Is Your Choice Meaningless?

[hamlet]

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]

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 ) 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...

[Caxton]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[caden_varn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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."

The word "Game" is so bland and generic though, that it doesn't really hold much weight. If we were to compare/contrast all of the different types of games against one another, we would see that there is a HUGE amount of differences between them. In fact, I'm not sure I could even come up with one definition of the word "Game" that wouldn't have an exception.

The word "Role-playing" however, is quite specific. It means that a person is going to be playing a role. I think they could have just as easily called D&D a "Role-Playing Adventure" or "Role-Playing Experience".

Also, I think that expecting that every role-playing choice having a mechanical effect is one of the main problems with D&D as it is now, because that's what the designers are trying to do. If you decide that your character grew up in the Hills, a D&D designer is going to want to provide you with a list of Hill-related skills, feats, classes, prestige classes, and maybe even a few magic items that were created in the hills, are only usable in the hills, or activate special properties when they are in the hills.

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.

I would not object to any groups using whatever supplements they want, but I think that the mindset that we need a supplement for each and every little difference acts as a constraint on a player's creative mind. At the rate the 3.x supplements are going I wouldn't be suprised to see a book called "Complete Summoned Companions".

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.

I think the obvious rebuttal to this is that the more choices there are, the greater the probability of imbalance.

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.

I'd disagree. In previous editions a lot of the choices were made at first level, but that meant that you couldn't make "mistakes" at levels 2, 3, 4, etc. To me "builds" act as a dagger in the back of character development. Perhaps your character was relatively naive (maybe even the player too), and started out as a simple Fighter. As he leveled up he took the feats/skills that represented his characters growth at the time.

Then all of a sudden when he reached level 6 or higher, he suddenly realized that having choosen a couple of feats in a suboptimal way, he had turned himself into a pretty crummy Fighter when stacked against other more optimized Fighters of his level.

In past editions, that really didn't happen (at least not to the degree it does in 3.x). Therefore, the system by design rewards those players that are able to plan out their choices at each level to get the most benefit. Which by default punishes those players that are either new and don't know what to take, or are making choices that seem the more RP-fitting for their character, or simply making choices on what they think is fun.

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.

This I totally agree with. I think a lot of time people base their fun factor on if their character is powerful, which the system encourages. I've seen several occasions when all players were having fun, then one of the players sneaks a peek at his buddies character sheet, learns his character has better stats than his own, and suddenly is no longer having fun.

I still think encouraging/promoting the Dungeon Master as the person with the responsibility of making a fun adventure for all the players is the way to go. If the DM creates a good adventure that includes elements that each player finds fun, then everyone is going to have fun. If problems arise and everyone sitting at the table has a clear understanding that it is the DM's responsibility to try to fix the problems, problems disappear.

[Matthew]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Aquillion]

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]

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]

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.