Under 3.xe
With combat casting why not be heroic and stand on the top of the tower smiting down the enemy? Quick sorting out of "shift work" for the mages and 8 hours rest later, all spells back! Rabble lose badly. Alternatively the "smart" rabble laying siege the Tower of High Sorcery would take a collective "Ready Action". Then I can imagine the wizard yelling from the tower, "So what are you doing, attacking or not?!" - to with the elected representative of the rabble yells back "We have a ready action, er, ready to disrupt you spell casting". To which the wizard yells back "Well we aren't casting until you do a different action.", then the rabble reply in unicon "Oh, no we won't. You starting casting you evil wizards!" Almost Monty Pyhton really...
You do realize that an individual wizard still has to wait 24 hours before their spells reset irregardless to how much rest they get.
|
You do realize that an individual wizard still has to wait 24 hours before their spells reset irregardless to how much rest they get.
Yep, hence the "shift work" required. But only 1 single hour to recover ALL spells of all levels needed. Not even enough time for a single Gygaxian 9th spell to be committed to memory...
Yep, hence the "shift work" required. But only 1 single hour to recover ALL spells of all levels needed. Not even enough time for a single Gygaxian 9th spell to be committed to memory...
You do realize that an individual wizard still has to wait 24 hours before their spells reset irregardless to how much rest they get.
So depending on the system just requires different numbers of "shifts".
An alternate solution is to tie casting time to the spell level relative to caster level: all spells, unless specifically designed with shorter/longer casting times, take a full round action to cast until the caster level is four times the spell level (or CL 2 for 0-level spells), at which point they take a standard action to cast; I personally prefer this solution, as it simulates a spellcaster's growing "mastery" of magic.Other than feel, I'm guessing there are two goals:
1. restore the opportunity to neutralize casters while the act of casting makes them vulnerable (a fun aspect I remember from 1e)
2. disallow casting and moving in the same round to balance the capabilities of fighters and casters
Both of these trade-offs make play more interesting, and help to justify devastating spell effects that can decide the outcome of battle. I like the "growing mastery" idea for achieving this, since even in 1e, there was a notion of powerful casters blasting their foes with spells. I think the caster gimps listed above are even more interesting when you can't always count on them (because the enemy caster may be more powerful than you expect). This also makes higher levels for your own caster feel that much more sweet.
This does make things a bit more interesting tactically, since the most powerful spells a character can cast require a full round action (and can be disrupted without requiring a readied action). It also makes sense, IMO, "organically." Higher levels shouldn't just be about more powerful spells, but also about using lower level spells more effectively.
4x spell level seems a little high, unless you're proposing feats to compensate, since nothing above a 3rd level spell is likely to be cast as a standard action (given the current lack of high-level play in Pathfinder). I think I would use 3x instead, allowing a 9th level wizard to cast fireball as a standard action, for example (a full four levels after he is able to cast it as a full-round action).
How about:
Rapid Spellcasting
The character has trained in casting spells quickly.
Prerequisite: Caster level 5th.
Benefit: The caster is treated as if four levels higher for determining what spell levels they can cast as a standard action (i.e., an 8th level caster with this feat can cast 3rd level spells as a standard action). The caster gains no other benefit (increased damage, duration, range, etc.).
If you're going to limit the ability to cast and move, IMO 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells should be full round actions (apart from a few specifically designed for shorter casting) and should not be cast more rapidly by less than deities/epic characters. Also, the spell slot limitations on Quicken Spell make it useless for any spell higher than 5th level, so the "need" for 6th-9th level spells to be cast as a standard action is less critical; in a world using this rule, I'd also get rid of greater Quicken metamagic rods.
|
|
I agree. D&D was never a big simulation. To say now that it was, is not entirely true. Maybe Gygax or other tried to transform it in one but they failed and could not compete in this area with many other games on the market. (like GURPS or Runequest)
Its strange that some accept the term simulationism and naturalism and then go home and play with a character which has more HP than an elephant. :)
You're being funny, right?
"Maybe Gygax...tried to transform it into one"????
DUDE WROTE THE GAME. He didn't try to "transform" it into anything but what it was. The point of this thread is how the latyter editions DRIFTED AWAY from the game Gygax WROTE.
The terms "simulation" and "naturalism" have nothing to do with comparisons wit the real world. Gygax was "simulating" the fantasy literature he grew up with. His "naturalism" is the way the game was presented through his rules and scenarios.
yes, I find this absolutely ridicolous too. Of course I never used such type of "infos" in my games and I was always wondering why an author get paid for writing down such nonsense.
Well, "such nonsense" is pretty much missing from WotC published 4e scenarios. Have fun.
|
|
I knew I always like Monte, any person who thinks the role of miniatures in a D&D game is to display "marching order" is fine my me!!! :)
If you've ever seen Monte's gaming room, you'd say "Wow, that's quite a lot of Dwarven Forge stuff and minis for someone who just thinks they're for 'marching order'"...
;)
IMO 1&2 AD&D PC's are more about living in the moment. With 3rd Edition and the introduction of multi-classing into different roles/classes, there comes the idea of builds what the PC is going to become as it progresses. Thus the player ends up thinking about all the interesting options and powers that they can look forward to, not just concentrating on the current situation. With the earlier editions progression options are more limited. Ironically it means that in 3rd Ed. PC's need greater longevity to fulfill the players complete concept, while in earlier editions it takes longer to progress to higher levels but the concept is there from the start.
Of course not all PC's in 3rd Ed. are designed from the get go, but evolve organically. Just in the age of the messageboards it seems if someone wants help designing a PC the replies show how it "should" be done up to 15th level or so.
I hope this is not derailing an really interesting discussion.
|
|
IMO 1&2 AD&D PC's are more about living in the moment. With 3rd Edition and the introduction of multi-classing into different roles/classes, there comes the idea of builds what the PC is going to become as it progresses. Thus the player ends up thinking about all the interesting options and powers that they can look forward to, not just concentrating on the current situation. With the earlier editions progression options are more limited. Ironically it means that in 3rd Ed. PC's need greater longevity to fulfill the players complete concept, while in earlier editions it takes longer to progress to higher levels but the concept is there from the start.
Of course not all PC's in 3rd Ed. are designed from the get go, but evolve organically. Just in the age of the messageboards it seems if someone wants help designing a PC the replies show how it "should" be done up to 15th level or so.
I hope this is not derailing an really interesting discussion.
Nah, this kind of insight is exactly what this thread is about right now, I think. Exploring the different theories and intentions of the different editions. We just relate it to the baseline topic of how close or far such intentions are from Gygax's way.
Thanks for the input, and I definitely see where you're coming from!
