DM's forfeit power

[ashockney]

Monte Cook has commented in the past about how AU was intended to put more control back into the hands of the DM.

In a conversation with my friend last night we were reminiscing about some of our first edition games. A common theme that materialized from that discussion involved the vanilla character classes, elegant systems, and what I called organic character development. In 3rd edition and beyond, you can begin with the end in mind. You could say with a high degree of certainty exactly what your character would be like, and his abilities, at any level. In many of my 1st edition campaigns the characters were radically different than in the books using things like psionics, dual wielding, weapon mastery, rare powerful spells, and rare powerful items.

In our experience we looked back very fondly on those characters and those games.

Why did we give up that control?
Is it better for the pen & paper game?
Could all the excellent toys of 3rd edition be used to develop a more organic pen & paper game experience?

 

[Henry]

In my opinion, you could do it by either limiting folks to core classes, but opening almost all feats available in all books, OR you could open them to all base classes, but only core feats. (I'm intentionally leaving out Prestige classes, because this is often the biggest accused concept for "beginning A game with the end in mind" abuse.) ALL core classes, ALL prestige classes, and ALL feats generates a completely wide-open field where someone can plan from 1 to 20 and sometimes lose that "organic" feel. Just like intentionally playing a game with a self-imposed limitation ("Watch me play basketball with ONE HAND TIED BEHIND MY BACK!!!") limiting ONE or two fields of choice without limiting them all can offer a subtly different play experience. It's worth a try for a short campaign, to see how it goes.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

I absolutely agree with Henry that you should limit on what you permit in your game. Otherwise your campaign will be so generic people will be looking for the bar code.

As far as the DM giving up control, yes, this is good. You note that in 3e players can plan out their characters from 1-20. Well, yeah, that's the point. The guy gets to make his own decisions about his own character. This is good. In 1e/2e you made all your choices at character creation and then all other game-mechanics development was done by the DM.

The spells in 3e are less whimsical and have less room for DM adjudication. But that's also not so bad. In a lot of game design threads I've noticed that people tend to assume a happy group that loves to roleplay. Most gaming groups are an eclectic bunch of people who like to do their own thing. Putting power in the hands of the DM in a group like that sets up an adversarial game.

In my arrogant opinion, of course.

 

[Belen]

Why did we give up that control?
Is it better for the pen & paper game?
Could all the excellent toys of 3rd edition be used to develop a more organic pen & paper game experience?

I do not think the intention was to give up those items. I have a feeling that it was an unintentional side effect of 3e. Even Monte stepped away from how far 3e went in taking the DM out of the equation.

This really goes more to the point of 3e culture than the rules themselves. Wizards created rules that tried to minimize DM abuse and then promoted a "back to the dungeon" theme that implied that story and characterization were not as important as combat, dungeon-crawling.

The rules do not really inhibit organic playing; however, the rules combined with the culture promoted by WOTC does inhibit that style. Wizards actively promotes a single style of play and a lot of people have bought into that style.

 

[Umbran]

Why did we give up that control?

Note that we didn't actually give up control - the system gave up control. In the past, the PC was very strongly tied to their original choice of class - nothing could be less organic than a 1e fighter. The DM gained control, too, in what he wanted the adversaries and allies to be like.

The player was given control because sometimes the DM's ideas shouldn't be the end-all, be-all.

Is it better for the pen & paper game?

I this case, I think the added flexibility is a benefit, and allows the game to better suit more players.

Could all the excellent toys of 3rd edition be used to develop a more organic pen & paper game experience?

Yes - by simply saying, "Guys, please don't plan out your character classes ahead of time." All that's required is an agreement between the DM and Players, and suddenly 3e becomes more organic than previous editions.

 

[Styracosaurus]

3rd edition places more burden on the PCs to responsibly build and roleplay. I agree with Biggus. In earlier editions, my games were DM vs. PC's. It was too hard to keep up with building multiple characters from behind the DM screen and someone was always wanting more or different. I couldn't do it all.

