The Demise of Dungeons & Dragons
Change can be a good thing. Without change, several of history's momentous events would never have come about. We would be currently living a life so much dissimilar to what we know it would hardly be recognizable. Change is not always good, though. Some things are better left the way they were. I'm not sure what Wizards of the Coast was thinking when they started this grand venture, but I'm hoping they missed the mark and are just too embarassed to admit it.
Change can be a good thing. Without change, several of history's momentous events would never have come about. We would be currently living a life so much dissimilar to what we know it would hardly be recognizable. Change is not always good, though. Some things are better left the way they were.
Wizards of the Coast have been a rising force in the gaming world since the advent of Magic: The Gathering. They have taken great leaps of faith in a card game that was sure to fail, it was so different from the norm. But, in the face of adversity, Magic flourished. Now WotC is turning it's visionary viewpoint on a tried and true favorite of gamers around the world, AD&D.
Dungeons & Dragons has went through a few changes already, from first edition to second edition, from basic to advanced. I have played D&D for 16 years now and was never so happy as to see 2nd edition grace the shelves of bookstores and game shops. It was new, refreshing and an answer to many problems and questions that arose out of 1st edition. Don't get me wrong, 1st edition was a blast to play and was a revolutionary step in roleplaying. 2nd edition, however, raised the standard even higher, adding new elements to the rules, changing some monsters and adding new ones. Some creatures were removed from the game, a few to placate angry parents who thought there was a satanic undertone to the game and a few to balance out the worlds created by the designers and gamers alike. Over all it is the best game, I feel, to ever come out of man's imagination and creativity. Now we have AD&D, 3rd edition.
I'm not sure what Wizards of the Coast was thinking when they started this grand venture, but I'm hoping they missed the mark and are just too embarassed to admit it. From the few bits and pieces about the 3rd edition I've seen, many changes have taken place, so much so that the original core set of rules almost seems non-existant. THAC0 has been removed entirely, relying on a challenge rating of the creature being fought by party members as well as a rating assigned to the party themselves. Action or battle also consists of feats, instead of proficiencies. Saving throws have been reduced to 3 categories and initiative has been reverted to highest number goes first.
Initiative
Initiative has always preceded any other action in a round of AD&D combat mode. Your necromancer wants to cast that spell he's been drooling over? Roll initiative. Your paladin took personal affront to the orc spitting on his holy symbol? Roll initiative. It's been the basis of combat and action since the game began. I have nothing against the change back to higher goes first. However, the roll is now made with a d20 instead of the d10 previously used. This may not be that big a deal, and certainly wouldn't make the game any less enjoyable, were it not for the fact that there are now all kinds of variables to add or subtract from the initiative roll. No longer do you have to take into account weapon speed or the casting time of spells, but now you have the feats and other special bonuses, etc. to make your roll higher or lower, depending on what it calls for. I'm sure the thought all this would make combat rounds much easier, but I fail to see their line of thinking. Adding in that many variables to take into account for such a simple part of the round as initiative does not seem, to me, to be beneficial and would take much more time rather than make the play more fast paced. Another change to initiative is the fact that you keep the same roll throughout the combat session. If you go third on the first round, you go third for each subsequent round. Unless you choose to focus your action, wherein you lose your action for that round but are allowed to automatically go first next round. Why not just keep the tried and true method of deciding who goes first each round?
Armor Class and THAC0
Since the change between 1st edition and secone edition, THAC0 has been an integral part of combat. It was a simple equation to figure out how hard it was for you to hit whatever you decided to attack. The monster's AC is 0, you're a 2nd lvl warrior, so you need a base roll of 19 to hit the offending foe. Simple, right? Apparently Wizards of the Coast didn't think so. They wanted to simplify the rules for D&D even more and do away with THAC0, replacing it with a greater number of variables to add or subtract from your ability to damage a certain adversary. Challenge ratings, difficulty ratings, etc.. There are now so many different pluses and minuses that I wonder if the rulebooks will resemble algebra textbooks from high school. You can hit if your (blahblah) is added to the initial roll of (ugh), then subtracting your (squeak) from the base number of (honk)... OK, I'm generalizing and probably making it sound more complicated than it really is. But in my mind it's more difficult to do all this than to just keep it the way it was. Which brings me to Armor Class. They've changed that, too. Now, the higher your AC, the better. An AC of 20 is incredibly good for the defender and disheateningly bad for the attacker. What was wrong with the way it was? Nothing that I, nor the group I've had the fortune of DM'ing and playing with for years, could see.
I don't claim to know everything about the 3rd edition of our favorite roleplaying game (and the cause of many late, sleepness nights of pizza and bloodshed). I don't claim to be an expert on 2nd edition. What I am is a concerned gamer. Concerned with the path Wizards of the Coast has chosen for my favorite roleplaying game of all time. What's next? Will Tiamat become the very model of a modern major general? Will Elminster become a necromancer? Will umberhulks become the choice pet for kings and queens the land over? How many licks does it take to get to the center of... OK, you get my point.
Blimey Gamer! You seem to be vaguely reasonable now. Whatever happened?
:)
Do you really need the books to "back you up". If the players wont agree with your decisions and play along with them, surely that is due to the interpersonal skills of the group not the rules of the game.
If you're not screwing players over, I've found that most groups of players (experienced and newbees) will go along with your decisions as long as they are consistant. Yes, rules spelled out in minute detail can make that easier as a GM to maintain that consitancy, but often slow the game down and result in lots of dice being rolled. They can never cater for every eventuality either, so to some extent you can never rely on the rules to back you up 100% of the time.
3e seems more consistant throughout the system, be it twating someone over the head with an axe or climbing the wall in the first place the reach the afore mentioned twating situation.
If you handle similar situations in a similar way each time, then even if your style of GMing is completely different to someone elses most players I find are quite happy, they know the score and know what to expect from you. This can be irrespective of system. The way I GM is similar in CP2020 and SLA to the way I DM in D&D. The rules are different, but my adjudication of situations will be the same. If people don't like the way I play, it will tend to be because they don't get on with my style, rather than they don't like the rules.
That isn't to say that shit rules are not going to cause friction, they will. But in the whole, getting people not listening to your rulings boils down to their relationship with you.
You may not think 3e rules are the best, but there is no way they are shit (for any of the tossers that will just say they are, explain reasonably or fuck off). They are still on the whole giving a very similar feeling game (my players didn't really notice the difference after about a fortnight). Yeah, they are not perfect, but no system is, even 2e. They are better than most. Whether they are better than Hackmaster, I cannot say. I've never played it, but they seem to work fairly easily and as a GM using them, I have fewer gripes about the system than any other. Just because most decisions can be made by rolling one die, therefore speeding my game up so that we can roleplay and not worry about the rules.
Baron
I've read through a lot of the posts (not all). I started playing in 1979. I played with the basic rules and then advance rules when they came out until about 1995. I started playing again this year and I started with 3E. I was a good learning curve ( I'm obviously not young any more). I like the 3E rules, most things it simplified. As a DM I can get involved with the characters more and spend less time making sure I am following all the little rules. As for the THAC0 – That always seemed stupid to me. You had to have a chart to see if you hit and when you leveled up you had to change that chart. Now they roll and give me their to hit – I say hit or miss. I seldom tell them what armor class they’re attacking, if they’re not familiar with the monster they would not know anyway. Some of the new rules take time to get use to but over all I like them. I am playing with a mixed group – some new players some I have played with for years.
I too started playing in 1979. Old school:
Judge's Guild:
Citadel of Fire
Caverns of Thracia
The Temple of Set
City State of the Invincible Overload
The G series
T1: pillaging the village of Hommlet
It was never in the rules. These are like a cloak.
As long as the DM appears consistent, the game flows.
Does anyone remember the cover of the first Player's Handbook or the Efrete (sp) Lord on the first Dungeon's Master Guide. Shocking; transforming. I remember getting the D&D basic set and knowing I had found my home. There was no place else I would rather be than campaigning. Do you remember the thrill of your first campaign. The uncertainty, the edge. That's the heart of the game. (Re)Capturing that is the job of the skilled DM.
Looking back, the rules and the fights over interpretation that they beget are part of the core memory but not the essential factor.
Of course, I'm lying about the rule: I spent weeks memorizing the books,
precisely to prevent arguments from hindering the game's flavor.
Back when I was young we spent every Saturday, all day, playing. The rules were more of guidelines than etched in stone. They gave you the freedom to play the game. Those that want everything spelled out for them need to play monopoly where the rules are rigid. We did not have a lot of time wasted on arguing on someone trying to do impossible things because they were, well, impossible. The rules gave us these guidelines on what could be possible and what should not be. The rules did this not be restricting the game but by opening it up to us with guidelines. 3E carries this on by being ‘vague’ at times and specific at others when needed.
