Is Your Choice Meaningless? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

hamlet

2007-12-10, 04:23 PM

Disclaimer 1: No, this is not another edition war thread. Yes, I've been guilty of that in the past, but this is not one of those times.

Disclaimer 2: I do not like D20 or the new versions of D&D. My reasons are personal and a matter of taste and style and, though they do directly concern my topic, I'm going to try and leave out my personal distaste for the system.

My question was initially inspired by the new "Prestige Classes are Dead" thread and a whole plethora of comments about how "feats = flavor" and how new editions give players more choices.

My question basically is this: As it pertains mainly to Character (creation, building, advancement, etc.) and to a lesser extent other parts of the game, at which point does choice supplant the initial purpose of the game D&D (or any RPG for that matter) and at what point does it become meaningless?

D&D 3.5 (and other D20 games in general) has introduced a system of "choices" in which there are thousands upon thousands of feats (many of which are merely fine distinctions amongst others), dozens if not hundreds of "base classes" (honestly, this one always puzzled the hell out of me), and at least 200+ "Prestige Classes," all in the name of helping the player realize their character concept. Of course, the attendant billing and advertising assures us that we were never really able to do this before despite what you might have been doing anyway.

So, in effect, we've come to the point where players (in the general sense of players and not distinguishing DM's at this point) are unable to create a unique and distinctive character that is not mechanically different from others. Of course, the claim is that in older editions, a fighter was absolutely no different than any other member of his class except for whatever weapon he happened to be hitting you with at the time (ignoring proficiency rules for the sake of argument).

I suppose there's some validity to that. I mean, I like choices. GURPS is fun to me as is HERO and any such game. However, when it comes to D&D, I have to wonder at why we are so fanatical about so many Illusiory (IMO) choices. To me, what made D&D special has always been something else. First, that it worked within the framework of wider archetypes (whether it did that well or not is up to personal opinion). Second, that the core kernal of the rules were contained and didn't bleed into my game itself. Third, that once you got the basics in place, you could do anything with it.

In terms of character, that meant for me that within an archetype, I could do ALMOST anything I could imagine (and I can imagine a lot). I didn't need special rules to realize it and I'm not sure I understand the need for them now. It's also amazing to me that NPC descriptions have gone from 4 lines of crunch and maybe a couple paragraphs of fluff and description to literally two pages of rules material in Dungeon Magazine (what used to be Dungeon anyway). Hell, I remember when an NPC could be fit into "Alfred/M/F3/Human: Alfred is a cheerful and excitable farmhand who has grown quite adept at the use of a short sword and spear which he uses to drive away wolves and bandits from his master's farm. He is interested in travelling in search of fame and wealth, but is hesitent to leave on his own." and that was all you needed to know. Now, a similar NPC would be a giant, nigh undigestible mass of rules, feats, skill points, a whole wad of other things.

Why have we switched almost whole hog in game focus when it comes to characters? Why do we need all these new rules and choices especially when the framework for the rules was already there and the choices were always there and were completely wide open.

Honestly, I'm puzzled here.

EDIT: I should also add that I'm also looking towards 4th edition and see an even greater possibility for the mass proliferation of semi-meaningless choices. Just keeping in mind a trend that I've seen is all.

mostlyharmful

2007-12-10, 06:41 PM

The way I see it the alternate classes, feats, prestige Classes and all that Jazz is optional choice, while the aim of WotC may be to sell more products the stuff they churn isn't nesscersary (sorry about the spelling anyone who cares:smallredface: ) DnD plays perfectly well out of the core box. The same goes for all the backgumph of NPCs, if you want it you can add it in (and it's come in handy for me in the past when PCx hasn't followed procedure and has instead spent the entire bar scene talking to disgruntled farmer #2) but you can just use the stat blocks in the DMG forgeneric bods and leave it at that.

The main theme of this ramble is "if you want it add it in, if it sucks for you then no-ones banging on your door". Misc write ups for new DMs can broaden the appeal of the game or add a fresh flavour to an old group. But so what if you've got a vision, a burning idea of whats happening in your world, thats just good for you and ignore the Archivist, Psionist, ToB-useful-meleer, whatever...:smallsmile:

Caxton

2007-12-10, 06:42 PM

I think you have to keep something in perspective. In older editions, they did indeed use those simple stat lines. However, if the npc were going to be any more than a set piece he will probably need more (pc's will attack anything that moves...or doesn't move enough). Now in 3.5 you need to tack on feats and skills, but in 2e you needed proficiencies, and thaco and all that jazz. Heaven forbid the character were multi or dual classed.

Overall, the complication creep comes in when non-core books are added to npc's. Of course an NPC with all of those books utilized will be complicated. I defy you to come up with a 3.5 npc more complicated that a fully decked out 2e one. Remember, 2e has skills and powers....say hello to having 18 different stats!

Goober4473

2007-12-10, 06:54 PM

I agree for the most part. I think the only area where I would differ is when a character is supposed to do something that no class or ability lets it do. The fix I see for this is to make flavor interchangable enough to allow for anything. For example, a player wants to be an elemental shaman, but only has the core rulebooks. Well, you could play a druid, but you don't really have the right spells then, or you could play a cleric, but the elemental domains are pretty limited. Arcane casters don't have the right style spells either. But making more generic abilities with a provided, but changable, explination would help, I think. Some degree of reflavoring can still accomplish a lot as is though.

greenknight

2007-12-10, 07:21 PM

My question basically is this: As it pertains mainly to Character (creation, building, advancement, etc.) and to a lesser extent other parts of the game, at which point does choice supplant the initial purpose of the game D&D (or any RPG for that matter) and at what point does it become meaningless?

It depends on what the initial purpose of the game is. For most, it's to have fun, so choice supplants that when the game ceases to be fun. Of course, there are those who believe having more choice increases the fun factor.

D&D 3.5 (and other D20 games in general) has introduced a system of "choices" in which there are thousands upon thousands of feats (many of which are merely fine distinctions amongst others),

In terms of percentages, the Feats which are merely fine distinctions of others are few, not many.

Of course, the attendant billing and advertising assures us that we were never really able to do this before despite what you might have been doing anyway.

Unless you count house rules, the new stuff does usually live up to it's billing. It's like new spells and magical items - sometimes they largely duplicate existing things, but often they'll introduce something new and useful.

So, in effect, we've come to the point where players (in the general sense of players and not distinguishing DM's at this point) are unable to create a unique and distinctive character that is not mechanically different from others.

I'd completely disagree with that. There are some character builds which are considered weaker than others, and other builds which are considered overpowered, but there's no class or PrC which doesn't have some set of unique mechanical benefits. Even the much maligned Fighter has a unique benefit in that the class gives more bonus Feats than any other, and those Feats can be used to give the class a lot of customization. Of course, there are some feats which show up in practically every build (power attack for meleers, point blank shot for archers etc), but over 20 levels you can still create two characters who are equally effective in their own way but very different in the way they work.

Of course, the claim is that in older editions, a fighter was absolutely no different than any other member of his class except for whatever weapon he happened to be hitting you with at the time (ignoring proficiency rules for the sake of argument).

I wouldn't be quite so harsh on the AD&D Fighter, but it's true that they were very similar to each other.

In terms of character, that meant for me that within an archetype, I could do ALMOST anything I could imagine (and I can imagine a lot). I didn't need special rules to realize it and I'm not sure I understand the need for them now.

It's because different DMs allow different things, and some DMs aren't very good at making up rules on the spot. 3.xe provides a standard mechanic which covers a much wider set of situations than the core AD&D rules ever did, which helps standardize games between DMs. House rules are still there of course, and that means every 3e game is going to have some differences, but in general they will be fewer.

It's also amazing to me that NPC descriptions have gone from 4 lines of crunch and maybe a couple paragraphs of fluff and description to literally two pages of rules material in Dungeon Magazine (what used to be Dungeon anyway). Hell, I remember when an NPC could be fit into "Alfred/M/F3/Human

The difference is that the 3e philosphy is to list all information with the character. Using your example, it would include Alfred's THAC0, saving throws, hitpoints (which it normally does, except you forgot here), weapon and non-weapon proficiencies and important equipment. If the character is a spellcaster, the stat block also mentions the spells usually prepared. This means that the DM doesn't need to go hunting through other books for that information.

Why have we switched almost whole hog in game focus when it comes to characters? Why do we need all these new rules and choices especially when the framework for the rules was already there and the choices were always there and were completely wide open.

Honestly, I'm puzzled here.

You've obviously found the ad hoc nature of AD&D suits your playing style, so the more planned nature of 3e doesn't really benefit you. But there are plenty of people who find that 3e's more holistic approach is better for them. In the end, this comes down to a meaningful choice, and because that choice exists both groups can have fun. Doubtless there will be people who prefer 3.x e over 4e (for all I know at the moment, I might be one of them), and that too will become part of the range of available choices.

KIDS

2007-12-11, 05:25 AM

caden_varn

2007-12-11, 07:15 AM

I don't think there is such a difference between the editions in this respect. If you play core 3.x and 2.0, you have a limited amount of choices. If you start to include splat-books, choice can indeed skyrocket, and 2.0 was every bit as bad as 3.x for this in my opinion. They started adding kits, powers, new spells etc which added to the choices and hence the complexity.

Whether this is good or bad is a matter of taste, but in the end you don't need to use anything you don't want to. I think you only really get issues when some members of a group want to use splatbooks and others don't.

Tormsskull

2007-12-11, 08:02 AM

My question basically is this: As it pertains mainly to Character (creation, building, advancement, etc.) and to a lesser extent other parts of the game, at which point does choice supplant the initial purpose of the game D&D (or any RPG for that matter) and at what point does it become meaningless?

Well, the thing is, D&D is different things to different people. To me it is a roleplaying experience first, and a game second. The skills, feats, class abilities, etc., all take second chair to the experience of sitting around with friends, portraying fantasy characters and developing a story.

To other people it is a game first and a roleplaying experience last (if at all). In this type of outlook, the skills, feats, class abilities, etc, are your tools to creating an effective and efficient character that fills a particular party role. Put together other players designing their characters with the same goal in mind, and you have a tactically sound group of characters that can handle a wide-range of encounters/difficulties that the DM throws at them.

For me, the vast abundance of choices sometimes overwhelm the goal. For the second type of player, the more options one has, the more capable they are of creating a diverse character that is able to handle multiple types of challenges.

In terms of character, that meant for me that within an archetype, I could do ALMOST anything I could imagine (and I can imagine a lot). I didn't need special rules to realize it and I'm not sure I understand the need for them now.

I have had the same experience. I could create several different types of Fighter characters just by giving them a different personality, goals, likes, dislikes, backstory, history, etc. I think that is due to the focus on the story, the roleplaying experience rather than the numbers, though.

In a less-roleplaying focused game, it makes no difference that your Fighter grew up in the Western Hills and learned to sheer sheep, practiced the longbow fighting off the occasional wolf pack.

To make an analogy, when you sit down to play a game like Final Fantasy (the early ones), or Star Ocean, or another console RPG, and one of the characters starts in on this massive story regarding the world and the different places in it, etc. Some players would just keep pushing the advance button and skip the story because they really aren't all that interested in the story. They just want to get to the collecting treasure & killing the enemies part of the game.

Others would read the stories and immerse themselves in the world that the designers have created. They'd try to envision some of the things that they had been told, wonder what other parts that weren't detailed might be like, etc.

The same goes for D&D, but I believe the story is even more important in D&D because it is one that each player can have a significant impact on. It is a story that actually changes and adapts based on choices

Why have we switched almost whole hog in game focus when it comes to characters? Why do we need all these new rules and choices especially when the framework for the rules was already there and the choices were always there and were completely wide open.

Well, as I mentioned above, each group decides for themself what the focus is. As far as why need need additional rules, etc, I honestly think a lot of it is based on WotC marketing strategy. IME DMs don't run out and buy each and every book that WotC publishes, but a player who reads about a cool new class just might.

There is this idea that if WotC publishes it, then it must be a good and balanced class/feat/spell/whathaveyou and it is more authentic than if someone just homebrewed something similiar. So for WotC to sell more books, they need to create more things that people are interested in, and since the most likely people to purchase new books are the people that are going to be able to play with the content are the players (as opposed to DM), the content is targeted towards them.

All in all, its been a pretty profitable strategy I'd say.

hamlet

2007-12-11, 09:46 AM

The difference is that the 3e philosphy is to list all information with the character. Using your example, it would include Alfred's THAC0, saving throws, hitpoints (which it normally does, except you forgot here), weapon and non-weapon proficiencies and important equipment. If the character is a spellcaster, the stat block also mentions the spells usually prepared. This means that the DM doesn't need to go hunting through other books for that information.

Except: 1) In the first edition, no even those were listed and in the original D&D, only the name of the creature (and sometimes not even that), its race, any applicable class, total healthy hp, and any pertinent equipment owned (i.e., if the creature was fighting with a short sword, it would be stated). Otherwise, it was up to the DM to figure out what treasure, if any, the monster had and to be familiar enough with it to be able to run it with only the HP total and the basics written in a half line of text.

Even in the later days of 2nd edition (barring that travesty of a crud pile called Player's Options) the longest NPC description was about half a page (barring two or three that I can think of which were, in fact, the big bad evil (stupid phrase if I ever heard one) in a very high level module that was really quite crappy to begin with. Most modules for 2nd edition could fit an npc description within an inch of text on a two column page and the descriptions of motives and methodology were saved for the module background material.

You've obviously found the ad hoc nature of AD&D suits your playing style, so the more planned nature of 3e doesn't really benefit you. But there are plenty of people who find that 3e's more holistic approach is better for them.

Absolutely. I enjoy the "ad hoc" nature (which I prefer to call "wide open") of the older editions. I find the "tool kit" nature of the rules much more intuitive and easier to deal with than the encyclopedic nature of today's rules.

In the end, this comes down to a meaningful choice, and because that choice exists both groups can have fun.

And here's the crux of my argument that I think so many people have glossed over, missed entirely, or simply ignored. That many of the choices (some by the frank admission of the designers) are NOT meaningful (or in the codespeak, suboptimal). The toughness feat stands right out of that pack. As does the entire fighter class, even if only considering the CORE three books. The very fact that I can actually make an incorrect choice while building my character rubs me so wrong it's starting to bleed. For that matter, a significant percentage of the PHB is, in fact, suboptimal which makes me wonder about the intentions of the designers not to mention their competance.

Originally, for D&D (going just by CORE which I should have specified above), choices were much simpler, but more informative. I rolled dice to create ability scores in order and interpreted them. "Hmmm, he looks to be quite strong, but not very bright. And rather healthy too . . .maybe was a farm boy working outdoors a lot and eating well before joining the local militia and training as a soldier, but got knocked hard on the head a few times so not exactly the brightest. But his Wisdom is high enough so he's pretty intuitive and knowledgable about right and wrong, so certainly he was taught well by his father or grandfather. Ugly bastard too, so probably when he got hit in the head he was hit in the face too and it left him scarred and a bit grotesque physically, but he's got a heart of gold."

Suddenly, after only a very few choices, I've got not only a preliminary character class (fighter) but an explanation for his ability scores that incorporates the beginnings of a back story and even a bit of motivation. Of course, I can always throw in a twist if I wanted and say that during his head trauma phase he discovered religion after seeing a deity. My choice of calling him a soldier, though, already informs my next choices. What weapons would a local militia foot soldier (or even beginning officer) carry? Most likely a spear or pike, a sword or club of some sort, probably a utility weapon such as a knife or dagger. Might have armor provided by his unit (might be able to con the DM into letting me have chain mail for free if I agree that the character is still in service at game start), a shield too, or not depending on the culture that he comes from. We could always go more exotic and say that he's originally from a desert city and wields the cultural weapons of a kopesh and javelin with atl-atl (no mechanical difference, just flavor you know).

Then we can move on and, if we're in 2nd edition and using non-weapon proficiency rules, pick those skills that a young trained soldier would have. Most likely things like survival for his home terrain just in case he got separated or trapped away from his unit. Perhaps some type of vocational skill so his use within the militia is doubled: boyer/fletcher perhaps, or weapon or amor smithing. Or, for some fun, though he might be dumb as a box of rocks, he might be a savant when it comes to art or singing and always keeps a bit of paper and charcoal on him or an instrument of some sort to accompany his songs.

I can go on, but you get the idea. All of your choices were less choices, but creations that got started based on what your initial rolls were. Creating a character could be a true act of creativity rather than going through a list of mechanical rules in order to realize your original concept. Your concept grew spontaneously out of what you started with. (Yes, of course you could have an idea of what you wanted to start with, but sometimes the best characters are the unexpected ones: Tar Marklvar the Gnome Thief springs to mind.)

In 3rd Edition, I find myself stifled under all these choices that people laud. To me, it's restricting. In order to create a mechanically effective character that will still be effective down the road as he rises in level (assuming we start at level 1), I have to actually plan out most of his career from day one and though I might like the idea of him being a foot soldier with a penchant for singing (and doing it well), creating a fighter with some skill points in singing (or whatever skill that would be) is not only prohibitive because it's cross class, but also I'm trading some portion of the character's usefullness to the party in order to do it. Add on top of that the FACT that by 7th or 8th level my fighter might as well consider himself naught but a torch bearer while the wizard, cleric, and thief/rouge do all the heavy lifting and suddenly, what could have been a fun and great character is utterly useless. If I truly wanted to be usefull and have "fun," I should have played a full caster with feats and skill points carefully pre-selected over 20 levels (which we'll realize over the span of 1 year since "it's fun to level up" rather than the possibility of a campaign lasting years or even decades).

Rather than actually creating a character from nearly blank cloth, in 3rd edition, you start with a fully formed "thing" in your head and start tacking on mechanics to make it function. In AD&D, by the time I chose a class and his proficiencies (and spells if wizard), he was already fully functional and all the rest of it was up to me.

Everything has been reversed in a way. Instead of taking what you start with and creating from there, it almost feels like playing with leggos to me. Gotta make sure all the pieces fit . . . no don't use the green one, use the red one, it will make your building stronger when you start adding this stuff later on . . . why did you use that piece down there? now your building will only be able to do this and that instead of all that . . .

And if you don't play the character building game, your fun and ability to play the game of adventuring and killing monsters is hampered over the long run, or even the short run since everything is built around the CR system in order to ensure that the monsters the party faces are of a certain power level as compared to the party level. So yes, I can actually make a suboptimal choice in go with pure flavor if I wanted, but I will be punished for it down the road. So what kind of choice is it really?

If I don't play the character optimization game, according to WOTC game design, I'm not playing D&D right. I don't want to play that game while playing D&D now, and I don't ever forsee wanting to play it in the future.

Sorry, that was a long ramble and a short point. I'll address other responses in another post to save people's eyes.

hamlet

2007-12-11, 10:46 AM

I have nothing against the old "you can roleplay it" approach, but it very very VERY often boils down to one player trying something and being shot down because "That is stupid" and another player suggesting something and passing because "He's done that in real life... almost". That's DM playing god, and it's very frustrating. In 3.5, DM who wants to change something related to rules or add something new has to provide an explanation of why it's needed, it's not just ad-hoc because he knows better.

The second part is arrogance of "I imagine everything". See, no one has so many ideas that he has thought of all the feats/classes/etc already. I know that I can use core PHB 3.5 rules to construct a Jade Phoenix Mage and its PrC, but honestly, a confession? The concept just didn't fall to my mind, either in RP sense or mechanically. Now that I have seen it, I think it's awesome and can weave many a good story from it. But the credit to the idea will always go to Jade Phoenix, even if my character has nothing to do with that.

Your first paragraph: It's not a DM playing god, it's a DM using the rules and tools he's been provided to adjudicate the situation. That's what being a DM is about, not looking up the specific rule that applies to this specific situation and being stymied when it doesn't match perfectly. I don't need a specific rule on tripping. All the tools are already there in AD&D. "Make an attack against your opponents legs that, depending on the weapon, does half or no damage. If you hit, target must make a dexterity check or fall prone. If you miss, well, hope you got a helmet." Bang, I made a rulling and it took me all of 3 seconds (less time than it took me to actually type it out). If I see the need for this kind of thing in the future, I write it down in my notes, inform the players that this is how it works from now on, and refer to it in future. What's bad about that?

A DM who said, "You can't do that" is not hindered by the rules as you claim, but merely by being a jerk or a moron. Or, if we're being kind, unfamiliar with how the rules actually work.

It is better, IMO, to have a set of basic rules that govern general things (ability checks for instance) that can be applied to specific situations, than specific rules that apply to specific situations. There's more adaptability in the former, though the later might appear deceptively more comprehensive.

Your second paragraph: First, I have no clue what a "Jade Phoenix Mage" is, but it sounds kinda nifty in my mind. Some kind of arcane wizard with some asian flare? Nifty. But do I need special prestige classes to play one? Hell no.

Second: It's just as arrogant on your part to assume that you are unable to create any character you want or can imagine without feats and prestige classes.

Third: I never claimed my imagination was limitless and everything WOTC came up with I did first. I merely said that I don't need special company approved prestige or base class to do it. I've gotten ideas from some of the 3rd edition books, but don't see the need to slather on new mechanics and new options and new choices just to realize what I can do without them. Didn't need them in the first place.

In short, anywhere you can go with your character creation, I can go just as well (and without all of the extra mechanical add ons that you need along the way). Heck, there are things that 2nd edition could do much better than 3.x ever could *cough* fighter *cough* druid *cough* wizard *cough*.

Tormsskull: I agree with you, but wanted to add this: that the 3.x rules specifically reward those who fall into the gamist mind set and optimize their builds while implicitly punishing those who so not. THAT is my biggest issue here, that in order to enjoy the role playing aspects (unless I belong to a group that specifically agrees to avoid major optimization as a whole) then I HAVE to be good at the gamist part.

Oeryn

2007-12-11, 10:51 AM

In 3rd Edition, I find myself stifled under all these choices that people laud. To me, it's restricting.

I couldn't agree more.

I'm totally with you, I prefer the more "open" feel of the older editions. I was discussing this with some of my players the other day. I feel that the huge proliferation of rules that has come along with 3E has taken a lot of the spontaneity out of the game.

In the older days of the game, there weren't rules for everything, so it was assumed that the players would want to do things that weren't covered by rules. And there's a freedom that comes with that. As a DM, I knew that --sooner or later-- I'd be forced to come up with some ad hoc ruling about pushing a guy out a window, or hitting him with a table. Someone wanted to disarm a guy? I'd have to make up a ruling, that worked for everyone in the game.

In 3E, they came up with rules for a lot of things, but they don't cover everything. And I've found with younger players (nothing against younger people, I just mean people who have only played with 3E or higher), that they think that what's covered in the rules are the ONLY options. Which leads to repetitive, boring gameplay, IMO.

For example, in 2nd Edition, I DMed a person who played a fighter. He wanted the character to have a piratey, swashbuckler feel, even though there were no rules for it at the time. But he was always comin' up with imaginative ways of fighting, that fit in with what he wanted to do with his character. He'd slide down bannisters, and swing on chandeliers to come crashing down into his enemies. There were no hard and fast rules for things like that, but we always came up with something that worked, and we had a blast.

These days, I'm DMing a person who's playing an "actual" swashbuckler, now that there's a separate class for it. There are rules for Disarming someone, or Feinting to get a better chance to hit. These really only boil down to a couple extra dice rolls, and nothing more. There's nothing inherently "swashbucklery" about it. Instead of trying to determine what the effect of pushing a large sofa down a flight of stairs is, all I'm doin' is rolling opposed dice rolls to see if my NPC gets to use his Dex bonus to AC or not.

I'm not tryin' to knock either player. Everyone's got their own style. But the point is that when you give a player concrete options (even if it's a LOT of options), they tend to think that's ALL they have to work with. To me, that boxes in the game, and takes away a lot of the imagination that I used to see in older editions.

hamlet

2007-12-11, 11:29 AM

I'm not tryin' to knock either player. Everyone's got their own style. But the point is that when you give a player concrete options (even if it's a LOT of options), they tend to think that's ALL they have to work with. To me, that boxes in the game, and takes away a lot of the imagination that I used to see in older editions.

I agree with you, but a reminder for all (myself included) that I'm trying to steer this away from an edition war. Had plenty of those.

My real intent here is to look at the current trend of players "needing" more choices and options in order to be creative when, in the past, such things were unneccesary.

Is it a societal thing?

Shhalahr Windrider

2007-12-11, 11:33 AM

Well, I think there's been a fair amount of "role-play vs. mechanics," so I just want to weigh in on that before addressing any specific points.

There is middle ground.

Let's face it, it's a Role-playing Game. Note the equal emphasis on each term. Shouldn't the role-playing experience be reflected in the gaming experience? For every role-playing choice, there should be a mechanical choice that can reasonably reflect it. For every mechanical choice, there should be a role-playing choice that reflects that. To that extent I believe in the idea of "The more choice, the better."

Can too many choices be overwhelming? Yes. But that's why you start out wading in the pool before diving into the ocean. I'll never object to a Core Only game where beginners are involved. But after learning the system, one should always feel free to move on.