Thanks, during our AD&D game (1 and 2nd mish-mash) last night i could definitely see how it was more about player rather than character reactions that moved the game along. Especially when i fluffed a riddle, thank goodness for the rest of the party (though my character is such a blabbermouth she would have messed it up too).
|
IMO 1&2 AD&D PC's are more about living in the moment. With 3rd Edition and the introduction of multi-classing into different roles/classes, there comes the idea of builds what the PC is going to become as it progresses. Thus the player ends up thinking about all the interesting options and powers that they can look forward to, not just concentrating on the current situation. With the earlier editions progression options are more limited. Ironically it means that in 3rd Ed. PC's need greater longevity to fulfill the players complete concept, while in earlier editions it takes longer to progress to higher levels but the concept is there from the start.
Of course not all PC's in 3rd Ed. are designed from the get go, but evolve organically. Just in the age of the messageboards it seems if someone wants help designing a PC the replies show how it "should" be done up to 15th level or so.
I hope this is not derailing an really interesting discussion.
Welcome to the discussion DSXM. No derailment -you raise an interesting point. I've never quite understood exactly where gamers conceived of the "character build" as equaling character development. However, I do understand that for many who are introverted, or unable to express their character in terms of a persona, the abstraction of game "powers" probably provides comfort, and a different way to look at developing characters "safely" without a lot of dramatic or emotional input from the player.
In the same way, editions seemed to have moved from players as focus, to character as focus, they also seem to move from character personality focus to character power/function/widgit focus.
And, I am not here to judge that. I am glad that so many have found fun in the game in those ways.
I do, however, find the concept of 'class-builds' one of those unique identifiers when I meet a gamer, that tells me they are of "that type" of gaming style. Again, no value judgement—somewhere down the line, character builds and gamist elements got a real boost from the fan base who became interested in those elements. Especially, as I am sure Houstonderek will agree, with the advent of Third Edtion. The sheer flexibility of 3.x and the magnitude of diversity and flexibility already built into the system, surely provided an entire decade's worth of character-build contemplation for many of us.
Even today, some players at my table still talk in terms of the development of PrCs and other mechanical game facets. Not, all though. I have the happy luck of having narrativists, gamists, and simulationists at my weekly table. But once a month, I also spend an entire Saturday with a gaming group that is nearly all narrativist/classic-play-style. So a mix can be enjoyable.
As for the type of gamer - it might be possible that a handful of who have been playing the game for less than nine years, may not actually know what character development means, unless it pertains to a character "build."
Sure, there were such things in previous editions as 'build features', but for the most part, were never discussed as the same as character development.
And here is where I see the pendulum swinging back to classic playstyle these days... I think there's a lot of gamers interested in more Gygaxian character development. This would include, but not limited to, the types of things fighters did around ninth level in terms of stronghold building, or becomming lords/barons. There's also interest these days, once again, in more personality development, whether or not the player is dramatic or not.
For example, beginning a character with a particular view on a subject, then playing the character through multiple adventures which challenges his world-view. Then watching the character have a dramatic moment of personal growth where she learns something new, and embraces a different view. The materials in third edition and Pathfinder are rife with wonderfull setting and game details to facilitate this kind of "growth" but has nothing to do with power-widgits or "build-types."
I would say that on the whole, as the game was designed to be more accessible, some of those more serious character aspects were replaced by objects to select from as a way to keep the environment safe from getting too deep, or revealing personal/dramatic emotions. ...Er, like a light conversation with a stranger about how the weather has been odd lately, rather than explaing that your character fears lighting because she is haunted at night by the rumbling dreams of QAR, the god of Thunder!
Over time, the late 1990s and 2000s especially, the age of video game development also portreyed character development as a series of levels, powers, more powerful armor and weaponry, and so forth. With the advent of OGL - and the simultaneous popularizing of diversity of choice, and personal customization, this particular GEN Y needs 52 choices of cell phone color plates as well as 52 character build options. And, all of this is an abstraction imo, taking the place of say, discussing what is actually said in a conversation on that phone, or what the character actually feels about their journey and the disatisfaction that drives them to seek their moment of change and true character development.
If you read really good literature, great characters experience some sort of personal change and development that often has nothing to do with the acquisition of power or ability, though sometimes that is the case.
Anyhow, not much has been written or said on this topic for almost a decade now... a decade that has been pretty much devoted to burlesquing character attributes/powers/skills/feats/spell-like abilities/features/etc. rather than discssions about dramatic development of character personae.
I am also not judging that this was somehow any more present in 2e, for example, because there isn't any way to be sure. We do know that our American society, at least was very interested in personal introspection in the 1970s and self-analysis. In the 1980s this continued for a while, giving rise to some very deep, complicated villains and protagonists that struggled. All the while, some of us at the gaming table were also exploring D&D 2.0 at the gaming table - in the sense that games were highly driven by user-created-content. GMs would leverage the aspirations and uniqueness of character personnas to plan or spontaneously deliver games that stretches characters, forcing them to roleplay through difficult situations that challenged their world view.
In the end, however, the 1990s came, and with it, a quiet time of abstracting what a "character" actually was... in terms of movement squares, supernatural abilities, feats, and prestige classes... All of this very cool, and also refreshingly intelligent and coherent and diverse, and fun.... but very different to what many of meant by "character development" in a fantasy role-play game in ages past. In other words, it wasn't just the lack of options that previously had us focusing on persona rather than power... because at the time, we didn't really see the two as the same thing.
*takes breath*
Bah, long wandering post eaten, but i agree with you Pax.
Could the rise in MMORPG's influenced the 3.X builds and have made an increase in the competition between the PC's with who can make the best PC rather than them working together as a team. Though 4th Edition seems to reward team work.
Classless systems do seem to be more condusive to character development as there are no plateau's, where a player can infer that his PC has developed because it has got a new class feature. Pathfinder seems to have added more depth to character creation with the traits. Interesting that you get XP rewards for achieving your objectives rather than just knowing that you have completed your aim.
With a lot of PrC in 3.x, you basically have to decide to start working towards that at 1st level. If you don't then you might not be able to get in them at all or won't until it is pretty much pointless. With that realization, builds are a bit more important. Now if a game is using retraining rules, then this becomes less of an issue and more "natural" development can occur. But it should be noted that game stats and how a character are roleplayed need not be an issue. For example, characters could be roleplayed exactly the same way even though one is a ranger, one is a paladin, or one is a fighter/cleric. Also not "planning a build" is still planning. If a player decides to stay in cleric, then that is still a build that they are planning. It is certainly a simplier build than say a cleric/paladin/hospitalor, but it is still a build.
|
|
Bah, long wandering post eaten
You too? Stupid computer...
Welcome to the topic, I was interested in your thoughts.
Anyway my long winded post also agreed with both yourself and Pax.
