Does 3E/3.5 dictate a certain style of play?

[sniffles]

AD&D seemed designed to recreate the worlds of classic fantasy fiction. 3.X Edition seems designed to recreate the worlds of computer gaming. The first was intended for a literate audience (although it didn't always work out that way in practice, of course). The designers of 3.X edition seem to have realized that few people read classic fantasy anymore, so they changed the basic assumptions of the game accordingly.

Trying to play 3.X edition without buying into the whole powergamer mentality is an ecercise in frustration. The ENTIRE game is balanced in a way that penalizes any player whose character is not maximized for tactical combat and dripping with magic items. I also absolutely refuse to DM a 3.X Edition game, because I find its magic-heavy premise ridiculous, adventure prep about as much fun as doing taxes, and its combat system excruciatingly slow and boring. I have tried adjusting the rules to my style of play, and found that I had to change so much that it became just too much work for something that's supposed to be fun.

The old-style game is now represented by Castles & Crusades. It should tell you something that the co-creator and main creative mind of D&D prefers C&C to the overgrown mess that is 3.X edition.

I can't understand these assertions at all.

I admit I haven't played OD&D at all, and only a limited amount of heavily house-ruled AD&D. So I can't really effectively compare 3E to the earlier versions of the game. But I find that 3E is entirely suitable to a roleplay-heavy, non-power-game campaign as I understand those terms. I've been playing in such games ever since 3E was released.

In my opinion, all it takes to get rid of the power-gamer aspects of the game is a group of players who are interested in something other than that. It doesn't matter what system you're playing.

 

[thedungeondelver]

The original poster to whom I replied said this:

But those games did not have the options to advance weaken ogres like todays game to make ogres a challenge at any level.

I showed him that in a quick-and-dirty fashion that yes, yes I can weaken ogres or strengthen them. Then you had this aneurism:

And what, pray tell, prevents you from doing this in 3.0 or 3.5? Not the CR system, nothing in any of the Monster Manuals, DMG...you need to, at the least, take a look at those before trying to support your point with, frankly, utter bull. Your point here is unsupported by the rules, therefore pretty much negating any rules argument you might be trying to make.

So I don't know what you're on about. *plonk*

 

[thedungeondelver]

Certainly not. Midgard, a german RPG that's like 10-15 years older than D&D3E, utilized battlemats in a similar fashion already (including something akin to AoO; but also with actual facing rules). And it might not even have been the first there.

Bye
Thanee

You know this is the one thing that always makes me laugh at my fellow 1e players - the complaint about minis and D&D "these days". I've always taken a very wargame-y approach to AD&D. I've got a shedload of minis (Reaper, thanks; I don't care for plastics) and Dwarven Forge and things tend to get pretty tactical at my table - up to the point they can. There's still a lot of abstraction going on. But anyway, the Dungeon Master's Guide goes in to mini use at length. So the arguments that somehow d20 D&D has suddenly thrown in minis as a must-buy rule strike me as a little odd.

 

[buzz]

You see me now a veteran of a thousand edition wars
I've been living on ENWorld so long
Where the flames of d02 hat roar
And I'm young enough to look at
And far too old to see
All the scars are on the forums
I'm not sure if there's anything left of me

Dont let these threads go on
It's time we had a break from it
It's time we had some leave
We've been living in the flames
Posting arguments so lame
Oh, please dont let these threads go on

You ask me why I'm weary, why I can't post to you
You blame me for my lurking
Say it's time I logged off and grew
But the wars still going on dear
And there's no end that I know
And I can't say if were ever...
I can't say if were ever gonna to be free

Dont let these threads go on
It's time we had a break from it
It's time we had some leave
We've been living in the flames
Posting arguments so lame
Oh, please dont let theses threads go on

You see me now a veteran of a thousand edition wars
My fingers spent at last
And my Buddy List is destroyed
I have used up all my smilies and I'm helpless and bereaved
Wounds are all I'm made of
Did I hear you say that this is victory?

Dont let these threads go on
It's time we had a break from it
Send me to the Rules Forum
Where the tides of madness swell
And been sliding into hell
Oh, please dont let threads go on
Dont let these threads go on
Dont let these threads go on

 

[molonel]

This makes me wonder-were previous editions actually more flexible in their styles of play? You could play with miniatures or without, could ramp up the power level and still find suitable opponents, could turn down the power level and still have appropriate challenges-but now, with magic items much easier to manufacture, and even seeming to be a necessity these days, and powerful monsters routinely having CRs over 20, I wonder whether it's even possible to enjoy a lower-tone style of play anymore.

Were they more flexible? As in, 1st Edition and 2nd Edition AD&D?

Yes, no and it depends.

Yes, in some senses, they were more flexible in that certain game mechanics were not defined. I read a thread on this forum one time where someone typed out the description of how to write scrolls from a 1st Edition book, and compared it to a 3rd Edition book. The former read a little like something out of a fantasy novel. The latter sounded like it had been written by an accountant. The former had reference to collecting rare materials, and penning on rare, specially prepared parchment using quills plucked freshly from a cockatrice, or somesuch.