Except: 1) In the first edition, no even those were listed and in the original D&D, only the name of the creature (and sometimes not even that), its race, any applicable class, total healthy hp, and any pertinent equipment owned (i.e., if the creature was fighting with a short sword, it would be stated). Otherwise, it was up to the DM to figure out what treasure, if any, the monster had and to be familiar enough with it to be able to run it with only the HP total and the basics written in a half line of text.
Makes it kinda hard to excercise the primary advantage of a published module—playing it as soon as you've read it through—when you gotta do all that extra work of looking up and or create all the extra details anyway.

Most modules for 2nd edition could fit an npc description within an inch of text on a two column page and the descriptions of motives and methodology were saved for the module background material.
Not particularly advantageous in many cases. I've read plenty of modules where this background material was scattered throughout the entire module. You could never be sure where to find a necessary piece of the background puzzle.

Isn't easier to run an NPC when all relevant information about that NPC can easily be found in one place?

And here's the crux of my argument that I think so many people have glossed over, missed entirely, or simply ignored. That many of the choices (some by the frank admission of the designers) are NOT meaningful (or in the codespeak, suboptimal). The toughness feat stands right out of that pack. As does the entire fighter class, even if only considering the CORE three books. The very fact that I can actually make an incorrect choice while building my character rubs me so wrong it's starting to bleed. For that matter, a significant percentage of the PHB is, in fact, suboptimal which makes me wonder about the intentions of the designers not to mention their competance.
No argument from me on that point. There were many poor game design decisions made in the creation of the core system. I think many of the options in the splat books are designed with that realization. On the whole, most of them are better balanced mechanically. (Though there are always exceptions.)

But the fault in the initial problem lies with the implementation of the system rather than the general design philosophy of choice. It's not that there are too many choices. It's that most/many of them suck.

I can go on, but you get the idea. All of your choices were less choices, but creations that got started based on what your initial rolls were. Creating a character could be a true act of creativity rather than going through a list of mechanical rules in order to realize your original concept. Your concept grew spontaneously out of what you started with. (Yes, of course you could have an idea of what you wanted to start with, but sometimes the best characters are the unexpected ones: Tar Marklvar the Gnome Thief springs to mind.)
I really don't see what prevents you from creating a character in a similar fashion in D&D. Made a druid in much the same way myself once.

In 3rd Edition, I find myself stifled under all these choices that people laud. To me, it's restricting. In order to create a mechanically effective character that will still be effective down the road as he rises in level (assuming we start at level 1), I have to actually plan out most of his career from day one and though I might like the idea of him being a foot soldier with a penchant for singing (and doing it well), creating a fighter with some skill points in singing (or whatever skill that would be) is not only prohibitive because it's cross class, but also I'm trading some portion of the character's usefullness to the party in order to do it. Add on top of that the FACT that by 7th or 8th level my fighter might as well consider himself naught but a torch bearer while the wizard, cleric, and thief/rouge do all the heavy lifting and suddenly, what could have been a fun and great character is utterly useless.
Once again, I don't think the problem here is in the multitude of choices as much as it is in the poor balcance of them.

As to choosing your career ahead at first level, it seems to me that was even more of a problem in 1e and 2e. You chose your race and class at 1st level and were stuck with it right there. Proficiencies really didn't matter, and those were the only choices you made as you leveled. Truth is, there was no mechanical provision for many of the choices you use as examples. Which means if they manifest themselves at all it was purely role-play and no game at all.

And level-by-level balance wasn't any more existent then with your limited choices either.

If I truly wanted to be usefull and have "fun," I should have played a full caster with feats and skill points carefully pre-selected over 20 levels
You have fun when you say you're having fun. And for many people, playing a spellcaster is not fun no matter how mechanically superior it might be.

(which we'll realize over the span of 1 year since "it's fun to level up" rather than the possibility of a campaign lasting years or even decades).
Hey, no one's preventing you from slowing the levelling rate if you have a decades to invest. Just as no one prevented other folks from speeding it up when they realized they didn't. I doubt most people do have that kind of time, and WotC reportedly had the studies to back it up when they made the decision to speed up the levelling process.

Rather than actually creating a character from nearly blank cloth, in 3rd edition, you start with a fully formed "thing" in your head and start tacking on mechanics to make it function.
That never happened in 2nd edition?

I doubt I was the only one that ditched the "roll 3d6 and place in order" right away because I knew my player was interested in playing a bard or cleric rather than just "whatever popped out."

How many characters back then didn't start with at least some basic concept?

And if you don't play the character building game, your fun and ability to play the game of adventuring and killing monsters is hampered over the long run, or even the short run since everything is built around the CR system in order to ensure that the monsters the party faces are of a certain power level as compared to the party level. So yes, I can actually make a suboptimal choice in go with pure flavor if I wanted, but I will be punished for it down the road. So what kind of choice is it really?
Y'know, when I read about just how much the über-optimized things bandided about on these boards rock against a given creature, I can't help but come to the conclusion that the CRs for most creatures really don't assume a lot of over-optimization.

In any case, there are plenty of like-minded individuals that you can find to game with that will provide an environment where your choices won't be "punished".

Same was true with the different playing styles in previous editions.

And in any case this treads on verisimiltude issues as well. A fighter that spend too much time practicing the flute and not enough time fighting will be a crappier fighter than the one that spent his or her time on actually learning to fight. Which one is more likely to survive against a dragon that requires a certain skill level to defeat?

If I don't play the character optimization game, according to WOTC game design, I'm not playing D&D right
Hm. Never heard any representitive of WotC say that.

Only time I've ever heard something like that from anyone in a remotely official capacity was a very old comment by Gary Gygax saying it's not really D&D if you use house rules. And that was from back in the day when you had to make far more of those, er, "wide open" rulings than you do now. And I would consider those to be a special case of house rule, given that such rulings will inevitably differ among different game tables.

In the older days of the game, there weren't rules for everything, so it was assumed that the players would want to do things that weren't covered by rules. And there's a freedom that comes with that. As a DM, I knew that --sooner or later-- I'd be forced to come up with some ad hoc ruling about pushing a guy out a window, or hitting him with a table. Someone wanted to disarm a guy? I'd have to make up a ruling, that worked for everyone in the game.
And that poses a problem because no one knows what to expect. Especially if they play with other DMs. You make the ruling, which may or may not be a good one. And then their other DM makes a completely different ruling. For some people, that lack of certainty causes them to avoid trying things not covered in the rules.

In 3E, they came up with rules for a lot of things, but they don't cover everything.
No, but they cover situations that came up often enough in many, many games that folks thought it would be useful to have a consistent set of rules.

And they certainly didn't get rid of generic ability checks or the DM's ability to improvise an arbitrary ruling when necessary. They just tried to cut down on the number of times it would be necessary.

And I've found with younger players (nothing against younger people, I just mean people who have only played with 3E or higher), that they think that what's covered in the rules are the ONLY options. Which leads to repetitive, boring gameplay, IMO.
Once again: This never happened in 2e? When I was one of those younger players, I don't think I ever really thought much about disarming or other maneuvers until I read Combat and Tactics. Beating the other guy with a stick works so far.

For example, in 2nd Edition, I DMed a person who played a fighter. He wanted the character to have a piratey, swashbuckler feel, even though there were no rules for it at the time. But he was always comin' up with imaginative ways of fighting, that fit in with what he wanted to do with his character. He'd slide down bannisters, and swing on chandeliers to come crashing down into his enemies. There were no hard and fast rules for things like that, but we always came up with something that worked, and we had a blast.
But isn't it easier to come up with something when you have a baseline to work from? One that can be applied consistently, especially when the same player wants to repeat the tactic? Especially when that repitition happens in another DM's campaign?

These days, I'm DMing a person who's playing an "actual" swashbuckler, now that there's a separate class for it. There are rules for Disarming someone, or Feinting to get a better chance to hit. These really only boil down to a couple extra dice rolls, and nothing more. There's nothing inherently "swashbucklery" about it. Instead of trying to determine what the effect of pushing a large sofa down a flight of stairs is, all I'm doin' is rolling opposed dice rolls to see if my NPC gets to use his Dex bonus to AC or not.
:smallconfused:

So what kind of things were going on on the mechanics side of things when you "came up with something" on those occasions?

Mechanically, everything comes down to just a few dice rolls. It's up to the DM and Players to make it mean something.

Closet_Skeleton

2007-12-11, 11:47 AM

If I don't play the character optimization game, according to WOTC game design, I'm not playing D&D right.

Nonsense, most evidence shows that Wizards put useless stuff into D&D because they thought it would be fun without optimisation. Wizards had no real idea that some things would be combined in certain ways. D&D falls apart when you start optimising, so it's clearly not the way the game was playtested.

Magnor Criol

2007-12-11, 12:20 PM

I'm not an old DnD player - I never knew DnD before 3.0, and didn't actually get to get into playing it until 3.5. So I cannot pick a debate with you vis-a-vis how it compares to any older editions.

However, I do know that it sounds like your problem, frankly, is on your end rather than the game's.

There is nothing stopping you from rolling and placing the stats as they fall down. Not only is it one of the methods mentioned in the DMG, meaning it's in the rules, but it's not like there's any physical force stopping you from doing it. I've done it myself several times; I enjoy the organic, unplanned feel of it. And I play that character all the way through whatever campaign we're playing in just fine. It certainly helps that none of my fellow players are guilty of the "optimization" bug, so I'm not trying to contend with a Batman Wizard or Clericzilla. But even if they were, as Shhalahr Windrider said, you have fun when you decide you're having fun. As long as you're playing with a bunch of friends, then everyone should be enjoying themselves.

That doesn't always happen, I know. But it was specifically because of people who have the optimization mindset that the tendency went from less rules-heavy to more rules-heavy; the older system, as I've come to understand, left much more open to the interperetation of the player and the DM. Which is great, until one player complains about the other player's choices, and then tensions mount because one player feels like they're getting shafted, or one player is jealous, or one player is simply whiny, etc. The rules amped up so that that didn't happen; you just had to point at the book and say "It's right here" and thus any basis for the whining was removed.

And again, that doesn't always happen. Whether or not creating more rules was a good reaction - you could make a very strong argument that it wasn't, since it makes it more attractive for legalistic optimizers to abuse the system - that's what the Wizards response was. But that doesn't mean you have to play it that way. The very first DnD session I played, and the DM I still play with most often today, simply chose to ignore many of the mechanical rules that hampered play. We always took full hit points, we didn't even bother worrying about weight and encumbrance rules, he felt cantrips could be unlimited uses per day, he didn't really worry about the Weapon Proficiencies, and so on; it was much more of a roleplaying emphasis than a rules and mechanics emphasis. (Note: I'm not trying to say that simply by throwing out rules that automatically made us more roleplaying-focused. Rather, the loosening of rules was an effect of that focus.)

My overall point is, the things you're complaining about aren't horrible centric to the game. If you don't like something, don't do it. If you and the friends you play with are above this "optimization game" (I'd use a different noun for it, but there's board censors...) then why are you worried about it? And if you're committed to playing an organic character whose fate you decide after the die have rolled down, then stay committed to that - keep playing that character regardless. From the organic standpoint, that character is off adventuring whether they like it or not and whether their fellow adventurers are better than they are or not. Sometimes the fun can be in playing that one character who's slightly less than heroic even as he's traveling with paragons of some attribute or another.

Tormsskull

2007-12-11, 12:21 PM

Matthew

2007-12-11, 12:30 PM

Hmmnn. I think when it comes down to it, you have two types of preferences with regard to this:

Maximum Rules (Rules Heavy)
Minimum Rules (Rules Light)

Most people fall somewhere between these two extremes in terms of 'general' preference. Castles & Crusades strives to be a middle ground between these two extremes, providing a formula for ad hoc ruling. In the end, though, it all comes down to one thing, X percentage chance (maybe even 100%) of achieving Y effect.

For 3e, a lot more is described, but people usually forget about Circumstance Modifiers, which allow things to be just as arbitrary as any previous edition. What 3e does is describe a lot more of what is possible and in doing so, codifies it, which doesn't appeal to everyone.

Feats, Skills, Classes and Prestige Classes provide the illusion of choices, as you can choose things to 'build' a character as you progress through levels, but you are quite severely limited in what you can choose, not because some choices are considerably better than others, but because of Prerequisites, which try to create 'balance' (and dramatically fail in many instances).

What previous editions offered was virtually no choice with regard to mechanical character development in terms of combat, magic and a smattering of other adventure related abilities. Later they offered you the ability to create your own Class and a great deal more things to choose as you progressed in level (we're talking Player and Dungeon Master's Option Books here). The choices you made were all focused on the actual adventure and campaign, and meaningful choices are the bread and butter of roleplaying games.

Character building choices are all well and good, but they come with their own problems, as when you have mechanical resources to expend, you expect recompense to be made.

In my opinion, the line between the mechanics of D20 and earlier editions is thin, but to most people significant, centring entirely on their preferred mode of play and perception of 'what is good'.

hamlet

2007-12-11, 12:34 PM

Let's face it, it's a Role-playing Game. Note the equal emphasis on each term. Shouldn't the role-playing experience be reflected in the gaming experience? For every role-playing choice, there should be a mechanical choice that can reasonably reflect it. For every mechanical choice, there should be a role-playing choice that reflects that. To that extent I believe in the idea of "The more choice, the better."

While I agree that yes, it's equal parts game and role-playing (else we'd all be on stage fer cryin' out loud), I disagree strongly with the idea that for every role-playing choice there should be a mechanical aspect. That's just unfairly cramming the two aspects together into the same thing when many of us don't want them together. Chocolate and peanut butter together might taste good, but I don't always want a Reeses Peanut Butter Cup.

In a perfect game (hypothetical), the mechanics should quietly sit underneath everything else and never get in the way of character. They should just underpin the game and stay out of the spotlight. Unfortunately, I see that in 3rd edition, the rules move center stage in most things and stay there and, IMO, tend to crowd out much of the fun.

Can too many choices be overwhelming? Yes. But that's why you start out wading in the pool before diving into the ocean. I'll never object to a Core Only game where beginners are involved. But after learning the system, one should always feel free to move on.

It's not the matter of too many choices (though that's a related issue) it's that the choices are taking the place of creativity and are infringing on territory that they shouldn't. Not everything in a Role Play situation should be reduced to a mechanic.

But the fault in the initial problem lies with the implementation of the system rather than the general design philosophy of choice. It's not that there are too many choices. It's that most/many of them suck.

Granted, to an extent. Yes, 3.x would be a better game if so many of the issues that we've addressed over and over and over again on these forums were fixed one way or the other. However, I still take issue with the design philosophy that says that for every role playing choice there must exist a mechanical choice. That makes the game much more about the game itself and less about the role playing part.

In the end, third edition seems to have been written by gamists for gamists and enforces a gamist game (wow, that's a lot of "game" in that sentence, I feel my 3rd grade lit teacher reaching beyond the grave to strangle me again). The heavy focus on mechanics and the center stage that specific rules have enforced a specific way to play as I noted above.

Once again, I don't think the problem here is in the multitude of choices as much as it is in the poor balcance of them.

And then again I have to wonder why so many call 3.x better than older editions if there are so many things fundamentally incorrect about it. The fact that right out of the box (without ANY splat books) there are at least three classes that are unplayable past level 7 speaks to me of shoddy work. In fact, if I want to have real fun with 3.x, I really should be playing a wizard, cleric, or druid.

As to choosing your career ahead at first level, it seems to me that was even more of a problem in 1e and 2e. You chose your race and class at 1st level and were stuck with it right there.

Yes, it was an issue, but as I've said before on the forums and will say again, there are reasons for it. AD&D classes were based on an older ideology. Specifically, that you were what you did and that a lot of effort and time was devoted to making you as good as even a first level character class and that switching careers (as it was 50 years ago) was a HUGE, LIFE CHANGING thing and not like today where people can literally have half a dozen "careers" before they're thirty. That's a new development and not particularly reflective of a quasi-medieval civilization.

There were also always ways around it. For humans, they could "dual-class" which was an adventure in and of itself. Others could, perhaps, locate a ring of wishes and use one of them. Or you, as a player, could simply walk up to the DM and say "I think that, as a character, I am moving away from the original concept of elven warrior and into the realm of ranger (or thief, or cleric, etc.). Any DM worth the time of day would sit with you, talk about the matter, and come to a mutally agreeable compromise that let everybody continue having fun (and yes, a lot of it depended on the DM and your willingness to work with him*).

Proficiencies really didn't matter, and those were the only choices you made as you leveled.

Of course they mattered. I have a priest character currently that started his life in the local town militia until he joined the clergy. He's an excellent armor smith as well as a religious scholar. And for somebody who claims that every role-playing aspect should have a mechanical aspect, it strikes me that you ought to adore non-weapon proficiencies.

Truth is, there was no mechanical provision for many of the choices you use as examples. Which means if they manifest themselves at all it was purely role-play and no game at all.

You are flat out incorrect.

The rules provide a tool box from which to start. Gygax himself stated that if you don't like a rule, or if you need a new one, MAKE IT UP. It was important for a DM to customize the game to fit his own specific needs, an art that has been lost.

And level-by-level balance wasn't any more existent then with your limited choices either.

Only if you consider level by level balance to be equality of power between classes at level x rather than equal utility in fulfilling their role.

That never happened in 2nd edition?

I doubt I was the only one that ditched the "roll 3d6 and place in order" right away because I knew my player was interested in playing a bard or cleric rather than just "whatever popped out."

How many characters back then didn't start with at least some basic concept?

Of course it "didn't not happen." The difference was that when it did, it was specifically chosen by the players rather than required by the core rules.

Y'know, when I read about just how much the über-optimized things bandided about on these boards rock against a given creature, I can't help but come to the conclusion that the CRs for most creatures really don't assume a lot of over-optimization.

Which is, again, a fundamental flaw in the system itself (still trying desperately to stay out of edition war land). The fact that the system for determining XP was broken right out of the box for any group of players who were smart enough to game the system is a major problem. Instead, what's wrong with previous XP models where monsters/NPC were worth a certain amount of XP based on what they could actually do and not on their relative level as compared to the PC's? It worked, and it worked well, and it let the DM sit down and say "well this monster is intended for 5th level parties, but I'm sure that my group of 4th level characters can kill it without too much trouble."

In seeking comprehensive systems and rules, it seems that the focus of the game has moved away from a cooperative effort and towards a different mentality where new abilities and powers at every level are expected rather than letting the mechanics simply reside in the background where they belong.

KIDS

2007-12-11, 12:59 PM

I really don't get it why your post sounds so angry hamlet, I never implied that you couldn't construct a character like that. In fact, here's a pinch:

You descibe that method of creating a character, that is rolling scores, thinking a bit about background (which can be inspired by anything) and choosing something that makes sense. Guess what, that's how most people make characters. It's not edition dependant! Most of all, there's no reason to claim that others are mechanically dependent on anything. That's the arrogance I'm talking about.

Here we can readress my first paragraph. Example:
Player 1: I don't need to balance on the small floating bead in the middle of the 5-foot wide pit to reach the door behind it. Instead I'll lean over from the pit's edge; that's not hard, I've done that in real life without DEX 16[/i]
DM: great. Roll balance check DC 5. you open the door
(a minute later)
Player 2: I want to jump over the 5-foot pit into the hallway revealed. It's only 5-feet wide, I'll just take 10.[/i]
DM: no, that sounds stupid. You should always have a chance to fail, roll Jump vs. DC 5.
Player 2: But I have a Jump of +2 and I'm not in a hurry, why can't I just take time and jump properly?
DM: because I say so. Oh look, you rolled a 2. You fail and fall into the pit where I'm going to make up my own damage from falling because the one in the book is not realistic. You should have a chance of dying from falling anywhere.

See something wrong with the example? No, it's not DM favoritism. It's not related to an edition. It's not even evil or bad-intentioned. But it's terribly open-ended, subjective, and when the next player comes across it might be DC 0, DC 20 or take 10 might work instead because they worded something differently. That's a typical case of DM playing god and of course, missing it. Not having a rule encourages that kind of situation where someone is favored, intentionally or not, and that doesn't make for happy players. Unless they have no wisdom score.

Now again, you can say "hah! that's a stupid DM!". And you're quite right, having a rule won't eliminate stupid DMs. But it will put a dampener on everyone and ensure that the DM has to explain why he is suddenly demolishing a system that works just because "he saw something in real life".

Second, not in original post but in replies, you're being very rude about everything else. No one is out to get you, and you don't have to assume that anyone "needs" or that you "don't need" anything to roleplay. Freeform is a good thing but maybe I'd just write a book instead...

hamlet

2007-12-11, 01:01 PM

Nonsense, most evidence shows that Wizards put useless stuff into D&D because they thought it would be fun without optimisation. Wizards had no real idea that some things would be combined in certain ways. D&D falls apart when you start optimising, so it's clearly not the way the game was playtested.

There is evidence (real evidence) that WOTC specifically ignored and shut out playtest reports of third edition that reported serious issues with the system. In fact, I think there's someone on this board who was part of that.

However, I do know that it sounds like your problem, frankly, is on your end rather than the game's.

Absolutely 100% I admit it. Yes, the problem is on my end in that I do not like 3.x, or almost anything about it. I don't like how it works, I don't like its assumptions, I don't like how it's played.

But that doesn't negate my point that there is a fundamental difference about what a character IS between two versions of the game and my wish to critically explore it.

I want to look at the fundamental change that has occured between AD&D and D&D 3.x and am using the lens of character to do that.

The rules amped up so that that didn't happen; you just had to point at the book and say "It's right here" and thus any basis for the whining was removed.

Except that that's simply not true is it? I actually tried to DM a 3.x game not too long ago and flat out stated in the invite that it was core only and players were only permitted material from the PHB (errata notwithstanding). Had at least two show up who demanded that the game be changed entirely to suit their desires to play respectively an ogre magi and a half-stone-giant. They walked when I flat out refused, but only after whining for an hour about how horribly unfair I was.

After they were gone, we actually got the game underway right until the first encounter when everything came to a screaching halt when two of the remaining players immediately pulled out a monster manual and started looking up the stats of the monsters right in front of me. I made them close those books and put them away saying flat out that their characters do not have encyclopedic knowledge of monsters and that the book was intended for the DM and not players. They whined for another hour about how evil and unfair I was and then left the game.

Three remaining players and I played together for bout 5 more sessions until I realized something about them and myself. 1) Even though they were good players (and I'd known one of them for several years as a GREAT player) nobody here was able to separate mechanics from their role playing. That meta-gaming or whatever it's called now, was so ingrained with the system (as we all started hunting down rules and having long discussions about how they interracted and how this did that) that I realized we weren't even really playing the game anymore, it was a long and protracted beta-testing process. 2) That for every single session, I was putting in 5-6 times as many hours setting up the adventure as I would under almost any other system (barring GURPS and HERO mind you). It became almost a second job at some point and I realized that it was sorta nifty on the surface, but was, deep down, unfun simply because, according to the rules, I wasn't able to give them a fun game because all of us, to a man (and woman) because all of us were looking for something the rules weren't giving us.

And again, that doesn't always happen. Whether or not creating more rules was a good reaction - you could make a very strong argument that it wasn't

I can make that argument (and have) but not here. Again, I'm not looking at which system is better than any other, I'm looking at what fundamental assumptions and points of view have changed that led from one edition to the next.

The very first DnD session I played, and the DM I still play with most often today, simply chose to ignore many of the mechanical rules that hampered play.

Tried that after the events I described above. Tried to houserule 3.x into something I could like. Ended up with something more akin to 2nd edition, thought "why would I even bother?" and then dropped the system.

Tormsskull

2007-12-11, 01:06 PM

I really don't get it why your post sounds so angry hamlet, I never implied that you couldn't construct a character like that. In fact, here's a pinch:

? I didn't notice his angry tone.

Now again, you can say "hah! that's a stupid DM!". And you're quite right, having a rule won't eliminate stupid DMs. But it will put a dampener on everyone and ensure that the DM has to explain why he is suddenly demolishing a system that works just because "he saw something in real life".

See, this is just a big difference in approach. You're coming from the angle that there are some DMs who are stupid and that if we create enough rules we'll force those DMs to play a certain way and thus minimize the amount of times they can screw up.

I'm coming from the angle that being the DM requires a reasonable person of some intelligence who is capable of making their own calls, and thus we should give them as much freedom within the ruleset to be able to arbitrate several different situations.

hamlet

2007-12-11, 01:23 PM

KIDS: I sound angry and rude?

Not that I'm aware of, but then again, it's difficult to tell sometimes. If I do sound that way, I'm sorry, but understand that it does come from 7 years of listening to people give off hand comments about how terrible my game of choice is and venemously defend their own.

But, to be sure, no rudeness was intended.

As for your other comments, please explain what, exactly, you find so objectionable about open ended and subjective methodology? To me, a subjective approach as a DM is far preferrable since I can tailor a rule to fit the situation, the intent of the action, and the outcome of the story when objective rules just sit there like a lump rather than being actively engaged with the game currently.

