Third Edition Culture- Is is sustainable?

[Keoki]

Learn the Rules

I had difficulty with 3E when it first came out, just as I had trouble when I first learned AD&D. In comparison, 3E (and especially 3.5) is remarkably streamlined. Just practice some more and it should get easier. Fortunately, the basic rules system has been so well hammered out now that we don't have to worry about a bunch of new rules in DRAGON every month throwing monkeywrenches into our game, like we did with previous editions. Just options that use the current rules. So learn those, and you should be fine.

 

[Narfellus]

I don't want all gnomes to be the same. Why should a gnome that grew up in the city learn how to speak to burrowing mammals? Why should a dwarf who grew up on an island learn the different rock strata?

I want customizable classes. I could purchase "Buy the numbers" to solve this, of course. Since the core game doesn't do this. There are also fundamental balance issues to resolve by doing this.

I want a more realistic economy. I've never played in a D&D game where anyone in the party actually saved up for full plate armor.
At this stage of my life, I'm beyond the concept of alignment. I could remove alignment, but it is so ingrained in the system that to do so would require significant tweaking.

I want a more flexible spellcasting system. I could implement Elements of Magic, but that's introducing quite a bit of change.

The magic item creation system is complicated. That's easy enough, though, because I wrote the Artificer's Handbook, so that solves those problems. And yes, it has rules for rechargeable magic items, gestalt sets, and socketed items.

So, there's *my* D&D. Tons of house rules on races, Buy The Numbers, no alignment system, lots of house rules to reflect the lack of alignment. Elements of Magic for the spell system, and Artificer's Handbook for magic item costs and creation. *whew*.

Baseline is this - I want a system that provides players options, not restrictions. D&D 3e went a LOOONG ways towards that by removing racial level limits, and racial class restrictions, and even some alignment restrictions. I want to take it a step further. I want a game that allows the player to construct his vision of a character. Currently, D&D works the opposite - the players have to fit their ideas into the molds that D&D provides.

die_kluge, i absolutely agree with a lot of what you say here. We came up with our own point-based character creation system, an alternative magic system (by the way, check out Ars Magica for a cool magic system) and i let ANYONE trade out racial abilities for other feats. I just made a dwarf without darkvision or bonuses vs goblinoids! Yes, 3.x is SO magic intensive that the game is designed to kill you pretty quickly unless you have Bullstrengthed everyone, +3 chainmail, +4 greatswords, and wands of Maximized Fireball. And in my games we don't do that because as DM i set the pace. I'm skimpy on handing out magic because they can survive WITHOUT that +1 chainmail.

And i use alignment only as a guide, i don't have any game-mechanics tied to it. Simply put, Detect Evil doesn't exist, don't bother casting it. I didn't find it so hard to cut it out of the game, but i've always found Alignment to be a fascinating way to study society and interpersonal reactions, without being a straightjacket.

 

[fredramsey]

I think we have gotten very far away from the original question this thread asked:

Third Edition Culture- Is is sustainable?

Still not certain what "Third Edition Culture" is. Sounds like a college course.

The game seems to be going strong. It has its detractors (as does any system) and its fans. I like it immensely, and I've been playing for 25 years, starting with the box set that featured the rather crude painting of the fighter and the wizard fighting the red dragon.

I've never had games go smoother than with 3.5.

My concern here is that rather than find a system they enjoy, whether that be a pre-existing system or one they make themselves by modifying something, people are screaming that D&D needs to change to what *they* want it to be. No thank you. I'm glad D&D is as it is, and will continue to support it by buying supplements from WOTC and other companies. And they'll get the message.

If you want change, vote with your wallet. *IF* enough people don't buy; they'll change. But if I were you, I'd find a game system I liked, and not spend my time whining about a system you *don't* like.

 

[Desdichado]

Baseline is this - I want a system that provides players options, not restrictions. D&D 3e went a LOOONG ways towards that by removing racial level limits, and racial class restrictions, and even some alignment restrictions. I want to take it a step further. I want a game that allows the player to construct his vision of a character. Currently, D&D works the opposite - the players have to fit their ideas into the molds that D&D provides.

