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

[CruelSummerLord]

Times have changed.

This was said in response to something I posted on another thread, about how 6th level being exceptional and magic items scarce, as EGG wrote in the late 1970s, were major factors in shaping my views on D&D. It was pointed out by another contributor that 3E/3.5 is designed to allow players access to many magical items, and that imbalances occur if the DM messes with this.

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.

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.)

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

If I seem like a bitter old-timer, I'm actually not: I'm only 24. I must admit that I hate the idea of magic being a cheap commodity (the DMs' Option: High Level Campaigns book featured a drawing of a wizard pushing a shopping cart down an aisle, examining various magic wands available in a bin), and find the sheer numbers of variant races/templates/fusions bewildering (if dwarven innkeepers bar customers just for being elves or humans, and mercenary guilds deny membership to certain people because they are women, elves or halflings, what chance does a person who is so obviously unusual have of thriving in a world where racial and sexual discrimination are a very unfortunate but very real part of life?), to say nothing of prestige classes (I prefer to take the existing classes and make role-playing/ability variations as needed).

So, in this day and age, am I completely out of step? Is there still any place for non-powergamers around the game table?

 

[Crothian]

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. Run the game you want to run and don't get bullied by what the books seem to indicate. They don't really dictate any play style.

 

[DragonLancer]

So, in this day and age, am I completely out of step? Is there still any place for non-powergamers around the game table?

I'm in full agreement with you. Too much of 3.X is devoted to min/maxing, miniatures and the nessecary tactics that come with them.

Go with what you want to do. If you want to tone things down, then do it. Cut back on whatever aspects you find get in the way of the enjoyment of D&D.

 

[Psion]

So, in this day and age, am I completely out of step? Is there still any place for non-powergamers around the game table?

I find a lot of what you lament has nothing to do with power gaming.

However, I did gnash my teeth over some changes in 3.5 that make miniature use more implicit... but I manage nonetheless (mainly, the new concealment and facing rules). I stick with 3.0 rules and find it pretty easy to eschew minis where appropriate.

Regarding magic items... 3e sets a standard, one that was absent in prior editions. So if you throw the standard out the window, you are just as on your own as you were in earlier editions.

There are some variant products that can win you some of this back. Grim Tales (which has rules for magic-light campaign, and estimating power of characters without items) and Iron Heroes (which give PCs powers but assumes few or no items.)

 

[Seeten]

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

If I seem like a bitter old-timer, I'm actually not: I'm only 24. I must admit that I hate the idea of magic being a cheap commodity (the DMs' Option: High Level Campaigns book featured a drawing of a wizard pushing a shopping cart down an aisle, examining various magic wands available in a bin), and find the sheer numbers of variant races/templates/fusions bewildering (if dwarven innkeepers bar customers just for being elves or humans, and mercenary guilds deny membership to certain people because they are women, elves or halflings, what chance does a person who is so obviously unusual have of thriving in a world where racial and sexual discrimination are a very unfortunate but very real part of life?), to say nothing of prestige classes (I prefer to take the existing classes and make role-playing/ability variations as needed).

So, in this day and age, am I completely out of step? Is there still any place for non-powergamers around the game table?

The books exist to give options. DM's can pick and choose what exists in their game worlds. Magic Shops included. If your PC's dont have magic items, many monsters will be TPK's without fixes, so if you change the balance, you need to be willing to change the balance everywhere, creating some extra work.

Iron Heroes, by Mike Mearls can alleviate many of your headaches, tho

 

[Mouseferatu]

3E may be more geared toward certain play styles than others, but it can handle almost anything. IME, there's not a single sort of game that could be run with 1E/2E that cannot also be run with 3E.

I've run low-magic games. I've run mysteries. I've run brutal/savage games. I've also run games very close to "by-the-book." And I've had fun with all of 'em.

You don't want magic items easily available? Don't make them easily available. And ignore people who say "But that'll throw off the Challenge Rating system!" The CR system is an approximation anyway. As long as you, as DM, have some sense of how powerful your group is, and are willing to modify challenges and encounters accordingly, it doesn't matter how off the baseline you actually are.

