d20/3e D&D -- help to roleplaying, or hindrance?
Dragos cel Rau asked me this question at the end of the commments Rabbitman's "The Demise of Dungeons and Dragons" rant. I had typed up a reply and hit post when I discovered Morbus had turned the comments off!
Well, I can't blame him for that. I'd resurrected a five-year-old flame war about...essentially nothing, the 2e vs. 3e equivalent of "nyaah, nyaah, nyaah!"
However, Dragos had a relevant question, and I'd like to dignify it with a response. Here it is:
COCYTUS: "However, I simply reject the idea that a structured ruleset impairs creative thinking! I don't see how that follows, and my experience has shown me the exact opposite: where the rules are clear, the quality of play tends to be better."
DRAGOS CEL RAU: I agree that when dealing with well defined rules, the arguments tend to be fewer, however I have also seen that the more structure the more boxed in the players seem to be and they tend to think outside of the box (so to speak) less often. We see it every day in real life that rules do not always cover every possible situation, with that in mind the loosely structured 2ed rules seemed to promote the idea of "try it and see what happens". The DM then was required to weight the rules against the situation and decide what happens. The DM (at least in our games) had the final say and that was that.
I am interested in your views on this topic so please no flaming:)
My flame-free response will follow...
- Login to post comments
Cocytus, this is Anonymous Troll with a facelift. I think we both overreacted. That said, though. I just feel that the "social" rules of 3e and apparently Gurps are too well developed. Not that they are a bad idea, I just personnally don't like them. In 2e they were there, just not developed and not highlighted. I do agree, though that they are a neccessary, but optional, part of rpgs. Most, certainly not all, of the people that I have gamed with had no need of those rules. We all put forth a lot of effort into the non-combat interaction, and all of our dm's (including myself) did our bests to have the npcs react appropriately to whatever the characters did.
P.S. I type fast on boards, so the grammatical mistakes creep in, I'm a math guy, not an english guy.
This is what happens when you don't get paranoid about how sucky your browser is and hit ctrl-A and then ctrl-C before you hit 'post'... =)
Point 1: clear rules minimize rules-lawyering and DM-vs.-Player arguments.
We all seem to agree about this, even Great Troll and I. As the guy who gets stuck doing the DMing for my friends nineteen times in twenty, I can't exaggerate how much this clarity means to me.
Point 2: Ambiguity can foster creativity, but it can also foster dissent.
We can agree to play at a table, and we can agree that the DM gets to be the referee. But you know how it goes - the more calls the ref has to make, the greater the chance that he'll make an unpopular call. Ambiguous rules increase the likelihood of this.
Some systems thrive on ambiguity - see the BRP used by Call of Cthulhu and other Chaosium games. But I'd argue there's a difference between a ruleset designed with ambiguity in mind and a ruleset that is extraordinarily complex in some cases (cf. the initiative rules in 2e, which I even thought were cool) and ambiguous in others. My major beef with 2e in this regard is that the specificity of the rules implies some kind of "Framers' Intent," if you will, which encourages players to argue with the referee. Very few people argue with the Keeper in CoC, although believe me, it does happen, and the arguments can be acrimonious indeed. But I was constantly getting in arguments in 2e.
Point 3: Detailed rules can encourage creativity by allowing unusual combinations.
The best example I can think of this is that the 3e rules allow fighters to spend class points in Craft, and one of the Craft skills is alchemy. This produced my wife's Byzantium-inspired pit-faction fighter who just so happened to know the recipe for alchemical fire. What a great and memorable character this was - made possible by the specificity of the 3e ruleset.
But 3e is flexible in many ways. With a little effort, a character of any class can specialize in some truly non-standard things. The character creation/advancement system of d20/3e is more flexible than any other class-based system I've ever encountered. Well, there's the really cool but equally esoteric system from the Warhammer RPG...but let's leave that to one side for now.
Point 4: Detailed rules can encourage creativity by describing maneuvers or situations the players might otherwise not have thought of on their own.
Until I read the overrun rules to my group, they kept complaining that horses (and other mounts) were "useless" in D&D except as a mode of travel. They don't think so anymore - especially the ones playing paladins, who can take non-standard mounts!
In another example, a relative newbie in one of my campaigns is playing a necromantic sorceress. You'd expect her to be all creepy, but instead she's the go-to girl in almost every social situation the party encounters. Her character's high charisma makes it tempting for her to sink points in social skills - which she has done. She has a tremendous amount of fun hamming up the vamp - she's not exactly using the die roll as a crutch for her success or failure. Best of all, she's not exactly what I'd call the flirty type - in fact, our genuine flirt saw how much fun she was having, and created a sorceress of her own!
Point 5: Any ruleset which allows the creation of a COMBAT-USELESS character is conducive to good role-playing.
This criterion is, in fact, the yardstick by which I judge all RP systems. 3e is the first flavor of D&D that has passed my litmus test, as I saw when one of my players created a cowardly lawyer-bard who cringes at the back of every fight (and can't hit the broadside of a barn anyway because of his low STR and DEX), but who is always at the forefront whenever there's a girl to be charmed, a code to be quoted, a document to be forged, or a rousing falsehood to be spun.
Does this make sense to you, Dragos? Troll? Do you see where I'm coming from?
Sure, I understand; that was a bit of "flaming fun" anyway - I don't seriously begrudge people their typos (as soon as you get serious with someone about that, you make a typo yourself). Let's talk - I promise to keep it civil.
I do see your points and they are quite valid.
In any good group that I have played with (by good I mean role-players vice roll-players) The 3e rules are easy to work with and we do quite well. However, it seems to me that the new players tend to get caught up in making combat heavy characters and leave the role playing to the dice. In a sense I blame this on the system because it has become easier for people to build these types of characters, and because the system has provided an easy way to cut out role-play by rolling a die.
I do suppose that I should actually blame the players for being knuckle heads and find better more experienced players.
"However, it seems to me that the new players tend to get caught up in making combat heavy characters and leave the role playing to the dice. In a sense I blame this on the system because it has become easier for people to build these types of characters, and because the system has provided an easy way to cut out role-play by rolling a die.
I do suppose that I should actually blame the players for being knuckle heads and find better more experienced players."
Actually, I would blame the GM for that. If the GM allows Hack-n-Slash Combat Monsters to be made, then that's what the GM is going to have to run a game for. If the GM sets some guidelines during character creation, like telling the players that they all get to be thieves or affiliated to thieves (or mages, or bards, or whatever...) then they'll do so.
Another thing the GM can do is run a game (it will only take a couple of sessions, believe me) where other skills besides combat are emphasized and senseless or an overabundance of combat is punished. I mean, how often can a person pull a broadsword out and kill someone in a city without ending up in prison with a death sentence or with an extremely attractive warrant hanging over their heads?
Remember, new players are like clay, waiting to be molded by the experience GM into the type of players that the GM wants. It's all up to you. Have fun.
"That which does not kill me postpones the inevitable."
Jumping in...
Somewhere back in the archives, Cocytus says that he doesn't believe that 3E ruined the game -- that may not be a direct quote, but I believe that was the gist of it.
I agree.
And I prefer to use 2E rules.
I don't see a conflict here.
3E rules just aren't my cup of tea...no need to carry on as to the reasons why. But, there are a lot of good products and ideas introduced in 3E...things that are good enough to make the "3E ruined D&D" notion, in my mind.
Just to give an example, I use quite a bit of material from Ghostwalk, Book of Vile Darkness, and Book of Exalted Deeds. Names, places, ideas, even some spells -- it's fun to use spells from Vile Darkenss against my player's...they're familiar with Meteor Swarm, but the were in awe the first time Crushing Fist of Spite was used against them.
I'm not sure I'm on-board on whether the Rules Set is important to the actual role-playing, tho. But, I happen to play with a lot of creative types...guys who are going to come up with nifty ideas first, then seen if the rules will allow it or not. As I get older, it seems that our method is more backwards than not...it seems most groups look at the rules and then see what's possible.
For example, there's nothing about your Point 5 that wouldn't work in 2E. One might argue that it'd be even more creative to have a cowardly bard who could kick butt, but choose not to -- no need to let the rules determine how much butt he can or can't kick.
I think the only problems with a Rules Set is how much control / focus you give it. I think Rules Lawyers and Power Gamers will exists for any system and it shouldn't be the job of the system to try and eliminate those things...they're going to exist anyway, 'cause there will always be someone with some ego trip to satisfy.
