Theories regaurding the change in rules of D&D.

[MoogleEmpMog]

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.

Yet 'whether its raining' can be vital to a PC's survival - a PC can be as imperiled by driving, torrential rain in some systems as he is by ravening beasts in D&D.

I can easily conceive of an RPG in which 50 pages were devoted to natural hazards and 2 or 3 were devoted to combat with beasts or natives (and in which combat was a small subsystem of the extensive survival rules). Such an RPG could be extremely lethal, but the lethality would be more likely to come from slipping on a cliff or drowning in a flood or being crushed in an avalanche or contracting a deadly disease.

It wouldn't be my choice because the exploration/man vs. elements type story is not what I'm looking for - but it could certainly be both dramatic and deadly.

 

[DungeonMaester]

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.

I tired to keep every one on track, but most would rather tip toe around the subject.

Also, I don't remember why, but I feared Ego Whip in 1st ed.

---Rusty

 

[RFisher]

On the skill-atrophy front: I've done it, & I don't care to do it again. Approving specific rearrangings of skill levels on a case-by-case basis is enough for me.

Which is why 3E has the Take 10 and Take 20 mechanics.

My statement was assuming that take 10 & take 20 are being used. Too many modules & too often we (i.e. my group) tend to set DCs in the assumed-typical-rank + 15 area. & I've seen the same general trend in too many RPGs as a whole.

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.

You've made some really good points in this post.

There is, however, another path. (Straight ahead, perhaps?)

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.

But the creators of the earlier editions didn't have gaps in the rules so much as areas that they intentionally left outside of the rules. Sure, to some extent what got rules & what didn't was arbitrary, but it was intentional. And sure, they didn't communicate their ideas as well as they could. And sure, there were some gaps that were simply oversights.

So, while I saw gaps that I wanted to be filled, they saw gaps that did not need to be filled. To me, probably half the evolution of D&D has to do with not really understanding the game as played by the original designers.

Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Some really good ideas come out of misunderstandings.

Neither is it to say that the game the original designers played was 100% perfect & right for everyone. Heck, there were always significant differences between the Greyhawk & Blackmoor campaigns themselves.

While I did once, I no longer think the kind of completeness that 3e has strived for is undisputably the good course any more than it is undisputably a bad coarse.

These days, I'm more interested in changing the gaps rather than filling them. Although any game with a GM to handle the gaps can do anything, the gaps in the rules can greatly shape the tone & theme of the game. Ideally it does because you pick a system that best fits the tone & theme that you want.

 

[Hussar]

But the creators of the earlier editions didn't have gaps in the rules so much as areas that they intentionally left outside of the rules. Sure, to some extent what got rules & what didn't was arbitrary, but it was intentional. And sure, they didn't communicate their ideas as well as they could. And sure, there were some gaps that were simply oversights.

I disagree. The fact that many of the gaps got filled after the fact points to the idea that the gaps were originally left unintentionally. The addition of non-weapon proficiencies for example is a direct response to the idea of filling the non-combat gaps left in AD&D. There are numerous other examples that were filled, either in hardcover books or in Dragon magazine. Quite often by the original designers themselves.

For example, Col Pladoh recent told me in another thread that a monster version of Unearthed Arcana was in his plans (although never came to fruition) which would fill in a number of gaps left in the monster books.

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.

[

In other words, you run CR exactly by the book. Although, I've often seen this bit about creatures being too easy and DM's having to use highly over CR'd creatures just to challenge their players and I really, really wonder about it.

I've stated this time and again and for some reason, it never seems to take.

A given creature of a given CR is capable of killing a PC of an equal level in a single round. Not always, but, most of the time. The chances may not be great, but, over a long enough time span, the chances eventually equal 100%. If you are forced to use high CR creatures just to challenge your PC's, might I suggest brushing up on your tactics and rules-fu? That has commonly been the problem that I've seen.

Again, said with a grin, not an ego-whip.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Although, I've often seen this bit about creatures being too easy and DM's having to use highly over CR'd creatures just to challenge their players and I really, really wonder about it.

I've stated this time and again and for some reason, it never seems to take.

And yet you never consider if that is because people's experience is widely divergent from your own?

 

[Numion]

And yet you never consider if that is because people's experience is widely divergent from your own?

I think he's saying that that's the reason he is wondering.

And he's right to wonder, because usually DMs who have to use high-CR monsters to challenge PCs even a bit are usually using them ineffectually. Not wrong, but ineffectually.

 

[Raven Crowking]

DMs who have to use high-CR monsters to challenge PCs even a bit are usually using them ineffectually. Not wrong, but ineffectually.

The same could be said for DMs who need to use CR = APL monsters.

The monster usually has the home field advantage, and ought to be able to use that well enough to push the ECL of an encounter far beyond the CR of the creatures. Heck, one could say that if the DM needs monsters even half the APL, he isn't using his monsters effectively enough.

Of course, the problem here is that "ineffectually" isn't defined in any sense except "If you find yourself having trouble with the CR system as needed, you must be using your monsters ineffectually".



It is essentially a meaningless statement, because it is recursive, illuminating nothing beyond the statement itself. OTOH, if one were to establish criteria for effectual and ineffectual use first, one could then determine whether or not Hussar, or the people he wonders about, are correct.

RC

 

[RFisher]

The addition of non-weapon proficiencies for example is a direct response to the idea of filling the non-combat gaps left in AD&D.

NWPs are a perfect example. They were added by people who didn't understand why they were left out.

& I did acknowledge that of course there would be some gaps that were oversights rather than intentional. (NWPs aren't one of them, though.)

Edit: I don't discount that some gaps were filled by people who knew that they were intentionally left as gaps but who honestly disagreed with that choice. Which may have been the case--or partially the case--with NWPs. But when it came to the gaps that I saw & thought needed filling--things that officially got fill in similar ways to how I filled them, there are certainly cases where I no longer think that the gap needs filling.

 

[Numion]

The same could be said for DMs who need to use CR = APL monsters.

You could say that, but it would make no sense.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You could say that, but it would make no sense.

Sure it would. I can challenge a party with creatures whose CR was lower than APL. I'm sure you could too. Therefore, if you need creatures whose CR = APL, you are using your monsters ineffectively.

The problem is that, while this sort of reasoning makes sense, it only makes sense in the recursive logic of the statement itself, because the terms that would refer beyond the statement (what is ineffective use) relies on the statement itself.

This is no different than saying "DMs who have to use high-CR monsters to challenge PCs even a bit are usually using them ineffectually" with the exception that I catagorized "high-CR" monsters as "monsters whose CR = APL or higher".

(The same problem occurs with "The fittest survive" because there is no criteria for which creatures are the "fittest" except that they "survive" making the statement meaningless outside of its own recursive logic.)

RC