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

[MerricB]

Way back, I mentioned creating specialty priests. The problem there was that almost no guidance was given beyond some very vague points. In addition, there was nothing to be found anywhere about WHY a cleric gets what he does. The DM had to figure it out entirely by himself.

Incidentally, Speciality priests are my #1 example in 2e of bad design. Forgotten Realms Adventures raised the bad design to an artform.

AD&D had the cleric and the druid, both classes designed as a whole. XP tables, spell lists, combat ability, etc.

2E decided "Well, if we randomly choose some domains, add some weapons and a granted ability, and choose the druid XP table, all will be fine". I'm sorry. No. The druid XP table in 1e was extremely unusual and required the druid's abilities to function.

They might have got it right later in the development cycle, but early attempts on speciality priests in 2e are horrible design.

Cheers!

 

[Thurbane]

Incidentally, Speciality priests are my #1 example in 2e of bad design. Forgotten Realms Adventures raised the bad design to an artform.

AD&D had the cleric and the druid, both classes designed as a whole. XP tables, spell lists, combat ability, etc.

2E decided "Well, if we randomly choose some domains, add some weapons and a granted ability, and choose the druid XP table, all will be fine". I'm sorry. No. The druid XP table in 1e was extremely unusual and required the druid's abilities to function.

They might have got it right later in the development cycle, but early attempts on speciality priests in 2e are horrible design.

Cheers!

I can agree to a point about early attempts - but I felt speciality priests, as presented in Complete Priests Handbook, were something that really added depth to a campaign if the DM was willing to do the work (which incidentally, I was), rather than a Cleric of the God of Flowers and Sunshine tromping around in platemail, swinging a mace and hurling Spriritual Weapons around.

 

[MerricB]

I can agree to a point about early attempts - but I felt speciality priests, as presented in Complete Priests Handbook, were something that really added depth to a campaign if the DM was willing to do the work (which incidentally, I was), rather than a Cleric of the God of Flowers and Sunshine tromping around in platemail, swinging a mace and hurling Spriritual Weapons around.

I loved the concept of speciality priests in Complete Priest. I hated the implementation. There were so many bad assumptions.

Class design is one of the most complex tasks in D&D - all versions. If d20 designers wanted to do the work, then creating specialty priest classes would be entirely possible with 3e. (We sort of have it with a few prestige classes, in fact).

The DIY school of class design is incredibly tricky - especially for the cleric, which is so powerful in 3e simply because it is a "necessary" but unpopular class. (I wonder if removing it in 4e would work?)

I especially detest the "spheres" of magic approach to spells - I'm not particularly fond of schools and specialisation, actually. I prefer entire spell lists to be created (e.g. 1e Illusionist & Druid, and 3e Ranger, Paladin, Druid and Bard) rather than rolling all lists into one.

Cheers!

 

[BroccoliRage]

The Corrolla sold so well because it is cheap. Japanese cars are disposable, your drive them into the ground and buy another one. There may be a couple of exceptions, as I'm sure some Fast and The Furious knucklehead will poin out to me, but for the most part that is how it is. Not really a good analogy for 3e vs (A)D&D.

I can illustrate how 3e is not D&D. I stopped playing AD&D in 1999. I bought a boxed basic set that year, and couldn't find anyone to play with. It had lost of premade characters with the old Neverwinter Nights artwork. I moved on to other interests. I joined the Navy in 2001, and in 2003 I was invited by a fellow sailor to play a D&D game. I showed up to the game at the barracks a little late, with a character rolled up and some dice I had just bought. I sat down to wait for the DM to work me in, and watched how the other guys played for about an hour, to get a feel for house rules and the overall style of the game. I noticed their books were different-looking, but I attributed this to another reprint. As I was watching, I didn't understand what these kids were doing at all. The dice rolls were wrong, the characters sheets looked to me from across the table to be needlessly convoluted, "Fortitude" checks were being asked for, "Feats" were being declared. I was completely lost. I knew what certain words meant, but they only seemd to cosmetically be the same.

My first thought? "These kids aren't playing D&D, this must be some extremely house ruled mutation." I asked to look at the books, and I wasn't familiar with them at all. The artwork was nicer, the layout was very eye pleasing, but I wasn't looking at D&D. WOTC had done away with the system I liked. Here I was, a 21 year old guy who had been playing D&D since I was 7, and I was lost. I sat in on the game anyway, it was chance to roll some dice (though I didn't know what for, not that that is a big deal) and drink some beer. I went to the gaming store, bought the 3e rulebooks, read them, and decided that there was no reason to switch to this new system. It wasn't bad, but it was so different that if I were to use it and call it D&D, I would really render my old books pointless, and throw out all the labor I had done. No need for that.