I think the Rules should try and facilitate the type of game you're playing. If you're into Cthulu, then the rules should exploit dread and horror. If you're into Space Wars, then the rules should facilitate fast, gun-heavy action (or something).
Since D&D can have many different flavors, the rules should tend to be adaptable. To 3E's credit, that's one of its benefits.
...but they were in awe the first time Crushing Fist of Spite was used against them.
*scribbles on notepad*
I'm not sure I'm on-board on whether the Rules Set is important to the actual role-playing, tho.
Important? It only depends on your group. What I'm saying is more general: good rules facilitate good role-play for experienced roleplayers and breathless novices alike. This is only my personal experience talking, my personal point of view.
...it seems most groups look at the rules and then see what's possible.
That's definitely not the case with my groups. Hell, most of us are still trying to learn 'em all...
My brother hated all flavors of D&D -- AD&D, Basic, 2e, and 3e equally -- because he felt they were too confining for his imagination. He wanted either super-explicit rules covering virtually every situation imaginable (GURPS) or super-ambiguous rules allowing free-form play and requiring heavy GM interpretation (Call of Cthulhu's BRP). If a ruleset were abstract in intent but specific in what it would allow in combat circumstances, like really any form of D&D, he had nothing but contempt for it.
For example, there's nothing about your Point 5 that wouldn't work in 2E.
With the greatest of respect, RG, I'm tempted to disagree. I never saw a combat-useless character created for 2e. Does that mean the system cannot support one? Well, after mixing up a few things in my conversations with Dragos and Great Troll, I'll admit my command of 2e is not what once it was. So I'll say I don't know. But I never saw such a character.
One might argue that it'd be even more creative to have a cowardly bard who could kick butt, but choose not to -- no need to let the rules determine how much butt he can or can't kick.
On the one hand, there's no point to argue here: yes, you're right. That would be more creative! On the other, to what degree can the system give the player what she wants? If the player wants a combat-useless character, will the system support her desire by giving her a character that is statistically speaking combat-useless? If so, bravo! I call that a good system. If not, well...a good role-player, as you indicate, will overcome the limitation. But I call that a more limited system.
"If the player wants a combat-useless character, will the system support her desire by giving her a character that is statistically speaking combat-useless? If so, bravo! I call that a good system. If not, well...a good role-player, as you indicate, will overcome the limitation. But I call that a more limited system."
Why should we need a system to be so laid out in statistics, skills and rules to allow for any type of role-playing character? I wholeheartedly agree with Rogue in that our group comes up with ideas/concepts, and then checks to see what/how rules will allow it (and if none, then we make 'em up... all of our combined years of experience with 2e allows us to do this with ease and without compromising the game).
Granted, I haven't really played 3e (keep readin' it, but haven't found the group to play it), but I find that too many stats, rules, skills, feats, etc... can limit creativity. We no longer have to take the risk to see if our PC can do something that isn't in the book because, well... now it's in the book. To me, I can see a game becoming more of a roll-playing event, as PCs constantly check against skills, feats or what have you with a die roll.
Never saw a combat-useless PC in 2e? Then you haven't had a player try to make one. I think it's easier to do in 2e than 3e, but that's probably just my jaded viewpoint. Heck, I saw a lot of combat-useless PCs at Origins several years back, where role-playing afforded the player more points than actual combat. Many a scenario wasn't finished in the four-hour time slot due to excessive role-playing, but we were hardly penalized for that as the role-playing was so good.
Isn't role-playing the point?
With my admittedly limited experience in 3e, I tend to see 3e as more confining to role-playing ("My PC wants to do 'X'." "Do you have the skill/feat?" "No." "Then, you can't do 'X'").
{shrug} I can't say that there is any clear resolution to this thread. As has been stated before, there will always be those who prefer one system to the other, and from what I've read elsewhere, it seems to me that us older players really would have left well enough alone. To us, it wasn't broken, so why try to fix it?
"However, it seems to me that the new players tend to get caught up in making combat heavy characters and leave the role playing to the dice."
This is exactly my point to Cocytus's response to Rogue.
"I do suppose that I should actually blame the players for being knuckle heads and find better more experienced players."
Heh... us more experienced players are still playing 2e! Just kidding. There are plenty of experienced 3e players out there; however, I agree that the tendency of the 3e rules leans more toward the points you are making than other rule sets.
Why should we need a system to be so laid out in statistics, skills and rules to allow for any type of role-playing character?
Umm...because that's the system's function? Seriously, what separates an RPG from "let's pretend" or an actors' improv group is the ruleset. When I'm evaluating a new RPG (as when I'm reading it, say), I leave considerations of the skill/imagination-level of my players to one side. What I want to know is: how do the rules handle play? Will lots of arbitration (in my experience, read "arguing") be necessary, or are the rules pretty clear? Are they inventive? Do they foster the use of imagination, or do they more or less require you to bring everything you can to bear because they're very abstract?
We no longer have to take the risk to see if our PC can do something that isn't in the book because, well... now it's in the book.
Not true in all cases. I guess we have a fundamental difference in perspective, though; I fail to see how and why this is a problem. If something isn't in the rules, the DM is every bit as justified as saying you can't do it as if it is in the rules, and they say you can't do it. Only in the first case, it's more likely to provoke an argument with the player in question.
Never saw a combat-useless PC in 2e? Then you haven't had a player try to make one.
Ok, I'll bite. Can you explain to me how this is done in 2e? I'm not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely curious. Looking over my old 2e rulebooks, I can't see how it would be done.
Isn't role-playing the point?
It's the point of role-playing, but it isn't the point of this thread. =) The point of the thread is: does a clear ruleset help or hinder role-playing? I've heard a lot of old-schoolers say it hinders it. You yourself say (essentially): "if it's described in the book, that limits your imagination." I say: "no, it limits the number of arguments. Imagination is just as important as it was before, but we're getting toward a more focused use of it."
In my opinion, the imagination is a thing useful in developing your character - it's less useful in developing and above all refereeing the action. I don't role-play so my players and I can develop rules together on the fly - I role-play so we can all inhabit convincing alternate personalities in a setting that is stimulating to the imagination. Never once have I had a rules argument or even discussion which facilitated that process.
I can't say that there is any clear resolution to this thread.
Fair enough. I'm not trying to be an evangelist - I won't tell you 3e is "better" in an objective sense than 2e. But I will tell you it's better for me. That's my opinion of it.
...from what I've read elsewhere, it seems to me that us older players really would have left well enough alone. To us, it wasn't broken, so why try to fix it?
I did think it was broken, and I've been RPing an awful long time. Maybe not as long as you, perhaps, but well over twenty years. To me, D&D had become predictable, stagnant, stale, and worst of all boring. I'd stopped using it and happily moved on to GURPS and Call of Cthulhu...I even developed a sort of contempt for those who were "still" playing D&D. In '94, a friend of mine started up a 2e campaign, which I played for a while...and all it did was remind me why I'd stopped.
Then 3e came along and reinvigorated my interest. I had felt a number of things were deeply wrong with the old ruleset, and I felt 3e fixed them.
Again, that's just my opinion. But to me, leaving well enough alone wasn't good enough. And that's why I still have a hard time understanding the resistance to change I hear on this topic so often. I'm sitting here thinking, "Okay...if the old rules help you have a good time, help yourselves."
I think 2E can support a combat-useless character.
Make a fighter.
Make all the stats average -- that way, no attack / THAC0 (had to say it) bonuses.
Play him as a pacificst. Heck, make him a botanist or something.
One could argue that at Level 3, this pacificst is still more combat heavy than a Level 3 Rogue. I think that would be missing the point, but, still..
Make a wizard who takes nothing but passive skills / spells. Read Magic, Write Magic, Wizard Eye, Fly, and Invisibility are all spells not geared for combat.
Better yet...make a wizard who doesn't memorize spells at all. It doesn't get much more wimpy than that.
Just because a rule is there, doesn't mean one has to exploit it. I have several players who are fighters who don't always attack twice every round -- some do, some don't...it depends on the situation.
I think combat-useless is only a perception. On the one hand...is anyone truly useless? The cowardly bard can run interference, make distractions, or sing a song to bolster the courage of his allies -- he may not be the one smacking the troll on the nose, but that doesn't make him combat-useless.
