# 2E vs 3E: 8 Years Later. A new perspective?



## Sitara (Jan 14, 2008)

Flipping through my Ad&D 2E stuff I realize just how elegant some of the things used to be (and some un-elegent things: THAC0 I am looking at you)

For instance, the Non-Weapon Profiency system of 2E has some simple appeal over 3E's skill systm. In 2E you just take a proficiency and are done with it; your character knows that. How good he is at it depends on level and roleplaying, you don't have to do extensive number crunching every level. 3E's skill system though, can be a nightmare. Especially when making high level pc's.

3E's feats though, are a definate improvement over the proficiencies.

I also like how 2E comat's were less overpowered, and more deadly. Everyone had far fewer hitpoints, char death was at 0, and some monster abilities were brutally damaging. The system also relied far less on magic items at higher levels than 3E. 

I also really like how 2E monsters had morale! I ave no idea why they removed it in 3E.

Anyhow I was wondering what do you miss from AD&D? Do you think 3E was really an improvement?


----------



## Psion (Jan 14, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> For instance, the Non-Weapon Profiency system of 2E has some simple appeal over 3E's skill systm. In 2E you just take a proficiency and are done with it; your character knows that. How good he is at it depends on level and roleplaying, you don't have to do extensive number crunching every level.




I didn't consider that a good thing. I think that if you are going to have a system for skills, it should tell you, of all things, how good you are.

The thing with the NWPs is that one slot got took you from 0 to ability score+/-, but each slot after that was a crawl. Most players didn't find the skill-like NWPs worth it past 1 or 2 and most spent their NWPs on the more feat-like ones.

I really quite strongly prefer skills & feats to NWPs.



> I also like how 2E comat's were less overpowered, and more deadly. Everyone had far fewer hitpoints, char death was at 0, and some monster abilities were brutally damaging. The system also relied far less on magic items at higher levels than 3E.




I always found the system petered off after 10th level; great dragons and balors seemed simple at those levels. I find that 3e scales much better.



> I also really like how 2E monsters had morale! I ave no idea why they removed it in 3E.




THAT I agree with!


----------



## WayneLigon (Jan 14, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> The system also relied far less on magic items at higher levels than 3E.




In some ways it was far more reliant, since there are a ton of monsters at higher levels that require a certain level of magic weapon to even effect them. If you don't have a +3 weapon against some creatures, you do no damage. With 3E's DR system, even if you don't have the appropriate weapon then you can still do some damage.



			
				Sitara said:
			
		

> Anyhow I was wondering what do you miss from AD&D? Do you think 3E was really an improvement?




I think 3E was such an improvement that it's the reason we still have a D&D today. Without 3E, the big-boy FRPG on the block would be Exalted.


----------



## glass (Jan 14, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> For instance, the Non-Weapon Profiency system of 2E has some simple appeal over 3E's skill systm. In 2E you just take a proficiency and are done with it; your character knows that. How good he is at it depends on level and roleplaying,



How good you are depends on your ability score. Neither your leve nor roleplaying have anything to do with it.



			
				Sitara said:
			
		

> The system also relied far less on magic items at higher levels than 3E.



That's because the system (and I use the term loosely) completely fell apart at high levels.



			
				Sitara said:
			
		

> I also really like how 2E monsters had morale! I ave no idea why they removed it in 3E.



Because it was a very complicated way of deciding something that  is generally pretty obvious?



			
				Sitara said:
			
		

> Anyhow I was wondering what do you miss from AD&D? Do you think 3E was really an improvement?



Yeah. Half-elf mage/clerics not sucking. Quite the opposite, in fact.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jan 14, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> Flipping through my Ad&D 2E stuff I realize just how elegant some of the things used to be (and some un-elegent things: THAC0 I am looking at you)




Hehe.  THAC0 wasn't as bad as people make it out to be.  It's simple math, after all.  That being said, I prefer the Base Attack Bonus mechanic in 3e.  Roll a d20, add a modifier.  Easy peasy.



> For instance, the Non-Weapon Profiency system of 2E has some simple appeal over 3E's skill systm. In 2E you just take a proficiency and are done with it; your character knows that. How good he is at it depends on level and roleplaying, you don't have to do extensive number crunching every level. 3E's skill system though, can be a nightmare. Especially when making high level pc's.
> 
> 3E's feats though, are a definate improvement over the proficiencies.





The 4e designers have commented on how 3e's skill system has the problem of characters either being Jack-of-all-trades or min/maxing with skill ranks.  It's a lot of number crunching, especially on higher levels.  2e's problem, though, was that it was really hard to improve at a skill.  

I'm really liking the Star Wars Saga Edition skills (presuming they will be used for 4e as well).  Your level factors in, taking away the need for skill ranks.  Yet you can specialize to a certain degree as well so that your numbers aren't all the same.  Want to be a really great pilot?  Well, just be trained in that skill and take skill focus, and you're the best of the best.  

Feats are a fantastic idea to add to the D&D game.  It allows for a certain level of customization.  I'm not sure that they're used the way they were meant.  While every character is supposed to be different, how many fighters take the same groupings of feat trees?  This is why I like True20's feat system.  It takes out a lot of prerequisites, thereby allowing for greater customization.




> I also like how 2E comat's were less overpowered, and more deadly. Everyone had far fewer hitpoints, char death was at 0, and some monster abilities were brutally damaging. The system also relied far less on magic items at higher levels than 3E.




I thought death in 2e was at -10 as well.  That's how we always did it in the games I played.  *scratches head*

I would say that I liked 2e's combat better, though my version was probably a bit house ruled.  Very freeform.  I hated weapon speed, though.  

I really dislike the focus on tactical combat in d20.  It's too rigid.  4e is going to have movement in squares.  Now, I don't normally like that, but I came across one great advantage recently.  I'm no good at determining distance, so that would help to determine that.  So I'm going to give it a chance.  I don't care for attacks of opportunity, myself.  I have had mostly bad experiences with that rule, including a character (a psion) who couldn't act in a round because he was being attacked.  




> I also really like how 2E monsters had morale! I ave no idea why they removed it in 3E.




I kinda like morale, but it seems to me that it's much easier to ask what the monster would do.  If a kobold's buddies are all dead and he's the only one left, he's going to run away.  If the opponent is a dragon, he's not going anywhere.  Just use your best judgment and you're fine.




> Anyhow I was wondering what do you miss from AD&D? Do you think 3E was really an improvement?




That is a tricky question.  There is no doubt in my mind that 3e saved D&D from extinction.  I think it has been good for the hobby in general.  I think mechanically, it is better in several places (though not all).

What I miss from 2e is the flavor and feel.  3e reads like a fantasy technical manual at times.  I miss the settings.  Truly, that is 2e's greatest legacy, and I have yet to see 3e do as good of a job of it all (though we rocked the house with Dragonlance  ).  I think 2e had some books that were better than the 3e counterparts.  The _2e Arms & Equipment Guide_ is one of my all-time faves.  I've heard many people say they preferred the 2e _Tome of Magic_.

My advice would be to dust off the old 2e books and give the game a whirl again.  Compare it to 3e, then see which one you like to play.  If it's hard deciding, then I'd recommend looking into Castles & Crusades, which is a nice hybrid of AD&D and d20.  You can easily port rules in too, so you can mix up NWPs and feats if you want.  

Good luck, and good gaming!


----------



## Son_of_Thunder (Jan 14, 2008)

*I miss nothing about 2e*

I miss nothing about 2e because it's the edition I play.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 14, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> Anyhow I was wondering what do you miss from AD&D? Do you think 3E was really an improvement?



Nothing at all, and without a doubt, respectively.

I'm really very fond of many 21st century RPGs, Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition being one of them. I generally find them to be just plain better than the majority of last century's offerings, that I've encountered.

It has been a pleasant surprise, the process of discovering this.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 14, 2008)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> I thought death in 2e was at -10 as well.  That's how we always did it in the games I played.  *scratches head*



Wasn't that the "hovering at death's door" optional rule?


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 14, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> Anyhow I was wondering what do you miss from AD&D? Do you think 3E was really an improvement?



The only thing I really miss from 2E was the variety of published settings (though they're easy to adapt to other editions, so yay!). I don't think there are any mechanical bits I prefer over 3E.


----------



## Evilhalfling (Jan 14, 2008)

2e - the skills were terrible, all apptitude no training.  It was one of my favoriate changes. 
If you think grappling rules are bad, look at the random grapple table in 2nd - serious suspension of disbelief was needed.  Psionics becoming useable for the first time ever was a great change.  

I did like the amount of magic items in 2nd better, and the quests necessary for creation, 
although HR to tone them down for simple items.   One of my first thoughts looking at the 3e PhB was that being able to make wonderous items at 3rd and arms and armour at 4th ment that everyone and thier dog should have large numbers of weak items.  Also that since rings were only possible from 12th level casters, they should be as rare as presented by tolkien: 
1+3+7+9, only twenty rings on a contient? that seemed about right. 

crafting items was a no-win change.  I like realistic item creation times in 2nd ed - I assume based on research rather than game balance.  Then again who ever had that amount of time?  The crafting rules in 3 are just bizzar, but since the time/value balance is fixed you don't have any wierd loopholes.

Still in looking back at some 2nd ed splat books recently - the specialty priests had terrible mechanics, but great flavor.  My complete priest still gets mined for ideas.


----------



## Neil Bishop (Jan 14, 2008)

I certainly appreciated some of the simpler concepts. Monster stat blocks, of course, were so much easier.

Coincidentally, I was also thinking about the NWP system yesterday. Sure, it was not exactly a masterpiece of design but it was simple.

However, then I look at all the stupid, illogical things (including, inter alia, different damage from weapons depending on the opponent's size and thieves having the WORST saving throws against breath weapons... ie, one of 2E's versions of the reflex save) and I know I could never, ever, ever go back. I'll keep going with Savage Worlds for my simpler, yet still flexible, gaming fix.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 14, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> I also really like how 2E monsters had morale! I ave no idea why they removed it in 3E.



I am totally with you there. What a mistake.

In fact, most things about monsters was done better in 2e. The removal of the ecology and habitat/society sections, along with frequency, was also a big mistake AFAIC.


I also miss specialty priests - another area where 3e flopped on.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 14, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> I also like how 2E comat's were less overpowered, and more deadly. Everyone had far fewer hitpoints, char death was at 0, and some monster abilities were brutally damaging. The system also relied far less on magic items at higher levels than 3E.




Combat more deadly in 2e? you've gotta be kidding, right?

In 2e, by about 6th or 7th level you knew you had 3-4 rounds of fight in you because even the the monsters had pretty limited damage. Even with storm giants (at the top of the range), they only did 7d6 (avg 24.5).

In 3e relatively higher damage, along with multiple attacks and the potential of critical hits dramatically increased the potential amount of damage PCs could take. We found in the early days that PCs of 6th-9th level dropped like flies because the players innate sense of how dangerous things were for them was dramatically off.

Cheers


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jan 14, 2008)

Neil Bishop said:
			
		

> ...different damage from weapons depending on the opponent's size...




Now we have different damage based on the wielder's size.    

The difference between a small long sword and a medium short sword is simple.  5 GP.  That's it.  Otherwise, the two weapons are identical.  Back in the day, we just used a bit of common sense.  A halfling is smaller, so they're going to need a short sword.  


As for specialty priests, I agree that they had some of the best flavor around.  Maybe not balanced, but I loved how they customized the cleric into interesting characters.  Domains are supposed to replace this in 3e, but you could easily come up with clerics of two similar deities with the same domains.  This isn't customized to the deity.  

Now, what I've seen happen is that some prestige classes take the role of specialty priests.  I applaud this.  You can see some great examples in Dragonlance's _Holy Orders of the Stars_.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 14, 2008)

I think the thing I like least about 2e is the proficiency system. Skills are much more fun for me.

I loved the way that 2e clerics could be totally different from one another. I like the minor differences of 3e domains a lot less.


----------



## TerraDave (Jan 14, 2008)

What do I miss from 2nd edition:

_All the time I used to have to play. _


----------



## Reynard (Jan 14, 2008)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> In some ways it was far more reliant, since there are a ton of monsters at higher levels that require a certain level of magic weapon to even effect them. If you don't have a +3 weapon against some creatures, you do no damage. With 3E's DR system, even if you don't have the appropriate weapon then you can still do some damage.




Immunities are far and away better at achieving the goal of simulating otherworldly, dangerous opponents, however.  When the greatsword wielding barbarian can just pump up the power attack and still be able to hit, it cheapens the supernatural quality of the monster (even if it is more "fun" from a gamist perspective).  Tiered pluses are better, too -- one of the worst changes between 3.0 and 3.5 was dropping it.  I mean, why even given dragons DR when the CR for dragons means that the PCs are automatically going to be equipped with magic weapons?

Mechanically, 3E tends to be more intuitive than previous editions.  unfortunately, it is also much mroe integreated, which means adding and removing subsystems is a little more difficult than in previous editions.  When the whole system is integrated, it gets broken a lot easier by messing with one little piece.  When the "system" is really composed of discrete subsystems, it is harder to break.

For example, the grappling/punching rules of 1E and 2E were just a  pain to use.  They were also easily replaced, because they really didn't mesh with any other system in the game.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jan 14, 2008)

Too true!

I enjoyed 2e quite a bit, though I never touched the Skills & Powers / Players Option books.



			
				TerraDave said:
			
		

> What do I miss from 2nd edition:
> 
> _All the time I used to have to play. _


----------



## Set (Jan 14, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> Anyhow I was wondering what do you miss from AD&D? Do you think 3E was really an improvement?




I miss some very specific things, mostly settings like Al-Qadim and Kara-Tur, and 'kits' like the Sha'ir and Totem-Sister (from Elves of Evermeet) and books full of 'wow!' like The Will and the Way.

But rules?  3E is vastly better, IMO.  Perfect?  No system will be, 'cause if it's so tightly-focused to be 'perfect' for one player in one specific situation, it will be utterly unsuitable for another player with another style of play or in another type of encounter.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jan 14, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> The only thing I really miss from 2E was the variety of published settings (though they're easy to adapt to other editions, so yay!). I don't think there are any mechanical bits I prefer over 3E.




I do kind of miss one-line stat blocks for monsters. Other than that, I concur 100% with you.


----------



## delericho (Jan 14, 2008)

As a rule, I found 2nd Edition to be a simpler, faster system. Moreover, there always seemed to be less of a 'math burden' to carry with the system. I miss that.

However, there are sufficient oddities in the system (notably THAC0, the broken multi-classing rules, and the different XP tables for each class) that I wouldn't be able to run the game again without being driven crazy by the quirks.


----------



## Sitara (Jan 14, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Combat more deadly in 2e? you've gotta be kidding, right?
> 
> In 2e, by about 6th or 7th level you knew you had 3-4 rounds of fight in you because even the the monsters had pretty limited damage. Even with storm giants (at the top of the range), they only did 7d6 (avg 24.5).
> 
> ...




But in 2E pc's had much less hitpoints. (they got capped remember). That avg of 24.5 damage meant a world of hurt for a 2e mage. Plus, there was no spontaneous casting of heal spells. To add to that, casting during combat was much more difficult (no concentration skill/casting defensively).

Bascially, 2e catered well to a group of pc's vs one large powerful baddie critter. 3e focuses more on pc's vs a number of powerul critters. (though ofcourse you can mix and match to some extent).

2e's dual classing mechanic was, however, stupid to say the least. Funnily enough the multiclassing concept was superior to 3e, and you cannot argue _that_. (Fighter/Mages were actually powerful and fun to play in 2e, yet they never quite overshadowed the mage or the fighter in the group. Not even with a suit of elven chain. Though  they could come close...  ) In 3e there are only two real way's of playing fighter mages: The eldritch knight and the raumathari battlemage. Both have theri issues however. (in a nutshell, they are very weak fighters)

2e's racial limits were also silly, I doubt anyone followed them. Even the computer games ignored them. The druid class limit was also, pretty dumb. 

The 2E fighter was also, quite powerful. (only class to get multiattacks)

Lastly, the psionic rules in 2E darksun (the rules in the revised box set) are quite nice. (though a few powers come too close to mage spells for comfort)

Anyhow I am gearing up to run or play a 2E darksun game. It looks to be fun, fun ,fun.  

Note, I'm not particularly defending or bashing any edition. I think overall 3e was a change for the better, though some things (hp bloat for instance, complex skills, weird, weird combination of monsters with templates, and class levels, and prestige class levels, and racial levels etc) got way out of hand.


----------



## Spell (Jan 14, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> Anyhow I was wondering what do you miss from AD&D? Do you think 3E was really an improvement?




i don't think 3e was an improvement at all, sorry.
sure, there are many many neat ideas in it. i LOVE that monsters have save and ability scores in their stat blocks (i never understood why they gave us just intelligence and why saving throw weren't contemplated in AD&D). i like the idea of feats a bit. i like the mechanics for multiclassing, because they eliminate the need for hybrid classes and are much much smoother than the equivalent in AD&D.

i hate the combat. even before the 3.5 it was waaaaay too rule heavy for my tastes. preparation time would take forever, if you want to follow the rules, or, god spare us, customize your monsters. i can't stand the whole "every level has a new power" idea. i think levelling up quickly calls for a gaming experienced that is further away from what i've always looked for in my campaigns (story development, characters as special "normal" people, rather than legendary heroes). i don't like feat proliferation. i can do without in-built assumptions for character wealth and magic wielding powers per level.

and, most of all, i completely despise the fact that the unification of the system meant that if you wanted to change one bit, you basically had to balance one subsystem or another.

try to get rid of feats, or simplify (and speed up) combat, or run a low magic campaign without having to refer to a dozen of other published books beyond the core ones.

in AD&D, the ruleset was a springboard for your imagination. it could have been goofy, old fashioned, in need of fixing. but you could do more or less what you wanted with it and change only the bits you needed to.

in 3e, the ruleset is THE rules. if you want something different, don't hesitate to try another game system.

ps: that is not to say that you can't house rule 3.x. but, with my very limited amount of time, i simply had to quit role playing. i could have found a group and played with them, but i like to DM, sorry.


----------



## glass (Jan 14, 2008)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> I thought death in 2e was at -10 as well.  That's how we always did it in the games I played.  *scratches head*



We did too, but I think it was one of those houserules that everybody had. Didn't someone mention in another thread that it was suggested in the Dark Sun boxed set.


glass.


----------



## Spell (Jan 14, 2008)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> There is no doubt in my mind that 3e saved D&D from extinction.  I think it has been good for the hobby in general.  I think mechanically, it is better in several places (though not all).




i have to say that, for all my negative remarks, i can't disagree with this. 3e saved D&D fullstop. and it also allowed the flourishing of a number of independent companies that have been producing very good supplements, and are now branching off in their own ways.

on the other hand...



			
				Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> What I miss from 2e is the flavor and feel.  3e reads like a fantasy technical manual at times.




quote for truth. i was bored to death reading every single manual, including the monster manual and the epic level handbook. i know, i know. i pay the designers for making a ruleset that works, and whether i like it or not, 3e does work.

but, at the same time, i am still surprised by how much adventure ideas i get every time i look at my old monstrous compendium. and i still remember devouring the PHB. holy cow, i basically *learnt english* on that book, while reading it. (i am italian).
it's not just a nostalgia thing: the writing was more compelling, more interesting, more adventurous. more evocative, if you wish.

for all its breaking from the "sacred cows" of D&D, i really hope that 4e will be returning to be what D&D is meant to be: a fully and relatively easily customizabile system that is written with inventiveness and insight.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 14, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> The only thing I really miss from 2E was the variety of published settings (though they're easy to adapt to other editions, so yay!). I don't think there are any mechanical bits I prefer over 3E.



There's just as many now... although many of the good ones are third party rather than in house.

Iron Kingdoms is better (IMO) than any of the "official" settings have been.  A few others are in the running as well.


----------



## qstor (Jan 14, 2008)

I miss the settings and the fluff from 2e. I love the Volo's Handbooks and the Greyhawk books by Carl Sargent like Iuz the Evil. I think its long past for books like those. I guess it was the "TSR" feeling too all the products. 4e will be for the corporate good of Hasbro.

Mike


----------



## Voadam (Jan 14, 2008)

My view hasn't really changed now that it is 8 years later.

I still prefer 3e's saves, multiclassing, ability progression, universal xp chart, and full monster stats.

I still prefer 2e's specialty priests and longer monster descriptions.

I guess ease of creating high level NPC or monster stat blocks could be added on as a 2e over 3e preference.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jan 14, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> I guess ease of creating high level NPC or monster stat blocks could be added on as a 2e over 3e preference.




Me, too! Me, too! Yeah, until I got a copy of the PHB II, quickly creating NPCs in 3x just didn't happen with the RAW. I really liked just being able to jot down some stats in 2e without having the need to do a bunch of bean counting in an effort to strike some artificial concept of 'balance' in the game. I _do_ miss that about AD&D 2e. So. . . erm. . . that and shorter monster stat blocks. That's all I miss, really.


----------



## theemrys (Jan 14, 2008)

For me, I liked a lot of things about 3.X and have played it for many years now.  Over the last year I've gotten more and more nostalgic for older editions though.  (Hence why I'm transitioning to Hackmaster).  I liked the "power range" going from 1 - 12 rather than 1 -30 (at least the way we played it) and I prefer the multiclass rules from pre 3.X as well... although I always envisioned the longer lived races using Dual and humans being multi... 

I never used the level limits in my games and change quite a few things, but it was great.  I have found that with the 3.x games I've run they've become more tactical combat games rather than heavy roleplaying.  Now, I know this is not a fault of the system completely and you can run roleplaying heavy games with it, but I found the older editions lent themselves more to it, and that's my style so that's what I've prefered.  

That being said, I loved the idea of feats (although I think they went a little crazy), I liked the idea of PrCs (but again, I think it went WAY overboard).  

I'm mixed on skills... I initially liked skills over nwp, but as time went on I found they required too much min/maxing... I don't like the idea that a 15th level character suddenly should be encountering things that require a much higher DC than a low level... 

In truth though I do think 3.0 revitalized the hobby though (brought me back to it) and was a great thing overall.  If nothing else, it quickened the industry and got many companies involved and we have more choices of rules and styles than ever before.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 14, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Mechanically, 3E tends to be more intuitive than previous editions.  unfortunately, it is also much mroe integreated, which means adding and removing subsystems is a little more difficult than in previous editions.  When the whole system is integrated, it gets broken a lot easier by messing with one little piece.  When the "system" is really composed of discrete subsystems, it is harder to break.
> 
> For example, the grappling/punching rules of 1E and 2E were just a  pain to use.  They were also easily replaced, because they really didn't mesh with any other system in the game.




True, I do miss the lack of cohesive integration of 1e/2e. As you said (and as I've argued in the past on ENworld), it did make it much easier to swap out subsystems for completely new subsystems.

Cheers


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jan 14, 2008)

Cue C&C-fanboi post in 3... 2... 1... 

Seriously: Which 2e?

2e by the Core Rules: Simplest version of the game aside from Basic.  Not too much in the way of detail, but streamlined and quick.  If you ever want to resolve a fight between seven player characters, their dozen henchmen and their half-a-dozen summoned monsters on one side, and nineteen giants with a shaman and thirty worgs on the other, then don't try it in 3e.  

2e by the Core Rules + Complete (class) splatbooks: All flavour and settings.  (I liked Planescape for this ruleset.)

2.5e (by which I mean 2e + Skills & Powers + Player's Option): Not the same game at all imo--not an improvement to my mind.  I think the added complexity made it a min/maxer's paradise without adding anything in the way of fun.


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Jan 14, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> i hate the combat. even before the 3.5 it was waaaaay too rule heavy for my tastes. preparation time would take forever, if you want to follow the rules, or, god spare us, customize your monsters.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




You know, for years I have seen people on these boards extoll the virtues of Rules Light systems.  But I never did see much of the appeal myself.  You make several points here that I readilly acknowledge too.  Prep time for NPC's at higher levels does take a long time, and there is too much 'Variable Sprawl'.  The math is not difficult, but keeping track of every current modifier can drive you nuts.  Still, I do not how the absence of these things really weighed that heavily in favor of rules light systems.

But your comments do suggest something I had not previously considered.

In systems like D&D where you are presented with both a large number of choices to consider when creating a character, and when you have many variables that interact with a lot of stats (Modifing 1 stat and having to adjust 2 or 3 others), it becomes essentially impossible to improvise an effective combatant NPC on the fly and still be consistent with the rules.

Third edition further complicates that by being a well thought out and interconnected system.  The only reason I can see to want to house rule out feats is to make high level character creation quicker.  Slamming out a 12th level fighter is easy when all you have to remember is "12d10 hp, +12 Bab, +x, +y, +y" for saves as a base line.  Maybe you also drop in a few feats as obligitory power (all fighters get feat X at level Y), though use less of them.

But when you also have to select 10 feats, and level appropriate equipment, things grind to a halt.

This is further aggravated if you have PC's who are prone to pick a fight with unexpected opponents.  You may not have statted out the captain of the guard, but if the players end up insisting on a course of action where he would show up and fight, then you have a problem.

For 2nd Edition, this problem would have only shown up for Wizards.  Clerics could cast anything their spheres allowed, so you only had to determine those.  Rogues did have a percentile table for their core skills, but you could get away with applying a flat average if you are in a hurry.  Fighters had very few stats to worry about.  Wizards you would have had to select spells, but I have yet to see a game where there would be any high level wizards that that may be pulled into an unexpected fight.

I still do not think much of rules light systems myself though.  2nd Edition had plenty of elements in it that are just not nearly as good as 3rd editions elements, in my opinion.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Voadam (Jan 14, 2008)

I thought of another 2e preference.

I used Basic D&D and 1e stuff (monsters, magic items, classes, spells, modules, races, NPCs) pretty straight in my 2e games. It takes significantly more conversion work, you have to recreate them, to use them in 3e for most. It can sometimes be a quick conversion to go 1e to 3e, but it is an extra step that must be done.

I found it easier to add other game system stuff straight into my 2e games than my 3e ones (MERP spells, Ars Magica spells, Earthdawn True Name rituals, Paladium stuff, etc.)


----------



## Voadam (Jan 14, 2008)

Lord Zardoz said:
			
		

> For 2nd Edition, this problem would have only shown up for Wizards.  Clerics could cast anything their spheres allowed, so you only had to determine those.




Clerics still had to choose their spells for the day, they could not spontaneously cast any they wanted at the time. To get a cleric NPC ready for an interaction you still had to choose a lot of spells.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 14, 2008)

glass said:
			
		

> We did too, but I think it was one of those houserules that everybody had. Didn't someone mention in another thread that it was suggested in the Dark Sun boxed set.
> 
> 
> glass.




It's an optional rule in the 2e DMG. We've been using it in games since 1st edition, so I don't know where its ultimate origin lies. Probably 1e DMG as well, I'm thinking. I seem to recall a rule where a PC was effectively incapacitated for a week or so if brought back from negative hit points before actually dying.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jan 14, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> It's an optional rule in the 2e DMG. We've been using it in games since 1st edition, so I don't know where its ultimate origin lies. Probably 1e DMG as well, I'm thinking. I seem to recall a rule where a PC was effectively incapacitated for a week or so if brought back from negative hit points before actually dying.




1e DMG, p.82, column 2.

I didn't even have to look that up... been playing the same game for nigh on thirty years now.


----------



## Agamon (Jan 14, 2008)

Taken as a whole, 2e was a step back from 1E and D&D.  There's not much from 2E that I really miss.  The World Builder's Guidebook was an awesome 2E era book, but for the most part, the settings were fairly poor, the adventures were far worse, and the rules not only didn't fix the problems with 1E, but added more rules that were contrived or burdensome.

Though I've tired of a lot of 3.x's faults, it was a huge step forward from 2E.


----------



## Psion (Jan 14, 2008)

Agamon said:
			
		

> the settings were fairly poor




 

Settings in 2e were GOLD.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jan 15, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> Settings in 2e were GOLD.




Well, somebody has to be the fringe minority


----------



## Reynard (Jan 15, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> Settings in 2e were GOLD.




Perhaps the only truly GOOD part of 2E, IMO.  2E was bland as hell, but that blandness allowed for all of those varied, distinct settings.  I mean, if the core had been "flavorful" it would have been much more difficult to use the same game for Spelljammer and Dark Sun and Planescape and FR and Birthright and all the rest.  And let's not forget the "green books" -- those were awesome.


----------



## Pale Master (Jan 15, 2008)

Ah, 2nd edition. I was one of the holdouts, running two elven bladesingers around the Isle of Sahu while everyone else was gearing up for Bastion of Broken Souls.

But now I don't see why I bothered. When I read the 2E DM's guide, sometimes I just have to shake my head and laugh.

Magic item creation, for example. To scribe a scroll you might need a phoenix feather quill and giant squid ink. The poor sucker trying to make a magic sword has to find meteoric iron from deep in the bowels of the earth, quench it in a special spring, and imbue it with the "power of purity." All that stuff sounds great if you're writing Harry Potter fanfic, but it starts to wear on the nerves around the gaming table. It's like that jerk in the Burger King commercial - "get me a Whopper!" "First you have to go on a quest and then I'll assign a percentile chance and then maybe you can have your Whopper!"

And the optional rules. Weapon type vs. specific armors? Anyone? All those blue boxes telling you how to do weird things with your initiative or make your own character classes or complicate your aerial battles?

And the stern admonitions about making magic too common. The whole book is insistent about how magic items are so ridiculously rare, no one would possibly buy one or sell one, PCs should feel lucky if they find a +1 sword, etc. etc. "If magic were common, you'd have a crazy fantasy world with djinni-driven steamships and crystal-ball communications networks." But of course, there are precisely ZERO guidelines as to what an "appropriate" level of magic is. When should a fighter have a +3 sword? 6th level? 10th level? Never?

There was _so much _ reliance on DM fiat, especially compared with 3rd edition. Some people may find this aspect appealing, but I dislike playing "mother-may-I" with the DM.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 15, 2008)

Pale Master said:
			
		

> Ah, 2nd edition. I was one of the holdouts, running two elven bladesingers around the Isle of Sahu while everyone else was gearing up for Bastion of Broken Souls.
> 
> But now I don't see why I bothered. When I read the 2E DM's guide, sometimes I just have to shake my head and laugh.
> 
> ...




2E has lots of faults.  These things are not among them.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 15, 2008)

I never played 2e as written; though I ended up with a fair amount of 2e stuff over time it was mostly for ideas-poaching to put into my 1e game.  Thus, I can't truly say I *miss* 2e.

And 3e got some things right, most notably in bringing people back to the game.  For those who like fast play with small parties it must have been like mana from heaven, and 4e just keeps it coming.

That said, there's things from 0-1-2e that could have been (and I say should have been) carried forward into 3e and thence to 4e.  Revival-from-death mechanics for one: make a % roll based on Con to see if you come back at all, and if you do you're down a Con point; none of this messy lose-a-level stuff.  System shock survival % for another: yes it's a form of save-or-die and thus 4e considers it doubleplusungood, but it's elegant, and more granular than a d20.  Ditto for Thieves' skills - % tables are more granular than a d20.  And as so many others have mentioned, 2e's settings were unmatched.

More than anything, however, if I were stuck in a place where by-the-book 3/3.5e was all that was played, the thing I'd miss is the 0-1-2e slower pace of play.  I like a game where you have to actively search the walls instead of being player-lazy and Taking-20, where you don't level up every real-time month or even every real-time season and when you do you have to wait to get back to town to train, where your base stats don't necessarily make or break your character, where fireballs expand and lightning bolts bounce and the saves can take all night, and where bad things happen often enough that the good things that happen are not just taken as a right.

Lanefan


----------



## Reynard (Jan 15, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> where you don't level up every real-time month or even every real-time season and when you do you have to wait to get back to town to train,




One of the oft overlooked benefits of slow levelling is that other aspects of play become the focus of the "fun" to be had -- exploration, building, role-playing, etc...


----------



## Psion (Jan 15, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Cue C&C-fanboi post in 3... 2... 1...




Eh, they've taken to dumping all over the NG forum of late.


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Jan 15, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> Eh, they've taken to dumping all over the NG forum of late.




So that's why it's quiet here these days.


----------



## Pale Master (Jan 15, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> 2E has lots of faults.  These things are not among them.




So, "it's not a bug, it's a feature" then?   

But I can see (I think) what you mean. Adjudicating 2E certainly required a lot of creativity on the part of the DM.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jan 15, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> 2E has lots of faults.  These things are not among them.




Yes they were. For lots of people. Those reasons were the reasons nobody i knew bothered with 2e. Including me.
YMMV.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 15, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Immunities are far and away better at achieving the goal of simulating otherworldly, dangerous opponents, however.  When the greatsword wielding barbarian can just pump up the power attack and still be able to hit, it cheapens the supernatural quality of the monster (even if it is more "fun" from a gamist perspective).  Tiered pluses are better, too -- one of the worst changes between 3.0 and 3.5 was dropping it.  I mean, why even given dragons DR when the CR for dragons means that the PCs are automatically going to be equipped with magic weapons?




IMHO tiered pluses are B-O-R-I-N-G.  

Stick the strongest guy in front with the best +_n_ weapon.  Burn whatever magic available to keep him healthy.  Spellcasters have no other value because "otherworldly, dangerous opponents" are usually immune.  If not immune they have SR and other resistances.  If those fail, 2e saving throws have very low effective DCs so the spell will probably do little or nothing anyway.

Yawn, yawn, yawn.



> Mechanically, 3E tends to be more intuitive than previous editions.  unfortunately, it is also much mroe integreated, which means adding and removing subsystems is a little more difficult than in previous editions.  When the whole system is integrated, it gets broken a lot easier by messing with one little piece.  When the "system" is really composed of discrete subsystems, it is harder to break.




I find the exact opposite to be true -- integrated mechanics are always a big win.

Integrated mechanics offer the designer two options: (1) write your new mechanics so they integrate with the rest of the system, or (2) write your mechanics as you please and silo them off from the rest of the mechanics by a trivial act of fiat.

Pre-3e mechanics force you to use option number two.  

3e gives you all the advantages of option number two, if that is what you want.  Or other advantages instead.  Your choice.  I find having options is usually a good thing.



> For example, the grappling/punching rules of 1E and 2E were just a  pain to use.  They were also easily replaced, because they really didn't mesh with any other system in the game.




And 3e forces you to mesh with the rest of the system how exactly?  Do the Thought Police come knocking on your door?


----------



## Orius (Jan 15, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> Flipping through my Ad&D 2E stuff I realize just how elegant some of the things used to be (and some un-elegent things: THAC0 I am looking at you)




THAC0 was still better than attack matices though.



> For instance, the Non-Weapon Profiency system of 2E has some simple appeal over 3E's skill systm. In 2E you just take a proficiency and are done with it; your character knows that. How good he is at it depends on level and roleplaying, you don't have to do extensive number crunching every level. 3E's skill system though, can be a nightmare. Especially when making high level pc's.




I'd say 3e's skill system can be more rewarding for a PC.  It's not as heavily dependant on stats like core 2e; there you don't even want to bother with dump-stat based NWPs, since you'll likely fail most of the time.  Levels have very little to do with it, since PC only get 1 new slot every 3-4 levels and that slot only adds a +1.  If I were to run 2e ever again, I'd kick out the original rules and use Skill's and Power's much better system.



> I also like how 2E comat's were less overpowered, and more deadly. Everyone had far fewer hitpoints, char death was at 0, and some monster abilities were brutally damaging. The system also relied far less on magic items at higher levels than 3E.




As others have said, Death's Door was in 2e (as an option), and there were plenty of monsters that required magic weapons just to hit (and if they had high magic resistance, then you needed a +3 or better weapon to kill them).

And besides, it was more balanced if one stuck with core.  Once splatbooks and PO started getting in, then PCs were much more powerful than the monsters.  Monsters were sill pretty much the same since the 1e MM, with nothing to compensate for increasing PC power.  That was another thing 3e improved; giving monsters ability scores wit full bonuses and skills and feats made them more balanced with the PCs.



> I also really like how 2E monsters had morale! I ave no idea why they removed it in 3E.




I understand it was to allow the DM to decide whether or not the monsers stick around rather than basing it merely on a die roll. 



> Do you think 3E was really an improvement?




Rules wise, yes 3 was an improvement.  Cleaned up a lot of legacy rules that worked badly together, toughened up monsters, and lessened the impact of bad DM fiat.  

However, 2e was still better in presentation.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 15, 2008)

2e magic item creation guidelines were a pathetic joke, to put it kindly.

After finally achieving middling high level, your mighty spellcaster earns the write to beg for instructions on what bizarre random items he will need to make a single scroll.

Having achieved a level of competence in the magical arts that perhaps not one in a hundred thousand men dare dream of, you have a ~5% (or more) chance of writing a cursed scroll.  But the chance to get horrifically screwed is so low if you spend quadruple on your ink. 

Aha!  You turned to liquid and drained away.

Serves you right for believing the lie that 2e allowed you to make magic items.


----------



## Orius (Jan 15, 2008)

Pale Master said:
			
		

> Magic item creation, for example. To scribe a scroll you might need a phoenix feather quill and giant squid ink. The poor sucker trying to make a magic sword has to find meteoric iron from deep in the bowels of the earth, quench it in a special spring, and imbue it with the "power of purity." All that stuff sounds great if you're writing Harry Potter fanfic, but it starts to wear on the nerves around the gaming table. It's like that jerk in the Burger King commercial - "get me a Whopper!" "First you have to go on a quest and then I'll assign a percentile chance and then maybe you can have your Whopper!"




That was another area where 3e improved the rules.  Complicated creation for disposable items was dumb, especially when lots of potions and scrolls would turn up in treasure.  It worked alright for the powerful stuff though.



> And the stern admonitions about making magic too common. The whole book is insistent about how magic items are so ridiculously rare, no one would possibly buy one or sell one, PCs should feel lucky if they find a +1 sword, etc. etc. "If magic were common, you'd have a crazy fantasy world with djinni-driven steamships and crystal-ball communications networks." But of course, there are precisely ZERO guidelines as to what an "appropriate" level of magic is. When should a fighter have a +3 sword? 6th level? 10th level? Never?




And the worst part was that like 1e, modules would have lots of magic lying around anyway.  At least 3e made a decent attempt to remedy it by assuming PCs would have magic as they leveled, even if it did lead to the Christmas tree.

And it's part of a bigger problem: maintaining balance through rarity, which didn't work. The same thing was true of PCs, the paladin was very powerful compared to the ordinary fighter.  The only thing balancing it was a required 17 Cha and several other relatively high (13+) stats.  I don't remember the exact stats, but it was at least Str and Wis too.  The idea that making the paladin rare balanced it out, but it didn't because if a player did roll one up, it's extra power would still be felt in thhe campaign.  And I think this lead to alignment stomping with them.  The same was true of rangers, druids and bards, though I don't think druids were all that overpowering compared to the cleric (though I saw few in 2e, so I can't be sure).

The rules also based this rarity on an assumption of the old 3d6 method, but most games I played and ran used Method 5 (aka 4d6), and that tossed the whole PC class balance out the window.  I had few straight fighters in my games; everyone tended to play paladins, rangers, or multiclass.



> There was _so much _ reliance on DM fiat, especially compared with 3rd edition. Some people may find this aspect appealing, but I dislike playing "mother-may-I" with the DM.




The DM is largely intended to be a neutral interpreter of the rules who also provides scenarios for play.  The original rules refer to the role not as the DM, but the "referee", and that term even continued to survive into 2e's days.  The problem with making the rules too loose is that it often gives bad DMs the excuse to power trip.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 15, 2008)

I love Morale rules as a concept.  But those is my grognard roots showing.

It is actually somewhat realistic that small skirmish combat like D&D is extremely brutal.  IME DMs get out of the habit of trying to have their monsters flee because even attempting to do so is so often futile (absent magic or special terrain).


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 15, 2008)

Orius said:
			
		

> THAC0 was still better than attack matices though.



Attack matrices are easy...after one or two rounds you as DM have pretty much memorized what each PC needs to roll to hit that opponent anyway, just like with 3e except in 3e it's the player doing the math.  I'll take a matrix over THAC0 any day; and do, every time I DM. 


> And besides, it was more balanced if one stuck with core.  Once splatbooks and PO started getting in, then PCs were much more powerful than the monsters.  Monsters were sill pretty much the same since the 1e MM, with nothing to compensate for increasing PC power.  That was another thing 3e improved; giving monsters ability scores wit full bonuses and skills and feats made them more balanced with the PCs.



Agreed; 3e gave monsters a better break, and long overdue.  I'd already sort-of started doing the same thing in 1e, but nowhere near what 3e did...until I saw 3e and started swiping ideas, that is.   I'm hoping 4e continues this trend of giving the opposition an even break.

============
Different topic, to save another post: opening up magic item creation to PCs was outright one of the worst things 3e did.  I'll stop there, on that one, before I get myself in trouble.

============
Different topic again: having the rules system as tightly integrated as 3e is a nuisance for someone like me, who likes to tinker.  0-1-2e are just made for tinkering, and changing one thing doesn't (usually) have too much impact elsewhere.  With 3e, some things can be independently changed (e.g. level progression rates), but most of it can't be easily tinkered with due to all the knock-on effects a change *here* causes *there*, and there, and there and there.

Lanefan


----------



## Wik (Jan 15, 2008)

There are only a few things I liked about 2e:

The World Settings (there has yet to be a 3e world as cool as Athas)
The Historical Supplements (a few 3e products come close, but most of them focus on the rules, which is something they didn't do as much in 2e)
The generally lower-magic feel (but that was general, and it was more in the art of the books than in something inherently in the rules)

But generally, 3e *is* a vast improvement.  I mean, look at the XP charts for an example - fighters level slightly faster than wizards earlier on, when wizards are the weakest character class in the game... when wizards are the strongest class in the game, they are also actually one of the fastest progressing classes as well!  Never understood that.

(on that note, though, I did like how rogues leveled fast.  It was almost a good balancing mechanic, that rogues would develop their combat talents almost on par with the fighters, though with a suckier AC and less damage.  I have many memories of rubbing it in everyone else's faces that my rogue was level 3 and had more hit dice (and occasionally more hit points) than the fighter.  

