Game balance and 3rd edition implications

[MerricB]

Players are expected to overcome challenges with their characters' abilities instead of their own creativity and persuasiveness.

I don't quite agree with this. Although the persuasiveness of a player should be (and probably has been ) reduced as an aspect of the game, the creativity of a player in using their existing PC abilities is extremely important.

Indeed, even the simple Bluff check requires creativity on the part of the player - they do have to come up with a story, even if a simple one.

Cheers!

 

[JRRNeiklot]

See... I don't like that at all. You're basically saying to the Player "Exploit the system, and I'll break the rules to screw you later." It should be that it either it works that way or it doesn't. Player actions shouldn't change the rules of the game. I would just say "No it doesn't work like that," if I don't think its in the rules, or "Yes it will work like that," if that's how the rules do work.

It's not breaking the rules. Ever carry a sack of groceries and trip and fall? That's why we have plastic bottles now. Anyone stuffing 20 glass bottles inside a backpack and then engaging in strenuous activity, such as climbing, hiking, fighting, deserves what they get.

 

[Chimera]

I find it quite funny that some players will cry foul and say that an encounter is unbalanced when they lose.

However, how many of them say the same thing when they win? "No fair, that encounter was unbalanced!! We won too easily!!! waaaaaaa!!!

At no point do I guarantee that all encounters will be fairly balanced to the party's abilities.

In fact, I go out of my way to guarantee that encounters will vary wildly, from the "you encounter 4 Kobolds and kill them - we're not going to bother with that", to "As you crest the hill, you see the back side of a Beholder about 60' away. He doesn't seem to notice you yet. What do you do?" (to a lone 2nd level character!)

Like you say, I don't see players whining too much about "easy" encounters.

 

[ThirdWizard]

It's not breaking the rules. Ever carry a sack of groceries and trip and fall? That's why we have plastic bottles now. Anyone stuffing 20 glass bottles inside a backpack and then engaging in strenuous activity, such as climbing, hiking, fighting, deserves what they get.

I don't believe that is in the rules anywhere. Attended objects don't have to make saves when random things happen. Can you imagine if every time you were tripped or grappled or struck, there was a chance for all your potions to break? That's not in the rules for a reason, and it shouldn't be in the rules. Creating something like that on the fly can have no purpose other than to screw Players.

And, you said it like this:

I would allow the above without problem - as long as he was aware that every time he fell the 20 bottles of oil would each have to save vs crushing blow to not break.

That easily comes off as a thinly veiled threat, and I can't see how it can be interprieted otherwise. You didn't say it when they bought the oil flasks. You didn't say it when they were writing them down. They've been carring those flasks for a while now. No, you bring up this "rule" when they decide to do something with them.

Which is adversarial. Which stands against everything that I think a DM/Player relationship should be.

 

[FireLance]

I don't quite agree with this. Although the persuasiveness of a player should be (and probably has been ) reduced as an aspect of the game, the creativity of a player in using their existing PC abilities is extremely important.

Indeed, even the simple Bluff check requires creativity on the part of the player - they do have to come up with a story, even if a simple one.

Good point. I would still say that the nature of the creativity has changed, though, from the creative use of resources purposefully, inadvertently, or unknowingly supplied by the DM, to the creative use of well-defined, known character abilities.

 

[Chimera]

As for the "20 flasks of oil in a backpack", I have already made it clear to my players that if they engage in this sort of behavior, then there are going to be legitimate and logical consequences.

One of my players wanted to carry around a pack loaded with Alchemist Fire and Acid Flasks. I told him straight away that the bad guys would take note of all this nasty stuff that he was pulling out of his pack and probably start targeting the bloody thing. Then there would be issues with falling damage and the like - even if the rules don't specifically mention such things.

The key is to make such things known well in advance, not in the middle of combat when a player mentions that he has such things. Of course, I expect the player to let me know that he's doing this in advance, or I might pull the same sort of thing as JRRNeiklot. Writing something on your sheet then pulling it on the GM without notice is not cool, and players deserve the logical consequences of their actions - especially if they don't think things through.

It's a sort of "I use a lighter to check if there's any gas left in the gas can" type of thing. It's foolish to complain about how unfair the GM is when you go BOOM.

