gamegrene.com

"3rde sukes cuck"

Reminds of another quote...

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

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

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

--The Sigil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow that felt good.

C-ya.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ciao

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--The Sigil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year all :)

Tas

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

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

I'm gone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cthulhu Matata

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

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

Hey Pirate!

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

Wooz

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

C ya all, moving tommorow so gotta catch some zzs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"THe playtesting was clearly not done."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--The Sigil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surprise was described as being formed from

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-J

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

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

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

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

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

Good for you, and them : )

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

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

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

Back to the topic at hand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, wait, sorry, wrong rant...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm done for now.

--The Sigil

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 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.

Of course, I'm lying about the rule: I spent weeks memorizing the books,
precisely to prevent arguments from hindering the game's flavor.

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

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.

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

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.

I AM 18 AND LOVE D&D I HAVE 102 CHARACTERS

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).

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.

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.

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.

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'?

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.)

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.

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.

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.

Wow t2, could you possibly work in any more spelling errors into your post? "Hooked on Phonics" obviously didn't do you any good.

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

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. :)

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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....

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

I really haven't seen much, if any, namecalling in the new posts.

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...

Well it's Them of course.

Yep, they're the ones.

They don't half cause mischief you know.

Oh my 3e campaign's going swimmingly by the way. They're just in the middle of a seige involving a walled city, ethnic cleansing and a few undead running/shuffling around. THAC0 has all but been forgotten about. The players are still up to their old tricks, causing as much havoc as ever, being done over with regularity in a most unmunchkin type manner and generally having fun.

All with nothing more than really the 3 core books and a couple of things like the greyhawk boxed set from 1e and character sheets being invloved.

Well apart from a note book I write things down in and a bit of imagination...

Got a game tonight as a matter of fact.

Baron

I'm looking to form a group T2. Anyone here from New York City?

Try EnWorld. They have a section where you can post messages and find gamers.

were you from baron...coz londons a hell of a lot cheaper to get to then the big apple if you are were i think you are (erupe).

yes...i may be subverting the topic...but at this pont in time i can say that, 3 (i think) years on from the artcel, lots of flame wars, and all sorts of things later, we have exsted all aguments and run out of ideas

*upon finshing the sentes ww3 erupt around this*

on the other hand...

Everybody knows about D&D 3.5 coming out in July right?
I guess this debate will start all over again, sigh...

Oh and Baron, I am sooooo insulted by your misplaced pond crosser sarcastic witt

; )

As to the differences in 3.5, I don't think many people really know. I've heard some say they're revamping core classes, re-doing combat, and re-writing 40% of the book. And then others say they're just changing typos, erratta, and layout.

some one likes monty python...

and, in my defnse barron, it was a long time ago i read all of this. when i had to print it out it came to 120 pages long.

and as for the resltioln of the agument i thoug that we had finnly come down to play what you want...oh well.

hopeful we can all resovle ower differense on this isusse and get on with things...

i rember when a lod of people were compling it was much like magic...ah...the memroys...

and the idea of it being 3.5 makes me think of paches. so maby it is just typos...

oh well...good pont. still sounds like a pach thoug...

Here's an example of a change that was made. An exclusive tidbit straight from the sage says that a full round attack action will be necessary in order to get the extra attack from a weapon of speed.

FWIW, I've *never* liked AoO.. even back in the really old days of D&D when you got a free swing at someone who ran away. Why should the actions of the opponents magically make you faster?

Well, I suppose one could argue that in a long combat round, where a character is assumed to make a number of feints and strikes and only a certain number actually count, making yourself an easier target might give the opponent extra chances to hit you.. but once we get into this sort of reasoning, you have to admit that you don't really have any idea what's happening in a round. For instance, if I'm squaring off with some guy one-on-one, and then my friend runs in and allows my opponent an AoO, and he takes that opportunity.. then shouldn't *I* get an AoO while my opponent is busy hacking away at my friend and not feinting and parrying my attacks? Stuff like this gets messy and confusing really fast.

I'm willing to forego a little bit of "tactical richness" in combat if, in exchange, I'm able to tell what's going on without making a lot of vague guesses and arbitrary decisions.

Agreed Sam. CR is not carved in stone, and even the designers make allowances for 'situational' adjustments that make an encounter more or less difficult. There is a hobbled troll in the Sunless Citadel, an interesting but challenging victory for low level players, who'd normally never square off against such an opponent.

But all things considered, it's a much better approximation of an appropriate challenge level, and it has served our group very well, keeping the pace and intensity of the game right in the 'sweet spot' that rests somewhere around 'challenging' to 'desperate', just shy of 'futile'.

I love to debate AoO. Xplo and Sam are right (except that the AoO doesn't make you faster). It is merely a game approximation of the tactical consideration that some moves open you to attack and should be punished (rather than forbidden outright), while simultaneously rewarding the opponent.

AoO is no less 'realistic' than having characters take turns to swipe with their swords, in order, while standing still otherwise (and facing in one direction for 7 seconds when they know an opponent is behind them), and ditto on Sam's potion example. Perhaps for some it feels less familiar, but we got over it pretty quickly. I like the spice it adds to combat. The former 'broadsides at 20 paces' approach could get a little boring after a while, in comparison. When we started though, we were invoking AoO every turn, just about, because we were so tactically clumsy with it. Later, we got the hang of it but our DM didn't, sending his goons blundering headlong into our bristling weapons, our characters juiced on agility and feats. We sliced his goons to ribbons every time, and it got so bad that we had to take time out after a combat to show him how to use AoO to his advantage, or at least to lessen his handicap with them.

Where before, DMs could dismiss the tactical portion of the game by interpreting loosey goosey rules to favour their desired outcome, it's a lot more 'out of their hands' now. Some DMs hate that. The new game demands a lot of tactical proficiency from the DM, as well as good story smarts.

I agree that having fun is the prime aim of playing and that trying to completely simulate the real world is impossible, but I give it a go. My players seem to enjoy that I create a world and let them interact with it. CR for design of encounters doesn't provide me with what I want. I don't like assigning x number of x monster, because that's the right number to have for a party of x lvl PC's. I like to assign x number of x monster because that's what is likely to be there due to the situation. The players don't have to run away all the time, but if they are low lvl they need to avoid more things that high lvl PC's. The world the players are in shouldn't increase in level of difficulty as the players do. Not overall anyway. The PC's will just come into contact with more dangerous bits of it, because they say decide to finally raid that Red dragon that's been plaguing the area for the past 5 years. The Kobolds etc don't suddenly dissappear because the PC's are 10th lvl...

In theory the world they are in can carry on quite happily without 3 PC's doing anything at all. Why shouldn't it? It doesn't revolve around just them...

As Sam does I can see a use for CR retrospectively to assign XP and depending on what has happened in the session I do just that.

RE: AoO The problem I had with it was a lot of the combat we do is described. To consistantly rule for AoO I felt that I needed to map things out more. Otherwise it was hard to work out exactly where the threat zones were and when they crossed. It turned combat into more of a board game, that we wanted to try to avoid. I can see they're use and if possible I would include them in my game, but as they are, I'm not happy to at the moment. Suggestions?

As a DM I have no problem with everything being consistant and less loosey goosey, in fact I prefer it, but when it slows the game down so the players are getting bored with the 30 second fight game time because it's taken an hour to do real time, I sometimes find that it's better to be a bit more "dramatic" with things. As long as there is a clear logic behind decisions, die rolls to decide where luck is a factor and people are still having fun then being looser with the rules can aid the situation.

Baron

P.S. RE: Me being your King... "Old Woman!!"

I concur.

Though, are the rounds long? They were in 2e at a minute, but at 6 secs/round it's similar to most RPG now and a bit less abstract.

Baron

Xplo:
My problem with AoO isn't the concept, it's the implementation. D&D has long, abstract rounds during which any number of relatively time-consuming things are assumed to happen.. and completely ignored for the sake of simplicity and playing speed.

Adding a bunch of AoO rules (not to mention all the other tactical stuff they added.. facing and threat zones and what have you) runs against the strengths of an abstract system.

Granted, it's playable, especially if you regard it as some kind of tactical combat board game. Chess isn't particularly realistic either. But it still rubs me the wrong way.

Neph:
Have you read the 3e rules?

“Facing” was deleted from the 3e - not added, because it didn’t make sense that someone would stand facing in one direction for any length of time when fighting two opponents. It was treating the figure on the table too literally. The disadvantage of fighting more than one opponent was accounted for in other ways, such as in AoO.

