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

[Psion]

The same was true in 1E and 2E. The ogres might not have had a CR number assigned, but that doesn't change the fact that they were dangerous against a party of X average level, a reasonable challenge for Y average level, and pushovers for Z average level. All the CR system does--with greater or lesser degree of accuracy--is express that particular difficulty level.

Yep. As was discussed in an earlier thread, the CR system was already there, it just provided a raw XP number instead of giving an "appropriate level of challenge."

 

[thedungeondelver]

The same was true in 1E and 2E. The ogres might not have had a CR number assigned, but that doesn't change the fact that they were dangerous against a party of X average level, a reasonable challenge for Y average level, and pushovers for Z average level. All the CR system does--with greater or lesser degree of accuracy--is express that particular difficulty level.

Well of course - some monsters are fit for lower level parties, some for higher level. That's kind of bread and butter to all games that fall in to this sort of system. Heck, that's pretty much universal, I'd say.

I frown on a system that dictates to DMs when - exactly - they can and can't challenge their players with certain obstacles. Heck, would you think an ogre and an owlbear were overpowered for a 1e* group of four adventurers (one of whom was a spellcaster, the other a thief)? Sounds pretty nasty, yet that same encounter was overcome by a group I ran back in '99. They used their brains and good tactics and not a little bit of deceit and were able to pull down the big win. It was neat to watch and a pleasure to DM, but the current system simply says "The numbers don't add up, don't do that."

 

[Mouseferatu]

Well of course - some monsters are fit for lower level parties, some for higher level. That's kind of bread and butter to all games that fall in to this sort of system. Heck, that's pretty much universal, I'd say.

I frown on a system that dictates to DMs when - exactly - they can and can't challenge their players with certain obstacles. Heck, would you think an ogre and an owlbear were overpowered for a 1e* group of four adventurers (one of whom was a spellcaster, the other a thief)? Sounds pretty nasty, yet that same encounter was overcome by a group I ran back in '99. They used their brains and good tactics and not a little bit of deceit and were able to pull down the big win. It was neat to watch and a pleasure to DM, but the current system simply says "The numbers don't add up, don't do that."

And I disagree with your assessment that the current system dictates "exactly" when the DM can use certain monsters. Just like the XP rewards in 1E, the CR system in 3E is a guideline, not a hard-and-fast rule. I've seen parties in 3E overcome challenges far above their level through good tactics or good luck. I've threatened parties with creatures far below their CR, as well.

It's no less about how the monsters and the PCs are run now than it was in 1E or 2E. It's just that the guideline is now stated overtly, rather than implied.

(And for the record, the book even says outright that CR vs. party level is a guideline, not a rule.)

 

[Crothian]

that if I put the players up against, say, a couple of ogres at the wrong point then they were dogmeat (because after all the ogres now have feats and abilities, too), but then at another juncture it was a yawnfest for the players because said ogres were pushovers. Therefore they only came at the exactly right mathematically correct time.

I'm not sure what this has to do with how fast characters level in the game.

But even in the older versions of the game ogres were really only a challenge at certain levels. But those games did not have the options to advance weaken ogres like todays game to make ogres a challenge at any level.

 

[Psion]

I frown on a system that dictates to DMs when - exactly - they can and can't challenge their players with certain obstacles.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

It doesn't dictate to you. It warns you. In fact, there's a section in the 3e DMG that discusses planning around the party or leaving encounters that aren't keyed to a party's level.

It's really all on you as the DM. Really.

 

[Crothian]

the current system simply says "The numbers don't add up, don't do that."

No, it actually doesn't do that at all. It says that if a lower level party defeats them that maybe the DM should award more XP since that encounter would be more challenging. The only thing the CR systems says is that encounters 10 higher or lower then the party level should only be encounter under special circumstances. But even those the game does not right out forbid. The DM runs the game.

 

[CruelSummerLord]

Interesting responses all around. It's quite a relief to see that my fears are apparently unfounded, for the most part. I've also noticed that I'm much better at the fluff parts of RPGs-background, stories, personalities, etc.-than the crunchy nuts and bolts. I admit that what works in games doesn't necessarily work in novels, but I must still say that worlds with broadly defined professions, a variety of sentient races that are either friendly with or hostile to humanity, with their own histories, cultures and outlooks on life, and a variety of recognizable monster species the likes of which fantasy RPGs have influenced my preferences on fantasy. That's not to say that I don't consider D&D fantasy the only kind that can exist, but rather that it shaped my own preference. Gygax's early writings, those which had less to do with how the game was presented or handled than parts of its actual content-the parts about magic items and levels-were a major influence. If EGG said one thing and did another, I still picked up on his writings.

I suspect that the problem comes from seeing the bloated (by my standards) power levels one sees in the supplements of the likes of Sean K. Reynolds. Many of the recent Kingdoms of Kalamar modules prove otherwise, it seems.

 

[CruelSummerLord]

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?

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.

And it's nice to see that there are other people out there who agree with me, of course.

 

[Crothian]

Interesting responses all around. It's quite a relief to see that my fears are apparently unfounded, for the most part. I've also noticed that I'm much better at the fluff parts of RPGs-background, stories, personalities, etc.-than the crunchy nuts and bolts.

I suspect that the problem comes from seeing the bloated (by my standards) power levels one sees in the supplements of the likes of Sean K. Reynolds. Many of the recent Kingdoms of Kalamar modules prove otherwise, it seems.

All you need is players that match the style of game you want to run and then find those books that also match the style of game you want to run. And that can be harder then it sounds at times, but I find that the people one games with actually can dictate the style of play much more then any book.

 

[thedungeondelver]

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Frown?

It doesn't dictate to you. It warns you.

Oh. Well, no, I don't agree with that. But whatevs.