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

[Raven Crowking]

On one side people complain that 3e is pandering to the lowest common denominator. That by using plain speach we've lowered the bar and turned the game very bland.

On the other side people complain that 3e is far too complicated to run and too much work.

So, which is it? Is 3e too complex or too simple?

Using plain speech to describe rules effects is fine; using evocative language to describe what those rules are supposed to mean within the terms of an adventure or the game world, however, is equally important. Glad to see the ruleset. Yawning when I read it. These two things are like peanut butter and chocolate, when they ought to be peanut butter cups.

Microsoft Word has a program function that allows you to determine the reading level required to read any given passage that you might type into it. It will give you this information (which, let us hope, we take with a grain of salt) in terms of grade level. At what grade level, on average, should D&D books be written?

On one hand, you can write them at the level the material requires. I.e., if you need to use arcane words because those are the best words to both describe an effect and evoke the mood that effect is intended to evoke, you use those words. OTOH, you could instead pick a grade level and "dumb down" anything that exceeds that grade level to the best of your ability.

1e reads like it could have used the services of an editor. 3e reads like it could have used the services of a writer. I would dearly love 4e to have the services of both.

3e made the generation of NPCs and stat blocks far more complex than they needed to be, and drowned the rules in combat options that make certain players hesitant to commit to any action in a given combat round. 3.5 ties combat into a grid far more firmly than it should have done so, IMHO. I also do not care for the idea of long creatures filling square spaces....ugh!

OTOH, the craft rules for 3e are too simple, and not well thought out. I have the same problem with the rules for crafting magic items; they are both too simple and too bland. Various racial types have lost the limitations that made picking a human character desirable, and they have lost all of the flavour that they once had by virtue of mechanics. 3e came out with a wonderful skill system, but it is still basically a non-weapon proficiency system; where are the weapon skills? The characters are also far too dependent on their equipment. There ought to be rules that include clear benefits for interacting with, and becoming part of, society (recent books have made some headway with this). Giving creatures "types" was a stroke of genius....but would have been better if the types were more distinct.

I have house rules that cover ever problem I mention in the preceding two paragraphs, btw. For example, racial levels (thanks, Monte!) mean that your race counts again, as do some race/class limits. Weapon skills allow you to hit more effectively....or defend yourself better....or do extra damage to punch through DR; your higher-level character effectively becomes his own armour and "magic weapon". Etc.

So, to answer your question, stat blocks and combat rules require streamlining. A lot of the remaining rules are too simple. Certainly, seperating out the Wizard and Sorcerer spell lists would be a good start, and it would be nice to see lists that are actually more flavourful. Someone suggested that spells have prerequisites, and that would actually be rather cool. Providing rules for actual diplomacy (you know, where I concede this to get that) would be good too.

Heck, because I am still working on my houserule document, I have 474 pages of "good ideas" (YMMV ; my group likes them) to increase the complexity of the game that serve to increase PC design options, challenge level, PC ability to affect the world, and play speed.


RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

I am curious how fewer negative consequences for failure could fail to make the game less challenging.

There are far more negative consequences for failure than death or pemenant character damage or even permenant campaign world damage, some of which have been outlined in this thread. Furthermore, failure itself is a negative consequence.

I do think that the 3e system is good. I also think that the flavour and attitude of 1e is better. For my game, I mesh the two. And I tweak both as much as I like. I am the DM; I get to do that. But please do not tell me that I have to make things easier for the poor players, or that rust monsters are too scary for the shiny-metal guys to cope with, or that I have to change the rules of the game world to allow some poor schmoe to play a warforged ninja. It isn't going to happen.

I'd hope I'd never tell any DM that they have to do anything with their personal game. Heck, even the RULEBOOKS don't do that.

But I will tell you what the rules as written should cater to, and that's *everyone*. "Lowest common denominator," "baseline," "warforged ninja," and "less save-or-die and "gotcha" monsters" included. You never have to do any of that...the rules don't tell you that you do. But working hard on your game should never be a *requirement* for D&D. Obviously, it is it's own reward for those who like doing it.

And I will tell you that easier encounters and preserved equipment and warforged ninjas and consistant characters are playstyles that, while you may not share, are of no less quality than your own games. You may judge them unfit for you, but to degrade them will provoke a response.

