# AD&D First Edition inferior?



## Theuderic (Sep 25, 2002)

Does anyone have any feelings regarding AD&D First Edition being called "inferior" by some people?


----------



## hellbender (Sep 25, 2002)

Having played 1st edition for quite some time, I don't feel that the game is really that inferior, if anything, it is merely less politically correct than the touchy-feely game it is today. Arguably, it is much better than 2nd edition, ruleswise, being much easier to play.
    Sure, the game isn't perfect, however, it is still just as playable today as it was back when. Yes, it there was a lot of monster killing for experience points, come on, we had Ataris and Intellivision back then for video games.
     I do feel that the game, in all of its incarnations has remained very versatile and customizable, an aspect that I quite like in gaming that many other systems have never caught on to.

hellbender


----------



## JeffB (Sep 25, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> *Does anyone have any feelings regarding AD&D First Edition being called "inferior" by some people? *




Tsk tsk...you are just asking for it now aren't you? 


Seriously..my thoughts on every incarnation of the D&D game as well as other RPG games is they all have something to offer.

In D&D's case, each edition is both inferior and superior to the others..just the reasons are different.

So yep it is...and no it isn't...depending on what exactly people are talking about.

Those are my thoughts.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 25, 2002)

*sniff, sniff*

Smells like troll to me.


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Sep 25, 2002)

Boy, I sure hope I make my saving throw when the flames start coming.  Now...would that be a save against rods, staves, and wands, or against petrification/polymorph?


----------



## Grazzt (Sep 25, 2002)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> **sniff, sniff*
> 
> Smells like troll to me. *





You smell it too, huh?


----------



## Kibo (Sep 25, 2002)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> **sniff, sniff*
> 
> Smells like troll to me. *




It's a personal pet peeve, so forgive me.  A troll is not a solicitation of what might be an inciteful opinion.  A troll is a sometimes subtle, more often not, misstatement of facts in such a way as to encourage helpful people to announce that they didn't get the joke.

A troll:

Monte's Ranger is BROKEN!!  When Gary Shandling first wrote the players handbook, it was nothing like what he had in mind.

This troll is far from subtle and boarders on flamebaiting.  More obvious flamebaiting might be: 

Elven cleric archers are all fairies!  When my Ranger/Peerless Archer/Deepwood Sniper runs into one he says, "God damn it woman!  Where's my dinner?  And when you're done cooking it, prance over here in those high heels and service me.  Don't forget, wear that red lipstick I like so much."  And then he kills them.


----------



## D'karr (Sep 25, 2002)

Yes...


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 25, 2002)

Well in the since that 3rd. edition is more flexible, 'elegant', complete, consistant, balanced, simpler, and in general meets the goals of good game design more fully than 1st edition ever did, sure 1st edition is 'inferior'.  But while I think the 3rd. edition designers would agree that 3rd. edition was more elegant, consistant, and so forth because those were in indeed the goals that they set out to meet, I do not think that they would snub 1st edition with a term loaded with negative conatations like 'inferior'.  

Nor do I think any of the 1st edition players, including people like me who played 1st edition for 15 years before the problems with its mechanics drove me away, would readily focus on 1st edition's 'inferiority', and would prefer to focus on 3rd editions 'superiority'.  Even if those by logical necessity mean the same things, one carries different conatatations than the other.  Deprived of its historical position, 1st edition was a horrible system.  But, what do you expect of the first gaming system ever created?  First edition was never 'designed'.  It simply grew organically into being as people began to consider new ideas and problems to be solved.  The rules it adopted were not always the best solution to the problem in question, but they were each in and of themselves simple solutions to complex problems.  The complexity arose when trying to integrate all these disparate solutions.

Dispite all its problems, 1st edition D&D was a remarkably enduring and attractive system - especially with new and young players.  It's basic mechanics were simple, and the game could easily progress in complexity as its players reexperienced and rediscovered the same problems that faced the original players and designers.  No other game system has ever managed to attract as many people to gaming, nor maintain a strong precence in the culture for as long a period.  Few even come close.  Vampire attracted a very large body of new gamers, but had in many ways the attributes of a passing fad.  Warhammer's system has been as enduring, but has never been a strong a presence.  GURPS has been a consistant strong presence, but has never managed to attract nearly as many adherents and is subject to endless rules generation that tends to overwhelm its basic elegance.

D20 is a remarkably good gaming system, as good as GURPS in its own way, maybe even better than WEG's SW's (which I also loved).

But don't thumb your nose at your elders.


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 25, 2002)

thanks for the replies


----------



## diaglo (Sep 25, 2002)

yes.

1edADnD is inferior.

but then again so is any game when you compare it to Original D&D.

Original D&D is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 25, 2002)

I was always uncomfortable with the sexism in the "max ability score" charts for strength.  I mean, yes, we know that on average women are not as strong as men.  However, there was no "max con score" chart for men, or a shorter lifespan, even though both things are well documented for real life men and women.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 25, 2002)

I think Rob is trying to cast _Summon Snoweel_.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 25, 2002)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> *I think Rob is trying to cast Summon Snoweel.   *



I'm not sure what that is .  But I'm being sincere.  I figured I'd take the post at face value and talk about what I didn't like about 1E.  Beyond the obvious stuff, that sexism bit always really rubbed me the wrong way.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 25, 2002)

> I was always uncomfortable with the sexism in the "max ability score" charts for strength. I mean, yes, we know that on average women are not as strong as men. However, there was no "max con score" chart for men, or a shorter lifespan, even though both things are well documented for real life men and women.




Ahhh, what a great thread hijack.

Are they?  First, I do not believe it is sexist to suggest that men are stronger than women.

Secondly, since CON also represents resistance to physical damage and injury, there is not a strong correlation to superior CON in women.  I'm not sure what documentation you refer to, but I'm not convinced that women are more resistant to disease than men, but rather I suspect that reduced incidence of disease might well have to do women's superior tending of their own bodies (which is something I do know has been documented).  For instance, married men outlive single men for the reason of having superior daily 'care'.  Men just don't seem to think of these things and tend to (at least I tend to) treat my body as if it were indestructible and forget even to feed myself if not reminded by something.

I certainly don't think that women have a higher resistance to poison than men, since poison resistance generally related directly to body mass as much as anything else.

Thirdly, current average female lifespan in 1st world countries averages about 2 years longer in women than in men.  This is a reverse of the historical average, primarily because so fewer women die in childbirth thanks to modern medicine.  However, if you want to add two years to average lifespan and then do some math to work out how health care and average number of preganancies effects female lifespan in various cultures, be my guest.  I'd actually like to see that, though I doubt many people would bother to make use of it.

To be frank, I don't think that there is clear evidence for some gaming advantage possessed by women that makes up for thier reduced strength, and that in general gaming systems are very generous in not imposing as much sexual dimorphism upon fantasy characters as actually exists in real life.  If you wanted to be 'realistic' about it, females get lower body mass, lower daily food requirements, the ability to reproduce, and lower maximum strength for any given body mass.  The evidence for anything else is scant.  But this is fantasy, so who cares. 

I'd personally be willing to give all females characters that wanted it -4 STR, +2 WIS, +2 CHR, not because I think that there is strong evidence for higher female wisdom and charisma, but that there is some sense in which we are willing to accept that women are wiser and more attractive than men.  I call this the 'Fairer Sex' trait, and you can take it for free.  However, just like the assertion that women are hardier than men, attractive as it seems, the assertion that women are more charasmatic than men tends to break down when we look at the broad picture of what charisma means.

But by no means is belief in 'equality' between the sexes the result of some sort of equal trade between gamable attributes.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 25, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *Ahhh, what a great thread hijack.*



Ah . . . I think people are reading much more nefarity in my comments than I intended.  I'm not trying to start a flame war, honest .



> *Are they?  First, I do not believe it is sexist to suggest that men are stronger than women.*



Certainly not.  I said as much.  Women tend not to be as strong as men, but I'm saying that capping out strength like that, where it's not counterbalanced by something else, is needlessly problematic.  First of all, I don't know that it's strictly accurate.  Women are capable of being stronger than men.  Second, it puts an automatic game advantage to being male, which is flatly unfair in my opinion.



> *Secondly, since CON also represents resistance to physical damage and injury, there is not a strong correlation to superior CON in women.  I'm not sure what documentation you refer to, but I'm not convinced that women are more resistant to disease than men, but rather I suspect that reduced incidence of disease might well have to do women's superior tending of their own bodies*



I'm talking about things like pain tolerance, endurance, etc.  Also (though this is just as sexist and generalist as saying men are always stronger than women), women tend to be better communicators than men.



> *To be frank, I don't think that there is clear evidence for some gaming advantage possessed by women that makes up for thier reduced strength, and that in general gaming systems are very generous in not imposing as much sexual dimorphism upon fantasy characters as actually exists in real life.*



But there are things that women tend to excel over men at that may or may not be easily quantifiable in a game system.  Therefore, I reiterate, I think it was a bad idea for them to have put in limits on strength and provided no counterbalance.  To put it bluntly, I find it unfair.  Always did.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 25, 2002)

I found the demi-human level limits racist.  Even though this game was made way back in the 60's, come on!  Even the name "demi-human" implies inferiority.


----------



## cildarith (Sep 25, 2002)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> *I found the demi-human level limits racist.  Even though this game was made way back in the 60's, come on!  Even the name "demi-human" implies inferiority. *




"Humanoid" is sooo much better.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Sep 25, 2002)

Here's something I researched the other day:

*1) Original*

Chainmail/D&D 3book set/five supplements (BM, GH, EW, GDH, S&S)

*2) D&D basic 1*

(blue book) (edited by Holmes)

*3) Advanced D&D*

(PHB, DMG, MM, De&De, FF, MM2, UA, OA)

*4) D&D basic 2*

D&D basic 2(Otus covers - magenta box) (edited by Moldvay)
D&D expert 1(Otus covers - light blue box) (edited by Dave Cook)

*5) D&D basic 3*

    D&D basic 3(Elmore covers - red box) (edited by Mentzer)
    D&D expert 2(Elmore covers -dark blue box) (edited by Mentzer)
    D&D companion (Elmore covers - light blue box) (by Mentzer)
    D&D Master (Elmore covers - black box) (by Gygax & Mentzer)
    D&D Immortals (Elmore covers - gold box) (by Mentzer)

*6) D&D Cyclopedia hardcover* 

(Easley cover) by Aaron Allston (essentially expert revision 3)

*7) Advanced D&D 1.5*

(not really separate but noting the major shift in direction post-Gygax) DragLance Adv, Greyhawk Adv, Dungeoneer's SG, Wilderness SG, Manual of the Planes

*8)Advanced D&D second edition* 

(PHB, DMG, ToM, BoA, MonComps, Complete series, historical series, FR Adv)

*9)Basic Set 4* 

(black box then full color then black again) "New Easy to Master D&D" later changed to "Classic D&D"

*10)Dark Sun campaign setting* 

(definitely another version) 

*11)Advanced D&D 2.5*

 the option hardcover years

*12)Third Edition Dungeons and Dragons*

*13)Hackmaster (PHB, GMG, Monster books)*


I don't feel funny about someone's opinion of the original Advanced game but I do feel funny when they call the 12th edition the 3rd edition!

;P


----------



## herald (Sep 25, 2002)

Hey look....

Villagers with torches.....


Hmmmm, I wonder what they are up too?


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 25, 2002)

I don't think you were trying to start a flame war, but I do think that you managed to hit upon a theme that is even more conversation provoking than 1st edition D&D's 'inferiority'. 

Some women are stronger than some men, but that would only be a counter assertion if my assertion was that all women are weaker than all men - which I never asserted.  I merely suggested that average strength and maximum strength are both lower than in men.  For example, if the strength modifer for being female is -4, then the strongest women (str 14+) will still be stronger than 75% of all men, but the _average_ man will be able to lift almost twice what the _average_ woman can (which is in fact true).



> "I'm talking about things like pain tolerance, endurance, etc. Also (though this is just as sexist and generalist as saying men are always stronger than women), women tend to be better communicators than men."




I know what you are talking about.  Those are the PC things to say when you discuss sexual equality.  But they don't have necessarily a whole lot of basis in fact, and I personally feel that it is wrong to base the issue of sexual equality on some sort of balance between attributes.

Although I have seen and heard of extreme examples of pain tolerence in women, I have heard similar stories about men, and I don't notice in my daily affairs that average women tend to bear discomfort better than average men.  In fact, quite the opposite - and this is that 'take care of yourself better' thing that I mentioned.  Sometimes 'pain tolerence' isn't the best survival skill.  If you actually examine the 'evidence' that leads people to assert that women have higher pain tolerence than men it seems to lie wholly in a feminist assertion that women bear pain better than men because women give birth.  This is not evidence.

And I might add to that that pain tolerence is not a particularly important aspect of CON in D&D anyway, since pain is rarely actually implemented in D&D.  D&D is famous for letting you act without hinderence right until you hit 0 h.p. and then suddenly you are almost dead.  Even if we believed that women had superior 'pain tolerence' than men, I think we would be better off implementing it as 'shock resistance' of some fashion (and having seen people enter shock, women subjectively seem to physically cope with shock better than men do, but again that may be just an unconscious sexist perception that a 'delicate' women shouldn't handle that much pain as well as they do and not real measurement at all), than implementing it as a gross CON bonus.  'Reduced Shock' is something we could do in GURPS, but not something easily done in D20.

As for 'better communicators', I'm inclined to think that that belief has alot to do with sexist perceptions by both men and women more than it has to do with reality, but since it is _believed_ to be true, it may actually at some level represent a real CHR bonus because CHR is itself a subjective attribute.



> Therefore, I reiterate, I think it was a bad idea for them to have put in limits on strength and provided no counterbalance. To put it bluntly, I find it unfair.




Well, maybe life is unfair. I don't think that there has to be a counterbalance.  I don't think that a women's legal rights have anything to do with whether a counterbalance exists, though I have known plenty of women whose self esteem unfortunately seemed to depend on whether they believed a counterbalance existed.  However, I do find that forcing a female character to be inferior is not conducive to fun gaming, however unrealistic it may be.

Actually, the one gamable advantage that you can definately base on reality I know of is reduced succeptibility to 'called shots'.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 25, 2002)

In my experience running 3e for a year I find it far less fun to DM than I did 1e & basic.  So I think that 3e is a more complicated system to run and is therefore "inferior" for my gaming style.  YMMV.


----------



## SHARK (Sep 25, 2002)

Greetings!

RobNJ Posted:
____________________________________________________
Quote:

"Women are capable of being stronger than men. Second, it puts an automatic game advantage to being male, which is flatly unfair in my opinion."
____________________________________________________
End Quote.

Hmmm...women are capable of being stronger than men? Well, weaker men, certainly. However, the facts show that not only are the average men stronger than the average woman, but in all the contests of physical strength--take world-class bodybuilders, for example--even the "strongest" women are far below the strongest men. Really, there is no comparrison. It is merely a fact that must be accepted, regardless of how inconvenient it may make some radicals feel. Thus, men, in fact, are generally far stronger than women. The only incidence where that isn't the case is when comparing the exceptionally rare, very muscular female, to an out-of-shape, far less developed male, which, while showing that a few women are stronger than a few men, isn't really a useful comparrison. Physically, then, men should have great advantages over women. I don't quite see why this natural fact is so "offensive" to some people.

Certainly women are physically capable, but when one compares women's performance in professional sports, for example, there really isn't any comparrison either. Basketball, Football, Running, Rowing, and so on. The best are all men, and in any kind of contest between even skilled athletes, the male athletes prevail over female athletes in virtually all levels of performance. Notice that virtually nowhere in professional sports do they have mixed teams, nor do they pit female teams against male teams--because all male teams have always been superior. M/M competitions work, and F/F competitions work, but comparing the two would merely be an exersize in depression as the women are defeated every time.

In game terms though, it probably isn't a point worth enforcing, as it is, after all, a game.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Sep 25, 2002)

No not a flame but a curse...

Such is the way of the radical...

You're either with me or against me.

I've got to stop watching _Excalibur_



Seriously, I think it's time for peace. Not war.

I just write like a berserker. Always have, always will.

Is it just me or do you think the Third Edition is due for an overhaul?

Let's be honest now.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 25, 2002)

I think this thread proves that women deserve a +4 bonus to Int, Wis, and Cha.

Int:  They're not getting involved because they're obviously are too smart to get into an unprovable battle.

Wis:  They're not going to waste energy on a lost cause.

Cha:  They're not making asses of themselves.

Now, can we go back to addressing whether it's fair to call 1st Edition inferior?

----------------------

Edit:  While I'm at it, absolutely no one has been given permission to treat this like it's a political issue.  That especially applies if you've been around this site long enough to know better.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Sep 25, 2002)

Well I think it's unfair since this overhaul for the Third Edition keeps coming up in my mind.


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 25, 2002)

Yes, I wonder if Turd Edition will still be the "perfect" edition when the new one comes out.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 25, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> *Yes, I wonder if Turd Edition will still be the "perfect" edition when the new one comes out. *



If a theoretical 4th edition were to improve as vastly and substantively over 3rd edition as 3rd edition did over 1st and 2nd, I would of course prefer 4th edition.

The idea that I would maintain blind loyalty to any ruleset because of its number or because I liked playing it is just ludicrous.


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 25, 2002)

The idea that I would maintain blind loyalty to any ruleset because of its number or because I liked playing it is just ludicrous. [/B][/QUOTE]

 Reread the last part of that sentence. Ludicrous?


----------



## herald (Sep 25, 2002)

I can't beleive I'm getting involved with this...


Oh well, here I go..


I thought that adventures weren't average people. They didn't act in a typical, and they didn't have typicial attributes. After all, they were born to be heroes.

If that's the case, why bother doing stat bonuses and restrictions?


----------



## Thorvald Kviksverd (Sep 25, 2002)

Actually, though I'm currently running a Basic D&D campaign, if I were to run a campaign using an _unmodified_ ruleset...it would most likely be AD&D (1st Edition).

Just a matter of taste really--so, if nothing else, in a purely subjective sense AD&D would be superior for my needs.


----------



## HellHound (Sep 25, 2002)

> Although I have seen and heard of extreme examples of pain tolerence in women, I have heard similar stories about men, and I don't notice in my daily affairs that average women tend to bear discomfort better than average men.




In my previous employment as a body artist (a body piercer personally, but working in a trade that includes tattooing, branding, scarification, implantation and other procedures), I can say that in my daily affairs I HAVE noticed a distinct trend that average women tend to bear discomfort and pain FAR better than average men. And this observation of my own has been supported by every other professional in the industry that I have discussed this with.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Sep 25, 2002)

I think this sex issue has always been a stinker.

It can't be discussed reasonably because of the nature of D&D being a game it is difficult to associate gender realities into an event where everyone is there to have a good time.

Besides on messageboards the "fake women" always get all the guys riled up when they exclaim that "all women are dainty flowers" making an outpour of "I told you so"s flood the board til the testosterone level gets so heavy the thread gets closed.

But seriously, I'd say in harsh reality that we live in an uptight era with politically correct mania and its harsh reactionaries filling up TV air time with discussion of overweight cheerleaders breaking boy's necks.

Let's "can" that talk as it is sensitive and it should only be presented with measured facts as to human secondary sex characteristics.

Which I really don't want to touch with a ten foot pole!


----------



## Psion (Sep 25, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> *Does anyone have any feelings regarding AD&D First Edition being called "inferior" by some people? *




(The first question that comes to my mind is "inferior to what", but I'll assume you are speaking of 3e.)

Not "feelings" so much as complete agreement.  But then, the model t was great in its day, but I wouldn't expect it to compare to a mustang.


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 25, 2002)

Great now someone is comparing games with cars.


----------



## ForceUser (Sep 25, 2002)

1E and 2E are, to me, history. I would never run another campaign of either. The game has evolved for the better.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Sep 25, 2002)

*Re: Re: AD&D First Edition inferior?*



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> (The first question that comes to my mind is "inferior to what", but I'll assume you are speaking of 3e.)
> 
> Not "feelings" so much as complete agreement.  But then, the model t was great in its day, but I wouldn't expect it to compare to a mustang. *




And this year's *SPECULATION*tm "WORST ANALOGY" award goes to...

 Just kidding.

I think 3e is "easier" to hit and that's what ends its smoothness.

Let's face it the saving throws were fine, well tuned and we didn't need to see the "see-through engine mounted on the roof".

You may not realize it but the loss of the cavalier as read killed the retrofitted authenticity garnered when the *Unearthed Arcana* came out. 2e failed to acknowledge the historical and functional value this class had brought to the table. And 3e repeated history with the stale "just another fighter" cavalier prestige class.

And that's just the beginning of the variegated gears in 3e!

I am not even going to get into the completely different game system that multiclassing, levels and experience has become.

The OGL needs a universal overhaul right now because 3e is not pleasing me as read and I'm sure it's not pleasing a lot of cash customers as read either.

Seriously why shun the legions of fans and give them no options for game style?

This is an avenue that the SRD has to take. The ignorance and hype associated with D&D was at an all time high when 3e came out.

I think we need to turn this game around into a "thinking man's game" again with a new SRD loaded with options that have been features of the various editions of the game.

What does anyone have to lose?

Even the new blood can agree with that. 

Right, youngins?


----------



## Garmorn (Sep 25, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> *Great now someone is comparing games with cars. *




Yep,  I was think about this as I read the tread.  1st Ed is more primitive the the current just like the Royals Rorce Silver Ghost or Ford's Model T is more primitive the modern cars.  Are the inferior?  Some will say yes but most car collectors will have a different opion.   I personaly would love to one one of both.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 26, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> *Yes, I wonder if Turd Edition will still be the "perfect" edition when the new one comes out. *




Look.  You've obviously come here to pick fights.  If you've got nothing constructive to add, then you're welcome to leave.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 26, 2002)

1st ed vs 3E. Discussion of sexes....

Uh...must....resist....controversial......post......

But really, I love 3rd ed. 1st ed has its nostalgia factor that 3e won't have for another 20 years and that 2nd ed will probably never have (uh oh, I may have done it there.)

AS for women and men, where would one be without the other? But that is a different thread.


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Sep 26, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: AD&D First Edition inferior?*



			
				GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Let's face it the saving throws were fine, well tuned and we didn't need to see the "see-through engine mounted on the roof".
> 
> *





On the surface, they were fine, but things got to be a little wonky.  What happens when you get hit with a flesh to stone spell?  Is that a save vs. spell, or a save vs. petrification?  What about if the spell was cast from a wand?



> *
> You may not realize it but the loss of the cavalier as read killed the retrofitted authenticity garnered when the Unearthed Arcana came out. 2e failed to acknowledge the historical and functional value this class had brought to the table. And 3e repeated history with the stale "just another fighter" cavalier prestige class.
> *





If anything, 3E made it unneccesary to have seperate classes in order to replicate historical ideas.  You want a cavalier?  Put some skill points into ride and diplomacy, take mounted combat feats, and roleplay him like a cavalier.  No need for a seperate mechanic.  



> *
> 
> The OGL needs a universal overhaul right now because 3e is not pleasing me as read and I'm sure it's not pleasing a lot of cash customers as read either.
> 
> *





Meh?  They need to overhaul this RIGHT NOW because it doesn't please you?  Err, okay.  And from what I've seen, more cash customers are pleased than displeased.  My FLGS owner's only complaints about 3rd edition is that he can't keep it on the shelves.



> *
> Seriously why shun the legions of fans and give them no options for game style?
> *





Nobody's been shunned.  The RPG police haven't taken away your books.




> *
> This is an avenue that the SRD has to take. The ignorance and hype associated with D&D was at an all time high when 3e came out.
> *





What do you mean by this?  Ignorance and hype? You lost me.



> *
> I think we need to turn this game around into a "thinking man's game" again with a new SRD loaded with options that have been features of the various editions of the game.
> *





It's as much of a thinking man's game as you want it to be. 



> *
> What does anyone have to lose?
> *





Well, money, for one.  Putting out a second SRD would be time-consuming and expensive, and could lead to confusion among the customer base.  Besides, it's been 2 years and they're still not done releasing the SRD - do you really want to wait another 3 years for a second one? 



> *
> Even the new blood can agree with that.
> 
> Right, youngins?
> *





No, but then again I like being argumentative.


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Sep 26, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Besides on messageboards the "fake women" always get all the guys riled up when they exclaim that "all women are dainty flowers" making an outpour of "I told you so"s flood the board til the testosterone level gets so heavy the thread gets closed.
> 
> *





Now, now...  just because hong *occasionally* dresses up in women's underwear, that's no need to assume that all the women here are fake.   And he really is a dainty flower.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 26, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: AD&D First Edition inferior?*



			
				GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *The OGL needs a universal overhaul right now because 3e is not pleasing me as read and I'm sure it's not pleasing a lot of cash customers as read either.
> 
> Seriously why shun the legions of fans and give them no options for game style?*



Huh? As far as I know 3E is selling like mad. WotC is making good money off the product decisions they made. Why should they care about these legions of fans if they're making all the money they want to? There will always be some gamers who don't want to buy their product. So what, as long as WotC/Hasbro is making the kind of money their projections suggest they should?


> *What does anyone have to lose?*



Well, WotC/Hasbro has its sales figures to lose. Show some evidence to suggest that your proposed changes will bring in more money and you can bet they'll jump to your strategy. But till you do, expect that they're going to continue executing the game plan they're currently on -- because it's working.

EDIT: *high-fives Meepo as they switch places*


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Sep 26, 2002)

Heh...it's all about the tag-team action.


----------



## JeffB (Sep 26, 2002)

OK folks...

Let me give you some solid and simple advice...

You cannot debate with Gene..

it's pointless...

he lives for this stuff..

he WANTS you to debate him....

he draws you in....

he thrives on driving people nuts and he'll do whatever it takes to make it so.

You have been warned.

P.S. Gene,  take it easy on the "youngins"


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 26, 2002)

JeffB said:
			
		

> *P.S. Gene,  take it easy on the "youngins"  *



People who call me "youngin" make me chuckle. It's sweet.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 26, 2002)

Thorvald Kviksverd said:
			
		

> *Actually, though I'm currently running a Basic D&D campaign, if I were to run a campaign using an unmodified ruleset...it would most likely be AD&D (1st Edition).
> 
> Just a matter of taste really--so, if nothing else, in a purely subjective sense AD&D would be superior for my needs.  *




I do recognize this is a matter of taste, but what is it about 1e that seems better to you?  This is an honest question.

To me, 1e is already an ugly hodgepodge of mechanics.  The modifiers for weapon type vs. AC are cumbersome, as are the weapon speed factors.  The savings throws are sloppy and ambiguous.  Multiclassing and dualclassing rules are horrible.  Races are poorly designed.  Once you venture from the core books, things get dicier still.

I will readily concede there is something to be said for running with a much lighter ruleset than 3e.  But unmodified 1e ain't that, not even close.  It would be quite easy to reduce the 3e rules to be of the style of Basic D&D.  I think it could fit on a page and a half.  One noticeable difference is that a '3e Lite' game will be so clean you would never need to look at charts.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 26, 2002)

I cut my teeth on 1e, and I loved it. Or... rather, I love the fun I had while playing it. No game system that has come afterwards can reduce or discount the amount of sheer joy I experienced late at night, every summer night, out on my friend Ken's porch until at midnight his Dad would roar at us to shut the hell up and go home, didn't we have parents anyways?  But we were busy slaying Tiamat, and it was hard to get our attention.

To me, 3e is fundamentally a better rules set. I have an equal amount of fun playing it, and I'd argue that the rules get in the way a lot less. I'm okay with that.  But no matter how good 3e is, it doesn't make the time I spent playing 1e any less fun.

That make any sense?


----------



## Grazzt (Sep 26, 2002)

JeffB said:
			
		

> *OK folks...
> 
> Let me give you some solid and simple advice...
> 
> ...




Relating to all the stuff posted previously by the aforementioned poster (not you Jeff), I must agree with this statement.


----------



## JeffB (Sep 26, 2002)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *
> People who call me "youngin" make me chuckle. It's sweet. *




Well, that was Genes terminology...but I'm glad ya got a laugh out of it


----------



## JeffB (Sep 26, 2002)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Relating to all the stuff posted previously by the aforementioned poster (not you Jeff), I must agree with this statement. *






To all,

he knows what I know....heed his words...


----------



## Victim (Sep 26, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: AD&D First Edition inferior?*



			
				GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Yes, saving throws were fine, because a fireball that comes from a wand is substancially different from one that a wizard casts.  A blast of fire coming from something's mouth is resisted differently from one coming from a spell, which is resisted differently from one coming from a wand - which is just the spell stored in a device. 

Also, spells negated by saving throws became pretty pointless at higher levels because saving throws increased while spells remained fixed.  People complain about low spells' weakness against high level enemies now, but in 1e, anything without a save modifier was worthless at high level, whether it be an 8th level spell or 1st.



> *
> You may not realize it but the loss of the cavalier as read killed the retrofitted authenticity garnered when the Unearthed Arcana came out. 2e failed to acknowledge the historical and functional value this class had brought to the table. And 3e repeated history with the stale "just another fighter" cavalier prestige class.
> *





Yes, a fighter from the upper class is completely different from a lower class one.  The main thing a cavalier brought to the game was an overpowered class.  "Yeah, I'm like a fighter, but I'm from the elite of society, so I increase my stats every level and get additional combat bonuses.  But I have mostly trivial restrictions, so it's okay."  And there is no authenticity in a fantasy game that draws from so many contradictory sources.  



> *
> And that's just the beginning of the variegated gears in 3e!
> 
> I am not even going to get into the completely different game system that multiclassing, levels and experience has become.
> ...





A completely different system for multiclassing was needed because the initial system was so messed up.  

Considering that 1e material is availible for download for about 5 bucks a book, you can't say that the "legions of fans" don't have access to it.  I doubt that WotC is losing much in sales, though.  1e fanatics wouldn't be being buying a new system anyway.  You'd either complain about the differences or not want to buy the same material.  Look at how many 1e players hate 2e, which is very much the same in most matters, and IMHO cleans up some mechanics.  For example, I think that achieving unusual distinction via modifying a base ala kits is often better than creating a completely new base class for every change.  And the change in the way ranges are calculated also seems to be an improvement.

However, it would be interesting if WotC opened up previous editions for 3rd party publishers.  Simple disinterest on WotC's part might allow them to do so anyway.  IIRC, some companies produced products for 1e (Judges Guild and Mayfair role aids or something), but TSR took legal action against them.  WotC will probably be less likely to do so.



> *
> I think we need to turn this game around into a "thinking man's game" again with a new SRD loaded with options that have been features of the various editions of the game.
> 
> *




1e, a thinking man's game?  The number of meaningful choices in 1e was far lower than in 3e.  Pick race, pick class, and pick a few weapon proficiencies.  Every 3 or so levels, you can pick another weapon prof.  The mechanics didn't support any combat manuevers without supplement books, so even combat had little room for meaningful thought.

1e was such a thinking person's game that you had to look everything up in charts, rather than giving you formulas to work things out on your own.  I often have free time that could be used productively, but I don't have my RPG books - like in boring classes.    I can create 3e characters and even even work on HERO characters without my books, because I can remeber the underlying formulae.  However, since 1e uses arbitrary numbers placed in charts, I couldn't use that without a book.  Gamers were thought to be too stupid to be trusted with the foundation of the game.

------------
I have to leave, I'll come back and add stuff in an edit.

I know what I'm getting into; I remember some of the old Greyhawk versus FR threads.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 26, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: AD&D First Edition inferior?*



			
				Victim said:
			
		

> The mechanics didn't support any combat manuevers without supplement books, so even combat had little room for meaningful thought.
> 
> [/B]




That was great too.


----------



## MerricB (Sep 26, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *Is it just me or do you think the Third Edition is due for an overhaul?
> 
> Let's be honest now. *




If the question is "Does the entire system need to be rewritten", then the answer is: no.

If the question is "Do elements of the system need to be rewritten", then the answer is: yes.

I think the prime candidate are some of the DCs - they're too low, esp. when you compare the abilities of high-level characters.

I'd also like to see an alternative XP chart for those that prefer 5+ years in a single campaign with the same characters.

####

As to "Is 1E inferior", the answer remains: in some areas, yes. In other areas, no.

I think 1E gives much more latitude for the DM to improvise without contradicting the rules; it also takes _much_ less preparation time to get the NPC & monster stats right if you are customising them.

However, 3E gives the players & DM a much better opportunity to play the type of game in the type of world they want to, rather than being restricted to the assumptions of the Greyhawk of Gygax.

Not to say that Gygaxian Greyhawk isn't a great place to play - my own campaigns are inspired greatly by his vision! But I feel very strongly that given people the option to choose their own restrictions is better than saying "this is the way you have to play, and if you don't play it this way it's not D&D".

Cheers!


----------



## Thorvald Kviksverd (Sep 26, 2002)

BTW--When I started hunting and pecking, Ridley's Cohort's was the last post 




			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I do recognize this is a matter of taste, but what is it about 1e that seems better to you?  This is an honest question.*




I'll try to give an meaningful response--but to be perfectly honest, and since it is largely a matter of taste, I haven't spent much effort trying to figure out why I like one more than the other 



> *To me, 1e is already an ugly hodgepodge of mechanics.*




I actually _like_ the variety of mechanics, I think they lend a certain charm--maybe I'm just a bit quirky myself.

Seriously, I don't care for the universal mechanic/system trend that is sweeping the industry.

Situations are different, genres are different, and the mechanics that model them should therefore be different as well.  I like the mechanics to actually add to the feel and flavor of the game--not merely be...well, mechanical.

Simplicity can be elegant; but, in a similar vein, variety can also be the spice. 



> *The modifiers for weapon type vs. AC are cumbersome, as are the weapon speed factors.*




Again, I like the  "personality" that these values add to the individual weapons, and have always used them.  Though they seem to have a bad reputation, I never had any trouble implementing them--as a matter of fact, there was a time when I knew most of the weapon vs armour type modifiers by heart!

I have to admit that there are parts of the initiative system that I wouldn't mind tweaking a bit though.



> *The savings throws are sloppy and ambiguous.*




That's a bit harsh.

Sloppy?

Roll a d20 versus some number--mechanically, not much different from 3e.

Ambiguous?

At time yes (see example in earlier post), but I don't mind making a ruling on the fly.

As a matter of fact, this last point is another of the major attractions that  the older versions offer me--I prefer the flexibility and freedom that the more "rules-light" systems encourage.  Granted, you can DM this way in any system--some are just more conducive to it.

BTW, in general I prefer the 3e save categories--and even used them in my Basic D&D campaign for a while--but found that using them (along with my other rules changes) just sacrificed too much of the atmosphere I was attempting to maintain.  As I said, I don't necessarily like mechanics to be unobtrusive--sometimes they actively lend to the feel of the game. 



> *Multiclassing and dualclassing rules are horrible.*




The multi-classing rules really help to set demi-humans apart--they're not just funny looking Humans.

Not crazy about the dual-classing rules myself--so I never uased them (and never missed them).

This raises a somewhat related point...

If you don't like a given rule in AD&D, you can generally omit it without upsetting the whole applecart.  I really don't think the same can be said for 3e.  Most of the parts seem to me to be too integral to the whole--it may be a very elegant system, but it is much more of an all or nothing affair.



> *Races are poorly designed.*




I'm afraid you'll have to explain this a bit more.

Again, I find the races to be well balanced with respect to one another, with each presenting both a unique feel an different opportunities for play.

Which raises yet another point...

A major characteristic of D&D has always been the "archetype"--and the races were as much archetypes as the classes.  Each race/class would fill a different niche in the game, and require a different style of play and decision making.  While this definitely isn't the best way to model reality, it certainly makes for an entertaining, challenging, and easily visualized game.





> *Once you venture from the core books, things get dicier still.*




What do you consider non-core?

I'm no fan of 2e, but if by some chance you are alluding to the players' options books I'll say this much in their defence--at least they're clearly presented as being optional.

While we're on the topic of other versions besides AD&D(1e)...

Even though I didn't play 2e, I could still use material in my AD&D or Basic campaigns with _very_ little modification.  The effort a "3e to earlier" conversion requires is better spent writing my own adventures and gaming.  As a matter of fact, the only 3e adventures that would be worth this effort to me would be those written by EGG.





> *I will readily concede there is something to be said for running with a much lighter ruleset than 3e.  But unmodified 1e ain't that, not even close.*




Actually, as _Stormcrow_ has pointed out over at _Dragonsfoot_, while AD&D probably has a higher learning curve than 3e, once learned, it is relatively simple in execution.  I think 3e requires more in the way of continual learning as FEATS and new abilities continue to amass.

In any event, as I already mentioned, it is a trivial exercise to modify AD&D to almost any level of desired simplicity.  Whereas in 3e, if you have a few screws left over after assembly, you might find the whole construction crumbling about you the first time you play--or worse, after the campaign has been going a while, and the aforementioned FEATS and abilities finally provide the proverbial straw, highlighting the previously unconsidered flaws in your tinkering.  Again, very much an all or nothing affair--which is fine if you are comfortable with the "all". 



> *It would be quite easy to reduce the 3e rules to be of the style of Basic D&D.  I think it could fit on a page and a half.  One noticeable difference is that a '3e Lite' game will be so clean you would never need to look at charts. *




I agree, and would love to see such a game--I might even play it! 

I think many of the aspects in AD&D that you have issues with could have been addressed in 3e without diverging so drastically from what had come before.

Anyway, I'm not looking to convert anyone--though I'd love to see enough of a resurgence of interest in the older versions to justify a bit of commercial support for them...

Game On


----------



## MerricB (Sep 26, 2002)

When I think about 3E diverging drastically from what has come before, only two areas really come to mind:

* Feats
* Multi-classing

Everything else is remarkably similar. 

I think it's a big myth about the modularity of 1E - if you used different aspects of it, the relative power of the classes changed dramatically in respect to each other.

Consider that the 1st level magic-user was... weak. (Strong in one combat, then near useless afterwards). The 1st level fighter was okay - not great, but not useless. Then along comes UA with weapon specialisation, and the Fighter has gone to being STRONG whilst the MU remains the same (sort of weak).

You _can_ run 3E without feats. The result is that you've changed the power of the Fighter in relation to the other classes. 

Cheers!


----------



## Thorvald Kviksverd (Sep 26, 2002)

*Hey Merric--*

Not exactly the sort of _help_ I was hoping for from _Dragonsfoot_! 




			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> *When I think about 3E diverging drastically from what has come before, only two areas really come to mind:
> 
> * Feats
> * Multi-classing
> ...




Two mighty big areas those!

The one adds far too much detail for this tired old brain to adjudicate in play.

The other sounds the death-knell for the traditional D&D archetypes.  Granted, you can simply disallow it--but doing so really puts your campaign outside the pale wrt the rest of the D&D community and most supplements (as does eliminating FEATS).

You also have larger stat blocks for monsters, monsters with classes, faster advancement, no upper limit on hit dice, altered saving throws, multiple attacks for non-fighters, greatly expanded skills, a cyclic initiative/partial/full action thingy, and a number of other changes as well.



> *I think it's a big myth about the modularity of 1E - if you used different aspects of it, the relative power of the classes changed dramatically in respect to each other.
> 
> Consider that the 1st level magic-user was... weak. (Strong in one combat, then near useless afterwards). The 1st level fighter was okay - not great, but not useless. Then along comes UA with weapon specialisation, and the Fighter has gone to being STRONG whilst the MU remains the same (sort of weak).*




That's why I don't use UA. 

Which, come to think of it, helps illustrate the aforementioned ease of customization--don't like it, don't use it.

Bought a module that uses customization?  Forget it; or, if it's used for a main antagonist, give him a +2 Sword and a potion of speed.



> *You can run 3E without feats. The result is that you've changed the power of the Fighter in relation to the other classes.*




Would that it were so easy--but I really think there's a bit more involved...

I spent a year trying to make 3e play more like the older versions--until I ended up with something neither fish nor fowl, and realized I should just go ahead and _play_ the older versions.

So, to answer the question asked by the original post (be it troll or not)...

Yes, it does offend me when something that is merely different, is instead refered to as inferior.

To be honest, the question could be asked, "Inferior for what purpose?"

If you mean for playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons as I came to understand it over years of exposure, then I would say that it is actually superior to anything else out there--afterall, it _*is*_ Advanced Dungeons & Dragons!

If you mean for recreating some of the more anime-like action that seems to be the current taste with many, then yes, I would say that AD&D is inferior for this purpose.  Similarly, 3e is probably better for simulating various literary and historical milieus.

That's the rub I guess, the philosophies of the two systems are different.  AD&D wasn't really attempting to model anything, it was simply a vehicle for adventure that existed within its own framework--in other words, a game.  While, 3e aims to be much more. I don't want more though, I'm happy with just having my quirky-seperate D&D universe where Rangers cast spells, Magic-Users can't wear armour, and where Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling are sometimes classes as well as races.

Speaking of Rangers, and not to sidetrack the discussion, this is probably why there is so much disagreement surrounding the new class with regards to the definition of "ranger".  People forget that in AD&D, the Ranger simply is what the game says it is--it's not really attempting to model anything (though there were no doubt inspirations).

Ah well, that's enough rambling for one night.

Take it easy all


----------



## MerricB (Sep 26, 2002)

I'm not defined by Dragonsfoot. I am merely someone who appreciates both 1E and 3E. Oh, and 2E and 2.5E. And the BECM line of D&D. And a few other roleplaying games as well. 

My bottom line is this: If you don't like 3E, don't play it, but be respectful of the fact that there are a large number of people who do like it, and prefer it to other editions of the game.

The same applies in reverse, of course. 

Cheers!


----------



## Henry (Sep 26, 2002)

Gene Weigel -

Troll;

Patriot;

Mensch.

Gotta love 'im. 

I won't re-tread PCat's statement - I'll simply state "ditto." After all, my first REAL gaming group (the guys I spent summers with playing D&D every darned DAY) played 1st edition AD&D. I cut my teeth on Basic D&D; I learned to roleplay with 1e AD&D.


----------



## William Ronald (Sep 26, 2002)

Like Piratecat, I had a great deal of fun with 1st Edition.  There were a lot of things I enjoyed, and remember fondly.  However, I think 3E offers much more flexibility.

Some have raised the issues of low level wizards versus fighters with weapon specialization in 1st edition.  I thought it was a bit unfair that clerics could receive bonus spells for wisdom and fighters can gain a benefit while thieves, monks, and wizards would just have to chug along and wait to get their benefits.  (In the case of monks and wizards, the key was having a character survive until he had enough power to contribute as much as the other characters.)

