The Demise of Dungeons & Dragons
Change can be a good thing. Without change, several of history's momentous events would never have come about. We would be currently living a life so much dissimilar to what we know it would hardly be recognizable. Change is not always good, though. Some things are better left the way they were. 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.
Change can be a good thing. Without change, several of history's momentous events would never have come about. We would be currently living a life so much dissimilar to what we know it would hardly be recognizable. Change is not always good, though. Some things are better left the way they were.
Wizards of the Coast have been a rising force in the gaming world since the advent of Magic: The Gathering. They have taken great leaps of faith in a card game that was sure to fail, it was so different from the norm. But, in the face of adversity, Magic flourished. Now WotC is turning it's visionary viewpoint on a tried and true favorite of gamers around the world, AD&D.
Dungeons & Dragons has went through a few changes already, from first edition to second edition, from basic to advanced. I have played D&D for 16 years now and was never so happy as to see 2nd edition grace the shelves of bookstores and game shops. It was new, refreshing and an answer to many problems and questions that arose out of 1st edition. Don't get me wrong, 1st edition was a blast to play and was a revolutionary step in roleplaying. 2nd edition, however, raised the standard even higher, adding new elements to the rules, changing some monsters and adding new ones. Some creatures were removed from the game, a few to placate angry parents who thought there was a satanic undertone to the game and a few to balance out the worlds created by the designers and gamers alike. Over all it is the best game, I feel, to ever come out of man's imagination and creativity. Now we have AD&D, 3rd edition.
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 3rd edition I've seen, many changes have taken place, so much so that the original core set of rules almost seems non-existant. THAC0 has been removed entirely, relying on a challenge rating of the creature being fought by party members as well as a rating assigned to the party themselves. Action or battle also consists of feats, instead of proficiencies. Saving throws have been reduced to 3 categories and initiative has been reverted to highest number goes first.
Initiative
Initiative has always preceded any other action in a round of AD&D combat mode. Your necromancer wants to cast that spell he's been drooling over? Roll initiative. Your paladin took personal affront to the orc spitting on his holy symbol? Roll initiative. It's been the basis of combat and action since the game began. I have nothing against the change back to higher goes first. However, the roll is now made with a d20 instead of the d10 previously used. This may not be that big a deal, and certainly wouldn't make the game any less enjoyable, were it not for the fact that there are now all kinds of variables to add or subtract from the initiative roll. No longer do you have to take into account weapon speed or the casting time of spells, but now you have the feats and other special bonuses, etc. to make your roll higher or lower, depending on what it calls for. I'm sure the thought all this would make combat rounds much easier, but I fail to see their line of thinking. Adding in that many variables to take into account for such a simple part of the round as initiative does not seem, to me, to be beneficial and would take much more time rather than make the play more fast paced. Another change to initiative is the fact that you keep the same roll throughout the combat session. If you go third on the first round, you go third for each subsequent round. Unless you choose to focus your action, wherein you lose your action for that round but are allowed to automatically go first next round. Why not just keep the tried and true method of deciding who goes first each round?
Armor Class and THAC0
Since the change between 1st edition and secone edition, THAC0 has been an integral part of combat. It was a simple equation to figure out how hard it was for you to hit whatever you decided to attack. The monster's AC is 0, you're a 2nd lvl warrior, so you need a base roll of 19 to hit the offending foe. Simple, right? Apparently Wizards of the Coast didn't think so. They wanted to simplify the rules for D&D even more and do away with THAC0, replacing it with a greater number of variables to add or subtract from your ability to damage a certain adversary. Challenge ratings, difficulty ratings, etc.. There are now so many different pluses and minuses that I wonder if the rulebooks will resemble algebra textbooks from high school. You can hit if your (blahblah) is added to the initial roll of (ugh), then subtracting your (squeak) from the base number of (honk)... OK, I'm generalizing and probably making it sound more complicated than it really is. But in my mind it's more difficult to do all this than to just keep it the way it was. Which brings me to Armor Class. They've changed that, too. Now, the higher your AC, the better. An AC of 20 is incredibly good for the defender and disheateningly bad for the attacker. What was wrong with the way it was? Nothing that I, nor the group I've had the fortune of DM'ing and playing with for years, could see.
I don't claim to know everything about the 3rd edition of our favorite roleplaying game (and the cause of many late, sleepness nights of pizza and bloodshed). I don't claim to be an expert on 2nd edition. 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.
My sole complaint about the change from Thac0 is that figuring out AC and Thac0 was always the bar to play. You had to be this tall to ride the ride, and it was good, because even if, in high school, I got stuck running a game for a group that included a couple of 13 year olds, I could reasonably expect that they knew how to count based on the fact that they had to figure out whether they hit or not based on an unnecessarily complicated formula. If they hadn't figured it out, we sent them back to play hack-and-slash with the other kids their age until they did.
Heh. I'll definitely agree with you. If there was ever a come of age in AD&D, it was certainly when you understood was THAC0 was. I remember staring at gaming sheets, and saying "Yup. No problem. Yup..." and then seeing THACO, and just kinda mumbling off...
Don't write a rant about a game before it has even come out! This is one of the silliest articles I have ever seen. First of all, you mention that you haven't even read the game, and then you pick apart a couple of rumors about changes in a mechanic. Get the facts before you rant.
2nd Edition AD&D is by far the worst RPG ever made. It was a money-making piece of crap, and those of you who defend it have supported its crap. Now it is time for something that is truly playable and fun to take its place -- I hope that is D&D 3E. I am waiting for my PH to come in the mail, but from what reviews I have seen, it is a very promising time for D&D.
Give up 2nd Edition AD&D and move to 3rd. Its time to change.
NDogg, I was not going on rumors or second-hand information when I wrote this article. I was going on information I got from www.wizards.com, home site and marketing place for Wizards of the Coast. If I had used questionable information, I would have said so. Your comments are way off the mark.
I have read the third edition PHB (writing an article about it, actually), and I can assure you that none of your worries are founded. You are just inventing things based on very thin information. If you can't wait for the book, go and visit Eric Noah's site, it practically contains all the material you need to play 3rd ed.
I haven't played D&D in many years. Late 80's I think. WOTC has sparked a renewed interest in the game for me. For the first time in years I'm really excited about buying a D&D book and waiting for the next. I think that what WOTC is doing is good for D&D as a whole. The previous system worked, but is was kind of overwhelming for new players or potential players. I think it's good that they are trying to "standardize" by using the "d20" system. And the new look and feel of the game is very appealing. (Much more than the lackluster 2nd edition books.) I think 3rd edition will draw many new players and returning players and that can only be good for all of us. TSR was failing and if it wasn't for WOTC would most likely have gone under. If anyone is going to produce D&D products I'm glad its WOTC.
Jason, you are absolutely right. TSR would have gone under if it wasn't for WOTC buying them out. They had been forced to give ownership of their building to a publisher they owed money to. This was done about a year and half before the buyout. I can't say I was overjoyed at WOTC being the ones doing the buyout, but I am glad TSR is still around in some form.
Its sometimes the simplest mistakes that make you realise exactly HOW uninformed a wouldbe critic really is.
Like the fact that you kept calling it AD&D3.
Instead of what its true name and goal is, D&D3.
No advanced, in practice or principle.
Get a clue.
I am a player of the various forms of dungeons and dragons since first edition. I have loved each of the systems for their own merit. The 1st edition kicked ass. The 2nd edition was great except for the important ingredient, Gary Gygax. 3rd Edition has come about for need and the evolution of the "D&D" product line will die without revolutionizing itself and the industry, as it has done since the industries conception. I applaud WOTC and look forward to many long years of 3E Dungeons & Dragons.
Rabbitman, you are right on! WOTC has degraded one of the boundary breaking FRPG's into nothing more than a kiddie game and math class! WOTC is the Disney of RPG companies with its retooling of the world to make it acceptable and politically correct for everyone! Everyone can be a Paladin now. Everyone can be a 99999999999999999th level elf now. Noone need hear the word 'thief' in D&D discussion. Don't worry fighters, you'll advance just as fast as wizards and rogues now. What? Game balance has been destroyed? D&D 3e is nothing more than an RPG video game played on paper? Other than the absence of ability pre-requisites and fun, our game mechanic resembles Palladium's FRPG almost exactly? Our core base of fans that have been with us for twenty years+ feel alienated?
Thanks Rabbitman for not being afraid of the Wizards of the Coast who are devouring what is left of the gaming world.
Okay, I'll agree with you on the initiative issue. They should have included an advanced initiative section in my opinion - for the sake of realism (if that even applies).
The old AC system, however, is freaking retarded. Start at 10 and go down to -14 - what is that? Why 'max' out at -14? It all seems so arbitrary.
As for balance, I think that the new class system is way more balanced. It is now worth it to multi-class. There is no dual-class/multi-class distinction. The fact that only humans could dual while everyone else could only multi never made sense. Now, it doesn't have to.
Okay, losing the 'thief' seems to have pissed off many a gamer in my group. Whatever - I'll still call my characters that - if that's what they are.
The only point I see that you have is that you're a moron who obviously doesn't have a clue about the rules of the game. Do you often write reviews about products based on rumors and hearsay?
Harumph! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
Table-top role-playing is so passe any way. Go live!
Ozmar, just one note... Rabbitman wasn't writing a review but an opinion piece based on preview information Wizards had released before the game was available. Thats why the article was in our rants section, not reviews. :)
Well...intelligence in responses and general idiocy in responses. Nice blend guys...can I get someone to condemn me to Hell now? I'd like to say, for those of you who think otherwise, THE INFORMATION I USED IN WRITING MY ARTICLE CAME FROM WIZARDS OF THE COAST'S OWN WEB SITE AND FROM DRAGON MAGAZINE!! Get a clue, people. I don't make things up, other than a complete world, including detailed map, kings/queens, princes/princesses, generals and such. Names, places, events are all made up...BUT ONLY IN MY OWN WORLD!! I would not make up information on a spur of the moment, nor after thinking about it for a while...geez.