Rounds are now a few seconds in length, not a full minute. Abstract as it is, time makes much more sense now than it did.

AoO could also be a solution for intercepting, which was never clear in the old rules, where combatants moved one at a time. There was no way to account for the difficulty of running past someone who is actively trying to block your way.

It also served as a solution for accounting for risky or time consuming tasks accomplished within combat. Like drinking a potion or casting a spell, for instance. In the old game, these were prevented outright, or they were subject to the DMs whim, which made the game less interactive because it offered players less choice in what they could do.

It also added an interesting tactical element to big critters in the game, which formerly had just a lot of hit dice, now actually were able to use their size to a tactical advantage.

All these game events had to be accounted for in the 2nd edition. There just was no formal system in place to do so, being ruled and argued willy nilly, constantly. Now, one sleek solution accounts for them all.

Once you understand how to use AoO tactically, you’ll find that they happen less often, and can be resolved very quickly. Inexperienced players (us included) blundered into them all the time. Now they are another choice the players have in the game.

I just don't agree with you on that.

Neph: Sorry - I was exagerrating to make a point. I've begun several campaigns with monsters and calamities which the players were never intended to fight. They were just attempts to introduce the Big Bad early in the story, and set the stakes. I introduced them for story reasons only, and made fairly sure the players were incapacitated or so vastly overmatched that they would not hurt themselves in the encounter with a foolish move, while the plot impetus was delivered (you can't have players interfering with that anway). Then I switched back to regular encounters.

All I'm saying is, I don't make my adventures into a minefield where they can be food for the Tarrasque if they open the wrong door.

I also see why you AoO could be more numerous if you have a lot of feats that exploit it. I just found that when we played at low level (without choosing most of those feats), that the players got very crafty about avoiding being the brunt of AoO. Heh, the DM never figured it out though - too steeped in the slugfest of old.

But in all cases, AoO or not, the combats moved much faster.

Blimey this is getting a bit intense. Excellent! Sorry for the length of this and if it gets a bit confusing who I'm quoting...

I think Neph that the way our campaigns operate slightly different. I may be reading this wrongly (apologies if I am), but I think the campaign I’m running is more open than the one you are running (I’m assuming you’re the DM). Don’t take that to mean I’m saying yours is closed though…

Neph said

“…In my games though, I adjust the scenario so that it is appropriate to the story for the players to meet the right-sized challenge array, as defined by the DMG … How is it MORE appropriate to the story to have your beginning players stumble across an old red dragon, for example? Why not just tell a different story?…”

I am not saying particularly that it is appropriate. Just possible. Having said that I haven’t done that. But I still give the players the choice to take one on if they want to. I don’t try to steer the players at all when it comes to “the story” in fact I do the exact opposite. Apart from the beginning of the current section of the campaign to get the ball rolling I have given no specific directions to the players. Currently the players are defining their own objectives based on what has happened previously and where THEY want to go next.

So rather than being a DM who is one of those people that:

“…use house rule corrections, arbitrary mechanics, and loose rules structure as an excuse to strong-arm the story into an outcome or path that they find more pleasing, personally…”

I would hope I actually let the players drive the story. Now I’ll admit that I am not holier that holy. On occasion a gentle nudge is sometimes given in the hope that the players will go towards a direction I have loads of ideas about and hope I can make a bit more enjoyable, but I try as much as possible not to. If they ignore my steer then fair play, I’ll do my best to cope and carry on. So far, so good.

“…Our play time is finite. All things being equal, I’d rather spend it on challenges they have a hope of interacting with, rather than making them into passive witnesses to my construction. Just as in real life, the challenges we seek are commensurate with our readiness level. Unlike in real life, the challenges that seek us will likely be closely tied to our ability level. That’s why it’s a game at my table, and why it’s fun…”

Is this not the DM controlling the story? You are deciding what the PC’s can face and what they can’t. You are only letting them meet “what they can handle”. My players know that there are going to be certain situations that will be nigh on impossible to win. Retreat is sometimes an option they need to take. That is a valid strategy available to them. Where is the fun in knowing that all things being fair you should succeed in all the encounters? My players know that if they are stupid and unlucky there is a real risk they will die. When they succeed however, the victory is that much sweeter because it was never certain. Stupid equals, running at the red dragon at 1st level waving a short sword. Clever and successful equals, convincing the local high level mage to help them. Or waiting a while until one of them is good enough…

Rather than being impassive observers to my world the PC’s are major players. Just because the world COULD carry on regardless, doesn’t mean it does. Far from it, the PC’s currently involved in quite major politics in the world and steering a large portion of one side in a major war. That is because the PC’s have got involved and are steering the world themselves. I take it as my role to play the reaction of that world to them.

Neph:
“…They may enjoy the world, but if their choices are to run away or die, they are not interacting with it, at least in that one respect, though it may give the illusion that they are. Kind of like having a joystick which points only to the right. You press it that way and make you man move right. But are you playing, or touring?…”

Not all the encounters are out of their league! Most of them aren’t, all of them can be solved in some way, shape or form (as per the example above).

“…Baron:
The Kobolds etc don't suddenly disappear because the PC's are 10th lvl...

Neph:
Who says they should? It is a simple enough matter though, to make it clear that the kobalds are no longer their concern though, especially if the party has already dealt with them at a lower level….”

Why do I have to make it clear they are no longer their concern? It is up to the players to decide that.

Neph:
“…First, you must choose which way you want it - loosey goosey or consistent. I don’t get a clear answer here. For the tactical portion of the game, turning it into a boardgame makes it much more consistent, without excluding role-playing…”

I chose consistent. For a start it makes my life easier. And yes turning it into a board game makes it more consistent, but while it may not exclude it can reduce roleplaying.

We do map out some of the combats. Certainly if I feel that tactical disadvantages will arise. This is mainly for complicated or large battles. Yes, the main drive for consistency is so the players aren’t led around by the nose, they know what the outcomes are going to be so can make their tactical choices as they want, I completely agree with you there Neph. Yes, I control the environment and can arbitrarily decide what happens next, but control the story?!?! No, influence maybe, control no. I could but I don’t.

Even with AoO there is still room for inconsistency. You may argue that it may be reduced but eliminated, no. There will always be loosey-goosey decisions. If not then you would not need a DM to referee. The players can get the plot from a book and decide whether they succeed at the adventure all on their own. Was 2e vague? It seemed to have a rule for everything going, there were certainly enough books! I do try to eliminate any vagueness that arise but still maintain the flow of the game. The stopping to draw a map and then place everyone, all the time just to fit in AoO wasn’t worth it to me. It slowed combat down combat too much IMO when I did. Add the fact that AoO is hard to do if combat is not drawn out precisely, I felt that to maintain consistency I would omit AoO.

Neph:
“…My suggestion is to go to office depot and buy a boardroom size 1 inch graph paper stack. Pre-map the rooms for the players in marker (don’t you hate stopping an encounter to map a room), and include furnishings. Make it lush. Don’t use dry erase boards, because they mean you constantly have to stop and map, and remap. Get tokens or figures, and embrace the tactical game along with your role-playing…”

I would love to be able to map out everywhere! Places I know the player will go to I do, but they frequently go off somewhere I have not planned for. I do tend to use 5mm square paper for sketch maps, with 1mm to a ft. See, I do map some of the time!

Xplo:
“…My problem with AoO isn't the concept, it's the implementation... Granted, it's playable, especially if you regard it as some kind of tactical combat board game. Chess isn't particularly realistic either. But it still rubs me the wrong way…”

I agree with Xplo here w/regards to what I’ve quoted. Having to map in finite detail turns it into a war game for me. I don’t play much warhammer… I don’t enjoy it as much. It’s not what I roleplay for.

Neph:
“…AoO could also be a solution for intercepting, which was never clear in the old rules, where combatants moved one at a time. There was no way to account for the difficulty of running past someone who is actively trying to block your way.

It also served as a solution for accounting for risky or time consuming tasks accomplished within combat. Like drinking a potion or casting a spell, for instance. In the old game, these were prevented outright, or they were subject to the DMs whim, which made the game less interactive because it offered players less choice in what they could do…”

Which is why I would like to include it in my game. I feel however that these problems can be solved in easier ways. It’s a matter of weighing up the advantages and disadvantages. On balance for the reasons above I felt including AoO wasn’t worth it.

Re: Sam’s posting:

On the whole I agree with you, we seem to be singing from the same songsheet at least!

