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.
Simply put: playing 3e strictly by the rules, is little different than playing balder's gate on the computer. Everything you are capable of doing is layed out for you in clear concise charts and there is little or no ambiguity in the rules. That said, I personnaly find 2e to be a much better sytstem for ROLEPLAYING, but not for combat. A great example of this is proficiency vs skills/feats. Who cares what they are called, the fact of the matter is that with 3e, nearly every character will put a lot of points into search, spot, and listen, while ignoring all others unless they have a lot of skill points. A fighter for example will rarely spend his 2 or maybe 3 skill points per level on a profesion or a craft skill. On the other hand how many 2e fighters have you seen that knew how to cook? dance? sing? .......... I saw lots of people make them that way, but not anymore. In a like vein, most of the feats are either useless, or so overshadowed by their siblings as to be nearly useless. And most of these useless ones.... well.... they are prereq's for the good ones. Much like with 2e, any good dm's will have to tailor 3e quit a bit to make it a "good" system. I personnally like the idea of using the basic combat and such from 3e while merging the skills and feats to make a new list of "weapon proficiencies" and bringing back all of those great non-weapon proficiencies.
Oh yeah one true rant: who needs to roleplay at all when you have skills like intimidate, bluff, and diplomacy? In 2e we at most would make a player roll an ability check if they were terrible roleplayers, otherwise the dm would think about how the npc would react to the players character and his speach and actions.
I was going to stay out of this 3e-bashing thread, but it's getting ridiculous.
Simply put: playing 3e strictly by the rules, is little different than playing balder's gate on the computer.
Given that Baldur's Gate was a great game with detailed NPC interactions, and given that Baldur's Gate 2, with its NPC interruptions of conversations, bickering would-be girlfriends, romance threads, betrayals, kidnappings, and PC strongholds is my favorite computer-based RPG of all time, you're not hurling much of an insult there.
I'd go so far as to say that BG2 opened my eyes about the possibilities of RPGs - not just computer-based, but all RPGs - and changed the way I play forever. And I've been role-playing since 1978; I've played AD&D, the weird spinoff D&D with only three alignments, 2e, 3e, and 3.5, in addition to a host of non-D&D RPGs. I would be honored to hear a player say that any of my campaigns resembled Baldur's Gate.
And, finally - Baldur's Gate uses 2e rules!
Everything you are capable of doing is layed out for you in clear concise charts and there is little or no ambiguity in the rules.
Hold the phone - that's a bad thing how, exactly? That it cuts down on rules-lawyering and pointless player bickering is one of 3e's biggest selling points to me.
A great example of this is proficiency vs skills/feats. Who cares what they are called, the fact of the matter is that with 3e, nearly every character will put a lot of points into search, spot, and listen, while ignoring all others unless they have a lot of skill points.
This is totally dependent on your group of players. If you're playing with a bunch of power-gaming tools, well, then, yeah. But let's face it: the role-playing world is chock full of power-gaming, min-maxing, god-modding tools. I don't play with 'em if I can help it.
In my campaigns, fighters tend to put their points in Craft, Riding, or Animal Handling and let the Rogue or the Ranger worry about Spot and Listen.
I do think the Spot, Listen, and Search rules are a weakness of 3e; but I think they're a weakness of role-playing games in general. Only GURPS, with its stat-based sense rolls (even separate in a 3rd-edition variant; not sure if the default rolls in GURPS 4e are still IQ-based) handles this problem in a way I like. I'm willing to deal with it. In my experience, Climb and Jump are the most underutilized skills - I've seen few PCs put any skill points into 'em at all.
On the other hand how many 2e fighters have you seen that knew how to cook? dance? sing?
Virtually none. Again, I'd say it has a great deal to do with your gaming group.
In a like vein, most of the feats are either useless, or so overshadowed by their siblings as to be nearly useless.
This remark makes it sound to me as though you just don't have much experience with the system. You might say most of the feats are combat-useless if you are a power-gaming, min-maxing tool; but as you are decrying the death of role-playing in 3e, your comment makes no sense. 3.5's introduction of more skill-oriented feats only helps the situation: there are a broad range of cool, interesting, useful feats to cover almost any situation.