Of course, then we'd hit 5th level, and I'd become obsolete to the mage.  *Sigh*)

Kits were a neat feature of 2e, and I think it'd be nice to see something similar come back.  I mean, you can do it in 3e with background feats, but it's not the same.  I'd like to see something more like the occupations from d20 modern.  That'd be nifty.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 15, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Different topic again: having the rules system as tightly integrated as 3e is a nuisance for someone like me, who likes to tinker.  0-1-2e are just made for tinkering, and changing one thing doesn't (usually) have too much impact elsewhere.  With 3e, some things can be independently changed (e.g. level progression rates), but most of it can't be easily tinkered with due to all the knock-on effects a change *here* causes *there*, and there, and there and there.




Example?


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 15, 2008)

Orius said:
			
		

> The rules also based this rarity on an assumption of the old 3d6 method, but most games I played and ran used Method 5 (aka 4d6), and that tossed the whole PC class balance out the window.  I had few straight fighters in my games; everyone tended to play paladins, rangers, or multiclass.



We've had lots of pure fighters in 1e; more than any other class by a long way, and we use a roll-up system even nicer than 4d6.  Check your numbers, if you have records of characters played...you might be surprised. 


> The DM is largely intended to be a neutral interpreter of the rules who also provides scenarios for play.  The original rules refer to the role not as the DM, but the "referee", and that term even continued to survive into 2e's days.  The problem with making the rules too loose is that it often gives bad DMs the excuse to power trip.



DM a session or two where the party decide to rip each other's throats out and you'll be soon enough reaching for the black-and-white striped shirt with the red armbands...  

Lane-"holding the keys to the penalty box since 1984"-fan


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 15, 2008)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Example?



OK...say I hypothetically want to change how skills work: in order to make every stat point important (instead of every even stat point) I want the roll to be *under* the relevant stat, modified by your skill level and a difficulty modifier applied by situation. (it also puts a crimp on roll-high cheaters if that's an issue)  Sounds simple, right?  Well, it's not:

Knock-on effect #1: in 3e, stats can easily get too high for this to be practical.  When stats top out at about 18-20, no real problem; but in 3e a stat approaching 30 or even more is not at all unlikely, and low-to-mid 20's are relatively commonplace.  Add a reasonable skill modifier and the d20 roll becomes too insignificant.  How to fix: well, the only real way is to get rid of most stat-boost items and a lot of racial templates that give highly-skewed stats; a huge knock-on effect for something so trivial.  Or, fix by using a bigger die - a d30, perhaps - but that increases the randomness even more; probably not a good thing.

Knock-on effect #1a: now the high stats have been reduced, the average party ability has been weakened slightly, meaning the CR numbers are now a bit skewed...does this require encounter adjustments, or ExP adjustments, or...???

Knock-on effect #2: Some stats may now not make sense to be applied to some skills; e.g.  Wisdom as the base stat for Listen, and this would need a review.  (side note: Listen is one skill that really doesn't tie well to *any* stat)

And so on.

The reason I use this example is that ever since 3e was released I've wanted to come up with some significant way of making an 11 more useful than a 10, or a 17 more useful than a 16, other than when taking ability damage.  3.5's setting the stat-buff spells to a fixed-number increase didn't help here!

On-the-fly thought here: one could make odd stats useful with skills simply by having the stat bonus - for skills only - become tied to odd numbers...11 = +1, 13 = +2, and so on.  Hmmmm......

Lanefan


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 15, 2008)

Lanefan,

I have four issues with your example.

First of all, it is better to compare apples with apples rather than apples with palm fronds.  It does not really matter how hard or easy the proposed change is in 3e unless it is demonstrably more difficult than making comparable changes to 2e.

Second of all, your example is not simple.  Rewriting the core mechanics of the skill system is a big change, regardless which edition you are playing.  Comparable sized changes in 2e would be just as painful or more so.

Third of all, your example is poorly framed.

The goal of making every stat point important is legitimate, and also achievable in a number of ways.  The simplest would be to add 1/2 increment point circumstance modifiers, then a 13 Dex can give a proper +1.5 mod to the skill.  There are other possibilities.

In the world of game mechanics, rolling under the stat is _a solution in search of a problem_.  Insisting on a particular solution detail while being vague about the actual goal is always a invitation for trouble.  It would like deciding to write a computer program in Lisp before knowing whether you are writing a word processor, a first person shooter, or a toolkit for statistical analysis; it is always doable with sufficient effort, but no one would be shocked if the end result is less than satisfactory.

There are a number of ways to control scaling.  For example, you could use Stat + Skill + Mod as an index on a chart, where the chart yields as percentage chance of success.  Or I could use Stat & Skill as separate indexes on a chart that yields a success chance.  Not exactly elegant, but perfectly workable old school approaches to game mechanics.

It would be easier to suggest solutions if a comprehensible goal were stated.

Fourth of all, it is always possible to break something in one's first crack at a problem, and then propose "knock on effects" that involve breaking other things to find a band-aid.  It is not a knock on effect just because it is the first band-aid that comes to mind.  A knock on effect is something like "I want to make Cha modify the DC of all spellcasters instead of their normal primary spellcasting stat, but now I am worried that Sorcerors are too powerful relative to other spellcasters."  That is a real knock on effect, and one that can be solved without rewriting the both the Ability score system and magic item availability.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 15, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Different topic, to save another post: opening up magic item creation to PCs was outright one of the worst things 3e did.  I'll stop there, on that one, before I get myself in trouble.



It is possible to discuss problems neutrally and clinically without getting into trouble, you know.  Was it one of the following?

1. It reduced the ability of the DM to control the number and type of magic items available to the PCs, and hence, the tone and power level of his game.

2. It increased the ability of the players to further customize the PCs, thus leading to greater min-maxing.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 15, 2008)

Lord Zardoz said:
			
		

> In systems like D&D where you are presented with both a large number of choices to consider when creating a character, and when you have many variables that interact with a lot of stats (Modifing 1 stat and having to adjust 2 or 3 others), it becomes essentially impossible to improvise an effective combatant NPC on the fly and still be consistent with the rules.




IME 1e/2e DMs tended to have builds of certain styles that were notched up or down.  We as players got very good at guessing the stats of the NPCs; for most NPCs were were usually within +-1 for AC and <10% off for HPs.

The 3e equivalent would be to build the Standard Wizard, Standard Cleric, Standard Fighter, etc. in the style of the 3.0 DMG, and make modest tweaks as it strikes the DMs mood. 

I have a bit of a Balance Nazi streak.  But I do not see why there is any necessity for the DM to adhere to the rules precisely as long as it is approximately fair overall.  Are the character generation rules restrictions that the DM adhere to?  Or are they rough guidelines on power level and raw clay for inspiration?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 15, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> It is possible to discuss problems neutrally and clinically without getting into trouble, you know.  Was it one of the following?
> 
> 1. It reduced the ability of the DM to control the number and type of magic items available to the PCs, and hence, the tone and power level of his game.
> 
> 2. It increased the ability of the players to further customize the PCs, thus leading to greater min-maxing.




One I have heard voiced by one of my DMs:

3.  Magic items feel less special.  Even the weirdest items used to treasured, and very few items other than plain magic weapons were considered "standard".

(There is more than a kernel of truth in #3.  This is the problem of the Big Six stated another way.  I also think that this could easily be solved by DM fiat -- make weird/multifunction items cheaper and PCs will start finding better uses for them than selling them for pocket change.)


----------



## Reynard (Jan 15, 2008)

Orius said:
			
		

> And it's part of a bigger problem: maintaining balance through rarity, which didn't work. The same thing was true of PCs, the paladin was very powerful compared to the ordinary fighter.  The only thing balancing it was a required 17 Cha and several other relatively high (13+) stats.  I don't remember the exact stats, but it was at least Str and Wis too.  The idea that making the paladin rare balanced it out, but it didn't because if a player did roll one up, it's extra power would still be felt in thhe campaign.  And I think this lead to alignment stomping with them.  The same was true of rangers, druids and bards, though I don't think druids were all that overpowering compared to the cleric (though I saw few in 2e, so I can't be sure).
> 
> The rules also based this rarity on an assumption of the old 3d6 method, but most games I played and ran used Method 5 (aka 4d6), and that tossed the whole PC class balance out the window.  I had few straight fighters in my games; everyone tended to play paladins, rangers, or multiclass.




The less you rely on random character generation, the less effective the "balancing" systems inherent in the system are.  Also note that the balance wasn't necessarily based on any given moment -- it was supposed to be based over the course of the campaign (where players would be expected to run many, many characters).  Using high stat minimums to "balance" powerful classes doesn't work because that means all the powerful classed characters will be even more powerful by virtue of the necessity of high stats.  Which works fine when that character is a one in a million, but breaks down the moment you allow players to pick and choose what they want to play.  And, if a player does get that lucky, he is going to want to hold on to that character and the character is going to be played with a sense of mortality that is rare among PCs.

I think a lot of the design elements and mechanics that people call "broken" or "bad" from previous editions are called that because those mechanics are designed, in many cases, for an entirely different sort of playstyle, one that D&D has slowly edged away from over the years (and certainly over the last few years since 3.5 came out).  While it is true tere have been munchkins and power gamers since the game began, 3.5 has taken this to a new height by not just building the game system, but the entire business model, around munchkinism as it would have been traditionally called and is now called "optimization" and "build".  Add that to the need for constant rewards (fast levelling and no dead levels) and the tone of the average game has changed quite a lot, I think.  4E was inevitable in more ways than one.

EDIT: Thast sounds more bad-wrong-fun than I intended.  What I mean is that since 3.5 came out, both thegame system and the publishing strategy of the game have seemed to focus more and more on PC power and just the right combinations of abilities.  The last couple years have been even more focused on defining "fun" as both PC power and constant mechanical rewards.  I don't see this changing in 4E; in fact, all the evidence points to making it more fundamental to the game in 4E. Me gut feeling is that this has alot to do with Mearls' involvement in Des&Dev: it is his definition of "fun" that is guiding the direction of the game, but I can't be certain of that.


----------



## Spell (Jan 15, 2008)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Integrated mechanics offer the designer two options: (1) write your new mechanics so they integrate with the rest of the system, or (2) write your mechanics as you please and silo them off from the rest of the mechanics by a trivial act of fiat.




WOW! i couldn't disagree more with you on this one!

now, surely you are right. there's nothing that stops me from stop giving magical items to the players if i want to run a nitty gritty low magic game. nothing apart from the fact that the *whole* system is built around the assumption that, say, you will have a +x magical weapon at level 3, and a +y magical defense bonus.

yeah, i could simply substitute those plusses with class bonuses. only, in my nitty gritty world, it doesn't make sense at all that a PC should have access to what effectly are superpowers.

in 2e, there's way those monsters that do need magical weapons to be fought often require a +1 weapon and nothing more. hardly stuff of legend in a "normal" campaign.


say i wanted to ignore completely the skill system. would the classes still be balanced? nope. say i wanted to run a late reinassance game where nobody wore heavy armours and magic was rare. would the classes would be balanced? nope.

surely i could redesign the system to play d20 nitty n gritty, or d20 without armour, or d20 without magic, or whatever. but that would be, indeed, REDESIGNING the system, not just plug in your nice little set of house rules.

that's why many people had heavily house ruled AD&D games, back in the dayswhereas many people today have bought arcana unearthed, iron heroes, or whatever "it's still D&D, only with a different flavour" RPG supplement it seem to offer an alternative rule set.

now, keep in mind that i see absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it's all good... it's good to have unified system to introduce people into the game and everything.
but i don't have lots of money to spend on "alternative d20" books. and, most importantly, i have zero time to read them... or to redesign the system by myself.




			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Pre-3e mechanics force you to use option number two.




i don't think so.
example: i don't like non weapon proficiencies. i want a subsystem that is similar to thieves' skills. a simple proportion: NWP value:20 = x:100 et voila', i have a percentage skill. every time the PC spends a NWP slot, i add +5% to the skill. end of the story.

similarly, i can turn all classes into kits, so that a PC is either a fighter, a claric, a wizard or a thief and then has his own specially definying kit. it takes a bit longer than the NWP trick up there, but balancing the classes out is quick, if you refer to the optional rules to create PC classes in the DMG.




			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> And 3e forces you to mesh with the rest of the system how exactly?  Do the Thought Police come knocking on your door?



exactly as i think i've shown you above: you touch the feats? your game is unbalanced. you touch the skills? sorry, unbalanced. hate tactical combat? unbalanced. don't want no magical item assumption? can you spell unbalanced?

in other words, 3e for me is less than "whatever game i want it to be" and more "the game as the majority play it". if i disagree with the majority, tough for me.


----------



## Spell (Jan 15, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> It is possible to discuss problems neutrally and clinically without getting into trouble, you know.  Was it one of the following?
> 
> 1. It reduced the ability of the DM to control the number and type of magic items available to the PCs, and hence, the tone and power level of his game.
> 
> 2. It increased the ability of the players to further customize the PCs, thus leading to greater min-maxing.





i'll cite brian eno here: "if you have two options, choose both" 

i'll add a third: improve the bookeeping in the game.

creating magical items was putting together some random evocative mundane items, officiate some mumbo jumbo ritual, and understand what was wrong if the DM hadn't granted you the item at the end of the process.

now you (no, sorry, your DM):
1. have to keep track of what exactly your character *needs* to create item X (which, by the book is the SAME in every setting, every campaign world... good night imagination).
2. after you have your shopping list of powers, feats, spells and what not checked, officiate the ritual.
3. enjoy the rule given *right* to have your item.


better rules: yup
more boring and uselessly complex rules at my table: no, thanks.


----------



## Spell (Jan 15, 2008)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> One I have heard voiced by one of my DMs:
> 
> 3.  Magic items feel less special.  Even the weirdest items used to treasured, and very few items other than plain magic weapons were considered "standard".





in all fairness, that has nothing to do with the item creation rules. it's more the... ehm... (again) in built assumption in the ruleset that you can buy a +1 weapon (or +2, or +3, or...) at the cornershop of your metropolis.
i wonder if there is an offer on milk, too.


----------



## Spell (Jan 15, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I think a lot of the design elements and mechanics that people call "broken" or "bad" from previous editions are called that because those mechanics are designed, in many cases, for an entirely different sort of playstyle




HEAR! o, HEAR!!!



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> While it is true tere have been munchkins and power gamers since the game began, 3.5 has taken this to a new height by not just building the game system, but the entire business model, around munchkinism as it would have been traditionally called and is now called "optimization" and "build".  Add that to the need for constant rewards (fast levelling and no dead levels) and the tone of the average game has changed quite a lot, I think.




[tears in my eyes] what he said!



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> The last couple years have been even more focused on defining "fun" as both PC power and constant mechanical rewards.  I don't see this changing in 4E; in fact, all the evidence points to making it more fundamental to the game in 4E.




i don't know, i don't have enough information to say. but if that is the case, i will:
1. steal what i can from 3e and 4e.
2. spend my first summer break in years writing down my own "AD&D 3rd edition", with other rules taken from OD&D, hackmaster and C&C.
3. only use that system when i want to play AD&D ever again.
4. live happy. because, you know, there are players out there that might just have stayed with 1e and 2e...


----------



## jdrakeh (Jan 15, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> exactly as i think i've shown you above: you touch the feats? your game is unbalanced. you touch the skills? sorry, unbalanced. hate tactical combat? unbalanced. don't want no magical item assumption? can you spell unbalanced?




All untrue. You can add new skills without unbalancing d20, you can add new feats without unbalancing d20, you can dump attacks of opportunity without unbalancing d20, you can remove magical items without unabalancing d20. How do I know? because multiple published products have done all of these things -- and more -- without unbalancing d20. 

If what you claim were true, products such as Spycraft (no AoOs), Iron Heroes (no/low magic items), and hundreds of other products with varied skill lists and feat lists couldn't exist. Yet they do. Would you care to explain the existence of hundreds of products that completely disprove your assertions that you can't modify d20 without breaking it?


----------



## Son_of_Thunder (Jan 15, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> The less you rely on random character generation, the less effective the "balancing" systems inherent in the system are.  Also note that the balance wasn't necessarily based on any given moment -- it was supposed to be based over the course of the campaign (where players would be expected to run many, many characters).  Using high stat minimums to "balance" powerful classes doesn't work because that means all the powerful classed characters will be even more powerful by virtue of the necessity of high stats.  Which works fine when that character is a one in a million, but breaks down the moment you allow players to pick and choose what they want to play.  And, if a player does get that lucky, he is going to want to hold on to that character and the character is going to be played with a sense of mortality that is rare among PCs.
> 
> I think a lot of the design elements and mechanics that people call "broken" or "bad" from previous editions are called that because those mechanics are designed, in many cases, for an entirely different sort of playstyle, one that D&D has slowly edged away from over the years (and certainly over the last few years since 3.5 came out).  While it is true tere have been munchkins and power gamers since the game began, 3.5 has taken this to a new height by not just building the game system, but the entire business model, around munchkinism as it would have been traditionally called and is now called "optimization" and "build".  Add that to the need for constant rewards (fast levelling and no dead levels) and the tone of the average game has changed quite a lot, I think.  4E was inevitable in more ways than one.
> 
> EDIT: Thast sounds more bad-wrong-fun than I intended.  What I mean is that since 3.5 came out, both thegame system and the publishing strategy of the game have seemed to focus more and more on PC power and just the right combinations of abilities.  The last couple years have been even more focused on defining "fun" as both PC power and constant mechanical rewards.  I don't see this changing in 4E; in fact, all the evidence points to making it more fundamental to the game in 4E. Me gut feeling is that this has alot to do with Mearls' involvement in Des&Dev: it is his definition of "fun" that is guiding the direction of the game, but I can't be certain of that.




I endorse this message and wish to subscibe to your newsletter sir.


----------



## Son_of_Thunder (Jan 15, 2008)

Orius said:
			
		

> The problem with making the rules too loose is that it often gives bad DMs the excuse to power trip.




That's really not the problem of the system though is it? It's one of the things I prefer about earlier editions over d20. It's not a bug for me.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 15, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> If what you claim were true, products such as Spycraft (no AoOs), Iron Heroes (no/low magic items), and hundreds of other products with varied skill lists and feat lists couldn't exist. Yet they do. Would you care to explain the existence of hundreds of products that completely disprove your assertions that you can't modify d20 without breaking it?




It isn't that you can't change stuff, but rather that there is a lot more to consider when doing so because everything is so interconnected.  Spycraft didn't just drop AoO's and be done with it, for example.  Dropping AoOs means re-examining a lot of feats and combat maneuvers and other elements that AoOs interact with.  You start to blur the line between "house ruling" and "game design".


----------



## Reynard (Jan 15, 2008)

Son_of_Thunder said:
			
		

> That's really not the problem of the system though is it? It's one of the things I prefer about earlier editions over d20. It's not a bug for me.




I don't know how pervasive it truly is, but on this and other gaming messageboards there's a prominent culture of anti-GM-ism, where its adherents automatically assume a GM is going to abuse any authority the rules grant him to screw over the players and laugh maniacly into his viking hat.  I've only ever met a few GMs like that, and not a one of them had a regular group (and for good reason).  it is far more common for a GM to get kicked to the curb than a troublesome, whining ruleslawyer of a player, IME.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 15, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> It is possible to discuss problems neutrally and clinically without getting into trouble, you know. Was it one of the following?
> 
> 1. It reduced the ability of the DM to control the number and type of magic items available to the PCs, and hence, the tone and power level of his game.
> 
> 2. It increased the ability of the players to further customize the PCs, thus leading to greater min-maxing.






			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> One I have heard voiced by one of my DMs:
> 
> 3.  Magic items feel less special.  Even the weirdest items used to treasured, and very few items other than plain magic weapons were considered "standard".
> 
> (There is more than a kernel of truth in #3.  This is the problem of the Big Six stated another way.  I also think that this could easily be solved by DM fiat -- make weird/multifunction items cheaper and PCs will start finding better uses for them than selling them for pocket change.)




The easy magic item creation rules for PCs has been accused of doing these things but I think Ridley's Cohort has it most right with his kernel of truth.

Before magic item creation, it was up to the DM to sprinkle magic items in the campaign (possibly even randomly rolled), which led to a lot of diversity that we don't see now. Now, if the party is into item creation, there are the big 6 you can count on most of them having. 

In general, I don't agree that there are _more_ magic items or that there's a heck of a lot more min-maxing. Published adventures had gobs and gobs of magic and treasure that offered PCs plenty of opportunities to min-max along some line.  Nor do I agree that 3E is more based on needing magic items and equipment than 1e or 2e, since they were extremely important in those editions as well.

My beef is with the conformity. Those big 6 items are so well tuned toward PC survival and success that their deployment becomes a dominant strategy. With DMs being responsible for magic item distribution in earlier editions, there tended to be more diversity of tactics. The min-maxing ended up being based more on the specific items the PCs were finding rather than building it by intentional design. It led, I think, to more idiosyncratic design and more  interesting magic flash in the game.
I think 3E does a lot to provide options in character building in general with feats, multiclassing, prestige classes and so on. But that's a different kind of flash. It's an action-movie flash, good in its own way, but different from 1e and 2e fantasy adventuring flash.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 15, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> now, surely you are right. there's nothing that stops me from stop giving magical items to the players if i want to run a nitty gritty low magic game. nothing apart from the fact that the *whole* system is built around the assumption that, say, you will have a +x magical weapon at level 3, and a +y magical defense bonus.
> 
> yeah, i could simply substitute those plusses with class bonuses. only, in my nitty gritty world, it doesn't make sense at all that a PC should have access to what effectly are superpowers.
> 
> ...




Very interesting and difficult to dispute. Well said Spell.


----------



## Psion (Jan 15, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> now, surely you are right. there's nothing that stops me from stop giving magical items to the players if i want to run a nitty gritty low magic game. nothing apart from the fact that the *whole* system is built around the assumption that, say, you will have a +x magical weapon at level 3, and a +y magical defense bonus.
> 
> yeah, i could simply substitute those plusses with class bonuses. only, in my nitty gritty world, it doesn't make sense at all that a PC should have access to what effectly are superpowers.




You realize, of course, that this poisons the analysis with your perspective? The only thing that makes these "superpowers" is that you know that in the version of the game you are not playing, the modifiers are assigned to magic item.

Which begs the question: what do you hope to get out of this "low magic" game? Do you want to take away magic because you don't like the concept of players having much magical bling? Or do you think that magic items make it too easy?

If the former, adjusting the bonus is perfectly valid (though I think adjusting the challenge rating you face the PCs with, and paying special attention to creatures that are best faced with magic, would be easier.) If the latter, why are you tweaking the PCs to be more powerful.



> say i wanted to ignore completely the skill system.




Then you'd do something that hasn't been done since before 1e, because the thief/rogue has required some version of the skill system since 1e.



> would the classes still be balanced? nope. say i wanted to run a late reinassance game where nobody wore heavy armours and magic was rare. would the classes would be balanced? nope.




Sure. You'd have to compensate somehow to make the concepts you want to show up in the game desirable again. Somehow, I don't find the argument "changes have consequences" a compelling argument. The simple, unified baseline of d20 makes it fairly straightforward to predict the scope of these consequences. If you want to make changes and not compensate, that's your fault.



> surely i could redesign the system to play d20 nitty n gritty, or d20 without armour, or d20 without magic, or whatever. but that would be, indeed, REDESIGNING the system, not just plug in your nice little set of house rules.




I would suggest to you that wanting it to be otherwise is silly.



> that's why many people had heavily house ruled AD&D games, back in the dayswhereas many people today have bought arcana unearthed, iron heroes, or whatever "it's still D&D, only with a different flavour" RPG supplement it seem to offer an alternative rule set.




So, are you honestly suggesting old AD&D house rules had the same level of playability and quality as AE and IH? I rather think that unlikely.

(For that matter, am I the only one who recalls how every Dragon back in the 1e days came with warnings about how all this stuff was use at your own risk... and risk there was...)



> now, keep in mind that i see absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it's all good... it's good to have unified system to introduce people into the game and everything.
> but i don't have lots of money to spend on "alternative d20" books. and, most importantly, i have zero time to read them... or to redesign the system by myself.




Then your choice is to tolerate the imperfections regardless of the system you use or handwave them away in play, because "tweak once and have everything line up perfect" is not on the table regardless of whether you were playing 1e or 3e.



> exactly as i think i've shown you above: you touch the feats? your game is unbalanced.




Notwithstanding that innumerable supplements have added feats with little consequence?


----------



## TerraDave (Jan 15, 2008)

Reading this, with which there is so much that I disagree...

I do agree that the best feature of 2nd ed was its compatibility with 1st edition. And its blandness did help make it (seem) pretty open to doing what I wanted to do. 

My campaign at time could be described as "Earth, with a 1st edition feel".


----------



## Voadam (Jan 15, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> WOW! i couldn't disagree more with you on this one!
> 
> now, surely you are right. there's nothing that stops me from stop giving magical items to the players if i want to run a nitty gritty low magic game. nothing apart from the fact that the *whole* system is built around the assumption that, say, you will have a +x magical weapon at level 3, and a +y magical defense bonus.
> 
> ...




Huh?

In 3.5 DR magic only requires a +1 weapon as well. The DR system is designed so that you can be a fighter and reasonably fight monsters without the optimal type weapon until you get to things like Balors and Pit Fiends that require epic in 3.5, but those require more than +1 weapons in 2e as well.



> say i wanted to ignore completely the skill system. would the classes still be balanced? nope. say i wanted to run a late reinassance game where nobody wore heavy armours and magic was rare. would the classes would be balanced? nope.




Matter of opinion I guess. 3e classes are balanced around combat ability, skills do very little in combat. 

A 3e rogue has evasion, uncanny dodge and sneak attack while a 2e rogue would only have backstab.

For low armor I go with a house rule that class reflex save adds to dex bonus to get a level based AC increase for low armor types that favors the agile and encourages feinting. Its worked for me in my 3.5 wildwood game. In 2e I'm not sure what I would have gone with, probably just adjusted to the higher number of hits that PCs and NPCs would be taking.

In a low magic game for 3e I might look to the Conan RPG or Iron Heroes for inspiration, in 2e the historical campaign books mostly suggested limiting wizard evocations and spell levels IIRC.



> surely i could redesign the system to play d20 nitty n gritty, or d20 without armour, or d20 without magic, or whatever. but that would be, indeed, REDESIGNING the system, not just plug in your nice little set of house rules.
> 
> that's why many people had heavily house ruled AD&D games, back in the dayswhereas many people today have bought arcana unearthed, iron heroes, or whatever "it's still D&D, only with a different flavour" RPG supplement it seem to offer an alternative rule set.
> 
> ...


----------



## Psion (Jan 15, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Huh?
> 
> In 3.5 DR magic only requires a +1 weapon as well.




I think he's trying to say that since 3e actually tries to factor in magic items into character power, it somehow thereby requires you to have the assumed level of magic items according to the wealth by level table.

Which is an old 3e-bashing argument, but just as illogical as it was when first uttered. The 3e wealth by level actually attempts to quantify the power level including magic items. In 2e, this evaluation was absent and it was a crap shoot. So we are to believe that we are worse off knowing that we are less powerful than expected for our level without X number of magic items as in 3e than having no standard established at all as in 2e?


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 15, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> Notwithstanding that innumerable supplements have added feats with little consequence?




With little consequence your kidding right? Even the folks at WotC have admitted that the proliferation of an endless list of feats has been problematic in terms of game balance because feat C from book D does take into account the consequences of feat H from book Z etc, etc.


----------



## Spell (Jan 15, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> All untrue. You can add new skills without unbalancing d20, you can add new feats without unbalancing d20,



can i remove skills and feats in their entirety? can i pick up, i don't know, OD&D skill system and put it in without too much hassle? i don't think so.



			
				jdrakeh said:
			
		

> you can dump attacks of opportunity without unbalancing d20,



you might be right on this one, i give you this.



			
				jdrakeh said:
			
		

> you can remove magical items without unabalancing d20. How do I know? because multiple published products have done all of these things -- and more -- without unbalancing d20.



and without offering a substitute mechanic or rule?
multiple published products have said: we're not gonna use feats, but the rest of the rulesets stays right there where it is? multiple products have said: in this game world you ain't getting a +1 magic sword not even if you're a level 20 paladin blessed by the gods, but you can run a D&D game by the book with no pain nor sweat?

if these products do exist, please point me at them.
as far as i know, the only ones that do something fancy with the ruleset (arcana evolved, iron heroes, midnight campaign setting, iron kingdoms, the nitty n gritty bad axe games book that is supposed to works with the d20 system... sorry, can't remember the name!, and so on) have a consistent section of alternative rules to "fix" the system.
i might be wrong, but at least i cite my "multiple products" 



			
				jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Would you care to explain the existence of hundreds of products that completely disprove your assertions that you can't modify d20 without breaking it?



i can certainly care and i will certainly do. you see, i meant taking out of the system something i don't like, and replace it with nothing. or, if i really want something, with anything that pleases my tastes.

i could do that in OD&D. i could ignore the skill system given in the rules cyclopedia and run a very enjoyable game. i could pick up runequest skill system (or any skill system i happened to like and consider balanced) and hammer it on without spending hours on ends to think about how this skill might trigger an attack of opportunity if player X has feat Y. 

i also could do that in AD&D.

in fct, i could do whatever i wanted, because it was my game, and the ruleset was open enough to accomodate my style of playing and yours, maybe with some additions or modifications that were not *necessarily* too complicate to make.

not so in your examples. iron heroes doesn't like magical items. so they "fixed" the system assumption that you have to have a + x attack bonus at level Y by simply giving (from what i have read on these boards) a +x class bonus to the character. it's perfectly good game designing. and it is. but it's fixing the system. and it does so, incidentally, in a way that further disrupt my suspention of disbelief. ("so, the captain of the guard, who's been in the military for 20 years has a +1 class attack bonus and 20 hp. you started adventuring last year and have a + 5 class attack bonus and 50 hp. i guess you are *special*).


now, before this escalate in another silly edition war, let me tell you one thing: i do appreciate that these are d20 boards, and i'm the minority. i do appreciate that there's nothing inherently Wrong with the d20 game design philosophy and that there are tons of people out there that know the system in and out so well that they can afford making significant changes in much less time that it would require me.

what i am trying to say is that, whatever you think of the system, AD&D, *in my opinion and experience* managed to accomodate to a more diverse set of assumptions about the game, simply because, again *in my opinion and experience*, when some parts of the system clashed with what was needed at the game table, they could be easily amended or ignored.

now, is there anything you can say, in all faith, that can invalidate my experience, opinions, and preferences? until now, it seems to me that you are just saying: "you're wrong, because i like 3e better". ok, fair enough. i think i got that to begin with. but that argument is not doing much to make me change my mind, if that's your goal. 

if i have misread you, or i explained myself in a way that still leads to misunderstandings, feel free to offer? ask for clarifications.

ps: if you are about to say that OD&D and AD&D are simplistic systems, or that they are old dinosaurs, or that they are pretty much freeform rulesets, and that today's games are not built to please different styles of gaming, please don't.

one example: GURPS. it's not simplistic, it's certainly not rule light (unless you want to just run the basic combat and create human characters with GURPS light, that is, and ignore rules like "how long should you dig to create a hole of X cubic feet of volume"), it's not a dinosaur (it had a new edition some years ago, and it's going ok, given that it never sold million of copies), and it's built not only to accomodate different styles of gaming, but different types of games, too.

why do i not stop yapping and switch to GURPS? simple: i have no time nor desire to convert 20/30 year worth of game material that i have spend hundreds of dollars to buy into a completely different system. universal or not.


----------



## Spell (Jan 15, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> It isn't that you can't change stuff, but rather that there is a lot more to consider when doing so because everything is so interconnected.  Spycraft didn't just drop AoO's and be done with it, for example.  Dropping AoOs means re-examining a lot of feats and combat maneuvers and other elements that AoOs interact with.  You start to blur the line between "house ruling" and "game design".




reynard, are you a woman? if so, i'm about to leave my girlfriend and ask you to marry me. 
only kidding.


----------



## Psion (Jan 15, 2008)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> With little consequence your kidding right?




No. I've purchased multiple products introducing scads of new feats, integrated them into my game, and lo and behold, my game didn't go off the tracks.



> Even the folks at WotC have admitted that the proliferation of an endless list of feats has been problematic in terms of game balance because feat C from book D does take into account the consequences of feat H from book Z etc, etc.




That's a different kettle of fish. I'm certainly not claiming that any body of work as large as D&D can remain perfectly consistent across all works without tweaks, and I submit to you that if you put any other system in its place, the same or worse would happen.

Nor, mind you am I saying that you can't write unbalanced feats.

Look at the scope of the assertion being made here. He states that "touching" feats--whatever that means, but it sounds like a pretty modest change--causes the system to be unbalanced.

Feats are the primary means by which the game are expanded. Yes, you can do it wrong. But to suggest that the mere act of "touching" feats in a perilous process seems to me to be at odds with reality.


----------



## Agamon (Jan 15, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> Settings in 2e were GOLD.




Don't get me wrong, I wanted to like them.  The ideas for most of them blow Eberron out of the water.  But 2E FR and GH weren't as good as 1E's.  I liked Ravenloft, but I didn't like when they tried to turn it into an actual setting.  Dark Sun didn't grab me.  You wither love Planescape or hate it, I'm one of the latter.  I was excited by the idea of Birthright, but it didn't quite work the way I would have liked.  And they sure tried to mess up Mystara, good thing that stuff is easily ignored.

And most of the setting specific adventures were beyond bad, railroady, look-at-my-shiny-NPC pieces of crap.  That doesn't do much to improve the look of the settings themselves.


----------



## Sitara (Jan 15, 2008)

people, you have to admit 3E was deisgned with te basic assumption that characters will have a certain amount of magic items at certain levels, and thus spells and monsters and adventures all scale with these in mind. 

2E relied far less on this assumption.


----------



## Agamon (Jan 15, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> No. I've purchased multiple products introducing scads of new feats, integrated them into my game, and lo and behold, my game didn't go off the tracks.




Yeah, a pile of feats wasn't a problem in my game either.  But the spells and prestige classes were.  And once I allowed them, it's tough to try and reign them back in.  A lesson learned for 4E.


----------



## Spell (Jan 15, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> You realize, of course, that this poisons the analysis with your perspective? The only thing that makes these "superpowers" is that you know that in the version of the game you are not playing, the modifiers are assigned to magic item.




i see what you mean, but do normal, "mundane", non adventuring people have access to the same modifiers? no.

this is a thing that happened in previous editions of the games, as well. the PCs were above the norm, or they were meant to become above the norm if they survived. they were in another league compared to normal zero-level characters (which i found annoying an unconsequential at the time, and i still do... Hackmaster solves the problem by adding a hp kicker. very simple and very elegant, in my opinion. a real stroke of genious... anyway..). on the other hand, they weren't complete monstrosities.

before, it was like saying: i am joe zero level, and a low level character is a university level athlete. eventually the character can become carl lewis, or god knows what... but for the moment, we're not so terribly far away.

now, at least in my perspective, even at first level PCs are really another story. it's like 1st level characters are carl lewis, whereas i still have a bit of a belly and can't run for 10 minutes without having a stroke.

i can be wrong, but you can't completely deny that this philophy is somewhat inbuilt in the game. it's fair. only, i don't like that type of gaming experience.





			
				Psion said:
			
		

> Which begs the question: what do you hope to get out of this "low magic" game? Do you want to take away magic because you don't like the concept of players having much magical bling? Or do you think that magic items make it too easy?




personally: i like low magic games, because, to me, magic becomes more meaningful and wonderful if it's rare. philosophically, i like the idea of low power magical items being more or less common against three thousand years of mythology, and that, to me, represents an incommensurable break in my suspension of disbelief.

as for the players, i have to admit that, faced with a nondescript "player", yes, i'd like to have some power on how easy a job they do, without having to beef up monsters (which, again, in my mind would create an inconsisten world). having said that, i rarely, in my years as DM doubted that the players *at my table* were going to do something that would have completely destroyed everyone's enjoyment of the game, at least knowingly. if they had a supersword that happened to be too powerful, they realised that some in game reason might have taken the sword away, and that would have been ok with them and with me.

on the other hand, they also expected that i wouldn't had been mr. evil DM. and that was ok with me, too.




			
				Psion said:
			
		

> Then you'd do something that hasn't been done since before 1e, because the thief/rogue has required some version of the skill system since 1e.




thieves skills weren't really part of non weapon proficiencies, though, were they? they were detailed in another part of the PHB, and they had different mechanics.




			
				Psion said:
			
		

> The simple, unified baseline of d20 makes it fairly straightforward to predict the scope of these consequences. If you want to make changes and not compensate, that's your fault.




not really. i don't have an unlimited amount of time, and when i wanted to start DMing 3e, i couldn't run through the books multiple times to see what feat might have been affected if i decided to change this combat rule, or what wuld have happened to that class had i decided to drop the feats and substitute them with feat trees.

maybe nothing would have happened. but there was too much stuff to consider and too little time to actually try and change things.
i might have tried and solve problems as they showed up in the game. but i would like to have house rules that are somewhat solid, before throwing them at my players.
the fact that i also moved to another *nation*, and i had to get a new group certainly affected my perspective.

i still think things don't have to be necessarily this way, though.



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> I would suggest to you that wanting it to be otherwise is silly.



really? how comes i can do that in C&C? or GURPS? or OD&D? is that silly? if so, bring the silliness on for me! 




			
				Psion said:
			
		

> So, are you honestly suggesting old AD&D house rules had the same level of playability and quality as AE and IH? I rather think that unlikely.



absolutely not! i would be a fool to do so, since AE and IH are professional products by senior designers. i am suggesting that i could house rule AD&D with much less hassle and fear of having unbalanced the entire system than i can with 3e D&D.



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> (For that matter, am I the only one who recalls how every Dragon back in the 1e days came with warnings about how all this stuff was use at your own risk... and risk there was...)




the early articles of dragon, though, can hardly be considered the height of game design philosophy, can they? or does this matter only when you're putting AU and IH against some house rules some dude came up with in that campaign i heard of? 



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> Notwithstanding that innumerable supplements have added feats with little consequence?



yes, because adding 1, 10, or 100 feats does not change the system of feat distribution, or the fact that feats are in the game. insted of having, say, 50 options of what you're going to choose, you have 51, 60 or 150. same story, though.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 15, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> people, you have to admit 3E was deisgned with te basic assumption that characters will have a certain amount of magic items at certain levels, and thus spells and monsters and adventures all scale with these in mind.
> 
> 2E relied far less on this assumption.




On that, I entirely disagree. 3E quantified what was always implicit in 1e and 2e. PCs were expected to have a certain amount of magical mojo, signified mainly by weapons of increasing plus, to combat a lot of higher-end monsters. 
3E's quantification of it is more of a lifting of the veil than anything else.


----------



## Spell (Jan 15, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Huh?
> In 3.5 DR magic only requires a +1 weapon as well.




my mistake, then. i stopped buying 3e items when i got the disappointment that was the epic level handbook. did they suppressed the expected health and expected magic item power level from the game?




			
				Voadam said:
			
		

> For low armor I go with a house rule that class reflex save adds to dex bonus to get a level based AC increase for low armor types that favors the agile and encourages feinting.



that looks like a good quick fix. 



			
				Voadam said:
			
		

> House rules that were not REDESIGNING the system to provide AD&D nitty n gritty, without armor, or without magic, or whatever?



if you want to see things that way. what i meant is that the changes to one subsystem don't need to touch other parts of the system you like.



			
				Voadam said:
			
		

> Weren't the other D&D like options from Pre 3e/OGL things like Paladium, Rolemaster, MERP, Ars Magica, and GURPS?



what do you mean? i honestly don't follow.



			
				Voadam said:
			
		

> Of course if you don't have time to read such rule variants to fit different campaign styles then most of the options from 2e wouldn't be available either (historical setting books, ravenloft CS for fear and horror mechanics, combat and tactics for some 3e similar tactical combat, etc.)



historical settings: no need for those. i have my history books. and tons of that.
revenloft CS: given that i would game in that setting, among others, yes, i would use those mechanics. which, by the way, take 2 minutes to read, and touch very little else in the game (contrary to, say, switching to the vitality system).
combat and tactics: are you joking?  i want to simplify combat!!! i have no use for that book now like i didn when it came out!


----------



## Spell (Jan 15, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> IWhich is an old 3e-bashing argument




wait a second, don't put words in my mouth. where did i bashed 3e or 3e lovers? haven't i said *more than once*, that these are my preferences and that i quit the game only because i felt that i couldn't change it to play as i want? did i ever say that 3e have to disappear from the face of earth?

i hope i'm overreacting and that i misread your post. you can disagree with me, but if you want start trolling around, you can do it very well by yourself.


----------



## Spell (Jan 15, 2008)

i was going to make another post, but it seems that, once again, whenever one touches the holiness of 3e on these boards, and even hints at the fact that, for all the good things it accomplished (which i conceded, if you cared to read my earliest posts...), older editions of the game have their plus sides, too, a holy crusade starts against those foolish enough to raise a finger against the mighty god of any role playing games. 

what can i say? happy flame war, if that's what you like doing.
bye bye.

ps: just a though: is 4e going to be inferior to 3e? i honestly hope so for you crusaders.

i wonder what would happen if you sort of liked it, but not really, and then 8 years from now found yourself on these very boards saying: "but i *personally* liked 3e better, despite all the good changes in 4e", and people would (not so subtely) treat you like you were the peasant just arrived at the court of Louis XIV.


----------



## Psion (Jan 15, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> i see what you mean, but do normal, "mundane", non adventuring people have access to the same modifiers? no.




Again, I return you to the question "what are you trying to accomplish?"

If you are trying to weaken them and make them mundane.

Or you could go the Iron Heroes route and try to keep the same power baseline (which is well above "common rabble").

In either case, pretending that in 2e you could simply strip away weapons and not have an effect on balance is illusory, because there was no such plainly published standard of balance. It's all on the GM feeling out what the right level of power is to face the PCs. Is a +1 sword too good for a 1st level character? Is it good enough for a 10th level?

In 3e, there is a standard. In this case, you would be willfully deciding to undershoot that standard, and the wise DM knows to compensate.



> thieves skills weren't really part of non weapon proficiencies, though, were they? they were detailed in another part of the PHB, and they had different mechanics.




That's all quite peripheral to the real point I was getting at: the real reason that there would be a problem removing skills from the games is that it makes up a big portion of the capability of many of the classes, and has been since the thief came into being.

That being said, fundamental baseline consistency has always been a boon in my book, and disparate systems to do essentially the same thing a scourge, inviting inconsistency and confusion. (If I had a nickel for every time one of my 2e players said "do I roll high or low for this?", I've have a few free meals at least.) If you choosing C&C or the like over 3e is the cost of having such consistency, so be it. I feel 3e is a much better game for it.



