What are the assumptions underlying 3rd Edition D&D?

[Origen]

I'm talking about design philosophies. Not whether or not anyone agrees with them.

For example:

1. Parties shall be composed of four people, generally but not always including a cleric type, a wizard type, a tank and a rogue.

2. Magical gear is very important in considering a character's power.

[Detritus]

Encounters scale in difficulty commensurate with increases in the party's overall prowess.

[Mouser]

Combat is the main focus of the game.

Battle maps will be used.

The fifth member of the party will be a Bard.

Somebody cares whether or not the rogue took points in Profession (Cook).

D&D players are a bunch of cash-rich suckers who can afford to buy thousands of poorly written and playtested books, figurines, and other various junk in ever increasing amounts no matter the quality.

[ed]

the common housecat shouldn't actually be a real threat to a first level wizard. :D

4. sorry...the average party member will be interested in exploring dangerous places for the purpose of risking his or her life in the hopes of discovering treasure.

5. "cutting our losses" is simply not a part of most adventurers' vocabularies.

ed

[Wook]

It is assumed that the party wins.
It is assumed that the party is generally of good alignment.
It is assumed, in a world sense, that good wins.

[David Argall]

Good and evil, and law and chaos, are identifiable things.

The alignment of a creature can be determined on sight by what form it is, with just enough exceptions to prevent shooting on sight.

While we talk of 4 directions, we really only mean 2 as chaos and law are treated as flavors instead of poles.

[Chris]

...flavors...poles.
Heh. heh heh. You said flavor. And poles. In the same sentence.

FYI: Ya know, male halflings only look like 9 year old boys. They aren't really...

[Chris]

Now on to serious matters...

6. Through overcoming conflict, one can eventually surpass human limits, becoming eventually as powerful as entire armies of mundane types.

7. Stereotypes are more than just encouraged, they are practically hardwired.

8. Everything, I mean everything, is quantifiable.

[Whimsical]

You have more than a 99% chance of surviving any life-threatening encounter, and a 98% chance of overcoming any life-threatening encounter.

Magic is a natural and neutral force that works reliably and can be mastered in a scientific manner.

One [party] can change the universe.

Although medieval in flavor, societies work more like old west towns, where anyone can walk around with armor and weapons and can take matters into their own hands when trouble arises.

[SD Anderson]

Monsters who live in close proximity of each other, do not compete for food, attack eachother or otherwise make things easy for player characters.

By the same token they do not hear combats in adjacent rooms and can be surprised when the party slays the occpants of one room and open the door to their own.

[SD Anderson]

This is not my observation but bears being said in this thread:

The Gelatinous Cube evolved to fit the parameters of graph paper.

[TinSoldier]

16. Despite magic taking the place of technology in the world, there are no discernible economic effects.

17. Despite being based on a pseudo-medieval time period, social class has almost no bearing whatsoever. Or at least nothing resembling a real feudal society.

[BattleNymph]

I've only read the PHB but in there it seems to assume that every gamer is only interested in killing the monster and getting the treasure.

[Parzival]

There is no learning curve. It's a straight geometric progression. Determained almost exclusively by your level, and without any real upper boundry.

I disagree about the "everything can be quantified". D&D is very bad about quantifying relationships, social constraints, psych limiters, etc.

[Cranky Dog]

18- You *will* use minis. (My group hardly ever, but we may be a minority)
19- The old character classes will be used.
20- The old character races will be used.
21- Attacks of Opportunities will be revolutionary and people will love them! :bawling:

Or something like that.


Cranky Dog
"I have an RPG philosophy opinion, international!"

[ed]

parz, how would those things be quantified? your objection doesn't parse to me: either it attempts to quantify them and you dislike their method for so doing, or it does not, and that's a good thing. did i miss something here?

ed

[Mouser]

Anything black is bad. (Black Elves, Black Dwarves, etc.)

Things that evolve underground without light will end up being black, not pasty white... Except for goblins and orcs, which will be green.

[Lost Soul]

If we're strictly talking design choices (as opposed to most comments so far, by the way...)

1-Adventures are short, 4-6 encounters affairs. Still mostly combat though.
2-The gigantic, hundreds-of-rooms-on-graph-paper dungeon is gone (based on the core books - I'm not talking third-party supplements)
3-Direct-damage spells should NOT be the only spells worth taking, and specialist wizards shouldn't all be Evokers. (This is a change from 2nd ed.)
4-Levels should be more important than base stats in determining a character's power. (Also a change from 2nd ed.)
5-The game is high-power, high-fantasy.