For those of you who responded intelligently, I thank you for your criticism and insight and responses. For the rest of you, (fill in the blank). No, I haven't see the PH yet. No, I didn't speak with a representative from WOTC. I looked over the available information on the web and in publication and wrote my article based on this information. If anything is erroneous in my article, blame it on WOTC, not me.
It is a game made to make money and to give the user enjoyment. If you people have a hard time seperating a game and its impact on your life as minimal you need help. As for me the new system is smoother and has added a few new twists that make it more "fantastic". So lets all calm down and either buy it and enjoy it or atick to the old system and enjoy it. Its just a game.
Calling all munchkins! Dust off that Elf Fighter/Mage/Thief/Paladin/Cleric/Ranger that noone would let you play because it violated all the rules! 3e is here for you!
Having played D&D and AD&D for 16 years, I can conclusively say after reading the d&d3 PH, it's not D&D. It's about as much D&D as, say, Palladium Fantasy or the Japanese Lodoss War RPG, both of which were inspired by D&D, but rule-wise, are no longer anything like it.
Let's see... You change 1. the combat offensive mechanic; 2. The character attribute mechanic; 3. the combat and spell defense mechanics; 4. the profession use/selection mechanic; 5. the spell mechanics (albeit, for actual mages, this is the least changed); 6. the skill use mechanic; and 7. the initiative mechanic. And these aren't subtle changes, but major rewrites.
The end result is a completely different RPG, no matter how you "WotC are gods" types want to rationalize it, despite the input of the D&D creators. I have read the system - it's a pretty nice system - but it's no more a new edition of Dungens and Dragons than a 2001 Jeep Grand Cherokee is a revision of a 1940s Willys Jeep. The problem lies in its being called something it is not - a new edition of an existing system. It is this incompatibility that will prevent me from ever playing it, as none of the local players will touch it, because of this lie.
When second edition came out, I gave it a shot and didn't like it! I kept playing first edition. Now that third edition is out I have read the rules and I will admit it is alot different, even so it is still worth a shot. Personally I like the new rules but I understand that some people won't! The easy solution is if you don't like third edition keep playing 1st or 2nd. In the end, at least we have a variety to choose from.
Rabbitman, simply put: dead wrong. Like yourself, I'm also a longtime gamer, 12 years myself and I've played through basic, 1st edition, and 2nd edition. I loved the simplicity of basic, and then went gaga over 1st edition. Especially with all the supplementary classes such as the Dragon Bard, Dragon Monk, the Witch, Incantatrix etc. But I was a critic of 1st edition too, there were definite problems. 2nd Edition was the opportunity for TSR to remake and fix some of the problems of 1st edition. Nada. Just another money-making venture from TSR. Most of my friends have lost a lot of respect for TSR since the coming of 2nd edition. What was the purpose of it? To eliminate some classes and make a fancy picture book? I didn't notice that much difference between the two editions aside from the $200 or so dollars for the new set of books. Why stick with a cumbersome AC rating which went from 10 to -10 and beyond? TSR's AC system does not make any logical sense! How about simply starting at 0 for... gasp! NO armour then increase? is that logical or what? Taking out the demons and devils or any semblance of satanic or evil creatures was just plain cowardly, guess what tsr? Adults play d&d too! What about combat-oriented skills? Instead, 2nd edition gave us non-combat non-weapon proficiencies based on char stats and not on skill advancement, whoopee. I wrote up a better skill system on the fly in my world. The Viking, Dwarf, Elf and other ridiculous handbooks were just obvious money-grabbing ventures for TSR. Why eliminate such old standbys as the barbarian and monk? Who wanted to play a fighter anyways? The magic system was a joke, who could play a wizard and survive from 1st to 10th level honestly? The specialist mages were totally unbalanced, the necromancer and conjurer always received the lowest amount of flexibility and power. The conjurer didn't even receive one monster summoning type spell per spell level! Not one wizard ever survived any of the campaigns, and when we imported pre-made wizard characters, they weren't even that tough at high levels. For example, take a 10th level fighter vs. a 10th level mage. Since the fighter could probably save on an average of 5 or so against most spells, the usual 10d6 spell attack got reduced to 5d6 damage effectiveness which averages to 5 X 3.5 to 17 points of damage assuming the spell gets off. Compare that to a fighter swinging a d8 weapon 5/2 with a damage modifier of +12 (+3 str, +2 skill, + 3weapon, +4 misc magic and spell). Guess who wins? In fact, it was 1st edition that got most of my friends involved in RPG's and it was 2nd edition that turned us off of it. We went into Runequest instead and eventually rewrote the TSR system with a sensible combat system, combat oriented skills (i.e. feats), a balanced spell system with 10 spells for each level for each school, gods that made sense instead of the silly FR gods (Myrkul, Bane and Cyric are evil? oh please. they don't even decapitate their foes) and a more balanced char class system (thieves are useless: they can't fight, and spells such as find traps and invisibility make their skills useless). Rabbitman, if you've been playing d&d for 16 years, then I pity your campaign still set in the 2nd edition world.
Not that this matters, but I started playing D&D in 1981. Believe me, I know what you're feeling Rabbitman. The mystique of 1st edition AD&D and the older D&D was not that it was well-written, concise and balanced. On the contrary, you had to have pretty good reading skills (First time I read the DMG I was constantly hitting up Webster for words like "milieu" and "dweomer") to have a clue what was going on. I know this sounds corny, but it was like you were some sort of a wizard yourself, poring over some dusty tome to unlock it's secrets. (Ohhh, so that's what Type D poison does...) You were a member of a Masonic-esque clique, where only a select few knew or could understand the intricate rituals.
Being a teen-ager when I started gaming, I of course did not take care of my old books. I have since had the good fortune of finding a collector who sold me a 1st edition DMG, PHB, Monster Manual, and Legends & Lore. When I reread those books I did not see the drab black and white artwork, conflicting rules, tons of charts and minutiae. I saw my childhood. Hours spent in the basement of my friend's house. Gaming three, four, even five times a week because we didn't have to worry about jobs or paying bills or significant others. Talking about killing orcs in the halls at school and getting weird looks from teachers and other kids. I know this sounds stupid and hopelessly maudlin but it's the truth.
Alas, life marches on and things change. I know today's young gamers who start out with 3ED&D are really getting shortchanged out of what the game used to be, but keeping the game the same as it was wouldn't work either. WOTC has to make money too, or else there wouldn't BE a D&D anymore, and that would be a bigger travesty. To make a bad analogy, you can't sell Zork or The Bard's Tale when Baldur's Gate II is out there.
Rabbitman, you goofed bigtime. You took a few prerelease sample articles, and made assumptions all over the place. There are fewer modifiers to initiative than there were in 2e, the new armor class/to-hit rules simply use a different mechanic to reach the same result as 2e had, 99% of the math used in the game is simple addition. I'm sorry, but the old THAC0 system was nice, but had its downside. Subtract AC from THAC0 to see what you need to hit. Sounds simple enough, right? Do you know how many friends I have that have very poor math skills? Ask the average people on the street to subtract negative seven from fifteen, and see how many different answers you get. The new mechanics make sense, period. (By the way, -7 from 15 is 22.)
As for people who don't like feats, I say you better use them. The feat rules are used to make fighters into hideous engines of death, which greatly compensates for the lack of spell use and other special abilities that the barbarien, paladin, and ranger have.
The magic rules have taken a handful of alterations, but remain mostly unchanged.
There are optional rules aplenty in the new DMG, including rolling initiative every round.
Yes, racial and class ability score requirements are gone. Why can't I play the only weak half-orc? It's a good character hook. 3e says you can. Why should the gods favor only the beautiful with paladinhood? Dwarves are very community centered, why can't they be paladins? Besides, if the DM thinks opening up the class/race combinations is unbalancing, he can always reinstate them (they're even listed in the DMG).
The biggest thing in 3e is it gives you the mechanics to make it easier to say "You can try" instead of "No, you can't do that".
Lastly, in regards to those who say that 3e is designed to make money... Duh? Of course it's supposed to make money you goof! otherwise they'd give it away! My biggest complaint about the gaming industry is that it IS an industry. This means that the company will eventually use all the good material and be forced to publish crappy stuff for no other reason than the fact that the company has bills to pay. Look at 2e, the average issue of Dragon Magizine was better written and edited than half of the PHB suppliments, and how many of those damnable things were there anyway?
I have seen the new 3e PHB and DMG. I have seen the future, and it is good.
Firt off...someone mentioned it above but it bears repeating - 3E is NOT 3rd Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. It IS Dungeons and Dragons (3rd Edition)...I personnally just call it 3E for short. The reason for this is that some potential gamers and some original D&D players didn't go for 1st or 2nd edition because of the "advanced". They felt it implied that you had to be a genius to play, or that it was a greatly superior gaming environment - I won't touch on that topic...
I have to agree with J.S. - I have been playing 3E with a group ever since the release of the PHB and its fantastic! It took us the first couple of weeks to work out the details (and institute some house rules) but play is faster & easier allowing us to concentrate on role-playing. The feats and stuff DO make fighters awesome. My human fighter could stand toe-to-toe with his entire party of five (cleric, paladin, rogue/sorcerer, fighter/rogue/wizard, ranger/druid)! talk about a walking talking killing machine! I never liked playing fighters...they were great at early levels but then they "topped" out and were just cannon-fodder. NOT any more.
The biggest thing I like is the advent of the D20 system (even though 3E doesn't strictly adhere to it...) and making skills, feats, saves and attacks all happen on one die.
Our only complaint has been the staggered release of materials...we are waiting rather impatiently for the monster manual.
3E is a good change - and a natural evolution...I think it is going to be even more successful than AD&D ever hoped to be!
