1E vs Forked Thread: Is 4E doing it for you?

[ExploderWizard]

That said, I would not be sad if some of the more fiddly tactical elements went to the wayside.

They can indeed be be cast aside. And older core rules can have more options added to help get rid of the "I hit, I miss" syndrome. Looking at it from a flavor perspective OD&D and 4E can be run with little flavor resulting in BOTH games being simply hit-miss yawnfests. The difference is that you are left with all kinds of movement and temporary bonus stuff bogging down the game in 4E with or without the flavor. I just find it easier to start with a basic system and add what I need rather than start with an involved complex set and try to fix it.

 

[Remathilis]

Let me get this in before the eventual lock...

I find it highly amusing that many of the complaints launched against 3e and 4e are blatantly in 1e or 2e, but often "ignored" by the rose-tinted glass of nostalgia.

To Wit:

Game-slowing subsystems: Sure, grapple was a pain and nobody ever remembered the steps to it, but did you ever try to punch/wrestle without the book open? Or Turn Undead?

Power Escalation via Supplements: Ever heard of Unearthed Arcana? Complete Book of Elves?

Meta-gaming: The Tomb of Horrors was a metagame-laden module. The puzzles didn't care if you were 1st level or a demi-god, just how smart the player was.

Role-Playing Vs. Combat Rules: Open Up your PHB for any edition. How many pages are devoted to combat resolution (including combat-use magic)? How many are there for skill use, social encounters, or "role-playing" concerns?

Similarity: "Hi! I'm a fighter. I'm specialized in bastard sword." "Hi, I'm also a fighter, I'm specialized in battle axe".

Magical Item Dependency: Because the classes typically only had a few options for customization (choice of weapon spec, % of thief skills, rangers favored foe) most characters depended on magical items to make the different from one another mechanically. A high-level fighter stripped of everything wasn't much better than a low-level fighter, just better at hitting and taking damage. Compare with a high-level mage vs. a low level mage without gear. No contest.

Magical Item Acquisition and Leveling Speed: I recall someone long ago disproved the myth of 1e or 2e's "low magic item" and "slow leveling" myth. Both were only possible with DM intervention (giving out less treasure, no XP for GP), which puts it into the realm of houserule, and similar houserules can and do exist for 3e on as well.

Metagamism, Redux: Wait, if I'm an elf, I can be a mage, thief, or fighter, but I can't be a druid, bard or paladin. I can be a fighter/mage (earning XP at the same time in two classes) and ignore the penalty to casting in armor, but if I was a human and dual-classed (fighter into mage) I couldn't cast in armor, and never level up in fighter again? How is that balanced? Oh, right, I'll magically stop earning XP after a certain point, negating the sole-purpose for adventuring.

So in the end, I guess I don't see many of those criticisms launched against the post-TSR editions can't be retroactively applied to earlier ones as well.

 

[Simon Atavax]

Speak for yourself.

I was! That's why I said, "the big difference that I've observed."

Hugs,

Simon

 

[catsclaw227]

a) Broken Core rules/Combinations: House rule the core rules and/or say no to broken combos. If CODzilla is a problem, you place limits. Maybe, specific cleric spells are only avaialble to specific domains. If Natural Spell is a problem, alter it or don't use it. If the druid's companion is a problem, limit the types of creatures that are available.

I have already played a game that I needed 5 pages of house rules to enjoy. I am just not that interested anymore.

b) Controlling broken builds or the preplanned build mentality:

Control the options that you allow. If you don't want templated or monster PCs disallow them.

Liimit certain classes, feats and/or spells to specific cultures

If the issue involves multiclassing, PrCs, or players focusing on preplanned builds use the optional training rules and trainer requirement from the DMG. WIthout a trainer and time, characters cannot multiclass. This means that characters need to learnof/find, secure, and have time to spend with a trainer to multiclass or take a PrC. Suddenly, the guy with the preplanned build is out of luck if he or she is in the wrong area of the world when he levels.

I am not sure how will this would go over with 3.x players in general. And I really don't feel like clamping down on their vision of what they want their PC to be like. Yes, I dislike the whole preplanning mentality, but telling a player that ISN'T going for CODZilla, but instead just wants to take a single prestige class that he can't because there isn't a trainer available just sucks. Why punish all to pull in the reigns on one?

c) Broken or inappropraite supplemental material: Control what supplemental material is used. There is nothing wrong with disallowing a book or allowing only select items that you feel are appropriate.

I already do this. And then I find something in a splat I want to use as a DM or give to a player as a reward. Help one and screw the rest? Not very player friendly, in my opinion.

Either way, I feel that I am getting the FEEL for my old 1e games again with 4e, without all the wonky mechanics and boring "swing-miss-swing-hit-blast-swing-hit-swing-miss".

Back in college (and then in my mid-twenties), we would actually roll a few rolls in advance of the combat and then narrate the combat based on the rolls, it got so monotonous.

 

[Simon Atavax]

Regarding 'profound truths' about 3e and 4e vs. earlier editions. . . *snort*, whatever. Neither term applies, IME. Power gaming is all about players, and nothing about system whatsoever. Simple as that.

There is some truth to what you're saying here. I recall a recent Knights of the Dinner Table in which Brian, Bob, and Dave turned Settlers of Catan into a wargame.

Yet surely you would agree that some systems favor powergaming over others? Surely you would agree that it is easier to powergame in, say, 3.5 than in, say, OD&D?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Let me get this in before the eventual lock...

I find it highly amusing that many of the complaints launched against 3e and 4e are blatantly in 1e or 2e, but often "ignored" by the rose-tinted glass of nostalgia.