I'd rather the rules conform to the situation rather than the situation conforming to the rules. Otherwise, I'd rather be playing Neverwinter Nights on the PC.

Goober4473

2007-12-11, 01:28 PM

So I'm too lazy to read every post, so sorry if I'm being redundant or anything. :smalltongue:

Having thought about this more, I realize that I personally enjoy restrictions in creativity. When presented with near-infinite possibilities, I feel like I'm limited to my own thoughts. I feel much less creative making a character with infinite options than being handed restrictions and working within them. If my DM told me to make an 8th character using any book, with 32 point buy, I wouldn't know what to do, and when I finally decided on something, it wouldn't be that satisfying. Whereas, if the DM told me to go make an 8th level character using PHB only, and I had to be a gnome, and I rolled my ability scores straight down (Str, Dex, Con, etc. in order), I'd feel the opportunity for so much more creativity. Now that I have a framework to build in, what I build can be much mroe detailed and interesting.

Similarly, I like it when my characters, and my players' characters when I DM (which is usually) to grow and change based on what happens. A character planned out to 20th level is boring. I want to vaguely plan my next level and see what happens. What if our cleric dies and my fighter vows to uphold his cause, becoming a paladin? Suddenly my level 20 fighter build (regardless of how much a 20th level fighter would suck) is gone, and the plot has shaped my character's developement. As a DM, I tend to force this, and give characters items and abilities throughout the story that changes things. You can no longer optimize at that point, because things will always change, and your creativity can be free within an interesting framework.

I don't think this is lost to D&D 3.x or the d20 system. I regularly limit my players' options in games, and it tends to work very well. I make a setting, give my players a list of possible races/classes, and then use the plot to shape the characters from there.

hamstard4ever

2007-12-11, 01:36 PM

In seeking comprehensive systems and rules, it seems that the focus of the game has moved away from a cooperative effort and towards a different mentality where new abilities and powers at every level are expected rather than letting the mechanics simply reside in the background where they belong.

Please elaborate. You can say 3.x seeks to be a more comprehensive system and that this requires mechanics that are more in the foreground than before, and you can say that 3.x has moved away from a cooperative focus, and you can also say that 3.x has a different mentality where new abilities and powers at every level are expected. It is not evident how these distinct concepts are linked, however.

-How does an expectation of new abilities and powers at every level move the game away from a cooperative effort?
-How does a comprehensive system represent a move away from a cooperative effort?
-How does a comprehensive system necessitate new powers and abilities every level?

The only one of these concepts that seems to be an actual flaw is the lack of cooperative effort. You imply that this is a flaw inherent to the idea of a comprehensive system, but I do not see the connection. It seems intuitive to me that standardization facilitates cooperation, so I am inclined to view comprehensiveness in a system as beneficial for cooperative effort. 3.x largely fails to establish comprehensive standards, but I view this failing as being a problem of doing too little in that area rather than too much.

You claim to be trying to steer away from an edition war, but your approach says otherwise. You seem to be taking all of 3.x's flaws and mashing them into one big lump to be compared to 2e. Rather than evaluating 3.x's (many) flaws individually and examining how they each independently influence a gaming system, you seem to be setting up your arguments as a straight-up comparison of 3.x and 2e.

Oeryn

2007-12-11, 01:45 PM

KIDS: I sound angry and rude?

Not that I'm aware of, but then again, it's difficult to tell sometimes. If I do sound that way, I'm sorry, but understand that it does come from 7 years of listening to people give off hand comments about how terrible my game of choice is and venemously defend their own.

That's pretty much the reason I can't even bring myself to respond to the above posters, at this point.

I don't hate 3rd Edition, and I'm not tryin' to say one edition is quantitatively better than another. I like some of the things 3E does, but I had a better gaming experience with the old system.

I'm coming from the angle that being the DM requires a reasonable person of some intelligence who is capable of making their own calls, and thus we should give them as much freedom within the ruleset to be able to arbitrate several different situations.

I'd rather the rules conform to the situation rather than the situation conforming to the rules. Otherwise, I'd rather be playing Neverwinter Nights on the PC.

And those two quotes basically sum it up. There's something to be said for "standardized rules", sure. But I just find that --more and more-- it leads to standardized characters performing standardized actions. And that makes the game less fun for me.

Cartographer

2007-12-11, 01:49 PM

OK Hamlet, I'm confused here: do you want the choices to be more meaningless, or more meaningful?

I ask because you're argument started out sounding as if you were complaining about PrCs not being distinct enough from each other, then switched to 'none of my mechanical choices at character creation should say anything about my character' (including the, er, unlikely claim that sword-and-shield fighters were mechanically identical to javelin throwers, in your D&D), and have now reached the point of claiming that there should be no objective rules at all, just subjective hints so the DM can steer the players better.

Oh, and then you mentioned NWN, which always annoys me in these conversations.

So, the choice is between meaningful choices - how should I specialize, what produces an advantage - and your ideal meaninglessness, where it doesn't matter if you play a fighter or a wizard, because the DM will let you win if he likes you.

Incidentally, the 3E skill system is terrible and I'm sorry your players suck so much. However, if you think no-one wanted overpowered characters before 3E, you're sadly mistaken.

Counterspin

2007-12-11, 01:58 PM

Aquillion

2007-12-11, 02:04 PM

When WotC took D&D over, it wasn't doing so well financially. They decided to run it like their successful Magic card franchise -- lots of expansion packs, slowly-increasing power curve, lots of shiny things to attract new players and make old ones spend more money.

Game design has nothing to do with it. Crunch vs. fluff has nothing to do with it. WotC couldn't care less about your preferred way of gaming. This system lets them earn $$$, which (to be fair) they have to be able to do in order to stay in business. As long as it doesn't offend enough people to hurt their sales, and works well enough to keep players coming, they couldn't give a damn about the rest.

(There are certainly people working for them who do give a damn. But the people in charge of overall long-term marketing strategies have probably never played a role-playing game in their life; as far as they're concerned, it's Product, and they want whatever strategy will let them put as much Product on the shelves as possible.)

hamlet

2007-12-11, 02:49 PM

You claim to be trying to steer away from an edition war, but your approach says otherwise. You seem to be taking all of 3.x's flaws and mashing them into one big lump to be compared to 2e. Rather than evaluating 3.x's (many) flaws individually and examining how they each independently influence a gaming system, you seem to be setting up your arguments as a straight-up comparison of 3.x and 2e.

Therein lies the problem with being a coffee break poster. No real time to properly compose my thoughts, organize them, trim the chaff, and provide citations as I'd almost like to do. As it is, I spend most of my time while posting (in between meetings, phone calls, orders, and actual work) glancing over my shoulder so that the boss doesn't catch me, or the guy that shares my office.

Plus, it's a message board, you'll forgive me for lacking a little focus. But yes, you're right. It's had to stay out of this when comparing editions and most of what I'm talking about is personal impression.

-How does an expectation of new abilities and powers at every level move the game away from a cooperative effort?

Well, tough to define, but here goes.

First, it builds up a sense of player entitlement. That players are being rewarded (above and beyond XP, treasure, and the satisfaction of completing missions successfully) with L33T POWRZ if you'll forgive the slight snideness inherent in that. It creates the atmosphere where players are encouraged to focus on their own character individually rather than how their character fits as part of a team. Everything seems to boil down to an indiviaul, personal level about how the player can get exactly what he or she wants. It seemed that in older editions, by making characters across a class very similar mechanically and effectively making it so that a 10th level fighter no matter what his fluff was pretty much capable of the same things (depending on how he was played) that what they contributed was much more uniform and customization was something that didn't interfere there.

-How does a comprehensive system represent a move away from a cooperative effort?

Very simply that, before, the world and the adventure was something that was jointly created by DM and players, and that included the rules themselves. There is give and take between players and DM in making things work out rather than having them flat out specified (this is how you jump, this is how you walk a tightrope, this is how you grapple, this is how you . . .). When an impasse was arrived at, it was up to all involved to sit down, look at what was available, and hash out a solution, quick and dirty though it might be.

Oftentimes, this is simply making a quick ruling when a player wants to do something that isn't written down (like, say, bull rushing somebody off of a bridge so that they fall into the river below). Or, maybe, a player wants to play a race/class combination that is not permitted according to the PHB, but the DM might be amenable to bending that rule if the reasoning behind it is good. It's all about what, as a group, the players want.

However, by the attitudes I've seen expressed here, and explicitly by some Wizards employees, it seems that a lot of the give and take has turned into the DM gives while the players take. Kids is a bit of an example of this in a way in that he(?) wants a system that hedges against the DM making mistakes and prevents the DM from stopping actions of players or keeping things from them. This wasn't the case in previous editions where changing the rules meant giving more things to players rather than taking them away.

-How does a comprehensive system necessitate new powers and abilities every level?

I don't ever recall making this assertion, though I did say that third edition did try to incorporate both to varying degrees of success which is not, neccessarily, a good thing.

You imply that this is a flaw inherent to the idea of a comprehensive system, but I do not see the connection.

No, I don't. My lament about 3.x's attempt at comprehensiveness (and more to the point, that was Mathew's argument) is a somewhat separate issue, but still pertinent. Specifically, that there are a lot of people playing now that want what their character can do specifically spelled out in concrete ink and paper indexed and referenced. Otherwise, they feel that they can't do anything.

On the other hand, there are those, such as myself, that feel it's better to have a general mechanic that can be applied broadly (i.e., ability checks) to any number of situations.

It's a difference in style and comprehensive though both are, they both follow very different paths.

KIDS

2007-12-11, 02:57 PM

Okay, sorry for the harsh words then. No offense taken.

I am not of opinion that DMs are stupid and that system is made to protect me from them. Likewise, the DM in that example isn't stupid either. However, I think that the game should be playable - and DM-able - by a newbie. You shouldn't need anything else other than a bit of goodwill to provide a fun and balanced game for everyone. That's why rules exist, to provide guidance and show how something is done. If someone is advanced and doesn't like a rule, he can change it provided the majority agrees with it. But in any case, this fictional good benelovent and experienced DM should not be a prerequisite for a good game, let alone a game of any kind. And in truth, if you follow the rules as written, you are going to provide a fairly good game to everyone in the current system.

One gripe people have with rules as such is that they think they're here to constrain them. Nope, they can change them whenever they want (provided it's reasonable and the majority of the group agrees - see above). However, the rules do serve their function quite well. It is often pointless and merely an exercise of power by the DM to change a working rule, let alone invent one that doesn't exist. Example:

Jump skill is not very realistic. A commoner who gets a 20 gets really close to the Olympic world record in far jump.
However, the Jump skill, when you look at it from point of taking 10, average result and overall growth, does its job very well and provides a fair balance to everyone.
At this point, some people are going to reach for the Jump skill and severely rework it "because it's not realistic". But I can guarantee that their rework won't be realistic any more than the current one, because that 10% difference people have gripes with is not something that warrants freeform.

Now on the side, let's assume that there is no jump skill. You as the DM have a 2nd level fighter who wants to jump across a 10 ft. chasm. What chance of success are you going to set? 30%? 35%? 50%? 65? 100%? 55%-second roll of 30% because of armor? Something third? Did player plan for jumping at all when he made the character?
Here goes the assumption:
Whether you are reworking the existing skill or making one out of scratch, you are not going to get it right.
Not even a thoughtful and reasonable DM is going to get it right. It won't ever perfectly mimick realism (more than the provided jump skill would anyways), and no matter the DM's detachedness, it's going to be subjective and unfair. Let's say he decides on 40% chance of success. Next week, he is running a different game, and another 2nd level fighter wants to cross the same 10 ft. chasm. If the system gives no means to differentiate your character from another (in terms of rules, which are how you affect the world), what will the chance now be? It will be more or less fair, but one thing I can guarantee: It will not be 40%. And maybe the next week the DM will jump over a manhole on the street in real life and in the third session, he's going to think "that's not so hard" despite manhole not being same as pit, so the chance is now going to be 40% either, more like 90% "because it's easy - I mean, I did it so how hard can it be?".

Note that I'm not mentioning any malice, stupidity or such. This is the case you will get with someone who cares about getting things right. If the DM doesn't care so much, the results are going to be even more skewed.
In any case, the player won't have any idea at all of how capable his character is of jumping over the 10 ft. chasm, further removing even the desire to try because it will be entirely random.

Anyways, to sum it up, no matter how many rules already exist, any DM has the freedom to rework them (a lot DMs abuse this for stupid ends, breaking functional things in the process). But having a rule adds a greater chance that the use or rework will be fair, because everyone has an idea of what the DM is talking about, leading to a game with equal opportunities for anyone. And again, I like freeform as well as the tactical aspect of the game.

hamlet

2007-12-11, 03:10 PM

D&D 3rd edition was built with the idea that system mastery should be rewarded. This is why there are sucker feats like toughness in the PHB. It's a crummy design decision, and one which they have decided to not pursue in the future.

As for why people want more crunch in their games, in my case it's because I like crunch. I'm amazed that people write pages and pages of text trying to uncover this simple fact. There are people who like crunch.

I see no reason to play 2nd ed, for instance, because when I'm not playing a game for the tactics, I try to get the smallest ruleset I can. The tactics and the feats and the builds are what makes D&D worth playing to me, as opposed to other systems.

Understood, but what is it about the crunch in 3.x that draws you and satisfies you? No, seriously. I've explained why I like 2e's approach. At length. But I'd like to know what it is about having feats, and skill points, and lots of class abilities that does it for you as a gamer. THAT'S what I'm looking to try and get at. I know some like crunch and some don't, but I'm looking for why.

Counterspin

2007-12-11, 04:10 PM

Building characters in 3e gives me the same joy as writing a program or fixing something with my own hands. It is a relatively complex task at which I can produce something which is objectively good. I enjoy putting together a variety of puzzle pieces into something neat which I can then show off to my buddies, who will understand the craftmanship I put into it. This is not to say that I don't roleplay, I greatly enjoy roleplaying, I've played entirely systemless games before, but the build is an entirely different activity, and as someone who came into D&D in 3e, it defines an important part of the experience for me.

Tormsskull

2007-12-11, 04:26 PM

I am not of opinion that DMs are stupid and that system is made to protect me from them. Likewise, the DM in that example isn't stupid either. However, I think that the game should be playable - and DM-able - by a newbie.

I've seen other people say this too, and I understand it, but I think with the quality of adventures that most players demand from their DMs, this is just not feasible. I've never heard of a DM starting off as a total newbie and having any kind of real success. Usually they start off as a player, slowly learning the rules and becoming familiar with the system.

Then they decide to give DMing a go, they usually make a horrible campaign, really poor decisions, etc, etc (I know I did on my first try). Eventually, through experience, reading the books, and practice, they develop the knowledge and skills to be a good DM.

And in truth, if you follow the rules as written, you are going to provide a fairly good game to everyone in the current system.

Honestly, I would disagree. I mean, if you read the RAW strictly as RAW, as soon as you had to start making some judgment calls you'd be in trouble. All of us DMs naturally apply common sense to the rules. Even though the "Dead" condition doesn't spell out the fact that a character is D E A D dead, we know that they are.

I believe the rules were written by authors who had their own assumptions. Their assumptions were sometimes not shared by other readers, and thus exploits were born. However, if you chain the DM to following the RAW verbatim, he/she isn't going to be able to inject a healthy dose of common sense into the RAW, which is pretty much required to have a fun campaign.

One gripe people have with rules as such is that they think they're here to constrain them.

Of course rules act as constraints, because they set a precedent. If there is absolutely no rule regarding something, then the DM has a lot of leeway in creating a rule that works as he thinks it should. However, if there is a rule that regarding shooting into melee, for example, and the DM doesn't think it should work that way, and therefore alters the rule, he is changing the precedent.

Here goes the assumption:
Whether you are reworking the existing skill or making one out of scratch, you are not going to get it right.

I think that is a very unfair assumption to make. Remember, we're asking the guy who created a fantasy world, who deemed how everything works in his fantasy world, who created the gods and the people and the animals and the terrain of this fantasy world, how something should work in his fantasy world.

Example: Shooting into Melee. In 3.5 if a character shoots into melee without the Precise Shot feat, they suffer a -4 penalty because they have to make sure they are aiming properly. I call this hogwash. If you don't have Precise Shot feat I don't think you are all that skilled at making Precise Shots. I think you could easily hit an unintended target.

Therefore, my houserule (which is really just adopting a rule from 3.0) is that you take the -4 penalty, but if you miss due to that penalty, you actually strike one of the targets you weren't intending too.

Now, did I get it right? Really, its a judgment call. Some DMs would say that they don't like the idea that a player can accidently strike their friend, and as such that rule would not be for them. And that's ok, but it doesn't make my rule irresponsible or way off base.

Not even a thoughtful and reasonable DM is going to get it right. It won't ever perfectly mimick realism (more than the provided jump skill would anyways), and no matter the DM's detachedness, it's going to be subjective and unfair.

Once again, I disagree. Once a DM makes a judgment call, he sets a precedent. If, using your example, Jump was not a skill and thus a DM decided to make jumping ten feet have a 40% chance of success, then when the exact same situation comes up again, it should be 40% again. If the DM changes the % under the same exact circumstances, then that is a sign of a disorganized DM.

However, what more then likely happens is there are slightly different circumstances, and then the DM adjusts the % chance for those circumstances based on what he believes is right, and then a player disagrees with him and calls him unfair.

Example, a level 2 Fighter wearing chain mail was given a 40% chance of jumping across a 10 foot chasm, and then the following week a level 2 Rogue wearing leather armor tries to jump across a 10 foot chasm and is given a 75% chance of success.

The player of the Fighter might feel like he is being cheated and say that it is unfair that the Rogue's chances are so much higher. The DM may say that the circumstances (in this case, the fact that the DM believes Rogues are naturally more inclined to jumping, that the rogue is wearing less armor, possibly that the Rogue's backstory contains something to the effect that he had specialized skills in jumping) in this case warrant the much higher chance of success. The player of the Fighter may counter that his character is so much stronger than the rogue that his armor shouldn't effect him as much as the DM made it.

Now, what might happen, is the player of the Fighter feels he is being cheated so he says something like "I want a standardized formula for jumping so that all of this is fairly determined". Is this unreasonable? For some groups, probably not. For others, especially groups where jumping may only occur once every four or five sessions, it might be a waste of time to develop some standard mechanic for jumping.

One way or the other, the players have to trust the DM to be fair. If the DM is not being fair, then the players should speak with him/her and express that they feel they are not being treated fairly, etc. In extreme situations, where the DM is being a total jerk, the player(s) may need to leave the game. But keep in mind in these rare situations the problem is not that the DM and the player disagreed on how jumping should work, the problem is that the DM was just plain being a jerk.

Anyways, to sum it up, no matter how many rules already exist, any DM has the freedom to rework them (a lot DMs abuse this for stupid ends, breaking functional things in the process).

See, that's where I take issue with your comments. The bias in your posts is really coming through (No DMs can make fair rules without messing up, a lot of DMs abuse their power, etc.)

But having a rule adds a greater chance that the use or rework will be fair, because everyone has an idea of what the DM is talking about, leading to a game with equal opportunities for anyone. And again, I like freeform as well as the tactical aspect of the game.

I totally agree that a base rule for most common situations is going to come up, other wise two groups sitting down to play D&D could be playing two completely different games.

However, it is impossible for the rulebooks to contain a rule for everything that a player will attempt, and as such, I don't think the books should even try. They should just cover the main components of the system, then include a line about the DM adjucating all other rules, and move on. Saves pages in the book, meaning the books cost less money to purchase, and I'd be much happier.

Fiery Diamond

2007-12-11, 04:54 PM

First off, a disclaimer: I didn't read the entire thread, because so many of the posts were really long. However, I did read quite a bit of it.

I think part of the problem with this debate, or rather, the problems that various participants have with the issues in the debate, is not simply that different people like to play differently as far as less or more emphasis on rules, but that some of the posters think the rules are restrictions. From my perspective, the mechanical rules are there only to assist the DM and players. If an existing rule doesn't work for the group -- ditch it. The rules are there in order to make it easier for less experienced people. I don't understand why newbies would find it easier to play a less ruled game. The more rules, the easier it is, because less ad hoc rules are needed. They can still be used, but they aren't needed. I want to slide down banisters and swing on chandeliers? The rules tell me how, so I don't look at it and say "I want to do this, now how on earth should we determine whether I can?" I DM with a very "make it up as you go" style, and that's perfectly possible with 3.5. The rules make things easier when I don't know how to make it up.

I DM, and I only use Core. I started playing with 3.5. The choices available are just that - choices available. I have never had a problem with balance, because the purpose of the game isn't to be balanced, it's to have fun. If something is imbalanced, we either change it or just agree not to abuse it.

As far as coming up with a character concept based on rolls goes, I have to gape open-mouthed. That sounds more restricting than any of the rules of 3.5. I feel that the mechanics are there to make the game possible, not to make the game. Coming up with character concepts because of mechanics is completely nonsensical, when viewed from this perspective. If that is what you like, though, I fail to see why you are complaining about 3.5 rules being restricting.

- Fiery Diamond

Serenity

2007-12-11, 05:09 PM

Of course it's impossible to make rules that cover everything a player could ever do, which is why the DMG still says that the DM has the final say in any rules dispute, and the prerogative to make ad hoc rules as necessary. That doesn't in any way take away from the benefit of a broad rules set that covers the most common ground, minimizing the necessity for the DM to make up rules on the fly, and providing precedents and examples that can help when the necessity does come up.

Ulzgoroth

2007-12-11, 05:23 PM

Granted, to an extent. Yes, 3.x would be a better game if so many of the issues that we've addressed over and over and over again on these forums were fixed one way or the other. However, I still take issue with the design philosophy that says that for every role playing choice there must exist a mechanical choice. That makes the game much more about the game itself and less about the role playing part.
I don't think anyone's called you on this yet, so I am. Where do you get this idea?

If you can't come up with a very large number of role playing choices that are not mechanical choices, I am very confused indeed. And of the ones that are, many would be mechanical choices in any remotely D&D-like system...for instance, whether or not to try to kill someone is certainly a roleplaying choice, but has a certain unavoidable mechanical anchoring.

I'm also kind of confused by what the drawback of the 'comprehensive' mechanics are supposed to be. If someone decides to try to jump a pit, they roll some dice and make it or not. The only difference comprehensive rules make is that the DM doesn't have to make up the target number out of their estimation of difficulty and PC proficiency. Instead, they can systematically determine both. When can this be a bad thing?

KIDS

2007-12-11, 05:41 PM

Oh I know Tormsskull, your comments are quite in place. I am just stating my preference and acknowledging that other way works as well (and well, proof that it does was that everyone was happy 30 years ago without it - or... well, poor comparison but you get it I hope). I do however get offended when someone states my choice as meaningless (because everything is a choice) or that having two lines instead of an open plane is somehow restrictive to imagination.

Jerthanis

2007-12-11, 06:17 PM

My question basically is this: As it pertains mainly to Character (creation, building, advancement, etc.) and to a lesser extent other parts of the game, at which point does choice supplant the initial purpose of the game D&D (or any RPG for that matter) and at what point does it become meaningless?

In terms of a game system, in my opinion, more choices in terms of character creation is almost universally a good idea. In terms of an actual game run using those rules, choice should be restricted to some degree. "Want to play a Dragon" shouldn't be an option in a campaign without dragons, "I want to be a farmhand" shouldn't be an option in a campaign about landed gentry and their politics. The focus of the campaign should be decided by the DM, but not necessarily by the rulebooks. However, if an entire rulebook is so overly focused that it can only support one type of game, you can only get so much use out of it. Thus, to me, a rules system should have countless options for the DM and players to choose between.

D&D 3.5 (and other D20 games in general) has introduced a system of "choices" in which there are thousands upon thousands of feats (many of which are merely fine distinctions amongst others), dozens if not hundreds of "base classes" (honestly, this one always puzzled the hell out of me), and at least 200+ "Prestige Classes," all in the name of helping the player realize their character concept. Of course, the attendant billing and advertising assures us that we were never really able to do this before despite what you might have been doing anyway.

*snip*

In terms of character, that meant for me that within an archetype, I could do ALMOST anything I could imagine (and I can imagine a lot). I didn't need special rules to realize it and I'm not sure I understand the need for them now. It's also amazing to me that NPC descriptions have gone from 4 lines of crunch and maybe a couple paragraphs of fluff and description to literally two pages of rules material in Dungeon Magazine (what used to be Dungeon anyway).

Of course you could have roleplaying choices in 2nd edition, or any edition of any game previously or in the future. The aim and purpose of choices is both to facilitate those roleplaying choices, and to reflect them mechanically, so that when the dice come out, Harim, Half Elven sire of a forgotten kingdom, who's loyalty and bravery have made him a captain of a mercenary company which he led with honor, serving his patrons as best he could, until corruption in the higher-ups he served made him turn away from his brothers in arms and try to strike out on his own, feel different than Figh-Tor the Fighter... who fights. Because, let's face it, D&D is about solving problems. Whether it's about being at the bottom of a cliff and needing to be at the top, or there being an evil Baron who needs to be deposed, D&D is about solving those problems. When problems are being solved, dice are out and mechanics are in play. If the mechanics make Figh-Tor feel exactly like Harim (who I admit isn't the best character ever, I made him up on the spot), then every time you play a Fighter and you're solving problems, you feel like you're named Figh-Tor.