Each iteration of D&D has given people a different experience. All of these I have enjoyed to one degree or another (mood depending) over the years. Currently I'm;
(i) Playing 4e (hated DMing it in buckets - don't have figs and can't be bothered sorting to scale maps out)*
(ii) Running Pathfinder beta AP (Savage Tide)
(iii) Planning stages of a 1e AD&D campaign of "Doom & Despair" (had to name it something right? I'll DM) - anything by Gygax goes, yes even UA... [I gave into peer pressure; although I put my foot down with regards to Wilderness and Dungeoneers survival guides, not Gygax = not in]
Why can I do all of the above and not get D&D saturated? Because they are all different enough to not be the same (now there's a statement).
S.
*I hear that DMing 4e is a far better due to lower preparation time. Obviously the 27 hours per session spent at the drafting table preparing the "map boards" isn't included in this.
With a lot of PrC in 3.x, you basically have to decide to start working towards that at 1st level. If you don't then you might not be able to get in them at all or won't until it is pretty much pointless. With that realization, builds are a bit more important.
I actively tell my players, if they get uptight about prestige classes and builds, to reject this philosophy wholesale. It only matters to serious min-maxers in the end. If a character gets into a prestige class one or two levels later than he could have with a more directed build... who cares? Are they still having fun playing?
With a lot of PrC in 3.x, you basically have to decide to start working towards that at 1st level. If you don't then you might not be able to get in them at all or won't until it is pretty much pointless. With that realization, builds are a bit more important.I actively tell my players, if they get uptight about prestige classes and builds, to reject this philosophy wholesale. It only matters to serious min-maxers in the end. If a character gets into a prestige class one or two levels later than he could have with a more directed build... who cares? Are they still having fun playing?
How about if it takes an extra 9 levels (3 feats)? Considering that you can't enter most PrC until at least 6th level, that means you are looking at 15th level at the earliest. At that point, why bother? Failing to plan is planning to fail (to be able to get into a PrC).
Besides a player designed "class" (constructed from 2 or more classes) is worse than a game designed "class" (say 20 levels of cleric), how?
Also some classes require "social" situations (say drunken master for example), a character that plans out their levels can then discuss it with the DM and together they can make it work out in an interesting fashion. That is hardly a bad thing.
This does make things a bit more interesting tactically, since the most powerful spells a character can cast require a full round action (and can be disrupted without requiring a readied action). It also makes sense, IMO, "organically." Higher levels shouldn't just be about more powerful spells, but also about using lower level spells more effectively.
Totally agree. I wish you had suggested this during the beta playtest (maybe you did and I missed it). I think you have a great idea that makes an especially good house rule for those wanting to recapture something special about the 1e feel of magic.
Rapid Spellcasting
The character has trained in casting spells quickly.
Prerequisite: Caster level 5th.
Benefit: The caster is treated as if four levels higher for determining what spell levels they can cast as a standard action (i.e., an 8th level caster with this feat can cast 3rd level spells as a standard action). The caster gains no other benefit (increased damage, duration, range, etc.).
Yep, I think that's it.
The only concern is that the feat is a must-have. Treating the caster as three levels higher instead could help. That puts sixth level spells out of reach of rapid casting (6 x 4 - 3 = 21), although you could say that specialist wizards are treated as one level higher in their school of specialization (with or without the feat).
If someone still preferred 3x caster level, the feat might add only one or two caster levels for the purpose of rapid casting. I think the feat is desirable even for a single-level difference (e.g. rapid fireball at 8th level instead of 9th), and then maybe it could be taken multiple times.
The feat could even be tweaked to work only for a specific school of magic, or limited to a single spell. It could even work like a metamagic feat and add one level to the spell slot to cast as a standard action.
IMO 1&2 AD&D PC's are more about living in the moment. With 3rd Edition and the introduction of multi-classing into different roles/classes, there comes the idea of builds what the PC is going to become as it progresses. Thus the player ends up thinking about all the interesting options and powers that they can look forward to, not just concentrating on the current situation.
*ahem* AD&D bard...
|
|
IMO 1&2 AD&D PC's are more about living in the moment. With 3rd Edition and the introduction of multi-classing into different roles/classes, there comes the idea of builds what the PC is going to become as it progresses. Thus the player ends up thinking about all the interesting options and powers that they can look forward to, not just concentrating on the current situation.*ahem* AD&D bard...
You ever actually SEEN one played? No one I knew even considered it...
How about if it takes an extra 9 levels (3 feats)? Considering that you can't enter most PrC until at least 6th level, that means you are looking at 15th level at the earliest. At that point, why bother? Failing to plan is planning to fail (to be able to get into a PrC).
So they get the opportunity to pick up 4-5 levels of the prestige class. It's not that big a deal. The only real failure in RPGs is failure to have fun while playing. Not achieving certain character build goals - not on my radar.
If they desperately wanted the capstone power of the prestige class, then I'd still tell them they should not stress about it. Either of us could be hit by a bus long before they ever got to the level required to get it.
Translation: If you find an ability from a class will add to your fun, then you are playing wrong.
If they desperately wanted the capstone power of the prestige class, then I'd still tell them they should not stress about it. Either of us could be hit by a bus long before they ever got to the level required to get it.
Actually, I read that as "Trust me as your DM to realize what it is you want to play and do, and to deliver it."
That doesn't have to be via some completely artificial "build." People forget or handwave the aspect that Prestige Classes are special organizations, religious orders, secret cabals and martial brotherhoods. They look at them as cleric++, wizard2.0 and uberFighter. They're are meant to drive stories, as you become involved with them for specific, fitting reasons, not just because they offer something cool at Class5/Prc3. The "build" idea is complete rubbish because it completely discounts the direction a campaign might take your character. If it's appropriate for a cleric to join the Church Inquisitors, but he doesn't have the right feats, then we do a couple of sessions where he has the opportunity to shift those feats based on his choices and his actions. You don't have to just retrain off camera, you make it a part of the storyline and create investment.
When someone comes to me and says, "I'm all set for this character through level 15," I think... "hey man, give me a chance to at least show you the options before you plan it all out." Blindly pushing some build doesn't account for a GM's style, for the different types of adventures, for the idiosyncracies of the game world, for any number of variables. It's not very kind to your GM, who's going to be putting in a decent amount of effort to make sure everyone's having a good time.
Better to have an idea of the character's goals, interests and aspirations, then work towards those things ingame. I think you'll create more robust characters that have a deeper impact and stories that don't just begin with "remember when we were fighting the..."
-Ben.
*ahem* AD&D bard...You ever actually SEEN one played? No one I knew even considered it...
Actually, yes. I did have one in a game I ran. He developed over the course of a four year campaign by one of my best players. He really enjoyed the class and it ended up becoming a very interesting aspect of the game-- and a really easy way to involve the party or drop hooks when I needed them.
I'd call the 1E druids and bards the probable prototypes for PrCs and organizations.
-Ben.