I never played under 2E (Have about 30 2E books sitting in a box) nor have I played under ‘Hackmaster’. Nor will WOC ever get rich of me (my group tends to write our own modules after we get the fill for the rules). We rotate DMs as new people get the experience and want to give it a try. Our game stays the same, as we are consistent in our interpretation of the rules. No fights, no serious augments, just good gaming.
Thanxs for the soap box.
I have found differences in the systems but don't get me wrong is change good. Now adays kids are the new gamers and WotC is targeting them with there simplified rules. As to the feat system it lets you make you charecter different from the norm. The only way you could do that is with skills and powers for 2nd edition. Now about 3rd Edition being not D&D only a bunch of book with the title (not exact quote from earlier But that is what i undestood from what i read) the only true edition of D&D was the fisrt game they ever created everything else was a copy or mimic of it in some way but not the real thing
As to my last post i have not played anything lower than 2nd edition Ad&d so if there is a way to alter the char. so it is not a sterotype like in sec a fighter was just that a fighter he couldn't change to much about the style of fighting he did it was just hack and slash. Not a unquie version of fighting like get a longsword and running up to a crowd of mobs and killing several of them before they get a chance but then another fighter runs up there and only kills one but his strength lies in the next round when he pulls out a whirldwind attack. Then you have you mages who can just throw out some ultimate spells that get nasty and just decimate but to do that you have to get high lv so it becomes evened out for that aspect. now i am not trying to say your opions are wrong. but that is my opion. and gamer i agree with what you said about older gamer and newbies it was right on to a point i have play only for a few years and i was reluctant to play 3e until i tried it but i like it for it versitilty of the char's. In my own opion about it as i said before Wotc made a smart move in simplifying the game so the younger kids will understand it because face guys and girls they are the new audeince not us companies look at who is gonna by the product and it is the kids i mean the put out pokemon cards.... no offense to those who accutally play that game...
I'm new to this post, so this may seem totally out of place and not going with the flow but ive noticed something about most off the previous posts. You are all agreeing and thinking you are disagreeing.
--3rd Edition D&D is not 2nd edition AD&D. this is a fact in both the technical and the metaphorical ways.
Here is why:
--the system is 65% or more different...thats because it was designed that way, but dammit its a working system and one that works well. I know some of you are so attatched to the 2nd edition green char sheets, i was and it took mea while to realize that some things are better in 3rd edition.
--some rules and therefore some detail has been removed from the game. This is true, but once again there is a reason. The reason is thus, too many rules slow the game down...the golden rule as a DM was if you couldn't remember the specifics of a rule make it up. I ask you why do you need to know the percentage chance of a character finding edible/poisoned or no food in a temperate mountainous region with the foraging proficiency? you don't if he can forage give him food, once in a blue moon make him sick from eating the wrong berry, and lose the rule. 3rd edition focuses on ROLE-playing, not ROLL-playing. less rolls means more game time=more fun.
Before you knock the system buy the three core rulebooks Players Handbook, Dungeon Master's guide, and Monster Manual(i know its a hurt on the pocket book, but borrow them if you have to) and read them, theres at least some great artwork, and they give ability scores to the monsters. WOTC may have simplified it, but its not because they think were simpletons, its to improve and increase gameplay.
1e is great it has all kindes of tables that are always used in play thay give extre detail druges/alcahal, magical effects of jewls,effects of plants,chance of rolling a high or low nomber on a 3d6,cartoon strips,art,and alot more.2e is clearer and easear to use but the format/art is tireing. the remake of 2e is great i use it. and i run a campain that uses alot of the extra books.which sort of brings me to 3e i'm sorry but it just isent their. the books may look cool but i think a good DM keeps to 1,2e PS:please DO NOT wast your money on 3e
Why?
Qualify your statement.
Why does a good DM stick to 1,2e?
Surely if 3e has not got all the tables etc that you mention, the DM has to be better, to live without them...
Or has 3e got rid of loads of tables, because you don't need them? Stopped the need to constantly cross-reference between the books and allowed the game to flow better. No "Hang on a sec........ Ah here it is..." statements from the DM.
I’d disagree with your statement that 3e lack detail. I personally think things are laid out better with enough detail that the majority of things are easily understood. If YOU feel there isn’t enough detail for various things, then maybe you’re not as good a DM as I, who manages quite happily without them…
Don’t just generically call me (as a 3e DM) crap, unless you can justify your view.
Baron
PS Please find a decent spell/grammar checker
Hey Baron!
Ever consider that for "3esuckes" English could be a second language and that he/she writes by ear? Read a few posts back and you can find a person (T2) who suffers from a form of dyslexia-like writing problem, I sure put my foot in my mouth that time...
Still 3ES, you'd need to devellop your point a bit more than that. Even if it is to repeat the same stuff we've seen ad-nauseam on this post for the last... 18 months I think?
WILL YOU ALL SHUTUP!
My God you people have to complain about a lot of nothing, or maybe I'm wrong. I think you should just use the whatever rules you prefer. I started playing the game on the 2nd Edition, and have hooked ever since. I myself found some things such as saving throws unable to encompass certain things, so if a player needed to make a reflex check, as 3rd Edition calls it, I would just use the players dexterity, after all isn't dexterity reflexes?
Anyway, I stopped using all the rules and now just use my own, modeled after all the rules. I create my own classes, races, monsters, spells, worlds, cities, etc. I don't rely on charts unless I feel there is a need, I've only used a chart once. I don't buy all those modules out there unless my players want to play that bad. Those who say 2nd Edition is all hack-and-slash COULD be right, I wouldn't be sure. I reward people on good roleplaying, making good decisions, of course defeating monsters, using their abilities in a smart way. I've done many other things that all are based on 2nd edition rules, and now rarely use the 2nd edition books or 3rd edition for that matter.
As for all of your arguing, well I just have to say that there isn't much of a difference between the two editions. I had always thought the game was based on roleplaying, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT RULES YOU USE. 3rd Edition is for those who don't excel in math, and I respect that, I don't even think all the changes are bad, but if I didn't make all my own rules, which many players might prefer anyway(it would make all DM's more diverse if they tried to make their own rules, instead of arguing over which rules are better).
So whether or not I've proved my point doesn't matter to me, I'm not so limited that I HAVE to stick with pre-determined rules, after all if I didn't make my own rules and changes my players could play with any of the other 3 DM's in my neighborhood. So now I leave you people, not that I made any sense, goodbye and have a bad, or good if you prefer, life.
OK. I feel I have to do this now, after 2 years. I'm the original write of this "rant", article or whatever you want to call it. It's amazing to see that it is still receiving repsonses after all this time. I feel honored that so many have responded to this, no matter what their opinions are. After all, they are just that: opinions. I was asked to write this article by a very good friend with whom I played Asheron's Call with. I did as much research as I could at the time, as 3rd ed. wasn't out just yet. I gave my opinion as to what WotC was doing to the D&D universe. Granted, some of what I've heard since it's release do sound appealing. However, for me the majority of what 3rd ed. encompasses is just plain useless to me. As others have stated, and the books state themselves, the rules are not set in stone. DM's, for years now, have been adjusting, or even changing completely of doing away with, the core rules, since almost day one. That's what makes this game genre one of, if not THE, best in the entire world. We have the ability to change what we don't like or tweak it to make it more suitable to our style or even a universe we've made up. As Asmadeus said, I've made up entire worlds, complete with cities and their own unique rulers, my own creatures, villains and quests, magic items, etc. Some say WotC made 3rd ed. what it is because so many gamers needed different rules or changes or whatever. All that means to me is WotC found a way to get people to spend a lot of money on a whole new set of books which, essentially, take care of changing around or getting rid of anything some people thought was necessary. Fine, let WotC sell the books, let whoever wants or needs to buy the books...I'll sit here, in my own little world and do what I've been doing for years. Taking 2nd edition rules and almost making it my very own rpg system. Thanks to everyone for your responses and opinions. You guys are the greatest.
I AM 18 AND LOVE D&D I HAVE 102 CHARACTERS
Good for you corey. You have demonstrated a complete lack of a life by sitting down and making more characters than any gamer would ever need for a system. Cheers to you for perpetuating that loser stereotype gamers have fought against.
This part of the thread is a lot like an epitaph. It's nice to see the denoument of the original concerns.
Throughout these discussions there does seem to be a common thread. Recognizing that any game system is an abstraction of "reality," both sides don't like inconsistencies within the game system or within rulings of the DM.
I agree with several earlier posters, who said that the game system does not affect one's ability to role play - whether the system is consistent, sleek, and sensible, or ponderously detailed, whimsical, and random.
