Is 3rd edition too "quantitative"

[der_kluge]

A couple of posts that I've read recently made me pause to consider whether what people have come to dislike about 3rd edition is the overall level of "quantitativeness" engrained into the system.

Consider these two posts:
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1970475&postcount=9
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1971784&postcount=18

Both of these are attempts (quite imaginatively, I might add, which is the subject for a post which I will create shortly) to remove the quantitative aspect of the game with a more qualitative one. To me, and I think I'm not alone here, 3rd edition has boiled down into a numbers game, and has completely removed many of the fluff aspects of the game. Take magic item creation, it's boiled down into costs. To make a magic sword, simply spend 2,000gp. We all know there is more to it than that, but it's not really belabored in the rules. There are just tables which say "here are the costs, you supply the imagination". In second edition they removed the class level names, which I saw a thread on here recently from someone lamenting about. I don't remember the names myself, since I only played 1e very briefly, but instead of saying "I'm a third level rogue", you could say "I'm a cat burglar". Very clever. As a writer, I'm often frustrated by the lack of qualitative ways to describe a spell level, or a class level, or a weapon strength. For example, I struggled recently a while back to describe how a king had hired one group of adventurers who were unsuccessful, but had to hire a "higher level" group in order to get the job done. There wasn't a real easy way to say that other than to say "a more experience group", which wasn't very colorful.

Anyone else noticed this, aside from Diaglo?

 

[diaglo]

Anyone else noticed this, aside from Diaglo?

Curtis,

you looking over my shoulder again. aranoid:

 

[Zappo]

About the level names - I really disagree there. The level names IMO were never a good idea. Why should a third level rogue (or whatever) be called "a cat burglar", even if he has never broken into a house in his life? How do these titles help, if they are usually incorrect? Or, let's talk about the old wizard and fighter titles - since most of them are just synonims for "wizard" and "fighter", how are they any indication of the character's skill?

The problem you encountered in describing a king hiring a higher level group wouldn't be solved by titles IMO. "Instead of hiring a thug, I hired a burglar" - that might be flavorful (though I'd disagree), but it doesn't really tell anything about the experience of the person involved, and it may actually be wrong.

The real, flavorful solution is "The random cutpurse I picked up at the tavern and the spellcaster fresh out of wizard school were no use, so I went to the royal prisons, and told the warden to pick up the best thief they had and promise him freedom in return for help. He came upstairs with Slick Jim, the guy who tried to steal the Crown Jewels two years ago. Went through the main door in disguise, sneaked past the guards, avoided all the traps, got right in front of the display. He would have succeded too, if it weren't for the magical wards surrounding them. This time, he'll have to do better, so I got him some real magical backup - the court wizard Zanakel. He's the man who placed those wards, you know. He used to be an adventuring mage, and some action will do him good".

Why should I rely on the ruleset to provide flavor? Give me clarity instead. I don't need rules to make flavor.

 

[Corsair]

I agree with Zappo. It shouldn't be the rule book's job to add flavor. That is where the DM and players come in. The rules are just that, rules. Do with them what you like.

 

[MerakSpielman]

The game is as qualitative as you make it. Sure it's not in the default rules, but who cares? You're playing it, you can do whatever you want to add flavor.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

D&D is a heavily quantitative game, that doesn't mean you can't ignore the values.

Let's say you don't like how elves are presented in D&D and you want something more Tolkien-ish where all elves are basically low-powered superheroes. You sit down, draw up the numbers you think are appropriate, and realize you're dealing with a +4 ECL race. You had wanted to start the game at 1st level, but with your Tolkien elves you don't really know what to do. I say, include the +4ECL elves and let the players take it at 1st level with no penalty.

You can still use the quantitative nature of D&D without sticking to "da r00lz". If anything the qantitative nature of D&D is better than a rules-light system because now you know about how much to adjust encounters to compensate for your Tolkien-elves while in some rules-light systems you can't really get a feel for how powerful the characters are until three or four games have passed and problems creep up.

All of the above being said, if you don't like it, by all means whip out oD&D or FUDGE and have a blast!

 

[frankthedm]

While a play group can add in more 'flavor', the 3.n edition quickly becoms a numbers game as HP and damage skyrocket. AC goes up slower and saves tend to be a situation of you make your good saves and fail your bad ones consistantly.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I think both of the posts you reference are excellent ways of taking the base mechanics of 3E and giving them some flavor. I think they're great ways of showing what a DM should be doing to make the numbers meaningful. I don't think that means that there's anything wrong with the way 3E works. For example, I wouldn't use Gez's example of spell "level names."

One person's preferred flavor is not the same as another person's.

Perhaps a new, interesting idea for d20 products would be a compilation of these kinds of ideas - a series of possible ways to add flavor to a mechanic.

 

[Zappo]

Let's say you don't like how elves are presented in D&D and you want something more Tolkien-ish where all elves are basically low-powered superheroes. You sit down, draw up the numbers you think are appropriate, and realize you're dealing with a +4 ECL race. You had wanted to start the game at 1st level, but with your Tolkien elves you don't really know what to do. I say, include the +4ECL elves and let the players take it at 1st level with no penalty.

[hijack]Incidentally, I think you could make Tolkien elves by simply making them regular elves of higher level.[/hijack]

 

[francisca]

Approaching D&D from a quantitative POV certainly did not start with 3E. There has always been a portion of D&D gamers who have viewed it as a numbers game. The term min/maxer was around before 3E, for certain.

Having said that, in my opinion, the 3E core/SRD is more enabling of the quantitative approach than 1E core (PHB/DMG/MM), or basic/expert, as everything is laid out for you with feat chains, skill synergy, etc.. (I have never really utilized much outside of the core for 1E, and never played any variant of 2E, so can't address those)

Personally, I like a little bit of quantitative approach, but not so much that it's all about pre-planning feats, skill points, and classes from level 1 to 20. I personally do not care for the idea of a "character build". I can think of no greater example of the quantitative apsect of 3E than the legions of message board posters asking for and giving opinion on their character builds. That's not a put-down, BTW. Number crunching D&D is just as valid and potentially fun way to play the game as any other. It's not my favorite, but I'm just one guy, you know?

(speculation begins)
I'm sure this is by design. Back when D&D was the only game in town, and when it was even more of a 400lb gorilla, many folks who were not numbers oriented left the system for others which are more story based, lighter on archetypes, etc... What is left then, is the core D&D fans who like the quantitative (and tactical) approach to D&D. Hence, I think wizards is simply marketing to their audience.
(specualtion ends)