* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : If TSR had produced 3e, what would it have been like? Started at 07-04-05 10:42 PM by mickshrimpton Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=458559 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : mickshrimpton Date : 07-04-05 10:42 PM Thread Title : If TSR had produced 3e, what would it have been like? Hypothetical question... if TSR had made a third edition of AD&D, what would it have been like? Here are my random thoughts: - probably all d20's for test resolutions - integrated skill system - critical tables a la Player's Option series, but condensed down to maybe four different charts - classes & levels remain similar - level limits revised but still retained - no feats or prestige classes - character kits integrated - retain chubby, hairy-footed halflings I'm not sure if weapon damage values for S,M and L sizes would remain, nor am I sure if THAC0 would remain. Would alignment still exist? 18/percentile strength? What are your thoughts? I'm working on an AD&D "2.5" game system for fun based on these ideas. I must admit I prefer TSR over WOTC and it's focus on high-powered PCs and tons-of-rules approach. But, then again, I'm in the minority there! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : WizO_Cat Date : 07-04-05 10:49 PM Actually, I think that it would have turned out similar to what was released. After all, (a) many of the designers that worked on 3rd edition also worked on 2nd edition and (b) unless what I had heard at GenCon last year was incorrect, TSR was already working on a 3rd edition. Also, depending on where you look at the history of TSR, there have been various generations of designers. I'm thinking each would have experienced a different view of what 3rd edition may have been. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : weasel fierce Date : 07-05-05 03:29 AM A lot of the ideas for 3.5 seem to have dawned i nthe Skills & Powers series, so I dont think it'd have been that different, though I think emphasis on classes as archetypes would have been stronger. Level and class limits likely gone. Not sure about other mechanics really. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : rogueattorney Date : 07-05-05 11:23 AM Most of the guys who designed 3e were with TSR at the time that WotC purchased it. The more interesting question to me is what 2e would have looked like if Gary Gygax and Frank Mentzer had been allowed to complete their version of it before being run off in 1987. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : mickshrimpton Date : 07-05-05 11:46 AM The more interesting question to me is what 2e would have looked like if Gary Gygax and Frank Mentzer had been allowed to complete their version of it before being run off in 1987. R.A. I remember reading an article/interview with Gygax about his plans for 2e. The things that struck me the most: he would have an integrated skill system and the game would be open to all genres, not just fantasy. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : rigon Date : 07-05-05 08:34 PM What are your thoughts? I'm working on an AD&D "2.5" game system for fun based on these ideas. I must admit I prefer TSR over WOTC and it's focus on high-powered PCs and tons-of-rules approach. But, then again, I'm in the minority there! I already converted most of the 2e stuff into a 2.5-ish type game. I used the information out of Dragon 264. The article was called "10 Ways to Play 3rd Edition Today". If you want to take a look at what I have done, I would be willing to email it to you (it's in Word format). you can drop me a private message if you want it. R- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : Tenzhi Date : 07-06-05 03:38 AM I remember reading an article/interview with Gygax about his plans for 2e. The things that struck me the most: he would have an integrated skill system and the game would be open to all genres, not just fantasy. When we were playtesting Mythus Magicka (by Gary Gygax), it was supposed to be part of a series that included all genres. If *that* system is what he had in mind for 2E, I hate to say that I'm glad he 'got run off.' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : rogueattorney Date : 07-06-05 11:10 AM When we were playtesting Mythus Magicka (by Gary Gygax), it was supposed to be part of a series that included all genres. If *that* system is what he had in mind for 2E, I hate to say that I'm glad he 'got run off.' Gygax intentially made Dangerous Journeys/Mythus as different from D&D as possible to keep from being sued. TSR sued him anyway, and settled by buying DJ from GG and GDW for a lot of $$$. Comments on the Dragon article from 1985 are here: http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=239&highlight=dragon+gygax Particularly this post sumarizing the article, which was in Dragon #103: Plan to start preliminary work on 2E in 1986, expecting it will take 2-3 years to complete. TASK 1: Monster Manual - merge MM1, MM2, FF into a single book - edit for errors and omissions - re-illustrated, color pictures added - some entries deleted - all worthwhile new monsters from modules added - index - change the order of information in the entries - present creatures by region/plane/etc so that you can just pick a monster from a section instead of hunting through the entire listing TASK 2: PHB - merge PHB, UA, OA into a single book - monks moved into an oriental themed section with other OA stuff - assassins become optional, DM discretion - bards rewritten as a separate core character class, current bard