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

[Lanefan]

Sure they were there for flavour reasons. But perhaps rigid prohibitions in the rules are not the best way to enforce those reasons. I'm not sure why dwarves couldn't be wizards in early editions. Sure, the archetype of the typical wizard with his staff and spellbook may not fit the dwarf, but all those magical dwarven weapons and armour had to come from somewhere. Oh, yeah, right, dwarven clerics made all of them.

Dwarves had a small amount of magic resistance in old editions, if memory serves...as did Hobbits. Having such beings able to be wizards didn't make much sense.

As for Dwarven magic items, I have no problem at all with their being made by Clerics: have a Dwarven artificer make the item, then get it blessed by Moradin via a high-level Cleric, with the blessing giving it its enchantment. Seems simple enough...

I disagree about allowing everyone to do everything. 3e rewards specialization quite heavily, especially when it comes to spellcasters. 1e and 2e double and triple class characters were true jacks-of-all-trades. 3e doesn't place the same rigid restrictions to one's particular class role that 1e and 2d do, but at the same time it very strongly encourages sticking to what you're really good at. Even dabbling in 2 or 3 levels of another class can seriously inhibit your effectiveness in your primary class -- the extent to which this happens does vary from one class to the next, but is particularly harsh on full-progression spellcasters.

3e spellcasters do work better as single-class, I agree. And you're right about 1e multi-classers; I put some restrictions on such things so long ago now I forget they weren't there in original design.

Gestalt isn't really part of the evolution. It is explicitly presented as an option intended for smaller groups so that parties of 2 or 3 players can still cover all of the roles without relying on DM-provided NPCs (i.e. Cleric) to supplement them.

I'll go out on a limb and say Gestalt is in fact the thin edge of the design wedge; that 4e characters will more closely resemble 3e Gestalts than we all might expect (or want). Me, I have no problem with the DM lobbing an NPC or two or three into the party to fill holes...and they fill graves well, too, though I find we kill off PC's about the same rate as party NPC's.

The archetypal 4-character 3e strike force exists because WOTC's research showed that the average size of a gaming group was four players and one DM. A lot of adventures for 1e or B/X D&D suggest groups of 4-6 or 5-8 characters... which a lot of groups never have. Three fighters, a cleric, a magic-user, and a thief, or whatever the typical suggestion was. Much of 3e's design takes into account the ways in which the research suggested that the majority of gamers actually play the game.

WotC's research had some big, big holes in it; but even without that there's one key assumption they make that isn't always true: that each player only runs one PC at a time.

There are still your four basic roles, no matter which edition of the game you are playing.

Agreed, though it sometimes takes 6 or 8 characters to fill 'em.

Lanefan

 

[MerricB]

I wouldn't say "prevent" so much as "make it very rare and special" to get a stat boost. Several canned modules had stat boost items built in - Lost Temple of Tharizdun and Castle Amber are two I can think of off the top - and there were also the various Tomes, Librams, etc. that a DM could lob in to a treasury if one wasn't already there.

It's interesting to look at stat-boosts in relation to early editions of D&D. My feeling was that in the early B/X adventures, stat-boosts were a lot more common than in later sources. Basic D&D, which in many ways hews closer to original D&D, can be a lot more wacky and freeform.

AD&D felt a lot more gritty, and didn't have those sort of wacky encounters to the same extent in its adventures, despite them being suggested in the DMG.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

3e spellcasters do work better as single-class, I agree. And you're right about 1e multi-classers; I put some restrictions on such things so long ago now I forget they weren't there in original design.

Multi-classing in 3e comes with huge costs; a Fighter/Rogue is effective, no doubt, but loses significantly over the specialisation of the pure Fighter or the pure Rogue. 3e rewards specialisation significantly.

I'll go out on a limb and say Gestalt is in fact the thin edge of the design wedge; that 4e characters will more closely resemble 3e Gestalts than we all might expect

I disagree. Gestalt is simply 1e multiclassing adapted for 3e. It's a fine design experiment (like Mike Mearls' redesign of the rust monster), but it has no relevance for 4e.

Cheers!

 

[I'm A Banana]

First, yes, I'm an elitist. What's the problem with that? Hobbies aren't democratic; whether your hobby is golf or chess or fly fishing or RPGs, some people are just better suited to them than others.

