Be honest, how long would it really take you to notice all of this stuff...?

[Hussar]

snip for the appeal to non-existent data

All of the fundamental baselines of 3e were almost certainly ignored by more groups than not. To suggest the contrary would be to impose of a group of millions of people of diverse experiences around the world a ludicrous standard of homogeneity. Are you suggesting that people out there are essentially playing exactly by the book, rules and guidelines, and not meaningfully deviating from any of it?

Nope. Not at all. I'm not saying anything because I honestly don't know. You're the one making the claim. You're the one who has to back it up with some evidence. The company that is doing the best with D&D at the moment made its mark through modules which are all based on 3e mechanics and baselines. Somebody was buying and playing those modules. And, apparently people still are.

We discuss the published game here because it's a common frame of reference, but no one completely adheres to it (and even the original 3.0 core books presented all manner of paradigm-changing variants). And, I think it's fair to assume that by the time D&D had gotten into WotC's hands, people understood that. They understood that the OGL legitimized the widespread homebrewing community. They understood that variants needed to be built into the game. And the baseline was wrote not as an expectation to adhere to, but as an example to start from.

Feel free to start a thread asking how many people ever ran four-character groups at the same level with standard array or 4d6 ability scores and wealth matching the WBL tables through challenges with an EL appropriate to their level. And no houserules, variants, third party material, etc. etc.

But this is a straw man. You don't have to adhere exactly to the rules to not get to where you are claiming that groups had significant variance from the baseline. 10-20% in either direction for party wealth would make little difference to the game, for example. And, note, EL appropriate challenges is a mistaken interpretation of what 3e encounter guidelines actually say. The 3e and 3.5 DMG are pretty clear that many encounters will not be EL par encounters.

And why no house rules, variants or 3rd P materials? Those are all based on the 3e baselines. 3rd Party materials are rightfully criticised when they vary too greatly from those baselines- that's why they get called broken.

But, yeah, this isn't likely to go anywhere. I asked to see your evidence and got shown pretty much what I expected. I see your anecdote and call with my own. Get back to me when you have anything actually showing that your experiences are indicative of anything other than your own experiences.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Get back to me when you have anything actually showing that your experiences are indicative of anything other than your own experiences.

Just once, I should actually do that just to see what happens.

 

[Lanefan]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] if you ran a quick poll (and it's probably already been done, I just don't have time to look for it) you probably would find that wealth-by-level wasn't adhered to very often in 3.x games.

Lanefan

 

[Ahnehnois]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] if you ran a quick poll (and it's probably already been done, I just don't have time to look for it) you probably would find that wealth-by-level wasn't adhered to very often in 3.x games.

I would think another question would be what portion are even aware that they exist. Between experienced DMs who didn't bother to read the DMG, and new ones who learned through playing rather than reading, I've seen quite a few DMs who were unaware of significant parts of the DMG, often te "soft stuff" or guidelines. The rewards section is just one example.

And when you look into stat generation, it's quite the norm to see people doing something other than point buy, standard array, or straight-up rolls. Every time someone starts a thread on it, I see a new approach I hadn't even heard of before.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As has been said by others before, considering what is voluntarily self-reported on gaming forums as statistical evidence of gaming norms is...perilous.

Just talking from my own experiences in 3.X, the one place where there was routine variance from the core assumptions was in party size. The only time we had a 4 man party was when people couldn't show up for game night. In my circle, I was the only one who used 3rd party material, and several guys strictly limited the amount of non-Core WotC product as well. Most stats were generated by point-buy, 4d6 or 3d6. Parties consisted of PCs of all the same level. Wealth by level only mattered when a new guy joined the group and needed to generate a PC of the appropriate level, or when campaigns stated at other than first...and then we used it as written.

House rules- other than excising certain WotC classes, spells, races, etc.- are the exception, not the rule for us. Our new, active campaign has only one- an alteration in how flanking (and all the associated mechanics) works.

Typical? I have no idea. But I don't assume one way or the other.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But I don't assume one way or the other.

I do. I don't assume that everyone is deviating in any one particular fashion, but I do assume that given the number of opportunities to deviate from the defaults (for any number of reasons), anyone really adhering to all of them is a statistical improbability.

It would be like trying to find a driver who drives exactly the speed limit at all times.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There's a huge difference between variant rules being the norm and any particular variant being the norm.

 

[Ratskinner]

There's a huge difference between variant rules being the norm and any particular variant being the norm.

Definitely.

FWIW, IME 3e GMs regularly used the wealth by level table for NPCs. However I rarely saw anyone pay much attention to it for maintaining PC wealth or whatnot.

Additionally, 3e was the first edition were I saw DMs wary of monkeying around with core game rules or assumptions. I believe that the visible complexity, volume, and density of both third and fourth editions was a contributing factor in this.

 

[Ahnehnois]

FWIW, IME 3e GMs regularly used the wealth by level table for NPCs. However I rarely saw anyone pay much attention to it for maintaining PC wealth or whatnot.

I could see that; a lot of times NPC creation is simplified in various behind-the-curtain ways. Certainly not the way I've done it, but it makes sense on some level.

Additionally, 3e was the first edition were I saw DMs wary of monkeying around with core game rules or assumptions. I believe that the visible complexity, volume, and density of both third and fourth editions was a contributing factor in this.

I didn't see this at all. What I saw was not complexity, but transparency. There was an absolute avalanche of d20 material published, and every player worth his salt would find some class published somewhere, or write his own. And then every DM would make up a new swath of rules for their campaign setting, and throw in some random variants. And then UA came out.

IME, 3e was what killed any notion of RAW play.

 

[Hussar]

Whereas, for me, RAW play was far, far more common in 3e than in earlier editions. Firstly, if you think that the number of variants and whatnot was somehow greater for 3e, you haven't looked at how much material got pumped out for 2e. Secondly, you have 1e, where virtually no one played by RAW because no one could actually understand the rules as written because sometimes they really made no sense (1e initiative rules, I'm looking at you).

RAW play was pretty much standard AFAIC and IME in 3e. Now, that's not saying that it was absolutely, 100% adhered to. Of course not. But, you could be pretty close most of the time. I never saw a single player ever try to make his own character class, for example. Not once. Not in 3e. Saw it loads of times in AD&D, but never in 3e. And the number of "Core Only" DM's out there for 3e was hardly insignificant. Sticking to Core was the standard response to any balance issues in 3e.

Look, Ahn, I don't doubt that people played differently. No problems with that. My issue was with your claim that most people played the way you do. It's a fallacy. You have no way of knowing how other people played, and trying to make your own personal play style seem like the norm is pretty much the standard line to take for any edition warring. "Well, everyone plays this way, so, everyone else is just doing it wrong" is how it sounds, even if that's not the point you are trying to make.