gamegrene.com

Whoever commented about Star Wars conversion being easy--what are you talking about? The d6 and d20 SW systems are more or less completely incompatible!

The WEG game was one of the first of the cinematic RPGs. PCs were nearly impossible to kill and had the ability to use xp and Force Points to alter their skill chances.

The d20 Star Wars, since its fundamentally identical to D&D3, is far less forgiving and character death WILL be far more frequent than under the d20 system.

Even if one was able to convert a favorite character from the WEG to the d20 Star Wars, they would have to play that character so differently that they might as well use a brand new character.

Besides, isn't the official "world" of the d20 SW 30+ years before the WEG game setting?
-Marc

This page has provided me with some very useful insights into a game I have grown to love. I will admit I am not a hard core gamer and have not played religiously every week for 10-15 years. I have, however, GM'd games in both 2e and 3e I have found that my players and I enjoy the streamlined rolls of 3e better. A few had a huge problem understanding THAC0, and when to roll under a number or over it. So in this instance we have found that 3e does take alot of the guess work out and keeps the GM from having to search through 3 or 4 different tables to find the right information. This system keeps all focused on the roles that each are playing and not on what roll is right.

I have also found that they did leave alot of the things that I did like about 2e out of 3e. Like weapons speed and casting times, even some of the magic items and spells are no longer in the core rule books. I have since modified them to fit into the campaign currently running. I didn't not find them all that difficult to do so, and I am planning on working the weapon speed and casting times into the initative. (Any suggestions??)

For those that are saying that they haven't even looked at the system and are making judgements, my suggestion is to take a good look at them both and you might find things about it you do like and things you don't. You're the GM, take what you like and throw out the rest. It's your world, its what you make of it.

To those that are bashing WoC, you may not like the company (and I'm not telling you you should and I really don't have an opinion one way or the other), but I appreciate what they did in simplifying the game, they have taken the decreasing base of gamers and made it broader. I hadn't picked-up my books in years until I started playing with a younger group of people that had just gotten 3e. I have one player that has made the transition very easy and loves the way the game moves. I have another, a hard core gamer from 1e and he is having a little more difficulties but he is getting it. I just goes to show that not everyone will have an easy time with this new edition, some will probably never want to change and thats ok, to each his own.

Well that just my two cents....take it for what it's worth and make your own decisions, don't try and force your decision on others.

Peace

Marc, you hit the nail on the head when you said that 3e players are 'angry or argumentative'. The fact that a few non-3e roleplayers choose to share our dislike of 3e on this post, Jack, doesn't change the reality that 3e players tend to go OTT if you dare 'express less than total approval' of 3e. The conversation usually goes something like this:

3e Munchkin: "Yeah, I play 3e."
Roleplayer: "Really? Not that fond of it myself."
3e Munchkin: "Why in the [fill in the blank] hell not?!"
Roleplayer: "Gee, settle down mate. I just think that the ...."
3e Munchkin: "I don't give a monkey's what you think! 3E RULES!!"

Sound familiar? It's as if they know it blows, they know it's for 12-year-olds making the crossover from MtG, they know that 3e's 'roll-a-dice, add-a-modifier' mechanics are ho hum and all been done ... but they just can't bring themselves to admit it. I've seen this happen, personally, a number of times and I've heard similar stories - the evidence is beginning to stack up.

"Back in 2e, the game very much suffered from a cookie cutter character situation. The only real difference between to 5th level fighters would be their items and attributes .... Now in 3e, we add a skill system to the mix, allowing PCs to do more than just hack and cast. Now you can sneak, con, appraise and use all manner of trickery and talent to attain your goal." - Jack

Hmmm, I've made this point before, but I can remember a time, oh, you know, way off before MUNCHKINS & MONSTERS (a.k.a. 3e), when ROLEPLAYING (the PC's history, personality etc.), not skills or feats (or any other kiddie MtG like additions), was the important differences between PCs .... not by comparing whose Uber-PC's got the best min/maxed combo of feats and skills. And I always thought it was meant to be ROLEplay not ROLLplay. Silly me.

What's the problem with PC Kits? They were useful to help give a guide to ROLEplaying your PC. They were never meant to be sub-classes or a 2e equivalent of prestige classes. Take the following examples of some kits for elven PCs from the 'Time of the Dragon' boxed set (which detailed Krynn's lost continent of Taladas). The kits were simply used to give information to distinguish between cultures:

Cha'asii Kit (mage) - savage wild elves who live in the jungles of the Neron Peninsular.
Elf Clan Wizardress (mage) - nomadic horsemen elves from the plains of Tamire.
Sivanaes Qualith Kit (fighter/mage) - sophisticated civilised elves from Armarch-nesti.
Hulderfolk Kit (fighter/mage) - ancient and secretive woodland elves of Southern Hosk.

The above examples are all elven 'mages' or 'fighter/mages' but from radically different cultures. Each kit merely outlined the basic proficiencies and equipment, as well as some social beliefs, that a PC from that culture would begin with, "thus, characters from the Uigan people are assumed to be skilled riders, while those of the Payan Mako can handle small boats. The Uigan would favour the short bow and the lance; the Payan Mako the spear and club." (p.8 Rule Book to Taladas)

Only a munchkin would have looked for any of the tiny advantages any particular kit might or might not have contained.

And for Gawd's sake, what's the problem with THAC0?! "Oh, it's all to hard. I get sooo confused ..." Subtract the your opponents AC from your THAC0. Roll 1d20 and compare. If the roll was equal or higher - you hit. Con-bloody-gratulations. Geez, even a friggin' Kiwi can do that! The fact that you 3e munchkins couldn't cope with THAC0 explains a lot.

Tas

Jack refutes a buncha my points. Mostly, because I actually tried to give 3E credit for things I liked at the same time as saying why I didn't like it as a whole.

Do you feel under attack or something?

Okay, my crack with skills and abilities (and feats) was this: So many of them have combat modifiers that people strive to do "power combos". To me, this is not fun.

For the state persecutor (sp. error intended), engineer, and accountant in my last group, this IS fun. So they masturbate (metaphorically, please)furiously for hours with their combos, and only rarely actually start GAMING.
By including so many modifiers, the game appears to cater to the worst in rules lawyers.

[Level breaks comment.--
[ You're grasping at straws here. The problem isn't with the system.it's with you]

Yeah, that was a pretty weak bitch. Looking at my other game books, I do as much cross-indexing in any other game I play (more in Rolemaster), save Hero. Don't try to memorize systems until I've run a game with 'em. It's also because I'm the one in my groups to make friendly handouts on chargen, and am kinda used to having one.

(I really feel Search, Spot, and Listen should be one General Perception skill--doing it as 3 skills makes it a point sink.)

[It's pretty clear at this point in your post that you don't have the experience with 3e and possibly with RPGs in general to make a very qualified assessment. ]

Fuck off and die. Stop with the personal attacks, asshole. Point addressed below. That's the first and only attack I'll make, cause you really pissed me off.

[Sounds to me like you read the rulebooks and decided it was no good. That's fine, I looked at them and was somewhat skeptical too. At first. Then I realized I was holding something special.]

Go tell it on the mountain. You're starting to sound religious here. Not intended as a slam if you are.

[So why three skills? The reason this was done, is because the buy system for skills is even across all skills. The scaling has to be done within the scope of the skill. The designers felt that a narrowing of focus with regard to "perception" was necessary for game balance. If they hadn't done this, then spending a point in "General Perception" would be worth more than a point in "Jump."]

Skills that let you DO something should cost more than skills that let you...see. I'd concede the point if they were drastically different, but they all do basically the same thing: One lets you find hidden objects, another is for hidden people, and the third lets you HEAR things (overgeneralizing, but you see the point, I hope).

I felt the same way about Call of Cthulhu when they had half a dozen "medical" skills.
It's not about limiting options. It's about skill dilution (a later rant.) Every skill you add dilutes the power of other skills.
In addition, I can see basing an entire character around skills like Jump or whatever Disarm Traps is called these days. Basing a character around Perception is boring. (PLEASE don't tell me about someone's awesome character who does nothing but see things well--I won't believe you.)

(Pithy d4 comment deleted to save space)
[Constitution gives a +1 to hp per level at only 12. Getting an automatic maximum roll for hp at first level is a standardized rule now.]

I was just making a comment. Since they were changing so much anyway, why not get rid of a die that can't roll decently and hurts like hell when you fall on it. (I really WAS injured by a d4 as a child and traumatized for life)
Besides, I think fantasy games, even those I like, shit out spell-casters. But that again is another rant.

(Many 3E people, should you express less than total approval of the system, actually get angry or argumentative.)
[--Hmmm, you think? Let's check this very thread to see if your point is valid. ]

No, let's check above, where you launch some ad hominems at me and proceed to testify how you were lost and saw the light. No offense if you really are religious, but you sounded like a born-again testifying on their lives of sin and how they found Jaysus.

I'll grant you that this thread seems remarkably anti-3E. I websearched specifically for 3E-critical boards,actually. Not because I don't want any other opinions, but because I'm not a troll and hate pissing people off.

My experience of what I describe as a fanatic nature of 3E players comes from a few groups I meet with RL.

One groups praises it UNIVERSALLY, and can't agree on a movie to rent. They give blank stares when I'm less than enthusiastic about the system. Other systems have become a hard sell to them, when they were not before.

Finally, Me, along with one of the best GMs I've ever known were actually kicked out of a group ostensibly for utterly bizarre reasons--basically, my barbarian behaving like a barbarian, and totally screwing his campaign world. The games were at the guy's house, and we are no longer welcome there--both of us having considered the man a friend for almost ten years, who has given us both lovely recliners, who had never before indicated he took any campaign this SERIOUSLY.

The only way I can make sense of this is that the incident was an excuse, and the real reason we were kicked out was our having been rather critical of the system.

We still game with memebers of both groups, at irregular intervals. But the loss of our friend makes us sad, and Baby Jesus cry.

I'm wasting too much space here (finally something my opponent can agree with). Suggest this topic move, the pages are getting really long.
-Marc

Ooooh, a bite. Goody.