> not really. i don't have an unlimited amount of time, and when i wanted to start DMing 3e, i couldn't run through the books multiple times to see what feat might have been affected if i decided to change this combat rule, or what wuld have happened to that class had i decided to drop the feats and substitute them with feat trees.




I don't have an unlimited amount of time, either. What works for me is:
1) Don't throw the doors wide open. Only as a default allow books which contribute to the game experience I want, and only allow additions beyond that on a case-by-case basis.
2) Take charge of my game. Let players know up front that unforseen imbalances will be smacked down. 3e is in NO way unique here; I've been doing this since 1e.



> really? how comes i can do that in C&C? or GURPS? or OD&D? is that silly? if so, bring the silliness on for me!




Are you honestly suggesting to me that if you take armor out of C&C or OD&D, the fighter/fighting man isn't devalued as a class?

You have to do balancing work there, too.



> the early articles of dragon, though, can hardly be considered the height of game design philosophy, can they?




I don't remember suggesting that they did.

What I am suggesting is that tweaking a game often didn't go so well even in the good old days, and even back then, the designers knew it full well.



> yes, because adding 1, 10, or 100 feats does not change the system of feat distribution, or the fact that feats are in the game. insted of having, say, 50 options of what you're going to choose, you have 51, 60 or 150. same story, though.




I get _now_ after having read your response to jdrakeh that by "touching", you mean "remove entirely". Which I would agree would be a more significant undertaking, but I don't consider it an indictment to a game that choosing to remove a major consistent underpinning of a game requires some work.


----------



## Psion (Jan 15, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> wait a second, don't put words in my mouth. where did i bashed 3e or 3e lovers?




I was referring to the argument that I _thought_ you were invoking. I guess Voadam got what you were saying and I didn't on that score.

THAT SAID, I somewhat prefer the 3.0 way of doing things with respect to staged "+" modifiers; the 3.5 version makes magic DR too trivial after low levels, and I find DR an useful balancing factor for fighter types.

THAT being said, as I recall 1e had staged modifiers for weapon immunity as well; I thought 2e had the same thing. I seem to remember a chart listing modifiers up to +4, and what HD overcomes that level of weapon immunity.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 15, 2008)

I miss
1) The Settings
2) PO: Combat and Tactics critical hits
3) Specialty Priests: domains and PrCs are not enough distinction
4) The various Specialist Wizards.  I would have loved to have seen the alchemist, artificer, geomancer, elementalist, force mage, song mage and  shadow mage done as 3.5 class variants with variant class abilities per the Unearthed Arcana Specialist Wizard variant abilities.
5) The class splat books.  Despite the power creep in later kits, a few stupid kits (Greenwood (?) Ranger), and some lame mechanics (e.g., the Savage's use of alarm spell to represent light sleeping, I still prefer the format and information in the 2e Complete Books to WOTCs 3.x class books and PHB2.  I suppose that, if WOTC had included class variants (per the phb Thug and UA) for many of the 2e kits, I would have received more enjoyment and usefulness out of the 3.x splats.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jan 15, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> I was referring to the argument that I _thought_ you were invoking.




Ditto. I guess all of that hyperbole got in the way  Removing feats and skills wholesale will take a lot of work, as will removing magic items (removing AoOs and tactical combat, on the other hand, is simply a matter of ignoring references to AoOs and squares, respectively). 

That said, the removal of feats and skills from D&D 3x is comparable to removing THAC0 from AD&D in that they are both integral parts of the system. If somebody is mad because a system won't function when they tear out integral parts, it's not really a fault of the system. 

It's like complaining that your car won't start if you take out the spark plugs and then blaming it on the manufacturer.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 15, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> On that, I entirely disagree. 3E quantified what was always implicit in 1e and 2e. PCs were expected to have a certain amount of magical mojo, signified mainly by weapons of increasing plus, to combat a lot of higher-end monsters.
> 3E's quantification of it is more of a lifting of the veil than anything else.




I would argue that the truth is somehwere between the extremes (as it is in most things).  Yes, D&D characters of every edition got magical gear as treasure, and as the characters gained levels and defeated more powerful enemies, that gear tended to be more powerful.  Hiowever, that was only an average over a pretty wide swath.  Any given hoard could possess wildly varying amounts and degrees of treasure and there was no assumed "level appropriate" value.  The DM was expected to adjudicate treasure -- either at the time it was placed or by dealing with it later if there was too much or too little.  3E, although maintaining some lip service to the idea of random treasure, codified it in such a way as to make it standardized, which led, inevitably, to the abomination that is "assumed character wealth in magic items by character level".


----------



## Thurbane (Jan 15, 2008)

glass said:
			
		

> Because it was a very complicated way of deciding something that is generally pretty obvious?





			
				Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> I kinda like morale, but it seems to me that it's much easier to ask what the monster would do. If a kobold's buddies are all dead and he's the only one left, he's going to run away. If the opponent is a dragon, he's not going anywhere. Just use your best judgment and you're fine.





			
				Orius said:
			
		

> I understand it was to allow the DM to decide whether or not the monsers stick around rather than basing it merely on a die roll.



The problem I have here is that, even as a DM, I have no idea how a nonhuman mind works.

While it is generally accepted that creatures like kobolds and goblins are quite cowardly, and that creatures like zombies and golems are totally fearless, what about the myriad of other nonhuman beings?

Are elves braver than grell? Are gray renders known for their bravery? How about beholders, mindflayers and medusas?

...this is what I liked about the morale system. It gave me a baseline for how brave or cowardly a particular race was prone to be. I never used it slavishly - we always excercised some common sense. But I still think it works better than what I see in many 3E modules: "When monster X gets below Y hit points, it will flee".


----------



## Reynard (Jan 15, 2008)

Another thing I miss: monster frequency.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 15, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> ps: just a though: is 4e going to be inferior to 3e? i honestly hope so for you crusaders.




First, I don't think 3e is perfect as written. I use several UA and third party supplements. However, based on what we know right now, I would say yes for my gaming tastes is looking to be inferior to 3e. Actually, other than 4e keeping the unified core mechanic, unified abilitiy scores (if this remains the same) and three saving throws inherited from 3.0 and the introduction of talent trees, I think I would much rather play 2e using the PO:Combat & Tactics critical hits and PO: Spells and Magic Spell Points rather than play 4e- and I have no interest in ever playing 2e (or 1e) again.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 15, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Another thing I miss: monster frequency.




How did I forget monster frequency? Now, I have to go back and edit my post!


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Jan 15, 2008)

To answer the original question, I think 3E is a mixed bag when compared to 2E. I like the saving throws (they are more intuitive than the original set), the standardized system for problem resolution (I never had problems with the diverse subsystems in 2E, but I believe from what I read on various forums that many people prefer only having to add numbers), the feats (back when there was only the PHB, and the Feat Explosion hadn't happened yet) and the idea of Prestige Classes.

What I miss from 2E was definitely Specialty Priests with their Spheres of Influence. Having individualized spell lists enabled me to allow priests spontaneous casting, since they couldn't call down divine doom on their enemies on a whim if it wasn't on their list in the first place.
I also miss the independence of the individual subsystems from each other. 3E interconnected a LOT of the stuff, so if you yank Attacks of Opportunity (for example), you don't just have to check the Combat Section for alterations, but also the Feats, the Classes (for probable class ability obsoleteness) and if you're unlucky enough even the spells/special abilities.

There's more on both sides, this is just meant to demonstrate that both versions had a lot of good and a lot of bad going for them. What I can't understand (as usual) is that any discussion of different versions of D&D/AD&D turns sour after a while. It's like people desperately NEED to fence themselves in and declare their area the BEST, even though we ALL are fenced in on the "RPG geek" corral already.  :\


----------



## Voadam (Jan 15, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> my mistake, then. i stopped buying 3e items when i got the disappointment that was the epic level handbook. did they suppressed the expected health and expected magic item power level from the game?




No, they changed DR in 3.5 in general to be lower amounts than in 3.0 so that if you don't have the right weapon you can usually still do some damage, particularly with power attack, sneak attacks, crits, or big two handed weapons with a lot of strength.

They also changed it from scaling along Material/+1/+2/+3 etc. to being entirely type of weapon specific, either magic or silver or aligned or whatever. At the top end is DR epic for requiring artefact weapons to bypass pitfiend and balor DR. 

Anybody with a +1 weapon can bypass the DR of any creature with DR/Magic in 3.5 but still needs a silver weapon to bypass the DR of a werewolf, a +6 epic holy cold iron sword will still have 5 or 10 points of damage taken off each blow against a lycanthrope.


> that looks like a good quick fix.



 Thanks, its worked well for my game so far.



> what do you mean? i honestly don't follow.




Want a grittier crits system for AD&D? Use Rollmaster.

Want a grittier fantasy AD&D where players don't become superhero fantasy? Use GURPS

Want to have active defenses in your AD&D and a few more race/class/magic options? Use Palladium

Want it to be closer to medieval europe with magic and a more developed magic system? Use Ars Magica

That's similar to in the 3e era

Want high fantasy D&D without spellcasting and magic items? Use Iron Heroes.

Want Gritty Hyperborean style D&D? Use Conan.

Want more flexibility in spellcasting in your D&D and an end to the divine arcane line for magic? Use Arcana Evolved.

Want to get rid of AoO legacy D&D class structures and hp? Use True20.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 15, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> can i remove skills and feats in their entirety? can i pick up, i don't know, OD&D skill system and put it in without too much hassle? i don't think so.




I'd suggest you can.

Consequences of no skills: DM has to adjudicate things people used skills for before and classes with good skill lists or good number of skill points lose a little edge while poor skill list and point classes (like fighters) lose a minor balancing weakness. Have to figure out resolving ambushes and noting hidden or approaching creatures. Not a big deal IMO. I don't know the OD&D skill system so I can't say how it could work in 3e.

Consequences of no feats:

1 no default item crafting

2 no metamagic

3 no special combat skill boosts or exceptions to rules

4 fighters become d10 HD warriors who can use tower shields

5 Rangers and monks lose a lot of class abilities

6 wizards lose their rare bonus feats

This leaves you with:

Barbarians: Still raging machines (no power attack, iron will or spring attack though)
Bards: still have magic, bard music, bard knowledge, weak fighting
Clerics: Still overpowered
Druids: Still overpowered
Fighters: Warriors with Tower Shields, lesser than paladins now.
Monks: just have good punches, unarmored AC, good saves, and insane speed.
Rangers: lightly armored warriors with favored enemy who later get animal companions and spells.
Paladins: Fighters with holy powers and spells but no tower shield.
Rogues: weak lightly armed warriors with sneak attack, evasion, uncanny dodge
Sorcerers: Basically the same
Wizards: Basically the same, slight weakening.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Jan 15, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I would argue that the truth is somehwere between the extremes (as it is in most things).  Yes, D&D characters of every edition got magical gear as treasure, and as the characters gained levels and defeated more powerful enemies, that gear tended to be more powerful.  Hiowever, that was only an average over a pretty wide swath.  Any given hoard could possess wildly varying amounts and degrees of treasure and there was no assumed "level appropriate" value.  The DM was expected to adjudicate treasure -- either at the time it was placed or by dealing with it later if there was too much or too little.  3E, although maintaining some lip service to the idea of random treasure, codified it in such a way as to make it standardized, which led, inevitably, to the abomination that is "assumed character wealth in magic items by character level".



Why is it an abomination to have assumed character wealth as a function of character level?  Why can't a 3.x DM choose to ignore these guidelines, if he so desires, putting him in the same boat as a 2nd-edition DM?  I never ran a 2nd-edition game, but was it really easier for a DM to balance the power level of PCs using magic items back then, in the absence of any such guidelines?


----------



## Psion (Jan 15, 2008)

Philomath said:
			
		

> I never ran a 2nd-edition game, but was it really easier for a DM to balance the power level of PCs using magic items back then, in the absence of any such guidelines?




No.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 16, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> No.




True.  But then, "balance" wasn't as big an issue because the power level was lower and the increases were much smaller from level to level and (perhaps most importantly) how aewsome a character was in combat was not the sole defining factor of a character's "usefulness".


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 16, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> It is possible to discuss problems neutrally and clinically without getting into trouble, you know.  Was it one of the following?
> 
> 1. It reduced the ability of the DM to control the number and type of magic items available to the PCs, and hence, the tone and power level of his game.
> 
> 2. It increased the ability of the players to further customize the PCs, thus leading to greater min-maxing.



Both true, though to 1. I'd add that it also greatly reduced the random element - instead of having to rely on the chance of finding Item X for sale or trade in town, the PC can now relatively easily make her own.

It's not like I as DM spend time worrying about every little item that shows up in my game and whether it'll unbalance things slightly.  It's more a philosophical thing: that NPC artificers make items, and field-adventuring PCs go out and find them instead.  And it's so *trivially* easy to fix, without any knock-on effects either...just make item creation take long enough that most PCs won't bother. (well, there's one little tiny knock-on effect: the item-creation feats would need to be replaced with something more suited to field adventuring)

The ExP cost annoys me too; how is a non-adventuring artificer ever going to earn the ExP required to build anything?  I'm glad that's Going Away in 4e.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 16, 2008)

Philomath said:
			
		

> Why is it an abomination to have assumed character wealth as a function of character level?  Why can't a 3.x DM choose to ignore these guidelines, if he so desires, putting him in the same boat as a 2nd-edition DM?



A DM can ignore the guidelines, but the players won't.  Headaches all round.

Lanefan


----------



## shilsen (Jan 16, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> A DM can ignore the guidelines, but the players won't.  Headaches all round.




Not if you start the campaign explaining to the players that you're going to be ignoring the guidelines.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jan 16, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> 2 no metamagic




As sort of a side note, 2nd edition did indeed have metamagic, which was a precursor to 3e metamagic.  I believe it was in the _Tome of Magic_.


----------



## Gothmog (Jan 16, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> in other words, 3e for me is less than "whatever game i want it to be" and more "the game as the majority play it". if i disagree with the majority, tough for me.




Thats a really good summation of my frustrations with 3E as well.  In general, I preferred playing and running games under 2E- it was more freeform and flowed MUCH better for me and my group.  

Now 3E did do a few things I did like- BAB and the new saves are great, and AC scaling upwards in response to BAB was fine.  THAC0 was never that hard of a concept for me and my groups to grasp, so it wasn't the bugaboo to us that it was to many groups.

However, there are things that look good on the surface in 3E, but which turned into a nightmare in play.

#1 The interconnectedness of everything in 3E- feats, skills, magic items, assumed power levels, monster CR ratings, experience gain for challenges, etc- the list is endless.  Basically, its very hard to houserule 3E without impacting some aspect of the core rules which has been codified and "balanced".  As long as you're playing with the assumptions 3E D&D is built with, it runs fine.  If you want to play at a lower magic level though, for example, you've got to basically rebuild the system from the ground up, which isn't worth the time.  There are just WAY too many assumptions in 3E about how you should be playing for it to be as flexible as previous versions of D&D.  In 2E, we played low magic games with no problem without having to revamp the entire system.  2E was a much more flexible and in many ways, robust system than 3E.

#2 The complexity of the system.  I don't know how many times playing 3E things ground to a halt while we looked up rules.  While 3E has a rule for every situation, in a lot of ways that is a drawback to the system since it breaks the flow of the game to refer to the rules.  And for some reason, since the rule is there, people feel compelled to use the rule in question even though the situation might better be handled by something simpler or DM fiat.

#3 Character/monster complexity.  Feats, skills, class powers, synergy bonuses, level-appropriate equipment, spell selection, GAH!  Statting up a vital NPC or new monster is a nightmare, as is advancing or adding templates to monsters.  I play RPGs to spend time playing the game, NOT to spend 3-4 hours before each session simply statting opponents up.  And god forbid something should come up on the fly for the DM, like if the PCs decide to attack the badass captain of the guard who is supposed to be a plot point, and the DM doesn't have stats ready since he didn't anticipate a confrontation.  I've seen games literally stop for 1 hour while the DM prepares for unforseen circumstances by statting up new foes.  When its that difficult to follow the rules of the system in order to play the game, there is a serious design flaw in the system.

I guess in summary, 3E had some neat ideas, but poor execution.  Also, the overcodification of the system is a problem for me and my group, since it tends to restrict our options and playstyle instead of accomodating them.  A game that has the same features (character customization, high adventure, etc) 3E does without the complexity is Savage Worlds, so it can be done.  2E was superior to 3E in many ways, including flavor, worlds, and for my group, the performance of the system for our playstyle.  Ive gone back to playing 2E for my D&D needs, at least until 4th edition comes out.  I'm cautiously optomistic about 4th, but we'll see.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 16, 2008)

I would like sometime to play this marvelous game called "2e" where you can remove heavy armor without hurting Fighters, yank out the skill system without a negative effect on Thieves, remove magic weapons without worrying about monsters immune to non-magical weapons, run a low magic campaign without a single thought about power level of the PCs, run a high magic campaign just as easily, or rewrite any sub-system any way you please on a whim, just for the heck of it, and everything "just works" automagically because everything is so poorly integrated.

Alas, I only have years of experience with TSR's Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition, where none of those things were true by the remotest stretch of the imagination.

I seen this claim that by virtue of being "too integrated" certain kinds of changes are more difficult in 3e of couple of dozen times.  But when it comes to actual examples of an apples to apples comparison, the silence is always deafening.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 16, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> That said, the removal of feats and skills from D&D 3x is comparable to removing THAC0 from AD&D in that they are both integral parts of the system. If somebody is mad because a system won't function when they tear out integral parts, it's not really a fault of the system.




If you removed THAC0 from AD&D or its functional equivalent, I am not sure you even have a game anymore.  At least not one worth playing...go find an even simpler game that does more instead.

The funny thing is it would be entirely plausible to remove Feats and Skills entirely from 3e.  That would not even be difficult.  A number of classes would become obsolete, but if such simplifications are your style surely that is a good thing.  There would be consequences, of course.   Whether the consequences are good or bad, require mitigation or not, that would be a matter of philosophy and personal taste.

Level of integration is not a hindrance to drastic brain surgery on a game system...if you know what you are doing.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 16, 2008)

Speaking for 1e rather than 2e (though I suspect there is much overlap), let me try here:







			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I would like sometime to play this marvelous game called "2e" where you can remove heavy armor without hurting Fighters



Could be done in any edition, though the effect on play would be much less in in 1e where AC only has a 20-point range (+10 to -10) and many magic defenses won't work with armour anyway and thus would merely serve to replace it. 







> yank out the skill system without a negative effect on Thieves



Yanking out the skill system for everyone *except* Thieves and Thief sub-classes is easy in 1e; mostly because there isn't much of one to begin with.  Doing the same in 3e is a big change with lots of ramifications. Taking thieving skills away from Thieves in any edition requires a complete class redesign. 







> remove magic weapons without worrying about monsters immune to non-magical weapons



Removing magic weapons entirely does require a rethink of a lot of monsters.  Reducing things such that weapons top out at +3 instead of +5, however, is easy in 1e. 







> run a low magic campaign without a single thought about power level of the PCs, run a high magic campaign just as easily



PC power level is constantly changing anyway, and any DM worth her salt soon learns what the party can handle on a regular basis whatever their magic level.  Thsi one's almost irrelevant.







> or rewrite any sub-system any way you please on a whim, just for the heck of it, and everything "just works" automagically because everything is so poorly integrated.



Not everything "just works", but it's far easier to tinker with bits of 1e than 3e even if the tinkering is just experimental; things being more isolated allows experiments to not bring the whole system down if they fail.  For example, I redesigned my 1e Bards a long time ago to make them a normal class - no big deal there - and then, years later once I'd seen how 3e worked, I redesigned them again from the ground up to be essentially a feat-based class.  Did the same with Monks, too; early returns are so far so good from such run-out as they've had.  In 3e, how easily could you take a class and redesign it from the ground up sch that it both worked differently mechanically from any other class yet remained vaguely balanced and in-type?

Lanefan


----------



## Orius (Jan 16, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Agreed; 3e gave monsters a better break, and long overdue.  I'd already sort-of started doing the same thing in 1e, but nowhere near what 3e did...until I saw 3e and started swiping ideas, that is.   I'm hoping 4e continues this trend of giving the opposition an even break.




So did I.  I was using the Complete Book of Humanoids in 2e to give humanoid leaders classes and levels rather than just tacking on a few extra HD.  So now, that group of orcs the players run into isn't just a 2d4 orcs with a 3 HD-leader; it's 2d4 orcs lead by a 3rd level orc fighter with weapon specialization and some specially tweaked proficiencies, pehaps even a kit to make the PC's lives even more miserable.  

One thing I liked about 3e is that the rules to do this were put into the core and it was easier to come up with classed humanoid opponents with the NPC charts in the DMG.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 16, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> PC power level is constantly changing anyway, and any DM worth her salt soon learns what the party can handle on a regular basis whatever their magic level.



This is the key point that I would like to highlight. This is true in 3e as well, no matter what changes you make to the game. While 3e makes it easier to run a game using the built-in assumptions, I don't see how running a game without these assumptions would be any more difficult in 3e than in any previous edition. I'd be eyeballing challenges against what I know of the party's capabilities instead of relying on guidelines*, which is what I did in 2e, 1e and Basic D&D anyway.

* Actually, even when DMing 3e by-the-book, I still give the challenges a once-over eyeball after narrowing them down with the guidelines, but old habits die hard.


----------



## Orius (Jan 16, 2008)

Wik said:
			
		

> Kits were a neat feature of 2e, and I think it'd be nice to see something similar come back.  I mean, you can do it in 3e with background feats, but it's not the same.  I'd like to see something more like the occupations from d20 modern.  That'd be nifty.




Kits were a good idea, but the freelance design of core 2e suppliments and a tendancy towards front loading threw their balance all out of whack.  So there was a combination of relatively balanced kits combined with overpowered (bladesinger) and just plain weird (Greenwood Ranger, though I considered making a PrC out of that one).

I liked that kits gave players a list of suggested proficiencies.  The Player's Option kits also made taking recommened NWPs a little cheaper, and I was trying to fit thhat feature into my 2e games as a house rules (as I was using the S&P NWP system).


----------



## Orius (Jan 16, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> We've had lots of pure fighters in 1e; more than any other class by a long way, and we use a roll-up system even nicer than 4d6.  Check your numbers, if you have records of characters played...you might be surprised.
> 
> Lane-"holding the keys to the penalty box since 1984"-fan




I wasn't playing 1e, and yeah the pure fighter was pretty rare IME.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jan 16, 2008)

Wik said:
			
		

> Kits were a neat feature of 2e, and I think it'd be nice to see something similar come back.  I mean, you can do it in 3e with background feats, but it's not the same.  I'd like to see something more like the occupations from d20 modern.  That'd be nifty.




In a sense, we do have kits in 3e, most notably with substitution levels and alternative class features.  Prestige classes fill this function too, but you can't begin with one.  Basically, all of these ideas help to shape a character.  With things like paragon paths in 4e, it looks like the tradition will continue.

Still, I sometimes do miss the old kits.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 16, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> In 3e, how easily could you take a class and redesign it from the ground up sch that it both worked differently mechanically from any other class yet remained vaguely balanced and in-type?




The thing called "balance" as some kind of automagic property of the system is 3e-speak.

You are gulping down the Kool-Aid...while complaining about it at the same time.

If you are going to use a significant degree inherent mechanical balance as a yardstick, then 2e is completely broken out of the box.

It is completely trivial to build things in 3e that are every bit as balanced as typical 2e.

All these things that are allegedly hard to do in 3e are not.  Yes, I can remove heavy armor, rewrite skills, remove Feats, change magic item rarity, change wealth level without breaking a sweat.  That is because an integrated system makes it very simple to anticipate side effects, so a DM can easily compensate with a light touch.

3e is a game that allows the DM to drive with one hand on the steering and the other holding a brewski, windows down, music cranked up.  Or at least you can get away with that lackadaisical attitude some of the time.  2e is game you need to keep both hands on the steering wheel and eyes on the road.

Some DMs drive 3e wildly and end up wrapping their campaign around a tree.

At this point you can try putting both hands firmly on the 3e steering wheel and stop pounding down those high proof supplements.  Or you can go back to 2e, and put both hands on the steering wheel, and complain that 3e is hard to drive because doing so one-handed while drunk did not work out for you.

IMNSHO, there is a double-standard here.  If you judge 3e by a higher standard, you are implicitly endorsing the idea that 3e has absolutely superior mechanics.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 16, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> In 3e, how easily could you take a class and redesign it from the ground up sch that it both worked differently mechanically from any other class yet remained vaguely balanced and in-type?




It would be no more difficult than to do the same in 1e or 2e.  I see no obstacles here.

Are you claiming that the Core classes in 1e and 2e were mechanically balanced?  By 3e standards, they were not.


----------



## Gothmog (Jan 16, 2008)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I seen this claim that by virtue of being "too integrated" certain kinds of changes are more difficult in 3e of couple of dozen times.  But when it comes to actual examples of an apples to apples comparison, the silence is always deafening.




Ok, I'll take a stab at this, since I wrestled with 3E for years in my low-magic campaign before giving up.

The low-magic game I wanted to run had reduced item availability, armor as DR, class-based defense bonuses, lower magic caps (no weapons over +3 total value), no spells over 6th level, and spellcasters had to make casting rolls to have their magic work, but got more spells per day.  

First, with reduced item availability and lower magic caps, something needed to be done about boosting PC power some.  However, I also wanted to keep the PCs in a somewhat "gritty" campaign, so over-the-top powers were out.  What I ended up doing was changing the feat progression from one feat every three levels, to one feat every two levels.  Sounds simple, right?  Its not.  Suddenly, characters are gaining access to more feats than before, and progressing up feat chains faster.  In addition, I saw some REALLY munchkin twink builds with the extra feats, which ended up making the characters somewhat to significantly more powerful than core D&D characters.  

Now, because the characters were more powerful, it took me a while to figure out how to challenge them.  Normal opponents were mowed over with little or no consequence- humanoids, animals, giants- they were all easy pickings.  The character's were tackling critters routinely with CRs 3 or 4 higher than their level would indicate- so already the balance went wonky.  However, put them up against a creature that had DR or SR, and they got smashed by critters with a CR of 1 or 2 lower than their level.  The exception to this was the power-attacking, weapon focused, combat twinked barbarian- it didn't matter if the critter had DR- he did so much damage with his feat combos, he didn't need any enchanted weapons.

Ok, so now if I want to challenge the party, I have to mess with the creatures and CR system, either throwing more critters at them, advancing the creatures, or adding on new powers and abilities to the creature.  In addtion, any NPC rival I stat up has to use the same expanded feat availability as the PCs have, which made statting them up an even bigger nightmare.

With the armor as DR and class-based defense bonuses, this needed to be done, because in a low magic game BAB will quickly outstrip AC, and people will be auto-hitting on every attack.  Plus, the reduction in healing capabilities means PCs need a way to soak some of the damage.  I don't remember exactly the values we used for DR, but we added class based defense bonus equal to 2 + 1/2 base Reflex save.  No big deal for the PCs- the calculation is done once, and we move on.  But then the DM also has to recalculate the same defense bonuses for each monster and NPC, as well as assign armor DR values, based on the type of armor or natural defenses of each critter.  Another bookkeeping nightmare.

Now restricting magic to 6th level or less wasn't that big of a deal.  It did reduce the kinds of abilities and powers characters had, what was possible to do, and the kinds of items available.  In addition, I made 5th and 6th level spells into rituals, which took anywhere from 10 to 100 times as long to complete as normal spells (barring some of the combat spells at those levels which took double the time).  However, when I come to a creature with an innate spell ability that is 5th level or higher, do I treat it as innate and have the normal casting time?  Or do I treat it as a ritual like a spellcaster would and have it take substantially longer?  After some tinkering, I finally opted on normal casting time for innate abilities, but any spell-like powers gained from "casts spells as an X level sorcerer" entries found in the MM were treated as spellcasters.

Which brings me to the third complication- spellcasting rolls.  I didn't want magic to be a sure fire thing every time, so I instituted casting rolls to make spells work.  While spells could achieve "critical hits" (a 20, followed by making the DC of the spell- basically going off at 2 levels above the caster's and/or causing max damage at the caster's level), spell disasters were also possible (a 1 on the casting die, followed by failing to meet the spell's DC- odd results from annoying to deadly on a d100 table).  After some playing, spell DCs were set at 10 + 2 per spell level.  The caster made a caster level check (level + controlling stat bonus + 2 for each time the Practiced Caster feat was taken), and if he beat the DC of the spell it went off.  Since spellcasting wasn't a sure thing, I gave spellcasters two extra slots of spell levels 1-2, 1 extra of levels 3-4, and no extra 5th or 6th level spells.  We also added a feat, Arcane Channeler, that allowed the caster to add one extra spell per day to his 1st level spells the first time he took it, 1 extra 2nd level spell the 2nd time, and so on, up to 1 extra 4th level spell the 4th time he took the feat.  This worked ok for PC spellcasters- predictably they ended up taking a bunch of feats that made spellcasting an almost virtual certainty, although spell disasters still occurred on average about once per game session.

What became a big pain was trying to balance monster and NPC spellcasters against the PCs.  Now I had to assign DCs to each spell they had, figure out the casting level check, and modify the number of spells per day from what the PHB gave on the standard table.  

Because magic is required in a lot of D&D situations and the skill system is geared towards use with high levels of magic flying around, I also had to go and take that into account.  The core rules assume stat buff items are pretty common, making skill totals on average for the important skills of a given class about +1 to +2 higher- another thing to take into consideration when assigning DCs as given in the PHB.

Because magic is rare, the wealth per level guidelines had to be tossed too, and I had to come up with other suitable rewards for the PCs.  Not a difficult thing to do really, but deviating from the wealth per level guidelines made it much harder to guage how the PCs would do in a fight with supernatural opponents, or ones that needed certain types of weapons or spells to harm them.

The point I'm making is that everyhing in 3E was interconnected to an extreme degree.  3E was built with a very metagamist view- ensuring class, monster, and item balance in under narrowly defined criteria (mostly combat), and deviating from those assumptions meant having to rebuild parts of the system from the ground up.  I have run low-magic games in 1E and 2E, and NEVER ran into these problems- in fact, the systmes of 1E and 2E accomodate low magic AND high magic much better than the assumptions of 3E.  While the degree of interconnectedness means I can anticipate where problems might come up in 3E, it comes down to this:  trying the play the game in 3E my group and I want to play is WAY more work than it is worth, because it causes a domino effect due to the built in assumptions of the system.  My players liked the campaign ok, but agreed it didn't have the same charm or fun of the 2E campaign- and several of them told me directly it was 3E was such a "b*tchy" system to work with.  Doing all that extra work also caused extreme DM burnout for me- simply put, 3E is not robust or flexible enough to handle the needs of my group.



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> 3e is a game that allows the DM to drive with one hand on the steering and the other holding a brewski, windows down, music cranked up. Or at least you can get away with that lackadaisical attitude some of the time. 2e is game you need to keep both hands on the steering wheel and eyes on the road.
> 
> Some DMs drive 3e wildly and end up wrapping their campaign around a tree.
> 
> ...




I have to disagree here- 3E was the system I had to keep both hands on the wheel with and always be thinking in terms of mechanics and system- leaving me less time for storytelling and roleplaying.  Once you factor in changes to the system, 3E is much more termpermental and difficult to handle than 2E was.  As a consequence, my enjoyment of the game was lessened, as was my players.  We have tried 3E by the books, and the built in assumptions the game is built around don't appeal to us.  I'm not judging 3E by a higher standard at all- I'm comparing 2E and 3E, the workload, and the enjoyment my group got out of both systems, and pointing to 2E as the clear winner for us.  While I won't argue that 3E has more unified mechanics, for us they are clearly not superior.  Superior mechanics to me mean I can play the game, not have to worry about referencing the rules or spending hours in statting NPCs, and have more time for the game.

Are there better games out there to fit the playstyle my group and I like?  You betcha.  Simpler to prep and run?  ABSOLUTELY.  Why did we try so long with 3E?  We were all 1E and 2E AD&D fans, and I guess felt some sort of misguided loyalty to D&D.  We eventually realized you can't pound a square peg into a round hole, no matter how much you want to.  I know a lot of people love 3E and the implicit assumptions it presents- and for them its relatively simple to run and play as long as they like a rules-heavy and interconnected system- more power to you.  For us, 3E is clearly a step away from the D&D we knew and loved, so we went back to 2E for our D&D needs.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 16, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> This is the key point that I would like to highlight. This is true in 3e as well, no matter what changes you make to the game. While 3e makes it easier to run a game using the built-in assumptions, I don't see how running a game without these assumptions would be any more difficult in 3e than in any previous edition. I'd be eyeballing challenges against what I know of the party's capabilities instead of relying on guidelines*, which is what I did in 2e, 1e and Basic D&D anyway.




Of course.

A related point is that having built-in assumptions has significant informative value to the DM _even you choose to not use those built-in assumptions_.  An integrated system reacts to change predictably.  The predicted results can inform.

The PCs are weaker than by the book PCs?  Then looking up typical encounters and rewards in the DMG has some small value to the DM -- you know that those answers are too high, powerful, rich for your campaign.

The PCs have "too much" magic?  Look up what is normal and boost the opposition.

Obviously the value of the guidelines declines as you stray further away, and you have to rely more on your own judgment.  But if you were a highly competent 2e DM, relying on your own judgment should not be scary, nor should the need to rely on one's own judgment precipitate declarations that all the mechanics need to be rebuilt from the ground up.


----------



## green slime (Jan 16, 2008)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> The thing called "balance" as some kind of automagic property of the system is 3e-speak.
> 
> You are gulping down the Kool-Aid...while complaining about it at the same time.
> 
> ...




You really should tone down your hype, because its not working as an argument. I completely disagree with your one-handed vs two-handed lopsided analogy.

1e & 2e were far easier (IMO) to wing, prep, & throw together a party for an evening. But then we never used the latter 2e stuff "P&O". 

I find it far harder to have that "laidback" attitude with 3e, primarily because there is always something going to leap up and attack you when you least expect it, especially if you try and tweak the rules, primarily through there being so many effects (feats, spells, skills, classes, PrC) that add various named and unnamed bonuses all over the place. 

Plain vanilla 3e vs plain vanilla 1e/2e (no splat books, no tweaks), I'd say it is far easier to learn 3e (coherent, integrated rules vs sprawled, adhoc rules). But I'd also say 3e is far harder to master (run all levels of game competently, with ease). Just see all the threads concerning prep time, and DM work load. While you may not experience those problems for whatever reasons, it is perfectly obvious that many other people do.


----------



## SSquirrel (Jan 16, 2008)

I miss things like specialty priests, fun and interesting kits like the Battlerager (making a comeback in 4E yay!), and as someone else mentioned, the freetime to enjoy it all.  I will never miss the 2WE skill system, dual class rules, level limits, etc etc.  I always hated that my Rogue had a 16 dex and was trying to do X skill, but a cleric who happened to also have a 16 dex was just as good.  Yet it was a skill that is far more typical of my line of work than his.  There wasn't much in the way of improvement for skills, now there is.  I don't mind divying out a few points.  Heck RPGA is point based chargen for stats 

Earlier editions of magic item creation dint' make sense b/c you were never really told how to do it.  If a DM really didn't want you having magic items, you just didn't.  Typically this should mean the DM won't throw things immune to the gear you have at you, but this doesn't stop a lot of folks heh. Someone mentioned that 3E would mean there were loads of low level items lying around.  Of course there are, haven't you read thru old adventures?  +1 swords and ring of prot +1 around every corner w/an occasional Wind Fan!  Low level magic items should be just that, thus you can make them at LOW LEVEL   A mighty wizard would take the time to quest for parts to make a titanic artifact of doom, not blow his wad making a shiny +2 sword, which gets left w/a bunch of orcs in a dungeon.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 16, 2008)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> The low-magic game I wanted to run had reduced item availability, armor as DR, class-based defense bonuses, lower magic caps (no weapons over +3 total value), no spells over 6th level, and spellcasters had to make casting rolls to have their magic work, but got more spells per day.



Let me turn the question round slightly. How would you have done this in 2e?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 16, 2008)

Gothmog,

I am grateful that you took the time for such a detailed response.  Thank you.

Of course you had to keep both hands on the wheel.  You slayed a number of sacred cows there!  Furthermore, many of them would inevitably tend to add complexity, regardless of which edition you are running.

I am a little confused why it was necessary to both boost the PCs and boost the monsters.  Don't both those changes tend to cancel out in the long run, while heaping up work for the DM?  Since you world was gritty, I would have toned the power of monsters down.  That is always easier to do, and would probably be a temporary things for lower levels.

I suspect it would have served you well to simplify or remove mechanics, e.g. reduce the number of feats instead of the opposite.  That dings fighter-types somewhat (as does low magic), but your changes to spellcasting could have compensated adequately, if they had been tuned to do so.

DR and SR could plausibly be ignored, and is overused in all game editions IMO (but that is a bit of a pet peeve).

The main issue that would have remained would have been the power of the monsters.  But as Firelance pointed out, if you are blazing a trail you always have to keep you eye on concrete abilities.  Isn't that true about all editions?

If I might be so bold as to offer general advice, it would better to focus on general _goals_ rather than specific _mechanics_ when making changes.  Choose mechanics with the amount of fiddliness that suits your personal style.

"I want a gritty world" is a goal.  Lowering the amount of magic is the obvious first thing to try, but it is only one of many possible solutions.  "Make magic less predictable" is a goal.  Adding a die roll is a mechanic.  Lowering PC stats and trimming the spell list in the PHB might have accomplished a similar net result with a simpler than core ruleset.

While I have personally always loved armor as DR in game systems, I also have come to recognize the wisdom of Gygax original decision to not do so.  DR is an added complexity, and therefore always a hazardous choice.

In a nutshell, I think 3e may have already been slightly rules heavy for you in some respects, and you added houserules that increased this burden.  You might have been able to simplify in some places and gotten a similar feel, at lower cost.

[edited to make easier to read]


----------



## Imp (Jan 16, 2008)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> remove magic weapons without worrying about monsters immune to non-magical weapons



Why does this always come up in these discussions? It's the easiest thing to work around:

"Oh dear. My PCs have no magic weapons, and they've come up against something that requires a +1 or better weapon to hit. Whatever shall I do? I know! Perhaps I will simply ignore that requirement. Yay! Encounter saved."

And if it's something like a ghost where letting normal weapons affect it just seems silly,  you can just change the requirement to "blessed" weapons or whatever seems appropriate.

In 3E, though, you also have monster BAB, damage, reach, etc. that can sneak up on you. It's that you have to worry about, not the nice big red flags waving at you from the statblocks.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 16, 2008)

green slime said:
			
		

> You really should tone down your hype, because its not working as an argument.




Fair enough.  I, too, am finding the extreme hype not convincing.



> Plain vanilla 3e vs plain vanilla 1e/2e (no splat books, no tweaks), I'd say it is far easier to learn 3e (coherent, integrated rules vs sprawled, adhoc rules). But I'd also say 3e is far harder to master (run all levels of game competently, with ease). Just see all the threads concerning prep time, and DM work load. While you may not experience those problems for whatever reasons, it is perfectly obvious that many other people do.




A reasonable point that I do not feel the need to agree or disagree with.  Many feel this way, and a number appear to have some good reasons.

If for the sake of argument I concede your point, there is no logical connection to the hyperbole of needing to rebuild entire game systems because of modest changes, due to the curse of integrated mechanics.

My main bone to pick is that I believe the Curse of Integration is not merely over hyped, but mythical.

Perhaps 3e is a bit rules heavier than 2e, and people are confounding those issues?  By some measures the 3e mechanics are heavier.  By some other measures, not.  Does not your post hint as much?


----------



## FireLance (Jan 16, 2008)

To be fair, I'll answer the question I just posed myself.


> First, with reduced item availability and lower magic caps, something needed to be done about boosting PC power some.  However, I also wanted to keep the PCs in a somewhat "gritty" campaign, so over-the-top powers were out.  What I ended up doing was changing the feat progression from one feat every three levels, to one feat every two levels.  Sounds simple, right?  Its not.  Suddenly, characters are gaining access to more feats than before, and progressing up feat chains faster.  In addition, I saw some REALLY munchkin twink builds with the extra feats, which ended up making the characters somewhat to significantly more powerful than core D&D characters.



First question: why would you want to boost PC power? If I was DMing such a game in 2e, I'd just scale back on treasure and make no other changes. Why not do the same in 3e?  


> Now, because the characters were more powerful, it took me a while to figure out how to challenge them.  Normal opponents were mowed over with little or no consequence- humanoids, animals, giants- they were all easy pickings.  The character's were tackling critters routinely with CRs 3 or 4 higher than their level would indicate- so already the balance went wonky.  However, put them up against a creature that had DR or SR, and they got smashed by critters with a CR of 1 or 2 lower than their level.  The exception to this was the power-attacking, weapon focused, combat twinked barbarian- it didn't matter if the critter had DR- he did so much damage with his feat combos, he didn't need any enchanted weapons.
> 
> Ok, so now if I want to challenge the party, I have to mess with the creatures and CR system, either throwing more critters at them, advancing the creatures, or adding on new powers and abilities to the creature.  In addtion, any NPC rival I stat up has to use the same expanded feat availability as the PCs have, which made statting them up an even bigger nightmare.



If I was running a 2e game, I'd expect the characters to be less powerful, so I'd be looking at challenges on the lower end of the danger scale. Since I don't have CR to guide me in 2e, I'd just be flipping through the monster manual looking for appropriate challenges. If I'd made changes to the core rules to compensate, say by giving everyone a free psionic power, and ended up with a party more powerful than normal, I'd be doing the same, except that I'd be looking at challenges on the higher end of the danger scale. Again, not very different from what I'd be doing in 3e.


> With the armor as DR and class-based defense bonuses, this needed to be done, because in a low magic game BAB will quickly outstrip AC, and people will be auto-hitting on every attack.  Plus, the reduction in healing capabilities means PCs need a way to soak some of the damage.  I don't remember exactly the values we used for DR, but we added class based defense bonus equal to 2 + 1/2 base Reflex save.  No big deal for the PCs- the calculation is done once, and we move on.  But then the DM also has to recalculate the same defense bonuses for each monster and NPC, as well as assign armor DR values, based on the type of armor or natural defenses of each critter.  Another bookkeeping nightmare.



