D&D 3E/3.5 In Favor of 3.5, With One Reservation.

[Water Bob]

Of the versions of D&D I've played in my life, I've spent the most time with AD&D. But, that was a long, long time ago. I spent my D&D gaming days almost as much with AD&D 2E. And, the only other D&D game I've played is 3.0/3.5. This last edition I've been learning over the last couple of years. D&D, no matter what version, always takes a long time to master, with all the books and if/thens and hidden pros/cons. When I say "master", I mean being able to play the game RAW without looking at the rule book often.

I'm finally starting to get to that point with my Conan campaign (a 3.5 based game), and I've got to say, of the three versions of D&D I've played, 3.5 has become my favorite. Both the other versions will always hold a place in my heart, but I do now think that 3.5 is the best version of the game I've played.

I've got one, big sticking point with 3.0/3.5, though. It's not something that I can't change as a DM, though. It's a playstyle thing.

That sticking point is this: 3.0/3.5 encourages players to roll dice to solve in-game problems rather than using their noodles and gray matter.

For example, let's say that a player has his character examine the quality of swords in a merchant's stall. Back in the old days of AD&D and 2E, the player would ask questions, and the DM would answer. Many times, this would errupt into a roleplaying situation, the DM playing the merchant.

Player says, "What does the sword look like?" And, as DM, I'd reply, "You see nicks in the edge. The blade is dry and badly needs oil. And, there's some rust near the handle and guard. Out of the corner of your eye, you see the merchant staring at you, smiling. He walks over. "Master," he says, "that weapon has been used to kill many foes. It is a soldier's weapon. Very serviceable. High quality. And, it seems to fit your hand perfectly! Shall we say...12 gold sovereigns?"

Now, the player is into it. He replies, in character, "Nay! I can obtain a new sword, hot from the forge, for 15 sovereigns. Look at the rust! Look at the nicks! Look--the handle needs to be re-wrapped! I'll give you 5 sovereigns."

"Five sovereigns!" The GM explodes, in character. "Will you take the food from the mouths of my children? That weapon is worth 10 sovereigns, but I'll take a loss on it at 9 sovereigns because you blessed me today by entering my humble shop."

See how the older rules promoted roleplaying? It's natural to get to this place using the AD&D 2E rules. But, with 3.0/3.5, it's a different story. Instead of roleplaying, rolling dice is encouraged. Instead of the player originally asking questions about the sword, back and forth, with the GM, the question is likely to be, "I want to roll an Appraise check. What's my DC?" And, once you give him the DC, he wants to know what his check told him.

I see this in a lot of aspects of the 3.5 game. The infamous example of finding traps has been brought up before. Old school players ask questions about where they suspect a trap to be. The DM answers those questions, usually telling the player what his character knows through his touch, feel, sight, hearing, and smell. The 3.5 player will roll on his Find Traps. Yeah, I know the AD&D has a Find Traps throw, too, but other character types don't. What you usually get, in an old school game, is a player pouring water from his waterskin to see if the water pools on the ground or slips between stones, indicating a possible trap. The old school player might use the end of his sword or a polearm to poke around. The 3.0/3.5 player just wants to roll some dice, find out the answer, and move on.

Even the combat example in the 3.0/3.5 PHB speaks of just rolling dice instead of relying on player questions and DM description.

Once I realized that a big, enjoyable part of the game was being neutered by the style of the game, I endeavored to change that in my game. Still, though, I find my players defaulting to "What my roll?" instead of asking what their character can see/hear/smell.

I think it's a game design issue. It's the way 3.0/3.5 was written. The 3.0/3.5 rules focus the game on a game board--a grid. Miniatures are encouraged for combat (where as, in AD&D 2E, no map and DM description was the focus).

And, sometimes, I find that I've drawn the game back to the old style of doing things only to irritate a player who has spent precious skill points on a skill but was denied the benefit he would get because a roll wasn't made.

For example, let's say a player has put a lot of his character's skill points into maxing out his Bluff skill, but half the time, the player never rolls that skill because he's roleplaying his character with the DM--and the quality of the roleplay determines the success of the Bluff.

I was running a AD&D 2E game one time when the players saw (random encounter) a pack of six gnolls on horseback coming down the trail towards them. I described the snarling, nasty beasts to the players as wearing armor and carrying polearms--and looking real mean.

I had six players at the time. Five of them moved off the trail to let the gnolls pass, but one of the players wouldn't have it. He stayed his horse, looked the leader gnoll in the eye, and did not budge.

