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

[pogre]

I'm not sure I completely understand the OP, but the title of this thread may me smile.

I do think there is something to be gleaned about levelling. Whenever their is a poll about the most popular levels to play at the sweet spot is around 6th-8th level. I would reference some threads, but sadly I have no search ability as Morrus is still sroting the cs accounts.

It might be a neat idea to slow down the progression dramatically after 5th level or so to stick in that "sweet spot" longer. For folks weho enjoy faster levlling, like me, we could stick with the current system. Folks who are not to keen on epic or even ditch D&D campaigns every time they get above 12th level, this would seem to suit them well.

 

[JohnSnow]

Fellow Iron Heroes maven though I may be, I'll have to disagree with the OP on this one... or rather, suggest that the narrative he's detailing might need some refining.

As the mentioned OP, reading what you have to say, I'm not really sure I disagree with you. I'll be more specific as I comment on the rest of your post...

IMHO, there are really only two reasons why D&D 3e might seem to suggest a particular fantasy subgenre now as opposed to in previous editions:

1) Previous editions were more open-ended than 3e about certain concepts like balance between classes, the effect of a mix of classes on successful completion of encounters, and especially the availability, means of creation, and suggested distribution of magic items. In reality, it's no easier or more difficult to play a gritty Thieves' World style game, a pseudo-historical Vikings game, or a classical-period God of War pastiche game in 3e than in any previous edition; it's just that there actually are play balance issues related to changing the rules that are enumerated in the books now. The basic system engine is clearly capable of being adapted to low-magic or different-genre games; witness Midnight, IH, Grim Tales, etc etc etc.

The problem is that technically speaking, Grim Tales, IH, etc. are not D&D. They're subgenres of "D20 Fantasy" or even "OGL Fantasy." They share basic mechanics of D&D, but diverge enough from the basic game that they can't even CALL themselves D&D. Yes, they meet a need in the market. But my contention is that the "Core Rules" have been tailored to a particular subgenre. Obviously, if it's the dominant subgenre, that's the reality of the marketplace, but I'm not sure if it's in the best long-term interest of the game for it not to cater terribly well to "generic fantasy" as a genre.

The kicker is that designers take the changes required to effect lower magic into the mechanics themselves. 1e and 2e included no rules or guidelines as to how to run an encounter differently for a party of four characters with a few potions and a +1 item or two as opposed to a party with a fighter clad in +5 plate mail with the feared hammer/girdle/gauntlets combination. 3e does. That seems like a feature rather than a genre-informing "bug" to me; if you know the mechanical effect ascribed to something, it's easier to tinker with it.

True. Very true. The particular genre (high-magic, lots of magic items) has been written into the core rules in the name of game balance. And D&D (that is, Core Rules D&D) doesn't provide any guidelines to those interested in a different genre (or style, to use my original word) of fantasy game.

I realize it's possible to do things differently, but what's that saying? "When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail."

I don't really think that this signals a departure in how D&D actually gets played; as Psion mentioned, demographics are in the hands of the DM, as (really speaking) are magic and magic items; there is a reason those are called guidelines. The nice thing about this sort of discussion, however (and perhaps the nice thing about 3e, having made this transparent) is that we can talk specifically and explicitly about how to make D&D conform better to the genres we like, should those genres involve changing base assumptions of the game system. Hence the approach behind, say, Iron Heroes.

And the question I was trying to raise for discussion was basically the following: should Core Rules D&D continue to specifically and by default support the genre of gaming it currently does, or should it be presented in a more adaptable way wherein changing from that genre to a different one is more feasible, without the need for a "variant player's handbook."

I don't feel there's been any particular power creep, other than the in-game assumption about how long attaining a new level takes (not in terms of real world playtime, but in "In-game" time). I guess that's not even really "power creep" so much as it's just 'suspension of disbelief' jarring (for me, at least). For the record, Monte's comment about taking a month to level was made on his boards...

And, just to be clear, I don't mean to pick on Monte. His comments are just the ones that got me REALLY thinking about this subject, so he gets due credit for the inspiration.