Now, if I look at any OOP version of D&D being played, after a couple minutes of watching I can immediately recognize it as D&D and might even be able to tell you exactly what is happening with no information really being given to me. I may even be able to recognize what edition is being played. Why is this? Congruency. Continuity. The same basic core lies at the heart of every edition of AD&D, the mechanics mutate to a degree but are all largely interchangable, the formulas are often instantly recognizable by a player of any edition. Risk Lord of The Rings, Risk 2010 (right number?), Castle Risk, and Classic Risk are all the same game. You can immediately recognize them as Risk. Same thing with the various Monopoly mutations. While they are each unique, all of them are the same and are easily recognized as such. The same goes with (A)D&D. IF you were to buy the Risk name, apply it to Parcheesi, and sell a bundle, you made a great marketing move. However, it's not really Risk anymore. Some folks may pick up the game and begin playing it, and of course they'll say they are playing Risk. That's fine, but those who remember what Risk was before the purchase will say, "That's not really Risk."

d20 is a different animal. It is not an inferior animal, though I don't prefer it. I prefer dogs to cats, but neither is really superior to the other. I'm not a WOTC hater, in fact I subsribe to Dungeon and occasionally buy 3e books that provide neat ideas (that aren't too over the top). But really, Third Edition Dungeons and Dragons is just a name. Think on it. Would it have made as much money as it has if it had been released and called simply, "D20 Fantasy"? Of course not, WOTC bought the name and made good use of it. I'm just not a fan of what the name was applied to, and I feel that the system is not the same as the older systems which stayed largely congruent from edition to edition. It's a different game, not a worse game. There were differences, but the game had more or less the same approach and application of formula throughout.

I also think that 3e would not have done quite as well if AD&D/BD&D had been kept around. There was thirty years of material in place that was perfectly usable, and releasing another edition side by side would be like setting a tortoise in a race against Ferrari with a head start. It would be a bad business move, particularly in a market that has a large amount of collecting/hoarding nerds like us. This is why A/BD&D was done away with, not because the system was bad. The Beach Casters had to breathe new life into a passtime/market (table top rpg's) that was pretty related to their own (Collectible card crap) and since they acquired TSR, they now had the most recognizable name in rpg's and made it their own. That's damn good business. I think you'll find that the recent success of D&D is a fad, however. The 3e kids will go through a recession as well, (indeed, it seems one has already begun).


I'm not anti WOTC or 3e, but I don't agree that "It's all D&D". Parcheesi and Risk are not the same game, no matter what name you apply to them. The same goes for d20 and AD&D, though that has nothing to do with system superiority.

 

[Thurbane]

I'm not anti WOTC or 3e, but I don't agree that "It's all D&D". Parcheesi and Risk are not the same game, no matter what name you apply to them. The same goes for d20 and AD&D, though that has nothing to do with system superiority.

Great post, well written, and I agree with a lot of it.

However, I think that saying 3E is not D&D may be a little much. I personally believe that enough of the core concepts (race, class, levels, spells, the vancian system, etc.) remain to qualify it as D&D. I can certainly agree that the leap to 3E saw many more radical departures than any previous edition change, and IMHO, many of them not in a good way.

 

[Hussar]

The Corrolla sold so well because it is cheap. Japanese cars are disposable, your drive them into the ground and buy another one.

So, the fact that it had one of the highest reliability ratings of any car on the road makes Japanese cars cheap and disposable? Highest customer satisfaction? Nah, couldn't possibly be that. If it's foreign made, it has to be crap right? Disposable crap at that. Couldn't possibly be that someone made the best product for the price and sold it.

Sorry, way off topic.

I agree with much of what BR says. Although the "if it's not AD&D it's not D&D" is a bit much. People tend to forget that the guys making AD&D WENT OUT OF BUSINESS. Granted, a lot of that had to do with mismanagement. But, let's face it, a lot of that had to do with people dropping out of the game because of unbelievably bad products being trotted out the door.

think you'll find that the recent success of D&D is a fad,

Well, it's been a six year fad, so, I'm not sure if fad is the word you're looking for.

 

[Renfield]

The Corrolla sold so well because it is cheap. Japanese cars are disposable, your drive them into the ground and buy another one.

Heh, okay, I may be overstepping my bounds, especially seeing as I don't know much about cars. I do remember, however, looking through a Consumer Reports Automobile Buyers Guide about five years ago and couldn't find a single Toyota brand vehicle on any of the lists of vehicles known to malfunction or those that had low satisfaction etc etc. There's also the fact that while Toyota is a Japanese company they also have factories here in America so while you're technically buying a japanese vehicle many of them are made in America.