I know an insult when I write one, Jack. "The fact that you 3e munchkins couldn't cope with THAC0 explains a lot" was meant to be an insult. Give your self a big gold star, I'm very proud you got it. My point still stands; 3e players are ultra-hypersensitive about the system. Your examples of a handful of irritated non-3e players doesn't change that. Did YOU even read my comments? My example conversation was simply meant as a small illustration of the general over-the-top defensiveness of 3e players - a point which you seem to be bearing out quite nicely, thank you.

My point, (if you had paid any attention), about Skills and Feats is that, from my experience, and from the impression I've gleaned from the comments above, 3e players regard Feats and Skills as effectively the ONLY way to customise a PC. Almost all 3e players I have ever talked to, or read comments by, seem to delight in describing their PCs as nothing more than a walking, talking (if the DM, annoyingly, absolutely insists), pile of Skills and Feats. Apparently, before the introduction of MtG like Feats, impoverished 2e PCs could never be that much different from each other ....

"The only real difference between to 5th level fighters [in 2e] would be their items and attributes. In 3e, you have feats and skills thrown into the mix, plus a much simpler multiclassing system, all of which adds up to characters that are as different as real people are."

See? 3e players talk as though 2e PCs were mere paper cutouts because the poor unfortunate creatures were without an Arse-scratch Feat in the world :( Like I said, way off in the Long Before, PC customisation was done by creating an interesting culture, personality and history (with a dash of proficiencies) - NOT BY FEAT/SKILL MIN/MAXING.

Your argument that a Skill, such as Bluff, lends itself to good roleplaying runs contrary to the 'roleplaying orientated' minimal rules systems that try and do away with all the *squeaks* and *honks* for a better game. It's arguable that an attempt to Bluff a guard with a dice roll is hardly an "improvement" to roleplaying over a player trying to come up with a clever story in an attempt to talk the PC past the guard. In the end, we're supposed to be problem solving, not just rolling dice. Such skills might let a shy or lazy player off the hook, but it's not necessarily an aid to roleplaying.

Oh dear, another opinion. You seem to have a lot of those. My point about PC kits, Jack, me old mate, revolved entirely around the fact that you seemed to slag them off ... which I must admit, I had never heard anyone whine about before. Your opinion that Prestige Classes are better may be right, then again may be they ain't - but who gives a rat's arse? Kits are really nothing more than small packages of culture specific information (a Barbarian PC would probably have a Fire-Building prof. whereas a Cavalier would be more likely have an Etiquette prof. etc.). They full filled that role perfectly well.

Your opinion that a lower THAC0 the better "doesn't make a lot of sense" is not really much of an 'argument' is it? A lower price of beer would be better, right? A lower blood pressure would be better, right? A lower chance of being shot by an orc would be better, right? There are a lot of things would be better the lower they are, so your belief that higher-equals-better is naturally more intuitive is your opinion only. So, "why should a 1 THAC0 be better than a 20?" Got me beat. About as much reason as an Attack Bonus +5 should be better than a +1, I guess. Oh, and Jack, 3e players are the ones who keep squealing like stuck pigs about THAC0 - all I did is respond.

As for not making any argumets to why 3e is Munchkin ... is that still in any doubt?! I'm sorry, I must have missed that memo. You're quite correct, saying that 3e is munchkin over and over again wont make it so, the tone of the rules do that all on their own. Just read some of the above posts, you'll work it out.

Hmmm ... "simple, obvious and immature". Ow. Ow. Please stop.

Tas

[[ If I like 1e or 2e better than 3e, then 3e, to me is not a better system. ]]
--And really we both agree on this. As I made clear, I understand that people like what they like. However I would argue that if these folks who think they like 1e/2e better would approach 3e with a TRULY open mind, give it a fair chance to show what it can do, they'd be converts.
--But still, you're right. If they enjoy 2e and don't enjoy 3e, even after trying super-hard to give 3e a chance, then that's all there is to it. They should keep playing 2e.
--However, if somebody likes to have their car's steering wheel coated in maple syrup, and insist it's more comfortable for them to use, no matter how open minded you are, that guy is still a weirdo. It's never gonna make sense to us non-syrup folks.

[[ The simple fact that you would even type this shows your fundamental ignorance of my own point. ]]
--No, not really.
--See, first off, I have, to a large degree conceded your point. People like what they like, and "there's no accounting for taste." That's fine.
--But like I said above, there's extremes. If one guy likes chocolate ice cream, and one likes vanilla, neither of these guys is nuts. But of one likes chocolate and one likes asshole flavored, then one of those dudes is pretty weird, all subjectivity aside.
--So, my point is that you don't generally want to say you are ignorant to one of the two things you're claiming it's reasonable to like. It doesn't really destroy your point, as I might have indicated, but it weakens your credibility.
--I agree with you that people have every right to prefer 2e and I realize that some do. I just think that preferring a more clunky, less flexible game is a bit odd.

[[ Ooooh, a bite. Goody. ]]
--Indeed. Thanks for taking a few seconds out of your busy day of being impressed with your own trite, girly receptionist style humor to respond to me.

[[ 3e players regard Feats and Skills as effectively the ONLY way to customise a PC ]]
--All 3e players think this way. It's physically impossible for 3e players to view roleplaying in general from differing viewpoints. Sarcasm.
--The game system is a tool. It can't make a hardcore roleplayer into a hack n slasher and it can't do the reverse. All 3e does is offer more flexibility, which is good. The players bring the rest.

[[ Such skills might let a shy or lazy player off the hook, but it's not necessarily an aid to roleplaying. ]]
--Which is why we once again see the frailty of your whole "3e players do this, 2e do that" stereotypes.
--If you don't like making rolls to resolve roleplaying elements of the game, then don't do it. Good old rule zero again. However, at least 3e has the option. 2e does not. Having the option is better than not.
--My preference is to use the rolls, but to require the player to still RP out what his character says. He will get a modifier to his roll based on how good I feel his RPing was. This blending of chance and arbitrary ruling is what makes gaming fun.

[[ NOT BY FEAT/SKILL MIN/MAXING. ]]
--Your unwillingness to accept powergaming as a valid way to enjoy the hobby is really rather sad. You can't even have a fun time with a hobby game without having to be elitist about it, and place yourself above the lowly "munchkins."
--Personally I like a blend. I like to have characters min-maxed as well as possible, so long as they fit into their character's personality, and that personality is present at every session and in every action the character takes.
--However my way, your way, or anybody else's way of enjoying the game is not "better." This is what Sir Tal has been arguing, and I largely agree with him.
--You've basically stacked two degrees of ridiculousness atop one another, and expect us to swallow it. First step is to claim that ALL 3e players are powergamers. Next is to claim that one way of playing RPGs is inherantly superior to all others. Stupid. Not all 3e players are powergamers, and even if they were, it wouldn't matter so long as they have fun.

[[ Your opinion that a lower THAC0 the better "doesn't make a lot of sense" is not really much of an 'argument' is it? ]]
--Actually it is. Lower being better is not inuitive, and if you conducted a study of 100 Australians, you'd find that I was correct. I conducted a study of a single person (my roomate), and she felt that a higher "hitting ability value" was better than a low one.
--You're absolutely right that THAC0 is simple to figure out. However, being simple and backwards doesn't mean we have to keep doing it backwards. The 3e system makes more sense. There's no reason NOT to change.

[[ As for not making any argumets to why 3e is Munchkin ... is that still in any doubt?! ]]
--Yeah, I'd say there is.
--The fact is, there's nothing new in 3e. Everything in 3e was already in 2e, it's just that now it's actually laid out in a way that makes sense.
--Let's take a look at the pinnacle of the 3e offensive feats, "whirlwind attack." This VERY attack is detailed in the 1e Oriental Adventures book, virtually in the same form, and is available to Kensai characters, if I recall. The same can be said for various other feats in one form or another. Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization feats are nothing new, there was weapon specialization in previous versions as well. Ambidexterity, Blindfighting? Again, in 2e, just in a kludgey ruleshack sort of way.
--You want to tell me that what I've just said isn't true? Try it. You'll be wrong.
--Fact is, all 3e has done is cleaned 2e up. It hasn't become "more munchkin" at all.

A few observations:

1.) On THAC0 - Any gamer that has been around since 1e or 2e days (which I have) will have long-ago mastered THAC0 and will of course not see it as difficult. If you are talking to a 15-year D&D vet, THAC0 (1e/2e) or BAB (3e) are equally easy to understand.

THAC0 is NOT intuitive, or people would be able to easily pick it up. The fact that it becomes easy to deal with over time does not make it intuitive, it merely means, "you can get used to it." Most old-school gamers I know will admit that it took a while to get used to THAC0. In fact, I know of very few people who told me they understood THAC0 perfectly the first try and never had problems with it thereafter.

However, if you talk to the player who has two hours of experience with RPGs, he's likely to be confused by THAC0. BABs will be much easier for him to understand, because they are more intuitive.

Further proof that BABs are more intuitive: it is easier to understand BABs if you already know THAC0 than it is to understand THAC0 if you already know BABs.

Also - the reason for THAC0 was the AC system... which went backwards in 1e. I read a review of D&D written back in about 1976 - and one of the author's complaints was that the AC system is bass-ackward (and he loved the game - in fact, the book was a guide to all board games from Monopoly to Chess to Diplomacy to D&D and he rated D&D tops by a longshot). I quote:

"You have the ridiculous spectacle of a fighter in plate and a shield (AC 2) who finds a +3 shield, getting a resulting Armor Class of -1. Yup, 2+3= -1. Makes you wonder how they got out of algebra, doesn't it?"

He makes the point (and it is valid) that you can get used to it, but that even in 1976, some people thought that ACs were done strangely.

With the change of AC rules in 3e, BABs can be introduced. While this DOES lower the "entry bar" considerably, I thought the point was allowing as many people as possible to join in the game and have fun.

We need new blood in the hobby to go with the old. That doesn't mean we have to force out the old to gain the new, but it also means we don't keep out the new just to satisfy the old.

