gamegrene.com

I got the new handbook 3rd edition i never got into dugeons and dragons until i was smoking well...now me and my friends are total nuts about it it lets you keep the imagination 1 person should never lose and people from all walks alife play it now not just geeks.

Personally, despite some grumbling from certain corners (ususally the same ones that contain the Munchkins and Rules Lawyers btw) I love the 3E. It's almost good enough to make me go back to level based systems... I will play it from time to time despite that irremoveable flaw. (if you didn't have levels and classes, it wouldn't be D&D...alas). But that's a personal grip. Finally the fighter isn't just 'that guy with the extra stat bonuses and lots of Hp' that gets sent to slow down the fire giants while the 'real characters' whip out their spells or backstabs or other special abilities. I've know AD&D players that would only play spell casters, specifically wizardly ones, because after about 8th level, they started being 'nigh unbeatable', due to the power and versatility of their spells. And the higher you got, the more powerful they became. Now, spell casters are probably still the most powerful at crazy levels...but at least the lowly fighter now can be something other than name-race-fighter. Truth, in the past the only thing seperating one character from another were level, stats and magic items. Honestly. But hey, everyone already knows this. time to stop ranting. c ya

Wooz, You seriously need to get laid !!

Man sleeping with itchy butt wakes up with smelly fingers
..................konfutze

Vastant, yes. You are right. I really should have changed that in the story, but at the time I wrote the story, I actually had thought it was going to be a full version.

Shake Spear- I have a wife. Of course I need to get laid. :) (No offense Dear, please put that 2x4 down, please?... OWWW!)

What's wrong Ghost? Get tired of waiting for the 2e vs. 3e discussion to load in the other area? TSR was a bloated corpse before Wizards bought them. Buying 3e means that TSR might actually survive as an independent entity within Wizards and Hasbro. If TSR has nothing worthwhile left to its name, Wizards will have no reason to keep it as a subsidiary and will swallow it. I've been playing for over 2 decades now, and I love 3e. I also like Hackmaster.

I now see that Woz posted his thing in august...

I guess it ain't much use to know how good or not the CD is no, it probably ain't available anymore.

But just in case, what issue was it in folks?

-I should read people's post with more attention

Wooz you actually coloured your books?

Your the second person I've "seen" that has done that and isn't crying about how he/she defaced priceless colector items. Man, everytime I'll see 1st E book sell for mucho pesos over E-bay I'll think of you and smile.

By the way guys, check out all the neat stuff that is coming out for Sword and Sorcery, lotsa great stuff, well balanced (usually) and easily adaptable to most campaigns. Just perused "Book of Eldritch might", it's really Storm Bringer in it's feel. Many great NPC's to be made with this book and some nice things for the players to use.

Coloured his books... wew! Thanks for the laughs

Wooz,

actually I have, it's just that most people who have are crying over it.
It's nice (and all too rare) to see some people enjoyed their books for all their worth.
Mine are filled with penciled notes, so they are worthless too. I keep them as momentoes of my best times in High School (yes I was a geek).

C-Ya

I remember the first time i saw anyone play DnD, I was hanging out at a game workshop hole in the wall kind of store about a year ago. The people there were playing some kind of Egyptian campaign. Some weeks later i began my first campaign with a guy that said that since i never played before he would let me roll 4d6s for my stats and drop the lowest number. I rolled a 24 on strength, I asked is that good? Everyone just stared at me and was ordered by the dm to keep the 24. Now i would kill for the stats my first character had, now all my new characters have shit stats WHHYYY?!

Wow JSDragon, feel strongly about that opinion? You're right, 3E was designed to appeal to a larger audience than previous editions. What's wrong with that? Nothing dude. Even though the rules are no longer as arcane as the rules I first learned to play with, I really don't feel that the rules have lost anything. I've played 1e. I've played 2e. I played 2e revised. I had a lot of fun playing in all of those systems. However, I've had TONS of fun using the new rules. There were so many odd additions to the rules lurking about in so many otherwise worthless supplements, it got old, and started losing a lot of the fun I associated with it.

I firmly believe that anyone that gives the current rules an honst chance will enjoy them. Other than that, I have to say it's pretty cool that a story I wrote back in 2000 is still getting comments in 2002.

I'd like to play your games, but, maybe some people
don't know how to get in. LIke me lol. I'll figure it out.

One thing I really dislike about third edition, is the rules selfcontridcit themselves. I know the core rule books rule over all the others, but my player think its more fun to argue over the stupid rules. Seriously. One of them came up with a stupid idea, he was a forestmaster prestige, and him being a tree man, wanted to be able to walk threw himself, I just wish they would get the stuff together, adn sitck to one set of rules. Not make more as they go one. So far, ive seen a rule being contridicted by five other rules, and they ech said different things. AHHHHH.

Dmhoward! We tend to think along the same lines. I do recommend 3e wholeheartedly. For us, I think the greatest benefit was the pace of the game. The "game" portion of it, at least with the 3 core books, works like clockwork. Combats moved right along, even complex ones. Characters had more options available to them, and were less at the mercy of the DM's whim (which tends to make these things personal). Challenges are easier to scale appropriately. Also high level magic becomes more relevant. In the first editions, it was very difficult to affect any character directly with magic, due to the saving throws.

Lets face it, most of the people who play 3rd ed. have never played the original 1st or even 2nd.
The skills for 3rd are weak and vague, multiclassing isnt worth it unless your taking the ROGUE class just to get more skills. This is a real munchkin system for players who want to start off as gods (every group ive played in or tried to DM whines about starting at higher levels because they feel their abilities are too vague).
In closing, most people who are avid 3rd editionists havent even read the rules properly. In fact I am lead to believe that Wizards of the Coast hasnt read their own rules properly, if they had theyd realize that some of their suggestions for characters breaks the rules. Like using CATS GRACE on a character who has Weapon Finess and Power Attack, It is suggested to use this 'Combo' to increase damage, but if theyd read the rules about 'base attack' theyd realize this is an impossibility. There are many more. Enough said, serious gamers should get a copy of 1st edition off of E-bay.