IMC I use several kinds of potion vials. There are easily breakable ones used for grenade potions (which might break and go off if they're exposed and you have to make a save), there are regular glass or ceramic vials which few people use, and there are special Glassteel vials (costing 500 silver dollars, or roughly 25gp), which anyone with sense will use if available. The glassteel vials are reusable, so it's not a disposable expense. (In fact, since I'm running a low-economy game, finding an empty is a nice little boon!)

 

[Chimera]

Nowadays, in a 3e style environment, that attitude isn't encouraged. You don't state that you're checking the flume of the chimney, poking through the mattress, cutting open the beholder to look inside. You make a Search check. To some, that's holding players' hands through the dungeon. To others, it cuts through the boring checklist of things to do and gets back to action.

Makes me recall some GMs who took great pride in making us waste an hour or two of game time nitpick-searching everything we could think of. Hiding things we absolutely KNEW had to be in that room in places that NO ONE would think of.
May be fun for the sadistic GM to sit there and chortle over how "they'll never find it", but it's very frustrating to be a player in that situation and it's counter-productive to game play.

"Aha! You never said that you were checking inside the Beholder's left nostril! So you don't find the Holy Widget! GOTCHA!"

Sort of like "They'll never solve this puzzle" tricks that totally derail entire campaigns, because as advertised, the players can't solve the puzzle and move on with the game.

That's Adversarial GMing, even if some people prefer to see it as clever.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

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.

First, ad hoc ruling are actually addressed directly in the game, and good "rules of thumb" are given for them. The DMG has this to say about consulting rules:

Look at the rules only when you truly need to during a game. While the rulebooks are here to help you, paging through a book to double-check yourself can slow things down. Look when necessary (and mark things you'll need to refer to again with a bookmark), but recall a rule from memory when you can. You may not be perfectly correct in your recollection, but the game keeps moving.

As for ad hoc rules:

While the combat actions defined in the Player's Handbook are numeorus and fairly comprehensive, they cannot begin to cover every possible action that a character might want to take. Your job is to make up the rules on the spot to handle such things. In general, use the rules for combat actions as guidelines, and apply ability checks, skill checks, and (rarely) saving throws when they are appropriate.

This is touched on again on page 30, under "The DM's Best Friend."

My point is that 3.5 at least goes to the effort to tell DMs and players - "hey, don't let the rules slow you down, but they're here in case you need something more concrete."

 

[thatdarnedbob]

Pick up a new adventure WOTC, Dungeon magazine, or new online adventure at wizards.com... usually every encounter through the whole publication is set at a single EL. I was totally stunned the first time I saw it, but that seems to be the current design expectation in practice.

Dungeon 134:
Home under the Range (3rd level adventure): 3, 10 (meant to be avoided), 3, 3, 4+, 4, 3-5+ (depends on which enemies the players choose to encounter in the battle) Half of these are at party level, but the rest are more difficult, and only one is meant to be avoided.
And Madness Followed (9th level): 9, 10, 12 (but they're bards), 11 (but only for 1d6+1 rounds if all goes well). Only one of the encounters is at party level.
Into The Worm Crawl Fissure (19-20th level): 19, 23, 21, 22, 20, 15 (encountered as a repeatable trap), 20, 15 (encountered 9 times), 3, 20, 19, 20, 21, 27+ (yay dragotha!). Plenty of throw-away encounters here, but also a few above party level. Most are not at 19 or 20.
Dungeon 136:
Tensions Rising (4th level): 5, 1, 3, 3, 5, 6, 6, 3, 4, 3.
The Coming Storm (10th level): 13, 8, 10, 12, 11, 10, 8, 12, 13, 10, 6, 5, 8, 9, 9, 8, 8, 12, 12, 9, 12, 11, 8, 4, 10, 13, 13, 7, 11, 6, 10, 9, 11, 14.
Gates of Oblivion (18th level): 17, 18, 19, 20, 19, 18, 18, 13, 17, 16, 15, 16, 16, 16, 18, 21, 19.

I'd go on, but you get the point. At least in the last six months of Dungeon, not a single adventure follows your pattern. I don't know about recent print WotC adventures (Red Hand hasn't arrived yet), but WotC doesn't have any new online adventures (they're all over a year old), and their "Vicious venues" offer a wide range of encounters.

