Theories regaurding the change in rules of D&D.

[Mythmere1]

Interesting. Although, limiting things to 35 is hardly "making the game for kids". I mean, come on, the average age of Dragon readership is in its 20's. Does that mean Dragon is only for young gamers?

Well, for those of us about to turn 40, there's an element of that... No offense, just couldn't resist.

 

[Quasqueton]

Well, for those of us about to turn 40, there's an element of that...

Well, that means you were part of the demographic when WotC did the survey ~7 years ago.

Those who were 35 in 2000 were 15 in 1980, and are 42 today.

Quasqueton

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Double post!

 

[Scribble]

Your Fighter is the son of a local nobleman, and he goes to a masquerade ball. While there, he attempts to flirt with several ladies-in-waiting, and gets into several discussions with a foreign ambassador from the northern elves, as well as a scholar discussing the empire's history.

Your "noble" Fighter either doesn't have Seduction/Diplomacy, Politics/Nobility, or History skills--or enough ranks to really make an effing difference, because Fighter's skill points suck bad.

1E--"Oh yes...the ladies...you have a 15 Charisma...yeah, they giggle, and respond well to you...what do you ask them again? You should be able to get at least some good information about the rival noble from them..."

See I completely agree with Hussar on this...

I mean if you have a high charisma, your diplomacy is higher anyway even IF you don't train to be a diplomatic noble knight.

Just because you grew up around nobility doesn't automatically mean you are really all that diplomatic... (Paris Hilton anyone???)

Failing a DC even with a high charisma might simply mean that you've encountered a member of the opposite sex who isn't just impressed by the fancy car you drive, and is kind of turned off that you think he or she should be...

 

[Phlebas]

is it simply that after 3 editions & lots of years of working on the RULES, they got tighter with the rules...

the roleplaying stuff you were either good at in your group or not - rules didn't have too much to do with it - I've played lousy "videogamey" AD&D, and fantastic free flowing, house ruled RP intensive AD&D....

one difference I have noticed is that the amount of house ruling I do is limited these days, and thats only with the core books. In AD&D and 2ed I was always buying survival guides etc for those additional tables. Skills and DC's simpify that immensely.

as to the many comments above about 3rd Ed fighters having lack of social skills - its a pet peeve of mine that spending a feat on social skills (or even having high Cha) for a fighter is normally considered sub-optimal. to me its just one of the possibilities of character development. 3rd ed does seem to highlight that if you focus on one thing, you're unlikely to be much good at anything else..... but thats always a choice of player / DM / Group.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Your Ranger character is chasing a brigand through the woods, and the brigand leaps into the river, and swims to the other side to make his escape. Sorry, your Ranger didn't put enough points into his Swim skill. You roll, try and negotiate the rapids, and you suck.

Your Ranger blubbers and thrashes in the water, and drowns.

Swim is a class skill for rangers. They get 6 skill points a level. Any ranger PC can be a good swimmer if the player so chooses. This player didn't so choose. His PC is not a good swimmer. He knows this because he can see the ranks on his sheet (unlike 1e where he must know what the DM will allow to know if he can swim or not). Knowing this he gets into water and drowns. Someone who can't swim, and knows he can't, drowns....

THAT'S HOW IT SHOULD BE!!!

Your Fighter is the son of a local nobleman, and he goes to a masquerade ball. While there, he attempts to flirt with several ladies-in-waiting, and gets into several discussions with a foreign ambassador from the northern elves, as well as a scholar discussing the empire's history.

Your "noble" Fighter either doesn't have Seduction/Diplomacy, Politics/Nobility, or History skills--or enough ranks to really make an effing difference, because Fighter's skill points suck bad.

The problem here isn't the system but that the system has been used incorrectly. If the player wanted a charming nobleman type character he should have a level or two in Aristocrat or Skill Focus (Diplomacy) and Skill Focus (Knowledge - Nobility) or just a high int to get the skill points he needs. All quite feasible. If the player is experienced he should know this. If he's not it's the responsibility of the DM and other players to explain this to him so he gets the character he wants.

The stats on the page mean things. They are supposed to correlate with the game world. When they don't that's the fault of the players and/or DM.

 

[Numion]

Again, this is entirely based on your experience. My experience was that if it wasn't specifically spelled out in the rules beforehand, you couldn't do it. However, from your entire post, the strengths you are attributing to system are DM strengths. They can and do exist in any edition. Being able to use or even go beyond the rules is not a strength of the system.

w3rd.

As to SHARKs examples, I'd rather have my players present me with a complete PC, background and all (and skill points to match it), rather than keeping it vague, trying to weasel bonuses and change things in mid-flight.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Gain some followers for your journey? Sorry, Fighter. You don't have the Leadership Feat.

The Leadership feat gets you fanatically devoted, absolutely willing to die for you, won't turn on your without magical compulsion-type followers. Want to hire a torchbearer? No problem.

Your Rogue snarling at the jailer, and making efforts to seem tough and menacing? Sorry. Your character either doesn't have the Intimidate skill, or has only low ranks in it. Fat chance of you intimidating a snot-nosed kid, let alone the rough, beer-swilling jailer with a hard attitude.

Sorry; you're just not a very intimidating person; if you knew how to punch people's buttons (high Cha) and had some leverage (circumstance bonus), you might succeed; but, then again, how many snot-nosed kids has the jailer watched rail at him over the past decade or so? Why should you be so frightening?