Give it a try...you don't have to invest a lot of money - get the Adventure Game for $10. Its a little watered down but you will definetly see the improvements in simplicity that have been made!
Later days...
I was like many of my gaming brethren, hearing about the tyranny of third edition. (Half-orc barbaian/wizard/ROGUE/Paladin!?!?!?!)Then I picked up a 3rd Edition PHB and said "Wow." The book looked slick- granted that the little gems looked a little too much like the Magic the Gathering gems- but the general appearance of the book was intriguing. Yet, the appearance of a book doesnt make a game, so I put it back on the shelf.
Then my friend bought the game. After seeing a DM at the local card store in action and reading some of it, I started to like it. It was weird. I DESPISED the game for the months before that I had heard about it. But suddenly, I started to like it, it was strange. The aura of the game just sucked me in. And I feel that it will to other gamers that hated it just as much as me.
I have been gaming since 1985 and like many others it all began with DnD. You remember the red box? Well I wanted more so I picked up 1st ed. ADnD. I was hooked. I eventually collected the entire hardbound set except for the "Fiend Folio".(I once saw a copy, but it was very ratty so I passed.) Then along came 2nd Ed. ADnD. I picked up a few of the books but it just wasn't the same. I had discovered other game systems and bluntly put, they were superior. I still loved the DnD "world" but I just couldn't take the clunky old system anymore. Lets get something straight readers, DnD isn't about this rule system or that, DnD is a shared experiance among gamers. It's home. That said the new "system" for the DnD "world" is leaps and bounds ahead of it's predecessor. Rabbitman, I believe you have been unfair to this new system. I think that with the marketing dollars of the mighty Tarrasque "WOTC" and this new more logical system maybe DnD can make a comeback and with this engender a "Role-Playing Renaissance" I hope for the hobbie's sake that it does. It would be very sad if it died with our generation.
I agree with some of the things said, while I disagree with others. True, there are alot of plusses and minuses on rolls, but I think if you made proper notes on your character sheet it would all work out. I haven't seen the minster manual yet, but from what I've seen, it will be fun to play different races other than the standard ones. The feats are cool because they are a little more powerful, but harder to get. I agree that the saving throw system is dumb though. I like it better the other way.
Some of you guys just need to chill out. 3E is a alot better than any of the previous editions. D&D has allways been a streamlined system to begin with and they have jsut made it even more stremed lined. The core issue is the sytem mechanics have changed and I think the change is for the better. Who cares if your ac is a 2 or 18 IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. compare the numbers: 1ed 1st lv. fighter needs a 19 to hit ac0 1st lv. ftr. 3E needs a 19 to hit ac20 WHATS THE DIFFERENCE? there is none. BUT mr. gorjo they have swictched up all the mechanics. NO they have not all we are doing is calculating in a different way to get the exact same result no matter how much you scream and yell. Just do the math and you will see. I also love the anti WOTC people who say they will never play or buy the game because they are stiffing us and trying to make money. Well I hope you never got into rolemaster and had to buy there 8 core rule books. But your right they where not trying to make money just a more relistic combat system for us to play and enjoy. The beauty of D&D has allways been a simplictic format that involved mor imagination than number crunching and looking up reults on charts. Game "systems" do not make roleplaying any better they bog it down into a mundane number crucnh and tell you what happens not you making the result up in your mind and roleplaying the results. Since everyone wlse seems to have to add weight to their posts by putting saying how long they have been playing, like that has anything to do with the weight of your statements, because TSR could care less what us old fossils have to say because the real market for the game are the younger generation that have not played for years. Here it is. Been playing basic D&D since 1979 and went to GenCon again this year and got the new 3E. My group has switched over because it is a better system. And yes Iam probally the only DM who can say I HAVE NEVER AND WILL NEVER PLAY OR BUY ONE THING THAT SAYS ADVANCED D&d. THATS RIGHT MY GROUP PLAYED BASIC D&D SINCE 1979. SO TAKE THAT LIKE IT MEANS ANYTHING. My lst comment is this. AD&D is the biggest pile of *&^% that was ever made. It changed nothing from D&D. it only took away imagination and put into rules systems and cocepts lamers could not imagine themselves.
Hey rabbitBRAIN, Did you finally read the rules of D&D(3rd)?Or are you still wading yourself in the prejudiced mud you made on premature and incomplete(and at this moment mostly outdated)material?
Let me put one thing straight:If you can't roleplay without strict,over-mathemized and,mainly,muddy rules;YOU CAN'T ROLEPLAY AT ALL!!!
After all,a RPG takes place in the mind of the players and DM's,not in rules and statistics.
If you can't understand that,you better stick to monopoly or something similar.
By the way:having started playing 2nd AD&D (and continued to play it for a while)i found out,that the handbooks should only be used as a suggestion to as how to ROLEPLAY,not a bible.
So next time you try to write something , write about something you understand!
I own a PHB, a DMG and will (by tomorrow) own a Monster Manual. In short, I'm in love with D&D 3rd Edition. I think the system is much cleaner, easier to understand and that newbie players will get the hang of it a whole lot faster than they did/do with 1st and 2nd ed. "..but I thought negatives were bad things." True, if you look at the system in the way of numbers, it all ends up the same either way. I especially love the fact that no matter what your ability score, you have the same modifiers for all. I also love it that the magic has been balanced (as far as the differences between clerics and wizards go). Also, all you combat twinks out there are gonna love this, the game is far more lethal. Beware!! This game is gonna sweep the floor with 1st and 2nd ed. saleswise. In summary, 3rd ed. rocks! I am so glad I made the switch.
In responce to all the comments good and bad about the newest addition rules. I have been playting D& D for 13 years and have problably only played by the rules in the book about 10 times. My party has always had the imagination to adapt the game to a level that we enjoy playing. I think the same is in order with the newest eddition to the game. I believe that D & D is a game of the imagination and should not be imprisoned by a set of rules. Look at D & D like a mage looks at magic if you dabble out side the rules of casting and push energies out side the box you will become more powerful and successful. The same is true with the game. But BEWARE stray to far away from the laws of magic and you wiil be consumed by it's power. The same will happen if you stray to far from the rules created by the wizards of the coast.
Despite my complete disagreement with a number of Rabbitman's points (well, almost all, anyway), something elses is my point...
WHo here has ever played GammaWorld 4th edition? Many of you may have heard of or seen the new Alternity version? (5th ed). The GammaWorld 4th ed game, written by TSR in 1992 (AFTER AD&D2nd ed)by Bruce Nesmith & James Ward has a number of interesting features.
AC starts at 10 and goes up (like in 3rd ed). Initive is highest first (d10 still, though). Skills were gained point by point, (unfortunatly, you still had to roll under the skill...)
I just love D&D3rd ed. I quite liked 2nd ed, but after many years... a change was needed.
I love the new power of the characters (and I'm a GM). Why? because it means you can up the power of the monsters as well, to have truely heroic games, where the PCs can mash through hordes of enemies - and monsters have a fighting chance to do the same to the PCs.
Want a Half-Orc Barbarian/Paladin/Monk? sure, but you are no more powerful than a halfling rouge of equal level.
Anyhoo, my main point was that is was interesting they brought back and re-hashed old rules from a game they produced 8 years ago. Could they not think up a new idea to save themselves? Maybe. I prefer to belive they stuck with what works best.
I love 3rd edition and have found nothing wrong with it.I have bought all the books that dont go off into other worlds.
I fully agree with Rabbitman!! 3E is just a plan to get you to buy books you alraedy own! They killed TSR and distroyed there system. Insted of supporting WotC, you sould be boycoting them.
I must say, alot of you complain that WOTC is just making it so we buy more books but did you ever think that TSR did the same thing. To put it frankly if nobody buys the books the system will stop being published. Frankly I think that would be worse than spending more money on a hobbie that I love. I hope new editions keep coming out so that there is dungeons and dragons in the future. I want my child to grow up and have the chance to play and expand his imagination like I did.
I think that what Zarzcas is wrong about Wizards making new editions. I'd rather never play D&D again than become a turn coat and change additon. I have bought the 3E Players Handbook and read most of it. They have made the game simpler at the cost of realism. Whats to stop me from becoming 2nd level in every class and using the magic items for every class? Why didn't Wizards just make a diffrent game like Magic the Gathering the RPG? 3E is nothing like the old systems. They changed all the monsters look so you'll have to buy new minuatures. They stopped printing every 2nd edition book the day 3E came out so you'll only beable to buy 3E. If you ask me they distroyed the game! I'm with the guy who said to boycott Wizards! DOWN WITH WIZARDS!!!!!
Man, I thought that I was the only one who hated all this Third addition crap. Personally it lacks all the feeling of the las two additions. Have you seen the new Monster Manual? They really buffed up the mosters. I guess thats for lazy Dm's who were eather to lazy or stupid to do it themselves in seconed addition. Heres a tip. Don't waste your money on third addition. Remember that your the dungeon master. If you want a Dwarven Padaden or Mage, then have one. If you think the monsters are to weak, buff them up. Don't go spend hundereds of dollars to buy books that have these solutions that you can solve for free with what you have.
I totally agree with Rabbitman's comments on WOTC's release of D&D 3E. There's an old saying I'm sure most of you have heard, If it's not broke, don't fix it. As someone else mentioned I have no problem with WOTC coming out with a new RPG but what I do have a problem with is them calling it a new edition of D&D. They should have called it GURPS 2nd edition instead!!!!!
Friends of mine have been getting me to switch over to 3rd addition (Here after called RPG Poison) and have failed. I admit that I obtained (notice I didn't say bought) a copy of the players hand book and read through a couple of pages. I found it to be the stupidest bunch of crap I've ever see! I mean when you update an addition, it's supposed to at least a little resemble the last addition. I can't even run and old modual made for 2nd addition with out spending days converting it. The Monsters look totaly stupid. Did you see the Tarrasque? It looks like Koopa from Mario Brothers with that stupid shell thing on it's back. And the Minotaur looks like a wookie with horns! And the Umber hulk is all skinny and stupid looking. Man Wizards really screwed this up. And I can't believe how many of you "Gamers" are falling for this crap. Most for you have been brain washed by the hobbie shop dealer who have to so it's good so you'll buy it. Open your eyes fanboys and see that it sucks. I only play AD+D, like in the past D+D are for those who cant cut the mustard and I guess those days are back.