Also, I, and many of me droogs think of characters we want to play outside of character creation sessions, and for the most part sit down with some idea of what we want to play in the game. More options lets me play a character closer to the character I want to roleplay. Less options mean if my concept is a Swashbucklery type who grew up on the streets of port towns, who was taken in by a pirate crew... I either have to ignore my heavy armor, willingly choose a weapon which is mechanically inferior, and be no better in any other area than Figh-Tor... or with more options I can have mechanics that accurately portray my character's background and skillset.

In my mind, Randomized characters are either bad for roleplaying, or sitting down to character creation with a character already in mind is... and since I love thinking of characters in my spare time, I feel like it helps me get their motivations and essential character down better.

I recently picked up Mechwarrior 3rd edition and sat down to make a character just to see how it worked... my idea was that I'd play a Mech engineer who lost his noble status and house in the Clan Wars, and dreams of being a Mechwarrior someday, but that he just never had the opportunity, and so is just a Mech Technician. Then, I randomly rolled "Gets the opportunity to enlist in elite mech-pilot training academy, regardless of prerequisites" and I realized the character was no longer what I wanted to play. Now, Mechwarrior is amazingly more random of a character creation system than D&D, though it's much easier to make pretty much the character you want eventually (he might start out as an older character) but that illustrates my problem with randomization making the choices for you. You sit down wanting to play X, the game says "Sorry, we're only selling Y today."

Kaelik

2007-12-11, 07:14 PM

I'm also kind of confused by what the drawback of the 'comprehensive' mechanics are supposed to be. If someone decides to try to jump a pit, they roll some dice and make it or not. The only difference comprehensive rules make is that the DM doesn't have to make up the target number out of their estimation of difficulty and PC proficiency. Instead, they can systematically determine both. When can this be a bad thing?

The drawback to a "comprehensive system" as he sees it is that it limits the DM. The DM now has all these rules to know and follow, and players can do things or not do things without his direct say.

My guess, he DMs most of the time. Players like comprehensive systems because they can do things. When they want to make an action, they have choices and they know the relative level of success for each option. They know what they can do, and they do it. But the DM likes this system less then one that's freeform because he has less power over the players.

Imagine there where no rules for turning checks but only a vague assertion "Clerics can repel undead."

So you have a situation where an army of skeletons block an exit while the BBEG escapes.

Player: I try to turn them.
DM: Okay, I give you a [functionally very low chance of doing anything really useful] of success.
*Roll*
DM: You fail. Now you must cinematically fight your way through the skeletons (While the BBEG I created definitely escapes.)

See guys, isn't this game awesome!

or in 3.5:

Player (who specialized in turning undead): I turn them as a free action, X HD of them turn to dust, then I cast Undead destroying spell X on the remainder.
Player 2: I charge after the BBEG, leaving the cleric to mop up on the remainder.
DM: (Oh man this sucks, I wasn't prepared for this.) Okay [improvising] the BBEG does Y.

Or

Player (who has not specialized in undead turning): I know that my Turn is going to be useless against these things, so instead I cast Hold Person on the BBEG/Airwalk to run over the Skelies/Undead destroying spell X/Just wade into them.

DMs like one type for an obvious reason, Players like the other. WotC just realized there are more Players then DMs, and DMs can be Players too.

Sstoopidtallkid

2007-12-11, 07:26 PM

greenknight

2007-12-11, 08:05 PM

Except: 1) In the first edition, no even those were listed and in the original D&D, only the name of the creature (and sometimes not even that), its race, any applicable class, total healthy hp, and any pertinent equipment owned (i.e., if the creature was fighting with a short sword, it would be stated). Otherwise, it was up to the DM to figure out what treasure, if any, the monster had and to be familiar enough with it to be able to run it with only the HP total and the basics written in a half line of text.

1st Ed AD&D is more of a rules outline than a real roleplaying system. The Core Rules doesn't even have proficiencies (except to mention which weapons each class was able to use, similar to 3e). And just because the entry didn't list things like saving throws, it doesn't mean the creature doesn't have them, so if the point comes up the DM would have to look up the information. Worse still is the fact that nearly all creatures don't have their ability scores listed, despite the written rules needing them for certain things (no, I don't believe all those monsters had 10 in each ability score).

I enjoy the "ad hoc" nature (which I prefer to call "wide open") of the older editions. I find the "tool kit" nature of the rules much more intuitive and easier to deal with than the encyclopedic nature of today's rules.

Each person does have their own preference when it comes to the rules, and that's fine - provided you accept that some others won't share your preferences.

That many of the choices (some by the frank admission of the designers) are NOT meaningful (or in the codespeak, suboptimal).

Hold it right there. Suboptimal is not the same as meaningless. In 1st Ed AD&D being a Half-Orc Cleric is suboptimal because you'd be restricted to 4th level at most, but it is not a meaningless decision.

As does the entire fighter class, even if only considering the CORE three books.

It was quite apparent when 3e first came out that taking 20 Fighter levels wouldn't be a good decision from a power gaming perspective. But people still did it, and it was still a meaningful choice. Heck, taking 20 Fighter levels in any *D&D game is going to leave the character significantly less powerful compared to a full spellcaster.

The very fact that I can actually make an incorrect choice while building my character rubs me so wrong it's starting to bleed.

As I pointed out, you can do that in any edition. If it's only the mechanical aspects you're interested in, in AD&D why play a Human Fighter when an Elven Fighter is so much better (up until you hit the racial level cap)?

Originally, for D&D (going just by CORE which I should have specified above), choices were much simpler, but more informative.

I agree, but there was really only one significant choice - what class (or race, since in OD&D race = class) you want your character to be. Sure, you could give your character a personality and such, but there was no mechanical difference. To me, that's far too little choice to be meaningful.

Then we can move on and, if we're in 2nd edition and using non-weapon proficiency rules, pick those skills that a young trained soldier would have. Most likely things like survival for his home terrain just in case he got separated or trapped away from his unit. Perhaps some type of vocational skill so his use within the militia is doubled: boyer/fletcher perhaps, or weapon or amor smithing. Or, for some fun, though he might be dumb as a box of rocks, he might be a savant when it comes to art or singing and always keeps a bit of paper and charcoal on him or an instrument of some sort to accompany his songs.

And in game terms, those non-weapon proficiencies have very little mechanical significance.

but sometimes the best characters are the unexpected ones: Tar Marklvar the Gnome Thief springs to mind.

What about Bartok Fireforge, the Dwarven Wizard? Oh that's right - you couldn't do that without house (or setting specific) rules in AD&D, could you?

In order to create a mechanically effective character that will still be effective down the road as he rises in level (assuming we start at level 1), I have to actually plan out most of his career from day one and though I might like the idea of him being a foot soldier with a penchant for singing (and doing it well), creating a fighter with some skill points in singing (or whatever skill that would be) is not only prohibitive because it's cross class, but also I'm trading some portion of the character's usefullness to the party in order to do it.

While it's not essential, it does help to plan out your character in 3.xe, because each time your character gains a level you have an opportunity to multiclass, and therefore have another significant choice. It's not like earlier editions where that choice is only made at 1st level (unless your character is a Human who qualifies for dual classing).

And in order for your 2nd Ed AD&D character to do well at singing, you'd need to have a character with a decent Charisma score and put a few NWP's into it (the first increase is a big one, but NWPs improve very slowly after that). That's not really such a big deal because NWPs aren't really all that useful in Core 2nd Ed. In 3e, skills can be more useful, but if you really want to you can dedicate your skill points to the perform skill and become good at it, even if it is cross class. Even better, you can dedicate one of your Feats to Skill Focus (Perform) and really do well at it. As a Fighter, you are the best class to have the Feat to spare for it.

Add on top of that the FACT that by 7th or 8th level my fighter might as well consider himself naught but a torch bearer while the wizard, cleric, and thief/rouge do all the heavy lifting and suddenly, what could have been a fun and great character is utterly useless.

Again, how is this any different to previous editions? An AD&D Thief may as well give up by this level thanks to spells like Find Traps, Fly and Invisibility. Fighters might be a little more useful because most spells allow a save in AD&D, which is easier to make the higher the character's level (or HD), but eventually the spellcasters are still capable of completely replacing them.

If I truly wanted to be usefull and have "fun," I should have played a full caster with feats and skill points carefully pre-selected over 20 levels (which we'll realize over the span of 1 year since "it's fun to level up" rather than the possibility of a campaign lasting years or even decades).

Which is also true of AD&D, btw. The default rate of level advancement in AD&D is slower, but that's really a matter of personal preference. If you like facing the same challenges time and time again (with only minor variations), then having a character who gains new capabilities at a very slow rate would be preferable.

In AD&D, by the time I chose a class and his proficiencies (and spells if wizard), he was already fully functional and all the rest of it was up to me.

Ah, no. At that point, the rest is up to the designers who planned out your character's career path.

So yes, I can actually make a suboptimal choice in go with pure flavor if I wanted, but I will be punished for it down the road. So what kind of choice is it really?

It's your choice, not some game designer's. Like your character, you gain experience and you learn what works well and what works badly. Strangely enough, the same thing can occur in earlier editions if you choose a character class that does get significant choices when gaining new levels - such as a spellcaster.

hamlet

2007-12-11, 08:10 PM

The drawback to a "comprehensive system" as he sees it is that it limits the DM. The DM now has all these rules to know and follow, and players can do things or not do things without his direct say.

My guess, he DMs most of the time. Players like comprehensive systems because they can do things. When they want to make an action, they have choices and they know the relative level of success for each option. They know what they can do, and they do it. But the DM likes this system less then one that's freeform because he has less power over the players.

Imagine there where no rules for turning checks but only a vague assertion "Clerics can repel undead."

So you have a situation where an army of skeletons block an exit while the BBEG escapes.

Player: I try to turn them.
DM: Okay, I give you a [functionally very low chance of doing anything really useful] of success.
*Roll*
DM: You fail. Now you must cinematically fight your way through the skeletons (While the BBEG I created definitely escapes.)

See guys, isn't this game awesome!

or in 3.5:

Player (who specialized in turning undead): I turn them as a free action, X HD of them turn to dust, then I cast Undead destroying spell X on the remainder.
Player 2: I charge after the BBEG, leaving the cleric to mop up on the remainder.
DM: (Oh man this sucks, I wasn't prepared for this.) Okay [improvising] the BBEG does Y.

Or

Player (who has not specialized in undead turning): I know that my Turn is going to be useless against these things, so instead I cast Hold Person on the BBEG/Airwalk to run over the Skelies/Undead destroying spell X/Just wade into them.

DMs like one type for an obvious reason, Players like the other. WotC just realized there are more Players then DMs, and DMs can be Players too.

No, not really.

I hate controlling the players. And I really don't DM all that often compared to how much time I spend as a player.

What I like is that when I do DM (and when I play as well), 2nd edition gives me more flexibility to deal with situations as they arise. Actually, I love it when players use their abilities to succeed. It lets me advance the story and the play instead of sitting their bored off my cot while they go over and over every possible action and all ramifications as they analyze the situation like Monday night quarter backs (typically, that's what gamers of the third edition generation that I am trying to convert backwards are guilty of, but not always).

Given your situation above, if the player used turning to blast away half the undead and then bypassed the rest by bolting through, I'd be happy. I have no actual vested interest in "winning" the encounter. And if they do something that I hadn't planned past (i.e., actually manage to get somewhere that isn't detailed yet), I sit back and say, ok, hold on while I set something up for you guys and figure out what's coming up next. But I always know what's coming down the pike long term so that's not really always an issue.

No, the thing I like best is when the players try to do something I wouldn't have thought of and have to take five seconds to figure out how it works. Say, for instance, the player realizes that turning 20 skeletons isn't realistic and fighting them will take too long, but he's not feeling particularly threatened by them. He decides "I barrell through the skeletons' lines and tackle the necromancer as he tries to escape out the back."

Yeah, third edition actually has rules for this now (I think), but then I'm stuck looking them up and figuring out how they all interact. With 2nd, I sit back and say that the first part of this is a charge which I actually have a rule for so we'll apply that. Then he's not attacking, but just pushing past them, so first, they're gonna get free attacks as he tries to barrel through. One or two might hit, but not much damage involved. Then, he'll have to make a strength check for, say, every 10 feet through the mob that he wants to travel. Then, he has to succeed in an attack roll against the necromancer's armor class and win an opposed strength check (both make a check and whomever wins by more wins the contest) in order to pull the guy to the ground.

The system feels more fluid to me in that I can take rules I know and apply them as I see fit instead of having to hunt down, among others, the grapple rules, the charging rules, the attack of opportunity rules, the bullrushing rules, the movement rules and how they are affected by moving through occupied squares, how all those rules interact with the feats the players have, etc and by the end, I feel like nothing more than a computer doing calculations rather than an adjudicator.

Again, personal preference, but you asked.

Kaelik

2007-12-11, 08:12 PM

You have a DM who either plans too much or not enough. If they plan too little, then they just missed the chance of the party doing something random. If they plan too much, then they aren't able to improvise that the BBEG the PCs encountered was just a servant of the real BBEG.

It's not about having specifically planned for X or not. The point is that in a less comprehensive ruleset the DM has more power and control. In a more comprehensive ruleset the Players have more choices and options that they understand.

Some DMs think that because they can make up the rules for jumping a canyon on the fly, a system without a jump skill is equal to a system with a jump skill in giving players options. The problem is that it doesn't matter if you can come up with something on the fly, a player is always going to prefer a system in which they can know the results of their actions with some general degree of accuracy, rather then having no idea what will or won't work.

Pre-existing rules for different actions allows players to specialize in performing certain actions, and understand the system. Freeform puts everything in the hands of the DM so that players can never know what they can or can't do well.

If there are rules for grappling, then someone could read that section and try to make a good grappler. If there are no rules for grappling, then a player is never going to make a character specifically for grappling, because he doesn't know how to, and he doesn't know if grappling will work, because it only exists in the DMs head, and he is not a mind reader.

Kaelik

2007-12-11, 08:23 PM

Yeah, third edition actually has rules for this now (I think), but then I'm stuck looking them up and figuring out how they all interact. With 2nd, I sit back and say that the first part of this is a charge which I actually have a rule for so we'll apply that. Then he's not attacking, but just pushing past them, so first, they're gonna get free attacks as he tries to barrel through. One or two might hit, but not much damage involved. Then, he'll have to make a strength check for, say, every 10 feet through the mob that he wants to travel. Then, he has to succeed in an attack roll against the necromancer's armor class and win an opposed strength check (both make a check and whomever wins by more wins the contest) in order to pull the guy to the ground.

The system feels more fluid to me in that I can take rules I know and apply them as I see fit instead of having to hunt down, among others, the grapple rules, the charging rules, the attack of opportunity rules, the bullrushing rules, the movement rules and how they are affected by moving through occupied squares, how all those rules interact with the feats the players have, etc and by the end, I feel like nothing more than a computer doing calculations rather than an adjudicator.

That's exactly my point. You as a DM like this system better because you don't have to look up rules, and you can just decide what you want. It's not about trying to beat the players, it's you being in total control.

The point I am making is that the players generally like it better when there are rules for things, because they can sit there look at the situation, and know exactly what happens if they try to charge through the skeletons, and they can decide if they want to or not based on those rules. If there are no rules, then they have exactly zero knowledge about what happens to their character if they try that. They effectively have to stop playing their character so that you can do it for them, because you are deciding whether their character makes a smart decision or a stupid one, a good one or a bad one, one that ends in victory or death.

They can try a certain course of action, but they don't know anything. It's effectively like asking them to step into the magical mirror every time they make an action. They have no idea if they just killed their character or saved the world.

Fiery Diamond

2007-12-11, 08:34 PM

I have not much to say beyond - Kaelik is correct, hamlet. I believe that you don't realize that "coming up with rules on the fly" and "having control" are exactly the same thing. Therefore, when you come up with the entirety of rules for a specific situation, you have complete control of that situation, regardless of whether you behave reasonably or not.

- Fiery Diamond

Serenity

2007-12-11, 09:13 PM

No, the thing I like best is when the players try to do something I wouldn't have thought of and have to take five seconds to figure out how it works. Say, for instance, the player realizes that turning 20 skeletons isn't realistic and fighting them will take too long, but he's not feeling particularly threatened by them. He decides "I barrell through the skeletons' lines and tackle the necromancer as he tries to escape out the back."

Yeah, third edition actually has rules for this now (I think), but then I'm stuck looking them up and figuring out how they all interact. With 2nd, I sit back and say that the first part of this is a charge which I actually have a rule for so we'll apply that. Then he's not attacking, but just pushing past them, so first, they're gonna get free attacks as he tries to barrel through. One or two might hit, but not much damage involved. Then, he'll have to make a strength check for, say, every 10 feet through the mob that he wants to travel. Then, he has to succeed in an attack roll against the necromancer's armor class and win an opposed strength check (both make a check and whomever wins by more wins the contest) in order to pull the guy to the ground.

The system feels more fluid to me in that I can take rules I know and apply them as I see fit instead of having to hunt down, among others, the grapple rules, the charging rules, the attack of opportunity rules, the bullrushing rules, the movement rules and how they are affected by moving through occupied squares, how all those rules interact with the feats the players have, etc and by the end, I feel like nothing more than a computer doing calculations rather than an adjudicator.

Again, personal preference, but you asked.

In my mind, it's gonna take a lot longer for most DMs to make up ad hoc rules for such a situation than to flip through the combat section for a few of the rules they don't know off the top of their head, and the comprehensive system give you a better base to interpret things the rules don't quite cover. Having the DM pluck a percentage chance out of thin air strikes me as entirely unsatisfactory.

Ulzgoroth

2007-12-11, 09:32 PM

Actually, not quite guilty as charged, it sounds like. The advantage of 3.5 is definitely that it puts the actual rules out where players can see and plan from them. But it sounds like hamlet's problem with that is more in requiring him, as DM, to know or look up the rules rather than go with his instincts.

To be accusatory about it, lazy rather than controlling. Really, it's just part of the DMs job to know the rules of the game. There aren't all that many, and they aren't so badly indexed as to be hard to look up. Though it certainly could be annoying to someone who already has a 'perfectly good' system more or less committed to memory.

Kompera

2007-12-11, 10:02 PM

The point I am making is that the players generally like it better when there are rules for things, because they can sit there look at the situation, and know exactly what happens if they try to charge through the skeletons, and they can decide if they want to or not based on those rules. If there are no rules, then they have exactly zero knowledge about what happens to their character if they try that. They effectively have to stop playing their character so that you can do it for them, because you are deciding whether their character makes a smart decision or a stupid one, a good one or a bad one, one that ends in victory or death.

They can try a certain course of action, but they don't know anything. It's effectively like asking them to step into the magical mirror every time they make an action. They have no idea if they just killed their character or saved the world.I agree with what Kaelik posted. If there are rules in place to cover a situation, then use them. The players have the right to expect that an action they decide to take will play out as it's written in the rules, rather than as the GM arbitrarily decides to rule with an on the spot fiat.

In my mind, it's gonna take a lot longer for most DMs to make up ad hoc rules for such a situation than to flip through the combat section for a few of the rules they don't know off the top of their head, and the comprehensive system give you a better base to interpret things the rules don't quite cover. Having the DM pluck a percentage chance out of thin air strikes me as entirely unsatisfactory.Again, agreed. If the action the player takes is a little used part of the rules, this is the opportunity to become familiar with those rules. In my own group I've suggested that people who choose to use maneuvers which they are unfamiliar with open their PHB to the section which covers that maneuver, so that both they and the GM can more quickly resolve the action. It works well, and we all learn the game a bit better each time.

hamstard4ever

2007-12-11, 10:05 PM

First, it builds up a sense of player entitlement. That players are being rewarded (above and beyond XP, treasure, and the satisfaction of completing missions successfully) with L33T POWRZ if you'll forgive the slight snideness inherent in that. It creates the atmosphere where players are encouraged to focus on their own character individually rather than how their character fits as part of a team. Everything seems to boil down to an indiviaul, personal level about how the player can get exactly what he or she wants. It seemed that in older editions, by making characters across a class very similar mechanically and effectively making it so that a 10th level fighter no matter what his fluff was pretty much capable of the same things (depending on how he was played) that what they contributed was much more uniform and customization was something that didn't interfere there.

Excellent summary! As we can see from your example, standardization is a great help when it comes to cooperation. Because AD&D fighters were much more standardized, everybody knew what to expect from any given fighter. You could pick up somebody's 10th level fighter and drop it into any other 10th level group and the entire gaming table is going to understand exactly what that fighter is and isn't going to be capable of. There's not going to be any confusion or debate over how their abilities work. So let's hear it for standardization!

Now that we've established that comprehensive standards are only beneficial towards teamwork... why exactly is it, again, that you consistently argue against comprehensive, standardized rules? It seems you want the players to stick to standardized rules, but don't want there to be any standards on your end of things as DM. That doesn't seem to be in the spirit of cooperation.

Very simply that, before, the world and the adventure was something that was jointly created by DM and players, and that included the rules themselves. There is give and take between players and DM in making things work out rather than having them flat out specified (this is how you jump, this is how you walk a tightrope, this is how you grapple, this is how you . . .). When an impasse was arrived at, it was up to all involved to sit down, look at what was available, and hash out a solution, quick and dirty though it might be.

Underline added for emphasis. It seems to me that having more comprehensive rules can only make this sort of impasse easier to resolve by providing more and better starting points for figuring these things out.

Of course, when similar rules in different places function differently in mechanics or scope, or outright conflict with one another--problems that have plagued D&D since day one--then that creates its own problems, and 3.x is rife with these. I disagree that simply leaving the rules as vague as possible is the ideal solution to this problem, however.

I don't ever recall making this assertion, though I did say that third edition did try to incorporate both to varying degrees of success which is not, neccessarily, a good thing.

Ok, that was technically poor word choice on my part. If this was all you were trying to say, however, it was a poor word choice on your part too:

In seeking comprehensive systems and rules, it seems that the focus of the game has moved away from a cooperative effort and towards a different mentality where new abilities and powers at every level are expected rather than letting the mechanics simply reside in the background where they belong.

This is a statement of causality; it asserts a link between the two.

Specifically, that there are a lot of people playing now that want what their character can do specifically spelled out in concrete ink and paper indexed and referenced. Otherwise, they feel that they can't do anything.

Earlier you suggested that 2e fighters were preferable specifically because they were so very similar in what they could do, which suggests there may be something to this idea. If, after all, there was not a strong correlation between what their character was spelled out as being specifically able to do and what their character could actually do, then there would be a tremendous difference among 2e fighters in practice and the advantage of standardization would be rendered moot.

On the other hand, there are those, such as myself, that feel it's better to have a general mechanic that can be applied broadly (i.e., ability checks) to any number of situations.

Yeah, ability checks are a pretty cool idea. Hey, wouldn't it be handy if they included a lot of guidelines and examples to help determine reasonable target numbers for common ability checks? That way it would be less likely that different players would come to the table with wildly different ideas of how ability check difficulties should scale and end up arguing about it.

Oh wait, I guess that's kind of the working definition of 3.x. Nevermind.

To be accusatory about it, lazy rather than controlling. Really, it's just part of the DMs job to know the rules of the game. There aren't all that many, and they aren't so badly indexed as to be hard to look up. Though it certainly could be annoying to someone who already has a 'perfectly good' system more or less committed to memory.

In hamlet's defense, some of the rules for more advanced combat maneuvers could stand to be streamlined a bit. However, there's a big gap between saying that some of 3.x's rules for specific situations are flawed, versus saying that the very idea of having rules for those situations is flawed.

Matthew

2007-12-11, 10:09 PM

In my mind, it's gonna take a lot longer for most DMs to make up ad hoc rules for such a situation than to flip through the combat section for a few of the rules they don't know off the top of their head, and the comprehensive system give you a better base to interpret things the rules don't quite cover. Having the DM pluck a percentage chance out of thin air strikes me as entirely unsatisfactory.

Well... the rather arbitrary formulas and Circumstance Modifiers of 3e mean that it can still be considered to be pretty much 'plucked out of thin air', so to speak. The difference is only the number of hoops you jump through to determine the final probability.

So, let's compare:

3e Spot Check:
Skill Ranks + Attribute Modifiers + Other Modifiers (such as Magic, Race, Feats, Circumstance Modifiers, etc...) + 10/1D20, to hit DC X (Possibly: Skill Ranks + Attribute Modifiers + Other Modifiers + 10/1D20 of opponent)

2e Spot Check:
Roll under X.

That's to grossly oversimplify, of course. The DM probably will take into account the level, class, race, attributes and other defining characteristics of the character, as well as the circumstances. The difference is only the process (which to some people is very important and to others not at all), the outcome will likely be very similar, you'll have a 0-100% chance of accomplishing a given task. When it comes down to it, many DM's and designers have an idea of what they want the percentage chance to be to begin with (which is why, in my opinion, DCs tend to scale horribly at high levels).