 

[MerricB]

I don't feel there's been any particular power creep, other than the in-game assumption about how long attaining a new level takes (not in terms of real world playtime, but in "In-game" time). I guess that's not even really "power creep" so much as it's just 'suspension of disbelief' jarring (for me, at least). For the record, Monte's comment about taking a month to level was made on his boards...

When I think back to the AD&D adventures I played as a teenager, gaining a level in game time took about exactly the same time as now. You went into a dungeon, came out later the same day and were a level higher.

Training rules? I've discarded them in every game I've ever run. I've tried to use them, but except in a plotless dungeon crawl, they disrupt the pace of the story. Even Gary Gygax has said they weren't normally used in his games.

The pace of gaining levels in terms of time played has changed - but the primary change is for high-level play. At low levels, it has been noted by Gary that a PC should be able to progress to 9th level in about a year of play. (So, about 1 level per six sessions). Compare to the 1 level per four sessions presumed for 3e.

At high levels, the rate recommended was 2-3 levels per year of play, which is where the big difference came.

Just as a side note: the XP tables in 1e are highly deceptive. They actually allow very fast levelling of low-level PCs with high-level parties, but the actual time taken to gain levels does not double with the XP required...

Cheers!

 

[Hussar]

True. Very true. The particular genre (high-magic, lots of magic items) has been written into the core rules in the name of game balance. And D&D (that is, Core Rules D&D) doesn't provide any guidelines to those interested in a different genre (or style, to use my original word) of fantasy game.

Again, this is a blatant fallacy. Comparisons of adventures between editions shows that 1e was chock a block with magic. Finish off any given module and you had a golf bag full of magic.

But, that's not just limited to modules. It was written right in the rules as well. And, to prove it, all you have to do is look at the paladin in 1 and 2e. One of the biggest disadvantages of the paladin was the fact that he could "only" own 4 magic weapons, a magic suit of armor, magic shield and 4 more magic items.

Think about that for a sec. A major penalty to a class was TEN magic items. For that to actually BE a restriction meant that everyone else should have MORE than ten. To hit that limit in a 3e game, at bare minimum of +1 weapons and armor and 4 potions would take a 7th level party.

The assumption in earlier editions is that each member of the party would have 11+ magic items. Arguements that earlier editions were less about the magic items are ridiculous when viewed in this light. Assuming a standard 6 man party in 1e, you needed SEVENTY magic items to hit the paladin's limit. And, if you never did, then this limitation was meaningless.

 

[Glyfair]

Probably before even the earliest serious development of 3e WotC did some market research and found that the majority of D&D players played very infrequently (I forget now what the average was now, perhaps 1/month or every two weeks maybe). Anyway it was decided advancement would be made swifter by default so they typical player would see some kind of advancement as they played.

Almost. They may have found that out, but the real basis is they found out that most campaigns lasted no more than a year. They designed the advancement system so that players could hit 20th level in a year of regular play (IIRC, it assumes weekly play).

One of the things I like about Eberron, at least as Keith presents it (which isn't necessarily how WotC views it), is that it tweaks the assumptions about D&D while using it. You won't find clerics healing left and right because clerics are relatively rare (doubly so high level clerics). If you go to a church you are as likely to find it run by an expert as run by a spellcaster (and the spell caster is likely an adept). Of course, you can go to a Jorasco house of healilng, but even there you won't often find high level spells, and Raise Deads are incredibly rare.

 

[Glyfair]

Again, this is a blatant fallacy. Comparisons of adventures between editions shows that 1e was chock a block with magic. Finish off any given module and you had a golf bag full of magic.

That's true, but I'm suspicious of these analyses as written. They tend to assume the PCs will find all the treasure in an adventure and could make use of it. That wasn't always the case.

Also, if you read the treatises in various sources (including The Dragon), you'll see a major effort was recommended to keep PCs poor. Keep the PCs from making off with the treasure, make things as difficult as possible for them to keep the treasure, you only get XP if you manage to convert the treasure to gold - not for keeping the magic items and using them. Be sure to tax the PCs when they leave the dungeon or enter a city, the local government wants their cut. Don't forget that spells like Fireball were much more deadly to party items than they are now.