I Like 3E a lot and I plan on buying the Monster Manual soon. My group played a lot of 2nd addition and actually I am hesetant to switch because we all know the rules for the older addition. Basicaly were switching because all our local gamming store has is 3E now, But I like the older one better.
I have read everyone's comments and find them rather amusing.
I am a Gamer. I am not a D&Der. D&D was my introduction to role-playing (the Red & Blue boxed sets, for members of the Old Farts Club). I quickly learned AD&D (1e). Then GURPS. Then Rolemaster. Then Palladium. I am familiar with Earthdawn, BattleTech, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, Ars Magica, Talislanta, Tunnels and Trolls, and many other games. I have played (I wouldn't call it "familiar" in all cases) probably 80% of all systems produced in the last 20 years(!). Having played for 20 years allowed me to put together a rather complete set of rules myself (500+ pages of my own RPG rule set), which I have used for about 5 years now.
Then came D&D 3e.
Many of the rules and "fixes" to bugs I had made (I usually ran the fantasy milieu anyway, but occasionally did Modern Horror or Future/Sci-Fi stuff a la Shadowrun/Cyberpunk) have been incorporated into 3e.
I have seen complaints about changing the basic ability score scheme. Huh? Unless you still stuck with the "roll 3d6 and assign the rolls to your scores in order" method, I think most of the campaigns I have seen for AD&D used the 4d6 method. Perhaps you complain that it no longer takes a score of 15+ to gain bonuses. In my mind the change is welcome because I no longer need to worry about players lying or whining to get ability score bonuses.
Another thing I had always been a fan of - modifying spell effects "on the fly." Spell effects always seemed kind of vanilla. The new metamagic feats allow one to use spells in new and interesting ways. While I am something of a fan of spell point systems as opposed to "fire-n-forget" systems, I think the sorceror class struck a fair (not great, but acceptable) medium.
Calling thieves rogues or vice versa? It's a matter of semantics. Get over that one.
Feats? Excellent addition. They finally give characters something to distinguish Joe Fighter from Fred Fighter. Furthermore, they help fighters overcome their natural blandness, especially compared to paladins and rangers (who get all sorts of nifty abilities). This is needed with the discarding of ability score requirements for classes (I'm still not completely sure I like this, but I'll accept it for now until I can figure out exactly why it makes me uncomfortable).
Spells are listed horribly? As mentioned, you can't get much simpler than alphabetical and that eliminates the "see page X" description for spells such as Light, Detect Magic, etc. I always found that annoying myself.
Converting modules is hard? Please. Just convert AC from the old system to the new (not hard, just use 20 minus [old AC] equals new AC) and swap THAC0 for a plus to hit (20 minus old THAC0 equals new bonus to hit). Then assign DC to any traps and poof - you're pretty much ready to go. If you can't improvise with that much, you probably aren't an experienced enough DM to make comparisons anyway.
Let's see... what else. They have changed the look of some of the old classes/races/monsters (though in my campaign, halflings are still hobbits and not kender and gnomes still have big noses). If you don't like it, just use the old picture. The pictures are only provided to help us visualize the critters anyway. Sheesh.
In summary, I would compare the "new" D&D to Windows 98. It's certainly NOT the same thing as the old AD&D (corresponds to DOS). But it's much easier to learn, easier to customize, and is much more intuitive - I find it easier to make up stuff on the fly in 3e than in previous editions. AD&D was very serviceable, and one can still see the roots of it in 3e, just as one can still see the roots of DOS in Win98. I am no fan of Win98 myself - I'm a DOS dinosaur and having a knowledge of DOS certainly helps to "fix" problems in Win98, just as knowledge of 1e and 2e helps fix problems in 3e.
On the surface, 3e does not look much like the old 2e (which I personally regard as much more of a money-making scam than 3e - look at all the "Complete X" books which simply led to the same idiotic power escalation currently seen in the Rifts books) or 1e. But if you burrow deep down, you see the "guts" are essentially the same. You still have ability scores. You still have hit points. As one poster mentioned, if you do the math, you still wind up needing to roll roughly the same number on your 20-sider to hit a beastie.
The streamlining has the good effect of lending the game more easily to role-playing. No longer must you flip through pages of charts. It's one of the reasons I preferred the old boxed D&D to AD&D. AD&D had TOO MANY rules (yes, there is such a thing). Everyone was too busy worrying about the rules to have fun. With both old D&D and new (3e) D&D, there are enough rules to make the game a thinking man's game, but not TOO many to bog the game down.
All in all, I think 3e is the best presentation I have seen of a fantasy game in a long time. I personally prefer it to most other rules systems. Are there things I disagree with? Of course. But I don't expect a publisher to give me a set of rules which precisely corresponds to every one of my own house rules. 3e, however, comes close enough for me to consider it a good system. No, it isn't perfect. But in my opinion, it is a VAST step up from 2e and 1e. It looks nicer, plays easier and faster, and is more intuitive than the previous incarnations (which often required a knowledge of trivial charts and obscure rules).
Unifying everything to a single d20 roll makes it easier too. This is NOT quite the same as Palladium (which uses percentages for its skills, I might remind). In fact, I fail to see how 3e has become Palladium. Instead of lowering your THAC0, you get a bonus to hit. Same thing, mathematically. Just because you have a +4 to hit does not make this Palladium.
That's it. I'm done with my rant on the rant. Wizards has done a good job on an unenviable task - realize that they knew if they tampered with an old standby like D&D they were bound to have critics. Nevertheless, they did it. I think overall the change was positive. Those of you who are screaming because they have "touched the sacred D&D" are just off-base. When TSR failed and WoTC bought them, they could either support a failing business (TSR was bankrupt by doing what they had been doing - presumably what you folks liked) or change the business model. They only did what you would expect them to do. After all, it was "change or perish." So even if you aren't thrilled with 3e, realize that the alternative was the extinction of (A)D&D as we know it.
You may not like that, but 3e is a darn sight better than the alternative.
Oh, yeah...
<I think that what Zarzcas is wrong about Wizards
<making new editions. I'd rather never play D&D
<again than become a turn coat and change
<additon.
That's "edition" with one e and one d, as opposed to "addition" with one a and two d's.
Hmm... "I love 2e! Changing editions is turncoat!" You're a f***ing hypocrite. Why are you not playing 1e? Or better yet, why were you a turncoat and abandoned the Chainmail rules?!?
Jeeze. Of all the reasons to complain - "I'm fine with what I have and don't want anything else because it's different." I wouldn't be surprised if you are 50 and working at McDonald's because "it's a job, it's okay, so I don't need anything different."
<They stopped printing every 2nd edition book the
<day 3E came out so you'll only beable to buy 3E.
<If you ask me they distroyed the game! I'm with
<the guy who said to boycott Wizards! DOWN WITH
<WIZARDS!!!!!
It's "destroyed" with an e, not an i.
They destroyed the game. Hmm... I thought 2e had been destroyed long ago by fragmenting the fan base into Greyhawk, Al-Qadim, Ravenloft, Planescape, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Mystara, and so forth... destroying its financial viability because no book could sell enough to recoup its production costs. No, my friend. Your beloved TSR destroyed D&D by destroying its economic base. Your choices are simple. Stick with the TSR model you seemed to love and watch economic reality drive D&D to extinction. Or change gears, re-tool the game, update the rules (which really hadn't changed in 25 years and contained many vestiges of Chainmail and miniatures gaming - something which everyone complains seems to be needed to play 3e - BTW, just use a ruler and pennies for your miniatures and diagrams. That costs you maybe a buck.). Anyway, if AD&D had continued to do what it was doing (putting out fragmented and meaningless products as opposed to well-thought-out, balanced, non-escalatory products), it would have died. Painfully. Then you would have NO new material for 2e. Hmm... same situation you are complaining about now.
Again, you have your choice. No more 2e AD&D happens whether you stay with the old model and let TSR's D&D die of natural causes or go with WoTC and put the old D&D dog to sleep and get a new one (3e). Either way, you were going to have no more D&D.
So your choice is not 2e or 3e continuing to be produced.
Your choice is: no more 2e but you at least have 3e.
OR: no more 2e and no more D&D period.
I would prefer the first option even if I didn't like 3e.
WoTC did not kill D&D. TSR killed D&D. WoTC reincarnated it in a slightly different form. The myopians who clamour (Brit. spelling) for continued 2e refuse to recognize that this is impossible. Sorry. Learn and adapt.
Wow, people are very harsh. Sorry, I didn't know you are the one person on this planet that never makes typos. Apparently, some people think that they are better than others. Doom, look, he likes 2e, same here. I have read ALL of the 3e books. It's ok, but I would still rather play a 2e game any day. Ask most people. They'd rather sit down and play and old school 2e game. Hell, some of my friends still own the original 1e books. We play that often too. It's good to revisit things and see what changed and why. But with 3e, they make it simpler, more "user friendly" kinda like a macintosh. Well, most people hate macintosh's. No wonder people are going to hate 3e. User friendly takes away the part that you knew D&D so much more and you could do so much more than the next guy cuz you knew all of the rules by heart. Believe me, I used to be able to quote anything from the 2e Monstrous Manual. Name a creature, I'll tell ya everything about it. And it was nice and very concise that book. But have you looked at the new version??? Creatures take up half of one page and half of the next that you must turn? This is not like the TSR days where they made it very easy to find what you needed. You didn't have to mark pages like now. Now, for some, there aren't any pictures given, yes a short description, but this takes away from the "this has blah blah legs and..." "Hold on, what does this thing look like?" *Holds up book* "Ah, that thing is toast!" That was a very good thing. Not all DMs were experts at describing EVERYTHING. TSR made it easy to refer to something which was a constant for everyone, a simple drawing which showed what this particular creature should look like barred any changes by the DM.