To me, the greatest selling point of the feat system is that it allows the creation of distinctive types within a class. I've seen people create, to use the Fighter class as an example: two-weapon specialists, reach-weapon and attack-of-opportunity specialists, horse archers, single-weapon specialists, and many more. Never in my 26 years of role-playing has the Fighter class seemed so interesting; finally the Fighter can hold its head up with the silly, cheated-up, alternate fighter classes from AD&D and 2e. Frankly, I hardly knew anyone who wanted to play a Fighter when he could play a Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, or Cavalier. Now that 3e's come along, the Fighter is not only a match for any of those classes, it's actually more attractive to the average combat-enthusiast. I can only call that development a Very Good Thing.
Oh yeah one true rant: who needs to roleplay at all when you have skills like intimidate, bluff, and diplomacy? In 2e we at most would make a player roll an ability check if they were terrible roleplayers, otherwise the dm would think about how the npc would react to the players character and his speach and actions.
Now this remark is just silly. Call of Cthulhu includes a host of socially-related skills, as does every edition of GURPS. Do these skills hamper roleplaying? No - they have the reverse effect - they encourage it. Sure, your power-gaming types will want to replace their IC dialogue with a die-roll. How many times do I have to say it? DON'T PLAY WITH THESE TOADS. Any good role-player will have their character walk up to an NPC, give a little speech indicating their intent and angle of approach, and make their social skill die-roll. Any good DM will modify the roll based on the speech, and won't unduly penalize bad actors for lame speech-giving.
Can you swing a longsword effectively? I doubt it. How good a shot are you with a bow? Probably not a great one. But even if you are, the rules exist to simulate the abilities of a character. You may be a stammering, blushing fool in a social situation, but a good RP system allows you to create - and enjoy - a smooth-talking, vampy seducer. Having good, sensible rules makes this kind of play possible. Having a glorified combat system with social skills tacked on as an afterthought - like your vaunted non-weapon proficiencies - doesn't. I know; I played with them.
In summary, I'm tired of this 3e-bashing by old-schoolers who mainly seem to be whining about the entry of common sense and consistent, understandable rules to D&D as though it ruined the game. If you don't enjoy 3e, don't play it - but don't expect those of us who got very tired of D&D a long time ago, because of the very problems that 3e fixes, to understand or be sympathetic to your point of view. Go on - back to the dungeon-crawl with you! I'll see you when you're ready to come squinting into the light.
I confess that I'm not overly fond of 3E, but agree with your sentiment about endless 3E+ bashing. It's getting old.
The only thing that I would really contend with in your post is your remarks regarding the Fighter Class. I think it's a mistake to let the stats, attributes, and such define how interesting the Fighter Class is. In 2E, the Fighter may not have a lot of special powers, but he doesn't really have any weaknesses or hang-ups. I've seen DM's allow paladins to act out of alignment and allow rangers to get urbanized and allow barbarians to be cool with magic...but this isn't a fault of the ruleset, but rather the players and DM bending the rules to make these classes more powerful than they should be.
But, anyway, I don't think a rule-set has anything to do with how nifty a character can be. If someone can't tell 2 2E Fighters apart...then I think that's the fault of the people creating the characters. This is a problem of creativity, not rules.
I mostly use 2E in my D&D games -- I back-port some aspectes of 3E, but that's kinda beside the point. In my D&D games, one player is of the Fighter Class. His strength and constitution are on the high end, but nothing spectacular. What is spectacular is his character...his personality...the presence this guy has every time he takes action...and its these things that distinguish him from the rest of the Fighters out there.
I understand that it's a perk to be able to "fine-tune" your Fighter with 3E skills and feats. But, for me, one Fighter with Bull Strength standing next to one with Super Climb...well, you're still just looking at 2 Fighters there. I don't think this fixes the generic aspect of the Fighter class. It's not much different than saying "well, this 2E Fighter is more dexterous and this one has more charisma."
I'm not trying to slam what you're saying, cause I agree that it's nice to have options -- like I said, I back-port certain aspects of 3E and don't use the ones I don't like. I tried to explain this in my first article, much to the dismay of many -- that seemed kind of ironic to me, because the defenders of 3E...a more versitile system...were in shock that I'd try to make 2E more versitile with some patchwork. But, digress aside, I agree that having options is a Very Good Thing.
But, I'll always maintain that its the character and personality that make the difference, not the skill sets...and, for me, that goes for all Rules Sets.
Wow.... Cocytus, did you read my post? or did you just copy and past, then wright something that looked like it fit? In no way did I bash 3e. As a matter of fact I put it in the best light I could. I even said flat out that it has a better combat system. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but still I did say it. 3e most certainly has its merits, and exactly like 2e it has its faults. All that I was trying to say is that it seems to be geared towards easy roleplaying, ie. not having to use your imagination as much, whereas 2e was the opposite, its rules were too vague to not have to be inventive and imaginative. Does that mean that ONLY non-imaginative people like 3e and vice versa? Of course not. There are plenty of people that I respect that love 3e, and plenty that love 2e.