Monte Cook is good at pushing his products and I don't begrudge him that, but I don't see how AU changed anything from 3rd edition. It is hype.

John

 

[Goblyns Hoard]

The ability for characters to develop into something of their own accord is only lost in 3.x if you allow yourself to be dominated by the system or the style of other players. If you allow the character to develop organically, taking the appropriate levels as you reach them, making decisions about feats only when they come up, then none of the '1st edition' feel need be lost.

As an example there's Indigo - a halfling paragon/ranger (archer-type) in my game. a couple of adventures back revolving around a demon and his half-fiend daughter Indigo got on the wrong side of the local authorities - who up until then he'd been friendly with. He went on a minor rampage trying to protect what he felt was an innocent girl (the half-fiend daughter), but eventually got it back under control.

Later we discussed what had happened and what the player wanted to do. The outcome is that Indigo has taken his first level of barbarian, and focusses a bit more on his great-axe than the bow (though he's still a crack shot). We've tied it in as a 'holy warrior' of his goddess (Fera goddess of fertility life and lust) who protects the innocent - to the point of rage.

Anyway - the point is that while 3.x allows you to plan out your character you don't need to surrender yourself to that part of it. If you want to let your character develop organically the system doesn't prevent it. Some will argue that it results in sub-optimal characters... who cares if you've got a better game as a result!

 

[an_idol_mind]

I'm not sure that I see how older editions allowed for a more organic experience. In 1st and 2nd edition AD&D, when I made a character, I knew exactly where he would be 10 or 20 levels down the road. Since you were stuck with one class (or multiclass combination) and dual classing was just painful, a PC basically had his career track established, ability-wise, at first level. Heck, you even knew that when you hit 9th level, you'd get a chance at building a stronghold.

Whether 3e is organic comes down mostly to how you play it. I ask my players to have specific goals for their characters in mind, but those goals tend to change. A happy go lucky bard might get mauled by a horde of wights and be so horrified by the experience that he stops advancing as a bard and starts working toward abilities that allow him to hunt undead, for example. A paladin might lose faith in the code of his order and switch to being a chaotic rogue. If anything, characters now have a chance to be more organic. However, it's up to the DM to enourage an organic environment.

 

[WayneLigon]

Monte Cook is good at pushing his products and I don't begrudge him that, but I don't see how AU changed anything from 3rd edition. It is hype.

I can't speak for Monte but if I had to guess, the major thing that 'puts some control back in the GM's hands' is the spell selection; D&D's standard spell selections usually spawn about one thread a month along the lines of of 'Help! My players have learned to teleport!'. AU has no teleport spell, the ressurection spell has some very expensive and specific parameters on it (something like seven of them must be cast on the character within a 24 hour period), the 'make food and drink from thin air' spell is higher level and most people don't get access to it. There are other subtle changes that have a large impact on the higher level game.

 

[Henry]

Monte Cook is good at pushing his products and I don't begrudge him that, but I don't see how AU changed anything from 3rd edition. It is hype.

The AU changes are definite, but they're not flashy or obvious. Most changes occurred around feats and spells. For instance, note orcaular spells such as Object Loresight; you have to cast the spell TEN TIMES to get the most benefit from it; it also has the advantage to allowing a DM to add tons of detail to his world that the identify spell does not. The travel spells have subtle changes from default 3e, too: The "crisscross of magical pathways" in Teleport, for example. There exists the likelihood that one cannot teleport to or from to areas the DM does not wish them to, built into the spell, without DM fiat. There is also no "Greater Teleport" with no chances of error. Even Resurrection spells are weighted toward DM interaction - the "seven times for seven days," the lack of a complete restoration, etc. Even beyond this, the words "If the DM permits", "if the DM rules it too inaccessible," "if the DM allows" appears in multiple locations, over powers, feats, spells, and actions, leaving them more grey areas.

Some people don't like that level of ambiguity, some do. I'm more of a "do" kinda person, myself.