Theories regaurding the change in rules of D&D.

[SavageRobby]

Let's take an old wizard as an example. In his day he got to a good high level...high enough to cast Limited Wish, say. Then he retired, and left off most things to do with wizarding and adventuring; he let his skills go, he didn't bother studying most of his spells to the point he forgot how they worked (i.e. he lost knowledge of them and now can't understand most of his own spellbook), he let his combat skills go such that he's lost most of his hit points and fighting ability...but because people keep asking (and paying) him to do it, he studies Limited Wish every day and still remembers how to cast it. So, in effect he's become a low-level wizard able to cast a very high-level spell.

So. How the %*$# can this be put in a mechanical system such that it consistently works for all classes (including multiclasses, and they're even a bigger nightmare) and gives useful results that make sense to what a real person would do? Or can it at all?

Not to cause edition problems or flame anyone else's opinion, but this is exactly one of the things I serious dislike about 3es requirement of having a consistent set of rules for everyone (PCs and NPCs). As a DM, I just want to create NPCs the way I want them; with a few exceptions, I don't want to worry about the right skill points, feats, or whatnot. I want to create an NPC to fill a niche, assign them what I want, and be done. (This is, for example, how the Savage Worlds rules tell you to create NPC, and is one thing I think they did absolutely beautifully.)

In a rigid creation system chock full of classes and templates and fifty million rules, you just can't do that. In a more freeform system that says "Create what you need, leave the rest" its far easier. Character creation rules are for player characters. As the DM, I create everything else to meet the needs of the scene/environment/story/whatever. And of course, my players trust me that I'm not going to do something outrageous doing so - but it does keep them on their toes, because maybe that old man pestering them really IS the old mage who only remembers Limited Wish.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Not to cause edition problems or flame anyone else's opinion, but this is exactly one of the things I serious dislike about 3es requirement of having a consistent set of rules for everyone (PCs and NPCs). As a DM, I just want to create NPCs the way I want them; with a few exceptions, I don't want to worry about the right skill points, feats, or whatnot. I want to create an NPC to fill a niche, assign them what I want, and be done. (This is, for example, how the Savage Worlds rules tell you to create NPC, and is one thing I think they did absolutely beautifully.)

I think it's wonderful as a concept, to avoid things like the "gotcha monsters" of earlier editions, to make sure that something that exists in the game world actually exists and doesn't just disappear to bone the PC's out of it.

But (a) it's been taken too far in 3e, so that making a 20th level challenge is like making a 20th level character, and it just has TOO MUCH, and (b) it hasn't actually stopped DM's from boning PC's when they want to.

Things like Villain Classes or even the new design rules of the monsters from MMV are all in the spirit of helping to undo this problem.

 

[fuindordm]

Why would you want to make people lose skills? That's just not fun. It's like taking away their toys...magic items...all the time.

I wouldn't ever do it to PCs, but it doesn't quite make sense either that background skills would continue to improve with level. Anyway, it was just a thought.

To NPCs, sure.

 

[DungeonMaester]

Hey guys, OP here.

I am surprised to see that a discussion actually made it out from the wrongbadfun of the first page.

As I said in my first post, it would seem to me that the rules changes as games there where new got to be more popular. D&D is a role playing game based of the mechanic of a war game, because it was the most promenet(sp) game type during the time when it was being written.

As games evolved and shifted to being more action oriented and gamers where playing games like Metroid and Legand of Zelda where you can buff up with potions and faires or save points to heal up and go fight again, D&D changed to reflect where the gamers are going.

This has been my experience with D&D atleast. When we hit critical mass, we had to stop for the night. Some times there would be something of a story arc that could help us, such as cleric where where trying to save is to close to dieing and heals the party so they can reek revenge on the bad guy, but was part of the story as I said, and not like gaming experience I have no a days, where it is battle, heal up, battle heal up wash repeat.

Not that there is anything wrong with it mind you.

---Rusty

 

[Hussar]

This has been my experience with D&D atleast. When we hit critical mass, we had to stop for the night. Some times there would be something of a story arc that could help us, such as cleric where where trying to save is to close to dieing and heals the party so they can reek revenge on the bad guy, but was part of the story as I said, and not like gaming experience I have no a days, where it is battle, heal up, battle heal up wash repeat.

I think that has an awful lot more to do with the player than the game. All I can say is that my games have gone from straight up monster bashing, to epic storytelling, back to hack and slash and are currently dead in the middle of pulp adventure.

System has an awful lot less to do with games than the players.

 

[jasin]

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.

This is a very interesting point.

I've just mentioned in another thread how I liked Fiendish Codex II demon lords (aspects) and how I disliked the deity stats in Deities & Demigods, and would be happy to see the power framework top out at about 30-ish, even for things like deities.

