# An Examination of Differences between Editions



## Reynard (Mar 12, 2007)

The intent of this thread is to discuss -- with civility and mutual respect, not less -- the differences *in play* between various editions of Dungeons and Dragons.  This isn't so much a discussion of mechanical differences -- though one can hardly discuss the games without bringing up those differences -- but about how each game differs in tone, feel, "implied setting", and even philosophy.  I have been thinking a lot lately about my own experiences with D&D, both recent and long past, and am curious how others view D&D in its various incarnations.

My intent is not to start an edition war, and if you're here just to fan flames I would appreciate it if you took it elsewhere.  Many of us grew up on a different edition of D&D than we currently play, and I am sure that some, like myself, are interested in revisting that place.  But as an adult and a game writer, looking at the various editions of D&D through a critical eye and with others can be very helpful and illuminating.

As I prepare to run a (Rules Cyclopedia)D&D one shot for a mini-con, that I may well also run at Origins, I have been boning up on that rules set and getting all nostalgic.  More than that, though, I am seeing a different game than the current edition, by a much wider margin than I would have thought had someone asked me a week ago.  Certainly, all of the "sacred cows" are there and the concept of the Dungeon and the Dragon are inherent to the game, but beyond those almost superficial elements, there's a wide gulf between that game and 3e.  I haven't pulled out the 1st and 2nd edition of the AD&D game, yet, but something tells me that there's going to be a world of difference between these, as well.  I have neither read nor played a version of OD&D older than the old '83 red box, so I can't say what the earlier versions of the game were like and how they compared -- but I am sure someone here can give me an idea.

Again -- I don't want an Edition War.  What I would like very much is an open discussion of what "Dungeons and Dragons" actually is, both collectively (if such a thing exists) and individually among players and DM's alike.


----------



## TerraDave (Mar 12, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Certainly, all of the "sacred cows" are there and the concept of the Dungeon and the Dragon are inherent to the game, but beyond those almost superficial elements,




Classes,  races, (ok, these first two are combined in the RC) levels,hit points, spells, monsters, alingment, XP and treasure as the two primary (mechanical) rewards...these aren't superficial.

Even smaller details, like armor as damage avoidance (vs. damage reduction), the predominance of gold and silver coins, encumbrance based on weight, the possibility of attracting henchmen/cohorts and followers at higher levels, the special abilities/qualities of many creatures...these are all things that are noticed in play. 

RC is certainly rules light compared to the three core rulebooks of the current game. And it has some things that make it distinct. But the diferences still seem small when comparing different RPGs to D&D (any edition). 

But what do you see as the big differences?


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 12, 2007)

Early on, D&D was criticized for focusing on 'What a character could do' rather than 'Who the character was (in the context of the game universe)'.  This may have been due to D&D's roots in tactical war gaming.   This tactical/mechanical emphasis was balanced by the fact that D&D was a very rules light game system, by comparison to just about anything that came out after it.  This took a system which could err too much toward pushing peices around the (often vitual) board in a complex game of checkers, and forced on it other sorts of problem solving.  Yes, it put a psychologically expensive burden on the DM, but it also in the same fashion challenged the player to think and role play if the DM wasa willing to take up the challenge.  And this was good, because ultimately a game entirely about marching order and rolling dice would be pretty trite and limited.

As D&D evolved to a more robust rules set (I won't say 'good' here, because its such a loaded term), a couple things changed.  First, having rules explicitly encouraged all sorts of things and tactics and problem solving approaches that were only implicit and a matter of often hesitant DM fiat before.   And the rules were fairer and covered better a large number of situations, which took alot of burden of judgement off the DM (but not entirely, because no rules are perfect).  But as a result, the game became even more about 'what the character could do', and less 'who the character was'.   Interestingly, and maybe even more importantly, it also became even less about 'who the player was' since so many mechanics previously governed by player choice (say going about searching a room) can now be abstracted to a die roll, and maybe even implicitly or explicitly are abstracted to a die roll.   There is even a tendancy toward abstracting the role play itself with a die roll, "I attempt to presuade the troll to let us pass.  Ok, make a diplomacy check.  *clatter* *clatter*".   And while none of this is necessarily new or forced on the DM/group by the new rules, it is alot easier for a game to drift that way and settle there.

I think that there has also been a corresponding shift in the balance of power away from the DM and toward the player, because so much more of the game rules are focused on customizing the player and so much fewer areas of the game absolutely require DM interpretation.  

I also think that there has been a shift upward in the range of numbers in the game.  The disparity between HD is increasing, and the maximum HD is increasing, and the maximum damage is increasing and so forth.  I also feel that the game has speed up, both in the amount that happens in a given period of game time, and in the amount of leveling up that occurs per session.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 12, 2007)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> RC is certainly rules light compared to the three core rulebooks of the current game. And it has some things that make it distinct. But the diferences still seem small when comparing different RPGs to D&D (any edition).
> 
> But what do you see as the big differences?




I think the small differences are far greater when taken in total.  While lower and limited hit dice may not itself be a huge difference (it certainly isn't, say, Wound Levels different), and the race/class issues might be relatively minor when compared to full on point-based char. gen. games, when all these elements come together you get a very different game -- not just in mechanics, but in how it is played.

To use 3.5 vs. RCD&D as an example -- and I am not making a judgement about superiority, or even preference as I like them both -- it is more than rules light vesus heavy crunch.  From a player's perspective, the games are on opposite ends of the "fiddly" spectrum, opposite ends of the advancement rate spectrum and even opposite ends of the "what do I do now?" spectrum (ever increasing opposition CRs, versus dominion rulership and large scale warfare and immortality).  Even the simple fact of the saving throws changes the way the games are played -- in 3.5, the chance to save is relative to the threat, while in RCD&D the chance to save is relative to the character.  Not to mention, in many cases, the differences in consequences for failed saves.

From a DM's perspective, things are different as well.  The design philosophy -- of challenges and adventures and the world at large -- puts the DM in a very different state of mind between the two games.  To parallel the player issues, the nature of powerful challenges (how many hit dice does the greatest of Red Dragons have in the two games?) and the differences in effects when saves are failed informs the nature of the games.  that PCs can and are expected to build nations, fight wars and seek immortality is important.

And this doesn't even begin to include AD&D -- both editions -- in the equation.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think that there has also been a corresponding shift in the balance of power away from the DM and toward the player, because so much more of the game rules are focused on customizing the player and so much fewer areas of the game absolutely require DM interpretation.




Again avoiding value judgements -- either end of this spectrum has its benefits and problems -- this is a fundamental difference between various editions.  The DM/Player relationship lies at the core of the D&D experience and changing the relationship can't help but change the game.


----------



## Wik (Mar 12, 2007)

My experience:

OD&D - Lots of fun, if totally chaotic.  I've had 3rd level fighters with 4 hit points.  Our games were pretty simple, and we usually wound up porting spells from AD&D into our game.  Plus, I think we added new stuff to D&D far more than with any other system - there were many srange artifacts in my D&D games.

AD&D, 1st edition - Didn't play it much, but my experience with it was that this was the system where a lot of people deviated from the rules.  Due to some quirk of my area, most everyone who played 1e was playing a heavily house-ruled version of it.  When I was running a 2e D&D game, I had 1e players approach me with monks that had d20's for hit dice, 4th level rangers who could cast spells, and about every variety of halfling you could think of.  

AD&D, 2nd edition - We had a lot of fun with this system, even when Skills and Powers came out.  I found that as GM, it was my job to run the game - a lot of 2e is about DM Fiat.  Hell, most of the power is in the DM's hands, and I like that.  Problems in actual gameplay weren't bad... while I'm not a fan of the system, I can honestly say it was abused a lot less by my group than 3e.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Mar 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Early on, D&D was criticized for focusing on 'What a character could do' rather than 'Who the character was (in the context of the game universe)'.  This may have been due to D&D's roots in tactical war gaming.   This tactical/mechanical emphasis was balanced by the fact that D&D was a very rules light game system, by comparison to just about anything that came out after it.  This took a system which could err too much toward pushing peices around the (often vitual) board in a complex game of checkers, and forced on it other sorts of problem solving.  Yes, it put a psychologically expensive burden on the DM, but it also in the same fashion challenged the player to think and role play if the DM wasa willing to take up the challenge.  And this was good, because ultimately a game entirely about marching order and rolling dice would be pretty trite and limited.
> 
> As D&D evolved to a more robust rules set (I won't say 'good' here, because its such a loaded term), a couple things changed.  First, having rules explicitly encouraged all sorts of things and tactics and problem solving approaches that were only implicit and a matter of often hesitant DM fiat before.   And the rules were fairer and covered better a large number of situations, which took alot of burden of judgement off the DM (but not entirely, because no rules are perfect).  But as a result, the game became even more about 'what the character could do', and less 'who the character was'.   Interestingly, and maybe even more importantly, it also became even less about 'who the player was' since so many mechanics previously governed by player choice (say going about searching a room) can now be abstracted to a die roll, and maybe even implicitly or explicitly are abstracted to a die roll.   There is even a tendancy toward abstracting the role play itself with a die roll, "I attempt to presuade the troll to let us pass.  Ok, make a diplomacy check.  *clatter* *clatter*".   And while none of this is necessarily new or forced on the DM/group by the new rules, it is alot easier for a game to drift that way and settle there.
> 
> I think that there has also been a corresponding shift in the balance of power away from the DM and toward the player, because so much more of the game rules are focused on customizing the player and so much fewer areas of the game absolutely require DM interpretation.




I understand what you mean by a shift in the balance of power.  I think it has been a shift that has brought more balance of power between the player and the DM.  What that can do, IMO is to relieve the DM of some of the burden of being the interpreter of the rules allowing the DM to focus on being the person who provides the base story and plays the role of the opposition.

On the other side, it can render the DM as just another roller of dice.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 12, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> I understand what you mean by a shift in the balance of power.  I think it has been a shift that has brought more balance of power between the player and the DM.  What that can do, IMO is to relieve the DM of some of the burden of being the interpreter of the rules...




I am not so sure that being the interpreter of the rules is a burden.  In fact, I am pretty sure that the opposite is true.  Maybe it is because I mostly DM, and because I happen to consider myself a good GM, that being relieved of this "burden" by the game, and thereby having players who put their faith in the manual instead of me, mostly "relieves" the DM of his power to create the gameplay experience he wants and believes to most fun for his players.



> ...allowing the DM to focus on being the person who provides the base story and plays the role of the opposition.
> 
> On the other side, it can render the DM as just another roller of dice.




Indeed.  If the DM is just another player, much of the draw of the RPG and D&D in particular, IMO, is lost.


----------



## T. Foster (Mar 12, 2007)

Original D&D in play tends to be almost entirely freeform and negotiation-based, with DM fiat (perhaps augmented by an ad-hoc die roll, perhaps not) serving as the primary resolution mechanic. The rules of the game are so minimal (and so vague and open to interpretation even where they exist -- "[Dexterity] will indicate the character's ... speed with actions such as firing first, getting off a spell, etc." (vol. I, p. 11) -- how? the rules don't say...) that pretty much anything a player attempts to do in-game is going to require some kind of player-level negotiation culminating in a DM judgment call. With contentious players, a bad DM, or a lack of trust (in either direction) this can be disastrous with every decision being argued and second-guessed and nothing getting accomplished. Cross-campaign compatability is also very dodgy, since every group is likely to have wildly different assumptions, procedures, and house-rules, requiring a player who switches groups to essentially learn an entirely new game from the ground up. However, in the right circumstances, this version provides the most freedom for players and DM alike -- as long as the players are willing and able to state their case, trust the DM to make a fair judgment, and are willing to abide by it, they can do absolutely anything.


----------



## RFisher (Mar 13, 2007)

3e took many aspects of AD&D & turned them up to 11. This, IMHO, is a big part of why the games can look so similar but feel so different.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> I am not so sure that being the interpreter of the rules is a burden.  In fact, I am pretty sure that the opposite is true.




I think part of the appeal of classic D&D for me is the way it invites me to fill in the gaps. I guess I find filling gaps more attractive than changing things.

In a slightly different way, I think this touches on a basic issue of who I am. A rich, detailed set of rules is a burden for _me_ because my brain tends to work more in big generalizations.

e.g. In school, I was more likely to memorize "axiomatic" equations & derive the formulas I needed for each test question on-the-fly rather than memorize a bunch of "practical" formulas. (Like most analogies, that one is flawed in many ways, but hopefully it's more illuminating than blinding. (^_^))

Someone else, whose brain works differently, would feel differently about a particular set of rules than I do.

Of course, I _could_ play 3e just as fast & loose as I do classic D&D. I'm fairly sure my players would be OK with me deviating from the books.

Still, when players spend "points" (be they skill points or feat slots or whatever) on something out of the books, I feel a bit obligated to make it have an effect in play. Maybe not the by-the-book effect, but even having it there to accomodate at all changes how I do things.

(Then there's the fact that, when I really look closely at 3e I start finding--e.g.--that I want to change half the spells to work more like they did in previous editions.)

I guess a big problem with these sorts of discussions is that RPGs are so malleable, it can be hard to make firm statements about them. System matters, but not in ways that are absolute. Often in ways that are subtle. & it's really you+system.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> Indeed.  If the DM is just another player, much of the draw of the RPG and D&D in particular, IMO, is lost.




That certainly rings true for me. (Though there are some games that manage to morph the DM role into something completely different, but it is still there.)


----------



## axp_dave (Mar 13, 2007)

Comparing 2E to 3.x I thought the overall rule changes made combat much more deadly and made the game much more tactical.  With so many rules on tactical movement (5’ step, AOO’s, withdrawing, etc.) there is a bigger emphasis on fighting well on the board versus a more one dimensional feel of engage and attack in 2E.
David


----------



## diaglo (Mar 13, 2007)

i'm still currently refereeing an OD&D(1974) campaign.

i also play in a campaign using the current edition.

i prefer OD&D (1974). imo there is a difference.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 13, 2007)

Surprisingly enough, I agree with most of what Cerebrim said.



> I think that there has also been a corresponding shift in the balance of power away from the DM and toward the player, because so much more of the game rules are focused on customizing the player and so much fewer areas of the game absolutely require DM interpretation.




This is a very common interpretation and I believe it to be somewhat mistaken.  Or, rather, only half right.  It's very much true that 3e takes power away from the DM.  The fact that many of those holes mentioned by T Foster have been filled (or at least an attempt made to fill them) means that the DM has less wiggle room for interpretation.

However, it doesn't give the power to the players.  The rules keep the power for themselves.  If the rules gave the power to the players, then it would be the players who would adjudicate actions.  Previously, if my PC wanted to jump a ditch, it was up to the DM to determine whether or not I could do so.  Usually he'd give a saving throw, or perhaps a strength check, or some other (usually) reasonable approximation and away we'd go.  The point is, it's the DM who creates the rule in this case.  In 3e, I know exactly how far I can jump because the rules tell me so.  If I can't jump that distance, there should be some outside force changing the equation.  

But, in no case can I, as a player, say that I roll a Reflex save to jump the pit.  And, really, the DM is encouraged not to do so either.  The rules say you can jump X feet depending on the situation.  Neither the DM nor the player have any real power here unless the DM decides to overrule the rules.  Which is his prerogative, but, for the most part, I think isn't done very often for any number of reasons.

How do the editions play differently?  I honestly think that the differences in my game have far more to do with my growth (or lack thereof) as a gamer than with the edition.  My games have varied pretty wildly under each edition with the pendulum of combat and non-combat swinging back and forth.  I honestly don't think any edition particularly encourages any particular play style.  I've done high intrigue and high hack in all editions.


----------



## kenobi65 (Mar 13, 2007)

I concur with several of you that a big change has been in moving information from the DM's hands, to the player's hands.

Take a look at the relative size of the 1E AD&D PHB compared to the DMG.  1E definitely had a POV that the DM was the keeper of all information, and that such information should be sparingly doled out to the players...even to the extent of having the to-hit and saving throw tables only in the DMG.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 13, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> However, it doesn't give the power to the players.  The rules keep the power for themselves.  If the rules gave the power to the players, then it would be the players who would adjudicate actions.




I think it does give power back to the players in the sense the player has solid ground on which to stand when making use of the abilities they have chosen to focus on for their characters.  To use Jump as an example: the player whose monk has maxed out jump, frex, is able to dtermine for themselves whether making that leap across the chasm or from one airship to the next is a reasonable course of action, because they know, automatically and inherently, how likely they are to succeed.  This isn't a bad thing, but it is definitely different and empowering compared to older editions when the liklihood of success was entirely in the hands of the DM.  Moreover, the DM -- assuming he is reluctant to bedn or break the rules -- is diempowered in the situation.  Once the distance of the jump is determined, it is out of his hands and into the hands of the players.



> How do the editions play differently?  I honestly think that the differences in my game have far more to do with my growth (or lack thereof) as a gamer than with the edition.  My games have varied pretty wildly under each edition with the pendulum of combat and non-combat swinging back and forth.  I honestly don't think any edition particularly encourages any particular play style.  I've done high intrigue and high hack in all editions.




I agree that all editions of D&D (with which I am familiar -- no 1974 OD&D for me...) have provided a relatively broad type of fantasy, allowing for mysteries, krawls, and more.  However, each of those kinds of campaigns or adventures plays and feels different under each set of D&D rules.  A murder mystery played in 3e will be a very different experience than one played in AD&D1 or RCD&D.

Part of it for me is nostalgia, certainly, but also I think part of it is knowing what I want at the table.  I am very curious to see how years of experience with different versions of D&D impact my attitude towards and enjoyment of the RCD&D adventure I will be running shortly.


----------



## Arashi Ravenblade (Mar 13, 2007)

Ive played with so many people. I have played with at least one person from each edition, and the one thing that has remained the same is that people who didnt start with 3e like to play a straight forward game. Low story, high action.

Im a story heavy DM and I have found that all of my players who started with 3e are enthralled with the story and are listening intently as it's being told, until it gets to their turn or something in the story involves them. As for the people that played older editions get bored and what to just "Skip" this stuff and get to the action. And it's not just older gamers either. I have a guy whos 18 and he started out playing OD&D with a friends dad and he feels the same way. He likes Action, action, action. 

Like I said ive played with someone from every edition and it's always the same. They dont care too much about the story. The amount of story they want goes something like this "You meet at a tavern and a guy hires you to raid a dungeon filled with evil goblins who stole his daughter" well that might be a little sterotypical but thats really what it seems they like.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 13, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I also think that there has been a shift upward in the range of numbers in the game.  The disparity between HD is increasing, and the maximum HD is increasing, and the maximum damage is increasing and so forth.  I also feel that the game has speed up, both in the amount that happens in a given period of game time, and in the amount of leveling up that occurs per session.



Corresponding to the above is a finer and finer granularity of numbers.  The number gains come faster and faster, but ultimately mean less and less.  To make up for this, levels are gained more quickly.  Now, like in GURPS where each character gains a couple of points after each session, the deferred gratification levelling mechanic inherent to D&D becomes less of an emotional payoff.  Large numbers add to difficulty and speed of play too.  More and more integration via layers with this fine granularity may look strong because of such tightly woven core statistics, but the weave is becoming too tight to be easily manipulated and brittle.


----------



## Particle_Man (Mar 13, 2007)

There seems to be different "iconic elements" being emphasized.

In earlier editions, the "Blaster Mage" was freaking God.  In later editions, with the spell damage caps by level, the increase in character hit dice, the increase in con mods (and the bestowal of generous con scores on many high cr monsters), and the plentiful means of gaining energy resistance/immunity to fire and lightning and cold, the Mage is usually not a blaster mage if he wants to be bad ass.


----------



## Shroomy (Mar 13, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I think it does give power back to the players in the sense the player has solid ground on which to stand when making use of the abilities they have chosen to focus on for their characters.  To use Jump as an example: the player whose monk has maxed out jump, frex, is able to dtermine for themselves whether making that leap across the chasm or from one airship to the next is a reasonable course of action, because they know, automatically and inherently, how likely they are to succeed.  This isn't a bad thing, but it is definitely different and empowering compared to older editions when the liklihood of success was entirely in the hands of the DM.  Moreover, the DM -- assuming he is reluctant to bedn or break the rules -- is diempowered in the situation.  Once the distance of the jump is determined, it is out of his hands and into the hands of the players.




You can't say that the DM is disempowered in this situation, as he creates the conditions that affect the Jump skill check.  That is fully within the rules.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 13, 2007)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> You can't say that the DM is disempowered in this situation, as he creates the conditions that affect the Jump skill check.  That is fully within the rules.




Sort of.  Even if the DM sets up conditions that change the difficulty of the jump (howling winds, etc...) the difficulty is still known to the player and therefore uncertainty -- other than the uncertainty of what will come up on the die -- is still lost, simply by virtue of codified rules for almost everything.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 13, 2007)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> You can't say that the DM is disempowered in this situation, as he creates the conditions that affect the Jump skill check.




Say the party is exploring a haunted manor.  In first edition, I might have made a notation of the sort, "If the players specifically search behind the painting on the north wall..."  

What I've set out is the terms of my negotiation.  How does the player negotiate with me that his character has found the thing hidden behind the painting on the north wall?  Fairly obviously, if the player describes his character searching behind the painting or doing something that causes him to search behind the painting, then he's successfully negotiated finding the hidden something.

What I've discovered is that, in 3rd edition, this negotiation is a little less obvious in ways that can create problems where there were none before.  Suppose I set a difficulty on finding the hidden object behind the painting - say DC 20.  Supposedly, anyone that makes a DC 20 search check in the 5' square where the painting lifts the painting and discovers what is hidden behind it.  But note, the player has _not said that they perform this specific action_.   It might be all well and good to allow the player to find the hidden wall safe behind the painting with a DC 20 search check and no one will necessarily feel cheated, but what if the thing hidden behind the painting is a _symbol of death_, yellow mold, or some other nasty effect?  In earlier editions, the player understood the process as, "I did X. Therefore, a bad thing happened."  In current editions, this clear connection between what the player did and what happened isn't apparent.  Instead, what the player tends to take away from the event is, "I did X.  The DM interpreted X to mean Y, and as a result bad things happened."  This leads to player ill will in almost any situation where the consequences of the action aren't obvious to the player ahead of time.  And this is pretty frequent, because my experience with 3rd edition players is that they negotiate on the basis of percieving B to be the natural consequence of A.  They aren't asking as it were for a judgement, but rather for validation.

There is another problem here that's equally subtle.  Suppose the party searches the room and finds nothing.  Then one player says, "I search behind the painting."  If the thing behind the painting isn't particularly concealed, that player finds the hidden thing regardless of whether they have a INT 4 and no ranks in search.  This returns us to the same sort of negotiation that we had in 1st edition, but the big question is _should it_?  Should an INT 4 character with no ranks in search be allowed to search behind the painting after no character thought to do so, and what does this say about the utility of skill ranks and intelligence if we allow it, and what does this say about player freedom if we don't?  Without player freedom, what's the point in the game?   

Alternately, suppose that the painting covers a concealed panel.   Clearly the concealed panel is easier to find after the painting is moved or removed.  This sort of 'find the secret' game is a pretty common sort of mini-puzzle from 1st edition adventure design, and I tend to include it alot in my game.  To handle it, I typically set a high DC on the search check (lets say DC 30), and then include as a note that there is a +10 circumstance bonus if someone specifically says that they search behind the painting.  Now, to me this is almost a perfect theoretical set up from a rules standpoint.  The rules in theory have covered the situation excellently, and given me something of best of both worlds from the standpoint of adjudicating the players attempt at negoitation.  I know the difficulty of finding the panel should the player say "I search the wall" (or just the general area) and I know the difficulty if they specifically proposition "I search behind the painting."  But in practice, I find that this method baffles players raised on 3rd edition methodology, because what I discover is that 3rd edition methodology trains the player to only offer up the proposition "I search."  They are no longer familiar with actually describing thier characters actions, so when confronted with this sort of challenge, they don't know what to do.  So my proposed method of adjudicating the situation fails despite all its apparant rule elegance because the players don't understand the terms of the negotiation.  In first edition, because there were few rules to abstract things, this was rarely an issue.   Maybe even more importantly, because players didn't have full access to the system, they didn't think in rules abstractions only.

What I've discovered about the above sort of 'mini-puzzle' adjudication above - and I use this alot and not just with search checks but with all sorts of checks that involve abstract action - is that players trained in 3rd edition get increasingly frustrated by what I would have considered ordinary problems in earlier editions.  They are trained unintentionally by the high quality of the rules to only offer simple low detail propositions. When I try to explain to them the situation and that I expect higher detail propositions, this often makes many of the players even more angry.  I have in fact been accussed of 'cheating' (as a DM) for situations very much like the painting covering the concealed panel (although in the real situation it was straw covering a trap door), because it "should have been implied that the painting was searched behind".  But you see from my example of finding something bad that assumption of implied action is not in general a good one to have as a basis of a ruling, and in reality this has caused me even bigger problems in a game - including a very awkward and unintended and unexpected player death.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Mar 13, 2007)

You raise an excellent point about the 'search' skill here Celebrim.  As a player of nearly 30 years and a DM of 20+, I too have noticed a shift, but I would also point out that the pendulum swing effect is also in play.

In 1E (as has been pointed out in a most excellent way) the DM controlled all the information, to the exclusion of many parts in order to give the players a way to interact with the DM as an adjudicator and in a sense a coach.  In 3E.x the player could seemingly ignore anything new the DM drops in as 'against the rules' if you have a particullarly heavy rules lawyer in the group.  Both of these approachs are combat heavy for the most part.

In 2E I think that the inclusion of skills through proficiencies actually handled things in a better manor by forcing the character to still 'plan the attack' of a trap or problem, so to speak, before picking up the dice.  Searches and checks are probably the most blanat example of this as pointed out in the previous post, but there were other things too.  Survival checks were still based on stating I am doing X and then rolling to determine success, that nice soft middle ground in between 1E I am doing X (DM checks to see if they even made notes on it.)) I'm doing X (rolls dice) I have a total o Y with my modifier and racial bonus of Z...

Not the 2E was a bed of roses mind you, it started out as the strip it down version (four  classes, 3 sub classes) and no frills, the Complete books came out and things started to degrade rapidly from there, where nowadays we have feats and PrC out the butt, then it was 'kits'.  Pre-planned skill sets with a suggested path of progression.  With the exception of the Cleric, I felt that most of these were pretty wonky and as one that loves rogues, that says a lot.  Then the "Skills & Powers Options" came on-line and all Hades was unleashed.  I think this was perhaps the Pandora's Box moment when power was transfered to the player.  For the first time a DM had to ask a player what they were capable of, because the player had tweaked his character beyond recognition.

It of course has manifested in the Feats and Skills of modern 3E.X, and I completely agree that players feel the _need _ to be informed.  I remember a discussion many years ago when the 3E rules first came out about a player that complained that a DM took the Monster Manual away from him at the table.  There were quite a few people on the board that agreed that the DM was being too draconian and that the player bought the book, they should be able to use it.  As an 'old school' DM when I stated that only the PHB was allowed for player usage at my game (before the supps had come out) I was electronically lynched, carried off to be burned at the stake and was basically told that my birthday had been revoked and that Christmas was cancelled...  I still feel that players that don't allow themselves to be surprised by things are doing themselves a disservice; THAT is what attracted me to D&D all those years ago, the aspect of problem solving in an unkown environment that could be altered still further at any time.  Many players just don't have that same experience anymore.  

I have very loudly argued that PrC have ruined the game for me only to be shouted down as somewhat of an ogre, my point however fits in more here than in those discussions, I think.  The original PrCs were in the DMG, so how did players know about them in the first place?  If the DMG was verbotten (forbidden) and you had DMG knowledge, you were cheating.  I think this is one way that the 'attitude' of the game has changed.  The DM is less of a 'needed' equation at the table, except to have someone role for NPCs and against the players.  Of course this is an over generealization, but then all such conversations are; I'm sure there are exceptions, I know of several, but the majority of what I see in 3E.X that differs from the previous is the DM/player confrontation level has increased dramatically when newer players are involved.  

This style has led to the willing acceptance of rules lawyers and powergamers to tables where before their exclusion was a must (for the most part) in order for a DM to maintain control and order.  I would hope that there would be a happy medium somehwere and that if indeed a 4th edition is to be created, that it would be recified there.  Not neccessarily rules light, but not so player knowledge dependant.  I still can and will play any version available, because frankly, I still like D&D.  I've tried other systems, even the clones of the original, and they just aren't the same (Sorry C&C and HM folks).  The differences between each edition were put in place for a reason; I firmly believe the intention was to increase enjoyablility all around, and to that fact I will say that for the most part, the designers have succeeded, but in a few 'key' areas I feel that the baby was tossed out with the bathwater along with the rag, the tub and possibly the person doing the scrubbing.


----------



## Rothe (Mar 14, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Say the party is exploring a haunted manor.  In first edition, I might have made a notation of the sort, "If the players specifically search behind the painting on the north wall..."
> ....There is another problem here that's equally subtle.  Suppose the party searches the room and finds nothing.  Then one player says, "I search behind the painting."  If the thing behind the painting isn't particularly concealed, that player finds the hidden thing regardless of whether they have a INT 4 and no ranks in search.  This returns us to the same sort of negotiation that we had in 1st edition, but the big question is _should it_?  Should an INT 4 character with no ranks in search be allowed to search behind the painting after no character thought to do so, and what does this say about the utility of skill ranks and intelligence if we allow it, and what does this say about player freedom if we don't?  Without player freedom, what's the point in the game?
> .....




Reduced quote to save space.   I know exactly what you are talking about.  In earlier editions this could also become annoying where DMs required you to explain everything in nitty-gritty detail, forget to say we look at the ceiling when we enter the room and you could die.  Hence the creation of mutlii-paged "standard-operating-procedures" detailing which character looks where when walking down the hallway, how we check a door or item before actually touching it, etc.  As a player having to resort to such was tiring.  Especially once you got to some respectable levels.  Experienced adventurers don't forget to look at the ceiling or behind things, unless maybe they are INT 4. .

Then and these days I simply let players know on their first adventure that they are inexpereinced, I'll assume they do very little as standard operating procedure unless told otherwise.  Once they get a few forays in I'll assume they are more cautious and will just ask how cautious they wish to be.  Caution takes time, so monsters can wander by, spells can run out etc., it's not an easy choice to always be super-cautious.  

On the old INT 4 character, which frankly I'd strongly discourage for the very reasons you mention,  if the player choses INT 4 then they should live with the consequences, just like if they chose STR 4.  Conversly, if a player choses INT 18, then I've always given them benefits to reflect this, more clues, far less chance of forgetting standard operating procedures or even suggesting things.  There is no lack of player freedom in prohibiting an INT 4 character from thinking of something incredible (of course looking behind a picture is not too incredible) they freely chose to place that score there and should complain about it later.  They want all the benefits of their choices but not of the detriments.  Yet people will whine, so I haven't had an INT 4 character and wouldn't allow one unless your willing to play as INT 4.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 14, 2007)

Thinking more on this, I think one place where you see a great deal of difference between editions is levelling.  All versions of D&D have been class and level, and all versions made levelling the ultimate "carrot".  However, each version has treated levelling in a different manner.

In B/X or -- to a lesser extent -- RC D&D, levelling was one half of the equation.  You found items to make you more capable, and you gained levels to make you more capable, in pretty much equal measure.  There was relatively little "benefit" in levelling -- better THAC0, better saves, more spells, etc... --  and those benefits came more slowly (in both XP required and between levels).  Any other special benefits you gained were gained through play and at the discretion of the DM.  yet, when you levelled, you still got better, more competent, more confident.  In that version of D&D, your opposition didn't necessarily inflate as you levelled.  High powered dragons still only had 20 hit dice, and fighting orcs was still viable at level 10 or 12.  There was no "sweet spot", nor were there "dead levels" as all levels were equally "dead".  With the inclusion of a progression of skills and weapon choices, Companion/RC D&D changed this somewhat.

In AD&D, things changed a little.  Levelling was still slow, and most benefits were standard and gradual, but it added the component of increased and varied abilities over levels for most classes.  Suddenly, the process of levelling had high points and low points and "dead levels" were introduced.  Moreover, the nature of the design, where those extrabenefits for levelling usually finished out by 10th level or so, changed the view toward higher levels.  Suddenly, levels past 10 were sort of pointless -- a few hit points, minor save increases, minor combat capability increase -- and many people didn't bother rising to 20th or 36th level anymore.  That's a major shift in paradigm and in the way the game plays.  2nd Edition did more of this, and also included proficiencies as an attempt to fill the dead levels.  but extra proficiencies weren't really enough to make post level-10 advancement seem worth the huge XP costs.

D&D 3.x started out a lot like AD&D in the levelling aspect, but more.  Every level gave you "proficiencies" (skill points) and the classes were designed to provide the same ind of typical development over (mostly) the low to mid levels.  Levelling was also faster, mainly because the designer belived -- and this is probably true -- that levelling is fun and drives people to play more.  Suddenly you could reach level 20 in under a year, and gain benefits at most of those levels.  More recently, there has been a push to completely eradicate the "dead level" and make sure that each step along the way provides incentive for the player to push onward, as if playing the game was not, of itself, enough reward.

How does levelling affect the overall gameplay experience?  In B/X, levelling was something that happened, with time and effort and dedication and luck, and was secondary to the game itself.  there was a lofty goal -- level 36 -- that wasn't appreciably better than level 18 or 9, even, but it was there nonetheless.  Acquiring levels mattered less, and the game mattered more.  Moreover, things that happened outside levelling -- dominions and strongholds and war and calamity -- were bigger and better than levels.  The game was geared toward the "farm boy to (often quite literally) god" paradigm and that shaped not just the adventures but the worlds in which those adventures were played.

AD&D essentially killed high level play by introducing many carrots early on and removing them later.  Worlds no longer included the truly mighty.  Kings and Tyrants were only 8th or 12th level, and that meant player characters never needed to be greater than that to be the greatest in the world.  if you did rise above, it was assumed that you were to go plane hopping.  Contextually, the PCs' home world was reduced to a pit stop on the way to "real fun" for those that enjoyed high level play.  For those that didn't, the world was a pler, more mundane place without veritable gods walking the earth.

In 3e, to level is the drive.  There is no system for building nations and armies.  The planes, even, can be visited at any time almost, and certainly by 7th or 9th level.  The push is for the next carrot, and if the class your in doesn't provide a carrot, you switch to another class or a PrC or a substitution level.  Strangely, there's also an illusionary cap -- 20th level -- there, where the idea is that "everything changes" when that point is reached.  I say illusionary, becaue nothing actually changes.  Feats, skills, PrCs, class abilities all remain essentially the same once you hit "Epic", but by caling it "Epic" the designer have created an artificial barrier.  there's no functional difference between a 19th and a 21st level character, but because there is a label there, suddenly the worlds must choose -- is this an Epic world, or not.  Games and campaigns assume they must make the same choice.

All in all, the changes to levelling -- how it is done and what it means -- have done much to make each edition of Dungeons and Dragons into its own game, each with its own strengths and preferred play styles.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 14, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> It's very much true that 3e takes power away from the DM.  The fact that many of those holes mentioned by T Foster have been filled (or at least an attempt made to fill them) means that the DM has less wiggle room for interpretation.
> 
> However, it doesn't give the power to the players.  The rules keep the power for themselves.  If the rules gave the power to the players, then it would be the players who would adjudicate actions.






			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> I am not so sure that being the interpreter of the rules is a burden.  In fact, I am pretty sure that the opposite is true.  Maybe it is because I mostly DM, and because I happen to consider myself a good GM, that being relieved of this "burden" by the game, and thereby having players who put their faith in the manual instead of me, mostly "relieves" the DM of his power to create the gameplay experience he wants and believes to most fun for his players.






			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Say the party is exploring a haunted manor.  In first edition, I might have made a notation of the sort, "If the players specifically search behind the painting on the north wall..."
> 
> <snip>
> 
> What I've discovered about the above sort of 'mini-puzzle' adjudication above - and I use this alot and not just with search checks but with all sorts of checks that involve abstract action - is that players trained in 3rd edition get increasingly frustrated by what I would have considered ordinary problems in earlier editions.  They are trained unintentionally by the high quality of the rules to only offer simple low detail propositions.




I think it's true that D&D 3E, in virtue of its (mostly) coherent and highly developed ruleset, is prone to lead to quite a different play experience from earlier editions. The GM has lost the power "to create the gameplay experience he wants and believes to most fun for his players" in the way that s/he might have done in AD&D 1st Ed, because (as Celebrim's example shows) the rules don't support that sort of experience.

That is  not to say that the GM can't shape the play experience in a different way. By deploying D&D 3E's very well-developed repertoire of encounter and treasure design options, the GM can have a big impact on the details of play. I don't think that this degree of sophistication in encounter design was supported by earlier editions (eg the guidelines in ch 7 of the RC just don't compare, and AD&D had nothing at all) - hence the comparative prevalence, in those editions, of other sorts of challenges (again, like Celebrim's example).

As far as player empowerment goes, I actually see D&D 3E as a very clever combination of a game-design model and a business model. The game-design model is to empower players with the tools they need to build the characters they want to play (Feats, PrC, races etc) and to support an approach to play (detailed mechanics, comparatively rapid levelling, etc) which makes those player choices meaningful, and also allows a fairly high turnover of such choices.

The business model is to release those choices in comparatively expensive hardback books, which players then spend money on. There is a further synergy between this business model, and the game-design model: it is harder (in an emotional or social sense) for a GM to say No to a player's request to implement an option when the player has paid money for it. Thus, by releasing player options in expensive books WoTC not only makes money but further empowers players to pursue the character options that they are interested in.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> Thinking more on this, I think one place where you see a great deal of difference between editions is levelling.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...




I think this is related to the design goal of a high rate of turnover for implementing player choices in relation to character design. That is, this high rate of turnover has further consequences for play. For example, it reduces the appeal of domain-management play, because the power-level of the campaign never settles down in the way that you have described for RC play, and which seems to be a pre-requisite for domain-management play; BAB and hit points do not remain static, for example.

This high turnover of options also supports the GM in building varied encounters, because the PC parameters against which those encounters must be balanced are constantly changing. Again, the role of the GM is not necessarily diminished, but it certainly is changed.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> AD&D essentially killed high level play by introducing many carrots early on and removing them later.  Worlds no longer included the truly mighty.  Kings and Tyrants were only 8th or 12th level, and that meant player characters never needed to be greater than that to be the greatest in the world.  if you did rise above, it was assumed that you were to go plane hopping.  Contextually, the PCs' home world was reduced to a pit stop on the way to "real fun" for those that enjoyed high level play.  For those that didn't, the world was a pler, more mundane place without veritable gods walking the earth.




You may be referring here to AD&D 2nd Ed, with which I have had comparatively little experience. I haven't found it to be true of AD&D 1st Ed, which tends to play in the same way as you characterise RC D&D: at high levels, the players' focus tends to turn to in-game matters that are not related to their character's personal improvement.

Of course, this is a significant change in the play experience itself between low and high levels, which leads to many campaigns winding down or PCs being retired. It is a clear design goal of 3E (including its Epic rules) to avoid this aspect of earlier editions.


----------



## RFisher (Mar 14, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> In first edition, I might have made a notation of the sort, "If the players specifically search behind the painting on the north wall..."




(Springboarding off this statement...rather than directly replying to Celebrim's point.)

I find that I often skip secret door & listen rolls when running classic D&D. If the players look at their map & see an obvious spot for a secret door & ask to search there, I'm just going to let them find it. If they take the time to listen at a door & there is something on the other side, then I often want them to hear something. Even with seaching for traps, sometimes the circumstances & actions of the PCs simply warrant them actually finding the trap whether the d6 is showing 1 pip or 6.

(For those who may not know & to give context for what follows: In the edition of classic D&D that I play, all PCs have a 1 in 6 chance of finding traps. Dwarfs have 2 in 6. (Although, as written, the dwarf's extra chance does not apply to all traps, though I let it.) Humans have a 1 in 6 chance of hear noise; demihumans, 2 in 6. Secret doors are similar. Thieves are the only characters who--by the book--get better at searching for traps or hearing noise, but those chances are based strictly on level--not the player allocating points.)

When running 3e, though, I'm much more cautious about such things. The players specifically _choose_ to put ranks in Spot, Listen, & Search at the expense of other skills. I can use Take 10, give circumstance bonuses, or set DCs low. Even then, though, the players will eventually catch on that putting a lot of ranks into those skills when I'm DM doesn't pay off. Assuming they don't get annoyed enough at having "wasted" those ranks to revolt, they'll spend ranks differently with their next PC. I've unwittingly shifted the carefully crafted balance of 3e, which may be OK...or not.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> What I've discovered about the above sort of 'mini-puzzle' adjudication above - and I use this alot and not just with search checks but with all sorts of checks that involve abstract action - is that players trained in 3rd edition get increasingly frustrated by what I would have considered ordinary problems in earlier editions.




& this is where these conversations get tricky. Is this an absolute about 3e? I don't think so. Is it a tendency? Perhaps. Does system matter? Only when it does. (^_^)


----------



## Hussar (Mar 14, 2007)

Thunderfoot said:
			
		

> but the majority of what I see in 3E.X that differs from the previous is the DM/player confrontation level has increased dramatically when newer players are involved.
> 
> This style has led to the willing acceptance of rules lawyers and powergamers to tables where before their exclusion was a must (for the most part) in order for a DM to maintain control and order.




My experience has been completely the opposite of this.  100% opposite.  In earlier editions, particularly 2e, rules debates could last forever, and usually did.  We spent huge amounts of time hashing out this or that ruling.  Because we all shared DMing duties, it was in our interest to have coherent rules from one DM to another.  The amount of rules discussion in my 3e games has dropped to almost zero.  Maybe, in any given session, I might have a single question come up about a ruling I make.  And, even then, the players I've seen will let it go, with only one or two exceptions that I've seen.

Because 3e tries to build the DM as moderator, rather than opponent, I think the adversarial role has been greatly reduced.  Particularly that adversarial role has been reduced by the inclusion of reasonably comprehensive mechanics.  Trying to second guess the DM and look behind the picture has been replaced by a simple search check.  If I say that I look around, my spot check takes care of whether or not I looked up.  Previously, I may have had to specifically state that I look up, down, left, right, etc.  This led to some rather elaborate and IMO ridiculous systems of standard procedures for dealing with simple rooms.

Thinking about it, it's kind of funny.  Combat in earlier editions was much faster.  But, we'd spend ten times as much time messing around in an empty room than we would now.


----------



## RFisher (Mar 14, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Thinking about it, it's kind of funny.  Combat in earlier editions was much faster.  But, we'd spend ten times as much time messing around in an empty room than we would now.




I don't know if it's good or bad, but in my current classic D&D campaign, I found myself basically saying "You search it thoroughly & it's empty" up front for the truly empty rooms. Perhaps that's wrong because I'm letting them know when a seemingly empty room isn't really, but having them spend a lot of time searching a truly empty room doesn't seem like a lot of fun.

Now, the truly empty rooms that _look_ like they should have something interesting...those can be fun. In moderation.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 14, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> I don't know if it's good or bad, but in my current classic D&D campaign, I found myself basically saying "You search it thoroughly & it's empty" up front for the truly empty rooms.




IIRC, my very first post at EnWorld was (among other things) a discussion of why it was just best to avoid having truly empty rooms in a dungeon in order to avoid this problem.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 14, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> IIRC, my very first post at EnWorld was (among other things) a discussion of why it was just best to avoid having truly empty rooms in a dungeon in order to avoid this problem.




Relatedly: Only describing people, places and/or things in detail when they are important is a big failing of mine.  My players are like, "Huh, he spent 2 minutes describing the statue.  let's check it out!"

I am trying, though.  Unfortunately, players get used to these cues and it takes a while to "retrain" them.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 14, 2007)

Regarding: "Search behind the painting" vs "I take 20 and Search the room".

Sometimes, I think one of the major determinants of how smoothly a game is run is how well the players interface with the game. In more open-ended systems, like previous editions of D&D, the DM has more responsibility to be that interface and to adjudicate the players' interactions with the game world. If the DM is flexible, creative, and able to adapt the challenges on the fly to create hints or add new complications, as necessary, the players will be challenged, but will not feel frustrated. However, if the DM has only one solution in mind, or is otherwise rigid and inflexible, the players might feel that they are playing one of those text-based RPGs where you have to type in exactly the right commands, e.g. "Move painting" instead of "Search painting", "Use knife" instead of "Cut rope", etc.

More codified systems like 3e solve this problem by defining more clearly what the PCs are capable of doing. Effectively, they allow the players to interface with the game in a command-driven or menu-driven manner. By narrowing the universe of choices down to a limited number of ways in which the players can interact with the game, and implying that the solutions to problems should be defined in terms of these limited interactions, at least one source of frustration (the game interface/DM not recognizing the player's input as valid) should be eliminated.

The irony is that one of the main advantages that a table-top pen-and-paper RPG has over a computer RPG is the flexibility of the DM to accept all kinds of input. However, if I'm playing with a DM that insists on acting like a computer, I'd rather have a command-driven interface than have to guess exactly what input he will recognize as valid.


----------



## RFisher (Mar 15, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> IIRC, my very first post at EnWorld was (among other things) a discussion of why it was just best to avoid having truly empty rooms in a dungeon in order to avoid this problem.




I've read things, however, that asserted that a certain percentage of empty rooms is a vital to good dungeon design. I can't say that I recall a reason for this, though.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> Relatedly: Only describing people, places and/or things in detail when they are important is a big failing of mine.  My players are like, "Huh, he spent 2 minutes describing the statue.  let's check it out!"




I'm not convinced this is a bad thing.



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> However, if the DM has only one solution in mind, or is otherwise rigid and inflexible, the players might feel that they are playing one of those text-based RPGs where you have to type in exactly the right commands, e.g. "Move painting" instead of "Search painting", "Use knife" instead of "Cut rope", etc.
> 
> More codified systems like 3e solve this problem by defining more clearly what the PCs are capable of doing. Effectively, they allow the players to interface with the game in a command-driven or menu-driven manner.




After some thought, I'm liking this analogy.



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> The irony is that one of the main advantages that a table-top pen-and-paper RPG has over a computer RPG is the flexibility of the DM to accept all kinds of input. However, if I'm playing with a DM that insists on acting like a computer, I'd rather have a command-driven interface than have to guess exactly what input he will recognize as valid.




What the IF world calls "guess the verb".

Right. The appeal of RPGs to me is, I believe, very similar to what I enjoy about computer text adventures or Choose Your Own Adventure books. The big difference being the DM being a person instead of a computer or a book. RPGs are, for me, the perfect text adventure.

So, when I am DM, I must be open to the players' looking for unexpected solutions. Heck, I often set up situations in which I don't even have any idea of how the players "should" handle it. I want to see what they'll come up with. (Which later frustrates some players when they ask me what they "should" have done.)

This is why I can enjoy freeform role-playing. It doesn't bother me if there are basically no rules that govern whether my actions succeed or fail. Just as long as anything I feel my PC could do isn't blocked & the results don't fall too far from why expectations.

In fact, probably the times that the results have fallen farthest from my expectation have been when my PC's success was primarily governed by rules. Likewise, I don't like it when DMs refuse to allow my PC to do something I think is reasonable with no explaination beyond saying the rules don't allow it.

Getting back to edition & play style. If you try to play earlier editions of (A)D&D in a "menu driven" style, you'll probably end up with many of the complaints about those games that we've heard over the years & still hear today.

(I actually think a fairly strict implementation of the classic D&D rules in a computer game could still be a very fun game. When I started seriously considering trying the old games again, I was often surprised by how many things were there that I'd either missed before or forgotten. But I don't want to play it that way at the table.)

The thing is, 3e can be played in the "perfect text adventure" style. Yet, somehow, I find it...I don't know...easier? with older editions.

* * *

Let me attempt a different tack on this topic: What impact does the difference in the Invisiblity spell between editions make, if any?


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 15, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Regarding: "Search behind the painting" vs "I take 20 and Search the room"...the players might feel that they are playing one of those text-based RPGs where you have to type in exactly the right commands, e.g. "Move painting" instead of "Search painting", "Use knife" instead of "Cut rope", etc.




I feel that in your rush to create a straw man out of what I wrote, that you've totally missed the point.  I'm not looking for a particular verb.  The great advantage of playing with a DM is that I can judge the players intentions.  "Search painting" works just as well as "Move painting" or "Look behind painting" or any other thing that says the player's intention is to investigate in and around the painting.  

But that isn't the point.  The point is that, "Move painting" still works just as well as "I take 20 and search the whole room." and the two things are not in fact equivalent in anything but thier outcome with respect to looking behind the painting.  One is explicit and the other is implicit.  One is a one round action motivated probably by the player's knowledge that under certain story conventions, things are hidden behind paintings, or by prioritizing those things in the room's desciption which are interesting, while the other might take a half-hour or more and is almost algorithmic in its approach to the problem.  If the straw man characterization of the DM that perfers a more 'Move painting' approach is that the DM is acting like a computer, then the straw man characterization of the 'Take 20 and search room' approach is that the player is acting like a computer - the interface has been reduced in complexity down to a level you could program for.  If that approach works, a decent expert system ought to substitute for a group of players just fine.



> Sometimes, I think one of the major determinants of how smoothly a game is run is how well the players interface with the game. In more open-ended systems, like previous editions of D&D, the DM has more responsibility to be that interface and to adjudicate the players' interactions with the game world. If the DM is flexible, creative, and able to adapt the challenges on the fly to create hints or add new complications, as necessary, the players will be challenged, but will not feel frustrated. However, if the DM has only one solution in mind, or is otherwise rigid and inflexible...




This works both ways you know.  I could just as easily say, "If the players are flexible, creative, and able to adapt to the challenges on the fly, as necessary, as they are presented with next hints or added complications, then the DM will not feel frustrated.  However, if the players have only one solution in mind, or are otherwise rigid and inflexible..."



> More codified systems like 3e solve this problem by defining more clearly what the PCs are capable of doing. Effectively, they allow the players to interface with the game in a command-driven or menu-driven manner. By narrowing the universe of choices down to a limited number of ways in which the players can interact with the game...




I believe that that is my point exactly.  As a player I get frustrated with command-driven or menu-driven RPG's because of thier inherit limitations.  You can imagine how much more frustrated I get with players demanding that I be a command-driven or menu-driven interface.



> The irony is that one of the main advantages that a table-top pen-and-paper RPG has over a computer RPG is the flexibility of the DM to accept all kinds of input.




Indeed.

I suggest you look over what I said again.  And consider again just how many problems there are between 'take 20 and search' and 'move painting'.  Imagine for example a highly cluttered room (say an attic or a storage room), in which something is hidden in a concealed panel.  Does 'take 20' mean that the players examined everything closely and methodically, a process which might fail if noone has more than say 5 or 10 ranks in search.  Or does 'take 20' mean, "We take the time and effort remove everything from the room and strip the wallpaper from the walls..."  I would say the former.  Players will - if they think it matters - tend to argue post facto for the latter, right up until what they find is a symbol of death, in which case they argue post facto for the former.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 15, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Players will - if they think it matters - tend to argue post facto for the latter, right up until what they find is a symbol of death, in which case they argue post facto for the former.




QFT.  I still remember the time a player said "I put the helmet on" and when I said "Poof, you're Chaotic Evil!" the player responded, quite seriously, "I didn't say I was putting it on my _head_."


----------



## FireLance (Mar 16, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I feel that in your rush to create a straw man out of what I wrote, that you've totally missed the point.



Actually, I wasn't responding directly to what you wrote, although it did spark off the train of thought that resulted in my post.

In my post, I outlined one problem faced by players: an interface which theoretically accepts an unlimited variety of inputs, but which only recognizes a small subset of them as valid, and noted that a menu-driven or command-driven interface could help solve that problem, but that it was not an ideal solution.

The problems you identified in your post are different, and have more to do specifying what is meant by a specific "menu choice" or "command", and with trying to encourage players to step out of their menu-driven or command-driven mindsets. I think the solution to this is for the DM to accept both what you refer to as low-detail and high-detail propositions, and for successful low-detail propositions to point towards high-detail propositions.

For example, you could set your games up so that a Search check is simply a visual inspection. However, a successful Search check will uncover additional clues or hint at a course of action that the PCs could take to discover more. 

Using the painting example, on a DC 20 Search check (a low-detail proposition), you could tell the PCs that there seems to be something behind it, or that it is slightly tilted, or that there are scuff marks on the wall that indicate that it had been moved repeatedly. The PCs are thus at liberty to manipulate it further (possibly setting off a trap or hazard), check it for traps (another Search check), or leave it alone. However, if a PC specifically stated that he was moving the painting (a high-detail proposition), he would find the hidden object (or set off the trap) automatically.

Similarly, for the example of the cluttered room, or the trapdoor hidden behind straw, a PC with a high Search check should realize that there might be some things that are still hidden because the straw or the clutter is in the way.



> As a player I get frustrated with command-driven or menu-driven RPG's because of thier inherit limitations.  You can imagine how much more frustrated I get with players demanding that I be a command-driven or menu-driven interface.



I doubt that there are many players who will demand that their DMs be entirely command-driven or menu-driven, but I think that the majority players expect to derive some benefit from the basic menu options or commands that are available to them, even if it is just a couple of clues and hints to the high-detail propositions that the DM wants. If I remember correctly, Ultima III had just such an approach. It had a special "Other Command" option that allowed the player to key in any word (much like those text-based RPGs), but the player could discover the words that actually worked through the established commands, e.g. by "Look"ing at a book or sign or notice, or by "Talk"ing to an NPC.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 16, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> QFT.  I still remember the time a player said "I put the helmet on" and when I said "Poof, you're Chaotic Evil!" the player responded, quite seriously, "I didn't say I was putting it on my _head_."



A player like that is just asking for the "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" treatment for every action that he takes. "Is that your final answer?"


----------



## Hussar (Mar 16, 2007)

I can see both sides of what Celebrim and Firelance are discussing.  And, really, I think it boils again down to the loss of DM power.  3e does take power from the DM, IMO.  I think most of us agree with that.  A DM in 1e or 2e had far more authority over many actions than a 3e DM.  

Take our painting issue again from that perspective.  In the absence of a "command" in the form of a search check, the players must perform tasks based on what the DM feels is adequate.  A player might say, "I look behind the painting" and the DM might interpret that as "I move the painting" thus setting off the trap.

Arguments around the table are made of this.  

Because the DM is interpreting any action that lies outside the codified rules, that interpretation can lead to some issues.  Honestly, I think the best course lies somewhere between the two extremes.  The players should have certain "key words" that they can use to manipulate the environment without worrying about miscommunication.  OTOH, it becomes far too formulaic if you cannot move outside of that list of keywords.

D&D has always had key words.  "I attack" "I search for traps" "I search for secret doors" "I listen at the door" "I cast detect magic".  2e expanded the list somewhat with non-weapon proficiencies.  3e has expanded the list again with skills (and possibly feats).

But, I don't think any edition has closed off the ability to move beyond the list.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 16, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> How does levelling affect the overall gameplay experience? In B/X, levelling was something that happened, with time and effort and dedication and luck, and was secondary to the game itself. there was a lofty goal -- level 36 -- that wasn't appreciably better than level 18 or 9, even, but it was there nonetheless. Acquiring levels mattered less, and the game mattered more. Moreover, things that happened outside levelling -- dominions and strongholds and war and calamity -- were bigger and better than levels. The game was geared toward the "farm boy to (often quite literally) god" paradigm and that shaped not just the adventures but the worlds in which those adventures were played.
> 
> < snip >
> 
> ...




QFT. For me, this change in design philosophy has made the greatest change in play style (implied and actual). I think my only real disappointment with 3e was that "dominions and strongholds and war and calamity -- were bigger and better than levels" basically disappeared off the radar, and this in turn reduced 'story involvement'. 

The other thing that I found reduced campaign development was the speed of levelling in later editions. In early editions (with slow levelling), campaign arcs could develop slowly in a way which proved much more difficult to manage when PCs were gaining a level every 13 encounters or so! I'm not saying good or bad here, it is just my observation that campaign arcs have to be paced very differently.

Cheers


----------



## Reynard (Mar 16, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> The other thing that I found reduced campaign development was the speed of levelling in later editions. In early editions (with slow levelling), campaign arcs could develop slowly in a way which proved much more difficult to manage when PCs were gaining a level every 13 encounters or so! I'm not saying good or bad here, it is just my observation that campaign arcs have to be paced very differently.
> 
> Cheers




There's a practical problem with fast levelling, as well.  For casters and those with varied abilities, fast levelling can often mean the player never really has a chance to master the resources at his/her disposal, because there's always new resources to try and juggle.  If you level every session or adventure, it is hard to develope key uses of abilities and spells in variable situations.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Mar 16, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> There's a practical problem with fast levelling, as well.  For casters and those with varied abilities, fast levelling can often mean the player never really has a chance to master the resources at his/her disposal, because there's always new resources to try and juggle.  If you level every session or adventure, it is hard to develope key uses of abilities and spells in variable situations.



 I will have to agree with you there.  When levelling in 3e, I base many of my decisions about feats, PrCs and skill choices on what the character did recently and how it shapes the character's needs and desires.  When PCs level as quickly as they often do, there is not much to base those decisions on.

While I felt older editions leveled agonizingly slow at times, the "official" pace of 3e I think is too quick, but there has become an expectation of it, to which I have succumbed at times.


----------



## RFisher (Mar 16, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Celebrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I have known maybe a couple of gamers over the years that seriously acted that way. They stopped coming to the games on their own.

Everyone else I've played with only does that kind of thing in jest. Heck, don't most of us often reveal in the unexpected twists?



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> 3e does take power from the DM, IMO.




I don't know. I think the DM has very nearly as much power. It's just that instead of just deciding the result or what to roll; we have to navigate the rules, figure out which bits get us closest to what we think the ruling/roll should be, then use whatever leeway the rules give us on choosing DCs in this instance & fudge the final bit with circumstance modifiers. Same result; much more effort. IME.

(Where "navigate the rules" can be simply mental recall or consulting the rules-expert at the table or actually looking things up.)


----------



## Imaro (Mar 16, 2007)

Just wanted to throw my .02 on the issue.  I think one of the biggest differences to me about the varying editions is as follows.

OD&D(actually BD&D, never played OD&D): This is a "true class" system.  everything is determined by your class(even being a different race is a class) and thus it shines in those areas I believe class based rpg's should.  Simple and quick to make a character and get playing, easy to run monsters, etc.  DM fiat was definitely necessary, but with a good DM it worked well.

AD&D(I played more 2e than 1e) Still what I would consider a class system and retaining the bonuses of using said system.  There were options for more granularity, compared to BD&D, but the game was still more class based than not.  I think if anyhing this edition was the most vivid in my mind, for both DM's and Players.  Option books(Fighter's handbook, Combat options, etc.) gave players customization while many imaginative supplements focused on DM's were also produced(such as Planescape, Dark Sun, the historical books, etc.) that showed a new, or old DM all the things he could do with the game(imagination wise, more than rules wise).  Basically IMHO this edition kept majority of the simplicity garnered from using a class bassed game, while offering further options for both those who played and those who ran it.

D&D 3.x.  I really have a love/hate relationship with this game.  In my mind it has dispensed with most of what (IMHO) made a class-bassed game beneficial.  I would argue that it's trying to be both a point -based game and a class-bassed game at the same time.  It has more fiddly bits for both DM's and Players but loses the simplicity in return.  It is definitely a player oriented game right now, and I think the comments about the business model, etc. are spot on.  My experience is that players are more likely to question a ruling in this edition, since they have knowledge of DC's in the PHB. Yes a DM can adjust them, but I've had a player on more than one occasion roll high enough to make what he thought was the DC and when he failed demand an explanation of why.  This is cool unless it's something that he shouldn't know about.  If it's the latter then it's all distrustful looks and I'm hosing him.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 16, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Using the painting example, on a DC 20 Search check (a low-detail proposition), you could tell the PCs that there seems to be something behind it, or that it is slightly tilted, or that there are scuff marks on the wall that indicate that it had been moved repeatedly. The PCs are thus at liberty to manipulate it further (possibly setting off a trap or hazard), check it for traps (another Search check), or leave it alone. However, if a PC specifically stated that he was moving the painting (a high-detail proposition), he would find the hidden object (or set off the trap) automatically.




Good thoughts.  I think that is a very reasonable approach, and I'll have to keep it in mind if I run into a similar situation in the future.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Mar 16, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> My experience has been completely the opposite of this.  100% opposite.  <SNIP for Space>  Thinking about it, it's kind of funny.  Combat in earlier editions was much faster.  But, we'd spend ten times as much time messing around in an empty room than we would now.



I'm glad it works for you.  I wish I could find that balance, however, I think the searching of the rooms, is one of the things that I miss (and that Celebrim candidly has scripted out) that there is the essence of "roll playing" instead of "role playing" when obstacles are involved.  'We take 20' has been the bane of my existance, yes its effective, but it takes out nearly all of the RP aspect that I've come to enjoy over the years, I realize this may sound like a small gripe, but it was one of the reasons I fell in love with the game, for the first time I found a TRULY interactive setting, where if I did something, I was responsible for the outcome.  It feels more reactionary now.

Of course words like feel, enjoy, love, etc are all _highly_ subjective words, so I can see why another might think this all poppycock.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 16, 2007)

I'm going to ignore 3e & 2e here and discuss a couple of other editions:

Running 1981 Moldvay-Cook B/X currently I'm struck by how much it differs in feel from the 1e AD&D games (incorporating 1e UA) I ran in my youth.  The game seems much more balanced, no STR 18/00 PCs walloping everything in sight, no elf Fighter-Wizard-Clerics or Drow Cavaliers dominating the game.  It's a smaller game, but much leaner, cleaner and more sophisticated in construction.  I think Mentzer BECMI started to accrete some additions like Weapon Mastery and spellbook-copying that took the game in a different direction (though I love Mentzer's Companion Set Dominion & War Machine rules).  Moldvay B-X is close to being a perfect game for an experienced GM who wants a simple but robust ruleset for swords & sorcery adventure.

I also run a C&C game - C&C is much more baroque than B-X, yet still much more tightly constructed than 1e AD&D.  C&C PCs are more powerful than B/X, and the level disparity greater, more like 1e.  Still, the classes, races and stats are better balanced than 1e; and with minimal tweaking it makes a great ruleset for a baroque expansive world like Wilderlands, for which I'm using it.  B/X is perfect for homebrewing and for tale-telling in the Tolkienesque tradition, with a cast of thousands - the simple rules mean you never get bogged down in number-crunching.

Edit: B/X's more limited classes & race-classes also suit a human-dominated world where Elves are uniquely powerful but also limited, perhaps a dying race.  C&C encourages creation of new classes and races and is great for a more wahoo, anything goes feel, while the Primes/Siege Engine system works well at keeping it all under control.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 17, 2007)

I was cleaning yesterday and happened across my copy of WG6 Isle of the Ape by Gary Gygax.  I sat down and leafed through it and came across what I see as the largest difference between 1e and 3e.

Starting on page 6 and continuing on page 8 is a massive boxed text soliloquy of Tenser giving the party of 18th level PC's their marching orders.  This is a whole pile of text, at a guess, I'm thinking about 1500 words or so.  But, that's not my point.  Towards the end of the speach is the following text:



			
				Page 8 Isle of the Ape said:
			
		

> At this, several of the crew begin unfolding a device.  YOu recognize it as a folding boat.  One of the sailors tells you that the command words are "Jolly", "Dragonship", and "Batten" to cause the magical box to become a boat, ship or box again.  You realize that you must remember thse command words if you are to use the craft.
> 
> ((The boxed text ends here with an interjection by the author))
> 
> Note to the DM: Do not allow any notation of these words.  Memorization is required.




Stop and think about the implied power there.  The module writer assumes that the DM has so much authority at the table that he can dictate to the players that they cannot even write down a vital piece of information.  When I was 13 and playing this for the first time, I blithely accepted this as simply true.  Now, I read this and think that there isn't a chance that I would do it, either as a DM or as a player.  

3e does not assume this level of power on the part of the DM.  Nor does it generally consider targeting the player rather than the character as fair game.  This goes beyond simple problem solving IMO, this is deliberately setting up the situation so that the DM can say, "AHA GOTCHA" when, three weeks later, the players have forgotten the words to their boat because their minds were so fuzzed over after listening to a ten minute boxed text speech.  

Another line caught my eye on the next page:



			
				page 9 said:
			
		

> As players with high level characters, the participants should show no hesitation about accepting the challenge of the undertaking which is herein proposed.  If they do, you should suggest that they are not properly role-playing their characters. Use coercion, flattery, humiliation or whatever else is necessary to bring them around.




Again, this sort of antagonistic approach to DMing has very much changed.  The idea that I should humiliate my players into jumping onto my personal adventure has perhaps gone out of style.

Now, I realize that these are rather extreme examples from a single module.  And certainly not all were like this.  But, some were.  This, IMO, really illustrates the difference in edition.  Yes, the DM is assumed to have a lot less authority around the table than what's being assumed here.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 17, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Now, I realize that these are rather extreme examples from a single module.  And certainly not all were like this.  But, some were.  This, IMO, really illustrates the difference in edition.  Yes, the DM is assumed to have a lot less authority around the table than what's being assumed here.




I never played 1e for very long.  We played a lot of B/X/C/M and then discovered 1e about 6 months before 2e was released.  BD&D didn't imply, as far as I recall, that the DM should antagonise the players -- but the "fiat" was still there.  I just skimmed through my 2e core books and found a similar perspective: the Dm is set up as the rules arbiter and the "director", but there's nothing I read in the DMG that pushes the DM toward an antagonistic relationship.

Now, that isn't to say that the games themselves -- BD&D and 2e -- aren't different than 3e is this regard.  Save or dies, power disparity between PCs and monsters, and a generally lessened degree of player empowerment mechanics all combine to create a game in which antagonism is easy to achieve.  And even when that isn't the intent, players still have to be on their toes and think about what they are doing.

One of the things that struck me while I was reading the PHB was saving throws.  While there are a few creatures or effects that have saving throw bonuses or penalties associated with them, for the most part a character's ability to resist a special attack or spell is dependent entirely on the character's level.  There's no scaling of difficulties with respect to where the attack or spell comes from.  Moreover, most inhabitants of the 2e world are 0 level commoners.  It becomes suddenly very apparent why horrible monsters scare the bejeezus out od the common folk of a D&D 2e world: even a relatively weak creature can kill you with a touch or a glance.  Only adventurers, and high level ones at that, can track them down and kill them.  Levelled commoners, etc... in 3e, along with scaled DCs for saves, change this aspect of the world.  The local master smith can stand up against the orcs, or even the ghouls, because while he is not as powerful as a PC classed character, he's still 5th level.  His 2e counterprt, no matter how skilled a smith, still only has 4 hp and virtually no chance to save.


----------



## Korgoth (Mar 17, 2007)

There are a lot of good thoughts here.

Regarding the "antagonism" issue, I think that it ties in with the difference between 3E and the previous games.  The previous games were about challenging the _players_, so one of the main tasks of the DM was to present that challenge.  This took the form of difficult tactical situations, puzzles, traps, tricks and roleplaying challenges.  The DM was doing his job when the players scratched their heads and said to themselves "Wow... this is a tough one!"

There were several ways in which that basic dynamic could be handled improperly by the DM  which could result in various imbalanced states.  In one sense, a DM could fall into being a "Killer DM" who railroaded PCs into impossible situations with no hope of escape, avoidance or victory (24 mind flayers ambush the 2nd level PCs, etc.); on the other hand, he could be a mollycoddler who never set forth a difficult or lethal challenge.  In another sense, a DM could be a "Monty Haul DM" who saw his role as being Good Time Charlie who hands out magic items and fabulous wealth like candy; the opposite of the would be the DM who thinks that to make things properly challenging he also has to be unreasonably restrictive and tends to move the goalposts if you outsmart him... this is what I think of as an "Antagonist".

Anyway, I think it is important not to mistake an Antagonist, who is by definition unreasonable, with a DM who is seeking to put forward a genuinely tough series of worthy challenges to the skill and wits of the players.  The "Balanced DM" doesn't get bent out of shape if you outsmart his challenge - in fact, that's his hope, because it represents excellent play.

I do see the previous games and 3E opposed on this issue to a degree: in 3E you can roll Diplomacy instead of having to roleplay your discussion with the disgruntled Burgomaster, etc. (In fact, if I understand the rules in 3.5 right you can talk the Lich Lord into being your friend during the climactic showdown if you roll high enough)  And in general the 'character build' seems to be emphasized to the point where excellence of play is not defined by skill or wits but by 'build mastery'... whether you know the combos to get an amazing damage per round output, unbeatable lockdown sequence or unstoppable skill bonus, etc.  Part of this is perhaps related to the overall business model of WOTC on the issue: once you sell the rulebooks you will continue to sell books containing "power-ups" which one can buy, almost like a booster pack for a CCG, to gain new build options.  In the previous games the challenge was not on this level, so the focus seems to have been primarily on taxing the wits and skill of the players during the game itself.  But if the DM had to resort to somewhat unreasonable methods of ensuring the challenge he would seem antagonistic.  It's possible to be a Killer DM in 3E (too many monsters or excessive DCs) but there seems to be less room for antagonism in the way I defined it.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 17, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Now, I realize that these are rather extreme examples from a single module.  And certainly not all were like this.  But, some were.  This, IMO, really illustrates the difference in edition.  Yes, the DM is assumed to have a lot less authority around the table than what's being assumed here.




Yeah, as GM I don't want or need the kind of demonic authority Gygax seems to assume is the DM's prerogative, but I do need more than 3e is prepared to let me have, if I'm to run a good game.  There are plenty of games in-between, including most other versions of D&D.  The B/X-BECMI-RC D&D line is a good example, so is C&C.


----------



## T. Foster (Mar 17, 2007)

The "antagonistic DM" tone of much of Gygax's D&D writing is often misunderstood, in that it's actually mock-antagonistic in the manner of a tough coach or drill instructor -- Gygax envisions that a big part of the DM's job is to "push" his players to excellence (developing their player-level tactical acumen and problem-solving skills) and that that excellence will make the game more enjoyable for players and DM alike. Gygax is not a "killer DM" and has never advocated that style (and in fact preaches against it in the 1E DMG and elsewhere) but he is a "mock-killer DM" or poses as one -- he acts like he wants nothing more than to kill your characters, and feigns frustration when the party survives and defeats the challenges and like a melodramatic movie-villain shakes his fist and declares he'll get you next time, but the reality is exactly the opposite. Gygax as DM (read his various advice in rulebooks and modules, his "Mastery" books, or his Q&A threads here) doesn't want to kill the characters of players who are playing well, and considers a TPK (ostensibly a "victory" for the antagonistic DM) about the worst thing that can happen in the game. He wants to players to succeed brilliantly and dazzle him with their problem-solving skills in ways he never anticipated. But he thinks the best way to achieve that sort of performance isn't by coddling or taking it easy on the players, but rather by pushing and challenging them (and, yes, punishing them when they fail to perform or, especially, take the challenge seriously), like a tough coach or a drill instructor.

This, of course, isn't an approach that will work for everybody -- many (probably most) players are in the game to escape, relax, and socialize, and don't particularly _want_ to be challenged or to have their "skills" honed in a crucible -- the difference between pick-up or rec-league sports and a high school or college program that's aiming for a championship season. A disconnect here can ruin the fun for everybody -- the DM frustrated because the players aren't responding to his coaching and stepping up their game, the players frustrated because the DM rewards their "good roleplaying" (i.e. playing a flighty or naive or low-average Int/Wis/Cha character like he's not part of a commando strike-team) by repeatedly killing their characters and putting them in situations they don't enjoy (they want to hang out in town chatting with the locals and developing their characters, he puts them in rooms with no exit and a lowering ceiling and gives them 2 minutes realtime to figure out a solution before everybody dies, etc.).

That's why open communication is key, and adaptability, and compromise (and, to an extent, choosing the right group to play with in the first place -- sometimes people are just going to have incompatible agendas and preferences, and in the long run it's probably better to just not play together than to constantly butt heads -- there's nothing wrong with this, it's not anything to be ashamed of; the idea that every D&D player should be able to get along and play with every other D&D player is unrealistic and naive).


----------



## Victim (Mar 17, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> One of the things that struck me while I was reading the PHB was saving throws.  While there are a few creatures or effects that have saving throw bonuses or penalties associated with them, for the most part a character's ability to resist a special attack or spell is dependent entirely on the character's level.  There's no scaling of difficulties with respect to where the attack or spell comes from.  Moreover, most inhabitants of the 2e world are 0 level commoners.  It becomes suddenly very apparent why horrible monsters scare the bejeezus out od the common folk of a D&D 2e world: even a relatively weak creature can kill you with a touch or a glance.  Only adventurers, and high level ones at that, can track them down and kill them.  Levelled commoners, etc... in 3e, along with scaled DCs for saves, change this aspect of the world.  The local master smith can stand up against the orcs, or even the ghouls, because while he is not as powerful as a PC classed character, he's still 5th level.  His 2e counterprt, no matter how skilled a smith, still only has 4 hp and virtually no chance to save.




Granted, that's highly dependent on the campaign.  Many FR supplements had no problem making common folk higher level, and I might peg a master smith as Expert 2 rather than Expert 5.  He wouldn't stand up to orcs or ghouls so well then (especially Fort is an Expert weak save).  And with higher level monsters and characters being more dangerous, there's still a need for adventurers.

I think that damage was generally less dangerous in previous editions.  Sure, characters had fewer HP and heals weren't as good or plentiful.  But most things had no damage bonus.  Damage was something that wore characters done over a series of encounters or with large numbers, not things like Claw/Claw/Bite/Rend/Die on a lucky round of attacks.  Now damage is usually THE immediate threat.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 17, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> I think that damage was generally less dangerous in previous editions. Sure, characters had fewer HP and heals weren't as good or plentiful. But most things had no damage bonus.




This was definitely one of the biggest things that we noticed moving into 3e, especially once the PCs reached 5th-7th level - in 1e PCs of that level would very rarely be killed in a single blow - but with higher damage and critical hits we were losing PCs all over the place - the players '1e instincts' meant that they were not retreating or becoming defensive when they should in '3e'.

(We actually had to introduce a houserule to extend the dying threshold in the end!)


----------



## Wik (Mar 17, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> This was definitely one of the biggest things that we noticed moving into 3e, especially once the PCs reached 5th-7th level - in 1e PCs of that level would very rarely be killed in a single blow - but with higher damage and critical hits we were losing PCs all over the place - the players '1e instincts' meant that they were not retreating or becoming defensive when they should in '3e'.
> 
> (We actually had to introduce a houserule to extend the dying threshold in the end!)




3e Does seem to a bit more lethal, doesn't it?  I'm running Savage Tide right now - my group is around 7th level.  While I've played mid-level 3e games before, they've always been one-shots.  Now, I'm really getting an idea of just how dangerous some critters are - we had a big baddie (the first monster of episode 4, for you STAP fans) almost kill our paladin in two hits - something like 60 points of damage.  

My theory about this has to do with the rise of video games (where damage scales in regards to character level;  something that doesn't occur as heavily in 2e and earlier editions).  Also, I think it might just touch in with 3e's design philosophy - making charcters is fun.

If characters die more often (and, in my experience, they do in 3e), you get a chance to make characters more often.  And with all those splatbooks out there, odds are good you have a build in mind when your current PC kicks the bucket (out of my four players, three already have their replacement PCs rearing to go - the Goliath Fighter wants to make a half-elven beguiler; the dragon shaman wants to be a phanaton scout, or maybe a dragonfire adept; and the paladin wants to make himself a human mage).  

All that being said, I like the 3e way of doing things.  Every combat, our group is on the edge of their seats, knowing that every round is vitally important for their success.  Whereas, in 2e, combat often seemed like a war of attrition (unless you were a wizard... then it was "where can I place my fireball for maximum effect?").


