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.
Man, all I can say is two words...HACK MASTER. Thats what I think 3E should have been. It's aimed at the old school gamers, not these snot nosed punk newbees. I want players that can figure out a Thaco and arn't afraid of the Advanced on Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. I just hope Hack Master lives up to my expectations.
I didnt like magic but it did generate a serious amount of money to develope other games.
and if you (thats you geo ) want Woc to stick to card games we would have missed out on some gems (like roborally and guillotine). When they bought TSr they did make sure their worlds had a chance for survival iso tsr going under. D3 might not be your cuppa-tea but it is a new game with some innovative concept, and it supports some worlds we all know and love. besides I think the open game licence is a GOOD idea. Making sure it wont go stale (it does generate fresh ideas for more people than the local gaming group). So you dont like the game , dont play it. But dont flame people for liking it, the world is the important bit , not the rules.
What is Hackmaster? All I ever hear about it are little snippits like the one above by Ghost. Can someone say enough about it so I could lQQk for it?
I'll tell you what Hackmaster is. There is a comic book about a gaming group called "Knights of the Dinner Table" and insted of dungeons and dragons, they play a game called "Hackmaster". Well, up untill recently, this game was totaly fake, but the writters of the comic actually made the game. The game is based off the 1st and 2nd addition rules from ad&d. (they bought the rights from wizards). check it out on www.kenzerco.com. It's aimed tword old school gamers like me (and fans of the comic). The players handbook comes out next week and the cover is a parody of the original 1st Addition PH. Well I hope this was helpfull.
PS: I know there are spelling errors so don't bother bringing it up.
I have never played any D&D/AD&D game except 2nd edition AD&D and 3rd edition D&D. I am only 13, so I'm no expert. However, I totally agree - ditching THAC0, jumbling up initiative and AC, and all the modifiers *do* make it much more complicated, and when I played my friend's 3rdEd campaign, after "DM"ing my own 2ndEd campaign, I kept saying, "right! I'm a 5th level fighter, my THAC0 is 16... no, that's not right" and "the guy's my build? wearing chain mail? I'll have that... my AC is now 5... that's not right either!"
I think the new rules are for new players, and adapting to the new rules just damages games - a new player to my 2ndEd group kept going on about the new rules and confusing every thing (no, plate armour *isn't* AC 1, it's whatever)
Anon, i think you just summed up the complete problem.
AD&D player are just confused by the D&D3rd rules.
Its not really aversion its convusion.
Your rant is the most stupidest piece of bullshit I have ever heard. First get your damn facts straight, Second you haven't even read the damn rulebooks!! Your review is way to biased and unimformative. So next time keep your damn biased ideas to yourself before coming out and ranting about a game you don't know jackshit about.
Ebon, who's rant do you mean?
Hey! I love 2ndEd too! I think its the best thing going and not some munchkin 3E sales crap.
If any of you avid 2ndEd'ers want to sound off on another message board just follow this link. We can start a war against the pathetic 3E'ers right now in an awesome place.
I call you all to arms against them and the first stop is the message forum below... GO THERE AND REPRESENT!
http://townhall.webrpg.com/index.phtml?groupid=725
CM
I have played since the red box, and I'll tell you what, Every single edition from basic to 3e is great in it's own right. I might repeat some one becuase I stopped reading halfway through. (Ran out of time.) Look, for all you people how think 3e sucks, don't play, stick with the game you like. But like it or not, it's still D&D. From what I've seen alot of you will question this, but break down the rules. 3e is a combination of all the previous editions. The most noticable is the combination basic and 1st edition. Then you take things from 2nd and give them a new spin. For example skills instead of nonweapon proficiencies. Does it make sense that a 1st level fighter can make all his equipment from scratch? And why doesn't anyone talk about the things that was wrong with 2e? What about all the things that the first release of the DMG said they would NEVER do becuase it made the game too complicated with too many rolls and too many charts. Then they released all those things with the players options. The producers of 2e always wanted to go back to the simplicity of basic while keeping the feel of advanced. However they didn't know where to start from. WotC did just that. It's still D&D just like all the other editions. With each one you can point out why it's so much better and why it's so much worse then the one before it and after it. (BTW For those of you who never played Advanced, I'd suggest you give it a try, it has it's own value to it.)
And what's wrong with not having the level restrictions? It never did make any sense that an elf who could live for hundreds of years could never surpass a human who would live to a hundred if he was lucky.
Oh yeah, not all rogues are thieves, I don't remember who complained about there not being a thief class anymore, but you can still be a thief if you want, but personally I never played a thief and hated being classified as one. (Other players automatically concidered me untrustworthy becuase my character was a "Thief")
Well, I have to call this to an end, take my two cents into account, and enjoy your favorite edition. All four are my favorite. At this moment in time I play all four, though do to lack of time 3e is more often then the others, I still play them. And I run games in all editions at times.
P.S. I did notice one thing, in 2e, even though you could raise your pp up to 120% if you like, as far as the roll is concerned it's never above 95% after all modifiers are in place.
Why does this argument actually exist?
The discussions dont heat up this much when we argue between the merits and flaws of white wolfs storytelling system and the 7th sea rpg. (allthough I wouldn't mind :). Is this because the world is the same or what. I mean why dont we play forgotten realms with the gurps system or witht Runequest? Isn't the system less important the world ( and the gm interpertation)?
Hell why not play planescape with the Twerps system or with Paladiums fantasy roleplay?
Bazz:
because PlaneScape dosn't exist any more! It's like if mattel bought white wolf, then made a "easier" version for new players. Then said " all these clans are stupid, and so are the LARP player". and they just get rid of them. I've played Vamp an 7th sea, and I hope you never have to go through this. And as "whatever guy" suck my left nut you cock sucking faggot
Just thought I would let you know that Planescape is being released for 3ed and so is a Oriental Adventures book
September 2001 is release date for manual of the planes and October 2001 for Oriental Adventures and also a new magic book for Faerun in August
Manual of the planes is not a planescape bok perce but I am still looking forward to the info included, both rules and world description.
Remember that rule info is also a means of finding out how other people see world-info and not just what dice to roll.
thanks for the correction Bazz, I also am looking foward to the info included in the manual of the planes
You know the best feature about D&D in any version or any role-playing game for that matter is you are the boss. Well we DM's are : ) The only thing limiting you is your creativity. For example... I decided that when one of the characters in my group goes up in level why would the wizards automaticaly know new spells or be able to cast them more times per day. I decided against that. Instead I told my characters that when they go up in levels it means that they are prepared to learn more of the nuiances of fighting and magic. So they in turn decided that we should have guilds in town where the characters would go to learn from higher level NPC's. This worked out great for me. But back to the point, role-playing games are just a stepping stone to the worlds you and your groups invent. So it matters not if you like AD&D 2nd ed or D&D 3rd ed, all that matters is that you and your friends have fun exploring a world in your mind
Gamer:
What do you mean Planescape doesn't exist anymore, what have I been playing yesterday then:)
My point is that Rules are a means, not an end. Rules only exist to take care of consistancy, not to create the game. A game is made by the gm and player acting in a world. If you wanna play rules why are you roleplaying iso hogging the computer or playing cardgames.
Rule-flexibility and interpertation are more important in roleplaying than if there is or not is a THACO. If I remember correctly both AD&D and D&D3rd both have the SAME first rule: ITS YOUR GAME. (as does most other roleplaying games I might add). Why not just play iso discussing if some rule set is better than the other.
(I admit I kinda like it myself, but we dutch love to argue:)
The rule system does matter - each system and it's mechanics help set the tone of a campaign. The 'feel' and atmosphere of the rules is an important part of any RPG - otherwise why would we need so many systems? One person chooses Rolemaster because they like a technical, 'realistic' campaign whilst another chooses OD&D because of it's flexibility and high-fantasy 'feel'.
