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

[Raven Crowking]

Can others pipe in whether they played 1E where they when possible avoided monsters? Because that's just so .. not D&D

Houserule: XP from monsters, role-playing, and cleverness (situational awards) only. No XP for treasure. You don't have to kill them, though, to get it. You merely have to defeat the encounter (not too different from 3.X!).

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's wierd that I see this post so close to the post how "no one's advancing an elitist attitude!" Along with fairly pompous remarks on the "lowest common denominator," I think evidence that some people think that they're just *better* than others is pretty well-established.

No, it establishes that some are more willing to put in an effort, in order to gain more reward. Whereas others prefer to get the same reward, regardless of effort put in.

RC

 

[Ourph]

Isn't there a lot of stuff on random encounters in 3E? IIRC there is. Even going as far as to present two types: where EL distributed similar to adventures, and another for "status quo" random encounters, where, if some mountain is a dangerous place, the random encounters will be eg. CR 10-15 no matter what level the PCs are.

I wouldn't say there is "a lot". 3e D&D certainly doesn't ignore the possibility of random encounters, but it also doesn't assume the use of random encounters the way that OD&D, B/X D&D or AD&D did. There's a significant difference between the amount of space spent discussing and facilitating the use of random encounters in AD&D and the space spent covering the same subject in 3e.

Please note before posting any replies that the above statement isn't a value judgement. I'm not "attacking" 3e for dedicating less focus to random encounters, nor am I "slamming" 1e for emphasizing them.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, purely hypothetically, if you switched to a system like AD&D where the random encounter is assumed and much more integrated to the system; where the rulebooks give the DM more resources for generating such encounters and deciding when they occur, would you say that would affect the way you approach random encounters in your current games?

Well, only in that it would take more than a glance at the statblock (more time and effort and work) to determine if I could toss a monster at a PC, and when estimating the level of challenge they could provide (low to high) it would be significantly more difficult.

Would I let AD&D's rules override what my group likes? I don't think any DM should!

No, it establishes that some are more willing to put in an effort, in order to gain more reward. Whereas others prefer to get the same reward, regardless of effort put in.

I don't have fun when I'm doing work, and I rarely get paid to design adventures, so why would I waste time and money on a game that made me work?

Work itself is no virtue, especially for entertainment. Work to a purpose can be, but me and four friends can have fun playing videogames or going to the movies, too, so there's no purpose in working on D&D. I pay money to be entertained, I don't pay money to do work.

 

[Odhanan]

I remember AD&D had some XP guidelines. These were called, not CRs and ELs, but... XPs. The way to determine the raw power of a monster was to just look at the amount of XP a character was earning from defeating it. That was an implied "CR" system right there, albeit more obscure than the present CR system, IMO.

Also, the evaluation of the "easiness" to defeat monsters in this or that edition of the game when comparing them through the RAW is in my opinion completely irrelevant, since that solely depends on the DM and how s/he builds the adventures for the group (and obviously the intents behind it). It's a matter of particular practices, not general theory.

What could be said, in all fairness, is that the manner in which the rules are presented changed drastically. What is considered a "challenge", whether it's easy or overwhelming, has been laid out more clearly in 3E.

In AD&D, that was the province of the DM de facto since the challenge "system" was more opaque and not as detailed in its design intents as Third Ed's. What is considered a challenge or not still is solely the province of the DM. What changed is that now, there are clearer guidelines which obviously will challenge some opinions of various DMs out there.

Hence the debates we see here.

 

[MerricB]

I wouldn't say there is "a lot". 3e D&D certainly doesn't ignore the possibility of random encounters, but it also doesn't assume the use of random encounters the way that OD&D, B/X D&D or AD&D did. There's a significant difference between the amount of space spent discussing and facilitating the use of random encounters in AD&D and the space spent covering the same subject in 3e.

It's funny - AD&D leaves out the description of how to check for random encounter in a dungeon. BD&D has "every 2 turns, there's a 1 in 6 chance of a random encounter", but it's not in AD&D. Drove me mad looking for it.

Picking up the AD&D DMG, we find the following:
page 47 & 49: the description of determining outdoor encounters
page 174-179 - dungeon random encounters
page 179-180 - underwater random encounters
page 181-182 - ethereal & psionic random encounters
page 182-189 - outdoor random encounters (including random castles... love that table)
page 190-190 - waterborne/airborne random encounters
page 191-193 - city encounters

Picking up the D&D 3E DMG, we find the following:

page 79-81 - dungeon encounter tables
page 87 - sample forest encounter table
page 88 - sample temperate marsh encounter table
page 89 - sample temperate hills encounter table
page 90 - mountains encounters
page 91 - desert encounters
page 92 - plains encounters
page 95 - the description of determining outdoor encounters
page 96-98 - tables for stocking outdoor encounters
page 102 - urban encounters

However, you can find expanded tables are in the supplements:

Forgotten Realms DM Screen
- 32 page booklet, 31 pages of which are random encounter tables. The other is the title page.

Frostburn
page 199-224 - random encounter tables for cold terrain (forest, hills, marsh, mountain, plains, aquatic, outsider)

Sandstorm
page 220-224 - random encounter tables for desert/waste terrain

Stormwrack
page 212-221 - random encounter tables for aquatic encounters (cold, temperate & warm, marine, lake & rivers, plus "lowerdark", "middledark" and "upperdark" - encounters in the Underdark!)

Cheers!