2.) Role-playing vs. Roll-playing

I have heard repeatedly, "if you're a true role-player, you act out your negotiating / bargaining / whatever sessions." In other words, you remove the role of the Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom attributes of your character (except as they apply towards spellcasting) and replace them with your own. This makes the system rife for abuse as suddenly only the physical (read: Combat-Oriented) attributes have any meaning in game terms.

OTOH, solving things solely with a skill roll sucks the "Role" out of Role-playing, but preserves the game function of Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom, making these attributes more important except in 100% hack-n-slash (TM) campaigns.

The solution HAS to be a mixture of the two to prevent abuse... and I feel a good marriage of the two is to allow the player to role-play the encounter, then have him make a skill roll with modifiers based on the DM's perception of how he handled it. Then role-playing is important (modifiers) but so are the character's attributes and skills (the game mechanics which reflect his character's ability to interact with the world around him). I would point out that NEITHER 1e, 2e, nor 3e uses this as a standard system, though it is worth noting that one of the 3e DMG authors explicitly suggested this system on his website.

3.) Role-playing, not game abilities, differentiates characters.

True and false. The point that Joe the 5th level fighter and Fred the 5th level fighter are pretty much the same as far as game statistics in 1e or 2e IS valid. If we define our characters solely by their game statistics, we are on the path to "rules lawyering" and/or "munchkining" but it was my feeling that the character's skills and statistics are supposed to reflect his ability to influence the game world. I can role-play Joe as the mounted Knight in Heavy Plate that uses a lance exclusively and role-play Fred as the trash-talking, leather-armor-wearing, rapier-swinging rapscallion who is a master duelist.

But do the characters' statistics reflect the roles I have chosen for them in 1e or 2e? Usually not very well - in fact, if Fred picked up a Lance and plate mail and Joe grabbed a rapier, Joe could use his rapier as well as Fred and Fred would be a horror on a horse now. In other words, I can role-play the characters, but there is nothing inherent in the system to reward me for doing so - or even that makes my roles believable.

In 3e, perhaps Joe has taken Mounted Combat and specialized in the Lance, and has a high Riding skill (coupled with the Skill Focus feat to make him an outstanding rider). Perhaps Fred has instead taken Mobility and Expertise and focused in the Rapier, and has a high Tumble and Jump skill. Suddenly, the players' abilities actually match my role-playing descriptions of them... which, to me, is the best of both worlds... the characters' abilities and their role-playing descriptions can be married.

4.) Rule Sets

I have already harped on 1e and 2e being self-inconsistent, so I won't revisit that. It is (IMO) difficult to add to or take away from the "base" rules without unbalancing the rules. The Cavalier (UA), Barbarian (UA), Monk (1e PHB), and other similar characters show us that.

The point was also made that many 3e feats are just 2e "kludgy addons" cleaned up to fit within the system. I have to agree there. I liked them in 2e but they felt a little weird; they "work better" as part of the system in 3e. They're now in the system instead of outside of it.

3e is more "modular" - it is pretty easy to add new stuff within the scope of the rules. It is also easy to take stuff out without affecting balance too badly. Granted, you can add "munchkin" stuff, but because the system is modular, it is easier to compare "add-ins" (i.e., is this Feat about the same in power as this other one?), which means game imbalance due to "house rules" is less of a problem.

Saving Throws are easier to ajudicate (sp?) - rather than saying "make a save versus Wands to avoid the spear trap" (why Wands? Why not Spell or Dragon Breath?) you make a Reflex save ("get out of the way!").

Saving Throws versus spells are proportional to the experience of both the caster (implicit in the spell level) and the target (why is it just as easy for a 1e character to avoid spells thrown by a 3rd level or 23rd level wizard?). IMO, this is a better reflection of reality.

And as for having to look for all the darn tables, it's actually pretty easy to memorize the key tables in 3e since most things follow specific patterns (e.g., Saving Throws are "good" or "bad" and improve at a specific rate based on being good or bad while in 2e and 1e they seem somewhat random from class to class).

I have been gaming for many years. I loved 1e. I liked 2e. I REALLY loved the old Boxed Sets. But they always felt, well, like they had been thrown together kind of haphazardly (surprise uses d6 except some creatures use d8 or d12; use 10-sided dice plus speed factors for initiative; use d20s to hit and for saves and roll high; use d20s for ability score checks and roll low; use percentile dice for thief skills; racial level caps because the demihumans are too powerful compared to humans; spell and bow ranges suddenly triple - from feet to yards - when you step out of a dungeon and into the outside air; etc. etc.). There were a lot of things that were counter-intuitive to me (though I eventually adjusted), and the system just felt like a lot of different systems thrown together in a crazy-quilt pattern.

As I learned more about the history of the game, I saw many vestigal evidences of the naval miniatures rules from which D&D was originally derived, which are great for naval miniatures but not quite so good for role-playing. Some of the things may fall into what people now call "sacred cows." As more rules were added, they built upon things that were already there - some of which were kind of awkward, and the more that was built, the more awkward and unwieldly the entire system became.

It was kind of like a mansion that had been built upon and built upon and built upon... kind of lopsided and unmatched, with some baroque sculptures here, an eastern minaret there, some gothic flying butresses here and some modern architecture there, but still beautiful in its own way. But the main structure of the mansion can't be changed in any meaningful way without ripping it to the ground.

When I began seeing 3e, I was interested. When I sat down with the book and pulled the system apart, I liked what I saw. The designers razed the rules to the ground and started over because they *had* to in order to effect meaningful change. They kept some of the "sacred cows" but decided others were too outdated and kludgey (and for the most part, I had already ripped out the same stuff they had in my own house rules). But everything was in a pattern and built around a consistent system of mechanics. Can you argue with some of the choices they made? Of course.

But in my opinion, the system itself was laid out in a much better fashion than the old system - it was consistent, it was modular, and it was clean and easily understood. The consistency helps mitigate rules-lawyering and loophole-finding (though you can never entirely eliminate this). The modularity makes house rules easier to implement than ever. And the ease of understanding makes this wonderful hobby that we enjoy more accessible to everyone.

The new D&D is more like a modern building - beautiful and functional and cohesive, but somewhat lacking the charm of the original mansion simply because the mansion has the quaintness and history that the new building doesn't. Does that make either one better? Maybe, maybe not. But that is a matter of opinion.

5.) On semi-religious fanaticism...

It seems to me that the 2e zealots are much worse than the 3e zealots. The argument has kind of boiled down to "tastes great! less filling!" 2e zealots label 3e players "munchkin," "immature," and "roll-players." Many 3e zealots label 2e players as "old fuddy-duddies who are outdated," "slavishly devoted to a bad system," and "intolerant." There's plenty of intolerance and immaturity coming from both camps, believe me.

IMO, 3e is a superior system when considered completely independent of the players that use it due to the arguments I presented in #4. Does it lend itself more easily to "super characters" built within the rules? Yes, I think so. Does it lend itself more easily to role-playing by making the rules easier and quicker so that players are free to focus less on the rules and more on role-playing? Yes, I think so.

3e is what you make it. You can rules-lawyer and create "uber-munchkin" characters in EITHER system. You can role-play in EITHER system. IMO, 3e is a better, more flexible system that does a better job meeting the desires of its players and as such lends itself to be better bent to EITHER end.

1e/2e players will eventually become a dying breed, IMO, not because TSR/WotC stopped supporting it (heavens knows enough of the stuff is printed and readily available in used bookstores and E-bay). I think the problem is that those players who refuse to "play that infidel 3e" come off as kind of elitist and will this not engender good feelings in other RPGers ("come on, what the heck's the matter with you? THAC0 isn't hard!") and hence they will have a difficult time adding to their ranks. This is not to say that all 1e/2e players are elitists, and not to say that no 3e players are elitists (we already see "3e is the best thing since sliced bread! Why would you want to play anything as rigid and cookie-cutter as 2e?")

I belive you will find more players who usually play 3e and are familiar with (and willing to play) 2e than you will find players who usually play 2e and are familiar with (and willing to play) 3e. This will make the perception into "those who play 2e are elitists because they won't play 3e." Is that perception fair? Maybe not. But if I was a new gamer who stumbled across this thread, I would probably feel that way.

So here's my "final answer:"

If you want to play 2e, great. Maybe I'll join you from time to time.
If you want to play 3e, great. I'd love to be in your campaign.

As for myself, I am going to run 3e because IMO it is a superior system and with it I can bring more new blood into my campaigns (I am currently running a campaign that has involved over a dozen players - about five regulars - who have experience with RPGs ranging from 15 years to 15 minutes). To me, there's nothing more refreshing than players who are scared even of goblins and kobolds because they don't know their stats inside and out already.

The bottom line in everything is imagination. I buy Shadowrun and Earthdawn and Palladium and Cyberpunk and other stuff nearly as often as I buy 3e stuff - to steal ideas from, of course. I have played nearly every system imaginable, and I like 3e for ease of use (my personal favorite for creating balanced and realistic characters? GURPS.) so that's why I play it. But that doesn't mean I don't want stuff from other systems. Keep it all coming.

But don't give Xena's Chakram... that 3e is modular enough to support that is perhaps an indictment that it is a little TOO modular...

--The Sigil

General perception... it has pros and cons, I'll bring it up to my DM.

I'm basically a pro 3e system kinda guy, but I have to admit that the whole 3E Realms make me sick, but then so did FR Adventures. But it might suit some people, I don't care.

I still think the Prestige Classes are nice. Although some DM's who handle RPG's like computer games, can't see past the letter of the rules and forget the spirit behind it (if that sentence doesn't work in english sorry it works in my first language french).

Munchkins will always exist, min/maxing too and if left unchecked by the DM will be detrimental (in my opinion) to any campaign. But the opposite is also too true. Does anyone remember Alternity? We had character we called Mr. Broad skill. The guy had the most useless skills (but all at low ranks).
He was useless in a fight, at piloting, at science, at investigation but man he was the best dancer, poet, heraldist, singer, cook and leather worker in the group (I'm not making this up I swear). It's all about game balance, flavour and power go hand in hand to make great characters who have funny, exciting and memorable adventures (it's even better if they have style).

