# What is 3.0 & 3.5 missing that previous editions had?



## Calico_Jack73 (Mar 1, 2004)

Rather than steal a discussion about a problem player who wants to go back to 2E I thought I'd start my own.  A lot of people talk about the new editions of D&D missing that special something that previous editions had.  Heck, Goodman Games has started publishing a series of modules that harken back to the early TSR modules in look and feel.

In your opinion what is that special something that the earlier editions had that all of us old gamers are now missing with the new editions?


----------



## Davelozzi (Mar 1, 2004)

The nostalgia value of something that you got into when you were a little kid.


----------



## Darklone (Mar 1, 2004)

5 minutes to create a new character... for a newbie.


----------



## MarauderX (Mar 1, 2004)

Gotta chime in and say 3.X is much closer to OD&D IMO than any of the other versions, including 1st Ed.  Most of the grim fury that is adventuring is back, and not as much time is spent calculating and recalculating bonuses and such.  It brought the game back around to players caring about the adventure they were on, not their magic/steroid PC that they have created to be competitive with everyone else.  Once again it is becoming a team oriented sport, where each component is appreciated but not overwealming vital.  

That said, if they want to go back to 2E, just add more rules to you 3.5 game to take a PC's eye color into account for a bluff check and some other unnecessary tweaks that 2E players seem to just love.  Ask them if they have ever played OD&D and if they liked it.  Chances are they want a different type of game that rewards the players by adding to the PCs, not progressing in a story or doing cool actions.  I like to escape those groups as those players are not the type I want to game with.  As you can tell, I like to have plots that progress, storylines that reveal themselves as the players unlock certain clues, and baddies that have motivations other than just slay the PCs cause they showed up.  

To me all of these issues were revolutionized with 3E vs. 2E, and brought the game around from appeasing twink-maniacs to inspiring imagination once again.  As a DM, if you don't like the game system, no prob, run your own.  Leave my choice to run 3.X alone, I like it.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Mar 1, 2004)

Davelozzi said:
			
		

> The nostalgia value of something that you got into when you were a little kid.




What about players that got into gaming when they were in their 20's a few years prior to 3E?  I've spoken with some and even they say that 3E is missing something.  I think there is something more than that.


----------



## reiella (Mar 1, 2004)

Darklone said:
			
		

> 5 minutes to create a new character... for a newbie.




The standard templates in the PH help a good bit with that and are intended for that.  They take most of the time consumption out of character creation (At least at first).  At least in my experience, most of the time in chargen comes from selecting skills + feats.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Mar 1, 2004)

reiella said:
			
		

> The standard templates in the PH help a good bit with that and are intended for that.  They take most of the time consumption out of character creation (At least at first).  At least in my experience, most of the time in chargen comes from selecting skills + feats.




If you please, the discussion is on what OD&D had that 3E doesn't... not what 3E has.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 1, 2004)

Clerics were much more customizeable in 2e. Of course, that customization eventually became horribly unwieldy, but it could make for some fun PCs.


----------



## Planesdragon (Mar 1, 2004)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> In your opinion what is that special something that the earlier editions had that all of us old gamers are now missing with the new editions?




It's not an old gamer / new gamer thing.

Pick up a 2nd cover 1st edition players handbook, or a 2nd edition players handbook (either cover.)  Now, compare the art that you see to ANY picture in the core 3rd edition line.

This is a clue to what's missing.  It's not just that the art has changed to a more cartoonish style.  It's that WotC didn't try and make D&D into a serious RPG.  They've thrown in that towel, and D&D is very much a campy, shallow, dungeon-crawl game.

Fortunately, they didn't leave the market of rabidly creative GMs out in the cold.  The Open Gaming License lets us take what might be the most developed rules system of any RPG, and use as much or as little of it as we like in making our own RPG.


----------



## reiella (Mar 1, 2004)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> If you please, the discussion is on what OD&D had that 3E doesn't... not what 3E has.




Heh, well, that was in reference to a comment made that implied 3e lacked something that it did not .

In anycase, if ya want my contribution it's dingo kidneys, but hey.  To me, the only bits I reminsce are the more open ended/less structured nature of adventuring in prior editions of D&D.  Which is ironically often one of my complaints about the prior systems .

To me at least, the formulaes are now well known, and most can expect to "level up" after every 13 1/3 encounters and you can expect that the DM has less of a chance of unintentionally throwing an encounter far too difficult for your baseline.  In older editions the potential for unintentional over-rewarding seemed greater as well.


----------



## Psion (Mar 1, 2004)

10 years between revisions.


----------



## Zappo (Mar 1, 2004)

System flukes, headaches, arbitrary restrictions and lack of consistancy?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 1, 2004)

Mechanically? Very little. There are a few minor details from 1E/2E that I miss, but not much. In 99% of cases, the new system is superior.

But there was a feel and attitude in the old editions that I occasionally miss in 3E. The best example of it, as someone else mentioned, was the art. As far as I'm concerned, no suit of spike-covered semi-punk armor is ever going to be nearly as evocative as the classic knight in plate. But leaving aside the details of the pictures, I miss the old _style_. I don't like the trend toward comic-book-style art. When it comes to fantasy RPG artwork, I prefer my colors painted, and I prefer most of the art be black and white.

Yes, I said I prefer B&W most of the time. When done well, it can actually be more evocative.

I miss art that told a story or presented a scene, rather than character portraits. With the efreet on the coer of the old DMG, with the City of Brass in the background--or with the picture of Emirikol the Chaotic riding through some hapless town--you knew there was a story there somewhere.


----------



## Krieg (Mar 1, 2004)

It's soul.


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Mar 1, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I miss art that told a story or presented a scene, rather than character portraits. With the efreet on the coer of the old DMG, with the City of Brass in the background--or with the picture of Emirikol the Chaotic riding through some hapless town--you knew there was a story there somewhere.




I think this is one of the things that I miss the most. When I look at the full page art in the Basic Sets, the PHB, MM, & DMG (both 1e & 2e), and especially the Dragon & Dungeon Magazine covers,  I miss the scenic elements of the artwork. Almost all the artwork these days is either spot art, clip art, or portraits. There are no full page images (at least none that I can think off off the top of my head). Almost every cover on Dragon is a closeup of someones face, or a full body shot, but never a scene. Same with the rulebooks. The pictures used to tell stories, now they are supermodels.


----------



## Dimwhit (Mar 1, 2004)

I know what it is for me. The rules (and most of the players) are so fixated on balance in 3ed. It's made it more vanilla that the previous editions. I like the new rules, don't get me wrong, but I'm sick of all the rules changes and talk of such and such not being balanced, etc. In earlier editions, you just played the game...


----------



## Chronosome (Mar 1, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Mechanically? Very little. There are a few minor details from 1E/2E that I miss, but not much. In 99% of cases, the new system is superior.
> 
> But there was a feel and attitude in the old editions that I occasionally miss in 3E. The best example of it, as someone else mentioned, was the art. As far as I'm concerned, no suit of spike-covered semi-punk armor is ever going to be nearly as evocative as the classic knight in plate. But leaving aside the details of the pictures, I miss the old _style_. I don't like the trend toward comic-book-style art. When it comes to fantasy RPG artwork, I prefer my colors painted, and I prefer most of the art be black and white.
> 
> ...



Agreed.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 1, 2004)

The cultists

Blood sacrifices

Heavy metal music

Dimly lit body odor infested parent’s basements

Rolling for stats

simplicity



Soul


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 1, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> I know what it is for me. The rules (and most of the players) are so fixated on balance in 3ed. It's made it more vanilla that the previous editions. I like the new rules, don't get me wrong, but I'm sick of all the rules changes and talk of such and such not being balanced, etc. In earlier editions, you just played the game...



Sounds like a problem with players to me.  We still "just play the game" in my neck of the woods.


----------



## Treebore (Mar 1, 2004)

diaglo said:
			
		

> The cultists
> 
> Blood sacrifices
> 
> ...




Yes, simplicity. 3.0/3.5 is anything but simple. Unless you ignore a lot of the "extras".


----------



## Henry (Mar 1, 2004)

3E is missing one very important thing: Me being 18 and having nothing to do all day but design dungeons and my campaign world. 

Some other things that to me give D&D a different feel:

The ability to communicate in a live and timely fashion with its designers, and get the whys and wherefores of the game, as opposed to not communicating and taking what came down from the mountain at face value.

The central emphasis on combat and what goes on while adventuring, with less thought being detailed for how a character determines what goes on outside of it. Thieves, for instance, were defined by backstabbing and thievery; now rogues are defined by dirty tricks and skill in whatever avenue they desire.

One thing I miss the most is perhaps the flaws themselves, the inconsistent rules, the quirks that make multiclassed characters more powerful than others, the rules that give dart-throwers with high strength unbelieveable damage in combat at low levels, the unbelievably long combat rounds, and all the other disjointed issues that gave it its charm. In short, the AD&D ruleset was a flagstone floor in a medieval mausoleum; the 3E ruleset is a tile floor in a modern home.



			
				Planesdragon said:
			
		

> It's not just that the art has changed to a more cartoonish style. It's that WotC didn't try and make D&D into a serious RPG. They've thrown in that towel, and D&D is very much a campy, shallow, dungeon-crawl game.




I actually see the exact reverse. The 1st edition AD&D artwork was anything but deadly serious: It had cartoons, its serious drawings were in a cartoonish style (someone please tell me that Erol Otus was less cartoonish than Todd Lockwood - I don't see it!) and the very covers screamed 1930's Conan pulp fiction artwork. Artists like Arne Swekel, Todd Lockwood, Sam Wood, et. al actually turn the artwork into more serious subject matter to me (for instance, the pictures of Kerwyn the Rogue, Alhandra the paladin, and Arne's opening chapter illustrations.) There are more fun moments in there, too (Lidda's "bong" picture, Mialee's "Ugh, a spider" picture, etc.) but as a whole, they wanted a tone that took the game material itself less seriously than the older editions, and they succeeded, IMO.


----------



## Aaron L (Mar 1, 2004)

It lacks a certain archaic feel compared to 1E, that woodcut look of the illustrations and the arbitrary random tables for every different activity.  In some ways it feels less complete, as in all actions haven't been considered, because everything uses the same mechanic, but that is a good thing IMO.  

What I think people feel as the "lack" in 3E is the standardization, as in every class doesn't have its own XP table, there aren't different save bonuses for every class, no quirky little thngs in different classes.  This "soul" that is lacking in 3E is a combination of nostalgia, and the inclusion of a streamlined core mechanic and standardized accounting of class abilities.

The speed of leveling is a difference.  In 3E there is a smooth progression from low level to high level in 3E, whearas in 1E and 2E I think you spent a much longer time in the mid levels before reaching full power at high levels.  (In my games starting at about 6th level I start giving 3/4 XP, and then 1/2 XP at higher levels.)

The CR system built around the assumed value of equipment by level is a BIG difference.  
(I think it's just way too metagamey to assume that all characters of a given level have the same value of equipment, and the core system being built around this assumption is a fault.  I would much prefer a "looser" CR system where the CR assumes a range of difficulty.)


----------



## Liolel (Mar 1, 2004)

What is 3.X missing. Two things: Planescape (which is the best published campaign setting ever) and detailed monster descriptions (by this I mean the parts that are not the statistics.)


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 1, 2004)

What 3.x is missing:

* Distinct, narrow roles for PCs to fall into. Fighters Fight, Thieves Steal, Wizards blow things up, and Clerics Heal. Thats all.
* Arbitrary restrictions with "flavor text" to explain them (Halflings don't trust magic...)
* 10 systems to do the same thing (unarmed combat?)
* A variety of dice mechanic (1d20, 1d100)
* A higher dependancy on high ability scores.
* A higher dependancy on Luck/good die rolls.
* The concept of the Ominverse, with Greyhawk, Realms, and all other settings sharing the same cosmology.
* Magical Items, Weapons, and Spells that were CLEARLY superior to others.
* Classes and races that were CLEARLY superior to others.
* Classic Modules
* Too many choices (Players Options)
* Too many restrictions (d20 publishers?)
* Clear Inbalance in favor of the DM
* Rule Loopholes 

Thats what I can think of. Whether these are good or bad are up to you.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Mar 1, 2004)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> * Clear Inbalance in favor of the DM




Sorry, I gotta rant a bit about this.

Imbalance?  The DM runs the game!  I don't need rule imbalance to kill of the party if I so choose.  Nowhere does it say in any of the books that I MUST use CRs to determine what monsters to throw at the party so if I throw a Great Wyrm Red Dragon at the party then that act is totally supported by the rules and I didn't use any "imbalance" kill them off.  I'm so fed up with this "Players vs. DM" mentality.  I get tired of players who shoot holes in a DM's plot because it doesn't abide by "THE RULES" and then complain about the mediocre story.  You all know the type and they typically metagame.  They'll analyze what level spellcasters are by the number of dice you roll for a Magic Missile attack or Fireball and then keep track of how much damage said caster has taken.  The instant the caster has taken more hit point damage than their "calculation" has allowed for then they'll "helpfully" point it out to the DM and the rest of the players.  If the DM doesn't take care of it to their advantage or at least spit out a reason for it then they'll get ticked off and sulk for the rest of the game.  I view the game as a communal storytelling session.  The players and the DM all play to tell a story.  If the DM takes advantage of a rule to make the story interesting then so be it.  I'd certainly hope that everyone's DM doesn't actively try to play against the Players.

Sorry for the rant.  I'm just sick and tired of that mentality.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 1, 2004)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> Sorry, I gotta rant a bit about this.
> 
> Imbalance?  The DM runs the game!  I don't need rule imbalance to kill of the party if I so choose.  Nowhere does it say in any of the books that I MUST use CRs to determine what monsters to throw at the party so if I throw a Great Wyrm Red Dragon at the party then that act is totally supported by the rules and I didn't use any "imbalance" kill them off.  I'm so fed up with this "Players vs. DM" mentality.  I get tired of players who shoot holes in a DM's plot because it doesn't abide by "THE RULES" and then complain about the mediocre story.  You all know the type and they typically metagame.  They'll analyze what level spellcasters are by the number of dice you roll for a Magic Missile attack or Fireball and then keep track of how much damage said caster has taken.  The instant the caster has taken more hit point damage than their "calculation" has allowed for then they'll "helpfully" point it out to the DM and the rest of the players.  If the DM doesn't take care of it to their advantage or at least spit out a reason for it then they'll get ticked off and sulk for the rest of the game.  I view the game as a communal storytelling session.  The players and the DM all play to tell a story.  If the DM takes advantage of a rule to make the story interesting then so be it.  I'd certainly hope that everyone's DM doesn't actively try to play against the Players.
> 
> Sorry for the rant.  I'm just sick and tired of that mentality.



I can imagine.  Y'know, I hear stories like this from time to time, but I've never met a player like this.  A lot of these player problems that people misidentify as rules or system problems really baffle me; I think 3e is the best thing to happen to D&D.  And players like that are bad under any system.


----------



## Henry (Mar 1, 2004)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> I get tired of players who shoot holes in a DM's plot because it doesn't abide by "THE RULES" and then complain about the mediocre story....The instant the caster has taken more hit point damage than their "calculation" has allowed for then they'll "helpfully" point it out to the DM and the rest of the players.  If the DM doesn't take care of it to their advantage or at least spit out a reason for it then they'll get ticked off and sulk for the rest of the game.




This is why I didn't game with such people in the days of 1E and 2E, and why I still don't today. If the issue does arise in 3E, I explain that there's a reason for it, and they'll figure it out if they're crafty, and then I remind them about our group's rule that the DM's decision is final while at the table, and we keep playing.


----------



## JEL (Mar 1, 2004)

I miss second edition's customizable priests (going with generic, combat oriented clerics in 3e was a huge step backwards) and better monster descriptions (I like knowing stuff other than just how they fight).  Both of these have been mentioned above, but I thought I'd give them a second.


----------



## Gundark (Mar 1, 2004)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> What about players that got into gaming when they were in their 20's a few years prior to 3E?  I've spoken with some and even they say that 3E is missing something.  I think there is something more than that.




Well I would argue that it is nostalgia. For exmaple when my wife began playing D&D it was 3rd ed. There was the whole newness aspect to it, and it was really fun for her to play. Now she's not scared when a goblin attacks the party or excited to be going down into the dungeon because the newness of the game has worn off. She still enjoys the game but if you asked her she would claim that it probably isn't the same.


----------



## Rashak Mani (Mar 1, 2004)

I too miss those customizable clerics... every religion had very very different Cleric styles. 

   Did players min/max it too much ? Yep... but it made Clerics fun. In 3.X with easier multiclassing this kind of "open choice" would end up with terribly munchkin stuff.

    I also miss long combats (in rounds since in real life they seem just as long) Combat is too quick.  

    Overall 3.X is way way better than 2nd Ed. and better than 1st Ed.


----------



## Azlan (Mar 1, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Sounds like a problem with players to me.  We still "just play the game" in my neck of the woods.




Hmm... With over 6,000 posts, here at EN World, I'd say that you, Joshua Dyal, do more than "just play the game".


----------



## diaglo (Mar 1, 2004)

Azlan said:
			
		

> Hmm... With over 6,000 posts, here at EN World, I'd say that you, Joshua Dyal, do more than "just play the game".




post count means nothing.  

i've got that many on WotC under a couple names.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 1, 2004)

Azlan said:
			
		

> Hmm... With over 6,000 posts, here at EN World, I'd say that you, Joshua Dyal, do more than "just play the game".



Nah, three quarters of those posts are inane one-liners and bad jokes.


----------



## buzz (Mar 1, 2004)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> In your opinion what is that special something that the earlier editions had that all of us old gamers are now missing with the new editions?



I agree with Davelozzi; it's all nostalgia, even if said nostalgia is for 2e.

Sure, I miss Dave Trampier's art, and I agree with others (and Monte Cook, who did a LoS about this) that 3.x could use a little less portraiture and a bit more evocative-scene-illustration...

BUT...

There is really nothing about the actual *rules* of previous editions that I have any interest in going back to. Nor am I interested (consistently) in the massive hack n' slash dungeon-crawls that comprised many of the "classic" modules. I honestly don't want "3rd edition rules, 1st edition feel." I want 3rd edition rules with a 3rd edition feel.  This is part of the reason I have no ineterst in _Hackmaster_.

I also much prefer the 3e look, at least up until recently (i.e., post WotC getting rid of Sam Wood and Todd Lockwood for the most part), *especially* in comparison to most of the 2e products I've seen. That stuff is just plain hideous, IMHO, barring Brom, DiTerlizzi, and a few others.


----------



## johnsemlak (Mar 1, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> 3E is missing one very important thing: Me being 18 and having nothing to do all day but design dungeons and my campaign world.




I'd say it's missing me being _*11*_ and having nothing to do but design dungeons, (bad) campaign worlds, re-read modules 20 times over, create new races/classes, and just play.

By the time I was 18 I only had time to design dungeons all day


----------



## LightPhoenix (Mar 1, 2004)

Yeah, I would definitely say it's the nostalgia factor.  It's like your first boyfriend/girlfriend... you always have a certain fondness, a certain remembrance for the first one.


----------



## Particle_Man (Mar 1, 2004)

I miss the fact that the 1st ed. illusionist had a way, way different spell-list than the regular magic-user.  There were spells that were unique to each list, and there were spells that were at different levels on each list.  With 2nd ed., the arcane spells were all glommed together.  In 3rd ed., the bard has a few unique spells, and cleric and druid are still separate from each other in some spells (and from arcane spells in general) but there is no spell that an illusionist can cast that a regular non-specialized wizard cannot.  Unearthed Arcana has a possible solution to this by giving special abilities to the specialized wizards.  I guess there is no easy way to put the genie back in the bottle.

Oh, and the munchkin part of me missed double specialization, but Complete Warrior fixed that.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 1, 2004)

From what I can tell, it's gone a little something like this:

1e: "Let's play a game!" You go into the dungeon, you slay the dragon, you don it's treasure, move to the next town, and repeat. There is "the best," and "the suck," and it's all an attempt to overthrow the challenges put before your characters. And don't piss off the judge.

2e: "Let's tell a tale!" Enough with the dungeons....you don't just kill monsters, you save princesses, earn reputation, and are a living, breathing part of the world. The idioms should be played, because everyone likes them, and elves, as the most beautiful and lyrical of the races, rawk your jocks.

3e: "Let's have some fun." Screw this 'the best' stuff, and if you want to play against your type, go for it. It's just there for your enjoyment...can't take it too seriously, or it starts becoming a bit unhealthy for ya....there is a world beyond D&D, and D&D can be a fun after-work activity for a group of friends. It's a game. Enjoy it how you want to enjoy it, and let the rules help you make it fun. If you like to tell stories, let's help you do that. If you like to raid dungeons, let's help you do that. If you like to do a little of both, go for it. We're here to help you have fun.

The art is pure nostalgia/taste issue. There's nothing 'wrong' with the 3e art, because everyone likes different things. IMHO, the 1e art was cartoony, rediculous, and corny. At best, it was visceral, a bit pulpy. At worst, it was a comic strip or a coloring book. The 2e art was good....great setting, environment, and world. You wanted your game to be a part of it. The 3e art is good, too....great characters, evocative movements, and images that leap off the page and into the imagination. You want it to be a part of your game.

The rules, most anyone can agree, are better. They are a bit more complex, but I can still have a n00b starting in less than one minute, because the best way to learn is to learn as you go.

A good chunk of edition warz is nostalgia. But the editions do have a different feel, reflecting their different design philosophies, I think. They had different intentions when making them. I think the rock comparison is apt: OD&D was the unchiseled peak, 1e was the boulder carved from it, 2e was the block made from that boulder, and 3e is the floor made out of that block. Increasing complexity, but different use for all levels.

Oh, and as for this:


> I miss the fact that the 1st ed. illusionist had a way, way different spell-list than the regular magic-user. There were spells that were unique to each list, and there were spells that were at different levels on each list. With 2nd ed., the arcane spells were all glommed together. In 3rd ed., the bard has a few unique spells, and cleric and druid are still separate from each other in some spells (and from arcane spells in general) but there is no spell that an illusionist can cast that a regular non-specialized wizard cannot. Unearthed Arcana has a possible solution to this by giving special abilities to the specialized wizards. I guess there is no easy way to put the genie back in the bottle.



I agree, and I've fixed it IMC by offering special abilities, new, unique spells, and limiting the spell lists of the casters....so now the Illusionist casts ONLY illusion spells, has the UA special abilities, and gets new illusion spells that your average Wizard can't touch......it's no more complex than crafting a new class, though that's probably the most modding I've done for D&D, so I may have it easy. ^_^;


----------



## Gundark (Mar 1, 2004)

I always thought the racial limitations that were availible in 1st ed. were a neat idea ( ie. Elves could only have a maximum natural strength of 16, humans could never have a natural dexterity greater than 18). However I also understand why this sort of thing would never work in 3.X


----------



## Rashak Mani (Mar 1, 2004)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> By the time I was 18 I only had time to design dungeons all day




   Don't women spoil our RPG lives ! Before I started dating I played so much more...


----------



## Nifelhein (Mar 1, 2004)

I think it is too much designed to make the characters dependent on their items, it is too easy to create magical items, that the clerics are way too close, even with the domain spells, and also, that the 3rd Ed. or 3.5, for that matter, create an even greater difference than the previous editions.

That said, I love it.. more than all the previous ones, although that nostalgia is always around, specially when you got to remember your old characters...


----------



## Gundark (Mar 1, 2004)

Rashak Mani said:
			
		

> Don't women spoil our RPG lives ! Before I started dating I played so much more...



 yeah, so does work, bills, university, etc.....life suks


----------



## JesterPoet (Mar 1, 2004)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> You all know the type and they typically metagame.  They'll analyze what level spellcasters are by the number of dice you roll for a Magic Missile attack or Fireball and then keep track of how much damage said caster has taken.  The instant the caster has taken more hit point damage than their "calculation" has allowed for then they'll "helpfully" point it out to the DM and the rest of the players.  If the DM doesn't take care of it to their advantage or at least spit out a reason for it then they'll get ticked off and sulk for the rest of the game.




That would happen *ONE* time in my game, and then it would never happen again.

There's two things I don't allow in my games.  Players who question the final word of the GM, and players who show up dressed like hobbits.


----------



## Gothmog (Mar 1, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> But there was a feel and attitude in the old editions that I occasionally miss in 3E. The best example of it, as someone else mentioned, was the art. As far as I'm concerned, no suit of spike-covered semi-punk armor is ever going to be nearly as evocative as the classic knight in plate. But leaving aside the details of the pictures, I miss the old _style_. I don't like the trend toward comic-book-style art. When it comes to fantasy RPG artwork, I prefer my colors painted, and I prefer most of the art be black and white.
> 
> Yes, I said I prefer B&W most of the time. When done well, it can actually be more evocative.
> 
> I miss art that told a story or presented a scene, rather than character portraits. With the efreet on the coer of the old DMG, with the City of Brass in the background--or with the picture of Emirikol the Chaotic riding through some hapless town--you knew there was a story there somewhere.




Preach it Mouseferatu.    I agree 100%.  The new art is not compelling and is too cartoony.  And when I see a sexy halfling in form-fitting leathers, or an elf goth-punk in the D&D books now it pains me to think that art is in a D&D book.  The B&W artwork of people like David Griffith, Brian LeBlanc, or Tyler Walpole DOES has tons of character, atmopshere, and the feel I have always associated with D&D, and I'd much prefer their stuff in the core books than the overstylized crap of WAR or Lockwood.

Overall 3E is a better system.  Mechanically, not a lot is different.  Sure, we call them Reflex saves now, and they are easier to handle, but its basically the same as the old Save vs. Petrification.  THAC0 and BAB are identical mathematical progressions, just now its easier to use.  Feats and Skills are a good idea, although they can be taken to extremes now.  

What 3E is missing to me is the more organic nature of character development that previous editions had.  Now, there are so many feats, skills, and PrCs that player have to start choosing early if they want to qualify for something later.  That kinda kills a lot of the character development that can occur through RPing and experience in a campaign, since pidgeonholing a character into a narrow concept from the beginning is inherently limiting.

A couple other things:

1. Customizable priests- previous posters have pointed this out, and the generic combat cleric is a huge regression.  Domains are much less versatile and interesting than Spheres were.

2. Descriptions about monester ecology and culture.  Sure, they each took up a page in 2E, but it was worth it for the sheer amount of detail you got.

3. Characters are too dependent on items in 3E.


----------



## Bihor (Mar 1, 2004)

Two things I miss from 2e:

-Creating instant villans. I used to DM with minimum of préparation, Basic plot two or three act before the BBEG. I could open the monster manual and had a random encounter. With 3e in takes more time to prepare the game.
Now you have to much option. Too much option is not bad, I'm just lasy.

-The racial trait where not just numbers, there was rollplaying traits too.
Their was no ECL. To play a giant, having to pay 4 time the price of your equipment, not be able to enter every where, and be realy stupid for me there where big drawbacks. 
I know that some will min/max their charater, some did in my games, but a DM with imagination can use drawbacks to is adventage.


----------



## JesterPoet (Mar 1, 2004)

Ah yeah... just thought about this... I miss the extensive lists of nonweapon proficiencies from 2e.


----------



## Henry (Mar 1, 2004)

_*Henry throws his Hobbit costume inthe closet and slams the door quickly*_

Sorry JesterPoet -- I, um, er, I have something to do this week - I won't be coming over anytime soon...



As for designing dungeons all day, I had the summer of my High School Senior year and all of Freshman College to design and playtest about 60% of my custom campaign world - I coasted through the Freshman classes due to their simplicity, and spent all of my other waking hours designing and playing. When my love of my life (now my wife) came into the picture, I totally reorganized my life, and gaming took a back seat for about 3 years.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Mar 1, 2004)

EDIT:  Deleted.


----------



## francisca (Mar 1, 2004)

Speaking as someone still playing 1E and DMing 3.5-ish, I dunno that 3.XE is lacking something that the old game had.  They're just different.  Not as stark of a difference between the old editions and say, GURPS, but different enough that I don't view 1E and 3E as the same game.

Sure, I like the fact that I could knock out an NPC is my head in about 30 seconds with the old rules.  I used to chalk it up to familiarity, but after playing 3.X for a while, I've come to the conclusion that it really does take longer to generate an NPC of any level with 3.X.

I like the old art better.  I liked the mix of the +1 backscratcher and Emiricol.  

But nostalgia aside, I'm glad I get to sit around a table once in a while, sling dice, go to strange exotic places, meet wildly interesting people and creatures, then kill them and take their stuff.  (Or enable it as a DM.)

It's the escapism and hanging about with friends in a realm of fantasy that I enjoy.  Rules are just a framework for arbitration.  (And no, I don't like LARPs or diceless.  I like game mechanics and dice.)

So in the end, while I get nostalgic for the old days, I don't think one edition has anything over the other.  I think the nostalgia is more about the days when I didn't have much responsibility and could goof off a lot more.  Just so happens I was playing 1E at the time.  I wonder if today's 13 year olds will feel the same about 3.5 10 or 20 years from now?


----------



## Bihor (Mar 1, 2004)

I still have nightmares about THAC0, sometimes


----------



## Will (Mar 1, 2004)

Well, first, I found Basic - AD&D 2e nearly unplayable. I've been in a few games, I have books for 1e and 2e, but... never enjoyed it. The systems were terribly incoherent.

As for better things... I agree with Gothmog.

I liked 2e customized clerics, I liked more info on what monsters are, and I find the reliance on items maddening in 3e.

I liked other details, like lists of what various materials did. I also enjoyed some of the art in the old books better.


----------



## francisca (Mar 1, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Things 3.x is missing that previous editions had...
> 
> - Inconsistant rules.
> - Having to reference a chart nearly every time you made a roll.
> ...





I quit 1E near the end of it's run, and skipped 2E altogether.  Was THAC0 really that bad?
And I never objected to the charts.
And yes, now we have others besides TSR shoveling crap out.


----------



## RFisher (Mar 1, 2004)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> In your opinion what is that special something that the earlier editions had that all of us old gamers are now missing with the new editions?




A less steep power curve. This may be the #1 factor that has caused 3e to drop from near the top of my list of favored systems.

It's kind of ironic, because I used to complain whenever an increase in a RPG stat didn't provide an actual effect in the game. Well 3e reduced that a lot, but rather than increasing granularity to do so, it cranked up the power curve.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 1, 2004)

I _don't_ like the old art.  Then again, I'm also one of those types that insists that D&D is fantasy, not medieval.  It should be fantastic, it doesn't have to be realistic, it should be cool.  Even to a jaded old fart like me who would wear Don Johnson white cotton suits, or Duran Duran poofy shirts if I could without looking like a complete idiot, the characters in the newer D&D books look _cool_; they look fantastic, and they look like something that I could believe in a stylish, pulpy, action-movie (or TV show) type of fantasy.  And frankly, I don't have a problem with D&D being that kind of fantasy.  Levelling and the power escalation of a typical D&D game almost mandates that style, IMO.  To get a different style, I tend to feel like I need to introduce a variety of house rules.

Then again, to reiterate, my games are _not_ Medieval.  I tend to look more towards John Carter of Mars, Robert E. Howard, _Pirates of the Caribbean, The X-Files_ and _Raiders of the Lost Ark_ all thrown together into a gestalt gaming experience.  So images of classical medieval knights don't really work for me.


----------



## Nifelhein (Mar 1, 2004)

Joshua,

And what happens when they say in the skills section that there is a limit, to what is possible and what is impossible, then you have people swimming up a waterfall... that would be impossible to my eyes, unless magic is at work, of course...


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 1, 2004)

Dark Jezter et al, this thread is about the good stuff that previous editions of the game had. Please don't hijack it to bitch about the things you don't like.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 2, 2004)

Liolel said:
			
		

> What is 3.X missing. Two things: Planescape (which is the best published campaign setting ever) and detailed monster descriptions (by this I mean the parts that are not the statistics.)




I said earlier that the art was the single best example of the change in focus/attitude that I lamented.

The lack of monster descriptions is the second.

While I agree that, in a game book, the mechanics should take priority, and that mood/feel is largely up to the DM, I preferred when the books at least made a concerted effort to provide a baseline. I liked being able to look up what sort of lair a displacer beast was likely to have, or what flumphs ate. 

It's always easier to tweak away from a common baseline, IMO. I don't believe it would harm the game one bit to include this sort of info for those who wanted it, since it requires a grand total of zero effort for those who don't to house rule it out. That's the beauty of non-mechanical details.


----------



## arwink (Mar 2, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I said earlier that the eart was the single best example of the change in focus/attitude that I lamented.
> 
> The lack of monster descriptions is the second.




Are we really missing that though?  Sure, it's not being done by Wizards in the base rules set, but flicking through something like Monsternomicon and a couple of the other monster books out there, it's not like flavor-free monster descriptions are impossible to find.

I get the same feeling from the art - the core rule books tend to have a lot of static, bland art, but when you start branching out into the 3rd party stuff there's a lot more story-inspiring art out there.

If you're fanatically drawing a line between D20 and DnD, then I suppose there is something missing, but for me it's still all there - I'm just looking to different companies to give me the kind of DnD I'm used to.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 2, 2004)

I miss...

* The world defined by the class/race restrictions and level limits.
* Gary Gygax writing adventures with the D&D label on them.

Cheers!


----------



## Son_of_Thunder (Mar 2, 2004)

*I hate to admit it but...*



			
				diaglo said:
			
		

> The cultists
> 
> Blood sacrifices
> 
> ...




As much as I hate to admit it, I do happen to agree with diaglo, especially the Soul part.

Son of Thunder


----------



## MerricB (Mar 2, 2004)

Son_of_Thunder said:
			
		

> As much as I hate to admit it, I do happen to agree with diaglo, especially the Soul part.




Anyone who starts talking about D&D losing its "soul" really needs to start thinking about better words for what they mean. 

It's a word used by people who want to put down 3E (or 2E) without actually going past "I don't like the game", and used in a fashion to denigrate the many, many people who play those games.


----------



## kamosa (Mar 2, 2004)

*Things I miss in no particular order*

1) 1E DMG.  The random layout, the lack of an index, the feeling that if you looked long enough Gygax would have added a random table that would help you find the meaning of life.  The book required a PHD in gaming to find anything, but it felt...tome like.  Random disease chart anyone.

2) Ease of GMing in 2E.  Creating encounters takes a lot longer in 3E.  In the day, I could spend a good 1/2 hour with the Monster manual and some grid paper and come up with hours of fun.  Now I spend hours figuring out stats for kobolds, skills for mimics and the reflex save for bug bears. 

