Sense of wonder?

[DungeonmasterCal]

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

Have you been snooping on my game sessions? I have a player who's been playing RPG's for 20 years, and to this very day, if I call for a saving throw, he asks, "What die do I need for that?"
In this case, my sense of wonder is my wondering why I've not strangled this guy yet.

 

[Akrasia]

...
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.

Based on the two 3e campaigns that I have run in recent years, I would say that this is a factor.

 

[Pants]

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.

This is a problem that comes from any edition when you have players that read the monster manuals. How many of you have seen/heard this?

(2e Game BTW)
DM: Okay, you see a green-skinned creature with long, drooping arms, and hideous claws rise out from behind a rock.
PC1 (Newb): Damn guys, I don't know what this is, but I'm going to ready my bow and arrow and see if it's hostile!
PC2 (Veteran): Uh oh, it's a troll! Get the fire and acid ready, that thing can regenerate!

It's even worse if this is the first troll encountered in a particular campaign. Most players get to know the stock MM creatures fairly quickly. Even if you have a player in 3.x who doesn't read the MM, they'll probably be able to figure out the various abilities of a troll fairly quickly, though only if they read the MM will they get down the number of HD, rend damage, and regeneration amount.

 

[Ranes]

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?"

Yep but having monsters and NPCs who don't have to match in every detail the default stats presented in the MM varies the numbers enough to keep players off balance. They might gain an idea of the ballpark number they need to roll for a lot of things without ever being sure of exactly what they require. That's not ignorance of the rules.

 

[dreaded_beast]

This is a problem that comes from any edition when you have players that read the monster manuals. How many of you have seen/heard this?

What if the player is also a DM?

I believe it's up to the player to decide whether or not to act on information he has a player, but not his actually character, or meta-gaming in other words. It's the fault of the player, not the system.

 

[diaglo]

i think i have more wonder now than i did back then.

i wonder what the hell the designers were thinking when they wrote down some of the rules

 

[Pants]

What if the player is also a DM?

Like me?

I believe it's up to the player to decide whether or not to act on information he has a player, but not his actually character, or meta-gaming in other words. It's the fault of the player, not the system.

Well true, but the wonder can never be recovered once you've figured out all the-ins-and-outs of monsters after either DMing, reading the books, or just playing for a long time. So, it's not really system dependent.

i wonder what the hell the designers were thinking when they wrote down some of the rules

Yeah, that crazy Gygax...

 

[Lars Porsenna]

I sometimes see this question come up on the net, re: 3e loosing its sense of wonder. Some people compare 3e's bland descriptions with the wordy fantasy descriptions from 2e (and possibly 1e though I haven't played that in...years...). The difference is in 2e the descriptons told you...nothing...mechanics-wise, but were fun to read. In 3e they are spelled out, and immediately useful. But not so much fun. Reading earlier editions could sometimes unlock your imagination, while reading 3e is like reading...a rulebook.

Is this neccessarily bad? I definitely think not! If you're seeking divine inspiration (given that you believe in God), is the first book in the Bible you read Leviticus? Or something else? My point is, if you want to rekindle that sense of awe and wonder, then do like what others have suggested and buy a good fantasy novel, or discuss ideas with other DMs, etc. 3e gives you the rules and framework in which to structure something fantastic. I would prefer my rules to be clear and well structured so I don't feel constrained in what I do.

Personally, I like the idea of "traits," and its hardly something new, merely expanded upon. Back in 1e days we had "Demon traits, Dragon traits, devil traits" etc. Traits take less work from the DM, and makes the system logical and consistent. You know undead react to PC "stimula" in a certain way; each individual critter will have certain uniqueness, but most will have a certain commonality between each-other because they're walking corpses. It just makes sense...

Damon.

 

[Goblyn]

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.

...I don't get it.

 

[Mythmere1]

I'm in the "it's the system" camp. I can't isolate all of it, but one element is the way magic is portrayed as a fairly complete system. Earlier editions (with this reducing in each one) treated magic in the Vancian manner that wizards were using formulae from the small part of magic that they could grasp, and that a vast pattern of magical power was out there, completely unknown and full of pitfalls for the unwary practitioner. There was no actual rules provision for these pitfalls, but the "unknown pattern" flavor gave the DM a free hand to use magic as a backdrop or a device without a wizard being able to gain too much knowledge about it, or know precisely how to counter it. I've been playing Castles & Crusades by preference for the last couple of months, and it's got more of the old school flavor of magic.

It's only one example, but magic is such a central part of a fantasy game that I think this a relevant one. It's too sanitized, too complete, too much of a tool.

And the rulebooks aren't fun reading. That's a bigger deal than I would have thought until I started in with the C&C stuff.