“…With third edition, when monsters stop giving XP's I no longer bother to play the combats and encounters, unless the players specifically mention they would like to. I just say something like: "So after five days ride through the forest you reach your destination. The few wild animals and goblins that tried to attack you were all easily dispatched and so your journey ends without any incident worthy of note."…”

Very similar to the way I handle things.

“…Also, I honestly find it more impressive (as a player) to actually see fourty counters or figs arayed in front of my party than hearing "You now face more than three dozen orcs". Last night's game had us facing a bunch of vampires in the sewers, the sheer amount of them made my heart skip a beat. It was very hard for me to bring myself to believe we could dispatch them all with such ease (well I didn't know they were just thralls and half-vampires at the time). …”

It can be impressive though. It just takes a bit more description. That’s half the fun as a DM. A good description can go a long way to this. Drawing those orcs will give you their positions, but not the fact that the players have just rounded the corner, to be confronted with the grunting, snarling beasts. “The large number of them turns them into a faceless sea of green and brown, before as you look harder you can start pick out individuals, scuffling amongst themselves for position or over a bit of food one has been eating while he’s been waiting. Yes they’ve been waiting for someone, and that someone is you. The banging of shields started as you came into view. Standing at the front in the middle the largest of them stands, dripping with blood and glaring a challenge.” (sorry if I went off a bit there)

Yes I’d probably draw a map then to show the positions, but it might only be of the landscape and the rough lines of the shield walls that have been set up. Not each of the individual orcs. The players can still use trees for cover, channel the orcs through a gully formed by two hills etc etc

Do you map out all your battles in exquisite detail, to the nearest 5ft? How do you do it without slowing everything down? Combat takes far to long as it is IMO. Should 5 mins of game time take an evening to sort out. That’s just working on 5 mins to sort out each round (4+ hours)

“…In general I like 3E combat much more than 2E. It's harder (because the monsters are now much more lethal) but much more enjoyable as the challenges don't get any easier as you go up levels while the "legal" ways in which to meet them have multiplied ten fold….”

I agree here Sam. Just the rationalising of the stats makes it so much better.

Oh *cough*

The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king!

I look forward to loads of retorts, but I might not reply for a bit as I am off on holdiay for a week. Play nicely kids!

Baron

Neph:
“…use house rule corrections, arbitrary mechanics, and loose rules structure as an excuse to strong-arm the story into an outcome or path that they find more pleasing, personally…”

Baron:
I would hope I actually let the players drive the story. Now I’ll admit that I am not holier that holy. On occasion a gentle nudge is sometimes given in the hope that the players will go towards a direction […]. If they ignore my steer then fair play, I’ll do my best to cope and carry on.

Neph:
I should clarify, I’m against using loosey-goosey rules to strong-arm the RESULT of the encounter – AFTER the players have chosen their path. My criticism applies mainly to DMs who fiddle too much during the tactical game, rather than focusing on the role-playing and story aspects. I have no problem at all with leaving plenty of clues in a story to give enterprising players a clue about what’s going on around them so they can make the best choices. But I have a big problem with DMs who start unnecessarily adding or changing the tactical rules to suit their whim in the middle of combat because it would be kewl. The DM’s job is to set the table, not to shovel it into the player’s mouth.

Baron:
Is this not the DM controlling the story? You are deciding what the PC’s can face and what they can’t. You are only letting them meet “what they can handle”. My players know that there are going to be certain situations that will be nigh on impossible to win.

Neph:
If you follow the DMG recommendations, you’ll find that they recommend a certain amount of encounters be slightly higher than the CR of the party. Ones that are significantly higher should not be integral to the adventure. This was the case with the ‘troll’ in The Sunless Citadel, which lurks at the end of an isolated tunnel.

Of course the DM controls the SETTING, he places the buffet. The story arises from the player choices, and from their successes or failures. If the DM has made an appropriate setting, designed appropriate encounters, he shouldn’t need to intercede ‘rules-wise’ to save or hurt characters to make the story ‘more interesting’. I’ve seen DMs try to do it, clumsily introducing new mechanics for kewl story ideas or combat moments, and in each time, they failed.

Baron:
Retreat is sometimes an option they need to take. That is a valid strategy available to them. Where is the fun in knowing that all things being fair you should succeed in all the encounters? My players know that if they are stupid and unlucky there is a real risk they will die. When they succeed however, the victory is that much sweeter because it was never certain. Stupid equals, running at the red dragon at 1st level waving a short sword. Clever and successful equals, convincing the local high level mage to help them. Or waiting a while until one of them is good enough…

Neph:
At no point have I argued that players should win every challenge, so we’re very much in agreement. The DMG guidelines, if followed (and in the Sunless Citadel, for example) will push characters to the edge, and maybe a little over. In fact, several encounters in my games have killed characters when they were being smart or heroic, rather than just when they are dumb. There weren’t any bad feelings though, because nobody was outrageously overmatched.

Baron:
Even with AoO there is still room for inconsistency. You may argue that it may be reduced but eliminated, no. […] The stopping to draw a map and then place everyone, all the time just to fit in AoO wasn’t worth it to me. It slowed combat down combat too much IMO when I did. Add the fact that AoO is hard to do if combat is not drawn out precisely, I felt that to maintain consistency I would omit AoO.

Neph:
I argue that they have been reduced, but not eliminated.

On mapping, as I said, map it out on the big paper the night before. It isn’t hard. Map the whole friggin dungeon on the big paper with a 1 inch scale grid.

What REALLY slows down combat is the constant bickering and confusion of who was standing where, doing what. To maintain consistency – you must draw your combats precisely, not omit AoO. It isn’t hard at all. Your problem isn’t AoO; it’s that you don’t use a proper game mat for the tactical portion of D&D.

Photoshop or photocopy the module map itself to hand to players if they want to see the big picture. Just erase the secret parts.

---------
Sam:
“…Also, I honestly find it more impressive (as a player) to actually see fourty counters or figs arayed in front of my

Baron:
It can be impressive though. It just takes a bit more description. That’s half the fun as a DM. A good description can go a long way to this. Drawing those orcs will give you their positions, but not the fact that the players have just rounded the corner, to be confronted with the grunting, snarling beasts.

Neph:
A lavish description is woefully inadequate for tracking action and for giving players the information they need to perform in combat. A set of counters doesn’t give players the flavor of the particular encounter. A good DM will use both.

Baron:
Do you map out all your battles in exquisite detail, to the nearest 5ft? How do you do it without slowing everything down? Combat takes far to long as it is IMO. Should 5 mins of game time take an evening to sort out. That’s just working on 5 mins to sort out each round (4+ hours)

Neph:
As I said, I map the room, to scale, the night before, including trees, tables, chests, cover. I do it while I’m watching TV. Any likely encounter area. I keep a sheaf of these room maps in a stack. When someone says “I look into the room,” I lay the paper on the table, or uncover the hidden room (I sometimes lay paper or books over it) and begin my verbal description, pointing to the various things I’m describing.

It’s MUCH faster than stopping to map the room, even on small paper.

Baron and Sam, I think we mostly agree on the way we play. The places where we differ stem mainly from the way we structure our campaigns.

I do play from set pre-made adventures rather than going on the fly. I customize the story elements somewhat in each adventure to ensure they feed to the next one, and simultaneously to an overall theme in the story – a big bad of some kind.

I also spend my time developing the characters and scenes within each module, since the mechanics are taken care of. As a DM and as a writer with limited time, that’s where I can get the most bang for my buck, leaving the math to others.

So, I’m looking at the 12th level adventure to figure out what I need to tweak in the first one, to ensure the story fits and builds. It’s a very rough guide, and is subject to change and inspiration as we play, but after discussing it, my players unanimously agreed that they really enjoy a sense of ‘closure’ and accomplishment after each ‘chapter’ much more than ongoing adventures – it takes much more effort to do that in open ended games. They found that open ended games, while fun, never really gave them the sense of accomplishment that specific missions and adventures gave them. This way, they get the best of both worlds.

We do ‘blue booking’ between games, where they have much more free reign. Essentially, this is email/web page story from each character and the DM about what those characters and setting do during the ‘tween adventures time. It really satisfies an aspect of RP and adds a sense of existence to the world and characters, apart from what they do in the dungeon. This is where I propel the story and character encounters along until it comes to a point where the party needs to suit up and achieve some specific objective – to do the adventure. We’ve found that the ‘character work’ is more effective online, and the ‘adventure work’ is more satisfying around the table. And it is quite rewarding to see the material from the online stuff flavor the game. Doing the character stuff live – with non-improv people – always ended up sounding like the Summoner Geeks. Writing it as a brief story allows people the time to come up with witticisms and language that supports the setting.

