Game balance and 3rd edition implications

[ColonelHardisson]

I definitely agree with that...up to a point.
That point was reached either:

1) when we were in a combat that was clearly going to end very badly

2) we were faced with an encounter that was clearly going to end badly if we tried the regular stuff

I don't know, I definitely agree that the structure of 1st Ed didn't explicitly enable these things, but that was no reason not to ask the DM. What do you have to lose by trying? Its true that its dependent on the DM, but thats the difference between good DMing and poor DMing.

I mean 1st Edition rules are bare bones, of course you had to improvise rules for things not spelled out in the book. The given material serves as a foundation for play, not as a cage. Of course, inconsistent DM rulings that were consistent only in their unfriendliness to the players were a problem, but thats more of a problem with the DM.

I think what you may not be grokking here is that many people thrive when they have a rule to cover just about any contingency. It helps make them feel secure in their gaming experience. Free form gaming or whatever one wants to call it strays too close to being "let's pretend" for some people. Barak also notes the "Mother may I?" problem which less rules-intensive games can generate. If this method works for you, great. Whichever method of gaming works for the individual or the group is the correct way to do things. But there are people for whom a more complex game gives a feeling of freedom also - the more that is codified, the more one can extrapolate "on the fly" for contingencies that aren't covered. That is, it's easier to guess how something can be done if one has a number of examples of how other things are done.

I mean, thats the whole point of creative play: to break out of the rules, to come up with clever solutions no one wrote a rule for. The only limit is your imagination and skill, not what some fool wrote in a rulebook.

What an oppressive way of playing. I couldn't stand playing in a game like that. I'd revolt, and either demand a new DM or leave the group. No game at all is better than a game like that.

I wouldn't say that's the whole point of creative play. It may be a point for some, but I'd wager there are quite a few folk for whom the point is to find a game that is structured so that anything they come up with can be modeled within the pre-existing system.

I've played in games and had experiences with game masters where the more free form method of gaming is used. I get uncomfortable with them. I feel like I'm playing something just a notch up from Cops & Robbers. That feels oppressive to me, as I have to rely on the whim of the game master. He may be the nicest, most accomodating guy in the world, but I still feel like everything is being pulled out of his butt. That's oppressive to me.

 

[Sanguinemetaldawn]

I've played in games and had experiences with game masters where the more free form method of gaming is used. I get uncomfortable with them. I feel like I'm playing something just a notch up from Cops & Robbers. That feels oppressive to me, as I have to rely on the whim of the game master. He may be the nicest, most accomodating guy in the world, but I still feel like everything is being pulled out of his butt. That's oppressive to me.

Heh, Cops & Robbers. Nice.

I am not sure if you are apprehending *snicker* the kind of game I mean. The core rules are there of course, and those rules are used 95% of the time; those situations being the usual order of business.

It is the other 5% that I mean...trying things not spelled out in the rules.
I mean, even 3E with its dense ruleset doesn't cover every possible action. In those cases ad hoc rulings are still required.

The difference (it seems to me) between 3E and 1E, is that 3E attempts (futily) to make sure the 5% never comes up, and ends up as a cure worse than the disease, because it is both more complicated, and the ad hoc rulings are still made, and on top of that, we get the
added joy of great amounts of time every game session spent looking up rules.

In my book, that is a just plain worse game.

To each his own of course. And I have repeatedly said 3E does some things better. I do see what you mean though, that you need a solid feeling for your capabilities. You need to have a good idea of what you can and can't do. Thats what the core rules are for.

I guess fundamentally my philosophy is the rules should be enabling, not restrictive, and my experience is that 3E rules are chiefly the latter, both in the letter and in the mentality they promote.

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

I'm not sure that it's 3E fault. I think it's the video and PC game mentality that has grown up over the years that has presented worlds that perfectly scale up with the characters. You know what the levels of each area are and you progress through them in a logical manner, getting the right level of encounter every time. The rules of 3E in and of itself allow for as much variety as that of 1E. The mindset of other games, however becomes the significant factor.

Agreed. We had monsters by level of dungeon tables back in the late '70s. My recent experience with new players has been that the video games taught them bad habits. I've actually had players whine that they couldn’t “save game.” And the Tomb of Horrors was even worse. I ran it in a 2e game and it was a cakewalk. I later ran it with the 3e group (videogame players) and it was a TPK in what must have been the first 30 min. I can't chalk it up to age as both groups were in their late 20s/early 30s. Both groups also had close to same amout of D&D experience.

I personally believe that videogames (and television) dull certain mental faculties.