Assuming it goes on much further than that (as Epic Level Handbook does, for example, and often discussions on deities or powerful outsiders) just makes 20th-level seem less epic, since "there's still ways to go". But it provides little benefit, since exceedingly few games reach such high-levels, and even if they do, very quickly it becomes quite unclear what these levels are supposed to be like.

20th level is someone who can speak the name of someone who's been killed 100 years ago, their body thrown to dogs to eat, and their bones ground into dust and scattered into the wind from a cliff overlooking the ocean... and 10 minutes later, have them appear right there at full strength, as if nothing unpleasant had happened!

25th level is someone.... six? times more powerful than that (using EL calculation guidelines to eyeball it). It sort of boggles the mind!

I would love to play a game which assumed a roughly Earth-like baseline, with mid- and high-level characters and monsters getting appropriate reaction.

A cleric who could cast remove disease wouldn't be the village priest who you visit when you get sick, but a renowned saint and holy man, the kind of person around whom splinter sects are founded.

A shadowdancer who could hide in plain sight wouldn't be a guy who tithes to the thieves' guild, he'd either own a thieves' guild of his own, or be just a ghost story, the invisible shadow in the night, "And poof. Just like that, he's gone."

A dire wolf would be an almost-unique beast stories are made about, like the Beast of Gevaudan.

And 20th-level characters facing a pit fiend wouldn't be just heroes fighting a devil, they'd be demigods (in the conversational sense, not as a D&D term of art) and could well be facing the] Pit Fiend, with the Throne of Hell itself as their prize if the succeed.

Eberron had a good idea, but I'd like to see a game that took it even further. It's not that I can't have fun in a world where the village wise woman is Drd4, but this is certainly another option, and one which would cause less cognitive dissonance for many people.

 

[jasin]

Here's my new character!

Str 8 Dex 10 Con 14 Int 12 Wis 13 Cha 15
HP 6, Attack -1 dagger 1d4-1

Profession (Sauron) (4) +5
Craft (jewelry) (4) +5
Spellcraft (4) +5
Bluff (4) +6

This is just hilarious.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Hey guys, OP here.

Welcome back!

As I said in my first post, it would seem to me that the rules changes as games there where new got to be more popular. D&D is a role playing game based of the mechanic of a war game, because it was the most promenet(sp) game type during the time when it was being written.

Hmm. D&D is just a reflection of the times? Maybe. Perhaps D&D has been and has remained the most popular RPG not because of any Platonic ideal of rules, but merely because it was best at reflecting the mood of the community expectations? There are many parallels in other industries. I'm not sure that's terribly useful to discussion though, as it's mostly a circular argument. Let's focus on the specifics.

As games evolved and shifted to being more action oriented and gamers where playing games like Metroid and Legand of Zelda where you can buff up with potions and faires or save points to heal up and go fight again, D&D changed to reflect where the gamers are going.

More action oriented? I don't think so. D&D has always been "kill things and take their stuff."

It probably is accurate to say that games & adventures within D&D has become more "constrained" in a video-game way, but let me explain what I mean by that before people jump all over me.

I think it is useful to think about the player's expectations regarding the frequency of "power ups", and how easily put to use they are. As mere examples of the genre of video games, Zelda and Metroid were very simple games in many respects (their engines could never have supported hiring a band of spear carriers to help acquire the tri-force, or Link deciding to "fark this" and go on a different quest). Due to their simplicity they were forced to rely on simpler fair to reward players - little glowing things that give you simple bonuses to stats you already have. Metroid could never supported a Chaotic Evil gun with an EGO of 21 that took over your character and started attacking villagers, abandoning your quest.

This trained players in several, related respects. One, power ups are to be sought, are frequently discovered, and easily put to use. Two, the "mission" is provided by the game, not decided by the player. Three, the world is constrained to what is presented by the game, there is nothing beyond the 'borders' of the story (or, its there, but don't go there - you'll break the game). I've had several experiences where players raised on the NES were (1) completely adrift sitting in a tavern with no quest provided with their ale, (2) get pissy when they kill an Orc and it "only" has 2d4 sp on it (never mind that the village is now safe), and (3) don't make decisions like "fark this, I'm going to Cormyr."

(Please don't assume that I'm saying that all people who played the NES/Super NES/PS1,2/ etc. display all of these attributes all the time - I'm just talking about trends here. Let's make up a number and say that #2 events are up 53%. I'm also pretty sure that this is a video/computer game problem, because I never have these problems with people who don't play computer/video games, or older gamers who do play them but did not during their formative years.)