Yahzi

2007-12-12, 12:33 AM

Hell, I remember when an NPC could be fit into "Alfred/M/F3/Human:
That was the one good point of the class system.

Now you need a PrC for him to be a sheepherder.

:smalltongue:

Yahzi

2007-12-12, 12:45 AM

My overall point is, the things you're complaining about aren't horrible centric to the game.
You've kind of missed the point.

What Hamlet is trying to say that the sheer wealth of choices in 3.5 has, paradoxically, reduced the amount of actual variety.

Quantity has a way of negatively affecting quality.

hamlet

2007-12-12, 10:52 AM

Prophaniti

2007-12-12, 11:36 AM

But then again, I should have figured that even trying that would lead to this and figured that this thread was a mistake from the beginning. Trying to have an intelligent discussion about anything other than third edition here is pretty much fruitless.

Well, I coulda warned you... 3.x is the only thing really discussed anymore. 2nd ed. may have been more fertile ground for good role-playing, but the mechanics were needlessly complicated. 3rd ed. cam out with a much simpler system that is easier to learn and use. The problem you have now is, IMO, mostly with the plethora of splatbooks and such out there that do exactly what you are talking about. They give us more 'it's in the rules' scenarios than we need, which make both players and DMs reluctant to try anything not covered by the rules. They also, again as you said, make it too profitable to min/max a character (there's no real reason not to, except not wanting to take the time or an innate sense of obstinate rebellion), so you have more printed character options yet fewer characters that will make a significant contribution to a game.

There are a number of solutions to this (if you view it as a problem that requires solving), but they take up a thread by themselves. I guess I have a similar worry that 4th ed will compound these changes and, aside from the money factor, think I will read it at the store and wait a few months before deciding if I want to try it.

DruchiiConversion

2007-12-12, 11:44 AM

Fact: D&D 3.x is published by a company which wishes to release as many books as it can, in order to make money.

Do you not think that all the excessive variety you complain about would have existed in AD&D if it was published by WOTC? It's how they do things. It's not inherent to the system, and debating specifics from mechanical examples is meaningless. It would be easy to add more stuff to AD&D, just as it was easy to add more stuff to D&D 3.x.

Matthew

2007-12-12, 12:05 PM

Well, I coulda warned you... 3.x is the only thing really discussed anymore. 2nd ed. may have been more fertile ground for good role-playing, but the mechanics were needlessly complicated. 3rd ed. cam out with a much simpler system that is easier to learn and use. The problem you have now is, IMO, mostly with the plethora of splatbooks and such out there that do exactly what you are talking about. They give us more 'it's in the rules' scenarios than we need, which make both players and DMs reluctant to try anything not covered by the rules. They also, again as you said, make it too profitable to min/max a character (there's no real reason not to, except not wanting to take the time or an innate sense of obstinate rebellion), so you have more printed character options yet fewer characters that will make a significant contribution to a game.

Can we try and steer away from absolute statements about editions? These accusations are equally levelled by proponents of the different editions. There are plenty of places to talk about AD&D on the web (such as the lively forums at Dragonsfoot) and even right here on GitP there are the occasional discussions with minimal references to D20. The problem with this Thread is that it necessitates comparisons and that raises people's hackles and can open old wounds.

Fact: D&D 3.x is published by a company which wishes to release as many books as it can, in order to make money.

Do you not think that all the excessive variety you complain about would have existed in AD&D if it was published by WOTC? It's how they do things. It's not inherent to the system, and debating specifics from mechanical examples is meaningless. It would be easy to add more stuff to AD&D, just as it was easy to add more stuff to D&D 3.x.

Actually, a great deal of D20 was directly ported out of 2e expansions, such as the Player's Option Series. 2e was itself glutted with expansions, they were just of a different sort [i.e. they didn't plug together like D20 expansions do].

Tormsskull

2007-12-12, 12:39 PM

That's exactly my point. You as a DM like this system better because you don't have to look up rules, and you can just decide what you want. It's not about trying to beat the players, it's you being in total control.

I'd say that's a pretty fair assertion, when applied to a limited scope. I don't think any DM wants the hassle of having to decide each and every roll of the dice. Sure, it might sound like a good idea that the character that didn't move at all in this round has a slightly better chance to hit his opponent than the character that moved his full movement number and then struck. Maybe I think that the character that stood there the whole time had more ample opportunities to make an attack hit.

But would I want to try to apply circumstance modifiers to it? No. On the other hand, if a PC was hiding on a ledge, a monster was moving down below them, and the PC decides to jump off of the ledge and make an attack, then I might want to apply circumstances. And I have every right too as the DM.

However, if there were a rule in the books that covered this specific thing, then my hands would be somewhat constrained in arbitrarily creating rules to deal with this situation.

When I DM I like to have a lot of control of the game, because I think it makes the game more fun for everyone involved. If I was only able to pick opponents off of a list whos CR was within 1 or 2 points of the party's ECL, I'd feel very constrained. If I was only able to award X amount of treasure (or even worse, HAD to reward X amount of treasure) based on a character's level, I'd feel constrained.

That's why when I DM I ignore CRs, I ignore Wealth by level and treasure amounts. None of that is important to me because I believe I have the ability to judge how much of a challenge an opponent is, and how much treasure they should have.

When I have this kind of freedom to do what I please, it is much easier to make interesting scenarios and events occur that the players are going to enjoy. Maybe I want the level 1 PCs to find a +5 Flaming Holy Greatsword and see how their group reacts to it. Maybe I want to see how they roleplay their characters in this situation.

Do they decide to let one of the PCs use it? Do they decide that because of its great power it is going to attract great evil, and thus they hide it somewhere? Maybe as soon as they get back to town they discover some famous adventurer who lost his weapon, and then they are faced with the decision of giving it back to him or not.

When there are hard rules that force a DM to stay within certain lines, it restricts creativity. The only check on a DM's power should be the player's enjoyment. If the players are having fun, then the DM must be doing something right. If the players think the game sucks, the DM might even be following ALL of the rules, but the PC still aren't having fun.

I think it is also important to note that certain words carry heavy connotations with them. Words like "Power" and "Control" immediately evoke images of a tyrranical dictator to some people, and elict "Nobody tells me what to do!" type responses.

Keep in mind that just because the DM may have the all the power and may have total control, were talking about a guy/gal that spends their time developing content for YOU. Try to cut them a little slack.

Now, if you're the type of player that looks at D&D as a set of hard and fast rules and the purpose of the game is to overcome carefully constructed challenges that are specifically fit to your groups appropriate level, then you are probably going to feel cheated when the DM changes things. Half the fun to you will be knowing the rules/boundaries and knowing how to use those rules to their fullest advantage.

Also, as a sidenote, if a DM does have to adjucate a rule or a situation, most DMs I know (myself included) tell the player BEFORE they attempt the action, what their chances are going to be, assuming it isn't something the character would have absolutely no way of knowing.

In the jumping example above, a good DM faced with that challenge would probably tell the level 2 Fighter "You're going to have a 40% chance of successfully jumping across the chasm. If you miss it by 10% or less then we'll give you a 75% chance of grabbing onto the ledge." I would agree that it would be really unfair to have a DM that doesn't give you any clue as to your chances and then just pulls the rug out from under you.

Helgraf

2007-12-12, 12:43 PM

hamstard4ever

2007-12-12, 12:53 PM

So, Hamstard4ever, I'm just stupid? Cause that's what I get from your long post there. Essentially, you're accusing me of being too stupid to recognize the wonder that is 3.x and, apparantely, too stupid to even realize what I'm saying without your kind reinterpretation.

Come now. I start to get mildly sarcastic, and suddenly my entire post is one big ad hominem attack?

I disagree with parts of your reasoning; I think it has several flaws and inconsistencies. I endeavored in my previous post to analyze some of those perceived flaws. This is how debate works. It is not a personal attack to explain why you do not agree with someone else's reasoning. If you were offended by my flippant tone, I apologize; I was attempting to lighten the mood. It seems I have miscalculated. Nonetheless your accusation is uncalled for.

And--I'm sorry, I can't help myself, I'm still in debate mode--where are you getting "the wonder that is 3.x" from my posts? I may think some of the reasons you cite for disliking 3.x are misguided, but that doesn't change the fact that there are other, quite solid reasons for disliking 3.x (some of which you've already brought up). My posts have scarcely mentioned 3.x by name without hastening to add that it is a deeply flawed system. The mere fact that I argue against a few of your points does not exactly make me a fanatic missionary on a crusade to spread the Holy Gospel Of 3.x.

But then again, I should have figured that even trying that would lead to this and figured that this thread was a mistake from the beginning. Trying to have an intelligent discussion about anything other than third edition here is pretty much fruitless.

Since you respond with such scorn to anyone who bothers to critically analyze your arguments, I wonder how exactly you hoped to have an intelligent discussion at all.

Matthew

2007-12-12, 12:56 PM

They can try a certain course of action, but they don't know anything. It's effectively like asking them to step into the magical mirror every time they make an action. They have no idea if they just killed their character or saved the world.

In some respects that might even be desirable. It's rare for us to know in real life the absolute chances of outcome x, y or z. Rather, we have an idea of what those chances may be, based on previous experience. That does create a certain level of tension in 'unknown' situations. As Tormsskull says, though, in many cases I would expect the DM to indicate beforehand what the chances are likely to be for a given action to succeed, even if only in general terms.

Oeryn

2007-12-12, 12:57 PM

2nd ed. may have been more fertile ground for good role-playing, but the mechanics were needlessly complicated. 3rd ed. cam out with a much simpler system that is easier to learn and use.

It always cracks me up that the same group of players that will scour 30+ books so they can dip into four classes, take two templates and generally take advantage of every single loophole in the game, can still complain that subtracting instead of adding after your attack roll is so incredibly complicated that it makes 2nd Edition unplayable.

I've been playin' D&D for almost 20 years, and I've taught many people to play the game. I've had many more people turned off by AoOs, Grapple rules, Iterative attacks and the like than I ever have by ThAC0.

They give us more 'it's in the rules' scenarios than we need, which make both players and DMs reluctant to try anything not covered by the rules.

I totally agree. What's more, providing a precedent (that everyone seems to be so in favor of) actually hurts the game, more often than not, in my experience. No two situations are the same, but the rules always are.

For example, say I have a small doorway, completely blocked by two dwarven defenders. Standing side by side, they're jamming two tower shields into the doorway to hold off the attackers, while their clan escapes.

Using the old system, my players would ask questions, and actually THINK about the problem. Maybe the characters would try to put their shoulders into the shields, and push past the dwarves (which involves Str checks, and situational modifiers like how well the dwarves are set for a charge). Or maybe they try to take a bench from the table behind them and use it as an impromptu battering ram (which is a different situation, and requires a different set of ad hoc modifiers). Or, they could simply hack their way through the shields, until they got through. They weren't given a set of options, and forced to pick one. Say they decide to just try and shoulder their way past 'em. I have the players roll a Str check (which is the main attribute being used), with a -4 to the roll, because the dwarves are set for a charge. One of the characters makes their roll, they're able to push into the next room, and the game continues.

With the new system, the Rogue says "I wanna Tumble through 'em." Despite the fact that there's no room above, below, or to the side. "That can't possibly work," I say, and then I get this shoved in my face.

25 Tumble at one-half speed through an area occupied by an enemy (over, under, or around the opponent) as part of normal movement, provoking no attacks of opportunity while doing so...

There are no provisions within the skill description for situational modifiers, so the player maintains that there shouldn't be anything that prevents him from diving through two shields. It's compounded by the fact that there ARE modifiers for terrain, leading players to think that's the ONLY thing that is able to influence the roll. Now, you've got half an hour of lawyering back and forth, and somebody ends up pissed off. I maintain that the rules don't encompass EVERY possible situation, and the player comes back with the argument that if it affected his ability to Tumble, then it would have been included in the rules. The game comes to a halt while we go back and forth, and when it's finally resolved, either the player is pissed because I'm "taking abilities away from his character", or I'm frustrated enough to say "Screw it, you dive through both shields even though it's impossible" just so everybody else can quit playing videogames and we can get back to the game.

Now, I don't have a problem with Tumble. If you wanna put ranks into it, I'm cool with you being able to dive around an opponent on open ground, or even in the middle of combat. My problem is that by codifying so much of the rules, you're implicitly stating that what ISN'T in the rules, shouldn't have a bearing on the game.

Inyssius Tor

2007-12-12, 12:57 PM

EDIT: Ninja'd by Hamstard4ever himself!

Come now. I start to get mildly sarcastic, and suddenly my entire post is one big ad hominem attack?

I disagree with parts of your reasoning; I think it has several flaws and inconsistencies. I endeavored in my previous post to analyze some of those perceived flaws. This is how debate works. It is not a personal attack to explain why you do not agree with someone else's reasoning. If you were offended by my flippant tone, I apologize; I was attempting to lighten the mood. It seems I have miscalculated. Nonetheless your accusation is uncalled for.

And--I'm sorry, I can't help myself, I'm still in debate mode--where are you getting "the wonder that is 3.x" from my posts? I may think some of the reasons you cite for disliking 3.x are misguided, but that doesn't change the fact that there are other, quite solid reasons for disliking 3.x (some of which you've already brought up). My posts have scarcely mentioned 3.x by name without hastening to add that it is a deeply flawed system. The mere fact that I argue against a few of your points does not exactly make me a fanatic missionary on a crusade to spread the Holy Gospel Of 3.x.

Since you respond with such scorn to anyone who bothers to critically analyze your arguments, I wonder how exactly you hoped to have an intelligent discussion at all.

Matthew

2007-12-12, 01:13 PM

*stuff*

I can certainly sympathise with this view, though I think it's important to recognise that D20 does provide for these other options in the same way that previous editions did (Circumstance Modifiers, Attribute Checks), the emphasis just isn't there. Mind you, it's not really there in 2e either, you were often left to figure it out for yourself. In many ways 2e and 3e are mirrors on thsi point. Learning to go beyond the boundaries of the written rules is not for everyone.

Oeryn

2007-12-12, 01:33 PM

I can certainly sympathise with this view, though I think it's important to recognise that D20 does provide for these other options in the same way that previous editions did (Circumstance Modifiers, Attribute Checks), the emphasis just isn't there. Mind you, it's not really there in 2e either, you were often left to figure it out for yourself. In many ways 2e and 3e are mirrors on thsi point. Learning to go beyond the boundaries of the written rules is not for everyone.

I agree that it's possible for that stuff to be added in. It just seems that with so many of the options laid out, the ones that are harder to find get brushed aside.

I guess the most basic version of my point is that a simple system (most relevant Ability check, plus situational modifiers) is a easy way to resolve the vast majority of situations. The more rules, examples and precedents you include, the more there is to argue about.

Tormsskull

2007-12-12, 01:35 PM

Learning to go beyond the boundaries of the written rules is not for everyone.

There is a very significant difference between going beyond the boundaries of the written rules, and applying common sense/situational conditions to an event, though.

I think it really all comes down to HOW people read/interpret the rules. This seems to come up quite often in discussions on the boards, but some people believe that only the mechanics matter, and the descriptions are only flavor text. Others believe the descriptions are the most important and the mechanics are designed to reflect the descriptions.

For example, if a spell was called "Demonic Darkness of Evil Thoughts and Actions" and its description was "You call upon the most foul of evil energies and use them to corrupt your target, inflicting them with inordinate amounts of pain and torture" and then the mechanics read: Range Medium, level d 6 damage.

Now, I myself would call that an evil spell, I might even go so far *gasp* as say that if a good character used the spell, they were tainting themself. Other people would say that since the spell is not specifically tagged (Evil) or doesn't include any kind of mechanical effect that says "Good characters risk changing to a neutral or evil alignment if they use this spell" that the DM should not be able to apply that kind of an effect.

The description of the skill Tumble (going off of memory here) implies to me that the user is nimbly jumping around on the ground, moving too and fro like an acrobat. If there is absolutely no room for the character to physically fit through in the opening, I don't think that even a 137 Tumble check is going to allow the character to Tumble through the opening.

Other people would say that I am applying my own beliefs/thoughts/interpretations to the rules, and that if the designers had intended to make it a requirement that there be a certain amount of available space to be able to Tumble through, that they would have specificially mentioned it.

Matthew

2007-12-12, 02:14 PM

I agree that it's possible for that stuff to be added in. It just seems that with so many of the options laid out, the ones that are harder to find get brushed aside.

I guess the most basic version of my point is that a simple system (most relevant Ability check, plus situational modifiers) is a easy way to resolve the vast majority of situations. The more rules, examples and precedents you include, the more there is to argue about.

Sure, I entirely agree, but it's easy to go too far and say the D20 system is incapable of supporting the same things as its predecessors. My point was really that if it takes a skilled DM to run AD&D well (as many contest), it takes an equally or more skilled DM to run D20 at the same level.

Perhaps it would be fair to say that the lower end of the learning curve isn't as steep for D20, but the high end is perhaps slightly steeper because of it.

*stuff*

Ah yes, you're talking about that arch enemy of skill based RPG systems 'the impossible task'. Yeah, a major problem with fixed DCs, very swift scaling Bonuses and a random variable of 1-20 is that it quickly degenerates into an arms race. The 5% increment 'stacking' system is a major flaw in D20, perhaps *the* major flaw of the system, which is ironic considering it is also its fundamental strength. What it can appear to fail to leave room for is the impossible task; it has no DC because it's impossible, as opposed to just having a really high DC.

The problem, in my opinion, is that they modelled everything after combat and then widened the caps. Combat works because it is built on a two stage variable 'to hit' + 'Damage'. Skills suffer because they are built on a one stage variable 'to hit'. When you release the caps, you open the system to a huge degree of variation.

As far as description and mechanics go, I am very much of the view that the mechanics serve the description and both serve the game. Easy to lose sight of in D20 where for many people the mechanics seem to become the game. No doubt, this is just a perception created by RAW forum discussions.

hamstard4ever

2007-12-12, 02:23 PM

With the new system, the Rogue says "I wanna Tumble through 'em." Despite the fact that there's no room above, below, or to the side. "That can't possibly work," I say, and then I get this shoved in my face.

I'm not sure it's entirely fair to pin the blame on the rules here, considering that this rogue is explicitly ignoring one of the provisions of the rule he's citing (that this usage of tumble allows you to go over, under, or around an opponent; phasing through solid matter is implicitly disallowed). The fact that there are enemies on the other side of a solid closed door holding it closed does not allow you to use Tumble to teleport through; if two dwarves are using their tower shields as an improvised door, it is ludicrous to suggest that Tumble can somehow get through the barricade.

It's not the rules' fault if the player is being a moron (doubly a moron, in fact--first for contesting the idea of imposing circumstance modifiers for exceptional situations, and again for trying to contest circumstance modifiers on the basis of a rule that doesn't support him in the first place). Now, you may argue that 2e is preferable because it doesn't attract as many jerks of this type, but it can also scare off more reasonable players who simply like to have a better idea of where they stand.

Matthew

2007-12-12, 02:36 PM

Well, whether or not the example is wrong, the idea is valid. It's not that the rules themselves are the problem, but the attitude that they have the potential to foster. Of course, this is not a problem for everyone and its not limited to D20.

Amusingly enough, even when playing 3e, it's rare for any of my players to take an interest in the rules of the game. Occasionally they might contest something, but for the most part they simply let me handle virtually all the mechanics whilst they enjoy the game.

Kaelik

2007-12-12, 02:57 PM

@TORMSKULL

Please read this too: I don't want to quote your text too:

In some respects that might even be desirable. It's rare for us to know in real life the absolute chances of outcome x, y or z. Rather, we have an idea of what those chances may be, based on previous experience. That does create a certain level of tension in 'unknown' situations. As Tormsskull says, though, in many cases I would expect the DM to indicate beforehand what the chances are likely to be for a given action to succeed, even if only in general terms.

Yes a DM can (though not all do) indicate chances of success beforehand, but that doesn't help players in the future. In the real world, I know I can jump X distance. I know just from looking what I am likely to reach or not reach. I know generally what I am capable of. Players don't have that option if there are no rules other then made up percentage chances.

And much worse then that. It is impossible to make a character good at X if there are no rules for it. If every jump is a percentage chance, then the player can't be better at it, ever. And you can say "DM governs progress" but this again presents the same problem of you determining their character progression. There have to be rules for something in order for Players to be good at it. In 3.5 I can make a character good at jumping. In 2nd Ed I can't.

And Tormskull, you say that you like having control because you think it's more fun for everyone. What I am saying is that of course the DM always thinks that. Sometimes he's right, but most of the time he's wrong. Most of the time the Players want to have control over more things.

Jerthanis

2007-12-12, 03:03 PM

I agree with what Kaelik posted. If there are rules in place to cover a situation, then use them. The players have the right to expect that an action they decide to take will play out as it's written in the rules, rather than as the GM arbitrarily decides to rule with an on the spot fiat.
***
Again, agreed. If the action the player takes is a little used part of the rules, this is the opportunity to become familiar with those rules. In my own group I've suggested that people who choose to use maneuvers which they are unfamiliar with open their PHB to the section which covers that maneuver, so that both they and the GM can more quickly resolve the action. It works well, and we all learn the game a bit better each time.

This I both agree with and disagree with. DMs should adhere to the rules as written unless they make very clear and public that he or she is using a house rule. However, during a session, DM's word is law, and the players must trust their DM to use that power to make the game fun and interesting. Looking up every rule as it becomes important can be time consuming, and distracting for everyone involved. The DM is there to arbitrate this, and make play go smooth and fast... so if the DM says, "I think Bless stacks with Bard song, go ahead and cast that", no one should say, "No, I think they're both morale bonuses, here, let me look them up...", that's being a detriment to the game. Similarly, if the DM says, "Prayer is just like Bless, it won't stack with Bard song" a player should also not say "No, Prayer is a luck bonus, let me show you..." but should say, "Okay, then I cast Cure Serious instead"

After the action is resolved, look it up while the spotlight isn't on you, put some notes down and show the DM that the rules say different. The DM will appreciate your discretion, and the session will go better for it.

There are, however, some gross misinterpretations of rules that a DM does need immediate correction on. I ran a game a while back where someone cast "Stinking Cloud", and I was like, "Okay, they fail their saves and are sickened, taking -2 to all rolls" and the caster issued a correction, that Nausea was different from Sickness, and was a much more serious affliction. The correction had a huge impact on the battle, and in that case, my ruling would've been a bad one.

Still, trust a DM to make fair judgements. Rules Lawyering during a session is one of the more disruptive things you can do.

hamstard4ever

2007-12-12, 03:08 PM

Well, whether or not the example is wrong, the idea is valid. It's not that the rules themselves are the problem, but the attitude that they have the potential to foster.

Well, sure. My point is simply to illustrate that the rules themselves can be part of the solution to the problem, if they're well-written and consistent (which is not necessarily always the case, alas).

Kaelik

2007-12-12, 03:36 PM

so if the DM says, "I think Bless stacks with Bard song, go ahead and cast that", no one should say, "No, I think they're both morale bonuses, here, let me look them up..."

But what if you do not need to look it up. What if you know the answer. This is the case all the time when I don't DM. At different times, several of the people in our group DM. One trusts me implicitly, even asking me instead of looking things up when he is unsure. Another will usually trust me for the moment unless they really disagree. But one player always disagrees when I correct him on something, and he makes a huge deal about it being done his way, this despite the fact that most every time when the information comes out I am proved correct.

I recognize these situations and that is the reason I am very open to Player corrections when I DM, especially since there are some things (Rangers) that I know relatively little about and the players (because it is their character and directly effects them) know every little detail of.

Matthew

2007-12-12, 03:38 PM

Yes a DM can (though not all do) indicate chances of success beforehand, but that doesn't help players in the future. In the real world, I know I can jump X distance. I know just from looking what I am likely to reach or not reach. I know generally what I am capable of. Players don't have that option if there are no rules other then made up percentage chances.

You're assuming that the chance is plucked completely out of thin air here. It does help the players to know in the future if the DM is being consistant (and he should be). If he's not being consistant, then that's a problem.

And much worse then that. It is impossible to make a character good at X if there are no rules for it. If every jump is a percentage chance, then the player can't be better at it, ever. And you can say "DM governs progress" but this again presents the same problem of you determining their character progression. There have to be rules for something in order for Players to be good at it. In 3.5 I can make a character good at jumping. In 2nd Ed I can't.

Well, first of all this is wrong. In 2e you certainly could get better at jumping if you were using the proficiency system. You couldn't, however, become 200% better than you were at Level 1. To me, it is entirely undesirable to have the sort of character progression that 3e facilitates. As I said above, though, even if you aren't using the jumping proficiency, the DM may take into account Strength, Size, Class and Level. If you are not using the proficiency system, you cannot develop a jumping proficiency, that stands to reason. On the other hand, the DM may allow for it by virtue of saying "+5% to all future jump attempts, note it on your character sheet". You can occasionally see this sort of thing in modules and such.

