gamegrene.com

Clearly Rabbitman hasn't read the 3rd ed D&D or any rulebook based on d20. "Threat ratings" and so on take the place of XP, not "to hit" rolls.
Now, on to the important thing: D&D and d20 has saved the gaming industry single-handedly. A lot of people complain that characters get too powerful too quickly. True. Are people who want to play Ranger/Druid/Paladin/Monk/Red Avenger/Theif/CLeric/Ninjas twinky? Probably. Who cares? D&D was always the "entry drug" of choice for most gamers.. and there is a whole new generation of kids who grew up playing Pokemon who won't be role-players if they have to cut their proverbial teeth on Call of Cthulhu or Dark Conspiracy.
Game mechanics: people who _WANT_ game mechanics want to play dungeon-crawls. People who want to role-play could really care less about the system. It's very difficult to have it both ways.
CHaracter power: who wants to play a 1st level character anyway? Don't people play RPGs to play heroes? WHo wants to play chracters that've just fallen off the turnip truck?

BTW, I don't know about you, but I have never allowed a 160th level character in my campaigns. If you do, you are just begging to be "twinked." ;)

And yes, Doc Railgun, I understand that you were DEFENDING 3e - I was just trying to make a point about how broken Multiclassing is in 2e and how it is elegantly fixed in 3e.

(Again, in 2e I can have 1,000,000 XP and be an 11th level fighter or a 12th level wizard - or a 10/11 fighter/wizard - duh, I wonder which one I'm gonna take if I'm a twink - I'll sacrifice one level in each of them to get BOTH of them. In 3e I can have 50,000 XP and be a 10th level fighter or a 10th level wizard - or a 5/5 fighter/wizard - hmm, much less attractive choice for the twink).

Whatever you want to call 'em - twinks, munchkins, whatever, fact is pretty much EVERYONE goes through that phase at some point in their RPG lives. Just because you think you "outgrew" that phase doesn't make you "more mature" or "better." It makes you different.

Besides, admit it, every once in a while, isn't it nice to take a break from a long-running campaign for a session and just kick the crap out of the local orc tribe? Releases some tensions, indulges some primal urges, and then we can get back the "regular" campaign... ;-)

--The Sigil

As long as I can play my 12STR, 18DEX, 16CON, 18INT, 18WIS, 17CHA theif with psionic abilites, gear, and minor picked illusionist spells, I don't care what system I play. LOL

(those were my natural rolls)

Been playing since sixth grade, and if you can let "the man" ruin your game then your not playing right. Take a lesson from the first bible, these are guidelines and only guidelines to the most prefereble way for you to play, is for you to keep it realistic.Save your books and preserve the original. If something better comes along impliment it in your game. You people sound like what they say is law. This coming from the Seattle Dragonflight "player" winner of 89'. Why whine about it, if you dont like it, dont play it. Hell, do what I do, pick and choose what fits for your game. Personally I would expect more from real gamers than bitching.We should all know beyond black ice is where it started from, and they had no books... (bibles) Bibles = FIRST ADDITION. Make it fun and Oden be with you.

This whole arguement is a simple one.
Side for 2nd Ed or Older: "It works for me, why fix what's not broke?"
Side for 3rd Ed: "It works better for me, and has these new features, why not change?"

And the reason for the chief complaint on both side, a lack of cross compatability and money. If everyone had unlimited money, then you would all have a copy of 3rd, 2nd and 1st ed because they are all DIFFERENT, irrespective of if there are improvements or not. However, you don't, and you can't, so either you are upset because the gaming system you have heavily invested in is no longer getting support. Or the game system you are currently heavily invested in is getting called worse, thus your choice in investment is being called worse.

Neither arguement has anything REALLY to do with the pros and cons of the respective systems in regard to SPECIFIC USES. I could understand arguements like TSR Ravenloft is better than White Wolf Ravenloft, because then you have comparable content. 3rd ed is a new gaming system, it's not comparable content. So either spend your money on it or don't, whatever you do it's really got nothing to do with one being better, bu more to do with what you percieve as value.

I remember what I forgot now...There is a company that is going to sell the 2e stuff. Not all of it but most of it. Character sheets for you people who are lazy enough to not make a copy for yourself. Look for it on the internet somewhere, that is the only place you will find it because I beleive(i hate that word, probably spelled wrong) that is a print per order thing.

Someone meantioned never being able to have a mage survive... Your DM/Player wasn't doing his job then. I have played several games over a course of 10+ years. I think the mage usually survives somehow. Your DM is either picking on the mage, or just not giving him some slack even though he has half the hp of other people. Or worse yet, that player might not know how to play a mage. I played a mage once, started at level 1, got to level 8, then not because anything really happened, another campaign started about 2 weeks after that one stopped. Usually all the games I've played start at level 1, the rest are level 2-3, they end just before or just after we get to level 10. Not because we don't want high level characters, but because of jobs, life situations, or lack of effort on the players. Oh, and 3 times we played with level 20 characters. Once was an actual campaign. The other two were 'arena' type battles. The mages were the obvious powerhouse the first time because of the fact that they were supposed to be. Fighters are strong in the begining and mages were strong in the end. I took thieves half the time because they leveled faster. But the second arena battle we had, we made a bunch of random characters, and only allowed specialized wizards, then all drew from a hat a character to play.

Whoever said the 2e rule about getting 1xp for everyone 1gp. I only saw that rule in the darksun rulebook for 1xp for every 1cp. I got xp for stealing as a thief but I never needed money when I played, it was usually already spent and magical items cost a lot. And about the wizards making magical items like a factory. I've only been in 1 campaign where a wizard has attempted to make a magical item, after it was made he stopped.

What happened to my posting skills? I lost them over a period of time, all I can do now is rant on and on about nothing that matters...

Ok, it was pretty late at night (or actually early in the morning here) when I wrote my last comment, so I'll rephrase it.

What I meant was that roleplaying is defined by the context, and I have NEVER felt AD&D, or D&D 3rd ed by themselves is a game world. It offers rules for gaming in fairly generic fantasy words, and rules for races which became/were generic fantasy races, but a world isn't made up of stats, spells, character, proficiencies etc. these are simply mechanics. A world is made up of background, history. Essentially, the game mechanics to me come far and away second to the world and that's why I don't think there is anything specifically mentioned about the changes. I mean, in D&D if you wanted to play truely high fantasy you'd play Dragonlance, if you wanted to play pulp fantasy it would be Forgotten Realms, gothic horror Ravenloft. The 'generic' D&D world never had any specific appeal to me, because all it really provided was ways to fight, run from or kill monsters, and the tools to go about doing so (equipment, NPCs, spells etc). And I think this is why 3rd edition is rather over powerful and cartoony, it reflects what is now the modern 'archetype' of the fantasy races, which have been shaped by computer games in recent years, but before that cartoons, music etc.
The question of which one simulates basic reality best CAN'T be asked because of the above, they are not the same reality. They are not even the same fantasy.

As such if it ISN'T an arguement about money, it is purely personal preference. And that's an absurd thing to argue over.

You can say AD&D was more complicated, and I would agree. Whether that makes it better or not is simply personal preference. Whether the change was worth it, or even necessary, is a matter entirely of money, and my opinion, it was worth it for the following reasons:

Roleplaying is showing a resurgence of players, whether they are playing D&D or AD&D doesn't really matter to me, as long as the hobby improves and also becomes more widely accepted, so it's easier to find players and a wider range of players. 3rd ed is helping this simply by putting D&D on more bookshelves, thus the general awareness rises.