I had the gnolls slowly ride by. There was tension at the game table. The players, especially the one that refused to move, were ready for a fight. They were banking on one. The four players that moved tried to avoid a fight, but they thought that the one player who stayed in the middle of the road would screw their efforts.

As the lead gnoll rode by the single player character, I had him stare at the PC and emit a deep growl. The player said, "I stare right back at him. I can't let him see that I'm afraid."

Then, I had the gnoll leader tip his head and lower his ears in respect. I figured that the gnolls were a warrior breed who respected other warriors. He'd piss on the other four, if he could, but this one stood up to the entire gnoll party. They rode on, and the players all let out a collective sigh of relief!

See, to me, moments like that is what D&D is all about. That happened years ago, and I still remember it. The player, of course, loved that night's session because of that single minute or so of game time. It was awesome. Not planned. Strictly impromptu. A D&D moment.

I don't see the 3.0/3.5 game encouraging moments like that in the game. I see the player wanting to roll his Bluff skill, and then the DM rolling the gnoll's Sense Motive.

It's not the same. The game doesn't "play" as well like that. Plus, if you play 3.0/3.5 the way I describe above, the player who did max out Bluff may feel like those skill points were wasted and better used on a skill that gets more dice rolling opportunities.

I really think this is a design flaw in the 3.0/3.5 game.

But, don't get me wrong. I do think that there is a place for rolling dice in the situations I've described above. It depends on the moment. It depends on the drama. A good DM, I believe, should shepherd his game in and out of dice rolling and roleplaying situations. Sometimes you just want to quickly see what rumors a character picked up using his Gather Information skill after a few days in town. And, sometimes, the DM wants to place the player at the entrance to the bar, describe the patrons and what the character sees, then play out the moments to see what will come.

It's just that the 3.0/3.5 rules don't encorage the latter.

I read once--I wish I could remember where--a very good piece of GMing advice: Never roll a die when roleplaying a situation would be more interesting--the only time you want to roll is when roleplaying won't work (like determining is a lock is picked) or when roleplaying would bog down the momentum of the game.

I think those are golden words for a DM.

 

[Dandu]

I read once--I wish I could remember where--a very good piece of GMing advice: Never roll a die when roleplaying a situation would be more interesting--the only time you want to roll is when roleplaying won't work (like determining is a lock is picked) or when roleplaying would bog down the momentum of the game.

Just don't punish people if they are unskilled at roleplaying (especially if they are actually trying) and don't reward people for roleplaying inappropriately (such as having their half-orc brute with mental stats in the negatives be a suave social butterfly at the spring cotillion).

 

[Water Bob]

Just don't punish people if they are unskilled at roleplaying (especially if they are actually trying) and don't reward people for roleplaying inappropriately (such as having their half-orc brute with mental stats in the negatives be a suave social butterfly at the spring cotillion).

That's all about roleplaying, though, isn't it? When I ran my AD&D games, a player really couldn't be unskilled at roleplaying because, how he acted is what the NPCs saw. If a character has a high CHA stat but his player was shy and introverted, then the character was shy and introverted but well liked by those who did get to know him.

It's the DM's job to manage roleplaying. If the player playing the half-orc brute tried to come off as suave as a social butterfly, then it's the DM's role to remind the player, "Hey! Your half orc has CHR 6. Do you really think he'd act that way?" Just like not allowing a character to have three actions in a round when he's only allowed one, the DM has to make sure that what's being played is within the parameters of the character.







In my opinion, the time to roll the dice is when you need to determine if a character knows something that a player couldn't possibly know.

Take the example above I wrote of the PC examining the sword in the merchant's stall....

Supplement Four wrote:
For example, let's say that a player has his character examine the quality of swords in a merchant's stall. Back in the old days of AD&D and 2E, the player would ask questions, and the DM would answer. Many times, this would errupt into a roleplaying situation, the DM playing the merchant.

Player says, "What does the sword look like?" And, as DM, I'd reply, "You see nicks in the edge. The blade is dry and badly needs oil. And, there's some rust near the handle and guard. Out of the corner of your eye, you see the merchant staring at you, smiling. He walks over. "Master," he says, "that weapon has been used to kill many foes. It is a soldier's weapon. Very serviceable. High quality. And, it seems to fit your hand perfectly! Shall we say...12 gold sovereigns?"

Now, the player is into it. He replies, in character, "Nay! I can obtain a new sword, hot from the forge, for 15 sovereigns. Look at the rust! Look at the nicks! Look--the handle needs to be re-wrapped! I'll give you 5 sovereigns."

