An Examination of Differences between Editions

[dcas]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.