Theories regaurding the change in rules of D&D.

[Irda Ranger]

Ahem. Back on topic....


A further thought has occurred to me about the evolution of the game from OD&D to the present. It's about the perceived role of the DM, and vacillation between his role as "Neutral arbiter" and "Storyteller."

Pre-D&D was the wargame. You either had no GM at all (just players, like in Chess or Monopoly) or you had a Referee whose only job was to handle disputes. Since the point of the game was well defined, and the "allowed interactions" between players was very narrow, the Referee's job was simple. Also, since the players were playing against each other, it was understood that the Referee would be neutral. (interestingly, there's a similarity with our earlier discussion here about whether or not in more-than-two-player Monopoly or war games you can strike an alliance between players; are the rules the limits of the permitted, or boundaries of what is forbidden? ... but that's a tangeant)

Coming from wargames, I think the presumption in OD&D was that the DM was supposed to be Neutral Arbiter ... but something odd happened when the players stopped fighting each other add started fighting imaginary orcs instead. The DM was suddenly expected to be both Neutral Arbiter and Determined Opponent at the same time. On the one hand the GM's job was simply to roll the Random Encounters and let the chips land where they may; but on the other, he was expected to play these monsters as enemies to the limit of their intelligence. As long as you limited adventures to Searching the Unknown, and clearing certain Caves, you were fine.

But then Plot appeared, and developed further with AD&D, and the War of the Lance and Time of Troubles events occurring in a given world. The role of the DM shifted again to that of Storyteller. Only, he was telling the story to the Players, not letting them tell the story to each other interactively. It was bad enough that all the corners of the map were filled in; now you didn't even have any control over how the story ended. And TSR lost customers in droves.

I think the publishers of the 3e adventures realized this had become a problem, and the worst of the rail-roading has receded. Even the novels have changed from "world shaking events" to "stuff that's happening to individuals, in the next town over." However, the "feel" of those old adventures has not returned, and I think it's because of CR. You see, the GM's role has shifted again from Storyteller to Provider-of-CR-Appropriate-Encounters. He still hasn't gotten back to being a Neutral Arbiter (and I'm not saying he needs to be for people to have fun - I'm just observing here).

So, the Evolution of DM's/Adventures might look like this:

OD&D - The world is big, and dangerous, and kind of random. You can get killed really easy. Smart tactics will not help if I roll 18+ on this table. Be afraid.
AD&D - There is a PLOT, and you will advance the PLOT.
D&D 3 - The world is big, and dangerous, and CR appropriate. You can get killed, but only if you're stupid. Use smart tactics and you'll always be OK though.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Again this makes it look as if +10 is all you need to be a master.

Bingo.

The only skills that you need to go even higher for are those that you roll against someone for, because then if THEY are a master, you need to be a BETTER master.

But that's not all the skills by a long shot.

The skill points system is almost MEANT to be spread out to give little bonuses to a lot of skills.

 

[pemerton]

Reading the above threads, I think the problem currently being discussed is that players who learned D&D in the OD&D -- AD&D days learned with a system that (on paper) generated woefully incomplete persons.

<snip>

The "new" problem is that the class & level system does not accurately model how people actually learn stuff (I say "new" in quotes because it's not a new problem at all - class and level has never accurately represented how people learn, but because of the change discussed above class and level is the new constraint* on roleplaying).

<snip>

Thus, the rules have evolved to increase the "completeness" of your character sheet, such that it is now a more accurate description of what your PC is (the "roll player"), but simultaneously it has been revealed to be an inaccurate description of what a real person (the "role player") could/ would/ should look like (because the false link between the class & level mechanic and the skill sub-system are the new constraint on roleplaying).

I think this is a very insightful post.

What I would add is that, even if we put to one side the issue of modelling learning, there are other problems with the way D&D skills and DCs model reality.

In real life, people exist who are well-rounded. I have a friend, for example, who is both a PhD in chemical engineering, and a regular finalist in the Anchorage marathon. Another friend is both a professor of philosophy, an excellent guitarist and an amateur painter of moderate talent. I'm sure the world contains a crack SAS soldier who is also a capable poet.

D&D has a lot of trouble modelling these sorts of well-rounded individuals, because there are simply not enough skill points available. Furthermore, most adventure DCs are set in such a fashion that maximum ranks in skills are required to achieve them, thus discouraging diversification at higher levels.

Furthermore, it is sometimes far from clear what these ultra-high DCs actually represent. This is especially so, I find, for non-phyiscal skills. Take Knowledge, for example, where obscurity of information is typically correlated with higher DCs, regardless of whether the information is technically or theoretically more challenging (in which case higher ranks should be required) or just less well known information (in which case assiduousness of research should be able to make up for gaps in ranks).