Nexxus,

The weapon finesse + power attack combo works great because you can take your entire BAB and add it to your damage without taking too much away from your chances to hit. That extra +3, +4 or +5 damage is worth it.

Oh and when you write:

"This is a real munchkin system for players who want to start off as gods "

Just after having writen:

"The skills for 3rd are weak and vague, multiclassing isnt worth it unless your taking the ROGUE class just to get more skills."

Well who's the munchkin?

Multiclassing makes you more ver-sa-tile. you know ver-sa-ti-li-ty so you can have more play op-tions. The only real bonus is better saving throws, you just get a little bit weaker. Which is just fine for the bonus of being a jack of all trades.

Actually Elliot,

multiclassing was just different in 1st and 2nd Edition.

You took the best of both classes (except for hit points which were averaged). It was more or less ballanced, but I admit that just being one level behind wasn't really a big drawback. Maybe if they had added an XP penalty (say 10 or 15%) it would have been more ballanced. But let us leave the past behind.

Now in 3E you add up everything, so of course you have to add up the levels.

On skills vs NWP

With skills and powers you could buy NWP at double cost also, but it was soooo complicated to keep track of each NWP costs.

Many skills weren't covered by NWP so you're right a sneaky fighter was out so was a climbing cleric or…

And Nexus just doesn't like 3E what can you do, bashing him/her on the head with the core books won't make him like it more, just as his/her insults and poor arguments probably won't make us change our minds.

The two editions are basically two different games. It would be like a Traveller vs GURPS Traveller argument or Legend of the Five Rings vs D20 Legend of the Five Rings. It comes down (for some part) to a question of what makes you tick. In fact D&D 3E is AD&D D20, just like Cthulhu D20 or Star Wars D20.

I like D20 because it is a simple RPG system that:
- Anybody can pick up in a few sessions
- Doesn't get in the way of actual play (even if I still confuse the las two editions at times)
- Follows a constant logic in their rules
- Is more or less ballanced and gives all characters the same potential.

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/index.html

The above link will take you to the Sean Reynolds site, where he goes into considerable detail on the decisions that they made in creating the game mechanics.

It really shows the care they took in doing it the way they did.

Thanks Becky for making my point for me.

3E = greater accessibility = more playing opportunities (be them with ladies or gents) = more potential fun no?

And Becky it's not because your a woman, my sister got 1E and 2E real easy and she was 11 or 12 when she started playing with us. Probably you don't like math or complexity or both.
3E is less geared towards the brainy geeks than it is to a broader, larger, younger target audience.

What I meant to say was that you had to love (or at least not get bothered by) complex systems to get to the fun part of the game.

No the game design wasn't very intelligent, it required too much mental skills (memory) to use conveniently.

La Terza edizione va studiata sin nei dettagli ed interpretata perfettamente per essere giocata, ma quando si riesce a fondere questi due compiti il risultato e' semplicemente incantevole. P.S. Miky da Carrara

I got the gist of it.

One thing only thing is that his name could be "da Carrara" just like in French we have the suffix "de" which also means "from" but is an integral part of many names that belonged to the old noble families.

Doh! I mean prefix not suffix... I always get these confused

Ghost Gamer,

It's nice to see you couldn't be bothered to actually read the rules before making your baseless and pointless attacks against D20. Go play in your little home game. Be sure to stroke yourself while congratulating your gaming group on being so superior. In other words, either read the rules or sod off.

I see Ghost's witt is as sharp as ever.

Sheesh I guess it's useless to replys since he seems as dull witted as a rock but hey what the heck:

1) You can roll everyround if you want to lose time man.
Many things allow you to change initiative (readying, delaying, refocussing, etc)

2) Yup if someone wants to play a wizard with no spells he/she can. Just as nothing in the rules says you can't jump off a cliff, attack monsters too strong for you or drink acid.

3) Yeah riiight, as Monty Haul as hackmaster is you'll keep the same non-magical armour for 20 levels... yeah believe that.
Oh and for the reading impaired, there are rules for damaging armour and equipment (you just didn't bother to read them). They aren't as detailed as hackmaster's I'll give you that, but why bother? You'll just buy or find a new one before it gets too worn out. Also clerics and wizards have access to mending at first level and make whole not too long after that. How many scrapped pieces of equipment will there be then?

4) You say: "There is no oath or honor among your characters. They system I play keeps track of your fame, honor, armor, alighnment, and even crates a character backgroud all to give the effect of realism."
This one really cracks me up. What a jackass you are. Who gives a frell about your oath of honour? It's a question of player preference. Some need a specific (written oath) others work on assumptions and others don't play with honour.
Fame, alignment and armour... well yeah if they are important for you keep track of them in your game.

But I can already see you delving into the honour and fame tables to see how you can maximize every piece of roll play er... roleplay you make.

Yeah and we're the munchkins.

And as far as 3.5 goes, thanks for the well wishing we'll try to have fun.

Enjoy Hackmaster oh master of the sharp wit.

PS It must one hell of a brain numbing and irritating experience to spend an evening every week with you, my sympathies for your fellow gamers.

My email is Darkquixoticcrusader@freemail.com.au

Ghost, I have tried Hackmaster. It's nice for an evening's distraction. Not quite a game for well-structured campaigns or intelligent characters. If you want to play with rules that are all but xeroxed from earlier editions go right ahead. Just stop verbally masturbating yourself here.

