What is 3.0 & 3.5 missing that previous editions had?

[kamosa]

Well thanks for admitting you don't have an argument. Most players always preferred a 'balanced' game. 3e can do both. So its nice you slip in the assertion that the game as written is becoming bland despite having already conceded you have nothing to base it on.

Well its obvious most prefer to balanced modules. As you noted even in 1e days, dms actually attempted to balance games, because a game isn't fun when random death is all over the place. And no, the existence of some random death/monster/etc. table does not automatically increase the tension of game; more likely it just pisses the players off and sends them in search of a new dm. This is because most don't feel themselves victims of the rules and tend to be selective as to what stuff they actually use in game. This means they wouldn't view 3e's options as bland, but rather as what it is, a tool. Understand? Or are you now sulking?

I didn't say any of those things. !?!?!? In fact I said that random death is a bad thing. I've said that several times. What I said was that a credible threat of insta death was a good thing.

I did say the nobody is falling victom to the "good" design of the CR system, because it isn't a good design, so it can't have any victoms.

I've used those tables and, up until I moved six months ago, had many of the same players for 10 to 15 years, so I don't think it drives away players.

Great they view 3E as a tool, that doesn't mean it is the best tool in the world, or that it couldn't be made better. Sorry I think 3E could be better and that we threw out some of the baby with the bath water in 2E.

Insults deleted by Piratecat

 

[Piratecat]

Kamosa, I know you posted without seeing my latest warning, but it takes two people to argue. I'd appreciate it if you'd edit your post accordingly, or I'll do it instead.

 

[Zappo]

The CR system has been used as a way to "balance" the encounters. So even though there could be a great many variations to the power of the monsters, the CR rating system washes away the suspense and lets you know that the GM would never run you up against something that you couldn't defeat.

No. Not even if you play the game strictly by the book. The DMG doesn't say that all encounters shoult have the same CR as the party level. In fact, it even gives percentages of encounters of greater or lower CR, and "by the book" there is a solid amount of tough encounters.

No experienced DM plays 3E "by the book". Not because it's wrong, but because they know their players and know what they want. But even if you are a newbie who is sticking to the book because he's afraid of making mistakes, you are still encouraged to throw tough encounters often, and even outright unwinnable ones every now and then.

"The GM would never run you up against something that you couldn't defeat" is a problem with the GM and I think we agree on this. But it is not a problem which he got from 3E design.

 

[Zappo]

I didn't say any of those things. !?!?!? In fact I said that random death is a bad thing. I've said that several times. What I said was that a credible threat of insta death was a good thing. Is that too subtle of a difference to grasp?

Ah, something gets clearer in my mind. It is a fairly subtle difference, but it is there.

I'll let the discussion cool while I think this concept over, try not to get the thread locked in the meanwhile ok?

 

[jasamcarl]

I didn't say any of those things. !?!?!? In fact I said that random death is a bad thing. I've said that several times. What I said was that a credible threat of insta death was a good thing. Is that too subtle of a difference to grasp?

I did say the nobody is falling victom to the "good" design of the CR system, because it isn't a good design, so it can't have any victoms. Try to keep up here.


I've used those tables and, up until I moved six months ago, had many of the same players for 10 to 15 years, so I don't think it drives away players.

Great they view 3E as a tool, that doesn't mean it is the best tool in the world, or that it couldn't be made better. Sorry I think 3E could be better and that we threw out some of the baby with the bath water in 2E. I'll try not to be dumb in the future, stop thinking and fall in line.

And I'm saying the credible threat of death is just as present in 3e. Try reading. I came to conclusion that you like instant kills because you seem to want it written into the system (and not even as an option the dm can dispose of).

In that case, your players preferred that style of play and CHOOSE to stay in the game. The system had nothing to do with it. You could have easily done the same thing with 3e.

And yes 3e is a tool, something that 2e wasn't, because, by your own admission, it attempted to force a certain style of play (poorly i might add), while 3e did both. So I suppose I would simply conclude by saying that atleast 3e was something.

 

[kamosa]

There's still something I don't understand, but I see a connection with the save or die argument of the last couple of pages. So let me get this straight. You're saying that completely random death which the PCs can't influence or prevent somehow makes the game more enjoyable? How?

