Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gold Roger" data-source="post: 3017631" data-attributes="member: 33904">SMD, I'll only adress your first post for now. I think this is where you show some misconceptions in your viewpoint.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 gameYes 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.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.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 guidelinesI 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.Well, I argue the explicitly part (but at this point I don't have to tell you that, I guess<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />).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.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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />.Hey, if I can excuse wotc on unclear writing, I can definitely excuse you on it.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.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</blockquote>

Verification