I look forward to picking up the 3.5 rules, but I'll admit part of it is the idea of being able to replace my current books that are starting to fall apart. Easier to forestall the wife's complaints about the money if I need the new rules. :)'

Actually Ghost

you said:

"...3E if for a buch of munchkin characters who want to kill monsters and do nothing else. Play hackmasters and see what gaming is supposed to be like.

P.S. Have fun paying for your suck ass 3.5 ED next month losers "

So you did say something to me and every other player of 3E.

Second: "Also if I have a problem with rules I can just write on the Hackmaster web site and ask the authors of the books myself for answers. Thats because Kenzer cares about the game and its players. The only thing wizards gives a crap about is getting you guys to shell out another 20 -30 bucks."

Well as much as I salute the folks who do Hackmaster (and I know they do it with alot of heart). The people at WoC also take the time to answer your e-mails on their customer service web page. So there you go.

Also, I totally agree with you that Savage Species and Races of Faerun should be read very carefully by the DM before allowing any of the non-standard races into the campaign.
I mean they are more a GM's tool than a players' tool, especially Savage Species. Just as Players' Options from 2E weren't meant for min-maxing but for creating character templates to fit into a specific campaign. The GM and the players should decide what kind of universe they want to play in.
One of my GMs allows the application of Races of Faerun to the basic character races found in Forgotten Realms plus the Half-Ogre from Savage Species.
Another is very restrictive as the game takes place in a Norse World, each campaign is interesting in its own way. But I've always found the gaming group to be more important than the rules per say, I mean with the right people I've had fun playing GURPS, Space Master, RuneQuest, MERP, MechWarrior and Twillight 2000. All of which have so-so systems.
I mean RPG's are just the excuse we use to meet our friends and have a good time, just as others use bridge, bowling or bingo.
Sorry Ghost about the tongue lashing I'm in a bad moon lately.

Watch out! Grumpy french canadian coming through.

Salut la gang.

Let's be honest, Hackmaster is deliberately complicated. But that's the fun! At the same time, it's got a hard-ass attitude to arguing with the GM.

Best part about Hackmaster, you laugh out loud when reading the books. It's supposed to be an ironic parody and the Kenzer boys judged it perfectly, whilst making a playable game. Damn, I just admitted that Americans can do irony.....have to hand my passport in at the UK passport office and quit the island!

Having read quite a few of the articles on this site, the basic defence (IMHO) usually seems to boil down to 3Ed being simpler to play.
[Not my experience - and if the number of theological arguments about AofO are anything to go by, not the actual experience of a lot of 3Ed'ers.] However, I bow to majority opinion on this one.

Like I said some time ago, 3Ed is a system still on the long path to a finished article ( read that carefully - I didn't say it was bad, just not done). Hackmaster for me feels more like the natural successor to 1Ed - that 2Ed never was. It feels like the fixed version of AD&D V1.

And I still think that the Magic Bullet would be something between 3Ed and Hackmaster.

Comments?

alright -- re-read once it was posted... some changes:

"if your LG and slaying villagers coz you looked at you silly..." should read "if your LG and slaying villagers coz *THEY* looked at you silly..."

...secondly...

"RL" = Really Like
"L" = Like
"DL" = "Dont Like"

+... RIFTS... don't get me wrong... it's an OK system... just... well, maybe the GM I had was iffy? (Thought the Atlanteans were definitely awesome...and the Coalition Kitties and Juicers and stuff... ok, maybe it was a L, just the DM was DL. ;) )... Also Palladium, that was ok... kinda neat.

Aight... Ciao--BK

Now that I can ask all you 3E players here, I wanted to ask a few questions about some of the many, many, many 3E book I see. There has been a couple that I felt I might want to convert.
1) EVIL- I see this one all the time. Is there anything good in it.
2) Kingdoms of Kalamar- Kenzer put this out and I heared that it was okay. Do any of you play in this champaine world?
3) The return to the temple of elemental evil- Is it as good as the original? Its like $25. I'd hate to buy it if it sucked.

I did buy some of the slayers guides and those kick ass. The ones for orcs was kewl.

Ghost:

1) Quite good actually, a bit better than book of vile darkness (except for the art)

2) Quite good as a setting but some of the rules and prestige classes are so so.

3) arrrgh! Don't waste your money, I've read it, some friends have played it, man it's like what highlander II was to the first one... oh no, I hope they don't make three more bad modules... ; )

With the whole Wizards announcing D&D 3.5 (lame but whatever), what do you think of this change?

Me, it does seem like a way to force those "poor" D&D players to buy new books again since it seems very quick compared to how long the game has been out. Now those "poor" D&D players are complaining that they don't want to buy new books. Does this sound familiar to you?

Well it does to me. Go back a couple years to when 3e was to first come out. Lots of 2e players complained that they would have to buy new books and others were all for this new 3e. You had hardcore 3e supporters before the game came out telling 2e guys/gals to convert from their "dead" system. See, they killed our system and pretty much got a whole different game system to give D&D a new feel. Sure the business is about money but it's also about a game people love. Who here was sicken by the crappy conversion book from 2e to 3e. It was such a joke.

What I'm trying to say is now all those 3e people who practically laughed or insulted us 2e people about us not wanting to covert or buy new books and now the same people complaining about 3.5 doing the same damn thing to them that 3e did to us.
And the supporters are glad to see better rule changes to 3e(which I'm sure are needed) but wasn't the whole point of 3e to be, in essence, the be-all-end-all system. 3.5 basically goes back on what Wizard was trying to do. They said books in moderation and ease of use. Look at the D&D section, does that look like moderation? They practically reprinted every core 2e book. Hell I was surprised to see an Arms and equipments guide for D&D. It's like the rules for 3e keep getting more compulated(thus 3.5). They even put a monster book out(a wanna be Monster Matrix).