I also often make real-time game pauses during rest stops to allow players to talk in character. One of the best times we did this was during preparation and battle planning to take out the dragon in The Forge of Fury (which overmatches the party). Knowing that not all of us would survive the encounter, we paused after planning to say our goodbyes (and one character did die).

The kinds of adventures I use for the ‘live sessions’ tend to be dungeons or areas that are slightly isolated, to avoid the problems of characters wandering ‘out of bounds’. For the most part, the players are cooperative with this, and realize that this is preferable to making me scramble, or to being pulled by the nose (ie Speaker in Dreams) along a specific plot track. The one player that constantly attempted to flee the adventure, deliberately trying to challenge every DM to entertain him with improv material, does not play with us anymore. :^) I believe this was discussed in another thread, the point that players also have a responsibility, and that is to play in good faith, understanding that this is a game, and to not try to throw unwarranted monkeywrenches to impede the development of the story (as opposed to attempting to accomplish their missions). For instance, I have a DM friend whose players refused a reasonable mission that he’d spent considerable time preparing. He ended the campaign right then and there, with those players washing dishes, rather than being adventurers. Why come to the game if you aren’t actually going to play?

Man was "Speaker in Dreams" a bad module and Waaaaaay too hard. All in all we went through a total of 5 characters in this crappy piece of sh...

Nuf said

On a somewhat different subject.. I don't understand why some of you people are having gigantic, all-night combats. Maybe you have huge groups of players or something?

Back when I was still GMing, most of my combats were greasy fast.. say, maybe 10 minutes for a minor skirmish, and up to an hour or so for a major battle.. and this was in GURPS, using the full combat rules (hit location, explicit wargame-like maneuvering on a map, a rolled defense for every attack, you name it). The only things that slowed us down were soda breaks or having to look obscure, rarely-used rules. I don't mean to brag here, but honestly, what are you guys doing wrong?

As far as mapping, it's really no big deal. Get a lot of cheap 8 x 11 graph/hex paper and pull some out every time you need a new map. For D&D, 1" graph paper at 5' per square will let you map fairly large rooms or even entire small buildings on one sheet. If you know where the players are fighting, drawing up a servicible map in pencil and populating it with a few doors/tables/whatever takes maybe a minute or two.

There's no need to map everything in advance either (this goes out to Nephandus). Most shops look sorta the same. Most houses look sorta the same. Most inns look sorta the same, and so forth. In most architecture, form follows function. If you must, work out a few generic designs for each common building type and keep them wherever you keep all your campaign stuff (presumably in a folder or something). Then, whenever you need a map, copy one of them off, making minor changes or mirror-imaging things as the whim takes you, or even use the originals if you won't have to mark them up too much. Honestly, your players aren't going to mind if a lot of the buildings look similar.. if you're whipping out a combat map, it's time to kick some ass, not admire the tapestries!

"Mapping advice appreciated Xplo, but not necessary in our case..."

Oh? I seem to remember you saying something about not being able to map all the buildings and such, due to the fact that you ran a player-driven campaign and you had no way of knowing where they were going to go ahead of time. Maybe that was someone else.

"As I said, much of the time was spent arguing about who was standing where, facing which direction, repeating room descriptions, taking back moves and re-doing them because someone didn't recall some verbal instruction etc etc."

Aha, that's what you were doing wrong. ;)

2e wasn't really designed for tactical combat, and shouldn't be played as such, IMO.

"I suspect that if your combats were shorter, then you either had very few combatants, or the DM was shortcuttng every move on the fly, rather than actually letting them play out."

Since I was the GM, I can assure you that all the moves were played out by the rules. It's true that I rarely had more than three or four players, though.. were you GMing a dozen or something? (Bad idea.)

"8x11 graph paper functioned inadequately when I was 11, back in 1981, though we didn't realize it then. We use it for the big picture map, but it doesn't work as a battleboard - where we want precise, to scale, positioning."

The standard quarter-inch grid is useless for battle, yes.. but I meant to use something with an inch grid. Allowing for margins or chopped-off edges, that gives you about a 35' x 55' area.. enough for a pretty large room, or a small building, as I said before. If for some reason you need more than that, you can always tape two sheets together.

Alternately, if you're fighting in a huge open area or something, just use a small ruler or tape measure to move people, wargame-style. I've played in games like this before and it works quite well.

Was it Baron? Doh, my mistake.

The advice was really for him then. :)

A minute per PC? Yikes.

I know your figures are just estimates, but if you can move several allies and/or enemies in a couple of minutes, your experienced players should be able to act with the same speed most of the time. Most combats - *especially* large combats, by virtue of having lots of comparatively weak enemies - tend to boil down to "okay, I attack that one", and by the time your first player's done, your second and third players should already know more or less what they want to do next.

I don't mean to lecture. "You suck! You're doing it wrong!" It just seems to me that if a fight is taking all evening, then something's taking way too long.

Baron - you and I obviously run very different campaigns. In addition to the RPG and story elements, my games are often praised for their fairness and tactical element. The adventures I choose tend to support this style of play.

I leave the "game" in RPG. You are still doing it the way we used to do it with 2nd e, and IMO, it simply doesn't work with the 3rd. There's no reason not to have an accurate battleboard for every single combat - specific positioning counts for a great deal more than AoO in 3rd ed. If your combats are taking too long, it's because you are attempting to introduce some of the extra elements of 3e, without introducing the mechanism that supports it. If it was me, I'd be very frustrated playing that way, but if you believe the alternative is not an improvement, then carry on!

All very interesting reading. Although I don't run AD&D (pointedly), I feel that the discussion here is more about Gamesmaster techniques and can thus comment. For bias, I run my own game, Icar (http://www.icar.co.uk) which is a free Science Fiction RPG. I run a game with University graduates within the 22-30 age bracket. I run a Narrativist - Gamist game [1]. I have split up my opinions into headings, not retorts to anyone in particular. I shall refer to the person who runs the game (Ref, DM) as the GM. I have referenced [] where possible and they are included at the end.

1. Campaign Technique
Traditional campaigning uses a tree-like structure where the GM has a starting point and then the possibilities fan out. At each branch, the players take a choice and move on. However, there are a limited number of branches and the players are likely to see very similar events regardless of what they do. Also, the choices are often quite obvious. This is a semi-linear, closed method. Players are unlikely to play the same 'adventure' more than once so the lack of branches does not appear a problem. Another sort of Campaign style is more freeform where a world is presented with vague goals (often provided by the character's background) and this is used to provide the character's with something to do. I run the Icarian model [2], where the world is provided and several plotlines provide event filled timelines that the characters may or may not witness. Sub goals are often given through jobs and contacts, but the characters must seek an agenda for themselves, rather than following the plot. A structure is given so that recurring characters can reappear without any loss of consistency. If the characters were not in the game world at all, then it would continue unhindered but if they alter things then future events change.

Why do it this way? If my players got they idea that they were on a linear, they would do everything in their power to revolt. They do not roleplay to be forced down a certain route - they want freedom. They want to choose who the bad-guys are. You could try to argue that the players would never know that they are being 'railroaded' down a single route, but this is to underestimate the players as they will soon get wind of the groomed manner in which the presentation and choices are given. Also, encounters become either 'Kill it', 'Talk to it'. Thus, it can be very predictable.
I will never return to the adventure-based linearity as, frankly, it bores me to know what will be happening later in the campaign. I like to know what I might throw at the players, but I don't want to know how tough they are going to be or what they might do when faced with it.

2. Maps
Figures have their place, but not on my Roleplaying Game table. Too much is relied upon maps and figures, a good description will do enough. It is unlikely that you have a figurine for 'Crouched on the floor crying', one for 'Back against the wall, heart pounding'. A few marks on a map to show simple locations of objects. The players should be describing, not rolling dice. I want to hear about 'dives through doorways', 'rolling under tables' and 'barging the bad guy'. This may all be backed up by a swift dice roll and a quick rule mechanic but is essentially quick and much more interesting than just rolling dice. I am sure your players do this to some extent, but it should be encouraged. I find figures detract away from the drama of the scene, a fallback for those too lazy to describe their actions and a haven for power gamers.

3. Balance and Fairness
What is fair? Should a game be fair? So much more tension can be built if the players honestly don't know if the next thing they do will lead to their untimely demise. Balance is important, but breadth is also. The characters need a range of foes to appreciate their strengths and weaknesses.