When we hit critical mass, we had to stop for the night. Some times there would be something of a story arc that could help us, such as cleric where where trying to save is to close to dieing and heals the party so they can reek revenge on the bad guy, but was part of the story as I said, and not like gaming experience I have now-a-days

I'm not sure this is actually a good thing. What you're saying is that the rules as written, taken to their logical conclusion, did not result in the world that you wanted; so you hand-waived away the results for ones more favorable to your story / campaign world.

Of course, the D&D designers noticed the same thing. There were gaps in the rules - the magic item creation rules didn't exist to explain where all those items and potions came from, the NWP and secondary skills sub-system was absurd, and the logical conclusion of the rules that did exist did not result in a world that looked anything like Middle Earth.

I think that making the rules complete-ish (e.g., Skill Points, magical item creation) rules was a good idea in some respects, but the designers turned right when some of us would rather they had turned left. Rather than alter the rules to so that they'd result in world that looks like the hand-waivey results we'd been getting all along, they followed them to their logical conclusion to make what we call "D&D being it's own genre", aka, Ptolus and Eberron. There's really nothing WrongBadFun about this - it's a matter of taste. There are plenty of games / movies / TV shows etc. that I don't like but have lots of fans. There are also plenty of people who enjoy both; a buddy in my Iron Heroes group also runs a Ptolus campaign.

So, D&D has evolved to a higher levels of "completeness" and "internal consistency." This is a good thing. It's a model to be strived for, so that even if you don't like the implied setting, it's still a standard to be held to when creating rules that support an implied setting you'd like to play in yourself. Conan is a better game because D&D has shown that you can have consistent rules which result in the implied setting you were hoping for.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I think most of Jasin's points can be addressed in the RAW, if the GM assumes different distributions of classes and levels within society. This is "the GM's problem", as much as the players'.

I would love to play a game which assumed a roughly Earth-like baseline, with mid- and high-level characters and monsters getting appropriate reaction.

You can start by setting an example. Never treat a high-CR monster or high level NPC as common-place (unless the NPC is deliberately trying to "blend in"). Have the villagers throw a festival to honor a couple 3rd-level types who routed an ogre that settled in a nearby cave.

A cleric who could cast remove disease wouldn't be the village priest who you visit when you get sick, but a renowned saint and holy man, the kind of person around whom splinter sects are founded.

Totally within your control as GM. Explain to the PC's that upon entering a new village they are met with a 1st level Expert (an ordained priest of 35 years of age, and greatly respected in the village) is a follower of the Jannite sect a Pelor's worship, an aesthetic order based out of the nearby city of Brund, founded a mere century ago by Saint Jann, a great teacher and Holy Man who could cure even the black plague with a touch. There are no spellcasters in the village.

A shadowdancer who could hide in plain sight wouldn't be a guy who tithes to the thieves' guild, he'd either own a thieves' guild of his own, or be just a ghost story, the invisible shadow in the night, "And poof. Just like that, he's gone."

While trying to Gather Information on a caravan lost in the Mir Hills, they learn that the caravan was intercepted and taken, despite clear claims to merchant traffic in the area by the local thieve's guild. Moreover, the caravan was rumored to have been taken by men answering to Keizer Soize, a man even the local thieves fear to cross, and a power that cannot be constrained by chains or walls.

A dire wolf would be an almost-unique beast stories are made about, like the Beast of Gevaudan.

Choosing a monster palette (and sticking to it!) are very important. The minotaur of myth was famous because there was only one. The minotaur in every Stygian noble's hedge maze, not so much. Also, there's no rule that say you have to call them Dire Wolves in the campaign. You can decide that "evil" Dire Wolves only exist in two places in the world (the Beasts of the Porellian Woods, and the Wolf-mounts of the Goblin Horde) and that there are even "good" Dire Wolves, who occasionally fight along side the elves of Lanellar Forest. Once you've made that call - stick to it!

And 20th-level characters facing a pit fiend wouldn't be just heroes fighting a devil, they'd be demigods (in the conversational sense, not as a D&D term of art) and could well be facing the Pit Fiend, with the Throne of Hell itself as their prize if the succeed.

You can do this. Just make sure it doesn't happen more than once every couple centuries or two. Raistlin pulled this off, was it was cool, but I hope you'll recall that the last 20th level Wizard to walk Ansalon before him was ... never. Not even Fistandalus or Magius achieved this level. In the 1st ed. of Forgotten Realms I think there were only 3-4 wizards of 20th+ level, and they were all essentially immortal, so if you assumed that natural aging is inevitable, they'd all have been dead centuries ago, and there would have been NO 20th level wizards in the Realms.