"Five sovereigns!" The GM explodes, in character. "Will you take the food from the mouths of my children? That weapon is worth 10 sovereigns, but I'll take a loss on it at 9 sovereigns because you blessed me today by entering my humble shop."

See how the older rules promoted roleplaying? It's natural to get to this place using the AD&D 2E rules. But, with 3.0/3.5, it's a different story. Instead of roleplaying, rolling dice is encouraged. Instead of the player originally asking questions about the sword, back and forth, with the GM, the question is likely to be, "I want to roll an Appraise check. What's my DC?" And, once you give him the DC, he wants to know what his check told him.




Let's change the example a bit. Let's say that the sword, as shabby as it looks, is one of the Lost Swords of Blah-Blah-Blahbaaa. These swords can be identified by a small infinity symbol etched at the base of the blade near the guard. The DM could describe this to the player, but all that is going to tell the player that there is something special about this sword because of that symbol. (And, sometimes, that's a good way to go, setting up a mystery in the game for which the player is interested. It's a plot hook.) But, we're going to say that the Lost Swords of Blah-Blah-Blahbaaa are native to the character's home city-state. Because of this, there's a chance that the character knows of the Lost Swords and has heard of the symbol. A check is perfect for this type of thing (and maybe it's a Knowledge check instead of an Appraise check). The above example would start out the same but turn more like this...

Player says, "What does the sword look like?" And, as DM, I'd reply, "You see nicks in the edge. The blade is dry and badly needs oil. And, there's some rust near the handle and guard. But, on the base of the blade near the guard, you see a curious symbol. It's the sign of the infinity. Roll your appraise."

The player rolls and makes it as the DM continues, "Your eyes go wide when you see the infinity, for you know that this is one of the Lost Blades of Blah-Blah-Blahbaaa. There were nine of them, each said to lead their wielders to riches and glory. They were forged in your home city state of Blah-BAAA. Now, out of the corner of your eye, you see the merchant staring at you, smiling. He walks over."

"Master," he says, "that weapon has been used to kill many foes. It is a soldier's weapon. Very serviceable. High quality. And, it seems to fit your hand perfectly! Shall we say...12 gold soverigns?"

"Done!" Says the player. "I give him the coin, take the sword, and return to the inn with it."

This type of die throw I think should be used in the game, when appropriate. It's the type of throws such as the "DC 15 Appraise" tasks needed to determine the worth of a blade as shown in the first example that I question. I think a lot of those types of throws should be thrown out of the game replaced with Player/DM interaction.

 

[Dandu]

Aren't you supposed to be ignoring me?

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

This sounds beautiful Water Bob.

However, none of my players would be capable of roleplaying to this degree. The verbal picture you paint sounds incredibly fun, but sadly I don't run with people with this level of spontaneous imagination.

 

[Jacob Marley]

This sounds beautiful Water Bob.

However, none of my players would be capable of roleplaying to this degree. The verbal picture you paint sounds incredibly fun, but sadly I don't run with people with this level of spontaneous imagination.

That's too bad. The style of game that Water Bob is discussing, when run well, with engaged players, is an amazing experience. I am lucky enough to have two DMs who are quite capable of running that style of campaign.

 

[Water Bob]

Aren't you supposed to be ignoring me?

As long as you're helpful and respectful and make non-snarky comments like you did above, I won't need to any longer.

This sounds beautiful Water Bob.

However, none of my players would be capable of roleplaying to this degree. The verbal picture you paint sounds incredibly fun, but sadly I don't run with people with this level of spontaneous imagination.

Hm. I'm not arguing with you, Rumbletiger, but I find that hard to believe. Just about everybody I've met that love roleplaying have strong imaginations. I'd believe that they're not used to roleplaying or acting a certain way, but that's up to the GM to change that (if he wishes).

Many times I've had people at my table who just want to roll dice, feel silly speaking in character, and look at me like a deer in the headlights when I ask them to show me, not tell me, exactly how their character acts in a particular situation.

What I've done in the past with these players is just try my best to make them comfortable and guide them. I'll set up the situation for them and try to get them "inside the skin" of their characters: "You're standing there in the sun. Sweat is rolling down your face. Everybody around you is all of a sudden staring straight up the trail and guiding their horse off to the sides. You squint, and you see figures on horse back slowly coming towards you. You blink again, and you can see that it's gnolls. They wear armor. They hold polearms. And, as they move closer, you can see that all of them bear teeth, panting in the heat like dogs. They seem proud but also very, very dangerous. You're the only one still in the middle of the trail. All of your comrades have left you there. Think about it. If you were in this situation, what would you do?"