D&D 3rd ed may eventaully fall over (Hasbro pulling the rug out from WOTC) whether they do or not is fairly irrelevant, because I know I will still be able to find a copy of both 3rd ed, or 2nd ed, because there will be enough of the core books floating out there for the core gaming worlds for each system. Anything other than that is fairly extraneous, and if I really need something to suit (a Priests hand book or something) I'll just write rules myself for a campaign as a GM. But no matter what I will have another gaming system which I can use to set my game worlds (3rd ed), and choice is always good.

D&D 3rd ed certainly feels different because of the game mechanics, and if someone doesn't like that it's a fair enough reason not to play. It is also better produced and better managed then AD&D, which makes it far more likely to be popular/profitable, but if you are going to try and argue which is better, you are never going to get anywhere because they are two DIFFERENT games, no matter what the name says.

Ok, I could quote lots of the above, but basically I can see we are in agreement on most points. And at the very least the content now seems better than flaming. :) There is only one real point to address:

"If you don't use the best tool for the job, then you're not taking the best approach. That's just how it is. "

Totally agree, but I feel the rules in 2nd ed and the rules in 3rd ed are different enough to be different tools, for slightly different tasks.

3rd edition is an improvement in a lot of areas, but BECAUSE they are similiar (like you say) a lot of those changes are merely organisational ones. Having rules in logical places (rather than scattered haphazardly around the books) etc.

Other changes, are what make the systems innately different. The use of Feats for example. These one time bonus powers change the feel of the game enough for me to render them as different.

Sure you could get the same effect with proficiencies a lot of the time, but it was down to the roleplayer to put together the right proficiencies, OR if he chose, put together the WRONG proficiencies which didn't make sense in terms of improving the character in game mechanics, but made sense in term of playing the character.

Basically, the difference is that 3rd Ed seems to lay forward a fairly linear and obvious way to advance your character, much like a computer game might do. 2nd ed was more free form (perhaps because of it's hap hazard nature.) and thus didn't push anyone in particular directions.

Maybe it's a very small thing, but it's one of a number of small things. And if we ARE going to say they are the same gaming world, then it becomes a small thing that matters. The world HAS changed, things are different, and people don't necessarily like it. That's up to them.

If we are looking at the 'D20 system' (whatever that is exactly) and how IT's rules are layed out, and compare them to 2nd ed, I am in total agreement, one is better, and it's not 2nd ed.

I am just about to bow out here as I have nothing really constructive to add. Truth be told I don't particularly like ANY of the D&D systems, and as such shouldn't be making such a big contribution to this discussion.

What I will say is that 3rd Ed caters even more for the Dungeon Crawl style of Roleplay than 2nd ed. And maybe, when all is said and done, that DOES make it better, because that seems to be what D&D is about. So by making the rule system cater towards it you can simply kill the monsters and roleplay the bits in between, instead of roleplaying killing the monsters as well with tricks, bizarre moves and incredibly risky risks that the game DIDN'T give you rules for, spur of the moment stuff that the GM made a snap decision about how appropriate and cinematic and funny it would be if it came off, and gave you a roll appropriate to the context of the situation.

I never had all the supplements for 2nd Edition, in fact I had barely any and usually found that the rules they incorporated didn't REALLY help the roleplaying, so maybe that is where I am coming from. Maybe you could do all this stuff with rules to back you up if you had all the extras. We couldnt, we just had to go at it with what we thought was cool and fun and appropriate, and that IS more freefrom roleplaying, because EVERYTHING is controlled by the context.

"3rde sukes cuck"

My... What a well written and thought out argument.
I am sure everybody will be instantly swayed by it.

"3rde sukes cuck"

Reminds of another quote...

"Never argue with an idiot. People may have a hard time telling the difference."

And of course, I am not even going to try to argue with this one - I refuse to have a battle of wits with an opponent who is obviously unarmed.

And yes, my previous post was the height of sarcasm.

--The Sigil

The Demise of Dungeons and Dragons was caused by TSR and the second edition.

I don't think so, I know so. I used to work in a gaming store, at the time we had one store in Montreal, one in Quebec and one virtual store on the net.

AD&D sales had been steadily decreasing for years, other systems were taking players away from AD&D and not many new gamers were playing AD&D. They all went for 7th Sea, White Wolf and other systems. Look at the numbers folks! AD&D sales started representing less and less sales both in terms of ratio to other products (such as CCGs and GW figs and games) as well as compared to AD&D sales for the previous years.
As the "complete books of whatever" kept coming out, the sales kepts plumetting. Then there was that financial fiasco when TSR's novels all came back from the bookstores and the company went the way of the dinosaures.

Besides the numbers, the comments we had from customers were more and more negative towards AD&D: that it was an archaic game, that it was for immature gamers and that its concept was passé.

Well I was saddened when TSR died and the books stopped printing, my heart skipped a beat when Dragon Magazine stopped coming out (the longest lasting RPG Magazine was dead) or so we thought.

Wizards stepped in and revamped AD&D. By the way, Wizards like Steve Jackson Games have kept alot of gaming worlds alive by taking them and retrofitting them.
I for one prefer to be playing 3E than nothing at all. I also prefer a company that sells a licence so that little companies can produce stuff to keep the hobby alive, than a company that sued every little guy into bankrupcy and shut down internet sites so that it alone could control the evolution of AD&D.

I tell you most, custommers and retailers are happy with the change, most gamers are too. Personnaly I prefer all the adventures and campaign material produced by the little companies but I tip my hat to the design team that brought back my favorite game, alive, kicking and more accessible to new players.
New players who I wouldn't have had the pleasure of playing with had the rules not been streamlined. Call it dumbing down if you will, but when I want complex or complicated I play Rolemaster or Gurps now that is real complexity (both for the players and the master).
So stop being elitist because you had enough useless memory space to remember all the contradicting rules 2E, that most of us had edited anyway.

Wow that felt good.

C-ya.

1) D&D 3 is infinitly superior to previous D&Ds. THAC) and rolling initiative each round were just plain dumb. How can you say that there are a bunch of complex number to add and subtract? They add and sit in a little box on your character sheet. The only thing which really prolongs combat is the attacks of oppertunity rules, but I think those rules are essentual to make light fast character classes like Rouge and Monk viable. Finally, 3 has amazingly consistant rules.. the population figures in DMs are screwed up.. but the actual rules almost always work. That's why much of the erreta is saing "No idiot we obviously mean this."

2) Hackmaster is a piece of shit.. intentional. i've read player's, a bit of DM's, and the commics. It's a big joke. You play to abuse rules untill you all start laughing, quit, eat pizza, and go home. It's not a serious game. It's making fun of the piece of shit that was AD&D.. just like the comics. You go make you 25 Dex 25 Str dart thrower and let your DM kill you with a grudge monster from the "smart ass player smack down table" after you insult him. You noticed that they intentionally made dart throwers worse by adding both str and dex to hit? They even have a no contradictions "rule" to enshure that any apperent contradictions are interpreted in the most bizar way possible.

Well it took less time for Wizard of the Coast to start repeating the mistakes of TSR.

Has anyone read Song and Silence? I thought it was dissapointing.

I've read it (although quickly) and man were the complete book of Thieves and the Complete Bard's Handbook ever better than this one.
The feats are so so and the prestige classes are… well bland and boring.
Where's the flashy stuff for the bards?
Where's the mysterious stuff for the rogues?

Not enough on guild structures and bardic organisations (although you could always use FR's Harpers as an inspiration.)
Not enough spy like stuff!
Not enough new angles on cunning your opponents instead of just back stab.... eh I mean sneak attacking them.

Well I guess I'll keep more of my 2E stuff than I thought.

In a sense, the book that focussed on traps and dungeons was more usefull than that one (for the rogues at least) But then I think it was from White Wolf… They seem to publish better stuff than WoC for D&D (alot of times).

