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

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Well, most of what you discuss has absolutely nothing to do with any specific edition.

That was exactly my point, though.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I sympathise. Your earlier edition DM must have been a very difficult person to get on with.

But the difference between a good DM and a poor one is down to personality, social skills and experience. It's got nothing to do with choice of rules edition. 3.x can't magically give a poor DM the personal attributes to make him or her into a good one. Nor do earlier editions magically make a good DM into a poor one.

Quite the opposite, actually. He did a fine job with the set he was given, but struggled to do things like "give tactical options in combat," or "giving the party wealth," or "challenging us without slaughtering us," for instance. Something that he never really worried about in 3e, though it was a frequent concern before.

That was exactly my point, though.

If you want to define "competent" as "vanilla" then of course you're safe in your statement that 3e doesn't make good DMs.

I define "competent" as "of a better than poor," so 3e makes better DMs.

We're not really disagreeing here, despite the fact that you see the baseline as bland and uninspiring and (correctly) see that good DMs can disregard a lot of it.

A game shouldn't cater to the best 1% of us, though, it should cater to those who haven't played before and those who are the common middle ground, and for that, it has turned at least a half-dozen people I know into better DMs than they were in previous editions.

 

[Ourph]

If you want to define "competent" as "vanilla" then of course you're safe in your statement that 3e doesn't make good DMs.

I define "competent" as "of a better than poor," so 3e makes better DMs.

We're not really disagreeing here, despite the fact that you see the baseline as bland and uninspiring and (correctly) see that good DMs can disregard a lot of it.

I think the disagreement here lies more in the definition of what makes a good DM rather than the effect of the rules. The question is, does accurate and consistent application of the rules have anything to do with a DM's "level of quality". IMO it does not. A good DM with very little rules knowledge and inconsistent application of the rules can be a great DM. A poor DM who runs a bland, vanilla, boring game or an unfair, frustrating game will not be helped by adopting a more detailed, consistent ruleset. The things that define the quality of those two imaginary DMs have absolutely nothing to do with the rules or their application and everything to do with creativity, personality and adequate social skills.

IMO, the argument "more codified = more skilled" doesn't apply to GMs, but it certainly does apply to players. 3e, by codifying player options and making the game much more about challenging the character and his abilities rather than the player makes it MUCH easier to be a good, skilled player of the game. My impression is that a lot of people enjoy that change and believe it was much needed. I, personally, don't care for that model and prefer a game that's more about challenging the players outside the confines of the rules. This probably explains why I think skill at applying the rules doesn't factor into DMing skill in any significant way.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Quite the opposite, actually. He did a fine job with the set he was given, but struggled to do things like "give tactical options in combat," or "giving the party wealth," or "challenging us without slaughtering us," for instance.

*nods*

This is another example of the flawed 3e-isms that I want to challenge.

I think the perception that the DM has to "give" the party all the things you mention is a basic flaw. Notice the perception comes with a whole baggage of unspoken assumptions, like: If I don't have tactical options in combat, it's the DM's fault. And: If I don't get enough wealth, it's the DM's fault. And: If we get slaughtered, it's because the DM didn't create a balanced encounter.

I'm not surprised that a person who has these assumptions then goes on to say that most DM's aren't really very good. I mean, what's the party actually doing in all this? What are they responsible for?

In the game I run, the assumptions are: You should have scouted effectively, found the monsters, chosen your battleground, made a plan, and then attacked. If you didn't do that, then any lack of tactical options you have in this fight is your own problem. And: If you don't have enough wealth, you're looking in the wrong places or attacking the wrong targets. And: If you get slaughtered, it's because you attacked without enough information, and then you forgot that retreat and surrender are both options. Darwin would be proud.

Oh, sure, the DM has a responsibility, but it's just to give you meaningful choices and genuine opportunities. There must be meaningful treasure there to find - and usually there's a lot of it. But it's cunningly hidden, well-guarded and generally hard to get, so it's safe to say you won't find it all. Once the DM's done that, surely your character's wealth level is entirely your responsibility?

And notice that 1e did have very clearly-defined apparatus to make sure this happened. There were pages and pages of tables to tell you in enormous detail what creature lived in what environment and what treasure it would be likely to have.

If your DM didn't use them, that's not a problem with the system.

If he did use them and you just didn't find the right treasure, or choose the right fight, then that's still not a problem with the system.

 

[BroccoliRage]

Well, I agree with your larger point, P&P. Encounters and challenges that are not specifically crafted to the adventuring party, and are sometimes insurmountable, give the overall impression of a living breathing fantasy world. Plot is something that should be crafted more by the players than the DM. The DM can present locations and history, emboidied in a deserted castle inhabited by a wicked lich who holds some great treasure or amazing artifact, but what occurs within that castle is up to the players. If the NPC's and entities inhabiting the world are properly roleplayed, than custom tailoring of adversaries won't be neccescary. The players WILL rub smeone the wrong way. They WILL run afoul of someone. The only thing the DM needs to do is pay attention to how the player's interact, and not let his mind wander when the Player's are roleplaying.