Your argument about specialist fighters is, well, silly. In 2e you litterally had to pick and choose all of your weapon proficiencies, so even then each fighter was different. Sure most of them still pretty much fought the same, but it was the idea that was different. And if you never saw 2e fighters that cooked, danced, or sang.... what did they do then? spend all their proficiencies on combat stuff? And you made it sound like my groups are hack and slashers!
And who in their right mind would take the skill boosting feats, which only give you plus 2 to two diferent skills? What's that +2? what impact does that have by the time your character is 5th level? how about 10th? 20th? +2, please. unless your group plays a LOT of only low level campaigns your fighters, especially, would never be able to be two weapon specialists or any of the other types that you claim are new to 3e. You say you played the other systems, yet you said:
"expect those of us who got very tired of D&D a long time ago, because of the very problems that 3e fixed"
Who are you to even enter into this discussion, obviously you have a strongly biased opinion against 2e, and are not even willing to listen to arguments in its favor. Some of us are not in need of coddling and choose not to use the oversimplified, prettyfied 3e. Does that mean we hate it? Not neccessarily, It just means we like something a little heavier in RolePlaying, and something that doesn't hold our hands the entire way.
All that I was trying to say is that it seems to be geared towards easy roleplaying, ie. not having to use your imagination as much, whereas 2e was the opposite, its rules were too vague to not have to be inventive and imaginative.
Understanding the rules more easily - i.e., ease of role-playing - translates to lack of imagination? No, sir. It translates to lack of disputes over what the rules mean. If a poorly-written, ambiguous ruleset causes you to "use your imagination" more to patch it, bravo for you, but to me it just causes pain and rules disputes between players and GM. Where the rules are easy to understand, I find players are free to use their imaginations where it matters - developing their characters.
Sure most of them still pretty much fought the same, but it was the idea that was different.
Oh, I see. And this "idea" impacted your game...how, exactly? Through your superior imagination? Again, bravo for you. In 3e, it is easy to see how differently-made fighters are different: they fight differently. Funny, that, given that they're "fighters." But I can totally see why you wouldn't want that. Better to use your imagination to make it seem as though they're different, when they really aren't at all.
And if you never saw 2e fighters that cooked, danced, or sang.... what did they do then?
Most 2e fighters I encountered...and granted, I saw precious few because most players wanted to play cavaliers or paladins instead...focused on "survival"-type skills and horseback riding.
In 3e, I had a player whose fighter concentrated her skill points on Craft (Alchemy). When the party wanted to know what a potion was, they turned to the fighter. How many times can you say that happened in your 2e campaigns?
And who in their right mind would take the skill boosting feats, which only give you plus 2 to two diferent skills? What's that +2? what impact does that have by the time your character is 5th level?
I'm sorry you don't understand how the system works, or you'd realize that +2 can be a very big deal indeed for a character wanting to boost a cross-class skill. Even for characters boosting class skills, it can make a difference - and when synergy bonuses are factored in, even more of one. In d20, every pip is a 5% difference in the chance of success.
At 5th level, a character's max ranks in a class skill are 8. A +2 bonus makes that effectively a 10 - enough to erase the advantage held by a character with a higher attribute bonus, or to give an edge over a character with the same number of ranks. You can't see how that helps? Try using your imagination.
...your fighters, especially, would never be able to be two weapon specialists or any of the other types that you claim are new to 3e.
This is the tail-end of a poorly constructed sentence, and I can't follow your reasoning. So just addressing this part: you're wrong. A human fighter can be any of these things at first or second level. A good friend of mine built a reach-weapon, attack-of-opportunity specialist who was a one-man slaughterhouse until 4th level, when he died.
Who are you to even enter into this discussion,
Just a long-time gamer. "Anonymous Troll."
obviously you have a strongly biased opinion against 2e
Yeah, obviously. Even though my favorite computer-based RPG of all time uses the 2e ruleset.
and are not even willing to listen to arguments in its favor.
I'm not willing to listen to YOUR arguments, which sound thinner to me than origami.
Some of us are not in need of coddling and choose not to use the oversimplified, prettyfied 3e.
Yeah, that logic and coherence of design is a real setback.
Not neccessarily, It just means we like something a little heavier in RolePlaying, and something that doesn't hold our hands the entire way.