There are certain things I do not miss;  the complex grappling-pummeling-wrestling rules and the completely screwed up psionics system.  (Indeed, Gygax has admitted on these boards that he only added psionics because a few people were using them and would have not added them or modified them.)  Or how about the complex psionic combat rules.

I think that the 1st edition games that I played in were fun.  However, I do not see the need to abandon a more modern game engine.  

Of course, we can play whatever we wish at home.

As for the gender issue, I consider it ultimately meaningless.  So, 
humans in a world of magic and active divinities should be EXACTLY the same as in our world.  The game is meant to simulate heroic fantasy.  Heroic fantasy is an environment where fire breathign dragons can exhale flame on heroes and heroines who do not suffer charred lungs and carbon monoxide asphyxiation (or worse).  As for demi-humans, I always considered the level limits illogical and not all that great for game balance.   Also, as I have never meet a sentient non-human, I can't comment on realistic portrayals of said beings.

So, my advice is: play whatever you want.  As long as you and your fellow players are having fun, that is the what is truly important.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Sep 26, 2002)

William Roland - you're my ninja.

Just put me down for a big 'ditto' under everything WR just said.

Keep the fun the game folks - that's all that matters.


----------



## Slacker (Sep 26, 2002)

Reminds me of a question.


Q:When was the golden age of gaming?

A:When I was 12. I had time to play, a bunch of other kids to play with, and I was at an age where it was still alright to order a happy meal. Nowadays, the clerk at McDonald's just looks at me strangely when I start playing with the free toy.


----------



## Aaron L (Sep 26, 2002)

Saves in 1st edition were fine?  


Why did you save vs. spell against a fireball if someone cast it, but vs r/s/w if it came from a wand?  I've ALWAYS wanted to know that.


If you like your fighters never being competently able to move silently, just because they are fighters, use an earlier edition.

If you like great elven wizards who cant pass 11th level and doughty dwarven warriors who can't hold a candle to humans, play an earlier edition.

If you like not being able to learn magic just because you learned to use a sword unless you are one of the most intelligent people on the planet, then play an earlier edition.

A human who is skilled in multiple disciplines simultaneously?  Impossible, because humans can't multiclass.

Because.



If you like older editions, play them, no problem to me.  But please, please don't come here and claim that they are better then the soulless PC junk that we play, or that older editions had something that 3E lacks.  In 3E you have options that you didn't have in older editions.  You can always take away options, but it's really hard to insert them when they weren't there in the first place.


----------



## johnsemlak (Sep 26, 2002)

Typical 1e adventuring party:

1.  Half-elf Ranger, skilled with the bow and longsword.

2.  Human Paladin

3.  Human Wizard (or magic-user)

4.  Dwarven Fighter, skilled with a battle axe.

5.  Elven Fighter-magic-user.  

6.  Hafling Thief

7.  Human Cleric



Typical 3e adventuring party

1.  Human multiclass Paladin/Wizard/Cleric with an open locks and find traps skill and an Arcane Archer prestige class.


----------



## MerricB (Sep 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by johnsemlak _Typical 3e adventuring party
> 
> 1.  Human multiclass Paladin/Wizard/Cleric with an open locks and find traps skill and an Arcane Archer prestige class. [/B]




LOL! Completely and utterly untrue, of course.

If you gave me the choice between a group of four multi-classes or a group of four single classes in 3E of equivalent level, then I'd choose the single classes every time.

Especially with the spell-using classes: they are _much, much, much_ better when single-classed.

A Wizard 4/Rogue 5 vs. a Wizard 9 is no contest at all with regards to utility to the adventuring party.

This is not to say that the multi-class system in 3E can't be abused, however it just requires a bit of DM vigilance or the laying down of ground rules at the start of the campaign.

In 1E, Gygax had done this for us. In 3E, we're trusted enough to make the decisions ourselves.  Both approaches are valid.

Cheers!


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Sep 26, 2002)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Typical 3e adventuring party
> 
> 1.  Human multiclass Paladin/Wizard/Cleric with an open locks and find traps skill and an Arcane Archer prestige class. *





Okay, yeah.  Go ahead and spend those 2+int mod skill points on open locks and find traps, both of which are cross-class.  The dragon will find your mastery of the multiclassing system VERY impressive, before he eats you.

Jeesh.  Just because you *can* multiclass doens't mean that everyone does it.  In fact, I'd say 90% of the characters I've encountered have been single-classed.




> *
> 5. Elven Fighter-magic-user.
> *





Just for the record, this guy is the true 1E munchkin.  Everyone knows that true muchkins play dual-wielding elven-chain-wearing fighter-magic-users.  Anything less would be uncivilized.


----------



## Atticus_of_Amber (Sep 26, 2002)

*women get +2 to CON?*

Returning to the hijack ... I mean fascinating discussion of women's physical capacities…

As I understand it, there is a lot of evidence that women have greater stamina and pain-tolerance than men. I saw a documentary years ago which tried to come up with a meaningful way of describing the pain of childbirth to men. They attached electrodes or brain-scans or whatever to women during childbirth and then tried to find equivalent readings in the male experience. The best they could come up with was to describe childbirth as like a man being kicked in the groin, repeatedly, at ever decreasing intervals, over a period of hours….

Now I question the scientific method of the documentary (and the ethics!) but the point is a good one. Women's primary biological purpose is to do something VERY painful and traumatic and not only survive it, but survive it well enough to go on to care for the product and do it all over again several times.

Studies on endurance and stamina have also shown similar results.  As an English relative of mine once said, drop a man and a women into freezing water in a shipwreck and always bet on the woman lasting longer. Apparently that's backed up by survival rates of women and men in shipwrecks, hunger situations, etc, etc...

So, if women have such better stamina, why don't they beat men in marathons? Because they're _slower_ and weaker. Marathons are tests of both speed and endurance.

If you’re going to do physical modifiers for men and women, then by all means give males a +2 to STR, but also give females a +2 to CON.

One of the attempted theoretical explanations for this disparity I've heard is evolutionary. Women, as child bearers, are nature’s “safe bet.” They're built to last and survive and are also given the social skills to make use of others' skills. Men are nature's “wild cards.” Since their reproduction role is relatively minor, they can be expendable. Thus they are the ones doing all the risky behaviours and having the strength to be suited to hunting, defending the cave, etc.

This wild card theory is also often used to explain the different standard deviations of men and women's performance. For example, while men and women have approximately the same mean intelligence (in fact, I think there's evidence that women have a slightly higher mean), women have a much lower standard deviation. There are many more male than female geniuses; but, conversely, there are far more male than female morons. Women are natures safe bets; men are the wild cards.

I don't know wether the theory's right. But it's interesting...


----------



## rounser (Sep 26, 2002)

> But please, please don't come here and claim that they are better then the soulless PC junk that we play, or that older editions had something that 3E lacks.



Until the Creature Catalog and Tome of Horrors came to light, you bet earlier editions had something for me that 3E didn't.  IMO, cool monsters matter more than petty little saving throw quibbles - refer to Hackmaster thread for more on this line of argument...


> In 3E you have options that you didn't have in older editions.



Indeed.  You also have more to ignore if you don't want said options...


> You can always take away options, but it's really hard to insert them when they weren't there in the first place.



What you say seems plausible in theory, but doesn't really work in practice.  Try ripping out feats and AoO from 3E, and see how easy that is.  Now try adding ability checks and critical hits to 1E.


----------



## Aaron L (Sep 26, 2002)

Getting rid of AoOs is quite easy.  Ignore them.  If you just forget about them, they can't hurt you, and the only thing that remains is a few feats, but you can just ignore those feats as well.  You're missing something, but if you want to get rid of them then apparently you didn't like that thing to begin with.

As for feats, you could ignore them as well.  Yes, this will make the fighter a poor class, but if you like older editions, it will return the class to the same way it was before.  Or, you could make predefined feat progressions for each class, and not give the options to your players as to what to pick.  

Now, I wouldn't want to play in a game like this, but hey, if you want to make 3E more like 1 and 2E...


----------



## johnsemlak (Sep 26, 2002)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *
> 
> LOL! Completely and utterly untrue, of course.
> 
> ...




Yeah, I know all that , I was joking anyway.  LOL 

I agree 3e is technically superior.

However, I do feel the race/class restrictions did help encourage players to create characters that conform to popular archetypes, and that is very much what attracted players to D&D in the first place.  Halfling paladins and dwarf wizard/clerics just seem stupid, they don't make the fantasy world work for me.  Of course the DM can disallow them, but I think the 1e rules did a better job of creating the setting which attracted may people to the game.

Of course, some people are bound to have different ideas than Gygax on what races could cast spells and so forth (CS Lewis's Narnia series features a spellcasting Dwarf).  Many of use were also duly annoyed by the level limits and the fact that certain class/race combinations were disallowed--thus we ignored the rules we didn't like.

My theory: 3e is superior technically, but it wouldn't draw people to the game the way that 1e did.  3e is popular because it is an improvement on the 1e game, but as a stand alone product it wouldn't create the cult following 1e did.

On a separate and blatently off topic note to MerricB:

Have a good time watching the Grand Final on Saturday.  I'll be up bright and early at 8:00 am in Moscow for it.


----------



## johnsemlak (Sep 26, 2002)

MeepoTheMighty said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Okay, yeah.  Go ahead and spend those 2+int mod skill points on open locks and find traps, both of which are cross-class.  The dragon will find your mastery of the multiclassing system VERY impressive, before he eats you.
> ...





Ahhh, but what you don't realize is that my human paladin/wizard/cleric/arcane archer character has improved, he has gained the green dragon slayer prestige class.  So the (green) dragon is dead dragon meat.

Jeesz, I was just joking anyway.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 26, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> *The idea that I would maintain blind loyalty to any ruleset because of its number or because I liked playing it is just ludicrous. *
> 
> Reread the last part of that sentence. Ludicrous?



Uh, yeah, that's what I wrote. . . .  I think I see your confusion.  Note the words, "blind loyalty," not just loyalty.  And what I meant to indicate was more like: Just because I once enjoyed playing a game doesn't mean I'll maintain blind loyalty to it if a better version of the rules comes out.


----------



## herald (Sep 26, 2002)

*. Human multiclass Paladin/Wizard/Cleric with an open locks and find traps skill and an Arcane Archer prestige class. * 

Human's can't be arcane archers, Only elves and half-elves.


----------



## chatdemon (Sep 26, 2002)

hellbender said:
			
		

> * Yes, it there was a lot of monster killing for experience points,
> hellbender *




Dungeon Masters Guide, 3rd edition (WotC 2000), page 169:



> Roleplaying XP awards are purely ad hoc. That is, *there is no special system for assigning Challenge Ratings to bits of roleplaying*. The awards should be just large enough for the player to notice them, probably no more than 50 XP per character level per adventure.



(note- emphasis mine, not the author's)

Don't tell me 3e encourages or rewards non-combat play any more than 1e or 2e did, it is simply, and demonstrably (as I just did   ) not true.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Sep 26, 2002)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> *
> 
> However, I do feel the race/class restrictions did help encourage players to create characters that conform to popular archetypes, and that is very much what attracted players to D&D in the first place.  paladins and dwarf wizard/clerics just seem stupid, thHalfling ey don't make the fantasy world work for me.  Of course the DM can disallow them, but I think the 1e rules did a better job of creating the setting which attracted may people to the game.
> 
> *




In the 23 years I've gamed, and the hundreds of gamers I've known, this has never been even on the list of factors that attracted anyone to the game.

3e makes it so that any style of play is possible; if you want those restrictions, they can be imposed. The whole point of 3e was that it was more flexible than earlier editions, which is something that was played up from the beginning. Flexibility means that each game can be, should be different. One doesn't have to use the game "as is;" many seem to have an aversion to custom-tailoring the game to their taste, but still criticize all the options in 3e. Let's put it like this: one can play a 1e style game using 3e rules much easier than one could play a 3e style game using 1e rules. That was something I noticed right out of the box.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Sep 26, 2002)

chatdemon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Dungeon Masters Guide, 3rd edition (WotC 2000), page 169:
> 
> ...




I can't think of even that much attention being given to roleplaying in 1e.


----------



## Creideiki (Sep 26, 2002)

chatdemon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Dungeon Masters Guide, 3rd edition (WotC 2000), page 169:
> 
> ...




_* 3e rewards non-combat play,
But 2e did as well, optionally.
One must simply learn to read.*_


----------



## chatdemon (Sep 26, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Well in the since that 3rd. edition is more flexible,



Debatable. Although the material itself offers a lot more flexibility, not even mentioning the 3rd party d20 options, you have to consider the gaming culture. Homebrew rules were par for the course when 1e was around. That is true now, but I see a lot more people now that play 'by the books' than I ever did 15 or 20 years ago. How do you think all these other RPGs came to be?



> 'elegant',



What exactly does that mean? More supplements, errata, confusing Sage advice and FAQs in 2 years than 1e had in its entire 'run'? You call that elegant? Fluffy and insubstantial terms like this do little to promote fair comparison between the games.



> complete,



So that's why they keep releasing all those splat books, supplements, 3rd party class/race books, etc etc etc. 1e, 2e and 3e all have one thing in common. All you need to play is the PHB, DMG and MM. Hell, with 1e, you didn't even _need_ a MM, since the DMG had monster charts with the basic 'stat block' stuff in them.



> consistant,



I suppose you mean the 'always high' and 'one roll to rule them all' concepts. Sure, consistent, but I've yet to meet anyone (except online) who _really_ had that much trouble with 1e/2e dice mechanics.
This is like saying 'Blackjack is broken! Aces are 1, Aces are 11, I cant figure it out!'. 



> balanced,



1e/2e balance relied heavily on what I call the 'low/high' concept. Some classes/races start out powerful and taper off, others start weak and ramp up. In the big picture, balance is achieved. 3e abandoned this in favor of making everyone kick ass right from the start. I don't consider this a good thing, YMMV.



> simpler



_*VERY*_ debatable! Case in point, explain to me, in 20 words or less, without pointing me to a passage to read, how attacks of opportunity work in 3e.



> and in general meets the goals of good game design



Where might the unenlightened among us find these 'rules'? And come to think of it, what game are all those blasted rules derived from??? Just because the new school game designers decided that they can do it, in their opinion, better, doesn't mean Gygax did it wrong.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 26, 2002)

chatdemon said:
			
		

> *VERY debatable! Case in point, explain to me, in 20 words or less, without pointing me to a passage to read, how attacks of opportunity work in 3e.*



If you take your attention off fighting when you're within five feet of an opponent, she gets a free attack.

Twenty words, including prepositions and articles.

Are there complications to that rule?  Of course.  But I defy you to explain THAC0 in twenty words or less, including every possible complication.


----------



## chatdemon (Sep 26, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *I was always uncomfortable with the sexism in the "max ability score" charts for strength.  I mean, yes, we know that on average women are not as strong as men.  However, there was no "max con score" chart for men, or a shorter lifespan, even though both things are well documented for real life men and women. *




Yes, I agree that the dual ability scores for male and female characters were a bad thing. You can argue about the inherent realism of that all you want, but hey, this is fantasy, we want to encourage female players and promote the idea that female characters can be just as heroic, and kick just as much butt, as the men. I was happy to see this go in 2e. It's also worth noting that OD&D didn't have such things, it was, imo, a mistake to add it, and TSR realized this and corrected it.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Sep 26, 2002)

chatdemon said:
			
		

> *
> What exactly does that mean? More supplements, errata, confusing Sage advice and FAQs in 2 years than 1e had in its entire 'run'? You call that elegant? Fluffy and insubstantial terms like this do little to promote fair comparison between the games.*




1e didn't release much, if any errata ever. You can't be suggesting it didn't need any. This just means that more effort is being made in this regard now than it was then. The supplements I'll address below.




			
				chatdemon said:
			
		

> *
> So that's why they keep releasing all those splat books, supplements, 3rd party class/race books, etc etc etc. *




Rich, with all respect, this is a stalking horse. "They" aren't releasing the third party books. The d20 publishers are. I don't think anyone seriously thinks each and every book and supplement needs to be bought or used. That's been made clear from the beginning. It's been emphasized time and again - the Core Books are the only ones you need; that's how the game was designed. There are options out there to fit any taste. I don't know why that's a bad thing.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 26, 2002)

*Re: women get +2 to CON?*



			
				Atticus_of_Amber said:
			
		

> *Returning to the hijack ... I mean fascinating discussion of women's physical capacities…*




You were told by a moderator, Dinkeldog, not to hijack the thread.  So don't, please.


----------



## chatdemon (Sep 26, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> * I defy you to explain THAC0 in twenty words or less, including every possible complication. *




THAC0 (by class, adjusted for magic and abiities) minus target's AC is the roll  needed on d20 to hit.

  19 words.

Complications? To thaco? huh?

THACO for dummies:
Your AC is 5, My Thaco is 17.
I subtract your AC from my thaco to get my target., in this case 12. 

I roll D20, to that result i add the bonuses i may have from abilities or magic. and subtract any similar penalties. If my result is equal to or greater than my target, I hit.

BAB for dummies:
Your AC is 15, My BAB is 3.
I subtract my BAB from your AC to get my target, in this case 12.

I roll D20, to that result i add the bonuses i may have from abilities or magic. and subtract any similar penalties. If my result is equal to or greater than my target, I hit.

 
I'm not seeing a huge amount of difference there....

Let me state clearly for the record that I am not bashing 3e, I like it, I play it. I'm just sticking up for 1e here.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 26, 2002)

chatdemon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> THAC0 (by class, adjusted for magic and abiities) minus target's AC is the roll  needed on d20 to hit.
> 
> ...



I'm talking about looking up your THAC0 on the chart, etc.  In other words my explanation for attacks of opportunity didn't cover every possible situation, but neither can any description of THAC0 that limits itself to 20 words or less.  That's all I meant.


----------



## chatdemon (Sep 26, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: AD&D First Edition inferior?*



			
				MeepoTheMighty said:
			
		

> If anything, 3E made it unneccesary to have seperate classes in order to replicate historical ideas.  You want a cavalier?  Put some skill points into ride and diplomacy, take mounted combat feats, and roleplay him like a cavalier.  No need for a seperate mechanic.




Uhhh...
Explain to me again why we need prestige classes then? Or hell, lets go classless!


----------



## MerricB (Sep 26, 2002)

chatdemon said:
			
		

> *
> I'm not seeing a huge amount of difference there....*




G'day, Rich!

The one thing that makes THAC0 difficult is that it involves subtraction, as subtraction is slightly more difficult than addition, a lot more for some poor people. Once you get to subtracting negative numbers (which wasn't that uncommon), then some people's heads started exploding.

Hey, _I_ got confused by THAC0 more than once, and I'm especially good at mental arithmetic. 

Oh, that and the inconsistency between ability/skill checks (low good) and to hit/saves (high good). 

Cheers!


----------



## chatdemon (Sep 26, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *I'm talking about looking up your THAC0 on the chart, etc.  In other words my explanation for attacks of opportunity didn't cover every possible situation, but neither can any description of THAC0 that limits itself to 20 words or less.  That's all I meant. *




The chart?
You mean the class levels chart? 3e has those too.

For the record, I must point out something here, 1e had no such concept as 'thac0', that was a 2e thing.

Yes, in 1e you cross referenced your class/level to your opponents AC on a chart. Not talking rocket science, though I will go out on a limb and say that thac0 was a huge improvement to that

BAB and THAC0 are essentially the same thing, as my example pointed out. I never understood why people hail BAB and villainize THAC0, I just don't get it/


----------



## chatdemon (Sep 26, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *Rich, with all respect, this is a stalking horse. "They" aren't releasing the third party books. The d20 publishers are. I don't think anyone seriously thinks each and every book and supplement needs to be bought or used. That's been made clear from the beginning. It's been emphasized time and again - the Core Books are the only ones you need; that's how the game was designed. There are options out there to fit any taste. I don't know why that's a bad thing. *




Well, by 'they' i mean the collective publishers, since most people, myself included, consider D&D 3e and D20 to be one and the same system.

Anyway, I agree completely!, like I said, all 3 editions of AD&D only require the 3 core books, and suggesting that 3e is more of a compelte game based on the info provided in those 3 books isnt valid. Saying that 3e is more complete because the books hint at more options (like designing new spells, prestige classes, monsters, whatever) isn't fair because most of us did the same thing for 1e.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 26, 2002)

Because one was all about subtraction, frequently involving negative numbers, while the other uses addition.  More people prefer to add than subtract.  Also the concept that your AC gets higher as it gets better is more intuitive than it getting better as it gets lower, but only to an arbitrary -10.


----------



## maddman75 (Sep 26, 2002)

chatdemon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> BAB for dummies:
> ...




Not quite correct.

Your AC is 15.  My BAB is 3.  I roll a d20, add my BAB and any other modifiers.  That is the AC I hit.  SO if its 15 or more, I hit.

This is only one operation, and addition is faster to do on the fly than subtraction.  Thus, BAB is easier than Thac0.


----------



## MerricB (Sep 26, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AD&D First Edition inferior?*



			
				chatdemon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Uhhh...
> Explain to me again why we need prestige classes then? Or hell, lets go classless! *




Classless is good! Classless is the ultimate goal of our society...

Oh, sorry. Not that kind of classless. 

Personally, I'm all in favour of new classes, prestige classes or multi-classing. It's all about balance.

Multi-classing is easier to balance than a new prestige class.
A new prestige class is easier to balance than a new class.

I think most would agree that the cavalier from 1E needs a little work done to it. (I think Gary's recently admitted that in the Great Gygaxian Thread: UA should have had about a year more work done on it, but was released early due to financial difficulties at the time).

Also, Prestige Classes give you that - Prestige. It's not anyone who can take them; you've got to qualify, often taking otherwise useless feats & skills.

Cheers!


----------



## Psion (Sep 26, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: AD&D First Edition inferior?*



			
				GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *
> I think 3e is "easier" to hit and that's what ends its smoothness.*




Well _*I*_ think the flaws in 3e were much deeper than that.



> *
> Let's face it the saving throws were fine, well tuned and we didn't need to see the "see-through engine mounted on the roof".
> *




Let's face it: the 1e/2e saving throw categories were bent, and based on some essentially arbitrary numbers.



> *
> You may not realize it but the loss of the cavalier as read killed the retrofitted authenticity garnered when the Unearthed Arcana came out. 2e failed to acknowledge the historical and functional value this class had brought to the table.*




The unearthed arcana was the most munchkin supplement ever. It brought us cavaliers and barbarians, super-fighters who got glittering special abilities just for having a bad attitude.



> *
> I am not even going to get into the completely different game system that multiclassing, levels and experience has become.
> *




Entirely for the better, IMNSHO. 1e munchkin multiclassing, nonsensible level limits, abilities that made no sensible difference in the game if they were less than 15, etc. I would point out THAC0 like others have, but in truth THAC0 wasn't a regular feature of the game until 2e.



> *
> I think we need to turn this game around into a "thinking man's game" again with a new SRD loaded with options that have been features of the various editions of the game.
> *




3e is much more a thinking mans game than 1e ever was.



> *
> What does anyone have to lose?
> *




Wasted production time, mostly, since most people who think like you AREN'T shopping for new product. (And those that are are buying Hackmaster...)

P.S. Not a youngin' here. I know exactly what I'm NOT missing about 1e.


----------



## Voneth (Sep 26, 2002)

Hmmmm.

While I won’t get into championing one system over another, I will state that I felt that some alleged attributes of DND, especially for 1st were overstated. 

Teaching beginners:
If you define beginners as an average joe off the street, the thickness of any edition book for DND scares them away. I have seen it several times. I have more luck using a “lite rules” system from other games that have been doing things for years like useing the same type of dice for every game mechanic. … Something that has been seen as a recent godsend to the DND crowd.

Flexibility:
In my experience, the vaunted flexibility of 1st  ed usually came with a thick notebook of GM house rules (and any game system can be made “flexible” that way – gunpowder anyone?). It was one of the reasons people were upset with 2nd ed, they had invested a lot of time in tweaking 1st to their style. In 2nd edition, I paid for TSR to codify those rules into their various campaigns and Options books, though the results were clunky at best and the choices were limited. For 3rd edtion, I can now download rules for free and I have a whole library of optional rules I can get with a whole range of 3rd party publishers – but that is more an offshoot of OGL, not DND itself.

A perennial favorite:
In my personal experience: DND is a rpg “favorite” the same way Pepperoni is a “favorite” pizza topping.  It is something that everyone can settle for when you have a group with a wide range of tastes. That doesn’t mean its what everyone really wants. And if you happen to be the lone French gourmet who gets pepperoni heartburn in a group of Domino’s pizza lovers – well, then you don’t have to eat, do you thankyouverymuch!


----------



## diaglo (Sep 26, 2002)

no one i ever gamed with had any trouble making a unique character in the older editions.

flexibility existed even from the beginning.


----------



## Psion (Sep 26, 2002)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> *Typical 3e adventuring party
> 
> 1.  Human multiclass Paladin/Wizard/Cleric with an open locks and find traps skill and an Arcane Archer prestige class. *




As has been said, this character would be an utter pantywaist. Unlike 1e, in 3e you actually have to pay for your class levels.


----------



## Voneth (Sep 26, 2002)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> As has been said, this character would be an utter pantywaist. Unlike 1e, in 3e you actually have to pay for your class levels. *




And isn't the AA an elven PrC? I am work and don't carry my DMG around here.


----------



## Tuerny (Sep 26, 2002)

diaglo said:
			
		

> *no one i ever gamed with had any trouble making a unique character in the older editions.
> 
> flexibility existed even from the beginning. *





Yes, a limited amount of flexibility brought about from being able to combine a particular race with a particular class and then run with the concept that resulted in that...

3e allows even more flexibility to model your character's abilities with the rules system itself.

Want to play a human warrior who is also able to sneak around and perform basic acrobatics?
Play a fighter/rogue with most of your levels in fighter and your rogue levels and alot your rogue skill points to tumble, balance, move silently, and hide.

You couldn't really do that in 1st edition......


----------



## Psion (Sep 26, 2002)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> *However, I do feel the race/class restrictions did help encourage players to create characters that conform to popular archetypes, and that is very much what attracted players to D&D in the first place.  Halfling paladins and dwarf wizard/clerics just seem stupid, they don't make the fantasy world work for me.  Of course the DM can disallow them, but I think the 1e rules did a better job of creating the setting which attracted may people to the game.*




Y'know what...

Dwarven wizards bug me.

Y'know what else...

A design principle of 3e is to put such things in the hands of the DM. If you don't like them, don't allow them. That's better than fighting upstream against the rule and not being told by the authors that you are compromising the purity of the game if you dare deviate.


----------



## chatdemon (Sep 26, 2002)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Not quite correct.
> 
> ...




Actually, it was quite correct. While you pointed out the common explanation for how BAB works, I was attempting to show that BAB and THAC0 are the same concept, and my 'math' was 100% correct.

I've heard the 'addition is easier than subtraction' theory over and over, not just in this thread, and frankly, it offends me. Are we that stupid that we can't even use kindergarten level math in our game without getting all befuddled? I learned how to play OD&D when I was 8 years old, and the math involved *never* gave me any trouble. Like I said, I've heard the theory, and I guess it may be true, but not for me, I simply can't relate.


----------



## MerricB (Sep 26, 2002)

Alas, it's true. The number of people with inferior mathematical skills - mainly due to PC teaching practices - is larger than you might think. 

I play with people who, though otherwise quite intelligent and excellent role-players, have trouble adding 15 and 9 together. Please don't ask them to subtract anything.

One thing I've noticed recently is how much more useful in play Skills are than Non-weapon Proficiencies.

NWP almost _never_ impacted on my games. We use skills all the time. I like the idea of my character being a superior diplomat, able to calm people down - or enrage them!

Cheers!


----------



## diaglo (Sep 26, 2002)

Tuerny said:
			
		

> *You couldn't really do that in 1st edition...... *




i beg to differ. you *could* do that in 1ed.

you just didn't have a set % like the thief had.

and just like 3ed armor has penalties.

ask the barbarian trying to wear plate mail in 3ed.


----------



## Tuerny (Sep 26, 2002)

Ok, so just out of curiosity how would you go about creating a lightly armored, nimble character who was a skilled warrior but also had taken some time to honing his stealth and acrobatic abilities in 1st edition?


----------



## Voneth (Sep 26, 2002)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> *Typical 1e adventuring party:
> 
> 1.  Half-elf Ranger, skilled with the bow and longsword.
> 
> ...




Well, on these 2 points

1st ed:
Notice how you have 3 humans out of 7 party members, and the spell casters are optional if you get another demi-human.  In most fantasy novels, the humans got the lion's share of the cast, not so in 1st ed. Now true, you could play humans, but players love to be "da bomb" in their chosen class. Now, PC demographics relfect fantasy demographics, humans are everywhere. And if you want to play an demi-human, it's done for the right reason, becasue you want to be a demi-human, not because you want to be the most effeiceint theif/generalist/etc.

3rd ed:

You're example points out how you misuderstood the system in two fundementaly different ways.

1.) That fellow would be outclassed a party of single class characters made from the same nubmer of TOTAL levels as your MC/PrC PC. In fact, he be a good challenge rating for that party. 

2.) Say that in my game, I thought being a paladin was something you earned through roleplay and experience (as in Classic D&D). Now I can make a Paladin PrC in a fashion that doesn't involve the tons of numbers that it did in 2 ed.

I am not saying one system is better than the other, but I think your examples don't support your position very well.


----------



## johnsemlak (Sep 26, 2002)

Voneth said:
			
		

> *
> 
> W
> 3rd ed:
> ...




Voneth

Sorry to get defensive , but my posting which you quoted was a joke, it did not express my 'position' on 3e or a 'fundemental  misunderstanding' of 3e.  I do admit I'm a novice to 3e (though given  tha 3e was introduced only 2-3 years ago, I think we all are).

I explained my views (which you may very well disagree with, and you're welcome to say so  )  in a later posting, which you can find above.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 26, 2002)

We played 1e for years and 9/10 PC's was a human.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 26, 2002)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *We played 1e for years and 9/10 PC's was a human. *




Very different from my experience.  The only humans we had were paladins and the rare monk.  All others were elves and half-elves, except for the occasional time that I'd play a gnome thief/illusionist.  

The other big difference is that in 3E, people are encouraged to stay single-classed--definitely as spellcasters, paladins and monks.  In 1E, you could double your ability by multi-classing.  Since the experience tables were a geometric progression, a single-classed 5th level character's companions were 4/4.  That's not giving up very much at all.


----------



## diaglo (Sep 26, 2002)

Tuerny said:
			
		

> *Ok, so just out of curiosity how would you go about creating a lightly armored, nimble character who was a skilled warrior but also had taken some time to honing his stealth and acrobatic abilities in 1st edition? *




all in the background. and what his stat scores showed.

of course we used 3d6 six times.  

but eventually adopted the 4d6 drop the lowest method.

never did use the UA version.


as a generic answer or maybe a question. did you ever read the Gord series?


----------



## Bryan Vining (Sep 26, 2002)

Well, this is an easy question.  No, 1e is not inferior to 3e.  They are different.  They have a different spirit in the rules, and they try to accomplish different things.  

IMO, 3e tries to be a "everything to everyone" sort of game system.  I think it succeeds admirably, and it "fixes" a lot of the "broken" rules of previous eds.  OTOH, there is nothing that makes 3e an inherently more fun game to play than 1e.  Concentrating on the rules sets ignores the finer points that a good DM and good setting with a good storyline makes the details of the rules much less important.  Add to this that the rules are always just "suggestions", and we see that rules are really of secondary importance.  Nonetheless, I have my favorite rules set, and it's not 3e.  I like 3e sometimes.  I like OD&D (not to be confused with Basic D&D, which is different) sometimes.  But to my mind, the best version of D&D out there isn't D&D.  It's HackMaster.  It's a lot like 1e, but it's much better.  Anyway, now that I've hijacked the thread, I'm going to sit back and watch the melee begin.


----------



## diaglo (Sep 26, 2002)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *We played 1e for years and 9/10 PC's was a human. *




this was similar to my experience.

ran a game with 14 players once. 11 humans, 1 elf, 1 dwarf, and 1 halfling.

but we used the racial class limits.

never had any paladins. no one ever had the stats for it.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 26, 2002)

In my opinion, _of course_ the older editions of the game were inferior to 3e.  It's so mind-numbingly clear that I can't see how anyone would think otherwise.  That said, I'm just stating my opinion, all of y'all who think otherwise are similarly welcome to disagree.

But what I'm curious about, other than Flexor, who is a confirmed freak of nature , are the rest of you 1e supporters just trying to keep 1e from being bashed, or do you actually think that 1e is _superior_ to 3e?  If so, what in the h... I mean, why?  Do you even think the two editions are "seperate but equal" -- a very PC answer I've heard a few times in the thread?  How is that, exactly?  Based on what?


----------



## maddman75 (Sep 26, 2002)

chatdemon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually, it was quite correct. While you pointed out the common explanation for how BAB works, I was attempting to show that BAB and THAC0 are the same concept, and my 'math' was 100% correct.
> 
> I've heard the 'addition is easier than subtraction' theory over and over, not just in this thread, and frankly, it offends me. Are we that stupid that we can't even use kindergarten level math in our game without getting all befuddled? I learned how to play OD&D when I was 8 years old, and the math involved never gave me any trouble. Like I said, I've heard the theory, and I guess it may be true, but not for me, I simply can't relate. *




They can be expressed the same way if you work at it, but my explaination is how its intended to be done.  Meaning that there are less calculations to be made.

Its not that Thac0 was impossible or anything, just that BAB is easier.  If you are in your head subtracting your BAB from your target's armor class, you are thinking too hard.  No need.  Roll the d20, add your bab/bonuses, see what AC you hit.


----------



## Voneth (Sep 26, 2002)

diaglo said:
			
		

> *
> Originally posted by Tuerny:
> "Ok, so just out of curiosity how would you go about creating a lightly armored, nimble character who was a skilled warrior but also had taken some time to honing his stealth and acrobatic abilities in 1st edition?"
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...




LOL! *accidently spewing soda at the screen*

"Ok, so just out of curiosity how would you go about creating a lightly armored, nimble character who was a skilled warrior but also had taken some time to honing his stealth and acrobatic abilities in GURPS?"

"All in the background. and what his stat scores showed. Of course we used a different point total. "

AND

"Ok, so just out of curiosity how would you go about creating a lightly armored, nimble character who was a skilled warrior but also had taken some time to honing his stealth and acrobatic abilities in RIFTS?"

"All in the background. and what his stat scores showed. Of course we used 5d6 six times. "

AND

"Ok, so just out of curiosity how would you go about creating a lightly armored, nimble character who was a skilled warrior but also had taken some time to honing his stealth and acrobatic abilities in Storyteller?"

"All in the background. and what his stat scores showed. Of course we used more freebie points. "

With a ""All in the background. and what his stat scores showed" any system can be made "flexible." But this harkens back to what I always thought what the core DND crowd liked about the game.

They tore it apart to the basics and then used a notebook of house rules to build it back up to where they wanted it.  The 3rd ed. just reconizes that fact and allows GMs to do it in a modular fashion. Like it was said earlier, this version of DND's philosophy is to offer more and let the DM cut back instead of offering one vision and force DMs to make it up as they go along.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 26, 2002)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *In my opinion, of course the older editions of the game were inferior to 3e.  It's so mind-numbingly clear that I can't see how anyone would think otherwise.  That said, I'm just stating my opinion, all of y'all who think otherwise are similarly welcome to disagree.
> 
> But what I'm curious about, other than Flexor, who is a confirmed freak of nature , are the rest of you 1e supporters just trying to keep 1e from being bashed, or do you actually think that 1e is superior to 3e?  If so, what in the h... I mean, why?  Do you even think the two editions are "seperate but equal" -- a very PC answer I've heard a few times in the thread?  How is that, exactly?  Based on what? *





I'm a superfreak!  I'm superfreaky...owwwww!

For the record, 3e is only inferior for the way I like to DM.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 26, 2002)

Voneth said:
			
		

> *This harkens back to what I always thought what the core DND crowd liked about the game.
> 
> They tore it apart to the basics and then used a notebook of house rules to build it back up to where they wanted it.  The 3rd ed. just reconizes that fact and allows GMs to do it in a modular fashion.*



Am I the only one who finds 3E _tremendously_ easy to hack apart, house-rule like crazy, morph, twist, spindle, fold and mutilate? I created an entirely different magic system, changed the AC system so that armour was less attractive, basically made smart, fast guys WAY better than strong, tough guys, took out 80% of the classes, made up a half-dozen feats and stole a bunch more from anywhere I could find them, threw a bunch of others out, trashed both divine and arcane magic COMPLETELY...

...and STILL ended up with a fun, playable game! Balance problems? A few, mostly dealt with now, it seems. Math problems? Hardly at all. Prep time problems? None.

It was so easy. It was _fun_. And I almost always had a clear idea of what the impact of my changes would be, and I was almost never wrong about that.

Which reminds me of 1E. The thing that, to me, made D&D better than just about any other game on the market was how easy it was to house-rule the darn thing into complete oblivion. No other game has ever seemed so endlessly mutable to me. Not even the purported "all genre" games -- with D&D you can smack primary mechanics around and it still holds together. Kinda.

I loved that about 1E. I love the fact that it's even EASIER in 3E. Yeah, sure, 1E _IS_ inferior to 3E. 3E is an improvement.

Let me put it another way -- it's easier to morph 3E so that it plays like 1E than it is to morph 1E so that it plays like 3E. QED.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Sep 26, 2002)

The Cavalier and the Barbarian are fine.

Whatever "Lord Gygax" said about the Unearthed Arcana being rushed it certainly has nothing to do with these already playtested and intrinsic D&D elements.

(What do you mean? The Emperor has a longstanding post here? What is thy bid-... Oh, sorry!  )

These two classes didn't unbalance anyone's game except the "game" of the Queen of The Second Edition, former president of TSR, Lorraine Williams. Her "game" was to get you to buy into canned storytime instead of using Gary's "Products of Your Imagination". Why? You ask? Because storytime is available everywhere and hollowed out adventures where you can superimpose your players into was real, real scarce. 

"Story time" served spoonfuls of fantasy to the somewhat new reader market but it nixed the game's past of the barbarous war and violence of the grognards (term for wargamers).

From her (can I say damned?) perspective this was clearly represented by what a few years earlier had everyone cranking out these characters left and right.

And they have been flayed and flayed and guess what I think of this? 

Stop it! Please!

The cavalier is the knight. 

Who rules the lands of D&D? 

Not the lands of Faerun or Living Greyhawk or Kalamar or the Scarred Lands or Ravenloft or any campaign setting but the historical medieval landscape or your (yes, your) imagination? The world that you would walk out of a college history course thinking about, who rules this land?

Knights! That piece right next to the bishop. To make it legit the original cavalier class has in their progression of levels not a speculated progression but an actual historical progression. Their class custom tuned to represent those of power. 

But that's munchkin they say? 

Horse manure! (No pun intended!) 

That's life! If your DM likes a lighter game keep them as NPCs then.

As for the Unearthed Arcana barbarian class, yours and others problem with the magic items is the hands down most roleplaying fun ever for me and quite a few other people. If your DM can't hold a party with a spellcaster and a barbarian together then that shouldn't have been the reason for taking out something so many of us have enjoyed. He just needed more practice motivating adventures.

Everything about the barbarian is justified by the slow progression and the penalties. A rude and crude reflection of the fighter and the ranger and indeed master of the wild (hey, where have I heard that before?). Whole civilizations topple before their strength and you want them to stop riling up your game night? Well, that's your choice make them into NPCs but don't take them away from those of us that want to use them by just saying that only they get angry!

All this talk aside I think all these concerns would be dropped if we had options in the SRD to compensate for all editions of the game and yes, Hackmaster as well could be initiated into the fold. 

Variants.

Choice.

Means anti-partisan conspicuous consumption!

Go look it up now!

Oooooooooooooooooo!


----------



## diaglo (Sep 26, 2002)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *...I loved that about 1E... QED. *




wow. something i can agree with you on.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 26, 2002)

OK, regardless of whether or not the original post was a troll, GENEWIEGEL, you are giving Bugaboo a run for his money on this thread.


----------



## diaglo (Sep 26, 2002)

Voneth said:
			
		

> *They tore it apart to the basics and then used a notebook of house rules to build it back up to where they wanted it.  The 3rd ed. just reconizes that fact and allows GMs to do it in a modular fashion. Like it was said earlier, this version of DND's philosophy is to offer more and let the DM cut back instead of offering one vision and force DMs to make it up as they go along. *




here's your spoon. go feed yourself.  

don't do any thinking for yourself. it's all included in 3ed.  

as if...


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 26, 2002)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *I'm a superfreak!  I'm superfreaky...owwwww!
> 
> For the record, 3e is only inferior for the way I like to DM. *



A little more work, and you might even be superfly...


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Sep 26, 2002)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *OK, regardless of whether or not the original post was a troll, GENEWIEGEL, you are giving Bugaboo a run for his money on this thread. *




Nope. I'll stand by it. It's a good idea.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 26, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *Nope. I'll stand by it. It's a good idea. *



What's your good idea there, though?  Any game system without the cavalier is automatically inferior?
P.S.  Anyone want to hire a DM?


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Sep 26, 2002)

diaglo said:
			
		

> *
> 
> here's your spoon. go feed yourself.
> 
> *




Actually, that's a pretty good description of 3e. 

You deftly sidestepped the question about how to create those flexible characters with the "it's all in the background" assertion. That's not an indication of the flexibility of the system; it's a tribute to the ingenuity of the players. We House Ruled so much because it wasn't provided for and we felt the need - it's not like that's an intrinsic virtue of the system. barsoomcore is eloquent in his post above about the mutability of the 1e system, but I still can't bring myself to agree with it. Back in the day, we tore apart and House Ruled the heck out of all kinds of games, from Traveller to Dragonquest to Boot Hill to Gamma World to Top Secret. D&D didn't seem especially suited to such customization, in comparison to any other given game. 1e, and especially older editions of D&D, is a good game for those who want more free-form action. That doesn't mean it's especially good for it. 

Now, I'm not saying 1e sucks. I'm just saying that the issue of it being especially suited for customization holds true for a lot of other games.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 26, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *Back in the day, we tore apart and House Ruled the heck out of all kinds of games, from Traveller to Dragonquest to Boot Hill to Gamma World to Top Secret. D&D didn't seem especially suited to such customization, in comparison to any other given game. *



Yeah, you know what, you're right. Even as I was writing I thought, "Jeez, overstate the case a little more, why don't you?"