The only problem was, the 1st Edition book said absolutely nothing about the mechanics to use in writing scrolls. A lot of people didn't even make scrolls in 1st Edition. Since it was undefined, in a sense, it was more flexible. But it's rare to encounter a mid-level wizard in 3rd Edition that does NOT make scrolls. Because he doesn't need to ask the DM for every single cotton-picking thing about the process. It's all right there in the core PHB. If he wants to make a scroll, and has the time, boom! He does it.

No, in the sense that earlier editions of the game had their own constraints. In 1st Edition, every fighter wielded a longsword, and wore full plate with a shield. Unless you used Unearthed Arcana, all rangers and paladins were human. In 2nd Edition, elven bladesingers were all the rage for a while. Level limitations on demihuman races made no sense whatsoever.

It all depended on how you ran the game then, and how you run it now.

Kingdoms of Kalamar and the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, with their predominance of characters under 20th level, seems to suggest that you can still have enjoyable adventures without powergaming, but I can't help but feel that I'd have to take several hit dice off some of the more powerful monsters (reduce the number of hit dice for giants from what it is now to around 8-12, so they can have class levels without having their CRs go through the roof, reduce the hit dice for a monster like the ocean strider from 36 to, say, 12), or drastically cut down the magic item counts and levels of various NPCs (Elminster is "only" a 27th level wizard, Red Wizards only sell potions and scrolls at their magic shops, 10th level is the benchmark for 'exceptional', few if any Epic-level abilities not specifically plot-related, etc.)

As some other folks have already pointed out, you're crunching a lot of unrelated complaints into one post. There are so many ways to curtail powergaming in D&D that it's not even funny.

Rule 0 is the first one to remember.

The second rule is to control what materials are used in your game. In my games, only the core rules are certain, and even then, I've made changes. Shadowdancers annoy me, so they don't exist. Hide in Plain Sight is a Rogue special ability that isn't available before 13th level. Paladins don't get Sense Evil. Instead, they get a scaling divine bonus to Sense Motive. And so on, and so forth.

So, in a nutshell I'm wondering if it's possible to have that kind of "toned-down" campaign without screwing everything up?

\

Of course it is, and the DMG provides suggestions for how to do so. There are alternate rules sets, like Midnight and Conan, if you want something off the shelf.

Or just make up your own rules, and change them to suit the style and taste of play that you want in your game.

 

[howandwhy99]

For the OP: you're answer is an uncategorical Yes.

RPGs could be played in a library using high level math and Pchem books as rules, but that doesn't make it fun. Rules influence what most players will be willing to do in a game. In aggregate, we all seek the least path of resistance. By making d20 easier to modify in some respects and more difficult to houserule in others it shapes predominate styles of play.

"Playing the rules" doesn't necessarily mean players ignoring any aspect of the game that isn't covered by the rules. Nor does it mean being creative with the rules and only the rules. It can also mean when the players have run up against the limits of a rule and cannot get past it without extensive redesigning.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Just for the record, I think the part about "routinely high CRs" was misinterpreted. I meant monsters that have class levels, like giants, aboleth, mind flayers, and other sentient creatures that could have class abilities. If a fire giant king like Snurre Iron Belly was a fifth level fighter, by 3E standards with the increased hit dice, what would that do to his CR? How could 11th-13th level characters take him on if they only have a few magic items between them?

Hmm. If I answer that, do I confess to having ranks in profession: powergamer? The long and the short of it is that 11th-13th 3.x characters would take on Snurre with only a few magic items between them by:

A. Creating the most ridiculously multiclassed characters ever, borrowing from five splatbooks (with or without erratta, depending upon which version was more useful) in order to create characters who were powerful enough to succeed without magic items.

B. Ridiculous rules exploits (if each pint of flaming oil does 1d6 damage, how much does a five gallon barrel of flaming oil do? if I fling it at the BBG using Telekinesis? Answer--it doesn't matter against Snurre, but if you let each pint do 1d6, it does more damage than being immersed in boiling lava).

C. All being spellcasters who could use long-term spells to partially make up for their lack of magic items. (The battle cleric, for instance, doesn't suffer nearly as much as the fighter or paladin from a lack of magic items; similarly, an arcane trickster can deal with a lack of magic items more easily than a single-classed rogue). I noticed a lot of this in RPGA living campaigns three years or so ago when they were either trying to be low-wealth or the characters were still recovering from spending levels 3-7 or so in a low-wealth environment.

D. Clever strategy and tactics.

E. Dull but effective strategy and tactics that capitalize on a gaping weakness of the creature (ie cast a widened entangle and a few evards' black tentacles spells, ray of enfeeble him, and then fly away from him while shooting him until he dies).

