Options, not Restrictions? Is that supposed to be a good thing?

[Hardhead]

I noticed that they've adopted "options, not restrictions" as the sort of motto of 3.5e.

Is it just me, or is that possibly bad?

I mean, I'm all for options, but I'm also all for restrictions, too. Restrictions keep the game balance. You put restrictions on things to keep them from being abused by munchkins/powergamers/min-maxers/whatevery you call them.

I've increasingly been concerned with 3e lately, as products seem to continually up the ante in terms of power. It seems there's a direct correlation between how new a product is and how powerful the feats/races/classes/whatever are. I think it's partailly the "d20 Arms Race" that has developed among publisher in an attempt to make their products the most appealing to any given player. For a while, I thought I might be imagining it, then when I was convinced I wasn't, I thought maybe WotC itself wasn't aware of it. Now, it seems they're admiting it!

I think the other part is a serious lack of editors and vetrans remaining at WotC. Their vetran game designers have all been laid off, and the editing department is a shadow of its former self

Newer game designers often have a good grasp of the rules, and often come up with interesting concepts (like Savage Species), but they're just not as experienced, and they let overpowered stuff slip through sometimes (like the Half-Ogre), and there aren't any editors to catch gaffs anymore.

I mean, just look at the editing of the recent WotC products. You've got the unintentional comedy that is the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook, where sentances cut off and characters change gender. I can't imagine how someone could have even read through that all the way without catching most of that stuff. You've got SS, which has creatures that have "giant blood," making them humanoids that also count as giants... while at the same time also being only giants in other parts of the book.

Options, yes. Options are good. But not instead of restrictions. I'd like more of those, in fact. I'd like more restrictions on archers. I'd like more restrictions on some PrCs, like the Templar from Defenders of the Faith or the godly-powerful Archmage from Forgotten Realms. I'd like more restrictions in a lot of places to keep the options in check.

I'd like to see the new motto be "Options, and restrictions."


- Z a c h

 

[Desdichado]

Personally, I think you're out to lunch. Sure, there are some overpowered feats/Prestige Classes/what have you out there, but for the most part, balance has been the overwhelming mantra at WotC, and that has for the most part carried through, even at third party publishers. You make very little specific accusations against anything other than to say the grammar and other non-mechanical editing of Stronghold Builder's Guide is bad (which it may be, I had no interest in the book from the start) and the Savage Species is bad (with which I strongly disagree, and from your post history on that book, I find it highly unlikely that I'll get a fair judgement on it from you, you clearly didn't like the concept from the beginning.) Neither of those seem to even support, much less prove, your point.

So, no, options are not a bad thing. Restrictions are a bad thing from a publishing standpoint. Restrictions in any given campaign, yes, those are a must. But the options you're decrying aren't bad options to have, and I at least am glad they're in print. You can't just say something's munchkin just because you say so and automatically it becomes bad. SS is not a munchkin book in the least, IMO, in fact the only reason I'd play one of the monsters therein is for flavor and RPing, as I find it to be the opposite of munchkin -- what you sacrifice in terms of "power" to be a monster is significant relative to what you get.

 

[jasamcarl]

Options automatically mean a certain degree of 'power creep', as player wider breadth of strategies from which to optimize. It is a tradeoff, one which franks 3e does better than any prior edition or any other rpg period. It is a more efficient tradeoff.

As to the balance of recent products, let me just say that many of the criticisms are overblown and seem more founded on personal campaign assumptions and the 'awe' factor of a large ability list or flashy powers than a rigorous, critical analysis of the of its effects in play in the typical four-encounter dungeon crawl.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not affraid of powergamers/munchkins/whatever.

I'm just not. They're not the bogeymen of gaming that come and get me when I'm least prepared and destroy the fun of gaming for everyone at the table. They don't snicker in their little corners thinking of unbeatable ways to destroy me and my game.

They're just trying to have fun in their own way. I'm not scared of them at all.