4. Conclusion
You are there to have fun. There is no right or wrong way of GMing, there are different GMs for different groups of players. I have tried other methods of GMing, using Campaign diagrams [3] and the such and have found every technique interesting. It is unwise not to try other methods, no matter how bizarre they seem.
I gave up running linear plots long ago as my players would tear them to shreds. I've seem them do it to very good GMs who could not handle the free spirited nature of players who don't like anything on offer so will build their own agenda.

5. References
1. see the Forge GNS model http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/
2. Icar GM Manual - The Strings. Go to http://www.icar.co.uk/ Click on the menu Game->Strings and download the 2MB pdf
3. Roleplaying Tips - http://www.roleplayingtips.com/

When I say 'figures', I mean 'diagrams' not 'numbers'.
And thus, we agree.

On March 6, 2003 10:36 AM, Brainwipe said:

Brainwipe:

“Campaign Technique
Why do it this way? If my players got they idea that they were on a linear, they would do everything in their power to revolt. “

Neph:
Even a dungeon has choices. And your ‘tree structure’ seems to use a flowchart of choices and encounters – which is essentially – a dungeon. Unless the players stray too far off the path and leave you scrambling or playing improv games.

Brainwipe:
“Also, encounters become either 'Kill it', 'Talk to it'. Thus, it can be very predictable.”

Neph:
While this has certainly been a part of my games (and I’ll bet it’s a big part of yours), it needn’t be. My players found a shrewd villain in Yusdrayal in the Sunless Citadel, essentially using her 13 kobald guards to threaten to turn a single character into a pincushion, effectively preventing the entire part from attacking. They negotiated with one party to attack another, and then found that they’d been used as an assault force by the first group. Not Shakespeare, but the players did enjoy a smart villain.

Brainwipe:
“ I like to know what I might throw at the players, but I don't want to know how tough they are going to be or what they might do when faced with it.”

Neph:
Of course you know what they MIGHT do. But nobody knows what they WILL do.

Brainwipe
“It is unlikely that you have a figurine for 'Crouched on the floor crying', one for 'Back against the wall, heart pounding'. A few marks on a map to show simple locations of objects. The players should be describing, not rolling dice. I want to hear about 'dives through doorways', 'rolling under tables' and 'barging the bad guy'. This may all be backed up by a swift dice roll and a quick rule mechanic but is essentially quick and much more interesting than just rolling dice. I am sure your players do this to some extent, but it should be encouraged. I find figures detract away from the drama of the scene, a fallback for those too lazy to describe their actions and a haven for power gamers.”

Neph:
I do not understand the unlikely claim that if you use a map and a figure, that you will lose the capacity for speech and imagination, preventing you from also describing a scene adequately. Does something in the ink cause a stroke? Am I just that much of a genius that I alone am able to talk and draw (admittedly, I do much of my drawing the night before), or talk, and move a figure? Sorry for the sarcasm – it just seems to be a silly claim. As for “power gamers” the negative connotations of this term were born from the easily exploitable loopholes in the 2nd edition D&D game system, and a host of other systems that do not have a cohesive mechanical structure. A good system should balance out everything, preventing players from overpowering the game.

Brainwipe:

“3. Balance and Fairness
What is fair? Should a game be fair? So much more tension can be built if the players honestly don't know if the next thing they do will lead to their untimely demise. Balance is important, but breadth is also. The characters need a range of foes to appreciate their strengths and weaknesses.”

Neph:
And that is provided within the parameters of what I discussed. Some on target, some easy, some easy if you know the trick (perhaps some environmental advantage), some harder for the same reason, and some that are significantly more difficult – though still reasonable for the party to deal with – with maybe one or two casualties. But nothing so easy that it is wasted time, or so hard that players question the game itself.

Tension is not built from facing a red dragon at first level. Players give up – because you aren’t playing fair. There’s no shame in losing your character in such a game, and no reason to get attached to it. There is nothing “random” about the challenges they face. You put them there for them to find.

Brainwipe:
“4. Conclusion
You are there to have fun. There is no right or wrong way of GMing, there are different GMs for different groups of players.”

Of course there is a right way to GM, depending on the type of game that you are playing. Some methods are far more effective than others, depending on your system and on your goals. For instance, playing 3e D&D without a 1 inch battlemap and markers, for instance, is an exercise in frustration. Virtually all of the tactical rules (not just AoO) require precise positioning to work.

Brainwipe:
“I have tried other methods of GMing, using Campaign diagrams [3] and the such and have found every technique interesting. It is unwise not to try other methods, no matter how bizarre they seem.”

Neph:
I use different methods for different games. My Mage games, for instance were much more free form, and used more improv, but the preparation in story and character work was back-breaking (and I actually received a round of enthusiastic applause once). It was too much, so we switched to something more bite-sized.

So, use the methods that are appropriate to the game.

Brainwipe:
“I gave up running linear plots long ago as my players would tear them to shreds. I've seem them do it to very good GMs who could not handle the free spirited nature of players who don't like anything on offer so will build their own agenda.”

I’ve played with two GMs who used the technique of following player cues to see where the story would go next – sort of like the Chretien government. They worked for a while and then quickly crashed and burned from player apathy. The problem was that the players didn’t actually feel like they were engaging a scenario. The moment they discovered that they were making everything up as they went along, they realized that they weren’t playing a game – they were doing improv. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it isn’t what they signed up for. Game players – even rpg players – want to test themselves against a somewhat objective challenge.

An obsession with the idea of Improv is utterly wrong. It has some elements of improvisation but the game itself is not freeform. It has goals, sub goals, plots, events and challenges, they're just not listed in a certain order with prescribed outcomes.

It's not the game that sets the manner of GMing style, it's the way the group (both players and GM) wants to play. If linear is their wish, great! If Icarian is their desire, then great!

Finally, tension is diminished when the players know that most encounters (or events) are balanced around them. To deny this is merely to cast a veil over the inadequacies of linearity.

"An obsession with the idea of Improv is utterly wrong. It has some elements of improvisation but the game itself is not freeform. It has goals, sub goals, plots, events and challenges, they're just not listed in a certain order with prescribed outcomes."

This isn't so different from a dungeon - unless your dungeon is a hallway, and that would be a pretty crappy dungeon. Outcomes are not predetermined (though the challenges are), players have choices - though limited (similar to plot based above ground adventures).

The difference with a dungeon is that if you try to go out of bounds, you'll hit a wall. If you do the same above ground, you'll get steered or lured back into the story again by the DM.

Unless- the DM just follows the player's leads - in which case improv is exactly what you have, since the players are not actually engaging anything exterior challenge.

Actually, you don't have to purchase the new books if you don't want to. WoTC will be posting the changes on the web for free download. Works for me.

Cadfan said:
“I'm surprised at the vehement support of battlemaps. Frankly, I've never found them amazingly useful. Then again, my PCs have never entered a single dungeon. [..]objectives in my campaigns are never things like "clean out the nest of orcs," they're things like "stop the assassination attempts on the northern border," or "prevent war from breaking out between two large nations."

Nephandus says:
I choose stories that are entertaining and which support clear tactical objectives. My players do not suffer from a lack of role playing – in fact I use specific encounters and plan for specific stops to devote to role playing, using NPCs to prompt conversations during resting. And we blue-book online between adventures.

Cadfan:
“I wouldn't mind using a battlemat if I could prepare it ahead of time. But I think the flow of the game would be damaged were I to stop in the middle of the evening to sketch out the bandits camp”

Nephandus:
Which is why the game is better suited to a DM who takes the time to choose or prepare an adventure that supports battles in certain designated areas. I’ve almost never had to stop an encounter to sketch a battlemat. Whenever I’ve brought out a pre-fab sheet, I’ve been greeted with delighted faces from my players, who don’t have to stop the game.

Cadfan:
“After all, rather than using a battlemat to determine with absolute certainty whether the rogue is moving into a flanking position, the rogue's player can just say "Can I move into a flanking position?" I say yes or no depending on my simple sketch In fact, most of the time its not even necessary for the character to ask.”

Nephandus:
And herein lies the core of the problem we’ve been discussing. In combat, every arbitrary DM decision made on the fly (no, back of the napkin sketches do not suffice) REMOVES control from the players, and places it firmly in the DMs lap. The DM effectively controls what the players can do, and whether they succeed. That – my friend – is not a game.

Cadfan
“As for improv, what's wrong with it?”

Nephandus:
Nothing. Nobody has ever made a case that improv is an unworthy activity. I happen to enjoy it very much. But it ain’t a game, and it ain’t D&D. It can be an aspect of it, and I definitely use it in my D&D games (to a much greater extent than most games I’ve played in). But I don’t resolve tactical outcomes with it, or at least, I work very hard to reduce my personal hand (as a DM) in how a challenge is resolved.

