However, there are a few things about this group that I have noticed that are quite different from my pre-3.0 experiences. For instance, their style of play is very combat-oriented. The creation of PCs tends to focus on min/maxing and optimization. In addition, although they do understand the idea of a “character concept,” they do not seem to be overly interested in role-playing and further character development.
Finally, when running my campaigns, I have included many 1st & 2nd edition elements, particularly riddles, brain-teasers, etc... The players were somewhat stumped when faced with these situations because they couldn’t make a “riddle check,” for instance, and instead had to rely on their own problem-solving abilities and not their PC’s modifiers to a skill check.
For instance, in 2.0, when a PC tried to convince an NPC, the DM had to consider the player’s argument, as well as the charisma (and possibly the comeliness) ability scores of the PC in making decision regarding how an NPC may react. However, in a D20 game, a simple skill check will determine how an NPC may react to a PC’s attempt at Diplomacy.
Although I absolutely enjoy 3.5, especially from a DMing point of view, I also wonder if the necessity to adjudicate certain situations that were less-defined in 2nd edition improved our gaming session because it caused us to be more actively involved in defining the actions of the PCs in regard to NPCs, encounters, and the campaign environment as a whole.
Since 3.0 & 3.5 are much more “rules-oriented,” or perhaps, have provided greater description and interpretation for certain events in campaigns, do you think that D20 has “neutered” certain aspects of D&D? Is it plausible that, due to the D20 model, players experience a less-genuine experience with the game because game-mechanics have been developed to better define how certain events occur? Has on-the-spot creativity been diminished because there are now rules that circumvent the need for DMs and PCs to develop game-playing innovations or engage in dialectic discussions on how certain events should be defined?
Is one style better or worse? I don't know. Personally I like the old-school feel, but I also like the new-school rules (some of them, anyways). I suppose a combination of new rules, mature players and a proper attitude towards playing are what's needed for a really great game.
- BvS
I think a large reason why min/maxing is more prevalent now is that there are so many more options. While I greatly enjoy having a lot of options, these options make player choices have more and more control about how much power their character has. This allows for a great deal of disparity between characters, which leads to everyone wanting to max out their characters so they're not the one left behind.
While I enjoy the greater role of skills in the new editions, I could not agree more that making things like trying to convince someone of something a skill check make no sense. What my groups has been doing is adding some sort of modifier to a check based on what a person says while roleplaying. i.e. if you say something inane it doesn't matter how good your diplomacy skill is, you automatically fail the check.
To me the riddles, brainteasers, tactics, and mystery aspects of D&D are what make it much more engaging than things like computer games. When done well, it allows for incredible amounts of creativity and critical thinking. I think that the new editions can have the effect of "neutering" certain aspects of D&D, but that houserules and the group playing can overcome this.
However, many DMs, and even more players are, to be blunt, lazy as hell. I know I'm not typical in that I roll my "people skill" checks first, and then roleplay based on that check. For example, I have a Bard/Fighter that was trying to convince a guard that we had gotten a large amount of loot from an ancient crypt, and not just robbed the royal treasury (when actually, it was a long abandoned crypt-like section of the treasury that no one knew about).
So, being a Bard, I rolled a Perform check, since Storytelling was my main Perform skill. I rolled a 2. My story was "We found it in a hole somewhere, a dark hole filled with dirt." DM had the guard reply with the standard "Yeah, tell me another one why don't you?" attitude. So, I rolled again, natural 20. I actually said "Okay, hang on a minute while I pull an epic out of my ass", out of character. A minute or two later, I recounted the adventure in a nice, grand, sweeping style. Won the guard over, no problems.