If I wanted to introduce armor as DR in 2e, I'd pretty much have to do the same. In fact, there might be even more guesswork on my part since monster AC isn't nicely split into armor, Dex, natural armor, deflection, etc. in 2e.


> Which brings me to the third complication- spellcasting rolls.  I didn't want magic to be a sure fire thing every time, so I instituted casting rolls to make spells work.  While spells could achieve "critical hits" (a 20, followed by making the DC of the spell- basically going off at 2 levels above the caster's and/or causing max damage at the caster's level), spell disasters were also possible (a 1 on the casting die, followed by failing to meet the spell's DC- odd results from annoying to deadly on a d100 table).  After some playing, spell DCs were set at 10 + 2 per spell level.  The caster made a caster level check (level + controlling stat bonus + 2 for each time the Practiced Caster feat was taken), and if he beat the DC of the spell it went off.  Since spellcasting wasn't a sure thing, I gave spellcasters two extra slots of spell levels 1-2, 1 extra of levels 3-4, and no extra 5th or 6th level spells.  We also added a feat, Arcane Channeler, that allowed the caster to add one extra spell per day to his 1st level spells the first time he took it, 1 extra 2nd level spell the 2nd time, and so on, up to 1 extra 4th level spell the 4th time he took the feat.  This worked ok for PC spellcasters- predictably they ended up taking a bunch of feats that made spellcasting an almost virtual certainty, although spell disasters still occurred on average about once per game session.
> 
> What became a big pain was trying to balance monster and NPC spellcasters against the PCs.  Now I had to assign DCs to each spell they had, figure out the casting level check, and modify the number of spells per day from what the PHB gave on the standard table.



I guess setting DCs might be easier in 2e because saving throws were a function of the defender's class and level, and were seldom influenced by the spellcaster. However, everything else - casters rolling to determine the effectiveness of their spells, changing spells per day, and rebalancing them to the right level of challenge, would still need to be done in 2e.  


> Because magic is required in a lot of D&D situations and the skill system is geared towards use with high levels of magic flying around, I also had to go and take that into account.  The core rules assume stat buff items are pretty common, making skill totals on average for the important skills of a given class about +1 to +2 higher- another thing to take into consideration when assigning DCs as given in the PHB.



This is probably another area that would be easier to modify in 2e, because NWPs and thief skills were less influenced by magic than 3e skills. 


> Because magic is rare, the wealth per level guidelines had to be tossed too, and I had to come up with other suitable rewards for the PCs.  Not a difficult thing to do really, but deviating from the wealth per level guidelines made it much harder to guage how the PCs would do in a fight with supernatural opponents, or ones that needed certain types of weapons or spells to harm them.



Since wealth per level guidelines were not present in 2e either, you'd be doing the same amount of eyeballing to determine what opponents are a suitable challenge for the PCs. And regardless of wealth by level guidelines, you still need to come up with suitable rewards.


> The point I'm making is that everyhing in 3E was interconnected to an extreme degree.  3E was built with a very metagamist view- ensuring class, monster, and item balance in under narrowly defined criteria (mostly combat), and deviating from those assumptions meant having to rebuild parts of the system from the ground up.



Not much more so than in 2e, though, if you intend to make similar changes to your 2e game.


> I have run low-magic games in 1E and 2E, and NEVER ran into these problems- in fact, the systmes of 1E and 2E accomodate low magic AND high magic much better than the assumptions of 3E.



Having DMed 1e, 2e and 3e, I half suspect it is because we were used to doing all the eyeballing all the time in 1e and 2e, so the amount of work we needed to do was about the same no matter what changes we made to the rules. DMing 3e using the standard assumptions requires less eyeballing, so when we make changes to the standard assumptions and need to eyeball as much as we needed to do in 1e and 2e, it feels like extra work.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 16, 2008)

green slime said:
			
		

> 1e & 2e were far easier (IMO) to wing, prep, & throw together a party for an evening. But then we never used the latter 2e stuff "P&O".




That raises an important point I would like to mention.

To be fair, if one were to complain about the stack of 3e splatbooks, would not it be logical to compare to a 2e campaign with a stack of P&O books?  (I am not referring to you, in particular.)

I am getting the very strong impression that many are complaining about rules bloat while using a very skew context.

Flipping through 6 different books to generate a PC is not for the faint of heart, regardless of the RPG system.


----------



## green slime (Jan 16, 2008)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> If for the sake of argument I concede your point, there is no logical connection to the hyperbole of needing to rebuild entire game systems because of modest changes, due to the curse of integrated mechanics.
> 
> My main bone to pick is that I believe the Curse of Integration is not merely over hyped, but mythical.
> 
> Perhaps 3e is a bit rules heavier than 2e, and people are confounding those issues?  By some measures the 3e mechanics are heavier.  By some other measures, not.  Does not your post hint as much?




Yes. Thank you for your most reasonable and measured response to my post. Now I can comfortably go back to lurking. 

My major bone of contention is with the mythical mirage of in-game "balance". It never exists in any RPG, isn't necessary nor even desireable. Its sole raison d'etre is to stroke player ego (or rather, deflect feelings of inadequecy). Which sort of says more about the players than the game. 

Of course, if I may speculate a little here, as 4e "progresses forward" (in the interests of "balance") by making martial characters more wizard-like (limited spectacular special effects!), and spellcasters more fighter-like (at will combat abilities), it runs the risk of making a bland mix, where choice of class really matters very little... This can of course be seen as either a good or a bad thing, depending on your perspective.


----------



## green slime (Jan 16, 2008)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> That raises an important point I would like to mention.
> 
> To be fair, if one were to complain about the stack of 3e splatbooks, would not it be logical to compare to a 2e campaign with a stack of P&O books?  (I am not referring to you, in particular.)
> 
> ...




Probably. I was never into the P&O books, but even without them, there was all the class books, race books, rules for various settings we handled for 2e... so yes, it could be daunting to create a new character with those options. Still, because the options (mostly kits, & equipment) were more strongly tied to the primary selection of class-race, rather than todays "concept" with PrC's, feat selection, skill prerequisites, feat prerequisites, it is a more lengthy process than what I at least remember. Another issue is increasing age (read "senility") combined with less time to "peruse", means it is harder to recall exactly what in which book.

That said, I enjoy gaming (DM or player) in 'most any system, so don't interpret my postings to be system bashing of any kind.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 16, 2008)

green slime said:
			
		

> My major bone of contention is with the mythical mirage of in-game "balance". It never exists in any RPG, isn't necessary nor even desireable. Its sole raison d'etre is to stroke player ego (or rather, deflect feelings of inadequecy). Which sort of says more about the players than the game.




Using "mythical" here seems rather too strong.

It is more than reasonable to challenge whether a very strong concept of balance is genuinely desirable.  It is certainly not always a necessity.

My personal opinion is that a good degree of balanced design is practically always desirable in professional RPG rules.  Unless I am specifically buying for the fluff, I am usually not willing to pay good money for neat ideas that probably need a lot of polishing.

I also believe balance, even if imperfect, is a usually good starting point regardless of your end goal.  Whether that is a good ending point is a matter of personal preference.


----------



## green slime (Jan 16, 2008)

The best thing for me with the upgrade to 3e was the greater character flexibility afforded through feats, & skills, and the sensible save categories (so much more simple!). And, I'll grudingly admit, a d20 roll-high-is-always-good. (but the last one hurts to admit!)

The worst thing for me about 3e; that magical spells, items and effects added numerical bonuses everywhere. Cool in the beginning, it quickly got out of hand as the levels piled on, complicating DM load and player memory during combat. Combined with the fact that actual skill knowledge becomes virtually pointless at mid to high level, due to spells and magical items. 

To be fair this problem with skills was existant even in earlier editions of the game, it was just far less apparent, as the DM had greater control over magical items. The players were far less likely to assemble their own "perfect suite", and the skill improving items went to those who needed them, rather than those who could afford them (a very important distinction).


----------



## green slime (Jan 16, 2008)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I also believe balance, even if imperfect, is a usually good starting point regardless of your end goal.  Whether that is a good ending point is a matter of personal preference.




Ok, 1 point to you!

I think it is probably more important to achieve a modicum of balance between similar roles/archetypes than disparate ones. If only to give the choice of exact class meaning.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 16, 2008)

green slime said:
			
		

> To be fair this problem with skills was existant even in earlier editions of the game, it was just far less apparent, as the DM had greater control over magical items.



Greater than absolute? Wow.


----------



## green slime (Jan 16, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Greater than absolute? Wow.




*sigh* As well you might be...

Let me explain something, in simple terms.

Entering the game, players have certain expectations. These may not be firmly adjusted to the reality of that particular DM's world, but they are there nonetheless.

Entering a 2e game, playing by the book, the players cannot assume that there is any magical item their character can create, without first consulting the DM at length.

Entering a 3e game, playing by the RAW, a player may well expect their character to be able to create magical items of all sorts described in the DMG, given enough time, if his character has taken the correct feats. 

Of course, the DM can veto, blackmail, steal, railroad, refuse downtime, and be generally obtuse, whatever. Regardless of how much of a rat bastard DM the DM is, you cannot deny that there is a fundamental shift in player expectation between 2e and 3e in this regard.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 16, 2008)

green slime said:
			
		

> *sigh* As well you might be...



Cool, whatever.

Using 3e, the DM has absolute control over that aspect of the RPG when it is being used. And over many others, but that's perhaps besides the point.

So it is in fact impossible for DMs to have (or to have had) any degree of control greater than that. Simple, really.


----------



## green slime (Jan 16, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Cool, whatever.
> 
> Using 3e, the DM has absolute control over that aspect of the RPG when it is being used. And over many others, but that's perhaps besides the point.
> 
> So it is in fact impossible for DMs to have (or to have had) any degree of control greater than that. Simple, really.




Are you denying the fact that DM's are people and are subject to all the failities and weaknesses of humans? Peer acceptance, peer pressure, wanting to be accepted, and the actual fact that players may get up and leave? Cool, whatever.

The game, when played, is actually far bigger than that which is contained within the books. It includes social expectations and interactions between people far beyond mere "item acquisition".


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 16, 2008)

green slime said:
			
		

> Are you denying the fact that DM's are people and are subject to all the failities and weaknesses of humans? Peer acceptance, peer pressure, wanting to be accepted, and the actual fact that players may get up and leave? Cool, whatever.
> 
> The game, when played, is actually far bigger than that which is contained within the books. It includes social expectations and interactions between people far beyond mere "item acquisition".



No, I wasn't denying any of that. I kind of figured those basics of life in general wouldn't need to be mentioned in this (or any other) context. My mistake.

I am also fully aware that 'the game, when played, is actually far bigger than that which is contained within the books' and so forth. Again, that is so obvious, it needn't be said. I would hope.


----------



## green slime (Jan 16, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> No, I wasn't denying any of that. I kind of figured those basics of life in general wouldn't need to be mentioned in this (or any other) context. My mistake.
> 
> I am also fully aware that 'the game, when played, is actually far bigger than that which is contained within the books' and so forth. Again, that is so obvious, it needn't be said. I would hope.




Then why the equally "obvious" remark regarding a DM's "absolute" power? Apparently, its "obvious", it wasn't so "absolute",....


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 16, 2008)

green slime said:
			
		

> Then why the equally "obvious" remark regarding a DM's "absolute" power? Apparently, its "obvious", it wasn't so "absolute",....



The absolute power is there. That does not mean the DM should always wield it asbolutely, or consistently in only one way, etc.

But yeah, it's there. Nothing about 3e forbids any of that. Nothing about 2e (for instance) grants or increases any of that.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 16, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> But yeah, it's there. Nothing about 3e forbids any of that. Nothing about 2e (for instance) grants or increases any of that.




But yet, in the context of the original question, there it is: system based support for player created magic items in 3E vs no such thing in 2E.  In 3E, a DM wanting to preserve the integrity of his "magic item economy" by not allowing PCs to make items is specifically saying "No."  Previously, he is at best maintaining the status quo.  And if you don't find it more difficult, time consuming and problematic to say "no" and explain why "no" is the right answer, either your players are far more compliant than any I have ever met before or you are cold hearted bastich.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 16, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> And if you don't find it more difficult, time consuming and problematic to say "no" and explain why "no" is the right answer, either your players are far more compliant than any I have ever met before or you are cold hearted bastich.



They are apparently quite _mature_, in the scheme of things. _Compliant_, though? Ick. :\


----------



## Reynard (Jan 16, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> They are apparently quite _mature_, in the scheme of things. _Compliant_, though? Ick. :\




That too.


----------



## green slime (Jan 16, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> The absolute power is there. That does not mean the DM should always wield it asbolutely, or consistently in only one way, etc.




No it isn't. The power wielded by the DM is only there by consensus of the players, and, therefore, not absolute. The DM doesn't exist in a vaccuum. Playing a RPG by yourself seems pretty pointless...


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 16, 2008)

*wealth by level in 2E*

Hmmm

Um, not to stoke more flames but there _WAS_ a default wealth by level in the 2E PHB. At least for the fighter class.

Look closely at the fighter followers. 

At 9th level, a fighter automatically gained followers and you rolled on a table for the leader. The leader of those bodyguards was himself a fighter but just of a lower level and said fighter HAD magic items.

5th level fighter, plate mail and shield, battle axe +2
6th level fighter, plate mail and shield +1, spear +1, dagger+1
6th level fighter, plate mail +1, shield, spear +1, dagger +1 plus 3rd level fighter with splint mail, shield, _crossbow of distance_
7th level fighter, plate mail +1, shield +1, broadsword +2, heavy war horse with horseshoes of speed.

We always assumed this was the default for the minimum of what a fighter of a certain level had in permanent magic items and thus everybody in the party by a certain level had the equivalents (the wizard didn't have the magic weapons and armour but would have bracers and maybe a magical staff/wand)


----------



## WayneLigon (Jan 16, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Previously, he is at best maintaining the status quo.  And if you don't find it more difficult, time consuming and problematic to say "no" and explain why "no" is the right answer, either your players are far more compliant than any I have ever met before or you are cold hearted bastich.




If you're not meeting players that can understand reasoned, logical arguements as to why you want to construct your game in a certain way then you need to teach them why you do things the way you do OR find new players. If you explain in clear simple language what it is you wish to achieve with doing X, Y or Z that changes the basic rules or implied assumptions of the game, they should be able to see reason. If not, make them see reason. 

Say 'no' and _back it up_. Say something like 'I feel that the magic item assumptions for 3E are out of line with the type and style of campaign I want to run. I realize that some areas of the game might take the assumption into account when creating CRs and I want you to know that I've taken a look at those areas and am aware of them; adjustments have been made where needed. The tone and style of the game is such that I want your own personal abilities to save the day, not your toys. I want the game to echo the moer classic fantasy of [give examples]. To this end, here are the guidelines I'm going by when I devise treasure etc etc etc'.

They may simply think you want to keep them from getting cool stuff through some perverse pleasure in denial; I've met lots of DMs that did indeed get pleasure from screwing over their players, as if it was an 'us vs them' game.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 16, 2008)

green slime said:
			
		

> No it isn't. The power wielded by the DM is only there by consensus of the players, and, therefore, not absolute. The DM doesn't exist in a vaccuum. Playing a RPG by yourself seems pretty pointless...



Hm. Somewhere along the line, something got lost in translation. Not sure what, or how. Or when, even.

Maybe I haven't been very clear about something or other. If so, sorry. It wasn't a deliberate attempt to confuse anything, or anyone. Not even myself! 

Anyway, I think I've said all I can - and perhaps should (?) - on that specific topic. So, if it's okay with you, I'll just bow out of it.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 16, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> We always assumed this was the default for the minimum of what a fighter of a certain level had in permanent magic items and thus everybody in the party by a certain level had the equivalents (the wizard didn't have the magic weapons and armour but would have bracers and maybe a magical staff/wand)




It isn't a bad assumption and certainly makes sense to extrapolate, but that's a far cry from a chart that says "A character if X level needs Y gp in items to _*really*_ be that level for CR purposes."


----------



## Voadam (Jan 16, 2008)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> As sort of a side note, 2nd edition did indeed have metamagic, which was a precursor to 3e metamagic.  I believe it was in the _Tome of Magic_.



1e had metamagic spells in the PH, Extension I, II, and III for example. 
2e had metamagic spells in the PH as well. Wu Jen from the Complete Wizard's Handbook could do a maximize damage effect 1/day. It was College of Wizardry at the end of 2e that introduced nonweapon proficiencies that acted like metamagic feats though. Tome of Magic had new spells, items, and the new casters but not really metamagic feat stuff that I recall.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 16, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Cool, whatever.
> 
> Using 3e, the DM has absolute control over that aspect of the RPG when it is being used. And over many others, but that's perhaps besides the point.
> 
> So it is in fact impossible for DMs to have (or to have had) any degree of control greater than that. Simple, really.




Rule Zero has always been part of the game. But the default game item creation rules are different from 2e to 3e.

In 2e by the book players could only create magic items at high levels after going through significant hoops that are under the discretionary control of the DM.

In 3e by the book players can create items at first level (wizards get scribe scroll as a class ability at level 1 and it is not tough to accomplish) with set procedures not dependent on DM discretionary control.


----------



## SuStel (Jan 16, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> In either case, pretending that in 2e you could simply strip away weapons and not have an effect on balance is illusory, because there was no such plainly published standard of balance. It's all on the GM feeling out what the right level of power is to face the PCs.




I've only been half-paying attention to this topic, so forgive me if this has been mentioned or is behind the current tangent.

In the classic style, isn't it up to the _players_ to decide the strength of the opposition they face? "We're only 1st level characters; maybe we shouldn't go down that shaft to the 5th dungeon level." "We're only 1st level characters; maybe we shouldn't try to trek across the Swamp of Inevitable Bloody Death."

The only value I see in the referee being able to scale encounter strength to the party is if he's planning on railroading the party through those encounters in a precise order. "Today you'll be fighting the Evil Overlord of Antebavaria. But don't worry; I guarantee you have enough resources to defeat him."


----------



## Spell (Jan 16, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> I'd suggest you can.




you know, i think i would like being a player in one of your games.


----------



## Spell (Jan 16, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> True.  But then, "balance" wasn't as big an issue because the power level was lower and the increases were much smaller from level to level and (perhaps most importantly) how aewsome a character was in combat was not the sole defining factor of a character's "usefulness".




also, if i may add, you wouldn't have to worry about everyone wanting to take "just a level or two" in uberclass of the week. you could have a class that was way out of balance: it would have take a player three times as much to get from level 1 to level 2, but, hey, if that's what he likes...


----------



## Spell (Jan 16, 2008)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I would like sometime to play this marvelous game called "2e"
> 
> [...]
> 
> Alas, I only have years of experience with TSR's Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition, where none of those things were true by the remotest stretch of the imagination.




unfortunately for you, you didn't sit at my gaming table.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 16, 2008)

SuStel said:
			
		

> In the classic style, isn't it up to the _players_ to decide the strength of the opposition they face? "We're only 1st level characters; maybe we shouldn't go down that shaft to the 5th dungeon level." "We're only 1st level characters; maybe we shouldn't try to trek across the Swamp of Inevitable Bloody Death."
> 
> The only value I see in the referee being able to scale encounter strength to the party is if he's planning on railroading the party through those encounters in a precise order. "Today you'll be fighting the Evil Overlord of Antebavaria. But don't worry; I guarantee you have enough resources to defeat him."




Yes and no. The DM was still doing the adventure design (or using modules targeted to the levels of the PCs) based on what he thought would be appropriate challenges for the party or he was pointing them/hooking them with plot elements directed toward the adventures he had available that were level appropriate. 
If it was a big, long dungeon crawl with multiple levels, then he could leave it up to the party when they felt capable of finding more dangerous areas. But he was still putting in challenges designed for what the party's level was when they started the adventure. If he didn't, he'd have a TPK very quickly.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 16, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> It isn't a bad assumption and certainly makes sense to extrapolate, but that's a far cry from a chart that says "A character if X level needs Y gp in items to _*really*_ be that level for CR purposes."




Hmm? Isn't this a point in FAVOUR of the 3E method?

I mean, if you're a DM, at what level does a Balor become a good challenge for your party? In 1E/2E, you had to eyeball it based on what level of gear your party currently had and their level and you wouldn't know unless you actually ran a mock combat. In 3E, at least given what the designers think  would be appropriate challenge based on gear & level, you know what needs to be tweaked if your party has more or less magical items for their level.

What level does the hammer of thunderbolts become a "neat but balanced weapon" instead of "oh geez, one shot combat".

Even in 1E/2E, magical items, especially for the melee classes was very important and was tied to level. Hit any level 7+ party in 2E with Mord's Disjunction and the higher the inital level they were, the more levels they fell in capability.

As an aside, I always suspected that the reason why the 2E xp for outer planar inhabitants were lower than the 1E xp was because Gygax et al were working on a different assumption as to what the gear people were carrying.

re: Tome of Magic
Tome of Magic was the stealth 4th core book in 2E. Tome of Magic introduced new spheres (numbers, time and thought among others) and new CLERIC/DRUID spells that beefed up the spell selection for the priest classes. It was this which allowed Faith & Avatars along with Spells & Magic to come up with the specialty priests. Seriously, the Complete Priest's handbook which first came out with the specialty priests nobody uses because of how horribly weak the sample SP were.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 16, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> But yet, in the context of the original question, there it is: system based support for player created magic items in 3E vs no such thing in 2E.  In 3E, a DM wanting to preserve the integrity of his "magic item economy" by not allowing PCs to make items is specifically saying "No."  Previously, he is at best maintaining the status quo.  And if you don't find it more difficult, time consuming and problematic to say "no" and explain why "no" is the right answer, either your players are far more compliant than any I have ever met before or you are cold hearted bastich.




This here looks like a glass half empty, glass half full kind of issue.

The is no such thing as "magic item economy" in 2e out of the box.  The DM must make it up out of whole cloth.  Unless he is running an extremely magic poor world, this will eventually become a necessity.  

3e does have an implied magic item economy out of the box.  It works okay for some DMs and less so for others.

Whether it is better to start with a blank slate or to amend an existing structure is a matter of personal preference.  I am rather doubtful that the blank slate is a better starting point for most DMs, but I trust you understand your own needs here.

Regardless of what RPG or RPG edition you are playing, if the GM fails to communicate expectations & reasons, and the game runs very differently from what the players anticipated, you are likely to get some degree of grousing.

Where I have seen some grumbling is with a DM who insisted that he was running wealth by guideline campaign when asked, but was actually closer to ~65%.  Not truly a huge difference, but enough to annoy players when they were explicitly told otherwise.  From my POV, I am more than willing to do my part to adjust to the campaign if I can understand what to expect.  There are some PC concepts I would be less likely to play -- that is all.  This does not need to be a big deal.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 16, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I don't know how pervasive it truly is, but on this and other gaming messageboards there's a prominent culture of anti-GM-ism, where its adherents automatically assume a GM is going to abuse any authority the rules grant him to screw over the players and laugh maniacly into his viking hat.  I've only ever met a few GMs like that, and not a one of them had a regular group (and for good reason).  it is far more common for a GM to get kicked to the curb than a troublesome, whining ruleslawyer of a player, IME.





I think a lot of it has to do with players having more influence over their character design. In previous editions, you got what magic items were rolled, and the useless ones were still worthless. Your Frost Warrior themed guy would have a Flametongue simply because the DM never rolled a Frostbrand in the right weapon you wanted. Sure he could ignore rolls and pick stuff, but then it becomes another bargaining process. In 3e, you could commision/ purchase the sword you wanted.

I think Magic Items in 3e have become a commodity because DM's have taken the lazy approach of simply throwing treasure at the players and letting them sort it out through purchase/ trading. If the rewards were more customized to the players, the players wouldn't ditch the stuff.

In addition, in previous editions it was impossible to enhance a favorite object, thus leading to discarding of heritage weapons in favor of newer & better gear. In 3e, finally, you can increase your favorite sword that you inherited from dear old dad, rather than be penalized for wanting it.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 16, 2008)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> #1 The interconnectedness of everything in 3E- feats, skills, magic items, assumed power levels, monster CR ratings, experience gain for challenges, etc- the list is endless.  Basically, its very hard to houserule 3E without impacting some aspect of the core rules which has been codified and "balanced".





The answer to this is very simple. If previous editions weren't balanced anyway, there's no loss in unbalancing 3e by randomly removing stuff to suit your mood. Previous editions didn't have the player recommended gp value for level, so if you made a higher level PC, you just winged it.

Well, screw it, remove the guidelines and wing it again.

2e just had a flat skill system with no increments worthy of the name, so why worry about the repurcussions of removing skills? Just remove them and assign skills at first level equal to the number of points (minus the X4) the class gets. The never improve. There, now you have 2e...


----------



## Wiseblood (Jan 16, 2008)

I would say I like the attack bonus + d20 = ac you hit. The downside being you have no less than three different armor classes. Adding to the fact that there are dozens of modifiers to attack rolls that are frequently changing. This is mystifying. Why creat a simpler system only to re-complicate it?

Saving throws each version has its good points. Hard to metagame in 2e the weak saves for a guy vs the somewhat unpleasant prioritizing of saves.

Skills in 2e were crappy and in 3e they were crappy and upkeep laden. I'd go for 3e's version more if they had actually consolidated the hangers on. balance/tumble/jumping, open lock/ disable device.

Other than that 3e had one thing I have always detested. Crit/sneak attack immune
creatures and their half step limitations. (Can't cast conjuration? Well, just take shadow conjuration. Why give the limitation when you give a detour around it?)


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 16, 2008)

Evilhalfling said:
			
		

> One of my first thoughts looking at the 3e PhB was that being able to make wonderous items at 3rd and arms and armour at 4th ment that everyone and thier dog should have large numbers of weak items.  Also that since rings were only possible from 12th level casters, they should be as rare as presented by tolkien:
> 1+3+7+9, only twenty rings on a contient? that seemed about right.




There were more magic rings than that, they just weren't addressed in the narrative. (Except for the offhand "there are many rings, none to be trifled with" or whatnot.)

I think part of the problem is the concept of what a magic item is. Was LotR magic light? Perhaps. Or perhaps items that would be considered "magical" in D&D 3e are simply mundane in LotR. "Everyone has stat boosters", sure, but perhaps a lucky charm, or excellent boots give a bonus without screaming "magical power".

A NPC blacksmith might have a hammer of forging that gives him a bonus to Craft, or an anvil of the same. Perhaps his apron of gnomish make is actually an Apron of Fire Resistance 5 that keeps him from getting burned...

All of which is a flavor concession, not a rules one.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 16, 2008)

Wiseblood said:
			
		

> Saving throws each version has its good points. Hard to metagame in 2e the weak saves for a guy vs the somewhat unpleasant prioritizing of saves.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




3e saves are very different from 2e.  IME middling level 2e PCs and NPCs save successfully 75+% of the time.  In 3e you are likely to see similar results for in the strong saves, but many more failures in the weak saves (unless you choose to spend significant resources to rectify the problem).

This was a fundamental design change, done on purpose.  3e combat is faster.  Spells needs to be more likely to be be fully effective because the spellcasters see fewer Actions.  Whether/how this change is a good or bad thing is a separate point.

Your last few points would be variants of annoying sacred cows that have outworn their welcome -- not an edition specific issue.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 16, 2008)

LotR gives a very distorted first impression of Middle Earth.  You must read the Silmarillion and read between the lines of LotR to see the full picture.

As for the rings, the sole reason the One Ring was not instantly identified was precisely because it gave the impression of being one of numerous minor rings that were not worth much thought to a real wizard like Gandalf.

This is what Gandalf was thinking: "Oh, Bilbo has a Ring of Invisibility worth 20,000 gp market value according to the DMG.  What a cute little trinket.  I am glad it amuses him."  

I am exaggerating obviously, but this is not a low magic world.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Jan 16, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> For instance, the Non-Weapon Profiency system of 2E has some simple appeal over 3E's skill systm. In 2E you just take a proficiency and are done with it; your character knows that. How good he is at it depends on level and roleplaying, you don't have to do extensive number crunching every level. 3E's skill system though, can be a nightmare. Especially when making high level pc's.





 2nd editions NWPs were NOT rated to  character level they were rated to an ability score.  

I really don't miss anyhting in 2nd edition rules that is unique to second edtion except for the rules in the DMG for spicing up horses.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 16, 2008)

Wiseblood said:
			
		

> I would say I like the attack bonus + d20 = ac you hit. The downside being you have no less than three different armor classes. Adding to the fact that there are dozens of modifiers to attack rolls that are frequently changing. This is mystifying. Why creat a simpler system only to re-complicate it?




Except that the other systems were mighty complicated as well AND had THAC0 in the mix. Many of the modifiers for combat are the same as in 1e and 2e, though 3E did take the time to define standard conditions for characters to be in rather than have those defined ad hoc by the effect that produced them. 1e and 2e had various other ACs as well, including shieldless and Dex-less.

It is true that spells added more bonuses, particularly on the defensive side.  They wanted to improve the suite of buffing spells to be something more than just bless, chant, and prayer (all of which were in 1e and 2e and stacked as well as had substantially different durations).


----------



## Reynard (Jan 17, 2008)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> 3e saves are very different from 2e.  IME middling level 2e PCs and NPCs save successfully 75+% of the time.  In 3e you are likely to see similar results for in the strong saves, but many more failures in the weak saves (unless you choose to spend significant resources to rectify the problem).




One of the primary differences between 1e/2e and 3e is that in 1e/2e, how terrifying a magical or monstrous effect was depends entirely on you, the target, not the creature or effect doing it.  Spells or monstrous powers required a saving throw, which was based on your class, level, (maybe) race and stats -- with a few exceptions, the numbers were not modified by who was doing it.  In 3e, it is just the opposite -- the difficulty of the saving throw is based largely on who or what is forcing the save.  of course, class and level and stats have an effect on the liklihood of saving, but they are no longer the sole determiners of succes.

In a world where most everyone was a "Normal Man", 1e/2e saves make for a grittier world where ghouls and shadows and the like are truly frightening to the typical inhabitants -- the PCs, the rare folk with the wherewithall to resist these accursed powers, were needed.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 17, 2008)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> The thing called "balance" as some kind of automagic property of the system is 3e-speak.



3e *speak*, perhaps, but thought of at least in concept long before 3e showed up.  I remember discussions in the '80's with friends where we'd be talking about bits of 1e design, thinking for example "gee, Monks sure are useless at low level" and then trying to balance them without realizing it.







> IMNSHO, there is a double-standard here.  If you judge 3e by a higher standard, you are implicitly endorsing the idea that 3e has absolutely superior mechanics.



No, I'm recognizing that 3e had (in theory) superior professional designers backed by loads of market research and in-game experience, that 1e and 2e didn't have.  So yes, I'm going to judge 3e by a higher standard; and 4e higher yet.

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (Jan 17, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> The less you rely on random character generation, the less effective the "balancing" systems inherent in the system are.  Also note that the balance wasn't necessarily based on any given moment -- it was supposed to be based over the course of the campaign *(where players would be expected to run many, many characters)*.  */snip*




Really?  I know that some people played this way, but, the multiple PC's/player thing seemed to be long gone by the time 2e rolled out.  The only way you were playing multiple PC's is if your last PC died.


----------



## Spell (Jan 17, 2008)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Gothmog,
> 
> I am grateful that you took the time for such a detailed response.  Thank you.
> 
> Of course you had to keep both hands on the wheel.  You slayed a number of sacred cows there!  Furthermore, many of them would inevitably tend to add complexity, regardless of which edition you are running.




ehm... if i'm reading his post correctly, he did say that playing the same sort of game with previous editions did NOT caused him nearly as many problems as when he tried to use 3e.
in addition, he said that his *players* agreed that the game experience was somewhat inferior.

and his post was a direct reply to your claim that whenever people are asked to compare "apples with apples" the silence is "deafening".

no, i don't care anymore for defending this or that position. what puzzles me is how you (and other posters, to be fair) seem to have so many problems with simply admitting that different people might have a different mindset, that different games have different need, and that personal experiences play a fundamental role in shaping one's perception of the game.

that is rather disappointing, especially when you look at some of the "2e defenders' " (if you want to call us that way) posts. i can talk only for myself, but i *did* accept that Voadam has valuable ideas on how to correct the game and what happens if he puts them in practice. i even went as far as admitting that i would probably enjoy to sit at his game table, should we play such a campaign. sure, i could've said: "no, you're wrong, and i can't see how that would ever work!!!" because i've never tried it myself, but... ehm... i'm more interested in a discussion that doesn't boil down to a mere: "my game is better than yours".

are you? what is your point? that everyone should play 3e because it's so much better than OD&D, AD&D, AD&D2nd edition, Hackmaster, C&C and so on? i'm honestly puzzled.


----------



## Spell (Jan 17, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Really?  I know that some people played this way, but, the multiple PC's/player thing seemed to be long gone by the time 2e rolled out.  The only way you were playing multiple PC's is if your last PC died.




i think he's referring to the fact that PCs tended to die more often than in 3e, and that, at least in my campaigns, raising them wouldn't have been that easy. so, when your character died, you had to roll a new one.

i've never met anyone whose campaign allowed more than a character per player. dark sun suggested to have character trees, as far as i remeber, but you still had to choose one character per each adventure.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 17, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Really?  I know that some people played this way, but, the multiple PC's/player thing seemed to be long gone by the time 2e rolled out.  The only way you were playing multiple PC's is if your last PC died.




I meant that over the course of a long campaign, players will have many characters, not all at once (although I understand this was the way it was done in OD&D by many people; I never played that iteration of the game).  Sometimes it was because a character died, sometimes it was because a character was retired and sometimes it was because one of the other members of the group wanted to DM as well, in the same world and campaign but "over here".  The point is, though, that minimum ability score requirements were a tool in balancing characters over the long term of a campaign, not balancing characters between one another.  The same can be said for demi-human level caps (although the implementation wasn't so good -- way too low in 1e and way too high in 2e).


----------



## Hussar (Jan 17, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> i think he's referring to the fact that PCs tended to die more often than in 3e, and that, at least in my campaigns, raising them wouldn't have been that easy. so, when your character died, you had to roll a new one.
> 
> i've never met anyone whose campaign allowed more than a character per player. dark sun suggested to have character trees, as far as i remeber, but you still had to choose one character per each adventure.




This does not jive with my experience at all.  I've slain a LOT more PC's in 3e than I ever did in 2e.  Heck, I was averaging a PC fatality every 3 sessions in my last campaign, and these were high powered PC's where I allowed most any book they wanted to use and I was stuck with only the SRD.

2e PC's, between kits and the fact that the monsters couldn't do much damage, beyond about 3rd level were practically impossible to kill except with save or die effects.

Again, IME, YMMV and all that.  



> I meant that over the course of a long campaign, players will have many characters, not all at once (although I understand this was the way it was done in OD&D by many people; I never played that iteration of the game). Sometimes it was because a character died, sometimes it was because a character was retired and sometimes it was because one of the other members of the group wanted to DM as well, in the same world and campaign but "over here". The point is, though, that minimum ability score requirements were a tool in balancing characters over the long term of a campaign, not balancing characters between one another. The same can be said for demi-human level caps (although the implementation wasn't so good -- way too low in 1e and way too high in 2e).




I think you are projecting your own experience here.  "Long campaign"?  We know that the average 2e campaign lasted under two years.  That's been shown pretty clearly.  We also have a pretty good idea that many groups only had one DM.  Also, with the plethora of campaign settings out there, I'm not sure how often you would see different DM's sharing the same setting with the same group.  It certainly never happened IME.  ((But that's just me projecting my experience  ))  

Minimum ability scores did not work.  Full stop.  As a balancing mechanic, they can only be seen as an utter failure.  Other than paladins, most classes only needed average or slightly higher than average stats to begin with.  Getting the rolls you needed to play a ranger or a druid wasn't all that statistically rare.  Any of the base classes was a snap.  You only needed a 9 Wisdom to play a cleric, for example.  

The problem with the racial level limits is that players chose races where the limit would not come into play since most campaigns topped out at about 12th level.  You simply chose races based on the level limits.  If you wanted to play a fighter, you chose either dwarf or human.  Fighter/magic user - elf or half elf.  Since the level limits didn't kick in all that often, they were not terribly useful as a balancing mechanic.

And, on the point about the rarity of magic items.  Again, I've pointed this out before, take a look at your 1e or 2e paladin.  A paladin was limited to 10 magic items.  That limit was strictly enforced.  It was meant to be a limitation.  That means that every other PC SHOULD have more than 10 magic items at one time, sometime in his or her career.  Otherwise, the limitation is meaningless.  

TEN magic items was considered a LOW limit.


----------



## Spell (Jan 17, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The problem with the racial level limits is that players chose races where the limit would not come into play since most campaigns topped out at about 12th level.




i agree with you, but how would you have solved the problem, mechanically, in the context of AD&D?
removing the racial level limits would have taken out even the (let's face it) rather illusory and surely long term advantage that humans had on other races. just leaving things as they were without doing much would have called for a party full of demihumans... which can be good fun, but not if it becomes routine.

what i would do today, if i ever ran an AD&D game is:
1. enforcing 1e racial level limits.
2. put a penalty on XP earned by demihumans after that level.

how would you like that? i'd start with a -10% penalty for the first 3 levels after the limit, and then a further -5% for every 5 level. i think that would also reflect that the demihumans have a slower "pace of life", given that their lifespan is longer.


on a related note i would nazically enforce the fact that some races CAN NOT take a level in whatever class they choose. no dwarven paladins, please. to me, doing otherwise would kill a bit of the flavour.

on the other hand, i don't see why i can add race specific classes... "the defenders of moradin" and what not.

thoughts?


----------



## Spell (Jan 17, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> TEN magic items was considered a LOW limit.




fair enough. on the other hand, there have been campaigns i've run in which the WHOLE party didn't have, between the PCs, 10 magical items (excluding magic scrolls and projectiles/ arrows, obviously). i can't remember having a particularly thougher time running the game, nor i recall the lack of magical items brought a particularly bad vibe at the table...


----------



## Hussar (Jan 17, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> fair enough. on the other hand, there have been campaigns i've run in which the WHOLE party didn't have, between the PCs, 10 magical items (excluding magic scrolls and projectiles/ arrows, obviously). i can't remember having a particularly thougher time running the game, nor i recall the lack of magical items brought a particularly bad vibe at the table...




Oh, hey, I've done the whole miser bastard DM schtick too.  It wasn't all that hard in 2e really.  You just didn't use monsters that needed pluses to hit.  I had scads of monster books (gotta love those loose leave binder pages - NOT ) so finding a different critter wasn't much of a challenge.

Then again, if you run 3e by RAW, you'll find that the party has very few magic items until double digit levels.  7th level has 19k gp in equipment IIRC.  That's not much.  We're talking a magic weapon, a magic suit of armor, a couple of odds and sods and that's it.  Nothing earth shaking, and, below 10th level, if you stripped out all magic items, you might drop the effective level of your party by about one level.  

Now, after 10th is a totally different story.  

But, that's the point.  We usually didn't play 2e after 10th.  So, to compare apples to apples, you actually don't see a whole lot more magic in 3e than 2e, at equivalent levels.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 17, 2008)

> i agree with you, but how would you have solved the problem, mechanically, in the context of AD&D?
> removing the racial level limits would have taken out even the (let's face it) rather illusory and surely long term advantage that humans had on other races. just leaving things as they were without doing much would have called for a party full of demihumans... which can be good fun, but not if it becomes routine.




I would play 3e?   

I know that's a slick answer, but, honestly, that's the best solution I can think of.  Racial level limits didn't work as a balancing mechanic.  I think to balance things between the races, you need to buff up the humans considerably.  Dump that horrible dual classing mechanics and allow humans to straight up multiclass.

Then again, I'm a piss poor tinker, so, someone else should give a better answer.


----------



## Spell (Jan 17, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I would play 3e?




ark! how dare you pronouncing that name on these boards?!!?


----------



## Reynard (Jan 17, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Dump that horrible dual classing mechanics and allow humans to straight up multiclass.




I agree with this.  The purpose of multi-classing, IMO, is to fill in the missing niches and archetypes, so there's no reason to limit it to demi-humans.  And given the nature of 2E multiclassing, the act of doing so is quite restriction enough: it takes a lot of XP to get to level 2/2 (depending on the class).  i much prefer 2E multiclassing to 3E multiclassing, and have houseruled it back in.


----------



## SuStel (Jan 17, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The problem with the racial level limits is that players chose races where the limit would not come into play since most campaigns topped out at about 12th level.  You simply chose races based on the level limits.  If you wanted to play a fighter, you chose either dwarf or human.  Fighter/magic user - elf or half elf.  Since the level limits didn't kick in all that often, they were not terribly useful as a balancing mechanic.




I've got two asides to make here.

First, the problem of level limits not taking effect because of retired characters was much more prevalent with AD&D Second Edition; the limits in the first edition were much lower.

Second, Gary Gygax and others have stated many times that level limits weren't included as a balancing factor. They are there to enforce the idea of a human-dominated world. Sure, elves can cast magic and hobbits can fight, but only humans can attain the absolute mastery of their classes needed to become Arch-Magi or Lords.

Feel free to disagree with this description of the D&D world, but that's what the creators had in mind. Gary, for instance, will tell you that he has little fondness for adventurers with pointed ears and pointed shoes...


----------



## balterkn (Jan 17, 2008)

My list of love them in DnDX

2e:
-Clerics were significantly different from each other, more than just domain differences in 3e
-2e NWPs provided for skills outside "core competencies" much more easily than 3e skills (3e puts too many "core adventuring skills" into skills, and thus forcing a choice between gaining breadth verses depth as a character advances)
-Wizard & cleric spells tended to have more "non-combat" spells (my impression, no real analysis to back this up)
- Low statistics didn't kill character concepts (in 3e, just about any stat below 8 is unreasonable, but in 2e we had fun with some characters with 3-5's in a stat, and that low stat didn't really kill the character concept - basically the penalties/bonuses scaled more slowly with the changing stat)
- Looser integration among combat rules enabled us to keep those we wanted to simulate and ignore ones we didn't want to simulate - each campaign could more easily have a different feel
- The game had a more simulation feel; players would roll for things on tables and then have to invest stories that fit the results (useful to prevent the same character stories from being played over and over and over...); of course, we often did just pick the results we wanted


3e:
- 3e skills provide a more natural "training" progression
- BAB and iterative attack progression preferred in play (THAC0 wasn't hard, just BAB more "natural")
- Saves types more rational (fortitude, reflex, and will pretty easy for me to identify what type of save should be made in an unknown situation)
- Mechanically, the d20 system works for overcoming challenges with fewer tables (we can guess at DCs and modifiers without having to reference tables), but somehow (again, not quantifiable) some flavor seems lost


There are many more things I like about the two systems.  These are just a 5 minute brain dump of what I've been thinking of recently.