Cadfan:
I suppose the situation might be very different were my players playing a general "we're adventurers, we want to adventure and defeat evil and attain wealth, fame, and power" campaign, since there's a lot more ways to do that then there are ways to "secure the nation from threat and enforce the law of the land," like in my campaign.

Nephandus:
That is a reductionist stance. It’s perfectly possible to have a full and rich campaign, with rounded characters, Oscar winning in-character conversations, and a consistent, fleshed out setting while attending to the pre-requisites of a game.

Cadfan:
I suppose the question is which type of freedom is more important to the game? Your characters are relatively restricted in where combat takes place.

Nephandus:
Relatively restricted, yes, though it is almost always woven into the story seamlessly. Players don’t have a reason to be elsewhere if they are following the action of the plot.

We have found this to be a beneficial trade though, since it speeds the pace and richness of the game, and they enjoy having their successes and failures become less arbitrary. They cede the overall premise, setting, and scenario to the DM, in return for getting more control over their character within that setting. Further to that end, the choices they make in character creation (ie feats that exploit AoO) have more impact in a game than in an activity that resolves game tactics and choices on the back of a napkin. In the day to day of playing, it’s far more intrusive to depend on the DM’s whim to resolve a character action than it is to rely on the DM to begin the “live session” that will bring characters through encounters and triggers.

Cadfan:
My characters deal with reduced complexity of surroundings in exchange for the power to determine to a great extent what those surroundings are. While you are absolutely correct that there is freedom lost in arbitrary DM decisions, there is also freedom lost if the mission is designed such that the final battle WILL be in the throneroom, come hell or high water.

Nephandus:
The thing is, while I agree it would be nice to be able to go anywhere, do anything – I think a good 3e D&D game will tend to keep the players within certain confines – if they are cooperating within the bounds of the story.

In my case, a battle royale did not take place in the room where I expected it would, but rather in another room – which I had also mapped out. In dungeons, I can afford to be much less conspicuous in placing ‘out of bounds’ markers than I can above ground, since the walls do it for me. Above ground, or in plot based adventures- I rely much more on player cooperation and a skillful story with clues to stay on track. They could all decide to pack up and sail their characters to Byzantium if they want, most of them realize that their game experience is not served by leaving the playing field, and don’t try to deliberately sabotage or challenge the experience provided by the range of choices they have.

Cadfan:
Not that you are quite that heavy handed, I'm sure you'd move the final battle if the pcs absolutely insisted upon avoiding that scenario

Nephandus:
For the most part, the stories I choose in the first place have predictable places where the “boss” is encountered, with some variance. If the characters avoid the encounter, then essentially, they avoid the game, and hurt only themselves. This is not to say that encounters may only happen in certain rooms, at certain times – not at all. But I do tend to have enough geography mapped out beforehand to give them MORE than enough choice as to where they may choose to fight, providing they are able to lure the villain away from his prepared position. I’ve also had roving bosses with goons within dungeons.

Cadfan:
Remember, before you deify battlemaps for their objectivity in combat, many role playing GAMES are expected to take place without any visible representation of events at all.

Nephandus:
That is true – certainly for the Storyteller series, some of which (Wraith) contain excellent game rituals to aid in improv and role-playing action (ie players assuming the “alter-ego” of other players at the table). But we are talking about Dungeons and Dragons here in this thread, and taking advantage of 3e features such as its fantastic mechanics to create an excellent game experience. Many other games simply don’t provide the same opportunities as 3e does here – so I made a conscious choice to exploit those advantages with this game.

Cadfan
I have used premade maps in the past to good affect, I will admit. For example, if I happen to know that the action in a particular evening will take place entirely within a castle, I show up with a written out, gridworked map of a castle. That way, even though I don't have a distinct idea of the final result of the evenings roleplaying, I've accomodated for most possible outcomes.

Neph:
That is exactly how I do it.

Cadfan:
But, in my more frequent freeform "hunt the assassins," or "figure out the true traitor" missions, I don't know enough about the setting to plan more than a general map of the region, which can be filled in ingame without difficulty.

Neph:
I also don’t provide battlemaps for environments where I don’t expect combat to happen. Figuring out stuff, city and country travelling etc, doesn’t require a 5’ grid. But when they DO figure out where those assasins are, they’ll find me prepared with a map and a lair.

Hi everyone,
The URL below is worth following:
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/3point5comments.html

It doesn't totally blow off 3.5, but it does confirm for me the main driving force behind WOTC/Hasbor isn't giving the players what they want, or improving the game or any of that. It is and always will be greed.
And it does raise the question : What price d20 now?
- Grey

Nephandus wrote - "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."
I know this has been a while...but...
I've been in and around BBS's for a very long time. I use other names, not just this one.

DJ, you may get "so pissed off when people talk about things they don't understand." all you want. You don't seem to understand that I DO understand. I understand that 3rd ed. offers things that I want no part of. I also understand that 3rd ed. offers things I wish they had done to 2nd ed. I understand, that no matter who has responded nor how they agreed or disagreed with me or anyone else, we are all obviously D&D people, through and through whether we play 1st, 2nd, 3rd or even 3.5 or some conglomeration of any or all of the above. So, you didn't like the extra roll on an 18 str...which was only for humans, at least in my gaming group. This brought about some semblance of balance for us. We ignored the age rule on demi-humans. We kept the multi-class rules for the most part. We just rolled simple initiative and left out the modifiers. We tweaked the spell rules a bit to suit our own tastes. We kept modifiers to armor class. We made D&D, 2nd edition, our own. Sure, we could do the same with 3rd edition just as we did with 1st edition way back when. Play 3rd ed however you want. Go get glad in the same pants you got mad in. The rest of the world will go on playing what we want, how we want and this article will still serve as amusement for some, artillery for others and a place to vent some may feel the need to do.

Oh...btw...I am the original article writer and as this being my brain child, I won't let it go undefended nor unprotected. Clear the passageways and nock arrow to bowstring, Rabbitman's here to stay!

now that I'm past my delusions of grandeur...I bid you all a good eve.

My sentiments exactly GhostGamer.

"Vive la difference" and long live fantasy RPG's

Heres a solution, play Hackmaster :)

I started playing around 1990 I have played D&D all the way up to AD&D 2nd edition, my favorite roleplaying game of all times. I have been out of the game since 97' and now Im looking to get back in...so I bought D&D 3.0 and then a few months later...boom edition3.5 comes out...AHGHRR!!! What do I do. Should I stick to AD&D 2nd edition or is it worth it to keep moving along with their upgrades. (I think Wizards of the Coast are just trying to make a buck..I dunno) Please let me know what you all think.

I think that Mr. Carlos is a fool not to buy 3.5. The entire combat system has been redefined, the rules have been balanced, the monsters have been adjusted. It's such an improvement over the old 3.0. However, there's no need to throw 3.0 out. There is some great material in those old sourcebooks, too, you know.

That is annoying, Arin. I hate that assumption. In my campaign, I make sure that any race can be any class they like, except in some circumstances (gnome barbarians, anyone? Howsabout goblin wizards?)

Arin

Where do you get that? All clerics are human or 1/2 elven? WTF?

Sure a multiclassed elven cleric that isn't part wizard will be rarer than the human equivalent. But single classed clerics shouldn't be. Is this because of the suggested starting packages? They're like templates for lazy players or for one nighters, they don't mean anything.

Hello.

I am looking for what would amount to an interactive online Hex battleboard that could be used in an online group chat environment. Ultamately, the DM (GM) could point and click little icons into hexes to represent the movement of characters and NPCs. The board would only need to be update accessable to the DM, while all players would be able to see it.

Has anyone seen anything like this?

Overall, I give 3.5 a big thumbs-up.

I've been fed up with class- and level-based systems for years, and especially with D&D.

When 3.0 came out, I was forced to reevaluate my hatred of all things D&D.

Over time, I began to notice "broken" aspects of 3.0. 3.5 has addressed most of these.

The jury in my group is still out on the new weapon sizing rules, and the facing rules *are* silly. But I think the incorporation of many useful feats from the secondary source books (such as Song & Silence, Sword & Fist, etc.), as well as most of the better prestige classes, into the core rules was a very good call.

Some of the CRs have been changed, also resulting in more accurate encounter planning. This, in addition to the expanded use of monster templates, has made the Monster Manual a much better book.