We COULD have just let it go with the rolls and "I tell him a big story", but that’s the lazy way out. Just having rules for the interaction is not enough, unless the DM allows it to be. The DM should always insist on any explanation or bluff be acted out in character. Give circumstance modifiders to the checks based on how well they do. Anybody doing a "I try to bluff him." gets an instant -20 to his check. Do an adequate job, you can use your roll. You really ham it up, and you're looking at some bonuses
Let us look at the problem as I see it. The D&D game is playable and accessible because it separates character abilities from player abilities. A high Strength character can be played by a person whose real life strength is far below average. A low Dexterity character can be played by a master martial artist. A real life dunce can play a genius in the D&D realm. A shy, stuttering, socially inexperienced person can play a character smooth enough to make James Bond look like a poser. In contrast, many experienced players, especially those who cut their teeth on earlier editions, are unaccustomed to such a complete abstraction and want to see everything not governed by physical attributes to be acted out by the player. This will, then, lead inevitably toward discontent for someone.
Returning to your example of riddle solving, allow me to point out that there is indeed a "riddle check" in 3.x: it's called an Intelligence check. Granted, it may seem like something of a cop out to have your carefully crafted riddles solved with a simple roll of the die by a PC with 24 Intelligence, but an good player will role play the success or failure just as he would anything else. Further, when a character's intelligence diverges significantly from the players, there can be more consistency problems created by ignoring the Intelligence check than in making good use of it.
Another popular example is the Diplomacy skill. Many claim that using a check to handle an interaction interferes with the role playing aspect of the game, the dialogue and character development that come from such things. I hold that a well used Diplomacy check can be used as a guideline, a sort of rough script, for how to resolve an interaction. For instance, a PC attempts to convince an NPC to join the party's search for item X. So the DM calls for a Diplomacy check, and the PC manages to adjust the NPC's attitude to Helpful. Knowing this, the DM and the players can work together to determine exactly how the PC managed to swing the result. There is little, if any, loss to character development and roleplaying, and certainly no loss to the benefits of on the spot creativity, while making the joint storytelling aspect of the game much more streamlined. This has the added effect of maintaining the separation between character ability and PC ability, meaning that even a player with the eloquence of a cement block could be successful, and a player more like the Fonz could fail, all as determined by the character.
In other words, I have found that the concerns that you express are nonissues. :D
However, there are a few things about this group that I have noticed that are quite different from my pre-3.0 experiences. For instance, their style of play is very combat-oriented. The creation of PCs tends to focus on min/maxing and optimization. In addition, although they do understand the idea of a “character concept,” they do not seem to be overly interested in role-playing and further character development.
D&D is, and might have been (not my area of expertise), gamist/simulationist. IOW, there is competition between players or against the GM (a.k.a. min/maxing, munchkinism, power gaming, what have you), but the rules also tell how the world works (the simulation part). In many groups, the gamism takes over. One of them will easily change the entire group to gamism, for that particular campaign, at least.
Finally, when running my campaigns, I have included many 1st & 2nd edition elements, particularly riddles, brain-teasers, etc... The players were somewhat stumped when faced with these situations because they couldn’t make a “riddle check,” for instance, and instead had to rely on their own problem-solving abilities and not their PC’s modifiers to a skill check.
The gamist aspect: let players do something, solve riddles, in this case. The simulationist aspect: let the characters' abilities solve everything. A nice mix: let intelligence/wisdom/knowledge/search/concentration checks give players sufficient clues, but let the players do the actual solving.
For instance, in 2.0, when a PC tried to convince an NPC, the DM had to consider the player’s argument, as well as the charisma (and possibly the comeliness) ability scores of the PC in making decision regarding how an NPC may react. However, in a D20 game, a simple skill check will determine how an NPC may react to a PC’s attempt at Diplomacy.
By RaW, no. Diplomacy only changes the target's attitude, it doesn't persuade anyone. Even a helpful NPC is unlikely to offer overt aid to characters who just befriended him. Small tasks will likely be done immediately, though.
Although I absolutely enjoy 3.5, especially from a DMing point of view, I also wonder if the necessity to adjudicate certain situations that were less-defined in 2nd edition improved our gaming session because it caused us to be more actively involved in defining the actions of the PCs in regard to NPCs, encounters, and the campaign environment as a whole.
I do like more control over the games I GM than D&D (probably only the third edition) gives. To each his own, it seems.