Still I found the three previous "Class Books" to be good (especially Defenders of the Faith) so maybe there is hope for the final one (Heroes of the Wilderness is it? The one for Barbarians, Rangers and Druids).

Anyways, I'll probably get an I told you so note from the Cult of "3E sucks cocks and ain't Hackmaster the best EVER!!!!" but I just thought I'd add my grain of salt.

A Cthonian X-mas to all sentients of Ill will towards human kind ;)

Can't agree with you more Sigil, we liked Defenders of the Faith for the same reason and that's what I was hoping for in Song and Silence... it sucked, oh well I guess more job for me and the other DMs

Ciao

iv only been play for the last to years. in which i played the 2nd edtion. until this summer id just about every weekend. i came here to see if anyone had a players hand book and dunger master guid they want to sell. ill pay about fifty dollars for the both of them. thank you.

Good heavens, not another "3e is not really D&D".

I'm getting so sick of this argument, I really am. Before you make this claim, please explain to me precisely what elements make a game "D&D" as opposed to another game.

And need I remind you that there have been many incarnations of D&D - from the old white/brown boxed sets (Eldritch Wizardry, Blackmoor, Men & Monsters) to AD&D 1e, to the B/E/C/M/I boxed sets of D&D (Basic, Expert, Companion, Masters, and Immortals rules) - including the two or three variations on the Basic and Expert sets, to AD&D 2e, to AD&D 2e with the Player's Option Books to 3e (its current incarnation).

What is it that makes all of the previous incarnations of D&D different from the newest incarnation? Here are the only things I can think of:

1.) THAC0 is gone. Instead of "roll a die, add modifiers from magic and strength/dexterity, subtract this total from your THAC0, then compare to the creature's AC to see if you hit - if the result is lower than or equal to the creature's AC, you hit it," we have "roll a die, add modifiers, then compare to the creature's AC to see if you hit - if the result is higher than or equal to the creature's AC, you hit it." In other words, the only real differences between the two methods is that (1) we have removed the intermediate step of subtracting my modified roll from my THAC0 and (2) I now want a result that is equal to or greater than the AC instead of a result that is equal to or less than the AC. Change 1 is an improvement because we get essentially the same result in fewer steps. Change 2 is very slightly positive in that it is slightly more intuitive to want a bigger number rather than a smaller one when the process is done so that, IMO, makes it slightly better, but not enough to warrant a change if this was the only benefit we were to see. In other words, this isn't really a change that affects the system fundamentally.

2.) Change in Saving Throw names - The change actually makes assigning a Saving Throw for many events easier - for example, when the characters are faced with dodging a falling log trap, should they roll a save vs. Wands? Dragon Breath? Spells? Petrification? Hard to tell - dodging falling logs hardly falls under one of these categories. Should they roll a Fortitude, Reflex, or Will save? Reflex - "get out of the way." Much more intuitive. The new system also does a much better job of keeping the odds of making a save proportional to BOTH parties involved in the combat - e.g., in the Master Set for D&D, my 36th level fighter had to roll a "2" or better to save against a 1st-level mage casting a sleep spell, a 5th-level mage casting a fireball spell, or a 36th-level mage casting a Power Word:Kill. How realistic is that? One would expect that to some extent, the degree of difficulty would reflect not just the experience and skill of the target, but of the caster as well. No prior edition of D&D has incorporated either of these concepts. This is an improvement in the rules, like it or not, even if it is a change because it does an excellent job of both clarifying Saving Throws AND making them feel more realistic. So I grant that a change was made, but it did not fundamentally change the game - rather it clarified an area in dire need of clarification. The different saving throws, then, aren't new, just a reorganization of old material.

3.) Prestige Classes & Feats - These are a new addition to the game that help customize characters. However, especially in the case of Feats, these are often simply ways of incorporating into the ruleset abilities and powers that formerly were "tacked on" to the existing rules rather than integrated (think 1e psionics). As has been pointed out, things like Whirlwind Attack have been around since 1e Oriental Adventures. They were somewhat awkward tack-ons to the system. Feats integrate these abilities into the system in a more modular fashion (I think this is better, but will grant that the opposing point of view may have merit - I will NOT grant that Feats "break" the system since they are just a way of making more modular abilities which already existed as part of the system). Prestige Classes are a different beast entirely - I happen to like the "customization" factor they offer, but there are sufficiently different from kits to argue that to compare the two is to compare apples and oranges. I do feel compelled to point out, however, that there IS a precedent for prestige classes in the "old way" - 1e Bards are essentially a Prestige Class. Also, in the Companion Set, the Druid (Neutral Cleric), Paladin (Lawful Fighter), and Avenger (Chaotic Fighter) all clearly seem to be prestige classes, and an argument might also be made that a Halfling Master (see GAZ8, The Five Shires), Elven TreeKeeper, and Dwarven Forgekeeper are also Prestige Classes of a sort. Prestige Classes HAVE existed prior to 3e, there just weren't very many of them and they didn't come with the title "Prestige Class" affixed. So neither Prestige Classes nor Feats is all that new, either.

4.) Proficiencies vs. Skills - Some people say that the new skill system has perverted the old proficiency system. In this case, I feel obliged to point out that (a) the old proficiency system was rather poorly designed (are you telling me that a 1st-level character with an 18 in an ability score who devotes a single proficiency slot to a skill is better at something than the 20th-level character with a 10 in that ability score who has devoted his entire life and all of his proficiency slots to a single skill), and, more importantly, (b) not every edition of the game prior to 3e even had skills/proficiencies. The Basic/Expert etc. versions of D&D did not have them. Skills (they were called Skills, not Proficiencies) were added to the Basic/Expert D&D game by the Gazetteer series about 10-15 years after the system was created. So these have been around for quite some time as well. Nothing new here.

5.) Thieves' Abilities - "They're skills now!" is the hue and cry from those who cling to the tenants of previous editions. Unfortunately, Thieves' Abilities already underwent some major changes coming from 1e and Basic/Expert to 2e. Under 1e and Basic/Expert, they were completely arbitrary - your percentages were simply read off of a table. In 2e, flexibility was added, giving all thieves base percentages and letting them add a total of 30 percentage points (IIRC) each level. That's a HUGE change in that it lets your thief (or rogue, if you prefer) be much more flexible. Skills were simply the next step along this development. You really can't complain that a change was made to thief abilities in moving to 3e without being hypocritical - unless you are still sticking to 1e. This is one thing that IS different... but again, since it's already been tweaked and changed moving from 1e to 2e, how can you complain if it's tweaked again? Other, similar things that can be argued about are initiative (it used "high d6" in 1e, "low d10" in 2e, "high d6" in bD&D, and so forth - if it changes with every edition, we can't point to one convention and call it the "right way" to do it in D&D - we can only say "I prefer method "), and Experience Points (the scale used to determine XP vs. level is unimportant and changes from edition to edition).

6.) Multiclassing - Multiclassing is essentially 1e dual-classing opened up to all races and with the removal of ability score restrictions. So it has been there all along and I have already pointed out that I believe it vastly superior to the old multiclassing rules. But the point is, it ISN'T new.

These seem to be the major points of contention that I hear, and I have tried to point out that pretty much every single one of them isn't new.

I again ask that you present me with a set of things that "make D&D what it is" instead of simply stating "3e isn't real D&D" without a logical argument to back it up. I have presented 6 elements that I often hear complaints about - that these elements have somehow changed the basic nature of 3e to make it different from previous incarnations. I have followed this by demonstrating that in 5 of the 6 cases, these elements already existed in previous incarnations and therefore arguing that these are "new" and fundamentally change the game is a flawed argument.