 

[Gold Roger]

SMD, I'll only adress your first post for now. I think this is where you show some misconceptions in your viewpoint.

Its my conclusion that player expectations for challenge for a game are defined by writers of the game, as it is expressed directly (in the DMG), and implied (in the published adventures). In the DMG, they call this Status Quo versus Tailored.

When page 48 of the DMG says "If you decide to use only status quo encounters, you should probably let your players know about this.", I think the implication is pretty dang clear.

Eh?
Is that writer serious? Why would I ever run anything else? Yet there it is, the assumption that everything will usually be "tailored" (instead of "balanced") for the PC party, and that if it isn't, I should let the players know.

There's an awfull lot of interpretation you show here. Sadly Monte (responsible for writing the things you quote) himself propably won't drop in and clarify. However, it's my belief that this sentence doesn't mean that the game expects tailored, but many players when they first come to the game may. To prevent those players from coming with misconceptions to your table (because they may come from a videogaming background or simply think "we're the heroes, we can't loose"). A player that expects status quo and gets a tailored DM may not even realise the difference. The other way around it's trouble waiting to happen. Also remember that this advise is written for novice DMs that start with 3.x (like I used to be). I've read enough of Monte's gaming thoughts to know that he doesn't want to tell somebody that has played since "ye olde days" how to play.

Of course, then it's my interpretation against yours and none of us can prove whos interpretation is right. Luckily I don't have to. I don't try to show you the true interpretation, I want to show you that the above statement isn't and absolute statement on how the designers want you to play your game

Lower part of the same page...
"To balance [there's that word again] an encounter with a party...<snip>...You want the party's level to match the level of the encounter..."

Eh...no I don't. I want to create an encounter according to a variety of goals. And balance isn't one of them.

Yes you want to, but only when you want to balance the encounter against the party. Nowhere does it say you have to always do that. In fact it's repeatedly stated that it's better when the encounters aren't always balanced against the party.

The published adventures speak in exactly this way as well. Whether its Dungeon magazine giving adjustments to the scenario for party level or the published adventures themselves, the implication is quite clear and repetitive.

Adventures had level ranges since the earliest days. These guidelines simply show at what level the adventure is ideally in line with the writers original vision. Adjustments may be given to widen that range. Doesn't stop you from throwing a level 2 group into an unadjusted level 5 adventure though.

Then on page 50 of the DMG, description of encounter difficulties....
"Overpowering: The PCs should run. If they don't they will almost certainly lose..."

Oh, I see. So I guess they can't negotiate with the encounter, using flattery to play on the ego of a dragon. And I guess a bribe to let them pass is out of the question. So is sneaking past the encounter. Or baiting and leading it into an environment/situation that gives the characters a combat advantage. Or engaging in a riddling contest, so that it is a contest of wits rather than physical might. Or attacking to cripple or trap the creature rather kill outright, so that it can be bypassed. Or a million other possible ways of dealing with an encounter besides killing it.

Well, the 3.x DMG does give two options for adversial encounters to go (three if you count TPK):

Overcome it (and gain XP) or back away. However, the thought that overcoming an encounter only by leaving it in an expanding puddle of its own blood is a figment of your imagination. Just look up your 3.x XP chapter, where it will tell you that bribing, sneaking past, tricking or negotiating past an adversial encounter means overcoming it and warants XP. Of course the overpowering opponents have spot, listen and sense motive checks the PC's can hope to beat only as much as winning a battle against the beasty. And most such beasties propably want bribes a bit bigger than what most PC's might provide. So barring exeptional circumstances (the lich is mad and wimsical, the dragon has just eaten, the PC's can trade some MC Gruffin, the blackguards Captain has an eye for the groups sorceress) backing away is the best choice. And the special cases should obvously not be part of generel guidelines

Folks, I am not trying to be disagreeable. Maybe you and I are looking at the DMG and seeing two different things. But when I look at the rulebook and the modules what I see is:

1) Melee and killing (or running, if necessary) is the proper method of dealing with encounters (except traps)
2) Thus every encounter should be balanced for the party level

It seems to me this is written into 3E, through and through, and I think that is a much worse version of the game.

