Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Geron Raveneye" data-source="post: 4123900" data-attributes="member: 2268">Well, to be honest, I doubt you can "fix" this for D&D as it was up to 3.5, which is probably why they are trying to remake it into something new with 4E. It has to be seen how well that works, but that's beside the point.The best workaround, in my opinion, is to settle the game very solidly in the "expected average" of the spectrum, and make sure both extremes are VERY far away from it. Then you try to make as sure as possible that at the very least the DMs, better every player, knows what to expect when the group deviates into that kind of extreme game, and try to give advice about what to take out respectively put in to make it kind of feasible to play in those extremes.A few good examples are those threads here about "rare magic" or "low magic" campaigns. D&D is simply not made to play those out of the box, most especially not 3E. You have to tweak a bit, and take care about interaction with monsters. A good guide on how to do so would do a lot more than simply handing DMs a CR system and a wealth-by-level guideline and telling them to "adjust according to their campaign needs". Same goes for extremely high and common magic scenarios (Magic-Mart scenarios, for example).In other words, make very clear what the D&D average is supposed to look like...write your assumptions out in "Designer's Notes" and "Sidebars", and don't hope the players will see them from your rules alone.For example, I'm pretty sure the wizard as 3E has it was supposed to use Scribe Scroll a lot more in early levels to bolster its cache of ammunition. The buffer spells were supposed to make sure booster items wouldn't have to be handed out that often.  Spells like Magic Weapon could help out the odd group that suddenly found itself confronted by some DR/+1 nasty. Likewise, the clerical Endure Elements and other resistances spells were good to help them over a sudden encounter with a thoqqua or a winter wolf. That's at least my impression, that there was a much greater amount of synergy assumed by the designers, while they set the item creation rules up so those few who were actually willing to spend XP on a magical item would have solid rules instead of the very obscure ones in 2E. I don't think they really imagined it would lead to this "magic item shopping" phenomenon that set in after a while.But all that is speculation on my part, since the assumptions of 3E were not written down anywhere, sadly enough. It's like the designers' assumption that everybody knew diagonals are longer than orthogonals, and would account for that...an assumption that was wrong, since 3.5 had to write it out, resulting in the infamous 1-2-1-2 rule. I bet there's plenty more assumptions about 3E gameplay hidden in the rules, and never spelled out. In a way, I prefer Gary Gygax's verbosity...he at least told the players in (mostly) clear words how he thought D&D worked best, and what assumptions had gone into the rules. I miss that.</blockquote>

Verification