Overall they are vaguely similar games with very different feels.  My choice of which to use is based on what feel I want for that game.


----------



## JoseFreitas (Jan 17, 2008)

I do not play 3rd, and I don't even play 2nd, rather a mix of 1st and 2nd. But I do buy a few 3rd Ed books, and in general I admire the rules design. But it's not a game I like to play (at last as a DM), for questions of taste and type of gameplay.

- I don't think PCs are meant to be super-hero, cinematic video game inspired heroes. I rather prefer the concept of obscure PCs slowly rising to fame and success. When a 3rd Ed PC reaches 20th level I am sure he gets less of a kick than a 1st edition PC reaching 10th level.

- I go so far as to question the need of an explicit skill system, as well as the need of a single mechanic in the game with all parts of the game (combat, magic, skills, etc) fitted into it. If that's what I wanted, I would have moved to GURPS way back then. There is nothing wrong with no skill system, we managed for years with AD&D1, the game had more than enough rules "subsystems" using different types of die rolls, etc to cater for anything. A Strength based skill? Use the Door Breaking roll, or perhaps the Bend Bars %, or if you need something that is more level dependent use the Paralyzation save, etc.... After all these years, I recognize that all these systems gave the (good) DM the tools to handle anything while retaining more of the organic (ie. non-contrived) feel and flavor of a pseudo-medieval game.

- I do not enjoy non-archetypical PCs. I find that the over-abundance of Feats and customization detracts from this, with weirdo Fighters that are all different from each other without really having a good story to cater for it. Plus, it makes the DMs work Hell.

- the combat rules presently can actually do away with the DM, they are so exacting and precise. This displeases me, and I much prefer to also be able to manage a fight without miniatures. I prefer to retain some control over what's happening in the field. The current rules encourage, nay, demand rules-lawyering and min/maxing of characters.

But mostly, I miss:

"Igor the Brute, 5th level fighter, 37 HP, Str 16, Dmg +1, Long Sword and 10GP in pouch".

I think I wouldn't have the time to design any kind of adventure using the current rules.

Having said this, I recognize 3rd Ed has a brilliantly designed edition. I love some of the books. I loved some ideas and rules from 2Vd edition, back then. For instance, cleric customization. Categorizing creatures and weapons into Size categories. Better monster descriptions. Etc.

Similarly, I like some of the stuff in 3rd. Even better monster descriptions. Better spell descriptions and categorizations. Some combat rules. Etc. I find that I frequently refer to 3rd if I need to adjudicate some difficult ruling, or if I need to clarify some issue before rolling.

But I wish to point out that attacks of opportunity actually appeared in 1st edition: characters fleeing opponents by turning their backs give their opponents a free attack. 2nd edition expanded this in Combat & Tactics book, without going overboard like 3rd (  ).


----------



## Spell (Jan 17, 2008)

balterkn said:
			
		

> Overall they are vaguely similar games with very different feels.  My choice of which to use is based on what feel I want for that game.




can you speculate on this? i'm interested to hear other people's opinion.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 18, 2008)

This thread inspired me to read through my 2E core books again and the thing that really caught me was how much more I like NWPs than the integrated skill system of 3.x.  In 2E, all of a class' important or archtypical abilities were built right into the class.  There was no way to be a "sub-par" fighter or theif barring a very low Prime stat.  But it was also easy to customize your character as the "woodsy fighter" or "streetwise rogue" or whatever by taking just a couple of NWPs.


----------



## jeffh (Jan 18, 2008)

JoseFreitas said:
			
		

> But mostly, I miss:
> 
> "Igor the Brute, 5th level fighter, 37 HP, Str 16, Dmg +1, Long Sword and 10GP in pouch".



While it's true that 3E, particularly high-level 3E, goes too far in the opposite direction, I was _never _satisfied with this. There's got to be a middle ground there, and it looks like 4E is trying its best to find it.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 18, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> i've never met anyone whose campaign allowed more than a character per player.



You have now.  Well, electronically, anyway. 

As for the other issue that's come up, of human-vs.-non-human balancing in 1-2e, I long ago allowed anyone in my 1e games to multiclass regardless of race; and capped everyone at two classes, max.  I also put some restrictions on class abilities if you aren't single-class (I don't like multi-class characters on principle), and the end result - while not perfect - is at least vaguely playable.

There's other in-game ways to encourage people to play humans, but they depend on the setting and aren't for everyone.  Example is have the game set in a human-dominated society where non-humans are distrusted, or shunned, or even stoned or worse, by the locals in every town they ever visit....

Lanefan


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 18, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> what puzzles me is how you (and other posters, to be fair) seem to have so many problems with simply admitting that different people might have a different mindset, that different games have different need, and that personal experiences play a fundamental role in shaping one's perception of the game.




It could be one or more of three things:
(1) I live in an edgy pre-pyschotic rage and I am likely to go postal at any moment.
(2) I can get my dander up about certain issues more than is really necessary.
(3) You should worship every word I say.  Bow before me!

I think it is probably somewhere between 2 and 3.  You may choose to disagree, but be careful, just in case it is number 1.

I do not believe I have dissed personal preference stated as personal preference.

I have been a bit aggressive with what I perceive as personal preference dressed up in a double standard and illogical handwaving, stated a broad general truth.



> are you? what is your point? that everyone should play 3e because it's so much better than OD&D, AD&D, AD&D2nd edition, Hackmaster, C&C and so on? i'm honestly puzzled.




I believe that there are legitimate reasons to prefer other games.  But I do not believe the Curse of Integration is real -- that is a bit of an axe to grind for me.  And I have trouble respecting the implication that the Integration Police busted down someone's door one dark and stormy game night, put a gun to the DM's head, and forced that DM to make a poor decision.

I have come to understand that 3e is indeed on the rules heavy sides in a few areas for a some DMs who were successful with previous editions.

I give many kudos to Gothmog.  While I am not persuaded by his post, he was very informative such that I might begin to understand his mindset.

I also give kudos to Lanefan for admitting he is using a double-standard.  That he believes his double-standard is justified is a secondary issue.  Most people recoil from that logical conclusion, as it might be construed as impugning their judgment, and start babbling about how integrating rules is such a horrible thing in some vague hope I will not notice they are babbling.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 18, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> No, I'm recognizing that 3e had (in theory) superior professional designers backed by loads of market research and in-game experience, that 1e and 2e didn't have.  So yes, I'm going to judge 3e by a higher standard; and 4e higher yet.




I do not think this double-standard is justified.  IMHO.

1e was one of the first to be so ambitious.  I may criticize it, but I actually cut it a lot of slack (although I understand I might not sound like I do sometimes).

IMO 3e is the game that 2e theoretically could have been, the sole exception being the OGL.  There are no basic mechanical concepts in 3e that were not available for borrowing from other games in the late 80s.  I am skeptical of the implication that a "mere" 14+ years of roleplaying game design in the industry made highly competent game designers unavailable.

If 2e is weak that is because of a business decision to be timid or not bother trying very hard.  Now that may well have been the wise business decision.  Or not.  But it was a choice, not a logical necessity.

Furthermore, there were a lot of low hanging fruit for fixing in 1e that could have been fixed in 2e.  Even if it were unrealistic (or undesirable) to have made the whole trip to 3e, going 25% of the way would not have been very difficult and been a big help.  So many things could have been _simplified_.

Perhaps it would be logical to judge 2e by a far harsher standard than 1e or 3e?


----------



## Spell (Jan 18, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> You have now.  Well, electronically, anyway.



hello! 



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> Example is have the game set in a human-dominated society where non-humans are distrusted, or shunned, or even stoned or worse, by the locals in every town they ever visit....




ideally, this should be done in ravenloft, but then it was never really implemented that much in the published adventures or books, as far as i can remember. a pity, really.


----------



## Spell (Jan 18, 2008)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I do not believe I have dissed personal preference stated as personal preference.
> 
> I have been a bit aggressive with what I perceive as personal preference dressed up in a double standard and illogical handwaving, stated a broad general truth.




well, the fact that a number of people have raised the same "personal preferences", even when they admit that, yes, 3e is good for this or that mechanical development, should be a clear signal that there "personal preferences" are not just a one time thing, but maybe they hint at different priorities that people have at a game table... or different mindsets... or different reasoning abilities (and i don't mean intelligent vs. stupid, but visual vs. mechanical, or what has you)...




			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I believe that there are legitimate reasons to prefer other games.




good! we agree on something, then. 



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> But I do not believe the Curse of Integration is real -- that is a bit of an axe to grind for me.




and why is that? i made a number of posts that defend my claims. why, instead of aggressively trying to deny that i might have my point of view, you simply state yours and make a point for it?



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> And I have trouble respecting the implication that the Integration Police busted down someone's door one dark and stormy game night, put a gun to the DM's head, and forced that DM to make a poor decision.




oh dear, that's why i had to move to another nation, in fact... it was terrible! terrible, i tell you!

if you really think that that's what we have been talking so far, maybe you need to read our posts in a different light.

as someone said, there are a number of reasons why someone might have issues with not contraddicting openly stated rules in the game. none of which, as far as i read (or are aware), involve the evil forces of integration police! 



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I have come to understand that 3e is indeed on the rules heavy sides in a few areas for a some DMs who were successful with previous editions.




in some areas?!?! i feel like it's as rule heavy as GURPS, if not more! only, in GURPS i am *expected* to throw tons of rules out of my game because they don't suit my gaming style, and the whole system is designed with that in mind. in 3e, that does not happen as easily. at least, not for me.

now, with a design philosophy that was explicitedly aimed at creating a system that was easy to grasp (integration of all rules under one system), but difficult to master, that really is not a big surprise. personally, i just wish i had saved the 200+$ i spent on the core books, psionic manual and (ESPECIALLY) the epic level handbook, and bought something that:

1. was written to sparkle someone's imagination more than my old calculus I book.
2. was designed not just for what the majority does, but for me, too. after all, it was my money.

obviously, i am not that simple minded to think that wizards actually care for the fact that i am going to have a LOOOOOONG wait before i buy the 4e core books (at least to the second printing... so i get some errata in the text). they don't care for me. and, frankly, if i pick up a 4e book and i see that they still don't care for me, i will just move to other systems. or just buy them for the fluff when i can find the book new on ebay for 5 dollars or something (you know, for the fluff).

it will be even more difficult to find players, maybe... but at least, when i find some, i will have fun!



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I also give kudos to Lanefan for admitting he is using a double-standard.




well, i, for one, don't.

my standard is: what game system makes me feel willing to run a game? what game system makes me laugh under my breath thinking that "yes, i can use this aspect of the game to challenge the party and have fun at the same time"? what game system allowes me to use the hundreds of books i have collected through my 16 years of gaming without having a headache, or having to wig pretty much everything all the time?

that is not 3e, sorry. at least not for me. and, shame on them, it's not GURPS either, or i would have switched to that the day after i finished reading my 3e PHB.

now, admittedly, it's a very subjective standard. and you know what? it's totally cool. i am not a game designer. i am a consumer. my money is really subjective, because it's mine, not the universe's.

while i can't pretend that the world revolves around me, i do want that if i spend a signinficant amount of my leasure money on a game, it HAS to be at least usable in a way i like, without forcing me to have fights with players who feel that i am being a DM ogre, or without forcing me to buy even more books designed to "fix" the game for me, or without forcing me to spend quite a bit of time to convert stuff/ house ruling my preferences into the game (which, by the way, might not be that easy all the time).

silly me, i know.

but enough talking about my standard. what's yours?



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> That he believes his double-standard is justified is a secondary issue.  Most people recoil from that logical conclusion, as it might be construed as impugning their judgment, and start babbling about how integrating rules is such a horrible thing in some vague hope I will not notice they are babbling.




so, what are you saying? that i am allowed to have my standards until they clash with someone else's, and then i should yield to their superior sensibility?

or that i can't say: "i think integration made the job of the DM 5 times more burdersome" when one of the design goals in 4e is reducing the workload for the DM? or when the whole thread is about what we *personally* miss about AD&D?

you think integration is great. you have no problem with "some ares" being a bit more rule heavy. cool! great for you. next time you feel like DMing for me, don't esitate to drop me a line. and i am not joking, i might have the time of my life at your table, as far as i know.

but me, running even a short campaign with 3e?!?! no, thanks. seriously. not unless i run published adventures, have a computer to track the combat, and we stick to the core only.


----------



## Spell (Jan 18, 2008)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> There are no basic mechanical concepts in 3e that were not available for borrowing from other games in the late 80s.  I am skeptical of the implication that a "mere" 14+ years of roleplaying game design in the industry made highly competent game designers unavailable.




you are forgetting, maybe, that one of the design goals was make the old books almost 100% usable with the new edition? that's why the proficiencies are "optional", for example.

you say that this business decision is timid. maybe. i can still take out the temple of elemental evil and run it in the same campaign in which i ran dragon mountain or a module from the last 2e dungeon pretty much without troubles or conversions.

you might not appreciate that. many 1e players certainly didn't. i do.



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Furthermore, there were a lot of low hanging fruit for fixing in 1e that could have been fixed in 2e.



like?



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Perhaps it would be logical to judge 2e by a far harsher standard than 1e or 3e?



if i understand your point of view, yes, it would be. if one accepts that point of view, that is.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 18, 2008)

Pale Master said:
			
		

> There was _so much _ reliance on DM fiat, especially compared with 3rd edition. Some people may find this aspect appealing, but I dislike playing "mother-may-I" with the DM.




Yes, conversely it was the sense of player entitlement fostered by 3e that, along with the excessive complexity at higher levels, turned me off the game.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 18, 2008)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I believe that there are legitimate reasons to prefer other games.  But I do not believe the Curse of Integration is real -- that is a bit of an axe to grind for me.  And I have trouble respecting the implication that the Integration Police busted down someone's door one dark and stormy game night, put a gun to the DM's head, and forced that DM to make a poor decision.




The problem with this is that you are simply wrong.  An explicit design goal of 3E was to integrate all the disparate subsystems of 1/2E under a central mechanic, and they succeeded admirably in doing so.  But by doing so, they forced the rules-madifying DM, assuming he cared about "balance", to examine more than the single portion of the system he was changing -- the DM also had to look for cascading effects throughout the system.

Let's go back to the thief abilities and skills example.  In 1E and 2E, thief abilities (and similar abilities for rangers, etc.) were class abilities totally disconnected from any larger "skill system".  Therefore, adding or removing a broader skill system, whether secondary skills or NWPs or porting in the Palladium skills or any of the other things many of us did, had exactly zero impact on the thief and his class specific skill abilities.  In 3E, the two were conjoined in such a way that manipulating the skill system even a little -- say, boosting the fighter's skill points and class skill list -- means examining the rogue to make sure that skill-based class isn't getting shafted by the changes. Moreover, it means looking at feats and PrCs to make sure that too many skill point/choice changes don't imabalance the prerequisities in place for those things.

You really don't have  a place from which to argue.  None of the above is opinion; it is all simply true.


----------



## Spell (Jan 18, 2008)

in Ridley's defense, i would say that the many many many discussions i've seen on these boards on whether or not this class or feat was unbalanced means that the idea that 3e is actually balanced is a myth.

it is better balanced than 2e, yes. but it's not balanced.*

people with an extensive experience with 3e will recognise that fact and simply change whatever they want knowing that, at worse, they will have to house rule some restriction back to fix a specific case... if they can't live with teh consequences, that is. Voadam's posts convinced me of this).

now, whether or not you come to acquire that experience solely depends on your perceptions of how the rule system will confy to your style of playing. it works for Ridley's, whereas he has no use for 2e, so, obviously, he won't find thinkering with this or that part of 3e. he might have problems doing the same with 2e, maybe, just because he doesn't have the same feel of how the system works.



* but it *has* to be so, if it wants to give players such an ability to multiclass, or such an easy way to decide whether or not monster X is a good match for party Y through the CR system.



ps: on the other hand, since it seems that today i have no desire to finish the orchestration, despite the closing of the deadline, i found this quote...

"For example, in breaking the game, he suggests giving out bonus skill points, extra hit points, or improved ability scores. At what point do these increases cumulate in a ECL boost? If you provide more than 3 bonus hit points, you’ve already beaten a standard core feat (Toughness) and if you provide too many skill points or don’t have a cap on things, you’ll find players may be able to enter PrCs or other restricted things like feats before their time. 

It’s a good article for those who aren’t worried about game balance or feel that the ‘little’ things don’t matter. While I can agree with that theory in idea, in a game like Hero or GURPS, you can always provide bonus points that show up on the character sheet. D&D, with it’s inherent limitations of levels and caps on skills, and (default) random rolled hit points and ability points, doesn’t quite have that ease of use. In Champions, +5 to STR is +5 points regardless of who you give it to."

it comes from here.

it's ENWorld's very Joe G Kushner commenting on an article on kobold quarterly.
so, the perception that messing about with 3e is NOT that easy (unless you "aren't worried about game balance") is not just something flying around in my head... or in that of some other people that seem to prefer 2e in that respect.


----------



## Rallek (Jan 18, 2008)

What I personally miss about 2e is the “toolkit” functionality of it. In the years that I was a DM using the 2e system, I ran (among others) a sci-fi campaign, a stone-age campaign, a players-as-young-deities campaign, players as a kind of spiritual “men in black” during the renaissance (what with all of the alchemists, philosophers, and sorcerers studying all of that forbidden lore and those pesky summoning rituals), some gritty low-fantasy, and even a sci-fi fantasy blend. 



Average “homebrewing” DM kind of stuff, really. But here’s the bit that’s different from 3e, at least in my group’s experience,… each campaign had it’s own unique “feel”. 


I’m going to invoke the “Curse of Integration” as the reason why 3e hasn’t lived up to 2e in this respect. Because 2e was more of a collection of subsystems, rather than one unified system, changes made could be very easily isolated. This lower measure of interconnectivity also made the consequences of system changes easier to predict. Because the subsystems interacted in fewer places, a relatively small amount of review could provide a fair assessment of the scope of a given change’s effects. 


So when we wrote a new system for attack resolution for one of our sci-fi forays, we only had to look at the places where that subsystem interacted with other systems. In 2e that translated (as far as I recall) to a few spells. In 3e I would have those same spells, AND all of the feats that interact with the “attack” mechanic. Since feats are such a large part of the fighter’s class features, I now have to examine the fighter class to see how it fares with the “revised” feats….  now that I’ve changed the feats I might have to review some PrCs that use those feats as requirements for entry, which may or may not lead me to yet more issues at the places in which that PrC interacts with the system…

Can I do that, sure… but it is a bigger job, and it is a bigger job because of the Curse of Integration. I could also “just wing it” which we all did a lot in 2e (in my experience), but because of the much increased interaction between the parts of the system in 3e, the results of “winging it” are harder to predict, as there is more to consider. Here again, we see the Curse of Integration. 


Which brings me back to my initial point, my group has played a few games of sci-fi homebrew 3e, a touch of “implied setting”, and we revived some of our favorite and longest running settings from our 2e days as 3e conversions… and it all “feels” like vanilla 3e. Largely because (due in large part to the Curse of Integration, in my opinion) it all seems to play the same when you get it to the table.




There are some more things that I could go on about, but this post is already too long. There are a few things I miss about 2e, but its ability to serve as an easily adaptable toolkit, and deliver on a different “feel” at the table for the worlds built from that toolkit, certainly tops the list.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 18, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I agree with this.  The purpose of multi-classing, IMO, is to fill in the missing niches and archetypes, so there's no reason to limit it to demi-humans.  And given the nature of 2E multiclassing, the act of doing so is quite restriction enough: it takes a lot of XP to get to level 2/2 (depending on the class).  i much prefer 2E multiclassing to 3E multiclassing, and have houseruled it back in.




Not really a lot of xp.  Generally speaking, until you hit double digit levels, any 2 class character would be 1 level at most behind in each class compared to a single classed character.  On a side note, due to the wonkiness with the xp tables, you could actually come out significantly AHEAD if you chose the right classes.  For example, the xp for a 9th level fighter makes a 8/9/9 fighter/thief/magic user (I think I've got those levels right).  So, basically, you gave up one level of fighter to gain 18 levels of other classes.

I believe this is where issues of balance come into play.  

Other issues of balance came into play because some elements were flat out better than others.  You used a longsword because it was flat out better than any other weapon in the PHB.  Actually, you used a longsword and short sword because, if you burned one weapon proficiency, you effectively doubled your attacks per round and doubled your damage.

Any other choice was just woefully sub par.

People can argue about how 3e isn't balanced because of this or that, but, at the end of the day, no single option emerges from the game as a clearly superior choice.  Yes, CoDzilla is an issue.  But, it's not a case that not playing a cleric means that you are clearly weaker.  In 2e, not using two weapons was a deliberate choice to be weaker.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 18, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> in Ridley's defense, i would say that the many many many discussions i've seen on these boards on whether or not this class or feat was unbalanced means that the idea that 3e is actually balanced is a myth.
> 
> it is better balanced than 2e, yes. but it's not balanced.*




It's no myth. But asserting that it is 100% perfectly balanced is erroneous. There's no myth that balance was a goal and was substantially delivered, some debating around the margins acknowledged.

Stating that it's a myth is pretty dismissive of the reality that they did achieve even if the goal was not fully accomplished.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 18, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> people, you have to admit 3E was deisgned with te basic assumption that characters will have a certain amount of magic items at certain levels, and thus spells and monsters and adventures all scale with these in mind.
> 
> 2E relied far less on this assumption.




No, 2e relied upon certain assumptions, but they just didn't bother to tell you what those assumptions were. Effectively, you were left with no guidance as to what the designers thought PCs would be equipped with when they designed monsters, adventures and other supplements.

All 3e really did with the wealth guidleines and so on was pull that curtain back and say "these are the assumptions we made". So you could know what they were thinking when they put the adventure or supplement together. This actually makes the system much more flexible, since you can have a pretty good idea how far your assumptions might differ from theirs, and make adjustments to the material they provide accordingly.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 18, 2008)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Are elves braver than grell? Are gray renders known for their bravery? How about beholders, mindflayers and medusas?




I think that these sorts of determinations should be up to the individual DM. In your campaign, medusa may be fearless combatants; in mine, sniveling, skulking cowards. And we are both right.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 18, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> True.  But then, "balance" wasn't as big an issue because the power level was lower and the increases were much smaller from level to level and (perhaps most importantly) how aewsome a character was in combat was not the sole defining factor of a character's "usefulness".




But the lesser variance in power level by character level _magnifies_ differences in magic item frequency - which would tend to make magic items (or the lack thereof) a bigger deal.

And really, given the lame skill system used in 1e/2e, the quantified elements of most characters were pretty much mostly about how awesome they were in a fight. The level of non-combat usefulness of a 1e/2e character was mostly off the sheet roleplaying, which is independent of system.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 18, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No, 2e relied upon certain assumptions, but they just didn't bother to tell you what those assumptions were. Effectively, you were left with no guidance as to what the designers thought PCs would be equipped with when they designed monsters, adventures and other supplements.




This is a good thing.  Each group sussed it out themselves, found where their comfort zones were, and played the game their way.  That is the ultimate goal of any role-playing game: giving groups the tools to make their own fun.  Any attempts to define fun for users is doomed to failure.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 18, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And really, given the lame skill system used in 1e/2e, the quantified elements of most characters were pretty much mostly about how awesome they were in a fight.




I completely disagree.  NWPs were sufficiently broad and generally useful and easy (unless you took one based on one of your low stats, but who did that?) that characters became mechanically very useful once they were introduced. You didn't need to be a ranger to be a "woodsy fighter" -- you just needed a few decent stats and a couple NWPs.



> The level of non-combat usefulness of a 1e/2e character was mostly off the sheet roleplaying, which is independent of system.




1E certainly -- but that is the way the game is designed.  Role-playing, exploration and all that stuff are considered *player skills* and only the stuff that can't be gagued on player skill get longwinded mechanical explanations.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 18, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> you are forgetting, maybe, that one of the design goals was make the old books almost 100% usable with the new edition? that's why the proficiencies are "optional", for example.
> 
> you say that this business decision is timid. maybe. i can still take out the temple of elemental evil and run it in the same campaign in which i ran dragon mountain or a module from the last 2e dungeon pretty much without troubles or conversions.
> 
> you might not appreciate that. many 1e players certainly didn't. i do.




Good point. 



> if i understand your point of view, yes, it would be . if one accepts that point of view, that is.




It is okay to apply different standards in my book if one is open about it, and not apparently pretending otherwise.

I try to judge 2e and 3e by the same standard.  I judge 1e by a different, more lenient standard.  IMO that is fair and appropriate.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 18, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> This is a good thing.  Each group sussed it out themselves, found where their comfort zones were, and played the game their way.  That is the ultimate goal of any role-playing game: giving groups the tools to make their own fun.  Any attempts to define fun for users is doomed to failure.



Yes, but if you state the assumptions outright, it's easier for groups to figure out if those are the assumptions they want to use. With 2E, you first had to figure out what the assumptions were, and then decide whether you wanted to change those assumptions. Now, you know what the assumptions are, so you can start playing with them right away if you want to. There's no 'sussing out' period, where you're trying to figure out what the designers' assumptions are, and determining if they're what you find the most fun.


----------



## Son_of_Thunder (Jan 18, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I completely disagree.  NWPs were sufficiently broad and generally useful and easy (unless you took one based on one of your low stats, but who did that?) that characters became mechanically very useful once they were introduced. You didn't need to be a ranger to be a "woodsy fighter" -- you just needed a few decent stats and a couple NWPs.
> 
> 
> 
> 1E certainly -- but that is the way the game is designed.  Role-playing, exploration and all that stuff are considered *player skills* and only the stuff that can't be gagued on player skill get longwinded mechanical explanations.




I agree with you Reynard.


----------



## Spell (Jan 18, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> On a side note, due to the wonkiness with the xp tables, you could actually come out significantly AHEAD if you chose the right classes.  For example, the xp for a 9th level fighter makes a 8/9/9 fighter/thief/magic user (I think I've got those levels right).  So, basically, you gave up one level of fighter to gain 18 levels of other classes.
> 
> I believe this is where issues of balance come into play.




did this happened just with three classes? i never allowed them and i don't remember any particular big balance issues... but then again it was years ago, and i might have smoothed things on a case by case basis.

 i wish i had my books here! 




			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Other issues of balance came into play because some elements were flat out better than others.  You used a longsword because it was flat out better than any other weapon in the PHB.  Actually, you used a longsword and short sword because, if you burned one weapon proficiency, you effectively doubled your attacks per round and doubled your damage.




agreed on both account. 
gotta solve some of those problems, before staring playing again.  i alredy bought a couple of real world weapons and armours book...


----------



## SuStel (Jan 18, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Not really a lot of xp.  Generally speaking, until you hit double digit levels, any 2 class character would be 1 level at most behind in each class compared to a single classed character.  On a side note, due to the wonkiness with the xp tables, you could actually come out significantly AHEAD if you chose the right classes.  For example, the xp for a 9th level fighter makes a 8/9/9 fighter/thief/magic user (I think I've got those levels right).  So, basically, you gave up one level of fighter to gain 18 levels of other classes.
> 
> I believe this is where issues of balance come into play.




This description rather obscures what's really going on. A multi-classed character doesn't get the sum of all his levels as his attack matrix column, or to determine his saving throws, or anything like that. For anything that could potentially "stack," the multi-classed character only gets the _best_ of the classes' scores. For hit points, you took the average of all your classes' hit dice.

Casting spells in armor and allowing clerics to use bladed weapons are the primary benefits of multi-classing (in the original AD&D; AD&D Second Edition took away the ability of fighter/mages and the like to cast spells while wearing armor).



> Other issues of balance came into play because some elements were flat out better than others.  You used a longsword because it was flat out better than any other weapon in the PHB.  Actually, you used a longsword and short sword because, if you burned one weapon proficiency, you effectively doubled your attacks per round and doubled your damage.
> 
> Any other choice was just woefully sub par.




This is one reason the weapon vs. armor class table in the first edition is so valuable—it gives you a reason to choose something other than a longsword. Weapon specialization in _Unearthed Arcana_ broke this, and AD&D Second Edition made it worse by loosening the first edition's restriction on using two weapons: daggers and hand axes only.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 19, 2008)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I do not think this double-standard is justified.  IMHO.
> 
> 1e was one of the first to be so ambitious.  I may criticize it, but I actually cut it a lot of slack (although I understand I might not sound like I do sometimes).
> 
> IMO 3e is the game that 2e theoretically could have been,



*only* if they wanted to, at the time, pretty much throw out all of 1e and start over.  As their intent seemed to be one of building on the foundation already laid, we had to wait till 3e for the throw-out-and-redo to happen. 







> I am skeptical of the implication that a "mere" 14+ years of roleplaying game design in the industry made highly competent game designers unavailable.



Just because they might have been available doesn't mean TSR hired 'em...







> Perhaps it would be logical to judge 2e by a far harsher standard than 1e or 3e?



I disagree, not because I'm defending 2e, but because of the approach taken.  WotC intentionally set out to design a 3e game that would sell (succeeded), and that would be and remain playable (mixed results).  They did their homework - we can argue later about the merits of their research, but at least they did some - and designed from there.  WotC also had at that point about 6 years of in-house experience designing and tweaking the most rules-laden game in the history of anything, that being M:tG, leading to the obvious expectation that their design department by 1999 knew what it was doing.  The 1e designers had none of this.  The 2e designers *could* have had the research but still didn't have the experience, nor did they come at it with the rules-first approach WotC brought from M:tG.

My expectations of 3e were thus pretty high, and - credit where it's due - it even lived up to some of them; that they didn't design the game I wanted to play is hardly their fault.  (I'm referring to core 3e here; ditto core 2e where I reference it; splatbooks in either edition do not count)  2e I found disappointing, mostly because the direction taken was somewhat at variance with the direction Dragon articles seemed to be pointing...never mind the caving to the hardcore fundie nutballers and the atmosphere-destroying move away from the Gygaxian prose that made 1e what it was.

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (Jan 19, 2008)

SuStel said:
			
		

> This description rather obscures what's really going on. A multi-classed character doesn't get the sum of all his levels as his attack matrix column, or to determine his saving throws, or anything like that. For anything that could potentially "stack," the multi-classed character only gets the _best_ of the classes' scores. For hit points, you took the average of all your classes' hit dice.
> 
> Casting spells in armor and allowing clerics to use bladed weapons are the primary benefits of multi-classing (in the original AD&D; AD&D Second Edition took away the ability of fighter/mages and the like to cast spells while wearing armor).
> 
> ...




True, the bonuses didn't stack, but, then again, they didn't need to.  Remember, a 3e multiclassed PC is going to be the same total level as everyone else.  So, if the party is 8th level, the 2 classed PC is going to be some combination adding to 8.

In 2e, this wasn't true.  The two classed PC, because xp generally doubled each level, would only be one level behind the party in each class.  You don't need to stack when you're ahead of the rest of the party in levels.  

Sure, you might be one level lower than the fighter, but, you got x levels of cleric to make up for it.  Take thief/magic user and you're probably gaining levels faster than the paladin or ranger.  Yes, you got average hp's between the two classes, but, that didn't really make a significant difference since you always get at least one hp every time you gain a level.  Being a 8/9/9 PC, meant you had at least 26 hp's, max for the wizard, not bad for the thief, and about average for the fighter.  Depends on what you compare to.

But, compared to the single classed fighter, your THAC0 was only one point down, and your average hp's might be five or six points lower.  Not bad for gaining all the abilities of a thief and a wizard as well.  Yup, you couldn't wear armor, but, bracers of armor fixed that problem.  And rings of protection and cloaks of protection stacked.  Tack on your own Stoneskin spell and you're good to go.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 19, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I completely disagree.  NWPs were sufficiently broad and generally useful and easy (unless you took one based on one of your low stats, but who did that?) that characters became mechanically very useful once they were introduced. You didn't need to be a ranger to be a "woodsy fighter" -- you just needed a few decent stats and a couple NWPs.




The 1e/2e NWP system (yes, it was introduced in 1e, check your 1e _Dungeoneer's Survival Guide_) was weak in execution. There was basically only one level of skill - the one you got by investing a single NWP slot in the skill, because investing more was simply not worth bothering with. The skills were poorly designed, and for the most part, not very useful. And they did little to change the fact that 95% of the information on a 1e/2e character sheet amounted to "how good is this character when fighting".



> _1E certainly -- but that is the way the game is designed.  Role-playing, exploration and all that stuff are considered *player skills* and only the stuff that can't be gagued on player skill get longwinded mechanical explanations._




But that's not really relevant to the point I was responding to. The assertion was made that 3e characters are "all about combat" and 1e/2e characters weren't, somehow. But the actual content of the 1e/2e character sheets was pretty much almost all combat related, while the non-combat aspects were either poorly defined or nonexistent. The 3e system has more and better tools as part of the rule set for defining a character with respect to non-combat elements, which makes the accusation that 3e characters are supposedly encouraged by the system to be combat monsters and nothing else.


----------



## Darth Cyric (Jan 19, 2008)

2e:

+ Specialty priests and Spheres. Not perfect, but much more flavorful than 3e Cleric Domains. A more polished rendition of Spheres for 3e would've been a good check on the 3e Cleric's power.

+ Fighters (and Paladins and Rangers) really were the best melee classes. By far, actually. They weren't flashy, but they got the job done with the best chances of hitting and being the only classes that could attack multiple times per round without having super-high Dexterity to dual-wield.

- Thac0 and AC. Sure, it was an easy concept to learn, but that still doesn't mean it wasn't counterintuitive.

- Magic item creation.

- The way ability scores worked. Exceptional strength figures, not getting bonuses unless your scores were REALLY high. Those didn't exactly make any sense.

3e:

+ Base Attack Bonuses and Armor Classes made sense intuitively.

+ Unified experience tables.

+ Skills and Feats.

- CoDzillas in general.

- Actually, make that any full caster in general. They could do it all: Melee, play the party Defender role, make up for the Rogue's skills with spells, you name it. Other classes were rendered useless by comparison.

- How utterly weak the once high-rolling Paladins and Rangers had become, even compared to Fighters.

Overall, 3e feels like a lot of great ideas poorly executed. Still, I'll give it credit for breathing life into D&D.


----------



## Spell (Jan 19, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> It's no myth. But asserting that it is 100% perfectly balanced is erroneous.




that's what i meant by "balanced". to me, at least, balanced is 100% balanced. i have no problem agreeing that 3e is much more balanced than previous editions. but, in my experience on these boards, some people have problems agreeing that "balanced" doesn't necessarily mean 100% so. and a class or feat that is balanced at one game table might be unbalanced at another. 

that's all. i wasn't being dismissive and i'm sorry if it came out that way.


----------



## Spell (Jan 19, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No, 2e relied upon certain assumptions, but they just didn't bother to tell you what those assumptions were. Effectively, you were left with no guidance as to what the designers thought PCs would be equipped with when they designed monsters, adventures and other supplements.




i appreciate this point of view, but, in my experience the theoretical negative effect of this lack of guidance had a very good practical effect.

namely, the published adventures (even those in dungeon) didn't assume that your group was made of X, Y, and Z. they told you what the assumptions were, in phrases like: "this adventure is designed from a party of 23 total level. a wizard with access to fire spells and magical weapons +1 or higher are needed for the successful completion of the adventure".

if my group was more or less like that, cool, i would have run the adventure. if not, i just had to look around to find another published source that had assumptions that more or less matched those made in my current campaign.

also, if the designer put 21 magical items in the treasure of the dragon, and my campaign had little or no magic, i could have just erased the magical items from the hoard, and run the next adventure with no actual problems.



the clear statement that players of level X should have Y gp worth of magical item means that if your game does not conform to that model (either because you want a magically rich world, or because you want a nitty gritty "no magic" sword and sorcery campaign) you are pretty much out of luck with published scenarios. it also means that you can't publish yours. and, finally, when you seek help on boards like these, you always find the random smartass that asks you why in the world you have to change the game assumptions, acting as if you were personally insulting the game designers. threads do tend to go downhill from there, at times, and it's just sad.

so, yes, in theory it's great to know that the average game has this average amount of magic or what not. in practice, if the published products only cater for the "average" market (because it's the most representative), it means that you are left on your own if you want a different gaming experience.



please notice how this attitude is also present in game worlds design. Rich Baker saying: "If we said that the Blood War had never happened in FR (and I'm not saying we would), what canon would be violated? There are a couple of plane descriptions in the FRCS and FR Player's Guide that would be inaccurate, but is there something major besides those?", to me, means that this is not *my* game anymore. i am supposed to follow what's on the book. if i had decided to play a number of campaigns revolving on the Blood War in 3e forgotten realms, i would be well angry at the comment. (well, i suppose that since they are changing so much anyway, it wouldn't make that big a difference...)


i ran a poll some weeks ago asking what TSR/ wizards setting people loved, and invariably, the original editions of the settings received more votes of the "revised, because we decided to advance the metaplot to cash in some money" versions.

this, to me, says that people don't want to play in wizards' game worlds. they want to play their own modified versions, without being afraid that someone tomorrow will come and say: "oh, well, we decided to erase this continent. there was little reference in the published material, so it doesn't make any difference, right?"

why should that be different, when it come to rule systems?!?


----------



## SuStel (Jan 19, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> In 2e, this wasn't true.  The two classed PC, because xp generally doubled each level, would only be one level behind the party in each class.  You don't need to stack when you're ahead of the rest of the party in levels.




This is another thing that AD&D Second Edition broke. In the first edition, odds are your elven fighter/magic-user would be limited to level 5/9. In the second edition, an elven fighter/mage could get to 12/15 — not much of a restriction.

So originally, an elven fighter/magic-user could more or less keep up with his human counterparts' hit dice, but could never do better than 5th level spells.

Let us also not forget about the level training requirements. Remember that according to the DMG, the referee is supposed to grade each player's performance on each adventure. When it's time to level up, your average grade determines how long and expensive your level training will be.

A single-classed human has to worry about only one thing. A fighter only has to be a good fighter to level up quickly. That elven fighter/magic-user has to be both a good fighter _and_ a good magic-user, or else it'll cost him more time and money. Pity the half-elven cleric/fighter/magic-user for the strictures placed on him!

To summarize: multi-classed demi-humans aren't meant to be a free lunch. They're supposed to be _challenging_ to play.

I see little point in that most common activity of "balancing" each combination with each other. Each has points in its favor, and each requires that you earn your keep to advance. If a referee has a problem with too many demi-humans in the party, he just has to say "no demi-humans." Somehow, however we do it, we AD&Ders still manage to have fun games.


----------



## Spell (Jan 19, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And really, given the lame skill system used in 1e/2e, the quantified elements of most characters were pretty much mostly about how awesome they were in a fight. The level of non-combat usefulness of a 1e/2e character was mostly off the sheet roleplaying, which is independent of system.




whereas in 3e...


----------



## Spell (Jan 19, 2008)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> GIt is okay to apply different standards in my book if one is open about it, and not apparently pretending otherwise.




but, you see, that's the gist of the matter. everyone will undoubtely have their own specific point of view, and might not be aware that other people with whom they are discussing have a completely different set of assumptions.



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I try to judge 2e and 3e by the same standard.  I judge 1e by a different, more lenient standard.  IMO that is fair and appropriate.




and, from your point of view, from you expectations at the game table, that is completely fair. but then you have to appreciate that other people might have different priorities.

in my case: i wanted 3e to be still very much compatible with older editions. such was not the case (despite the designers claiming that the conversion work wouldn't have been too bad... i didn't like that kind of hype. anyway...).

given that the system was quite different, i would have appreciated a lot if there still was leeway to run the game with the same attitude i had before. i am sorry, that is not the case in my experience. and, what's more, in other people's experience, too. it's not a universal thing, but you have to appreciate that there is a number of people that, for good or bad, say that 3e just plays differently in many many many ways.

now, given that there are systems on the market in which i can pretty much ignore a subsystem and still play "by the book" without substantial headaches, i can't see why 3e wasn't designed that way. i don't see why, if 99% of the gamers like tactical complexities, i have to be stuck with that... especially when it was *not* the case in previous editions!!!

so, in my view, 3e has the following GREAT flaws:
1. not compatible with 25+ years of game material by TSR, Mayfair, Judges guild and other publishers (in u.s., u.k. or other nations).
2. assumes that since the majority of the gamers plays in a certain way, everyone else will conform, or move to another system.
3. (not really a direct consequence of 2, but somewhat connected) needs a LOT of dedication and time to modify to conform to my desires and game needs.
4. rules heavy, especially in combat.
5. written in dry and uncompelling prose.

ps: as an example, hackmaster is rule heavy as hell, but is compatible with older editions. and you can easily ignore the rules you don't want to follow.
on the other hand, castles and crusades is rules light, compatible with older editions pretty much without conversions and with d20 products with some thinkering (which is invariably less than what a conversion between 2e and 3e would ask for).

so, compatibility and felxibility are possible in today's market. it's a design choice not to include them in 3e.


----------



## SuStel (Jan 19, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The 1e/2e NWP system (yes, it was introduced in 1e, check your 1e _Dungeoneer's Survival Guide_) was weak in execution. There was basically only one level of skill - the one you got by investing a single NWP slot in the skill, because investing more was simply not worth bothering with. The skills were poorly designed, and for the most part, not very useful.




I think you've missed the point of the non-weapon proficiencies. They were never _meant_ to be "very useful." They were supposed to _supplement_ an adventurer's primary skills. Unfortunately, _most_ people made the same assumption you have, and their importance was blown completely out of proportion.

Ultimately, I consider non-weapon proficiencies in AD&D to be a failed set of rules. I think they worked fairly well in the _Survival Guides_, provided you use those rulebooks _only_ when concentrating on adventures that deal _directly_ with the subject matter—e.g., adventures that focus primarily on survival in the wilderness. But once they were generalized in the minds of players, and referees started requiring their use in standard adventuring situations ("You can't do this unless you have the non-weapon proficiency"), they were overloaded and didn't work properly.

I agree with you concerning improving an already-known proficiency: not worth the slot.



> And they did little to change the fact that 95% of the information on a 1e/2e character sheet amounted to "how good is this character when fighting".