That about sums up my feelings on D&D too. 3e went a long way towards fixing various problems I had with the system, and it brought my back to D&D. At the end of the day, though, I discovered that it was still rife with D&Disms that annoyed me most of the time. Frankly, I think a toolkit like Grim Tales is my perfect d20 game anymore. It's compatible with pretty much all the other d20 material out there, but has a very different feel to D&D, and it is customizble in terms of genre and style.

That said, I still enjoy a fair amount of D&D games. Just played some Dungeon adventures in freakin' old skool Greyhawk last week, for instance, and we're gearing up for an Eberron game to slot in between the other games we're running/playing. But D&D is kinda the casual fallback position, not really the game I'm excited to run or play.

 

[fredramsey]

Double Post

 

[Grayhawk]

My solution would be a unified mechanic covering advanced combat. A single roll and opposed roll. You can even keep the AoO in there, but the AoO does not cause the action to fail. Then you eleminate the feats that break this rule such as Improved Grapple etc. This allows for option and simplicity. A bull rush is the same as a grapple is the same as an overrun is the same as action x. Every player and GM knows that simple mechanic.

Since I'm in the process of simplifying/reworking 3.x to make it suit my tastes, I've also tried to address what you describe above.

For those interested, you can find the thread here. If you just want to see the latest incarnation of the mechanic, go to post #25 on page 2.

While you're at it, you can see an overview of the stuff I'm changing in post #2 of this thread.

Lastly, for those of you that have expressed unsatisfaction with the Turn Undead mechanic, there's a thread that deals with that - post #17 has the latest info. You propably won't find what you're looking for, but you may be able to provide valuable input

[/blatant plugs]

 

[Narfellus]

But now you realize that we are both massively outnumbered by those who use few or no tweaks.

Many here have professed the classic frustration here at having too many options at the options that do exist (feats, classes, etc.) You give the players too many options in the BASELINE of the system, even more people are going to find it unmanageable.

I wonder how many people actually use extensive houserules? It's not so much that we USE alternate rules, rather than NOT using every single existing rule. Hell, we don't even use the default XP system anymore, it makes characters level up way too fast for that Almighty 20th level goal, and then the Epic beyond. For me, DnD 3.x is most fun from 1st to 12th level. Beyond that, the numbers ridiculously ratchet up. Epic level should not have been about bigger numbers, it should have been about roleplaying and implementing the machinations and cosmic goals of gods. Not bigger fireballs.

 

[Rasyr]

Would is surprise you if I said I don't consider HARP particularly light? HARP is a robust system, not a rules light system, AFAIAC, in the way I divide things.

EDIT: IOW, saying that it is lighter than its predescessor RM ain't saying much.

I didn't say HARP was rules-light, (though I can see where it might be thought that I implied it - sorry, didn't mean to do that). HARP is not what I would consider to be a rules-lite game, however, I do consider it to be a relatively lighter game than RM or D&D.

 

[Turjan]

Many here have professed the classic frustration here at having too many options at the options that do exist (feats, classes, etc.) You give the players too many options in the BASELINE of the system, even more people are going to find it unmanageable.

This does not necessarily have to be. Who knows, maybe the next version of D&D will have races divided from cultures, magic as a skill and classes replaced bay a point-buy-system. If the now existing classes are still offered as some kind of prebuilt templates that illustrate the results of the point-buy, everybody should be fine.

 

[Narfellus]

This does not necessarily have to be. Who knows, maybe the next version of D&D will have races divided from cultures, magic as a skill and classes replaced bay a point-buy-system. If the now existing classes are still offered as some kind of prebuilt templates that illustrate the results of the point-buy, everybody should be fine.

I think that's a great idea, and sort of a logical progression of the system. Tying it back to the Thread Topic, is 3rd Edition culture sustainable (not quite sure what that means) i think that the culture of the game will simply adapt with the style of players through new incarnations of the system. 3.x will sustain until 4.x. I really do like 3.x, but to be better i've had to cater it. I like d20 in general very much because of it's amazing versatility. The parts of it i don't like i just don't use.