Has the flavor of the game changed? Yes, somewhat - D&D is becoming more "self-referential" instead of relying on old fantasy standbys such as LotR - but it has the ability to now because it has 25 years of history behind it. Are characters as "pigeonholed" into given roles as they once were? No. Is this a good thing? Maybe, maybe not. I happen to think the answer is "yes" because more options to create roles for your characters gives you more options for roleplaying.

So for all of you who tell me that 3e isn't D&D, I again ask you to provide me with examples of things that make D&D what it is and why 3e doesn't fit them (be warned that I may counter by saying something like, "this other system does the same thing and it isn't D&D" - I want things that D&D has that make it unique and that no other system has - though you may argue that it is a set of items and not a single item that makes D&D what it is - for example, D&D and Palladium are both level-based games but are quite different - if you want to tell me that D&D is D&D because it is level-based AND uses a Fire-N-Forget magic system, but just having one or the other isn't enough, that is fine).

If you tell me 3e just doesn't "feel" like D&D should without giving reasons, well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but don't tell me "it's not D&D." Instead tell me, "I don't think it feels like D&D." I can't argue with the latter, but I can (and have) argued with the former.

--The Sigil

Back from holidays ready and refreshed for a renewed round of the flame war :)

"I'd challenge your assertion that 3e is not innovative ..... What's innovative is the single minded devotion the designers have with regards to creating consistency and balance in the game" - Jack

Jack, when I said 3e is not innovative, I was referring the fact that 3e overall is not innovative. Yes, there are a few new things that didn't exist in 2e (like monster templates) and yes, it is more streamlined, but 3e hardly invented 'consistency and balance' as you have implied in the quote above. For example, the much proclaimed 'one roll to rule them all' mechanic is not 'new' in the least. Again, I refer you to the D6 system as just one example. Quite frankly, 3e is not a revolutionary quantum leap forward in roleplaying games, nor does it introduce any real ground breaking concepts to RPGs for the first time (3e's opposed skills - again, see the D6 system). Not only is 3e hardly an earth-shattering system, sadly a lot of the character of AD&D was lost in the process of 2e becoming 3e.

"Liking AD&D (or OD&D) over 3e is a bit like preferring a Spitfire over a Harrier Jump Jet." - Me
"No, this is a bad analogy." - Jack

I wont argue about it, so I'll try a slightly different analogy. I could have just as easily used the analogy of an older model Ferrari vs. a newer model Ferrari. What is the purpose of a Ferrari? In the end, for most people it's a status symbol, a fashion accessory. Considering the fact that pretty much any car can go way faster than the legal speed limit, a Ferrari being built for speed is irrelevant. OK, so the newer version might have a fancy inboard computer, fuel injection and active suspension. But so what? Does that make it 'cooler'? Probably not. For many people, on the other hand, the older, tried and true version might give a bumpier ride and guzzle petrol (oops, an Australianism - for those affronted, insert 'gas' or some such) like nobody's business, but has arguably a lot more 'style' and 'character' than the newer version. I gave 3e a test drive and I simply didn't like what I saw ... and I wasn't making it up when I said I really wish that was different.

"Seems to me that there's a lot of people here who CLAIM to be great roleplayers who dislike 3e, and who claim that 3e is "dumbed down" and all that." - Jack

I don't think any critics of 3e on this post have claimed to be 'great roleplayers' ... that seems to be your own defensive assumption in response to other gamers criticisms of 3e. The point is more that 3e's emphasis on skills and feats as the main element of PC customisation might very easily detract from the 'old-fashioned' method of spending time creating an interesting personality and background, and then attempting to play that PC as written - a chance to be someone else in a distant, fantastical land for a few hours each week. If that is what you consider claiming to be a 'great roleplayer', then so be it.

"Is it DnD because of orcs, fireballs, and cure light wounds spells? Or is it DnD because of THAC0, non-weapon proficiencies, and an assortment of clunky, arcane rules? I'd argue that it's the former." - Jack

MERP has orcs, trolls and dragons, fireballs, sleep, haste, bless and telekinesis spells (all their ACTUAL names as printed). So, is MERP D&D too? IMO, D&D was in essence a generic fantasy roleplaying SYSTEM attached to no particular setting - and it was and still is a system I enjoy. So, when you change the latter - practically every core mechanic in that system (all those terrible things like THAC0 and non-weapon proficiencies etc.) - it simply ceases to be the original. After removing the innards of a Rolex and replacing it with the innards of a piece of plastic crap is it still a Rolex? One may or may not like the new system, but that's not the point. (Incidentally, I like the description 'arcane' ... kind of fits a sword-and-sorcery RPG, don't you think?)

Sigil, the seeds of some or all of the changes obviously have their origins in earlier editions, but for the most part if you knew how to do something in the earlier editions the chances are you wont know how it is done in 3e without having to read the new rules. As I said, the argument whether the changes are good or bad is another issue entirely. I really do take your point that most changes were made to already existing elements of D&D, but each alteration wasn't just a bit of tinkering around the edges to streamline the rules, but rather a substantial rewrite in most cases. Taken individually, each change can be considered RELATIVELY small (like the slight reorganisation of the Schools of Magic), but when taken all together it's, IMO, a different story.

You seem to somewhat contradict your own point by saying on one hand that because elements in 3e existed in earlier editions that automatically means 3e is still D&D, but then go on to say, correctly, that just because two systems have similar elements (like being level-based) they aren't necessarily the same game. So, just because 2e and 3e have similar elements doesn't necessarily make them the same game either. If you want examples of why 3e isn't really 'D&D' any longer (and why '3e just doesn't "feel" like D&D' for that matter), IMO here are just three off the top of my head which you have already discussed:

1) Saving throws: The earlier edition saving throws system added a lot of colour. Ok, the saving throw names were idiosyncratic but they were a term-of-art that players of D&D understood. Problems of deciding when to use what could have been easily resolved by a clearer explanation in the new rulebooks, rather than a total rewrite. Although, condensing them down into three saves made sense, and is one of the few rule changes I can understand on that level, it nevertheless means that 3e no longer is or 'feels' like D&D (taken with all the other changes, of course). You might argue there is still a saving throw system - and that equals 'D&D' - but that's a bit like saying that all cats have four legs, my dog has four legs, therefore my dog is a cat. '2e has saving throws, therefore 3e must be D&D' has the same sort of logic about it.

2) THAC0: C'mon, you've got to admit, just hearing the acronym for 'To Hit Armour Class 0' conjures up images of many-a-night spent round a table stuffing your face with junk food, staring at collection of weird dice, badly painted miniatures and a malicious bastard called a 'Dungeon Master'. OK, so you roll a dice and then compare it to a number to resolve combat encounters in all editions of D&D, but that's what all game mechanics (in most systems) pretty much boil down to in the end. The changes in how you determine that number is the real issue and why 3e is and 'feels' so different from AD&D (again, taken with other changes). 3e's one step beat-a-difficulty-number mechanic (i.e. your opponent's AC) is a bit too similar to many other RPGs (D6 Star Wars, for example).

2) Feats: These may be inflated versions of some earlier elements from AD&D, but their prominence in 3e and their elevation to use as mini-superpowers can make 3e feel, as I have said above somewhere, at best cartoon like and, at worst, like a bad kung-fu movie. Again, another change IMO that means that 3e no longer is or 'feels' like D&D (and again, taken with all the other changes). Like most of your examples, the point that some of the changes may have been conceived of, in one form or another, in earlier editions just isn't the point, it's how the various actions are resolved (i.e. the mechanics), and how they fit into the new system that is the issue.

At the end of the day, I can pick up an OD&D module printed, say in 1979, and run it with OD&D (in any incarnation), 1e or 2e rules today ... and have relatively few changes to worry about - changes that I can mostly make on-the-run during a game. This can't really be said of 3e. The common 'language' is obviously gone, and the internal power balances have been significantly altered also. IMO, the changes, for good or bad, were significant, and so the criticism that 3e 'just ain't D&D' is still valid.

