The Culture of Third Edition- Good or Bad?

[Spatula]

There was, as has been shown, no real reason that you need the wholesale rejection of many of the classes within the campaign setting itself. Just because they didn't fit in 2e doesn't mean they won't fit in 3e. It's a new game. In re-thinking the setting, they found out what I've suspected since 2e: that with the right flavor text, there isn't so much of a reason to do a lot of the things the 2e designers did.

Except that the new flavor text contradicts the old flavor text... It's not like DS (or the other non-standard settings) didn't have justifications for their changes. You say you want a reason for setting-specific restrictions (which DS has), but, in DS' case at least, you don't appear to really mean it.

 

[Spatula]

Well, it just has to justify it, really. Dark Sun has never really justified forbiding bards or paladins in my mind.

Dark Sun has never forbidden bards. I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from.

Having a "dark" setting in no way hinges on not having a warrior of honor. In fact, it makes such a character *more* interesting to play, because they're more an exception than ever.

And having a character that is a warrior of honor is not necessarily the same as having a character that is a paladin. The D&D paladin class is a concept tied to a specific type of setting (psuedo-european/medieval worlds where divine forces of good exist), which is why it gets removed from settings where such a concept does not fit. Even in 3E (see Oriential Adventures for one example).

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Well, it just has to justify it, really.

Bah, you're looking at it backwards: A class should represent an archtype that's justifiably part of the setting and common enough not to be "prestigious". If Paladin's don't fit, they're not "gone" because they were never there. If Druids don't fit, same deal. Neither of which are found in Oriental Adventures.

 

[Melan]

And a corollary, originally posted by Belen Umbria:

The game should not fit the rules, the rules should fit the game.

A very nice summary of why 3e is so cool.

Here is where we differ in our view in what D&D is. In my opinion, it is not a generic and generally usable fantasy ruleset "as is" (even if the base d20 system can be tailored to do a lot of things, very well indeed), it also has a feel of its own. I do not believe "as is" 3e replicates the spirit and feel of, say, 1e or OD&D. Its implied setting, gameflow and expectations are much too different. I do believe that it can be modified to do so, though - which I have done myself.

 

[Ranger REG]

If Druids don't fit, same deal. Neither of which are found in Oriental Adventures.

But they can be found in a blended campaign, such as a Wa samurai visiting Cormyr in Forgotten Realms.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

But they can be found in a blended campaign, such as a Wa samurai visiting Cormyr in Forgotten Realms.

Indeed! However, that would also mean that you would be using the Kara-Tur variants included in OA (referred to as the "historical orient" or some such, can't remember) rather than the "default setting" of OA, which would be Rokugan (and doesn't permit such "visits" as-written).

 

[buzz]

Here is where we differ in our view in what D&D is. In my opinion, it is not a generic and generally usable fantasy ruleset "as is"...

I don't think 3e is generic in any way, shape, or form, though I thnk it most certainly is "generally usable." I don't think you can get much more "ready out of the box" than D&D.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You say you want a reason for setting-specific restrictions (which DS has), but, in DS' case at least, you don't appear to really mean it.

I want a *good* reason. I don't think I've heard many good arguments in favor of these restrictions.

And having a character that is a warrior of honor is not necessarily the same as having a character that is a paladin. The D&D paladin class is a concept tied to a specific type of setting (psuedo-european/medieval worlds where divine forces of good exist), which is why it gets removed from settings where such a concept does not fit. Even in 3E (see Oriential Adventures for one example).

Both this and OA got a bit too tied up in the flavor text, methinks. The flavor text can be completely changed. I could write up the pladadin as a dispicable warrior of evil just by changing the flavor text. The mechanics for the Paladin class are not tied to any specificy setting, and arguably not even tied to a specific force.

True, horse riding knights of chivalry and courtly behaviour don't have a place on Athas...but the Paladin is much more than just that.

Bah, you're looking at it backwards:

Well, I'm looking at it from a player's perspective. As a player, if a DM is going to take the tested core rules and alter parts of it that I am interested in playing, I'm going to want a justification for that. After that, I can either alter my choice based on the world, or help the DM give a bit so I can still play the concept I want. If they're just going to give me some condescending "'cuz I'm the DM, that's why!" I'd rather not deal with someone who's that heavy-handed when I just want to play a game and have some fun. If they give me some off-the-wall "Horrible balance, I have no idea what WotC was thinking, they must've been smoking crack when they let halflings be rangers!," I'd rather not deal with someone who, as a DM, has that narrow a concept of their world. If they give me their rationale, I can give them mine, and we can work to form a common ground in which I can play the character I want, and the DM's world is still preserving it's flavor.