D&D has betrayed it's players on it's quest for more money. I doubt it was just rule changes that prompted the change. I'm sure sales aren't what the used to be. Especially when the raise the core book prices and the bad material they put out. Bonus is I'm sure it will a hell of alot easier to convert to D&D 3.5 then it was for 2e players to 3e.

I'm sure everyone here knows I'm a hardcore HM supporter. Sure it feels good to see so many 3e players be screwed over like us 2e/1e players. Divine justice I say. Hell, I'm sure if I hear a 3e player complaining, maybe I'll give them the good word of HM. But at the same time, it's a crime what Wizards/Hasbro is doing to it's fan base. Hopefully more HM players for us. Maybe they'll all see the errors of their ways.

Either way you go, do you feel this change was needed? Do you think that D&D players are being reemed with basically a reboot of their game with 3 new core books? What does this mean for HM? What does this mean to d20 publishers(will they have to redo their systems?

Why do you think they did this? Bad sales? Burnout from open gaming license? Hackmaster, the better game? Or just an honest try to fix bugs in the system?

Sure, I'm HM all the way. I've played 3e but not a big fan of the system. I just know that Wizards doesn't seem to care as much about their fans as the folks at Kenzer. In content and quality, Kenzer kicks ass. Hell, if I ever play d20 again it either Star Wars(I liked it) or buying Kalamar(which seems like a damn cool campaign).

What do you think? Oh, and there was no intention to put down 3e players. Just the Hackmaster in me I guess. You read the back of the PH enough you start to think the hackmaster is "the single best game ever." Plus it was game of the year for 2001!

Hackmaster, from a player's standpoint, I think they would have been better off printing more adventures than source books. In the same way, Nintendo is better off making more videogames than consoles to play them.

Unfortunately, the reality of the publishing biz is that more people buy source books than adventures (only the DM buys adventures), and there's a bigger profit in them than in flimsy little magazines. So, following the money, we can see that the gaming company will try to publish more - but that's their problem.

As a gamer, my job is to buy the materials which support my system. Those materials are the core books, the adventures (from Dungeon) and one worldbook. Period. No others allowed, not even if they are kewl.

We'll discuss the desire for 3.5, which now has had the benefit of even more playtesting and experience than 3e (which itself was more playtested than any other RPG). I suspect that we'll "upgrade" to the new set en masse, because it will enhance our played experience even more than 3e did (and as 15 year gaming veterans, we were very pleased with what 3e did), but again - no "extra books".

I don't know about the sales not being as good. The guy that I know that is running the Gamning store (Adventures Guild in Riverside Ca) said that they have 75 books on hold for people. He was happy about that. I don't think Wizard PLANNED to have a 3.5, but there are a lot of homebrewed rules for that system. To tell you the truth, if HM came out with an improved version of thier PH I would probably buy it.
Hackmaster has an errata section on the website that corrects mistakes, but its a pain to remember what is changed and whats the same.

Actually, I think there are two reasons for 3.5

1) Tweeking the system and making it better, which soooo possible if you've looked at the FAQ and Errata sections of their site.

2) Rake in some more of our cash.

Actually there are many gamers in Quebec (well in the english and french communities, natives aren't so keen on it).

As for finding players it ain't that hard, I think Quebec City (where I live, hence the name) has one of the highest number of gamers per capita (if you believe the gaming stores' owners.)

Finding good players... well that's another story

Ghostgamer--

1) EVIL- I see this one all the time. Is there anything good in it.

...What a book... one of the few reasons I play 3E... My first *real* character was made with this book. The character I selected was strange, but now I know how to abuse it's potential.
1st go around: Half-Celestial: Monk/Fighter/Clr/Bargainer(from Evil). Domains: Lust & Corruption -- Lust -- Clr Lvl adds to Cha related scores (diplomacy, bluff, etc) -- Corruption 1x/day know what one creature wants most in life.
monk for combat type stuff..
Bargainer (5th level is the only real cool thing -- no drawbacks unless you want them).
Anyway -- Why to start w/ Monk -- get secondary arms (proficienct, because well, you're a monk)... Fighter to get all those weapon proficiencies/bonus feats/Clr cause domains rule if you know how to use them.
Anyway -- aim for 'Shapechange' --granted it's a -1 int, but who cares. ;) If you get it once, you can change shape 1x/day....that's good enough ;) (two is better, tho) -- get into a Pit Fiend form, and you will rock the world. Regen 5/rnd, +3 or Better (Holy, etc) to cause real damage. Poison, SR, Good str, Immunities, flight (if you didn't already have it as a half-celestial), etc... ... miss that character. ;)

May try hackmaster... definitely miss 2d... 3d gets boring sometimes... although, with all the 3d books out there (sword&sorcery, wiz of coast supplements... makes it almost worth while to play again)... "Chirgeuon" (may mispell this) -- anyone read up on this? Turn self/others into flesh golems & cut parts from other creatures to boost yourself/others... rock on! ;)

...K... next 3.5...what's it all about... Well, for us 2E types... around 96 they came out with 2.5E (Black Books of doom, reprinted... Players Handbook, DMG, ...can't even really remember the three books they came out... Spells & Casting...Combat & Arms? ...one focused on spellcasters, others on fighter types, let wizards wear armor, gayed up all the races (couldn't play a drow per 2E, had to play a half-assed drow). And when that flopped, 3E planning came into hard core.