I think the real issue here is that 3E has more options IN PRINT than what's in 2E and this gives many the impression that it's more flexible. And maybe it is...or maybe it isn't. I think the only limitation, really, is the ability to think outside of the box.
Some people think making house rules...modifying the product...is a sin. I disagree. Gygax and Jackson have encouraged it -- in the product itself.
The reason 2E works better for my group is that we are a Rules Lite group. And while 2E rules are quirky, I find them less cumbersome than 3E. In my experience, any time you add modifiers and open-ended possibilities, you end up just making the system more complicated.
It's a preference thing...sure. And while I agree, Cocytus, that 3E is unfairly bashed, I also feel that 2E is not the beast that some people make it out to be.
"I think the real issue here is that 3E has more options IN PRINT than what's in 2E and this gives many the impression that it's more flexible. And maybe it is...or maybe it isn't. I think the only limitation, really, is the ability to think outside of the box.
Some people think making house rules...modifying the product...is a sin. I disagree. Gygax and Jackson have encouraged it -- in the product itself."
Thanks, Rogue. I agree that this is where the issue indeed lies (lay?).
Nice examples, by the way, of combat-useless PCs. Saved me the trouble =) No, I don't think Cocytus was being snide-- that's why I troll through these posts... for the non-flame discourse.
"Again, that's just my opinion. But to me, leaving well enough alone wasn't good enough. And that's why I still have a hard time understanding the resistance to change I hear on this topic so often. I'm sitting here thinking, '"Okay...if the old rules help you have a good time, help yourselves.'"
Cocytus, I completely agree here... go with whatever system fits the consensus of the group. The resistance for me comes in "sanctioned" play. I can no longer attend a con or local gaming groups and play 2e; I must go to 3e because 2e is no longer supported by the industry. It is strangely similar to Microsoft and all of the damn o/s changes (being a tech, I can make this comparison ). And that's the rub, really, for me: just like Microsoft, the game had to "mature" (for lack of a better term) so that the vendor could continue to make a profit. Why not re-invest in the current version (2e) and really work it up? I haven't attended a whole mess of cons, but when I did attend, when it was still 2e, I didn't hear any players complaining about the ruleset and why it needed to be changed. To me, the convention circuit (and sanctioned gaming) is the pulse of the gaming industry, and I don't feel that TSR/WotC/Hasbro listened to the majority, but rather pressed forward for financial reasons (topic for another thread).
I'm sure I will have a completely different take after I've been more exposed to 3e for a year or more (although I will probably hunker down in some dark alley w/ Rogue and our fading 2e books!).
Then again, perhaps I'm just out of touch here?
No, not out of touch.
This reply will start to stray somewhat from where Cocytus was originally going, but...
My biggest beef with 3E is that it tastes so generic to me. Say what you will about 2E, but it was unique in the Rules world -- 3E has a dash of 2E, a pinch of GURPS, and some flavors of White Wolf, plus this and that. It's level based...'cause you have level ten wizards and such...but it's also point based, cause you can spend skill slots (or whatever they're called)and choose feats.
But, worse, there hasn't been a good line of products from 3E. There are a lot of hardbacks that drone on about what the rules for Sandworld or the Negative Enegery Plane should be like...but not a lot of soul in these products. There are exceptions -- for example, I think the Ghostwalk book is nicely done.
There's nothing like Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Planescape, Al-Qadim, or the rest of those creative forces that came out with 2E. Well...maybe Eberron, but I haven't really checked it out -- from what I've seen, it just seems like Wizard's attempt to make a flashy, moderized fantasy setting..."hey, I'm a half-elf vampire with a six-shot pistol and a war golem side-kick".
Sure, it's a business and everybody is out to make money. To that extent, I can't fault them for trying to give DND a face lift. But, I'm with Old Timer here, I don't think it was the rules that needed the Face Lift...cause, I agree, most people that I know never complained about the rules to the extent that they needed a drastic overhaul. And the few people that I know who did complain about the rules, complain about the 3E rules too -- the most common complaint I hear is that 3E forces a lot more rolling than before and that the pace of the game gets bogged down. One could argue that all the extra rolling reduces the amount of aruging between player and DM...but, if that's what is going on, then that's not really a fault of the rules as it is a group who can't get along and agree to what's fair and what isn't. Rules Lawyers and Power Gamers can't be defeated by refined Rules -- like the plague, they'll inhabit every dark corner.
I love the new art in 3E and know people who have bought the products simply because of the art. But, I'm disappointed by the creative downslide in the print. A creature description in a new Monster Manual is inferior on every level to those in 2E -- for example, read the text on the githyanki in 2E versus 3E...and ask yourself which version is giving you a better idea of what this race is all about?
3E just feels so...manufactured.
I can read the old Ravenloft Carnival product and tell that the guys making it had fun and got really creative. I can read Return to the Tomb of Horrors and see that Bruce Cordell worked his butt off to make a pretty hoss mega-adventure. I can read the Planescape: Faces of Evil and get a kick out of the creative way all the demons and devils are described...and actually get a feel for how to use them in a game (and not just in combat!).
I read a 3E source book...and, well, want more. I think Book of Vile Darkness is one of the better 3E products, but it's probably 80% rules and modifiers for the already existing ground-rules...which, in my mind, further bogs down 3E (notice there are no rules in the 2E Faces of Evil, just ideas). We get an upgrade of Orcus and a sweet picture of him, but probably less depth than we did in 2E.
It's as if everything in 3E is generic.
And, as Old Timer points out, there is no longer an active market for 2E -- Hackmaster, maybe, but it's so tongue-in-cheek that I'm not sure I count it. Greyhawk (which, is my DND world of choice), Forgotten Realms, and Dragonlance now all continue on in 3E rules. If a nifty module comes out for any of those settings...I either have to play it in 3E or back-port everything to 2E. I don't mind back-porting the odd spell or magic item...I do that here and there...but I don't want to backport the entire Rule Set. And, by the way, it's easier to up-port from 2E to 3E than it is to back-port 3e to 2E.
I use ideas and concepts from some sourcebooks...again, Ghostwalk (I've killed one NPC fan favorite, but he's still prowling around in Manifest...so the PC's can still talk to him from time to time)...but that's more of an exception than a norm.
I know this probably sounds like a rant...and it's not really meant to be.
But, the question was raised...why be so resistant to change?
Well, I don't think that I am. 2E revolutionized the conept of the Planes with the Planescape product...and I loved it.
If all 3E did was change the rules...sure, I'd probably upgrade. But I think somewhere, they lost their soul and creativity. Again, it seems awfully generic to me. The stuff from Wizards, anyway.
I have to confess, many of the Malhavoc Press and Green Ronin products have the soul of the old days and may eventually win me over.
But, that's also a problem. 3E is like a rules monopoly. The rules are the same for all these products...even Cthulu and Star Wars and whatever...well, I'm not a Rules Heavy kind of guy but I think the lack of individuality has taken a toll of sorts.
But, to another of Old Timer's points, I don't think the market for 2E was dead. There's too much outcry...too many people refusing to upgrade...too much longing for the old days.
How many people are buying 3E because of the rules...and how many are buying it because it "looks" cool?
And, if 3E was really all that good, why so many modfications in such a short amount of time? There's 3E...3.5...and Monte Cook, of of the inventors of 3E, has his own offshoot.
Sure, go with the system that fits your tastes the best. I agree. And, Cocytus, I full on agree that there's too much 3E bashing...it's not the devil that many make it out to be. It certainly has it's bright points.
So does 2E, tho, and I think this is a two-way street. 2E may not be perfect, but it doesn't deserve the bashing that it gets by the 3E converts. It could have used an upgrade, perhaps, but I think termination was the wrong call.
PS...
1E wasn't exactly terminated, just revised, and lived on in 2E, so I don't mourn the switch from 1E to 2E -- most 1E and 2E products were compatible.
I think combat-useless is only a perception.
It's a perception bolstered by the rules, or not. If the stats on the character's sheet offer little or nothing in the way of direct combat utility, the character is combat-useless.
While your examples work, I'd argue I can make more blatantly combat-useless characters in 3e by creating characters who have a purpose, but it happens not to be combat. I feel this is easily accomplished with 3e's wide selection of skills, non-combat feats, and (if you go to the DMG) classes such as the Expert.
