[EDITION WARZ] Selling Out D&D's Soul?

[Henry]

Stop, stop, stop, stop, stop.

You're doing it again.

Intellectual dishonesty.

First of all, let's avoid calling each other dishonest, or, in common parlance, "LYING."

Message from the Admin.


Now, my personal message:

KM is probably getting that from some of the statements he's seeing here, such as mine and other peoples' about how the game was almost ALWAYS modified by somebody's house rules. If the majority of people who played earlier editions changed the core rules, then it's a valid observation to make. Now, there were LOTS of people who probably played with no alterations whatsoever -- using weapon speeds, using weapon vs. armor type, using the grappling rules, using Staves of the Magi and ROds of Lordly Might, Decks of many things, using the initiative rules from 1E exactly as written, etc. -- but I really haven't seen them, and none of the people so far who have replied have said they did, either. Even if some did, it's still a minority compared to the many who did..

 

[WizarDru]

The longer this discussion goes on, the more I expect Yu-Gi-Oh to show up and start talking about 'the heart of the cards'.

More and more, I think the 'soul of D&D' is another word for Nostalgia.

 

[Henry]

More and more, I think the 'soul of D&D' is another word for Nostalgia.

I still have to disagree, because there is a strong delineation between player/DM trust that keeps coming up every time it's discussed. by default, the 3E rules don't seem to trust either.

 

[diaglo]

I still have to disagree, because there is a strong delineation between player/DM trust that keeps coming up every time it's discussed. by default, the 3E rules don't seem to trust either.

i read this too in the message boards i visit.

something is different.

diaglo "who used weapon vs armor type in his campaigns" Ooi

 

[Henry]

diaglo "who used weapon vs armor type in his campaigns" Ooi

Darn, I forgot that one in my list! Thanks!

 

[Numion]

The game isn't about competing any more, it's about making sure nobody's feelings get hurt.

I guess it depends in the group - some in my group are very competetive. The current edition is much deadlier than earlier editions, and this has created a playing environment which has nothing to do with how you portray the game to be.

D&D used to be about winning against the odds. Now it's about powerleveling, twinking, and making sure that nobody and nothing - including the DM - gets in the way. The rules are designed to that end. In my AD&D game, I put my party up against a red dragon. Hell, I had no idea if they'd win. Maybe they'd lose. Maybe - just maybe - they'd lose a lot of the party and have to retreat, have to come up with a way around the critter.

I've had much more character deaths in 3E than in previous editions. I also guess that you don't know how the CR system works. The DMG gives guidelines what ELs (or CRs) you should put against what level of groups. It suggests that part of the encounters should be 5 or over the groups average level. That will kill PCs.

How's that fit your theory? :\

 

[MerricB]

I still have to disagree, because there is a strong delineation between player/DM trust that keeps coming up every time it's discussed. by default, the 3E rules don't seem to trust either.

"The danger of a mutable system is that you or your players will go too far in some undesirable direction and end up with a short-lived campaign. Participants will always be pushing for a game which allows them to become strong and powerful far too quickly. Each will attempt to take the game out of your own hands and mold it to his or her ends. To satisfy this natural desire is to issue a death warrant to a campaign, for it will either be a one-player affair or the players will desert en masse for something more challenging or equitable. Similarly, you must avoid the tendency to drift into areas foreign to the games as a whole. Such campaigns become so strange as to no longer "AD&D". They are isolated and will usually wither. Variation and difference are desirable, but both should be kept within the boundaries of the overall system...

"...In fact, what I have attempted is to cram everything vital to the game into this book, so that you will be as completely equipped as possible to face the ravenous packs of players lurking in the shadows, waiting to pounce on the unwary referee and devour him or her at the first opportunity.

"Thus, beyond the systems, I have made every effort to give the reasoning and justification for the game... And while there are no optionals for the major systems of ADVANCED D&D (for uniformity of rules and procedures from game to game, campaign to campaign, is stressed), there are plenty of areas where your own creativity and imagination are not bounded by the parameters of the game system..." - Gary Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide

"Every rule in the Player's Handbook was written for a reason. That doesn't mean you can't change some rules for your own game. Perhaps your players don't like the way initiative is determined, or you find that the rules for learning new spells are too limiting... Still, changing the way the game does something shouldn't be taken lightly. If the Player's Handbook presents the rules, then throughout the Dungeon Master's Guide you will find explanations for why those rules are the way they are. Read these explanations carefully, and realise the implications for making changes... The D&D game system is flexible, but it is also meant to be a balanced game... Resist the tempation to change the rules just to please your players. Make sure a change genuinely improves your campaign for everyone." - Monte Cook, Dungeon Master's Guide

Cheers!

 

[Aaron L]

I do feel that 3E sacrificed something to the altar of game balance. Im not exactly sure what to call it... verisimilitude? A certain necessary imbalance? Making every class equal to each other at every level is what Im talking about. I personally believe that a Wizard should always just be better than a Fighter of equal level. Taking that away causes the game to lose something for me. It loses that fantasy story feel, that simulation of myth, where the Wizard or Sorcerer is always a figure of power and mystery.


However, I completely understand why it was done, and why it was necessary. I also consider the tradeoff for this loss of feeling to be more than worth it, with 3Es amount of character customizability (and the multiclassing rules especially) alone making it worth the loss.


I also dislike 3Es dependancy on requisite amounts of magical equipment. I think it would have been rather simple to gauge monsters in the MM by weather they were high magic or low magic monsters, and what CR they should be for well equipped or poorly equipped parties. The treasure by level guidelines are so... artificial feeling to me that it really distracts from my feel for the game. Knowing that at any given level the characters will have about this much wealth just takes away any incentive for adventuring for the sake of riches and glory, when you always know about how much youll have, and nothing you can do will let you go over it.