I'll admit 3E is 10x easier to play -- unfortunately, now, when you get a group of people to play with -- you have to baby them with the rules *EVERY TIME* because they can't read the friggin book... where as in 2E -- it was simple... ;)

...I miss the hardcore 2E guys who know what they were doing. There is no "learn or we'll dump you" mentallity from 2E... it's "wow you remembered one new rule so you can stay" type environment..

;)

Dear Neph,

I think we’ve reached a common point of disagreement over previous editions and 3Ed.
And I doubt we can convince each other by logic or debate.

I think this is the nub:
I get the impression that you see – or experienced – some of what you describe as the arbitrariness of previous editions as putting the power in the hands of the DM. And it sounds as though you had that power misused against your gaming groups to turn the session into essentially dictation sessions.
I didn’t have that same experience. The vast, vast bulk of my DM’s realised this:
“The main point is the players have fun. If the DM enjoys himself, that’s fine, but incidental to the first point.”
Those same bits which you describe as arbitrariness were used to come to an agreeable set of solutions/rules which enhanced the gaming experience for the rest of us.
In essence, doing the same in the game which precedent does in UK law.
Now, I wouldn’t call these House Rules, since they weren’t new things, but agreed extrapolations of what was there.

I am afraid I find your argument about ‘why not have a save vs. gunshot or a save vs. teeth’ ridiculous.
Here’s why:
Sure, the previous save categories weren’t exhaustive. They weren’t meant to be. They were normally used as ‘class’ saves. E.g. save vs. Breath Weapon could be used for any reasonable substitute situation. Each group could creatively agree what was most fun (the point of all this) or rational to them.
Reflex Save is too restrictive. Yes, it can be cinematic. But then again, doesn’t it also allow rules lawyers to say things like “Why can’t I dodge a bullet then?” (the moment you introduce muskets or similar. So now you have save vs. gunshot….and I think we agree that’s not good.

Neph said: And If you had that , the game would be good then?
[Dodge skill]
Now you are being fatuous. What I was trying to do was to take your point about reflex saves and say : There is a better way to do it. And this way opens up more options to players. Essentially dehomogenising the game and eradicating the need for prestige classes. Instead of needing more source books (we agree, I think, that they rarely add much), there would be a natural (elegant?) way of creating specialist classes from core rules. No need for feats. No need for extra expense. Having a 'Dodge' skill (instead of a Reflex save) is just one way to use a more globally applicable skills system.

I certainly don’t think any one thing would make 3Ed (or d20 system) a good game. There is far too much broken in it for this to be true. (Evidence is the large number of official errata, the move so soon to 3.5Ed.)
I do think something needs to be done to make it more than a mediocre game.
If you are really interested, I don’t have a problem with putting forward ideas on how to fix 3Ed an de-vanilla it whilst also making it cheaper for the fan.
I am not a game designer. I am an interested fan of RPG and a D&D – phile. But I am prepared to put forward positive ideas to try in the mill of debate.

By the way , on the Touche point. Here in the UK, one commonly uses it as a marker in conversation to say – I think I’ve made my point, what is your response. I wasn’t trying to say I’d won the argument. I was asking for a rebuttal.
- Greyshirakwa

Grey,

I am not entirely sure why you think 3e such a terrible system other than you have not had that much experience with it. Personally, I felt the way that you did when 3e first came onto the scene. I hated it and I let my hatred form an opinion before the game ever came out.

It took me six months to allow my curiosity to succeed and buy the books. I learned the majority of the system in 4 hours just by making characters. Not only was 3e intuitive, but easy to understand. Yes, it took me a while to get my head around AoO, but overall, it was better than 2e and far less complicated.

Just the fact that it took me 2 hours to make 6 characters was enough of an indicator to me. Character creation in 2e could be described as arcane as best and I KNEW all the page numbers in the old manual for creating a character.

Your dislike of 3e saves is puzzling. They are far more balanced and easier to handle in game. Where in 2e I had to constantly look up the saves, in 3e they are so intuitive that a GM can correctly identify the needed save on the fly. I'd much rather game than spend my time perusing books!

Ok, enough about saves though. I want to reply to your "vanilla" comment. Dnd is SUPPOSED to be vanilla. That is its strength. It is generic enough to apply to a variety of fantasy genres.

DnD is not a "system" that should provide the flavor for your game. That job is for the GM. There are plenty of packaged worlds for flavor and dare I say it homebrew worlds can do anything you want!

Most people I know value a system that allows them to do anything they want. You can restrict here, create there and come up with something full or rich tasty flavor and have a transparent rules set that allows both players and GMs to be creative.

You're arguing for a more restrictive rules set and I wonder why...

Dave

Greyshirakwa said-

My basic argument goes like this: reflex save is too restrictive - it says you can only dodge it. 1/2Ed left it open to the DM to describe how breath damage was saved from. This leaves options for more commonsense (or more cinematic, if you want instead) solutions. The next point was to open up variation in saves to various classes.

This still leaves some big problems. Why should all characters if a certain level have the same save against breath weapons? In the old system, a fighter with a strenght, constitution, and dexterity all of 18 would have the same saving throw versus breath weapons as a fighter who had somehow been cursed, and had all of his ability scores reduced to 3. There ought to be some variation based on the character.

Also, I do not think it is necessarily meta gaming to evaluate that a will based spell is better on a fighter, a reflex based spell is better on a druid, and a fortitude based spell on a wizard. That can easily be explained in game terms. The character observes, "oh, its a sneaky, quick little guy in light armor, and his hands twitch. Good chance he's going to be too fast of a little devil for me to hit him with this lightning bolt. Better go for hypnotism." Or, "frail little wizard, hunched shoulders, but his eyes burn angrily... his mind might be too strong for me to vie against, but I'd bet he'd be easily drained of his stamina... what necromancy spells have I memorized today?"