I personnaly find that 3e rules facilitate all the other stuff that isn't role playing and story telling. You know all that anoying stuff that keeps adding lag to a game session... ah yeah here it is: dice rolling and checking for the result.

I must admit having problems with the unintuitive way THAC0 and the other rolls were made in 2e, I had problems with the attribute progression (especially strength and dexterity).

But 3E has some unintuitive stuff too: a dagger is as kick as a great sword? ATTACKS OF OPPORTUNITY oh man! we've had arguments about that one...

Mind you I don't really think anyone here is stupid except those who can't seem to have a discussion without demeaning other people. I'm not so sure about the stats here (I rather make a rough estimate) but it seems to me that 2e and 3e apologists (look the word up if you'd like) belittle their opposition equally.
I think we all sound like a bunch of geeks without personnal lives when that happens and it makes gamers at large look bad.

Man I make a great moralistic preacher don't I?

Pedantry aside, do you catch my drift folks?

Why can't we all be friend? Now sing along!
I love you! You love me! We're true friends... ah to hell wit that.

Cthulhu Matata

[[ Munchkins will always exist, min/maxing too ]]
--Something occurs to me. Min/Maxing IS roleplaying. Why? Cause, you're taking on the role of a character in a dangerous world. It stands to reason that this character would spend much of his energy sharpening his skills, and looking to make himself as powerful and survivable as possible. In the same way that athletes are constantly looking for drills, techniques, nutritional plans, etc. so too would a fantasy character look to sharpen his own skillset.
--Really, when you think about it, all this complementing people for putting personality before numbers is false. Working on quiliting isn't roleplaying. It's not what a real person would do, when faced with a world of violence and danger.

[[ Jack has really helped by providing some specific information for me to consider. ]]
--No matter how much of a fanboi I am, I can never do 3e justice. Seriously, save some cash, steal, whatever. Get a copy. It's just a great system, and it still stays true to the traditions we love.
--My 3e Slogan: "You loved it when the rules sucked, imagine it now."

[[ the desire to stick with what is comfortable, and what has been the norm for almost 30 years for some. ]]
--Once you play 3e for a bit, all the 2e house rules and tricks you had to come up with to do even basic things start to fade from memory.
--I can hardly even remember all the special rules we had, can't even recall how we puzzled through a variety of problems that I know we must have somehow gotten through. 3e is just a load off the player's and DM's mind.

--As far as Hackmaster goes, I don't really see the attraction. I bought the book, I read through it, and it's sorta charming, but really it just looks like a re-release of 1e to me. There's some odd house-rule sorts of tables and stuff tossed in, but for the most part I don't see the point.

Chris:

I really don't think hardcore 1e/2e players will convert. I agree with you that they will eventually "die off" either literally or due to lack of interest by others (IOW, no one to game with).

If you would like me to explain/compare/contrast specific portions of 1e/2e/3e, let me know via the forum here and I will do my best.

--The Sigil

"Remember that old character you loved because he lived and died being worthy of his fate?"

This is kind of a loaded question. In other words, "think back to the good ol' days." D&D, of any edition, is what you make it.

Could a 3e character kick the butt of an equivalent-level 2e or 1e character? Most probably. But remember that the monsters are bigger and badder too. When the 3e PHB came out, there were cries of, "invincible characters! Munchkinism!" everywhere. I reminded people, "we haven't seen their opponents yet - wait for the MM to come out. You can't judge the game after seeing just one third of it."

I run a 3e campaign. 3e characters AREN'T immortal or invincible. I had a PC death every 3-4 sessions. Most of them were heroic (though the guy that tried to hurdle the pit trap and failed - three times - was stupid). In fact, in one climactic battle, out of a party of ten, only one PC (a barbarian) was left standing when the dust cleared. Three PCs dead, the rest bleeding to death, and the barbarian standing with 2 hp.

Elevate your challenges to your PCs.

As for the rest of that post, "IT'S NOT JUST A GAME," dude, you're scaring me. It *IS* just a game. This is something we do for fun. It's something we do to "escape." It's not a religion, nor should it be.

--The Sigil

well...i've been a dm only 4 1/2 years but i think i've seen many things.3e came with promises.first i hated it then i got interested in it ,i tested it and i rejected it.by the last few months i saw the destruction that fell upon all these that could have been real roleplayers.everyone kept talking about their powerfull players in 3rd edition their extrasupermagnificunbeatable heroes and forgot the essence.i am one of the last here and try to keep fantasy alive.2nd is not the best possible .but third edition is the worst possible.it's not even an rpg.it's an everwinning hero-game.I'm really dissapointed .but you should look further.everyone has a dream for an unbeatable character.but remember...is that what you really want.and think.all this enthusiasm is it really because 3e is better?and in the end what memories do you have of 3e games and what of 2nd edition.remember that old character you loved because he lived and died being worthy of his fate.and thinkk of the unbeatable lifeless character you now have...don't become fanatics for a company...just think and remember.in the end it's your choise.don't make haste on taking it.because IT'S NOT JUST A GAME.

Great discussion you guys. Here's something I came across in the 3E PHB which concerned me:

3E PHB: "If your scores are too low, you may scrap them and roll all six scores over. Your scores are considered too low if your total modifiers (before changes according to race) are 0 or less, or if your highest score is 13 or lower."

What ever happened to the suggestion that a player try and play a character with less than ideal stats as a chance to role-play?

2E PHB: "Don't give up on a character just because he has a low score. Instead, view it as an opportunity to role-play, to create a unique and entertaining personality in the game. Not only will you have fun creating that personality, but other players and the DM will have fun reacting to him."

Now, I admit I haven't read the 3E PHB or DMG cover to cover [so please don't flame me if I'm wrong], but is that suggestion still there? Both the 2E DMG and PHB implore players [and DMs to encourage them] to give less powerful characters a go. Does 3E? If not, I think it adds to the thesis that 3E is designed to appeal to Monty Haulers. I think that A Simple Fighter might be right about 3E and power-gaming. If you were to just read the books you would get the impression that the emphasis in 3E is on trying create everwining characters and dice rolling, not role-playing.

Ultimately, it might come down to the players and DM what your campaign is like, but how are new players going to understand that a large part of role-playing is meant to be about exploring your character's identity and personality, not just totting up his/her adds?

Flash, the point that you are missing is that they are only suggesting scraping a character if ALL of the scores suck. While it could make for an interesting game, having a character that can barely even perform the tasks that are expected of his class just isn't much fun. Notice, the quote you have doesn't say to start over if you have a bunch of 3's and one 15. The quote is that if none of your scores are good enough to grant you a positive ability modifier, then try again. That doesn't sound that bad to me.

Basically, the 3e rule can be more simply interpreted as follows:

"If your character is not above the normal, everyday person, re-roll and start again."

The prototypical "normal human" has ability scores of all 10's and therefore no ability modifiers. IOW, your hero should be at least a little above the average person. Makes sense to me - while heroes shouldn't be invincible, one expects that they will be at least slightly above the norm.

As to the complaint that you can't hack out Feats and maintain game balance, I think the point that was made about 2e is quite valid. 2e isn't balanced at all. Elves, with their 90% sleep and charm resistance, +1 to hit with swords and bows, infravision, and ability to multiclass -- AT FIRST LEVEL -- are far better than humans in 2e or 1e. Especially, as mentioned, since level limits usually were not adhered to, and it didn't matter that they had level limits at lower levels anyway. Note that this does NOT contemplate such "optional" systems such as blind-fighting, proficiencies, etc. This is a character's basic makeup. Pretty much every demi-human race is more powerful than humans in 1e and 2e.

By making Feats a part of the system, the game designers were able to balance humans with the other races without burdening them with arbitrary level restrictions. Furthermore, as I have mentioned before, Feats are the perfect way for the game system to statistically reflect the way you role-play (see my Joe/Fred fighter comparison). Feats don't make you more powerful so much as they make you more specialized. They help balance the fighter with the ranger and the paladin (honestly, why would you every play a fighter in 2e or 1e if you had the ability scores to play a paladin).

The main point of Feats is to lend credence to your role-playing claims. You actually have the system back you up when you say, "my character knows all about the cults in the northwestern wastes" (Skill Focus - Knowledge: Religion) or "even though he isn't strong, my fighter's speed makes him surprisingly deadly with his rapier" (Weapon Expertise and Weapon Focus: Rapier).

It gives wizards and sorcerers the opportunity to be much more flexible with their spells (metamagic feats). Need a bigger, badder fireball? No problem (enlarge spell). Caught in a silence spell? No problem (silent spell Feat). Now you can't just screw a mage by throwing a silence blanket on him. It makes them more unpredictable and better able to spontaneously react to situations.

It especially does a good job of justifying the large number of magic items in most worlds. Think about it - the only method in 2e to create magic items is Enchant an Item and Permanency - 5th and 8th level wizard spells - meaning that unless your world is populated by lots of 15th level wizards with nothing better to do, where the heck are all the magic items coming from?
How the heck can a cleric create a magic item like a holy avenger anyway? Even potions are horribly expensive to make in terms of magical power. 3e fixes this so it makes sense to have a potion shop run by a hedge wizard in a little town. In 2e, the only items you REALLY ought to expect to find are scrolls!

The Feats system fixes a LOT of things that were kind of broken or counter-intuitive with 2e (the biggest thing, IMO, is the "where are all the magic items coming from" argument). The potential for abuse is there, as it has been in every edition of D&D. But at least now, there is a rationale for things that wasn't, well, ad hoc but instead built into the rules. After all, 1e didn't officially address the question of "how do I make a magic item?" until the FR4 supplment ("The Magister") was released. Even then, the rules were so limiting that it's surprising any magic items existed AT ALL. 2e didn't solve the problem any better.

