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

[BroccoliRage]

Talk about comparing apples and... tomatoes. We're talking about RPGs, not chess, and this is a pretty irrelevant diversion from the point being discussed.

But yeah, chess is an intolerably boring game, but it doesn't have anything to do with the pieces being identical each time you play.

Chess is the OG wargame. RPG's were born from wargames.

And I have to diagree, I don't find it boring at all. I've been playing it since I was 9 years old, and to this day I still surprise myself. It's very interesting to see what other people's philosophy's on defensive/offensive strategy and play become when enacted. What a great game. I can kill a whole day playing chess.

 

[MerricB]

Chess is the OG wargame. RPG's were born from wargames.

And I have to diagree, I don't find it boring at all. I've been playing it since I was 9 years old, and to this day I still surprise myself. It's very interesting to see what other people's philosophy's on defensive/offensive strategy and play become when enacted. What a great game. I can kill a whole day playing chess.

It's a really great game, though I don't play it often.

I prefer games like Caylus.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Different strokes I guess, but IMO taking those precautions is what "doing things right" is all about. Rather than considering the opening of a door a "trivial task" I enjoy it that each door* in my games feels like a challenge to the players and requires the same type of consideration that daily spell selection or planning an attack might. Treating every door as just a mundane portal seems like a waste of potential challenges and suspense to me.

How interesting. If I might ask, how much time does your group spend at each door, and how easy is it for them to determine that it's mundane or otherwise?

I like trapping doors or otherwise making them special. I find it enjoyable - but I don't do it to every door by a long shot. In general, it takes a simple Search check to determine that the door is special for the players (so we don't spend much game time on mundane doors), but what happens next can take more time if needed.

Cheers!

 

[Ourph]

You're faulting 3E for losing what 1E has never had when someone alters the wealth they put out.

You keep trying to pick a fight where there isn't one to be had.

I'm not faulting 3e OR 1e, I'm saying that the way they approach wealth by level is different. I'm also saying that in 3e changing wealth has an impact on other systems of the game in a way that doing the same thing in 1e does not, simply because, yes, in 1e the systems are less complex and in a lot of ways less maleable. It's the difference between an electric hedgetrimmer and a pair of sheers. The sheers may be less versatile and may, in fact, be less easy to use, but they are also a lot harder to break because they have fewer moving and interlocking parts (and if they do break, it's much easier to see what's wrong and how to fix it).

 

[Ourph]

How interesting. If I might ask, how much time does your group spend at each door, and how easy is it for them to determine that it's mundane or otherwise?

I like trapping doors or otherwise making them special. I find it enjoyable - but I don't do it to every door by a long shot. In general, it takes a simple Search check to determine that the door is special for the players (so we don't spend much game time on mundane doors), but what happens next can take more time if needed.

Cheers!

In a dungeon setting, every door gets at least the following treatment 1) listen to see if you can hear anything from the other side (multiple PCs can listen at once), 2) Find Traps roll by the Thief 3) Quick exam of the door by the more intelligent members of the party to see if anything seems out of place. This takes 1 turn of in-game time and about 30 seconds of actual time to resolve. If the players actually find something interesting, we might spend 5 minutes to half an hour resolving the discussion back and forth depending on what they find out.

If it's just a trap, a Remove Traps roll quickly takes care of the situation. If it's a noise the players might spend several minutes discussing the import of that information. If it's something truly unusual or compelling it might stretch into the half an hour range, but that's unusual and indicates that there is something pretty extraordinary about that particular door. I would say, on average, there's a trap on 1 in 20 doors my PCs encounter, but there are interesting things for them to discover about a door (footprints leading in/out, a noise, a smell, a difference in construction, etc.) for about 1 in 5.

AFAIC a door in a dungeon represents "the unknown" and exploring "the unknown" is what most of my campaigns are about. Some people might see what is behind the door as the "point" of adventuring, but IMO the difference between adventurers and your average fantasy-world person is that adventurers are the people who have the balls to open strange doors when they don't know what is behind them. So making a big deal of that process doesn't seem like a waste to me at all, it seems like enjoying a naturally compelling part of the game.

 

[MerricB]

In a dungeon setting, every door gets at least the following treatment...