It's genuinely sad that you equate good design with handholding. You're just a ruleset luddite. If you were genuinely "heavy into role-playing," you'd seem to have some experience with a system that includes, oh, I don't know, social skills in its design. You seem to think that good role-playing comes from ambiguous rules. That's an interesting idea, but I don't buy it for a minute.
Sure...a good roleplayer makes the character, not the rules.
All I'm saying is that good rules facilitate that process.
And, with reference to fighters: as I said to "Anonymous Troll" - differently-designed fighters can fight very differently. My wife's sword-and-shield specialist with all her skill ranks in Craft (alchemy) was a palpably different character, just from rules alone, from the one played by my best friend, who used a spear to slaughter every opponent within 10 feat. They were both great tanks, yet their combat styles were so different that they almost seemed to be different classes.
I loved that! The system alone made them seem different. Their role-playing skills augmented the differences between their characters.
And that's what I'm saying. A good ruleset, in my opinion, enhances good roleplaying. A bad one, at best, necessitates it - bummer if you're a bad actor - and at worst, hinders it.
Bashing, Bashing, Bashing. You have got to admit that you aren't trying to argue anything, instead you are trying only to bash people. Good job, I say. You've struck me to the heart with comments like:
"I'm not willing to listen to YOUR arguments, which sound thinner to me than origami."
I hope that I am missing something in your comments though. On the one hand you seem to be upholding 2e by saying that 2e video games are the best there ever were, and then turning around and saying 2e, 1e, and d&d, sucked. Which was exactly my point earlier, that the utter lack of true interaction and imagination that an rpg video game has compared to a table top game is reminescent of the diference between 3e and d&d's previous incarnations.
And last time I checked, RolePlaying required imagination in its very nature. Not some rules about social interaction.
Oh one last thing: there were no cavaliers in 2e, unless you used the optional rules, and most players wouldn't play those optional classes more than once because they were to limited in comparison to the diverse fighter.
"To me, the greatest selling point of the feat system is that it allows the creation of distinctive types within a class. I've seen people create, to use the Fighter class as an example: two-weapon specialists, reach-weapon and attack-of-opportunity specialists, horse archers, single-weapon specialists, and many more."
You say that you have 26 years of role-playing experience yet no one you have played 2ed with used two weapons, pole arms or bows? Many of the players I have dealt with used a variety of weapons and styles in both 2ed and 3ed. The Feats system that was introduced did not give people more options, it just made them more obvious. One of my favorite 2ed characters was a fighter that used a pike as his primary weapon. It was slow but I had reach and could dish out some damage, while at the same time, my partner with the higher CON and AC used a shield and axe combo to great effect to help keep the enemy from rushing me. We excelled at fighting in tight dungeons and ruins. The only limitations that a fighter had was the imagination of the player.
"I hardly knew anyone who wanted to play a Fighter when he could play a Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, or Cavalier. Now that 3e's come along, the Fighter is not only a match for any of those classes."
I have rarely found a player that could stay within the restrictions of a paladin, thus most played either fighters or rangers. The barbarian and cavalier were 1ed classes. When the barbarian class was introduced into 2ed is was not much better than a fighter since it's only advantage over a fighter was a d12 for hit points which was easily compensated for with the heavier armor allowed to a Fighter. The cavalier kit was a pathetic attempt to recreate the 1ed class. My point is that in many respects the fighter was a much better choice of character with exception to the ranger which is quiet a capable fighter but with restriction to light armor he could not stand toe to toe in a fight for very long. Also more than one ranger in a group is generally not very useful. The Fighter, through all editions, has been the backbone of most groups.
"In summary, I'm tired of this 3e-bashing by old-schoolers who mainly seem to be whining about the entry of common sense and consistent, understandable rules to D&D as though it ruined the game. If you don't enjoy 3e, don't play it - but don't expect those of us who got very tired of D&D a long time ago, because of the very problems that 3e fixes, to understand or be sympathetic to your point of view. Go on - back to the dungeon-crawl with you! I'll see you when you're ready to come squinting into the light."
This last part of your post seems a little immature for some one of your age. I have used common sense through all three editions, I did not need a new set of rules to do this. I never said that 3ed ruined the game, I only said that I enjoyed the game more with the previous edition. And by the way, what is wrong with a good old-fashioned dungeon crawl? I personally think that 3ed does have a few good points, for one the combat system is easier to teach to new players and I will most likely keep this idea. The idea of Attacks of Opportunity is a good idea as well and again I will keep the idea if not the same rules. The thing I love most about 2ed is not the structure but the lack of structure that allows for bending the rules whenever common sense dictates. 3ed is if anything too structured and rigid and does not lend it self well to creative thinking much like a video game.