Okay, so we all loved house ruling 1E to death. What fun.

All I'm saying is that house ruling 3E is even MORE fun.

All I'm saying.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Sep 26, 2002)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *
> What's your good idea there, though?  Any game system without the cavalier is automatically inferior?
> [/img] *




A SRD with all the editions.

Don't fight the flow. We now live in the age of internet enlightenment. 

Why would companies bother adhering to something new if it scuttles away some previous revenues?

Not you as the fan but for the D20 industry to sell to the whole gamer spectrum ranging from wargaming grognard college professors of old to the "Monte Clicker-naut" boys of today.

Not only will this be better for sales but better for you as the DM as well.

Just picture it: every D&D rule ever made at your finger tips. 

Now that would be a System Reference Document!

Let the cavaliers ride once more!


----------



## Thorvald Kviksverd (Sep 26, 2002)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> *In 1E, you could double your ability by multi-classing.  Since the experience tables were a geometric progression, a single-classed 5th level character's companions were 4/4.  That's not giving up very much at all. *




Hmmm...

Got me wondering just what exactly he would be losing.

Let's see...

Fighter 4 / Magic-User 4

 HPs:  16
 THACO:  18
 Armour:  Any
 Spells:  3-1st / 2-2nd
 Saves:  13 / 13 / 11 / 15 / 12
Fighter 5

 HPs:  27.5
 THACO:  16
 Armour:  Any
 Spells:  None
 Saves:  11 / 12 / 13 / 13 /14
Magic-User 5

 HPs:  12.5
 THACO:  20
 Armour:  None
 Spells:  4-1st / 2-2nd / 1-3rd
 Saves:  14 / 13 / 11 / 15 / 12
I won't pretend that they're all equal in ability (though I don't know how you could measure that--so much of it being situation dependant), but I really don't think he is nearly doubling his ability by multi-classing.  There are trade-offs involved--just as in 3e.

It may even be more beneficial to multi-class in AD&D than in 3e--at least at first blush--but remember,  Demi-Humans have an upper limit on advancement in most cases, and the allowable combinations are much more restricted.  I think these latter two points largely mitigate whatever advantages they may enjoy _vis-a-vis_ Humans when it comes to their ability to multi-class--Of course it is probably _always_ better for a Demi-Human to multi-class given these advancement limits (leaving aside Thieves, or any other class they may be allowed unlimited advancement in).  I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing however, it's more of a flavor issue, and helps to differentiate them further from Humans.  Interestingly, many of my Demi-Humans tend to be single-classed nonetheless--especially my Dwarves.

Ah well, enough typing for now


----------



## Voneth (Sep 26, 2002)

diaglo said:
			
		

> *
> 
> here's your spoon. go feed yourself.
> 
> ...




LOL! there you go again! I ask why are YOU letting yourself be spoon fed through that thar fancy hardback! Hell, any real DND player would use the REAL 1st ed that came in the box and was a white booklet, not that mislabled monstronsity of more than 100 pages! Yeah, ultimate flexiblity! You make up almost EVERY rule as you go along.

As a further example:
Right now I am using a computer with a word processor. Should I be lazy becauase I am not using an assembler language to input my sentences in "1" and "0?" And now I have also think of grammar and sentence structure.

Sure some hobbist like to build a computer from scratch, including their own quirky OS, before they start playing a strategy game. Others like to fine tune a regular computer with their own sound and graphic cards, and then mess with conflicting drivers all day. Others like the idea just slapping a disk the console and start playing.

Does that diminish the actual effort and cunning of the player's attempts to win the game? no.

It all boils down to your personal taste in how much prep time you want before the game compared to actual time spent playing.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 26, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *A SRD with all the editions.
> 
> Don't fight the flow. We now live in the age of internet enlightenment.
> 
> ...



Sorry, I just can't see the point of it.  What rules are you missing that you want so badly?  I can't think of a one that doesn't have something better in place today.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 26, 2002)

Thorvald Kviksverd said:
			
		

> *Hmmm...
> 
> Got me wondering just what exactly he would be losing.
> 
> ...








  Well, of course you don't see the trade-offs.  You're comparing an 8th level character to 5th level characters.  For a _meaningful_ comparison, try a Fighter4/Wizard4 compared to a Fighter8 and a Wizard8.


----------



## Thorvald Kviksverd (Sep 26, 2002)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ummm...

I might be missing something obvious, but I think we were discussing the merits of multi-classing in AD&D--not 3e.

In AD&D, a character who had amassed 30,000exp would have enough to be a 5th level Fighter, or a 5th level Magic-user, or a multi-classed 4/4 Ftr/M-U (i.e. 15,000exp in each class).

Like I said, if I'm missing something here, let me know and I'll re-figure...


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 26, 2002)

Thorvald Kviksverd said:
			
		

> *I might be missing something obvious, but I think we were discussing the merits of multi-classing in AD&D--not 3e.
> 
> In AD&D, a character who had amassed 30,000exp would have enough to be a 5th level Fighter, or a 5th level Magic-user, or a multi-classed 4/4 Ftr/M-U (i.e. 15,000exp in each class).
> 
> Like I said, if I'm missing something here, let me know and I'll re-figure... *



And I thought we were comparing the two systems.  But I probably didn't get sidetracked enough to follow your conversation.  Sorry!


----------



## jasper (Sep 26, 2002)

I have never understood peoples problem with thac0.
My thac0 was 15 on my sheet i wrote 10 to -10 and filled in what I need for every ac. 
Of course if I had plate mail( AC 3) +3 my ac was 6 no 0 remember plus were subtracted for armour.


----------



## Voneth (Sep 26, 2002)

jasper said:
			
		

> *I have never understood peoples problem with thac0.
> My thac0 was 15 on my sheet i wrote 10 to -10 and filled in what I need for every ac.
> Of course if I had plate mail( AC 3) +3 my ac was 6 no 0 remember plus were subtracted for armour. *




For some people, you proved their point, with 3ed,  there is no need to write 20 numbers down just to remind yourself what you needed.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 26, 2002)

I rarely played in games that approached the upper class level limits, and in every case that we did, we got rid of the limits.  I don't think I ever played a mid-high level game without that house rule.  First, because we tended to all play multi-class characters, the game either ended or stagnated, and second because if there was a paladin, the demi-human players pretty much refused to continue the campaign.

Beyond that, though:  I take Mirror Image as one of my 2nd level spells, and then go to fight your Fighter 5.  Much happiness for me.  Sure, I lose the 3rd-level spell for a little bit, but it's the same effect that happens with 3E's sorcerer (gets spell levels one character level behind the wizard), and people aren't avoiding that like the plague.

Once we sat down and did the math, in like 5th grade, it was all multi-classing, all the time.



			
				Thorvald Kviksverd said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Hmmm...
> 
> ...


----------



## Bryan Vining (Sep 26, 2002)

*Another difference*

One difference between 1e and 3e that's been alluded to here but largely glossed over is the rate of advancement.  With the arithmatic progression of 3e vs the geometric progression of 1e, characters advance much quicker in 3e.  That's neither good nor bad, but it is definitely a difference.  Indeed, my observation has been that 3e characters level up pretty quickly.  Most of the 3e dungeon crawls I've run have characters moving up levels within two game sessions of 4-6 hours each.  With 1e, you might match that at low levels, but at mid-levels, you have to do a *lot* of adventuring to level.  Many, many sessions.  

That difference is substantial, and it's one of the things that will decide which side of the 1e/3e fence you fall on.  Another is the degree of regimentation in the rules you like.  1e had many inconsistencies and poorly-defined rules.  The 3e rules spell things out much better.  Neither way is better, but, again, the type of rules you like helps define which system you like better.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 27, 2002)

I know Piratecat was thinking about halving the experience point awards to keep his long-running campaign at a slower pace that he and his group enjoyed.

Then came the bursting in doors, and the WotC Rules Police stormed in.  Guns leveled at everyone in the group, one of the RPs got trigger happy and shot the family cat in the leg (which is the *real* story about how the cat lost its leg).

Well, Piratecat quickly backed off and promised to give full experience point awards from then on.


----------



## Moorcrys (Sep 27, 2002)

Hey all,

I have enjoyed playing both systems -- certainly the mechanics of 3d are written with several years of 'gaming experience' more than oAD&D, which was really breaking new ground with every supplement (some of it worked, some of it didnt -- a couple of my friends in high-school retitled 'Unearthed Arcana' to 'Dug up Junk' -- though we used some of the material found there, particularly the spells and such).  Certainly some of the rules in oAD&D were wonky, but I think what many people enjoyed and still enjoy about a system like that is the gray areas that let a DM and party wing it to keep the game moving without resorting to stopping a session to flip through the rules and find the 'law'.  I've enjoyed DMing both editions, but I find that in general players are less willing to go along with house rules on the fly when they have a book full of official rules to look through -- especially if they feel those rules (whether better, worse, simple, convoluted, or broken) are more to their advantage in-game.

Certainly the flexibility of character in 3e is there for all to behold -- making your sleek nimble fighter or burly theify-thug type are all there.  We certainly did that in oAD&D, too, there just weren't rules for it.  I find that some of the best stuff about 3e is also some of the worst, in that you come to expect some sort of rules reward for every quirk of character, rather than playing a character the way you want and finding out how that plays out along the way.  Moreso in 3e than in oAD&D, I've Dm'd people playing multiclass characters simply to maximize their power in-game, rather than because they thought it would be a neat character to play.  Since oAD&D was SO much about straight archetypes, character was how you played it, rather than whether or not you took 2 levels of rogue so that your front-loaded ranger could get evasion (which I find to be more the topic of discussion on these boards than how to make interesting characters).  

That's not at all 3e's fault, as it's a sleeker, better designed and better executed ruleset than oAD&D in my opinion.  It just makes those traps much easier to fall into (well, traps for me in my enjoyment of the game, maybe not yours).  I've left a couple of 3e campaigns because I thought I'd get as much enjoyment min/maxing in Baldur's Gate on the computer -- that's certainly all that was happening on paper with to folks I was playing with.

Cheers,

Moorcrys


----------



## Garmorn (Sep 27, 2002)

*The real problem with THACO*



			
				jasper said:
			
		

> *I have never understood peoples problem with thac0.
> My thac0 was 15 on my sheet i wrote 10 to -10 and filled in what I need for every ac.
> Of course if I had plate mail( AC 3) +3 my ac was 6 no 0 remember plus were subtracted for armour. *




The real problem is trying to figure your THACO in the first place

Example

THACO 14, +2 Sword = 12 ?  

v.s.

BAB 6, + 2 Sword = +8

Armor was just as bad.

Fullplate (AC 2) + Shield = 0

v.s. 

Fullplate (AC +8) + Shield (AC +2) = 10

Which is esier to explian to a new player?


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Sep 27, 2002)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *
> P.S.  Anyone want to hire a DM?
> 
> 
> ...





I need a DM, but you're on the wrong side of the state


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 27, 2002)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> *
> Well, Piratecat quickly backed off and promised to give full experience point awards from then on. *




Don't you believe it! The game is 10 years old, and the highest level PC is 19th level. You do the math. We average a level every 12 sessions.  Slow, but we all like it. It makes for really well-rounded characters.

I grin every time someone asks for an XP system to slow down advancement. All you need to do is halve, third or quarter how much XP you give out, and reduce the amount of treasure by just about the same amount. That's it!


----------



## Jeremy (Sep 27, 2002)

How do you deal with young players who complain about such slow advancement?

Particularly when you understand their complaints because you feel the same on the other side of the screen?

Yet you still want to make the game last for more than 6 months...  (We're young and silly, we play for 10-12 hours every week so at DMG guidelines we'd level every session or two.)


----------



## Voneth (Sep 27, 2002)

Moorcrys said:
			
		

> *Hey all,
> 
> Since oAD&D was SO much about straight archetypes, character was how you played it, rather than whether or not you took 2 levels of rogue so that your front-loaded ranger could get evasion
> 
> ...




I guess that depends on who you gamed with. The only time I saw a human thief was when I played one myself, since being a halfling "front loaded" your thief character. And the last time I checked, there where many more examples of human thief fantasy characters compared to the *two* hobbit characters we all know and love.

"And there was this one time, at my DND game, where my 20th level half elf ninja/ranger/fighter took on a red dragon with a vorpal blade and a girdle of giant strength."


----------



## SHARK (Sep 27, 2002)

Greetings!

Well, I played 1st Edition D&D for some ten or twelve years, and it was a great system. However, times change, new developments form, and better ways of doing things have come along. I certainly think in most things, 3E is far superior to 1st Edition. It is cleaner, more elegant, and gets rid of all of the odd nonsense rules that we had to explain away with house rules so many times it became tedious. Multiclassing, racial limits, and so on. The list is huge. So 3E has done it right. 1E definitely had the edge though in flavour and atmosphere, as well as not being swallowed in political correctness. But happily, those things are elements that I can easily change in my own campaign world, so it's not a problem.

As for Cavaliers, what can't you make an effective Cavalier in 3E with? What is a Cavalier if not a specially trained mounted knight, with a aristocratic background and a particular world-view?

I suppose I don't get how if you liked the 1st Edition Cavalier you can't simulate the same wonderful class concept in 3E. I certainly do so all the time in my own campaign!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## Tarek (Sep 27, 2002)

*oooh*

A Red Dragon with a Vorpal Blade and a Girdle of Storm Giant Strength. Now there's a worthy opponent... 

Or did you mean that the character had a Girdle of Storm Giant Strength and a Vorpal Blade?

Tarek


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 27, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Don't you believe it! The game is 10 years old, and the highest level PC is 19th level. You do the math. We average a level every 12 sessions.  Slow, but we all like it. It makes for really well-rounded characters.
> *snip**




Shhh!  You're ruining my jokes.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 27, 2002)

Unfortunately, I really don't have time to review the whole thread, but I do want to repost my responce to a specific challenge of what I said, even if probably it has already been covered.



> Although the material itself offers a lot more flexibility, not even mentioning the 3rd party d20 options, you have to consider the gaming culture. Homebrew rules were par for the course when 1e was around. That is true now, but I see a lot more people now that play 'by the books' than I ever did 15 or 20 years ago. How do you think all these other RPGs came to be?




I think that is a very suprious arguement.  Homebrew rules were par for the course in 1 ed. because they were so clearly needed.  This is evidence that the rules set was bad, not that it was good.  However, there are plenty of house rules in 3rd. ed. as well, often to fill inadequisies in the rules true, but it is a testimony to how well the rules work that they can be used as is without problems.  

However, that isn't what I meant by flexiblity.  What I meant by flexibility is the ability of the system to change settings with the minimum of new house rules - which is entirely the opposite of what you are talking about.  If a setting needs a bunch of house rules to meet the demands of a different setting then it is rather inflexible.  It is very easy to adopt firearms rules to 3rd. edition, for example, but firearms were always problamatic for 1st. edition and even the best of them never felt right.  You can play a very good D20 spy game or space opera (or as Call of Cthulu proves) even a Horror game.  Try that with 1st edition rules. 

AND, moreover, if your judge of flexibility is how much creativity it provokes, D20 has probably unleashed the single biggest spurt of creativity since gaming began.  Where did all those other games come from you ask?  They come from game referees and game designers who were disatisfied with AD&D and decided it would be simplier to scrap its rules and start fresh than house rule them.  Where are all the new games coming from you ask?  They come from game referees and game designers that are exicited about the possibilities of using the D20 system.   That I think speaks for itself.  

However, if you want to see D20 in action read Cthulu D20 or the Wheel of Time game for how very minor changes can have big impacts in 'game feel' without adding lots of tables and other complexity.



> quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 'elegant',
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> What exactly does that mean?




I mean the property of achieving complexity from a simple set of premises.  A rules set is elegant if you can apply the same set of rules to any situation without writing numerous special cases.  D20 is a very elegant game system, on par with something like GURPS, and maybe more so because D20 is even more simple (though the results are less complex).

The term is NOT insubstantial.  Let me give you some examples.  First editions 'skill set' began with 'thief skills' which used thier own mechanic, and 'weapon proficiencies' which used thier own mechanic.  In order to simulate 'skills', 1st edition successively added a variaty of things, 'secondary professions', non-weapon proficiencies and so forth, each of which added thier own separate mechanic.  Any time a new class was introduced that depended on skills (say an alchemist or a mariner or a merchant), you had to introduce new and independent mechanics that weren't necessarily shared by any other class.  That is not elegant.

Third edition is not as elegant in its skills as say GURPS, but it is a significant improvement over 1st edition.  

Finally, I totally disagree that their are more supplements, errata, and confusing advice than 1 ed. had in its whole run.  That is a ridiculous statement.



> So that's why they keep releasing all those splat books, supplements, 3rd party class/race books, etc etc etc. 1e, 2e and 3e all have one thing in common. All you need to play is the PHB, DMG and MM. Hell, with 1e, you didn't even need a MM, since the DMG had monster charts with the basic 'stat block' stuff in them.




I actually manage quite well with only the PH and the SRD in 3rd. edition.  If I pick up anything else it will probably be some of the excellent material Green Ronin is publishing.

However, to address your complaint, by 'complete' I mean that the rules are such that most additions to them is only an extension of existing mechanics.  If you played 1 ed. the way I played 1 ed. you needed at minimum, the PHB, the DMG, at least 1 MM, the Wilderness Guide, and a variety of Dragon magazines (and latter the 2nd edition splat books), just to be able to follow along.  Remember, the PHB didn't have the saving throw tables in the DMG, or the attack tables, skills weren't introduced till years latter, and the widely used criticals were an option mainly for those that had 'The Best of Dragon', etc., etc., etc..   The whole D20 system sans experience was basically introduced in the PHB and everything since that has just been more options.   The Unearthed Arcana was a collection the same sort of extra 'fluff'.   UA didn't alter the system just built on it.  Some people like it, some didn't.  Splat books; same thing.



> "I suppose you mean the 'always high' and 'one roll to rule them all' concepts. Sure, consistent, but I've yet to meet anyone (except online) who really had that much trouble with 1e/2e dice mechanics."




Well, yes.  It is not that those mechanics could cause trouble, it is simply that having +5 shields ADD to AC and not SUBTRACT from it is more consistant and well, elegant.  It shows that thought went into simplifying the system even in areas were the learning curve was, as you point out, not that steep.



> 1e/2e balance relied heavily on what I call the 'low/high' concept. Some classes/races start out powerful and taper off, others start weak and ramp up. In the big picture, balance is achieved. 3e abandoned this in favor of making everyone kick ass right from the start. I don't consider this a good thing, YMMV.




Did you attually play 1st edition much?  I'm inclined to wonder.  Please explain to me what thieves were good for except tool boxes?  And I might argue that they weren't even very good at that, since rapidly other classes gained surpassing abilities.  Please explain to me what good clerics were except as healers?  Please explain to me how the game retained its play balance once average party level got up over 8 or 9?  The only class that 'started weak' and ramped up was the Magic User (and latter the Druid once they introduced the Heirophant levels).   In the big picture balance was most certainly not achieved.  Third edition lets every class pitch in all the time, and comparitively, third edition characters are much weaker than first edition characters compared to the challenges they face.  All 1st edition modules scale up (at least all the ones I'm familiar with) and cannot be played by characters of the same level as originally intended.  They do not 'kick ass right from the start' nearly the way a low level fighter in plate mail with weapon specialization did in 1st edition.



> quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> simpler
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...




HA! Explain to me in 20 words or less the mechanics that the AoO replaced! 

Still thinking?  Some of you are probably thinking, 'What mechanics?'  In part you are right, because many of the situations that AoO cover would have been covered by DM fiat in 1st edition, and for the rest the mechanics were so complex, vague, and poorly written that almost nobody used them, and involved some serious 'messing' with things like weapon speed, reach, initiative, etc.

In 20 words or less, AoO: "If you drop your guard while within reach of an enemy, they may make an extra attack."

All the other rules regarding AoO's simply provide increasing degrees of realism and specify exactly what 'dropping your guard' means so that thier isn't quarrelous debate by rules lawyers.  However, had 1st edition ever provided anything like such a clear rule, I would have rejoiced.



> quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> and in general meets the goals of good game design
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Where might the unenlightened among us find these 'rules'?




There are a variety of books on the subject.  Gygax himself wrote at least one; if I remember correctly it was called something like 'Role Playing Mastery'.  Richard Garfield and others use to write extensively about gaming theory in general in the back of Dragon.  Please go read.  These 'new school' thoughts are a good 20 years old.


----------



## ced1106 (Sep 27, 2002)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> *Typical 3e adventuring party: Human multiclass Paladin/Wizard/Cleric with an open locks and find traps skill and an Arcane Archer prestige class. *




So now we can have "one hero" parties just like every other fantasy novel?

Sounds fine to me!


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^


----------



## ced1106 (Sep 27, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> *Does anyone have any feelings regarding AD&D First Edition being called "inferior" by some people? *




Well... All I know is that as soon as EQ DMG comes out, I'm gonna get some trade credit at the FLGS! 

As an AD&D GM, I had **so** many headaches with combat. Haven't GM'ed 3e yet, but it seems to have taken care of the most common combat situations I've encountered.

No tower shield rushes at orcs behind furniture barricades (where the PC monk is fighting because he forgot his "lawful" alignment), though. 


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^


----------



## Psion (Sep 27, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *I think that is a very suprious[sic] arguement.  Homebrew rules were par for the course in 1 ed. because they were so clearly needed.*




Indeed. I have found that my "house rules" for 3e are a fraction of what they were for 1e and 2e, and the ones that I do have are mostly taste tweaks vice tweaks to make the system make sense or... well, work.

1e and 2e taught me a lot about game design. I had an old import pickup that taught me a lot about auto mechanics, but that is hardly an accolade of how great the pickup was.



> *
> In order to simulate 'skills', 1st edition successively added a variaty of things, 'secondary professions', non-weapon proficiencies and so forth, each of which added thier own separate mechanic.  Any time a new class was introduced that depended on skills (say an alchemist or a mariner or a merchant), you had to introduce new and independent mechanics that weren't necessarily shared by any other class.  That is not elegant.*




Just so.



> *
> Third edition is not as elegant in its skills as say GURPS, but it is a significant improvement over 1st edition.*




That I'll differ on, but that's another argument.


----------



## diaglo (Sep 27, 2002)

Voneth said:
			
		

> *... Hell, any real DND player would use the REAL 1st ed that came in the box and was a white booklet, not that mislabled monstronsity of more than 100 pages!... *




finally we agree. if you read my first post on this thread or half a dozen other message boards you will see this has always been my stance.  

however, my version included 3 booklets with a wood grain coloring.

unless you are talking about the xeroxed version that people passed around before they went to print.


----------



## Thorvald Kviksverd (Sep 27, 2002)

Not to throw another wrench into the works, but...

I think it's true that BAB is superior to THACO..._generally_.

In fact, I used that mechanic in my AD&D gaming for quite a while before 3e even came out--I borrowed the idea from 4e _Gamma World_ (and always wondered why I'd never thought of it myself).

I switched back to THACO for my Basic D&D campaign though.  You see, THACO is actually _superior_ for my purposes. 

IMC, attackers can score an additional point of damage for every -1 penalty To Hit (with the caveat that the required To Hit number can't be raised above 20), and this is MUCH easier to figure out using THACO, since it provides the actual number needed to roll on the attack die (and this can then be increased by any amount up to 20).

Just another example of how opinions on what is inferior/superior can differ--it really just depends...


----------



## jasper (Sep 27, 2002)

The real problem is trying to figure your THACO in the first place
How gameron?
The Thac0 was on the chart.  Just like the petr/poly/  poison, death, magic, breath, saves

Was no one able to make a simple chart
10 to -10 don't those 6 20's if you reach 20
petri/poly/   15
spell         13
etc
it was just basic bookkeeping.


----------



## Voneth (Sep 27, 2002)

diaglo said:
			
		

> *
> 
> quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...




Ahh, miscommunication. It's generaly assumed in conversation that 1st ed. is the hardbound book, not the boxed set. In the future, you may want to define that, or you could be seen as "baiting" people.

And I see that you forgot to include the final sentence in that quote. 



> *
> Yeah, ultimate flexiblity! You make up almost EVERY rule as you go along.  *


----------



## Bryan Vining (Sep 27, 2002)

> I've enjoyed DMing both editions, but I find that in general players are less willing to go along with house rules on the fly when they have a book full of official rules to look through -- especially if they feel those rules (whether better, worse, simple, convoluted, or broken) are more to their advantage in-game.




Yep, I'll go along with that.  The situation develops wherein *I'm* fine with making something up on the spot, but a player will pipe up "Hey, shouldn't we look that up?"  I've tried persuading them that the details aren't important - just the game.  However, you'll be hard-pressed to find players who won't gladly waste 10 minutes of game time finding and then debating the exact words that pertain to the situation their character is in.  And most of the time, the ultimate outcome won't be any different.  So, that *is* one disadvantage of the highly codified rules-set of 3e.  For the ultimate escape from that, you go to OD&D, where you're forced to make a lot of stuff up on the spot.


----------



## diaglo (Sep 27, 2002)

Voneth said:
			
		

> *Ahh, miscommunication. It's generaly assumed in conversation that 1st ed. is the hardbound book, not the boxed set. In the future, you may want to define that, or you could be seen as "baiting" people. *






what is so confusing about:





> _Originally posted by diaglo_
> *yes.
> 
> 1edADnD is inferior.
> ...


----------



## Mallus (Sep 27, 2002)

*OK, I haven't tjhe whole thread...*

... but here's my opinion in a nutshell: RPGS's are essentially simulations of genre novels {fantasy, scif-fi, horror, gasp, even Westerns, back in the day}. 1st Edition is, overall, a bad simulation. 

My big beef is with the inflexible class system. Sure, it great for creating archetypes, but its lousy at creating characters that develop in response to the events in their adventuing careers. It adds a totally static element to the game mechanics...

And, if you except that D&D is at its heart a sim, then it fails the first test of any simulation: does it effectively model its source? So the Gray Mouser started his career as what, a thief, then switched to magic-user {careful not to use any of his thief skills}, and possbily did a stint as fighter? The Lankhmar book gave you stats, but the game system gave you no reasonable way for you the create this guy on your own...

But I did love 1st Ed. Still play in a nominally 2nd Ed. campaign that pure 1st Edition at heart. But 3rd Ed. really is an evolution of the system.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 27, 2002)

*Re: Re: AD&D First Edition inferior?*



			
				ced1106 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well... All I know is that as soon as EQ DMG comes out, I'm gonna get some trade credit at the FLGS!
> 
> ...




That's exactly what I say, but reverse it.  3e combat is a chore compared to the simplicity of the AD&D system.  We didn't use weapon speed and to hit vs AC tables.  It was simplicity to drop those and reduce the combat to roll a 20, check to hit chart, roll damage.  No power attacks, flanks, expertises, defensive fights, etc.   Dropping those from d20 has serious reprecussions however.  3e is much more of a tactical miniature based system at heart.  It would make a good man to man tactical fighting system, kind of like GUPRS advanced combat.  Not bad but not to my liking.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 27, 2002)

> That's exactly what I say, but reverse it. 3e combat is a chore compared to the simplicity of the AD&D system. We didn't use weapon speed and to hit vs AC tables. It was simplicity to drop those and reduce the combat to roll a 20, check to hit chart, roll damage. No power attacks, flanks, expertises, defensive fights, etc. Dropping those from d20 has serious reprecussions however.




No more serious repercusions than dropping 'to hit vs. AC tables' did in 1st edition.  Combat will still work with D20 'lite', but you lose a certain degree of 'realism', 'balance', and cinematic quality.

Without the 'to hit vs. AC tables' and some rules (usually house rules) taking into account reach, there was essentially no reason to use anything but a sword - specifically long swords and two-handed swords - because swords were, without the 'to hit vs. AC tables', vastly superior to any other weapon in every situation.  Not only that, but some weapons which should not be that effective, say darts or shurikens, were positively broken, and people could go around using blow guns vs. dragons and men in full plate.  

But of all the things that ulimately drove me from AD&D to GURPS, it was the lack of cinimatic quality to AD&D combats.  The AD&D combat system was so abstract that it often disolved down to (especially in the players minds) a dice rolling session. I sometimes felt I should automate combat it had such a mechanical feel.  What would happen if someone chose to dodge rather than fight?  The parry mechanics in UA helped, but they were clunky and not well balanced.  There were so many situations that I would like to have 'happen' in combat, that didn't because the players were just rolling dice and reporting numbers instead.  GURPS let a fight play out in a highly visual manner that had become lost in AD&D.

"3e is much more of a tactical miniature based system at heart."

If I have any complaint at all against D20, it is its reliance on minatures.  On this one issue alone do I have a major complaint against Monte.  Monte loves minatures, and he designed a system that defaults to thier use.  I detest minatures.  I loath them.  Not because I mind buying or painting them, but because when you use minatures people stop using thier imagination in the same way - exactly the problem I had with D&D in its first incarnation.  When you use minatures, the tendancy is to imagine your character in the third person instead of the first.  The tendancy is to remove yourself from the virtual environment and look down, godlike, on the game and think about your character being that little metal figure 5 squares from that little door.

I hate that.  I hate having to move around minatures every time I describe something.  I hate people describing thier actions in game terms, 'I take a move equivalent action and step 6 squares west, then attack', rather than in something cinematic and I hate how if you are not careful in describing something cinimatically that you are more ambigious in D20 than in AD&D.  If I say 'I run up to the fell beast, and hew it with my sword hoping to distract it from Bro. Jozon. "Pick on someone your own size, swine."', did I take a run action, a charge, or a normal move and attack?     

Experienced D20 groups probably overcome these problems, but they still bug me.

"It would make a good man to man tactical fighting system, kind of like GUPRS advanced combat."

It's not nearly that good, but the nice part of it is that it isn't nearly that good.  It lies in some sort of happy medium between high realism and quick resolution.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 27, 2002)

Tangent alert!  Celebrim, I just have to say that you 100% expressed my views on miniatures and RPGs.  One thing that helps is to really abstract the characters -- just make little tokens that have the character's (or the player's) names on them, or something like that.

I'd really like a putative 3e lite to have cinematic combat.  Or better yet, someone who does a 3e variant with cinematic rather than wargamer combat.  Does such a thing exist already?


----------



## diaglo (Sep 27, 2002)

*Cinematic 3ed lite*

try NWN


----------



## Psion (Sep 27, 2002)

Eh. I find miniatures to be pretty much optional. There is nothing in the combat system you couldn't do by making DM judgement calls. Yes, Virginia, that includes AoO and flanking.

When we play, we usually only bother if:
- there is a complex combat situation, or
- there is a "chaotic everywhere" player in the group who likes to do everything and be everywhere

However, I find that miniatures are a nice artistic expression for the players, and that using miniatures and a map helps create a common image in the players' minds of the situation at hand.


----------



## diaglo (Sep 27, 2002)

Psion said:
			
		

> *However, I find that miniatures are a nice artistic expression for the players, and that using miniatures and a map helps create a common image in the players' minds of the situation at hand. *




they also make cheap Xmas, birthday, special occassion gifts for DM and players alike.

nothing says have fun gaming like a nice mini.

well, a set of dice is nice too.

and a new splat book

or hardcover...

or boxed set 

or magazine subscription 

or well you get the picture.


----------



## JeffB (Sep 27, 2002)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *Tangent alert!  Celebrim, I just have to say that you 100% expressed my views on miniatures and RPGs.  One thing that helps is to really abstract the characters -- just make little tokens that have the character's (or the player's) names on them, or something like that.
> 
> I'd really like a putative 3e lite to have cinematic combat.  Or better yet, someone who does a 3e variant with cinematic rather than wargamer combat.  Does such a thing exist already? *




Absolutely nailed my opinion on mini's as well.

It's the one reason I think I will never be able to fully embrace D20/3E...

the nice thing aboout the original D&D games was that it was more abstract...you could get away with just describing what you want to do rather than having to equate everything in mechanics terms.

That's not the root of the problem though..the rules that is..the problem is the players and/or DM. I find that when all else is said and done, whether one likes 3E or 1E depends on the type of players and DM that are involved. Some folks just plain like having rules, and everything set in stone because over the years too many rules laywers and arguments arose about this or that. Other's prefer rules-lite simply because their players did not worry too much about rules, and would just "go with the flow" ..that's the kind of game I learned how to play....and that's the kind of game I DM..but it seems that style of play is a small minority..I'm more concerned with telling a cool story than running a tactical fight, at least for the vast majority of the time...Any fight's that  occur are meant to be a BIG deal! ..they are not real frequent...That's one reason I love Rolemaster..yep..Rolemaster...the skill and class/race system works easy and fast (depending on how many options you decided to use)for everything besides combat, and when there IS a combat....it's detailed and vivid, could go either way at the blink of a hat (thus providing more roleplaying oppurtunities as player's try to avoid combat), and generally is  ery exciting....I think in D&D generally(mostly in published products), combat is over empahsized..which kind of "cheapens" the experience..that's the way I see it anyway.

Now THAT was a tangent


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Sep 27, 2002)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> *
> Sorry, I just can't see the point of it.  What rules are you missing that you want so badly?  I can't think of a one that doesn't have something better in place today. *




Josh D. is satisfied.

Next!



What I'm saying doesn't apply to you specifically. There are people still playing other variants of the game.

And is the RPG industry so backward that they couldn't have several SRD varieties to accomodate these "totally different games"?

I think not.

Josh, what I'm saying will be done. It's just a matter of time. The SRD can even have a interactive timeline website where it modifies the rules to your "era" and year of purchase.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There would be a big call for new products for *Classic Advanced* as we all know but there are fans of *Original Dungeons and Dragons* as well.

Heck using the internet as a rules dump for the adventure would work as well to accomodate all the styles for a single adventure.

It would certainly provide a broader market for products.

You, Josh, may not be one of them but I certainly am I must admit!

Any other votes for such a universal idea?


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 27, 2002)

Gene I must say that I agree with what you said 100%. I too am a fan of "variant" D&D games. And I  think there are more of us out there than a lot of people think. I have no beef with 3rd E. I just want people to understand that it's not always the rules that are a factor in your enjoyment of a role playing game.


----------



## diaglo (Sep 27, 2002)

you got my vote to Gene for a universal SRD.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 27, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *And is the RPG industry so backward that they couldn't have several SRD varieties to accomodate these "totally different games"?*



What does being backward have to do with it? It's a question of value.

Ryan Dancey has been pretty clear about the motives of the SRD -- to drive sales of the Player's Handbook. The PHB is the cash cow for D&D. It's what TSR made practically ALL their money on. Everything else a company like WotC does is to drive sales of the PHB.

Hence, the Open Gaming notion and the SRD. To make it easier for third parties to publish the "support" stuff that makes less money, so that more and more people will be encouraged to buy the PHB.

Given that, where's the motivation for WotC to release material for other editions of the game? That will only DISCOURAGE people from buying the 3E PHB. If they can get along with lots of new material for their existing 2E or 1E PHB then why buy the new one? That strategy makes no sense.


> *There would be a big call for new products for Classic Advanced as we all know but there are fans of Original Dungeons and Dragons as well.*



So what? Where's the value to WotC -- given that their primary goal is driving sales of the 3E PHB. What you propose would interfere with that objective and so defeats the purpose of the SRD in the first place.


> *It would certainly provide a broader market for products. *



Again, so what? Why does WotC want a BROADER market? They want a tightly focused market, focused on the 3E PHB. You misunderstand the whole point of the SRD and the Open Gaming movement as created by Ryan Dancey and WotC.

Less products for them to support, more dependence in the market on their primary product, more money for less effort. That's good business.

Making EVERYONE happy -- that's almost always bad business.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 27, 2002)

"Making EVERYONE happy -- that's almost always bad business."

And generally impossible.


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 27, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: AD&D First Edition inferior?*



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> [B3e is much more a thinking mans game than 1e ever was/ I am curious as to what you mean by this. I mean really. What does this mean? I personally think there are so many factors involved that this statemnet doesn't show too much consideration but that's my opinion. Making house rules for example. My gosh there are just soooo many reasons I find this statement to be untrue IMO and unfair IMO.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Sep 27, 2002)

That was what Dancey said then but now that "all the jets are in their boxes and the clouds have all gone to bed" what would he say now?

Your original "sell PHBs strategy" is settled anyway. 

Don't forget all markets are dynamic and I'm just stating a huge market is being neglected.

If someone said, "Oh I'm not interested in that I only like the original rules", well they could go online download it at the customer service area and be playing a classic style adventure that night.

It's a sound idea and one that makes total marketing sense.


----------



## ced1106 (Sep 27, 2002)

Thorvald Kviksverd said:
			
		

> *It may even be more beneficial to multi-class in AD&D than in 3e*




Geez, tell me about it. Haven't tried multi-class in 3e, but in 1e, **of course** we multi-classed. A wizard who could fight? Booyeah! A thief with magic abilities? Of course! Humans were only good for Paladins! Demi-humans and multiclasses were sexy and kewl powerz rulz.

In a way, multiclassing was also customization of a character. 3e does this with Skills, Feats -- and now even Abilities. Maybe I'll try multiclassing. I just made an EQ Thief last night, and, boy, would those Warrior weapon and armor proficiencies come in handy...!


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Sep 27, 2002)

ced1106 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Geez, tell me about it. Haven't tried multi-class in 3e, but in 1e, **of course** we multi-classed. A wizard who could fight? Booyeah! A thief with magic abilities? Of course! Humans were only good for Paladins! Demi-humans and multiclasses were sexy and kewl powerz rulz.
> 
> *




Proving one of the points that those of us on the pro-3E side of the debate have been making all along.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 27, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *That was what Dancey said then but now that "all the jets are in their boxes and the clouds have all gone to bed" what would he say now?*



Ask him, not me. He's over at GamingReport, isn't he?

I'm just pointing out that your "strategy" offers no value according to the business model described by Ryan as he was creating the OGL. How do you know if that model is no longer valid?


> *Your original "sell PHBs strategy" is settled anyway. *



Could you be more specific? What does "settled" mean?


> *Don't forget all markets are dynamic and I'm just stating a huge market is being neglected.*



How do you know it's huge? Because you've got a dozen friends who feel ngelected? Because four or five people have posted such a feeling on this board? That equals a huge market?

Excuse me if I don't find that very compelling.


> *If someone said, "Oh I'm not interested in that I only like the original rules", well they could go online download it at the customer service area and be playing a classic style adventure that night.
> 
> It's a sound idea and one that makes total marketing sense. *



It makes no sense whatsoever. WotC didn't make a penny on the transaction you just described. Unless you're suggesting people SELL material for older editions. Your original idea was that WotC should add the older editions to the SRD. But maybe you think WotC could sell that stuff instead.

Well, guess what? They do! If you want to buy old adventures and other goodies, you CAN DO THAT. Go here and enjoy yourself to your heart's content. Ask them how many sales they're getting while you're there, will you? Maybe we'll see how HUGE this market really is.

If you want some company to start producing NEW material for the old games you need to demonstrate a viable business model. The fact that you think it would be cool is not a viable business model.

And again, if WotC SRD's the earlier editions of the game they are providing the market with a reason to NOT buy the new product they've just invested all this money and time in. How does that make any marketing sense? Or do you suggest they support multiple versions and attempt to make money on all of them simultaneously? Doubling or even tripling their overhead -- for what? For this "huge market" you insist is waiting for them?

How do you think they managed to miss this "huge" market when they were putting 3E together? Are they morons? Gee, pretty smart morons considering they're selling massive quantities of their products. I find it much easier to believe that the failure of research is yours, not theirs.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 27, 2002)

MeepoTheMighty said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Proving one of the points that those of us on the pro-3E side of the debate have been making all along. *




That him and his players were Munchkins?  That is so far from my experience with multiple groups of players that it's not even funny.  For every elf fighter/mu there nine human  PC's of various classes.  Maybe we were just superior players?  I mean we could all subtract without much problem as well.  Hmmmm...


----------



## ced1106 (Sep 27, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AD&D First Edition inferior?*



			
				chatdemon said:
			
		

> *Explain to me again why we need prestige classes then?*




To sell more DMG Guides! 

"We removed the assassin because an assassin is a point of view of a character rather than a class." -- 2e Preview booklet (paraphrased).




			
				chatdemon said:
			
		

> *Or hell, lets go classless!*




Let's have that guy who made The Fantasy Trip create some sort of generic universal role playing system. (;


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^


----------



## JeffB (Sep 27, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AD&D First Edition inferior?*



			
				ced1106 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> To sell more DMG Guides!
> 
> ...




Yep..as cool as PRClasses and Feats and other things are a about 3E..It's pretty clear in retrospect they were not only deisgned to make gamers happy..they were designed so endless numbers of  books filled with them could be sold, both by WOTC and others..nothing wrong with that..but I belive alot of things were done  in 3E (like stuff I mentioned above and a fairly heavy reliance on mini's)were designed in to boost sales of other things WOTC sells. 

Smart? yup...kinda Sneaky? yup....


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Sep 27, 2002)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *
> If you want some company to start producing NEW material for the old games you need to demonstrate a viable business model. The fact that you think it would be cool is not a viable business model.*




I didn't say the company was going to do anything.

Some companies may want to sell a certain style of game that would have a universal appeal, right?

Now if they had an *Advanced System Reference Document* ( * A.S.R.D. * ) then it's a bigger seller.

Everyone wins. All the sellers all the buyers.

A company doesn't even need to get on the winning bandwagon they can just sit back and count their losses.

Now who can possibly have a problem with that?


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 27, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *I didn't say the company was going to do anything.*



What company? Wizards?

Sorry, I thought you said that Wizards ought to add earlier versions of D&D to the SRD. Clearly that's doing SOMETHING. Something stupid, if you ask me, and I think I've been pretty clear as to why I think so.   I note that you've ignored my entire argument, which I take to indicate that you agree that I'm right. Well done.


> *Some companies may want to sell a certain style of game that would have a universal appeal, right?*



Name a single game, nay, a single product of any description that has _universal_ appeal. Finding the market, targetting the market, hitting the market -- THAT'S business.

But yeah, sure, all companies everywhere always want to sell products that have universal appeal. The fact that it's IMPOSSIBLE is why we have a market in the first place.


