D&D and the Strategy Guide concept

[Sean]

Here's my actual play notes:

1) I ran Lord of the Iron Fortress - not the lame prequel parts, just the cubic moon, with a pre-adventure setup of my own devising. It's a tough, tough module. The ugliest part in my session was when the PCs camped out in the cave of the two blue dragons (awesome aerial battle leading up to that) and the bad guys sent an expedition of Axiomatic Fire Giants and Hell Hounds after them, plus some Steel Predators and that dust mephit assassin. Bottled up in there the whole party almost got killed - they had to Dimension Door out at the last minute. I can't imagine the four sample characters in the back surviving it, actually - I had some really strong gamist players with characters that were tougher than those and they just barely got through.

2) Shadow Walk 'short circuited' the Iron Fortress.

3) If the Pit Fiend does Blasphemy every round and your characters don't have SR, it's over.

4) A big part of why I got dissatisfied with 3e is that not only do you have to 'build the deck' MtG-style, but you have to build it before you have the cards. You also have to decide what you're optimizing for - optimizing for epic level is different than optimizing for 20th (the PHB default), and every single decision you make, even back at 1st level, makes a difference. The game is very intricate in this way. Spellcasters are actually the easiest to optimize in 3e because multiclassing tricks are simpler - you only really have to worry about the PrCs that give you bonus caster levels, since high-level spells are so tough that they swamp other possible benefits for the most part - the cleric/wizard combination is insanely wussed out (though they tried to fix that with the mystic theurge PrC).

This also forms one of my chief complaints about the system - I think there are too many Unequivocally Right Answers for feat choice and sequence, especially for Rogues, Paladins, and Clerics, but also for Fighters, which latter especially shouldn't be the case. (Oh, yeah, and if you're not playing this way? You're playing it wrong - in the sense that you'll have Ethan's experience of losing enjoyment of the central part of play (combat) more and more frequently as time goes on. Why would you want to suck?)

5) All of the things in 4 are things someone else might like. I just revolt against them in the RPG context. I consider chess and go much more interesting games of this type than any RPG.

[ethan_greer]

Um, hello? Currently Playing Lord of the Iron Fortress. A spoiler warning would have been nice.  No harm done, though - I stopped reading and we've already dealt with the blue dragons. Could you make whatever points you had in another post without the spoilers?

Ron: I've pitched all the old character sheets, so I can't remember exactly what feats I had. I'm the new guy of the group (joined in via acquaintance with one of the players when the party was 9th level), and I made my fighter character at tenth level after flirting with playing a sorcerer (shudder). As far as I can remember, the brick-wall hitting character's feats were something like this:
Iron Will
Lightning Reflexes
Improved Initiative
Weapon Focus - Greatsword
Weapon Specialization - Greatsword
Improved Critical - Greatsword
Weapon Focus - Composite Longbow
Weapon Specialization - Composite Longbos
Improved Critical - Composite Longbow
Dodge
Mobility
Quick Draw
Point Blank Shot
Precise Shot

New character's feats:
Power Attack
Cleave
Great Cleave
Combat Expertise
Improved Trip
Iron Will
Dodge
Weapon Focus - Greatsword
Weapon Specialization - Greatsword
Greater Weapon Focus - Greatsword
Greater Weapon Specialization - Greatsword
Improved Critical - Greatsword
Blind-Fight
Combat Reflexes
Quick Draw

Skills haven't mattered to this character in this game. I've made maybe two skill rolls in dozens of sessions.

Basically, the melee-specialization (the guy was primarilly melee anyway and we have two other archers) has made all the difference. The previous character was spread thin in both melee and ranged and didn't take advantage of the feats available for either one if specialized.

Mike: All the characters are at 15th level. None of the other characters were sucking as much as me, except maybe the fighter-druid, and only sometimes. Most of the players are more strategically minded and planning-oriented than me, at least as far as I can tell. The guy playing the group's ranger is probably going to borrow of buy the book, though.

It's not a matter of aplomb - in the game prior to the rework, I cost the party a Wish to keep me alive. I was ineffective for the entirety of a combat - didn't hit once, didn't do any damage, and not for lack of trying.

