* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : The "Feel" of D&D Started at 05-11-04 04:09 PM by Urn's_Kitchen Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=237607 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Urn's_Kitchen Date : 05-11-04 04:09 PM Thread Title : The "Feel" of D&D As a kid, I used to play 2nd Edition AD&D with my cousin who was the DM. He bought me the basic D&D set when I was about 12. After a ten-year break from all forms of D&D, I re-read my old rules and began playing basic D&D again, with some slight alterations. I’m looking to add some new dimensions to my gaming (plus, the people I play with always want to do these unexpected and sometimes outrageous things, and I get sick of spending all this time trying to figure out a % chance of success on the fly). I don’t know much about 3.x ed D&D other than what I’ve picked up in the forums here. So what I want to know is, does 3.5 ed have the same feel or “vibe” as basic or AD&D? I mean, when you play it, does it still feel like you’re playing Dungeons and Dragons? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : vader42xx Date : 05-11-04 04:15 PM You'll get more answers to that question than you know what to do with and no two of them will agree so I'll throw my 2 cent in first and I'll do my best to keep it objective. You get the same feel in that you're playing a roleplaying game with some of the same names and concepts. You also get to come together as a group and work to solve puzzles, fight monsters, etc. If that's what you're talking about then, yes, you'll get that from 3e and you'll have plenty of fun with it I'm sure. If you mean does the game run the same either rules wise or style wise, then my answer would be no. Third edition is like D&D combined with your favorite "RPG" video game. That itself is not a bad thing if that's what you want. But it's something that basic and Advanced (either 1e or 2e) didn't do. So you'll notice a lot of differences not only in rules but also in feel and style. Those differences may be good things for you and they may not. The only thing you can really do is run (or play in) a few 3e games and get the feel for yourself to decide which you like better. Hope that helps somewhat at least. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : James McMurray Date : 05-11-04 04:25 PM I of course disagree with the video game comparison. :) There isn't anything in the game that smacks of a computer RPG (unless your DM likes to run the enemies as if they were using a bad AI algorithm ;) ). The two have distinctly different rulessets, but the core is the same. You've still got the same dice, classes, monsters, and even most of the OD&D spells made it through to 3.5. Both are equally capable of playing out any number of fantasy scenarios. 3.5 will give you more rules to handle the crazy situations that frequently come up, but OD&D gives you more leeway to handle those sistuations as you see fit. Which of those options is better depends completely on the DM's running style. If you like having both sides of the screen use the same ruleset, 3.5 is for you. For example, all monsters have ability scores listed for them so you can actually find out if you are stronger than an average orc or not. As vader42xx said, your best bet is to try the system out for a few sessions and see which one you prefer. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : Urn's_Kitchen Date : 05-11-04 05:05 PM Good input - Many thanks. I can see there being a problem if I don't go 3.5 in the sense that if I really wanted to devote a lot of time to D&D again, including purchasing new expansions, etc if all I can get my hands on are 3.5 materials. 90% of my campaigns and adventures have always been created by me, but still, it's nice to have the "support" if I need it. As far as video games go, I've always liked D&D better than any RPG. I never liked how in games like Final Fantasy, (or at least FF3 - U.S.) anyone could learn any spell eventually and be the equal of other party members. I see that there are a ton of feats and abilities, etc in 3.5. I hope that they are very specific to class or race, so as not to allow everyone to end up with the same abilities as other PCs, with enough levels. Is that the case with 3.5? I also like the challenge of basic and AD&D. It can take a long time to advance, which makes it seem like your PC really has to earn his advancement. Spells come slowly, thac0 improves slowly, saving throws improve slowly, thieving skills improve slowly - all because it can take several quests to gain a single level. I don't like the idea of becoming to powerful too quickly. WHere's the fun in that? I like my players to turn every corner with extreme caution, because they know that they can't easily defeat just anything. How does 3.5 compare to this? Is that sort of what you mean by the video game comparison? And I hope that I don't run my monsters like a game with bad AI!:) Comments? Thanks again. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : James McMurray Date : 05-11-04 05:40 PM Feats are not restricted (usually) to a specific class, but there is no blurring of the classes (or at least no more than there was between 1e classes. Fighters, Barbarians, and Rangers still fight. Wizards and Sorcerers cast spells. Clerics and Druids cast different spells drawn from higher powers. Advancement is faster in 3.x, but you can change that by simply dividing all XP rewards in half if you want. Typically it will take 13 1/2 challenging encounters for a party of 4 to go from one level to the next. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Xylarthen Date : 05-11-04 05:44 PM Good question , Urns_Kitchen. Why not try 3.5 and see if you like it? There is no need to buy the books for a test run. You can download the 3.5 System Reference Document for free. If you enjoy the test run then consider buying the books. You mentioned that you are uncomfortable as a DM having to deal with the unexpected, and with having to improvise adjudications. You'll have this in 3.5 as well, but to a lesser degree. You may be more comfortable as a DM in 3.5 because a whole lot of the DM's responsibilty and authority to adjudicate has been transferred to either the player or the rules. If this isn't to your tastes then happily, you can always go back to the excellent Basic which you already own, and seek further advice on your DMing skills. Good luck and please let us know how it goes! Xylarthen -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : Urn's_Kitchen Date : 05-11-04 06:04 PM Thanks everyone - you've been very helpful! I would expect that I'll probably take what I like out of 3.5 and combine it with what I like from basic and 2nd edition, with a few of my own twists thrown in for some more flavor. I've had a lot of fun with D&D as a kid and I'm glad that people still enjoy it today! :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : James McMurray Date : 05-11-04 06:05 PM One other plus in 3.5's favor is that it is much easier to jump online and find the answer to any rules questions that may pop up. Of course, you'll also have a few more rules questions pop up, simply because the more complex a system becomes, the more complicated its rules are. Don't get me wrong though, 3.x is not complicated. Once you get the hang of attacks of opportunity and "when can I sneak attack" you'll be fine. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Drexlorn Date : 05-11-04 06:22 PM What's stupid is having an OOP forum and an OOP thread and having 95% of posters and posts speaking of the current edition of the games. We even get rules explanation...:rolleyes: C'mon guys! Give us a break and go play your vid...err your 3.5 ed D&D. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : GreyLord Date : 05-11-04 07:14 PM In answer to your question...NO! Absolutely not. There is a COMPLETE difference of feel between D&D 3e and earlier editions of D&D. Paladium RPG is closer in feel to the older editions of D&D than 3e. Hackmaster is closer in feel to older editions of D&D than 3e. 3e is closer in feel...hmm, to tell the truth the video game analogy actually might be the closest I've seen, as 3e doesn't feel like ANY other RPG system I've ever played. NWN, TOEE, and SW:KOTOR are closer to the feel of 3e (perhaps it's because they were based on d20, in either the D&D rules set or SW set). Obviously there are rather gigantic differences, but they are closer in feel to 3e than anything the earlier editions can do. DL the demos of those if you can to get a general overview of what the rules may feel like (that's a general overview, nothing exact or approximate about it in any way or sense of the meaning). 3e (3.0. 3.5, and even d20) is it's own system, very different from D&D...or more precisely, Gygaxian D&D. Sadly McMurray had to bring up the bane of 3e, Attacks of opportunity. It only took a year for Wizards to actually somewhat clear that up... As another item...3e is NOT, I repeat...NOT compatible rules wise with ANY of the older editions, at least not really. It's about as compatible as the Warhammer RPG or LotR Rolemaster rules are with the older editions of D&D. Here's a good example. Greyhawk Deities are ~20th level in 1e in the GreyHawk adventures. In 3e...EL combined...or effective levels, is more like 60th level. That should in itself tell you something about the power explosion and power leveling, as well as the expected speed of leveling, and generally some other items about the game itself. HOWEVER, if you convert the old Greyhawk 1e deities to 3e, they dont' reflect the same thing as shown in the 3e handbooks, they seem more like...~20 level creatures...sometimes with even lower levels if they had spellcasting classes in their multiclassing. (which means you probably should keep their spellcasting levels just for the heck of it). In otherwords, it doesn't convert. Just for your knowledge. That doesn't mean 3e is not for you. I just don't want you to go in thinking a lot of stuff people are trying to make you think...and then be so disgusted that you think everyone lied to you. It's different for everyone, so I'm giving you a different veiw on the matter. This way you can go in with a different opinion, and a more informed idea of what lies in store for you. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : GreyLord Date : 05-11-04 07:15 PM PS: If one of your PC's wants to see if they have the skill of flying... If they don't have a spell or a REALLY good (and I mean it must be so good as to totally throw the wool over my eyes) reason, their chance of success is 0%. Just so you know. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : James McMurray Date : 05-11-04 08:56 PM NWN, TOEE, and SW:KOTOR are closer to the feel of 3e (perhaps it's because they were based on d20, in either the D&D rules set or SW set). Obviously there are rather gigantic differences, but they are closer in feel to 3e than anything the earlier editions can do. Given that they use 3e rules, it makes sense. But having a video game feel like D&D is not the same as having D&D feel like a video game. If your campaign feels like a video game, its the DM's and the players' fault for playing it like one. In 3e...EL combined...or effective levels, is more like 60th level. That should in itself tell you something about the power explosion and power leveling, as well as the expected speed of leveling, and generally some other items about the game itself. Or it could tell you of a change in the goals of the designers of D&Dg. Maybe they wanted to make it harder for people to go on godhunts and collect Thor's Hammer. :) HOWEVER, if you convert the old Greyhawk 1e deities to 3e, they dont' reflect the same thing as shown in the 3e handbooks, they seem more like...