To tak another example, if a module tells me that the DC for calming down a particular raging NPC is 60, what does this tell me about the nature of the rage? What sort of rage is there that no one, no matter how hard they try or how long they talk to the person, cannot be calmed except by the most silver-tongued high-level character?

The meaning of high skills bonsuses is also sometimes unclear. Diplomacy +40, for example, which is what is needed to calm the rage in the above example, suggests that a character can sweet-talk Kim Jong-Il into giving up his nuclear weapons in just a few minutes of negotations. What real-world ability does this model? Just as the nature of the rage is mysterious, so is the nature of the skill.

Stats have the same issue: while I understand what it is for something to be as strong as a 28 strength suggests, what is the meaning of 28 intelligence, given that 18 is the maximum for any adolescent human?

These "modelling" issue could come up in earlier editions also, but not as acutely, because the bonuses simply didn't get as big (and so the differences between starting numbers, and hihg-level or god-like numbers, were not so great).

 

[Raven Crowking]

You raise an important point.

Personally, I am skeptical that the "need" you speak of really exists to the degree you suggest. Perhaps for a few choice villains, but not for everyone surely. (And isn't statting out the BBEG one of the sacred pleasures of being a DM? )

In earlier editions, I could create a whole new monster in a matter of minutes. In 3e, not so much. At least, not if I go by the book.

I was thinking this some more on the way home. The "by the book" aspect actually makes it easier to evaluate 3rd party products, so it has some definite advantages. But I'd still love to see this process condensed in a 4th Edition.

YMMV.

RC

 

[Irda Ranger]

Diplomacy +40, for example, ... suggests that a character can sweet-talk Kim Jong-Il into giving up his nuclear weapons ...

No way, dude. That's like DC 1000.

On a more serious note, you're right about the roll of bonuses and such. The "problem" arises from the fact that a d20 has 5% change increments which works for combat and Save resolution, but not so much for other types of resolutions. It's too random in some circumstances.

On a C&C forum a poster there suggested that pure Stat checks (not Skills checks) should be resolved by Stat Score (e.g., 15) + Stat Mod + 1d6. This would reduce the "randomness" of outcomes, and avoid absurd results like a Str 10 character beating a Str 17 character at arm wrestling, while allowing a 15 Str to beat a 17 Str "on a good day."

The challenge of that above rule was adjudicating what actions are "pure ability", which ones are "pure skill", and how to adjudicate the continuum between. I'm sure some smart person will come up with an elegant solution one day.

To take another example, if a module tells me that the DC for calming down a particular raging NPC is 60, what does this tell me about the nature of the rage?

That it's inhuman. Just as most normal humans cannot beat a DC 60, they shouldn't be able to generae a DC 60 either. This isn't a normal rage. It is the rage of Achilles. It is the kind of rage for which cities will burn, and empires will be ground under foot. 1,000 years from now, they will still speak of it.

To stay on topic, I think D&D has evolved to lose site of just how epic (in the Homeric sense of the word) 20th level characters are.

 

[pemerton]

.
I think one of the disconnects is that people want to start their 1st level character as this experienced person who has done stuff. The problem is, that's not what a 1st level character is. A 1st level PC is fresh off the farm so to speak. He hasn't spent years doing much of anything since, if he had been doing something exciting and dangerous, he wouldn't be 1st level anymore. A 1st level character with a sailor background has been a fisherman, hugging the coastline and dragging nets with his father. He's not a crewman on the Santa Maria because they wouldn't take snot nosed kids out on dangerous trips like that.

Background is what your character has at about 7th level, looking back at what he's done for the past 6 levels.

That means that anyone with a background has a real chance of beating a lion in bare-handed combat. If you want the rules to model reality, that is a bad outcome.

It also means that the bulk of professional soldiers, who (per the DMG and most modules) are low-level warriors, have no background, and are no better at warfare than someone fresh off the farm. This too is a bit counter-intuitive.

Someone who's been at sea for 20 years can (and probably should) be accurately modeled as a 1st level commoner. About 85% of people are 1st level commoners, irrespective of age.

The fact that two such contradictory opinions about the relationship between character background and character level can be so confidently asserted suggests that the D&D rules are far from clear on the matter.

I also think that it suggests that the current D&D rules are, to some extent, stuck between two different approaches to character building: the classic D&D/OD&D/1st ED approach, in which the character sheet only represent adventuring skill, and everything else is hand-waved; and the Rolemaster (especially RM2/RMSS) approach, in which the character sheet is the total picture of the character's abilities, and in which it is possible to be a great scholar without also being a great adventurer. I say "stuck between" because D&D does not give enough skill points, or allow a de-coupling of skills and BAB, to really be the later; but its presentation of NPC classes on the same template as PC classes (BAB, saves, skill points, hits) rules out the 1st-ed approach (compare the 3rd ed rules for Experts to the 1st ed rules for Sages, or look at the 1st-ed rules for mercenary captains and sailors, which make it clear that NPCs do not improve by gaining XPs from adventuring in the way that PCs do).

