Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
3E sucks, but keep playing it for next few months
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3712922" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I'll try and explain a bit more.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Fair enough. But skills and feats can effect AC, hp, BAB, so what you're saying is that many NPCs are partial or approximated. A better ruleset would, in my view, actually address this issue of generic NPCs, rather than leave it to GM handwaving. 3E doesn't do this, and indeed the rules for NPC classes in the DMG combined with the rules for monster building in Savage Species and the MMs imply that all NPCs look exactly like PCs. And the plethora of errors in WoTC stat blocks shows that these rules are too hard.</p><p></p><p>Here is a different way of coming at the issue: if it doesn't matter that your NPCs are only partial or approximated, why are the rules going into the level of detail that they do?</p><p></p><p>D20 modern (and I gather SW Saga) tackle this issue with rules for non-heroic NPCs, which I gather are much easier to build than heroic NPCs and PCs.</p><p></p><p>1st-ed also tackled this issue, by having distinct rules for 0-level commoners, 0-level soldiers, mercenary captains, sea captains, sages etc. Although the rules presentation was very patchy, what was given was (in effect) a set of rules for constructing generic NPCs. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Maybe in some conceptual sense it's good that SR and saves are separate - I'm not concerned with that question. But what it means in practical terms is that any attempt at resolving a spell typically involves two rolls: one for SR, one for save. If it is a ray or touch spell, there's also the attack roll. This is too many rolls. It makes the game needlessly complex. Rolemaster -itself hardly the smoothest ruleset out there - resolved this issue 25 years ago.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>D&D has two sorts of rewards: XPs (which make PCs better by giving them intrinsic abilities) and treasure (which makes PCs better by giving them magic items). The latter is clearly an in-game resource also. The former, however, is awarded according to a metagame logic (ie players who succeed at the premise of the game, by overcoming challenges, earn XPs for their PCs) and it is difficult to assign it an in-game interpretation. Nevertheless, aspects of the magic rules treat XPs as an in-game resource. But what is the nature of this resource? I have read some suggestions that XPs measure "spiritual power". But in that case, why is the only way to build up "spiritual power" by overcoming challenges? It makes no in-game sense. Thus the incoherence. A coherent ruleset would treat XP purely as a metagame device.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>A 10th level fighter can trivially beat a lion in hand to hand combat (far more hit points, better BAB, comparable ST, comparable damage per hit). In real-world terms this is a near-impossible feat. Thus, the combat aspects of D&D are aimed at the highest of high-fantasy.</p><p></p><p>On the other hand, a 10th level fighter can probably not sneak past the typical town guard to save his life (few skill points, probably none in Move Silently or Hide). This is ultra-gritty.</p><p></p><p>This generates a tension within the gameworld - is it a world of over-the-top heroics, as the combat portions of the rules suggest, or a game of gritty survival, as the skill system suggests? I mentioned RM and RQ because they resolve this dilemma in favour of grittiness, having skill systems not unlike that of D&D but combat systems that are far from ultra-heroic.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Dropping Raise Dead is a house rule. Played from the book, Raise Dead (and its kin) are in the game. In effect, they constitute ways of spending significant amounts of resources (given the material component costs, and the level-loss in many cases) in order to avoid character death. But in the process the action (at least for the player of the dead PC) grinds to a halt. Fate Points provide an alternative resource, purely metagame, for achieving a similar outcome without the interruption to action.</p><p></p><p>Of course, the same objection might be made about healing, or any other aspect of character ill-health or resource depletion. The difference with Raise Dead is that (i) character death precludes playing the game in a way that character injury or poverty often does not, and (ii) frequent (and somewhat mundane) return of characters from death is not a typicaly fantasy trope.</p><p></p><p></p><p>As I said, most published campaigns and modules assume that PCs are good - so in that respect, it sounds like the games you play in deviate from the (published) norm.