True, but the requirements certainly don't have to be "read Tolkein and Leiber." They could be "Read a Drizzit novel," or "See the LotR movie" or "Know an older brother who played D&D" or "Heard about it from a Weird Al song" or "Played Neverwinter Nights" or "Read Harry Potter" or even some fantasy manga such as "BLEACH." Indeed, they could be "Interested in being a legendary hero like Arthur or Achilles or Goku?"

Of course, those who have deeper fantasy experiences will get more from the game, but there's no reason to require it. I don't need to hit like Derek Jeter to play stickball with my buds in the park, I shouldn't need to be able to decipher opaque script in order to make-believe I'm an elf for four hours on a Saturday.

This isn't just my opinion, either. In order to survive, the game needs to be fit for it's environment. The world has changed, and the "olde classics" of fantasy have become more irrelevant in the light of a new wave that is in multiple media. The game *must* adapt to this, or die the slow withering death of all things that do not change.

The game's "style" certainly has. Things like the Book of Nine Swords directly confess this influence, and the art style (much reviled though it may be) displays a broader base of fantasy inspiration than that which has come before.

Elitism doesn't benefit anyone. Just because I can't golf like Tiger and I can't quote the roster of the 1987 Bulls doesn't mean I can't put around a course or enjoy watching a basketball game. If not knowing who Tom Bombadil is excludes me from D&D, D&D is far, far too exclusive.

I wouldn't advise a semi-literate person to play RPGs any more than I'd advise a blind person to take up clay pigeon shooting. At the end of the day, almost everyone who has fun playing RPGs is on the high end of the intelligence curve and they're generally fairly articulate and well-educated. And a lot of us are nerds, too.

There's a broad difference between not easily understanding "Gygaxese" and being semi-literate. There's also a huge difference between the intelligence and skills and, most importantly, EXPERIENCE of the players. I played with ditzy sororities, I played with the star running back in high school, I played with crazy hippies, trekkies, fashionistas, gangstas, twelve year olds, and barflies. They've all been pretty clever, they haven't all been interested in Tolkein, Leiber, and Howard, and they haven't been interested in emulating that in the slightest.

There's no reason -- no excuse -- for D&D to cater only to the elite nerds at the top of the dorkpile. Intelligent people who love fantasy of all stripes (which includes a VERY large number of people) should be welcomed to play with open arms.

 

[MerricB]

I definitely favour the 3.x rules over any other edition of the game, but one thing that always comes to mind as something that I thought the 1e rules did right is that spellcasters had a much stronger flavour than they do in subsequent editions.

Illusionists weren't just Magic-Users specialized in Illusion/Phantasm spells. They had their own unique spell list, with many spells that were not available to basic Magic-Users, ever. Spells like Phantasmal Force were 1st level spells for Illusionists, but were 3rd level spells for Magic-Users. 2nd and 3rd Editions made the Illusionist extremely bland and lame, and also kind of sucked some of the flavour out of the Mage/Wizard as well by giving them a bloated spell list completely lacking in any sort of theme... just a list of all of the arcane spells in the game.

I definitely agree. 2e's changes to the spell lists were awful beyond belief. I *much* prefer individual spell lists for each class.

In some ways, 3e actually does it better...
* Ranger, Bard and Paladin now have their own unique spell lists, rather than piggybacking on the magic-user, druid or cleric lists
* Druid is back to a unique list, which feels *very* different from the cleric list.

Oh, and if you want the 1e illusionist... both the 3.5e Bard and the Beguiler come the closest.

Cheers!

 

[Thurbane]

3e rewards specialisation significantly.

It also rewards cherry picking 1 level here and there of both base classes and PrCs - the famous "1 level dip".

In general terms, though, I agree that 3.X has a better system for multi-classing than earlier eds, although I should mention this is something I houserule, too. I won't allow a player who is a Fighter to suddenly up and grab a level of Wizard out of the blue, without some solid "in character" justification, for example.

 

[Thurbane]

Of course, those who have deeper fantasy experiences will get more from the game, but there's no reason to require it. I don't need to hit like Derek Jeter to play stickball with my buds in the park, I shouldn't need to be able to decipher opaque script in order to make-believe I'm an elf for four hours on a Saturday.

There's a reason it was called Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, you know!

This isn't just my opinion, either. In order to survive, the game needs to be fit for it's environment.

See, now we're back to the "more popular/better selling = better product" reasoning, which I strongly diagree with.

The world has changed, and the "olde classics" of fantasy have become more irrelevant in the light of a new wave that is in multiple media. The game *must* adapt to this, or die the slow withering death of all things that do not change.

