Theories regaurding the change in rules of D&D.

[Numion]

Those are often more setting-specific rules though there are sections of gaming guidelines in the core rules for conditions, wilderness, weather, and all sorts of things, though in the games in which you play they may not be in the forefront.

Well, yeah, and I meant the core rules have maybe two pages of disease / weather hazards, while they have 50 pages for combat.

 

[Mark]

Well, yeah, and I meant the core rules have maybe two pages of disease / weather hazards, while they have 50 pages for combat.

Some activities require more rules because of complexity, not because they have to be the focus of the game.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Well, yeah, and I meant the core rules have maybe two pages of disease / weather hazards, while they have 50 pages for combat.

That's because players care whether their PC's live or die. Whether its raining, or if birch grows at this altitude - not so much.

 

[Mark]

That's because players care whether their PC's live or die. Whether its raining, or if birch grows at this altitude - not so much.

Rather that a DM does not really need rules to decide if a birch grows at this altitude and can decide if it should be raining based on what best feeds whatever scenaio is being created, though many like randomness in areas like these and some rules do exist for those situations.

 

[Numion]

That's because players care whether their PC's live or die. Whether its raining, or if birch grows at this altitude - not so much.

I mentioned disease and weather just because they are the things explorers have to worry about IRL - not the wildlife. Explorations have gone wrong because of climate and disease many times historically, but never because a great portion of the crew was eaten by animals.

That's my whole point about D&D being more suitable for kill and loot exercises than grand scale explorations. Much of the difficulties of exploration aren't covered in detail. Killing, looting and levelling are. For example, if exploring unknown territories was highly important, surely there were rules for XP / sq.mile cartographed, rules for trading and looting rare herbs and spices (isn't that what explorers brought back IRL?), etc.. Notice that dungeon exploration, on the other hand, is covered quite well: there are skills to overcome specific obstacles, like traps, locked doors, etc..

Many years ago my PC also went on an exploratory trip on Isle of Dread (in Finnish edition the module came with the blue box), but the exploration just sounded like and adventure hook or secondary goal (or excuse) to go killing natives and dinosaurs, and looting ancient temples. That might've been DM specific, like most things are anyway.

 

[drothgery]

It depends. It seems that most churches that adventuring clerics belong to, have both scholastic priests and then martial priests (and some have paladins also). I wouldn't say that a martial priest should use more than maybe 1 or 2 (or perhaps zero), while the scholastic priests are maxed out on knowledge.

A martial priest is going to have at least 5 ranks for the turn undead synergy, I'd think.

 

[mmadsen]

I have rarely seen a Cleric (in 3.x) without Knowledge: Religion.

My comment was tongue-in-cheek -- and made a few years ago, before Knowledge: Religion had so many formally defined uses in the game.

The point still stands that the game tempts players to min-max their skills when they are forced to choose between "useful" skills and "background" skills.

 

[Irda Ranger]

The point still stands that the game tempts players to min-max their skills when they are forced to choose between "useful" skills and "background" skills.

This is why I am considering the rule that certain class skills "level" right along with BAB and HD. As a Ranger, you can't help but become stealthier and more knowledgeable about the Wild. This heightens the "archetypeness" of the class (which has goods and bads), but mainly allows you to spend Skill Points as you choose to make your character unique.

Iron Heroes' solution is to grant so many SP that you're always maxed on the "key" skills, and have plenty left over to spend on "character development." Which amounts to the same thing.

 

[Hussar]

Which is my point. D&D changed with it's players taste, for better or worse.

---Rusty

But, you're assuming that the tastes of the player base is different than it was back in the day. Even back then, you had groups that slayed their way through the Dieties and Demigods in order to steal the weapons of the gods. You had groups that were into deep immersion as well. And you had pretty much everything in between. All you need to do is read some of the old Dragon magazine forum letters and you see how little things have actually changed.

3e, same as any other edition, is more than robust enough to handle all sorts of play styles. That's one of the primary strengths of D&D over many other game systems. The simulationists can use D&D as a jump off point but, the hack and slashers probably wouldn't be terribly happy with Harn for example.

 

[bowbe]

Wow I can't believe I read this whole thread. Tho it's been more of an interesting read with less on how editions changed and more on "what can a commoner do and what they can't."

My thoughts.

Commoners suck. I say 3 HP, AC 10 and they can do what you want them to do be it farm or make beer. Experts make goods and provide services beyond commoners but are not "rogues without sneak attack" as some would have them be. Thats how I approached that particular situation in Bard's Gate. I.E. If an NPC is more than a farmer or wagon driver then they must be an expert. Likewise im pretty sure the rules state somewhere (in some edition) that class atrophy can happen. Thus "Once great adventurers" who now run shops are now maybe a 3rd level fighter/4th level expert reflecting their change in occupation. I'm of a mindset that you don't need to over-explain that stuff to players who are looking for adventure, loot, and hookers.

Speaking of the last: I'm a DM who prefers RP to die rolling to get thru situations and thus hate diplomacy/bluff/intimidate and the sort and use those only in a situation of "last resort". When it comes to the latter: Make the die roll, because I'm not interested in the pervy details that an immature player may be looking for to satisfy their "RP Needs".

That said Over Rolling can be just as abusive as the "antiquated" DM Fiat.

Others have done a pretty good job summarizing the variant changes from edition to edition, and folks have weighed in on what they liked about previous editions vs. new. Mostly its a matter of taste.

I agree with those who feel that the CR system IS lame. I don't like crash helmets and air bags in my games but thats my choice, just as the choice of how you run is yours and yours alone. Who or what your players' characters' run into is also your choice. How they react to it is theirs. The CR system offers a model and yes, it happens to be a model i "generally" use for printed product. However, It's not necessarily what I use when running the adventure as I find most pampered characters are a significant challenge to MOST monster or trap encounters of up to 5 levels above their supposed threshold. Likewise some bad die rolls or insipid RP on their part during these encounters could result in their demise. The difference being, I let the players know this up front.

I don't rail road them and I leave everything open ended enough for them to find canny solutions to difficult problems. Then again, everyone has their own way of running and style of play, which is what makes the game great in the first place. I guess I would have "preferred" an option where you could get CR OR FLAT xp. If PCs want to go "Dragon Warrior" and kill green slimes for xps so be it.

Final Thoughts

It's a stone bummer that a couple of you had really crappy DMs when you were kids. Your grown now so maybe some day you can stop blaming Gary or some wicked "Gygaxanistas" for your wretched 1ed experiences. He wasn't running your game, some other nitwit was and they did you wrong. Come to terms! (Said with a grin and not with an ego whip).

If he had been running your game, you would have been having fun. Who else pushes back their thick glasses, wiggles their fingers in your face and says "Bibbity Bobbity Boo" when the evil wizard crackles you to cinders with a lightning bolt after the entire party through use of bad tactics collapsed like a flan in the cupboard? I tell ya, you would be too busy laughing to care. Then again maybe not, but heck, I was.

Shark: You're welcome at my game table any day bro.