~20 level creatures...sometimes with even lower levels if they had spellcasting classes in their multiclassing. (which means you probably should keep their spellcasting levels just for the heck of it). I'd say this was a problem with 1e, not 3e. In 3e the gods aren't just gods. They're GAWDS! Sadly McMurray had to bring up the bane of 3e, Attacks of opportunity. It only took a year for Wizards to actually somewhat clear that up... IS it WotC's fault that today's gamer an't understand a simple concept? I personally love attacks of opportunity. It lends more realism to battles. It also helps to remove the Final Fantasy feel of of "I swing, you swing" and "I'm untouchable because its my turn." -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Falstaff the Fighter Date : 05-11-04 09:54 PM I mean, when you play it, does it still feel like you’re playing Dungeons and Dragons? Heck no. it feels like what it is, a pen and paper video game simulation that wants to be on a computer so bad it can taste it. Go back, play real D&D, do not give in and play this monstrosity of a game that has the D&D name slapped on it. If you want that crap, go play an online game like Evercrack. 3e is a pen and paper video game, pure and simple. Avoid at all costs, especially if you value old D&D "feel". Check out some of the older games like Basic Set or pick up a Rules Cyclopedia or set of AD&D 1e books or even 2e books (All at a fraction of 3e's cost.) and save yourself the headache and experince of wading through this table top video gaming crapfest. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : James McMurray Date : 05-11-04 10:15 PM Falstaff, can you actually support the claim that 3e is a PnP video game, or are you just making it because you don't like 3e (or like to troll)? The feel of a game is up to the DM. 3e's mechanic no more lead to a video game feel than 1e's mechanics make it feel like Pool of Radiance or Baldur's Gate. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : blackprinceofmuncie Date : 05-11-04 10:56 PM Urn's Kitchen: Hey! Good to hear from another Basic D&D fan. I've been playing D&D for almost 25 years. I started off with the Moldvay Basic set, moved to 1e around the mid 80's, then went back to Basic D&D when 2e came out (though I played in my share of 2e games as well). In my experience, 3e is significantly different in both feel and mechanics from all previous editions of D&D except for late 2e with the Skills and Powers options included. I bought the 3e books when they were released in 2000. I played and DMed 3e for over 3 years. About 8 months ago I realized that 3e just wasn't the same thing as the D&D I grew up playing. The design philosophy behind the rules and the assumptions made about the way players should think about and approach the gaming experience come from a different point of view than that which spawned earlier versions of the game. It felt very very different to me and I wasn't having as much fun with it as I had with previous editions of D&D. To me, it just wasn't as good. Your experience may be different. It's all subjective. However, there are some definitely FALSE impressions that a few previous posters may have left you with that deserve to be cleared up. 1. If you're interested in out of print D&D products they are NOT hard to find. You can buy most AD&D books for much below their original cover price on Amazon.com or eBay. Buying the 5 AD&D core books (PHB, DMG, MM, MM2, FF) will probably cost you less than buying ONE 3rd edition book. The Basic D&D book will probably run you a couple of dollars. Buying the whole set (Basic, Expert, Companion, Masters, Immortal) will probably cost you less than buying ONE 3rd edition book. You might also want to check out the Rules Cyclopedia (a compilation of the BECMI ruleset) which is also dirt cheap when purchased used. If you're interested in 2nd edition AD&D material it's also cheap and easy to find on the internet and in a lot of gaming shops. 2. There are plenty of places to have your rules questions about older editions answered or discuss your gaming experiences online. Check out www.dragonsfoot.org for discussion of all editions of OOP D&D. 3. The idea that rules make a difference in how the game feels is not an invalid point of view. The idea that rules make no difference in how a game feels is not an invalid point of view. All arguments and flaming to the contrary, it eventually all comes down to personal preference. Of course, some preferences DO reflect more favorably on an individual than others. :smirk: ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Urn's_Kitchen Date : 05-12-04 12:26 AM Again, thanks for all the responses. It's hard to put into objective terms what I meant by the "feel" of the D&D of my youth, but your advice has been very helpful. I just hope that 3e hasn't changed D&D so much that it's not as exciting as basic or 2e AD&D. For me, I pretty much play with the same group of people, and when I DM, I try to keep the level of excitement up as much as I can - so that remains constant. That being said, it would have to be the rules of 3e that make it or break it for me. If it's true that compatability between the editions is a problem, then I'm not sure what I'm going to do. I assumed that I'd find things that I'd like and dislike about 3e, and just incorporate what would enhance the experience into what I already play. Or perhaps use 3e as the foundation (if I liked it better) and bring in some of the old rules as I see fit. But again, it all comes down to the "feel." That intangible part of D&D that makes if fun; which is the most important part of the whole experience. There's nothing wrong with Basic or AD&D, although part of me wants to expand the rules, but without drastically altering the core of what I already know. I downloaded all the 3.5 info I could from the WotC site. I'll take a look and see what I think. Thanks for the posts:) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : Falstaff the Fighter Date : 05-12-04 12:27 AM Falstaff, can you actually support the claim that 3e is a PnP video game, or are you just making it because you don't like 3e (or like to troll)? Well, since you can also pull a subjective opinion card on me, I can't really offer any proof you cannot technically disprove by pulling the same card on me, so I guess I can prove it is about as much as you can prove it isn't, since we can both set our definitions of videogames to mean whatever we want. I've said my peace, and it is just as valid as use, since both will inevitably boil down to opinion. However, the original poster asked for opinions and he got mine, so don't even dare to call it a troll (It is no more so than your own post, save you happen to disagree with it.). However, the video games based on 1e and 2e were just that, based on them. Any semblance they had was because the game was based on them, not the other way around (Save for where it was made clear and intentional, such as certain mag articles.). In 3e, on the other hand, I see the artwork, the constant evolution of the development of special attacks learnable only after other special attacks were learned, sudden level up, and and the general reliance on strict rules instead of loose interpretation all as an attempt to appeal to a more video game fan rich audience. The idea that rules make no difference in how a game feels is not an invalid point of view. I disagree. There is an excellent article on this at The Forge (I believe that is the right place.). Rules can make a world of difference in the feel of the game (As it is one of their chief areas of concern.). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : WizO_Paradox Date : 05-12-04 01:08 AM To a point... The "feel" depends on what you bring to it. Many accuse 3e of being a "video game" because most players introduced to it have computer/video game backgrounds with D&D whereas us older edition people have our backgrounds from reading fantasy books first. No matter what anyone says, you won't be able to re-capture that first "magical feeling" you had when you first learned the game. Everyone feels it when they discover The Game. But there is no way to bring it back. But all editions can be boiled down to bash in the door, kill the monster, get the treasure. Having said that, OD&D was my favorite, as that's the one I learned the game on. As I said, my background was reading, and I had the first "choose your own adventure" books when they first came out. I looked at it as an interactive choose your own adventure. With awesome dice. 1st edition, while good, gave me headaches in some places. I hated Gygax for making me have to pull out a dictionary to figure out what he was talking about. And a page and a half talking about dice probabilities? Who needs that? Textbook style aside, it was pretty neat. 1st edition was the first one that I met new people with, and actually played in a group. My comic strip I drew for the club's newsletter was based on our 1st edition games. The complexity of the game... Correction.. the complexity in the rules explinations is what gave us the "Kids must be intellegent to play this game" stereotype way back then. Indeed, you did need to have some good to excellent reading skills to get through the books. 2nd edition came along, and back then there were nay sayers and pooh-poohers, just as there are for 3rd edition. Only back then there wasn't an internet for anyone to go flame about it. Back then we said 2nd edition was "dumbed down". IMO, that was a good thing, as now I could get a clear understanding of the rules and not have to try to figure out complex sentences. 2nd edition looked great, and was in color! (Somewhat.) Gygax himself wrote about 2nd edition that someday there would be a 3rd and even 4th editions of the game, as it's something that continually grows and changes. 2nd edition has lots of options. The best part of it was the different game worlds that came out. Planescape is a personal fave of mine. And there were many options. One lesson I learned from 1st edition was that I didnt' need to buy every book, especially if I didn't plan on using any of the material from it. Sure, if I were going to mine the books for idea, then it would be worth it, but I didn't even crack open Orienetal Adventures for the longest time. The feeling of 2nd edition was that it was very approachable. It lacked the easy introduction to D&D for us readers, but it wasn't a complicated affair to get to as 1st edition was. Because of all the options, dungeons weren't so much part of the adventures anymore. DMs wanted to explore other settings and to a point.. "improvised acting". Then game 3e, and let me say they brought Dungeon back in D&D. I saw the entry for "tanglefoot bags" and started to wonder what my old characters would have done if they had access to it. If you're worried about the "feel", then I can say the "feel" is whatever the DM makes it. If you want to go Hack and Slash, you can. (Any edition.) If you want to pretend you're an elf with blue hair in some sort of anime world, you can. (Any edition.) The so called "rules" (and we're talking all editions) are only a framework of the world and how events are resolved. Some people used Comliness. Others didn't. It's all a matter of personal preference as to which set of rules to use. Because "Feel" is really just what emotions you have while reading whatever edition books you're looking at. It really makes no difference what stack of books is in front of you when you're playing. "You open the door, and three orcs yell as they draw their weapons! They charge right at you! What do you do?" - Quick.... what edition is that? See? Doesn't matter. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : blackprinceofmuncie Date : 05-12-04 01:14 AM Originally posted by Falstaff the Fighter I disagree.... Rules can make a world of difference in the feel of the game (As it is one of their chief areas of concern.). Emphasis above is mine. Of course rules CAN make a difference. I said so, repeatedly. But the rules DON'T make a difference for EVERYONE. The fact is, I DO think the rules make a big difference. Read the top part of my post. But others obviously don't feel the difference. It's all subjective. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : Algolei Date : 05-12-04 01:25 AM I agree with those who say 3E is very video-gamey. When I first started going through the rules, I immediately noticed it. "Simplifying" the rules the way they did seemed like a conscious effort to streamline them for programming purposes. At first I was excited by that possibility, until I tried playing the game and found it was too different from AD&D for my uses. I ended up wishing they'd left the pen & paper game more the way it was, and to hell with their video-gamey stylings. Of course, I viewed it from the standpoint of one whom had spent many hours trying to program 1st edition AD&D onto his old Commodore64. Your viewpoints may vary. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : blackprinceofmuncie Date : 05-12-04 01:32 AM Originally posted by WizO_Paradox Because "Feel" is really just what emotions you have while reading whatever edition books you're looking at. It really makes no difference what stack of books is in front of you when you're playing. "You open the door, and three orcs yell as they draw their weapons! They charge right at you! What do you do?" - Quick.... what edition is that? See? Doesn't matter. That's just not intellectually honest. :nonono: Playing by-the-book combat in 3e and by-the-book combat in B/X D&D are two completely different experiences. Number of times I've had to recalculate my fighter's AC during combat in B/X D&D......0. Number of times I've had to recalculate my fighter's AC during combat in 3e....well let's just say I could afford to buy every wood-grain box set still in existence if I had a quarter for every one of those times. The amount that the rules intrude on your thoughts while gaming certainly CAN affect the feel of the game, and 3e definitely has a LOT more rules to potentially intrude. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : Algolei Date : 05-12-04 01:42 AM [Y'know, one of these days I'm gonna learn how to write a post in under 30 minutes. :rolleyes: :D ] Originally posted by WizO_Paradox No matter what anyone says, you won't be able to re-capture that first "magical feeling" you had when you first learned the game. Everyone feels it when they discover The Game. But there is no way to bring it back. See? I disagree with that, too. I frequently manage to recapture that feeling, but only when I'm playing in 1st edition AD&D. That's because I keep finding myself in the same situation, as a low-level low-power character with similarly low-level low-power challenges. The first time I ever played, I was a human thief with 4 hit points and an AC of 7. We explored a couple of corridors and maybe two rooms, encountered several giant rats, and defeated them after one of our up-front fighters was reduced in hit points--my thief took his place and killed one rat himself, after three or four missed swings. And that was the end of our first gaming session. I've never experienced anything close to that in 3E. In fact, if my characters didn't die in the first gaming session (bad DM! kept throwing CR 2 monsters at our four 1st-level characters!), I would end the session with enough XP to already be 2nd level. The lack of low-level playing is one of my greatest 3E disappointments. Your basic 10-Strength fighter can hit AC 0 (the 3E equivalent is called AC 20) with an attack roll of 19. If he's got a Strength higher than 11, or if he decides to take the appropriate Feat, he can hit AC 0 targets with an 18, 17, or even as low as a 14 (because an 18 Strength gives +4 to hit and damage). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : Falstaff the Fighter Date : 05-12-04 02:03 AM 1st edition, while good, gave me headaches in some places. I hated Gygax for making me have to pull out a dictionary to figure out what he was talking about. And a page and a half talking about dice probabilities? Who needs that? People who are interested in why the game is designed the way it is? People who are interested in designing rules for the game as an expansion? People not content to let others do it for them and shell 50.00 for the next big book just so they don't have to burn a brain cell to think for themselves? You see, to me, that is what made 1e good. It was not written in a simple and easy to understand fashion. it did take a high level of reading skill and no little amount of math skill either, and it did have a reputation for being the playground of smart kids for it, and it was all the better for this. Those who were of low enough intellect to not understand likely would not be the sort that would be welcomed by its players into their game in the first place. It helped weed out the undesirables, so to speak. There were twinks and munchkins to be sure, but at least it did something to alienate those who were likely to swell the ranks of this ilk. Now the game seems designed for the standard slacker teenager with his fifth grade reading skills and his five minute attention span, and the entire game is lowered to their level (Forcing the players of yore to go down with the ship or trade in for an older model.). Nothing was wrong with the way 1e was written. If I didn't understand a word, I looked it up. I didn't wine about it an expect the entire world to lower its standards just to accommodate my lack of intellect. I either learned or I admitted my inadequacy. Instead, it seems like gamers any more expect things to continually get easier and simpler for them just so they don't have to either admit their own faults or struggle to overcome them. The same thing happened to video game-like RPGs when they went from text to graphic, and the same thing is happening to the pen and paper game now. Instead of holding itself to a higher standard, it is lowering itself to make others happy. That is my beef with D&D now. That, to me, is a big part of how the game lost its feel. Every thing is now now now, instant gratification, no patience required, an endless struggle to gain that ever elusive next level and the powers it brings. And who can blame them in a system where the rules are designed to make it seem as if the whole game is a contest to build the chracter you really wanted to begin with? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : Gandalf_Istari Date : 05-12-04 02:32 AM Originally posted by WizO_Paradox To a point... The "feel" depends on what you bring to it. Many accuse 3e of being a "video game" because most players introduced to it have computer/video game backgrounds with D&D whereas us older edition people have our backgrounds from reading fantasy books first. The so called "rules" (and we're talking all editions) are only a framework of the world and how events are resolved. Some people used Comliness. Others didn't. It's all a matter of personal preference as to which set of rules to use. Because "Feel" is really just what emotions you have while reading whatever edition books you're looking at. It really makes no difference what stack of books is in front of you when you're playing. "You open the door, and three orcs yell as they draw their weapons! They charge right at you! What do you do?" - Quick.... what edition is that? See? Doesn't matter. In essence is seems you are saying that the "feel" of the game is dependent upon the perspective or assumptions that the gamer brings to the table. While this is a somewhat valid point, I think you are being much too broad and general in your statements about the generational views of the game. There are many people I know who have played D&D long before the video game trend, and who can easily point to things in 3rd ed. that have moved toward video game style rulesets, particularly in character progression. The "feel" of the game is often determined by the ruleset being used, if the rulesets are being followed faithfully. For example, I have found that when I have run 3rd ed. games, players tend to powergame much more than when I run 1st/2nd ed. games with the same people. The character progression in 3rd edition is simply geared toward power gaming much more than older editions. Now of course, I'm sure someone will argue "But hey its D&D, you can "tone" the game down if you think its too much of a power game!" But I don't think I should have to tone the rules down to have a balanced game to begin with. And I'm not talking about PRC's, supplemental material and rules, either. I'm talking the core rules of 3rd edition, which in my experience both as a player and as a DM tend to lead to power gaming. I would contend that its an inherent part of the rules themselves, when those rules are being followed closely, and that its not just a matter of personal play style that makes 3rd ed. that way. If power gaming is what people want, then hey more power to you. However, I think its rather unrealistic to not look at the effects that rulesets have upon play style. Its one thing to make a simplistic example like "You open the door and the orcs grab their weapons! What do you do?" Its another thing altogether to take an honest look at the rules that are involved in resolving that setting and see whether those rules lend themselves to one type of play style over another. To say that "it really makes no difference what stack of books is in front of you" is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? I mean, are we seriously supposed to accept your assertion that the rulesets have NO bearing upon gameplay, upon the time it takes to resolve things in game, upon the "feel" of the game given the various options that are open to the player or DM depeding upon which edition is being used? I realize you need to tow the corporate line and all that, but at least do so in a manner that is not simply a matter of reductionist argumentation and generalization. But all editions can be boiled down to bash in the door, kill the monster, get the treasure. If thats truly your view of D&D, then I seriously wonder how you could have stayed with the game this long.... That has to be the most simplistic view of RPGing I have ever seen. No matter what anyone says, you won't be able to re-capture that first "magical feeling" you had when you first learned the game. Everyone feels it when they discover The Game. But there is no way to bring it back. In my experience, this is patently false. For most of the game sessions that I have been in, the first few sessions with a new group of players have always been the most tedious, boring, and uncomfortable. It takes time for people to get used to the rules of the game, playing "in character", and learning what their respective roles are. The "magical feeling" for the game of D&D has always come, in my experience anyways, after several game sessions when people's imaginations begin to open up and they start to approach the game with a more informed and enlightened experience. If the magic of the game wore off so quickly, I can honestly say that myself and all the friends I've played with over the years would have quit long ago. Furthermore, it has been my experience that some of the best sessions and that "magical feeling" have come amongst veteran players who've been around the RPG block the last 15-20 years. If anything D&D gets better the longer I play it, more in depth, more interesting, and most importantly, more fun. What you said might be true of Candyland and Chutes and Ladders, but it will never be true of classic games like chess or D&D. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : vader42xx Date : 05-12-04 02:35 AM I more or less agree with WizO_Paradox myself. All the editions are playable and all can give you just about any "feel" that you want. We just each have our favorite (and the one we started with is a big factor for sure). I myself favor 2nd edition as it allows a lot of options and still requires a good deal of thinking to play it well but it's not quite the rules maze that 1st edition was (though I like 1e better than 3e for sure). But you'll enjoy any of the games so long as you stick to the one most important rule...play the one that is most fun for you and your group. As to 3e being like a video game and that coming from what the DM and players put into it I don't fully agree. Any edition can give you any feel but the core 3e leans heavily towards that "video game" feel all on its own. And, in my opinion, the classes are very much blurred in 3e (which is part of the video game feel). Heck, even wizards end up with just as many attacks as rangers had in 2nd edition! The classes are slightly blurred (it really isn't much but it's too much for me), the power level has been jacked through the roof, feats and skills aren't at all exlusive, and every character can end up doing just about anything without any real difficulty. No matter what anybody says 3e has more in common with Diablo than it does with any of the earlier editions. Heck the magic item names almost exactly match those you find in Diablo. But, once more, that doesn't make the game bad, it just makes it bad for me. And I also have to point out that you can change that "video game" feel with a little work. My only point is "right out of the box" 3e has a great deal in common with many "RPG" video games. And I don't think it has anything to do with background of the players. I think it has more to do with what WotC was shooting for. They know that video gamers are a huge market so they targeted them (among others) quite heavily. Anyway, just clearing up what I said above. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : Tenzhi Date : 05-12-04 02:56 AM Originally posted by WizO_Paradox "You open the door, and three orcs yell as they draw their weapons! They charge right at you! What do you do?" - Quick.... what edition is that? See? Doesn't matter. You may as well have said "The" and asked us to give you the edition. What would be the telling factor involves the actual gameplay, which involves reactions of the players to the situation and the subsequent resolution of those actions. Like it or not, there's more to the game than descriptive text. As for the topic... IMO, 3E has largely lost the "feel" (and by "feel" one does not necessarily mean emotion) of D&D. I have been asking myself why that is for quite some time now. And the closest thing to a satisfactory answer I've been able to come up with is that (despite some useful streamlining here and there over previous editions) the game has become bloated with overly complex (note that complex does not necessarily mean "difficult to understand" - though it almost universally means "irritating to implement") rules. In previous editions, you could write down a character on a blank piece of paper within 5-10 minutes and be ready to play; and you could play the game without having to read the entire manual backwards and forwards. The game used to be fast and loose... now everything is so mechanically inter-related, character progression is a test of your micromanagement skills, and combat's complexity lies somewhere inbetween chess and LotR Edition of Risk. Anymore, playing D&D (IMO) "feels" more like playing Rolemaster (all it's missing is basing combat entirely off hundreds of irritating crit tables). However, given the nature of the underlying d20 system mechanics (which do exhibit, IMO, some superiority in design over previous editions), it is a fairly simple matter to make a few alterations and make the game seem more like D&D again. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : Yorlum Date : 05-12-04 08:15 AM I find myself agreeing with just about everyone. Paradox is right, IMO, in saying that you can't recapture that '1st time feel'. Yes, the atmosphere and tone of the game you can recreate, but to me, it was a time of discovery, when nobody knew just how to 'game' the game, instead of playing it. The fighters attacked skeletons with swords, not realizing they only did half-damage; Magic Users chose a variety of spells, not just Sleep and Magic Missile. PC's didn't know the special attacks and defenses of all the monsters on sight. You can't make players unlearn the game. OtOH, 1st ed PC's had a much harder time of things, as Algolei points out. 1st level 3rd ed fighters can hit as well as 5th level 1st edders. No amount of alleged 'monster toughening' can make up for such a quantum leap of power. The game has essentially decided to skip the lowest levels of ability, which to me were always the funnest. Falstaff speaks to the intelligence required to read/understand/play 1st ed. To which, I reply "True". One point I'd like to make though, is that a player doesn't need to worry about probabilities or even vocabulary in most cases, as the parts of 1ed that relied upon and discussed them were in the DMG. So really, you only need 1 'smart guy' in your group [Aside: If any of you read the thread a while back on 'real life stats', you'll see that 85% of the posters think they've an INT of 15+ :) ] One element that seems to have gone by the boards over time is the 'between the scenes' actions of the PC's. In 1st ed, I'd run a 6 hour session that might have 6 combats, lasting 30 mintues or so each. That leaves 3 hours for other activities, which 1st ed did not regulate with skills and feats. 3rd ed, by imposing a regimented system for addressing PC's abilities to attempt/succeed at non-combat actions has actually made them less satisfying as a plan that had to be devised and played out is reduced to a die roll. Another change is the commoditization of Magic. While there was a market to sell items in 1st ed, the rules made it clear that magic was rare and expensive, so players couldn't deck themselves out with glittering goodies between sessions. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : Tenzhi Date : 05-12-04 09:03 AM Originally posted by Yorlum Another change is the commoditization of Magic. While there was a market to sell items in 1st ed, the rules made it clear that magic was rare and expensive, so players couldn't deck themselves out with glittering goodies between sessions. Oh yes, how could I have forgotten about this most glaring issue? Magic so easily bought and sold that a vorpal blade is no longer a wondrous item that you might someday find if you get lucky, now it's as easy as dropping some gold off with your friendly neighborhood spellcaster and voila! It cheapens the magic and makes the fantasy altogether less fantastic. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : diaglo Date : 05-12-04 09:18 AM each edition has its own "feel" i prefer OD&D(1974). 1edADnD or Advanced DnD when it was introduced had a similar but different feel to OD&D(1974). Basic D&D also had a different feel to OD&D(1974). and the trend to change the feel continued with each new version of Basic D&D. from Holmes, Moldvay, Cook, Mentzer, and Alliston 2edADnD had a different feel from 1edADnD and even more different from Basic D&D and OD&D(1974) the 2000ed has yet another different feel and 3.11ed for Workgroups even more different. for me each has gone further and further away from what D&D should be. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : James McMurray Date : 05-12-04 11:24 AM I assumed that I'd find things that I'd like and dislike about 3e, and just incorporate what would enhance the experience into what I already play. Or perhaps use 3e as the foundation (if I liked it better) and bring in some of the old rules as I see fit. You can do that. For example, if you like the sorcerer, create a class with the same XP progression as a magicuser and give him a limit of spells known. If you like the way skills are handled, give each class the skill points they would have if they were 3e characters. You will have to guesstimate skills for monsters, but that usually comes down to just spot and listen, with some monsters needing other skils to match their abilities. I've said my peace, and it is just as valid as use, since both will inevitably boil down to opinion. However, the original poster asked for opinions and he got mine, so don't even dare to call it a troll (It is no more so than your own post, save you happen to disagree with it.). I didn't call it a troll, I asked if you were trolling. :) I've heard several people say that 3.x feels like a video game to them, but I've never heard any reasons. I'm curious as to what has given people this impression, because I've never felt that way about it. In 3e, on the other hand, I see the artwork, the constant evolution of the development of special attacks learnable only after other special attacks were learned, sudden level up, and and the general reliance on strict rules instead of loose interpretation all as an attempt to appeal to a more video game fan rich audience. Cool, I can understand that. I prefer to think of it as being more customisable per character, and giving a faster progression because some people don't like to be stuck below level 6 for years. I've known several DMs (and played with some of them) that decrease XP awards by half (one even by 1/3). That slows advancement considerably. WizO_Paradox: all editions can be boiled down to bash in the door, kill the monster, get the treasure. Man, I'm sorry to learn your gaming experiences have been like that, especially if its happened for the past 20+ years. But then again, if that's how you like to play, its all good. :) I hated Gygax for making me have to pull out a dictionary to figure out what he was talking about. LOL!! Gygax was nothing if not a man who loves using the biggest and most obscure words he could find. :) The first time I ever played, I was a human thief with 4 hit points and an AC of 7. We explored a couple of corridors and maybe two rooms, encountered several giant rats, and defeated them after one of our up-front fighters was reduced in hit points--my thief took his place and killed one rat himself, after three or four missed swings. And that was the end of our first gaming session. You can do the exact same thing in 3e. Roll your stats with 3d6 and disregard the "first level gives max hit points" rule. Your AC will be 13 instead of 7, but it works out the same mathematically, its just easier to figure out if the rat hit or not. I've never experienced anything close to that in 3E. In fact, if my characters didn't die in the first gaming session (bad DM! kept throwing CR 2 monsters at our four 1st-level characters!), I would end the session with enough XP to already be 2nd level. It sounds to me like your DM was either inexperienced with the CR system, or was expecting you to back off and rest at some point. Since I have no info, I can't tell which that was. The lack of low-level playing is one of my greatest 3E disappointments. Your basic 10-Strength fighter can hit AC 0 (the 3E equivalent is called AC 20) with an attack roll of 19. If he's got a Strength higher than 11, or if he decides to take the appropriate Feat, he can hit AC 0 targets with an 18, 17, or even as low as a 14 (because an 18 Strength gives +4 to hit and damage). Which is why I suggested using 3d6 for stats. BEsides, what are you doing putting first level characters in 1e up against AC 0 creatures (unless its a plot device and the characters aren't supposed to be able to win). Falstaff: You see, to me, that is what made 1e good. It was not written in a simple and easy to understand fashion. it did take a high level of reading skill and no little amount of math skill either, and it did have a reputation for being the playground of smart kids for it, and it was all the better for this. Those who were of low enough intellect to not understand likely would not be the sort that would be welcomed by its players into their game in the first place. It helped weed out the undesirables, so to speak. There were twinks and munchkins to be sure, but at least it did something to alienate those who were likely to swell the ranks of this ilk. Ah, now we get to (one of) the crux(es) of the problem. 