As far as the other players are concerned, anyone could pretty much do what I did with the GM's approval; all they'd have to do to get that approval is ask.  We're pretty loose about that sort of thing (one guy has done a new character for each of the past three modules). So I don't suspect there will be any resentment. We're all pretty much on board with the fact that the game is about having fun, first and foremost, and if character tweaks need to be made to increase the fun, everyone's pretty much fine with that.

[Sean]

Sorry, Ethan - tried to edit but I missed the deadline. Here's the relevant game-assessments again, though they may be a tangent for the thread:

4) A big part of why I got dissatisfied with 3e is that not only do you have to 'build the deck' MtG-style, but you have to build it before you have the cards. You also have to decide what you're optimizing for - optimizing for epic level is different than optimizing for 20th (the PHB default), and every single decision you make, even back at 1st level, makes a difference. The game is very intricate in this way. Spellcasters are actually the easiest to optimize in 3e because multiclassing tricks are simpler - you only really have to worry about the PrCs that give you bonus caster levels, since high-level spells are so tough that they swamp other possible benefits for the most part - the cleric/wizard combination is insanely wussed out (though they tried to fix that with the mystic theurge PrC).

This also forms one of my chief complaints about the system - I think there are too many Unequivocally Right Answers for feat choice and sequence, especially for Rogues, Paladins, and Clerics, but also for Fighters, which latter especially shouldn't be the case. (Oh, yeah, and if you're not playing this way? You're playing it wrong - in the sense that you'll have Ethan's experience of losing enjoyment of the central part of play (combat) more and more frequently as time goes on. Why would you want to suck?)

5) All of the things in 4 are things someone else might like. I just revolt against them in the RPG context. I consider chess and go much more interesting games of this type than any RPG.

[Bankuei]

Hi Sean,

I found much of the same problems myself, trying to run D&D at even 4th level.  I ran a weekly game with each session being a self contained mission, and setting up a solid challenge was incredibly difficult.  Challenge ratings were damn well useless, and it honestly came down to looking at the individual strengths and weaknesses of each PC and trying to gauge a challenge that wouldn't either be a pushover or stomp them out.

I think a great deal of D&D play, in any mode, relies heavily on the GM's right to fudge or make up things on the spot.

Chris

[DannyK]

Whoa.  I am definitely NOT a D&D basher, I played the hell out of it from the days of the boxed set with the goofy illustrations to AD&D, and I haven't had anything to do with it since then.  I know, I should get out more.  

All this time I've been reading people's posts about playing D&D, I've been thinking of it as my good old primitive "roll to hit and that's it" game.  This modern D&D is as crunchy as a bucket of ball bearings on Pluto.  Time for a major realignment of my gaming worldview.  :)

And here I thought Exalted was the ultimate I'd-play-it-but-I'm-too-squishy game.

[ethan_greer]

Yeah, with D&D3, the mechanics are dirt-ass simple.  The devil is in the details. And there are approximately 50,000 pages of details. It can get almost stupidly complex.

[Mike Holmes]

I think that another potential problem with the design nowadays is that despite the complexity, it's become largely a "known" game.

Now, I've heard that there are places (enworld?) where they still debate some of these details. But as Sean puts it there are too many "Unequivocally Right Answers." This would make at least part of the game "known" meaning in Game Theory terminology that the optimal strategy has been discoverd (or is just obvious). Meaning that there's really nothing left for the player to discern, but to employ this strategy. So the player isn't challenged, and there's no real support for this complexity as a source of fun for gamism.

Can anyone else more familiar with 3E comment as to whether or not this is true? Obviously these strategies aren't totally apparent, as Ethan didn't immediately discern them. Or was it, Ethan, that you were making selections despite an obvious strategy that would have lead to the adjusted character?

Mike

[Ben Lehman]

See, I would say that the number of "unequivocally right answers" in D&D is really the systems charm -- it is, to use a slightly jargony phrse, a true "multiple path easter-egg hunt," and I think that's awesome.

There are a couple of questions which radically alter what path you take, though, and I think prevent the game from becoming a "solved" system:

1) What's your cresting level, in terms of effectiveness/level?  This is a big deal -- a lot of people use 20, but that's really too high for most campaigns.  A character who has a strong start (3-12) gets more effectiveness out of a standard-length D&D campaign.