Since 3.0 & 3.5 are much more “rules-oriented,” or perhaps, have provided greater description and interpretation for certain events in campaigns, do you think that D20 has “neutered” certain aspects of D&D? Is it plausible that, due to the D20 model, players experience a less-genuine experience with the game because game-mechanics have been developed to better define how certain events occur? Has on-the-spot creativity been diminished because there are now rules that circumvent the need for DMs and PCs to develop game-playing innovations or engage in dialectic discussions on how certain events should be defined?
Games with heavy emphasis on combat draw combat-oriented players, and focus their attention to the combat.
I played in the 1st edition for quite some time (about 15 years), and we used to be rolling skill checks based on character abilities only. For example, if someone wanted to bluff his way with someone else, I would have her roll a charisma check, and she would have to obtain her charisma score or lower to make the check successfully. Depending on the difficulty of the situation, I would ask the player to add dice to her check. The base check was a d20, then I could ask to add a d4, d6, d8 and so on, depending on how hard the check was.
Now, with edition 3.5, you have skills that you can specialize in, which is great IMO. It is an improved way of carrying out what we did in the 1st edition. I think we must watch out, as you point out, not to drown into die-rolling. Depending on how much of a role or roll-player you and your group are, the threshold will differ. The idea is to maintain a level of roll-playing that you and your co-gamers are happy and comfortable with. I believe that we have managed to find such a comfort zone in my group.
For example, I will get my players to make bluff checks only occasionally. Often, if they role-play properly, no checks are rolled and everything relies on the role-play itself. However, instead of arbitrarily deciding that this or that attempt from a player succeeds or fails, I like to rely on a random roll, and consequently I will often have one roll made to decide the level of success of an attempt (with a DC that might be influenced by how well the player role-played, for example).
So in the end, my impression is that if you are here asking these questions in your article, your game might be too roll-oriented according to your own preferences. If you are the DM, you have the opportunity to promote more role-play in your games, but I think you should discuss this kind of thing with your group.
Sky
As for your issue on riddle-checks and simply rolling a die for diplomatic situations, it’s not as bad as you might think. The thing to understand is that typically the characters we represent are not us, and will be better and worse than us in various aspects. Not all players can effectively play out an incredibly high Charisma, or a high Intelligence. Its not fair to tell a player with at best an average RL Charisma that no, they may not play a dashing bard with a Charisma of 20+ simply because they themselves are unable to do so. It would be like preventing a player from playing a very strong warrior if they themselves are not as physically strong, or a hearty dwarf unless their physical health is at least on par.
For your riddle issue, the thing is that I am reluctant as well to simply have a roll determine it. I would prefer that players stick to their guns though; stupid is as stupid does, or whatever metaphor best suits you. Its possible that in some form of insight that a stupid character could just stumble upon the answer, which is fine so long as the game remains fun and continues to move. It depends on your playing group and what exactly the riddle is used for. If its crucial to the plot, then you might want to simply let a roll handle the problem if the game has come to a halt for a couple hours. If its to conceal something extra (as was the case in the most recent game where we had a riddle puzzle) then perhaps having the players come back later when they can better handle it or bypass whatever obstruction it presents (for instance, a massive door).
The point is, smart characters might be smarter than the players running them, just as not all players are as suave or diplomatic as the player behind the wheel; don’t hamstring your players because they cant live up to certain aspects of the character.
However, I agree with you in thinking that rules-heavy gaming systems cause focus to turn more to the rolls than to the roles, so to speak. Especially when gamemastering online, I have found that keeping track of and looking up character stats, game mechanics, and die rolls tends to bog the game down. In effect, every action a character can perform basically has a set percentage chance to succeed, and differences of 1, 2, or even 5% rarely matter very much, mathematically speaking, when determining whether a character succeeds or not. This is what has led to me start developing my own ruleset, which simplifies the game mechanics to make it easier to focus more on the story.