For the truly ambitious, the skills and mechanics of role-playing and storytelling can be learned from a writing course or a screenwriting text. The game rules - the structure and mechanics - are there for a different reason: To ensure that nothing interferes with game and story flow.
Our own group broke up after irreconsilable differences developed over the need for rules altogether. A player, and later DM (alternating roles), believed that consistent game mechanics constrained "his" story too much. That player began to dominate the game, constantly arguing that it would make a better story if events happened the way he imagined them, rather than the way the rules allowed. Players grumbled every time he got his way, and every concession became the minimum he'd ask for in the next game.
Ultimately, as the group of players finally broke up, and some arguments that became very personal, I think my points were vindicated, at least in our group.
1. Rules are there, not to simulate a reality, but rather to ensure every player gets a fair turn, and a chance to contribute to the outcome.
2. The Magna Carta. Rules apply consistently and evenly to the DM. The more the DM cheats the roll or the rule, either in favor of PCs or against them, the more the DM exceeds his mandate as moderator and referee. He either robs players of their contribution to the story, or he deprives them of any real sense of challenge and accomplishment. The players' presence at the table becomes arbitrary. They become passive witnesses to the DM's construction.
3. Regardless of whose rules one uses, if they are consistent, ALL players and DMs at the table must agree to the same rules. They exist in the books owned by each and ALL players (I strongly recommend never using the Complete whatever supplements), so that each player takes an active role in enforcing them.
4. Every exception to a rule successfully argued in game becomes a brand new rule to learn. Every exception to a rule stops the game flow as its nuances are negotiated between player and DM. Over time, the interesting conflict in the story scenario is abandoned in favour of a constant personal conflict between DM and player (and other players).
5. In a game in which several imaginations are being employed, those imaginations will not always be compatible with each other. Anyone who's ever had a disagreement over a shooting when playing Cops and Robbers will understand. Clear, detailed, consistent rules, and a fair arbitor of them are needed to help players get passed these log jams and move on to the next action.
For example:
It is not important is not that Darkvision works by seeing heat or not. That is irrelevant to the game, to role-playing, and to the story. It is important, however, that players get an accurate description of what Darkvision allows them to see (black and white, and range) and that this is consistent. By having it spelled out clearly and agreed beforehand, players can then move to the role-playing and story aspects of the game, deciding how they will use Darkvision as it is to win the day. (and deciding what they will say to the enemy they see hiding in darkness).
You got that right Rabitman. You might want to check out Hackmaster though. They have all the great stuff you loved about 2nd edition and added all the stuff you always wished they had put in it.
Ah, Hackmaster. The parody that is so good and playable it wins the Origin 2002 "Game of the Year" Award.
Additional comment: The GM makes the game. A good GM can do wonders with a flawed system. A bad GM is bad no matter what.
you got that right elflord. But, even a great GM may have problems with a half ass system like 3E. You got all those lame ass skills and crap, bent on making the PC as chessy as possable. I've met many a player in my day and None of the ones that I know that have actually checked out Hackmaster and read through it have ever said it sucked. Only about half the gamers I know have liked 3E after reading through it.
Hackmaster looks fun. It makes me think of my old days of gaming with a nostalgic smile on my face. Will I play it? Probably, and I expect to have a good time while playing. However, that doesn't change the fact that Hackmaster is a beer and pretzel game. It's only really meant for one-off games. The game is a cobbled mess of charts from older, and poorer versions of Dungeons and Dragons. Get with the times Gamer. Better yet, get your head out of yer a%% and give 3E another look.
OK Gamer, I've read through Hackmaster.
Other than making me nostalgic for my 1st edition high school basement campaign of the late 80's. I didn't find it all that good. It's basically the same thing 1st ed AD&D was (give or take). Not having played it though, I don't know what difference the few changes I spotted make on the enjoyment of the game, so I really can't comment credibly even if it didn't seem all that different to me.
I've read and played 3E (for over 2 years now) of course there are lame ass skills and feats, just as there were lame ass things in 1st and especially 2nd ed.
As for having problems with the system per say... I've had a whole lot less arguments with 3E than with the previous editions. Although me and my friends have years of experience more now than when 1st and 2nd ed came out, I remember the puzzled looks of those who didn't get it back then.
1st and 2nd ed, turned people off because they were too quirky. The puzzled looks I now get with 3e is from people who don't get RPGs, not the mechanics of them but why we like them as a hobby.
It boils down to personnality and freedom of choice. While we probably wouldn't like gaming together Gamer I'm certain both our respective groups like RPing because it is THE BEST PAST TIME EVER, for us.
Tell you what, you stop treating people that like 3E like retards and I'll stop writing you're narrow minded? Truce?
Enjoy your game folks!
Okay Sam, Its a truce. I used to be the banner boy for second edition until I played Hackmaster. Now, I know 2E had LOTS wrong with it. I know know the pleasure of running a game where all the EXTRA crap (kits, players option ect.) dosn't tip the scails to the players corner. In a hackmaster dungeon I can make a game challanging without having to put a dragon in every room. I fear that 3E will go the same wayas 2E though. It's only been like 2 years and every time I go to the gaming store there is like 5 new books for 3E that came out that month. I'm glad hackmaster books come out kind of slowly. Sorry Sam if I sounded like an A-hole or a raving loon, but I assure you it's only when I'm typing and only on this site. It's just I have a real jerk that tries to push 3E on me every time I go in the store. They get all offended when I say nicely (unlike my Mr. Hyde like net self) "I don't care for 3E". It's been fun though. Sorry you didn't like the book Sam. I (as my personal opinion) could not have asked for a more perfect game. It has everything I've always wanted, and there website kicks ass. You can get help on line from other players and GM's and ask there opinion on problems you have in the game. If your lucky the owner of the company or the author of the game your running will even respond. They seem to care alot about the players and the game itself. They don't seem to have there agenda being only monitary based. Thats the feeling I got from 2E and 3E.
Gamer.
Cool about their "Help line" I didn't know that.
Well more points for them then. Not only have they produced something that made me laugh (well I thought alot of the stuff in their book was funny su me) But like you said Gamer they seem to show genuine concern for their customer... cool.
How to cross words with you again fellow RPGer.
May Cthulhu NOT watch over you.
I just finished the daunting task of reading through the whole argument, and I feel I have to defend 3E. As I see it, there are three main arguing points for the anti-3Eers. Keep in mind I have no experience with 2E besides what I've seen in various threads and rants, and an old "Complete Theif's Handbook" that was found in my basement.
1.)"3E isn't really D&D."
2.)"3E's a munchkin's paradise."
3.)"3e sucks cuck."
As for the first argument, I find it hard to see this. The first basis is that 65% of the rules have changed. Yes, but I honestly can't see what's so bad about the new rules. First of all, on THAC0 and BAB. They're two sides of the same coin people! Just because Wizards decided on a more intuitive system, it dosen't mean that the mechanic's different! I hear a lot of you complaining about how THACO used to be a 'coming of age' thing for D&D. So basically you're saying that roleplaying should be restricted to the mathematically elite. A predictable counterargument would be "They can go play something else!" But, put yourself in the newbie's shoes.
You think RPGs are kind of cool, so you go over to your local hobby shop and look at some of the books. Of course, the RPG name you most remember is "Dungeons & Dragons", even if it is from riots about it being a satanic influence. So, you pick it up, read the first couple pages. You shell out some money for it, thinking it looks cool(not to imply that it dosen't look cool.) You read the rules, either giving up halfway through or skimming through and barely understanding central concepts. In the first case, you give up and tell your freinds about the arcane complexity of D&D. They are scared off of roleplaying for good. In the second circumstance, you call up your freinds and decide to run a game. Not ten minutes in rules questions pop up and it turns out that THAC0 wasn't that simple after all and you can't find table X-32. You and all your players are scared off of the game, and role-playing in general. In both cases, a PHB may have been bought(but possibly returned), but you and your freinds will most likely never pick up a D&D book again. Or a Whitewolf book. Or a GURPS book. Or any other roleplaying book. The whole industry is denied customers because of TSR's needless complication, and you and your freinds could be denied fun by it as well. Of course, you don't deserve to roleplay because you're not among the mathematically elite. Excuse 3E for being 'newbie freindly.' Because there are going to be more 'pimply-faced 12-year olds raised on Magic' than old, crusty and inflexible 2E fans.