As for the new 3e stuff ... well, WotC were always going to start pumping out loads of accessories once they got going, and some products were going to be utter crap and others were going to be pretty good (just like the Complete Handbook series etc.). So, Sam from Quebec, I hate to be the obnoxious member of the '3E sucks cock' brigade to say 'I told you so', but ... I told you so :)

Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year all :)

Tas

Sorry for the foul language, I'll go chew on a bar of soap now. ;)

By the way guys, Tas and Sigil agreed on something back in the LOTR post.... be affraid folks :)

I'm gone

Has anyone seen or read 12 Angry men? A great play from writen by Reginald Rose in the 50's that got turned into a movie and should have earned Henry Fonda an Oscar? Anyone?

Well, if not, you should rent the movie just for the sake of watching good drama. The debate here reminds me of it. Many of us have used the same argument techniques as the "bad guys" from that story. In the sense that many assume that their opinion or taste preference are general and apply to most if not all "sensible" people. Just like jury number 3 and 10 are convinced that their world view is THE world view.

What about the creative geeky insults we use on one another, like munchkins… WTF! Come on! If some people are power players and you don't like it, don't let them play at your table. RPGing isn't a unionized thing where seniority and other rules determine how one joins a group. The players and the game master decide how they want their game, that's it.

I, for one, like my adventures/games to be comprised of varying degrees of intrigue (AKA head achy part), comedy (AKA half witted puns and jokes), diplomacy (AKA the part where the fighters are back benching) and the gratuitous violence (AKA Da Rumble).

As much as I don't like munchkins or power gamers myself, I also hate the kind of player that constantly tells the DM what his familiar is doing and how he cares for it and how it feels and… "Will you shut up about that stupid crow man!" It's a question of finding the right balance for the group you play with.

Oh and Tas, alot of people on both sides of the argument have used the "We're better role players than you" argument. So Jack's reaction is only natural. Who started this "We're better than you" cheap argument I don't know, but it's there all over the post.

Some like clunky systems (their choice), some like things to be more functionnal. It depends on the learning capacities of the players and how much time and effort they are willing to spend on this wonderful hobby.

I myself would and have taken the time to learn the worst conceived games, some wouldn't (their loss). I must admit that a more accessible system can make it so that great ROLE PLAYERS can play, even if they don't have what it takes to master a quirky or complicated system like... GURPS.

Some say the rules make the game, some say the players do and some say it's a weird blend of the two. Whatever!

It's YOUR game. Keep playing 2E or Hack Master, don't switch if you don't like 3E. If you thought 2E sucked, sell your books to those who thought it was the best and switch to 3E.

I like arguing as much as the next guy, actually more than that if you ask my girl friend, but nobody here has added anything new for a while. Maybe we should start aguing about something else?

Should halflings look like hobbits or like shrunken elves? Should Flumphs be available as a player race? Or why do they always ask the same dumb riddles in every adventure?

Cthulhu Matata

A new class should be a summoner or a Demon or a Vampire.

uh, putting money into a company allowing it to make new stuff like cool new edition handbooks, good campaign settings, and releasing a lot of cool ESDs for low costs (but unfortunately not all countries) is not exactly "milking the cash cow".

Hey Pirate!

How fun would such characters be to play? Just wondering. If you can make 300 a round against a gold wyrm good for you (or your friend). All I say is min maxing existed even in first ed it gets inflated with every new player that puts his/her mind to it. There ain't much to it, heck you can even make killer PC's for Call of Cthulhu...

Wooz

Actually yes, with a high score, as long as you keep off the books... but what's the fun in that... Wich brings us back to the killer PC question... why do it? They get so tiresome after a while.

C ya all, moving tommorow so gotta catch some zzs

I've played D&D since the beginning. They have taken everything I hated about 1e and 2e (which are really more like 4e & 5e), everything Gygax vomitted from his unbalanced brain, everything that made no logical or even fantastical sense, and threw them out the window. Huzzah!

Thank God all that old Gygax crap is gone. Good riddence.

HEY FUCK YOU Jubilex!!!!! Gygax is a GOD!! Tomb of Horrors, The 1st edition DMG, Thats what the Game is all about. Without it all you have is this wussafied 12 year old 3E Shit. Now HackMaster, thats a Game. I hope to GOD that Gygaxs writes for this system. Die hards like melive for it.

im new so i mite be prgedst but im the dm in a grope im starting and 3e ruls look esre than 2e rules sonde. mim could be rong but i dout that sum how. if 3e brings in new blood then it cant be an all bad thing, canit

and by the way, sory for the speling mestaks but im dilexec

"Many 3e rules are not comprehensive, and are also littered -littered- with errors of logic."

Examples? I can provide numerous examples of logical errors in 1e. Infravision. Surprise chance (I'll get to this again in a moment). Multiclassing/Dual Classing. "The silly spectacle of taking a fighter with plate and a shield (AC 2) and giving him a +3 shield instead and getting a resultant AC of -1 (yup, 2+3= -1)." (quote taken from a book written in 1974!!!). Demi-human level limits... that's why the 30-yr old human wizard can be better than the 500-yr old elf wizard. Need I go on?

Perhaps you refer to some "fiat" decisions - like Darkvision replacing Infravision. Is Darkvision realistic? No. Does a "fiat" decision like this eliminate a TON of problems? Absolutely. The rationale, "it just works because it is magic" IS acceptable in a fantasy genre. I am generally not a fan of "fiat" decisions but on a limited basis, where the alternative is fifty pages of rules, I'll take the one sentence "fiat" decision that the game designers themselves admit was done by fiat in the interest of GREATLY simplifying things.

"THe playtesting was clearly not done."

**rolls eyes** The playtesting was clearly not done? Have you examined the back of the 3e Player's Handbook? You know, the page with the names of *hundred* of playtesters? Clearly, the playtesting *was* done - far more so than with 1e or 2e, which had a playtesting cadre of maybe a couple of dozen.

"This will have huge longterm effects in that as players advance their characters the DMs out there will strike more and more problems of game balance. In the computer games 3e is an imitation of, such as Diablo and similar, the problem is solved by simply ending the game... in a live "mental sport" like D&D it will cause a serious breach of trust within a gaming group when a group has to redefine its whole campaign every few adventures to prevent more and more powerful destructive effects from spoiling the feel of what is sold as a high fantasy experience."

Not quite sure what you are getting at here. I will grant that 3e appears to have taken a good share of "modeling" its world from computer games. It seems to me that the existing set of rules is very well-suited to conversion into computer code. But please be more specific in what you mean by "powerful destructive effects." Prismatic Spray, Meteor Swarm, and other such goodies (including the ultimate game-breaker, "Wish") have been around since 1e.

"Similar problems are emerging in the d20 rulebooks people have brought out."

Huh? You mean escalation of power? "Munchkinism" or what have you? How awful! We never saw any of that in the "good ol' days" of 1e ***cough*** psionics rules ***cough*** Unearthed Arcana ***cough*** or 2e ***cough*** Complete Handbooks ***cough*** Skills & Powers ***cough***. As far as "continued escalation" goes, I agree that this is a problem in most systems, 3e/d20 included. However, when I play, I use the "Core Rulebooks." That means the PH, DMG, and MM. And IMO, the 3rd edition set of Core Rulebooks contains a superior system to the 2nd and 1st editions. Add-ons are ALWAYS optional, and therefore should not be considered when looking at the merits of the mechanics of the game.