IMO 1&2 AD&D PC's are more about living in the moment. With 3rd Edition and the introduction of multi-classing into different roles/classes, there comes the idea of builds what the PC is going to become as it progresses. Thus the player ends up thinking about all the interesting options and powers that they can look forward to, not just concentrating on the current situation. With the earlier editions progression options are more limited.
Ummm, _Test of the Warlords?_
While it was a D&D Companion level module, the premise stretched out over years as you built cooperating domains, carved out strongholds from the wilderness and eventually faced invading armies as the nascent lords of a colony under attack. Done properly, it was a kick in the pants. Given that it seems most 3.X games happen over the course of a few months (there are, of course, exceptions), this idea that your characters grew into the influential leaders of a region who helped guide and defend it as more than a band of high powered mercenaries has faded away.
Where you might have become knights, agents, court wizards, and respected prelates embroiled in the greater activities of the region, now we push that you will be smashing even bigger things in the face in even more exotic locales. That's a definite shift from 1E/2E to today.
-Ben.
Actually, I read that as "Trust me as your DM to realize what it is you want to play and do, and to deliver it."
Trust me to know better than you what you want to play.
That doesn't have to be via some completely artificial "build."
Base classes are "artificial builds" already. Let's look at the ranger. At 2nd level, they can suddenly either fight competently with two weapons or rapidly shoot a bow, despite possibly never doing either before. And yet that is somehow more "natural" because it is in a base class. Sorry, if people want to get upset about "builds" then they should be equally upset by base classes as well. All players should have to justify all their choices for class levels, feats, skills, etc. If a DM is not require it of all players and characters than that is just DM bias.
People forget or handwave the aspect that Prestige Classes are special organizations, religious orders, secret cabals and martial brotherhoods.
Some are, but not all. Those with specific roleplaying requirements certainly fit this view, but those that just require certain feats and/or skills don't have to be. Look at the Survival PrC in SS (?), you can't be a survivor unless you join an organization? That is ridiculous.
The "build" idea is complete rubbish because it completely discounts the direction a campaign might take your character.
A player that decides at the beginning to stick with the base class all the way through is just as much rubbish. And yet nobody every acts like that is.
If it's appropriate for a cleric to join the Church Inquisitors, but he doesn't have the right feats, then we do a couple of sessions where he has the opportunity to shift those feats based on his choices and his actions. You don't have to just retrain off camera, you make it a part of the storyline and create investment.
If the player decides to give the Inquisitors the bird and stick with cleric? Is the player not adapting to the campaign? Also the ability to retrain (on stage or off) is not always given. Again that is often seen as being a "munchkin" or "min/maxer".
When someone comes to me and says, "I'm all set for this character through level 15," I think... "hey man, give me a chance to at least show you the options before you plan it all out." Blindly pushing some build doesn't account for a GM's style, for the different types of adventures, for the idiosyncracies of the game world, for any number of variables. It's not very kind to your GM, who's going to be putting in a decent amount of effort to make sure everyone's having a good time.
And a player that decides to take a class all the way? Are they being unkind as well?
Better to have an idea of the character's goals, interests and aspirations, then work towards those things ingame. I think you'll create more robust characters that have a deeper impact and stories that don't just begin with "remember when we were fighting the..."
Aspirations? Like say, being able to be the best archer in the land. Hey, you know what would help? The ability to shoot adjacent foes without drawing AoO. Hey, Order of the Bow Initiate has that ability, but the only way to get into it is to plan to get into it (high feat requirement and non-matching skill requirement, need Knowledge (religion)). I guess that is out of the question. Thinking ahead for a charcter is badong.
EDIT: Let's remember the only thing a player has direct control over his their own character. I have to wonder about a DM that is not satisifed with total control over the entire game setting that they feel like they have to micro-manage a player's game choices.
Translation: If you find an ability from a class will add to your fun, then you are playing wrong.Actually, I read that as "Trust me as your DM to realize what it is you want to play and do, and to deliver it."
Actually, you're both wrong. I just tell my players they shouldn't get caught in the trap of feeling they have to have a set of powers to have played successfully or that their development has to be on a schedule tight enough to compress coal into diamonds. They don't have to lay out all their choices from level 1 and can do more playing "in the moment". If they end up not optimized, no big deal.
But I'm also not necessarily going to try to divine wha they want to play and do and deliver it either. I'll listen to what they want to do and give them the space they need to either do it... or find something else to do if their plans change.
You ever actually SEEN one played? No one I knew even considered it...IMO 1&2 AD&D PC's are more about living in the moment. With 3rd Edition and the introduction of multi-classing into different roles/classes, there comes the idea of builds what the PC is going to become as it progresses. Thus the player ends up thinking about all the interesting options and powers that they can look forward to, not just concentrating on the current situation.*ahem* AD&D bard...
No, I never saw one played, nor did I ever see anyone use dual classing, nor did I ever see someone become a thief-acrobat (to be fair, I never played in a long term AD&D campaign, though).
But that doesn't mean that the rules weren't there, and all of those would require not "living in the moment" and "progressive builds", so to speak. So it's really nothing new to 3.X edition. I like AD&D as much as the next guy, but there's no point in overly romanticising it.
Actually, I read that as "Trust me as your DM to realize what it is you want to play and do, and to deliver it."Trust me to know better than you what you want to play.
Your DM is going to realize what you want to play and do by listening, asking questions, maybe even taking some notes during the session. Then, based on that information, he's going to design subplots or aspects of the primary plotline to meet the interests you have. Since he's got the view of the whole storyline, this might not be a bad idea.
That doesn't have to be via some completely artificial "build."Base classes are "artificial builds" already. ...[snip]...Sorry, if people want to get upset about "builds" then they should be equally upset by base classes as well. All players should have to justify all their choices for class levels, feats, skills, etc. If a DM is not require it of all players and characters than that is just DM bias.
Personally? When I'm designing a character and a background? Yes. I do exactly that. The second story man who becomes a bodyguard who flees into the military after killing the wrong man and gets transferred to the elite long range patrol unit (with their signature weapon of a spiked chain) goes a long way to explain how the Rogue2/Swashbuckler1/Fighter2/Ranger1 came to be. The feats and skills and levels make sense, and give the DM hooks for later stories based on the character's background.
The base classes are the atomic units of the game. They're meant to set the very broad baseline for a character's background and really, there's plenty of leeway within them to accomodate any number of concepts-- as opposed to Prestige Classes, which are supposed to have a much tighter focus given their organizational nature. You go classless and you're not really playing D&D anymore. You're playing CoC or WoD or 7th Sea in some respects, but even those have some kind of (occasionally very) loose class system...
None of which really has to do naturalism.
People forget or handwave the aspect that Prestige Classes are special organizations, religious orders, secret cabals and martial brotherhoods.Some are, but not all. Those with specific roleplaying requirements certainly fit this view, but those that just require certain feats and/or skills don't have to be. Look at the Survival PrC in SS (?), you can't be a survivor unless you join an organization? That is ridiculous.