Of course, I wouldn't be posting in a Dungeons & Dragons forum unless I enjoyed Dungeons & Dragons, and, like I wrote earlier, I do like the game and its ruleset. Even if I think a simpler gaming system is better most of the time, perusing the incredible selection of feats, prestige classes, and spells available for the game is very enjoyable, and can be a large part of the fun in many campaigns.
...However, many DMs, and even more players are, to be blunt, lazy as hell...
I mostly agree, perhaps some are lazy and others haven't been exposed to a more role-playing centered style of play. In either case, I wonder what are the contributing factors for either style of play.
IReturning to your example of riddle solving, allow me to point out that there is indeed a "riddle check" in 3.x: it's called an Intelligence check. Granted, it may seem like something of a cop out to have your carefully crafted riddles solved with a simple roll of the die by a PC with 24 Intelligence, but an good player will role play the success or failure just as he would anything else. Further, when a character's intelligence diverges significantly from the players, there can be more consistency problems created by ignoring the Intelligence check than in making good use of it.
After a little "tweaking," I was also able to reduce the "riddle dilemma" by setting DCs (suing the outlines for DCs on the SRD) for the riddles. The players were given hints/clues to solving the problem based on their INT modifier (i.e. an 18 INT gives a PC +4 on a DC check). I've also considered having a Knowledge (Riddles) as a skill, or perhaps a feat called "Problem Solver" that adds +2 to DC checks for riddles and other situations where mentally-oriented challenges take place (of course, this is all in base stages of development).
Finally, when running my campaigns, I have included many 1st & 2nd edition elements, particularly riddles, brain-teasers, etc... The players were somewhat stumped when faced with these situations because they couldn’t make a “riddle check,” for instance, and instead had to rely on their own problem-solving abilities and not their PC’s modifiers to a skill check.
Well, why SHOULD they be forced to rely on their own decision making abilities? They're not playing themselves, after all, but the PC's. PC's that are usually smarter, wittier, and generally more gifted then their real life counterparts. I'd say by forcing them to use their abilities you actually inhibit roleplaying rather then making it stronger.
For instance, in 2.0, when a PC tried to convince an NPC, the DM had to consider the player’s argument, as well as the charisma (and possibly the comeliness) ability scores of the PC in making decision regarding how an NPC may react. However, in a D20 game, a simple skill check will determine how an NPC may react to a PC’s attempt at Diplomacy.
Actually in 3rd edition the arguement and charisma modify the diplomacy check, thus reinforcing roleplay, as its the characters abilities, not the pc's, that make up the bulk of the problem/resolution, which makes 3rd edition stronger when it comes to such things then 2nd, unless one let's their attitude about it get in the way.
Although I absolutely enjoy 3.5, especially from a DMing point of view, I also wonder if the necessity to adjudicate certain situations that were less-defined in 2nd edition improved our gaming session because it caused us to be more actively involved in defining the actions of the PCs in regard to NPCs, encounters, and the campaign environment as a whole.
I obviously would disagree with this question. In the real world, things aren't left largely up to the whim of some random and flawed creator. They happen because x does y. in 3rd edition and 3.5, that type of viewpoint has tried to bleed through, creating a more complex, believable world, and from a gaming standpoint, one in which issues such as favoritism, dm fallibility, and common mistakes are lessened.
Since 3.0 & 3.5 are much more “rules-oriented,” or perhaps, have provided greater description and interpretation for certain events in campaigns, do you think that D20 has “neutered” certain aspects of D&D? Is it plausible that, due to the D20 model, players experience a less-genuine experience with the game because game-mechanics have been developed to better define how certain events occur? Has on-the-spot creativity been diminished because there are now rules that circumvent the need for DMs and PCs to develop game-playing innovations or engage in dialectic discussions on how certain events should be defined?
The only thing neutered was the disbelievability and bad rules mechanics. Roleplay is made by the players and DM, not by the rules, or lack, or large amount, thereof.
Last week, we played for seven hours and he rolled his dice three times - once for a Gather Information check, and twice for Diplomacy. No combat for my little munchkin. He talked to a blacksmith. He talked to a lawyer. He talked and talked and talked and talked. You know what? At the end of the night, he was having great fun!