> *Now if they had an Advanced System Reference Document (  A.S.R.D.  ) then it's a bigger seller.*



What's a bigger seller? Is it too much to ask for a few more nouns here and there? Honestly. I assume you're referring to the mythical "universally appealing" game. Please outline the connection between this game and some expanded SRD (again, since you don't provide information, I assume you mean an SRD that includes 1E and 2E). Why does the one depend on the other?


> *Everyone wins. All the sellers all the buyers.*



No, only the sellers of your magic unversal game.

Honestly, Gene, I'm trying, but this isn't making any sense to me. If you're trying to make a case for the idea that Wizards should add earlier editions of the game to the SRD, can you try and state it in more complete, straightforward terms? I think I've made a pretty strong argument as to why that's a bad idea from WotC's current business model (or the business model as I best understand it). It's up to you to refute that and I don't understand how your recent post accomplishes that. If I'm misunderstanding you then please show me your meaning again.

On the other hand, if I've turfed your arguments and you can't come up with anything better than recasting your previous "Ooh, this would be cool!" notion, then we're done.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Sep 27, 2002)

Barsoomcore: I've made my point and people understand what I'm saying but you seem to have some "betting chips" on the table and want to misconstrue it with some kind of belligerent double talk.

I simply said if there was a "fixed" SRD that really referred to the entire system then everyone would benefit. 

It doesn't need to be written by WOTC as the public already have the material. 

Just an okay would be fine. Ghouls like me will do the rest.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 27, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *Barsoomcore: I've made my point and people understand what I'm saying but you seem to have some "betting chips" on the table and want to misconstrue it with some kind of belligerent double talk.*



Foul. You're just not reading what barsoomcore is saying.  You're saying it hurts no one.  He's saying that by taking away sales from WotC, it would hurt WotC.  You just keep stating with exclaimation marks and smilies that it would hurt no one without addressing his very good point that it would/could hurt WotC.


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 27, 2002)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *
> What company? Wizards?
> 
> I note that you've ignored my entire argument, which I take to indicate that you agree that I'm right. Well done.
> ...





 Why do you have to word it that way? You can not tell me that the way you word your arguements ( Well done?) is not rude. Stop being so immature in the way you present your arguement. You are only showing your weak side.And please don't retort. I'm not attacking you. It's just that I FEEL that the way you are presenting your veiws with your little "extras" is not nice. So be polite, please. I know it's hard to but try. Thank you.


----------



## Thorvald Kviksverd (Sep 27, 2002)

Never thought this topic would have these kind of legs--it was gratifying to see later posters echoing at least a few of my sentiments though (we're social creatures afterall).

Anyway...

Ridley's Cohort

Just curious, did I answer your question of page 2?


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 27, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *I simply said if there was a "fixed" SRD that really referred to the entire system then everyone would benefit. *



And I provided arguments that demonstrated that not everyone would benefit -- that in fact, Wizards of the Coast would suffer.

Have you any counter to my argument?


> *It doesn't need to be written by WOTC as the public already have the material.*



Are you suggesting that the content of the 1E Player's Handbook is public domain? If that's true then I'm stunned. I was very much under the impression that the copyright was still owned by WotC -- in which case they would indeed have to be the ones adding it to the SRD, which would indeed be a bad business decision.

If, however, you're correct and it is public domain, then what's the problem? Why add it to the SRD and apply the OGL to it if it's already free?


> _Theuderic posted:_
> *Why do you have to word it that way? You can not tell me that the way you word your arguements ( Well done?) is not rude. Stop being so immature in the way you present your arguement. You are only showing your weak side.And please don't retort. I'm not attacking you. It's just that I FEEL that the way you are presenting your veiws with your little "extras" is not nice. So be polite, please. I know it's hard to but try. Thank you.*



I'm sorry to have offended you. I used the language I did in order to be sure I would provoke a response. All too often people, rather than present their argument directly, evade the issue, post some insignificant attack and then leave the area. One of my goals is to make that difficult, to try and convince them to present a clear, full statement of their position.

I note that, once again, it worked great. Gene did exactly what I had hoped he would. If he is offended, I'm sure he's capable of defending himself. If you are offended, I am sorry. It was not my intention. But then again, I was not writing to you.

I am obliged to you for your comments on my writing, and I _will_ take them into consideration. You are not, however, a moderator on this board and until you are I see no reason why I should adhere to your notions of polite conversation.

Feel free to retort.


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 27, 2002)

Apology accepted.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Sep 27, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *Foul. You're just not reading what barsoomcore is saying.  You're saying it hurts no one.  He's saying that by taking away sales from WotC, it would hurt WotC.  You just keep stating with exclaimation marks and smilies that it would hurt no one without addressing his very good point that it would/could hurt WotC. *




The point and your agreeing is invalid. WOTC would make more because of the free downloads for other versions and even reinvigorate lost interest.

It's pointless to argue about it anyway.

The SRD itself makes no sense under that kind of scrutiny.

I'm not fouling up the martian apple!  !

He's stating his opinion that there is no demand but I'm asking that question. 

And one person can't answer that.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Sep 27, 2002)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *Are you suggesting that the content of the 1E Player's Handbook is public domain? If that's true then I'm stunned. I was very much under the impression that the copyright was still owned by WotC -- in which case they would indeed have to be the ones adding it to the SRD, which would indeed be a bad business decision.
> 
> If, however, you're correct and it is public domain, then what's the problem? Why add it to the SRD and apply the OGL to it if it's already free?. *




They already sold the 3e Player's Handbook why not remove the information in that from the SRD instead?

That would increase WOTC's sales even better.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 27, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *WOTC would make more because of the free downloads for other versions and even reinvigorate lost interest.*



What's your basis for this assertion? I say the opposite -- that WotC would make LESS, because they would be interfering with sales of their key product. Do you have any evidence to counter this point? You have not presented any so far.

And please tell me how WotC is set up to make money from free downloads. Two years ago you could have easily financed a company with that business model, but subsequent events have proved it to be a treacherous one. 


> *It's pointless to argue about it anyway.*



Only if you can't make any counter to my arguments. It seems you cannot.


> *The SRD itself makes no sense under that kind of scrutiny.*



Where have I been unclear? The SRD exists to drive sales of the PHB. Specifically, the 3E PHB. This is a business model that makes sense to me and apparently to not only WotC but also Hasbro. If you don't understand it then I'm sorry. I'm willing to try harder if you are.


> *I'm not fouling up the martian apple!  !*



  "martian apple"! That's hilarious. I love it.

Lo, the Martian Apple approacheth.


> *He's stating his opinion that there is no demand but I'm asking that question. *



Let's look at what I _actually_ said:


> _the assembled wisdom of the Martian Apple:_
> *How do you know it (the demand for what you propose) is huge? Because you've got a dozen friends who feel neglected? Because four or five people have posted such a feeling on this board? That equals a huge market?
> 
> Show some evidence to suggest that your proposed changes will bring in more money and you can bet they'll jump to your strategy.*



Clearly I'm the one who's been "asking that question" -- your whole idea (add old versions to the SRD) depends on the notion that demand for that exists. I've been saying, "Fine, show me that sufficient demand exists and I'll agree that it's a good idea. But if sufficient demand doesn't exist, it's a BAD idea because it mucks up a successful business model."

Now if you want to fuss about how much demand is "sufficient" demand, we can do that, but that assumes that the benefits of expanding the SRD are DEPENDENT on demand of some level, which is not what you've been saying up to now. You've been saying that expanding the SRD is a good thing, no matter what.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Sep 27, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *That was what Dancey said then but now that "all the jets are in their boxes and the clouds have all gone to bed" what would he say now?
> 
> *




The line is actually: "After all the jacks are in their boxes..." It's a play on jack-in-the-box. 

Maybe it'll surprise you, but I actually wouldn't mind seeing the type of SRD you're talking about. I think it would hurt WotC, though.


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Sep 27, 2002)

Gene,

I suspect you know why I have not previously posted anything to this thread,  but...

I must say I am highly offended by those who take offense to my limiting the capacities of the obviously inferior non-human wannabees. You know, those hairy-footed runts named halflings (half-pints is more like it), big-nosed midgets called gnomes, those stumpy dwarves with hair all over, wedge-eared elves prancing about. Is that racisits? I think not. It is simply identifying mongrels as what they are.

If anyone doubts that, just ask the next demi-human you meet what thay think about it.

Telling it like it is,
Gary


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Sep 27, 2002)

Hey, I never took offense at demihuman level limits; I just ignored 'em.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 27, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *They already sold the 3e Player's Handbook why not remove the information in that from the SRD instead?
> 
> That would increase WOTC's sales even better. *



What are you trying to say here? That they're somehow _finished_ selling the Player's Handbook? I am willing to bet it remains their most consistent seller month to month. This is the plan -- drive sales of the PHB. Keep it selling, keep people buying it. Keep expanding the market.

How would removing information from the SRD increase their sales? The SRD is designed (let's say it once more) to drive sales of the PHB. To make it easy for people to develop complementary material that depend upon the PHB. The vision is that the community develops any number of games and supplements, all of which depend on the PHB and therefore encourage people to buy it.

This is why the SRD doesn't include XP tables. Those are the one rules element not included -- so that you HAVE to buy the PHB.

You may not think this is a good strategy. But unless you have a better one, and can demonstrate WHY it would be better, you're just blowing an uninformed opinion around.

Which is fine. We do it on Mars all the time. All I'm doing is pointing out that your opinion flies in the face of the facts that we currently have. Logically, my argument is more correct than yours. That doesn't mean you have to believe me, but it does mean that if you disagree with me, you are being illogical. Something else we do on Mars all the time.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 27, 2002)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> * It is simply identifying mongrels as what they are *



Okay, that was the funniest thing anyone's said all day.


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Sep 27, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *Hey, I never took offense at demihuman level limits; I just ignored 'em.   *




You show your traitorous nature thus, and I am offended.

May you be hounded by a band of bearded female dwarf groupies!

Sinverely,
Gary


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Sep 27, 2002)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You show your traitorous nature thus, and I am offended.
> 
> ...




That doesn't sound bad at all...


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Sep 27, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That doesn't sound bad at all...  *




Aaawk!

The depravity!

I am sooooo offended!

Heh,
Gary


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 28, 2002)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *
> 3e combat is a chore compared to the simplicity of the AD&Dsystem. We didn't use weapon speed and to hit vs AC tables. It was simplicity to drop those and reduce thecombat to roll a 20, check to hit chart, roll damage. No power attacks, flanks, expertises, defensive fights, etc. Dropping those from d20 has serious reprecussions however. 3e is much more of a tactical miniature based system at heart. It would make a good man to man tactical fighting system, kind of like GUPRS advanced combat. Not bad but not to my liking.
> 
> [and later...]
> ...




You are impressing no one by trying to play the "Youse a Munchkin!" card.  And if Power Attack and flanking is causing you such trouble, there is no way I put any stock in your or your friends' ability to subtract.

The point stands that 1e failed to provide a "reasonable" amount of game balance for a certain type of player.  

Now maybe game balance is not important to you -- a valid POV.  To me, it is high on my short list of reasons to help pay a game designer's salary.  The key thing to keep in mind is ignoring or removing game balance is a trivial thing to do.  _Creating_ game balance take enormous work -- that's why I prefer to leave that in the hands of a pro.  An rpg designed with game balance preinstalled pleases both those who want it and those who don't care.  That is a clear point of superiority for 3e -- it is enjoyable by more types of players.

While I agree the miniatures-based nature of 3e has made it a bit rules heavy, the bottom line is "So What?".  Complicated movement rules and the like are actually quite easy to yank out, and then you end up no worse off than you were with 1e.

The only serious repurcussion of yanking annoying rules out of 3e is you will strain game balance.  If you like 1e so much, that is clearly not on the list of things you care about.  And surely "superior players" would never be intimidated by a little issue like that.

What I love about 3e is it is much more customizable than previous editions.  Trimming or adding skills and feats goes a long way, without having to get my hands dirty and invent completely new mechanics.


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Sep 28, 2002)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The point stands that 1e failed to provide a "reasonable" amount of game balance for a certain type of player.
> 
> *




Not to quibble, but that statement applies to every RPG ever invented. It is the proberbial two-edged sword, and it can make any number of attacks 

As a point of possible interest, I believe the current audience for 3E is nearly as large as that OAD&D had back around 1985. Ain't progress grand!

Gary


----------



## Melan (Sep 28, 2002)

I don't think the audience is as large as AD&D's in the mid 80s. We would need some good, old fashioned controversy like:
-"attachment to satanic cults" (this is so... passé)
-"desensitising the youth to violence" (better, but still lacks the umph)
-"GYGAX is leading the future generation into a hellhole of debauchered depravity, indulgence, sex and indecency! Surely, the fate of the ENTIRE nation is at stake! We must ban RPGs immediately!" 

See, the last is much better, and would enlarge the audience considerably. So... Gary, do you feel you are up to the task?


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Sep 28, 2002)

Melan said:
			
		

> *I don't think the audience is as large as AD&D's in the mid 80s. We would need some good, old fashioned controversy like:
> -"attachment to satanic cults" (this is so... passé)
> -"desensitising the youth to violence" (better, but still lacks the umph)
> -"GYGAX is leading the future generation into a hellhole of debauchered depravity, indulgence, sex and indecency! Surely, the fate of the ENTIRE nation is at stake! We must ban RPGs immediately!"
> ...





Ewwwww....sorry, but I can think of much better people to lead me into depravity, sex, and indecency.  No offense, Gary, but the beard doesn't do anything for me.


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Sep 28, 2002)

Melan said:
			
		

> *I don't think the audience is as large as AD&D's in the mid 80s. We would need some good, old fashioned controversy like:
> -"attachment to satanic cults" (this is so... passé)
> -"desensitising the youth to violence" (better, but still lacks the umph)
> -"GYGAX is leading the future generation into a hellhole of debauchered depravity, indulgence, sex and indecency! Surely, the fate of the ENTIRE nation is at stake! We must ban RPGs immediately!"
> ...




Dude!

I'm there!

Heh,
Gary


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 28, 2002)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> *
> As a point of possible interest, I believe the current audience for 3E is nearly as large as that OAD&D had back around 1985. Ain't progress grand!*




Okay, that does pique my interest.  So what was the audience of OAD&D circa 1985?  What year did it peak?

I think it would also be interesting to compare to sales number of the rpg market as a whole, year to year.  

I suspect computer games have eaten into the rpg market to a large extent.  Computer gaming is a multibillion dollar a year sector, dwarfing both the rpg industry and board game industry at this point in time.  It was just getting out of diapers in '85.


----------



## volcivar (Sep 28, 2002)

*To the original question for this forum:*

Yes


----------



## BonesMcCoy (Sep 28, 2002)

*My two coppers...*



> HellHound said: "a body piercer personally, but working in a trade that includes tattooing, branding, scarification, implantation and other procedures"




Being no insult here, but it's kind of ironic that a 3E gamer used to do this, what with all the pierced PC's and all 



> Barsoomcore said: Clearly I'm the one who's been "asking that question" -- your whole idea (add old versions to the SRD) depends on the notion that demand for that exists. I've been saying, "Fine, show me that sufficient demand exists and I'll agree that it's a good idea. But if sufficient demand doesn't exist, it's a BAD idea because it mucks up a successful business model."




Isn't the success of HackMaster proof of that demand? And that's success in spite of it's comedy approach and additional complicated rules.



> EGG said: "As a point of possible interest, I believe the current audience for 3E is nearly as large as that OAD&D had back around 1985. Ain't progress grand!"




I remember you mentioning this before. It is indeed very interesting, and gratifying for the grognards   It also makes quite a case for the missing hordes of 1E gamers 'out there'. A very large portion of the 3E crowd is new gamers, I assume we can all agree on this. So a large portion of the 1E crowd has not been lured back. Naturally all those gamers are not still playing now, but with the right version of AD&D/D&D couldn't a lot of them be brought back into the fold? At any case, certainly more of them than 3E has brought back so far.

Also, this may show a significant flaw in WotC's original plan. Since the number of 1E gamers was so large, wouldn't it have been better to target 3E to them instead of new players? After all, 1E was the game that attracted all these gamers in the first place so a 3E based on 1E could still theoretically do the same thing - attract a huge number of new fans, while also bringing back all the old fans. Now that would certainly result in larger numbers than 3E has seen so far, and hopefully not cause the slowdown the d20 market is currently seeing.

And on a different note: It's strange to me how everyone keeps saying the OGL is a masterwork and that 3E is selling like crazy. If these things were true why all the layoffs? Why has almost everyone who had anything to do with these two things been laid off now? Ryan Dancey is gone, Monte Cook, Skip Williams and lots of others. Of course you'll say it's just stupid Hasbro, they only care about the bottom line. But isn't that exactly the point? Hasbro keeps cutting WotC because they are not happy with their bottom line. And not just the card people, but RPG people too. If 3E is selling so well why is Hasbro laying it's designers off? Surely they should be kept around to design more masterworks in the future. And surely they should be full-time Hasbro employees instead of free-lancers because Hasbro wouldn't want anyone else to employ their genius. And if the OGL is such a success why did Hasbro let Dancey go?  Surely they should be chasing him down begging him to come work for them full-time with all kinds of benefits. Surely they would be pleading with him to design more masterful business plans for their other products.

Ah well, I'm no business person so I probably just don't understand these things.


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: My two coppers...*



			
				bones_mccoy said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> I remember you mentioning this before. It is indeed very interesting, and gratifying for the grognards   It also makes quite a case for the missing hordes of 1E gamers 'out there'. A very large portion of the 3E crowd is new gamers, I assume we can all agree on this. So a large portion of the 1E crowd has not been lured back. Naturally all those gamers are not still playing now, but with the right version of AD&D/D&D couldn't a lot of them be brought back into the fold? At any case, certainly more of them than 3E has brought back so far.
> ...





The majority of "missing" 1E gamers didn't stop playing because of 3E, they stopped playing because they grew up, got married, got promoted, had responsibilities, and had better things to do with their Friday nights than sitting around pretending to be wizards.



> *
> Also, this may show a significant flaw in WotC's original plan. Since the number of 1E gamers was so large, wouldn't it have been better to target 3E to them instead of new players?
> *





The game is targeted towards all players, young and old alike.  The assassin, barbarian, and monk are in there to appease the grognards.



> *
> After all, 1E was the game that attracted all these gamers in the first place so a 3E based on 1E could still theoretically do the same thing - attract a huge number of new fans, while also bringing back all the old fans. Now that would certainly result in larger numbers than 3E has seen so far, and hopefully not cause the slowdown the d20 market is currently seeing.
> *





I, for one, wouldn't have paid money for a rehashing of 1E/2E.  If you ask me, the game and its mechanics had grown stale, and it was time for a change.



> *
> And on a different note: It's strange to me how everyone keeps saying the OGL is a masterwork and that 3E is selling like crazy. If these things were true why all the layoffs?
> *





Maybe they were planned from day one.  Once you publish the core books, you don't need as large a staff.  I don't sit on Hasbro's board, so I don't know for sure.



> *
> Why has almost everyone who had anything to do with these two things been laid off now? Ryan Dancey is gone, Monte Cook, Skip Williams and lots of others.
> *





Monte Cook left of his own free will.



> *
> Of course you'll say it's just stupid Hasbro, they only care about the bottom line. But isn't that exactly the point? Hasbro keeps cutting WotC because they are not happy with their bottom line. And not just the card people, but RPG people too. If 3E is selling so well why is Hasbro laying it's designers off? Surely they should be kept around to design more masterworks in the future.
> *





There aren't that many more masterworks that need to be made.



> *
> And surely they should be full-time Hasbro employees instead of free-lancers because Hasbro wouldn't want anyone else to employ their genius.
> *





That's a cost-benefit analysis that I'm sure management looked at before they laid these people off.  



> *
> And if the OGL is such a success why did Hasbro let Dancey go?
> Surely they should be chasing him down begging him to come work for them full-time with all kinds of benefits. Surely they would be pleading with him to design more masterful business plans for their other products.
> *





I dunno.  Maybe they decided his job was redundant?  Again, I don't know.



> *
> Ah well, I'm no business person so I probably just don't understand these things. *




Me neither.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: My two coppers...*



			
				bones_mccoy said:
			
		

> *Isn't the success of HackMaster proof of that demand? And that's success in spite of it's comedy approach and additional complicated rules.*



Ah! Good call! What exactly is the success of Hackmaster? How many people are buying it and who are they? I *suspect* it's an insignificant number compared to the number of people buying 3E, but I don't know. Anyone with numbers here?


> *It also makes quite a case for the missing hordes of 1E gamers 'out there'. A very large portion of the 3E crowd is new gamers, I assume we can all agree on this. So a large portion of the 1E crowd has not been lured back. Naturally all those gamers are not still playing now, but with the right version of AD&D/D&D couldn't a lot of them be brought back into the fold? At any case, certainly more of them than 3E has brought back so far.*



Lots of this argument depends on numbers we don't have. First of all, we need to know sales figures for, let's say, both 1985 and 2002. Then we have to know what percentage of the sales of 3E were to new gamers -- you're assuming most are new gamers but that is certainly not my experience. Without some evidence I'm not going to agree to that point at all. In fact, I assert the opposite -- that most people who purchased the 3E PHB already owned either 1E or 2E PHBs.

Anyway, we don't have any numbers so this is all pretty pointless.

All I'm saying is that, according to the reports from WotC employees that I have read, 3E is selling very well. I believe Anthony Valterra is on record as saying that the D&D group of WotC is one of its top earners. This indicates that the business plan is doing well.

The fact that there may be a large market unserved by WotC (not that anyone has demonstrated that there is) does not mean the plan is flawed. Not if they're making as much money as they expected to. It's all about hitting targets, not about maximizing revenue.


> *A 3E based on 1E could still theoretically do the same thing - attract a huge number of new fans, while also bringing back all the old fans.*



What makes you think that's not exactly what has happened? It's exactly what happened to me. I'm an old fan. My wife is a new fan. We both play 3E. Where's your evidence that these huge numbers of unsatisfied 1E fans even exist?


> *And on a different note: It's strange to me how everyone keeps saying the OGL is a masterwork and that 3E is selling like crazy. If these things were true why all the layoffs? Why has almost everyone who had anything to do with these two things been laid off now? Ryan Dancey is gone, Monte Cook, Skip Williams and lots of others. Of course you'll say it's just stupid Hasbro, they only care about the bottom line.*



Stupid Hasbro? Only time will tell. It looks to me like they're following the business plan to its proper conclusion -- cut out everything that isn't high-margin -- that is, everything but the PHB. Provide the SRD so that third-party groups can generate the network of supporting materials that keeps PHB sales high.

We're talking about a company that sells Monopoly, a game that hasn't changed nor shifted its position on toy store shelves for 50 years or so. Why wouldn't they want to do exactly the same thing with the PHB? Keep on selling it, maybe not a massive number but if they've got no R&D staff, no designers and no writers to support they don't need to sell a lot to make a tidy profit. Let the third parties create all the goodies that keep it selling. I mean, I don't know how many copies of Monopoly they sell each year, but I bet it's always in the top ranks of tabletop games. This from a product that literally has not changed for decades. Designers? What designers?

So you see, if 3E is selling well, there's still motivation for Hasbro to cut staff. They might very well keep cutting staff. It doesn't follow that because Hasbro is gutting the creative team the company must be suffering from low sales.

No company in the world wants full-time employees. Part-timers cost less in every way except long-term loyalty. And why would Hasbro be concerned about keeping people's genius to themselves? Again, you're misunderstanding the plan. They WANT other companies to be producing incredibly cool d20 products based on the SRD. That's exactly what they want because every one of those products helps to sell the PHB.

Now I don't know any better than anyone else what's really going on. I just know what Mr. Dancey has said, and other WotC employees. I don't have any numbers, but neither does anyone else. All I'm saying is that the actions we've seen fit the plan, and there isn't any evidence to suggest that the plan isn't working. And that includes massive layoffs, not caring about theoretical masses of cranky 1E holdouts and the success of Hackmaster.

EDIT: Hey Meepo, are we tag-teaming AGAIN? What's up with that?


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: Re: My two coppers...*



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *
> 
> EDIT: Hey Meepo, are we tag-teaming AGAIN? What's up with that? *





I guess we both get in our argumentative moods around the same time of night.


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 28, 2002)

Well the response to the thread I started has been amazing. Thanks to everyone who has responded. Especially Mr. Gygax!
Obviously there are MANY veiws on this topic and I have  read all of them. I must say I'm as bewildered as I was from the beginning lol! Again thanks everyone for helping me with my study.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Sep 28, 2002)

Alright would you vote for me for President of the United States in lieu of having a new 1st edition friendly SRD?

Dammit! I showed my cards too soon!


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 28, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *Alright would you vote for me for President of the United States in lieu of having a new 1st edition friendly SRD?
> 
> Dammit! I showed my cards too soon! *



Boy Howdy! Did you ever!

But I _want_ 1E rules in an SRD -- or even better, made public domain. That'd be great. I just don't see any reason for Wizards to do it.

But maybe they would do it just because I asked nice...

Actually, you know what, being Canadian, I'd vote for just about anyone who'd let me! 

GENEWEIGEL FOR PRESIDENT!


----------



## Buttercup (Sep 28, 2002)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> *I found the demi-human level limits racist.  Even though this game was made way back in the 60's, come on!  Even the name "demi-human" implies inferiority. *




Yeah.  All the elves I know were really offended by that.


----------



## Celtavian (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re*

To answer the original question, 1st edition D and D is inferior to Third edition strictly from a rules standpoint. The 3rd edition rules provide more information for the DM and players to handle different situations and events that occur in game. 

As far as concept and creativity, they are about the same. Why? 3rd edition incorporates much of what was great about 1st edition from a creativity standpoint.



As far as sex goes, I can tolerate females having equal strength for a fantasy game. I don't care.

Please don't try to bring real life into it. I have met too many modern day males who are too weak to live up to the expectations of being a man. They fall back on the relativist thinking that somehow tries to teach that men and women are equal.

Wake up to the real world and be a man. Men and women aren't equal. They never will be. You are meant to be warrior of the group just as you have been since the dawn of man. Stop trying to make believe that somehow men dominated the world for so long by accident.

It was no accident that men have been the dominant sex for as long as recorded history in 99.9% of world cultures. Men are more aggressive, stronger, and more powerful than women. Only in a peaceful world without war will woman gain even a small measure of equality, and even then it will be hard fought. Males are aggressive, and it is almost impossible to breed out of us. It hardly means 100%, but it definitely means the majority. 

I don't think women should be sitting at home doing nothing. It simply means men and women should learn to embrace their differences and work to each other's strengths. They shouldn't teach lies to their children about false equality that doesn't exist in the real world, and never, ever will.


----------



## angramainyu (Sep 28, 2002)

Let's not get into the old male vs. female stat arguments.  These discussions always seem to reach flame levels at blinding speed, and no good ever seems to come from them.  Please drop the issue.


----------



## brymeister (Sep 28, 2002)

Inferior?   I don't know.  It would seem that this is almost a generational question.  To old-timers like me, 1st Edition is like High School all the good memories sort of blot out any bad ones.

It was less PC and less skill based (no skills except things like Teamster)

Seeing as it was, along with Space Opera and TnT, the first RPG I really played alot it will always seem special to me. Skinny legs and all


----------



## maddman75 (Sep 28, 2002)

Barsoomcore - 

I think your analysis is spot on.  And with that, couldn't you also argue that it makes sense for WotC to add their other books to the SRD as well?  I'd love to see what the d20 community could do with MotP, OA, and ELH.  They've already added the psionics handbook material, hopefully more are to come.

As far as 1e/2e, they won't be added to the SRD, as WotC isn't trying to sell core books to those systems.  At least you have hackmaster .


----------



## Luddite (Sep 28, 2002)

I agree that saying AD&D (1st ed) is inferior to DnD 3E is like saying a Model T is inferior to modern cars.  RPG "thecnology" has advanced alot in its nearly 30 years.  A lot of inovation has come, some of it good, some of it bad.  I find DnD 3E is what I like to play.

I would, however, like to see previous editions not put in the SRD, but either convered to PDF by WotC (I'd pay about 5 $US for the core books of each Edition) or just released into the public domain.  It is not that I would want to play it, but I think WotC could safely "cater to the grognards" by doing such and not realy confuse the issue.

If the information from the previous editions were only availbe to those on the interent, then It wont confuse those that go to the store and see many different versions of the same game.  

-The Luddite


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: Re*



			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> *To answer the original question, 1st edition D and D is inferior to Third edition strictly from a rules standpoint. The 3rd edition rules provide more information for the DM and players to handle different situations and events that occur in game.
> 
> As far as concept and creativity, they are about the same. Why? 3rd edition incorporates much of what was great about 1st edition from a creativity standpoint.
> 
> ...





I have so many issues with this that it's not even funny, but I won't voice them for the thread's sake.  Suffice it to say I disagree with you.


----------



## maddman75 (Sep 28, 2002)

Yeah, I've fought this flame war before.  It wasn't pretty then and let me give you a hint.

The mods always win.

They don't want this discussed for a very good reason.  It will explode in flames and crash.  D&D is about fantasy, and everyone has different expectations of exactly what that means.  Best to leave it at that.

If you feel a burning desire to argue about the issue, might I suggest the rec.games.frp.dnd newsgroup.  They'll gladly argue with you for months.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 28, 2002)

Celtavian, earlier in the thread Dinkeldog and I were *extremely* clear about our preference that the thread should not be hijacked into a discussion of gender differences within roleplaying.  So I'll be a little more blunt, and repeat what Angramainyu said: *don't do so again*.  I don't appreciate the hijack, and I would appreciate it if it didn't reoccur.

If this is somehow a problem, feel free to email me.


----------



## Moorcrys (Sep 28, 2002)

It is interesting to me, though, that the arguments fall squarely on the side of either OAD&D or 3e, with very little mention of 2e.

Personally I like both oAD&D and 3e much, much better than 2e.

Moorcrys


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 28, 2002)

Luddite said:
			
		

> *I would, however, like to see previous editions not put in the SRD, but either convered to PDF by WotC (I'd pay about 5 $US for the core books of each Edition) or just released into the public domain.*



Ask and ye shall receive:

TA-DA! 

There you go: 1E AD&D rolebooks, as PDFs, for $5-6 each! What more could you want?

Jenifer Lopez' butt? You're on your own there. But if you can find THAT for $5, let me know.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 28, 2002)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> *Couldn't you also argue that it makes sense for WotC to add their other books to the SRD as well?  I'd love to see what the d20 community could do with MotP, OA, and ELH.  They've already added the psionics handbook material, hopefully more are to come.*



Sure -- and they will. Once the money to be made selling those books is no longer enough to justify withholding them from the market (that is, once the release of that material will increase PHB sales to a point of value higher than the sales of the supplement itself), of course they'll release them. That's a pretty tricky equation to juggle, of course and there will no doubt be stumbles and disagreements on the way, but yeah, that seems like the smart thing to do to me.

Keep thinking of the PHB as Monopoly. For the next fifty years, Hasbro wants to keep on selling that one book. No further investment, no expense beyond printing and shipping, no risk, year after year of CONSISTENT revenue. Maybe not maximised revenue, but consistent. That's what I would want if I were running Hasbro. And the best way to do that is to divest the company of everything else, give the community the tools and opportunities to develop their own supporting materials, and just keep rolling PHBs off the presses.

I don't know that this is possible. Nobody's ever tried it before. I'm very intrigued to see how it will all work out, that's for sure.


----------



## Grazzt (Sep 29, 2002)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> * And with that, couldn't you also argue that it makes sense for WotC to add their other books to the SRD as well?  I'd love to see what the d20 community could do with MotP, OA, and ELH.  They've already added the psionics handbook material, hopefully more are to come.
> *




According to AV (Anthony Valterra), d20 Modern goes into the SRD as soon as it comes out. After that it looks like the ELH and DDG (excepting the D&D gods) goes in as these are the two books most publishers seem to want (or so says Anthony and the d20 OGL lists). Haven't heard a date, but I wouldnt expect to see them before early next year.

I would expect MM2, MotP, and some of the other hardbacks to make it eventually (excepting the FR stuff of course).


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 29, 2002)

So am I barsoomcore, so am I.


----------



## Luddite (Sep 29, 2002)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *
> Ask and ye shall receive:
> 
> TA-DA!
> ...




Well skin me a live and call me lugage.  Looks like $50 and a night out with the high-speed high quality printer.....

Now If I could just download JoLo's posterior while I do the printing......

-The Luddite


----------



## Emiricol (Sep 29, 2002)

Superior to 2E, I feel.  3E is more modern, though, in that standards for games have evolved despite 2E's huge step backwards.

In other words, if I had more time than games, rather than the current 'more games than time', I would play Hackmaster or 1E


----------



## Deedlit (Sep 29, 2002)

Col_Pladoh, please note that I am speaking on behalf of elves everywhere, and that Legolas, Galadriel, and Lauranathalasa among others have voiced similar concerns.  We find the word demi-human offensive, as elves were the first of the races, the longest lived of the races, and the coolest of the races, so we propose you change it to either humanoid(Which is nowhere near as offensive, as it merely states the body shape is like that of a human), or demi-elf. Most elves were also laughing for some time at your level limits, until we figured out this was intended to be taken seriously.  You have insulted elves everywhere, as obviously many of us are far beyond level 10, and we also have the highest percentile of level 15+ characters.  We respect you greatly as the developer of Greyhawk castle and apprentice to Boccob, but you have greatly annoyed the dwarf, elf, halfling, and gnome pantheons alike,(I doubt gruumsh even knows how to read, let alone use a computer.) and in the interest of continuing the accuracy of this great game, we recommend you retract those statements about level limits, or you may find level 20+ elves unleashing their magic at your few temples.  How could the elves have such powerful rings, and have one of their own slay a dragon beyond any that have ever walked Oerth, being only level 10?


----------



## Emiricol (Sep 29, 2002)

Jeeze, it is already "half elf" for mixed breeds, not "half-human."  What more do you want, you elitist snobs.


----------



## Deedlit (Sep 29, 2002)

It's only half-elf because humans breed with everything, even orcs.  We just don't like being called demihumans.  As for the elitist snob thing, we're not all Silvanesti.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 29, 2002)

brymeister said:
			
		

> *Inferior?   I don't know.  It would seem that this is almost a generational question.  To old-timers like me, 1st Edition is like High School all the good memories sort of blot out any bad ones.
> 
> It was less PC and less skill based (no skills except things like Teamster)
> 
> Seeing as it was, along with Space Opera and TnT, the first RPG I really played alot it will always seem special to me. Skinny legs and all *




First, I'll see Piratecat, and raise him that real-life discussion about equality between the sexes is even less welcome than discussion about sexual equality within the game.

Now, for the brymeister.

I suppose, your high school comment could be accurate.  However, being an old-timer, like yourself, 1st Edition is indeed like High School, only I remember the bad times, too, and won't make excuses for them.  Would I play again?  Sure, house-ruled to the hilt--just like when I was playing back then.

Next, skills as proficiencies were brought into the game in 1st edition with the Dungeoneers' and Wilderness Survival Guides.  The problem that some people I know had with them was that you were completely incompetent in a skill, took the proficiency and boom! instant mastery.  Not very realistic.  Indeed, not very sensible.


----------



## Moorcrys (Sep 29, 2002)

Not to refute the proficiency slot automatic mastery problem because you're absolutely right about it.

However, 3E's skill system is certainly not the end-all be-all of game balance either.  When we first started gaming with 3E characters (especially rogue types) would have absolutely ridiculous bonuses to their major skills by 3rd-6th level... and this was following (and even being a little bit frugal with) the book with regards to treasure/magic gained, with characters rolled up in front of my eyes.  The DC rules in the DMG are so underpowered it's silly to even use them.  I'd also say that the way skill points are distributed between the classes in 3E is unbalanced in favor of classes with one or two prime attributes.  Classes with multiple 'prime' attributes that don't include intelligence (such as monks, bards, paladins) have a tougher time making any use of their skill lists.  Not to mention class-needed skills like perform (why not give bards 5 skill points per level since they basically need to drop a point in perform every single level to make use of a standard class ability -- or is the 'jack of all trades' with a juicy skill list basically meant to have 3 skill points per level?), or pathetic skill lists for classes like the sorcerer, which make absolutely no use of that classes prime attribute (why, yes, new player, pretty much every sorcerer you meet has a strong personality and a palpable presence, but NONE of them no how to use it to their advantage without casting a spell -- puh-lease).  We've been house-ruling the heck out of the skill system since we started playing to try and balance it (or at least give it some common sense).  

Is it better than the nonweapon proficiency system?  In my opinion sure -- if you house-rule it a bit.  But I'd consider it one of the weaker mechanics that 3E uses if you try to use it 'as written'. 

Does it work fine for some people as written?  absolutely.  So does the nonweapon proficiency slot thing from the older editions.  Is it well-thought out and well-balanced between all the classes?  I say without a doubt no.  I'm sure you could argue that it's a choice whether to sacrifice something else to add two points in intelligence to add that extra skill point for your character.  But I believe that the game was constructed in such a way that makes that choice relatively minor for a few classes and a major hit to others -- with no game-definable or justifiable reason why.  To me that smacks of design flaw and imbalance.

It does guarantee that most sorcerers will have spellcraft and concentration and most intimidating fighters will want to look at the cosmopolitan feat from a supplemental rulebook.

Moorcrys


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 29, 2002)

Moorcrys said:
			
		

> **snip*
> I'd also say that the way skill points are distributed between the classes in 3E is unbalanced in favor of classes with one or two prime attributes.  Classes with multiple 'prime' attributes that don't include intelligence (such as monks, bards, paladins) have a tougher time making any use of their skill lists.  Not to mention class-needed skills like perform (why not give bards 5 skill points per level since they basically need to drop a point in perform every single level to make use of a standard class ability -- or is the 'jack of all trades' with a juicy skill list basically meant to have 3 skill points per level?), or pathetic skill lists for classes like the sorcerer, which make absolutely no use of that classes prime attribute (why, yes, new player, pretty much every sorcerer you meet has a strong personality and a palpable presence, but NONE of them no how to use it to their advantage without casting a spell -- puh-lease).  We've been house-ruling the heck out of the skill system since we started playing to try and balance it (or at least give it some common sense).
> *snip*
> Moorcrys *




I consider the bard's two primary attributes to be charisma and intelligence.  It adds to their bardic knowledge, skill points, and all of their knowledge skills.  They're obviously not front-line fighters.  What did you have in mind?

Sorcerer spell list, yeah, I can see that.  We've switched to Monte's sorcerer, which buffs it up a bit.  But "house-ruling the heck" out of the system?  No, just a little tweaking.


----------



## Grazzt (Sep 29, 2002)

Moorcrys said:
			
		

> *-- or is the 'jack of all trades' with a juicy skill list basically meant to have 3 skill points per level?),  *




The "jack-of-all-trades (master of none)" is supposed to be good at lots of things but great at none. One of my players plays a bard and we have had no problems or seen any problems (nor has the player complained about the bard at all; and he's played a bard since 1e when it was really, really difficult to become a bard ).



> or pathetic skill lists for classes like the sorcerer, which make absolutely no use of that classes prime attribute




I wouldn't call it pathetic per se, but it is strange that the sorcerer's "prime requisite" is Charisma, yet it has no Charisma-based class skills. We simply juggled the list in one or two places to balance it out.


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Sep 29, 2002)

*Re: My two coppers...*



			
				bones_mccoy said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Sep 29, 2002)

Deedlit said:
			
		

> *Col_Pladoh, please note that I am speaking on behalf of elves everywhere, and that Legolas, Galadriel, and Lauranathalasa among others have voiced similar concerns.  We find the word demi-human offensive...*





Oh yah?! Well, how about: "Humans rule, elves drool!"

Betcha that really makes those curly-toed shoes flatten out in rage, huh!  Buncha tree-hugging, pointy-eared flower children. No half-elf/half-orcs around because orcs are too discriminating. The only humans duped into cross-breeding were undoubtedly drugged and/or charmed.

Now where are those hirsute dwarven fems? I need to say a word or to to them as well...

BTW, this sort of post makes as much sense to me as arguing over which edition is "better"--nothing but subjectivity and personal taste. As for making mechanical analogies, specious in the extreme. People reading words and all that. Even the mechanical systems do not have any technological component that can be rated as more or less advanced. Only preference in question here.



Gary


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Col_Pladoh [/i
> 
> BTW, this sort of post makes as much sense to me as arguing over which edition is "better"--nothing but subjectivity and personal taste. As for making mechanical analogies, specious in the extreme. People reading words and all that. Even the mechanical systems do not have any technological component that can be rated as more or less advanced. Only preference in question here.
> 
> ...



_


 Mr. Gygax, what you just posted makes more sense to me than anything else I've read here. I think you just cleared up a great many things in my mind. You are right, it is a matter of taste. Thank you for your comments on this matter. I understand now. You're right, it is highly subjective. By the way I love 1st Edition! I geuss that just my personal taste though! Thank you for creating such a wonderful game Mr. Gygax. I will always fall back on it no matter if I run 3rd E or not ( I f I do run 3rd E I will keep the original class and race restricitions-that's one thing I can't bear to change!)_


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 29, 2002)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> *
> Betcha that really makes those curly-toed shoes flatten out in rage, huh!  Buncha tree-hugging, pointy-eared flower children. No half-elf/half-orcs around because orcs are too discriminating. The only humans duped into cross-breeding were undoubtedly drugged and/or charmed.
> *




I... I think I love you.  *sniff*


----------



## Geoffrey (Sep 29, 2002)

I prefer 1st edition AD&D over 3rd edition D&D because I like to *play* games rather than *work* at them. Case in point:

As a DM in 1E, I can write the following in an adventure: Glend is a CE 13th level thief (AC 1, hp 39) with +3 leather armor and a +3 short sword.

As a DM in 3E, I must write something like this: Glend is a CE 13th level rogue (AC 19, hp 49) with +3 leather armor and a +3 short sword.
_Skills:_
Appraise +12
Balance +13
Bluff +12
Climb +8
Disguise +10
Forgery +13
Gather Information +10
Hide +15
Intuit Direction +8
Listen +10
Move Silently +15
Open Lock +11
Pick Pocket +11
Ride +11
Search +12
Sense Motive +9
Spot +10
Tumble +13
_Feats:_
Blind-Fight
Combat Reflexes
Improved Critical (short sword)
Improved Unarmed Strike
Martial Weapon Proficiency (short sword)
Weapon Focus (short sword)

I'm sorry, but I don't have the time or the patience for that sort of thing. Anybody who wants to put that much time, effort, and paper into a single NPC, God bless 'em. But that just isn't fun for me, nor does it exercise my creativity. It's merely work.