So Feats give you an explanation of where magic items come from. They give spell-using characters greater flexibility. They give all characters a "game mechanic" that can back up your "role-playing" claims. They CAN be abused by those seeking uber-characters... sort of. Some of the more abusive Feats, IMO, are Whirlwind Attack and Spring Attack. However, these require three or four other Feats first, so developing these abilities requires the sacrifice of other abilities as you take some pretty weak feats before getting the strong ones (Dodge? +1 to AC versus a single foe? When I could go out and get something like Two-Weapon Fighting or Iron Will? Why would I take that? Oh. Because if I want the cool Spring Attack I have to have that first? Okay, if I have to I guess I have to... but now my character isn't as good as this other guy's... but I'll catch up later when I get to Spring Attack...). It's all about choices.

If there was the "perfect character" - in any system - every munchkin would have found it by now and would be using it. The multitude of choices in 3e (including Feats and Prestige Classes) that expands monthly, if not weekly, makes finding the "perfect character" all but impossible - not because you always need the "latest, greatest Feat or Prestige Class" but because different situations and ideologies require different sets of abilities. And under 3e, NO character can be great at everything.

Before you tell me about the Fighter/Bard/Barbarian/Sorcerer/Cleric/Wizard/ you get the idea, keep in mind that it is possible to take one level of every PHB class when multiclassing (unlikely, but possible). That's 11 levels. Compare that to an 11th level single-classed character, and suddenly you realize why the multiclass system is okay. Because you don't get all the great abilities at once.

I could go on, but if I haven't adequately explained my point by now, more words won't help.

--The Sigil

3d Ed vs AD&D, the little flamefest that could.

[[ I'm a ROLEPLAYER, but I praise good and realistic rules. ]]
--Nah, you praise rules you perceive to be realistic, or at least that you enjoy, and thus are willing to justify.
--The fact is, nobody sells a realistic game, because realism is seldom fun. "You get hit in the arm with an arrow. You instantly begin to pass out from shock." Wheee!
--DnD is a fantasy game. The notion of complaining about "realism" in a game featuring dragons, spells and general heroism is silly. If you were willing to justify the game, you could do so easily.
--As far as the old hit points argument, it's really a matter of realism, but of deciding to believe or not. You have decided you don't believe, which is fine, but it's really not a fact that DnD is any less accurate than GURPS, for example. If you look at hit points as "general survivability" then the game is fine. Just cause a dragon rolls well and reduces the character's hit points, that doesn't mean that the dragon has to hit the character full on the head. You could play hit points as a measure of luck, for example. In this case, the dragon didn't hit at all, but his attack was so powerful, and so close to the character's head, that he's permanently shaken, and out of sorts. Next attack comes around and he's too disoriented to protect himself. Dead...
--Not to mention that hit points are a deliberately simplified system for a heroic game. To fault a game for being what it sets out to be is silly.
--As I've stated earlier, which game you prefer is up to you, and there's no rules for what you should like. However, which system is GOOD, is not up for debate. DnD in 3e form is a well thought out system. Fun or not, it's well planned.

Listen Danny, try playing by Combat and tactics rules. They have Fatige from loss of HP and damage t your armor and such. The DMG is just a basis to start off on. TSR ironed out the problems in the Players Option series. 3E is a rip off.

It has been 12 years since I last played AD&D/D&D2E. I stopped playing because, although 2nd Edition was less contradictory of itself and unclear (rule-wise) than AD&D, I found myself feeling as though I was manipulating a system of rules rather than playing a game. I can honestly say that with D&D3E this feeling has diminished to a great degree.
There are elements about trying to construct a pseudo-reality within the minds of players that seems to require a level of rules & tables bureaucracy. This element is not at all absent in D&D3E, however it seems more coherent from one level to the next. This, I expect is a result of the D20 system. Also there seems to be a real impact on game play for all ability scores. Example: Whereas before, unless you were a priest, a good wisdom score seemed pointless (especially when constitution or dexterity would likely save one in physical combat). Now (and, like I said it has been a long while since I have looked at a second edition book) wisdom matters because of the Will save and numerous important skills.
In closing, I must say I am looking forward to the Epic Level Adventures book and Deities and Demigods, as the new system seems to have great potential (I hope that the Chthulu Mythos, and the Nehwon Mythos return). I will also leave my 2 copper pieces worth of advice—fellas, it’s a game and is (presumably) meant to be enjoyed. To paraphrase a favorite writer of mine, attacking it as I’ve seen some do is tantamount to donning full plate and wagging war on an ice cream Sunday.

Wooz, I take your point about the quote only referring to when all your stats are bad, but that is the only thing 3E seems to say about what to do with low stats. It could have said that if all your stats are too low - roll again, but if only one or two are too low why not see it as an opportunity to role-play? I just wanted to point out that 2E made a point of discussing what to do with low stats: instead of just dumping them, have a go at role-playing an interesting character. I agree that a lot of players just ignore that sort of advice, I know I did when I first started playing, but like most players we develop into more thoughtful gamers, in part because of the sort of advice I was talking about. I guess my point is that at least it was there.

I'm not trying to say that one style of game play is better than another, but 3E is kind of suggesting that there is a 'correct' style. With the tone of the books emphasizing getting your character all kited out with the right stats etc. it feels like they are saying #role#playing is for weenies. At least 2Es tone had something for both types of players - we could ignore the advice or agree with it. I just think 3E emphasizes a pretty shallow style of play, leaving a lot of players out in the cold.

Sorry Sam,
I do Love Hackmaster and 2nd edition. Thats probably because it basicly the same game. Hackmaster uses the exact same rules. They only added stuff like armor damage and range heal spells and such. 3e did none of that. Hackmaster is what 3E would have been if TSR was around.

"Hackmaster is what 3E would have been if TSR was around."

Heavens, am I sick of hearing this line over and over and over. Hackmaster is NOT what 3E would have been if TSR was around. Look at the direction TSR was going... fragmenting the market with ever-crappier (and more munchkinesque) supplements... things like Skills and Powers, Players Options, Complete Book of Blah, and 80 bazillion campaign settings, all of which were pure, unadulterated crap and/or reprints of earlier products.

TSR is singlehandedly responsible for driving 2e into the ground. Not WotC. The fact of the matter is there can be no "if TSR was around" because if WotC hadn't acquired TSR, there would be NO TSR. NO D&D (of any stripe). No Hackmaster (because TSR wouldn't have existed to license it).

I hate to sound so chippy, but for crying out loud, people, LOOK AT THE FACTS! WOTC DID NOT DESTROY AD&D! TSR DID! When will you mindless little "WotC is the devil" drones get that through your skulls!

I don't get mad at people who want to discuss the merits of game mechanics but I do get upset at dunderheaded fools who refuse to recognize cold hard facts. Arguing over which game system is "right" is a matter of opinion, but here are some cold, hard facts that you twits seem not to have latched on to (or perhaps you are simply in a state of denial):

FACT: TSR was bankrupt and going under when WotC bought them.

FACT: If WotC does not buy TSR, TSR folds. No 3e. No 2e. No licensed Hackmaster. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Bye-bye.

FACT: WotC *IS* making older, out-of-print TSR material available... go to store.wizards.com and search for ESD - if anything, WotC is PROLONGING the availability of old rulebooks and making them more permanent by putting them into PDFs (which don't fall apart after many years of loving use - my 2e PHB and DMG resemble a dog's chew toys).

If you wish to say, "Hackmaster is how I think 3e should have been done," I have no problem with that being your opinion (I'll disagree, but that's not the point). But I have a problem with people trying to write revisionist history.

And look at the way TSR was going with the Skills & Powers and Alternity... looks an AWFUL lot like proto-3e... no more proficiencies - instead we have skills (hmm...). Instead of set racial abilities, pich and choose the ones you want (remind anyone of Feats?). Heck, look at the old D&D Boxed Sets with their ability score bonuses starting with a score of 13. Look at the Gazeteers for D&D, especially Orcs of Thar (humanoids with levels), and suddenly you see a LOT of 3e lying around even in mid-to-late 80's (!) TSR publications (though more obviously so in late 90's stuff).

Hackmaster may be the way 2e ought to have gone, but there is PLENTY of evidence from the TSR days to suggest that 3e is, in fact, what D&D would have become "if TSR was around."

End of rant.

--The Sigil

Thank you Sigil.
While I have always liked TSR, the truth is TSR ruined itself through insanely crappy management. I also feel that you are right on the money about TSR heading in the direction of 3E before being bought out. They were already working on it and toying around with it before the buyout. I'm sure WOTC put their hand in the mix and influenced some decisions, but TSR was already heading that way.

So great minds do think alike... thank Albert for me will you Jack.

The more this argument goes on the more I laugh at how easy it is to send a bunch of people bickering on the least important things.

I mean by the looks of the texts some of us have posted, this should have turned into a free for all brawl months ago (had it been a discussion held face to face in real space).

Thanks guys you've given me a great idea for the next time my characters go into an inn...

This should be a riot.

"Bwa ha ha ha ha ha"

PS Yes I am an idiot and I know.

Cthulhu Matata

Two selected quotes in response to "The Gamer" (all quotes by me unless otherwise noted). I think they speak for themselves with no other explanation needed.

"I thought 2e had been destroyed long ago by fragmenting the fan base into Greyhawk, Al-Qadim, Ravenloft, Planescape, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Mystara, and so forth... destroying its financial viability because no book could sell enough to recoup its production costs." --The Sigil

"To those of you who blame wizards for the ruinifacation of TSR fail to realize that TSR had been in slow decline for some time and the intoduction of Magic was just a catalyst for accelerating was was already happening. TSR as a business had faild to fully capture a way for the gaming world to challenge mind and stratigy to as high of a level as gamers wanted to be challenged, yet kept in a fantasy setting." --Soulsinger

It's a simple line of reasoning, really - gamers have a limited amount of money. Magic or no Magic, there is only so much people will spend on hobbies.

Production of a book takes a substantial amount of money - there is of course the printing cost, but there is a substantial "one-time" fee for the writer to write, the printer to set the printing up, the artists to contribute artwork, and so forth. Assume for sake of argument that this initial outlay is $10,000 for a single 128-page book (not really that unreasonable and possibly too little). It then costs about $10 to print that book (colored, glossy covers and so forth - 10 is a nice round number to work with). You turn around and sell it for $20 (I'll cut out the fact that they use distributors and that the book/hobby store needs to get a little cut because it makes a nice round number, and $20 is about the going rate for such a book c. 1998).

