* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : Key differences between editions Started at 07-09-07 06:44 PM by casimps1 Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=882840 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : casimps1 Date : 07-09-07 06:44 PM Thread Title : Key differences between editions Since, I'm not as knowledgeable on the subject, I thought I'd get the community's opinion. Assuming that you have a preferred ruleset edition (AD&D 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, or OD&D), what would you say are some key features of each edition's ruleset that made you decide to stick with a particular edition? These could be things you really like about the edition you prefer... or things you dislike about editions you don't use. And I'm not talking about arbitrary rules differences here. I'm looking for deal-breakers and sale-makers... those rules that actually affected your decision about which edition to use in your gaming sessions. I am pretty familiar with OD&D rules, I know some things about AD&D 2e and 3e (although my knowledge is from playing computer games like the gold box SSI games and Neverwinter Nights rather than actual tabletop play), and I know basically nothing about 1e. So I am particularly interested in what proponents of 1e have to say, but all input is appreciated! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : Varl Date : 07-09-07 07:06 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions Assuming that you have a preferred ruleset edition (AD&D 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, or OD&D), what would you say are some key features of each edition's ruleset that made you decide to stick with a particular edition? These could be things you really like about the edition you prefer... or things you dislike about editions you don't use. I'm going to stay on the optimistic side of this fence and do the preferences only. My favorite edition is 2e, and here's some of the reasons why: 1- Armor class system. I'm sure I'll hear about this one. ACs going from 10 to -10 is unique, despite its critics condemnations about how counterintuitive it is. To me, it just works. It doesn't need a reason or a rhyme why it works that way, just as Monopoly doesn't need a reason why movement around the board is always clockwise. It just is. 2- THAC0. Again, I'm sure I'll hear about this one too. Despite the flaws its critics spout on about, it's simple math. Simple algebra, and once you know how it works, it's as easy as basic math calculations you do in your head at the grocery store. 3- NWPs. Some people don't care for these. I like them. They help define the skills of a character easily enough, though I admit I had to write a variant system for them to get away from the silliness that was Land-based Riding (wis +3). Heh. 4- Individual Initiative. Easy as counting numbers. Lowest goes first and it works up from there. Spell casting times, weapon speeds, and magic item usage all takes time, and it's easy to add 3-4 modifiers together to arrive at when you move. 5- Class archetypes. While some consider these restrictive, I think they're good to have to prevent the ridiculous combinations I think we've all seen. And while 2e can also promote those kinds of possible class combinations, it's not so much a given in the context of the game rules because the DM is freer to deny any silly combinations he doesn't want without player consternation on why they can't play a paladin/rogue/war dancer/druid/paragod. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Valadrim Date : 07-09-07 07:46 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions I have to agree with the last poster. My favorite things about 2nd Ed are. 1. THAC0 and AC. Why trade "simplicity" for familarity? Besides as my good friend once said, "I don't want jocks to be able to play my game." 2 Slow and steady. Perhaps this is a matter of my personal experiance as opposed to what the rules nudge games towards, but I like the fact that in 2nd ed, my level 7 fighter took a lot of game time in order to create. A third ed trip from 1 to 20 in two or three months can be fun, but is ultimately less meaningful. 3. It doesn't have to make sence. The fact that if a monster can do something it doesn't mean that there is some special feat involved, or process that PCs can duplicate. Some things are weird and mysterious and should stay that way. (although there are more than a few times when I looked at a monster's entry and went, "Gee, I wish I knew its ability scores...") -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : shadzar Date : 07-09-07 10:48 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions many people have put a lot into this and can be found on wikipedia. some of us old-school gamers try to help keep it correct and from being vandalized, so it should be pretty true http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Bolithio Date : 07-10-07 12:13 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions I have to agree with the last poster. My favorite things about 2nd Ed are. 1. THAC0 and AC. Why trade "simplicity" for familarity? Besides as my good friend once said, "I don't want jocks to be able to play my game." 2 Slow and steady. Perhaps this is a matter of my personal experiance as opposed to what the rules nudge games towards, but I like the fact that in 2nd ed, my level 7 fighter took a lot of game time in order to create. A third ed trip from 1 to 20 in two or three months can be fun, but is ultimately less meaningful. 3. It doesn't have to make sence. The fact that if a monster can do something it doesn't mean that there is some special feat involved, or process that PCs can duplicate. Some things are weird and mysterious and should stay that way. (although there are more than a few times when I looked at a monster's entry and went, "Gee, I wish I knew its ability scores...") I right with you on all of that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : tankschmidt Date : 07-10-07 09:47 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions It's tough to pick a favorite, but I think I'll choose Rules Cyclopedia D&D. Things I like: 1. Archetypes. No half-troll zombie dragon Fgt1Monk4Blackguard10 2. Slow advancement. You can just have more adventures this way, and more adventures = more fun. 3. Simplicity for players. No need to calculate skills and crossclass this and that and optimize your feats to level 20 before you start playing so you can get into X prestige class. 4. No prestige classes! If you want to be a Knight of the Rose, join the team instead of taking a two level dip. 5. Simplicity for the DM. Setting up adventures and monsters is easy! Monsters don't have to follow all the same creation rules as PC's. 6. Class-based experience tables. Classes don't need to be balanced level by level. The better ones just take longer to get going. 7. Less reliance on attribute scores to make a good character. An 18 str doesn't give you +6 to damage with a two handed weapon, thank you very much. 8. Completely self contained. I don't have a sorceror breaking my game with cheesey orb spells that come from some newly-released splatbook. 9. Easy to wing and houserule. Things I don't like: 1. Racial Level limits. 2. Attribute score requirements. 3. Nonweapon Proficiencies 4. Hit dice for some classes aren't the same as in AD&D. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : Northkin Date : 07-10-07 04:45 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions 2E, and most of the reasons have already been presented here, so I won't rehash them. I will state that one of the reasons I like it is that it still has a 1E feel to it. However, I still have one holdover from 1E; whenever I do a hand-made character sheet, I still label the abilities in STR-INT-WIS-DEX-CON-CHR order. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : caeruleus Date : 07-10-07 07:27 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions However, I still have one holdover from 1E; whenever I do a hand-made character sheet, I still label the abilities in STR-INT-WIS-DEX-CON-CHR order. Is that just out of habit, or is there a reason you prefer this order? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Wiseblood Date : 07-10-07 10:18 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions I was planning a more concise or complete version of what I am about to say for the repository. But who am I kidding? I love to procrastinate. An important part of which is planning (read thinking) to do something. Armor Class has been mentioned. THAC0 has been mentioned. The quantity and poor timing of modifiers in 3.e. Far too many are taking place during play not merely at the creation of the character. My latest observation has been. Saving throws and spells. :In earlier editions there was a chart to follow. ( sounds like 3.e except the chart is listed with the class now.) :Meta-gaming good/bad saves of foes has become almost second nature with 3.e when before it was nigh unheard of. :Saving throws had very few modifiers other than class level in earlier editions. When they were present info needed to apply them was typically in the description of the spell or monster. This means less math when making saves. :Saving throws got better with level. (still happens in 3.e) :3.e the goalposts move ie. save dc's get higher (they were realatively static in earlier editions see note on modifiers above) In 3.e ability score of casters are important and so is the level of the spell. In fact these are some of the key elements in the placement of the aforementioned goalposts. In earlier editions higher level spells had more dire consequenses for failure. EG they were more powerful. Presently higher level spells still are more powerful than lower level spells. One difference now is that they have become much harder to resist even by "powerful PC's". In Dungeons and Dragons 3.x it would seem that the "default goalpost location" is designed for a character to make "Good saves" on a 9 or better and "bad saves" on a 11 or better. With system mastery taking far greater precedent in this version, greater even than character level, these saving throw scenarios are a pipedream. The mentality here being stay ahead of the curve or die. While in earlier editions, saving throws started at 15 (1st level)or so and ended up at 5 (20th level) or less in many cases. This makes low level play deadlier, but high level play more heroic in a cinematic protagonistic sense. To sum this part of the observation up good guys win. These changes along with other fundamental changes to the infrastructure of the game has caused many of the balance issues argued about on the boards today. If anyone sees flaws with my observations please point them out. Good Gaming, Wiseblood -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : RobertFisher Date : 07-11-07 09:32 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions Here (http://web.fisher.cx/robert/infogami/Classic_D&D:_I_used_to_think...) is an attempt by me at something like that, which started as a post to this very forum. There's also this (http://web.fisher.cx/robert/infogami/why_D&D3e_is_not_my_favorite_game), but I've never been quite satisfied with that angle. I think for me there may not be a single big deal-breakers or sale-makers. It may really be a whole lot of little things. Though, it may be something like this: I think the key--the magic--of RPGs comes down to the fact that a group can adjudicate the game better than any set of rules can. They need a way to settle disagreements, which is usually provided by everyone agreeing that one person--the ref/judge/DM/GM/whatever--gets the final say. (Edit: One key to this is that the judgements the group comes up with don't need to be perfect. They just need to be good enough for that group at that moment in the game they are currently playing.) Now, some amount of rules are fun, provide a base to build upon, & can help focus the game in a particular direction. So, while I'm happy to play a completely freeform RPG with nigh no rules, I do enjoy some rules. How much? Well, D&D3e--with it's admitted attempt to "take the DM out of the equation"--is clearly aimed in the wrong direction for me. Oh, I can & do enjoy it, as well as admire it for what it is. Even AD&D1e--at least as embodied in the books--is probably more than I really want as well. (Osric appeals to me more.) 2e can easily go either way: It can be just enough or way to much. Classic D&D (as a whole) is much the same. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : Northkin Date : 07-11-07 11:39 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions Is that just out of habit, or is there a reason you prefer this order? Mainly force-of-habit from 1E character sheets. But since I'm used to this layout, it is also my preferred order. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : casimps1 Date : 07-12-07 12:02 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions Here (http://web.fisher.cx/robert/infogami/Classic_D&D:_I_used_to_think...) is an attempt by me at something like that, which started as a post to this very forum. There's also this (http://web.fisher.cx/robert/infogami/why_D&D3e_is_not_my_favorite_game), but I've never been quite satisfied with that angle. Hi Robert, I just ended up reading through a lot of your articles and commentary on your website/blog. Very interesting and insightful reading! I enjoyed it a lot. On a side note, have you ever considered writing for a wider audience? I ask because I am working on launching a website for and by gamers, both video games and tabletop games, but with a focus on catering to a more "sophisticated" audience. So, there will be plenty of intelligent, almost academic, discussion of gaming... much like what I found on your site! I know it's kind of out of the blue, but I thought I'd throw it out there... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : RobertFisher Date : 07-17-07 01:00 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions I just ended up reading through a lot of your articles and commentary on your website/blog. Very interesting and insightful reading! I enjoyed it a lot. Thanks! It's all really just for my own benefit, but I've been pleasantly surprised by the number of people who find my thinking out loud worth reading. On a side note, have you ever considered writing for a wider audience? I ask because I am working on launching a website for and by gamers, both video games and tabletop games, but with a focus on catering to a more "sophisticated" audience. So, there will be plenty of intelligent, almost academic, discussion of gaming... much like what I found on your site! I know it's kind of out of the blue, but I thought I'd throw it out there... So...you don't actually have this wider audience yet? (^_^) But seriously, sure, I'd be interested. Drop me an email. To form my email address, just put an @ between my first & last names & then add a ".cx" to the end. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : Varl Date : 07-17-07 02:15 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions ".cx" You live on Christmas Island? How cool is that? :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : Bolithio Date : 07-17-07 03:48 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editionsjjj I (As a long time 2E hold out) recently played 3.5 for the first time, and all i have to say is this: Besides all the differences that are noted above, 1- if you are a pre-D20 player who knows the game real well, learning 3.5 is as simple as crossing the street. Its very easy, simple and if your DM is any good, you can make a PC and play a solid game the day you learn 2- if you are a D20 player and have never played 2E or older versions, learning the older versions will be more challenging and will take much longer to get a handle on everything that is going on within the rules. I still prefer 2E but thats pretty irrelevant....even though after playing 3e I will dog it less. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : realmaster Date : 07-18-07 03:06 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions Mainly force-of-habit from 1E character sheets. But since I'm used to this layout, it is also my preferred order. me too. whenever I cite the six ability scores for any reason I always cite them in that order. habit from starting RPGing with AD&D. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : RobertFisher Date : 07-18-07 01:16 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions You live on Christmas Island? How cool is that? :) I almost hate to disappoint you, but I have to admit that I don't. I just snapped up the fisher.cx domain name back when the fisher second-level name was already taken in the main TLDs but before Christmas Island reserved second-level names for residences. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : khyron1144 Date : 07-18-07 10:00 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions I'm a 2e holdout too. Besides the reasons already listed by others: 1. It's friendlier to homebrewers and do-it-yourselfers, especially the class creation tables and experience tables for new monsters by HD-equivalents in the DMG. 2. It's backwards compatible. If you really want to, you can bring a 1e Assassin, Cavalier, or Barbarian into a 2e game, you can. Likewise with minimal work, you could use 2e rules to play Tomb of Horrors or Keep on the Borderlands. 3. The kit system. Some folks aren't exactly down with it, but I like it. If you want your Fighter to be a Berserker or an Amazon or Gladiator and have some actual mechanical effects besides RP considerations, it works nicely. 4. Simplicity in a few areas that got complicated in the next iteration. I'm looking at you Polymorph. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : Wiseblood Date : 07-19-07 03:17 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions Good point about the fact that 2e is backward compatible.:) I have been gearing up for a return to 2e. I decided to read the DMG. I noticed that there were almost no rules.:cheer: Just advice and guidelines about how to run your game. Mind you I'm only on page 30 or so. But in those thirty pages they have planted more idea seeds than entire volumes from 3e. I also recently re-aquired my Monsterous Manual (over 600 monsters). Flipping through it, I couldn't help but notice the layout. Soooo easy to read. Stat blocks on monsters are brief while info and ecology are extensive. To be perfectly frank it was like 30% more brain "FREE". with aquisition of this book.:w00t: If you have both the Monsterous Manual and the 3.x monster manual compare them side-by-side I'm sure you will see what I mean. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : caeruleus Date : 07-19-07 12:40 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions I also recently re-aquired my Monsterous Manual (over 600 monsters). Flipping through it, I couldn't help but notice the layout. Soooo easy to read. Stat blocks on monsters are brief while info and ecology are extensive. To be perfectly frank it was like 30% more brain "FREE". with aquisition of this book.:w00t: If you have both the Monsterous Manual and the 3.x monster manual compare them side-by-side I'm sure you will see what I mean. Yeah, I love the ecology section used in 2e. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : realmaster Date : 07-20-07 01:21 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions The kit system. Some folks aren't exactly down with it, but I like it. If you want your Fighter to be a Berserker or an Amazon or Gladiator and have some actual mechanical effects besides RP considerations, it works nicely. I love kits. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : HumanTorch Date : 07-28-07 03:40 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions THE FOLLOWING IS OPINION: The differences are vast having played every version, I can say that with full confidence. NB: After the "Gary as final word" era, percentages to hit were padded in favor of the pcs. First in 2e then in furthered in 3e. Original 1974 D&D (not any form of "basic") is the ultimate flexible ruleset for D&D since it is the lightest treatment of it. Classic 1978 AD&D was made to be a hard rule set that intermingling "ultra-social" players could interchange characters with. With the advent of quasi-romantic D&D (FR and DL) and the forced overhaul of the creative design base in the late 1980's. D&D suffered a huge gap in continuity of "voice". 2e was born in a completely different context in a sort of passing away of the old guard (which has been explained on the net so many times who really wants to hear it again?) for totally new voices. "Name only D&D" fans have been around officially for 20 years but "name only D&D" fans really started due to the original 1974 game's flexibility. The old game's style is straight out of the sword and sorcery movement of pre-70's fantasy fiction. The real difference in the post-Gygax era's "frame of mind" is actually in aesthetics. If you like characters with feathers, a pacifist bent (talk over combat) and some add-ons then try 2e. If you like characters with tattoos, a Japanese-style view of Europe and piles of add-ons then try 3e/3.5e. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : Kastlewort Date : 07-29-07 01:49 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions I’ve played every edition of D&D. My players had only ever played 3.5e ,but tonight I convinced them to try 1e. And they loved it. Character creation was quicker ,no feats or skills. The combat system was easy for them. They said it was faster and easier with fewer modifiers. I really didn’t expect them to like it. I thought they might have a hard time with the rules. But, I guess all editions are easy to learn and easy to play. Maybe I’ll see how they handle Rifts. Those rule books aught to confuse them. For me 1e and 2e are the best. There are lots of reasons for my preference. But, one is the smell. I love the smell of those old books! :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : casimps1 Date : 08-01-07 11:35 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions So...you don't actually have this wider audience yet? For the benefit of anyone who might have actually been curious about this project of mine, I'll insert this quick shameless plug since the site is live now. The website is Intelligent Gamer (http://www.intelligentgamer.com) and my hope is that it becomes one of the best places on the internet for thoughtful, intelligent discussion of gaming. Spread the word! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : RobertFisher Date : 08-01-07 01:25 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions For the benefit of anyone who might have actually been curious about this project of mine, I'll insert this quick shameless plug since the site is live now. The website is Intelligent Gamer (http://www.intelligentgamer.com) and my hope is that it becomes one of the best places on the internet for thoughtful, intelligent discussion of gaming. Spread the word! Then I suppose I ought to really get an article or two finished! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : chatdemon Date : 08-01-07 10:39 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions Like others, for me there is no single "deal breaker" that make not play 3e, or 2e, or even 1e. I just like Basic/Classic, that's it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : Bazul Date : 08-03-07 12:56 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions OK I'm really glad I stumbled upon this site. I played a lot of D&D in my high school years (83-85) and now I'm trying to get my kids into it. I started them off by playing a session with my old AD&D (I'm assuming it's 1e) books. It was so much fun I thought I better go out and buy the all new books, they have to be better right? I had them all picked out and was just skimming them in the store and started to think "this v3.5 book just doesn't feel right, it's pretty different" and decided to do some research. I think it's clear from this thread that I'm an old school guy. I like it basic, DM descretion, working your way up, etc. So my question now is, am I a 1e or a 2e guy? What's the difference there? Should I keep my 1e books and buy OOP copies of those I don't have because my high school buddies owned those or should I buy a 2e set because they're really the updated system I liked. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : caeruleus Date : 08-03-07 01:37 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions OK I'm really glad I stumbled upon this site. I played a lot of D&D in my high school years (83-85) and now I'm trying to get my kids into it. I started them off by playing a session with my old AD&D (I'm assuming it's 1e) books. It was so much fun I thought I better go out and buy the all new books, they have to be better right? I had them all picked out and was just skimming them in the store and started to think "this v3.5 book just doesn't feel right, it's pretty different" and decided to do some research. I think it's clear from this thread that I'm an old school guy. I like it basic, DM descretion, working your way up, etc. So my question now is, am I a 1e or a 2e guy? What's the difference there? Should I keep my 1e books and buy OOP copies of those I don't have because my high school buddies owned those or should I buy a 2e set because they're really the updated system I liked. 2e came out in 1989, and said "2nd Edition" on them, so it sounds like you have 1e books. Either one is fine. 2e makes a few rules more consistent and the books are organized a bit better. But it also eliminates some classes and changes others, and you may prefer the 1e version in this respect. This Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons) describes and contrasts the various editions of D&D. Section 3.2 covers the differences between 1e and 2e. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : RobertFisher Date : 08-03-07 01:14 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions So my question now is, am I a 1e or a 2e guy? What's the difference there? Should I keep my 1e books and buy OOP copies of those I don't have because my high school buddies owned those or should I buy a 2e set because they're really the updated system I liked. First of all: keep everything. Just about every RPG product I've ever bought has had something I could be inspired by. e.g. The AD&D1e DMG can be a helpful reference no matter what game you're playing. Can you say "dungeon dressing tables"? My opinion: 2e is easier to understand & actually makes pretty good recommendations on which parts you might want to ignore. 1e, however, is more quirky & flavorful. Plus, they tend to be similar enough that mixing & matching can be trivial. Especially if you're willing to not get too hung up on details. Another option might be to use Osric as a guide for cutting the "fat" from 1e. Use the 1e books for their flavor, but use Osric as a guide for what to ignore. But, of course, I went with option C myself: Classic D&D instead of AD&D. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : caeruleus Date : 08-03-07 01:18 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions First of all: keep everything. Just about every RPG product I've ever bought has had something I could be inspired by. e.g. The AD&D1e DMG can be a helpful reference no matter what game you're playing. Can you say "dungeon dressing tables"? Yes, I should have mentioned that it's possible to use both 1e and 2e together. I once played in a game using 2e rules, but with classes from 1e (including Unearthed Aracana and Oriental Adventures). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : GreyLord Date : 08-08-07 11:27 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions OK I'm really glad I stumbled upon this site. I played a lot of D&D in my high school years (83-85) and now I'm trying to get my kids into it. I started them off by playing a session with my old AD&D (I'm assuming it's 1e) books. It was so much fun I thought I better go out and buy the all new books, they have to be better right? I had them all picked out and was just skimming them in the store and started to think "this v3.5 book just doesn't feel right, it's pretty different" and decided to do some research. I think it's clear from this thread that I'm an old school guy. I like it basic, DM descretion, working your way up, etc. So my question now is, am I a 1e or a 2e guy? What's the difference there? Should I keep my 1e books and buy OOP copies of those I don't have because my high school buddies owned those or should I buy a 2e set because they're really the updated system I liked. Well, one of the good things about 2e is that it actually had a grandfather clause (unlike 3e) which stated basically in it's conversion book that any rules in 1e could be grandfathered into 2e. I've used that in 2e games to create a 1e/2e hybrid. So you could get 2e rulebooks, and any rules you like from 1e, just include them in the mix. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : WizO_Sinister Date : 08-12-07 08:20 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions This thread is really cool. Maybe some people here can point me to the hard evidence of my thoughts on this matter and help better clarify my frustration. I played a TON of 2E and then ran a TON of 2E and while 3E seemed like this new cool easy way of doing things I got tired of never ever being able to make a ruling anymore. It seemed the players (those with the most 3E memorized) use the rules to arbitrate things that used to be the call of the DM (and I often ruled in 2E with the story and logic in mind rather than any hard and fast rules) Now we fast forward a few years and I admit I'm a busy person and I have a love of all gaming (miniatures and boardgames) so I don't keep up on all the prestige classes, books and rules. I sit down to DM someone always brings some new tricked out munchkin 3.5 character to the table and I can't even get the story to go the way I want because of some crazy special ability. Has anyone else experienced this frustration? If so, I'd love to hear about it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : Matthew_ Date : 08-12-07 10:02 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions The THAC0 and ascending AC issue makes no odds to me, but the precise rules to govern everything makes play potentially a lot slower and a great deal less simple. Whereas with 2e I often simply decided if things were successful or not or at most required an Attribute Check or some such thing, 3e has me looking up Skill Descriptions and adding Predetermined Modifiers, but all with the same net result. [Edit] Robert: I enjoyed reading your thoughts (probably because I am in full agreement with them). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : tankschmidt Date : 08-13-07 09:15 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions Now we fast forward a few years and I admit I'm a busy person and I have a love of all gaming (miniatures and boardgames) so I don't keep up on all the prestige classes, books and rules. I sit down to DM someone always brings some new tricked out munchkin 3.5 character to the table and I can't even get the story to go the way I want because of some crazy special ability. Has anyone else experienced this frustration? If so, I'd love to hear about it. The problem I find with 3.x is that in-depth knowledge of the system results in a much better character. I recently wrapped up a campaign that started out fine, but once the players reached about ninth level, encounters were taking too long for me to plan out. So I started using published modules. They were fine for most of the characters, but at about the same time I switched to the modules, my most rules-savvy player blossomed. He bought the Spell Compendium and came to the game armed with orb spells and immediate spells, which I'd never heard of. He could make short work of most creatures through clever use of metamagic feats. It didn't bother me so much - I could just ratchet up the difficulty of the encounters, but several of the other players mentioned that they felt a little useless. Anyway, we continued to play until the night this player was unable to attend. That evening the rest of the party found themselves seriously outgunned, and the session ended in TPK. Could I have avoided that fate by restructuring a couple encounters on the fly? Sure, but I felt it was time to bring things to a close and start a new campaign where I could have a better handle on things. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 35] Author : WizO_Sinister Date : 08-13-07 09:45 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions The problem I find with 3.x is that in-depth knowledge of the system results in a much better character. I recently wrapped up a campaign that started out fine, but once the players reached about ninth level, encounters were taking too long for me to plan out. So I started using published modules. They were fine for most of the characters, but at about the same time I switched to the modules, my most rules-savvy player blossomed. He bought the Spell Compendium and came to the game armed with orb spells and immediate spells, which I'd never heard of. He could make short work of most creatures through clever use of metamagic feats. It didn't bother me so much - I could just ratchet up the difficulty of the encounters, but several of the other players mentioned that they felt a little useless. Anyway, we continued to play until the night this player was unable to attend. That evening the rest of the party found themselves seriously outgunned, and the session ended in TPK. Could I have avoided that fate by restructuring a couple encounters on the fly? Sure, but I felt it was time to bring things to a close and start a new campaign where I could have a better handle on things. Well this is a result of the metagame that crept into the game in 3x. The idea that all these features were customizable and had stackable sinergy potential makes them powerful combos. Now the idea is focused on breaking the system to your liking. That's what happened when the power of the DM was nerfed. Because the game arbitrates itself the players are free to power, optimized, munchkinize the system with little recourse to the DM except "you can't play that" or "I'm raising the DC just because you're a munchkin". Here's some areas where 3x has made me cringe: 1.Players often come to the table with a character already made without even asking me what the setting or theme was. This never happened to me in AD&D. 2. Smart players have built characters based on the optimal build from the web, an article, a blog, or somewhere else. Problem is that their character has no backstory, motivation, or goals, it's just a lifeless bunch of numbers and abilities meant to win D&D. 3. Players spend way to much time with the progression of their character and not enough focus on the role playing aspects of their character. 4. I deal with rule questions and/or arguments constantly. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes the players are right, but it doesn't matter to me because it breaks the mood and plot into mechanics debates better saved for after the game. (I've played savage worlds btw) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 36] Author : kengar Date : 08-13-07 11:29 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions I too got frustrated trying to "keep up" with 3.X players who had the rules, etc. memorized. It required too much of my time and energy to try and develop encounters that would be challenging without being so heavy-handed that it seemed I was just trying to hamstring PC abilities. To the original topic. I'm a Moldvay/Cook B/X guy, myself. I like the rules-light aspect, also the strong class archetypes and clean feel to the books' organization. (NTM the Otus artwork :D ). Expert (through 14th level) is enough for plenty of play, and if the players are still into their PCs after all that time, Mentzer/RC is easy enough to convert to. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 37] Author : jasper Date : 08-13-07 01:28 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions I really really hate all of you because of the lack of problems you had with 1e and 2e players. Most of gripes post here I encountered back in high school with 1e. whimper whimper whine whine moan moan. (Paint me green with envy) 1e here are a bunch of rules the dm and players decide on which to follow and it okay to for dms in the same group to be different. 2e. Herea bunch of new and old rules to make nicer. Oh and some different campaign settings, and some splat books. We not going to warn you these books do not play well with each other. 3e One rule one dice one book to rule all. Oh quit whining and thinking here are lots and lots of splat boooks and campaign books but they might not play welll together. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 38] Author : caeruleus Date : 08-13-07 01:44 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions Here's some areas where 3x has made me cringe: 1.Players often come to the table with a character already made without even asking me what the setting or theme was. This never happened to me in AD&D. 2. Smart players have built characters based on the optimal build from the web, an article, a blog, or somewhere else. Problem is that their character has no backstory, motivation, or goals, it's just a lifeless bunch of numbers and abilities meant to win D&D. 3. Players spend way to much time with the progression of their character and not enough focus on the role playing aspects of their character. 4. I deal with rule questions and/or arguments constantly. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes the players are right, but it doesn't matter to me because it breaks the mood and plot into mechanics debates better saved for after the game. (I've played savage worlds btw) But are any of these really issues with 3.x, or are they issues with the players? For example, I remember DMing AD&D way back and having to tell players that they can't use that ready-made character using a class from Dragon Magazine that I haven't seen. I've seen AD&D players who only focus on progression and not on developing their character's personality. And I've played 3.x games where these issues didn't come up. I like 3.5 psionics, for example, but I wouldn't use them unless the DM said it was okay, and I constantly say, "Are you sure? If you have any reservations, I don't have to make a psionic character, I'm fine with core." I also always have feats and so forth checked before I take them. EDIT: I don't want to get into a discussion about 3.x here, I'm just giving examples to suggest that maybe the problems you experienced are due to other factors. Have you played 3.x and AD&D with the same group of people? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 39] Author : Varl Date : 08-13-07 03:17 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions Well this is a result of the metagame that crept into the game in 3x. The idea that all these features were customizable and had stackable sinergy potential makes them powerful combos. Now the idea is focused on breaking the system to your liking. That's what happened when the power of the DM was nerfed. Because the game arbitrates itself the players are free to power, optimized, munchkinize the system with little recourse to the DM except "you can't play that" or "I'm raising the DC just because you're a munchkin". True! Here's some areas where 3x has made me cringe: 1.Players often come to the table with a character already made without even asking me what the setting or theme was. This never happened to me in AD&D. Funny, I wish so many times that it would happen to me when I run my AD&D game. The time saved, which could then be put towards actual gaming, would be wonderful. So, if 3.x has propagated the propensity to predevelop characters at home and bring them to the game for DM approval, that'd be a very good thing in my book. The downside to that, of course, is the glut of supplemental material from which a DM might not own or even know exists which the player uses to craft the munchkin's dream character. Also, while this is also partially true for 2e, in that players could mine ideas from supplemental articles in Dragon or online to create an unknown character model, at least the rules were easier for a DM to follow when the player did hand the sheet over. To this day, I still greatly encourage players to make multiple characters for my game, because nothing kills the game's pace faster than character death, and having to wait for Charlie to recreate a new PC on the fly and for me to devise on the fly a way to introduce that new PC to the group. Sometimes, that introduction is easy; other times, it's a PITA, but either way, it's easier for me as DM if the player comes prepared for the possibiilties of the game, and takes a hour or three out of his week to create secondary and tertiary characters to fall back on. Just in case. The use of obscure character creation rules from obscure sources I'm okay with, with the strict caveat that I be allowed to read in advance what the class, race, or skill is all about first. No surprises. 2. Smart players have built characters based on the optimal build from the web, an article, a blog, or somewhere else. Problem is that their character has no backstory, motivation, or goals, it's just a lifeless bunch of numbers and abilities meant to win D&D. As much as I want to agree with you, AD&D can also fall victim to this. But I will grant you that the tendencies are very much amplified in d20. It's overarching penchant to focus on the rules/mechanics is still one of the primary reasons why I loathe d20 as a system. 3. Players spend way to much time with the progression of their character and not enough focus on the role playing aspects of their character. Ehh, this is a phenomenon I think isn't specific to any one game engine. It's a player style. 4. I deal with rule questions and/or arguments constantly. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes the players are right, but it doesn't matter to me because it breaks the mood and plot into mechanics debates better saved for after the game. Exactly. This is another one of those pace-breakers where I think AD&D is better than d20 because the story is more important than making sure the rules are right and consistent. I'm all for rules consistency, btw, just as long as rules consistency doesn't kill the story along the way. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 40] Author : WizO_Sinister Date : 08-13-07 10:48 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions True! Funny, I wish so many times that it would happen to me when I run my AD&D game. The time saved, which could then be put towards actual gaming, would be wonderful. So, if 3.x has propagated the propensity to predevelop characters at home and bring them to the game for DM approval, that'd be a very good thing in my book. I don't. For instance I run birthright, a world where monks and orcs and psions don't exist. And people come to my scheduled character creation night with a premade psi, orc, or monks and when I say no they insist on some sort of lame excuse why that character would be there. I really believe that players shouldn't make characters in a vacum with the idea that their characters are plug-and-play in any setting. You should be taught the universe and it's surrounding then make the character, rather than forcing a character concept to exist there that the creators of that setting (be it published or homebrew) did not intend to exist. Futhermore I'd go so far as to say that we've gone away from GM's taking an active part in a character's creation and that sucks. Character creation should be an interactive process of storytelling. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 41] Author : WizO_Sinister Date : 08-13-07 10:56 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions Ehh, this is a phenomenon I think isn't specific to any one game engine. It's a player style. A player's style is part of it but a system is responsible for it as well. For instance take castle falkenstein, it's a system that REQUIRES you to write a diary or journal to play it. It encourages story telling but writing paragraphs about your attributes rather than reducing them to a number. The same can be said for a handful of other systems. Amber diceless comes to mind. The only way to flesh that character out is imagination in that system. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 42] Author : shadzar Date : 08-13-07 11:44 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions I don't. For instance I run birthright, a world where monks and orcs and psions don't exist. And people come to my scheduled character creation night with a premade psi, orc, or monks and when I say no they insist on some sort of lame excuse why that character would be there. I really believe that players shouldn't make characters in a vacum with the idea that their characters are plug-and-play in any setting. You should be taught the universe and it's surrounding then make the character, rather than forcing a character concept to exist there that the creators of that setting (be it published or homebrew) did not intend to exist. Futhermore I'd go so far as to say that we've gone away from GM's taking an active part in a character's creation and that sucks. Character creation should be an interactive process of storytelling. can you post this or me repost this in another thread upon the discussion on the DMs power to disallow (long). some just can't fahtom why someone would not allow a certain class or race and that they can always work it in no matter what the DM says goes. maybe a Wizo saying what you said above would illustrate that even people directly associated with WotC make it to where somethings are not always allowed just because they exist even in the core material. as well as the key second part about character creation involving the DM. preferrably you post there rather than myself so people will not think you are playing favorites to any one group of people ideas over the other, but just posting your own idea. many people forget about the simple thing that the DM ultimately decides what goes into his game world, not Hasbro, WotC, TSR, etc. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 43] Author : WizO_Sinister Date : 08-14-07 08:11 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions I'd be happy to post there but I think you meant for the above to have a link. Do you have a link to it? Honestly though I'm not such how much weight I carry, I like amber diceless for pete's sake!!!!! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 44] Author : WizO_Sinister Date : 08-14-07 08:22 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions some just can't fahtom why someone would not allow a certain class or race and that they can always work it in no matter what the DM says goes. Well I think many many people are true believers in the whole "universal system" and "plug 'n play" and they won't be swayed otherwise. 3x basically needs a DM as a guide (no longer a rules arbirtrator) so then general feeling among many 3x supporters is "why should they make any rules?" On the other hand despite the overwhelming belief that "players make the story not the DM" I'm a firm believer in the basic tenants of storytelling, and that means it's the DM's story and the players are playing the parts. That doesn't mean they can't decide their own destiny, nothing should be predetermined, but it's the DM's framework and that framework shouldn't be destroyed by something the DM deems counter productive to that framework just to allow players to play anything. Many people have argued before playing in my games that I'm too restrictive but as you can see from my example in the above post, my restrictions aren't that bad (I mean in the grand scheme of characters selections just banning orc, psions, and monks is not that restrictive) and once the game has started I've never ever had a player say I was being too restrictive. As this applies to the topic in this thread it's simple. AD&D allows me more control over the framework. In fact, I'd go so far to say that since AD&D is lacking in things like feats, I could, infact, custom tailor abilities on my own without having to accept any ability like I would in 3x. This way I could (I'm not saying I would every campaign) have the players work with me to establish new special abilities (or feats) with very little fear they would be broken since feats in AD&D don't exist there's really no chance of someone out thinking me on a sort of stackable bonus meant to be pure cheese. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 45] Author : tankschmidt Date : 08-14-07 09:34 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions Honestly though I'm not such how much weight I carry, I like amber diceless for pete's sake!!!!! GASP! You can't say that!! They'll take away your moderator card!! But are any of these really issues with 3.x, or are they issues with the players? For example, I remember DMing AD&D way back and having to tell players that they can't use that ready-made character using a class from Dragon Magazine that I haven't seen. I've seen AD&D players who only focus on progression and not on developing their character's personality. And I've played 3.x games where these issues didn't come up. There's no doubt that there's some issues with players. A perfect group of players makes for a great game, regardless of the rules, just as an awful group will ruin any adventure at all. The fact, however, is that most of us have groups who are somewhere in between - some great roleplayers along with some less-desirables. In AD&D you got less out of progression than you do in 3.x. In a sense, almost every level was one of those "dead levels" that you see new-age players complaining about on these boards. The bottom line? Players who want to be powerful in 3.x pay close attention to their progression and will quickly outpace a player who is true to his character's personality. Why? Because the latter might choose feats like sneaky, put ranks into profession, put more points than the minimum prerequisite into some "sub-optimal" skill for prestige class X, or even play a single class fighter or sorceror instead of multiclassing out after four or five levels. My feeling is that the new edition is D&D: the Gathering, where you buy books of feats and classes and then pick and choose the abilities you want for your deck... er, I mean character. You didn't get that in the previous editions because when you chose a class, most of your progression was chosen for you, which can be intepreted as a good or a bad thing. I liked it because you had to distinguish characters through their personalities - it kinda forced you to roleplay. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 46] Author : Varl Date : 08-14-07 09:56 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions I don't. For instance I run birthright, a world where monks and orcs and psions don't exist. And people come to my scheduled character creation night with a premade psi, orc, or monks and when I say no they insist on some sort of lame excuse why that character would be there. A suggestion if I may: instead of just saying no, say maybe, and work out the issues you have with the character to make it one that is acceptable for you. I really believe that players shouldn't make characters in a vacum with the idea that their characters are plug-and-play in any setting. I've never had a problem with it because anything they create is critiqued. If they come to the game with an automatic assumption that what they create is guaranteed to make it into the game, I've failed in telling them that's not the case. You should be taught the universe and it's surrounding then make the character, rather than forcing a character concept to exist there that the creators of that setting (be it published or homebrew) did not intend to exist. This part I agree with, but again, it should never become an issue if you talk to your players. Why would they ever expect or create a character from Dark Sun to be allowed in a Forgotten Realms game unless they didn't know they were going to be playing in a FR game? As far as I'm concerned, they can waste as much time as they like creating characters in their own time at home, but they're not guaranteed to make it into my game. This is also why they should ask me via the phone, email, or VOIP if they have any questions. It saves them time if they do. Futhermore I'd go so far as to say that we've gone away from GM's taking an active part in a character's creation and that sucks. Character creation should be an interactive process of storytelling. You can still have both. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 47] Author : Varl Date : 08-14-07 10:53 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions A player's style is part of it but a system is responsible for it as well. For instance take castle falkenstein, it's a system that REQUIRES you to write a diary or journal to play it. It encourages story telling but writing paragraphs about your attributes rather than reducing them to a number. The same can be said for a handful of other systems. Amber diceless comes to mind. The only way to flesh that character out is imagination in that system. I agree the system has something of a role to play, even though I think it's a small part. You won't get an argument out of me regarding preference for character development, whether that be in Amber, d20, or AD&D. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 48] Author : RobertFisher Date : 08-14-07 11:17 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions Robert: I enjoyed reading your thoughts (probably because I am in full agreement with them). Thanks! Though surely you can find something we can argue about. (^_^) I really really hate all of you because of the lack of problems you had with 1e and 2e players. Most of gripes post here I encountered back in high school with 1e. whimper whimper whine whine moan moan. My high school gaming was far from perfect. Which I'm sure was attributable as much to myself as anyone else! (^_^) When thinking about game systems, I think I have a tendency to focus on the negative memories more, though. It sometimes takes some effort to remember that--as much as I may have once despised AD&D--we did manage to have an awfully good time with it. But, yeah, breaking out the older games has really made it clear how much the differences between my gaming now & then has to do with the experience & maturity of the participants (again, with the finger pointing foremost at myself (^_^)) rather than the game systems. Ironically, 3e might have been a better system for my high-school self while classic D&D might be a better system for me today. Maybe. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 49] Author : WizO_Sinister Date : 08-14-07 12:20 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions My feeling is that the new edition is D&D: the Gathering, where you buy books of feats and classes and then pick and choose the abilities you want for your deck... er, I mean character. You didn't get that in the previous editions because when you chose a class, most of your progression was chosen for you, which can be intepreted as a good or a bad thing. I liked it because you had to distinguish characters through their personalities - it kinda forced you to roleplay. wow, that's a really good way of putting it. Honestly I feel that "feats" and abilities are an illusion of options anyway. I remember playing AD&D and saying to the players. "Ok when you level up everybody gets something cool for their character and we'll write it into the story" At that point the possibilities for abilities is only limited by your imagination, however in 3x they are limited to what's been published leaving a finite, (granted there's hundreds of them)ability limit. This illusion of options helps the metagamer tremendously while nerfing the storytelling player's creativity. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 50] Author : WizO_Sinister Date : 08-14-07 12:25 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions I've never had a problem with it because anything they create is critiqued. If they come to the game with an automatic assumption that what they create is guaranteed to make it into the game, I've failed in telling them that's not the case. Our styles are more alike that different. What we are talking about is you want them to bring something to be approved and if it's not approved it's back the drawing board for them. I like to give the information up front and have them create something within in the confines of my setting first with me present. Honestly there's no right and wrong here. My way is alot more work for me, alot less work for the player, your way is more work for the player, less work for you. Either way accomplishes the same goal, having the right characters in the game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 51] Author : kintire Date : 08-14-07 12:35 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions Well I think many many people are true believers in the whole "universal system" and "plug 'n play" and they won't be swayed otherwise. 3x basically needs a DM as a guide (no longer a rules arbirtrator) so then general feeling among many 3x supporters is "why should they make any rules?" On the other hand despite the overwhelming belief that "players make the story not the DM" I'm a firm believer in the basic tenants of storytelling, and that means it's the DM's story and the players are playing the parts. That doesn't mean they can't decide their own destiny, nothing should be predetermined, but it's the DM's framework and that framework shouldn't be destroyed by something the DM deems counter productive to that framework just to allow players to play anything. I think your players are taking advantage of you. 3.x DnD provides a huge number of options and possibilities, but there is absolutely nothing at all that says you have to use all or even most of them. The DM can define what's going on in his game just as easily as they can in any other. A player who has made a character with no reference to the setting is just a fool, and should be dealt with as such. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 52] Author : WizO_Sinister Date : 08-14-07 12:44 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions this thread has been really fun for me and I enjoy this conversation greatly! I wanted to make a comment on skills for a second as some of the skill in 3x drive me nuts. For instance a character takes 30 ranks in bluff. They have friends in a jail they need to break out and the guard knows who the players are. So they want a bluff check to be able to get into the jail. That's like a rebel dressed in rebel gear asking Darth Vader to have a access to the death star. Sure I can put a bluff check at 45 or something, but why? I just should be able to say "it won't work" and move on. The problem is that the player that put 30 ranks in bluff is now mad because he made he's character to be able to bluff almost anything and he's po'ed because he can't use it. I feel I'll nerf a character by not allowing a razor thin margin of success so I often allow it. My question is why have that skill anyway? Couldn't you just attempt to role-play bluffs? Is there a need to have social interaction skills as part of the skill set? I understand things like dancing, crafting, even diplomacy to a lessor extent, but if you can't role-play bluffing then maybe you shouldn't roll playing bluffing. Bluff, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Sense Motive, all seem like skill better role-played instead of roll played. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 53] Author : WizO_Sinister Date : 08-14-07 01:06 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions I think your players are taking advantage of you. 3.x DnD provides a huge number of options and possibilities, but there is absolutely nothing at all that says you have to use all or even most of them. The DM can define what's going on in his game just as easily as they can in any other. A player who has made a character with no reference to the setting is just a fool, and should be dealt with as such. This is a fair observation that I sometimes get from people when I explain these types of problems. However, it seems no one wants to blame the system for making these types of players but I can't help wondering if it does. *The system of 3x favors those that crunch it. We know this to be true. Those that take the time to understand all its ins and outs make better powerful characters. Rewind 20+ years ago I was voted best role playing in several of my first sessions of AD&D. Granted my character wasn't tricked out as well as the others but then again the power difference between being tricked out and not being tricked out in AD&D is a whole lot less that 3x. *This will to crunch translates itself in a desire to win, a desire to win is not a desire to role-play, it's a desire to win. You want to see your crunch in action and see the havoc it reeks almost to the point of being able to beat anything your GM throws at you. This creates a real "you vs. us" attitude, that was always part of D&D but never this intense. Players quote any rule that will help them, and convientley "forget" to bring up any rule that hurts them, feeling that it's the DM's responsibilty. Why is it a competition? Is it a team based miniatures game? Or role playing? *That overconfiendence in your "numbers" leads you to almost always playing overconfident characters, so when a dragon is placed before you, someone yells "leroy jenkins" and attacks. Then the whole party is slaughtered, rightfully so, and there's bitterness to the DM for throwing that challenge at you, when in all honesty, its your fault for not running away. *The OGL allows anything to be published without balance. This causes a DM to be an expert on all the different materials that are published OR (this is the most common one) be a master of the material they own. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 54] Author : Varl Date : 08-14-07 02:26 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions Our styles are more alike that different. What we are talking about is you want them to bring something to be approved and if it's not approved it's back the drawing board for them. I like to give the information up front and have them create something within in the confines of my setting first with me present. I did too for a long time, but then I realized (hours later) that, for my players at least, making characters is almost as fun as playing the game. Heh. I don't think I'll ever understand that mentality, because even when I'm a player in someone else's game, I loathe the time it takes to create my character. It feel too much like a freakin' test! Heh. DM: "Well? Have you decided what you want to play?" Me: "I have some ideas, but I'm just not sure..." DM: "Well, come up with something, or we'll have to just move on without you." Me: *grumbles* I'll just play a fighter..." Given the choice between put-on-the-spot character development at the time the game starts vs. several days of consideration, I'll choose the latter every time. I even prefer playing a pregen before a just-before-the-game character. Honestly there's no right and wrong here. My way is alot more work for me, alot less work for the player, your way is more work for the player, less work for you. Either way accomplishes the same goal, having the right characters in the game. You're right. There is no right or wrong way. I do believe in player's ability to create "tweakable" characters they bring to the table in advance, and that the chances of having me completely reject a character outright without even giving it a single chance of revision, is less than 1%. The player might not like the changes I have to make to it for it to be in my game, but at least the player still has the choice. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 55] Author : Wiseblood Date : 08-14-07 02:26 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions This is a fair observation that I sometimes get from people when I explain these types of problems. However, it seems no one wants to blame the system for making these types of players but I can't help wondering if it does. *The system of 3x favors those that crunch it. We know this to be true. Those that take the time to understand all its ins and outs make better powerful characters. Rewind 20+ years ago I was voted best role playing in several of my first sessions of AD&D. Granted my character wasn't tricked out as well as the others but then again the power difference between being tricked out and not being tricked out in AD&D is a whole lot less that 3x. *This will to crunch translates itself in a desire to win, a desire to win is not a desire to role-play, it's a desire to win. You want to see your crunch in action and see the havoc it reeks almost to the point of being able to beat anything your GM throws at you. This creates a real "you vs. us" attitude, that was always part of D&D but never this intense. Players quote any rule that will help them, and convientley "forget" to bring up any rule that hurts them, feeling that it's the DM's responsibilty. Why is it a competition? Is it a team based miniatures game? Or role playing? *That overconfiendence in your "numbers" leads you to almost always playing overconfident characters, so when a dragon is placed before you, someone yells "leroy jenkins" and attacks. Then the whole party is slaughtered, rightfully so, and there's bitterness to the DM for throwing that challenge at you, when in all honesty, its your fault for not running away. *The OGL allows anything to be published without balance. This causes a DM to be an expert on all the different materials that are published OR (this is the most common one) be a master of the material they own. When playing 3e one of my fellow players calls me Mr. Vanilla. Because I seldom look outside the PHB. I don't really feel like spending 40 hours on a character that might get played for 25 and Inventoried and Upkept for another 35 hours. I hate number crunching. He builds his characters. I pick a character and generally stick with one class. He would rather build a character that can kill everything in a 40 mile radius without being harmed. Why not just play Siddoku? I like characters I can identify with. Generally speaking 2e has far more things I can identify with. In 3.e they have also divested themselves of history, mythology and archetypes found therein. Just take a look at some of the classes. Dragon Shaman= special mechanics Instead of Cleric Warlock= special mechanics Instead of Wizard Spirit Shaman= special mechanics Instead of Druid Warblade= special mechanics Instead of Fighter It appears that a new class must be made to represent every conceivable flavor ever presented in popular culture/media. 