Anyways, 3e is new yes, and because of that, older players will be mad at the fact that to most, nothing was wrong with the old rules. Me? Hell, my friends don't like 3e that much and we still play 2e to this day! There are more like us, find them if you are against WotC. I mean, I'm not against them, but I hate the fact that they dummy everything up. Magic used to be cool til they killed it with writing how to use them on the damn cards! I mean, just read the rulebook, that's what it's for!
Typos are one thing. Gross typos ("aditions" might have been acceptable, "additions" is not because it means something else) are another. If you want to rant at WoTC, I assume you will take the time to at least make it an informed rant and intelligent-looking rant. Otherwise you come off looking like a screaming idiot.
I do not disagree that someone liking 2e more than 3e is a matter of taste. I refer more to the matter of expediency. Regardless of your feelings toward 2e, you must admit, the economic model TSR was using was unsound (since TSR went bankrupt). What that means is that 2e was going to die if WoTC did not step in.
My objection is not to personal taste and preference. My objection is to someone saying it is traitorous to change editions. As I mentioned, if you think changing editions is so bad, why are you playing 2e? That's a change of edition from 1e. But wait, 1e was a change of edition from Chainmail. But wait, Chainmail was a change of edition from an unnamed Strategic War game. That unnamed Strategic War Game was a change of edition from chess. Chess was a change of edition from... you get the idea. If you want to say "don't change from the original," that's one thing. Saying "making another edition is criminal" when you're already playing a re-tread is just silly. If everyone followed that logic, we'd still be playing the "I beat you on the head with my club" game.
WoTC saw what they thought were some big problems with 2e. I agree with some of the things they thought were problematic. The core rulebooks for 2e (I define "core" as PHB, DMG, and Monster Manual or Monstrous Compendium Volume 1 for purposes of such a debate) are enough for a solid foundation. I think the 2e DMG was very redundant, covering much that the 2e PHB did, but that's another story. On the whole, the "core" rules were good.
The problem came with the advent of the "Complete " series and the Skills & Powers series. Why? Because these raised the power bar considerably - but only if you had these books. My brother is a rather accomplished DM himself but has one player who is infamous for his ability to break the rules. My brother was thinking about using some of these books for his campaign, but first gave them to his friend to "break" - i.e., see if his friend could make a very skewed character. The result? A first level character that could kill a beholder 17 times out of 20 mock combats.
The reason WoTC decided to do a complete re-write/re-release of the D&D rules was this very reason. While the core of 2e was still solid, all of the stuff that had accumulated over the years had overburdened it and made it unbalanced, unwieldly, and (to use their expression) "broken." As I mentioned before, 2e had seen the same power expansion that Rifts currently sees. You always had to have the latest book if you wanted to keep your power on a par with those who did. The balance of the game became horrifically tilted toward the PC who had all the sourcebooks.
Obviously, once something is done, it is very difficult to un-do. WoTC couldn't just out-and-out say, "okay, all this other stuff is now no longer part of AD&D. Get rid of it." (Well, maybe they could have, but nobody would have listened). Think of a building which has been added onto and added onto and added onto. All these addons are now filled with people and stuff. You can't just knock off the add-ons. You have to raze the building and start from square one.
This is what WoTC did. Nobody is claiming that it is a fact that 3e is better than 2e. Matters such as this are, of course, opinions. But I feel that the game feels much less - well - sloppy. Most of this is due to the adoption of the d20 mechanic and opposed rolls. I feel it's smoother because it makes nearly everything use the same mechanic - roll a d20, add/subtract a modifier, and compare it to a number (or another roll). To me, that's simpler than the incredibly diverse mechanics found in AD&D 2e. An easy example follows:
2e Surprise rules:
Say I have a character who is only surprised on a 1 on a d12 and who surprises on 1-3 on a d10 against a creature which surprises on a 1-7 on a d8 and is only surprised on a 1 on a d8. What's the surprise chance for the character? For the monster? How many segments will the less surprised one have to act before the other recovers?
Do you know? I don't. I know there's some table somewhere in some book (that I really would rather not look up) that tells me.
Surprise is simple if you're using standard characters and standard monsters (i.e., 1-2 on a d6 surprises). Use anything that is stealthy or difficult to surprise and because the die changes from a d6 to other types, it's suddenly a lot tougher, especially when both sides have different die types.
In 3e, the same thing would be something akin to a character with a +4 to Spot and a +6 to Hide versus a creature with +2 to Spot and +10 to Hide. So I roll a d20+4 and compare to a d20+10 to see if the character is surprised. I roll a d20+6 and compare it with a d20+2 to see if the monster is surprised. If surprise happens, it's always for one partial action.
That, to me, seems a lot simpler. The biggest problem I had with 2e was all the different mechanics. Sometimes you use a d12. Sometimes a d6. Sometimes a d100. Sometimes a d20. While it certainly makes it nice to have a lot of different probability curves (1d10+2 certainly curves differently than 3d4 even though both give you 3-12) and in that sense makes the game feel more real, it's a beast to play with. It's easier to just worry about a single probability curve (the d20) and shifting the curve up and down with modifiers. Is it as realistic? No. Does it make things feel slightly more generic? Of course. Does it make things a lot easier? Definitely.
That's a matter of taste, but I would rather have a simple mechanic which allows me easy improvisation than a complex one which is more realistic but which disrupts the flow of my game as I scramble from table to table, cross-referencing everything.
And it isn't because I'm dumb. The sheer volume of information is nearly impossible to keep track of any more. When I was in the fourth grade, I could tell you - literally - every spell by spell level, components, range, duration, and effect in the core rulebooks (1e). That's several HUNDRED spells. I could give vital stats on all monsters (HD, AC, #Att, THAC0, and Damage) in the same way. I knew the cleric turning tables by heart. But at some point, there are just so many tables and charts and lists that you can't possibly know them all. Again, can ANYONE give me the correct answer to the surprise question above (perhaps a ranger versus a bugbear) quickly? I really doubt it.
I agree that the learning curve has been dropped some. THAC0 was, in many ways, the "bar" you had to be able to clear to play D&D. I agree that the format of the Monster Manual, which goes back to the format of the 1e Monster Manual in some ways, was a mistake. I did prefer the "one creature, one page" approach. But no, the old format wasn't always easier to find a monster in, especially if you got two or three compendiums, because some creatures would get slightly out of order. If MC1 had Wraith on one side of the page and Wyvern on the other and MC2 had Wretched Bug on one side of the page Wyrd on the other, you have:
WraithWyvernWretched BugWyrd
Obviously, this should be: WraithWretched BugWyrdWyvern
But this is a minor consideration, all things considered. I don't think it's any harder to bookmark a page now than it was then, but that's IMO.
Anyway, to get back to my original point. Screaming about how 2e is better won't bring it back. Saying that TSR knew much more about what they were doing may be debatable (I think that TSR seemed to be given a lobotomy in about 1992, but that's my personal opinion). TSR may have known more about how to write a D&D game, but it's clear that they did NOT know how to run a business. Otherwise a successful D&D franchise with 2-3 million hardcore gaming fans would not have gone bankrupt as it did. That's just a cold, hard fact. You may not like WoTC's core products (most people over 12 are just sick to death of Pokemon and Magic The Gathering seems to be losing some steam). You may blame the demise of TSR and RPGs in general on WoTC (by introducing a popular game such as Magic which sucked revenue away from TSR by providing people with other things to do than D&D).
But to scream and rant that WoTC has killed D&D is just not seeing the whole picture. WoTC, by introducing a card game, may have facilitated the fall of TSR. I'm no economist, but I think that's certainly not impossible. But WoTC wasn't exactly in direct competition with TSR. It wasn't releasing role-playing games. If Magic brought down 2e AD&D, it's because WoTC proved better able to capture interest of gamers than TSR. While that might irk you, I think it is certainly not out of line to say that if this is the case, you should be just as angry at TSR for not adapting and providing a better product as you are with WoTC for creating something which you think indirectly destroyed D&D. I honestly don't think WoTC started with the goal "destroy TSR" - that just kind of happened as Magic proved more popular and accessible than AD&D in the late 90's.
Consider, though, that WoTC thought enough of D&D to buy a bankrupt TSR and at least try to revitalize it. While you may be frustrated that WoTC has pretty much removed all mention of TSR from 3e, as far as I'm concerned, TSR cut off their own head when they forced Gary Gygax from the company. Do I like Gygax's work. Well, to be honest, not really. In fact, for the most part, I think he's too verbose and ambiguous on many points. But my point is that TSR kicking out Gary Gygax from AD&D is analagous to WoTC kicking out TSR from D&D. What WoTC has done to TSR (the company that "gave birth" to D&D) is not all that different from what TSR did to first Dave Arneson, then Gary Gygax (the people who "gave birth" to D&D). Why condemn WoTC as evil and say TSR is good if WoTC just did what TSR did 10 and 20 years ago? Answer: because you probably weren't in the hobby 10 and 20 years ago.
IMO, WoTC has done something of a service by making sure that Gygax and especially Arneson (who had pretty much been snubbed by TSR for the better part of two decades) are getting their due credit for being the originators of the game. 3e is certainly NOT Arneson's or Gygax's D&D. But WoTC has acknowledged a creative debt to them. That in and of itself speaks volumes to me. In the boxed D&D (not AD&D) rules through about 1979, there was a page at the end giving credit to Vance, Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and a host of others as inspirations for the game. For the last 20 years, TSR has (somewhat haughtily) maintained that D&D was completely their idea and nobody else's ideas really entered into the process at all. They have refused to offer homage to great fantasy writers who gave them so many of their ideas. That, to me, was more offensive than WoTC revising D&D. We all know that through 2e, halflings were Hobbits. Even if halflings in 3e are kender and gnomes are god-knows-what, 3e acknowledges that others have gone before and that they have drawn inspiration from a number of sources. You don't see WoTC shying away from Gygax and Arneson as TSR did. You see them embracing them. Political move? Perhaps. But again, much better than the way TSR used to be.
