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

[MerricB]

I think that is one of the fundamental differences between 1E and 3E - 1E put a lot more emphasis on certain restrictions for inherent flavour reasons (with somewhat of an expectation that a DM would houserule what he didn't like), whereas 3E seems to mainly steer clear of flavour based restrictions, and only put restrictions in place for purely mechanical or balance reasons.

Hmm. I don't quite agree with that. Although the stated goal of level-limits and demi-human restrictions in 1e is for flavour, a major part of that flavour is so they don't dominate - in other words, are balanced! (Mind you, the halfling fighter is a flavour-based restriction without doubt).

It's quite obvious that 1e has been created with an eye for balance. It's a different style of balance from 3e: in 3e, the objective is for all characters to be able to contribute at all levels of play. In 1e, the objective is for all characters to be able to contribute over the course of a campaign that lasts from 1st to 12th level.

One interesting feature about 3e's "anything goes" style of play is that, in fact, anything doesn't go. Half-orc paladins, although possible, are distinctly rare because the mechanical features of the game discriminate against them.

(This wasn't quite recognised by the designers at the time, of course, which is why elven wizards are so poor - it's been recognised later, however.)

Cheers!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hmm. I don't quite agree with that. Although the stated goal of level-limits and demi-human restrictions in 1e is for flavour, a major part of that flavour is so they don't dominate - in other words, are balanced! (Mind you, the halfling fighter is a flavour-based restriction without doubt).

If you consider restrictions due to flavour as equal to restrictions due to mechanical balance, then your point is spot on.

Of course, I do agree that 1e made an attempt at a specific -- and very different -- kind of balance than 3e. As stated previously, the flavour and attitude of the two games are quite different.


RC

 

[Hussar]

So we can therefore disregard your "Who the heck was I to tell EGG that he was wrong and that dwarves should be able to be wizards?" line, and all the related lines? Including anything that leads to AD&D 1e not being alterable?

In other words, are you saying that you did not feel like you were shackled by the 1e RAW, but merely didn't like "fiddling with the rules"?

No, I didn't like fiddling with the rules specifically because EGG and Co told me what the rules should be. I didn't allow dwarves to be wizards because 1e told me that they couldn't. This get's back to the schizo nature of the game.

1e RAW: Dwarves, under no circumstances, can be wizards.
1e RAW: Feel free to ignore this.

Which is it? It's not like the first one was written as a suggestion. It was specifically hardwired into the game. So, here I am, a new gamer, and I'm supposed to ignore the rules? And that's being touted as good game design? There's absolutely no guidance given as to WHY dwarves can't be wizards or Halflings can't be clerics, yet, I'm supposed to make any sort of rational decision to change that?

It's exactly the same if I walked up to Kasparov and told him that knights should be able to move three squares and then one, instead of two. Some people might like that, but, me, I'll submit to authority.

I think that is one of the fundamental differences between 1E and 3E - 1E put a lot more emphasis on certain restrictions for inherent flavour reasons (with somewhat of an expectation that a DM would houserule what he didn't like), whereas 3E seems to mainly steer clear of flavour based restrictions, and only put restrictions in place for purely mechanical or balance reasons.

And this is precisely what I was referring to earlier. Shackling me to a specific campaign. Namely some sort of Tolkeinesque setting with extras.

I don't want rules to tell me what my campaign must look like. I want rules to tell me how to build my own. So, 3e starts with a wide open approach and then the DMG, in the Campaign Creation section specifically tells me what I should look at if I want to narrow the focus.

1e starts with a narrow focus and gives next to no help when I want to move beyond that.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No, I didn't like fiddling with the rules specifically because EGG and Co told me what the rules should be. I didn't allow dwarves to be wizards because 1e told me that they couldn't.

Then that, again, is a confidence issue, isn't it? 1e said "Here's the rules, change 'em if you want" and you said "But I can't change them, they're the rules!"? You say you "submit to authority" yet you don't think that confidence is the issue?

Did you feel shackled to the Greyhawk deities in 3e?

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I don't want rules to tell me what my campaign must look like. I want rules to tell me how to build my own. So, 3e starts with a wide open approach and then the DMG, in the Campaign Creation section specifically tells me what I should look at if I want to narrow the focus.

1e starts with a narrow focus and gives next to no help when I want to move beyond that.

If you want a game with fewer restrictions, 1e isn't for you. And probably, class-based games in general aren't for you; you might want to try Runequest or GURPS?

 

[FireLance]

This is exactly, btw, what I disagree with. Somehow, during the time between sessions, the world changes, the challenge level "resets", and the negative consequences of failure are effectively removed. This reduces, perforce, both the negative consequences of failure, and hence the level of challenge. It is true that the game is "about as challenging" as it was before the failure occurred, but the simple fact that the players know and can expect that the game will "reset" means that it was less challenging in the first place.

It is possible to run a campaign without this "reset", if you have all the adventures and challenges worked out from the start and go through them in order regardless of what happens to the PCs. Paizo's Shackled City and Age of Worms Adventure Paths are examples of this kind of campaign. The negative consequences of a significant failure or setback are felt throughout the rest of the campaign.

However, if the DM does not have the entire campaign planned out from the start, sooner or later he will have to sit down and consider what is going to happen next. At this point, he is faced with the decision of whether to take into account the PCs' current circumstances or not. I don't think there is any argument that a game in which the DM takes into account the PCs' reduced circumstances is less challenging than a game in which the DM does not. However, from my perspective, taking into account the PCs' reduced circumstances is "maintaining the level of challenge", and not doing so is "increasing the level of challenge". I can understand why you might consider taking the PCs' current condition into account when planning adventures and challenges to be "reducing the level of challenge", and not doing so to be "maintaining the level of challenge", but that approach seems to me to be a recepie for a quick TPK and a real campaign reset.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It is my general DMing method to supply options and ongoing storylines. When PCs die (or have other major setbacks), the options which were once within their grasp to take advantage of might become a TPK waiting to happen if that is what the group chooses to do.