You pick the corner case out of Savage Species? I suppose Exemplar is similar, but in either case, I'd have you seeking out a master who guides you through the training and probably points you at a seminal text that could continue to provide insight if returning for further instruction didn't fit the game. In these cases, the character is joining an organization, but it's an organization of two, perhaps three, and it's not well defined or powerful. Still, if the player is talking about taking the class, there's got to be a reason for it-- something fits the concept or the storyline or the experiences and now the DM adjusts to handle it and give it an appropriate place within the gameworld, or he spins up something else that provides those aspects within a more fitting framework.
The "build" idea is complete rubbish because it completely discounts the direction a campaign might take your character.A player that decides at the beginning to stick with the base class all the way through is just as much rubbish. And yet nobody every acts like that is.
I said nothing about that. I think you should develop your levels as befitting the story and the experiences. If I was playing a fighter who then started doing a lot of roguish stuff, then I'd probably look at taking levels of rogue for a while.
Perhaps the difference here is that I'm accustomed to a sandbox style of play, where we're chasing the hooks we find and like, making our own hooks, and dealing with the skeletons in our background closets. Sure, there are arcs where different plotlines have focus, but our characters are an organic part of the environment, growing and changing in response to what happens to it as much as it changes as a result of our actions. We talk about skill choices, feat access, prestige class availablity and change things if they don't make sense in light of what's been going on. It's very much a troupe style play that's uncommon, but so far very rewarding.
If it's appropriate for a cleric to join the Church Inquisitors, but he doesn't have the right feats, then we do a couple of sessions where he has the opportunity to shift those feats based on his choices and his actions. You don't have to just retrain off camera, you make it a part of the storyline and create investment.If the player decides to give the Inquisitors the bird...
Then it's all good, and we pursue the story with the consequences of that decision in mind. It's about the choices, the events, and the longer term impacts for us-- not whether you can shoot an arrow in melee without provoking. Really, that has as much to do with being the greatest archer in the land as hitting targets at great range or knocking a man's weapon from his hand with a well-placed shot. Being the greatest archer in the land becomes a journey with no destination. Subplots become competitions, hunts, bounties on great flying creatures, battles where trick shots are witnessed by survivors, crafting one's own arrows, seeking out the materials and instructors that hone that skill ever greater. Now some of that might be fulfilled by taking levels of Order of the Bow Initiate, and some might be better met by custom feats, roleplaying sessions with certain NPCs, consciously placed treasure, but pushing it all into the PrC is cheating your player of a lot of fun stories-- and that's my complaint with punching up a 15-level "build." Better to tell me where you want to go with the character, the kinds of things you have in mind, and then I go back develop the adventures that address those things over time.
And I think, in a way, this relates to Gygaxian Naturalism, because it deals with the idea of training up at each level versus the "ding" mentality that's grown more prevalent.
-Ben.
And I think, in a way, this relates to Gygaxian Naturalism, because it deals with the idea of training up at each level versus the "ding" mentality that's grown more prevalent.
I might be wrong, I only played older editions rarely, but wasn't there almost no choices in the early editions. You are dwarf, that was both a class and a race, correct? Of course there was less thought about a character was going to advance under that system, when you have no choices, why think about the choices you don't have?
|
|
Better to have an idea of the character's goals, interests and aspirations, then work towards those things ingame. I think you'll create more robust characters that have a deeper impact and stories that don't just begin with "remember when we were fighting the..."
-Ben.
Very well said, Ben. This is exactly how we did it. And, as you know I also enjoy 3.x very much. So, from a traditionalist view, how do I reconcile the two? I run a game in which a few players really obsess over this type of stuff. As I stated earlier, I am very glad they enjoy playing the game. As a game master I am fair - but I am not equal. That is, I look at what makes the game enjoyable for each player. We learned this early on from Gygax—he encouraged game masters to invite players to contribute to the story and the overall fun of the game. Gygax envisioned this pasttime as one in which every player brought unique strengths to the table, and this was reflected in the differences in classes (we needed the whole of our party to be successful, an axiom that worked in-game, and outside it).
As for Ben's quote above, he hits the nail on the head. We looked at character aspirations and goals. Prestige classes, and by extension, whatever other "power" is associated with higher class levels, are just manifestations of a characters prowess in the game's mileau.
For those, like Pres Man, who mentioned he hasn't played previous editions, I say - well you're welcome at my table, and I will likely find "gamist" things to make the game fun for you. I will honor your search for the perfect PrC, or help advise you on the builds you want. But don't expect me to really care about them as your GM. Pres man's point about player autonomy resonates with me (by the way). At my table, I tell my players that they are the experts on their characters. And conversely, they leave the rest of the world to me. That said, I will also refuse some books or powers to Pres Man, if I think game balance is at risk. As the GM, I would can also refuse to allow certain PrCs or "builds" by rightfully saying 1) There aren't any of those in this world 2) There aren't any of those locally 3) That doesn't fit with the world feel or that is inconsistent with the setting I've created 4) I think that's cheesy! 5) That doesn't make any sense, given your character development thus far or 6) Let us find a way in-game for you to start down the path of that PrC, or to acquire that power.
I try to make it clear, however, at the onset of the campaign, what the setting is all about. Then, as Gygax encouraged us to do:
> I ask players to create characters that are consistent with that setting
> I let players know that PrC are extensions of the fabric of the campaign we are co-creating together (and I will be happy to design a PrC for anyone to in-game deserves prestige).
> I'd invite players to create character concepts/personalities/demeanors with aspirations or interesting story goals that seem to fit into the "fabric" of the campaign world, or the story setting, or I invite them to take part in the stories before deciding which aspect they feel their character would develop toward.
Some examples would be: a campaign that centers around an open gate to the abyss, might offer magic items, or prestige classes consistent with demon-slaying. Shattered Gates of Slaughterguard, though poorly written by Noonan (who got axed by wotci i think), did indeed demonstrate this for example.
A campaign centered around the donut that is Sigil, would likely offer certain interesting player-character races that another campaign might not, and by extension, prestige might come in many ways different in this campaign than that of the aforementioned abyss-gate campaign.
In the final analysis - gamists are more than welcome at my table. Sometimes they are the easiest to provide a good game for. Offer them options, rewards, magic items, experience points, monsters to slay, and rewards, and rewards, and increases in power, and rewards. Piece of cake.
Honestly, if I had all narrativists or deep immersion story-tellers at my table it would be fun for a while, but I much prefer diversity of thought and imagination, and game style preferences. There is plenty within the covers of 3.5/Pathfinder to keep every style pleased.