3) 2nd Edition clerics.  They were different and cooler then 3e clerics.  

4) OA monks.  Why didn't they bring in the martial arts styles into the 3E monk?  Such a cool idea and a great way to customize a character.

5) The Tome of Magic.  What a great expansion on the game.   Law, Chaos, Numbers and Travel where great spheres that aren't really represented in 3E.


----------



## cybertalus (Mar 2, 2004)

I miss the look and the feel of older editions.  Not just the art, but the types of paper used, the way the books felt to hold, the scent and texture of the paper.  I miss books that are laid out like books, not like final projects from the School of Gaudy Web Design (complete with background art that interferes with legibility).  But the non-glossy paper I miss the most of anything from previous editions.

I miss supplements that are more fluff than crunch.  I miss the notion that you can mention an NPC in a supplement and not be required to provide a full stat block which uses up a quarter of a page or more.  I miss life without prestige classes.  I miss elves that live a really freaking long time.

I miss looking forward to new releases.  I miss anxiously awaiting the arrival of Dragon and Dungeon magazines.  

Rules-wise, I prefer the 3.0 rules over any other edition, but I do miss the notion that different character classes advance at different rates.  In fact for all that "balance" is the mantra in 3.x, I haven't seen anyone comment on the fact that one way to balance a weaker class would be for it to advance more quickly.  I also miss a few spells from earlier editions.

As much as anything else though, I think I miss things about the world and myself which have changed since the time I played the older editions.

Having said all that, if I was thrown back in time to relive my teenage years, I wouldn't be able to play D&D until the year 2000 rolled around again, because there are way more things in 3E that I now can't live without than things I miss about 1E/2E.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 2, 2004)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> Sorry, I gotta rant a bit about this.
> 
> Imbalance? The DM runs the game! I don't need rule imbalance to kill of the party if I so choose. Nowhere does it say in any of the books that I MUST use CRs to determine what monsters to throw at the party so if I throw a Great Wyrm Red Dragon at the party then that act is totally supported by the rules and I didn't use any "imbalance" kill them off. I'm so fed up with this "Players vs. DM" mentality. I get tired of players who shoot holes in a DM's plot because it doesn't abide by "THE RULES" and then complain about the mediocre story. You all know the type and they typically metagame. They'll analyze what level spellcasters are by the number of dice you roll for a Magic Missile attack or Fireball and then keep track of how much damage said caster has taken. The instant the caster has taken more hit point damage than their "calculation" has allowed for then they'll "helpfully" point it out to the DM and the rest of the players. If the DM doesn't take care of it to their advantage or at least spit out a reason for it then they'll get ticked off and sulk for the rest of the game. I view the game as a communal storytelling session. The players and the DM all play to tell a story. If the DM takes advantage of a rule to make the story interesting then so be it. I'd certainly hope that everyone's DM doesn't actively try to play against the Players.
> 
> Sorry for the rant. I'm just sick and tired of that mentality.



I hear you, so I think I should re-explain what I meant.

In second edition (and previous editions, no doubt) there were almost two sets of rules, the DM's and the PCs. If a variant of the rule existed, the better (stronger) version would always go to the DM, the Weaker to the PC.

EXAMPLE: Drow elves in 2e had unique and special powers, including magic resistance, spells, and superior infravision. If they were monsters. A PC dark elf was not supposed to have any of these traits, and in fact was an elf with onyx skin and mobs following him. 

_PC1: My character is Drizzo the Dark Elf_
_PC2: Cool. Our party just fought some dark elves. They have these awesome spells and some amazing magic resistance. Your character is going first against the mage._
_PC1: Uh... actually, I don't have any of those abilities. I'm a PC._

d20 eliminated this by the concept of LAs. Some people (me personally) like the fact the all dark elves have the same traits and aren't distinguished into PC/NPC camps. Other prefer the fact the NPCs could do things PC's couldn't

What your talking about (and I've seen it before) is what we at my group call "co-DMing". When a player thinks he knows as much or more about the situation the party is facing (don't worry, I'm sure thats not a real hydra. There is no way a DM would make us face one, our EL is too low.) That is annoying to no-end. 

I guess I should have claified my statement better.


----------



## Pants (Mar 2, 2004)

What I miss?

The newness.  Back when I feared goblins.  Back when I didn't know what in hell a 'Bugbear' was.  Back when I didn't have the AC and HP of most monsters memorized.  Back when I wasn't the 'default' DM and playing the drunken human fighter with a pentient for boorishness was the pinnacle for roleplaying.

I also miss the monster 'Ecologies' in the MM.

Basically, I don't miss any rules related stuff nor much of anything from the old editions.  

The way that I see it, most of the stuff that people miss is just nostalgia kicking them in the groin.  

I started playing in 2nd Edition and when I look back at all the 1st edition (and some 2nd edition) art and I compare it to 3rd edition's art, I realized something.  EVERY edition has bad art.  The 2nd Edition Monstrous Manual had some real bad doozies.  The 1st Edition Fiend Folio was utter dreck in the art department.  Savage Species and Races of Faerun have some pretty vomit inducing stuff as well.

Basically, I think most people miss the excitement of playing something that was _new_.  I know I do.


----------



## Olive (Mar 2, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I miss...
> 
> * The world defined by the class/race restrictions and level limits.




Really? I'm astonished...


----------



## Cannibal_Kender (Mar 2, 2004)

It probably just is nostalga. I know that the rules are better in third. I guess it was just the newness of playing d&d for the first time.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 2, 2004)

Olive said:
			
		

> Really? I'm astonished...




hehe. I'll clarify that a bit.

I think 3E's solution is far, far, far superior. There were two reasons for the 1E restrictions: the world it wanted to create, and game balance reasons.

3E makes it unnecessary to use any restrictions on the class/race combinations: the game remains balanced and fun regardless. 3E allows you to choose the restrictions to make the game you want.

However, this "anything goes" affair in the core rules means a divergence in style for many of the support products, so that the core world isn't quite unified enough.

Cheers!


----------



## Corinth (Mar 2, 2004)

I've been in the hobby for 22 years.  I've played OD&D, AD&D1 and AD&D2.  I miss nothing about the previous editions; the current edition is the best-designed, smoothest-running, most fair, most just and more user-friendly edition of the game yet published.  It's clean, slick and handles like a dream given form.  The plug-and-play capability that the d20 System game engine provides makes customization for specific needs easy and safe to execute for the end user.  I will never again play any of the previous editions, and I'm even reluctant to play 3.0 now that I have 3.5.

I love this game.


----------



## Krieg (Mar 2, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Anyone who starts talking about D&D losing its "soul" really needs to start thinking about better words for what they mean.
> 
> It's a word used by people who want to put down 3E (or 2E) without actually going past "I don't like the game", and used in a fashion to denigrate the many, many people who play those games.




I posted the "soul" of the earlier versions has been lost.

I play D20. I like D20. I am hardly in a position to denigrate players of said system since I myself am one.

I stand by my original statement.


----------



## Ottergame (Mar 2, 2004)

I like a lot of the art for 2ed more than 3rd.  In 2ed ed, you didn't just get "action shots" that is all that comes up in 3rd.  Yes, most of the pictures were of people in action poses, but you had backgrounds and pictures of people outside of combat.  It was much more dynamic.

Aside from art, 2ed edition has nothing on 3.5.  I don't know why people say it takes so much longer to create a character in the new editions.  Unless you start at a higher level where I have to tinker around with equipment, I can roll up a fully stated character in about 3 minutes.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Mar 2, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Dark Jezter et al, this thread is about the good stuff that previous editions of the game had. Please don't hijack it to bitch about the things you don't like.




Very well, my post has been removed.

In my defense, though.  I was not trying to "hijack" this thread.  Neither the original post nor the thread title stated that we were only allowed to talk about the good things about previous editions, and I was far from the first person to bitch about things I didn't like.


----------



## rounser (Mar 2, 2004)

> 2) Ease of GMing in 2E. Creating encounters takes a lot longer in 3E. In the day, I could spend a good 1/2 hour with the Monster manual and some grid paper and come up with hours of fun. Now I spend hours figuring out stats for kobolds, skills for mimics and the reflex save for bug bears.



This is number 1 for me too.  I truly, roooly hope it gets corrected come 4E, because I consider it 3E's biggest achilles heel - what is good in rules for building PCs isn't in building NPCs.  Players want options and customisability, whereas in NPCs you want speed of creation.  It's so bad that people are relying upon _computer programs_ - including at least one of the _designers_, from what I gather - to get around it.  This should not be necessary...


> but as a whole, they wanted a tone that took the game material itself less seriously than the older editions, and they succeeded, IMO.



You're seriously suggesting that 3E artwork takes itself less seriously than that in say, the 1E DMG or MM?  I think former editions had black and white going for it, which is a medium which suits D&D better.  For evidence, look at WAR's black and white work compared to his colour work, or the 3E draft pics compared to the final product in terms of evoking atmosphere...no competition, IMO.  The fantasy for me gets lost somewhere in the posing and the photoshop artifacts.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 2, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> I posted the "soul" of the earlier versions has been lost.




Then what do you mean by it? At the moment, it is a meaningless statement.

Cheers!


----------



## Ackem (Mar 2, 2004)

Monsters that were described as more then just stats. I would love for a future (very very very far in the future) edition to trim down on all the useless silly clutter monsters that D&D has accumulated in the core Monster Manual and add some personality and details to the critters it keeps in it.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 2, 2004)

The powergamer in me misses the ability score setting (not enhancing) items such as Gauntlets of Dexterity (sets Dexterity to 18), Gauntlets of Ogre Power (sets Strength to 18/00) and Girdles of Giant Strength (sets Strength to between 19 and 24, depending on type).  They really allowed you to massively enhance your physical ability scores.

Every fighter-type absolutely has to have one of these items.  They were that good.


----------



## kenjib (Mar 2, 2004)

Looking back at 1e (I skipped 2e - yuck), here is what I find missing:

1.  The voice of Gary Gygax.  This really permeated the books and gave it all a certain mood and feel that I enjoyed.  The books were almost like crusty old arcana from another age themselves, which helped to take you into a different mindset.  The more modern voice of 3e does not invoke the same mental state for me.

2.  The more classical look and feel.  Much of the new artwork (with notable exceptions such as swekel and sardinha) has more modern influence - tattoos, black leather, spikes, punk hairstyles, emaciated monsters.  Traditional castles and knights in shining armor are gone.  I know that many don't agree with my preference, but for me personally this heavily detracts from my ability to "click" with the game.  I also think that the heavily saturated color palettes don't help either.  They lend a comic book vibe.  I prefer a more subtle color palette.

3.  More adherence to classical tropes in the races and monsters.  Halfings were hobbits with a different name.  Gnomes were little forest guys.  Now halflings are some strange kind of unique D&D thing and gnomes are Krynnish rennaisance inventors.  The illustrations also reflect this shift in direction.

4.  Planescape was a seismological shift in the D&D cosmology with implications that were reworked as more integral/core in 3e.  What was once something really odd and suggestive of Dante, Ptolomy, the Golden Bough, the Eddas, and other mythological sources became something more like an urban cosmopolitanism that suggests Star Wars more than anything else.  I know that lots of people like Planescape, and while I think it's pretty nifty on it's own I really don't like feedback effect it's had on standard D&D.

5.  More freeform advancement/rewards.  Things were more ad-hoc regarding what you threw at players and how quickly they advanced.  In 3e, the baseline, while it may be deviated from, strongly encourages a very linear, predictable, and fixed progression.  It even goes so far as to regulate the amount of magic items you have, and makes characters feel less competent if they deviate from the baseline.  Of course rule 0 is there, but nonetheless players come to expect this because it's in the rules.

6.  A more abstract system of combat and power representation.  In 1e, combat was abstract and open to wide descriptive liberties.  3e shortens the combat round to represent every swing of the sword and also introduces a little bit of power-up/special street fighter move combo effect created primarily by the advent of the feat system.  While the feat system has it's advantages, in my opinion these very specific moves increase video game feel at the expense of literary feel.

7.  Strong character archetypes.  The simple choices of 1e presented simple and bold archetypes.  I feel this is weakened in 3e most notably by the proliferation of prestige classes.  With 100 archetypes, each one individually starts to feel less archetypal.

8.  Diaglo's blood rituals and cultists is also on the money for me.  You have to go to d20 publishers for the good stuff.  

Some of this is just cosmetic stuff, but I don't discount the value of an evocative atmosphere.  I do think it has an ephemeral effect on play - certain preconceptions that everyone brings to the table.  Overall I get more of an old fantasy/literary vibe with 1e - Leiber, Howard, Tolkein, Mallory, El Cid - and that's really where my heart is.  I don't deny that much of it is nostalgia, and I also know that far more people prefer the new style than not.


----------



## Joe123 (Mar 2, 2004)

D&D 3 and 3.5 lack the simplicity (or illusion of simplicity) that Classic D&D had. The game runs slower now than Classic D&D, which in my experience was easier to play and easier to run, (probably owing to the light amount of rules).


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Mar 2, 2004)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> _PC1: My character is Drizzo the Dark Elf_
> _PC2: Cool. Our party just fought some dark elves. They have these awesome spells and some amazing magic resistance. Your character is going first against the mage._
> _PC1: Uh... actually, I don't have any of those abilities. I'm a PC._
> 
> d20 eliminated this by the concept of LAs.




So did 2E.  I believe it was in the Complete Book of Humanoids that they attached XP penalties to different races.  Ogre Mages got hit hard but then again they can fly, polymorph, and take gaseous form.  I want to say that Drow got hit with a 15-20% XP penalty.  In 2E you could partially offset it with a high stat in your Prime Req.

Artwork wise, some folks have been saying how 1E artwork focused on a scene rather than an individual character and I have to agree.  Looking at a painting of a scene made you feel like you were observing an adventure in progress.  The new artwork focuses on characters (mostly the iconic ones) and so feels too much like a comic book.



			
				Pants said:
			
		

> The 1st Edition Fiend Folio was utter dreck in the art department.




Gee, 1E Fiend Folio was one of my faves!


----------



## diaglo (Mar 2, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Anyone who starts talking about D&D losing its "soul" really needs to start thinking about better words for what they mean.





did you even read what i wrote? and what the topic of this thread is?

i wrote about the context of what it meant to play the previous editions at the time of their introduction. no where does my statement say that D&D lost its soul. i described the soul of D&D at the time. the games are different. just like my "soul" is different from yours.

i stand by what i posted.



> It's a word used by people who want to put down 3E (or 2E) without actually going past "I don't like the game", and used in a fashion to denigrate the many, many people who play those games.




i play this game. i know many gamers who play this game. i try and play with friends or make friends of those i game with. i think you'd better be careful about putting words or ideas in my statements. i posted simplicity... read my words in a simple fashion. they have no hidden meaning.


----------



## buzz (Mar 2, 2004)

Joe123 said:
			
		

> D&D 3 and 3.5 lack the simplicity (or illusion of simplicity) that Classic D&D had. The game runs slower now than Classic D&D, which in my experience was easier to play and easier to run, (probably owing to the light amount of rules).



I have to wonder if the idea that earlier editions were easier to run comes from:

1. Aforementioned nostalgia.

2. We all played those editions for 10 or more years, ergo we knew them so well that running the game was a breeze.

3. "Restrictions not options." I can't speak to 2e, but in 1e and OD&D, a fighter was a fighter, a monk was a monk, and an orc always had 1d8HD. Add that monsters has no ability scores, and said ability socres had very little effect on those who had them, there certainly was a lot less work for the DM... but at what cost?

4. There weren't rules for doing a heck of a lot, so when the fighter tried to climb a tree, you either just said "No" or else winged it, which is certianly a lot easier than referencing a book for a climb DC.

5. I don't think anyone I've ever met actually knew all the rules, much less played them as written. To this day, I'm not 100% sure how combat in 1e was really supposed to work, and I don't think we ever used weapon speeds or armor type bonuses or a myriad of other rules from the DMG.

6. Half of the disputes and discussions that bog down games are people conflating memories of how things worked in 2e with thir poor understanding of how they actually work in 3e; thsi is certainly true of at least one of my groups.

I dunno. I have a feeling, another ten or so years down the road, we'll see threads where people fondly remember spiky armor and the original 3e ranger.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 2, 2004)

buzz said:
			
		

> I have to wonder if the idea that earlier editions were easier to run comes from:
> 
> 1. Aforementioned nostalgia.
> 
> 2. We all played those editions for 10 or more years, ergo we knew them so well that running the game was a breeze.




could be for some. but not all.



> 3. "Restrictions not options." I can't speak to 2e, but in 1e and OD&D, a fighter was a fighter, a monk was a monk, and an orc always had 1d8HD. Add that monsters has no ability scores, and said ability socres had very little effect on those who had them, there certainly was a lot less work for the DM... but at what cost?





not all orcs had 1d8hps.  better look thru for 1edADnD your DMG and MM again. nor was it true of OD&D either. they had whatever the referee determined.



> I dunno. I have a feeling, another ten or so years down the road, we'll see threads where people fondly remember spiky armor and the original 3e ranger.





you don't have to wait 10 years for that. i can show you threads on this and other message boards with this sentiment already.


----------



## Staffan (Mar 2, 2004)

The only things I can think of that I really miss about 2e, rules-wise, are specialty priests and psionics that really feel different from magic. I also miss many of the settings from 2e.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 2, 2004)

Nifelhein said:
			
		

> And what happens when they say in the skills section that there is a limit, to what is possible and what is impossible, then you have people swimming up a waterfall... that would be impossible to my eyes, unless magic is at work, of course...



I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I said; just because I like "cool" fantasy doesn't mean that there aren't limits.  Personally, I prefer darker, grittier, more "realistic" fantasy anyway.  

But it's still definately fantasy, it's not at all medieval.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 2, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> Basically, I think most people miss the excitement of playing something that was _new_.  I know I do.



Yet, it's so much easier to have newness now.  Old MM monsters feeling old and tired?  Trot out the Monsternomicon, or the Fantasy Bestiary, and go to town.  Tired of the same old rangers?  How about a Midnight Wildlander as a replacement?  Tired of the same old settings?  How about Dawnforge, or Iron Kingdoms, or Rokugan?


----------



## buzz (Mar 2, 2004)

diaglo said:
			
		

> not all orcs had 1d8hps.  better look thru for 1edADnD your DMG and MM again. nor was it true of OD&D either. they had whatever the referee determined.



See?!?! I played 1e for something like 20 years, and I own all the OD&D books, and I have absolutely no memory of what you're talking about.  Page references?

Nostalgia... bah! D&D is dead! Long live D&D!


----------



## diaglo (Mar 2, 2004)

buzz said:
			
		

> Page references?





you want me to remember page numbers? i can't remember what i had for breakfast.  

but i do remember i crawled uphill 5 miles to and from school everyday after doing all my chores.

look at the MM under the orc for example. you will see some of them are listed as chief, subchief, guard and such...

also in the DMG look for the witchdoctor or shaman you will see that some humanoids could take class lvls.

also the Deities & Demigods 1980 further expanded lvl limits for non human spellcasters. 

edit: and as for OD&D think d6


----------



## Quasqueton (Mar 2, 2004)

> Now I spend hours figuring out stats for kobolds, skills for mimics and the reflex save for bug bears.



So you don't just do what the rest of us do? Just open the MM and look at the kobold listing, the mimic listing, and the bugbear listing? All the info is right there in the newly formatted and easy to read pages. Hours? You can't do this in seconds?

How did you do it in the previous editions, when the stats, skills, and saves were not even listed in the creatures' stats in the MM?

Quasqueton


----------



## KnowTheToe (Mar 2, 2004)

Another vote for simplicity.  Two rule books with close to 600 pages, yikes, talk about scary.  

Rules are more consistant and more formulatic but they can also be tedious and dry.  In one of the games I play, the DM has us roll for everything, every conversation, every glance.  It truely does not matter what we say or do, it comes down to a roll.  We use gather information rolls to get info from a victim and directions from a barkeep or street vender.  IMO this is the loss of soul people talk about.  The mechanics are detailed and consistant, but they can also be dull.


----------



## jasper (Mar 2, 2004)

Less humor, less death, more muscles (gee I would not be surprise to see a green slime with muscles and spikes)
Not addicting because I no longer young. But I do see the addiction in new players on this board.
Remathilis clap clap clap

Note to minions Kamikaze Midget has published the truth. Please drop rot grubs into his rice pudding.

Bihor practice more I spent the same amount of time grabbing the first edition MM to throw a devil at the party as do now using the 3E MM. 

Personally I like the little to none monster descriptions of first edition. If I wanted tucker kobolds I could. If I wanted the orcs to be really half orcs who were really really ugly I could (now they leveled but still the same). If Bob wanted his Kobolds to be stupid charge the party till the party chokes on our kobold dead he could.

I don’t miss ecologies Pants they were cool but it made dm think inside the box or should I say book.

I do miss Gary’s writing.


----------



## shadow (Mar 2, 2004)

There are a few things that I miss about the previous editions.

1. The artwork.  It was high fantasy and medieval.  It really set a heroic tone for the game.  Now a lot of the art looks silly.  Why do all the adventurers in 3e look like they're wearing bondage or S/M clothing?

2. Sages - I always liked having special rules for sages.  Although, they are easily done with high levels in the expert class for 3e, I miss the charts and tables.

3. All the cool settings - Ravenloft (done much better in TSR's Domains of Dread, than WW's take on it), Dark Sun, Birthright!


----------



## Epametheus (Mar 2, 2004)

The only things I miss are Planescape and the massive amounts of flavor text for monsters.  It was just _neat_ that the 2E writers bothered to come up with what the monsters do when they aren't getting killed by PCs.


----------



## Junkheap (Mar 2, 2004)

Planescape, AlQuadim, Tsr Ravenloft, DarkSun. 2E clerics, the Bloodwar. The general feel of eveything in 2e, the stories, the NPC, imo just felt a lot more epic.  The adventures were a lot more epic, in that it seemed something BIG was going to happen and you were the only ones that knew or the only ones that could stop it.  A lot of adventures /box sets that started you out at 1st level and took you into the late teens.  My group and me were always waiting to see what comes out next on the calendar.  I could really care less these day.  Nothing WOTC brings out really interests me anymore.  

The 3e rules are a thousand times better, but the feel of d&d just isnt there for me with this edition than with 2e or previous.  Thats probably mainly due to the fact that i was a lot younger, but in general 2e and 1e were a lot more fun to read and immmerse youself into than 3e(IMO)


----------



## LGodamus (Mar 2, 2004)

conflicting rules mechanics?


----------



## Dimwhit (Mar 2, 2004)

I miss being able to walk into a huge cavern with a handful of mid-level characters and beat the holy snot out of an ancient Red Dragon. Ah...good times...


----------



## Felon (Mar 2, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> I miss being able to walk into a huge cavern with a handful of mid-level characters and beat the holy snot out of an ancient Red Dragon. Ah...good times...




Funny, I miss just the opposite. I miss mid-level and higher characters having to actually conserve their hit points carefully because most of them didn't have Con bonuses, and their hit dice topped out around 10th level, and--most of all--players couldn't count on having a sack full of dirt-cheap wands of _cure light wounds_. An average of 225 HP for a measly 750 GP (half that if you make it yourself) means there's little reason that a party with even a meager degree of wherewithal shouldn't be able to heal themselves back up to full health after every battle.


----------



## Janx (Mar 3, 2004)

It sounds like a lot of people are complaining about the art styles or game styles.  I think some of that misses what the original thread was.  Namely, what's missing in 3e, that could be added.

So I've got all the books from AD&D, AD&D2e to D&D3e.  I can say the writing improved with each.  It was easier to start learning from 2e, than with the 1e book I had gotten at the same time due to a shipping mistake.

Here's an inventory of what each ruleset had (+/- a few features)
1E had:
6 stats with special tables
Lots of tables
random dungeon generator table
more cartoony art
small print
complex armor tables (to figure out to-hit requirements)
static thief abilities (your level determined your scores)
Then came the expansion, what was it called (one of the few I don't own)...
It added skills and THAC0 if I recall
different XP tables per class
fuzzy rules on how much XP to give (XP for gold found...)
even EGG disagreed on how much XP to give (see his old article in the strategic review on Dragon Archive CD)
racial level limits
racial class limits
percentile strength (which was non-standard with other stats)

2e had:
6 stats with special tables
weapon proficiencies so you had to choose your favorite weapons
racial level limits
racial class limits
non-weapon proficiencies (very few social skill ones)
thief skills were custom per PC
percentile strength (which was non-standard with other stats)
Kits from the Complete Book of XYZ
Specialty Priests (remember the Druid is one)
THAC0 which was WAAAAAAY better than 1e's silly armor class tables (mathematically the same)

2.5e had:
custom class and race abilities (similar to feats, but different)
skill points (minor change to non-weapon profs)
2.5e PCs were more powerful than 2e PCs
sub-attributes (getting you a higher plus, at a price)

3e had:
consolidated XP system with a planned progression for encounters
no level limits
no class limits
Prestige Classes (kits anyone?)
thief skills use the same skill system as the others
lots of social Skills (diplomacy, bluff)
Feats (which sort of balanced the build-a-class idea from 2.5e)
Magic users get more spells than previous editions
attributes all use same table
more complex combat using Feats (AoO for instance)

Much of 3e's goodness is that things were homogenized.  XP is handled more consistently.  Encounter difficulties are more formulaic, making it easier to balance an encounter.  Skills are handled consistently.

I liked 2.5's sub-attributes, but 3e's +1 every four levels covers what I really wanted, better stats.

The power level in 3e went up.  A 3e PC has better features, heck my converted 2e multiclass got much better even though I lost levels in the process.  This supported people's desire to not have a sucky PC.  Sure, some people think having a bad stat makes them role-play.  However, I'd rather role-play a recovering alcoholic fighter with an 18 strength than a recovering alcoholic with average stats.  And that is what WotC was covering I believe.

As far as adventure styles, I suspect that's your GMs fault.  Why are GMs rolling everything, just because Diplomacy, Bluff, Detect Motive exist?  Make the player role-play it.  Never let them see the die rolls.  If they don't role-play it, don't let them succeed.  The social Skills (there's a reason I listed them) are a crutch for people who aren't comfortable with role-playing yet.  I'd be tempted to house-rule them off the character sheet, and let the players burn SP on more valuable skills.

Just because your PC kicks arse, doesn't mean you can't role-play.  If I keep putting monsters in front of your barbarian, then he's going to hack them down.  If I bring you a real problem to solve, you'll have to role-play out of it.  Or you'll die when you cut one too many NPC down.

Certainly I miss being able to wield 2 swords without a to-hit penalty, but that's more of the game design quirk than a requirement for the game.

Miss the old special clerics?  Well make some.  Druids are just one kind of special cleric.  Clerics are another.  Make some more if you need them and rule that each "class" worships a specific god.  Problem solved.

PCs advancing too fast, give them less XP

Too much magic, deduct 10-20 from your percentile rolls

Monsters too complex?  Ironically enough, the stat bonuses are figured into their AC and attack/damage values.  You only need the attribute scores when they're doing something wierd (like old AD&D).  I admit, keeping track of feats and skills for monsters was challenging in the beginning, but that's why I always use a computer to write my adventures (even in 2e, I had full stat-blocks for my monsters).

Don't like the art?  Well you can always paste some art you like over the original 3e art?  Or just buy some prints, frame them, and hang them up in your gaming area.

The old level limits had been removed in my house rules for 2e for 10+ years.  Not a problem.  Heck, we dropped the memorization rules and wizards and clerics could cast like Sorcerers.  Mages still needed to own a book....

Like 2E before it, 3e is a product of the way many of us were trying to play anyway.  Go re-read the preface by Jeff Grubb in the 2e PH.

Anything I missed?
Janx


----------



## Ottergame (Mar 3, 2004)

Janx said:
			
		

> Go re-read the preface by Jeff Grubb in the 2e PH.




I like and aggree your post, but David Cook did the forward for the 2ed ed PHB, with Steve Winter doing an additional one in the revised book in 1995.

I do like Winter's big red bold words in the 1995 revised edition.  "This is not AD&D 3rd Edition!"  Damn right, that's why I don't play it any more.


----------



## Silver Moon (Mar 3, 2004)

Well, let me start out by saying that it's all D&D to me.  Whether it's 1E, 2E, 3E, 3.5E, the basic ingredients are the same:  A creative storyteller and a table full of enthusiastic players with above average intelligence, overactive imaginations and a love of fantasy.  

But as for earlier system advantages the two big ones I see are:

1.  Simplicity.   As stated before, it's easier to run.  I'm currently DMing a  game with my 6, 8, and 11 year old children and I'm using the 1E rule system, which they have very easily picked up.

2.  Worked with Large Groups.   I remember DMing a group once with 14 active members, some of who had more than one character playing simultaneously.   I can't imagine even attempting that with the 3E rules.


----------



## Jody Butt (Mar 3, 2004)

Janx said:
			
		

> It sounds like a lot of people are complaining about the art styles or game styles.  I think some of that misses what the original thread was.  Namely, what's missing in 3e, that could be added.
> 
> So I've got all the books from AD&D, AD&D2e to D&D3e.  I can say the writing improved with each.  It was easier to start learning from 2e, than with the 1e book I had gotten at the same time due to a shipping mistake.
> 
> ...




There was no 2.5!  AD&D 2nd Edition lasted for 11 years.  

You are talking about "Player's Option:Skills and Powers".  This was not 2.5 at all.  It was an OPTIONAL book of rules.


----------



## francisca (Mar 3, 2004)

Something else just occurred to me.  I think others may have mentioned it in other threads, months and months ago.

The 3E books are just playing boring.  This may sound silly, but they read like rulebooks.  To me, the 1E books are just a better read.  They have an "adventury" feel to them.

And it's not nostalgia.  I pulled the 1E books out recently and read the PHB and DMG cover-to-cover.  If its after 10PM and I try that with one of the 3E core books, I start rubber-necking and darn near face-plant in the book in under 15 minutes.


----------



## fba827 (Mar 3, 2004)

I miss the _concept_ of speciality priests... though the execution of them itself was not balanced as some specialities were vastly superior to others.   For 3.X, while the rulebooks say that PrCs can fill this role, for some reason, that still doesn't sit well with me... I just think they should be special from level 1.    (just my two cents).


----------



## Pants (Mar 3, 2004)

francisca said:
			
		

> The 3E books are just playing boring.  This may sound silly, but they read like rulebooks.  To me, the 1E books are just a better read.  They have an "adventury" feel to them.



I don't know what it is, but I think this is largely due to Gygax's writing style.  It's very... interesting to say the least, but it definitely isn't boring to read at all.


----------



## Son_of_Thunder (Mar 3, 2004)

*Huh?!*



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> Anyone who starts talking about D&D losing its "soul" really needs to start thinking about better words for what they mean.
> 
> It's a word used by people who want to put down 3E (or 2E) without actually going past "I don't like the game", and used in a fashion to denigrate the many, many people who play those games.




Since when did I say D&D had lost it's soul?! I think it has a soul today even.

Let me tell you my thoughts on this. If the D&D mentality today was like it was back in the late 70's and early 80's, I don't believe that we would have seen books like 'The Book of Vile Crapitu... Darkness' or 'The Book of Elfpr0.. Erotic Fantasy'

Son of Thunder


----------



## MerricB (Mar 3, 2004)

Son_of_Thunder said:
			
		

> Since when did I say D&D had lost it's soul?! I think it has a soul today even.




Well, "As much as I hate to admit it, I do happen to agree with diaglo, especially the Soul part."

And this is in a thread entitled: "What is 3.0 & 3.5 missing that previous editions had?"

I think the inference is obvious.



> Let me tell you my thoughts on this. If the D&D mentality today was like it was back in the late 70's and early 80's, I don't believe that we would have seen books like 'The Book of Vile Crapitu... Darkness' or 'The Book of Elfpr0.. Erotic Fantasy'




No, back in the day we had nude pictures in the main D&D books - we didn't have to go to 3rd party products. Oh, then there were the tables for random prostitutes...

Cheers!


----------



## Son_of_Thunder (Mar 3, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Well, "As much as I hate to admit it, I do happen to agree with diaglo, especially the Soul part."
> 
> And this is in a thread entitled: "What is 3.0 & 3.5 missing that previous editions had?"
> 
> ...




Infer all you want ol' boy. But it's not what I meant. As far as the nude pictures in D&D books and random prostitute tables, touche! However, If you consider those examples right up there with the examples I gave, more power to ya.

Son of Thunder


----------



## MerricB (Mar 3, 2004)

Son_of_Thunder said:
			
		

> Infer all you want ol' boy. But it's not what I meant.




I'm glad to hear it. 

I'd like to think that D&D reflects the soul of the player. Thus if someone thinks 3E is soulless... 

Cheers!


----------



## Melkor (Mar 3, 2004)

cybertalus said:
			
		

> I miss the look and the feel of older editions.  Not just the art, but the types of paper used, the way the books felt to hold, the scent and texture of the paper.  I miss books that are laid out like books, not like final projects from the School of Gaudy Web Design (complete with background art that interferes with legibility).  But the non-glossy paper I miss the most of anything from previous editions.






			
				Pants said:
			
		

> The newness. Back when I feared goblins. Back when I didn't know what in hell a 'Bugbear' was. Back when I didn't have the AC and HP of most monsters memorized. Back when I wasn't the 'default' DM and playing the drunken human fighter with a pentient for boorishness was the pinnacle for roleplaying.




These two sum up my opinions pretty well. I like all editions of the game, but now that I have plaed 3E for a time, i'm actually having a lot of fun going back and planning a new 1E campaign.....I really like Gary Gygax's prose in the original PHB and DMG.

"Newness" adds a lot to the whole feeling of nostalgia, but there's more to it than that - I just can't put my finger on it at the moment.

Cheers.


----------



## Toras (Mar 3, 2004)

1. Planescape (But Planewalker is working on that.)
2. Spell Jammer
3. Psionics that while broken 5 ways to sunday, were not just spells said different.
4. Dark Sun 
5. A suck Skill system.
6. Barely discernable loops of non-linear math, only surpassed in complexity by a Gordian Knot or any other math that requires a supercomputer to calculate.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Mar 3, 2004)

This is in comparison to at least one edition that had tables comparing the effect of attacking a man wearing chain mail with a fauchard/fork to attacking a foe in field plate with a Bohemian Ear Spoon. And an edition where every other spell had a different, arbitrarily assigned penalty or bonus to its save.