That's not to say: 'Nyaah! Nyaah! Nyaah! My combat-useless character can get beaten up by your combat-useless character!' I'm just trying to explain why I feel 3e passes my litmus test with little effort, while 2e requires a bit of a stretch to do so. Remember, RG and OT: I'm not talking about the imaginations of myself or my players, but the capabilities of the ruleset itself.
Some people think making house rules...modifying the product...is a sin. I disagree.
No argument here! I modify every single ruleset I ever use - with the notable exception of Call of Cthulhu's beautifully elegant, minimalist BRP. The question is: how much do I feel the need to modify the rules to suit my style? As far as D&D goes, the later the edition, the less I feel compelled to modify it.
In my experience, any time you add modifiers and open-ended possibilities, you end up just making the system more complicated.
Well, we have different experiences with it, obviously. The better designed the rules are, I feel, the more they fade into the background. As I say, 2e had me in arguments every single session. In 3.5, some sessions actually pass where we don't discuss the rules at all! Ah, bliss. =)
...I also feel that 2E is not the beast that some people make it out to be.
If I've bashed it unduly, that was not my intention. I really only wanted to say that I've had a lot more fun playing 3e.
The resistance for me comes in "sanctioned" play. I can no longer attend a con or local gaming groups and play 2e; I must go to 3e because 2e is no longer supported by the industry. It is strangely similar to Microsoft and all of the damn o/s changes (being a tech, I can make this comparison ). And that's the rub, really, for me: just like Microsoft, the game had to "mature" (for lack of a better term) so that the vendor could continue to make a profit.
Well, that blows. I'm sympathetic to that argument, which is the most coherent articulation of the 'WotC are money-grubbing bastards' line I've heard from so many foes of 3e.
In general, I think the OGL which enabled the d20-splosion across the gaming world was a good thing. There are some places where I think it was inappropriate (Mr. Wendol, AKA Eater, and I will never agree on the BRP-vs.-d20 CoC issue, I fear), but in general I feel it helped bring a stable, flexible platform to gaming.
There are some evil aspects of it, and let me be clear: d20 isn't my favorite rules system by any stretch of the imagination. But one of the good things about the cross-platform nature of it was that it allows people easily to switch settings and genres because they already know the system. In theory, that should've worked for GURPS, too (a system I greatly prefer, by the way)...but d20 seems to have succeeded so much better.
As far as watering down the settings...I always create my own settings from scratch, so I really wouldn't know. I chuck out the background stuff in the d20 ruleset entirely and replace it with my own. I realize not everyone is as much of a control-freak/workaholic GM as I. But since I had little use for the Flanaess, the outer planes, or (shudder) Faerun to begin with, I don't miss that stuff. I'll have to take your word for it.
By the way: I feel Eberron deserves a fair shake. WotC held a world-design contest (which I entered, of course, but didn't do well enough to mention), and Eberron was the winner. It's not for everyone, but it's definitely original.
And no, no rule will ever shut down a Rules Lawyer completely. But a coherent rule makes it easier to stifle him. There's a little bit of Rules Lawyer in any player, I think...he's not so much a person as an archetype. When the rules can't be exploited as easily, I find he is dispelled to some degree.
In 1996, when I started my current DND campaign, I was younger and had more free time and, therefore, created my own world with kingdoms, politics, and whatnot. I still use that world, here and there, but got busy with life around 2000 or so and found myself relying more and more on established worlds.
I still make up all the plots, story threads, intrigue, and all that stuff...but have found that I don't have a lot of time for world building. But, that was okay, 'cause there were plenty of cool products that I could use for settings and backdrops, especially from the Planescape setting and, to a lesser extent, Dark Sun and Spelljammer and Ravenloft.
I knew I wasn't going to rely heavily on 3E rules, but I was looking forward to all the mods they'd be making to some of these worlds. But, it didn't really happen. Not yet, anyway.
Sure, it was a Ground Zero kind of thing and I didn't expect them to rush right out and give me the updates on what Orcus is doing these days. But, when The Book of Vile Darkness came out, I was hoping for more than 2 or 3 short paragraphs that gloss over what Orcus is all about -- his entry is about his stats as much as it is the guy himself. In 2E, we found out a lot about what Orcus was up to in the Bloodstone quartet, Dead Gods, the Great Modron March, and even Return to the Tomb of Horrors -- most of these products dealth with plot and not stats because, honestly, how often are you going to actually fight Orcus?
Now, that's just an example, but hopefully it further illustrates my point (for lack of better phrasing) that 3E accessories are too bland for me. I buy these things 'cause I don't have enough time to come up with everything on my own. And, if I'm playing DND, I want to use authentic DND stuff blended with my own -- it's a quirk of mine. I also buy them 'cause I'm a RPG accessory junkie.
It could be that some of these things are waiting in the wings for 3E and that I'm being too impatient.
And, sure, it may be that I'm not fair to Eberron. In truth, I've only thumbed through the products and haven't actually sat down to read them.
I also prefer the GURPS system over 3E -- I think it has a better flow, less cluttered, etc. I use GURPS rules for home grown games -- I made a Conan campaign in 1995 and a friend of mine is currently using it for some Dr. Who games. The strength of GURPS is that it can be tailored for that kind of thing...and, yes, I would have thought that the OGL and all that would be a better fit with GURPS. I'm not sure why it failed...maybe 'cause GURPS was a...let's admit it...cheaper product? My GURPS books from 1991 are falling apart...my TSR products are not...nor are my West End Games stuff, but that's definately a dead horse.
Wow... I am really enjoying this thread. I didn't know where to chime back in, so I'll just pick up here at what appears to be the most recent posting. I'll just have to use multiple tabs in Firefox to take points from both of your posts =)
Rogue, I'll start w/ you.
Man, I have got to game with you sometime! =) How far are you from our Nation's Capital? Haha! Seriously, though, you echo a lot of the same feelings/sentiments that our group has toward the 2e vs 3e argument. Our current campaign (also started in '96!) is going to wind down this summer, and at its conclusion, we decided to pull out the 3e (or 3.5e whatever?) books and start new PCs from scratch. There are things in 3e that we like; there are things we don't like. Reading what you're writing leads me to believe that we will probably end up much like what you have done: 2e with some 3e kickers tossed in. Once we are more familiar with 3e we will probably be better able to make that call.
As for game worlds, yeah, we do the same here, although my last two games were run using Greyhawk as a map, only so that I didn't have to draw one up. I have taken great liberties in developing a specific area of Greyhawk that is tailored to our group, and doesn't use any official material. I used Forgotten Realms once, and had a Dragonlance game eons ago, but that's about it for the "printed" material.
Now, we haven't really poured through the 3e stuff yet, but based on what you're telling us, I think that we will probably see the same point of view, since our gaming preferences seem to be basically similar. Time will tell, I suppose.
Cocytus, you're next!
"I'm sympathetic to that argument, which is the most coherent articulation of the 'WotC are money-grubbing bastards' line I've heard from so many foes of 3e."
Thanks! I try not to bash the company for wanting to make money-- hey, we're a capitalist society. Far be it from me to bitch about someone wanting more money. I understand the reasoning, but it doesn't mean I have to like it. Perhaps one day, I will be bound, chained, gagged and dragged into accepting 3e as the one true form of D&D... but by then, it'll probably be up to 4.75 or something. Haha!
Not having the extensive experience with 3e that Rogue appears to have, I cannot fully express my opinion on the main point of this thread: whether or not 3e is a hinderance to role-playing. However, since it seems that Rogue and I are on the same page, I imagine that I will feel basically the same once we plunge into the thick of this current incarnation of the game. It will be a test for me to try to plow ahead and keep my preconceived opinions locked away, especially after reading this and other threads.
I will certainly report back and let Gamegrene know how things are going for our group. Heck, maybe I'll even make a column about it... about how our group worked toward understanding 3e and the issues/questions that we stumbled upon during that journey?
As for being a "foe of 3e", I know that was a generalization and that you weren't tagging me with that identity =) I have seen some of the other posts where people have been far out of reality when it comes to that.
There are some very well expressed opinions in this thread and I think that the discussion has unfortunately run its course. In the efforts to revive the discourse I would like to add an opinion or two.
Gaming system rules can be evaluated with various criteria -- ease, transparency, and expanibility are the three that I will focus on relative to this discussion. Remember that this is just a starting point. I don't mean to imply that these are the only criteria.
