* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : 3rd Edition=Pokemon. D&D has lost its soul! Started at 12-06-05 03:59 PM by Menethenes Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=548570 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Menethenes Date : 12-06-05 03:59 PM Thread Title : 3rd Edition=Pokemon. D&D has lost its soul! Thanks for all the great posts about my favorite hobby. You've got me thinking about how I feel about the game, and where my feelings are going about the new versions. I am old D&D addict, having played the game for almost 25 years. Ive seen the versions come and go, and one thing Ive realized is that the game is slowly but inevitably moving towards greater complexity, and even greater silliness! I fear the worst for this awesome game. The apex of my D&D experience was a roughly 10 year run with AD&D Second Edition, which I still consider to be the finest iteration of the dungeons and dragons game. When 3rd edition came out I jumped on the bandwagon like everyone else, spending hundreds of dollars on the new books (yes I was scammed like everyone else into buying the 3.0 and then 3.5 versions.. fie on you WotC). I played 3rd ed for 4 years or so, and began to get really dissatisfied with the game. I hated the way the rules had become so complex. The players in my campaign were arguing about obscure rules endlessly, obsessing over figure placement on the battle mat, complaining about charge lines of sight and attacks of opportunity. The games I ran, and the games I played in, eventually became bogged down in complexity and burdened by rules. Of course you can and probably will say that the rules are only a guide.. but to change the rules enough to make the game fun would basically bring me back to second ed tion again. So why not return wholecloth? Another thing that bothers me about 3rd Ed is the drift towards pokemon, and magic the gathering. Ever since WotC bought TSR, and 3rd ed came out, it almost feels like they want to create a M:TG card game in DnD form. No limits to anything, magic infusing everything. The new campaign world, Ebberon is a perfect example of that. It feels like a world designed for 10 year olds raised on card trading games. SUre, theres probably a market for that. Gotta make money.. but what about the hardcore players raised on terrifying dungeon romps and sheer guts? What ever happened to the harsh, gritty, medieval worlds we adventured in when playing second edition? Instead of worring about obscure movement rules, we just came up with neat ideas and executed them! In 3rd ed, its suicide to charge into a crowd of orcs, considering all the attacks of opportunity you will incur. In 2nd ed, you could act bravely or foolishly, and create dramatic and entertaining scenes. We didnt need all these rules. We had our house rules and made up the rest, did a lot of ability checks, and encouraged risktaking and creative problem-solving. Is complexity better? There are a couple of pages of movement and action rules in the second ed PHB. In the 3rd ed book there are about 12. 12! And where have the good modules gone? You never see any classic modules any more. Instead of focusing on content in the form of neat adventures, its all rule books rule books rulebooks. Maybe you make more $ re-releasing the same tired old sourcebooks for $40 a pop, but I pine for the old days. In short, Dungeons and Dragons has lost its soul. Which is why Ive returned to 2nd Ed. Im setting up a campaign using only the core rulebooks and the FR and Waterdeep boxed sets. It will be a hard transition for my players. They are going to actually have to USE THIER IMAGINATIONS again instead of relying hundreds of pages of rules as a crutch. But it will be worth it in the end. it will be Dungeons and Dragons, the way it was meant to be played. M. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 12-07-05 06:44 PM Well, in my most gut felt opinion I have to say that 3.0/3.5 is not D&D. It is really a completely different animal. It's fun and I've played it - no big deal. But, the incident that finally had my head shaking at the complete change of the game was an encounter with four 1st level characters and two kobolds with a pet watchdog. It took thirty minutes for three well armed first level characters to kill two kobolds and one dog. The attacks of opportunity that resulted in this melee were nuts! I played a paladin in chainmail - the freakin' dog got a crit on me and nearly took me out! I thought about protesting this turn of events but smiled and kept rolling the dice. After the encounter I just shook my head and laughed to myself. I feel your pain dude. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : RobertFisher Date : 12-07-05 06:56 PM Yes. Post-2000 D&D is a different game than pre-2000 (A)D&D, despite the things that were kept. Indeed, I think I'd like post-2000 D&D a lot better if it hadn't tried to be D&D. If you haven't you may like to visit the forums at Dragonsfoot.org, where you can find many of us fans of the pre-2000 incarnations. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : rigon Date : 12-07-05 11:47 PM I was in the same boat you are in now, then I discovered Castles and Crusades, by Troll Lord Games. A great rules lite game that has me remembering all those nights of high adventure and creative problem solving. I've switched to C&C and am never going back to 3.x. You may want to check it out. And as RobertFisher suggests you may want to head over to Dragonsfoot and check it out. It's a great OOP DnD site for all editions before 3.x. You'll find some great information there and some really great people. Also, some of the games original creators, such as E. Gary Gygax, Frank Mentzer, and others, post there regularly. R- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : havard Date : 12-08-05 08:04 AM Menethenes: You have some interesting points about 3E, some of which I agree with, others that really surprise me. 1) Rules Complexity. This is interesting. It really depends on which OOP edition of D&D you compare with. Arguments over rules and obscure references was what drove me away from AD&D 2E. We rarely had those problems with Classic D&D, but with 2E, especially after all the Complete books and eventually S&P (2.5E?) came out this became a nightmare. Also, Almost every DM I played with was so unhappy with the actual rules that he would have a vast number of house rules. This was especially confusing since I played with several different DMs, so keeping track of each DM's house rules was a nightmare of its own. To me 3E removed alot of the complexities of the old system. Yet at the same time added a different set of complexities. Some of them are useful IMHO, like the ones regulating the bonuses gained to AC that stack, and the rules allowing for more flexible multiclassing. Others were more troublesome, like the rules you mention about AoPs and Miniatures, bringing me onto the next issue. 2) Miniatures. From reading the rule books, one does indeed get the impression that miniature play is required. Skip Williams wrote a series of articles on the WotC website about playing without them, but the fact that this was neccesary proves your point. I like that AoP's were more regulated than the arbitrary rules for Free Attacks from the older systems, though playing with minis now becomes a game of its own. My personal sollution is to play without minis (which usually reduces the number of AoPs coming to play), though I agree that the fact that the game doesnt support this in a stronger way is a weakness. 3) No limits, magic infusing, special abilities etc. The point about no limits is wrong. There are in many ways more limitations/balance issues in 3E than in previous editions. This is especially true when dealing with magical items. I agree with you however, that the current edition lends itself best towards high magic type games. Eberron (and to some extent FR) is based on that concept, which is cool if you like that style of games. This is not the first such setting however. Read some of the Classic D&D gazetteers and you'll have the same thing, as I am sure FR also has. However I agree that it is harder to run a low fantasy type campaign in the new system. There are other D20 games that do this better, like C&C, D20 Modern (Past), or The Black Company can be mentioned. I'm guessing this was a concious choice by WotC, probably because high magic fantasy has always been what D&D did best. Low fantasy has always been better emulated through GURPS, WHFRP, Rune Quest etc. Still, for those of us who like D&D and dont want to take the high fantasy path all the way, this becomes a challenge with 3E. 4) Classic modules. Before the age of D20, TSR is AFAIK the only company to have made a profit on modules. These days alot of companies produce excellent modules for D&D. If you want classic Dungeon Crawls, check outy the Dungeon Crawl Classics line from Goodman Games. If you've read this far I hope you have realized that I agree with you on some points, but disagree on others. I wont try to convince you to change your preferences from 2E to 3E, since that will have to be your choice. I also see that both editions have their advantages and disadvantages and the choice needs to be based on the type of campaign one will have to play. I did however feel the need to point out that many of the arguments you made against 3E was something I felt against 2E, but not against Classic D&D or 3E. Me I'm stuck at a place where neither Classic, 2E, 3E or C&C really fit my needs 100%, so I end up playing something in between, which is sort of what we did back in the 80s too.... Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Cab Date : 12-08-05 09:04 AM There's no doubt in my mind that 3.5e, by the book, is more complex and far slower to play than, say, classic by the book. But I don't play classic by the book, I've used that game for so long that my own version is rather tailored to my own style. That's true of most long-term DM's. Classic D&D, more so than AD&D of either version, encouraged that. 3.5e is a nice game to play when played and DM'd well, but it's a shocking game to cut your teeth on. I'd hate to have learned roleplaying with a miniatures game. Attacks of opportunity, sorcerors, magic item creation, cheats (or as some odd people call them 'feats') and some other bits and bobs make 3.5e very different to older versions of the game. But to be honest, none of that really upsets me. I play classic instead, or at least I run classic, but I've played a fun Eberron campaign recently and really enjoyed it. The biggest criticism I'd make of 3e and 3.5e is that the modern game has eroded the importance of character class to the point where I'm forced to ask why it even maintained the class system. Why not do away with that entirely in 4e? The class being a semi-important feature doesn't work for me. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 12-08-05 05:52 PM Me I'm stuck at a place where neither Classic, 2E, 3E or C&C really fit my needs 100%, so I end up playing something in between, which is sort of what we did back in the 80s too.... Håvard Sorry to butcher such an excellent post but this is so true. I'm more comfortable using a loose and liberal attitude toward BECMI and allowing a few important influences in from 1e/2e/3.5 with a hint of White Wolf's Storyteller. It's not great but it seems to satisfy what I'm looking for in general. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : WizO_Cat Date : 12-08-05 10:52 PM Sorry, but 3rd Edition threads are not allowed on the Out of Print board. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:18 AM.