3e is no longer "elite." I actually prefer it that way. It means that hopefully my son won't be picked on by jocks because he carries a D&D book to school. Instead he'll get to run a few of them through some games. IMX "elite" is just what we called ourselves to make us feel better about getting picked on for being smarter and playing "that devil game." Gandalf_Istari: But I don't think I should have to tone the rules down to have a balanced game to begin with. Some would say they shouldn't have to tone the rules up in order to have a higher powered game . Tenzhi: Anymore, playing D&D (IMO) "feels" more like playing Rolemaster I wish! I'd love to get my players interested in a Rolemaster game. 3E is nowhere near as complex or realistic as Rolemaster is. Yorlum: 3rd ed, by imposing a regimented system for addressing PC's abilities to attempt/succeed at non-combat actions has actually made them less satisfying as a plan that had to be devised and played out is reduced to a die roll. I hold an opposite viewpoint (never would have guessed, would you? ;) ). I feel that the addition of a codified set of skills is great. Take diplomacy for instance: in older editions you rolled straight charisma checks on the reactions table. Now you can actually apply skill to the roll, meaning if you want to be a better diplomat then you can be without having to hunt down the magic necessary to increase your charisma. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : Lord_Anthrax Date : 05-12-04 12:17 PM Thread Title : Re: The "Feel" of D&D Originally posted by Urn's_Kitchen So what I want to know is, does 3.5 ed have the same feel or “vibe” as basic or AD&D? I mean, when you play it, does it still feel like you’re playing Dungeons and Dragons? That depends on how you define D&D. If you define it as having artificial and senseless limitations on race/class/levels and their mixing(no Dwarven Wizards, no Elf Fighters above level X), then no, it is not D&D. If you define D&D as not having options for various different types of characters depending on how you customize them(all Fighters have the same class abilities and differ only in choice of arms and armor), then no, it is not D&D. If you define D&D as a fantasy role-playing game based around cooperative group play of a diverse and complimentary group of characters who seek fortune, glory and excitement by battling diverse creatures in diverse locations, then yes, it is D&D. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : rogueattorney Date : 05-12-04 01:34 PM Thread Title : Re: Re: The "Feel" of D&D Originally posted by Lord_Anthrax If you define D&D as a fantasy role-playing game based around cooperative group play of a diverse and complimentary group of characters who seek fortune, glory and excitement by battling diverse creatures in diverse locations, then yes, it is D&D. But then, by that definition a few dozen other Fantasy RPG's produced over the last 25+ years are also D&D. I suppose many players of G.U.R.P.S. Fantasy and Warhammer would be shocked to learn they were actually playing D&D. To the topic at hand. The rules are different. The differences effect game play. It's as simple as that. You can mimic the old edition feel by playing the new edition, but it takes effort. If you want to play the game you grew up playing, then play the game you grew up playing. That's what I do. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : Hobbygoblin Date : 05-12-04 01:56 PM I think 3.x has a cinimatic feel to it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : Yorlum Date : 05-12-04 02:01 PM I keep waiting for the introduction of "Power Pills" so my PC can turn around and start gobbling up Pinky, Inky, Blinky, and Clyde.... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 35] Author : James McMurray Date : 05-12-04 02:32 PM Originally posted by Yorlum I keep waiting for the introduction of "Power Pills" so my PC can turn around and start gobbling up Pinky, Inky, Blinky, and Clyde.... Yep, because obviously D&D and Pacman have so much in common. :rolleye: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 36] Author : Gandalf_Istari Date : 05-12-04 02:35 PM Thread Title : Re: Re: The "Feel" of D&D Originally posted by Lord_Anthrax That depends on how you define D&D. If you define it as having artificial and senseless limitations on race/class/levels and their mixing(no Dwarven Wizards, no Elf Fighters above level X), then no, it is not D&D. If you define D&D as not having options for various different types of characters depending on how you customize them(all Fighters have the same class abilities and differ only in choice of arms and armor), then no, it is not D&D. Spoken like a true neophyte or sycophant! Yep, there were no reasons whatsoever for class/level/race restrictions of limitations whatsoever. It was all just arbitrary! :looloo: :censored: Did you play Basic through 2nd edition at all? If you define D&D as a fantasy role-playing game based around cooperative group play of a diverse and complimentary group of characters who seek fortune, glory and excitement by battling diverse creatures in diverse locations, then yes, it is D&D. That definition is so broad that Rogueattorney was correct in pointing out that it can be applied to tons of games that are not D&D. If rules mean nothing, then there really are no differences between an RPG, a boardgame, a wargame, a videogame, etc. I mean, I could roleplay monopoly if I wanted to, form economic alliances and strategies with other players, etc., and call that a roleplaying game by that definition you gave. Furthermore, to suggest that the rules don't really matter ignores the marked difference between rulesets even within the same genre of games. If rules mean nothing, then a game in which characters receive +10 to all stats at character creation, 100 HP per level, and 12 feats per level, is the same game as one in which characters gain only 3d6 for stats, 1d8 hp per level, and feats only every couple of levels. Now that of course is an exagerated example, however it shows that there are certainly balance issues to be considered within any ruleset. To say the rules don't matter is preposterous. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 37] Author : Yorlum Date : 05-12-04 02:38 PM Originally posted by James McMurray Yep, because obviously D&D and Pacman have so much in common. :rolleye: Its a Joke, James... C'mon, I respect your views, though I don't agree with them. Lighten up! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 38] Author : Tenzhi Date : 05-12-04 03:23 PM Originally posted by James McMurray Yep, because obviously D&D and Pacman have so much in common. :rolleye: Sure - you control a character who has to avoid or kill various enemies and collect enough of something to get to the next level. As you achieve higher levels the enemies you face will become tougher. In the interim you'll occasionally find a Power-ful item to help you defeat your enemies. If Pacman were 3E there'd be half as many dots to collect for each level and you could get a power pellet anytime you want by inserting a coin and pressing a button. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 39] Author : James McMurray Date : 05-12-04 03:23 PM Sorry, I just get a bit miffed at all the people that seem to think that 3E is somehow a video game. Having run and played all 4 editions of our beloved hobby, I can tell you that the feel of my campaigns is no more video game-ish than it was back when I was running OD&D. Gandalf_Istari: Can you enlighten us as to what those reasons were, and why they didn't just balance humans against demi-humans instead of trying to balance them with arbitrary level limits? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 40] Author : James McMurray Date : 05-12-04 03:27 PM Originally posted by Tenzhi Sure - you control a character who has to avoid or kill various enemies and collect enough of something to get to the next level. As you achieve higher levels the enemies you face will become tougher. In the interim you'll occasionally find a Power-ful item to help you defeat your enemies. If Pacman were 3E there'd be half as many dots to collect for each level and you could get a power pellet anytime you want by inserting a coin and pressing a button. Ah, so its the same as every prior edition. They're all just a different version of Pacman. And I hope you don't think that "power ups"* are new to 3e. OD&D had its PrCs. 1e had a PrC. 2e had kits and skills and powers. 1e and 2e had pseudo feats in the fighting style proficiencies (maybe that was just 2e). I'm glad to know I've been playing pacman for the last 20 years. Its a miracle my hands are callused from the joystick. :D * I assume you mean feats and prestige classes -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 41] Author : Tenzhi Date : 05-12-04 03:35 PM Originally posted by James McMurray * I assume you mean feats and prestige classes Actually, I'm referring to magic items. Hence the addendum regarding "if pacman were 3E." -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 42] Author : Yorlum Date : 05-12-04 03:35 PM Originally posted by James McMurray Gandalf_Istari: Can you enlighten us as to what those reasons were, and why they didn't just balance humans against demi-humans instead of trying to balance them with arbitrary level limits? IMO, the 1st ed Demi-Humans all had special attributes that needed to be balanced against the lack os such abilities for humans. Infra/Ultravision alone is a major plus in a dungeon, then there is the elven +1 with bows and swords, Dwarven and Gnomish bonuses against Goblinoids, attribute swapping, elven immunity to charm, sleep and paralysis, etc. Demi-Humans could multi-class, and elves could cast Magic User spells in armor. Now, in a game without NWP, how do you provide a minus to the Demi-humans to match these plusses? Answer, Class restrictions and level limits. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 43] Author : Falstaff the Fighter Date : 05-12-04 04:26 PM How were race / level limits nonsensical? That was simply the peak of demi-human ability. That was the best of their best. They simply did not have as much potential as humans, but they had other abilites to help them. Besides, even 3e uses this system of checks and balances with their level equivalency crap, only they do not give any in-game reason for it. Certain races are dumber simply because they need to be to balance their other power, not because they are more limited in potential (Sometimes even within the same species.). In 1e and 2e, demihumans were limited because they were races without man's potential who exceled better in some proffessions than others because it matched their general, racial prefrences. In 3e, all races must equal to be exactly the same, even of some have artifical, reasonless rules imposed on them limiting their ability in all of their chosen pursuits just because if they didn't, they might actually be natruallt superior to some other race (And that's not PC. so we can't have that.). 3e uses the same techniques, but implements them without thought of reasoning or flavor, using them just for the sake of balance and balance alone, a completely metagame based reason without even a nod for in character explanation, and that is ten times as stupid as anything 1e or 2e did. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 44] Author : James McMurray Date : 05-12-04 04:41 PM Originally posted by Tenzhi Actually, I'm referring to magic items. Hence the addendum regarding "if pacman were 3E." Ah, so then I have been playing Pacman for 20 years. Interesting. Now, in a game without NWP, how do you provide a minus to the Demi-humans to match these plusses? Any number of ways. Give them experience point penalties, stat penalties, etc. Putting level limits on them was not a balancing factor, because advancement was so slow you almost never hit your limit, especially if you were multi-classed. I much prefer the method for balancing races against one another in 3.x. Besides, even 3e uses this system of checks and balances with their level equivalency crap, only they do not give any in-game reason for it. You mean besides the fact that they start out stronger? A normal everyday Bugbear is much stronger than a normal every day human. It is harder to challenge him (thus the fact that he gets less XP than a character of his class and level would normally receive). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 45] Author : skathros Date : 05-12-04 05:39 PM doesnt this "3E/3.5/d20Fantasy is the best thing since sliced bread" thread belong somewhere other than the OOP section? On the subject of racial/class level limits: It not only served as a balancing factor, but it maintained a certain humanocentric element to the game. Class restrictions but in place certain racial archtypes...Dwarven Magic-Users (i think the kids call 'em Wizards, now)? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 46] Author : Gandalf_Istari Date : 05-12-04 06:50 PM Originally posted by James McMurray Gandalf_Istari: Can you enlighten us as to what those reasons were, and why they didn't just balance humans against demi-humans instead of trying to balance them with arbitrary level limits? The reason I didn't include the thinking that went into race/class/lvl restrictions and limits was because I assumed that people who claim to have played "all the editions" would know from actually reading the books the reasons that were given within them, or the reasons that could be inferred from the books. However, since it seems that subtle bit of sarcasm wasn't picked up on, I'll name a few, some of which others have already pointed out. -Demi-humans had attribute bonuses with few attribute penalties. -Demi-humans also had special abilities that could give a great advantage to a low level character in comparison with a human one. -Demi-humans were able to multiclass, something humans couldn't do, so there was a need for caps, otherwise demi-human PC's and NPC's alike would simply became too powerful for any type of balanced game play, as they would be able to eventually master every class if they so chose. -Demi-humans lived much longer than humans, especially dwarves and elves, and so without any caps on class or level, demi-human characters, especially NPC's, could reach nearly unlimitied levels and classes as they would have enough time to invest into multiple professions -Class restrictions were not arbitrary in that many races had inherent bonuses or abilities that geared them toward certain classes and away from others. In other words, class and level restrictions often times defined the races, at least to some extent. -Demi-human characters were not supposed to be the norm for the game, humans were. This was in part to serve as a means to keep the demi-human races special and fantastical, rather than common. As someone rightly pointed out, it was to keep the game human-centric. Without class/level restrictions, why not play a demi-human? They have all the advantages over a human character. In every 3rd ed. campaign I have run, nearly the entire party consists of demi-human multiclassed characters. When I run 1st/2nd ed. games, people go with humans more often than not, with only a few demi-humans being included in the party. People tend to powergame and munchkin much less when there are level and class restrictions, in my experience. -part of the need for class and level restrictions, as well as restricting multiclassing to demi-humans, is to maintain some kind of realistic view of how many professions one person can possibly take up and master in a lifetime and according to personal potential. If we look at real life, how many people "cross-class" and become professional doctors, lawyers, and soldiers? There's a reason that someone who becomes a lawyer will most likely never also become a brain surgeon as well as a Navy Seal, and thats because there are limits to how much one person can learn and specialize in. Now of course, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with all of these reason, I was merely pointing out the fact that those restrictions and limitations were not arbitrary or necessarily non-sensical. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 47] Author : Incenjucar Date : 05-12-04 07:44 PM Frankly, the lack of the Mensa-esque "We are enfatuated with our own mental superiority, and angry that lesser beings pushed us around, therefor, we get a game that nobody else knows how to play. Bwahahah!" is a bit ugly. The real difference between 0e (Which is still just a bad ripoff of Chainmail) and 3e is the -generation-. 3e is full of video-gamers, because they went and turned D&D in to a video game a hundred times in OLD editions. If 0e was invented today, it would -also- have been full of video-gamers. Thus why people from older editions can so often say that the feel of their game hasn't changed. The game is how you make it. Yes, in 3e, characters are seemingly more powerful; just means you have to throw more powerful challenges at them. So very hard to figure out. Yes, the game assumes a very high level of magic. So you can ignore that for the most part. Is it like Diablo? No. Diablo stole ideas from D&D's Monty Hauls. Notice that there was a -2e- Diablo game for D&D? Didn't 2e also introduce UFOs to the game? As for demi-human level restrictions, they were silly; Wouldn't it make a -tad- bit more sense to penalize them WHILE their abilities mattered, rather than after they were much less important due to spells and magic items? The feel of D&D is what you make it. I've never gotten in to powergaming, through 2e or 3e. Heck, I was -more- trouble in 2e, when I had a tendancy to ruin the entire adventure by knocking towers down or setting forests on fire. I've since become a bit more diplomatic and less destructive. D&D is D&D. The rules just help you play it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 48] Author : James McMurray Date : 05-12-04 08:22 PM Gandalf_Istari: 1) If you are trying to be sarcastic, you need to realize that tone does not travel well on the internet. Perhaps you would instead like to use and tags. It lets people know what you mean. Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps its been over ten years since I read a 2e book, and longer since 1e? 2) All of those reasons are crap. They don't do what they were intened to do because the races are still too powerful at lower levels and upper levels are dan near impossible to reach unless you're a thief who gains experience every time he trips on a gold piece (at least in 2e). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 49] Author : Drexlorn Date : 05-12-04 09:34 PM And again we entered in edition wars and no mod would stop it... Why ? Because the moderation on this board is totally absent and stoooopidly managed. We are in the OOP ground and the mod coming in is against us, old schoolers. More, it's a minority of 3e players in the debate and they still have the highest support. They'll never learn. It's a no return. :banghead: I want to say to those old ed fans that your arguments and texts were pure gold. Anyone not already lobotimized and subdued to Wotc would accept your words as fully reasonnable. Congrats ! :thumbsup: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 50] Author : GreyLord Date : 05-12-04 09:41 PM Hmm, how this thread has grown. A couple of comments, now that the thread has changed to a different topic on many levels...before I get into an answer that is yet, even more off topic. 1) I find it funny that people say that those playing 3e are no longer geeky, that it is no longer designed for the "nerd" group. Just so you know, 1e was excessively popular. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE knew what D&D was, and most people (or if you want to get high school, jocks, preps, nerds, etc.) had played D&D. That's NOT a game designed for only nerds and geeks...but I suppose one would have had to live in that era to know this. Interesting enough, NOW instead I find that it IS the ones that many would label nerds or geeks that play RPGs. Not that these are the ONLY ones who play, but I find that the people who play NOW and go to the hobby stores are not in the high percentages of what I would classify as everyone. Everyone seems to be into items such as the latest movie, such as the Lord of the Rings movies, or the Spiderman movies (comic book and fantasy movies are making a killing right now, aren't they). However, most are not playing RPG's interestingly enough. I do see a great deal of overlap between the Computer Gaming groups and the RPG groups (RPG in general, not just confined to D20 games), but that's been around since the early 90's and 2e. The popularity of 1e started to die of around the mid eighties in my opinion, and that's when it grew more into having a stronger stigma of being only for the 'smart' people. When I was younger though, in the late seventies and early eighties, just about every male I knew, and even those I didn't know but would meet, had played D&D. Females on the otherhand, I don't think it's EVER been popular among them. 2) Of course to say that earlier editions required brainpower, and those playing 3e now are more stupid in their brainpower, is, in my opinion, rather absurd as well. Kind of insulting even. I find those playing 3e are just as intelligent as those playing or who have played previous editions. 