Of course the Campaign setting in any RPG is the most important thing, along with the individual adventures - but if you don't appreciate the rules system then you're missing a large part of the fun. It's like listening to music and enjoying the melody but never being able to appreciate the beat.
That's why we're so pissed off about WotC butchering AD&D. Apart from the core abilities and the mechanics for magic, practically everything else was buggered up. Even if someone can make out an argument that X or Y rule change was justifiable, the tone of MUNCHKINS & MONSTERS (a.k.a. 3e) has become, as has been stated above, a computer game on paper. C'mon, no ability score racial limits? Gnomes with the strength of an ogre?!
The focus on the kiddy 'feats' as being the way to customise a PC just smacks of putting together the best deck in MtG and is an open encouragement to min/maxing. Welcome, my friends, to Munchkinland.
So, let's get one thing straight: 3e is not D&D. 3e is just the fantasy version of the d20 open gaming system. In an interview on the WotC website one WotC functionary openly discusses the possibility of publishing a generic d20 system all on its lonesome!! In other words, the D&D/AD&D system developed by Gygax and Arneson was mutilated beyond recognition by WotC - and now they are openly speculating about severing what's left from carcass of 'D&D'!
Tas
I feel that everything needed for AD&D has been put out, so if anyone feels that AD&D is better than 3ed then why not continue playing AD&D and not even worry about 3ed. It's just a new system not anyone forcing you to give up on a way of life
Let's think about this one... a gnome with the str. of an ogre? Well why not, by the time that gnome gets the str of an ogre as well as having other stats balanced, Hasn't he worked hard enough to accomplish such str. This is a fantasy world, why will there not be exceptions to the rule. Just like some humans are stronger than others and some are smarter than others. Every world is going to be diversifed survival of the fitest is evolution and progress
Tell me which feats are so great and makes a character unstopable. That give the DM a challenge, throw harder chalanges at the PC's. Not just monsters but thinking problems, ethical and moral delimas the world of D&D has never been just run from dungen to dungen but an interactive enviroment in which the characters can grow and take part in
I stand corrected - I went back and checked and the mere 'functionary' I described is in fact none other than Ryan Dancey, the Wizards of the Coast’s Vice President in charge of roleplaying games!! This is what this bloke has to say:
"The idea is to abstract the 'game' inside Dungeons & Dragons and reduce it to a genre-neutral set of concepts and rules. Then, we'll layer on a thick helping of D&D-type fantasy elements, like the standard D&D classes, races, spells, and monsters. In the future, we might layer on a science fiction layer, or a horror layer, or any other genre we think would be interesting."
Before going on to say:
"We're going to establish 'D20' as a recognizable mark, like 'VHS' or 'DVD'...." and that WotC "... might, at some point, make a 'D20' book", although there are no "current" plans to do so.
If isn't dead, it's got a terminal disease .... called WotC.
Tas
I have NEVER seen a game with such religious zeal as 3rd Edition. Hasbro's marketing guys really deserve...what do you give marketing guys....a couple thousand souls of the damned for this one!
White wolf was slightly irritating for being elitist and pompous, but at least they kept to their own. 3rd Ed players are more like Jehovah's Witnesses. Nearly everyone I've met that plays 3rd Edition:
1) Refuses to play ANYTHING else, including longstanding campaigns, or complains bitterly if he DOES attend.
2) Takes criticism of the d20 system as a personal affront.
3) Becomes a rules lawyer. If said person was already a rules lawyer, he becomes a thing which can only be described as the unholy spawn of a Rolemaster Guru and Champions Mini-Maxer.
I see where the rules lawyers get off on once-knowledgeable players who now have total ignorance of the system.
It's an OK system, but not great. There are systems I utterly REFUSE to play, and 3rd edition isn't one of them. (In spite of my above comment, neither are RM or Hero.)
However, I must admit to a small caveat:
If I EVER again, EVER, in ANY context, hear the phrase "Attack of Opportunity", I will KILL the nearest living thing.
Then the next, until the red clears from my eyes, and I hear no sound save the screaming souls of thousands dead at my feet.
-Mark Temporis
HEy Mark!!! ATTACK OF OPPoRTUNITY. anyway 3rd edition kicks ass!!! Pestege classes are so coll!
Man I can't stand people who refuse to play in a long standing campaign just because they like another set of rules. If you don't like the new rules or old rules for that matter start your own group and run a campagin yourself with the rules you like, don't complain and ruin everyone's experience just because you want to play it differently. Sorry kinda venting about a White Wolf Vampire player who doesn't like D&D and wants to complain because vampire is better. I was like man go run a vampire campaign then don't cry to me.
I like vampire the Dark Ages and not Masquerade but if the GM want's to run a Masquerade campaign I don't bitch about it. That's my number one problem with 3ed, I run a 3ed campaign and alot of my group wanted to learn the new system, but then a couple did not and griped. So I decided to go 3ed and lost some of my good characters. But we still hang out and I feel it was worth it because now I have more material to work with and the ones who stayed are enjoying the new system and we are getting some of the bugs out of it and house rules established
I took a long read through this rant page.
Its not going anywhere. I don't think that its meant to...
Fact is that 3rd ed D&D has resurrected the hobby.
Bitch about the changes as much as you like, personally I thought 2nd ed was a big pile of crap, poorly thought out and a pale to 1st ed.
3rd ed, while not perfect, has breathed new life into the hobby.
You can moan all you like about it not being "real" D&D. Fact is, it is. They own the licence. Feel free not to play it, whine all you like, and cult-like perserverence to 2nd ed. is your right.
Hell, go out and buy Hackmaster if its such a problem! It looked like a fun piss-take, and Kenzer could certainly use your money.
Attacks of Opportunity stop whining about retreats and such... if you are in combat, you cannot turn your back and run UNLESS you are trained to do so. Try turning your back on a friend whilst fighting with Nerf... and see how many times you get bopped...
Enough of this. Learn to accept change, or don't.
But don't expect progressive players to care...
Gee, aren't 3e uber-munchkins sensitive? There's no need to get snippy.
Well, mate, I hate to break the news to you, but 2nd Edition was merely a consolidation of all the rules from the various 1st Edition sources (DMG, PHB, Unearthed Arcana etc.). So, if you liked 1st Edition why wouldn't you like 2nd?? It was the same system ... just consolidated, packaged and explained better. To those of you who didn't play, or didn't like 2e; that's sad.
Um, dumming down AD&D ain't 'progressive' ... unless you consider it a bit like sending off 'slow' people for special 'progressive' schooling. The fact that 3e players think of themselves as enlightened progressives sounds more like a cult to me than preferring 2e. Change is good when it is an improvement - 3e isn't an improvement.
As for resurrecting the hobby, considering that the tone, marketing and focus of the rules are designed to appeal to pimply-faced 14-year-old hack'n'slashers, I'm not sure that today's players will be tomorrow's - we all know that players tend to grow up and tire of Monty Haul gaming - although, we are talking about 3e munchkins here ...
And 3e still isn't D&D, WotC having the licence or not. Sticking a sign on the arse of a cow and calling it a 'kissing booth', doesn't make it one. Like I said in a post above: 'when you nip and tuck practically every part of the game, your Uncle Bob is now you Aunty Jane.' 3e is a different system that WotC stuck the 'D&D' logo on to sell it. Simple.
Enough of this. Learn to accept that 3e is a load of crud, or don't.
But don't expect ROLE-players to care ...
Tas
Fuck 3rd edition!!!!!!!! My friend showed me a game called Hackmaster. It's what 3rd edition should have been! It has all the 1st and 2nd edition rules from dungeons and dragons. I can use all my 1+2 edition books and they addend a lot of cool items. At least WotC sold them the rights to the old rules. If you love 1+2 Edition AD&D check it out. Death to WotC!!!!! Long live KENZER!!!!!!!!