----------



## Tuerny (Sep 29, 2002)

Actually, you really don't need to take the time to stat out an entire NPC if you don't want to.
For NPCs that do not need highly specialized descriptions and details you can just use one of the generic NPCs from the DMG.

So that really isn't that valid of a complaint...


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 29, 2002)

Tuerny said:
			
		

> *Actually, you really don't need to take the time to stat out an entire NPC if you don't want to.
> For NPCs that do not need highly specialized descriptions and details you can just use one of the generic NPCs from the DMG.
> 
> So that really isn't that valid of a complaint... *





 Actually it is because if he DID want to have highly specialized descriptions and details he would HAVE  more work to do in 3rd E than !st E. ( rules wise )


----------



## jasamcarl (Sep 29, 2002)

Yes, but you have to consider the returns you get on the work you do do in 1st as oppossed to 3rd in creating detailed characters. 3e is more flexible so fluff details are more likely to have a real mechanical benefit than in 1st. Consequently, you could probably use a generic 3e npc and just relegate the detail to fluff and still make that detail as relevant as in 1e, whose only seaming advantage is in the surperfluous.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 29, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *
> As a DM in 3E, I must write something like this:
> (snip)
> *




No you don't! Good lord, man, are you always doing that sort of work?    I'm _way_ too lazy, myself.

Ideally, you shoot over to EN World's glorious  electronic aids page, and use Jamis Buck's NPC generator.  

Alternatively, I've found that most NPCs never use most of their feats and skills.  In most fights, a NPC will die long before they've gotten a chance to use all of their cool abilities. So for the example you gave, I'd assume max ranks in the most important thing (is this a sneaky rogue? A fast-talking one?), the obvious feats, and I'm good to go. My players never know the difference, I always err on the side of caution, and it dramatically minimizes my prep. I also never stat up anyone who I don't expect to be in combat.

So it takes a little longer than a 1e NPC, not (for me) nowhere as long as you indicate. I think the added flexibility over the 1e thief's set skill percentages more than compensates for the difference.


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 29, 2002)

A real mechanical benefit means it's in the books. If your players don't mind you "winging" it or using special rules of your own then by all means use 1st edition. If you want more rules so that more things have mechanical "benefits" then use the new ed. Basically it's all a matter of personal preference. My group is more into the story and we throw half the rules out the window sometimes if it makes for a more interesting game. Which is why I I probably wont spend the money on 3rd E in the near future. If I did, it would be to keep players coming to my table ( the few new ones that wont play 1st E no matter what) which I don't have a problem with, being a fair and creative DM helps too) Like I said it's all about personal taste. 3rd E is not a "better" way to do anything as is any other edition. This is what I've found out from this thread. It took the man who created the game to help me see it.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 29, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> *#rd E is not a "better" way to do anything as is any other edition.  *




This is the only thing I'd disagree with. The core mechanic of 3e - low is bad, high is good, roll a d20 and add a modifier to hit a target number - is legitimately "better" game design. It's simpler, it's easily taught, and it's consistent. 

I think this is most clear when you try to start a new group, or try to bring in new players to your existing group. Probably the best thing about 3e is that everyone knows how to play it, and if they don't it's easy to teach. You can't really say the same thing about 1e.

I'd also maintain that the 3e skill system is far superior to the 2e proficiency system, but this thread is about 1e.


----------



## Grazzt (Sep 29, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'd also maintain that the 3e skill system is far superior to the 2e proficiency system.. *




Amen to this. The intro of proficiencies in 1e OA, WSG, DSG really did nothing for the game (which is why we NEVER used them in 1e..or 2e for that matter). The way the system worked made no sense at all (you're either really good or you're not). Yes its a game. No it doesnt have to be realistic, but 3e does go a long way in making it more believable than the 1e/2e NWP system.


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 29, 2002)

Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> [
> 
> BTW, this sort of post makes as much sense to me as arguing over which edition is "better"--nothing but subjectivity and personal taste. As for making mechanical analogies, specious in the extreme. People reading words and all that. Even the mechanical systems do not have any technological component that can be rated as more or less advanced. Only preference in question here.
> 
> ...




 This is the veiw I hold as well.


----------



## Psion (Sep 29, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> *3rd E is not a "better" way to do anything as is any other edition.*




Dunno about that.

As others have said, it is largely a matter of personal preference. But you can only play that card so far before it becomes a little fishy.

Sure, some factors may drive you to play 1e over 3e... most likely nostalgia. That's not inconsiderable. People play games to have fun, and the feeling of history that you have with a game could make it or break it for you.

But when you strip it down to just what the books have to offer, first edition really shows its age. If you take a person new to the game, and put a 1e and 3e PHB in front of the table and tell him to pick one, I bet you that in the vast majority of cases, the person will walk away with the 3e version. The clean consistent core system, the flexibility, the support for skills other than combat related class skills or theif skills, lack of reliance of tables, and consistent application of terminology and restriction on bonuses are all things that make 3e the superior choice. If there is some bona fide benefit to using 1e other than reaping nostalgia, I really fail to see what it is.


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 29, 2002)

How about lack of money and sticking with a system that works for me and my group?


----------



## Psion (Sep 29, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> *How about lack of money and sticking with a system that works for me and my group? *




That's all well and good, but says nothing about the utility of the system itself. It just says that you aren't wealthy and are happy where you are, not that 3e isn't a better choice for those who can afford it.


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 29, 2002)

Better when it comes to a game is in the eyes of the beholder it is purely subjective. Is Chess better than checkers is Poker better than War? It's a game and this arguement is pointless. BETTER  INFERIOR what about fun? I have more fun playing AD&D FIRST edition does that make it better? For me it does for you, it doesn't.


----------



## Psion (Sep 29, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> *Better when it comes to a game is in the eyes of the beholder it is purely subjective. Is Chess better than checkers is Poker better than War?*




Are apples better than oranges? Tough to say when you are talking about games that are doing different things.

But when you start talking abuot games that strive to do the same thing, that argument begins to falter.




> *It's a game and this arguement is pointless.*




It is pointless... because you insist on projecting your values on the game, and insist on repeating the same arguments. Open your eyes and you will there is a point.

And note here, my point is not that 3e is the one true way, nor that you cannot have fun with 1e. My point is merely there is a general improvement in the mechanical implementation of 3e over 1e. If that's not a selling point for you, then fine.



> * BETTER  INFERIOR what about fun? I have more fun playing AD&D FIRST edition does that make it better?*




That depends. Are you having more fun because of some nostalgia factor or because of some quality of the game? Is there anything about the 1e game ITSELF that makes it more fun?

I really don't think so.


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 29, 2002)

you're right 3rd edition is better you have opened my eyes


----------



## Psion (Sep 29, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> *you have opened my eyes  *




Don't be a jerk.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 29, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> **snip*
> It's a game and this arguement[sic] is pointless.
> *snip* *




If that's bothering you, blame the person who started the thread.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 29, 2002)

Psion said:
			
		

> *Don't be a jerk. *



Yo, Psion, his reaction pretty much proves your case. This is the point where he's run out of ability to counter your arguments and descends to snide comments that don't address your points.

No need to be angry -- be proud that you have provided so bullet-proof an argument. Nicely done.


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 29, 2002)

Actually I was being quite honest I want to one day play 3rd edition. And don't call me names that's not nice. I never started this post to "defend" 1st edition as this is ludicrous to do anyway. i agree with Gygax. He opened my eyes and I see that there will always be differences of opinion but that doesn't make it a quantifiably better sytem or a worse system.


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 29, 2002)

I'm not a jerk and I wish you would apologize.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 29, 2002)

Well...I can guarantee this, if you are a Power Gamer (not necessarily Munchkin, so don't put words in my mouth) then 3rd Edition is much better for you. 

3rd edition is MUCH more easily power gamed then 1st edition is...and I mean MUCH more easily. 

If you don't agree with that statement, then I don't think you are being realistic. 

The thing that has turned me off to 3rd edition is rampant power gaming that seems to have taken over so many games. 

Cedric


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Col_Pladoh [
> 
> BTW, this sort of post makes as much sense to me as arguing over which edition is "better"--nothing but subjectivity and personal taste. As for making mechanical analogies, specious in the extreme. People reading words and all that. Even the mechanical systems do not have any technological component that can be rated as more or less advanced. Only preference in question here.
> 
> ...


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 29, 2002)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Don't be a jerk. *




Psion, that was absolutely uncalled for.

Theuderic, I agree about one thing: if you're short on cash, and you're having fun playing 1e, then there's no reason to change. I'd keep an open mind regarding the future, though. You'll find it tough to recruit new players to a 1e game.


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 29, 2002)

Pirate Cat YOU have given me more reason to want to play 3rd E than anyone else who has posted anything on here. I will try to run 3rd E because you're right it will get harder and harder to find players who are willing to give it a try. I just want to have fun playing D&D. I thought that was what we all try and do when we play games. I started this thread because I wanted to know the feelings people had on why First edition is sometimes called inferior. For some reason that comment has always bothered me. I can live with it though. i've never thought that 3rd E was inferior or less of a game or whatever. I just wanted people to know that sometimes even the silliest most bizarre games can be FUN to some people. Pirate Cat I wish to thank you for sticking up for me. I will remember that.


----------



## Psion (Sep 29, 2002)

_Nevermind._


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 29, 2002)

I'm sorry Psion.


----------



## Tharkun (Sep 29, 2002)

Well, I don't know how "inferior" 1st edition is but I just about have every sourcebook for that edition   Why may you ask?  Well, say someone doesn't like playing 3rd edition (God forbid right  ).  Well, I just need to pull out whatever edition of D&D they want to play and we're good to go.


----------



## Psion (Sep 29, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> *I'm sorry Psion. *




No biggie.


----------



## Bryan Vining (Sep 30, 2002)

*Various reactions*

Gary... right on!  Discussions like these end up much like discussions about whether or not abortion should be legal. whether or not the US should have been in Vietnam, whether or not welfare is a good idea.  You'll get a lot of noise, and almost no one (if anyone) will have their minds changed.  

It IS a matter of taste.  There is no one participating in this thread who is not projecting his/her values into the analysis.  Such a thing is impossible.  Everyone has their biases, and their view of the game systems will be filtered through those.  No edition of D&D is better than any other, except for a given group of people at a given time that is a miniscule subset of the universe of D&D players.  In any larger scope than that, the question of superior systems is meaningless (not that this discussion hasn't been fun).  3E may fit better with game design theory, but that theory has been formulated by people with opinions and biases of their own.  So, it does not exist as an independent standard of excellence handed down by a divine maker.  In short, play what you like for whatever reason you like.  Just take the time to pick a game that suits you well.  

Popularity does not equal quality, though something can be both popular and high in quality.  Proof of this exists in the fact that both the BeeGees and Steely Dan were very popular bands in the 70s.   

Anyway, I do think that questions like this are just not answerable, as the answer is truly personal.  However, watching the fur fly during the discussion can be rather entertaining.


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Sep 30, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Mr. Gygax, what you just posted makes more sense to me than anything else I've read here. I think you just cleared up a great many things in my mind. You are right, it is a matter of taste. Thank you for your comments on this matter. I understand now. You're right, it is highly subjective. By the way I love 1st Edition! I geuss that just my personal taste though! Thank you for creating such a wonderful game Mr. Gygax. I will always fall back on it no matter if I run 3rd E or not ( I f I do run 3rd E I will keep the original class and race restricitions-that's one thing I can't bear to change!) *




Yuppers! My poiny is, how can someone be wring when they are playing a game system and having fun doing it. That's the whole purpose of any game--amusement. RPGs. of course, are more a hobby, and so the amusement translates into a great deal of loong-term enjoyment.

Of course my tastes might be wildly varying from dome other gamers; but in allwe are all gamers, and why attack one another?  There are lots of non-gamers happily doing that all the time...

Cheerio,
Gary


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Sep 30, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I... I think I love you.  *sniff* *




You usually say that only when no one else is around...

Heh,
Gary


----------



## Ulrick (Sep 30, 2002)

I really don't care which edition I'd play in, each edition is simply a tool to help facilitate a gaming experience.

I back when I first played 1st Ed. (1989), I really didn't care about the rules.  I wanted to tell a cool story about heroes fighting monsters.  I wanted to explore places that I had read about in 
_The Hobbit_ and the _Chronicles of Narnia_ and other places.

I didn't care about the system at all.  I barely read the rules.  The first few characters I had created I rolled a d20 to generate stats ignoring results below a 3 and above 18. This happened until my brother showed me otherwise when I forced him to DM a game for me.

Then 2ed starting coming about.  I held off until my 10 year old brain decided that it was easier to convert (I hadn't bought any of the 1st ed. books, my brother had given them to me).  When I bought the 2ed Player's Handbook I was fascinated at all the new cool powers that Paladins got...and then my brother said, "Um, they were in first edition."

Oh.  I hadn't even looked at the paladin once I read they had to be Lawful Good...which back then I considered a "boring goody two-shoes" alignment.

But overtime I did learn the rules.

Then 3ed came out. And what I saw what an almost complete different rules set.  I feared I'd have to relearn a whole bunch of rules where it'd taken me 10years with 2ed.  It turned out it was a better rules system.  Nice and streamlined.  You can make it as complex or as simple as you wish. The way I like it.

So yes, I think the rules are better than in previous editions.

However, 1st edition isn't inferior....I was using the 1st Edition Dungeon Master's Guide last night to generate random city encounters for the game I was running.  It worked out fine.

As Mr. Gygax said its "nothing but subjectivity and personal taste."

I'd have to add: It doesn't matter to me anyway cause I'd rather just tell a great story.  I use materials from all the editions to this See the "Tharizdun" topic for an example on how this relates to my Greyhawk Campaign.

One more thing:  It isn't the edition that's inferior or superior, its the DM.  A superior DM can make any edition of D&D fun and exciting, and inferior DM can't do that with any edition.

Edit: I hope 4th edition waits until we have advanced Holodeck technology.


Ulrick


----------



## jasamcarl (Sep 30, 2002)

*oh please....*

The aspects of 3e which are being argued here are hardly popular amongst only a 'small subset of gamers'. Please express to me your (Bryan) problem with consistent, stream-lined mechanics, greater and more balanced strategies, etc. The overwhelmingly majority of people place SOME value on these qualities. Its may not stand up to the value one places on say..the history/nostalgia factor of the game, but i have my doubts that anyone is positivly turned off by it.

If you want to argue that popularity doesn't reflect on the intrinsic quality of a game, fine. If you find the positivism in game theory to be banal, fine. Both are salient points, regardless of my personal distaste for extreme post modernism. But lets not argue that there is not a trend in what tends to be popular in order to force the relativist argument, please.


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 30, 2002)

*Re: oh please....*



			
				jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *The aspects of 3e which are being argued here are hardly popular amongst only a 'small subset of gamers'. Please express to me your (Bryan) problem with consistent, stream-lined mechanics, greater and more balanced strategies, etc. The overwhelmingly majority of people place SOME value on these qualities. Its may not stand up to the value one places on say..the history/nostalgia factor of the game, but i have my doubts that anyone is positivly turned off by it.
> 
> If you want to argue that popularity doesn't reflect on the intrinsic quality of a game, fine. If you find the positivism in game theory to be banal, fine. Both are salient points, regardless of my personal distaste for extreme post modernism. But lets not argue that there is not a trend in what tends to be popular in order to force the relativist argument, please. *





     All I can say is wow!, where in the hell did that come from!?


----------



## jasamcarl (Sep 30, 2002)

What exactly are you having trouble comprehending?


----------



## rounser (Sep 30, 2002)

> Please express to me your (Bryan) problem with consistent, stream-lined mechanics, greater and more balanced strategies, etc...i have my doubts that anyone is positivly turned off by it.



3E streamlines what 1E did, but also adds it's own baggage in an attempt to make combat more fun, provide more options, and cover more rules-based resolution terrain in general.

It's possible to like the streamlined rules but not the new baggage/coverage of omissions from 1E, depending on how you view it....thus the multiple requests for a "3E Lite", with less such baggage.


----------



## jasamcarl (Sep 30, 2002)

*Ah rounser...*

That i understand. But that is a substantive argument. I am trying to tackle this notion that their is NO commonly understood standard of 'quality', which i think is a flawed and simplistic epistomology or at the very least hypocritical. And as others have pointed out, a lot of the work of statting and such can be streamlined with short cuts and the balance of 3e would STILL be more tangible that earlier editions. So i ask again, where is this great horde of 1e devotees who find 3e so distasteful?


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 30, 2002)

Well they aren't hanging out at En World!


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 30, 2002)

Of course they're not hanging out at EN World.  This is a d20/3E type website.  People that don't want to switch are more likely to find a site that provides them more information that they can use for the game they want to play.  It's the same as people that only want to play Gurps, Champions, or any other game.

Having said that, the 1E crowd demands that the 3E crowd keep an open mind on the values of playing the original 30-year old version.  Some don't seem to want to offer the same courtesy.  Some of these go trolling at message board forums like RPG.net.  It's very similar to the situation when 2E came out, except that there wasn't really a developed internet then, so it was much more muted.


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 30, 2002)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Having said that, the 1E crowd demands that the 3E crowd keep an open mind on the values of playing the original 30-year old version.  Some don't seem to want to offer the same courtesy. *





  That's a generalization. I like playing 1E but I don't do that! I think you should be careful about lumping us all together like that.  That's almost like being prejudiced if you ask me.  The "1E crowd " ? What about people that enjoy both versions? Are they a hybrid? Are they crowdless? This is stereotyping.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 30, 2002)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You are impressing no one by trying to play the "Youse a Munchkin!" card.  And if Power Attack and flanking is causing you such trouble, there is no way I put any stock in your or your friends' ability to subtract.
> 
> ...




1. I'm not really concerned with impressing people I'll never meet face to face.  Are you?

2. As a player power attacks and all those mods that can change from round to round are no problem.  As a DM it's different.   A lot different.   When I have to keep track of five NPC's doing that stuff along with keeping track of all the players mods it's more than I care to do.  It's not exactly calculus but it's a lot to keep track of.  Combats take a lot more time in this edition.     

3. Balance is good, but it's nothing that will ruin a game.  DM's provide most of the balance anyway.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 30, 2002)

I love game balance. Heck, I'm almost a freak when it comes to game balance.  But you know something? My 1e game was balanced, and my 2e game was too. I had to do a lot more tweaking to arrange it, but it worked out that way.

That's why I prefer 3e, I think. I'm having just as much (if not more) fun, and the rules are getting in my way a lot less.  While a GM is ultimately responsible for game balance, a rules set can certainly simplify or complicate the job.

There's been something I've been meaning to try. I've thought about converting "Return to White Plume Mountain" to 3e, and lead the PCs up to the front door... then, as they stand there, flash back 30 years to their parents. Hand out new 1e PCs, bring out the 1e rules, and tun White Plume Mountain in 1e. Then, when they finish, flash back to the present and have them run through RtWPM with their 3e characters!

If nothing else helps you compare game systems, this will.


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 30, 2002)

Hey that' sounds pretty cool. I wish I could play. You should run that adventure at Mcrays Keep.


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Sep 30, 2002)

I'd love to play in a game like that, P-kitty.


----------



## Ezrael (Sep 30, 2002)

If you wanted to be mean, you could do something even worse.

Tomb of Horrors. You could even run it in 1e, 2e AND 3e. Their grandparents, parents and them. (Now, I love WPM, but the idea of making people do the Tomb three times makes me grin.)


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Sep 30, 2002)

Whoo Hoo!

   Alright, some good points were raised here that I've had on the backburner for a while.

   The complaint about the long stats and then the defense of using the DMG standard NPCs or Jamis Buck's generator.

   Is it just me or does this need to be resolved for 3e to survive the long run?

   Seriously, I commented about the poor quality of _*Enemies and Allies*_ some where else a while back and I got an earful of why people thought the original _*Rogues Gallery*_ was lame. I'm still not convinced. I think the original _*Rogues Gallery*_ style is desperately needed for 3rd edition. 

 _*Enemies and Allies*_ could of been done by every single one of us on this messageboard without any problem. 

   A _*Rogues Gallery*_ would of been quite a task to compile all the stats in a spectrum of typicals in an easy reference format.

   I think a redo of that kind of book is needed to have all the data ready for a quick throw in.

  And afterwards incorporate it into a DM's screen "companion".

  I don't want another earful on how someone thought the _*Rogues Gallery*_ wasn't useful for their "storytime" campaign either. 

  I know! I know! Violence is bad! It's bad! 

  If anyone else has any other angles of complaints about that idea it's welcomed but let's not make this a pot-AE-to/pot-AH-to mish mosh again.



And I'm not talking about the crappy 2e _*Rogues Gallery*_ either!


----------



## Psion (Sep 30, 2002)

> _Originally posted by GENEWEIGEL, abuser of font sizes:_
> * The complaint about the long stats and then the defense of using the DMG standard NPCs or Jamis Buck's generator.
> 
> Is it just me or does this need to be resolved for 3e to survive the long run?*




The reason 3e stat blocks are longer is that they handle skills, something that 1e never handled until the OA/DSG/WSG era, and even then it never got added to stat blocks and probably should have then. If D&D needed anything to survive the long run it was a semblance of a skill system; it has it now.


> *
> Seriously, I commented about the poor quality of Enemies and Allies some where else a while back and I got an earful of why people thought the original Rogues Gallery was lame.
> *




Well let me join the chorus. I got much more use out of Enemies & Allies than I ever got out of the Rogues Gallery. After the munchkins extracted the stats for the super-paladin and super-bard, about the only purpose the original Rogues Gallery served was some interesting reading and satisfaction of curiosity over a few characters from the game's formative days. Not to practical a supplement at all IME.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Sep 30, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *Enemies and Allies could of been done by every single one of us on this messageboard without any problem.
> 
> A Rogues Gallery would of been quite a task to compile all the stats in a spectrum of typicals in an easy reference format.
> 
> I think a redo of that kind of book is needed to have all the data ready for a quick throw in.*




If you think E&A could have been done by anyone (and, even though I really like E&A, I agree, given the time, anyone could have), then you must see that, given today's computer resources, the Rogue's Gallery would be even easier to do. I don't see why it would be such a task - even e-tools can randomly generate NPCs. Maybe one of the d20 publishers will produce such a book, for those without computers or internet access. Still, the lack of interest in simply doing this as a community project each time it's been proposed before (I don't know how many times someone has suggested it, others have crowed about how enthusiastic they are, and then the subject simply dies without anyone posting any "generic" NPCs) suggests that maybe there isn't that much of a call for it. I wouldn't mind having such a book. Also, if I'm getting what you're saying, I wouldn't mind all the DMG "stock" NPCs being put into a book, with full stat blocks for each level, since the format in the DMG, while good if you aren't in a  hurry, isn't so great for spur-of-the-moment NPCs. Plus, adding in "generic" stats for the NPC classes is something I think is needed also (the Expert would be the class that would need the most attention).

Another cool thing would be for someone to compile all the OGC NPC stats from the various d20 books out there. That would give a broad spectrum of NPCs also, from low to high levels.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Sep 30, 2002)

I don't want to be your enemy PSION.

Didn't I just make a comment about "pot-AE-to/pot-AH-to" arguements?

Seriously, you just reminded me of an old Mad Magazine with Captain Klutz slurping up the breakfast cereal and saying he loves it when he's offered a large sum to be in their commercials and then the Chief tells him he's not eating the bowl of cereal but an ashtray full of cigarettes.



Lets get down to brass tacks. I don't want to fight you. Hell without young players like yourself the game wouldn't survive.


----------



## Thorvald Kviksverd (Sep 30, 2002)

Psion said:
			
		

> *...If D&D needed anything to survive the long run it was a semblance of a skill system; it has it now...*




I think something along the lines of the broad skill groups found in *Gary's* _Lejendary Adventures_ would have been a more steamlined way to go however.  I keep meaning to sit down and adapt it to O(A)D&D.

During the time I spent DMing 3e, I found the stat blocks to be far too unwieldy for my tired old brain to deal with--or maybe it's just that I don't have the time to devote to gaming that I had when I was Younger.

In any event, as things stand now IMC, characters have their own "schticks", and the more inline an action is with these concepts, the more likely the character will be able to accomplish it--while the further afield it is, the less likely success will be.  This is all accomplished by seat-of-the-pants rulings and an Xd6 roll versus the relevant ability (assuming the task is even possible for the character in question).  In terms of philosophy I think it's close to LA's skill groups--I just haven't gotten around to codifying things yet (assuming such would be a good idea).


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Sep 30, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *Another cool thing would be for someone to compile all the OGC NPC stats from the various d20 books out there. That would give a broad spectrum of NPCs also, from low to high levels. *




Thank you, sir!



This is exactly what I'm talking about.

The details would have codes to represent game elements (feats, skills) and have it all charted sideways.

I'm sorry but the _*Enemies and Allies*_ format was no utility. %95 of it could of been garnered from one's own imagination in two or three nights easy.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Sep 30, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Thank you, sir!
> 
> ...




I have a suggestion for you, which I've learned from my time working on the Middle Earth d20 conversion site (which has some generics, by the way, which I did): you should prime the pump. That is, whip up a batch of NPC stats and post 'em. I can't guarantee you'll get a huge response, but it'll help some. People seem to respond better when they see examples of what is being asked for.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Sep 30, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'm sorry but the Enemies and Allies format was no utility. %95 of it could of been garnered from one's own imagination in two or three nights easy. *




I feel it has utility. Maybe someone could have done some of it in a few days, but the point is that it's for someone who doesn't want to waste time doing so.

The failing of the book is that it provides some good "generics," but they aren't OGC. Making them OGC would have established some kind of standard,w hich would have been very useful, especially for potential d20 publishers.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Sep 30, 2002)

I think I need to have a "seminar" at next GenCon about how their is no acountabilty for taste in the real world but their is indeed an accountabilty for taste in a game that relies on presentation for suspension of disbelief.

Some of those characters if I had dragged into a game I would of been laughed out of town and fired as DM!


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Sep 30, 2002)

I don't really know which of those NPCs in E&A are so outrageous. While I would have liked a lot more stuff along the lines of the generic guards or the various rogues, even the more colorful ones didn't seem that outlandish, especially if you consider that D&D is a fantasy game set in a world with elves and dragons.


----------



## Psion (Sep 30, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *I don't want to be your enemy PSION.*




No reason to be. That does not change the fact that I disagree with you...



> *
> Didn't I just make a comment about "pot-AE-to/pot-AH-to" arguements?
> *




You may have, but that is still not sufficient reason to disuade me from expressing my opinion about disagreeing with you.



> *Lets get down to brass tacks. I don't want to fight you. Hell without young players like yourself the game wouldn't survive. *




"Young players"? LOL.

Let's spell this out for you: I certainly don't consider myself young, all the less so considering my birthday is in less than a week. I was there for 1e. I even had lots of fun with it. I just happen to think the current edition is much better and attempts to hush me on expressing that will be to no avail.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Sep 30, 2002)

But, all I was sa-...?

*BURNING BEAMING LASERS!!!*

You might try to inc-...

*LASERS!!!*

I want to just sa-...

*I'M BURNING YOU WITH THE LASERS OF MY LOVE FOR 3E!!!!!!*

Can't I...?

*ZING! ZAP! I AM RIGHT FOREVER!!!! WITH MY ROCKETS OF THIRDLY FUELED FREEDOM BURNING OFF YOUR QUIVERING FLESH!!!!*

Look, there's no....

*ZAP!*

Stop it!

*PING! POW!*

I'm calling the police.


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 30, 2002)

I can't help it that's funny


----------



## diaglo (Sep 30, 2002)

let me just add my 2 cps again.

Original D&D is the only true game. all the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.  

it was never Basic to me.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 30, 2002)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> *Typical 1e adventuring party:
> 
> 1.  Half-elf Ranger, skilled with the bow and longsword.
> 
> ...




Wrong. Typical 1e adevnturing party:

1. Wood Elf Ranger

2. Human Paladin

3. Grey Elf Fighter/Magic-User

4. Dwarf Fighter

5. Grey Elf Fighter/Magic-User

6. Grey Elf Magic-User/Thief

7. Grey Elf Magic-User/Cleric


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 30, 2002)

chatdemon said:
			
		

> *Debatable. Although the material itself offers a lot more flexibility, not even mentioning the 3rd party d20 options, you have to consider the gaming culture. Homebrew rules were par for the course when 1e was around. That is true now, but I see a lot more people now that play 'by the books' than I ever did 15 or 20 years ago. How do you think all these other RPGs came to be?*





Perhaps more people are playing by the book with 3e because they perceive that there are fewer elements of the game they consider to need fixing than they did when they were using 1e.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 30, 2002)

chatdemon said:
			
		

> *For the record, I must point out something here, 1e had no such concept as 'thac0', that was a 2e thing.*




Check the monster list in the appendices of the 1e DMG. you will find THAC0 there, embedded in 1e.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 30, 2002)

Typical party Flexor traveled with. 

Human Fighter (Flexor)
Human Paladin
Human Magic User
Halfling Thief (not a MU as originally posted, Gotengone was a straight thief now that I think of it)
Human Cleric


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 30, 2002)

diaglo said:
			
		

> *as a generic answer or maybe a question. did you ever read the Gord series? *




You mean the D&D based series where the main character didn't actually comply with the rules for PCs? The one where a set of ad hoc additions to the rules had to be made to accomodate the character? You really think this demonstrates the flexibility of the 1e rule set?


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Sep 30, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Check the monster list in the appendices of the 1e DMG. you will find THAC0 there, embedded in 1e. *




Can I just emphasize that Ie THACO is only as quick reference.

And was not a true function of the game.

One really should consult the charts in original Advanced since it contained a chance for six "perfect hits" on a roll of twenty.

Read the page after the charts about "perfect hits".

You'll notice six "20's" cascading up as the class progresses.

I wrote up some charts of 3e base attack bonuses that flawlessly incorporate the original charts. Check it out here: 

Advanced D20?


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Sep 30, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *You mean the D&D based series where the main character didn't actually comply with the rules for PCs? The one where a set of ad hoc additions to the rules had to be made to accomodate the character? You really think this demonstrates the flexibility of the 1e rule set? *




GYGAX THAT STINKING FRAUD!!!!!

Where is he?!?

Let me kill him!!!!

I'll get him for making Gord some sort of grandson of the Cat Lord!

Demigods? I don't believe in em!!!!!


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 30, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *GYGAX THAT STINKING FRAUD!!!!!
> 
> Where is he?!?
> 
> ...




You kinda miss the point. The Gord books were held up as an example of the "flexibility" of the 1e system. I'm not sure how a game system based book that needs to make ad hoc changes to the rules to accomodate its main character is an example of the "flexibility" of the game system.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 30, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *Don't forget all markets are dynamic and I'm just stating a huge market is being neglected.*




Other than your say-so and a handful of anecdotes, what evidence do we have that a huge market is being neglected? What evidence do you intend to provide to show that there is a "huge market" of 1e players wanting to buy 1e stuff?


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 30, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You kinda miss the point. The Gord books were held up as an example of the "flexibility" of the 1e system.  *




 That's the way to  be objective Storm Raven.


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 30, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Other than your say-so and a handful of anecdotes, what evidence do we have that a huge market is being neglected? What evidence do you intend to provide to show that there is a "huge market" of 1e players wanting to buy 1e stuff? *




 And what evidence do you have to the contrary?


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 30, 2002)

If you want just a piece of the audience that is on the internet then go to Dragonsfoot.org and Kenzer & Co. If you want to really find out there is no way of finding out for sure even if you did post a poll. It seems that you are wasting your talents on this thread.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 30, 2002)

Cedric said:
			
		

> *Well...I can guarantee this, if you are a Power Gamer (not necessarily Munchkin, so don't put words in my mouth) then 3rd Edition is much better for you.
> 
> 3rd edition is MUCH more easily power gamed then 1st edition is...and I mean MUCH more easily.*




You are nuts. In 1e, power gaming was as easy as playing a UA based Grey Elf Fighter/Magic-User.


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 30, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You are nuts.  *




 Now we are getting somewhere. Good one Storm Raven. Now you are reverting to telling people they are crazy. Very nice.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 30, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> *If you want just a piece of the audience that is on the internet then go to Dragonsfoot.org and Kenzer & Co. If you want to really find out there is no way of finding out for sure even if you did post a poll. It seems that you are wasting your talents on this thread. *




I suppose a rough guess could be had by comparing the relative sales of the Hackmaster PHB with the 3e D&D PHB. If we could get that, we could see just how bug the potential market might be.

Looking at Dragonsfoot.org and Kenzer & Co. is unlikely to provide meaningful data for the simple reason of scale. Suppose there is a base of 15,000 people who want 1e products. That seems large. That will likely fill up 1e based websites to brimming, making the number of 1e afficionadoes seem numerous.

But in an enviroment in which the PHB sells 500,000+ copies, are 15,000 people outside the target market really a "huge" market waiting to be tapped? I don't think so. On that scale, the 1e fans are small potatoes.


----------



## jasamcarl (Sep 30, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> *
> 
> And what evidence do you have to the contrary? *




Theuderic, do you know what a fallacy is?


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 30, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> *Now we are getting somewhere. Good one Storm Raven. Now you are reverting to telling people they are crazy. Very nice.*




Hey, I was repsonding to a post in which an individual categorically claimed that power gaimg was easier in 3e than 1e. He's wrong, so wrong it is silly. In 1e, power gaming required a handlful of obvious tricks to push yourself over the top: a dual-wielding Grey Elven Fighter/Magic-User for example. In 3e you have to work to power game, and even when people claim they have made a broken character in 3e, they usually have missed some glaring weakness in their design.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Sep 30, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Other than your say-so and a handful of anecdotes, what evidence do we have that a huge market is being neglected? What evidence do you intend to provide to show that there is a "huge market" of 1e players wanting to buy 1e stuff? *




Gygax rules?

_*GYGAX STINKS!!!!*_


Original Greyhawk?

_*FORGOTTEN REALMS!!!!!*_


Positive?

_*NEGATIVE!!!!!*_


Paladins?

_*LAWYERS!!!!!!!!*_


Elves?

_*ORCS!!!!*_


USA?

_*FRANCE!!!!*_


Someone who isn't out to de-mythologize Gygax?

_*STORM RAVEN!!!!!!*_


Your honor I would like to enter into states evidence that Storm Raven will correct me for the misuse of the legal terms in this very sentence and the following which has already be stated:

Hackmaster.

_*GURPS!!!!!!!!!!*_


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 30, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> *And what evidence do you have to the contrary?*




Well, one good indication is that WotC has done market research, has direct sales figures to work with (their own and Kenzer's by the way, since they licensed the right to make Hackmaster to Kenzer), and seems to have decided that it is not a "huge untapped market".


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 30, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I suppose a rough guess could be had by comparing the relative sales of the Hackmaster PHB with the 3e D&D PHB. If we could get that, we could see just how bug the potential market might be.
> 
> ...


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 30, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> *That's the way to  be objective Storm Raven.*




Umm, what exactly are you trying to say here? That the Gord books weren't used as an example of the flexible nature of 1e? (They were), or that they are good evidence of that despite the fact that they seriously bend the rules to accomodate the main character?


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 30, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> *Things aren't that simple. Only the hardcore gamers who have internet access and register at sites are represented.*




Yes, and if just 10% of the hypothetical 15,000 1e afficionadoes fall into the category of "hardcore fans with internet access" then there would be 1,500 people who are registered for Dragonsfoot.org and the Kenzer site in my example. I don't have their total membership, but my guess is that it is far lower then 1,500 members.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Sep 30, 2002)

Once more to the brink old enemy.

For hate's sake...

Oh crap it's already 5:35?

Dammit! 

I gotta go home and watch the baby.

Keep that frame of mind I'll be back tomorrow.... VILLAIN!


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 30, 2002)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Theuderic, do you know what a fallacy is? *




 Impressive,very impressive. Your mastery of the English language is quite something. I am humbled compared to your reasoning powers and acute observation. Yes I believe i have been converted. Like a Saxon I have been converted. I will play 3rd E. I will like 3rd E . I will see no fallacies in this.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 30, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *Someone who isn't out to de-mythologize Gygax?
> 
> STORM RAVEN!!!!!!*




I'm not out to de-mythologize Gygax, I don't find him to be mythic to begin with. He's a game designer. He's done good things, he's made products that have set the industry standard at times. He's also made medicore products and some fairly lousy products.

Treating him like some deity does him no honor. It merely whitewashes a long and very human career. Yes, the Gord books were okay, no the statistical description of Gord contained in the books is not a testament to 1e being a really flexible game. It is that simple.


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 30, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yes, and if just 10% of the hypothetical 15,000 1e afficionadoes fall into the category of "hardcore fans with internet access" then there would be 1,500 people who are registered for Dragonsfoot.org and the Kenzer site in my example. I don't have their total membership, but my guess is that it is far lower then 1,500 members. *




 Say so tactics can be employed by either side of the fence. I am going to get the numbers myself somehow. I have a new mission!
Do you know what percentage of people are considered "hardcore" among the hobby? Lets both work together and get the facts shall we? I will contact you with the details and we will go from there. And yes I am crazy. I'm using the computer at the hospital right now as we speak!


----------



## Moorcrys (Sep 30, 2002)

Perhaps this comment isn't linked enough to the 1e/3e acid arrows that are being lobbed back and forth between opposing camps (did you like that I used a spell in both editions soas not to offend either side?) but:

One thing I DO wish they had done about 3e is had a diversity of skills for all the classes and collapsed some of the 'duh' skills into certain classes themselves.  That way people wouldn't be as encouraged to all pick pretty much the same skills.

For instance, I wouldn't mind seeing spellcraft a 'class-automatic' skill for the primary spellcasters (like clerics, druids, wizards, sorcerers), functioning much like bardic lore, which would free up a point to allow them to pick more 'character' defining skills, such as knowledge skills, profession, craft skill, or some cross-class skill.  Same with perform for bards, knowledge (religion) for pally's and clerics, etc.  Then you could optional rule a way for a character who DIDN'T want that class skill to switch it out for something else that fit a strong character concept.

Anyway, just an opinion, but I would like to the skill system be a way of encouraging diversity in characters of the same class.

Moorcrys


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Sep 30, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *But, all I was sa-...?
> 
> BURNING BEAMING LASERS!!!
> 
> ...




Gene, I see your point, but I need to point out that you are probably even more dogmatic than those you are lampooning in this post. Also, what did you expect? This is a 3e/d20 site, after all. Can you honestly tell me that you have neither witnessed 3e fans being pounced on at sites like Dragonsfoot, nor pounced on them yourself? When Dragonsfoot's 3e forum went up, it was pretty tough to have any conversation at all about 3e without fans of other editions derailing it almost right off the bat by necessitating a justification of each and every 3e/d20 system. I have read that it has gotten friendlier, but I got out of the habit of going there because of that. So it's not like this is somehow unique to 3e/d20 sites.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 30, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *But, all I was sa-...?
> 
> BURNING BEAMING LASERS!!!
> 
> ...



Wow, that's hilarious. You know, nobody can actually interrupt you, Gene. The reason you haven't been able to make any real points in this debate isn't because people have been cutting you off -- it's because you don't have any real points to make.

If you like 1E, that's great. I have many many fond memories of playing that game. There are pretty solid reasons for saying that 3E is a better-designed game, though -- it's more balanced, it's easier to understand the key mechanics, it relies less on charts and more on formulas (which make it easier to build additions on to or to remove elements from).

Now, you or Theuderic or anyone may not consider any of these things important. That's perfectly fine and you should play whatever game makes you happiest. That ought to be why we play games -- to be happy. But the only reasons I have heard as to why 1E is better than 3E are that 1E is less rules-intensive, supports power-gaming less easily, is easier to stat and manage (especially for the DM) and is easier to modify.

To these four points I respond: 

I'd rather have more rules that are easy to remove than less rules -- that is, I don't mind having lots of rules IF I can easily trash them if I don't like them. In my experience 3E certainly fits the bill on this point. I have had no trouble taking out rules components that I don't want to bother with. I don't use miniatures or grids or a host of other rules.

I recall power-gaming with relish in 1E. Don't know how you would judge something like this but it was certainly trivial in 1E to accomplish.

Generating stat blocks for NPC is, again, trivial in 3E. All I really need is a Base Attack Bonus, an AC and some hit point. I just wing stuff like Init, Saves and Skills. Just like I used to wing everything in 1E. The difference is that if I want to get really specific, the system already supports it much better than 1E did.

Likewise with modifying the rules. I LOVE mucking around in 3E's guts. Results are more predictable, more rewarding and the core of the game continues to feel the same.

What does this prove? This proves that the reasons provided for saying that 1E is best are not difficult to counter. I have not heard you provide any counters to the reasons for saying that 3E is better-designed. That is, it's better balanced, it's easier to learn and it's easier to modify.

These may be unimportant to you and that's fine. But they remain reasons to vote 3E (if one needs to vote at all, I don't feel the need but I didn't start this thread). If you've got arguments, I'm listening.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Sep 30, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *
> Gene, I see your point, but I need to point out that you are probably even more dogmatic than those you are lampooning in this post. Also, what did you expect? *




Well I suppose you're right. 

But I play 3rd edition as well.

So therefore I would be a perfect judge...

Hmmm....

I am perfect.

I AM NOMAD.

_*But you vaporized those 3e players! *_

THEY WERE NOT ONE WITH THE BODY. THEY WERE ENJOYING ENEMIES AND ALLIES.

_*That's not right, you heartless dual system playing machine, it's just a game!*_

LOGIC DICTATES TO REMOVE THOSE NOT OF THE BODY...

_*It's part of the 3rd edition system. That is what is logical, you are illogical, NOMAD because yooouuu caaanot feeel the need for eccentric non-player characters! Your super "Gygax probability" processor can pump them out like it was nothing but we're FLESH and BLOOD! You're a MACHINE!*_

ERROR! ERROR! IMPERFECT! I AM NOMAD! I AM LANDRU! IMPERFECT!

(fizzle, pop, fizzle, crackle, fizzle, snap)

*KABOOOOM!*


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 30, 2002)

> _Originally posted by GENEWEIGEL _



How achingly, depressingly unfunny.