Back to 3E not being D&D, though...another thing people mention is saving throws. The old saving throws made no sense. So somehow resisting a Hypnotize spell cast by a first level wizard is identical to dodging a Fireball spell cast by a 47th level wizard, but different than resisting the effects of a Wand of Hypnotize used by a 1rst-level Wizard? I don't think a particular list of Saves can 'make' a game. Plus, the new saving throws are easier to assign saving throw types to something that isn't dragonbreath, wand, spell, poison or whatever? If you're hit by a spear trap, do you make a save against wands or dragonbreath? That shouldn't be a question, since a spear trap is not a wand nor a dragon's breath(although if it was a spear dragon...) On the other hand, a Reflex save would easily be case in point:reflex saves are basically checks to get the hell out of the way. Sure, dragon breath also uses these checks...but they really are 'getting the hell out of the way' checks than 'resisting the dragon's breath' checks.
When people are cornered by these two rules changes, the basic thing they resort to is that '2nd edition had more character!' I don't see this as very valid, are you saying that the 'character' of 2nd edition came from it's rules? When I read through the "Complete Theif's Handbook", the only 'character' I noticed was 'old.' When I read through my 3E rulebooks, I actually felt like they were exciting, and all the races, classes, skills, feats, items, monsters and spells were exciting. Which seems more like the right 'character' of a high fantasy game:'old' or 'exciting'? I thought so. If 'old' was all the character that 2E has is 'old' then that can't be a perk of the system. Of course, maybe I'm missing this altogether and D&D rulebooks were meant to feel old, and make you keep feeling that the next chapter would always be more interesting. If that's the case, then you may be right. But 3E feels like 'High Fantasy' while 2E feels like 'Rules.'
Now, onto the second argument "3E is a munchkin's paradise." How any game system can force players to be 'munchkinny' is a good question, but let's look at the common reasons for this fact. First off is multiclassing. Now, I'm sure you guys all decided to immediately burn your books halfway through reading the 'Multiclassed characters' section. Basically, if I can remember correctly, it says that you get 20% less experience for each extra class you have levels in, ignoring your favoured class. So, a hypothetical Fighter1/Wizard1/Theif1/Cleric1/Ranger1/Paladin1 would only get 20% normal expereince(and that only because elves have Wizard as a favoured class), and have a character substandard for 6th level. And, if they forget the rules like you do, and take a seventh class, then they won't get any experience whatsoever! Thus, even when the rest of the party is at 37th level, this munchkin will still be at 7th(and probably dead.) Real munchkin system there.
About feats and skills:they only help you enhance your character. Non-weapon proficiencies were a pathetic representation of your skills. So, a 20th level fighter who put all their NWPs into Blacksmithing would still have a single-digit smithing bonus. On the other hand, I have a 1rst-level fighter in my campaign who has a +9 in Smithing(+4 ranks, +2 Skill Focus:Smith, +3 Intelligence.) Munchkin, you say? Not at all, he simply plays a good blacksmith with little world experience(levels.) In 2E, he could probably only have a +1 or +2 bonus to Smithing(plus maybe his Int Modifier). Now, the same could apply to a blacksmith's son who was trained in smithing, but decided on a career as a gladiator instead. And they would have the exact same stats in 2E. In 3E, the second case would probably have 2 ranks in Smithing, and some combat feat, and maybe he's smart and has a +3 Int bonus. So, there's now a +4 bonus from our two characters. I actually remembered the player saying that the skill distribution was used to help design his character's past. So, the skills system can either make your characer's skills and experiences have more effect on gameplay(which is not a munchkin thing) or help a new player think up their backstory(not a munchkin thing either.)
Feats are just a category for all the things that, as mentioned above, got tossed into random categories like NWPs or class abilities before, and unbalanced the game. It also personalizes your characters as mentioned above. Skill Focus represents devotion to a particular skill, and results in a character who may be extremely good at something for their level(as seen in the +9 Smithing example above.) Improved Trip/Disarm/Whataever means that the character has a tendancy to use those maneuvers in battle a lot and has discovered little tricks on how to use them. And the list goes on. Feats are a way of customizing your character, and representing backstory in game mechanics.
By the way, what I've seen of kits are more 'munchkinny' than PrCs. For example, in my Complete Theif's Handbook, there is a kit for 'catpurses.' Is this implying that you can't play a catpurse using hte normal theif? There's even a kit for the 'adventuring theif', as if the normal theif wasn't tilted towards adventuring enough! You could definately play these types of characters using the basic theif(and if you can't, then there's no point in having a basic theif because I can't imagine a theif that dosen't fit under one of those kit descriptions.) So, these kits have nothing to add to roleplaying and bonuses to add to skills-strictly munchkin! On the other hand, take one of the least flavourful Prestige Classes:the Assassin. Now, most assassins are going to be former rogues. But, you could be a wizard-based assassin, or a fighter-based assassin, or even a monk-based assassin. They would have atougher time meeting the requirements than a rogue-based assassin, but it certainly would not be impossible. By the same token, not all high-level rogues will become assassins. So, it would be wrong to give rogue the assassin's Death Attack and other abilities to high-level rogues under the assumption that they'd become assassins(or at least master assassin skills), and not wizards or fighters or monks. Hence the PrCs. True, it does allow some room for munchkinism, but most are generally balanced when you consider the requirements.
And that brings me too the third argument:'3e sucks cuck.' To this I cannot argue, because it has infinate logic and no chance of incorrectness. In fact, I suddenly understand the secret of the universe:3e sucks cuck!
[/sarcasm]
Really people, if you're building a road that leads off a cliff; don't leave potholes in it.
-Imerak
By the way, how do they get away wtih calling the PHB a 'handbook'?
Imerak,
I salute your enthusiasm on behalf of you chosen system. Your a brave man for reading through this entire post. I think you can't see the view point of many of the "Old School Gamers" becasue you really havn't played through the second edition of the game. I have tried hard to like 3rd edition. I read throgh most of the 3rd edition PH. But, what it came right down to is that it wan't the game I loved to play. In fact, it was totaly diffrent. The changes to the system were so dramatic that it could bearly be called dungeons and dragons any more. Now, you on the other hand have fallen in love with the 3rd edition. Lets say they overhalled it againg next year. You wouldn't be to happy then. I don't care for the gay skills and feats that I gain with going up levels. Sure the saving throws don't make sence, but saving throws NEVER made sence. If you get hit with a poison dagger at any level in real life...your going to die!! I feel that 3rd edition is a poor excuse for 1st and 2nd edition. I know many others that feel quite the opposite. If you feel that 3rd edition is too complicated for newbees, that my be so, but ony about less that 5% of players were self learned. Usually your buddies show you how to play. I don't care if its 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition, if you had to teach yourself we would probably all throw in the towel.
looking for campin builders that might like to help build a forgotten realm/newhon settings on a mud, just starting with an empty area list and need builders
the addy is
www.gypsystar.com port 4000
(you must know your DM's guide and player guide, the game is free to all who want to play it once it is finished.)
Gamer,
Wow...I have to admit that your argument is fairly baseless. I played 2E for nearly a decade. I loved it. I thought it was a great system. I had this notebook of houserules. Wasn't it great to make up your own rules all the time to cover cracks in the system?
Nuts. 3E is a BETTER system. Instead of having a dozen hourserules to make my campaign run smoothly, I rely on the 3E rule set. This gives me a ton of time to focus on the world and story. This is a far improvement over 2E. Now I actually get to have a life outside of being a GM.
Instead of bashing something because your so stuck in the rules, maybe you should play through a 3E campaign. You defeated the previous argument by stating, "Well you obviously have not played 2E enough, so you do not get to have an opinion."
That elitist talk is one reason that potential gamers are pushed away. Yes, my buddies had to teach me how to play 2E. How did I learn 3E? I went through the book and made a character using every class and race. In a matter of hours, I had learned the system.
Ok, no more houserules, better game play, easier rule system....these must be bad! New is bad! Thank god someone decided that the wheel or fire was good rather than bad, or you'd be eating bugs and living in a cave. Here is the greatest argument I have heard against 3E. This kid looked at me and said...the rules for 2E kept the "stupid" people from playing.
Grow up, man. You don't shove a coherent logical argument in the dirt because "He hasn't played 2E enough." That's bull. Every point Imerak made was valid.
Dave
Imerak.
I mostly agree with you... except I have to point out:
In 3E, the XP penalty doesn't work that way. You get 20% penalty period and only if one of your character classes (except you favoured class) is more than one level away from all your other non-favoured classes.
So your hypothetical Wizard1/ Thief1/ Cleric1/ Ranger1/ Paladin1 woul get there around the same time as the rest of the party gets to be level 5.
This character would still lag behind the rest of the party in terms of his/her abilities except for her/his fortitude and will saves which would be much better than those of the rest of the party.
Also multi-classing in 3E no longer allows you to use the best of both worlds. So your hypothetical Fighter1/ Wizard1/ Theif1/ Cleric1/ Ranger1/ Paladin1 would be stuck with arcane spell failure and lose ambidexterity and other cool abilities if he/she ever wore any decend suit of armour.