AD&D and 2e weren't simple either except in the nostalgic imaginations of some.



			
				Treebore said:
			
		

> Yes, simplicity. 3.0/3.5 is anything but simple. Unless you ignore a lot of the "extras".


----------



## Bagpuss (Mar 3, 2004)

fba827 said:
			
		

> I miss the _concept_ of speciality priests... though the execution of them itself was not balanced as some specialities were vastly superior to others.   For 3.X, while the rulebooks say that PrCs can fill this role, for some reason, that still doesn't sit well with me... I just think they should be special from level 1.    (just my two cents).




Have to agree 100% here they are the main thing I miss about 2ed. Although Domains help a little in focusing a priest on their chosen religion, the are pretty bland compared with speciality priests. And PrCs do little to fill the roll as they only tend to ADD abilities rather than remove them. A PrC of a God of Love that has nothing to do with warfare will still have access to Full-Platemail, Flame Strike and the like.


----------



## Humanophile (Mar 3, 2004)

Heh.  3.x gave us everything we asked for.  And now we bitch about it.

I will grant this.  Arbitrary restrictions and "hands off, it's mine!" powers do tend to add to flavor, albeit at the cost that players tend to want said restrictions removed or said powers opened up to others.  Certain powers and abilities tend to "feel" right, even if they're horribly balanced ("shouldn't my elf get bonus skills and feats, since he's been around so long?"), which adds to "soul" while driving a great many players up a wall.  We asked for balance and wide-open options, and some flavor has to be lost in the balance.

I do also have to call myself more a fan of earlier art and writing than 3e's; although the chapter opening art in 3e has an immersive feel, pretty much everything else...  well, has been discussed before.  Yes, it's nice to have standardized language, and there are some more "soulful" books put out by other publishers that drive me up a wall with vague wording, but those books do tend to evoke plot hooks and character ideas far better than the current D&D crop.  Probably because in those books, the rules follow the world, and devil take anyone who points out why it's less fun to play as a result.

I do wonder what would happen if someone put out a book that sidestepped all the things that make D&D "flavorless" now; keep in mind that the two places where restrictions are added for flavor reasons alone - multiclassing for monks and paladins - are probably the most house-ruled things in the game.  If WOTC ever decided to put out a book where evocative prose beat out clear (if legal-esque) language, where pointless restrictions were added "for flavor", and full of unblanaced rules that "fit the setting", I'm curious how feverent the crusade against them would grow.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Mar 3, 2004)

Melkor said:
			
		

> "Newness" adds a lot to the whole feeling of nostalgia, but there's more to it than that - I just can't put my finger on it at the moment.




That is what I'm talking about... what is that something else that you can't put your finger on?


----------



## Will (Mar 3, 2004)

A brief aside, wrt clerics being tricky in 3.X...

UA has some great ideas along these lines. My favorite approach would probably be the Spontaneous Divine Caster (combined further with a Cloistered Cleric). Having Spells Known be limited would go a long way toward focusing a cleric in interesting ways.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 3, 2004)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> That is what I'm talking about... what is that something else that you can't put your finger on?




it is the wording and context.

shellshock, combat fatigue, post traumatic stress disorder = the same thing.

but shellshock stirs up more emotion. yet that was the wording of the day. WWI; ...combat fatigue...implies just that a result of battle...WWII;  post traumatic stress disorder...vietnam...sure it may be more clinical and describe the malady better...but it reads like....

wtf??? it doesn't even bring images of battle to mind.

edit: stupid MS spellchecker.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 3, 2004)

I think 3e does lack a 'sense of wonder' that 1e & even 2e had - and I was no fan of 2e, so it's not just nostalgia.  I think for me it's the DMing style of Monte Cook that permeates the 3e DMG, it just doesn't do it for me; the book is perfectly serviceable but lacks the magic ingredient.  The 3e Monster Manual suffers from too many stupid monsters while leaving out too many classics, and again the presentation is awfully mundane I find.  That's why I like Mongoose stuff - for all its many many faults, they still have that sense of wonder.  So do many (most?) other 3rd-party products; there just seems to nbe something lacking in WotC's style.


----------



## francisca (Mar 3, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> I don't know what it is, but I think this is largely due to Gygax's writing style.  It's very... interesting to say the least, but it definitely isn't boring to read at all.



Could be.  But Gamma World 1E/2E are pretty easy to stay interested in.  The Moldvay Basic set was like that too, so I don't it was just Gygax (though he was certainly the best read, in my opinion).


----------



## Henry (Mar 3, 2004)

Jody Butt said:
			
		

> You are talking about "Player's Option:Skills and Powers".  This was not 2.5 at all.  It was an OPTIONAL book of rules.




To me, they ALL are - both Player's Option, 1E, 2E, AND 3E.

The new Unearthed Arcana, the Skills and Powers books, and the Old Unearthed Arcana share that in the respect that they are a mish-mash of options to plunk in, rather than a unified system. But a lot of people did indeed use most of the Skills and Powers rules in their game to get them the flexibility that 1E and 2E lacked on paper, and 3E drew heavily from both them and some of the concepts from the basic D&D rules - you can see many influences in both of these bodies of work.


----------



## kamosa (Mar 3, 2004)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> So you don't just do what the rest of us do? Just open the MM and look at the kobold listing, the mimic listing, and the bugbear listing? All the info is right there in the newly formatted and easy to read pages. Hours? You can't do this in seconds?
> 
> How did you do it in the previous editions, when the stats, skills, and saves were not even listed in the creatures' stats in the MM?
> 
> Quasqueton





That still takes time to look up.  I used to keep the 5 key stats for any monster in my head.  So, I didn't even need to open the book or refer to my notes during the game.  If I'm writing a whole module, it does take hours to write out the NPC's and Monsters.   In the old book, you'd just kind of fudge higher level monsters.  Give em another 20 or so hit points, add a little to their ac, add damage to their attack, bang, insta badie.   Now, I need to refigure the save advancement for that monster, determine it's increased skills, check to make sure I'm advancing it right compared to MM.  

Skills for monsters were always fuzzy in 2e, which was a good thing for the GM.  You could just say the monster was good at tracking and bang, it could track.  Now you need to know it's tracking skill and it stats.  While this isn't a lot to figure out, you have to do it for each monster.  Time sink on the GM's part.  

Saves all came off the fighter progression and were based on hitpoints.  So, after a couple weeks, you had that progression memorized and you could roll the save for any monster without looking, as long as you knew it's hitpoints.  Now, I spend several minutes per combat (aggregate) looking at the 15 to 20 bad guys looking for their save number.

I used to think it was just that I don't have the time like I used to, but I've been GMing 3E to 3.5 since day one and I haven't even come close to the speed of GMing I had under 2E in the first year of GMing.  There is just a lot more to keep track of and balance.  It just takes more time and effort as a GM.  Time and effort I could spend working on plot and overall story lines for the players.

Easy to read page????  Are you kidding, I find the new format much harder to read then the old book.   The print and kerning is much smaller and the backgrounds are distracting.


----------



## Wolffenjugend (Mar 3, 2004)

I agree with those who said ARTWORK! When I look back at my old rulebooks and see Larry Elmore's awesome drawings, and then compare them to the crap I see today, it's disappointing and not at all inspiring. The whole cyberpunk-thing has gotta go. There's a lot to be said for a "realistic" drawing of a warrior.

The old artwork really got my imagination going. Now, it seems like a lot of the artwork is solely done b/c they need a picture of what X looks like. I think D&D should spend more time hunting down great artists.


----------



## Quasqueton (Mar 3, 2004)

You're basically saying that you fudged and faked the monster stats, on the fly, in previous editions, but you can't do that now. Baloney. What, will the D&D3 police come and arrest you for fudging and faking, whereas the AD&D1/2 police were lenient?

And if you had the time to look up the chart for the saving throws in earlier editions, you have the time to look down at the monster's save bonus in this edition. Without even looking, or giving it more than a moment's thought: Orcs probably have something like Fort +3, Ref +0, and Will +0 saves. 5th-level orc is probably something like Fort +6, Ref +2, Will +0. I doubt I'm more than 1 point off. If you could fudge and fake in earlier editions, you can do it in this edition. 

Your complaints on this matter are unfounded. 

Bah.

Quasqueton


----------



## Beard in the Sky (Mar 3, 2004)

3rd Edition was designed for a different generation than the generation posting on this board. I suspect people don't like 3rd edition as much as 1st edition for the same reason people don't like today's music as much as they liked the music when they were kids.

1E = Led Zeppelin (classic)

2E= Poison (even people who liked it didn't like it)

3E= Limp Bizkit (new and "edgy")

Everyone who likes Zep better (including myself) will swear it isn't just nostalgia, that they ARE better, but that argument doesn't work on teenagers who prefer Limp Bizkit. The problem is, I don't think the Limp Bizkit crowd is BUYING 3E, so you have this super-sleek, punked out armor and emphasis on power and coolness being marketed to people who are all to busy playing Diablo and EQ to bother with it and the people who ARE playing, just want to hear Stairway to Heaven again.


----------



## buzzard (Mar 3, 2004)

Beard in the Sky said:
			
		

> 3rd Edition was designed for a different generation than the generation posting on this board. I suspect people don't like 3rd edition as much as 1st edition for the same reason people don't like today's music as much as they liked the music when they were kids.
> 
> 1E = Led Zeppelin (classic)
> 
> ...




Well I prefer 3rd myself since it is simply a better rule set. However the amount of music which has come out in the past decade which I can stomach is severely limited. I'm an old fart in many areas, but I can recognize a beter rule set in a game. 

This is not to say I didn't like 1st. I was really quite fond of it. I'd have to say that the 1st Ed. The thing I miss the most was Illusionists which were different. That has already been mentioned however. 

buzzard


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 3, 2004)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> You're basically saying that you fudged and faked the monster stats, on the fly, in previous editions, but you can't do that now. Baloney. What, will the D&D3 police come and arrest you for fudging and faking, whereas the AD&D1/2 police were lenient?
> 
> And if you had the time to look up the chart for the saving throws in earlier editions, you have the time to look down at the monster's save bonus in this edition. Without even looking, or giving it more than a moment's thought: Orcs probably have something like Fort +3, Ref +0, and Will +0 saves. 5th-level orc is probably something like Fort +6, Ref +2, Will +0. I doubt I'm more than 1 point off. If you could fudge and fake in earlier editions, you can do it in this edition.
> 
> ...




Now, now. Don't be too rational; you might risk this thread loosing its 'soul'.


----------



## Janx (Mar 3, 2004)

I stand corrected, the PH2e intro was written by David Cook, not Grubb. It was still worth reading and applicable to D&D3e.

It is also true that the 2e Player's Option series was not officially a 2.5e release, however many people consider it such, and for the sake of short-hand I used it.  Meaning, your right because you choose to nit-pick, but you lose because it's not significant.

Next.

Personally, I liked 2e.  I consider EGG's writing style to be boorish and hard to read.  Yes, I have read his Gord novels (Greyhawk #1 and #2 in my private collection).  3e simply refined the rules, from my perspective, and reined in the Player's Option material.

I too was a bit overwhelmed by the extra feats and skills for monsters, that made it seem harder to adlib a monster.  However, once you realize you were adlibbing then, you can adlib in 3e as well.  Copy/paste works well for copying stat blocks of monsters in your adventures.

So to each his own.  Ruleswise here's what I'm hearing as lacking that's not addressable by an attitude change:
Monk/paladin multi-class limitation
unique cleric class per religion in the campaign
book formatting/art preferences
PCs are more complex in 3e

I disagree on the last one, in the sense that when you apply all the extra rules from a given edition, PCs are pretty complex.  Certainly, there's no reason you can't play D&D3e with your kids and skip Feats, Skills (except for the minimum you get for free with a class/race) and attacks of Opportunity.  That pretty much brings you down to the level of the OD&D boxed set, which for an older than 13 gamer won't be enough and they'll want more.  This is how you should be bringing in new kids anyway, strip the fancy rules, and add them back in as the player gets comfortable.

House rules and cool campaign books take care of the first two.  The remaining one was addressed by me in an earlier post.  You've got the SRD.  The missing content (XP table and skill progression) is 1 page worth of material.  make your own PH!

Janx


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 3, 2004)

Hi. Thought I'd call you on a few facts and through a bit more fuel to the fire...


> 1e had:
> static thief abilities (your level determined your scores) _Actually level + Dex did. Later, armor equated in. _
> Then came the expansion, what was it called (one of the few I don't own)...
> It added skills and THAC0 if I recall _- Thac0 was hinted at in the Monster Manual. Skills came around in one of the Survival Guides, and again in Oriental Adventures._
> ...



One think I think 3e lacks is a feeling of vermissititude. Basic, OD&D, and 1e, dispite the occasional (and intentional) hodge-podging of myth, legend, fiction, and somewhat awkward science, it seemed more like it went together better than the core world 3e delivers. Dwarves, elves and halflings had a defined role. Wizards, fighters and clerics had a defined role. Monsters were bad, usually not good for much else than being monsters. High levels were magical because few campaigns ever saw them. These things led to a world that made PCs seem to be outsiders in a otherwise static and medieval world. 

Now, adventurers are an accepted part of the society. The economy of gold and magic accomidates them. Monsters routinely have templates and class levels. Races have less defined roles due to open class selection. Customization of classes has also broken down the classic archtypes/stereotypes. The game focuses less on the world and more on the PC. DMs are encouraged to tinker more with the feel/ruleset, rather than patch the existing one. (Something I noticed due to the sheer volume of low-magic or alternate classes on these boards.) 

All in all, we traded a simple, pre-made world with arbitary limitations and lots of already made depth and an established mindset for a world of few restrictions, lots of customization, and skeletal framework. The cost of D&Ds DM friendly flexibility was is mindset and soul.


----------



## Beard in the Sky (Mar 3, 2004)

Surely this is a natural progression though? I mean, I loved those campaigns too but I remember people starting to ask for more complexity and realism too. Whereas there was at one time a pretty standard way to play the game, now I bet there are 25 or 30 different playing styles which naturally leads to the core books being a bit more "vague".


----------



## kenjib (Mar 3, 2004)

Wolffenjugend said:
			
		

> Now, it seems like a lot of the artwork is solely done b/c they need a picture of what X looks like. I think D&D should spend more time hunting down great artists.




Your comment is very interesting.  I would guess that the method for buying artwork is different now from how it worked in 1e.  My theory is that 3e has closely managed art direction, with pictures ordered from artists to fill certain pre-planned spots in the book and illustrate scenes which are determined by art direction rather than the artist.  1e might have been more loosely purchased from artists, with the artists creating pictures they liked, and TSR looking over them and deciding what to do with them after the fact.

This is all speculation, but it would help to explain why all of the 3e pictures are meant to illustrate something in the adjascent text while many of the 1e pictures are there just for atmosphere/inspiration.


----------



## Henry (Mar 3, 2004)

diaglo said:
			
		

> but shellshock stirs up more emotion. yet that was the wording of the day. WWI; ...combat fatigue...implies just that a result of battle...WWII;  post traumatic stress disorder...vietnam...sure it may be more clinical and describe the malady better...but it reads like....




You forgot "Operational Exhaustion."

Shellshock - Battle Fatigue - Then Operational Exhaustion, then Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Old George Carlin Skit.


----------



## kamosa (Mar 3, 2004)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> You're basically saying that you fudged and faked the monster stats, on the fly, in previous editions, but you can't do that now. Baloney. What, will the D&D3 police come and arrest you for fudging and faking, whereas the AD&D1/2 police were lenient?




Fake, no.  What is fake in a game where everything is made up?  Since 3E has endorced the concept of monster advancment, I like to think of it as visionary 

Any way, I didn't do it on the fly.  My point was making changes to 3 or 4 things was easier then the detail it goes into now where you have to detail out 15 or so things.   If I want to fudge numbers, it's a heck of a lot easier to make up a number, but to be fair to the players I try not to do that.



			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> And if you had the time to look up the chart for the saving throws in earlier editions, you have the time to look down at the monster's save bonus in this edition. Without even looking, or giving it more than a moment's thought: Orcs probably have something like Fort +3, Ref +0, and Will +0 saves. 5th-level orc is probably something like Fort +6, Ref +2, Will +0. I doubt I'm more than 1 point off. If you could fudge and fake in earlier editions, you can do it in this edition.
> 
> Your complaints on this matter are unfounded.
> 
> ...




Quick give an ankeg, ettin and theiflings stats without looking.  Look, I'm not saying it is a great burden that keeps me from creating a fun game.  I'm just saying the other streamlined system was easier to GM, and as a GM, I appreciated that.


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 3, 2004)

kamosa said:
			
		

> Fake, no.  What is fake in a game where everything is made up?  Since 3E has endorced the concept of monster advancment, I like to think of it as visionary
> 
> Any way, I didn't do it on the fly.  My point was making changes to 3 or 4 things was easier then the detail it goes into now where you have to detail out 15 or so things.   If I want to fudge numbers, it's a heck of a lot easier to make up a number, but to be fair to the players I try not to do that.
> 
> ...




Easier in the sense that just not playing a game is easier because of all those messy rules? In other words, it doesn't matter to you that earlier edition's half-assed statblocks neglected a lot of important detail?

And you didn't really address his main point, which is that you can choose to ignore most of the details in 3e which you feel burdened by. He might not be able to cite all the stats of an ankeg, ettin, and tiefling, but, in much the same way that it was easy to simply memorize initiative, dmg, and attack mods in earlier editions, he could probably memorize the 3e equivilants. The difference is that 3e provides those extra details for those who want a reasonably complete tactical game without the fudging. 

But I'm sorry if not using all those details makes you feel guilty. Why can't the rules text just leave you alone?


----------



## qstor (Mar 3, 2004)

I miss the number of settings, monsters and spells. Of course now that is a marketing decision from WOTC and there's tons of non-official settings monsters and spells, but all that goes back to the collapse of TSR.

I newer played 2e much, but I do occasionally pick up a 2e setting or rules book for old times sake, but I dont use any of the rules material from it. 
I'm some what of a collector too...

Mike


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 3, 2004)

qstor said:
			
		

> I miss the number of settings, monsters and spells. Of course now that is a marketing decision from WOTC and there's tons of non-official settings monsters and spells, but all that goes back to the collapse of TSR.



I'm not sure I understand.  There's a good deal _more_ settings, monsters and spells in print today then at any point in the past.  And yet you recognize that; are you saying you want it all to be "official D&D?"

I actually like the plethora of unofficial options.  Gives gaming a much more loose, pioneering feel than in the past.


----------



## Belen (Mar 3, 2004)

I tend to agree with Kamosa.  3e does require a more significant amount of time dedicated to stats and numbers.  I still do a lot of number crunching on the fly, but all of the named enemies need personal attention in order to be fair to the players.

I do think computer programs can make things easier because they can manage the numbers better and more accurately than humans; however, a lot of people do not want to spend time on a computer to get the game sessions prepared.

The rules may be more straightforward in 3e, but there are a TON of them, which is a lot to remember while sitting at the table.

This all has the effect of distracting a GM from actually running the game and the story and I think that is what really sucks the life from the 3e game.  

GM data overload, less time to get the story elements to mesh well, and too many rules to master that can slow down the game.

However, I generally love 3e simple, straightforward rules set.  They make more sense and are usually more clear.  Personally, I am still struggling to find the balance, but I think that the only true method to same time and get the same feel of earlier editions is to use the computer constructively in order to have time for story generation.


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 3, 2004)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I tend to agree with Kamosa.  3e does require a more significant amount of time dedicated to stats and numbers.  I still do a lot of number crunching on the fly, but all of the named enemies need personal attention in order to be fair to the players.
> 
> I do think computer programs can make things easier because they can manage the numbers better and more accurately than humans; however, a lot of people do not want to spend time on a computer to get the game sessions prepared.
> 
> ...




As oppossed to earlier editions, which were not fair to the players because they mandated copious DM fudging? Dumb argument.


----------



## Belen (Mar 3, 2004)

Well, the current edition it more unbalanced for GMs.  I think that changes could be made that appeal to both GMs and players.

**edit from the last post**

_However, I generally love 3e simple, straightforward rules set. They make more sense and are usually more clear. Personally, I am still struggling to find the balance, but I think that the only true method to same time and get the same feel of earlier editions is to use the computer constructively in order to have time for story generation._


----------



## Quasqueton (Mar 3, 2004)

> Any way, I didn't do it on the fly. My point was making changes to 3 or 4 things was easier then the detail it goes into now where you have to detail out 15 or so things.



So tell me, what 3 or 4 things in AD&D have turned into 15 things in D&D? If you used to just run with AC, HD, HP, and Attack in AD&D, what's stopping you from doing the same in D&D? And unless you're advancing or adding levels to a creature (which is just an option, not an order), what detail is left out of the base stats block in the MM? 



> If I want to fudge numbers, it's a heck of a lot easier to make up a number, but to be fair to the players I try not to do that.



So it was OK to be unfair to the players in AD&D, but in D&D you *have* to be fair? Yeah, I'm actually kind of glad the D&D police have stepped up their patrols of game groups.



> Quick give an ankeg, ettin and theiflings stats without looking. Look, I'm not saying it is a great burden that keeps me from creating a fun game. I'm just saying the other streamlined system was easier to GM, and as a GM, I appreciated that.



Quick, give me the stats of an ankeg, an ettin, and a tiefling from AD&D. If you can't give me the AD&D stats, then nothing has changed for you. If you can give me the AD&D stats, then how come you can't learn them now for D&D3?

You know what I used to do when I needed these stats? I'd open the MM and look them up. But now adays, damn, I *still* have to open a book and look on the page. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

You are basically complaining that the new edition of the game gives you too much info and options. You, personally, don't need all those options, and don't want to have to remember all that new information. Fine, ignore it. But it is foolish to complain about being given too much info.

"Remember when a fast food restaurant only served hamburgers and french fries? Yeah, things were much better then. The new restaurants make you read the whole freakin' menu and choose between hamburgers, hot dogs, chicken, salads, french fries, baked potatoes, onion rings. . . sigh. I used to be able to just walk in and tell the cashier I wanted one thing, but now there are a dozen things on the menu to have to consider."

The whole reason I spoke up in response to your post is because you tried to pull the same trick that I've seen lots of anti-D&D3'ers use: make absurd hyperboles about how complicated and difficult the game has gotten because it has given you more information and more options -- that most people have asked for over the years.

"I used to be able to color a picture in just a couple minutes with my box of 8 crayons. But now, with the new 64 crayon boxes, it takes me hours to color a dragon. And my goodness, but look at how detailed the line drawings of the dragons are now. I used to just could color the whole thing with two colors, but now I need a dozen colors to make the dragon look pretty."

Quasqueton


----------



## Ylis (Mar 3, 2004)

Ooo!  Ooo!  I know what it's missing!  That annoying THAC0!   The 10 years per battle sequence because you had to do all the math!  At least, that's what my players think....

For me, I first started playing in 2E.  I loved it, really.  And now I'll have to admit that it is a nostalgia thing more for me than anything else.  Plus it's easier for me to run, for some reason....


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 3, 2004)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Well, the current edition it more unbalanced for GMs.  I think that changes could be made that appeal to both GMs and players.
> 
> **edit from the last post**
> 
> _However, I generally love 3e simple, straightforward rules set. They make more sense and are usually more clear. Personally, I am still struggling to find the balance, but I think that the only true method to same time and get the same feel of earlier editions is to use the computer constructively in order to have time for story generation._




Read my second to last post. There is no reason that most of 3e's details could not be ignored if that is the type of game you and your players prefer. It would still be as complete and balanced as anything you find in 2e or earlier.


----------



## francisca (Mar 3, 2004)

Beard in the Sky said:
			
		

> 3rd Edition was designed for a different generation than the generation posting on this board. I suspect people don't like 3rd edition as much as 1st edition for the same reason people don't like today's music as much as they liked the music when they were kids.
> 
> 1E = Led Zeppelin (classic)
> 
> ...




I was initially inclined to agree with you, and still do, partially.  I agree that there is no convincing some people that their love affair with old editions is nothing more than nostalgia.  

However, I don't think the current game was designed with young, edgy, Fred Durst fanboys in mind.  If they did, I think they would be going against their own 
research.  Here is a quote: 

"3. Adventure Gaming is an adult hobby
More than half the market for hobby games is older than 19. There is a
substantial “dip” in incidence of play from 16-18. "

Further:

"It may also indicate that the existing group of players is aging and not
being refreshed by younger players at the same rate as in previous years."

So, I think they are missing the target if they are using buckles, spikey hair, etc.. to attract younger gamers.

I really think it was a matter of the art director choosing a particular style of art that appealed to him/her, the designers, and whoever else needed to sign off on it.  Or something.  (shrugs)

It would be cool if they put out product aimed at the older, Zep-loving bunch.    The Battle of Evermore CS, Songs of the Immigrants, etc..


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 3, 2004)

For what it's worth; I'm an old fart who _doesn't_ like Led Zeppelin.


----------



## jgbrowning (Mar 3, 2004)

francisca said:
			
		

> However, I don't think the current game was designed with young, edgy, Fred Durst fanboys in mind.  If they did, I think they would be going against their own
> research.  Here is a quote:
> 
> "3. Adventure Gaming is an adult hobby
> ...




Also, this survey was conducted in 1999. Those who responded and are still playing are roughly 4 years older now.... Even then the largest demographic was 25-35 year olds, although we are given no information concerning 35+ers.

joe b.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 3, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> You forgot "Operational Exhaustion."
> 
> Shellshock - Battle Fatigue - Then Operational Exhaustion, then Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Old George Carlin Skit.




i knew someone would remember the skit.


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 3, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> For what it's worth; I'm an old fart who _doesn't_ like Led Zeppelin.




Good man.


----------



## francisca (Mar 3, 2004)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Also, this survey was conducted in 1999. Those who responded and are still playing are roughly 4 years older now.... Even then the largest demographic was 25-35 year olds, although we are given no information concerning 35+ers.
> 
> joe b.



yeah, and we're the guys with the money to spend....

speaking of which, you got $10 from me today for the Ecology book.....can I get your digital signature on it?


----------



## diaglo (Mar 3, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> For what it's worth; I'm an old fart who _doesn't_ like Led Zeppelin.





you probably also didn't worship satan or sacrifice small animals or go into the steam tunnels beneath Michigan State to game.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 3, 2004)

diaglo said:
			
		

> you probably also didn't worship satan or sacrifice small animals or go into the steam tunnels beneath Michigan State to game.



Pshaw!  I only moved to Michigan in the last four years; the steam tunnels under Kyle Field at Texas A&M were much better anyway.  Besides, who wants cold, icy steam tunnels?  No atmosphere at all...


----------



## buzzard (Mar 3, 2004)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> So tell me, what 3 or 4 things in AD&D have turned into 15 things in D&D? If you used to just run with AC, HD, HP, and Attack in AD&D, what's stopping you from doing the same in D&D? And unless you're advancing or adding levels to a creature (which is just an option, not an order), what detail is left out of the base stats block in the MM?
> 
> So it was OK to be unfair to the players in AD&D, but in D&D you *have* to be fair? Yeah, I'm actually kind of glad the D&D police have stepped up their patrols of game groups.
> 
> ...





While I'm certainly in the '3rd is better camp' you simply aren't seeing what he's saying, or your are being disingenious. Monsters were simpler in 2nd Ed (or 1st for that matter). You even acknoledge that. It's not simply an issue of more available information, it's a matter of more information to assimilate to be able to run the monster in an effective fashion. 

For example, I ran a LG recently but hadn't looked up the Chuul in advance. I missed out on one of their special feats because I hadn't been careful enough. It wasn't a matter of memorizing to hit, HP, AC and saves. There's lots more tricky aspects of monsters these days. With grapple, power attack, and a wide variety of other abilites you simply have to know more details of the monsters to run them fairly. The challenges represented by the monsters takes all this into account, and if you blow it off CRs don't really mean much.

How about a simple example-
Giant Purple Worm: 2nd edition- if it hits you on a bite, it swallows whole and you have to cut your way out. 
3rd Ed, it has improved grab on the bite and you end up in a grapple situation. Thus you need to know the grapple numbers. If you fail your grapple check you then get swallowed and have to cut your way out. Luckily 3.5 included grapple modifiers for all monsters rather that forcing you to calculate them if necessary. 

Can you in any way justify saying that you have to know less information in 3rd? I think not. Now I prefer 3rd in the above situation since it is more fair and give you a shot at not being swallowed. However by no means is it as simple. 

buzzard


----------



## buzzard (Mar 3, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Pshaw!  I only moved to Michigan in the last four years; the steam tunnels under Kyle Field at Texas A&M were much better anyway.  Besides, who wants cold, icy steam tunnels?  No atmosphere at all...




You've been in steam tunnels and you say they're 'cold, icy'? Your steam tunnels must not have been used for their stated purpose. The ones back at CMU were pretty damn warm, especially during the winter. 

buzzard


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 3, 2004)

buzzard said:
			
		

> While I'm certainly in the '3rd is better camp' you simply aren't seeing what he's saying, or your are being disingenious. Monsters were simpler in 2nd Ed (or 1st for that matter). You even acknoledge that. It's not simply an issue of more available information, it's a matter of more information to assimilate to be able to run the monster in an effective fashion.
> 
> For example, I ran a LG recently but hadn't looked up the Chuul in advance. I missed out on one of their special feats because I hadn't been careful enough. It wasn't a matter of memorizing to hit, HP, AC and saves. There's lots more tricky aspects of monsters these days. With grapple, power attack, and a wide variety of other abilites you simply have to know more details of the monsters to run them fairly. The challenges represented by the monsters takes all this into account, and if you blow it off CRs don't really mean much.
> 
> ...




I think you are missing what he is saying. Earlier editions didn't have a CR system, nor did they specify how to adjudicate certain actions. THOSE ARE ALL OPTIONAL. As are the feats and pretty much everything you describe as complex. Now, I will agree this is all neccessary if you want to run a complete game. But that's the rub, isn't it, because earlier editions simply weren't complete games; balance meant nothing. You could easily throw all those details out the window and easily have the same or better experience as you had with 2e.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 3, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> I think you are missing what he is saying. Earlier editions didn't have a CR system...





they did. it just wasn't the same as the 2000ed definition.

Dungeon Level 1-9 etc...for random monster encounters was a precursor to the CR system of 2000ed.


----------



## kenjib (Mar 3, 2004)

Yeah, I agree.  3e is great if you change it so that it's a different game.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 3, 2004)

kenjib said:
			
		

> Yeah, I agree.  3e is great if you change it so that it's a different game.



Personally, I think it's pretty cool as is...


----------



## kigmatzomat (Mar 3, 2004)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I tend to agree with Kamosa.  3e does require a more significant amount of time dedicated to stats and numbers.  I still do a lot of number crunching on the fly, but all of the named enemies need personal attention in order to be fair to the players.




Named enemies *always* needed personal attention regardless of edition or system.  A half dozen thugs/orcs/stormtroopers can be cloned from the CritterCodex but Hawthorne the Odiferous should have always been done in detail.  Unless Hawthorne is just a generic orc with pretentions there for flavor or a distraction.  



> I do think computer programs can make things easier because they can manage the numbers better and more accurately than humans; however, a lot of people do not want to spend time on a computer to get the game sessions prepared.




I use software to manage PCs, not NPCs.  Most NPC stats are done on a legal pad using 1-3 lines per entry.  Pretty much the same way I did in 1e & 2e.  My DM statblock looks like:

Name Init AC Size/Reach Attacks Damage  SA    Fort Ref Will   HP

non-standard NPCs get the non-MM stats on subsequent lines along with treasure and SAs that don't fit in the space.  Usually takes me 2-3 minutes per critter.  I spend more time rolling treasure than making encounters.  




> The rules may be more straightforward in 3e, but there are a TON of them, which is a lot to remember while sitting at the table.




I never really played OD&D; my friends and I were too hyper to figure the rules out.  I played 1E during the age of UA, OA, DSG, and WSG.  I have no idea what D&D without excessive amounts of rules looks like.  No, not entirely true.  2e was rules light, particularly rules I wanted to stop arguements between players but full of thethe rules I never used.  Well, until Options and the the Kit books brought it up to 1e.  

3e's mechanics are 99% contained within the PHB and DMG (I don't use Psionics).  The splats really don't add new mechanics, just new permutations in the forms of feats and spells.  



> This all has the effect of distracting a GM from actually running the game and the story and I think that is what really sucks the life from the 3e game.  GM data overload, less time to get the story elements to mesh well, and too many rules to master that can slow down the game.




This is basically complaining about an underprepared or inexperienced GM.  My Rule:0 is that if someone can't find a rule in short order and it isn't a major component of the game, I come up with a simple stat+BAB/save/skill roll and we move on with the game.


----------



## kamosa (Mar 3, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> I think you are missing what he is saying. Earlier editions didn't have a CR system, nor did they specify how to adjudicate certain actions. THOSE ARE ALL OPTIONAL. As are the feats and pretty much everything you describe as complex. Now, I will agree this is all neccessary if you want to run a complete game. But that's the rub, isn't it, because earlier editions simply weren't complete games; balance meant nothing. You could easily throw all those details out the window and easily have the same or better experience as you had with 2e.




I would disagree that earlier editions didn't have a CR system.  It wasn't coded the same way or called the same thing, but most GM's knew what threat level of an encounter was before they ran it.   They knew when it was an easy encounter, they knew when they were about to break the party with a monster.

I don't think most of the information is optional.  If a player casts a spell that requires a reflex save, the save number is not optional.  Feats are a big part of 3E.  If someone has improved grapple, you better know the stats for the monster.  You can't play this game as a 2E game, nor would I want to.

In 2E a good GM codified the situation on the fly.  That doesn't necessarily mean unfair to the players.  A lot of situtation are much harsher on the players in 3E then they were when I ruled on them in 2E or 1E.  This isn't a rant about fairness or balance.  It isn't even about complexity.  The save numbers aren't complex.  The idea of monsters having stats isn't complex or even new.  

It's more about the level of information the DM MUST have on hand to run a fair encounter and the amount of extra time it takes to create the game now.


Imagine running a mage or priest in combat as the GM now.  Every spell can use a different save, so you have to have that information handy. 2e the players had a magic save that they kept handy.   So instead of saying "roll a save take 15 or 8" and then moving on to the next issue of combat, I have to refer back to the notes to see which save Sniloc Snow Ball uses, then look at the mages sheet to get the DC of the spell, then tell them 15 or 8.     