And Tormskull, you say that you like having control because you think it's more fun for everyone. What I am saying is that of course the DM always thinks that. Sometimes he's right, but most of the time he's wrong. Most of the time the Players want to have control over more things.

This is a completely subjective statement.

hamlet

2007-12-12, 03:39 PM

Come now. I start to get mildly sarcastic, and suddenly my entire post is one big ad hominem attack?

I disagree with parts of your reasoning; I think it has several flaws and inconsistencies. I endeavored in my previous post to analyze some of those perceived flaws. This is how debate works. It is not a personal attack to explain why you do not agree with someone else's reasoning. If you were offended by my flippant tone, I apologize; I was attempting to lighten the mood. It seems I have miscalculated. Nonetheless your accusation is uncalled for.

And--I'm sorry, I can't help myself, I'm still in debate mode--where are you getting "the wonder that is 3.x" from my posts? I may think some of the reasons you cite for disliking 3.x are misguided, but that doesn't change the fact that there are other, quite solid reasons for disliking 3.x (some of which you've already brought up). My posts have scarcely mentioned 3.x by name without hastening to add that it is a deeply flawed system. The mere fact that I argue against a few of your points does not exactly make me a fanatic missionary on a crusade to spread the Holy Gospel Of 3.x.

Since you respond with such scorn to anyone who bothers to critically analyze your arguments, I wonder how exactly you hoped to have an intelligent discussion at all.

Forgive me for being cranky, but I spend 12 hours a day with people who use "flippancy" as a very thin veil for rudeness and sometimes flat out hostility. It's not easy separating them out, especially when posting at work (the only time, ironically, when I have time to post).

No, I don't think that you were engaging in ad hominem, but I do believe that your sarcasm and flippancy were unneccessary and condescending. Not to mention that your counter arguments 1) addressed straw men and 2) addressed an issue I wasn't talking about. I'm not talking about how one is better than the other, I'm merely comparing them. Putting them side by side.

THIS WASN'T A BLOODY DEBATE FOR ME!

I just wanted to see people critically approach their own preconceptions.

Kaelik

2007-12-12, 03:55 PM

Well, first of all this is wrong. In 2e you certainly could get better at jumping if you were using the proficiency system. You couldn't, however, become 200% better than you were a Level 1. To me, it is entirely undesirable to have the sort of character progression that 3e facilitates. As I said above, though, even if you aren't using the jumping proficiency, the DM may take into account Strength, Size, Class and Level. If you are not using the proficiency system, you cannot develop a jumping proficiency, that stands to reason. On the other hand, the DM may allow for it by virtue of saying "+5% to all future jump attempts, note it on your character sheet". You can occasionally see this in modules and such.

First of all, I'm not familiar with every aspect of 2nd ed.
Secondly, I thought obscure splatbook options where the problem not the solution.
Thirdly, note that this takes power out of the hands of the DM, and gives the Players more control over their options, this is exactly what I am arguing should be. If you want to debate the specifics of what set of fully fleshed out rules best represents jumping, go ahead. But my argument has never been that 3rd Ed has the best rules, only that having more rules for more actions (and ways to improve on those actions) that the players can understand, can count on, and use, is exactly why 3rd Ed is better to some people.

This is a completely subjective statement.

Yes it is.

Ulzgoroth

2007-12-12, 04:01 PM

THIS WASN'T A BLOODY DEBATE FOR ME!

I just wanted to see people critically approach their own preconceptions.
Ok, at this point there's a strongly implied 'other people', which makes this a whole lot less interesting. It's not nice to come into a discussion with the perspective that no one can argue with you. :smallmad:

No, I'm not talking about the quantity of choices at this point, merely that because of the integral metagame that is inseperable from the system (that some choices actually hamper your character despite their being good role playing choices and the rewards handed to those who spend time optimizing and lack of penalties for optimizing) that the fundmental nature of characters have changed between the editions.
Now, this might be interesting, if you could explain how it changed (yes, comparison. Without it, there really isn't any meaning to the claim). In what way did second edition prevent your choices from hampering your character? How has the 'metagame' (I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I don't think it's what I would) become less separated from the system?

I'm not going to entertain the suggestion that, given any choice with mechanical impact, all options were equally good. That would be the holy grail of balancing...and completely unbelievable. Especially when it gets blurred by lack of an agreed-upon set of priorities to evaluate against.

Matthew

2007-12-12, 04:08 PM

First of all, I'm not familiar with every aspect of 2nd ed.

Well then, you might want to be careful what you say about it.

Secondly, I thought obscure splatbook options where the problem not the solution.

The proficiency system was a widely used Optional Chapter presented in the 2e PHB and discussed in the 2e DMG. It's hardly obscure or from a 'splat' book. Attribute Checks were one of the other options (which were basically simpler Proficiency Checks).

Thirdly, note that this takes power out of the hands of the DM, and gives the Players more control over their options, this is exactly what I am arguing should be. If you want to debate the specifics of what set of fully fleshed out rules best represents jumping, go ahead. But my argument has never been that 3rd Ed has the best rules, only that having more rules for more actions (and ways to improve on those actions) that the players can understand, can count on, and use, is exactly why 3rd Ed is better to some people.

Indeed, it presents more specific rules and circumstances, but it doesn't give the players more control, only the illusion of control. The DM scales his encounters with the abilities of the player characters in mind (or he should, so I'm told), so all you are actually doing is playing around with the numbers. The chances of success and failure remain broadly the same.

Don't get me wrong, I perfectly understand that this is viewed by many people, perhaps even the majority of gamers, as a good thing. D20 was in many ways a natural response to what was thought to be lacking from the more nebulous and incomplete previous editions. However, a considerable number of people seem to find D20 too 'rules heavy' by comparison and I can understand why.

Preference is the crux of the problem. Some people want D&D to be X and other people want it to be Y. Personally, I couldn't care less, there are a wide variety of RPGs to choose from, but since D&D has by far the largest audience, many of whom know very little outside of D20, it pays to be very clear about the problems that exist, why they exist and the potential solutions for a variety of preferences.

Now, this might be interesting, if you could explain how it changed (yes, comparison. Without it, there really isn't any meaning to the claim). In what way did second edition prevent your choices from hampering your character? How has the 'metagame' (I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I don't think it's what I would) become less separated from the system?

I'm not going to entertain the suggestion that, given any choice with mechanical impact, all options were equally good. That would be the holy grail of balancing...and completely unbelievable. Especially when it gets blurred by lack of an agreed-upon set of priorities to evaluate against.

At its most basic, 2e gave you no character development choices beyond Race, Class and Alignment (though 2e Thieves, unlike 1e Thieves, could delegate their Thief Ability Points). Everything else was set and all other choices occurred in game world. The more optional rules and expansion books you used the more choices were available for character development, but they had little impact on character power (with several notable and infamous exceptions).

Counterspin

2007-12-12, 04:09 PM

I just don't understand why people think that one system fosters roleplaying better than another. I think the whole idea is laughable. The depth of your characters is not determined by their mechanical borders, but by the time you take to flesh them out into a believable being.

Kaelik

2007-12-12, 04:53 PM

Well then, you might want to be careful what you say about it.

The proficiency system was a widely used Optional Chapter presented in the 2e PHB and discussed in the 2e DMG. It's hardly obscure or from a 'splat' book. Attribute Checks were one of the other options (which were basically simpler Proficiency Checks).

Splatbook or not, 2nd Ed or not, what I am talking about (because I don't have a strong opinion about 2nd ed, having very little experience with it) is the difference between players having choices to build different characters, and codified rules to judge their actions based off of. If that's what makes 3rd EVIL then 2nd being like that too isn't a good argument for why it is better.

But Tormskull has said he wants control, I have said that Players want control based of constant rules and the ability to make themselves better at the things they want to do. If there are no codified rules, players are less happy, if there are no codified rules DMs are happier. This has nothing to do with what level of codified rules exist in any particular RPG.

Oeryn

2007-12-12, 05:07 PM

If there are no codified rules, players are less happy, if there are no codified rules DMs are happier. This has nothing to do with what level of codified rules exist in any particular RPG.

I don't grant the premise, on that one.

I've known plenty of players unhappy with the sheer amount of rules in several different systems. That doesn't even count the people who enjoy freeform games.

Stephen_E

2007-12-12, 05:11 PM

THIS WASN'T A BLOODY DEBATE FOR ME!

Then what is it? A missonary crusade to enlighten the ignorant?

I just wanted to see people critically approach their own preconceptions.

To be frank it might help if you did that yourself. I haven't added to this debate because my look at your opening posts convinced me that you were basically stating a bunch of preconceptions of yours about why 3.X was bad and trying to get people to answer in a form that accepted your preconceptions as correct.

Simplified Analogy: If you'd stated all clothing is black or white, and then asked questions regarding our wearing of black/white clothing.

Stephen

hamstard4ever

2007-12-12, 05:13 PM

Forgive me for being cranky, but I spend 12 hours a day with people who use "flippancy" as a very thin veil for rudeness and sometimes flat out hostility.

If I may be so bold to say so, I think you may be stuck in the wrong line of work (in which case I can certainly sympathize).

I just wanted to see people critically approach their own preconceptions.

Is it unfair that we're interested in seeing how you critically approach your own preconceptions as well?

You have complained about 3.x's attempts to establish standards for gauging common ability-based checks; you feel that they are harmful for cooperative game-building. But you also acknowledge that the relatively stricter and sparser standards 2e uses for character and class abilities are a positive boon for cooperative team-building. 2e has standardized characters, 3.x has standardized actions. Both of these things are potential advantages of their respective systems, in that they each represent common ground that everyone understands, but they also have their drawbacks as well. I would be interested on your thoughts as to why you think standardization is preferable in one case but not the other.

For my part, I believe a happy medium exists. I like having detailed specifications of standards to work with precisely because they provide a convenient framework for customization. I like the example task DC guidelines established in the core rulebooks because they provide a starting point that everyone understands. To my way of thinking, applying circumstance modifiers to suggested DCs is much more transparent and less arbitrary (not to mention simply easier) than simply inventing target numbers on the fly. Yes, everyone has stories of players who keep objecting to ad hoc rulings on their skill check on the basis that it's not listed in the rules table, but generally someone who's inclined to argue against ad hoc modifiers in 3.x is probably going to argue against ad hoc decisions in 2e as well. If someone does not like arbitrary decisions from the DM, then turning all adjudication into wholly arbitrary DM fiat is not going to make them feel any better! (Although it might run them out of your gaming group, which may be an acceptable if not necessarily ideal solution in the case of particularly obstinant players.)

Similarly, I like the "class + feats" model of 3.x quite a lot for this reason (yes, I realize that similar concepts were floated in earlier editions as well, with proficiencies and character kits). Theoretically it gives you a flexible, modular character creation system; you have your basic class abilities that everyone gets and everyone understands, and you have a handful of discrete extensions to those abilities. The system fails in that most individual feats are very poorly designed: there are many feats that are acceptable at improving your character's class abilities, but very few feats that are viable at expanding your character's abilities. This leads to the multiclassing mentality--since feats cannot meaningfully expand your character's abilities, if you want your fighter to have any skills outside the standard fighter package the only viable option is to multiclass. This is hardly all that terrible, but certainly it lacks elegance compared to the simpler conceptual idea of "class + feats".

Matthew

2007-12-12, 05:19 PM

Splatbook or not, 2nd Ed or not, what I am talking about (because I don't have a strong opinion about 2nd ed, having very little experience with it) is the difference between players having choices to build different characters, and codified rules to judge their actions based off of. If that's what makes 3rd EVIL then 2nd being like that too isn't a good argument for why it is better.

I never said it was, I said that you made an incorrect statement. However, the Proficiency Advancement System worked very differently from the 3e Skill System, in that the degree of progress was very small and the character resources invested were almost none existant. I have no particularly strong feelings about D20 either. I'm familiar with the system and I play it on and off. I'm aware of its limitations, as I am with 2e. It's really no big deal.

There are plenty of things about 2e that I prefer over D20 and a number of things about D20 that I like. Characterising one over the other as EVIL is just silly. They suit different preferences. Some people like 'building' characters that interact in specific ways with mechanics. That's not true of everyone, and there are other options for them.

But Tormskull has said he wants control, I have said that Players want control based of constant rules and the ability to make themselves better at the things they want to do. If there are no codified rules, players are less happy, if there are no codified rules DMs are happier. This has nothing to do with what level of codified rules exist in any particular RPG.

Honestly, though, you don't sound too familiar with how 2e works or the principle attractions of lighter rules systems. Saying 'players like this' is also just plain pointless. Some players like x and some players like y, that's just the way it is.

For my part, I believe a happy medium exists. I like having detailed specifications of standards to work with precisely because they provide a convenient framework for customization. I like the example task DC guidelines established in the core rulebooks because they provide a starting point that everyone understands. To my way of thinking, applying circumstance modifiers to suggested DCs is much more transparent and less arbitrary (not to mention simply easier) than simply inventing target numbers on the fly. Yes, everyone has stories of players who keep objecting to ad hoc rulings on their skill check on the basis that it's not listed in the rules table, but generally someone who's inclined to argue against ad hoc modifiers in 3.x is probably going to argue against ad hoc decisions in 2e as well. If someone does not like arbitrary decisions from the DM, then turning all adjudication into wholly arbitrary DM fiat is not going to make them feel any better! (Although it might run them out of your gaming group, which may be an acceptable if not necessarily ideal solution in the case of particularly obstinant players.)

How is this significantly different from 2e, though? As far as I can see the key difference is saying 10 is average, 15 is tough and 20 is challenging, instead of allowing the DM to decide what percentage chance he considers to be average, tough and challenging. Where the two systems diverge is in the proportional increase of skill between levels.

hamstard4ever

2007-12-12, 05:39 PM

I've known plenty of players unhappy with the sheer amount of rules in several different systems. That doesn't even count the people who enjoy freeform games.

And yet I've seen plenty of players who've said they prefered 3.x to older editions because of similar reasons, too. I think these people might be somewhat misguided in thinking that, but the point is that even when people talk about systems being too "rules-heavy" they're referring to a matter of quality just as much as they are a matter of quantity. A system with streamlined, self-consistent rules can get away with cramming a lot more in than one that consists of a codified set of ad hoc rules.

(Which is one of the things that leaves me wary about the approach of 4e, incidentally; 3e attempted to establish more rigorous standards for many more individual situations than 2e did, but it generally aspired to create through these standards a broader framework that could be tweaked and added on to as needed. 4e still seems to be written with the approach of standardized rules for standard situations, without as much emphasis on the framework linking them.)

Ulzgoroth

2007-12-12, 06:01 PM

I've known plenty of players unhappy with the sheer amount of rules in several different systems. That doesn't even count the people who enjoy freeform games.
Freeform games don't really count. In a freeform game, the lack of rules means that players can do whatever they want, without threat of contradiction. Thus they have more control (except in the generally stressful case of other players impinging on their character) than in any ruled system. The missing rules in D&D aren't places where the player can dictate outcomes freely. They're places where the player becomes completely at the mercy of the DM, with only whatever guidelines they happen to be offered.

As for 'rules light', that tends to mean, from what I've read, having very simple rules for any situation that demands resolution, not from leaving it up to some arbitrator's whim. Having a rule for every situation doesn't make rules heavy, having a different rule does.

Oeryn

2007-12-12, 06:08 PM

And yet I've seen plenty of players who've said they prefered 3.x to older editions because of similar reasons, too.

There's no denying that. I'm just sayin' you can't say "Players like more rules, DMs like less." It's a matter of individual preference. Not to mention I've been both a player and a DM, in 2E and 3E. And whether I was playin' or DMing, my opinion didn't change. :smalltongue:

I think these people might be somewhat misguided in thinking that, but the point is that even when people talk about systems being too "rules-heavy" they're referring to a matter of quality just as much as they are a matter of quantity. A system with streamlined, self-consistent rules can get away with cramming a lot more in than one that consists of a codified set of ad hoc rules.

Again, I think you're over-generalizing. Sure, there are some games that have many, many very bad rules. But I don't think that's what we're talking about, here (I could be wrong).

I'm not sayin' all the rules of 3.X are bad. Some of them, I like very much. Others, I like as far as they go, but I don't think they cover enough. I just think that the more specific rules you put in place, the more people think that they are restricted to ONLY those options. Which is stifling creativity, in my opinion (and the opinion of some of the other posters, if I'm not mistaken). That's pretty much it, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not against 3.X, and I'm not against standardized rules. I just think there's a place for a simple set of rules, that doesn't make people think (on purpose or not) that those are the only options available to them.

Matthew

2007-12-12, 06:09 PM

As for 'rules light', that tends to mean, from what I've read, having very simple rules for any situation that demands resolution, not from leaving it up to some arbitrator's whim. Having a rule for every situation doesn't make rules heavy, having a different rule does.

There was a very simple rule for the most basic play, it was roll under one of the following Attributes... which was modified by the DM for circumstances. Many people didn't like that rule, mind.

greenknight

2007-12-12, 06:11 PM

Fact: D&D 3.x is published by a company which wishes to release as many books as it can, in order to make money.

FACT: That approach has been proven not to work - unless it also grows the base market. I think WotC know that, since that's why AD&D failed financially.

Do you not think that all the excessive variety you complain about would have existed in AD&D if it was published by WOTC? It's how they do things. It's not inherent to the system, and debating specifics from mechanical examples is meaningless. It would be easy to add more stuff to AD&D, just as it was easy to add more stuff to D&D 3.x.

Wow, you obviously have no grasp at all of the history of the game. Here's (http://au.pc.gamespy.com/articles/539/539628p1.html) some reading for you, and it's a pretty good article for anyone interested in "edition wars" or running a gaming company (as in, learning from someone else's mistakes).

Ulzgoroth

2007-12-12, 06:31 PM

There was a very simple rule for the most basic play, it was roll under one of the following Attributes... which was modified by the DM for circumstances. Many people didn't like that rule, mind.
A rule which amounts to 'you pass with odds chosen by the DM' is not really a rule. What you describe is stronger only in that it might provide that different people get chances according to their ability scores. But it might not, since the DM can also decide there are circumstances relating to their personal proficiency.

A rule doesn't mean anything from the player's perspective unless it has predictive power. "Ask the DM" could perhaps be considered a rule, but it's a lot harder to use it.

Oeryn

2007-12-12, 06:35 PM

A rule which amounts to 'you pass with odds chosen by the DM' is not really a rule.... ...A rule doesn't mean anything from the player's perspective unless it has predictive power. "Ask the DM" could perhaps be considered a rule, but it's a lot harder to use it.

That's not how it worked. It wasn't the DM sayin' "Oh, I like you, I think I'll give you an 80% chance to pull that off." The player arranged his scores how he or she wanted them, and played to their strengths, when it was possible. So, a Fighter with a high Str score could reasonably assume to do well on the majority of his Str-related activities. The DM adjusted for the situation, which is more "adjusting" the odds, rather then just randomly choosing them.

Tormsskull

2007-12-12, 06:41 PM

@TORMSKULL

Please read this too: I don't want to quote your text too:

I read everything that everyone posts in threads that I get into detailed discussions in (unless they make stupid comments like "OK, I haven't read any of the thread but I just wanted to say: blah blah blah"). As a matter of fact, you are one of the posters that I know usually is on the opposite side of the fence when we get into these kind of discussions from myself but that has the capability of making very good points.

Yes a DM can (though not all do) indicate chances of success beforehand, but that doesn't help players in the future. In the real world, I know I can jump X distance. I know just from looking what I am likely to reach or not reach. I know generally what I am capable of. Players don't have that option if there are no rules other then made up percentage chances.

As I said above, any DM that plays "Gotcha" with his arbitration power isn't being a very good DM. Players should know generally what their chances are on a particular event. Also, if there were no mechanical way for a character to be better at something but they wanted to be, the DM could always make up either a new skill or feat or special ability or what have you.

Take for example one of my former players. He was a monk, and his RP was that of a scholarly type character. He really wanted his character to be able to use scrolls because he liked the concept of a monk type character that poured over tomes and books and such.

He didn't really want his character to be able to use other magical devices, as he didn't think it fit his character. I told him he could take UMD (Scrolls Only) and consider it a class skill for him due to its limited usage. None of the other players complained (I usually have a really cool group of players), but if one of them had and said it was unfair that I was bending the rules, blah blah blah, I probably would have told them to shove it because I think that I have a pretty good handle on the ruleset, I don't think the exception I made for him would destroy the balance of the game at all, and I want to encourage players to make flavorful characters.

And Tormskull, you say that you like having control because you think it's more fun for everyone. What I am saying is that of course the DM always thinks that. Sometimes he's right, but most of the time he's wrong. Most of the time the Players want to have control over more things.

Well, we can all only speak from our experience, but in mine, the players actually disliked the fact that they were responsible for their control at times. By that I mean that if there is a printed skill/feat/class/ability/spell that does something in particular, I'm VERY hesitant to allow someone that doesn't have that appropriate item to do the action. Take Power Attack for example. In one of my past campaigns a player asked if they could try to put more strength into an attack and take a penalty on their AC for leaving themself wide open.

I told them that there was a feat that allowed you to subtract to hit for damage, but not one for AC. They then asked if they could do that. I had to tell them no because they didn't have the Power Attack feat.

Because there is a way for the player to be able to do what he wanted (power attack), I'd be screwing the other players that DID take Power Attack if I allowed this player to use it without having spent the feat. However, if there is no mechanic that does this, I'm free to make up my own rule which allows the PC to do what he wants but still remains balanced.

I think sometimes the players get too caught up in the mechanical options they have, treating them like their weapons against the DM's creations. But DMs usually know everything. They know each and every characters strengths and weakness', they know exactly what opponents are going to show up, they know EVERYTHING. Players aren't going to pull out a secret card to beat the DM. And frankly, those few players that treat the game that way are not playing the game in the way that I (and my players) like to play it.

Matthew

2007-12-12, 06:44 PM

A rule which amounts to 'you pass with odds chosen by the DM' is not really a rule. What you describe is stronger only in that it might provide that different people get chances according to their ability scores. But it might not, since the DM can also decide there are circumstances relating to their personal proficiency.

A rule doesn't mean anything from the player's perspective unless it has predictive power. "Ask the DM" could perhaps be considered a rule, but it's a lot harder to use it.

That's not how it worked. It wasn't the DM sayin' "Oh, I like you, I think I'll give you an 80% chance to pull that off." The player arranged his scores how he or she wanted them, and played to their strengths, when it was possible. So, a Fighter with a high Str score could reasonably assume to do well on the majority of his Str-related activities. The DM adjusted for the situation, which is more "adjusting" the odds, rather then just randomly choosing them.

Indeed, as Oeryn says, it was literally the same thing as adding circumstance modifiers. I fail to see how it's 'not a rule' or really very much different from 3e at all, which also uses Attribute Checks for every task, but slightly differently:

3e:
1D20 + Attribute Modifier + Skill Ranks (if applicable) + Other Modifiers = DC X

2e
1D20 + Attribute + Other Modifiers = DC 21

So for, instance, an average task with an average Attribute (say 10 or 11) would work out as follows:

3e:
1D20 + Attribute Modifier (0) = DC 10 = 50% chance

2e
1D20 + Attribute (10/11) = DC 21 = 45/50% chance = Roll under Attribute

If it was 5% harder it would work out as:

3e:
1D20 + Attribute Modifier (0) = DC 11 = 45% chance

2e
1D20 + Attribute (10/11) = DC 22 = 40/45% chance = Roll under Attribute -1

Ulzgoroth

2007-12-12, 06:56 PM

The difference there is that 'other modifiers' in 3.x are, to a large degree, either specified by the skill or at least suggested. If the DM is throwing arbitrary circumstance modifiers on, then they become the same thing. But 3.x doesn't encourage just throwing those down all over the place. Sticking on a + or - 2 for some specific reason seems to be the PHB position.

Other modifiers in 2e, to my limited understanding, were whatever the DM made up. Were there in fact guidelines? Were there pages and tables of reference points on how hard different things should be?

Matthew

2007-12-12, 06:59 PM

There was a short list of things you might consider, yes. The same as there are for Circumstance Modifiers in 3e. That's almost exactly the same as the 3e Attribute Check. I fail to see how that makes it 'not a rule'.

Actually, in case you are not familiar with the 3e Attribute Check, here it is:

Ability Checks
Sometimes a character tries to do something to which no specific skill really applies. In these cases, you make an ability check. An ability check is a roll of 1d20 plus the appropriate ability modifier. Essentially, you’re making an untrained skill check.

In some cases, an action is a straight test of one’s ability with no luck involved. Just as you wouldn’t make a height check to see who is taller, you don’t make a Strength check to see who is stronger.

Stephen_E

2007-12-12, 07:11 PM

Matthew

2007-12-12, 07:14 PM

Perhaps, indeed. :smallbiggrin:

Kaelik

2007-12-12, 07:37 PM

I read everything that everyone posts in threads that I get into detailed discussions in (unless they make stupid comments like "OK, I haven't read any of the thread but I just wanted to say: blah blah blah"). As a matter of fact, you are one of the posters that I know usually is on the opposite side of the fence when we get into these kind of discussions from myself but that has the capability of making very good points.