----------



## pemerton (Mar 17, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> The previous games were about challenging the _players_, so one of the main tasks of the DM was to present that challenge.  This took the form of difficult tactical situations, puzzles, traps, tricks and roleplaying challenges.  The DM was doing his job when the players scratched their heads and said to themselves "Wow... this is a tough one!"
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I do see the previous games and 3E opposed on this issue to a degree: in 3E you can roll Diplomacy instead of having to roleplay your discussion with the disgruntled Burgomaster, etc. (In fact, if I understand the rules in 3.5 right you can talk the Lich Lord into being your friend during the climactic showdown if you roll high enough)  And in general the 'character build' seems to be emphasized to the point where excellence of play is not defined by skill or wits but by 'build mastery'... whether you know the combos to get an amazing damage per round output, unbeatable lockdown sequence or unstoppable skill bonus, etc.




I think there is still scope for player skill outside the area of character builds. For example, there is also tactical optimisation of activity during encounters - When do I Rage?, What spell do I cast?, How much and where should I move?, etc. Although one interesting thing about 3E is that it allows for character builds where these questions are less important - Sorcerers, certain types of Fighter, etc, who have effectively unlimited uses of their key abilities, and a rather narrow range of tactical choices.



			
				Korgoth said:
			
		

> Part of this is perhaps related to the overall business model of WOTC on the issue: once you sell the rulebooks you will continue to sell books containing "power-ups" which one can buy, almost like a booster pack for a CCG, to gain new build options.  In the previous games the challenge was not on this level, so the focus seems to have been primarily on taxing the wits and skill of the players during the game itself.  But if the DM had to resort to somewhat unreasonable methods of ensuring the challenge he would seem antagonistic.  It's possible to be a Killer DM in 3E (too many monsters or excessive DCs) but there seems to be less room for antagonism in the way I defined it.




In 3E, the "antagonistic" GM might be the one who imposes arbitrary (from the players' point of view) restrictions on the use of non-core materials. Rule zero is the text of the rulebooks that opens the door to this antagonism.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 20, 2007)

T. Foster - I agree with much of what you said, but it does illustrate nicely one of the main differences between editions.  As you say, EGG does take a very different tone in different sources.  The tough coach approach, however, is pretty far removed from humiliate your players if they don't do what you want.

And, that is one of the differences.  1e very often tries to talk out of both sides of its mouth.  Take treasure for example.  There are a plethora of Agony Aunt style articles in Dragon as well as pages of advice in the DMG talking about how campaigns should keep a tight control over PC wealth.  The Monte Haul campaign was the bane of a good game.  Don't be too stingy, went the advice, but, don't flood the market either.

Then you had modules.  The Giant's series has over 1 MILLION gp's in straight up treasure, not counting magic.  That's a whole lot of cash.  I remember playing those modules and our magical treasure list was some three pages long.  It got absolutely ridiculous.  And, there were things like portable holes and bags of holding in there for helping you cart out your coin.  You can put a whole lot of cash in a 10 foot cube.  

3e designers really do try to follow the advice given in the DMG.  It's very rare, and considered bad design, to drop too much wealth in a module.  Puzzles are designed so that the skills of the character are taken into consideration, while there are still nods towards player skills as well.  The Savage Tide has combination lock puzzles with clues that test the player and not the character.  But, most of the problems and puzzles do take the PC into account.  And rightly so.  While I might be a nuclear physicist, my PC certainly isn't.  There should be a limit on how much player knowledge can overcome a challenge.


----------



## Zelligars Apprentice (Mar 20, 2007)

*Think about this analogy...*

OD&D = John Carter of Mars - Free-wheeling action adventure sci-fi/fantasy mix (there are even encounter tables for "Mars" in the books).

AD&D1 = Conan - Action-oriented, somewhat dark fantasy, where the heroes (PCs) can literally rise to become kings (or at least barons).

AD&D2 = Wheel of Time - More detailed worlds and stories, emphasis more on who you are rather than what you do (this may have more to do with the accesories than the actual game system).

D&D3.x = Final Fantasy - Much more detailed rules set, actions are more heavily defined, emphasis on "leveling" and getting the new power/feat/spell/magic item.

Not that I think these are absolutes.  Far from it.  But these seem to be trends that the games support by their designs.

Just a thought.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 20, 2007)

Wow, we managed to go two whole pages before someone brings up the 3e=computer games thing.  

This has so much to do with experience.  IME, my 1e Paladin/Cavalier was a freaking GOD.  Managed to get the Hammer of Thunderbolts trio of Hammer, gauntlets and girdle care of the G series and also had a backup Holy Avenger.  

Lessee, the Holy Avenger gave me instant dispel magic (100% chance) vs any spell cast at my level or lower.  How's that for being able to walk through the Queen of the Demonweb pits solo?


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Mar 20, 2007)

This conversation over at dragonsfoot is germane re: dice rolls substituting for player agency. Check it out ...

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9260

Though 1E lacks the skill system of 2E or 3.5E, a similar GUI-driven type interface with the game can occur where there is an inappropriate reliance on character stats (skills are, after all, nothing more than a modified ability score check). Although skills (or feats for that matter) seem to imply limited input options, this situation isn't _necessarily_ the logical conclusion of this conceit.  Skills and feats can be viewed as actions at which the character is particularly accomplished; it does not preclude a character from attempting any action whatever. 

I am strongly attracted to the idea that a high intelligence score might confer a nominal hint from the DM about a particular puzzle, or a sucessful search check gives rise to a telling observation (ie scrapes next to our painting).

Nevertheless, these are critical issues for a DM to consider. It really all depends on what style of play you and your group consider to be the most fun.


----------



## RFisher (Mar 20, 2007)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> And in general the 'character build' seems to be emphasized to the point where excellence of play is not defined by skill or wits but by 'build mastery'...




This is probably an aspect of why I tend to prefer classic D&D to 3e, which I don't consider much.

Although I don't think--in practice--the "build" is that dominant. But it certainly is an element that was almost non-existant in cD&D, started growing in AD&D & Gaz-era cD&D, & is undeniably a big part of 3e.

This is one of those things that late-2e/3e borrowed from other RPGs. To make it more "modern" or "state-of-the-art". When 3e first came out, I was very happy D&D had finally been "modernized". But, now, I think a large part of cD&D's appeal for me is that it is different from most of the other games on my shelves.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> 3e designers really do try to follow the advice given in the DMG.




Is this a good thing?


----------



## Hussar (Mar 20, 2007)

> Is this a good thing?




IMO?  Most certainly.  The biggest problem I had with 1e and 2e was the schizophrenic nature of the books.  Picking up any new book meant that I had to parse the entire thing to fit it into my campaign because designer X had a wild hair up his bum about something and felt the need to rewrite the game.

Take a look at clerics in 2e.  You have the standard cleric in the PHB.  Then you have the Complete Priest clerics which basically rape the class down to something utterly unplayable.  Then you have Faiths and Avatars which is chock full of fluffy goodness but creates clerics that are more powerful than anything out there.  Yeah, sure, let's have a priest that can summon fire elementals at 5th level once per week for an hour AND allow him to cast any wizard spell with the words Fire or Flame in the name as a cleric spell of the same level (priest of Kossuth).

At least I know that when I pick up a 3rd edition book, it will conform to known guidelines set down in the core.  If I then choose to deviate from those guidelines, I can do so easily because the same starting point is used in every book.  If my game is lower wealth, like my World's Largest Dungeon game, with no chance of crafting magic items, then I can adjust elements to suit.  However, if various books are all coming from different starting points, I have no "ground zero" state from which to work.  

In other words, I feel that when I buy a supplement, I shouldn't have to rework someone else's work constantly to make it fit.  If the supplements start from the same point, then adjusting for my personal campaign becomes much, much easier.  

And isn't that the point of buying supplements?  To make my life as the DM easier?


----------



## RFisher (Mar 20, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> And isn't that the point of buying supplements?  To make my life as the DM easier?




Yeah. I don't know. I vacillate on this. Sometimes I really want to use supplements as written to make my life easier. Sometimes I want supplements to just be full of inspiration (maybe not always, but sometimes, the crazier the better) rather than to be directly used.

It seems that most often in practice, I end up not directly using supplements but just stealing random ideas from them. When I do use them directly, I'm almost never as happy with the results.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 20, 2007)

I just wanted to say:  Excellent thread!


----------



## Reynard (Mar 20, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I just wanted to say:  Excellent thread!




I concur.  60 some posts and no flames in sight.


----------



## The_Gneech (Mar 20, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> The "antagonistic DM" tone of much of Gygax's D&D writing is often misunderstood, in that it's actually mock-antagonistic in the manner of a tough coach or drill instructor -- Gygax envisions that a big part of the DM's job is to "push" his players to excellence (developing their player-level tactical acumen and problem-solving skills) and that that excellence will make the game more enjoyable for players and DM alike. Gygax is not a "killer DM" and has never advocated that style (and in fact preaches against it in the 1E DMG and elsewhere) but he is a "mock-killer DM" or poses as one -- he acts like he wants nothing more than to kill your characters, and feigns frustration when the party survives and defeats the challenges and like a melodramatic movie-villain shakes his fist and declares he'll get you next time, but the reality is exactly the opposite. ... (snip)




Well said. Nice post, T. Foster!

-The Gneech


----------



## Razilin (Mar 21, 2007)

i've only played AD&D 2nd edition and D&D 3.0 and 3.5

AD&D 2nd: It felt like what, at the time, I considered to be an RPG. Classes were not just "what you could do mechnically," but were the actual niche you filled. A Fighter fights, a wizard casts spells. You don't see fighters who sneak around like you can do in 3.5 with cross-class skills. Multiclassing and dual-classing aside, you are what your class is. I liked this. It was like playing the old Final Fantasy games--trite, but with tried and true archetypes that are readily identifiable. The problem? As time progressed, players wanted versatility. The system began to buckle. In order to incorporate fighters than could sneak, The Complete Ninja Handbook came out. To make unarmed fighters and pugilists, some kooky rules were developed for martial arts--that just. didn't. work. In short, AD&D tried to be more than what it was designed to be by adding a new table with every new product. Eventually, the system collapsed.

D&D 3.0: This system was designed to appeal to audiences who wanted the versatility AD&D was never designed for. Problem? It's still class-based. If you want versatility, you don't use a sytem that relies on sharp distinctions. The good point was that Prestige Classes added a new layer of strategic play; the downside is that it introduced a new level of number crunching. The price of "versatility."

D&D 3.5: Some of the problems of 3.0 were fixed; some were carried over (such as core rulebook feats being comparatively weak to the Complete series). A lot of "homebrew" styled material from 3.0 as well as in-play bugs were smoothed over, everything streamlined. However, 3.5 is even less niche-based than 3.0; I daresay it completely lacks the niche-flavored style of AD&D since multiclassing is so integral to survival as a melee fighter and, in some cases, as a caster. The feat system is starting to degrade due to the power incline introduced by the Complete series.


----------



## Graf (Mar 21, 2007)

Hmm.

Tough to think about really. People played 2.0 becuase it was DnD. There wasn't another viable alternative.

Generally speaking I remember 2.0 as working best when there was another set of complex house rules and a lot of DM fiat. There was a cool setting and people just skipped or ignored the rules.
Since you couldn't really play by directly following the rules I'd expect a lot more debate. Players will probably expect to be able to use a lot of their own house rules and interpretations of things.
Since the classes aren't balanced between each other that provides some interesting character possibilities, (it's possible to have a grizzled 12th level rogue and a 7th level wizard running around together in the same game without really affecting balance).
People die a lot in 2.0. By the high levels people basically will just croak periodically in combat with no real way of preventing it (beyond the DM changing how things work).
Since there are no CR's to go by there is a much greater degree of irrritiation on the part of players. If their 6th level character was killed by a CR 6 creature they can appreciate it was a fair fight. You can't really fall back on that trust in a 2.0 game.

The differences between 3.0 and 3.5 are basically balance related.
Core 3.0 is much less balanced than 3.5. You'll have to be more organic about balancing (giving Bard's powerful magical items, prohibiting _haste_ or just assuming it will be cast in every big battle), etc.

On the negative side the 3.0 game largely turns into an accounting chore. Everything is basically restricted, players will feel pigeon holed. Problem players will identify a broken character concept, maximize it with carefully constructed magical items, demand the extra 500 gp that they're being "Cheated of" by their character level and then cut through same CR creatures like butter (demanding full xp along the way).

If you don't have problem players you'd probably be OK with 2.0 anyway and do it with half the bookkeeping.

I think the question probably boils down to the amount of paperwork you want to do (and the volume of 3e books means it's easier to get new adventure ideas, etc -- that's less a discussion of the games and more a discussion of the current situation).


----------



## Wik (Mar 21, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Wow, we managed to go two whole pages before someone brings up the 3e=computer games thing.
> 
> This has so much to do with experience.  IME, my 1e Paladin/Cavalier was a freaking GOD.  Managed to get the Hammer of Thunderbolts trio of Hammer, gauntlets and girdle care of the G series and also had a backup Holy Avenger.
> 
> Lessee, the Holy Avenger gave me instant dispel magic (100% chance) vs any spell cast at my level or lower.  How's that for being able to walk through the Queen of the Demonweb pits solo?




Sorry.  Call 'em like I see 'em.

1e definately had it's faults - Assassin springs to mind, and I've seen 1e monks that became damage machines. Combine that with the fact that the monsters in 1e do seem weaker somehow, and the game can turn into a cakewalk.

I can see there being conflicts (you provide a good one), but in my experience, earlier editions of D&D were much easier to survive in.  3e does seem a bit more lethal, and I think part of that has to do with the bigger numbers of the game, and the scaling of the monsters to character level - something that was seen more in computer games than RPGs before 3e came on the scene.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 21, 2007)

Wik said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> the scaling of the monsters to character level - something that was seen more in computer games than RPGs before 3e came on the scene.




I was with you until this point.  Buh?  Monsters have always scaled with character level.  There's a rather large appendix in the 1e DMG that shows what level a given monster should be used at.  

Now, granted, the scaling was pretty poor and melee combat in 1e and 2e were considerably more PC friendly in those editions, but, the idea that monsters don't scale is wrong.  At 1st level, you met orcs and goblins.  At 5th you met trolls and maybe small giants.  At 8th and 9th you got into the bigger dragons and demons.

While the scale seemed to level out at name level, there was definitely a scale there.  If there wasn't then you couldn't judge a module's appropriate levels.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 21, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I was with you until this point.  Buh?  Monsters have always scaled with character level.  There's a rather large appendix in the 1e DMG that shows what level a given monster should be used at.





That scaled to _dungeon_ level, not _character_ level.  The players determined what dungeon level they were ready for, and traps like chutes or gradual slopes existed to change the dungeon level without the players wanting to/knowing it had happened.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 21, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I was with you until this point.  Buh?  Monsters have always scaled with character level.  There's a rather large appendix in the 1e DMG that shows what level a given monster should be used at.
> 
> Now, granted, the scaling was pretty poor and melee combat in 1e and 2e were considerably more PC friendly in those editions, but, the idea that monsters don't scale is wrong.  At 1st level, you met orcs and goblins.  At 5th you met trolls and maybe small giants.  At 8th and 9th you got into the bigger dragons and demons.
> 
> While the scale seemed to level out at name level, there was definitely a scale there.  If there wasn't then you couldn't judge a module's appropriate levels.




But you didn't *stop* fighting orcs and goblins when you were high level.  Those things were still there, at the same 1HD they had always been.  In 3E, it is assumed that *every* encounter scales with the party.  This means that the party never really gets any better.  Sure, their abilities get bigger and more impressive, but the enemies' do, too, and it is an arms race.


----------



## Numion (Mar 21, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> But you didn't *stop* fighting orcs and goblins when you were high level.  Those things were still there, at the same 1HD they had always been.  In 3E, it is assumed that *every* encounter scales with the party.  This means that the party never really gets any better.  Sure, their abilities get bigger and more impressive, but the enemies' do, too, and it is an arms race.




Actually, no, if you go by the 3E DMG. It recommends that certain proportion of encounters should be more than 5 ticks lower than average party level. 

That's why RttToEE has bands of Orcs in places where the PCs are expected to be 10-12th level, for example.

Then, the DMG also has long sections about scalable _and_ status quo encounters. The latter are of the type that don't scale, FYI. So, you're wrong.

FWIW I think it's important in a game where that advancement is as important as in D&D that non-scalable encounters occur. At least as a player I enjoy lording my power over lesser creatures


----------



## Numion (Mar 21, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That scaled to _dungeon_ level, not _character_ level.  The players determined what dungeon level they were ready for, and traps like chutes or gradual slopes existed to change the dungeon level without the players wanting to/knowing it had happened.




Those same charts are in my 3E DMG. Plus what I said above about 3Es EL distribution and status quo encounters.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 21, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Those same charts are in my 3E DMG. Plus what I said above about 3Es EL distribution and status quo encounters.





Yup.  The "status quo" still exists as a varient.  However, the "X ticks above/below EL" encounters are still scaled by the level of the PCs.  They are just not the same EL.


----------



## an_idol_mind (Mar 21, 2007)

I've played all the editions aside from the original 1974 set, and here's what I've noticed in my games:

Basic D&D: This version is fun right out of the box. It's almost board-game like in its simplicity, but allows for many more possibilities than a board game. Characters take almost no time at all to roll up, and there are almost no rules supplements, so there's less pre-game preparation. You just jump right into the adventure. Later versions even had random tables to help stock dungeons, so you could whip up an adventure as you went along. For good or ill, every race and role had a very set position within society due to the race as class mechanic. Elves were all fighting magic-users, and all dwarves were stocky fellow who made good warriors. As these archetypes went along with most traditional fantasy literature roles, my groups and I rarely gave it much thought. bD&D also firmly established the rule of, "when you don't know a rule, make something up" to the point that it was included in the rulebook. It instilled a lot of principles that I still use today, including the tendancy to speed game along by making up rules and then looking through the rulebooks after the session to see if I got it right.

AD&D 1st edition: This was basic D&D with all sorts of bells and whistles thrown in. Some of the rules were recognizable, while others were changed beyond recognition. The strict fantasy archetypes got bent just a little, as you could now have halfling cleric and elves who didn't use magic. The rules as a whole were cumbersome and contradictory, and I think it was generally assumed that you weren't supposed to use all of them. Character creation took a bit longer now that there were more options, but it was still easy enough to jump right into an adventure. The fantasy archetypes were a little bent in this version; you didn't necessarily know if that halfling was a peaceful pipe-smoking fellow or if he was really a cut-throat thief. The expanded options for characters left some folks wondering why they could do one thing but not another; if elves can be clerics, why aren't they allowed to be druids?

AD&D 2nd edition: This expanded the character options a bit more and included skills and specialties that weren't there previously. Character creation began taking longer, making the character more important than the adventure at some points. When you spend over an hour choosing a proficiencies, kits, and later adding the Player's Option stuff, you don't want your character to die in his first session. Adventures seemed to get easier in order to allow the PCs a better chance at survival. As the options continued to expand, the limitations of the system became more apparent; if you could have an elven demi-bard using the elven minstrel kit, why couldn't you have a normal elven bard? 2nd edition also changed the name and cultures of demons and devils, which hacked a lot of people off but also fleshed out the concept of the Blood War and gave a great deal of culture to the planes.

D&D 3rd edition: The character options of AD&D 1st and 2nd got cranked up to the max here. Old limitations were removed entirely, so now you can have virtually any combination out there. The old archetypes are pretty much all gone; there's nothing saying the dwarf in front of you is a stout-hearted warrior instead of a weak wizard. Characters have more powers and abilities than ever before; a ranger can disappear right before your eyes, and a even a fighter has near-supernatural talents. The world is much less human-centric, since humans are no longer more versatile than any other race. As a result, many worlds are higher fantasy than before; there's no reason elves won't be selling their wares in the streets instead of practicing arcane magic in a secluded forest. The addition of feat prerequisites and prestige classes makes adventuring almost a career path; you build up to a higher goal rather than just letting your skills progress as they may. A faster experience track ensures that inexperienced characters like Frodo Baggins or Taran from the Prydain Chronicles won't be inexperienced for long. Monsters are bigger, badder, and now just as unpredictable as a PC. While some aspects of the game, like demons and devils, have returned to their 1st edition roots, the culture and detail given by the 2nd edition is also included.


----------



## Numion (Mar 21, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Yup.  The "status quo" still exists as a varient.  However, the "X ticks above/below EL" encounters are still scaled by the level of the PCs.  They are just not the same EL.




To pick nits, the scale is open ended, IIRC at +5 above or below. So average party level of 10 should have some encounters at EL 1-5 and 15+ and AVP of 15 should have some ELs 1-10 and 20+. EL 1 exists for both groups, so the minimum EL for an encounter does not scale.

That combined with status quo encounters leaves plenty of room for orc stomping at all levels.

BTW, what do you mean by 'variant'? IIRC it's given the same weight as the scalable encounter chart.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 21, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> To pick nits, the scale is open ended, IIRC at +5 above or below. So average party level of 10 should have some encounters at EL 1-5 and 15+ and AVP of 15 should have some ELs 1-10 and 20+. EL 1 exists for both groups, so the minimum EL for an encounter does not scale.
> 
> That combined with status quo encounters leaves plenty of room for orc stomping at all levels.
> 
> BTW, what do you mean by 'variant'? IIRC it's given the same weight as the scalable encounter chart.





Well, I never converted to the 3.5 books.  In 3.0, it's a varient, and suggests that you warn your players if you intend on using it (which is, IMHO, good advice).

I think it fairly obvious that, if the basis for choosing encounters is how the EL relates to AVP, then perforce encounters are being scaled by AVP.  YMMV, and I'd hate to make what is otherwise an extremely interesting thread get bogged down in argument because we disagree there.  So, in the words of Forest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that."

RC


----------



## Numion (Mar 21, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> YMMV, and I'd hate to make what is otherwise an extremely interesting thread get bogged down in argument because we disagree there.




Never stopped us before   

BTW, Shadowfax was a pokemount. That's all I have to say about that


----------



## Reynard (Mar 21, 2007)

an_idol_mind said:
			
		

> AD&D 2nd edition: This expanded the character options a bit more and included skills and specialties that weren't there previously. Character creation began taking longer, making the character more important than the adventure at some points. When you spend over an hour choosing a proficiencies, kits, and later adding the Player's Option stuff, you don't want your character to die in his first session. Adventures seemed to get easier in order to allow the PCs a better chance at survival. As the options continued to expand, the limitations of the system became more apparent; if you could have an elven demi-bard using the elven minstrel kit, why couldn't you have a normal elven bard? 2nd edition also changed the name and cultures of demons and devils, which hacked a lot of people off but also fleshed out the concept of the Blood War and gave a great deal of culture to the planes.




After much reading and thinking, I have decided that 2E -- without Players Option -- is my favorite version of the game.  It runs fast, can be handled on the fly and provides a solid base for all the tradional fantasy tropes, while being versatile enough to do non-traditional fantasy (Dark Sun, Planescape, Spelljammer).  With things like kits, there's just enough options to allow players to tweak their characters _*within their archetypes*_ but stay true to the tropes that I adore.  Even the art helps: it isn't the crude (though charming) art of 1st edition, or the over-the-top, superheroic art of 3rd edition.

Now, getting 3e players to "go back" -- there's the rub.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 21, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Never stopped us before





This is a better, more interesting thread than those other times.


----------



## RFisher (Mar 21, 2007)

I know everyone is just relating their experiences, so don't read anything below as me trying to argue with you. I'm just adding bits to the conversation...



			
				Razilin said:
			
		

> You don't see fighters who sneak around like you can do in 3.5 with cross-class skills.




Of course, in oD&D, back before the introduction of the thief (& almost certainly afterwards among those groups that started before _Supplement 1_ came out), fighters did a lot of sneaking around.

The later books often didn't make it clear to us who came along later that a sneaky fighter was OK. Sure, we could house rule it, but if they told us how to handle thieves sneaking & didn't say _anything_ about fighters sneaking, we figured that meant that fighters weren't supposed to sneak.



			
				Graf said:
			
		

> Tough to think about really. People played 2.0 becuase it was DnD. There wasn't another viable alternative.




The reason I didn't play a lot of 2e was exactly because there were plenty of viable alternatives. (^_^)



			
				an_idol_mind said:
			
		

> Later versions even had random tables to help stock dungeons, so you could whip up an adventure as you went along.




Interestingly, I've now learned that the first basic sets didn't come with an adventure model, but a Dungeon Geomorphs set & a Monster & Treasure Assortment set. For some people, improvising random or semi-random dungeons came first & modules came later.



> bD&D also firmly established the rule of, "when you don't know a rule, make something up" to the point that it was included in the rulebook.




Yeah. I was somewhat surprised at how much of the "these are just guidelines" & similar advice I "remembered" as being in the AD&D books was really in my Basic rulebook.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 21, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> The later books often didn't make it clear to us who came along later that a sneaky fighter was OK. Sure, we could house rule it, but if they told us how to handle thieves sneaking & didn't say _anything_ about fighters sneaking, we figured that meant that fighters weren't supposed to sneak.




This to me points again to what I consider the biggest changes in the game as it has progressed through the additions.

I've often made mention of the fact that I think that the 3rd edition rules (and 3.0 in particular) are the best rules D&D has ever had.  I consider this to be pretty much unarguable and not even really a matter of opinion.  What confuses people is that in saying this, I'm not necessarily suggesting that 3rd edition is a better game than any other edition.  Just because a particular edition has the best rules, it doesn't necessarily follow that it makes for the best game.  The rules are thier to provide for conflict/proposition resolution, and as guidelines for that the 3rd edition rules are without question better than earlier editions.  But there is more to a RPG than merely rules to provide for conflict/proposition resolution.   There is this whole metagame and particularly player experience of the game that is in some ways quite independent of the rules.

What I've noticed, and what my earlier topic (high detail versus low detail propositions and proper referee resolution of those events) is basically about, is that in some ways better rules make for a metagame which is IMO worse for the goals of a role-playing game as I understand them, namely, that there will be alot of role-playing going on consequent emmersion into the setting and role by the player.  In other words, the goal of the game is not only to get the player to mentally be in the game space where the rules take place, but also to be in the shared imaginary space where ostencibly the game is taking place.

And the problem is that high detail rules that are useful for resolving the popositions about what those imaginary figures do in the imaginary space enlarge that game space to the point that it makes it difficult to be mentally in that imaginary space.   My earlier point was this tends to constrict the number of propositions that the player will make about the imaginary space.

A similar filtering process is mentioned here by RFisher, in that I've long noted that anything that isn't explicitly allowed by the rules is typically assumed at a metagame level to be forbidden - even if it makes no sense at all for it to be forbidden at the level of the imaginary space.  Because the rules do not specifically allow the fighter to 'sneak', it is assumed that 'my fighter sneaks' is not a proposition that you can offer in the game.  You might think that because, for example, 3rd edition rules make it explicit what happens when a non-sneaky character sneaks that high detail rules mitigate this problem and in some ways they do.  High detail rules do allow more explicit options, so that, for example, propositions I was fully prepared to accept and arbitrate in earlier editions like 'I trip', 'I grapple', 'I push' are more often proposed by players in 3rd edition because they know that they can do it from the rules.  But what I've noticed is the counterpart to this is that the more detailed the rules become, the more blind that the player/DM becomes to possibilities that aren't explicit in the rules.  The sheer quality of the rules tends to create the illusion of being all encompasing and always effective arbitrators in a way that earlier editions with really clunky and clearly poor rules never were in danger of doing.

In some ways, regardless of edition, I've had the best luck with players who don't know the rules AT ALL.  Lacking any explicit game propositions to dwell on, they revert entirely to inhabiting the  imaginary space (rather than the game spacE), and when they do that they will give any proposition that they think can be made in the circumstance.   Brand spanking new role players in many ways tend to play the game 'better' than ones with more experience, and in some ways the problem becomes worse (IMO) the latter the edition that the player was forged on.  More experienced players tend to play the game more tactically and optimize better, but this is I think we will all agree not nearly the same thing.   Accepting that 'better' in an RPG means 'more tactically optimal decisions', is like accepting that the rules for Settlers of Cataan are good rules for a RPG of frontier exploration or that Puerto Rico strongly encourages players to assume the roles of colonial governors and emmerse themselves in this experience.   I think that we will all agree that 'Settlers of Cataan' and 'Puerto Rico' have very good rules indeed, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they are good rules for a role-playing game.

Now, I'm not saying that there is anything necessarily wrong with playing D&D as a competitive skirmish level tactical wargame, and some people could quite rightly claim that in many ways this brings D&D back closer to its roots.  But, at least in my opinion it was not in being a competitive skirmish level tactical wargame - even one with fantasy elements - where D&D was really innovative.


----------



## SuStel (Mar 21, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I was with you until this point.  Buh?  Monsters have always scaled with character level.  There's a rather large appendix in the 1e DMG that shows what level a given monster should be used at.




Just as a minor point, in Advanced D&D monster level isn't the on the same scale as character level (or dungeon level, or spell level). Monster levels range from 1 to 10 only. The monster level can be compared to the character level to some degree, but that's not to say that six 3rd level characters are necessarily equivalent in strength to six 3rd level monsters. 3rd level monsters _tend_ to be found on the 3rd dungeon level. These are all very general guidelines.



> At 1st level, you met orcs and goblins.  At 5th you met trolls and maybe small giants.  At 8th and 9th you got into the bigger dragons and demons.




At 1st level, if you wandered down to the 8th dungeon level, you'd probably run into 8th level monsters. Silly you.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 21, 2007)

SuStel said:
			
		

> At 1st level, if you wandered down to the 8th dungeon level, you'd probably run into 8th level monsters. Silly you.




Fact: You're 1st level?  Don't go down the stairs.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 21, 2007)

The Fighters in my B/X game seem to sneak around a lot, often while wearing leather armour.  Hmm...


----------



## dcas (Mar 22, 2007)

IIRC (I don't have my DMG in front of me), while creatures in AD&D more-or-less scaled according to the level of the dungeon (and one hopes that the level of the dungeon scales to the level of the PCs!), one could potentially encounter any sort of monster in the wilderness.

I remember when I read the DMG for the first time (after reading through the Basic, Expert, and Companion sets) and being struck by the lack of guidelines for determining which magical items to give out at which levels. If the generation of treasure and magic is truly random, a 1st-level character could potentially wind up with a +5 sword.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 22, 2007)

dcas said:
			
		

> IIRC (I don't have my DMG in front of me), while creatures in AD&D more-or-less scaled according to the level of the dungeon (and one hopes that the level of the dungeon scales to the level of the PCs!), one could potentially encounter any sort of monster in the wilderness.




In a certain sense this is true because the encounter tables for the wilderness areas depended not on the creatures level but its rarity.  However, DM's were strongly encouraged to make thier own tables and select creatures suitable for the region, which effectively would have restricted monsters in much the same fashion that dungeon levels did.



> I remember when I read the DMG for the first time (after reading through the Basic, Expert, and Companion sets) and being struck by the lack of guidelines for determining which magical items to give out at which levels.




It's easy to miss alot of things in the DMG with all that dense prose and the seemingly random shifts between topics.  Try page 91-93.  Guidelines; not rules.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 22, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> In a certain sense this is true because the encounter tables for the wilderness areas depended not on the creatures level but its rarity.  However, DM's were strongly encouraged to make thier own tables and select creatures suitable for the region, which effectively would have restricted monsters in much the same fashion that dungeon levels did.




Only if the DM decides that there's a low level region, a mid level region, and a high level region.  Otherwise, if it's a swamp, there's a chance there's a big frickin' black dragon in there, regardless of whether you are a 1st leveller looking to kill bullywugs or a demigod.

The only "CR" style advice in the 1E DMG is where GG talks about not being a jerk DM and just cackling while obliterating the PCs.  Aside from saying "be tough, but fair" the books don't really discuss the mathematical aspect of encounter design.

Nor should they, IMO.  Newbies will slog through it the same way us old timers did (trial and error) and those of us who have been playing forever and a day should no better than to throw ridiculous monsters/traps/whatever at the PCs.


----------



## T. Foster (Mar 22, 2007)

I love the "challeneg by dungeon level" arrangement of OD&D (and 1E, sort of) because combines the best of balanced and status quo challenges and, most importantly, puts the players rather than the DM in the decision-making role. Provided they know that each level of the dungeon is theoretically balanced for characters of that level (and it's necessary for this system to work that the players know this), they can choose their challenges accordingly -- a 3rd level party that's feeling lucky (or foolhardy) can venture onto the 4th or 5th level in hopes of achieving greater reward for greater risk (and with no one to blame but themselves if things go badly); or OTOH a 4th level party that feel like playing it safe (perhaps because they're below-strength from some players being absent) can "slum" on the 2nd or 3rd level, and while they'll only get modest rewards (XP awards in OD&D are a ratio of character level to dungeon level, so 4th level characters adventuring on dungeon level 2 earn 1/2 XP, on deungeon level 3 they earn 3/4, etc.) they also have a much decreased risk of getting wiped out in an unlucky encounter.

This system makes absolutely no sense in terms on in-milieu logic or verisimilitude, but in a pure _game_ sense it's brilliant.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 22, 2007)

While it's all very well and good to say that you could meet orcs when your 1e fighter was 8th level, how often did this actually happen in play?

Look through any module for 6-8th level play.  How many straight up orcs do you find?  Conversely, how many stone giants do you find in Cult of the Reptile God?  Or Village of Hommlet?

While it's true that there was very little written about scaling encounters, it was still done in practice.  What I said before about going from orcs to demons is true in pretty much every published adventure.  

It may be explicit in 3e, but, scaling was certainly done in 1e.


----------



## T. Foster (Mar 22, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> While it's all very well and good to say that you could meet orcs when your 1e fighter was 8th level, how often did this actually happen in play?



There are quite a few orcs in _Steading of the Hill Giant Chief_, and adventure intended for 9th+ level characters.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 22, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> While it's all very well and good to say that you could meet orcs when your 1e fighter was 8th level, how often did this actually happen in play?




You forget about the wandering monster charts.  Those are not scaled by level.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 22, 2007)

Ahh, good, I get to edit this before anyone answers.  This always happens to me.  I get into these kinds of discussions and get sidetracked by pedantic minutia.  It's not important that there are orcs in G1.  Scaling does occur in 1st Edition D&D and I can prove it.

Look at the cover of almost every module ever produced.  Right next to or underneath the title you will see a line that says "For Character Levels X to Y" or something very similar.  That's scaling.

If there was no scaling then I could take my 1st level character into Queen of the Demonweb Pits and expect to succeed.  I could take my 15th level character into Cult of the Reptile God and expect to be challenged.  Neither of those statements are true.  Why not?  Because adventures are scaled to challenge the level of the PC's that they are designed for.

Looking at something like Star Frontiers, which doesn't particularly scale, you see that the challenges in all 4 Volturnus modules are all on the same level.  Or pretty close.  A beginning Star Frontiers character is not particularly weaker than an experienced one.  HP's stay the same.  You might hit better, but, other than that, there isn't much difference.

I haven't played enough Vampire, but, from what I saw, I would say that V:TM doesn't scale as well.  A just made character isn't all that different from a character that's been played for a while.  Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles also didn't particularly scale.  A fresh PC is nearly identical to one that's gone through several adventures.

That is simply not true in any version of D&D.  (Whoops, before the pedants swoop in, let me say that I have no experience with OD&D and should qualify that last statement.)  A 1st level character and a 15th level character are vastly far apart in every measurable way.  The PC's grow in power as they gain levels.  That's the point of a leveled system.  In any leveled system, there has to be the concept of scaling adventures, even if it isn't expressly written.  

I'm a bad DM in 1e if I randomly bomb my 2nd level PC's with an Ancient Huge Green Dragon and wipe them all out.  Why?  Because the threat isn't scaled to their level.  While the random wilderness charts may not be scaled, _in play_ there is the expectation that the DM will provide challenges that are neither too easy nor instant death sentences.  Or, at least if he does so, there will be an out clause somewhere along the line.  

It's like the idea of PC wealth.  While it's expressly written in 3e, the idea of wealth by level certainly existed in 1e as well.  The whole line of "Monty Haul" campaign advice is based around that concept.  Sure, wealth by level isn't called out, but that's because the classes don't balance at the same level.  A 7th level fighter and a 7th level thief are not expected to be at the same power levels.  

But, there is still the idea that certain levels of wealth should be attained at certain levels.  No one bats an eye at a 5th level fighter with a +1 longsword.  That's pretty standard in most campaigns.  However, a 5th level fighter with a +3 Vorpal Sword is a sign of a bad campaign.  It's Monty Haul.  Why?  Because it's too powerful for that level of character.  Thus, wealth by level is a concept in the game.

3e certainly didn't invent any of these concepts.  3e only specifically called them out as a baseline.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 22, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> It may be explicit in 3e, but, scaling was certainly done in 1e.




My experience of 1e was that PCs didn't fight Pit Fiends at 1st level; though I did once put a Horned Devil in a scenario for 1st-3rd level PCs (horned devils were 'greater devils' but pretty weak), but you certainly did fight 1-hd orcs at 10th level, or at 20th.  The 1e Wilderness encounter tables and #appearing were generally balanced for PCs in the 7th-10th range AIR, eg 30-300 orcs (plus leader types), 2-20 Ogres, etc.


----------



## robberbaron (Mar 22, 2007)

I think my players play more-or-less the same way in 3.5 as they did in 1e - probably because, 1. they are the same people and, 2. because I run my game in pretty much the same way. In fact, it is in the same world, 30 years on.

Sure, there are differences. In 1e you'd get an item to give you a boost and in 3.5 you wait a level and choose a feat. In fact, that is the main difference. Characters in 3.5 have so many additional abilities/boosts from feats that simply weren't available in 1e.
There are so many more twinkbooks (or is that splatbooks) around nowadays, as well, that there is a distinct 'kid in a candy shop' feel to 3.5 that I am actively trying to avoid by staying Core (SRD).


----------



## S'mon (Mar 22, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm a bad DM in 1e if I randomly bomb my 2nd level PC's with an Ancient Huge Green Dragon and wipe them all out.  Why?  Because the threat isn't scaled to their level.  While the random wilderness charts may not be scaled, _in play_ there is the expectation that the DM will provide challenges that are neither too easy nor instant death sentences.  Or, at least if he does so, there will be an out clause somewhere along the line.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> ...




1e GMing advice on scaling I've seen tended to divide into Scenario design vs Environment design.

(1) Scenario design - Your adventures should be written to be doable by your PCs, or PCs of a certain level range,  eg 1-3 (low), 4-6 (medium), 7-9 (high) or 10-12 (very high).

(2) Environment design - the campaign environment as a whole should be designed with a wide range of challenges suitable for PCs of low, mid, high very high levels; then it's up to the PCs to seek out challenges appropriate for their level.  This is a lot like the CR by dungeon level idea, and somewhat reflected in 3e's advice.

Published 1e Wilderness encounter tables always tended to assume high-level PCs, from what I could see.   Either that, or mid level PCs who knew when to run away!  Low level PCs entering the wilderness had better be part of an army or merchant caravan if they wanted to stay alive.

Wealth by level: 1e certainly has this concept, see eg the NPC adventurer magic item tables, which unlike the reguilar tables do give higher level NPCs more MI.  However I certainly wouldn't go as far as to say that a vorpal sword at 5th level was a sign if Monty Haulism in 1e.  The system didn't really work like that.  Maybe +5 platemail at 1st level would indicate M-H, but there was never the rigid concept of wealth by level as in 3e; the main thing was that threat level should relate to reward level (not necessarily to PC level): if the Type VI demon has a vorpal sword, and the 5th level PCs kill it and take his sword, that'd be perfectly reasonable in some 1e campaigns.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 22, 2007)

> Wealth by level: 1e certainly has this concept, see eg the NPC adventurer magic item tables, which unlike the reguilar tables do give higher level NPCs more MI. However I certainly wouldn't go as far as to say that a vorpal sword at 5th level was a sign if Monty Haulism in 1e. The system didn't really work like that. Maybe +5 platemail at 1st level would indicate M-H, but there was never the rigid concept of wealth by level as in 3e; the main thing was that threat level should relate to reward level (not necessarily to PC level): if the Type VI demon has a vorpal sword, and the 5th level PCs kill it and take his sword, that'd be perfectly reasonable in some 1e campaigns.




True.  Although, if your 5th level characters are taking on Type VI demons and winning, perhaps there are larger problems than Monty Haul.    (By you, I mean the generic, not you specifically.   )


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 22, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> True. Although, if your 5th level characters are taking on Type VI demons and winning, perhaps there are larger problems than Monty Haul. (By you, I mean the generic, not you specifically. )




That's not a bug, that's a feature.  It's about challenging the players.  If you're a player, you want to become better.  If you're the ref, you want your players to become better.  If they can beat Type VI demons at 5th level, more power to 'em.  Literally.  The rewards should be commensurate with the challenge.  Adhering strictly to suggested wealth guidelines and/or leveling characters whenever the ref "feels" like it shortchanges the players.  Inexperienced players start believing they are entitled to certain a wealth and speed of advancement, while experienced ones relent in futility at ever succeeding beyond normal expectations.

If they get to keep whatever they find, if they advance more quickly because of their own ingenuity, they will learn they control their fortunes, not some arbitrary guidelines.

I mentioned in another thread I don't put magic shops in my game because "the players would never bother with dungeons again".  In the same way, if I followed the suggested wealth guidelines or advanced PCs to "keep pace with the adventure", the players would just go through the motions and wait for the goodies.  The mechanical incentives to be better players are removed.

>>>tangent
[sblock]Monty Haul doesn't really come from campaign worlds where tons and tons of magic is owned by the players.  That's a setting concept perfectly valid and up to the group.  If you want vorpal swords at 1st and artifacts at 10th, go for it.  As long as the wealth is consistent in the world you shouldnt' have a problem.  

The actual definition goes back to when character level and character wealth were more representative of player ability and success.  If the players' abilities were averaging around 8th and a TPK occured, you could relatively expect the same group of players to advance up to 8th again quite quickly.  It was getting to 9th that was harder.  What I mean is: with 1st level characters, they should be capable enough to handle challenges far above their level simply because of personal experience and ingenuity.  They know the game and they know how to win ...to a certain extent.

Monty Haul came in when these symbols of success: wealth, high level, magic items, etc., were given away without little to no challenge to inexperienced players.  Sometimes people even tried to pass themselves off as great and powerful players by having obscenely powerful PCs.  Even if they had memorized and mastered the rules, it wouldn't take long to see they had never mastered the game.  It was only the trappings of power they saw, not the skill behind them.[/sblock]


----------



## Hussar (Mar 22, 2007)

> That's not a bug, that's a feature. It's about challenging the players. If you're a player, you want to become better. If you're the ref, you want your players to become better. If they can beat Type VI demons at 5th level, more power to 'em. Literally. The rewards should be commensurate with the challenge. Adhering strictly to suggested wealth guidelines and/or leveling characters whenever the ref "feels" like it shortchanges the players. Inexperienced players start believing they are entitled to certain a wealth and speed of advancement, while experienced ones relent in futility at ever succeeding beyond normal expectations.




Well, yes.  I wasn't being entirely serious.  OTOH, if your 5th level characters are killing a type VI demon, there's something SERIOUSLY wrong with your game.  A Type VI should be obliterating PC's of this level.  Granted, if they do win, somehow, then, sure, they should get the treasure type listed.

However, that does lead to Monty Haulism because they are getting access to treasure far beyond the challenge presented.  The only way they could win against a Type VI (to use that example) is if the DM either had the tactical sense of concussed gerbil, or the DM let them win.

In either case, they didn't really earn that treasure.

I fully agree with your definition of Monty Haul campaigns where the rewards are far above the challenges.  That was mostly why I used the example of a 5th level fighter with a Vorpal Sword.  This is an extremely valuable treasure, and, as such, should feature as the treasure in a very difficult adventure.  Most likely one that should be well beyond the capabilities of such a level of character.



> I mentioned in another thread I don't put magic shops in my game because "the players would never bother with dungeons again". In the same way, if I followed the suggested wealth guidelines or advanced PCs to "keep pace with the adventure", the players would just go through the motions and wait for the goodies. The mechanical incentives to be better players are removed.




And that's fine if it works for you.  However, the idea that players require mechanical incentives in the form of magic goodies in order to become better players is very, very far removed from my experience.  IME, players become better players by being challenged by a variety of things, both combat and not, that are just on the far end of doable.  YMMV.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 22, 2007)

Hussar, I certainly accept your evidence of scaling in 1e, and if 3e scaled in the same way I'd be happier with it.  Not to bog you down with minutia, but N1 includes wights and a naga, whereas G1 includes orcs.  _Monsters_ scale more in 3e than 1e, so that in 1e you might have a chance to escape a disasterous encounter that in 3e would be over in a round.  

I think that howandwhy99 is spot on, but OTOH I don't think that the wealth-by-level guidelines were ever intended to indicate what level of wealth PCs "deserved".  I have become convinced that they were intended as a DM tool to indicate where the balance points lie.  Having some serious discussion about changing the balance points would have been nice, though.

They are both valid points.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 22, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Well, yes.  I wasn't being entirely serious.  OTOH, if your 5th level characters are killing a type VI demon, there's something SERIOUSLY wrong with your game.  A Type VI should be obliterating PC's of this level.  Granted, if they do win, somehow, then, sure, they should get the treasure type listed.
> 
> However, that does lead to Monty Haulism because they are getting access to treasure far beyond the challenge presented.  The only way they could win against a Type VI (to use that example) is if the DM either had the tactical sense of concussed gerbil, or the DM let them win.
> 
> In either case, they didn't really earn that treasure.




I don't think this is a universal truth.  Because it is an RPG, things can happen that nobody at the table, players or DM, expected.  I can think a dozen ways a 5th level party can come into conflict with a powerful enemy, without the DM setting things up to kill them, off the top of my head -- particularly in games where the DM hasn't scripted out every detail.  I can also come up with a dozen ways (okay, probably 4 or 5) that a low level party can overcome such a challenge fairly and earn their reward.  Because earlier editions of the game were much more player-skill focused than 3E, it is quite possible.  Using the environment to their advantage, creative applications of spells and abilities, forcing the enemy to choose between multiple, bad tactical options, etc... are all possible ways to defeat a powerful creature.  And never forget the importance of luck in D&D, especially the older versions.

So, it isn't that the PCs didn't deserve the reward.  The problem is that now the PCs have their reward and as long as that th level fighter is carrying around a Vorpal Sword, it is going to have an impact on play.  But that's part of the fun of DMing a game where you don't have to bean count every encounter -- responding, either in prep or on the fly, to the PCs and the players.


----------



## dcas (Mar 22, 2007)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> You forget about the wandering monster charts.  Those are not scaled by level.



Exaclty. The planned encounters are generally scaled (though one might include a challenge that the PCs can't win in order to test their tactical skills or to take some of their excess treasure away), but the random encounters are not so scaled. You can meet any sort of creature in the wilderness.

As far as "dungeon level" is concerned, I always assumed that this more-or-less scaled to the PCs' level, so that high-level PCs were not having 1st-level encounters when they entered the 1st level of a dungeon. If my assumption is wrong, it almost seems as if the campaign is intended to be built around the megadungeon (like Castle Greyhawk) rather than varying challenges and locales.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 22, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Well, yes.  I wasn't being entirely serious.  OTOH, if your 5th level characters are killing a type VI demon, there's something SERIOUSLY wrong with your game.  A Type VI should be obliterating PC's of this level.  Granted, if they do win, somehow, then, sure, they should get the treasure type listed.
> 
> However, that does lead to Monty Haulism because they are getting access to treasure far beyond the challenge presented.  The only way they could win against a Type VI (to use that example) is if the DM either had the tactical sense of concussed gerbil, or the DM let them win.
> 
> In either case, they didn't really earn that treasure.



These example cases, like in past discussions, have always lent towards the extreme.  Yes.  I can't for the life of me figure out how a group of 5th level PCs could win against a Balor.  However, if they did, I would not shirk in awarding treasure or XP.  They earned it.  If I'm running it at my nastiest, ratbastard worst, something as intelligent, skillfully played, and absolutely appropriate for a CR 20 demon, and they _still_ win, I'm giving it to them.  Hell, I'm probably taking them out for dinner.

The extreme example is not the point.  If you can get there, awesome.  My point was: if your group is so good they can regularly beat creatures 5, 6, 7+ levels higher than their suggested EL, than they get to be above their suggested wealth level.  By considerable amounts even.  They also get to keep all the XP earned.  In this way, they advance far faster than beginners and intermediates and reach levels where their skill is more appropriately challenged.



> I fully agree with your definition of Monty Haul campaigns where the rewards are far above the challenges.  That was mostly why I used the example of a 5th level fighter with a Vorpal Sword.  This is an extremely valuable treasure, and, as such, should feature as the treasure in a very difficult adventure.  Most likely one that should be well beyond the capabilities of such a level of character.



In most typical campaign worlds, you're right.  It's far over what most creatures in the world will have as treasure.  But if they can earn it, like in the example above with the balor, it's not Monty Haul.  That's what Monty Haul players are trying to pass themselves off as.



> And that's fine if it works for you.  However, the idea that players require mechanical incentives in the form of magic goodies in order to become better players is very, very far removed from my experience.  IME, players become better players by being challenged by a variety of things, both combat and not, that are just on the far end of doable.  YMMV.



I've heard this many times before too.  It seems, if players are good enough to beat the Balor, they get stuck with "level-appropriate" treasure and only enough XP to advance 1 level.  That's not incentive IMO.  That's an advancement cap.  It tells players they can't beat the system, so don't bother trying.  In reverse, it can prop up poor players and give a sense of entitlement, like I mentioned before. 

My question is: why bother trying for "the far end of doable" when it's only likely to get your character killed and offers rewards you can achieve with less risk?  

In my games the players choose what to face (either purposefully or by accident).  And they are just like any other players; they get intrinsic value from success.  It's a blast from beating their opponents whatever the type of challenge.  But if treasure* and XP have an artificial limit, why risk their necks for more?  


*(treasure here includes all those less easily measured things like titles, followers, lands, and reputation that come from noncombat challenges).


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 22, 2007)

dcas said:
			
		

> As far as "dungeon level" is concerned, I always assumed that this more-or-less scaled to the PCs' level, so that high-level PCs were not having 1st-level encounters when they entered the 1st level of a dungeon. If my assumption is wrong, it almost seems as if the campaign is intended to be built around the megadungeon (like Castle Greyhawk) rather than varying challenges and locales.



I think that's a general assumption, but flexible like all rules.  If I were to start a dungeon with the first level as a 5th or 7th level dungeon, I'd put it in a location were several similarly powered encounters likely are met on the way to it.  

Or you could just teleport (high level) and bypass this stuff.

If you're having to beat hill giants just to get to the Steading, you're probably not walking into a level 1 dungeon.


EDIT: Nothing scales to PC level.  Players learn how to scale their goals to what they think their PCs can handle.


----------



## RFisher (Mar 22, 2007)

Celebrim, I like your distinction between "game space" & "imaginary space".



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> A similar filtering process is mentioned here by RFisher, in that I've long noted that anything that isn't explicitly allowed by the rules is typically assumed at a metagame level to be forbidden - even if it makes no sense at all for it to be forbidden at the level of the imaginary space.




Yeah. But, there's a difference between e.g. "there are no rules for making arrows so we assume characters can't make arrows" v. "there are rules for rangers tracking so we assume no other characters can track." It's a lot harder for me to criticize a game for leaving out a topic completely than for touching on a topic in one context & completely ignoring it in others. At least give me an "Oh, by the way, it's left up to the DM to handle another characters trying to track" at the end of the description of the ranger ability.

Of course, even when the games _did_ explicitly explain such things, I don't think they always sunk in to my thick skull. (^_^)

I don't think any written game, however, can fully capture the designers' intent. Even when 3e came out, there were a number of things (though I can no longer remember specifics) in which I missed the designers' intention until clarified online or in _Dragon_. 3e may be "better" in this regard, but it isn't immune.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm a bad DM in 1e if I randomly bomb my 2nd level PC's with an Ancient Huge Green Dragon and wipe them all out.




Only if there's a disconnect between the DM & the players on this. I've seen 1e groups get wiped out because they assumed the DM will never throw anything at them they can't handle. I've seen the same in 3e groups. Among some groups in either edition, having encounters out of your league & knowing when (& how) to flee is an important & expected part of the game.

Yes, every edition of D&D has had a steeper progression than most other RPGs. So, it is unsurprising that every edition has had some amount of scaling the challenges to the players.

On these issues, I don't think the edition's influence/fit on gameplay style is that different.

The difference really come with the increase of oppossed resolution. In previous editions, resolution of many things depended primarily on the character or the monster/challenge. e.g. The difficulty of picking a lock depended primarily on the thief's level & only occasionally had a modifier for the lock itself. A saving throw v. a spell primarily depended on the HD/class+level of the target with only occasional modifiers for the level of the caster.

In fact, in some ways, C&C carries this even farther than 3e!

Now, either style is fine. You may prefer one or the other. Either game can handle either style. The cD&D DM can add a pick locks modifier to every lock, & the 3e DM can not vary lock DCs very much. But the games do naturally tend to diverge on this point of style.


----------



## RFisher (Mar 22, 2007)

Didn't oD&D have an adjustment to XP awards based on the difference between the level of the PCs & the HD of the monster?


----------



## dcas (Mar 22, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Didn't oD&D have an adjustment to XP awards based on the difference between the level of the PCs & the HD of the monster?



AD&D, at least, suggests that DMs should modify awards down if PCs are defeating monsters that are obviously beneath them.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 22, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Only if there's a disconnect between the DM & the players on this. I've seen 1e groups get wiped out because they assumed the DM will never throw anything at them they can't handle. I've seen the same in 3e groups. Among some groups in either edition, having encounters out of your league & knowing when (& how) to flee is an important & expected part of the game.




While I don't mind designing adventures around the PCs' level -- it is pretty much a requirement, though there is wiggle room -- I really designing regions around the PCs' level.  If the town where the PCs start off at 1st level is on the ogre infested frontier, the encounter tables are going to include ogres -- whether the PCs are 1st level or 20th.  If I decide to go to the trouble of fleshing out a region -- be it a country, a city or a dungeon -- then I am going to build encounter tables that fit that region.



> The difference really come with the increase of oppossed resolution. In previous editions, resolution of many things depended primarily on the character or the monster/challenge. e.g. The difficulty of picking a lock depended primarily on the thief's level & only occasionally had a modifier for the lock itself. A saving throw v. a spell primarily depended on the HD/class+level of the target with only occasional modifiers for the level of the caster.




I think this is one of the key differences between 3E and earlier editions, and one that is too often overlooked when people say "it plays as it ever did".  IME anyway, it doesn't play as it ever did because, for the most part, the chances of succeeding at a task or avoiding insta-death or whatever were unmitigated by a guy across the screen wanting to help you out.  ALthough I am sure it happened, I very rarely ever experienced modifiers to saves or other rolls based on difficulty.  Your character, his class and level, was the defining feature, not the attack. That is the antithesis of scaled design.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 22, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> ALthough I am sure it happened, I very rarely ever experienced modifiers to saves or other rolls based on difficulty.  Your character, his class and level, was the defining feature, not the attack.




One difference between how the game plays now and how it used to play is that the higher level your character in 1st edition, the less likely it was that you would actually fail a saving throw (regardless of the type of saving throw to make).  In contrast, because the DC of challenges scales up to character level, in 3rd edition the higher level your character is, the more likely that you are to fail a saving throw (assuming it isn't one of the 'good' saving throws for your class).

And, modifiers to savings or other rolls based on difficulty did exist in earlier editions, but they were relatively small in comparison to the bonuses you would obtain at higher levels.  For example, I can't recall ever seeing a saving throw with more than a -4 penalty in 1st edition, usually for really lethal poisons (like Loth's), but it would be unusual to see in 3rd edition saving throws that effectively have penalties of -15 or -20 or more (because increasing DC is basically the same as a penalty to a roll).


----------



## T. Foster (Mar 22, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Didn't oD&D have an adjustment to XP awards based on the difference between the level of the PCs & the HD of the monster?



 XP awards in OD&D are based on a ratio of character level to dungeon level (or monster level, whichever is higher), but the ratio can never be greater than 1:1. So, if an 8th level character is operating on the 5th dungeon level he'll normally earn 5/8 XP from the monsters he defeats and treasure he recovers, but if he fights a troll (counts as a 7th level monster) he'll get 7/8 XP (see OD&D vol. I, p. 18).

In the wilderness everything is "de facto" and there are no XP adjustments (at least by implication -- the rules themselves never actually state this one way or the other). But keep in mind that if you meet a group of orcs in the wilderness it's not going to be a half dozen like you'd meet on dungeon level 1, it's going to be 30-300 (with the possibility of additional leader-types -- ogres, trolls, balrogs, and/or high level fighters and magic-users).


----------



## S'mon (Mar 22, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Well, yes.  I wasn't being entirely serious.  OTOH, if your 5th level characters are killing a type VI demon, there's something SERIOUSLY wrong with your game.  A Type VI should be obliterating PC's of this level.  Granted, if they do win, somehow, then, sure, they should get the treasure type listed.




A Type VI demon has 8+8 hd and averages 42 hit points.  It looks designed for ca 9th level PCs but I don't see why a smart, well-equipped 5th level party shouldn't have a shot at taking one down.  The M-U won't be able to penetrate its 75% MR but as long as the Fighters have +1 weapons they'll be effective.  The main threat is its Symbol ability.


----------



## T. Foster (Mar 22, 2007)

dcas said:
			
		

> As far as "dungeon level" is concerned, I always assumed that this more-or-less scaled to the PCs' level, so that high-level PCs were not having 1st-level encounters when they entered the 1st level of a dungeon. If my assumption is wrong, it almost seems as if the campaign is intended to be built around the megadungeon (like Castle Greyhawk) rather than varying challenges and locales.



In OD&D this ("the campaign is intended to be built around the megadungeon") absolutely _is_ the assumption, and anything else ("high level" dungeons where the "1st" level is equivalent to what would be the 5th, or 9th, or whatever, level of the main dungeon) are an exception to the general rule (the possibility of which isn't actually mentioned anywhere in the rules, but obviously such dungeons appeared in play even in this era -- the Lost Caverns of Tsojconth, the Tomb of Horrors, the Temple of the Frog, etc.).

This notion appears in vestigial form in AD&D (in the dungeon random encounter tables in the DMG) but it's pretty clear that by the time of AD&D Gygax was moving away from the campaign-dungeon model (no wonder -- he'd been playing in that style for 7 years and was probably ready for a change) and was emphasizing a different approach with more focus on wilderness, town, and other-planar adventuring and multiple smaller and more cohesive "lair-dungeons" (i.e. modules) in place of the single massive campaign-dungeon.


----------



## Numion (Mar 22, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Nor should they, IMO.  Newbies will slog through it the same way us old timers did (trial and error) and those of us who have been playing forever and a day should no better than to throw ridiculous monsters/traps/whatever at the PCs.




IMO they should. Two of my players have run D&D campaigns for first time in their life with 3E. The CR system made it possible that it wasn't trial and error. They managed to run 13 and 10 level campaigns without a hitch, and I think that was due to 3E CR/EL system.

People like to rag on the system, but the system not working properly is IME an exception, not the rule.


----------



## Numion (Mar 22, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I think this is one of the key differences between 3E and earlier editions, and one that is too often overlooked when people say "it plays as it ever did".  IME anyway, it doesn't play as it ever did because, for the most part, the chances of succeeding at a task or avoiding insta-death or whatever were unmitigated by a guy across the screen wanting to help you out.  ALthough I am sure it happened, I very rarely ever experienced modifiers to saves or other rolls based on difficulty.  Your character, his class and level, was the defining feature, not the attack. That is the antithesis of scaled design.




The Red Box D&D (is that BD&D?) included an adventure, a keep for the PCs to romp through, and the DM to learn the game. It included a room with two harpies in it. The door to the room was unopenable by characters less than 3rd experience level.

_That_ is an antithesis of non-scaled design. I wonder what new DMs would learn from running that adventure. If there are monsters inside that could kill the PCs, they can't encounter them?


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 22, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I've often made mention of the fact that I think that the 3rd edition rules (and 3.0 in particular) are the best rules D&D has ever had.  I consider this to be pretty much unarguable and not even really a matter of opinion.




And I consider the above horseshit.  I consider the AD&D 1e rules the best ruleset ever, but that will always be nothing but my opinion.  Yours may differ, but it's just that - an opinion.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 22, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> The Red Box D&D (is that BD&D?) included an adventure, a keep for the PCs to romp through, and the DM to learn the game. It included a room with two harpies in it. The door to the room was unopenable by characters less than 3rd experience level.
> 
> _That_ is an antithesis of non-scaled design. I wonder what new DMs would learn from running that adventure. If there are monsters inside that could kill the PCs, they can't encounter them?




It is an introductory product that goes up to 3rd level.  Why do *you* think you can't get through the door till your 3rd level.

I have never seen a similar thing in any other module, nor would I expect to.  But in a product designed to show you how to play and get you hooked, it makes perfect sense.

And sure, it also probably teaches the budding DM that matching up monsters and chaarcters need to be done with care.  That is not the same things as having a (flawed) mathematical matrix for encounter design.

But we can pick apart individual rules in each edition till the cows come home.  But it is the whole package that makes each edition a different gaming experience.


----------



## Numion (Mar 22, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> It is an introductory product that goes up to 3rd level.  Why do *you* think you can't get through the door till your 3rd level.




Because the PCs would get killed if they encountered what's inside before that? It also implies an unhealthy attitude that a DM shouldn't challenge PCs in a way that combat certainly leads into death. Luckily this was fixed with the EL/CR distribution tables in 3E.

In any case, I found it a bit videogamey solution. Just like the equation that monsters of certain level know their level and reside in corresponding dungeon level, which was stupidly carried over to 3E. Levels shouldn't exist within the gameworld.



> That is not the same things as having a (flawed) mathematical matrix for encounter design.




In our group two first timer DMs have used that chart to run succesful campaigns from 1st to 13th and 10th levels. If it is flawed, it's obvious that the flaws are not serious. In any case a better solution than some vague ramblings about challenge levels.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 22, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Only if the DM decides that there's a low level region, a mid level region, and a high level region.  Otherwise, if it's a swamp, there's a chance there's a big frickin' black dragon in there, regardless of whether you are a 1st leveller looking to kill bullywugs or a demigod.




But that is a perfectly reasonable assumption, no? The low level regions are in and around the civilised areas, where the farms and merchants are. Then you have a mid level region which is on the borders of the civilised lands, and high level regions which are the dreaded mountains/swamps/deserts where no-one goes (no one BUT HEROES!).

I was in my late teens running OD&D & AD&D and that seemed a pretty straightforward idea to me even then.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Mar 22, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> The "antagonistic DM" tone of much of Gygax's D&D writing is often misunderstood, in that it's actually mock-antagonistic in the manner of a tough coach or drill instructor -- Gygax envisions that a big part of the DM's job is to "push" his players to excellence (developing their player-level tactical acumen and problem-solving skills) and that that excellence will make the game more enjoyable for players and DM alike. Gygax is not a "killer DM" and has never advocated that style (and in fact preaches against it in the 1E DMG and elsewhere) but he is a "mock-killer DM" or poses as one -- he acts like he wants nothing more than to kill your characters, and feigns frustration when the party survives and defeats the challenges and like a melodramatic movie-villain shakes his fist and declares he'll get you next time, but the reality is exactly the opposite. Gygax as DM (read his various advice in rulebooks and modules, his "Mastery" books, or his Q&A threads here) doesn't want to kill the characters of players who are playing well, and considers a TPK (ostensibly a "victory" for the antagonistic DM) about the worst thing that can happen in the game. He wants to players to succeed brilliantly and dazzle him with their problem-solving skills in ways he never anticipated. But he thinks the best way to achieve that sort of performance isn't by coddling or taking it easy on the players, but rather by pushing and challenging them (and, yes, punishing them when they fail to perform or, especially, take the challenge seriously), like a tough coach or a drill instructor.



I think the two quotes from Gary in my signature are illustrations of his "drill instructor" outlook. Well said!


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 22, 2007)

nb: The atmosphere of the thread is starting to drift from conversational towards adversarial a bit, and that isn't so healthy.

Let's stay with nice friendly discussion about differences without feeling the need to defend edition A or edition B please!

Thanks


----------



## MerricB (Mar 22, 2007)

dcas said:
			
		

> AD&D, at least, suggests that DMs should modify awards down if PCs are defeating monsters that are obviously beneath them.




The rule is that you should modify XP downwards based on the ratio of PC levels to HD defeated (as adjusted for special abilities).

This actually leads to the situation that PCs pretty much *never* get full XP for defeating monsters, as the 1:1 ratio would mean the PCs would be overwhelmed in most combats.

Cheers!


----------



## T. Foster (Mar 22, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> But that is a perfectly reasonable assumption, no? The low level regions are in and around the civilised areas, where the farms and merchants are. Then you have a mid level region which is on the borders of the civilised lands, and high level regions which are the dreaded mountains/swamps/deserts where no-one goes (no one BUT HEROES!).
> 
> I was in my late teens running OD&D & AD&D and that seemed a pretty straightforward idea to me even then.



 Just such an arrangement is implied in the random encounter tables in the 1E DMG -- "civilized/patrolled" areas have encounters least often (1 in 20 per check), a significant portion of those encounters (1 in 5?) are with patrols, and the rest of the encounters tend to be with humans, humanoids, and animals (not that an encounter with a group of bandits or goblins or a family of bears or wild boars can't ruin a low level party's day...), "border" areas have encounters more often (1 in 12) and don't have the chance for a patrol but still use the "more forgiving" encounter chart, and finally the "wilderness" areas have the highest chance of an encounter (1 in 10) and use the most brutal chart, where you've got a decent chance of running across giants, dragons, bulettes, catoblepas, and all manner of other nasty things (I may have some terminology or numbers wrong since I don't have the book in front of me, but the general idea is right). 

The books don't ever come out and say that low level characters should stick to the first, mid level ones can risk the second, and only high level characters should dare the third, but it doesn't take too big a leap in logic to make the connection. 

OD&D doesn't have separate sets of encounter charts like 1E, but ISTR a vague/ambiguous (like pretty much everything in OD&D) reference to patrolled areas where normal wandering monster checks aren't made. But then again I might be imagining this...


----------



## Reynard (Mar 23, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> nb: The atmosphere of the thread is starting to drift from conversational towards adversarial a bit, and that isn't so healthy.
> 
> Let's stay with nice friendly discussion about differences without feeling the need to defend edition A or edition B please!
> 
> Thanks




This is a good, and accurate, point.

On topic, I would say that each edition of the game has been informed by different sources and therefore has been different in feel and tone.  And these sources don't exist in a vacuum.  D&D has informed other games, video games, fiction and other forms of entertainment, which have in turn informed D&D.  Because D&D has traditionally had a very long "edition life", the tone of any given edition has changed over time, as well, even if the edition hasn't.  I'll use 2E as an example because, again, I am most familiar with it when referring to previous editions.

The core 2E books, both blue and black, use an art style reminiscent of what you'd see on the cover of a fantasy paperback.  it isn't particularly stylized, it doesn't push any envelopes, and it says that this game is a traditional fantasy game.  But 2E also had a lot of settings for it and the art direction for each setting wasn't only unique to the setting, but also marks a preogression toward more out-there, non-traditional fantasy as time goes on.  Planescape, Dark Sun and Spelljammer -- all latter-day 2E settings -- had very stylized and very non-traditional art direction.  this isn't a bad thing, IMO, but it does mark a shift, or at least the beginning of one.  Many of the later generic supplements utilized less traditional art styles as the rules themselves changed and became bloated.

Like I said, I am not as familiar with the evolution of 1E, though there is very obviously a marked difference between the original 1E covers and the "wizard" covers.  personally, I like the art ebtter on the later covers, but the earlier covers are far more evocative of sword and sorcery adventure.

To my recolecion, B/X/C/M maintained a fairly consisten art style throughout, but as efforts were made in the '90s to re-introduce gamers to D&D, the new "basic" sets had much more extreme, almost 3rd edition art to them (with less spikes).

I generally like my D&D "traditional" -- not so much Tolkien, but dark ages medieval high/sword and sorcery fantasy with a nod toward the mainstream in the genre literature.  Somewhere along the line, though, the mainstream genre litertaure became the game literature and it fed on itself until the traditional and mainstream was just tired and old hat.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 23, 2007)

> I've heard this many times before too. It seems, if players are good enough to beat the Balor, they get stuck with "level-appropriate" treasure and only enough XP to advance 1 level. That's not incentive IMO. That's an advancement cap. It tells players they can't beat the system, so don't bother trying. In reverse, it can prop up poor players and give a sense of entitlement, like I mentioned before.




Didn't 1e also have the advancement cap?  IIRC, you couldn't go up more than 1 level in an adventure.  In fact, IIRC, you got to your level +1 xp and then stopped gaining xp until you stopped adventuring and trained for your next level.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 23, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Didn't 1e also have the advancement cap?  IIRC, you couldn't go up more than 1 level in an adventure.  In fact, IIRC, you got to your level +1 xp and then stopped gaining xp until you stopped adventuring and trained for your next level.




Just took a look through what EGG wrote - it's not terribly clear, but looks like he's just saying you can't get XP for a 2nd level until you've trained for the first, ie you're held at 1 XP below that needed to advance.  Either that or you're held at whatever XP you were at when you gained enough XP to advance, but you're not capped at 1 point into the higher level, which could work out very harsh  (I'm 5 XP below 12th, I kill Lolth and take her stuff, instead of getting 40,000 XP I get 6 XP).  Still, it's clear you are never supposed to advance more than 1 level from any one XP award.

As a house rule for 1e and C&C, B/X etc, I think a good approach is to cap XP awards at an amount equal to whatever total amount you need for the next level.  So if you're 1st level and need 2,000 for 2nd you can't get more than 2,000 from one award.  If you're 2nd and need 4,000 for 3rd you can't get more than 4,000 from one award, and so on.  Maybe an absolute cap of 100,000 for name-level PCs, even Demogorgon is only worth 74,000 per 1e DMG so that seems reasonable - these days I don't think gaining a 1 million gp gem should advance a PC 4 levels.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 23, 2007)

Y'know, there's a difference that we haven't really mentioned yet.  Writing style.

Each edition has its own distinct style.  And, really, I think that goes a long way to setting the tone of the game.  I remember 1e as being very conversational in nature, with digressions and whatnot within each section with an organization that was, well, loose I guess is the best word.  And, that gets reflected in play as well.  People come to 1e games fully expecting the rules to be folded, mangled and bent.  Structure and form were less important than content.  (IMO).

2e brought up a more structured approach to the books and the rules.  There is still a lot of very evocative language used in the PHB and the DMG, but, a lot of the information in the DMG got shuffled into the PHB.  The books are easier to use, with some thought being given towards putting pertinent information all in one place.  OTOH, you still see a great deal of fluidity in the rules.  Look at the section on clerics where it talks about specialty priests.  Boil the lines down and you get, "Go ahead and make whatever you think is best".  

3e is much more rigidly structured than the previous two.  The language is intended to be as plain and straightforward as possible.  Finding pertinent information is probably the easiest it has ever been.  Far more information is now given to the players than ever before, placing the onus of rules knowledge on the players as well as the DM.  The writing is certainly less evocative than before as well, mostly in an attempt to remove ambiguity (with various results).  

3.5 takes this even further.  Compare the 3e PHB section on attacks of opportunity to the 3.5 one.  Rules that were problematic for some groups in 3e have been altered and nearly every class got a bit of tweaking between editions.  Ruleswise there's as much difference between 3.0 and 3.5 as there was between 1e and 2e.  

I really think that the use of clear language has made the push towards RAW much stronger.  As I mentioned, pretty much no one played 1e even remotely close to RAW.  (Yes, Yes, I know that YOU did, I'm talking about all those other guys.)  And, mostly, people never thought much about it.  The first question asked was usually about house rules.  With 3e, with much more concise language, I think the assumption of a new player is that RAW (or something very close) will be in play with any exceptions to RAW being presented beforehand.

But, one of the biggest differences between editions has been the use of language.  Now, whether you like one or another is a matter of personal taste.  I am in no way trying to place a value judgement on any of them.  It's pretty obvious that I prefer less ambiguity, but, that doesn't make the previous editions bad, just bad for me.  

Really, I think that's what Celebrim meant when he said that 3e has the best mechanics.  Certainly 3e has the clearest mechanics.


----------



## Rothe (Mar 23, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Just took a look through what EGG wrote - it's not terribly clear, but looks like he's just saying you can't get XP for a 2nd level until you've trained for the first, ie you're held at 1 XP below that needed to advance.  Either that or you're held at whatever XP you were at when you gained enough XP to advance, but you're not capped at 1 point into the higher level, which could work out very harsh  (I'm 5 XP below 12th, I kill Lolth and take her stuff, instead of getting 40,000 XP I get 6 XP).  Still, it's clear you are never supposed to advance more than 1 level from any one XP award.
> 
> As a house rule for 1e and C&C, B/X etc, I think a good approach is to cap XP awards at an amount equal to whatever total amount you need for the next level.  So if you're 1st level and need 2,000 for 2nd you can't get more than 2,000 from one award.  If you're 2nd and need 4,000 for 3rd you can't get more than 4,000 from one award, and so on.  Maybe an absolute cap of 100,000 for name-level PCs, even Demogorgon is only worth 74,000 per 1e DMG so that seems reasonable - these days I don't think gaining a 1 million gp gem should advance a PC 4 levels.




Actually I think the 1e DMG, at least my copy, is saying exactly that you can't gain anymore experience points once you have points to put you into the next level until you train.  I'll quote the section, which appears as ALL CAPS in the original, I assume for emphasis:

"ONCE A CHARACTER HAS POINTS WHICH ARE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THE MINIMUM NUMBER NECESSARY TO MOVE UPWARD IN EXPERIENCE LEVEL, NO FURTHER EXPERIENCE POINTS CAN BE GAINED UNTIL THE CHARACTER ACTUALLY GAINS THE NEW LEVEL"

DMG p. 86  The same page also makes clear that having enough xp only makes you eligible to train to the next level it is not an automatic jump.

But again, in actual play in the day I never met a group that actually enforced the harsh consequences of such rules.  Not that such groups didn't exist. 

And this may be a difference in play between editions.  The groups I played with were almost invariably coming out of OD&D and had a belief the rules were guidelines, good ones, but guidelines none the less.  Not surprising given the rules light nature of OD&D which encouraged you to fill the gaps.

Compared to later editions the idea seems to be to make sure there are no gaps, with the result that people seem to be more adverse to modifying or ignoring rules, or if they do, express more trepedation over doing so.  Not that they shouldn't when the rules become highly integrated.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 23, 2007)

Rothe said:
			
		

> And this may be a difference in play between editions. The groups I played with were almost invariably coming out of OD&D and had a belief the rules were guidelines, good ones, but guidelines none the less. Not surprising given the rules light nature of OD&D which encouraged you to fill the gaps.




This was certainly the case with me - I'd played so much OD&D that when AD&D came along we used the bits we liked, and ditched the bits we didn't. Not gaining a level until training happened didn't match our vision of heroic characters (we couldn't see Conan or Aragorn going off to fighter school at regular moments) so we never used that.

Mind you, we stopped giving xp for treasure during our OD&D lifetime too (c.f. the 1,000,000gp gem mentioned above...)

Cheers


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Mar 23, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> ...I'd played so much OD&D that when AD&D came along we used the bits we liked, and ditched the bits we didn't...



That was the case with me, too, except I started with Holmes, rather than OD&D, and then treated AD&D books as supplements.  I played a bastardized mixture of Holmes and AD&D (and the odd rule from Moldvay/Cook/Marsh) for years.  I didn't play a (close to) by-the-book campaign of AD&D until pretty late in the game.  

