An Examination of Differences between Editions

[JRRNeiklot]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.