I guess I believe, like many of you, that there is no good substitution for actual role playing. Diplomacy modifiers and the like are great as indicators of skill. They help me, as the DM, determine how much garbage to give the PC, via the player. However, they never trump good role playing. That's half the fun. My munchkin also taught me that no-one is beyond hope. ;)
Social skills have similar issues. Even without die rolls, it's much easier to bluff or persuade an NPC in D&D than it would be to speak to someone in real life. Typically you don't get nearly as nervous (the DM is a usually a guy you know sitting across the table, not an in-your-face armed guard), you can take your time to think instead of doing it in real time, and you can rely on imaginary props or the way your PC looks. If you play a tall handsome bard, your PC's physical appearance is an asset that perhaps you the player don't enjoy in real life. With all of those advantages, you should be able to roleplay someone more persuasive than you are.
Finally: In combat, does the player decide what attack to use or what spell to cast? Why not have him make an Intelligence check or knowledge(combat) check instead, and make him do something stupid on a low result, and stop him from doing something dumb on a high result? Because that would suck, obviously - it would take the interactivity and skill out of combat. Same goes for puzzles and social skills.
The D&D skill system should be revised to make puzzle-solving and social skills more like combat, not in the mechanics as such, but in having the combination of PC abilities and complex choices in which player skill also comes to the fore. Like to visualize the battlefield? Geometry of the battle matters; so should the workings of traps or the psychology of NPCs.
How should it be done? If I knew, I'd be publishing my own RPG
But in the old editions, the DM filled in, and the player was responsible both for being able to play an intelligent PC, and for holding back and playing a dumb one, as appropriate. If you had those skills, it worked fine. You can argue that the masses who don't have high IQs deserved to play D&D too (and now can with d20), but don't deny that something valuable was also lost in the process."I got a 20 on my diplomacy roll, that adds up to a 56... so, does he become my friend?"
Sometimes I just answer "Yeah, but what do you tell him? Sure, you got a 56, but you have to offer him something first...", but this tends to make my players scream "Screw over!". Thus, I've started to dislike the d20 system for the lack of roleplaying it create... but I do love it for the fact that it is a simple system that actually works and (now your going to kill me) makes combat somewhat realistic.
Well, why SHOULD they be forced to rely on their own decision making abilities? They're not playing themselves, after all, but the PC's. PC's that are usually smarter, wittier, and generally more gifted then their real life counterparts.
Well, I dunno about this... I've had the chance to play with some pretty witty and smart players in my gaming life. And some played some pretty dim-witted PCs
As for die rolls being the only thing that allows an uncharismatic person to play a James Bond like character, that's entirely untrue. Someone who has no ability to come up with any sort of witty saying in real life I find has much less difficult given plenty of time, and inspiration from OoC banter. I for one would have to prepare a witty comeback in advance in order to pull it off, but in a game, I have plenty of time to think and react, and come up with something my character say that would be far and above what I could do in a given situation.
Having said that I think that any gaming group that relies on the rule set specifically is short-changing themselves. In D+D, just as in life, moderation is the key, a little bit of column A, a little bit of Column B. I like the 3.5 Rule set, I also like the fly by the seat of your pants approach; it really depends on your level of maturity and play style. But if the ultimate goal is to have fun, then finding what level works for you then sticking there is what you need to do. Always remember Rule Zero, if you want to roleplay out diplomacy checks, then do it, want to roll out the same check, then do that, just keep it consistent and you won't have any problems.
The article is entitled Character Intelligence vs. Player Intelligence: Playing It Smart. Dragon issue #316.
Well, why SHOULD they be forced to rely on their own decision making abilities? They're not playing themselves, after all, but the PC's. PC's that are usually smarter, wittier, and generally more gifted then their real life counterparts. I'd say by forcing them to use their abilities you actually inhibit roleplaying rather then making it stronger.
