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

[The Shaman]

You're avoiding a central issue here. In 1e and 2e, many of these creatures could not be physcially harmed without magic. In 3.x, if you hit them hard enough, you can hurt them, making magic weapons nice, but not totally necessary.

That's the central issue?

I replied to this:

Older editions definitely required you to have lots of magic. Look at how many creatures were unable to be dmaged except by a +1/2/3/4/5 magic weapon. Loads of them.

I disagree about both the "requirement" of "lots of magic" and that there are "loads" of monsters that can't be fought without magical weapons, and it was to that I responded. Given that "lots" and "loads" are pretty subjective measurements, I suppose the point could be argued in different ways, but that was my take on it.

I can kinda, sorta see where you might take that to be about magic weapons as a means of bypassing DR, though I disagree that was the "central issue." That said, let's look at that for a moment. Damage resistance versus magic, cold iron, silver, et cetera is something that I really like from 3e - I've adapted this to other games that I run in other genres 'cause I think it's cool.

My question is, so what? In 1e if you encountered a critter immune to your weapons, you used other magic to attack or defend, or you ran away - sometimes you went on a quest to locate a weapon that would be effective against the critter and came back for a second-helping later on. Whatever route the players took, it was good stuff for adventures.

Moveover, an ounce of sense and a dash of restraint was all it took for a dungeon master to avoid springing one "+1 or better to hit" critter after another on a defenseless, attackless party of adventurers. The fact that a 3e dungeon master can spring a critter immune to cold iron on a party with no means of doing more than a couple of hit points of damage per round using standard weaponry doesn't seem like a profound change to me - chances are that the party is still likely to use other magic, or run, or obtain an appropriate weapon and come back later, rather than slug it out doing two or three points of damage per round - at least, that has been my experience, which I don't presume is universal.

 

[Raven Crowking]

*is just going to say this*

LEVELING ISN"T A BAD THING!

Of course not. But the point is that leveling, in and of itself, isn't a good thing either.

 

[Raven Crowking]

These are myths that have already been busted. Why do people keep bringing them back up. Quasketon's excellent module examinations show that progression from 1st to about 10th level is almost IDENTICAL from 1e to 3e.

These are observations that you prefer to call myths and that you believe have been dispelled. If progression from 1st to 10th level in 1e and 3e are the same, please tell me how many orcs I have to kill to get to 10th level in both editions. If the numbers are the same, I'll call you correct.

And, going through those old modules, the treasure wasn't well hidden and there certainly wasn't an assumption that you wouldn't find most of it. 99% of it was out in front and obvious.

I just ran the cavern portion of Keep on the Borderlands, using the 3.X update available on EnWorld. The group found approximately 10-15% of the treasure, and complained that they had no magic weapons. Absolute truth.

And, I don't know about anyone else, but, Continual Light was a 2nd level spell in the games I played. No group over third level EVER carried a torch.

My experience is different.

RC

 

[Psion]

Quasqueton makes a number of questionable assumptions in these "comparisons," Hussar. I wouldn't accept the conclusions as definitive.

Whatever the case, I find that they represent a greater effort to really analyze what is going on than the hearsay and anecdotes that usually get batted about on the issue.

 

[The Shaman]

Whatever the case, I find that they represent a greater effort to really analyze what is going on than the hearsay and anecdotes that usually get batted about on the issue.

A greater effort, yes, but no more reliable than hearsay and anecdotes.

Lining up columns of numbers side-by-side isn't sufficient to draw conclusions if the numbers in each column mean different things, and there is a sea-change in some important conceits between earlier and later editions for which Quaqueton doesn't account, in my humble opinion (and with no disrespect for Quasqueton intended).

 

[Glyfair]

Whatever the case, I find that they represent a greater effort to really analyze what is going on than the hearsay and anecdotes that usually get batted about on the issue.

In fact, this is one of the things that led to me starting my review threads on The Strategic Review & The Dragon. While they don't give a perfect snapshot of what is going on, they give a look into what people were discussing, what those in the company believed and said they believed (which weren't always the same thing).

I'm not trying to prove any points (except maybe that people perceptions have been colored over time). I'm just trying to look at things then and seeing how things really were.

 

[ThirdWizard]

How to "fix" D&D 3E to be like 1E.

Step 1) Make XP to level exponential.
Step 2) Remove CR and give the monsters XP equal to CR*10
Step 3) Remove wealth by level guidelines

There ya go.

There's an alternative as well.

Give out whatever magical items you feel like and ignore CR when designing encounters, actually looking at their stats like you did back in 1E.

Either way works.

 

[Raven Crowking]

How to "fix" D&D 3E to be like 1E.

Step 1) Make XP to level exponential.
Step 2) Remove CR and give the monsters XP equal to CR*10
Step 3) Remove wealth by level guidelines

There ya go.

Then streamline the combat system. A lot.

And make the NPCs easier to stat up.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Then streamline the combat system. A lot.

You mean "obfuscate".

Actually, I'll be nice:

There's a difference between "streamlining" and "reducing any reasonably complex combat action to adjudication via DM fiat".

First and Second Edition AD&D worked via the latter method. There's nothing wrong with it, but it's not inherently streamlined because, as the weight of anecdotal evidence suggests, your average AD&D DM had one or two . . . "quirky" assumptions about what would be "faster", "more realistic", or "more fun" in combat.

Like people who think weapon speeds are fun or realistic.

 

[Psion]

A greater effort, yes, but no more reliable than hearsay and anecdotes.

I think I have to beg to differ.

Any two anecdotes vary wildly based on a player's personal experience. Quas' analysis, while it may include some assumptions you may not care for, is a look at modules in black and white, and can be adjusted for any changes of the assumptions you care to make of it. In short, he shows the source of his analysis and lays bare how he arrives at the conclusion. Though they are open to interpretation, he lays the fact bare regarding the actual systems so they can be compared without the baggage of "how my group ran/runs things."

That's better than any "well, in my game..." anecdote, which really say as much or more about your group and GM than the systems.