2) D&D is, effectively, unsolvable, except in very constrained terms (like only using PHB and DMG), simply because the number of Prestige Classes, Feats, and the like available in the WotC books, not to mention all the 3rd part d20 stuff, is staggering, and because each group brings its own house rules and system assumptions to the table.  The champion builders usually restrict themselves to WotC material, but use all of it, which doesn't correspond to most groups (who will simply use the books they have on hand, whatever they are, plus GM produced material.)

2a) Further, there needs to be a look at campaign focus.  For instance, a minimaxed build in terms of my GMing style will excel at fighting single foes that are more powerful than them, and have a strong suite of backup skills -- particularly diplomacy, bluff, sense motive, and gather information, which I use all the time.  Since there are, essentially, no hordes in my games, the feat Great Cleave is worthless.  Likewise, if you are playing with my friend J, who loves hordes, you will totally want Great Cleave.

2b) In regards to campaign focus -- it is also possible, with some GMs, to do a thematic minimax.  For instance, with my friend J, I know that if I play someone who has a certain "grim and gothic feel" (as he puts it), I will be more likely to recieve GM attention both in terms of focus time and special abilities, rules exceptions, etc.

3) It is my hypothesis that most of the minimaxing that goes on online is not totally optimized, simply because I've seen builds in home campaigns that trash stuff posted online.  Now, I happen to game with a man I consider one of the most talented minimaxers in the nation, but that's neither here nor there.

yrs--
--Ben

[Halzebier]

etting up a solid challenge was incredibly difficult.  Challenge ratings were damn well useless, and it honestly came down to looking at the individual strengths and weaknesses of each PC and trying to gauge a challenge that wouldn't either be a pushover or stomp them out.

Have you actually stomped out the group, ever?

In my group's experience, the main problem is DMs shying away from stomping hard on the party, for fear of stomping it out.

*-*-*

Regarding our recently wrapped-up 1st to 21st-level campaign I can say this:

(1)

I can't count the number of times a DM reported choosing the less deadly encounter or the number of times a DM would moan during the opening rounds of an encounter that he'd overdone it this time and the party would die.

_Each and every time_, this turned out to be a case of the DM (and occasionally the players) getting cold feet, i.e. the party prevailed.

(2)

I can count the number of times the DM overdid it on one hand:

We had one TPK due to an overpowered enemy combined with a misunderstanding (the monster would have been content to take a pony and be off, but the PCs attacked it anyway and went down like lemmings, one per round - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Incidentally, they got damn close to taking it out. It was doable, which may explain the players' stubbornness.)

Also, we had one PC death due to a set-up which exploited his weakness to a point where he could not be kept alive (half a dozen incorporeal foes with ability drain -- guess what happens if you concentrate all their attacks on the cleric with the shitty touch AC...).

*-*-*

The DMG offers good advice: From medium-levels upwards, don't worry, just stomp, and stomp hard. You'll be surprised at what a party can survive.

The majority of our best fights were greeted with an honest "oh man, we're so dead this time".

(And for the record, we make all rolls in the open and know or discern monster stats quickly. "The giant hits, non-critically, with a 34? He must have been advanced by at least 8 HD!")

Meaning that there's really nothing left for the player to discern, but to employ this strategy. So the player isn't challenged, and there's no real support for this complexity as a source of fun for gamism.

Can anyone else more familiar with 3E comment as to whether or not this is true?

Well, I for one am playing a gnome barbarian in our new campaign and considered a half-orc cleric as well. These are both suboptimal choices, but done right, they are at least viable, not least because the class system offers pretty good niche protection.

I had fun tinkering with the concepts (whereas a standard character would probably have bored me). However, I do not expect the actual game to offer surprises regarding the effectiveness of my gnome.

Regards,

Hal

[Bankuei]

Hi folks,

2a) Further, there needs to be a look at campaign focus....Since there are, essentially, no hordes in my games, the feat Great Cleave is worthless. Likewise, if you are playing with my friend J, who loves hordes, you will totally want Great Cleave.

Exactly.  Another thing, which is common with many rpgs, is character advancement is often an adaptive strategy on the parts of the players.  The hard part with D&D is the higher level you're starting at, the more committed you are in terms of how you've divvied up your points and feats without knowing the campaign focus.  This is the reason that despite everyone using D20, its not so simple to port a character from one game or campaign to another.  The same issue arises if the GM decides to take a different tack and shift focus midway through a campaign.  

Have you actually stomped out the group, ever?