The most likely answer is a combination of all of the above. In my experience, however, the more overmatched and underequipped the PCs feel, the more likely that A and B are going to figure prominently among their means of handling the situation.

Of course, from what I remember, the answer would have been the same in earlier editions with the exception that there were a lot more ridiculous rules exploits to make because there were either only rules that the DM made up on the spot or there were five different sets of rules for any given situation, and one of them was bound to be exploitable.

I must admit I liked the scenarios like in the old Giants series where the players could be fighting a mob of giants, or taking on Snurre in his throne room, which-at least judging by the responses in some other threads-are much more difficult. Monsters are much more lethal, or at least they can be.

I think the long and the short of it is that you aren't really looking for a "toned down" game. From the sounds of this, you want a hopped up one where PCs can triumph over fire giants at 5th level and over Snurre at 10th level. 3.x definitely made a lot of monsters more lethal and more durable and thus upped the levels where they could be taken on. If you don't like D&D games past 11th level or so, then this could be a problem for you if you want to run all of the high level stories for low-mid level characters without changing any of the rules. It would be quite possible to get that effect by changing things up (if you give ogres the fire subtype and change their equipment, you could call them all fire giants and run the stories you want to run five or six levels lower than you would do when using fire giants, but that involves more work than running straight out of the book and leaves you with less room at the low end of the power scale, so while it's fine if you want to play one mod, if you want to start from 1st level and scale up traditionally, you'll be missing the mid levels).

 

[VirgilCaine]

B. Ridiculous rules exploits (if each pint of flaming oil does 1d6 damage, how much does a five gallon barrel of flaming oil do? if I fling it at the BBG using Telekinesis? Answer--it doesn't matter against Snurre, but if you let each pint do 1d6, it does more damage than being immersed in boiling lava).

A barrel of flaming oil, [Scotty]how quaint![/Scotty]

Use one wizard to Fabricate a large glass kettle-shape while another is Major Creating a large amount of oil inside the kettle...TK that at the ice giants.

E. Dull but effective strategy and tactics that capitalize on a gaping weakness of the creature (ie cast a widened entangle and a few evards' black tentacles spells, ray of enfeeble him, and then fly away from him while shooting him until he dies).

Where's Snurre's bag of rocks...or, since he's civilized, bags of slag chunks or lead eggs?

 

[CruelSummerLord]

Hmm. If I answer that, do I confess to having ranks in profession: powergamer? The long and the short of it is that 11th-13th 3.x characters would take on Snurre with only a few magic items between them by:

...

I think the long and the short of it is that you aren't really looking for a "toned down" game. From the sounds of this, you want a hopped up one where PCs can triumph over fire giants at 5th level and over Snurre at 10th level. 3.x definitely made a lot of monsters more lethal and more durable and thus upped the levels where they could be taken on. If you don't like D&D games past 11th level or so, then this could be a problem for you if you want to run all of the high level stories for low-mid level characters without changing any of the rules. It would be quite possible to get that effect by changing things up (if you give ogres the fire subtype and change their equipment, you could call them all fire giants and run the stories you want to run five or six levels lower than you would do when using fire giants, but that involves more work than running straight out of the book and leaves you with less room at the low end of the power scale, so while it's fine if you want to play one mod, if you want to start from 1st level and scale up traditionally, you'll be missing the mid levels).

I hope this will not be taken as hijacking the thread, but I would like to respond if I may:

I never intended to denigrate powergamers. I was merely asking whether 3E/3.5 required a certain amount of "power-gaming" with the need for numerous magic items to balance out encounters, and the advent of monsters with classes leading to very high CRs. The conclusion I've drawn is that this is true to a certain extent, and some gamers dislike it, but as others have pointed out, alternatives exist and it is certainly possible to iron out these difficulties. Some people pointed out that my fears were in many respects unfounded (Merric being a particular example) and for that I am grateful.

If some gamers enjoy a style of play that has the players acquiring many magical items and quickly reaching high levels, then all power to them. There are some that do not, and I am one of them. If I offended anyone, I apologize. Such was not my intent.

I do not think being rude or sarcastic necessarily makes for a better discussion. I do not believe I have acted that way, but that is of course for others to decide. And by the same token, I do not appreciate being mocked when I ask what I feel is a legitimate enough question.

 

[MerricB]

If I may,

3e and 1e tend to diverge in play style after 12th level. Until them, they're actually pretty similar in terms of magic items, power levels and the like. PCs don't really have many magic items from levels 1-10 - possibly more smaller items than 1e, but not much more.

Of course, 1e play above 12th level was pretty rare. Demi-humans were no longer really worth it, and there wasn't really much support for it. We may have seen more if Gygax had remained with TSR - see the expanded high-level rules in Isle of the Ape, but alas! that didn't happen.

3e does have a higher level gain than 1e, but it is easy to adjust. I did when I was playing weekly in my main campaign; as my main campaign plays fortnightly, it feels just right.

Cheers!