Say now the fighter now runs over and tries to grapple said mage and succeeds.  Now the casting involves concentration checks, grapple checks, attacks of opportunity etc.   This time adds up over the course of a long game and adds to the wear and tear on the GM.  It makes creating the NPCs longer, it takes more time to prepare in general and the combats are far more complex from the GM's point of view.


----------



## Numion (Mar 3, 2004)

The previous editions got nothing on 3.0E. 

It's simple as that to me. True, I started with Basic, played a lot of 1e .. even bought 2e, but didn't play it. Only in year 2000 did I come back to D&D. Never been happier. 

All the stupid D&Disms were gone, and a streamlined and playable game was created. 

So I guess my answer is that 3E is missing all those stupid D&Disms - namely all the crappy restrictions and nonsense rules.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 3, 2004)

kamosa said:
			
		

> I would disagree that earlier editions didn't have a CR system.  It wasn't coded the same way or called the same thing, but most GM's knew what threat level of an encounter was before they ran it.   They knew when it was an easy encounter, they knew when they were about to break the party with a monster.



If by "system" what you really mean is, "read the monster's stats and description and make an informed decision as the DM on how much of a challenge this will be to your party" then I agree with you.  However, since that same "system" still exists by simply ignoring the CR line on the stat block, I think it's fair to say that CR is a new tool without any previous analogue.


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 3, 2004)

kamosa said:
			
		

> I would disagree that earlier editions didn't have a CR system.  It wasn't coded the same way or called the same thing, but most GM's knew what threat level of an encounter was before they ran it.   They knew when it was an easy encounter, they knew when they were about to break the party with a monster.
> 
> I don't think most of the information is optional.  If a player casts a spell that requires a reflex save, the save number is not optional.  Feats are a big part of 3E.  If someone has improved grapple, you better know the stats for the monster.  You can't play this game as a 2E game, nor would I want to.
> 
> ...




No, you have not given a reason why any of this is necessary versus the fudging that was required in 2e. Tell me again why you can't strip most of the detail and have the same basic game? In either a stripped 3e or core 2e, you'd have to fudge multiple aspects of the game. 2e combat was never balanced (making difficulty much more of a moot issue), because of the insane amount of adjudication necessary. You shouldn't call the need to adjudicate an improvised 3e game a vice while saying the same type of incomplete hack of a design is a virtue for 2e. Your trying to have your cake (balance, mechanical fidelity) and eat it too (but I have to deal with actual rules!!!!)

You can argue for a more minimalist design. But that isn't really prior editions. 1e/2e are more just incomplete.


----------



## kamosa (Mar 3, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> If by "system" what you really mean is, "read the monster's stats and description and make an informed decision as the DM on how much of a challenge this will be to your party" then I agree with you.  However, since that same "system" still exists by simply ignoring the CR line on the stat block, I think it's fair to say that CR is a new tool without any previous analogue.




They used an XP system, which wasn't perfect, but did give a fairly good representation of the strength of the monsters.  

I don't think CR is adding to the GM woes under 3E, I just wouldn't say it is some revolution to the game that makes 3E better either.


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 3, 2004)

kenjib said:
			
		

> Yeah, I agree.  3e is great if you change it so that it's a different game.




Of course, my point and others is that 1e/2e weren't full fledged games to begin with, so any comparison (especially positive ones in favor of earlier editions) are misplaced.


----------



## buzzard (Mar 3, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> I think you are missing what he is saying. Earlier editions didn't have a CR system, nor did they specify how to adjudicate certain actions. THOSE ARE ALL OPTIONAL. As are the feats and pretty much everything you describe as complex. Now, I will agree this is all neccessary if you want to run a complete game. But that's the rub, isn't it, because earlier editions simply weren't complete games; balance meant nothing. You could easily throw all those details out the window and easily have the same or better experience as you had with 2e.




I am not missing what he is saying, nor am I missing what you're saying. You both are missing the point. Some handwaving about how the earlier games weren't complete games is nonsense. I played previous editions and, you know, at the time had fun with the game. I didn't feel that anything was missing. I played in good stories and had good times. Just because 3rd has a better ruleset does not imply that previous editions did not have complete rulesets. 

It is simply not possible to argue in a straigtforward way that 3rd Ed combat is as simple as the previous editions. You can remove plenty of 3rd edition to make it simpler, but then is it 3rd edition? Arguing that a stripped down version of 3rd edition is simpler is irrelevant. 

buzzard


----------



## Arnwyn (Mar 3, 2004)

"What is 3.0 & 3.5 missing that previous editions had?"

For me, 3.x is missing:
- better artwork (personal taste, of course)
- unique specialty priests
- as another poster noted, some of the "classical" tropes (like halflings/hobbits)
- restrictions used to better define the campaign world
- easier and faster preparation (_not_ the same as ease of DMing). Earlier editions were far easier and faster to prepare for - but were a pain to actually run. Just the opposite, I've found 3.x to be extremely time-consuming to prepare for but very easy and relaxing to run. An optimal solution has not been met, unfortunately.
- Habitat and Ecology in monster listings. An absolute shame they were removed.
- DM support. 3.x has too much infor on characters (PC or NPC) and not enough to help run other aspects of the game (like, y'know - places, for example. Even campaign setting material, like FR, overly focuses on characters as opposed to geography). Draconomicon, Book of Challenges, and Stronghold Guide has helped alleviate this, but much more is needed.


----------



## kamosa (Mar 3, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> No, you have not given a reason why any of this is necessary versus the fudging that was required in 2e. Tell me again why you can't strip most of the detail and have the same basic game? In either a stripped 3e or core 2e, you'd have to fudge multiple aspects of the game. 2e combat was never balanced (making difficulty much more of a moot issue), because of the insane amount of adjudication necessary. You shouldn't call the need to adjudicate an improvised 3e game a vice while saying the same type of incomplete hack of a design is a virtue for 2e. Your trying to have your cake (balance, mechanical fidelity) and eat it too (but I have to deal with actual rules!!!!)
> 
> You can argue for a more minimalist design. But that isn't really prior editions. 1e/2e are more just incomplete.




First of all, you've said that 2E was unbalanced many times.  I would agree with this on a character creation level.  Not all characters were even remotely equal in 2E.  However, in a combat by combat basis, the balance between the players and the monsters was never an issue. You have a tough GM in 2E, you still have problems in 3E.  You have a fair GM in 2E, chances are that didn't change.

However, many changes that were made didn't affect balance and weren't because the previous system was an incomplete hack.   

Take the saves for instance.  There used to be 5 and now there is 3, so why is it more incomplete in 2E?.    As I said in the previous post, take spell casting.  In 2E, the burden was on the players to keep their save for spells handy.  One number, worked great.  In 3E, the GM must not only calculate the save number for each level of spell, but must also determine on a per spell basis which save to use.  

Does the fact that there are now three possible saves for any spell add to the game?  I don't think so, but it sure slows down play.  I still end up adjudicating an "insane" amount.  However, now instead of looking in people's eyes, my head is down and looking at my notes.

Instead of making a ruling and moving on, we look for a ruling somebody else made, with no evidence that they spent any more time on or thought then we would have.


----------



## kenjib (Mar 3, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> Of course, my point and others is that 1e/2e weren't full fledged games to begin with, so any comparison (especially positive ones in favor of earlier editions) are misplaced.




It was a complete game and did the job well, even if 3e does the job better.  More rules does not mean more complete.  More rules is a design choice, not a design goal.


----------



## Malk (Mar 3, 2004)

Well I'm a young new player who loves zeplin.  I also dig limp bizkit for what its worth.  I love third edition and see it as an improvement in almost all ways over 2e.  I love the art, I find it on the whole _ more_ yes more realistic than in second edition.  When I see second edition art i just think cheese...just cheese man.  There were some exceptions...elmore being one of them.  I also agree that 3e art could use more background work.  

Also it is so very rare to find really good realistic depictions of armor...its to intricate for the most part to represent in a drawing, and sometimes when an artist actualy does present realistic armor it dosnt look right..the proportions look off.  Besides if im playing in a game where everything is made up why not make the armor look "neat".

As for the lack of racial restrictions making the core world bland....there really isnt a core world.  I dont know anyone, have never known anyone to play in the phb world...its not even an acurate representation of greyhawk.


----------



## sledged (Mar 3, 2004)

- Releases afordable and spaced out far enough that everyone could own every product.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Mar 3, 2004)

kamosa said:
			
		

> They used an XP system, which wasn't perfect, but did give a fairly good representation of the strength of the monsters.
> 
> I don't think CR is adding to the GM woes under 3E, I just wouldn't say it is some revolution to the game that makes 3E better either.




I would.  There's a difference between "xp -> 0" and "xp = 0".  In 2e kill a rat, get 3xp  regardless of level.  2,000th level and a rat is still 5xp; not worth much but worth *something*.  In 3e a rat is worthless as an adversary by ~5th level.  

Furthermore, CR provides a benchmark.  It's still not absolutes because of tactics and exact situations, but a benchmark none the less.  

CR=party level = moderately entertaining tussle.  
CR<party level = easy.  
CR> party level = hard
CR << party level = not worth noticing
CR >> party level  = likely dead PCs

CR encourages better GMing.  It can't enforce it, but it encourages it.  Building encounters is still an art form, but it now has a bit of paint-by-numbers for people to start with and get functional faster.


----------



## Mac Callum (Mar 3, 2004)

I think what Monte Cook has coined "the implied setting" of D&D has become more dilute.  

The D&D-isms (like racial level limits) had to change from setting to setting, so that Dark Sun elves and dwarves were very different creatures than the ones of Ravenloft, Krynn or the Players Handbook.  The 1e and 2e Player's Handbooks were really setting books.  The 3rd Ed. has taken another route.

WotC made the decision that D&D would be a basic rule-set and that a lot of the "flavor & soul" would come from third-party d20 publishers.  To do this the rules became very bland - not because the designers were bland people, but because they wanted the rules to fit as seemlessly as possible into other people's worlds.  

To get this level of flexibility, the chameleon-like qualities of 3E also mean it has no character of its own.

The same can be seen in the artwork.  There are no scenes in the Core Rules.  Nothing to suggest an implied setting.  Just characters posing for a portrait, whereas the old art captured them in a moment of their adventuring career - in a world somewhere.

I also think the idea of iconic characters was a bad one.  Roleplaying is about making new characters, not being compared to some Platonic ideal.  When I look through my 2E PHB (I have it right here) I see many different fighters.  In 3E its just Redgar, over and over.

I also think that the rule set may be too complete.  It's relatively simple: choose DC, ad mods, roll d20; but it covers everything.  It is a perfectly simple, perfectly complete system of interlocking gears, in which all the paths lead inward to the d20 - the core of the machine; but not its soul.  There are no idiosyncratic rule sets which say such-and-such works this way "just because."  I never minded that, and in fact it often enhanced the feel of the "implied setting."

So what is 3E missing?  What did 2E (and earlier) have?

A stronger implied setting
Scenic artwork
Practical/ believable arms and armor
Multiple examples of class/race combos - not Icons

I'm not downplaying what 3E has over earlier editions - it has a lot - but this is what it's missing, in my eyes.

_The man who says he has the answer to all things
is either very wise or very dumb
and either way, he has put a knife in the heart or wonder_


----------



## rounser (Mar 3, 2004)

> I think what Monte Cook has coined "the implied setting" of D&D has become more dilute.



Hmmm....I think I recall inventing that term to refer to a point I was trying to make during a discussion with jasamcarl on these boards, actually...and I think that predated Mr Cook's use of it.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Mar 3, 2004)

kamosa said:
			
		

> However, in a combat by combat basis, the balance between the players and the monsters was never an issue. You have a tough GM in 2E, you still have problems in 3E.  You have a fair GM in 2E, chances are that didn't change.




The heck it wasn't.  I tore my hair out constantly in 2e trying to guess at balanced encounters.  My choices were a) only run things I've run before, b) fudge constantly so that the BBEG lasts long enough or the minor guards don't off the PCs, c) prepare for my game to be completely derailed because I couldn't tell how the creature's special abilities would really pan out.  

I got good at it after time, but it was a nightmarish amount of mental work to evaluate the various combat possibilities.  3E I need to review the encounters but I don't have to sweat blood.  

Maybe it's not evident to people with normal sized groups, but I run for groups of 7-12 players.  3E is *way* less work.  



> Take the saves for instance.  There used to be 5 and now there is 3, so why is it more incomplete in 2E?.    As I said in the previous post, take spell casting.  In 2E, the burden was on the players to keep their save for spells handy.  One number, worked great.  In 3E, the GM must not only calculate the save number for each level of spell, but must also determine on a per spell basis which save to use.




Sorry, I'd rather be concerned about the effect than the source.  I always hated situations like "What's the save vs Poison when it comes from a wand?"  

This is a core design decision or more accurately the result of two systemwide decisions.  "Stats affect everything" combined with "higher level spells are harder to resist than lesser spells"  Since stats don't directly impact the damage or spell affects, it has to impact the saves.


----------



## hrafnagud (Mar 3, 2004)

I played 1E for many years, skipped 2E entirely, and have dabbled in 3E.  My conclusion?  3E places far too much emphesis on balance and fairness.  In my experience (and this is only _my_ experience, for all ye naysayers), 3E players gravitate towards the expectation that all things are closely calculated to be fair.  As a 1E GM, I was never fair.  My players were left to their own judgement whether or not to pursue a given course of action.  If they erred, they got hammered.  Believe it or not, they loved it that way.  Kept the game 'dangerous.'  Now players can calculate on the fly just how overmatched they truly are, which feels too mechanical.

I never felt the need to balance encounters; players scrapped for their EXPs anywhere they could take em.  Obviously, many people will feel this is a barbaric approach, but then I do come from the bad ol' days.


----------



## Pants (Mar 4, 2004)

hrafnagud said:
			
		

> Kept the game 'dangerous.'  Now players can calculate on the fly just how overmatched they truly are, which feels too mechanical.



I dunno, 3E is still 'dangerous' just ask my players.
Besides there's nothing floating above a monster's head in 3E that says 'CR = such and such.'


----------



## Staffan (Mar 4, 2004)

sledged said:
			
		

> - Releases afordable and spaced out far enough that everyone could own every product.



Uh-huh.

Number of WOTC D&D releases in 2003: 15
Number of TSR AD&D/D&D releases in 1993: 64

You were saying?


----------



## Zappo (Mar 4, 2004)

sledged said:
			
		

> - Releases afordable and spaced out far enough that everyone could own every product.



Eeeh?! Staffan beats me to the obvious, but in any case, no thanks. Who cares about owning every product, I much prefer having many releases and therefore a wide choice to pick what's best for me. WotC isn't doing nearly enough releases for my tastes, but that's well and good because the invention of the OGL more than makes up for it.


----------



## Malk (Mar 4, 2004)

ok i had to dig out some of my 2e books...only one i could find off hand was skills and powers...and there are like no pictues in 3e that compare to the cartoonishness of this book...eeh....


----------



## Zappo (Mar 4, 2004)

hrafnagud said:
			
		

> Now players can calculate on the fly just how overmatched they truly are, which feels too mechanical.



No, they can't. They don't know the encounter's CR, and they cannot calculate it from what they see either, because (unlike 2E where all monsters of a given race were identical), now any monster has as much variability as a PC.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 4, 2004)

Mac Callum said:
			
		

> I think what Monte Cook has coined "the implied setting" of D&D has become more dilute.
> 
> The D&D-isms (like racial level limits) had to change from setting to setting, so that Dark Sun elves and dwarves were very different creatures than the ones of Ravenloft, Krynn or the Players Handbook. The 1e and 2e Player's Handbooks were really setting books. The 3rd Ed. has taken another route.
> 
> ...



You hit the nail on the head. 1e/2e had an implied "D&D" setting. While 3e has some measure of it (and I disagree, I think the Iconics are designed to give a greater sense of a common world to the various books.) the fast majority of "D&Disms" (or sacred cows) that died in to make the game more flexible, fair and balanced also killed the quirky, wonky flavor of the game.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 4, 2004)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> You hit the nail on the head. 1e/2e had an implied "D&D" setting. While 3e has some measure of it (and I disagree, I think the Iconics are designed to give a greater sense of a common world to the various books.) the fast majority of "D&Disms" (or sacred cows) that died in to make the game more flexible, fair and balanced also killed the quirky, wonky flavor of the game.




Actually, there's a fair deal of the implied setting left in the descriptions of the races and classes - far more explicit than in the 1E or oD&D books.

The 3.5E DMG gives as a set of variant rules the class/race restrictions of 1E!

Cheers!


----------



## Urbannen (Mar 4, 2004)

A friend and I were talking about this subject this week.  We came to the conclusion that Basic and AD&D were rooted in a mythological culture of Western Civilization, meaning Europe.  The U.S. is becoming more inclusive and so is D&D.  I have no problem with Ember being black, for instance.  However, there really weren't any black Europeans or Asians (she's a monk) to speak of in medieval times.  The racial composition of D&D humans is American, not European.  White Americans (or, to be less "racial") Anglo-Saxon/European Americans have less of a connection to a mythological European past than we used to, IMO.  What was LotR, but a modern creation of European mythology?  The creators of D&D were from the north central US and were influenced by medieval wargaming and European mythic fantasy such as Tolkien.  They were white and growing up in the 60s and 70s.  Our culture has shifted, so that our traditional European identification has weakened.  Now D&D is more like American culture of today - more interested in the future than the past, trying to create a diverse popular culture.  Look at how all the limits have been taken away in 3E.  Well, why should there be limits?  Why should the circumstances of your birth, or culture, or race limit your career advancement, as they did back in OD&D?  Modern American culture doesn't accept such limitations, and really doesn't see the basis for them.  

The universe created by the founders of D&D from a collective European fantasy is now a kewl place to have adventures, not a place to communicate with the collective thought of our ancestors.  D&D characters may be placed in an archaic setting, but they speak with a modern vocabulary.


----------



## kenjib (Mar 4, 2004)

Urbannen,

Great post.  I think you just explained what that "intangible" thing that nobody could put their finger on is.  The use of "she" for a gender neutral pronoun throughout the books is another bit of evidence.

"D&D characters may be placed in an archaic setting, but they speak with a modern vocabulary."

Now I have visions of Kevin Sorbo running around in my head.  Heh.


----------



## Mac Callum (Mar 4, 2004)

Remathilis - I just meant that the Iconics present one version of the Fighter, Monk, etc. while the lack of Iconics earlier provided you with more examples.  I also got more inspiration from them, because they weren't just another portrait of Lidda.

Urbannen - Excellent point.  D&D today does have much less of an LotR feel - which I suppose is its movement away from the Anglo-Saxon/Scandinavian roots of the game.  It also is very populist and egalitarian - which are not words used to describe ancient mythology by any means.

I still don't like the move from scenic art to portrait art.

And 2E: skills & powers doesn't count.  I didn't say _all _the art from 2E was better.


----------



## rounser (Mar 4, 2004)

> We came to the conclusion that Basic and AD&D were rooted in a mythological culture of Western Civilization, meaning Europe. The U.S. is becoming more inclusive and so is D&D. I have no problem with Ember being black, for instance. However, there really weren't any black Europeans or Asians (she's a monk) to speak of in medieval times.



I disagree with what you're inferring about the nature of the "intangible" aspect of what's different about the artwork.  The style of artwork has got little to do with the colour of the character's skin (e.g. _Return to the Keep on the Borderlands_ has a black fighter with a flail as the main focus of the cover, and it totally "looks D&D" to me), and the fact that dwarves can now be mages doesn't enter into my consideration of the style.  Mialee's facial features looking like an alien looks out of place, IMO, not Ember...


----------



## buzzard (Mar 4, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> No, they can't. They don't know the encounter's CR, and they cannot calculate it from what they see either, because (unlike 2E where all monsters of a given race were identical), now any monster has as much variability as a PC.




Yes and no. You can put it together quickly enough if you really know the rules. I will admit that you can't figure out that the kobold is 5th level by watching, but in a lot of other cases it can be deduced. Truthfully, many of the cases where class levels are added to monsters the gain is minimal in effectiveness. In LG I can usually piece together the EL of an encounter pretty quickly. 

Though you are correct in that you would have a quicker notion of how unpleasant an encounter was back in 2nd just by seeing what was present. 

buzzard


----------



## Belen (Mar 4, 2004)

buzzard said:
			
		

> Yes and no. You can put it together quickly enough if you really know the rules. I will admit that you can't figure out that the kobold is 5th level by watching, but in a lot of other cases it can be deduced. Truthfully, many of the cases where class levels are added to monsters the gain is minimal in effectiveness. In LG I can usually piece together the EL of an encounter pretty quickly.
> 
> Though you are correct in that you would have a quicker notion of how unpleasant an encounter was back in 2nd just by seeing what was present.
> 
> buzzard




You are correct, sir.  My players can usually figure out the basic attack, damage, AC etc of their opponents within 1-2 rounds.  

Any...knowledge of the ruleset can really allow players to come up with tactical solutions to enemies that their characters would never imagine.

Not that anything is wrong with having players think more tactically for combat, just that some of the feeling is missing.


----------



## Janx (Mar 4, 2004)

The question on encounters is, do your players KNOW you run encounters tightly to "fair" CRs.

Do you tell them they're facing 4 kobolds, or 4 small reptilloid dog men.

In my campaign world, the only race available for PCs is human.  I've got a tight list of available classes (no barbarians, sorcerers or rangers),  That's limits, but its limits by campaign world, not 'cuz Gary says so.

Monsters get complicated when you use the fancy ones with special features.  In the beginning, a DM would be running the easy stuff like orcs, kobolds and a spider for variety.  The DM would get slowly exposed to the more complex abilities.  I've been hosed more times by not studying the monsters special abilities as a GM (ie. forgetting they can do a certain thing) in all game systems than I can count.  The key ios to know the critter has grapple.  If you can't find the rules for grapple, the "fudge" rule comes in and you make up a resolution method for it.

Janx


----------



## diaglo (Mar 4, 2004)

Staffan said:
			
		

> Uh-huh.
> 
> Number of WOTC D&D releases in 2003: 15
> Number of TSR AD&D/D&D releases in 1993: 64
> ...





i think some of those ADnD/D&D releases in the 64 you are using from 1993 also include things like...

the AD&D Collector card sets...3 of them to be exact. and the novels and other games.

if you want to lie with statistics you should at least post the complete lists


----------



## hong (Mar 4, 2004)

Urbannen said:
			
		

> The universe created by the founders of D&D from a collective European fantasy is now a kewl place to have adventures, not a place to communicate with the collective thought of our ancestors.




I can communicate with the collective thought of my ancestors easily enough. It usually involves hallucinogens.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Mar 4, 2004)

I haven't read all of these, so maybe someone has mentioned it already - Fighters with 18/xx strength clearly being the strongest in the party.  That extra percentage only available to the fighter class set them apart.  Now a first level wizard can be as strong as someone who has supposedly spent his early life training with weapons and wearing armor.

(On the flip side, I like that stats can now go over 18, without magical assitance, as you level up)


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Mar 4, 2004)

Treasure and magic were your biggest sources of XP.  At mid to high levels you could kill a horde of monsters and not advance a level, but you stumble into a room with a treasure trove of goodies and suddenly *ping* you have been granted another level.    

I don't miss that at all (although 3.x DMs need to be sure to give XP for non-combat situations - the CR system seems to create more DMs who only consider what you killed in determining XP).


----------



## K'Plah Q'Houme (Mar 4, 2004)

I miss the 'weapon mastery' option, where a player could become 'Grand Master'. There was a nice feeling to this. 

There is a lot of things that was good about the old series of D&D, but all the same, I would say that the new aditions are just fine...


----------



## hong (Mar 4, 2004)

K'Plah Q'Houme said:
			
		

> I miss the 'weapon mastery' option, where a player could become 'Grand Master'. There was a nice feeling to this.




Well, 3.E has Weapon Focus, Weapon Spec, Improved Crit, Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Spec, so you can fake it somewhat. And there's the weapon master prestige class if you want to go down that route.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 4, 2004)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i think some of those ADnD/D&D releases in the 64 you are using from 1993 also include things like...
> 
> the AD&D Collector card sets...3 of them to be exact. and the novels and other games.
> 
> if you want to lie with statistics you should at least post the complete lists



Apparently you missed the last time we did this diaglo -- those numbers do not include collector card sets and novels, or at least they didn't when I saw them earlier.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Mar 4, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> No, they can't. They don't know the encounter's CR, and they cannot calculate it from what they see either, because (unlike 2E where all monsters of a given race were identical), now any monster has as much variability as a PC.




I disagree, it is fairly easy to calculate.  I'm runnning my new group through Sunless Citadel and the Kobold Queen is a 3rd level Sorcerer with Magic Missile as one of her spells.  Everytime she casts it two missiles fly out to strike the party.  She's not 1st or 2nd level because she'd only get one missile and she isn't 5th or higher because she'd have more missiles.  The party easily deduced that she was either 3rd or 4th from the number of missiles she produced when she cast the spell and any Wizard or Sorcerer with the Magic Missile spell would easily deduce that and not have to resort to out of game knowledge.
Fireball is the easiest spell of all to figure out a NPC's level.  It does 1d6 per caster level to a maximum of 10d6 so as long as the NPC isn't higher than 10th level they can figure out the exact level by noting the number of dice the DM throws (if he rolls dice in front of the party).


----------



## WizarDru (Mar 4, 2004)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> I disagree, it is fairly easy to calculate. I'm runnning my new group through Sunless Citadel and the Kobold Queen is a 3rd level Sorcerer with Magic Missile as one of her spells. Everytime she casts it two missiles fly out to strike the party. She's not 1st or 2nd level because she'd only get one missile and she isn't 5th or higher because she'd have more missiles.



Of course, you and your players are ignoring the possibility of both advancement and multiclassing here....which was, I think, avoided in Sunless Citadel for the sake of it being the first 3e adventure path module, and that it came out before the Monster Manual (and possibly the DMG, my memory is foggy). Either way, classed monsters were enough of a departure at that point, let alone multiclassed or templated ones (remembering templates hadn't appeared, yet). Modules written 3 years later have a much different character, and use the rules in more sophisticated ways. Sunless Citadel was meant, I think, to be a gradual easing into the system for new and returning players.

I think Urbannen's point is incredibly insightful, personally, and summarizes a major difference between older versions and new. I also think Buzz's point earlier about system mastery is also an important one. I recently cracked open the 1e DMG and PHB, and discovered that I had misunderstood or just plain not used many of the rules listed therein. I don't think we EVER used the system as written, and that was true with every DM I ever played with, including myself. 

Nostalgia aside, I think Basic D&D had an approachability that both AD&D and even 3e, to some extent, lack. AD&D had the flavor of EGG's writing, which while dense but was also a singular voice. 3e, having been written by a team, spoke with a much less distinct voice. I happen to like the 3e ruleset far more, but holding AD&D to the same standard as a game created three RPG-generations later is hardly fair, per se. However, AD&D's idiosyncracies led to my conversion to GURPS for 15 years. It took 3e to bring me and my players back. 

Our situation is far from unique.


----------



## Numion (Mar 4, 2004)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> I haven't read all of these, so maybe someone has mentioned it already - Fighters with 18/xx strength clearly being the strongest in the party.  That extra percentage only available to the fighter class set them apart.  Now a first level wizard can be as strong as someone who has supposedly spent his early life training with weapons and wearing armor.




Sounds like a serious problem. I'm a little unfamiliar with this phenomenon, so could you perhaps say how many times in 3E the Wizard has been the strongest in a 1st level party?

For me that number is zero.


----------



## Numion (Mar 4, 2004)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> Fireball is the easiest spell of all to figure out a NPC's level.  It does 1d6 per caster level to a maximum of 10d6 so as long as the NPC isn't higher than 10th level they can figure out the exact level by noting the number of dice the DM throws (if he rolls dice in front of the party).




Come on. Your players really count the dice? Besides, how is this different from the previous editions? The difference is that in 3E monsters looks can be decieving. They can have class levels, extra HD, templates.

Of course I find this whole argument that players can deduce from CRs in how much trouble they are a bit ludicrious, since even DMs shouldn't completely and blindly trust that system. Players doing that .. uh oh


----------



## kenjib (Mar 4, 2004)

EDIT:  nevermind, I think I misread the post.


----------



## Janx (Mar 4, 2004)

when you consider that KoDT made a lot of money mocking 1e and 2e rules and rules lawyers...I don't see how you can say they were better.  Just different.

Rules Lawyers are dice counters, and will always decode the power level of the critter you use based on any clue they get their hands one.  The problem is not limited to 3e, so therefore it isn't really a 3e problem.


----------



## RFisher (Mar 4, 2004)

My own experience is that 3e's CR system or no more or less accurate then the way I did it in 1e. I've been more surprised by encounters being more or less of a challenge than I suspected that I ever was in 1e. This is accounted for by many years of playing other systems between the two coupled with the fact that I expected the CR system to be more accurate.

But then, the CR system is basically what I used to do in 1e. Consider the monster's HD+special abilites+guess+playtest.

As for changing the rate of awarding XP to address my power curve issue: That doesn't really do it. It is more than the XP/level that's involved. It's the modifiers from ability scores. It's the lack of name level and the associated change in the power curve. It's ability score increases. It's feats. Lots of things would need to be tweaked to get 3e's power curve to resemble 1e's. Yes, I could make such changes to 3e, but why? I'm not one to always play strictly by the book, but when I play 3e, I'm not going to try to tweak it into 1e. I could just play 1e instead.

And I'm not saying that 3e is bad. Just different. You ask me what is missing from 3e compared to 1e, I say: A shallower power curve.

Is 3e harder to DM than 1e? I don't know. All I know is that while I still play and enjoy 3e, I don't think I'm going to DM it again. For whatever reason, I enjoy running other systems more when I'm behind the screen.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Mar 4, 2004)

Numion said:
			
		

> Sounds like a serious problem. I'm a little unfamiliar with this phenomenon, so could you perhaps say how many times in 3E the Wizard has been the strongest in a 1st level party?
> 
> For me that number is zero.





Actually, I played in one game where this did happen, the wizard had an 18 Strength.  I'm not saying it is a serious problem, I'm just saying the ability to set the fighters above any other class (if they had an 18 strength) was a nice touch that is missing from 3e.

In the end I think 3e is much, much better than previous editions, other than the nostalgia factor and the scenic artwork.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Mar 4, 2004)

Personally, I never really saw a need for the CR system in 3E.  The experience progression in the earlier editions was different.  It took a lot more experience to make the higher levels than it does now.  With that in mind, it adjusted itself just fine.  A defeating a Troll in 1E/2E might give you a decent amount of XP when you are low level but that same amount is a drop in the bucket at high levels.

I do kind of miss the class specific XP rewards.  One thing that they kind of messed up (IMHO) was that now there is even less of a reason to play a human since every race can play any class.  So you get an extra feat and a few extra skill points at first level.  SO WHAT?  The abilites of almost every other race more than make up for it.  Elves sleep less, have low light vision, skill bonuses, and can wield martial weapons regardless of what class they take.  A human would have to waste his extra feat on the Alertness Feat to get the skill bonus or a martial weapons feat if he plays a class that doesn't get it automatically.  Basically Elves get TWO feats (though they are chosen for the race) to the Human's one.  I won't even go into the other races since I'd be writing all afternoon.


----------



## Staffan (Mar 4, 2004)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i think some of those ADnD/D&D releases in the 64 you are using from 1993 also include things like...
> 
> the AD&D Collector card sets...3 of them to be exact. and the novels and other games.
> 
> if you want to lie with statistics you should at least post the complete lists




OK. 1993 saw the release of:

Book of Artifacts
Monstrous Manual
Magic Encyclopedia Vol. 2
Complete Book of Gnomes and Halflings
Complete Book of Humanoids
Complete Ranger's Handbook
Creative Campaigning
The Glory of Rome Campaign Sourcebook
Dragon Mountain
Deck of Magical Items
The Murky Deep
Swamplight
Tales of Enchantment
Thief's Challenge
Cleric's Challenge
The Ivory Triangle
Dragon's Crown
Black Flames
Merchant House of Amketch
Marauders of Nibenay
City-state of Tyr
Earth Air Fire and Water
Elves of Athas
Complete Gladiator's Handbook
Dwarven Kingdoms of Krynn
Player's Guide to Dragonlance
Leaves from the Inn of the Last Home, revised
New Tales, the Land Reborn
Book of Lairs
Ruins of Myth Drannor
Forgotten Realms Campaign setting, revised
Player's Guide to FR
The Shining South
The Jungles of Chult
The Dalelands
Code of the Harpers
Volo's Guide to the North
The Doom of Daggerdale
City of Delights
Assassin Mountain
A Dozen and One Adventures
Secrets of the Lamp
The Marklands
Iuz the Evil
The City of Skulls
Border Watch
Lankhmar, city of Adventure rulebook, revised
Castles Forlorn
MC RL appendix II: Children of the Night
Van Richten's Guide to the Lich
Van Richten's Guide to Werebeasts
Roots of Evil
The Created
Web of Illusion
House of Strahd
Dark of the Moon
Champions of Mystara
DM Screen/Escape from Thunder Rift
Creature Catalog
The Knight of Newts
Rage of the Rakasta
Poor Wizard's Almanac II

OK, that's only 62 - I might have missed something, and I'm not going to go through the list again (it's at http://users.rcn.com/aardy/rate/display.html if you're interested). I *did* include both AD&D and D&D - the last six items on the list are D&D, so if you don't count them it's "only" 56 items.

The list for 2003 is:
Arms & Equipment Guide
Book of Exalted Deeds
Complete Warrior
Draconomicon
Dragonlance Campaign Setting
DMG 3.5
Fiend Folio
Ghostwalk
Miniature's Handbook
MM 3.5
PHB 3.5
Races of Faerun
Savage Species
Unapproachable East
Underdark


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Mar 4, 2004)

Personally, I never really saw a need for the CR system in 3E.  The experience progression in the earlier editions was different.  It took a lot more experience to make the higher levels than it does now.  With that in mind, it adjusted itself just fine.  A defeating a Troll in 1E/2E might give you a decent amount of XP when you are low level but that same amount is a drop in the bucket at high levels.

I do kind of miss the class specific XP rewards.  One thing that they kind of messed up (IMHO) was that now there is even less of a reason to play a human since every race can play any class.  So you get an extra feat and a few extra skill points at first level.  SO WHAT?  The abilites of almost every other race more than make up for it.  Elves sleep less, have low light vision, skill bonuses, and can wield martial weapons regardless of what class they take.  A human would have to waste his extra feat on the Alertness Feat to get the skill bonus or a martial weapons feat if he plays a class that doesn't get it automatically.  Basically Elves get TWO feats (though they are chosen for the race) to the Human's one.  I won't even go into the other races since I'd be writing all afternoon.