WoTC seems very concerned about keeping people involved with D&D. Why wouldn't they? It is about making money, right? Well, yes and no. I kind of turned off to D&D for several years because I thought TSR was to self-centered and stuck up (and because I thought the stuff they were producing was absolute s***). I thought that TSR had gone from caring about their products to caring only about money. Why else would they be pumping out hastily planned, poorly written, and obviously unplaytested (and therefore imbalanced) book after book for millions of different campaign settings instead of carefully putting together products which were quality, solid gaming materials.
I ask you to look at the list of "great" modules, because I think you can compare 1e and 2e best that way. In all honesty, and I'm not saying this as a way of sniping at 2e, I don't remember even one 2e module native to 2e (by that I mean one that was originally conceived and written for 2e and was not a 1e re-write like "Return to White Plume Mountain") that I thought was great and inspiring and a classic. I am told some of the Planescape modules were very good. The ones I have read weren't. The Forgotten Realms modules were, IMO, tripe (especially the Shadowdale/Tantras/Waterdeep series, where the entire point of the modules seems to be to have your characters follow along and be the mindless grunts in the book so they can see the story without actually participating in it). I've never been a fan of Dragonlance. Mystara was great - as a D&D setting. Moving it to 2e killed it. Ravenloft? Well firstly, the whole thing is based off a single 1e module so it could be considered non-2e native, but even then I think it was merely D&D's attempt to copy White Wolf's Vampire. The TSR that brought us 2e brought us really crappy modules.
The "old" TSR brought some of the all-time classics, all written for 1e. I'm sure most all of you have heard about: The Temple of Elemental Evil, Ravenloft, Against the Giants, and others. I personally liked Treasure Hunt, The U-Series, and the L-Series.
Even the old boxed D&D sets (Basic/Expert/Companion/Master) had some real gems: Night's Dark Terror, Isle of Dread, Adventures in Blackmoor, and Legacy of Blood stand out here. Also, perhaps my favorite series (fairly rules-light with lots of "generic" social and cultural descriptions - easily adapted to any edition or even any game system) ever published, the Gazetteer series, came from this genre.
In short, TSR gave us quite a bit of great gaming until about 1988, when they shifted gears in preparation for 2e. The 2e PHB was nice, much better organized than the 1e PHB. The 2e DMG was, IMO, better organized than the 1e DMG, but lacked much of the "meat" that had made the 1e DMG so helpful. The Monstrous Compendium, with its loose-leaf format and one-monster-per-page was also nice.
Then it all seemed to go to hell. For those who think that WoTC is on a money-making binge, compare the number of supplements, adventures and so on they have planned for 3e to how much crap has come out in ten years for 2e. I don't particularly think the 3e adventures are that great myself, but at least they're only giving us 8 and not 80.
That's it. I'm done ranting for now. I'll probably continue some more, but I invite comments and criticism to some of my arguments. I will grant that Planescape was an innovative setting and that Spelljammer was an interesting concept. I think, however that the execution on these was piss-poor. Tell me what an idiot I am and we'll discuss.
First of all Sigil, I would like to say I'm sorry for the above comment. I rush through your last entry and made a rash comment. Now I shall tell the tale of my anger with the company Known as Wizards of the Coast. It all started about 8 years ago when I attended a local gaming convention. I me and a female friend viewed 2 boys playing a card game named "Magic the Gathering". She and I both laughed and said this "Fad" would never catch on. The Next year half the entire Convention was Magic player, we began to worry. Finally the next year She and I were smashed into the corner of the convention hall on one of three gaming tables, while all the other tables were Magic tables. Soon after I heard the TSR was going bankrupt. All the Dungeons and Dragons Players were playing magic the gathering and I couldn't see why. Magic was so limiting. It took no imagination and was so 2 sided. Finally I heared that TSR was being sold to WoTC. Everything was alright for about a year untill, I heard about the Movie, starring The Jimmy Olsen kid from Louis and Clark and co starring Marlon Wayens. MARLON WAYENS!!! I know when I think for gaming he's the first person who pops in my head. Then I go to the gaming store and hear that If I want any 2E stuff I better get it now because it's all been out of print at of that day. Then the Ral Partha figures were dis continued and The "New" dungeons and dragons figures were being relesed. I know that you think that this is all fine and dandy but I have over 200 books, and to be told that EVERYTHING up to this point will be useless really agrivated me. I have over 50 moduals which I hav'nt even touched yet all 2E and now I'm expected to dump them and get the 3E Version? Screw that! I know people say I should just convert them, but why should I? I know the rules. They say that the monsters are harder, but I don't need 3E to make them harder. And getting rid of Plainscape all together? How are you going to explain that in an existing D+D world? Is buying $1000's of dollars in new books really justified by saying that you can get through combat 2 seconds earlier? Or because you can play a Halfing paladin? It seemed like 3E is more like Basic D+D. I left that long ago because it was too easy. Know it looks like thats what people want. I have all the old basic,expert,champion,master,immortal sets and If I want to play 3E I guess I'll just break them out.
Just a quicky:
Loopholio's!!
Just started playing the 3rd ED game, Thanks for the Rogue info(not sure who i read that from), great character! Never felt good having 'theif' over my head, and it showed in my party too, though that hasn't changed much.
But my rant is this Loophole my wizard friend found in making scrolls. something like LVL*what*huh = time it takes to make the scroll. QUESTION!! what about LEVEL 0's???
RTFM (specifically, Read the Freakin DM's Guide). You will find that for item creation (including scrolls), level zero spells are to be treated as 1/2 of a spell level when determining cost. Example: for a wizard to scribe a zero level spell, he will need 12 gp 5 sp in raw materials and 1 XP.
Well, i have played AD&D for what would now be about...more than half the years i have been alive. And i have to tell you, some of the changes make sense, but really, the statement that this is no longer 'D&D' in anything but title is true. Look, If you really wanted 'realism' and 'sensible' charts, you would go to GURPS. I mean, i don't care what 'level' you are, i cannot see why an ogre connecting square on your unprotected head with a hammer kills you at 5th level and not 20th. I mean, all of that bs about the HP system being about 'the accumilation of luck, learning to roll with punches, favor of the gods, etc" never washed. Do what we did when someone was kind enough to introduce us to GURPS last year. convert your D&D campaign to gurps, write a few cheat sheet charts, and start role playing instead of looking for ways to make that sorry excuse for an engine give you what you want. Or, buy RIFTS, and get real munchkin-like.
Believe me, Ghost, I sympathize with you. I personally was introduced to the Magic phenomenon rather early. I found it an amusing game, and was interested mostly because I thought that the cards could be terrific artwork for my D&D campaign. I could actually pull out a half dozen "orc" cards and show the characters a half dozen different orcs. But I hoped it would be something of a fad - they would make lots of nice cards, then the bottom would fall out and I could scoop up oodles of them for cheap. Obviously that didn't happen. I have instead gotten rid of my cards and spent $50 or so on the Magic Encyclopedia CD with all the nice card graphics which I can cut up, print out, etc. for my own campaign.
I also sympathize with your economic investment in previous editions of D&D/AD&D. I myself have - literally - every single book ever published for D&D (the old Basic/Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal stuff) and almost all of the old 1e stuff. I have all the Complete X handbooks, I have a few dozen hardbacks, and two 4 foot by 3 foot by 2 foot boxes full of modules in my closet. My collection is rather extensive and has cost me a great deal as well. But I feel (and always have felt) that converting statistics for monsters is perhaps the simplest thing I can do to change genres. I have run D&D adventures in GURPS. I have run GURPS adventures in Shadowrun. I have run Shadowrun adventures in Rifts. So I don't see it as a waste at all (except perhaps all the Complete X handbooks and older PHBs and DMGs - but then, I thought the Complete X handbooks were a waste in the first instance) because I use this library as a wonderful resource for ideas. I have literally hundreds of adventures at my disposal which require approximately 30 minutes to an hour to convert - just change AC, hit points, get an attack bonus and damage, and "poof" I'm done. I realize it's not as simple for others, but I hardly find everything obsolete. In fact, I hope to be posting to Eric Noah's site (http://www.rpgplanet.com/dnd3e/) some of WotC's free downloads, neatly updated to 3e very soon (since WoTC has said that updating and posting their free downloads as converted documents is okay - posting their pay-per downlads is not). But I'm rather busy, so these projects may take some time (I literally have about 1 free hour this whole week).
No, I don't like Marlon Wayans either. I really have no desire to see the D&D movie, and have kind of tried to ignore it entirely. As for the miniatures, I was always a fan of Ral Partha - but as mentioned before, WotC seems to have integrated the use of miniatures fairly well into 3e. I myself don't necessarily mind - I have a nice laminate game board with 1-inch squares (that has been around for about 10 years) which I use but I know it's an added investment on entry for some people. Sometimes I just draw numbers (1-15) on the board for monsters - especially when I need to easily keep track of which monster is acting when - after all, 15 kobold miniatures that all look alike are much harder to track than the numbers 1-15...