I force them to rely on their own abilities. And I believe I have a good reason for it. It helps them develop how they think, how their minds work. Depending on how you handle it, D&D can be as much a game as a, well, 'learning tool' is the only phrase coming to mind right now.
As far as all the rules stifling actual roleplaying, that only happens as long as the DM/players let it happen. When one of my PCs attempts to bluff someone (or some other similar situation), I have him come up with a story, then roll a check to see how well he told it (versus what the NPC is willing to believe, determined in by Sense Motive, or appropriate skill, modified by how conceivable the PC's story is).
We have always played old school. No rolls when it comes to riddles, it's all up to the player to answer those. I understand the argument that characters are smarter than their player counterparts, but we just enjoy the fun of trying to solve a riddle. Of course, or DM is a bit extreme sometimes. While playing two path-finder rangers trying to find a way through Loth's realm of tangled webs, the DM pulled out a few really, really, really hard mazes she had found somewhere and made us sit down and do them. It took about 45 minutes to get through them all. She just wanted to impress upon us just how difficult the realm of Loth could be to navigate even for a couple of path-finders.
As far as performance, bluff, intimidate and other related charisma checks, we take the middle road. Say a bard has a performance and the player actually writes a song and performs it for the gaming group, the DM considers it a natural 20 roll. Otherwise, they can take their chances with the dice. Same goes for a bluff. A player can roll it, or see actually role play it and try to come up with a good bluff. The DM will still role the dice, but a good performance by a player might add a couple of points on the roll.
It all comes down to the DM and the players. Personally, I tend to stay away from power-gamers and min/maxers. For me, it's called a ROLEplaying game for a reason. If I wanted to power play, I'd just pick up an X-Box controller.
I, like many of you, have played D&D for three-and-a-half editions...
However, there are a few things about this group that I have noticed that are quite different from my pre-3.0 experiences. For instance, their style of play is very combat-oriented. The creation of PCs tends to focus on min/maxing and optimization. In addition, although they do understand the idea of a “character concept,” they do not seem to be overly interested in role-playing and further character development.
I agree with you. Like you I have played all the different editions. When I played AD&D I used professions instead of the optional skills rules for the same reason. I believe the current skill system encourages "roll" playing over "role" playing.
I believe there are several other reasons players are not as interested in roleplaying and further character development.
1) Fast Leveling. I don't necessary think in the prior editions the players were any better at roleplaying, but they had a great deal more time invested in their successful characters. There was a bigger emotional attachment and a great deal more time for lots of tiny roleplaying tidbits to form into a coherent character persona.
2) Lethality. Character death probability is high even at mid to high levels. In the relatively short time since 3.x has released I have had a much bigger TPK and average character kill rate than in any other version except original D&D low level where you *died* at 0 hp. The more likely a player is to have a character die the less he is going to invest much persona in it.
3) Crunchiness. There so many rule specifications, players view their characters as a spec not a persona. Players are more likely to define their characters as a series of feats and skills instead of the much more vague by character class. The vagueness helped encouraged better persona visualization.
The more important reasons players don't roleplay much is yet to come...
Although I absolutely enjoy 3.5, especially from a DMing point of view, I also wonder if the necessity to adjudicate certain situations that were less-defined in 2nd edition improved our gaming session because it caused us to be more actively involved in defining the actions of the PCs in regard to NPCs, encounters, and the campaign environment as a whole.
I think you close here. I believe the biggest reason player's don't do as much roleplaying in this edition is simple. They spend, proportionally, much greater time in fewer important combats. I just ran a game on Friday where all they did was combat. The party didn't even want to fight, they just didn't want to run and found it hard to release the tail of a tiger. They were trying to do a fighting withdrawal. Combat in this version is... slow. Part of the price of cycling back to D&D's roots as a table top miniature wargame is that combat is complicated - it has tons of options and takes a great deal of actual playing time to do a few rounds. I use initiative cards, make characters roll their damage and to hit dice together and all the tricks I'm aware of... but more options, the importance of tactical maneuvering, and individual initiative - slow down the pace of combat. This version also encourages dungeon crawling, or almost constant combat between Rogue Skill checks and an occasional non combat spell and a little mapping. From the player perspective, they spend 80-90% of their time figuring out tactical movement, and how to best use their combat feats, spells and skills.