Gamer, your right that game dose kick some major ass! I like the 20 hp kicker.
all forms of rpg's have problems...
make your own rules, to fix their problems. no one will come and steal your books if you dont use theirs
Geez, looking at many of the people in this horrendous and pointless debate, 3E, love it or hate it, is sorely needed. All I see is a bunch of bitter, hateful 30 something old fart gamers who are enraged that their precious game is being marketed to a new audience (a younger generation who was weaned on GASP Magic!). Who cares what these new gamers play as long as they keep the industry alive. As they grow older and discover new and better systems, they will keep supporting roleplaying in all it's forms. Calling the new generation of gamers "whiny, snot nosed brats" certainly doesn't bode well for the continued survival of our wonderful hobby, if that's how the "old guard" feel about young people revitalizing the industry. For shame!
I still say that the world is more important.
Yes, rules flavour the style of play (check out the difference in playing Runequest and playing Herowars) but its still the same world ( in the case of rq and Herowars: Glorantha) and les face it it doesnt matter what you play as long as you have fun :) Also , like dicegrunt says d&D3RD
DiceGrunt: I'd rather D&D died that when through the horrable transformation that happened. It wouldn't matter because I can't buy any of the new matterial anyway. As far as I'm concerned the game is dead. This crap with gnome paladins and sneek attacks are totaly stupid. and as for 30 year old farts, it's the same dumb asses buying who bought the last batch. Let's face it , if your intimidated by the Advance in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, you shouldn't be playing. Fuck those snot nosed newbees!!! Learn to play the real way or not at all!! HACK ON MY 30 YEAR OLD OLD SCHOOLER BROTHERINS!!! TO HELL WITH DICEGRUNT AND HIS LIKE!!!! Go back to shoots and ladders or Candyland Junior, its about your speed... The Gamer
Damn straight, Gamer! 3E is a pile of shite - and so are the D***heads who play it.
So after 30 something comments we are down to this: calling each other names.
I almost feel ashamed calling myself a gamer if this is the reaction a gamer has against people with a other oppinion.
What upsets you so If you dont want anything to do with it dont pay attention to it. But it must have some value to you otherwise you wouldt be this upset (and you call people playing 3rd Edition zealous)
Oh, if The Sigil is still reading this, the chance of surprise for that situation is a roll of 1-5 on a d8. Or maybe it as 1-6 on a d8.
There's a rationale there somewhere... I think it's in a Dragon magazine somewhere.
Thanx Sigil you really have shown me the light i have now switched to 3e and am really happy with the change.
im in need of some valibule info. i need some monster sheets for me and some friends think u could help me out and send me not some but alot of everything u got? plz. im in desperate need. {teaching my friends to play and all i have r high lv. monster`s im going to restart with them and no extra money at the moment he;p a brother out??
Dalamar you see out, you should and stayed with 2E, or at least went to Hackmaster. With Hackmaster you can use all your 1E and 2E books. And as for Bazz, It's people like you and that piece of crap DiceGrunt that brought around this change. People that couldn't hack the game because it was too hard for them. Because of that I and forced to buy my stuff on e-bay. Wizards didn't think about us old schoolers at all. Thay made 3E as far as they could from 2E and 1E as possable to force you to buy the new crap. So be a sap and buy this new stuff. I didn't think that any true gamer would have went for it. For what is a gamer with out his books and rules? Just a dork playing with army men.
Well, after several months, I stick my head back in and things are going pretty much as I thought... a continuing rant of...
"2e sucks"
"no 3e sucks"
"no 2e sucks"
How marvelous. It might interest a few of you to know that I continue adding material to my gaming collection from all editions of D&D, from Shadowrun, Talislanta, Cyberpunk, Star Frontiers, White Wolf, Earthdawn, etc.
Basically, I can (and do) take good ideas from anywhere. My playing system of choice happens to be 3e - because it is a unified system with a consistent model of the "world." And before anyone says that I'm 3e-brainwashed, check out http://www.fattygunho.com and you can see the character sheets for the homebrew system some of my friends and I used prior to 3e. Though it may be difficult to tell from the character sheet, the system was, basically, 3rd edition D&D... and we have been playing it since before 3e was a twinkle in WotC's eye.
I won't say either system is "better" - the only perfect system is called "real life." I merely said I prefer 3e - though I understand 2e, 1e, and oD&D perfectly and played them happily for 15 years, and still indulge myself in the occasional "nostalgic" session with some of my old players (when we are all in town, which is seldom now).
I am not intimidated by Advanced D&D. But it seems a great many here are intimidated by 3e.
The vitriol and such is unwarranted and ultimately useless. Argument usually tends to reinforce the belief of both parties that they are right. I have tried to raise questions that I thought were pertinent to the points I was trying to make - I believe AD&D is, ultimately, too complicated because it isn't consistent. Remember that many of the tables that found their way into 1e were simply cobbled, patched, ripped, and reused tables from old miniatures/war games... which is why you have the old nomenclature of MOVE: 12" being equivalent to a move of 120 feet - you are on a 10 ft to 1 inch scale. This is a direct descendant of miniatures gaming. So, yes, playing AD&D *is* like playing army men - it just has a few more rules. :-)
I find it hard to believe that people are *so* upset at the new edition... there are some substantial changes to the rules, but what were the rules there for? They were there to give you a resolution system that allowed a group of you to collectively take the same trip through a fantasy world. Nothing more. It doesn't particularly matter if the mechanisms that you use as the "laws" that govern the outcome of this fantasy are based upon miniatures rules (like 1e), based upon a set of rules that were originally based upon miniatures rules (like 2e), based upon "interactive storytelling" (like WW), based upon the random draw of cards (Everquest was it?), or something else (some of you believe 3e was based upon Magic:The Gathering - I'm not fully convinced of that yet, though undoubtedly there are pieces that seem to fit).
Is 3e the most realistic representation of reality I have seen? No. Is it one of the more simplistic? Perhaps. Is it flexible enough to handle a lot of situations? Yes.
Are most of 3e's Feats focused towards combat? Probably. Are most of its skills combat-oriented? Not so much... and to be honest, I found the old Master Set's Weapon Mastery rules much more "munchkin" than 3e Feats... though I do like the concept of weapon mastery since it reflects the different degree of practice people may have with various weapons.
And for the record, I felt psionics in 3e, while better balanced than in any previous edition, were some of the oddest, silliest rules I have seen. I would sooner use 2e rules than 3e rules. But I would even sooner use GURPS or Palladium psionics...
My point is, it really doesn't matter which system you like. And all the name-calling and swearing and chest-beating makes your position no more convincing. Continually belittling those who choose to use a different gaming system is just silly. I don't see most WWers calling GURPS players stupid (or vice versa). I don't see Palladium players calling out the manhood or maturity of Traveller players. Why the heck do we have a schism in the D&D community. Old oD&Ders, 1e players, 2e players, and 3e players are all convinced that theirs is the one "true" system. It's laughable, it really is. 2e is no more "true" D&D than "1e." 1e is substantially different than the original Gygax/Arneson rules. 1970s "Chainmail" is different. "3e" is different. The "Boxed Sets" are different. Heck, the Gazetteers for the Boxed Sets introduced skills - a concept not found in Basic/Expert/Companion/Master D&D. "Immortals" rules are another concept entirely from ALL D&D systems, including in the planar cosmology. Which of these, then, is the "true" D&D?
All of them. None of them.
Whatever edition of D&D you play is "best" because it's what you use to exercise your imagination. And whatever edition of D&D the guy next to you plays is "best" because it's what he uses. You use different vehicles to get to the same place and it's the destination and the route, not the method of transportation, that matters.
