Has D&D become too...D&Dish?

[Nightfall]

So what...I'm supposed to languish at 1st level forever just because you're not sure you're playing your character correctly?

 

[Glyfair]

Sure, the tools change, but the baseline assumptions never do.

The system itself assumes that your character will have X,Y, and Z items to boost his stats and defenses up to a certain level so you can take on that "appropriate" monster with 20% of your pre-defined resources.

That's why you have the magic shop assumptions, because if you don't let PCs customize their loot, then they're going to be dying left and right because of the game's assumptions.

There *are* assumptions in the d20 system that affect gameplay in significant ways, always have been, always will be.

I think you've focused somewhat on the key. There need to be assumptions, and in earlier editions there were less of them, and there were some that were different. At times there were stated assumptions that were contradictory (witness the "keep magic rare" assumption, and the actual adventures which were far from that).

However, where many people fall down is they assume the core rules "assumptions" are rules. They aren't. They are guidelines they are working with. If you are creating an adventure to publish, you should probably stay within the assumptions. If you decide to stray, state that you are straying and why, so DMs can adapt your adventure easier.

Plus, there are assumptions people are adding to the rules that aren't there. I keep hearing about the assumption that you will have 13 1/2 encounters of your CR and go up a level. That's not the assumption. The assumption is if you have 13 1/2 (or whatever the actual number is) encounters of your CR you will go up a level. It's not a rule that all encounters must be of your CR.

CR is supposed to be a tool for the DM. If I have a 4 PC party of 5th level, I know that an encounter with a CR 2 creature should be a cakewalk for the PCs if it comes to combat (as always, barring oddities I might take into account). I know that an encounter with a CR 8 creature should probably be close to impossible for the PCs to defeat in combat. Neither means I can't have the PCs have either encounter.

Unfortunately, some people have wrapped their heads so tightly around the assumptions, that they are treating them as rules. You have the stories of players complaining because the CR of an encounter was too high. You have stories of players complaining that they don't have enough wealth for their level. There is nothing wrong with tweaking these things, as long as you understand how it affects the campign (cutting down the treasure and keeping everything else the same is going to make things incredibly difficult for PCs).

 

[Nightfall]

*is just going to say this*

LEVELING ISN"T A BAD THING!

 

[d20Dwarf]

*is just going to say this*

LEVELING ISN"T A BAD THING!

Munchkin.

 

[d20Dwarf]

Unfortunately, some people have wrapped their heads so tightly around the assumptions, that they are treating them as rules. You have the stories of players complaining because the CR of an encounter was too high. You have stories of players complaining that they don't have enough wealth for their level. There is nothing wrong with tweaking these things, as long as you understand how it affects the campign (cutting down the treasure and keeping everything else the same is going to make things incredibly difficult for PCs).

The assumptions are tied into the rules, however. Monster design, something I'm focused on rather heavily at the moment, is tied completely into the wealth system. Monsters of CR X must take into account that the PCs *will* have X,Y,Z abilities. So, we're designing monsters using these assumptions, and if DMs disregard those assumptions, then how are they to use the monsters we've designed with those assumptions?

If my module has to include Xgp in treasure, no more, no less, how can anything interesting ever be found? Every room conforms precisely to the wealth by level and wealth be EL system...that's the assumption affecting gameplay. It is and always has been my biggest problem with the d20 system is that these assumptions *do* explicitly affect the way the game is played. In the old days you could have monty haul DMs and parsimonious ones...nowadays everyone's stuck in the same old mold, forced into it by the assumptions of the rules.

 

[Nightfall]

Munchkin.

I'll remember that when you ask me for 10 dollars. *is kidding*

 

[Glyfair]

The assumptions are tied into the rules, however. Monster design, something I'm focused on rather heavily at the moment, is tied completely into the wealth system. Monsters of CR X must take into account that the PCs *will* have X,Y,Z abilities. So, we're designing monsters using these assumptions, and if DMs disregard those assumptions, then how are they to use the monsters we've designed with those assumptions?.

I admit, DMs who change those assumptions have to adapt more than those who follow the assumptions. I touched on that a bit in my post above. For example, a DM who is stingy with his magical treasure (compared to the assumed standard), will have to realize that monsters will act higher than their CR. He'll also have to watch abilities that might make them even tougher (incorporeal creatures are incredibly tough vs. PCs who don't have magic weapons).

Yes, when you are designing adventures you have pretty much two choices. You can design for the "assumed standard" (which doesn't mean you can't have 2nd level & 9th level encounters in a 5th level adventure), or you can break the standard and design around that. You'll have to heavily advertise that you are doing so.

In fact, this is likely good article territory. I'm not sure I've read a thorough article on the effects of how to adjust your game if you change the assumptions.

 

[d20Dwarf]

In fact, this is likely good article territory. I'm not sure I've read a thorough article on the effects of how to adjust your game if you change the assumptions.

I had to address it in Midnight. You *do* have Midnight, right? That was a long time ago, though, so I'm not sure how well it was actually addressed, and of course it would have been focused on that setting rather than on core D&D.

 

[Glyfair]

I had to address it in Midnight. You *do* have Midnight, right? That was a long time ago, though, so I'm not sure how well it was actually addressed, and of course it would have been focused on that setting rather than on core D&D.

Nope, just not my style of gameplay. Fighting the unwinnable fight (or probably unwinnable fight) isn't something I prefer. I've avoided Dark Sun, and mostly avoided Ravenloft & Call of Cthulhu for the same reason.

Of course, once you set up the different assumptions in Midnight, didn't DMs have to make an effort to change things if they wanted to change to different assumptions? (Admittedly, they probably have practice, since they likely adapted things into the setting).

 

[d20Dwarf]

Nope, just not my style of gameplay. Fighting the unwinnable fight (or probably unwinnable fight) isn't something I prefer. I've avoided Dark Sun, and mostly avoided Ravenloft & Call of Cthulhu for the same reason.

Of course, once you set up the different assumptions in Midnight, didn't DMs have to make an effort to change things if they wanted to change to different assumptions? (Admittedly, they probably have practice, since they likely adapted things into the setting).

I was just going all Tony Soprano on you, I didn't expect you'd have it.

All games do and should have assumptions in their rules that inform gameplay. Midnight is no different, and I think people should just admit that D&D has them too. It's not bad if you like that style of play, but that begs the question of why it was changed in the first place.