"In relation to the numbercrunching questions concerning surprise, etc., the person posing this deep question has skipped the stochastic modelling lesson in which the reason we use dice was explained -- we use dice so we DON'T have to calculate this. If character A surprises on 7 or less on d8 and character B negates surprise on 5 or less d12 or whatever, that is why we roll dice of the appropriate number of sides."

You danced around the question very adroitly without providing the answer. The person posing this deep question has a very deep grounding in statistical mechanics and modelling the world around him... he has a physics degree. He is me. Give me the answer to my question... "how do you determine surprise in this case?" and I will leave it be. You didn't even tell me which die do to roll, a d8 or d12? As for "skipping the stochasitc modelling lesson," good grief, I know the insides and outsides of the bell curves better than I care to. Let me provide a 2-minute explanation of "stochastic modelling" (modelling a world based on probability) and pose my question yet again.

A single die has a flat probability curve with a length determined by the number of possible outcomes (i.e., sides of the die). Adding modifiers to a die simply shifts this probability curve from side to side without changing its shape. Multiple dice create a bell-shaped probability curve, with the shape approximating a bell curve better and better the more dice we use. Again, modifiers added to/subtracted from the result simply shifts the curve from side to side without changing its shape.

Some of D&D's stochastic models are simple to understand... like rolling ability scores... we understand that a "curve" exists, with most people falling toward the center of the curve ("average" people). In rolling ability scores, most people have 10 or 11 in a given score. It means that exceptionally high or exceptionally low scores are rather uncommon. In other words, if you take 216 people, you expect only one of those to have an 18 Str, but you expect 27 of them to have a 10 Str. In other words, "all outcomes are not created equal," or you expect to see some results more frequently than others. This is not at all a bad thing for modelling human population, where you expect to see far more "average" specimens than "exceptional" specimens.

Compare this to combat in D&D. Once you do all the math involved with BAB, THAC0, or whatever, in both 1e and 3e it essentially boils down to "you have to roll at least this on a d20 to hit." That is a flat probability curve. If you take 200 rolls, you expect 10 rolls of 18 and 10 rolls of 10. Thus, if I am told that I need at least a 16 to hit, I can expect to hit 25% of the time. This is a simplistic model, but certainly adequate for combat.

Here we have two relatively straightforward, if unidentical, stochastic models. The question on the surprise rule then, is quite simple... WHAT IS THE UNDERLYING STOCHASTIC MODEL FOR SURPRISE IN 1ST EDITION AD&D?!?

We are given several points of reference. A "normal" situation has a 1 in 3 chance of surprise (1-2 on a d6). Some situations are not "normal," however - an exceptionally cautious character may be surprised only 1 in 6 times (1 on a d6) while a very stealthy character may surprise 7 times in 8 (1-7 on a d8). However, we know that both of these points are in relation to "normal." We do not have an independent spectrum on which we can measure them. And as I have mentioned, I have not been able to find a first-order or second-order equation on which they can be modelled, because we are not given enough information with which to model them. This is because we are always given surprise chances relative to "normal" and never relative to another "non-normal" point. Hence, we have no idea of how the "surpriser" and "surprisee" abilities should scale relative to one another.

What it boils down to - and I cannot state this strongly enough - is that there IS no underlying stochastic model for surprise in 1st edition AD&D. What we have instead is a "by fiat" system... the farthest thing from a consistent statistic model. Rather than a nifty mathematical expression (i.e., a consistent, underlying stochastic model), we have a "because I said so" expression. Ugh!

"It is redundant to attempt to port such calculations to another expression with the same or higher difficulty."

It is redundant, but it is useful for the sake of examining the underlying statistical model, or indeed, to note if such a model can even be found. Anyone who has made a detailed study of the use of statistics in science will tell you that in order to draw meaningful conclusions, your data curve must be subjected to several different statistical analyses, some of which are somewhat redundant but which are required for gaining a meaningful interpretation of the data.

"Although, how difficult is it to generate a percentile out of the product of two fractions, with or without a calculator?"

Ah, so you believe that surprise is the product of two fractions. Wonderful. Let us see if this is consistent with what we find in the rules. If what you are saying is true, then the total surprise chance should be the probability that the surprisee is surprised times the probability that the surpriser can surprise. This also indicates that neither R(n) nor E(n) can ever be greater than unity (1) because it is statistically invalid to have a probability of an occurence greater than 1... in our example, that is to akin to saying that someone will surprise you 150% of the time that they meet you.

If we call R(n) the normal chance of the surpriser to surprise and E(n) the normal chance of the suprisee to be surprised, we can then proceed from there to get an equation of R(n)*E(n) = 1/3 (since "normal" surprise chance is 1/3). Wonderful!

What can we conclude so far? R(n) and E(n) are both between 0 and 1 and their product is 1/3. Let us assume, for sake of simplicity, that R(n) is equal to 1. Then E(n) must be 1/3. Okay. Let us now take the case of the "hard to surprise" character (call his surprisee chance E(h) for the case of this example) against a "normal surpriser" (who will again be represented by R(n)). We then have E(h)*R(n)=1/6. But since we assumed R(n)=1 in the example above, we have to stay with that assumption. Thus, E(h)=1/6. Well, that's kind of what we expected... E(h) is half of E(n). Okay. We're still doing fine.

But now we have to go the other way... what happens when a monster's probability of surprising is better than normal (say, 7 in 8). Well, our guess above that R(n) is 1 must be wrong, since we already said R(n) is 1 and R cannot be greater than 1. Let's ignore that for the time being, though, and do the math anyway. We can always apply a scalar at the end to make our results more palatable, right? We'll just bump up E(n) by a factor and bump R(n) down the same factor at the end of this exercise. Well, going back to our original question, we find that R(g)*E(n)=7/8. Since E(n) is 1/3 (from above), E(g)=21/8. In order to bring this down below 1, let us apply a scalar constant... let's pick 1/3. That means that we must adjust our figures above... divide E's by three and multiply R's by three. We end up with R(g)=7/8, E(n)=1, E(h)=1/2, and R(n)=1/3.

This suggests to us that our surprise equation is 3*R*E where R and E are the given die rolls, expressed as fractions, of the surpriser and the surprisee. In normal conditions, R=1/3, E=1/3, so the total is 3*(1/3)*(1/3) = 1/3. In the case of an alert character, we get 3*(1/3)*(1/6)=1/6. In the case of a stealthy monster and a normal character, we get 3*(7/8)*(1/3)=7/8. And in the case of a stealthy monster and an alert character, we get 3*(7/8)*(1/2)=7/16. While 7/16 is not very palatable for die-rolling, it can still be done fairly easily.

Looks good so far. BUT what about a character who is surprised more easily (perhaps he is rip-roaring drunk)... say, on a 1-3 on a d6? And let's assume he is being stalked by our patented stealthy monster? No problem! Let's just apply the formula... 3*(1/2)*(7/8)=21/16. Hmm.... 21/16 is greater than 1. That means that a simple formula such as multiplying surprise chances does not work. "Well, why can't we just change the 3 to something else?" you ask. Okay, let's change it to 2. Well now if we use it to determine "normal surprise" we get... oh, darn... 2*(1/3)*(1/3) 2/9. That's not right. We have to scrap this approach entirely.

Thus, we see that the surprise rule is NOT a simple multiplication of fractions!

The only other possibility that might save us would be to use a product of (1-surprise chances). This is also a valid physical concept. Maybe it should be: Surprise Chance = (1-E)*(1-R)*constant. We can check this quickly enough... under normal circumstances, the surprisee is NOT surprised 2/3 of the time and the surpriser does NOT surprise 2/3 of the time. The product of the inverses is 4/9. If it's simply multiplying fractions, we have to have a constant. Since we know that in this case we are looking for 1/3, it quickly becomes clear that the necessary constant would be 3/4. Okay, let's check with our stealthy monster... he does NOT surprise 1/8 so we have the following: 1/8*2/3*3/4 = 1/16. Hmm. That didn't work either.