Aside from that I liked your post Broccoli but I can't agree with you. Earlier edititions of D&D may have had elements that were recognizable and so on, hell I should know I was introduced to D&D via 2e and after purchasing a bunch of original edition and AD&D stuff I was still able to recognize and even play after awhile. However my view is the D&D editions you were familiar with had been altered about as much as they could be without drastically changing things. Hell I even consider the Player's Option (love 'em or hate 'em) a sort of 2.5 that probably would have morphed into 3e it had actually proven successful. When it wasn't I think it was realized that the game mechanics that had been worked with since the beginning had finally been worked as much as it could and if the game were to improve or advance they needed a more drastic change. They made one and worked it well and still managed to keep the core alive. The core being more "My Dwarven Fighter Drunor charges past the two Orc warriors to swing his battleaxe at the Shaman shouting a bloodcurdling "meet yer filthy God you piece 'o goblin dung"" as opposed to THAC0 and Save's vs. Wands.

Was 3e the best possible change that could happen to D&D? No, that would require perfection which is impossible, however it's still D&D. Can it be better? Yes. Thankfully the SRD was made and that allowed things like Castles and Crusades to come into fruition. Is 3e Dungeons and Dragons actually Dungeons and Dragons? Yes. Hell, when it was first published they even went to the effort to push a very important classical element while keeping a new (if not always approved, icky dungeon punk) flavor on it: Delving into dungeons and fighting scary dragons for their treasure. WotC definitely worked hard to make sure this was not simply some fantasy rpg but was actually a *new* edition of D&D. To continue tweaking the older mechanics would have been like adding far too much to a painting or drawing and distracting from the actual picture.

I think you'll find that the recent success of D&D is a fad, however. The 3e kids will go through a recession as well, (indeed, it seems one has already begun).

I don't know what you're talking about here. D&D seems to be going strong in my neighborhood and I live in Alaska. It's much easier to find a group now (if I needed to) and if the WotC product lineup and website are even a small indication, as well as the amount of people who defend any bashing of WotC (hey, the spells in 3.0 weren't over powered, the DM's were just wusses who didn't know how to handle them is all ) are any indication of things I think D&D has a strong enough following to continue for quite some time. If that's not an indication, Dungeon and Dragon magazines are doing quite well as well and that always seemed to me like a good measure of how the game itself was doing.

Things might shift and change slightly here and there but I don't think a recession is coming on any time soon. Hell, I think it could undergo another massive religious attack and still keep trucking better than TSR did.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

 

[dcas]

The Corrolla sold so well because it is cheap. Japanese cars are disposable, your drive them into the ground and buy another one. There may be a couple of exceptions, as I'm sure some Fast and The Furious knucklehead will poin out to me, but for the most part that is how it is. Not really a good analogy for 3e vs (A)D&D.

I've been driving my Corolla for 8+ years. It's far and away the more reliable of the two cars I've owned (the other was an ancient Ford Taurus). Yes, you can drive Japanese cars into the ground, but that's because they last long enough to be driven into the ground! I would not hesitate to buy another Toyota when the time comes.

I think by making this analogy you are providing fodder for those who might claim that 3e is an improvement over 1e/2e (just as the Corolla was an improvement on what American car mfrs were putting out at the time).

 

[Raven Crowking]

We've already driven some pretty deep stakes into the idea of player entitlement. When RC asked if he as DM should nix the idea of a character that didn't fit into his campaign, the overwhelming response was "No problem". When I asked how many people had actually seen, in person, a player with this attitude, virtually no one had.

Yes, when one asks the question overtly, we did drive deep stakes into it. However, as I am sure you will recall, a shockingly large number of people also agreed, in effect, that "railroading is whatever a player says it is"...which is perhaps the most overt statement of player entitlement I have ever heard. I seem to recall you agreeing in that thread that those results re-opened the issue, but I could be wrong?

Also, while the poll about Warforged Ninja in a Prehistoric Setting was overwhelmingly supportive, the issue has been revisited since then with different results.

Ok, reading too much into a throwaway article on the WOTC board of how someone would design a monster and then taking that for policy is a bit much.

Perhaps. I, for one, never think that an article appearing on the WOTC board is a "throwaway", though, and wonder exactly how you come to that conclusion. Perhaps because, if it is not "throwaway", it is evidence to the point that I am making? Since there was more than one monster re-design article, I wonder how you can decide that you even know to which I refer.....?

Moreover, you then say,

in the mind of a very large number of people, many of whom are long time gamers, he was right. "Gotcha" creatures are one of the poorest examples of design there is. Why waste a page in the Monster Manual, when you can do the EXACT same thing in a paragraph in the traps section of the DMG? It's not a case of pandering, or that the creature was "too hard", it was that the creature as written is not terribly well designed.​

which seems to indicate that we are talking about something more than just a throwaway. I don't believe that rust monsters are "gotcha" creatures; they are interesting challenge creatures. And, yes, they might strike fear into the hearts of the metal-clad, but I don't see that as a weakness of design. The rust monster has made it into every edition thus far because it is a strong, iconic monster, not because it sucks.