As far as Hasbro and its golden goose goes...call me selfish, but I really don't care. I've followed fringe and out-of-print games for decades. Give me a good ruleset or setting any day; dozens of pre-made modules are nice when you can get them, but it's the game itself that really matters.

---Cocytus said:---
When I start working on a new D&D campaign, the first thing I find myself doing is reviewing the rules and hammering out some setting-specific house rules.
---And---
When I set up a GURPS campaign, all I have to worry about is which of the available rules I want to use.
---- ----

Maybe it is just me, but qualitatively these two activities sound very similar. In each case you are deciding what parts of the ruleset you will use, and what parts you will not. You may also be ADDING incremental rules to D&D, which maybe you don't have to in GURPS if you have enough source books at your disposal. Though I imagine you buy enough d20 stuff you could wind up in a similar place with 3.5 (I'm not certain, since I own no 3.5 or d20 stuff personally).

Now it is really easy to do that sort of rules paring in GURPS, since it is designed to be generic, it's ability to be tailored to a specific GM setting is one of it's strengths.
One of D&D's strengths is that it comes with setting, so if you want that setting, you can play it with very little rules paring at all.

They are supposed to be different. And don't feel bad about sounding a bit cultish, I think we all understand that is because GURPS works better for the game YOU like to play. So you have a slight preference is all, it's not like you're a raging GURPS fanboy or a D&D hater or anything.

John

Cocytus,
I agree, the further you want to move from the core setting, the better off you are using another game. And GURPS can be used to run almost anything.

But don't worry, I am sure there will be an obscure PDF d20 product with a sleeping elves setting published any minute now, so you'll be able to just use that. After all, with the advent of the OGL, d20 will offer every gamer everything that they coul ever need.:)

Nuts,

To get back on topic for awhile. Rabbitman wrote this as a lament on the Demise of D&D and I agree with him. 2E mostly ironed out all the problems of 1E (which was pretty good anyway) and all you had to do was add a few houserules.

As far as I am concerned 3E missed the point of a real upgrade. It should only have proposed rule changes which added to enjoyment and realism, not unnecessary changes like removing THAC0 and adding feats. All these changes do is replace one perfectly adequate system with another. They add nothing to the enjoyment, realism etc, and are no more than a money-spinning exercise.

And thats what its all about. After a few years, the market gets saturated with people who have all the books and you need a big gimmick to sell the same stuff over again.

It's funny, Mohammed, that you should pick as pointless changes two of my favorite things about 3d Ed: the addition of feats, which I really dig (hey....there's actually a good reason to play a fighter now!), and the removal of that #&%#^#@@*%@ THACO. =)

On that at least we can agree. In a few years 4E will probably come around. I might buy it, or not, I'll see then.

Still Neph

The rules for rangers and paladins didn't work well, which made people use supplements, optional or house rules. (Though they could have been incorporated in the complete warrior's handbook).

Challenge ratings were often wrong (which meant the GM had to tweak them)

Attacks of Opportunity needed some work (though they weren't problematic)

Some spells were broken (though that could have been changed in a supplement on magic)

I don't know if it's soo wrong. It's just we were used to TSR changing editions every decade or so, which to my taste was a bit too long (especially between first and second edition)

Looks like this discussion is dead, but, I wanted to say something on this matter.
The original creation of D+D was one of inspiration. Third edition is one of commercialization(sp?).
Enough said.

Neph,

You said that like it was gods own truth. You could have added 'Enough said'.

=)

By the way, 'Enough said' can also be used in a non arrogant way, to say that all sides of a debate have been thouroughly aired, and further discusion is unlikely to be profitable.

Mo

From what I see, you simply haven't adapted.
Why change something that works? -Because it works for you, but I haven't played that much AD&D (but alot of D&D) and the THAC0 thing is confusing.
All the calculations you have to make concerning AC and tohit in 3e is written down, so you have and it rarely changes that much.

It's some time since you wrote this, so hopefully you've seen the cool thing about some of the changes (and mourn the complete lack of other things, like me). Called shot, where art thou!

You know, I hate gamers like you! You practice your freedom of speech only to down others who do as well. I have played and run virtually every RPG on the market as well as published a few of my own. All games have something worth praising. Sad to say all 3D has is its outstanding artwork. I was open minded to the arrival of the new and "improved" Dungeons and Dragons as I have been a game master for inumerable years. Sadly 3D was a big-build-up with no go under the belt. I have since reverted back to 2nd edition where I have several tightly Knit and loyal guilds of players. The D20 system is a marked achievement and I will warrant that it is enjoyable. But, the theme remains. If it aint Broke DONT FIX IT!!!! I weep for the loss of TSR. You want money hungry? Do your research and get your facts straight before attempting to castrate the tried and true. It is WotC that is gloried green not our mighty fallen! Want to argue furthur then post another mouthful and I will respond in kind with a digital photo of my old writing contract with TSR emblazed across the top. I, for one, know of what I speak.

I found this string while searching for some D&D stuff, and so I read through a bunch of it. I have seen a lot of viewpoints from both sides of this. I myself have tried 3E and I thought it was a sacrilage(however it's spelled). I can understand how after so long a system can become redundant, that changes need to be made. But the fact remains that the changes should have been much more subtle.

On the subject of how a player can make an uberpowerful character with eighteen different classes, I think that the notion of all the classes for a single character is completely asinine. I mean really, giving a player the ability to have so many different classes(and no level limits)is only an attempt to appease the players who want to have the uberpowerful character, which is not what D&D is about. It would upset the game balance, except for the fact that now everyone has an uberpowerful character, and in turn the DM has to make the monsters accordingly powerful to make sure the game isn't boring, hacking through hordes of monsters with their umpteenth level characters does in fact get boring when there is no real threat. so why not just keep everything the same?

There should be a limit to who can be what class, and what stats you have to have for certain classes. If there are no limits, it makes the class less special. And I remember that somewhere along the line, someone said something about why does a paladin have to be pretty? Evidently someone doesn't know what it means to be charismatic. And obviously the creators of 2nd edition saw their problems with categorizing physical appeal into charisma, and hence the optional rule int he DMG regarding the Comeliness attribute. A paladin needs a high charisma because they are supposed to be leaders. Leaders need to be charismatic, or else very few people will listen to them.

Also, a paladin has high ideals, they are upholders of good, which is probably why they wouldn't go well as multiclassed with a a thief. It stands to be pretty obvious that most paladins (unless they're evil paladins) probably dont value thievery as a great virtue.

However, I cant dispute that there probably are some good things that I have overlooked, as usually there are some. But it is a completely different system, and a bastardization of the game. However, the ship for 2nd edition has already sailed. Its reign has fallen like the Roman empire. 3E is like the age of kings. But one day soon, we will hit a renaisance period where just as they looked to the ancients and brought back new philosophies, we will go back to the high age of 2nd edition.

We just have to wait.

I read "There should be a limit to who can be what class" and the DM can set that limit, however keep an open mind that if you think about it there is always going to be the chance that a goblin will be a wizzard or a gnome will be a barbarian.

In the case of a paladin needing to have charisma, most of them do. Most players make them that way because charisma is what most of the paladins class abilities and skills are based off of. Though i could see a paladin that doesn't speak so well being a little silly, it could happen.

I know some people who play 3E or even 3.5E like to bend the rules to make powerful characters, but I know in the group I play with we put more enfluence on the role playing. Sure dungeon delving is fun, but a plot that moves the story along is a must have.

Last thing i have to type is rule one of the whole game, whether its 1E or 3.5E:
"what the DM says, goes"
No matter what the rule, what he says goes.

Dear Friends,

I am glad to see that this forum is still alive and well, and that the conversation is exactly the same a when I left.

I found this site many years ago when the switch from 2nd edition to 3rd edition was undergoing its metamorphosis.

I agree with some of you that this change was made out of basic greediness of the Wizards of the Coast Company and I fear for the games survival.

The main problem with the two version are the generations that created them.

When Gary Gygax created the original versions of the games, his models for the characters were from books such as lord of the rings and the chronicles of narnia. These were realistic characters with real life types of limits in regard to their powers.

When the 3rd edition was made the basis for the powers of the characters were superhuman type characters like those seen on Animi. Characters that can kill off whole armies with swords and spin in a circle killing all around them.

I guess if you wish to play such characters that is your own prerogative. I fail to see how the lack of challenge will keep the next generation of players at the table. I have played for 16 years and with the same 1st and 2nd edition rules still find the magic and love for the game as I had as the first game I played.