Our last resort is (1-Surprise Chance) = (1-E)*(1-R)*constant. In the normal case, we know (1-Surprise Chance) is 1-(1/3) or 2/3. So we have 2/3=4/9*constant, telling us the constant should be 3/2. Let's again check this with our stealthy monster. we have 2/3*1/8*3/2 = 1/8. Okay, 1-(1/8) is 7/8... hey, we may be on to something. How about a character who is thoroughly sloshed (1/2)? When we crank that through we get 1/2*1/8*3/2 or 3/32 that he is not surprised or 29/32 that he is. Still okay, that's less than 1.

The acid test is to do something that pushes the bounds. How about a super-stealthy creature that surprises on a 99 in 100 and a super-uncautious character who is surprised on 99 in 100. Okay, let's run it... 1/100*1/100*3/2 is 3/20,000. Then we wind up with a surprise chance of 19,997/20,000. Still not greater than 1, so we're okay. But we have to do the other extreme too... a super-loud creature that surprises on a 1 in 100 and a super-alert character surprised only on a 1 in 100. We now have 99/100*99/100*3/2 or 29,403/20,000 ... and that's greater than 1. So close, yet so far. (1-Chance) isn't going work either.

Are you convinced that the surprise rule is NOT a simple multiplication of fractions yet? Suffice to say I spent three days trying to "reverse-engineer" the statistical probability model behind the surprise rule. And I COULD NOT DO IT. Not with addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, or exponents (I didn't try logarithims but I doubt they will work either).

Simply put, the surprise rule is mathematically inconsistent. We can "hand-wave" logical inconsistencies by saying, "we're abstracting stuff" or "we're intentionally dumbing things down to make it easier" (e.g., hit points or rounding all creature speeds to 5 or 10 feet per round rather than 9.4 feet per round). Nobody minds if you call gravity 10 m/s/s - it's close enough to 9.8 m/s/s that it will work for a simplified view of the world. But if you tell me that gravity goes on a 1/r^5 law, I'll get upset with you. :-)

I guess the point of all of this is simple... 3e is a more fundamentally sound game than its precursors. It takes a certain set of assumptions about the way the world works (the 30' rule is a good one to look at - "you can't target super-accurately beyond 30', hence no sneak attack bonuses") and, within those assumptions, creates a self-consistent and unified framework (I've already griped about and pointed out that 1e is essentially a collection of tables derived from a number of wargames with various world models, not all of which are consistent with one another).

You can question the validity of the assumptions, certainly ("well, *I* have pinpoint accuracy at 60 feet, so 30 feet is not a good rule"). But when creating an RPG, some abstraction MUST take place, and so there are always going to be assumptions you can challenge ("IRL, abilities of the general population don't curve like a 3d6 curve - it's more like a 6d6 curve"). But to properly adjudicate the balance and worth of a set of game rules, it is absolutely necessary to treat them within the context of themselves. The question should not be, "are these rules exactly right" because the answer is ALWAYS going to be "no." The question should rather be, "do these rules form a self-consistent way of expressing a universe to a reasonable degree of accuracy" with the companion question, "what degree of accuracy is reasonable given the expectations of the game." A game that tries to be very accurate modeling the real world (like GURPS) should be held to a higher standard than one that admittedly makes a number of abstractions (like D&D). Hit points are abstract. AC is abstract. These are NOT perfect representations of the real world, but the authors note that up front and say, "this is as granular as our system gets." IOW, (for those who will remember what I'm talking about), don't be surprised if you can see the pixels on a CGA monitor but also don't complain that your VGA version of the picture is much more complex and bigger than the CGA version. Game designers have to balance "ease of use" with "accuracy" with "consistency" with "universal applicability" with "page count." You must sacrifice one to get better at another (i.e., the greater degree of accuracy you desire, the worse will be the ease of use).

I feel 3e does the best job of any system to date of creating a "good model," by which I mean, "doing a good job of modeling the universe to the desired degree of accuracy." There are far fewer rules contradictions in 3e than previous versions. They have made an effort to do most of the modeling on the same "scale" even if that sacrifices a little accuracy in the name of ease of use (e.g., Skills replacing Thief's Abilities). That I prefer 3e's model does not mean 2e or 1e did not also have good models - it merely means that I think 3e's model suits my tastes better (by which I mean "less attention to statistical detail" - though obviously I can do that - so that "ease of use" is improved and I can concentrate on role-playing as a player or creating memorable adventures/scenes/villains as a DM instead of worrying about arbitrary details and charts).

3e, to me, is more "free-flowing" than 2e because its streamlined mechanics rely less on "lookup on charts" than its precursors. That is NOT for everyone. Some people like THAC0. Some people like five saving throws. That's wonderful. But don't tell me that 2e is a more consistent model or that 3e "falls down" logically in its rules application. It's simply not true.

I'm done now. Flame away, but you STILL haven't answered my very first question... what is the underlying statistical (or if you prefer "stochastic") model for surprise in 1e and 2e? I have just ripped to shreds the common fallacious assumption that is the product of two fractions.

Come on, 1e and 2e lovers! You've had what, over 15 months now? *winks*

--The Sigil

P.S. - Seriously, I am just teasing a bit with surprise - I still love 1e and 2e and bD&D... and those who play it. I just like 3e more.

Hi, more on the fascinating statistical discussion (I am not being sarcastic, I am finding it very stimulating).

By way of preamble, I referred to the product of two fractions to illustrate the specific not the general case. The general case is what I want to begin consideration of below, or rather to continue the exposition of, since the worthy efforts of The Sigil come before.

To make this as accessible as possible to general readership, I will attempt to translate any 'numbercrunching' into slightly longhand form.

Thinking over the modelling issue, I believe the peculiarity in 2e AD&D is a result of two things.

Firstly, there are clear errors of logic in some of the chances given. Allied to this is the occasional historical comment from EGG and others that although various dice were recommended for surprise what they had started with was a percentile chance, that they then rounded to the nearest whole polyhedron dice - making it very difficult to see what the original chance was perceived as being after the game designer on the spot swapped out the % for a chosen die to roll.

Secondly, I believe that surprise enshrined not one but two rules calls. The first rule call was what we are talking about, the innate surprise rating the character is carrying around with them. The second rules call was the evaluation of the environmental factors that dictated enhancements or penalties to surprising and being surprised.

Surprise was described as being formed from

1. a chance of surprising someone else, and
2. a separate chance some characters had of negating surprise better than a typical surprised person could.

So given an x-sided dice, and a PRESUMED successful surprise condition if y or less is rolled on that x-sided dice, other than if a victim could negate that surprise, the person surprising has surprised the target.

Now, the question is not a uniform consideration of a presumed die rolled for ALL people surprised to see if they can negate the surprise they are assumed to be under.
The better way to see it is that IF the first die rolled for the creature surprising indicates success, the target IS surprised IFF (if and only if) there is no other factor that may negate surprise for that target.

So surprise is calculated as
____________________________________________
CHANCE OF SURPRISING multilpied by CHANCE THAT TARGET HAS A MEANS OF NEGATING SURPRISE

Now, if the target -can- negate surprise, -has- the target negated surprise?

At that point, we must ascertain what the target is in terms of what category of surprise negators it is in.

__________________________________________
How do we ascertain which category each target of surprise is in?

We refer back to the population breakdowns. Percentages for all characters from Level 0 clod to umpteenth level god are given in increasingly explicit detail in each iteration of D&D with respect to occurrence per 1000 of population*.
Assuming also that there is a default chance of not being surprised even for a Level 0 schmuck, this still does not harm the suggested model as we plug that in for the case where the target is NOT in any other identified class.