And I'll state again that "flavor and attitude" seem entirely edition-independant (relying, as they do, on the DM), so it appears inaccurate to say that you prefer any edition's "flavor and attitude."

 

[Raven Crowking]

I am curious how fewer negative consequences for failure could fail to make the game less challenging.

There are far more negative consequences for failure than death or pemenant character damage or even permenant campaign world damage, some of which have been outlined in this thread. Furthermore, failure itself is a negative consequence.

Failure itself is not a negative consequence unless that failure has some meaningful effect. When the monster has an AC of 24, and my combined roll is 22, it doesn't matter that I failed to hit the monster if the DM tells me to roll damage anyway.

So, yes, there are many potential types of failure. Some are more meaningful than others. The more you remove, or limit, the consequence of the most meaningful types of failure, the less meaningful they will be.

I would imagine this to be self-evident.

In any event, whether the foregoing is self-evident or not, the continued presence of some negative effects has nothing whatsoever to do with the premise of the statement you are responding to.

12 + 16 = 28. If you take away the 12, it doesn't matter that 16 is greater than 12, or that the 16 is still there, the sum total is still less than 28. The only way that you could make the sum total the same or greater is if you added something to counterbalance the removal of the 12.

Hence the statement, I am curious how fewer negative consequences for failure could fail to make the game less challenging.

I'd hope I'd never tell any DM that they have to do anything with their personal game. Heck, even the RULEBOOKS don't do that.

But I will tell you what the rules as written should cater to, and that's *everyone*.

Well, when they have the kindergarten edition that's designed for adventures in Candyland, you'll be close to your wish (but they might still be missing someone, and should lower the bar to preschoolers, right?).

You know what this argument reminds me of? The Incredibles. Everybody's special, which is another way of saying no one is. You should always try your best, unless your best is really, really good, in which case you shouldn't try your best. Etc., etc., etc. At some point, our culture decided that, for fear of leaving someone out, we should all be mediocre.

And I don't mean to say that 3e is mediocre; I like the ruleset. What I question here is, why would you want it to be?

And I will tell you that easier encounters and preserved equipment and warforged ninjas and consistant characters are playstyles that, while you may not share, are of no less quality than your own games. You may judge them unfit for you, but to degrade them will provoke a response.

What the heck is "preserved equipment"? And what do you mean by "consistent characters"? Characters who never die, no matter how much foolishness they perform?

And, frankly, I do "degrade" the idea that we should simply sit back and demand everything to be easier. That may not be a reduction in quality as you define the term, but it is as I define it. In a similar vein, I define the work of Da Vinci as infinitely superior to my simply throwing a bucket of paint at a canvas and calling whatever I end up with "art". Moreover, I am allowed to define quality however I please, just as you are. And I am allowed to think your definition wonky, just as you are allowed to think I am an elitist snob for thinking that.

But my experience runs over 25 years (27, to be exact), in six states (Wisconsin, Missouri, Indiana, Louisiana, Virginia, and California) and one province (Ontario) for hundreds of vastly divergent people, including one game that took place in a fantasy city that reached 26 players at the table at one point. During that time, especially in my military tour, I have had players move, and I have moved. More than once I have taken a break to pursue other things (I am currently on a few month's break due to the birth of a daughter).

In all that time, I have had one player leave because the game wasn't what he was looking for (Hi, Jim!), one player leave due to personality conflicts (Dennis, I'm looking at you!), and one player who considered joining, but wanted to play pure 3.5 rather than a houseruled version (sorry, I don't remember your name). And let's say, just for the sake of it, that I somehow forgot some other people who quit for some other reasons apart from moving or my restructuring or my deciding that they didn't fit with the group.

My EN World PBP has pretty well frittered away as well, but I suspect that this is largely my fault as it was my first attempt at a pbp format.....To be honest, the time between my posts is probably a real factor, and I have had some of the players tell me specifically that there are things going on in their own lives preventing them from posting. It is my understanding that most pbp games fail....but I'd accept that this is another 5 drop-outs.

So, let's say that there are 13-20 people who quit due to style differences, or due to unhappiness with the game. That would seem like quite a lot, if you did not take into account that I have DMed over those 27 years for well over 10 times that number of people altogether.