My preferred D&D rule-set is still a mix of the published editions.  That's probably why I gravitated to C&C -- it's a good foundation for house ruling and cherry picking the stuff I like from all the various editions.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 23, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Really, I think that's what Celebrim meant when he said that 3e has the best mechanics.  Certainly 3e has the clearest mechanics.




Careful.  Someone's likely to go nuclear over such a non-subjective statement.

Yes, clearest.  And, most comprehensive (the fewest things which would come up in regular play for which there is not already a resolution).  Most elegant in the sense of smallest set of base/universal mechanics with the fewest exceptions, fewest special cases, fewest dependent tables, fewest irregularities and unpredictable areas.  The least 'buggy' in the sense one would refer to a computer program, in that there are fewer moments where the 'system' comes to a crashing halt and must be 'fixed' with a house rule.  (Just as a for example that comes to mind, that intellectual nerds with runny noses had a better sense of smell than wolves.  You don't know how happy I was to see the 'scent' ability, so I'd not have to fight that battle again.)

I've seen alot of tweaking of the rules in 3rd, but nothing like what was common in 1st.  Nor have I the experience of whole sections of the rules being reutinely ignored by almost everyone, as they were in earlier editions.   Nor do I have the experience of experienced players not knowing whole sections of the rules because they were too confusing to understand, to bothersome in actual play, and reutinely had been ignored in every group that they were in.


----------



## The_Gneech (Mar 23, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I've seen alot of tweaking of the rules in 3rd, but nothing like what was common in 1st.  Nor have I the experience of whole sections of the rules being reutinely ignored by almost everyone, as they were in earlier editions.   Nor do I have the experience of experienced players not knowing whole sections of the rules because they were too confusing to understand, to bothersome in actual play, and reutinely had been ignored in every group that they were in.




Although grapple's doing its best!

-The Gneech


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 23, 2007)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> Although grapple's doing its best!
> 
> -The Gneech




Quite.  There are a few places that seem to be more complex than the average gamer wants to deal with, and grapple would be a case in point.  Likewise, there is at least one place that still regularly offends with its inelegance - the turn undead rules.  

But, compared to how previous editions handled grappling and turn undead, we are still in those cases dealing with a more elegant, less flaky, more widely applicable, and more easily understood rules.

I'm personally happy with the existing rules for grappling, but then I cut my teeth on 1st edition and so my tolerance for such things is naturally higher.  To me the very fact that such comparitively clear, flexible, and straightforward rules as the grappling rules are seen as frustratingly complex and difficult to understand just shows how clear the rules have gotten elsewhere.


----------



## Rothe (Mar 23, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Mind you, we stopped giving xp for treasure during our OD&D lifetime too (c.f. the 1,000,000gp gem mentioned above...)
> 
> Cheers




Same here, we ditched xp for gold, or I should say never used it.  Which most likely largely eliminated the need to soak up gold in training costs.  And we also gave xp for getting past monsters etc. by guile, stealth, parley etc., so the lack of gold xp was not as much of a problem in xp or motivation to do things besides kill.  But again, we had no one trying to abuse such "open" interpretations so a bright-line rule kill=xp was never needed.


----------



## painandgreed (Mar 23, 2007)

I'm not sure how much has changed between editions since as editions changed, so have I aged. Each edition I associate with an age group and I can't really tell if thing have changed because of the editions or age. The one thing I have noticed is less house rules. 1E and B/E had lots of house rules either because people didn't like the rules, they were self contradicting, or didn't exist. With 2E, most of the major changes to the system seemed to be inclusions of the most widely used house rules you would normally find with 1E. House rules still existed but the three ring binders became more unwritten rule clarifications. Even with 3E, I can remember thinking that some of the 2E house rules I had seen have been incorporated. Now there hardly seems to be any house rules in comparison with 1E. In 1E things like intitiative varied from group to group, in 3.5E, everybody seems to use the the same thing unless they use the hold over 3E rules.


----------



## RFisher (Mar 26, 2007)

There are certainly changes in the way I play RPGs because I have grown, learned, changed, & am in a completely different station of life. In fact, I think those things are a big part of _why_ I tend to prefer classic D&D today. If 3e had been around in the early 1990s, I'd probably have preferred it to classic D&D or AD&D. Classic D&D tends to be a better fit for how I play today.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Yes, clearest.  And, most comprehensive (the fewest things which would come up in regular play for which there is not already a resolution).




Although it could be argued that being as clear & as comprehensive as 3e would be counter to goals of older editions. (At least the non-Advanced editions.) The game was _meant_ to be a base set of guidelines that you built upon & changed. As Mike Mornard has said: They thought making up the rest & changing the rules was a huge part of the fun. Even Gygax himself didn't play strictly by-the-book. (Steve Marsh has said that AD&D looks more like Law Shick's oD&D house rules than Gary's.)



> (Just as a for example that comes to mind, that intellectual nerds with runny noses had a better sense of smell than wolves.  You don't know how happy I was to see the 'scent' ability, so I'd not have to fight that battle again.)




() Is that a 2e thing?


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 26, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Although it could be argued that being as clear & as comprehensive as 3e would be counter to goals of older editions. (At least the non-Advanced editions.) The game was _meant_ to be a base set of guidelines that you built upon & changed. As Mike Mornard has said: They thought making up the rest & changing the rules was a huge part of the fun.




Alot of my point is exploring the question of, "Do better rules necessarily make for a better game?"  I think in theory that they can, but as I've been trying to show, better rules can have some unintended negative consequences depending on what you actually want from the game.



> () Is that a 2e thing?




No, its a AD&D thing based on the chances of noticing the presence of an invisible creature.  An owl or bat (with super-sensitive ears and used to hunting in total blindness) or a dog or wolf (with keen hearing and a sense of smell one thousand times keener than a humans), had according to the chart to determine if an invisible creature was detected by them a far less chance than a sickly nerd with a runny nose (because the table was primarily based on intelligence).  To me, clearly this chart was intended for humanoids only, but invariably some PC would get all in my face because a dog was barking loudly while thier PC was sneaking around invisibly and demand that I follow that table.  

I really loathe rules lawyers.


----------



## an_idol_mind (Mar 26, 2007)

One item that was prominent in basic D&D but faded quickly through AD&D and 3e was the focus on the players learning as they went. The basic set I cut my teeth on included an introductory adventure to teach me how to play/DM, and then had an expanded version of that adventure for a larger group. The players were expected to be new to the game, and didn't have to read any rules beforehand; the DM was expected to explain the rules as they came up during play.

I believe AD&D 1st edition mentioned a style of play along those lines, but even then the players were expected to have a grasp on the rules found in the Player's Handbook. I don't recall 2nd edition or later products ever suggesting that the players didn't need to know the rules.

I've used the basic D&D model of throwing new players to the wolves without them being familiar with the rules for quite a while now. I introduced someone new to the game in this way not too long ago. Interestingly, one of the veteran players at that session -- someone I've gamed with for 7 years now -- admitted that she still hadn't gone through the rulebooks. I find this style of play makes things go pretty quickly, and it obviously cuts down on rules arguments. On the other hand, it means that if the DM doesn't know a rule, it gets overlooked entirely.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 26, 2007)

an_idol_mind said:
			
		

> One item that was prominent in basic D&D but faded quickly through AD&D and 3e was the focus on the players learning as they went.



I think this a very important element, if not the central aspect of the game.  It isn't just the game rules learned however.  (in our game, that isn't really necessary at all)  Instead, it's the world in which the characters play.  As long as the players know as much as the characters do about it, it will always be new and vibrant for them.  Not to mention staying in character is much easier.

Learning allows one to bring fresh eyes to a situation.  It sparks creativity that certainty cannot.  So when exploring around nothing is ever "off limits".  Everything is at least potentially doable rather than "the rules won't let me".  Learning by acting out a hypothetical situation, in the character of a person you get to create, is so fundamental to FUN, I'm at a loss as to how it can happen without it.  Knowing everything about the world means it's time to stop playing.   (thankfully most worlds are endlessly changing).


----------



## Reynard (Mar 27, 2007)

This is one I noticed when my regular 3.5 group met on Sunday for a long dungeon crawl session.  I was aware of it, but as I am currently re-examining my 1E and 2E books, it really struck me.

The PCs (5th level) ended up having to "hold the pass" Spartan style against a horde (60 or so) mutant orcs (I used Grimlocks, but that's neither here nor there; they were all CR 1) and their mutant giant (Ettin) ruler.  The PCs fought valiantly, burning through spells and hp as they should have been.  Eventually, the PC goblin rogue was able to sneak around and make with the stabby versus the ettin, opening up the situation for the PCs to destroy the leader and cause the remaining orcs to flee back into their warrens.  Overall, it wasa  good battle, lots of fun with an epic feel.  Despite the use of 3.5 specific abilities and rules, I think the battle would have run much the same way in any edition (I don't use the battleboard unless absolutely necessary).  So, that's not what the difference was.

After the fight, the PCs had a chance to rest and the players asked, since they were deep in the bowls of the dungeon and still had a long way to go to get home, if I would calc XP.  Sure!  I have never been big on requiring training times, etc... so I went ahead and did it.

With no bonus XP for roleplaying or the like, the PCs each got @ 2500 xp.  That's half a level.  From one encounter.  In 1e or 2e, each PC would have gotten somewhere around 350 XP for the same exact encounter and would require about 2x as much to go up a level.  Wow.


----------



## Dr Simon (Mar 27, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I've seen alot of tweaking of the rules in 3rd, but nothing like what was common in 1st.  Nor have I the experience of whole sections of the rules being reutinely ignored by almost everyone, as they were in earlier editions.   Nor do I have the experience of experienced players not knowing whole sections of the rules because they were too confusing to understand, to bothersome in actual play, and reutinely had been ignored in every group that they were in.




Amen to that - I've had my 1st Ed. DMG for, what, 25 years now (eek!), and it's only through discussions on this board that I've even noticed the existence of some rules that I must have just glossed over as too much fiddle to work with.  A few years ago I played in a group who were still running 1st Ed (with a dash of 2nd), and there were a few moments where I thought that the DM was running some strange house-rule, then discovered later that it was an official DMG rule!



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> With no bonus XP for roleplaying or the like, the PCs each got @ 2500 xp. That's half a level. From one encounter. In 1e or 2e, each PC would have gotten somewhere around 350 XP for the same exact encounter and would require about 2x as much to go up a level. Wow.




I understand that the 3rd Ed designers deliberately changed things so that people got to play the higher levels, but the increased rate of advancement is a complaint by some. I've really noticed it at mid-level onwards (about 8 up) where players don't really get much time to learn all the new things that their characters can do before they're saddled with more options (poor them!). It's no wonder you get complaints about all the modifiers in 3rd Ed. 

On the other hand, as a player of a 1st Ed fighter watching the XPs accrueing oh-so-slowly from 35000 to 70000 in that crucial gap between 6th and 7th level, whilst the thief and cleric hop up levels practically one per adventure, I can see why they did it.  

The easy fix, of course, is to (a) divide award XP by some value or (b) multiply required xp by some value. Either will slow the rate of progression if that's what you want.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 27, 2007)

For 3e we divide XP by 2, giving advancement rate about 1/6 sessions.

For C&C and B/X D&D I generally don't give treasure XP per se, but will give up to x5 or even x10 regular monster XP; x10 if there's a major goal achieved at the same time.  This gives similar advancement to 3e at 1/2 XP (1/6 sessions) at low level, slower later.


----------



## an_idol_mind (Mar 27, 2007)

Dr Simon said:
			
		

> The easy fix, of course, is to (a) divide award XP by some value or (b) multiply required xp by some value. Either will slow the rate of progression if that's what you want.




This sort of brings up another difference between editions: variant rules. While rules options and house rules have always been available in the core books, 3rd edition formalized them a bit with the addition of variant rules sidebars -- not to mention the cornucopia of variant rules that is Unearthed Arcana. For example, in the case of experience, there are a number of sidebars in the DMG talking about faster advancement, slower advancement, and even fixed experience points per adventure/encounter. All with pros and cons discussed.

Previous editions also provided optional rules, such as morale, the original use of THAC0, and proficiencies. In my experience, these options were usually assumed to be standard by many groups (I don't know of any 2e groups that didn't use proficiencies, for example). 3rd edition, however, assumes that the core is standard, with variant rules being rarely used from group to group.


----------



## RFisher (Mar 27, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> With no bonus XP for roleplaying or the like, the PCs each got @ 2500 xp.  That's half a level.  From one encounter.  In 1e or 2e, each PC would have gotten somewhere around 350 XP for the same exact encounter and would require about 2x as much to go up a level.  Wow.




By-the-book, 1e is (mostly) about hunting for treasure; 3e, isn't. 3e is, by-the-book, more about overcoming challenges.

The thing about XP for gp is that it _was_ a "story award". In 1e, you don't travel away from civilization & down into the dungeons below Castle Greyhawk just to fight monsters who aren't bothering anyone. You do it for the gold & magic items. You only fight the monsters to get to the gold. In fact, if you can take the treasure without fighting the monster, you usually will.

Barring the occasional zealous cleric or paladin whose player cares more about roleplaying than XP. Many modules did provide a "growing threat" motivation to broaden the appeal of going to the dungeon, though the XP awards were slow to reflect this shift. Actually, the sheer thrill of adventuring or the enjoyment of playing a role were often reward enough themselves.

Both games, however, encourage the DM to modify XP awards as he sees fit. (IIRC) It's only natural that if you're going to run a 1e campaign that's more about something else than treasure hunting that you should change the XP awards to fit. Likewise, if you want to go for more of a Dungeons Under Castle Greyhawk feel in a 3e game, you _should_ give XP for treasure.

Even though it didn't make it into the rules, Gygax has said that from the start he gave XP for lots of things besides treasure or defeating monsters.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 27, 2007)

Dr Simon said:
			
		

> I understand that the 3rd Ed designers deliberately changed things so that people got to play the higher levels, but the increased rate of advancement is a complaint by some. I've really noticed it at mid-level onwards (about 8 up) where players don't really get much time to learn all the new things that their characters can do before they're saddled with more options (poor them!). It's no wonder you get complaints about all the modifiers in 3rd Ed.




This is one of the biggest changes for me, and my experience of this as a player is the reason that I only award half XP in the games I DM.

When I've been a player in 3rd edition, what I've noticed is that I level up really before I'm mentally ready to do so.  I've just gotten these new spells or new abilities that I've been looking forward to having, and then often as not I level up again even before I've had a chance to use the abilities I've just gained.  It was like being part of a lavish meal in which the plates got taken away before you could take a bite of everything on them.  After 3 or 4 level ups, it got to be really annoying and instead of looking forward to leveling with great anticipation like I was used to I found myself hoping that things would slow down abit so I could enjoy what I had.  

My experience of 1st edition is that you'd use everything you had several times before gaining a level.  In 3rd edition, I feel I can barely expend a daily alotment of spells without gaining a level.  In 1st edition, you hoarded your wand and staff charges against the time you'd really need them.  In 3rd edition, you expend your wand and staff charges as fast as you can because by the time you run out, you'll have already gained 4 levels and your wand will be obselete anyway against the new foes you'll be facing.  The rapid advancement experienced in 3rd edition feels to me as a player as if it is undermining my ability to engage in creative tactical play, because rather than having to use what I have in new ways I'm continually gaining new answers to the problems.

Halfing the standard XP and some judicious fudging of CR's when the system doesn't produce an answer I'm happy with hopefully solves the problem for my players, but I don't really know because I've never been a player with a 3rd edition DM that wanted to slow it down.  Besides which, alot of new players seem to like the level up at the end of (at most) every other session.  Levelling treadmills seem to have become an end unto themselves, as if the goal of the game is to obtain that idealized version of your character you envisioned when you started rather than to enjoy the ride even when (or maybe especially when) you aren't really sure where it is going.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> With no bonus XP for roleplaying or the like, the PCs each got @ 2500 xp.  That's half a level.  From one encounter.  In 1e or 2e, each PC would have gotten somewhere around 350 XP for the same exact encounter and would require about 2x as much to go up a level.  Wow.




As has been mentioned, there was pretty much no reward for whacking critters in 1e.  The xp you got was mostly from coin and flogging magic items.  One of the biggest disconnects IME with talking about 1e is if you played a lot of modules (as I did) or did mostly homebrew.  My 1e days were almost entirely modules, so, coin was very plentiful.  And, because of that, advancement rates were extremely fast as well.  We played in one campaign for about two years and hit about 15th or 16th level.  My current 3e campaign just hit 80 sessions, and the PC's are 15th level.  Pretty close.  And, most of that advancement has been recently as I've been piling on the xp.  



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> For 3e we divide XP by 2, giving advancement rate about 1/6 sessions.
> 
> For C&C and B/X D&D I generally don't give treasure XP per se, but will give up to x5 or even x10 regular monster XP; x10 if there's a major goal achieved at the same time.  This gives similar advancement to 3e at 1/2 XP (1/6 sessions) at low level, slower later.




How long are your sessions?  IME, we've played 4 hour sessions (tabletop) and 3 hour sessions (OpenRPG) and leveled up about 1 ever 5 or 6 sessions.  And that's with strict by the book xp.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 27, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> As has been mentioned, there was pretty much no reward for whacking critters in 1e.  The xp you got was mostly from coin and flogging magic items.  One of the biggest disconnects IME with talking about 1e is if you played a lot of modules (as I did) or did mostly homebrew.  My 1e days were almost entirely modules, so, coin was very plentiful.  And, because of that, advancement rates were extremely fast as well.




That brings up again a point that is so important that it needs to be tacked to the beginning of every post on this subject.

There is very little like a universal experience of 1st edition AD&D because the games varied so completely depending on who was running them, and what rules they followed (or didn't), and how extensive the house rules were.  

It should also be said that your experience of 1st edition modules could vary alot depending on what modules you where talking about and how you played them.  When people want to say that magic and coin and rapid advancement where the norm back in the old days, they are often referring to modules like GDQ.  But coin might not be so plentiful elsewhere even in published modules, or it might be in odd places.  For example, I was looking through ToEE not long ago and noticed that most of the valuable treasure was actually owned by low level peasants (ten's of thousands of gp worth of jewelry and objects of art, magic armor and weapons galore) and that probably the best pure power gamer approach would be to kill off the townsfolk, and after gaining several levels and a horde of magic items, then go 'waste' your time with the much more dangerous but comparitively impoverished monsters.  Needless to say though, I doubt most parties approached the module in that manner.  If they didn't, then magic items and treasure were probably a good deal harder to come by.

And even ToEE is designed like GDQ as an adventure path in which leveling up is required to continue.  If you look at modules with less of an adventure path design, I think you'll find even less emphasis on treasure.


----------



## dcas (Mar 27, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> And even ToEE is designed like GDQ as an adventure path in which leveling up is required to continue.  If you look at modules with less of an adventure path design, I think you'll find even less emphasis on treasure.



There's quite a bit of treasure in B2 IIRC and that is certainly not an "adventure path" (it's totally site-based).


----------



## Numion (Mar 27, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> For example, I was looking through ToEE not long ago and noticed that most of the valuable treasure was actually owned by low level peasants (ten's of thousands of gp worth of jewelry and objects of art, magic armor and weapons galore) and that probably the best pure power gamer approach would be to kill off the townsfolk, and after gaining several levels and a horde of magic items, then go 'waste' your time with the much more dangerous but comparitively impoverished monsters.  Needless to say though, I doubt most parties approached the module in that manner.  If they didn't, then magic items and treasure were probably a good deal harder to come by.




There was a great analysis of ToEE by Quasqueton - the treasure amounts, XP amounts, etc..

The conclusion is that there's Monty Haulish amounts of coin just in the adventure itself, not hidden in peasants homes or in difficult places.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> There was a great analysis of ToEE by Quasqueton - the treasure amounts, XP amounts, etc..





Yes, but that analysis just took raw numbers into account, and didn't examine (for instance) how easy it was to obtain/find areas of given modules, nor how easy it was to identify treasure for what it is.  I ran the updated _Keep on the Borderlands_ (3.X) a little less than a year ago, and I was amazed at how little of the treasure was recognized as such (and hence how little they received).


----------



## Reynard (Mar 27, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> It should also be said that your experience of 1st edition modules could vary alot depending on what modules you where talking about and how you played them.  When people want to say that magic and coin and rapid advancement where the norm back in the old days, they are often referring to modules like GDQ.  But coin might not be so plentiful elsewhere even in published modules, or it might be in odd places.




If I were to run 1E (and I am seriously considering it) I would hew pretty close to what Gygax wrote in the DMG (never having played *any* published 1E adventures, I don't know if the modules followed the DMG advice or not): treasure should be in forms and places that make the pcs work for it, above and beyond the fights and/or traps.  A 1,000 gp gem is good, but a 1,000 gp rare and very fragile vase is better. Statues and paitning and inlaid gems.  After all, if the goal is treasure -- which it seems to be, even moreso that combat -- then the goal should be the hardest thing to attain.

I was very surprised by a great deal of the suggestion in the 1E DMG regarding encounter design and treasure placement.  It goes so against most of the stories I hear or read about peoples' "old skool" game experiences that I wonder if anyone -- designers included -- actually read the book "back in the day".


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 27, 2007)

dcas said:
			
		

> There's quite a bit of treasure in B2 IIRC and that is certainly not an "adventure path" (it's totally site-based).




About 30,000 gp plus magic items if I remember correctly.  A good wagon load.  And if you got all of that you were almost certainly cheating, and if you weren't, you deserved it.  Like any good Gygaxian module, alot of the treasure was concealed and difficult to find, or was fragile and easily destroyed, or didn't look like treasure and/or was trapped.

Raven is quite right.  A good fraction of that treasure will be missed.  And much of it would be sold for less than its value.

Also remember that in 1st edition, if you had a vase (or potion!) in your backpack and fell into a pit, the DM was perfectly within the rules to call for a saving throw vs. fall from all the breakables you were carrying (and then roll on the potion misability table to see if anything nasty happened as a result!).  Items tended to be not so durable as they are in third.  They tended to exist in the game at a time other than they were being used.


----------



## Numion (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Yes, but that analysis just took raw numbers into account, and didn't examine (for instance) how easy it was to obtain/find areas of given modules, nor how easy it was to identify treasure for what it is.




I might be wrong, but by my memory it did. People called out this "1e fact" that much of the treasure was well hidden. IIRC Quasqueton replied that only a tiny minority was.

About the identification, I dunno .. sounds a bit incredible that a major factor in treasure gaining was throwing away / selling cheap stuff because you didn't know what it was. Anyway, the amounts were so Monty Haulish that a few trinkets getting lost in the mix wouldn't really affect the overall haul.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> I might be wrong, but by my memory it did. People called out this "1e fact" that much of the treasure was well hidden. IIRC Quasqueton replied that only a tiny minority was.




I'd have to go through the adventure again to pull out numbers and gp value, but from my play experience (many groups, many times) I'd have to say that the barest fraction of potential wealth comes out of B2.  Indeed, I first encountered B2 as a player, and I got almost nothing for my pains compared to what is in there.

Of course, this might go down to campaign styles/DMing styles as well.  I, for one, never assume that magic weapon automatically glow when held, and have never played with a DM who did.  That might account for some of the difference.

In any event, replying that only a small minority was hidden is not the same thing as doing an actual analysis.



> About the identification, I dunno .. sounds a bit incredible that a major factor in treasure gaining was throwing away / selling cheap stuff because you didn't know what it was.




Why not?  It happens in my 3.X game all the time.     

As an easy example, foodstuffs, crates of mercantile goods, and even a barrel of wine might be valuable, but how many 1st level parties have a cart to haul that stuff around in?  And, if they do have a cart, who wants to guard it - and whatever pulls it - while the rest of the party goes into the caves?

IMC, the caves changed in response to the PCs (and this is actually suggested to occur in the text of the module).  So, when the PCs cleared out the orc males and went on to the bugbear caves, the (noncombatant) orc females and young grabbed what they could when they left.  A similar thing happened with the bugbears.  And, in the case of my 3.X PCs, they simply couldn't bring themselves to butcher/bully the noncombatants to get their stuff, even when they saw them flee the caves.

(The prisoners in the bugbear caves were great.  I changed one to a dwarf seeking a lost mine, one to an orc - who turned out to be cohort material - and the betraying berserker became an Alderhald...my world's Vikings...that couldn't speak their language.  Really, really good fun all around.    )


----------



## Numion (Mar 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I'd have to go through the adventure again to pull out numbers and gp value, but from my play experience (many groups, many times) I'd have to say that the barest fraction of potential wealth comes out of B2.  Indeed, I first encountered B2 as a player, and I got almost nothing for my pains compared to what is in there.




I'm confused .. I thought we were talking about ToEE. I don't know about B2 .. unless that is ToEE  

Disregard.



> As an easy example, foodstuffs, crates of mercantile goods, and even a barrel of wine might be valuable, but how many 1st level parties have a cart to haul that stuff around in?  And, if they do have a cart, who wants to guard it - and whatever pulls it - while the rest of the party goes into the caves?




Well, I don't think 1st level parties shouldn't have less access to cartloads of treasure anyway. But if they do, I think finding guards for the cart would be no problem, considering the xp ratios of treasure vs. creatures in 1E. The carts are where the xp is.



> A similar thing happened with the bugbears.  And, in the case of my 3.X PCs, they simply couldn't bring themselves to butcher/bully the noncombatants to get their stuff, even when they saw them flee the caves.




That's just bad playing. Or was it good?


----------



## jdrakeh (Mar 27, 2007)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> Classes,  races, (ok, these first two are combined in the RC) levels,hit points, spells, monsters, alingment, XP and treasure as the two primary (mechanical) rewards...these aren't superficial.
> 
> Even smaller details, like armor as damage avoidance (vs. damage reduction), the predominance of gold and silver coins, encumbrance based on weight, the possibility of attracting henchmen/cohorts and followers at higher levels, the special abilities/qualities of many creatures...these are all things that are noticed in play.
> 
> ...




That's the ticket. I think that the _similarities_ are substantive and the _differences_ are superificial. The main difference is the resolution mechanic -- the current edition of the game uses a single, unified, resolution mechanic where past editions had a myriad of different roll types for different situations (e.g., roll high to hit, roll low to test abilities, roll percentile to creep in shadows, etc). Other than that one thing being done very differently, I don't see a great many substantial differences in _design_ between the many editions of D&D.

[Edit: To clarify, I once thought differently, but my life philosophy has changed a great deal since then and, as a result, so has my outlook on life.]

[Re-Edit: Changed my initial edit to remove any possibility of it being perceived as espousing malicious intent.]


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> That's just bad playing. Or was it good?





Good, says I.

One of the orc clans had their surviors dedicate themselves to the prowess of one of the PCs.      They renamed themselves the "Two Swords" clan.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Mar 27, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> If I were to run 1E (and I am seriously considering it) I would hew pretty close to what Gygax wrote in the DMG (never having played *any* published 1E adventures, I don't know if the modules followed the DMG advice or not): treasure should be in forms and places that make the pcs work for it, above and beyond the fights and/or traps.  A 1,000 gp gem is good, but a 1,000 gp rare and very fragile vase is better. Statues and paitning and inlaid gems.  After all, if the goal is treasure -- which it seems to be, even moreso that combat -- then the goal should be the hardest thing to attain.
> 
> I was very surprised by a great deal of the suggestion in the 1E DMG regarding encounter design and treasure placement.  It goes so against most of the stories I hear or read about peoples' "old skool" game experiences that I wonder if anyone -- designers included -- actually read the book "back in the day".





By jove, I think you've got it.

Also: re the old modules?  Yes...and no.  The "big seven" (*G1, G2, G3, D1, D2, D3* and *Q1*) are very clear vis-a-vis combat.  Not much in the way of "alternate" rules introduced in those.  However, much of the rest is left up to the DM in many instances in those modules.  They're not meant to be opened and run without reading through and doing some work, first, so watch out for that.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Mar 27, 2007)

Nevermind


----------



## Reynard (Mar 27, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> That's the ticket. I think that the _similarities_ are substantive and the _differences_ are superificial. The main difference is the resolution mechanic -- the current edition of the game uses a single, unified, resolution mechanic where past editions had a myriad of different roll types for different situations (e.g., roll high to hit, roll low to test abilities, roll percentile to creep in shadows, etc). Other than that one thing being done very differently, I don't see a great many substantial differences in _design_ between the many editions of D&D.




See, I have a hard time understanding how people can *not* see the huge gulf of differences between editions that I do.  That doesn't mean you're wrong, of course, or even that I'm right.  But when I look at things _aside_ from the resolution mechanic, I see only superficially similar games -- lots of the same names, lots of the same tropes, but games that are played differently, designed with different intents and provide different experiences.  because my own tastes vary a lot, I don't see any edition as particularly superior to another, but still, to me, they are not the same game.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Mar 27, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> See, I have a hard time understanding how people can *not* see the huge gulf of differences between editions that I do...to me, they are not the same game.



You're not alone; my opinion is similar.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Mar 27, 2007)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> You're not alone; my opinion is similar.




*cough* same here.


----------



## Numion (Mar 27, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> See, I have a hard time understanding how people can *not* see the huge gulf of differences between editions that I do.




I still gather around with my friends, imagine a group of fantasy folk, venture into dangerous places, kill what we can and take what we find.  For me _that's_ the D&D experience. So I'd say the experience hasn't changed as much as for you.

The mechanics are much better nowadays, and that makes the game more enjoyable, but a typical adventurers day is much the same as before. The thrill of success and agony of defeat are still there. That's what the game is about for me, and was from the start until I got fed up with 1E rules and switched games for 10 years.


----------



## darkseraphim (Mar 27, 2007)

On the 1E treasure tangent - most players who remark on the prevalence of magic items in the published modules conveniently ignore the item saving throw chart in the DMG.  Every fireball, pit, crushing blow etc. is potentially a treasure-destroying catastrophe.

One hand gives, and the other takes away just as quickly.  These items are temporal, you get a sense of "use 'em or lose 'em" and about 50% of the items (if that) survive to the end of the adventure, for experience or GP awards.

Also, 1E has lots of hirelings who are hungry for +1 swords and such.  Boost their morale with a nice gift, however short-lived it may be.

Anyone who says that the Gygaxian 1E modules are overloaded would have to (a) ignore his paragraph where he says it's up to you flesh this module out and change everything to fit your campaign, (b) ignore the saving throws for items, and (c) ignore the DMG hints on how to relieve PCs of treasure (theft etc.).  I think it's the fact that everyone reads these things so selectively, pointing out what they want while ignoring the counter-balances, that makes them seem overpowered.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 27, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> See, I have a hard time understanding how people can *not* see the huge gulf of differences between editions that I do.  That doesn't mean you're wrong, of course, or even that I'm right.  But when I look at things _aside_ from the resolution mechanic, I see only superficially similar games -- lots of the same names, lots of the same tropes, but games that are played differently, designed with different intents and provide different experiences.  because my own tastes vary a lot, I don't see any edition as particularly superior to another, but still, to me, they are not the same game.




My opinion is somewhere between yours and those that say that they are almost exactly the same game.

I don't think that the games are merely superficially similar.  I think that they are far more alike than they are different.  But I don't think that the differences are trivial either, in as much as I do think that the rules pull the game (and are pulling the game) toward a very much different game than the one I played 20 years ago.  However, I think that with the right DM and the appropriate 'social contract' between the DM and the players that there is no reason why a game which very much like a 1st edition or BD&D game couldn't be played with the 3.X rules.  The problem is that the game seems to have radically changed that social contract and seems to have much more strongly asserted a setting (or as I see it, the lack of one) and a style of play than earlier rules managed to do, to the extent that I've had difficulties playing with players who cut thier teeth on 3rd.

But, back to that caveat, I think that the 1st edition experience was so subjective and broad, and the 3rd edition experience so pliable if you wish it to be, that I completely sympathize with those that see no difference at all regardless of how they were playing now or then.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 28, 2007)

darkseraphim said:
			
		

> On the 1E treasure tangent - most players who remark on the prevalence of magic items in the published modules conveniently ignore the item saving throw chart in the DMG.  Every fireball, pit, crushing blow etc. is potentially a treasure-destroying catastrophe.




Well, yes and no.  The saving throw for most of the expensive items was so ridiculously easy that you didn't lose much all that often.  What did you need for your sword to save vs magical fire, for example.  And, really, reading through those modules, how often were you on the receiving end of a fireball.  Going from memory, for example, take B2 Keep on the Borderlands.  Nothing casts fireball, there's only a few pits to fall into and pretty much nothing else to destroy items.



> One hand gives, and the other takes away just as quickly.  These items are temporal, you get a sense of "use 'em or lose 'em" and about 50% of the items (if that) survive to the end of the adventure, for experience or GP awards.
> 
> Also, 1E has lots of hirelings who are hungry for +1 swords and such.  Boost their morale with a nice gift, however short-lived it may be.




In your experience of course.  Again, looking at modules, the number of times you would lose items potentially is perhaps a lot less than you remember, depending on the campaign.  And, the use of hirelings varied greatly from game to game.  Our game rarely bothered with them for example and pretty much every DM I've ever played under frowned upon hiring lots of mooks.  



> Anyone who says that the Gygaxian 1E modules are overloaded would have to (a) ignore his paragraph where he says it's up to you flesh this module out and change everything to fit your campaign, (b) ignore the saving throws for items, and (c) ignore the DMG hints on how to relieve PCs of treasure (theft etc.).  I think it's the fact that everyone reads these things so selectively, pointing out what they want while ignoring the counter-balances, that makes them seem overpowered.




Again, this first bit of ignoring the paragraphs gets a lot towards the aforementioned schizophrenic nature of 1e.  Sure, on one hand he talks about stealing items, and changing this or that.  On the other, he's pretty emphatic on dictating to you how the game should be played.  

We used saving throws for items for example, but, IME, it didn't make a whole lot of difference.  At low levels it rarely comes up and at high levels the items you have save almost automatically.


----------



## an_idol_mind (Mar 28, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> See, I have a hard time understanding how people can *not* see the huge gulf of differences between editions that I do.  That doesn't mean you're wrong, of course, or even that I'm right.  But when I look at things _aside_ from the resolution mechanic, I see only superficially similar games -- lots of the same names, lots of the same tropes, but games that are played differently, designed with different intents and provide different experiences.  because my own tastes vary a lot, I don't see any edition as particularly superior to another, but still, to me, they are not the same game.




In my experience, while the rules have changed dramatically over the years (sometimes for the better, sometimes not), the campaigns I've run have remained largely the same. My campaigns have largely retained the same feel as they used to. Moreover, there's nothing the old rules allowed that I can't manage under the current rules set -- and vice-versa, with some house rules. The mechanics have changed dramatically, but the feel of the games I've played has not.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 28, 2007)

an_idol_mind said:
			
		

> In my experience, while the rules have changed dramatically over the years (sometimes for the better, sometimes not), the campaigns I've run have remained largely the same. My campaigns have largely retained the same feel as they used to. Moreover, there's nothing the old rules allowed that I can't manage under the current rules set -- and vice-versa, with some house rules. The mechanics have changed dramatically, but the feel of the games I've played has not.




I'm not disagreeing with this at all, but I wonder if DM's and players feel differently about the changes.  I see alot of posts about DM's who wouldn't mind or even want  to run an older edition of D&D and the post usually ends with...but I could never get my players to switch back, or I would have a hard time getting them to switch back.  If it's the same play experience why is this?  Just some food for thought.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 28, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> I'm not disagreeing with this at all, but I wonder if DM's and players feel differently about the changes.  I see alot of posts about DM's who wouldn't mind or even want  to run an older edition of D&D and the post usually ends with...but I could never get my players to switch back, or I would have a hard time getting them to switch back.  If it's the same play experience why is this?  Just some food for thought.




I know that in one of my groups, there is a player that would not play an older edition, because he thinks fast levelling, mountains of items, and cool powers are what makes a game fun.  he's not wrong.  I just don't run D&D for him anymore.


----------



## an_idol_mind (Mar 28, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> I'm not disagreeing with this at all, but I wonder if DM's and players feel differently about the changes.  I see alot of posts about DM's who wouldn't mind or even want  to run an older edition of D&D and the post usually ends with...but I could never get my players to switch back, or I would have a hard time getting them to switch back.  If it's the same play experience why is this?  Just some food for thought.




Well, I'm actually one of those guys who won't run a game from certain editions anymore. I simply won't run AD&D anymore, as I've grown disenchanted with those rules, be they 1e or 2e. That said, it's not that I can't run the type of game I want with AD&D; those rules are just as capable and flexible as 3e. I just happen to like a unified mechanics system, and don't want to bother with some rolls that need to be high, some that need to be low, some that are percentage rolls, others that are d20s, etc.

But while everyone has mechanical preferences, I think the game still allows for the same amount of flexibility and fun in any edition. I can pull out Keep on the Borderlands and run it with the 3.5 rules pretty easily. I can also pick up The Sunless Citadel and throw some 1st edition AD&D characters through that adventure and have a lot of fun. The mechanics have changed, but I don't think the flexibility or spirit of the system has.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 28, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I know that in one of my groups, there is a player that would not play an older edition, because he thinks fast levelling, mountains of items, and cool powers are what makes a game fun.  he's not wrong.  I just don't run D&D for him anymore.




In your experience of course.  

IME, mountains of items pretty much is exactly what 1e was about.  1 MILLION gp's worth of cash treasure in the G series alone.  Never mind the cash value of the literally hundreds of magic items contained therein.

IME, we leveled every 4-6 sessions.  18 month campaign ended at 16th level.  Yup, that's the same.

IME, you were pretty much gods among men after about 5th level.  Other than some very, very few monsters, nothing could touch you in melee combat.  Heck, in this thread alone, we had people talking about how reasonable it might be for 5th level characters to kill a type VI demon.

That last one is one of the biggest differences for me.  I still can't get used to the fact that at any given level, a PC is about two full attacks away from being dead from most equal CR critters.  You could stand naked in front of most 1e monsters for a couple of rounds before you started to get worried.  It took bloody armies to challenge PC's.  Look at Keep on the Borderlands.  There's encounters in there for 1st or 2nd level characters with 20 (ish) orcs or goblins.  These are encounters the players are expected to win.  While the EL calculations tend to break down in 3e with that many critters, that's an EL 5 encounter.  Pretty much certain death for 1st level characters and probably 2nd as well.

Talk about the powerups all you like, but, that's nothing compared to the huge increase in power the monsters got.


----------



## Rothe (Mar 28, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Well, yes and no.  The saving throw for most of the expensive items was so ridiculously easy that you didn't lose much all that often.  What did you need for your sword to save vs magical fire, for example.  And, really, reading through those modules, how often were you on the receiving end of a fireball.  Going from memory, for example, take B2 Keep on the Borderlands.  Nothing casts fireball, there's only a few pits to fall into and pretty much nothing else to destroy items.
> 
> 
> In your experience of course.  Again, looking at modules, the number of times you would lose items potentially is perhaps a lot less than you remember, depending on the campaign.  And, the use of hirelings varied greatly from game to game.  Our game rarely bothered with them for example and pretty much every DM I've ever played under frowned upon hiring lots of mooks.




My experience as well.  And IIRC, the item needs to save against fireball and such only if you fail your save.  The thing that broke alot were flasks of oil, remember those, since they were designed to break it was hard to argue against them breaking if you fell down a pit.

Same here on hiring mooks, especially since they could die so easily.  For groups that played "goods" mooks were more of a liabillity than help.


----------



## RFisher (Mar 28, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> There is very little like a universal experience of 1st edition AD&D because the games varied so completely depending on who was running them, and what rules they followed (or didn't), and how extensive the house rules were.




While it is true that there's a huge range of ways 1e was played, I think there are a _huge_ number of people who played it in very roughly similar ways. They played it mostly as they had the Basic rules that they started with (or that the veterans in the group started with). They ignored armor v. weapon adjustments, the intracacies of initiative, the unarmed combat rules. They let PCs with multiple attacks take them all at once. &c.

In fact, 3e reflects much of how the majority played AD&D. Things that were ignored or informally house ruled by most people in AD&D became the written rule in 3e. 3e went farther than that, of course, but I remember seeing a lot of that as I read through the PHB the first time.

Of course, I have no rigorous study to back that up, but that's the impression I've gotten as I've talked & gamed with more & more gamers outside my original group.



			
				jdrakeh said:
			
		

> That's the ticket. I think that the _similarities_ are substantive and the _differences_ are superificial. The main difference is the resolution mechanic -- the current edition of the game uses a single, unified, resolution mechanic where past editions had a myriad of different roll types for different situations (e.g., roll high to hit, roll low to test abilities, roll percentile to creep in shadows, etc). Other than that one thing being done very differently, I don't see a great many substantial differences in _design_ between the many editions of D&D.




The unified mechanic (to me) is a superficial change. So, I roll 15 or better on a d20 instead of 25 or less on d%. No substantial difference.

The variable DC, however--the fact that most rolls in 3e have both a modifier for the character _and_ a variable difficulty whereas rolls in older editions often only had the first--that's a much more substantial change (to me).

The expansion of the mechanical character build is also a much more substantial change to me.

(Incidentally, both of those substantial changes are things that I don't consider either positive or negative. They're substantial changes, but I can fully embrace & enjoy either direction on those issues depending upon what game I'm playing.)

Of course, since I bailed on all things D&D in the early 2e years, any changes I attribute to 3e may have actually happened in late 2e (or even late classic).


----------



## Particle_Man (Mar 28, 2007)

Looking over Castles and Crusades I can see some differences that I think carry over into 1st ed.

In 1st ed., Basic/Expert and C&C, Fireballs are nasty.  Wizard types cast fireballs and people around them watch in awe as monsters and enemies turn into barbecues.  And a 20th level wizard that cast Fireball?  YOWCH!  Buff spells exist, but are relatively rare, in comparison.

In 3rd ed., Fireballs are minor ways to deal with minor monsters, or moderately inconvenience major ones.  Monsters simply have too many hit points for fireball to be a threat (and there are level caps on fireballs too).  The wizards are better off staying away from evocation type magic.  Buff spells, on the other hand, are commonly used to "pump up" the meelee combat types in campaigns I play in.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 28, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Talk about the powerups all you like, but, that's nothing compared to the huge increase in power the monsters got.




Totally agree - 1e PCs of equivalent level are far more powerful compared to the monsters, and 1e PCs and NPCs of equivalent level typically had far more MI than in 3e.  This was true up to about 13th level, by which time the 1e PC would likely be topped out with +5 gear and can go toe to toe with demigods.  The 3e PC doesn't get +5 until around 15th, but then starts pulling ahead; by 20th it's +10 equivalent, and on and on.


----------



## khyron1144 (Mar 28, 2007)

One aspect of 2e that I really liked were all the sections highlighted in blue and explicitly labelled as optional extra rules.  3.x needs more of this, for example, the whole Attacks of Oppurtunity thing.


I said a lot more about the subject of past edititons vs. the current one, here, but I don't know if x-posting the entire thing would be wise.


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 28, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> In fact, 3e reflects much of how the majority played AD&D. Things that were ignored or informally house ruled by most people in AD&D became the written rule in 3e. 3e went farther than that, of course, but I remember seeing a lot of that as I read through the PHB the first time.




2E did a lot of that as well, for things like Infravision. Most people ignored the pseudo science behind it (which simply invited a lot of rules-lawyering and plain silly stunts) and just said 'you can see in the dark like it was daytime'. And that's what the rule became.

I know that late in the 2E games, our most popular houserule was that clerics didn't have to memorize spells. They just cast what they wanted to up to the limit of their spell slots; in effect, they were sorcerers with a vastly larger spell list. We didn't notice any appreciable change in power level at all. Apparently that was a very popular house rule, and from that comes the Sorcerer and spontaneous Healing or Summoning spells.

Any new edition has to look at how people actually play the game, then move things more towards that direction. I think that's why in the next edition, 3.75 or 4E or whatever they call it, we'll see things like AoO dropped or made an optional rule, the number of modifiers clarified to a greater degree, a different method of tracking bonuses, and some clean-up in the spell department. Looking at how people actually use the rules is probably the most important part of design. A rule that constantly gets ignored, house-ruled, or has to be explained over and over and over again is clearly a bad rule and needs to be discarded or changed.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 30, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Looking at how people actually use the rules is probably the most important part of design. A rule that constantly gets ignored, house-ruled, or has to be explained over and over and over again is clearly a bad rule and needs to be discarded or changed.




QFT.


----------



## Numion (Mar 30, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Looking at how people actually use the rules is probably the most important part of design. A rule that constantly gets ignored, house-ruled, or has to be explained over and over and over again is clearly a bad rule and needs to be discarded or changed.




Speaking of differences between editions, what does this tell about 1e? If these boards are to be believed, everyone houseruled a lot and nobody played by the same rules (which people say is how Gygax intended it - his stated opinion from that period saying the complete opposite notwithstanding, as always   ).

If your statement is true, 1e rules weren't really good.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 1, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Speaking of differences between editions, what does this tell about 1e? If these boards are to be believed, everyone houseruled a lot and nobody played by the same rules (which people say is how Gygax intended it - his stated opinion from that period saying the complete opposite notwithstanding, as always   ).
> 
> If your statement is true, 1e rules weren't really good.





That would only follow in relation to the rules that were routinely and almost universally ignored, such as the unarmed combat rules.  Those rules I would certainly agree were less than stellar.      Also, regardless of some of Gygax's later statements, it is very clear in the 1e rulebooks that 1e was intended to be modified to fit the needs of the groups playing it when it was written.

Interestingly enough, there are an increasing number of posts in which people admit that they houserule 3.X to varying degrees.  This doesn't make it a bad ruleset; the ability to housrule makes a ruleset _flexable_.

RC


----------



## RFisher (Apr 2, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Speaking of differences between editions, what does this tell about 1e? If these boards are to be believed, everyone houseruled a lot and nobody played by the same rules (which people say is how Gygax intended it - his stated opinion from that period saying the complete opposite notwithstanding, as always   ).
> 
> If your statement is true, 1e rules weren't really good.




OK...to play devil's advocate a bit...

(1) I've often seen people ignore/house-rule something because they _expected_ they wouldn't like it. Then once they actually gave it a try, they discovered that it really was a good rule that they liked.

(2) Often a rule that is widely ignored/house-ruled is just explained badly in the rules.

Of course improving the sales pitch or cleaning up the description could qualify as the "needs to be...changed" part of WayneLigon statement.

(3) I think there is room in an RPG for rules that aren't for every group.

One of the things I really hate is when a perfectly-good-but-not-for-everyone rule gets a overhaul in an attempt to get more people to use it. The people who didn't use it will likely continue to ignore it while the people who were happy with it will be annoyed that it was "nerfed".

(Truth be told, though, I'm often happy in these discussions that I'm usually only advocating for classic D&D & not AD&D! ^_^)


----------



## an_idol_mind (Apr 2, 2007)

As to the whole house rules mean the system is broken thing...

Is there anyone who doesn't add house rules to any version of D&D? I have never, ever, ever run any version of D&D where I didn't make some house rules of my own. Even when I was learning the game, I tweaked things here and there. I've never even played in a D&D game that was strictly rules as written. For everybody who mentions that older editions were either great because they could be house ruled or broken because they had to be house ruled, I find myself changing just as much in 3e than I did in those older games. D&D has always been a modular system made to be tweaked and changed, and I don't think the game has come close to losing that, for good or ill.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 2, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Early on, D&D was criticized for focusing on 'What a character could do' rather than 'Who the character was (in the context of the game universe)'.  This may have been due to D&D's roots in tactical war gaming.   This tactical/mechanical emphasis was balanced by the fact that D&D was a very rules light game system, by comparison to just about anything that came out after it.  This took a system which could err too much toward pushing peices around the (often vitual) board in a complex game of checkers, and forced on it other sorts of problem solving.  Yes, it put a psychologically expensive burden on the DM, but it also in the same fashion challenged the player to think and role play if the DM wasa willing to take up the challenge.  And this was good, because ultimately a game entirely about marching order and rolling dice would be pretty trite and limited.
> 
> As D&D evolved to a more robust rules set (I won't say 'good' here, because its such a loaded term), a couple things changed.  First, having rules explicitly encouraged all sorts of things and tactics and problem solving approaches that were only implicit and a matter of often hesitant DM fiat before.   And the rules were fairer and covered better a large number of situations, which took alot of burden of judgement off the DM (but not entirely, because no rules are perfect).  But as a result, the game became even more about 'what the character could do', and less 'who the character was'.   Interestingly, and maybe even more importantly, it also became even less about 'who the player was' since so many mechanics previously governed by player choice (say going about searching a room) can now be abstracted to a die roll, and maybe even implicitly or explicitly are abstracted to a die roll.   There is even a tendancy toward abstracting the role play itself with a die roll, "I attempt to presuade the troll to let us pass.  Ok, make a diplomacy check.  *clatter* *clatter*".   And while none of this is necessarily new or forced on the DM/group by the new rules, it is alot easier for a game to drift that way and settle there.
> 
> ...



Dang it, why do I always find the fun interesting threads while I am at work with limited time    

I think you hit the nail on the head.  The game has become less about role-playing and more about the die roll or how much you can min/max a character.  Yes, there will always be the need for dice and die rolls, but you can almost take a dungeon magazine and run an advneture without a DM.  I say almost because you can do this now, however, if there is a mystery, or a turn coat NPC, you will unjustly find that information out sooner than intended.

DMing used to be a lot more involved.  Sadly, player's really have taken over the game.  Another contributing factor is the sheer amount of crap that WOTC puts out.  Yes, I know they have a lot of employees that need their jobs and if they didn't put out new stuff all the time, many would lose those jobs; so let's not go down that road.  However, do we really need 20+ Forgotten Realms books?  The quick answer is no.  The only reason most people buy these books, at least the people I know who buy these books, is because they have a tons of new spells, classes or feats and make their already powerful characters even more powerful at the same level.

It seems the buying guide on content of a D&D book is less about what is inside and more about the classes, feats and spells.  If they don't offer these in the book, or they have a poor selection, they are not bought, for the most part.  Classes, feats and spells (and even magical items) that push the game to new heights and abuse old rules eventually ruin the game.

How many times have you started a game with a bunch of friends and they say you can use any material from any book versus you can use the core rules and that is it?

Anyway, I'll have to read the rest of this thread later.  Very good insight so far.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 3, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Dang it, why do I always find the fun interesting threads while I am at work with limited time
> 
> I think you hit the nail on the head.  The game has become less about role-playing and more about the die roll or how much you can min/max a character.  Yes, there will always be the need for dice and die rolls, but you can almost take a dungeon magazine and run an advneture without a DM.  I say almost because you can do this now, however, if there is a mystery, or a turn coat NPC, you will unjustly find that information out sooner than intended.




Oh, look, it's that poor horse being beaten to death yet again.  Won't someone just shoot the darn thing?



> DMing used to be a lot more involved.




Yet, one of the biggest complaints about 3e is how much time and work it takes to be a DM.  Funny that.



> Sadly, player's really have taken over the game.  Another contributing factor is the sheer amount of crap that WOTC puts out.  Yes, I know they have a lot of employees that need their jobs and if they didn't put out new stuff all the time, many would lose those jobs; so let's not go down that road.  However, do we really need 20+ Forgotten Realms books?  The quick answer is no.  The only reason most people buy these books, at least the people I know who buy these books, is because they have a tons of new spells, classes or feats and make their already powerful characters even more powerful at the same level.




Wow, we have a mixture of player entitlement whining AND cheap shots at WOTC for being the evil company that they are.  Nice combo.  20+ FR books?  Umm, have you looked at the number of FR books TSR cranked out?  Plus, even after all these books, the cleric, druid and wizard are STILL the most powerful classes in the game.  So much for power creep.



> It seems the buying guide on content of a D&D book is less about what is inside and more about the classes, feats and spells.  If they don't offer these in the book, or they have a poor selection, they are not bought, for the most part.  Classes, feats and spells (and even magical items) that push the game to new heights and abuse old rules eventually ruin the game.




Have you actually opened the covers of a WOTC book in the last two years?  Haven't you noticed all the complaints that the books are too fluff heavy?  PrC's now taking up three or four pages where they used to be one?  Plus, the rather large amount of dead trees devoted to toning down the mistakes of the past, like polymorph?  But, I suppose actually taking a look at the facts would get in the way of a good rant.



> How many times have you started a game with a bunch of friends and they say you can use any material from any book versus you can use the core rules and that is it?
> 
> Anyway, I'll have to read the rest of this thread later.  Very good insight so far.




All the time.  I've never played in a game where you can use any material from any book.  And, I'm willing to bet that those who have are in a very small minority.  I could be wrong, but, somehow I think the spineless DM scenario where he's being run roughshod by his players is yet another Internet bugaboo that gets tossed around.

Besides, if you want some good powercreep, let's hear it for Faiths and Avatars and Unearthed Arcana.  Two books that aren't powercreep, but power leaps!  Yes, fighters need 3/2 attacks and +3 to hit and damage at first level, thank you for asking.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 3, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Yet, one of the biggest complaints about 3e is how much time and work it takes to be a DM.  Funny that.




DMing can be more time-consuming without being more involving, Hussar.  There is no dichotomy here.  In fact, I think that this is really the #1 complaint I have with 3e (and, I note, the new _Star Wars Saga Edition_ seems intent on addressing the issues that making DMing time-consuming for relatively little reward, so WotC seems to be aware of the problem as well).



> All the time.  I've never played in a game where you can use any material from any book.  And, I'm willing to bet that those who have are in a very small minority.  I could be wrong, but, somehow I think the spineless DM scenario where he's being run roughshod by his players is yet another Internet bugaboo that gets tossed around.




Dismissing everything contrary to your position does not a rational argument make.     One could just as easily (and just as wrongly) claim that the 3e game where these things _do not happen_ is the Phantom of the Internet.

Power-ups and splat books certainly existed in previous editions.  Of course, the DM was recognized to have more authority in those editions (the recognition, not the authority, being the thing that has changed).  Earlier editions suggested that if you were uncomfortable with something as a DM, you should say No.  3e suggests that you should say Yes unless you can come up with a compelling argument otherwise.  That's a substantive difference _if you allow it to influence how you run your game_.

Of course, I am a big fan of what was done rules-wise (even though I think that combat should not have been brought to squares, and the Arcana Unearthed method of dealing with weapon size is much, much, much better than the 3.5 method).  What I dislike about the edition is much of the advice and flavour text, and I can easily ignore/rewrite that.

I also don't care for most of the default assumptions.  Of course, I can chuck them out the door easily enough, too.

I love the OGL.  Without the OGL, I wouldn't have all the options I do for replacing whatever official material I think needs replacement to give the game the feel I am looking for.  Without the OGL, I wouldn't have the plethora of ideas out there, many of which I wouldn't be suitable to DM, but that I would have a blast playing in.  WotC deserves a hell of a lot of kudos just for opening up the system.  TSR not only did not do so, but activley pursued/shut down D&D websites.

The OGL makes 3.X easy to modify.

For the record, I think prestige classes are a great idea, although I think that many of the actual PrCs out there sort of suck.  For those who say that PrCs are too limiting for PCs, I say "So what?  Use them for NPCs!"  


RC


----------



## Hussar (Apr 3, 2007)

From Page 6 of the 3.0 DMG (I don't actually have the 3.5 DMG)



			
				DMG said:
			
		

> Let's start with the biggest secret of all, the key to Dungeon Mastering... The secret is that you're in charge.  This is not the telling-everyone-what-to-do sort of in charge.  Rather, you get to decide how your player group is going to play this game, when and where the adventures take place and what happens.  You get to decid how the rules work, which rules to use and how strictly to adhere to them. _That_ kind of in charge.




How much more clearly can they state that the DM has total and complete control over what gets into the game?  Sure, they do say in other places that if something is ok, you should say yes, but, the straight up, bottom line in the DMG is that the DM is in charge.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 3, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> How much more clearly can they state that the DM has total and complete control over what gets into the game?  Sure, they do say in other places that if something is ok, you should say yes, but, the straight up, bottom line in the DMG is that the DM is in charge.





Well, 

(1)  They could say that it wasn't a secret, and

(2)  They could print it in big bold letters at the front of the PHB (as was done in 1e), so that the players also know that the DM is in charge.

I might also add

(3)  They could couch all that "Just say Yes" stuff as advice reflecting one playstyle, rather than making a blanket statement.

EDIT:

(4)  They could refer to the DM being in charge in more than one place, so you don't have to hunt for the quote, as was done in previous editions.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Well,
> 
> (1)  They could say that it wasn't a secret, and
> 
> ...




QFT


----------



## molonel (Apr 4, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Well,
> 
> (1)  They could say that it wasn't a secret, and
> 
> ...




Shoulda coulda woulda.

It's there, it's clear, and it's in plain English.


----------



## SuStel (Apr 4, 2007)

As originally conceived, the job of the Dungeon Master is twofold: he is the creator of the game world, and he arbitrates the effects of the player's choices.

The original D&D set provided a basic framework of rules on how things played out. For most actions the players wanted to take, it was the job of the DM to decide whether these actions were successful. This is why, before the term _Dungeon Master_ was introduced in Supplement III, the position was called _judge_ or _referee_.

With d20, the world-creator role remains intact, but the action-arbitrator role is significantly reduced. Most actions players want to take are covered by a rule. The DM's job during a game has largely gone from arbitrator to a rules interface. Yes, the DM can choose to change a rule, but this isn't what the job was originally about. (And by changing a rule, you are merely changing the ruleset for which you are an interface.)

This is what is meant when one says that DMs have lost the empowerment they had in earlier editions. Player-empowerment has risen because players' choices are as significant as ever, but the DM is no longer much of an arbitrator; he is simply obeying the rulebook in delivering his verdict. And if the DM changes the rules without a good and defensible reason, he's going to be considered unfair by the players. (An original D&D judge had few ways to be correctly considered unfair. Usually these ways included arbitrary lightning bolts from the gods killing your character, and had nothing to do with rules-changes.)


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 4, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Oh, look, it's that poor horse being beaten to death yet again.  Won't someone just shoot the darn thing?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Woo  

I don't even know where to begin.  I read the first three entries and reply before going back to work and I get attacked by someone who clearly woke up on the wrong side of a die roll.

What seems to be funny is you make part of my arguement for me.    

Anyway, you are not very civil, so I will not comment further to your replies.

Good stuff from the rest of you though


----------



## Thurbane (Apr 4, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Yeah, as GM I don't want or need the kind of demonic authority Gygax seems to assume is the DM's prerogative, but I do need more than 3e is prepared to let me have, if I'm to run a good game.  There are plenty of games in-between, including most other versions of D&D.  The B/X-BECMI-RC D&D line is a good example, so is C&C.



This sums up my own experience exactly.

Fortunately, I play with, and DM for, a group where we do respect the DMs position to the extent that we might question some rulings, but always accept his final word (with truly epic disagreements being settled outside of game time).

I guess it's fair to say that there is a lot I really like about 3E, and also a fair amount that I think earlier editions handled better - or if not "better", as such, more to my own tastes...


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 4, 2007)

SuStel said:
			
		

> As originally conceived, the job of the Dungeon Master is twofold: he is the creator of the game world, and he arbitrates the effects of the player's choices.
> 
> The original D&D set provided a basic framework of rules on how things played out. For most actions the players wanted to take, it was the job of the DM to decide whether these actions were successful. This is why, before the term _Dungeon Master_ was introduced in Supplement III, the position was called _judge_ or _referee_.
> 
> ...



I agree with this.

I think though, that the main reason that the players have more control is because there are rules to cover just about anything you want to do in the game.  This includes sex, drinking and going to the bathroom if you have the right pdfs, and they are out there.

Sure it says in the 3.0 and 3.5 DMG that the DM is the master of all and he/she is in charge, but it is not the same as the first statement in the AD&D books that said the same thing.  Why, because of all the rules.  The more rules you have, the more freedom is lost by the DM.  

The rules in OD&D and AD&D where fairly vague, so if you wanted to do something outside of the rules, the DM didn't have a huge set of rules to sift through to see if you could, he just determined you could or could not.  In 3.0, chance are there is a rule to cover whatever you want to do and when you tell a player they can't do something or that the results are different from what they expect, they will show you many different rules and reasons why it could and would work the way they want.  With so many rules and splat books and such, it is very hard to know all the rules.  DMs these days constantly get bombarded with rules they had never seen before.  Even if you just stick to the core books, there are enough rules to sink a ship.

If you ask me, it is the sheer total mass of the rules that try and cover every angle that make a DM almost meaningless.

I loved AD&D, but for me 2nd edition was lacking in a great many things.  I thought 3.0 was nuts.  I liked the feats and skills.  I thought it was a nice element, and I got hooked like a drug to the idea of give me more feats and skills.  In the end though, too many options spoiled 3.0 for me, specially when you start to figure out how to break the game.  In AD&D a player couldn't break the game the way they can today.

3.5 is refreshing.  It gives you the nice stuff and cleaned up rules that make more sense without overpowering the game.  Well, it can still be overpowered, but not as easily broken.

I think that the sheer amount of rules subdues the DM and the increase in higher level character HD and damage amounts ruins play at higher levels.  IMO, the game breaks down mathematically around 14th level.  Gygax realized this when he created AD&D and stopped HD progression after a while and cap damage limits to spells.  Anyway, after this level, the game heavily favors mages and other spell caster, but that is really a different topic all together.


----------



## JeffB (Apr 4, 2007)

SuStel said:
			
		

> As originally conceived, the job of the Dungeon Master is twofold: he is the creator of the game world, and he arbitrates the effects of the player's choices.
> 
> The original D&D set provided a basic framework of rules on how things played out. For most actions the players wanted to take, it was the job of the DM to decide whether these actions were successful. This is why, before the term _Dungeon Master_ was introduced in Supplement III, the position was called _judge_ or _referee_.
> 
> ...




Excellent post. I wholeheartedly agree. especially with this



> the DM is no longer much of an arbitrator; he is simply obeying the rulebook in delivering his verdict.




i.e one step closer to performing the role of a computer.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 4, 2007)

JeffB said:
			
		

> i.e one step closer to performing the role of a computer.




Hmm. Although that's somewhat true for common tasks (e.g. adjudicating whether someone has jumped over a pit), there is so much that the DM can do that the computer can't - particularly in the area of roleplaying.

Cheers!


----------



## Imaro (Apr 4, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Hmm. Although that's somewhat true for common tasks (e.g. adjudicating whether someone has jumped over a pit), there is so much that the DM can do that the computer can't - particularly in the area of roleplaying.
> 
> Cheers!




Maybe that's it...I thought about this post for a while and realized part of the fun for me was creating those on-the-fly judgements or arbitrating the possible in my campaign(It was fun, it was mentally stimulating and gave me a sense of the game being my own.). I felt like I was a part of the game in the same way a player might as they explore the new abilities or levels that defined their character, I got to explore the definitions of my campaign through the rules I introduced and situations I judged.  Now I've been regulated to actor, and really according to the rules the PC's can control how my NPC's act towards them(diplomacy check anyone?).


----------



## MerricB (Apr 4, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Maybe that's it...I thought about this post for a while and realized part of the fun for me was creating those on-the-fly judgements or arbitrating the possible in my campaign(It was fun, it was mentally stimulating and gave me a sense of the game being my own.). I felt like I was a part of the game in the same way a player might as they explore the new abilities or levels that defined their character, I got to explore the definitions of my campaign through the rules I introduced and situations I judged.  Now I've been regulated to actor, and really according to the rules the PC's can control how my NPC's act towards them(diplomacy check anyone?).




I still find myself making on-the-fly judgements; it's just that with 3.5e I have a rules base to back me up. If someone wants to do something special, the skills system give me a guide already as to what is possible, but they don't give you the DC of everything... in those cases the judgement call is necessary.

Cheers!


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 4, 2007)

Right...time to dive in to what's so far been one of the better discussions I've seen here. (let's hope I can help keep it that way!)   Somewhat topic by topic, then: (disclaimer: I have no experience with anything before AD+D other than running various B/X modules)

 - Scaling: 3.x scales at higher levels much better than any previous edition, no question about that.  That said, the point raised that the characters never seem to make any net progress because the foes' powers rise to match their own is valid too; that the perceived lack of randomness make it almost seem like prepackaged fun.  There's a middle ground somewhere for this, I'm sure... 

As for designing areas with greater or lesser challenges, it's easy enough to "steer" the characters to areas they can handle: "There's a Black Dragon lives in those mountains, accordin' to the tales...big mean feller.  Rumour has it the King has to pay 'im off every summer to make sure 'e stays up there and don't come down 'ere.  Ain't seen nobody go up there that didn't think they could handle 'im...and ain't seen none o' those as did come back either.  You sure you want to try your luck?"

 - DM vs. Player power: 3.x allows players to know too much, too soon, leaving as the only real mystery the DM's world (and that Goes Away too if you're running a pre-gen setting e.g. FR, Greyhawk, etc.)   I absolutely agree with whoever it was that said new players who don't necessarily know what they're doing are the best players to have...to them, it's all a mystery, and the joy is in the discovery and learning; about the game, the world, and their characters.  Older editions, for all their other flaws, did a better job of lengthening the learning curve by keeping more info restricted to the DM...and putting it all in arcane prose that seemed mysterious even when it wasn't. 

 - Rule modifying and DM workload: one thing not yet mentioned is that if a given DM does modify the game to suit his-her own tastes, s-he is by extension going to become more familiar with (and personally involved in) the game and thus be able to run it more efficiently through being able to remember a greater percentage of the rules (usually, the ones s-he changed) and having to look less things up in mid-game.  Older editions tended to be modified more, giving DMs that personal buy-in; now, it seems DMs are being asked to simply memorize rules that they did not write.  Net result: the workload now is about the same, but less personal...if that makes any sense...and thus less fun.

 - Searching: that whole bit about looking behind the painting shows up the differences between editions far better than anything else I've seen.  That said, if I ever ran a 3.x game I'd still ask for more specific actions than "we search, take 20" just on principle. 

Lanefan


----------



## Dr Simon (Apr 4, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> For the record, I think prestige classes are a great idea, although I think that many of the actual PrCs out there sort of suck.  For those who say that PrCs are too limiting for PCs, I say "So what?  Use them for NPCs!"




This is veering away from the topic in hand and towards PrCs in general, but I agree.  I went away from D&D for a long long time because I felt that the (1st Ed.) rules were crap and arbitrarily limiting, and played RuneQuest instead.  As I understand it, the Rune Lord and Rune Priests of RQ Glorantha partly inspired the Prestige Classes, as in if your character meets certain pre-requisites you can gain access to other abilities that are specific to a partcular cult or culture.  

RQ is chock full of cults, priests and spells that are useless for adventurers (would you really becoem a priestess of Voria, Spring Virgin and be able to produce flowers at a touch and befriend small cute animals?) but their existence informs and defines the world in which adventures happen.  I see no problem with such things existing. I dislike the 3.5 PrCs that they introduced that (a) are just a cheap form of multi-classing with no feeling of an external purpose and (b) violate the original concept that PrCs can be reached via any class (what is the Horizon Walker if not a Ranger+ ?).

Anyway... the idea is present in 1st Ed. in the Bard and the Thief-Acrobat. It's the difference in multi-classing rules that enables them.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 4, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> I think that the sheer amount of rules subdues the DM...




Yeah, that's a great analogy.  Running high level 3e I sometimes feel like a 1st ed MM red dragon getting bludgeoned into submission, my treasure hoard looted, and turned into a mount for the PCs!


----------



## FireLance (Apr 4, 2007)

On the issue of rules subduing the DM, I'd just like to chime in with a contrary view. 

I think that whether you prefer a less comprehensive rules set that allows a DM more flexibility in making things up, or whether you prefer a more comprehensive rules set that a DM can just take and use depends very much on your strengths as a DM.

I personally find that the more comprehensive rules of 3.5e play to my strengths as a DM. I have a good memory, so I can remember even the more obscure rules (or at least, I can usually remember where to look and find them in a minute or less). I'm good at adaptation, so if there is something that is not quite covered by the rules, I can extrapolate from a similar rule based on my understanding of the 3e design philosophy. I'm good at combining existing structures in new ways (it's no accident that one of my favorite toys as a child, before I discovered D&D, was Lego), and a comprehensive rules set gives me lots of fiddly bits to play with. What I am bad at is coming up with stuff on the fly. If I had to do it several times per game session because I was using a less comprehensive rules set, I think the overall quality of my games will suffer.

The way I see it, the DM is in control of so many things - setting, plot, NPCs, challenges, pacing - that he could agree to play by the rules and still be in charge. In fact, some of us prefer it that way!


----------



## Numion (Apr 4, 2007)

Dr Simon said:
			
		

> I went away from D&D for a long long time because I felt that the (1st Ed.) rules were crap and arbitrarily limiting, and played RuneQuest instead.




QFT.  

Except that I went for WFRP. In hindsight I've realized that those rules were very arbitrary, although not as limiting, themself.



> RQ is chock full of cults, priests and spells that are useless for adventurers (would you really becoem a priestess of Voria, Spring Virgin and be able to produce flowers at a touch and befriend small cute animals?) but their existence informs and defines the world in which adventures happen.  I see no problem with such things existing.




I'd see no problem with introducing NPC PrC's, since there already are NPC classes. Anyway, I'd leave it up to the setting books to do this. There's too much material in the core books already.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 4, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Woo
> 
> I don't even know where to begin.  I read the first three entries and reply before going back to work and I get attacked by someone who clearly woke up on the wrong side of a die roll.
> 
> ...




So, it's completely acceptable to make baseless and completely ignorant statements about the game with no factual information, but, when you get called on it, the other person is not very civil.  Riiight.

RC - I don't know how much plainer they can make it.  The first page of my Tome of Magic contains the same caveat - everything in the is book is subject to your DM's approval.  I don't buy that many books, but, I'm fairly sure that that caveat appears elsewhere as well.  I know for a fact it appears several times in Dragon magazine.  

Other than putting it in 30 point type, what else can they do?  Being pedantic and talking about how it's a secret (when that's obviously meant somewhat tongue in cheek) is not making your point very well.

They state it clearly in the DMG that the DM is in charge.  They state it again in supplements.  They state it multiple times in Dragon.  How many times do they have to state it?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 4, 2007)

Out of curiosity I went into some of my other books.  In my 3e Oriental Adventures book, on page 6 under Character Creation Basics



> 0.  Check with you Dungeon Master
> 
> Even more than usual, it is important to find out which of the many options presented in this book are a part of your DM's world.  Find out if you'll be playing in the world of Rokugan or in a different setting and what classes, races and prestige classes your DM will allow.




Now, how's that for empowering your local DM?  The default assumption is that it is important to ask your DM first.  It's doubly important in this book.  

Now, to be fair, my PHB2 did not have this caveat.  It should.  This should be in the introduction for every supplement, just to be able to say that the whole DM's are being held hostage thing is bogus.

At what point can we say that weak spineless DM's who cannot say no to their players is the problem and not the rules?  The rules specifically empower DM's.  It's not hidden anywhere.  It's on the first page of many books that the DM is in charge.  Heck, in the Oriental Adventures book, it actually IS in 30 point bold.   

People point to the large number of books and say that this is a straight jacket for DM's.  That's only true if DM's allow those books in their game.  The rules are pretty clear that the DM should have final say over which books are being used in the game.  A Dm being run roughshod by players is hardly new.  How many extra classes and races came out of the pages of White Dwarf, Dungeon and Role Aids?  How many of those were actually reasonably balanced for play?  Many were and many weren't.

Again, it was totally up to the DM to determine what should go into the game.  That has never changed in any edition.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 4, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I think that whether you prefer a less comprehensive rules set that allows a DM more flexibility in making things up, or whether you prefer a more comprehensive rules set that a DM can just take and use depends very much on your strengths as a DM.
> 
> I personally find that the more comprehensive rules of 3.5e play to my strengths as a DM. I have a good memory, so I can remember even the more obscure rules (or at least, I can usually remember where to look and find them in a minute or less). I'm good at adaptation, so if there is something that is not quite covered by the rules, I can extrapolate from a similar rule based on my understanding of the 3e design philosophy. I'm good at combining existing structures in new ways (it's no accident that one of my favorite toys as a child, before I discovered D&D, was Lego), and a comprehensive rules set gives me lots of fiddly bits to play with. What I am bad at is coming up with stuff on the fly. If I had to do it several times per game session because I was using a less comprehensive rules set, I think the overall quality of my games will suffer.




This is a very good point.  Personally I have a poor memory, but I am very good at improvisation/'coming up with stuff on the fly', as long as I don't have to worry too much about the 'crunch' (mechanics).  I am best in "semi free kriegspiel" mode, with simple mechanics as a jumping off point for my own adjudication.  So unfortunately 3e plays to my weaknesses (rules recall) and hampers my strengths  (improvisation), ie I see now it's just not a very good system for me, whereas it clearly is a good system for some other GMs.  C&C so far seems a better fit.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 4, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, it's completely acceptable to make baseless and completely ignorant statements about the game with no factual information, but, when you get called on it, the other person is not very civil.  Riiight.




Right, Hussar - it's one thing to criticise the game, another thing to make ad hominem attacks on other posters.  I respect you a lot Hussar, but I do think you are too ready to resort to ad hominem attacks on those who post disagreeing with your POV.  You also are prone to make general sweeping statements with no real basis in empirical evidence, as you yourself have acknowledged re speed of levelling in 3e - when you actually did a survey here, you discovered that what everyone else had been telling you was in fact the case (that it takes 3-4 sessions to level, on average), and not just "an Internet myth", as you claimed.  Mote and beam and all that.  
Your posts are already of a high quality generally, but I do think they'd be even better if before posting you stopped more to consider whether the other person might have a point, and even if they don't, whether they are making a legitimate expression of their own opinion.


----------



## Numion (Apr 4, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> You also are prone to make general sweeping statements with no real basis in empirical evidence




This is true of majority of posts in these nostalgia threads (this current post of mine a case in point   )


----------



## S'mon (Apr 4, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> This is true of majority of posts in these nostalgia threads (this current post of mine a case in point   )




Yes - my point to Hussar was not "Don't make sweeping statements" but rather "Don't get angry with other people when they make sweeping statements" because you do it, too.  Just like most of us.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 4, 2007)

Oh, come on.



> The game has become less about role-playing and more about the die roll or how much you can min/max a character.






> Sadly, player's really have taken over the game. Another contributing factor is the sheer amount of crap that WOTC puts out.






> It seems the buying guide on content of a D&D book is less about what is inside and more about the classes, feats and spells.




While I may have gone off on this one, how many times have we seen these same tired old garbage lines trotted out as if they are fact?  Ad hominem?  Gimme a break.  When someone lines up this same garbage time and time again, whether the same person or just someone parroting the party line, it gets annoying.  How are the above anything other than edition bashing?

We've been very good in this thread, for the most part, not to start up with the standard edition warz crap - 3e is a computer game, 3e empowers players and screws over DM's, 3e is too ((Insert vague allegation here)).  Conversely, not too many have taken cheap shots at earlier editions as well.  

I'm very curious as to what actual point DM Rocco is making here other than spouting off the same tired retreads that have been done to death.  Please, stop beating that poor horse.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 4, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> While I may have gone off on this one, how many times have we seen these same tired old garbage lines trotted out as if they are fact?



The sad thing is that, I think, for some of these people these statements are fact FOR THEM and they simply are unable to see that the issue is internal.

I'm all for books with feats and spells and PClasses.  I don't look for roleplaying between the covers of a book.  I look for roleplaying between my own ears.  The books are for providing a good model of what I make up myself.  And for me 3X blows away the prior editions in achieving this goal.  Heck, there were other game systems before 3E that handily beat prior D&D editions on this count.

If other people find themselves at a loss of power as DM in 3E then I am quite happy to find myself not held down by the same artificial limitations.  I guess I'm just lucky.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 4, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> RC - I don't know how much plainer they can make it.




If you care to crack any earlier edition, you will see examples.    