I dislike the idea of having the entire campaign set out from the start, although I understand that the adventure paths are fairly popular. That definitely falls under the "different strokes for different folks" heading, IMHO.

Imagine, if you would, that you were running a game in which all of the classic modules were available as adventures. The PCs come into the world knowing that everything from The Keep on the Borderlands to the Tomb of Horrors is out there, waiting for them. They spend a fair amount of their campaign time learning what to expect from these various adventure locales. Through dint of fortune and clever play, they pass through the Cult of the Reptile God, through the Forbidden City, explore the Isle of Dread, and are ready to head to the Barrier Peaks on some kind of crazy Expedition.

Suddenly, due to a side trek or a wandering monster, they suffer a serious setback. Perhaps they did something silly. Perhaps it was just bad luck.

Does Module S3 "reset" to their new power level? Does the party "reset" to their old power level? Or would they be well advised to seek some other adventure instead?


RC

 

[FireLance]

RC, let me just state for the record that your game in which all the adventure modules are available as adventures sounds to me to be no different from having the entire campaign set out from the start.

I do not think that it invalidates my point that the challenge level of the game remains the same, either. The difference is, instead of the DM deciding to use a lower-level module, the decision to take on a lesser challenge is made by the players (or at least, they would be "well advised" to seek it out instead ). Either way, the challenges faced by the PCs scale to their actual level of ability.

If "the negative consequences of failure" means that the PCs have to take on lower-level challenges until they claw their way back up to where they were before, I don't see how this makes the game more challenging, just more boring, at least to me. I can see how this might be more satisfying to certain players and DMs, though.

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC, let me just state for the record that your game in which all the adventure modules are available as adventures sounds to me to be no different from having the entire campaign set out from the start.

One presupposes the challenges that the players will face; the other creates conditions where more challenges are possible than are likely to be faced, and allows the players to choose which challenges to face. This second adds the challenge of determining which adventures will garner the best reward for the challenges faced, as well as determining which challenges are survivable.

I do not think that it invalidates my point that the challenge level of the game remains the same, either. The difference is, instead of the DM deciding to use a lower-level module, the decision to take on a lesser challenge is made by the players (or at least, they would be "well advised" to seek it out instead ). Either way, the challenges faced by the PCs scale to their actual level of ability.

This depends, of course, on what your goals are. When the players are in charge like this, they might decide to undertake challenges that are "ill-advised" -- and by clever play, tactics, planning, and ample scouting/divination actually defeat those challenges.

This is something that can never occur if the "reset" button is continually pressed.


RC

(I am glad to hear that you can see how some players and DMs might find this more satisfying than a constant reset, though! )

 

[Thurbane]

It's quite obvious that 1e has been created with an eye for balance. It's a different style of balance from 3e: in 3e, the objective is for all characters to be able to contribute at all levels of play. In 1e, the objective is for all characters to be able to contribute over the course of a campaign that lasts from 1st to 12th level.

Oh, I agree completely. I didn't mean to imply that 1E wasn't designed with balance in mind, just that 3E tends to shy away from doing things for "flavour resaons" moreso than what 1E does.

One interesting feature about 3e's "anything goes" style of play is that, in fact, anything doesn't go. Half-orc paladins, although possible, are distinctly rare because the mechanical features of the game discriminate against them.

(This wasn't quite recognised by the designers at the time, of course, which is why elven wizards are so poor - it's been recognised later, however.)

That's true too, although I have seen a few players who really seem to ejoy playing "unlikley" characters like Half-orc Paladins and Dwarf Sorcerors, despite the mechanical disadvantages.

Just curious - what's the major drawback of Elven Wizards? I've generally found elves to be quite adequate wizards - the only thing I can think of is the CON penalty resulting in fewer HP.

No, I didn't like fiddling with the rules specifically because EGG and Co told me what the rules should be. I didn't allow dwarves to be wizards because 1e told me that they couldn't. This get's back to the schizo nature of the game.

1e RAW: Dwarves, under no circumstances, can be wizards.
1e RAW: Feel free to ignore this.

Which is it? It's not like the first one was written as a suggestion. It was specifically hardwired into the game. So, here I am, a new gamer, and I'm supposed to ignore the rules? And that's being touted as good game design? There's absolutely no guidance given as to WHY dwarves can't be wizards or Halflings can't be clerics, yet, I'm supposed to make any sort of rational decision to change that?

It's exactly the same if I walked up to Kasparov and told him that knights should be able to move three squares and then one, instead of two. Some people might like that, but, me, I'll submit to authority.

To be honest, I never allowed Dwarves to be Wizards in any 1E game I ran. I was quite happy with the flavour that EGG and co had created. But if I had felt as strongly about it as you did, I would have either A. modded the system to suit or B. looked for an RPG that was more generic. Noy trying to be a wiseguy here, just being honest.

And this is precisely what I was referring to earlier. Shackling me to a specific campaign. Namely some sort of Tolkeinesque setting with extras.

I don't want rules to tell me what my campaign must look like. I want rules to tell me how to build my own. So, 3e starts with a wide open approach and then the DMG, in the Campaign Creation section specifically tells me what I should look at if I want to narrow the focus.

1e starts with a narrow focus and gives next to no help when I want to move beyond that.

I think that's a little unfair. Basically every RPG, except things like GURPS, has some sort of inbuilt flavour. You basically have to decide if you want to stick with that flavour, or modify it to taste. Yes, 3E has far less of that particular flavour inbuilt, but it's still there. 3E is still quite Greyhawk oriented.