This means you make $10 profit, compared to the printing cost, per sale. It also means that you have to sell 1000 of these babies just to break even with that "one-time" outlay. This is admittedly over-simplified, but you get the idea.

Let us assume that the gaming community has the money and desire and will buy 20,000 books every year (but no more than 5000 of any one book since the 20,000 probably represents the same person buying multiple books in many cases).

What happens when you release 1 book? You sell 5000 copies (if it's good). Your cost to produce is $10,000 (the initial outlay) plus $50,000 (the actual printing cost of 5000 books at $10 each). Your income is $100,000 (5000 books at $20 each). That means you pocket $40,000. Not a bad set-up.

Next year, you figure, "if one book got me $40,000 then 25 books should get me $1 million! Cool!" You have the printer fire up the presses and create 25 books (you hire outside writers so you don't do this all yourself). Assume all your books are equally good - that means each book will sell 20,000 divided by 25 or 800 copies.

So you pay $10,000 per book in setup fees and $10 times 800 ($8,000) for a total cost of $18,000. You rake in $20 times 800 or $16,000. Dang! We just lost $2,000 per book or with 25 books that's $50,000! What happened?

The answer is that you just did what TSR did - you split your audience into too many pieces and stretched yourself too thin. WotC releases new books at the rate of about 2 per month. If you take all of TSR's product lines over the last five years of its existence, TSR produced 6-7 per month.

It's simple math - TSR put too much out there - people couldn't buy it all (or didn't want to - "why should I buy a Planescape product if I play in Maztica?") and so TSR split their market too much.

I could go on, but the point has been made. Magic had little to do with TSR.

That's why I disagree with "WIZARD rapped[sic] TSR". TSR had already destroyed itself before Magic even showed up on the scene. Magic just made it more obvious. And don't tell me that all the avid D&Ders took up Magic and never played D&D again.

As to POWER CLEAVE and SNEEK [sic] ATTACK, might I point out that this is just a new way of talking about someone specializing in the DISARMING MANEUVER and referencing A THIEF'S BACKSTAB ABILITY!

So they took all of the musty, arbitrary tables out of the game that 1e and 2e used (which, as I have mentioned, were ripped from NAVAL MINIATURES RULES in the first instance and are certainly NOT original ideas to D&D) and replaced them with a d20 versus a number mechanic. Who cares?

Your AD&D campaign is in many ways independent of the system you use - it's the culture and story and roleplaying that count (right?). The numeric system you use to define these is like a grid - I can describe a shape using Cartesian Coordinates, Spherical Coordinates, or Cylindrical Coordinates, but it's still the same shape. Some sets of coordinates are easier to understand than others. Think of 3e as the easier coordinate system to understand.

Done again for now.

--The Sigil

Answer - Nobody.

Right now I think there are approximately 200 d20 publishers. My guess is that in 5 years, we will see closer to a dozen.

Some will get swallowed into others (e.g., Sword and Sorcery Studios (closely tied to White Wolf) has already swallowed Necromancer Games, Fiery Dragon Productions, and Malhavoc Press). Some will buckle and go under. The difference is that WotC is putting out 17 books a year instead of 70. And they try to make sure their books are of the highest quality, meaning that as the market fragments, the "other guys" will go under (some d20 publishers already have). It will take some time to happen, but I'm confident it will.

--The Sigil

"I would argue that if these folks who think they like 1e/2e better would approach 3e with a TRULY open mind, give it a fair chance to show what it can do, they'd be converts."

I tried to like MUNCHKINS & MONSTERS, Jack, I truly did.

I, like most players I know, eagerly awaited the release of 3e. I intently followed along with the playtester's sessions on the WotC website. I pestered, to the point of being annoying (unbelievable, I know), my local games store for when the new edition would hit the shelves. I even tried using the rules - '10 Ways to Play 3rd Edition D&D Today' - posted on the WotC (or were they still using the TSR title then?) website which allowed you to play a 3e-ish game (converting THAC0 to an Attack Bonus, AC went up not down, class/level restrictions were abolished etc). Hey, I was skeptical, but I gave it a whirl. And when Monty Haul's three volume Bible was finally released, I played for a while in a new 3e campaign.

Honestly, I really, REALLY wanted to like it, life would be a lot easier if I did. But try as I might, I just couldn't. It sucks a dead dingo's donga.

Quite frankly, the problem is the tone. Flash, you were spot on. As I've said in a post above somewhere, I can understand many of the rule changes on an individual level, even if I disagree with many of them, but the tone of D&D has been completely mutilated by Wankers of the Coast. As Flash said, the system just feels shallow (and I would add a little childish - insofar as the tone goes). For no apparent reason WotC gave EVERYTHING in the game more steroids than the Chinese female Olympic swim team. What in the bloody buggery for? Streamline the rules, sure, fine, whatever. But why turn the whole bloody thing into a computer game on paper? Why make it feel as though you've stumbled upon a giant, three volume MtG picture-book? I would argue that these folks who think that they like 3e better will eventually get bored with this rather dull, not partiularly innovative or clever system. At least AD&D has some character.

As for your complaint, Jack, about 'pretentious' and 'elitists' gamers who are 'SO into roleplaying' - hmmmm, fancy thinking that roleplaying might, in some way, be a part of a ROLE-playing game. Well, paint me pink and call me Mary, whatever will they think of next?! Oh, and Jack, this convict doesn't think that everyone not directly involved with his gaming group is a complete jerk - just you ... all sarcasm aside ...

Tas ;)

PS - It's nice to see that Sigil is now blaming poor management for the collapse of TSR (which was my point somewhere above) and not because AD&D was particularly unpopular.

[[ I tried to like MUNCHKINS & MONSTERS, Jack, I truly did. ]]
--He's back! Now with even more Australia-related fruity filling, and even less real content! Dingo dingo! Wallaby! Blimey! From Perth to Sydney, I've never seen somebody so repetitive and less able to form a coherant argument.

[[ Quite frankly, the problem is the tone. ]]
--Quite frankly the problem is you. You claim to be a wonderful roleplayer, and yet you're not good enough to take what you need from 3e to enjoy yourself. You can't practice your vast roleplaying skillset without a gaming system that's totally disorganized and fragmented. Nice commentary on your talents. I can roleplay just fine in 3e, and it's not even that important to me. I'd hate to think that I was just better at it than you.
--I'm done paying attention to your antics. You're clearly biased in favor of non-3e games, as you run a website based on "Classic Dnd," which only slightly steals the layout from its arch enemy WotC. All you seem to care about is reminding us that you're from Australia, and that you think repeating the same baseless jibberish makes it gospel. I don't care where you're from, and I don't care what you think.
--I hope for your sake that Australians have more tolerance for your girlish chittering than I do.

[[ So the guys from Austrlia...Big Deal! ]]
--And I'm from the US. How many times have I mentioned it thus far? How many conspicuously "American" terms of speech have I used? In short, how much of my time on this particlar thread have I devoted to "being American?"
--The point is that the guy says nothing of substance, he just repeats his ridiculous, baseless "opinions" over and over, and litters this wasteland of broken logic with colorful (read that: faggy) Australian references.
--I have no problem with Australians. I'd think no better or worse of him if he spent all his time pointing out that he was Dutch, or Russian, or American. It's his fixation I take issue with, not the topic of the fixation. To be honest, I have to thank Australia for existing. It's doing the entire world a service by not deporting this Tas retard and unleashing his brand of repetitive, effeminate tripe on the rest of the world. Now if only they'd find a way to silence him completely...

[[ There was role playing long before 3E came around. To switch from something your confortable to a new system that (for whatever reason) you don't like dosn't mean that your a bad role player. ]]
--Huh?
--Look, I don't know what you're saying, cause I'm fairly sure it's not english, but I know this: The system can't force you to do anything. It can't change how much you roleplay, or prevent you from imagining a colorful character and bringing said character to life. No matter how many times you, or Johnny Australia says it, it's still a falsehood. It's especially false, when you're claiming to be a super-excellent roleplayer, like Tas is.
--Even if it wasn't patently false already, the fact is 3e provides the player MORE material to form the basis for good roleplaying. Sure it adds powers. Sure the 1st level 3e character has more going for him than the 1st level 1e/2e player. But you know what? My group used to start all our 2e characters at 3rd level, just so they'd have some degree of differentiation before play began.
--The bottom line here is that Tas thinks that playing a hacky, poorly designed system is MORE fun than playing a smoothly operating and well thought out system. I'm all for allowing people their opinions, but I attach a caveat to that. If you expect me to respect your opinion, I expect you to have a decent reason for having it.
--Don't like sports cars? Ok, why? Cause you just drive to get from place to place, and speed and power don't impress you? FINE. Your opinion, your justification. I happen to like sports cars, but I can't tell you to do the same.
--Don't like chocolate? Ok, why? Cause you've never seen a sailboat that could chinese teapot? Huh? That makes no sense. It's idiotic. The justifications don't match the conclusions.

--It's really very simple. The gaming system is a vehicle. Its sole purpose is to provide a layer of abstraction which allows the players and DM to consistently and conveniently simulate a gameworld, while still allowing a full spectrum of balanced powers and abilities. The gaming system should give the DM and players all the tools and options they need to realize their gaming vision, while at the same time staying out of their way and letting them enjoy that vision.
--3e does this FAR better than 1e/2e.
--You can disagree, but you'd be wrong.

CCG's didn't drive TSR out of business. They did speed up the process, but probably by only a couple years. Three at the most. As far as Hasbro bolstering WOTC, I don't think so. From what I've heard, Hasbro doesn't really care about the RPG's. In fact, they barely make enough money to warrant a separate line item on the audit sheets. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Hasbro decides to sell off WOTC and all of their properties sometime in the next five years. Sooner if the religo-nazis realize that Hasbro now owns the Great Satan D&D.