They weren't supposed to change that. I disagree with your percentage, however. Looking at one of the "goldenrod" AD&D Fighter-Ranger-Paladin character sheets, I estimate about 70% of the front is applicable to combat. Other details include biographical information, movement and skills, spells (not all of which have to do with combat), and some miscellaneous information. The entire back has little to do with combat, beyond the equipment you possess to conduct it and the allies you have to help you with it.


----------



## Spell (Jan 19, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> YNow, you know what the assumptions are, so you can start playing with them right away if you want to.




what if i don't?  any clear path to follow?


----------



## Spell (Jan 19, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The assertion was made that 3e characters are "all about combat" and 1e/2e characters weren't, somehow.




well, they were not. have you checked how much of the PHB is devoted to the combat section? how many spells are connected to combat vs. those than have other effects? how many NWP have nothing to do with combat?

now, you might like the way things were implemented, but you can't say that the level of "combat madness" was the same in earlier editions of the games.

i remember we laughed at powergamers and avoided them like the plague. then 3e comes out, et voila! sidebars on "power combos" right in the middle of dragon, as if that was meant to be the way to play the game. at the same time, no ecologies or habitat entries in the MM. and combat references spilling out almost everywhere in the system.

sorry, i don't think this is a matter of experience. it's a way of presenting the system to new players and oldies alike. it's a shift in attention for the design team.

if role playing mechanics weren't well implemented in previous editions, the solution shouldn't have been: "ok, screw those, we're concentrating on combat", but "wait a second, what can we do to make things better for those that want role play heavy campaigns?!?!"



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The 3e system has more and better tools as part of the rule set for defining a character with respect to non-combat elements, which makes the accusation that 3e characters are supposedly encouraged by the system to be combat monsters and nothing else.




like? the alignment is toned down. non adventuring specific skills (farming, woodcutting, and so on) are either confined in knowledges, crafts and professions, or just not in the game. feats are mostly just an excuse to rake in combat bonuses and "cool" tactical manoeuvres.
where is this famed customization?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 19, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> <snip>
> so, compatibility and felxibility are possible in today's market. it's a design choice not to include them in 3e.



That's definitely true. 
3e aimed at creating an integrated system consisting of multiple sub-systems that work closely together. It used the general concepts of earlier D&D editions (like 9 levels of spells), but decided to structure them in a different manner, so that it's one tight package. This "tightness" and restructuring meant giving up a lot of flexibility and compatibility. 

For my part, I generally preferred the 3e approach, and welcome it with 4e, too. In case of 3e, previous editions didn't really matter to me - i started play with 3e, and didn't have any material for it I wanted to continue using. But judging from my reaction to the "no conversion rules" announcement to 4e), it probably wouldn't have mattered to me even if I was an AD&D "user". I am far more interested in a game system on its own. 
But I can see why compatibility is an issue if you have invested a lot of money and time in your game and see most of the material rendered useless with a new edition. 

Still, there are a few areas in which more flexibility in deviating from the core assumptions would have been nice. (Most notably for me, this was the "wealth per level" dependency in 3.x, but less strict rules for monster and NPC design would also be of great help, especially for a DM that has to come up with a good adventure idea, flesh it out and then build the NPCs & monsters for it).


----------



## Reynard (Jan 19, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The 1e/2e NWP system (yes, it was introduced in 1e, check your 1e _Dungeoneer's Survival Guide_) was weak in execution.






> The 3e system has more and better tools as part of the rule set for defining a character with respect to non-combat elements.




I disagree with both of these assertions. For 10 years of play, I found the NWP system to be perfectly viable for expanding upon the core concepts linked to the character's class and race and providing the player with tools to not only flesh out his character, but engage the adventure and the setting outside of combat.  Your experiences may be different, of course, but that fact doesn't negate mine.

The problem with the way 3E handles it is that it integrates these out-of-combat, supoplementary, character-centric skills into the classes and class abilities and therefore they become just another number crunching exercise.  The rogue spends all these skill points on tumble and balance and bluff for their combat advantages -- and well he should.  But if those skill points were seperate from the core abilities of the rogue, then those same skill points could be spent on things that give the character versatility and/or depth as NWPs were used.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 19, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> what if i don't?  any clear path to follow?



By "playing with them", I meant two things. One, you can start playing the game with the designer's assumptions. Two, you can play with the assumptions, changing them around, then play the game with those new assumptions.


----------



## Spell (Jan 19, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Two, you can play with the assumptions, changing them around, then play the game with those new assumptions.




which is the great point of contention if you have followed the discussion so far. i don't think that option two is easy at all, unless you throw away much of the game balance, and convince your palyers that it's something worth doing.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 19, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> which is the great point of contention if you have followed the discussion so far. i don't think that option two is easy at all, unless you throw away much of the game balance, and convince your palyers that it's something worth doing.



Yes, but the point I was responding to was the assertion that the 2E situation, where the designer assumptions are kept behind the veil, was superior to the modern trend of being open about them.

If the assumptions are hidden, you'll never know if you're changing them. If they are known, you will at least know if they are assumptions that you like. You can then make an informed decision as to whether you want to try changing them.


----------



## Johnny Angel (Jan 19, 2008)

Sitara said:
			
		

> Lastly, the psionic rules in 2E darksun (the rules in the revised box set) are quite nice. (though a few powers come too close to mage spells for comfort)




Those psionics rules were terrible.  At least it had a psionic combat system, but it was unplayable because your power point pool was the same as your psionic hit point pool, and the cost of using your attacks was higher than the average damage they'd do to your enemy.  You actually harmed yourself faster than you harmed the enemy.  Furthermore, your defenses not only cost more of your psionic hit points to put up than the damage they were likely to save you from, but depending on what power your foe decided to use, they might even make you more vulnerable.  

And of course the 2nd edition boxed set nerfed the entire setting.  They took back all the things that made it a unique and essentially anti-D&D setting.  Mages were now welcome, a dark and crappy world turned into an Age of Heroes.  I spit on the 2nd edition Dark Sun boxed set.


----------



## Spell (Jan 19, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Yes, but the point I was responding to was the assertion that the 2E situation, where the designer assumptions are kept behind the veil, was superior to the modern trend of being open about them.




but, as you could see from one of my previous reply, not having explicit assumptions meant that teh designers, too, couldn't stick with catering to one gaming style only.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jan 19, 2008)

Point of fact:  Nonweapon proficiencies were introduced into 1e with Oriental Adventures, which preceded the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide.

Opinion:  They sucked.  As, in my opinion, do most skill systems in heroic fantasy.

I mean, what was the consequence of creating a proficiency for Horse Riding?  -- Player characters started falling off their horses.  What was the consequence of creating a proficiency for Read/Write? -- You started to get characters that couldn't read.  What was the consequence of a proficiency for swimming?  -- Player characters drowned because they couldn't swim.

Duh.

In the game Mr Gygax wrote, player characters were heroes and the mundane stuff was handwaved.  I endorse this approach and reject NWPs.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 20, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> well, they were not. have you checked how much of the PHB is devoted to the combat section? how many spells are connected to combat vs. those than have other effects? how many NWP have nothing to do with combat?
> 
> now, you might like the way things were implemented, but you can't say that the level of "combat madness" was the same in earlier editions of the games.
> 
> ...




Could you give some examples here? I'm seeing more similarities than differences in D&D editions on this.

My rtf from the 2e Rules CD does not have page numbers but the combat chapter from the PH (chapter 9) seems to have the most subheads of any chapter in the book but only covers 37 out of 570 pages of the rtf file. I'm not sure how much of the 3e PH is the combat section. I know in 1e that stuff was mostly not in the PH but in the DMG.

[SBLOCK]
Chapter 1: Player Character Ability Scores 

	Rolling Ability Scores
		Alternative Dice-Rolling Methods
	The Ability Scores
		Strength
		Dexterity
		Constitution
		Intelligence
		Wisdom
		Charisma
	What the Numbers Mean

Chapter 2: Player Character Races 

		Minimum and Maximum Ability Scores
		Racial Ability Adjustments
		Class Restrictions and Level Limits
		Languages
	Dwarves
	Elves
	Gnomes
	Half-Elves
	Halflings
	Humans
	Other Characteristics

Chapter 3: Player Character Classes 

		Class Ability Score Requirements
	Class Descriptions
	Warrior
		Fighter
		Paladin
		Ranger
	Wizard
		Mage
		Schools of Magic
			Specialist Wizards
		Illusionist
	Priest
		Cleric
		Priests of Specific Mythoi
			Requirements
			Weapons Allowed
			Spells Allowed (Spheres of Influence)
			Granted Powers
			Ethos
			Priest Titles
			Balancing It All
		Druid
			Druid Organization
	Rogue
		Thief
		 Bard
	Multi-Class and Dual-Class Characters
		Multi-Class Combinations
		Multi-Class Benefits and Restrictions
		Dual-Class Benefits and Restrictions

Chapter 4: Alignment 

	Law, Neutrality, and Chaos
	Good, Neutrality, and Evil
	Alignment Combinations
		Non-Aligned Creatures
	Playing the Character's Alignment
	Changing Alignment

Chapter 5: Proficiencies (Optional) 

	Acquiring Proficiencies
	Training
	Weapon Proficiencies
		Effects of Weapon Proficiencies
		Related Weapon Bonus
		Weapon Specialization
			Cost of Specialization
			Effects of Specialization
	Nonweapon Proficiencies
		Using What You Know
		Secondary Skills
		Nonweapon Proficiencies
		Using Nonweapon Proficiencies
		Nonweapon Proficiency Descriptions

Chapter 6: Money and Equipment 

	Starting Money
	Equipment Lists
		Clothing
		Daily Food and Lodging
		Household Provisioning
		Tack and Harness
		Transport
		Miscellaneous Equipment
		Animals
		Services
		Weapons
		Armor
	Equipment Descriptions
		Tack and Harness
		Transport
		Miscellaneous Equipment
		Weapons
		Armor
			Armor Sizes
			Getting Into and Out of Armor
			Creatures with Natural Armor Classes
	Encumbrance (Optional Rule)
		Basic Encumbrance (Tournament Rule)
		Specific Encumbrance (Optional Rule)
		Encumbrance and Mounts (Tournament Rule)
		Magical Armor and Encumbrance
		Effects of Encumbrance

Chapter 7: Magic 

	Wizard Spells
		Schools of Magic
		Learning Spells
		Illusions
	Priest Spells
	Casting Spells
		Spell Components (Optional Rule)
	Magical Research
	Spell Descriptions

Chapter 8: Experience 

	Group Experience Awards
	Individual Experience Awards
	Training
	Where's the Specific Info?

Chapter 9: Combat 

		More Than Just Hack-and-Slash
	Definitions
	The Attack Roll
		Figuring the To-Hit Number
		Modifiers to the Attack Roll
	Weapon Type vs. Armor Modifiers (Optional Rule)
		The Various Types of Weapons
		Impossible To-Hit Numbers
	Calculating THAC0
	Combat and Encounters
	The Combat Round
		What You Can Do in One Round
	The Combat Sequence
	Initiative
		Standard Initiative Procedure
		Initiative Modifiers
		Group Initiative (Optional Rule)
		Individual Initiative (Optional Rule)
		Multiple Attacks and Initiative
		Spellcasting and Initiative
		Weapon Speed and Initiative (Optional Rule)
			Magical Weapon Speeds
	Attacking with Two Weapons
	Movement in Combat
		Movement in Melee
		Movement and Missile Combat
		Charging an Opponent
		Retreat
	Attacking Without Killing
		Punching and Wrestling
		Overbearing
		Weapons in Non-Lethal Combat
		Non-Lethal Combat and Creatures
	Touch Spells and Combat
	Missile Weapons in Combat
		Range
		Rate of Fire
		Ability Modifiers in Missile Combat
		Firing into a Melee
		Taking Cover Against Missile Fire
		Grenade-Like Missiles
		Types of Grenade-Like Missiles
	Special Defenses
	Parrying (Optional Rule)
	The Saving Throw
		Rolling Saving Throws
		Saving Throw Priority
		Voluntarily Failing Saving Throws
		Ability Checks as Saving Throws
		Modifying Saving Throws
	Magic Resistance
		Effects of Magic Resistance
		When Magic Resistance Applies
		Successful Magic Resistance Rolls
	Turning Undead
		Evil Priests and Undead
	Injury and Death
		Wounds
	Special Damage
		Falling
		Paralysis
		Energy Drain
		Poison
			Treating Poison Victims
	Healing
		Natural Healing
		Magical Healing
		Herbalism and Healing Proficiencies
	Character Death
		Death From Poison
		Death From Massive Damage
		Inescapable Death
		Raising the Dead

Chapter 10: Treasure 

	Treasure Types
	Magical Items
	Dividing and Storing Treasure

Chapter 11: Encounters 

	The Surprise Roll
		Effects of Surprise
	Encounter Distance
	Encounter Options

Chapter 12: NPCs 

	Hirelings
	Followers
	Henchmen
	Player Character Obligations

Chapter 13: Vision and Light 

	Limits of Vision
	Light
	Infravision
	Using Mirrors

Chapter 14: Time and Movement 

	Movement
		Jogging and Running (Optional Rule)
		Cross-Country Movement
	Swimming
		Holding Your Breath
	Climbing
		Calculating Success
		Climbing Rates
		Types of Surfaces
		Actions While Climbing
		Climbing Tools
		Getting Down
[/SBLOCK]

I'm not remembering it as less focused on combat than 3e, can you point out specifics?

Here are the 2e NWPs

[SBLOCK]Table 37: 
Nonweapon Proficiency Groups

General
	# of Slots	Relevant	Check
Proficiency	Required	Ability	Modifier
Agriculture	1	Intelligence	  0
Animal Handling	1	Wisdom	 -1
Animal Training	1	Wisdom	  0
Artistic Ability	1	Wisdom	  0
Blacksmithing	1	Strength	  0
Brewing	1	Intelligence	  0
Carpentry	1	Strength	  0
Cobbling	1	Dexterity	  0
Cooking	1	Intelligence	  0
Dancing	1	Dexterity	  0
Direction Sense	1	Wisdom	+1
Etiquette	1	Charisma	  0
Fire-building	1	Wisdom	 -1
Fishing	1	Wisdom	 -1
Heraldry	1	Intelligence	  0
Languages, Modern	1	Intelligence	  0
Leatherworking	1	Intelligence	  0
Mining	2	Wisdom	 -3
Pottery	1	Dexterity	 -2
Riding, Airborne	2	Wisdom	 -2
Riding, Land-based	1	Wisdom	+3
Rope Use	1	Dexterity	  0
Seamanship	1	Dexterity	+1
Seamstress/Tailor	1	Dexterity	 -1
Singing	1	Charisma	  0
Stonemasonry	1	Strength	 -2
Swimming	1	Strength	  0
Weather Sense	1	Wisdom	 -1
Weaving	1	Intelligence	 -1 

Priest
	# of Slots	Relevant	Check
Proficiency	Required	Ability	Modifier
Ancient History	1	Intelligence	 -1
Astrology	2	Intelligence	  0
Engineering	2	Intelligence	 -3
Healing	2	Wisdom	 -2
Herbalism	2	Intelligence	 -2
Languages, Ancient	1	Intelligence	  0
Local History	1	Charisma	  0
Musical Instrument	1	Dexterity	 -1
Navigation	1	Intelligence	 -2
Reading/Writing	1	Intelligence	+1
Religion	1	Wisdom	  0
Spellcraft	1	Intelligence	 -2 

Rogue
	# of Slots	Relevant	Check
Proficiency	Required	Ability	Modifier
Ancient History	1	Intelligence	 -1
Appraising	1	Intelligence	  0
Blind-fighting	2	NA	NA
Disguise	1	Charisma	 -1
Forgery	1	Dexterity	 -1
Gaming	1	Charisma	  0
Gem Cutting	2	Dexterity	 -2
Juggling	1	Dexterity	 -1
Jumping	1	Strength	  0
Local History	1	Charisma	  0
Musical Instrument	1	Dexterity	 -1
Reading Lips	2	Intelligence	 -2
Set Snares	1	Dexterity	 -1
Tightrope Walking	1	Dexterity	  0
Tumbling	1	Dexterity	  0
Ventriloquism	1	Intelligence	 -2 

Warrior
	# of Slots	Relevant	Check
Proficiency	Required	Ability	Modifier
Animal Lore	1	Intelligence	  0
Armorer	2	Intelligence	 -2
Blind-fighting	2	NA	NA
Bowyer/Fletcher	1	Dexterity	 -1
Charioteering	1	Dexterity	+2
Endurance	2	Constitution	  0
Gaming	1	Charisma	  0
Hunting	1	Wisdom	 -1
Mountaineering	1	NA	NA
Navigation	1	Intelligence	 -2
Running	1	Constitution	 -6
Set Snares	1	Intelligence	 -1
Survival	2	Intelligence	  0
Tracking	2	Wisdom	  0
Weaponsmithing	3	Intelligence	 -3

Wizard
	# of Slots	Relevant	Check
Proficiency	Required	Ability	Modifier
Ancient History	1	Intelligence	 -1
Astrology	2	Intelligence	  0
Engineering	2	Intelligence	 -3
Gem Cutting	2	Dexterity	 -2
Herbalism	2	Intelligence	 -2
Languages, Ancient	1	Intelligence	  0
Navigation	1	Intelligence	 -2
Reading/Writing	1	Intelligence	+1
Religion	1	Wisdom	  0
Spellcraft	1	Intelligence	 -2
[/SBLOCK]

It looks like most of these are covered by equivalent 3e skills or feats. I remember a lot of 2e rogues with tumbling proficiency and I know my 2e human fighter had blindfighting.

2e had a focus on storytelling while 3e has a focus on "back to the 1e dungeon" but these seemed to be play style presentations to me, not mechanics of the games.

Take the 2e wizard spell list from the PH and compare to the 3e PH wizard spell list

[SBLOCK]Wizard Spells 

	1st Level 

Affect Normal Fires (GONE)
Alarm (RETAINED)
Armor (RETAINED)
Audible Glamer (RETAINED)
Burning Hands (RETAINED)
Cantrip (RETAINED)
Change Self (RETAINED)
Charm Person (RETAINED)
Chill Touch (RETAINED)
Color Spray (RETAINED)
Comprehend Languages (RETAINED)
Dancing Lights (RETAINED)
Detect Magic (RETAINED)
Detect Undead (RETAINED)
Enlarge (RETAINED)
Erase (RETAINED)
Feather Fall (RETAINED)
Find Familiar (RETAINED as class ability)
Friends (GONE)
Gaze Reflection (GONE)
Grease (RETAINED)
Hold Portal (RETAINED)
Hypnotism (RETAINED)
Identify (RETAINED)
Jump (RETAINED)
Light (RETAINED)
Magic Missile (RETAINED)
Mending (RETAINED)
Message (RETAINED)
Mount (RETAINED)
Nystul's Magical Aura (RETAINED)
Phantasmal Force (RETAINED)
Protection From Evil (RETAINED)
Read Magic (RETAINED)
Shield (RETAINED)
Shocking Grasp (RETAINED)
Sleep (RETAINED)
Spider Climb (RETAINED)
Spook (RETAINED)
Taunt (GONE)
Tenser's Floating Disc (RETAINED)
Unseen Servant (RETAINED)
Ventriloquism (RETAINED)
Wall of Fog (RETAINED)
Wizard Mark (RETAINED)[/SBLOCK]

Affect normal fires and friends are non-combat spells that are gone, but taunt is a combat spell thats gone as well.

3e for 1st level wizards added in Endure Elements (which traces back to 1e), Detect Secret Doors, True Strike, Animate Rope, and Expeditious Retreat as completely new spells as far as I could tell (others were just rearranged in spell levels).

I see alignment affecting a little more in 3e than in 2e, in 2e it affected  some classes and some items and some spells. In 3e it seems to affect more with more spells and items interacting mechanically with alignment as well as monster alignment issues having mechanical effects for DR and clerical summoning.

Non combat stuff on character sheets seems to have stayed the same in each edition, name, description, deity worshipped, notes, etc.

I'm not seeing the difference in


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 20, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> which is the great point of contention if you have followed the discussion so far. i don't think that option two is easy at all, unless you throw away much of the game balance, and convince your palyers that it's something worth doing.




To be perfectly honest, this argument just doesn't hold up.

First off, 2e wasn't balanced to begin with, at least not in the same sense that 3e is supposed to be balanced. Hence, if you were perfectly okay with the 2e way of doing things, losing the 3e version of balance should be of minimal concern.

Second off, having no guidelines doesn't "free" you. It merely leaves you in the dark. The constraints of designer assumptions are still all around you, you just can't see them. As a result, you are likely to lurch from one unfounded belief to another, having to grope your way to figuring out what is made explicit in 3e, and thus figuring out how to modify the system to a version you desire.

Is it easy to convince a player to vary from the 3e assumptions? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. It usually depends on the player and the variance you want to make.

But that's not the issue.

The issue is this: is it easier to understand what the effects various alterations in your campaign power are going to have relative to the assumed version of the game used by the designers when they put things together? There really is no question but that the answer is that it is easier under the 3e version where they tell you up front what the assumptions they made were.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 20, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> you know, i think i would like being a player in one of your games.




Thanks.

If you care to, occasionally check out the stickied open recruiting thread in the pbp talking the talk forum here. Due to the nature of pbp there is player attrition and I open up recruiting again for my games there (I currently run two pbp games here, linked in my sig).

I try to be up front with my players about my play style and the purposes of my house rules.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 20, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I disagree with both of these assertions. For 10 years of play, I found the NWP system to be perfectly viable for expanding upon the core concepts linked to the character's class and race and providing the player with tools to not only flesh out his character, but engage the adventure and the setting outside of combat.  Your experiences may be different, of course, but that fact doesn't negate mine.




Sure, I can make a fire with two sticks as well. That doesn't mean a match isn't a better tool for the job.

The 2e NWP system (and we are talking about the published 2e NWP system here, not a perfect NWP system that we may have wished for, or a house ruled system, or anything else) was an extremely weak and poorly designed system. The NWP slots were too few to make an impact, the individual NWPs were too poorly defined, the rate of skill acquisition was too quick (one NWP took you from "no ability" to "as good as a professional at the job" with one slot), and the system for advancing your NWP provided abilities was horribly weak.

I'm going to call it what it was: a hasty, poorly done patch thrown together in the face of developing skill based systems like GURPS, HERO, and even Rolemaster.



> _The problem with the way 3E handles it is that it integrates these out-of-combat, supoplementary, character-centric skills into the classes and class abilities and therefore they become just another number crunching exercise.  The rogue spends all these skill points on tumble and balance and bluff for their combat advantages -- and well he should.  But if those skill points were seperate from the core abilities of the rogue, then those same skill points could be spent on things that give the character versatility and/or depth as NWPs were used._




You mean like all those 2e rogues who spent their NWPs on things like Tumble and Jumping and Blind-Fighting? I'm sorry,but while your argument is interesting, it would be more persuasive if it matched the facts better. The reality is that the NWPs in 2e were just as combat heavy as the skills in 3e, probably more so since you had so many fewer to spend and hence, if you took a combat related NWP it pretty much precluded you from doing much to "flesh out" the noncombat elements of the character.

Looking at page 76 of the 2e PHB, it looks like the NWPs essentially amount to a truncated (and more conbat focused) grouping of traits that became skills and feats in 3e. Now, you may have had wonderful players who did nothing but take Brewing, Carpentry, and Pottery with their NWPs, but the 2e rules as written pretty much point towards using NWPs as supplements to your character's combat related abilites as much, if not more than the 3e rules point towards that with skills.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 20, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> well, they were not. have you checked how much of the PHB is devoted to the combat section? how many spells are connected to combat vs. those than have other effects? how many NWP have nothing to do with combat?




I'll take these in order:

1. The 3e PHB or the 2e PHB?

The 3e PHB: 27 pages.

The 2e PHB: 23 pages, plus another 4 pages convering "Encounters" that covers material covered in the 3e Combat chapter.

2. About the same for both editions.

3. At most, the same number as the number of noncombat related skills in the 3e PHB, primarily because almost all of the noncombat NWPs can be replicated with Profession, Knowledge, or Craft skills. Listing them seprately doesn't get you a cookie. It just means you have used a couple dozen words to say something you could have said with a quarter as many. Literary surplusage is not a virtue when writing.



> _now, you might like the way things were implemented, but you can't say that the level of "combat madness" was the same in earlier editions of the games._




Sure I can. Because it was.



> _i remember we laughed at powergamers and avoided them like the plague. then 3e comes out, et voila! sidebars on "power combos" right in the middle of dragon, as if that was meant to be the way to play the game. at the same time, no ecologies or habitat entries in the MM. and combat references spilling out almost everywhere in the system._




By the most optimistic of a accounts, less than a twentieth of the 3e player base read _Dragon_. The number was probably much smaller than that. And if you actually looked at the "power combos" you might have noticed that using one of them would give you a really good "one-note" sort of ability, at the cost of being able to do much else as effectively. In other words, just because you were a halfling monk who blew all his feats on save enhancers and could succeed on a save against most things didn't mean you were really anything special as a result. Most of the "power combos" listed in _Dragon_ were at best, fun oddities.

As for ecology and habitat entries, I was glad to see them gone. And I think that my sentiment was shared by a lot of players. D&D, at its core, was intented to be a game that allowed each group to design their own game world. The worst thing introduced in D&D was the long-winded "ecology of" articles that tried to tie down various creatures to a particular set of assumptions. I don't want to know the "ecology of" the medusa. I want to make medusas fit _my_ campaign world. in 1e, this was the way the rule books worked for most monsters. Further, anything in the books that won't be seen by the players is a waste of space. Like an adventure that tells you the irrelevant geneaology of the BBEG's henchman (that has no impact on the events in the module or elsewhere), telling me the mating habits of the gray render is a pointless piece of information. 

2e was hemorraging players. The number of people playing the game had drastically declined from the heyday of the early- to mid- eighties. One possible reason was the long-winded, overbearing, unneccessary monster ecology descriptions. 3e ditched them to attract back gamers who had left the fold (so to speak).



> _sorry, i don't think this is a matter of experience. it's a way of presenting the system to new players and oldies alike. it's a shift in attention for the design team._




Or, you decided up front you didn't like 3e and conformed your viewing of the game to match your expectations.



> _if role playing mechanics weren't well implemented in previous editions, the solution shouldn't have been: "ok, screw those, we're concentrating on combat", but "wait a second, what can we do to make things better for those that want role play heavy campaigns?!?!"_




They did do that. The response of most "role-play" oriented DMs was to say "no way am I gonna allow some character sheet stat tell _me_ how good somebody is at dimplomacy! The player has to come up with flowery speeches and convince me even though they are actually  stutterer who can't string three words together."




> _like? the alignment is toned down. non adventuring specific skills (farming, woodcutting, and so on) are either confined in knowledges, crafts and professions, or just not in the game._




Toned down? How? By having as many, if not more classes and spells dependent upon it? Exactly how has alignment been "toned down"? (Of course, I'd have ditched alignment entirely, as an archaic and poorly thought out system).

Tell me one NWP that is "not in the game" in 3e. And why is making things easier to use (by combining a variety of related skills into groups) a flaw rather than a benefit?



> _feats are mostly just an excuse to rake in combat bonuses and "cool" tactical manoeuvres._




Some are. Others are ways to improve your skills (even noncombat skills), give you the ability to do cool stuff with spells (even noncombat spells), or even make magic items (even noncombat ones). Still others provide odd noncombat perks (like spell like abilities) that can't be replicated otherwise.



> _where is this famed customization?_




It is sitting right there, under your nose. You just missed it in your indignation.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 20, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Point of fact:  Nonweapon proficiencies were introduced into 1e with Oriental Adventures, which preceded the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide.
> 
> Opinion:  They sucked.  As, in my opinion, do most skill systems in heroic fantasy.
> 
> ...




That's one interpretation.

Unfortunately, what happened around a lot of tables was people still fell off horses, drowned when they hit the water, and couldn't read because the DM said that, with no rules covering something, you couldn't do it.

If I'm hit with a lance while jousting, wouldn't it be nice to have some sort of mechanics that could tell me if I fall off or not?  Considering the HUGE number of bolt on mechanics that we saw in Dragon to cover exactly these kinds of questions, I would say that a lot of designers disagreed with Mr. Gygax.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 20, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> To be perfectly honest, this argument just doesn't hold up.
> 
> First off, 2e wasn't balanced to begin with, at least not in the same sense that 3e is supposed to be balanced. Hence, if you were perfectly okay with the 2e way of doing things, losing the 3e version of balance should be of minimal concern.
> 
> ...



Well, there is one thing to note. 3E seems also a lot more "rules-heavy" as a whole. Which means the assumptions affect a lot of rules, which makes changing the assumptions even harder.

So, basically, in 2E, the assumption were hidden and you didn't really know what would be affected. But there were less things affected (and if there was no real game balance to begin with, could you really make things worse?)
In 3E, the assumptions were written down. Challenge Ratings & Rewards by CR/EL, Wealth by Level Guidelines, Magic Item Creation Rules. But there were a lot of rule subystems, and all aspects where heavily playtested to get a good (but still not perfect) game balance.
Change the assumptions, and the changes affect a lot of things. 

Less magical items? Fighters have basically 2 boosters for their primary offensive ability: Magical Weapon and Strength Enhancement. Wizards have only 1 - intellect enhancement.

So, the "best" way might be a very rules-lite system that describes all assumptions. But then, you're only having a few rules! You might have to "guesstimate" a lot, and will this help at goals like game balance or "predictability" of actions within the game? (If there is no Ride skill, do I fall of the Horse if i have Dex 10 but written "grown up among nomads" in the background flavor of my character? What if I have Dex 16 and grew up in a secluded cloister?) 

There is no perfect solution. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, and you must decide what your focus is. 
Though in either case - rules-heavy or rules-lite, stating the design assumptions always is a good idea.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 20, 2008)

Is 2e really a rules light game though?  Between the PHB and the DMG, you have 500 ish pages of rules.  That's not how I'd define a rules light game.  About the biggest rules difference between 2e and 3e is in combat maneuvers.  You could craft magic items in 2e.  A 6th level cleric could make scrolls for example.  9th level and you could make potions.

The main difference here being that the actual method for crafting potions was left in the hands of the DM.  The DM was told to come up with formulas and the like in order to make creating potions part of the campaign.  In 3e, the formula is set and the DM doesn't really have to do any work at all.

In this case, I would actually say that 3e is rules lighter.  If you want to make a potion in 3e, spend the cash, have the feat and spell and the potion is made.  In 2e, you had to go out and craft an entire set of rules for that specific potion and if you wanted to make another potion, you'd have to craft a new set of rules.

Lack of specific rules does not make a game rules light.  Not when the work is then handed off to the DM.


----------



## shilsen (Jan 20, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> There is no perfect solution. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, and you must decide what your focus is.
> Though in either case - rules-heavy or rules-lite, stating the design assumptions always is a good idea.




QFT. 

Personally, having played 2e from 1999 and 3e since it came out, I find 3e astronomically better than 2e. I've met more than a few people whom 2e drove away from gaming and who came back due to 3e, and while my experience was nowhere near that bad, I personally can find very little in 2e which wasn't improved in the transition to 3e.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jan 20, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> That's one interpretation.




Sure.  I did preface that by being very clear it was only my opinion.  



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, what happened around a lot of tables was people still fell off horses, drowned when they hit the water, and couldn't read because the DM said that, with no rules covering something, you couldn't do it.




I agree that such perversions of the game Gary Gygax wrote were rife.  I don't agree that "Non-weapon Proficiencies" were the solution to them.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> If I'm hit with a lance while jousting, wouldn't it be nice to have some sort of mechanics that could tell me if I fall off or not?




Eh, I'd rather have had workable mechanics for adventuring in the planes.    Imo those are _still_ missing.

There's a whole lot of potential situations in 1e that aren't covered or are left to GM fiat.  If you don't like, or don't trust your GM, then this isn't the system for you.

Mind you, on the plus side, it had functioning morale rules and an organised and intelligible system for dealing with hired NPCs.    I find these a tad more useful than a detailed analysis of jousting.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Considering the HUGE number of bolt on mechanics that we saw in Dragon to cover exactly these kinds of questions, I would say that a lot of designers disagreed with Mr. Gygax.




Oh, sure.  I've disagreed with Mr Gygax on game design myself.  (Those who follow OSRIC won't have failed to notice the absence of psionics, weapon speed factors, weapons -v- AC type rules, or the sad and much-lamented lack of obscure polearms in the weapons tables, among rather a lot else.)

This is one of my points of agreement with him.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 20, 2008)

Heh, I'll agree with you on the morale rules.  I miss those.  I can see why they got chucked, but, man, I liked 'em.  Now every fight seems to go to the death.  

However, you don't need a detailed analysis of jousting.  The Ride skill is what, three paragraphs?  Fairly short ones at that.  In a fantasy game, mounted combat should come up from time to time.  That's not an unfair expectation.  With a lack of any resolution mechanics, it can be a right PITA.

While Non-weapon profs might not have been the most elegant solution, they at least went some direction into normalizing a number of situations that came up with some regularity - can I swim?  read a book?  ride a horse?  All pretty straight forward things from gaming.


----------



## SuStel (Jan 20, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Is 2e really a rules light game though?  Between the PHB and the DMG, you have 500 ish pages of rules.  That's not how I'd define a rules light game.




Are you thinking of the original or revised rules? The revised edition filled out the page count a lot! 

Don't forget: a great deal of the text of _AD&D Second Edition_ is explanatory fluff. Another significant part is optional rules (the _entire_ chapter on proficiencies, by the way). If _AD&D Second Edition_ were stripped down to the essentials, it would be significantly smaller.

Something I don't consider "fluff," but which I do consider to be useless or a hindrance, is all the ecology detail in the _Monstrous Compendium_. If we don't count the _MC_, which you didn't above, then _AD&D Second Edition_ is significantly smaller than _AD&D_.


----------



## shilsen (Jan 20, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Heh, I'll agree with you on the morale rules.  I miss those.  I can see why they got chucked, but, man, I liked 'em.  Now every fight seems to go to the death.




Are you the DM? If so, why not have the NPCs free when it makes sense for them? And if you're not the DM, just suggest that to him.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 20, 2008)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Are you the DM? If so, why not have the NPCs *flee* when it makes sense for them? And if you're not the DM, just suggest that to him.



It's something that is easy forgotten, my experience tells me. I sometimes forget that NPCs are supposed to be persons which have a life and don't like to die and thus might fight until _nearly_ not standing. 

But its noticeable that it really depends on the type of monsters. Cultists fighting to death I like. A normal city watch men, a soldier or even a rampaging Ogre - why not let him give up or run before he is dead. Maybe we should just rule that any monster whose hit points are reduced below 0 isn't dead or dying, but just has given up? (At higher level, players wouldn't notice the 10 "extra hit points").


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 20, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Well, there is one thing to note. 3E seems also a lot more "rules-heavy" as a whole. Which means the assumptions affect a lot of rules, which makes changing the assumptions even harder.




3e _might_ be somewhat more "rules-heavy" as you say (personally, I think it isn't, since the rules are generally intuitive and consistent), but D&D has never been a rules light game. 2e was, when published, one of the most rules-heavy games on the market - the only significant game that was probably more rules-heavy was Rolemaster. Even GURPS (when used just as a fantasy game) is significantly more rules-light than 2e D&D.

But I really disagree with you that changing the assumptions is hard to do in 3e. I _know_ what the assumptions are. Thus, I know if I amy dealing with a party of PCs that has more magic than assumed, or lower stats than assumed, or larger or smaller in numbers than expected and so on. I can then take that into account.

How do you know any of those things in 2e? Generally, you didn't. You just hoped that your party of five 5th level characters carrying two magic items each was what the adventure designer had in mind when he wrote it. If he had in mind that the p[arty would have eight characters with three times as much magic, then you probably are lining up for a TPK, but you won't know that until you get on the spot.

I'd rather have them tell me what they were thinking ahead of time.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jan 20, 2008)

Rolemaster isn't all that rules-heavy.  It's chart-heavy, but not rules-heavy; basically the same mechanic repeated _ad nauseam_.

I think the reason it's so popular to characterise 1e/2e as "rules-lite" is because so many of us know the rules like the backs of our hands, having read them to death as children, that they seem simple to us.  In retrospect they aren't.  They're a huge number of separate subsystems for different special cases all bolted together.

Personally I love all the special cases and subsystems, I think they ooze with flavour and I find generic mechanics bland.  I do understand why the rules-lite crowd would disagree.

I agree that using the same mechanic for everything is "consistent" but disagree that it's "intuitive".

I'm also the kind of person who prefers charts to mental arithmetic. Not because I can't do mental arithmetic, it's just that charts allow more possibilities.


----------



## shilsen (Jan 20, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> It's something that is easy forgotten, my experience tells me. I sometimes forget that NPCs are supposed to be persons which have a life and don't like to die and thus might fight until _nearly_ not standing.




That can definitely happen. I am generally fairly focused on not running to the best of my tactical ability but doing so to whatever fits their personalities/background, so it tends to keep me aware of the point where they break and run.



> But its noticeable that it really depends on the type of monsters. Cultists fighting to death I like. A normal city watch men, a soldier or even a rampaging Ogre - why not let him give up or run before he is dead.




Absolutely. That's how it should be, I think. The creature's nature, the circumstances, and its individual personality (one cultist will be more or less fanatical than another) should determine when a creature flees or gives up.



> Maybe we should just rule that any monster whose hit points are reduced below 0 isn't dead or dying, but just has given up? (At higher level, players wouldn't notice the 10 "extra hit points").




Interesting idea. Of course, knowing most PCs, this rule just means the monsters will die running.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 21, 2008)

LOL Shilsen

I admit that I DM most of the time, so, it's really my own failing.  I forget to make the critters run.  Sigh.  I dunno, it just rubs me wrong to have the critters run away just because I decide to make them run.  I'd rather leave it up to the dice gods.


----------



## Arauthator (Jan 21, 2008)

*Simply Amazing*

All this rule mongering simply amazes me. I find it a bit weird that we are now in 2008 and still trying to come up with a rules system to make everybody happy from a game that was created in 1974.

Most of you guys seriously need to play a few good games of Castles & Crusades. The whole reason Gary left DnD was the rules were getting way to complex. I myself don't have that problem because I never did rely on the rules that often. It's a game of players overcoming challenges with some dice. The rule books are just guides to get that accomplished. I as a DM ultimately have the last say, as the game was originally designed to entail. I remind my players of that, and they always agree to it, because nobody likes to play an RPG like a ding dang chess game, thinking about your next move for the next 10 minutes, or in the case of complex rules, finding it in the book. I limit what can be used at the game table to only things the player knows well. If they can't come up with something quickly to make combat move fast, I throw in role playing tactics to get that player away from the combat. They love it. 

(I.E. make a spot check, you see a pile of treasure 8 feet high through the wall beside you, appear and disappear like the wall is becoming transparent. Make a Will save, you now find yourself unable to resist to walk through this blinking portal-like section of the wall.)

From there I can take that player on one wild ride, giving him information to unlock a puzzle.

But if it's downsizing you need, Gary Gygax is the King of the Land in that realm and he's got one heck of a nice system going.

Castles & Crusades:
http://www.trolllord.com/newsite/cnc/index.html


----------



## Hussar (Jan 21, 2008)

> The whole reason Gary left DnD was the rules were getting way to complex.




  Now that's a reinvisioning of history  

I would point out though that we're not saying that there aren't different systems available.  We're specifically discussing the evolution of the game from 2e to 3e.  That some people have used d20 mechanics to make a derivative game that looks somewhat like earlier editions is irrelevant to this conversation.


----------



## Arauthator (Jan 21, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Now that's a reinvisioning of history
> 
> I would point out though that we're not saying that there aren't different systems available.  We're specifically discussing the evolution of the game from 2e to 3e.  That some people have used d20 mechanics to make a derivative game that looks somewhat like earlier editions is irrelevant to this conversation.





Well with all due respect, you picked up on my second point but missed my first. The evolution of the game in my opinion is to make everyone happy and it just simply can't be done. This is why Ford isn't the ONLY car maker in the world, while they are the original designer of the car. I just think people need to look for alternatives to DnD instead of contemplating on the downfalls of the game. I personally happen to like ALL versions, even though there are some things done today that have improved it, but I would love to take a ride in that Model  T mentioned below as well.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 21, 2008)

Arauthator said:
			
		

> All this rule mongering simply amazes me. I find it a bit weird that we are now in 2008 and still trying to come up with a rules system to make everybody happy from a game that was created in 1974.



It's kind of like how we keep coming up with new cars even though the Model T Ford came out in 1907 or so.  For some reason, we keep finding newer and better ways of doing things, or at least, different ways of doing things that some of us like better than the old ways. I blame creativity and imagination. It just seems impossible somehow to separate creativity and imagination from a role-playing game.



> Most of you guys seriously need to play a few good games of Castles & Crusades. The whole reason Gary left DnD was the rules were getting way to complex. I myself don't have that problem because I never did rely on the rules that often. It's a game of players overcoming challenges with some dice. The rule books are just guides to get that accomplished. I as a DM ultimately have the last say, as the game was originally designed to entail. I remind my players of that, and they always agree to it, because nobody likes to play an RPG like a ding dang chess game, thinking about your next move for the next 10 minutes, or in the case of complex rules, finding it in the book. I limit what can be used at the game table to only things the player knows well. If they can't come up with something quickly to make combat move fast, I throw in role playing tactics to get that player away from the combat. They love it.



I think a lot of this will depend on whether your players enjoy open-ended problems or problems with a definite solution. A game that mostly consists of open-ended problems does not require an extensive or complex rule-set, just players and a DM who are pretty much on the same page with respect to how the world works (or should work). A game that mostly consists of problems with definite solutions is better served with a more extensive and complex rule-set so that the players can put together a variety of rule elements to arrive at a solution. Of course, one of the strengths of table-top RPGs is that it can accomodate both, and ideally a game should consist of problems that have definite solutions, and be run by a DM who is willing to accept plausible, "out-of-the-box" alternatives.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 21, 2008)

Arauthator said:
			
		

> Well you picked up on my second point but missed my first. The evolution of the game in my opinion is to make everyone happy and it just simply can't be done.