Your Ranger character is chasing a brigand through the woods, and the brigand leaps into the river, and swims to the other side to make his escape. Sorry, your Ranger didn't put enough points into his Swim skill. You roll, try and negotiate the rapids, and you suck.

While your sailor friend, who spent his life on the water, negotiates the rough water easily, and catches the badguy. He freely admits couldn't have found him in the woods without your tracking skills. Hooray for teamwork!

Your Fighter is the son of a local nobleman
...

Your "noble" Fighter either doesn't have Seduction/Diplomacy, Politics/Nobility, or History skills--or enough ranks to really make an effing difference, because Fighter's skill points suck bad.

Then you should have started with a level of Aristocrat (the most powerful and useful NPC class). 4 skill points, 3/4 BAB, proficiency in all simple and martial weapons and armor and shields, d8 hit dice, and a good Will save! Diplomacy, all Knowledge skills, Gather Information, Handle Animal, Swim, Survival, Listen and Spot as class skills (among others)!

Then multiclass into Fighter for the extreme cost of +1 BAB over your career and 2 hit points. The horror!

There were no skills, per se.

Which means you were as good at something as you convinced your DM you could be. No thanks!

Gain some followers for your journey? Sorry, Fighter. You don't have the Leadership Feat.

1E--"Hmmm...right, right...your character does have a pretty good Charisma. Yeah, he should be able to recruit a good number of followers, or persuade some characters to be his henchmen. No problem."

3E: Sure, Fighter. A couple nights trolling the bars and flashing some gold (a couple nights worth of Gather Info checks with a Take 10) rounds up a couple ne'er-do-wells who seem interested in following you around.

Your Rogue snarling at the jailer, and making efforts to seem tough and menacing? Sorry. Your character either doesn't have the Intimidate skill, or has only low ranks in it. Fat chance of you intimidating a snot-nosed kid, let alone the rough, beer-swilling jailer with a hard attitude.

1E--"Hmmm...yeah, I remember your Rogue character (Thief!!!)--being from the streets, growing up on the docks, and spending lots of time hanging out with the rough crowd.

3E: You remember a couple choice threats from your earlier days "living rough;" go ahead and try to force your way past the jailer, but take a +2 bonus on your Intimidate check. Okay, you try to force him to back down; unfortunately, he's seen your type lots of times, and you just don't have a good handle on what buttons to push, man. Looks like you'll need to find a better way in - one which plays more to your character's strengths. Like, for instance, while yelling at the jailer, you notice the grated window seems to be rather rusty ...

1E--"Right, right...yeah, I hear you. Your Ranger character has grown up in the Black Woods, and is an expert at wilderness survival, and living off the land, and all that. Of course he's an expert swimmer!

3E: Well, apparently, for all your time wandering around in the forest, you never really spent much time in the water. Oh, you can handle a good-sized stream or most lakes (easily taking 10 when not encumbered), but the whitewater in front of you is probably beyond your abilities. *roll, roll: Survival check* On the other hand, you do recognize from the lay of the land that there's likely a ford within a mile or so upstream of this point. Badguy will lengthen his lead on you, but once you cross, you'll be back on the trail, and he'll be wet and cold.

Your "noble" Fighter either doesn't have Seduction/Diplomacy, Politics/Nobility, or History skills--or enough ranks to really make an effing difference, because Fighter's skill points suck bad.

See above.

As can be seen, all of the situations in 1E did not require a dice roll, or even a rule.

Yeah - I love how my ability to sweet talk the DM can overshadow the wise wizard player's greater stats.

Not.

 

[Mallus]

I love how my ability to sweet talk the DM can overshadow the wise wizard player's greater stats.

Not.

Some people call 'sweet talking the DM' 'skillfully playing a character'. Just saying...

Some people prefer to emphasize the way characters are played over how they're built. And in the older editions, there just weren't many ways to build different characters.

 

[Lanefan]

Interesting. Although, limiting things to 35 is hardly "making the game for kids". I mean, come on, the average age of Dragon readership is in its 20's. Does that mean Dragon is only for young gamers?

No, but given as how the marketing is geared toward younger players (as in, the 12-25 bracket) it's not surprising. That said, it was through a Dragon that I got my survey at the time as a 36+-year-old. I filled it out, sent it in, then later learned I'd wasted my time.

Limiting the age to 35 excluded pretty much our entire group, along with anyone else who got into the game in the late 70's-early '80's while in college. (20-ish then means 40-ish at survey time...) Paradoxically enough, that age limit would also exclude anyone who'd had a hand in inventing the game in the first place!

I did a poll here a year or so back that showed...somewhat to my surprise...that most respondents got into the game between about 1977 and 1983, and while I know ENWorld isn't reflective of the entire gaming community, this still says something. To make the age limit for the survey, someone starting in 1980 would have had to be 15 or less at the time; there were certainly some such, but where the game really seemed to catch on back then was in colleges...the 18-22 crowd. That's where the now-veteran players came from. That's who WotC chose to ignore.

Actually, in 1e days, I didn't at all. It wasn't until 2e that I started being a gypsy. The change wasn't all that large though. We never ran these huge multiyear epics that some people talk about. And, somehow, I doubt I'm alone in that.

I suspect it largely comes down to one's first experience with the game. If your first campaign or two, as either player or DM, didn't go very long then that's what you come to expect. However, if the first campaign you're in goes for 10 years then that's how you tend to see the game as being played; this was my own experience.

Lanefan