I agreed that it depends upon the group of people that you play with and the effort that you are willing to put into it that makes a system work whether it is 2ed or 3ed does not truly matter, I am more comfortable with 2ed and that is what I play. If you prefer 3ed then that is fine too, I am just submitting opinions. (and you know what they say about opinions:P)
You have got to admit that you aren't trying to argue anything
Hey, you can't read my posts, understand them, or reply to their salient points. Congratulations! I'm only too happy to bash away at you, as long as that remains the case.
I hope that I am missing something in your comments though.
Yeah. Reading comprehension. Don't strain yourself there.
On the one hand you seem to be upholding 2e by saying that 2e video games are the best there ever were, and then turning around and saying 2e, 1e, and d&d, sucked.
I'll try to explain this to you. I played them all and enjoyed them - but after awhile, I found them limited. A videogame based on 2e rules was the best I've ever played. It remains so. A good game can occur independent of the rules - even you and I agree on that. What I'm saying is that good rules facilitate a good game.
And last time I checked, RolePlaying required imagination in its very nature. Not some rules about social interaction.
Are you patting yourself on the back for writing off some great RP systems, or just being a ruleset Luddite again?
Oh one last thing: there were no cavaliers in 2e, unless you used the optional rules, and most players wouldn't play those optional classes more than once because they were to limited in comparison to the diverse fighter.
Oh, my bad. It's in the Complete Fighter Handbook. But I wouldn't know that because I'm totally biased against 2e, never played it, and know nothing about it.
In all fairness, I was replying to Anonymous Troll, and not to you. But you at least seem capable of understanding the things you read...
You say that you have 26 years of role-playing experience yet no one you have played 2ed with used two weapons, pole arms or bows?
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but reach weapons didn't work the same in 2e as they do in d20. I attribute that difference mainly to the Attack of Opportunity rules in d20.
I didn't say I knew no one who did such things...or if I did, that's not what I meant. In the 3e rules, the effect of these differences is much more noticeable.
It was slow but I had reach and could dish out some damage, while at the same time, my partner with the higher CON and AC used a shield and axe combo to great effect to help keep the enemy from rushing me.
Admittedly, it's been a long time since I played 2e...over ten years. Can you explain what you mean by "rushing you"? In d20, you can't use a polearm at close range, but looking through my old 2e PHB I can't figure out why this would've been a problem.
The Fighter, through all editions, has been the backbone of most groups.
Well...that hasn't been my experience, particularly in AD&D.
This last part of your post seems a little immature for some one of your age.
Well, okay...fair enough. Perhaps I let my temper get the better of me. And if you can't flame someone on a BBS from time to time, when can you? ;)
I never said that 3ed ruined the game, I only said that I enjoyed the game more with the previous edition.
Again - I wasn't responding directly to you. If you scan through some of the 500-odd posts on this thread, you'll see a number of people saying that 3e did ruin D&D. And I think that's a laughable statement.
And by the way, what is wrong with a good old-fashioned dungeon crawl?
Nothing...but "Anonymous Troll"'s lack of understanding what good are social skills - and rules governing them - suggested to me that he doesn't know how to role-play any other way.
3ed is if anything too structured and rigid and does not lend it self well to creative thinking much like a video game.
I'd say...that depends very heavily on the video game.
However, I simply reject the idea that a structured ruleset impairs creative thinking! I don't see how that follows, and my experience has shown me the exact opposite: where the rules are clear, the quality of play tends to be better.
I am more comfortable with 2ed and that is what I play. If you prefer 3ed then that is fine too, I am just submitting opinions. (and you know what they say about opinions:P)
Same here, if a bit more cholerically.
"Oh, my bad. It's in the Complete Fighter Handbook. But I wouldn't know that because I'm totally biased against 2e, never played it, and know nothing about it."
Sorry but the Cavalier was a kit in the Complete Fighters Handbook, not a class. To use the kit you had to be a play a Fighter, so thus your point of most people wanted to play a Cavalier is stating that they actually were playing a Fighter.
Yeah - a "more limited" Fighter, according to Anonymous Troll. Through the mists of time, 2e and AD&D have obviously blurred a lot in my memory. I'll concede this point if it makes you happier.
Admittedly, it's been a long time since I played 2e...over ten years. Can you explain what you mean by "rushing you"? In d20, you can't use a polearm at close range, but looking through my old 2e PHB I can't figure out why this would've been a problem.