It may be impossible to make everyone happy, but in my view, it's almost as impossible to stop people from trying. As long as there is a single DM who wants to tinker with the rules in order to improve his game (from his perspective, at least), evolution is going to happen. With the Internet, it's going to be a lot easier for ideas to spread, and for ideas that appeal to more gamers to get adopted in more groups. The net effect is not so much the evolution of One Game as it is the development of an increasing menu of options which individual gaming groups can pick and choose from to suit their individual tastes. Even the launch of a new edition by whoever owns the D&D brand at the time simply (presumably) causes the majority of gamers to cluster around the most recently published rules - points of convergence in a world of house rules, if you will.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 21, 2008)

Arauthator said:
			
		

> Well with all due respect, you picked up on my second point but missed my first. The evolution of the game in my opinion is to make everyone happy and it just simply can't be done. This is why Ford isn't the ONLY car maker in the world, while they are the original designer of the car. /snip




No, Ford isn't.  Cars originated in Europe about thirty years before we saw a Model T.

I wasn't ignoring your point, just questioning your perspective of history.  Gygax most certainly did not leave D&D because of complexity.  Heck, 1e is FAR MORE complex than 2e.  

While you cannot make everyone happy, you can make as many people happy as possible.  The mistake you make here is that by pointing out the shortcomings in a given edition, that means that we hate a given edition.  I don't hate any edition.  I wouldn't play 1e again, but, that's because I like 3e much better.  Same goes for 2e.  IMO, 3e does certain things better than 2e did and increases my overall enjoyment of the game.  2e did the same for me than 1e.

However, that doesn't mean that any edition is perfect.  I have no interest in going to something like C&C because it quite simply doesn't appeal to me.  I don't feel that C&C is a "simpler" version of 3e.  True 20 is.  C&C feels like 3e with governors on the engine.  I don't like it.  That's not saying its bad, just that it's not for me.

Then again, I've long become comfortable with the idea that I play D&D.  I'm not trying to play a fantasy emulator or genre emulator using D&D mechanics.  I play D&D to play that game, not to try to use that game to recreate my favorite fiction or movie.  So, concepts like, "Well, I can't do Frodo in D&D" don't bother me in the slightest.


----------



## Arauthator (Jan 21, 2008)

Henry Ford brought cars to america for the first time, that's what I meant by original. He also was the Father of the assembly line in auto manufacturing.

Gary moved to Lejendary Adventures because he felt that RPG's were becoming too complex in rules systems. One of the key factors I love about the guy is his vision to downsize rules and keep things simple. Sometimes, when the horsepower burns out the transmission, it's time to move the car into the grocery go getter, and sell it to the ones that don't need all that horsepower. The ones that are more interested in picking up the kids after school and able to get around economically.

Hehe.

Besides, if we are going to talk evolution, it's only right to bring the Father of the game into the picture.

The idea that you can't do your favorite Fantasy character in DnD is just absurd. Ask any writer or publisher currently active in D20 systems and they will try to sell that concept to you on purpose. As a matter of fact, that whole concept, it use to be the back bone of D20. Lot's of people learned to play this way. It was the quickest way to get a guy that had no idea of what the Fantasy world was about, into the game and walk away feeling like he had a good time.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 21, 2008)

Oh, I can agree with the father of the game thing. 

What I don't agree with is your characterization of history.  Gygax's leaving D&D had extremely little to do with rules mechanics and a lot to do with real world stuff.  Add to that, Gygax's own additions to the game - Unearthed Arcana for example - and you have stuff that is in no way rules light.


----------



## Arauthator (Jan 21, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Oh, I can agree with the father of the game thing.
> 
> What I don't agree with is your characterization of history.  Gygax's leaving D&D had extremely little to do with rules mechanics and a lot to do with real world stuff.  Add to that, Gygax's own additions to the game - Unearthed Arcana for example - and you have stuff that is in no way rules light.





Well, if that statement were true, then we wouldn't be talking about evolution, it would be called digression. Just read over these forums and look at all the complaints about the rules. For the most part, through the history of the game, rules have not been taken away, they have been added.

If Gary didn't feel that games were becoming too rules intensive, he wouldn't be trying to downsize them like he did with Castles & Crusades, or Lejendary Adventures.


----------



## Arauthator (Jan 21, 2008)

*Digression*

What would it hurt to keep supporting the older rules systems?

That would be evolutionary in a marketing sense as well. But the reason I would like to see this, again in my own opinion, is that I would have the option to use quite a few sets of rules and still be able to purchase new material for those systems. The only reason I have the option to go back and play BASIC DnD, is because I've kept my material from the eighties. Going on to Ebay and purchasing all that stuff would cost a fortune and you would eventually hit a dead end. It can be done though. What would it hurt for WoTC to publish the old stuff on their website? Or to offer the old books with new art and keep the original text?

I'm not trying to start an argument here, I just happen to be well informed, have played this game since 1980, and I love the works of Monte Cook, Skip Williams, and others like Ed Greenwood. I'm just not privy to people trying to accommodate everybody on the planet. The REASON behind the evolution is silly in my opinion. Now, if you were to keep on supporting the older rules systems, then that would truly be remarkable and honorable.


----------



## MerricB (Jan 21, 2008)

Arauthator said:
			
		

> The whole reason Gary left DnD was the rules were getting way to complex.






			
				Arauthator said:
			
		

> Gary moved to Lejendary Adventures because he felt that RPG's were becoming too complex in rules systems.




However, before Gary went to LA, he wrote Dangerous Journeys, which is infamous as one of the more rules-heavy and complicated RPGs ever created. 

I suggest your depiction of why Gary left D&D is completely false.


----------



## Arauthator (Jan 21, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> However, before Gary went to LA, he wrote Dangerous Journeys, which is infamous as one of the more rules-heavy and complicated RPGs ever created.
> 
> I suggest your depiction of why Gary left D&D is completely false.




The suggestion wasn't one of where he didn't make ANY rules heavy systems, it was a point being made, that he put out 2 very fine systems that were not. Better known as alternatives. But we'll come back to that later. You opened up a whole new can of worms, young grasshopper.

However you think I spread false statements is beyond the Great Abyss, which translates you into calling me a liar, bold words from somebody that doesn't even know me. You grasshopper, may read this interview and see for yourself that he is all about role playing, not rules. That my friends, translates into seeing the RPG's of today's world, as rules heavy because when they do get away from this emphasis, they concentrate on rules and turn you into their rulebook slaves. DnD was in it's original creation, designed to be a role playing game, not a table top hack and slash with comic book powers. Which, the later is I.E. "Rules Heavy".

http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/blog/2007/12/19/interview-with-living-legend-gary-gygax/


You guys need to realize something before you go any further. I'm the most dangerous kind of consumer to the RPG games. I'm the guy that has played just about ALL of the systems available and I have fun with each and every one because of one simple rule, which I've already stated earlier. I stay true to role playing and keep the power of the DM known. Gary Gygax being the Father of role playing games and in his career prime at the time of me growing up, developed my gaming style as DM into what it is today. My track record is fast moving combat, lots of role playing, and an empty bag of funyons after about six hours of play each and every time. Hell, I even got some players that are facing divorce because I do the job so well. That's AFTER getting them through Forge of Fury in less than 6 hours. Which was a pretty good adventure I might add.

So if you are going to argue a point, from here on out, at least have the courtesy to make statements you can back up. I mean my gosh.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jan 21, 2008)

Arauthator said:
			
		

> Most of you guys seriously need to play a few good games of Castles & Crusades.




Good God, this was really late in the thread.  Threads like this usually attract the "play C&C!" posts near the top of the first page.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jan 21, 2008)

Mr Gygax quit TSR when he was ousted as director and locked out of his office in 1985, in a surprise move while he was away on a business trip.  He did not leave voluntarily, and certainly not because of anything to do with rule changes.

He's right here, a few threads down, ask him.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 21, 2008)

Going back to the original question...

I really don't miss that much about 2Ed, and find 3.X to be one of my favorite systems of all time.

One thing I do miss, though, is what was being done with Clerics/Priests.  I liked the concept of having one base class from which all full-progression divine casters were designed.

I truly wish they had they continued with that design philosophy in 3.X- it would have made it much more flexible at modelling other religious models besided the Cleric and Druid (such as animist faith tradiitons) and could have eliminated the need for several base classes that cropped up over time (Shaman, Favored Soul, etc.).

(FWIW, in 30 years of gaming, I've played a lot of the games out there, too, including some as a playtester.)


----------



## billd91 (Jan 21, 2008)

Arauthator said:
			
		

> What would it hurt to keep supporting the older rules systems?
> 
> <snip>
> Now, if you were to keep on supporting the older rules systems, then that would truly be remarkable and honorable.




But probably economically foolish. Very few game companies are going to have the resources to devote to supporting multiple editions of their game. Even massive software companies like Microsoft can only devote resources to older operating systems and applications for a certain amount of time after it's out of print. Then they move on putting the resources where the income stream is going to be the most important... current editions/versions.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jan 21, 2008)

Computer software's a bit different, though.

Stopping the 2e stuff when 3e came out is more like a writer ceasing to sell his last book because he wants his customers to buy his latest one.  Why not use all your IP to make money?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 21, 2008)

There is a lot to be said for not supplying the market with an alternative to your flagship product, especially if it could be considered a "reasonable substitute."

This is even more true if the reasonable substitute has a similar or substantially similar name.  Imagine the confusion for someone new to the hobby who picks up a reprinted 2Ed PHB- ALL SALES FINAL- only to realize that its useless for his buddy's upcoming 4Ed game.

There are also costs involved in production and storage of the previous edition materials, though if you're a PDF publisher, that doesn't really apply to you.  Even so, you'd have to store that IP on a computer (de minimis costs) and make sure that its always in a currently usable format (could be expensive).


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jan 21, 2008)

*shrug*

It seems very strange not to sell a product for which there's a clear demand.  Some of those 1e products cost hundreds of dollars nowadays and still get snapped up.  It's only a matter of time before 2e starts to command the same prices.

The people who buy them, by and large, aren't the 4e target market (and in most cases won't buy 4e).  You'd avoid brand confusion by releasing them under a new label (I've suggested "Vintage D&D" here in the past).

Production and storage would be zilch now we have print-on-demand.

To me, WOTC's stance on this is incomprehensible, particularly given they don't seem to be challenging OSRIC.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jan 21, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> It seems very strange not to sell a product for which there's a clear demand.  Some of those 1e products cost hundreds of dollars nowadays and still get snapped up.




Which books in particular cost hundreds of dollars? That's a little higher than my experience, and I suspect that that's the influence of collectors, not players. Still, lots of out-of-print books cost fifty or sixty dollars. Sean Punch, the Steve Jackson Product Manager, once said that they had been burned several times bringing books back into print based on the fact they were very expensive on the secondary market.

In any case, about all the books they could bring back into print, they have, in PDF form. It's possible that the value of that program is just not worth expanding it any. I'm sure that they _don't_ want to hit anything slightly mainstream; they don't want to encourage anyone to play old editions that might be playing new.


----------



## Spell (Jan 21, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Could you give some examples here? I'm seeing more similarities than differences in D&D editions on this.




unfortunately i don't have the books with me (as in, they are in italy, i am in uk).
on the other hand, i see that someone else gave a breakdown of the chapters page counts later on.

good. 



			
				Voadam said:
			
		

> I'm not remembering it as less focused on combat than 3e, can you point out specifics?




as i said, you had NWPs that were absolutely useles sin combat, and were more "character definying", if you wish. and they weren't dumped in some "knowledge" superskill that basically screams to new players: "oh, yeah, then there are these aspects of role playing too..."

that is one thing that comes to mind. another is the fluff in the books. another is the presence of ecology and habitat entries in monstrous compendium: while not useful in each and every campaign, it still signalled that a monster wasn't just a bunch of characteristics useful only to beat your PCs up... you could actually interact with the thing! :O!

such assumption is left to any singular groups to determine with 3e. which means that new players will have very visible the tactical combat part of the game, and might "iss the point" of their DM trying to force them into situations in which fighting might not work.

this, coupled with the "exact" CR of each encounter per character level, has lead, in my opinion, to:
1. outcries by players about how unfair or uncapable their DM is. (i've seen this, but it might be just my experience?)
2. far more problems for DMs that want to stay true to the philosophy of the game "by the book" (why playing this game, if, in fact, you are still playing 2e, or any other game out there?) while retaining their own take on what an enjoyable game is.
3. prolonged the time that a newbie might take before he realises that there's more to pen and paper role playing than killing the monster and raking up treasure.



			
				Voadam said:
			
		

> It looks like most of these are covered by equivalent 3e skills or feats.




fine, but my point is not that 3e is a wargame. only that the combat rules take the foreground. in other words, my feeling (unfortunately is just a feeling, because i don't have my books with me) is that my issue is not what was left out. it's more with the presentation of the ruleset (which can make all the difference in the world) and in the parts that were added, in the core and in subsequent splatbooks.



			
				Voadam said:
			
		

> 2e had a focus on storytelling while 3e has a focus on "back to the 1e dungeon" but these seemed to be play style presentations to me, not mechanics of the games.




again, fair enough. but "back to the 1e dungeon" might not necessarily have meant "let's scrap those parts of the game that are not immediately useful in the (very early) 1e dungeon-type adventure". if that was what they meant, it would be like saying: "ok, let's design a game in which people with weapons and armours get into a 10'x10' room and fight 26 skeletons."

it made sense in 1976, maybe. in 2001 (or 2008)? nope! not to me, at least.


ps: you might be right about alignment. i remembered that they got away with weapons and magical items usable only by a person of such and such alignment, but i didn't recall other and more pressing use of it in 3e. as i said, you might be totally right about it.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jan 21, 2008)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> Which books in particular cost hundreds of dollars?




Well, for example, ST-1 Up the Garden Path, or the Dragon Magazine pdf compilation.  (I have both; I'm planning to sell them when the price reaches an arm, a leg and your first born child.  ST-1 is nearly there already!)



			
				prosfilaes said:
			
		

> That's a little higher than my experience, and I suspect that that's the influence of collectors, not players.




I think that's a false dichotomy; most collectors are players.  Albeit sometimes commercial-minded ones.



			
				prosfilaes said:
			
		

> In any case, about all the books they could bring back into print, they have, in PDF form. It's possible that the value of that program is just not worth expanding it any.




I don't think they'd know, not having sold the books in print...



			
				prosfilaes said:
			
		

> I'm sure that they _don't_ want to hit anything slightly mainstream; they don't want to encourage anyone to play old editions that might be playing new.




Bingo.  

As I've said, this makes as much sense as withdrawing _The Hobbit_ from the bookshelves so as to sell more copies of _Lord of the Rings_.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 21, 2008)

Arauthator said:
			
		

> However you think I spread false statements is beyond the Great Abyss, which translates you into calling me a liar, bold words from somebody that doesn't even know me.



Hey, your friendly neighborhood admin here. Welcome to the site!  But just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're calling you a liar. It means they think you're wrong. There's a big difference. Please don't take offense and assume the worst when that isn't what's intended.

And in this case, PapersAndPaychecks is right; Gary was forced out of the company after having his office locked. He's here on the site, so you can certainly confirm this if you like.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jan 21, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> in this case, PapersAndPaychecks is right




You forgot the "as always" in this sentence!


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 21, 2008)

Even in 2E, there was a hierarchy of usefulness in the NWP system. Pretty much all fighters took Blindfighting and Tumble was a popular choice as well while weaving wasnt exactly in much demand.

In 3E, all rogues max tumble and rogues/rangers max spot, listen while spellcasters max concentration as these are the combat skills.


----------



## Spell (Jan 21, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> To be perfectly honest, this argument just doesn't hold up.



neither does yours. you know why? because there is not a universal law governing people's perspectives and preferences!   



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> First off, 2e wasn't balanced to begin with, at least not in the same sense that 3e is supposed to be balanced.




first off, as i pointed out some post before, 3e needs to be much more balanced than previous edition, at least for allowing such liberal multiclassing AND to have all the classes progressing on the same XP table.
so, the fact that 2e is not balanced "in the same sense that 3e is supposed to be" is like claiming that lemons are not as orange as oranges.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Hence, if you were perfectly okay with the 2e way of doing things, losing the 3e version of balance should be of minimal concern.




Hence, if i was perfectly ok with the 2e not telling IN THE CORE MANUALS: "hey people: this is how a good campaign should be! this is what your PCs should expect at each and every level! this is what a balanced encounter is like!", i might have more than a minimal concern with a game system that makes those assumptions crystal clear, because, you know, new players might not get that the DM is meant to have fun, too; that the DM is on their side, so to speak; that the DM doesn't have fun by killing their character and being unfair and "not following the rules" to abuse PCs.

since i had to move to another country for work and study reasons, i had to find new players. hence, i actually had much more than minimal concern is preparing adventures (which, by the way, was more time consuming for me than it used to be... for no other reasons that i couldn't run 2e modules that i had run so many times that i didn't even need to read them through to remember what was in "room 25", or what has you), for players that i had never played with before, and might have had more than a minimal concern with a DM whose assumptions about what an enjoyable D&D game is are so different from what is "in the rules".



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Second off, having no guidelines doesn't "free" you.



Second off, it does. just read my post about published adventures.
did you actually read what i said before, or are you just replying to a simple post, without putting it into perspective with what was said before?



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Is it easy to convince a player to vary from the 3e assumptions? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. It usually depends on the player and the variance you want to make.
> 
> But that's not the issue.




is it not?!?!

what are we talking about, then???? the sex of the angels?

maybe that's the point.
i am talking about how the rule heavy/ completely integrated/ combat oriented/ "these are the right assumptions" 3e effectively made me stop role playing. for this reason alone, to me, no matter how much more sense the new system made to newbies and old players alike, it is inferior to the 2e. then, i also added more reasons why 3e is inferior to me, which basically boils down to: it's not a system that makes me run my games as i want or in a way that i find enjoyable.

how much more clear do i have to make it? if you want to dispute such a point, please, don't go into how much easier it is to understand what will happen in the system if you touch rule X. it's disputable (as i and other people have done in this thread) and it's really not the point even if it was true: even if i could anticipate perfectly what the effects of changing a subsystem would be, it doesn't make any more simple to balance the system back once i changed it.

some people are ok with that. i am not. not because i want a balanced game (as you nicely pointed out for me, 2e wasn't), but because i feel that it has to be, given how the system is built (multiclassing, same xp table, players assumptions on CR, and so on.)


----------



## Spell (Jan 21, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I'm going to call it what it was: a hasty, poorly done patch thrown together in the face of developing skill based systems like GURPS, HERO, and even Rolemaster.




so, you know GURPS and HERO, and still think that the ruleset in 3e is easier to tailor to anyone's tastes? this is surprising to say the least.


----------



## Spell (Jan 21, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I'll take these in order:
> 1. The 3e PHB or the 2e PHB?
> The 3e PHB: 27 pages.
> The 2e PHB: 23 pages, plus another 4 pages convering "Encounters" that covers material covered in the 3e Combat chapter.
> 2. About the same for both editions.




so, you're saying that 27 pages of chatty, fluffy 2e combat rules (which have also to explain different "illogical" and "arbitrary" subsystems, and give definitions to more and much less intuitive saving throws, by the way) are the same as 27 pages of dry, "let's get to the point" 3e combat rules?

mmmh, i don't know, man.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> 3. At most, the same number as the number of noncombat related skills in the 3e PHB, primarily because almost all of the noncombat NWPs can be replicated with Profession, Knowledge, or Craft skills. Listing them seprately doesn't get you a cookie. It just means you have used a couple dozen words to say something you could have said with a quarter as many. Literary surplusage is not a virtue when writing.




quoted for truth, especially when reducing the impact of the already existing skill hierarchy! who needs to build a fire, or farm a land, or know about etiquette, when you are down in the dungeon killing monsters? this certainly has not a place in anyone's game table. well, maybe some wuss, tender hearted player would like it that way, but we are playing dungeons & dragons, not emos & sillies!!!

sorry for the irony... i felt that just repeating my point in a serious tone *once again* was not going to make any difference.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> It is sitting right there, under your nose. You just missed it in your indignation.




yes! i'm mad with indignation! from the moment i saw the cover of PHB 3.0, my hat of d02 knew no limits! heck, i was so narrow minded about the new edition that i even spent 200$+ to get differnt books, and valuable leasure time to try and make some sense of it!


----------



## Spell (Jan 21, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Well, there is one thing to note. 3E seems also a lot more "rules-heavy" as a whole. Which means the assumptions affect a lot of rules, which makes changing the assumptions even harder.




ah, i see you are full of indignation, too! 



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> So, the "best" way might be a very rules-lite system that describes all assumptions.



not necessarily. you can have rules heavy systems (GURPS is the example i know best) that are desgined to be modular.
this doesn't just mean that you can run a fantasy adventure with cyberpunk PCs, but also that you can pretty much throw away the rules you don't like, because they don't sit well with your style of playing.

it's worth noticing that this is not implicit in the presentation of the rule set (two combat systems, talk of cinematic vs. realistic play, with clear indication of what rules are designed for what style of playing, etc.), but it is also openly advocated in the core rules.
in other words, if i am a newbie and i pick up and read GURPS, the second thing* that i am aware of is that it's MY game and i can do whatever the hell i want! (*the first, probably, is that there are a LOT of rules! and i mean A LOT!)



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> There is no perfect solution. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, and you must decide what your focus is.



i completely agree. 3e might work wonders for players and DMs who favour the assumptions clearly stated in the game books. i'm not one of those, and it doesn't work too well for me, that's all i'm saying. that and "there was no need for it to be so difficult to customize".

i don't completely agree with your idea on stating assumptions, but that depends on the specific case, i guess.


----------



## Spell (Jan 21, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Is 2e really a rules light game though?




no. it's a rules medium game. BECM is light. and OD&D is even lighter.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> The DM was told to come up with formulas and the like in order to make creating potions part of the campaign.  In 3e, the formula is set and the DM doesn't really have to do any work at all.
> In this case, I would actually say that 3e is rules lighter.



only if you like specific formulas tied to the rule system. personally, i can't remember one time in which my "formulas" made much sense, rule wise. i always tried to capture the "mumbo jumbo" part of magic, rather than make if a science. (so, yes, that meant that if two players were trying to create the same magical item, i would have probably came up with two different sets of requests... unless time constraints were important for some reason (say, they were making a magic duel of sorts)).

i agree with you, though: if you wanted "hard" rules on magical items creatin in 2e, you would have been pretty much left on your own.

this might be the time to remind the reading public that i never advocated that 2e was perfect. i don't think so, and i am sure that there would be many things i would change if i had to DM a 2e game tomorrow.


----------



## Spell (Jan 21, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> While Non-weapon profs might not have been the most elegant solution, they at least went some direction into normalizing a number of situations that came up with some regularity - can I swim?  read a book?  ride a horse?  All pretty straight forward things from gaming.




my main issue with NWP is that unless you spend a slot on one, you are not supposed to know anything about the subject. that doesn't always make sense, unfortunately. for example, i might not be a farmer, but it would be reasonable that i would know something about farming, in a medieval game world, even if i was a nobleman.

i can wig these things, but i'd rather have NWP with defaults, a la GURPS. that way, or the unskilled use that is enforced in 3e.


----------



## Spell (Jan 21, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Even GURPS (when used just as a fantasy game) is significantly more rules-light than 2e D&D.




?????!!!!!!!
have you ever tried and run a GURPS advanced combat with all the rules in?
or do you think that, as long as the rules follow one set of logical assummptions (e.g. rolling high = good) it doesn't matter how many of them are out there?


----------



## Spell (Jan 21, 2008)

Arauthator said:
			
		

> All this rule mongering simply amazes me. I find it a bit weird that we are now in 2008 and still trying to come up with a rules system to make everybody happy from a game that was created in 1974.



well, i don't find it that strange. those system that are out there that are rules heavy (to please that kind of market), but that can be "ruled down" to please those that want a more freeform experience, that are realistic or cinematic, that are completely modular, those system are NOT compatible with 3e or older editions.

that means that you have to invest money and time to learn a new system and then convert stuff... hoping that it will still retain the same feeling that you liked in your game.
it's not something for the faint of hearts. or for people who don't have enough time/money to make that investment.

god knows how much i would love to port AD&D and warhammer into GURPS and just use THAT system for everything. but i don't do it, because part of the flavour would be lost in the translation, if you know what i mean.



			
				Arauthator said:
			
		

> Most of you guys seriously need to play a few good games of Castles & Crusades.




i have that, and i like it quite a bit. if the new GM book goes in the direction i hope, in terms of skill system and giving me more information about creating classes that i could find in DMG 2e, that *will* be my system of choice (plus some house rules, of course... but they are so easy to import in C&C!!!)




			
				Arauthator said:
			
		

> The whole reason Gary left DnD was the rules were getting way to complex.




maybe it's because i'm getting older, but i'm agreeing with him on many more things today than what i did, say, 10 years ago. go figure. (his feeling about the rules is just ONE example)



			
				Arauthator said:
			
		

> because nobody likes to play an RPG like a ding dang chess game



unfortunately, some of my experiences contraddict yours. there are players out there that love playing by the book, and by the book only, surprisingly as it is.


----------



## Spell (Jan 21, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> What I don't agree with is your characterization of history.  Gygax's leaving D&D had extremely little to do with rules mechanics and a lot to do with real world stuff.  Add to that, Gygax's own additions to the game - Unearthed Arcana for example - and you have stuff that is in no way rules light.




i think he means D&D as 3e, not AD&D.


----------



## Spell (Jan 21, 2008)

Arauthator said:
			
		

> What would it hurt to keep supporting the older rules systems?




i don't see it being profitable for the copyright owners, sorry. let me explain.

wizards is coming out with 4e.

if they kept supporting 3.x, they would lose part of their workforce to support a "dead" game. this would also have the effect of making the transition between older and new edition slower. if i can still go out and buy adventures for my 3e (or 2e, or whatever) game, why should i convert to the new system? maybe i will at some point, but there's no hurry.

if they were not supporting 3.x, but gave the chance to do so to an independent publisher (like they more or less did with 2e/ hackmaster and kenzer) that would still be ineffective. kenzer couldn't use the AD&D2e name for obvious reasons even if they wanted to. plus any product that has any reference to old wizards copyrighted rules has to be ok'ed by wizards before being release.
this, with HM, caused a lot of release problems.
this system would also slow down 4e buying anyway.


so, sorry, i don't see that happening.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jan 21, 2008)

9 successive posts from the same person.  Is that a record?


----------



## Spell (Jan 21, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> I don't think they'd know, not having sold the books in print...




i think that they wouldn't want to know, given that tis' more valuable, in the long run, to develop a new system and support that. they can still rake money with the "return to..." series, to "revive" the famous products or adventures in the current edition.

having said that, i like the idea of pdfs, but the quality of said products is not always the best. i've heard that at times parts of the products are missing (can't give a proper reference, and it might very well be just a rumour). what i know for sure is that in some of the products i both the quality of the images is not too good.

it would be really nice if there was another PDF conversion today, now that PDF publishing can be really professional. the quality of the scansion would also be incredibly better. it wouldn't probably make sense financially, though.


----------



## Spell (Jan 21, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Even in 2E, there was a hierarchy of usefulness in the NWP system. Pretty much all fighters took Blindfighting and Tumble was a popular choice as well while weaving wasnt exactly in much demand.




there sure was, and, to be honest, it's obvious that way. D&D or AD&D have never been "total roleplyaing, no combat game" the way that, say, the old world of darkness games were (well... some of them, maybe! hunter and werewolf were certainly displaying a lot of muscle, too).

in that sense, the hierarchy is built in the expectations of the game... but, again, not stating too clearly what these expectations are or should be resulted in a wider variety of games being catered by a singular ruleset. (in my experience!)


----------



## SuStel (Jan 21, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> god knows how much i would love to port AD&D and warhammer into GURPS and just use THAT system for everything. but i don't do it, because part of the flavour would be lost in the translation, if you know what i mean.




Have you seen GURPS Dungeon Fantasy: Adventurers?


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 21, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> ?????!!!!!!!
> have you ever tried and run a GURPS advanced combat with all the rules in?
> or do you think that, as long as the rules follow one set of logical assummptions (e.g. rolling high = good) it doesn't matter how many of them are out there?




I haven't _tried_ to run GURPS advanced combat - I have actually run GURPS advanced combat. And it is not at all hard to do. Yes, you need to consult a few charts, but none of the rules are actually complicated. (Where GURPS gets complicated are in the things like vehicle or robot designs).

And the advanced combat rules are _all_ optional. The correct comparison to vanilla D&D is the basic combat rules. The advanced combat rules can only fairly be compared to 2e if you include things like the player's option rules. And when you look at them side by side, the GURPS rules are much easier.

But the real key here is that GURPS _overall_, when used as a fantasy game, is a system that is more rules-light than 2e. The skills are easier to use, the magic system is easier to use, and even the basic combat system is easier to use.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 21, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> so, you're saying that 27 pages of chatty, fluffy 2e combat rules (which have also to explain different "illogical" and "arbitrary" subsystems, and give definitions to more and much less intuitive saving throws, by the way) are the same as 27 pages of dry, "let's get to the point" 3e combat rules?




Ah, now that your argument has been undermined by actual facts, you resort to the "well, the 2e rules were "chatty" and "fluffy"? I see what you are standing on there, and it is pretty sandy. At this point, it is obvious that you are just grasping for straws and don't have anything left to say that makes any sense.



> _quoted for truth, especially when reducing the impact of the already existing skill hierarchy! who needs to build a fire, or farm a land, or know about etiquette, when you are down in the dungeon killing monsters? this certainly has not a place in anyone's game table. well, maybe some wuss, tender hearted player would like it that way, but we are playing dungeons & dragons, not emos & sillies!!!_




All of the skills you mention here are included in 3e. Survival, Profession: Farmer, and Diplomacy or Knowlege: Nobility and Royalty cover all of those things.



> _sorry for the irony... i felt that just repeating my point in a serious tone *once again* was not going to make any difference._




Your "point" is nonsense, because it doesn't actually match the facts on hand.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 21, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> so, you know GURPS and HERO, and still think that the ruleset in 3e is easier to tailor to anyone's tastes? this is surprising to say the least.




I didn't say it was easier to tailor than any game. I said it was easier to tailor than 2e.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 21, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> first off, as i pointed out some post before, 3e needs to be much more balanced than previous edition, at least for allowing such liberal multiclassing AND to have all the classes progressing on the same XP table.




No, it doesn't. Not any more than 2e needed to be "balanced". Because if you were happy about having the rules work in an unbalanced way in 2e, then complaining that changing 3e affects its balance is quite simply being dishonest.



> _Hence, if i was perfectly ok with the 2e not telling IN THE CORE MANUALS: "hey people: this is how a good campaign should be! this is what your PCs should expect at each and every level! this is what a balanced encounter is like!", i might have more than a minimal concern with a game system that makes those assumptions crystal clear, because, you know, new players might not get that the DM is meant to have fun, too; that the DM is on their side, so to speak; that the DM doesn't have fun by killing their character and being unfair and "not following the rules" to abuse PCs._




Its a good thing that the 3e rules don't say any of those things either. If you are going to argue about the 3e rules, you might want to stick to those things the rules actually say. Actually reading them would seem to be a good place for you to start.



> _since i had to move to another country for work and study reasons, i had to find new players. hence, i actually had much more than minimal concern is preparing adventures (which, by the way, was more time consuming for me than it used to be... for no other reasons that i couldn't run 2e modules that i had run so many times that i didn't even need to read them through to remember what was in "room 25", or what has you), for players that i had never played with before, and might have had more than a minimal concern with a DM whose assumptions about what an enjoyable D&D game is are so different from what is "in the rules"._




And? What you have described is not a problem with the rules. What you have described is a problem with _you_ and _your players_. The fact that you were really familiar with 2e is not a failing of the rules of 3e. The fact that your players preferred a different kind of game from the one you wanted to run is not a failing of 3e. Did you try to tell them up front what kind of game you wanted to run? I'm guessing that the answer is no, and that you just assumed they would be okay with whatever you pulled out of your hat.



> _Second off, it does. just read my post about published adventures.
> did you actually read what i said before, or are you just replying to a simple post, without putting it into perspective with what was said before?_




Your incoherent post about published adventures? You mean the one where you say "you can lurch about and stumble into the answer after a while"? That's nonsensical at best. Far better to simply tell you what they assumed when they wrote the adventure.



> _is it not?!?!_




No, it isn't.



> _maybe that's the point.
> i am talking about how the rule heavy/ completely integrated/ combat oriented/ "these are the right assumptions" 3e effectively made me stop role playing. for this reason alone, to me, no matter how much more sense the new system made to newbies and old players alike, it is inferior to the 2e. then, i also added more reasons why 3e is inferior to me, which basically boils down to: it's not a system that makes me run my games as i want or in a way that i find enjoyable._




The system "makes" you run games a certain way? That's ludicrous on its face unless you are too weak-willed to do anything other than what a book tells you to.

3e is _less_ combat oriented than 2e in its rules - because it actually has functional rules systems for things _other_ than combat. 2e really didn't (no, I don't consider the poorly put together NWP system to be worth considering).

3e never says "these are the right assumptions" - it says "these are the assumptions we used". If you use different assumptions, you know that you need to account for it, if you want to mainitain the same sort of balance they came to. But if you are used to 2e where there was no balance, why do you care? Complaining that changing things affects 3e's balance while at the same time extolling the virtues of 2e is engaing in rank intellectual dishonesty.



> _how much more clear do i have to make it? if you want to dispute such a point, please, don't go into how much easier it is to understand what will happen in the system if you touch rule X. it's disputable (as i and other people have done in this thread) and it's really not the point even if it was true: even if i could anticipate perfectly what the effects of changing a subsystem would be, it doesn't make any more simple to balance the system back once i changed it._




It isn't disputable, really. The people who say it is are either not paying attention or are delaing in received wisdom without checking the facts for themselves. When the system is transparent, it is easier to make changes and be able to anticipate the effects those changes will have. You may not _like_ those effects, but that doesn't mean you can't anticipate them. I find it amusing the number of people who say "you can't predict the effects of changes! If you change X, it means that Y, Z, and Q are all affected!". What have they done if not predict the effects of a change? No, the people who say that "it is disputable" are engaging in logical inconsistency.

And it _is_ simple to balance the system back if you don't like the effects - just change the rule back.


----------



## Arauthator (Jan 21, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Hey, your friendly neighborhood admin here. Welcome to the site!  But just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're calling you a liar. It means they think you're wrong. There's a big difference. Please don't take offense and assume the worst when that isn't what's intended.
> 
> And in this case, PapersAndPaychecks is right; Gary was forced out of the company after having his office locked. He's here on the site, so you can certainly confirm this if you like.




My mistake was in how I worded it.

He "designed" those game systems because RPG's have become rule intense.
If you go back and look at my original post though.......I said he left DnD, not TSR.

"Leaving TSR because of" 

            .......was a bad choice of words on someone else's part.

My apologies.......I didn't mean to go start a whole new "Cult of the Dragon".......upon which was founded by mis-interpretation. I'm the Mage though, not Sammaster in this case.


----------



## Spell (Jan 21, 2008)

SuStel said:
			
		

> Have you seen GURPS Dungeon Fantasy: Adventurers?




i've heard about it, but i would like to know how much is this directly related to (A)D&D (as opposed to just be a parody of sorts) before buying it.


----------



## Spell (Jan 21, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Ah, now that your argument has been undermined by actual facts, you resort to the "well, the 2e rules were "chatty" and "fluffy"? I see what you are standing on there, and it is pretty sandy. At this point, it is obvious that you are just grasping for straws and don't have anything left to say that makes any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




ok, you win. i am david cook, i wrote 2e and i can't stand 3e, for no other reason that is so much better than anything ever written before or after.

feel better now?


----------



## billd91 (Jan 21, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Computer software's a bit different, though.
> 
> Stopping the 2e stuff when 3e came out is more like a writer ceasing to sell his last book because he wants his customers to buy his latest one.  Why not use all your IP to make money?




It's not as different as you think. The new edition of a game is like the new version of software. It's targeted at the same intellectual space... the current version of the game designers'/publishers' intellectual property. A sequel to another work of fiction occupies a distinctly different intellectual space and is not a replacement for the earlier one.  Thus, the IP owner is usually more content to allow the two to exist side by side. 

In the world of fiction, a better comparison is an earlier edition of a work being replaced by a later one, perhaps one that has certain corrections made to it or a reworked passage or two. In more extreme form, the original Star Wars trilogy fits in this mold, with the final version replacing the edits of earlier versions released on the screen or on video. In both cases, the owner of the intellectual property wants the final form (and only the final form) available to the masses since it's more in line with his vision of what the product should be, though of course, it's still possible that people may favor an earlier edition for their own idiosyncratic reasons.

From the stand point of the economics of the situation, two related works may compete a little, but two editions of the same work will compete a lot. Attention devoted to the earlier edition will detract attention from the latter, potentially preventing it from getting revenue generating reprints.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jan 21, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> It's not as different as you think. The new edition of a game is like the new version of software. It's targeted at the same intellectual space... the current version of the game designers'/publishers' intellectual property. A sequel to another work of fiction occupies a distinctly different intellectual space and is not a replacement for the earlier one.  Thus, the IP owner is usually more content to allow the two to exist side by side.
> 
> In the world of fiction, a better comparison is an earlier edition of a work being replaced by a later one, perhaps one that has certain corrections made to it or a reworked passage or two. In more extreme form, the original Star Wars trilogy fits in this mold, with the final version replacing the edits of earlier versions released on the screen or on video. In both cases, the owner of the intellectual property wants the final form (and only the final form) available to the masses since it's more in line with his vision of what the product should be, though of course, it's still possible that people may favor an earlier edition for their own idiosyncratic reasons.
> 
> From the stand point of the economics of the situation, two related works may compete a little, but two editions of the same work will compete a lot. Attention devoted to the earlier edition will detract attention from the latter, potentially preventing it from getting revenue generating reprints.




I think this argument assumes a degree of similarity between products called "D&D" that does not, in fact, exist.

The differences between Star Wars original and the edited version are largely cosmetic--equivalent to the differences between 1e and 2e, imo.  Even those who like 3e, or feel it was an improvement, usually admit it changed almost everything.


----------



## Arauthator (Jan 21, 2008)

Forgive me people for not partaking in this conversation. For one, this thread has took a left turn, WAY left. The other, I've argued over GURPS so many times in my life, I'm surprised my skin isn't permanently blue.

I loved it when it first came out.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 21, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> I think this argument assumes a degree of similarity between products called "D&D" that does not, in fact, exist.
> 
> The differences between Star Wars original and the edited version are largely cosmetic--equivalent to the differences between 1e and 2e, imo.  Even those who like 3e, or feel it was an improvement, usually admit it changed almost everything.




The necessary similarity is the intent of the producer. One version is intended to replace the other. Operating systems may look very different but one version is meant to replace the other in sales and support. The same holds true for editions of RPG rules. The actual degree of change between editions is irrelevant to the intentions of the developers and publishers. Radically different versions may make it prudent to offer some overlapping support for a while as the users get aclimated to the version, but eventually that multi-version support will go away as an unnecessary expense.


----------



## Arauthator (Jan 21, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> The necessary similarity is the intent of the producer. One version is intended to replace the other. Operating systems may look very different but one version is meant to replace the other in sales and support. The same holds true for editions of RPG rules. The actual degree of change between editions is irrelevant to the intentions of the developers and publishers. Radically different versions may make it prudent to offer some overlapping support for a while as the users get acclimated to the version, but eventually that multi-version support will go away as an unnecessary expense.





Ok. I got to put some input on this theory. Let me sit back in the couch and put my laptop on my wittle piwow so's I can stretch out.


I got some insight on this because my profession is that of a Technical Writer. I'm a Technical Publications Specialist, and I can tell, if WE took on that attitude, the people that use our manuals would be totally lost. I happen to write manuals for Aircraft, so imagine if I were to write those manuals from the eyes of what I want them to see, or make them see things MY way. We would have aircraft falling out of the sky, which is EXACTLY what WoTC has done. It shows in the sales. You have to write manuals while trying to see it through the end users eyes, since ultimately, they are the one going to look at it everyday long after you are already looking at your next project. 

* (I'm thinking GenCon should be mandatory for this reason.)

I think it's quite arrogant to suppress the ideals of a publisher or developer onto the end user, not just with RPG's, but ANYTHING where people are going to be using your manuals. Boeing didn't drop the Manuals for B727's just because they were old aircraft. No, people still use them aircraft and in this particular case, the FAA requires support for those manuals as long as the aircraft is being used. Well guess what, people are still using older versions of rules in RPG's and in my opinion, it's the downfall of game companies to not keep support up.

 Now I realize that you have to make a profit in this business and the business of Aircraft Manuals relies on the fact that the Aircraft stay around a lot longer than the people who play RPG's, but never-the-less, there is still a small market out there for them. No, you don't want to boost that support past your flagship product by any means, but if you can show the world you are willing to pull Dungeon Magazine and Dragon Magazine off the shelves to bring to your website, oh yes, you can definitely pull support for older rules. Maybe release a module or magic item compendium every 3 months, or something to that effect. While your flagship product gets something new every month.

I would love to talk to the guys from Steve Jackson Games, particularly Sean Punch, and see what went wrong when they tried this method, apparently more than once. I can tell you from all of my experience in this world, just because one person failed, doesn't mean everybody will. If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Just make sure you don't make the same type of mistakes twice.

Somebody on here suggested labeling a rules system "Vintage DnD". I think that is an excellent idea. Furthermore, you are living in a time right now where movie producers are bringing back older movies, I.E. Rambo, Video Games companies bring back older games, I.E. Turok is scheduled to make a come back, and ID Software..DOOM 3, did fairly well on revamping it's flagship game. If you were going to implement this idea of supporting older rules, NOW is the time to act on it while the consumer is already used to this idea! Derrr! Doesn't WoTC or Hasbro PAY people to have this kind of vision? This is something that should have been done at the time of putting the magazines on the website, or at the time of announcing fourth edition, however it's not too late. Actually, releasing that information in the first quarter of 2009 would be excellent timing as well, just a few short months after the last rule book is scheduled to be released. Even the Car Manufacturers are doing well at this strategy.

_On a side note, you guys have any idea how hard it is to find Cry Havoc rule books? My first copy got damaged a few weeks back, and it took me a week to find somebody that could ship it within 10 days. Sheesh!_

Don't even get me started on the idea of having a fourth edition when Chainmail didn't even make it to the shelves.