For me, the little bogeymen of gaming, the kobold-traps that infest the books, ARE the restrictions. Any time it says "You CAN'T do this!" I can think of a million and one possible ways it cuold be done, and then think: "Now why are those not valid, too, Mr. Gamebook?" And then the gamebook looses much of it's credibility to me, because they're telling me how to enjoy my game.

Heck, even Savage Species met with some disapproval from that perspective. It didn't even *broach* the possibility of Oozey PC's. Nor did it really consider the far end of the bizarre spectrum (awakened animals, plants, and constructs, for instance). It didn't go far enough. It never said "You CAN'T" but it did say "You shouldn't. And since you shouldn't, we can't devote the space to helping you out. Sorry, d00d. You just can't play your game like that, if you want our help."

Why would anyone be so affraid of the munchkin boogeyman lurking under the bed that they would get intensely concerned about a +/-1 level adjustment? Or a bit more power for both players, AND monsters (which is what I see happening in 3.5, and what happened on a larger scale from 2e-3e)?

I mean, no offense Zach, but what's so terrifying about bad editing and some power creep? It's not like it has DR 500/red pen.

 

[FireLance]

Hate to sound pedantic, but it really depends on what you mean by options and restrictions. To me, restrictions mean you just, simply, outright cannot do something. Options means that you can try - you just might be better off doing something else.

Example 1: A wizard wants to cast spells while wearing armour.
Restriction: A wizard cannot cast spells in armour.
Options: 1. Make an arcane spell failure check. 2. Cast a spell without somatic components or prepared using the Still Spell feat. 3. Take levels in Spellsword.

Example 2: A cleric of the goddess of hunting wants to use a longbow.
Restriction: A cleric cannot use edged weapons.
Options: 1. Use the longbow with a non-proficiency penalty of -4 to hit. 2. Use a feat to take Martial Weapon Proficiency (Longbow). 3. Take a level of Fighter or some other class that give you proficiency in Longbow.

Example 3: A fighter tries to sneak past a guard.
Restriction: A fighter cannot move silently.
Options: 1. Make a Move Silently check (probably untrained) modified by Armour check penalty opposed by the guard's Listen check. 2. Remove armour first, then make the Move Silently check. 3. Forget sneaking. Punch the guard's lights out instead. An unconscious guard can't hear you.

I'm all in favour of options. PCs should be able to try to do whatever they want. And the DM should be able to tell them what they need to do to suceed, and what happens if they fail.

 

[Gothmog]

Hmm, interesting point Hardhead. Yes, I do think there has been a D20 escalation since 3E came out, due in large part to WoTC having to compete with other D20 companies. In some ways this has been a good thing, since ideas that wouldn't sell on the mass market have been presented by smaller companies- but most publishers seem to have been caught up in the D20 Arms Race. The only three companies I can think of that that haven't really succombed to this are Green Ronin, FFG, and MEG.

Options are great to have when making a character, but there NEED to be some restrictions too. Too many options means that characters are more likely to spread themselves too thin, being competent at many things, instead of good at a few. There are also a glut of presteige classes out there, some of which are good, but many of which are simply silly or stupid. Also, when presteige classes were first introduced, it was with the idea that you would excel in one area, but give up abilities in other ones. Now, it seems like every presteige class out there lets gain lots of new abilities, while not having any weaknesses or restrictions.

So yeah, I hear you, and I have to agree. Its gotten to the point of when I get a new book (often WoTC) I have to look through it and restrict 50-80% of the new spells, feats, and PrCs to keep game balance intact. Maybe this should be a call to publishers to keep the D20 Arms Race in check by simply making sure their stuff isn't too over the top.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Hardhead,

I agree that the state of gaming editing is somewhat poor. Sue Cook is excellent (d20 Modern was outstanding and she should win some kind of award for that), but she's kinda-sorta dedicated to Malhavoc Press for one reason or another.