I mean, seriously, man.  Writing in captials doesn't substitue for having anything interesting to say.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Sep 30, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *How achingly, depressingly unfunny.
> 
> I mean, seriously, man.  Writing in captials doesn't substitue for having anything interesting to say. *




I have to admit the Nomad reference made me laugh.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Sep 30, 2002)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *Wow, that's hilarious. You know, nobody can actually interrupt you, Gene. The reason you haven't been able to make any real points in this debate isn't because people have been cutting you off -- it's because you don't have any real points to make.
> *




Here's a real point: It's just a game.

Here's another real point: Gary would have made a more popular Third Edition.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Oct 1, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *How achingly, depressingly unfunny.
> 
> I mean, seriously, man.  Writing in captials doesn't substitue for having anything interesting to say. *




This man makes fun of such serious concerns of mine whether my favorite role playing game is as good as the original or not.

Star Trek references against *my* game?

Why *my* game?

There's Palladium and GURPS still out there why doesn't he go after those.

Omigod I think I'm depressed, no, I'm aching on the inside this is so...

so...

*ACHINGLY, DEPRESSINGLY UNFUNNY!!!!!!!!!* 

LIGHTEN UP!


----------



## Theuderic (Oct 1, 2002)

You want to know what is achingly, depressingly funny? Herman Land!


----------



## Tiefling (Oct 1, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> *
> 
> And what evidence do you have to the contrary? *




*HA HA HA HA HA* no. Sorry. The burden of proof lies with the accuser.



			
				GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *Barsoomcore: I've made my point and people understand what I'm saying...*




Actually I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what you're saying. You seem to suggest that by releasing the 1e material in an SRD or into the public domain, WotC will make lots of money. The question is how is WotC going to make money from that? They've licensed out the right to sell old material in PDF format to SVGames. They're making money that way. By doing what you suggest they would (A) lose that income and (B) encourage people to play 1e rather than 3e, their primary product, thus losing money. I don't deny that it would be a boon to the fans but to claim that it "makes total marketing sense" or that they should do it despite the fact that it's against their interests is silly.


----------



## Theuderic (Oct 1, 2002)

That is so true. How did you ever get to be so sensible?


----------



## Holy Bovine (Oct 1, 2002)

_
This is the thread that never ends, 
It goes on and on my friends.
This is the thread that never ends, 
It goes on and on my friends.
This is the thread that never ends, 
It goes on and on my friends.
This is the thread that never ends, 
It goes on and on my friends.
This is the thread that never ends, 
It goes on and on my friends.
This is the thread that never ends, 
It goes on and on my friends.
This is the thread that never ends, 
It goes on and on my friends.
This is the thread that never ends, 
It goes on and on my friends.
This is the thread that never ends, 
It goes on and on my friends.
This is the thread that never ends, 
It goes on and on my friends.
This is the thread that never ends, 
It goes on and on my friends.
This is the thread that never ends, 
It goes on and on my friends.
This is the thread that never ends, 
It goes on and on my friends.
This is the thread that never ends, 
It goes on and on my friends.
This is the thread that never ends, 
It goes on and on my friends.
This is the thread that never ends, 
It goes on and on my friends.
This is the thread that never ends, 
It goes on and on my friends.
This is the thread that never ends, 
It goes on and on my friends.
This is the thread that never ends, 
It goes on and on my friends.
This is the thread that never ends, 
It goes on and on my friends.
This is the thread that never ends, 
It goes on and on my friends.
This is the thread that never ends, 
It goes on and on my friends.
_


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Oct 1, 2002)

Holy Bovine said:
			
		

> *
> This is the thread that never ends,
> It goes on and on my friends.
> *




Some people started posting it
not knowing what it was
but they'll continue trolling here forever just because
This is the thread that never ends, 
It goes on and on my friends.
This is the thread that never ends, 
It goes on and on my friends.
This is the thread that never ends, 
It goes on and on my friends.
etc


----------



## Theuderic (Oct 1, 2002)

Yes Meepo and you have contributed quite nicely I might add.


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Oct 1, 2002)

I try.


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 1, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *How achingly, depressingly unfunny.
> 
> I mean, seriously, man.  Writing in captials doesn't substitue for having anything interesting to say. *




Oh, pffft. I don't agree with him, but I thought it was pretty darn amusing.  

We're getting to the point where the thread is just about over. Unless anyone has any gripping need to continue, I'll close it later today. No real rush, though.


----------



## diaglo (Oct 1, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Umm, what exactly are you trying to say here? That the Gord books weren't used as an example of the flexible nature of 1e? (They were), or that they are good evidence of that despite the fact that they seriously bend the rules to accomodate the main character? *




they may have been used as evidence for flexibility but not by* me.*

i simply asked and even said_ as a side note: _if someone had read them. they were not part of the argument. although both you and i know someone was going to mention them.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 1, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *Here's a real point: It's just a game.
> 
> Here's another real point: Gary would have made a more popular Third Edition.*




I doubt it. If this were true, one would expect Lejendary Adventures to be selling better than it has thus far. While it has not been a commercial failure by all accounts, it does not appear to be selling any better than a dozen other game systems either.


----------



## Ezrael (Oct 1, 2002)

Well, I've come to the thread late, but I do have some things to say so I'll say them.

I loved D&D when I first stumbled upon that purple boxed set. I was perfectly happy playing an elf as my character class. To this day, if I'm going to run a game for a complete group of new players, I consider dragging out the D&D Compendium. We originally rotated DM's, and many of us owned the older supplements for the D&D game like Greyhawk and Blackmoor, and it was all fine by us. Put us in front of a dungeon and we'd clean it out.

I switched over to AD&D mainly because my game group did. And it was like a revelation. Race and class combinations. Rangers. Jesus, did I love rangers. To this day, whenever I start playing a new campaign, I consider playing a ranger just because my most memorable character was one. (And strangely enough, he had two swords...we worked out a compromise that I basically used the left sword like a shield in game terms, which was fine by me...I wanted two swords solely because I thought it looked cool, not because I was going for damage): granted, I think a lot of people identify rangers with RA Salvatore, but that's okay, a lot of people identify them with Aragorn. To me, rangers are Robin Hood. AD&D served the purpose I asked it to: it let me play a game and pretend to be someone else. To be honest, I've never been the subtlest player and as a result, a lot of the rule problems people have spoken about weren't obvious to me...I played characters who either filled enemies with arrows or closed with them and got messy. AD&D did fine by me for this purpose. As a DM, I found it harder to run, but not so much so that I was particularly disenchanted with it.

I'd definitely say that AD&D was my 'gateway drug' towards other RPG's. I would never have played Champions, GURPS, or Palladium if I hadn't played it. It's funny to realize that I played AD&D, both first and second edition, for as long as I did. I played that game in one form or another for almost two decades, from the beginning of the eighties to the end of the nineties. I have horror stories, of course, and there were elements I didn't like (especially when the second edition came around...some of the race and class choices they made annoyed me) but in general I played and enjoyed it for quite some time. But I did drift away, and there were several reasons for that drift. The first was time: I couldn't play as much as I wanted to during and after college, especially when I moved around as much as I did. The second was that I'd come to enjoy having more control over my character's starting abilities than I felt I was getting from AD&D...point buy systems had become the games I was most often playing. The third was that I felt a bit put off by the people who were playing AD&D. Now, I'm aware that snobbery and elitism are silly when one is talking about RPG's, but people who believe that a rigid legalistic mindset is somehow worthwhile when talking about one's _hobby_ have always seemed to be putting the cart before the horse to me, and that was all I was finding. (Admittedly, that's subjective, but I can only speak to my experiences and the way I was thinking at the time.) I play games to have fun, not to have a ten minute discussion of weapon speeds, which is what was happening to me a lot more than I was comfortable with.

So around 1996, I more or less stopped playing AD&D. I came back to the first edition rules for a memorable summer in 1998 or so, when one of my earliest game groups (and the longest lived) got back together over the course of a few months and more or less wrapped up our characters. And it was fun, and we enjoyed ourselves. And that was it for me and AD&D.

I would not be playing D&D, and possibly not playing RPG's at all, right now if not for 3E. Not only has it brought back a lot of the simplicity I liked in the original game while keeping the options of AD&D, it's brought back _players_, so far as I can tell. I enjoy the game immensely, and to me, that's what the games have always been for.

As to superiority or inferiority, I can't see any reason to make that judgement. I liked AD&D. I like D&D 3E. I enjoy having skills and feats, I think it's something that helps keep options open. I vastly prefer multiclassing as it now stands to the old multiclass/dualclass rules. I think, however, that without the evolution of the game marketplace fueled by AD&D's existence over the years that these features would not exist, and therefore it's like asking if I think grandpa is inferior to me. He's my _grandpa_. AD&D is a big chunk of my past. I'm not going to rank on it, nor am I going to pretend that I don't think the new version meets my needs now.  I find it more easily introduced to new players, more streamlined, and I prefer the mechanics of the new game. 

I'm not going to make an inferiority/superiority judgement. I am, however, going to keep playing 3E over the old rules. I liked them, they had their time, and now I've moved on. Not without fondness, but definitely and completely.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 1, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> * Say so tactics can be employed by either side of the fence. I am going to get the numbers myself somehow. I have a new mission.*




I'm guessing, and I said so. The real problem is that the burden of proof lies with the side advancing an argument that something should be done that is not now being done. Thus far, there have been lots of claims that there is a "huge untapped market" of people aching to buy 1e based material, but there has been no evidence presented that this is true.

Given that the one entity that stands to both make money from tapping this alleged "untapped market" appears to have the most information about the matter (in the form of market reaearch and sales data from their own and various licensed properties) _and_ has declined to tap into this "huge untapped market", I would tend to view with a skeptical eye any claims that such an "untapped market" is actually significant.

The burden of proof is on you. Show us evidence other than speculation that such a market is actually "huge" and not just you and the 20 guys you know.


----------



## Thorvald Kviksverd (Oct 1, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I doubt it. If this were true, one would expect Lejendary Adventures to be selling better than it has thus far. While it has not been a commercial failure by all accounts, it does not appear to be selling any better than a dozen other game systems either. *




I don't think this is a fair measure--not with the system being separate from the _Dungeons & Dragons_ name.

In fact, if such a thing were possible, it would have be interesting to see how well 3e would have done absent the brand recognition.

Ah well, just a bit of idle speculation...


----------



## Dinkeldog (Oct 1, 2002)

Thorvald Kviksverd said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I don't think this is a fair measure--not with the system being separate from the Dungeons & Dragons name.
> 
> ...




With all due respect to Col_Pladoh:  I think his name alone carries a lot of recognition, probably close to that associated with D&D among gamers.  However, I think he would have wilfully reverted a lot of the 2nd edition stuff back out.  We probably wouldn't have gotten free multi-classing and the elimination of race-class restrictions.  

In addition, you have the baggage of being written by the good Colonel.  As many people loathe him and his style as love him, it seems.  The number of people that stopped playing AD&D when other options appeared is legion.  (I wasn't one of them, btw, just an objective observation.)

Probably the most important name attached to D&D is Jonathon Tweet's.  He's got an incredible reputation among the gaming friends I've had that had no interest in AD&D's restrictive gaming paradigm.


----------



## dcas (Oct 1, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yes, and if just 10% of the hypothetical 15,000 1e afficionadoes fall into the category of "hardcore fans with internet access" then there would be 1,500 people who are registered for Dragonsfoot.org and the Kenzer site in my example. I don't have their total membership, but my guess is that it is far lower then 1,500 members.




It's actually in excess of 1,700 (1,551 on the Kenzer site and 165 on Dragonsfoot). It should be noted, of course, that many of the users of the Kenzer fora are there because of Kingdoms of Kalamar and not necessarily HackMaster. Even Dragonsfoot has a 3e section as well as an "Edition Wars" section.

I don't think that comparing sales of the HackMaster PHB to the 3e PHB will necessarily be helpful in determining the relative sizes of the 1e/3e markets. I know a number of 1e/2e aficionados who view HackMaster as a great big joke (I'm not among them) and who want nothing to do with it. And it's certainly not true that everyone who makes an investment in HackMaster does so out of nostalgia. Heck, if I wanted nostalgia, I still have all of my 1e/2e materials -- I could just bust them out and run with them!


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 1, 2002)

Thorvald Kviksverd said:
			
		

> *I don't think this is a fair measure--not with the system being separate from the Dungeons & Dragons name.*





You misundertand me I think. I did not mean that Lejendary Adventures would have to outsell 3e in order for their evidence that a Gygax designed new version of D&D would outsell the current version. What I said was that one would look for Gygax's current game to be doing very well by industry standards in order to have good evidence.

What I am saying is this: the general evidence is that Lejendary Adventures sells okay, but not necessarily great. I'd be surprised if it was in the top 5 of non-D&D, non-White Wolf RPG lines sold today. Given that he does not appear to be outperforming his peers who have similarly limited brand recognition (and he has his own _name_ recognition to help him out), I'm inclined to think that the evidence that he could produce a more popular version of 3e D&D is rather weak.



> *In fact, if such a thing were possible, it would have be interesting to see how well 3e would have done absent the brand recognition.*




Impossible to tell. We can only draw conclusions from the evidence available, and the evidence available doesn't include anything that would be real helpful on this score.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Oct 1, 2002)

I'll think I'll just crawl under a rock now and die!



Seriously, this is interesting. It isn't an issue of 1st edition vs 3rd edition or Greyhawk vs Living Greyhawk or King Kong vs Godzilla.

The truth of the matter is there really is no issue at all.

We're all a bunch of jerks who spend too much time dwelling on how the TSR corporation lost focus years ago and though unqualified restated anyway that "I publish D&D therefore I am D&D" and the aftermath created all these bogus grudge matches.

First edition will live forever simply because it has a style that can't be replicated. All the elements were there at that time and we'll never see it again.

The Third Edition went the route of one DM's custom ruled optioned out campaign but it did show masses and masses of new players how that could be achieved right away.

So antiquarians were reviled of the capability of a first time player to manipulate the material so much as to not even come close to the medieval elements of the game. 

How does one get around this?



Use the 3e books for options is one. 

Second 3e characters can be invaders from another plane. (this could be handled with my chart I mentioned earlier.)

Thirdly 3e monsters, treasure other facets are easier to translate into 1e than vise-versa.

Fourth, come to the understanding that most 3e super fans aren't as scholarly and perhaps never wanted to be. And there's nothing wrong with "just playing a game".

[/list=1] 

Besides we all know Lejendary Adventures is superior to all D&D anyway!

Just kidding, Gary!


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 1, 2002)

dcas said:
			
		

> *It's actually in excess of 1,700 (1,551 on the Kenzer site and 165 on Dragonsfoot). It should be noted, of course, that many of the users of the Kenzer fora are there because of Kingdoms of Kalamar and not necessarily HackMaster. Even Dragonsfoot has a 3e section as well as an "Edition Wars" section.*





So, basically the only concrete evidence we have is that there are 165 Dragonsfoot users and some indeterminate number of Kenzer guys (under 1,551, probably less than half that I'm guessing) who can be called 1e afficionados. That's a reall small potential market, even if you assume that there are nine 1e fans who would buy stuff for every registered user on those sites.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 1, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *Fourth, come to the understanding that most 3e super fans aren't as scholarly and perhaps never wanted to be.*




I'd have to say this is one of the silliest statements I have seen on the ENBoards in a long time.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Oct 1, 2002)

I implied scholarly towards the game.

Sorry.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Oct 1, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> **snip*
> The Third Edition went the route of one DM's custom ruled optioned out campaign but it did show masses and masses of new players how that could be achieved right away.
> *snip* *




Well, I know Piratecat was a playtester, so it must be his custom ruled optioned out campaign.  I could do (and have done) worse.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 1, 2002)

Here are the rules mechanics that I feel are inferior in 1e.

Wierd saving throw types vs. dex, con, wis, saves.

AC going down and not quite even attack chart vs easy to compute attack modifiers versus AC going up.

Thief skills using their own mechanic and no choice in skill types vs. integrated skills, plenty of choices, but still making rogues the skill men.

Awkward multiclassing and dual classing versus 3e multiclassing mechanic. I like the balance and player choices offered in 3e multiclassing.

Demihuman level limits and humans only benefitting from unlimited class advancement potential versus 3e no default level limits and humans have mechanical benefits.

One minute combat rounds versus six seconds for picturing what goes on in the combat and describing it as it happens.

Irregular advancement charts (both between classes and between levels) vs unified advancement chart for all classes and levels.

Some core classes having max levels and others are infinite versus all core classes being infinite.

stat bonuses irregularly granted and only at high ends of possible range versus smooth bonuses.

First level magic users being one shot spell casters versus generally at least two 1st level shots.

monsters only have int stat done out versus full stats taken into consideration for all monsters.

That's it for now.


----------



## RobNJ (Oct 1, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *The Third Edition went the route of one DM's custom ruled optioned out campaign but it did show masses and masses of new players how that could be achieved right away.
> 
> So antiquarians were reviled of the capability of a first time player to manipulate the material so much as to not even come close to the medieval elements of the game.*



I have absolutely no idea what these two paragraphs mean.

The first one seems to indicate one person and one person only determined how 3rd Edition would be based on his individual preferences (which is quite obviously incorrect), but I have absolutely no idea what this means, or what it has to do with what you said:  "but it did show masses and masses of new players how that could be achieved right away."

The second just makes no sense whatsoever.  Are you suggesting that those who wrote 3rd Edition were first time players?  Or do you have a problem with new DMs being able to customize things however they wanted?

I have a very hard time taking your argument seriously when you can't express yourself with anything approaching clarity.


----------



## Thorvald Kviksverd (Oct 1, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You misundertand me I think. I did not mean that Lejendary Adventures would have to outsell 3e in order for their evidence that a Gygax designed new version of D&D would outsell the current version. What I said was that one would look for Gygax's current game to be doing very well by industry standards in order to have good evidence.
> 
> What I am saying is this: the general evidence is that Lejendary Adventures sells okay, but not necessarily great. I'd be surprised if it was in the top 5 of non-D&D, non-White Wolf RPG lines sold today. Given that he does not appear to be outperforming his peers who have similarly limited brand recognition (and he has his own name recognition to help him out), I'm inclined to think that the evidence that he could produce a more popular version of 3e D&D is rather weak.*




Good points, but I would add this...

What would Gary have been able to offer had he not been hampered, either legally or otherwise, from building upon the foundation he had layed with D&D?

I should have been more precise, it's not just the name recognition of D&D, it's also all the accoutrements that go along with it--particularly when it comes to tugging on the heartstrings (and thereby loosening the wallets) of long time fans.







> *Impossible to tell. We can only draw conclusions from the evidence available, and the evidence available doesn't include anything that would be real helpful on this score. *




Agreed.

Still, I thought it worthwhile to remind others that things could have been different--whether for good or ill we'll never know but, for myself at least, I think I probably would have preferred the result.

Gotta run.

Game On


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 1, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *I implied scholarly towards the game.
> 
> Sorry. *




Well, now your statement is not just silly, it is also incoherent.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 1, 2002)

Thorvald Kviksverd said:
			
		

> *What would Gary have been able to offer had he not been hampered, either legally or otherwise, from building upon the foundation he had layed with D&D?*




From the evidence available, I'd say it is entirely unsupported that he would have produced a version more _popular_ than 3e. He might have produced one that some people like more, but in general, I think the evidence supports the view that he would probably not have had the same success that the current version of 3e has had.


----------



## Numion (Oct 1, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *
> Here's another real point: Gary would have made a more popular Third Edition.
> *




Here's another real point: If he really could have, he would have.


----------



## Numion (Oct 1, 2002)

And on the original subject of inferiority: Why yes, 1e really is inferior. Compared to 3e at least. This Lejandary Adventures I don't know, so it's hard to say.


----------



## ForceUser (Oct 1, 2002)

When I was 12 years old, I stumbled across a copy of _Unearthed Arcana_. I didn't know what D&D was, I just knew the book had neat pictures and some interesting text. A lot of the text was incomprehensibly arcane, however. You know - the rules stuff. Still, I became interested, and my brother and I played "D&D" much the same way we played cops & robbers. A couple of years later someone bought me the basic D&D red box edition, and I learned to play the game as intended (although it was still with just me and my brother). By the time I entered high school 2E had come along, I met other kids who liked D&D, and I began playing in my first real campaign. 

To me, 1E has always been that incomprehensible previous edition. It has stuck in my head that way - interesting, but arcane, outdated, and too difficult to bother learning. I'm not saying it is, in reality, like that. But that's how my subconcious views it, and as a result I have always steered away from it. 

I got bored with 2E and quit for a few years, but when 3E emerged on the horizon I became enthralled. When I bought it, I fell in love. I won't play D&D any other way. 3E is to me what 1E is to PCat and some others who've posted here. 

If that makes sense.


----------



## johnsemlak (Oct 1, 2002)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> *
> 
> In addition, you have the baggage of being written by the good Colonel.  As many people loathe him and his style as love him, it seems.  The number of people that stopped playing AD&D when other options appeared is legion.  (I wasn't one of them, btw, just an objective observation.)
> 
> *




Has there really ever been a signiicantly large number of players of non-D&D fantasy rpgs?  I really don't know.  I remember seeing somewhere a stat that  even in TSRs worst times 3 out of 4 gamers or something like that would buy the D&D name if given options.  I could be wrong on that--don't quote me.

Does anybody have reliable info on how popular non-D&D games ever were?


----------



## Numion (Oct 1, 2002)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Does anybody have reliable info on how popular non-D&D games ever were? *




Didn't White Wolf actually outsell TSR for a while in the nineties, when the vampire / goth enthusiasm was at it's height? IIRC, of course.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Oct 1, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, now your statement is not just silly, it is also incoherent. *




Now you see why I resort to humor?

Your automatic negative response is just as incoherent.

If I'm so incoherent law man why do I always rattle your crop?


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 1, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *Now you see why I resort to humor?*





Because you have no real points to make and little of value to add?



> *Your automatic negative response is just as incoherent.*




No, my negative response is easy to figure out in this case: your statements concerning the relatively scholarliness of 1e and 3e players are silly and make no sense. That makes them incoherent.



> *If I'm so incoherent law man why do I always rattle your crop?*




Only in your mind do you actually "rattle my crop".


----------



## dcas (Oct 1, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> So, basically the only concrete evidence we have is that there are 165 Dragonsfoot users and some indeterminate number of Kenzer guys (under 1,551, probably less than half that I'm guessing) who can be called 1e afficionados. That's a reall small potential market, even if you assume that there are nine 1e fans who would buy stuff for every registered user on those sites.




You would be guessing wrong. There is more activity on the HackMaster boards than the Kalamar boards on the Kenzer site. In any case, as I pointed out in my previous post, it really isn't possible to determine the market for 1e from sales of HackMaster. More than a few AD&D fans were turned off by HackMaster, and quite a few HackMaster players have never played AD&D.

AFAIK Kenzer has an exclusive license to the O(A)D&D game. I don't think Wizards could publish anything in this area even if they felt there was a market for it.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Oct 1, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Because you have no real points to make and little of value to add? [/B]




Well, a compliment!

I can't believe that Storm Raven has admitted that I have contributed a smidgeon of value!

I'll think I'll have to add that to my signature:

* STORM RAVEN of Leesburg, Virginia has declared, "(Gene Weigel)(has)[snip]value to add.*

RIGHT ON!


----------



## Tiefling (Oct 1, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL, is this how you relate to people in real life?


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Oct 1, 2002)

Why? You willing to sign up for the campaign?


----------



## Bryan Vining (Oct 1, 2002)

*Umm... pardon me, but..*



> Please express to me your (Bryan) problem with consistent, stream-lined mechanics, greater and more balanced strategies, etc...i have my doubts that anyone is positivly turned off by it.




I don't recall saying that I had a problem with streamlined mechanics or greater and more balanced strategies.  



> The aspects of 3e which are being argued here are hardly popular amongst only a 'small subset of gamers'.




Agreed, but that wasn't what I was saying.  I clearly failed to communicate my point to you.  It is as follows:  No game system is superior or inferior in and of itself.  Such a value judgement has to be made my one or more persons.  My feeling is that the most meaningful context in which those judgements are made is within the context of a single gaming group, which is, I think you'll agree, a very small subset of gamers.  

Now, is that to say that opinions offered in a more general context (such as this message board) are not meaningful?  Of course not.  Game designers read these boards, and they are interested in the opinions of gamers (who are their market, after all).  However, at the end of the day, I and any other gamer will buy products for the game system that suits their gaming group(s) (or themselves) best.  

Theory of game design would be meaningless if it were out of tune with what a lot of gamers like.  3E is streamlined, elegant, and well codified (its highest merit in my opinion, but a bit of a double-edged sword).  All of that wouldn't mean squat, though, if it didn't sell.  I think we all get that.  The thing is, though, that those characterstics and its popularity do not make it inherently "better".  It just is.  I will reiterate the point that popularity does not equal quality (though the two might be found together).  

To illustrate that point, I'll take an example from the music world that most of us can relate to.  The Beatles and the Dave Clark Five were tremendously popular in 1964 and 1965.  While their music was certainly very good, had it not evolved, the Beatles would today be a better-remembered Dave Clark Five (who, incidentally, were occasionally better sellers of albums than the Beatles in these years).  What ultimately made the Beatles one of the unquestionably most influential bands in history was not their popularity in and of itself.  It was their experimentation with all sorts of recording tricks and the freedom to do what they wanted with their music without worry that it wouldn't sell.  Their popularity carried these new sounds and ideas very far, and it was an essential component in the spread of their influence, but their contribution to music only came about from their popularity tangentially (though their popularity was one of the reasons they quite touring).  The Dave Clark Five, OTOH, are little remembered by folks who didn't live in the 60s, even though their popularity was almost as substantial as the Beatles for a few years.  

So, back to D&D.  3E is not higher quality because it is popular.  Nor does its popularity necessarily mean that it is higher quality.  There is almost certainly a correlation between the popularity of 3E and its quality, but a correlation is not proof of cause.  Without a careful survey of who's buying 3E and why, all we have is a correlation, not proof.  

I play 3E.  I play HackMaster.  I play 1E.  Each has its merits and demerits.  Each has its own distinct flavor.  Nothing quite conjures fantasy for me like 1E, but it's rules are less consistent and poorly codified compared to 3E.  I love the freedom of 3E, but its flavor is, to me, less wistful and more about ass-kicking.  Neither features the richness of information and game mechanical benefits and penalties for role-playing that HackMaster does.  For me, its all a matter of taste and mood.  So, no, I do not think that 3E is better or superior to 1E.  It is different.  It is clearer and more consistent.  It is better codified.  But sometimes, I don't care about those things.  Sometimes I want the flavor of 1E.  It's just that simple, really.  

Anyway, this post is already rather too long, and I've other things I need to be doing.  

Cheers,
Bryan


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Oct 1, 2002)

Well said, Bryan!


Let's lock this thread up and leave it at that!


----------



## Vaxalon (Oct 1, 2002)

*Re: Umm... pardon me, but..*



			
				Bryan Vining said:
			
		

> * No game system is superior or inferior in and of itself. *




I think you're wrong.  I'll postulate an extreme example to illustrate why.

Let's say there's a game out there called "Sod".  The game is a fairly standard RPG, except that it prominently features the following rule:

"Whenever a player speaks, the gamemaster should secretly roll one six-sided die, and if it comes up 1, kick the player hard, under the table.  If he cries out in pain, strikes back, or otherwise expresses discontent with the attack, then whatever action his character was taking should fail."

This, to me, would be a BAD GAME.  The reason for this is that the number of gamers who would find it fun is very, very small, possibly zero.  No, it's not Universally bad... but the utility of Sod is very, very low.

On the other hand, let's say you've got a game that is beloved by just about everyone who tries it, called "Kei".  It has something to appeal to everyone.

This, to me, would be a GOOD GAME.  The reason for this is that even for those who have not played it,  there is a good expectation that someone sitting down to try it is going to enjoy it.

So "good" and "bad" can have broad, universal connotations as well as local, personal ones, but in a more statistical context.

What you CAN'T do is assume that your own personal preferences are reflected in the broader gamer community.


----------



## Bryan Vining (Oct 1, 2002)

Well, Vax, I take your point, but that defines the worth of an RPG in terms of its widespread utility, which may not matter very much to the people playing it.  

On a lighter note, I imagine Sod would be tremendously popular in certain adult institutions about the world


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 1, 2002)

dcas said:
			
		

> *You would be guessing wrong. There is more activity on the HackMaster boards than the Kalamar boards on the Kenzer site.*





You misunderstood, the point was that even if _all 1,551_ members of the Kalamar boards were 1e fans who would buy stuff, and there were 9 unregistered 1e fans for every one on the Kalmar and Dragonsfoot borads, that would still be a really small market, probably not one worth WotC spending any time catering to when they can sell hundreds of thousands of 3e PHBs instead.



> *In any case, as I pointed out in my previous post, it really isn't possible to determine the market for 1e from sales of HackMaster. More than a few AD&D fans were turned off by HackMaster, and quite a few HackMaster players have never played AD&D.*





It is the closest analogy we have. We work with the evidence we have available.



> *AFAIK Kenzer has an exclusive license to the O(A)D&D game. I don't think Wizards could publish anything in this area even if they felt there was a market for it. *




They have a license from WotC. If WotC wanted to, they could probably revoke the license, most licenses have revocation clauses in them, or must be renewed on a regular basis. If a "huge untapped market" was there, and there was money to be made, they would likely be trying to tap into it. They aren't, which seems like pretty good evidence that the alleged untapped market is not "huge", but is rather "pretty small".


----------



## jasamcarl (Oct 1, 2002)

*Bryan...*

Your point is well taken, and i largly agree. Preference does not equate with essential quality because the latter does not exist. But lets please be clear that preference is on the side of 3rd ed. And i hope you are willing to be consistent with this line of thought; if i ever see a negative _judgement_ on a product, behavor (game or not game related), expect to be called out....


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 1, 2002)

Although I'd certainly agree that quality and popularity are not necessarily equal, it seems just a tad pedantic to insist on the separation.  Since we have no real way of measuring quality of an RPG -- with the exception of the printing and binding, etc. of the books itself -- it's the only thing we _can_ measure.

Oh, and for the tangent developing, I certainly would not want a more "Gygaxian" D&D.  Gygax had very specific ideas about what he thought made the game good, including lots of "puzzle solving" and other tactical weirdness that I don't find interesting.  Modules like the _Tomb of Horrors_ which I find absolutely dismal, were the pinnacle of his style of playing.   His anecdotal stories in _Dragon Magazine_ certainly don't make me interested in his style of gaming.


----------



## Bryan Vining (Oct 1, 2002)

jasamcarl wrote...


> But lets please be clear that preference is on the side of 3rd ed. And i hope you are willing to be consistent with this line of thought




No problem there.  The number of 3E vs. 1E vs some of both players is probably unmeasureable and almost certainly not worth the effort.  I think we can all pretty much agree that more people seem to prefer 3E than are driven off by it.  Interestingly, I recently read a comment to the effect that about 50% of D&D players didn't make the transition from 1E to 2E.   I also remember the (seemingly large) number of posts after the announcement of 3E from people who swore they'd die before they changed editions.  Funny, that.


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Oct 1, 2002)

*Re: Re: Umm... pardon me, but..*



			
				Vaxalon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Let's say there's a game out there called "Sod".  The game is a fairly standard RPG, except that it prominently features the following rule:
> ...





That would be an incredibly fun game, for the GM.  In fact, I think I have a new house rule.


----------



## Geoffrey (Oct 2, 2002)

I mentioned earlier that I prefer OAD&D to 3E because of the skills and feats that make for huge NPC stat blocks. A number of posters responded by saying that the huge stat blocks are largely unnecessary. If that is so, let me pose a question:

Why does *every single* d20 module I've looked through have gargantuan stat blocks for NPCs who would have had merely a couple lines of stats in OAD&D? The stat blocks in d20 modules would choke a horse!

It seems that if it is accurate to say that gargantuan stat blocks are often unnecessary, then it would seem to be accurate to say that the d20 publishers are simply trying to increase their modules' page counts by filling them full of unnecessary stats.

So which is it:
Are the monstrously huge stat blocks necessary?
Or are the d20 modules full of worthless filler?


----------



## maddman75 (Oct 2, 2002)

There is a world of difference between notes for your own game and a professionally produced module.  When preparing your OD&D adventures do you make grayed out boxes of text for you to read, illustrations, and a full color cover?  I think not.

Here's a little trick for those that aren't trolling.  When you have to stat up an important NPC, keep it simple on his skills.  I do it like this.

Figure out how many skill points he gets a level.  This is simple enough - amount from class + Int modifier + 1 if human.  Figure that he has that many skills maxed out.  10th level human fighter with Int of 13?  Easy.  I'll give him Climb, Ride, Swim, and Tumble(cross).  Each score will be 13 (6 for tumble) modified by stats.  You don't even have to figure that part out ahead of time if you don't plan on using the skill.


----------



## Geoffrey (Oct 2, 2002)

But maddman75, I wasn't comparing d20 modules with my home-made OAD&D dungeons. I was comparing d20 modules with the 1st edition modules published by TSR. Whereas the 1st ed modules had perhaps a couple lines of stats for NPCs (the exception being, of course, for spell lists), d20 modules will often devote 25% (or more) of a page to an NPC's stat block.

Now, is this necessary for playing the module or not?

If it is necessary, then 3E is truly too stat-heavy for me to enjoy.

If it is not necessary, then the d20 publishers are padding their modules with a lot of fluff.


----------



## Tiefling (Oct 2, 2002)

I doubt it's necessary. Probably just the current fashion for doing things. Or maybe it is, as you said, for filler. Or both.


----------



## Theuderic (Oct 2, 2002)

LOL! You are all my children now.....


----------



## MerricB (Oct 2, 2002)

We're still in the early days of trying to find out a good format for d20 modules. Compare how the format changed in the early days of 1E.

Actually, we should be past the early days by now, and you can see in some modules shorter statblocks - often just the Hit Points. Check Monte Cook's _Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil_ - it uses hp & MM reference; hp, MM reference & small modification notes; and full stat-blocks.

As Wizards have now explicitely allowed publishers to refer to the "PHB", "DMG" & "MM", hopefully that will also cut down space.

Cheers!


----------



## Geoffrey (Oct 2, 2002)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *Check Monte Cook's Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil - it uses hp & MM reference; hp, MM reference & small modification notes; and full stat-blocks.*




Merric, I don't understand. Does this module contain full stat-blocks or not? From your post it seems like it doesn't, until the last four words of your post: "and full stat blocks".


----------



## Creideiki (Oct 2, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *But maddman75, I wasn't comparing d20 modules with my home-made OAD&D dungeons. I was comparing d20 modules with the 1st edition modules published by TSR. Whereas the 1st ed modules had perhaps a couple lines of stats for NPCs (the exception being, of course, for spell lists), d20 modules will often devote 25% (or more) of a page to an NPC's stat block.
> 
> Now, is this necessary for playing the module or not?
> 
> ...




_*Go with whatever
Makes you the most unhappy.
Desired effect wins!*_


----------



## Creideiki (Oct 2, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Merric, I don't understand. Does this module contain full stat-blocks or not? From your post it seems like it doesn't, until the last four words of your post: "and full stat blocks".  *




_*Seek out misery,
But sometimes full is needed.
Elsewhere it is not.*_


----------



## MerricB (Oct 2, 2002)

Three different styles in the one module, depending on need.

I'll illustrate with a few made-up examples:

*Style the First*
10 Goblins (hp 3 x4, 5 x2, 6 x4, see MM)

*Style the Second*
Bruno the Magnificent (human Ftr4, see DMG except also has Swim +4, and additional feat Combat Reflexes).

*Style the Third*
full stat block style which we're all familiar with. 

Most stat-blocks are given in the appendix, with the reference in the text being "1 War Weasel (hp 329, see Appendix 1)"

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Oct 2, 2002)

And so _that's_ what's happened to that blasted dolphin! Creideiki, don't you know the Four Galaxies are after you? What are you doing on ancient Earth? 

Cheers!


----------



## Vaxalon (Oct 2, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *Merric, I don't understand. Does this module contain full stat-blocks or not? From your post it seems like it doesn't, until the last four words of your post: "and full stat blocks".  *




It has page number and hit points in the text (so that it's not interrupted) with stat blocks in fine print in an appendix.

Generally speaking, stat blocks aren't necessary, but they speed things up a LOT.  Warhammer FRP does it, too, by the way.


----------



## Geoffrey (Oct 2, 2002)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *Most stat-blocks are given in the appendix, with the reference in the text being "1 War Weasel (hp 329, see Appendix 1)"*




I understand now, Merric!  

But these big stat blocks in the appendix is still something you never saw in TSR's OAD&D modules. The OAD&D modules didn't merely relegate big stat blocks to the back of modules for the simple reason that big stat blocks were utterly nonexistent.

Why, then, does 3E/d20 have lots of stats and OAD&D has few? I think the biggest culprits are skills and feats. IMO, the essential genius of D&D is the fact it is based on classes. This was watered down in several versions:

*post-Gygax 1st edition*: Nonweapon proficiencies were added in the DSG and the WSG.
*2nd edition*: Nonweapon proficiencies were added to the core rules (though were labeled as optional).
*HackMaster*: Skills are in the core rules and are not labeled optional, though they can easily be ignored.
*3rd edition*: Skills and feats are so integral to this game that I think the game couldn't be played without them (especially skills).

Skills/proficiencies/feats/whatever necessitate more stats. More stats means more factors to consider when running combat. It's all too complicated for my taste. I prefer straight character classes with no skills and such muddying the waters.

"But what if the character tries to do something not addressed in the rules?" That's what good DMing is for. D&D was played for over a decade before skills started creeping in. We had a great time. Those who wanted skills played GURPS. (To me, skills in D&D make as much sense as character classes in Call of Cthulhu.)

If WotC ever publishes a 3E Lite (no feats and skills, just a handful of classes with pre-selected abilities), then I'll carefully consider it. There are several things about 3E that I find attractive (the more rapid level-gain being one of the foremost), but the complexities of 3E as it stands turn me off.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 2, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *post-Gygax 1st edition: Nonweapon proficiencies were added in the DSG and the WSG.*




Nonweapon proficiencies were first added by Gary Gygax, in Oriental Adventures.

Saying that you can ignore skills in HM and can't in 3E seems odd, though.

Cheers!


----------



## Rhialto (Oct 2, 2002)

Yes, OD&D had shorter stat-blocks.  It also left so many holes, for so many situations that virtually every game was an off-the-cuff value call by the DM.

Yes, I know you OD&D fans extol the virtue of "making it up as we went along", and claim that all these new rules are just crutches.  And some old-timers still claim that the Model-T was the greatest car ever built, though their numbers grow mercifully smaller with each passing year.  Doesn't mean I find either opinion particularly convincing.  When dealing with reasonably simple actions, I like to be standing on solid ground, not relying on a DM's whim...


----------



## ced1106 (Oct 2, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *If WotC ever publishes a 3E Lite (no feats and skills, just a handful of classes with pre-selected abilities), then I'll carefully consider it. There are several things about 3E that I find attractive (the more rapid level-gain being one of the foremost), but the complexities of 3E as it stands turn me off. *




Seems like 3e added three things:
* Streamlined character attributes (ie. the modifiers)
* Complex combat (not that complex is bad)
* Skills and Feats


I **think** the three can be taken apart. Don't like the miniatures-based combat? Return everything back to +4 +2 -2 -4 combat modifiers. Skills and feats making character generation take too long? Don't use 'em (well, except for thieves!) -- you didn't back in AD&D.

I think the modifiers, where a stat of 14 actually means something, was a great idea.


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Oct 2, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Because OAD&D has very narrowly defined roles.  There's no difference between Joe Fighter and Bob Fighter.




> *
> I think the biggest culprits are skills and feats. IMO, the essential genius of D&D is the fact it is based on classes. This was watered down in several versions:
> *





If you ask me, the essential failing of D&D is that the classes, until now, were too narrowly focused.  In addition, there was no easy mechanic to resolve many of the non-combat things that creeped up.  Yes, there were ability checks, but there was no way to really improve your chances at succeeding in something.  What if you wanted to play, say, a fighter who could pick a lock?  Or a wizard who knew how to use a sword? 




> *
> Skills/proficiencies/feats/whatever necessitate more stats. More stats means more factors to consider when running combat.
> *





You only have to consider those factors which directly relate to combat, if all you're worried about is running combat.  What do you do if you want your NPC to do something non-combat related?



> *
> 
> It's all too complicated for my taste. I prefer straight character classes with no skills and such muddying the waters.
> 
> *





But don't you see how that could get repetitive?  




> *
> 
> "But what if the character tries to do something not addressed in the rules?" That's what good DMing is for. D&D was played for over a decade before skills started creeping in. We had a great time. Those who wanted skills played GURPS. (To me, skills in D&D make as much sense as character classes in Call of Cthulhu.)
> 
> *





I've played under a number of different DM's, but I've never once been in awe of somebody's ability to fudge.  Storytelling, adventure preperation, pacing, yes.  If I wanted someone who was good at pretending, I'd still be playing with the DM who showed up to one session on acid and took us through a rousing trip through the mushroom kingdom.




> *
> 
> If WotC ever publishes a 3E Lite (no feats and skills, just a handful of classes with pre-selected abilities), then I'll carefully consider it. There are several things about 3E that I find attractive (the more rapid level-gain being one of the foremost), but the complexities of 3E as it stands turn me off. *




Is 3E really COMPLICATED?   I mean, half the people who hate 3E say it's for drooling 12 year olds who want to play Pokemon with swords, and the other half of you think it's too complicated.  It can't be both.  I didn't have any trouble learning the rules, and I've taught them to quite a few others.  People who had never played before had no trouble understanding the basics, and 1E/2E veterans said "wow, they made the rules make sense!"


----------



## Geoffrey (Oct 2, 2002)

MeepoTheMighty said:
			
		

> *Is 3E really COMPLICATED?   I mean, half the people who hate 3E say it's for drooling 12 year olds who want to play Pokemon with swords, and the other half of you think it's too complicated.  It can't be both.  I didn't have any trouble learning the rules, and I've taught them to quite a few others.  People who had never played before had no trouble understanding the basics, and 1E/2E veterans said "wow, they made the rules make sense!" *




I guess it depends on what you mean by "complicated". I don't doubt that Rolemaster and several other RPGs are more complicated than 3E. I do think that 3E is more complicated than OAD&D. Consider:

OAD&D Players Handbook: 128 pages
3E Players Handbook: 304 pages

OAD&D Dungeon Masters Guide: 240 pages
3E Dungeon Masters Guide: 224 pages

That's a total of 368 pages for the two OAD&D books versus 528 pages for the 3E books. That's an extra 160 pages! That's like a whole extra OAD&D Players Handbook! Certainly all those extra pages weren't merely devoted to additional art (which, BTW, I think is deplorable in the 3E books).