However, none of this dismisses the fact that dungeons and dragons was never about the continued amassing of new and different powers. Gary warned against this, and against allowing players to master the game. I believe I strike the balance on this issue because I allow full ownership of the PC to the players, AS LONG AS IT MAKES SENSE WITH THE CONTEXT OF THE CAMPAIGN. And, sometimes, this means characters must quest for an artifact to begin the prestige class or continue their specific "build." The greater good here (and I recommend communicating this to your players, they will thank you for it)... the greater good is served by serving the campaign as a whole first. Serve the campaign by preserving verisimilitude, consistency, coherency, and contextual options but negate, avoid and JUST SAY NO TO character builds that are straight-out dumb, goofy, inconsistent, clashing with the mileau, or imbalanced.
Lastly, I agree that levels and advancement is a trope consistent with our game, however, never let any power-hungry min/maxer lay claim that players have "rights" to build, unless the GM, in the natural wisdom of the context of her campaign, approves.
And I think, in a way, this relates to Gygaxian Naturalism, because it deals with the idea of training up at each level versus the "ding" mentality that's grown more prevalent.I might be wrong, I only played older editions rarely, but wasn't there almost no choices in the early editions. You are dwarf, that was both a class and a race, correct? Of course there was less thought about a character was going to advance under that system, when you have no choices, why think about the choices you don't have?
That's setting the wayback machine for BECM D&D, rather than 1E/2E AD&D. For AD&D, you had a race and a class, but there were racial limits for nonhumans and later there were kits that allowed different kinds of specialization, but only at the initial creation... you advanced, but it was more like, "how long until I get to attack twice around instead of 3 attacks every 2 rounds?" unless you were a caster, and then it was still pretty much like now-- time for more spells. You could consider dual classing in 1E/2E, but then you weren't supposed to use your previous class until you exceeded it, or you got no experience. It was...odd. Really, a lot of stuff was house-ruled. The fragmentation from stuff like Planescape vs Spelljammer vs Birthright vs Dark Sun vs Al-Quadim vs Mystara (which had it's own division with Hollow World) vs Greyhawk vs Dragonlance vs Ravenloft was crazy.
Let's not even get into the Skills&Powers/Combat&Tactics phase... which was like 3E, but badly implemented.
-Ben.
|
|
Better to have an idea of the character's goals, interests and aspirations, then work towards those things ingame. I think you'll create more robust characters that have a deeper impact and stories that don't just begin with "remember when we were fighting the..."
-Ben.
We learned this early on from Gygax—he encouraged game masters to invite players to contribute to the story and the overall fun of the game.
As for Ben's quote above, he hits the nail on the head. We looked at character aspirations and goals. Prestige classes, and by extension, whatever other "power" is associated with higher class levels, are just manifestations of a characters prowess in the game's mileau.
I'm nodding my head and agreeing at this exact moment...
I will say for all of 4e perceived evils it has attempted to re-inject the feeling of party over individual. 3e is really amount making yourself as incredibly powerful as possible, and if you can help the odd other member out along to way all the better. 1e/4e had/have more reasons for a party to be together and work together I believe. I could build a high level 3e Wizard and feel quite comfortable in most situations, in 1e I still would want "friends" and in 4e a lot of the things you can do relate to other members of the party <Daily Power - Group Hug for example...>
Again Horse for Courses. Playing some 4e has lead me to want to DM some 1e. My players on the whole really, really like pathfinder as do I, but sometimes the 3e "wild west" can be taxing at times on the DM as the players spring another uber-dead-combo on your carefully crafted encounter...
S.
For those, like Pres Man, who mentioned he hasn't played previous editions,
I said I played them rarely. Frankly they lacked something that 3.x has. I had fun playing them, but they didn't hold my interest.
I'm nodding my head and agreeing at this exact moment...
I will say for all of 4e perceived evils it has attempted to re-inject the feeling of party over individual. 3e is really amount making yourself as incredibly powerful as possible, and if you can help the odd other member out along to way all the better. 1e/4e had/have more reasons for a party to be together and work together I believe. I could build a high level 3e Wizard and feel quite comfortable in most situations, in 1e I still would want "friends" and in 4e a lot of the things you can do relate to other members of the party <Daily Power - Group Hug for example...>
The one quibble I would make about your comment is that 3e really isn't about that - making yourself as incredibly powerful as possible. Rather, that's one path you can take through the game and be effective at it. There are also plenty of elements in 3e that you can use to forge a well-coordinated team of PCs. 4e's difference with 3e is that those elements are more ubiquitous and harder to avoid when building your character. 3e allows you to avoid them more easily... or thoroughly embrace them.
I hear a lot of people trying to say what D&D is "really about" and in all the various editions. The most annoying that I regularly encounter is that "D&D is all about killing things and taking their stuff". All of it is ultimately bunk. These are things D&D can be, though it can always be about something else. 3e enables a lot of things, including the loner wizard or cleric who adventures on his own, but does not require them. Actually, it's one of the reasons I like 3e. I think it's the best set of flexible RPG tools in the TSR/WotC line of products, out of all of their editions of RPGs. I can go in one direction with one campaign, the opposite direction in another. Fantastic, as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
For those, like Pres Man, who mentioned he hasn't played previous editions,I said I played them rarely. Frankly they lacked something that 3.x has. I had fun playing them, but they didn't hold my interest.
Thanks for the correct. I didn't mean to misinterpret. I agree that 3.5 has many marvelous aspects that make it the premier game at my house.
I might point out that one can have a build planned out, and it not be based around being a min/maxer or munchkin. As an example, my wife wanted a character that was a negative energy spellcaster, but was able to handle a blade, and was the daughter of a noble. We worked together and designed a character that was going to be aristocrat 1/sorcerer 6/eldritch knight 10. We decided that when we were starting the campaign. This character was hardly munchkined out. Basically we designed a "class" (we used several classes to design around the features we wanted) that fit her character concept.
|
|
I might point out that one can have a build planned out, and it not be based around being a min/maxer or munchkin. As an example, my wife wanted a character that was a negative energy spellcaster, but was able to handle a blade, and was the daughter of a noble. We worked together and designed a character that was going to be aristocrat 1/sorcerer 6/eldritch knight 10. We decided that when we were starting the campaign. This character was hardly munchkined out. Basically we designed a "class" (we used several classes to design around the features we wanted) that fit her character concept.
Well sure... and in previous editions we would imagine weather our PCs would multiclass or not... and sometimes character concepts were imagined simultaneous with the class.
And back in the day we also worked with our GM to figure out bits of our characters, or the direction they were heading mechanically... like saying, "ya know, I think my paladin needs to quest for his holy sword" or "ah... my half-elf is multi-classing so I'll focus on her fighting this level and bump up that class," etc.