[Parzival]

parz, how would those things be quantified? your objection doesn't parse to me: either it attempts to quantify them and you dislike their method for so doing, or it does not, and that's a good thing. did i miss something here?

ed
You missed something.
It doesn't attempt to quantify, and that's currently a bad thing.
Having resources like a reputation for honesty, the heir to a noble title, a letter of marquis, contacts, a passport, etc. All can make a character more effective in non-combat situations.
Not accounting for that leaves a gaping hole in the system to be exploited by clever players.
Especially since the social mechanics of the system are problematic to begin with.
Couple the two together, and you're asking for problems.

You can ad hoc social situations, or you can have a workable system. And you can have a lot of fun with either.
But what you've got now, is pretty darn worthless. Watch what happens with the rogue if the GM doesn't scale merchants to level. Then watch what happens to the fighter if he does.
Even if the fighter has a good CHA, good INT, good reputation, and is an all-around swell guy, he's going to get screwed unless the GM ad hocs. But if the GM ad hocs in this situation, he's going to have problems appearing impartial when the rogue starts asking for ad hoc modifiers. Especially when they're perfectly reasonable, but exacerbate a mechanical problem.

[Origen]

Having resources like a reputation for honesty, the heir to a noble title, a letter of marquis, contacts, a passport, etc. All can make a character more effective in non-combat situations. Not accounting for that leaves a gaping hole in the system to be exploited by clever players. Especially since the social mechanics of the system are problematic to begin with. Couple the two together, and you're asking for problems.

First of all, I'm the first to say that the mechanics for Diplomacy and Bluff in 3rd Edition D&D lick the almighty cock, and do so with remarkable gusto and fervor.

Having said that, and having removed those mechanics in my own house rules, I'm still left wondering what you're smoking, Parz.

If a player came into my game, and said, "I'm honest! I am an heir to the throne of Blah Blah! I have a letter of marquis, a contract, a passport! Therefore, I will .... [do whatever]!" I'd simply say, "Um, no, you don't."

How can you possibly account for all of these things? In every culture, in every dimension of a multiverse? It's impossible. And having played with dozens of DMs in several states, I've never seen what you're talking about even remotely come close to happening.

You are identifying a problem that just isn't a problem.

D&D is a combat-oriented RPG. There is no doubt about that. But I've never seen a DM quiver in fear over a character appearing with a forged passport, and I must confess, the thought doesn't worry me much.

You can ad hoc social situations, or you can have a workable system. And you can have a lot of fun with either. But what you've got now, is pretty darn worthless. Watch what happens with the rogue if the GM doesn't scale merchants to level. Then watch what happens to the fighter if he does.

What do you mean, what happens if the GM doesn't scale merchants to your level? Your rogue can go in with his HUGE Bluff modifier and his HUGE Sleight of Hand, and steal muffins all day long in the market?

Yeah, Parz, he probably can. And what's worse? There's not a damn thing those poor muffin merchants can do about it.

Ph34r my l33t muffin-stealing sk1llz!!!!1111

Even if the fighter has a good CHA, good INT, good reputation, and is an all-around swell guy, he's going to get screwed unless the GM ad hocs. But if the GM ad hocs in this situation, he's going to have problems appearing impartial when the rogue starts asking for ad hoc modifiers. Especially when they're perfectly reasonable, but exacerbate a mechanical problem.

He would get screwed in YOUR game. There is nothing in the mechanics of D&D that requires fighters to be screwed in buying or selling.

[Chimaera]

Letter of Marque...

[Mouser]

... and Reprisal

<hoists the Jolly Roger and begins slitting throats>

[Lost Soul]

Two things:

1-In my experience, social stuff (basically, anything that'd be a Social advantage in GURPS) is only relevant if the DM lets it be. Making it quantifiable isn't really that useful in most situations.

2-You have high-level characters actually going into shops to buy stuff in D&D? *mind boggles*

By level 3 the only reason to visit a shop is to buy more arrows. By level five it's not even worth it for that.

And seriously - does anyone still roleplays going to the shop to buy equipment? that stuff got old like fifteen years ago for me. Roleplaying is for interesting situations.

[Origen]

And seriously - does anyone still roleplays going to the shop to buy equipment? that stuff got old like fifteen years ago for me. Roleplaying is for interesting situations.

Yeah, that get tossed by the wayside alongside with horses beaking their legs, and stuff like that, when you get to high-level play.