I don't see the ability to do that as necessarily being a bad thing. It allows the character to draw logical conclusions about the world he is in from descriptions of his foes. I approve of that.

As far as feats versus supernatural abilities and class features, there's some serious overlap in this game. I tend to treat them all as the same kind of thing, since the only functional difference between a feat and a class skill is that a class skill is exclusive and automatic, and a feat might not be. I think the similarities between the way they both work in game terms is shown through the way so many feats mimic class features, and so many class features are bonus feats.

I think you ought to view feats as a kind of point buy system, frankly. They work as a point buy method for abilities that normally couldn't be purchased in a logical manner using skill points. Since the knowledge of how to do a power attack is something you either have or you don't, and a skill in it isn't reasonable, you instead have a "feat slot" that you can fill. You spend this slot to obtain the feat. You just get a lot less of them than you do skills. That's how 3rd edition mitigates some of your complaints. If you want to be able to spend to increase your will saves, you can spend a feat to get iron will, increasing your will saves by 2. I do this on a regular basis with my characters.

As far as a "2 weapon fighting skill," I think that might create more problems than it fixes. You'd be at risk of having a system where a character with a base attack of, lets say, +12, picks up a weapon in his off hand and suddenly attacks like a 3 year old instead of a hardened warrior. You'd have to figure out some way of keeping the abilities reasonably related to one another, and I'd bet that would just create as many problems as it fixes. In the current system you can spend feats to improve your ability to fight with two weapons. But, if you don't, and you're an accomplished fighter, you can generally fake it reasonably well, if you insist upon trying. That same fighter in 3rd edition could wield 2 short swords with base bonuses of +8 for his good hand, and +4 for his bad hand. That's not so unreasonable for someone with no education in two weapon fighting, and he could improve it by spending a feat (think point) on ambidexterity, to make it +8 and +8. He could go even farther by spending another point on two weapon fighting, making it +10 and +10. This seems reasonably fair.

As far as systems creating flavor, I suppose that's true, to an extent. I tend to play in home brewed worlds though, so for me that's less of a concern. I wouldn't want to be boxed into a particular flavor of campaign, because it might contradict what I'd like to do as a DM. That's why I'm not bothered by the way in which 3rd edition is so "vanilla fantasy." My last completed campaign was a short, 8 session series I did with some friends. It was a low magic world, lots of nonmagical opponents, low magic in the party, more normal fantasy novel flavor than d&d high magic flavor. It worked just fine. The mechanics of the system certainly did not add anythign to my flavor, but it didn't detract by any means.

Perhaps what would at least somewhat please you would be if the writers of the various systems that are transferring to a d20 based mechanic would step back and take the extra time to make sure that the game still "felt" the same? You mentioned before thigns like paper clips to mark ammunition, and poker chips that were turned in to activate certain abilities. I'm not totally familiar with deadlands, but I'd bet these could have been brought over to a d20 version without much trouble. The paper clips, if nothing else, seen an easy transfer.

Grey,

You keep bringing up systems tied to specific worlds such as deadlands. In this case, you're right in saying that the system adds flavor to the game itself. If a d20 version of it has come out, then I would blame the designers for not correctly bringing the flavor over from the previous system.

DnD, however, should be a vanilla system that remains transparent for most players. In the case of DnD, the GMs are supposed to provide the flavor. 3e allows GMs to make wildly different worlds rather than railroading you into a specific type of campaign.

If you use the deadlands system, you're pretty much forced into playing in the world they provided. It's not that the small publishers are competing against d20. There is a reason that DnD has always remained the most played system. The small publishers have to compete with GMs! If you lump homebrew worlds as a class, then I guarantee you that no small publisher or alternate system comes close to matching the numbers.

Systems like deadlands have always had to compete with DnD because it allows GMs to make a world that fits themselves and the group. Thus, the strength of DnD is the vanilla. This is while generic splat books always outsell FR books. People want options to use in their own worlds. Not a forcefed system that makes you use their own world. Homebrew is king.

When these small publishers choose to d20-ize their game, they are allowing people to easily pull aspects of their worlds out for people to use in homebrew settings. In this case, homeogenization is good because people will be more willing to sample a world that they would not previously have viewed. This may actually get them to want to play the original system.

Personally, I never use to pick up non-TSR?WOTC stuff before 3e. Now I have a whole bookshelf of things by other publishers. I just do not want to learn a variety of systems. I do not have the time or money to try all these new systems nor do my players. With d20, you can book one flavor book as a GM and you do not have to force the other players to buy books because you want to do something differently.

Ok, as to your save argument. Any character can choose to make a low save better. A fighter can choose to have a higher wisdom, and then take iron will as one of his large number of feats. Or not. It's up to the player to decide rather than an arbitrary system telling you how it's going to be. Just like those who complain about a fighters lack of skills. Just have a smart fighter! Nuff said.

Skills system: Horrible idea. Why? Because it suddenly becomes overly complicated to create characters. My players complain already if I threaten their free time outside of game. Most people want to be weekend warriors. They do not want to spend hours on creating a character, then more hours updating said character. People have lives outside of game and they will use a system that allows them to spend a minimum amount of time creating a character.

d20 is a wonderful compromise with skills and feats! It's perfect for MOST people. If you and your players want to play a more complicated system and have them time, then power to you. As a GM, you can rule zero things to add complication.

As an argument, I would say that the 3e rules are far better and less broken than previous editions. And we have 3.5 coming, so maybe it will be even better.

Dave

Grey said-
We have to choose to disagree here. This is definitely meta-gaming of the highest order. Why should thieves look small and twitchy. If the rogue is any good, he definitely won't look like one.