Ease of use is a broad topic expressing everything from how easy the rule is to learn, to how often that stucture appears in the game, to how quickly it can but put into practice. The framework of AD&D rests on some key rolls: "to hit", "saving throw", "initiative", and "ability check." These are the outward expressions of the mechanic and are modified by the underlying schema.
In the switch from 2E to 3E very little about these rolls changed. Third edition cleaned up the way that armor [armour] class was handled and thus simplified the process of determining what number was required; it also adjusted the saving throws and added feats as a "bolt-on" to this framework. In my opinion none of the meaning or methodology changed.
Did the switch make these rolls easier to make? I think yes (although I have limited experience with 3E -- I bought and read the three rulebooks but continue to game with a "house rules" version of 2E.)
Transparency is the ability of a rule to disappear. Rule transparency is an ideal - as it leads to playing the scenario, not playing to the rules. As a highly stylized game this is one of the weakest aspects of AD&D (D&D 3E). The game is filtered through the artificial rules. From the comments on this board I would tend to believe that 3rd edition is less transparent than 2nd. Any thoughts?
Rule expandibility is a measure of how broadly a rule may be applied to meet unique gaming situations.
From this perspective which do you feel is the better game?
Wow...this is an old topic!
Nevertheless it's a very good one, especially with the advent of so much new material in the d20 milieu. With the release of v3.5, and so many other quality products (Arcana Evolved, Dawnforge, Oathbound etc.) it kinda opens the whole conversation up again.
One of my pet peeves as a GM is finding some great players only to have them badger me with strange requests that aren't covered by the rules. I know, I know...that's my job as the GM; to adjudicate strange requests not covered by the rules. But if I've become a judge for WotC, I wanna get paid. I view the GMs job more as "interactive storyteller"...which, coincidentally, is the players job at the game table as well. Since we have the same job, the rules should be there to help all of us. Sadly, this is seldom the case. The GM holds the rules to his chest, and the players pray that there's something in there to help them get this quest done, rather than just new monsters and traps to kill the heroes they put so much into.
Rules transparency is a difficult thing to manage...when the players look down to their character sheet, they see rows of numbers and lists of abilities, not cool images of them jumping from rooftop to rooftop with a dagger in their teeth, dodging arrows. The GM is surrounded by a screen covered in charts and esoteric formulae that he will never understand properly. Stat blocks are rammed with as many numbers as possible. All of this is to make the GMs job "easier", right?
Wrong. It's not there to make your job any easier or harder. It's there to provide a framework within which you can make an interesting story. Let's face it...stories suck when no one fails. Without the rules, no one would fail at anything...or worse, the GM arbitrarily decides who fails when.
With 3e, WotC was adamant that they wanted to provide "tools not rules" so that the GM could feel free to design endless adventures from the core books alone. One look at the d20 section of your FLGS proves this wrong however. They opened pandoras box, and now the hobby is crowded by book after book of prestige classes and feats and skills and races and templates ad infinitum. How has this made our jobs (either as players or GMs) any easier? Well the easy answer is that it hasn't...not at all. Now we are researchers as well as interactive story-tellers and rules adjudicators...tracking down every last book we may ever need so that we can have "transparency", allowing our players endless choices without making them feel hemmed in by the rules. I've never felt *less* transparent than when hidden behind a mountain of books, sticky notes and bits of scrap paper marking all the entries I need that night.
All that being said though, I still don't feel that the 3rd edition of the D&D rules is *less* transparent than any previous edition. I would posit the theory that the rules are as transparent as the people using them allow them to be. I once switched a particularly long running campaign from AD&D2E, to Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying, then to D&D3E when those rules came out. The players didn't even notice a difference. The story moved on. Any rules system can be made transparent by good players, good GMing, and a commitment to creating a great story together.
Without thinking about this too thoroughly, my gut reaction is to say that 3E is easier and more expandible than 2E, but less transparent.
I'm not sure that its lesser transparency is a significant weakness compared to 2E, if only because I've known players to "play to the rules" as much in 2E as they do in 3E.
Transparency is awesome...as you say, an ideal. But munchkins will be munchkins, and in any system with a significant amount of rules detail, munchkinism is endemic. I note that in a "rules-light" system such as BRP, it's much harder to be much of a munchkin; there's just not much to grab hold of and argue with the GM about.
Finally, I have to reiterate my initial impression: 3E is the better game because I have more fun playing it than I ever did with 2E. I don't always think coherently about why, so I'll ponder that and try to articulate it over the next week or so.
Munchkinism is an issue that is hard to deal with by trying to write your rules so as to prevent its occurence; it's a little like introducing laws to prevent terrorism that then restrict the freedom of those whose very freedoms the terrorists are attacking! (I did say a LITTLE).
People's definition of Munchkinism varies. Many see it as synonymous with Power-Gaming. I think there is a subtle difference; most 'power-gamers' are self-confessed individuals who simply enjoy seeing how far they can push the boundaries of a system, and aren't really in it for the role-playing. Munchkins, however, are those who have gotten into RPGs with role-playing in mind, but who have become 'distracted' by the system and their focus has shifted into power-gaming. Many MMORPG players fall into this category. Just listen to a bunch of them discussing the game. Pen and Paper gamers are just the same really in their embryonic stages. But the Munchkin behaviour is often simply a way of exploring the rules and getting to know them inside out; once you know the rules really well, that's when they become transparent.
Some players eventually emerge from their Munchkin phase as 'proper' role-players - people who are aware of the limitations of the rules but who voluntarily don't take advantage of them or who cooperate with (rather than confronting) the referee in moderating the game. They've remembered the original reason they started playing the game.
Not all do so; some remain as lifelong Munchkins - people who just haven't quite grasped the plot wrt roleplay. Sadly they don't even realise what they are doing. Those that DO realise, and continue this style of play quite purposefully are power-gamers.
I don't think this is a binary thing, either; there's at least a little bit of Munchkinism in even the most role-play focussed players. And that's perfectly healthy. After all, in real life, our behaviour is constrained and determined by a set of rules - the laws of physics (anyone wanting a philosophical discussion about this statement can meet me on another board) - and we seek to maximise our personal advantage within the constraints of those laws. And in real life, the best solution (without wanting to get too political either) is one that strikes the right balance between individualism and cooperation.
Are some rule-sets more likely to encourage Munchkin behaviour than others? Are large, complex sets of rules more susceptible to exploitation than simpler ones? And what's the trade-off - if you have a really simple set of rules that aren't easy to 'Munchkinise', what have you lost on the other hand?
I would contest (admittedly without much accumulated data to hand) the assertion that there is a positive correlation between complexity of the core rules of a game and munchkinisation of the game's players, although I think that game systems whose core rules are flaky and need shoring up with a myriad of 'bolt-on' supplements will certainly be more susceptible. (However, these types of systems might actually be GOOD for novice gamers, so that they can get the munchkinism out of their system!)
A game with fairly complex core rules and more variables in its mechanics will be harder to power-game because the maths behind finding the particular variable combinations that will maximise advantage is harder. However, the more complex the rules, of course, the less playable the system becomes (especially in a pen and paper format). It's a tricky balancing act.
Another area where simplicity actually leads to munchkinism is where the rules are such an abstract depiction of what happens in real life, that the players actually lose touch with the reality that is being depicted and recede into a self-referential game reality where silly things seem perfectly reasonable.
The best example I can think of (I might go so far as to call it the 'classic' example) is the backstab in 1eD&D. Originally intended to enable an otherwise combat-weak character class (the theif) to deliver an occasional surprise 'killer' blow. A damage multiplier is used because of the abstract nature of the D&D hit point mechanic - in a more detailed system the backstab would simply be a way of sneaking past an opponents defences to make a direct body blow (which would cause no more physical damage than any other body blow). Of course, every good munchkin realises that if you have a mid-to-high level fighter/theif with exceptional strength and a magic sword, and you do your bonus additions before the multiplier is applied, and especially if you have a dragon-slaying sword that gets another damage multiplier on top, then you can kill a fair-sized dragon with one hit even if you score minimum damage. And if you use an off-hand weapon as well, and backstab with that at the same time....you don't even need that dragon-slayer!
The point is that here the over-simplification of the rules is the crux of the problem - hit points as an abstract measure of how hard it is to kill something reduces combat to a one-dimensional calculus in which a dragon is simply x times harder to kill than a human but can be killed using the same methods applied in a linear fashion. The above mentioned character could in principle slay that dragon with a couple of fruit knives (it might take them a little longer) with no regard for the fact that those little blades might barely puncture the dragon's hide (I know, the dragon might have weak points blah blah blah - some people will go to great lengths to rationalise something that just wouldn't really make exciting reading/viewing or just couldn't happen in reality).