______________________________________________
Now for each of the slices of the population there is a different (sometimes crazy) surprise negation chance - for example a certain nutty class or kit might only be surprised on a 1 or 2 on d20 or whatever. This doesn't matter for any given campaign world, as the DM knows whether or not he or she is going to allow that class or not and can then put them into the population breakdown or not. Using only the default PHB classes for convenience, the calculation of surprise negation is then

___________________________________________
CHANCE THAT THE TARGET IS OF THAT CLASS (call it CLASS%) multiplied by CHANCE THAT THE TARGET'S CLASS NEGATES SURPRISE (call it SURPRISED%)
______________________________________________
If you use a version of D&D that gives everyone a chance to negate surprise, then CLASS% = 100% ie it is a certainty that the person is of a class that can negate surprise. IF you DON'T use such a version of D&D then the CLASS% is equal to the sum of all the chances that a person can be of a class that can negate surprise.
______________________________________________
SURPRISE% is going to be different for all the classes whose chance of occurrence is part of CLASS%, based as it is on all those weird dice regimens.
However, crunching them out for your version of D&D will give the absolute chance for the given D&D world that surprise is negated, and when this is added to the expression we arrive at a final formula which is based solely on the D&D rules and can form a simple (at least once it is all worked through) map of the range of surprise chances. From that one can hopefully plot the variation by class of surprise and theorise as to missing classes or abilities that might explain otherwise aberrant surprise modifiers within the classes.

To this has to be added the external factors listed in the rules that modify the chances of surprise. These include environmental factors like shadows, being underwater, being blind drunk and so on as referred to by The Sigil. Each of these factors is applicable to all characters in theory but in practice is not universally applied. I agree with The Sigil that the arbitrary nature of the surprise modifiers, particularly as they accreted to the system over many years, made working with them intellectually uncomfortable. However, it would be possible to at least list them as other axes of the same graph under my percentile approach, and identify exactly where the modifiers ARE inconsistent for no logical reason. At that point we could productively suggest smoothing of such aberrations by introductions of different modifiers, or else see if there really is some other reason for such spikes or troughs in probability as the dice modifiers would require.

-J

*In older D&D, by reference to statistics required to be a class versus dice roll method to produce same, and encounter chart frequency of class; in 2e by reference to explicit mention in Players' Option entries and elsewhere; in 3e explicit mention is made of occurrence of class by % of population

Jonathan, You did not answer The Sigil's question. What the frell is the chance of surprise?

And Sigil, tell me you did not start your dates with statistical analysis banter, that's even worst than talking about RPG's, comic books or stamps. (unless you happen to meet someone that shares your obsession).

Anyone noticed that the Gamer hasn't answered my questions regarding his fanatism... Hey Gamer are you saying I'm right?

Hey Max! 3E is a money making ploy! But that does't keep me from liking the game. A company that puts out a product and doesn't expect to make money from it is doomed to go the dino's way.

Good for you, and them : )

i would like to with draw my above coment. when i did this i was rushed for time (i dont have the internet at home but surf the web from an iternet cafe) i had only read aoupel of comets and, hveing lost a thred like this befor, i dested to put my post in then. i am very sorry if this has coulsd any afen.

T2 then I am truly sorry for my comment. It's just that you should see the level of anger some anti 3E people have out there.

I don't need to add insult to injury by asking you to prove you have dyslexia.

Back to the topic at hand.

So what you're saying T2 is that the 3E rule have made the game more accessible to you then?

Because they are clearer, which in turns makes them easier to read and so allows you to play a great game and join the gaming community without having to bust your head reading rules that make less logical sense than an IKEA assembly manual.

How can that be a bad thing "Gamer" and other anti 3E advocates?

More people to play with gives us more choice as to who we play with… oh but then we might not have to be stuck with Gamer and his bunch of grumpy old gamers. : - b

"A new edition is supposed to clerify and fix what was wrong with the original, not change the damn thing so much that I can't which way is up."

You mean like Windows XP (compare to Win 3.1)? That hasn't fixed the problems that were wrong with the original...

Oh, wait, sorry, wrong rant...

It comes to this... where are your "gaming values?" If you want a game that is more easily accessible to "new blood", 3e is a better choice than 1e/2e/HM. If you want a game that has a lot of complexity and many options, 1e/2e/HM is the choice. If you want a game where the mechanics "stay out of the way" during gameplay and you can improvise with just a single die, 3e is a better choice. If you want a game where the mechanics are important (and you don't mind constantly referencing rulebooks and tables), 1e/2e/HM is for you. If you're looking for a consistent rules system that feels homogeneous in combat, checking for traps, casting spells, haggling with merchants, with very few inconsistencies, 3e is for you. If you're looking for a system where combat has a different feel than checking for traps, which both have a different feel than casting spells, which all have a different feel than haggling with merchants, and you're willing to live with a few inconsistencies, 1e/2e/HM is for you.

As has been stated many times, it's not the system that produces the role-playing... you can role-play regardless of the system (heck, you can role-play Monopoly). However, the way the game "feels" has a lot to do with the rules (like it or not).

I personally prefer 3e because it is much more free-flowing, IMO, thanks to the d20 mechanic. I am not constantly referencing charts (in fact, one of the things I like about 3e is that I don't need a DM screen) and can concentrate more on ambience, atmosphere, and interaction of characters (PC and NPC). Players can quickly pick up on the system, so I am able to add new people to my campaign frequently. While the hue and cry goes up from the old-school, "it is conducive to munchkinism" (I personally disagree, but that's not the point), I would point out that "because it makes the game mechanics more transparent, it is conducive to role-playing."

This is not to say that there is no place for the DM's screen with all of its tables and characters moving through an area in a dungeoncrawl, with bags full of dice and constant rulebook-referencing 1e-style. Obviously, I did that for a good number of years, too. :-) The cry goes up from the 3e crowd, "but 1e is so complicated and confusing," to which I respond, "yes, but it is trying to present a slightly more realistic model than 3e" (I happen to think that while it is a slightly more realistic model in some places, some of the underlying assumptions in other places are quite odd - like surprise - or just flat out wrong - like "the problem with infravision", but I appreciate that it in general is slightly more realistic with things like weapon speeds and so forth).

I also think that while 3e does seem to have a slight focus towards "use miniatures on graph paper when enacting battles," 1e shows its "miniatures/wargaming" roots much more by its choice of movement scales (you DO know that this is why 10 feet was abbreviated as 1", right? Because the scale of the miniatures was 10 feet to 1 inch). IOW, 3e tends to explicitly call for miniatures but they are not necessary to understand the nomenclature, while 1e almost requires an understanding of miniatures in order to understand the system of nomenclature. Either way, miniatures clearly enhance the experience but are not necessary... but it serves to illustrate the similarities of the systems... both ultimately hearken back to miniature wargaming roots and are not as different as either the 3e or 1e/2e/HM pundits would have us believe.

All that said, I happen to prefer the 3e style of play. This does not automatically make me munchkin, elitist, stupid, smart, inclusive or anything else. It simply makes me "one who prefers 3e." It does not make those who prefer the 1e style of play munchkin, elitist, stupid, smart, inclusive or anything else.

Are we all clear on this? Whether or not you want to admit it, once you strip away all the rule trappings and probability curves, 3e and 1e are, at their hearts, fundamentally the same... much more similar, actually, than Palladium and 3e (despite Palladium's longtime use of the d20 mechanic). We all like different manifestations of the same fundamental system and let's quit bickering about which is better... depending on your specific use for the mechanics, one will be better for that particular situation than the other, but across the board, well, that's a different story entirely.

I'm done for now.

--The Sigil