And on a VERY final note, I have not found a consistent formula for determining surprise based on different die rolls. There was a Dragon Magazine article (I have the CD archive) on it, but it was pretty arbitrary, IIRC. There is no hard and fast formula I can find (at least any formula involving sums, differences, multiplication, division, and/or squares) that leads for consistent, across-the-board results. Obviously, it's easy when one "side" gets special consideration (surprises or is surprised on a different number than normal) but it is much more difficult to impossible when both sides get special consideration. Still trying to figure out how it works with 7 in 8 versus 1 in 12 surprise... and before you call me stupid, come up with a formula that works in all cases - extreme examples are helpful - the surprise chance can't be greater than 100% for surprises on 99 in 100 meets surprised on 99 in 100, and can't drop below 0% on a surprises in 1 in 100 meets a surprised on 1 in 100. And in both cases above, the answers should NOT be 99 in 100 and 1 in 100 but closer to 9999 in 10000 and 1 in 10000. Oh, and make sure a 1 in 3 vs. a 1 in 3 comes out as a 1 in 3 chance (normal surprise chance). Trust me, it's nasty. I wish I could figure it out, I really do. :-(
The Sigil
Thx sigil, I could not say it that eloquent, but I believe you just made my point.
As a side note: I do own a serious amount of roleplaying systems (about 150), and I do play (or have played most of them). And my experience is that simple systems are good in promoting role-playing over poll-playing. My favourite system is not 3rd but (very old school) Runequest. So to save The gamer the trouble of namecalling: Yes you can munchkin in 3rd, but you can munchkin in all systems. And No I wont play most older D&Ds because I dont know the systems that well to roleplay iso pollplay.
Have a good game, everyone (as that is what its about people, just have fun)!! (and I even include rude people who let their loyalty to a game system cloud their better judgement)
salut
Wow,
I must be really chaotic today as I wrote rollplay as pollplay (twice even!)
sorry for the incoherent comment but I hope I got my point across :)
After a night of thinking:
Is loyalty to a game system a basis on wich to compare the roleplaying-enjoyment a gamesystem provides?
Or, is a gamesystem relevant to the fun you can have roleplaying?
Is roleplaying better than rollplaying?
And how do these questions relate to the question if Ad&D (or older D&D-systems) are now dead because there is a third edition?
What is an old schoolgamer?
Is there something everyone on this discussion can agree upon?
A thought on Charimsa...
How very munchkin to say "role-play charisma." IOW, "let me put a crappy score into charimsa so I can put a good score somewhere important." Why don't we let characters "role-play" intelligence and wisdom as well? Then you can have Clod the Barbarian with a ST, DX, and CN of 18 and IN, WI, CH of 3 - played by a player with an 18 Int... now you get Clod the Genius because "it's letting you do the role-playing." Please.
I think the best suggestion I have seen wasn't here - but by one of the 3e designers... he said, "roleplay the bargaining/negotiating session then have the DM assign a modifier based on how well you did." IOW, your ability to be diplomatic is still based on your character's CHA score, and good role-playing gives you a bonus. Best of both worlds - CHA still means something but so does role-playing.
Isn't it funny that Starkus, who screams MUNCHKIN MUNCHKIN MUNCHKIN right and left and 3e players wants to be MUNCHKIN MUNCHKIN MUNCHKIN in his 2e games?
If you take out Charisma as a game mechanic, you take out the need for a good score there - and open yourself to - gasp - roll-playing munchkins.
*Bows* Al?
Wignosy,
I'm not entirely sure of Starkus's post (as I can't really be bothered to scroll through this entire document and look for it) but I'm not sure "role-playing Charisma" is necessarily an out for the Munchkin gamer.
For example:
Biff is playing Fred the Barbarian, who adheres to the Percussive school of Diplomacy. Fred's friends, being psychotic adventurer types, have burned down a general store because the store manager objected to their five-fingered discount. Fred, who is still free, decides to try to speak with the authorities and get his friends released.
Fred, unfortunately, has a 7 Charisma.
Now then, I can certainly see where "role-play" Charisma could be abused here, if Biff were, say, a skilled wordsmith and sweet-talker, even if his character isn't. Left to his own devices, Biff would give the guard a hefty bribe which would not only release his imprisoned friends, but get Fred a few moments alone for an intimate encounter with the guard's wife.
However, a competent GM would look at Fred's character sheet and say, "Look, Biff, buddy, not only is your Charisma a 7, but your Intelligence is a 5. You can't even spell Diplomacy, much less make use of the skill on the guard."
To which Biff would likely scratch his head and say, "Oh well, all right then, I hit him."
On the other hand, there is a use for Charsima rolls. For example, you have a very shy player who can't seem to say more than two words without turning red, yet somehow he winds up playing the Paladin with the 17 Charisma. The most he would say is, "Um...I tell the guard to let my friends go..." Not too convincing, but the paladin is quite the upstanding sort with the cleft chin and the flowing hair, etc., so he'd probably be able to get away with it. Make a Charisma roll.
And I just contradicted myself. D'oh! :)
Geoff
Personally speaking, it's my experience that gamers, specifically RPG players, that zealously debate game mechanics and design purely on the basis of their publication/existence rather than actual game-time evidence shows: 1. A lack of understanding that WotC/TSR has for years EXPECTED DMs and players alike to use the texts as a framework of rules to be modified by their own judicious methods and for their own enjoyment (so if you like 2e,great. If not,great. BFD.) and 2. Actually shows that you spend most of your time creating nice, neat characters and scenarios on paper with meticulous penmanship rather than actually playing. You have to realize that unless you get you kicks as a D&D player at sanctioned convention tournaments, how you perceive the rules is sometimes, frankly, completely meaningless to a troupe of gamers across town who have been playing together in the same campaign for years who have their own stylized version of the game. I love roleplaying and contrary to popular belief it's very socially and spiritually fun to roleplay with good friends. Let's not all forget that.
RE- The Demise of Dungeons and Dragons
I'll say it again and again, alot of you who are bitching about the 3E are doing so before having tried it. I must admit I also had my doubts at first.
But come on you thought that THAC"0" was simple? Half the people who started playing needed a few games to get it right. Now it's simple roll a d20 add all your bonus and that is the AC you hit. Initiative is also simpler now (mind you I liked using the speed factors it added more realism but...)
Feats are great, they make for very flexible character building and it's not as bad as the Player's Options of 2E.
The problem is your resistance to change, that is all. You liked your game the way it was and the changes (although they make the game more accessible to new players) mean some complication for you since you must re-learn the game.
Predicting the demise of this game system is very unrealistic, having worked in a big gaming store I can asure you that 3E has actually rekindled the interest many gamers have for D&D.
Your last rant about Umber Hulks become Kings' pets, Elminster becoming a Necromancer and what not.
Well, that is up to you. I mean any DM can decide that Elminster is really a arcanoloth who's fooled us all for so many years pretending to be good or he or she can decide that in her or his game, Tiamat has a change of heart and decides to join the forces of good. Do like most gamers do with prefrab game settings, take what you want and adapt it to your needs.
But hey do as you wish folks it's your fantasys life :)
Me again,
I went through all the comments up above...
Jee it shows most of you complainers haven't tried the third edition.
A 16th level half-orc Barbarian/sorcerer/paladin/rogue will be a whole lot less powerfull than the same character with only one class. I don't see what the problem with this carreer path is (unless your the kind of DM who let's players change character class without roleplay, training and a good motivation to do so).
I too find that the rules may have been oversimplified, but they still allow you flexibility and now, as was mentionned by others, Charisma can mean something (especially to clerics).
I've had 2E clerics with abysmal Charisma scores (hey these guys are supposed to guide the flock, convert the heathens and all that).
As for the munchkin comments, I've been playing since 1985 and to my taste, 2E was much more "hack and slash" and "power player" oriented than 3E.