But back to my point. I know this is a Monday Morning Armchair Quarterback thing to say, so forgive me, but if it were me in on the decisions over there, I would make a master copy of ALL the DnD rules ever created into a book that can be used as a PDF, and let the end user download updates upon a description of those updates from the website. I would also make sure it had a very good description of the changes and charge for that update. Maybe fourth edition is moving toward this already, but it should include the older stuff if it is.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 22, 2008)

Arauthator said:
			
		

> Forgive me people for not partaking in this conversation. For one, this thread has took a left turn, WAY left. The other, I've argued over GURPS so many times in my life, I'm surprised my skin isn't permanently blue.
> 
> I loved it when it first came out.




One side note about GURPS unrelated to your comment.

In both 2e and 3e combat is covered in the PHB in about 27 pages.

In GURPS, the chapter on basic combat is six pages long. The supposeduly incredibly complicated advanced combat chapter is 23 pages long. The GURPS combat system covers everything from stone knives to ultra-tech fusion guns, and everything in between. Also sandwiched in those pages are rules for mass combat and unusual "dirty tricks" type tactics.

Yet people simply refuse to believe that GURPS is simpler than D&D, usually because they have "been told" or have "heard" that GURPS is an incredibly complicated system. Once you sit down and read it though, it becomes pretty clear how easy it really is.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jan 22, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Well, for example, ST-1 Up the Garden Path, or the Dragon Magazine pdf compilation.  (I have both; I'm planning to sell them when the price reaches an arm, a leg and your first born child.  ST-1 is nearly there already!)




According to one site, there's probably less than 50 copies existing of ST1, and certainly no more than 600 copies ever printed. It's a collector's item, not a module that people buy to run. The Dragon Magazine PDFs are impossible to reprint as is; they had to settle some problems with KoDT people since they explicitly didn't have the rights to reproduce some of the cartoons they did, and I believe under current law, they'd have to negotiate with almost every person who ever wrote an article for Dragon for rights to reprint it. 



> I think that's a false dichotomy; most collectors are players.  Albeit sometimes commercial-minded ones.




They may be players, but they will buy things with their collector hat on they would never do with their player hat on. 

For one example, the person who paid $2500 for ST1 bought it to complete a collection. He did not buy it to play it, and there's no way to tell whether he would have bought it to play at any price. For another example, GURPS Bili the Axe: Up Harzburk now sells for $37. Do you really think people are paying $37 for a solo adventure that was recalled? I may not have paid that much, but I 
know I didn't buy it to play with.

And again, this is meaningless. Sean Punch, who has reprinted books for Steve Jackson Games because of what they were selling used, has said that's a mistake; that a book is selling for high prices on EBay doesn't mean that it will sell well if reprinted. Unless we have someone else who worked for a gaming company in such a position saying something else, that's as informed a source as we're going to get.



> I don't think they'd know, not having sold the books in print...




They're the ones who have the numbers on how much the PDFs are selling, and how much it would cost to PoD these books. At a certain point, backseat driving is just annoying; you just don't know as much as they do.



> As I've said, this makes as much sense as withdrawing _The Hobbit_ from the bookshelves so as to sell more copies of _Lord of the Rings_.




Yes, you've said that. However, I think having multiple Player Handbooks for sale is more like having multiple editions of the Lord of Rings, except that the reader not only has to have an edition of the Hobbit that matches his edition of the Lord of the Rings, to get full use out of the books, he also has to have the same editions of the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings as his friends...


----------



## Henry (Jan 22, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> In GURPS, the chapter on basic combat is six pages long. The supposeduly incredibly complicated advanced combat chapter is 23 pages long. The GURPS combat system covers everything from stone knives to ultra-tech fusion guns, and everything in between. Also sandwiched in those pages are rules for mass combat and unusual "dirty tricks" type tactics.




However, don't those same combat rules cover combat as second-by-second, where you have to roll vs. your own skill, then check against someone else's active defense, THEN check against their passive defense, then determine where the attack hits, and then figure out how much damage goes to the victim and how much "blows through", and apply the penalties for the result of the hit location? I enjoyed GURPS' rulebooks for their thoroughness and reading value, but the actual gameplay of the system always turned me off to it, because in addition to the lethality when using weapons deadlier than a sword, I also felt like it took two hours to resolve a seven-second long combat.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jan 22, 2008)

Arauthator said:
			
		

> Maybe release a module or magic item compendium every 3 months, or something to that effect. While your flagship product gets something new every month.




If you're going to print four volumes every three months, you make one of them an old edition only if that would make you more than making it the new edition. Even if that's true on a book for book basis, you've still got to wonder if splitting your audience is economically successful.



> I would love to talk to the guys from Steve Jackson Games, particularly Sean Punch, and see what went wrong when they tried this method, apparently more than once.




The method they tried was reprinting books based on the sales of the used books. And what the most they'll probably tell you is that they say GURPS XYZ selling for so much on EBay, and they reprinted it, and it didn't sell worth anything. But Sean Punch (=Dr. Kromm) has an email address, if you really want to ask.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 22, 2008)

> He "designed" those game systems because RPG's have become rule intense.
> If you go back and look at my original post though.......I said he left DnD, not TSR.




He left D&D 'cos he got sued when he tried to not leave D&D.  

I have a problem with thinking that C&C is actually a rules light game.  It's not.  Any more than 2e was rules light.  2e wasn't rules light at all.  You had far too many subsystems to be considered rules light.  A game which has a different system for resolving every kind of action is NOT rules light.

I think the problem here is people seem to have very different definitions of rules light vs rules heavy.  Rules light systems don't have several hundred pages of game rules.  That 2e may or may not have been lighter than 3e is arguable, but, 2e in no way is a rules light system.

FUDGE is a rules light system.  Amber is a rules light system.  Dying Earth RPG is a rules light system.  

2e ain't.


----------



## Arauthator (Jan 22, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> He left D&D 'cos he got sued when he tried to not leave D&D.
> 
> I have a problem with thinking that C&C is actually a rules light game.  It's not.  Any more than 2e was rules light.  2e wasn't rules light at all.  You had far too many subsystems to be considered rules light.  A game which has a different system for resolving every kind of action is NOT rules light.
> 
> ...




This is funny I have to keep explaining this.

DnD isn't a company you can leave. It's a game you CHOOSE to leave, or return to, or start playing.

You're entitled to your opinion on what is light or heavy on rules, I think Castles & Crusades is a light on rules game and I will call it as such. I agree with the term rules heavy when discussing 3e, because there are a million and one books out there for the game. Technically though, we can handle it at my game table because we make sure we know the rules on the components we choose to play with before we get to the game table. Sometimes those discussions take place via email, on the phone, or coming over to my house. I make sure I have the pages indexed that have the spells, feats, and skills of my players and I run through combat of certain monsters before the day of gaming. Therefore, I only call 3e rules heavy because everyone else refers to it that way. I bypass that burden by keeping the game centered around role playing and recruiting players who are not rules heavy.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 22, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> However, don't those same combat rules cover combat as second-by-second, where you have to roll vs. your own skill, then check against someone else's active defense, THEN check against their passive defense, then determine where the attack hits, and then figure out how much damage goes to the victim and how much "blows through", and apply the penalties for the result of the hit location? I enjoyed GURPS' rulebooks for their thoroughness and reading value, but the actual gameplay of the system always turned me off to it, because in addition to the lethality when using weapons deadlier than a sword, I also felt like it took two hours to resolve a seven-second long combat.




No, they don't.

_If_ you use the advanced combat rules, PD adds to a character's active defenses, it isn't its own seperate roll. You only have to randomly determine where an attack hits if you want to use that optional rule, hit locations are normally used for attemption to intentionaly strike a specific area, and picked ahead of time, and modify the attack roll by a fixed amount. Blow through damage is pretty simple to figure out: HT for the torso (only impaling and bullets are limited), HT/3 for hands or feet, HT/2 for arms or legs, HTx3 for head and vitals (also only for impaling and bullet damage), and no limit for brain hits.

The sequence is: roll an attack roll (your skill minus any modifier for attempting to hit a particular location), if successful, your opponent rolls a defense roll (his skill plus any PD), if he fails, roll damage, subtract DR, and, if using hit locations, evaluate blow through.

It has one more roll than the standard D&D system, and usually less needs to be looked up. And that's the advanced combat system. The basic one is quicker.

And yes, combat is deadlier when you use higher tech weapons. That's because higher tech weapons are generally more lethal than swords.


----------



## MerricB (Jan 22, 2008)

Arauthator said:
			
		

> This is funny I have to keep explaining this.
> 
> DnD isn't a company you can leave. It's a game you CHOOSE to leave, or return to, or start playing.




If Gary had remained at TSR after 1985, he would have remained as the chief designer of AD&D, most likely providing a streamlined version of AD&D (his 2nd edition) in the near future. 

Gary still plays (DMs) original D&D from time to time; there was a notable session at the last GenCon with several EN World moderators.

That Gary, in the latter part of his designing career, has evinced a distinct preference for rules light games is not in doubt. To say that the "whole reason he left D&D" was because of it becoming too rules heavy ignores that he legally couldn't work on the game system any more.

Gary went from designing AD&D to designing Dangerous Journeys (an incredibly rules-heavy game... Gary himself says "[t]he DJ books were done in my rules-heavy period" - source), and finally to the rules-light Lejendary Adventures (1999). C&C is not originated by Gary, nor is he doing much with it, although he's adapted some of his D&D material for the game.

Cheers!


----------



## Arauthator (Jan 22, 2008)

Touche' MericcB.

That's EXACTLY my take on it as well, for the most part. Although maybe I had some difficulty in making that point.

The whole rules heavy or rules light thing, is simply a matter of ones opinion.

As far as Dangerous Journeys goes, I concur. He's said on several different things I've read about him, he put every rule he could think of into that project.

I think we are sort of agreeing here, just in different words.

Hopefully that issue has been put to bed now....RIFTS anyone?

        ~lol~


----------



## Henry (Jan 22, 2008)

Arauthator said:
			
		

> Hopefully that issue has been put to bed now....RIFTS anyone? ~lol~




Nah, I prefer GURPS. 



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> ...PD adds to a character's active defenses, it isn't its own separate roll. You only have to randomly determine where an attack hits if you want to use that optional rule, hit locations are normally used for attemption to intentionaly strike a specific area, and picked ahead of time, and modify the attack roll by a fixed amount.




Thanks for the clarification: I could have sworn 3E GURPS advanced rules had that Passive Defense and Active Defense were their own separate rolls; my misreading also held that when you hit, you either rolled on the random chart OR if you called a location ahead of time that it used the penalty listed.



> Blow through damage is pretty simple to figure out: HT for the torso (only impaling and bullets are limited), HT/3 for hands or feet, HT/2 for arms or legs, HTx3 for head and vitals (also only for impaling and bullet damage), and no limit for brain hits.




Given my love for hit points, that is to complicated for me for a round-by-round system.  Then again, for a system that deals anywhere from 5 to 15 dice of damage to a guy with 10 to 15 hit points, it's also very necessary, I would think.



> The sequence is: roll an attack roll (your skill minus any modifier for attempting to hit a particular location), if successful, your opponent rolls a defense roll (his skill plus any PD), if he fails, roll damage, subtract DR, and, if using hit locations, evaluate blow through.
> 
> It has one more roll than the standard D&D system, and usually less needs to be looked up. And that's the advanced combat system. The basic one is quicker.
> 
> And yes, combat is deadlier when you use higher tech weapons. That's because higher tech weapons are generally more lethal than swords.




It's funny, but when I read the basic system, I recall that it seemed to have lots of assumptions in every place else BUT the basic system that you were using the advanced system - it made it harder to adjudicated a lot of that stuff outside of the combat chapter. (Plus, when you are using hit locations, body armor was a lot more complex, having to keep track of which body part had different PD and Damage reduction (or whatever it was called).

And the high tech weapons were more deadly, but given what I see on the nightly news about people surviving gunshot wounds, I still have reservations about a gun being 5 to 10 times more lethal than a bow or sword. But that gets into too much semantics over complexity of a game system. I still absolutely love Ultra-tech's TL16 Tachyon Gun -- the ultimate one-shot kill is to just make your enemy GO AWAY.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 22, 2008)

My personal experience with GURPS was fairly extensive for a brief time- my game group in Austin featured several GURPSophiles.  (We even playtested GURPS Vampire.)

I never saw GURPS as rules light or heavy, I just found portions of it to be inconsistent with its name of being "generic" and "universal," especially in comparison to HERO.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 22, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> Thanks for the clarification: I could have sworn 3E GURPS advanced rules had that Passive Defense and Active Defense were their own separate rolls; my misreading also held that when you hit, you either rolled on the random chart OR if you called a location ahead of time that it used the penalty listed.




I just looked them up, and the PD is added to your active defense. The random hit locations are something you _can_ use if you want to, and a lot of people do, but I have found that it can be unbalancing (but not unwieldy, since the roll is always against the same chart so you memorize it pretty quickly), giving away big hits with no cost.



> _Given my love for hit points, that is to complicated for me for a round-by-round system.  Then again, for a system that deals anywhere from 5 to 15 dice of damage to a guy with 10 to 15 hit points, it's also very necessary, I would think._




Pretty much one or two hits ends most fights in GURPS anyway, so it doesn't really make a big difference most of the time.



> _It's funny, but when I read the basic system, I recall that it seemed to have lots of assumptions in every place else BUT the basic system that you were using the advanced system - it made it harder to adjudicated a lot of that stuff outside of the combat chapter. (Plus, when you are using hit locations, body armor was a lot more complex, having to keep track of which body part had different PD and Damage reduction (or whatever it was called)._




You got it right, DR is damage reduction. And yes, individual body armor parts can get annoying. Which makes the basic system very attractive to use, since it doesn't bother with that. Or you can use the advanced combat system without hit locations, which is pretty easy to do.



> _And the high tech weapons were more deadly, but given what I see on the nightly news about people surviving gunshot wounds, I still have reservations about a gun being 5 to 10 times more lethal than a bow or sword. But that gets into too much semantics over complexity of a game system. I still absolutely love Ultra-tech's TL16 Tachyon Gun -- the ultimate one-shot kill is to just make your enemy GO AWAY. _




Well, most guns aren't that much more lethal - a broadsword does sw+1, or 1d+1 for a person of average strength; and thr+1, or 1d-1 for that same person. A Beretta 9mm does 2d+2, which is twice as much, but very survivable for a 10 HT person. Rifles do more - an M1 Garand does 7d+1, and an M16 does 5d, which sounds really nasty until you consider that most of that damage will usually get lost due to blow-through unless you score a brain hit. And since you don't automatically die when you are dropped to 0 HT, those hits can be easily survivable if you receive medical treatment.


----------



## Spell (Jan 22, 2008)

Arauthator said:
			
		

> I would love to talk to the guys from Steve Jackson Games, particularly Sean Punch, and see what went wrong when they tried this method, apparently more than once.




you got it wrong. it's not the case of them putting out stuff for GURPS 2e or something similar, but, rather, reprinting books just because the existing copies were selling for high prices on ebay (or similar channels).
these are two different things.

steve jackson is now offering pdfs of GURPS 3e on their e23. some of those pdfs, apparently, are doing pretty well. if they were offering a print on demand thing (which they might just as well... i never bought pdfs from them), i think old users would be almost toally happy, too.



			
				Arauthator said:
			
		

> Somebody on here suggested labeling a rules system "Vintage DnD". I think that is an excellent idea.



if they were going to reprint old modules, and print new stuff for older editions, i would hate it if they relabelled the systems. i can see why it would make sense, but the existing labels (up to 3e) are already different enough to make sense:
Dungeons & Dragons: BECM or OD&D (this might lead to confusion... in this case the "vintage D&D" label might work for OD&D).
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: 1e
Advanced D&D 2nd edition: 2e (doh!)

then you have dungeons and dragons again for what effectively had to be Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition.
and again D&D for 4th edition.

i blame it on postmodernism! 

anyway, i don't see how this is going to happen any time soon, so why worry?


----------



## Spell (Jan 22, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yet people simply refuse to believe that GURPS is simpler than D&D, usually because they have "been told" or have "heard" that GURPS is an incredibly complicated system. Once you sit down and read it though, it becomes pretty clear how easy it really is.




how condescending of you! you really don't appreciate that what might be a cup of tea for you might be a pain in the neck for the next person, don't you?

looking up at tons of modifiers is my idea of killing any fun in a combat IMMEDIATELY. that's what GURPS advanced combat is. having to choose between tons of different tactical options screams BORING to me in every step of a combat. that's what GURPS advanced combat is.

yes, i know it's all optional. and i am grateful to no ends to the people at steve jackson games to design THEIR game in a way that allows me to throw that part of the system out of the window, while i add an infinitely more complex layer where i want (character creation, in my case).

i am also incredibly grateful that GURPS allows you to run your combats in the way*you* find intuitive and fun. because, you know, some day i might sit at your table and have fun.

*that* is a game design philosophy that makes me willing to buy books even if i don't plan to run a GURPS campaign any time soon, because "you never know". it's quality stuff, and i feel that *my* view as a customer (not the average customer's view) is respected. if i wanted to exagerate, i would call it the leftist answer to wizards' fascist philosophy. but that, as i said, is a huge exageration.


----------



## Spell (Jan 22, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> I enjoyed GURPS' rulebooks for their thoroughness and reading value, but the actual gameplay of the system always turned me off to it, because in addition to the lethality when using weapons deadlier than a sword, I also felt like it took two hours to resolve a seven-second long combat.




this reminded me of a quote i read somewhere... i can't remember exactly, but it might have been from the creators' of HERO. basically they said that there is no optional rule for a RP gamer, only rules that will be implemented later in the game play.

is that the case for all of you? in my experience, this idea is quite exact. many people simply feel a bit "left out" if they ignore some parts of their manuals, even if it's clearly stated that those rules are optional. maybe they dont' want to use them every day, but at least they try to "try them out" every now and then, or for special occasions.

despite of my previous posts, i'm not GURPS poster boy... but i would advice you, Henry, to give it another shot, especially for sci-fi and non-fantasy adventures, sticking to the basic combat. i think it's my system of choice for historical games, mystery campaigns, and anything with loads of modern technology. cyberpunk 2.0.2.0. might still be more intuitive and fun for handling cyberpunk, but then again i never really gave GURPS a try in that genre.


----------



## Spell (Jan 22, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I have a problem with thinking that C&C is actually a rules light game.  It's not.  Any more than 2e was rules light.



no, i disagree with you here. C&C is certainly rules light. pretty much every roll is resolved by the same mechanic: the DM chooses a number to beat based on many elements *and* his judgement, and then you roll and see whether you suceed or not.
easy peasy. 

on the other hand, i totally agree with you. 2e is not rule light. it's rule medium. the "lightness" perception derives, in my opinion, by the fact that you could ignore some subsystems or rules, or substitute them with something you fancied more with a minimal preparation.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I think the problem here is people seem to have very different definitions of rules light vs rules heavy.  Rules light systems don't have several hundred pages of game rules.




if you consider every spell to be a different special rule, then i totally agree with you. on the other hand, i think the lightness of a system does not depend on those. 2e still had too many subsystems to be considered light, and too many convolutions in the combat. BECM would be rule-light, on the other hand, despite the spells, magical items and mosters.


----------



## Spell (Jan 22, 2008)

Arauthator said:
			
		

> This is funny I have to keep explaining this.
> 
> DnD isn't a company you can leave. It's a game you CHOOSE to leave, or return to, or start playing.




the whole confusion comes from the fact that AD&D = D&D now. i think you mean that gygax left d20 D&D (or never touched it) because *today* he prefers rule light systems.
what other people might understand is that he left TSR and AD&D (and OD&D) when he was kicked out.

don't take it personally. sometimes people genuinely misunderstand you.


----------



## Spell (Jan 22, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Cheers!




Merric, even those time that i disagreed with you i always found your knowledge of the systems, and the history of TSR/ WotC game developments admirable. 
cheers to you!


----------



## SuStel (Jan 22, 2008)

SuStel said:
			
		

> Have you seen GURPS Dungeon Fantasy: Adventurers?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's not a parody at all. It's a close translation of the current D&D rules into proper GURPS templates.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jan 22, 2008)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> According to one site, there's probably less than 50 copies existing of ST1, and certainly no more than 600 copies ever printed.




Yeah.  It was written for and sold at a relatively obscure British convention, so I imagine most of us who have them are Brits--which means the price will be even more outrageous to Americans, what with the current state of the pound against the dollar.



			
				prosfilaes said:
			
		

> It's a collector's item, not a module that people buy to run.




Certainly.  It's an atrocious adventure--among the worst I've ever seen written down.  The "gimmick" is that the map closely mirrors the convention venue.  *rolls eyes*

Even as a teenage D&D-crazed nerd, I knew instantly it sucked.

But the fact that there's a secondary market, even in stuff like ST-1, tells me there's a demand.



			
				prosfilaes said:
			
		

> Yes, you've said that. However, I think having multiple Player Handbooks for sale is more like having multiple editions of the Lord of Rings, except that the reader not only has to have an edition of the Hobbit that matches his edition of the Lord of the Rings, to get full use out of the books, he also has to have the same editions of the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings as his friends...




There are certainly multiple Player Handbooks on sale.  If you check on ebay right now, you'll see all kinds of them; in fact, I picked up a new 1e PHB a few weeks back.

The only question is who's selling them.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 22, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> how condescending of you! you really don't appreciate that what might be a cup of tea for you might be a pain in the neck for the next person, don't you?




No, I'm just talking about reality here.



> _looking up at tons of modifiers is my idea of killing any fun in a combat IMMEDIATELY. that's what GURPS advanced combat is. having to choose between tons of different tactical options screams BORING to me in every step of a combat. that's what GURPS advanced combat is._




"Millions" of modifiers? Please. The only significant modifier is hit location, which you can simply ignore, and either use random hit location (and if you do, there is no modifier to your attack roll) or just strike at the torso, with no modifier at all. There is a simple table of a half dozen or so hit location modifiers, and that's it.

GURPS really doesn't have many more tactical options to choose from than D&D. I'm not sure what point you think you are making by making stuff up.



> _yes, i know it's all optional. and i am grateful to no ends to the people at steve jackson games to design THEIR game in a way that allows me to throw that part of the system out of the window, while i add an infinitely more complex layer where i want (character creation, in my case)._




Yes, it is all optional, but even if you use GURPS advanced combat with all of the features turned on, it still isn't a very complicated system, since the modifiers that get used in actual play are pretty limited, and the range of tactical options is pretty much similar to those used in other RPGs.


----------



## Spell (Jan 22, 2008)

SuStel said:
			
		

> It's not a parody at all. It's a close translation of the current D&D rules into proper GURPS templates.




uuuhm... me wants!


----------



## Voadam (Jan 22, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> fine, but my point is not that 3e is a wargame. only that the combat rules take the foreground. in other words, my feeling (unfortunately is just a feeling, because i don't have my books with me) is that my issue is not what was left out. it's more with the presentation of the ruleset (which can make all the difference in the world) and in the parts that were added, in the core and in subsequent splatbooks.




I see. That's a point of difference between us then. I didn't consider primary presentation of playstyle in the 2e (storytelling focus) versus 3e PH (more focus on mechanics of combat and balance) as big deals. 

Storytelling and roleplaying has been part of my D&D games through Red Book Basic Set, Blue Book Expert Set, AD&D 1e, 2e, 3e, and 3.5. the playstyle gloss of the 2e v 3e books did not seem particularly important to me, more so was the specifics of details.

2e had better monster descriptions, neater divine specializations through specialty priests, and greater compatibility with prior edition material IMO.

3e had better saves, multiclassing, ability score mechanics, BAB mechanic, fully fledged monster stats, etc. IMO.

These details are the significant differences. The playstyle issues were pretty irrelevant to my games.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 22, 2008)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> For another example, GURPS Bili the Axe: Up Harzburk now sells for $37. Do you really think people are paying $37 for a solo adventure that was recalled? I may not have paid that much, but I know I didn't buy it to play with.




Huh, I never knew that. I got it when I saw it cheap in the sale bin at my FLGS in the 90s. Why was it recalled?


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 22, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> "Millions" of modifiers? Please.



I read the post you quoted. The word "millions" was not used. "Tons" was used. Of course, since that refers to a measure of weight, and is being applied to something that has no weight, it is clearly being used as a figure of speech. Don't take things so literally.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jan 23, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> But the fact that there's a secondary market, even in stuff like ST-1, tells me there's a demand.




But there's not a secondary market, even in stuff like ST-1; there's a secondary market, especially in stuff like ST-1. For another example, Van Gogh's Sunflowers may have sold for 30 million dollars, but reproductions go for the same price as the beer periodical table next to them...and I suspect that more of the latter are sold. What collectors are willing to spend the big bucks for the originals has little to nothing to do with what will sell when reprinted.



> There are certainly multiple Player Handbooks on sale.  If you check on ebay right now, you'll see all kinds of them; in fact, I picked up a new 1e PHB a few weeks back.
> 
> The only question is who's selling them.




And if WotC is selling them, then it implies that 1e is still a viable option. When you buy your books on eBay or Half Price Books, there's no such implication.



			
				Voadam said:
			
		

> Huh, I never knew that. I got it when I saw it cheap in the sale bin at my FLGS in the 90s. Why was it recalled?




Too many path errors to be fixed in eratta.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 23, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> I read the post you quoted. The word "millions" was not used. "Tons" was used.




Given that the typical attack roll in the GURPS advanced combat system has one modifier (hit location) or on occassion two (if you use one of the various combat maneuvers, like an all-out attack), the word "tons" makes no sense in this context either.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 23, 2008)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> And if WotC is selling them, then it implies that 1e is still a viable option. When you buy your books on eBay or Half Price Books, there's no such implication.




Far more important than that is how fast they are moving and for what prices.  the fact is there were a *lot* of AD&D books printed -- after all, it was the game during the "fad" phase of D&D.  The fact that they continue to get bought and sold indicates that there is an interest.  The fact that if you go to any convention there are at least a handful, if not many more, AD&D 1E games on the schedule is also indicative of its continued life and popularity.

With 4E in particular, I think there's a reasonable justification to "split the market" because it is already split.  We just had a new poll and once again, even after months of WotC doing their best to convince us of how awesome it will be, approximately 25% answered that they were negative about 4E.  This new edition, in both flavor and mechanics, is sufficiently different that the samne people that have played D&D for 30 years are not the same people that will be continuing to purchase D&D products -- but it is a pretty far leap to assume they aren't interested in purchasing.

Now, is that 25% number worth WotC's effort to publish "D&D Classic" and "New D&D" simultaneously?  No one knows, not even WotC, because "New D&D" hasn't been tested in the market yet.  But WotC is a business first and I can garauntee you that if a sizable market appears for pre-4E D&D, they'll change their tune, either by presenting a re-D&Dified 4E or by starting back up support for 3E again.

My personal preference would be for WotC to to declare earlier versions Public Domain (minus the IP monsters and such, of course) and clear up any questions of legality, etc.. inherent in the likes of OSRIC so that small companies will feel comfortable in publishing support materials for earlier editions.  I mean, the people who play 1E or 2E aren't going to be buying 4E books anyway -- at least not past the initial "I have to see to know for sure" stage -- so it doesn't actually steal any money from WotC's pocket to allow those earlier editions to flourish in the tiny, niche market of "not the current edition of D&D" that every other rpg on the planet sits in.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 23, 2008)

> The fact that if you go to any convention there are at least a handful, if not many more, AD&D 1E games on the schedule is also indicative of its continued life and popularity.




Really?  Granted, it's been about 15 years since I regularly went to any conventions (in the London/Toronto area), but, at that time, I had no idea that anyone still played 1e.  I never saw a single scheduled game at a con.

Has that changed in recent years?

/edit - I've been listening to Fear the Boot podcasts of late and took a look at Fear The Con's game schedule and out of games there, there's nothing 1e.  I know it's a small con, but, I had no idea that you regularly found 1e games run at cons.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 23, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Really?  Granted, it's been about 15 years since I regularly went to any conventions (in the London/Toronto area), but, at that time, I had no idea that anyone still played 1e.  I never saw a single scheduled game at a con.



Check the GenCon events list later in the spring; there'll be some 1e action there for sure.

Each year there's a tiny con. held here by the local college gaming club...I missed this year's completely but the previous year had at least one 1e game going.  A ridiculously small sample, I know, but if a college con. that'll pull in 100 people on an execptionally good day can support a 1e game then I'd say there's still hope... 

Lanefan


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jan 23, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> the tiny, niche market of "not the current edition of D&D" that every other rpg on the planet sits in.




All pen and paper RPGs are a tiny, niche market.  

Those interested in "other than current" editions of D&D seem to be a sizeable subset to me.

Oh, sure, they often don't hang around on ENWorld or RPGNet.


----------



## Spell (Jan 23, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> I see. That's a point of difference between us then. I didn't consider primary presentation of playstyle in the 2e (storytelling focus) versus 3e PH (more focus on mechanics of combat and balance) as big deals.




i wouldn't if i had the chance to stick to my old group... but having to play with people that i absolutely don't know (like i had to, if i wanted to play at all, here or in the u.s.) changed my perspective. 

ps: how do i get in one of your pbp games again? 
and: would i need to study the PHB and/ or tons of other sources to make a character, or could i just come up with an idea and play? i know it's a bit unfair to ask, but the new semester is starting soon, and i will have limited amount of time to spend on the boards... i'd rather roleplay than skim through the SRD to create a character...


----------



## Spell (Jan 23, 2008)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Given that the typical attack roll in the GURPS advanced combat system has one modifier (hit location) or on occassion two (if you use one of the various combat maneuvers, like an all-out attack), the word "tons" makes no sense in this context either.




ah, the more i read your posts, the more i appreciate where you come from...

let's play a game. let's pretend that i point you to this _OFFICIAL_ sjgames page .

let's also pretend that you actually follow the link, instead of deciding what makes sense and what doesn't, and scroll down, finiding the documents called "Combat Flowchart" and the "Combat Table". let's pretend that you are curious enough to download and open them. don't worry, there are no viruses.

let's pretend that you actually look at the flowchart and realise, maybe for the first time in your life, that there are 56 (that's FIFTYSIX, in case you misread it) steps in it.

let's also pretend that you look at the 2 pages literally _filled_ with modifiers that the combat table gives you.

now, let's stop pretending. enough effort for one day.

having pointed these offcial sjgames resources to you, i will now ignore you, because:
1. your tone is dismissive, lecturing and offensive.

2. your reply do not contribute in any constructive way to the original discussion nor to any other "subtread" that the original discussion caused.

3. i made my point to prove that GURPS advanced combat is nowhere near the smooth, simple system that you claimed it to be.

i am sure you will agree otherwise, but other people's post (henry's, specifically) have already pointed out that your perception of GURPS combat, however respectful (because, you see, i respect your opinion, no matter how offensive you try to be), is not shared by everyone in the world. other ENworlders might agree with me. in fact, there are posters on the sjgames forums that do so. this thread , for example, came up as no. 2 suggested webpage in a google search for "gurps combat cheat sheet".


for the other readers:
1. i never claimed that GURPS is inherently inferior to D&D. or superior, for that matter. some parts of it (in my opinion) are, but it does have its drawbacks.

2. this is GURPS advanced combat. the basic one is very smooth and quick. no need for a flowchart in it.

3. my reference to "tons of modifiers" was not specifi to GURPS advanced combat, but to ANY combat system in which you have to stop in the middle of things to refer to charts, books, rules, and to do maths, instead of enjoying the combat and get your narrative/ descriptive juices flowing freely.

4. there's nothing wrong with maths. only, there's a time and place for it, and it's not during my combat sessions.

let's now keep posting.


----------



## Spell (Jan 23, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Those interested in "other than current" editions of D&D seem to be a sizeable subset to me.
> 
> Oh, sure, they often don't hang around on ENWorld or RPGNet.




first of all, let me tell you that i would in general agree with you: supporting older systems would be way cool.

on the other hand, a change of prospective might shed more light on why this is unlikely to happen.

let's say that your guesstimation of how sizeable the "older D&D editions" maket might be is correct. it probably is. i'm sure there's a lot more gamers out there that have stopped playing with 1e, 2e, and BECM put together that 4e buyers.

the thing is: how knows if these people are still gaming today? some of my friends have stopped altogether. at first because BD&D was not supported anymore in italy AND u.s. but now, after... a good 10 years, their life has moved on. they have different hobbies. they are married. they don't have children yet, but they might soon.
even if Wizards printed the best ever BD&D sourcebook, and shipped it at their door completely free of charge, chances are that they wouldn't start a campaign any time soon.

even those players that are out there playing older editions right now might be quite hard to win back. after years of developing their own material, why would they need to buy "book X"? their game might have moved away from the original assumptions of the older editions. these players might have all the rules they ever need.

even if you chained Gary Gygax himself to a chair and forced him to come up with a new sourcebook, would they have any use for it? and if Gygax is not a sure sale, why should Rich Baker (or whoever else) be? 

moreover, the old edition gamers are, at best, a divided market. some guy stopped playing when unearthed arcana came out, because it's rubbish. another thinks that you can't top D&D rules cyclopedia. i love 2e core and splatbooks, but i didn't like too much 2 of the player's option books.

it's a bit like greyhawk's canon: every player have their own take, and it's literally impossible to get them all to agree! (as this thread, in its limited scope, has demonstrated so far).


one final point would be advertisement. i remember that some of the 3e designers said that wizards had to put ads for 3e in places other than dragon or dungeon for the simple reason that gamers that stopped playing because of their dislike of 2e, would have not be aware of 3e if the ads hadn't been put in "unusual" places. (i don't ahve a source for this, sorry. i hope someone else will point it out for me... merric?)

what if wizards wanted to put a OD&D book out today, aimed at older gamers? where would they advertise the idea? how? we're talking about reaching people htat might not have an internet connection... and if they do, they might not be using it to read EnWorld and other RPG related forums.



so, even if the market was there (and it might be), Wizards would be facing:

1. a division of their buyers (it's better to concentrate your forces on producing 1 or more 4e book a month, than dissipate them on those same 4e books, AND a number of releases for other systems).

2. angry vocal customers ("how comes you're not putting out more 2e books? you just want our money, you evil @@@@@!!!" or, even more likely: "how comes you are wasting your time and energies putting together books for those inferior systems?!?! i'm sure my Book of evil bananas would have no typos had you not wasted any time with those releases!!! you just want our money, you evil @@@@@!!!").

3. a shaky advertisement situation.

4. a source of profit that is not that immediate or secure, even less so than the current 3e gamers that are so vociferous about their hate of 4e (you never know, they might change their mind later!).

5. the ghost of TSR financial crack, almost universally attibuted to their manager incomprehensible decision to support so many settings all at once (among other things... factors like the raise of computer/ console games, or CCGs are generally ignored... god knows why).



for all of those reasons, it would take BIG BALLS to make a u turn and support older systems. with all due respect, even as i would think that they'd be quite foolish to do so. and i *love* older editions and would buy new books/ adventures for them, if they were as good and evocative as those i love.

it's sad, in a way, but it's only logical. RPGs are not meant to support large institutions like computer software does. they are not required to fly safely a plane that might be out of production, but still in good conditions.

RPGs are, let's face it, just a cheap, little known, niche hobby, mostly for nerds. 
hardly the kind of market that will keep buying without causing too many problems.


----------



## Spell (Jan 23, 2008)

sorry, double post.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 23, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> ah, the more i read your posts, the more i appreciate where you come from...
> 
> let's play a game. let's pretend that i point you to this _OFFICIAL_ sjgames page .
> 
> let's also pretend that you actually follow the link, instead of deciding what makes sense and what doesn't, and scroll down, finiding the documents called "Combat Flowchart" and the "Combat Table". let's pretend that you are curious enough to download and open them. don't worry, there are no viruses.




I don't have to. See, I own that flowchart as it is found in Rules Compendium II.



> _let's pretend that you actually look at the flowchart and realise, maybe for the first time in your life, that there are 56 (that's FIFTYSIX, in case you misread it) steps in it._




About 80% of those steps _don't come up in most rounds_. So, basically, you are making things seem a lot harder than they actually are. Five of the entries on the flowchart are end points.



> _let's also pretend that you look at the 2 pages literally _filled_ with modifiers that the combat table gives you._




All but a handful of which _almost never come up_, espcially in a fantasy game. For example, you don't have to bother with recoil penalties, armor divisors, or blunt force trauma from bullet hits on someone wearing flexible body armor. Most of the time you aren't going to have to deal with things like wild swings, most terrain penalties and so on. The flowchart covers both ranged and melee combat, as well as close combat, and each character can only be doing one at a time, so the bulk of the chart won't apply to the situation you are actually in during combat. In other words, you will only have to deal with one or two things in combat, 90% of the time, you will roll your attack skill (with possible modifiers for hit location, and maybe one special modifier) and, if you hit, your opponent will roll an active defense. That's it.

Yes, you can look at a chart and say "wow, lots of steps", but in actual play, most don't come up, or simply don't apply. The question is how it works in actual play, not how long it is to detail out every possible issue (and the chart details out _every_ possible issue, make a similar chart for D&D, and it would likely be as long, or longer, since things like grappling and high-tech or ulta-tech weapons would have to be accounted for to be as complete).



> _now, let's stop pretending. enough effort for one day.
> 
> having pointed these offcial sjgames resources to you, i will now ignore you, because:
> 1. your tone is dismissive, lecturing and offensive._




Well, your arguments are weak and flimsy. Since your arguments don't match up to the facts, I can understand why you would find statements that show this to be dismissive.



> _2. your reply do not contribute in any constructive way to the original discussion nor to any other "subtread" that the original discussion caused._




You mean other than demonstrating that almost everything you claim about GURPS is untrue?



> _3. i made my point to prove that GURPS advanced combat is nowhere near the smooth, simple system that you claimed it to be._




No, you haven't. You only showed you don't know how the system works in actual play.


----------



## Voadam (Jan 23, 2008)

Spell said:
			
		

> and i *love* older editions and would buy new books/ adventures for them, if they were as good and evocative as those i love.




Check out the Goodman Games (Castles and Crusades), Troll Lord Games (Castles and Crusades), XRP (Osric) and Kenzer Co. (Hackmaster) for recent modules mostly compatible with older editions of D&D. I think there are a few other Osric ones but I can't remember the companies involved.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jan 23, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Check out the Goodman Games (Castles and Crusades), Troll Lord Games (Castles and Crusades), XRP (Osric) and Kenzer Co. (Hackmaster) for recent modules mostly compatible with older editions of D&D. I think there are a few other Osric ones but I can't remember the companies involved.




I want to say there are 35 OSRIC products to choose from right now (could be more; the publishers don't have to tell me when they release one, and often don't)--of which, I agree, a substantial number come from Expeditious Retreat Press, and thank you to Joe Browning!--but there's also Goblinoid Games, Ronin Arts, 0one, and Magique Productions alongside my own label.

I don't feel able to link the list because the ENWorld mods have been quite patient enough with my OSRIC marketing on this forum already.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 24, 2008)

I have been prepping for a Hackmaster one-0shot I will be running in about a month at a local mini-con, and as I examine the game in depth, I have discovered that, setting aside all the "in jokes" and intentionally over the top elements and tone, it is a damn fine example of what "AD&D 3rd Edition" might have been.


----------



## Spell (Jan 24, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Check out the Goodman Games (Castles and Crusades), Troll Lord Games (Castles and Crusades), XRP (Osric) and Kenzer Co. (Hackmaster) for recent modules mostly compatible with older editions of D&D. I think there are a few other Osric ones but I can't remember the companies involved.




i have some hackmaster stuff and castles and crusades. they're not bad, but... they're missing something.

i'll post a double thread either today or tomorrow about a little idea i have... i would like to get your input, too, Voadam!


----------



## Spell (Jan 24, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I have been prepping for a Hackmaster one-0shot I will be running in about a month at a local mini-con, and as I examine the game in depth, I have discovered that, setting aside all the "in jokes" and intentionally over the top elements and tone, it is a damn fine example of what "AD&D 3rd Edition" might have been.




it is indeed. i am looking forward for the next edition (which, apparently, is slowly starting to be prepared). it has some really really neat concepts and old material is very portable in it.
a bit rule heavy, but, hey, at least they manage to create a system that made much more sense than any edition of AD&D. too bad that the in jokes... i love them, but not for everyone.


----------



## Arauthator (Jan 25, 2008)

You guys arguing is EXACTLY the point I made earlier about rules heavy and rules light is a matter of opinion. It all depends on what type of players you have, and how much combat versus role playing you throw down at the game table to even make this an issue.

Excellent point being made about GURPS. He's right, most of the stuff in the combat system you can't cover all at once.....and in my opinion, that goes for ALL RPG Games.

I've said it once on here and I'll say it again, rules will only tear up a game if you stick by them and take away the control from the DM and fight over them rules. The DM is the one that makes the game fun or not, along with the right players. Not Steve Jackson Games, Not Gary Gygax, Not Wizards of The Coast, Not FASA....Yeah, I'm thinking of Shadowrun by mentioning that last Company, which nobody has mentioned anything about yet in this debate. Amazing.

Lets disect this term...RPG. I believe that stands for Role Playing Game. Do we agree on that? 

Well, a lot of guys turn that in to Rule Playing Game and that is where bad things happen. These guys designing games don't even have a chance when this is happening. It's a serious issue that has spread like a disease and it needs to be addressed by somebody in the industry to turn it around. I STRONGLY feel not enough emphasis is being put on the role of the Games Masters and what the responsibility of the players should be.

Any of you ever heard of Johnn Four? His website is excellent in helping DM's take control of role playing...which his website is called Roleplayingtips.com...well he is an excellent contributor to getting the DM on the right track and this industry needs his ideas and people like him in a very bad way. Anybody designing games should shoot him an email and make him an offer, because he's got it going on.

Another great website I like to visit....besides this one, is Mortality.net. Those guys have audio files available for download and have guys in the Games Industry stop by all the time and explain their product in a radio talk show style, or give you a behind the scenes overview of the latest books they are putting out on the shelves. This has really helped me and my players understand a lot of things.....it gets more across to the people playing the games, versus reading a few short pages in the front of the manuals or reading what people have to say on forums. They also have a really great thing going on.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 29, 2008)

I just remembered something else about 2Ed I liked better than in any other edition of the game: DarkSun's treatment of Undead.

Because it was more of a nebulous "build them as you want them" concept for the mechanics, almost all Undead were unique.  Corporeal Undead had certain attributes, Incorporeals had other attributes...but beyond that, not much was predictable.  That meant no more players knowing as much if not more about their opponents than you did.

I'm "ressurecting" that for Undead in my next campaign, _regardless_ of edition.


----------