Thanks muchly! I don't have as many special doors (although some of them are pretty special), but it's very interesting to read how you deal with them.

Cheers!

 

[Garnfellow]

Rule changes are not neccessarily bad. Changing something fundamental just to make it easier on the players is. One poster said something to the effect that a random dice roll should not result in a character death. Taking the fear of pc death out of the game is basicly the same as lowering the rim to 8 feet, giving hitters 5 strikes, etc. But please, if you have fun playing a game with no consequences for unwise actions or unlucky rolls, go right ahead. Without risk, there is no reward.

What's a fundamental mechanic, though? Is save-or-die really a fundamental mechanic to D&D? You compare avoiding save-or-die to lowering the basketball rim to 8 ft, but I see it more akin to adding a shot clock -- something intended to speed the game up and make it more enjoyable.

Ultimately, though, I think the very basic premise behind all your analogies -- that the D&D designers are making the game easier and easier for the whiny players -- is nothing but pure and total bunkum. People might fixate on the reduction of save or die effects, but the simple truth is, 3e out of the box is easily as deadly as any other edition out of the game, and probably much deadlier. Between having Str and Con scores, feats, and critical hits, there are more ways for a monster to kill a PC than ever before. I've killed more PCs in 3e than in all of 1st and 2nd edition combined.

Wasn't it you who once proclaimed WotC's 3e revision of Tomb of Horrors as having been Disneyized into some kind of Mr. Toad's Wild Ride? Well, I ran that sucker a month ago and had yet another TPK -- I think that was my 5th, and I've had at least one for each major edition of the game. The old dungeon felt just as deadly as it ever did. The biggest difference was that the WotC version didn't need to make up a bunch of saveless, no-precedent mechanics in order to make their revision a killer -- all they needed was that same, toothless 3e ruleset that is supposed to cosset the tender, frail players.

 

[FireLance]

Rule changes are not neccessarily bad. Changing something fundamental just to make it easier on the players is. One poster said something to the effect that a random dice roll should not result in a character death. Taking the fear of pc death out of the game is basicly the same as lowering the rim to 8 feet, giving hitters 5 strikes, etc. But please, if you have fun playing a game with no consequences for unwise actions or unlucky rolls, go right ahead. Without risk, there is no reward.

The implicit assumption behind this line of argument is that PC death, or alternatively, permanent loss of equipment, or the acquisition of other permanent disadvantages such as the loss of body parts or ability scores, are the only meaningful negative consequences. I disagree with that premise.

Almost by definition, any game of skill or chance needs to have a good result and at least one other result that is not as good. In a simple, two-person game, the results could be: you win/you lose, or you win/you draw/you lose.

In an RPG, the scope of poor results can be broader: your friend dies, the BBEG escapes, a relic of Good is destroyed, a tyrant ascends to the throne, a plague breaks out, an innocent man is thrown into jail, etc. PCs do not need to die to experience failure, and even games in which the PCs are not at risk of death can be challenging and fun.

 

[Thurbane]

I understand that the lowest common denominator needs to be catered to in order to stay the lowest common denominator. After all, higher expectations tend to lead to higher results. But, then, I consider that the quality of the game is more important than the health of the hobby, or you basking in your own superiority. Better the hobby stay worth being healthy, than be healthy but dull. YMMV.


RC

Very true, that.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

The implicit assumption behind this line of argument is that PC death, or alternatively, permanent loss of equipment, or the acquisition of other permanent disadvantages such as the loss of body parts or ability scores, are the only meaningful negative consequences. I disagree with that premise.

Almost by definition, any game of skill or chance needs to have a good result and at least one other result that is not as good. In a simple, two-person game, the results could be: you win/you lose, or you win/you draw/you lose.

In an RPG, the scope of poor results can be broader: your friend dies, the BBEG escapes, a relic of Good is destroyed, a tyrant ascends to the throne, a plague breaks out, an innocent man is thrown into jail, etc. PCs do not need to die to experience failure, and even games in which the PCs are not at risk of death can be challenging and fun.

Not the only consequences, but those are just as valid. Losing a limb, your vorpal sword, etc are just as valid as negative consequences as taking 80 points of damage. I like them more because plain 'ol damage is just boring.