The 'responsible' gamer knows very well that it's silly to be able to backstab a dragon with a couple of fruit knives and expect it to explode into chunks of quivering meat, so they will not argue when the GM tells them they can only get their backstab bonus on one attack and that they won't get the full benefit of their girdle of storm giant strength if they insist on using fruit knives, and that the damage pluses must be added after and not before the multiplier.
I know that 3eD&D has taken some measures to fix this particular problem. I'm simply using it as an example of how an over-simplistic model of reality lulls people into losing touch with that reality when playing a particular game system, so that they interpret the rules in a way that maximises the advantage to their character without regard for preservation of the 'quasi-realism' of the campaign world.
This leads me to postulate - the greater the realism built into the rules, the more commitment players will have towards preserving that realism.
The flip side is the complexity vs playability aspect. If realism equals complexity, how do you keep the complexity 'out of the way' when you want fast-moving play? This is the game designer's challenge; and it's a more difficult challenge for pen & paper games than for C/MMO-RPG.
I guess I should finish this stream-of-consciousness monologue with something on-topic. Is d20/3eD&D a help or hindrance to roleplaying? Given the discussions I have witnessed between players of 3e regarding the relative merits of various combinations of feats and prestige classes I can't say that I have seen much evidence to support the idea that it helps roleplaying. As I see it, the benefits are as follows:
1) More structured combat and action resolution leads to fewer player/referee arguments in the middle of an engagement (in principle)
2) The existence of 'Feats' may encourage a more character-centric approach to play rather than characters who are mainly defined by their list of magic items (although my own preference is for a more comprehensive skill system rather than bolt-on feats)
Do more structured rules dissuade people from thinking creatively? Well, they might dissuade referees from thinking up their own rules, which might be very good rules that are tailored to their own playing group. I don't think that they dissuade players from thinking creatively, though. In my experience, it's a pain in the arse to keep making judgement calls for every weird and whacky thing the players want to get up to when you have no rules to guide you. This tends to lead referees to dissaude players from doing weird and whacky things. I know one referee who will, in pretty much any situation devoid of rules, simply make the player roll 2d6 (or will roll 2d6 himself) and if it's a high-ish result it equals success, a low-ish result means failure. This leads to a lot of frustration on the part of the players - 'What about my Dex bonus? Bob the Warrior managed to do the same thing earlier on and he's got a lousy Dex!' etc.
So, because referees will tend to dissuade players from doing things not covered by the rules, I would suggest that having more structured and comprehensive rules encourages more diverse game play. At the same time, however, it appears to me that 3e is no less susceptible to munchkinism than its predecessors, with its emphasis on classes and feats (which, being poor depictions of reality, drag players off into an unrealistic self-referential world that they will then merrily abuse - if that is their inclination).
Ah, gherkin. Always a pleasure...
it's a little like introducing laws to prevent terrorism that then restrict the freedom of those whose very freedoms the terrorists are attacking!
You're preaching to the choir. From where I'm sitting, at least.
I would contest ... the assertion that there is a positive correlation between complexity of the core rules of a game and munchkinisation of the game's players...
Very well. But in case you were referring to my post above (and I'm not certain you were), my position is more that there's a positive correlation between munchkinization and the specificity of the rules than between munchkinization and the complexity of the rules. To put it another way: the more rules in a system, and the more specific they are, the more munchkins I believe I am likely to encounter when using that system.
The best example I can think of (I might go so far as to call it the 'classic' example) is the backstab in 1eD&D.
I take your point, but AD&D is not exactly what I'd call a rules-light system. My experience with really abstract rules is that the munchkins don't have enough mechanics to use as levers for getting themselves a significant advantage. One might say: "But in BRP CoC, the automatic weapon fire rules are ludicrously unrealistic! Characters firing huge bursts will slaughter byakhee right and left!" And that's true. But in CoC, such characters almost immediately learn that there are more than a few monsters that cannot be killed no matter how many slugs you pour into them, and as their characters sit there blazing away, they simply die. And they tend to move on to a game where it's more about the glory and less about the story. Now, BRP CoC can be abused by a bad GM, and I think that's why it's got an undeservedly bad reputation among certain gaming circles; but I find it's pretty darn resistant to player munchkinism. Even the players savvy enough to give their characters 89% proficiency in a half-dozen skills for the SAN gain will soon find that it just doesn't matter. Skills alone won't save you; the game is much more about atmosphere, investigation, and thoughtful play.
And that's one reason why I love it so.
2) The existence of 'Feats' may encourage a more character-centric approach to play rather than characters who are mainly defined by their list of magic items (although my own preference is for a more comprehensive skill system rather than bolt-on feats)
I'm with you there. That's one reason why (as I keep saying) I prefer such systems as GURPS to d20. But one thing I will say in d20's favor is that its approach to skills is wholly different from that of previous editions of D&D. In d20, you have skills whose applications are keyed to your character's stats in an easy-to-understand, easy-to-use way that reflects a combination of natural talent and the amount of energy the character has invested in each skill. In 2E and earlier, you have only non-weapon proficiencies with awkward rules of use.
At the same time, however, it appears to me that 3e is no less susceptible to munchkinism than its predecessors...
Merciful heavens, no! If anything, I'd say 3E's greatest strengths can also translate to its greatest weaknesses. It's more prone to munchkinism, min-maxing, and powergaming than previous editions. But I think its strengths compensate for that, which after all is a simple enough problem to solve: I strongly discourage munchkinesque play, and powergamers quickly grow bored or confused in my campaigns.
Ah, gherkin. Always a pleasure...
Likewise...
Very well. But in case you were referring to my post above (and I'm not certain you were), my position is more that there's a positive correlation between munchkinization and the specificity of the rules than between munchkinization and the complexity of the rules. To put it another way: the more rules in a system, and the more specific they are, the more munchkins I believe I am likely to encounter when using that system.
This is an excellent point, which I fully agree on. When I was citing AD&D as a 'rules-light' system I was referring to the core mechanics of the system - which are then added to with a myriad of supplementary bolt-ons that are very specific in nature. This specificity is what opens the system to abuse - when you manage to engineer a situation in which your character is able to bring multiple specific advantages to bear that were never designed to be used in combination. The referee / game designer then has to fix the problem (if they decide it IS a problem) by creating another specific rule to limit or prevent the occurence of that combination.
The more generic the nature of your core mechanics, the fewer supplementary additions of a specific nature are required, and the less susceptible to abuse your system will be. However, I think there are two dimensions that tend to prompt the creation of additional rules -
Scope - when the rules fail to cover unusual situations
Minutiae - when the rules fail to provide the players / referee with a sufficiently satisfying level of detail
I guess the D&D approach is to say 'No set of core rules can cover all possible situations to an arbitrary level of detail in a realistic fashion, so specific supplementary rules are an inevitable fact of life. So let's just have a very simple core mechanic that's very easy to learn because if you make it difficult to learn you've created a barrier to uptake of the game.'
I strongly discourage munchkinesque play, and powergamers quickly grow bored or confused in my campaigns.
Yes. As you point out, the best way to dissuade munchkin/powergaming is by OOG leverage and by running a game that is a hostile environment to that kind of play. Plus a steady hand on the tiller! But at the same time, I guess that a good set of rules helps - if the rules are less susceptible to abuse in the first place, it reduces the energy the GM has to expend in controlling that sort of behaviour.
(I don't claim to have found the perfect solution to these problems by the way!)
I tip my hat to the quality of responses on the topic.
On the topic of rules exploitation I believe the opinions started with the premise that the volume of rules contributed to abuse/artifice. As the posts got rolling they seemed to shift towards the realism of the rules; and the esteemed Gherkin has added two concepts -- Scope and Minutiae -- that deserve some comment.
Scope is akin to expandibility -- it determines how broadly a rule can be used. I would argue that the best games have a few core mechanisms that have a very broad scope of applicability. The danger here is that the rule may not correctly model what it is intended or that it won't interact well with the other rules.
Minutiae in my mind is the specificity of a rule. An intricate rule can enhance the level of detail in a game. If the rule becomes too specific then it looses it scope and clutters up the action.