[Parzival]

2-You have high-level characters actually going into shops to buy stuff in D&D? *mind boggles*

By level 3 the only reason to visit a shop is to buy more arrows. By level five it's not even worth it for that.

And seriously - does anyone still roleplays going to the shop to buy equipment? that stuff got old like fifteen years ago for me. Roleplaying is for interesting situations.
Sure. Collecting gossip counts as an interesting situation. And accounts for any number of adventuring hooks.
<shrug> If orcs are prowling the forest, charcoal is going to be scarce and prices higher for metal goods. And the swordsmith or silversmith will know about the situation long before the nobility.
Likewise, the taberdashers will know all the latest gossip of the court. If you want information, it's best to have an established relationship with them.
Want bards to sing your praises? Have a notable instrument maker in your debt.

<grin> What does your group do, wait around a tavern waiting for a mysterious cowled stranger to show up?

Org, I wasn't talking about starting play with them.
But as a player, I'd be pressing to take such benifits in lieu of cash. (As the DMG expressly recommends.) But a patron (for instance) can be a *lot* more unbalancing to the game than the cash could ever be.
<grin> Pity the poor GM that doesn't understand this.

[Origen]

Org, I wasn't talking about starting play with them. But as a player, I'd be pressing to take such benifits in lieu of cash. (As the DMG expressly recommends.) But a patron (for instance) can be a *lot* more unbalancing to the game than the cash could ever be. <grin> Pity the poor GM that doesn't understand this.

Anyone here who has played high level or epic D&D:

Would you rather put 1,000,000 gp in cash in your players's hands, or a few promises and favors that can be reinterpreted, changed, or ignored at the DMs leisure?

Which would worry you more?

[Chimaera]

Haberdashers?

[Parzival]

haberdashers.

[Chimaera]

Ah, okay... I wasn't sure what you were referring to; typo, I guess. I thought that perhaps there was some nifty medieval profession that had eluded me.

[Parzival]

Nah. Just clumsy fingers. <shrug> Must have rolled a "1" on my typing check.

[Parzival]

Anyone here who has played high level or epic D&D:

Would you rather put 1,000,000 gp in cash in your players's hands, or a few promises and favors that can be reinterpreted, changed, or ignored at the DMs leisure?

Which would worry you more?
Apples to apples, please.
<shrug> For that type of dough, you're talking rulership of at least a principality, complete with bodyguard(s), information-gathering network(s), and powerful individuals (let alone armies of peasants and warriors) who owe you fealty.
As well as neighboring prinicipalities or superiors who probably owe you favors.

Which has a larger impact on your game world: The lone hero with the super-snazzy sword? Or the well-informed and socially-connected ruler?

When you come right down to it, wealth is just another resource. One that the game does manage to quantify.

[Wook]

Apples to apples, please.
<shrug> For that type of dough, you're talking rulership of at least a principality, complete with bodyguard(s), information-gathering network(s), and powerful individuals (let alone armies of peasants and warriors) who owe you fealty.
As well as neighboring prinicipalities or superiors who probably owe you favors.

Which has a larger impact on your game world: The lone hero with the super-snazzy sword? Or the well-informed and socially-connected ruler?

When you come right down to it, wealth is just another resource. One that the game does manage to quantify.

The lone here with the sword can, and prolly will, pwn that well connected socialite ruler because one of the other assumptions of 3.5 is that one person, or one group of people, can make a difference. It is very much a game of heroic warfare.

[Origen]

Apples to apples, please. <shrug> For that type of dough, you're talking rulership of at least a principality, complete with bodyguard(s), information-gathering network(s), and powerful individuals (let alone armies of peasants and warriors) who owe you fealty. As well as neighboring prinicipalities or superiors who probably owe you favors.

You're the one who said "more unbalancing to the game than the cash could ever be." If you meant something else, nobody forced you to say that.

Which has a larger impact on your game world: The lone hero with the super-snazzy sword? Or the well-informed and socially-connected ruler? When you come right down to it, wealth is just another resource. One that the game does manage to quantify.

Neither. What has the larger impact on my game is the high-level wizard who can reinvent the laws of physics or turn the castle of the well-informed, well-connected ruler into a pale grey smudge or dominate the lone hero wielding the super snazzy sword. Or the high-level cleric who can change the fabric of reality with a single spell. Fighters do not impact the world. Nor do people with information and contacts. Spellcasters change the world. It is thus. It has always been thus in D&D.

[Joe Kickass]

Everything must be balanced.