Just thought I'd make a geek of my self and point out this trivial piece of information.
Soon to come out: The Complete book of pots and pans.
Have any of you noticed how many more or less usefull manuals have come out for 3E recently? Do you feel you've had to spend too much time reading and evaluating them?
Well I have personnaly stopped leafing through all the new stuff that keeps poping up, there is just too much of it and not enough free time to go through all of it.
Also some of these books are of such poor quality that I feel robbed for the time I spent reading them, not to mention the cash I had to dish out to purchase them.
Some companies seem to be constant in their product quality AEG for example others… yeesh.
Is there a way to insure the quality of the material you incorporate into your game without cuting yourself off from some exquisite pieces of work?
Sure under the open gaming lisence Wizards will integrate what IT feels is the best from all that gets published out there. But still… should one integrate all the expansion products into one's game?
AD&D 2E died from an over abundance of useless products. Is 3E on the same path? I mean there is the Quintesential Fighter, Quintesential Dwarf, Path of the Sword, Rings of power (LOTR rip off), Slayer's guide to "any monster", Books of Eldritch might and I've lost track of how many books on magic have come out since last X-mas.
So my question is two fold
1- Is there a simple way to choose what to put in your campaign?
2 - How long till we see the Complete book of pots and pans? The Quintesential Jester? Path of the Smithee? Slayer's guide to Flumphs?
Cthulhu Matata.
In responce to that last comment. I agree with some of what you say there but becareful. I think you are mistaken about the open gamin license. It doesn't mean that Wizards can just grab anyone's stuff that they put out and stuff it into one of their books just because they like it. Simply put what the OGL does is allows other companies to make d20 products and products for D&D as well so long as they put up a part of the products they are making as open gaming content. In other words if you use any part of some one elses work that they say is Open gaming content then you have to put some of your own work out there as open gaming content. It doesn't give wizards contol of it at all. Sure they can reprint something BUT ONLY if its open gaming content (which is only parts of what some one else worked on)
And so far Wizards hasn't used ANYONE elses open gaming content.
Of course there is going to be an explosion of d20 products out there and many of them are total crap. Thats what happens when any new way to make cash comes along. The intenet becomes the way to make a buck and everyone and their brother become web designers. But then what happens, all the bad stuff dies off and goes away and your left with the good things and the ones with lots of $$$ to back them up. Thats what Wizards has going for it. Lots of $$ with hasbros. But since D&D isn't making the money they had hoped things are already changing and may change even more.
Oh and AD&D 2e didn't really die from over abundance...TSR was working on third edition when it was bought by Wizards. Wizards just continued it. I'm pretty sure AD&D died because TSR and then Wizards killed it in order to make this fancy new product to make more $$$$$ (although I really like 3e myself)
As far as your questions go....
1) Yes don't buy every thing that comes along. Find a company that you think is dependable and stick with what they put out. Another thing is to read the product reviews that are all over the place. Granted some of the reviews are crap themselves but the good ones are pretty self evident.
2) Those books won't make it to the shelves. The companies that are putting out the junk that is useless will die out (some already have) long before they get down to those titles.
The business of RPG publishing.
Hasbro makes more money by mass producing a few books and selling them to more people. When Wizards revamped D&D, they streamlined and consolidated all those millions of rules into one cohesive system that made sense. The base game WORKS. DMG, PHB, MM is all you need to run a slick game.
Now, once the base game is sold, Wizards still needs to keep people buying to stay in business. If it was the videogame world, they would take a loss on the console, but make more money on mark-ups from the video games they sell. It might be logical to develop adventure modules for their base game - except that only DMs buy them - players can't, so they can't make much money on them.
Instead, Wizards turns to publishing further rules add-ons and source books - big, expensive, and everybody tends to buy them. The problem is, the more they do this, the more unwieldy and diffuse the game material becomes, essentially replicating the same problems that occurred in the latter days of TSR.
Personally, I do not allow character supplements or add-ons into the base game. Everybody uses the same rules. The fewer rules we need to know, the better. Keep it simple and stupid. It is unfortunate that this means that we will not support the endless add-ons that Wizards will continue to publish, but we have enough to play the base game. If they instead classed themself as a "gaming" company rather than a "publishing" company, then they might focus their energies on creating accessories that make the basic game more convienent to play rather than expanding the world(s) and rules, thus making it more complicated to play.
Personally, I would gladly spend more money on buying quality adventure sets for my core game books, if I could be assured of a quality product. The Sunless Citadel, for instance, would benefit from a sound effects CD, a beautifully rendered photo-realistic picture book (remember how cool the line drawings were in Tomb of Horrors?), miniature sized room maps (so we don't have to pause to draw them on our grid paper), tokens or plastic figures, and a cohesive campaign setting that took into account where the story was going - what the big picture is. Call me a lazy DM, or a DM with a busy life, I like to keep my preparation simple, and I like my games to be paced quickly, with room for drama and emotional investment - not the ritual of charting and drawing.
I'd buy that before I'd buy a Guide to the Ales of Shadowdale, or the Big Book of Gully Dwarves, complete with grovelling charts and tables (no joke).
I just sometimes get the sense that the game producers sat down and said "What can we publish next" rather than, "How can we make the game better to play."
Our group ended up building an initiative tracker out of velcro tabs, a stand-up card, and erasable marker. Another enterprising DM spent ages carefully selecting sound effects from a large database to cue at appropriate moments. I've seen a 3rd party publisher that supplies miniature sized room maps with their dungeons so people don't have to draw. These are great ideas, all built around making the game flow faster.
Another thing I'd like to see is a shift away from these giant campaign settings 99% of which will never be used, turning instead to something much tighter, richer, and deeper. In my campaigns, I like to think small. Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk are so vast and so ecclectic that I don't really get a sense of how everyday life is for them, of why there are so many dungeons filled with gold etc. I like to give my players a real sense of place, an emotional sense of home, grounded in the familiar before I treat them to the extraordinary. The players should matter. Greyhawk and the Realms are still too big and busy. The game I'd want to buy, is a campaign setting with an integrated set of modules, all feeding toward a single epic ending. The current adventure series published by Wizards doesn't offer that.
furst of all i would like to make one thing clear. i have not plaed any d&d ever cos i have yet to get a group together. but what i am about to say has been said time and agane on the page. play what u like. if u r a fan of 2nd edishen ad&d then play it, dont talk about it how good the old days were. if u like hackmaster then play hackmaster. dont complane about 3e. i got 3e coz it was there. if it had been called ad&d then i probolbly whod have pased it over. live with it wther u r for 3e or 2e or whatever. to tell u the truth i dont cear what u play. just play it rather than moning about it. just an intresting litel fact for u. i used to look at this at my office and prited it out one day, just befor my furst coment. it came to 130, and it has incresed a lot since then. so the lesone of this is, play, dont mone. (wish that rimed)
Wow t2, could you possibly work in any more spelling errors into your post? "Hooked on Phonics" obviously didn't do you any good.
up the page some were sam from qubeq talks about me. but the big qusten is. could u read it.
Quollen don't go there man, save your self the embarassement of looking like a complete idiot.
And T2 what do you mean could you read it? Am I that hard to fathom?
play don't moan... that is catchy T2, can I borrow it?
Cthulha Matata
I'm sorry T2. I had forgotten.
sorry sam. i ment my post, not urs. and u can borry play dont moan. but coz u showed interst i think ill have to copy rite it. :)
Wow. Just... wow. I have to admit, good points were made by both sides, so now I've got my own to share. Probably nobody reads this, but...
Before I ever started playing Dnd3e, I would read through the 1st and 2nd stuff down at the bookstore downtown. Then, I met my current DM (and Spanish teacher) at school. She had started playing 2nd (I think) back when she was in 4th grade. Then, before I met her, the current group she played with (her included) switched to 3e. So, I got started on 3e and mastered it fairly quickly. Every once and a while, when we play through the old adventures that we update to 3e, I'd see something and ask her about how it worked in 1st/2nd. Usually, her answer was "(Insert Rule Here) is much less confusing than it used to be." Saves, skills, feats, BAB, she prefers all their 3e forms. And once again, I am not just a mindless 3e drone, I can do THAC0 and know vaguely how saving throws work. Most of that is from when I picked up a copy of Icewind Dale, though. :) Even though someone listed it as a bad feature, I like the modular setup of 3e, as I can introduce my own spells/weapons/feats/magic items into the world (with DM permission of course) easily. I have played some of the better old adventures, too. I think Keep on the Borderlands is my favorite so far.
The correct attitude here, of course, is "play what you want".