 

[JRRNeiklot]

You missed a few:
A) Save-or-Die effects, such as disintegration
B) Negative levels. If your Negative Levels >= Character levels, you are "instantly slain"
C) Magical disease - Mummy Rot, for instance, does inflict constitution loss, but it's harder to 'heal' the charisma loss and the spells that remove the curse before you can remove the disease require caster level checks. You could argue that it's the same as con loss/negative con, but I think the greater difficulty of removing it makes it a little worse.
D) Being turned to stone. It's fairly easy to come back from (Well, so is death), but if your party can't find you or if they're all dead/stone themselves, you're as good as dead.

Stone to flesh is not death. A relatively low level spell, break enchantment, will reverse it. A spell, I might add, that didn't exist in AD&D. Yet another way 3e "coddles players.

Disintegration is no longer a save or die effect. In fact, in a recent campaign, I had a barbarian fail his save against disintegration and survive, albeit at negative hit points.


Mummy rot is justcon loss, though I agree, it's a bit worse than standard con loss.

Negative levels? C'mon, after the first few levels, pcs rarely fail dc13 fortitude saves, even wizards.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

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

It's wierd that I see this post so close to the post how "no one's advancing an elitist attitude!" Along with fairly pompous remarks on the "lowest common denominator," I think evidence that some people think that they're just *better* than others is pretty well-established.

I would argue that such an attitude is detrimental to the hobby because it excludes those who "aren't as good" in an attempt to preserve some icon of purity and justice. But D&D shouldn't be a country club where we can exclude "those types of people" that make us uncomfortable. It should be a game that everyone -- the whiny, the young, the selfish, the simplistic, the un-educated, the "unwashed masses" should be able to enjoy if they have the predeliciton. Turgid prose and perceptably unfair rules will drive people away from the game, as it has driven many away before.

So, you're saying a ten feet high basketball goal is unfair?

 

[Lanefan]

It's funny - AD&D leaves out the description of how to check for random encounter in a dungeon. BD&D has "every 2 turns, there's a 1 in 6 chance of a random encounter", but it's not in AD&D. Drove me mad looking for it.

I'm sure I've seen it in there somewhere...failing that, most adventure modules have a wandering monster check; it's easy enough to extrapolate from that.

Now I'll have to look...

Lanefan

 

[BroccoliRage]

Well, only in that it would take more than a glance at the statblock (more time and effort and work) to determine if I could toss a monster at a PC, and when estimating the level of challenge they could provide (low to high) it would be significantly more difficult.

Would I let AD&D's rules override what my group likes? I don't think any DM should!



I don't have fun when I'm doing work, and I rarely get paid to design adventures, so why would I waste time and money on a game that made me work?

Work itself is no virtue, especially for entertainment. Work to a purpose can be, but me and four friends can have fun playing videogames or going to the movies, too, so there's no purpose in working on D&D. I pay money to be entertained, I don't pay money to do work.

You don't get joy from the feeling of accomplishment? You don't find the puzzles and questions that are posed by stretching your imagination entertaining?

My word, I hope you don't ever decide to produce role playing products. Those types of challenges constantly present themselves. If money is your sole motivator, your work will be quite uninspired. Tell me what you have designed and what your name is, so I know to avoid it. I don't mean to be insulting, but I definitely don't want to buy product from someone who's sole interest is making money. God knows there are enough bad modules and splat books out there not worth me converting, I like to know which ones to avoid.

For the record, I have seen WAY more elitism at ENWorld, which is a 3e website. If you even mention you like to play D&D, folks freak out. IF you state an opinion that even slightly casts a shadow on d20 fantasy, folks begin foaming at the mouth. The very nature of the question this thread asks implies a sort of elitism, (A system having a "soul"?), and every time someone has stated a reason they dislike d20 fantasy you have been all over them like white on rice. When you asked for concrete examples and were given them, you began babbling.

You threw down the gauntlet when you asked the topic question. You basically formed Mortal Kombat: Grognard vs. d20. And you recieved some answers you didn't like. Your debate has poor form, if you need examples just look at your previous post and the fact that you wanted to debate a subject that is so relative to who's being asked as to be almost nonsensical. And then you keep insisting that those who disagree with you are wrong by citing things like market research. Because, as we all know, WOTC's market research has SO much to do with my personal opinions and experiences. That's apparent when they send me those stupid surveys in my email. When I reply that my favorite gaming system is 1e it immediately cuts off and tells me I'm not eligible for the rest of the survey. I've recieved like 14 of these, and now I just delete them. Sounds like I'm not their target audience. And therefore, they have nothing to do with me.

You can't argue subject matter like the thread topic effectively. And, to even begin to approach effective argument regarding this subject, you'd have to present some common ground. So far, only MerricB has presented any, and I commend him for the adult manner in which he has posted his disagreements. We can't argue the "soul" of D&D because:

A. it doesn't exist

B. if it did exist, it wouldn't be concrete. Rules arguments are more conrete, and naturally they are what will follow by those interested in actual discussion and exchange.


KM, all I have really seen you doing so far is saying, "No, you're wrong. A wrong elitist who has been proven wrong by marketing research irrelevant to you. What rules do you say are better for what you want? No, you're wrong, those rules aren't better for what you want. They are philosophically inferior. Elitist."

I think you should sum up your point in it's entirety, because the subtleties must be completely lost on me. :\

I'll continue jumping in occasionally and following the fracas to it's ultimate foolishness, because at least it provides a temporary diversion. But I think we ALL (3e players included) could stand to lose a little bit of the pretense and name calling.