Paladins and Dual Classing kinda made up for it and provided a reason to play a Human.  I'd play a Human Fighter until I quit getting full hit dice for gaining levels, switch over to play a Wizard, and by the time the Non-Human group made their next level my Wizard level would match my Fighter level so I could then fight with all the effectiveness of my Fighter AND cast spells as an equal level Wizard.  The Elven Fighter/Mages would always be a few levels lower due to splitting their XP between the classes so dual classing was always the way to go.

Even though the logic was kind of messed up, level limits also made it worthwhile to play a human.  With 3E it is a wonder that in most campaign worlds the Humans are the dominant species when every other race has numerous advantages over them.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Mar 4, 2004)

RFisher said:
			
		

> As for changing the rate of awarding XP to address my power curve issue: That doesn't really do it. It is more than the XP/level that's involved. It's the modifiers from ability scores. It's the lack of name level and the associated change in the power curve. It's ability score increases. It's feats. Lots of things would need to be tweaked to get 3e's power curve to resemble 1e's. .... You ask me what is missing from 3e compared to 1e, I say: A shallower power curve.




Actually it sounds like what you want is a non-linear power curve.  Let's face it, 3e has a fairly orderly progression.  1e had massive power leaps that appeared somewhat randomly.  Many multiclass builds were designed to take advantage of those weird powerleaps.  

You could always replace the universal XP chart.  That's one easily implemented adjustment.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 4, 2004)

Staffan said:
			
		

> OK. 1993 saw the release of





thanks, Staffan..

man i can't believe i bought all that.   and just in one year.

how about you pick a year more closely related to my time.... say 1980, which would be the same difference for 1edADnD and the 2000ed. heck pick all the 1edADnD products released from its beginning until 1980. and then pick all the 2000ed products released from 2000 - 2003.


----------



## Staffan (Mar 4, 2004)

diaglo said:
			
		

> thanks, Staffan..
> 
> man i can't believe i bought all that.   and just in one year.
> 
> how about you pick a year more closely related to my time.... say 1980, which would be the same difference for 1edADnD and the 2000ed. heck pick all the 1edADnD products released from its beginning until 1980. and then pick all the 2000ed products released from 2000 - 2003.



That's not a very appropriate comparison, because the TSR of the late 70s was nowhere near the company WOTC is. I bet that they would have released a book per month or slightly more if they had only had the resources to do so.

And 1993 wasn't the "worst" year by any means. I think TSR's release schedule peaked in 1996 or so (I vaguely recollect counting the products that year and getting 90+).


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 4, 2004)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> Personally, I never really saw a need for the CR system in 3E.  The experience progression in the earlier editions was different.  It took a lot more experience to make the higher levels than it does now.  With that in mind, it adjusted itself just fine.  A defeating a Troll in 1E/2E might give you a decent amount of XP when you are low level but that same amount is a drop in the bucket at high levels.
> 
> I do kind of miss the class specific XP rewards.  One thing that they kind of messed up (IMHO) was that now there is even less of a reason to play a human since every race can play any class.  So you get an extra feat and a few extra skill points at first level.  SO WHAT?  The abilites of almost every other race more than make up for it.  Elves sleep less, have low light vision, skill bonuses, and can wield martial weapons regardless of what class they take.  A human would have to waste his extra feat on the Alertness Feat to get the skill bonus or a martial weapons feat if he plays a class that doesn't get it automatically.  Basically Elves get TWO feats (though they are chosen for the race) to the Human's one.  I won't even go into the other races since I'd be writing all afternoon.




Uh, the difference is that humans get to CHOOSE their feats and skill selection. Given that pretty much every feat equivilant you can sight is suboptimal, I think humans are fine.


----------



## Zappo (Mar 4, 2004)

Calico_Jack, I don't understand your comment about the troll giving a decent experience at low levels and a drop in the bucket at high levels. In 3E, it's almost exactly the same. :\

 As for the races, your comparison doesn't hold. Just see how many people play humans versus how many people play elves. Humans are still the most played race, because they are one of the best races. The freebies an elf gets are very specialized; they are worthless for most characters.
 Even if humans were neglected, and they aren't by far, the solution would _not_ be forbidding people from playing race/class combinations.


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 4, 2004)

kamosa said:
			
		

> First of all, you've said that 2E was unbalanced many times.  I would agree with this on a character creation level.  Not all characters were even remotely equal in 2E.  However, in a combat by combat basis, the balance between the players and the monsters was never an issue. You have a tough GM in 2E, you still have problems in 3E.  You have a fair GM in 2E, chances are that didn't change.
> 
> However, many changes that were made didn't affect balance and weren't because the previous system was an incomplete hack.
> 
> ...




Uh, that is the lamest cop out i've ever heard. By that logic, you wouldn't need any rules, because, you know, your discretion is better anyway. Unfortunatly, that's not the case, simply by virtue of the fact that a player couldn't predict an outcome, so constant dm improv almost always leads to a clean sweap, railroading, or arbitrary tpks. And, besides what another friendly poster has mentioned (2e's COMBAT rules were filled with many more holes and inconsistencies than 3e, and combat in general was less balanced), 3e's rules actually intereact and have been playtested with a certain balance point, one I'd hazard you'd be unable to replicate by constantly pulling something out of your ass (though sometimes that is unavoidable.)


----------



## hong (Mar 5, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> I think Urbannen's point is incredibly insightful, personally, and summarizes a major difference between older versions and new.




I think if one of the requirements to "communicate with the collective thought of your ancestors" is that no black people are allowed, then those are probably not the ancestors you should be communicating with. Consider hanging up and redialing.

People, there are learned dissertations written up about how Star Wars captures the hero myth and whatnot, and that one has freakin' _spaceships_ in it. A mythic feel, for those who aspire to create one, should be able to survive superficialities like hairstyles or skin colour or fashion sense.


Hong "come back David Brin, all is forgiven" Ooi


----------



## FireLance (Mar 5, 2004)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> I haven't read all of these, so maybe someone has mentioned it already - Fighters with 18/xx strength clearly being the strongest in the party.  That extra percentage only available to the fighter class set them apart.  Now a first level wizard can be as strong as someone who has supposedly spent his early life training with weapons and wearing armor.




Actually, if I remember correctly, Fighters, Paladins and Rangers got to roll exceptional strength (18/xx) if they had a Strength of 18.  This was only introduced in AD&D 1st and 2nd editions, by the way - in "basic" D&D, there was no extra advantage for a fighter (or dwarf) with 18 Strength.  

As such, it was a bit of a jarring adjustment for me when I switched from basic D&D to Advanced. While I could rationalize it to myself that only fighter-types could devote themselves to improving their Strength to such an extent, there were a couple of things that bugged me:

1. All fighter-types with Strength 18 rolled for exceptional strength.  As such, they went directly from Strength 17 to Strength 18/01-50, completely bypassing one Strength category.  The bell curve of Strength for fighter-types suddenly looked a little wonky.

2. A non-fighter type who had 18 Strength and increased it by one point (rare, but possible) suddenly went to 19 Strength, completely bypassing five Strength categories. If the bell curve for fighter-types looked wonky, this was even worse.

3. Every fighter-type absolutely had to have exceptional Strength. Seriously, who would want to miss out on the chance for +3 to hit, +6 to damage for 18/00 Strength, compared to a "measly" +1/+1 for 17?

In retrospect, fighter-types and pure fighters in particular needed the power-up just to keep pace with the spellcasters.  3.Xe balanced the classes better, and that allowed us to get rid of exceptional strength.

The funny thing was, when 3e was first released, and I found out that exceptional strength was gone, I went into full "what were they thinking" mode - exactly same reaction that I had when it was first introduced.

Interesting, huh?


----------



## MerricB (Mar 5, 2004)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Actually, if I remember correctly, Fighters, Paladins and Rangers got to roll exceptional strength (18/xx) if they had a Strength of 18.  This was only introduced in AD&D 1st and 2nd editions, by the way - in "basic" D&D, there was no extra advantage for a fighter (or dwarf) with 18 Strength.




The original D&D (1974) had no bonuses for strength at all save a bonus to XP for fighters. With the addition of Supplement I (Greyhawk), the strength bonuses for melee were introduced, including exceptional strength for fighters. When Basic D&D came out (Holmes first, then Moldvay, then Mentzer), exceptional strength was dropped. Moldvay was the one who introduced the 13-15 +1; 16-17 +2 and 18 +3 bonuses that were such an attractive feature of Basic D&D.

I agree with your analysis of the flaws of exceptional strength: either you were a fighter with it, or you weren't and you were much, much, much weaker.

The balancing trouble with all of the bonuses for fighters in 1E was that they all kicked in from 1st level. So, the magic-user got even further behind at 1st level. If they came gradually into effect (such as we have in 3E), then the imbalance between classes at various levels would not have been so severe.

Cheers!


----------



## kenjib (Mar 5, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> Uh, that is the lamest cop out i've ever heard. By that logic, you wouldn't need any rules, because, you know, your discretion is better anyway. Unfortunatly, that's not the case, simply by virtue of the fact that a player couldn't predict an outcome, so constant dm improv almost always leads to a clean sweap, railroading, or arbitrary tpks. And, besides what another friendly poster has mentioned (2e's COMBAT rules were filled with many more holes and inconsistencies than 3e, and combat in general was less balanced), 3e's rules actually intereact and have been playtested with a certain balance point, one I'd hazard you'd be unable to replicate by constantly pulling something out of your ass (though sometimes that is unavoidable.)




That strikes me as a very D&D-centric viewpoint on RPGs.  Some games don't care about balance at all.  Other games work really well with lots of improv and the rules really fading into the background.  It may not be what you like, but these things work well for many people.


----------



## rounser (Mar 5, 2004)

> 3e's rules actually intereact and have been playtested with a certain balance point, one I'd hazard you'd be unable to replicate by constantly pulling something out of your ass (though sometimes that is unavoidable.)



And therein lies the clincher, I think.  1E, to draw an analogy between a body and a game system*, most people would happily ignore what could be considered fingers or toes of the rules system, such as the polearm modifiers versus armour types rules, and still pretend you had a semblance of balance.  The things people might like to ignore to "speed up" or "simplify" the system come 3E, such as the feat or skill subsystems, are tightly integrated vital organs, and it's more difficult to pretend that you've still got an intact game once they've been extracted.

Now, jasamcarl, I've seen you argue before that this point is moot because 1E had no balance to speak of.  The reality of it matters less than what people accept as balanced, and the bleeding wounds that the 3E system suffers from ripping out the feat or skill systems are in an entirely different league as the nips and tucks all DMs seemed to make in playing 1E, such that it's easier to accept a slightly meddled with 1E as intact than a largely modified 3E, with repercussions springing up everywhere from classes to spells to CR.

*: Yes, silly I know, but bear with me...


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 5, 2004)

rounser said:
			
		

> Now, jasamcarl, I've seen you argue before that this point is moot because 1E had no balance to speak of.  The reality of it matters less than what people accept as balanced, and the bleeding wounds that the 3E system suffers from ripping out the feat or skill systems are in an entirely different league as the nips and tucks all DMs seemed to make in playing 1E, such that it's easier to accept a slightly meddled with 1E as intact than a largely modified 3E, with repercussions springing up everywhere from classes to spells to CR.




Yes, if you set the bar low enough for the rotten apple and high enough for the fresh juicy orange, some people will be mystified about the "soul" that lacking from the orange.


----------



## kenjib (Mar 5, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Yes, if you set the bar low enough for the rotten apple and high enough for the fresh juicy orange, some people will be mystified about the "soul" that lacking from the orange.




I assume that the rotten apple is 3e and the juicy orange is 1e?  Or is it the other way around?  Oh well...


----------



## hrafnagud (Mar 5, 2004)

For what it's worth, I never meant to compare 1E and 3E for ease of calculating encounter difficulty.  I merely wanted to point out that having a metric (CR) by which players can determine just how unfair I'm being draws overt attention to the idea of 'balance,' which is something I feel has become highly overrated in roleplaying generally, and D&D specifically.


----------



## hrafnagud (Mar 5, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> I think if one of the requirements to "communicate with the collective thought of your ancestors" is that no black people are allowed, then those are probably not the ancestors you should be communicating with.




I think you've taken this issue seriously out of context.  I suppose Snorri Sturluson owes the world an apology for having no blacks in his Eddas?  And that simple fact (for indeed, it's true) should somehow prevent me, as a moral person, from drawing inspiration out of Scandinavian mythology?  Bollocks to that!  Looks like a cheap shot to appear culturally sensative to me...


----------



## Ogre Mage (Mar 5, 2004)

I think that 1st and 2nd edition generally had better quality modules.  We've seen good third party modules in 3.x, but the quality of most of the WoTC modules has been mediocre.  I also find a strong preference for the fluff material written in the earlier editions.  The work just seemed more imaginative and flavorful.

Mechanically, however, 3.x blows away earlier editions.  Much of the internal balance inconsistencies and unnecessary complexities have been streamlined and/or gotten rid of.  I do not miss the headache of the old multiclassing system, the crazy power imbalances (if you think 3rd edition clerics are overpowered check out 2nd edition psionicists), THACO or trying to figure out what dice to roll for a monster that did 12-33 damage, wasting time rolling for initiative every round and calculating weapon speeds, spell speed and many many other things which would not make me want to go back to the old rules, no matter how much better the flavor and world-building was.


----------



## hong (Mar 5, 2004)

hrafnagud said:
			
		

> I think you've taken this issue seriously out of context.




Your knee is jerking. Stop jerking.



> I suppose Snorri Sturluson owes the world an apology for having no blacks in his Eddas?




Snorri Sturluson had rather limited opportunities to learn of the world outside northern Europe, thus explaining the nature of his work. You, on the other hand, have no such excuse. Do you?



> And that simple fact (for indeed, it's true) should somehow prevent me, as a moral person, from drawing inspiration out of Scandinavian mythology?




Tell me again exactly where I said you were prevented from drawing inspiration from Scandinavian mythology.

More to the point, tell me exactly why D&D should be limited to one particular folkloric tradition.



> Bollocks to that!




Indeed.



> Looks like a cheap shot to appear culturally sensative to me...




This is because you took off your tinfoil hat. Put it back on.


----------



## Oni Baloney (Mar 5, 2004)

I think the biggest difference between the 3e and previous editions, beyond style and presentation, is philosophy behind the development of the game.  3e is meant to be a balanced, equal playing field game.  Characters of the same level should be nearly equal in power.  Previous editions didn't really bother so much with the meticulous play balance of 3e.  I have found that playing hard and fast by the rules of 3e leads to a game with more of a war or board game feel to it.  It's to players and DM's advantage to carefully select and design characters for the most advantage.  In previous editions, the imbalance of characters (an elf was almost always more powerfull than a human of equal level in 2e   ) made actually roleplaying the equalizer in the enjoyment of the game.  This is the spirit that I think 3e lacks in its design.  Not that good roleplaying can't be had with 3e, I've had some of my best games using that system, and I prefer it to previous editions.

The pseudo-nonlinear character creation is a big plus in my book and the OGL has inspired some of the best and most creative fantasy gaming in a long time.


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 5, 2004)

rounser said:
			
		

> And therein lies the clincher, I think.  1E, to draw an analogy between a body and a game system*, most people would happily ignore what could be considered fingers or toes of the rules system, such as the polearm modifiers versus armour types rules, and still pretend you had a semblance of balance.  The things people might like to ignore to "speed up" or "simplify" the system come 3E, such as the feat or skill subsystems, are tightly integrated vital organs, and it's more difficult to pretend that you've still got an intact game once they've been extracted.
> 
> Now, jasamcarl, I've seen you argue before that this point is moot because 1E had no balance to speak of.  The reality of it matters less than what people accept as balanced, and the bleeding wounds that the 3E system suffers from ripping out the feat or skill systems are in an entirely different league as the nips and tucks all DMs seemed to make in playing 1E, such that it's easier to accept a slightly meddled with 1E as intact than a largely modified 3E, with repercussions springing up everywhere from classes to spells to CR.
> 
> *: Yes, silly I know, but bear with me...




What Ridley said. It's nice that you concede that a hacked 3e is just as playable as 2e with just as little work, but I find the notion that perception has become reality in this case (implying that 3e should have adapted to this perception) a bit weak. 

Yes, some dms (including some on these boards) do like to play victim, being slaves to the obvious design integration of 3e (It makes...too much sense...CAN'T RESIST!! AHHHHHH!), because, either they have too much respect for authority or they don't want to give up good game design, something they were certainly never reminded of in 1e/2e.  

But given that you are falling back on the subjective as common, you must have gone through some inductive process. How do you know the majority of people hold this perception? I don't. Others have alluded to the poor reasoning behind the assertion that the rules of 3e are too restrictive (noting that some rules are necessary to functioning game, which 2e obviously wasn't). You might counter that you don't see enough houserules, but that would simply betray a preference for 3e rules. Maybe you and others have a deeper view on the mental turmoil that results from 3e's contradiction, namely that the rules skeleton works so well to support rp, but...maybe a bit too well..because they are just too darn Beautiful..but i should be thinking about other things...but those devilish rules... 

Conclusion: I find it amazing how those who claim 3e is too rules/narrow focused relative to earlier editions fall back on an argument that indicates a strange preocupation with rules aesthetics and fidelity.


----------



## kenjib (Mar 5, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> Snorri Sturluson had rather limited opportunities to learn of the world outside northern Europe, thus explaining the nature of his work. You, on the other hand, have no such excuse. Do you?






			
				hong said:
			
		

> More to the point, tell me exactly why D&D should be limited to one particular folkloric tradition.




Man, Legend of the Five Rings rpg is so culturally insensitive.  Everyone is asian!!!

-K


----------



## hrafnagud (Mar 5, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> This is because you took off your tinfoil hat.





Your logic is so sound, I fear there is no rubuttal; I needs must leave this discussion for the shame!


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 5, 2004)

Oni Baloney said:
			
		

> I think the biggest difference between the 3e and previous editions, beyond style and presentation, is philosophy behind the development of the game.  3e is meant to be a balanced, equal playing field game.  Characters of the same level should be nearly equal in power.  Previous editions didn't really bother so much with the meticulous play balance of 3e.  I have found that playing hard and fast by the rules of 3e leads to a game with more of a war or board game feel to it.  It's to players and DM's advantage to carefully select and design characters for the most advantage.  In previous editions, the imbalance of characters (an elf was almost always more powerfull than a human of equal level in 2e   ) made actually roleplaying the equalizer in the enjoyment of the game.  This is the spirit that I think 3e lacks in its design.  Not that good roleplaying can't be had with 3e, I've had some of my best games using that system, and I prefer it to previous editions.




And I have the exact opposite experience.

Your 1e Human Fighter completely sucks compared to my Elven Fighter/Wizard?  Tough cookies.  You should have minmaxed more if care about combat, otherwise making up through roleplaying.

My 1e Elven Fighter/Wizard is _still_ better than you outside combat and during roleplaying because of all my cool freebie racial abilities and a few utility spells thrown in for good measure?  Don't worry, you will have the last laugh when you character reaches 13th level and I am stuck at 11th...in 9 1/2 years game time...if the campaign last that long.

In 3e I see people roleplaying much more interesting concepts than ever before.  The inherent balance between classes means that most any logical class combination will give you a character that will easily contribute to the party and have ample opportunities to shine.  Yes, there are modest variations in combat power between PCs in 3e, but they are minor compared to the huge disparities that 1e/2e forced onto the game.

What you are complaining about is purely a matter of how the players choose to approach the game.  3e can be played as a reasonable wargame, therefore some groups choose to play that style.  The fact that the wargame style was less practical and enjoyable in 1e/2e is not really a mark against 3e.  You and your game group have made choices in game tone that you find less satisfying in some respects.  Who should take responsibiltiy for that, hmm?


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 5, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort, I've noticed more and more that folks have problems with players and really want to blame it on their system.  I'm starting to develop a second mantra, that I've repeated now in many threads that complain about some aspect of the rules, "Sounds like a player problem to me."


----------



## Kormydigar (Mar 5, 2004)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> Rather than steal a discussion about a problem player who wants to go back to 2E I thought I'd start my own.  A lot of people talk about the new editions of D&D missing that special something that previous editions had.  Heck, Goodman Games has started publishing a series of modules that harken back to the early TSR modules in look and feel.
> 
> In your opinion what is that special something that the earlier editions had that all of us old gamers are now missing with the new editions?




 The primary difference between the old school D&D game and the version being played today is this: The old D&D was a game designed for adults to play, that kids enjoyed playing as well. The new D&D game is designed for kids, that adults may or may not enjoy playing as well. The new version of the game has made some tremendous leaps in game mechanic design, and smooth overall playability. What the new version is lacking is simply salt.
Back in the old days if you failed a save versus poison you died, end of story. The new version seems a bit watered down in intensity by comparison. I know that a great game is made by the GM and the players combined effort, and no set of rules can truly ruin a game unless those playing it allow this to happen. That being said, when I read the description for the Disintigrate spell in the 3.5 PHB, I knew that the vital spirit of the old game was gone. Things like this are the core of the problem. The reduction of anything spectacular, shocking, wonderous, or even dissappointing to a range of vanilla flavored damage, be it hit points, ability damage, ect. Nothing just HAPPENS anymore. I for one miss that.


----------



## Mac Callum (Mar 5, 2004)

Kormydigar said:
			
		

> What the new version is lacking is simply salt.
> 
> Back in the old days if you failed a save versus poison you died, end of story. The new version seems a bit watered down in intensity by comparison. I know that a great game is made by the GM and the players combined effort, and no set of rules can truly ruin a game unless those playing it allow this to happen. That being said, when I read the description for the Disintigrate spell in the 3.5 PHB, I knew that the vital spirit of the old game was gone. Things like this are the core of the problem. The reduction of anything spectacular, shocking, wonderous, or even dissappointing to a range of vanilla flavored damage, be it hit points, ability damage, ect. Nothing just HAPPENS anymore. I for one miss that.




Indeed.  What sense of accomplishment is there when there was no danger to begin with?  Even in a game, it matters.

Mac Callum


----------



## cildarith (Mar 5, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> "Sounds like a player problem to me."




You're getting to be as bad a Diaglo...


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 5, 2004)

Kormydigar said:
			
		

> Back in the old days if you failed a save versus poison you died, end of story. The new version seems a bit watered down in intensity by comparison. I know that a great game is made by the GM and the players combined effort, and no set of rules can truly ruin a game unless those playing it allow this to happen. That being said, when I read the description for the Disintigrate spell in the 3.5 PHB, I knew that the vital spirit of the old game was gone. Things like this are the core of the problem. The reduction of anything spectacular, shocking, wonderous, or even dissappointing to a range of vanilla flavored damage, be it hit points, ability damage, ect. Nothing just HAPPENS anymore. I for one miss that.




That is a legitimate POV, but I really do not understand why you are bothering with an ablative hit point system if you like that kind of excitement.  I would think some kind of wound system would be more to your liking.


----------



## Kormydigar (Mar 6, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> That is a legitimate POV, but I really do not understand why you are bothering with an ablative hit point system if you like that kind of excitement.  I would think some kind of wound system would be more to your liking.




Its not the hit point system per se. Its more a lack of effects that do things other than basic/ generic damage of some kind. I do like the GURPS system, for combat and magic. Lack of adventure support keeps me from running more of that. Just don't have the time to spend on adventure design these days.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 6, 2004)

Kormydigar said:
			
		

> Its not the hit point system per se. Its more a lack of effects that do things other than basic/ generic damage of some kind.




Huh? I really must have missed something.

In 1E, there were basically two types of effect: either you took damage, or you were _hors de combat_ - e.g. poisoned and dead, or paralysed and useless, or fleeing and useless. The third type was energy drain - something that a lot of people hated due to the difficulty of getting _restoration_ spells and XP.

In 3E, there are a multiplicity of states, many common: ability score penaties, damage and drain, paralysation, states of fear (shaken, frightened, panicked), nausea, sickened, fatigued, exhausted...

In 1E, _disintegrate_ was "save or die", but so was _poison_, _flesh to stone_, _phantasamal killer_... and _hold person_ and _fear_ were also of that nature.

Where 3E markedly differs from 1E is in its support of high-level play. In 1E, with characters assumed to be retiring at 12th level, they've only just reached the level of _disintegrate_ and _flesh to stone_. In effect, spell levels 7-9 are irrelevant to most game play of AD&D.

In 3E, play above that level is encouraged. If the best spell you have is "save or die" as a 11th level wizard, then what for the next nine levels? Is there anything to look forward to? Thus, the really deadly spells are bumped upward in level or reduced in power.

Filling the gap are the multiplicity of states I mentioned earlier.

3E is not noticibly less deadly than 1E, as actual _hit point_ damages can be quite severe, but it doesn't rely on the "save or die" mechanic quite so often.

Cheers!


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 6, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> 3E is not noticibly less deadly than 1E, as actual _hit point_ damages can be quite severe, but it doesn't rely on the "save or die" mechanic quite so often.




In particular, lucky and unlucky criticals make sudden death from HP loss a real threat at all levels.  30 or 40 hit points doesn't go as far as it used to when you are standing next to someone with a greataxe.


----------



## hong (Mar 6, 2004)

kenjib said:
			
		

> Man, Legend of the Five Rings rpg is so culturally insensitive.  Everyone is asian!!!




Sigh.

You can produce a mythical resonance with a culturally limited setting.

This does not rule out producing a mythical resonance with a culturally polyglot setting.


Hong "how do you do talking SLOW and LOUD in text, anyway?" Ooi


----------



## hong (Mar 6, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> In 1E, there were basically two types of effect: either you took damage, or you were _hors de combat_




I gotta get me one of those hors de combat as a follower.


----------



## kenjib (Mar 6, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> Sigh.
> 
> You can produce a mythical resonance with a culturally limited setting.
> 
> ...




I agree completely, and I also think that there's nothing wrong with preferring either type of setting.  Here is your prior post:



> I think if one of the requirements to "communicate with the collective thought of your ancestors" is that no black people are allowed, then those are probably not the ancestors you should be communicating with. Consider hanging up and redialing.
> 
> People, there are learned dissertations written up about how Star Wars captures the hero myth and whatnot, and that one has freakin' _spaceships_ in it. A mythic feel, for those who aspire to create one, should be able to survive superficialities like hairstyles or skin colour or fashion sense.




Here you are clearly claiming that a culturally polyglot setting is superior to a culturally limited one, and are even subtly implying that liking 1e for it's cultural focus is racist.  Your more recent post seems to be backtracking from this hardline stance by implying that they are on more even footing, which is why I can agree with your more recent post, but not your older one.


----------



## hong (Mar 6, 2004)

kenjib said:
			
		

> Here you are clearly claiming that a culturally polyglot setting is superior to a culturally limited one, and are even subtly implying that liking 1e for it's cultural focus is racist.




This is what Urbannen said:


> The universe created by the founders of D&D from a collective European fantasy is now a kewl place to have adventures, not a place to communicate with the collective thought of our ancestors.




This is nonsense. First, D&D is whatever you make it out to be. The ruleset doesn't force any particular interpretation you want to use, or prohibit you from making it all deep and meaningful and fra-fra, if that's your taste. 1E may be deep and meaningful and fra-fra because it had elves and dwarves (and monks), but that doesn't mean 3E can't be deep and meaningful either. Second, the idea that a polyglot cultural focus means you can't "communicate with the collective thought of your ancestors" implies that those aspects of your ancestors' thoughts that require a limited cultural focus, are more important than those that don't. Since I believe that the aspects of my ancestors' thoughts that are most important are those that apply regardless of cultural focus, I think this too is a nonsense.

In other words: sharp sticks, foul dungeons, and big dragons are universal.




> Your more recent post seems to be backtracking from this hardline stance by implying that they are on more even footing, which is why I can agree with your more recent post, but not your older one.




Fine by me.


----------



## Zappo (Mar 6, 2004)

Mac Callum said:
			
		

> Indeed. What sense of accomplishment is there when there was no danger to begin with?



What sense of accomplishment is there when you've made a save versus poison in 2E? It's just luck. You have no merit for it.

 Anyway, do you mean that 3E is less dangerous than previous editions? In a comparable amount of time, I've had about three times as many PC deaths in 3E than in 2E. Probably more. 2E had lots of save-or-die, but 3E has much nastier monsters. And if I wanted more or less lethality, it would be very easy to scale encounters appropriately.







			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I've noticed more and more that folks have problems with players and really want to blame it on their system. I'm starting to develop a second mantra, that I've repeated now in many threads that complain about some aspect of the rules, "Sounds like a player problem to me."



You're so right. I'm really getting tired of hearing that [game] is all about powergaming, prevents good roleplaying, is too rule-focused, stifles imagination, whatever. From certain posts, it seems that if you play 3E and ignore the CR system, the gaming police will bash open your door and handcuff you and your players.


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 6, 2004)

I'm glad Merric and Zappo got to this difficulty point before I did. There is a difference between death and arbitrary death. One adds tension because you know it can come about because of your actions, while the other is just frustrating and 'cheap'. Cheap, arbitrary death points to a broken design. In 3e, even in the case of save or dies that kill single party members, there is recourse to true ressurection; none of this all or nothing nonsense which just make for a narrow, boring experience.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 6, 2004)

Arbitrary death is fine in a pure wargame, but it seems illogical to criticize 3e for its lack unless you want a wargamey feel.


----------



## jeffhartsell (Mar 6, 2004)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> Rather than steal a discussion about a problem player who wants to go back to 2E I thought I'd start my own.  A lot of people talk about the new editions of D&D missing that special something that previous editions had.  Heck, Goodman Games has started publishing a series of modules that harken back to the early TSR modules in look and feel.
> 
> In your opinion what is that special something that the earlier editions had that all of us old gamers are now missing with the new editions?




Previous editions had magic items that felt "magical". With the crafting system in 3.x it loses the "wow" of discovery that the old editions fostered. Parties can take loot and sell and then recraft into better custom loot. This creates PCs with very similar "optimal adventuring" gear.

The new system is better mechanically, but some of the cool mechanics when used create a much different "world". The designer items are the big change IMO. You take out crafting of weapons, armor, and wondrous items and this helps.

Also, 3.x is more tactical that the old editions which relied on the DM to give out more information since minis were not as common.


----------



## kamosa (Mar 6, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Arbitrary death is fine in a pure wargame, but it seems illogical to criticize 3e for its lack unless you want a wargamey feel.




I think his point was not that arbitrary death was a good thing, but that the threat of arbitrary death was a good thing.   It wasn't that DM's went around killing parties with insta death spells all the time, at least not in the games I played in or DM'ed.  It was that the players were more wary about taking on encounters because of the palpable threat of death or atleast a serious beat down.

Like a good movie, the threat must be feel real, or the plot feels flat and uninteresting.  I've played in some 3E games where this lack of threat was taken to the extreme and the game lost fun.  Every encounter the fighter just charged and killed the bad guys, with no thought, discussion or tactics.  Just take improved initative and power attack and you win every time.  Now, some of that was an inexperienced DM that didn't know how to challenge a party, but some of it also rests on a system where the very experienced player running the fighter knew they were very unlikely to suffer any harsh consequenses from charging every encounter. 

Compare this to how this player played in 2E, where they were very carefull and tacitcal because they knew how deadly the system could turn in an instant.

So, to sum up, insta death bad, threat of insta death good.  Suspense is a good thing in D&D.  Not being able to predict sucess, but going into the adventure anyway is a good thing.  Having players that feel a real sense of acomplishment when they pull victory from the seeming jaws of defeat is a good thing.  Some of this is lost in a system where the encounters are so "balanced" that you never really worry about losing your character as a consequence of battle.


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 6, 2004)

kamosa said:
			
		

> I think his point was not that arbitrary death was a good thing, but that the threat of arbitrary death was a good thing.   It wasn't that DM's went around killing parties with insta death spells all the time, at least not in the games I played in or DM'ed.  It was that the players were more wary about taking on encounters because of the palpable threat of death or atleast a serious beat down.
> 
> Like a good movie, the threat must be feel real, or the plot feels flat and uninteresting.  I've played in some 3E games where this lack of threat was taken to the extreme and the game lost fun.  Every encounter the fighter just charged and killed the bad guys, with no thought, discussion or tactics.  Just take improved initative and power attack and you win every time.  Now, some of that was an inexperienced DM that didn't know how to challenge a party, but some of it also rests on a system where the very experienced player running the fighter knew they were very unlikely to suffer any harsh consequenses from charging every encounter.
> 
> ...




Oh, god, this is a dumb argument. For one, arbitrary death by neccessity makes tactics irrelevant, because it is entirely random. The fact that deaths in 3e come about more from player or dm mistep in fact makes combat more tactical.

And two, it's no more difficult for a dm to challenge the party in combat than it was in older editions. A DM can easily ramp up the EL of a combat and come up with something that strains the pcs' resources; the difference is, under 3e, they have a better idea of what they are putting their players through. What you seem to want is the possibility of a random death beyond the immediate control of either players or dms; i.e. and enforced level of difficulty. Why? 3e can be played like, but it is flexible and balanced enough to work at various levels of difficulty. Some need to think before they post. I especially liked the lack of any logic in the quoted post.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 6, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> Some need to think before they post. I especially liked the lack of any logic in the quoted post.




The rules here are pretty straightforward: make your point without insults, or don't post at all. If this is somehow a problem, feel free to email me.


----------



## Goblyn (Mar 6, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> 1e/2e weren't full fledged games to begin with, so any comparison




Maybe that's the one thing that is missing from 3.xe because 1e and 2e weren't complete: anyone playing HAD to create the rest of the mechanics and such themselves, making the game unquestionably personalized, whereas though that's available in 3.xe, it's not necessary. Thus the game is not necessarily personalized, especially for those who lack the time it takes to imbue the system with their own preferences.

Maybe?


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 6, 2004)

Goblyn said:
			
		

> Maybe that's the one thing that is missing from 3.xe because 1e and 2e weren't complete: anyone playing HAD to create the rest of the mechanics and such themselves, making the game unquestionably personalized, whereas though that's available in 3.xe, it's not necessary. Thus the game is not necessarily personalized, especially for those who lack the time it takes to imbue the system with their own preferences.
> 
> Maybe?




Nope. If you can fill the 101 holes of 1e/2e, you have enough time to modify 3e.