Do you think this encourages them to spend a lot of effort roleplaying? I don't. Unless you put the players in a city environment or some other setting where interacting with NPC's is encouraged and littering the landscape with corpses is frowned upon, I don't believe the players have much in game incentive to roleplay.
Since 3.0 & 3.5 are much more “rules-oriented,” or perhaps, have provided greater description and interpretation for certain events in campaigns, do you think that D20 has “neutered” certain aspects of D&D? Is it plausible that, due to the D20 model, players experience a less-genuine experience with the game because game-mechanics have been developed to better define how certain events occur? Has on-the-spot creativity been diminished because there are now rules that circumvent the need for DMs and PCs to develop game-playing innovations or engage in dialectic discussions on how certain events should be defined?
I think the answer to this is yes. The D&D game mechanics never really encouraged roleplaying the way some other games do. Roleplaying in D&D was an "extra" not really encouraged by rule mechanics. The same way "fun" is. In fact, in D&D, the easiest way to tell a player is roleplaying is when he scrunches up his eyes and reluctantly does something he knows is sub optimal as a player - just because he knows the character would do this thing - IE the mage who out of sheer frustration magic missiles his horse between it's eyes, killing it instantly, after it slips, falls and rolls over him for the third time.
So to me the more detailed rules have tended to decreased the size of this amorphous "extra" that is roleplaying in D&D. The creativity is now focused on taking advantage of the customization the rules allow for individual characters, tactics and classes. Can an experienced DM compensate for this and encourage his players to roleplay more? Absolutely. Does 3.x RAW encourage an environment where players value tactics and skill rolls more and roleplaying less? I think so.
First is the fact that the current edition was designed by the same people who brought us "Magic: the Gathering." That game had very, very strict rules to cover thousands of conceivable situations, and the designers took the same approach when they went to design 3.0. Common sense wasn't good enough any more. To use a current example, take the recent polymorph debates. In earlier editions, they could have said "you lose all abilities based on your old physiology and gain those of your new physiology. You keep all mental abilities," and that would have been good enough. There was no driving need for consistency--if two DMs across the country interpreted that differently, then who cared? Partially exacerbating this is the internet community, who by definition discuss the rules and try to come to consensuses about the best way to play. There's a good chance that other gamers--those who aren't discussing their opinions online--are conforming more to the old ideas of playing by the spirit rather than the law.
Second is the Open Gaming License. With the vast numbers of third-party products, gamers have the arduous task of sorting through this stuff and deciding what to use in their games. In earlier editions, if a player turned up some uber-powerful spell or kit in a book, most DMs would allow it--it did come from an official product, after all. If one player got more powerful than the others by such means, either the weaker players would have to be mature enough to allow it, or the DM would compensate by giving out cool items to those who were falling behind. But with the OGL, all kinds of crap is being published. It is now a royal pain in the butt to decide what should and should not be in the game, since some of it is insanely powerful and others of it are wastes of time. Furthermore, there's so much of it that no one person can possibly keep track of it all. This makes maintaining balance a much greater challenge than it was before.
So ultimately, I think there are three ways to fix the problem. First is to ignore it--people play the way they want to play, and if there's something happening at your gaming table that you don't like, fix it. Second is to let common sense rule the day--if something doesn't make sense, ignore the FAQ or even the rules and do what you like. If that results in a power imbalance, then fix it when and if it comes up--the average player doesn't need to be concerned whether all 2376 feats and 652 PrCs (and counting) are balanced, they only need to know about the few that their party uses. And third is to ban third-party books unless the DM allows it; the easiest thing to do is simply ignore them unless the DM says, "I'm using this book, so may you," but simply using a line-item veto method works too ("I want this feat from this book").
Ultimately the table will set the tone. If you don't like the way your game is played, talk to your friends or get some new ones.