For instance, my most recent campaign was set after the world began, so there was no wizardly magic -- the secrets had not been discovered yet, so there were no spellbooks, no spells to speak of. Say someone wanted to play a wizard. She'd be totally within her rights to ask me to defend my choice as DM. I'd tell her: primitive world, no spellbooks yet. She'd tell me: I wanna play some sort of demonologist, I wanna use rituals to summon demons. I'd tell her: Okay, start out as a cleric-sage. Use summon monster spells, stuff like that. I'll work in the secrets of magic into the campaign, and then I'll let you trade in your levels of cleric-sage for levels of Summonner. Izzat cool? She'd tell me: Yeah, but I don't want to wear heavy armor or turn undead or anything. I'd tell her: Here, use the cloistered cleric. Here, try the philosopher class. Trade out turning undead for rebuking outsiders. Nix the heavy armor; you can just have, say, your Int bonus to AC like a Monk does their Wisdom.

Now, a published setting doesn't have that negotiating luxury, but it's pretty easy to think through, at least for many of the major ideas. At the very least, when they change something (which they should), they should give you the reason they're changing .

Take the "no gnomes" rule.

Bad answer: "They're extinct." (So what? What's the reason for them not being there?)
Good answer: "The world is technologically savage, and severe. There's little room for pranks or professors. Mischief is not tolerated, and there's no method for gnomish ingenuity to manifest. If you're interested in playing a prankster, perhaps a gladiator who wins by winning over the crowd and embarassing his opponent (without physically hurting him) would appeal to you. If you're interested in playing an inventor, perhaps a designer of gladiator weapons, or perhaps a city-employed engineer for wells or city streets, would be interesting for you."

Take the "no paladins" rule.
Bad answer: "There are no gods to power their holy might." (which is not even reading the original rules right. )
Good answer: "The world is one of compromised morality, where in order to survive, average people must commit some horrible acts on occasion. If you'd like to play a hero with honor, try a psychic warrior, and focusing on healing and restorative powers. If you'd like to play a mounted knight, look at the riding lizards. If you wish to further enhance the idea, try becoming a cleric of a 'benevolent' element, such as rain, or a druid as a multiclass option. Consider joining organizations X, Y, and Z, which focus on fighting the good fight, and remember that organization Y may lead you to access to the Tribal Warden PrC."

See where I'm going with this? Don't make you restrictions absolute and involatile, and provide ways to play the same character archetypes in a way that is square with the world, and you won't end up peeving off players who just want to play a bloody fatalistic hero in a blasted world for a little fun on the weekend.

 

[Dirigible]

Seems like a nice idea in theory to me, kamikaze, but if they do that for every textual item removed from the setting, it'd cut into the body of the article/book.

On the other hand, explaining why given items don't fit might be a valuable tool to help readers understand the setting.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I want a *good* reason. I don't think I've heard many good arguments in favor of these restrictions.

You mean that you haven't heard a reason that's good enough for you to put aside childish wants in favor of just "going with it" to have fun.

"Too bad, so sad," as the saying goes.

Both this and OA got a bit too tied up in the flavor text, methinks.

Thinks all you want... Fact is, once you remove flavor, all you have left is books full of numbers. Heck, remove the flavor from M:tG, and all you have is cards with numbers.

The flavor text can be completely changed. I could write up the pladadin as a dispicable warrior of evil just by changing the flavor text. The mechanics for the Paladin class are not tied to any specificy setting, and arguably not even tied to a specific force.

Healing, cure disease, courage... These are all related to the "force that defines the cosmos" referred to as "Good".

True, horse riding knights of chivalry and courtly behaviour don't have a place on Athas...but the Paladin is much more than just that.

Exactly. The question is: Is such a class suitable as a common archtype on Athas? Despite Paizo's butchering of Noonan's article, the answer remains "no".

Well, I'm looking at it from a player's perspective. As a player, if a DM is going to take the tested core rules and alter parts of it that I am interested in playing, I'm going to want a justification for that.