I do too, I just wanted to make sure you read it because I selfishly did not want to quote respond to your post (I had finals to worry about) but still wanted to continue the discussion.

And thank you, I would say the same about you, except that I can only think of two times that I've noticed us on opposite sides including this one, and the more we talk about this one, the less I think it counts.

Also, if there were no mechanical way for a character to be better at something but they wanted to be, the DM could always make up either a new skill or feat or special ability or what have you.

Ah, but that would be 3.5 (or apparently certain parts of 2nd.) My whole point is that such a system of actual rules provides the players with options and still gives the DM room to create (feats/skills/classes) whereas a system that involves DMs making it as it comes up limits the players abilities to predict, plan, or act because they lack a consistent known ruleset.

Well, we can all only speak from our experience, but in mine, the players actually disliked the fact that they were responsible for their control at times. By that I mean that if there is a printed skill/feat/class/ability/spell that does something in particular, I'm VERY hesitant to allow someone that doesn't have that appropriate item to do the action. Take Power Attack for example. In one of my past campaigns a player asked if they could try to put more strength into an attack and take a penalty on their AC for leaving themself wide open.

I have no doubt that certain players like different things, and while I quite often speak in absolute terms I do actually recognize that there are many exceptions. My point was to show the original poster that systematic implementation of rules can lead to better and more choices for the players thanks to there understanding of the system, as opposed to a system made entirely of on the fly judgments, as he posited was better. I only intended to show him the hidden player perspective that it is quite often possible to lose as the DM. When making up the rules, it is sometimes easy to forget that made up rules don't always seem like improvements over no rules at all.

Certainly I recognize that a great deal of preference plays into these choices, and despite my counter arguments aimed at those asserting 2nd editions superiority (mostly just the OP) I don't claim that 3.5 is inherently better then 2nd, only that the choices and options it has in abundance are not a hindrance at all, but rather an aid to creating a system fun and worth playing, that if it did not have codified rules for many actions, would be probably an inferior system to one designed under that philosophy.

Cuddly

2007-12-12, 08:25 PM

Example: Shooting into Melee. In 3.5 if a character shoots into melee without the Precise Shot feat, they suffer a -4 penalty because they have to make sure they are aiming properly. I call this hogwash. If you don't have Precise Shot feat I don't think you are all that skilled at making Precise Shots. I think you could easily hit an unintended target.

Therefore, my houserule (which is really just adopting a rule from 3.0) is that you take the -4 penalty, but if you miss due to that penalty, you actually strike one of the targets you weren't intending too.

The DMG (or something) offers a variant, in which if you lack the feat, you don't take the penalty, but have a chance of hitting an ally. The idea being that the -4 is you taking the time/not pulling back on the string so hard/whatever and not hitting an ally.

I have had several DMs, all former 2e players (whom now play 3e), who took great enjoyment in setting up crap to penalize player choices. Playing with them was a game of "no, I'm the DM, you fail because I say so". Characters that were based around rolling a d20 had better watch out, since 5% of the time, regardless of skill, you would fail, and fail in a catastrophic way.

A level 14 fighter, who could shoot the wing off a hummingbird from 100 feet away, shoots into melee, misses his opponent, and so strikes his ally? That's tedious!

And that's precisely what 2e was about. Tedious play, DM fiat, and penalization for just about anything the DM could nail you with (which was a lot!).

Once again, I disagree. Once a DM makes a judgment call, he sets a precedent. If, using your example, Jump was not a skill and thus a DM decided to make jumping ten feet have a 40% chance of success, then when the exact same situation comes up again, it should be 40% again. If the DM changes the % under the same exact circumstances, then that is a sign of a disorganized DM.

That's... way too much work. To fabricate an entire rule set, after buying what was purported to be a rule set? Sod that.

Matthew

2007-12-12, 08:39 PM

And that's precisely what 2e was about. Tedious play, DM fiat, and penalization for just about anything the DM could nail you with (which was a lot!).

Er, well that may have been your experience, but I can't say that was mine and I know it wasn't for many others. I think you may be confusing your own bad experiences with 'what 2e was about'.

Cuddly

2007-12-12, 08:43 PM

Er, well I can't say that was my experience and I know it wasn't the experience of many others. I think you may be confusing your own bad experiences with 'what 2e was about'.

No, I'm pretty sure that's what it was about.
Case in point: Tomb of Horrors.

Matthew

2007-12-12, 08:43 PM

Mate, that's 1e. It even predates the 1e DMG, having been published in 1978 and originally for the official tournament at Gencon I. It's hardly an example of the 2e gaming experience.

http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd1/s1-alt.jpg

hamstard4ever

2007-12-12, 08:57 PM

I'm not sayin' all the rules of 3.X are bad. Some of them, I like very much. Others, I like as far as they go, but I don't think they cover enough. I just think that the more specific rules you put in place, the more people think that they are restricted to ONLY those options. Which is stifling creativity, in my opinion (and the opinion of some of the other posters, if I'm not mistaken). That's pretty much it, as far as I'm concerned.

I confess I am still a bit confused by this idea. Earlier in the thread hamlet used the example of Lego blocks as an analogy for 3e character creation. I'm not entirely certain where he was coming from in that particular example, but I think that Lego blocks are an excellent analogy for many aspects of 3e.

Now there are some people that will look at a freshly opened box of Legos--say, a house playset or a pirate ship--and assume that the blocks contained therein can only properly be used to construct exactly the structure pictured on the box. Then there are other people who will happily take the house and the pirate ship and use their blocks to construct a giant killer robot.

Perhaps I am generalizing unfairly, but it's my observation that the people in the latter category are usually just more creative to begin with; it is not as though the Lego playset somehow diminishes the creativity of those in the former.

Because there is a way for the player to be able to do what he wanted (power attack), I'd be screwing the other players that DID take Power Attack if I allowed this player to use it without having spent the feat. However, if there is no mechanic that does this, I'm free to make up my own rule which allows the PC to do what he wants but still remains balanced.

You're still free to make up your own rule while remaining balanced. Combat Expertise is essentially a feat-based version of the fight defensively option; anybody can fight defensively, but Combat Expertise scales better and has a much more favorable rate of exchange. It would have been quite reasonable to extrapolate from the fight defensively option the existence of a "fight aggressively" option and let him take -4 AC or -4 to hit in exchange for +2 damage, or some similarly unfavorable trade-off. Power Attackers are still getting a much better deal, so they still have the advantage they bought fair and square.

Matthew

2007-12-12, 09:03 PM

Perhaps I am generalizing unfairly, but it's my observation that the people in the latter category are usually just more creative to begin with; it is not as though the Lego playset somehow diminishes the creativity of those in the former.

Sure, but creativity isn't a static attribute, it's something that needs to be stimulated and encouraged in order for it to grow. An example of the way D20 constrains might be "I want to give this Ogre an extra +1 to Hit; I know, I'll give him Weapon Focus (Whatever)." Why not simply give him +1 to Hit and call it a day? One is encouraged by the rule set, the other is not.

Ulzgoroth

2007-12-12, 09:29 PM

Sure, but creativity isn't a static attribute, it's something that needs to be stimulated and encouraged in order for it to grow in most people. An example of this might be "I want to give this Ogre an extra +1 to Hit; I know, I'll give him Weapon Focus (Whatever)." Why not simply give him +1 to Hit and call it a day? One is encouraged by the rule set, the other is not.
Why not!? (limited flip-out warning)

Because the game engine provides a complete, consistent system for things like attack bonuses. And doesn't have any place for a 'DM's lower digestive tract' bonus. It does however have plenty of ways to give the ogre the +1 bonus. If weapon focus is inappropriate (perhaps the Ogre hasn't got any feats available) you could advance its hit dice. Or give it a level of warrior. Or give it a masterwork weapon, or an above average strength score.

And while the players probably should never have the chance to ask why that ogre had that +1 to hit, if you do things by the rules you have the answer anyway. And it's consistent, and reasonable in context, and even tells you something about that ogre. Rather than being an arbitrary, throwaway 'the fighter has too much AC' bit of DM kludgery.

Um.../rant.

Matthew

2007-12-12, 09:39 PM

*Laughs* Somehow I find it unsurprising that you object to this, Ulzgoroth.

The point isn't 'how it could be done within D20', it's that it's completely unnecessary to do it within D20. I could simply give it a permanent +1 Circumstance Bonus to Hit, derived from 'he's bad ass' and remain within the D20 Rule Set if I wanted to. I don't want to, though. In fact, it's my preference not to.

hamstard4ever

2007-12-12, 09:45 PM

Sure, but creativity isn't a static attribute, it's something that needs to be stimulated and encouraged in order for it to grow. An example of the way D20 constrains might be "I want to give this Ogre an extra +1 to Hit; I know, I'll give him Weapon Focus (Whatever)." Why not simply give him +1 to Hit and call it a day? One is encouraged by the rule set, the other is not.

Er... I am sorry, but I fail to see where the constraint lies here.

Now if you were to cite a hypothetical example of "Hmm, I want this ogre guard to be a crack fighter with his enchanted mace, so I want him to have +4 to hit on top of the enhancement bonus... but darn, Weapon Focus (mace) only gives him +1, guess I can't do that", then that would be an example of constraint. Of course, there's nothing stopping you from giving the ogre a free +4 to hit anyhow, if you're willing to ignore the game system's gentle hint that perhaps you should keep your arbitrary bonuses smaller or at the very least put a little more thought into exactly what you're adding.

Matthew

2007-12-12, 10:03 PM

horseboy

2007-12-12, 10:34 PM

I doubt I was the only one that ditched the "roll 3d6 and place in order" right away because I knew my player was interested in playing a bard or cleric rather than just "whatever popped out."

In fact, I've never met anyone face-to-face that ever used it. Hell, I'd forgotten about it completely until someone here brought it up. Even now, I'm not sure I read it in prior editions or just heard the argument so often that I've fooled myself into thinking I remember it.

Matthew

2007-12-12, 10:43 PM

Method I in the 1e DMG and Method V in the 2e PHB was 'roll 4D6, drop the lowest of each die, and assign to taste.' Roll 3D6 and assign down the line was Method I in 2e; it was not a Method in the 1e DMG for the following reasons, according to Gygax:

As AD&D is an ongoing game of fantasy adventuring, it is important to allow participants to generate a viable character of the race and profession which he or she desires. While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal characters tend to have short life expectancy - which tends to discourage new players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can't or won't identify with. Character generation, then, is a serious matter, and it is recommended that the following systems be used. Four alternatives are offered for player characters:

Stephen_E

2007-12-12, 10:47 PM

Er, well that may have been your experience, but I can't say that was mine and I know it wasn't for many others. I think you may be confusing your own bad experiences with 'what 2e was about'.

I got lucky and didn't run in to many of those DMs, but many of the people I played with had. Even taking in to account the love of a good story, running into multiple accounts from different people about specific DMs, I'd have to say he's right that those DMs did exist.

They still exist in 3.5 (when you here someone talking about "beating" the players it's a strong hint) but the 3.5 rules reins them in some, unless they just go completely to "Rule 0 is God".

Stephen

Matthew

2007-12-12, 11:07 PM

I certainly don't dispute that they existed and continue to exist, I only dispute that "tedious play, DM fiat, and penalization for just about anything the DM could nail you with (which was a lot!)" was what 2e was about. I have never been exposed to such a DM, though my personal experience is limited to my own friends, a local gaming club and the group I ran at university. On the other hand, I have definitely heard the horror stories.

hamstard4ever

2007-12-12, 11:52 PM

It's not what the rules can and cannot do (as I pointed out above, a +1 or +4 permanent Circumstance Modifier takes care of that), it's that it has the potential to limit thinking to a "I can't do that" mentality, when in fact you can do anything you please. The only thing you need adjust is the CR of the Ogre, completely bypassing the 'meta game' (which many people enjoy) of creature crafting within the rules.

That's how it works in AD&D, and that's one of the reasons I like it. A 0 Level NPC can be the best at crafting, an Orc Scout with 1 HD can be very skilled at Moving Silently and Hiding in Shadows, the local Witch Woman can have spells and not be a member of a Spell Casting Class. Almost all of this can be done in 3e, but it's not encouraged.

Sooo... what happens if your players, noticing that the badass ogre is having an exceptionally easy time smacking them around, ask you how their characters can get that badass? Or if you somehow let slip that the local Witch Woman is not a member of any sort of Spell Casting Class, and one of your non-spellcasting PCs asks if they can have spells too?

(Although I'm still not really seeing the problem of simply assuming, as DM, that the badass ogre has Weapon Focus or that the witch woman is a member of a spellcasting class. I mean, yes, the existence of these concepts does have the potential to limit some people's thinking--but it seems to me that the blame there lies more with their perception than with the rules concepts.)

[edited to remove unnecessarily controversial analogy]

Stephen_E

2007-12-13, 02:26 AM

horseboy

2007-12-13, 02:28 AM

Whew, this thread was a chug to read through. I didn't see it brought up, but there's another reason I like more codified rule sets over the more "hap hazard" style of prior editions: Portability.

Because so much of prior editions was DM fiat and house rules it was rare that they were handled in the same way, and that meant you had to make new characters for each group. After all, how a paladin duel wielding twin long swords that could be slammed together at the hilt to create a double sword was handled varied a lot in the Expert box. (Yes, a double sword, even back in Expert. What? I was 12. Galtar was cool back then. And yes, I played a lot of paladins back in the day.)

With a more codified rule set I can make a character like that that I could expect to be able to play in more groups, because more people will know how/what to do with such a character.

Matthew

2007-12-13, 07:55 AM

Sooo... what happens if your players, noticing that the badass ogre is having an exceptionally easy time smacking them around, ask you how their characters can get that badass? Or if you somehow let slip that the local Witch Woman is not a member of any sort of Spell Casting Class, and one of your non-spellcasting PCs asks if they can have spells too?

What if they do? It's not a secret that's being kept from them. Player Characters get 'badass' by going up levels. The mechanics of NPCs reflect the role they play in the story, trying to jam them into the Player Character levelling system is just unnecessary and, in my opinion, pretty silly. Levels and Classes don't work very well when applied to the population at large.

Let's see if I can address your concerns more clearly, though we're straddling two editions here:

AD&D
Monsters and 0 Level Unclassed Non Player Characters do not operate under the same rules as Player Characters. They don't gain experience points or levels, they just have whatever abilities are appropriate for their role in the story or game (much as with Savage Worlds). To be clear, the Ogre and the 0 Level Unclassed Witch Woman get the abilities described above because they were imagined first and then mechanics created to articulate what was imagined. Player Characters who want to learn how the NPCs 'beat the game' or 'bypassed the mechanics' are barking up the wrong tree. The NPC and Monster haven't overcome their Class or Level boundaries, they just don't have them to begin with. That said, if there is a good reason for a Player Character to learn these abilities, I don't see why it couldn't be allowed.
If it helps, you can think of them as being 'discrete NPC Classes', the 'Bad Ass Ogre' or the 'Witch Woman', but that's rather to miss the point. Levels, Classes, Feats, Skills, etc... are, at the most basic level, descriptions or packages of mechanics, not the actual mechanics themselves.

D20
Even in a game as permissive as D20 there are limits to what a Player Character can access. Their Race(es), Class(es) and Experience Level(s) are intended to convey the character's general level of power. The mechanics of NPCs and Monsters are still supposed to articulate their concept, but now conform to a set of rules intended to make it easier to calculate their CR and thus what level of threat they pose to party X; there's no other advantage to using such a set of rules to create NPCs and Monsters, as far as I can see (except perhaps a desire for a consistant methodology, which is a subjective preference), and it is a limited advantage, since CR is often unreliable at best.
If a player somehow identifies a mechanic that he believes that a Monster should not possess by the RAW and wants to acquire it for himself, then I think that he's playing a rather different game than one I would want to participate in. As with AD&D above, though, if there were a good game world reason, I don't see why it couldn't be allowed. Obviously, I don't expect everyone to want to play in the sorts of games I like either, that's the nature of preference.

(Although I'm still not really seeing the problem of simply assuming, as DM, that the badass ogre has Weapon Focus or that the witch woman is a member of a spellcasting class. I mean, yes, the existence of these concepts does have the potential to limit some people's thinking--but it seems to me that the blame there lies more with their perception than with the rules concepts.)

It seems to limit rather a lot of people's thinking, but the principle objection is only that it is unnecessary, not that it is problematic. That said, like many other aspects of D20, I think that it does initially make things potentially easier on a new DM.

Whew, this thread was a chug to read through. I didn't see it brought up, but there's another reason I like more codified rule sets over the more "hap hazard" style of prior editions: Portability.

Because so much of prior editions was DM fiat and house rules it was rare that they were handled in the same way, and that meant you had to make new characters for each group. After all, how a paladin duel wielding twin long swords that could be slammed together at the hilt to create a double sword was handled varied a lot in the Expert box. (Yes, a double sword, even back in Expert. What? I was 12. Galtar was cool back then. And yes, I played a lot of paladins back in the day.)

With a more codified rule set I can make a character like that that I could expect to be able to play in more groups, because more people will know how/what to do with such a character.

Heh, heh. Yep, and that was one of the aims of Wizards with D20. Very much an advantage if you expect to be playing in a lot of groups and hope to have a very similar play experience.

Tormsskull

2007-12-13, 08:03 AM

Sooo... what happens if your players, noticing that the badass ogre is having an exceptionally easy time smacking them around, ask you how their characters can get that badass?

I'd say they need to level up. I'm not sure how it works when you DM (or the DM in your group DMs) but when I DM the monsters stats, abilities, class, hps, weakness', etc, etc are kept hidden from the players. If a player asks how a monster did something in particular (say a monster used a special ability it had), I'd ask the player what their character is doing to try to learn that.

I could create a mob with a 10 dexterity, explain that it looks very sluggish and moves very slow, and then have it dish out 4 AoO's in one round. A player might say "How did he get multiple AoO's without Combat Reflexes?" I'd say "What is your character doing to try to figure that out?"

Maybe the monster has a special ability. Maybe the monster had a special spell cast on them that granted extra AoOs. Unless the characters use the correct way of trying to discover this, they may never know.

As I mentioned before, some players do not like this style of play. They like to know that the DM is forced to work within a particular rule set, as that helps them make a lot of the decisions that their characters are going to make.

I personally think that if a player is using his knowledge of the restrictions placed on the DM to guide his character into making specific actions, then the player is metagaming.

But it all depends on what the overall scope/goal of the game is.

Sstoopidtallkid

2007-12-13, 08:22 AM

I could create a mob with a 10 dexterity, explain that it looks very sluggish and moves very slow, and then have it dish out 4 AoO's in one round. A player might say "How did he get multiple AoO's without Combat Reflexes?" I'd say "What is your character doing to try to figure that out?"

Maybe the monster has a special ability. Maybe the monster had a special spell cast on them that granted extra AoOs. Unless the characters use the correct way of trying to discover this, they may never know.

As I mentioned before, some players do not like this style of play. They like to know that the DM is forced to work within a particular rule set, as that helps them make a lot of the decisions that their characters are going to make.

I personally think that if a player is using his knowledge of the restrictions placed on the DM to guide his character into making specific actions, then the player is metagaming.

But it all depends on what the overall scope/goal of the game is.
My response to that is "If the mob is sluggish, my guy would be wondering where the lightning-fast swordplay came from." Stuff like that has my character worried about his survival, and if a NPC is doing things that don't fit with how he has experienced the world so far, he'll usually want to know how.
If a DM reworks monster stats or raises their HP when I start to win too easily, I don't mind, but blatant railroading and rules-mangling takes me out of the mindset of the character. If the world becomes less real, I lose the mindset of the character, and that ruins the night.

Tormsskull

2007-12-13, 08:57 AM

My response to that is "If the mob is sluggish, my guy would be wondering where the lightning-fast swordplay came from." Stuff like that has my character worried about his survival, and if a NPC is doing things that don't fit with how he has experienced the world so far, he'll usually want to know how.

Which is all well and good, so what does your character do to figure out this strange occurence? I think you're looking for the DM to say "Oh, he has xyz ability/skill/feat/spell." But that's OOC info. How does your character learn that OOC info?

I would totally agree with you that your character should worry about his survival when strange things like this happen. And it makes sense that he'll want to know how. But wanting to know doesn't equal knowing, it should equal a drive/reason for the character to possibly ask his groupmates if they noticed anything strange about that last monster, possibly consult an NPC scholoar/someone knowledgeable about monsters, check with people knowledgable about magic, etc, etc.

If a DM reworks monster stats or raises their HP when I start to win too easily, I don't mind, but blatant railroading and rules-mangling takes me out of the mindset of the character. If the world becomes less real, I lose the mindset of the character, and that ruins the night.

What part of the above is blatant railroading? What part is rules-mangling? If I've created a new spell called "Cat's Reflexes" - Grants the target one additional AoO per round for every 3 levels of the caster to a maximum of 4, and had an NPC monster cast that spell on the monster in question before the PCs even showed up, is that rules-mangling?

Again, as I mentioned above, some players would not like the idea that a DM can create new spells for the monsters to use, especially if the DM didn't tell them beforehand and add it to the list of spells that the PCs can take.

Other players love the fact that ANYTHING can happen in a game, and by having the DM with the freedom to do whatever he/she wants to make the game more interesting, anything can in fact occur.

hamlet

2007-12-13, 11:30 AM

Ok.

After about 45 minutes sleep last night and about a fifth of whiskey, I'm calm, collected, and semi-rational.

First, I apologize for losing my cool. It's not easy keeping it when you have 200+ people to whom you must report directly (yes, I have over 200 direct supervisors). To the fellow who said I was in the wrong line of work: yeah, you're telling me, but see just how far a Bachelor's in "Literatures in English" will get you in today's world, especially working for an engineering firm.

Second: you're right, I didn't start this thread by challenging my own position. But in all honesty, there's enough abuse heaped on 2nd editon and 1st editon in this forum already that I didn't feel like it was neccessary to add more. Hell, we even take abuse from the grognards who never converted past 1st edition, or even worse, whitebox edition. The 2nd edition of this game is the red-headed stepchild of the entire franchise and it gets kinda old. But we are like cockroaches. When all other editions are dead, we will soldier on.

Ok, so here goes.

Issues with the way character is handled in AD&D.

First, when putting a character together, your choices are effectively limited to Race, Class, Alignment, and Proficiencies and equipment. If playing with method I of character development (3d6 in order) rather than a varient or houseruled method, you couldn't even choose your ability scores. This could lead to the very real possibility of not getting the character you wanted to play, or even getting a dud character (I maintain that unless you rolled straight three's down the line, no character is really unplayable).

Second, after character creation, your character was mechanically static except for the planned improvement of saving throws, hit points, and the addition of proficiencies. This is growth, but it is not as fluid as many gamers have grown to expect and desire.

Third, beyond class abilities, many options are not explicitly spelled out mechanically in the rules and so some players may feel limited by this lack of comprehensive ruling.

Fourth, the classes (CORE ONLY, no splat books considered here) can feel restrictive if a player wants to move outside of pre-defined roles and the DM is unwilling or unable to accomadate this creativity (i.e., if you have a crappy DM, the game is crappy, just like in any game out there).

However, I will say that each of the drawbacks above is, to me, also a strong asset.

First and second, since the core mechanic of each class and character is settled and stable at first level, once the numbers are on paper, there are no huge changes to how things work. There's no constant addition and revision of mechanics as the character progresses, merely the planned updates at each level. This provides a stable platform upon which the player can build anything they want in terms of fluff and, with a decent DM, even some special mechanical quirks to reflect the concept desired by the player.

Third, because not too many maneuvers are explicitly spelled out, it give leeway to both the DM and to players who would feel constrained by the rules (or to players who use the rules as a cudgel against the DM) to do whatever it is they decide upon and make it function within the established mechanic of an ability check (i.e., roll under applicable ability score on d20 to see if action succeeds) or within a mechanic agreed upon by both players and DM and written down for future reference. In effect, not specifying how certain actions works frees up the tunnel vision suffered by some that look at the rules and say "I can do what it says here" but rarely if ever move outside of that. It also places the primary emphasis on the action and secondary emphasis on the mechanic while 3rd edition sometimes places primary emphasis on the mechanic and secondary on the action (i.e., saying "tumble says I can do this so that's what I'll do" rather than "My character will attempt to tumble gracefully out of the way of the onrushing minotaur . . . how would that be resolved?").

Fourth, the core classes are only restrictive if you look at them as a block of mechanics rather than an archetype. Of course if you define a class by its mechanical function you will feel limited. If, however, you define it by it's archetype, you have much broader vistas to play with.

Take the fighter. He's not a block of mechanics that hand you the best THACO (BAB), good saves, lots of proficiencies, etc. The fighter is, instead, the type of person who's good with martial weapons (swords, axes, spears, etc.) or maybe just his fists. He has been trained to wear armor to best effect. He's sturdy and physically powerful and able to best apply his own strength to great advantage (i.e., exceptional strength and good saving throws over his career).