I tend to think that 3.X has the least restrictive _ruleset_, and wish that the prose/fluff would be equally unrestrictive.  And, yes, that said I do believe that WotC is getting much better in this regard overall.

IOW, I agree with you when you say



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Now, to be fair, my PHB2 did not have this caveat. It should. This should be in the introduction for every supplement,




It is my understanding that it isn't in the 3.5 PHB either, though I'd be happy to learn I was wrong.    


RC


----------



## an_idol_mind (Apr 4, 2007)

In my experience, I've never seen any issues of DM control in any of the versions of D&D I've played. The DM is the guy running the game. You can disagree with him, but you can hardly hold him hostage -- there won't be a game if you don't let it be on his terms.

I think a lot of this DM control thing is a matter of play style and perception. Any edition I've run has always been the same in this regard; I don't have more control or less than I used to. Just because the rules are clearer and the PCs are now capable to broadening their standard archetypes doesn't mean I can't say what is and isn't allowed as a DM. I've even had cases of characters wanting to play a prestige class that I wouldn't allow. It wasn't a huge fight about how I'm restricting player choice; it boiled down to the player saying, "Okay, but I really like this concept. Can we tweak the class to make it fit into your game better?"

To each their own, I suppose.

That said, there has definitely been a change in the way supplements are presented between 2nd and 3rd edition. I used to want to work at TSR so I could produce some of the weirdly creative stuff they had in the 2nd edition days, like Dark Sun, Planescape, and Birthright. As I went through college and 3e came out, my desire to work in the gaming industry disappeared. The supplements shifted less toward stuff that was more a creative exercise than something you'd find in a regular campaign (i.e., Council of Wyrms) and more toward crunch and rules expansions to the core setting (i.e., the Complete books). The latter is better business, so I can't complain, but the former seemed much more fun to me as a writer.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 4, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> 
> It is my understanding that it isn't in the 3.5 PHB either, though I'd be happy to learn I was wrong.
> ...






			
				Page 6 of 3.5 Edition PHB said:
			
		

> Character Creation... ((First point)) Check with your Dungeon Master. (In large bold type)
> 
> Your DM may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from these rules.






			
				page 4 of the 3.0 PHB said:
			
		

> Check with your Dungeon Master ((First point, also in large bold type)).  Your Dungeon Master (DM) may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from the standard rules.






			
				Page 4 of Defenders of the Faith said:
			
		

> Players should ask their DMs about incorporating any elements of this book beforehand






			
				Page 4 of Sword and Fist said:
			
		

> Players should ask their DMs about incorporating any elements of this book beforehand




So, a great many books, including the DMG and PHB ALL STATE that the DM has final say.  It's generally the very first thing that they state.  In both PHB's it's stated in large bold text.  Even though the PHB2 doesn't carry this warning, it does state that you need the Core 3 to use this book, so, it's fair to say that anyone reading the PHB2 has access to the same information.

Again, how much plainer do they need to make it?  At what point does gamer illiteracy lose its cache as an excuse?  Many books, from both 3.0 and 3.5 have Rule 0 stated.

Just as a question, where is Rule 0 stated in the Unearthed Arcana?  Or in Faiths and Avatars?  How many times did Dragon state that you should check with your DM before using a new class at the time?  I'm sure those with access to those books or the Dragon CD's can answer that question.


----------



## RFisher (Apr 4, 2007)

SuStel said:
			
		

> And if the DM changes the rules without a good and defensible reason, he's going to be considered unfair by the players.




I'm not convinced, though, that the 3e designers intended this. I think they wanted to provide comprehensive rules for DMs that wanted them. They thought that novice DMs would be made better by this. (Which it does--for some.) I also think they expected experienced DMs/groups to gloss over the details & play it more the way they always had.

So for me, the DM disenfrachisement / player empowerment angle doesn't really play a part in my preference for classic D&D over 3e. It's more about the changes that made sense when I thought lots of things were broken in previous editions, but which make less sense to me now that I've learned to look at the older editions differently.



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> What I am bad at is coming up with stuff on the fly. If I had to do it several times per game session because I was using a less comprehensive rules set, I think the overall quality of my games will suffer.




The following comments do not necessarily refer to FireLance. I'm just spring-boarding off this quote.

I think sometimes people mistake playing a "rules light" game as "rules heavy but with the rules made-up on-the-fly". When I run a "rules light" game, I don't tend to call for a lot of _ad hoc_ rolls. A lot of the things that I'd call for skill checks for when running 3e, I just decide when running classic D&D. If it's in sight, you spot it. If you search--unless intentionally well concealed--you find it. If it's a distance most people could jump across & you have at least an average Str, you jump it. If there's a rope, you climb it.

(Although, to be fair, I wouldn't call for a lot of those rolls when running 3e either. Call it setting low DCs & assuming Take 10 if you like. ^_^)

The other thing to realize is that when you think neither success or failure is certain, you can very often get by with flipping a coin for the _ad hoc_ situations. Unless it's something that keeps coming up a lot. (In which case, it's becoming something you can't really call _ad hoc_ anymore.)

Another point--that I need to be better about myself--is that it's often more interesting to think in terms of partial success v. full success rather than failure v. success. e.g. The gap is just wide enough that jumping it isn't automatic. So, a "failed roll" doesn't mean the PC falls in, it means they're now hanging from the edge of the other side!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 4, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> While I may have gone off on this one, how many times have we seen these same tired old garbage lines trotted out as if they are fact?




Two things I would like to note:

(1)  The comment about min/maxing is not simply a "garbage line" because the game itself assumes some level of min/maxing, and you need to look forward in order to qualify for some things (feats, prestige classes), meaning that you must make careful selection of character abilities even in the low levels.  

Role-playing games are largely about making meaningful decisions, IMHO.  In 3.X, there is an emphasis on meaningful decisions during character creation, while at the same time there is an apparent disconnect between _actual game play_ and the traditional _rewards gained from game play_.  

By this I mean that, especially for those new to DMing, or who cut their teeth on 3.X, the Wealth-by-Level guidelines and the admonition to "Just say Yes" can mean that the PCs should have a certain level of wealth, as well as complete control over how that wealth is manifested, _regardless of their actions in the game milieu_.  

If you read the book this way -- and judging by posts on EN World, many do -- decisions made while adventuring have less impact on character development in 3.X than in previous editions.  This in turn makes those choices less meaningful, which increases the emphasis on more "meaningful" choices during character building.

Obviously, the game doesn't _have to_ be played like this, but even a cursory examination of threads both on this site and on others demonstrates amply that the game _is_ played like this at more than a few tables.

(Obviously, treasure is only one in-game mechanic to reward actions during play, as your own recent Bennies thread points out.  However, the core 3.X books are fairly quiet on rewards that lie entirely within the hands of the DM to administer -- and, hence, that require braving the unknown to acquire.)

(2)  I, for one, purchase RPG materials not only for their utilitie (i.e., crunchy bits), but also for reading.  I want new ideas for using old material, discussions of world-building, and reminders of things that I might have overlooked.  I enjoy the "fellow-to-fellow" tone that the older editions took.  For me, the fluff is often more inspirational than the crunch.

In the case of a splatbook, I want to have the crunch, an _interesting_ discussion of how the crunch might fit into a campaign, and some reasonable (and hopefully, fun to read) discussion of what the crunch is meant to represent fluff-wise.

Recently, I would say that _Tome of Magic_ has done a good job in this respect.  I just picked up _Dungeoncraft_ about a week ago, and while I found it a bit uneven (mostly with regard to PrCs), but worth reading.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 4, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> This is a very good point.  Personally I have a poor memory, but I am very good at improvisation/'coming up with stuff on the fly', as long as I don't have to worry too much about the 'crunch' (mechanics).  I am best in "semi free kriegspiel" mode, with simple mechanics as a jumping off point for my own adjudication.  So unfortunately 3e plays to my weaknesses (rules recall) and hampers my strengths  (improvisation), ie I see now it's just not a very good system for me, whereas it clearly is a good system for some other GMs.  C&C so far seems a better fit.




I think I fall into the same boat with memorization vs. improvisation, and find C&C to be a breath of fresh air.  Maybe I don't take my game serious enough, but I find D&D to cumbersome because of the various interconnecting rules, exceptions in the form of feats and special abilities, and the length of time needed to make characters, monsters and NPC's etc.  C&C gives me a base mechanic that can be used to adjudicate most rulings on, a save system that makes every ability important, simple and easy stat-blocks and quick character creation.  

Another thing about D&D 3.x I'm not too keen on is the large advantages of rules mastery the game promotes.  For my players the fun is in playing not really character building or fiddling with mechanics(I am in no way saying this is not a legetimate way to have fun...it's just not their fun.).  They want a game where it doesn't take most of a 3 to 4 hour session to create characters or where you have to have a high level of rules knowledge and memorization to make and play an effective character.  Some people may claim that they're just lazy, but I gotta disagree.  They are students, workers etc. who feel 3.x is too much like having to learn a text book(with alot of minutae) for the pay-off, and I agree with this.YMMV of course  

I've said it before and I'll say it again D&D 3.x needs to decide whether it's a point-buy system or a class-based system, rigt now IMHO it doesn't do either well.  The speed and simplicity of a class-based system has been lost while the freedom of a point-buy still isn't there.  Thus for my purposes of gaming it serves neither very well.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 4, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> I've said it before and I'll say it again D&D 3.x needs to decide whether it's a point-buy system or a class-based system, rigt now IMHO it doesn't do either well.  The speed and simplicity of a class-based system has been lost while the freedom of a point-buy still isn't there.  Thus for my purposes of gaming it serves neither very well.




One of the main strengths of D&D is the Level system - you can judge the combat effectiveness of a PC far better in D&D because of it. (GURPS has no such baseline.)

The Class/Level system isn't there for simplicity: it's there so the DM can judge the challenges the party can take on far more effectively than otherwise.

Cheers!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 4, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, a great many books, including the DMG and PHB ALL STATE that the DM has final say.





Glad to hear that about the 3.5 PHB.  In a much earlier thread, I said that when a DM houseruled he was within the rules due to Rule 0, and I was immediately countered with "Point to Rule 0 in the 3.5 PHB"....and other helpful people found it in the 3.5 DMG.  Since I don't own the 3.5 books, I merely assumed that the omission existed.  Again, glad to hear I am mistaken.

However, are you saying that it is your contention that "The DM has final say" is stated as strongly or as forcefully in 3.X as in earlier editions?


----------



## hong (Apr 4, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> One of the main strengths of D&D is the Level system - you can judge the combat effectiveness of a PC far better in D&D because of it. (GURPS has no such baseline.)
> 
> The Class/Level system isn't there for simplicity: it's there so the DM can judge the challenges the party can take on far more effectively than otherwise.
> 
> Cheers!



 He didn't say anything about levels. Only classes. You can have one without the other.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 4, 2007)

RC said:
			
		

> If you read the book this way -- and judging by posts on EN World, many do -- decisions made while adventuring have less impact on character development in 3.X than in previous editions. This in turn makes those choices less meaningful, which increases the emphasis on more "meaningful" choices during character building.




But, in previous editions, there were very, very few decisions to be made for character development at all.  If you were a fighter at 1st level, you were going to be a fighter at 15th level.  The only difference was possibly a couple of proficiencies and equipment.  Mechanically, there were almost no choices possible.  It is a bit disingenious to say that 3e forces a certain playstyle without mentioning the fact that that playstyle wasn't even possible previously.  

Yes, you should look ahead to what you may be doing a few levels or even several levels.  That's the entire point of giving players control over how their characters develop.  Previously, there was very little control over the development of a character.  Note, I'm specifically referring to mechanical development.  Role play development is a bit of a different beast and is possible in any edition.  

Do decisions made while adventuring have more or less impact on character development?  I don't really see how either way.  You had almost no impact on character development mechanically previously and in 3e, it is possible to develop the mechanics of your character independently of the story in the game.  If I want to take the Mystic Theurge PrC, for example, it doesn't really matter if the game is a high intrigue court plot or straight up dungeon crawl.  I can do it in either campaign.



> However, are you saying that it is your contention that "The DM has final say" is stated as strongly or as forcefully in 3.X as in earlier editions?




You didn't answer my question.  Where is Rule 0 stated outside of the 1e PHB and maybe the DMG?  It is stated in almost every player related book in 3e.  It is stated numerous times in Dragon magazine.  It has been stated and restated time and time again.  How many times does it need to be stated?

How many times do you have to repeat the same refrain before it becomes a rule?  

BTW, where is it stated that the DM should say yes in 3e?


----------



## molonel (Apr 4, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I still find myself making on-the-fly judgements; it's just that with 3.5e I have a rules base to back me up. If someone wants to do something special, the skills system give me a guide already as to what is possible, but they don't give you the DC of everything... in those cases the judgement call is necessary.




I have to make on-the-fly judgments in nearly every game I run, whether D&D 3.X or d20 Modern.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> Maybe that's it...I thought about this post for a while and realized part of the fun for me was creating those on-the-fly judgements or arbitrating the possible in my campaign(It was fun, it was mentally stimulating and gave me a sense of the game being my own.). I felt like I was a part of the game in the same way a player might as they explore the new abilities or levels that defined their character, I got to explore the definitions of my campaign through the rules I introduced and situations I judged. Now I've been regulated to actor, and really according to the rules the PC's can control how my NPC's act towards them(diplomacy check anyone?).




First of all, diplomacy checks are not a mind-controlling spell.

Secondly, I don't like the diplomacy rules either. So I took them out, like any good DM should do with a part of any rules set that he or she doesn't like, and replaced them with Rich Burlew's alternate rules:

http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html

Thirdly, I know people who play freeform roleplaying. No rules at all, except for what the GM creates moment-by-moment. They laugh at me for playing ANY edition of D&D, because a TRULY imaginative game master - in their opinion - doesn't need rules to tell a story.

Some things truly are a matter of perspective. 3rd Edition isn't the game for everyone. If it were, then no other games would exist, and the gaming world would be much poorer as a result. 1st Edition, or Castles & Crusades, scratches the imaginative itch of some folks better than 3rd Edition.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 4, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> One of the main strengths of D&D is the Level system - you can judge the combat effectiveness of a PC far better in D&D because of it. (GURPS has no such baseline.)




However, the more options that become available the less this is likely to be the case.  Although not "point based" in a literal sense, D&D is becoming "point based" in its character design and development approach.  In doing so, it becomes harder to assume a certain level of competency or effectiveness at a given character level.  For the home grown campaign, it is less of an issue because the DM should be well versed in his PCs capabilities and power levels.  The same cannot be said for prepackaged adventures and campaigns.  Two 5th level fighters in D&D 3.x will look and play a lot different from one another.  Two 5th level fighters in AD&D1 will be differentiated pretty much by equipment (maybe) and the player.  In many cases, it is *more* work for the DM to adapt a published adventure than it is to create one from whole cloth.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 4, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> I have to make on-the-fly judgments in nearly every game I run, whether D&D 3.X or d20 Modern.




Is this because the "rule" isn't covered or because you don't remeber or know the rule.  I'm not saying making up your own rules for D&D 3.x is wrong, I'm just of the philosophy that if this is the route I'm going to take then why play D&D 3.x(one of it's strengths is suppose to be codefied exspansive rules that balance the game for everyone), I'd rather play a game that sets the fact that I'm going to ad-hoc out there for me and the players to be aware of. YMMV of course.




			
				molonel said:
			
		

> First of all, diplomacy checks are not a mind-controlling spell.
> 
> Secondly, I don't like the diplomacy rules either. So I took them out, like any good DM should do with a part of any rules set that he or she doesn't like, and replaced them with Rich Burlew's alternate rules:
> 
> http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html




And this is my biggest problem with some of the defenses of 3.x or really any rpg.  Instead of discussing what the rules in the game state(whether rule 0 exists or doesn't) it boils to X or Y or Z can't be an awkward/illogical/etc. rule because you can change it.

I never said Diplomacy was a mind control spell, but there are rules on adjusting an NPC's attitude with a single die roll with set DC's in the PHB(really don't understand this one  ) That's pretty much spelling it out and IMHO is something that should have been a DM only thing.



			
				molonel said:
			
		

> Thirdly, I know people who play freeform roleplaying. No rules at all, except for what the GM creates moment-by-moment. They laugh at me for playing ANY edition of D&D, because a TRULY imaginative game master - in their opinion - doesn't need rules to tell a story.




Good for them, but I'm not one of them.  You don't need rules to tell a story but you need them for a game.  Now how many rules you actually need is a taste/up for debate thing.  Personally I like minimal rules that apply logically to a wide variety of in-game situations.  A basis upon which I can build a level of familiarity and comfortability with. I don't need the DC examples of every skill laid out for my players(because I may not agree with those examples) just one example of difficulty levels labeled: Easy,Average, Challenging, Difficult, etc. to give them a grasp on their skill level.Then I decide what those "levels of difficulty" mean and when they apply.  



			
				molonel said:
			
		

> Some things truly are a matter of perspective. 3rd Edition isn't the game for everyone. If it were, then no other games would exist, and the gaming world would be much poorer as a result. 1st Edition, or Castles & Crusades, scratches the imaginative itch of some folks better than 3rd Edition.




I'm not bashing 3rd edition, actually was a fan of it for a while(still won't get rid of my core or complete books...Eberron on the other hand...), but in a public discussion I feel justified in stating my oppinions and thoughts even if they don't mesh with everyone else's.


----------



## Celebrim (Apr 4, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> ISecondly, I don't like the diplomacy rules either. So I took them out, like any good DM should do with a part of any rules set that he or she doesn't like, and replaced them with Rich Burlew's alternate rules:
> 
> http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html




I think Rich has set out some very useful guidelines, and I think he takes the skill description in the right direction and I'd like to see his guidelines bundled into '4e' whenever that will be, but I consider his inclusion of HD in the formula to be a gamist kludge and I don't like it.  It also leads to some bizarre situations where for example, a kingly (high level) fighter can't get his wife the (high level) sorceress queen to pass him the salt - despite the low effort in complying, thier intimate relationship, and a happy marriage.  Or, in cases where the game doesn't conform to gamists principles - such as a king being 3rd level aristocrat - his kludge doesn't achieve the result he is going for.

Rather than a kludge that depends on hit dice, I think he needs to replace that with a third area of circumstantial modifiers similar to the other two.  Namely, he needs guidelines for the relative authority (as percieved) by the target of the diplomacy.  In other words, a King, by virtue of being the King, doesn't allow himself to be persued by smooth talking slaves no matter how smooth talking they are.  Whereas, a slave, by virtue of being a slave, tends to put more stock in whatever the King says.  I think Rich has been trying to bundle this in with 'percieved risk', and there is something to that, but I think that in general the perception of percieved risk and the perception of authority are distinct things.  In particular, whenever the persuasion depends primarily on an implicit or explicit threat ("if I disobey the king he'll behead me") whats really going on is an Intimidate check.   But it should be pretty clear that people _believe_ and are _persuaded_ and not merely _forced to comply_ by people that they percieve to be authorities or in authority more readily than they are persuaded by other people.  For example, consider the persuasive power possessed by celebraties even though the degree of percieved risk in not being persuaded is quite low.  People believe things sometimes solely because someone who has a high (percieved) social status said it.

You can easily see how this solves the problems with Rich's Kludge.  The King asks his wife for some salt, and he's not at a -20 circumstance penalty because she's a 20th level sorcerer, rather he's at +0 circumstance penalty because they are peers (or maybe just a slight penalty, ask any man who is married).  The sellswords ask the King for a favor, and they aren't at merely a -3 penalty because he's third level, but at a -7 (or even -10) regardless of his level because he percieves them as being socially beneath him.  And so forth.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 4, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> One of the main strengths of D&D is the Level system - you can judge the combat effectiveness of a PC far better in D&D because of it. (GURPS has no such baseline.)
> 
> The Class/Level system isn't there for simplicity: it's there so the DM can judge the challenges the party can take on far more effectively than otherwise.
> 
> Cheers!




I disagree because that is still part of simplicity.  But, as others have stated...

1.) I didn't address levels only classes in the fact that they are suppose to facilitate ease and speed of character creation by reinforcing familiar archetypes in a genre, in my mind D&D 3.x doesn't do this anymore( and yes even with just the core rules but it's increased with supplements)

2.)Two PC's at the same level can have wildly varying degrees of effectiveness dependent upon their mastery of rules, available supplemental material, etc. This mens that the whole CR thing is becoming less and less aplicable to a "general" group.  Eventually as a DM you have to judge what your players can and can't handle, I figur better to learn it early on than stumble through it at higher levels.

3.) What exactly is the baseline, I think most would agree that there are many feats that are just plain better than others...now a player who has a low level of rules mastery may not be able to see that, while someone who knows the rules inside and out will.  The real problem is challenging both in a campaign.  Which one of these players is the "baseline"?


----------



## SuStel (Apr 4, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Hmm. Although that's somewhat true for common tasks (e.g. adjudicating whether someone has jumped over a pit), there is so much that the DM can do that the computer can't - particularly in the area of roleplaying.




But everyone around the table can do this, whether player or referee, so it's no equalizer for what I said earlier. And D&D wasn't originally conceived of as a play-acting game, but as a 1:1 wargame-like game in which the rules did not prescribe your allowed actions.

That was the real innovation of D&D. In previous games, the rules prescribed what you were allowed to do. In D&D, the rules did _not_ do this. You could try _anything_.

In this sense d20 has tended back toward the wargame. Rules have been developed prescribing most of your allowed actions.


----------



## molonel (Apr 4, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Is this because the "rule" isn't covered or because you don't remeber or know the rule. I'm not saying making up your own rules for D&D 3.x is wrong, I'm just of the philosophy that if this is the route I'm going to take then why play D&D 3.x(one of it's strengths is suppose to be codefied exspansive rules that balance the game for everyone), I'd rather play a game that sets the fact that I'm going to ad-hoc out there for me and the players to be aware of. YMMV of course.




No rules set is every going to be completely comprehensive. D&D 3.X is no exception. I've been playing since six months after Third Edition came out, and at this point, the rules are pretty much ingrained in my memory. I have to make on-the-fly judgments because my players are creative and they attempt things that aren't covered by the rules. 

It seems like you're saying that if the rules are truly comprehensive, then they ought to cover EVERYTHING. But no rules set does that, or claims to.

By that logic, why play anything other than free-form roleplaying where the GM invents all rules on the fly?



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> And this is my biggest problem with some of the defenses of 3.x or really any rpg. Instead of discussing what the rules in the game state(whether rule 0 exists or doesn't) it boils to X or Y or Z can't be an awkward/illogical/etc. rule because you can change it.




You seem to misunderstand my meaning. I don't like the 3.X diplomacy rules, and I don't see any way of salvaging them any more than I see any way of realistically salvaging Epic Spellcasting. It is hopeless borked, and therefore, I remove it.

Your "problem" appears to be that you can't understand that I'm agreeing with you. I'm also suggesting what I consider to be a reasonable alternative.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> I never said Diplomacy was a mind control spell, but there are rules on adjusting an NPC's attitude with a single die roll with set DC's in the PHB(really don't understand this one  ) That's pretty much spelling it out and IMHO is something that should have been a DM only thing.




There are rules for influencing NPCs, but, like I said: it is not a mind-controlling spell. But it says in the DMG, page 128, "In general, you run an NPC just a player would run a PC. You take whatever actions the chararacter would take, assuming the action is possible. That's why it's important to determine an NPC's general outlook and characteristics ahead of time if possible, so you know how to play the character properly" (page 128).

A character MAY try to use Diplomacy to influence attitude, but it's not a domination effect. A silver-tongued bard or rogue may change the expression on the face of the NPC when they say, "No" to your request, but he or she can't make the NPC do something he wouldn't normally do.


----------



## Celebrim (Apr 4, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> I never said Diplomacy was a mind control spell, but there are rules on adjusting an NPC's attitude with a single die roll with set DC's in the PHB(really don't understand this one  ) That's pretty much spelling it out and IMHO is something that should have been a DM only thing.




I agree.  There were rules for adjusting NPC attitude with a die rule in AD&D as well, but they were in the DMG where they were safely the province of the DM to do with as he wished.  They were also like so many rules of AD&D widely ignored.

I personally like having diplomacy guidelines, because it helps nudge the DM to treat character Charisma and not just player Charisma as important and worthy of rewarding.  This means that Charisma is far from being a dump stat.  (Anyone that has played the game Planescape: Torment has seen a very good example of how character Charisma and Wisdom can and should influence play.)  But I do think that the current diplomacy guidelines are too PC centered, too shallow, and do not make it clear to either players or DM's alike that significant circumstance modifiers always apply.   What I like about Rich's guidelines is that they give good guidance to arbitrating something which is otherwise quite complex without leaving it entirely to DM fiat in every case, and also nicely bolster the DM's position whenever using semi-fiat mechanics like assigning a circumstance bonus... (ei, 'Why did I get a -21 penalty on this roll?')


----------



## Celebrim (Apr 4, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> You seem to misunderstand my meaning. I don't like the 3.X diplomacy rules, and I don't see any way of salvaging them any more than I see any way of realistically salvaging Epic Spellcasting. It is hopeless borked, and therefore, I remove it.




I've been meaning to rewrite the rules for Epic Spellcasting for a while now.  I think that the idea is sound, but you are right about the execution being 'borked'.  I don't think the problem is hopeless by any means, and in fact the only thing I'd be worried about is the fact that skill enhancing items are way underpriced.  But with a few restrictions on those and changes in the item creation rules, I don't see any reason why the Epic Seed rules couldn't be rewritten to something more sensible and worthwhile.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 4, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, in previous editions, there were very, very few decisions to be made for character development at all.  If you were a fighter at 1st level, you were going to be a fighter at 15th level.




Sure.    

I'm not saying that the ability to create builds is a bad thing, merely that it is a _real_ thing, and a change of emphasis from earlier editions that has a real impact both on how the game is perceived and the game is played.  In other words, it is not simple a "garbage" remark.

In any discussion of differences between editions, it isn't "disingenious" to point this out.  Presumably, most people involved in the thread have played multiple editions, and/or they can look through some of the excellent posts hereing to learn what was or wasn't possible in various editions.



> Yes, you should look ahead to what you may be doing a few levels or even several levels.  That's the entire point of giving players control over how their characters develop.  Previously, there was very little control over the development of a character.  Note, I'm specifically referring to mechanical development.  Role play development is a bit of a different beast and is possible in any edition.




In previous editions, you could change from a human fighter to a human thief, there just wasn't much incentive to do so.  



> Do decisions made while adventuring have more or less impact on character development?  I don't really see how either way.  You had almost no impact on character development mechanically previously and in 3e, it is possible to develop the mechanics of your character independently of the story in the game.  If I want to take the Mystic Theurge PrC, for example, it doesn't really matter if the game is a high intrigue court plot or straight up dungeon crawl.  I can do it in either campaign.




If you wanted to change from an elven fighter in 1e to an elven thief, the DM could (if kind) let you travel to the mysterious Fountain of Ix, whose DM-Fiat magic allowed such  a change.  Thus, your in-game decisions directly affected your mechanical build.  If you chose not to visit the Fountain, you couldn't also choose to change your class.

(I personally think that this is largely a good thing, and my house rules include expanded options.  However, I can see where some might differ from my opinion there.    )

Likewise, the treasure you had was ultimately tied to your success in adventuring rather than your level -- and more importantly, your magic items (the big mechanical bennie of 1e) were tied to your success in adventuring rather than your success in shopping.

(I think that the changes here are largely a bad thing.  Again, I can see where some might differ from my opinion.  Note, of course, that it is still possible to play 3.X the same as you did previous editions as far as treasure and magic are concerned -- I do, afterall   -- but that does require *slightly* more care in DMing than running the default assumptions.)



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> You didn't answer my question.  Where is Rule 0 stated outside of the 1e PHB and maybe the DMG?  It is stated in almost every player related book in 3e.  It is stated numerous times in Dragon magazine.  It has been stated and restated time and time again.  How many times does it need to be stated?
> 
> How many times do you have to repeat the same refrain before it becomes a rule?
> 
> BTW, where is it stated that the DM should say yes in 3e?




Are you saying that it is your contention that "The DM has final say" is stated as strongly or as forcefully in 3.X as in earlier editions?  If you are, then I'll go to the effort of looking in the books to answer your question.  If you are not, what bearing does your question have?


----------



## SuStel (Apr 4, 2007)

*RE: DMs changing called unfair by players*



			
				RFisher said:
			
		

> I'm not convinced, though, that the 3e designers intended this. I think they wanted to provide comprehensive rules for DMs that wanted them. They thought that novice DMs would be made better by this. (Which it does--for some.) I also think they expected experienced DMs/groups to gloss over the details & play it more the way they always had.




I didn't mean to suggest that this reaction was intentionally provoked in writing the third edition. I think the attitude was, "These rules make a lot of sense, and fill in the gaps where there weren't rules before." While this isn't necessarily a bad attitude when designing a game, I think it ultimately undermines the original wide-open nature of the role-playing game form. Where there are no rules, a referee can't be resented for breaking them. Some may resent the referee for making a questionable judgement, but this has always been the curse of the referee, in any kind of game.


----------



## SuStel (Apr 4, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> One of the main strengths of D&D is the Level system - you can judge the combat effectiveness of a PC far better in D&D because of it. (GURPS has no such baseline.)




If you ask about how to judge GURPS combat effectiveness in a GURPS forum, the answer will always be: forget about character points; you'll learn by playing. In other words, playing GURPS is a skill, like any other. This idea used to be applied to D&D, too! (For instance, Gary's _Role-Playing Mastery_.)



> The Class/Level system isn't there for simplicity: it's there so the DM can judge the challenges the party can take on far more effectively than otherwise.




Ummm… no. Classes exist to delineate what kind of tools the adventurer has at his disposal. Levels exist to delineate the powers of that class of adventurer. That the referee can judge encounter strengths by comparing levels and hit dice is a side-effect of the way the game is structured.


----------



## SuStel (Apr 4, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> By that logic, why play anything other than free-form roleplaying where the GM invents all rules on the fly?




That's almost exactly what the original D&D rules did. "Here's the concept, here are some lists, you decide how things work out. Oh, you may want to use _Chainmail_ to work out combat." There were a few rules, but it was mostly up to the judge to, well, _judge_ what happened.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 4, 2007)

As far as Diplomacy goes, I think the best approach is for the GM to treat it as Persuasion (not Make A Friend) and if the FM deems it theoretically possible, simply set a DC depending on whether the task looks eg Easy, Average, Difficult, Very Difficult, Extremely Difficult or (Nearly) Impossible to a typical normal person skilled in the art of diplomacy, which for a typical campaign is something like +5 to +10 on the die roll.  So DCs should be something like:

Easy - 10
Average - 15
Difficult - 20
Very Difficult - 25
Extremely Difficult - 30
Nearly Impossible - 35

Note that this requires the GM use their judgement (Is it possible?  How hard is it?), but also provides structure, because you're looking at difficulty from an objective standpoint.  It's the way most RPGs worked, at least until 3e came along.


----------



## molonel (Apr 4, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I've been meaning to rewrite the rules for Epic Spellcasting for a while now. I think that the idea is sound, but you are right about the execution being 'borked'. I don't think the problem is hopeless by any means, and in fact the only thing I'd be worried about is the fact that skill enhancing items are way underpriced. But with a few restrictions on those and changes in the item creation rules, I don't see any reason why the Epic Seed rules couldn't be rewritten to something more sensible and worthwhile.




It goes deeper than that. 

We have a guy in our gaming group who is a software tester by profession. His mind searches out weaknesses and breakpoints, whether in software or gaming systems or whatever, almost intuitively. Another of the many, MANY problems with Epic Spells is that you can, with enough spellcasters, reduce the spellcraft DC to 1. The mitigations are far, FAR too good. Epic attack spells are silly, but epic buffs? We had +40 enhancements to all six stats, spells that protected us from Anti-Magic shells and immune to Mord's Disjunction and all sorts of goodies for pathetically small costs. Epic Leadership and a cadre of spellcasting followers on a demiplane, and a group full of high-level spellcasting broke Epic Spells like a Ming vase with a sledgehammer.

Epic Spellcasting is borked worse than the Hulking Hurler.



			
				SuStel said:
			
		

> That's almost exactly what the original D&D rules did. "Here's the concept, here are some lists, you decide how things work out. Oh, you may want to use _Chainmail_ to work out combat." There were a few rules, but it was mostly up to the judge to, well, _judge_ what happened.




You might think that, but you need to talk to some ACTUAL freeform roleplayers to see what I mean. There are some folks who talk with the same disdain about 1st Edition AD&D being "rules driven" and "too constricting" in the same way some folks speak with equal or greater dislike about 3rd Edition D&D.

Some things truly are relative. It's a spectrum of preferences.


----------



## SuStel (Apr 4, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> You might think that, but you need to talk to some ACTUAL freeform roleplayers to see what I mean. There are some folks who talk with the same disdain about 1st Edition AD&D being "rules driven" and "too constricting" in the same way some folks speak with equal or greater dislike about 3rd Edition D&D.




I didn't say AD&D, I said "original D&D." I dare anyone to try to prove that the original D&D set is "rules-driven" or "too constricting!"


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 4, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Some things truly are relative. It's a spectrum of preferences.





Always a good thing to remember.    

Discussions like this are interesting, to me at least, in that they give can you some insight as to why you like some things and not others.  It is (again, to me at least) always interesting to hear how others view various editions of the game.


----------



## molonel (Apr 4, 2007)

SuStel said:
			
		

> I didn't say AD&D, I said "original D&D." I dare anyone to try to prove that the original D&D set is "rules-driven" or "too constricting!"




It doesn't matter. To a freeform roleplayer, it's still too constricting.

It's certainly more rules lite than, say, 2nd Edition AD&D or 3rd Edition D&D, but it's still too constricting to some folks.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Always a good thing to remember.
> 
> Discussions like this are interesting, to me at least, in that they give can you some insight as to why you like some things and not others.  It is (again, to me at least) always interesting to hear how others view various editions of the game.




Sure. I agree.


----------



## Celebrim (Apr 4, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> It goes deeper than that.... Epic Leadership and a cadre of spellcasting followers on a demiplane, and a group full of high-level spellcasting broke Epic Spells like a Ming vase with a sledgehammer.




That's not a particularly deep problem in my opinion.

The basic problem with the design of the epic spell seeds is that they treat increases or decreases in DC as if they reflected a linear increase or decrease in power.  So, for the example you site, the problem I have is that a mitigating factor should, particularly past some point (5, 8, 13, whatever your lucky number is) should require doubling the number of casters in order to obtain the linear effect on the spellcrafting DC.   In order to mitigate a DC a non-linear input is required. 

We can look at reverse cases where the designers making the same wrong assumption leads to nerfs rather than breaks.  The Epic Summon seed increases linearly with CR, but the DC doubles with each additional creature summoned.  But as we know, the CR system is designed such that an increase in 2 CR implies roughly double the combat effectiveness.   So, in fact doubling the number of creatures summoned should lead to only a linear increase in difficulty.

If the problem is only balancing the Epic seeds with a particular rank in spellcrafting, then I don't think its a lost cause.  If the problem is with the way the game treats ranks in spellcrafting itself, then that's a problem.


----------



## molonel (Apr 4, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> That's not a particularly deep problem in my opinion.




Deeper. More problems than your analysis admits. Farther. More widespread. The phraseology doesn't particularly concern me. There are more things wrong with epic spellcasting than the simple problems you spoke of.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> The basic problem with the design of the epic spell seeds is that they treat increases or decreases in DC as if they reflected a linear increase or decrease in power. So, for the example you site, the problem I have is that a mitigating factor should, particularly past some point (5, 8, 13, whatever your lucky number is) should require doubling the number of casters in order to obtain the linear effect. In order to mitigate a DC a non-linear input is required.




Doesn't work. You can use the Epic Commander epic feat, or simply hire more spellcasters. The returns cannot be understated, and far outweigh the results you get by investing your resources in any other way.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> We can look at reverse cases where the designers making the same wrong assumption leads to nerfs rather than breaks. The Epic Summon seed increases linearly with CR, but the DC doubles with each additional creature summoned. But as we know, the CR system is designed such that an increase in 2 CR implies roughly double the combat effectiveness. So, in fact doubling the number of creatures summoned should lead to only a linear increase in difficulty.




I didn't say that creatures were summoned. I said that you stored your followers, or cohorts or whatever on a demiplane. That's for protection.

Ultimately, the biggest breaks for epic spells come in getting buffs that cannot be dispelled, because you amp the spellcaster level behind the spell to obscene levels, nor Disjunctioned because you guard yourself against that, too. The only thing that can get rid of them is a similarly designed and equally borked epic dispel, and really, how many times can you use that without straining credibility?



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> If the problem is only balancing the Epic seeds with a particular rank in spellcrafting, then I don't think its a lost cause. If the problem is with the way the game treats ranks in spellcrafting itself, then that's a problem.




The difficulty of casting epic spells isn't measured in ranks. It's measured in the spellcraft DC of the spell you're casting.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 4, 2007)

Not to pull this thread even further along a tangent, but when I was considering running an Epic game I came up with a rough outline of what i wanted to do with epic spellcasting.  What I decided was that all spellcasters had a progression of Epic Castings from level 21+ that exactly mirrored their standard spell progression from 1+.  Spells/day from this progression could be prepared/cast as "Epic versions" of spells of the same level.  my baseline was 10 levels worth of metamagic feats "for free" on the lower level spells, as well as doubled caps for any damage dice, HD, etc...  I never got very deeply into designing, let alone playtesting, it, but at the time it seemed like a good start to a system that would be "Epic" but retain D&D's spellcasting flavor.


----------



## Keldryn (Apr 4, 2007)

I think that many people had a very different experience than I did with earlier editions of the game.

I started playing D&D in 1986 at the age of 12, with the "Red Box" D&D Basic Set (1983 Mentzer edition).  The one with the Elmore painting of a red dragon on the cover, with all the interior art done by Elmore and Easley.  We moved on quickly through the Expert, Companion, and Master sets -- nobody seemed to care for that silly rule about never being able to gain more than one level in a game session.  

I started borrowing bits from AD&D in my games and after a year or two had pretty much switched over to the AD&D rules completely.  I bought the 2nd Edition rules as soon as they came out (and had already been using some of the changes previewed in the Dragonlance Adventures and Greyhawk Adventures hardcovers), as well as all of the "Complete" PHBR series of books and Player's Option books (although by the mid-nineties I was losing interest).

Sense of entitlement certainly varies from one player to another, but I honestly haven't seen a difference between players in 3.x edition and players in any earlier edition that I have played.  It's a personality trait, not an edition trait.  I've had players in AD&D 1e complain after the first adventure in a new campaign, "gee, it at least would have been nice if you'd given us enough XP to get to 2nd level."  Or complaining about still finding +1 magic weapons when their characters with 6th or 7th level, because "we should be getting +2 weapons by now."

I'm not sure that I agree that 1st Edition was more of a "DM's game" and 3rd more of a "Players' game" -- but I think there was a more adversarial us vs. them mentality in a lot of the earlier gaming literature.  Articles and advice on how the DM can relieve the PCs -- once again -- of their hard-earned treasures in order to keep "game balance" in check always rubbed me the wrong way.  

The oft-praised 1e insistence on having pretty much anything of value extremely well-hidden and/or guarded by deadly traps, making the PCs bleed for everything they get simply leads to precious game time being wasted on tedious and pedantic searching procedures.  I've played in groups of (and run games for) players who insisted on searching every square inch of every room and hallway "because that's where the DM probably hid the treasure."  And when they find it, it reinforces this behaviour.  These same groups of players won't walk anywhere without probing the floor in front of them with a 10' pole, and won't enter a room without throwing various items in ahead of them.  It just makes me want to scream, especially when I'm DMing the game and I just want to get on with it already.  At least Take 10 and Take 20 helps me keep my sanity in these type of situations.  It's never the newer players who do this in games I've played in, just the ones weaned on late 70s and early 80s AD&D and D&D games.

To my way of thinking, powerful and/or useful treasures are almost never going to be found hidden somewhere inconvenient or locked up in a room.  They are going to be actively used by the PC's foes, and are part of the reward for overcoming that challenge.  Nobody is going to set deadly traps in areas where they or their minions are likely to set them off by accident.  Random drawers, chests, and doors are not worth anyone's effort to set a trap on unless there is something awfully valuable in there -- or unless they want to keep nosy adventurers out.  But early AD&D and D&D adventures were full of arbitrarily or randomly trapped doors, chests, drawers, etc that didn't seem to serve a purpose other than to keep PCs on their toes.  I think there are better ways to do that which don't result in players being ridiculously cautious about everything.

I agree that there was an "expected wealth by level" that was implicitly assumed by the game as far back as I've every played it.  A number of adventure modules even stated up front that characters will have a very difficult time if they don't have particular items or spells.  Pre-generated characters in modules had treasure "appropriate" for their levels, and the DMG and MM had "Monster Levels" as a way of assessing the general toughness and appropriateness of monsters versus PCs of a particular level.  A 12HD monster that can only be harmed by +4 or greater magic weapons certainly assumes a certain level of wealth and range of character levels.  3e simply gives actual guidelines on this so that DMs don't have to resort to having PCs items "stolen" if they were over-powered.  The DMG clearly says that they are guidelines but warns DMs to consider all of the far-reaching implications of deviating too far from the base assumptions.  And it warns DMs that if they give out less treasure, then the PCs will be weaker for their level than "average" and opponents of a normally appropriate CR may walk all over the PCs as a result.

The PHB 3.5 still clearly states "CHECK WITH YOUR DUNGEON MASTER" as the first step of character creation on page 4, and explains that he or she may have house rules which differ from the published rules.  In the DMG 3.5, under the sections regarding the "role of the DM," it clearly states that the DM is in charge of the game and is the final authority on the game rules, even overriding rules that have been published.  \

In that same section of the DMG, it does say that DMs shouldn't change the rules without giving the players a good, logical explanation for the change, and I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with that.  I've played in a lot of games in earlier editions with DMs who instituted what I can only call not very well-thought-out changes to the rules that were often either unfair or unnecessary and often didn't improve the game -- but they satisfied that particular DM's view on how the game should be played (almost always to make it more "gritty" and "realistic").  I remember one game in which the DM required Wizards to hold their spell books open to the spell they were casting in order to cast a spell.  He loved the images in the Gargoyles cartoon of wizards casting spells like that, and wanted that image in the D&D game as well.  After discussing it with him, it was obvious that he hadn't really thought through the implications it would have on that game, and he dropped it.

The DM is running the game, but I object to the attitude that it is the DM's game, and if a player doesn't like it, he can go play somewhere else.  It's the group's game, and the DM's ultimate "job" is to make sure that everyone has fun.  That doesn't mean making things easy, fudging rolls to not kill characters, catering to one whiny player's desires, or any of that nonsense.  The DM ultimately controls the pacing and events of the game, and it's a very self-absorbed DM who runs a game solely to satisfy his own idea of what a game should be.  And I've seen DMs trying to push their "superior blend" of gritty, "low magic," "low treasure" style of D&D on players who didn't really want it for 20 years, regardless of edition.

I've played enough D&D with half-baked, unfair, or just plan stupid house rules that I completely agree that DMs should be held accountable for the deviations they make from the rules.  If the DM is going to change something, there should be a good reason for it, and the changes should be well thought-out.  If one of the DM's roles in the game is to be a referee and arbiter of the rules, then those rules need to be fair to everyone involved.  And players shouldn't be asked to just blindly accept rules that don't make sense simply because the DM decided the world should work that way.  That doesn't mean that players should be able to veto house rules just because they don't like them -- but I have trouble accepting a house rule unless it makes sense (even if I don't like it).

PCs haven't been leveling up significantly faster in 3e games in which I have played.  But I haven't really played games in any edition where the players legitimately advanced from 1st level through any higher than about 8th level.  It usually took 2-3 sessions of play to gain a level through the early levels back when I played 1e or 2e, and it hasn't really changed in 3e, from what I can see.  And there is the oft-noted difference that 3e has been re-designed and re-balanced so that players will advance through to 20th level if they play long enough.  A 12-level 1e character and a 12-level 3e character are not directly comparable, even though at first glance they may have similar hit point totals, base "to hit," access to spells and so on.  Monsters are generally a lot tougher, and can do a lot more damage to PCs than in previous editions.  

3e was designed to actually use all of this high-level stuff that most people never actually got to in previous editions.  So that is one fundamental difference in editions -- 3e is actually designed to be played at those higher levels.  Sure, you could play 20th level characters in 1e, but it was pretty clear from most of the published material that the game was pretty much designed around the 1st to 10th level game.  The D&D Companion and Master (and Immortal) rules sets were about the only other real effort to make ultra-high levels really playable.


----------



## molonel (Apr 4, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Not to pull this thread even further along a tangent, but when I was considering running an Epic game I came up with a rough outline of what i wanted to do with epic spellcasting. What I decided was that all spellcasters had a progression of Epic Castings from level 21+ that exactly mirrored their standard spell progression from 1+. Spells/day from this progression could be prepared/cast as "Epic versions" of spells of the same level. my baseline was 10 levels worth of metamagic feats "for free" on the lower level spells, as well as doubled caps for any damage dice, HD, etc... I never got very deeply into designing, let alone playtesting, it, but at the time it seemed like a good start to a system that would be "Epic" but retain D&D's spellcasting flavor.




To be honest, I think that would work better. One of the deep flaws of the ELH was that it was supposedly intended to go into "Infinity and beyond!" [/Buzz Lightyear] and not really have any upper limitations on how far you could play. Epic spellcasting really doesn't have any good limitations, and I haven't seen any suggestions on how to fix that I think would work. A system of spellslots that you can use metamagic feats on has an inherent limit to what you can do with it, and continues along the same lines instead of inventing something entirely new, and doing it quite poorly, in my opinion. Epic spellcasting gives spellcasters yet ANOTHER reason to dominate the game, because it turns epic level play into an arms race where he who has the most epic spells wins.

And non-spellcasters? They get left even FURTHER in the dust. A primary tank who is NOT backed by an epic spellcaster, under those circumstances, better go hang up his sword.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 4, 2007)

Keldryn said:
			
		

> 3e was designed to actually use all of this high-level stuff that most people never actually got to in previous editions.  So that is one fundamental difference in editions -- 3e is actually designed to be played at those higher levels.  Sure, you could play 20th level characters in 1e, but it was pretty clear from most of the published material that the game was pretty much designed around the 1st to 10th level game. .




Yes - the problem though is that 3e still uses a lot of stuff from 1e/2e for levels 13+ that IMO wasn't really ever intended to be actually used by PCs in the great majority of campaigns, notably 7th-9th level spells.  They look nice, and in 1e were great for giving your Lich M-U 18 NPC kewl powerz, but 7th+ spells are a huge headache to GM, a headache that's got worse as more and more are added in subsequent editions.


----------



## T. Foster (Apr 4, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Yes - the problem though is that 3e still uses a lot of stuff from 1e/2e for levels 13+ that IMO wasn't really ever intended to be actually used by PCs in the great majority of campaigns, notably 7th-9th level spells.  They look nice, and in 1e were great for giving your Lich M-U 18 NPC kewl powerz, but 7th+ spells are a huge headache to GM, a headache that's got worse as more and more are added in subsequent editions.



 QFT. I'm firmly of the belief that from their first appearance in OD&D supplement I the high level (7th-9th for mages, 6th-7th for clerics) were mostly for show, intended (as you said) to be given to liches, titans, and other ultra-high level NPCs and perhaps found on a scroll occasionally, but not for actual widespread use by player characters (who are, at least implicitly, expected to enter retirement somewhere around 12-14th level). I've only half-jokingly said in the past that the AD&D PH should've listed only the names of the high level spells (like was done with 3rd level spells in the Holmes Basic rulebook) and left the actual descriptions in the DMG, reinforcing the notion that these spells exist in the game-world but aren't really supposed to be for players.


----------



## SuStel (Apr 4, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter. To a freeform roleplayer, it's still too constricting.




So you're not taking me up on my dare to prove this? Even to a "free-form role-player's" point of view? Instead of "prove," let's say "demonstrate." Demonstrate, from the free-former's point of view, that original D&D is too constricting.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 4, 2007)

Keldryn said:
			
		

> Sense of entitlement certainly varies from one player to another, but I honestly haven't seen a difference between players in 3.x edition and players in any earlier edition that I have played.  It's a personality trait, not an edition trait.  I've had players in AD&D 1e complain after the first adventure in a new campaign, "gee, it at least would have been nice if you'd given us enough XP to get to 2nd level."  Or complaining about still finding +1 magic weapons when their characters with 6th or 7th level, because "we should be getting +2 weapons by now."




Yet now they can complain, not only about the above, but also about what feat, prestige class or new base class you don't allow in your game(kinda justified too if they spent the $30 on a complete book or whatever). They can complain about how according to the DC's in the PHB they should have succeded at something or how the use of a skill should have affected a certain aspect of your game.  Don't really see any difference except there's a whole slew more to complain about/for.




			
				Keldryn said:
			
		

> The oft-praised 1e insistence on having pretty much anything of value extremely well-hidden and/or guarded by deadly traps, making the PCs bleed for everything they get simply leads to precious game time being wasted on tedious and pedantic searching procedures.  I've played in groups of (and run games for) players who insisted on searching every square inch of every room and hallway "because that's where the DM probably hid the treasure."  And when they find it, it reinforces this behaviour.  These same groups of players won't walk anywhere without probing the floor in front of them with a 10' pole, and won't enter a room without throwing various items in ahead of them.  It just makes me want to scream, especially when I'm DMing the game and I just want to get on with it already.  At least Take 10 and Take 20 helps me keep my sanity in these type of situations.  It's never the newer players who do this in games I've played in, just the ones weaned on late 70s and early 80s AD&D and D&D games.
> 
> To my way of thinking, powerful and/or useful treasures are almost never going to be found hidden somewhere inconvenient or locked up in a room.  They are going to be actively used by the PC's foes, and are part of the reward for overcoming that challenge.  Nobody is going to set deadly traps in areas where they or their minions are likely to set them off by accident.  Random drawers, chests, and doors are not worth anyone's effort to set a trap on unless there is something awfully valuable in there -- or unless they want to keep nosy adventurers out.  But early AD&D and D&D adventures were full of arbitrarily or randomly trapped doors, chests, drawers, etc that didn't seem to serve a purpose other than to keep PCs on their toes.  I think there are better ways to do that which don't result in players being ridiculously cautious about everything.




I honestly think this was one part S&S fantasy tropes in which many heroes overcame dangerous traps to retrieve a precious item and one part thinking-man's game.  There we're those who found it fun trying to determine where the DM had hidden a treasure or how to disarm a trap's mechanism, alot of traps we're puzzles of some sort that involved real interaction. It was problem solving and some players enjoyed it...now it is dice rolling and some players enjoy that.  Eh? different strokes for different folks.






			
				Keldryn said:
			
		

> The DM is running the game, but I object to the attitude that it is the DM's game, and if a player doesn't like it, he can go play somewhere else.  It's the group's game, and the DM's ultimate "job" is to make sure that everyone has fun.  That doesn't mean making things easy, fudging rolls to not kill characters, catering to one whiny player's desires, or any of that nonsense.  The DM ultimately controls the pacing and events of the game, and it's a very self-absorbed DM who runs a game solely to satisfy his own idea of what a game should be.  And I've seen DMs trying to push their "superior blend" of gritty, "low magic," "low treasure" style of D&D on players who didn't really want it for 20 years, regardless of edition.
> 
> I've played enough D&D with half-baked, unfair, or just plan stupid house rules that I completely agree that DMs should be held accountable for the deviations they make from the rules.  If the DM is going to change something, there should be a good reason for it, and the changes should be well thought-out.  If one of the DM's roles in the game is to be a referee and arbiter of the rules, then those rules need to be fair to everyone involved.  And players shouldn't be asked to just blindly accept rules that don't make sense simply because the DM decided the world should work that way.  That doesn't mean that players should be able to veto house rules just because they don't like them -- but I have trouble accepting a house rule unless it makes sense (even if I don't like it).




See I think it's a very self absorbed player who doesn't allow the DM the freedom and fun of creating his world.  If I am upfront with you about my houserules and my setting, then you agree to play that's you accepting them.  The same satisfaction a player derives from building and creating his character is what a DM gets out of building his world and houserules.  I really am of the oppinion that if you want the world and rules to be your way, you should be running the game.  Eventually someones vision of the campaign world has to be dominant and I think it should be the DM that's what he's there for.  This doesn't mean compromise is totally out of the picture...but if I say Dwarves can't be sorcerers and you want to be a dwarf sorcerer then one of us is going to be happy and one of us is going to be happy in someone else's game.  You might ask me why, but if it's a secret or important part of my world I want to reveal later, to everyone, why should I have to tell you? In the end this sounds like a problem with the DM's you played with not really any edition of the game.


----------



## molonel (Apr 4, 2007)

SuStel said:
			
		

> So you're not taking me up on my dare to prove this? Even to a "free-form role-player's" point of view? Instead of "prove," let's say "demonstrate." Demonstrate, from the free-former's point of view, that original D&D is too constricting.




Um, well, I thought it was kind of self-evident. 

Any game with rules can be constricting in freeform roleplay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeform_roleplaying_game

Does the game you're talking about have rules? Any rules? Then it's too constricting. And yes, I've interacted with freeform roleplayers who speak with great disdain of people who play games with rules. 

A _true_ roleplayer doesn't need rules. Or so the thinking goes.

It doesn't matter if it's "rules lite." There are rules. And in some styles of freeform, the GM simply describes the world, and players describe their characters, and then they roleplay with whatever rules the GM describes on the fly.

The original D&D represented a certain style of play, but it is NOT the penultimate "rules lite" of "rules lite" gaming.


----------



## SuStel (Apr 5, 2007)

Keldryn said:
			
		

> I think there was a more adversarial us vs. them mentality in a lot of the earlier gaming literature.  Articles and advice on how the DM can relieve the PCs -- once again -- of their hard-earned treasures in order to keep "game balance" in check always rubbed me the wrong way.




It's a _game_. The challenge for the players is to "score" as many experience points as possible. The challenge for the referee is to make this as hard as possible for the players, _but keep them coming back for more._ That's what "game balance" used to refer to. If players have so much stuff and power that they don't _need_ to go adventuring, it's too easy, and the players will get bored.




> I've played in groups of (and run games for) players who insisted on searching every square inch of every room and hallway "because that's where the DM probably hid the treasure."  And when they find it, it reinforces this behaviour.  These same groups of players won't walk anywhere without probing the floor in front of them with a 10' pole, and won't enter a room without throwing various items in ahead of them.  It just makes me want to scream, especially when I'm DMing the game and I just want to get on with it already.




That's what wandering monsters are for. The more time you waste in the dungeon, the more times you're going to run into wandering monsters. And wandering monsters almost never have anything worthwhile, so you want to avoid them as much as possible.



> But early AD&D and D&D adventures were full of arbitrarily or randomly trapped doors, chests, drawers, etc that didn't seem to serve a purpose other than to keep PCs on their toes.  I think there are better ways to do that which don't result in players being ridiculously cautious about everything.




You prefer a game where the players can be careless?



> In that same section of the DMG, it does say that DMs shouldn't change the rules without giving the players a good, logical explanation for the change, and I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with that.  I've played in a lot of games in earlier editions with DMs who instituted what I can only call not very well-thought-out changes to the rules that were often either unfair or unnecessary and often didn't improve the game -- but they satisfied that particular DM's view on how the game should be played (almost always to make it more "gritty" and "realistic").  I remember one game in which the DM required Wizards to hold their spell books open to the spell they were casting in order to cast a spell.  He loved the images in the Gargoyles cartoon of wizards casting spells like that, and wanted that image in the D&D game as well.  After discussing it with him, it was obvious that he hadn't really thought through the implications it would have on that game, and he dropped it.




And then there are referees who aren't so reasonable…



> If the DM is going to change something, there should be a good reason for it, and the changes should be well thought-out.




That's player-empowerment. *shrug*



> If one of the DM's roles in the game is to be a referee and arbiter of the rules,




Nonono. Those are two different things. A referee is not an arbiter of the rules. The rules are set down in a book; a referee is an arbiter of things _not covered_ by the rules. This is a totally separate function from rules-alterer. In early D&D there were few rules you needed to alter to run things your own way. In d20 there are a whole bunch of rules you need to alter to make things work your way. Thus, the focus of the DM has changed over time from game-arbiter to rules-alterer and cruncher.



> 3e was designed to actually use all of this high-level stuff that most people never actually got to in previous editions.  So that is one fundamental difference in editions -- 3e is actually designed to be played at those higher levels.  Sure, you could play 20th level characters in 1e, but it was pretty clear from most of the published material that the game was pretty much designed around the 1st to 10th level game.  The D&D Companion and Master (and Immortal) rules sets were about the only other real effort to make ultra-high levels really playable.




You're seeing a lack of rules and assuming it means there's nothing to do. The AD&D _Dungeon Masters Guide_ discusses in general terms what high-level adventuring in the planes of existence might be like. It is _not_ like anything in the _Manual of the Planes_ or anything like that. The idea was: once you reach name-level, you're going to have to take the game in your own direction, because by this time you're so powerful we can't keep you confined to the rulebook anymore. Travel to another plane of existence, say, the world of Boot Hill, and suddenly you're _literally_ playing another game in the same campaign! There's no way they could make up rules for all that stuff. The planes of existence were the ultimate bend-your-game-your-own-way vehicle.

The D&D Companion, Masters, and Immortals sets should be viewed as just one way to do these things. And they're just frameworks at that. If you've ever _read_ the Immortals rules, you know that they're very, very open to interpretation. Literally _anything_ can happen in them!


----------



## SuStel (Apr 5, 2007)

SuStel said:
			
		

> So you're not taking me up on my dare to prove this? Even to a "free-form role-player's" point of view? Instead of "prove," let's say "demonstrate." Demonstrate, from the free-former's point of view, that original D&D is too constricting.






			
				molonel said:
			
		

> Um, well, I thought it was kind of self-evident.




Then it should be easy for you to demonstrate it!



> Any game with rules can be constricting in freeform roleplay:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeform_roleplaying_game
> 
> Does the game you're talking about have rules? Any rules? Then it's too constricting.




You are not following the text of the article you quoted. Here is the first sentence of the article: "Freeform role-playing games, also called freeforms, are a type of role-playing game which employ minimal or no rules; occupying a middle-ground between traditional role-playing games and improvisational theatre."

I make the claim that original D&D employs minimal rules. While I wouldn't go so far to say that it is literally a "freeform" game, and I didn't, I do say that its rules are quite minimal.

Let us also note that even improvisational theater has rules.



> A _true_ roleplayer doesn't need rules. Or so the thinking goes.




Now we're playing with semantics. A "role-player" isn't necessarily playing a "role-playing game." He may just be "play-acting," which may not be a game at all.



> The original D&D represented a certain style of play, but it is NOT the penultimate "rules lite" of "rules lite" gaming.




There was no such thing as a "rules-lite" RPG when D&D was first published! It was simply "the rules," and they were simple, vague, and permissive. The actual "rules" of D&D boil down, mostly, to just the concepts of hit points, choosing a character type, determining characteristics, alignment, what experience points do, and how to cast spells. Everything else is simply lists (lists of character types, lists of equipment, lists of spells, lists of monsters, lists of treasure) and possible systems to determine outcomes (how to play out combat, how much do hirelings cost, who lives in that castle?, how to conduct naval combat, and so on). None of the lists or systems are rules. The actual rules only build the game's playing pieces (the characters) and then the rest is guidance on how to resolve the situations that will come up.

As time went on the the D&D supplements were published, this wide-open game started to get filled in with actual rules. _Greyhawk_ added several of them that stuck, like variable hit dice and weapon damage and significant adjustments due to ability scores. Other supplements (like _Blackmoor_) suggested rules that went in different directions. These supplements were the writers saying, "I think this is a good rule to fill in this silent area of the rules. Use it if you agree."

Original D&D was a new game form. It gave you _extremely_ basic rules, and a bunch of "objects" to plug into the game. Those objects were not rules. You can swap or replace them at will and not change the framework of the game. But change the few rules that there are (like spell casting) and you _do_ change something fundamental in the game.


----------



## molonel (Apr 5, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Yet now they can complain, not only about the above, but also about what feat, prestige class or new base class you don't allow in your game(kinda justified too if they spent the $30 on a complete book or whatever). They can complain about how according to the DC's in the PHB they should have succeded at something or how the use of a skill should have affected a certain aspect of your game. Don't really see any difference except there's a whole slew more to complain about/for.




They are free to complain as much as they like. Nothing in the game says I, as the DM, have to allow anything in the game I don't want. In fact, it says exactly the opposite. 

I can remember having arguments about whether or not to allow material from Dragon Magazine articles, or Oriental Adventures, or Unearthed Arcana. Player entitlement isn't a new concept, nor even a new discussion.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> I honestly think this was one part S&S fantasy tropes in which many heroes overcame dangerous traps to retrieve a precious item and one part thinking-man's game. There we're those who found it fun trying to determine where the DM had hidden a treasure or how to disarm a trap's mechanism, alot of traps we're puzzles of some sort that involved real interaction. It was problem solving and some players enjoyed it...now it is dice rolling and some players enjoy that. Eh? different strokes for different folks.




That's a little nostalgic rhapsodizing, there. Most traps weren't ripped straight from the pages of MENSA, nor did they require a Master's degree in engineering or logic to deal with. Gygax might not have invented the character meatgrinder, but he sure put his stamp on it.

Saying that "now it's dice rolling" and then it was a thinking-man's game is just silly, I'm sorry.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> You prefer a game where the players can be careless?




No, but training them to walk everywhere 1 .... single ..... foot ..... at ..... a ..... time can become extremely tedious.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> See I think it's a very self absorbed player who doesn't allow the DM the freedom and fun of creating his world. If I am upfront with you about my houserules and my setting, then you agree to play that's you accepting them. The same satisfaction a player derives from building and creating his character is what a DM gets out of building his world and houserules. I really am of the oppinion that if you want the world and rules to be your way, you should be running the game. Eventually someones vision of the campaign world has to be dominant and I think it should be the DM that's what he's there for. This doesn't mean compromise is totally out of the picture...but if I say Dwarves can't be sorcerers and you want to be a dwarf sorcerer then one of us is going to be happy and one of us is going to be happy in someone else's game. You might ask me why, but if it's a secret or important part of my world I want to reveal later, to everyone, why should I have to tell you? In the end this sounds like a problem with the DM's you played with not really any edition of the game.




You can go overboard either way. By the same logic, if the DM absolutely refuses to listen to player input, he or she may find herself designing a nice, perfect world ... and never running a game in it because players get sick of running up against arbitrary brick walls that the DM refuses to explain. I've seen it happen.


----------



## molonel (Apr 5, 2007)

SuStel said:
			
		

> Then it should be easy for you to demonstrate it!




I am, sparky. So you can take your limp attempts at snark, and stick them in a nice, warm place for safekeeping.



			
				SuStel said:
			
		

> You are not following the text of the article you quoted. Here is the first sentence of the article: "Freeform role-playing games, also called freeforms, are a type of role-playing game which employ minimal or no rules; occupying a middle-ground between traditional role-playing games and improvisational theatre." I make the claim that original D&D employs minimal rules. While I wouldn't go so far to say that it is literally a "freeform" game, and I didn't, I do say that its rules are quite minimal. Let us also note that even improvisational theater has rules Now we're playing with semantics. A "role-player" isn't necessarily playing a "role-playing game." He may just be "play-acting," which may not be a game at all.




The article was for your benefit, and yes, I read it. It's a description of a particular form of roleplaying which employs no rules beyond those that the GM invents. The Keep is one such example. I have a lot of friends who play there.

It is roleplaying. It is freeform. And it is more rules lite than any form of D&D whatsoever.

Some of the people who play it make fun of folks like you and I who actually use rulebooks.



			
				SuStel said:
			
		

> There was no such thing as a "rules-lite" RPG when D&D was first published! It was simply "the rules," and they were simple, vague, and permissive. The actual "rules" of D&D boil down, mostly, to just the concepts of hit points, choosing a character type, determining characteristics, alignment, what experience points do, and how to cast spells. Everything else is simply lists (lists of character types, lists of equipment, lists of spells, lists of monsters, lists of treasure) and possible systems to determine outcomes (how to play out combat, how much do hirelings cost, who lives in that castle?, how to conduct naval combat, and so on). None of the lists or systems are rules. The actual rules only build the game's playing pieces (the characters) and then the rest is guidance on how to resolve the situations that will come up. As time went on the the D&D supplements were published, this wide-open game started to get filled in with actual rules. _Greyhawk_ added several of them that stuck, like variable hit dice and weapon damage and significant adjustments due to ability scores. Other supplements (like _Blackmoor_) suggested rules that went in different directions. These supplements were the writers saying, "I think this is a good rule to fill in this silent area of the rules. Use it if you agree."




You're describing game mechanics, and nicely proving my point all the while. Those are rules, and yes, earlier versions of the game were certainly rules lite by comparison to the present edition.

What you apparently don't understand is that there are degrees of "rules lite" even beyond what you describe.



			
				SuStel said:
			
		

> Original D&D was a new game form. It gave you _extremely_ basic rules, and a bunch of "objects" to plug into the game. Those objects were not rules. You can swap or replace them at will and not change the framework of the game. But change the few rules that there are (like spell casting) and you _do_ change something fundamental in the game.




And the fact that there are rules that bind IN ANY WAY makes it more constricting than true freeform roleplaying.

You say, "Ah ha! But there weren't very many rules! Only a few!"

And you're entirely missing the point.

It has rules. And there are people who freeform roleplay - and yes, I've met them - who consider that unimaginative, and just as constricting as some people find my particular style of play, which tends to be GURPS, Exalted, D&D 3.X and d20 Modern.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 5, 2007)

SuStel said:
			
		

> But everyone around the table can do this, whether player or referee, so it's no equalizer for what I said earlier. And D&D wasn't originally conceived of as a play-acting game, but as a 1:1 wargame-like game in which the rules did not prescribe your allowed actions.
> 
> That was the real innovation of D&D. In previous games, the rules prescribed what you were allowed to do. In D&D, the rules did _not_ do this. You could try _anything_.
> 
> In this sense d20 has tended back toward the wargame. Rules have been developed prescribing most of your allowed actions.



Actually, I would make a distinction between the rules telling you what to do, and the rules telling you what happens. This harkens back to my earlier point on page one (or so) of this thread on menu-driven player interfaces vs interfaces that accept an unlimited variety of inputs.

In a menu-driven player interface, the rules tell you what to do, because there is no option to try something outside the ambit of the rules. However, in a table-top RPG, you wouldn't normally have a menu-driven interface, and players can try anything (whether or not they succeed at it is another matter, of course). What the rules do is define what happens, e.g. whether the player succeeds, and how well.

This is where I make a further distinction between more comprehensive and less comprehensive rules sets. This has nothing to do with "rules-light" or "rules-heavy". It is possible to have a very comprehensive but very rules-light rule set. For example, the coin flip resolution system mentioned by RFisher: flip a coin to determine whether the PC succeeds at anything.

Compared to previous editions of D&D, 3e is a relatively more comprehensive rule set, as it provides resolution mechanisms for more things that a PC might attempt, e.g. how far can a character jump? Can a fighter in leather armor sneak up on a goblin? How long can he hold his breath? I think the implicit assumption in previous editions was that if there was no specific rule, the character could accomplish anything that a normal man was able to do. Where this broke down, at least for me, was that I had no idea what a normal man's chance of success at some things were, and I had even less idea what an experienced and skilled adventurer's chance of success at those same things were, especially if he was stronger, smarter, tougher, or more dexterous than an average man.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 5, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> However, the more options that become available the less this is likely to be the case.  Although not "point based" in a literal sense, D&D is becoming "point based" in its character design and development approach.  In doing so, it becomes harder to assume a certain level of competency or effectiveness at a given character level.  For the home grown campaign, it is less of an issue because the DM should be well versed in his PCs capabilities and power levels.  The same cannot be said for prepackaged adventures and campaigns.  Two 5th level fighters in D&D 3.x will look and play a lot different from one another.  Two 5th level fighters in AD&D1 will be differentiated pretty much by equipment (maybe) and the player.  In many cases, it is *more* work for the DM to adapt a published adventure than it is to create one from whole cloth.




However, the assumption in the above statement is that additional options automatically mean that characters are more powerful.  I really don't think that's happened particularly.  Different options does not mean different power levels.  

Speaking as someone who just ran the World's Largest Dungeon and allowed pretty much any character option the players wanted, I can say that it isn't that hard to adapt an adventure to the players.  In fact, it was very easy.  (despite some mistakes in a particular region, but that was a separate issue)  There was a point where I was actually prepped, completely prepped for the game for SIX MONTHS ahead of time.   Because the options coming out of most companies now are balanced within the framework of the d20 ruleset, it becomes fairly easy to spot the mistakes and reasonably easy to sit back and relax.  The rules work.  The additional rules work.  Most of the time.  Yes, there are some rough spots.  No system is perfect.  But, I don't have massive power disparities between classes typically.

IMO, the CR system works reasonably well.  At higher levels, I think it's a bit wonky.  But, certainly at 10th and lower, it's usually bang on.




			
				RC said:
			
		

> Are you saying that it is your contention that "The DM has final say" is stated as strongly or as forcefully in 3.X as in earlier editions? If you are, then I'll go to the effort of looking in the books to answer your question. If you are not, what bearing does your question have?




/edit

It's not a piddling contest about which edition states it stronger.  The point was made and has been made several times, that 3e disempowers DM's by stripping away rule 0.  Considering that "Ask your DM before you do anything" appears time after time in book after book, I think that this is perhaps not true.



> Compared to previous editions of D&D, 3e is a relatively more comprehensive rule set, as it provides resolution mechanisms for more things that a PC might attempt, e.g. how far can a character jump? Can a fighter in leather armor sneak up on a goblin? How long can he hold his breath? I think the implicit assumption in previous editions was that if there was no specific rule, the character could accomplish anything that a normal man was able to do. Where this broke down, at least for me, was that I had no idea what a normal man's chance of success at some things were, and I had even less idea what an experienced and skilled adventurer's chance of success at those same things were, especially if he was stronger, smarter, tougher, or more dexterous than an average man.




QFT

I read, either in this thread or another how someone wasn't sure if a normal person could climb a tree in plate mail.  And, IIRC, he said that he would disallow it.  Historically speaking, that person probably could climb a tree.  Not a Red Wood maybe, but, a fairly easy to climb tree?  Not a big problem.  In 3e, as a player and a DM, I can make the ruling very easily.  Set the climb DC and go.  Under the above DM, it doesn't matter what I think, I cannot climb that tree.

That kind of disconnect was my experience in earlier editions all the time.


----------



## Ian Demagi (Apr 5, 2007)

*Differences in editions*

One huge difference for me was the way the "basic party" went from 6 PC's to 4 PC's.

In 2nd Ed, a very basic and effective group was 3 fighter types, a Cleric, Rogue, & Wizard. Sure you could do  a huge variety of variations, but 3 Fighter (types), a Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard would pretty much get the job done. 

Now with a basic party of 4 PC's the game seemed to fundamantally change. The PC's got tougher, got more attacks, but there seems to be less margin for error. 


Ian


----------



## MerricB (Apr 5, 2007)

The problem is that D&D didn't define was the basic party was - although we tend to think of AD&D as 6 characters, it wasn't true in fact. 

Groups would range from 2-10 characters (including NPC henchmen), and possibly more. A lot of my early AD&D play was with 3-4 characters. Later, I ran a group with 8 characters, although it dropped down as it progressed. In 3E, I've run groups of 3-9 characters.

When you look at the NPC parties in the AD&D DMG, they're 9 characters big; 2-5 PC-types, the rest made up by henchmen and men-at-arms.

Cheers!


----------



## Imaro (Apr 5, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> They are free to complain as much as they like. Nothing in the game says I, as the DM, have to allow anything in the game I don't want. In fact, it says exactly the opposite.
> 
> I can remember having arguments about whether or not to allow material from Dragon Magazine articles, or Oriental Adventures, or Unearthed Arcana. Player entitlement isn't a new concept, nor even a new discussion.




The poster I was replying to implied there was more complaints and whinning during AD&D...This was just to reinforce the fact that there's just as much or more to complain about in D&D 3.x.  Not sure exactly what you're stressing here.





			
				molonel said:
			
		

> That's a little nostalgic rhapsodizing, there. Most traps weren't ripped straight from the pages of MENSA, nor did they require a Master's degree in engineering or logic to deal with. Gygax might not have invented the character meatgrinder, but he sure put his stamp on it.
> 
> Saying that "now it's dice rolling" and then it was a thinking-man's game is just silly, I'm sorry.




Once again...MY EXPERIENCES.  I ran into way more "puzzle type" traps and challenges in former editions than in 3.x.  YMMV, but to tell me my memory and experiences are just nostalgia implies you played and gamed with me, or under me...and I don't think you did.

Traps are a staple of S&S fiction...Conan, Fafhrd and Gray Mouser even Elric at times find themselves facing traps that guard important or valuable treasure.



			
				molonel said:
			
		

> No, but training them to walk everywhere 1 .... single ..... foot ..... at ..... a ..... time can become extremely tedious.




Uhm...I do not think I posted what you think I posted...sooo really no coment on this one.





			
				molonel said:
			
		

> You can go overboard either way. By the same logic, if the DM absolutely refuses to listen to player input, he or she may find herself designing a nice, perfect world ... and never running a game in it because players get sick of running up against arbitrary brick walls that the DM refuses to explain. I've seen it happen.




In the end the DM/GM should have something that brings his creativity to the table...The poster I was replying to gave all negative examples of a DM wanting to run a game the way he wants to.  Sorry but you get a character to design, what do I get? is a valid question to pose.  I like to run a certain type of game and IMHO it is beter if I run the type I want than to do a half-assed, not-really-excited-about-it attempt to run something that doesn't pique my interest.  If my players don't enjoy my type of game I'm probably not the right  DM for them, I have no problem admitting this and have played with people I knew weren't what I was looking for and didn't continue to play with them.  It's called playstyles and there's tons of posts that talk about it.


----------



## Thurbane (Apr 5, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> No rules set is every going to be completely comprehensive. D&D 3.X is no exception.



QFT - and if you don't believe this, just check out freakin long the latest FAQ download is...95 pages and counting!


----------



## Hussar (Apr 5, 2007)

> Traps are a staple of S&S fiction...Conan, Fafhrd and Gray Mouser even Elric at times find themselves facing traps that guard important or valuable treasure.




Traps in Conan?  Really?  I remember lots of monsters.  I remember lots of fights.  I don't remember a lot of Green Demon faces with Instant Death in the mouth.    There's a number of Conan stories that don't feature traps.

Actually, IMO, the biggest feature of S&S fantasy is action.  Deep reflection or thought is more of a high fantasy trope than S&S.  "Speak friend and enter" and "Riddles in the Dark" aren't something I recall a lot of in Conan.  Giant mutant snakes guarding temples and semi-naked slavegirls are things I recall a lot of in Conan.  Puzzles and riddles not so much.  

But, yes, you did see a lot more puzzle stuff in earlier editions.  I'm not sure if that's more a sign of the time or the edition though.  We had lots of puzzles because that's what the modules had.  Over time, even in 2e, you see a whole lot less of the puzzle stuff in modules.  It crops up here and there and still does, but, I think it has more to do with changes in adventure design than in edition.


----------



## Numion (Apr 5, 2007)

SuStel If players have so much stuff and power that they don't [i said:
			
		

> need[/i] to go adventuring, it's too easy, and the players will get bored.




From earliest days of D&D I don't think the standard has ever been that the PCs _need_ to go adventuring. In a normal D&D game (any edition) by level 3 the PCs will have enough money to retire. Retirement was even expected (as someone else said on this thread) in previous editions at 10+ level. If the PCs were forced to adventure, they wouldn't be able to retire.



> You prefer a game where the players can be careless?