I mean thats the thing that gets me, that really burns me. I really do think that 3E is in many respects a remarkably worse version of D&D, and it frustrates and angers me. I suppose the designers honestly believed they were making they game better, but they made it worse, and I have to deal with that at my game table. And of course since its the latest version of D&D players think "it must be the best version, so thats the version I want to play".

Arrggggg...man it chaps my hide.

I see. Yes, we look at this thing with different eyes and the fact alone that we can do so should show you that this can't really be such a big part of the game.

I agree that the designers honestly belief they improved the game. But I also think that most of the people that favor D&D 3.5 genuinely belief that it's the best version out there based on the system and not simply because it's newest. But that doesn't mean that it's the best for everybody (the designer able to create such a game would have to be a god at least) and don't want to force anybody to play it.

As contradictory as it sounds, I don't really consider this an edition issue. Its more "design philosophy baggage that came along with the edition change". Its not really rules specific at all, except to the extent that one considers CR a part of the rules. However, it is part of the overall philosophy of scenario design that is put forth, both explicitly and implicity in 3E D&D, and it bears directly upon the development of player skill within the ruleset.

Well, I argue the explicitly part (but at this point I don't have to tell you that, I guess).

I find your statement on player skill curious though. You expect of a good game to help develope it, right?

I find myself at the same time sympathising with and getting repulsed by that idea. Sympathising because I held simmilar belief for a long time and tried to harness player skill at all cost. And getting repulsed because it's taking things awefully serious and is in the end quite narrowminded. Having long played with very casual players I've learned though that not everybody wants that from the game. If you demand it many people can get put of quickly. And it skirts awefully close to the "I want the game to garner exactly to my playstyle first, because it's the true gamestyle".

All I can say to this is:

1.That D&D, especially 3.5, is often decried as a tactical wargame shows that at least one aspect of player skill is still widely spread, which is the tactical aspect. However, this relies heavily on the rules, so it's propably not the kind of player skill you are looking for.

2. I see absolutely nothing in 3.5 stopping you from playing in a way that encourages "player skill" the way you want it.

Were I to write my ideal version of the rules, it would, in fact, include many 3E innovations (such as the aforementioned FF/touch ACs, d20 universal mechanic, etc.). I would drop much of the mass of rules, that serve as so much fodder for the rules-lovers.

While I'm sure I wouldn't want you to design D&D's next edition (hey, I like to have many rules rules), I have no problem with you prefering a more rules light approach. From OD&D to C&C there's many options for such a game. And if still somebody would come along and make the next D&D edition rules light, I guess then I might see for myself how it is to favor an outdated system .

I suppose thats part of the problem here. That is, I have not articulated my views on 3E as well as I might, and my criticism is that taken as "hate" or "bashing". I am certainly ambivalent about 3E, and on points where, IMO, 3E falls far short, all I express is that negativity of opinion.

Hey, if I can excuse wotc on unclear writing, I can definitely excuse you on it.

However, based on WotC's published work, statements and philosophy it expresses, I do think that in the area of scenario design and development of player skill, 3E D&D falls significantly short of the quality (inconsistently) established in 1E.

That is simply an honest assessment. If that assessment is wrong, then I really would like to know, and thus improve my game and employment/enjoyment of the 3E ruleset. But based on what I have seen, my assessment seems accurate.

If you said "I just prefer the old rules because I prefer an easier ruleset" or somesuch I would say cool and walk away. But it seems to me you got yourself into some mental blockade (which I can't fault you for, happens to people all the time and over far worse things). I think your ruining yourself a for you perfectly fine game by getting hung up over some uncertain passages and bad editing. And that's just plain unlucky (and means wotc needs better editing).

I hope most of my arguements make me sense to you. Maybe I sway you, but experience tell me that propably I won't.

But I thank you for your willingness to rethink your position. While I guess I'm far to happy with my games to share your doubts in D&D 3.5 (which doesn't mean the game is perfect to me), I want you to know that I'd certainly play in a game of yours should we ever meet on a con or somesuch.

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. *snip*

I guess you've seen many threads like this one go their way down and obviously have a lot of emotion on it, but please keep them in chack.

This thread hasn't devolved so far and SMD, while some of his stances are argueable, has shown himself ready for discussion and to be swayed. I know how these threads can go, but this one so far has been very civil, so let's please all keep it like that