----------



## kamosa (Mar 6, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> For one, arbitrary death by neccessity makes tactics irrelevant, because it is entirely random. The fact that deaths in 3e come about more from player or dm mistep in fact makes combat more tactical.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 6, 2004)

kamosa said:
			
		

> jasamcarl said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Victim (Mar 6, 2004)

Wow, you mean random encounters that actually make a little bit of sense for the area?  If there are 2 bodaks on the random encounter chart for the dungeon, then bodaks must be wandering around inside of it, yes?  Which means that there's probably lots of dead monsters from the bodaks, they have some lair, etc.  They'd have some kind of impact on the area that isn't reflected by simply putting them on a chart.

On the other hand, a random orc patrol in or around an orc fortress makes lots of sense.


----------



## kamosa (Mar 6, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> Care to share any proof? You and rounser are no longer discussing the system's merits, but instead have fallen back on a condescending argument that 3e brainwashes people. Care to cite any actual stats as to the size of this demographic of victims of 3e's good design? The larger gamer demo must be dumber than my experience lets on.





Since I was directly commenting on how the CR system and module writing which come out of it is a bad design, I guess I don't see how I've gotten off of the flaws of 3E.    

I find it funny that you say I think gamers are dumb, when you have openly insulted people many times by calling them dumb, or without any proof dismissed posts as poorly thought through.  Nice.   The kettle is black I tell you! 

As for the CR system and the blandness it creates in the module, I would say the 0% have fallen victom to 3E's "Good" design.  I don't have statistics for how many are not enjoying the game because it is turing into a bland flavorless boring exorcise in simply running the rules.


----------



## kamosa (Mar 6, 2004)

Victim said:
			
		

> Wow, you mean random encounters that actually make a little bit of sense for the area?  If there are 2 bodaks on the random encounter chart for the dungeon, then bodaks must be wandering around inside of it, yes?  Which means that there's probably lots of dead monsters from the bodaks, they have some lair, etc.  They'd have some kind of impact on the area that isn't reflected by simply putting them on a chart.
> 
> On the other hand, a random orc patrol in or around an orc fortress makes lots of sense.




That was a flaw.  My favorite was when you would come across a room that would have some random type of monster that A) couldn't get out of the room.  B) Seems to have been there for ages with no obvious source of food, and C) was ready to attack you the instant you showed up.

It was silly and did need to be improved.  However, I don't think taking out of the game the fear of death was a good thing.  Insta death threat added to the drama and I think we could come up with a system that both had the threat and seemed plausible.


----------



## Zappo (Mar 6, 2004)

I'm very curious to find out what 3E lacks that other editions had, but up to now I see nothing. I'm following this thread with interest.







			
				jeffhartsell said:
			
		

> Previous editions had magic items that felt "magical". With the crafting system in 3.x it loses the "wow" of discovery that the old editions fostered.



I don't get it. There is no "wow" of discovery when you craft an item, whatever the edition. Unless the DM adds some house rules, the item does exactly what you want it to do.







> Parties can take loot and sell and then recraft into better custom loot. This creates PCs with very similar "optimal adventuring" gear.



Again, I don't understand. In my group, between all the campaigns we played, we had a grand total of three permanent items made. And they were three identical armors, created in the same circumstance. With the high XP cost for making good items, the "optimal adventuring gear" largely comes from buying the items, but this is entirely under the DM's control in any edition.

 Maybe you're talking about the fact that in 2E you needed special components to create magical items. It would be a nice optional rule for 3E, but when I played 2E it only came into play once or twice (and it was quite a headache for the DM). I don't think that's a big part of "the feeling of past editions".







			
				kamosa said:
			
		

> I've played in some 3E games where this lack of threat was taken to the extreme and the game lost fun. Every encounter the fighter just charged and killed the bad guys, with no thought, discussion or tactics. Just take improved initative and power attack and you win every time. Now, some of that was an inexperienced DM that didn't know how to challenge a party, but some of it also rests on a system where the very experienced player running the fighter knew they were very unlikely to suffer any harsh consequenses from charging every encounter.



Ok, this is basically the _definition_ of "a problem with the players, not with the system". IME, 3E is way, way, _way_ more deadly than 2E if the players don't make sure to know what they are up against before charging. The reasons are:
 - variable ST difficulties. No matter how good your saves, you can't be sure that you need a 2 to save.
 - much wider range of to-hit, damage, ACs, and special strikes. Try charging an elemental without knowing what it does in melee. "Aw, c'mon, it's made of _air_, how strong can it be?".
 - classed and templated monsters. In 3E, even the classical orc ambush could be a death trap for what you know.


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 6, 2004)

kamosa said:
			
		

> Since I was directly commenting on how the CR system and module writing which come out of it is a bad design, I guess I don't see how I've gotten off of the flaws of 3E.
> 
> I find it funny that you say I think gamers are dumb, when you have openly insulted people many times by calling them dumb, or without any proof dismissed posts as poorly thought through.  Nice.   The kettle is black I tell you!
> 
> As for the CR system and the blandness it creates in the module, I would say the 0% have fallen victom to 3E's "Good" design.  I don't have statistics for how many are not enjoying the game because it is turing into a bland flavorless boring exorcise in simply running the rules.




Well thanks for admitting you don't have an argument.  Most players always preferred a 'balanced' game. 3e can do both. So its nice you slip in the assertion that the game as written is becoming bland despite having already conceded you have nothing to base it on. 

Well its obvious most prefer to balanced modules. As you noted even in 1e days, dms actually attempted to balance games, because a game isn't fun when random death is all over the place. And no, the existence of some random death/monster/etc. table does not automatically increase the tension of game; more likely it just pisses the players off and sends them in search of a new dm. This is because most don't feel themselves victims of the rules and tend to be selective as to what stuff they actually use in game. This means they wouldn't view 3e's options as bland, but rather as what it is, a tool. Understand? Or are you now sulking?


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 6, 2004)

kamosa said:
			
		

> That was a flaw.  My favorite was when you would come across a room that would have some random type of monster that A) couldn't get out of the room.  B) Seems to have been there for ages with no obvious source of food, and C) was ready to attack you the instant you showed up.
> 
> It was silly and did need to be improved.  However, I don't think taking out of the game the fear of death was a good thing.  Insta death threat added to the drama and I think we could come up with a system that both had the threat and seemed plausible.




Uh, how about just coming up with a random monster table? Do you really need the dmg to give you an unbalanced field of monsters? You have way too much respect for authority.


----------



## Goblyn (Mar 6, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> Nope. If you can fill the 101 holes of 1e/2e, you have enough time to modify 3e.




You're forgetting timelines though.  The original question was about something intangible lacking from 3e that was in 1e and 2e for those who have played them all. We were younger then, and thus had the time.

My suggestion does not imply a flaw in 3e, just unfortunate timing for us multi-editioners.


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 6, 2004)

Goblyn said:
			
		

> You're forgetting timelines though.  The original question was about something intangible lacking from 3e that was in 1e and 2e for those who have played them all. We were younger then, and thus had the time.
> 
> My suggestion does not imply a flaw in 3e, just unfortunate timing for us multi-editioners.




Gotcha. And good point. I was arguing more from the standpoint of 3e versus earlier editions now.


----------



## kamosa (Mar 6, 2004)

> Ok, this is basically the _definition_ of "a problem with the players, not with the system". IME, 3E is way, way, _way_ more deadly than 2E if the players don't make sure to know what they are up against before charging. The reasons are:
> - variable ST difficulties. No matter how good your saves, you can't be sure that you need a 2 to save.
> - much wider range of to-hit, damage, ACs, and special strikes. Try charging an elemental without knowing what it does in melee. "Aw, c'mon, it's made of _air_, how strong can it be?".
> - classed and templated monsters. In 3E, even the classical orc ambush could be a death trap for what you know.




It can be more variable.  And I definitly feel that 3E characters are weaker and are easier to attack then their 2E compatriots.  All good things, really.  

However, I don't believe that what I tried to point out is all "a player problem"  Like I said, they guy I was refering to was a great 2E player.  Really.     

The CR system has been used as a way to "balance" the encounters. So even though there could be a great many variations to the power of the monsters, the CR rating system washes away the suspense and lets you know that the GM would never run you up against something that you couldn't defeat.    

And as I have said, you can ignore the CR system and your fine.  But, how many new GM's are going to ignore it?  How many new players feel it is unfair to run players on encounter that have too high of a CR?  The answer of course is unknown, but I've started to see the blandness and lack of fear creep into games and I don't think it is a good thing.


----------



## Zappo (Mar 6, 2004)

> Take the infamous Gary Gygax random encounter tables for example. They weren't balanced at all. There was no guarentee that the players could defeat an enemy rolled off of them. Two Bodaks for a 5th level party, you must be insane Gary! The players knew this table was in existance and didn't want to spend a bunch of down time sleeping or aimlessly wondering the dungeon. This provided a time spur to the party which increased tension in the game. Some of the encounters were "insta death" encounters, and it added to the game that they were a possibility. Now, I don't think I ever saw one used in a game, but just that they existed had an impact on the style of play.



There's still something I don't understand, but I see a connection with the save or die argument of the last couple of pages. So let me get this straight. You're saying that _completely random death_ which _the PCs can't influence or prevent_ somehow makes the game _more_ enjoyable?  How?

 I'm all for tension and lethality, and as I repeated again and again 3E actually kills more than previous editions, but when a character bites the dust, there should be some reason. Not even real life has that kind of randomness.


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 6, 2004)

kamosa said:
			
		

> It can be more variable.  And I definitly feel that 3E characters are weaker and are easier to attack then their 2E compatriots.  All good things, really.
> 
> However, I don't believe that what I tried to point out is all "a player problem"  Like I said, they guy I was refering to was a great 2E player.  Really.
> 
> ...




Here is your problem. They don't have to ignore the CR system. If the Dms choose to peg an encounter in the standard survivable range, its because they wanted their characters to survive. They could just as easily used the CR system to creature an encounter that was beyond their players. Its dm/player choice, not system mandate. 

And, by your logic, I could easily blame 1e/2e for arbitrary survival because the constant fudging forced dms to just decide on a conclusion to combat; a lot of tension removed there. You're not thinking.....


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 6, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> Understand? Or are you now sulking?




Jasam, apparently you're ignoring my warning. Last chance: stop being rude. Stop bickering. Or you stop posting.

It's fine not to agree with another poster, but making snide and insulting comments is just tacky. And just to be clear, it is *not* okay to make a rude comment and then add a smiley to make it somehow "okay."

EN World is like going to a party over at Morrus' house. Picking fights with the other guests simply isn't appropriate, and I'm disappointed that you're persisting.


----------



## kamosa (Mar 6, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> Well thanks for admitting you don't have an argument.  Most players always preferred a 'balanced' game. 3e can do both. So its nice you slip in the assertion that the game as written is becoming bland despite having already conceded you have nothing to base it on.
> 
> Well its obvious most prefer to balanced modules. As you noted even in 1e days, dms actually attempted to balance games, because a game isn't fun when random death is all over the place. And no, the existence of some random death/monster/etc. table does not automatically increase the tension of game; more likely it just pisses the players off and sends them in search of a new dm. This is because most don't feel themselves victims of the rules and tend to be selective as to what stuff they actually use in game. This means they wouldn't view 3e's options as bland, but rather as what it is, a tool. Understand? Or are you now sulking?




I didn't say any of those things.  !?!?!?  In fact I said that random death is a bad thing.  I've said that several times.   What I said was that a credible threat of insta death was a good thing.  

I did say the nobody is falling victom to the "good" design of the CR system, because it isn't a good design, so it can't have any victoms.  

I've used those tables and, up until I moved six months ago, had many of the same players for 10 to 15 years, so I don't think it drives away players.  

Great they view 3E as a tool, that doesn't mean it is the best tool in the world, or that it couldn't be made better.    Sorry I think 3E could be better and that we threw out some of the baby with the bath water in 2E. 

_Insults deleted by Piratecat_


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 6, 2004)

Kamosa, I know you posted without seeing my latest warning, but it takes two people to argue. I'd appreciate it if you'd edit your post accordingly, or I'll do it instead.


----------



## Zappo (Mar 6, 2004)

kamosa said:
			
		

> The CR system has been used as a way to "balance" the encounters. So even though there could be a great many variations to the power of the monsters, the CR rating system washes away the suspense and lets you know that the GM would never run you up against something that you couldn't defeat.



No. Not even if you play the game strictly by the book. The DMG doesn't say that all encounters shoult have the same CR as the party level. In fact, it even gives percentages of encounters of greater or lower CR, and "by the book" there is a solid amount of _tough_ encounters.

 No experienced DM plays 3E "by the book". Not because it's wrong, but because they know their players and know what they want. But _even_ if you are a newbie who is sticking to the book because he's afraid of making mistakes, you are _still_ encouraged to throw tough encounters often, and even outright unwinnable ones every now and then.

 "The GM would never run you up against something that you couldn't defeat" is a problem with the GM and I think we agree on this. But it is _not_ a problem which he got from 3E design.


----------



## Zappo (Mar 6, 2004)

kamosa said:
			
		

> I didn't say any of those things. !?!?!? In fact I said that random death is a bad thing. I've said that several times. What I said was that a credible threat of insta death was a good thing. Is that too subtle of a difference to grasp?



Ah, something gets clearer in my mind. It _is_ a fairly subtle difference, but it is there.

  I'll let the discussion cool while I think this concept over, try not to get the thread locked in the meanwhile ok?


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 6, 2004)

kamosa said:
			
		

> I didn't say any of those things.  !?!?!?  In fact I said that random death is a bad thing.  I've said that several times.   What I said was that a credible threat of insta death was a good thing.  Is that too subtle of a difference to grasp?
> 
> I did say the nobody is falling victom to the "good" design of the CR system, because it isn't a good design, so it can't have any victoms.  Try to keep up here.
> 
> ...




And I'm saying the credible threat of death is just as present in 3e. Try reading. I came to conclusion that you like instant kills because you seem to want it written into the system (and not even as an option the dm can dispose of). 

In that case, your players preferred that style of play and CHOOSE to stay in the game. The system had nothing to do with it.  You could have easily done the same thing with 3e.

And yes 3e is a tool, something that 2e wasn't, because, by your own admission, it attempted to force a certain style of play (poorly i might add), while 3e did both. So I suppose I would simply conclude by saying that atleast 3e was something.


----------



## kamosa (Mar 6, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> There's still something I don't understand, but I see a connection with the save or die argument of the last couple of pages. So let me get this straight. You're saying that _completely random death_ which _the PCs can't influence or prevent_ somehow makes the game _more_ enjoyable?  How?




My thesis is that the fear of death drive dramatic tension more then knowing you will probably win because the game is balanced.    We've all seen movies where it never felt like that hero was in danger, and it never felt like they were truely challenged.  These movies feel very flat and predictable and well boring.  

On the other hand a good suspenseful movie where you constantly feel like the hero could fail at any minute and the villian will win is much more interesting.   

I'm saying that gaming has a similar axiom.  Saying things are balanced, doesn't mean things are fun, in fact too much balance can lead to a feeling of no threat and this no tension.

In the end, even in the movies, the heroes will win and evil will be defeated.  But the real enjoyment and satisfaction is in how you go from point A to point b, not in how balanced that journey was.

So, it isn't the random death that makes the game fun, it's the feeling that you cheated death and came out on top.  Your plan avoided the insta deaths and traps of the bad guys and in the end you came out on top.  Those moments are the ones that seems to stick with players.  And I guess my feeling is that the CR is being used in a fashion that creates less of those dramatic moments.


----------



## lord_banus (Mar 6, 2004)

> Take the infamous Gary Gygax random encounter tables for example.  They weren't balanced at all.  There was no guarentee that the players could defeat an enemy rolled off of them.  Two Bodaks for a 5th level party, you must be insane Gary!  The players knew this table was in existance and didn't want to spend a bunch of down time sleeping or aimlessly wondering the dungeon.  This provided a time spur to the party which increased tension in the game.  Some of the encounters were "insta death" encounters, and it added to the game that they were a possibility.  Now, I don't think I ever saw one used in a game, but just that they existed had an impact on the style of play.
> 
> Now, the modules come carefully balanced with proper CR encounters, if they bother to have random encounters at all.  All  prim and proper by the rules and true to the spirt of 3E.  The players never fear what could come off that chart.  They just think of it as extra XP.
> 
> Sure, you could add more deadly encounters and use higher CR values,  and to be honest, I do.  But the spirit of the system as writen in the books has changed.  This impacts how people learn the game and how new GM's learn that the game should be played.  It's at these people that I'm aiming my comments, not at the people that believe 3E can do no wrong.




Actually the wilderness encounter tables are still like that but it also raises a problem that I have noticed a lot of players get into. The problem is that they somehow feel that they must kill every creature they come up against. I am slowly weaning my players out of this mentality by throwing the occasionally super-tough opponent at them and giving them full XP for running away. If they actually try to kill it and they survive then they get less XP for being dumb. 
There are many ways to handle an encounter and I think 3rd ed is a lot more supportive of this due to the increase in skills and abilities relating to social interaction (ie diplomacy, intimidate etc). I think probably Gary Gygax was thinking along these lines as well. Being a skilled tactician is knowing when to run and when to fight.


----------



## jasamcarl (Mar 6, 2004)

kamosa said:
			
		

> My thesis is that the fear of death drive dramatic tension more then knowing you will probably win because the game is balanced.    We've all seen movies where it never felt like that hero was in danger, and it never felt like they were truely challenged.  These movies feel very flat and predictable and well boring.
> 
> On the other hand a good suspenseful movie where you constantly feel like the hero could fail at any minute and the villian will win is much more interesting.
> 
> ...




Which for the upteenth time, is a player/dm perrogative, not a system one. 3e can have just as much of an insta-death element as the dm prefers. In earlier games all that tended to happen is that this 'credible threat' was skipped over and fudged out of existence. 3e can actually do both. You essentially want the system to force many to play a certain way. Why don't you admit it?


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 6, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> Try reading.




See you in three days. Look for an email from me, as well.


----------



## kamosa (Mar 6, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> And I'm saying the credible threat of death is just as present in 3e. Try reading. I came to conclusion that you like instant kills because you seem to want it written into the system (and not even as an option the dm can dispose of).




In 2E you could dispose of it by not using the insta death spells or putting the players up against the monters and casters that could do those things.   

2E was just as much a set of tools as 3E.  More rules doesn't make something more complete.  And in this case more balance doesn't necessarily mean more fun.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 6, 2004)

Davelozzi said:
			
		

> The nostalgia value of something that you got into when you were a little kid.




Bingo. A lot of people try to argue mechanics or flavor but I find the game runs better, has more options and a lot of these 3rd party publishers are bringing the life into the game that Judge's Guild and others helped great some odd 20 years ago.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Mar 6, 2004)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> What about players that got into gaming when they were in their 20's a few years prior to 3E?  I've spoken with some and even they say that 3E is missing something.  I think there is something more than that.




You say this, but don't say what. It's the equivilant of a shoulder shrug. I only point it out because on another post, you talk about this being what 3.0/3.5 doesn't have as opposed to the quick templates another poster though could help curb time in character creation.

For some people, it just is the "something" factor but to me, that's not really a factor as it's not something that can be discussed outside of a "Yeah whatever" reply.


----------



## kamosa (Mar 6, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> I'll let the discussion cool while I think this concept over, try not to get the thread locked in the meanwhile ok?




Good advice


----------



## kenjib (Mar 6, 2004)

I think it's a matter of player perceptions, and I do see it in the system because the system has rules that establish your expectations.

1e
Default:  We won't likely survive very long.
DM goes easy:  Man, we're lucky we all survived.
DM goes hard:  Aw, we all got killed, but thems the breaks.  The system is tough.

3e
Default:  We can expect that most encounters will deplete 25% of our resources and not kill anyone.
DM goes easy:  There was no risk of dying.
DM goes hard:  DM screwed us over.

This is of course an oversimplification, and not universal to all people, but I really believe that the statement that the system just doesn't make a difference since you can always play it differently is not accurate.  Expectations matter, and the rules establish the baseline.  When you deviate you will be compared against the baseline.

A more tough and deadly baseline lets you fudge in the player's favor more while still keeping the expectation and suspense of deadliness.  On the flipside, if you play it straight, you will have lots of meaningless deaths, because 1e AD&D was not as much about telling a story as 2e and 3e were.  It was more of a game because it was still closer to it's wargaming roots.  Characters were more expendible.  That's a difference in mindset.

Whether or not you like this is preference, I think that the difference really is there.  This thread isn't about which is better, but what the differences are.  I think this is clearly a difference, even though lots of people (I would say most) like the new way much better.

This also ties into the much quicker character creation of 1e.  You aren't as much invested because you can whip up a new level X character in 1/10 the time.


----------



## d4 (Mar 6, 2004)

i think you've done a great job in this post (quoted from, below) of explaining your particular style of gaming. however, the impression i'm getting is that you aren't really seeing that there are people who enjoy a very different kind of gaming.



			
				kamosa said:
			
		

> My thesis is that the fear of death drive dramatic tension more then knowing you will probably win because the game is balanced.    We've all seen movies where it never felt like that hero was in danger, and it never felt like they were truely challenged.  These movies feel very flat and predictable and well boring.
> 
> On the other hand a good suspenseful movie where you constantly feel like the hero could fail at any minute and the villian will win is much more interesting.



i don't agree. i prefer the first kind of movie.   seriously, i like watching butt-kicking action movies, and i don't particularly care for overly suspenseful tense movies or tragedies where the heroes die...

and i like my gaming the same way.



> I'm saying that gaming has a similar axiom.  Saying things are balanced, doesn't mean things are fun, in fact too much balance can lead to a feeling of no threat and this no tension.



gaming for _you_ has a similar axiom. for _me_, gaming is, to put it bluntly, a power trip. i want to play a powerful, heroic figure who kicks ass and takes names and looks good doing it. i don't want to have to run around scared and paranoid because i'm afraid the next encounter might kill me. i don't want to have to spend a lot of time thinking tactically; i want to charge in and kick some booty. games that are too lethal or random or tense are incredibly boring and frustrating for me.

i game for stress relief. games with too much "threat" and "tension" only make me more stressed, not less. i can't enjoy that.



> In the end, even in the movies, the heroes will win and evil will be defeated.  But the real enjoyment and satisfaction is in how you go from point A to point b, not in how balanced that journey was.



i agree with the first part of your statement. the most important thing is the journey, not the destination. thus, the focus for me is not on _whether or not_ the heroes survive and win (since we know they will, ultimately), but on _how_. you seem to get a lot of enjoyment on the _whether_ part as well, but that's just not fun for me.



> So, it isn't the random death that makes the game fun, it's the feeling that you cheated death and came out on top.  Your plan avoided the insta deaths and traps of the bad guys and in the end you came out on top.  Those moments are the ones that seems to stick with players.  And I guess my feeling is that the CR is being used in a fashion that creates less of those dramatic moments.



on the other hand, i've seen random deaths and TPKs completely destroy campaigns and break up gaming groups. it's a fine line to walk... not enough random death, and you feel you didn't "earn" the victory. too much, and you risk short-circuiting the whole adventure, and then no one has any fun.

and for my part, i don't think i've _ever_ seen a player react positively or even completely neutral when their favorite PC dies. everyone gets a little sad, a little bitter, a little disappointed. i play games to have fun -- i don't want anyone at my table leaving sad, bitter, or disappointed. perhaps your players react differently. that's fine. but don't assume that everyone behaves the same way or wants the same things.

as far as your last point, i'm just not seeing it. as others have pointed out, the DMG _does not_ tell DMs to make every encounter exactly balanced and matched for the party. it specifically tells DMs to create a variety of difficulties, from fairly easy to extremely tough. so the CR system is not levelling the playing field and removing those dramatic moments.

in addition, experienced DMs already know not to make every encounter of the exact same difficulty, and i've never seen a published adventure that had every encounter in it at the same EL.

so i don't really understand where your argument against the CR/EL system is coming from.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 6, 2004)

While I do miss some elements of 1E/2E, lethality isn't one of them. Despite the depletion of "save or die" effects, I've found 3.x _far_ more lethal; in fact, the number of character deaths I've both suffered and inflicted in 3.x is several times that of 2E.

3E characters are a lot tougher than their 2E counterparts, but so are the monsters. The addition of critical hits, of different sized hit-dice for monsters, and so forth have made a huge difference. I've found players actually fear 3.x poisons more than 2E. Somehow, being drastically weakened in the face of a wyvern or giant scorpion is scarier than the notion of it just killing you outright.

My players trust me not to kill them arbitrarily, but they also know that I'm not going to limit their encounters to monsters of the "appropriate" CR, and I won't play with anyone who throws a fit because they faced a creature they couldn't steamroller. So in that respect, it's a player problem, not a system problem.

As to whether the system is encouraging that mindset in the new generation of players? I can't speak to that, so I suppose it's possible. Still, I think the game does a good job of trying to explain that it's not meant to be 100% even fights 100% of the time. As someone pointed out, check the encounter chart; there's a small but real chance of meeting somethign _way_ above your level.

On a different note, and back to the original topic (gasp!):

I miss the idea that different clances advance at different rates. I understand why they went to a uniform advancement system; it was, among other things, required for a multiclassing system that is _far_ superior to the old one. Still, it also forces a balance between classes that rubs me the wrong way. A 17th-level wizard _should_ be more powerful, IMO, than a 17th-level rogue; he's a wizard, for Pete's sake! The tradeoff to that is that it's a lot easier and faster to become a 17th-level rogue. I liked the idea of faster advancement for weaker classes; it was still balanced across the party, but it made more sense to me.

But that is, overall, a minor issue to me, and certainly not one worth going back to 2E, or even tweaking the 3E system, for.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 6, 2004)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> What 3.x is missing:






> * Distinct, narrow roles for PCs to fall into. Fighters Fight, Thieves Steal, Wizards blow things up, and Clerics Heal. Thats all.




Good
*


> Arbitrary restrictions with "flavor text" to explain them (Halflings don't trust magic...)




Good



> * 10 systems to do the same thing (unarmed combat?)




Bad



> * A variety of dice mechanic (1d20, 1d100)




Good



> * A higher dependancy on high ability scores.




This, I'm neutral on.




> * A higher dependancy on Luck/good die rolls.




Good



> * The concept of the Ominverse, with Greyhawk, Realms, and all other settings sharing the same cosmology.




Again, nothing wrong with this.  Nothing wrong with another system, either.



> * Magical Items, Weapons, and Spells that were CLEARLY superior to others.




This is as it should be, and is in 3e, as well.  For example, the robe of useful items is one of my favorite items, but building a 3e character, I'd never choose this, as it's way inferior to other items at $8,000 gps.




> * Classes and races that were CLEARLY superior to others.




We still have that.



> * Classic Modules




Good



> * Too many choices (Players Options)




Yeah, player's option was over the top - it had some good ideas, but they were implemented poorly.



> * Too many restrictions (d20 publishers?)




Too many restrictions is preferrable to too many options imo.




> * Clear Inbalance in favor of the DM




Good



> * Rule Loopholes




All rules have loopholes.



> Thats what I can think of. Whether these are good or bad are up to  you.


----------



## d4 (Mar 6, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I miss the idea that different clances advance at different rates. I understand why they went to a uniform advancement system; it was, among other things, required for a multiclassing system that is _far_ superior to the old one. Still, it also forces a balance between classes that rubs me the wrong way. A 17th-level wizard _should_ be more powerful, IMO, than a 17th-level rogue; he's a wizard, for Pete's sake! The tradeoff to that is that it's a lot easier and faster to become a 17th-level rogue. I liked the idea of faster advancement for weaker classes; it was still balanced across the party, but it made more sense to me.



i'm sorry, but i don't really see the issue.

if a 17th-level wizard is more powerful than a 17th-level rogue, then either the wizard or the rogue aren't really 17th-level. by making power not equate to level, you are essentially depriving the term "character level" of a lot of its meaning, IMO.

in 1e, for example, it was obvious that a wizard and a thief of the same _level_ were not at the same power level. but thieves progressed faster. would you say that a wizard and a thief with the same _amount of experience points_ were at the same power level?

if so, then simplifying the system so that they are also at the same level is IMO a good thing (it makes character level actually mean something, as i alluded to above). if not, then the game is inherently unfair to thieves WRT wizards (or any other combination where this comparison holds), which i also don't think is a good idea.


----------



## d4 (Mar 6, 2004)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Too many restrictions is preferrable to too many options imo.



could you expand on this?

from my point of view, it seems easier to remove an option than it does to remove a restriction.

and people who may lack experience or confidence in their game design skills can feel that they are causing less harm to the system overall when they remove options than restrictions. you usually don't question whether its going to wreck the consistency or (that dreaded word) balance of the system when you remove an option, but removing a restriction _does_ carry that risk.


----------



## Victim (Mar 6, 2004)

kenjib said:
			
		

> I think it's a matter of player perceptions, and I do see it in the system because the system has rules that establish your expectations.
> 
> 1e
> Default:  We won't likely survive very long.
> ...




Hmm.  I wouldn't say that at all.  

From my experiences, 1e characters generally are pretty good against HP death in most cases.  Fighter types will generally have roughly the same HP totals between editions at early to mid levels.  At higher levels, first and second ed pretty much stopped, and in 3.0 Con increasing magic will add to character's HP.

However, most conventional monster attacks were less threatening in prior editions.  Unfortunately, I don't have my 2nd ed MM, and acrobat reader keeps crashing, so I'll have to rely on crappy memory for old monster stats.  2nd ed orcs: THACO 20, 1d8 or 1d10 damage.  3.0 orcs: attack +3, damage 1d12+3, nasty critical hits.  At higher levels, more monsters have multiple attacks and huge strength scores, so their damage increases alot.  Since most giants have 3 attacks instead of 1, they can kill characters in melee far more readily.

Also, the changes to saving throws mean that even high level characters fear save based effects.

Black Lotus Extract is pertty much save or die poison.  Dark Reaver powder, burnt othur fumes, deathblade, and wyvern poison also do decent Con damage.

In my opinion, much of the nastiness in 1e was in all the no-save or die effects, or other rather arbitrary effects.  One edition is no more deadly than the other, just the methods used are different.  The Heart of Nightfang Spire versus the Tomb of Horrors, if you will.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 6, 2004)

Here's my own list of what 1e had that 3e doesn't.  I barely played 2e, so I don't have much to say about it.

Save or die - this kept the fear of death in players.

Encountering a great wyrm at level one on a random encounter roll - see above.

Undead that drained levels, period.  Nothing like a 10th level fighter wetting his pants over a 2 hit die wight.

Magic that was just, well, magic.  A door that requires the key from room 2a to open.  Period.  No bloody dim-door, teleport, stoneshape, etc will work.  Go find the key, damnit.

Magic not being for sale.  Makes the +1 cloak of protection, actually last longer than 1st level.

The lack of true resurrection - death should mean something, not just be a delaying action.

No halfling paladins.  

A melee fighter could hold his own, and indeed best an archer in most cases.

No stats in the fricking 40s.

Real rangers.

20th level fighters with 100 hit points.

The fact that characters were NOT supposed to have x amount of magical items to face a certain creature.

A stone golem in an anti-magic zone was just FUN.

Combat that didn't last 14 hours.

Characters who are not ranger1/rogue2/wizard5/bladesinger6/incantatrix3/arcmage3

Thieves, not rogues.

Backstab, not sneak attack.  It just sounds better.




I could go on, but I'll stop there for brevity.

Don't get me wrong, 1e was not without its flaws, but some of what a lot of people call flaws, I call a feature, and actually prefer it that way.  I like the power in the hands of the dm.  I like to attack the ogre, not move 5 feet, draw my sword as part of a move action, tumble past the goblins, use my spring attack feat to deny the ogre an AOO, and return to the spot I was in.  I prefer simplicity over options.

That said, 3e is not a bad game, and I enjoy it.  It just seems cold and mechanical, not free-flowing like the games of old.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 6, 2004)

d4 said:
			
		

> could you expand on this?
> 
> from my point of view, it seems easier to remove an option than it does to remove a restriction.
> 
> and people who may lack experience or confidence in their game design skills can feel that they are causing less harm to the system overall when they remove options than restrictions. you usually don't question whether its going to wreck the consistency or (that dreaded word) balance of the system when you remove an option, but removing a restriction _does_ carry that risk.





Sure.  Removing an option takes something away from the players and makes the dm the bad guy.  Removing restrictions, say letting someone play a half-orc paladin in a 1e game gets the dm free beer.    Removing all the options in 3e would take forever.  I have to shoot something down every time we start a new game.  Yeah, it's "optional," but when a player shells out 30 bucks for a book and then can't use it, he's gonna be pissed.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 7, 2004)

d4 said:
			
		

> i'm sorry, but i don't really see the issue.
> 
> if a 17th-level wizard is more powerful than a 17th-level rogue, then either the wizard or the rogue aren't really 17th-level. by making power not equate to level, you are essentially depriving the term "character level" of a lot of its meaning, IMO.
> 
> ...




Oh, I'll agree with you that it's almost entirely an issue of semantics. There's no true _mechanical_ difference; ultimately, it's all the same thing. I just like the notion of theives gaining benefits more frequently than wizards, but those benefits not being as good.

As I said, it's a minor issue for me, and purely one of flavor. I don't in any way pretend that it's a flaw in the current system.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 7, 2004)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Sure.  Removing an option takes something away from the players and makes the dm the bad guy.  Removing restrictions, say letting someone play a half-orc paladin in a 1e game gets the dm free beer.    Removing all the options in 3e would take forever.  I have to shoot something down every time we start a new game.  Yeah, it's "optional," but when a player shells out 30 bucks for a book and then can't use it, he's gonna be pissed.




Can't agree with you, JR. As I see it, the current rules system is the kitchen, and any given campaign is the meal. You're not going to use every ingredient in every meal, but it's better to have them than not. And I truly believe that any player who gets pissed at a DM for restricting specific options for specific campaigns isn't worth gaming with. Sure, you don't want the DM to restrict the same thing all the time, if you're playing multiple campaigns. But AFAIAC, that's part of what gives individual campaigns their flavor--not only what is included, but what isn't.

You've stated you don't like halfling paladins. Nothing wrong with you disallowing them, then. OTOH, some people like the idea of halfling paladins. An ostensibly settingless (or at least setting-lite) rules system shouldn't disallow them when there's no _mechanical_ reason for doing so.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 7, 2004)

kamosa said:
			
		

> I think his point was not that arbitrary death was a good thing, but that the threat of arbitrary death was a good thing.   It wasn't that DM's went around killing parties with insta death spells all the time, at least not in the games I played in or DM'ed.  It was that the players were more wary about taking on encounters because of the palpable threat of death or atleast a serious beat down.




