'Old School' Experiences with D&D 3.5

[Melan]

Brilliant overview, Melan. (I may have to copy and save it for future use.)

I am surprised that you did not mention the new JG stuff for 3e. Using the 'City State of the Invincible Overlord' and the Wilderlands setting would be a great way to run an 'old school' campaign.

I should have, but just forgot it. Also, I am not sure JG is such an universal old school experience. If anything, it embodies a certain style of playing OD&D. Many later editions which are still considered "old school" aren't at all compatible with the feel of the Wilderlands and the City State. For example, those people who see old school millieus as "feudal". The Wilderlands is anything but feudal - if you are looking for historical analogies, it is closer to the Ancient Mediterranean in feel, social structures and even geography (lots of seas, lots of islands, lots of untamed wilderness). IMHO, much of JG represents a style to itself, which is recognizably old school, but not neccessarily compatible with other peoples' experiences.

 

[Melan]

Well, following the logic of your first paragraph, doesn't it mean that a PC in early D&D *couldn't* bluff, intimidate, or diplomacize at all? I mean, the rules as written only allowed violent interaction with encounters.

Quasqueton

Yeah, a lot of people played the game that way (the GenCon IX. dungeons, released by Judges Guild, are an interesting glimpse into this school of adventure writing). However, keep in mind that earlier D&D rulesets were by no means meant to be all-encompassing (not even 3e is, BTW), and only covered typical "adventuring activity", that is, things you can not adjudicate using your common sense. Since most people (gamers included ) are at least marginally familiar with human interaction, there need be no hard and fast rules in this area. Few people see or participate in melee combat, and as far as I know, no one has been successful at spellcasting. Procedures for these activities are thus included in the rules. It was also expected of the DM to come up with new rules to cover glossed-over areas (thus the proliferation of the "can I jump the pit?" guidelines, even in official TSR material).

3e D&D is a comprehensive, integrated system that attempts to provide the DM with tools for every situation; it is only a matter of looking them up and/or extrapolating (witness the Jump skill in the PHB!). WRT social skills, I believe their inclusion (with the possible exception of Gather Information) was misguided. Some players indeed use them as an excuse not to play their characters. I do not claim (or even believe) that "true roleplaying" is a "superior" playing style, but I believe in challenging the players. Just like puzzles and combats are not abstracted to a single die roll, I believe interaction should rely on player input. This doesn't mean method acting is necessary (indeed, I don't like that stuff, myself), just a simple statement like "Sorry, Sir, we are transporting roast cats in that basket. We meant no harm, heh heh. Care for a bite?" -- and then the NPC replies and the PCs can resume their activities.

 

[Melan]

despite the fact that i don't agree with all of your points, i have to say that this was a great post!
can you tell me where i could find that alternate XP table?

Thanks. The chart is found in Player's Guide to the Wilderlands, but here it is - it's not like it is too complicated:
1. 0
2. 2000
3. 6000
4. 12000
5. 20000
6. 30000
7. 42000
8. 56000
9. 72000
10. 90000

 

[Quasqueton]

Well I suppose it's a matter of perspective. The rules codify combat. Whether there is a game beyond that depends on whether you think that only those things that are codified are permitted, or whether you think that anything is permitted and those things not codified are the province of the DM.

The thing that really makes me angry about a lot of this thinking is that for some reason the AD&D1-lovers/D&D3-haters seem to think that the more things that get codified, the less things you can do.

AD&D1-lovers think of AD&D1 like this: anything is permitted and those things not codified are the province of the DM.

D&D3-haters think of D&D3 like this: only those things that are codified are permitted.

I cannot for the life of me understand why they turn their thinking completely around depending on the game they are talking about.

This in a nutshell is one of my biggest gripes w/ 3.0/3.5. In earlier editions if you made up a character who grew up in the village of Gimmlet and was the son of a farmer, you could reasonably expect to know about Gimmlet, farming, some about animal husbandry, etc. In 3.0/3.5 you may have that same background, but if you don't spend skill points on Knowledge: Local, Profession: Farming, and Profession: Animal Husbandry, then you have no knowledge of these things, regardless of how ridiculous this is in terms of suspension of disbelief.

See, again, I don't understand how anyone can come to this conclusion about how the game works. Does your character need Knowledge, Seasons to determine if it is Winter, or how many weeks may be left till Spring? Does your character need Knowledge, Food to know that steak came from a cow, and those potatoes came from the ground? Does your character need Knowledge, Family to know who his parents are, or how many siblings he may have? Of course not. So why say you need Knowledge, Local to know the basics about the town you live in? Also, following that logic, since Knowledge, Local is not actually listed in the rules, does that mean it doesn't exist as a skill?