I don't believe that ogre magi need to be changed away from their mythological basis; doing so is absurd to me as saying that we need to rewrite housecats to make them more like goblins. When you begin removing parts of the flavour of the game to make things easier, you are moving in the wrong direction, IMHO.

Players need something every level. Well, that's always been in the game as well. At least for casters. Pretty much most classes got some sort of bennie nearly every level in every edition of the game. Why is this suddenly a shock to people?

Are hit points and new spells suddenly bennies? There is at least one thread ongoing on EN World right now that would argue this isn't so. And, if so, why make sure that casters get something else at each level? Why should anyone get something other than hit points? The answer is simple: Players do not need something every level, and that has not always been in the game.

To me, it's more a case of the design of the game being more transparent. You mention needing more "how to" type articles in Dragon. Note, that sort of thing has been funneled into Dungeon now, but that's beside the point. Why? If the design of the game is more transparent, if we actually know the reasoning behind why the fighter gets a feat every other level, then do we really need hand holding to create new stuff?

The articles in Dungeon, right now, are far more of the "Here are some examples" type than the "How To" type (with the exception of Dungeoncraft). In any event, the old Dragon included many articles that discussed design philosophy and ideas for creating locations and for using the rules to create an adventure/world/city that you wanted to. The new edition suffers, IMHO, from the belief that the "kitchen sink" approach is the best (and/or only) approach that a "good DM" will take. This simply isn't so.

What I would like to see are articles that discus how to limit the materials to make a cohesive setting. First off, articles on the creation of setting always interest me (even though I have been doing this for Lo! These Many Years). Second off, these sorts of articles open the game up for the creation of unique worlds, and give new DMs something to point to when their players claim doing so is unfair.

Way back, I mentioned creating specialty priests. The problem there was that almost no guidance was given beyond some very vague points. In addition, there was nothing to be found anywhere about WHY a cleric gets what he does. The DM had to figure it out entirely by himself. Now, with a bazillion websites out there, including WOTC's and EN World's, we can talk directly with the designers and pick their brains. We can read Monte Cook's blog and learn. Or Eric Mona's. Or a number of others.

Which is nice, but that's an Internet effect, not an edition effect.

3e has become the most transparent game of the three editions. We have guidelines (NOT RULES) for wealth, encounter design, monster design, etc.

Glad to hear those are only guidelines. I guess that means all the "earlier editions didn't take advantage of the rules in setting creation" arguments are officially over?

I think this is why a lot of people get turned off. They suddenly realize that they aren't unique snowflakes and maybe, just maybe, the ideas they have aren't quite as good as they thought they were.

Not sure what you are trying to say here, apart from using the "special snowflake" type dismissive language from KM's posts earlier in this thread. Explain?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

More on Rust Monsters & "Gotcha"

The whole idea of "Gotcha" monsters is actually sorta weird, IMHO. What qualifies a monster as a "Gotcha" monster and not just a monster? Why don't we say "The ogre hit you with a club -- Gotcha!"?

The answer, in my mind, is that what we are referring to here as a "Gotcha" monster is any creature that does non-standard damage (i.e., it attacks something other than your hit points) and/or any creature against which standard tactics are ineffective (i.e., wading in with armour and your magic sword isn't a good idea).

On the surface, both of these things are good things.

It is good that monsters attack things other than your hit points. Ability damage, level draining, etc., help to define monsters. In this respect, the rust monster is very well defined.

It is good that some creatures require unusual tactics. If nothing else, this means that the players as well as the characters are challenged. It also means that there is no character build which is the best build for facing all challenges. When a rust monster shows up, the lightly armoured and cheaply armed get to face a combat challenge. This is a good thing.

So, what is the real problem with the rust monster?

CR.

The CR system assumes average wealth per level. The rust monster can throw off this calculation and make later encounters much harder than they were intended to be. Since you cannot predict what equipment will remain after the attack, it is harder to determine what opponents are appropriate.

This was less of a problem in earlier editions because, while many things have become less deadly in 3e, combat has become potentially more so. This is where 3e really can become unbalanced fast....where it is shown most to be built like a tripod that cannot stand if one leg is kicked out. Change the parameters of the characters during an adventure, and you'd better get lucky, because things just became nigh impossible to balance.

The possible solutions to this are (1) change the characters so that they are less dependent upon their equipment or (2) change the monsters to have less impact on equipment.

The WotC article chose the latter; I chose the former.

It is the reasoning given for the decision that is suspect, and in my mind dismissive of the maturity of the game's players.


RC