I will say, however, that 3e reflects a more modern approach to RPG design, with streamlined rules and mechanics and - most notably - a more flexible ability-oriented approach to character design. True, character classes remain, but with the increased focus on skills and feats, the existing classes become less monolithic, inflexible archetypes and more like general-purpose ability packages.
I will also say that all the arguments I've heard in favor of 2e boil down essentially to stubbornness; its adherents here seem to be people who feel the need to defend their personal choice against the changing ideology that 3e represents, whether they make that choice out of the unwillingness to accept significant change or pure perverse obstinate idiocy. (I've seen no arguments here that suggest that someone has chosen 2e over 3e based on an unbiased value judgement of the flexibility, utility, or playability of the two rulesets, or I would add that as a reason to stay with 2e.) Honestly, if you guys can't come up with better reasons why 3e is NOT an improvement, stop trying.
like i said in my erly post play dont mone
I have not tried 3rd edition yet. I have heard good and bad things about it. I am a 15 year gamer still playing 2nd. I think change is sometimes good but I do not know if it worth leaving 2nd for 3rd. it looks complicated
3rd is light years easier than 2nd. I started back in 1st, so I do know the older rules as well. I had more trouble in my initial conversion from 1st to 2nd than I had going from 2nd to 3rd.
I've DMed second edition for 3 years, and I recently switched to 3e. I don't prefer either's rule system, but I did notice that any newbie players understood third edition mush easier. I did all the calculations, and all they had to do was roll a d20, add a modifier, and compare to the DC or AC.
Ok I've only been playing D&D for 2 years, however prior to that I've been looking through my uncle's collection of 2e stuff as reading material. Currently I play in 3e and I find I like it significantly better. Sure it has its downsides however 3e is not really that bad. Personally I like it. The author of the first post is really muddling things up with AC. If anything, AC is easier than ThAC0. AC, add numbers up and subtract any negatives from being slow, frail, or really big or something like that. THAC0 is actually more complicated. Sure 2e had more stuff out like optional rules and the like, 3e is new but its getting there. I myself was a hack and slasher when I started because I didn't know any better, now I'm an ardent roleplayer, all in 3e. Yes 3e is different from 2e, that doesn't make it bad. Most of all I like how now monsters have stats, where as in 2e they didn't, this is a big improvement. Give 3e a chance its not a stupid over simplified D&D like many claim it is.
To Xplo Eristotle
Interesting use of 'ideology':
ideology:noun
a theory, or set of beliefs or principles, esp. one on which a political system, party or organization is based
Funny, I thought it was a game system. If DnD ever gets to be an 'ology' of any kind, I will give up as being a terminally sad case.
But let us suppose it is an ideology. Most of the bad ones are ones which are imposed from above. In this case, by WOTC dropping 1/2E completely for what is, essentially, a different game. (I don't remember them running a vote on the direction the game should go.)
The comments about obstinacy and idiocy are pretty crass. Couldn't it just be possible that a lot of people genuinely see 1/2E as better game? Or that 3Ed is not the changed game that they wanted to see?
Yep, there are lots of good points to 3Ed - but I can't see that it codifies or enhances any of the 'broken' bits of the old versions better than having house rules and flavour ever did. There are also lots of broken bits in 3Ed. How else would there be a 4Ed? (The old Microsoft ploy - sell 'em something which nearly works, then promise the next version fixes the last versions bugs.)
The worst point about 3Ed is actually the d20 system. Not because it is a 'bad' system. But because it's massive popularity threatens to swamp a lot of other game styles.
Often when gaming groups tire of a particular campaign, you find they go to a completely different rule-set which gives a completely different flavour. From the massively complicated Ice-Crown affairs to the sweet to run Feng Shui, it is the rule set which adds value and gives flavour.
Sadly, WOTC seems determined to give every one vanilla
My advice to all gamers, play 3Ed sure, but try all the others too. It will show you how to fix your game (in both directions).
By the way, why do most of the postings seem to equate Easier to mean Better?
Its easier to sit on the couch, eat chocolate and watch TV than go out and do a 3 mile run - but is it better?
Cheers,
Greyshirakwa
"a theory, or set of beliefs or principles"
Such as the beliefs and principles that guide game system design?
For a long time now there has been a trend for RPGs to focus less on generic hack and slash combat and more on roleplaying, as encouraged by the system through increased flexibility in character design. This is a changing ideology, and it is the direction that 3e has taken.
"I don't remember them running a vote on the direction the game should go."
I don't either.. but then, I am a GURPS gamer, and have spent years out of the loop, at that. Nevertheless, WotC claims that the changes have largely been made in response to player feedback.
"Couldn't it just be possible that a lot of people genuinely see 1/2E as better game?"
It is, but none of the pro 1/2e posts I've seen reflect that, IMO. Read my post again and pay attention this time.
"There are also lots of broken bits in 3Ed. How else would there be a 4Ed? (The old Microsoft ploy - sell 'em something which nearly works, then promise the next version fixes the last versions bugs.)"
You're suggesting that WotC had the ability to produce a "perfect" D&D, but deliberately broke the system and/or skimped on playtesting for the sake of future sales? Um, yeah, okay. I've heard worse; some people think the earth is flat...
"Its easier to sit on the couch, eat chocolate and watch TV than go out and do a 3 mile run - but is it better?"
If you feel like hanging around the house being lazy, running three miles is about the worst way I can think of to do this. So yes, sitting on the couch watching TV is better.
If you feel like playing an RPG, an easier ruleset is probably better, all else being equal.
To Xplo Eristotle
No, you are still trying to substitute insults for dialectic debate. Really, really not getting it are you.....
To clarify (since the Cambridge definition of ideology was completely ignored by you), what WOTC are doing is called product development, it's not an ideology. It is a practical matter of system evolution and marketing.(Otherwise, for instance, all software development would be an ideology.)
"Nevertheless, WotC claims that the changes have largely been made in response to player feedback."
So were you expecting them to herald the launch of a new product with comments like "Our Brand New Game Which We Did All By Ourselves And Boll**ks To Gamers Everywhere Who Thought They Could Influence Us".
In fairness, there are a lot of playtesters in the credits to the manuals. I just wonder - for instance - how many were *not* based in the U.S.A. My old DM has played extensively both in the UK and USA. He seems to think that the main influence is that in the U.S. there is a big movement towards making 3Ed more MageKnight like. i.e. essentially a miniatures combat game, not a RPG.
IMO: That's actually what most 1/2E players resent.
"It is, but none of the pro 1/2e posts I've seen reflect that, IMO. Read my post again and pay attention this time."
And you think that I am a flat earther? Wow. Suggest that ** you ** read the posts again.
As an example:
"whether they make that choice out of the unwillingness to accept significant change or pure perverse obstinate idiocy" (your previous posting)
Strange, but a significant number of the posts I read suggested that people either had to (or liked to) create all sorts of house rules. Isn't that changing things. Isn't that what most groups did most of the time. I never went to a group yet where there were not a couple of house rules.
"You're suggesting that WotC had the ability to produce a "perfect" D&D, " - interesting re-interpretation of what I said.
Can't remember mentioning the word perfect at all. In fact, if you look at the Microsoft analogy, it's apparent that I think exactly the opposite. The main point is that I do think they could have produced rather fewer broken bits. And also made the other bits a lot better. I do think they didn't so that they could a) sell add-ons like 'Masters of the Wild' and b) are already planning for the next version.
"If you feel like hanging around the house being lazy, running three miles is about the worst way I can think of to do this. So yes, sitting on the couch watching TV is better."
True. But in one case, you would end up as a fat, lazy, tv-stupified couch potato. In the other case, you would be a trim athelete who had some sort of chance of meeting members of the opposite sex.
We all make choices, but I know which I prefer.
"If you feel like playing an RPG, an easier ruleset is probably better, all else being equal."
Why? All you have done is stated this, not justified it. Black and White TV is easier to produce than colour, can't see a lot of people either producing or watching it these days.... And the reason - tastes change and become more sophisticated as the audience becomes more knowledgeable. So, actually an easier game would not produce a better system for that audience. I agree it is probably better for new players. But will they still want to play the same game 5 years down the line.
Bye.
Yawn.
Your analogy comparing WotC to Microsoft is absurd and wrong; one is not like the other. (Well, maybe a little.) Your analogy comparing game systems to exercise is absurd and wrong; one is not like the other. Your analogy comparing game system complexity to TV technology is absurd and wrong; do you even know what "equal" means? The fact that you can't see how a philosophy of RPG design (more rules vs. less rules, more combat vs. more roleplaying, etc) can be an ideology suggests to me that this is no mere miscommunication, but rather, you really have no idea what you're talking about, and are too stupid to realize even this.