At any rate, a Maunty Haul campaign can happen with any game system. It's what you do with the setting and the players that make "real" roleplaying happen. I mean, we were able to get into Roleplay with games like Mech Warrior and even BloodBowl.
The roleplay happens outside the game mechanics and the product's appearance. As for Philippe Arsenault's comments...
Phil, tu me déçois, je pensais que tu pouvais voir au-delà de la mécanique du jeu. Just kidding man. And to think I gamed with this guy ;)
I'll say it again, RPGs are about having a fantasy life and playing hero a couple of times a week or once every other week as responsibilities start piling up ;)
Salut la gang!
Sam.....Are you Joking!!!! Tiamat Good?! Eliminster a Necomancer?!?! These are tride and true images of AD&D Man. Planescape, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, all of these things have been preveted, twisted or distroyed in Wizards new image. The game was fine how it was. I could see a few changes, that would have been fine, I'm not saying that 2E was frigen perfect, but I mean the tranformation was WAY too vast. I mean It's a whole diffrent game. Have you seen Hackmaster yet? Thats exactly what 3e should have been. It has new material without dramaticly making the game totally diffrent. Wizards left us old schoolers out in the cold. This was aimed at 12 year olds and girlfriends that game once every 2 years. I already know how to play, why should I shell out $20 a pop for a whole new set of 3E books. Why didn't they make it so I could easly use my old stuff. I don't know if you 3e lover know it or not but you got robbed! Take a look at your games man. I'll bet 2 years ago you dumb asses were killing monsters in a dungeon with a powerful character, and now your still killing monsters in a dungeon with powerful characters with one exeption.....you have hundreds of dollars missing from your pockets and wizards is laughing at you. So I'll keep 2e thanks and my hundreds of dollars. You all can have your gnomish 5th monk/ 3rd lv ranger/ 7th lv monkeyspanker. The Game
PS: DEATH TO WIZARDS OF THE COAST!!!!
See Gamer that is exactly what I am refering to.
You stick to the old system for the sake of stability (just like americans refusing to use the metric system) even if a new system would make things simpler and get the job done.
I don't mean that Tiamat SHOULD be good (and trust me that would never happen in my game). But the fact remains that people are free to use the material as they see fit.
The point of image is good I must admit being surprised (ie puzzled and disaponted) at the image of Elminster WITH A HUGE SWORD AT HIS BELT???? I tell you in my game, he'll have no such thing.
I am not blind enough to miss the money grabing scheme behind 3E (but they are there to make money after all.)
As to the content of my games you are way off the mark man (and please keep the insults to yourself bud). Our game has at most 3 combats per session(on a rough night) and we often spend a night with very little dice rolling.
You're absolutely right about the 12 year old and girlfriend comment, but that was the aim right to make the game more accessible so the rules would not get in the way of game play (or role play for that matter). And now, I can have my girlfriend play with me without having to give her a course in statistics.
Incidentally how much of the core books could you still use once Player's Options came along? How much DID you use them in character creation? And how many Complete Books of (insert name for the money making excuse here) did you buy? Did you have to buy them all? I didn't (and I bought the stuff at cost back then).
Oh by the way, thanks for the suggestion of "monkeyspanker", where are the stats for that presige class again? :)
PS Sans Racune ti-gars.
To Ghost...
Where do you get all that "info" man!
I was reading the whole board and came upon your rant from feb,
"I would just like to say that I lothe Wizards of the coast. (blah blah blah). I know for a fact that in all of there stores that insted of selling 2E minuatures and books for 1/2 off or even just making them avalable, the employees were ordered to distroy them. (blah blah blah). "
What idiotic shop owner did that? Names man, names! Please. Because you do know for a FACT right? You wouldn't make this up rignt? You have seen it done right?
Come on guys all this name calling. I don't find anything wrong with liking 2e or 1st e, but calling people stupid or traitors or insulting their ancestry for disagreeing with you. That I find... narrow minded (to be polite). Some 3E advocates also use the name calling and "belittling" (that has to be spelled wrong, what the f... english is a second language to me after all).
Anywho, I like finding out what you folks' likes and dislike are about the various editions.
PS Has anybody noticed how similar the arguments of some of the pro 3E and pro 2E are to those of anti-gaming religious zealots who KNOW FOR A FACT they are right? Think about it folks. Remember the odd looks gamers get from some narrow minded people? Now read some of the above comments, reminds you of anything?
Cthulhu Matata.
Vive la différence :)
Sam... The Wizards of the Coast store in the mall near my house DID distroy these items. I have a friend that works there. They gave hima hammer and in the parking lot he smashed all of the 2E minuatures. The covers were torn off of the books and sent back to Wizards to show that they were distroyed and the manager had to sign a paper claiming that he witnessed the books being compressed in the trash compacter. I am not making this crap up. Go ask at your local Wizards store and you'll see.
And still the argument goes on. Just to let everyone know I have a 3e campaign running quite happily. It is a continuation of a campaign run under 2e rules. The only difference the players have noticed is that the character sheets are in a slightly different layout and they don't have to remember when to roll under or over a number. There are a few differences such as DC's but they tie in nicely with other games DC's so they are quite easy to work out (if you go into the maths, you'll find they are also easy to understand why they work). Oh and AC 20 is roughly the same as AC 0 was.
I'll admit I haven't used attacks of opportunity, beacause they are a bit more difficult to do if you don't draw a map for every fight, but I am thinking of intruducng them into the game. The characters that are playing are all quite powerful 8th level and in one case 11th level PC's. But then the campaign is quite powerful, with the occasional pit fiend etc to deal with and the odd rogue state to be diplomatic with.
The players are quite happy with it, after a couple of sessions to get used to it and the game is going from strength to strength. I still have all my old books and have the odd conversion from 2e to 3e to do, but apart from that it is business as usual. What is wrong with a gnomish 5th monk/ 3rd lv ranger/ 7th lv monkeyspanker? If the players want to play one and the DM doesn't mind it and believes the players justification for their character do be one, then as long as they are all having fun, who cares?? You obviously The Gamer. What gives you the right to tell anyone what to do in their game? If you don't want to play a gnomish 5th monk/ 3rd lv ranger/ 7th lv monkeyspanker then don't.
The atmosphere of the game does not come from the rules. It comes from the game background and the GM/DM.
You carry on playing 2e or indeed hackmaster (you seem to have some commission for selling it anyway), I'll carry on playing 3e D&D, Cyberpunk 2020, SLA Industries, ICAR and any other game that strikes my fancy, because unlike most other 3e players (apparently, not entirely sure myself), I play other systems. I have also had a go at just about all the various different ways of doing this hobby, including Tabletop RPG, Miniatures, CCG and LRP. Some, I don't like too much (CCG), but I don't call people who do, names.
I can underdstand that a game you know and love has been changed in this new addition, but any of your gripes about being able to and not being able to do something are irrelevent. If you want to do them do them and if you don't... then don't. Can't you decide what rule to use or not in a system, any system, not just AD&D/D&D? Even Hackmaster must have some problems...
Maybe you're annoyed that all this stuff that is coming out is not compatable with all that stuff you have spent loads of money on. Essentially 2e publications died with TSR. You would not have all these complaints if that was what had happened. The only stuff coming out of anywhere would be unofficial stuff written by fans of the game. But instead, we now have some official stuff being written and for those of use who are open minded enough to move over to the new rules or convert stuff back, this is a bonus.
If you want a debate, come up with a decent arguement, that doesn't revolve around "2e is best, 3e is crap, so there and you're an idiot if you say otherwise". Qualify your statements. Otherwise your just spouting a load of fascist, biggoted bollocks. I thought RPGing was supposed to exercise the mind. Maybe it's just the games you play.