I prefer a game that makes sense within the fantasy milieu. Arbitrary traps take reasoning away from adventuring - there's no point in trying to deduct what might be dangerous, instead you're encouraged to be in SWAT mode 24/7. I mean, it would make sense if obvious pathways that the monsters use weren't arbitrarily trapped, because they would trip the traps themselves.



> > If the DM is going to change something, there should be a good reason for it, and the changes should be well thought-out.
> 
> 
> 
> That's player-empowerment. *shrug*




That's common sense. *shrug*

Or would you advocate making changes without good reason, and changes that weren't well thought out?


----------



## S'mon (Apr 5, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Actually, IMO, the biggest feature of S&S fantasy is action.  Deep reflection or thought is more of a high fantasy trope than S&S.  "Speak friend and enter" and "Riddles in the Dark" aren't something I recall a lot of in Conan.  Giant mutant snakes guarding temples and semi-naked slavegirls are things I recall a lot of in Conan.  Puzzles and riddles not so much.




They're only semi-naked in the comics, in the REH stories they're generally naked, the noblewomen too... - but yes I agree, 'random' puzzles & riddles seem much more Tolkien than REH.  Leiber's are generally weird massive magical effects like the animated tower, not the D&D standard pit or spear trap Indiana Jones type thing.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 5, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Traps in Conan?  Really?  I remember lots of monsters.  I remember lots of fights.  I don't remember a lot of Green Demon faces with Instant Death in the mouth.    There's a number of Conan stories that don't feature traps.
> 
> Actually, IMO, the biggest feature of S&S fantasy is action.  Deep reflection or thought is more of a high fantasy trope than S&S.  "Speak friend and enter" and "Riddles in the Dark" aren't something I recall a lot of in Conan.  Giant mutant snakes guarding temples and semi-naked slavegirls are things I recall a lot of in Conan.  Puzzles and riddles not so much.
> 
> But, yes, you did see a lot more puzzle stuff in earlier editions.  I'm not sure if that's more a sign of the time or the edition though.  We had lots of puzzles because that's what the modules had.  Over time, even in 2e, you see a whole lot less of the puzzle stuff in modules.  It crops up here and there and still does, but, I think it has more to do with changes in adventure design than in edition.




Totally agree with you on instant death traps.  I think that since I started playing AD&D at about 10 with kids who we're older than me, who included the insta-death traps as well as the puzzle and regular traps, by the time I started DM'ing I knew what I did and didn't want in my games.  I remember almost crying because my character got killed by what I considered a totally senseless trap. Yeah I sucked it up...but...it...still...hurt...     
Puzzle traps on the other hand I loved, they gave me something interactive to do with a trap and everyone in the party could contribute, even if they weren't a thief/rogue.

S&S does feature alot of traps...check out "Xuthal of the Dusk" for a classic D&D style random pit trap that Conan falls into.  "Thieves House" by Fritz leiber has alot of traps from nooses and pits to blades springing from walls.  These are just two from the top of my head, but I'm sure I could find way more given some time and my books.  I think these characterize the classic AD&D trap...random places that when examined too long don't make sense(S&S is about the adventure not the why's), deadly(but the heroes allways find a way to avoid them or their efffects), etc.  They tend to be rarer than one finds in an AD&D adventure(but they are there) but this may be because the heroes aren't exploring forty room dungeons either.  IMHO Tolkien doesn't epitomize traps to me at all, the door to  Moria wasn't a trap it was a secret door with a special opening mechanism.  At most I'd say AD&D was mostly characterized by an unabashed blending of the tropes of these two genres.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 5, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> I am, sparky. So you can take your limp attempts at snark, and stick them in a nice, warm place for safekeeping.






Molonel, the above is not acceptable.  Respond respectfully, or don't respond at all.  

And, as if I have to mention it, that goes for everyone. *Keep it civil.*


----------



## RFisher (Apr 5, 2007)

SuStel said:
			
		

> That was the real innovation of D&D. In previous games, the rules prescribed what you were allowed to do. In D&D, the rules did _not_ do this. You could try _anything_.




Agreed.

Although, based on a conversation between Gygax, Kuntz, & Mornard on the Pied Piper forums, I get the impression that at least the wargamers in Lake Geneva already had that idea firmly established, even before Arneson & company showed them Blackmoor.

The more I look into it, the more I wonder how many of the things we often take as RPG innovations were really already there--& already bones of contention--among the grognard wargamers.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I'm not saying that the ability to create builds is a bad thing, merely that it is a _real_ thing, and a change of emphasis from earlier editions that has a real impact both on how the game is perceived and the game is played.




One of the things that keeps _me_ (repeat..._me_) from playing 3e in the style I'd like to is this: If I set low DCs & assume Take 10 for certain things to try to fit 3e to my style, then the players are going to start to notice that putting a bunch of ranks into Spot is a waste. In the short term, a player who put ranks in Spot at the expense of other skills may get very annoyed by this. In the long term, the players will stop putting ranks into skills that--because of my DMing style--don't make a difference, thus having more ranks to put into other skills & altering the balance built into the system.

So, if the game has a Spot skill, as DM I'm going to feel obligated to make it enough of a factor in the game to make the players not regret having put ranks into it.

Sure, I can house-rule or take other measures to compensate. The easiest measure, however, is to try to pick a system that's a better fit for my style, though.

Although, the max ranks based on level mitigates this to a certain extent. This is an area where 3e's hybrid of class & level with point-based may pay off. Of course, you have people who rail against that rule...



			
				SuStel said:
			
		

> I didn't mean to suggest that this reaction was intentionally provoked in writing the third edition.




For what it's worth, I didn't mean to imply you did.



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> Where this broke down, at least for me, was that I had no idea what a normal man's chance of success at some things were, and I had even less idea what an experienced and skilled adventurer's chance of success at those same things were, especially if he was stronger, smarter, tougher, or more dexterous than an average man.




But you don't _need_ to have an idea. The people at the table just have to come up with an answer that is good enough for them. Sure, the DM may have the burden of making the final call, but--as it's a game--it's a fairly light burden. (^_^)

I'm not even sure that on many issues you could get an objective answer at all. Consult three respected scholars, & you'll probably get three different answers. But if you got them together in a D&D game, they'd all accept whichever of the three answers the DM choose & get on with the game.

& I'm not convinced that picking a DC--even when you do have a good list of example DCs to go by & bother to reference them--is significantly different. I think you're still as likely to be just as far off the mark.

I've lost count of the number of times with comprehensive & detailed systems that we've played it very close to the book & ended up with results very far from our expectations. (Though, I probably still need to be better about overruling the rules in cases like that.)


----------



## an_idol_mind (Apr 5, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> One of the things that keeps _me_ (repeat..._me_) from playing 3e in the style I'd like to is this: If I set low DCs & assume Take 10 for certain things to try to fit 3e to my style, then the players are going to start to notice that putting a bunch of ranks into Spot is a waste. In the short term, a player who put ranks in Spot at the expense of other skills may get very annoyed by this. In the long term, the players will stop putting ranks into skills that--because of my DMing style--don't make a difference, thus having more ranks to put into other skills & altering the balance built into the system.
> 
> So, if the game has a Spot skill, as DM I'm going to feel obligated to make it enough of a factor in the game to make the players not regret having put ranks into it.




3e does seem to incite a lot of worries about game balance. I'm wondering why that's so. Is it a company thing, a reflection of the current players, or something else? I don't think it's a system thing, because I know from personal experience that the game responds well to many different tweaks and changes. For example, I run Spot checks pretty much the way you would, and I've never felt any sinister shift in game balance.

In older editions, people would house rule things without worrying about unbalancing the game. For whatever reason, people's perception of the game seems to have changed to the point that any tweak is examined and re-examined to preserve balance. Maybe it's an Internet thing or something...


----------



## Hussar (Apr 5, 2007)

> But you don't need to have an idea. The people at the table just have to come up with an answer that is good enough for them. Sure, the DM may have the burden of making the final call, but--as it's a game--it's a fairly light burden.




heh, tell that to the flaming rows we used to have around the table.  



> In older editions, people would house rule things without worrying about unbalancing the game. For whatever reason, people's perception of the game seems to have changed to the point that any tweak is examined and re-examined to preserve balance. Maybe it's an Internet thing or something...




Honestly, I think it's a bit of two things.  One, it's an Internet thing with so many people having so much information and constantly reexamining the same thing.  The second is that game design concepts are much more open now than previously.  We have explanations for why something is so. 

Take the CR system and compare it to the xp award system in previous editions.  Previously an orc was worth 15 xp.  (I think)  Why?  We have no real idea.  I remember in 2e looking at the table in the front of the Monstrous Compendium and thinking, "Hey, isn't infravision a non-magical special ability?  That's worth a +1HD.  If I give the orc a bow, doesn't that equate with another +1 according to this table which says that ranged attacks are +1 HD?"  But, honestly, there wasn't a whole lot of guidance for why an orc was worth what it was worth.  Or any other creature for that matter.  Creature X was worth xp Y.  And that was the end of the story.

Now, we have sidebars and other text, right in the DMG, never mind other sources, discussing CR and how it relates to a host of other effects like adventure design and what have you.  While CR is hardly a science, it is an attempt at a systematic approach to adventure design.  Whether it is successful or not is certainly debatable, but it is an attempt.

Like an_idol_mind, I have found the ruleset to be more than robust enough to handle a lot of changes.  My World's largest Dungeon group had no arcane casters for example.  No cleric either (favoured soul instead).  The group size varied from 3 to 7.  Yet, the module played reasonably well most of the time.  The malfunctions that I ran into were typically due to poor application of the rules rather than going outside of assumptions.  ((A personal beef of mine is the Big Monster in a Small Room syndrome that plagues the module where you have six Minotaurs in a 20x20 room for example))

But, because 3e was designed by designers, its approach is more systematic than previous editions.  Again, that will meet with praise or disappointment depending on the user, but, I don't think that that's an unfair assessment.


----------



## Numion (Apr 5, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> QFT. I'm firmly of the belief that from their first appearance in OD&D supplement I the high level (7th-9th for mages, 6th-7th for clerics) were mostly for show, intended (as you said) to be given to liches, titans, and other ultra-high level NPCs and perhaps found on a scroll occasionally, but not for actual widespread use by player characters (who are, at least implicitly, expected to enter retirement somewhere around 12-14th level). I've only half-jokingly said in the past that the AD&D PH should've listed only the names of the high level spells (like was done with 3rd level spells in the Holmes Basic rulebook) and left the actual descriptions in the DMG, reinforcing the notion that these spells exist in the game-world but aren't really supposed to be for players.




Why did you think that that was what TSR intended? If they had intended those spells for NPCs (like S'mon also pointed out), they would've been in the DMG. Then again, magic items, most of which certainly were intended for PCs, were put into DMG  :\ 

The more I think about it, the PHB / DMG split seems, in some parts, arbitrary. A good idea, but not perfectly executed. 

Even though I like DMing and playing high-level D&D, the idea of putting the big guns in DMGs isn't half bad. D&D should stress more the difference between NPCs and PCs, and this could be a start. At least it would add to the mystery of reaching higher levels of power, even though it would (IMO) be in a little bit artificial way.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 5, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> It's not a piddling contest about which edition states it stronger.  The point was made and has been made several times, that 3e disempowers DM's by stripping away rule 0.  Considering that "Ask your DM before you do anything" appears time after time in book after book, I think that this is perhaps not true.




Earlier, someone posted that this wasn't strongly stated, and you asked "What more could they do?"  I then pointed out that it was more strongly stated in earlier editions -- which you seemed to take umbrage at.

Whether or not it is _strongly stated enough_ is certainly open to debate.  However, it is clearly more strongly stated in earlier editions (especially 1e) than it is in 3.X.

I also contest the idea that "Ask your DM before you do anything" appears time after time in book after book -- it appears, from the quotes you've made, one time per book at best, and often with no special emphasis.

If I say "You must X" once per book without special emphasis, and I say "You should be able to Y" several hundred times, I would argue that the average reader will go away with the message that "You should be able to Y" rather than "You must X", and will perhaps come to the conclusion that "You should be able to Y" takes precedence over "You must X".

_This may not be the case_, but it is certainly more a thing to examine than a thing to dismiss.  IMHO, at least.

Also, in 1e at least, the DMG broke down XP awards, so we know _exactly_ why the orc was worth the XP value given.  COnversely, in 3e, we have no clear idea why some monsters were given the CRs they have.

RC


RC


----------



## molonel (Apr 5, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Traps are a staple of S&S fiction...Conan, Fafhrd and Gray Mouser even Elric at times find themselves facing traps that guard important or valuable treasure.




As someone else already pointed out, traps are NOT a staple of Conan. I'd also say that they aren't a staple of Elric, either. One "trap" that comes to mind is the lotus trap that drives men mad in "Rogues in the House." Conan's solution, thinking man that he was, was to stab Thak as many times as he could before he pulled the rope.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> Totally agree with you on instant death traps. I think that since I started playing AD&D at about 10 with kids who we're older than me, who included the insta-death traps as well as the puzzle and regular traps, by the time I started DM'ing I knew what I did and didn't want in my games. I remember almost crying because my character got killed by what I considered a totally senseless trap. Yeah I sucked it up...but...it...still...hurt...




And those are the sorts of traps I associate with earlier editions of the game. One of my friends like to spring what he calls "Gygax traps" on us: totally random, completely lethal and no reason at all for being there.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Whether or not it is _strongly stated enough_ is certainly open to debate. However, it is clearly more strongly stated in earlier editions (especially 1e) than it is in 3.X.




So we've gone from "Completely gone, no sir, it's not there!" to "It was stated more STRONGLY in previous editions?"



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I also contest the idea that "Ask your DM before you do anything" appears time after time in book after book -- it appears, from the quotes you've made, one time per book at best, and often with no special emphasis.




How many times per book would satisfy you?


----------



## SuStel (Apr 5, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> This is where I make a further distinction between more comprehensive and less comprehensive rules sets. This has nothing to do with "rules-light" or "rules-heavy". It is possible to have a very comprehensive but very rules-light rule set. For example, the coin flip resolution system mentioned by RFisher: flip a coin to determine whether the PC succeeds at anything.
> 
> Compared to previous editions of D&D, 3e is a relatively more comprehensive rule set,




This is a good distinction, and I completely agree that the third edition rules are the most comprehensive set of D&D rules to date.



> as it provides resolution mechanisms for more things that a PC might attempt, e.g. how far can a character jump? Can a fighter in leather armor sneak up on a goblin? How long can he hold his breath? I think the implicit assumption in previous editions was that if there was no specific rule, the character could accomplish anything that a normal man was able to do. Where this broke down, at least for me, was that I had no idea what a normal man's chance of success at some things were, and I had even less idea what an experienced and skilled adventurer's chance of success at those same things were, especially if he was stronger, smarter, tougher, or more dexterous than an average man.




More than just "Could a normal man do this?" a referee should look at the ability scores of the character and ask himself, "Could this character do this?" It's often pointed out that ability scores in the original D&D set had little impact on the mechanics of the game. Rather, they were intended to be part of the referee's judgements on whether something was possible for a character to do. ("Can I balance on this log while fighting with this quarterstaff?" "Well, you've got a dexterity score of 8, so you're probably not agile enough to keep your balance while fighting. You fall off and into the river.")


----------



## SuStel (Apr 5, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> From earliest days of D&D I don't think the standard has ever been that the PCs _need_ to go adventuring. In a normal D&D game (any edition) by level 3 the PCs will have enough money to retire. Retirement was even expected (as someone else said on this thread) in previous editions at 10+ level. If the PCs were forced to adventure, they wouldn't be able to retire.




By "need to go adventuring," I meant "to improve their characters," not "to live comfortably." Not to mention the enormous bar tabs that adventurers are assumed to run up!



> I prefer a game that makes sense within the fantasy milieu. Arbitrary traps take reasoning away from adventuring - there's no point in trying to deduct what might be dangerous, instead you're encouraged to be in SWAT mode 24/7. I mean, it would make sense if obvious pathways that the monsters use weren't arbitrarily trapped, because they would trip the traps themselves.




This is the ol' plausibility argument. The level of desired verisimilitude of a campaign depends greatly on the people playing it. My preferences differ from yours: the dungeon as a whole is dangerous, in part because many traps can be completely arbitrary and unfair. That's the deal you signed up for when you entered the dungeon. That's what makes it a challenge. And that's why there are magical ways to regenerate and resurrect characters!



> That's common sense. *shrug*
> 
> Or would you advocate making changes without good reason, and changes that weren't well thought out?




I prefer the game not to delineate rules wherever possible; just provide the necessary framework. Let the referee fill in the blanks. Then rules changes aren't necessary.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 5, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> So we've gone from "Completely gone, no sir, it's not there!" to "It was stated more STRONGLY in previous editions?"





Please tell me when I said "Completely gone, no sir, it's not there!" 

I don't appreciate the snarkiness of your post, nor do I appreciate you putting words into my mouth.

RC


EDIT:  To be completely clear, I was responding initially to Hussar's response to DM-Rocco in which Hussar said

How much more clearly can they state that the DM has total and complete control over what gets into the game? Sure, they do say in other places that if something is ok, you should say yes, but, the straight up, bottom line in the DMG is that the DM is in charge.​
My response was

Well, 

(1) They could say that it wasn't a secret, and

(2) They could print it in big bold letters at the front of the PHB (as was done in 1e), so that the players also know that the DM is in charge.

I might also add

(3) They could couch all that "Just say Yes" stuff as advice reflecting one playstyle, rather than making a blanket statement.

EDIT:

(4) They could refer to the DM being in charge in more than one place, so you don't have to hunt for the quote, as was done in previous editions.​
(That "secret" in #1 refers to the quote Hussar made from the 3.0 DMG that included "Let's start with the biggest secret of all, the key to Dungeon Mastering... The secret is that you're in charge.")

I am curious how that turned into "Completely gone, no sir, it's not there!" in your mind.  Especially since you responded to my post and (presumably) read it before responding.

Now, it's true that I do believe that repeated forceful statements are more clear, and that hence, the more repeated, more forceful statements in earlier editions (1e in particular) are therefore more clear.

A response to a complaint that 3.X doesn't state this clearly enough (such as, as I understand it, DM-Rocco's was) that says, in effect, "It could not be stated more clearly" is simply wrong.  Moreover, it gets in the way of the actual meat of the issue:  "Is it stated clearly enough?"

There is a change to the way "Rule 0" is communicated in the editions.  There is a change to both the degree to which it is stated, and to the degree to which its importance is emphasized.

What this means may be open to debate, and what the effects (if any) are is certainly open to debate.  That the change is real, however, is not open to _reasonable_ debate.

As always, YMMV.


RC


----------



## Rothe (Apr 5, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> I prefer a game that makes sense within the fantasy milieu. Arbitrary traps take reasoning away from adventuring - there's no point in trying to deduct what might be dangerous, instead you're encouraged to be in SWAT mode 24/7. I mean, it would make sense if obvious pathways that the monsters use weren't arbitrarily trapped, because they would trip the traps themselves.







			
				SuStel said:
			
		

> ...
> This is the ol' plausibility argument. The level of desired verisimilitude of a campaign depends greatly on the people playing it. My preferences differ from yours: the dungeon as a whole is dangerous, in part because many traps can be completely arbitrary and unfair. That's the deal you signed up for when you entered the dungeon. That's what makes it a challenge. And that's why there are magical ways to regenerate and resurrect characters!
> ....




I'd have to agree with Numion.   

I'd liken traps to a mystery novel.  A good mystery gives you all the clues needed to solve it (even if just in passing) it takes logical reasoning and deduction to put them together and solve the mystery.  It's hard to do.  A good writer can make you say of course that makes sense why didn't I see that.  A bad mystery writer doesn't give you the clues to solve the mystery, or worse, acts as if he did.  Like deus ex machina plot lines, it's a cop out of the poor writer. 

Pointless, illogical and downright impossible trap placement is like a bad mystery novel.  Sure it's a "challenge" but one that doesn't challenge a player's logical thinking ability because logic plays no part in it.  In fact, it can be anti-logical where trap placements that are impossible become possible.  The ability it "challenges" is the ability to make an extensive standard operating procedure list, which devolves into read the DM/module desinger's mind, or IME the "solution" of sending mook after mook down a corridor to clear it for traps.  

Don't get me wrong, I love me some death dealing traps and a hard old timey dungeon crawl, but a major corridor trap, for example, should have some reason for not going off when the dungeon residents use the corridor.  Maybe they know of it, so maybe there is a clue in the footprints down the corridor.  Maybe they have a lever to turn it off, maybe it requires something heavy or metallic to trigger, and they are all leather wearing kobolds.  Some logic and preferably a subtle clue that "superior play" could pick up on and "poor play" would miss.  To circle back to the OP, early editions always talked about reasoning and "superior play," the logical conclusion is that logic should work, the rub being do you have all the information you need to make the right deductions.


----------



## Keldryn (Apr 5, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Yes - the problem though is that 3e still uses a lot of stuff from 1e/2e for levels 13+ that IMO wasn't really ever intended to be actually used by PCs in the great majority of campaigns, notably 7th-9th level spells.  They look nice, and in 1e were great for giving your Lich M-U 18 NPC kewl powerz, but 7th+ spells are a huge headache to GM, a headache that's got worse as more and more are added in subsequent editions.




Yeah, it's definitely a learning process.  In the 20 years or so that I've been gaming, there have been very, very few times when we've actually ever used those higher level spells in the game.  If this is the first time that these high level spells are actually seeing regular play in-game, then I would expect to see a lot of issues that we never really noticed before.


----------



## Keldryn (Apr 5, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> QFT. I'm firmly of the belief that from their first appearance in OD&D supplement I the high level (7th-9th for mages, 6th-7th for clerics) were mostly for show, intended (as you said) to be given to liches, titans, and other ultra-high level NPCs and perhaps found on a scroll occasionally, but not for actual widespread use by player characters (who are, at least implicitly, expected to enter retirement somewhere around 12-14th level). I've only half-jokingly said in the past that the AD&D PH should've listed only the names of the high level spells (like was done with 3rd level spells in the Holmes Basic rulebook) and left the actual descriptions in the DMG, reinforcing the notion that these spells exist in the game-world but aren't really supposed to be for players.




I would be inclined to agree with you on that.  My first exposure to 7th-level and higher spells was in the "Set 3: Companion Rules" D&D set, which had a pretty limited subset of the high level spells that were in AD&D (I think no more than 8-12 per spell level).  Never really played much at that level, at least not legitimately and after we were older than 13 or 14.

However, unless we're willing to have some more sacred cows given the axe, those spells are baggage that we're kind of stuck with now.  I don't think there was generally as much thought given to coherent, long-term game world design in those days.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 5, 2007)

Rothe said:
			
		

> I'd have to agree with Numion.




As would I, and I like the "mystery novel" analogy.

RC


----------



## molonel (Apr 5, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Please tell me when I said "Completely gone, no sir, it's not there!" I don't appreciate the snarkiness of your post, nor do I appreciate you putting words into my mouth.




You have had to be shown where it states Rule 0 in the 3.5 DMG, the 3.5 PHB, plus several other 3.X books. You have said, within the last two pages of this discussion, "Since I don't own the 3.5 books, I merely assumed that the omission existed. Again, glad to hear I am mistaken." You have also said, "It is my understanding that it isn't in the 3.5 PHB either, though I'd be happy to learn I was wrong."

You have had to be shown where these things are stated in MANY 3.X books, including page number and book, and the best that you are reduced to at this point is the criticism, "It's not in big enough letters" or "They could say it more often."

It's there, it's a rule and it's stated clearly. Commenting on the font size is just a smidgen silly, in my opinion.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> A response to a complaint that 3.X doesn't state this clearly enough (such as, as I understand it, DM-Rocco's was) that says, in effect, "It could not be stated more clearly" is simply wrong. Moreover, it gets in the way of the actual meat of the issue: "Is it stated clearly enough?" There is a change to the way "Rule 0" is communicated in the editions. There is a change to both the degree to which it is stated, and to the degree to which its importance is emphasized. What this means may be open to debate, and what the effects (if any) are is certainly open to debate. That the change is real, however, is not open to _reasonable_ debate.




Repetition is not clarity. Neither is font size. Neither is bolding, or italics. 

"Enough" is a weasel word. It's there, it's clear and arguing for some opaque "level of change" is an argument that proves nothing, nor demonstrates nothing.


----------



## Keldryn (Apr 5, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Yet now they can complain, not only about the above, but also about what feat, prestige class or new base class you don't allow in your game(kinda justified too if they spent the $30 on a complete book or whatever). They can complain about how according to the DC's in the PHB they should have succeded at something or how the use of a skill should have affected a certain aspect of your game.  Don't really see any difference except there's a whole slew more to complain about/for.




That was an issue in every edition of the game I've played.  Ever since there have been sourcebooks, players have bought them and want to use an exciting new concept in the game.  It might have been classes, kits, races, or spells from a Dragon magazine article, PHBR supplements, one of those Mayfair Games unlicensed books, official campaign settings, HR series sourcebooks, Oriental Adventures, or even from other RPGs.  I remember a couple of players who insisted on bringing in races from the Palladium fantasy RPG.  And when they weren't allowed to use one of these options, they complained about it being unfair.  It's never been edition-dependent in my experience.

Also, it does very clearly state in the 3.5e DMG that prestige classes are purely optional and entirely under the DM's control.  The recommendation is _not_ to use all of them in one campaign.  I don't even think prestige classes are mentioned in the 3.5e PHB.  And virtually every WoTC-published book that contains new races, feats, or prestige classes states that it's up to the DM what to include.

When players were familiar with monsters or magic items in previous editions, and I changed something, they'd complain that they should have hit, or the item should have a certain power, or what have you.  I haven't really seen much of a change from 1e to 3.5e in this.  In my experience, it has probably gotten better, as there is a much more consistent set of rules to cover the type of situations where a DM might have arbitrarily decided that the PC had to "make a Dex check at -10" simply because he wanted the character with a 19 Dex to have a reasonable chance of failure.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> There we're those who found it fun trying to determine where the DM had hidden a treasure or how to disarm a trap's mechanism, alot of traps we're puzzles of some sort that involved real interaction. It was problem solving and some players enjoyed it...now it is dice rolling and some players enjoy that.  Eh? different strokes for different folks.




I think those are some of the best aspects of the game.  What I don't like is taking too "gamist" a perspective and placing such challenges almost randomly.  I find that the 3.x editions encourage a more logical and consistent approach to world- and adventure- building than did earlier editions.  This isn't so much a rules issue as it is the "advice" given on such aspects of design, although the consistent resolution mechanics and saving throw categories that make sense contribute as well.  My 3.x games have had as much problem solving as any of my earlier edition games.  And again, I may actually do more of this in my games now because, for example, I feel more justified in letting a player make an appropriate Knowledge check to obtain a hint if the players are stuck on something.  Sure, it was very possible before and I did it all the time as well by asking for an Int or Wis check with some modifier, but it felt more like fudging then than it does now.  To me, anyway.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> See I think it's a very self absorbed player who doesn't allow the DM the freedom and fun of creating his world.




I never said that players shouldn't allow the DM the freedom and fun of creating his world.  However, in my point of view, despite the fact that I'm the one putting most of the effort into creating the game world, it still isn't _my_ world, and I do think that DMs who insist on it being _his or her own_ world are being somewhat self-absorbed.  I may create the setting and the adventures, but it is the players' contributions that make it alive.  Sure, I can have NPCs all operating according to their own agendas and all of that which makes a game world a "living" world that seems to exist outside the PCs, but it's just a bunch of notes and maps without the players.  By inviting my friends to join in my game as players, I am making it their world too.  

Of course the DM needs to enjoy creating the world and running adventures in it.  But it is a very self-centered DM who bases the world entirely upon his own preferences and insists that players either play it his way or go find another game to play in.  Being a DM is about running a game in which everyone is enjoying themselves, not about being an amateur novelist.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> Eventually someones vision of the campaign world has to be dominant and I think it should be the DM that's what he's there for.  This doesn't mean compromise is totally out of the picture...but if I say Dwarves can't be sorcerers and you want to be a dwarf sorcerer then one of us is going to be happy and one of us is going to be happy in someone else's game.




I totally agree that the DM's vision of the campaign world should be dominant -- especially if the game world is to be a relatively coherent one.  I guess if one is DMing on an impersonal level, with a bunch of geeks met at the local game shop whom one never socializes with outside of the gaming circle, then a bit more of a "my way or the highway" attitude is understandable (I suppose).   I always game with pretty much the same people, who are all my friends outside of gaming, and it would never occur to me to force a style of gaming on my players that they don't want.  As for your example, if I had a really good reason for Dwarves not to be Sorcerers but one of my players for whatever reason would not be happy with any other character, I would probably find some way for it to work.  That doesn't mean I cave whenever a player doesn't like something that happens in the game.  Of course, when I design my game worlds, I try to avoid setting up restrictions such as certain races can only take certain classes and whatnot.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> You might ask me why, but if it's a secret or important part of my world I want to reveal later, to everyone, why should I have to tell you? In the end this sounds like a problem with the DM's you played with not really any edition of the game.




Nah, I've played with mostly good DMs.  However, even good DMs make up stupid or poorly thought-out house rules -- myself included.  And I went through a phase back in the early 90s or so where I had a pretty narrow view of what a good fantasy world should be like.  Of course it was lower-magic, grittier and more realistic, vastly reduced hordes of gold and magic items, and lots of restrictions on character creation to support my desired "flavour."  My players didn't complain much, but it wasn't really what they wanted, and I later realized that I was wrong to try to push my preferences on them.


----------



## SuStel (Apr 5, 2007)

Rothe said:
			
		

> Pointless, illogical and downright impossible trap placement is like a bad mystery novel.




Mind you, I'm not talking about a dungeon full of nothing but random, deadly, unavoidable traps. See below.



> but a major corridor trap, for example, should have some reason for not going off when the dungeon residents use the corridor.  Maybe they know of it, so maybe there is a clue in the footprints down the corridor.  Maybe they have a lever to turn it off, maybe it requires something heavy or metallic to trigger, and they are all leather wearing kobolds.  Some logic and preferably a subtle clue that "superior play" could pick up on and "poor play" would miss.  To circle back to the OP, early editions always talked about reasoning and "superior play," the logical conclusion is that logic should work, the rub being do you have all the information you need to make the right deductions.




I agree completely with this. There should usually be some way of _dealing_ with the traps, even if that way is simply "don't touch it, stupid!" But players should not be able to count on the traps they encounter being logical or poignant. Some may be, some may not. Part of the challenge of a trap is figuring out if it's even worth dealing with it. Some traps may simply be instant death slaughterhouses, and the players should keep away from them. Some traps may be cakewalks with treasure at the end.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 5, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> You have had to be shown where it states Rule 0 in the 3.5 DMG, the 3.5 PHB, plus several other 3.X books. You have said, within the last two pages of this discussion, "Since I don't own the 3.5 books, I merely assumed that the omission existed. Again, glad to hear I am mistaken." You have also said, "It is my understanding that it isn't in the 3.5 PHB either, though I'd be happy to learn I was wrong."




(1)  I never asked where it stated Rule 0 in the 3.5 DMG, or several other 3.X books.  That said information was offered to demonstrate that 3.X is the same as 1e in this respect doesn't mean I _asked_ for it, nor that I _had to be shown it_.

This would be similar to my stating that 1 + 1 = 2 in a number of responses to you, and then claiming that you had to be shown that 1 + 1 = 2. 

(2)  I was under the impression that Rule 0 wasn't in the 3.5 DMG, and I am happy to hear that I am wrong.  Some time back, I was in a discussion involving the rules and I stated that a DM call is within the rules due to Rule 0.  The response I received was "Point to Rule 0 in the 3.5 PHB" or words to that effect.  A subsequent poster pointed out that Rule 0 was in the 3.5 DMG.

I'm sure I could locate the thread for you, if necessary.    

However, I was clear in stating earlier what my impression was, and that I am glad that I had the wrong impression.  I fail to see why either is a problem.



> You have had to be shown where these things are stated in MANY 3.X books, including page number and book, and the best that you are reduced to at this point is the criticism, "It's not in big enough letters" or "They could say it more often."




Again, if you go back upthread (even to my last post, where I repeated it), you will see that DM-Rocco complained about (effectively) the way Rule 0 is presented.  Hussar responded "How much more clearly can they state that the DM has total and complete control over what gets into the game?"  I answered.



> It's there, it's a rule and it's stated clearly. Commenting on the font size is just a smidgen silly, in my opinion.
> 
> Repetition is not clarity. Neither is font size. Neither is bolding, or italics.




The "QFT" tag so often used in forums such as this is clear example of a way that repetition adds emphasis.  Font size, bold, and italics are also used for emphasis.  If you are arguing that "clarity" exists in terms of wording, then you are certainly correct.  The way something is worded determines how clear its message is.  However, if that wording appears within a given _context_, such as a small part of a larger work, the wording of that small section alone isn't enough to determine its importance related to the whole.

If you are trying to emphasize that a point is important, you might consider repetition, font size, bolding, and italics.  For example, were I writing a murder mystery, I would have to refer to the clues often enough to "play fair" with the reader -- repetition indicates importance.  Indeed, the examples Hussar provided demonstrate that WotC agrees to some degree....Rule 0 is brought up in several instances, and, in at least one case, in bold.

Earlier in the thread, my criticism was for the dismissal of the fact that changes have occured in the emphasis of "Rule 0" over editions.  This is not a criticism of any edition -- many have argued that the de-empahsis of Rule 0 in 3.X is a _good_ thing that prevents egotistical DMs from "forcing" them to play in bad games.  I certainly criticise the reasoning that says, "Emphasis of Rule 0 is the same in all editions" on one thread (because they might see de-emphasis of Rule 0 as a criticism of their favorite edition) and also "De-emphasis of Rule 0 in 3.X is a good thing" on other threads (because it suits their agenda there).

You simply cannot have it both ways.



> "Enough" is a weasel word. It's there, it's clear and arguing for some opaque "level of change" is an argument that proves nothing, nor demonstrates nothing.




Is one monster enough?

One class?

One level?

One race?

"Enough" is not a weasel word, at least not as I define "weaseling".  I define "weaseling" as making mutually contradictory arguments based upon whatever seems to support you at the time (i.e., "Emphasis of Rule 0 is the same in all editions" but "De-emphasis of Rule 0 in 3.X is a good thing"), or phrases designed to create an ever-shifting burden of proof.

Given the question, "Is there enough emphasis on Rule 0 in 3.X?" the obvious question is, as I am sure you know. "What constitutes enough emphasis?"  Clearly "enough" is as subjective in this case as it is when examining whether an edition grants "enough" or "too much" rules emphasis.  In other words, it is clearly subjective.

What is not subjective is that the emphasis has changed.  As I said before,

There is a change to the way "Rule 0" is communicated in the editions. There is a change to both the degree to which it is stated, and to the degree to which its importance is emphasized. What this means may be open to debate, and what the effects (if any) are is certainly open to debate. That the change is real, however, is not open to _reasonable_ debate.​
I don't know where I am being unclear here, or why you seem not to understand what I am saying.  In discussing the differences between editions, it is important, as far as possible, to at least be honest about what those differences are.  I am not saying that "1e is better than 3e" because of these changes; I am merely saying (as my initial response was intended to demonstrate, and which I have detailed in my previous post) that a statement to the effect that they are completely the same is wrong.

Or, as I asked Hussar earlier, are you saying that there is the same degree of emphasis on what we now call "Rule 0" in 1e and 3.X?  Because, if you are not, I fail to see what you are arguing with me about.    


RC


----------



## RFisher (Apr 5, 2007)

an_idol_mind said:
			
		

> In older editions, people would house rule things without worrying about unbalancing the game. For whatever reason, people's perception of the game seems to have changed to the point that any tweak is examined and re-examined to preserve balance. Maybe it's an Internet thing or something...




If you had hung around with my high school AD&D group in the mid-1980s, you would have heard the word "balance" come up quite a lot.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> heh, tell that to the flaming rows we used to have around the table.




Yeah. I used to have flaming rows too. In my experience, though, the amount of arguing at the table is independent of system but directly proportional to my willingness to argue. (^_^) & even in my arguing days, I considered that part of the fun. (Still do on occasion, but I just do it a lot less & don't carry through to the flaming row level.)


----------



## Umbran (Apr 5, 2007)

Raven Crowking and Molonel,

I think perhaps you should strongly reconsider the nature of your conflict before proceeding any further down these lines.  Please consider addressing the positions more, and the personages less, and that nobody "wins" these things, so there is no actual need to defend yourself if it isn't otherwise constructive.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 5, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Why did you think that that was what TSR intended? If they had intended those spells for NPCs (like S'mon also pointed out), they would've been in the DMG. Then again, magic items, most of which certainly were intended for PCs, were put into DMG  :\




Well personally I think EGG showed a degree of favouritism towards the M-U class, and the high level spells were indeed used by his own PCs (eg Mordenkainen).  If EGG had preferred Thieves the game might have looked quite different.


----------



## Keldryn (Apr 5, 2007)

SuStel said:
			
		

> It's a _game_. The challenge for the players is to "score" as many experience points as possible. The challenge for the referee is to make this as hard as possible for the players, _but keep them coming back for more._ That's what "game balance" used to refer to. If players have so much stuff and power that they don't _need_ to go adventuring, it's too easy, and the players will get bored.




Of course it's a game, and I never said it wasn't.  Nor did I say that the player should have it easy and not have to go adventuring.  I was specifically referring to much of the "old school" DM advice that often involved really cheap ways to cheat the players out of rewards that they had already earned.  If the players worked hard to overcome a challenge and were rewarded with a powerful item, it's cheap and unfair DMing to arbitrarily take it away because you don't want them to have it anymore.  A good game definitely involves difficult challenges for the PCs to overcome.  But if virtually everything they do, no matter how mundane or trivial, is difficult, then the challenges start to become meaningless.




			
				SuStel said:
			
		

> That's what wandering monsters are for. The more time you waste in the dungeon, the more times you're going to run into wandering monsters. And wandering monsters almost never have anything worthwhile, so you want to avoid them as much as possible.




"Wandering monsters" start to strain believability in short order if they are over-used.  Unless it's a weird, magical dungeon, there are a finite number of inhabitants.  And if a monster that lives on the other side of the dungeon shows up every time they spend 20 minutes searching a room, it starts to get ridiculous.  And as you said, wandering monsters are essentially not worth the bother, so it wastes even _more_ time.  As adults who work full-time and have families, we don't get to play as often as we did in high school.  If we get to play twice a month for 4-5 hours per session, then we're pretty lucky.  I certainly don't want to waste a good chunk of that time on my players pedantically searching every inch of the dungeon, nor waste even more time playing out the irrelevant wandering monster encounters that result from it.  I don't see anything clever about placing treasure in places where only extremely thorough and anal room-searching is going to locate it.  Then it's just a matter of trial and error or brute force. 



			
				SuStel said:
			
		

> You prefer a game where the players can be careless?




I didn't say that.  But there is a world of difference between "careless" and "ridiculously cautious bordering on extreme paranoia."  And a lot of longtime players seem to fall into the latter category.  It bores me to tears as a DM when the players suspect a potentially deadly trap at every turn and go through a very involved procedure to make sure it's safe to proceed. 




			
				SuStel said:
			
		

> That's player-empowerment. *shrug*




If it's player empowerment that a DM should have a justifiable reason for changing the rules, and that those changes should be well thought-out, then I'm all in favour of it.  I don't get why "player empowerment" is treated like a four-letter word.  It's the players' game as much as it is the DM's game -- and if the DM thinks it's mainly his game, then he should probably be writing fan-fiction instead of running a game.  The DM is always in control of the pacing of the game and always has final say on any ruling or the results of any actions the PCs take.  That being said, the players also are not passive simpletons, accepting whatever direction the DM decides the game will go.  The players' decisions and the actions of their PCs is what drives the game forward and players should rightfully feel empowered.  

And that is not the same thing as players telling the DM what they should be allowed to use in the game, telling the DM how he or she should run the game, or having an easy ride where they don't have to put any effort into the game and the DM rewards them based on the DMG "reward schedule."



			
				SuStel said:
			
		

> Nonono. Those are two different things. A referee is not an arbiter of the rules. The rules are set down in a book; a referee is an arbiter of things _not covered_ by the rules. This is a totally separate function from rules-alterer. In early D&D there were few rules you needed to alter to run things your own way. In d20 there are a whole bunch of rules you need to alter to make things work your way. Thus, the focus of the DM has changed over time from game-arbiter to rules-alterer and cruncher.




I wasn't saying those were identical roles, but this digression into semantics was a nice way of side-stepping my point that the DM's primary role in the game is to ensure that everyone involved is having a good time and that there are opportunities for every player to shine.  All within reason, of course -- I'm not advocating caving in to players who whine about everything and I have no problems telling my players "no."



			
				SuStel said:
			
		

> You're seeing a lack of rules and assuming it means there's nothing to do. The AD&D _Dungeon Masters Guide_ discusses in general terms what high-level adventuring in the planes of existence might be like.




No, I'm not.  In my experience (and virtually everyone I know), campaigns very rarely lasted long enough to get to those higher levels, in no small part due to the fact that the game was not really designed for high-level play and advancement slowed to a crawl after about 10th level.  Of course my personal experience is not necessarily representative of the population at large, but it certainly seems that the majority of campaigns tended to end before advancing to the higher levels.  3e was partially designed with the goal of allowing a campaign of "average length" -- which is about a year according to WoTC's pre-3e research -- to experience the full range of advancement from levels 1 to 20 and all of the higher-level goodies that come with it.  The research may or may not be accurate, but it certainly seems to fit my own experience.



			
				SuStel said:
			
		

> The D&D Companion, Masters, and Immortals sets should be viewed as just one way to do these things. And they're just frameworks at that. If you've ever _read_ the Immortals rules, you know that they're very, very open to interpretation. Literally _anything_ can happen in them!




It really sounds like you're implying that I haven't _read_ the Immortals rules.

I had owned and read through all five D&D sets of that era before I'd ever even owned an AD&D book.  Never actually played the Immortals rules as legitimately advancing from a 1st-level mortal all the way through one of the paths to immortality set out in the Masters rules, but we created some Immortal PCs just for the fun of it.  And yes, it is a very different take on very high-level play than AD&D and D&D 3e.  One thing that I did really like about those D&D Sets 3 to 5 was that they placed a higher emphasis on _not_ just doing pretty much the same thing as levels 1-14 but with more hit points and more magic.  Founding domains, running kingdoms, leading large-scale wars, and achieving true immortality were all much loftier goals for powerful heroes.  It was a pretty loose framework, but I've pretty much always retained some elements of it in my AD&D games.


----------



## molonel (Apr 5, 2007)

Keldryn said:
			
		

> I had owned and read through all five D&D sets of that era before I'd ever even owned an AD&D book. Never actually played the Immortals rules as legitimately advancing from a 1st-level mortal all the way through one of the paths to immortality set out in the Masters rules, but we created some Immortal PCs just for the fun of it. And yes, it is a very different take on very high-level play than AD&D and D&D 3e. One thing that I did really like about those D&D Sets 3 to 5 was that they placed a higher emphasis on _not_ just doing pretty much the same thing as levels 1-14 but with more hit points and more magic. Founding domains, running kingdoms, leading large-scale wars, and achieving true immortality were all much loftier goals for powerful heroes. It was a pretty loose framework, but I've pretty much always retained some elements of it in my AD&D games.




The 3rd Edition epic level rules and the bare attempt they made at immortal rules in Deities & Demigods are among the worst rules sets in 3rd Edition D&D, in my opinion. The guys over at Dice Freaks have been able to salvage something from them, but not much.

The immortals rules were a much better attempt.


----------



## Keldryn (Apr 5, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, yes, you did see a lot more puzzle stuff in earlier editions.  I'm not sure if that's more a sign of the time or the edition though.  We had lots of puzzles because that's what the modules had.  Over time, even in 2e, you see a whole lot less of the puzzle stuff in modules.  It crops up here and there and still does, but, I think it has more to do with changes in adventure design than in edition.




I attribute that to a trend towards game worlds being constructed as simulated, coherent worlds rather than as simply a location to run the game.  The types of puzzles found in many of those old dungeons don't make much sense when you start thinking about who would place them there and why they would do it.  The Gods Testing Mortals and Insane Wizards Just Being Crazy explanations get old after a while.  The amount of effort involved in creating such traps and puzzles would generally not be worth it to most sane individuals, and if a DM is stressing logical dungeon ecologies and game-world economics that actually make sense, then crazy puzzles and traps are not likely to coexist well with that take on world- and adventure- building.


----------



## Keldryn (Apr 5, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Whether or not it is _strongly stated enough_ is certainly open to debate.  However, it is clearly more strongly stated in earlier editions (especially 1e) than it is in 3.X.
> 
> I also contest the idea that "Ask your DM before you do anything" appears time after time in book after book -- it appears, from the quotes you've made, one time per book at best, and often with no special emphasis.
> 
> ...




I think that in 4th Edition, every single page of every single rulebook and supplement should say *ASK YOUR DM FOR APPROVAL BEFORE YOU DO ANYTHING AS HE OR SHE HAS THE FINAL WORD ON EVERYTHING IN THE GAME.*  In all-caps, bolded, 30-point font.

That would put an end to this debate.  Or maybe not.

That is the default assumption of the game, it states it in the DMG, it states it at the beginning of the PHB, and none of the optional books state, suggest, or imply that all of the contents should be allowed in every game.  It doesn't need to be repeated over and over.


----------



## Deuce Traveler (Apr 6, 2007)

I just wanted to say that I like this thread a lot, and plan to bookmark it.  Well, I like the non-confrontational discussion parts of this thread anyway.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 6, 2007)

If I may ask: how much of the game in each edition relies on judgement calls from the DM?

From my experiences, we didn't do all that much in AD&D that wasn't covered by the rules. (Diplomacy tended to be a bit more freeform, but otherwise...)

Cheers!


----------



## Reynard (Apr 6, 2007)

Keldryn said:
			
		

> One thing that I did really like about those D&D Sets 3 to 5 was that they placed a higher emphasis on _not_ just doing pretty much the same thing as levels 1-14 but with more hit points and more magic.  Founding domains, running kingdoms, leading large-scale wars, and achieving true immortality were all much loftier goals for powerful heroes.  It was a pretty loose framework, but I've pretty much always retained some elements of it in my AD&D games.




I would *kill* for updated versions of both the domain rules and warmachine.  i mean, even Conan -- the hack and slashiest of all D&D's inspirational material-- went to war and ruled nations between prying the gems out of giant statues.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 6, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> If I may ask: how much of the game in each edition relies on judgement calls from the DM?
> 
> From my experiences, we didn't do all that much in AD&D that wasn't covered by the rules. (Diplomacy tended to be a bit more freeform, but otherwise...)
> 
> Cheers!




I remember a lot more "make a dex check" style sitautions in B/X D&D and 1E.  i played the former for quite some time, and only played the latter for about 6 months before 2nd edition appeared, which we promptly switched to and fell in love with proficiencies and such.

I will say, though, that both B/X D&D and 2E were extremely easy to modify to fit a certain theme, mood or milieu, in large part because there were not so many options.  It probably isn't true, but it seems true that if you are going to play a low magic, gritty, sword and sorcery D&D game you have to change a whole bunch of rules and create a whole bunch of mechanics -- feats, PrCs, etc... -- to do so.  The glut of d20 settings with their own special rules in the early days of 3E seems to confirm this perception, if not the actuality.

3.5 has become pretty coprehensive, though, and one could likely take the Core books plus Unearthed Arcana and get a passable game in any fantasy subgenre.  Throw in the Completes and one or two more specific books -- heroes of horror, etc... -- and pair everything down to a limited number of options and you could probably do any setting you wanted with whatever flavor you were going for.  The thing is, though, that when i was running 2E back in the day, I didn't need any extra stuff to do that.  It seemed easier with that rules set to say, "You guys are all airship pirates in a world of floating islands with aerial monsters and races as stand ins for sea going type stuff.  Oh, and the Sailing proficiency* is "airsailing."

Like I said, it might be all perception.  That 2E had so many, widely varied settings with relatively few rules related material for those settings (except FR -- why do you hate me, Faiths and Pantheons?) yet tons of products.  With 3E, you can't open to a random page in, say, and Eberron book without finding a new rule/mechanical bit of some sort.  It may not be a necessity; maybe it just sells.

*Tangent: Why the hell isn't there a Sailing skill in 3.5?  i mean, they've got appraise when it could just as easily be covered by pretty much any profession or craft skill, but no skill for being able to make a boat go where you want it to go other than  Profession: Sailor?  i don't get it.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 6, 2007)

Keldryn said:
			
		

> I think that in 4th Edition, every single page of every single rulebook and supplement should say *ASK YOUR DM FOR APPROVAL BEFORE YOU DO ANYTHING AS HE OR SHE HAS THE FINAL WORD ON EVERYTHING IN THE GAME.*  In all-caps, bolded, 30-point font.



Better perhaps if the supplements just said on the outside cover: "YOUR PURCHASE OF THIS PRODUCT DOES NOT IMPLY OR GUARANTEE YOUR DM WILL ALLOW ITS USE IN HIS/HER GAME"; this has been true since 1e and remains so today, despite some players' best attempts...

Lanefan


----------



## S'mon (Apr 6, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I will say, though, that both B/X D&D and 2E were extremely easy to modify to fit a certain theme, mood or milieu, in large part because there were not so many options.  It probably isn't true, but it seems true that if you are going to play a low magic, gritty, sword and sorcery D&D game you have to change a whole bunch of rules and create a whole bunch of mechanics -- feats, PrCs, etc... -- to do so.  The glut of d20 settings with their own special rules in the early days of 3E seems to confirm this perception, if not the actuality.




Yes - I'm finding it very easy to use B/X to run a low magic, low wealth, grim & gritty PBEM campaign, in a way that would be extremely hard to do in 3e due to class-balance and PC-vs-monster balance issues that arise when you lower the wealth & magic level.  For B/X all I had to do was set suitable demographics, so spellcasters are rare and characters above 4th level very rare, and de-emphasise money by giving XP without reference to treasure - XP awards are about the same as in standard D&D, but sacks of gold much rarer.  Everything else just fell naturally into place.  I found I didn't have to tweak the B/X M-U spell system at all, since in B/X there are no 'free' spells, you have to learn them from mentors or books, and making high level wizards rare sorted that out fine.  When the M-U PC got Fireball, he became a huge military asset because he's the only guy who can cast it within a couple hundred miles!


----------



## Hussar (Apr 6, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> If you had hung around with my high school AD&D group in the mid-1980s, you would have heard the word "balance" come up quite a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. I used to have flaming rows too. In my experience, though, the amount of arguing at the table is independent of system but directly proportional to my willingness to argue. (^_^) & even in my arguing days, I considered that part of the fun. (Still do on occasion, but I just do it a lot less & don't carry through to the flaming row level.)




QFT (Heh, a bit of irony there.   )  I have an idea that every poster in this thread doesn't have much of a problem with "discussing" things.  

I have to admit though, we managed to go about 5 or six pages before the first mod intervention.  That's pretty good.  Hopefully we can keep it going.



> Better perhaps if the supplements just said on the outside cover: "YOUR PURCHASE OF THIS PRODUCT DOES NOT IMPLY OR GUARANTEE YOUR DM WILL ALLOW ITS USE IN HIS/HER GAME"; this has been true since 1e and remains so today, despite some players' best attempts...




This still probably wouldn't go far enough for some people.  After all, players should be barred from reading anything other than the PHB no?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 6, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Better perhaps if the supplements just said on the outside cover: "YOUR PURCHASE OF THIS PRODUCT DOES NOT IMPLY OR GUARANTEE YOUR DM WILL ALLOW ITS USE IN HIS/HER GAME"



That wouldn't make much sense from a business point of view.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 6, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> That wouldn't make much sense from a business point of view.




See.  That's another difference between 2E and 3E.  TSR never let a little thing like business sense get in the way of their publishing schedule.














What?


----------



## Numion (Apr 6, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> If I may ask: how much of the game in each edition relies on judgement calls from the DM?
> 
> From my experiences, we didn't do all that much in AD&D that wasn't covered by the rules. (Diplomacy tended to be a bit more freeform, but otherwise...)




A very good point. Some people think that not covering something in rules tends to create "swinging from chandeliers" creative stuff. For us, it created a game where something not covered by rules, wasn't done. Tactical aspects were mostly absent in our 1E games. Boring "roll-hit-roll-miss-roll-miss" combats.

Having said that, diplomacy should be outside of the rules (I would see no problem with a knowledge skill that allowed you to know how to address the king, for example). I'm glad none of my munchkins have created diplomacy minmax characters.


----------



## Numion (Apr 6, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> *Tangent: Why the hell isn't there a Sailing skill in 3.5?  i mean, they've got appraise when it could just as easily be covered by pretty much any profession or craft skill, but no skill for being able to make a boat go where you want it to go other than  Profession: Sailor?  i don't get it.




PHB tends to cater to rules that adventurers find important and use a lot. For example, rules for procreation are not included, even though for real people (and real fantasy people, if that makes any sense) it's one of the most important functions. 

Hence, appraise is included since it's something PCs use a lot, on the account of the amount of killing things and taking their stuff in D&D. Sailing doesn't happen that much, even though I would have nothing against it.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 6, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Sailing doesn't happen that much, even though I would have nothing against it.




Which is odd, because pretty much every major influential work -- pulp S&S, high fantasy, etc... -- involves boats and pirates at least a few times.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 6, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> See.  That's another difference between 2E and 3E.  TSR never let a little thing like business sense get in the way of their publishing schedule.




I would tend to agree with that.

Going back to 1e, the PHB says, on p. 7,

Considerable enjoyment and excitement in early play stems from not knowing exactly what is going on.  Being uncertain of how a given situation will turn out, not knowing every magic item available, and so forth, adds spice to the game.  Later, this knowledge simulates actual experience, for the seasoned campaigner will have learned through game play.  Under the circumstances, it is strongly urged that players do not purchase or read the *DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE*.  Leave discovery of the information therein to actual adventuring, and you will find that the game is even more fun!​
Essentially, TSR said here "Don't buy it if it'll make your game less fun".  I'd be quite shocked if I saw such a disclaimer in a WotC product.    Or, for that matter, in almost any product anywhere.  Certainly, "Don't buy it unless you need it" is a strange marketing strategy!


----------



## Numion (Apr 6, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Essentially, TSR said here "Don't buy it if it'll make your game less fun".  I'd be quite shocked if I saw such a disclaimer in a WotC product.    Or, for that matter, in almost any product anywhere.  Certainly, "Don't buy it unless you need it" is a strange marketing strategy!




That _is_ strange! No wonder the company tanked.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 6, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Better perhaps if the supplements just said on the outside cover: "YOUR PURCHASE OF THIS PRODUCT DOES NOT IMPLY OR GUARANTEE YOUR DM WILL ALLOW ITS USE IN HIS/HER GAME"; this has been true since 1e and remains so today, despite some players' best attempts...
> 
> Lanefan





I'd be pretty happy to see something like this (a paraphrase, perhaps) in the foreword to the 4.0 PHB:

*ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS* is a game that is demanding for players and Dungeon Masters alike, but the rewards in terms of enjoyment are vast.  There is nothing quite like a successful *D&D* campaign, and its success is based upon the efforts of all participants.  The Dungeon Master is pivotal, of course, but the players are just as important, for they are the primary actors and acresses in the fascinating drama which unfolds before them.  For that reason, their outlook and their conduct will greatly affect the flavor and tempo of the campaign.  Accordingly, they should do their best to further the success of the entire undertaking.  This is often no more than a matter of simple etiquette, and following a few simple guidelines will suffice to make the game experience more fun for everyone concerned, to wit:

1)  Be an organized player; have the necessary information on your character readily at hand and available to the Dungeon Master.

2)  Cooperate with the Dungeon Master and respect his decisions; if you disagree, present your viewpoint with deference to his position as game moderator.  Be prepared to accept his decision as final and remember that not everything in the game will always go your way!

3)  Cooperate with the other players and respect their right to participate.  Encourage new and novice players by making suggestions and allowing them to make decisions on courses of action rather than dictating their responses.

4)  If you are unable to participate in an adventure, give the other players and the DM some concrete guidelines if your character is going to be included in the adventuring group; be prepared to accept the consequences, good or bad, in any case.

5)  Get in the spirit of the game, and use your persona to play with a special personality all its own.  Interact with the other player characters and non-player characters to give the game campaign a unique flavor and "life".  Above all, let yourself go, and enjoy!​
(And the above was Mr. Mike Carr, TSR Games & Rules Editor, in the 1e PHB, p 2.)

Some points that this makes, which are true for all editions are:

(1)  If your game sucks, it may well rest on the DM's shoulders, but the players are just as important and bear blame as well.  Likewise, if the game is great, the players bear a large part of the praise (something Mr. Gygax says explicitly on p. 6).

(2)  Cooperate with others at the table and be considerate.  It isn't all about _you_.  Note that this applies to DMs as well as players.

(3)  The DM has final authority, and this is a desireable thing.

(4)  It is desirable for each campaign to be unique, with a flavor and setting of its own.

Of course, this is something _I_ would like to see, and is certainly not something that would be universally welcomed.  YMMV, and all that.  

There is, IMHO, a spectrum in which this sort of thing can be stated, going from stating on every single page of every single rulebook and supplement "ASK YOUR DM FOR APPROVAL BEFORE YOU DO ANYTHING AS HE OR SHE HAS THE FINAL WORD ON EVERYTHING IN THE GAME" in all-caps, bolded, 30-point font on one end to a more minimalist approach (say, one line in most of the books).  If something can be stated with an emphasis ranging from 1 to 10, saying that 1 is not enough does not imply that you need to hit (or surpass) 10.  

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 6, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> That _is_ strange! No wonder the company tanked.




What's even stranger is that the company _didn't_ tank until they reversed that policy with 2e.  

(And I'm not being snarky here; 1e said "players shouldn't buy something like 80% to 90% of our materials" and players are the majority of the D&D market.  When 2e came out, that policy was reversed.  Heck, even in 1e Unearthed Arcana included both DM & player sections, as did the Surival Guides.  Why was it that only _after_ they changed their policy regarding book sales, the company tanked.

I tend to think it had something to do with the burgeoning collectable card market, especially Magic:  the Gathering, and TSR's attempt to gain a foothold on it with card and dice games like Spellfire, Blood Wars, and Dragon Dice.

Anyone else have any theories?  Is this worth a separate thread?)


----------



## RFisher (Apr 6, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I would *kill* for updated versions of both the domain rules and warmachine.  i mean, even Conan -- the hack and slashiest of all D&D's inspirational material-- went to war and ruled nations between prying the gems out of giant statues.




Wasn't there something like that in one of Ray Winninger's _Dungeoncraft_ articles in _Dragon_? ('Cause I discovered the classic D&D dominion rules _because_ of that.)



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> A very good point. Some people think that not covering something in rules tends to create "swinging from chandeliers" creative stuff. For us, it created a game where something not covered by rules, wasn't done. Tactical aspects were mostly absent in our 1E games. Boring "roll-hit-roll-miss-roll-miss" combats.




Well, we never went as far as "swinging from chandeliers", but that wasn't what my group wanted.

In some ways, I think AD&D really confused this issue for my group. It seemed to swing between levels of abstraction. With very little explaination that this was really just a collection of (what had been) independent house rules. With very little guidance on why you might or might not want to use something in your game. It might have been better if AD&D had continued the base + supplements structure.

I think our classic Traveller games were much more coherent & went beyond the books much more freely.

There is no doubt that my ability to enjoy classic D&D as much as I am depends upon things I've learned here, at Dragonsfoot, on the Wizards OOP forum, on the Pied Piper boards, during the C&C playtest, & elsewhere during the last several years.

That said, I would've abandoned AD&D much, much sooner had our games been nothing but hp-attrition combats & truly random save-or-die traps. We did apply tactics to combat. We did have interesting explorations of not-entirely-arbitrary dungeons. We did do a lot of non-combat, non-dungeon things on role-playing & DM judgement (or fiat) alone.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Certainly, "Don't buy it unless you need it" is a strange marketing strategy!




No. It is _smart_ marketing. If my company's sale force tried to sell enterprise products to our mid-sized customers, we wouldn't be one of the dominate players in our market. (Imperfect, like all analogies. So, please don't bother poking holes in the analogy.) The TSR of that period understood that the DMG wasn't for everyone, so they planned expected sales accordingly. That's why the PHB was a separate book from the DMG. That's why they had a separate D&D line, three (four if you count FITS) other role-playing games, board games, minigames, &c.

Even Wizards has never been first & foremost a D&D company.


----------



## SuStel (Apr 6, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> A very good point. Some people think that not covering something in rules tends to create "swinging from chandeliers" creative stuff. For us, it created a game where something not covered by rules, wasn't done. Tactical aspects were mostly absent in our 1E games. Boring "roll-hit-roll-miss-roll-miss" combats.




See, I just don't get that. The fun of role-playing games for me is the exercise of imagination. If we constrain our choices to what is laid out in the book, where is the imagination?

D&D began this game form by taking a set of wargame rules and saying, "Okay. Here's how you describe your figure. But we won't actually use a figure; just imagine him. You won't need one anyway: there's no board either. Just imagine one. In 3D. Now go on an adventure that this guy called the judge made up. Don't look for the list of possible moves; just imagine them. If you need some guidance on the most common actions in this game, here are a bunch of systems that work."

But then a bunch of people decided that no rules equals no actions, and that role-playing equals play-acting. Over the course of many years, the role-playing game changed. So nowadays D&D says, essentially, "Okay. Here's how you describe your figure. Buy our miniatures, or use tokens. Battle mats make nice playing boards. Now go on an adventure that this guy called the Game Master bought. Here's how you attack. Here's how you jump. Here's how you negotiate. Here's how you ride a horse. Here's how strong the opposition should be. Etc."


----------



## S'mon (Apr 6, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Anyone else have any theories?  Is this worth a separate thread?)




TSR signed a bad sale-or-return deal with a book distributor that resulted in a huge financial hit when a bunch of unsold games/books were returned, causing them to go bankrupt.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 7, 2007)

BryonD said:
			
		

> The sad thing is that, I think, for some of these people these statements are fact FOR THEM and they simply are unable to see that the issue is internal.
> 
> I'm all for books with feats and spells and PClasses.  I don't look for roleplaying between the covers of a book.  I look for roleplaying between my own ears.  The books are for providing a good model of what I make up myself.  And for me 3X blows away the prior editions in achieving this goal.  Heck, there were other game systems before 3E that handily beat prior D&D editions on this count.
> 
> If other people find themselves at a loss of power as DM in 3E then I am quite happy to find myself not held down by the same artificial limitations.  I guess I'm just lucky.




I won't debate Hussar in mindless babble, but I will respond to this.

I really didn't like 2nd edition and when my friends told me to check out 3rd edition, I said no.  D&D to me, at that point, was a game that I told myself that I play in my youth and 2nd edition ruined it for me.

My friends kept pushing and I picked it up and I really liked the changes they made.  I love feats, in fact, I want tons of feats and skills and spells.  However, you can only have so many in one class and you must literally choose between thousands, if you are looking through all the books.

The first things MY friends and even I do is look at the feats and then the classes and then the items and spells when it comes to previewing new books and I know MY friends and I are not alone in that same thought process.  

You can't have a thread like this without talking about the differences between editions.  You just can't.

While I am sure that I am not the first to say these things, I hardly think I am making "sweeping allegations" here and I certainly didn't just chime in to pick a fight.

IMO (for the little people that means IN MY OPINION) I PERSONALLY think that the addition of feats, skills and so many spells that I can't count have ruined the game.  I think that a simpler time with simpler rules not only puts more control in the DMs hand but respect too.  I also think that the earlier versions of the game offered more mystery (because of the lack of rules) and thus greater power for the DM and fun for all.

That being said, I do play 3.5 and I do DM 3.5.  I do love looking at the very things that I PERSONALLY think have ruined the game and I carefully select which books I allow.  I know first hand how letting the characters have free reign over all the books can bring down a game.  I also know how many rules lawyers there where in 1st edition and now that there are rules to cover just about any contingency, the rules lawyers have multiplied, divided, conquered and taken no prisoners.  Why, because not only do they like to argue and every obscure rules there, but mostly because now someone went to great lengths to make sure that every “I” was dotted and every “T” crossed.

If you or others can’t see that as at least a partial truth, then I can’t even have a conversation about this.  

Anyway, I agree with this poster, imagination and role-playing takes place in ones head.  However, I think the 3.5, and more so the 3.0, rules have taken the game out of the DMs hands and given control of the game to the players; but that is just me.


----------



## molonel (Apr 7, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> I really didn't like 2nd edition and when my friends told me to check out 3rd edition, I said no. D&D to me, at that point, was a game that I told myself that I play in my youth and 2nd edition ruined it for me. My friends kept pushing and I picked it up and I really liked the changes they made. I love feats, in fact, I want tons of feats and skills and spells. However, you can only have so many in one class and you must literally choose between thousands, if you are looking through all the books. The first things MY friends and even I do is look at the feats and then the classes and then the items and spells when it comes to previewing new books and I know MY friends and I are not alone in that same thought process. You can't have a thread like this without talking about the differences between editions. You just can't. While I am sure that I am not the first to say these things, I hardly think I am making "sweeping allegations" here and I certainly didn't just chime in to pick a fight. IMO (for the little people that means IN MY OPINION) I PERSONALLY think that the addition of feats, skills and so many spells that I can't count have ruined the game.




I agree with nearly everything you've said, here. 2nd Edition AD&D killed the game for it. It absolutely murdered it. Rules bloat was, in my opinion, one of the primary reasons for that. The Complete Book of Whatever got SO tiresome, and when it started getting down to The Complete Book of Blue Left-Handed Elves Who Prefer Longswords, I left for greener pastures.

3rd Edition is well on its way to that fate, for some people. That's why I don't blame people for picking up Castles & Crusades, or going back to 1st Edition AD&D.

But you'll notice that in these nostalgic discussions, that's the very reason you don't see a lot of 2nd Edition AD&D people waxing poetic.

In 2nd Edition, the choice you had to make was to own the game. You HAD to decide what rules to allow. You HAD to decide what books to allow, and what optional rules. That's why a lot of 2nd Edition AD&D gamers had the ubiquitous 3-inch thick black three ring binder for houserules.

And that's what 3rd Edition gamers have to do. That, or leave for another system. And a lot of people are now choosing that option, too. Maybe 3rd Edition will kill the game for some folks the same way 2nd Edition killed it for me. Who knows? 



			
				DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> I think that a simpler time with simpler rules not only puts more control in the DMs hand but respect too. I also think that the earlier versions of the game offered more mystery (because of the lack of rules) and thus greater power for the DM and fun for all.




This is where I disagree, though. Respect for the DM, and control, are NOT system dependent. I knew silly, Monty Haul DMs in 1st Edition. I saw them in 2nd Edition. You can put a rule in blazing, bright red 80-point font across the front of every rulebook, and it simply does not matter. Some people will follow it, and some people won't.

Mystery is not something any rulebook can create. I slogged through more than my share of cheesy 1st Edition modules, and I've also participated in, and created many mysterious, interesting stories in 3rd Edition.

Sometimes more is too much. But less is not always more.



			
				DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> That being said, I do play 3.5 and I do DM 3.5. I do love looking at the very things that I PERSONALLY think have ruined the game and I carefully select which books I allow. I know first hand how letting the characters have free reign over all the books can bring down a game. I also know how many rules lawyers there where in 1st edition and now that there are rules to cover just about any contingency, the rules lawyers have multiplied, divided, conquered and taken no prisoners. Why, because not only do they like to argue and every obscure rules there, but mostly because now someone went to great lengths to make sure that every “I” was dotted and every “T” crossed. If you or others can’t see that as at least a partial truth, then I can’t even have a conversation about this. Anyway, I agree with this poster, imagination and role-playing takes place in ones head. However, I think the 3.5, and more so the 3.0, rules have taken the game out of the DMs hands and given control of the game to the players; but that is just me.




It's not that feats and spells and prestige classes have ruined the game. But you can have too much of a good thing. 

You MUST decide, as a DM, what you will and will not allow in a game. The rulebooks tell you to do so, and if you don't, then it's your own fault.

Blaming a book for not putting it in larger font is silly.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 7, 2007)

an_idol_mind said:
			
		

> In my experience, I've never seen any issues of DM control in any of the versions of D&D I've played. The DM is the guy running the game. You can disagree with him, but you can hardly hold him hostage -- there won't be a game if you don't let it be on his terms.



Oh, I agree with you on that, but don't you think it is harder for a DM to maintain control in the current edition when the players can not only tell youthat you are wrong but can site the page and bring up the errata on-line.  While you can over rule them as a house rule effect, you can't affect the sheer amount of weight they have on their side; can you?



			
				an_idol_mind said:
			
		

> That said, there has definitely been a change in the way supplements are presented between 2nd and 3rd edition. I used to want to work at TSR so I could produce some of the weirdly creative stuff they had in the 2nd edition days, like Dark Sun, Planescape, and Birthright. As I went through college and 3e came out, my desire to work in the gaming industry disappeared. The supplements shifted less toward stuff that was more a creative exercise than something you'd find in a regular campaign (i.e., Council of Wyrms) and more toward crunch and rules expansions to the core setting (i.e., the Complete books). The latter is better business, so I can't complain, but the former seemed much more fun to me as a writer.



I had such aspirations once as well, Planescape was my favorite.  You have my empathy.
  



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Two things I would like to note:
> 
> (1)  The comment about min/maxing is not simply a "garbage line" because the game itself assumes some level of min/maxing, and you need to look forward in order to qualify for some things (feats, prestige classes), meaning that you must make careful selection of character abilities even in the low levels.
> 
> ...




Well, that is the long version or what I was trying to say.  

I for one found the PHBII and the DMGII great books for different ways to look at the game and set a great tone for the players and the DMGII wasn’t even weighed down with feats, spells and classes.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I've been meaning to rewrite the rules for Epic Spellcasting for a while now.  I think that the idea is sound, but you are right about the execution being 'borked'.  I don't think the problem is hopeless by any means, and in fact the only thing I'd be worried about is the fact that skill enhancing items are way underpriced.  But with a few restrictions on those and changes in the item creation rules, I don't see any reason why the Epic Seed rules couldn't be rewritten to something more sensible and worthwhile.




Even though I think the Epic rules are completely broken, I would love to see a workable Epic spell creation chart or system.  Please let me know if you ever see this through.



			
				Keldryn said:
			
		

> I think that many people had a very different experience than I did with earlier editions of the game.
> 
> I started playing D&D in 1986 at the age of 12, with the "Red Box" D&D Basic Set (1983 Mentzer edition).  The one with the Elmore painting of a red dragon on the cover, with all the interior art done by Elmore and Easley.  We moved on quickly through the Expert, Companion, and Master sets -- nobody seemed to care for that silly rule about never being able to gain more than one level in a game session.
> 
> ...




I don’t know about that.  Certainly 3.0 + has many options for higher level play, including the Epic rules, but there was some stuff for the 1st edition guys to advance to high levels.  The Basic game had a bit more, even going into the Immortal rules” but AD&D did have a few modules for higher level play and Dungeon Magazine had modules for AD&D characters up to level 25+ once.  

I think the misconception stems from when Gary Gygax announced once that if you made it to level 10, you might consider taking on a God, but there is not much more to do.  However, his games where more intense and he held his players to a higher standard than the rest of us most likely did.

Dragon Lance had strict rule, which they broke for the villains, about not being able to go over level 20 and 2nd edition had a whole book, the name escapes me, about high level play.  

I think the high level play is expanded more in the current edition, but there were many sources back then to deal with those who wanted high level play too.  The ultimate high level play took place in a fictional idea of a 100th level adventure entitled The Throne of Bloodstone, a 1st edition module.  You can’t even play such a thing today with 3.0 +.

I know, I tried.  A year or so ago I tried to get a group of like minded people together on ENWorld and make a new 100th level module.  You can’t do it.  The epic rules, and the bulk of the D&D 3.0 + rules, greatly out balance the idea.  The thread fell part.

Anyway, I think you are right about 3.5 being more for play above 10th level, maybe.  But the games mathematics start to break down around 13th-15th level in a way that 1st edition really didn’t.  I’M NOT CLAIMING ONE IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER, IT IS MY OPINION (shouting is for the benefit of the peanut gallery) just that I think 3.5 tends to unbalance at higher levels and that there were options for higher level play in AD&D.  I know, I have the character vault to prove it.


----------



## molonel (Apr 7, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Oh, I agree with you on that, but don't you think it is harder for a DM to maintain control in the current edition when the players can not only tell you that you are wrong but can site the page and bring up the errata on-line. While you can over rule them as a house rule effect, you can't affect the sheer amount of weight they have on their side; can you?




Zuh?

Are we talking about lawyerly rules arguments, or what?

My games, in any edition - or any SYSTEM, for that matter (I play more than D&D) - don't get bogged down with rules arguments. I'll listen to a player's reasoning, and I'll consider it, but ultimately, my word is final. If I made a mistake, and the player's character suffers for it, I'll make it right. If I'm wrong, I admit it. If they benefit from it, and it doesn't unbalance the game, great. Christmas came early this year.

Why any DM should be afraid of losing control simply because players actually, like, read the books or keep up on the game enough to browse online errata is mindboggling to me. I think the Sage smokes crack, sometimes, and I've outright rejected his opinion on certain matters.

If someone can't summon the backbone to make a decision, then don't blame a rulebook for that.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 7, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Once again...MY EXPERIENCES.  I ran into way more "puzzle type" traps and challenges in former editions than in 3.x.  YMMV, but to tell me my memory and experiences are just nostalgia implies you played and gamed with me, or under me...and I don't think you did.



This reminds me of another difference in the editions.  There seemed, IMO, to be more puzzles and tricks and traps to get around and solve in the early editions than in todays D&D.  Sure you might have a complex puzzle in 3.5 D&D, but it is nothing a d20 disable traps check won't fix and you know it   



			
				an_idol_mind said:
			
		

> 3e does seem to incite a lot of worries about game balance. I'm wondering why that's so. Is it a company thing, a reflection of the current players, or something else? I don't think it's a system thing, because I know from personal experience that the game responds well to many different tweaks and changes. For example, I run Spot checks pretty much the way you would, and I've never felt any sinister shift in game balance.
> 
> In older editions, people would house rule things without worrying about unbalancing the game. For whatever reason, people's perception of the game seems to have changed to the point that any tweak is examined and re-examined to preserve balance. Maybe it's an Internet thing or something...




I think in todays D&D there are more hit dice for classes and more damage from spells and way more damage ever from feats and the damage you can do with spells and weapons.  People gather on the internet and find the best way to kill the universe by level 5, and it can be done in 3.0, I'm not sure about 3.5.

Anyway, if you house ruled something in AD&D, it was usually something simple like elves can dual class instead of multi class and didn't have to worry about level restrictions.  This was a common one.  You also, btw, IMO (In this case meaning IN MY OBSERVATION) tend to play more humans in the current edition than in the past.  I think this stems from the bonus skills and the bonus feat.  No matter how good the others races, it is just to hard to give up.  No one I know plays any other races.  But that is a different story and thread.

Anyway, if you house rule something in the current edition, you have more factors to contend with and more things to weigh.  Say you house rule that instead of using the 3.5 rules for persistent spell you opt to house rule that your players can make use of the 3.0 rule instead.  Now you have dramatically changed the nature of the game.  You have allowed 2 full spell casting levels of spells available to be abused, and the players will do it.  If you don’t think it makes a difference, make yourself a 18th level cleric and ask yourself what spells you would use it on if you had that feat as a 3.0 character and then ask yourself if you would even take that feat if you used it as a 3.5 character.  