Eberron had a good idea, but I'd like to see a game that took it even further. It's not that I can't have fun in a world where the village wise woman is Drd4, but this is certainly another option, and one which would cause less cognitive dissonance for many people.

Actually, I don't like Eberron at all, but that's neither here nor there.

You're "problem" is that Ryan Dancey developed a game where almost anyone can achieve 20th level. That simply didn't happen in older editions unless you played for years and years. 20th level was rare and wonderful back then - because hardly anyone ever did it. But by bringing 20th level to the masses, it lost it's specialness.

To use a baseball analogy, they noticed that hardly anyone ever hit 50 home runs in a season, so they handed out aluminum bats, brought the outer wall in 200', and replaced the pitcher with a pitching machine which lobs balls over the plate every time. Now anyone can hit 50+ home runs.

But the problem with both of these is that the common myth that "we're all special" is just a myth. We can't all be special, or the word loses its meaning. For anyone to be special, the rest of us must be average. It's human nature to want to be special, but it's also a fact that we can't all be so. If we all can make 20th level in a year and half of gaming once a week, then being 20th level just means "I gamed for a year and a half, once a week." Honesty compels you to admit that this doesn't make you special.

Nowadays D&D faces the same problems that competitive cycling does. It's very easy to "dope up" by just changing the frequency and scale of XP awards, but that's a hamster wheel I object to. If all I wanted was a 20th level character, I could roll one up tomorrow. If all I wanted was to tour France, I'd rent a car. But we want more than that. We want to say "Look what I have done, not because it was easy, but because it was hard. I climbed this mountain because it was there, and perhaps one day you will join me, and we will see the far horizons as equals: men who have pushed the limits of what is possible (even if the limits are self-imposed)."

AKA: Fight level/bonus/plus inflation at all costs! Impose a gold standard* of roleplaying.

Anyway, that's a long, round-about way of saying that you can easily have the world you envision with 98% of the RAW. Just change the XP system so that (1) acquiring levels 3 - 10 are a real accomplishment for the PC's, and (2) the world recognizes that accomplishment. Do the math so that XP awards mean that 3rd level takes twice as much work as 2nd level to achieve, and then have NPC's recognize this achievement in many small ways (e.g., "Oh no, your money's no good here - please, have a seat.").

The logical conclusion is that high-CR monsters are very rare. So rare, they are known by name. There's no such thing as "a Minotaur." Only "the Minotaur of Minoa" and "the Minotaur of Tor Cragg." The logical conclusion is that hero of Battle of Serenity Valley is a 4th level Fighter. The logical conclusion is that 20th level characters in history are known by name: Achilles, Raistlin, Elminster, Beowulf. (Corollary: if you haven't heard of them, they're weren't 20th level). To reinforce this a bit, lift the curtain every now and then and explain that Conan was an 11th level Barbarian/Thief at the height of his power; no more than that. It will aid them in sensing the "scale" of the world, and they'll know that when they're 11th level (if they make it that far), that they will be equals with Conan.

If you've been driving at 70 mph for a long time, 35 mph seems like a crawl. Likewise, if you've been eating McDonalds and Snickers bars for most of your life, the nuances of French cuisine are lost on your de-sensitized taste buds. BUT, if you choose to become sensitized, you can easily enjoy this subtler fair. 3e's XP progression has desensitized us to the Homeric epicness of 20th level, but that doesn't mean we can't have it back. Minor rule changes and a DM who follows them to their conclusion in his world would be enough to let you keep the stuff about 3e that were "good changes." (If that's your thing, and that's what you want - nothing wrong with keeping it just the way it is, in Ptolus and Eberron)

If you go this route though, make sure you've communicated this to your players. A player that's written "10th level by October" on his to-do list will rightly be upset with you if you don't deliver the game he was expecting. We have laws in this country about false advertising, after all.

* - Did you see what I did there?

 

[fuindordm]

Very nice points, Irda Ranger.

Still, there has to be a middle ground. Your typical AD&D campaign had hundreds of magic items floating around... yet you needed an 11th level wizard to make them. Potions and scrolls were common as dirt (they had to be, for PCs to survive low levels), yet they needed a 7th level caster. Who can make poison? Only a name-level assassin. The monk and the druid had to fight it out for their levels, just when things started to get good for them.

There was a huge anti-PC bias in this respect--by the time the players learned to do the cool stuff, the campaign was pretty much over.

And for all that I'm now putting together an AD&D campaign, that's one aspect of 3e that I will never regret. They put the cool stuff where it should be, in the hands of the players, and they gave the magic its proper context. I would turn the dial down a little, but if cool stuff exists in abundance in the game world then the PCs should be able to do it themselves.

Ben