My thesis is that the fear of death drive dramatic tension more then knowing you will probably win because the game is balanced. We've all seen movies where it never felt like that hero was in danger, and it never felt like they were truely challenged. These movies feel very flat and predictable and well boring.

On the other hand a good suspenseful movie where you constantly feel like the hero could fail at any minute and the villian will win is much more interesting.

I'm saying that gaming has a similar axiom. Saying things are balanced, doesn't mean things are fun, in fact too much balance can lead to a feeling of no threat and this no tension.

In the end, even in the movies, the heroes will win and evil will be defeated. But the real enjoyment and satisfaction is in how you go from point A to point b, not in how balanced that journey was.

So, it isn't the random death that makes the game fun, it's the feeling that you cheated death and came out on top. Your plan avoided the insta deaths and traps of the bad guys and in the end you came out on top. Those moments are the ones that seems to stick with players. And I guess my feeling is that the CR is being used in a fashion that creates less of those dramatic moments.

 

[lord_banus]

Take the infamous Gary Gygax random encounter tables for example. They weren't balanced at all. There was no guarentee that the players could defeat an enemy rolled off of them. Two Bodaks for a 5th level party, you must be insane Gary! The players knew this table was in existance and didn't want to spend a bunch of down time sleeping or aimlessly wondering the dungeon. This provided a time spur to the party which increased tension in the game. Some of the encounters were "insta death" encounters, and it added to the game that they were a possibility. Now, I don't think I ever saw one used in a game, but just that they existed had an impact on the style of play.

Now, the modules come carefully balanced with proper CR encounters, if they bother to have random encounters at all. All prim and proper by the rules and true to the spirt of 3E. The players never fear what could come off that chart. They just think of it as extra XP.

Sure, you could add more deadly encounters and use higher CR values, and to be honest, I do. But the spirit of the system as writen in the books has changed. This impacts how people learn the game and how new GM's learn that the game should be played. It's at these people that I'm aiming my comments, not at the people that believe 3E can do no wrong.

Actually the wilderness encounter tables are still like that but it also raises a problem that I have noticed a lot of players get into. The problem is that they somehow feel that they must kill every creature they come up against. I am slowly weaning my players out of this mentality by throwing the occasionally super-tough opponent at them and giving them full XP for running away. If they actually try to kill it and they survive then they get less XP for being dumb.
There are many ways to handle an encounter and I think 3rd ed is a lot more supportive of this due to the increase in skills and abilities relating to social interaction (ie diplomacy, intimidate etc). I think probably Gary Gygax was thinking along these lines as well. Being a skilled tactician is knowing when to run and when to fight.

 

[jasamcarl]

My thesis is that the fear of death drive dramatic tension more then knowing you will probably win because the game is balanced. We've all seen movies where it never felt like that hero was in danger, and it never felt like they were truely challenged. These movies feel very flat and predictable and well boring.

On the other hand a good suspenseful movie where you constantly feel like the hero could fail at any minute and the villian will win is much more interesting.

I'm saying that gaming has a similar axiom. Saying things are balanced, doesn't mean things are fun, in fact too much balance can lead to a feeling of no threat and this no tension.

In the end, even in the movies, the heroes will win and evil will be defeated. But the real enjoyment and satisfaction is in how you go from point A to point b, not in how balanced that journey was.

So, it isn't the random death that makes the game fun, it's the feeling that you cheated death and came out on top. Your plan avoided the insta deaths and traps of the bad guys and in the end you came out on top. Those moments are the ones that seems to stick with players. And I guess my feeling is that the CR is being used in a fashion that creates less of those dramatic moments.

Which for the upteenth time, is a player/dm perrogative, not a system one. 3e can have just as much of an insta-death element as the dm prefers. In earlier games all that tended to happen is that this 'credible threat' was skipped over and fudged out of existence. 3e can actually do both. You essentially want the system to force many to play a certain way. Why don't you admit it?

 

[Piratecat]

Try reading.

See you in three days. Look for an email from me, as well.

 

[kamosa]

And I'm saying the credible threat of death is just as present in 3e. Try reading. I came to conclusion that you like instant kills because you seem to want it written into the system (and not even as an option the dm can dispose of).

In 2E you could dispose of it by not using the insta death spells or putting the players up against the monters and casters that could do those things.

2E was just as much a set of tools as 3E. More rules doesn't make something more complete. And in this case more balance doesn't necessarily mean more fun.