To again address your point about economic investment: yes, it is a valid question. Nobody's going to force you to play 3e. The bare fact that 2e will be getting harder and harder to find will move you in that direction, but if you have upwards of 50 unused modules, you should be fine for quite some time. Again, conversion has never really bothered me, because I have always felt that it's easy enough to convert modules from any genre to any other one. To me, adventures and modules are a source of inspiration, regardless of system or genre. They all have good ideas. The group I am currently running has so far gone on two "native" 3e modules (freebies found on the net), one "native" Basic D&D module, two "DM-created" native 3e modules, and one "native" GURPS adventure and is about to go on another "native" basic D&D module before going on a "native" 1e module, followed by a native "Star Frontiers" module (I hope - they may choose to go a different route). There are so many good ideas out there, and it's a shame to group them into a system just because they have a particular name on the cover. I sympathize with you mostly because I'm one of those that has an extraordinarily extensive collection. But as far as I'm concerned, I will keep Planescape, Manual of the Planes, etc. as baselines with some D&D Immortals rules thrown in as well for planar cosmology. I use Mystara/Expert D&D as my base campaign world, with many elements of Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms mixed in.
No world has to die if you don't want it to. You're the DM, dammit! If you say that even though WotC is no longer publishing Planescape that your campaign conforms to Planescape cosmology, who's to stop you? If you want to run a Ravenloft campaign, do so! If, like me, you use a homebrew (though mine is admittedly based off of the Mystara/Known World setting), use it. Take the rules concepts of 3e and lay them over the geography, culture, and descriptive stuff of any other setting. You will find that your old books are still valuable and applicable, and some of the old rough edges that 1e and 2e had are smoothed off when you lay 3e over them.
Perhaps that's why I haven't been so troubled by the shift to 3e. I always thought of a rules edition as something of a grid/transparency laid over the basic map of the world (contained in the geography, culture, history, etc). The ideas, cultures, adventures, and so forth are a globe. The rules, be they 1e, 2e, 3e, or anything else, are merely the latitude and longitude lines laid on that globe. They help you find your way. They help define areas of the globe. But you can lift off the lines and lay a different set of lines without changing too much about the world itself. Just because I say "go three blocks north and then four blocks east" doesn't mean you can't say "go five blocks northeast by east." We're getting to the same place - we've just changed the description of how we get there.
To sum up, I understand your disappointment. But please realize that you can continue using 2e. Realize also that switching systems does not mean you have to abandon 2e. It's just a different way of looking at the same thing.
GURPS is great. I LOVE many of the ideas in GURPS. Unfortunately, it is rather rules-heavy and TOO realistic IMO for a high fantasy campaign. The reason people want to play fantasy is to be larger-than-life heroes (not necessarily munchkins, but heroes). GURPS is frighteningly realistic - that means that most characters in GURPS, if they acted as they did in D&D, would be crippled, maimed, blind in one eye, and covered in scars by 3rd level equivalent. There is a place for GURPS and it has long been my second favorite system (second to my own home-brew system), though it has recently been bumped to third (I prefer 3e to GURPS for high fantasy) when it comes to high fantasy. It's a matter of taste, mostly. I want my PCs to worry about dying and to keep the sense of danger. But not with every scuffle with street riffraff.
I agree with your take on Rifts. There is little more munchkin.
Matter of taste, mostly. I would heartily recommend GURPS, but 3e has a lower learning curve and is much more rules-lite, both of which are good for working on the fly for DMs. I like GURPS using hexes. I like its balanced characters (best use of CP I have seen ever). But it just doesn't let the characters throw caution to the winds and charge the orcs. It's too gritty for that kind of campaign. I run GURPS from time to time when I'm in the mood for grit. It works great. Again, it's a matter of taste and style.
I've been involved in roleplaying games for twenty years. Dungeons & Dragons for just shy of ninteen of them. Never played the basic, only the advanced versions. AD&D 2nd Edition was a tweak of 1st Edition, but the new Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition is more than that. It is a new game with a similar look and feel, but very different system. Is it better than ther previous versions? That's a subjective opinion and as such, each of will decide that on our own.
I was against the change to 2nd Edition because of the cost involved. At that point of my life, 20 bucks was a big deal, but the game was improved and eventually I came to like 2E even better than the previous version. As the new edition. I do consider 3E a different game, but that's okay by me. I like aspects of it better, others not so much. However, my local gaming group has made the switch and the RPGA [Role Players Gaming Association] is making the switch to 3E now, so by mid-January it will be the main version played at their events. These are the people that I game with, so I'm converting to 3E and 2E will be just a pleasent memory.
Sometimes this is the way of things.
Sorry, guys, but all you old-timers sound like a bunch of whiners.
Yes, they change your beloved system.
Yes, you will have a mourning period.
Yes, you will get over it.
Yes, you will fall in love with 3rd ed., just like you did with 1st and 2nd.
Yes, 3rd ed. is better.
I hated it at first, but now I love it.
Because now, finally, I have some cool new books to buy.
i reaaly would like to learn rpg on irc i played middle earthquest once on a book so i have an idea coul you e mail me the simple rules please ........from a new fan of dragonlance
1) I certainly disagree with the "old-timers" can't change comment. Some of us "old-timers" like Sigil and I already realized that 2e was crap and made many changes to our systems. This is why we "old-timers" LIKE 3e since it incorporates many of the same rule changes that we have already made. That is the reason why I bought 3e, because it was a hardcover book of my own rules!
2) Ghost, I can sympathize with your hatred of Wizards. I also thought Magic Cards were a fad and still disagree with them on principle since they are NOT ROLE-PLAYING, its just a card game. But if you're going to make fun of the 3e Monster Manual as having some silly artwork, you should really do a second look at 2e Monster Compendium. I bought the 2e MC 3 months ago cheap second-hand and was simply aghast at the childist artwork. I really honestly, could draw better than most of the artwork in the 2e Monster Compendium. 3e Monster Manual may have some silly artwork, but is far and away better than 2e's baby school pictures.
3) Lastly, for those who honestly believe that 2e is better, then try answering the holes in the 2e system that I brought up in my Wed Sep 27 15:57:57 comments.
Listen George, Every system has problems. 3E has some of the stupidest ones I've ever seen (Namely how dose a halfling who used to only be a thief and a fighter can two seconds later be able to cast spells and become a paladin). 3E sucks!
I've Played D&D since the early 70's and what what has happened to the game is a crime! At least the change from 1st to second was minor. They mearly gave more info...a lot more info. that you could take it or leave it. Now the whole damn game is diffrent. Almost un recognizable! This IS just a ploy for more money. And it looks like it's working because your all buying it! Ever see that Simpsons episode when they made the Lisa Lionheart, and everyone bought the Malibu Stacy because she had a "Stupid Cheap Hat". Well Enjoy you hat losers!
Way to go WOTC. I think that 3E is genius, pure genius. My friends and I would stay up many nights, without sleep, playing dungeons and dragons. We'd often change the rules, so much, that it was hardly recognizeable as AD&D. The game was better (to us anyways), we standardized the game with d20's, and added special abilities (just like feats). I think what WOTC did with the game, has satisfied A LOT of people, I know that me and my friends are certainly in that group. And why are so many people trying to defend AD&D ??? I mean, TSR stopped prining the books because they volentarily sold it to WOTC. Al you AD&D lover, stop living in the past, at the top of this article, it clearly says, that change is a good thing, witout it, we wouldn't have the society we have today. LONG LIVE WOTC !
3E is a bastardization of a great gaming system, one which did not need a new edition. Our group ran a 3E campaign for about a month recently, and collectively agreed that is really sucks. It makes combat so boringly painful and overcomplicated, and the fact that you can refocus and add a 20 to your initiative is idiotic, essentially making initiative worthless to begin with. The overall tone smacks of Munchkinism, with the silly "building-block" stackable feats, no level limits, etc. The mystique has been stripped away, all in the name of money. WOTC will just keep re-releasing the 2nd worlds in 3E, milking gamers for every cent they can. My 3E Player's Handbook is going to Ebay soon, Dragon Magazine goes directly into the trash can each month now, and I will never buy another piece of crap that WOTC puts out. I feel dirty just because I bought the PHB. Remember, those who want to fix something that isn't broke are only looking to rip you off!!
I have not been a fan of the books since 1982, whatever edition that was. It pisses me off to see how whiners like Tipper Gore attack a game and force it into what it is today, a game fit only for 5-10 year olds. I'll keep my 1978 Fiend Folio and say screw pretty much anything after 1984.
I've been playing D&D since I got the brown box three booklets version in early 1975, and was playing Chainmail before that. I find 3rd Edition to be a breath of fresh air. The old rules I started with were broken but we just sort of patched things as we went along. I never much liked AD&D 1st or 2nd because by then I was exposed to systems that were better crafted mechanically, Runequest & others. AD&D had a very cobbled together and bolted on feeling, retaining many of the basic design mistakes of the original and layering on more and more stuff with lots of holes until it groaned under the weight of the Complete Whatziz and Whosis books. I really like how the new game feels like it was DESIGNED and is not just a pile of hacks. I don't agree with every design decision they made, but it It has revived my interest in D&D and will be the first edition in 20 years to get me running the current set pretty much intact instead of my own variants with the original booklets. I am happy to have it. It has spawned a number of campaigns among players I know who would never have bothered to run another AD&D 1st or 2nd campaign for the rest of their lives.
Thanks to the Sigil and The Old Man, for some refreshing and much needed views of Gaming in D&D and in general from people who know how to think and process all relevant information and not just reacting.
As a gamer I too started with D&D in the early 70's, though over time and expeirmentation with rules roleplay and just new ideas I expanded into most game systems out there. I ended up learning that the gaming experience is for fun, creative enjoyment, and the challenge to think other than you might in the mundane world. never assume that just because you see things one way, others are wrong, if the world truly worked like that then your society is anarchy, and that no changes or new ideas would ever happen due to one absolute viewpoint controlling all.
3e is a change for the better IMO. It is about a new way to work with what we had before with some additions/deletions along the way.