removed - add mystic as a subclass of cleric - add savant as a subclass of magic user - add jester as a subclass of the new revised bard - add a certain common medieval weapon that was left out (?) TASK 3: DMG - merge DMG, UA, OA into a single book - coverage of elemental planes from Dragon magazine - more planar details (MoP?) - eliminate random encounters and monster XP lists - maybe remove psionics, possibly move system into a separate SF game if psionics remain in the MM, then they'll also be in the PHB/DMG TASK 4: Legends and Lore - Gygax doesn't like the retitle "Legends and Lore" - revise, expand, improve - stats are to considerd "minimum guidelines" for avatars when encountered on the Prime Material plane - new edition will follow the design style from the Greyhawk boxed set, and separated into players and DMs sections - special powers and spells for clerics, details of religion, etc - deities will be far above planetars and solars in power - new material added - nonhuman deities added (lots of other rambling about L&L) Final is four books: MM, PHB, DMG, L&L Pricing is a problem since books will be larger and more expensive To keep price of entry low, PHB may be streamlined to basic information with four add-on books (Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Thief) for advanced players with more detailed information on those classes. This would also allow later additions and updates without requiring a new edition of the four core rulebooks. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Elendur Date : 07-06-05 11:55 AM It really depends on which designers left as a result of Wizard's buyout, and which came on board. As others have said, most of the designers were already there. One thing that definitely would have been different is the quality of the books, and their price. Wizards had a lot of money to put behind the new edition. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Varl Date : 07-06-05 08:57 PM If TSR had made a third edition of AD&D, what would it have been like? Better. I always hoped it would have been more like AD&D then d20, by fixing a lot of the problems AD&D admittedly has, but not fixing them the way they chose to. Tone down the game too. The current style of rampant powers inflation and cross-pollination of classes to races would have to go first. All that allowing players to create anything from a vanilla fighter to 8 classed, 5-pages of ridiculous crunch characters has accomplished is a greater fragmented player base that either hates the way I play or hates the way you do. That's my biggest regret about the changes: the fact that by fragmenting the player base even further by doing what they've done, makes it harder on everyone to find players interested in playing your game. :allalone: From the commercial end of things, I need a new version of an old splatbook like I need a good lobotomy. Aren't you people tired yet of buying into repetition and cloning? :pbbbtt: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : diaglo Date : 07-07-05 07:51 AM there is a reason my hat of d02 knows no limits. many of the designers of d02 migrated from T$R 2ed. the only way i would've even contemplated using a T$R version of 3edADnD is if they had hired back the crew from the OD&D(1974) days. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : mickshrimpton Date : 07-24-05 01:08 PM the only way i would've even contemplated using a T$R version of 3edADnD is if they had hired back the crew from the OD&D(1974) days. That would have been interesting. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : mickshrimpton Date : 07-24-05 01:10 PM When we were playtesting Mythus Magicka (by Gary Gygax), it was supposed to be part of a series that included all genres. I've never heard of Mythus Magicka. What was it? Was it ever published? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : Attila Date : 07-25-05 12:56 AM TSR 3e would have looked much the same because most of the old TSR designers stayed on when WoTC took over. The main differences would have been the books would have fallen apart after a month, would be printed on 3 lb. paper and this website would not exist. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : Tenzhi Date : 07-25-05 08:20 AM I've never heard of Mythus Magicka. What was it? Was it ever published? It was part of the Dangerous Journeys game line published in 1992 by GDW. At the time we were testing it, it was said that there were going to be several books released for the system, each encompassing different genres - from Sci-Fi to Fantasy to Superheroes to Horror. It seems that only three books ended up being published however - Mythus, Mythus Magick, and Necropolis. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : protonik Date : 07-25-05 01:23 PM I tend to agree with everyone here, it would have been almost the same. I don't think it would have been as big a change. I think that NWPs would have been included but more of them for every class and that Thief abilities would have been brought in line with NWPs. I don't think. I think level limits would have gone because TSR seemed to have largely ignored them anyway. I think Thac0 would be a dinosaur as well similar to how 3e does it now. I think that kits would have been rethought to be more like Prestige Classes but not really. I am thinking more like the 1e Thief Acrobat where you retain your primary class but qualify for a new set of abilities. Essentially I see a streamlined 3e as opposed to the huge stat blocks etc. I like 3e though, its fun and if you just use the core books and create yer own prestige classes and such to prevent rules inflation you can run a game as simply and as fun as any 1e or 2e game... with just the core rules. Jason -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : yeknom Date : 07-25-05 01:35 PM It was part of the Dangerous Journeys game line published in 1992 by GDW. At the time we were testing it, it was said that there were going to be several books released for the system, each encompassing different genres - from Sci-Fi to Fantasy to Superheroes to Horror. It seems that only three books ended up being published however - Mythus, Mythus Magick, and Necropolis. There was also a Mythus Bestiary and a setting called the Epic of Aerth. They are all very good products but a bit time consuming, especially character creation. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : Hiryu Date : 07-25-05 05:59 PM Like others, I am the opinion of it being exactly the same. Bill Slavizeck, the guy who brought you D20 and the god awful Planescape was already taking the wheel of AD&D during the days of TSR, begining with the Player's Option series. If you ask me, Hasbro should had been smarter and hire Gygax and Mentzer to be in charge of 3E's design. They would not only had counted on a huge buzz that could have reignited intrest in the game, but they would also have the two most experienced designers in the industry. Instead, both are now generating GREAT advertisement and buzz for Castles & Crusades. Hell, I was a C&C playtester, didn't like the game at all, but I still plan on buying all the Gygax/Mentzer stuff. That is the kind of power you get from having two industry legends in your payroll. According to Gary, he was not even asked for the smallest of opinions regarding 3E's design. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : protonik Date : 07-25-05 07:36 PM This may sound a tad bit rude but: ahhh poor Gary. While I think Gygax deserves respect and a lot of credit for creating the hobby he also downplayed Dave Arneson contribution to D&D. Just because Gary doesn't like D20 doesn't make it a bad game and I am so sick of these EGG fanboys using that as a way to say it is a bad game... two words for ya: CYBORG COMMANDO. I am an EGG fanboy but some of you guys... sheesh. Who cares what EGG thinks if you are having fun. There is no wrong way to play D&D. Jason -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : mickshrimpton Date : 07-25-05 07:39 PM Just because Gary doesn't like D20 doesn't make it a bad game He hates d20? I didn't know that -- I assumed he liked it because he's written some stuff for it (hasn't he?). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : protonik Date : 07-25-05 10:51 PM He hates d20? I didn't know that -- I assumed he liked it because he's written some stuff for it (hasn't he?). He has but he doesn't hate D20, he just doesn't like it. He thinks like many of the OOP forum guys do, that it tears down the archetypes etc and i see the point, I just like the flexibility of 3e compared to 1,2 or Oe. YMMV. I still enjoy the occasional 2e game. Jason -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : Attila Date : 07-25-05 11:47 PM According to Gary, he was not even asked for the smallest of opinions regarding 3E's design. according to this website he was asked for a small opinion. http://delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org/Articles/pg1.htm In this interview he doesn't seem to hate, seems pretty ambivalent about it with even a few positive comments thrown in. I'm not sure it's possible for EGG to take an objective look at any form of D&D since AD&D and I can certainly empathize with that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : mickshrimpton Date : 07-26-05 08:51 AM according to this website he was asked for a small opinion. http://delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org/Articles/pg1.htm That's very interesting. Here's a portion of what he said regarding 3e... "I can say that overall it’s an incredibly well meshed system, although it’s rules-heavy, to try and change the system is really virtually impossible. It’s so tightly done. In that regard, I take my hat off to them. There won’t be much tinkering with that system. I’ve played a character for probably ten or twelve adventures, I think. Again, it’s a little too rules heavy for my tastes, and they’ve lost the archetype. I fear that 3rd Edition won’t have legs. The character progression is too fast, and the multiclassing and powergaming is going to end up like you’re playing a computer game. Too much of the “rule” playing versus the “role” playing in there, too." -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : -Almighty_Watashi- Date : 07-26-05 02:40 PM Not that I ever played 2e and not that I support offtopics, but since you started, I want to say i really like the strict 3e rules. After years of playing a heavily houseruled gurps, you can't imagine the joy of confidently looking in the rulebook whenever you don't know a certan rule. Balance is also nice. I really enjoy the fact that if we use the core rules, my collegues won't be much stronger/weaker then me. Monsters! Finally i can play lots of monster races. Not that I ever do ("can I play a CG gibbering mouther?", "NO!") but it's still cool. Sure, the ruleset makes people start powergaming but I'm have no prejudice to evil, not even evil rulesets :D The downside of a new system is flavor-killing. 