 

[Andre]

This makes me wonder-were previous editions actually more flexible in their styles of play?

Yes, previous editions were more flexible, as the rules were less complete and detailed. The flexibility came from the very lack of rules, since more rules create more constraints when someone tries to modify the system to suit a particular playing style. Of course, the lack of rules also created limitations, as too many GM's were put in the role of game designer, for which most of us were not prepared.

The designers of 3.x have admitted many times that they had certain goals in mind when crafting the new rules, one of which was to limit the damage an arbitrary GM could cause. Another was an assumption when balancing classes and challenges that magic would be plentiful. And we were constantly warned when the game came out to be careful about introducing house rules without first trying the game as is, since changing one rule usually had significant unintended consequences. In short, the 3.x game system was designed to work best for a particular type of play, while also trying (somtimes unsuccessfully) to keep enough flexibility to suit a wide variety of gamers.

That said, if you're willing to do the work and your players trust you, a GM can use 3.x for many different play styles. Take a day or two to view the threads on these boards and you'll see that many (most?) are tweaking the game to some degree to match their preferences. Or, if you prefer, try out one of the new rules sets, ala Castles and Crusades or Iron Heroes to see if they better meet your needs.

By the way, rules never (IMO) dictate a particular style or play, but they should and do encourage particular styles.

 

[MerricB]

The difference with 3e is that there are now balancing tools you can feel free to ignore. It allows as great a freedom with how you play it as ever, and perhaps more.

(It should be noted that it was 2e, not 3e, that gave big power-ups to giants, something that I regret occuring).

There are a huge range of approaches to 3e. Psion is a big non-fan of new classes, but I (and my group) embrace them. There are people who use core rules only, there are people that use every supplement that comes out.

If I may comment on a few aspects of your post:

"You could play with miniatures or without"
If you need minis to play 3e, I'm in big trouble. I have over 2,000 D&D Minis, and I don't actually use them every session. In fact, 50% or more of sessions are probably played without minis. (I ran about 80 sessions of D&D last year...)

could ramp up the power level and still find suitable opponents
Hmm - I'd almost say there are more high-level opponents in 3e than before, actually.

could turn down the power level and still have appropriate challenges
Still a lot of low-level challenges.

powerful monsters routinely having CRs over 20
I must have missed something. There are still plenty of threats out there, many making good "boss" monsters and the like, which have CRs nowhere near 20.

It should be noted that most of the games I run play on a fortnightly basis, thus after a year of my main campaign the PCs are 10th level. If I were playing more often, I'd reduce XP awards to fit my playstyle (something that is discussed in the DMG).

Cheers!

 

[Glyfair]

Yes, previous editions were more flexible, as the rules were less complete and detailed. The flexibility came from the very lack of rules, since more rules create more constraints when someone tries to modify the system to suit a particular playing style. Of course, the lack of rules also created limitations, as too many GM's were put in the role of game designer, for which most of us were not prepared.

I think this is possibly a key difference between AD&D and 3E. AD&D gives great DMs more flexibility to tweak on the fly. However, when a non-great DM rules on the fly those rules can be quite flawed and over time build up. A slightly below average DM will have bad call build over bad call over time creating a truly bad game.

3E feels different. A great DM will probably still run a great game. However, they might feel constrained by the rules. Some DMs might not even be able to deal with it because they style is to ignore rules. Non-great DMs, on the other hand, will have more consistent games and the experience will be better for their players over time.

Of course, bad DMs will be a bad experience with any version of the game. However, a strong group of players in 3E might be able to make it playable (of course, it's probably better if one of the players takes over DMing).

 

[Crothian]

I'm in full agreement with you. Too much of 3.X is devoted to min/maxing, miniatures and the nessecary tactics that come with them.

Where is all this stuff that is devoted to min maxing, minis, and tactics? I've got a lot of books and these areas just are not in them.