That's fine. If the rogue looked like a fighter, and the pcs assumed he was a fighter, then they'll attack him in the wrong way. What's the problem?

As for a completely skill based system, I'm still convinced that you'd just lead to more power gaming and rules lawyering. I mean, you even argued that power attack could be a skill. How does your ability to power attack trade off with your intelligence? At what rate would it trade off? Would you have separate types of skill points for different types of things, or would every single character ability go into a massive grab bag? I suspect that if you did the first option, the system would get bizarrely complex, as pcs started allocating skill points, ability score points, greater skill points (for abilities that don't make much sense as skills) and so forth. If you did the second, you'd get crazy power gamers. It would start to look like vampire looks when the dm lets the pcs all play pure combat machines, and ignores the humanity points rules.

As for the old system, I was referring to d&d, not ad&d. I never played ad&d, but I did play the other. You might be right for the original, I haven't got my rule book at college with me. But I don't recall ability scores affecting saves in any way.

Grey said-
Quite the reverse.
What I don't understand is why anyone comes up with an idea which isn't WOTC-derived, the howl of theological protest screams loud.

No offense, but it kind of looks like you're the one giving theological screams of protest. WOTC can't gouge you unless you let them. Thanks to the SRD, my gaming group, in total, has spent about 40 dollars on 3rd edition supplies. Thats shared out amongst 5 people. (Ok, ok, 2 guys each spent 20 dollars. But if we wanted more books, the people who haven't paid for anything yet would buy them.) I haven't heard details, but when 3.5 comes out, won't it be covered by the same OGL? That is, I can just download it for free, instead of buying a new rulebook? And as far as your complaints about the relationship between atmosphere and game system, I still maintain that the publisher can do a lot to make it work out. If they choose not to, that can hardly be blamed on WOTC. Regarding your comments on the d20 system's character generation, this is an issue with no clear answer. After all, you're basically saying that an ideal gaming system that hasn't been written yet would be a lot better than d20. Ok, that may be true. But, for my purposes, d20 allows me a rules system that lets me quickly handle action resolution so that I can get on with creating a world in which my players pcs can do their best to undermine a totalitarian regime through the creation of a small resistance movement that meets secretly in the country, through performing a series of high profile robberies and pranks that let the public know resistance exists, and through sabotaging key government centers which help control the public. This sort of high skills high social interaction game works just fine under d20. All the pcs have interesting skill sets, a degree of spells, and their own niches and personalities in the group. d20 is working just fine for us, and the fact that I'm spending money on it is something I'm ok with. You seem to think that my money spent on d20 is somehow destroying your right to game as you please... I find that paranoid, and, well, I'm still sticking with a system that has functioned perfectly for me, and not got in the way of the game I want to create. I'm not going to change systems just for you.

Cadfan said :
which my players pcs can do their best to undermine a totalitarian regime through the creation of a small resistance movement that meets secretly in the country, through performing a series of high profile robberies and pranks that let the public know resistance exists, and through sabotaging key government centers which help control the public

My own group now playing the sons and daughters of a group who played thru what seems like a very similar campaign. (Current group of players... 15 years ago...)
It's a great concept. I hope you have lots of fun, we certainly did.

- Grey

Dave Said:
The system could not have been that great or it would have stuck around.

Aaaargh. See thread on homogenous systems. And the 'if it's good, it will sell/survive' argument. I just can't be bothered to recap all that. Except to say how very North American...sales = quality....
Try the system first. It is in each and every particular simpler and more rational to play than anything d20 has to offer.
That Bushido went away had nothing to do with sales. It was due to the fact that the authors decided they wanted to author different stuff. so they simply stopped producing Bushido stuff.

Dave said:
A skills system would be horrible!

Just so I don't misunderstand: Why is it that you don't think d20 is **already ** a skills system.
It has a number of bells and whistles, but has essentially become a skills system. Or am I missing something about tumble, balance, bluff.......that make them not skills?

But here is a genuine question: Do the other thread contributors regards d20/3Ed to be essentially a skills based RPG now or not? If not, what is the nub of the game-system?

Dave said:
A few of the smaller publishers could easily have come up with a standardized system

Agreed. Right on the money.

Dave said:
and thus could have challenged WoTC

Nope. They really, really couldn't. WOTC/Hasbro is just too big for that to be correct.

- Grey

As I read the thread above and all the Hackmaster lovers...having never even heard of that system....I'm reminded of a man named David Hargrave and his Arduin system.

Does anyone remember that wonderful open ended system?

It played much better than 2E and was much less constricting than 3E and D20 based. Had honor and family and armor rusting if not cared for.

The only good thing for 3E so far has been its use on the computer based adventures; Icewind Dale 2 and Baldur's Gate 2. There's one more I think....is it Neverwinter Nights?? Anyway...its a lot like to play 3E and have fun really roleplaying in the sense of the word, you need a PDA with all the charts and modifiers installed so you press a characters name and a number spits out.

Regardless the system hjowever, the campaign is only as good as the Dungeonmaster!

MTB

I like 3e.

the BEST thing about dnd is the space for imagination. The ONLY way it's fun is with imagination. If a bunch of leveling EQ leveling treadmill people get together and play dnd, they'll be bored stiff. If just a couple of artistic people are in the group, the vanilla game is instantly covered in yummy sundae stuff....

basically, dnd is a canvas of rules to paint your rpg adventures on. Sure, they do come out with official worlds and whatnot, but the best fun to be had is in a dm making his own, or advntures exploring it.

for those of you who think dnd's hack and slash, get some imagination. Or play Planescape: Torment...hell if you haven't already, play torment anyways. DO IT!