Lurkinggherkin wrote ...
A game with fairly complex core rules and more variables in its mechanics will be harder to power-game because the maths behind finding the particular variable combinations that will maximise advantage is harder. However, the more complex the rules, of course, the less playable the system becomes (especially in a pen and paper format). It's a tricky balancing act.
If we look at rules the way that Scott Free mentions -- as a tool, then our metaphor becomes a mechanic with a tool box. What you get is going to depend on the quality of the mechanic and the availability of the right tool. Too many tools (especially overly-specific ones) makes it hard to work. Too few tools and you end up changing a tire with a cutting torch.
In my opinion here is where 2E and 3E falls off the rails. Please bear in mind that I have been playing 2E for many years and don't want to needless criticize a game that has provided many, many hours of enjoyment -- I just like making things better:
D&D relys upon rules that are abstactions -- hit points for example don't measure any attribute in the real world. As has been pointed out in many discussions HP must include physical toughness, luck, skill, favour of the gods, etc. to account for the fact that they increase with level. Armor [armour] class does not measure how hard you are to hit, nor does it measure how resistent you are to damage. Armor Class therefore is another rule abstraction. These abstactions can be made to work within their environment - but they can't be taken out of that environment because they are not clearly definable. This means that they are not measurable which is the problem. D&D measures things that it can't define.
The unfortunate DM has to use this framework to make decisions and run a game. I think most of us on the board are coming largely from this perspective. My 2E players feel no burning need to switch away from 2E -- they are comfortable, they like how it works, and they are not confronted with the moment by moment mechanics of the game. Same characters(mostly), same game, going on twenty years. They would gladly switch to anything but don't want to take time away from gaming to do it. I don't think I would want to change what they are doing. If I started a new game though ...
How would you like to make a cake with the following recipe? Take half a bowl of dry ingredients and mix with some yellow ingredients and apply 1200 units of heattime to it. Those of you who ended up with a cake did so because you already new what was right to do not because of my recipe.
Rule interaction becomes very problematic with loose/mixed measurements. No game designer can possibly imagine all the possbilities for how abstract rules are going to inter-relate. The result is a needless complication or add-on solutions for each different kind of situation.
OOG leverage like Gherkin suggested is a method of controlling the shortcomings created from these problems. Cocytus overcomes these issues with his skills as a mediator to keep the story in front of the players - not the rules.
Cocytus, when you mention that the greatest weakness of D&D is its greatest strength are you referring to the structure? Although the structure is artificial it provides so much for the players to grab on to? I also like what you said about feats making the game more character centric.
What I don't like is the way that these feats take some of the wind from the DM's sails. I have always enjoyed introducing new skills to the game in the game. The players encounter a mysterious/strange ally who has a skill that they have never seen before. Will he teach it to them? What must they do to prove their worth? Skills become a path to discovery the same way that an unfinished map is a path to adventure. 3E is written in a way that gives the player a sense of entitlement to the feats for their class and thus removes the suspense and/or wonder. In 2nd Edition I could introduce a skill/ability. I don't know if my argument has become circular on this point because I like the rule, but don't like the players having it. Hmmm.. I'll think about it some more.
I guess the way that I feel about it is that the rules that surround the game are rich and full of detail, but that the core mechanisms are flawed. This makes the job of the GM more difficult than it needs to be. I suspect that you have all run wonderfully successful campaigns and participated in them too.
A few years ago I wrote a Mandate for a what I thought a Roleplaying Game should be. Here is an excerpt:
From "Nailed to the Church Door" November 2002
The function of a fantasy role-playing game is to provide a medium of controlled interaction between players, characters, and an imaginary game world. This game should make it easy for players to act as they desire, and facilitate the imaginations of everyone without becoming false. It necessarily follows that a game of this description must be easy to use, so as not to interfere with the play or break the player's willing suspension of disbelief. From this mandate it is clear that the ideal game system provides a framework for adventure and imagination, but never becomes the game. The best system can hope to disappear. Players should never feel confined within the rules. Neither should they feel that they can bend the false reality to their whims. In both scenarios the world becomes artificial. A good fantasy world is imaginary, un-real, often mystical, but never artificial. In order to maintain belief and encourage imagination, a game should provide a method of evaluating and understanding your character. When called upon, the game system should give you a method of plausibly returning random results. That's it. The gamers do the rest.
Cocytus, when you mention that the greatest weakness of D&D is its greatest strength are you referring to the structure? Although the structure is artificial it provides so much for the players to grab on to?
Essentially, yes. I abandoned D&D in the mid-'90s, and even that was after coming back from a seven-year hiatus from AD&D (and basic, which let me say in its own way was a decent system, and produced my favorite published module of all time: the low-level adventure Rahasia) to try 2E. And I felt that 2E clarified and made certain aspects of AD&D more interesting, but was still essentially the same thing. After half an abortive campaign, where I, an excellent GM, and three other top-flight roleplayers (not to call myself one, but they certainly were) found ourselves and our characters overpowered by the rules, I left it again...in favor of Palladium, of all things (that should tell you how sick of D&D I was, I believe).
When 3E came out I was very skeptical. But the enthusiasm of the GM from the 2E campaign convinced me to try running a "throwaway" campaign in my old Palladium setting. And I found I really enjoyed it. Many of the problems I'd had with AD&D -- esoteric rules, bafflingly complex mechanics, and above all class sterility, had been solved.
But as I've played a few campaigns with 3E and 3.5 I've begun to see a tradeoff: in making rules specific and easily comprehensible, d20 has made D&D more prone to min-maxing and the related behaviors I've always loathed. Though I think the core rules are pretty solid in both of those editions, there are still a lot of them -- and to this day, I haven't mastered them all. The combat rules alone are specific, sensible (if by their nature rather abstract), and...numerous. Though we have few arguments about how to interpret the rules, we frequently have to remind ourselves exactly what they say. And that slows the game down, and occasionally allows a player to "cheat," even if it's usually unintentional, by trying a maneuver we haven't practiced very well.
Then there's the very expandibility and proliferation of d20 mechanics and classes, etc under the OGL. I have one player in particular who's always running out and buying expansion books I have neither the time to read nor the money to purchase, and wanting to know: can I use this prestige class? What about this one? How about this new spell/feat/magic item? And even my current campaign, which in most ways has been a success unparalleled in my experience as GM, was nearly wrecked by a power-gaming type who would spend all his time combing the DMG for abusively potent magic items whose applications I'd not considered.
All of this blathering is to say: though d20/3E+ is well-balanced, playtested, easy to understand, expandible, and so forth, these things can be serious hazards to good play if you encounter a player who is a little more munchkinish than you might like. And I do mean "a little more." I'm not even talking about the sort of power-gamer whom I'd ask to leave my table, but old friends and accomplished roleplayers.
There is a fix: limit the system. That's the approach I'm taking in my homebrew rules, and I find that as I prune things down (reducing armor types to the kinds available in the dark ages, abolishing the hated [by me] alignment system, tweaking the classes a bit, retooling the spell list, vastly restricting available player races and the monsters in the bestiary, using "optional" experience rules, and above all restricting the magic items available in the severest possible way), play gets better. I think the core mechanics are solid...for D&D. But I think they need tailoring, and that tailoring is how I spend a lot of my spare time lately.
Reading over your site, I daresay you had a similar experience with 2E.
I also like what you said about feats making the game more character centric. What I don't like is the way that these feats take some of the wind from the DM's sails.
I think it was the esteemed Gherkin of the Lurking persuasion who said that, but I'd certainly agree. The feat system, far from being a simple tack-on in my opinion, has gone a long way to reconciling me to class-and-level-based systems...which, as a general rule, I dislike. But I think you get the idea; because of the feat system, the fighter class in particular has never been (again, in my opinion) more playable, more combat-worthy, and more diverse. I've seen Byzantine-style net-and-trident fighters, the good old sword-and-shield specialists, spear masters, quarterstaff masters, Musashi-style dual-sword wielders, and many more, all at low levels. I think that's really great.
But when you say it takes the wind from the DM's sails, I'm a little confused. You can always prohibit certain feats, allow new ones (my current bane), or introduce your own...something with which I'm beginning to experiment as a way to limit classes. I could go on about that, but it seems a bit far from the topic -- for now, just allow me to opine that it can be done.