Like chess, for example. They better start making it with electric, flashing pieces that hover above the board in three dimensions, and simulataneously make the rules simpler while we're at it, otherwise it will surely suffer "withering death", hundreds of years of continuing popularity notwithstanding.

The game's "style" certainly has. Things like the Book of Nine Swords directly confess this influence, and the art style (much reviled though it may be) displays a broader base of fantasy inspiration than that which has come before.

Without rehashing old debates, or debates that better belong in other threads, I found Bo9S to be the most disappointing D&D supplement I have ever bought (in any edition) - almost nothing in it is remotely usable in my own game. If you want to recreate Dragon Ball Z, Crouching Tiger etc in your games, all fine and well, but it just does not fit with my game, as well as introducing a whole set of new (and IMHO, unneccessary) mechanics for stances and maneuvres.

Elitism doesn't benefit anyone. Just because I can't golf like Tiger and I can't quote the roster of the 1987 Bulls doesn't mean I can't put around a course or enjoy watching a basketball game. If not knowing who Tom Bombadil is excludes me from D&D, D&D is far, far too exclusive.

No one is talking about excluding anyone, simply that a certain level of "elitism" is not neccessarily a bad thing. Sure, it might not be great idea from a purely marketing standpoint, but for the loyal fans who it does appeal to, it is much appreciated. It's all down to personal taste. I don't get into Gothic pantomime-type roleplaying, therefore Vampire has no real appeal for me - that is not the same as saying Vampire is elitist and trying to exclude me.

What you term "elitism", I call "niche appeal". I'm sure if Cannibal Corpse went for a more user friendly, commerical sound they'd probably sell more albums, but they'd also probably disappoint and alienate a lot of long standing fans.

There's a broad difference between not easily understanding "Gygaxese" and being semi-literate. There's also a huge difference between the intelligence and skills and, most importantly, EXPERIENCE of the players. I played with ditzy sororities, I played with the star running back in high school, I played with crazy hippies, trekkies, fashionistas, gangstas, twelve year olds, and barflies. They've all been pretty clever, they haven't all been interested in Tolkein, Leiber, and Howard, and they haven't been interested in emulating that in the slightest.

No problems there whatsoever. To each his own, I say. Just because a certain "tone" was present in 1E doesn't mean that the players (or DMs) were expected to slavishly follow in the footsteps of Gygax.

There's no reason -- no excuse -- for D&D to cater only to the elite nerds at the top of the dorkpile. Intelligent people who love fantasy of all stripes (which includes a VERY large number of people) should be welcomed to play with open arms.

There is a difference between exclusively catering to a certain type of person, and being written with an appeal to a certain type of person.

For instance, I would say that crossword puzzles generally appeal to people with good English and deductive skills, but I would not say that they are created to cater ONLY to those type of people...

 

[Garnfellow]

Gygaxian prose has its not inconsiderable charms, particularly to those exposed to it at a formative age. To this day, I still keep my 1st edition DMG handy for occasional inspiration.

But let’s face it, from a technical standpoint that same prose is often not very good. I can completely understand people having a deep fondness for those original texts, since I largely share that sentiment.

But I’m just not seeing that prose holding up as any sort of exemplar of a good, much less great, writing style – at its worst, the Gygaxian prose can be just plain turgid, a reminder that it owes much to an outmoded genre in which the writers were paid by the word. Sheer prolixity is not the same as good writing; obscurity is not the same as complexity.

Me, I’m a much bigger admirer of clarity and precision in a prose style: Nabokov is a great example of a writer whose style is complex and dazzling, while also being a model of clarity and economy.

If someone wants to trot out elitist literary or intellectual credentials, let them talk of difficult writers like Joyce, Faulkner, or Pynchon if they wish to impress. But the 1st Edition DMG? Nah, not so much.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I do think it's unfair to inflict severe and lasting damage on a character when it is the result of a single unlucky die roll or any other essentially random or arbitrary event.

Why? It's a dice based game, why wouldn't dice be able to make major changes? Becuase it conflicts with a DM's story? Story be damned I say!

 

[FireLance]

Why? It's a dice based game, why wouldn't dice be able to make major changes? Becuase it conflicts with a DM's story? Story be damned I say!

Because it conflicts with what the gaming group thinks is fun. It may not be what you think is fun, but some people like gaming with the seat belts on, so to speak. That's why some people bungee jump while others prefer to ride roller coasters (with seat belts).