But seriously, Pres Man, I can respect your style of play. And I believe 3.x is by far the most sophisticated, coherent, and flexible system ever invented. But I never "bonded" with the whole "build" thing. To me, and all my players, and all the players in my other group in which I am a player, we just focus on the personality, alignment, choices we make, intentions and goals we have. And that's the stuff that gives us power. The more compelling the characters, the more believable and organic the game, and therefor the more enjoyable, fluid and productive for everyone. But, hey, in fairness, the high level ranger is counting his shots, ensuring he has point blank, specialization, multi-shot, etc. So, I am willing to call this age of gaming one that has a place for all types of preferred styles. I don't have any love for discussing character builds, I could honestly care less. I prefer a flawed, unoptimized run of the mill class character as long as they are compelling, believable, and larger than their character sheet.
|
|
The one quibble I would make about your comment is that 3e really isn't about that - making yourself as incredibly powerful as possible.
You are of correct, and I was a tad strong in my wording. Indeed you are also right that it depends on the player and the DM. But what I have found is that due to the incredibly flexible (and excellent) system that if you have a mixed party of I'll call them WoD players (both female btw) and table top gaming guys that the characters end up unbalanced a lot, more so than in 1e/4e. For everyone to make their "character of choice" it had meant that when encounters involve combat the guys make the girls look redundant. The girls have no interest in learning the best way to "build" a character and the "guys" think its the best part of the game!
3e works really well as long as everyone has the same goals I have found - before the two ladies joined the group we had really only people interested in optimum "builds" under the umbrella of a character background. Because of this all the PC's functioned at a similar level in game. It has caused me some issues in encounter design. Of course the reverse is true when we hit the non-combat parts of the game, the girls have characters capable of lots of cool things and the guys sit around twiddling their thumbs thanks to their optimized one trick ponies... I guess that's a balancing factor?
S.
|
|
I like AD&D as much as the next guy, but there's no point in overly romanticising it.
Of course their is! What the past is all about. You can't romanticize the present due to the fact you know it's flawed. Only can be done for the past, due to us not exactly remembering the crap from back then, or the future, due to us not knowing exactly how crap it will be...
|
|
Well, I just spent a few hours re-reading some of Gary Gygax's Living Fantasy book published by Troll Lord Games. And, I must say, its one of the best summaries of what the D&D milieu was meant to be. The book extolls the virtues of having enough realism in the fantasy world building process. If you haven't read this one yet, don't spend a dime on the 4e PHB III, and instead buy this book.
3e works really well as long as everyone has the same goals I have found -
Amen to that!
|
|
3e works really well as long as everyone has the same goals I have found -Amen to that!
Its been my experience that facing all the PCs in the same direction is the job of a good GM. And any attepmts at parlour tricks or overused tropes and cliches will be smelled instantly by experienced players. As such, I design, from the very beginning, the seeds that will unite the party — then I keep tapping this button every session ad infinitum.
|
|
Well, I just spent a few hours re-reading some of Gary Gygax's Living Fantasy book published by Troll Lord Games. And, I must say, its one of the best summaries of what the D&D milieu was meant to be. The book extolls the virtues of having enough realism in the fantasy world building process. If you haven't read this one yet, don't spend a dime on the 4e PHB III, and instead buy this book.
Living Fantasy, World Builder, Canting Crew, etc, are all quite awesome, imo...
|
|
Well, I just spent a few hours re-reading some of Gary Gygax's Living Fantasy book published by Troll Lord Games. And, I must say, its one of the best summaries of what the D&D milieu was meant to be. The book extolls the virtues of having enough realism in the fantasy world building process. If you haven't read this one yet, don't spend a dime on the 4e PHB III, and instead buy this book.Living Fantasy, World Builder, Canting Crew, etc, are all quite awesome, imo...
YES!!!... I don't have World Builder or Canting Crew.... but I do own INSIDIAE and find it to be a quite marvelous primary source document for adventure writing a la Gary Gygax. The book is Troll Lord Games, and the listed author is Cross, but the content is all Gygax.
First, I want to say thank you to all those who have posted into this insightful thread. I've spent the past few days working my way through the wanderings of these 700 posts and picking up ideas here and there.
Next, my background, so you can understand where I'm coming from. I played D&D (Basic Set, I get confused with the acronyms for the earlier editions) just a little in middle school, AD&D quite a bit in high school and college (and have since forgotten most everything about it), 3e in college and after, and 4e since it came out. 3.5 is the system I feel most comfortable with and prefer to play (soon to be replaced by Pathfinder). I currently DM a group (not my preference, but it was that or don't play at all), and play 4e using MapTools. I'm not a very good DM, so this has been an insightful discussion.
Regarding the current discussion, I think it should be clearly stated that the DM is the one who is primarily in control of the feel of the campaign. Not the edition/rules. Not the campaign setting. Yes the players, but to a lesser extent. My fondest campaign memory is of an AD&D campaign that was highly narrative. A more recent fond memory is of a 3e campaign that was extremely sandbox.
I am opposed to the idea of planning out 20 levels of your character. Usually this happens in a vacuum. I've only played in one game that let us start out at 20th level with no justification for our PrCs - and that game was purposely a joke.
However, everyone has goals. Even if the goal is not quite so focused as "I'm going to be the best archer ever," it often leads down a natural progression of classes. The base classes are typically the most natural progression for each archetype. Sometimes, as people get jaded, they like to try archetypes that aren't supported by the base classes. In this case, I think it's okay to sketch out a rough outline of how you'd like your character to progress.
Another recent discussion has been about earlier editions' player-centrism vs. more recent editions' character-centrism. I want to reiterate my point above about the DM controlling the mood of the campaign. If a 1e DM lets you get away with anything you want in a social situation just because you have an 18 Charisma, that's no different than a 3e DM letting you seduce the Princess just because you rolled a 20. Now, how often does this happen in 1e games vs. 3e games? I certainly don't know the answer, but I'd bet it's about the same percentage of the time. 3e models this at a finer level (Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate) than 1e, but the root problem is the same.
Finally, getting back to the whole point of this thread: Gygaxian Naturalism. I can't claim experience with Gygax's works, so I'll just comment on the naturalism aspect. From reading this thread, my view of naturalism is that it attempts to portray a believable world that exists outside of, and not for the benefit of the PCs.
I think it's best to consider naturalism on a sliding scale. Everyone has a level with they are comfortable. DMs find different ways to model the level of naturalism with which they are most comfortable. From what I understand, Gygax preferred a moderately high level of naturalism and chose to implement it using random tables. I believe that the same level of naturalism could be achieved by careful, deliberate, non-random planning. For example, a 10% chance of running into a Gnoll tribe vs. known locations of Gnoll tribes (placed without regard to the PCs) could have similar levels of naturalism.
A more important part of naturalism in my mind is that there are causes and effects. If there is a 10% chance of any random group traveling through the wilderness encountering gnolls, what else does that mean? Any nearby villages have either pacified them somehow or are under constant threat of attack. Caravans are going to avoid that area. Or, there's lots of mercenary work. Are the gnolls alone? Probably not. They'll have young and old back at the camp (hearkening back to the 1e monster descriptions the OP likes so much). And a million other considerations.