I have always enjoyed introducing new skills to the game in the game. The players encounter a mysterious/strange ally who has a skill that they have never seen before. Will he teach it to them? What must they do to prove their worth? Skills become a path to discovery the same way that an unfinished map is a path to adventure.
I have introduced a number of new skills, some of which characters cannot start the campaign knowing because the skills require the teaching of a "mysterious master" such as you mention. I put the skills in my worldbook so they can be playtested, but I find that hasn't hurt the element of mystery -- for some who have used them in the current campaign, half the fun was finding a master to teach the skill to them. And of course, a good roleplayer will "forget" such skills until such time as her character learns of their existence. But I take your meaning: the regular, table-based DC structure of skills in 3E+ causes players to expect a well-tested, balanced skill, and it's tough to introduce such a thing without at least one of your players knowing it's coming.
I guess the way that I feel about it is that the rules that surround the game are rich and full of detail, but that the core mechanisms are flawed. This makes the job of the GM more difficult than it needs to be.
Ultimately, I have to agree with you...something that I think got lost in the flame war beteween myself, Dragos, and Great Troll that re-invigorated this whole thread. It's not that I think 3E+ is the best system (and may I say the experience system in 3E+ is something I'm having a great deal of trouble getting to behave in a reasonable fashion); I use it because my players know it and like it, and I've figured out a way to tailor it to the kind of game I run.
Most systems have some core flaw or another. Though I have high hopes for future GURPS 4e campaigns (in the year 2525, at my current rate...), I've yet to encounter a system that is truly flawless. Even my beloved BRP CoC ruleset takes a regular, and I am increasingly forced to admit well-deserved, bashing among the scholarly, hyperintelligent posters on www.yog-sothoth.com. And that's one reason why I have such interest in your particular system; I'm always looking to run a better game.
Aren't we all?
Thanks for your kind comments. As soon as the beta-test is complete I will let you know so that you can take the combat engine for a spin. Heck, even if you don't use the other parts of the system -- I think that the combat alone is a gem.
Honestly though, I am very interested in comparing the merits of 2E to 3E. I have a group of players who have been in the same campaign for going on twenty years. I don't want to turn that game on its head by switching rulesets, but managed to easily drift from 1st to 2nd Edition and added lots of house rules. I fear that Third edition isn't a driftable river -- it is a perilous sea. I decided a few years ago that 3rd edition wasn't suitable for our game, but feel I should question my own decision. This board becomes a great tool for examining that decision. So I have two agenda, one as a DM looking out for his players, second as a game designer who has a competitive product. For both of these reasons I should be somewhat conversant with 3E.
"But when you say it takes the wind from the DM's sails, I'm a little confused. You can always prohibit certain feats, allow new ones (my current bane), or introduce your own...something with which I'm beginning to experiment as a way to limit classes. I could go on about that, but it seems a bit far from the topic -- for now, just allow me to opine that it can be done."
Point taken. My opinion is that "feats" should be part of the campaign world, not part of the rules. The rules of the game should stand on their own merit and provide a skeleton for the GM to flesh out. Presenting feats and prestige classes give them more credence and credibility than they deserve. Individual stories should be the GM's to create -- they shouldn't have to pigeon-hole characteristics/classes to do this. I agree though that having the feats allows customization -- and, as someone mentioned earlier this makes the fighter a much less boring class.
In the end to satisfy the imaginations of the players D&D begins to dismantle the class structure that it uses in the first place. Feats and prestige classes are a way of doing this and driving the sales of more and more books.
I don't want to come off as negative in any way. I like 2nd Edition -- I think 3E looks interesting too. Feats take a step in the direction of skill based gaming, but I think it becomes too hybrid. By introducing the complexity of a skill based system without introducing all of the benefits (skill rankings) I feel that 3E is a bit of an ogre that sits between two paradigms. It has too many rules because it is not resting firmly on one model or another.
In the words of Sensei Miyagi (Pat Morita) from the Karate Kid movie, "Karate do, yes -- okay. Karate do, no -- still okay. Karate do, guess so -- Pow! Get squashed like grape." I like the direction that 3rd Edition went in -- it just didn't go far enough. I did a re-write of 2nd Edition that eliminated all but the four character classes (plus Eclectic to make 5). I added a full skill system to enhance the abilities of the characters and create originality and balanced the classes. I am biased towards skill- based games, but am aware of the allure of a class based system. In any case there is absolutely no need for 500 prestige classes.
Here is what I have said about Class based systems. I have a slightly more moderate viewpoint at this stage, but feel that some of these arguments are still valid.
Games that rely on identifying characters with a specific "Class" limit the scope of the game. They make the game more predictable; they reduce the choices of the player; and they are driven by the marketing avarice of the game designer by fostering a need for players to constantly buy new sourcebooks to encounter originality.
Once you have determined what class someone belongs to, and how far advanced they are, you have gone a long way to determining all the skills and talents that they will possess. Further, these generic classes are separated from any specific institutions within the game world. Providing beginner players with a number of well-defined schools, orders, knighthoods, and professions gives them the direction that a newcomer gets from a system with Classes without artificially imposing rules on the game world.
Originality of the players in a fantasy game is paramount. A class-based system forces a player to build their character out of a pre-designed, pre-balanced (usually poorly), and pre-interpreted mould. They are able to window dress and make surface changes, but nothing more. Imagine if you were asked to design a concept for a new motorized vehicle. In a class based system you would be given the options of starting with a pre-designed Truck, Sedan, Sports Car, or Motorcycle. You would then choose colour, window tint, air-conditioning, etc. What you would quickly realize is that you weren't making a new motorized vehicle but buying a vehicle from a dealership. A class based system forces you to buy (or buy into) their product.
They also try to keep you buying into it. If they don't give you the ability to be creative, they know that you will keep coming back to them for the newest pre-digested template for your character. These sub-classes, prestige classes, and other inventions are nothing more than a marketing strategy designed to exploit a deficiency in the game system. They are designed to have more advantages than the classes presented in the standard rules to appeal to the desire of players to have the "best" character possible.
Any merits of a class based system, specifically ease-of-use for beginners, are entirely nullified by presenting some well considered schools in a skill-based system.
"I use it because my players know it and like it, and I've figured out a way to tailor it to the kind of game I run."
For me the long days of summer with no responsibilities and commitments are a distant memory. We don't have the time any more to invest in things that take a long time to learn without a clear tangible reward. Everyone seems to have a hectic job with lots of responsibility -- chips get replaced with grapes, and instead of parents yelling down the stairs we have pagers and cell phones to interrupt, or put an early end to our sessions.
At this stage we are looking for an exciting diversion from the mundane. On one hand there is no reason to drift away from something that works. On the other hand ...
"I'm always looking to run a better game."
Better is better.
"Aren't we all?"
Yup.
A brief reply...
My opinion is that "feats" should be part of the campaign world, not part of the rules.
It's entirely possible that I'm missing what you're saying here, but unless I miss my guess, that's my problem with the entire 3E+ system in a nutshell. Some say: "there's no setting for D&D in the basic rules." But there is...an implicit one, and it's really quite overwhelming. To play with a different setting, I think any savvy GM has to prune, prune, prune. For my latest campaign setting I have modified the spell list, the armor list, the magic items list, the feat list, the monster list and the skills list. As a general rule, I cut things out, though I occasionally change them or introduce something new. But the vast majority of my work with tuning 3E has been cutting. As I say, I think it works tremendously well.
If I were to use 2E to achieve the same result, I'd have an even bigger mountain of work before me. So I use 3E. Again, the setting started there, and the system will carry it through to some form of completion. From what I can discern, I would not recommend your switching to 3E from 2E, even though I think the former is a far easier-to-use system, if only because I think you've already done so much work and your players are already familiar and happy with the system they're using now.
In any case there is absolutely no need for 500 prestige classes.
No argument here. I've banned all but a handful, retaining a few I think provide nice tie-ins to the flavor of the setting. And I've kept one that isn't setting-specific, terribly, but I just think it's so cool I can't bear to cut it out.
But then, I have neither the time, the money, nor the interest in buying unlimited numbers of d20 expansions. I think the core rulebooks work pretty well.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but I'd really rather be using GURPS. Which has its own flaws (even 4e retains one glaringly bad mechanic that can be relentlessly exploited by min-maxers, and if ever there were a game prone to min-maxing abuse, GURPS is it). But I'm saving it for the next setting, unless your combat rules sweep me off my feet before then.