The difference is dramatic enough where I have seen a player make a new character because he didn’t like the 3.5 change.  It ruined his whole character concept.  That is something you have to weigh in 3.5 that would not be a factor in AD&D because the AD&D game didn’t have things like that that really broke the game; and that is a minor example.




			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> *Tangent: Why the hell isn't there a Sailing skill in 3.5?  i mean, they've got appraise when it could just as easily be covered by pretty much any profession or craft skill, but no skill for being able to make a boat go where you want it to go other than  Profession: Sailor?  i don't get it.



There is a Profession Salior skill in stormwrack and in the City State of the Invincible Overlord d20 source book, in case you are wondering


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 7, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> I agree with nearly everything you've said, here. 2nd Edition AD&D killed the game for it. It absolutely murdered it. Rules bloat was, in my opinion, one of the primary reasons for that. The Complete Book of Whatever got SO tiresome, and when it started getting down to The Complete Book of Blue Left-Handed Elves Who Prefer Longswords, I left for greener pastures.
> 
> 3rd Edition is well on its way to that fate, for some people. That's why I don't blame people for picking up Castles & Crusades, or going back to 1st Edition AD&D.
> 
> ...



For the record, please don't get me mixed up in the rule 0 debate.  I know that the DM is in control and I know it states it in almost every book, 'nuff said.

That being said, I was not so much complaining on my own behalf, but on other DMs who I know for a fact have had problems.

Sure, like every Dm, I have my own share of problem players and troublesome rules, but for the most problem they go through a trail phase and if my friend and I can't figure out a way to break it (and we try hard) then we will gerally allow it.

As to respect for the DM and such, I agree that it mainly comes down to DM choices and discipline.  My point is that it makes the DMs job hard to keep order when the player has more rules to throw at the DM.  Not because he can’t keep order or because of rule 0, but because it takes away from the creativity of everyone at the table when a rules lawyer breaks out 30 books and shows him where he is wrong.

It is not that the DM can’t handle the problem or rule that he is in charge and the rules does or does not apply, it is that every time they have to, it takes away from the atmosphere of the game.  

I think 3.0 + is great for new DMs because the rules are clearer, but there comes a point when the rules put the DM to the test and they can easily be lead by players because they are just following suit for what the rules say is correct.  

Don’t get me wrong, AD&D had problems too and we had yelling screaming and once a fist fight over the rules, but since there was generally less rules, the DM, INO had more control.  

3.5 is really good if you keep to the core books and tightly control other content.  However, I field many local questions at the local hobby score and the non core rules cause many of the problems.

Just my experience.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 7, 2007)

I have re-written the core rules (to a book that replaces the PHB and parts of the MM), and I have said in the past (and will certainly repeat) that I have been extremely lucky with the players I have.  They prefer my rewrites to the originals, and one is now running a campaign with the intent to introduce them to another group of players.  

We'll see how that goes!      

There are many threads in which I've said that, if every player I currently have left the game today, the table would still be full by the end of the week (or words to that effect).  I liken it to baking cookies -- if I'm doing the baking, I get to pick what I make.  If you don't like chocolate chip, I'm not obligated to make you toll house.    

I don't think that anyone in this thread is saying that they can't summon the backbone to make a decision, or that they are unable to DM because the presentation of the rules has changed.  (And if anyone is saying that, _*they*_ can certainly correct me.)  I think that some of us would just like an acknowledgement that the presentation _has changed_, because this is a prerequisite for discussing whether that change is for the better, or not, or completely neutral.

As examples:

The CR system is a redress of the Monster Level system from 1e.  There are a number of changes to it that I think are much better; the one change I do not like is that, while the Monster Level system was transparent (though it was spread out; the monster XP calculations are on page 85, whereas the chart to determine what XP are appropriate for what level is on page 174), the CR system is not.  Or, at least it is not using the books that I own.  I also tend to think that the CR system breaks down somewhat at higher levels, even though I find it robust enough at low- to mid-levels to handle low-magic or low-wealth games without needing overhaul.

Attack rolls in the D20 system are an inversion of the THAC0 system, first introduced during the 1e days and made official with the advent of 2e.  I find that the D20 method is more intuitive than THAC0, possibly because the math seems more straightforward.....even though I know, really, that it is the same calculation.  If I ever did decided to run a D&D game using an older edition, I would certainly import the D20 method as a house rule.

To my mind, the chances between CR and Monster Level are more substantive than the change between D20 attack rolls and THAC0.  Yet, were I to run a 1e game, it would be the change in attack rolls (which is more of a _presentational_ change, IMHO) that I would be most certain to house rule into the game.  I would, frankly, be nonplussed if someone then argued that there was no change (because it was merely presentational), or that my preference for the D20 method over THAC0 meant that I was unable to deal with either D20 _or_ THAC0 if need be.

Like I said, though, I did a lot of work to make "my" 3.X game into exactly what I wanted it to be.  I had to rewrite every class (except the rogue, which was perfect), decide what feats to include, include a weapon skill system, rewrite the magic system (again, partly deciding what should be included), rewrite the races, and even rewrite the equipment.  I picked and chose what I liked about earlier editions and updated them to the current rules, and discarded what I disliked about the current rules.

The OGL is simply the best thing ever to happen to D&D, and the wellspring of creativity it opened up is enormous (even if sometimes it spews out drek).  

It's probably true that part of the reason I find this thread so interesting is that I have gone through a lot of this material in various editons relatively recently myself.  The changes are both more substantial than I thought in some cases, and in other cases far less substantial.  IMHO, of course.  YMMV.

RC


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 7, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Zuh?
> 
> Are we talking about lawyerly rules arguments, or what?
> 
> ...




I am pretty sure I cover this above.  Just because I argue that it happens doesn't mean it happens to me.

I, personally, don't mind the PCs looking at anything other than the monster manuals and like content.  My point is only that the game can get bogged down, specially (or mostly) with newer DMs, when the weigh of the rules start to overburden the game.

Oh, I too agree the Sage smokes crack, I really like it when he later admits it and corrects his mistakes.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 7, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Oh, I too agree the Sage smokes crack




I think that's one thing we _might_ all be able to agree on.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 7, 2007)

Whew, that took me a while to finish reading and responding.

Look, in the end, everyone has an opinion and everyone percieves a problem or situation differently.  I don't fault people who think 3.0 + is the second coming of Christ and I don't scream at people for sharing what they have to offer.  This thread has change so much from the irignal posters request that I can barely remember what he was posting about.

Anyway, I'll certainly answer any further questions or reply to your replies, but no more tinight.  I spent enough time just trying to get caught up.


----------



## molonel (Apr 7, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> That being said, I was not so much complaining on my own behalf, but on other DMs who I know for a fact have had problems. Sure, like every Dm, I have my own share of problem players and troublesome rules, but for the most problem they go through a trail phase and if my friend and I can't figure out a way to break it (and we try hard) then we will gerally allow it. As to respect for the DM and such, I agree that it mainly comes down to DM choices and discipline. My point is that it makes the DMs job hard to keep order when the player has more rules to throw at the DM. Not because he can’t keep order or because of rule 0, but because it takes away from the creativity of everyone at the table when a rules lawyer breaks out 30 books and shows him where he is wrong. It is not that the DM can’t handle the problem or rule that he is in charge and the rules does or does not apply, it is that every time they have to, it takes away from the atmosphere of the game. I think 3.0 + is great for new DMs because the rules are clearer, but there comes a point when the rules put the DM to the test and they can easily be lead by players because they are just following suit for what the rules say is correct.  Don’t get me wrong, AD&D had problems too and we had yelling screaming and once a fist fight over the rules, but since there was generally less rules, the DM, INO had more control. 3.5 is really good if you keep to the core books and tightly control other content. However, I field many local questions at the local hobby score and the non core rules cause many of the problems. Just my experience.




I agree that most of the problems come from non-core materials, absolutely. And there are more of those, now, and therefore more problems popping up because of improperly playtested and poorly balanced materials.



			
				DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> I, personally, don't mind the PCs looking at anything other than the monster manuals and like content. My point is only that the game can get bogged down, specially (or mostly) with newer DMs, when the weigh of the rules start to overburden the game.




I agree that ANYTHING that takes the emphasis off of the game itself and having fun can ruin it, whether it be the DM's girlfriend, or the rules, or whatever. I've even had my games bogged down by the players NOT knowing the rules, and having to explain to them how the game works and what their character can do every single session. 

Rules lawyers can kill a game. Are there more of them now, than back in earlier editions? Or even in other gaming systems? I really don't think so. But I also tend to play in a lot of different systems, with different people, so I have a slightly different take on it. I've even seen rules lawyers arguing in White Wolf games, and the system itself is supposed to deliberately discourage that.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 7, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> I won't debate Hussar in mindless babble, but I will respond to this.
> 
> *snip for an excellent post*
> 
> Anyway, I agree with this poster, imagination and role-playing takes place in ones head.  However, I think the 3.5, and more so the 3.0, rules have taken the game out of the DMs hands and given control of the game to the players; but that is just me.




See, now, that wasn't hard.  I have no problems with someone not liking things.  My beef was with presenting it in such a way that it appears to be incontrovertible fact, rather than opinion.  I actually agree with much of what you say here.  

Now, I do disagree with that last bit.  ((Shock and surprise))  DM's being over run by players is a player problem, not edition.  It happened in every edition.  Despite, as RC points out, the clarity of rule 0, some people completely ignored it and attempted to bring in all sorts of things into the game from a variety of sources.  

The problem I have with the quote of rule 0 that RC provided is that this didn't apply to a great number of groups.  This rule 0 makes it impossible to share DMing duties.  It assumes that every group will have one and only one DM.  That was never my experience.  Every game I've run or played in has included other DM's in all editions.

I'm not even really sure that rules uncertainty leads to better gaming experiences.  IMO, it leads to confusion at the table with the player constantly asking, "Can I do this?" And, really, the whole issue becomes very moot after a very short while.  It doesn't take all that long for a player to become cognizant of most of the rules governing his character.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 7, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Now, I do disagree with that last bit.  ((Shock and surprise))  DM's being over run by players is a player problem, not edition.  It happened in every edition.  Despite, as RC points out, the clarity of rule 0, some people completely ignored it and attempted to bring in all sorts of things into the game from a variety of sources.




Of course they did.  But, I would argue, it is easier to point to the book in 1e or 2e as supporting the DM in his right to say No than it is in 3e.  I imagine that, if the Internet existed back then, there would be message boards with "The DM can say No when the players tell him he can say No" threads then, too.    

My general rule is that, if you're not there to have fun and cooperate with the DM and other players, don't expect to be there for long.  I have no time for people who want to ruin the game.  OTOH, I gather that not everyone has the kind of extensive potential player pool available that I do, so this solution isn't going to be universal.

My only objection was to the claim that there had been no change to the presentation, and therefore no reasonable complaint could be made about that change.  Perhaps I misread what was intended.    



> The problem I have with the quote of rule 0 that RC provided is that this didn't apply to a great number of groups.  This rule 0 makes it impossible to share DMing duties.  It assumes that every group will have one and only one DM.  That was never my experience.  Every game I've run or played in has included other DM's in all editions.




The bit about reading the DMG was in addition to Rule 0 in 1e, and as an admonition to help make the game more fun for you when you're starting, it makes sense.  Fighting a single 1e skeleton and triumphing (while envisioning the _Jason and the Argonauts_ skeletons that were 10 times as tough), then finding something magical and unknown, constitutes a lot of the thrill for first-time players.  

Later on, not so much.    

(But, you have to admit, it is interesting that in the 1e days TSR made a decision to _tell players *not* to buy books_ -- effectively limiting their customer base to 1/4 or 1/10th of what it otherwise would have been -- simply because they thought it would make a better game.  Whether they were right or wrong, it is a _very_ different "business model" than we saw in 2e, or later 1e, or than we see today.)



> I'm not even really sure that rules uncertainty leads to better gaming experiences.  IMO, it leads to confusion at the table with the player constantly asking, "Can I do this?" And, really, the whole issue becomes very moot after a very short while.  It doesn't take all that long for a player to become cognizant of most of the rules governing his character.




I would agree with you for the most part.  I mean, there are lots of threads where people post that 1e didn't have tactical combat, and that is probably due (in part, at least) to the tactical stuff all being in the DMG.

Of course, as older RPers, we now enter into the era where the question becomes, even if all of that stuff is transparent to the players, should all of that stuff be transparent _to the PCs_?  I decided No, and came up with a system whereby I could keep the Item Creation feats without letting them apply to _everything_ in a given magic item class.  So far, it seems to be working well enough!    

Where I disagree with you is in aspects of the game that relate to "world building".  Using 3e, I would say that an interesting world can (and perhaps should) contain monsters, magic items, spells, prestige classes, and so on that are found in limited areas and that are wholly unknown to the players until they encounter them.  Remove the words "prestige classes" and I would hazard to say that this applies to any edition.  IMHO, players can and should expect the unknown.

(Of course, I fully endorse the idea that DMs should play to their strengths, and recognize that what makes a game run well for me may not make a game that runs well for someone else.)


RC


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 7, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I think that's one thing we _might_ all be able to agree on.



Here is a fun excercise.  Use four different e-mail account to ask the same question to the Sage and you will get four different answers.    

Yes, I have tried.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 7, 2007)

> Where I disagree with you is in aspects of the game that relate to "world building". Using 3e, I would say that an interesting world can (and perhaps should) contain monsters, magic items, spells, prestige classes, and so on that are found in limited areas and that are wholly unknown to the players until they encounter them. Remove the words "prestige classes" and I would hazard to say that this applies to any edition. IMHO, players can and should expect the unknown.




I can agree with this.  Given the tools available to the DM (in any edition), keeping the players guessing isn't all that difficult.  Something as simple as description change can radically alter an encounter.  Or any campaign event for that matter.  Even if the players know exactly all the tools available to the DM, they should never really know which ones he's applying right now.  

Are those manticores ahead diseased or do they have the poisoned template?  Why are they moving so fast?  The quickened template?  What the heck is that?  Book of Templates?  You bastard!  

((Actual gaming moment for me when the party squared off with a pair of manticores with both templates applied.  Loads of fun.))


----------



## an_idol_mind (Apr 7, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Oh, I agree with you on that, but don't you think it is harder for a DM to maintain control in the current edition when the players can not only tell youthat you are wrong but can site the page and bring up the errata on-line.  While you can over rule them as a house rule effect, you can't affect the sheer amount of weight they have on their side; can you?




No. That's partly a matter of my playing style, though. I don't cite the rules during game unless it's for something minor like a spell duration. If the players complain about a rule, one of two things happen:

If they can cite the rule quickly, I'll probably use it.

If they can't, we use a quick ruling, and then look into things after the session.

If I screwed up a rule and find out about it after game, I let the players know the real rule at the next session. If I think the rule is stupid, I modify it and let the players know how and why I'm making the change. Any discussion on the rule then takes place outside of the game. That's been how I've played the game since basic D&D, and it's worked just fine for me.



> I think the high level play is expanded more in the current edition, but there were many sources back then to deal with those who wanted high level play too.  The ultimate high level play took place in a fictional idea of a 100th level adventure entitled The Throne of Bloodstone, a 1st edition module.  You can’t even play such a thing today with 3.0 +.




From the reviews I've read of the Bloodstone series, i think it's less that you can't do that and more that you wouldn't want to. I've heard nothing but bad things about the way 100th-level campaigning was done in Throne of Bloodstone.



> Anyway, I think you are right about 3.5 being more for play above 10th level, maybe.  But the games mathematics start to break down around 13th-15th level in a way that 1st edition really didn’t.  I’M NOT CLAIMING ONE IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER, IT IS MY OPINION (shouting is for the benefit of the peanut gallery) just that I think 3.5 tends to unbalance at higher levels and that there were options for higher level play in AD&D.  I know, I have the character vault to prove it.




It's two different problems in the two different editions. In AD&D, your character eventually reached a point where he didn't really do anything more than gain a few new hit points at every level. Personally, I was fine with this, but apparently a lot of people wanted more. 3e's epic levels were a way of appealing to those people, and they gave PCs tons of kewl new powers as they continued to rise past level 20. However, now the problem is that there are too many powers to easily keep track of. You obviously can't please everyone, but apparently WotC felt they could please more people with the epic rules than not.


----------



## molonel (Apr 7, 2007)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Here is a fun excercise.  Use four different e-mail account to ask the same question to the Sage and you will get four different answers.
> 
> Yes, I have tried.




Someone once emailed WotC technical support during a rules discussion with me. They wrote back agreeing, so he was ready to drop the subject. I told him I didn't take their answers as proof of anything, even when they agreed with me.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 7, 2007)

an_idol_mind said:
			
		

> From the reviews I've read of the Bloodstone series, i think it's less that you can't do that and more that you wouldn't want to. I've heard nothing but bad things about the way 100th-level campaigning was done in Throne of Bloodstone.




Yeah, my friend Upper_Krust tried to run one of the Bloodstone modules; I got so bored I quit.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 7, 2007)

> ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is a game that is demanding for players and Dungeon Masters alike




.....and you've lost me.

Advanced? Demanding? Screw that, I can go pretend to be an elf in World of Warcraft at the push of a button and the rewards are beautiful landscapes, rich stories, and having fun killing ugly things with friends.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 7, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Advanced? Demanding? Screw that, I can go pretend to be an elf in World of Warcraft at the push of a button and the rewards are beautiful landscapes, rich stories, and having fun killing ugly things with friends.




I'm sorry. I think you mispelled "silly" as B-E-A-U-T-I-F-U-L, "rote" as R-I-C-H and "something to do that's marginally better than the dishes" as F-U-N.


----------



## molonel (Apr 8, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I'm sorry. I think you mispelled "silly" as B-E-A-U-T-I-F-U-L, "rote" as R-I-C-H and "something to do that's marginally better than the dishes" as F-U-N.




I don't play World of Warcraft. Not my bag. But it's got more than eight million subscribers because it is a creative, well-designed video game based on pen-and-paper RPGs like Dungeons and Dragons.

Watching RPG geeks snub MMORPG geeks is funny in the same way that watching Star Wars fans make fun of Star Trek fans is funny.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 8, 2007)

*Re: AD+D is an advanced and demanding game...*



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> .....and you've lost me.
> 
> Advanced? Demanding? Screw that, I can go pretend to be an elf in World of Warcraft at the push of a button and the rewards are beautiful landscapes, rich stories, and having fun killing ugly things with friends.



Uh...keep in mind when that was written there was no such thing as WoW, and AD+D was the state of the art.

Besides, I'd rather pretend to be an elf while sitting with friends around someone's table (playing any edition), and the rewards are *exactly the same*!  The only difference is I actually have to use my imagination for the landscapes, rather than having them shown to me on a screen...

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (Apr 8, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Uh...keep in mind when that was written there was no such thing as WoW, and AD+D was the state of the art.
> 
> Besides, I'd rather pretend to be an elf while sitting with friends around someone's table (playing any edition), and the rewards are *exactly the same*!  The only difference is I actually have to use my imagination for the landscapes, rather than having them shown to me on a screen...
> 
> Lanefan




100% agree.  However, KM's point is more that writing that a game is "demanding" and "advanced" is perhaps a turn off for a number of people.  Since the quote is being held up as a very good way to write Rule 0, I think the criticism isn't far off.  



> No. That's partly a matter of my playing style, though. I don't cite the rules during game unless it's for something minor like a spell duration. If the players complain about a rule, one of two things happen:
> 
> If they can cite the rule quickly, I'll probably use it.
> 
> ...




This is exactly how I've done it as well.  The DM's that I've played with in 3e have also done the same thing.  Granted, I did have one player who insisted on reading the riot act every time he thought I got the rules wrong.  Unfortunately, he was the worst kind of rules lawyer - one that only thinks he knows the rules, rather than one who does.  After umpteen arguements around the table, that campaign evolved a house rule where you could challenge any ruling, but, if you were wrong, you lost xp for the entire session.  If you were right, no harm no foul.  

It was harsh, but, it did cut down on the rules lawyering.  It meant that he had to actually open the book, read the rule and THEN argue with me about it if I was wrong.  That I have no problems with.  Heck, I rely on my players rules-fu all the time.  I've got a couple of fairly decent rules gurus in my game now, so, I'm perfectly comfortable turning to one and saying, "Hey, how does this work?"



> Anyway, I think you are right about 3.5 being more for play above 10th level, maybe. But the games mathematics start to break down around 13th-15th level in a way that 1st edition really didn’t. I’M NOT CLAIMING ONE IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER, IT IS MY OPINION (shouting is for the benefit of the peanut gallery) just that I think 3.5 tends to unbalance at higher levels and that there were options for higher level play in AD&D. I know, I have the character vault to prove it.




I respect that this is your opinion, but I disagree.  High level 1e play was entirely broken.  The PC's were moving on to the Dieties and Demigods by then and treating it as the Monster Manual.  Nothing in the books could challenge very high level parties.  Looking at high level modules like Queen of the Demonweb Pits and Isle of the Ape, the primary source of challenge seemed to be stripping abilities away from the PC's in order to tone them down.  Nerfing or banning spells, lowering plusses on weapons, blocking access to clerics regaining spells, that sort of thing.


----------



## molonel (Apr 8, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> After umpteen arguements around the table, that campaign evolved a house rule where you could challenge any ruling, but, if you were wrong, you lost xp for the entire session. If you were right, no harm no foul. It was harsh, but, it did cut down on the rules lawyering. It meant that he had to actually open the book, read the rule and THEN argue with me about it if I was wrong. That I have no problems with. Heck, I rely on my players rules-fu all the time. I've got a couple of fairly decent rules gurus in my game now, so, I'm perfectly comfortable turning to one and saying, "Hey, how does this work?"




You may consider that particular device stolen for my future DM bag of tricks. I've fortunately never had a player that bad at arguing about the rules, but that's a pretty nifty device for nipping that in the bud.

I learn the rules best through playing, and by my players catching me with my pants down. I'm glad they are reading all the same books I'm reading. It means we can all take turns in the DM/GM chair. It means we have that many more people who know the game, and can help smooth things along.

Rules do not create or inhibit mystery. Ignorance of the rules does not create or enhance mystery. Story and character create mystery. 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> High level 1e play was entirely broken. The PC's were moving on to the Dieties and Demigods by then and treating it as the Monster Manual. Nothing in the books could challenge very high level parties. Looking at high level modules like Queen of the Demonweb Pits and Isle of the Ape, the primary source of challenge seemed to be stripping abilities away from the PC's in order to tone them down. Nerfing or banning spells, lowering plusses on weapons, blocking access to clerics regaining spells, that sort of thing.




We used to call the 1st Edition Deities and Demigods the D&D shopping guide.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 8, 2007)

> Besides, I'd rather pretend to be an elf while sitting with friends around someone's table (playing any edition), and the rewards are exactly the same! The only difference is I actually have to use my imagination for the landscapes, rather than having them shown to me on a screen...




So you have to work harder for the same rewards. It's like someone telling me they'll give me $5 if I sit at home for an hour, and someone offering me $5 if I go work in the salt mines for an hour.  



> However, KM's point is more that writing that a game is "demanding" and "advanced" is perhaps a turn off for a number of people. Since the quote is being held up as a very good way to write Rule 0, I think the criticism isn't far off.




Closer to it. And it's a topic called out in the post insulting the CRPG, too: the idea that somehow playing D&D is more elite, that it's higher status or makes you a better person is kind of ingrained here.

But not everyone takes some sort of justification from putting in a lot of work into creating an imaginary world of frolicking fairies. Most people, in fact, don't. A lot of demanding hard work and advanced knowledge is a barrier to getting into the game, a wall that's completely unnecessary. It should be easy to pick up a bag of dice and a module and a group of friends and blow a night having fun and killin' monsters and tellin' stories 'round the beer and pretzels.

But right now in the game, it takes a lot of hard work to be able to do that. All that hard work designing a world, balancing the party, adapting a module, arranging the schedules of 4-6 busy adults, bringing them all together in one location, and getting into the spirit of the adventure...

The challenge, in this edition and going forward, isn't to get people to understand that it's going to be a lot of hard work to get their imaginary elf. It's in making sure that there is as little hard work as possible to get to their imaginary elf. Because competitors are offering imaginary elves at the push of a button. 

We need to loose this hard-won nerd elitism, this required reading list, this idea of the DM as some sacred seat of ancient power, all these barriers to making someone choose D&D instead of Scrabble and WoW for a night. Tear down the walls! Join the mewling masses fascinated by polygons and pixels! We're all gamers in the end.

There's my soapbox.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 8, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Watching RPG geeks snub MMORPG geeks is funny in the same way that watching Star Wars fans make fun of Star Trek fans is funny.




You apparently missed the smiley.  It was a joke.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 8, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> We need to loose this hard-won nerd elitism, this required reading list, this idea of the DM as some sacred seat of ancient power, all these barriers to making someone choose D&D instead of Scrabble and WoW for a night. Tear down the walls! Join the mewling masses fascinated by polygons and pixels! We're all gamers in the end.




Which i think is pretty much the point of the current crop of 3.5 adventures and Dm assistance products.  WotC is actually trying to hit a couple of demographics at once these days: the high investment player that wants to really delve into the meachnical elements of character design, and the low investment DM who wants to be able to run an adventure with minimal investment outside of the game.  What i don't see a lot of that I would like to see is stuff for the high investment DM -- worldbuilding tools, DIY materials, etc...* -- and the low investment player -- "Hero Builders Guidebook" type stuff.

I bet you could sell a pre-levelled 1 to 20 character of any given cool archetype as a 19.95, loose leaf softcover with special abilities, assumed buffs and all that sort of thing worked out and explained in plain language.  Imagine Conan from level 1 to 20, optimized and geared up, for the casual player in an easy to use and easy to read format.  It'd sell very well, i think.  High investment players wouldn't want it (except maybe to tear it apart and show how their build pwnz it) but low investment players -- and I think there are lots of them out there -- would eat it up: all the benefits of "character build" with none of the work.  it is the opposite side of the same coin that is making the Devle Format and the MMM style the new deal for DMs.

*I have not seen Cityscape or Dungeonscape, so i don't know if these are toolboxes like I am suggesting, or just lists of pre-rendered materials for the low investment DM.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Apr 8, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Yeah, my friend Upper_Krust tried to run one of the Bloodstone modules; I got so bored I quit.



See, that is all in the DM.  I ran through it once and I DMed it once.  While it was just nuts it was also a lot of fun, with the right DM.

You can't do it today though.  Back then, the difference between a 100th level adventure and a 30th level adventure was about 200 hit points and that was it.  Today, if you have a 10tth level character versus 30th level, you are talking about an extra 25-45 feats, 70-1000 skill points and so much money and powerful items the Gods would fear you.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 8, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> So you have to work harder for the same rewards. It's like someone telling me they'll give me $5 if I sit at home for an hour, and someone offering me $5 if I go work in the salt mines for an hour.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Hey get a copy of the Castles and Crusades PHB, a copy of Monsters and Treasures, and a good module and you got everything you're looking for in simplicity, less work and more time for fun, that's almosst as fast to set up as a WoW account.  IMHO of course


----------



## molonel (Apr 8, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> You apparently missed the smiley. It was a joke.




Smilies are ambiguous.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> Hey get a copy of the Castles and Crusades PHB, a copy of Monsters and Treasures, and a good module and you got everything you're looking for in simplicity, less work and more time for fun, that's almosst as fast to set up as a WoW account. IMHO of course




Then you have a game that you have to learn, and then recruit people to play. Maybe you'll find a good group. Maybe you won't. I know plenty of folks who have problems finding a gaming group. With WoW, you have 8,000,000 people you can game with 24/7 anywhere you have a computer and an internet connection.

I prefer pen and paper RPGs. I prefer face to face games. I prefer pizza boxes and empty Mt. Dew bottles rolling around on the table, and dice. And Castles & Crusades, along with the Saga edition of the Star Wars game and the Conan OGL revised edition, are on my list of books to buy sometime this year.

But in many ways, WoW is an easier community to plug into. If you're any good, you will have people actively recruiting for their guilds and setting up raids weekly, if not nightly.

You could do what you suggested. You could spend $50 + S&H for the books and a module. But it's not really "simpler" to put together a gaming group and write your own adventures. It's my preferred cup of tea, but I can easily understand why other people choose differently.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 8, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Then you have a game that you have to learn, and then recruit people to play. Maybe you'll find a good group. Maybe you won't. I know plenty of folks who have problems finding a gaming group. With WoW, you have 8,000,000 people you can game with 24/7 anywhere you have a computer and an internet connection.
> 
> I prefer pen and paper RPGs. I prefer face to face games. I prefer pizza boxes and empty Mt. Dew bottles rolling around on the table, and dice. And Castles & Crusades, along with the Saga edition of the Star Wars game and the Conan OGL revised edition, are on my list of books to buy sometime this year.
> 
> ...




I was more so talking about less of a "rules buy in" for players and DM's.  I think this is one of the failures of 3.x... I mean it's a great game but it is soooo far gone from  the make up a character in five minutes and get playing model, it's almost ridiculous.  D&D once was a game where it was almost pick-up and play.  Characters could be made in about five minutes and a module run afterwards.  Now, unless you use pre-gens(which in my mind kind of makes all the "options" of 3.x pointless) it's taking almost a whole game session just to get everybody's characters up and ready to go(especially if you've only got one book.).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 8, 2007)

I do think 3.5 can learn a lot from Castles and Crusades. If it's one thing I think 3.5 needs it's to keep the available options and to make things more simple, more free-flowing. For this reason, I like True20 quite a bit, as it works out like a very simplified 3.5. 



> Which i think is pretty much the point of the current crop of 3.5 adventures and Dm assistance products. WotC is actually trying to hit a couple of demographics at once these days: the high investment player that wants to really delve into the meachnical elements of character design, and the low investment DM who wants to be able to run an adventure with minimal investment outside of the game. What i don't see a lot of that I would like to see is stuff for the high investment DM -- worldbuilding tools, DIY materials, etc...* -- and the low investment player -- "Hero Builders Guidebook" type stuff.
> 
> I bet you could sell a pre-levelled 1 to 20 character of any given cool archetype as a 19.95, loose leaf softcover with special abilities, assumed buffs and all that sort of thing worked out and explained in plain language. Imagine Conan from level 1 to 20, optimized and geared up, for the casual player in an easy to use and easy to read format. It'd sell very well, i think. High investment players wouldn't want it (except maybe to tear it apart and show how their build pwnz it) but low investment players -- and I think there are lots of them out there -- would eat it up: all the benefits of "character build" with none of the work. it is the opposite side of the same coin that is making the Devle Format and the MMM style the new deal for DMs.




Yeah, I pretty much agree with all of that.  The "Hero Books" would be the other side of the "Adventure Path" coin. You could even include custom builds or new feats or variations on the theme to make it a bit more deep. 

I don't think 3e has had a really good "toolkit" book in the WotC vein since the Manual of the Planes. The Heroes Of series isn't too bad in that respect, either. But the company is definitely focused now on things that make the DM's job easier, not on things to launch the DM's imagination.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 8, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Now, unless you use pre-gens(which in my mind kind of makes all the "options" of 3.x pointless) it's taking almost a whole game session just to get everybody's characters up and ready to go(especially if you've only got one book.).



I don't agree, unless you're starting at mid-level or higher. At low levels D&D still does a good job of hiding complexity, that's the beauty of the level system. Compare that with Champions where all the complexity hits you in character gen.


----------



## Celebrim (Apr 8, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> High level 1e play was entirely broken...Looking at high level modules like Queen of the Demonweb Pits and Isle of the Ape, the primary source of challenge seemed to be stripping abilities away from the PC's in order to tone them down.  Nerfing or banning spells, lowering plusses on weapons, blocking access to clerics regaining spells, that sort of thing.




High level play in 3rd edition works much the same way, but it goes about it in a much more standardized and subtle way.  The primary source of challenge is that at high levels, most of your foes are going to have significant immunities - to polymorph, to level drain, to ability damage, to disentigrate, and so forth.  That and signficant resistances effectively does the exact same thing as nerfing or banning spells.  I can also think of several 3rd edition modules (World's Largest Dungeon and Boneyard) that involved nerfing abilities in a more wholesale way.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 8, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I don't agree, unless you're starting at mid-level or higher. At low levels D&D still does a good job of hiding complexity, that's the beauty of the level system. Compare that with Champions where all the complexity hits you in character gen.




Even at low level you have numerous options: class, race, feats, skills, spells, etc.  On top of this there is a vastly increased gulf of knowledge needed to both play the game and construct your character than in former editions.  If you don't know how the game works, how can you pick feats and assign points to skills. Some will argue, just limit options or assign a feat, but then I don't see where this is any different from a game like C&C where class abilities are set to easily make sure a starting character can accomplish his role in the party. It doesn't hide complexity because everything is really interlocked.  I have to understand the combat rules to pick a feat for my fighter, gotta understand how skills and DC's work to pick skills for my rogue, gotta understand spells before...you get the picure. Now if you handwave this and select for them for the player or just say tell me what your character wants to do and give them feats and skills based on that...then you can do the same thing for a point system game.

Another thing is that all these choices affect your progression at later levels, so you do have to think about them and understand how they tie into the rules system as a whole.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 8, 2007)

Where C&C falls short is that it doesn't do the options that are needed once the basics get old. For some, the basics will never get old, but I hate playing a fighter who is exactly like every other fighter except for the name on the character sheet. Truly, that's a major place where earlier editions fall short for me.

Because, yes, I *can* differentiate based solely on role-playing, but why would I when I have the option to do it based on role-playing *and* based on mechanics? If Bob the Fighter and Steve the Fighter can do different things, it helps make my play experience more novel and new, which is more fun for me.


----------



## JeffB (Apr 8, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Where C&C falls short is that it doesn't do the options that are needed once the basics get old. For some, the basics will never get old, but I hate playing a fighter who is exactly like every other fighter except for the name on the character sheet. Truly, that's a major place where earlier editions fall short for me.
> 
> Because, yes, I *can* differentiate based solely on role-playing, but why would I when I have the option to do it based on role-playing *and* based on mechanics? If Bob the Fighter and Steve the Fighter can do different things, it helps make my play experience more novel and new, which is more fun for me.




I prefer C&C over 3.x, but yes..this is a point of the matter where I prefer 3.x...some kind of middle ground is where I'd like to be. Some options, without as much complication as 3.X or the lack thereof in older editions/C&C.

I prefer the overall ideas and mechanics of D20 vs. The SIEGE engine, but in the grand scheme of things I find I prefer the C&C approach to the game and it's much easier to graft on "feat-like" abilities and other 3.x-isms to C&C, rather than remove all the sticking points (IMO/IME) from 3.x. 

Lately I've been considering taking the current Basic-Game rules set (3.5x) I bought for my son and working "up" from there...it's actually a nice little simplistic base game that I think could "open up" without getting overly complex.. with careful picking and choosing from the 3.5 core-books.


This is why I'm hopeful (and ready) for a 4E that hits the middle ground.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 8, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Where C&C falls short is that it doesn't do the options that are needed once the basics get old. For some, the basics will never get old, but I hate playing a fighter who is exactly like every other fighter except for the name on the character sheet. Truly, that's a major place where earlier editions fall short for me.
> 
> Because, yes, I *can* differentiate based solely on role-playing, but why would I when I have the option to do it based on role-playing *and* based on mechanics? If Bob the Fighter and Steve the Fighter can do different things, it helps make my play experience more novel and new, which is more fun for me.




Let's give the game a little time, from my understanding the CKG will have alternate class abilities, and there was(though it's gone now, a PDF that gave XP costs per abilities so you could build your own classes.  That's my contention with 3.x as opposed to C&C, it isn't a game where it starts simple and allows you to add what complexity you want.  It's a game with a fair bit of complexity that steadily adds to it.

I see nothing wrong with individualizing your character through  mechanics once your bored with the standards(just negotiate with your DM/CK for alternate abilities you both feel are balanced with what your replacing, isn't this the way it's suppose to work in 3.x anyway?), but for someone just starting out I think the other approach is better and it allows it to be more of a pick-up game when you want it to be(just for a night of monster bashing with your friends) and once you're players are comfortable, or you want to switch it up, allows you to add complexity, for longer term play.  In other words it feels more flexible to me without the work of taking the system appart.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 8, 2007)

JeffB said:
			
		

> I prefer C&C over 3.x, but yes..this is a point of the matter where I prefer 3.x...some kind of middle ground is where I'd like to be. Some options, without as much complication as 3.X or the lack thereof in older editions/C&C.
> 
> I prefer the overall ideas and mechanics of D20 vs. The SIEGE engine, but in the grand scheme of things I find I prefer the C&C approach to the game and it's much easier to graft on "feat-like" abilities and other 3.x-isms to C&C, rather than remove all the sticking points (IMO/IME) from 3.x.
> 
> ...




I think that's a good idea, and wish that's what the core game had been all along.  For me personally the SIEGE mechanic feels better than D&D's granularity as far as skills go.  IMHO the skill points are too low and not having enough can hamper certain classes.  With the SIEGE mechanic you have all of your necessary abilities, can perform anything not covered by another classes abilities(niche protection), you get to add your level to it(fairly competent in most basic things someone who has spent time adventuring would do or know), Saves for all abilities, and the Primes allow you to specialize in broad areas as opposed to a single skill.  If you want to be deficient in something tell your DM I'm not Prime when it comes to X, Y or Z...I don't think to  many DM's would have a problem with that.

I find a big disconnect with D&D 3.x skills and classes.  Why are the thieves abilities skills, but fighting with a weapon or casting a spell isn't?  If I want to pick up certain(abilities) skills I have to take a whole other class...Not only can I now hit better, but with every weapon except exotic, I know how to use all armor and shields as well.  I have the same problem with the other classes as well.

In closing I really don't see 4e going this route( though I'm with you on hoping for it.), it just doesn't make sense business wise.  The game promotes the purchase of the minis, more player oriented sourcebooks, etc. and apparently it's working for them.  I could see them maybe selling a simpler corer rules, to sell more add-ons spread out over more books, but as far as the mini-centric combat and other things along those lines...I don't see WotC shooting themselves in the foot by promoting a game that uses these things less.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 8, 2007)

Wow....

You guys still talking about this? HEH....It's good to see some things never change....

As for the focus on "optimization", shrug, that's system independent since frankly, back in 1E days, you didn't have thousands of people discussing, "What's the best build?". 

I know in 2E days on r.g.f.d, we regularly used to talk about "what's the best specialty priest from Faith & Avatars? (go go Mystra!!!)", "what's the weakest handbook" (Priest's Handbook, no question).

So I'm not convinced this can be laid at the feet of ANY roleplaying game.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 8, 2007)

> This is why I'm hopeful (and ready) for a 4E that hits the middle ground.




Bingo. I think the best kind of 4e would be one that refines the 3.5 system where it's sticking points are deep. I'd like it to be simple with the *option* for complexity. I'd like to see both vertical and lateral advancement (you can soar up in levels or you can achieve a lot of different abilities at about the same level). I'd like NPCs and PCs to follow the same rules...but I'd like to be able to simplify without loosing some of the impact of diversity. I'd like to see pick-up-and-play modules, and I'd like to see 316 page books on world-building.

I want it all and I want it all now. 



> I find a big disconnect with D&D 3.x skills and classes. Why are the thieves abilities skills, but fighting with a weapon or casting a spell isn't? If I want to pick up certain(abilities) skills I have to take a whole other class...Not only can I now hit better, but with every weapon except exotic, I know how to use all armor and shields as well. I have the same problem with the other classes as well.




I'm not entirely sure I understand the criticism in light of C&C. You seem to be saying that everything should follow a skill system, but it kind of does already in 3e: you roll a d20, add your modifiers (skill bonus, attack bonus, ability bonus), compare the total against a DC (or an AC) and resolve the action (dealing damage or accomplishing a use of the skill). Casting spells is a different system, but Caster Level (for SR or for increasing spell damage and effect) work according to the same model. For certain skills that are niche-protected (like attack bonus or caster level) you need to take another class, and you seem to defend C&C's use of the same tactic above. Both systems have things you can't increase within your own class.

So, yeah, I think D&D could learn quite a bit from C&C, but I also think C&C tends to throw out the baby with the bathwater in many cases. Does the game need 6 saves? Heck, for simplification, it could probably do with just a *single* save. 



> In closing I really don't see 4e going this route( though I'm with you on hoping for it.), it just doesn't make sense business wise. The game promotes the purchase of the minis, more player oriented sourcebooks, etc. and apparently it's working for them. I could see them maybe selling a simpler corer rules, to sell more add-ons spread out over more books, but as far as the mini-centric combat and other things along those lines...I don't see WotC shooting themselves in the foot by promoting a game that uses these things less.




I don't see how finding a middle ground between complexity and simplification would lead to decreased minis sales by default. In many situations, they just need to standardize various combat actions that we're already familiar with -- the grapple, the disarm, the trip, the sunder...all could follow various "stunt"  mechanics pretty easily, rather than using four or five different sub-systems for each. Attacks of Opportunity, similarly, just need to be kind of standardized -- give each critter an Opportunity Attack score that, if it beats the target's AC, they can deal damage whenever certain stunts or actions are performed in reach...

Those are just some off-the-head examples. You can always sell more add-ons and more books and more minis, even with a simpler system.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 8, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'm not entirely sure I understand the criticism in light of C&C. You seem to be saying that everything should follow a skill system, but it kind of does already in 3e: you roll a d20, add your modifiers (skill bonus, attack bonus, ability bonus), compare the total against a DC (or an AC) and resolve the action (dealing damage or accomplishing a use of the skill). Casting spells is a different system, but Caster Level (for SR or for increasing spell damage and effect) work according to the same model. For certain skills that are niche-protected (like attack bonus or caster level) you need to take another class, and you seem to defend C&C's use of the same tactic above. Both systems have things you can't increase within your own class.
> 
> So, yeah, I think D&D could learn quite a bit from C&C, but I also think C&C tends to throw out the baby with the bathwater in many cases. Does the game need 6 saves? Heck, for simplification, it could probably do with just a *single* save.




I mean the disconnect of how some abilities are skills and others are "class" abilities.  I can learn to move silently, hide, disable device, etc. just by spending skill points.  In order to fight better(in a general sense) I have to take a new class, or to fight better (w/a specific weapon)spend a feat.  It's a disconnect in my mind.  C&C makes everything relevant to that class an actual class ability, and since there are no skills there is no disconnect for me. YMMV of course

I think the six saves stops the Charisma as throw away attribute(unless your a sorcerer, paladin or bard in D&D 3.x).  It means all your attributes are relevant to a point and I like this better, it's a stylistic thing IMHO.  I think that 3.x simplifies the saves too much and draws an often confusing parallel between Wisdom and Charisma.  I still don't get how being wise equates to your actual willpower.  There have been countles people who may not have been wise but we're able to force their views on others and resist attempts at persuasion.


----------



## molonel (Apr 8, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> I was more so talking about less of a "rules buy in" for players and DM's. I think this is one of the failures of 3.x... I mean it's a great game but it is soooo far gone from the make up a character in five minutes and get playing model, it's almost ridiculous. D&D once was a game where it was almost pick-up and play. Characters could be made in about five minutes and a module run afterwards. Now, unless you use pre-gens(which in my mind kind of makes all the "options" of 3.x pointless) it's taking almost a whole game session just to get everybody's characters up and ready to go(especially if you've only got one book.).




Zuh?

I still make low-level characters in 5 minutes. Rogues take a little longer because you're allocating skill points, and sometimes choosing wizard spells takes a little longer, but I really think you're confusing mid- and high-level options with low-level games. Most 1st through 6th level characters can't even QUALIFY for a lot of feats or prestige classes. 

I play pick-up games a LOT, and taking all day to invent a 1st through 6th level character just doesn't happen.

In other words, I think you're exaggerating.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> Even at low level you have numerous options: class, race, feats, skills, spells, etc. On top of this there is a vastly increased gulf of knowledge needed to both play the game and construct your character than in former editions. If you don't know how the game works, how can you pick feats and assign points to skills. Some will argue, just limit options or assign a feat, but then I don't see where this is any different from a game like C&C where class abilities are set to easily make sure a starting character can accomplish his role in the party. It doesn't hide complexity because everything is really interlocked. I have to understand the combat rules to pick a feat for my fighter, gotta understand how skills and DC's work to pick skills for my rogue, gotta understand spells before...you get the picure. Now if you handwave this and select for them for the player or just say tell me what your character wants to do and give them feats and skills based on that...then you can do the same thing for a point system game.




If you're talking about players who are new to the game having to learn what their race or class can do, then THAT is certainly nothing new. I've guided new players through the game in multiple editions, and frankly, I find it a lot easier to explain things now where I hold up a 20-sided die, and say, "When I tell you to roll this, you roll it and I'll tell you what to add."

That's a LOT easier than explaining, "Well, this is a saving throw/attack roll/armor class, so higher/lower is better in this particular circumstance, and we need to look at this chart on this page of this book to know whether or not you succeeded."



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Where C&C falls short is that it doesn't do the options that are needed once the basics get old. For some, the basics will never get old, but I hate playing a fighter who is exactly like every other fighter except for the name on the character sheet. Truly, that's a major place where earlier editions fall short for me.




Agreed. Just about every 1st Edition fighter looked EXACTLY the same, even down to their gear.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Because, yes, I *can* differentiate based solely on role-playing, but why would I when I have the option to do it based on role-playing *and* based on mechanics? If Bob the Fighter and Steve the Fighter can do different things, it helps make my play experience more novel and new, which is more fun for me.




Also, agreed.



			
				JeffB said:
			
		

> I prefer C&C over 3.x, but yes..this is a point of the matter where I prefer 3.x...some kind of middle ground is where I'd like to be. Some options, without as much complication as 3.X or the lack thereof in older editions/C&C. I prefer the overall ideas and mechanics of D20 vs. The SIEGE engine, but in the grand scheme of things I find I prefer the C&C approach to the game and it's much easier to graft on "feat-like" abilities and other 3.x-isms to C&C, rather than remove all the sticking points (IMO/IME) from 3.x.




Personally, I find it easier to remove extraneous material from 3rd Edition D&D than to add mechanics or options to a "simpler" game.



			
				JeffB said:
			
		

> Lately I've been considering taking the current Basic-Game rules set (3.5x) I bought for my son and working "up" from there...it's actually a nice little simplistic base game that I think could "open up" without getting overly complex.. with careful picking and choosing from the 3.5 core-books.




Basically, what I do when I run a D&D game is that I start from core rules, and anything else has to be run by me before it finds its way into the game. That's my take on the game derived straight from the pages of the DMG.

I also read fairly widely on forums, and in alternate rules sets, and I am fully willing to design custom prestige classes or roleplaying opportunities to customize characters. In my last campaign, I had a character who started as a human barbarian and eventually wound up as a solar-in-training and taking levels in the Half-Celestial template class from Sean K. Reynolds's Anger of Angels. As a weapon, he wielded a chain that was used to bind a general of heaven in an abyssal prison. 

There is absolutely no doubt that 3rd Edition is wrestling with the same problem as 2nd Edition AD&D faced: rules bloat.

Running back to 1st Edition AD&D, or embracing C&C, are both equally valid options which I considered and rejected, because to me the solution is really quite simple: don't let "it" in your game unless "it" belongs there, and that applies whether "it" is a prestige class, a spell, a feat, a magic item or whatever.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> Let's give the game a little time, from my understanding the CKG will have alternate class abilities, and there was(though it's gone now, a PDF that gave XP costs per abilities so you could build your own classes. That's my contention with 3.x as opposed to C&C, it isn't a game where it starts simple and allows you to add what complexity you want. It's a game with a fair bit of complexity that steadily adds to it.




I don't think D&D starts complex, and gets worse. If you stay with the core rulebooks, you can list the possible breaks in the game on one hand. Maybe two, if your players are creative. All of those are easily solved. First through twelfth level runs incredibly smooth, and the breaks after that involve more on the area of DM prep than problem players.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> I see nothing wrong with individualizing your character through mechanics once your bored with the standards(just negotiate with your DM/CK for alternate abilities you both feel are balanced with what your replacing, isn't this the way it's suppose to work in 3.x anyway?), but for someone just starting out I think the other approach is better and it allows it to be more of a pick-up game when you want it to be(just for a night of monster bashing with your friends) and once you're players are comfortable, or you want to switch it up, allows you to add complexity, for longer term play. In other words it feels more flexible to me without the work of taking the system appart.




The problem with that, though, is that designing game mechanics out of thin air is precisely the sort of difficulty I'd consider a game like C&C in order to avoid. Why would I run to a game for simplicity, and then start building complexity into the game?

I'm running two low-magic d20 Modern games right now that draw materials from a variety of sources, most of which I have purchased in PDF form through RPGhost, and the process of "negotiation" for stuff that I or the character have to write from scratch can become just as wearying and tiresome as considering which gaming books to include in my game.



			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> As for the focus on "optimization", shrug, that's system independent since frankly, back in 1E days, you didn't have thousands of people discussing, "What's the best build?". I know in 2E days on r.g.f.d, we regularly used to talk about "what's the best specialty priest from Faith & Avatars? (go go Mystra!!!)", "what's the weakest handbook" (Priest's Handbook, no question). So I'm not convinced this can be laid at the feet of ANY roleplaying game.




Sure it can. Terms like "munchkin" and "powergamer" weren't invented recently. They are as Old Skool as you can get. You can read about them in Knights of the Dinner Table.

Part of the reason you didn't have thousands of people discussing anything about 1st Edition, back in the day, was because the internet didn't EXIST, and even after it did, TSR didn't seem too keen on letting people set up websites or maintain discussions outside their purview. You can read more about that here:

http://www.seankreynolds.com/misc/howIgothiredatTSR.html


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 9, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> 100% agree.  However, KM's point is more that writing that a game is "demanding" and "advanced" is perhaps a turn off for a number of people.  Since the quote is being held up as a very good way to write Rule 0, I think the criticism isn't far off.




Well, I have to say that upon consideration of many, many people's stated experience with bad 1e DMs, I've been forced to revise my opinion and at least partially agree with KM.  The DMG, at least, should be written with the LCD in mind.

That said, I don't know of _any_ computer game that even remotely approaches the fun of tabletop gaming.      (OTOH, I'm not a computer game guy.)  I would also rather play a game where effort has been put into it by the participants than not.  In fact, I would rather go fishing than play a game without any real effort put into it.  The thing is, with D&D, that effort is _part of the fun_.  IMHO, of course.  YMMV.

No matter how many burgers McDonald's serves, they'll never be better burgers than Licks.  I feel rather the same about World of Warcraft.  Tabletop is just far, far more satisfying to me.


RC


EDIT:  DM-Rocco, I'll get on that request.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Well, I have to say that upon consideration of many, many people's stated experience with bad 1e DMs, I've been forced to revise my opinion and at least partially agree with KM.




Woah.   



> In fact, I would rather go fishing than play a game without any real effort put into it. The thing is, with D&D, that effort is part of the fun. IMHO, of course. YMMV. ... I feel rather the same about World of Warcraft. Tabletop is just far, far more satisfying to me.




I agree with you in that I think it's more fun when I get a "payoff for hard work." But I don't believe that most people are looking for that in a game. They're looking...y'know....to play a game. With some friends. And for that, WoW does the job pretty well.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 9, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Zuh?
> 
> I still make low-level characters in 5 minutes. Rogues take a little longer because you're allocating skill points, and sometimes choosing wizard spells takes a little longer, but I really think you're confusing mid- and high-level options with low-level games. Most 1st through 6th level characters can't even QUALIFY for a lot of feats or prestige classes.
> 
> ...




Think what you want, it's a free country.  I have a hard time believing that someone without exstensive rules knowledge can make a character in five minutes, I think that is an exageration.





			
				molonel said:
			
		

> If you're talking about players who are new to the game having to learn what their race or class can do, then THAT is certainly nothing new. I've guided new players through the game in multiple editions, and frankly, I find it a lot easier to explain things now where I hold up a 20-sided die, and say, "When I tell you to roll this, you roll it and I'll tell you what to add."
> 
> That's a LOT easier than explaining, "Well, this is a saving throw/attack roll/armor class, so higher/lower is better in this particular circumstance, and we need to look at this chart on this page of this book to know whether or not you succeeded."




See and how is that understanding the game or it's mechanics.  If you just have them roll a d20 and they have no idea of what the mechanics are behind it you might as well just play by DM fiat. Most people I know, want to understand a game they are playing, not just roll a die when told too, but YMMV.









			
				molonel said:
			
		

> Personally, I find it easier to remove extraneous material from 3rd Edition D&D than to add mechanics or options to a "simpler" game.




That's you, I've been adding and modifying since BD&D, I gues it just comes more naturally to me.





			
				molonel said:
			
		

> Basically, what I do when I run a D&D game is that I start from core rules, and anything else has to be run by me before it finds its way into the game. That's my take on the game derived straight from the pages of the DMG.
> 
> I also read fairly widely on forums, and in alternate rules sets, and I am fully willing to design custom prestige classes or roleplaying opportunities to customize characters. In my last campaign, I had a character who started as a human barbarian and eventually wound up as a solar-in-training and taking levels in the Half-Celestial template class from Sean K. Reynolds's Anger of Angels. As a weapon, he wielded a chain that was used to bind a general of heaven in an abyssal prison.




Thus you have a fair bit of familiarity, the person off the street doesn't, with the game.  I find even the core rules more complex than an introductory game or pick-up game should be.  Just my oppinion.



			
				molonel said:
			
		

> There is absolutely no doubt that 3rd Edition is wrestling with the same problem as 2nd Edition AD&D faced: rules bloat.
> 
> Running back to 1st Edition AD&D, or embracing C&C, are both equally valid options which I considered and rejected, because to me the solution is really quite simple: don't let "it" in your game unless "it" belongs there, and that applies whether "it" is a prestige class, a spell, a feat, a magic item or whatever.




Or you have to take it out if it's in the core rules.  C&C is a vastly simpler system, even when compared to just core 3.x.  It is also a simpler ruleset, as a whole, for a new player to grasp.



			
				molonel said:
			
		

> I don't think D&D starts complex, and gets worse. If you stay with the core rulebooks, you can list the possible breaks in the game on one hand. Maybe two, if your players are creative. All of those are easily solved. First through twelfth level runs incredibly smooth, and the breaks after that involve more on the area of DM prep than problem players.




I'm talking about the game itself...I can't believe how people who are familiar with 3.x can't see how intimidating learning and understanding the rules could be for a new player.




			
				molonel said:
			
		

> The problem with that, though, is that designing game mechanics out of thin air is precisely the sort of difficulty I'd consider a game like C&C in order to avoid. Why would I run to a game for simplicity, and then start building complexity into the game?




Because it makes it adaptable, nobody said you had to, but it's easy to do if you want.



			
				molonel said:
			
		

> I'm running two low-magic d20 Modern games right now that draw materials from a variety of sources, most of which I have purchased in PDF form through RPGhost, and the process of "negotiation" for stuff that I or the character have to write from scratch can become just as wearying and tiresome as considering which gaming books to include in my game.




Just as wearying or tiresome...maybe, but you ain't spending money on it either.  Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## molonel (Apr 9, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Think what you want, it's a free country. I have a hard time believing that someone without exstensive rules knowledge can make a character in five minutes, I think that is an exageration.




I used to DM at a lot of local cons and pick-up games at the FLGS. I've introduced a LOT of new players to 3rd Edition. I've walked someone through making a 1st level character in 15 minutes. You're making it sound a LOT harder than it is.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> See and how is that understanding the game or it's mechanics. If you just have them roll a d20 and they have no idea of what the mechanics are behind it you might as well just play by DM fiat. Most people I know, want to understand a game they are playing, not just roll a die when told too, but YMMV.




Because most people have to see first, and then understand. Most people are tactile learners. They learn by doing. Understanding comes later, and the d20 + modifiers = success or failure is EXTREMELY easy to learn.

I've also watched people learn earlier editions, and trying to teach them "high = good in THIS case" and "low = good in THAT case" when the high or low has no logical purpose is NOT as easy to learn.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> That's you, I've been adding and modifying since BD&D, I gues it just comes more naturally to me.




Inventing mechanics is simply harder than deciding what NOT to include. Game design is a harder occupation than letting someone else do the work, and then deciding what to include, and what to discard. That's why people get paid for game design, but every DM in any edition of the game is assumed to have the competence to decide what belongs in his or her game, and what doesn't.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> Thus you have a fair bit of familiarity, the person off the street doesn't, with the game. I find even the core rules more complex than an introductory game or pick-up game should be. Just my oppinion.




I've taught dozens of people to play 3rd Edition D&D in the course of one single game at a con. I've also watched them showing other people how to play during the next 4-hour session they played.

That's not my opinion, either. That's observed fact.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> I'm talking about the game itself...I can't believe how people who are familiar with 3.x can't see how intimidating learning and understanding the rules could be for a new player.




That's because I've taught dozens of new people how to play. It's not intidimidating at all. It's a game. It's a learning curve for anyone. But some folks here are making it sound like it's learning particle physics, and it's not.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 9, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Woah.




Sorry.  I call 'em as I see 'em, even when that means saying I was wrong earlier.    




> I agree with you in that I think it's more fun when I get a "payoff for hard work." But I don't believe that most people are looking for that in a game. They're looking...y'know....to play a game. With some friends. And for that, WoW does the job pretty well.




Let me put it this way -- I think Chess is an infinitely more fun game than Snakes & Ladders, and much of that has to do with the relative level of work (and hence involvement) that the game requires.  Likewise, I'd rather play Chess against an opponent who is likely to beat me (forcing me to a better game) than one I know I can defeat easily.

It all depends on what you want from your leisure time.  If I wanted to just relax, I'd go hiking or fishing.  Or watch _Doctor Who_.      YMMV.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 9, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Even at low level you have numerous options: class, race, feats, skills, spells, etc.




Funnily enough, almost all those categories are also true of AD&D (1e), AD&D (2e), and BECM D&D.

AD&D 1E: Class, Race, Spells, Weapon Proficiences (Feats); with UA you get more Feat-like with Weapon Specialisation.

AD&D 2E: Class, Race, Spells, Skills (for rogues), Weapon Proficiencies, Non-Weapon Proficiencies. 

BECM D&D: Class, Race, Spells, Weapon Mastery, Other Skills.

Let's make one thing clear: D&D 3E is not an introductory game. That is the D&D Basic Game. AD&D is even less of an introductory game than 3E is.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 9, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> I used to DM at a lot of local cons and pick-up games at the FLGS. I've introduced a LOT of new players to 3rd Edition. I've walked someone through making a 1st level character in 15 minutes. You're making it sound a LOT harder than it is.




No I'm not saying making a character in 3.x is equivalent to a calculus exam. I'm saying I remember when a character really took five minutes.  You want to say amking a character in 3.x is still as easy and quick as BD&D, C&C or even AD&D ok, that's your experience I just don't see it, unless the player is making a character without knowing and understanding everything available to them.  In other words your making the character for them or limiting the options available to them.





			
				molonel said:
			
		

> Because most people have to see first, and then understand. Most people are tactile learners. They learn by doing. Understanding comes later, and the d20 + modifiers = success or failure is EXTREMELY easy to learn.
> 
> I've also watched people learn earlier editions, and trying to teach them "high = good in THIS case" and "low = good in THAT case" when the high or low has no logical purpose is NOT as easy to learn.




Never disagreed that the universal "roll high" mechanic didn't simplify game play.  That's why I use C&C instead of AD&D.  My point was that if all your telling them to do is roll a die, when do they ever understand the why's and how's of the game.




			
				molonel said:
			
		

> Inventing mechanics is simply harder than deciding what NOT to include. Game design is a harder occupation than letting someone else do the work, and then deciding what to include, and what to discard. That's why people get paid for game design, but every DM in any edition of the game is assumed to have the competence to decide what belongs in his or her game, and what doesn't.




Disagree here, especially when there is no formula for what's being created.  PrC's still aren't made in any unified way, so determining balance is the same as making up your own stuff, a total judgement call.  No one's asking you to design a game from the bottom up, or even saying you have to add stuff...but once again I don't see how judging PrC's that are made arbitrarily by someone else's idea of balance is any harder than making your own.  Less time consuming, maye...harder, still not convinced.




			
				molonel said:
			
		

> I've taught dozens of people to play 3rd Edition D&D in the course of one single game at a con. I've also watched them showing other people how to play during the next 4-hour session they played.
> 
> That's not my opinion, either. That's observed fact.




I also remeber articles from Dragon magazine that advised and even listed why you should set aside a whole session for character creation when 3.x first came out, so I guess everyone has they're own "observed facts".  These are people with way more understanding and experience with the game system so I think I'll go with they're observed facts, as well as my own.  Even at 15 min a PC that's an hour for four PC's.  Sorry most people that are new to a game don't want to spend an hour plus getting ready to play, especially if they're new to it.





			
				molonel said:
			
		

> That's because I've taught dozens of new people how to play. It's not intidimidating at all. It's a game. It's a learning curve for anyone. But some folks here are making it sound like it's learning particle physics, and it's not.




No, but it is alot of investment for someone to expend for something they're not sure they will like.  I like C&C because there is less initial investment and then it allows(once a player has decided they do or don't like the game) complexity(feats, skills, multi-classing, AoO,etc.) to be added with a full grasp of their usage in incremental steps.  I think It's better to get a player started in the hobby with a game that(IMHO) is quick to make characters for, doesn't bog down in play, is easy to grasp all the rules, etc.  C&C is my go to game for this.  Once they like playing rpg's then I think a person is more willing to invest in a $90 core set and the reading that comes along with that, as well as taking the time to read over and understand feats, skill usage, combat rules, etc.  YMMV.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 9, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Funnily enough, almost all those categories are also true of AD&D (1e), AD&D (2e), and BECM D&D.
> 
> What?
> 
> ...


----------



## MerricB (Apr 9, 2007)

> UA,Wpn Prof(I believe, but am not certain) are supplemental...now are we going to start adding all the supplemental stuff for D&D 3.x as well?




UA was not an optional supplement: it was an official addition to the rules. Pre-UA, Weapon Proficiences were not optional.



> The skills for Rogues were set percentages, no figuring out where to put skill points, or even if you had enough to cover all the skills you needed. Again I believe Wpn Prof. and Non-wpn Prof were optional.




In 2e, Skills for Rogues were not set percentages: you had a base percentage and 60 more points to split between them. NWP were optional, however.



> Totally agree here, but people try to make it seem like it's just as beginner friendly as BD&D and it's just not. Feats, Skills, etc. are not optional in the RAW.




I agree that Moldvay or Mentzer Basic is much more friendly to newbies than 3E. (Not the case with Holmes Basic!) Mind you, the starting packages make creating characters in 3E not really that hard.

Cheers!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 9, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> UA was not an optional supplement: it was an official addition to the rules. Pre-UA, Weapon Proficiences were not optional.





Nitpick:  _Everything_ was optional in 1e.  That was made quite clear in the 1e ruleset.

(Of course, _everything_ is optional in 2e and 3e, too, even though labelling some things as "optional" and not labelling other things might confuse the issue somewhat...._Anything_ in the rules is subject to change, based upon DM and group dynamics.[/i]

RC


----------



## RFisher (Apr 9, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> See, now, that wasn't hard.  I have no problems with someone not liking things.  My beef was with presenting it in such a way that it appears to be incontrovertible fact, rather than opinion.  I actually agree with much of what you say here.




See, I have a huge problem with the disclaimerism trend. It used to be people stated their opinion & labelled when they were citing facts. It was obvious that anything not specifically called out as fact was opinion. Now we have to label our opinions in triplicate.

In my opinion...according to my experience...your milage may vary. (^_^)



> This rule 0 makes it impossible to share DMing duties.  It assumes that every group will have one and only one DM.




Neither of these things have been true in my experience. When we switched campaigns, the new DM had the final say. Things could be completely different from how they were in the previous campaign, & that was part of the fun.

Even when I've been in a group in which we switched DMs in the same campaign, some things might change when that happened. Of course, things would potentially change much less in those cases. (In practice, usually not so much.) & we tried very hard to make sure that nothing invalidated a previous, long-term decision a player had made about his character.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Because, yes, I *can* differentiate based solely on role-playing, but why would I when I have the option to do it based on role-playing *and* based on mechanics?




Good question! For me it often comes down to something like this:

Designers want to give you two characters who do basically the same thing in two different ways. They feel this deserves (for the reason KM stated) two mechanics. So, they build two different mechanics. They work very hard to balance the two. If they succeed, then you have the unnecessary complication of two mechanics that give almost exactly the same results. If they fail, then you have a superior option that almost everyone chooses & an inferior one that almost nobody chooses.

Ideally you get a situation where you get different but balanced results. Even in this rare circumstance, however, it's even rarer that the difference in the results really lines up very well with what you'd expect based on the fluffy difference that you started with.

So, I tend to prefer to keep the mechanics simple & leave most of the differentiation to fluff.

That said, I don't know that I'd want to play Risus--where one mechanic & its three variations tends to be used for everything--all the time. But there's a point at which I reach my personal mechanics-saturation point.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I agree with you in that I think it's more fun when I get a "payoff for hard work." But I don't believe that most people are looking for that in a game. They're looking...y'know....to play a game. With some friends. And for that, WoW does the job pretty well.




Sure, but don't carry it too far. I don't believe in changing the basic nature of something to make it suit people who don't like it's basic nature. (^_^) Let the people who want WoW play WoW. Let the people who want D&D play D&D.

As to D&D...

I admire the d20 system a lot. It may not be my first choice, but I enjoy playing it, & I'm really glad that it is there as an option for the people for whom it is their first choice. But, I think it isn't good as the big name in our hobby--the game most likely to be someone's first contact with the hobby. The current Basic box doesn't feel like a good introduction either. (How many of you actually use it to introduce new players to the hobby?)

Truth be told, I'm not so sure classic Basic would be the best flagship either, but I think--at least in some ways--it served us better.



			
				molonel said:
			
		

> I used to DM at a lot of local cons and pick-up games at the FLGS. I've introduced a LOT of new players to 3rd Edition. I've walked someone through making a 1st level character in 15 minutes. You're making it sound a LOT harder than it is.




My experience is different. Even when shown the templates in the PHB, I've seen new players get discouraged by the complexity of creating a 3e character. When I haven't been playing 3e for a while (usually the case when creating a new PC), it takes me AT LEAST a whole game session. & that's with just the core rules. (I tend to avoid supplements even when they're allowed.)

This is not my opinion. This is my observation.

Just because you know the system well & are good at introducing new players to it doesn't mean that other people's observations are exaggerations.


----------



## RFisher (Apr 9, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> BECM D&D: Class, Race, Spells, Weapon Mastery, Other Skills.




It's just: class-race. Plus spells for elves & magic-users only. (1st level clerics didn't have to pick spells.) One choice for most. Two choices for some.

Actually, it's: class-race, ability score adjustments (add 1 to prime req. by taking 2 from another ability), spells (if elf or MU), alignment, languages (if Int > 12), & buying gear.

Though I tend to substitute ability score adjustments with arranging scores to taste.

Granted I'm talking from a Moldvay viewpoint, but I'm pretty sure that holds at least through Mentzer's Basic, Expert, & Companion sets.


----------



## T. Foster (Apr 9, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> It's just: class-race. Plus spells for elves & magic-users only. (1st level clerics didn't have to pick spells.) One choice for most. Two choices for some.
> 
> Actually, it's: class-race, ability score adjustments (add 1 to prime req. by taking 2 from another ability), spells (if elf or MU), alignment, languages (if Int > 12), & buying gear.
> 
> ...



 And, of course, OD&D. If you're playing a fighter (including a dwarf or hobbit) or cleric, buying gear is likely to take longer than all the rest of char-gen combined (which is why I advocate the use of pre-selected "Adventurer's Packs" (like in modules B3 & B4) for novice players).


----------



## MerricB (Apr 9, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Granted I'm talking from a Moldvay viewpoint, but I'm pretty sure that holds at least through Mentzer's Basic, Expert, & Companion sets.




Please, when I talk about BECM D&D, I include Master. Also in RC D&D. Moldvay is simpler, sure, but Mentzer complicated it greatly.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 9, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Please, when I talk about BECM D&D, I include Master. Also in RC D&D. Moldvay is simpler, sure, but Mentzer complicated it greatly.




In RC both Weapon Mastery and General skills have a paragraph each stating they are optional and totally under DM control.  Skills aren't optional in D&D 3.x a rogue is dependant upon them for nearly all his abilities.  Feats aren't optional because the fighter is dependant upon them as a class.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Nitpick:  _Everything_ was optional in 1e.  That was made quite clear in the 1e ruleset.




Err... no. 

"most of what is found herein is essential to the campaign, and those sections which are not - such as subclasses of characters, psionics and similar material - are clearly labeled as optional for inclusion." - AD&D PH page 6.

There's also a lot of discussion about how games should be uniform as to the rules used. See also DMG page 7. Gygax expanded upon this in Dragon Magazine, going so far to say if you don't use the rules, you're not playing AD&D. (D&D was the set for tinkering; AD&D grew out of the fact that there were so many different versions of D&D being played - you couldn't take a PC from one game to another, everything would be different!).

"And while there are no optionals for the major systems of ADVANCED D&D (for uniformity of rules and procedures from game to game, campagin to campaign, is stressed), there are plenty of areas where your own creativity and imagination are not bounded by the parameters of the game system." - AD&D DMG 9

In the PHB, the only optional material are Psionics (appendix i), and Bards (appendix ii). They're clearly marked as optional; nothing else is.

In the DMG, the DM has the choice of what ability score generation system is used (page 11). Secondary skills are optional. 

The DMG (in the Afterword) exhorts the DM to "hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general". The intent of that afterword is to allow the DM to override bits of the rulebook that are obviously written by Gary on a bad day.   But the rules aren't optional by default.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Apr 9, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> In RC both Weapon Mastery and General skills have a paragraph each stating they are optional and totally under DM control.  Skills aren't optional in D&D 3.x a rogue is dependant upon them for nearly all his abilities.  Feats aren't optional because the fighter is dependant upon them as a class.




True enough.

3e is more involved in character creation than earlier editions; however, all the classes have basic starting packages for PCs, which take most of the choices away. Thus reducing the complexity of choice down to something more reminiscient of earlier editions.

Actually - they also have predone equipment. 

Cheers!


----------



## Imaro (Apr 9, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> True enough.
> 
> 3e is more involved in character creation than earlier editions; however, all the classes have basic starting packages for PCs, which take most of the choices away. Thus reducing the complexity of choice down to something more reminiscient of earlier editions.
> 
> ...




Which leads me back to C&C...if I'm going to pre-select everything for my players then why not just play a true classed based game?  Right now it's almost my perfect pick-up game as well as for campaign play, and if the CKG includes either alternate class abilities or better yet a true system to build classes I will be totally satisfied.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 9, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Err... no.




If I wasn't at work, I would quote (again) the section in the DMG that explicitly states that everything is optional.  I'll have it for you tomorrow, if need be.

Also, I have a very hard time seeing 1e weapon proficiencies as being equivilent to feats, either in scope or complexity.


RC


----------



## MerricB (Apr 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If I wasn't at work, I would quote (again) the section in the DMG that explicitly states that everything is optional.  I'll have it for you tomorrow, if need be.
> 
> Also, I have a very hard time seeing 1e weapon proficiencies as being equivilent to feats, either in scope or complexity.




They're not - but they are another decision that needs to be made.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Apr 9, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Which leads me back to C&C...if I'm going to pre-select everything for my players then why not just play a true classed based game?




Because C&C doesn't get past basic character creation. 

3E allows basic character creation (albeit a little more involved than 1e, mainly because the bonuses are written on the character sheet), and also more advanced character creation for experienced players.

Cheers!


----------



## Imaro (Apr 9, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Because C&C doesn't get past basic character creation.
> 
> 3E allows basic character creation (albeit a little more involved than 1e, mainly because the bonuses are written on the character sheet), and also more advanced character creation for experienced players.
> 
> Cheers!




But the complexity can be added as the DM/CKG sees fit.  They've already got optional rules on their website for both skills and multi-classing, and I'm sure the CKG will include even more options.  But the base game, by RAW is simpler by far to play and run compared to D&D 3.x.  I guess I feel as if, at a certain point why even be classed based if your complexity level is rivaling a point-based system, and 3.x is really toeing that line.  I find games like Stormbringer 5th ed., BRP, and Runequest to be simpler than D&D now, while before IMHO, that wasn't the case.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 9, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> They're not - but they are another decision that needs to be made.




Complexity is more than the number of decisions -- the complexity of those decisions, and how far-reaching the consequences of a good or bad decision are, determine complexity far more than a simple numeric count of factors.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 9, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> I guess I feel as if, at a certain point why even be classed based if your complexity level is rivaling a point-based system, and 3.x is really toeing that line.




Hmm - does 3.5e have that complexity based only on the core rules (PHB, DMG, MM), in your opinion? More, is it required complexity (meaning the players can't escape it)?

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Apr 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Complexity is more than the number of decisions -- the complexity of those decisions, and how far-reaching the consequences of a good or bad decision are, determine complexity far more than a simple numeric count of factors.




Funnily enough - the worst decision a fighter could make in AD&D was not to be proficient in the longsword. (Most magic swords were longswords). 

Cheers!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 9, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Funnily enough - the worst decision a fighter could make in AD&D was not to be proficient in the longsword. (Most magic swords were longswords).




Yes, but as has often been pointed out, most "decision points" in 1e character creation are no-brainers.  A decision that doesn't really require much thought hardly adds to the complexity of the game.

EDIT:  And I'm not calling complexity a bad thing here, either.  I _like_ the extra options of 3.x.  In fact, my house rules _increase_ the complexity rather than decrease it -- for example, I use a weapon skill system, and racial choice includes the ability to take up to three levels in one or more racial classes.

ANOTHER EDIT:  Remember also that in RAW 1e, a magic-user _doesn't_ have to (or get to) select spells.


RC


----------



## Imaro (Apr 9, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Hmm - does 3.5e have that complexity based only on the core rules (PHB, DMG, MM), in your opinion? More, is it required complexity (meaning the players can't escape it)?
> 
> Cheers!




IMO yes, it does.  Mixing and matching levels in classes, feats, skills, PrC's(they're optional, but are in the core so...) can be just as complicated or even more so than a system where you define your character by skills alone. 

In BRP or Strombringer 5th ed., Your character can start out the way you want him to, you have just as many options and a higher amount of customability with none of the wrangling, twisting and matching you have to do with D&D 3.x to get your concept together. 

The reason I stuck with D&D over these systems(up until now) is that it afforded speed in the sense that it was class-bassed.  Your abilitie we're laid out for you, it was quick, easy and fun.  Did I have the same customization as the above games? No.  but that  wasn't what I played D&D for.  We all understood we were playing archetypes, but speed and ease of getting started often outweighed customability.  Now that's just not the case. It doesn't do either of these(point-buy or class bassed) gaming well.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 9, 2007)

Monte Cook said:
			
		

> "...Magic also has a concept of "Timmy cards." These are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn't exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others.
> 
> Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it's not the best choice of feat. If you can use martial weapons, a longsword is better than many other one-handed weapons. And so on -- there are many other, far more intricate examples. (Arguably, this kind of thing has always existed in D&D. Mostly, we just made sure that we didn't design it away -- we wanted to reward mastery of the game.)"




This is a quote by Monte Cook from his website, discussing 3.x design.  Right here he disscuses complexity and how certain aspects of it were engineered into 3.x.  He says some of it was already there, but I gotta say with adding Feats it allows for a whole other level that can be daunting to new players.  Toughness to a new player sounds cool, but unless they understand the rules how can they know it's crap.


----------



## molonel (Apr 9, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> No I'm not saying making a character in 3.x is equivalent to a calculus exam. I'm saying I remember when a character really took five minutes. You want to say amking a character in 3.x is still as easy and quick as BD&D, C&C or even AD&D ok, that's your experience I just don't see it, unless the player is making a character without knowing and understanding everything available to them. In other words your making the character for them or limiting the options available to them.




