Harsh (But Accurate) Critique of Old School Criticism of a Balanced Campaign

I just read this post by Wax Banks, where he shares his thoughts on "zero-to-hero"gaming. In particular, he calls to task those grognards* who insist their game style is superior to later editions (i.e; 3.x/4E). It's rather harsh in spots, but I don't see much to disagree about.






*: Not all OSR folks are that way. But many are, so that post certainly applies to them.

4E: All Encounters Must Be Balanced to the Party's Level

From here (though taken slightly out of context, it's a good summary of an argument put forth by many 3x/4e detractors):

Recent versions of D&D have sought to promote the idea that parties of characters should be presented with a formulaic series of encounters with challenge ratings that are balanced according to their level, plus or minus a little.

Eh...not exactly. Granted, page 56 of the 4E DMG states:

Building an encounter is a matter of choosing threats appropriate to the characters and combining them in interesting and challenging ways.

That doesn't necessarily mean that every encounter for a party of Level 5 PCs must be balanced exactly. The fact that the book gives guidelines on what constitutes an "easy" encounter, a "standard" encounter, and a "hard" encounter contradicts that. Later, the DMG states:

It’s a good idea to vary the difficulty of your encounters over the course of an adventure, just as you vary other elements of encounters to keep things interesting...

Obviously, the game is going to be boring if every encounter is a pushover, or very frustrating if the party is handed its collective ass during each battle. This is the case regardless of what edition you're using, and generally a DM is going to want to have a mix of encounters - easy ones to make the party feel heroic (or diabolic), hard ones to show them there's always something tougher than them, and "standard" ones that move the game along. The nice thing about 3.x, and especially 4E, is that the DM is given the tools to make it easier for them to determine how tough or easy their encounters are. Whether they have to be completely "balanced" or otherwise is totally up to her.

The Demise of Dungeons & Dragons

Some excerpts from a recent article* on D&D:

I'm not sure what Wizards of the Coast was thinking when they started this grand venture, but I'm hoping they missed the mark and are just too embarassed to admit it.

From the few bits and pieces about the...edition I've seen, many changes have taken place, so much so that the original core set of rules almost seems non-existant.

I don't claim to know everything about the...edition of our favorite roleplaying game (and the cause of many late, sleepness nights of pizza and bloodshed). ... What I am is a concerned gamer. Concerned with the path Wizards of the Coast has chosen for my favorite roleplaying game of all time. What's next? Will Tiamat become the very model of a modern major general? Will Elminster become a necromancer? Will umberhulks become the choice pet for kings and queens the land over? How many licks does it take to get to the center of... OK, you get my point.


*: "Recent" being August, 2000. Of course, they're talking about 3rd Edition, not 4E. But while the mechanics may have changed, the arguments haven't (read the comments and see). This is yet another example of me pointing out that the edition wars surrounding 3x/4E are just the same old thing in different clothing. What's interesting is that many of the people who would dismiss the anti-3E arguments from this article and its comments use the same logic against 4E, without looking at the discussion from a higher level and putting things into perspective.

D&D Covers

I've discussed Dragon magazine covers in the past (somewhere; too lazy to link to it), but this post from ENWorld on a discussion about PHB covers through the years sums up my feelings succinctly when it comes to Dragon:

Covers since seem to have focused more on trying to entice you into wanting to become the character displayed, rather than be involved in the scene.

"I want to be that guy!"
rather than
"I want to be THERE!"

The former was the case for Dragon for some time, particularly under Paizo. It appeals to one mindset; mine (which was served by Dragon covers moreso in the 80's) is the latter.

The W.o.G. webcomic

I just ran across the Greyhawk-oriented webcomic "W.o.G." recently, and it's actually pretty good. The early posts aren't terribly funny, but that's not uncommon (early PvP and PA are lame compared to the current strips). And the 4th Edition angst is, of course, annoying. But overall it's quite amusing, particularly the strips with the Tharizdun cultists.

Check it out; among the multitudes of gaming stuff that tries to be funny but fails horribly, W.o.G. succeeds.