Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3397313" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think it's true that D&D 3E, in virtue of its (mostly) coherent and highly developed ruleset, is prone to lead to quite a different play experience from earlier editions. The GM has lost the power "to create the gameplay experience he wants and believes to most fun for his players" in the way that s/he might have done in AD&D 1st Ed, because (as Celebrim's example shows) the rules don't support that sort of experience.That is  not to say that the GM can't shape the play experience in a different way. By deploying D&D 3E's very well-developed repertoire of encounter and treasure design options, the GM can have a big impact on the details of play. I don't think that this degree of sophistication in encounter design was supported by earlier editions (eg the guidelines in ch 7 of the RC just don't compare, and AD&D had nothing at all) - hence the comparative prevalence, in those editions, of other sorts of challenges (again, like Celebrim's example).As far as player empowerment goes, I actually see D&D 3E as a very clever combination of a game-design model and a business model. The game-design model is to empower players with the tools they need to build the characters they want to play (Feats, PrC, races etc) and to support an approach to play (detailed mechanics, comparatively rapid levelling, etc) which makes those player choices meaningful, and also allows a fairly high turnover of such choices.The business model is to release those choices in comparatively expensive hardback books, which players then spend money on. There is a further synergy between this business model, and the game-design model: it is harder (in an emotional or social sense) for a GM to say No to a player's request to implement an option when the player has paid money for it. Thus, by releasing player options in expensive books WoTC not only makes money but further empowers players to pursue the character options that they are interested in.I think this is related to the design goal of a high rate of turnover for implementing player choices in relation to character design. That is, this high rate of turnover has further consequences for play. For example, it reduces the appeal of domain-management play, because the power-level of the campaign never settles down in the way that you have described for RC play, and which seems to be a pre-requisite for domain-management play; BAB and hit points do not remain static, for example.This high turnover of options also supports the GM in building varied encounters, because the PC parameters against which those encounters must be balanced are constantly changing. Again, the role of the GM is not necessarily diminished, but it certainly is changed.You may be referring here to AD&D 2nd Ed, with which I have had comparatively little experience. I haven't found it to be true of AD&D 1st Ed, which tends to play in the same way as you characterise RC D&D: at high levels, the players' focus tends to turn to in-game matters that are not related to their character's personal improvement.Of course, this is a significant change in the play experience itself between low and high levels, which leads to many campaigns winding down or PCs being retired. It is a clear design goal of 3E (including its Epic rules) to avoid this aspect of earlier editions.</blockquote>

Verification