See, I swear, it looks like sometimes folks are bending over backwards *trying* so hard to dislike D&D3. And it's not that I particularly *want* everyone to love the game, but when someone's gripe is X, and I know X is not actually a part of the game, I point it out. Hell, hate the game if you want, but either hate it for something really there, or admit the hate is just blind and irrational emotion.

Edit: I don't mean to imply that tec-9-7 hates D&D3. Just that you are using the argument style that the haters use.

Quasqueton

 

[Quasqueton]

Some players indeed use them as an excuse not to play their characters.

"Some players" is apparently only 5 out of 188 here. http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=141671

There's always this thing of "I don't do it, but I know others do," without any real evidence beyond it being a possibility.

Quasqueton

 

[Akrasia]

"Some players" is apparently only 5 out of 188 here. http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=141671

There's always this thing of "I don't do it, but I know others do," without any real evidence beyond it being a possibility.

Quasqueton

Of course online polls are meaningless (I contributed to your poll, because doing so is fun, but claiming that it constitutes 'real evidence' is laughable), and ENworld is a 3e-focused (thus ensuring a biased sample in any case).

More generally, though, the purpose of this thread is not to have yet another edition war. I know that this is a favourite activity of yours, Quasqueton, but perhaps we might actually focus on Melkor's original question, and not let things degenerate into yet another set of heated arguments about 1e versus 3e?

 

[Quasqueton]

In fact, I do not like edition wars. I find them of no value whatsoever. I wish we could have discussions here without people insulting (vieled insults, misinformation, or backhand compliments). But, to quote you from another thread:

I don't mind if people simply do not like the game, or make legitimate complaints against it (it is not perfect, and I have problems with certain aspects of it myself). But a lot of the attacks that have been made in the past against C&C have often rested on false assumptions, or have been expressions of opinion masquerading as fact.

Change "C&C" to "D&D".

But when people make factually incorrect claims about a game system (especially a system that you happen to like), or express their opinions as though they were facts, then it is hard to resist posting a reply.

And as for polls on this board, I do not find them meaningless. Perhaps we should take a poll on the meaningfulness of polls on this board?

Quasqueton

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Of course online polls are meaningless (I contributed to your poll, because doing so is fun, but claiming that it constitutes 'real evidence' is laughable), and ENworld is a 3e-focused (thus ensuring a biased sample in any case).

I'm not sure I'd buy that argument.

It's a poll about 3E mechanics, directed at a largely 3E-playing crowd. If you wanted information on how young Republicans feel about issue X, would you call it a "biased sample" if you polled anyone that was the right age who volunteered at a Republican convention?

Yeah, the sample may be skewed due to self-selection, but that's not the reason you're complaining.

This sounds like statisticaly relevance - if even only a little - to me. And the absolutely *huge* disparity between between "Must only roll - no talking" and "Talk first and then roll" is telling, even if the sample is a little off.

 

[Von Ether]

I'm going to toss out getting rid of social skills entirely. No Bluff; no Diplomacy; no Intimidate; none of that. If players want those characters to do those things then they <gasp> have to ROLEPLAY them.

When great or poor roleplaying modifies the roll, it's not a problem. ... Some quick ideas on "old school with 3.5"

• * Players roll a 3d6 six times and prioritize order.
  * Players get PHB and Green Ronin's Psychic Handbook only (the GM allows the Wild * * Talent only optional rule)
  * No PrCs.
  * All feats and rules related to AoO are omited
  * DCs are +5 higher, but a player's roleplaying and description can reduce the penality ... and remind them of the fact often until they get in the groove
  * Less magic items and more gold
  * Let the players use the gold more for "The Sims" style play, building castles and followers
  * provide XP for gold and treasure
  * Cut XP for monster encounters to 1/6
  * Retweak the XP chart to increase at higher levels

There are also some things that go beyond just the rules.

• 
  * Metagame is king: as stated before focus on the players, not the PCs
  * The GM screen is to hide notes, not dice rolls. If anything, all the dice rolls should be out in the open
  * Campaigns begin with one little town and one little dungeon and become bigger as the player's range out to find bigger challeges

 

[Akrasia]

...
Yeah, the sample may be skewed due to self-selection, but that's not the reason you're complaining...

Ummm ... yes, that is the reason why I'm criticizing the claim in question. (For the record, I voted in that poll, and I ran a 3e campaign in which social skills were used; even though they were 'rolled' only occasionally, they did influence the outcome of many PC-NPC interactions.)

The only thing a poll here shows is that: of the very small number of RPG players visiting this site at a given time (already a skewed sample, given that most ENworlders are much more knowledgeable and experienced with respect to RPGs than your 'average' RPG player), and who choose to vote in the poll (thereby further skewing the sample in favour of those visitors who are actually interested in the topic in question), percentage x feels this way about the poll question, etc.

You don't need a basic course in statistics to realize that that is pretty meaningless.