yes we find the rules that quickly).
I do agree that arguments over rules should be kept away from the table, but that doesnt have anything to do with the dm bypassing them or not bypassing them.
As for tight ship, i guess it depends on what you mean. I do think the dm should have final word so long as he actually listens to what the players have to say both at and away from the table.
Does your "all" include those of us who are bored to tears by arguments at the table over rules? Or those of us who like having the DM (and it isn't always me) run a tight ship? If so, I'm with you.Well i think if you have good rules lawyers rules arguments are actually really short. At my table if i dont know a rule or it is in question, i assign one of our rules lawyers (we have many) to look it up. He then reads the requisite quote and generally we have a resolution in under a minute or two (yes we find the rules that quickly).
I do agree that arguments over rules should be kept away from the table, but that doesnt have anything to do with the dm bypassing them or not bypassing them.
As for tight ship, i guess it depends on what you mean. I do think the dm should have final word so long as he actually listens to what the players have to say both at and away from the table.
I agree. Same thing at my table. I don't call those people rules lawyers (alright, one of them can be sometimes, and he knows who I'm talking about if he's reading :)). They are just people who know the rules. A rules lawyer to me is someone who is perfectly happy to disrupt a game for half an hour or more to argue a point with the DM, or who fumes and continues bringing up the same point repeatedly after the DM has ruled against him. I have absolutely no problem with any rules discussion/challenge that can be resolved in just a few minutes, and that everyone accepts, even if they don't necessarily agree.
Amicus curiae :)
Thanks for the responces and glad to know I am not the only 30+ person still playing> ;)
|
All this talk about power creep is hilarious, because - at least in 3.5 - the power creep and newer and newer base classes were arguably more balanced then the Core classes.
I think older gamers have a blind spot about the unbalanced nature of the traditional core classes, because older games didn't level the PCs up as fast.
While there may have been a subconscious niggling in the back of their minds, that high-level spells had some crazy effects, they never got to see them in play.
Hence the blank stares, and the cries of "What do you mean, the Wizard/Cleric/Druid need nerfing? I never had a problem with them in my games, in 20 years!".
Well, no, you probably didn't. Not when your PCs retired, middle-aged, at level 7.
|
|
Hence the blank stares, and the cries of "What do you mean, the Wizard/Cleric/Druid need nerfing? I never had a problem with them in my games, in 20 years!".
Well, no, you probably didn't. Not when your PCs retired, middle-aged, at level 7.
Right, because getting your guy up to 13th level without cheating or starting out at that level was so commonplace.
Wizards, Clerics and Druids did not need nerfing in 1st or 2nd. In many ways they sucked hard until the higher levels and even then they were not immune to death. Not even close.
I ran giants, descent, queen, tomb - all with some harsh results for casters. Spell consequence, cost and effect were much more balanced in 1st & 2nd. Check Haste as an example.
So yeah, your 13th level wizard with his 29 hp and 2 sixth level spells was a real game breaker.
|
|
I agree completely that the large monetary investment players were able to make (due to the books actually being available) in the game empowered them to want to use a lot of the newer rules whenever they were available. Also, with the advent of so many rules, the players, who aren't spending all their free time working on a campaign, adventure,etc, had more time to peruse all the rules and began to know them better than many GMs.
I too have have been playing since the late 70s, and in some ways I miss the old games. However, just the thought of going back to the days of a caster with 1 spell and no battlemaps, makes me shudder.
The problem with comparing the two is they are apples and oranges. In old school games, you asked the DM and he told you your save or THACO. It was mostly roleplayed in your head, with everyone pantomiming what you wanted to do, or drawing the layout on paper. We did have miniatures, but mostly to display marching order of the party. There were actually quite a few rules that were broken or unbalanced, experienced GMS just knew them and stayed clear of them, a result of playing with the exact same rules and limited number of books for a decade. I think the added math and increasing combat complexity has rendered the two games very very different although you can play the current game with an "old school" feel if you like, by emphasizing roleplaying, changing up NPCs/monsters as the DM, etc.
With 3.0, and even moreso with 3.5 and Pathfinder, I would argue that it is very very difficult to play without a battlemat and miniatures, especially for AoO, spell AoE/ranges, etc. Also, there is a absolute ton of things you need to track now as a player, both spellwise, featwise, and combat bonuswise that just were not part of the early DnD game. You also have very easily tracked progressive math for saves and AC/attack rolls, so as a player you actually have the time and basis to calculate what the approximate will save and to hit of a 14 HD creature is, all while you are rolling initiative.
The result is that there are IMO porportionately more players absorbed with the "rollplay" and number crunching side of the game than there used to be, simply because that side actually exists now and is more developed. Basically the newer flavors of DnD attracts both those who like to roleplay and those who are more like wargamers, as well as those who are a mix of those two styles.
There were also rules lawyers for the older games, the difference was the amount of rules, and the fact that most of the people at the gaming table were more interested in RPing than rollplaying. Nowadays, I find the different styles split more like 50/50 than 90/10. This means good DMs now have to create a world and adventures than appeal to both and also that he does have to work with them to a certain degree to make the game enjoyable for all.
I remember someone arguing with me repeatedly that 1st/2nd Ed was "the best" because the DM just "made up the rules" so "players could accomplish whatever they wanted." Meaning that if a player wanted to, say, jump off the table, swing off a chandelier, and kick a bad guy before landing on his head, their DM would make up some random on the spot ability score check for the various attemps.
The problem was I once had a DM that would respond: "You can't do that. It's not on your character sheet." Everything was played as, if there was a written rule for it, you could do it (if it was on your character sheet), and if there was no rule for it, you couldn't do it.
What made the early editions so great for that first player and horrid for me wasn't the ruleset, it was that the first player had a GM who was fast thinking, creative, and capable of making something out of nothing. Which a great GM can do with any system.
I'd say you're player arguing that 1e/2e was the best for those reasons had GM's that READ the freakin' rules about HOW to be a GM in the first place.
Seriously - in 1e/2e if you, as a GM didn't read, and take to heart all of the GM advice, then you were bound to "not get it" in the first place. By "it" I mean "how to be a good GM" in the first place.
Now a-days, the stuff I'm talking about is hand-waved away by *most* as "fluff" and regarded as unimportant - quite possibly because it can NOT be codified into law and rules. It's something that a good GM either can read and integrate, or not.
In all honesty, not everyone is cut out to be a GM ... and that's ok. It doesn't mean you shouldn't try at least, or that you can't get better for the experience overall.
However, that statement about 1e/2e is COMPLETELY true and one of my greatest laments about newer editions. All "fluff" has been tossed aside in favor of math ... I, for one, do NOT favor the shift. I still play my games my way, and run things with my rulings ... I've had happy players for the most part. I do NOT attribute this to freakin' game-math, though. I attribute it to my ability to run the game as a GM and it's very much BECAUSE I read all that "fluff" the newer generation denegrates at every opportunity.