My fighter did not have the hit points or armor class to really stand toe to toe for very long, thus I used the longer pole arm to fight past the more heavily armored and tougher fighter, while at the same time I was kept safe.
Ah, ok. That makes some degree of sense. And it's cool. All I'm saying is that the reach-weapon fighter in d20 is (in my opinion, of course) even cooler. I didn't realize how cool until my buddy built a longspear specialist who was just hell-on-wheels against low-level monsters. Sometimes he'd kill three of them per round - at second level!
"Yeah - a "more limited" Fighter, according to Anonymous Troll. Through the mists of time, 2e and AD&D have obviously blurred a lot in my memory. I'll concede this point if it makes you happier."
No need to concede, I was just clarifying.
Alright! You even admitted that you were a flamer! So in fun here is a little flaming, and some clarification of my own. Just because you have, supposedly, played for a long time (even though you haven't once mentioned one of the most uber-classes of all time: the old monk) does not detract from your childish comments. This will certainly be my last post in response to you, please don't get your panties into a bunch over it and reply with more scathing remarks, if you do I might have to change my mind. :)
So for my last rebuttal to you I'll lay everything out clearly since you can't seem to grasp things like syntax.
1. 2e was and is a roleplaying game based entirely off of the most successful rpg ever created. With a similar structure and similar play style.
2. 3e can arguably be said to be only very lossely based on d&d.
3. 3e is unarguably an excellently well designed system.
4. 3e does add many rules (taken from other systems) pertaining to what was, in 2e, the provenance primarily of creatively pretending to be someone you are not. ie. roleplaying.
5. This thread was intended to be a place to discuss the merits of both 3e and the previous editions of dungeons and dragons and discuss our opinions on them.
6. Why have you decided to throw fits in response only to my posts?
7. Are you a WOTC spy?
8. Or are you a noob pretending to be a gamer for a long time.
9. Either way, get a life loser.
by the way, when you are being civil you seem like a fairly intelligent person, and you actually put forth some consistent ideas. You should try that more often.
Do you honestly expect me to back down from a challenge? I accept your er...knitted glove, sir.
The old monk was as wanky as they come. And great fun. We agree.
0. For someone whose posts contain as many typos as do yours, you have a lot of nerve complaining about my poor grasp of syntax. I wonder if the word means what you think it means? ;)
1. No argument.
2. Agreement, because you use the word "arguably." Obviously, I would argue the point long past when anyone else cared.
3. No argument.
4. What's the difference between that and rules governing combat? One of my barbs at you was that I doubt you are a real-life fighter; so to complain that rules can govern imaginary behavior such as combat without impeding roleplay, but can't govern imaginary behavior such as seduction makes no sense to me. For example, most RPers I know are not only out of physical shape, but rather socially inept. They can RP towering masses of bone-splitting, axe-wielding muscle...why can't they RP someone who is a social dynamo? I think rules governing such situations make that possible. You haven't refuted this point to my satisfaction.
5. No argument.
6. Honestly, I don't know. I've avoided this thread for years. The only guess I have is that you complained about social-oriented PC skills being contrary to the spirit of roleplaying, and something snapped in me. Gnnnaaar!
7. I'd probably get paid to do this if I were.
8. Oh, snap!
9. Oh, snap!
Look - I probably overreacted to your post. Probably. So on the off-chance you actually read this, do yourself a favor: take a look at GURPS, or any system that uses social-based skills. Try to understand why they don't preclude the use of imagination. Ok?
Yeah...but...foaming at the mouth...so much more fun...
"However, I simply reject the idea that a structured ruleset impairs creative thinking! I don't see how that follows, and my experience has shown me the exact opposite: where the rules are clear, the quality of play tends to be better."
I agree that when dealing with well defined rules, the arguments tend to be fewer, however I have also seen that the more structure the more boxed in the players seem to be and they tend to think outside of the box (so to speak) less often. We see it every day in real life that rules do not always cover every possible situation, with that in mind the loosely structured 2ed rules seemed to promote the idea of "try it and see what happens". The DM then was required to weight the rules against the situation and decide what happens. The DM (at least in our games) had the final say and that was that.
I am interested in your views on this topic so please no flaming:)
I've turned commenting off. I'd much rather see the discussion moved toward a new Tabletop Gaming forum topic(s). For me, it'll help give the forums some much-needed use, plus it'll start "fresh" and without five years of comments, flames, and non-sensical "the hell were you talking about, hobo?"