What's more, it's clear that either you can't be bothered to read my posts and respond to what I've *actually* written, or else you have the reading comprehension of a small child, since you keep twisting or ignoring what I say. I don't see any point in even bothering to continue with you, since you produce more noise than signal, except to say this for the benefit of anyone else reading:
D&D began its life as a miniatures combat game.. and judging from the small number of monolithic character classes, the fact that advancement comes primarily through defeating monsters, and any number of other mechanics typical to the system (spell memorization, anyone?), I would say that it has never really ceased to be a miniatures combat game. I honestly can't say that I've seen too many D&D players complaining about this at all (without switching to a different game, as I did).. but *if* 1e/2e players are complaining that 3e is more like what they already play - despite the fact that the only place where this is apparent is in the new combat system (and here I thought 3e was supposed to be "too simple"?) - then that does indeed strike me as perverse, obstinate idiocy.
Upset much? Ready to take your marbles away....
Look up what analogy means too - you really are just making yourself look exceptionally unintelligent and under informed.
Actually, I did try reading the postings. You are in every way and virtually without exception obviously only reading the bits which support your point of view. [What colour is the sky in your world?]
Look up 'dialectic' too. Then you will see why your position is absurd.
As far as comprehension goes, read back and see if the couch potato was about RPG's or about 'better' vs 'easier'.
You very noticeably fail to back up or support any of your own opinions in any meaningful manner. you also fail to oppose or deconstruct any of the arguments put to you.
Sadly, it drags this particualr rant back to the infants playground which some of the very much better contributions (Nephandus, Sam of Quebec, Rabbitman etc) took it away from.
Since the meaningful authors have obviously left the buliding, I will pack up and go to.
I leave you to your pre-school game.
Oh, and look up the history of D&D sometime. Yep, started from wargames. The point was to substitute something better, not the same thing. Oh dear, your were wrong again....
Bye, won't be seeing you....
You must be a college student, and a fairly advanced one, at that. Only academia can produce people who are so literate, so articulate, so *arrogant*.. yet so incredibly clueless as to be unable to tell the difference between being called a Flat Earther and being judged less foolish than one (a position which your idiocy has forced me to abandon). And for all your whining about being insulted, failing to address arguments, and yanking the discussion off track, I see you've done nothing yourself to correct this.. so it's my fervent hope that everyone here can see that you're full of horseshit.
In any case, since you've promised to shut your piehole, I'll restate my previous position: I've seen no arguments here that suggest that someone has chosen 2e over 3e based on an unbiased value judgement of the flexibility, utility, or playability of the two rulesets. Instead, it seems that people's complaints are based on an unwillingness to change to a new system regardless of its merits.
It's amazing to see that, after all this time, this topic is still ruffling feathers like a dragon screaming in the night. What's most amazing to me is how gamers, both champions of D&D and those who don't care for it much in any incarnation, have resorted to name calling and other petty, child-like activities. Not all of you who have responded to my original article have acted this way, by far. There are, however, a few lovely examples of why I sometimes regret writing this article in the first place. D&D, no matter what edition your preference is, is still the most creative, involving and enjoyable rpg made to date, in my humble opinion. It's fans, contributors, developers and admirers are among the best, craziest (in a good way lol) and most imaginative people in the entire world. We, as players and/or DM's have created whole worlds, even universes, out of one set of rules which are, as the DMG stated, merely a guideline. There are going to be house rules, even if D&D reaches 12th ed. and becomes the "perfect" rpg. (which I doubt would ever happen...that's why we stay interested) There are going to be people who view everything about the game in a different light. Me...I'm 32 y/o now, I have a degree in Applied Sciences, I have other published literary work and have spent many, many late nights delving into the world D&D brought into our homes and our hearts. I see some of the rules, from any edition, one way. All my friends and co-players/DM's see some rules in other ways. That's what makes us the human race and that's what has made D&D the success has become over the years. Yeah, everyone is entitled to their opinion, which was the basis for my article. Let's try to keep it at different opinions and not a weak case for defamation of character. :o) Thank you for your time, your participation and your opinions. You guys are the greatest.
Nice to see you pop back in Rabbitman!
Grey and Xplo - As far as I can tell you are arguing with each other while facing in opposite directions. Both have made good points but neither of you will deign to admit it. Either your necks are too stiff or the polearms need to be surgically removed from your rectums.
The title of this thread is appropriate for own group’s campaign, which explosively and quite spectacularly failed, largely due to fundamental disagreements of the type we see here, which also became very personal. And this among 20 year gaming veterans.
A lone pivotal player/DM preferred the 2nd edition material, it was later revealed, because he enjoyed the house rules. While he often spoke of imagination and interaction in them, the rest of us were unsatisfied with his stance on these things.
You see, from our standpoint, he wasn't actually DMing a story. In constantly creating house rules to spackle over the errors, ommissions, redundancies, and grey areas in the game aspect of 2nd ed D&D, he was creating a new game with each session, as opposed to a new story, within the existing game. The game was different each time, changing according to the DMs whim, not affording players the ability to anticipate the actions of their characters or the qualities of the environment they were in. I’d liken it to playing Myst, but having your older brother take over the keyboard each time your choices differed from his. “No, play it THIS way.”
Under 2nd ed, this constant house ruling was a necessary evil just to make the ‘software work’, if I can continue to use a computer game analogy. As a side-effect, it allowed the DM to go meta, and influence the story from outside the narrative, to achieve whatever outcome he desired. It was easy.
But after a taste of 3e, the players simply would not stand for it. The system, by and large, worked as is. His persistence in adding rules and changing them arbitrarily to suit what he perceived as his story needs (ie to prevent a character success, or to make it easier) was revealed to be unnecessary and just basically lazy DMing. He was using his arbitrary rules to force a story point, rather than allowing character participation to decide the outcome. He had relied on it so long in 2nd ed under the ‘fix it as you go’ guise, that he’d mistaken his skill in doing this as the main thrust of gaming.
His stance was that the 3e rules were ‘unimaginative,’ because their conciseness curtailed his ability, and preference, to over-rule the ‘game’ and force his version of the ‘story’. The group blew up because they wanted to play the game, while he wanted to basically ‘create a new game’ in each session. We’d never know how disease worked in a session, or whether the sacrifices we’d made to make our characters more knowledgeable, or more agile, would have a difference in play, because he’d change the parameters constantly, in ways that affected all sorts of other points in the gaming structure.
He was even worse as a player, attempting to use old 2nd ed technobabble (ie infravision is infra-red vision, heat sensing) to garner outrageous extra abilities, rather than simply focusing on the outcomes (ie low light vision = 60 feet, b/w vision in low light), as they do in 3e. Again, the fixes and clarifications in the rules curtailed his ability to exploit 2nd edition omissions and whimsicalities to turn his character, on the fly, into a juggernaut. He pointed the finger at 3e, calling it unimaginative because it anticipated most of his munchkin power-gamer technobabble lawyering.
With all other things being equal in an RPG, my stance is that I’d rather have a mechanics system that works better, rather than one that requires more attention to mechanics to make them work.
Time and time again, I’ve asked the 2nd and 1st edition purists WHY they feel the way they do and I’ve only come back to a few points:
1. They have fetishized the papers, the images, the gully dwarf groveling tables, the perytons with the human shaped shadows, and everything about the gaming materials themselves, rather than the actual gaming experience. It’s like reading an original signed Hemmingway, rather than a new copy from Barnes and Noble.
2. They have fetishized the rituals - the way they roll, the way they calculate AC, the process by which they arrive at calculations. These are like novelists who only write on 1920’s typewriters. For them, key to the experience of writing the novel is the tangible feel of using the original artifacts, of pressing a key and having the hammer snap into place, of penciling and liquid papering their errors, and of scrunching paper into a basket and rewriting entirely. What other people see as a bother, is part of the whole aesthetic experience for them, as irreplaceable as a ball player’s moth-eaten lucky cap.
3. They view the 3rd edition as unimaginative, which, judging by their actual played examples, seems to mean that they use their house rule corrections to arbitrary mechanics and loose or broken rules structure as an excuse to strong-arm the story into an outcome or path that they find more pleasing, personally. They like the vaguaries of the 2nd system, in the same way that a fortune teller loves tea leaves and tarot cards – a loose framework, abandoned or changed at will, to tell whatever story comes to mind, while appearing to an audience to be coming from an objective, impartial source.
While I don’t subscribe to the first 2 views, I at least can understand how others value them. But for the third group, I have little mercy. Their protests amount to saying ‘pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” They’re angry because 3e exposes their laziness in playing and in DMing, especially in railroading the plot. They’d rather change the whole game, rather than work within the existing game to find a solution to the problem their character faces. In other words, they are metagamers through and through. And when they call 3e ‘munchkin’ or ‘unimaginative’ I suppose they are being somewhat hypocritical as well, IMO. I’ve always thought the mark of a good DM was their ability to manage all aspects of a game and story, and to bring it to a satisfying conclusion without resorting to introducing elements that alien to the game and story, just to solve a problem.