</p><p></p><p>The difficulty with downplaying alignment at present is that quite a few parts of the mechanics - eg spell effects, weapon effects, smite abilities etc - refer to it. Sorting out how alignment is to be understood and applied would improve the game.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I hope I've made things clearer.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 3712922, member: 42582"] I'll try and explain a bit more. Fair enough. But skills and feats can effect AC, hp, BAB, so what you're saying is that many NPCs are partial or approximated. A better ruleset would, in my view, actually address this issue of generic NPCs, rather than leave it to GM handwaving. 3E doesn't do this, and indeed the rules for NPC classes in the DMG combined with the rules for monster building in Savage Species and the MMs imply that all NPCs look exactly like PCs. And the plethora of errors in WoTC stat blocks shows that these rules are too hard. Here is a different way of coming at the issue: if it doesn't matter that your NPCs are only partial or approximated, why are the rules going into the level of detail that they do? D20 modern (and I gather SW Saga) tackle this issue with rules for non-heroic NPCs, which I gather are much easier to build than heroic NPCs and PCs. 1st-ed also tackled this issue, by having distinct rules for 0-level commoners, 0-level soldiers, mercenary captains, sea captains, sages etc. Although the rules presentation was very patchy, what was given was (in effect) a set of rules for constructing generic NPCs. Maybe in some conceptual sense it's good that SR and saves are separate - I'm not concerned with that question. But what it means in practical terms is that any attempt at resolving a spell typically involves two rolls: one for SR, one for save. If it is a ray or touch spell, there's also the attack roll. This is too many rolls. It makes the game needlessly complex. Rolemaster -itself hardly the smoothest ruleset out there - resolved this issue 25 years ago. D&D has two sorts of rewards: XPs (which make PCs better by giving them intrinsic abilities) and treasure (which makes PCs better by giving them magic items). The latter is clearly an in-game resource also. The former, however, is awarded according to a metagame logic (ie players who succeed at the premise of the game, by overcoming challenges, earn XPs for their PCs) and it is difficult to assign it an in-game interpretation. Nevertheless, aspects of the magic rules treat XPs as an in-game resource. But what is the nature of this resource? I have read some suggestions that XPs measure "spiritual power". But in that case, why is the only way to build up "spiritual power" by overcoming challenges? It makes no in-game sense. Thus the incoherence. A coherent ruleset would treat XP purely as a metagame device. A 10th level fighter can trivially beat a lion in hand to hand combat (far more hit points, better BAB, comparable ST, comparable damage per hit). In real-world terms this is a near-impossible feat. Thus, the combat aspects of D&D are aimed at the highest of high-fantasy. On the other hand, a 10th level fighter can probably not sneak past the typical town guard to save his life (few skill points, probably none in Move Silently or Hide). This is ultra-gritty. This generates a tension within the gameworld - is it a world of over-the-top heroics, as the combat portions of the rules suggest, or a game of gritty survival, as the skill system suggests? I mentioned RM and RQ because they resolve this dilemma in favour of grittiness, having skill systems not unlike that of D&D but combat systems that are far from ultra-heroic. Dropping Raise Dead is a house rule. Played from the book, Raise Dead (and its kin) are in the game. In effect, they constitute ways of spending significant amounts of resources (given the material component costs, and the level-loss in many cases) in order to avoid character death. But in the process the action (at least for the player of the dead PC) grinds to a halt. Fate Points provide an alternative resource, purely metagame, for achieving a similar outcome without the interruption to action. Of course, the same objection might be made about healing, or any other aspect of character ill-health or resource depletion. The difference with Raise Dead is that (i) character death precludes playing the game in a way that character injury or poverty often does not, and (ii) frequent (and somewhat mundane) return of characters from death is not a typicaly fantasy trope. As I said, most published campaigns and modules assume that PCs are good - so in that respect, it sounds like the games you play in deviate from the (published) norm. The difficulty with downplaying alignment at present is that quite a few parts of the mechanics - eg spell effects, weapon effects, smite abilities etc - refer to it. Sorting out how alignment is to be understood and applied would improve the game. I hope I've made things clearer. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
3E sucks, but keep playing it for next few months
Top