At this point I must admit that even OAD&D is too complicated for my tastes. I run an OD&D (the 1974-1976 rules) campaign with several house rules (including, BTW, a few things from 3E). But, for my money, the single best version (overall) of the D&D rules are the 1981 Basic and Expert books by Tom Moldvay.* While I have my problems with them, these two 64-page books give you all you ever need to buy for a lifetime's enjoyment of D&D. Why the hell should I wade through scores of pages of combat when these books explain it in a fraction of the space? Each character class has, IIRC, only a page or two devoted to describing it. You read that, and now you know everything the rules say about your character. The rest is up to the imagination.

If anybody wants truckloads of rules for every conceivable contingency, God bless him. Dive in and have fun. But to me that's not fun. It's more like work. Give me slim rulebooks any day.






*Here's a great review of these books: http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_6402.html
Unlike the author of this review, I never played the 1981 version of D&D, so I don't have any nostalgic attachment to it. Quite the opposite, in fact. I started with the 1977 blue book by Holmes and quickly advanced to OAD&D. When the 1981 version came out I was frankly contemptuous of it. I thought AD&D was for serious gamers and Moldvay's version for sissies. (Give me a break, I was only in middle-school!) So when I say this is the single best published set of D&D rules, it is most definitely not nostalgia talking!


----------



## novyet (Oct 2, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *Fourth, come to the understanding that most 3e super fans aren't as scholarly and perhaps never wanted to be. And there's nothing wrong with "just playing a game".
> *




Gene, could you explain your meaning on this point? I'm just wondering what exactly you mean by it. No offense intended.


----------



## hong (Oct 2, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *
> IMO, the essential genius of D&D is the fact it is based on classes. *




No. The essential genius of D&D is the fact that it is based on violence.

That's what "going into dungeons, killing the monsters, and taking their treasure" is all about.


----------



## Bryan Vining (Oct 2, 2002)

From Joshua


> Although I'd certainly agree that quality and popularity are not necessarily equal, it seems just a tad pedantic to insist on the separation.




Yes; however, it is not a pointless pedanticism.  To take a couple of examples, the Harn roleplaying system is widely considered by those who have played it to be a very high quality game.  However, it does not enjoy the popularity of D&D.  My guess as to that would be that the flavor of Harn is very quasi-historical.  It is fantasy, to be sure, but it is more grounded fantasy than what you find in D&D or GURPS or even FUDGE fantasy.  It doesn't appeal to a lot of gamers, but it's still high quality.  Second example:  Every year the Academy Awards nominates 5 or 6 films as Film of the Year.  Almost without exception, you'll find 1-3 blockbuster films amongst the nominees and 2-3 films that are not terribly popular at all.  (I used to joke that if a critic liked it, I wouldn't go see it).  Oftentimes these less popular films are either slow or depressing or both.  However, they are very good films, at least as movie makers judge them.  Personally, I just saw the Four Feathers, and I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be a nominee next year.  This film won't make tons of money, though.  It's slow paced and a lot of the interesting stuff in it is rather subtle, which is easily missed.  I happened to be in a mood that made that work for me, but I oftentimes would pass on it given a choice of other films. 



> Since we have no real way of measuring quality of an RPG




Hey, thanks for making my point for me  

Well, yes, as I said, popularity and quality often correlate.  While we can't prove that the quality is part of the cause of a game's popularity, it is reasonable to infer that the quality of a game must meet some minimum standard to be popular and that the popularity of a game will be proportional to its quality to some degree.  That said, I do not think that one can then say that the tremendous popularity of 3E is due solely or even largely to its quality as a rules system.  I would include the quality of the rules system as part of the cause of its success.  However, I would put forth the notion that 3E is largely successful for a couple of different reasons, to wit:  It's flavor has been updated from the 70s-era feel of 1e and 2e to something more modern.  Good examples of this are the artwork (which we were told was picked specifically to appeal to younger, new gamers), the faster level progression, and the inclusion of skills and feats, which weaken the concepts of characters archetypes.  The other major reason I think it has been so successful is marketing, pure and simple.  The game was heavily pumped in all of the relevant media.  A special simplified version is in toy stores and in book stores.  A movie came out with the brand name as its title.  Don't underestimate the power of marketing.  An amusing example of that power is grocery shopping with my 2 1/2 year old daughter.  We'll walk by the cold cuts section wherein the Lunchables and the like are stocked.  This child does not watch much commercial TV and yet she sees those products (which are aimed at kids) and she wants them.  It's amazing (and a little disconcerting) to see how easily she is drawn into a product of which she has no real knowledge other than its appearance!  That's marketing, folks.


----------



## Voneth (Oct 2, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *I mentioned earlier that I prefer OAD&D to 3E because of the skills and feats that make for huge NPC stat blocks. A number of posters responded by saying that the huge stat blocks are largely unnecessary. If that is so, let me pose a question:
> 
> Why does every single d20 module I've looked through have gargantuan stat blocks for NPCs who would have had merely a couple lines of stats in OAD&D? The stat blocks in d20 modules would choke a horse!
> 
> ...




Well, I always thought it was for the simplist reason of all, convience. A DM could open a 3e module and run it without opening the MM. In fact, I knew DMs who ran adventures for months without even buying a MM for a while -- I was one of them.

I only really got the MM when I decided to that I wanted to invest time and money into really knowing the rules, especialy the rules for turning MM humanoids into PC races.

"Making it up as a I go along" trust me that "1st ed" philosophy works just fine with 3 ed, it just takes some confidence and the strength to say no, just like it was in 1st ed.

As far as a lack of story or fantasy feel in 3e? The vaunted G.G. said he only wanted to play a game and that the most popular adventures he and his buddies ran where dungeon crawls.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Oct 2, 2002)

It's too bad that projects like Gene's suggestion about a book of generic NPC stats doesn't garner as much interest as threads like these. We'd have the book done by now if as much effort was expended in doing it as is being expended on an argument/discussion which ultimately has no quantifiable resolution. I'm not saying to not discuss the matter, but consider: this thread probably has a higher word count than the earliest versions of D&D itself.


----------



## Tiefling (Oct 2, 2002)

RPGs can, to a certain degree, be compared by popularity if they are both of the same genre and of the same style of play. High fantasy power-gaming, for instance, or low fantasy role-playing. But you can't compare between those two. Neither can you compare high fantasy power-gaming with high fantasy role-playing based on popularity. The reason is that the size of the audience that they're targeted to will vary.

Geoffrey: So you want 3E to be exactly like OD&D?

Incidentally, what is OAD&D? Is that 1E? 2E? Both?


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Oct 2, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *It's too bad that projects like Gene's suggestion about a book of generic NPC stats doesn't garner as much interest as threads like these. We'd have the book done by now if as much effort was expended in doing it as is being expended on an argument/discussion which ultimately has no quantifiable resolution. I'm not saying to not discuss the matter, but consider: this thread probably has a higher word count than the earliest versions of D&D itself. *





Wow, you were able to find a suggestion amid his incoherent stream-of-conciousness ramblings?  I guess we nominate you as editor! 

Seriously, I already have 3 books of generic NPC stats, and Jamis Buck to come up with the rest.  How many more books of generic NPC stats do you want?


----------



## Geoffrey (Oct 2, 2002)

Tiefling said:
			
		

> *Geoffrey: So you want 3E to be exactly like OD&D?
> 
> Incidentally, what is OAD&D? Is that 1E? 2E? Both? *




By OAD&D I mean 1st edition. _Original_ AD&D.

I don't expect 3E to be exactly like OD&D. I want it to be _as simple and as easy to learn and as slender_ as the 1981 Moldvay version of D&D. There are several things about 3E that I'm open to:

faster level advancement
faster healing
greater balance amongst the classes
the new saving throw method
armor class going up rather than down
no "to hit" tables
and perhaps some others I can't think of off the top of my head

It's just ridiculous when, to simply play a game, you have to drop ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS just to play. Imagine:

Naive Joe Blow goes to his friendly game store to pick up this "Dungeons & Dragons thing" he keeps hearing about. "Holy sh&#! Look at all this stuff! What am I supposed to buy?"

The manager explains that the PH, DMG, and the MM are the essentials, and that everything else is optional.

"Let's see, that's $90.00 for the books (before tax), oh, and you'll need some dice."

Add those in plus tax and you just dropped $100.00 for only the core rules of D&D.

That's simply outrageous. A person should be able to buy the core rules for $20, and they shouldn't be more than 128 pages long.


----------



## JeffB (Oct 2, 2002)

I've got to agree with geoffrey on  a couple of points..

1) the Moldvay/Cook B/X sets are too my fave version of the game..with the brown books a close second.

2) stat blocks can be absolutely nuts...LotIF wastouted as "same price, 16 more pages" i.e. 48 vs. the 32 pagers of previous wotc efforts... those 16 pages extra pages were mostly for stat blocks...I thought to myslef..cool module...but no way in heck would I ever run such a thing.... 

I've been on both sides of the fence really since the new edition was announced...I love it and hate it at times...I've started 3 different campaigns up, and quit them because the amount of underlying rules were driving me nuts...but I'm realizing that If I just (like another poster said) learn how to say "no" and run it "off the cuff" 3E works pretty good...It's not like OD&D and it's not like 1E, but it works..

I'm starting to realize that the things I REALLY like about the older editions are the modules...the ideas...Gary's and others syle made that stuff so great...not neccesarily the rules...

I have the 1E conversion of U1: Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh (the old one which included the complete module, before WOTC revised the conversion process), and I ran the Haunted House part  a few days ago, and I just sort of "winged it" rule-wise...I had alot more fun that I did the 3 previous attempts at playing 3E with my head stuck in the DMG and MM.....All in all, I didn't feel that 3E rules hindered that session..*mainly because I did not let them do so*...I had fun..maybe not as much as I had running it 20 + years ago under my O/AD&D hybrid...but it was cool...

Convert all those old mods up...and wing it for a session or two..seemed to work OK for this old die-hard...


----------



## Thorvald Kviksverd (Oct 2, 2002)

Tiefling said:
			
		

> *Incidentally, what is OAD&D? Is that 1E? 2E? Both? *






There's a huge confusion of terms when it comes to OD&D, OAD&D, D&D, AD&D, BD&D, etc...

I think it's safe to say though that OAD&D refers only to pre-2e AD&D.

Incidentally, while I agree (and have said on numerous occaisions) that this is all highly subjective, even though populatity may seem to be one of the few quantifiable bits of data out there, popularity and superiority don't necessarily go hand in hand--just look at the operating systems for Macs and PCs (not to start another and all together different debate).

Brand recognition, marketing, and deep-pockets backing can go a long way towards making one product dominant--those darn market externalities!


----------



## Tiefling (Oct 2, 2002)

So you want a 3E Lite, as others have expressed interest in?

I'm cool with that. You have to recognize that the vast majority of people prefer it to be more like AD&D, with more complex rules, and that WotC has to target this. But it would be cool to have an OD&Dish alternative. Is the D&D Adventure Game anything like this? I must admit that I don't know anything about it, but I was under the impression that it was simplified.

I must disagree that people should be able to buy the 3E core books as is for $20. What was the price of the 1E core books?


----------



## Thorvald Kviksverd (Oct 2, 2002)

JeffB said:
			
		

> *...the Moldvay/Cook B/X sets are too my fave version of the game...*




Though the majority of my play was with OAD&D, I'll happily third this.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 2, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *The manager explains that the PH, DMG, and the MM are the essentials, and that everything else is optional.*





Or the manager could just explain that unless he plans on running the game as a DM, he just needs to buy the PHB. That's only $30.00, he can pick up the othe rbooks later if he wants to expand his collection.



> *That's simply outrageous. A person should be able to buy the core rules for $20, and they shouldn't be more than 128 pages long.*




Or you could buy the Adenture game starter set and pay $9.00. Your complaints are not particularly compelling.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Oct 2, 2002)

When I bought 'em, the 1e PHB and MM were $12 each, the DMG was $15.


----------



## Geoffrey (Oct 2, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Or the manager could just explain that unless he plans on running the game as a DM, he just needs to buy the PHB. That's only $30.00, he can pick up the othe rbooks later if he wants to expand his collection.
> 
> 
> 
> Or you could buy the Adenture game starter set and pay $9.00. Your complaints are not particularly compelling. [/B]




Well, somebody needs to be DM, so a given group will have to drop $100.00 just to play the game. That's outrageous. Not everybody wants to make a hobby of or devote a small fortune to D&D. A lot of people would like to play six times a year in a "beer and pretzels" style. That's worth $25.00 (game book plus dice). But $100.00? I don't think so. It's only us fanatics who have whole shelves full of D&D stuff.  

As for the Adventure game starter set, I am under the distinct impression that you can't play an ongoing campaign with it. The 1981 Molday Basic and Expert rulebooks (total of 128 pages) can easily support a longterm campaign up to 14th level. Hell, with just a bit of tweaking these books could contain info for characters up to 20th level and still weigh in at 128 pages.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Oct 2, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It's just ridiculous when, to simply play a game, you have to drop ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS just to play. Imagine:
> 
> *




Anyone who's seen me post on the subject knows I'm ceratinly no defender of high prices for D&D books, but...

When was the last time you priced board games? Something as ubiquitous and easy to learn as Monopoly will run you at least $30. I've seen plenty of board games go for a lot more than that. And don't even think about minis games.

Playing a sport can get expensive also - ever golf? Fish?

D&D isn't that expensive when you think about it. Besides, plenty of other RPGs are as, if not more, expensive. 

If it's too expensive for you, then play the edition you already have and like. As I've said before, the old books weren't printed with time-release invisible ink - at least, my copies weren't struck blank when 3e came out.


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Oct 2, 2002)

$100, quite frankly, isn't a lot of money, especially when you consider that you can split the cost among 4-5 people.  Yes, the PHB cost $12 20 years ago.  How much did it cost to go to a movie 20 years ago?  What was the minimum wage 20 years ago?  Inflation happens.  It costs $15-20 for a CD.  Can you honestly say that you don't get twice as much entertainment out of a PHB as you do out of a CD??


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Oct 2, 2002)

I just had a lengthy post disintegrated...

ARRRGGHHH!

And it was an apology to Storm Raven for all the aggravation I've given him and his buddies.

Just kidding, I would never apologize to SR! 

Seriously I just lost a mega-post explaining the scholarly comment!

Doh!

I am not writing that again. So quickly:

I did not mean scholarly as a "dis" but instead suggesting that the current trend has been to take books as official to be official without question.

Where as someone like myself and other "1e fans" ask what has changed in the rules, the stories or the style that makes everything seem so strange in the Dungeons and Dragon phenomena's current incarnation.

Questions like what happened to the wierd and esoteric feel the game once had and such.

That's all I meant by scholarly. An appreciation of the game's history rather than automatically taking for granted what the latest authors of the game think it is.

I respect Gary Gygax completely for giving us this game and his efforts in its construction. 

It's so thoughtful that it eclipses other game types. I'm sure a lot of us feel this way.

A rejection of respect for all the years of work that went into AD&D is a rejection of the thoughtfulness that went into the game.

Therefore unscholarly in method towards what the game is.

A game of thought.

In plain in English, why have a superficial interest in a thing that's going to take up a whole chunk of your time anyway?



Therefore the comment 3e superfans are unscholarly.


----------



## Geoffrey (Oct 2, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Anyone who's seen me post on the subject knows I'm ceratinly no defender of high prices for D&D books, but...
> 
> ...




Colonel, I recently bought Stratego Legends for $25.00, which is the price tag that should be on D&D ($20 book and $5 dice).

To me, the expense of 3E is intertwined with the complexity of the game. Why the devil should the CORE RULE consist of 800 or so pages? That's just asinine. I can think of all kinds of people who would consider buying D&D and giving it a try if it was inexpensive and easy to learn. The price tag and page count turns many potential buyers away. That's something I wish WotC would realize.

For me, I would like to be able to "get with the program" and play 3E. I want to speak the same "RPG language" as the majority of current gamers. A 3E Lite would certainly have a serious chance to get my money and my time. Why the hell not a Lite version? Moldvay did it 21 years ago. Surely WotC could figure out how to strip down their core rules into a 128-page game that still covers levels up to 20.

P. S. If any anger comes through this post, it's not directed at you, Colonel. It's directed at WotC.


----------



## Thorvald Kviksverd (Oct 3, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *...I want to speak the same "RPG language" as the majority of current gamers...*




I've expressed this sentiment more than once as well.

Leaving aside topics such as this for the moment, I generally try to add something constructive to the discussion here--but I find that my passing familiarity with 3e is becoming less adequate for such efforts as the system continues to grow.

It's disheartening to find myself more and more on the periphery of a hobby that has had such a dominant position in my life for the last 25 years or so--especially now, when it is so easy to participate in a worldwide community (something that wasn't possible during all but the last few years of my D&D experience). 

I want to enjoy 3e--I just can't...


----------



## Rhialto (Oct 3, 2002)

Gene, just allow me to say--I have no idea what you're on, but I'm strongly tempted to give it a try.  I mean, what else can I say to statements like this--



			
				GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *I did not mean scholarly as a "dis" but instead suggesting that the current trend has been to take books as official to be official without question.*




See what I mean?  It looks like a sentence but try to figure out the thought it conveys, and you're left with a strong urge to smash your head against the wall...



			
				GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> Where as someone like myself and other "1e fans" ask what has changed in the rules, the stories or the style that makes everything seem so strange in the Dungeons and Dragon phenomena's current incarnation.
> 
> Questions like what happened to the wierd and esoteric feel the game once had and such.[/B]




You see, this is the classic 1e fan complaint.  3e is missing some vague, undefined thing that was essential to 1e's success.  Ask them just what it was, and they'll start hemming and hawing, but they'll never deny it exists.



			
				GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> That's all I meant by scholarly. An appreciation of the game's history rather than automatically taking for granted what the latest authors of the game think it is.[/B]




Okay, Gene, not only does this have one of those "wha-?" feelings like your earlier sentence, but you also display the forceful elitism so many 1e fans show.  Somehow, 3e fans are a bunch of fools being tricked by the present game makers...



			
				GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> I respect Gary Gygax completely for giving us this game and his efforts in its construction.
> 
> It's so thoughtful that it eclipses other game types. I'm sure a lot of us feel this way.
> 
> ...




You know, I'm just going to give up trying to figure out exactly what it is you mean, because piercing the meaning of your sentences say is like trying to look through a brick wall--they're that opaque.  I think what you're saying boils down to that because 1e came first, all other versions should be considered lower than it.  Which is basically like saying that an older computer operating system is automatically superior to a newer one, but hey, we all have our opinions...


----------



## tsadkiel (Oct 3, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *
> Surely WotC could figure out how to strip down their core rules into a 128-page game that still covers levels up to 20.
> *




I think a 128 page stripped down (sorta) D&D book for $20.00 would be great.  Keep skills and feats, but with just the four basic classes (maybe using sorcerer instead of wizard), the four basic races (drop the half-breeds and gnomes), a small selection of classic monsters covering CR 1-20, and a careful selection of spells and magic items, coupled with a pared-down combat system (no grids) . . . heck, if I had a  d20 company I'd do it myself.  (Though no one would buy it, since I couldn't use the D&D brand name or even the d20 trademark, so I'd quickly go out of business.)


----------



## Voneth (Oct 3, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That's worth $25.00 (game book plus dice).  *




That's funny, it only cost me $20 to RUN, not play 3ed. for almost a year.

I got the PHB after I was convinced the game had the flexibility to run the games I wanted to run, not the games that WotC/TSR wanted to run. 

With only the PHB, I converted and ran a Castle Falkenstein game and even created a spell point/ skills and feats magic system. Our opponets were intellgent races, not cliche fantasy monsters, and we never used minitures.  I had a waiting line for my game.

My next book was the 1st ed. Star Wars book becuause I wanted it, not needed it. It was $35 of alien/monsters, a working XP system that is simpler than even 1ed's XP and I got another "magic"/Force system. Damn good buy!

What was even better was seeing how WotC had created new classes and races, that really let me cut loose in my games.

Then I bought d20 Deadlands ($25), not becuase I thought I needed the rules (though the Mad Scientist class is a great improvement over Alchemy and Craft if you prefer a loose gadget system) But because I have always wanted to play Deadlands and no one else I played with wanted to touch non DND stuff. My CF steam punk game got darker and I still had a waiting line.

At this point, I still didn't have the MM or the DMG. It is almost a year later and I still under $100 in "DND" stuff.

Converted over the old WEG Darkstryder campaign for Star Wars, ran that, and I still didn't use minitures.

Then I finaly got a job where I don't live paycheck to paycheck, and my purchases exploded, because I wanted the items, not because I needed them to play. I got OA ($35), Spycraft ($35), Series Archer ($35), and some misclanous but very cool mini games in Polyhedron and Dragon magazine ($20?).

This next wave of purchases was over $125, but I got rules and bits I wanted, nothing I needed. I could have bought 5 other RPG, right? I did.

I got RPG rules for Far East, Superspy, low-key scifi, space fantasy, pulp, urban fantasy and more steampunk. Opps! Looks like I got seven games there. And all of them are part of one intergrated system where I can switch out rules even if the genre is different, at $17 each.

*And then I look at my Revised Dark Sun boxed set and see how many rules it took to make AD&D work with those races, and I feel gyped!* 

About 3 months ago, I learned the price of the three core books was going up. I finaly got the MM and the DMG, after I found a store that had stocked up on the $20 books. And then I actualy started to read them (beyond browsing other people copies when I played their games.) I discovered that while the MM is nice, the DMG (for me personaly) wasn't worth the money since I only need like two or three chapters (For guidelines -- not rules-- on PC monster races , the Leadership feat [humph! they could have put that in that in the PHB], and more suggestions on d20 in other genres). All that dugeon stuff and treasure charts -- wasted space for my particular style since I play fast and loose.

And recently I broke down and got Farscape becuse I love the show and I like the optional rules that AEG comes up with, in fact if you like 1st ed, then Farscape is space opera in your style.

So while I can't help you that WotC didn't feel confident enough to reoder another _million _ copies so they could continue to sell the game at $20, I can inform you that if you truely hold to that whole "1st ed was about loose rules" then the PHB is more than adequate for you needs, especialy if you focus a role-playing game that does more than just throw monsters at PC. If insist that you must run the standard fantasy game, then you will need the MM.

Still under $100 I am afraid.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Oct 3, 2002)

Hem and Haw?

3e has easier to hit gameplay.

1e BAB numbers are lower for all.

HD and Armor haven't changed with the exception of leather.

This proves 3e has easier to hit gameplay.

No hem and haw there.

Clear and defined difference.


----------



## Voneth (Oct 3, 2002)

tsadkiel said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think a 128 page stripped down (sorta) D&D book for $20.00 would be great.  Keep skills and feats, but with just the four basic classes (maybe using sorcerer instead of wizard), the four basic races (drop the half-breeds and gnomes), a small selection of classic monsters covering CR 1-20, and a careful selection of spells and magic items, coupled with a pared-down combat system (no grids) *




First off

1.) At a 128 pages for $20, I’d ask you not to expect color, or a hard cover. In fact the cover would probably be a very flimsy soft cover, which sounds good to me. J I am not a part of this whole “hardcover” fad. Just look at what Palladium is offering for $15, you'll get an idea of the product.

Sorry, after inflation, those $12 and $17 1ed. books will be closer to $17 and $22. I sense more of nostalgia and a  "price freeze" from a denial of inflation ("I remember when comic books and candy cost a damn nickle! Now they are a whole damn $3 and not worth the paper they are printed on!) than any logic to those "it was cheaper!" arguments. 



			
				tsadkiel said:
			
		

> *
> . . . heck, if I had a  d20 company I'd do it myself.  (Though no one would buy it, since I couldn't use the D&D brand name or even the d20 trademark, so I'd quickly go out of business.)  *




2.) In that vein, I suggest you save your nickels for another month and the plop down $33 bucks for an OGL, 192 glossy, full-color pages, hardbound d20 book coming out this month.

It will offer dozens of regular feats and enhanced feats, 12 classes, an introductory adventure and complete rules for supernatural item, weapons, transports, fortresses, new spells, and sidekicks.  It should also be even more flexible than regular DND and while it doesn’t include critters to fight, it does offer humanoid opponents and its flexibility will let you design your own monsters fairly easily. (And the author is kicking around the idea of a pdf document that offers some critters online).

And to top it off there are optional rules for the amount of power you want in your games as well as an optional damage tracking system.

Now here is to hoping it has the right mix of consistent rules vs. loose rules.


----------



## Victim (Oct 3, 2002)

In 1e you could often get another +2 or more by using a weapon with good armor penetration bonuses like a 2 handed sword or flail.  That makes up for a bit the difference.  Also, ACs are no longer capped at -12 or -10, so at higher levels and with more focus on defense, ACs can get high enough to cause trouble for high level people.  

However, I don't see what you're refering to when you talk about increased hit probabilities.  Is that 10% increase a fundamental change?  And the monsters hit much more now, and everyone generally has some more HP.  It is going to work pretty much the same in most cases.

You can respect Mr. Gygax for inventing the AD&D without playing it.  Just because someone invents something, doesn't mean it can't be improved, and it can be improved without degrading the creator.  I doubt anyone wants to use Wright Flyers for mass air travel, but that doesn't mean that the airplane isn't an amazing a invention and that the Wright brothers weren't pretty dang smart for making it.    But once something becomes public after someone creates it, anyone can work on improving it.  You say: "A rejection of respect for all the years of work that went into AD&D is a rejection of the thoughtfulness that went into the game."  However, isn't a rejection of 3e based mostly on nostalgia a rejection of the thoughtfulness and years of work that went into it as well.

EDIT:

Oh yeah, you can effectively get the 3e rules free via the OGL and SRD.  Now that's cheap.


----------



## Geoffrey (Oct 3, 2002)

Voneth said:
			
		

> *
> 
> At a 128 pages for $20, I’d ask you not to expect color, or a hard cover. In fact the cover would probably be a very flimsy soft cover, which sounds good to me. J I am not a part of this whole “hardcover” fad. Just look at what Palladium is offering for $15, you'll get an idea of the product.*




Many of Sword & Sorcery's hardbound books (Ghelspad, the two Creature Collections, Relics & Rituals) are $24.95. They also average 224 pages. I have no doubt that 3E Lite, as a WotC product that says "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover and has 96 fewer pages than the S&S books listed above, could easily manage a $20 price tag. I agree about not expecting color.


----------



## Grazzt (Oct 3, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *
> HD and Armor haven't changed with the exception of leather.
> 
> This proves 3e has easier to hit gameplay.
> ...




First- how has leather changed? In 1e it was AC 8. In 3e it grants a +2 armor bonus. Same thing.

It may be easier to hit in 3e than it was in 1e, but monsters have (or can have) more hp now since they have ability scores (Con in this case). Also, PCs no longer stop acquiring HD as they did in 1e (when they just got "+2 hp per level after 9th" or whatever). Now, PCs get a full HD for every level obtained.

So- whilst it may be easier to hit, the addition of more hp seems to balance this all out in the end.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 3, 2002)

In any case, such changes to the "to hit" scores are trivial. Compare OD&D, OAD&D and the BECM line of D&D!

Cheers!


----------



## hong (Oct 3, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *
> It's just ridiculous when, to simply play a game, you have to drop ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS just to play. *




www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html is completely free.



> *
> That's simply outrageous. A person should be able to buy the core rules for $20, and they shouldn't be more than 128 pages long. *




Life wasn't meant to be easy.

Malcolm Fraser couldn't say it, but I don't have a constituency to offend.


----------



## hong (Oct 3, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *Hem and Haw?
> 
> 3e has easier to hit gameplay.
> 
> ...




Fighter BAB in 1E = level x 1 = fighter BAB in 3E
Cleric BAB in 1E = level x 2/3 (?) ~= cleric BAB in 3E
M/U BAB in 1E = level x 1/2 = wiz/sorc BAB in 3E

AC in 1E taps out at -10
AC in 3E is unlimited

Dex bonus to AC is limited to +6 (?) in 1E
Dex bonus to AC is unlimited in 3E

Rings of protection don't stack with magic armour in 1E
Items providing natural armour bonuses don't exist in 1E



> *No hem and haw there.
> 
> Clear and defined difference. *




Indeed.


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 3, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Colonel, I recently bought Stratego Legends for $25.00, which is the price tag that should be on D&D ($20 book and $5 dice).
> *




You, my friend, should be playing FUDGE.

I think D&D is a phenomenal value for the price. Heck, it would be a great value at twice the price, although a lot less people would be playing it. I pay $10 for a 2 hour movie. That's $5 an hour. Since 3e has come out, I have played - what? - 300 hours of D&D for the price of the core rules. That's $.33 an hour, and getting cheaper every time we play.  Even if you assume I've spent an additional $200 on accessories, it's still only $1 an hour.  It's a great deal.

So I don't buy your statement at all. $25? Maybe the PHB to attract new players, but not for all 3 books.


----------



## diaglo (Oct 3, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *When I bought 'em, the 1e PHB and MM were $12 each, the DMG was $15. *




when i bought them i paid $10 for the PHB and MM.  i paid $12 for the DMG.

i paid $4.50 for G1

i paid $10 for the first printing of the DDG.  

i paid $5 for a boxed set of Grenadier minis.

i paid etc...

i also walked to school 5 miles barefoot, uphill thru 4 ft of snow after doing all my chores.


----------



## Psion (Oct 3, 2002)

> _Originally posted by GENEWEIGEL_
> *I did not mean scholarly as a "dis" but instead suggesting that the current trend has been to take books as official to be official without question.*




LOL! What a crock...

In the 1e era, I distinctly remember:

- Gygax writing an article with words to the effect of "if you aren't playing by my rules, you aren't playing D&D."

- *Dragon* editors cautioning readers when they use classes from the pages of the magazine to use caution because they weren't from Gygax, who apparently had a monopoly on ajudicating balance in the D&D game.

OTOH, it 3e

- The first step of character creation in the PHB is to check with your DM to see if there is anything that deviates from the book.

- All splatbooks have a "check with your DM first" statement in them.

- The DM specifically advises freeform gaming as a valid style of play.

The notion that the 3e mindset is more bent on blind obedience to the rules than 1e was is simply laughable.


----------



## Tharkun (Oct 3, 2002)

Anyone think this could be a troll?  I'm not saying that it is or not but it sure does have the feeling it just might be.  Just something to think about, yea I know not all this that may be trolls are but you never know do you?


----------



## Tharkun (Oct 3, 2002)

diaglo said:
			
		

> *
> 
> when i bought them i paid $10 for the PHB and MM.  i paid $12 for the DMG.
> 
> ...




I think you mean: I also walked to school barefoot, uphill *both ways * through *6* feet of snow and if you were very lucky you'd have some rags for clothing


----------



## diaglo (Oct 3, 2002)

Tharkun said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think you mean: I also walked to school barefoot, uphill both ways  through 6 feet of snow and if you were very lucky you'd have some rags for clothing  *




i'm glad someone recognized me.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Oct 3, 2002)

Psion, I'll give you a perfect example of what I am talking about.

Experience for treasure.

Why is it bad?

No hems, no haws.

Why is it bad? 

A simple question.


----------



## RobNJ (Oct 3, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *Experience for treasure.
> 
> Why is it bad?*



Because treasure is its own reward.  It lets you buy things, including magic items which, if you have enough of them, are like an entire class level in efficacy and (such magic items) can do some things that experience can't do.


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 3, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *Psion, I'll give you a perfect example of what I am talking about.
> 
> Experience for treasure.
> 
> ...




I'll field this one.

Because it unilaterally restricts the DM to a difficult choice. If he awards xp for treasure, he is extremely limited when trying to control the rate at which PCs advance levels. If he wants a slower-than-normal advancement, he needs to dramatically restrict the amount of gp awarded.

Want the PCs to kill a dragon? You'll never find a haul like Smaug's... not when it's worth XP. This system effectively awards double XP for killing monsters, and the second set of xp is awarded at no risk.  It was originally an incentive for going treasure hunting, but the gp itself turns out to be incentive enough.

In addition, the thief went up a - what? double? - the rate of other PCs from treasure xp. Heck, in 1e, we already knew that this was a problem. I believe that eliminating the xp-for-treasure was our first house rule.


----------



## diaglo (Oct 3, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *Psion, I'll give you a perfect example of what I am talking about.
> 
> Experience for treasure.
> 
> Why is it bad? *




add exps for magic items too.

When to give the xps?
Say you slay Smaug. not that anyone in my campaign did. but
 

do the pcs get xps for all the treasure or only what they can carry/ spend/ use?

did you ever read the spell description for identify for 1ed.  ?

so say they do identify a magic item. who gets the xps? the mu or the user. what about potions? the discoverer or the user?

what about the monsters? did they get xps for the treasure already? not all monsters were classless. monsters like the slavers in the A series for example were human.  


think back to B2 Keep on the Borderlands. the moneychanger at the Keep. did he get xps for all the treasure he owned? why should the pcs get it if they steal from him?


----------



## Faraer (Oct 3, 2002)

US$10 in 1979 is equivalent to about $25 in 2002.


----------



## RobNJ (Oct 3, 2002)

diaglo said:
			
		

> *think back to B2 Keep on the Borderlands. the moneychanger at the Keep. did he get xps for all the treasure he owned? why should the pcs get it if they steal from him? *



Indeed, using that system, why don't merchants and bankers all have 359 hit points and the ability to slay red dragons in their sleep?


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Oct 3, 2002)

Crack out the DMG.

1e and 2e.

Read the last paragraph on page 84 of the original Dungeon Masters Guide:

_"Tricking or outwitting monsters or overcoming tricks and/or traps placed to guard treasure must be determined subjectively, with level of difficulty you assign to the gaining of the treasure."_

Read page 85 middle of the first column:

_*EXPERIENCE VALUE OF TREASURE TAKEN*

*Gold Pieces:* Convert all metal and gems and jewelry to a total value in gold pieces. If the relative value of the monster(s) or guardian device fought equals or exceeds that of the party which took the treasure, experience is awarded on a one for one basis. If the guardian(s) was relatively weaker, award experience on a 5 g.p. to 4 g.p., 3 to 2, 2 to 1, 3 to 1, or even for or more to 1 basis according to the relative strengths. For example, if a 10th level magic-user takes 1,000 g.p. from 10 kobolds, the relative strengths are about 20 to 1 in favor of the magic-user. (Such strength comparisons are subjective and must be based on the degree of challenge the Dungeon Master had the monster(s) pose the treasure taker.)

Treasure must be physically taken out of the dungeon or lair and turned into a transportable medium or stored in the player's stronghold to be counted for experience points.

All items (including magic) or creatures sold for gold pieces prior to the awarding of experience points for an adventure must be considered as treasure taken, and the gold pieces received for the sale add to the total treasure taken. (Those magic items not sold gain only a relatively small amount of experiece points, for their value is in their usage._

There's more but its just a justification for this experience function.

Wait, now let's jump ahead to the second edition Dungeon Masters Guide last paragraph highlighted in blue on page 47:

_"As an option, the DM can award XP for the cash value of non-magical treasures. One XP can be given per gold piece, or equivalent, found. However, overuse of this option can increase the tendency to give out too much treasure in the campaign."_

The next page discusses the individual option with the rogue getting 2 XP per gp.

Why is it bad?

Because the 2e edition tells you it is without the facts!


----------



## RobNJ (Oct 3, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *Why is it bad?
> 
> Because the 2e edition tells you it is without the facts!  *



Did you take any writing courses, like, ever?  I can only understand what you're trying to say about 10% of the time.

Is the above meant to indicate that you believe there's a weakness in giving XP for treasure? I assume not, given your general take on things.

So if not, how the hell does what you wrote above stand as support for award xp for treasure?


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Oct 3, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *Did you take any writing courses, like, ever?  I can only understand what you're trying to say about 10% of the time.*




Yes, I believe the last writing course was Advanced Message Board Replies 103. 

"Like"? What course was that? Valleyonics?



> _Originally posted by RobNJ _*
> 
> Is the above meant to indicate that you believe there's a weakness in giving XP for treasure? I assume not, given your general take on things.
> 
> So if not, how the hell does what you wrote above stand as support for award xp for treasure? *




I'm just pointing out that you didn't realize the 3e Challenge Rating was extrapolated from treasure guardian assessment!

Truth is there is nothing bad with it but you bit the bait and proved my point.

Unscholarly indeed!


----------



## RobNJ (Oct 3, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *"Like"? What course was that? Valleyonics?*



Speaking of taking bait, I put that in there intentionally, realizing it is something that could be criticized.  Despite my colloquialism, my meaning was clear.  Yours is completely obscured.



> *I'm just pointing out that you didn't realize the 3e Challenge Rating was extrapolated from treasure guardian assessment!*



You might consider actually making the point you intend to make rather than leaving it as some sort of a trap.

I didn't "fall" for your trap.  I just had absolutely no idea what the hell you were talking about.  Even if I could make sense of pieces of what you were saying earlier, the final statement rendered everything I thought I had understood to nothingness.

You have no ability to carry on a discussion.  You have four tools at your disposal: capital letters, smilies, exclamation marks and senseless text.  You really don't have anything of value to add.


----------



## Tiefling (Oct 3, 2002)

You should try to keep cool, Rob. I'm pretty sure that GENEWEIGEL is doing this on purpose, to get you angry. Trolling, you know.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Oct 3, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Colonel, I recently bought Stratego Legends for $25.00, which is the price tag that should be on D&D ($20 book and $5 dice).
> 
> ...





I know you're not blasting me. I understand what you're saying, but consider: TSR ran two concurrent D&D lines - AD&D and the race=class/no good or evil alignment D&D, which was simpler - and ended up fragmenting their customer base.

Now, I know a "D&D Lite" would be a good thing, but WotC could end up in the same boat as TSR eventually if they started fragmenting the customer base again.

The Core Rules probably could be stripped down. A lot of the page count you're decrying consists of monsters and DM advice, not actual rules. So, sure, they could whittle it down to the bare bones. Why don't they? I don't know. I'm sure there are fiscally rational reasons for them not to, but I don't know enough to even begin to guess at them.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Oct 3, 2002)

Tharkun said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think you mean: I also walked to school barefoot, uphill both ways  through 6 feet of snow and if you were very lucky you'd have some rags for clothing  *




My dad seriously claims he had to walk 2 miles uphill through the snow just to get to the bus stop.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Oct 3, 2002)

diaglo said:
			
		

> *
> 
> when i bought them i paid $10 for the PHB and MM.  i paid $12 for the DMG.
> 
> ...




Yeah, what stinks is that when I bought them, the prices had just gone up.


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 3, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *You have no ability to carry on a discussion.  You have four tools at your disposal: capital letters, smilies, exclamation marks and senseless text.  You really don't have anything of value to add. *




Rob, please stop the personal insults.  This really isn't the place to get into a shouting match with someone, just because you disagree with them.  Yes, even if they are infuriating you, and even if your friendly neighborhood Admin thinks they're wrong, too.  

Of course, this goes for everyone else as well. 

If this is somehow a problem, please feel free to email me.


----------



## diaglo (Oct 3, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *Indeed, using that system, why don't merchants and bankers all have 359 hit points and the ability to slay red dragons in their sleep? *




actually Gene did what I wanted him to do.

i don't have my books with me at work. but i figured with enough goading he would post the text.  

the point with earning experience points back then is still the same now.

the back of the 1ed DMG also had a list for typical xps for any given monster as well as the initial ThAC0 reference  .

and you can answer the question using the 3ed rules. just like Gene does with 1ed. the object is to overcome the obstacles.

trial and error or magic to determine an items use.

solve the puzzle.

diplomatically stop the war.

discover who done it.

etc...


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Oct 3, 2002)

Calling someone a troll is such a lame "escape hatch" on messageboards. Sitting face to face does someone call you a troll for showing them an excerpt from  a book?

As for the back and forth with the "you're wrong because I don't  understand you" that has got as much maturity as a cocktail bar full of sippy juices. 

Picking at the writing style on a messageboard is petty as well. It only invalidates your position.

Is there messageboard terms for any of this?

How about Chicken Little (for the "he's a troll" response), Playing Dead (the non-comprehension response) and Grammatical Countermeasures (for the your writing sucks response)?


----------



## RobNJ (Oct 3, 2002)

Tiefling said:
			
		

> *You should try to keep cool, Rob. I'm pretty sure that GENEWEIGEL is doing this on purpose, to get you angry. Trolling, you know. *



Thanks, sincerely, for the advice.  I'm not really upset, I just want to point out the essential problem here is that some people are trying to have a discussion and others are merely posting senseless drivel.

And I don't say that because Gene has opinions that differ from mine, but because he seems completely inable to make a coherent point in written language.


----------



## RobNJ (Oct 3, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *Rob, please stop the personal insults.  This really isn't the place to get into a shouting match with someone, just because you disagree with them. *



It's genuinely not about disagreeing with him, it's about the fact that he completely fails to express himself in a clear manner.  Most of what he says doesn't make any sense, not because it doesn't agree with my opinion, but because it's not clearly written.

I'm frustrated by a lack of clear writing, not because someone refuses to agree with me.  And I'm not sure what to do about that except point out that discussion with him is impossible because he can't make a single clear point.

Imagine you go to a store customer service department to complain that the pants they sold you had a rip in them, and they start talking about how weasels like to wear shoes.

That's roughly what this conversation is like.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Oct 3, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> Yes, even if they are infuriating you, and even if your friendly neighborhood Admin thinks they're wrong, too.
> 
> *




This forum is done. 

I'll be at be Dragonsfoot if anyone wants to continue this where I won't be minimalized without cause by the administrators.


----------



## RobNJ (Oct 3, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *As for the back and forth with the "you're wrong because I don't  understand you" that has got as much maturity as a cocktail bar full of sippy juices. *



It's not like I don't understand you because you're bringing in esoteric points made by Zarathustrian sages.  It's because you are not expressing yourself clearly.



> *Picking at the writing style on a messageboard is petty as well. It only invalidates your position.*



I'm not complaining about your spelling, or how you use commas, but it's extremely frustrating to try to make sense out of the words of someone who is apparently not trying himself to make sense.  The only way we have of talking to one another here is with the content of our words.  I tried several times to get you to explain your nonsequetors, to frequent failure.  The one time I got you to explain yourself, it was some baroque verbal trap, which only amps up the frustration further.