But other than that I'm afraid I'm not with you. Why? Because 10 years ago I tried an experiment. I opened up all classes and all races in a 2e game. You know what happend? The freaking halfling ranger was a DEMON! That little cuisinart tore through my monsters faster than you could say "game blanace". It was a nightmare.

So I love that in 3e it is assumed that everything is opened up. In theory, it is great because it means that as a DM I can create a society of dwarven earth-elemental wizards and I know that it will be balanced. I can make the game worlds I want, be they Tolkien-generic or Planescape-wacky.

Sigh. But, again, RPG editors are underrated and much needed.

 

[Henry]

Restrictions keep the game balance. You put restrictions on things to keep them from being abused by munchkins/powergamers/min-maxers/whatevery you call them.

However, I contend that restrictions are not the only sound way to handle this.

It seems there's a direct correlation between how new a product is and how powerful the feats/races/classes/whatever are. I think it's partailly the "d20 Arms Race" that has developed among publisher in an attempt to make their products the most appealing to any given player.

Absolutely right. And in the face of overwhelming amounts of new material produced by d20 companies, the job has once again returned in force to the Game Master to ensure that optional material does not ruin his or her game. Just using the three core rulebooks, the game is retty well balanced - in fact, many players still use ONLY the 3 core books because they and their players are still having fun with it.

Options are not inherently a bad thing, but players must be wary that NONE of the products out there were tested as widely and for as long a period as 3E was itself. And even 3E has its share of problematic rules!

Options, yes. Options are good. But not instead of restrictions. I'd like more of those, in fact. I'd like more restrictions on archers. I'd like more restrictions on some PrCs, like the Templar from Defenders of the Faith or the godly-powerful Archmage from Forgotten Realms. I'd like more restrictions in a lot of places to keep the options in check.

All the things you mentioned above have caused no problem in our games - we chirp along quite happily as we have the past three years. The things we dabte about, are things like haste, harm, rangers not being able to use their virtual feats on double-headed weapons, etc.

I'd like to see the new motto be "Options, and restrictions."

Shiver not for me, thanks. I would prefer something more like, "options with consequences." This is what gets designers in trouble - offering new player options that have NO drawbacks, or have powers disproportionate for the level at which you get them.

Flat restrictions is what the two previous D&D editions were based on. To return to that is to give up a myriad of very fun, entertaining, and well-balanced character concepts that I have enjoyed during my time in 3E, and I am unwilling to do this.

 

[WayneLigon]

...I have to look through it and restrict 50-80% of the new spells, feats, and PrCs to keep game balance intact. ....

I agree with that part at the very least. This is what should be done. True restrictions should, for the most part, come from the GM, based on what he and the players want for their world and characters.

Having played Hero, GURPS, and Rolemaster a great deal I'm all for the 'toss everything in and let the GM sort it out' approach. It means you cannot automatically 'trust' that a book will be 'balanced'; it requires more work on your part. Players should not be saying 'This PrC is in Supplement XXVI, thus I want it,', they should be saying 'let me see your handouts for what you allow in this campaign'.

With Rolemaster, for instance, you MUST adopt this stance you you drown in the options (some of which are mutually exxlusive)(Note: I have not played the newest version of Rolemaster; I have no idea how they deal with it nowadays). GURPS is probably the only thing I can think of that maintains some degree of balance even if you DO throw in everything, but it becomes somewhat unweildy (Thank goodness for Compendium 1).

I'd simply prefer to have the option open. I can think of several instances where a Half-Ogre would be no problem at all. I can think of others where I'll want to even cut out most of the PHB races.

 

[hong]

Options are great to have when making a character, but there NEED to be some restrictions too. Too many options means that characters are more likely to spread themselves too thin, being competent at many things, instead of good at a few.

So 1) options are bad because they make characters too powerful; and 2) options are bad because they make characters too weak. Let's not get totally stupid, shall we?