Are you honestly trying to tell me that whipping out a 3.X half-orc barbarian (anywhere from 1st through 6th level) is as difficult as a calculus exam? 

An epic level character? Sure. I fully agree. But not a low level character.

A rogue would take a little longer. A wizard or sorcerer with spells to choose, probably a half-hour.

Does it take them a half-hour to understand the game in a general sense? No, they'd probably have to run through a pick-up game for that, just like it would probably take me one or two games to get back into the swing of 1st Edition, or get the idea of C&C when I played it for the first time. 



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> Never disagreed that the universal "roll high" mechanic didn't simplify game play. That's why I use C&C instead of AD&D. My point was that if all your telling them to do is roll a die, when do they ever understand the why's and how's of the game.




Nobody is ever going to roll a die for the first time, and then get a glimmer in their eye, and look at you, and explain what just happened through divine insight. There is a learning curve for ANY game.

But yes, I think you are exaggerating the learning curve for 3rd Edition D&D.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> Disagree here, especially when there is no formula for what's being created. PrC's still aren't made in any unified way, so determining balance is the same as making up your own stuff, a total judgement call. No one's asking you to design a game from the bottom up, or even saying you have to add stuff...but once again I don't see how judging PrC's that are made arbitrarily by someone else's idea of balance is any harder than making your own. Less time consuming, maye...harder, still not convinced.




Most of the DMs I know can scan down a Prestige Class and give you a general idea of whether it's balanced, cheesy, ubercheesy or just plain cherry-picking overpowered goodness in the time it takes to read it.

So yes, I'm saying that's a lot easier than designing game mechanics from scratch.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> I also remeber articles from Dragon magazine that advised and even listed why you should set aside a whole session for character creation when 3.x first came out, so I guess everyone has they're own "observed facts". These are people with way more understanding and experience with the game system so I think I'll go with they're observed facts, as well as my own. Even at 15 min a PC that's an hour for four PC's. Sorry most people that are new to a game don't want to spend an hour plus getting ready to play, especially if they're new to it.




Okay, so I've got my own experiences, and you've got some Dragon magazine article in the interdeterminate past that you've read ... somewhere.

I think I'll go with my own experience.

If I were throwing together a new gaming group with all first-time players, we might make a day of it just for fun the first time around. Pizza and Mt. Dew and a pile of books, and sitting around talking about the game, and running a mock combat, and maybe watching Gamers while we ate lunch.

Does that mean that low-level character generation is as hard as a calculus exam? Hardly.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> No, but it is alot of investment for someone to expend for something they're not sure they will like. I like C&C because there is less initial investment and then it allows(once a player has decided they do or don't like the game) complexity(feats, skills, multi-classing, AoO,etc.) to be added with a full grasp of their usage in incremental steps. I think It's better to get a player started in the hobby with a game that(IMHO) is quick to make characters for, doesn't bog down in play, is easy to grasp all the rules, etc. C&C is my go to game for this. Once they like playing rpg's then I think a person is more willing to invest in a $90 core set and the reading that comes along with that, as well as taking the time to read over and understand feats, skill usage, combat rules, etc. YMMV.




Look, I'm not trying to talk you out of C&C. I'm probably going to buy the books later this year, myself. I've heard good things about the game. It sounds quality, and interesting.

But part of the reason I haven't made the transition is because D&D really isn't THAT hard to keep in check. C&C is simple, yes. And simplicity is a virtue. But it's not the ONLY virtue in a game, and right now the drawbacks of C&C don't make it appealing enough for me to switch.


----------



## an_idol_mind (Apr 9, 2007)

My experience on character creation through the editions:

Basic D&D - As simple as it comes. Roll your ability scores, pick a class, and you're done. I didn't use skills, weapon mastery, or the like, as these were not options introduced in the basic sets. You didn't go into character creation with a concept, because you could only modify your stats a little bit. Also, if your character died, a new one could be rolled up and introduced to the game by the time the rest of the group stepped into a new room in the dungeon.

1st edition AD&D - Also fairly quick, but more involved than basic D&D. There were a lot more factors. Your race and your class were separate. Each ability score had its own table instead of one universal modifier. You had to make sure your ability scores fit within racial minimums and maximums - there were no ugly elves, and women had a cap on how high their strength scores were. Things got incredibly slow if you introduced Unearthed Arcana, which involved you rolling a seventh ability score, checking how rich your family was, rolling up the number of siblings you had, and so on. 1e also had longer equipment lists, which meant your character couldn't just buy a polearm -- he had to choose from a list, with each one having their own benefits and hindrances.

2nd edition AD&D - At its core, slightly longer than core 1e thanks to the inclusion of proficiencies (which were technically optional but rarely treated as such) and minor bits like the free distribution of skill points for thieves. Increasingly longer as character kits were introduced, and then hours long when Skills & Powers came out. Skills & Powers gave you 18 ability scores instead of 6, and was essentially point buy D&D. Plus, it had kits on top of that.

3e - Potentially longer than the other editions at their core thanks to the introduction of skills and feats. However, starting packages speed things up immensly. I don't think character creation itself is slower, but leveling does become slower because there are more options available at each level up.

3.5 - About the same as 3e, but things get slower once you go past the core. 3.5 beyond the core books has the same dilemma that 1e had with Unearthed Arcana and that 2e had with the Complete Class series (and which, I would guess, basic D&D might have has with the Gazetteers), in that the introduction of new core classes can provide option overload. Still nothing even approaching 1e with Unearthed Arcana or 2e with Skills & Powers, though.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 9, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Imaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Color me confused.


----------



## molonel (Apr 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Color me confused.




That would be because I misread that particular sentence. Thank you for pointing it out.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 9, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> That would be because I misread that particular sentence. Thank you for pointing it out.




No worries.    

I do think 3.X is more complex than, say 1e or C&C (in terms of character creation), but as I said a little upthread, I think that's a _good_ thing.  I said in several previous threads that I think WotC needs to make _NPC creation_ a little faster, and I note that WotC has responded in current books to that request.

Woot!


----------



## Imaro (Apr 9, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Are you honestly trying to tell me that whipping out a 3.X half-orc barbarian (anywhere from 1st through 6th level) is as difficult as a calculus exam?




First slow down and read my post. No where do I say it's as hard as a calculus exam, in fact I state the opposite.  But I also don't buy a five minute character either. 



			
				molonel said:
			
		

> An epic level character? Sure. I fully agree. But not a low level character.
> 
> A rogue would take a little longer. A wizard or sorcerer with spells to choose, probably a half-hour.
> 
> Does it take them a half-hour to understand the game in a general sense? No, they'd probably have to run through a pick-up game for that, just like it would probably take me one or two games to get back into the swing of 1st Edition, or get the idea of C&C when I played it for the first time.




Okay so  you don't think 15 to 30min per character for a four or five party group is longer than BD&D or AD&D.  Whether you prefer it, isn't the question but there is added complexity and making a character under 3e does not take 5min.





			
				molonel said:
			
		

> Nobody is ever going to roll a die for the first time, and then get a glimmer in their eye, and look at you, and explain what just happened through divine insight. There is a learning curve for ANY game.
> 
> But yes, I think you are exaggerating the learning curve for 3rd Edition D&D.




So what is the learning curve for D&D?  You seem to want to underestimate it, but in order for a player to understand all the rules in the game there is a big learning curve(you can argue he/she doesn't need to know every rule, but then that's true for simpler games as well so it evens out.), magnitudes larger than such games as C&C, BD&D, etc.  If you feel that's not true tell me why?



			
				molonel said:
			
		

> Most of the DMs I know can scan down a Prestige Class and give you a general idea of whether it's balanced, cheesy, ubercheesy or just plain cherry-picking overpowered goodness in the time it takes to read it.
> 
> So yes, I'm saying that's a lot easier than designing game mechanics from scratch.




With how much familiarity and how accurate are they...it's a guessing game just like designing your own Prestige classes, or anything else without concrete deasign rues.  For you it might be easier, for me going over someone elses design, and tweaking, fixing, adjusting is just as tiresome.





			
				molonel said:
			
		

> Okay, so I've got my own experiences, and you've got some Dragon magazine article in the interdeterminate past that you've read ... somewhere.
> 
> I think I'll go with my own experience.
> 
> ...




Where did I say it was as hard as a calculus exam?




			
				molonel said:
			
		

> Look, I'm not trying to talk you out of C&C. I'm probably going to buy the books later this year, myself. I've heard good things about the game. It sounds quality, and interesting.
> 
> But part of the reason I haven't made the transition is because D&D really isn't THAT hard to keep in check. C&C is simple, yes. And simplicity is a virtue. But it's not the ONLY virtue in a game, and right now the drawbacks of C&C don't make it appealing enough for me to switch.




That's cool different strokes for different folks but those who argue D&D 3.x is just as simple as BD&D or C&C...I just don't buy it.


----------



## molonel (Apr 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I do think 3.X is more complex than, say 1e or C&C (in terms of character creation), but as I said a little upthread, I think that's a _good_ thing.  I said in several previous threads that I think WotC needs to make _NPC creation_ a little faster, and I note that WotC has responded in current books to that request. Woot!




C&C I can't speak to. I've heard C&C is much easier, and I'm sure in some aspects of that game are easier. 1st Edition AD&D? I'd argue that. Some numbers go up, and that's a good thing. Other numbers go down, and that's a good thing. It's still a learning curve.

NPC or PC creation in high-level games is unnecessarily difficult. Don't even get me started on epic. Anything 1st through 10th, I could almost literally do in my sleep.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> First slow down and read my post. No where do I say it's as hard as a calculus exam, in fact I state the opposite. But I also don't buy a five minute character either.




I know. Raven Crowking pointed that out. I violated my own "No posting before coffee" policy. I'm drinking my first cup, now, and remembering why I made that policy to begin with. You're free to completely disregard that post. I would delete it, but I prefer to let it hang there in all of its foolish glory.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> Okay so you don't think 15 to 30min per character for a four or five party group is longer than BD&D or AD&D. Whether you prefer it, isn't the question but there is added complexity and making a character under 3e does not take 5min.




Sure. D&D character creation takes longer than five minutes, and if 5-minute character creation is a must-have for someone, I'd recommend they stay far away from D&D, far far away from anything by White Wolf, and far far far far far far far far away from GURPS.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> So what is the learning curve for D&D? You seem to want to underestimate it, but in order for a player to understand all the rules in the game there is a big learning curve(you can argue he/she doesn't need to know every rule, but then that's true for simpler games as well so it evens out.), magnitudes larger than such games as C&C, BD&D, etc. If you feel that's not true tell me why?




In order for them to understand ALL the rules? I don't understand ALL the rules. That's part of the reason I come on message forums: to discuss the rules, and learn about them. 

Learning how to play a game - any game - takes time. D&D has a learning curve, sure. But magnitudes larger? No, I don't buy that at all. I've taught people how to play in a single pick-up session, and you know what? That's not unreasonable.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> Where did I say it was as hard as a calculus exam?




You didn't. I freely conceded that, already.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 9, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> C&C I can't speak to. I've heard C&C is much easier, and I'm sure in some aspects of that game are easier. 1st Edition AD&D? I'd argue that. Some numbers go up, and that's a good thing. Other numbers go down, and that's a good thing. It's still a learning curve.
> 
> NPC or PC creation in high-level games is unnecessarily difficult. Don't even get me started on epic. Anything 1st through 10th, I could almost literally do in my sleep.
> 
> ...




It's cool Molonel.  And I just want to say to everyone else if I'm coming off antagonistic I am sorry.  

I like D&D 3.x(I've spent enough hard earned cash on the books) and I like alot of the mechanical changes they implemented in it.  But increasingly I've found it kind of a drag to run, and I also realize I don't have the type of players who are willing to invest in rules mastery enough to get what I want out of it that I don't get with C&C.  This isn't a problem with the game and I can admit that.

This situation,however, has made me realize that there is a sort of charm within simplicity that I also like.  I also enjoy the fact that new players and experienced players aren't on two different playing fields. Just my .02 cents though, and oppinions will vary.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 9, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> This situation,however, has made me realize that there is a sort of charm within simplicity that I also like.





Yeah.

My D&D houserules ramp up the complexity, but my Dr. Who d20 houserules remove a lot of the complexity.  It really depends upon the effect you are going for.


RC


----------



## molonel (Apr 9, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> It's cool Molonel. And I just want to say to everyone else if I'm coming off antagonistic I am sorry.




Nope. You're not being antagonistic. I was just wearing my sphincter as a necktie. Some coffee allowed me to remove it.

There's a reason I try to have one cup before I go to any forums. I just demonstrated why rather nicely.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> I like D&D 3.x(I've spent enough hard earned cash on the books) and I like alot of the mechanical changes they implemented in it. But increasingly I've found it kind of a drag to run, and I also realize I don't have the type of players who are willing to invest in rules mastery enough to get what I want out of it that I don't get with C&C. This isn't a problem with the game and I can admit that.




Fair enough. People have different feels and goals in the games they run. I have friends who won't run anything but White Wolf because they enjoy diceless gaming, and hate - literally HATE - classes and level-based gaming. I have other friends who enjoy the granularity and adapabiltiy of GURPS. You can run a gun-running smuggler and a werewolf and a medieval knight in the same group, and under the same point-buy system, and it kind of (sort of) makes sense. Other folks like Conan OGL and Grim Tales for the low-magic aspect of it. I run d20 Modern games because it allows me to run an X-Files sort of gritty game.

Like I said, I'll buy Castles & Crusades, eventually. Along with Conan OGL and the Star Wars Saga edition. Simplicity and elegance is something I enjoy. And if that's your cup of tea, then I can see why you'd prefer a different system.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 9, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Nope. You're not being antagonistic. I was just wearing my sphincter as a necktie. Some coffee allowed me to remove it.





And now you made _*me*_ spit out *my* coffee all over the keyboard!


----------



## molonel (Apr 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And now you made _*me*_ spit out *my* coffee all over the keyboard!




When you post a stinking floater, there's really nothing to do except admit it, and get on with life. There is really no point in arguing if you can't admit when you're wrong.

Leastways, that's how I see it.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 10, 2007)

Just another note: _The Shattered Gates of Slaughtergarde_ has in the text words to the effect of "generating 1st level characters doesn't take that long, so you should be ok to go in the same session you make the PCs". 




			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> In BRP or Strombringer 5th ed., Your character can start out the way you want him to, you have just as many options and a higher amount of customability with none of the wrangling, twisting and matching you have to do with D&D 3.x to get your concept together.
> 
> The reason I stuck with D&D over these systems(up until now) is that it afforded speed in the sense that it was class-bassed. Your abilitie we're laid out for you, it was quick, easy and fun. Did I have the same customization as the above games? No. but that wasn't what I played D&D for. We all understood we were playing archetypes, but speed and ease of getting started often outweighed customability. Now that's just not the case. It doesn't do either of these(point-buy or class bassed) gaming well.




Hmm. I'd say it does _options_ well. More so, it keeps the options within the level framework, so that encounter balance is possible.

I'm not really that familiar with the latest editions of BRP or Stormbringer, but, in your opinion, how easy would it be to use those systems to do the combat-heavy gaming with the significant character advancement that D&D does extremely well?

Cheers!


----------



## Imaro (Apr 10, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Just another note: _The Shattered Gates of Slaughtergarde_ has in the text words to the effect of "generating 1st level characters doesn't take that long, so you should be ok to go in the same session you make the PCs".
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I think Stormbringer 5th ed./BRP does a pretty good job, especially since it's based on percentages.  IMHO oppinion it's almost intuitive if you know the ranges of your PC's skills.  If your PC's weapon skils are in the 45-65% range then you know an easy challenge opponent is 25%-35% an equal challenge opponent is 45-65% a hard challenge opponent would have 70-85% and a really hard(killer) opponent 85%-105% and up.

For non combat it's based on their percentile w/a modifier from the GM.  So a "thief" with Pick Locks at 65% would get a +20% to pick an easy lock, +10% simple, +0% average, -10% hard, -20% complicated, etc.  

They also include a chart that shows what your chance with a certain attribute vs. attribute in percentages as well for ease of pure strength vs. strength tests and things of that nature..


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 10, 2007)

Just from purely personal observation, having watched players who know what they're doing crank out characters during sessions in both 3e and 1e (our version, modified to be probably somewhat more complex than the original as far as char-gen goes), I'd say it takes noticeably longer to get a character from initial-dice-roll stage to hand-sheet-to-DM-for-approval stage in 3e than it does in 1e, assuming similar levels.  And the higher the level, the bigger the difference.

And while pre-builds are handy for speeding things up, doesn't that defeat the point of all the flexibility 3e is supposed to have, if everyone uses the pre-builds? 

Lanefan


----------



## MerricB (Apr 10, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> And while pre-builds are handy for speeding things up, doesn't that defeat the point of all the flexibility 3e is supposed to have, if everyone uses the pre-builds?




No. It's part of the context of the discussion: when introducing 3e to new players, the starting packages make character creation a lot easier and faster. For experienced players, it's not so important. 

In fact, having character creation for experienced players take longer can be seen as an advantage: it gives them more of an investment with their character from the beginning. Also, I don't do character generation at the table in the main - that's something the players do at home before the first session.

Cheers!


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 10, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> In fact, having character creation for experienced players take longer can be seen as an advantage: it gives them more of an investment with their character from the beginning. Also, I don't do character generation at the table in the main - that's something the players do at home before the first session.



Fine when starting out, but 3 sessions in when they've lost half a party how easy is it (or should it be) to crank out replacements on the fly?  *That* is when simplifying char-gen really pays off! 

Lanefan


----------



## molonel (Apr 10, 2007)

I would rather stab out my eyes with a #2 pencil than create an epic 3.X Edition D&D character. Most of the times I've done it, I had to use a spreadsheet.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 10, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Fine when starting out, but 3 sessions in when they've lost half a party how easy is it (or should it be) to crank out replacements on the fly?  *That* is when simplifying char-gen really pays off!




Err... if you want to be a killer DM, yeah, sure. Having a simple creation system that doesn't invest the players with their PCs is great.

Otherwise, a new PC still doesn't take that long to create.

Cheers!


----------



## Hussar (Apr 10, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> This is a quote by Monte Cook from his website, discussing 3.x design.  Right here he disscuses complexity and how certain aspects of it were engineered into 3.x.  He says some of it was already there, but I gotta say with adding Feats it allows for a whole other level that can be daunting to new players.  Toughness to a new player sounds cool, but unless they understand the rules how can they know it's crap.




Actually though, just using this example, toughness isn't all that bad.  Effectively, most PC's are operating 1 hit die higher in hit points.  Ok, toughness for a Barbarian is bad, but, I'm fairly confident that most people can clue into that one.  However, toughness for a sorc or mage at 1st level isn't a terrible choice.

Besides that, that's what the learning curve is all about.  If I took proficiency bec-du-corbin in AD&D, that would be pretty much a waste of time.  It didn't take a whole lot of time, but, there was still a learning curve that Prof-Longsword was the way to go.

For a complete newbie, what's wrong with handing them the pre-gens?  It gets the job done and they're playing very quickly.  One of the big points for 3e is the fact that players are meant to have some input outside of the game.  They are meant to take the time to read the PHB and, yes, buy a Complete book as well.  The retraining rules in the PHB 2 take a lot of the sting out of bad choices, but, honestly, our group had been using something similar for years.  If you took a NWP, or a skill/feat (depending on edition) and never used it, most DM's including myself, IME, would let you switch it out for something that fit better.  To me, the retraining rules simply codified something that a number of groups had been doing all along.

Let's be honest here.  Beyond Basic/Expert, D&D has never really been a casual game.  There are areas in all editions that were complex.  AD&D's combat system wasn't particularly easy - space requirements, initiative rules that were arcane, proficiencies, unarmed attacks, weapon vs armor tables and a host of minis based rules like shield facing and flanking rules etc.  3e has some pretty rough patches of complexity as well.  Chargen in 3e is more complex - there are more choices and many of the choices have consequences that will come back time and again.  

I'm not sure if that's really a difference between editions.  The places of complexity may be different, but, the level of complexity isn't all that different overall.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Actually though, just using this example, toughness isn't all that bad.  Effectively, most PC's are operating 1 hit die higher in hit points.  Ok, toughness for a Barbarian is bad, but, I'm fairly confident that most people can clue into that one.  However, toughness for a sorc or mage at 1st level isn't a terrible choice.




It got even better with retraining (PH2), actually.

Cheers!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 10, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Err... if you want to be a killer DM, yeah, sure. Having a simple creation system that doesn't invest the players with their PCs is great.




I don't think that "three sessions in, you've lost half the party" means "you want to be a killer DM".  If you are following the DMG guidelines for encounters, this can happen quite easily.  In a status quo world, it can happen quite easily.

Assuming, of course, that you aren't coddling the PCs either.    



> Otherwise, a new PC still doesn't take that long to create.




I'd say not so long at 1st level, for experienced players, but new players can be overwhelmed by the choices.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Actually though, just using this example, toughness isn't all that bad.  Effectively, most PC's are operating 1 hit die higher in hit points.  Ok, toughness for a Barbarian is bad, but, I'm fairly confident that most people can clue into that one.  However, toughness for a sorc or mage at 1st level isn't a terrible choice.
> 
> Besides that, that's what the learning curve is all about.  If I took proficiency bec-du-corbin in AD&D, that would be pretty much a waste of time.  It didn't take a whole lot of time, but, there was still a learning curve that Prof-Longsword was the way to go.
> 
> ...




Perhaps your right about the complexity always being there, but I'm not sure if the route 3.X took is a good one  ie. putting the majority of the complexity square on the players.  I mean honestly, my group never read the D&D, AD&D, or 3.x books, yet it seems(IMO) this is more integral to playing 3.x than any other edition.  I realize it's good for business, more expansions to players and options for their characters that means more sales since players outnumber DM's.

Toughness is a bad feat in comparison to majority of others for cost vs. what it gives, kind of like skill focus.  The problem is a player isn't going to know this without alot more rules mastery than D&D and AD&D required.  Even in the core book there are alot of feats to compare and understand

Perhaps your right about the complexity always being there, but I'm not sure if the route 3.X took is a good one  ie. putting the majority of the complexity square on the players.  I mean honestly, my group never read the D&D, AD&D, or 3.x books, yet it seems(IMO) this is more integral to playing 3.x than any other edition.  I realize it's good for business, more expansions to players and options for their characters that means more sales since players outnumber DM's.

Toughness is a bad feat in comparison to majority of others for cost vs. what it gives, kind of like skill focus.  The problem is a player isn't going to know this without alot more rules mastery than D&D and AD&D required.  Even in the core book there are alot of feats to compare and understand thoroughly.

I posted this in another thread, and at first thought, ok maybe this is just pointless, but if it's pointles(not enough people who want or buy it to make a profit) why publish it.  If anything it speaks to the "perceived" complexity of creating a character in D&D 3.x.  I personally don't think a game where I have to buy a book with more pages than the PHB to get a good grasp of character creation isn't complex. YMMV of course. Do I think it's complex enough to need something like this? Not really sure yet.

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Creating-Dungeons-Dragons-Characters/dp/1592576885/


----------



## RFisher (Apr 10, 2007)

Nitpick: Games are generally not _intuitive_. They can be _intuitable_. (Not that it really matters...)



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> Please, when I talk about BECM D&D, I include Master. Also in RC D&D. Moldvay is simpler, sure, but Mentzer complicated it greatly.




(9_9) It's little surprise that late classic, late 1e, & early 2e have similar features, since they represent a fairly narrow slice of the game's history. So, I felt it was worth representing for pre-1985 D&D.

Besides, did Mentzer _really_ complicate it greatly? Am I wrong that my statements about chargen held through the Companion set? What did the Master set (or even Immortal) add to 1st level chargen? I thought the general skill system didn't appear until the Gazs. Is weapon mastery in the Master set?



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Let's be honest here.  Beyond Basic/Expert, D&D has never really been a casual game.




Well, if this is only an examination of the differences between editions except Basic/Expert, then I'm out. (^_^)

Honestly, the quick chargen is a side issue to me. I prefer B/X over 3e because it has fewer rules, leaves more open to interpretation, & I generally prefer the rules it does have to the 3e equivalents. Although it _can_ be a casual game, it doesn't have to be. It may sometimes be nice that, by the numbers, creating a character takes five minutes & leveling takes one minute, but in practice my players actually take a lot more time than that creating & developing thier PCs beyond the numbers.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 10, 2007)

I'd say that book is aimed at players who want to take the step from the real basics of character creation to the next step: skilled character creation.

Here's the thing: you don't need to be a master at D&D character creation to enjoy playing the game. The game is set up so you can have entirely average characters and do well. (CRs are not balanced against optimised PCs; they're balanced against the stock iconic characters). If you want to put the onus on the DM to get things right, you can.

I've made the point before, and I'll make it again: 3e allows the players to invest as much time into the game as the DM does. Where earlier editions didn't allow much thought about the game from the player's role when the game wasn't being played, 3e keeps it interesting by having all these choices - character advancement - to play around with out of the session.

3e doesn't _require_ the players to spend that time, but it does reward them if they do.

As this was a new thing for D&D, the designers made some mistakes, such as the Toughness feat. Mike Mearls has said they've moved away from that type of design. Also, we have things like Retraining (PH2) that allow bad choices to be fixed within the rules.

I have people in my groups who don't read the rulebooks. I have people who spend a lot of time coming up with combos. We all enjoy the game together. D&D 3E actually is quite flexible as to playstyle.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Apr 10, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Besides, did Mentzer _really_ complicate it greatly? Am I wrong that my statements about chargen held through the Companion set? What did the Master set (or even Immortal) add to 1st level chargen? I thought the general skill system didn't appear until the Gazs. Is weapon mastery in the Master set?




Weapon Mastery is in the Master set. (And I do think that's a complicated system).

Cheers!


----------



## RFisher (Apr 10, 2007)

Toughness is just an example. It's a good example because it is easy to understand. It's a bad example because it simplifies the issue. Don't confuse a trivial example with a trivial issue.


----------



## RFisher (Apr 10, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I've made the point before, and I'll make it again: 3e allows the players to invest as much time into the game as the DM does. Where earlier editions didn't allow much thought about the game from the player's role when the game wasn't being played, 3e keeps it interesting by having all these choices - character advancement - to play around with out of the session.




Some players have choosen to invest as much time in the game as the DM in every edition I've played. They didn't need permission from the game to do so.

If mastering & navigating rules is where you find interest, then 3e gives you nigh as much of that as you can take on both sides of the screen.



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> Weapon Mastery is in the Master set. (And I do think that's a complicated system).




Well, I've never tried it, but I did do a triple-take when I came across the weapon mastery charts in the RC! I wondered if I had a mis-print with something out of another game. So, I'm more than willing to concede that point.


----------



## dcas (Apr 10, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I've made the point before, and I'll make it again: 3e allows the players to invest as much time into the game as the DM does.



And earlier editions allowed the DM to invest as little time in the game as the players did.


----------



## MerricB (Apr 10, 2007)

dcas said:
			
		

> And earlier editions allowed the DM to invest as little time in the game as the players did.




Heh. If I don't want to invest time preparing a D&D session, I can (just as easily) with 3e. Just use monsters and NPCs as written in the books and it's all set. 

(One of the sillier adventures I ran was with the 1e Random Dungeon tables in a 3e game. Ended up being quite memorable due to a couple of tricks I improvised...)

Cheers!


----------



## Hussar (Apr 10, 2007)

> Some players have choosen to invest as much time in the game as the DM in every edition I've played. They didn't need permission from the game to do so.




Now this I find interesting.  Outside of chargen, what could a player really do to invest his time in a DM's campaign in earlier editions?   Any plans or ideas he may have would have to be vetted by the DM and could be vetoed pretty quickly by in game events.  The player couldn't spend time thinking about equipment (completely the purview of the DM), hirelings or henchmen (again, DM), proficiencies weren't exactly time demanding, spells (DM, again).  So, what could a player do with his time to add to his character outside of game time?

As far as the Complete Idiot's Guide goes, well, it is true that you can make creating a character very complicated.  If the DM allows all books for example, chargen can be a right pain in the petoot.  I also think that there are a number of gamers who start campaigns at higher levels, which can exponentially increase complexity.

It doesn't have to, but it can.

To bring up another topic for a moment:  I find these conversations interesting in that they outline some assumptions that I never really considered.  Take the idea that 1e is humanocentric.  This honestly never occured to me.  The groups that I played in played mostly demi-humans.  I was odd man out for playing humans usually.  Later groups added humanoid races like minotaurs and half-ogres.  Even the adventures we played rarely featured more than a handful of humans.  Slave Lords, while it does have humans, features a lot of humanoids, Against the Giants (duh), Hidden Shrine of Tomoachan, even the low level adventures like Cult of the Reptile God have mostly critter opponents.  

Honestly, for me, the idea that no one wants to play humans has always been true in D&D.  At best, my groups were about half humans, and usually a lot less.  In my current campaigns, the ratio has remained pretty constant.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 10, 2007)

dcas said:
			
		

> And earlier editions allowed the DM to invest as little time in the game as the players did.




I think I mentioned it earlier in this thread, but, I'll repeat it again.  At one point in my World's Largest Dungeon game, I did no prep for six months of gaming.  I got that far ahead.  My prep consisted of finding minis for the critters, creating die rollers for the critters (makes life easier on OpenRPG) and typing in the room descriptions.  I had three regions prepped ahead of time, and sat back for weekly sessions for six months.

I am a LAZY DM.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I think I mentioned it earlier in this thread, but, I'll repeat it again.  At one point in my World's Largest Dungeon game, I did no prep for six months of gaming.  I got that far ahead.  My prep consisted of finding minis for the critters, creating die rollers for the critters (makes life easier on OpenRPG) and typing in the room descriptions.  I had three regions prepped ahead of time, and sat back for weekly sessions for six months.





Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that you didn't have to put the prep time in first.  And, as we know from other threads, when you failed to put the prep time in the consequences startled you.

(Of course, to run WLD again, I'd have to put massive prep time into it, so that is a perhaps a fault of the setting.....I wonder how much prep Ptolus requires?)


----------



## MerricB (Apr 11, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I wonder how much prep Ptolus requires?




I suspect... lots. This is without having read it.  

My basic feeling is that urban campaigns/adventures are the toughest to pull off successfully, as they need you to juggle so many NPCs, as well as having so many potential paths for the PCs to take.

Cheers!


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that you didn't have to put the prep time in first.  And, as we know from other threads, when you failed to put the prep time in the consequences startled you.
> 
> (Of course, to run WLD again, I'd have to put massive prep time into it, so that is a perhaps a fault of the setting.....I wonder how much prep Ptolus requires?)




As I mentioned before, the prep I did do consisted of reading the module, doing some light photoshopping and data entry.  The problems that I had came from poor design, which had very little to do with my prep time.  Had the module been well designed, then I wouldn't have had any problems.  

Like I said, I ran 3 full regions, about 8 levels of PC's, without doing a minutes prep work beyond the initial picture stuff and typing.  Had I been playing tabletop, I would have had zero prep to do.  I realize you would do massive prep, but, that's not a fault of the module.  You don't have to do that.  You can, if you choose, but, it's certainly not necessary.


----------



## hong (Apr 11, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I suspect... lots. This is without having read it.
> 
> My basic feeling is that urban campaigns/adventures are the toughest to pull off successfully, as they need you to juggle so many NPCs, as well as having so many potential paths for the PCs to take.
> 
> Cheers!



 All paths lead to ninjae.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 11, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> As I mentioned before, the prep I did do consisted of reading the module, doing some light photoshopping and data entry.  The problems that I had came from poor design, which had very little to do with my prep time.  Had the module been well designed, then I wouldn't have had any problems.
> 
> Like I said, I ran 3 full regions, about 8 levels of PC's, without doing a minutes prep work beyond the initial picture stuff and typing.  Had I been playing tabletop, I would have had zero prep to do.  I realize you would do massive prep, but, that's not a fault of the module.  You don't have to do that.  You can, if you choose, but, it's certainly not necessary.





Of course.

But the minute that design work is required (and you can never be certain from the outside of the package that it isn't) prep time increases.

Obviously, those who prefer to run something other than prepackaged adventures, or who feel the need to add, remove, and change elements of the prepackaged adventures they run, too.  From your other posts, I had gotten the impression that you had made some changes to the reqions that you used.


RC


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 11, 2007)

dcas said:
			
		

> And earlier editions allowed the DM to invest as little time in the game as the players did.




If I wanted to run adventures now in a similar manner to the way I ran adventures "back then", then the prep time would be just as minimal. Pulling foes directly from the MM is no more time consuming now than it was in 1982.


----------



## RFisher (Apr 11, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Now this I find interesting.  Outside of chargen, what could a player really do to invest his time in a DM's campaign in earlier editions?   Any plans or ideas he may have would have to be vetted by the DM and could be vetoed pretty quickly by in game events.  The player couldn't spend time thinking about equipment (completely the purview of the DM), hirelings or henchmen (again, DM), proficiencies weren't exactly time demanding, spells (DM, again).  So, what could a player do with his time to add to his character outside of game time?




"No plan survives contact with the enemy." --Murphy's Rules of Combat

That things might not go as planned is not a reason to not plan. The considering of all the things you list happens without the DM present. Only the "vetting" itself requires the DM.

Unless the player or the DM are complete jerks or seriously mismatched in their approach to the game (with no effort to reconcile that), not every player idea is going to get outright veto'd. Rather (IME) little will, though the results might not be exactly what you expect, but that's part of the point of playing the game with other people, right?

If it is an issue of jerkitude or mismatched approaches, then you've got a much bigger problem than how involved the players can be.

Some players put just as much effort into their PC's backstory, personality, &c. as DMs put into their campaign settings. & many DMs will welcome their world being partially shaped by the players. Sometimes as far as letting them develop portions of the setting.

Of course, there's also the argument that the DM's job was easier, so that lowers the bar for players being as involved as the DM. (^_^)



> Take the idea that 1e is humanocentric.  This honestly never occured to me.  The groups that I played in played mostly demi-humans.  I was odd man out for playing humans usually.




I wanted 1e to be humanocentric & was always annoyed that it wasn't. I can enjoy a game that isn't, but I don't want that all the time.

This is one of the things that I really enjoy about Moldvay/Cook/Marsh D&D. As written, the limited range of non-human PC choices & their increased XP cost tends towards more human PCs but still with the occasional demihuman. & I have plenty of resources (from oD&D through the Gazs & Crucibles plus pretty good fan-made class creation rules) to make doing things different pretty easy when I want to.

(Although, for the "any race goes" kind of things, I think I'd prefer Gurps, Hero, Risus, or something else to anything D&D.)


----------



## Hussar (Apr 12, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Of course.
> 
> But the minute that design work is required (and you can never be certain from the outside of the package that it isn't) prep time increases.
> 
> ...




Oh of course.  However, that's the point.  Just because I chose to spend time adding to the adventure doesn't mean that I had to.  That was my choice.  It always was in any edition.  The idea that you can't run 3e out of the book is just wrong.  Granted, you lose out on a lot of the customizability that way, but, you certainly don't have to any more than you had to in any other edition.

I wouldn't blame edition for bad module design.  All editions have seen some bloody foetid piles of stinkiness.  



> Some players put just as much effort into their PC's backstory, personality, &c. as DMs put into their campaign settings. & many DMs will welcome their world being partially shaped by the players. Sometimes as far as letting them develop portions of the setting.
> 
> Of course, there's also the argument that the DM's job was easier, so that lowers the bar for players being as involved as the DM. (^_^)




However, this isn't limited to edition though.  You can do that in any edition.  What you cannot do in earlier editions is customize the mechanical aspects of your character after 1st level.  Well, that's not true.  There are a few things you can do, but, by and large, not a whole pile.  3e encourages players to spend time outside of the game working on mechanical changes to their character.  These options simply weren't available previously.

Now, whether that's a good thing or not, depends on you POV.


----------



## RFisher (Apr 12, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> However, this isn't limited to edition though.  You can do that in any edition.  What you cannot do in earlier editions is customize the mechanical aspects of your character after 1st level.  Well, that's not true.  There are a few things you can do, but, by and large, not a whole pile.  3e encourages players to spend time outside of the game working on mechanical changes to their character.  These options simply weren't available previously.
> 
> Now, whether that's a good thing or not, depends on you POV.




Agreed. My point was simply that not having those mechanical bits to twiddle never _prevented_ players from being as involved as they wanted to be.

&--yeah--just as some DMs complain that (when not using a module) they feel required to twiddle with the mechanical bits when preparing to run 3e & that that takes time & effort away from other parts of DM prep that they'd rather focus on; I've felt a similar thing as a 3e player.

(Arguably a lot of the DM complaints about 3e stem from more of the PC rules being equally applied to monsters.)

But then someone comes along & says that you don't strictly _need_ to twiddle those mechanical bits because they've managed to play 3e without doing so. Or that it's exaggeration because it just really isn't that hard--for them. & the point that there is a _real_ difference between the editions; differences that make _real_ differences in the experience for some of us; that it's easier for some of us to get the experience we want out of one edition, but harder with another... All of that so often gets lost as we descend into details. It's nice that we seem to be doing a decent job of avoiding that this time.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 12, 2007)

It's interesting to bring up the idea of the players getting involved in the DM's world.

A lot of times, people start crying player entitlement if you start to do that.  For example, if I want to play a warforged ninja in someone's pirate game, and the DM says no, aren't they basically saying that my imagination just isn't good enough for their game?

But, in earlier editions, DM's were encouraging players to do the same thing?  I don't think so.  At least not the DM's I played with.  And probably not myself either.  "No" was the easiest word to say and got said an awful lot.   

I guess my question becomes, at what point does player involvement in campaign design become player entitlement?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 12, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> A lot of times, people start crying player entitlement if you start to do that.  For example, if I want to play a warforged ninja in someone's pirate game, and the DM says no, aren't they basically saying that my imagination just isn't good enough for their game?




No.  They are saying that you are nor exercising your imagination to build the game _at hand_; you are instead building something more appropriate to _some other game_.  Your imagination is no doubt good enough to add detail to a world by trying to include details that fit into what is presented.  

Trying to include details that are contrary to what is presented isn't world-building, it's world-breaking.  The DM is the ultimate arbiter of what fits and what does not, and hence (s)he has the authority to say No.


RC


----------



## dcas (Apr 12, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Pulling foes directly from the MM is no more time consuming now than it was in 1982.



To be sure! However, I am not certain that the same thing can be said about NPCs.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 12, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I guess my question becomes, at what point does player involvement in campaign design become player entitlement?




I think the difference is whether the player is willing to play his "warforged ninja" as a human rogue instead.  That is, if the DM _has good reasons, even if they are arbitrary_ that neither the warforged race nor the ninja class are allowed, the player should respect that.  Not saying that the player can't go for a little negotiation ("How about we tweak the warforged?" or "Can I trade X thief ability for Y ninja ability?") but in the end, the DM does get final say.  If the player stomps his feet and whines because he bought Races of Eberron and Complete Adventurer, that's an issue of player entitlement.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 12, 2007)

dcas said:
			
		

> To be sure! However, I am not certain that the same thing can be said about NPCs.





How many NPCs did you stat out when you were DMing back in the early 1980s? You might have a handful of villagers, or a couple of "boss villains", but they usually constituted such a trivial percentage of the things that needed to be worked out that even if it takes 500% more time to stat them out now, the prep-time difference would be negligible.


----------



## molonel (Apr 12, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> For example, if I want to play a warforged ninja in someone's pirate game, and the DM says no, aren't they basically saying that my imagination just isn't good enough for their game?




I normally find myself agreeing with a lot of what you right, but no, that's incorrect. If, as a DM, I don't want warforged ninjas in the 7th Sea game that I'm running, or simply a homebrewed pirate adventure, then that's my prerogative as the DM, just as not allowing Drow or Duergar in a heroic campaign or LA +1 or greater races in a low-level game.

It has nothing to do with your imagination as a player. Games have a certain flavor, and mechanics can torque that.

I don't own Eberron, and I would never allow someone to play material from it in my games because I dislike the setting.



			
				dcas said:
			
		

> To be sure! However, I am not certain that the same thing can be said about NPCs.




Um, that's because in previous editions, unless the NPC was a retired adventurer, there was no point statting him out. He was a scrub.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Apr 12, 2007)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Agreed. My point was simply that not having those mechanical bits to twiddle never _prevented_ players from being as involved as they wanted to be.




Well, if I want to be involved in a manner that affects the mechanical development of my PC, then twiddly bits are practically an absolute requirement.


----------



## Celebrim (Apr 12, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> How many NPCs did you stat out when you were DMing back in the early 1980s?




I don't know about early '80's, but in early 90's one DM I played under was maintaining a list of 1000 'seven sentence NPC's' with basic stats.  

I was never that organized, but thinking back over some of my notes, my typical prep would be for about a dozen NPC's per session.  Not all of them would get used, but it was handy to have a name and a few notes written down ahead of time.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 12, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Um, that's because in previous editions, unless the NPC was a retired adventurer, there was no point statting him out. He was a scrub.




More to the point, there is often no need to fully stat out NPCs like that now either.

For example, in the venerable _Keep on the Borderlands_ there is a Blacksmith. He is described as good with a hammer and able to make weapons and repair armor. Do you need more description of this NPC now than you did then? Do you need more than, for example, this?

_Name_ (something left out of the original); Blacksmith, Expert 2, 7 hp , Craft (Blacksmithing) +9, Craft (Weaponsmithing) +6, Craft (Armorsmithing) +6, MWP (Warhammer).


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I don't know about early '80's, but in early 90's one DM I played under was maintaining a list of 1000 'seven sentence NPC's' with basic stats.




That's just ridiculous overkill. In the course of play in an entire year of gaming, there is no way that the PCs will meaningfully interact with a thousand NPCs to an extent necessary to require them to be filled out to that level of detail. If you gamed once per week, every week, for five hours per session, for an entire year, you would need to meet and interact with, on average, four new NPCs _per hour_ to meet 1,000 NPCs. And not waste time on any repeat meetings. And that assumes you don't spend any time dealing with "monsters" like ogres, umber hulks, and basilisks.



> _I was never that organized, but thinking back over some of my notes, my typical prep would be for about a dozen NPC's per session.  Not all of them would get used, but it was handy to have a name and a few notes written down ahead of time._




How long were your sessions? And how much interaction did the characters do with each of the dozen NPCs you worked out? For the most part, in my experience, unless the NPC is going to be a recurring element of the campaign, or something otherwise noteworthy, then working out more than the basics is often wasted effort.


----------



## dcas (Apr 12, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> How many NPCs did you stat out when you were DMing back in the early 1980s? You might have a handful of villagers, or a couple of "boss villains", but they usually constituted such a trivial percentage of the things that needed to be worked out that even if it takes 500% more time to stat them out now, the prep-time difference would be negligible.



I wasn't DMing back in the early 80s (I started playing in 1987 or so and DMing in 1989) . . . however, what I am getting at is that it takes longer _now_, not that it took longer _then_.

Whether that is good or bad is up to the DM.


----------



## Celebrim (Apr 12, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> That's just ridiculous overkill. In the course of play in an entire year of gaming...




Did I say anything about one year of gaming? 



> How long were your sessions?




Four to eight hours, with the average being probably nearer the low end.



> And how much interaction did the characters do with each of the dozen NPCs you worked out?




The point is, I wouldn't really know until it happened, would I?  I never found spending a sentence or two on 50 or so NPCs in the vacinity of the action to be wasted effort.  It's gives life to the setting, a bit of forethought in NPC design can create alot of player interest, and it avoids 'empty room' syndrome where the player can tell from the metagame that this is just a 'nameless NPC' and can be ignored/killed.  This is important for several reasons, for example, if you don't occassionally pull a 'Scobby Doo' and have the villain be the janitor in scene 5, you are never going to get away with having the villain be one of the central NPCs in disguise with experienced players.



> For the most part, in my experience, unless the NPC is going to be a recurring element of the campaign, or something otherwise noteworthy, then working out more than the basics is often wasted effort.




I don't think I said anything about working out more than the basics.... of course, what are the basics might be something we'd quibble over.



> Name (something left out of the original); Blacksmith, Expert 2, 7 hp , Craft (Blacksmithing) +9, Craft (Weaponsmithing) +6, Craft (Armorsmithing) +6, MWP (Warhammer).




I think you make a good point here.  Just because we have a more detailed system now doesn't mean we have to use it.


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 12, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think you make a good point here.  Just because we have a more detailed system now doesn't mean we have to use it.




WotC and Paizo don't even fully stat out every NPC in their 3.5e adventures...


----------



## RFisher (Apr 12, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> A lot of times, people start crying player entitlement if you start to do that.  For example, if I want to play a warforged ninja in someone's pirate game, and the DM says no, aren't they basically saying that my imagination just isn't good enough for their game?




That's a constant battle I fight with myself. I like creating worlds that exclude bits I'm not very fond of or that put twists on things. But I hate saying "no" to a player's idea because it almost always makes things richer when I say "yes".



> But, in earlier editions, DM's were encouraging players to do the same thing?  I don't think so.  At least not the DM's I played with.  And probably not myself either.  "No" was the easiest word to say and got said an awful lot.




IME, this isn't edition dependent. I saw a wide range of player influence on worlds in my 1e days. Sometimes, it was little beyond the actions of the PCs, & the DM would leave hardly any PC background untouched. Sometimes players were given fairly free reign to develop kingdom or races or somesuch. Most often, it was somewhere in the middle, & that's been my experience since as well.



> I guess my question becomes, at what point does player involvement in campaign design become player entitlement?




I don't think I've often seen player entitlement. When I have, I think it's always been when the DM excludes something that's printed in a core book. Usually that person doesn't remain in the group for long.

Though, I've read about player entitlement a lot online.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Apr 13, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I think you make a good point here.  Just because we have a more detailed system now doesn't mean we have to use it.




Through the bubbling cauldron of experience, it eventually dawned on my DM that it was extremely unlikely that the players would ever notice whether he spent 2 minutes or 20 minutes designing the typical NPC.  

90% of the time that NPC would be dead within 11 seconds of hostile contact, not the slightest hint revealed through play what his full set of Feats and Skills happen to be.

Now obviously this does not apply to every NPC.  Making a few special ones carefully is one of the joys of being a DM.

But on the grand scale of things, most NPCs that make it to the battlemat are mooks.  They might live through the first 3 hits instead going down at once, but they are still just Orcs in drag.

I am a bit of a Balance Nazi.  I also advocate that the DM should "cheat, fair and square" in order to speed things up for the sake of everyone's fun.  What I mean is that the DM should feel free to take short cuts that on average will be fair to the PCs.

The number of standard humanoid types you really need are small.  Stat them out simply.  Vanilla Guard Level 2,  Vanilla Guard Level 4, etc.

From there you can just use simple deltas.  How tough is the leader of a band of Vanilla Guard 2's?  Give him +10 HP, +2 to hit, +2 damage, +1 to all saves and all skills, and call that close enough.

You do not have to get all the details "right".  You just need to make sure that you are assigning reasonable CRs when designing the encounter and that NPCs are not "cheating" in some strange way that gives them a really unfair advantage due to bizarreness.  But surely it is not possible to make NPC so boring as to be unfair, so you know which way to lean when in doubt.


----------



## Thurbane (Apr 13, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, in earlier editions, DM's were encouraging players to do the same thing?  I don't think so.  At least not the DM's I played with.  And probably not myself either.  "No" was the easiest word to say and got said an awful lot.



My experience in 1E and 2E was quite the opposite -  most DMs were pretty flexible with writing PC backstory into their own campaigns, as long as the player wasn't trying to introduce some truly ridiculous character ("Oh, you say you're the OTHER son of Odin, and your hammer is the twin of Mjolnir?")   

...of course, I've basically played with the same group of 8 or so people for the last 20+ years, so maybe we're not a "typical" group...


----------



## Hussar (Apr 13, 2007)

> I don't think I've often seen player entitlement. When I have, I think it's always been when the DM excludes something that's printed in a core book. Usually that person doesn't remain in the group for long.
> 
> Though, I've read about player entitlement a lot online.




This was basically my experience as well.  I've played with about 50 players over OpenRPG in the past three years.  Of those, I can say there was one or two that I had problems with entitlement over.  

IMO, this isn't an edition thing but simply a bad player thing.



> I normally find myself agreeing with a lot of what you right, but no, that's incorrect. If, as a DM, I don't want warforged ninjas in the 7th Sea game that I'm running, or simply a homebrewed pirate adventure, then that's my prerogative as the DM, just as not allowing Drow or Duergar in a heroic campaign or LA +1 or greater races in a low-level game.
> 
> It has nothing to do with your imagination as a player. Games have a certain flavor, and mechanics can torque that.
> 
> I don't own Eberron, and I would never allow someone to play material from it in my games because I dislike the setting.




Effectively though, that's what you are saying.  I'm not saying that you are wrong to say that, but, from a certain perspective, it becomes a lot less palatable to simply say that the DM's vision of the campaign should always prevail.  I agree with you and RC.  If I have a certain vision for my campaign, then I will do the same as you and limit options.  But, we should recognize what we are doing when we do so.



> But on the grand scale of things, most NPCs that make it to the battlemat are mooks. They might live through the first 3 hits instead going down at once, but they are still just Orcs in drag.




ROTFLMAO.  That is SO siggable.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 13, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm not saying that you are wrong to say that, but, from a certain perspective, it becomes a lot less palatable to simply say that the DM's vision of the campaign should always prevail.  I agree with you and RC.  If I have a certain vision for my campaign, then I will do the same as you and limit options.  But, we should recognize what we are doing when we do so.




If it becomes "a lot less palatable", it is likely that your vision differs so greatly from your DM's vision that you should either start your own game, or find a new DM.

No one is obligated to another person's vision.  If you don't like my vision, don't play in my game.  If your vision doesn't mesh with my vision, you won't be playing in my game.  Which is not to say that my vision is absolutely inflexible -- I'd be sitting alone in the dark, if that were the case -- or that my imagination is better than yours.  What it means is that, for the effort that I am putting in, I get to create the world I want.  If you put in the effort, you get to create the world you want.

As a DM, I firmly believe that you should cater to your strengths and bolser your weaknesses.  As a player, simply because the workload and responsibility is less, you don't have the same concerns about catering to your strengths.  It is easier to be a player than it is to DM.  The more your strengths run toward complex world-building, the more true this is.

I would never DM Eberron, because that setting doesn't cater to my strengths.  The experience would be subpar to my homebrew, not because Eberron is subpar, but because my homebrew is designed to cater to my strengths as a DM and bolster my weaknesses.  I would have no difficulty at all playing in Eberron.  Likewise a whole host of other settings/game systems I'm sure.

This is not at all the same as saying "Your imagination isn't as good as mine."


EDIT:  One further thought.  I can easily imagine a character that would be interesting and fun to play in any setting that I have ever encountered.  If the sum total of your ability to come up with a character for a 7th Sea campaign setting is "Warforged Ninja", the DM's imagination probably _is_ better than yours.  

(And that is a general "you", not a specific "you" directed at any actual person.)


----------



## molonel (Apr 13, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No one is obligated to another person's vision. If you don't like my vision, don't play in my game. If your vision doesn't mesh with my vision, you won't be playing in my game. Which is not to say that my vision is absolutely inflexible -- I'd be sitting alone in the dark, if that were the case -- or that my imagination is better than yours. What it means is that, for the effort that I am putting in, I get to create the world I want. If you put in the effort, you get to create the world you want.
> 
> As a DM, I firmly believe that you should cater to your strengths and bolser your weaknesses. As a player, simply because the workload and responsibility is less, you don't have the same concerns about catering to your strengths. It is easier to be a player than it is to DM. The more your strengths run toward complex world-building, the more true this is.
> 
> ...




I agree with all of this, and it is well said.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 13, 2007)

I agree too actually.  I'm playing more a Devil's Advocate role here than anything.  Don't get me wrong, I fully support the idea that the DM gets final say.

But, this does get to the apparent shift in attitude between editions.  DM's are advised in the 3e DMG to work with players to try to fit the player's ideas into the mix.  I'm not sure if that was true previously.  



> EDIT: One further thought. I can easily imagine a character that would be interesting and fun to play in any setting that I have ever encountered. If the sum total of your ability to come up with a character for a 7th Sea campaign setting is "Warforged Ninja", the DM's imagination probably is better than yours.




My character was crafted by a wizard looking to make the first clockwork helmsman.  He spent years gathering the parts and creating me.  He took my lifeless shell to the Reefs of Despair where many ships have met their end and infused me with the souls of those sailors who haunt the reefs.  But, he made a fatal miscalculation.  In the final infusion, the spirits took form and they were unhappy for being disturbed.  They ripped my creator assunder and bound his soul deep within the reef.  

I was left, not quite complete, lacking the knowledge of the sailor's spirits but still powered by them.  Their eldritch energy infuses me, allows me to move and sometimes, to do much more.  I can cause the spirits to cloud the eyes of my enemies and perform other tasks.  My precision crafting allows me to strike with unerring skill to swiftly end the life of my enemies.  

After my creator was destroyed, the spirits cast me adrift upon a broken spar of a drowned ship.  I washed ashore miles from any habitation.  I spent the last several months trudging here.

There, one warforged ninja for a 7th Sea campaign.  With a side order of fries.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 13, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> There, one warforged ninja for a 7th Sea campaign.  With a side order of fries.




And, when the next player wants a warforged ninja?

And the one after that?

And the next after that wants a T-Rex Samurai?

I didn't say that you couldn't come up with a way to fit a warforged ninja into a 7th Sea campaign setting.  I said 

If *the sum total* of your ability to come up with a character for a 7th Sea campaign setting is "Warforged Ninja", the DM's imagination probably is better than yours.​
(Emphasis mine).

IOW, if you can't create a character that fits within the setting presented, you have a poor imagination indeed.  If you can't make a character other than "warforged ninja" the same is true.  When the DM limits character creation to characters that fit the setting, there are still an infinite number of possible character ideas that are possible.

RC


----------



## Hussar (Apr 13, 2007)

So, you're saying that my character concept gets vetoed because there is a chance that someone else might want to play it after me?  I created a character that fit within the setting.  ((Actually, I'm not sure if that's true since I have only a glancing familiarity with the 7th Sea setting - however, it would work in a piratical/naval campaign set in a more standard setting))

As I said, I agree with you that the DM can set limits.  However, in doing so, we are saying to our players that our vision is better than their's.  That may be a big bone of contention between players and DM's.  

I remember in my Scarred Lands campaign, a player with a Forsaken Elf barbarian wanted to take a PrC from BoED.  Some sort of holy rager with a very long name.  Basically a barbarian devoted to some god or other.  The problem is, the elves in Scarred Lands don't worship gods because their god is dead.  That's pretty much the whole hook behind the race in SL.  

So, I vetoed the PrC.  Thinking about it now though, I think it could have been workable had we sat down and fiddled with the flavour a bit.  Something I've come to realize recently is that players do try to get engaged in a setting in a variety of ways, and, every time I say no, I'm making my setting less important to them.

Sometimes, you do have to say no.  But, the advice in the DMG which says to "try to say yes" is pretty good advice IMO.


----------



## molonel (Apr 13, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> My character was crafted by a wizard looking to make the first clockwork helmsman.  He spent years gathering the parts and creating me.  He took my lifeless shell to the Reefs of Despair where many ships have met their end and infused me with the souls of those sailors who haunt the reefs.  But, he made a fatal miscalculation.  In the final infusion, the spirits took form and they were unhappy for being disturbed.  They ripped my creator assunder and bound his soul deep within the reef.
> 
> I was left, not quite complete, lacking the knowledge of the sailor's spirits but still powered by them.  Their eldritch energy infuses me, allows me to move and sometimes, to do much more.  I can cause the spirits to cloud the eyes of my enemies and perform other tasks.  My precision crafting allows me to strike with unerring skill to swiftly end the life of my enemies.
> 
> ...




That's very creative, and very well written.

And no, you STILL couldn't play a warforged ninja in my 7th Sea campaign.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 13, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, you're saying that my character concept gets vetoed because there is a chance that someone else might want to play it after me?  I created a character that fit within the setting.  ((Actually, I'm not sure if that's true since I have only a glancing familiarity with the 7th Sea setting - however, it would work in a piratical/naval campaign set in a more standard setting))
> 
> As I said, I agree with you that the DM can set limits.  However, in doing so, we are saying to our players that our vision is better than their's.  That may be a big bone of contention between players and DM's.
> 
> ...




Why would your player pick a Forsaken Elf(I'm assuming he/she knew what their "shtick" was in the beginning) and then try to get a divine class?  To me, if the events in the campaign and the players actions lead to a reasonable explanation of him starting to worship a new god I might have allowed it as a "roleplaying bonus".  

Now if  the player just up and decided upon leveling that it would be kewl to be the only Forsaken Elf with divine powers...eh, not sure I would have allowed it.  In other words my thoughts would have been you picked a Forsaken Elf because you wanted to play one, not a "human in drag", so play a Forsaken Elf.  Explore what it means to be part of a race without a connection to the divine, etc.  Otherwise why play a Forsaken Elf in the first place?  To me that's the good thing about a structured setting, the opportunities for interaction and roleplay because of how a "particular world" is set up.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 13, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, you're saying that my character concept gets vetoed because there is a chance that someone else might want to play it after me?  I created a character that fit within the setting.  ((Actually, I'm not sure if that's true since I have only a glancing familiarity with the 7th Sea setting - however, it would work in a piratical/naval campaign set in a more standard setting))
> 
> As I said, I agree with you that the DM can set limits.  However, in doing so, we are saying to our players that our vision is better than their's.  That may be a big bone of contention between players and DM's.




No.  I'm saying that, at the start of the campaign, I tell you what the limits are, and you either make a character within those limits or you do not.  If you do, you can play.  If not, not.

It has nothing to do with whether or not my vision is "better" than yours -- only with whose "vision" is going to take precedence in a game I am running.  

Or, to quote molonel, "That's very creative, and very well written.  And no, you STILL couldn't play a warforged ninja in my 7th Sea campaign."

EDIT:  BTW, I am saddened to hear that every time you say "No" to players in order to preserve the flavor of your setting, your players become _less_ invested in the setting.  IME, setting limitations on the campaign melieu has served to _increase_ my players investment in the setting.  This is, I guess, a real YMMV.

RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 13, 2007)

As a DM I like it when the players create bits of the world - nations, races, characters, magic items - it enriches the universe and means less work for me.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 13, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> As a DM I like it when the players create bits of the world - nations, races, characters, magic items - it enriches the universe and means less work for me.




I do too, and have created specific mechanics for it.  But there is a difference between creating part of the world in a way that is meant to fit into the world as presented, and creating something that has little or no place in the world presented.

It's rather like Hussar's warforged ninja -- do you reward the character for the concept by letting him (and only him) play such a misfit character, or do you resign yourself to the idea that, on this ship, _everyone who shows up_ is going to be a misfit character?

IMC, I charge a feat slot.    


RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 13, 2007)

You're right to highlight the problem of everyone wanting to be special. I've seen that a few times. The only solution, if you allow special at all, is to do it on a first-come-first-served basis. Say there's a party of five, and elves are supposed to be very rare in your world, then only one PC can be an elf, not three.

The warforged ninja issue shows how important terminology is in roleplaying. After all rpgs aren't made of anything *but* words. A 'warforged ninja' in 7th Sea isn't acceptable but I'd say a 'stealthy killer, made of wood and metal' would be. The problems are with the word warforged which is distinctly D&Dy, and the word ninja which is oriental.

I was thinking about whether I would allow Drow PCs in the world I'm working on. My first thought was no, as drow are an enemy race. I want them to be mysterious. But then I realised it would work if the drow PC had been raised by non-drow, perhaps being snatched as an infant.

This makes me think that perhaps anything can work, in any world, if it's tweaked enough.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 13, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> This makes me think that perhaps anything can work, in any world, if it's tweaked enough.





I think that this statement is far more true when discussing non-POV (point-of-view)characters than when discussing POV characters.  And PCs, are by definition POV characters.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Apr 14, 2007)

I'm a little confused about something and maybe some of y'all can help me out here:

Is it the general opinion that if someone shows up with xyz character booklet or book that the DM doesn't have or whatever that the DM "has to" let someone play it?  Is that how some folks feel?  That is, regardless of what the DM has going in his campaign, a warforged ninja "has to" go because it's "cool" and not allowing it is restricting or punishing the player?

I mean, I've played with a lot of various character classes in *D&D* and *AD&D* and I just don't allow certain things.  Some I do, though.

Just looking for some insight.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 14, 2007)

> Is it the general opinion that if someone shows up with xyz character booklet or book that the DM doesn't have or whatever that the DM "has to" let someone play it? Is that how some folks feel? That is, regardless of what the DM has going in his campaign, a warforged ninja "has to" go because it's "cool" and not allowing it is restricting or punishing the player?




I think it would be more accurate to say that some folks feel that if you pull the plug on a cool and well-written idea for a warforged ninja in an unusual campaign, you're not being a very creative DM. Or, at least, that your player is more creative than you.

Which is okay, as long as everyone's on the same page: as long as the player is okay limiting his own character design to the DM's imagination, and flexible enough to do so, he can still have fun. And if the DM is excited by the concept and loves the exceptional (but creatively designed) character and says it's okay, then they're on the same page, too. 

The important thing is that the players and the DM all have a happy medium. Where that's going to lie on the freakometer is going to be different for different campaigns and different DMs with different sticking points. In most of my games, I'd only be too happy for a player to come up with a wacky background filled with such story potential, and I'd let them in graciously and change my entire world to accommodate them if need be, because I don't have a lot invested in my worlds, and half the time I think my players can come up with cooler ideas. Of course, most of my players have liked my ideas better than their own, too.

That works well for my krewe, but not everyone's cool with that. Plenty of DMs invest a lot in their worlds, and they'd be understandably upset if someone angrily demanded their "better" idea take precedence over the careful crafting of the DM.


----------



## molonel (Apr 14, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> I'm a little confused about something and maybe some of y'all can help me out here:
> 
> Is it the general opinion that if someone shows up with xyz character booklet or book that the DM doesn't have or whatever that the DM "has to" let someone play it?  Is that how some folks feel?  That is, regardless of what the DM has going in his campaign, a warforged ninja "has to" go because it's "cool" and not allowing it is restricting or punishing the player?
> 
> ...




I think this point of view is more often put forward as fact IN SOMEONE ELSE'S GROUP than seriously, honestly held or believed.

I've HEARD about gaming groups where players act like this, but I've never seen it in action. I've seen a player whine, and a DM tell him to .... well, do something I won't repeat on a family-friendly forum. But it involved a fire hydrant, some lube and a small leather bag filled with fine-grained sand.


----------



## Thurbane (Apr 14, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> I'm a little confused about something and maybe some of y'all can help me out here:
> 
> Is it the general opinion that if someone shows up with xyz character booklet or book that the DM doesn't have or whatever that the DM "has to" let someone play it?  Is that how some folks feel?  That is, regardless of what the DM has going in his campaign, a warforged ninja "has to" go because it's "cool" and not allowing it is restricting or punishing the player?
> 
> ...



I certainly hope there is not an expectation that a DM "has to" allow anything in his campaign, especially if it's from a supplement he's not familiar with.

I have seen firsthand what kind of difficulties this can cause, when the DM is informed of some racial or class ability that he has never previously encountered tipping an encounter, adventure or even campaign on it's ear. It also creates problems when a players ability to craft an effective and/or powerful character is directly tied to how many supplements he's gone out and bought...


----------



## Hussar (Apr 14, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> EDIT:  BTW, I am saddened to hear that every time you say "No" to players in order to preserve the flavor of your setting, your players become _less_ invested in the setting.  IME, setting limitations on the campaign melieu has served to _increase_ my players investment in the setting.  This is, I guess, a real YMMV.
> 
> RC




IME, when the DM starts shooting down player ideas, it can lead to some disconnection with the setting.  The player is honestly thinking (and I'm assuming the player isn't an asshat here) that his idea fits with the setting.  He's done a decent job tailoring things so that it works from the information he's been given from the DM.  When the DM turns around and shoots that idea down because it doesn't fit into the DM's vision of the campaign, then the player may feel that his input isn't needed or even wanted.  He's supposed to just make whatever stock character fits into the theme of the game and play away.  

Not that this is necessarily true.  KM hits it on the head well:



			
				The maniac banana said:
			
		

> The important thing is that the players and the DM all have a happy medium. Where that's going to lie on the freakometer is going to be different for different campaigns and different DMs with different sticking points. In most of my games, I'd only be too happy for a player to come up with a wacky background filled with such story potential, and I'd let them in graciously and change my entire world to accommodate them if need be, because I don't have a lot invested in my worlds, and half the time I think my players can come up with cooler ideas. Of course, most of my players have liked my ideas better than their own, too.




If a DM ((Note the if part there)) is too inflexible in his campaign design, then the players may feel left out.  Earlier it was mentioned that some players put in lots of effort into making their character and do lots of work outside of the game on their character.  If that effort gets shot down, most people are going to be somewhat put off.  That's just natural.

Look, I'm not advocating anything like what DungeonDelver is talking about.  There will always be limitations upon any campaign.  That's fine.  However, there should be a happy medium, as KM says.  There's nothing wrong with letting players fill in the gaps sometimes.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 14, 2007)

If something is out of theme the DM has every right to smack it down before it enters play: "You want to play a Samurai on my world that has no Oriental-like culture?  Sorry..."

However, once it *does* enter play the DM in all fairness has to allow it again if someone else wants to run out the same concept in the same campaign...either that, or come up with an ironclad in-game rationale for why this character was so unique (and then be wide open to charges of favouritism).

Lanefan


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 14, 2007)

> If something is out of theme the DM has every right to smack it down before it enters play: "You want to play a Samurai on my world that has no Oriental-like culture? Sorry..."
> 
> However, once it *does* enter play the DM in all fairness has to allow it again if someone else wants to run out the same concept in the same campaign...either that, or come up with an ironclad in-game rationale for why this character was so unique (and then be wide open to charges of favouritism).




And if I ended up running a group of samurai because that's what most of the players wanted, and they found a way to make it work in the world (such as by taking the class and filing the serial numbers off), I'd probably concede that my world design was limited in such a way that it would discount this particular style of fun, and I'd ask my group of they just wanted me to run an OA game or something.

Because, again, I don't invest a lot of self-worth in my campaign settings. They're sandboxes for the PC's to play in to me, not sacred immutable dogma that they must conform to. 

That "slippery slope" isn't a bad thing, in my mind. It lets the players tell the DM what *they* want to do.



> IME, when the DM starts shooting down player ideas, it can lead to some disconnection with the setting. The player is honestly thinking (and I'm assuming the player isn't an asshat here) that his idea fits with the setting. He's done a decent job tailoring things so that it works from the information he's been given from the DM. When the DM turns around and shoots that idea down because it doesn't fit into the DM's vision of the campaign, then the player may feel that his input isn't needed or even wanted. He's supposed to just make whatever stock character fits into the theme of the game and play away.




This can be true, too. It's the idea that in challenging the DM's preconceptions about their own campaign, the player actually enriches the setting.

The DM doesn't *have* to accept anything. But if he does, the world can be made the better for it.


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 15, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If *the sum total* of your ability to come up with a character for a 7th Sea campaign setting is "Warforged Ninja", the DM's imagination probably is better than yours.



My first year of college I took an art history survey course, one of those 100-level general ed classes everyone suffers through to satisfy the Chinese take-out menu aspect of degree requirements (". . . one from column A, one from column B, with two order you get free egg roll!").

I was fortunate to have an instructor who didn't care that 95% of the class was there simply to have their tickets to graduation punched. He skillfully engaged the class by teaching us not only about the artwork but how to look at art - he introduced me to the "three-step museum patron," who upon walking up to a work of art first looks at the information card to see what it is and who it's by, then looks at the work for a moment, then looks back at the card to make sure s/he didn't miss anything important before moving on to the next piece in the gallery. (Stand back and watch people in an art museum some time, and you'll see this over and over again.)

During our discussion of Renaissance artists and artwork, the professor taught us that the subject matter of most art during the period was fairly limited, mostly commissions consisting of either scenes from the Bible or scenes from antiquity (often presented as biblical allegories). Despite the limited selection of topics, the actual content of paintings in particular varied dramatically - one Abraham and Isaac could be quite different from another, based on what the artist brought to the work. For example, the depiction of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem could include all the elements of a genre painting, showing life in a Renaissance port town through the people and features presented as "background" to what was ostensibly the subject of the painting.

Many artists explored humanist philosophy, social satire, and other non-religious and non-classical themes while adhering  to the tastes and standards of the period. The professor pointed out that what separates one depiction of the martyrdom of St. Stephen from another is the innovation, the idiosyncracy, the imagination - the creativity - the artist brings to the work while preserving the original subject matter intact.

I think some people tend to confuse or conflate creativity with unfettered fancy. In my experience they are not the same thing at all.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 15, 2007)

dcas said:
			
		

> I wasn't DMing back in the early 80s (I started playing in 1987 or so and DMing in 1989) . . . however, what I am getting at is that it takes longer _now_, not that it took longer _then_.
> 
> Whether that is good or bad is up to the DM.




I don't think you are understanding me. What I am saying is that the difference is not the system. If you Dmed using the same assumptions now that you used then, then the difference in DMing prep-time between the systems would be negligible. Like I said, even if it takes 500% more time to make an NPC now than it did then, you would typically be statting up so few NPCs for a session using "back then" assumptions, that the difference in time would be negilgible.

What _has_ changed is our expectations vis a vis what we want out of a campaign. People seem to want more than "kill the unmodified humanoids and aberrations" campaigns now, with lots of "memorable" opponents who have all kinds of bells and whistles. _That's_ what takes time. But if you ran a campaign now like DMs ran them back in the "good old days" the prep time differential wouldn't be meaningfully measurable.


----------



## Storm Raven (Apr 15, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Did I say anything about one year of gaming?




That was in reference to keeping track of a 1,000 NPCs at a time. If you are statting up more NPCs than you can reasonably expect to use in a year, then you are probably doing too much prep. Heck, if you are statting up lots of NPCs you don't expect to use in the next four or five sessions, you are probably doing too much prep.



> _Four to eight hours, with the average being probably nearer the low end._




So, you are prepping, generally, three brand new NPCs with stat work ups per hour of expected gaming? That just seems excessive. That seems to me like you are engaging in a lot of wasted effort.



> _The point is, I wouldn't really know until it happened, would I?  I never found spending a sentence or two on 50 or so NPCs in the vacinity of the action to be wasted effort._




But that doesn't change with the system now, does it? If all you are doing is coming up with a sentence or two of description, it doesn't matter if you are playing using the rules for 3e D&D, OD&D, GURPS, or Yatzee.



> _It's gives life to the setting, a bit of forethought in NPC design can create alot of player interest, and it avoids 'empty room' syndrome where the player can tell from the metagame that this is just a 'nameless NPC' and can be ignored/killed.  This is important for several reasons, for example, if you don't occassionally pull a 'Scobby Doo' and have the villain be the janitor in scene 5, you are never going to get away with having the villain be one of the central NPCs in disguise with experienced players._




But the thing is, there is no need to stat out most NPCs in order to have them be something other than an empty shell. In point of fact, most of what makes NPcs _not_ an empty shell is entirely independent of the game system. Bob the Moderately Clever Merchant doesn't need combat stats, or really anything system-wise other than his race, level, class and a few relevant skill totals. What he _really_ needs to come alive in the setting is a nervous habit of rubbing his eyes and an overly talkative nature.



> _I don't think I said anything about working out more than the basics.... of course, what are the basics might be something we'd quibble over._




For most NPCs, I have a purpose in mind when I stick them in the game, and I don't stat up much more than what is needed for that. Lots of NPCs don't get game stats other than "Joey the Woodcutter, Com 1", because just about everything else is not really relevant. Even that isn't _really_ needed most of the time.



> _I think you make a good point here.  Just because we have a more detailed system now doesn't mean we have to use it._




My rule of thumb is "don't plan out more than you have to". Because it gives you the flexibility to fill in stuff as you need it. If Joey or Bob become more important later, they can be filled in. I don't usually stat out my big bad evil guys until the PCs are going to confront him - because they usually have only a vague idea what he can do up to then anyway, and until then it gives me the ability to throw stuff in if I think it would be interesting. Just like Burlew doesn't tie himself to particular stats in OotS, until an NPC actually shows up "on stage" I don't tie myself to a particular NPC design.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 15, 2007)

> The professor pointed out that what separates one depiction of the martyrdom of St. Stephen from another is the innovation, the idiosyncracy, the imagination - the creativity - the artist brings to the work while preserving the original subject matter intact.




Nice post. I think this is a great example of how a player can work creatively within the artificial bounds created by a DM who is more constraining. The scene doesn't change, it always depicts the same thing, it's familiar and everyone knows how it's "supposed" to look, but a good artist isn't limited by what they're told to constrain themselves to. In the same way a creative DM knows to work within the commonly understood rules without limiting their creativity, a creative player looks at the limitations and seeks a subtle way of saying it.

Thinking about it, it's also a great example of what Hussar did in explaining the warforged ninja. He had a limitation of "7th sea game" and he used that to develop a compelling background for the character that made it seem like it really belonged. He creatively fit it into the universe. That's part of why I'd easily allow it.

But some DM's would rather change the rules to suit their purposes than be forced to work within inadequate rules, and some players would rather play the character in their heads than the character they're told to play. Just like biblical scenes eventually got old and stale and unpopular, so to do the constraints of a certain DM's "vision" or a certain game's rules. Eventually, people wanted to draw expressionism and cubism and absurdism and pop, not Renaissance art, and eventually people are going to want to play Warforged Ninjas and not pirates. 



> I think some people tend to confuse or conflate creativity with unfettered fancy. In my experience they are not the same thing at all.




But, as Hussar has shown, creativity can be used to give cogent voice to unfettered fancy (if, indeed, "warforged ninja" can even be said to be unfettered fancy). There's not very much creative about running characters just like Conan through adventures just like Conan had, but there's quite a lot of creativity in seeing how a creature like Data from Star Trek could have found contact with Conan, and in seeing how each would react to each other, and, effectively, playing those roles in ways they've never been played before...

I wonder if the opposite is true, too. That some people confuse creativity with re-telling stories that were creative the first time they were told, but become progressively less so. In a game as bullet-riddled with archetype as D&D is, I'd think that would be the greater risk.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 15, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Nice post. I think this is a great example of how a player can work creatively within the artificial bounds created by a DM who is more constraining. The scene doesn't change, it always depicts the same thing, it's familiar and everyone knows how it's "supposed" to look, but a good artist isn't limited by what they're told to constrain themselves to. In the same way a creative DM knows to work within the commonly understood rules without limiting their creativity, a creative player looks at the limitations and seeks a subtle way of saying it.
> 
> Thinking about it, it's also a great example of what Hussar did in explaining the warforged ninja. He had a limitation of "7th sea game" and he used that to develop a compelling background for the character that made it seem like it really belonged. He creatively fit it into the universe. That's part of why I'd easily allow it.
> 
> But some DM's would rather change the rules to suit their purposes than be forced to work within inadequate rules, and some players would rather play the character in their heads than the character they're told to play. Just like biblical scenes eventually got old and stale and unpopular, so to do the constraints of a certain DM's "vision" or a certain game's rules. Eventually, people wanted to draw expressionism and cubism and absurdism and pop, not Renaissance art, and eventually people are going to want to play Warforged Ninjas and not pirates.




I think the "warforged ninja" thing is also a question of rules introduction as well though, or how much add-on rules does a GM want to deal with.  A better example would be a Psionic character.  Is a GM who doesn't want add-ons like Psionics handbook or Complete X a bad GM because he's stifling his characters creativity?  I think one thing alot of players don't realize in this situation is that the GM is dealing with way more rules per session than a single player ever will.  