Things like CR give the players ammo against the DM. "You're a killer DM because you rolled a dragon as a random encounter in the wilderness, and your die roll determined that it saw us. How terribly unbalanced. A fair DM would never have given us that encounter." No, you didn't run. You chose to fight. Perhaps the dragon wouldn't have been interested in chasing so scant a meal. The world is dangerous, anyway. Creatures exist that you can't handle, and they aren't just stories told in the tavern. Some things you can't handle, because the traps in this tomb were designed to kill would-be tomb raiders. If you weren't ready, it wasn't my fault. They are your characters, and I do not control what you do with them.

I DM alot more often than I sit on the player's side of the screen. I do not feel it is my responsibility to drive the players on, it's my job to play the entire world with respect to itself, and with respect to the players' actions. It is their job to overcome/survive the challenges life as an adventurer presents them with. It is mine to take on the role of an entire world, and keep it living and breathing.

I don't like ultra-freeform modules, but I dislike the idea that all encounters

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Things like CR give the players ammo against the DM. "You're a killer DM because you rolled a dragon as a random encounter in the wilderness, and your die roll determined that it saw us. How terribly unbalanced. A fair DM would never have given us that encounter." No, you didn't run. You chose to fight. Perhaps the dragon wouldn't have been interested in chasing so scant a meal. The world is dangerous, anyway. Creatures exist that you can't handle, and they aren't just stories told in the tavern. Some things you can't handle, because the traps in this tomb were designed to kill would-be tomb raiders. If you weren't ready, it wasn't my fault. They are your characters, and I do not control what you do with them.

Straw man.

"Things like CR" are completely irrelevant to this scenario.

If you used the encounter design advice included in the 3e DMG, the players would have grown used to the fact that to fight everything they meet will have its inevitable pay out in PC deaths.

If the players insist on being coddled, their arguments (such as they are) are no less persuasive in 1e or 2e.

 

[Korak]

IMO, the argument "more codified = more skilled" doesn't apply to GMs, but it certainly does apply to players. 3e, by codifying player options and making the game much more about challenging the character and his abilities rather than the player makes it MUCH easier to be a good, skilled player of the game.

I'm not so sure about that. Playing in and DM'ing for numerous Living Greyhawk games in 3.0 and 3.5, I have to say that I have seem tons of characters that were not just suboptimal, but wildly ineffective. Some of those characters belonged to players that brought thoughtful, fun, and enriching role-play to the table, but some... didn't. With the thousands upon thousands of options available to players in 3e, many inexperienced players make mechanically horrible characters that do not make the game easy.

I, personally, don't care for that model and prefer a game that's more about challenging the players outside the confines of the rules. This probably explains why I think skill at applying the rules doesn't factor into DMing skill in any significant way.

I think I have a real appreciation for your viewpoint. I just don't think that the rules are a cause of the kind of game-play you dislike. I believe the true factors are just matters of DM and player style, independent of the choice of rules.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

You are making enormous play style assumptions, PP.

DMs themselves might have different goals than you have.

Generally speaking, mostly status quo encounters makes sense for designing a living and breathing world.

But sometimes a DM wants to run a largely linear plot for a particular adventure. It is not a DMing flaw to desire tools such as those provided in 3e to add a greater degree of predictability.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Straw man.

"Things like CR" are completely irrelevant to this scenario.

If you used the encounter design advice included in the 3e DMG, the players would have grown used to the fact that to fight everything they meet will have its inevitable pay out in PC deaths.

If the players insist on being coddled, their arguments (such as they are) are no less persuasive in 1e or 2e.

Actually, since the encounter design tables explicitly suggest including encounters powerful enough to either defeat the party or kill several PCs if fought directly, doesn't that make the players' arguments LESS persuasive than in 1e or 2e? Purely by the Rules As Written, I mean.

(In the interests of full disclosure, I always tailors encounters to the party and can't stand the Simulationist desire to have a 'real working world' that doesn't facilitate play, genre or story; that doesn't mean I don't sometimes tailor encounters to be far, far more powerful than the party - even Conan had to run away quite often)

 

[MerricB]

And: If you get slaughtered, it's because you attacked without enough information, and then you forgot that retreat and surrender are both options. Darwin would be proud.

That's equally true of how 3e works. My kill-count proves it. Reckless players will get their PCs killed.

We played (I actually played! yay!) a 3e conversion of Greyhawk Ruins. During the course of the adventure we made it to 14th level (from 1st). In the play of it, my PC never died. By the end of the campaign, almost everyone was looking to me to see when they should retreat.

Meanwhile, another player lost about 8 PCs during the course of play. He was in the classic Tracy Hickman Barbarian mold - fun, to him, was seeing what was on the other side of the door. If he went down under a horde of monsters, or got whisked off to the abyss... it was all good.

We ran into a Great Wyrm Red Dragon. Oh, that was bad. Everyone else was lucky and managed to go the correct way to the exit. Not me. No, I was facing a GWRD on my own. So, I talked my way out of it. Good role-playing, a PC with a very high Diplomacy skill, and a natural 20 on the roll.

Heh. That was adventuring in the true megadungeon format.

However, that's not the only form of adventure. Look at the published D&D adventures. Almost all of them are "quest" adventures with goals. If the key encounters, the encounters that need to be overcome, are too difficult, then you have a TPK and a bunch of unhappy PCs.

They don't have to be railroady. Giants isn't (that much). Slavers is. (tournament format). Pharoah isn't. But the encounters must be achievable. Isn't it lucky that the PCs are the right levels when the DM uses those adventures?

Cheers!