Baron
Guys (no girls read this right!),
Just ignore the rules and play the GAME. I think we stoped using 95% of the rules of AD&D back in '83. Hits points are silly, the fact that someone moving slowly in a suit or armour is actually harder to hit is daft, the suggestion (a la 1st edition DMG)that I have to role my characters height and weight is daft, the fact that an immortal elf could only ever be a 10th level fighter was daft, but NO ONE IS GOING TO ARREST YOU IF YOU CHANGE IT... really trust me on this.
(by the way I happen to like the skills and powers from 2nd so long as you change them a bit and won't be buying 3rd since I am not overly keen on the cover.) WOTC always try to simplify they simplified Magic down to Pokemon and made a fortune and they dropped Jyhad because no one understood the rules for aggrevated damage.
We all have to face the fact that RPGs are for 11 year old high school kids and we should have stopped playing 20 years ago. LIve wit it.
Baron,
Thats just my point my friend. You may have a great 3E champain and you may love it, but how long ave you been playing? Did you have much to loose when switching editions? Your probably only had like 4 books. Big dealt. The problem I have is that Wizards left me and people like me out in the cold with this new edition. They didn't even try to make it easy to trasfer old material with the new. I loved the players option series and enjoyed the fact that they had made several diffrent ways or rules to do diffrent functions in the game. But they made the new edition like magic the gathering, with stupid attacks that make no sence and other retarded dual classing abilitys. Now I have switch from the old Star Wars games to wizards version and I like this d20 crap for that type of system, but for D&D this is another frigen story. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from. The system changed and left me out. And to make matters worse they tried to force us to play 3e by distroying 2e stuff. They have no regard for Old Schoolers the games history so I want no part of them.
The Game,
All I have to say to you is WAAAAHHH!!! I have been playing since 1st ed. Understand that one? My books had pictures of demons on them. Gygax actually wrote the friggin manuals, and a lot of the artwork just plain sucked. I bought all of 'em though. Then 2nd ed came out. Bought it. Got sick and tired of the glut of crap material TSR was putting out and went away to play something else. Before getting tired of the glut, I spent roughly $700 as a minimum on 2nd ed. 3rd ed came out. Sold off my 2nd ed crap to my sister-in-law, cause she plays with a group that can't handle a little change, and am buying the new books. Have I wasted money along the way. HELL YEAH! YOU KNOW IT BABY!!! Have I felt cheated by the gaming companies? (All of them not just Wizards.) Shit yeah. You kidding? You should see some of the crap I have bought over the years. (Anyone want to buy some Highlander cards? Seriously, if you do, contact me. I write for this site, so my email address is around here somewhere.) Does this mean I am going to not play 3e because it was put out as a money making scheme. NO. That's all any of the gaming stuff was. IT WAS ALL A WAY TO MAKE MONEY FOR SOME GAME DESIGNER. If you want to bitch about a company changing editions and leaving you and support for your products out in the cold, try playing Games Workshop miniature games. Otherwise, go play with you dice. You either love the hobby and take your lumps, or you become an embittered old gamer that can't stop talking about the "good ole days". Morbus, please close this discussion off. PLEASE.
I Think I fit in to the 2nd catagroy of "Bitter old gamer ther remembers the Good old day". But, the good old days never ended until Novmber of 2000 when I went to my local gaming store and asked to order "Den of thieves" and they said that all 2nd edition books were out of print becasue the 3E players handbook came out. I see where your coming from with the games workshop people. I always knew those guys sucked so I stayed clear of them for all my gaming years. What ever, play what your going to play.
Strange!!
What has the crazy policy of destroying books (and I DO NOT like that) have to do with that company creating a good roleplaying game or not?
Ok its stupid to destroy @nd edition, but that doesn't make 3rd a bad game.
Damn this discusions are taking some strange arguments :P
The Gamer,
I have been playing for about 10 years, with the current campaign world running for about 7 years on and off. Number of books, well into double figures. So did I have much to lose, potentially "Yes". In reality I lost nothing though. As a GM I use the rules to determine whether a PC can do something that they might fail in. ie can they climb the wall, open the door, dodge the fireball etc etc. And for hitting people.
The fact that you could not get hold of "Den of Thieves" is unfortunate, though something you really should be used to by now. There are many games that are in the same state. Would you expect it to be otherwise? Just for sheer marketing reasons, they are not going to continue to print the old edition, just as a car manufacturer wouldn't make the old version of there car.
The rules are more open to "abuse" shall we say. Yes you can have completely odd and weird combinations of characters out there. That doesn't mean there needs to be. Just using multiclassing a character for example. For a player to become a 5th monk/ 3rd lv ranger/ 7th lv monkeyspanker (seems as good an example as any) they would have to go by the following route, 5 levels of Monk (I don't think they can go back to monk once they have started any other class). The player would then have to explain to me how he had suddenly become a ranger. Not only would he have to explain it but prove that he was now a ranger. In other words they will have to roleplay being a ranger for a bit, while they are gaining the XP they are going to spend on the level of Ranger. I am not sure how the roleplaying of being a monkeyspanker would go and I am not sure I want to, but you get the picture.
The ideal set of rules for a roleplaying game be it 2e or 3e or any other e for that matter should be as invisible as possible. 3e does this better than 2e for me. And the books help here as well. Lets take the stats for an Orc, a very simple entry of AC tells me it's got an AC of 14 (+4 Chainmail) I don't need any more than that. The player rolls and beats 14 they have hit. I know that the +4 comes from the chainmail it is wearing so if I want to add some flavour and have one Orc in chainmail, I know they have an AC of 12. All the stats for anything are like this. everything is added up and there is a brief explanation of how it was worked out if you want to change something. This is much better than it was in 2e where you just got AC 6 and no explanation.
The character sheets are the same, you can see where all the modifiers come from. Yes, there are a number of modifiers, but are there really more than 2e? Once they are worked out though, they are done. It isn't that difficult to convert stuff, there are large similarities between the systems. I have not had any major difficulties in doing it and as I have got to know the new system better it becomes even easier. MIst of the old spell are still there, fighting is pretty similar... Conversions for characters are covered in the booklet they give away free. It didn't take me long to convert a 5/6 lvl Fighter/Mage elf with a number of magical items and kit. I did this on first attempt about a day after getting the books. Do you have such complicated thing in 2e rules? Why have they left you out, you old gamer you? I don't feel left out and I have been playing the game for years. Yes it's a bit of an arse having to buy new books, and I'll admit I got them cheap, but it is still the same game if you want it to be.
Why is the conversion to Star Wars easier? It's the same bloody system, large tracts of the books are identical! I'll admit rolling 1d20 is a lot easier than a bucket load of d6. I think you place too much emphasis on the system and not enough on the game. Climbing a wall in Star Wars is the same as doing it in D&D, both in game terms and now in terms of rules. I am not saying the system is perfect, but it does help the game run smoother and faster. You'll need to explain yourself more here, because I can't see how it can be OK for Star Wars and not D&D...
The Gamer, this is not necessarily directed at you.
THAC0 was not a right of passage as I have seen people say. It's an admission that it added complexity to the game. And it did. New players didn't know half the time if 20 was a good die roll or a bad one. Bollocks to the "It selected the boys from the men" statements that people have been spouting, who cares! A complex plot and senario involving many plot twists and difficult problems does that!
Baron
Who ever wrote that THAC0 is a "rite of passage" was very cleaver. I always thought that way and this is a perfect term for it. I hope you don't mind if I use it. I have to admit that WotC is becoming a little more leaniant that they were a year ago when this site was first posted. Wizards.com has added a site that allows you to download 1st edition stuff for free. They also allowed Kenzer Co. to write games with the 1st and 2nd edition rules. I still don't like the company and still won't use any of the matterial, but I've come to the point that my lothing has turned to mere hatred. Hell my games hasn't changed at all. I just wished they would have improved the 2e system other than coming up with a whole new one. I still hate 3e but,...what the hell am I going to do about it. Enjoy your games guys whatever you play. For some day, many years from now. You'll be shocked to learn that your edition is no longer profitable, and all the books that you hoped would someday come out....never will, for 4th edition has come along.