[[ You don't need to be some poofy, pretentious roleplayer to create, for example, differences between two 1st level elven fighters. If one is a wild barbarian-type, and the other is a high elvish-type from a sophisticated city, there's the real difference: how their personality types react to a given situations in a game - not their min/maxed stats. ]]
--I'll make this real simple, and I'll make this my last post on the topic. Tas, if you read through this post carefully, and with an open mind, and still don't agree with me, then clearly we're coming from experiences so different that it's never gonna line up.

--Let's use the above quote as the basis for the discussion.

--First I'd like to point out that 3e facilitates the creation of a character with personality both in roleplaying AND rollplaying better than 1e or 2e ever did. Using 2e, we have basically three ways to differentiate the two characters above, within the context of the rules. Their attributes, their weapon choices and their non-weapon proficiencies. In 3e we have attributes, weapons choices, skills and feats.
--Obviously attributes cancel out, but bear in mind that the system in 3e is much smoother and consistent.
--Weapon choices also cancel out.
--Non-weapon proficiences and skills are roughly analogous, however skills are more varied, more flexible and an easier ruleset to use in game. The skills system in 3e offers the player the opportunity to define his character's personality via the skills and tactics he makes use of. The barbarian type would have outdoorsy skills, intimidate skills, and rustic craft skills. The citydweller would have bartering skills, courtly skills, and bluffing skills. The character's personality becomes more visible in the numbers thanks to the new rules. Also, which player is more likely to be willing to roleplay his intimidation of a city guard; the one with intimidate listed on his sheet, or the one without? If nothing else, skills can serve as a reminder of the things that make your character who he or she is.
--Lastly we have feats. I'm sure you think these are the worst thing ever, because they empower the character, and for some reason a competent character can't POSSIBLY be roleplayed. For my part, I look at feats as yet another chance to personalize. Our barbarian elf takes a weapon focus in battleaxe, and power attack with that weapon, to reflect his aggressive personality. The courtly elf takes weapon focus in rapier and weapon finesse, so he can use his dexterity to aid in melee. Giving the players an opportunity to flesh out their combat styles and abilities is YET another chance for them to define their characters. AGAIN, which player is more likely to vividly describe the maneuvers his character carries out in combat; the one with specific feats, or the one without? When you're hitting because you took weapon finesse, you're far more likely to congratulate your elven warrior for his "brutally slashing axe," or "sparklingly fast rapier."
--In short, 3e makes it far easier and rewarding to customize the character so the ROLLplaying fits with the ROLEplaying. That's a good thing, NOT a bad thing.

--Last, I'd like to mention how much of an aid in roleplaying it is to have good, consistent and easy rules. You have admitted that 2e was not as smooth, but you somehow consider this a merit. In my book, that's 180 degrees away from reality.
--Let's say you're going along, when a player decides that his courtly elven fighter is going to try to talk the orcish guard into letting him pass. The player launches into a winding tale about a missing nephew, an orcish village, and all manner of trickery. All present enjoy the diologue and await the DM's ruling. Sadly, his face is buried in his notes and the 2e DMG, as he futilely searches for some sort of rule to handle this relatively common occurrance. "Uhh, hold on a sec" he says, and the roleplaying screeches to a halt.
--Now page forward to 3e. Our elf's player delivers his monologue and the DM responds immediately. "Great roleplaying," he says "you get a +2 circumstance bonus. Now roll your bluff vs. the orc's sense motive." The roll is made, and the elf wins. The DM roleplays the dumbfounded orc's reaction, and the game moves on. In 3e there's simple, consistent and universal rules, that the DM will know immediately what to do with. He can roll and make rulings with the confidence that the rules have the tools he needs to keep the game flowing.
--Notice ALSO, that the rules will DEMAND good roleplaying of the characters. When the elf barbarian, who has spent his skills in things OTHER than bluff attempts to talk his way past the guard (an action that is out of character), he is unlikely to succeed, as his skill is poor. In short, the rules FACILITATE roleplaying, quite the opposite of your proposition that they hinder, or eliminate it.

--And that's really it.

--This post contains, essentially, two opinions regarding the merits of 3e. It then backs these opinions up with extensive evidence. This is the only useful way to discuss a topic.
--Tas, it's my opinion that thus far you have done nothing but trade insults with me and make vague and unsupported assertions. You'll notice I have removed all my useless insults from this post and have tried to stick to factual arguments. If you'd care to respond in kind, I'd be happy to consider your points as well. However, if you continue to rehash the same material about "*squeaks* and *honks*" and "MUNCKINS and MONSTERS" I will be forced to disregard you. None of that stuff means anything to me. To my mind, it's nothing more than buzzwords you've fixated upon, and you repeat them over and over, each time saying nothing more than "3e isn't good, cause I said so." I'm not trying to insult here, I'm just trying to tell you what I see.
--Perhaps as you read this thread, things appear as the mirror to you as they do to me. Perhaps you see yourself as providing the substantiated arguments and me as the one repeating the same useless garbage. If that's the case, so be it. As I said previously, perhaps we simply cannot come to an understanding. However, I like to think that my points outlined above are simple enough and factual enough that they are clear to any intelligent reader. I hope that you can put our past diologue behind you and read this post with the intent to understand.

--I like to flame as much (or more) than the next guy. However when the day is done, I know that it's all wasted time. On the other hand, if I can get somebody to take a second look at 3e, get that person to give it another try, and maybe find the same value that I do, then maybe I can help somebody improve their enjoyment of the hobby which I too enjoy.
--The fact is, I don't post here because I like to hear myself talk, or because I really need to prove myself to strangers. I'm posting because I see a lot of people in this thread missing out on a system that I consider to be a real innovation in gaming.
--If you don't care, that's fine.

I have to say I find it funny that I am seen as now "seeing the light" that incompetent management destroyed TSR. Um, I first brought that up November 8, 2000 (over a year ago) on this very thread (look it up). This isn't new.

As for D&D never being "unpopular," I don't have a lot of hard, statistical evidence to support an argument one way or the other - what I do have is anecdotal evidence - in my experience, D&D was pretty much the only thing people played in the 80's (because it was pretty much all that was out there). In the 90's a lot of other systems started to gain in popularity - people knew and could play D&D, but preferred to play Vampire, Rifts, Traveller, or what have you. So while the population of people who knew how to play D&D stayed about the same, the population of people who regularly played it went down - because they were playing other games that suited their tastes better, either in atmosphere or in rules.

I believe TSR saw this and tried to "tinker" with D&D to make it more palatable to other folks... Spelljammer looks somewhat like an attempt to appeal to the Sci-Fi/Traveller crowd. Planescape, with its constant jarring jargon, reminds very much of Shadowrun and Cyberpunk, where the style and lingo are so over-emphasized as to blunt the mechanics. Ravenloft was an obvious attempt to bring in the Vampire players. Skills & Powers tried to bring in "points-system" players like GURPS players who wanted more flexibility. Again, I have no hard and fast statistical evidence to this, but this was what I thought about when I saw these various lines coming out - so I *do* think D&D suffered a popularity swoon (otherwise why try to imitate all the other RPGs out there?).

What I do know as a hard statistical fact is that WotC execs have mentioned that sales of 3e are VASTLY exceeding projections (to the tune of 150% of projections). I infer from this that D&D's popularity is on the rise again, since more people are buying the books than WotC thought would have.

These are my own assumptions and observations and, ultimately, opinions (except for the 150% sales vs. projections figure). Your mileage may vary.

Finally, sticking my head into the flamewar for just a moment, I would like to re-emphasize the point made by Jack.

"In short, 3e makes it far easier and rewarding to customize the character so the ROLLplaying fits with the ROLEplaying. That's a good thing, NOT a bad thing."

This is precisely what I have been trying to argue for some time, just said much more clearly and concisely. Basically, it comes to this: if I look at your 2e character sheet and you tell me your character is "no-talk all-action axe-slashing barbarian guy" I can copy that character sheet, move it to another campaign, and make exact same character into "smooth-talking lady-killing rapier-wielding swashbuckler-guy." The rules don't favor the character being one or the other - it's entirely in the hands of my roleplaying but there are no game mechanics to back up my claims.

If I take a 3e character sheet of a character with Axe Specialization, Great Cleave, and Toughness, my character's statistics actually reflect "no-talk all-action axe-slashing barbarian guy." The character literally is more effective with an axe than a rapier.

Similarly, a character with the Weapon Specialization: Rapier, Dodge, and Weapon Expertise feats will be considerably more effective with a rapier than with an axe.

Again, as stated, the character's roll-playing actually follows/reflects the role-playing. This makes the system more believable and ultimately, rewards role-playing to some degree because your character actually winds up interacting with his world (through his abilities and statistics) in a way that reflects the roleplaying personality you have defined for him. It's more than *squeaks* and *whistles*, it's the system being built to allow role-playing to be easily reflected in the roll-playing.

Is the system more streamlined? Absolutely.

Is it less complex? Yes.

Is the learning curve lower? Yes.

Does this make it easier for "newbies" to learn? Yes.

Is making the system easier (and hence more available to "newbies") a good thing? That's a matter of opinion. Some gamers want a steep learning curve so they can feel kind of elitist. Some want a steep learning curve so they can feel some satisfaction in mastering it. Some gamers want a low learning curve so they can easily teach others and bring others to the game. Some gamers want a low learning curve because they're lazy and/or just want to play without being bothered by a lot of rules. There is no "right answer" here.

Does the system being easier show that it caters to "newbies"? Not necessarily. The logical fallacy many have fallen into here is assumption of truth of a converse.

Assume, for a moment, that this statement is true (and it seems to be a logical statement to make): If a system caters to "newbies" it must be easy.

The converse of the statement, "If a system is easy it must cater to 'newbies'" is NOT necessarily true. Some on this thread have made that fallacious jump.

It is as ridiculous as claiming that the statement "If a person is an Australian, s/he must be a human" also leads to the conclusion "If a person is a human, s/he must be an Australian." It is a common logical fallacy best illustrated by something like the above, which is obviously not true because I can quite easily show a counter-example (Exhibit A: an American, who is human but not Australian).