This is a very mystical argument.

So your players feared arbitrary death without having experienced it?  What does that mean?

I couldn't disagree more about the risk of serious beatdown issue.  3e has it like 1e/2e never did.  I know that my conniving DM might give that orc with the greataxe a level or two of barbarian, and he might get a lucky crit for 50 points damage.  I know that my DM is not afraid of putting up in a roomful of scorpions and watch the knight in shining armor collapse to the floor from encumberance after failing a few poison saves.

3e combat has just as much risk as 1e/2e ever had.  It is just dispensed in a measured and more predictable manner -- that gives the DM more control.


----------



## Ottergame (Mar 7, 2004)

I don't want to sound rude, JR, but none of the stuff you thought was good about the old D&D I like.  It sounds like you are more interested in playing a war game or a computer RPG with fixed, constrictive rules.

Distinct, narrow roles for PCs to fall into. Fighters Fight, Thieves Steal, Wizards blow things up, and Clerics Heal. Thats all.

Arbitrary restrictions with "flavor text" to explain them (Halflings don't trust magic...)

A higher dependancy on Luck/good die rolls.

Clear Inbalance in favor of the DM.

Save or die.

Magic that was just, well, magic. A door that requires the key from room 2a to open. Period. No bloody dim-door, teleport, stoneshape, etc will work. Go find the key, damnit.


How are any of those considered valid game design decisions, much less FUN ones?  You want to limit players to overcoming challenges in one way.  Why shouldn't a group be able to circumvent a magicaly locked door?  Why should smashing it down, teleporting, or stone shaping around the door be invalid actions?

I enjoy playing a game where I have -OPTIONS-, not restrictions.  Why shouldn't I be able to play a halfling paladin with teleport scrolls and a maxed out Use Magic Device?  Just because it doesn't fit your defintion of what the game should be?


----------



## Ottergame (Mar 7, 2004)

Somewhere buried in this thread someone complained about the saves used in 3rd edition.  I don't see what the problem is, most spells I can name off what it's save is.  Any spell that is dodged to save against (fireball, and such) are reflex.  Spells that attack the body (energy drains, poison) are fort.  Spells that attack the mind (charm, fear, doom) are will.  And figuring the save DC is easy, all you do is add three numbers.  Take 10, add the modifier of the caster for the ability requirement, add the level of the spell.  A 9th level spell cast by someone with a INT of 20 will have a DC of 24.  A 3rd level spell cast by someone with a 15 INT will have a DC of 15.  And so on.  What's hard about that?  It makes more sense then having a different save for wands than for spells.


----------



## Zappo (Mar 7, 2004)

Ok. The argument about threat of death versus actual death makes a certain amount of sense. It takes skill, but when you can make the players think they are going to get killed very soon without actually kill them, you can have a very good game. The adventure I'm writing *points at his signature* is designed to look a lot more lethal than it really is, because I want the players to be scared and once you're dead, nothing can scare you.

 However, I strongly disagree that 3E's system is less suited than previous editions to this end. Quite the opposite. The threat of death is only scary when the players have some degree of control. When they know that they will survive if they do the right thing, provided that they can figure out what it is, and that they will die if they do something stupid. This way, they'll be scared and tense in the good way that makes for real excitement. With the deadly 3E combat depending much more on smart tactics and less on luck than previous editions, the current D&D is best suited for this.

 OTOH, knowing that every hour there is a 2% chance of meeting a horde of demons who will slaughter the party with ease is not particularly dramatic. There's nothing I can do about it. I can't predict from where the fiends will come, I can't know in advance where they'll go, I can't avoid them or prevent their arrival, because they are only a random encounter table, they don't actually exist until rolled. The only thing I can do is get out quickly, if I am a good player, and even then I could very well be unlucky and still die. So why getting worried?

 The threat of random death doesn't really work. The real deal is simply the threat of death, normal death that makes sense and has a reason, because the player knows that staying alive is the reward for smart playing.

 As for JRRNeiklot's list - that probably describes the 1E feeling to him. But my eyes on that list can only see either flaws that I am glad to have left behind (combat reduced to "I attack"), or concepts that really have no feeling at all, good or bad (no stats in the 40? Ftr20 with 100 hit points? They are just _numbers_, it's only a matter of scale). Or objections to 3E that just don't apply to 3E - in what game that isn't ultra-high level, or where the DM isn't going wild with treasure, death becomes "a delay"? In the totality of my 3E games, I count exactly one true resurrection out of dozens of deaths.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 7, 2004)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong, 1e was not without its flaws, but some of what a lot of people call flaws, I call a feature, and actually prefer it that way.  I like the power in the hands of the dm.  I like to attack the ogre, not move 5 feet, draw my sword as part of a move action, tumble past the goblins, use my spring attack feat to deny the ogre an AOO, and return to the spot I was in.  I prefer simplicity over options.




YMMV, and in this case it varies quite a lot from my preferences. From what I hear, many games went wrong simply because too much power was in the hands of the DM. There's another thread on terrible games that alludes to that. Favored players, pet NPCs, railroading, arbitrariness, you name it - all of these were the result of too much DM power.

What 3e did was to place more power in the hands of the player.  Players were no longer mindless PC-bots whose actions in the game world were at the whim and fancy of the DM. Players could have _expectations_ now. They could expect a certain amount of equipment for their characters. They could expect that most encounters can be overcome with good tactics and a bit of luck.  They could expect to play characters that made a difference to the game world. They could expect that their actions would be resolved in a particular way, despite what the DM felt to be the preferred outcome. And they could find another DM if they didn't like the current one's style (see below for elaboration).

In a way, the 1e and 2e systems tended to DM authoritarianism. It didn't always result in bad games, just as not every authoritarian regime will result in pain and suffering for a country (apologies for the oblique political reference), but the danger is always there, and is more likely than not to happen. 3e was the democratization of role-playing, or at least its Magna Carta.



> That said, 3e is not a bad game, and I enjoy it.  It just seems cold and mechanical, not free-flowing like the games of old.




And this sentence sums up why 3e _could_ democratize role-playing. It made it easier for anyone to run games. It made the role of the DM less mystical and esoteric. Not everyone wanted to be a DM in 1e and 2e, perhaps because they didn't think they had the time, energy or imagination to do a good job. The more mechanical and formulaic approach to 3e gave more people the confidence to run games, so if any particular DM had bad habits, someone else can run the game.  It didn't have to be a particularly good game, but once in, he could improve and everyone would be better off as a result.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 7, 2004)

Just as a follow up to my previous post, the fact that more people are now willing or able to DM may have partly created the impression that 1e or 2e games were more flavorful.  It might simply have been due to the fact that only the most imaginative and creative people (or those who thought they were) dared to DM in 1e and 2e. The games were good only because the DMs were good, not through any superior quality of the game system.  Take a simple +1 longsword, for example:

*Good DM:* The longsword bears the mark of a crossed shield, identifying it as one of the blades crafted by the master swordsmiths of the realm for the Hundred Heroes who fought against the fiendish beasts from the Shadow Gate.
*Player:* Wow.

*Average DM:* This is a generic +1 longsword.
*Player:* OK, I use it to make a generic attack against the generic orc.

*Bad DM:* You swing your sword at the orc, but it shatters harmlessly against its skin.  While you are staring at the broken blade in amazement, the elven archwizard Thalor the Mighty _teleports_ in, blasts the orc with a barrage of _magic missiles_ and saves you all.  How are you going to show your gratitude?
*Player:*I'm starting my own game.


----------



## Lord Rasputin (Mar 7, 2004)

In no order ...

* Super customizeable clerics. Like everyone else said, it added flavor. I wonder if the best solution wouldn't be a three-tiered cleric class idea -- the current class, the old crusader class from the Player's Options: Spells and Magic (S&M ... hmmmm) and the cloistered cleric from the new UA for wusses like clerics of love.

* Elaborate monster descriptions. It helps design a more rounded encounter when you know what norkers eat.

Alright ... two things, I guess. And the 1e DMG -- the book that had a whole bunch of cool things that you could never remember where they were.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Mar 7, 2004)

Lord Rasputin said:
			
		

> In no order ...
> 
> * Super customizeable clerics. Like everyone else said, it added flavor. I wonder if the best solution wouldn't be a three-tiered cleric class idea -- the current class, the old crusader class from the Player's Options: Spells and Magic (S&M ... hmmmm) and the cloistered cleric from the new UA for wusses like clerics of love.




I second that, although I do not want crusaders back (clerics are militant enough) and I do not think cloistered clerics fit all wussy priests (I doubt priests of love are very studious, except where romance novels and the kama sutra are concerned).


----------



## Ottergame (Mar 7, 2004)

Lord Rasputin said:
			
		

> * Elaborate monster descriptions. It helps design a more rounded encounter when you know what norkers eat.




You realize that for 99% of the monsters in the MM1 and 2, those descriptions are still perfectly valid.  You can find those old books and use them to help flesh out you stable of monsters.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 7, 2004)

Ottergame said:
			
		

> I don't want to sound rude, JR, but none of the stuff you thought was good about the old D&D I like.  It sounds like you are more interested in playing a war game or a computer RPG with fixed, constrictive rules.
> 
> Distinct, narrow roles for PCs to fall into. Fighters Fight, Thieves Steal, Wizards blow things up, and Clerics Heal. Thats all.
> 
> ...





Well, the magic door was just an example.  My point was that in 3e, players KNOW what magic can and can't do.  In 1e, If you want to restrict them from passing the door on level 3a until they level up a couple of times, you make the door only openable with a certain key.  In 3e, my guys would just stoneshape around the door, try to find a mage with a high enough caster level to dispel the magic on the door, etc.  All valid options.  But if I have a campaign reason why they shouldn't be able to open the door, it gets spoiled.  If I stick to the one key plan, I get blamed for not playing by the rules.  

Save or die keeps the players on their toes.  I absolutely hate it when a player says, "oh, a poisonous spider,it'lll need 20s to hit us.  Add a save or die poison, and this becomes a more dramatic battle.

More luck involved is a good thing.  As a player, when I crit something that was about to hack the party into little bitty sherrif meatballs, I get an adrenaline rush.  When I methodically chop something down, I don't.

And your first statement is rather ironic, as I find 3e to be MUCH closer to a wargame than 1e.  I hate having to keep up with every 5 foot step a character makes.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 7, 2004)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Well, the magic door was just an example.  My point was that in 3e, players KNOW what magic can and can't do.  In 1e, If you want to restrict them from passing the door on level 3a until they level up a couple of times, you make the door only openable with a certain key.  In 3e, my guys would just stoneshape around the door, try to find a mage with a high enough caster level to dispel the magic on the door, etc.  All valid options.  But if I have a campaign reason why they shouldn't be able to open the door, it gets spoiled.  If I stick to the one key plan, I get blamed for not playing by the rules.




So have the door/wall/whatever be resistant to magic; it's got, oh, SR 30 or something. No stoneshaping around it, no casting _knock_, and so forth. Sure, that's not going to work on characters of really high level, since they can punch through that, or dispel whatever magic granted that SR in the first place. But frankly, I don't see too many situations where a door could be expected to be an obstacle for a high-level party in any event.

Or, if you _really_ want a door to stop even a high level party, make it an artifact, one that not only prevents the door, but the walls around it, from being bypassed. Even 3E, with its more methodical outlook, has artifacts that don't have to follow the written rules.



> And your first statement is rather ironic, as I find 3e to be MUCH closer to a wargame than 1e.  I hate having to keep up with every 5 foot step a character makes.




I agree with you there. That's why I don't use miniatures, or markers, or grids. I run combat descriptively, the exact same way I did in 1E and 2E. I use AoOs only when players take an action that I feel would draw one (like digging in a backpack in the midst of combat), not for movement. My players know this, and don't worry about feats like Combat Reflexes. Other than removing a few feats, though, it doesn't harm the game or remove options in the slightest.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 7, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> As for JRRNeiklot's list - that probably describes the 1E feeling to him. But my eyes on that list can only see either flaws that I am glad to have left behind (combat reduced to "I attack"), or concepts that really have no feeling at all, good or bad (no stats in the 40? Ftr20 with 100 hit points? They are just _numbers_, it's only a matter of scale). Or objections to 3E that just don't apply to 3E - in what game that isn't ultra-high level, or where the DM isn't going wild with treasure, death becomes "a delay"? In the totality of my 3E games, I count exactly one true resurrection out of dozens of deaths.





I was being overly simplistic with "I attack the ogre."  My point was that 1e combat was simpler and therefore easier to roleplay than 3es grid system.  A charcter charging across the field to engage the ogre is heroic.  Methodically avoiding the orcs via tumbling and using various mechanical references to the feats or skillshe is using detracts from the role play experince, imo.

As for the true resurrections being uncommon in your games, I assume you haven't played high level games yet.  I had a fighter die twice last session, and he was back up in the time it took the mage to teleport them out and the cleric to cast the spell.  Then bang, they're tight back in the frey.  Death?  What's that?

Now, I don't mean to start a 1e vs 3e war, but the original poster asked what was missing from 3e, so I posted my opinion.  I think 3e went a long way toward  fixing the flaws of 1e, but went a little too far in mechanizing the whole thing.  That is the main thing missing from 3e.  It is far too sterile and mechanical.  Maybe this owas done to sell miniatures, maybe not, but imo, it detracts too much from my suspension of disbelief, and makes the game much more like a war game than an rpg.


----------



## Ottergame (Mar 7, 2004)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Well, the magic door was just an example.  My point was that in 3e, players KNOW what magic can and can't do.  In 1e, If you want to restrict them from passing the door on level 3a until they level up a couple of times, you make the door only openable with a certain key.  In 3e, my guys would just stoneshape around the door, try to find a mage with a high enough caster level to dispel the magic on the door, etc.  All valid options.  But if I have a campaign reason why they shouldn't be able to open the door, it gets spoiled.  If I stick to the one key plan, I get blamed for not playing by the rules.
> 
> Save or die keeps the players on their toes.  I absolutely hate it when a player says, "oh, a poisonous spider,it'lll need 20s to hit us.  Add a save or die poison, and this becomes a more dramatic battle.
> 
> ...





But how does a player know if something they are fighting has a save or die poison?  Unless EVERYTHING has save or die poison, then in which case you're players would be wracked with fear 24/7, and that's stresfful, not fun.  Not many RL poisons are lethal, why should ALL poisons in the game be deadly?

To much luck in a game reduces a character to nothing but a chance on a die.  Skillfulness and tactics are unimportant, as it all depends on the die.

As for the door... if you REALLY want to keep players from entering the area, create a teleport gateway that only activates once the group has some specific item.  A locked door is an invitation for exploration, and should only prove to be an obstical at low levels.

I still say it seems like you want to play a computer role playing game, where there's hard and fast rules about what can and cannot be done, logic be damned.


----------



## Ottergame (Mar 7, 2004)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> A charcter charging across the field to engage the ogre is heroic.  Methodically avoiding the orcs via tumbling and using various mechanical references to the feats or skillshe is using detracts from the role play experince, imo.




You mean to say that a rogue who tumbles through danger to get to the bad guy to steal the wand he's using to cast lightening bolts at the party is less heroic than the fighter who takes 20 rounds to beat through a stack of peons to do the same thing?  Tumble is a good mechanic, though it needs some sort of counter.  15 or 25 DC isn't to hard to hit for a lowend midlevel rogue.

Besides, it's not like most people can do that anyways.  A 13 dex fighter in full plate with a tower shield has a -15 to that check.  Even maxing out Tumble at cross class skills is going to make even that 15 impossible to ever hit for a good many levels.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 7, 2004)

Ottergame said:
			
		

> But how does a player know if something they are fighting has a save or die poison?  Unless EVERYTHING has save or die poison, then in which case you're players would be wracked with fear 24/7, and that's stresfful, not fun.  Not many RL poisons are lethal, why should ALL poisons in the game be deadly?
> 
> To much luck in a game reduces a character to nothing but a chance on a die.  Skillfulness and tactics are unimportant, as it all depends on the die.
> 
> ...





Not all poisons should be lethal, but some are.  Players SHOULd be scared of a spider until they findout that the poison only makes them break out in hives for a couple of days.  

Too much luck is bad,I agree, but then so is too little.  

I fail to see how 1e is more of a wargame experience than 3e.  In 1e there weren't rules addressing every possible action, so the dm made up something on the fly.  Now we have a mechanic for everything.  On the surface, that would seem a good thing, but in reality, it slows down everything, and makes the character more about his neat abilities than his personality.  You say 1e lacked logic, if so, it is ironic that 3e, having MORE logic - the mathematical operation of a computer - makes 3e less like a computer game.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 7, 2004)

Ottergame said:
			
		

> You mean to say that a rogue who tumbles through danger to get to the bad guy to steal the wand he's using to cast lightening bolts at the party is less heroic than the fighter who takes 20 rounds to beat through a stack of peons to do the same thing?  Tumble is a good mechanic, though it needs some sort of counter.  15 or 25 DC isn't to hard to hit for a lowend midlevel rogue.
> 
> Besides, it's not like most people can do that anyways.  A 13 dex fighter in full plate with a tower shield has a -15 to that check.  Even maxing out Tumble at cross class skills is going to make even that 15 impossible to ever hit for a good many levels.





No, I meant that the description of the tactic seems less heroic.  Not the action itself.  It's all about the numbers, not the role play.


----------



## Zappo (Mar 7, 2004)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> I was being overly simplistic with "I attack the ogre." My point was that 1e combat was simpler and therefore easier to roleplay than 3es grid system. A charcter charging across the field to engage the ogre is heroic. Methodically avoiding the orcs via tumbling and using various mechanical references to the feats or skillshe is using detracts from the role play experince, imo.



I understand. However, I don't agree that simpler equals easier to roleplay. Lots of OD&D/2E combats (haven't played 1E) tended to be reduced to "I attack" "You hit" "It attacks" "It misses" over and over again. There's only so many ways you can describe a normal attack before it gets boring. In 3E, with lots of options, you are encouraged to perform cool and varied actions.







> As for the true resurrections being uncommon in your games, I assume you haven't played high level games yet.



I DMed a campaign which went to 17th-19th level, and played a couple of epic level games. The first had the one true res, and the second had only one death so far and the player chose to make another character. The true res in the first game was _before_ the party had access to 9th level magic, and was obtained by an NPC. In payment, the resurrected character (a powerful psion) was forced to accept a lesser psionicist as an apprentice; a major event for the character. The party cleric never cast it, despite a half dozen deaths, because he didn't want to spend the XP cost (in 3E, and everyone including the deceased agreed with him) or the party didn't have so many diamonds (in 3.5E). True res costs a lot, both in 3E and in 3.5E though the actual cost is different. Your fighter died twice - that's _50000_ gold down the drain (and they have to be in diamonds, which don't grow on trees). Unless the party wealth was substantially above the average - which is well and good but has consequences - this is a big hit. 

 Everyone I gamed with generally prefers making another character rather than being raised. I actually had to increase the XP penalty for new characters to discourage this. Getting killed by a randomly encountered poisonous creature through one unavoidable and unlucky roll has no meaning at all. It was not my fault, there's nothing I could do about it. It's _just statistics_. Could as well get raised, since any other character would have got killed in the same way.

 Now when someone gets killed, the player feels something - I could have tumbled away, I should have used expertise, we should have paid more attention to the tracks in the dungeon. My fault. Let's see if the next character works better.

 It is not a coincidence that making suitable random encounters for every location was the first big change to the game which I made when I was learning how to DM. The second was dropping them entirely. And I allowed a neutralize poison to revive a character if cast in the next round. All of those changes only improved my games, so I must deduce that the old editions feel doesn't lie there. Not for me anyway.







> Now, I don't mean to start a 1e vs 3e war, but the original poster asked what was missing from 3e, so I posted my opinion.



And thank you for that.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 7, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> I understand. However, I don't agree that simpler equals easier to roleplay. Lots of OD&D/2E combats (haven't played 1E) tended to be reduced to "I attack" "You hit" "It attacks" "It misses" over and over again. There's only so many ways you can describe a normal attack before it gets boring.




Too true. I've seen AD&D combat played that way over, and over, and over again. Even when you try to spice it up with descriptions it still returns to "I attack" if you're a fighter over and over again.

When you try to move to other modes of combat, the original systems were overly complicated, and the replacement systems in UA, though better, weren't that inspiring.

3E is sometimes too powerful a system, requiring a greater commitment to learning the rules than 1E (or at least regarding how 1E was played by most people - there were lots of rules that were ignored). However, for someone who understands 3E well enough, it's just as easy to run fast, cinematic combat as in 1E.

I miss modules being released by TSR/WotC. _Dungeon_ isn't quite the same, and getting non-WotC products is almost impossible where I live. Mail-order would work, but I prefer to _see_ a product, and there are other things to spend money on... I'm most likely to buy things from a store 'on impulse' rather than plan ahead for them.

Cheers!


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 7, 2004)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> No, I meant that the description of the tactic seems less heroic.  Not the action itself.  It's all about the numbers, not the role play.




The problem we found in 1e/2e is you were outright disallowed from crazy heroic movement.  The mooks could always fill in the gaps.  Always.

In 3e we are seeing PCs take real tactical risks, tumbling through or even sucking up the AoOs to get into a (mutually) dangerous position.  That is meaty heroism and once we have tasted it 1e/2e is but a thin gruel.

"I attack.  He attacks.  I attack.  He attacks."  You can pretty it up with some superficial verbage, but a sow is still a pig.


----------



## broghammerj (Mar 7, 2004)

*Here my miss list*

A few random things I miss about 1e/2e.  I admit that there is a certain gestault about my points, but I don't think I would classify them as nostalgic.  In my mind the two terms are very different.

1. A sense of completness.  The idea that these are my books and the options/rules we use come from them.  I have in my hand what I need to play.  Every player has those books and we agree on that fact (minus a few MINOR house rules).  Now they're are so many 3rd party suppliers that have added to the market, I feel overwhelmed.  I realize the GM sets the rules on what books get used in his/her games, but many players have their own opinions on optional books.  There is no longer a collective agreement if you will, amongst all of us.  The variety present now has added infusion of creativity to RPGs and I see that as good, but there is a loss of control/completeness.  Many will respond, well you only need the "core" books to play.  Yes, thats true but I can't really set down to play DND with a group of total strangers and expect to play the same game anymore.  The universalness to the game is gone.  There are now 875 ranger variants depending on who's book you want to buy.  It sucks if you didn't buy the same one as the GM.

2. A sense of standard.  Others have alluded to this.  There is no longer fighters fighting, theives stealing, etc.  I think somehow it goes beyond this.  We jokingly reference the idea of being "Monte Cooked" after we played his adventure the Banewarrens.  The players just battled a Minotaur Warrior Lv1.  Everyone asked why can't it be just a Minotaur.  What the heck does a level of warrior matter.  Everything has to be tricked up, templated, prestige classed.  IMHO variety and freedom is good for the players to define their characters, but it permeates into everything and has gone too far.  The great red wyrm is no longer a good encounter.  It's now got to be the great, demonic, undead, colossal, half celestial vermillion dragon.  JR point out that too many restrictions are better than too many options.  I think that this falls along those lines.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 7, 2004)

broghammerj said:
			
		

> 2. A sense of standard.  Others have alluded to this.  There is no longer fighters fighting, theives stealing, etc.  I think somehow it goes beyond this.  We jokingly reference the idea of being "Monte Cooked" after we played his adventure the Banewarrens.  The players just battled a Minotaur Warrior Lv1.  Everyone asked why can't it be just a Minotaur.  What the heck does a level of warrior matter.  Everything has to be tricked up, templated, prestige classed.  IMHO variety and freedom is good for the players to define their characters, but it permeates into everything and has gone too far.  The great red wyrm is no longer a good encounter.  It's now got to be the great, demonic, undead, colossal, half celestial vermillion dragon.  JR point out that too many restrictions are better than too many options.  I think that this falls along those lines.




"Sounds like a player and DM problem to me."

It is completely legitimate to prefer that style.  But DM and player choices have led you astray.

If you flip through some of the old Gygax modules, e.g. the G-series, you will find "Monte Cooked" monsters.  He just used ad hoc rules instead of standardized ones.


----------



## Numion (Mar 7, 2004)

kamosa said:
			
		

> The CR system has been used as a way to "balance" the encounters. So even though there could be a great many variations to the power of the monsters, the CR rating system washes away the suspense and lets you know that the GM would never run you up against something that you couldn't defeat.
> 
> And as I have said, you can ignore the CR system and your fine.  But, how many new GM's are going to ignore it?  How many new players feel it is unfair to run players on encounter that have too high of a CR?  The answer of course is unknown, but I've started to see the blandness and lack of fear creep into games and I don't think it is a good thing.




You're wrong on this one. The EL / CR guidelines in the DMG for creating adventures clearly state that 15 % of encounters should be 1-3 grades above the PCs level and 5 % 4+ grades over. So if the DM in question designs 3e adventures _as they were intended_, players shouldn't expect only "balanced" encounters as you put it. 

It's all in the DMG; RTFM  

(Reminder: EL of 4+ the group average level will quite likely get someone killed)


----------



## RFisher (Mar 8, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Arbitrary death is fine in a pure wargame, but it seems illogical to criticize 3e for its lack unless you want a wargamey feel.




Arbitrary death is extremely rare no matter what edition you're playing. Character death is almost always a consequence of character action. Don't want to risk death? Run from poisonous monsters. Don't go opening locked chests that don't belong to you. Don't go skulking around trap & monster filled ruins.

Arbitrary death may happen occasionally, but it is pretty rare.

Edit: I should cite Robilar as a OD&D/OAD&D PC that showed that a careful PC can adventure and survive despite the existance of save or die mechanics.


----------



## RFisher (Mar 8, 2004)

One thing that keeps coming to my mind every time I read this thread is the one thing I really like about 3e: It tends to give you consequences instead of restrictions. Sure, you can give Rogue skills to your Fighter, but it is going to cost you. Your Wizard can wear plate mail and fight with a sword, but you might not like the consequences.

This is really just a preference about how the rules are written, though. It doesn't have as much effect on play since the DM just ends up choosing a consequence when a restriction gets broken.


----------



## diaglo (Mar 8, 2004)

RFisher said:
			
		

> It doesn't have as much effect on play since the DM just ends up choosing a consequence when a restriction gets broken.




wrong terminology.

it isn't broken. it is shafted.


----------



## Voadam (Mar 8, 2004)

broghammerj said:
			
		

> A few random things I miss about 1e/2e.  I admit that there is a certain gestault about my points, but I don't think I would classify them as nostalgic.  In my mind the two terms are very different.
> 
> 1. A sense of completness.  The idea that these are my books and the options/rules we use come from them.  I have in my hand what I need to play.  Every player has those books and we agree on that fact (minus a few MINOR house rules).  Now they're are so many 3rd party suppliers that have added to the market, I feel overwhelmed.  I realize the GM sets the rules on what books get used in his/her games, but many players have their own opinions on optional books.  There is no longer a collective agreement if you will, amongst all of us.  The variety present now has added infusion of creativity to RPGs and I see that as good, but there is a loss of control/completeness.  Many will respond, well you only need the "core" books to play.  Yes, thats true but I can't really set down to play DND with a group of total strangers and expect to play the same game anymore.  The universalness to the game is gone.  There are now 875 ranger variants depending on who's book you want to buy.  It sucks if you didn't buy the same one as the GM.
> 
> 2. A sense of standard.  Others have alluded to this.  There is no longer fighters fighting, theives stealing, etc.  I think somehow it goes beyond this.  We jokingly reference the idea of being "Monte Cooked" after we played his adventure the Banewarrens.  The players just battled a Minotaur Warrior Lv1.  Everyone asked why can't it be just a Minotaur.  What the heck does a level of warrior matter.  Everything has to be tricked up, templated, prestige classed.  IMHO variety and freedom is good for the players to define their characters, but it permeates into everything and has gone too far.  The great red wyrm is no longer a good encounter.  It's now got to be the great, demonic, undead, colossal, half celestial vermillion dragon.  JR point out that too many restrictions are better than too many options.  I think that this falls along those lines.




2e had a lot of books too. Complete x, Tome of Magic, players options, DM Option, FR sourcebooks, Birthright sourcebooks, etc. Splatbooks did not originate in 3e. Even in 1e there was UA, OA, dungeoneers survivial guide, wilderness survival guide, etc.

It is easier to use straight monsters in 3e than tricked out ones. When running off the fly it is much easier to use a straight ogre out of the MM over a leveled and advanced one with a template.

Previous editions had nonstandard monsters. Bone hill had an undead casting spells. 2e had Van richtens guides to every monster he hunted providing different powers and variations. The guidelines for doing so are much more standardized. Liches make more sense as 3e templates for spellcasters than as their own standard monster type.


----------



## Ottergame (Mar 8, 2004)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Don't want to risk death? Run from poisonous monsters. Don't go opening locked chests that don't belong to you. Don't go skulking around trap & monster filled ruins.




Meaning, "Never leave the inn the game starts in."


----------



## RFisher (Mar 9, 2004)

Ottergame said:
			
		

> Meaning, "Never leave the inn the game starts in."




(1) Yes. If you want reward, you have to risk. If you don't want to risk, you get no reward.

(2) The risk of "save or die" in OAD&D wasn't so great that you needed to stay at home. A cautious character could do lots of adventuring and avoid most "save or die" situations. Again, look at Robilar. He made numerous solo forays into the Castle Greyhawk dungeons and was the first PC to make it to the lowest level. He adventured alone in the Temple of Elemental Evil, and (the following in rot13 to protect possible spoilers) _qryirq qrrc rabhtu gb eryrnfr Mhttgzbl_. He survived the Tomb of Horrors. How did he survive all that? Surely some luck was involved, but for the most part it was being _very_ cautious.

(3) Some inns aren't the safest places.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Mar 9, 2004)

Someone mentioned "A Wargamey Feel" and I'd like to comment on it.

I believe that 3.0 and 3.5 have a feel more akin to a wargame than earlier editions.  I never used a Battlemat with earlier editions nor ever was inclined to.  Most sessions just involved everyone sitting around a coffee table rolling dice on it... mini's were used to establish marching order and that was pretty much it.  If someone needed position clarification then you'd draw out a quick sketch and then press on.  Flip through the Core Books and you'll see that the new editions are pretty much intended to be played with miniatures and battlemats from the illustrations and rules for combat.  Now players crowd around the table thinking in small unit tactical terms trying to move their PC's into the most advantageous positions without opening themselves up to attacks of opportunity.  You quit thinking of your PC as a character and more like a unit in a Real Time Strategy game (Warcraft 3 comes to mind).  Feels more like when I used to play WH40K than my old 1E & 2E games.


----------



## Kormydigar (Mar 9, 2004)

kamosa said:
			
		

> That was a flaw.  My favorite was when you would come across a room that would have some random type of monster that A) couldn't get out of the room.  B) Seems to have been there for ages with no obvious source of food, and C) was ready to attack you the instant you showed up.
> 
> It was silly and did need to be improved.  However, I don't think taking out of the game the fear of death was a good thing.  Insta death threat added to the drama and I think we could come up with a system that both had the threat and seemed plausible.[/QUOTE
> 
> I don't have a problem with encounter tables that make sense for the area. I have always laughed at powerful undead roaming a dungeon and having no impact upon the other inhabitants. The Problem I have with the CR system is the definition of a "challenge". Using resources to overcome obstacles was always just a part of the game in earlier editions. An encounter was not considered challenging because you used a spell or drank a potion. A challenge meant engaging in an encounter where a loss of one or more party members was possible if you screwed up. Not that every encounter had to prove fatal to one or more pc's to be considered challenging, just the possibility of this is what made the challenge. The current rules consider two orcs with 4hp each a worthy challenge to a party of four 1st level characters, and I contend that this represents a speed bump, not a challenge.


----------



## kenjib (Mar 9, 2004)

I just noticed this comment from Gary Gygax on the Dragonsfoot.org boards for Lejendary Adventures and I thought it was interesting pertaining to this thread.



> ...TSR began mainly as products of my imnagination, but I kept the D&D game system as open and "user friendly" to participants' input as possible. Frankly, I believe that the game succeeded as it did because about half of any campaign came from the DM and its participant players. As TSR, and now WotC, moved away from that, quantified and qualified, the spirit and soul of the game changed. If there were no DMs around from the former incarnations of original D&D, I truly wonder what the new game would be...




I hadn't thought of that, but now that I think of it, it's a very interesting comment.  I also note that Lejendary Adventures is a fairly rules-light game.

The entire thread is here, but the quote above is only tangential:

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3750


----------



## milotha (Mar 9, 2004)

I’m just going to note that I enjoy 3.X edition, and I am currently playing it.  I think that it has made many improvements over 2ed, but I also think that it isn’t perfect and there were some things about 2ed that were better.

I miss second edition priests.  I miss the fact that every priest under second edition had different granted powers and different spell lists.  I know that there are Prestige Classes for priests, but there are only a limited number of these, and you have to buy more books to get access to them.  The old Legends and Lore made every priest a different prestige class based on deity choice.  I miss the fact that you could play a priest that didn’t even have access to the curing spells.  This is quite different from not taking curing spells, especially since casters can spontaneously cast cure.  Nowadays, some fighters simply view the priest as a #D8’s of curing.  It’s like crack for the fighters. Fighter- “Hey man, I’m wounded give me another curing.  I need another one.”  Priest- “Nope, I’d really like to have spell X for the upcoming challenges.  No curing for you until the end of the day.”  

I miss multi-classing spell casters from 2ed.  I’ve given multi-classing as a spell caster in 3.X a chance, and I have to say that it doesn’t work nearly as well as multi-classing as a fighter or rogue type.  A multi-classed 6th level wizard/6th level priest just isn’t on par with a 12th level priest or a 12th level wizard.  Those higher level spells make all the difference, and at 12th level a 6d6 fireball just isn’t all that impressive.  Now, I realize that there are Prestige Classes such as Mystic Theurge and Arcane Trickster that have been added, but this requires them to add Prestige classes for every possible combination and once again requires the purchasing of more books.  It also narrows the types of mutli-class casters you can have.  Yes, the GM can modify all of this, but I wish that the multi-classing option in the core books worked for spell casters.  