I think complaining that you refuse to speak the language is a valid complaint.  It is not with your spelling that I take issue, but with your points (or, your points by extension, since at its root my problem is with your inability to make a clear point in the first place).


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 3, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'll be at be Dragonsfoot if anyone wants to continue this where I won't be minimalized without cause by the administrators. *




Oh, Gene. Note the smiley!  I'm allowed to disagree with your opinion, you know. That doesn't invalidate your argument; it just means that I don't agree with you. And you'll note that I was trying to keep things on topic and away from personal attacks.

I hope you stick around. Differing viewpoints are valuable things.


----------



## Rhialto (Oct 3, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *
> 
> This forum is done.
> 
> I'll be at be Dragonsfoot if anyone wants to continue this where I won't be minimalized without cause by the administrators. *




Okay, Gene this exchange is good example of what Rob and I were talking about--you use verbal gobbledygook to obfuscate your points.  In this case, the point seems pretty clear, though one is still left scratching one's head about it.  

I mean, it's a rather high-falutin' way of saying "the administrators don't respect me here".  Which is what you were saying, right?  Right?


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Oct 3, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> I hope you stick around. Differing viewpoints are valuable things. *




Well all right perhaps I overreacted too soon. 

It was that damn Greyhawk thread flashback! 



Let's get this back on course here.

Why would it be bad to have "all the rules" in an all edition SRD?

Now never mind what that SR guy said about the financial nits and gnats of it because he's always against anything that'll overshadow the 3e D&D team.

Noted SR. Now we've gotten past that part. 

Let's think about this before you just react.


----------



## Tiefling (Oct 3, 2002)

Why would it be a good thing? How would WotC make money off of it?

Please, explain, in short sentences in the simplest way that you can. Don't assume that I can make inferences or understand metaphors or anything. Pretend I'm a five year old kid and that you have to explain it to me.


----------



## Rhialto (Oct 3, 2002)

Because it would be confusing as all hell, and almost no one would buy it...?

Just a thought...


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Oct 3, 2002)

So you would want it if some how they could make money off it?


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 3, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *Why would it be bad to have "all the rules" in an all edition SRD?
> 
> Now never mind what that SR guy said about the financial nits and gnats of it because he's always against anything that'll overshadow the 3e D&D team.*





Umm, I didn't bring up the financial ramifications, I just added to someone else's point that there would be little economic reason for WotC to do that. I;m not against it because it would "overshadow the 3e design team", actually I'm not _against_ it one way or the other, I just don't see how it would be in WotC's _interest_ to do it, and they would have to be to ones who do it, or okay it being done, and they are unlikely to do it if it isn't in their own interest.



> *Noted SR. Now we've gotten past that part.*




Actually, it is impossible to "get past" that part. When discussing what to do with a commercial product you have to consider the commercial aspects of what you are proposing to do. Given that it would cost WotC money to produce what you want (in renegotiating Kenzer's licence and producing the new SRD of the older stuff), I think it is unlikely to be done.



> *Let's think about this before you just react. *




On the substance, I think an SRD of the older material would be so unweildy as to be unuseful. The old system D&D used was extremely idiosyncratic, it was more of a quilt of subsystems than any one game system. In the SRD, they can explain the core mechanic once, and that covers the base mechanic used for skills, saves, combat and so on. Each subsystem of 1e or 2e AD&D was entirely seperate from one another, and each would have to be explained again in full when introduced into the SRD. This seems like a major practical hindrance to making an effective SRD type document of the older stuff.


----------



## Rhialto (Oct 3, 2002)

No, because it's a pretty useless idea for a book, and most people would find it confusing...


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 3, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *So you would want it if some how they could make money off it? *




Given that it is likely a necessary prerequisite of having it produced at all, solving the "could they make money off it" problem is the first thing you should figure out, not the last.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Oct 3, 2002)

What Gene is talking about is releasing the 1e/2e rules in a document like the SRD. It doesn't necessarily involve selling it; WotC had a number of books from older editions available as free downloads. 

I don't think it's that bad of an idea.


----------



## RobNJ (Oct 3, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *So you would want it if some how they could make money off it? *



It's not about what I want.  I want to be married to a 5' tall bisexual post-punk model with a PhD in English Literature and a PhD in Physical Anthropology.  Tough for me.

It's about what's going to happen in the real world.  If you want to convince Wizards of the Coast to do it, you've got to give them a reason to do it.  The only reason they do it is if there's some financial gain by doing it.  Many others have already argued concretely why there would be _no_ financial gain.  You have yet to give a single coherent argument about what the financial gain would be.

Pretend you're talking to someone at Wizards of the Coast.  Tell them why they should bother.  And you've got to come up with something better than, "I talked to 20 people on the internet who'd like it."


----------



## RobNJ (Oct 3, 2002)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *What Gene is talking about is releasing the 1e/2e rules in a document like the SRD. It doesn't necessarily involve selling it; WotC had a number of books from older editions available as free downloads.
> 
> I don't think it's that bad of an idea. *



I don't really have an opinion on whether it's a good idea or not.  But the question is are we operating in the realm of pure fantasy or are we talking about the real world?

Wizards have to have a reason to do this.  They need a reason to divide the energies of their SRD intern or to get lawyers to figure out the legality of SRDing 1st and 2nd edition or the numerous other things.

And even if they got past all that . . . the question is what does it gain them?  And what does it hurt them.  So far the only argument that I've heard that's been in any way convincing is that it would hurt them.  I forget who made the point, but someone pointed out that it could sap sales from 3E and the PHB, and selling the core rulebooks is _why_ Wizards created the SRD and OGL.

Gene has provided no more coherent argument than, "Gee wiz it'd be nice," which isn't enough to talk about in the real world.


----------



## diaglo (Oct 3, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *Gene has provided no more coherent argument than, "Gee wiz it'd be nice," which isn't enough to talk about in the real world. *




that is the mechanic of ideas. you come up with an idea.

the actual working model is a different thing.

proposing an idea. and making it happen can be 2 different things.

ask some companies that have R&D departments.

you need an idea to start a project. what happens next is left to others. or at least the way i interpret Gene.


----------



## Tuerny (Oct 3, 2002)

I could also see some confusion in regards to what it exactly means when you get a d20 product.

If 2nd and 1st edition material are in the document wouldn't that make the categorization as a d20 product kind of worthless?

Though I suppose new designators could be made.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Oct 3, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *I don't really have an opinion on whether it's a good idea or not.  But the question is are we operating in the realm of pure fantasy or are we talking about the real world?
> 
> Wizards have to have a reason to do this.  They need a reason to divide the energies of their SRD intern or to get lawyers to figure out the legality of SRDing 1st and 2nd edition or the numerous other things.
> 
> ...




Think about it like this: they can release it much as they did the SRD. Release everything _but_, say, character generation, as they did with d20. Require the use of a cleaned up and edited "Rules Cyclopedia" that collects the most important portions of the 1e/2e PHB/DMG/MM. They could retain the rights to the D&D/AD&D imprint, and license it as they did with Kalamar.

HackMaster uses 1e/2e rules, licensed from WotC. As we know, HM has not crippled 3e. Based upon this fact, I doubt that the audience who would buy products for 1e/2e OGL products would be drawn away from 3e in any substantial way. That is, this would appeal to the most ardent 1e/2e fans, the ones who didn't switch to 3e. 

This would provide another source of revenue, which I believe - and, admittedly, what do I know? - would outweigh any potential undermining of the 3e customer base.

Of course, something would have to be done to make this fair to Kenzer, who paid to use the 1e/2e rules. I don't know what could be done about that, but I'm sure something could.

As for delaying the release of d20 material into the SRD - no, of course I wouldn't want that to happen. This could be done once the bulk of the material has been placed in the SRD. WotC's release pace seems to have slowed quite a bit, so keeping up will eventually be relatively easy once all the hardcovers and splatbooks are in the SRD (or whatever material WotC is willing to release into the SRD).


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Oct 3, 2002)

Tuerny said:
			
		

> *I could also see some confusion in regards to what it exactly means when you get a d20 product.
> 
> If 2nd and 1st edition material are in the document wouldn't that make the categorization as a d20 product kind of worthless?
> 
> Though I suppose new designators could be made. *




I'm speaking of releasing the 1e/2e rules in a seperate and distinct SRD-like document, not intermingling the d20 rules and those of 1e/2e.


----------



## Bryan Vining (Oct 3, 2002)

*More thoughts*

Hmmm.. supposing a 1e/2e SRD were done in essentially the same manner as the 3e SRD, there could be some financial benefit to Wizards, albeit not very much.  It would have to use the same model of driving PHB sales, but in this case, 1e PHB sales.  Given the (probably) pretty small market for this, I'd have to say that I would be surprised if they went for it, unless someone were to volunteer to do most of the work for Wizards.  In other words, it would have to be more or less 90% profit to get them interested.  There is also the question of the Kenzerco license and what limits that might set.  

As for money, RPGs are a fantastic value.  Let's say you play D&D just four times a year.  If you're a player, and you haven't bought a ton of stuff for the fun of it, you've spent less than eight bucks for the four sessions.  That would be (probably) a minimum of 16 hours of entertainment, or just under $2 an hour.  Let's compare that to a movie.  Movies (at least in NJ) run about $8, for, on average, two hours of entertainment.  That's $4 an hour.  Of course, if you're a regular player, the value gets to be even better.  If I spend $100 on RPG products (yeah, right) and play for 300 hours this year (which isn't really that inconceivable), then it's a fantastic value.  It's hard to think of another form of entertainment that is that cheap that isn't just free.


----------



## Geoffrey (Oct 3, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You, my friend, should be playing FUDGE.
> 
> ...




What about a casual gamer who wants to play a few times each year? I don't think he'd want to pay $100.00 for something he'd take off the shelf once every three or four months.

For example, some people will buy a DVD of a favorite movie and watch it 40 times. But I don't think these people would pay $400.00 for the DVD.

Lastly, I don't want the three core books with 750 pages for $20. I want one single book with 128 pages of stripped-down-to-basics 3E rules with a price tag of $20. TSR essentially did this in 1981, at the height of D&D popularity.

What the devil is wrong with WotC? Don't they realize that there are people who would like to give 3E a whirl but don't want to drop $100.00 for it? They don't want to print out reams from the SRD either. They just want to walk into a game store, pay $25, and walk out with a COMPLETE D&D game they can learn to play in a few hours.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Oct 3, 2002)

How many people are really out there pining for such a product? How many people play, or would play, D&D only a couple of times a year? That seems more the province of a board game.
D&D is doing better than it ever has, so I don't know why the matter of a D&D Lite is addressed with such urgency. It's not like D&D is fading away like it was in the latter part of the TSR era.


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Oct 4, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *
> 
> What about a casual gamer who wants to play a few times each year? I don't think he'd want to pay $100.00 for something he'd take off the shelf once every three or four months.
> 
> *





D&D isn't meant to be played a few times a year.  Its fundamental design revolves around a group of friends who play regularly 2-4 times a month.



> *
> For example, some people will buy a DVD of a favorite movie and watch it 40 times. But I don't think these people would pay $400.00 for the DVD.
> *





There are many more people who pay $20 for a DVD and watch it once every 3 or 4 months.  Which is a better value, a $20 DVD or a $20 PHB?



> *
> Lastly, I don't want the three core books with 750 pages for $20. I want one single book with 128 pages of stripped-down-to-basics 3E rules with a price tag of $20. TSR essentially did this in 1981, at the height of D&D popularity.
> *





Well good for you.  I want more.  Just because WotC decided to target one of us and not the other doesn't mean there's anything wrong with their plan.  It just means they decided not to fragment their customer base.



> *
> What the devil is wrong with WotC? Don't they realize that there are people who would like to give 3E a whirl but don't want to drop $100.00 for it? They don't want to print out reams from the SRD either. They just want to walk into a game store, pay $25, and walk out with a COMPLETE D&D game they can learn to play in a few hours. *




Buy a freaking PHB!! It's got enough monsters in the back to let you "give it a whirl."  If you buy it and don't like it, well, sorry, but you wasted $20.  If you buy it and like it, you can buy a DMG and MM! There you go!  Or buy the D&D adventure game, which is exactly what you want, for 8 bucks!  What's the problme?


----------



## Voneth (Oct 4, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *
> 
> What about a casual gamer who wants to play a few times each year? I don't think he'd want to pay $100.00 for something he'd take off the shelf once every three or four months.
> *




*Play *  is the operative word here. A casual gamer is not going to  *run *  a game. Thus your casual gamer is only going to need the PHB. If a casual gamer feels like he has to have all three books to play, he's not that casual. 

And if you care, you can also repsond to my post on Page 11 that starts with:

_"That's funny, it only cost me $20 to RUN, not play 3ed. for almost a year. I got the PHB after I was convinced the game had the flexibility to run the games I wanted to run, not the games that WotC/TSR wanted to run.  

With only the PHB, I converted and ran a Castle Falkenstein game and even created a spell point/ skills and feats magic system. Our opponents were intelligent races, not cliché fantasy monsters, and we never used miniatures. I had a waiting line for my game."_  with a little of that "1st ed. imagination" I got more than my money's worth from DND.

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25682&perpage=40&pagenumber=11


----------



## Geoffrey (Oct 4, 2002)

MeepoTheMighty said:
			
		

> *Buy the D&D adventure game, which is exactly what you want, for 8 bucks!  What's the problme? *




From what I understand, the D&D adventure game doesn't allow one to run a campaign like the 128-page Moldvay D&D edition from 1981 (which covered levels 1-14).


----------



## MerricB (Oct 4, 2002)

What 128-page Moldvay edition?

AFAIK, there was Basic D&D, which gave levels 1-3, and was excellent at doing so.

Then there was Expert D&D - an additional product - that gave levels 4-14. Unfortunately I've never seen the original edition of that product. 

I really liked that Basic set (the second edition of it, the first, edited by Eric Holmes, really wasn't that clear). I'd love to see a Basic version of the new D&D done in such a manner, but more compatable with the new game than Basic D&D was with AD&D.

The adventure game for 3E is okay - I love the map & tokens - but without rules for _creating_ characters, it does have a few flaws...

Cheers!


----------



## Theuderic (Oct 4, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *Did you take any writing courses, like, ever?  I can only understand what you're trying to say about 10% of the time.
> 
> *




 Qick question Rob. Which sentence is the rude (unecessary?) one: first or second?


----------



## Geoffrey (Oct 4, 2002)

Voneth said:
			
		

> *It only cost me $20 to RUN, not play 3ed. for almost a year. I got the PHB after I was convinced the game had the flexibility to run the games I wanted to run, not the games that WotC/TSR wanted to run.
> 
> With only the PHB, I converted and ran a Castle Falkenstein game and even created a spell point/ skills and feats magic system. Our opponents were intelligent races, not cliché fantasy monsters, and we never used miniatures. I had a waiting line for my game."[/I]  with a little of that "1st ed. imagination" I got more than my money's worth from DND.*




What about the person who doesn't want to create or convert whole campaign settings, or who doesn't want to create new magic systems and all the rest? In other words, someone who doesn't want to be a quasi-game designer, but just a casual player?

What about the person who wants his Dungeons & Dragons game to have dragons (and other monsters) in it? What about the person who wants magic items in his D&D game? The PHB doesn't have these. Make your own, you say? But what about the person who doesn't want to go to the time and effort to do that? What about the person who wants a COMPLETE game?

I would love for WotC to put out a product that could sit on every store shelf that has Monopoly on it. What would be even better than a 128-page book is a boxed set with two books in it (one for players, one for DMs) that total 128 pages, complete with a set of dice. Advertise the hell out of it. TV spots. Magazine ads in Time, People, Readers Digest, etc. Shove that thing right under the spotlight.

I keep hearing how phenomenally successful D&D is. I don't think it's nearly as successful as it could be, not by a long shot. Sure, it sells more than in the 2nd edition days, but very few people I know own D&D. Only a small fraction. But virtually everyone I know owns chess, checkers, and Monopoly. Lots of people I know own Battleship, Stratego, Life, Risk, and other such games. D&D doesn't sell beans compared to these games. Why?

1. You can't buy it very many places.
2. It costs $100.00.
3. It is complicated as hell.

I have no problem with a million and one D&D supplements, some of which being extremely complicated, wordy, expensive, and time-consuming. Only hobbyists buy them, and that's fine. But I think D&D is being short-changed by being content with things the way they are. There's an untapped market out there. I have faith in D&D that it could sell 10 times as many copies if only if would be packaged and marketed correctly.


----------



## Geoffrey (Oct 4, 2002)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *What 128-page Moldvay edition? *




Merric, I'm referring to the 64-page Basic rulebook and the 64-page Expert rulebook (both published in 1981) considered as a unit. Sorry to be unclear.


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Oct 4, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...




1) You can buy it at just about every bookstore in the country.
2) It costs $20.  Okay, $30 now.  Only one person needs to buy the DMG and the PHB.  One of each book would be enough for a group of five to start playing, and you can split the cost five ways.
3)  You'd have to dumb it down to the level of Hero Quest in order to even approach the sales of Stratego, Monopoly, or Risk.  And even Hero Quest probably didn't sell that well.  Monopoly only sells well because it's ingrained in our culture, it really isn't that fun of a game on its own.

Anyone who's 12 years old and knows how to read can figure out how to play D&D.  I don't really see complicated being an issue.


----------



## Claude Raines (Oct 4, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *
> 
> What about the person who doesn't want to create or convert whole campaign settings, or who doesn't want to create new magic systems and all the rest? In other words, someone who doesn't want to be a quasi-game designer, but just a casual player?
> 
> ...




I for one, still don't buy all of your complaints. If you buy the PHB you spend $30. Then you have everything you need because the bulk of the rest of the books are in the SRD. The PHB has the magic system already in it. You don't need to create your own. The SRD has monsters and magic items. You don't need to print it all out. Just save it onto your computer and print what you need when you need it. You don't want to be a game designer? No problem, you don't need to be. You can download many free adventures, get new monsters, and get new magic items, spells, psionics, etc. all from the web. And it's FREE. The only thing you need to buy to run a complete game is the PHB. Having the other books on hand are a convience, but not necessary. You don't need to spend $100 bucks to play. Only $30. If you buy from Buy.com, you can get it for $18.87 with Free shipping.


----------



## JeffB (Oct 4, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Merric, I'm referring to the 64-page Basic rulebook and the 64-page Expert rulebook (both published in 1981) considered as a unit. Sorry to be unclear.  *





Just to be a bit  more clear, The 1981 Basic set was edited by Moldvay..the Expert set (1981) was edited by Zeb Cook and Steve Marsh..but most folks just say "the moldvay sets" since Tom wrote quite a few of the B & X modules that appeared on their heels.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Oct 4, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I keep hearing how phenomenally successful D&D is. I don't think it's nearly as successful as it could be, not by a long shot. Sure, it sells more than in the 2nd edition days, but very few people I know own D&D. Only a small fraction. But virtually everyone I know owns chess, checkers, and Monopoly. Lots of people I know own Battleship, Stratego, Life, Risk, and other such games. D&D doesn't sell beans compared to these games. Why?
> 
> ...




Back during the 80s, the simpler boxed sets of D&D appeared in toy stores like Toys 'r Us. I don't remember them flying off the shelves in those stores then, when D&D was riding the crest of popularity it had in that decade (which was very faddish, much as the Pokemon craze was). 

While I wouldn't mind seeing this D&D Lite type of book, I very much doubt it'll help propel D&D any further upward in popularity.


----------



## Voneth (Oct 4, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *
> 
> What about the person who doesn't want to create or convert whole campaign settings, or who doesn't want to create new magic systems and all the rest? In other words, someone who doesn't want to be a quasi-game designer, but just a casual player? *




Players don't design adventures, DMs do.

Okay first off, I am not disagreeing that the idea of "DND Lite" is a bad concept -- it intrigues me. But I am disagreeing that you need a C-note to play 3e as is and I don't think that your "casual DND (player? DM? make up your mind!)" example is the best argument for the need of a "DND Lite."

Okay ... now lets try this again. A causual Player or a Casual DM? You seem to be vacilating between the two when it suits your needs and when someone gives you an answer that covers the subject.

DMs:
I don't know of any "casual" DMs who only run one game session every four months.

And the only people I could think who would want a dungeon crawl on that infrequency would be better served with game that would provide maps, dice and figs in the box! Anything less wouldn't be a whole game in their eyes. I would point them to either MK Dugeons or Advanced Hero Quest, though those game can be expanded beyond $20 as well.

As for my semi-design stuff, I didn't have to do that. I could have been lazy and just used the PHB just fine. My point was that 3e gave me enough flexibiltiy on it's own that I wasn't locked into needing the DMG or MM to referee. And you really only need the MM, which is still under the $100. If you only run a game 4 times a year, what's the use of finding and using magic items anyway?

Players:
Play only 4 times a year, get a PHB, that's all you need.


----------



## Voneth (Oct 4, 2002)

Voneth said:
			
		

> *
> And the only people I could think who would want a dungeon crawl on that infrequency would be better served with game that would provide maps, dice and figs in the box! Anything less wouldn't be a whole game in their eyes. I would point them to either MK Dugeons or Advanced Hero Quest, though those game can be expanded beyond $20 as well.
> *




*Snaps fingers*

Dragon strike! TSR did put out a "Hero Quest"/beginners DND game that sat on the shelf at Wal-Mart. It was a game with plastic figs, a reusable map, d20 dice sets, pregens and I think you could "level" up. It came with a video that set up the story.

Seeing as I am the only person to remember it, I think that says you will have an uphill battle convincing anyone that a beginners set or book will sell.


----------



## reiella (Oct 4, 2002)

Heh I remember that, of course the only 'critters' I remember were the scorpion men.  Was pretty fun, also of interesting note it was also sold on the shelves at Affes (US Military store type place thing).


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Oct 4, 2002)

Awww yeah, I remember that.  Dragon Strike.  Had the movie with the manscorpion and the dwarf and the elf.  That was some cool stuff.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Oct 4, 2002)

There was also Dungeon, the D&D board game from way back. You could "level" up in it also. A very simple form of D&D. It didn't garner a lot of interest, seeing as how nobody else has mentioned it either.


----------



## rounser (Oct 4, 2002)

I don't know these games, but I might venture that the boardgame format is too limited.

Pretty much everyone D&D gamerish around when it was released remembers the D&D basic red box.  That sort of "unlimited possibilities" D&D Lite would be far better than the second-rate-Heroquest approach.

Perhaps...a single hardbound book, designed _purely_ for running D&D off the cuff (and with fudging resources such as tables for random dungeon, town and NPC generators to support it, perhaps) compatible with d20 but without many of the 3E extras that add stat overhead....would rock.  

It would also tap into the 12 year old audience who are more worried about making cool dungeon maps to run their friends through than the finer points of AoO and partial actions.  Not sure how you'd attach dice to the book, though.

I'd buy it....one sale right there!


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Oct 4, 2002)

I wouldn't mind seeing such a book - sounds like a job for the OGL!

Anyway...Teenagers From Outer Space had tiny "flea dice" bound into the book in a little plastic bag.


----------



## rounser (Oct 4, 2002)

> sounds like a job for the OGL!



Maybe.  Without the D&D brand screaming at you from the cover, though, I predict that it would definitely flop.

Maybe give it a name like Dungeons & Dragons Apprentice, and stress that it's all you need to begin playing.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 4, 2002)

Geoffrey said:
			
		

> *What about a casual gamer who wants to play a few times each year? I don't think he'd want to pay $100.00 for something he'd take off the shelf once every three or four months.*





Someone who plays a few times a year is unlikely to need anything more than the PHB. Anything else is probably more than they need, if the are DMing they probably aren't even going to do more than run prepackaged adevntures anyway, and most of those include all the information you need (stat blocs, descriptions and so on) that you might get from the DMG or MM. If they aren't DMing, they don't need more than the PHB anyway.



> *What the devil is wrong with WotC? Don't they realize that there are people who would like to give 3E a whirl but don't want to drop $100.00 for it? They don't want to print out reams from the SRD either. They just want to walk into a game store, pay $25, and walk out with a COMPLETE D&D game they can learn to play in a few hours.*




Those people can either (a) buy the PHB and learn everything they need to know to play or , (b) use their friends' books when they need to reference something to see if they like the game.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 4, 2002)

Wizards of the Coast gave people over a year to buy the books at the discounted price of $20 each, and in the first printing of the PHB were tables that gave sample monsters, magic items and XP tables from the later products. You could quite easily get the game for $20 and then expand your collection later. The Sunless Citadel was also printed (the first adventure) with full monster statistics.

Although I have very fond memories of the Moldvay Basic set, it could be said that it utterly failed as being something which you then moved up into AD&D from, because the systems were vastly different in approach, and indeed some rules were quite different!


AV has posted on these forums that he'd love to see a product that would introduce people to D&D with and that could make a profit; but most of their recent efforts in such a direction have failed. 

Cheers!


----------



## Voneth (Oct 4, 2002)

rounser said:
			
		

> *I don't know these games, but I might venture that the boardgame format is too limited.*




But if you are trying to snag a new audience, they need something familar looking. Ideally, it would be a "complete" rpg with board game-like "dungeon tiles," figs (hey, remember Space Crusade with the detachable weapons?) and dice, with as few "weird" dice as possible. 

Why the pesudo-boardgame/completeist concept, people like the familar and have a comfort level when they game. The start of this thread has some of it's roots in this very phenomenon.

The problem with that for a quality product like some are hoping for, it's going to be over $20. For $20 or less, it's going to be a less than stellar presentation.


----------



## RobNJ (Oct 4, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Qick question Rob. Which sentence is the rude (unecessary?) one: first or second? *



Neither. Both are true.  I cannot comprehend his writing.  It makes it impossible to carry on a conversation.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Oct 4, 2002)

Board games are not what we need.  We need a full roleplaying system that is d20 but w/o the non essentials.   Look at GURPS lite.  You could run a full campaign with nothing else if you were willing to do the work.  Expand that into a 96 page booklet that adds more skills and such and you have what I would love to buy from WOTC.   Putting out an "intro" game that is a hybrid D&D/Talisman/Heroquest is not what we need.  We need a full RPG with fewer rules.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Oct 4, 2002)

So while "financially ruinous" for the company I would like to see future material like:

1) A new SRD that incorporates everything that "came down the pipe" rulewise into an advanced section for those of us that can keep up with it.

2) A "D&D lite" for kids but one that looks like it was designed by a teacher instead of looking like it was written after six hours of Playstation. That is, a classical look and bent that inspired so many of us to get into the game in the first place should be passed on to the next generation. No more Elminster's "Fuzzy Realms" style for the kids.

3) Hardcovers called The Completist's Dungeons and Dragons game that contained frank discussions of the rules and reflections on history of the industry it created. The first rulebook in the series could be something like "Return to the Last Word: What Gary Gygax had planned for AD&D". Then you can have showcases on on various authors and their style of play, etc. Sort of a return to a sensibility of literature rather than a parallel to Monopoly that the 2e years hinted at.

4) A virtual reality Castle Greyhawk where you can find the first appearance of all the "D&D-isms".

5) Polyhedral dice made of antimatter. 

6) Transgenically created humanoids, dragons and other "beasties".

7) An advance in dimensional studies so much that we can "encode" one dimension to tap other dimensions with verbal, somatic and material "triggers".

8) A device that not only rules all others but in the darkness binds them.

9) A time machine that can find the real Conan that spoke to Robert E. Howard in his "delusions".

10) A one page D&D hardcover fantasy supplement from an Eastern point of view called DEITY.

But that's just me!


----------



## hong (Oct 4, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *2) A "D&D lite" for kids but one that looks like it was designed by a teacher instead of looking like it was written after six hours of Playstation. *




A D&D lite for kids should most definitely look like it was written with the Playstation Generation in mind.



> *9) A time machine that can find the real Conan that spoke to Robert E. Howard in his "delusions".*




Feh. Everyone knows that Robert A. Heinlein created Conan after an absinthe-induced trip into expanded consciousness, brought on by following the instructions in his own how-to-found-your-own-religion book, _Dianetics_.

This is why you should never make a bet with Harlan Ellison on whether it is in fact possible to found one's own religion.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Oct 4, 2002)

So if D&D lite is written for the "playstation generation" wouldn't that make it just like full 3e? 

We don't need D&D for dummies, we need D&D for those who don't want a tactical miniature combat system and all the things it entails.  We need a D&D that doesn't need half page stat blocks.  We need a d&d that doesn't bog down with all the rules.  That would be fun to dm & play.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 4, 2002)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *We don't need D&D for dummies, we need D&D for those who don't want a tactical miniature combat system and all the things it entails.  We need a D&D that doesn't need half page stat blocks.  We need a d&d that doesn't bog down with all the rules.  That would be fun to dm & play.*




Interesting. In my opinion you just described 3e D&D, since you can easily do all of those things you want D&D to do with that rule set.


----------



## Theuderic (Oct 4, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *Did you take any writing courses, like, ever?
> 
> I can only understand what you're trying to say about 10% of the time.
> 
> *




 The second question is true. The first question isn't "true". If it is then please explain and I would greatly appreciate learning more.


----------



## Theuderic (Oct 4, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *Neither. Both are true.  I cannot comprehend his writing.  It makes it impossible to carry on a conversation. *


----------



## Psion (Oct 4, 2002)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *We don't need D&D for dummies, we need D&D for those who don't want a tactical miniature combat system and all the things it entails.*




Funny, I seem to be able to run 3e without minis if I feel the need (and frequently do.) All it takes is the DM saying "it'll take you a move equivalent action to flank them" instead of measuring things.



> *We need a D&D that doesn't need half page stat blocks.*




The only statblocks of a half page that I have seen are for high level spellcasting characters; 1e would have required you to write out all those stats as well. The only way to condense it further would be to take out skills and feats. Is that what you want?



> *We need a d&d that doesn't bog down with all the rules.  That would be fun to dm & play. *




That sounds like the current edition more than any prior. I don't have to stress over speed factors and other minutia, and most rolls are handled consistently vice having its own separate subsystem that you have to look up. 3e bogs down much less in play than prior version for this reason IME.


----------



## Grazzt (Oct 4, 2002)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Funny, I seem to be able to run 3e without minis if I feel the need (and frequently do.) All it takes is the DM saying "it'll take you a move equivalent action to flank them" instead of measuring things.
> *




Yeppers- me too. We have played both with and without minis. No problems with either.



> *
> The only statblocks of a half page that I have seen are for high level spellcasting characters; 1e would have required you to write out all those stats as well. The only way to condense it further would be to take out skills and feats. Is that what you want?
> *




Yeppers again. You can get away with something like WotC (and d20 publishers) uses in their modules: "Lizardfolk: CR 1; hp 11; see the MM, page XX." Then just reference the MM (or whatever) if the encounter needs to be run. Now, obviously that doesnt work for NPCs, but unless it is gonna be a major encounter, you can get away with using the canned NPC stats in the DMG and just making notes in the text. Also, you can use E-tools, or Jamis Buck's generator for generating on the fly NPCs.



> *
> That sounds like the current edition more than any prior. I don't have to stress over speed factors and other minutia, and most rolls are handled consistently vice having its own separate subsystem that you have to look up. 3e bogs down much less in play than prior version for this reason IME. *




I tend to agree here as well. I still play my 1e campaign on the side. We also run a 3e campaign. Third Edition doesnt require all the charts, tables, etc. that 1e does. Everything is streamlined around a core mechanic. 

If you dont like something (attacks of opportunity for example), dont use it. It doesnt break the game if you dont use it. 

The biggest complaint about 3e I have is the rapid level advancement and the proliferation of magic and magic items (moreso than in previous editions). But- my players and I have solved that for our group. We slowed advancement, make magic items rare, etc.....and use several things from 1e to bring the 1e Feel to 3e....and so far it has worked well. Nothing is out of balance, nobody is powergaming, etc. Basically we are playing 1e with 3e rules.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Oct 4, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Interesting. In my opinion you just described 3e D&D, since you can easily do all of those things you want D&D to do with that rule set. *




I wonder sometimes if I have the same rulebooks as the rest of you.   Maybe mine were misprinted with the playtest rules or something?


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Oct 4, 2002)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Funny, I seem to be able to run 3e without minis if I feel the need (and frequently do.) All it takes is the DM saying "it'll take you a move equivalent action to flank them" instead of measuring things.
> 
> ...




I'm not comparing this to 1e, and yes I would like to take out skills and feats.  I would like to remove the whole, "I'll flank them for a +2 bonus then do a +5 power attack while I use my expertise for a +3 AC bonus, etc."  I don't really want the combat that detailed, IME combat is a chore if you have several PC's battling several NPC's with classes.  Too many mods to keep track of.  The lack of skills is no problem, we just roleplay it and I'll take the PC's relevent stat into account to decide the result.   There are plenty of good things I like about 3e, but the feat and combat system isn't one of them.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 4, 2002)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *I wonder sometimes if I have the same rulebooks as the rest of you. Maybe mine were misprinted with the playtest rules or something?*




Maybe you just aren't as good at gaming as you think? Maybe the rules aren't as complicated as you keep claiming they are? One or both might be true, but something has to account for the fact that you think a patchwork game with a dozen separate subsystems is simpler than one with a unified mechanic. Keeping track of modifiers (your big complaint, apparently) is not hard. Neither is having a system that recognizes that not all equally dextrous people are all equally as good at agility based skills.


----------



## D'karr (Oct 4, 2002)

These threads are a lot more interesting to read when people don't feel the need to be rude to each other.

My question is why do we 'need' a simpler ruleset?

If you find that AoO's are too complicated, eliminate them.  BTW eliminate any feats that rely on AoO's

If you don't want to worry about a dozen skills, eliminate them except for the rogue and then limit his to 5-6.

If you don't want to have 300 feats, then eliminate them all.  Give the fighter a feat every two levels as a class skill and just keep the description of those feats.

I really don't see a need to publish a system that does exactly the same thing that the current system does but is much more limited.  If a DM wants to do that he has complete flexibility to do so with the current ruleset.

You can simplify everything if you really want to.


----------



## GENEWEIGEL (Oct 4, 2002)

D'karr said:
			
		

> *These threads are a lot more interesting to read when people don't feel the need to be rude to each other.
> 
> *




Well, we've heard just enough of that kind of talk, my "friend"!

Moderator! Get rid of this... this... "gentle" creature!

 Just kidding!

Seriously, I keep hearing that there are aspects of the game that can easily be removed but then why not remove any of these aspects for a published light version?

Alright lets look at it again.

Big blocks for stats? Too busy! Resolution?

A one page chart of skills with DCs based on abilities. But only suggested for a DM's reference. 

Feats should be just shelved and if someone later on picks up a core book and wants to use some feats they can just have an ability check to use any feat. This could be included as an option and will be an introduction to the 3rd edition. With consecutive checks to use something with prerequisite feats. 

Why shouldn't someone randomly be able to cleave into another opponent anyway?

Hey, I should write that option up for OGC!



*
____________________________________________
Originally posted by: GENEWEIGEL

Hey, I should write that option up for OGC
____________________________________________

What GENEWEIGEL thinks will be posted RobNJ:

And no one will be able to figure out what it means either. Except someone in special ed. 

I mean, you're in special ed.

No. I mean, those in special ed will be the only ones who appreciate it because they are going on what you tell them.

Not that they think you're cool or anything but because the teacher is going to tell them to get into it for a class project.

That is, the teacher told them to because her son is being held hostage by your equally unappealing twin sister.

No wait! Someone as inept as you could "only" be an only child. With the way you write messageboard posts, it seems you never had initial peer review from any of your siblings.

Yeah. 
____________________________________________________
*

Just kidding!


----------



## D'karr (Oct 4, 2002)

GENEWEIGEL said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, we've heard just enough of that kind of talk, my "friend"!
> 
> ...




The lack of rudeness police has been notified and are on their way...  

Gene,  I believe that the problem with that approach is that it is not financially viable.

Particularly if everything you are suggesting can be accomplished with the current ruleset.

Business is business and unless there is a financial incentive for WotC there will not be a 'lite' system ever produced by *them*.  Maybe somebody else (not WotC) might do something like this.

I would like to see an introductory game that addresses many of the concerns that many have stated here.  But I'm not the target market for a system like this since I've already spent my money on the full "advanced" system (3E).

For example, I started playing D&D with the original D&D rules in late 1978.  When I purchased the AD&D ruleset in mid 1980 I stopped purchasing anything for the original D&D rules, even though they came out with the companion and master sets.  The only thing that I continued to buy was some select adventures which I converted to AD&D.

I believe that is true of many people.  I imagine that WotC has detailed data that might corroborate this.

So why would they fragment their current and future customer base (a mistake TSR made)?  There doesn't seem to be any real good reason to do so.

If WotC developed a lite system that had all the trappings of 3E but in a smaller (condensed) setting  (4 basic classes, limited spells, limited advancement, limited skills and feats) and then they marketed it to a different market than its *current customer base* it might work.  However, that is a huge gamble.  Specially if they have data that shows that it won't be as profitable as we think.

I doubt a substantial amount of current customers would switch to the lite system or even purchase it, since it is essentially the same thing as 3e.

If they would have done this (develop 3e Lite) before and now they were publishing the full 3E version, then it might have worked.

I guess the genie is out of the bottle and nothing is going to change that.  They can't undo the fact that they have sold a large amount of 3e and unless they market to completely new people a lite system won't sell.

That is neither here nor there.  This thread was about 3E and 1E and I have no idea why the lite system keeps cropping up.


----------



## D'karr (Oct 4, 2002)

When I started playing 1E, I was nominated to be the Dungeon Master because I was the DM for the original game.  I didn't have any of the books except for the DMG.  One of the players bought the players handbook and another one got the monster manual.

We played 2 weekly sessions  from 1980-1987.  To this day the only two rulebooks I bought for 1E were the DMG and Unearthed Arcana, which I didn't get to use at all.

The fact that you only need the PHB is a good one.  My budget is much greater for gaming purposes nowadays so I've definitely bought a lot more for 3e than I ever bought for 1e.

One thing that I'm interested in is the following.  What things did you like about 1e that you can't do with 3e.

Personally, the only thing I miss about 1e is the sense of awe I had when I first read the books and started building my first campaign.  I could never ever get that again from any other game.  The sense of wonderment is gone, not because of rules but because of nostalgia.

However, I've found that almost everything I used for my 1e games I'm now rediscovering for my 3e games.

Well, gotta go.  Have to prepare my adventure for tomorrow's game.  Aerie of the Slavelords, here I come.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Oct 4, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Maybe you just aren't as good at gaming as you think? Maybe the rules aren't as complicated as you keep claiming they are? One or both might be true, but something has to account for the fact that you think a patchwork game with a dozen separate subsystems is simpler than one with a unified mechanic. Keeping track of modifiers (your big complaint, apparently) is not hard. Neither is having a system that recognizes that not all equally dextrous people are all equally as good at agility based skills. *




As good at gaming?  I didn't know there was a scale to measure it by.   Is there a gaming MVP to award the best gamer in the community?  Do they give that out at GenCon?  Are gamers who love Hero better than those who love GURPS lite?   Where do I look this scale up at?   I want to know what I'm batting.   

Maybe I'd like to run a simpler game?  Maybe I don't want to put the level of effort into running a more rules heavy game?   I like the unified mechanic, I think I've said that several times.   Maybe you like to keep track of a lot of variable mods?  I know I don't.   Sure you can have a system where people of the same level of dexterity have different skill levels, is it that hard?  No.  Is it necessary to have a good time playing a game?  Maybe for you but it's not for my group.  

Good way to insult me though.  Bravo!


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 4, 2002)

That would be "bravo" in the sense that "condescending insults are neither cool nor permitted."  

In case it came off as ruder than it was meant, SR, please read your posts before you hit submit.  Tastes can differ without making someone a "poor gamer."


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Oct 4, 2002)

Ah I don't care if they insult me.  Most of the BB's I frequent are free for alls compared to this place.  It's just jealousy of these massive biceps anyway.  *flexes*


----------



## Victim (Oct 4, 2002)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'm not comparing this to 1e, and yes I would like to take out skills and feats.  I would like to remove the whole, "I'll flank them for a +2 bonus then do a +5 power attack while I use my expertise for a +3 AC bonus, etc."  I don't really want the combat that detailed, IME combat is a chore if you have several PC's battling several NPC's with classes.  Too many mods to keep track of.  The lack of skills is no problem, we just roleplay it and I'll take the PC's relevent stat into account to decide the result.   There are plenty of good things I like about 3e, but the feat and combat system isn't one of them. *




You mean situational modifiers like weapon versus armor mods, shieldless attacks, back attacks, etc.  The modifiers that 1e hade for combat position are more complicated than +2 flanking.


----------



## Numion (Oct 4, 2002)

FWIW, I've DMed two 3e campaigns to levels 16+ without any miniatures or battlemats. So claiming that those would be needed is just wrong. It just depends on your playing style. If the players trust their DM, there's no need to argue his rulings with miniature positions or battlemats. DM says you get an AoO, then you get AoO. 

I don't see how 1e's situation of having no rules for something is any better than 3e's. In both cases the DMs word is final. 3e just gives more guidelines for the DM, if he should need them. I'm happy to have neat mechanics for most things, so I enjoy 3e. I can concentrate on more essential things than rules.

I wouldn't find 1e's unclear rules as a good basis for the claimed DMs freedom. In a sense it gives you freedom to make stuff up, and one doesn't really need rules for that.


----------



## Theuderic (Oct 5, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Maybe you just aren't as good at gaming as you think?  *




 This either implies a lack of tact or rudeness. Which one I wonder......


----------



## rounser (Oct 5, 2002)

> But if you are trying to snag a new audience, they need something familar looking.



Cosmetics, eh?  Put a detachable wilderness hex map in the back, then, backed by a dungeon map, and make that look like a board.  Attach dice and a bunch of 15mm brightly coloured plastic minis to the hardback, somehow.  There's your board and counters.  Incidentally, the Tales of the Lance map looked a lot like a boardgame board, but because it was a boxed set you couldn't see that.

For the most part, boardgames are limited by the edge of the board, which is anathema to one of D&D's main selling points - an opportunity to exercise creativity and the promise of nearly unlimited possibilities.  Even Hero Quest and Advanced Hero Quest fall victim to this - they're inconvenient to expand because they need props.  These limitations make games like Dungeon, Dragon Strike and the D&D Adventure Game fairly unmemorable, and the oD&D Basic red box a lot more appealing to the creative newcomer to the game once they buy the thing and introduce their friends to it.


----------