3.e seems to be moving away from imagination and toward mechanics. Playing a character that can single-handedly defeat super monsters without getting hurt is now the goal of so many. Characters with even the slightest vulnerability are immediately decried by the boards as being terrible. I agree with Wiz O Sinister in many cases it has become win D&D mentality. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 56] Author : Varl Date : 08-14-07 02:47 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions I wanted to make a comment on skills for a second as some of the skill in 3x drive me nuts. For instance a character takes 30 ranks in bluff. They have friends in a jail they need to break out and the guard knows who the players are. So they want a bluff check to be able to get into the jail. That's like a rebel dressed in rebel gear asking Darth Vader to have a access to the death star. Sure I can put a bluff check at 45 or something, but why? I just should be able to say "it won't work" and move on. Exactly. While it's probably not a revelation for you at this exact moment, now you're beginning to see the differences between editions. Numbers, chances, and odds vs. roleplaying by the player. It's the same thing as what happens in AD&D when a player complains that he should be able to figure out the riddle or intellectual puzzle his character is confronted with because his character has an 18 intelligence. In order for the game to be fun for the players, and not just become a predictable outcome based on character stats, certain seemingly obvious statistics need to be waived in lieu of player ability imo. Some will see this as making the character's stats pointless. Why have them at all if the player is always going to be the one to determine success or failure? The answer is that checking with character stats is supposed to be an optional method of determination right alongside with player choice. Both work effectively, whichever one you choose to use. The problem is that the player that put 30 ranks in bluff is now mad because he made he's character to be able to bluff almost anything and he's po'ed because he can't use it. I feel I'll nerf a character by not allowing a razor thin margin of success so I often allow it. There have to be maximums set for characters to achieve in any particular skill or you get what you describe above. My question is why have that skill anyway? Couldn't you just attempt to role-play bluffs? Bluff, Gather Information, Intimidate, and Sense Motive, all seem like skill better role-played instead of roll played. There are two schools of thought on this: those that prefer to let the numbers do the talking for them because they know they're not very good at it, and those that would prefer to have success or failure based on how well the player can convince people. Neither method is wrong, but as a DM, you don't have to worry about what a player's Bluff score is because it can't be measured until you see it roleplayed out. It's more real imo than saying you rolled what you needed to bluff the guard to let you in the city. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 57] Author : caeruleus Date : 08-14-07 04:01 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions My feeling is that the new edition is D&D: the Gathering, where you buy books of feats and classes and then pick and choose the abilities you want for your deck... er, I mean character. You didn't get that in the previous editions because when you chose a class, most of your progression was chosen for you, which can be intepreted as a good or a bad thing. I liked it because you had to distinguish characters through their personalities - it kinda forced you to roleplay. You can't force anyone to roleplay. I've seen plenty of people play AD&D fighters, say, without anything to distinguish themselves from other fighters, except by how powerful their magic items are. I wanted to make a comment on skills for a second as some of the skill in 3x drive me nuts. For instance a character takes 30 ranks in bluff. They have friends in a jail they need to break out and the guard knows who the players are. So they want a bluff check to be able to get into the jail. That's like a rebel dressed in rebel gear asking Darth Vader to have a access to the death star. Sure I can put a bluff check at 45 or something, but why? I just should be able to say "it won't work" and move on. 30 ranks? In order to have 30 ranks, a character needs to be 27th level. Either you're running a epic-level games, your player was cheating, or you're just exaggerating. But with 30 ranks, a rebel dressed in rebel gear should be able to bluff Darth Vader to access the death star. Epic characters are supposed to be that powerful. Now, this does not preclude roleplaying. In such a case, the player should describe the type of story he's giving. One example could be, "Rebel scum knocked me out and took my uniform, when I woke up I was naked, so I put on their discarded clothes." Another example might be, "Oh, I just happen to wear clothes like this, it's no big deal." The former is hard to believe, but 30 ranks represents an incredible amount of training in bluffing people, so it should be possible, even if Darth Vader asks for more information before granting access. The latter is enough to deny a roll, because no one should believe it anyway. And further, I'm not expected to describe how I execute an attack with my sword in order to determine if I hit my opponent. I might give some description, but success is determined by a roll, because I'm not as skilled as my character would be. Likewise, I may not be a good bluffer, but we need a fair way to decide how successful my character's bluff attempt was. In fact, we used to do this in AD&D with Charisma checks. If the story was plausible, we'd get a bonus, if it wasn't plausible, we'd get a penalty. If it's about storyline, then the mechanics of the game can be used to tell the story. Rules are not constraints on story, they're mechanisms by which to tell the story. That's how I've always played this game. In 3.e they have also divested themselves of history, mythology and archetypes found therein. Just take a look at some of the classes. Dragon Shaman= special mechanics Instead of Cleric Warlock= special mechanics Instead of Wizard Spirit Shaman= special mechanics Instead of Druid Warblade= special mechanics Instead of Fighter It appears that a new class must be made to represent every conceivable flavor ever presented in popular culture/media. Since mechanics are used to tell a story, having different mechanics for a class can be just the thing you need. What if you want a character who gains his magic powers from a pact with demons? You could play a typical wizard and just add flavor about the pact into his background. This is fine, but it raises an interesting question: Why did he make the pact if he gained no abilities beyond what any other wizard gets? You want some type of mechanic to represent this, because it helps with the story. The warlock class is a good way to do this, even if it's hardly the only way. That's why special mechanics can be valuable. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 58] Author : caeruleus Date : 08-14-07 04:11 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions This is a fair observation that I sometimes get from people when I explain these types of problems. However, it seems no one wants to blame the system for making these types of players but I can't help wondering if it does. *The system of 3x favors those that crunch it. We know this to be true. Those that take the time to understand all its ins and outs make better powerful characters. The same is true of any system. A magic-user can pick spells that make his character more powerful, as opposed to going with a certain flavor. A fighter can decide to specialize with a certain weapon because it deals the most amount of damage, rather than because of a backstory. I fully agree, however, that 3.x allows for much more of that. But it's a difference of degree, as AD&D did allow for some min-maxing (an issue I remember reading about in some of the earliest issues of The Dragon). *This will to crunch translates itself in a desire to win, a desire to win is not a desire to role-play, it's a desire to win. You want to see your crunch in action and see the havoc it reeks almost to the point of being able to beat anything your GM throws at you. This creates a real "you vs. us" attitude, that was always part of D&D but never this intense. Players quote any rule that will help them, and convientley "forget" to bring up any rule that hurts them, feeling that it's the DM's responsibilty. Why is it a competition? Is it a team based miniatures game? Or role playing? *That overconfiendence in your "numbers" leads you to almost always playing overconfident characters, so when a dragon is placed before you, someone yells "leroy jenkins" and attacks. Then the whole party is slaughtered, rightfully so, and there's bitterness to the DM for throwing that challenge at you, when in all honesty, its your fault for not running away. When talking about wills and desires, this is a matter of players, not rules. *The OGL allows anything to be published without balance. This causes a DM to be an expert on all the different materials that are published OR (this is the most common one) be a master of the material they own. But if you decide what's allowed into your campaign, then this should be no more of a problem than 2e players who want to play a Knight of Solamnia in a Dark Sun campaign. You just say no. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 59] Author : MarkHall Date : 08-14-07 04:15 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions Since mechanics are used to tell a story, The only mechanics I use to tell a story are the mechanics of the English language... grammar, syntax, and the like. I use mechanics to play a game. What if you want a character who gains his magic powers from a pact with demons? You could play a typical wizard and just add flavor about the pact into his background. This is fine, but it raises an interesting question: Why did he make the pact if he gained no abilities beyond what any other wizard gets? You want some type of mechanic to represent this, because it helps with the story. The warlock class is a good way to do this, even if it's hardly the only way. That's why special mechanics can be valuable. Because he was previously unable to master magic? Because that's how you learn magic, either in his culture or that world? And for representing it mechanically, why not, in 3e, use a sorcerer? Or in 2e, use a cleric, with specific spell selections? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 60] Author : tankschmidt Date : 08-14-07 04:16 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions Some will see this as making the character's stats pointless. Why have them at all if the player is always going to be the one to determine success or failure? The answer is that checking with character stats is supposed to be an optional method of determination right alongside with player choice. Both work effectively, whichever one you choose to use. Agreed. If the 18 wisdom cleric wants to charge a great red dragon, far be it from the DM to deny him that option. wow, that's a really good way of putting it. Honestly I feel that "feats" and abilities are an illusion of options anyway. I remember playing AD&D and saying to the players. "Ok when you level up everybody gets something cool for their character and we'll write it into the story" At that point the possibilities for abilities is only limited by your imagination, however in 3x they are limited to what's been published leaving a finite, (granted there's hundreds of them)ability limit. This illusion of options helps the metagamer tremendously while nerfing the storytelling player's creativity. Thanks for the kind words. I think you and I see eye to eye on much of this topic. You mentioned that the possibilities for a character are limited by what's been published, but let's go a step further: there are supposed to be around 1000 feats out there. But those feats don't just act as a limit to what your character can do. At the end of the day, they are a list of about 980-990 things that your character patently cannot do. And that stinks. Why can't I sacrifice a little accuracy to swing my sword really hard if I don't have power attack? If I'm an archer with a 16 dexterity, why can't I nock two arrows and fire them together at the same target? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 61] Author : WizO_Sinister Date : 08-14-07 04:30 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions You can't force anyone to roleplay. I've seen plenty of people play AD&D fighters, say, without anything to distinguish themselves from other fighters, except by how powerful their magic items are. True, but then again it IS called role playing. The point is that while rule mechanics and role playing are not opposites not humans can really multitask. We say we are but in fact we do one thing quickly then the other. So while you can have roleplay and roll play in the same game, one or the other is concentrated on at any given time, the more mechanical the system the more your attention is placed on mechanics. I'll talk more about that in my gleemax blog in a couple of weeks. 30 ranks? In order to have 30 ranks, a character needs to be 27th level. Either you're running a epic-level games, your player was cheating, or you're just exaggerating. But with 30 ranks, a rebel dressed in rebel gear should be able to bluff Darth Vader to access the death star. Epic characters are supposed to be that powerful. Now, this does not preclude roleplaying. In such a case, the player should describe the type of story he's giving. One example could be, "Rebel scum knocked me out and took my uniform, when I woke up I was naked, so I put on their discarded clothes." Another example might be, "Oh, I just happen to wear clothes like this, it's no big deal." The former is hard to believe, but 30 ranks represents an incredible amount of training in bluffing people, so it should be possible, even if Darth Vader asks for more information before granting access. The latter is enough to deny a roll, because no one should believe it anyway. I am making an extreme example... Darth Vader wouldn't let ANYONE do that. I'd walk out of any movie where a rebel went up to someone like vader and said "let me through" and vader goes, "sure here's the keys to the death star" (unless a comedy). Who do you know in any setting universe or real life with enough bluff potential to do that without some magical help? Power Levels does NOT mean you get to do anything you want. Even Han Solo had to dress up like a stormtrooper to bluff his way around. Under the current rules no roleplaying is necessary. Where in the rules does it say you have to do anything besides roll the dice? It doesn't. At least bluff wasn't part of AD&D where the gm, based on what was said and done, determined if it worked no just me dumping mechanical points in a skill I'm can't or won't roleplay. And further, I'm not expected to describe how I execute an attack with my sword in order to determine if I hit my opponent. I might give some description, but success is determined by a roll, because I'm not as skilled as my character would be. Likewise, I may not be a good bluffer, but we need a fair way to decide how successful my character's bluff attempt was. In fact, we used to do this in AD&D with Charisma checks. If the story was plausible, we'd get a bonus, if it wasn't plausible, we'd get a penalty. If it's about storyline, then the mechanics of the game can be used to tell the story. Rules are not constraints on story, they're mechanisms by which to tell the story. That's how I've always played this game. Ah, Now you get to a game like 7th Sea. You don't just attack in that game you parry, reposte, beat, bind, double attack, double parry, tag, whirl, put up a wall of steel, etc.. Witty banter is part of the attack and defense almost with every attack. D&D should have those role playing moments in combat, I'm all for it, but then again under any edition of D&D that would just bring the already slow combat system to a crawl. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 62] Author : Wiseblood Date : 08-14-07 04:41 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions Since mechanics are used to tell a story, having different mechanics for a class can be just the thing you need. What if you want a character who gains his magic powers from a pact with demons? You could play a typical wizard and just add flavor about the pact into his background. This is fine, but it raises an interesting question: Why did he make the pact if he gained no abilities beyond what any other wizard gets? You want some type of mechanic to represent this, because it helps with the story. The warlock class is a good way to do this, even if it's hardly the only way. That's why special mechanics can be valuable. Certainly a valid point. :cookie: MarkHall Because he was previously unable to master magic? Because that's how you learn magic, either in his culture or that world? And for representing it mechanically, why not, in 3e, use a sorcerer? Or in 2e, use a cleric, with specific spell selections? Good counterpoint. :cookie: This is reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend who plays WoW. In the Battlegrounds of WoW some people leave their character in battlegrounds to accumulate honor points that they did not earn (typically in the starting area wich is friendly to their faction). Blizzard entertainment's solution to this is code that informs players in the BG that someone isn't towing the load and allows them to vote out the offending character. My friend's solution was instead to make starting areas No-Honor zones. Far simpler to employ and enforce IMHO. Much like MarkHall's counterpoint. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 63] Author : WizO_Sinister Date : 08-14-07 04:53 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions T When talking about wills and desires, this is a matter of players, not rules. Well I'm glad to have someone on here to debate with me. I want to thank you for the banter and ideas. The system has a psychological impact on players. The mechanics are not at fault as much as what the mechanics do to people. They worry about the perfect build, but was role playing ever about that? The fact is that the overall goal of roleplaying has changed. If I'm not mistaken AD&D mentioned that winning isn't the goal. 3x it is the goal or why else is everything in the game meant to give you a bonus. Why not a weakness system that generates a weakness feat for every feat you choose? Ah the answer is, then it wouldn't be about winning. For that I turn to the sheer amounts of collectible players and what lengths they go to in the quest for power. The gaming industry thrives on selling you what you need to win. If the game isn't about winning then I say prove it. Strip the game of PRCs, abilities, and feats. What possible opposition could their be to this besides that would cause me not to win sometimes. The GAME in ROLEPLAYING GAME is focused on big time in the current edition. It's like the kick I get when people are telling me they are playing a computer rpg like neverwinter. The purpose of that game is to win, not to roleplay. That's a computer game set in a roleplaying universe. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 64] Author : Matthew_ Date : 08-14-07 08:03 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions Thanks! Though surely you can find something we can argue about. (^_^) Heh, I'm sure, but not on that Blog at the moment! ;) My high school gaming was far from perfect. Which I'm sure was attributable as much to myself as anyone else! (^_^) When thinking about game systems, I think I have a tendency to focus on the negative memories more, though. It sometimes takes some effort to remember that--as much as I may have once despised AD&D--we did manage to have an awfully good time with it. But, yeah, breaking out the older games has really made it clear how much the differences between my gaming now & then has to do with the experience & maturity of the participants (again, with the finger pointing foremost at myself (^_^)) rather than the game systems. Ironically, 3e might have been a better system for my high-school self while classic D&D might be a better system for me today. Indeed. Certainly my early days were not without their problems. However, they were not really a result of the system, so much as they were problems with maturity of the participants and our imperfect understanding of the system. wow, that's a really good way of putting it. Honestly I feel that "feats" and abilities are an illusion of options anyway. I remember playing AD&D and saying to the players. "Ok when you level up everybody gets something cool for their character and we'll write it into the story" At that point the possibilities for abilities is only limited by your imagination, however in 3x they are limited to what's been published leaving a finite, (granted there's hundreds of them)ability limit. This illusion of options helps the metagamer tremendously while nerfing the storytelling player's creativity. I agree. However, what 3e represents is really just a formalisation of what was already possible in previous editions. The result of that mechanical formalisation appears to have been an unwillingness to alter them. The three Feat Chain for Spring Attack is a good case in point. Without these three Feats many Dungeon Masters will simply not allow Player Characters to Move, Attack and Move, but this need not be the case. The DM could, for instance, allow a Character to emulate this Feat with an appropriate penalty, perhaps -2 AB or somesuch thing. Honestly, that's the way I think Feats should work, as with the case of Two Weapon Fighting - improving what is alreay possible, rather than creating new possibilities. 3e has really created an illusion when it comes to customisation within the game. Some will see this as making the character's stats pointless. Why have them at all if the player is always going to be the one to determine success or failure? The answer is that checking with character stats is supposed to be an optional method of determination right alongside with player choice. Both work effectively, whichever one you choose to use. Exactly. There is a compromise to be made between mechanics and player decisions. It shouldn't be a case of one trumping the other. There are two schools of thought on this: those that prefer to let the numbers do the talking for them because they know they're not very good at it, and those that would prefer to have success or failure based on how well the player can convince people. Neither method is wrong, but as a DM, you don't have to worry about what a player's Bluff score is because it can't be measured until you see it roleplayed out. It's more real imo than saying you rolled what you needed to bluff the guard to let you in the city. I usually don't have Players roll the dice for Bluff Checks, preferring them to 'take 10'. The only time I require a roll is when they would not be able to convince the NPC that they are telling the truth. I also only allow Bluffs to convince NPCs that PCs think they are telling the truth. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 65] Author : caeruleus Date : 08-15-07 12:37 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions The only mechanics I use to tell a story are the mechanics of the English language... grammar, syntax, and the like. I use mechanics to play a game. But, surely, the mechanics must be used to support the story. You wouldn't use the figher class, for example, to represent a wizard. Because he was previously unable to master magic? Because that's how you learn magic, either in his culture or that world? And for representing it mechanically, why not, in 3e, use a sorcerer? Or in 2e, use a cleric, with specific spell selections? All perfectly fair. But certain mechanics may capture a certain feel that the options you suggest don't quite capture. For example, for story purposes, you think it would be cool if the magic granted was unlike the magic typically used in the campaign setting. This could make for a very interesting villain. It's not necessary to use the warlock class, it can be done with the core rules, but more options can be a good thing. That's why old issues of Dragon offerred so many new classes, for the older editions of the game. That's why Dragonsfoot has its Manual of Professions for 1e. True, but then again it IS called role playing. The point is that while rule mechanics and role playing are not opposites not humans can really multitask. We say we are but in fact we do one thing quickly then the other. So while you can have roleplay and roll play in the same game, one or the other is concentrated on at any given time, the more mechanical the system the more your attention is placed on mechanics. I'll talk more about that in my gleemax blog in a couple of weeks. Again, I'd say that's an issue with the players (but see below). I am making an extreme example... Darth Vader wouldn't let ANYONE do that. I'd walk out of any movie where a rebel went up to someone like vader and said "let me through" and vader goes, "sure here's the keys to the death star" (unless a comedy). Who do you know in any setting universe or real life with enough bluff potential to do that without some magical help? Power Levels does NOT mean you get to do anything you want. Even Han Solo had to dress up like a stormtrooper to bluff his way around. Okay, I think I misunderstood your example. There are indeed certain bluffs that are impossible. But given that you cannot bluff a person into believing certain things, the Bluff check quite simply would not apply. Under the current rules no roleplaying is necessary. Where in the rules does it say you have to do anything besides roll the dice? It doesn't. In the 3.5 PHB, p. 4, it says: The D&D game is a fantasy game of your imagination. It's part acting, part storytelling, part social interaction, part war game, and part dice rolling. It's not part of the game mechanics, but that's also true of AD&D. Well I'm glad to have someone on here to debate with me. I want to thank you for the banter and ideas. And thank you too, for engaging on these issues. :) The system has a psychological impact on players. The mechanics are not at fault as much as what the mechanics do to people. Yes, I totally agree with you here. I was also lax in only saying that it's a matter of players; it's an interaction between players and rules. By operationalizing everything, the 3.x rules are easier to minmax with. Perhaps all rollplayers prefer 3.x because of this. But that is not the same as saying that all who play 3.x are rollplayers who don't roleplay. Nor does it mean that 3.x cannot be used for roleplaying. If the game isn't about winning then I say prove it. Strip the game of PRCs, abilities, and feats. What possible opposition could their be to this besides that would cause me not to win sometimes. My "proof" would be a proof by demonstration, by showing you some of my own game sessions. Unfortunately, I can't do that on these boards, so you'll have to take my word (or not, as you choose) when I say that my own 3.5 games are not about "winning". Yes, some people do in fact play to "win". I used to play with a guy like that, and that's the reason I refuse to play with him anymore. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 66] Author : kintire Date : 08-15-07 07:57 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions I wanted to make a comment on skills for a second as some of the skill in 3x drive me nuts. For instance a character takes 30 ranks in bluff. They have friends in a jail they need to break out and the guard knows who the players are. So they want a bluff check to be able to get into the jail. That's like a rebel dressed in rebel gear asking Darth Vader to have a access to the death star. Sure I can put a bluff check at 45 or something, but why? I just should be able to say "it won't work" and move on. Well, by the time your character has a bluff skill of 30, the system is falling apart in an entertaining variety of different ways. Your scenarios will be train wrecking all over the magic system long before skills become an issue! Cold comfort, but there it is... My question is why have that skill anyway? Couldn't you just attempt to role-play bluffs? And if you have a stutter? Or you're just not very persuasive face to face and want to play a character that is? The problem with systems that treat social skills as role play only is that all your characters will have your social skills. Not everyone is happy with that! *The system of 3x favors those that crunch it. We know this to be true. Those that take the time to understand all its ins and outs make better powerful characters. Rewind 20+ years ago I was voted best role playing in several of my first sessions of AD&D. Granted my character wasn't tricked out as well as the others but then again the power difference between being tricked out and not being tricked out in AD&D is a whole lot less that 3x. ANY system, even Amber, rewards those that understand it. My first campaign in ADnD was deeply marred by not understanding one of the fundamental principles (Whatever you do, don't play a Thief). Actually, I had great fun, but I was the comedy sidekick to the rest of the characters. This will to crunch translates itself in a desire to win, a desire to win is not a desire to role-play, it's a desire to win. You want to see your crunch in action and see the havoc it reeks almost to the point of being able to beat anything your GM throws at you. This creates a real "you vs. us" attitude, that was always part of D&D but never this intense. Players quote any rule that will help them, and convientley "forget" to bring up any rule that hurts them, feeling that it's the DM's responsibilty. Why is it a competition? Is it a team based miniatures game? Or role playing? *That overconfiendence in your "numbers" leads you to almost always playing overconfident characters, so when a dragon is placed before you, someone yells "leroy jenkins" and attacks. Then the whole party is slaughtered, rightfully so, and there's bitterness to the DM for throwing that challenge at you, when in all honesty, its your fault for not running away. I have experienced none of this. My experience has been that players who were powergamers in ADnD are powergamers in 3.x, and those that weren't, aren't. In fact, this holds true across all systems, and I am dubious in the extreme that the system makes the slightest difference to player behaviour. I am making an extreme example... Darth Vader wouldn't let ANYONE do that. I'd walk out of any movie where a rebel went up to someone like vader and said "let me through" and vader goes, "sure here's the keys to the death star" (unless a comedy). Who do you know in any setting universe or real life with enough bluff potential to do that without some magical help? Power Levels does NOT mean you get to do anything you want. Even Han Solo had to dress up like a stormtrooper to bluff his way around. This is true, but its not a flaw in DnD. All iterations of DnD have been in a high fantasy milieu where there are characters that walk around capable of near godlike acts. Bluff 30 is not far off godlike: 30 ranks in bluff frankly is. The reason that this produces a poor result in Star Wars is that that is a much lower powered background. Its not really fair to criticise 3.x for not modelling something it wasn't designed to. The fact is that the overall goal of roleplaying has changed. If I'm not mistaken AD&D mentioned that winning isn't the goal. 3x it is the goal or why else is everything in the game meant to give you a bonus. Why not a weakness system that generates a weakness feat for every feat you choose? Ah the answer is, then it wouldn't be about winning. Ah, thats just not fair. I've played, and indeed play, both 3.x and D20, and both have the drive to win in equal measure (ie. not among the people I voluntarily play with). D20 doesn't have a weakness system like that because its a game of highpowered fantasy where the PCs are expected to be mighty heroes. I'm also bemused by objections to providing more options, as if variant magic systems and such were a BAD thing. How are more options bad? In the end, its all about the players. I had some of my best experiences using ADnD Skills and Powers; and yet that was the most abusable, minimaxable, porrly protected horror ever to walk the earth. If you have players you can trust not to that, it was great. If you have those you can't... well, that's not a system problem. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 67] Author : WizO_Sinister Date : 08-15-07 10:12 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions And if you have a stutter? Or you're just not very persuasive face to face and want to play a character that is? The problem with systems that treat social skills as role play only is that all your characters will have your social skills. Not everyone is happy with that! So because it's possible someone in the group has a stutter you must roll dice? Well I've had one stutter in 20 years of gaming so yes I guess we must account for that major problem. It's not characters you are refering to it's players. Your players have no social skills so you don't want to penalize them for not being able to role play, but it's a ROLE PLAYING game. You figure if everything is reduced to numbers then all players have a fair chance, but what about players that don't want to read all the books and rules? They are at a very similar disadvantage in your example. The bad social skill player could own every book and know how to tweak every rule, is that fair to the player that didn't want to read all the rules? How about we do some good for the world and teach them social skills? Isn't role playing a social event? Shouldn't we be fostering good communication skills when we role play? Where's the problem in that? Your way doesn't fix the problem. Some people have the skills to role play a character well, should they be reduced to x skill points? Should their creativity be counted for nothing? Should metagamers and number crunchers have all the glory, xp and power? That's hardly fair to more creative element of gamers out there. I'm a firm believer that creativity can be taught. ANY system, even Amber, rewards those that understand it. My first campaign in ADnD was deeply marred by not understanding one of the fundamental principles (Whatever you do, don't play a Thief). Actually, I had great fun, but I was the comedy sidekick to the rest of the characters. Yep, Amber is the reverse. It rewards the truly creative, perhaps too much. I venture to say if I was on the amber forum I might be asking for more rules. What I'm suggesting however is a balance of sorts. I have experienced none of this. My experience has been that players who were powergamers in ADnD are powergamers in 3.x, and those that weren't, aren't. In fact, this holds true across all systems, and I am dubious in the extreme that the system makes the slightest difference to player behaviour. To not even acknowledge that this is a power system is strange. This is one of the very few systems that doesn't even include a weakness or flaw system. Everything about your character is power ups. Power ups sold seperately and purposely to make you run out and buy the books. I know NO one that has brought a book for the content over the prestige classes or feats. These power ups sell books. It's a power system. This is true, but its not a flaw in DnD. All iterations of DnD have been in a high fantasy milieu where there are characters that walk around capable of near godlike acts. Bluff 30 is not far off godlike: 30 ranks in bluff frankly is. The reason that this produces a poor result in Star Wars is that that is a much lower powered background. Its not really fair to criticise 3.x for not modelling something it wasn't designed to. eh, The fact remains sometimes tasks are impossible and should be for a reason. The DM needs more control to make those decisions. If you don't like em making those decisions fine, but I'm not here to play a board game, I want people to be in character. If you can't hack ROLE playing, then either let me help, or find another group. But if you just plan to engage the Game part of a Role Playing Game then don't play in my group. As is stands you could play 3.5 without a DM, you just need 2 decks, at least 2 players and a battlemap. The first deck is monsters and xp, the second deck is loot. Flip card A, fight it (your buddy can play the monster), then flip card B. Switch roles. Repeat. In fact many D&D games I was a player I wish this was the case, then I would have been done quicker and saved me from the veiled attempt at a story. I'll be at gen con for a few days so I won't be able to respond but thanks again for debating this with me. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 68] Author : Varl Date : 08-15-07 10:32 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions As is stands you could play 3.5 without a DM, you just need 2 decks, at least 2 players and a battlemap. The first deck is monsters and xp, the second deck is loot. Flip card A, fight it (your buddy can play the monster), then flip card B. Switch roles. Repeat. In fact many D&D games I was a player I wish this was the case, then I would have been done quicker and saved me from the veiled attempt at a story. Sig worthy! This statement couldn't have said it any better than it did. :clap: :clap: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 69] Author : kintire Date : 08-15-07 11:12 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions So because it's possible someone in the group has a stutter you must roll dice? Well I've had one stutter in 20 years of gaming so yes I guess we must account for that major problem. It's not characters you are refering to it's players. Your players have no social skills so you don't want to penalize them for not being able to role play, but it's a ROLE PLAYING game. It is perfectly possible to be a perfectly competent roleplayer without also being an expert liar. Nor is creativity associated with eloquence. I'm not quite sure why public speaking courses should be required for roleplaying, nor do I think that restricting it to people who have been taught to speak well is a healthy move. To not even acknowledge that this is a power system is strange. This is one of the very few systems that doesn't even include a weakness or flaw system. Everything about your character is power ups. Power ups sold seperately and purposely to make you run out and buy the books. Well, our assumptions are very different. My experience has been that nothing, nothing at all, contributes to a powergameable, abusable system more than a weakness or flaw system. Its absence from the various iterations of DnD is one of the systems' big plusses in my eyes. I know NO one that has brought a book for the content over the prestige classes or feats. You do now. I've bought a considerable number of them, and I don't even use prestige classes. The fact remains sometimes tasks are impossible and should be for a reason. The DM needs more control to make those decisions. If you don't like em making those decisions fine, but I'm not here to play a board game, I want people to be in character All systems, without exception, make statements about what player characters can and cannot do. All games, without exception, allow the GM to state that some things just can't be done. DnD is a high fantasy setting that allows PCs to get powerful and accomplished. You don't have to go with that, You can cap character progression whenever you like, but the base system makes no pretense of being anything other than highpowered fantasy. As is stands you could play 3.5 without a DM, you just need 2 decks, at least 2 players and a battlemap. The first deck is monsters and xp, the second deck is loot. Flip card A, fight it (your buddy can play the monster), then flip card B. Switch roles. Repeat. In fact many D&D games I was a player I wish this was the case, then I would have been done quicker and saved me from the veiled attempt at a story. Oh really. You can do this with ADnD too. Or, indeed, any other system. If the plot of the game is rubbish, that's the DMs fault, not the system. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 70] Author : WizO_Sinister Date : 08-15-07 12:05 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions It is perfectly possible to be a perfectly competent roleplayer without also being an expert liar. Nor is creativity associated with eloquence. I'm not quite sure why public speaking courses should be required for roleplaying, nor do I think that restricting it to people who have been taught to speak well is a healthy move. What you are saying is that a role playing game needs to be accessible to anyone, even people that can't or don't want to act the part. What I'm saying is that acting is the central IDEA of role playing. Just chuckin dice is a game. In fact why not just go play a game of warhammer and pretend you're the general when you roll dice? It's no different if you don't act. Also I want to point out that groups should be helping people to play their roles not laughing at them when they try it. It takes guts to role play and it's not always safe ground but that's the core of pretending to be someone else. If you don't talk like them, and act like them, and then speak in third person the whole time you aren't role playing, you are playing a boardgame. Sure you have a character but you aren't "the character". Well, our assumptions are very different. My experience has been that nothing, nothing at all, contributes to a powergameable, abusable system more than a weakness or flaw system. Its absence from the various iterations of DnD is one of the systems' big plusses in my eyes. So a system that never has drawbacks is a good representation of story? Characters only ever get better? Characters never are set back by anything? Going with, I know, a tired star wars reference, luke loses a hand, is it possible to lose a hand in this game? Only if you house rule it. Point is this system only goes one direction...up. Part of roleplaying (ie playing the part) is dealing with set backs, drawbacks, and failures. I'm not saying just D&D does this but honestly, a complete RPG system needs to be able to move in both directions successes and failures. It's really a board gamish mechanic to only have forward progression and doesn't do justice to any sort of character depth if it can't go backwards from time to time. All systems, without exception, make statements about what player characters can and cannot do. All games, without exception, allow the GM to state that some things just can't be done. DnD is a high fantasy setting that allows PCs to get powerful and accomplished. You don't have to go with that, You can cap character progression whenever you like, but the base system makes no pretense of being anything other than highpowered fantasy. Capping is a really good rule. In fact I really like the idea and I'm glad you brought it up. I have noticed in D&D unlike most systems the difference between 1st level and 20th level is a HUGE difference. Oh really. You can do this with ADnD too. Or, indeed, any other system. If the plot of the game is rubbish, that's the DMs fault, not the system. No you can't. AD&D had many rules left up to the DM. Granted I'm not saying it was a great rules set but I am saying with AD&D there are parts where plain and simple the DM has to make a ruling. I agree that the DM must make the story but the players need to help out too by acting the part. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 71] Author : caeruleus Date : 08-15-07 01:38 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions What you are saying is that a role playing game needs to be accessible to anyone, even people that can't or don't want to act the part. What I'm saying is that acting is the central IDEA of role playing. Just chuckin dice is a game. In fact why not just go play a game of warhammer and pretend you're the general when you roll dice? It's no different if you don't act. I think you missed kintire's point. The point (at least, as I understood it) was that some people are bad at certain social skills, but that should not prevent them from roleplaying (yes, roleplaying) a character who do have those social skills. Should they learn those skills? Perhaps, but they shouldn't be forced to for a game. None of this implies that they don't have to try acting out the character. Someone with poor social skills can create an interesting backstory and think deeply about what their character would do in a given situation. They can come up with the story that their character goes with when they bluff someone, but they shouldn't need to speak confidently and make eye-contact, nor do they need a degree in psychology for their character to be good at bluffing. The whole point of a roll isn't to replace roleplaying, it's to minimize DM bias in deciding whether the attempt is successful. After all, there's a reason the game uses dice, and denying the roll (pun and mispelling intended) that the dice play is just as bad as denying a role for roleplaying. So a system that never has drawbacks is a good representation of story? I thought you said you didn't need game mechanics for everything? Why do you need game mechanics for weaknesses? Were there game mechanics for weaknesses in AD&D? And there certainly are ways for character to get setbacks in 3.x. My friend had a character who lost an eye. He took penalties to Spot and so forth, with no compensating advantage. Why? Because that fit the story. And the 3.x DMG has rules on just this sort of thing. It also has rules on poisons, diseases, curses, etc. No you can't. AD&D had many rules left up to the DM. Granted I'm not saying it was a great rules set but I am saying with AD&D there are parts where plain and simple the DM has to make a ruling. I agree that the DM must make the story but the players need to help out too by acting the part. Look up the 1e DMG, Appendix A: Random Dungeon Generation. Near the end of this appendix, at the top of p. 173, it says: The random dungeon genration system is easily adaptable to solitary play. There is nothing of this sort in the core 3.x books. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 72] Author : RobertFisher Date : 08-15-07 02:36 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions wow, that's a really good way of putting it. Honestly I feel that "feats" and abilities are an illusion of options anyway. I remember playing AD&D and saying to the players. "Ok when you level up everybody gets something cool for their character and we'll write it into the story" At that point the possibilities for abilities is only limited by your imagination, however in 3x they are limited to what's been published leaving a finite, (granted there's hundreds of them)ability limit. This illusion of options helps the metagamer tremendously while nerfing the storytelling player's creativity. To play advocatus diaboli... What keeps you from saying, "make up your own feats"? Or if the feat system still feels too limiting to you, why not just continue to say, "Ok, when you level up everybody gets something cool for their character, and we'll write it into the story" alongside the feat system? Why can't you have both? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 73] Author : RobertFisher Date : 08-15-07 03:13 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions And if you have a stutter? Or you're just not very persuasive face to face and want to play a character that is? The problem with systems that treat social skills as role play only is that all your characters will have your social skills. Not everyone is happy with that! I hate it when judging someone's acting skills become a part of an RPG. That's not the game I want to play. Neither, however, do I want to play a game that over-emphasizes mechanical character traits & takes me too much out of the equation. As a player, I want to play. I want it to be more about the decisions I make. (Decisions I make, not simulated decisions by my character.) Sometimes those decisions are about odds, so that success or failure sometimes depends upon how well my decisions have tilted the odds in my favor, but it is still primarily about my decisions. If a player stutters, I'm not going to consider that as DM in determining the outcome of the situation. I'm not going to consider any aspects of acting on the players part either. I'm going to consider their approach. Is it unfair that the player may not have the knowledge or insight to choose the best approach? No! That's what playing the game is all about. By the way, I'm happy if the player gets input from the other players when deciding their approach. I hate it when players are silenced for metagame reasons. That a character is absent shouldn't prevent the players from freely discussing how to play. And in the end--at least if I'm DM--the DM is going to be giving the players every benefit of the doubt. (A favor the players return.) So, the impact of stuttering or awkward social skills should be minimized while maximizing how much the player actually plays. (Edit: I should maybe have included something about scale. There are certain decisions that do get abstracted because they fall below the scale of the game. e.g. When & how to fient in combat should usually be abstracted within the attack roll. Tactics--which opponent to engage where & such--should usually be player decisions. But that sort of thing can vary depending upon the specific game. A game that focuses more on combat might make the player making more low-level decisions, while a game with less focus on combat my abstract away tactics.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 74] Author : kintire Date : 08-16-07 07:13 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions I think you missed kintire's point. The point (at least, as I understood it) was that some people are bad at certain social skills, but that should not prevent them from roleplaying (yes, roleplaying) a character who do have those social skills. Should they learn those skills? Perhaps, but they shouldn't be forced to for a game. None of this implies that they don't have to try acting out the character. Someone with poor social skills can create an interesting backstory and think deeply about what their character would do in a given situation. They can come up with the story that their character goes with when they bluff someone, but they shouldn't need to speak confidently and make eye-contact, nor do they need a degree in psychology for their character to be good at bluffing. The whole point of a roll isn't to replace roleplaying, it's to minimize DM bias in deciding whether the attempt is successful. You see, this is like what I said, but better. Use this instead. So a system that never has drawbacks is a good representation of story? Characters only ever get better? Characters never are set back by anything? Depends on the story you are trying to tell. And it isn't true that characters are never set back by anything. They can be killed, level drained, stat drained, cursed and so on. Of course, all these things can be overcome, but then this is a heroic fantasy game telling heroic fantasy stories. And it also means that we don't have the blind quadraplegic hunted by the FBI cursed leper with intelligence beyond human maximum and psi powers gods would kill for. Or indeed the socially inept cursed magicless blood crazed hated berserker who is capable of devastating six armies before breakfast. Not that I'm suspicious of flaw and drawback systems or anything. Capping is a really good rule. In fact I really like the idea and I'm glad you brought it up. I have noticed in D&D unlike most systems the difference between 1st level and 20th level is a HUGE difference. In my opinion its a necessity. All iterations of DnD- actually the vast majority of all systems- have a tendency to come apart at the seams and lose all connection with reality as the power level rises, but 3.x is especially bad for this. ADnD was still fairly playable up to 15 or so (with the Skills and Powers rules to boost fighters a bit and thieves a lot). With 3.x I can't really maintain a campaign beyond level 10, and even that's pushing it. Hard. No you can't. AD&D had many rules left up to the DM. None that would have any impact in a simple succession of fights like that. I am saying with AD&D there are parts where plain and simple the DM has to make a ruling. I agree that the DM must make the story but the players need to help out too by acting the part. As far as I'm concerned, when making a world you need three things. The basic laws of reality, things in it, and people to interact with those things. The system provides the first, the GM the second, and the players the third. You can blur the second and third, but I get irritated when I have to blur the first and second. In the real world, the laws of reality just putter along in the background, and I just don't need to worry about them beyond factoring them in to my planning. If I step off a wall, I drop. If I exert my muscles, the force I'm exerting is enough to move what I'm pushing: or its not. These things just work, and they are predictable enough that I can plan my life around them. That's what I want from a system. As a GM, I want a system that just handles all the mechanics of the world, and lets me get on with running the story and the NPCs. As a player, I want a situation where I can plan something, and have a reasonable idea how things work, and what I can and can't do. I don't want, as a GM, to find that a PC has done something and the world doesn't know how to handle it. I don't want, as a PC, to discover halfway through a scene that my enture plan has gone south because something I assumed I could do, I actually can't (oh you want a STRENGTH roll to climb that wall? not DEX? oh...). I want the system to tell me these things. Yes, as I GM I can make rulings to cover it. But at a certain point I am beginning to wonder why, if I'm having to adjudicate all these things, am I paying good money for this system? ADnD did not provide such a system. ADnD 2e kind of did. ADnD 2e with Skills and Powers actually did, although in a rather abuseable way. D20 3.x does, in a simple, flexible and fully mature way. Now, if only it didn't crumble around level 7. And handled clerics in a way even one tenth as good as ADnD. And wasn't so utterly dependent on magic items that it makes ADnD look like Aftermath. And... but I must not go here. Neither, however, do I want to play a game that over-emphasizes mechanical character traits & takes me too much out of the equation. As a player, I want to play. Abstracting the player out of the game is the worst mistake a game can make, its true. But as a player I want to play... a person who is not me. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 75] Author : MarkHall Date : 08-19-07 02:33 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions I think you missed kintire's point. The point (at least, as I understood it) was that some people are bad at certain social skills, but that should not prevent them from roleplaying (yes, roleplaying) a character who do have those social skills. Should they learn those skills? Perhaps, but they shouldn't be forced to for a game. A counter-point: Around the table, with people who are friendly, if not friends, would be an excellent place to practice important social skills. That's been one of the favored uses of role-playing in psychology for decades. In most cases, you know your players; they're not strangers who show up when the dice come out, and disappear when they leave. One of my groomsmen was someone I got to know playing AD&D. If someone in your group is painfully shy, or simply has no social skills, encouraging them to come out of their shell while surrounded by friends makes it easier for them to do so when out in the world. Since one of your friends is the DM, he can apply modifiers as appropriate... if Socially Inept Guy Playing a Bard makes HIS best effort for roleplaying, that can be mechanically simulated with bonuses. The same can happen for Gifted Thespian playing Someone with No Social Skills... if he phones it in, then he's going to get a penalty, even if his "phoning it in" is better than Socially Inept Guy's best performance. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 76] Author : caeruleus Date : 08-19-07 03:12 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions A counter-point: Around the table, with people who are friendly, if not friends, would be an excellent place to practice important social skills. That's been one of the favored uses of role-playing in psychology for decades. In most cases, you know your players; they're not strangers who show up when the dice come out, and disappear when they leave. One of my groomsmen was someone I got to know playing AD&D. If someone in your group is painfully shy, or simply has no social skills, encouraging them to come out of their shell while surrounded by friends makes it easier for them to do so when out in the world. Since one of your friends is the DM, he can apply modifiers as appropriate... if Socially Inept Guy Playing a Bard makes HIS best effort for roleplaying, that can be mechanically simulated with bonuses. The same can happen for Gifted Thespian playing Someone with No Social Skills... if he phones it in, then he's going to get a penalty, even if his "phoning it in" is better than Socially Inept Guy's best performance. A good counter-point. It's good because it's showing me how I can articulate my position better. (That, and I agree with what you're saying.) Perhaps I shouldn't have put it in terms of poor social skills, so let me change the example to make the same point (the point that rolling for social interactions can be a good thing). Some of us (even those who are quite social) are not good at acting. We may be good at spinning stories, as we roleplay bluff attempts, but we can't convince anyone that we believe what we're saying when we lie. Maybe our mannerisms change significantly even though we're not aware that they do. How is the DM to judge whether the character displays those tell-tale mannerisms? With the result of a Bluff check. How is the DM to judge how well the NPC can pick up on those mannerisms? With the result of a Sense Motive check. These subtle cues can make all the difference, after all. While some of us may like to develop more control over how we present ourselves, it should not be a requirement for playing a game, no more than requiring players to take up fencing before they can play fighters. Sure, the DM just make a judgement call, and that might work for some groups. But the rules exist for a reason. We use rules (with random rolls of the dice) to maintain a sort of balance. D&D doesn't leave it to the DM to decide whether an attack hits, whether a thief successfully moves silently, or how much damage a fireball inflicts. DMs can be (unconsciously) biased. But even aside from any bias, DMs may not have a natural sense of the right statistics to follow. Again, that's why we use dice, whenever there is both a chance of success and a chance of failure. This doesn't mean you should use the 3.5 system of Bluff and Diplomacy checks. It does mean that using it is legitimate, and does not indicate a lack of roleplaying. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 77] Author : migo Date : 08-21-07 04:35 AM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions My favourite is 2nd Edition, I think because of familiarity, I can just go ahead and play it, although there are a number of tweaks I'd make to it. It seemed to have more "character" to it than 3rd edition. Although it lacked some compared to earlier editions. For instance, I would have loved for 2nd Ed to have names for every level. Combat was simple. If you wanted to do something funny, you just tried it, didn't have to look it up in the combat chapter. The only thing that really needed to be looked up was a spell that wasn't used frequently. Multiclassing, and differing advancement tables were pretty cool, although wizards were sorely screwed at lower levels. They should have been given 1000XP, 2000XP, 5000XP, 10000XP, 20000XP type advancement and so on. They were so weak at lower levels. But in general, having certain classes advance faster and slower was nice. Even though Druids were kinda wonky. 3rd ed fixed a lot of things I didn't like in 2nd edition, like level caps, class limitations for races, huge importance of stats of 16 or higher, and some other things that didn't make sense, but they just added extra bookkeeping that was pretty annoying in the end. I'd say the major difference between earlier and later editions, was the earlier editions were just a collection of things that were tested in play and turned out to be fun, and 3e had a heavy designed feeling, so it made sense in design but ended up not being as fun in play, even though everything made so much sense when it was read through. 3rd Ed was also more gamey. 2nd Ed and earlier seemed to be much more emulating certain fantasy novels. It was pretty easy for things to feel right if you read a novel set in a game setting. 3rd Edition it doesn't quite feel that way. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 78] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 08-28-07 10:43 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions I’ve played every edition of D&D. My players had only ever played 3.5e ,but tonight I convinced them to try 1e. And they loved it. Character creation was quicker ,no feats or skills. The combat system was easy for them. They said it was faster and easier with fewer modifiers. I really didn’t expect them to like it. I thought they might have a hard time with the rules. But, I guess all editions are easy to learn and easy to play. Maybe I’ll see how they handle Rifts. Those rule books aught to confuse them. For me 1e and 2e are the best. There are lots of reasons for my preference. But, one is the smell. I love the smell of those old books! :D Ya the smell is nice! AD&D 1st ed. came out with proficiencies, which act as skills. As for Rifts, I think it's less confusing than 3.5 in many respects. I am in a state of toss-up between 1st and 2nd editions of AD&D. I guess 2nd wins out over-all; however, I liked that elves were much longer-lived in 1st ed, as were half-elves. Ability score requirements made sense to me, as did level caps for the various races, and what races could do what. That said, I used all of the "optional rules", including raised level caps for better ability scores. I also loved kits... they differentiated the fighter named Varg Bjornsen from the fighter named Merick the Swift with that "extra flavour" that stat placement just doesn't cover. AND it didn't require the addition of yet another "base class" to the mix. Humanoids were also playable from 1st level, which is great for those of us who like to be even more "unique" with what characters we could play. 2nd ed. was more codified than 1st; I remember that on character creation nights the dm and players also decided what house-rules to create and implement into the game, which was always fun... which is one of the many reasons I like 1st so well. 3.x just doesn't have the feel, or the spirit, of the previous editions... in particular, I think more "heart" went into the making of 1st ed. than any edition since. We also played "characters", rather than "builds"... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 79] Author : Mojo_Rat Date : 09-04-07 03:03 PM Thread Title : Re: Key differences between editions I have a long time friend that DM's 1E exclusively and recently he started a campaign after having not done one for 2 or 3 years I did notice some things about the game that I had not when we were actively playing it. The contrasts I noticed may have also been due to playing 3.5 during most of that intervening period. When i sat down to re-read the rules I felt that the older game was much less 'inclusive' it is very easy to get a character in the older game that excells at nothing. It almost punishes you for rolling average. This isnt to say average is bad several of my favorite characters fell into this category when i was younger but it stood out to me when i sat down to look at the game after not playing it a while. This inst to say that the modern game is flawless (It has huge flaws) I do think though that some of the ones mentioned in the thread so far are as much the modern gamer as the current rules used by the game. Its like the the game (the one talked about on the main forums where numbers and game mechanics are emphasized) inst necessarily the one played by people once they sit down to hang out with friends and role play. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:22 AM.