I think 3e is too simple and not as realistic as 2e.AND I KNOW what I'm talking about because I own all of the D&D 3E core rule books.For me, I just use the rules I like from both 2e&3e, so I get the best of both rules.I liked AD&D 2E but I think they gave the humans too many advantages.I think level limits were kinda stupid.
Well you guys I have a big one for you all,
Have any of you all gone off and read the new Magic of Fearun? Well I have, and my heart almsot stopped. Did you all know that according to WOTC, Mistra the god a magic, was killed in Waterdeep fighting evil gods over the tablets of fate!. If anyone had there eyebrows raised then you know where I am coming from. Page 5. sub-topic "The Time Of Troubles".
"Mystra killed in Waterdeep fighting evil gods over the tablets of fate..."
Um, yes... this was in the Shadowdale/Tantras/Waterdeep trilogy by Ed Greenwood... all of the crap that went on in these books was the rationalization to get the Realms from 1st edition into 2nd edition... After all, the rules changed (horrors! imagine a game company changing the rules to D&D) - for example, all assassins were killed by a god (Bhaal)... barbarians and monks disappeared... because 2e no longer supported them.
Bane died, and Cyric, a mortal, took his place (along with the areas of Bhaal, god of assassins and Myrkul, god of the dead). Kelemvor wasn't a god, he was a werepanther. I guess TSR/WotC decided to raise him to god status later (I forever swore off keeping up on the Forgotten Realms after the munckinesque disaster that was the Avatar Trilogy). Midnight became the "new" Mystra. If you grab the old Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (hardback) for 2e, you will note that it has a LOT of notes on "how to convert from 1e to 2e" - what to do with an assassin character (let him survive but be unable to progress in assassin abilities or just say he was killed when Bhaal sucked the life force of all assassins), what to do with a barbarian, cavalier, or monk character (boils down to "let him be the last of his kind, or, preferably, take him out of the game because he's overpowered"). Introduced the "major missile" spell because now "magic missile" had a damage cap on it ("mages discovered magic missile was no longer as nastily effective at high levels")... under 1e rules, a 20th level caster flinging magic missiles had 10 missiles... that's 20-50 no-save / automatic points of damage from a 1st level spell!
You get the idea. All of these people who are screaming and moaning about how 3e is a radical departure from 2e forget that 2e was a departure from 1e. Not only that, but a rather heavy-handed one (the "party line" was something along the lines of "if your character doesn't fit with the new rules, ditch him and start over, you munchkin"). At least 3e tries to convert characters and isn't quite so heavy-handed - instead it's "if your character isn't supported by the rules, try to find something similar and just use that instead, even if it's not normally allowed."
If your jaw dropped at the Magic of Faerun, you are simply ignorant of your own system. The "Time of Troubles" is not, I repeat NOT of WotC's doing, but of TSR's back around 1990 when they were trying to get everyone to convert from 1e to 2e. So don't say WotC is "changing history" in the Realms... those who know the realms know that, if anything, WotC is adapting the 3e system to fit all the crap that went on in the TSR/2e era of the FR (including the novels). And they are certainly not practicing revisionist history, at least as far as that goes.
But don't get me started on the Shadow Weave - it's a nice idea, but that IS revisionist history... but then again, the Realms have *ALWAYS* been subjected to revisionist history... all of the histories keep getting expanded and changed to include more and more feats by the great (munchkin) heroes of the Realms - at one point, Elminster was just a wizard... now he's been a Chosen of Mystra and a Lover of Mystra (despite earlier having been linked romantically to the Simbul).
I guess what I'm saying is that while TONS of revisionist history has been practiced on the Realms over the years, most of it extraordinarily annoying and downright stupid in order to bring the "game" into line with the glut of poor novels (instead of the other way round, which BTW, I feel it ought to be), this particular piece of revisionist history belongs to TSR, and NOT WotC. If you want revisionist history from WotC, look at the entry about Shar and Mystra being opposed sisters from the beginning of time.
Ugh. And people wonder why I don't play in the Realms. How can I use a campaign setting where they're always adjusting the facts to fit their own stories instead of adjusting their stories to fit in with the facts?
--The Sigil
Oh, don't get me wrong - I love the spells, and magic items, and "game mechanic" ideas from the Realms and I rip these freely to put into my own campaign setting (with its CONSISTENT history), but darned if you'll ever catch me running a Realms campaign where I have to change the history every year to keep up with the latest popular novel. (First Curse of the Azure Bonds, then the Avatar Trilogy, then the Moonshaes, then Drizzt the "good" drow - even though my understanding of drow in 1e was that they were completely corrupt BY NATURE due to a taint from the demon queen Lolth - then Spellfire, then "Elminster as ubiquitous historical figure who by the way regularly mingles with Gods" - heck, just make the guy a Greater Power already and get it over with... blah...)
The "flavor of the month" of revisionist history in the Realms is horrific at best and downright idiotic at worst.
--The Sigil
There's a big problem with all of your arguing and bickering...it's all up to personal taste. I don't like tomatos...I'm sure some of you agree or disagree with me, but none of you can tell me I should or shouldn't like tomatos. Because the fact of the matter is, I don't...I vomit if I eat them...simple enough.
I play Hackmaster, personally, and I like it, and that's what matters. I doubt I'll pick up 3e, and that's ok, because I don't have to. I've found a system I like and I'm going to play it. I've flipped through 3e at the bookstore, but I just don't have the volition to buy it. Heck, I may someday. I'm not technically an old-school gamer...I never played AD&D 1e, or 2e back in the "glory days" of TSR. I've read about those days, but I was born in 1977. And I just never got into the hobby. Hell, I started out playing Battletech when I was 15, and moved to Phantasia. (Based on the Darksword Trilogy by Weis and Hickman.) and then I moved to MERP. I don't align myself with any of these systems. I play what I feel like playing. It's that simple.
And for all of you who say you feel that WotC doesn't care about you...you're right. They don't care about you. If you don't like 3e, then they don't care at all whether you grump or complain, or pitch whatever fits you like...3e was not designed for you. If you were playing D&D back when Gygax and Arneson first wrote it, then you're older then the kids nowadays who were raised on computer games and such, and as such have fewer years (on average) than these kids to buy and play RPG's. It's a cost-analysis strategy. If WotC had decided to print another version of 1st or 2nd edition AD&D, then only you old-school gamers would have picked it up. Most young kids wouldn't have looked twice at it. And that means that the hobby (which isn't doing so well, on average) would have completely shut down in a couple of years. As it stands, some of these kids start playing D&D3e and then maybe they move back to OD&D or AD&D 1ed or 2ed, or maybe they stick with 3e, but the hobby is prolonged. (Granted, they're hoping that a couple of "old-school gamers" agree with them and buy their product. Because very few kids are going to pick up role-playing unless they're pointed to it by someone else. And they've accomplished that...I've heard and seen many a story of people switching from many systems to 3e.) You cannot be everything to all people, but you can be something to some people. And it is up to each individual and company to decide what they want to be to what people. WotC has thrown in their lot with the next generation. And maybe that sucks for some of you...sorry. It's life. Every company chooses a niche to fit into. If it's not your niche, you feel betrayed, and that just bites, but it's life.
And yes, they exist to make money...that's why they still exist. Maybe you don't like their marketing strategies or stuff they put out, and they don't care. It's not for you, and I recommend you don't even think about it. (Since it obviously makes many of you so irate.)