I try to get the player's head into the game by telling him what he sees, smells, hears, and feels. I try to get them to imagine it, then simply tell me how they act.

I also do this (sometimes--when appropriate) when players ask questions. I avoid direct answers and try to put the player in the character's shoes in order to get him to describe to me how he did a certain task--not just what he did.

For example, a player may say, "I go into the pub and quietly ask questions of the patrons. I'm specifically trying to find out if anybody knows about a gnoll lair close to the village. What's my DC for my Gather Information check?"

"Hold on," I'll say, "I want you to imagine the town at night. You're walking through the streets. There's a slight breeze, but it's humid. It's just a tad uncomfortable. You hear the noise as you approach the pub. There are three wooden steps to mount before you push open the rough, oak door. Inside, the place is crowded. It's the only social establishment in the county. A long, polished wood bar runs along the back wall. Oak kegs are stacked behind the barkeep. The room is open with a few wood columns here and there. All the tables are circled with patrons. There's a young elven girl quickly moving through the crowd. She seems to be the only waitress. Her skin is a milky ivory.

"Three dwarves, obviously drunk, have arms locked on each others' shoulders. They're dancing together, belting out out of key song, swinging their mugs with their free hand. The floor is wet with splashed ale beneath them.

"Standing by the fireplace is a figure. You can't tell much about him or her. He seems tall. A deep hood hides his face. He stands with his back leaning against the wall. His arms may be crossed--you can't tell because he wears an outercloak that encircles his body like a drape.

"Hey! Close the door, mate! It's a man wearing a quilted jerkin yelling at you over the crowd. You realize that you've been standing in the doorway for a moment, taking all this in.

"You're a fighting man. You've been around, so you automatically look for exits and take in threats. There's an archway to the right in the far back. Your guess is that it leads to the kitchen. Three windows, shuttered, are on the wall to your right, while two more windows are to you left. You see the patrons. There are several of them, but it's the dwarves, the man in robes, and the man who just yelled at you that gets your attention right now. The latter, wearing the quilted jerkin? You know that's what is usually worn under armor--chain mail most likely.

"What do you want to do?"

And then the player might say, "I'm going to walk over to the dude in the quilited jerkin and ask him if he knows about the gnolls."

If I'm trying to teach this player to roleplay a bit better, I'll stop him right there and say, "You're going to just walk straight up to him and say, Hey! Are there any gnolls around here?"

This allows the player to describe, in more detail, exactly how he does what he wants to accomplish.

If I feel the player doesn't need he hand held any longer with respect to roleplaying, I'll start taking what he says and how he describes his character's actions at face value....and usually the situation doesn't go as the player expects.

"OK, so you enter, look around as I described, then beeline for the man in the man in the quilted jerkin immediately after he yelled at you to close the door.

"A few steps and halfway to him, you can see in his face that you're startling him. He stands up from the chair, and his right hand crosses his gut to rest on the handle of a dagger he has hanging from a belt. Are you still walking up to him?"

Sometimes, I have to drag it out of players, but the more often they do it, the deeper I see them get into the game. I can usually tell that they're enjoying the game more because they're visualizing living in the game world more often--not just rolling dice.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I really think this is a design flaw in the 3.0/3.5 game.

I know what you mean, but I can't agree with you that it's a design flaw. It's just something you don't like.

The truth is, some people really enjoy acting out the purchase of a new sword for their character, haggling with the merchant and so forth, and some people just couldn't care less. And some people want to play a master trapfinder, but don't themselves possess the kind of organized, analytical mind needed to succeed at 20 Questions with the DM.

The beauty of 3rd Edition, to me, is that all the rules I need for players and situations like that are there, but if -- as the DM -- I want to encourage a more "old school" playstyle, it's extremely easy to ignore those rules and do so. (Of course, as with any house rule, you have a duty to inform your players of the change beforehand, so they can make informed choices.)

For example, as much as I like the idea of Appraise checks, in practice I find that they just add way too much work to the accounting and division of treasure, so I just tell the players what things they find are actually worth. But I also tell them before they generate characters that Appraise is a useless skill in my game and they shouldn't waste any skill points on it. That doesn't make the inclusion of Appraise rules in the game a "design flaw," though. They're just an option I appreciate having, but have decided not to use.

Interesting thread, though, Water Bob.