2e monsters had 2 pages worth of text for most monsters and also cool things like dietary habbits and life cycles. The 3e only mentions monsters' languages, if it's in a good mood :rolleyes: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : Tenzhi Date : 07-27-05 03:05 AM That's very interesting. Here's a portion of what he said regarding 3e... "There won’t be much tinkering with that system." Heh. He was way off on that one. A glance at all the variants in the UA forum alone is a testament to that (not to mention some of the third-party drastic d20 variants that have popped up here and there). Though he's right that it is rules-heavy (too much so, IMO), the fact that the rules are simple and "well-meshed" actually makes it quite easy to tinker with them. As opposed to a rules-heavy system like, say, Rolemaster (though I'm sure some insane person somewhere has tinkered with those rules as well). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : Hiryu Date : 07-29-05 12:42 AM This may sound a tad bit rude but: ahhh poor Gary. While I think Gygax deserves respect and a lot of credit for creating the hobby he also downplayed Dave Arneson contribution to D&D. Just because Gary doesn't like D20 doesn't make it a bad game and I am so sick of these EGG fanboys using that as a way to say it is a bad game... two words for ya: CYBORG COMMANDO. I am an EGG fanboy but some of you guys... sheesh. Who cares what EGG thinks if you are having fun. There is no wrong way to play D&D. Jason I was not being a fanboy, I was pointing out that having him on the payroll would had not only increased 3E's allure and prestige with the grognards, but they would also have a dang good designer. Not because he is EGG, but because he has been designing since before the industry was even born. About his comments, what he says on interviews and what-not, is mostly lip service (since Hasbro is so lawsuit happy). I have seen him grant d20 a couple of good points, but for the most part, yeah, he hates it. While he does try to remain 'politically correct' most of the time, sometimes he's slipped into a mild 3E trashing mode over at Dragonsfoot and EN World. I'm not sure he consciously downplayed Dave's contribution, tho. Since he was the one people knew the best from Dragon Mag and his name was plastered all over the place in modules and rulebooks, I think we as players are partly to blame for that as well. (same goes for Rob Kuntz's contribution and Frank Mentzer's, to a lesser degree) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : Varl Date : 07-30-05 10:14 PM Monsters! Finally i can play lots of monster races. Not that I ever do ("can I play a CG gibbering mouther?", "NO!") but it's still cool. It's these kinds of allowances that turn me off. The purview of the DM has been breached by giving the players the choice to play the weird combos and odd species just because they can. Now, this isn't meant to say that one wouldn't have players asking for those same weird combos or strange races to play as PCs in AD&D, but they'd be the exceptions to the rules, not the norm, and that's what I detest. It's one thing to make an exception for a once-in-a -while PC, but when the game subtly and discreetly encourages bizarro PC classes and races, it makes me laugh. :rolleyes: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : protonik Date : 07-30-05 11:09 PM Then DON'T allow them, its that simple. The power is still in the DM's hands whether the players like it or not. The 3e rules were designed to allow the DM to more easily run the game by defining as much as possible. Rule ZERO baby. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : weasel fierce Date : 07-30-05 11:22 PM I dont think he has a problem with his own game. I think he is pointing out how the wacky and weird have become standard in the general spirit surrounding the game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : OGAM_engineer Date : 07-31-05 03:05 AM I think I'd agree with Varl. While off-beat characters are good from time to time (I miss my blink dog rogue), they're also part of the world (Kaz from DL, Cinders in GH). That said, using various monster species just adds more complications to an occasionally bewildering game. As towards what a TSR 3E would've been like, I can only add my wishlist. 1) They would've had weapons tied to skills like they did with Alternity. Having attack bonuses tied to levels helps build "anything for XP" disasters. 2) They would have tested their Gamma version rather than selling it and then expecting everybody to pony up another $120 a couple years later to buy what 3E should've been in the first place. Oggie -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : protonik Date : 07-31-05 03:38 PM Glad I didn't pony up 120 bucks then... Jason -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : diaglo Date : 08-01-05 07:47 AM There is no wrong way to play D&D. you play by yourself don't you. diaglo "who knows for a fact just by visiting any D&D message board that there are in fact wrong ways to play" Ooi -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : -Almighty_Watashi- Date : 08-11-05 04:24 PM but when the game subtly and discreetly encourages bizarro PC classes and races, it makes me laugh. :rolleyes: To quote one of the players "none of those can replace the human's extra feat" :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : protonik Date : 08-11-05 06:29 PM you play by yourself don't you. diaglo "who knows for a fact just by visiting any D&D message board that there are in fact wrong ways to play" Ooi If you are having fun then no, you are wrong. I actually play in two very large groups but thank you though. =) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:16 AM.