Now, as for my current attempt at DMing. I'm most definitely not running a naturalistic campaign. I'm using Paizo's APs, since I'm not a very good writer and don't want to spend hours and hours every week preparing. Running a campaign in a naturalistic world would require a lot of work I'm not willing to invest in the game. Some of my players are chafing under the constraints of the adventure, although I think they understand where I'm coming from. They want more naturalism, and I agree it would be more fun [for them] if that were case.
|
|
Its been my experience that facing all the PCs in the same direction is the job of a good GM. And any attepmts at parlour tricks or overused tropes and cliches will be smelled instantly by experienced players. As such, I design, from the very beginning, the seeds that will unite the party — then I keep tapping this button every session ad infinitum.
I wasn't referring to anything as a DM you should have control over (or very little control over). 3e is wonderfully open and people who know the rules inside out can make characters that are considerably better (i.e. "pluses") than someone with little knowledge and only a character concept. OK it could be said that the DM can suggest feat X over feat Y, but at what point does that become interference in the character concept/design? The beauty of 3e is the ability to make virtually any character, the ugly side of 3e is the ability to min/max greatly. As we all know "story characters" vs "min/maxed characters" in the same group cause encounter challenge difficulties that can be addressed, but usually at the expense of "Naturism"...
S.
"Naturism"? Are you now restricting my freedom to play a naked character? Argh! Such arbitrary character restrictions! ;D
Next, my background, so you can understand where I'm coming from. I played D&D (Basic Set, I get confused with the acronyms for the earlier editions)
BECMI means Basic, Expert, Champion, Master, Immortal. he Red Box is part of BECMI.
Regarding the current discussion, I think it should be clearly stated that the DM is the one who is primarily in control of the feel of the campaign. Not the edition/rules. Not the campaign setting. Yes the players, but to a lesser extent. My fondest campaign memory is of an AD&D campaign that was highly narrative. A more recent fond memory is of a 3e campaign that was extremely sandbox.
Sure but the editions effects on the game are still pretty profound.
Another recent discussion has been about earlier editions' player-centrism vs. more recent editions' character-centrism. I want to reiterate my point above about the DM controlling the mood of the campaign. If a 1e DM lets you get away with anything you want in a social situation just because you have an 18 Charisma, that's no different than a 3e DM letting you seduce the Princess just because you rolled a 20. Now, how often does this happen in 1e games vs. 3e games? I certainly don't know the answer, but I'd bet it's about the same percentage of the time. 3e models this at a finer level (Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate) than 1e, but the root problem is the same.
Possibly, but keep in mind that if you can make a somewhat better diplomacy check you can get a result were the NPC is willing to die at your command (see Epic level handbook - though you should manage that roll well before Epic if you put your mind to it). It really does seem that if you have a good enough diplomacy skill you can profoundly effect the NPCs and the rules seem to support that.
Finally, getting back to the whole point of this thread: Gygaxian Naturalism. I can't claim experience with Gygax's works, so I'll just comment on the naturalism aspect. From reading this thread, my view of naturalism is that it attempts to portray a believable world that exists outside of, and not for the benefit of the PCs.I think it's best to consider naturalism on a sliding scale. Everyone has a level with they are comfortable. DMs find different ways to model the level of naturalism with which they are most comfortable. From what I understand, Gygax preferred a moderately high level of naturalism and chose to implement it using random tables. I believe that the same level of naturalism could be achieved by careful, deliberate, non-random planning. For example, a 10% chance of running into a Gnoll tribe vs. known locations of Gnoll tribes (placed without regard to the PCs) could have similar levels of naturalism.
Its possible to do this and, in fact, I think a lot of DMs who consider themselves to be DMing in a Gygaxian style probably put a lot of effort into doing just such detailed settings and adventures. In a lot of cases the mechanics in Gygaxian Naturalism exist to simply make it easier to pull this off often by taking over aspects of the adventure that are both most likely to be boring to actually create and also those aspects where the DM needs to turn to the dice to insure that no bias is creeping. Its possible to create treasure hordes without resorting to tables but its pretty mundane and unless you do it prior to learning what your players will make as characters its prone to DM bias.
The 10% chance of encountering a gnoll patrol essentially takes the place of working out the gnoll patrol routes and then working out where each gnoll patrol is at any given point of the day or night. Again this is to much detail for the DM to bother with unless your actually doing an infiltration adventure so the dice are a way to get more or less the same effect without doing hours of work.
A more important part of naturalism in my mind is that there are causes and effects. If there is a 10% chance of any random group traveling through the wilderness encountering gnolls, what else does that mean? Any nearby villages have either pacified them somehow or are under constant threat of attack. Caravans are going to avoid that area. Or, there's lots of mercenary work. Are the gnolls alone? Probably not. They'll have young and old back at the camp (hearkening back to the 1e monster descriptions the OP likes so much). And a million other considerations.
Sure - though no one wants to write down a million other considerations. Part of the art is knowing when you've added enough detail. In my opinion you've pulled it off when your players can make judgment calls based on the information they are picking up during play. Ever made some kind of check in order to tell the players that 'they would know...' some aspect of local culture? Such rolls are OK but its better if you did not have to make such a roll in the first place because the players can make such deductions on their own.
|
|
Its been my experience that facing all the PCs in the same direction is the job of a good GM. And any attepmts at parlour tricks or overused tropes and cliches will be smelled instantly by experienced players. As such, I design, from the very beginning, the seeds that will unite the party — then I keep tapping this button every session ad infinitum.
I wasn't referring to anything as a DM you should have control over (or very little control over). 3e is wonderfully open and people who know the rules inside out can make characters that are considerably better (i.e. "pluses") than someone with little knowledge and only a character concept. OK it could be said that the DM can suggest feat X over feat Y, but at what point does that become interference in the character concept/design? The beauty of 3e is the ability to make virtually any character, the ugly side of 3e is the ability to min/max greatly. As we all know "story characters" vs "min/maxed characters" in the same group cause encounter challenge difficulties that can be addressed, but usually at the expense of "Naturism"...
S.
Thanks for clarifying.
Also, Allen Steward - what did you man by rp being loooong way...? More specifically do you mean within society at large, or withing the gaming community, just wondering?
Pax, in the early 1980's, the game was extremely popular in society at large. Video games were limited to the Atari system, and thus, lacking today's awesome computer RPG games & graphics, kids played the tabletop RPGs. I would estimate that roughly HALF of the adolescent males I attended middle school with played the game. Most of my peers that I knew (and I knew a lot of them) played the game. It was unbelievably popular. In society at large, the game was very well known (although the subject of some degree of concern-albeit unnecessary), and very popular. I was told (I don't know if the number is true) that 'X1 The Isle of Dread' adventure module had sold/published 2,000,000 copies.