I do what I can on that point by ignoring the wealth by level guidelines, and trying my best to gauge monsters myself. If a party has more magic than normal, I use higher CR monsters, and vice versa. I also dont have readily available purchasable magic items. I dont forbid the buying of magic, not at all, (that would be just as artificial as a garaunteed amount of money every level) but I dont have the ubiquitous magic shops everyone seems to think the rules imply should be there. I have brokers for adventurers who wish to sell magic loot theyve found. I have Wizards who work for commission. I have auctioneers who sell lots of magic items recovered from old tombs. I dont have shops with readily available generic magic swords lined up along a wall. (and I really think that not many people do, despite the naysayers)


But all in all, I think the benefits and improvements of 3E in regards to character customizability greatly, vasty, humongously outweigh the disadvantages of it. I play RPGs to make fantastic characters to imagine having adventures, and any game that allows me to make a more exact represantaton of that characters is, to me, the better game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So you're saying that they said that 3rd Edition was engineered to be more fun? They wanted to make a game that was fun? A game that would be enjoyable for those who played it?

I'm really not seeing the problem.

The problem is with the implication in that statement that earilier editions, perforce, are less fun (and hence wrongbadfun if you think otherwise).

The problem is with the implication in that statement that the designers can determine what is fun. This is why, IMHO, you see re-designs of rust monsters, why you see concerns over whether or not some trap is fair, and why the slightest chance that something unexpected might occur being conflated with having to check every 5-foot square for 20 minutes of real time.

To me, the "soul of D&D" (as it were) is this: "You and your friends enter and explore a strange and unique location, where you encounter dangers and seek rewards." Also, "The DM roots for the players, but doesn't change the situation to ensure their survival."

You and your friends: Could just be you, but this is a social game, and is more fun with more people. I find 5 players to be optimal (not 4), but have run games of up to 20 players at one time.

enter and explore a strange and unique location: Whatever that location is, it has secrets, and part of the reward structure is the fun (for the players) of uncovering those secrets. While it can be linear, it is best if it is not. While it might only stand up to one expedition, the best locations can withstand multiple expeditions, and gain a life of their own.

Those two terms, strange and unique, btw, mean that each location is not a rehash of the last location. There may be new monsters involved, new hazards....dare I say new rules? Encountering heretofore unknown prestige classes, feats, and beings is all par for the course. Under no circumstances do the players have the right to know everything that is possible in the game, nor is this desirable. Even empty rooms can and should have intriguing details that point to the purpose and theme of the overall complex. Finding the remains of previous parties is all to the good, especially if said remains point to more unique and strange places to explore.

where you encounter dangers: Dangers mean things that can kill you. This is not the same as things that you can kill.

Traps that you automatically find because they are obvious, and that you can disarm because that is also predetermined (i.e., "I take 10" covers any disarm you might ever need to make) are not dangers. Monsters that are carefully balanced to consume resources instead of pose dangers are not dangers.

Dangers are things that can kill you. They do not have to kill you, but death should be possible. So should a host of minor maladies that are lesser than death, but are definitely not rewards....including being accidently shunted to a far more dangerous locale.

In other words, survival is not a right. If you go on adventures, death might find you. This is fair.

and seek rewards.: You do not automatically gain wealth based on your level. You do not automatically gain XP. You actively seek these things out, and earn them. Search DCs can and will be set to the point where you will not find treasure unless you use your personal cleverness to give yourself modifiers, such as by considering where something might be hidden. Consequently, you might have more wealth and magic -- or less -- than your level would otherwise indicate.

Most things are hidden in some form of pattern that you ought to be able to figure out. There may be a few easter eggs for the lucky or intuitive.

If you are travelling to Gargoyle Mountain, you might need to go into the Ruined Fortress first to try to find a magic weapon. Magic weapons do not simply appear because you need them.

Likewise, options from splatbooks aren't automatically usable just because you shelled out cash. In game rewards do not come from shelling out cash in real life.

The DM roots for the players, but doesn't change the situation to ensure their survival.: The DM is not your adversary, although he controls the adversaries of your PCs. The DM is your friend. He wants you to do well. He has crafted situations in which, if you keep your wits about you and are not unlucky, you can do well. (If not, drop that game and get a new DM!) However, the DM is not your PCs' friend. If you do well, you have earned it. It was not a gift.

Let me repeat that: If you do well, you have earned it. It was not a gift.

Conversely, if you do poorly, that is your responsibility too.

Now, that "Soul of D&D" (or the IMHO version of it) can exist in any edition, including but not limited to the current one, and any edition that comes after or before. However, the only edition that I know really spelled it out clearly was 1st Ed AD&D. And I know, in real life, players who gained the idea from the 3e books that their fun and success was the DM's responsibility (since disabused of that notion).

3.x has an advantage in terms of ruleset, but earlier editions have an advantage in terms of social contract.


RC

 

[Henry]

Yeah, I know I was being a bit facetious there. Good to know those quotes, because they say almost the same thing: "Don't give in to the players" - just for different reasons.

However, introductory platitudes aren't necessarily followed by the rules that exist in said books. The 1E DMG is not as complete or as smooth as it could have been (just the grapple and overbear rules alone are proof of that!) and the 3E DMG statement is totally overlooked by a player subculture which has developed from those same rules that distrusts any DM rule not in the books or supplements as being intended to screw them.

Every option is one more the DM needs to know intimately, if they want the players who want those options to be happy in his or her game. Quite frankly, having to know every rule for every spell and how it interacts with every other spell is something that's making me glad to lay off DM'ing for a while.

Our group uses 3E rules, AND we preserve DM authority. The two are not exclusive, yet to hear many people in forums talk, you'd assume it is.