On the one hand I see people claim...D&D isn't complex if you just stick to core or carefully monitor what you let in,  On the other hand it's become a more player-centric game rules wise, placing new options, classes, etc. purely in the hands of player oriented supplements(A great business model, but problematiic in a game sense IMHO).  If I as a GM don't want to spend the money, or better yet  realize the limitations of the amount of rules, classes, etc. I can/want to devote time to, am I wrong for nixing something that lies outside the purview of what I wish to deal with? 





			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> But, as Hussar has shown, creativity can be used to give cogent voice to unfettered fancy (if, indeed, "warforged ninja" can even be said to be unfettered fancy). There's not very much creative about running characters just like Conan through adventures just like Conan had, but there's quite a lot of creativity in seeing how a creature like Data from Star Trek could have found contact with Conan, and in seeing how each would react to each other, and, effectively, playing those roles in ways they've never been played before...
> 
> I wonder if the opposite is true, too. That some people confuse creativity with re-telling stories that were creative the first time they were told, but become progressively less so. In a game as bullet-riddled with archetype as D&D is, I'd think that would be the greater risk.




I don't agree with your analogy above, first off there's very few if any stories that haven't been told...even your example about Data has been told and in different ways(Frakenstein, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica,etc.).  The thing about roleplaying games is they let you experience and decide how to deal with those situations.  Is it any less creative to see how your characters would deal with the situations and adventures of Conan, than to see how a Data "clone" would interact in social situations...it's arguable at the least.

I think the creativity ultimately lies in how each player through their "archetype" approaches the problems set before them, whether the stories been told before or not...this is where player creativity comes into play vs. GM creativity.  A GM constructs the world and adventures, the players(through their actions, decisions, etc.) shape how the stories take place.  Ten different groups can experience the same adventure and have wildly differing experiences in it.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 15, 2007)

> I think the "warforged ninja" thing is also a question of rules introduction as well though, or how much add-on rules does a GM want to deal with. A better example would be a Psionic character. Is a GM who doesn't want add-ons like Psionics handbook or Complete X a bad GM because he's stifling his characters creativity? I think one thing alot of players don't realize in this situation is that the GM is dealing with way more rules per session than a single player ever will.




Actually, I would personally likely be more accepting of a mechanical reason for not including something than a flavour one.  Psionics is a perfect example.  I regularly veto psionics because I have no interest in it and am too lazy to learn the rules.  

In the case of my World's Largest Dungeon game, I vetoed the Vow of Poverty.  Not because of the power issues but because the VoP sidesteps pretty much all the basic challenges of the WLD.  Since there is next to no crafting in the WLD, pretty much everyone is under the same constraints as a VoP imposes.  The realities of the campaign made the limitations of the VoP no longer limitations.

In the same way, I'd likely have problems with Warforged in the same campaign.  Not needing to eat, being immune to disease and not needing to sleep sidesteps a fair chunk of the challenges for the first third of the campaign (around 1-7th level).  In that setting, I'd probably whack on a LA+1 simply because the base abilities become SO powerful and desirable.  

To me, there is a difference here though.  If the objections are purely flavour based, such as Molonel's objections to my WF Ninja, then, it is the DM saying that the player's imagination isn't good enough.  It becomes solely the DM's campaign and the players are passive users, rather than creators.  Actually, that's stated too strongly.  The players ability to move from passive user to creator is curtailed through the filter of the DM's views.  So long as the player stays within a certain boundary, then he can be as creative as he wants.  If the filter is too fixed though, if it is too fine, then the player has little or no choice to become a user, rather than creator.

OTOH, mechanics issues, beyond the player deliberately attempting to abuse the system (which is a separate issue), are much more concrete.  As the DM, you can point to mechanical elements in the campaign that will conflict with the mechanical elements of the player's idea.  Take psionics for example.  It could very well be that the DM doesn't have any idea how psionics works and has no interest in it.  Since psionics does require the DM to be somewhat proficient with the rules, this becomes a problem.  Additionally, the DM may not want to use psionic monsters since it adds so much complexity to the table.  A reasonable player can usually see how this could be a problem.  

I recall another conversation about warforged where one DM talked about how they would not fit into his jungle based campaign.  Mostly for the same reasons they don't fit into my WLD game - a number of themes and challenges get tossed because of the mechanics of the WF.  

Most players IME, are willing to concede that the DM shouldn't have to rewrite his entire campaign to fit a new PC, or whatever mechanic.    Conflicts that are based in mechanics are, IME, better reasons for disallowing elements.  Conflicts based purely on what the DM feels is the "feel" of the game are so subjective that it becomes much more difficult to build consensus.


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 15, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I think this is a great example of how a player can work creatively within the artificial bounds created by a DM who is more constraining. The scene doesn't change, it always depicts the same thing, it's familiar and everyone knows how it's "supposed" to look, but a good artist isn't limited by what they're told to constrain themselves to.



One could depict St. Stephen as a 1956 Chrysler 300 impaled with road signs, but that is most definitely not how the scene is "supposed" to look - it takes the genre conventions in a different direction entirely. The artists referenced above respected the genre conventions while exercising their creativity within those boundaries.

What you're advocating ignores how the scene is "supposed" to look: "It's our doughty pirate band! And a robot."


----------



## molonel (Apr 15, 2007)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> What you're advocating ignores how the scene is "supposed" to look: "It's our doughty pirate band! And a robot."




That one made me laugh.


----------



## shilsen (Apr 15, 2007)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> One could depict St. Stephen as a 1956 Chrysler 300 impaled with road signs, but that is most definitely not how the scene is "supposed" to look - it takes the genre conventions in a different direction entirely. The artists referenced above respected the genre conventions while exercising their creativity within those boundaries.




Perhaps, but I think you're underestimating exactly how flexible, porous and nebulous genre conventions can be, and how constantly they get reinterpreted and reworked. And some of the best work can be done by pushing genre conventions or sometimes even standing them on their head. To use an example closer to my own expertise/taste, Kyd's "The Spanish Tragedy", Marlowe's "Dr. Faustus", Shakespeare's "Hamlet" and Webster's "The Duchess of Malfi" are all working within the conventions of Renaissance tragedy, but each of them adds to, stretches, and reworks those conventions to a significant degree. 

Plus, where this issue (what DMs and players do in a D&D game) is concerned, appropriate genre conventions don't really exist in some clear and objective sense that everyone agrees about, but needs to be worked out by the individual group. Heck, the very nature of D&D messes with genre conventions from a lot of fantasy literature. It's not exactly a common fantasy genre convention for someone to jump off a cliff and walk away, for someone to be killed and raised from the dead on a regular basis, for a halfling to kill a dragon with a weapon smaller than its toenail, and a myriad other things that are common in D&D. 

In short, I figure genre conventions is so nebulous a term as to be almost useless in this form of discussion. YMMV, and apparently does.



> What you're advocating ignores how the scene is "supposed" to look: "It's our doughty pirate band! And a robot."




You say that like that's a bad thing


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 15, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but I think you're underestimating exactly how flexible, porous and nebulous genre conventions can be, and how constantly they get reinterpreted and reworked.



Except this isn't literary criticism we're talking about. Genre conventions are not nebulous in this context at all - they are the purview of the referee running the game.







			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> Plus, where this issue (what DMs and players do in a D&D game) is concerned, appropriate genre conventions don't really exist in some clear and objective sense that everyone agrees about, but needs to be worked out by the individual group.



Sure they do - the players accept the genre conventions when they agree to play the game the referee is offering to run. There may be some negotiation back in forth, but ultimately the referee has the final thumbs-up-or-down on what's in and what's out, and the players can choose to accept that or find another game in which to take part.







			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> Heck, the very nature of D&D messes with genre conventions from a lot of fantasy literature. It's not exactly a common fantasy genre convention for someone to jump off a cliff and walk away, for someone to be killed and raised from the dead on a regular basis, for a halfling to kill a dragon with a weapon smaller than its toenail, and a myriad other things that are common in D&D.



Those are all genre conventions specific to _D&D_ - as others have suggested, and I agree, by-the-book _Dungeons and Dragons_ is its own genre. Attempting to emulate other literary fantasy often means changing the genre conventions of _D&D_.







			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> You say that like that's a bad thing



I'm guessing it's silly to some, awesome to others - I don't have a strong opinion one way or another.

I've thought about a Classical Greek steampunk setting a few times, and I would have no problem with clockwork automata in that game. On the other hand, a warforged-like character would've been totally out of place in my 3.0 game.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 15, 2007)

> One could depict St. Stephen as a 1956 Chrysler 300 impaled with road signs, but that is most definitely not how the scene is "supposed" to look - it takes the genre conventions in a different direction entirely. The artists referenced above respected the genre conventions while exercising their creativity within those boundaries.
> 
> What you're advocating ignores how the scene is "supposed" to look: "It's our doughty pirate band! And a robot."




No, in the part that you quoted I was specifically mentioning how players could play along with how the game is "supposed" to look, catering to a DM who limits the selection, without limiting their creativity. And you showed how that can happen: just as renaissance artists didn't limit themselves to the subject matter to give them voice, players can "look the part" while saying something unique about it, still. Renaissance artists commented on modern events by how they depicted the past, D&D players can still make players that are new twists on "doughty pirate" while looking the part of a "doughty pirate." 

I'm not advocating anything, really. I'm just describing what happens in different games. Because in some games, the players are bored of playing "doughty pirates," or have no real interest in playing "doughty pirates," despite what the DM may want. Which is what a player wanting a warforged ninja may be saying: Renaissance art bores me, here's something new! And the creativity of that player is still working within the "doughty pirate" setting, giving a believable story given the constraints of the world. That's still creative, it's not a "flight of fancy," it's just applied in a different direction, pushing the bounds of what a setting can contain into new and interesting directions.

A DM who is creative might take that boundary-pushing and run with it, developing his world under the constraints the player has given, just as artists could create their commentary under the constraints society had given. "Okay, here's a character with elements of a a classic story, let's creatively challenge them." 

Dismissing a warforged ninja in a doughty pirate setting is dismissing some creativity. The DM is telling them: "It can't work in a way that will satisfy me." That's not a failure of creativity on the player's part (trying to make a warforged ninja work in a doughty pirate setting is certainly a very creative exercise), but it might be on the DM's part. 

Which is fine. DM's don't have to be very creative to be entertaining, and neither do players have to be very creative to be entertained. A lot of creativity can be fun, but it can also fall flat -- there's only so many times you can be a warforged ninja in a doughty pirate game before it becomes the same path re-treaded. People don't usually mind mild limitations on what they can do, because those limitations, while dismissing certain types of creativity, can never silence it entirely and can even give new ideas for it.


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 15, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Dismissing a warforged ninja in a doughty pirate setting is dismissing some creativity. The DM is telling them: "It can't work in a way that will satisfy me." That's not a failure of creativity on the player's part (trying to make a warforged ninja work in a doughty pirate setting is certainly a very creative exercise), but it might be on the DM's part.



Here's where our premises diverge: you keep referring to this as a lack of creativity on the part of the dungeon master, whereas I simply see it as a matter of taste.

My tastes run toward low fantasy, swords and sorcery, so if I'm running a game set in Sanctuary and a player presents me with some Mercedes Lackey knock-off character appropriate for _Blue Rose_, I'm gonna take exception. It's not a lack of creativity on my part so much as the game the rest of us are sitting down to play _isn't_ romantic fantasy, so your talking fox friend needs to take a hike or have the hounds set on his furry ass.


----------



## Celebrim (Apr 15, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> That was in reference to keeping track of a 1,000 NPCs at a time. If you are statting up more NPCs than you can reasonably expect to use in a year, then you are probably doing too much prep. Heck, if you are statting up lots of NPCs you don't expect to use in the next four or five sessions, you are probably doing too much prep.




I don't think you are following me.  The DM in question had a totally different style than mine, leaning toward almost pure extemporaneous.  The 1000 NPC's in his folder where the ones we'd RPed with enough over the course of the campaign that the NPC had needed a name.  The 1000 NPC's grew organically, and his fastidious book keeping was his way of dealing with freeform gaming while still maintaining continuity, plot lines, etc.



> So, you are prepping, generally, three brand new NPCs with stat work ups per hour of expected gaming? That just seems excessive. That seems to me like you are engaging in a lot of wasted effort.




I can tell that there is simply not going to be any consensus with this on you.  In my experience, any good preplanned scenario requires some significant wasted effort because otherwise you run the risk of railroading.  You figure that at least part of the map will never be visted, some side quests will never be attempted, some NPC's will never really connect with the players or even be met, and so forth.  But, it is I think important to understand the whole if you are to understand the peices.



> But that doesn't change with the system now, does it? If all you are doing is coming up with a sentence or two of description, it doesn't matter if you are playing using the rules for 3e D&D, OD&D, GURPS, or Yatzee.




In earlier editions of D&D, the mechanical issues of a character could be dispensed with in a single parenthetical note and still be a reasonably complete note.  You are correct to assert that you can still have the single parenthetical note and cover just about anything likely to come up, but you can't be nearly as complete.  And in GURPS for example, I became disatisfied with the system for precisely this reason - NPC design to any standard was too time consuming.



> What he _really_ needs to come alive in the setting is a nervous habit of rubbing his eyes and an overly talkative nature.




On that I agree.



> My rule of thumb is "don't plan out more than you have to". Because it gives you the flexibility to fill in stuff as you need it. If Joey or Bob become more important later, they can be filled in. I don't usually stat out my big bad evil guys until the PCs are going to confront him - because they usually have only a vague idea what he can do up to then anyway, and until then it gives me the ability to throw stuff in if I think it would be interesting. Just like Burlew doesn't tie himself to particular stats in OotS, until an NPC actually shows up "on stage" I don't tie myself to a particular NPC design.




I've had experiences with DMs that do this that have led something of a bad taste in my mouth, because when you leave something blank the temptation is to conform the thing to fit the circumstance, and in particular, to conform it to make a particular challenge.  The temptation is there for the DM to metagame, and in my experience even good DMs that lean to heavily on extemporaneous creation tend to do this even unknowingly.  For example, the DC of opening a lock inflates to conform to how much emphasis a character has placed in being good at opening locks, leaving him with no net advantage over having not been good at opening locks.  Or NPC's mysteriously acquire levels and defences appropriate to facing or defending himself from a particular PC, or whatever.  I'm not saying that a good DM can't govern himself, I'm just saying that based on my experiences as a player, I'd rather have a DM that leaned more my direction that didn't - and my guiding rule as a DM is to be the sort of DM I'd want as a player.  And, in my experience, I do a better job over preparing than under preparing.  YMMV depending on your particular strengths as a DM.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 15, 2007)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Here's where our premises diverge: you keep referring to this as a lack of creativity on the part of the dungeon master, whereas I simply see it as a matter of taste.




I sgree.  There's no issue of creativity here, jst preferences and playstyles.  Thinking that you're more creative than the GM because you can instantly think of -- and request -- a character concept that runs entirely contrary to what the GM just sat down and explained the campaign was supposed to be about isn't creativity: it is being a pain in the ass.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 15, 2007)

> Here's where our premises diverge: you keep referring to this as a lack of creativity on the part of the dungeon master, whereas I simply see it as a matter of taste.




Creative DMs and creative settings can co-opt almost anything for their own purposes. You brought in Renaissance artists working under the strictures of the attitudes and desires of the time, and told how they can creatively turn the familiar into something new. Just as the Renaissance artists co-opted biblical scenes to say something perhaps about society or human nature, a very creative DM can co-opt warforged ninjas to live a life of sea shanties, courtly repartee, and swashbuckling adventure. 

Look at Planescape. The setting was about philosophical meaning and political and mental power, and it co-opted everything from the Seelie Court to 1980's ecology to Ramones lyrics to Eastern mysticism to Vikings and made them all serve that purpose above all. 

You're right in that it's something a matter of taste. I'm sure Renaissance audiences didn't always appreciate modern commentary and I know not everyone likes the idea of fiends running store fronts from Planescape. Not everyone likes the idea of mostly divorcing something from its origins in order to use it in a new way, and people can get hung up on odd specifics of mental imagery.

But saying "no" is never very creative. No matter how many times someone says "no," you can still *be* creative, but saying "No, that can't be," is exactly the counter-force to creativity. It says you cannot create, what you imagine cannot be, your ideas cannot be realized. So a setting that is narrowly focused on, say, a low fantasy feel, with a lot of specifics about what creates that feel will, by necessity, be of limited creativity. It will be saying "no" a lot.

That's not to say that creativity is impossible or that it's a bad setting or that it's badwrongfun that no one would enjoy or anything. I've certainly run creatively limited campaigns like that before, because I had a very specific vision of what I was looking for. But it wasn't a campaign that enabled a lot of creativity. It was limited. It was fun and dramatic and passionate and even innovative (the one I was most limited on was a post-apocalyptic setting where I invented some d20 tech rules), but it wasn't very creative as  a setting, because it rejected a lot of possibilities.

So if your tastes tend to be specifically defined and immutable, they're not necessarily very creative. They can be a lot of fun, I'm certainly not intending that as a negative judgment. Just a reality of the nature of the campaign. You can still invent new rules and have cool ideas and have compelling villains and rich, detailed histories and all sorts of goodness. But the setting, because it's limited, can't be very creative. It won't generate much as a setting. 



> My tastes run toward low fantasy, swords and sorcery, so if I'm running a game set in Sanctuary and a player presents me with some Mercedes Lackey knock-off character appropriate for Blue Rose, I'm gonna take exception. It's not a lack of creativity on my part so much as the game the rest of us are sitting down to play isn't romantic fantasy, so your talking fox friend needs to take a hike or have the hounds set on his furry ass.




It's a lack of creativity to assume that a talking fox set in a romantic mold is inherently harmful to a low fantasy, swords and sorcery archetype. It would be using creativity to find the myriad ways in which that does work. That wouldn't necessarily make the game any better, but it would be more creative. Creativity certainly isn't the holy grail of playing D&D, however.


----------



## molonel (Apr 15, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It's a lack of creativity to assume that a talking fox set in a romantic mold is inherently harmful to a low fantasy, swords and sorcery archetype. It would be using creativity to find the myriad ways in which that does work. That wouldn't necessarily make the game any better, but it would be more creative. Creativity certainly isn't the holy grail of playing D&D, however.




If a player told me I was being uncreative because I didn't want a warforged ninja in my 7th Sea campaign, honestly, I'd shrug and say, "Oh well, I guess I'm uncreative. I readily concede the point."

Then I'd turn my baseball cap around, get my books, and say, "So! I guess that means I'm playing a warforged ninja in YOUR 7th Sea campaign. Let's go!"


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Apr 16, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Thinking that you're more creative than the GM because you can instantly think of -- and request -- a character concept that runs entirely contrary to what the GM just sat down and explained the campaign was supposed to be about isn't creativity: it is being a pain in the ass.




QFT.  

(IMO, there's not much "creative" about requesting a warforged ninja, in any case, regardless of campaign setting.  No more so that requesting a human fighter.)


----------



## DungeonMaester (Apr 16, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> If a player told me I was being uncreative because I didn't want a warforged ninja in my 7th Sea campaign, honestly, I'd shrug and say, "Oh well, I guess I'm uncreative. I readily concede the point."
> 
> Then I'd turn my baseball cap around, get my books, and say, "So! I guess that means I'm playing a warforged ninja in YOUR 7th Sea campaign. Let's go!"





Truth.

Also..My sides hurt now..and every one in the coffee shop is looking at me like I took the 'Half Retard' template for suddenly bursting into laughter.

---Rusty


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 16, 2007)

> If a player told me I was being uncreative because I didn't want a warforged ninja in my 7th Sea campaign, honestly, I'd shrug and say, "Oh well, I guess I'm uncreative. I readily concede the point."
> 
> Then I'd turn my baseball cap around, get my books, and say, "So! I guess that means I'm playing a warforged ninja in YOUR 7th Sea campaign. Let's go!"




Well, it's not a contest, but sure. Let's go! Step #1: Be creative. Explain him. I promise I'll be accepting as long as he fits the swashbuckling adventure and dramatic flair of the setting.

If your only purpose for that is to prove a point, though, I am dubious as to how long you'll enjoy playin' the guy.


----------



## molonel (Apr 16, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Well, it's not a contest, but sure. Let's go!




Cool. Because playing a character requires a substantially smaller investment of my time and effort in a game. You just cut my prep time down to nearly zero.

Enjoy the driver's seat.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If your only purpose for that is to prove a point, though, I am dubious as to how long you'll enjoy playin' the guy.




Ultimately, my only "point" is to have fun gaming. 

I've had players who tried to pimpslap my gaming style, and honestly, my first reaction is to say, "You can play the game and acknowledge that I'm the DM, or you can let the door smack you on the ass on the way out." If I invited someone else to take the driver's seat, it would only be if I was done DMing, or sick of running the game.

I see what you're saying, but I've also noticed a STRONG correlation between extremely creative backstories, and warforged ninjas, or feral minotaurs, or Red Wizards of Thay with cohorts who are also Red Wizards so that they can do the whole Red Wizard circlejerk, etc. etc. ad nauseum. I do my best to listen to player requests, and I'm probably more lenient than most, in fact, especially when the choices have flavor and bite.

But a warforged ninja? Yeah, pardon me for being nonplussed.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 16, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> If something is out of theme the DM has every right to smack it down before it enters play: "You want to play a Samurai on my world that has no Oriental-like culture?  Sorry..."
> 
> However, once it *does* enter play the DM in all fairness has to allow it again if someone else wants to run out the same concept in the same campaign...either that, or come up with an ironclad in-game rationale for why this character was so unique (and then be wide open to charges of favouritism).
> 
> Lanefan





Well put.

Having a world that hangs together (and therefore excludes certain concepts) isn't a sign that the DM lacks creativity.  Being unable to create a character within that framework (as long as that framework is made explicit, such as by player handouts, or "Core Rules Only", or similar) is a sign that the player lacks creativity.

If you don't tell the players what you're doing before character creation, it's your own fault when the Warforged Ninjas show up.  If you tell the players, it is their fault if they bring characters that violate the guidelines....assuming, of course, that your guidelines are clear.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 16, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> If the objections are purely flavour based, such as Molonel's objections to my WF Ninja, then, it is the DM saying that the player's imagination isn't good enough.




No, it is a simple statement that the flavour of the character doesn't match that of the campaign.  There is no ordering of whose imagination is "better" inherent in that proposition.  There is an ordering of whose vision takes _precedence_, but that is a very different animal.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 16, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Cool. Because playing a character requires a substantially smaller investment of my time and effort in a game. You just cut my prep time down to nearly zero.




QFT.



> I've had players who tried to pimpslap my gaming style, and honestly, my first reaction is to say, "You can play the game and acknowledge that I'm the DM, or you can let the door smack you on the ass on the way out." If I invited someone else to take the driver's seat, it would only be if I was done DMing, or sick of running the game.




*QFT*



> I see what you're saying, but I've also noticed a STRONG correlation between extremely creative backstories, and warforged ninjas, or feral minotaurs, or Red Wizards of Thay with cohorts who are also Red Wizards so that they can do the whole Red Wizard circlejerk, etc. etc. ad nauseum. I do my best to listen to player requests, and I'm probably more lenient than most, in fact, especially when the choices have flavor and bite.




*QFMFT!*

Seriously, can you _write_ a post I agree with more?


----------



## S'mon (Apr 16, 2007)

To me the trouble with the Warforged Ninja type players is that they want to dominate the game by bringing in the weirdest, kewlest, moster powerful PC.  Everyone else is playing elves, dwarves and humans in a Tolkienesque setting, then this warforged ninja PC shows up.

I think a campaign centred on a _group_ of warforged ninja PCs could be great - I used to love the "ABC Warriors" comic strip about a group of battle robots, one of whom, Joe Pineapples, is essentially a Warforged Ninja - a stealth sniper assassin robot.  I can certainly see running this in some kind of post apocalypse setting, where ancient battle golems/robots/warforged roam the blasted wastelands, struggling to survive.  Maybe a Western type theme as they roam the wastelands from isolated settlement to settlement, meeting people, battling marauders, mutants, sorcerers and warlords, but never able to truly settle down and belong in the human communities.  But that kind of thing needs to be agreed from the ground up, by GM and players working together.  In reality, Mr Warforged Ninja always seems to be the guy who turns up 6 sessions into a campaign and expects the campaign to be bent to fit around his idea, not vice versa.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 16, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Dismissing a warforged ninja in a doughty pirate setting is dismissing some creativity. The DM is telling them: "It can't work in a way that will satisfy me." That's not a failure of creativity on the player's part (trying to make a warforged ninja work in a doughty pirate setting is certainly a very creative exercise), but it might be on the DM's part.




I love how all the burden here falls on the GM.  The player has the right to 'creatively' come up with whatever they feel like, and the GM has the duty to make it work, somehow.   :\


----------



## Hussar (Apr 16, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I sgree.  There's no issue of creativity here, jst preferences and playstyles.  Thinking that you're more creative than the GM because you can instantly think of -- and request -- a character concept that runs entirely contrary to what the GM just sat down and explained the campaign was supposed to be about isn't creativity: it is being a pain in the ass.






			
				Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> QFT.
> 
> (IMO, there's not much "creative" about requesting a warforged ninja, in any case, regardless of campaign setting.  No more so that requesting a human fighter.)






			
				molonel said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> But a warforged ninja? Yeah, pardon me for being nonplussed.




I think you guys have pretty much showed my point very well.  All of the above are simply different ways of saying, "Sorry, your imagination isn't good enough for my game."  Note, I did say at the outset to assume the player isn't being an asshat.  He truly wants to play this concept and has gone out of his way to conform his concept to the setting you have laid out.  

What reaction does he get?  Snorts of derision and being told that, not only is he not being creative enough, but, he's not being creative at all.  Just because you think it's not creative, doesn't mean that he doesn't.  In his mind, he's come up with a unique concept that really interests him.  But, despite attempts to mold it to the setting and meet the DM halfway, he still gets shut down.

How is this not stomping on his creativity?  He's not asking the DM to rewrite the entire campaign.  If he was asking to add House Cannith to 7th Sea, then I could see the DM flatly refusing.  It's simply a question of work.  But, in this case, there's no extra work for the DM.  

This goes back to what RC was talking about with a stronger Rule 0.  How much stronger could the idea of DM power get than what you see right here?  Player comes up with a concept that is not mechanically broken.  Player attempts to fit the concept into the setting with a good backstory.  Player gets shot down in a burst of flames.

To me, Rule 0 is one of the most abused concepts in D&D.  IMO, Rule 0 was put in place as a means of conflict resolution.  When something came up in play that covered by the rules, Rule 0 gave the DM permission to make a final decision.  Unfortunately, since Rule 0 hit the streets, DM's have used it to strongarm players, and browbeat them into submission to follow their vision.  "Play in the game I want to play in or I won't DM" is the message Molonel just posted.  "If you don't like my game, there's the door" is another one.  How is that not incredibly arrogant of the DM?  And Rule 0 is right there, patting the DM on the back for doing so.

To me, my campaign is not mine.  Sure, I run the show, but, like a director, it's not MINE, it belongs to my group.  Again, like a director, there are some times I have to step in and veto something, but, at no point do I simply say, "Hey, this is my game."  To me, it's our game.  When a player comes up with a concept and gives me a bit of effort to slot it into the setting, I'll usually go for it unless there is some mechanical reason not to.

Getting back to what RFisher said earlier about players inputting time into the campaign, well, I think I've nicely proven how effective that might be.  I can input all the time I like, so long as I don't stray from the clear guidelines handed down by the DM in some games.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 16, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I love how all the burden here falls on the GM.  The player has the right to 'creatively' come up with whatever they feel like, and the GM has the duty to make it work, somehow.   :\




No, that's not true.  I already posted a brief background on how to fit the character into the setting without the DM having to do any work whatsoever.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 16, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> No, that's not true.  I already posted a brief background on how to fit the character into the setting without the DM having to do any work whatsoever.




I wasn't talking to you or addressing your post, Hussar.

I will address your post immediately above - "the campaign isn't mine".  Sure, it's not the GM's alone, but the GM has a duty to all the players, all the group.  This is one of the toughest parts of GMing, to prevent Mr Warforged Ninja overshadowing Miss Talks-to-Bunnies, the shy retiring player who can be great, but is easily overshadowed by the pushy extrovert powergamer.  Since I run a long-running campaign world Ea that's been played in by  dozens of player groups I also have to consider my duty to players past (who may still be interested in the future of the campaign world their PCs helped create) and players future.   Maybe a warforged ninja PC would fit in to my Wilderlands game (as a Markab device left over from the Uttermost War, say) but not into my Ea game.  I'm not a bad GM for saying so.  I've let players create entire new civilisations for Ea, where they inspired me and fitted into the setting.  Conversely I've disallowed PC concepts that didn't fit an didn't inspire me.  One thing I took from Ron Edwards' "Sorcerer & Sword" was the vital importance of PCs seeming cool - cool to the GM as well as to the player.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 16, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I think you guys have pretty much showed my point very well.  All of the above are simply different ways of saying, "Sorry, your imagination isn't good enough for my game."  Note, I did say at the outset to assume the player isn't being an asshat.  He truly wants to play this concept and has gone out of his way to conform his concept to the setting you have laid out.




Bull.

If we assume that the guy isn't being an asshat in bringing the character, let's also assume that the DM isn't being an asshat in telling him No.

RC


----------



## an_idol_mind (Apr 16, 2007)

Personally, I like the Rule 0 that came with my first basic set of D&D:

"As a Dungeon Master, you will soon learn the rules of the Dungeons & Dragons game. No matter how many rules you remember, the most important rule of all is _Be Fair!_ As the Dungeon Master, you must never take sides. You will play the roles of all the creatures in the dungeon. You must do so fairly, without favoring the monsters -- or the players."

I think a lot of this supposed emphasis on the DM's ultimate power is not nearly as prevalent as a lot of people assume. Outside of a very few books, I've never seen it hammered on as much as people suggest it was -- in any edition.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 16, 2007)

> I wasn't talking to you or addressing your post, Hussar.




Actually, you were.  I was the one who brought up the idea of the WF ninja in a pirate campaign.  When people cried about how it didn't fit into the flavour of the setting, I posted a brief background fitting it into the setting.  You then posted about how it is entirely on the shoulders of the DM to fit it into his campaign.

It isn't and nor should it be.  The player should be cognizant of the fact that his idea is outside the norm for the setting and should make efforts to fit it in.  That's just being a good player.  

What I don't really understand is why DM's feel the need to control the player's characters.  I do understand mechanical issues.  That I already talked about.  But, when it comes to purely flavour issues, when it isn't going to be more work for the DM, why should the DM care?  It's my character, I'm the one who has to play it.  The DM gets to control 99.9% of the campaign, why can't I have this?

Is that a really unreasonable attitude for the player to have?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 16, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Bull.
> 
> If we assume that the guy isn't being an asshat in bringing the character, let's also assume that the DM isn't being an asshat in telling him No.
> 
> RC




I never said the DM is being an asshat.  What I'm saying is that when a DM tells a player no for purely flavour reasons, he's effectively saying that his imaginary friends are of a better quality than mine.


----------



## dcas (Apr 16, 2007)

I think if one of my players wanted to create something, even an entire civilization, that fit into my campaign, I would let him -- less work for me.

But if he wanted something that entailed _more_ work for me (fitting a bizarro character concept into the campaign world), then there's not much of a chance I would allow it.



> What I'm saying is that when a DM tells a player no for purely flavour reasons, he's effectively saying that his imaginary friends are of a better quality than mine.



That's why he's the DM -- because his imaginary friends are better.


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 16, 2007)

I was mostly agreeing with you until I reached this, and then you lost me completely:







			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> So if your tastes tend to be specifically defined and immutable, they're not necessarily very creative. They can be a lot of fun, I'm certainly not intending that as a negative judgment. Just a reality of the nature of the campaign. You can still invent new rules and have cool ideas and have compelling villains and rich, detailed histories and all sorts of goodness. But the setting, because it's limited, can't be very creative. It won't generate much as a setting..



Now you're conflating taste with creativity, which is not the same thing.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 16, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I never said the DM is being an asshat.  What I'm saying is that when a DM tells a player no for purely flavour reasons, he's effectively saying that his imaginary friends are of a better quality than mine.





No....If for no other reason than that the DM _isn't_ saying that your WN isn't appropriate for _any_ game, just not for _this_ game.  If the DM said that the WN wasn't any good _for any game_, you might have a point.  As it is, you are equating A to B where A=/= B.

"Sorry, but Transformers don't fit into the LotR."

"Are you saying that LotR is better than Transformers?"

"No....I am saying that Transformers don't fit into the LotR."

I hope that you can see the difference.


At the same time, a character can fit into a setting conceptually, without being appropriate for a PC.  For example, the character you described would be more appropriate as a _challenge_ in the average 7th Sea game than as a PC.  

"We're going to be playing in the world of Pirates of the Carribean."

"Cool.  Can I be the Kraken?"

Again, I hope that you can see the difference.


RC


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 16, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> Ultimately, my only "point" is to have fun gaming.
> 
> I've had players who tried to pimpslap my gaming style, and honestly, my first reaction is to say, "You can play the game and acknowledge that I'm the DM, or you can let the door smack you on the ass on the way out." If I invited someone else to take the driver's seat, it would only be if I was done DMing, or sick of running the game.
> 
> ...




Okay, so if I'm the DM, I asked you to come up with a way he'd fit into a swashbuckling seafaring setting. Give me something, anything that shows you've thought creatively about his position in my 7th Sea game, and he's probably aboard. Show me you're into creating a story for this guy by explaining his presence, and, as a DM, I'll match it, helping you to create the rest of his story up until his untimely demise and/or successful retirement from adventuring. 

You're well within your rights to not want warforged ninjae in your 7th Sea game, but creative, it ain't. Which is fine, again, creativity isn't the holy grail of gaming, you don't need to leave every door open for a night of enjoyable adventure. 

That's really the entirety of my message: for a setting, saying "no" isn't creative. Finding a way to say "yes" is. This is for the player, too. Simply saying "warforged ninja!" or "feral minotaur!" or "red wizard wonder twins!" isn't necessarily enriching the setting, but finding a way it works in the world you know the DM is running is certainly creative. I'm not saying anyone *should* accept a warforged ninja, but I am saying that it would show the creativity of the DM, the player, and the setting. 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> I love how all the burden here falls on the GM. The player has the right to 'creatively' come up with whatever they feel like, and the GM has the duty to make it work, somehow.




That's only true if both the player and the DM are on the same page as far as rewarding creative thinking goes. The DM has no obligation to the player, but he's not being creative by saying "no." It could still be a very good idea to say "no," creativity doesn't necessarily equal a good game. DMs are allowed, encouraged, to limit creativity to what they feel comfortable with.

I'm not saying the DM has to do anything, I'm just describing the traits of either decision. Accepting bizarre characters can be very creative, but if there's a lot of specificity about the feel or style of game, it might make the game worse for it, so creativity isn't always a good thing. Forbidding certain trains of thought is limiting to creativity, but only on those specific tracks, which can help players consider new tracks.

The conflict occurs when the player wants to be super really crazy creative, pulling unlikely characters and enjoying the challenge of making them work, but the DM (and the rest of the group) likes a very specific style with very specific trappings that would be ruined for them by including anything slightly alien, no matter how well-disguised in the setting. When the DM and player aren't on the same page, aren't looking for the same thing, and perhaps even enjoy different styles. 

The specific, limited DM has every right (and responsibility) to say "Your creativity would hurt my game. You're not allowed to express it like this." The player can either take it and be creative in a different way, or reject it and find some group more accepting of his creativity, or offer to run the game himself. 

Not every DM wants infinite potential for every game.


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 16, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> No, that's not true.  I already posted a brief background on how to fit the character into the setting without the DM having to do any work whatsoever.



You mean other than consider the effect the Tin Man joining the crew of the _Black Pearl_ will have every time the adventurers encounter non-player characters in a roleplaying setting?

"Even'n Cap'n . . . Mr. Turner . . . Miss Swann . . . _good gods, what in the Nine Hells is that thing?!?_"

Some referees and players may think, "Oh cool, an interesting roleplaying challenge!" Others will think, "Great, Bob's playing another freak character that the rest of us have to work around all night."  :\


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 16, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> That's really the entirety of my message: for a setting, saying "no" isn't creative.




Agreed.



> Finding a way to say "yes" is.




Could be.  Or it could be a big old stinker.

However, allowing or disallowing character types isn't the be all and end all of creativity, either.  Creating a campaign world that uses only humans as PCs while otherwise maintaining the standard D&D tropes requires as much (or more) creativity as allowing the WN into the game....And this is true both for players and DMs.

Limiting PC races and/or classes doesn't prevent the game from having "infinite potential"; neither does allowing the kitchen sink into a game.  The potential for creativity exists only within a contextual framework.  I would argue that, the stronger that contextual framework is, the more creativity is possible.  

Of course, it is equally true that creativity includes expanding and building upon that contextual framework.  However, that doesn't mean that every concept expands or builds; some damage that framework.  If halfway through LotR Frodo rented a minivan and drove to Mordor, the novel would come to a crashing and disconcerting halt.  At least for me.

It is also true, as others have pointed out, that the responsiblity of the DM is to the group, not just to that one player.  If Joe is allowed to make a WN, why isn't Bob allowed to make a Saurian Samurai?  Why can't Billy make something from the Book of Erotic Fantasy?  Why can't Kathy play a Teenaged Mutant Ninja Turtle?

I've run across a lot of "kitchen sink" games, and in my experience, none of them are as fun to play in as a more restricted, well-thought-out world.  My last experience with a kitchen sink setting was the WLD, where I allowed any D20 character in -- we had Jedi and moderns and all those funny creatures like LEGO Men that some people love to create.  Within a few sessions, the players unanimously decided that the "kitchen sink" approach sucked, and asked to get back to "the good game".

(Of course, part of this might have been due to the WLD itself, which, IMHO, needs a _lot_ of work.)

I accept, of course, that others' experience may well be different.

So, I would say that _*every*_ DM has the right (and responsibility) to say "This concept would hurt our game.  Make a different character if you want to play."  The player can either accept the DM's authority, and exercise his creativity to create a character that fits the campaign, or he can find some group more in tune with his character concept.

In either case, it has nothing to do with whose creativity is better than whose.


RC


----------



## molonel (Apr 16, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I think you guys have pretty much showed my point very well. All of the above are simply different ways of saying, "Sorry, your imagination isn't good enough for my game." Note, I did say at the outset to assume the player isn't being an asshat. He truly wants to play this concept and has gone out of his way to conform his concept to the setting you have laid out. What reaction does he get? Snorts of derision and being told that, not only is he not being creative enough, but, he's not being creative at all. Just because you think it's not creative, doesn't mean that he doesn't. In his mind, he's come up with a unique concept that really interests him. But, despite attempts to mold it to the setting and meet the DM halfway, he still gets shut down. How is this not stomping on his creativity? He's not asking the DM to rewrite the entire campaign. If he was asking to add House Cannith to 7th Sea, then I could see the DM flatly refusing. It's simply a question of work. But, in this case, there's no extra work for the DM.




Feral minotaurs, warforged ninjas and Red Wizard of Thay circlejerks are ALWAYS more work for the DM. I'm sorry, but at this point, I have to fall back on experience.

I'm a powergamer, man. I just don't sit around dreaming up novels to push my PCs through. I confess that walking through rulesbooks finding little combinations of game elements that break the game puts me at half mast below the equator, or better.

And I've even MADE the big, tearful puppy dog eyes you're making right now about the warforged ninja.

As a DM, I simply have to draw the line somewhere. And the whole warforged ninja in a 7th Sea campaign is one of those situations that smacks of other players getting their human rogues or human fighters overshadowed. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but I've seen it happen too many times, and quite frankly, I trust my gut on this one.

One of my strengths, as a DM, and my players have commented on this without nudging from me, is my ability to make sure ALL of the players are participants in the story. Party balance is an important factor in this, in my opinion.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> This goes back to what RC was talking about with a stronger Rule 0. How much stronger could the idea of DM power get than what you see right here? Player comes up with a concept that is not mechanically broken. Player attempts to fit the concept into the setting with a good backstory. Player gets shot down in a burst of flames.




Is this where I cue Bon Jovi's "Shot Down in a Blaze of Glory?"

It's that whole "not mechnically broken" thing that I disagree with. Whether or not the warforged is mechanically broken is a matter of some disagreement among gamers.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> To me, Rule 0 is one of the most abused concepts in D&D. IMO, Rule 0 was put in place as a means of conflict resolution. When something came up in play that covered by the rules, Rule 0 gave the DM permission to make a final decision. Unfortunately, since Rule 0 hit the streets, DM's have used it to strongarm players, and browbeat them into submission to follow their vision. "Play in the game I want to play in or I won't DM" is the message Molonel just posted. "If you don't like my game, there's the door" is another one. How is that not incredibly arrogant of the DM? And Rule 0 is right there, patting the DM on the back for doing so.




Shrug. Okay, so I'm arrogant. When a player wants to play something inappropriate for the setting I'm running, that is a conflict that needs to be resolved. I already know I run a good game, and if that's a deal breaker for the PC, I've also said that I'm willing to let that infinitely creative PC take the driver's seat and DM the game. 

The truth is, I'm actually an EXTREMELY lenient DM/GM. But even I have my limits. And, truthfully, so do you.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> To me, my campaign is not mine. Sure, I run the show, but, like a director, it's not MINE, it belongs to my group. Again, like a director, there are some times I have to step in and veto something, but, at no point do I simply say, "Hey, this is my game." To me, it's our game. When a player comes up with a concept and gives me a bit of effort to slot it into the setting, I'll usually go for it unless there is some mechanical reason not to.




That's a nice sentiment, but I both agree and disagree. I have a STRONG player emphasis in my games. I've played with the DMs who wouldn't allow players to interrupt the novel they were writing in their mind. I @#$#@ing hate that kind of DMing. The reason I usually deny things like the warforged ninja is because there are certain sorts of character concepts that tend to overshadow the group. 

The warforged are also a character race from a very specific D&D setting. I've been told they play a part in the backstory of that world. Great. If I'm playing Eberron, I think I'd have to allow it because the race plays a part in that world. But no, they really don't fit in my fantasy homebrewed world. I've had half-dragon shadowdancer monks who studied mystical secrets at the feet of gold dragon mentors and half-celestial barbarian/fighter spiked-chain wielding monsters with feats from Sean K. Reynolds's Anger of Angels. But warforged just doesn't fit in my game.

If that makes me uncreative and arrogant, oh well. My players don't seem to mind.


----------



## molonel (Apr 16, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I've run across a lot of "kitchen sink" games, and in my experience, none of them are as fun to play in as a more restricted, well-thought-out world. My last experience with a kitchen sink setting was the WLD, where I allowed any D20 character in -- we had Jedi and moderns and all those funny creatures like LEGO Men that some people love to create. Within a few sessions, the players unanimously decided that the "kitchen sink" approach sucked, and asked to get back to "the good game".




We had a game where the DM told us to search out any material we wanted. It was called the "No Holds Barred" campaign. Any book, any setting, any published material was allowed.

We barely made it the fourth session before the game started to unravel into absurdity. We used template class levels, so I played a gestalted monk-half-dragon-fighter-half-celestial-OA Shaman with I don't even remember what. I do remember that at level 10 I had an AC of 70-ish because I was getting my Wisdom (twice), Dexterity, Charisma bonuses to AC. I was right next to a vow of poverty dwarf from Arcanis gestalted fighter-some kind of weird prestige monk-half-dragon-wereboar who was immune to nearly everything, and Hindu-themed 10-armed creature who used the alternate rules from Savage Species where you could swing a weapon with 8 hands and get x4.5 your strength bonus for damage.

It was extremely imaginative. All of us had good backstories. The game still sucked, though.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 16, 2007)

> Could be. Or it could be a big old stinker.




Just because it's a stinker doesn't mean it's not creative. Creativity has no promise of quality in it, after all. A lot of five year olds are more creative than I, but I'd like to think I can write a better story.  



> However, allowing or disallowing character types isn't the be all and end all of creativity, either. Creating a campaign world that uses only humans as PCs while otherwise maintaining the standard D&D tropes requires as much (or more) creativity as allowing the WN into the game....And this is true both for players and DMs.




There's a lot of avenues for creativity in the game. Limiting them is saying "no" to certain kinds of creativity. Creating an all-human world is creative in some ways, but not in others. It's limiting of creativity (which, really, all D&D games are to a lesser or greater extent). 



> Limiting PC races and/or classes doesn't prevent the game from having "infinite potential"; neither does allowing the kitchen sink into a game. The potential for creativity exists only within a contextual framework. I would argue that, the stronger that contextual framework is, the more creativity is possible.




Only if you're talking about creating *within* the framework. I don't think Renaissance artists were any more creative than Andy Warhol just because they had to work within the bounds of biblical stories and he wasn't bound by that. In fact, their creativity was limited. It didn't stop them from being creative in the ways they could, but it did say "no" to certain types of creativity.

I mean, even the most open and accepting swashbuckling pirate setting is still created in a framework of ships, pirates, rapiers, acrobatics, and courtly intrigue. A time-traveling FBI agent from the future who wields uzis and flies in a jetpack and references lines from Bruce Willis movies might be very creative, if you can make it work in that setting. I'm more than willing to concede that *I* couldn't make it work, though I might give a player a shot if they think they can.  I'd more than likely just be saying "no" to that, limiting my setting and avoiding problems that come with creativity that I don't really want to deal with. I can do that. I'm the DM. It's part of what I have a responsibility to do, if something's too out there for me to handle reliably and enjoyably.  

I'm sure some DM somewhere could make that work, and good for her. I couldn't. I'm not that creative. That's not a problem unless one of my players *really* is. 



> It is also true, as others have pointed out, that the responsiblity of the DM is to the group, not just to that one player. If Joe is allowed to make a WN, why isn't Bob allowed to make a Saurian Samurai? Why can't Billy make something from the Book of Erotic Fantasy? Why can't Kathy play a Teenaged Mutant Ninja Turtle?




This "slippery slope" argument scuttles the assumption that the group wants to play a swashbucklnig adventure 7th sea game. If they don't want to play that game (as it looks like they don't, with their asian reptile hentai party), we can play something else. And if I didn't want the mental athletics of running it, someone else could. And none of that is really a problem. Sometimes people are more in the mood for something totally new. 

I don't need to fit those into 7th Sea, I just need to concede that 7th Sea really isn't what they're interested in playing at the moment. Maybe they've had enough of swashbuckling adventure if I've been running the same game for 15 years. Let Todd run his "Sewers of Tokyo" robots-and-lizards boy fantasy campaign, it'll be fun, at least for a change of pace. And maybe Pete will get his Warforged Ninja out of his system and I won't have to work it into 7th sea. 

This is only my perspective, of course. My games are not sacrosanct to me. Heck, just *talking* abut TMNT, Sauraian Samurai, and Warforged Ninja in the sewers of Tokyo makes me want to go out and run it this weekend.  Or, heck, I'd play in it even faster. 

You don't have to run anything. As a DM, you're never forced to accept anything. You could always give up the big chair for a night and let someone else do it if the group isn't that interested in your game at the moment. And if they want you to DM, then they'll limit themselves to what you want.



> So, I would say that every DM has the right (and responsibility) to say "This concept would hurt our game. Make a different character if you want to play." The player can either accept the DM's authority, and exercise his creativity to create a character that fits the campaign, or he can find some group more in tune with his character concept.




He could also say "Okay, let me DM a game with warforged ninjae in it!" 



> In either case, it has nothing to do with whose creativity is better than whose.




It's not about quality, as far as I am concerned, it's about quantity. More isn't always better, and this applies to creativity, too. There should be limits that everyone at the table is comfortable with, wherever those limits lie. Creativity can be limited, that doesn't make the creativity that exists any better or worse than that which is excluded, it just means fewer areas in which you can exercise creativity.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 16, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> He could also say "Okay, let me DM a game with warforged ninjae in it!"





Who is stopping him?!?


EDIT:  Or are you suggesting that I stop my game because he wants to run his?


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Apr 16, 2007)

If barring Omanko the Nijna Tin Man and Optimus Prime from my pirate-themed game makes someone call me arrogant and uncreative, well, I'm willing to live with that.  Somehow, I don't think I'll be losing any sleep over it.  (And the other players will thank me for it, too.)

If the group *wants* to run a looser, kitchen-sink type of game, then that's fine.  Pretty much anything goes, and I think it would be a lot of fun seeing what players came up with and making things work together.  However, that's not usually where you see this issue come up.  Usually it comes up when the game has a tighter theme with some genre limitations spelled out or assumed.  I don't think there's anything arrogant or uncreative in saying no, and enforcing/explaining the genre limitations and assumptions.  In fact, I think the GM has a responsibility to say no, in that case.  And I think the players have a responsibility to exercise their creativity in a way that works within the limitations of the campaign theme/setting/etc.  Everyone contributes, of course, but ultimately the DM sets those limits, for the good of the group.  

Perhaps the charges of uncreativeness, and especially arrogance, might apply better to a prima donna player that wants what he wants, and be-damned to the opinions of everyone else that wants to play a "boring and cliche" pirate-game, and can't see his creative genius ("...but Omanko *fits* in the pirate game, don't you see...").


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 16, 2007)

> Who is stopping him?!?




No one, but it's an option you left out.



> EDIT: Or are you suggesting that I stop my game because he wants to run his?




Well, the usual scenario I've seen is similar to this: you gathered everyone over in Kathy's basement for a game of D&D, assuming Ryan would run his 7th sea adventure. Todd mentions he'd like to play a Warforged Ninja. Then Bob, Billy, and Kathy all pipe up with their ideas. Ryan says "Hm...doesn't sound like a 7th sea game anymore." Todd says "Okay, let me DM a game with warforged ninjae in it!" Ryan says "sure" and creates a character to play in Todd's game. Ryan, Todd, Bob, Billy, and Kathy all spend their night playing Todd's Tokyo Sewers campaign. 

Next week comes, everyone gathers in Kathy's basement again. Ryan's game was fun, but the only thing the group has been talking about for the past week was how awesome Todd's game was. Even Ryan. 

7th Sea goes bye-bye, the group adopts Tokyo Sewers, and life is joyful for all. At least, until Todd's game gets old and people want to jump into 7th Sea again, or maybe they just saw this new Dungeon Crawl Classics adventure they want to play in D&D, or maybe Kathy has been working really hard on her Mecha vs. Kaiju T20 campaign, or whatever.

I mean, Ryan could be a jerk and say "Unless we're playing MY 7th Sea game, I'm leaving and finding someone who will!" but everyone here is friends and they game as much to hang out together as to role play. It's just about the only time all five of them are together for a night.

Who would Ryan play with? Would he find another group and slot them into his busy schedule on "game night" ignoring his four other friends? Just because of a penchant for flamboyant musketeers over ninja mutants and robots? 

Ryan could also be a jerk and say "We're all playing my 7th sea game because that's the reason we're all here and if you want to play your Tokyo Sewers you can do it some other time, but this time it's for my 7th Sea game." But then he's pretty much ignoring what the rest of the group wants. And maybe they'll go along with it to humor him, because it's important to him, because they're friends with him, but Billy will always press for material from the Book of Erotic Fantasy.

This, of course, is an assumption about how a gaming group is composed, but for busy adults, this seems to be *the* way it's composed.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 16, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> No one, but it's an option you left out.




I also left out that he could go to 7-11 and buy ice cream.  Which is, IMHO, about as relevant.  I don't think that anyone needs to _spell out_ that someone else can run their own game (although, it _has_ been spelled out upthread).

In fact, I think I mentioned more than once that an idea not appropriate for _this_ campaign might be appropriate for _another_.  I didn't say who was running that other game.




> Well, the usual scenario I've seen is similar to this: you gathered everyone over in Kathy's basement for a game of D&D, assuming Ryan would run his 7th sea adventure. Todd mentions he'd like to play a Warforged Ninja. Then Bob, Billy, and Kathy all pipe up with their ideas. Ryan says "Hm...doesn't sound like a 7th sea game anymore." Todd says "Okay, let me DM a game with warforged ninjae in it!" Ryan says "sure" and creates a character to play in Todd's game. Ryan, Todd, Bob, Billy, and Kathy all spend their night playing Todd's Tokyo Sewers campaign.
> 
> Next week comes, everyone gathers in Kathy's basement again. Ryan's game was fun, but the only thing the group has been talking about for the past week was how awesome Todd's game was. Even Ryan.




This is a problem why?

In your example, if Ryan insisted on his game, he'd be sitting alone.  And, honestly, that is how it should be.  No one has a right to have the DM cater to them; no one has the right to have the players cater to him.  The DM creates a _desire_ for the players to play the game he presents, or he does not.  If he does not, then he shouldn't be DMing (or at least not DMing for that group).

Of course, your example assumes that Todd is the best GM for that group.  If that's the case, then why wouldn't the group let Todd GM?

OTOH, the usual scenario I've seen is similar to this: you gathered in your home for a game of D&D, assuming Ryan would run his ongoing 7th Sea campaign.  Todd is this new guy that works with Kathy.  Todd mentions he'd like to play a Warforged Ninja.  Bob, Billy, and Kathy are all playing "normal" characters, but they decide to support Todd's "creativity" and the DM consents to the character.

Within one to four sessions, Bob notices that his human rogue can't hold a candle to Todd's character.  So he decides to create something that can.

Shortly thereafter, Billy notices that everyone is paying attention to Todd's and Bob's characters (_What in the seven hells are those things?!?!_), so he chimes in with his character.  His BOEF character is a shocker, no doubt, and one that the NPCs literally _cannot_ ignore!  And the DM, having said Yes to Todd and Bob really doesn't feel that he can say No to Billy.

Finally, Kathy pipes up....I mean, after all, she's the only non-freak in a party of freaks, and the least effective character to boot.

At some point someone, Ryan or Bob, or Billy, or Kathy, usually, says "Hm...doesn't sound like a 7th sea game anymore."  Todd doesn't care, because what he really wanted was a campaign with warforged ninjas in it!  However, Ryan no longer cares about the game.  Nor does Bob, or Billy, or kathy.  And it collapses.

Shortly thereafter, Todd starts his Warforged Ninjas game.  And, because Todd didn't care about the group when he wanted to play the Warforged Ninja in the first place, he doesn't care now either.  What he really wants to do is show off his Kewl DM-PCs.  His game folds fast, and Todd leaves in a sulk.

Ryan, Bob, Billy, and Kathy are left with the wreckage.  Inevitably, Bob, Billy, and Kathy ask Ryan, "Why didn't you just say No to that Warforged Ninja crap in the first place?"  Hopefully, they manage to pull together a good game again, but Ryan might be done with it for a while.  Maybe one of the others is a competent DM, maybe not.   Ryan takes up fishing.


RC


----------



## S'mon (Apr 16, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> What I don't really understand is why DM's feel the need to control the player's characters.  I do understand mechanical issues.  That I already talked about.  But, when it comes to purely flavour issues, when it isn't going to be more work for the DM, why should the DM care?




Is it a "purely flavour issue" when the peasants scream "Ah!  Golem!  Get the pitch forks!" whenever the PC shows up?   I'm supposed to change my world so a Warforged Ninja is playable within it?  Or let the player change it for me?


----------



## S'mon (Apr 16, 2007)

dcas said:
			
		

> I think if one of my players wanted to create something, even an entire civilization, that fit into my campaign, I would let him -- less work for me.
> 
> But if he wanted something that entailed _more_ work for me (fitting a bizarro character concept into the campaign world), then there's not much of a chance I would allow it.
> 
> ...




QFT!!!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 16, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I mean, Ryan could be a jerk and say "Unless we're playing MY 7th Sea game, I'm leaving and finding someone who will!" but everyone here is friends and they game as much to hang out together as to role play. It's just about the only time all five of them are together for a night.




Out of curiosity, why would Ryan be a jerk for finding a group more conducive to his needs?

Also, if these people are all friends, why is this the only time they hang out?

My Mileage Obviously Varies a lot from yours.


----------



## RFisher (Apr 16, 2007)

thedungeondelver said:
			
		

> Is it the general opinion that if someone shows up with xyz character booklet or book that the DM doesn't have or whatever that the DM "has to" let someone play it?  Is that how some folks feel?  That is, regardless of what the DM has going in his campaign, a warforged ninja "has to" go because it's "cool" and not allowing it is restricting or punishing the player?




That's a side-issue in this discussion to me. If I've accepted a concept for a PC, I can come up with mechanics (or tweak or turn down the mechanics suggested by the player) to support that that I'll be willing to accept. The real issue is whether I should allow the concept in the first place.

The issue with playing a demihuman cleric in my classic D&D campaign isn't mechanical, it's that the demihumans in my world don't worship deities. A concept for an elfin PC that is predicated on the long life spans of elves will be a problem because my elves don't have longer lifespans than humans. A female dwarf concept will be a problem because my dwarves are asexual.

Of course, ideally I communicate every detail that could have such an impact to the players before they start creating character concepts. The problem is that there's probably an infinite number of such details. Also, things seldom go so orderly that I have such info complete & ready & the players can take sufficient time to read & digest all of it before they start developing concepts.

&, if I try, it doesn't take me long to come up with solutions to almost any concept/campaign mismatch.



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> However, once it *does* enter play the DM in all fairness has to allow it again if someone else wants to run out the same concept in the same campaign...either that, or come up with an ironclad in-game rationale for why this character was so unique (and then be wide open to charges of favouritism).




If I had to specifically OK a PC concept, it should be obvious that I might not (probably will not) allow a duplicate of that concept. A one-off approval is a one-off. If you think I'm being unfair, you're welcome to take the DM chair yourself or leave the group. Or come up with your own idea. I'm not going to allow such considerations keep me from OKing an interesting one-off.



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> I think some people tend to confuse or conflate creativity with unfettered fancy. In my experience they are not the same thing at all.




True. Indeed, I tend to think being able to work within a structure requires more creativity.

But it isn't always black & white. When is it OK to break the structure a little to add richness to the work? When is it not? Or rather, _if_ I break the structure for _this_ bit, does it improve or detract from the whole?

As for "unfettered fancy"... The thing is that although I always avoid this--& while that may be for the best because it may be good only in limited doses--the kitchen sink games I've played have possibly been the best ones.

Although--& touches on similar ground as the Delver's question--I think it _can_ depend upon the rules. Gurps 3/e + Fantasy Folk were pretty good rules for a kitchen sink game. (There were some problems, but they were fixable.) Toon seems to do OK at it as well. (Probably because the areas in which it most encourages you to unfetter your fancy aren't treated mechanically.) I can see how it could be a disaster under other rules.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> To me, my campaign is not mine.  Sure, I run the show, but, like a director, it's not MINE, it belongs to my group.  Again, like a director, there are some times I have to step in and veto something, but, at no point do I simply say, "Hey, this is my game."  To me, it's our game.  When a player comes up with a concept and gives me a bit of effort to slot it into the setting, I'll usually go for it unless there is some mechanical reason not to.




Well, there's principle & there's practice. My principle is that the DM has the final say. That the DM wants player input is a given. After all, what's the point of involving other people if you don't want to involve other people? The absolute wording of the principle is not to suggest absolute practice, but to leave it up to the DM to figure out the balance.


----------



## Ourph (Apr 16, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Well, the usual scenario I've seen is similar to this: you gathered everyone over in Kathy's basement for a game of D&D, assuming Ryan would run his 7th sea adventure. Todd mentions he'd like to play a Warforged Ninja. Then Bob, Billy, and Kathy all pipe up with their ideas. Ryan says "Hm...doesn't sound like a 7th sea game anymore." Todd says "Okay, let me DM a game with warforged ninjae in it!" Ryan says "sure" and creates a character to play in Todd's game. Ryan, Todd, Bob, Billy, and Kathy all spend their night playing Todd's Tokyo Sewers campaign.




That varies from my experience pretty sharply.  IME the scenario goes more like this....

You gathered over in Kathy's basement for a game of D&D, assuming Ryan would run his 7th Sea adventure.  Todd mentions he'd like to play a Warforged Ninja.  Then Bob, Billy and Kathy all pipe up with their ideas.  Ryan says "Hm...doesn't sound like a 7th Sea game anymore, why don't one of you guys run a game where these kinds of characters will fit in."  Todd, Bob, Billy and Kathy all get uncomfortable looks on their faces and fall all over themselves telling Ryan how great his DMing skills are and how they always really love his games because the last thing Todd, Bob, Billy and Kathy want to do is give up their seat as a player and put in the work that it takes to sit in the DM's chair.  So, Ryan says, "Well, I'm happy to play in any game you guys want to run, but if I'm putting in the work to run the game, I'm going to run 7th Sea... and Warforged Ninjae aren't a PC option."  Todd, Bob, Billy and Kathy all shut up and roll up appropriately themed characters.  Bob, Billy and Kathy do so good-naturedly, because they're just happy to be playing and Ryan always runs a really fun game.  

Todd harbours bitter resentment in his heart at not getting to play the cool new character concept he came up with and takes it out on Ryan by being kind of a prick for the rest of the campaign and posting rants about him under a pseudonym at ENWorld.

YMMV. (And I hope for your sake it does.   )


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 16, 2007)

I don't think a powergamer is going to choose a warforged ninja since it is a suboptimal choice given the warforged's -2 racial modifier to Wisdom and the ninja's dependence on the attribute.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 16, 2007)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> I don't think a powergamer is going to choose a warforged ninja since it is a suboptimal choice given the warforged's -2 racial modifier to Wisdom and the ninja's dependence on the attribute.




LOL.  Well, I'm sure that while we're tweaking, we can change that to better fit the character idea.  _Stop stepping on my creativity, man!_


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 16, 2007)

> This is a problem why?




I never implied it was a problem, did I? I certainly don't think it is. 



> ...
> Ryan, Bob, Billy, and Kathy are left with the wreckage. Inevitably, Bob, Billy, and Kathy ask Ryan, "Why didn't you just say No to that Warforged Ninja crap in the first place?" Hopefully, they manage to pull together a good game again, but Ryan might be done with it for a while. Maybe one of the others is a competent DM, maybe not. Ryan takes up fishing.




Yeah, can't say I've ever seen that scenario. It's pretty much impossible in every group I've been a part of. Because the groups I've been a part of are pretty much people who want to hang out together, and who also like games. A new member of the group, like any new friend, needs to be able to get along with everyone else. If they can't, they're out. This Todd obviously can't. It's not about the game, it's about the time spent with friends (and the game is something to do).



> Out of curiosity, why would Ryan be a jerk for finding a group more conducive to his needs?
> 
> Also, if these people are all friends, why is this the only time they hang out?




Busy people busy schedules. Kathy works as a barrista, Ryan has a suit-and-tie deal downtown, Billy's in med school, Bob's got a kid, and Todd just moved two counties away for a job. They might hang out separately, when they can, maybe even play WoW together once in a while (especially Todd, who has to drive two hours if he wants to chill), but once or twice a month they specifically make time for each other. That's a pretty strong friendship. 

Which is why Ryan would be kind of a jerk for skipping out on them, finding a new group, or otherwise being "busy on game night." Just because people didn't want to play his game, he'd stop hanging out with his friends? 

I mean, if he could find another group and still manage to show up to the bi-monthly game sessions, bonus, but the bi-monthly game sessions are not about his 7th Sea game. They're about friends having fun together. Which is part of the reason the rest might agree to play his 7th Sea game even though they're not in the mood -- if it's the price they pay for getting to see Ryan, they're willing to pay it.



> You gathered over in Kathy's basement for a game of D&D, assuming Ryan would run his 7th Sea adventure. Todd mentions he'd like to play a Warforged Ninja. Then Bob, Billy and Kathy all pipe up with their ideas. Ryan says "Hm...doesn't sound like a 7th Sea game anymore, why don't one of you guys run a game where these kinds of characters will fit in." Todd, Bob, Billy and Kathy all get uncomfortable looks on their faces and fall all over themselves telling Ryan how great his DMing skills are and how they always really love his games because the last thing Todd, Bob, Billy and Kathy want to do is give up their seat as a player and put in the work that it takes to sit in the DM's chair. So, Ryan says, "Well, I'm happy to play in any game you guys want to run, but if I'm putting in the work to run the game, I'm going to run 7th Sea... and Warforged Ninjae aren't a PC option." Todd, Bob, Billy and Kathy all shut up and roll up appropriately themed characters. Bob, Billy and Kathy do so good-naturedly, because they're just happy to be playing and Ryan always runs a really fun game.




Hehe, that's a decent way to go about it too, other than Todd's being a jerk. Again, the important thing is that everyone's basically on the same page. If there's only one guy who can DM the group, obviously the options are basically to play in his game, or learn how to DM yourself. 

It's kind of why I think that making everyone who plays D&D a possible DM (as much as possible) is a good idea.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 16, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I never implied it was a problem, did I? I certainly don't think it is.




Good.  Me neither.



> Yeah, can't say I've ever seen that scenario.




I spent 4 years in the US Army, moving from state to state.  I've seen it a lot, although I've never been the DM for it.  I know how to say No.      I can also spot that sort of Todd a mile off.    



> Busy people busy schedules. Kathy works as a barrista, Ryan has a suit-and-tie deal downtown, Billy's in med school, Bob's got a kid, and Todd just moved two counties away for a job.




Then why are they still playing in Kathy's _basement_?!?    



> If there's only one guy who can DM the group, obviously the options are basically to play in his game, or learn how to DM yourself.




In all of the groups I have been in, once I've taken a turn at the plate, no one else wanted me to step down.  Moreover, no one else was willing to step up for more than a session or two.  One of my players is planning a new game using house rules from my game, and has asked me to play, so maybe that curse will finally be lifted.    

I enjoy DMing.  I enjoy _playing_, too.  I just seldom get the chance.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 16, 2007)

> I spent 4 years in the US Army, moving from state to state. I've seen it a lot, although I've never been the DM for it. I know how to say No.




Either extreme leads to a lot of unhappy players, though. What Hussar is saying (feeling like the DM is saying their imagination is better than the players') might not be what you've experienced, but it's a story I've certainly heard before. A DM who feels that any little departure from their one true vision is going to destroy the game, and who tenaciously clings to a very narrow outline of what can and cannot be, using their authority like a bludgeon and not a guiderail. I've also heard the story about a DM who allows anything and then can't pull it all together, who throws in the kitchen sink and who just can't motivate anything from it, who refuses to use his authority as a guiderail, leaving the players adrift in a sea of nothingness without any sort of unified tone, feel, or setting. 

Again, it's just important to find what works for each group, or even for each game (I've alternated between the restrictive and permissive styles myself with the same group, depending on what I wanted).


----------



## molonel (Apr 17, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> ... and who tenaciously clings to a very narrow outline of what can and cannot be, using their authority like a bludgeon and not a guiderail.




I know that, personally, I find myself clinging for dear life to a very narrow outline of what I'll allow, and feel threatened by creative players with their new-fangled warforged ninjas.

I'd shake my fist at the heavens, and curse such infinite wells of creativity and individuality, but I might fall if I did!

....


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 17, 2007)

> I know that, personally, I find myself clinging for dear life to a very narrow outline of what I'll allow, and feel threatened by creative players with their new-fangled warforged ninjas.




If you've found a group that likes it, more power to ya.  

The creativity discussion is pretty independent of the discussion of what a DM should do for a good game.


----------



## molonel (Apr 17, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If you've found a group that likes it, more power to ya.




I've actually never encountered a gamer that argued he should be allowed to use anything and everything from any setting he liked in a game, or called me uncreative for disallowing things like the warforged outside of their setting, except on the internet.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 17, 2007)

> I've actually never encountered a gamer that argued he should be allowed to use anything and everything from any setting he liked in a game, or called me uncreative for disallowing things like the warforged outside of their setting, except on the internet.




I'd think those gamers would be as rare as the DMs who don't listen when the player has an idea they'd like to bring to the table.

And, again, the "uncreative" thing isn't about you, it's about a given setting. And settings have other needs than to allow every sort of creativity to tromp atop it. Birthright isn't as creative, character-selection wise, as Planescape. Big deal, they're both fun in their own way.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Apr 17, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Birthright isn't as creative, character-selection wise, as Planescape. Big deal, they're both fun in their own way.



I'd say Birthright character-selection isn't as permissive as Planescape.  However, I wouldn't say that more permissiveness necessarily equates to more creativity.  

Bah.  Semantics.  I'm gonna go chew some Black Lotus...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 17, 2007)

> I'd say Birthright character-selection isn't as permissive as Planescape. However, I wouldn't say that more permissiveness necessarily equates to more creativity.




Permission to do what? To *create*. 

But you're right, I think we're all basically agreeing, anyway.


----------



## molonel (Apr 17, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> But you're right, I think we're all basically agreeing, anyway.




NO!

You're wrong!

We cannot agree!

Grrr! 

*gnaws at your leg*

Grrr!


----------



## Hussar (Apr 17, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Either extreme leads to a lot of unhappy players, though. What Hussar is saying (feeling like the DM is saying their imagination is better than the players') might not be what you've experienced, but it's a story I've certainly heard before. A DM who feels that any little departure from their one true vision is going to destroy the game, and who tenaciously clings to a very narrow outline of what can and cannot be, using their authority like a bludgeon and not a guiderail. I've also heard the story about a DM who allows anything and then can't pull it all together, who throws in the kitchen sink and who just can't motivate anything from it, who refuses to use his authority as a guiderail, leaving the players adrift in a sea of nothingness without any sort of unified tone, feel, or setting.
> 
> Again, it's just important to find what works for each group, or even for each game (I've alternated between the restrictive and permissive styles myself with the same group, depending on what I wanted).




KM is saying things much better than I am, so, I'm not going to add anything more.   

Well, that's a lie. 

Honestly, I don't have a problem with the DM saying No.  That's perfectly acceptable.  However, what I've been trying to point out, and perhaps not doing a very good job, is that when the DM says No, he's placing his views of the campaign above that of the player's.  Now, this might very well be a good thing.  It might not.  

Sorry if I gave the impression that I was saying that DM's should never say No.  That's not it at all.  My point was that DM's should recognize that when they do say no, there is the possiblity that the players may not see the reason that is so obvious to the DM.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 17, 2007)

I think the problem is on both sides of the DM screen, with DMs and players who would rather think "whine-whine" than "win-win".


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Apr 17, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Permission to do what? To *create*.




I know what you're saying.  I guess I'm more impressed with creativity that takes a given set of resources and produces something good from it.  To my way of thinking, a larger resource pool doesn't mean more creativity, just more resources (i.e. fewer restrictions).

Now, one might argue that it's *harder* to be creative with a fewer resources.  I'd agree with that. 



> But you're right, I think we're all basically agreeing, anyway.




Close enough.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 17, 2007)

Stumbled across an interesting article from Cory Doctorow.  Why Online games Are Dictatorships.  While the article is obviously dealing with MMORPG's of various stripes, if you replace the parent company names with the word DM, it could easily apply to many games.  

I thought it kind of applied here.  Most D&D games are also dictatorships with the DM in the top seat.  How palatable that dictatorship is depends on the quality of the DM, but, in the end, the players are all pretty much beholden to the DM.  Even with the perceived loss of DM power in 3rd edition, as DM's, we still call most of the shots.

Thoughts?


----------



## S'mon (Apr 17, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> However, what I've been trying to point out, and perhaps not doing a very good job, is that when the DM says No, he's placing his views of the campaign above that of the player's.  Now, this might very well be a good thing.  It might not.




I think it's almost always a very good thing.  Even if I'm an excellent, creative player, and the GM is kinda mediocre, if I set myself up on par with him I'm undermining his authority at the table in a way which I think is very harmful.  Which is not to say that campaign creation can't be a cooperative exercise, only that the GM's authority must be respected *even if the player's input is objectively superior to that of the GM*.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 17, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Stumbled across an interesting article from Cory Doctorow.  Why Online games Are Dictatorships.  While the article is obviously dealing with MMORPG's of various stripes, if you replace the parent company names with the word DM, it could easily apply to many games.
> 
> I thought it kind of applied here.  Most D&D games are also dictatorships with the DM in the top seat.  How palatable that dictatorship is depends on the quality of the DM, but, in the end, the players are all pretty much beholden to the DM.  Even with the perceived loss of DM power in 3rd edition, as DM's, we still call most of the shots.
> 
> Thoughts?




My thought is that he's talking about commercial enterprises where the player has an enforceable contract with the MMORPG company, so it's of limited application here.  If I as a player have a contractual relationship, I have legal rights.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 17, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> My thought is that he's talking about commercial enterprises where the player has an enforceable contract with the MMORPG company, so it's of limited application here.  If I as a player have a contractual relationship, I have legal rights.




Yes and no though.  The EULA of any MMORPG pretty much always carries the caveat that they can change the game at any point in time without your consent.  Rule 0 pretty much serves the same function.  You cannot sue Blizzard if they nerf your character.  Nor can you sue your DM for the same thing.

In a truly democratic game, then the players would have recourse available to them beyond simply walking out the door.  

I'm honestly not sure if that would make a fun game though.  IMO, probably not.  It might work for some other systems, but, I think it would be a poor fit in D&D.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 17, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Yes and no though.  The EULA of any MMORPG pretty much always carries the caveat that they can change the game at any point in time without your consent.




In the UK and most countries, contracts on one party's written standard business terms are not necessarily enforceable vs the other party, especially where the other party is a consumer.  A term as vague as "We can do what we like" will often be subject to a reasonableness test.  I appreciate that US contract law is generally more pro-contract-writer and anti-consumer than in other nations.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 17, 2007)

No matter what veneers get laid over it, no matter what game or edition you're playing, if it has a DM it's essentially the DM's game that any player can choose to play or not play.  End of story.

Most players soon enough realize this...those who don't aren't players for very long (though a rare few go on to become quite decent DMs themselves; I've seen this happen).

If I sign up for a 7th Sea game I'm expecting ships and pirates, cutlasses and cannons, pieces of eight and adventure on the high seas; and I somewhat expect the DM to provide these type of story elements, and the other players (and myself) to at least *try* to stay within theme.  I don't expect to see robots, or hobbits, or lightsabers, and would be disappointed were any to show up other than as a short-lived DM-driven diversion.

Lanefan


----------



## edgewaters (Apr 17, 2007)

The DMs foremost job is of a referee between NPCs/monsters and PCs - storytelling etc are secondary and indeed, not even possible without this first role. If he has no authority to make judgement calls and have the final say, then he cannot perform this role properly.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 17, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Honestly, I don't have a problem with the DM saying No.  That's perfectly acceptable.  However, what I've been trying to point out, and perhaps not doing a very good job, is that when the DM says No, he's placing his views of the campaign above that of the player's.  Now, this might very well be a good thing.  It might not.





Now, _*that*_ I can agree with fully.

I don't accept the notion that limitations remove the ability to be creative, or that there is any more creativity involved in acting in a way that is unbounded by limitations.  But the DM is saying that his views of the campaign are more important than the views of any single player, certainly, and to some degree more important than the views of the players as a whole.

From there, he gets to discover if he _has_ players or not.


----------



## As If (Sep 19, 2015)

Reynard said:


> Relatedly: Only describing people, places and/or things in detail when they are important is a big failing of mine.  My players are like, "Huh, he spent 2 minutes describing the statue.  let's check it out!"




You can train yourself to _list_ the room's contents rather than _describing_ them, when the PCs first enter a room.  

_There's a small painting on the south wall.
There's a stinky garbage pile in the northeast corner.
There's a bronze statue of a royal dude in the center of the room._

There will be time for detailed description in a minute, after Players have asked about the items they're interested in.  But for starters it's pretty easy to get into a habit of listing ADJECTIVE NOUN POSITION, ADJECTIVE NOUN POSITION.  Try it.  Hope it helps.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2015)

LOL, now HERE'S a blast from the past.  Lots of names that are sadly missing now.  Fun thread.  Fun to see how my opinions have changed over the years too.


----------



## Reynard (Sep 21, 2015)

Hussar said:


> LOL, now HERE'S a blast from the past.  Lots of names that are sadly missing now.  Fun thread.  Fun to see how my opinions have changed over the years too.




No kidding. Wow.


----------