Ok so sure I've been gaming only through 3 ED, and so I'm not seasoned like some of you enjoy to throw around (though I have immensely studied the industry making up for those missed years of gaming).But anyway my point is I'm actually quite angry with WOTC, mainly because they went and decided to drain another 90 dollars from our pockets, and saddly there really isn't any way of avoiding this new addition, because the majority of the major magazines new material will be realted to this new addition, and though we may be able to translate it back it still won't be worth it! So this is the whole back drop to me sitting around in my basement thumbing through AD&D books I got from one of my friends. And an odd thought comes into my head why doesn't WOTC release an AD&D 3E, or 4E or what ever way they want to number it, because at least this way not all content needs to be updated, and the books have a significant amount of diffrence from the first ones that no one would really strain to tell the diffrence if they just put in new art work, and then they also could incorporate more vile darkness and "mature content" into the books seeing as how it bears the Advanced in it's name. Though of course there are also more good reasons no to do this than there are to do it, I just would like to know that I'm spending my money on a new seprate product as oppossed to half a book upgrade, only hoping for the other half to come in 3-5 years so that I can shell out another 90 dollars ontop of all the special content!

On another note, I'm just curious as to where the over abundance of modules has gone to?! Sure there are a few out there but I would really enjoy more on a broader level scale.

Well, there was GURPS (Generic Universal Roleplaying System) and Heroes long before d20 came long on the wings of D&D 3E. ;-)

But yes, I like d20 3E, especially the skills system (which itself is adapted from Ars Magica). What I have seen and heard of 3.5 so far doesnt impress me. I will probably cannibalise it for a few houserules.

But then, I am not emotionally invested in D&D as The Best Game Ever Made. Yes, there *are* people who didn't start RPing with D&D. :) My first game system actually was Warhammer, followed for a short time by Harnmaster and 1st Edition Shadowrun (shudder) and Rolemaster (double shudder). I'm not sure when I played AD&D 2nd ed the first time. Yes, it was.... around. And I'm sure I must've played it. Back when I went to college, in my first semester, I met a few roleplayers by chance. One grup introduced me to White Wolf's World of Darkness Storyteller system. It was the year Mage:the Ascension's first edition had just come out, so we started a group. After that, I expanded into Vampire:tM and Werewolf (ack), and a few years later Changeling came along. There was also Call of Cthulhu, Paranoia, and other systems.

During the same time of the first Mage group, I joined an AD&D 2nd Ed group, people who only ever play (A)D&D to this day, because they don't like SF or Modern Day genres and don't want to bother with learning a new system.

There was also a third group of people who introduced me to Midgard (a German RPG), Earthdawn and Shadowrun 2nd ed.

What I learned from that is that there's a continuum of systems from "open" to "specialised".

- On one end of the spectrum we get systems that are (almost) unconnected to the actual world you are playing in, i.e. GURPS, Call of Cthulhu, Traveller. "Flavours", i.e. special magic styles endemic to one genre or campaign world, can always be added in without breaking the system.

- On the other end, we get rules systems that cannot be separated from the game world because they _define_ how things work in that world instead of just trying to simulate things like generic combat, natural laws like gravity etc. Such systems are difficult or impossible to convert into other, more open systems like d20 or GURPS. I would put AD&D, Shadowrun, Earthdawn, Conspiracy X, various World of Darkness stuff, Fading Suns into this category. (Yes, I am aware that GURPS has published conversions of Conspiracy X, MAge:tA, Vampire, Werewolf, but the results are, IMO, desastrous.)

- In between lie systems like d20 D&D which are less solidly connected to their genre and allow some customisation (see d20 Modern and the D&D compatible d20 supplements by Mongoose Publishing, White Wolf and others). On the other hand, d20 still carries the concept of Levels, and the newly invented feats. Everything is connected to those levels and feats. Which is why I groaned when I saw the d20 Stormbringer, d20 Call of Cthulhu and d20 Weird West supplements. (Level 10 archaeologists? Level 5 journalists? Level 3 industrialists? What level is a cousin to the Prince of Wales who is also a famous polo player and a writer of travel diaries? Come on, it's ridiculous.)

But at least d20 D&D has this going for it: It is solid, meaning the rules do what they are supposed to (simulate a heroic fantasy world), player classes and monsters are well-balanced, the rulebooks do not contradict each other so much that gaming becomes a matter of frustration and arguments among players and GM (in contrast, see White Wolf's World of Darkness books).

I think the biggest thing here is just play what you like. I personally love 3rd Edition and love 3.5 even more, but that's me and I don't expect everyone to like it. I know people that swear Vampire: The Masquerade is the best game ever and i hate it, but again....that's me. RPG's are like any other game, board, video, whatever. I like chess...some people like checkers, that's just the way we are and that's the beauty of having different games to choose from.....variety and selection.
So I say, play what you like, whether you role-play or power-play, hack-master, D&D, or Werewolf...WHATEVER! Do what you want and find a group that you like, because that's where the real fun is....who you game with, not what game you actually play.

I have to agree with Angrylitledwarf. Play the games that you like. We are all different. If we were all the same this world would be a dull place. Also it would have to be how well your group plays as to how fun each game is. I have met some crappy GM's and they had ruined the over-all game. I have played so many different RPG's and have like parts of them all. Here is a list of what I have played and you can be the judge on my opinion. Here it is: D+D 1st, Gamma World, Star Frontiers, Robotech, AD+D 2nd, Paranoia, Shadowrun, Gurps, Alternity, Battletech, StarWars (old version), Stargate D20, Traveler 2000, MIB, D+D 3rd, and I have even made up my own game. I prefer AD+D 2nd, but I also liked the rules for Alternity. SO different strokes for different folks. Have fun playing.