 

[Water Bob]

I know what you mean, but I can't agree with you that it's a design flaw. It's just something you don't like.

That's fair. All evidence suggests that a design goal of 3.0/3.5 was to take the more free-form approach of 2E and shift it 180 degrees so that the game is focussed on a battlemap. In many ways, 3.0/3.5 seems to more of a board game than it is a roleplaying game, moving counters (miniatures) around a grid.

Interesting thread, though, Water Bob.

Thanks brother. I see your point here in your post. I think I leaned towards it being a design flaw and not a different approach because, for me, playing the way I describe above is what I got addicted to way back when I first started playing. Although I liked it the dice rolling and stat-managing, that was stuff that I was used to playing other games--especially war games. Rolling an abstract attack over a 1 minute combat round (as it used to be) was to me exactly like a counter representing a tank, rolling dice to see what kind of damage it did to the infantry squad next to it. It was akin to rolling six siders for armies when playing Risk or Axis & Allies.

But neither of those games ever gave me the thrill of going through an encounter with my first DM. It was another level of gaming--something different that the board games couldn't possibly deliver.

When I saw that 3.0/3.5 encouraged more board-game type play rather than roleplaying oriented play, yeah, I thought it was a step back.

I have heard, though, from others on the net, in the past, that some actually do prefer to just roll dice and never move deeper inside the heads of their characters. That's alien to me. I guess, too, that if you started with 3.0/3.5, and that's all you know, then your preferences were set by that by which you were exposed.

So, point taken.





I still struggle a bit, though, with ignoring throws, because I know the 3.5 game is built around them. If a player has his character start looking for a trap, I want to ask him what he's doing to look for that trap--and playing it out that way devalues the points he put into Search.

I keep striving to find a balance between the throws and the roleplay.





EDIT: You know, another aspect of the game lends itself better to board game style play rather than roleplaying. That's the flatfooted rule and when to roll initiative.

In AD&D 2E, a good DM put off rolling initiative and going into slow combat rounds as long as possible. The game is best played in scenes as long as possible....

"You open the door, and your torch illuminates a creatre next to the far wall. First you see its eyes reflecting your torchlight, then you see it's shape and can tell that it's a goblin. The thing squeaks at you, saying, Whattawank!

"What do you want to do?"

"I hold my torch up high, stopping in my tracks. I pull my sword with my other hand and look around the room, never straying my eyes too far from the goblin."

"You don't see anything else of note, but the goblin grabs your attention again when it runs to the right and picks up a club that was leaning against the wall. Whattawank! It says again. What do you do next?"

We're not in strict rounds here, and we won't get to them unless combat is initiaited.

With 3.0/3.5, we are encouraged to throw initative as soon as a foe is in sight. This is the only way that the flatfooted rule makes sense. The flatfooted rule means that a defender cannot defend himself to his fullest. This makes absolutely no sense if the DM plays a few scenes before going to rounds. Heck, combat may not even initiative using the old school method.

But, with 3.0/3.5, the correct way to play, according to the combat examples in the PHB/DMG is to roll initiative as soon as hostiles are found.

Under 3.0/3.5, the correct way, per the book, to handle the encounter is to roll initiative as soon as he opens the door and sees the goblin.

"You open the door, and your torch illuminates a creatre next to the far wall. First you see its eyes reflecting your torchlight, then you see it's shape and can tell that it's a goblin. The thing squeaks at you, saying, Whattawank! Roll initiative!"

 

[Jackinthegreen]

I believe much of the intent behind 3.X was to give the game more structure since not everyone (DM and player alike) is cut out to paint quite the picture you typically do. Some might be able to do it but would prefer not investing as much creative thought in a game. There are also times when people hit creative blocks and need to continue things instead of taking time to come up with an explanation, and rolling dice is usually an easy way to expedite the game instead of roleplaying. In short, it may have been made to appeal to more people (which it certainly has since 3.X is the most popular version now, for better or worse).

But the main thing to remember about the games is Rule 0: The DM can change anything he wants. It's not a set in code video game after all. Each and every rule is an example of something the player might use but are nothing more than suggestions unless one chooses to abide by them. I admit it's definitely implied that players use the rules as-is, but so long as the DM doesn't attempt to push changes on those who don't want it I don't really see much to complain about as far as a DM not being able to play as he wants.

As for finding balance between the rolls and roleplay, it's mostly up to you as the DM to say "I prefer to roleplay these kinds of things. If you don't feel confident in this area but feel your character would be, I can use your skill ranks and such to nudge you towards your goal."