3) As for whether or not rules flavor the game or not, or have an influence on the feel of the game. I'd say yes. If you disagree, then why do you choose to play D&D of ANY edition. Afterall, if rules have NO influence, you might as well be playing vampire the masquerade, or Warhammer as you may be playing D&D...afterall, if there's no difference in the feel of the game according to you, there's no reason to be actually playing D&D or any other specific ruleset. Heck, you could just sit down with your own rules, OR NO rules (pure roleplaying without any dice or rules whatsoever other than the rules of acting and roleplaying the situation). If you are choosing D&D of ANY edition, you do so because you enjoy the influence or the feel that it brings to the game. If you deny this, then either you're crazy for forcing yourself to stick to one system...OR, your being absurd for the sake of being absurd. Now for the REAL commentary, after my own comments. James McMurray asked I've heard several people say that 3.x feels like a video game to them, but I've never heard any reasons. I'm curious as to what has given people this impression, because I've never felt that way about it. I can't vouch for everyone, but there ARE some pointers that have been prevalent. Ironically, my take will use the Diablo games. Ironic that Diablo was originally based off of D&D in many respects, BUT when D&D 3e came out, there were many portions which were integrated seemingly between Diablo 2 and D&D 3e. In this, many could point out these similarities. I will do so on a few of the items to show how one MIGHT (emphasis on might) interpret it to be more of a video game on Pen and Paper. The first item one must see to is the Experience and Level Dependent benefits. In Diablo, and Diablo 2, characters level up much quicker than they do in earlier editions of D&D. They require around 500 to 1000 XP to 2000 XP for the first few levels. After that the characters level up at approximately 900 points or so per level (or, 800 to 1000 x the level of the character to get to the next level). This IS a rough approximation of the Diablo level up system. Note however, the similarities between the Diablo leveling up system...and...D20 3e. Next, in Diablo, Much of the to hit, and Armor bonuses are given in +. Hence it is a +90 to attack, and a +20 to armor, and other such bonuses. If one gains items, these bonuses stack. So if I get a Raptor's sword of Death that gives a +30 to hit, and a +20 to damage, As well as having a strength bonus that gives a +10 to hit and a +12 to damage, and a level bonus of +15 to hit and a +14 to damage my totals for attack and damage would be... 30+10+15 = +55 for attack bonus, and 20+12+14 = +46 damage bonus. In addition each of my skills adds bonuses, so If I had a skill level of 5 in Swords that gave me a +25 to hit and a +30 to damage that would give me a +80 for my attack bonus and a +76 for my damage bonus. This is then going against an enemies Armor to see if I hit. If they have an Armor bonus of 92 Then, feasibly the computer does it's random number (like a dice roll, but it is a computer algorithm) and adds my +80. If it is over 92 I hit, under, I miss. Sounds familiar? It should, it's the D20 system in a nutshell. The D20 has lower numbers however, probably because it's using a bse 20 system instead of a base 1000 system (Big difference in number there). So the first similarity begins in the first 3 chapters of D&D 3e. Skipping skills as that would be too long to cover them all in the depth needed, I'll move to feats. Looking at the similar feats in Diablo...we get immediately Ambidexterity Spring Attack Endurance Whirlwind Attack Power Attack Improved Bull Rush Run toughness All that are similar, if not exactly, comparable to the the skills/feats of Diablo 2. On top of that, this is ONLY ONE class of diablo 2, the Barbarian. Seeing that the Classes of Diablo 2 have a LOT fewer skills/feats than are available in D&D, it strikes one as odd that they are so...similar. This is MORE similiarity than simple, oh they both have weapons that are the same to all fantasy games. Note also that some of the numbers quoted for Diablo and Diablo 2 are NOT exact, and used only as an example to illustrate the similarities between the two systems. It should be noted, in terms of feats Diablo 2 actually had the NAMES specific to their classes before D&D 3e was out, or had a copyright on many of them. Luckily D&D 3e didn't have mana and a mana regeneration system, or if Blizzard North had wanted to they could have laid a lawsuit (which is doubtful they would anyways, considering I think they have an amicable relationship with the D&D rights holders). Looking at these (and note these are ONLY a few) similarities, I am certain you can see how some MIGHT see D&D 3e as being drawn closer to Video Games, and the Diablo series more specifically. In fact some might say there are enough similarities to make a strong case of it, or at the least, something that should make people go hmmmm. BUT, you should also know, it could be coincidence. It's not up to me to dictate what it is or is not based off of, but just so you can understand some of the underlying reasons why some might think 3e is more designed for video gaming audiences, or that it is like a video game itself, I've listed the tip of the iceberg for you. Note that most of the items listed above may or may not reflect my own opinions. PS: To clarify, the numbered items above the video gaming answer to the question DO reflect my opinions. PPS: Another edit to say, in Diablo and D2, though the system DOES go with a similar 1000xlevel =XP to next level system, the actual system is more exponential algorithmic in nature, and hence, in higher levels, it still has a similar relationship, but unlike 3e, the numbers to the next level get far greater, to the point where you'll need millions of XP to attain the next level. Just as an aside and an edit. PPPS: Can anyone name where I get the ideas to do multiple PS at the end of the post. For...oh...0 bonus points! :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 51] Author : blackprinceofmuncie Date : 05-13-04 12:26 AM Originally posted by Incenjucar The real difference between 0e (Which is still just a bad ripoff of Chainmail)..... Yes, in 3e, characters are seemingly more powerful; just means you have to throw more powerful challenges at them. So very hard to figure out...... Didn't 2e also introduce UFOs to the game? Comments like this seriously damage your credibility. It's obvious you're talking out of a non-oral opening. If this represents your knowledge of OOP D&D and the differences between it and the current edition, then you've just demonstrated to anyone who really DOES know what they're talking about that you're completely ignorant of the historical facts on this subject. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 52] Author : Falstaff the Fighter Date : 05-13-04 12:39 AM Gandalf's Letter in Fellowship of the Ring is my guess. And what the heck is 0e? Is that supposed to mean original D&D? And it is supposed to be a rip off of Chainmail? Um, no. And the first known refrence to a UFO I remember seeing was in Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 53] Author : Gandalf_Istari Date : 05-13-04 01:06 AM Originally posted by James McMurray Gandalf_Istari: 1) If you are trying to be sarcastic, you need to realize that tone does not travel well on the internet. Perhaps you would instead like to use and tags. It lets people know what you mean. Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps its been over ten years since I read a 2e book, and longer since 1e? Did you happen to miss the emotes I put in that part of the post? Did you happen to fail to note how I was restating the position of the original poster with italics and exclamation points? How I stated that the original poster's point was that of a true neophyte or sycophant? Did you miss my innocent question to the original poster about whether he had even played Basic through 2 ed.? If you cannot recognize sarcasm in my post that was being very blatant about it, sorry. I'll try and do better and be more sarcastic for you next time so you get it. :devil: Also, while I can understand that you may not have remembered the reasons that were given, my original post was directed at the, ahem, original poster , not you. Therefore, the attempt at sarcasm, as poor as it may have been, was not directed at you in the first place. 2) All of those reasons are crap. They don't do what they were intened to do because the races are still too powerful at lower levels and upper levels are dan near impossible to reach unless you're a thief who gains experience every time he trips on a gold piece (at least in 2e). You asked for reasons. I gave them. As I clearly stated in my post, I wasn't necessarily defending all of the reasons that were given, but rather was pointing out that the race/class/level restrictions were given some justifications and weren't put in merely arbitrarily or nonsensically. Arbitrary means something that is done without reason, by whim, with no justification whatsoever. As there were reasons given for the inclusion of race/class/level restrictions, then they aren't arbitrary now are they? ;) Whether you think they are crap or not, whether you think those reasons work or not, is another matter entirely. I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand that distinction either. As for your reason that they are crap, well I'd have to disagree, at least with the two reasons that you gave for why they are crap. First of all, the whole point of taking a demi-human multiclass was to start out with a bit of a power burst in comparison with human characters. However, those early advantages were out weighed specifically by the fact that the player would know there was a certain point at which his demi-human character would no longer be able to advance. This kept the gross abuse of early demi-human advantages from being used all the time like they are in 3rd ed. Why play a humam when you can have a character that has inherent advantages as well as unlimited class and level options? With the restrictions in place however, the player could choose an early boost in abilities but sacrifice advancement later on, or they could play a human, have fewer abilities at the early stage, but have advancement in their chosen profession with no cap as long as they met the prime reqs and were still breathing. Its the same rationale that was used for class choices. Fighters and thieves were easy to level, while spellcasters were much tougher. However, the difference in power at high levels was considerable. See, it was a tradeoff, to have advantages and disadvantages to playing different classes and races. Now with 3.xx though, why wouldn't a player choose a demi-human over a human character? They start with all the advantages AND they can advance to any level. There are no checks or balances in place at all there. Perhaps people will play humans for roleplay reasons, /shrug, but its been my experience with 3.xx that people go for the numbers and not for the fun of roleplaying much of the time. However, when I switch to a 1st to 2nd ed. campaign, I have seen the same people choose to play humans much more often, because they don't want to hit a level cap and don't think that getting the early demi-human advantages is worth losing unlimited leveling. Furthermore, the level limits were kept as game balance points for more than just the sake of players. NPC elves live as long as PC elves. If they live 1000 years, there's no reason that in the course of that time they couldn't take as many classes and levels as they want. So, inherent level restrictions were placed upon certain races for certain classes to keep every long lived race from being demi-gods simply as a matter of their longevity. Also, I never experienced demi-humans as being too powerful at lower levels. Somewhat more powerful than their human counterparts at low levels certainly, but that was balanced as things progress because they would hit level caps. Why you think these level caps could not be reached is beyond me, as many of them were quite low and I saw them reached numerous times. Of course, thats from 25 years of D&D gaming, so maybe you haven't played as much as I have, or your campaigns ended too fast for the players to get there. /shrug Perhaps instead of just spouting off how those reasons are crap and offering a few trivial reasons why you think they are, you could make a more detailed analysis? Then we can debate with a broader discussion of the differences between 1st/2nd ed. and 3rd ed., so that the original poster can perhaps get a better "feel" for the different rulesets and how they impact gameplay. **edited for typos -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 54] Author : Tenzhi Date : 05-13-04 01:25 AM Originally posted by James McMurray Ah, so then I have been playing Pacman for 20 years. Interesting. Possibly, but your video gaming habits aren't the issue here. ;) Your reaction to the initial Pacman statement seemed to indicate you own incredulity over the whole Pacman/D&D (no edition given on your part, so none assumed on mine) analogy. I was merely showing the feasibility of such an analogy as well as giving an example of changes to the basic Pacman game that would make it more analogically similar to 3E D&D if the basic Pacman game represented D&D in general. Catfish? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 55] Author : Halaster-Blackcloak Date : 05-13-04 03:36 AM Here we go again. :rolleyes: I agree with Drexlorn, why the hell are people going to the OOP BOARD to ask about the "feel" of 3E? That's idiotic and backwards. I've noticed that this OOP forum cannot manage to go more than a few days without someone posting a 3E-centric thread that does not belong here, which inevitably ignites an OOP vs 3E crap debate. :nonono: Seems to me that WOTC/WizOs actually WANT it to happen that way, because if it were up to me, this thread would have immediately been moved to an appropriate forum...a 3E forum which was designated for the discussion of 3E, which is what this thread is all about from the very first post.:rolleyes: Seems to me it's no coincidence that these 3E threads and fights keep popping up. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 56] Author : Tenzhi Date : 05-13-04 04:20 AM Originally posted by Halaster-Blackcloak a 3E forum which was designated for the discussion of 3E, which is what this thread is all about from the very first post. Actually this thread is a discussion of 3E in relation to the previous editions. Given the number of previous editions, 3E is the minority in that comparison so saying that this thread is ALL about it is more than a smidge off-base. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 57] Author : Incenjucar Date : 05-13-04 07:38 AM 1) If you're going to call in to question my credibility, do me a favor and show me where I 'erred', so you don't soung like a politician. I've played mostly 2e in my life, long enough to start playing around with anime and werecreature homebrews. (Fear the sumo goblin!). Indeed, I can show you the recorded thread that shows exactly how little I've played 3e D&D, while I have piles and piles of adventures and monsters and whatnot from my 2e days. Heck, I still bring my 2e books to read between classes as often as my 3e ones. What, you want me to quote a word on a page in a book? 2) There was a UFO module in 2e. Deal with it. 3) If you don't get that the reference to Chainmail being the one true D&D was a joke about ol' Diaglo's catchphrase, and the general edition elitist attitude, then I bow to your superiority and eternal correctness. 4) I play my 3e like I played my 2e. If you can't do that, not my problem. Heck, I was experimenting with ability scores and all such stats for monsters before TSR was bought out, as well as more flashy style classes. I was half way there already, despite having memorized the monster description format because I was playing with 2e monsters so bloody much. 5) Humans are, by and large, the most popular race in 3e. Demihumans are actually somewhat rare these days, and are almost in the same area as monstrous races in many circles. Even when noted as being somewhat overpowered, the humans' access to an extra feat at first level, and an extra skill for their entire existance, makes them a great choice, especially since demihuman racial benefits can often be compensated for at later levels. Now they're more or less equal at every level, give or take a few specific builds; humans are just a lot easier to utilize. Now you can go all the way to epic without demihumans becoming a liability. ( I mean, honestly, what kind of psycho would play a halfling cleric in a game intended to go to 20 levels? And how is it a meaningful limit if the game never goes past six levels?) It's always best to know the truth of the matter before making a damning statement against something. 6) On the Diablo 2 stuff, I've only played 1, so I can't really say anything for or against. 7) Logically speaking, the reason for this forum is to keep the out of print information available for the new players. 3e sucks in regards to flavor text, but it would be unrealistic to simply copy-paste the gargantuan encylopedia of non-stat information that has been written every single time they update a game, so they form a place where people can go for older information. It's like asking grandpa the war hero about what D-Day was really like, rather than getting all of your information out of a soundbyte in a history class. This is a font of information. The place of sages. Cranky-ass sages in many cases, but hey, that's in every edition anyways. It's also a great place for WotC to mine ideas and see what products might lure old edition players over, without having to sneak around on the other boards that exist. It's also a great place for people who lack the silly, pointless, and addiction-like spite of people who play other editions to bask in the glow of their past, or, perhaps, even their present, since many people play multiple editions at the same time. 8) Just so it's not lost in length: This is NOT the "2.5e or Older Board". It's the Out of Print material board, where all topics that refer to old material are to be brought up. It's a place to ask about 1e information without getting silly questions like "What's a THAC0? Level limits!? Clerics get 9th level spells ya foo'!", and so on. This is where somebody could ask about, say, the Shi'ar's handbook, or the pictures in the first Monstrous Manual. Or to find out that D&D has a long history of nekkid pics, or that faerie dragons like apple tarts. It's also where you can go to find out the origins of the monk, the barbarian, and the ranger, and compare it, yes, GASP, compare! it to the newer versions. Heaven forbid people share with each other instead of refuse to associate with each other over a set of rules. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 58] Author : Yorlum Date : 05-13-04 07:47 AM Thread Title : I Seen 'Em! Originally posted by Falstaff the Fighter And the first known refrence to a UFO I remember seeing was in Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. FWiW, There are also Emig XXV from CSIO and the Temple of the Frog from Blackmoor, both of which predate Barrier Peaks, and both of which include, if not UFO's, at least time travel... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 59] Author : Yorlum Date : 05-13-04 07:53 AM Also, regarding mods, with all due respect to Jedi, who I understand has other commitments, I'd like to suggest that Diaglo apply to become a WizO with authority over this board. I think that he has a wealth of experience in the games, on the boards, and [unlike me, for one] he manages not to leap into every one of these frays. You up for it, Diaglo? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 60] Author : Pariah-by-Knight Date : 05-13-04 08:00 AM "Can't we all just get along?" I came to these boards (plural, I've looked through several) hoping to read comments from other lovers of the game (new and old). All I have seen is fights. ---OD&D vs. 3.x D&D. -----Greyhawk vs. Forgotten Realms. ------{Campaign world} vs. {Campain world}. ----- What it all equals is----- Gamers vs. Gamers. Wait...what's that word? GAME. If you take something to an extreme to fight about it is it truely a game anymore? ISn't safe to say the one you enjoy is the one's that is best? We've had to fight religious fanatics and zealous politicians looking to keep the moral majority happy. Now we fight each other. Maybe it's just me. Anyway that's my two coppers worth. Thank you for listening and good gaming. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 61] Author : diaglo Date : 05-13-04 09:50 AM Originally posted by Yorlum You up for it, Diaglo? unfortunately, as i've told WotC_Mel many times... i log on from work. work won't let me. i like this board. but i like my job more.;) the edition wars cycle thru here every 3-4 months or so. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 62] Author : Yorlum Date : 05-13-04 10:12 AM Thread Title : New threads about oop mechanics and feel Well, let's try some new threads for OOP stuff. Maybe we can stay away from wars... Pity about the job Diaglo, you'd be a real asset as a mod, IMO -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 63] Author : James McMurray Date : 05-13-04 11:34 AM Sorry I mised the sarcasm, but there's no need to get huffy. :) First of all, the whole point of taking a demi-human multiclass was to start out with a bit of a power burst in comparison with human characters. However, those early advantages were out weighed specifically by the fact that the player would know there was a certain point at which his demi-human character would no longer be able to advance. And that doesn't matter one bit when a campaign is rarely going to reach 13th level (it takes years of gaming to get that high). This kept the gross abuse of early demi-human advantages from being used all the time like they are in 3rd ed. Why play a humam when you can have a character that has inherent advantages as well as unlimited class and level options? Your lack of experience with 3e is showing. In 3e humans are one of the most played races, because they have benefits that balance with the other races, and outweight some of the other races. Now with 3.xx though, why wouldn't a player choose a demi-human over a human character? They start with all the advantages AND they can advance to any level. There are no checks or balances in place at all there. See above. Humans get more skill points, a free feat, and they can multiclass freely. Humans are far and away the most comon racial choice for many characters (spellcasters in particular). Dwarves and elves come in a close second. Perhaps instead of just spouting off how those reasons are crap and offering a few trivial reasons why you think they are, you could make a more detailed analysis? Same to ya. I agree with Drexlorn, why the hell are people going to the OOP BOARD to ask about the "feel" of 3E? That's idiotic and backwards. Ummm... Because if they ask elsewhere they're likely to get 1) Flamed, 2) Told to come here if their question relates to OOP material, and 3) Many repsonses from people who have never played OD&D and thus don't know its feel. I've noticed that this OOP forum cannot manage to go more than a few days without someone posting a 3E-centric thread that does not belong here, which inevitably ignites an OOP vs 3E crap debate. The original post of this thread was not 3e-centric, it was an honest question about whether the poster should play 3e or not. The reason these things invariably erupt into an edition ddebate is because people constantly insist on insulting 3e, WotC, Hasbro, etc. If you make an inflammatory post, you have to expect to get burnt. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 64] Author : diaglo Date : 05-13-04 12:00 PM Originally posted by James McMurray The reason these things invariably erupt into an edition ddebate is because people constantly insist on insulting 3e, WotC, Hasbro, etc. If you make an inflammatory post, you have to expect to get burnt. also the reason these things happen is history. at one point WotC_Mel, the person in charge of the boards, placed a ban on all talk of the new editions in this forum. many of the guys and gals you are arguing with were here then. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 65] Author : WizO_Paradox Date : 05-13-04 03:08 PM (FYI: Mel is in charge of the whole program overall, I'm in charge of the RPG boards, Atog is in charge of the TCG boards, and Gaelin is in charge of the Tweens boards.) We are in the OOP ground and the mod coming in is against us, old schoolers. People who read what I post know I'm an old schooler. Because the moderation on this board is totally absent and stoooopidly managed. Wrong again. (Now I'll be there will be complaints the board's "Over managaged" and "heavy handed." Since ya asked for it, I'll grant the thread closed request. Guess I was proven wrong; that differences between editions can be discussed in a civil manner. I suppose they can't. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:20 AM.