In which case I'll refer you to the section on altering available classes in the DMG. If Monte Cook's words on the subject aren't good enough for you, than there's little I can do to change your mind.

If they're just going to give me some condescending "'cuz I'm the DM, that's why!" I'd rather not deal with someone who's that heavy-handed when I just want to play a game and have some fun. If they give me some off-the-wall "Horrible balance, I have no idea what WotC was thinking, they must've been smoking crack when they let halflings be rangers!," I'd rather not deal with someone who, as a DM, has that narrow a concept of their world. If they give me their rationale, I can give them mine, and we can work to form a common ground in which I can play the character I want, and the DM's world is still preserving it's flavor.

I agree that the two reasons you give a valid complaints. However, once you remove those two, the only reason left is flavor, which you've already dismissed as invalid.

For instance, my most recent campaign was set after the world began, so there was no wizardly magic -- the secrets had not been discovered yet, so there were no spellbooks, no spells to speak of. Say someone wanted to play a wizard. She'd be totally within her rights to ask me to defend my choice as DM. I'd tell her: primitive world, no spellbooks yet. She'd tell me: I wanna play some sort of demonologist, I wanna use rituals to summon demons. I'd tell her: Okay, start out as a cleric-sage. Use summon monster spells, stuff like that. I'll work in the secrets of magic into the campaign, and then I'll let you trade in your levels of cleric-sage for levels of Summonner. Izzat cool? She'd tell me: Yeah, but I don't want to wear heavy armor or turn undead or anything. I'd tell her: Here, use the cloistered cleric. Here, try the philosopher class. Trade out turning undead for rebuking outsiders. Nix the heavy armor; you can just have, say, your Int bonus to AC like a Monk does their Wisdom.

Which is fine when it fits... However, I'm not going to shoe-horn in any ol' concept because a player thinks it would be kewl... If it don't fit, the player must aquit.

Now, a published setting doesn't have that negotiating luxury, but it's pretty easy to think through, at least for many of the major ideas. At the very least, when they change something (which they should), they should give you the reason they're changing.

Which is primarily always a flavor reason. Even OA indicates that the removal of Wizards, Druids, and Paladins is one of "fitting" an Oriental-themed campaign.

Take the "no gnomes" rule.

Bad answer: "They're extinct." (So what? What's the reason for them not being there?)
Good answer: "The world is technologically savage, and severe. There's little room for pranks or professors. Mischief is not tolerated, and there's no method for gnomish ingenuity to manifest. If you're interested in playing a prankster, perhaps a gladiator who wins by winning over the crowd and embarassing his opponent (without physically hurting him) would appeal to you. If you're interested in playing an inventor, perhaps a designer of gladiator weapons, or perhaps a city-employed engineer for wells or city streets, would be interesting for you."

How about, "There aren't any and never were."

IMOC, I have no Elves or Orcs (therefore, no Half-Elves or Half-Orcs either). Why? Because they were never there. I didn't remove them; they were never included. A new player joining the group can either accept it or take a hike (and, if choosing the later, he won't be missed because he never tried to fit the group but rather tried to be a "backseat driver" by insisting that his standards should dictate the game being played).

Take the "no paladins" rule.
Bad answer: "There are no gods to power their holy might." (which is not even reading the original rules right. )
Good answer: "The world is one of compromised morality, where in order to survive, average people must commit some horrible acts on occasion. If you'd like to play a hero with honor, try a psychic warrior, and focusing on healing and restorative powers. If you'd like to play a mounted knight, look at the riding lizards. If you wish to further enhance the idea, try becoming a cleric of a 'benevolent' element, such as rain, or a druid as a multiclass option. Consider joining organizations X, Y, and Z, which focus on fighting the good fight, and remember that organization Y may lead you to access to the Tribal Warden PrC."

Funny... Your "Good Answer" is the exact reason Paladins aren't a part of Dark Sun. Glad to see you're finally coming around on this issue. I was afraid this debate might be hopeless...

See where I'm going with this? Don't make you restrictions absolute and involatile, and provide ways to play the same character archetypes in a way that is square with the world, and you won't end up peeving off players who just want to play a bloody fatalistic hero in a blasted world for a little fun on the weekend.

Bull pucky. Any player that's going to get "peeved off" for such petty reasons is unworthy of my table and not worth my time to accomodate.