I miss the rapid speed of designing up characters – especially at higher levels.  It takes a lot longer to design up an effective character in the new system with Feats, skills, sta bumps, and magic item creation feats.  With more complexity, more options, and more rules, 3.X has lost one of D&D great strengths.  This also made the characters easier to play.  While I like the diversity this affords, I wish that it hadn’t comprised speed.

Clearly defined party roles- All of the diversity opened up the classes is a great thing, but it can often lead to imbalanced parties. It used to be that the GM could look down and go- let’s see I have a mage, a priest, a thief, and fighter.  I pretty much know what these classes are capable of since all fighters/mages/thieves… a fairly alike, it was the role playing that differentiated them.  They all had different areas of expertise.  Now you can have the same party with everyone stepping on eachothers toes or worse whole skills missing when it seems like they should be there.  Example:  GM: presents party with a locked door.  Fighter- I’m a dex based fighter, I can’t bash it open.  Thief - I don’t do the open locks skill.  Mage -  I specialized in Y, I don’t do Knock.  Another example:  Hey, the whole party specialized in distance damage and light/no armour with low cons, who is going to take the hit if the BBEG runs up to us?  I think that a lot of people hate the class system in D&D, but in some ways the structure provided by classes allowed for balanced parties.  

I miss the wonder and uniqueness of magic items.  Getting a +1 sword or a +1 ring of protection has lost its specialness.  Hey, with X gold I could have made this myself.  In addition, I’ve noticed that everyone seems to prefer to trade in items that are not optimized for their vision of their character in lieu of getting some preferred item.  This takes out some of the wonderful moments in gaming where some seemingly useless item suddenly saves the day.  Who knew these bolts of Water Elemental slaying would come in handy?  I think that the magic item creation feats are a great idea, but I feel like with so many spell casters, magic shops are like fast food chains.  Yes, you can have a low mana world or you can ban magic item creation feats to bring this wonder back, but now you have to take something away from the party to do this, and you have to provide something to the spell casters in compensation.

Last but no least, I miss the slower level advancement.  In 3.X, I feel that characters are flying through the levels so quickly that you don’t get to know your character’s abilities as well at each level.  It used to be that you would spend enough time at each level to really have tales associated with each level.  Also, your magic items outlive their usefulness more rapidly.  That +1 sword you got two adventures ago, just isn’t so nice anymore now that you are three levels higher, and the GM has to up the challenges more rapidly for the players.  Yes, as a GM you can slow the advancement down by awarding less XP, but not all GMs are doing this.


----------



## Gothmog (Mar 10, 2004)

Well, it looks like a lot of people miss the old 2E style sphere priests.  For the last year or so, I've been using a house rule variant of the old 2E spheres and converted them into the domains structure.  Under this system, all casters have access to a Divine domain, and can choose two other domains.  However, each domain's spell lists are different (about 8-10 spells per domain level), and lead to a diverse set of abilities for every cleric.  Even clerics of the same religion will not have all the same spells- it depends on their selections.  I have drawn from over 50 sourcebooks and compiled a honking list, which I posted recently in this thread.  

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=79721

Its a work in progress, and I'm still trying to come up with some good granted powers for new domains, but comments are welcome.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 10, 2004)

The 2E speciality priests are the one thing I really don't miss from 2E. 

Actually, I see their attraction, I just don't think 2E handled them well at all. To be done proper justice, you need to treat each a separate class and design them that way - if that is done, I don't have a problem with it at all.

Cheers!


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 10, 2004)

> ...TSR began mainly as products of my imnagination, but I kept the D&D game system as open and "user friendly" to participants' input as possible. Frankly, I believe that the game succeeded as it did because about half of any campaign came from the DM and its participant players. As TSR, and now WotC, moved away from that, quantified and qualified, the spirit and soul of the game changed. If there were no DMs around from the former incarnations of original D&D, I truly wonder what the new game would be...




It is all well and good for a designer of the game to brag about how he felt free to change his own system.  But I have played with DMs under 1e/2e that adhered as strictly as possible to the rules and it was often not a pretty sight.

In my personal experience, I find 3e DMs more open to input now that they have a sensible framework with which judge tweaks to the system.  YMMV


----------



## Geoff Watson (Mar 10, 2004)

RFisher said:
			
		

> (2) The risk of "save or die" in OAD&D wasn't so great that you needed to stay at home. A cautious character could do lots of adventuring and avoid most "save or die" situations. Again, look at Robilar. He made numerous solo forays into the Castle Greyhawk dungeons and was the first PC to make it to the lowest level. He adventured alone in the Temple of Elemental Evil, and (the following in rot13 to protect possible spoilers) _qryirq qrrc rabhtu gb eryrnfr Mhttgzbl_. He survived the Tomb of Horrors. How did he survive all that? Surely some luck was involved, but for the most part it was being _very_ cautious.




Wasn't he the one that had unlimited numbers of orc followers that he used to check for traps/etc by sending the orcs in first?

Geoff.


----------



## MerricB (Mar 10, 2004)

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> Wasn't he the one that had unlimited numbers of orc followers that he used to check for traps/etc by sending the orcs in first?




That's right; though they weren't quite unlimited - Gary's mentioned he only had a couple left when he won through to the end. 

The threat of death is a large part of the thrill of any D&D adventure, but in the case of _arbitrary_ death, where your actions have no bearing on whether or not you die, that's bad. (If your DM only sends you up against lots of poisonous monsters, wherever you go, then you're going to get bitten at some point...)

Cheers!


----------



## Phoenix (Mar 10, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> That's right; though they weren't quite unlimited - Gary's mentioned he only had a couple left when he won through to the end.
> 
> The threat of death is a large part of the thrill of any D&D adventure, but in the case of _arbitrary_ death, where your actions have no bearing on whether or not you die, that's bad. (If your DM only sends you up against lots of poisonous monsters, wherever you go, then you're going to get bitten at some point...)
> 
> Cheers!




The one interesting point of death in 3.x is that it is slowly being conquered by an evolutionary process within the editions.  As you play through 1st edition many people noticed that 12th level was extremely high, and retired (the rules supported this).  In 2nd edition it was closer to 16th level (give or take), though the rules supported higher level adventuring.  3rd edition gives 20th level+ as high level, with no stopping for retiring.

With PCs having access to higher level abilities, faster than the old editions, you must surmise that NPCs are similar.  Even the mythical _+1 broadsword_....oops, that's what I loved about 2nd edition....is now a cheap toy past 5th level (if you keep it that long).  Evolution in magic (as opposed to our science) is allowing more and more common people the chance to access magic, and eventually this means, cheat death.

Sure it costs a lot of money to cast any death-cheating spells, and XP costs can be annoying...but in the end powerful NPCs and PCs alike can afford to live forever (give or take a few days).  Did your PC die in a horrible way in the middle of a dungeon in the middle of nowhere?  We'll just teleport back to town and buy a ressurection without breaking a sweat.

Sure this can easily be altered in house rules, but the Core Rules seem to encourage the use of all of the given abilities...even allowing a class that ressurects as a class feature!  (Pick the WotC product boys and girls, you too can win a cupie doll!)

Think of 1e as 1890 Cthulhu, 2e as 1920s, and 3e as 1990s....and smash your PCs into little pieces so hard that they can never afford ressurections, or are too scared to.........muuuuhahahahahahaaa.......pass me my pills please...


----------



## MerricB (Mar 10, 2004)

Phoenix said:
			
		

> ...even allowing a class that ressurects as a class feature!  (Pick the WotC product boys and girls, you too can win a cupie doll!)




That'd be the Healer class from the _Miniatures Handbook_. (The Healer mini and its Unicorn companion mini are in _Archfiends_, btw )

Interesting analysis. Certainly the 3E designers wanted you to actually _use_ the abilities you gained at higher levels. A common trick in 1E modules is to deny the use of those abilities. 

I'm just waiting for the introduction of Morganti blades.

Cheers!


----------



## Whisper72 (Mar 10, 2004)

Just to throw in my own 2 cts,

I believe that the missing 'soul' as some describe it is exactly those 'flaws' that have been patched in 3.x

I loved the fact that each class was distinctly different, with own save structure, progression speeds and own powers/'feats' that no other class could attain. Now anyone can take feats and skills make a standard fighter do pretty much the same as a ranger.

I also think that the new save structure, tough it may make more sense, has killed some of the wonder and feel. Everything uses the same type of rolls. No tables to look at what kind of save to make and what class you were. Everything requires a calculator and uses the same ingredients as any other character or monster.

I loved the fact that combat was simple. What 'you make a move action watch out for the attack of opportunity' etc. Some say 'but you have more options in the new rules' My whole problem is that the rules are now so sweeping and generic, that EVERYTHING is now covered by rules. The whole fun part of 1st Ed was the fact that there were so many things where the DM simply had to make things up as you go along, because not everything was completely clear.

Combat was mechanically simplistic maybe, what with a simple 'I attack', but the juiciness depended upon the descriptions of the players and the DM's in how they interpreted things. Now everything is cast into cold rules. A lot less is left to the imagination of the players and the DM seems like.

I myself think that the old system left much more room for DM interpretation. It not only left room, it forced the DM to think about things him or herself.

With the new rules I get the feeling you could play against yourself. If you take a module, just roll through, and computergame like, you steer your character through the adventure almost without the need for a DM.

Anyhoo, just my own feelings and thoughts about the issue.


----------



## WizarDru (Mar 10, 2004)

Phoenix said:
			
		

> Even the mythical _+1 broadsword_....oops, that's what I loved about 2nd edition....is now a cheap toy past 5th level (if you keep it that long).





			
				milotha said:
			
		

> I miss the wonder and uniqueness of magic items. Getting a +1 sword or a +1 ring of protection has lost its specialness. Hey, with X gold I could have made this myself. In addition, I’ve noticed that everyone seems to prefer to trade in items that are not optimized for their vision of their character in lieu of getting some preferred item.



You know, there are plenty of things I can agree with in some of the above posts, or at the very least acknowledge as valid if I don't.  But this is just plain silly.  I remember distinctly under 1e how items became just as obsolete, and after you got that +3 sword, that +1 sword was merely so much junk, for all intents and purposes.  A 3rd level character would cherish that +1 sword, but at 10th level, he was finding them in treasure hordes all the time...and merely considered them sources of x.p. or a 'movable feast', as it were.

The specialness of magic items is tied to the individual game and the DM, not the edition.  I remember playing in a 1e game where I only got two magic items from 3rd-8th level.  I also remember playing in a 1e game where we got a dozen at 4th.  3e has merely codified a consistent system for creating those items, something that was pretty much a 'invent your own system' concept during 1e for wizard and similar characters.



			
				Whisper72 said:
			
		

> I loved the fact that combat was simple. What 'you make a move action watch out for the attack of opportunity' etc. Some say 'but you have more options in the new rules' My whole problem is that the rules are now so sweeping and generic, that EVERYTHING is now covered by rules. The whole fun part of 1st Ed was the fact that there were so many things where the DM simply had to make things up as you go along, because not everything was completely clear.



Heh.  My players would beg to differ.  I can assure you, there are still plenty of things that 3e doesn't explicitly cover.  But with 3e, I have a framework for a solution that sounds right.  Under 1e, DM fiat was an expected part of the system.  A creative DM could make that a strength, a poor one a liability.  The biggest problem, though, was a lack of universality.  I couldn't port my knowledge of the game as readily, since each DM had so many customizations to fill in the gaps.

What I think 3.x lacks that previous editions had varies.  I think Basic D&D had accessability that no other edition, including OD&D, has yet to better.  The Moldvay Red Box set was the single best release of D&D, IMHO, in that it was all in one box, got you up and running in an hour, and was well-written and fun.  AD&D had a sense of mastery about it...it didn't pretend it was accessible, and promised rich rewards to those brave enough to learn it.  For all of it's flaws, learning it was like an adventure unto itself.  It was something of a journey, really, looking up unfamilar words, researching historical references and discovering mathematical concepts.  

And 2e.....?  Well, it had the color blue, I guess.


----------



## milotha (Mar 10, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> You know, there are plenty of things I can agree with in some of the above posts, or at the very least acknowledge as valid if I don't.  But this is just plain silly.  I remember distinctly under 1e how items became just as obsolete, and after you got that +3 sword, that +1 sword was merely so much junk, for all intents and purposes.  A 3rd level character would cherish that +1 sword, but at 10th level, he was finding them in treasure hordes all the time...and merely considered them sources of x.p. or a 'movable feast', as it were.
> 
> The specialness of magic items is tied to the individual game and the DM, not the edition.  I remember playing in a 1e game where I only got two magic items from 3rd-8th level.  I also remember playing in a 1e game where we got a dozen at 4th.  3e has merely codified a consistent system for creating those items, something that was pretty much a 'invent your own system' concept during 1e for wizard and similar characters.




Yes, at 10th level in 1/2ed, +1 magic weapons were sold all the time, but the amount of game time that it took your character to go from 3rd to 10th level was a lot longer under 1/2ed than under 3.Xed.  That +1 sword had a longer shelf life as a useful weapon in 1/2ed.  Also, note that when you find a weapon, you have no control over what type of weapon you found.  

In 1ed/2ed, if the weapon wasn't your character's chosen weapon type, then you either sold it for the money OR often kept it and adopted it as your chosen weapon.  This often resulted in people using the more esoteric weapons in the game.  Seldom at 1-7th level did GMs allow you to buy a +1 weapon of your chosen type.  

In 3.X ed, I have seen characters sell the +1 weapon and then buy the +1 weapon of their chosen type, or for that matter, create the +1 weapon of their chosen type.  It's simply easier to get your hands on these items in 3.xed with all the magic item creation feats.  This has really changed the tenor of the game as it stands in the core 3.Xed books.


----------



## jessemock (Mar 10, 2004)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> In your opinion what is that special something that the earlier editions had that all of us old gamers are now missing with the new editions?





When was the last time D&D came up with something as neat as a Beholder?  There's your answer.

The new game designers are very competent at mechanics, but you can take a guy like Monte Cook, shake him up and down for a million years, and you'll never get anything like the drow out of him.

In a way, the distinction between the 1st and 3rd editions is minimal:  mechanically, 3rd's a much better way to play--but to play what?  AD&D.  

That's where the fact that the distinction _is_ minimal becomes important:  no one working on D&D today has any real creative fire.  

Plus, the childproof writing sucks.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Mar 10, 2004)

jessemock said:
			
		

> When was the last time D&D came up with something as neat as a Beholder?  There's your answer.
> 
> The new game designers are very competent at mechanics, but you can take a guy like Monte Cook, shake him up and down for a million years, and you'll never get anything like the drow out of him.
> 
> ...




Yeah, why the heck is the succubus in the MM wearing anything at all?  Back in the day you had pictures of topless mermaids among other things.  D&D has definitely gotten child-friendly.

On a more serious note I have to agree with you on the creativity issue.  Most of the new monsters are just stats to fight against rather than something to add fluff to the setting.  The Drow, Mind Flayers, and Githyanki all added something to the game overall.


----------



## WizarDru (Mar 10, 2004)

milotha said:
			
		

> Yes, at 10th level in 1/2ed, +1 magic weapons were sold all the time, but the amount of game time that it took your character to go from 3rd to 10th level was a lot longer under 1/2ed than under 3.Xed. That +1 sword had a longer shelf life as a useful weapon in 1/2ed. Also, note that when you find a weapon, you have no control over what type of weapon you found.
> 
> In 1ed/2ed, if the weapon wasn't your character's chosen weapon type, then you either sold it for the money OR often kept it and adopted it as your chosen weapon. This often resulted in people using the more esoteric weapons in the game. Seldom at 1-7th level did GMs allow you to buy a +1 weapon of your chosen type.
> 
> In 3.X ed, I have seen characters sell the +1 weapon and then buy the +1 weapon of their chosen type, or for that matter, create the +1 weapon of their chosen type. It's simply easier to get your hands on these items in 3.xed with all the magic item creation feats. This has really changed the tenor of the game as it stands in the core 3.Xed books.



Well, my experiences go exactly counter to yours.  In one of my games, the fighter switched up to a better sword three times during the course of one campaign, going from 1st to 8th.  This campaign lasted less than the span of a year.  This would be 1983 or 1984, I believe.  This experience was not unique.  My experience has also been that most people never got their 1e characters all the way to retirement, so their impression of how often items got switched in 1e is based on that.  If you only got a chance at one magic sword and found a magic mace during 2 levels and 2 years of game play, you're certainly going to suffer culture shock when you do the same thing in 2 months of 3e.

Under 3.0, I saw the spell Greater Magic Weapon used much more than the purchase of magic weapons, up until the mid-teens, when the players began leveraging treasure and influence to get weapons that were personalized to them.  As with all of these issue, though, it's a question of the DM keeping a close eye on the treasure that comes into the PCs hands.  In a game where magic items are more rare, what you describe is more likely, but still not certain.  In more magic rich environments, even less so.   Again, under 3e I have epic-level characters who have turned up the chance to use an epic weapon over their preferred weapon, because it wasn't their weapon of choice.  

And this doesn't even touch on the Monty Haul style of gaming which was pretty prevalent during the early 80s, when everyone was playing D&D, as it was the latest craze.


----------



## RFisher (Mar 10, 2004)

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> Wasn't he the one that had unlimited numbers of orc followers that he used to check for traps/etc by sending the orcs in first?




He took a bunch of orc followers with him to the Tomb of Horrors.

I'm pretty certain that he went into the Temple of Elemental Evil completely alone. (His single orc follower on that trip stayed outside.)

But I think the orc followers thing is also a good example of how a cautious character can manage the risks of "save or die".


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 11, 2004)

RFisher said:
			
		

> But I think the orc followers thing is also a good example of how a cautious character can manage the risks of "save or die".




The disposable orc followers thing is also a good example of something most DMs would quash.


----------



## kenjib (Mar 11, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> The disposable orc followers thing is also a good example of something most DMs would quash.




Yeah, but it's funny as heck.


----------



## Phoenix (Mar 11, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Interesting analysis. Certainly the 3E designers wanted you to actually _use_ the abilities you gained at higher levels. A common trick in 1E modules is to deny the use of those abilities.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MerricB (Mar 11, 2004)

There's a certain disjunction between the desire to have a 'realistic' campaign world and the desire for continuing characters. When one reaches levels 9 and greater, there is a substantial amount of time invested in the character and campaign (even with 3E's more rapid rate of advancement). 

Even in original D&D (as played by Gary Gygax and his friends), resurrection was by no means unknown. As he said recently, "I never lost any of my main PCs, although most of them 'died' at least once and were resurrected or wished back to life by their fellow adventurers." (see here)

Conversely, AD&D had the limit on number of resurrections allowed, in two manners: the System Shock roll, and the initial Constitution limit. Of course, it should also be noted that these rules were being developed in an environment of extremely frequent play. For many of us, playing once a week is impossible! 

I tend to think of 3E D&D (as it is presented in the core books) as being a lot like Dragarea from Steven Brust's Vlad Taltos books. (_Jhereg, Yendi_, et al). High stakes, possibility of death, but there's enough magic around to overcome things if needed.

I think it's still true that permanent death is a real possibility at the lower levels of experience. Once play reaches 8th+ level, then _raise dead_ and similar spells become available. After that, the course of the campaign becomes more and more dependent on the DM. In AD&D, characters would retire at 12th level; such is no longer always the case - although I'm sure it happens for many groups because the DM is not happy in running campaigns at the higher levels of experience.

Where 3E really succeeds is in giving the power to groups to make the game their own. There is a huge amount of tinkering that everyone does with the game that makes each campaign very distinct. The prestige classes and feats a campaign makes available are the most obvious points of difference, but the rate of advancement and magic proliferation also vary from game to game, although low-magic isn't quite as easy in 3E without disturbing the balance between the classes.

Of course, it comes at a price: a game where the wealth of options can overwhelm people. I still like AD&D for its simpler structure. Although there are rules that I find nonsensical (the overly complex initiative system for one!), and lesser goals of the game - "we don't do everything, we just do one thing well" - make it still an exceptional RPG.

There is a certain world implied by the AD&D world, and another world implied by the 3E world, both of which have many things in common. One thing that is layered on top of that is the actualisation of those worlds as shown in adventure modules. The GDQ series, the S series, T1-4 and A1-4 define to a large extent what AD&D is about. Personally, I think most of the other AD&D modules diverge from that vision.

Because those module came at the start of things, when they were pretty much the _only_ adventures that could be found, there's much more of a shared conception of what AD&D was (and is, if you still play it!) 

3E lacks that shared vision. Unfortunately, there aren't official adventures that have the same universal appeal (although I think the _Sunless Citadel_ comes closest). Even though Necromancer Games and other d20 System publishers may be publishing excellent adventures, they aren't as universally known as the original AD&D adventures.

That, then, is what I most miss about 1E: the shared experience given by those original adventures.

Cheers!


----------



## jasper (Mar 11, 2004)

That, then, is what I most miss about 1E: the shared experience given by those original adventures... Merric 
The winner and ender of the thread Merric. Jasper cast regenerate on his eye and then slips an invisible ring of regeneration on his big toe. First edition of course.


----------



## RFisher (Mar 11, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Because those module came at the start of things, when they were pretty much the _only_ adventures that could be found, there's much more of a shared conception of what AD&D was (and is, if you still play it!)




Well, my original AD&D groups never used modules. I didn't experience any of the AD&D modules until after I'd stopped playing AD&D (c. 1990). In fact, the current campaign I'm playing in is based on my request that someone run some of those classic modules I never got to experience!

It may be that those modules still influenced our conception of what AD&D was, though. We were certainly aware of them.



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> 3E lacks that shared vision. Unfortunately, there aren't official adventures that have the same universal appeal (although I think the _Sunless Citadel_ comes closest). Even though Necromancer Games and other d20 System publishers may be publishing excellent adventures, they aren't as universally known as the original AD&D adventures.




Argh! Must...resist...ranting...about..._Sunless_...

That module was the last straw that made me swear never to run a module again. (Though I may be starting to reconsider that position again.)



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> That, then, is what I most miss about 1E: the shared experience given by those original adventures.




Good answer.


----------



## El Ravager (Mar 11, 2004)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Argh! Must...resist...ranting...about..._Sunless_...




I'm curious, what was it that you didn't like about Sunless Citadel?  

======
El Rav


----------



## Phoenix (Mar 11, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> There is a certain world implied by the AD&D world, and another world implied by the 3E world, both of which have many things in common. One thing that is layered on top of that is the actualisation of those worlds as shown in adventure modules. The GDQ series, the S series, T1-4 and A1-4 define to a large extent what AD&D is about. Personally, I think most of the other AD&D modules diverge from that vision.
> 
> Because those module came at the start of things, when they were pretty much the _only_ adventures that could be found, there's much more of a shared conception of what AD&D was (and is, if you still play it!)
> 
> ...




Unfortunately this is one of the larger problems of D&D as a whole, in the older editions the prospect of dealing with NPCs of 12th level or so delivered a certain amount of respect from the PCs.  Now when I see the stats for Nerof I think....where did they go wrong?

Altering the experiance point system has made many of the NPCs weaker than their original counterparts.  Because the new system is heavily based around min/maxing (come on, rant away.....) it lends itself to the designing of the 'perfect' character more so than the old rules.

Looking at the stats of the 'legendary' D&D NPCs, I no longer feel the same wonder at their abilities and tales.  Only how indestructable or hopeless they would really be to use in a game.  <Note: add the understanding that all games are different, blah blah>


----------



## Altalazar (Mar 11, 2004)

The only thing I miss is speciality priests.  I think everything else in 3E is an improvement.  While perhaps I could quibble with some changes in 3.5E to some of the spells, that isn't stricly speaking an issue here because they were fine in 3E originally.

I think a lot of the differences people see here have nothing to do with the system and everything to do with how individual games were run by individual DMs.  (As has already been said here).  

I had a blast with 1E and 2E for many years.  I wouldn't trade those for anything.  I still love those old characters.  But I think 3E is a far superior system, and it hasn't done anything to stifle my creativity.  

(And I intend to bring speciality priests back into 3E - I'm already well on my way - I rebuilt my old pantheon of gods that I had set up as my own custom speciality priests back in 2E - maybe one of these days I'll put them up on a web page or something and share them with the world).


----------



## milotha (Mar 11, 2004)

Phoenix said:
			
		

> Looking at the stats of the 'legendary' D&D NPCs, I no longer feel the same wonder at their abilities and tales.  Only how indestructable or hopeless they would really be to use in a game.  <Note: add the understanding that all games are different, blah blah>




I agree.  I think that a lot of this is the fact that a 12th level character was a lot more powerful in 1/2ed than a 12th level character is in 3.Xed for the following reasons:

In 1/2ed, a lot of skills and abilities had no game mechanic associated with them.  As a result, if you wanted to try do one of these actions or skills, you simply turned to the DM and said "I attempt X" and a good DM would make a fair ruling as to how that would play out.  You could do a lot of things that weren't on your chracter sheet by being creative.  If there was no mechanic, you could always make one up.  I played with a lot of players that made up character concepts, with GM approval,  that involved having skills and abilities that weren't written into the rules. 

Really in 1/2ed, besides the spell levels, what changed about your character from level to level - Your AC, THAC0, HP, and Saves.  I'm certain we all saw 12th level fighters with high HP and really low Saves, THAC0 and AC.  There really wasn't much more to being a fighter.  (Yeah, you needed a good weapon) , but you were pretty much made.

Now in 3.Xed, if you want your character to do X, you have to put points in the X skill.  Is this a bad thing?  No, but instead of just saying- I have this great character concept of the survivalist who can swim, hunt, fish, climb, etc - now, you have to divide up those small number of skill points into a number of chosen skills.  As a result at first level, you can have a character that isn't really good at anything.  Yes, there are ways of min/maxing this, but in the end you have a character that can't do a lot of things.   This makes the character *seem* less effective.  Wow, I'm 12th level and I have a 0 in all these skills.   

The same is true for the addition of all the feats.  Look at 12th level there are still all these things I can't do.  In addition, say for a fighter, at 12th level you still can have poor ref and will saves.  

I'm not saying this is a bad thing.  It's just that the flavor of the game has changed.  In 3.Xed if you want to do something now, there's probably a skill for it, a mechanic for it, or a feat required, and if you don't have it, you can't do it.  Whereas in 1ed/2ed- there were many GMs that would just say - your character can do Y skill.  That's reasonable for the concept and class and level.  

I guess that I think that more rules don't equate with more fun.  All these options, and I just feel that the characters in 3.Xed are more limited and more narrowly defined.  It's less creativite thinking and more rules.


----------



## RFisher (Mar 12, 2004)

El Ravager said:
			
		

> I'm curious, what was it that you didn't like about Sunless Citadel?




I'll try to be brief: Too many errors in the stat blocks. Not challenging enough for PCs created by-the-book. Overly contrived elements to demonstrate specific rules. (The key word in that sentence being "overly".) Putting some information in the wrong place. At least one sentence that made me lose any respect for the author. Uninspiring. At least one description of a feature that guaranteed the group would never take the adventure seriously. (I'm partly to blame for not realizing it myself.)

Individually, they aren't major problems, but altogether...

I won't go into details because this thread isn't the place, I don't want to post spoilers, & I've ranted about it elsewhere (rec.games.frp.dnd for one).

Recently I had the thought of converting it to B/X D&D and, for some reason, it seemed like I might like it if I did so. Maybe because I'd be throwing out so much and only keeping the things I did like.


----------



## Melkor (Mar 12, 2004)

> What is 3.0 & 3.5 missing that previous editions had?




Personally (as in - for ME and MY gaming group) - FAST COMBAT is what 3.0 and 3.5 are missing. 

I recently started running a 1st Edition AD&D game when our DM burned out on 3rd Edition and wanted to take a break for a while. We run 1st Edition without miniatures - using sketches on notebook or graph paper to show positioning. My players have repeatedly told me that they really missed how fast combat could be in 1st Edition.

They have also brought up (and tried to use) 3rd Edition tactics like "Readying Actions" and using - which is funny because those options are nice, but they slow down play.

I would also say that 3.0 and 3.5 are missing the "free form" style of play that earlier editions had. In AD&D, if there wasn't a rule, you would make it up - and as long as you tried to be somewhat consistent in your rulings, you could keep the game fair, and fast moving.

I suppose I could add the "newness" of the Genre is missing....When I first started playing AD&D, there were no computer RPGs (very few "computer" games at all - other than those found on Vectrex, Intellivision, and Atari - but I digress)....There were very few other RPGs at all....So every game was an adventure. I'm sure folks new to the game STILL feel that sense of wonder, but now there are so many other outlets that make the genre available, it's not quite the same.....When I started, you had fantasy books, Bakshi cartoons, and bad B-Movie Fantasy. The Drow were new and mysterious, and not Iconized by two scimitars and a magic panther.....The newness made it different.

Anyway, I find good things in all editions of the game, but those are some of the things I think the new editions are missing.

Cheers.


----------



## Gutboy Barrelhouse (Mar 14, 2004)

What is 3.0 & 3.5 missing that previous editions had?

Gygax.

Terse answer but that one word literally speaks volumes.
White Box had "it".
AD&D 1e and 1.5e had "it".
AD&D 2e and 2.5e did not.
D&D 3e and 3.5e do not.
Holmes Basic, Moldvay BX, Mentzer BXCMI and the RC did not.

Some of the editions that don't are great games. Some aren't. No troll intended, YMMV, more power to ya.


----------



## Gutboy Barrelhouse (Mar 14, 2004)

edit - double post. grrr.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 14, 2004)

Melkor said:
			
		

> Personally (as in - for ME and MY gaming group) - FAST COMBAT is what 3.0 and 3.5 are missing.




Interesting. Our combats in 3e are definitively faster than our combats in 2e were. The lack of round-by-round initiative helps immensely, and we've probably gotten better about streamlining things.


----------



## 3catcircus (Mar 14, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Interesting. Our combats in 3e are definitively faster than our combats in 2e were. The lack of round-by-round initiative helps immensely, and we've probably gotten better about streamlining things.




How do you reconcile that with Spycraft's fluid initiative rules, which,  essentially, does create round-by-round initiative, since both Spycraft and 3e are both using the same base ruleset?


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 14, 2004)

3catcircus said:
			
		

> How do you reconcile that with Spycraft's fluid initiative rules, which,  essentially, does create round-by-round initiative, since both Spycraft and 3e are both using the same base ruleset?




When I track initiative in either game, I do so with index cards: one card per person (or group of NPCs), with their initial init number written down at the top right. I sort the cards in initiative order. When someone delays I hand them their card; when someone readies I turn it sideways and reinsert it as their action occurs; and if someone has something that alters their initiative in some other way, I just reinsert their card in the right place in the order. Truth is, I run Spycraft combat just like D&D combat, and haven't had any problems. Of course, that means I might not be doing it correctly.


----------



## milotha (Mar 14, 2004)

I think that some of the GMs out there in the world are missing permanent character death that 12ed had with the System Shock/Ressurection survival rules and the ever decreasing con.  Not to mention that Elves couldn't be raised. I found that in most 1ed/2ed campaigns, the characters really feared death as a result of these rules.  Maybe some of the GMs that are out there complaining about something missing and players not fearing death should bring back these rules.


----------



## Melkor (Mar 14, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> When I track initiative in either game, I do so with index cards: one card per person (or group of NPCs), with their initial init number written down at the top right. I sort the cards in initiative order. When someone delays I hand them their card; when someone readies I turn it sideways and reinsert it as their action occurs; and if someone has something that alters their initiative in some other way, I just reinsert their card in the right place in the order. Truth is, I run Spycraft combat just like D&D combat, and haven't had any problems. Of course, that means I might not be doing it correctly.




That's a clever, and timesaving way of doing things Pirate...

I know every gaming group is different, and I am only speaking for me, and my group - but the initiative thing is the last thing I would mention if I was comparing 1E speed with 3E. Mainly because I never used 1E's initiative rules as written, until recently....before that, we always used the 2E initiative rules, which we could run through VERY fast.....an emphasis on speed is one of the tactics I use to keep my 1E combats moving.

I think what slows down combat in 3E (and again, I'll throw in the caveat FOR MY GROUP, is the chess piece tactical game.....Every player keeping his finger on his "playing piece" while considering every option, and whether every 5' square will cause the dreaded "Attack of Opportunity"....It takes the players way too long to decide on actions....and although the DM would push them into making fast decisions, I couldn't blame them for taking the time to make sure they didn't screw themselves....It's part of what the system is all about....and it can be a lot of fun.

The last game of 3E we ran started with miniatures and a battle grid (or Dwarven Forge pieces), but the last few sessions we didn't use miniatures at all....The DM kept an accurate track of the action on grid-paper behind the DM screen, and described things to the players - this allowed us to act without being quite as tactical, and allowed the DM to keep the action moving....It was a bit faster, and I think it will work great when we start another 3E game. 

Cheers.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Mar 15, 2004)

milotha said:
			
		

> I think that some of the GMs out there in the world are missing permanent character death that 12ed had with the System Shock/Ressurection survival rules and the ever decreasing con.  Not to mention that Elves couldn't be raised. I found that in most 1ed/2ed campaigns, the characters really feared death as a result of these rules.  Maybe some of the GMs that are out there complaining about something missing and players not fearing death should bring back these rules.




I definitely have to agree with you.  I'm not so sure that returning from death should cost you a level but I did like the 1E/2E mechanic that there was a chance that you just couldn't come back at all.  Who cares about how dangerous a situation is when there is a True Resurrection spell that can bring you back as long as someone knows your name. :\


----------



## francisca (Mar 15, 2004)

Melkor said:
			
		

> That's a clever, and timesaving way of doing things Pirate...




You should check out the Initiative cards free from The Game Mechanics.  Click the link below, and scroll about 70% of the way down.

They're great.  Wouldn't want to run my game without them.


Games Mechanics Experiment page


----------



## Silvanos (Mar 15, 2004)

milotha said:
			
		

> I think that some of the GMs out there in the world are missing permanent character death that 12ed had with the System Shock/Ressurection survival rules and the ever decreasing con.  Not to mention that Elves couldn't be raised. I found that in most 1ed/2ed campaigns, the characters really feared death as a result of these rules.  Maybe some of the GMs that are out there complaining about something missing and players not fearing death should bring back these rules.





Then change it?  As a DM that is your call.  In my games people rarely come back to life.  At lower level the God's do not take the time to locate and return the soul.  At higher levels the God's may not be willing to part with their servant, or waste the time going and haggleing over the soul of someone elses servant.  

My players fear death.

What is it called?  Rule 0?
D


----------