The new version plays like a video game, which is what the creators were probably looking for. More Powers, More Feat:Kill, Kill, Kill! That is what they want. Role Play is dead. I have played with 3 groups and they were all the same.

When the change between the two systems were underway, gamers would point out the sheer amount of books that 2E had. " Look at all those books, its ridicules! 3E is only going to come out with 3 books a month.". Look at it now. I literal SEA of 3E material is at your hands. Books on Elves, Dragons, Magic Item construction and more and more are put out every day.

How are you to keep track of all these feat and skills as a dungeon master? A player could choose skill and mix and match from all these books and make an unkillable character, I've seen it done.

Also, the second edition lasted for 13 years before this change. 3E lasted only 3 years before 3.5 was made. All their books for the last 3 years were rebought by the same suckers who bought them the first time.

BUT THERE IS HOPE!!!! For those of you content with buying and rebuying the same books over and over:..have at it, but for the rest of you I have two works HACK MASTER.

Hackmaster is made by Kenzerco, the creators of the Knights of the Dinner Table Comic Book and the Kingdoms of Kalamar setting.

Kenzerco has bought the rights to the 1st and 2nd edition rules and has made a improved system based upon those old rules. IT IS NOT A JOKE GAME! CONTRARY TO WHAT SOME MAY SAY!

No more skill, feats, millions of dule classing, or billions upon billions of books.

The best part is ALL your old 2E books are interchangeable with this system. Nothing needs to be changed.

So give it a look at www.kenzerco.com

also check out my web site @

http://psychogamers.tripod.com/

I have been playing dungeon and dragons since 1978, (yea I know, I am an old timer). I have played dungeon and dragons, advance dungeon and dragons, 2nd edition and 3rd edition.
There is good things in all of them, but also some cons, which comes with the territory.
3rd edition: Pros: cap is not 25 anymore and you get one stat point every three rounds.
Cons: Attack of opportunity: This has to be the lamest rule I have ever heard of, but since there is a few people that I play with, enjoys it. I just turn it back on them, because only fighters get to use it. (some monsters are classed fighters too, hehe.)
2nd edition: To me it has to be the best dungeon and dragons so far and yes, I will miss tsr.
Pros: You dont have to be that bright in math to have a good time, highest thaco is 20, and the lowest armor class is -20. 1 is a miss always and 20 is always a hit.
Cons: Vague on some spells abilities.

But here it is in a nut shell people: Dungeon and dragons rules are not cemeted in stone and those people who dare not create some colorful aspects of the game, needs to get a life. Dungeon and dragons as a whole was a game to stretch the imaginations and if you are a book player, you are not using the tool that d&d was meant to work.

Greetings!
I am amazed that this thread has gone on for more than a few years, but it demonstrates the fact that gamers are passionate and intelligent; very good points made from the supporters and detractors of 3(.5)E.
I started out playing the Basic box set in the early 80's, moved up to Expert and then to AD & D. I loved it; I missed 2nd E, as I went through a period of religious brainwashing, and started playing again 2 years ago (1rst E).
It has taken me over a year to even consider 3E; why mess with something if it isn't broken? If a rule was questionable, we simply devised a house rule to correct it. I love the nostalgia of the artwork and layout of 1E; it's what I (in a manner of speaking) grew up with.
With that said, after reading and reading the Players Handbook for 3.5E several times, I have to say I really love it above the other editions.
At first, I was insulted by the "D & D for Dummies" feel that seemed to portray, but then I realized WotC were not trying to reach an exclusive audience of current players, but they were (are_ trying to reach those that have never played before. I remember the 80's too well, and one of the bad memories that I have is of the Satanic Panic that swept the nation. D & D, the Smurfs, Metal music and a list of many others were said to be 'Satanically' inspired. Some people kept away from it when they were younger and now that they are older they may feel like it's a stupid kid's game that has ties with devil worship. The PHB presents the game (IMO) as just a game, and in such a way that it cannot be misconstrued as a textbook for summoning Cthulu or something.
True, combat has changed, but try playing a few combat rounds and you'll see that the grid and miniatures serve to enhance the game and make the players as well as the DM's life easier. Within the context of the game, it actually 'feels' like combat now.
Feats and skills will take a bit of time getting used to, but once you do, you'll wonder how you lived without them.
Character freedom is unprecendented; literally, your character is limited only by your imagination; and ins't that the point? To creatively express ourselves by exercising our collective imaginations?
Just a thought or two....
Tim

Characters who are limited only by your imagination... that sounds a bit lame. The best part of D&D is thinking (and acting) through the lense of a limited character, and solving problems within the context of those limits. When limits are torn down and characters become no more than an exercise in creative visualization, the game is downgraded from a "role-playing" game to simply a "fantasy" game. The literary elements are gone, and all that's left is a playable comic book.
One other thing I want to add: Where is the idea coming from that 3rd edition is "more realistic?" Second edition and Players Option had deep roots in history and world literatures; third edition is full of double-bladed weapons, flails with heads on both ends so that you beat yourself with them while you fight, people who can blow up or hack down small armies after a few months of practice (level 4 or 5... come one, that's like 15 real battles). It's inane, really. And the fact that characters are so "unlimited" makes it even worse. I'll stick with 2ED, thanks. And maybe Hackmaster.

I was all excited about the third editions too, until I started reading the stuff.
By the way, I had the good fortune of "inheriting" all the 1st edition books (multiple copies even) from some friends who didn't use them any more. Somehow I lucked into an enormous collection of painted figurines the same way (I blame it on my 18 charisma). I find the 1ed books are a joy to have, and I can always fall back on them when I don't feel "2nd editiony." I don't see the same thing in the future for 3ed.

Just making a comment here.
Originally elves were elves(chaotic good), dwarves were dwarves(lawful good), and orcs were orcs(lawful evil), Demons(chaotic evil).
Human's are the only race that was unpredictable(any alignment). You would never know what you would get with a human. Some of the Best of Dragon magazines, issues 3 or 4 I think, had articles on this subject.
Demi-humans were stereo-typical.

Now whether or not the game has been made better by making all races more "human", I don't know.

Ultimate it comes down to are you having fun.

Gaming is still one thing that can make me laugh so hard I cry.

Oldtimer-
I feel your pain.
We are a small group (5-6 players) and we are starting to teach everyine in the group to DM; currently, there are only 2 of us that do it (I'm one of them).
As far as finding anyone in my area to play with, I'm going to go to the comic book stores in town and talk to the owners and see if there are any 1rst E groups.
But I almost hesitate to do that since we use a lot of house rules!
Hang in there; I wish I could get a copy of the Basic and Expert box set again!
Very restrictive but very fun!

Tim

I happened upon this forum by accident and read through most of it. I was an avid AD&D player back in the early 80's, started with the red box d&d, and the expert D&D, then the advanced D&D, i still have the original intellivision games (and they work!) and have played many of the computer games.

I got out of gaming after the second edition came out, i saw the movie and thought it kind of stunk.

Recently i saw a copy of the third edition for sale and thumbed through it. I thought it was horrible.

It is kind of sad to see what happened to Dungeons and Dragons. Then it occured to me that it wasn't the change in AD&D, it was the loss of that era of my childhood. My generation had cool stuff like "night of the creeps" and rainbow punch kool-aid. Phil Collins and Cyndi Lauper were hot, and AD&D was at the height of its popularity.

Should WOTC have changed it? Yes. Everything needs to change or it dies. It stagnates and withers.

Our generation has passed. Long live the third generation, and hopefully the generations after it.

only read a few notes here as i have other things to do. but the point on initiative in 3e about weapon speeds is simple, if you have ever tried using a real sword, dagger or two handed axe you would see that the speed of the weapon doesn't make a lot of difference: most slower weapons have reach so a guy with a dagger will be quicker than a guy with a two handed sword, but will need to be so much closer, risking his life before he is even able to hit! not to mention if a two handed sword hits you and you don't die you are a lucky man! its a huge sword and even hitting a non lethal location is likely to put you out of a fight in pain. i prefer 3e as it is simpler to explain to new gamers. a higher number is always better than a lower number is much easier to explain than the old low roll on initiative high attack roll and low ac. it made little sense and i'm glad these problems have finally been resolved.

As a player of Dungeons & Dragons in all it's many incarnations since 1975, my comment to you is if you think that 2nd edition AD&D is "the worst role playing game ever made", you should probably go play GURPS, and leave D&D to those who love it.

I couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I have said it almost in so many words, to everyone who I have spoken to since the first day I read the 3rd edition ph. Thank you for so eloquently stating the case.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

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.