One of the things I like most about D&D 3.5e is how there is a wealth guideline table, something that I'd have greatly appreciated in earlier editions. There are good reasons that Gary Gygax stressed the importance of balancing treasure distribution, but for a novice DM, what did that "balance" mean?
That the table is a guideline and not a rule does allow me the latitude of changing things around. If I give out more treasure than the table says, then the PCs are probably going to find things easier compared to what the system expects. No problem; I'll compensate.
However, for someone just starting it, it's a great tool for working out how the game should go. Likewise, Challenge Ratings and Encounter Levels, and many other features of the D&D system.
I feel that with new monsters, and other elements used to oppose the PCs, something that is forgotten in debates is that the first time you use those elements, you are a "novice" DM again. Certainly, the years you and I have spent behind the screen count for something, but to play something as effectively as the designers expect does require study and thought. And, more likely, experience in using the monster!
Even for us experienced DMs, we can fall into ruts. Looking at my DMing in particular (and I'd say I've run 200+ sessions of 3.*E), I can see that my ability to play spellcasters as enemies is lacking - melee god tactics don't really work here. And when I run new melee classes, I tend to run them as before, regardless of the fact that they have abilities that are being ignored. In such areas, I appreciate hints at what I can do to make the encounter more dangerous - and more interesting.
This, of course, applies to all aspects of the DM's game. Running organisations and politics, integrating new classes and spells, crafting encounters, adventures and campaigns, and working out where the Dragonspawn have been hiding for the 300+ years they've been a threat but never once threatened any kingdom the PCs have seen; these are areas that each DM handles in his or her own way. We each have different strengths in these areas.
There are times when the advice given in a book is talking about one of our strengths, and thus is irrelevant to us. There are times when the advice is bad. There are even times when the advice is helpful - which may occur more times than we care to admit.
Wizards have recently turned to providing more advice than they did previously. This is a change I welcome. Does it fall into the category of "too much help?" Well, it can for some. I certainly do not find it all of equal value.
What I cannot judge is whether or not the advice I find useless is actually useful for other players - especially novice players. D&D can be intimidating, and I'd far rather have a small portion of the books I buy be useless to me, but help bring new people into the game - and keep them here.
What does surprise me is how often a bit of help someone else decries as useless actually turns out to be exceedingly helpful for me! An example are the sample Prestige Class stats and sample encounters. Mostly, I just flick over them because they're not useful to me at present (much like many of my Dragon magazines, I admit!). However, I can think of one adventure lasting three fun-filled session that was inspired by the stats of a sample NPC in Sandstorm - and the consequences lasted much longer in my campaign. It isn't the only example of such, but it was quite significant to me.
That sort of help is priceless when it occurs.
Does this mean that any and all of this "help" in recent books should be accepted? By no means. Wizards do have to pay attention to those people who actually buy their books. It's no good if a book brings one person into the game whilst driving ten others out! Conversely, being the one person that is driven out when ten people come to the game sucks from your point of view, but is great for those who still remain with the game.
D&D is great because of the network of people who play it. The more people who play it, the more the likelihood is that you'll find people whose style is compatible with yours, and whom you can have a great game with.
That the new style of help is not agreeable to all is obvious. However, it may be worth considering who it is written for, and if it does indeed fulfill the role for which it is intended.
Cheers!
That the table is a guideline and not a rule does allow me the latitude of changing things around. If I give out more treasure than the table says, then the PCs are probably going to find things easier compared to what the system expects. No problem; I'll compensate.
However, for someone just starting it, it's a great tool for working out how the game should go. Likewise, Challenge Ratings and Encounter Levels, and many other features of the D&D system.
I feel that with new monsters, and other elements used to oppose the PCs, something that is forgotten in debates is that the first time you use those elements, you are a "novice" DM again. Certainly, the years you and I have spent behind the screen count for something, but to play something as effectively as the designers expect does require study and thought. And, more likely, experience in using the monster!
Even for us experienced DMs, we can fall into ruts. Looking at my DMing in particular (and I'd say I've run 200+ sessions of 3.*E), I can see that my ability to play spellcasters as enemies is lacking - melee god tactics don't really work here. And when I run new melee classes, I tend to run them as before, regardless of the fact that they have abilities that are being ignored. In such areas, I appreciate hints at what I can do to make the encounter more dangerous - and more interesting.
This, of course, applies to all aspects of the DM's game. Running organisations and politics, integrating new classes and spells, crafting encounters, adventures and campaigns, and working out where the Dragonspawn have been hiding for the 300+ years they've been a threat but never once threatened any kingdom the PCs have seen; these are areas that each DM handles in his or her own way. We each have different strengths in these areas.
There are times when the advice given in a book is talking about one of our strengths, and thus is irrelevant to us. There are times when the advice is bad. There are even times when the advice is helpful - which may occur more times than we care to admit.
Wizards have recently turned to providing more advice than they did previously. This is a change I welcome. Does it fall into the category of "too much help?" Well, it can for some. I certainly do not find it all of equal value.
What I cannot judge is whether or not the advice I find useless is actually useful for other players - especially novice players. D&D can be intimidating, and I'd far rather have a small portion of the books I buy be useless to me, but help bring new people into the game - and keep them here.
What does surprise me is how often a bit of help someone else decries as useless actually turns out to be exceedingly helpful for me! An example are the sample Prestige Class stats and sample encounters. Mostly, I just flick over them because they're not useful to me at present (much like many of my Dragon magazines, I admit!). However, I can think of one adventure lasting three fun-filled session that was inspired by the stats of a sample NPC in Sandstorm - and the consequences lasted much longer in my campaign. It isn't the only example of such, but it was quite significant to me.
That sort of help is priceless when it occurs.
Does this mean that any and all of this "help" in recent books should be accepted? By no means. Wizards do have to pay attention to those people who actually buy their books. It's no good if a book brings one person into the game whilst driving ten others out! Conversely, being the one person that is driven out when ten people come to the game sucks from your point of view, but is great for those who still remain with the game.
D&D is great because of the network of people who play it. The more people who play it, the more the likelihood is that you'll find people whose style is compatible with yours, and whom you can have a great game with.
That the new style of help is not agreeable to all is obvious. However, it may be worth considering who it is written for, and if it does indeed fulfill the role for which it is intended.
Cheers!
Last edited:
