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

[Mouseferatu]

But for some reason I'm not seeing nearly as many purely random low-level deaths in 3.5 as was the case in AD&D (like, um, 1 vs. far too many to count... ).

Well, just to add a counter-point, I've seen--and, I must admit, personally experienced --more random deaths in 3E than I did in AD&D.

 

[Glyfair]

Well, just to add a counter-point, I've seen--and, I must admit, personally experienced --more random deaths in 3E than I did in AD&D.

I imagine that's group specific. A lot of the AD&D "accidental deaths" I remember seeing or hearing about where because the DM didn't really have a grip on appropriate challenges. There were only a few guidelines about that in AD&D, and it wasn't very systematic but more based on DMs intelligence guided by experience. More experienced DMs saw less of this.

3E has more guidelines to give less experienced DMs a better feel for appropriate encounters (even if it isn't completely accurate, as some want). However, there are a lot more random areas of the game for that sort of "accidental death." Off the top of my head, 3E has a critical hit system that AD&D lacked.

In fact, that's another group specific variable. AD&D had a lot of groups that loved criticals & fumbles. Having some of the more severe systems definitely would add to the random deaths. Take the RQ critical system where you could fumble and critical hit yourself to the head and kill yourself just because of poor rolls.

 

[Mark CMG]

But that doesn't really address MerricB's comment. If there's literally no use of any D&D rules, are you playing D&D?

There's never really such a situation. Nearly only roleplaying, as he first states it above, between the players and the DM still requires the DM to be keeping it in perspective internally with rules, surmising possible consequences for actions taken, doling out descriptions of environs and encounters based on the developing (so-called) narratives*, etc. even if the rules are not apparent and/or overtly expressed. And that's still D&D. It's just that most of the hard and fast rules are built up around the more finite and more easily quantified D&D experiences, like combat.



*Never cared for the word "narrative" in relation to gaming as it seems to imply something that has already happened rather than something that is currently developing.

 

[reutbing0]

There's never really such a situation. Nearly only roleplaying, as he first states it above, between the players and the DM still requires the DM to be keeping it in perspective internally with rules, surmising possible consequences for actions taken, doling out descriptions of environs and encounters based on the developing (so-called) narratives*, etc. even if the rules are not apparent and/or overtly expressed. And that's still D&D. It's just that most of the hard and fast rules are built up around the more finite and more easily quantified D&D experiences, like combat.

Fair enough, even though I would be inclined to say that such a person is playing a free-form fantasy RPG in the D&D universe rather than playing the D&D Game (tm). But I certainly see your point.

 

[Hussar]

For clarity's sake: Lolth, as written, from Q1:
Snip for brevity.

Heh, I solo'd Queen of the Demonweb pits with a 14th level paladin armed with aforementioned Hammer of Thunderbolts. Took exactly 1 round to kill Lloth since I was pumping out 50 points of damage per hit and with a +5 weapon, +6 strength bonus and a THACO of what 7? I pretty much couldn't miss.

That's how powerful high level characters could get in 1e when you played nothing but modules.

 

[Hussar]

OK, that makes sense, certainly do stupid thing still equals make pretty red spot on walls and/or ceiling for the next group through to find*. But for some reason I'm not seeing nearly as many purely random low-level deaths in 3.5 as was the case in AD&D (like, um, 1 vs. far too many to count... ). I wonder if that's down to better-equipped (and significantly less, y'know, pre-teen-ish) players, me maturing as a DM over the last 20 years, or the CR system smoothing out the "random batch of trolls vs. 1st level party" thing... (I'm betting it's a bit of each).

*If the dungeon you're in is at all known (ie: you found it to get inside in the first place, and there's no adventurer-stains, that's a good sign there's a gelatinous cube about... )

EDITED TO ADD: I would have thought that the introduction of critical hits would have made up for the lack of the AD&D wandering monster tables, but so far it has not in my games...

In my current World's Largest Dungeon game, we've just finished our 69th session and I've whacked 21 PC's. 14 permanently. I've never seen this much carnage in earlier editions for one simple fact - 3e creatures do FAR more damage in a round than earlier edition creatures do. Most creatures of a given CR can kill most PC's in a single round of full attacks with a bit of luck. And, considering I only have to get lucky once, while the players have to get lucky in every fight, well, the odds definitely favour the house.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's when I see people who talk wistfully of "sense of wonder" or other Sim- and Nar-drifted experiences that I see dissatisfaction. What I don't get is why these people don't just give all the cool RPGs that aren't D&D, and that fit their needs to a "T", a shot.

That's simple, for me anyway.

I am not yet done re-writing all of the rules to make a ruleset that fits my needs to a "T".


RC

 

[WayneLigon]

3e, no matter what you do to it, still feels like WotC's game...much as modified Monopoly still feels like Parker Bros.' game...there's much less of that sense of personal investment. And that's a key difference between the editions.

I look at 3E as more like 'my' game than any previous edition because it's the first edition I have not had to use extensive house rules or third party add-ons to make it playable, useful, and enjoyable. This is the edition that brought every gamer I know back to D&D because beforehand we could stomach it for a little while but eventually had to play something else for a while to get the taste out of our mouths.

 

[Mark CMG]

Fair enough, even though I would be inclined to say that such a person is playing a free-form fantasy RPG in the D&D universe rather than playing the D&D Game (tm). But I certainly see your point.

I would be inclined to agree if the group didn't normally play D&D and the DM wasn't base his decisions and adjudicating situations based on of D&D rules.

However, in the circumstance I'm discussing, it is a D&D group who regularly plays D&D but simply has a period of time in which its mostly, maybe even all, roleplaying so that the dice don't get used and no rules need be discussed. It's perfectly reasonable, for instance, for a DM to decide that a series of actions can be taken and that if they are done in a careful manner he will allow the most likely result, often the most favorable result, to be the consequence. The players might even be in a position to describe their actions in such a way as to make the results of those actions a foregone conclusion. It might even be that events are transpiring that make results the players are not intending to be a foregone conclusion.

For instance, the PCs might be of such power or renown in a region that when they describe traveling from one community to another, you know that they can do so unaccosted, and so you simply give a description of that travel without any dice rolling or discussion or rules. Or, perhaps, you simply don't want the focus of the game at that time to be on potential wandering encounters between the towns. This is an example that happens time after time in D&D games. Obviously, in that light, I am sure any DM could think of many more such situations.

I realize you were agreeing to some extent but I thought I would take a moment to make my point a bit more clear.

 

[reutbing0]

I would be inclined to agree if the group didn't normally play D&D and the DM wasn't base his decisions and adjudicating situations based on of D&D rules.

<SNIP>

I realize you were agreeing to some extent but I thought I would take a moment to make my point a bit more clear.

Agreed, that's a case where the inner logic and inner workings of D&D are internalized to such an extent that the rules do not need to be made explicit as the DM is perfectly capable of adjudicating the game without resorting to a written rule.