So, in my experience -- which is extensive -- I'd have to say that more challenging works. I'd have to say that more challenging works because, having done both with the same people, there has never in my experience been an instance where any player has ever told me that they preferred less challenging.

YMMV, and if your players enjoy less challenging, more power to you. However, I hope you'll understand if I take my experience over your say-so. IMHO, and IME, easier encounters = less quality. Please note that I am talking about overall tone; PCs should have encounters that allow them to demonstrate their growth. 10th level PCs should get the chance to trounce lowly orc warriors. At the same time, they should get the opportunity to face things that truly make them sweat. Again, IMHO and YMMV.

And I'll state again that "flavor and attitude" are entirely edition-independant (relying, as they do, on the DM), so it's very inaccurate to say that you prefer any edition's "flavor and attitude."

Flavour and attitude rely upon the DM and players in any edition, but then so do the rules used, and to roughly the same extent. And I very much doubt that you would claim that it's therefore very inaccurate to say that you prefer any edition's rules.

There is a very big difference between the flavour and attitude of 1e and 3e, which examining the rulebooks makes quite clear. You may choose to "go against the grain" of this flavour and attitude, just as you may choose to rewrite rules you do not like, but that is a far cry from claiming that either doesn't exist.

Frankly, given that so many people on EN World and in this thread have played more than one edition of D&D, I find it amazing that you'd even try to float that Titanic of an argument.

 

[Ourph]

Or, conversely, DM's play in modules where random encounters frequently ARE carting around treasure that makes it worth your while to kill them. Never mind that a wandering couple of creatures are so much easy xp that it makes sense to kill them anyway.

The 1e rules specifically state that treasure type is indicative of the amount of treasure found with a creature in its lair. By definition, wandering monsters are not in their lair and should have less treasure about them (the exact details are left up to the DM). In addition, as I said upthread, if you are going strictly by the 1e RAW XP from monsters is a low payoff endeavor. What you gain XP-wise for defeating a monster is minimal compared to the resources you waste if the creature has no significant treasure. You're much better off to spend those resources fighting creatures with more treasure or gaining treasure without fighting than you are attacking everything that moves. Going for "XP on the hoof" in 1e is simply bad strategy.

 

[FireLance]

Hence the statement, I am curious how fewer negative consequences for failure could fail to make the game less challenging.

After thinking about it a bit, perhaps we're not talking about the same thing. When I talk about the level of challenge, I'm thinking about the straightforward chance of success or failure on a challenge by challenge basis. When a PC fights an orc, whether losing to the orc results in his death, in his waking up alive but stripped of all equipment, or in his rescue by an NPC, it has no effect on his basic chance of winning. From that perspective, the game is still as challenging if some types of negative consequences are removed.

Now, if you look at the knock-on consquences of failure then yes, removing the more serious consequences of failure will put a cap on the relative difficulty of subsequent challenges. Hence, on a per adventure or per session basis, the game could get less challenging.

The key issue is what happens during the next adventure or the next session. If the DM takes into account the PC's reduced circumstances, the challenge level effectively "resets" - the player creates an equally powerful new PC, the DM replaces the PC's equipment, the DM ratchets down the level of challenge, etc. In other words, the game becomes about as challenging as it used to be.

If the DM does not take into account the PC's reduced circumstances, the increased challenge continues, the PC becomes even more likely to fail and, barring exceptional player skill or luck, will eventually reach the point where re-starting the campaign seems to be the less painful option. At which point, unless the consequences of failure have a knock-on effect on the next campaign, the game again becomes about as challenging as it used to be.

In summary: removing some negative consequences for failure may make the game less challenging in the short run (whether or not this means less fun will depend on the preferences of the group), but I still don't think it will appreciably reduce the challenge in the long run.

 

[Numion]

Failure itself is not a negative consequence unless that failure has some meaningful effect. When the monster has an AC of 24, and my combined roll is 22, it doesn't matter that I failed to hit the monster if the DM tells me to roll damage anyway.

So, yes, there are many potential types of failure. Some are more meaningful than others. The more you remove, or limit, the consequence of the most meaningful types of failure, the less meaningful they will be.

