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

[jcfiala]

Personally, what I find laughable are 3e's "Recommended wealth levels". I don't find it laughable to assume that higher level characters have some phat lewzt0rz... I do find it laughable when the rules tell you how much they should have at each level. See the difference?

Hmm. Not really. I find it really helpful that there's a suggested amount of stuff that a character probably will have as of such-and-such a level. It's good for a couple of things:

1) If I'm starting out a campaign at something other than 1st level, I can give them a chunk of money and know that their character will be on par with the challenges for that level. They won't have magical equipment so powerful that they will blow away the monsters, but on the other hand they're not likely to be caught short without some appropriate magical assistance, such as AC boosters for wizards or magical arms for a warrior.

2) It helps you keep an eye on how much treasure you're handing out for new DMs. Monty Hall DMs are widely known for a reason - there's a point at which you're giving out so much magical stuff that there's no need for the players to play anymore - just point the magic doohicky at the bad guy and press the 'start' key. A new DM can look at how much he's handed out, look at the level of his characters, and know if he's giving away too much or not.

I will say, though, that I wish the game wasn't quite so much Dungeons and Accountants after a long adventure. A group I play in has finally gotten back to a town after a long time adventuring, and we've got a lot of equipment to liquidate... and a lot of math to do. I wish there was an easier way to turn captured treasure into useful equipment and aid without so much work.

 

[Maggan]

So this "elitest nerd" comment...where exactly is that supposed to be coming from again?

To me, the notion that was expressed earlier that the game was not supposed to be played by those that failed english 101, is indicative of an elitist attitude.

And from that, I think the rest of the comments on elitism originated. I think that if anyone uses such an argument (paraphrased: "such and such doesn't have the proper knowledge gained from proper studies, so they shouldn't play the game"), one should be prepared to get involved in a debate on elitist views on the game and the playing of the game.

/M

 

[cildarith]

Even as a teenager, I alway appreciated the fact that the 1E manuals did not talk down to me, did not try to cater to the lowest common denominator, and vastly increased the range of my own vocabulary (even though it caused me to wear out the family dictionary almost as quickly as I wore out my original set of rulebooks). If that is somehow "elitist", the world could do with a bit more of it, IMO.

 

[Hussar]

Personally, what I find laughable are 3e's "Recommended wealth levels". I don't find it laughable to assume that higher level characters have some phat lewzt0rz... I do find it laughable when the rules tell you how much they should have at each level. See the difference?

Ok, I'm totally dropping the snark here, this I find interesting.

You agree that higher level characters should come with higher powered equipment. I think we can likely all agree on that. Why are guidelines for the amount of equipment a bad thing?

I could see it as a problem if the guidelines were high, but, compared to what I remember hauling out of 1e modules, the wealth guidelines are actually pretty low. A 7th level PC has 17k (IIRC) worth of goodies. That's a +1 weapon, +1 suit of armor, +1 shield, some sort of miscellaneous item and a handful of potions. For a 7th level character, that's pretty much exactly what you would find in most modules.

Actually, that I would be curious to see is how much wealth module NPC's and PC's were toting around at given levels. I don't actually own a lot of those old modules anymore, but, to me, for a 7th level character to have nothing over +1 seems pretty fair.

Even as a teenager, I alway appreciated the fact that the 1E manuals did not talk down to me, did not try to cater to the lowest common denominator, and vastly increased the range of my own vocabulary (even though it caused me to wear out the family dictionary almost as quickly as I wore out my original set of rulebooks). If that is somehow "elitist", the world could do with a bit more of it, IMO.

This also seems curious to me. Why does straightforward writing equate with "talking down" and catering to the lowest common denominator? (Never mind the incredibly elitist attitude that shows) Take a look at the rules for most games - they are written in plain English as much as possible. Chess has been brought up a few times. Could there be a simpler game in terms rule clarity? Piece X moves in pattern Y. Land on your opponent's occupied square and take the piece.

Why should game rules be written in convoluted styles? I have no problems with setting books or adventure text being written this way. That makes a great deal of sense to me since evoking a particular feel is key for both setting books and adventures. But initiative? Why do we need a feeling evoked for who gets to go first?

I'm most certainly not saying there is no place for evocative writing in RPG's. That's obvious. However, there is a time and place for it. Making a game element that is going to come up hundreds of times over the course of a campaign more complicated than it needs to be is bad design. Inventing words or using words from other languages without defining them is not a good idea in defining the rules of a game.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Personally, what I find laughable are 3e's "Recommended wealth levels". I don't find it laughable to assume that higher level characters have some phat lewzt0rz... I do find it laughable when the rules tell you how much they should have at each level. See the difference?

No.

The rules are only inform you that rough balance is maintained if the PCs have approximately that amount of loot.

This is only information. It is not a rule, per se.

What you do with that information is up to you.

 

[Numion]

Personally, what I find laughable are 3e's "Recommended wealth levels". I don't find it laughable to assume that higher level characters have some phat lewzt0rz... I do find it laughable when the rules tell you how much they should have at each level. See the difference?

I don't find the recommendations to be requirements. It just tells what the baseline is - and that is good to know when you want to choose a different level of wealth.

Gary also saw the problem with giving too much loot, or at least he went on tirades against monty haul DMs (and then wrote adventures that were beyond monty haul, but I digress). 3E designers decided to give one answer to that problem. An easy way to gauge if the group you DM is up to the task, or if you should put in harder or easier encounters.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

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).

Oh, please, Mr, Umpire, give me one more strike! Striking out is not fuuuuunnn. Make the pitcher throw it slower!

Let's lower the basketball goal, 10 feet is too high - I can't dunk!

Wah, wah, wah.

 

[Kishin]

This also seems curious to me. Why does straightforward writing equate with "talking down" and catering to the lowest common denominator? (Never mind the incredibly elitist attitude that shows) Take a look at the rules for most games - they are written in plain English as much as possible. Chess has been brought up a few times. Could there be a simpler game in terms rule clarity? Piece X moves in pattern Y. Land on your opponent's occupied square and take the piece.

Why should game rules be written in convoluted styles? I have no problems with setting books or adventure text being written this way. That makes a great deal of sense to me since evoking a particular feel is key for both setting books and adventures. But initiative? Why do we need a feeling evoked for who gets to go first?

I'm most certainly not saying there is no place for evocative writing in RPG's. That's obvious. However, there is a time and place for it. Making a game element that is going to come up hundreds of times over the course of a campaign more complicated than it needs to be is bad design. Inventing words or using words from other languages without defining them is not a good idea in defining the rules of a game.

QFT. Save evocative descriptions and fanciful writing for fluff and adventure text. Mechanical issues absolutely need to be laid out in the clearest, most direct language possible. Its bad game design otherwise, and promotes inconsistency, rule disputes and a host of other problems.

 

[jcfiala]

Oh, please, Mr, Umpire, give me one more strike! Striking out is not fuuuuunnn. Make the pitcher throw it slower!

Let's lower the basketball goal, 10 feet is too high - I can't dunk!

Wah, wah, wah.

You never houserule your games to make them more fun for the players?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

House rule? Perhaps. But I don't change fundamental concepts like rolling 1d4 damage for a giants boulder.