Did WotC cater to newbies when they made 3e? I'm not in WotC, so I can't answer that definitively - I wasn't part of the decision-making process. However, I know that WotC put the system through two years of rigorous outside playtesting by using the RPGA - in other words, they got their feedback on the system from people who were ALREADY dedicated D&Ders and certainly not newbies (I will make an assumption that I feel is reasonable to back this up - "anyone who bothers to join the RPGA is NOT a newbie").

WotC got two years' worth of feedback from EXPERIENCED players of D&D (not even experienced players of other systems, but players who played AD&D - note the difference). All of the playtesters I have spoken with on various message boards have said, pretty much without exception, that many of the problems they brought up with the system in its first incarnation were fixed long before 3e ever saw print. *None* of them have expressed particular displeasure with the final result. One would think that with thousands of playtesters, if 3e was really as bad a system as a vocal minority seems to believe, some of the playtesters would have called it out as crap by now.

In other words, thousands people who were intimately familiar with 1e and 2e put the system through its paces before you even saw it and none of them is that upset with it. Obviously, not everyone will be happy with changes (no matter what WotC did). If there were such serious systemic flaws as people here are claiming exist(without much substantiation, by the way), it would stand to reason that more people would be complaining about it.

One of the biggest changes that "made sense" in 3e was doing away with 1 gp = 1 XP awards. In 2e you got 80-90% of your XP for "stumbling over a pile of gold." Slaying monsters, avoiding traps, figuring out puzzles, all of this stuff netted you so few XP as to be not worth the bother. It practically forced Monty Haul campaigns.

Contrast with the 3e XP system. You get XP for slaying monsters, surviving/disarming traps, overcoming puzzles, you can get XP for overcoming stuff in a non-violent fashion if it aids you towards your goal. Treasure is a reward in itself that doesn't get double-counted and your characters can advance in levels without getting filthy rich (which also makes sense - Robin Hood never made much money).

You may have a beef with the XP charts or how much XP is awarded for killing an orc (four 1st-level PCs kill 14 orcs and advance to 2nd level) or whatever, but I haven't heard anybody complain that the types of things you get XP for - and more importatnly the types of things you DON'T get XP for are worse in 3e.

I'm not blinded by loyalty to 3e. I have gamed with literally HUNDREDS of systems, and there are redeeming qualities about all of them. I *DO* get the perception that some (not all) of the "hate 3e" folks *are* blinded by loyalty to 2e. Anyone who says that 2e is a better system in every way is flat out wrong. (I will grant that an argument can be made that it is better in some ways - e.g., I like weapon speed factors.) No system can claim utter superiority in every facet - if it was totally superior everyone would be using it and all other companies would go out of business.

To those who say, "I really tried 3e, and didn't like the way it felt, so I went back to 2e (or 1e, or even back to the old Men & Monsters/Blackmoor/Eldritch Wizardry combo)," I say, "that's fine. Wonderful. Enjoy yourself - I happen to like 3e, but I have no problem with you playing 2e."

To those who say, "it is a fact that 3e is crap, and people who play it are " I say, "that's your opinion, not indisputable fact, and since you offered your opinion on those who play it, I will offer my opinion that you are a rude, stubborn jackass."

Using terms such as "Munchkins and Monsters" or "squeaks and honks" only serves to underline the fact that you have rather strong opinions on the matter. While I give you points for coming up with cute little nicknames in order to illustrate your perception of the inadquacies of the system, it amounts to "raising your voice when you should reinforce your argument." I could quite easily refer to 2e as "Tables & Treasures" (bearing in mind that in 2e, somewhere between 80-90% of XP earned comes from finding a pile of coins instead of actually doing stuff like fighting or surviving traps). But I prefer to tackle the matters at hand, pointing out that 3e gives you a roll-playing reflection of your role-playing, has an XP system that reflects what you've done (i.e., your experiences - they ARE called experience points) rather than what you've found, and is much cleaner in many aspects (multiclassing and darkvision are excellent revisions of old multiclassing and infra/ultravision that avoid many of the issues that plagued these in the 2e system).

Anyway, there's more of my thoughts on the matter, and I fully expect more flames and disagreement. Let's have it and get it over with. ;-)

--The Sigil

Sorry about that post..."it should read very GOOD points". I was in a hurry and didn't proofread, which usually werks KO fotr mee, bnut foer somne reasomn I misspeeled thgat werd. :)

-Chris

[[ All present enjoy the dialogue and await the DM's ruling. "Great roleplaying," he says "you get a +2 bonus to your Charisma roll. The orc has a pretty low intelligence as well, so that's a further +2 bonus. Now make a Charisma check." The roll is made, and the elf wins. The DM roleplays the dumbfounded orc's reaction, and the game moves on. ]]
--Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that 2e CAN'T be fun. After all, it was my favorite system until 3e came along. And yes, DMs CAN come up with little rules in their heads and make things run along. However, at that point, I'm wondering why I'm even paying for the 2e book. If I'm gonna make up the rules as I go, then I don't need a book to hold while I do it. A DM that can make arbitrary rulings and pull it off with the players is a rare thing, and most folks need a book to back them up.
--It may not be a factor for you, but I think that for most people playing DnD, it's nice to have the rules on paper to back up what they do in game. This cuts off a lot of arguments before they can happen, and it makes things clear and simple. Even if this doesn't really benefit you a ton, I'd challenge you to name a downside to it. It may not be a pro to everyone, but it's a con to nobody. Thus a clear improvement.
--Even if you tweak the 2e rules to have the same amount of functionality as the 3e ones, they're still not as consistent or user friendly, and not as useful in game. In 2e, all you need is a high attribute and you're instantly a master diplomat. In 3e you have to spend skill points to be good, and you have to keep spending them over time to stay competitive with higher level opposition.

[[ The player might decide that Ulfalas would think that even bothering to talk to the lowly orc would be beneath him. ]]
--Clearly we can come up with anecdotes all day that contradict one another's points. I realize that your anecdote here is not really that unlikely, but I'd have to say that it's less likely than the one I provide.
--The key here is that the numbers, character description text, AND roleplaying all add up. If the player spends skills in bluff on a character that isn't supposed to use bluff, he's not roleplaying. If he writes down that he's a barbarian and then plays a courtesan, he's also not roleplaying.
--It all comes back to the functionality of the ruleset. Not only do skills give the DM a tool to handle in game interactions, but they give the player a tool to make dice rolls and probabilities in game match up with his character's personality.

[[ We can argue about it until the cows come home, but the increase in power strips away that final tiny fragment of realism that is needed, even in a fantasy game, so we aren't jarred out of our suspended disbelief. ]]
--I don't get it... Why? How?
--I will admit, 3e characters at 1st level are a bit stronger than 1e/2e characters at the same level. But who cares? You don't mind playing a 2nd level, or 10th level 1e/2e character, why would you mind playing a 3e character? There's a slight difference in power, but it's not much more than a level or two.
--It's all scalable anyway. The enemies are ALSO tougher. In fact, the enemies are built on the same ruleset as the characters. In this regard the enemies have gotten an even bigger boost than PCs in 3e. Relative to their foes, it seems, 3e characters are actually WEAKER.
--This power boost, while it does exist, is not as great as you seem to think. I tend to think that the simplicity and ease of understanding the new powers available to a player make 3e seem much more min-maxed than it is. In reality, a 2e player could abuse the rules just as badly, if not worse, to create an imbalanced character. The only difference is that 2e demanded hours of reading every single arcane and disjoint supplement that TSR released, until a rule that would allow abuse was found. Just look at kits... They were a horrible ruleshack that ALWAYS assured a character more powerful than the base class.
--To call 3e a powergamer's system, to me, is the opposite of reality. Where there's balance, there's less powergaming, and 3e is infinitely more balanced than 2e, which started out of whack and got worse over time.
--Honestly, I just don't understand why you don't believe in 3e. It's just a set of rules, it can't change the tone of YOUR game.

[[ I've never denied that 3e is more streamlined, but I just don't think it is innovative ]]
--This I also don't understand.
--You seem to place great import in the roleplaying aspect of the game, and yet you also demand inspiring and interesting mechanics.
--From my point of view, the mechanics should be out of my way, doing nothing more than I need, and yet nothing less. While I wouldn't suggest that you should stop liking the "character" of 2e mechanics, I would hope that you'd admit that liking a klunky and ineffective system more than a smooth and slick one is odd, and not something that others should be expected to really understand.
--But, even beyond this, I'd challenge your assertion that 3e is not innovative. Basically every game is just a system of using dice to create randomness, and rules to create a target. Any sort of abstraction from this, be it dice pools, or open ended rolls, or whatever, is just a fancy trick to fool people that never took higher math. 3e doesn't bother to try to get cute with its rolling conventions, because it knows that there's no real innovation there. What's innovative is the singleminded devotion the designers have with regards to creating consistency and balance in the game.
--Look at Warhammer 40K, DnD 1e/2e, Rolemaster, etc. Every one is a heaping mound of rules hacks. What's truly innovative about 3e is the "object oriented" design of it. Just as object oriented programming became a force for innovation in software design, now it's a force in RPGs. Some people deride 3e for being like a "computer game on paper." To me, this is crazy. It's not a fault, it's an accomplishment. Organization, simplicity, reusability of concepts, and generally logical systems are GOOD. ALWAYS. Right?

[[ As for Jack's comment about WotC focusing on core products, that may be correct to a point (although, I suspect they'll churn them out soon enough), but players only buy core products once. ]]
--I think this is not the case.
--First off, I have three copies (in different versions) of the 1e PHD, I have at least three copies of the 2e PHB, and at least two copies of the 3e PHB. I buy them to loan to other players, and just to be sure that I have copies on hand. I may be unusual, but that's how I've always operated.
--Also, the notion that more players won't keep coming into 3e is false. Each day, more and more people get interested and buy 3e products. Those that lose interest can't exactly return their books. So the sales of the "core products" will continue indefinitely. With this in mind, it seems to me that WotC can't avoid making back their initial outlay on all their core products, given a while to do so.