 

[Blustar]

These threads are always a pissing contest on whose game is better or best, then degenerates into which "gamer" is more creative and smarter, then just outright hostility. I play both OAD&D and 3.5 and I scoff at the idea that you are supposd to play 3.5 balanced? WTF are you grogs smoking? We've been TPK'ed just as many times in 3.5 as 1ed, maybe even more. We do just as many crazy things to confuse our adversaries; throw sand, drop food, coins, ambush, traps, etc..All easily handled by 3.5. (DC + an intelligence check or wisdom or whatever your crazy ass can come up with) Is this in the DMG3.5 , of course not, you have to make it up yourself just like 1ed. ( like ti says inthe 3.5 DMG too)


Please enough of the condescending attitude, it's really childish. I've played 3.5 with 50 year olds who only played OD&D/AD&D and skipped 2ed all together and we play together without a problem. In fact they prefer the new edition. You can still make many ad hoc decisions in 3.5 unless your a damn rules lawyer which in that case you would've been one of those same whinners back in the early 80's.


I don't understand why a "Grog" wants to put his fingers in his ears and go "nananananan" when he realizes that balance in 3.5 is the same as having dungeon levels in the 1ed DMG. It's meant as a way to gauge encounters on combat ability alone. A barometer. So, if you have a group of kobolds who have hard cover and burning oil and whatever, you know its going to be a big fight and probably deaths for the PC's. (unless they play smart) You can use the same tactics, you just resolve them differently. (you can even resolve them teh same way if you wanted)


It all boils down to people hate to change. IT's a fact. They don't want to learn a new system. All these people complaining about the "complexity" of 3.5 grew up playing ASL and AH wargames!(like I did) So they find all the holes and bitch and moan about it's not like it used to be. Instead of sharing ideas and trying to encourage a stronger gaming community it's all about #1 for the Grogs. We do it my way or it sucks. I also try to remain civil but nothings chaps my ass more than some grog who thinks they play "better" than me or anyone else. Give it a rest man.

For the record, I will say that I love playing OAD&D and it's brethren and I actively play in 2 "old school" campaigns. Where I play I'm considered the grog! (becasue of my wargaming experience) We play becasue it's fun to use different rules not because it's better. We use the same skill, the same tactics, the same everything. Who the hell knew?


Blue

 

[Sanguinemetaldawn]

I'm not sure that it's 3E fault. I think it's the video and PC game mentality that has grown up over the years that has presented worlds that perfectly scale up with the characters. You know what the levels of each area are and you progress through them in a logical manner, getting the right level of encounter every time. The rules of 3E in and of itself allow for as much variety as that of 1E. The mindset of other games, however becomes the significant factor.

It is certainly true that the rules and advice cannot constrain gameplay; my own game is evidence enough.

But my quotes indicate a design philosophy that is corroborated by published scenarios, so it seems to me that, at the very least, this design mentality has been internalized by the 3E designers, and those assumptions projected into the 3E community at large.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

It all boils down to people hate to change. IT's a fact. They don't want to learn a new system.

There is an element of that with some people. Some change and find the changes aren't suited to them. Some just like to complain.

 

[Barak]

Everybody likes to complain.

Some people play 3E and complain that stuff is not balanced. Some play OD&D (or an equivalent) and complain that suff is cheesy (as I mentioned earlier). Some people play both and complain that people complain too much.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

The stalagmite example showcases something that came up a lot in my 1E games and rarely comes up these days: players, with DM complicity, finding refuge in poorly detailed areas of the rules when put into bad situations.


This happened all the time back in the day. The players would be fighting a creature, and be about to lose, and someone would say, "I throw my backpack at the creature and then fireball it -- the pack has 20 flasks oil in it, so they all burn and he takes an additional 20d4 of damage", or somesuch.

As a DM, I always felt pressured to rule in favor of the players in cases where the rules didn't specifically allow or prohibit something. TPKs weren't the desired outcome. This was considered 'creative play' on the part of the PCs.

Now, in 3E, it's much harder to find cases like this, because the rules are codified at a much greater level of detail. So we see a much greater demand to have 'balanced encounters'.

That's my take on things, anyway.

Ken

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The T-Rex was fair.

Once you hit ~7th level, there are a number of muscular creatures you may meet that are reasonably likely to kill PCs in a fair fight (hydra, remorhaz, dire bear, dinosaurs, etc.) These same critters are not terribly difficult to outmaneuver through good tactics, especially mobility + ranged attacks. 7th or higher level PCs have the resources to invest in the potions/scrolls to deal with emergencies like this.

 

[Warbringer]

Sure, they didn't say "this isn't balanced!", they said "This is so cheesy!", or "This makes no sense!" or "There's no way X would do Y!".

Yet another way in which 3e has more precise rules than 1e