I should say that there is another group who prefers 2nd E for the same reasons as point 3. But they do more of a free-form storytelling session, from the sound of it. Dmhoward does this with his group, in fact mixing and using all systems, whatever each player sees fit. Far from being hypocrites, I’d say that these people really aren’t playing a game at all. They are doing something more like improvisational acting or storytelling, where rules really don’t matter. I’m sure that can be fun, but I’d probably not call it a game. Note, that is not a criticism of their activity. It is simply an observation of it.
I've played a lot of different rpg's over the years. My brother was friends with Dave Arneson back in the 70's and he introduced me to rpg's when I was young. Maybe the early introduction I had into the game skews my opinions about D&D and 1st edition AD&D, but I thought it was a good system, and I was a serious gamer for about ten years until my group broke up to go to college and jobs and so forth.
I've hooked up with a few other old timers to put a new group together, playing D&D for the first time in several years. I considered getting the new stuff, but I stayed with the game I knew because the other players and I were intimitely familiar with the older version and still had much of the materials needed to play packed away in storage somewhere.
I don't see what the fuss is about...I've always played rpg's to my own tastes, and I could care less what others did.
I suppose if my role playing group had a disagreement about what system to use there would be a problem, but arguing over systems with someone you're not involved in playing with is pointless.
Though I am not interested in the latest version of it at this point, I am glad that D&D is still being produced in some form
I'm not really sure what you are saying in the debate over the merits of the 3rd and prior editions Dave. Did you expect to know what the fuss was about if you never played the new game?
Well, I'm officially distancing myself from this article, even though it's my creation. I was asked to write this article originally just to give my point of view. That's one single person's point of view. Everyone is acting like one point of view is supposed to represent all. In no way did I ever intend for that to come across and I believe I did a good job. When someone reads a movie review, or hears one on TV, do they automatically decide, from that on person's opinion, that they will or won't go see the movie? Maybe some people do, but none that I know personally. Yes, 3rd ed. has some good points. Yes, 3rd ed. has some bad points. So do the previous editions, as I'm sure 4th ed. will have the same. Each and ever edition thus far has offered welcome changes for some as well as headaches and nightmares for others. If you don't like 3rd ed, don't play it. If you don't like 2nd ed, don't play it. If all you want to play is 3rd ed, go for it. It doesn't seem that the majority of responses to my article view this in the same way as I, and a few others, do. This is why I will no longer read responses nor will I respond anymore myself. This has gotten way out of hand and I no longer want to be a part of it. I hope everyone gets this straightened out, where no straightening should be needed, and can enjoy whatever edition of our beloved D&D they wish. As was said earlier by Dave, I'm just glad that D&D is still being produced and other generations are given the opportunity to enjoy the game as I have over the years. Thank you and good night.
Thanks for your opinion Rabbitman. You should realize though, that any opinion posted on a BBS is fodder for debate, so I'm not so sure why you should be dismayed that it has done so here. The 'just play your own game and shut up' approach I often read on these things is a somewhat cynical approach. Surely some games are better than others, and surely people are able to debate the merits of one system vs another.
From my standpoint, there's nothing really 'beloved' about either version. They both use largely the same story material, so, all other things being equal, the differences come down to how well the mechanics and numbers work with each other and support the story. From my standpoint, there's simply no contest.
I apologize for how that last message may have sounded, though I won't apologize for what I said. What I meant by that post was that people are reverting to name calling and insulting each other over trivial matters. That was all. If you like a certain game, great. If you don't like a certain game, great. It's up to the individuals and yes, they have every right to argue the merits or flaws of any game. If we didn't have that right, this would be a very bitter and cold world. But, as I said, I'm gone...I know I said that already lol. I may, from time to time, peek in and see how this is going. Either way, everyone enjoy yourselves.
Dude, I appreciate your genuine sentiments on this, but I'm sensing that you must be new to BBS's in general, if you are letting the hostility get to you personally. I don't think anyone here needs an apoligy.
It's just a game, and these are just discussions of a game, and a bit of name-calling here and there. As BBS boards go, this is probably one of the cleanest on the web, with a surprisingly high level of in-depth discussion and content on it, instead of the usual "1st edition sucks Rhino's" mantra, you are hearing more well-reasoned and carefully supported arguments than I would usually expect on any BBS. You need to thicken that skin a bit. It's not all cuddles and hugs out here, and the people you could be getting upset over some 12 years old's name-calling. Not to say that 12 year olds are incapable of reasoned argument, but I'm sure you get what I'm saying. In general, there's two BBS points I always see on these things that are almost never true.
1. 'Nuff said
2. That's it, I'm leaving.
And nobody really needs anyone to point out that it is up to the individuals to weigh the arguments and the games. They have done that already and will continue to do so.
In my experience, which is quite thorough, I have found, without exception, that all people who prefer the 1st and 2nd ed to over the 3rd, do so for reasons other than gameplay (outlined above). It takes a lot of listening, questioning, and observing of these people to know this, but if you do the work, it always ends up like that.
That doesn't mean that they SHOULDN'T enjoy the prior editions, or that there is anything wrong with their preference. It's just that they are mistaken if they believe they enjoy it because it is a better game. Their sense of enjoyment is coming from a much more complicated set of values and associations that have little to do with the mechanics or story material, the latter being largely the same in all editions. For the most part, game mechanics, no matter what edition you use, are mathematical patterns, checks and balances. As such, it is reasonable to evaluate them and to compare their cohesiveness, intuitiveness, and logic, and come to some kind of conclusion about them.
I agree with the statement, "Just play it how you want". Isn't that the basis of RPG anyway. If you don't like a rule then don't use it, or make one up. Haveing fun and keeping the game going is the point, not how the game works internally. However, If I was to give my opinion at all, after reading the new 3rd edition of DnD when I borrwed a copy of the book from a frind of mine I will have to say Give me 2nd edition anyday!
Man, I'm surprised that people are still talking about this. I was writing in this page before 3E came out and it's still going. I have tried time and again to play that system and I still hate the damn thing. I was begining to think that I was just a fatbeard and was going to give up and just play my old system forever. I have looked at some books made for 3E (like trap books and such). But then something happened that got me buying new books agaim. Hackmaster. Insted of taking 10 million years and a hundered thousand books to change around my books, I only needed two. I could still use my old 2E books with my new system. The have a kick ass honor system, that allows a charcter with with high honor to get benifits and dishonorable players are screwed. The GM has way more control over what goes on. The nonweapon proficancies are total kick ass. This is hands down the most kick ass game I have ever played. Lots of people thought that it was a Joke game, ment not to be played because to was based on the knights of the dinner table. Give it a look guys. I have converted a whole 3E group over to hackmaster. It's what 3E was supposed to be. or look on their website www.kenzerco.com they even have a dissccusion board to ask the author of the books and fellow players from around the country if you need any help.
To play 3e, you don't need all that other plague of books. 3 books will do it for the GM, 1 for the players. Just like the old days.
In my own group, I outlawed the other books to prevent an arms race among players, and to maintain tthe sleek structure. I've never needed them, and won't buy adventures that use them.
ok people. i belve i said
"play dont mone"
and gess what...play, dont mone. i come in the name of peace. if more players new play E3 becous its easy then fine. i have a felling rp'ing is on its legs. but gess what...i have found the 3rd way.
i have 3 rull books sting here. i have never used them. never had a chanse. thay are 3rd edtion. i will not pretend to know about E3 or E2 or anything, but i will say this
for true role playing, i recomend play by e-mail. yep. thats right. play by e-mail. it rox. i my self am enged in an eva pbem. becous it hase very fue rulls there is often no problems with all this.
however, haveing said this, this aculy being a plug. i say play what you like. i personly prefer pbem rpgs. you like e2, fine. you like e3, fine. you like misc rpg sistome, fine. but you could be playing will you mone and so on.
and why am i saying this when it makes my post hipctcal. becous i am wating for a re-play in my pbem rpg. ah...
i shall once agine leave you for a bit. when i retern i hope to see less name calling then i have seen in the new posts...
oh, and this has almost sertly reached over 150 pages now.
I really haven't seen much, if any, namecalling in the new posts.
granted...however, i had just read from my last post...so it was a bit over in the way of me posting all my observtions in one post...
UM..... I used to do a lot of name callinng back in the day. Look like midway through all he post and you'll know what I mean. I was a lot angerier back then, when 3E was the ONLY option (and I think that was the way they wanted it.).
They... Who are They?