YES! It is changed, though change is life even though most people don't like it. If you can't handle change don't try to game and certainly don't try to live. I use all of my gaming supplies in addition to; comics, novels, music, tv/video and yes, magic cards and other CCG's of Ideas, Tweaks and Modifications to play RPG's as I want to and not by a set of rules with no choice. If any of you want rules I offer you to look at the complexity of the pre-Runequest era game of P&P(Powers and Perils to the uninitiated), the extensive damage allocation in the origional TRI-TAC's Stalking the Night Fantastic, or if you're into math track down an origonal version of 3G and make some weapons. The reason why simpler is better for rules is that life is too complex to lay down absolutes in rules without conflicting opinions or confusion, either of which will ruin a game session in no time.
To those of you who blame wizards for the ruinifacation of TSR fail to realize that TSR had been in slow decline for some time and the intoduction of Magic was just a catalyst for accelerating was was already happening. TSR as a business had faild to fully capture a way for the gaming world to challenge mind and stratigy to as high of a level as gamers wanted to be challenged, yet kept in a fantasy setting. Wizards did this with creative style and I applaud their creativity in making a fantasy setting that changes with every play with near endless suprises. As a warped and more complex version of chess you not only have to know moves in advance you have to predict the probobility of what the other player even has to play, let alone what it will do to your stratagy. No it is not an RPG, but you do have a role as a wizard in a duel to win(and yes there are rules and those change too with the combining of cards/effects).
On a note about switching from D&D to Magic, either way you spend alot of money, though what you don't really spend on magic unless you want to is time. Lots of people in life don't always have te leasure time to sit and game for hours, responsibility's require us elsewhere. So in the time it takes most groups to sit down get comfortable and break out supplies, two or three Magic games could have been played and the person could get back to responsibility's until the next 15 to 20+ min. break was avalible. All the while people who are tired of reality can have a leasurely stroll through a fantasy concept and game, without eating up hours of their time.
Yes I play Magic, though when Responsibility's and time allow, I game. All of the gamers in my group of which has been the mostly same for the past 10+ yrs play Magic to some degree, as do others I know of.
On final note; those who wish to complain and throw tantrums over a changed game ought to check their grip on reality, for they are obvously lost in the world of their making.
Change Happens, Deal with it, and explore the new possabilities open to you with new ideas, instead of being fatalistic and seeing it as "But I/they can't Do that with this or it is too different to enjoy. Take the challenge of something different and be creative.
This Verse of Rant is Done.
Light to All
Quote from ChewDragon: "I'm not against them, but I hate the fact that they dummy everything up. Magic used to be cool til they killed it with writing how to use them on the damn cards! I mean, just read the rulebook, that's what it's for!"
What I have to say: (to ChewDragon) Damn Straight!!
to those who had Magic The Gathering(mtg): Magic is NOT supposed to be roleplaying it IS a card game through and through.
Everyone else: Ive read this whole goddam msg board and it's full of ppl who constantly whine and complain. If u like 3e play it, if u don't don't play it, play 2e or 1e or AD&D or another rpg. I think the msg board should be used 4 more positive things like arranging games and PEACEFULLY discussing THE GAME and THE ROLEPLAYING not the system....
* all the comments and statements above are opinions and friendly advice. If u don't like what I said too bad.
Just a couple of quick questions:
I have recently had a desire to start playing again after a seven year hiatus. I had been playing AD&D 2nd Edition (and LOVED it), but when I stopped playing (because I moved and have never been able to find another group to play with - COMPLETELY tragic), I gave all of my books to my friend. I still have an old boxed set (the one with the red dragon on the front), but I've found it too simplistic, having been spoiled on the complex rules and intricate possibilities of 2nd edition. My questions are:
A. Is there ANYPLACE online that any of you KNOW that I can find copies of the core rule books for AD&D 2nd edition?
And, whether or not the answer to A is yes;
B. Is the new D&D worth taking a look at? I've seen your responses, and some of you love it, some hate it, and some are kind of tepid about it. I need an HONEST, UNBIASED opinion here. Is the game a complete affront to all I love about AD&D, or is it something that, though different, I could grow to love as much? Nothing could EVER take AD&D 2nd Edition's place in my heart and in my memories, but I'm willing to give this new game a shot if it doesn't completely suck. I played with my wife and ten-year-old son for the first time today, and I want them to love this game as much as I do; I want them to understand what it is I love so much about role playing. And I want my son to start using his imagination before the Playstation causes it to completely atrophy. Please help. Feel free to send me e-mail.
Thanks alot!!
You people are really strange... When I want to game, as a DM, I want a system that can take care of all the chaotic crap that happens incidentally in a typical D&D game. Things like: light ranges, rules for creating magic items, weapon effects, etc. I all expect to be covered in the rulebooks so I can concentrate on making a cool adventure for everyone. Does that mean that the rules are "dumbed down"? OF COURSE. Here's a reason: The DM's job is hard enough as it is without worrying about that stuff, 3E is better than 2E for exactly the same reasons that 2E was better than 1E; IT PLAYS BETTER.
Whether that means that there are more complex rules or less simple rules or whatever, the reason why WOTC took two years to make it was because they wanted the feedback from real players, and 3E is the result.
If you're pissed because someone can make a halfling fighter/rogue/cleric/monk/barbarian then you are failing to see that it's still the DM's responsibility to maintain game balance. If the DM is stupid enough to allow such multiclassed characters without a VERY good reason, chances are that they're new to the game, burnt out, or spineless towards their players.
Old settings? Convert. Old characters? Convert. Old prejudices? I know it'll take some time for some people, but hopefully they'll drop all of these pointless arguments ("WOTC is Satan!"-"The new PHB is for munchkins!"-etc.)and see that it's the adventure that is important. They're not revising the Holy Bible or Qu'ran, it's a frikking game!! (albeit something I live for...) I wouldn't play 3E if I thought that 2E was better, but then I play other games besides D&D :)
Keep things in perspective.
And what's with these "computer" things? They're ruining the world, says I! Seriously now, the new rules are simplistic, but like my comrade above says, that's the point, gentlemen. If you don't like something, don't use. Save the energy you use bitching about WOTC to create campaign stuff with whatever rules system you tenaciously cling to. Either way, trust me, this new system works. It really works. I was more skeptical than anyone and now I sound like I work for...the..company...ahh...fuck.
I have looked over 3E quite a bit and it is a different game from the two previous editions. The biggest 'sin' was giving everyone the same Experience Table to go off of. The 'Multi Classing' is also a problem. The game is much more generic, and I still will never be able to look at a person playing a gnome paladin seriously (though I would love so see them try and pull it off). I am glad they brought back the half-orc. Those of us who did play 1st edition were quite unhappy with the elimination of the half-orc from 2nd ed. But as many others did (I'm sure), we just transferred the character on over. Change is inevitable. I am not going to throw out my 1st and 2nd edition books because of 3E. I like some of the concepts they put into it, but dislike others. What I like I plan on using, and what I don't I'll just toss out the window. Any creative DM's and gamers out there should do the same, and not be a slave to advocates of conformity. Adapt, change, tweak. No game system will ever be perfect.
"May Cthulhu Eat You Last."
3E strips any creativity away from the player. Much like 2E, the new edition has 6000 different skills, feats, etc. for the player to build with. It was the same way with the vast 2E library of race, class, and combat handbooks.They've slowly taken the imagination away, leaving a player with a pile of stats, and no feel for a character.
That was the beauty of 1st edition. The rules, whether flawed or not, are merely a skeleton to give a campaign some structure, and the DM takes over from there. Players are much more creative when they think and act on their own, instead of mulling over which of the 95 skills or feats listed on the sheet they should use, killing any thought of originality. For me, nothing is more enjoyable, as a DM, than seeing a player be creative when they can't look at the character sheet or in a book for a published skill or method when faced with a challenge or task.
To each his own, whether you enjoy 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. But I've found that trying to rework every rule into perfection, and trying to add too much realism to the game erodes the true fun that was intended from the get-go. It's a fantasy role-playing game. Realism is best left to military simulations and such.
I would just like to add that 3E is as good and enjoyable as the Dungeons and Dragons movie. The movie reflected the current state of the game perfectly.
Burt, I know that it's easy to love 1e, but you can't use it as an example of how the game should be organized. The 1e DMG had more charts and lists than either 2e or 3e. That was the problem with 1e. Instead of giving some simple, concrete rules to use for everything, they started giving out rules in charts and die rolls. 1e was just the first evolution from basic D&D, except with some rules taking up the entire book.
In 1e bards were classes you had to work for, while you could start out as a first level assassin. Do you remember the thief-acrobat? I do. I like 3e a lot more than 1e, but I agree with you in that the game is supposed to be fun. 3e just helps the players and the DM to concentrate on the game, instead of hunting for charts.
Oh, and Ghost I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not, but don't ever compare my game to that movie. 3e is much more enjoyable...
I was planning on ranting about the horrible inaccuracies in the above essay, but it seems to have been done for me... :) The new "Thac0" system is exactly the same as 2nd ed. Except that instead of adding or subtracting modifiers to a THAC0 that changes as you lvl up, the base modifier to your dice roll simply goes up as you progress. This might seem like a strange way to handle combat, but the entire 3rd edition system is based on simply rolling a d20, and adding your modifiers. This goes for using your skills, saves, combat, everything. You only have to worry about keeping track of your total modifier for any particular action, and then you simply add that to the d20 roll. The system seems flawed at first, but if you play with it for a while, you get used to the new "DC" concept (Difficulty Class). Everything from saving vs. spell to fly-fishing is based on it. I personally think that 3E only improved on 2nd Ed. The heart of the Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying system has only been improved upon. (Well, I suppose I ranted anyway...)
Oh, and I hope The Ghost was being sarcastic. DnD: The Movie was fun (sappy and cheesy sure, but still a fun movie to watch), but I don't see how it could possibly reflect DnD, the actual game. They cannot be compared because they are not even close to being the same kind of thing. One is an intricate set of rules based on a fantasy concept 25 years in the making, and one is just a movie that happens to use those rules as a guideline.
Thanks for reading.