Sense of wonder?

[Quasqueton]

I've read in threads here, many times, this concept that D&D3 lost/discarded the "sense of wonder" in D&D. Can someone explain this idea to me?

It seems to me that any "sense of wonder" with this (or any) game slowly seeps away with personal experience with the game, not with a rule set. Unless the Players are reading books reserved for the DM.

I remember back when I realized that dragons in D&D would no longer have a "wonder" about them when one of my Players revealed that he had figured out how to tell the Good from the Evil. Good dragons had metallic colors, and the Evil ones had "regular" colors. "Sense of wonder" shot to hell right there, ~24 years ago, just months after we had started playing AD&D1.

And then a short while later, when the PCs started all the "standard" tests with a magic ring they found, going through the list (memorized) from the DMG.

And then there's all those other game systems out there that have all the magic and monsters right in the same book with the PC creation rules. So tell me, how did D&D3 lose D&D's "sense of wonder" by its design? I always thought the sense of wonder was maintained by just keeping the Players out of the DMG and MM.

Quasqueton

 

[Crothian]

The rules are in the hands of the players. Saves, attacks, everything the player needs he has. First edtiion the players didn't know what they needed to save or to hit people. That in some ways takes the sense of wonder away.

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

I think it has a lot to do with how long one has played the game. My son, who is 11, has only really begun to take much interest in the games, and when I run games for him and his friend, the look on their faces and their reactions bring that sense of wonder straight back to me.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

I think DMs need to feel free to fudge around with the rules a bit.

Look, a CR 5 encounter doesn't mean you have to throw it at a 5th level party. You could throw it at a 1st or a 10th. Also, feel free to have magic items with weird powers and zany spells. Gates can be fun too. How about two volcanoes. One is a portal out of the plane of fire, the other one is a portal into it. Together they create a giant arc of fire three miles long. Stuff like that tends to wow the players.

If you ever get a REAL wild idea like that and you have the money, drop $40 and have it commissioned as a small piece of art. That's about what you might spend in a game store on a WotC book. Telling the players, "THIS is what the city looks like from a distance and I know because I had it drawn for y'all" can shock them more than a new PrC or feat.

I also can not give a strong enough reccomendation to the 1999 CRPG Planescape: Torment. That game will give you 20 ideas to wow your players with.

 

[John Morrow]

It seems to me that any "sense of wonder" with this (or any) game slowly seeps away with personal experience with the game, not with a rule set. Unless the Players are reading books reserved for the DM.

I think a lot of it simply has to do with familiarity with role-playing in general and a particular game like D&D in particular. My group hadn't done much D&D for at least a decade, despite most of us having role-played for two decades or more. None of us have ever played Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance or any of the published settings. It's also a matter of setting expectations and then presenting new things that challenge those expectations. I got plenty of a "sense of wonder" out of them when they first realized that my setting had huge underground oceans that few on the surface know about and the PCs didn't.

But I think there is also another factor, which is a legitimate concern. Where earlier versions of D&D often had powers and rules created for a specific creature or situation, the current edition standardizes and classifies a great deal. When the powers of a creature are reduced to a standard set of "undead traits" or all "gaze attacks" work a certain way, it's not only easier to notice the similaries rather than the differences between creatures with the same abilities but it also adds a science-like analytical flavor to the process. Something can be lost when you look at an Troll and think of it as a Large Giant with Darkvision and Regeneration 5 rather than a Troll that's hard to kill because it regenerates.

 

[Ranes]

I don't buy the edition-x-lost-that-sense-of-wonder argument. I buy the how-long-you've-been-playing argument. I also buy the keep-smacking-your-players-with-wild-ideas argument. Obviously, I've also bought into the stringing-words-together-with-hyphens-to-make-ludicrous-adjectives-is-sometimes-fun argument. That's enough buying for one post.

My 3e players have been playing nearly three years now. None of them ever knows what's needed for a roll to hit or save. Which is good. The concerned looks on their faces every time they roll tell me it's good.

 

[Quasqueton]

The rules are in the hands of the players. Saves, attacks, everything the player needs he has. First edtiion the players didn't know what they needed to save or to hit people. That in some ways takes the sense of wonder away.

Actually, the truth is quite the contrary.

What Player didn't have his saves written right on his character sheet? All "official" character sheets had spaces specifically for entering the number. What Player didn't have his THAC0 written down? (Even before actual "THAC0", Players knew what they had to roll to hit what AC.) When the DM said, "save vs. death", the Player knew exactly what he had to roll; it was a set number, right in front of him. When the Player scored a 14 on his attack, and the DM said, "miss", the Player could say, "well, he's got better than a 3 AC". I never knew a single Player (other than absolute beginners) who didn't have this info written out on his sheet.

Now, in D&D3, when a DM calls for a Will save, the Player doesn't know what he has to roll; he just knows his bonus. If the Player says, "15", the DM can fudge (if he is the type to do so) and say, "made it". Couldn't do that in earlier versions. A 15 either saved or it didn't, and the Player knew it.

Plus, I would not have thought a "sense of wonder" meant being ignorant of how the game works. That kind of "sense of wonder" would drive a DM mad very quickly. "How do I make a jump check, again?"

Quasqueton

 

[shilsen]

I maintain sense of wonder with my descriptions. The exact same set of mechanics with a variant description will have experienced players experiencing a sense of wonder just as much as a rank newbie will with the garden-variety orc.

To use a very simplistic example:

Me: The warrior raises his sword and swings it with a cutting motion.
Player of PC1: Is he stupid or what? What's he swinging at while I'm flying a hundred feet above him? I prepare to fireba...
Me: Hold on - I wasn't done. Despite the distance you feel as if a sword slammed against your side. Take 15 pts of damage.
Player of PC1: Huh - he can hit me from that distance? Guys, get him! Quick!

All I was doing was using someone with a sword that could cast magic missile. Varying the description made it suddenly seem special. I do this all the time and it works great.

 

[Mark]

So tell me, how did D&D3 lose D&D's "sense of wonder" by its design?

15. COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Open Game License v 1.0a Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

System Reference Document Copyright 2000-2003, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Thomas Wolfe, Rich Baker, Andy Collins, David Noonan, Rich Redman, Bruce R. Cordell, John D. Rateliff, Thomas Reid, James Wyatt, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.

 

[Whimsical]

Two times recently I regained my sense of wonder while playing D&D. When 3e came out, and then when I played high/epic level games and got to use those spells and abilities that I have always read about but never seen put in action against superfunky monsters that I have never fought before but only heard gaming legends about.

But if I really want to bring back that sense of wonder, then I would start a D&D game for a group of nongamers.