The game I was running was strictly gamist.  The goal was to set up a series of tactically interesting fights, with no fudging whatsoever.  Each challenge would vary drastically, from pushover to near TPK, all using the CR rules and encounter advice given in the DM's Manual.  Twice out of 6 sessions it ended on one person standing with 5 or less hitpoints.  Another 2 times everyone came through barely scratched.

The biggest issue was the differences in strengths and weaknesses amongst the party.  A horde of small minions were a threat to everyone except the 2 "tanks", whom they couldn't harm at all.  A big guy such as an Ogre or Giant Snake could lay out party members in one or two hits.  I hadn't even gotten into magic, aside from the occassional Shocking Grasp or Magic Missle.

Also, considering that each session was a self contained mission, I wasn't concerned about "wearing away HP", I just went ahead followed the encounter advice to the T, and well, it felt as if the results were completely random.

I truly felt that the DM is the one who needs a strategy manual, more than anybody.

If anyone would like to discuss the details of that sort of stuff, feel free to either PM me or open a new thread.

Chris

[ethan_greer]

I think that another potential problem with the design nowadays is that despite the complexity, it's become largely a "known" game.

To an extent, I suppose you're right. The variation, as others have pointed out, come from the various house rules, group preferences, and DMing style.

Now, I've heard that there are places (enworld?) where they still debate some of these details. But as Sean puts it there are too many "Unequivocally Right Answers." This would make at least part of the game "known" meaning in Game Theory terminology that the optimal strategy has been discoverd (or is just obvious). Meaning that there's really nothing left for the player to discern, but to employ this strategy. So the player isn't challenged, and there's no real support for this complexity as a source of fun for gamism.

I think this is where D&D's strong subordinate support for Simulationism saves the game. Also, the fact that an awful lot of people have different opinions about what the Unequibocally Right Answers are keeps things at least somewhat fresh. That and the fact that new material is added at a staggering rate, and you've got a game that has a lot more mileage in it, I think.

And, when the game really does become "known" they'll come out with 4th edition.  Probably in a couple years. Pretty good marketing strategy, really.

Or was it, Ethan, that you were making selections despite an obvious strategy that would have lead to the adjusted character?

Not really.  I wasn't paying much attention to strategy at all. It worked until around 14th-15th level, and then it just got unfun.

[Callan S.]

I'm going to bookmark this thread as occasionally I still run into people who try to claim that the present incarnation of D&D is a good game for introducing noobs to this hobby.

I mean you need an entire book to design a decent FIGHTER? Good night , and fighers are supposed to be D&D's SIMPLE class!

Gimme Trollbabe any day! Pick one number and you're ready to roll, now that's what I call a beginners game.

Just about every video game out there has strategy guides for sale, free online FAQ's made by fans, etc. It seems a legit course to me.

[Vaxalon]

Also, the fact that an awful lot of people have different opinions about what the Unequibocally Right Answers are keeps things at least somewhat fresh.  

The fact that a lot of people have different opinions about what the Unequivocally Right Answers are is strong evidence, to me, that there is no URA!

There are right answers for a particular game group, there are right answers for a particular kind of monster, but there isn't an UNEQUIVOCALLY right answer.

Sometimes you come across stuff that is particularly well suited to resisting your attacks.  Sometimes you come across stuff that can get through your defenses particularly well.  That's true in any game where your abilities are as explicitly described as they are in DND.  The fact that you went 14 levels without coming across them speaks well for your ability to adapt.

[ethan_greer]

In all fairness, I only went 5 levels - started the character at 10th and started sucking at 15th.

I like what you're saying about Unequivocally Right Answers. But can we agree that in D&D there are Unequivocally Wrong Answers? (Such as the Toughness feat, for example?)

[Vaxalon]

I like what you're saying about Unequivocally Right Answers. But can we agree that in D&D there are Unequivocally Wrong Answers? (Such as the Toughness feat, for example?)

Toughness?  Makes perfect sense for zombies.  They're never going to gain another hit die, ever, so the fact that it doesn't scale with HD is not a problem.

Or how about for a first-level wizard in a one-shot game, where the PC will never gain a level in play?

No, I don't think we can agree that there are UWA's in 3.5.  Some are Wrong Answers for most PC's, and most situations, but except in the case where a build item (like a feat, skill, spell, etc) has been superseded by one that's nearly identical except for being clearly better, I don't think UWA's exist either.