To me, that's not just a simple foot soldier. It could also be a samurai, or a hobliar, or a skirmisher, or a knight, a religious zealot warrior (non-paladin variety), a bodyguard, a plains-man horse riding barbarian, a hun with shortbow, a wuxia double sword wielding lunatic freak, a knight templar, Friar-Freakin'-Tuk, anything you want that fits into the martially inclined vein. Doesn't have to be just plain old "Mike the Fighter, sword and board guy." The customization is all a matter of what you want to add onto him, not how your customization affects the mechanics. Those are self-contained and background.

Kaelik

2007-12-13, 01:27 PM

Which is all well and good, so what does your character do to figure out this strange occurence? I think you're looking for the DM to say "Oh, he has xyz ability/skill/feat/spell." But that's OOC info. How does your character learn that OOC info?

Or he could just be wondering. I mean, you said "Why does your character want to know?" not "Why would your character know?" Characters are allowed to want to know things, and no one has actually claimed that you have to tell them.

Tormsskull

2007-12-13, 02:20 PM

Or he could just be wondering. I mean, you said "Why does your character want to know?" not "Why would your character know?" Characters are allowed to want to know things, and no one has actually claimed that you have to tell them.

Well, to be precise I never said "Why does your character want to know?"

I did say:

"What is your character doing to try to figure that out?"

It makes total sense for a player/character to want to know how something works when what happens is something quite unexpected. However, wanting to know does equal knowing, and as you've agreed in your above quote, no one has actually claimed that the DM has to tell them.

horseboy

2007-12-13, 02:29 PM

Third, because not too many maneuvers are explicitly spelled out, it give leeway to both the DM and to players who would feel constrained by the rules (or to players who use the rules as a cudgel against the DM) to do whatever it is they decide upon and make it function within the established mechanic of an ability check (i.e., roll under applicable ability score on d20 to see if action succeeds) or within a mechanic agreed upon by both players and DM and written down for future reference. In effect, not specifying how certain actions works frees up the tunnel vision suffered by some that look at the rules and say "I can do what it says here" but rarely if ever move outside of that. It also places the primary emphasis on the action and secondary emphasis on the mechanic while 3rd edition sometimes places primary emphasis on the mechanic and secondary on the action (i.e., saying "tumble says I can do this so that's what I'll do" rather than "My character will attempt to tumble gracefully out of the way of the onrushing minotaur . . . how would that be resolved?").
The child never things to shove a peanut up it's nose until you tell them not to.
Except all too often since there wasn't rules for that, it didn't come up. I know during my experiences throughout prior editions too the man, whenever you wanted to do much more than hit it with a stick one of two things happened. Either the game came to a screeching halt while the DM tried to figure out some sort of way to do what you've proposed or they'd just say: "There's no rules for that, let's keep moving". Character creation was usually more laxed because it didn't interrupt game play.

Serenity

2007-12-13, 02:33 PM

Take the fighter. He's not a block of mechanics that hand you the best THACO (BAB), good saves, lots of proficiencies, etc. The fighter is, instead, the type of person who's good with martial weapons (swords, axes, spears, etc.) or maybe just his fists. He has been trained to wear armor to best effect. He's sturdy and physically powerful and able to best apply his own strength to great advantage (i.e., exceptional strength and good saving throws over his career).

To me, that's not just a simple foot soldier. It could also be a samurai, or a hobliar, or a skirmisher, or a knight, a religious zealot warrior (non-paladin variety), a bodyguard, a plains-man horse riding barbarian, a hun with shortbow, a wuxia double sword wielding lunatic freak, a knight templar, Friar-Freakin'-Tuk, anything you want that fits into the martially inclined vein. Doesn't have to be just plain old "Mike the Fighter, sword and board guy." The customization is all a matter of what you want to add onto him, not how your customization affects the mechanics. Those are self-contained and background.

And...what, again, stops you from doing any of that in 3e? In fact, I'd wager to say that that is indeed what most people do when they create a fighter, and I think having specific mechanics that can help you better emulate the sort of things Friar-Freakin'-Tuck would be doing vs. the bodyguard's tactics would in general enhance my experience playing a unique fighter. Is it a problem certain feats and fighting styles are less effective? Yes, but that is a surmountable problem with the specific choices available, not the concept of broad mechanical choices in and of itself.

Counterspin

2007-12-13, 03:29 PM

As nice as it is for you to be happy with fighter as a fill in for all of those things, I much prefer having mechanics to represent the difference between, for instance, a knight templar and a bodyguard, because mechanics allow me to define my role in the party in a way that no one can really interfere with. If I want to bravely defend the party's spellcaster, I want to be able to do that even if the DM strongly believes that taunting is "too computer gamy" or "stupid."

I admit that that example is a little over broad, but it all boils down to control over my character, which I want. I don't want to leave everything to DM adjudication. Just as rule zero allows the GM to influence the setting, available races, and pretty much everything else, a broad set of applicable mechanics allows players to know what they're getting ahead of time, to section off a part of the game world which is truly theirs, their character's capabilities.

I don't hate GMs, I haven't had terrible GMs. My preferred power dynamic is uninfluenced by bad experiences. Even if every GM in the world was great, and took everything I said into account, I'd still want this level of control.

Stephen_E

2007-12-13, 04:06 PM

I guess I'm just not as good a player as others. When I played 1st and 2nd Ed in combat I hit people. Their were no rules for doing anything but hitting people so that's all I did. The rules said combat was generic and represented all the stuff that happened in combat so it almost never occurred to me that you could try and do fancy manuvers for special effects (the exceptions were when playing a Monk or if my PC's normal weapon was lost or ineffective. Necessity is the mother of invention).

Now Wizards, they were a different story. The rules did actually encourage you to make imaginitive uses of spells. I remember bouncing a ligthning bolt of the roof and ceiling so as to miss the party member in front of me but hit each of the Giants twice.

Yes, there is some truth for some players that the "no set options" approach of 2E encouraged them to go forth with their imaginations, and soem DMs went with them on the fly. But for an awful lot of players and DMs the "no set options" meant no options.

For those people 3E's variety of options are a spur to creativity. Of course we then have to suffer through the people who go "I have sneak attack. I should be able to sneak attack the monster because he's attacking someone else" and when you point out that sneak attack has specific rules and in the circumstances you don't get sneak attack goes "that's silly" and explains why IHO he should get sneak attack. Around the 4th or 5th time this happens you want to hit the person.

To go to the original point.
3.E has a huge amount of choices, most of which make mechanical differences to your PC. All choices are not of equal mechanical str, but that doesn't mean they aren't real choices. Look up the word "choice" in the dictionary. It doesn't having anything about it only been a choice if the options are equally valid. With my current Druid I'v made a number of sub-optimal choices to get the effects I want, support the fluff I desire and fit in the party. The fact that my choices were sub-optimal in no way makes my choice meaningless.

2E had very few choices within the rules, but if you treated the rules as a guideline rather than a framework, or invested in lots of splat books (although IME the splat books provided less additional choices than current splat books) and had a DM who also took the rules as guidelines rather than a solid framework, you also had lots of choices. Indeed in some ways more, and so long as the DM agreed they were meaningful choices.

I suspect those DMs still playing 2E are largely restricted to the ones that treat the rules as loose guidelines rather than a solid framework, and thus those people who still play it wax lyrical about the freedom and joy of 2E.

Stephen

greenknight

2007-12-13, 05:17 PM

Hell, we even take abuse from the grognards who never converted past 1st edition, or even worse, whitebox edition. The 2nd edition of this game is the red-headed stepchild of the entire franchise and it gets kinda old. But we are like cockroaches. When all other editions are dead, we will soldier on.

It might seem like that, but each edition has it's fans, and pretty much all of them justify their liking for their edition by pointing out what they dislike about the other editions. That's going to happen with 3.xe too once 4e comes out.

I maintain that unless you rolled straight three's down the line, no character is really unplayable

By definition, unless you have at least a 9 in Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence or Wisdom, your character is unplayable since you can't qualify for any class. And realistically, most players would want at least one 16 where it would do some good for their character, and if they're playing a spellcaster in a high level game they'd want an 18 in their spellcasting stat.

Second, after character creation, your character was mechanically static except for the planned improvement of saving throws, hit points, and the addition of proficiencies. This is growth, but it is not as fluid as many gamers have grown to expect and desire.

Magical items can also change the character mechanically, although 2nd Ed actively discourages the "magic shop" mentality so under some DMs it can be difficult to obtain the items you want regardless of character level or class.

Third, beyond class abilities, many options are not explicitly spelled out mechanically in the rules and so some players may feel limited by this lack of comprehensive ruling.

There's also the uncertainty factor: "Will the DM allow this?". Which usually gets worse if you play under multiple DMs (which often occurs if you play online).

Fourth, the classes (CORE ONLY, no splat books considered here) can feel restrictive if a player wants to move outside of pre-defined roles and the DM is unwilling or unable to accomadate this creativity (i.e., if you have a crappy DM, the game is crappy, just like in any game out there).

It depends on whether the move outside fo pre-defined roles is really a move towards munchkinism. The most commonly occuring example in games I've been in is the non-Fighter who wants to get Weapon Specialization (but not lose out on any class abilities to balance it).

First and second, since the core mechanic of each class and character is settled and stable at first level, once the numbers are on paper, there are no huge changes to how things work. There's no constant addition and revision of mechanics as the character progresses, merely the planned updates at each level. This provides a stable platform upon which the player can build anything they want in terms of fluff and, with a decent DM, even some special mechanical quirks to reflect the concept desired by the player.

Yes, but it is only fluff. If I have a Fighter who suddenly gets religion, usually the character still can't gain levels in Cleric. Or I might have a character who goes through a full change from Fighter to Thief to Cleric and then finally Wizard. But 2nd Ed discourages things like that and even when one of their iconic characters has this in his backstory, mechanically the character ends up being a single classed Mage (see Elminster's entry in the Heroes' Lorebook).

Third, because not too many maneuvers are explicitly spelled out, it give leeway to both the DM and to players who would feel constrained by the rules (or to players who use the rules as a cudgel against the DM) to do whatever it is they decide upon and make it function within the established mechanic of an ability check (i.e., roll under applicable ability score on d20 to see if action succeeds) or within a mechanic agreed upon by both players and DM and written down for future reference.

That's all well and good, but it might not help if the player has several DMs. Indeed, the sheer number of house rules could easily cause confusion.

saying "tumble says I can do this so that's what I'll do" rather than "My character will attempt to tumble gracefully out of the way of the onrushing minotaur . . . how would that be resolved?"

What happens in 2nd Ed if you've already established what tumbling can and cannot do? You'd use that pre-established rule, right? With 3e, it's more like the players and DM have been playing for a long time and have already established rules for a wide variety of situations and written them down. Maybe a DM doesn't really like how some of the pre-established rules work, but at least this gives the DM an opportunity to think about the situation the rule covers and come up with an alternative prior to the game.

On the other hand, there are lots of situations the 2nd Ed rules don't explicitly cover, and which aren't even hinted at in the rulebooks. So the DM isn't given a nudge to think about them prior to the game and often has to make up a rule on the spot. Such rules might serve the purpose at the time, but on further reflection the DM might come up with a way to handle the situation better. And if the DM had presented that mechanic before the game started the the other players might comment on it and maybe even suggest further improvements, or at least point out unintended side effects.

Over time you might come up with a set of house rules for 2nd Ed you and your players really like, and it's almost certain that they'll suit you and your gaming group far better than any set of pre-established rules. While you can also do that in 3e, it can be harder to justify major modifications because players have a tendency to resist changes to already established rules.

The other thing to keep in mind here is that if you do this, you're effectively building your own ruleset after having already paid good money for one. In a way it's like going to a car dealership, putting your money down and getting a build it yourself kit in return. Some people might like doing that, but most prefer to have the car pre-assembled, especially if they pay a lot of money for it.

The customization is all a matter of what you want to add onto him, not how your customization affects the mechanics. Those are self-contained and background.

But the fluff should at least suggest the mechanics. For example, if I create a 2nd Ed character with a background as a pirate, I might give the character fishing, seamanship, rope use, swimming, weather sense and/or navigation as NWPs, depending on what the character did aboard the ship. Wouldn't that tie the fluff to the mechanics appropriately?

hamlet

2007-12-13, 08:57 PM

Yes, but it is only fluff. If I have a Fighter who suddenly gets religion, usually the character still can't gain levels in Cleric. Or I might have a character who goes through a full change from Fighter to Thief to Cleric and then finally Wizard. But 2nd Ed discourages things like that and even when one of their iconic characters has this in his backstory, mechanically the character ends up being a single classed Mage (see Elminster's entry in the Heroes' Lorebook).

1) Bringing up Elminster before me as anything other than a mass conglomeration of stupidity by Greenwood is not a way to go anywhere. Frankly, that was the supidest character ever written and broke almost every rule ever written. I might be one for bending and even breaking a few rules, but Elminster goes WAY too far.

2) Yes, it is all (or mostly) fluff in 2nd edition. And I honestly fail to see the problem in that. For me, that's everything that role playing is about. The fluff. The rules are incidental as long as they don't get in the way. For me, mechanical benefit doesn't mean much of anything. And for me, 2nd edition has always had the appropriate amount of rules vs. flavor for me. Third edition (and to be fair, a whole lot of rules systems nowadays) are too intensive, too vast, too much to be fun. They impose on the part of the game that I want.

3) If you actually do want to talk about bending a rule (or breaking it) so that your character can discover religion and join the clergy, as I said above, what you need to do is talk to the DM and explain your rational. Just ask. The very worst thing he can do is say no. More likely, though, he'll agree to work something out with you. Unless, of course, he's a jerk, in which case it doesn't matter what system you're using.

But the fluff should at least suggest the mechanics. For example, if I create a 2nd Ed character with a background as a pirate, I might give the character fishing, seamanship, rope use, swimming, weather sense and/or navigation as NWPs, depending on what the character did aboard the ship. Wouldn't that tie the fluff to the mechanics appropriately?

Actually, I'd argue that you want the mechanics and fluff as well divorced of each other as you possibly could. It's not possible to completely separate them, but the further apart you can get them, the better in my mind. And no, I don't advocate diceless, freeform, or LARPing.

And now, greenknight, fair's fair. I took a look at my own system. What say you turn your eye towards your own?

Serenity

2007-12-14, 12:12 AM

So, it's a bad thing when a character fluffed as a pirate is able to take sailing-oriented skills effectively? I'm all for broad classes whose crunch can be fluffed in a number of different ways, but when your fluff suggests certain mechanical qualities, it's a good thing to have options that let you reflect that.

Matthew

2007-12-14, 05:53 AM

I guess I'm just not as good a player as others. When I played 1st and 2nd Ed in combat I hit people. Their were no rules for doing anything but hitting people so that's all I did. The rules said combat was generic and represented all the stuff that happened in combat so it almost never occurred to me that you could try and do fancy manuvers for special effects (the exceptions were when playing a Monk or if my PC's normal weapon was lost or ineffective. Necessity is the mother of invention).

Heh, good and bad are likely subjective in this instance. Here's how the rules were intended to work, though:

Creating Vivid Combat Scenes
Since this isn't a combat game, the rules are not ultra-detailed, defining the exact effect of every blow, the subtle differences between obscure weapons, the location of every piece of armor on the body, or the horrifying results of an actual sword fight. Too many rules slow down play (taking away from the real adventure) and restrict imagination. How much fun is it when a character, ready to try an amazing and heroic deed, is told, "You can't do that because it's against the rules."
Players should be allowed to try whatever they want--especially if what they want will add to the spirit of adventure and excitement. Just remember that there is a difference between trying and succeeding.
To have the most fun playing the AD&D game, don't rely only on the rules. Like so much in a good role-playing adventure, combat is a drama, a staged play. The DM is both the playwright and the director, creating a theatrical combat. If a character wants to try wrestling a storm giant to the ground, let
him. And a character who tries leaping from a second floor window onto the back of a passing orc is adding to everyone's fun.
The trick to making combat vivid is to be less concerned with the rules than with what is happening at each instant of play. If combat is only "I hit. I miss. I hit again," then something is missing. Combats should be more like, "One orc ducks under the table jabbing at your legs with his sword. The other tries to make a flying tackle, but misses and sprawls to the floor in the middle of the party!" This takes description, timing, strategy, humor, and--perhaps most important of all--knowing when to use the rules and when to bend them.

Obviously, not everyone played like this and I suppose that's why Player's Option Combat and Tactics emerged, which is from where 3e derived most of its combat rules.

I suspect those DMs still playing 2E are largely restricted to the ones that treat the rules as loose guidelines rather than a solid framework, and thus those people who still play it wax lyrical about the freedom and joy of 2E.

Very likely. Of course, there are also just those who are stubborn as hell.

hamlet

2007-12-14, 08:02 AM

Heh, good and bad are likely subjective in this instance. Here's how the rules were intended to work, though:

Thanks for posting that. Been thinking about that passage for two days now and just couldn't locate it. Plus, not having a copy of the books on hand makes it tough too.

Obviously, not everyone played like this and I suppose that's why Player's Option Combat and Tactics emerged, which is from where 3e derived most of its combat rules.

I imagine that you're right. Suppose things go in cycles too so that 15 years down the line, if D&D is even still around in paper format, we'll see a nice rules lighter version that resembles what we used to know.

Very likely. Of course, there are also just those who are stubborn as hell.

I resemble that remark . . . somtimes.

Oeryn

2007-12-14, 11:33 AM

I suspect those DMs still playing 2E are largely restricted to the ones that treat the rules as loose guidelines rather than a solid framework, and thus those people who still play it wax lyrical about the freedom and joy of 2E.

Stephen

I think that's pretty much it, right there. Those of us who cut our teeth on older editions don't universally love the old way. Some of us were lucky enough to play with great DMs and great groups, and had a lot of fun. Others got stuck with people who just stuck to the rules, and didn't go outside them at all.

It all comes down to your preferred playing style, and your DM. For those of us who played 2E like the rules were a foundation, and the rest was wide open, the massive amount of 3E rules, splatbooks, classes, etc are smothering. We're used to usin' the rules as a toolbox, but mainly playin' outside them. So we feel "boxed in" by the preponderance of rules. When you're used to "anything's possible", even the huge amount of options in 3E is stifling.

On the other hand, for the people whose DMs stuck rigidly with the rules, I can see how 3E would be a HUGE expansion of the things they can do. All of a sudden, you can do more than just hit things.

But for some of us --the lucky ones-- it's been that way the whole time.

greenknight

2007-12-14, 06:08 PM

1) Bringing up Elminster before me as anything other than a mass conglomeration of stupidity by Greenwood is not a way to go anywhere. Frankly, that was the supidest character ever written and broke almost every rule ever written. I might be one for bending and even breaking a few rules, but Elminster goes WAY too far.

Maybe so, but I used him as an example of a character who changes his career path, which I think should be possible, and for more races than just Humans.

For me, mechanical benefit doesn't mean much of anything.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not so much about the benefit, it's about the mechanical aspects supporting the fluff.

If you actually do want to talk about bending a rule (or breaking it) so that your character can discover religion and join the clergy, as I said above, what you need to do is talk to the DM and explain your rational. Just ask. The very worst thing he can do is say no. More likely, though, he'll agree to work something out with you. Unless, of course, he's a jerk, in which case it doesn't matter what system you're using.

The devil's in the details though. 2nd Ed AD&D does have a mechanism for characters to change classes, but it only applies to Humans with very high ability scores, which makes it far too restrictive to be really practical IMO.

Actually, I'd argue that you want the mechanics and fluff as well divorced of each other as you possibly could. It's not possible to completely separate them, but the further apart you can get them, the better in my mind. And no, I don't advocate diceless, freeform, or LARPing.

I'd argue the exact opposite. The fluff needs to reflect the mechanics, and vice-versa, because if a character spends a lot of time doing something, you'd think the character would become more experienced (ie, more skilled) at doing it. That's also why I tie a character's class (crunch) with their career (fluff), because that's what it really is as far as I'm concerned.

And now, greenknight, fair's fair. I took a look at my own system. What say you turn your eye towards your own?

I consider 3.5e D&D to be the best version of the rules so far, but if you've read some of my other posts, you'll notice I'm very critical of some aspects of 3.x E. However, most of these issues predate 3.x E, and in many cases the situation was even worse in those editions. But since you ask, here's a quick run through, starting with the PHB in order to jog my memory:

Ability Scores: While they are a huge improvement over AD&D's ability score system, I don't like RPGs including stats such as Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma, since I consider those to be attributes of the player, not the PC.

Races: Again, a major improvement, but work still needs to be done to balance the core races. Half-Orcs in particular need a bit of an extra boost.

Classes: 3e's multiclassing is a good feature, but it does encourage the "level dip" approach, and the PrCs can be an absolute nightmare from a balance perspective. While some improvement has been made towards making certain classes useful for longer, there's some glaring examples of classes which just don't get enough benefit for taking them for more than a few levels. This has been compounded by the various splatbooks, which seem to encourage many players to only stay in a base class long enough to qualify for a PrC. And of course, there's the whole issue of some classes being generally more powerful (from a mechanical perspective) than others at particular levels.

Skills: This is really good idea with really bad implimentation. In general, non-spellcasters (especially classes like Fighters) should get significantly more skill points per level, and a wider range of class skills in order to reflect the fact they don't need to spend so much time learning magic. More skills (such as animal handling and ride) should be universal class skills. And some reasonable method should be introduced within the rules to allow characters to have more skill points than their class level would indicate, in order to reflect non-adventurers who spend years at their job.

Feats: Another very good idea with serious problems. All Feats should scale with character level, not just some. The Feats should also be better balanced against each other, although making them all scale with level should help with that to some extent.

Alignments: While it's better than the description given in previous versions, there's still problems with pinning down exactly what behaviour would be expected from particular alignments. This one's in the "needs work" category.

Character Age: People change physically and mentally as they age. I accept that. But PCs don't always start at 1st level, and lots of players exploit the age categories to give the maximum benefit to their character. Just like WBL, there should be some guideline to say how old a character is if a higher level character is created from scratch.

Equipment: Overall this is good, but there's still a problem with some items of equipment (armor mostly, although it also applies to some weapons) being largely pointless from a mechanical perspective. A character might use that equipment for a little while if he/she/it is unable to afford the better stuff, but once cost is no longer an issue the item goes the way of the dodo.

Combat: No doubt about it, combat in 3e is much more tactical. Some see this as a bad thing, but I consider it to be very good. Even so, there are some rules which seem needlessly complicated (eg, grapple), while others seem horribly open to exploitation (eg, sundering items worn or carried by a character).

Adventuring: Generally alright, although the carrying capacity section could be expanded a bit (eg, what if you have a creature with 6 or more legs, and what is the advantage of a multi-axle cart?).

Magic and Spells: 3e made a real improvement to the magic system IMO, mentioning things like auto-fail on saves in the PHB and the spell descriptions are generally much better. And several problem spells from previous editions were fixed. However, even the new spell descriptions aren't always clear enough, I don't always agree with the save category listed, several new spells have been introduced which cause their own problems and there are plenty of legacy spells which are still a nightmare. I think it's heading in the right direction overall, but there's still lots of work still to be done.

In the interest of brevity, I'm only going to touch on three other problem areas for 3e:

CR + EL: Along with WBL (Wealth by Level), I consider CRs (Challenge Ratings) to be one of the best ideas for game balance that 3e has introduced. Between them, the DM should be able to guage whether a particular character or adventuring party is over or under powered and as such it has the potential to be one of the best gaming tools ever for D&D. However, the implimentation is absolutely shocking with several creatures having obviously inappropriate CRs, and there's not enough help in the books for a DM who doesn't have a standard 4 person party. As a side note, you could say pretty much the same thing about LAs (Level Adjustments). The idea is excellent, but as it stands it's more of a hinderance than a help to most DMs.

PrCs: I touched on this under classes, but it bears repeating. While there are several fairly well balanced PrCs, there are many which offer far more than the base classes and players who want to powergame tend to make a beeline straight for them. In some cases, this seems to be because the designer simply didn't think carefully enough about how the PrC could be used, but in other cases it seems the designer didn't really think about the balance issue at all. In any event, this has resulted in a power creep so that if a party of characters is created using any material from the splatbooks it can be much more powerful than a Core Only party. The standard CRs should give the game designers a way to detect and avoid this issue, but since it's happened anyway this has only served to compound the problem with standard CRs.

Monsters: Again, the inclusion of all stats (such as ability scores), and clearer rules for improving monsters is a huge benefit, but it doesn't solve every issue. For most monsters (with a notable exception for Dragons), improviding HD doesn't add other abilities, except possibly increase the creature's size. Practically all creature types have either Darkvision or Low Light Vision (and some have both), which makes it odd that some PC races (Humans and Halflings in particular) don't get either. And the lack of an "ecology" entry just makes it seem like the only reason these creatures exist is to provide a challenge for the PCs.