I've heard the basic "But my background says...!" from players before who were trying to rationalize getting something for nothing. Reading your posts, it's like hearing them all over again. It's your job to write your background while accouting for the system; it's not the system's job to account for your attempts at scoring extra by writing about how you were a manly man before you started adventuring.

I don't normally say this, but it really sounds like you should just leave D&D for a different system.

There is some truth to the idea that one should "write your background while accouting for the system." In a Champions game, for example, the background should be one for a super-hero, and it is no real complaint that the game can't accomodate the difference in background between (for example) an experimental and a theoretical physicist.

But D&D is meant to be a generic fantasy system. It therefore is an unhappy consequence if it can't accomodate characters with fairly generic fantasy backgrounds of the sort that various posters (other than the one about the uber-ninja) have put forward.

 

[Hussar]

See, I look at threads like these and I realize that a lot of the problems stem not from the mechanics, but from people's perception of mechanics. Take the craft DC's for a moment. The craft DC for common items is 10, not 15. 15 is for complicated items with movable parts like a bell. If I'm a chandler, or a blacksmith, 99% of my work is DC 10. I take 10, and lo, I create whatever I need to make. Takes time, but, there you go.

Now, if I want to be a master swordsmith, I will need a bit extra, but, that's where feats come in. As has been mentioned, stats plus skill focus plus masterwork tools gives me an easy +10 at 1st level. A +10 in a skill is more than skilled enough. The same goes for profession skills as well. You don't need to be higher than 1st level to simulate that herbalist with decades of experience.

On the note about expanding the profession and craft skills with houserules, a simple reading of the rules proves that I'm right:

You can practice your trade and make a decent living, earning about half your Profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work. You know how to use the tools of your trade, how to perform the profession’s daily tasks, how to supervise helpers, and how to handle common problems.

((Bold Mine))

Does anyone seriously think that tying knots is not a common problem for a sailor? Does that really need to be specifically called out?

The largest problems stem from people thinking that the rules say something that they don't. RTFM really, really applies. There's a reason I don't talk about 1e mechanics anymore. I've had my butt kicked far too many times because I misremember the rules.

 

[pemerton]

<snip good comments on the rage of Achilles, and other things>
To stay on topic, I think D&D has evolved to lose site of just how epic 20th level characters are.

I think this is true. I also think this evolution is not just one of flavour, but of mechanical design. There is a tension between the combat skills of 1st level characters, which are as good as they ever were in earlier editions (and 1st-level fighters, in Basic and 1st Ed, were "veterans"), and non-combat abilities, which tend at 1st level to be comparatively weak.

Hence the issue with "background" skills and abilities.

 

[Hussar]

I would like to add that I was wrong about the sailor bit. Looking at it, you can easily have a 20 year sailor as a 1st or 2nd level commoner. Caught by my own numbers. Faugh.

If +15 is considered Master, we're only talking 3rd level commoners here. 6 ranks, +2 mw tools, +1 stat, +3 skill focus, +2/+2 feat. I can live with that. Easily done.

OD&D - The world is big, and dangerous, and kind of random. You can get killed really easy. Smart tactics will not help if I roll 18+ on this table. Be afraid.
AD&D - There is a PLOT, and you will advance the PLOT.
D&D 3 - The world is big, and dangerous, and CR appropriate. You can get killed, but only if you're stupid. Use smart tactics and you'll always be OK though.

That last one is patently false. Combat in 3e is lethal. Easily as lethal as any other edition of the game. When orcs can do 15 points of damage in a single round without any crits, you know that the lethality factor is high. An equal CR creature can typically kill a PC in a single full attack. It might not be likely, but, given enough time, the DM will roll max damage eventually.

24 PC deaths in 17 levels of my World's Largest Dungeon campaign. I was averaging a PC death every 3 sessions. Playing strictly by the book. The idea that 3e is not lethal is just wrong. It's extremely lethal. There's a reason we see ideas like Action Points being floated to mitigate the lethality of the game.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The fact that two such contradictory opinions about the relationship between character background and character level can be so confidently asserted suggests that the D&D rules are far from clear on the matter.

I don't see Hussar's view and mine as contradictory. A sailor could have 20 years of sea adventure and be a 7th level rogue. Another sailor could have had the exact same experiences and still be a 1st level commoner. Sometimes people just don't learn.