Eberron (and Ptolus by the sound of it too) are perfect examples of this - campaigns/cities built around the D&D ruleset which bear little resemblance to of any of the style of fantasy I recognize. The kind of popular fantasy that got me into playing the game in the first place (Conan, Red Sonja, Lanhkmar, Elric, LotR, King Arthur, Beowulf, The Greek Heroes, the Norse Heroes...).

I'll agree with this. I don't think much of Eberron was designed to resemble any specific fantasy. However, I think the D&D aim was secondary, it was designed to resemble adventure stories.

However, I haven't seen too many RPGs that are really designed to emulate the various fantasy novels that inspired D&D, or have inspired others to play D&D. For one, most of them are about individuals and very small groups. Where are the parties of multiple characters floating around? LotR is one place, but they split up at various times.

Conan? He was a single hero with a few companions at times (who rarely lasted long). Fahfrd & the Gray Mouser? We have two heroes, but very rarely more than that in an adventure (and those were published after D&D was released, IIRC). Elric? The Eternal Champion & his companion. Not a party (although Elric hits the party level more often than most - even if some of those times they are all versions of himself). King Arthur? Usually the quests were performed by single knights, rarely companies of them. Most of the fantasy fiction with "parties" of characters developed recently from authors who were playing D&D or other FRPGs.

The very nature of an RPG being a group activity usually precludes having campaigns that feel like the classic novels. As RPGs developed, players realized this and many decided they prefered the worlds to feel like the game they were playing, rather than supposed worlds simulated, but not feeling the same because of the needed changes to make a fun game. That's how the current "make the game world fit the game" trend started.

 

[happyelf]

I agree. The whole super-fantasy dungeon-crawl mindset, plus the hilarious economy issues, are an overly common feature of the game. I think a better approach would be to see PC's as exceptional, as the Ebberon setting does- but this kind of thinking should be the baseline, not a campaign-specific exception.

 

[Imp]

Also, if you read the treatises in various sources (including The Dragon), you'll see a major effort was recommended to keep PCs poor. Keep the PCs from making off with the treasure, make things as difficult as possible for them to keep the treasure, you only get XP if you manage to convert the treasure to gold - not for keeping the magic items and using them. Be sure to tax the PCs when they leave the dungeon or enter a city, the local government wants their cut. Don't forget that spells like Fireball were much more deadly to party items than they are now.

I don't remember actually bookkeeping much of Fireball's damage vs. items (or really ever using that little item saving throw table at all), but there were lots of traps and monsters that ripped up your items, that beastly training costs system (gods forbid you should have tried to follow that as written if you were a thief), and a general emphasis on "adventure hard, live fast, blow through cash" that showed up in a number of cost-per-week guidelines I remember. Have thieves make off with the party's treasure! Oh, yeah, and then there were the strongholds. Those were expensive, and the way things were written they were kind of a default goal for characters, not like now. When I played AD&D I wanted strongholds more often than not! Or at least a ship or a little dungeon for my thief to secret his cache, cash, whatever in. PCs got rich, and there were lots of magic items - a 7th-level AD&D fighter was way more item-rich than his 3e counterpart usually. But they were not at all encouraged by the rules to focus their "magic item wealth" into particular objects and properties they'd find advantageous. You walked around with that +1 longsword, +1 dagger, +4 vs. giants, and that +2 morningstar because that's what you found. shrug.

 

[wingsandsword]

I always thought it was funny, the whole "Magic is rare, special, and unique, and magic items are all rare and priceless and nobody would ever sell them ever", when you could go into any random dungeon, kill a few dozen orcs, skeletons and oozes, and come out with a wheelbarrow full of magic items. Magic is supposed to be mysterious and rare, but the local temple always has a few clerics who can cast Cure Light Wounds (but charge so much for it that only the very wealthy adventurers and nobles could afford it, so much for charity and helping the meek!).

At least 3rd Edition got rid of that contradiction. Magic items are a commodity that is valuable, like high technology in the real world. How to make them is known only to a few, and how they work is only vaguely known to most people, and how to operate some of the more powerful ones takes training and practice, but it's available to anybody with money and need. This means that wealthy merchants, powerful nobles, or well-off temples can have whatever magic they need to protect themselves.