I would imagine this to be self-evident.

I would actually say that a failure itself is a negative consequence.

For whatever reason one of the most annoying failures I've had in D&D was a werewolf that got away. Our purpose was to clean out an evil cult working out of an old tomb - the main baddie was a werewolf spellcaster, a sorcerer I suppose. Due to my failure (opening a door at the wrong moment followed by amazin tumble rolls by the wolfie) allowed it to get away.

Now this had no negative consequences - the DM gave us XP, the wolfie didn't seem to have much of value on him at that point, and we accomplished what we wanted; we broke the cult.

Still it annoyed me to no end for some reason. It was a failure of my tactics, and it allowed a werewolf to get the best of me. A baddie was better than me / my character. Had the campaign lasted I would've come back to the area at level 15 and whoop the werewolves ass to orbit, just to get personal gratification.

 

[Numion]

The 1e rules specifically state that treasure type is indicative of the amount of treasure found with a creature in its lair.

BTW, there was a strange effect if the DM followed this advice blindly (like I did sometimes). An intelligent baddie would attack the PCs 'naked', while it had all kinds of useful magic gizmos back at its lair. But that is not a knock on 1E, because DMs are supposed to use brains in any edition.

But the consequence is that random encounters are not a complete waste loot-wise even in 1E.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Now this had no negative consequences - the DM gave us XP, the wolfie didn't seem to have much of value on him at that point, and we accomplished what we wanted; we broke the cult.

Still it annoyed me to no end for some reason.

I would've brought that werewolf back as a recurring villain that everyone would've loved to hate. Player failure thus enhancing the overall game. Man, there's nothing like a villain that keeps getting away.

 

[Numion]

I would've brought that werewolf back as a recurring villain that everyone would've loved to hate. Player failure thus enhancing the overall game. Man, there's nothing like a villain that keeps getting away.

Me too! However, it was another DMs campaign and we never came back to the area. I would've had the werewolf come back with vengeance for breaking his cult.

 

[Hussar]

And, frankly, I do "degrade" the idea that we should simply sit back and demand everything to be easier. That may not be a reduction in quality as you define the term, but it is as I define it. In a similar vein, I define the work of Da Vinci as infinitely superior to my simply throwing a bucket of paint at a canvas and calling whatever I end up with "art". Moreover, I am allowed to define quality however I please, just as you are. And I am allowed to think your definition wonky, just as you are allowed to think I am an elitist snob for thinking that.

But, no one is demanding that FROM YOU. The rules most certainly aren't. If you want to spend the time to intricately craft your campaign, detail every NPC, develop 10000 years of history, rewrite large swaths of the rules, more power to you. The rules specifically support your choice to do that. The rules even go so far as to give baselines in order to be able to judge what effects your changes may have in future play.

For example, in the 3e DMG it discusses adding in more lethal critical hits. I don't have the book in front of me, so I cannot quote page and verse, but, the gist of the advice is that any increase in lethality in combat is generally going to hurt the PC's far worse than the monsters since the PC's have to fight every fight, but the baddies only fight once. Pretty solid advice. Now, it doesn't say, "Don't do this"; rather it states that if you do, be aware that there are consequences.

So, if you want to rewrite the game, go for it.

However, OTOH, there are large swaths of gamers who are quite content to play with RAW (or fairly close to it) and don't feel inclined to spend large amounts of time going beyond what's there. Should that sort of player or DM be barred from the game? Why not instead craft rules that work the majority of the time and allow those DM's to run games as well?

Strawman arguements about candyland games aren't helping. The vast majority of the source material for D&D, in any edition, is most certainly not high literature. What RC claims as inspiration, I see as leg irons shackling me to a specific game. I was 14 years old playing 1e. Who the heck was I to tell EGG that he was wrong and that dwarves should be able to be wizards?

It's easy enough to say, "oh, well, any rule you didn't like you could just change" but, when it came down to it, I know I was (and still am) very uncomfortable fiddling with the rules. I can do it, and I have done it, and I still do it, but I've NEVER liked it. Whacking on a bunch of limitations, then wrapping it up in prose that is less than precise to say the least is not, IMHO, a way to tell people to make the game their own.