To Wit:

Game-slowing subsystems: Sure, grapple was a pain and nobody ever remembered the steps to it, but did you ever try to punch/wrestle without the book open? Or Turn Undead?

Power Escalation via Supplements: Ever heard of Unearthed Arcana? Complete Book of Elves?

Meta-gaming: The Tomb of Horrors was a metagame-laden module. The puzzles didn't care if you were 1st level or a demi-god, just how smart the player was.

Role-Playing Vs. Combat Rules: Open Up your PHB for any edition. How many pages are devoted to combat resolution (including combat-use magic)? How many are there for skill use, social encounters, or "role-playing" concerns?

Similarity: "Hi! I'm a fighter. I'm specialized in bastard sword." "Hi, I'm also a fighter, I'm specialized in battle axe".

Magical Item Dependency: Because the classes typically only had a few options for customization (choice of weapon spec, % of thief skills, rangers favored foe) most characters depended on magical items to make the different from one another mechanically. A high-level fighter stripped of everything wasn't much better than a low-level fighter, just better at hitting and taking damage. Compare with a high-level mage vs. a low level mage without gear. No contest.

Magical Item Acquisition and Leveling Speed: I recall someone long ago disproved the myth of 1e or 2e's "low magic item" and "slow leveling" myth. Both were only possible with DM intervention (giving out less treasure, no XP for GP), which puts it into the realm of houserule, and similar houserules can and do exist for 3e on as well.

Metagamism, Redux: Wait, if I'm an elf, I can be a mage, thief, or fighter, but I can't be a druid, bard or paladin. I can be a fighter/mage (earning XP at the same time in two classes) and ignore the penalty to casting in armor, but if I was a human and dual-classed (fighter into mage) I couldn't cast in armor, and never level up in fighter again? How is that balanced? Oh, right, I'll magically stop earning XP after a certain point, negating the sole-purpose for adventuring.

So in the end, I guess I don't see many of those criticisms launched against the post-TSR editions can't be retroactively applied to earlier ones as well.

Oh WOW. Where to begin

Game-slowing subsystems: Basic D&D unarmed combat was super simple.

Power Escalation via Supplements: Not really a problem. The Companion and Master rules added a lot of power but for level 36 play, not too powerful.

Meta-gaming: No more so then than now, just different metagaming aspects.

Role-Playing Vs. Combat Rules: Actually only a page or two for either. Imagine that.

Similarity: "Hi! I'm a fighter. I'm specialized in bastard sword." "Hi, I'm also a fighter, I'm specialized in battle axe".

The weapon mastery rules opened up all kinds of cool things to do with lots of weapons for every class, not just fighters.

So now instead we have: " Hi I'm a fighter, my job is to get beat up." "Hi I'm also a fighter I'm l77t DPS".

Magical Item Dependency: no more dependency than the DM required. As a bonus at least the items were worth depending on.

Magical Item Acquisition and Leveling Speed: Oh heck yeah!! The early modules were stuffed like a piggy bank with loot despite all the advice about moderation.

Metagamism, Redux: well there were issues to be sure, but at least in core 1E you COULD play a bard........or druid..........or gnome, ect. Your classes were not held for ransom.

Everyone has issues with SOMETHING and every game system has issues.

 

[Aus_Snow]

There is some truth to what you're saying here. I recall a recent Knights of the Dinner Table in which Brian, Bob, and Dave turned Settlers of Catan into a wargame.

Yet surely you would agree that some systems favor powergaming over others? Surely you would agree that it is easier to powergame in, say, 3.5 than in, say, OD&D?

Well, firstly, sorry about the tone of my last post - it was a bit unnecessary, now I think about it - and secondly, thank you for being so reasonable in response. Much appreciated.

To answer your question though, I honestly haven't seen any evidence supporting that view. As in, things haven't gone that way, in my own experiences. But if they have for you, and (most likely) for others too, well, I guess there must be something to it. Sometimes, anyway.

I've seen people try to 'game the system' with B/X, with 1e, with 3e, and with other completely different systems and settings besides. And, for each of those - rules-light through to rules-heavy - I've also come across a lot of not gaming the system going on. More and more, in later times (gods or whatever be praised.)

It just strikes me that (IMO, IME and all the rest) a powergamer will um, powergame, regardless. Or try to, as best they might. And, on the other hand, those not inclined to, just won't.

 

[Arnwyn]

Different strokes for different folks and all that.

Hmm. Sounds like the very end of the thread in the very first post. How 'bout that?

In terms of mechanically

Oops! Where did that come from? Not the post you quoted. Weird. I'm sure you're quite aware that, to some people, there's more to the different editions than mechanics (heck, even how they're presented or the assumptions behind them can make a difference to some).

 

[Greg K]

Yet surely you would agree that some systems favor powergaming over others? Surely you would agree that it is easier to powergame in, say, 3.5 than in, say, OD&D?

I don't blame the tools for how some people choose to use them.

 

[Remathilis]

Oh WOW. Where to begin
{snip}
Everyone has issues with SOMETHING and every game system has issues.

I assume you are referring to BECMI/Basic/Rules Cyclopedia D&D (and edition very near and dear to my heart).

If so, I can agree with you to a point. BECMI is perhaps one of the most well-constructed and balanced editions of D&D ever created. A lot of that comes from the limiting of options (races-as-classes, relatively small spell lists) and a much more exploratory vs. large combat approach to adventure design. (Contest Most B/X modules vs. most AD&D 1e modules).

It still carries some design flaws (level limits on demi-humans, sameiness in fighters and thieves) but overall does a better job of capturing that old-school vibe than AD&Ds oft-nonsensical "advanced" mechanics (exceptional str anyone?)