In my campaigns, I don't run "wal mart" style magic shops, but if it's the Forgotten Realms I'm running, in any major city you can find just about any standard item with enough time. Thayan Enclaves will cast just about any (non-good) spell and make just about any (non-good) magic item for the right price, and even without them there are enough wizards, powerful churches, and large merchant companies on a high-magic world that getting pretty much any non-artifact item out of the DMG is only a matter of time and money.

In other campaign settings, at the default level of magic, basic magic items like +1 weapons and armor, lesser wondrous items or potions, low-level scrolls and the like are still very easy to get. A 6th level Adept can turn those out (especially if he has a semi-wealthy patron like a merchant backing him), which means that many places will have at least a few basic items available for sale, and in major cities you can still find just about anything with enough time and effort.

Now, abstracting a few days of asking around and tracking down the item you want into just handing over a list of magic items and having the DM sign off on them isn't something I would do, but I could see how that could create the "wal mart" illusion. Personally, I at least describe the process at least briefly, maybe roleplay out a key encounter if the PC's are asking for something major or that would raise eyebrows, and it does take a few days, if they want to rush it, that is a perfect reason for a Gather Information check to find the right people fast, and maybe a Diplomacy check to talk people into selling things they might normally keep.

As for XP progression. Back in the 2e days, with the gaming groups I was a part of after a year of gaming weekly, which was a typical campaign, would get the PC's to 12th to 14th level (depending on class and XP bonus from high Prime Requisite), maybe 13th to 15th for a high-powered campaign. You wanted 20th level? That would take a year and a half, or two years, which was the domain of rare campaigns people would remember for years to come. Above 20th level? That's reserved for rare, special NPC's only, because campaigns just never went that long.

Now a year-long campaign gets you 18th to 20th level (although spending XP on magic items and spells means the casters are normally a level lower than the warriors at high levels IME). 20+ from 1st level isn't a practical impossibility, but it is still the domain of the rare and special campagin.

So, I don't think D&D has become "too D&D", I just think that it got over some of the contradictions in earlier editions, and it chose one side of the contradiction to side with.

 

[Hussar]

Also, if you read the treatises in various sources (including The Dragon), you'll see a major effort was recommended to keep PCs poor. Keep the PCs from making off with the treasure, make things as difficult as possible for them to keep the treasure, you only get XP if you manage to convert the treasure to gold - not for keeping the magic items and using them. Be sure to tax the PCs when they leave the dungeon or enter a city, the local government wants their cut. Don't forget that spells like Fireball were much more deadly to party items than they are now.

However, there was this huge gap between what was being suggested and what was actually being done. 1e and 2e were almost schitzophrenic in that they would talk about having characters with no stats over 13 but every published module, including tournament modules blew this out of the water.

Heck, take Dragonlance. DL is usually heralded as a pretty successful setting and certainly not a bad one to emulate. Yet, of the original 8 characters in DL1, there were 5 fighter types, 3 had 18 percentile strengths and Caramon was actually the weakest of the three despite the novels. And, none of the 8 had a single stat below 10, including Raistlin.

As far as treasure being difficult to find, again, this is a myth. Look at most of the modules from the 1e era and you'll see that the treasure is not exactly tricky. I remember the hardest thing to find in Keep on the Borderlands was a rope of climbing that was being used to tie a chest shut. The fact that it was called out specifically in the text pretty much gave that one away. In Hommlet, the biggest treasure comes from Lareth and he's carrying it!

Sure, the DMG talked about all sorts of ways to keep the party poor. Whoopee. Every other source, was shoveling more and more phat loot on top of the characters as fast as they could. I remember Q's writeup on the G series. You finished the modules with over ONE MILLION gp in CASH. This didn't even start to touch the pages of magic items you could find.

The idea that there was this period of fantastic gaming that drew from classic sword and sorcery sources is a joke. It might have existed, but, it certainly never saw print.

At least I never get the sense that 3e is trying to fight itself with how it presents the game. There's no huge chasm between what's in the DMG and what I play when I pick up a Dungeon magazine. DnD has always been "DnDish". It's just that now, we're honest enough to admit it and not try to hide it behind some sort of high brow rhetoric that it's about the "story" or the "feel" of the game.