The rules make the system, the rules don't matter, the art rules, the art makes no difference, the "feel" of the game has changed, it hasn't changed at all, WotC is amazingly fantabulous, WotC is borne of Satan...all of these _OPINIONS_ are not mutually exclusive. They are opinions, and it shows why there is such a variety of games out there. Now what I do NOT like is the number of games that are converting to d20. (Not because I like or dislike the system, but because it begins to limit the number of options people have.) But remember that you people are all different and as such have different opinions and all these opinions have merit to you...but not to others. :) L8er.
-Chris
P.S. I think Hackmaster rules, and for anyone out there who doesn't like 3e, or who likes 3e, but occasionally still feels like playing 1e or 2e every once in awhile, Hackmaster is a viable option from a company that really cares about their customers. (Not comparing Kenzer to anyone...I just like their company and their product.) http://www.kenzerco.com
--Well, I have to say that it's interesting to have stumbled upon this little corner of the internet. For the most part, this is the only place with a significant "anti-3e" population.
--I think the fact that the first post here was before the release of the game is particularly telling.
--For my part, I'd argue that DnD 3e is an empirically BETTER system than 1e or 2e. A set of RPG rules is really an "interface" between a group of players and reality. The players provide inputs to the reality being simulated, and the game returns results.
--In the world of interface design, there are certain FACTs with regards to what makes an interface good, and what makes an interface bad.
--Example: Common sense dictates that higher numbers are "more" or "better," while the reverse is true of low numbers. In 1e and 2e we have THAC0 and AC. The lower these are, the better. This is unintuitive. You may be used to it, it may be more intuitive to you NOW, but the basic fact is that it is not intuitive. Speaking from experience, I can tell you that the transition to the new rules is pretty fast, so really there's no reason not to switch. The new system is better, it's more intuitive, and there's really no functional difference. A roll means the same thing in both versions.
--Example: Commonality of interface and behavior is easier to work with. In 1e and 2e we have bizzare arbitrary tables for character attributes. Hell, we have one attribute, Strength, which doesn't even use the same scale as other attributes. This is poor design. In 3e, not only do stats use the same scale, but they provide bonuses at identical rates. With a little experience a player can know off the top of his head that 16 means +3. Now, sure we all pretty much memorized the 1e and 2e tables after hours of exposure to them, but that doesn't make the design smart.
--Example: Grouping and categorizing is more efficient and easier. The system for bonuses in 3e is vastly better than anything in 1e or 2e, and it speaks to the degree of organization that WotC has implemented. The rule is simple. Like "named" bonuses don't stack. A +3 armor bonus doesn't stack with a +1 armor bonus. You just use the +3. But a +3 armor bonus stacks with a +2 deflection bonus. You have a +5 to AC. Easy, elegant and fast. In 1e/2e there's not even a system to handle this.
--Most of the complaints I see here refer to "heaps of confusing bonses" and stuff like that. This is fiction. Your character sheet has an easy worksheet to compute the various modifiers to your initiative. You sum them up and write that down. When init is rolled, you toss a d20, and add this on. Roll a die, add a single number. If that confuses you, then you should probably start wearing a helmet. It's rather odd to me that you'd hit upon initiative as a failing of 3e, when it's clearly one of the areas of most marked improvement.
>
It really doesn't matter what he said after this. My point is that he says this once and then proceeds to talk about his OPINIONS as though they are FACTS. (He even incorrectly uses the word facts in his posts.) This is what I was talking about in my posts. I'll make this point once more. And then I'll just laugh at the morons who say these types of things afterwards.
>
Well how I feel about it now is really all that matters to me isn't it??? Who gives a rat's tail whether it's ACTUALLY intuitive now. Someone who has spent years learning something and when he sees something, it's unfamiliar, and he doesn't see a reason to switch everything he's ever player over to a new system. See, I've never even looked at the d20 stuff. I may not. But I DO know that people who don't like it don't even have to have a freakin' reason for not liking it. They just don't. For anyone who argues with someone who says they don't like 3e, this is for you:
"YOU ARE A MORON!!! YOU CAN NOT ARGUE WHETHER SOMEONE LIKES SOMETHING OR NOT UNLESS THAT SOMEONE IS YOURSELF!!!!"
Do you people understand this?? You can like something, but to say something like this...
>
This is "clearly" a freakin' opinion!!! Who are you to be some sort of a thought-nazi about what other people think. If I think that the initiative system of 3e sucks my butt, then you really can't say that I don't think that, can you????
I say again because I'll no doubt be confused with someone who hates 3e. I don't. I like 1 and 2e, but I've not looked at 3e yet. But it irks me when people think that they can dictate people's likes and dislikes to others. That's it.
(Geez, I must have had a stressful day at work or something.) :)
-Chris
I apologize for the previous post. Apparently, browsers interpret inequalities symbols as HTML. My quotes should have listed as follows:
[For my part, I'd argue...]
[You may be used to it, it may be more intuitive to you NOW, but the basic fact is that it is not intuitive.]
[It's rather odd to me that you'd hit upon initiative as a failing of 3e, when it's clearly one of the areas of most marked improvement.]
Again, I apologize for using a bad character to quote using.
-Chris
[[ My point is that he says this once and then proceeds to talk about his OPINIONS as though they are FACTS. ]]
--There's opinion and there's fact.
--Opinion: 3e is a more fun game than 2e.
--Fact: 3e is a better system than 2e.
--There are basic facts of interface design. It's a simple fact that things like intuitiveness, continuity, commonality of interface and consistency are hallmarks of good interface. The more of these "good design elements" a game posesses, the better the system is. I never said that 3e is more fun. There's nothing I can say to somebody who considers 2e more fun, besides "to each his own." But if people try to claim that 3e isn't a better, smoother, more intuitive, more flexible and more consistent SYSTEM, then they are factually incorrect.
--All these games are just systems. It's up to the players and DM to breathe life into the system and make it fun. If you can't have more fun with a system that's empirically better, and instead have a better time working with a kludgey collection of rules hacks, then that's fine. I absolutely am not telling you what YOU think is more fun. However I am telling you what you should think is a better thought out system. I am further telling you that if you don't like 3e better then you should re-evalute your views, because not liking something that's better in almost every quantifiable way is somewhat odd.
[[ See, I've never even looked at the d20 stuff. ]]
--Why would you even say this? You're basically castrating your own argument by saying "hey, I'm ignorant, but here's the truth." You don't know anything. Why post?
[[ Who are you to be some sort of a thought-nazi about what other people think. ]]
--I'm not a thought-nazi, but if the nazi party happens to have a position open in the Office of Incompetent Misreading, I'd suggest you send your resume in, and attach this URL as a reference to just how much of a talent you posess when it comes to missing the point.
--What is and is not intuitive is not a matter of opinion. Research psychologists, army engineers, ergonomics experts, and interface designers have spent thousands upon thousands of man hours determining what makes interfaces understandable and intuitive. There are basic facts and rules of interface design that guide the construction of computer systems, aircraft cockpits, ATM kiosks, and toaster ovens. If you make a toaster that cooks LESS on a setting of 10 than on a setting of 1, that's unintuitive, and that it's unituitive is a FACT.
--Admittedly there's grey areas on the edge of intuition where some people might be more confused than others, but the basics are simple, and not open to interpretation. Admittedly there will always be some people who fall outside the norm, and don't operate under normal rules of psychology. You don't write your game for these people. The term, "intuitive" implies in its very meaning, the idea of repeatability. Something is not intuitive if it's easily understood by one person. It's intuitive when it's easily understood by the large majority.
[[ But it irks me when people think that they can dictate people's likes and dislikes to others. ]]
--I wonder if it irks you when people think they can read somebody's post, and despite being completely uninformed on the subject, unwilling to read carefully and understand, and generally of limited reasoning capacity, these people still think they have a right to get preachy and elitist?