2E vs 3E: 8 Years Later. A new perspective?

Arauthator said:
All this rule mongering simply amazes me. I find it a bit weird that we are now in 2008 and still trying to come up with a rules system to make everybody happy from a game that was created in 1974.
It's kind of like how we keep coming up with new cars even though the Model T Ford came out in 1907 or so. :p For some reason, we keep finding newer and better ways of doing things, or at least, different ways of doing things that some of us like better than the old ways. I blame creativity and imagination. It just seems impossible somehow to separate creativity and imagination from a role-playing game.

Most of you guys seriously need to play a few good games of Castles & Crusades. The whole reason Gary left DnD was the rules were getting way to complex. I myself don't have that problem because I never did rely on the rules that often. It's a game of players overcoming challenges with some dice. The rule books are just guides to get that accomplished. I as a DM ultimately have the last say, as the game was originally designed to entail. I remind my players of that, and they always agree to it, because nobody likes to play an RPG like a ding dang chess game, thinking about your next move for the next 10 minutes, or in the case of complex rules, finding it in the book. I limit what can be used at the game table to only things the player knows well. If they can't come up with something quickly to make combat move fast, I throw in role playing tactics to get that player away from the combat. They love it.
I think a lot of this will depend on whether your players enjoy open-ended problems or problems with a definite solution. A game that mostly consists of open-ended problems does not require an extensive or complex rule-set, just players and a DM who are pretty much on the same page with respect to how the world works (or should work). A game that mostly consists of problems with definite solutions is better served with a more extensive and complex rule-set so that the players can put together a variety of rule elements to arrive at a solution. Of course, one of the strengths of table-top RPGs is that it can accomodate both, and ideally a game should consist of problems that have definite solutions, and be run by a DM who is willing to accept plausible, "out-of-the-box" alternatives.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Arauthator said:
Well you picked up on my second point but missed my first. The evolution of the game in my opinion is to make everyone happy and it just simply can't be done.
It may be impossible to make everyone happy, but in my view, it's almost as impossible to stop people from trying. As long as there is a single DM who wants to tinker with the rules in order to improve his game (from his perspective, at least), evolution is going to happen. With the Internet, it's going to be a lot easier for ideas to spread, and for ideas that appeal to more gamers to get adopted in more groups. The net effect is not so much the evolution of One Game as it is the development of an increasing menu of options which individual gaming groups can pick and choose from to suit their individual tastes. Even the launch of a new edition by whoever owns the D&D brand at the time simply (presumably) causes the majority of gamers to cluster around the most recently published rules - points of convergence in a world of house rules, if you will. :p
 

Arauthator said:
Well with all due respect, you picked up on my second point but missed my first. The evolution of the game in my opinion is to make everyone happy and it just simply can't be done. This is why Ford isn't the ONLY car maker in the world, while they are the original designer of the car. /snip

No, Ford isn't. Cars originated in Europe about thirty years before we saw a Model T.

I wasn't ignoring your point, just questioning your perspective of history. Gygax most certainly did not leave D&D because of complexity. Heck, 1e is FAR MORE complex than 2e.

While you cannot make everyone happy, you can make as many people happy as possible. The mistake you make here is that by pointing out the shortcomings in a given edition, that means that we hate a given edition. I don't hate any edition. I wouldn't play 1e again, but, that's because I like 3e much better. Same goes for 2e. IMO, 3e does certain things better than 2e did and increases my overall enjoyment of the game. 2e did the same for me than 1e.

However, that doesn't mean that any edition is perfect. I have no interest in going to something like C&C because it quite simply doesn't appeal to me. I don't feel that C&C is a "simpler" version of 3e. True 20 is. C&C feels like 3e with governors on the engine. I don't like it. That's not saying its bad, just that it's not for me.

Then again, I've long become comfortable with the idea that I play D&D. I'm not trying to play a fantasy emulator or genre emulator using D&D mechanics. I play D&D to play that game, not to try to use that game to recreate my favorite fiction or movie. So, concepts like, "Well, I can't do Frodo in D&D" don't bother me in the slightest.
 

Henry Ford brought cars to america for the first time, that's what I meant by original. He also was the Father of the assembly line in auto manufacturing.

Gary moved to Lejendary Adventures because he felt that RPG's were becoming too complex in rules systems. One of the key factors I love about the guy is his vision to downsize rules and keep things simple. Sometimes, when the horsepower burns out the transmission, it's time to move the car into the grocery go getter, and sell it to the ones that don't need all that horsepower. The ones that are more interested in picking up the kids after school and able to get around economically.

Hehe.

Besides, if we are going to talk evolution, it's only right to bring the Father of the game into the picture.

The idea that you can't do your favorite Fantasy character in DnD is just absurd. Ask any writer or publisher currently active in D20 systems and they will try to sell that concept to you on purpose. As a matter of fact, that whole concept, it use to be the back bone of D20. Lot's of people learned to play this way. It was the quickest way to get a guy that had no idea of what the Fantasy world was about, into the game and walk away feeling like he had a good time.
 
Last edited:

Oh, I can agree with the father of the game thing.

What I don't agree with is your characterization of history. Gygax's leaving D&D had extremely little to do with rules mechanics and a lot to do with real world stuff. Add to that, Gygax's own additions to the game - Unearthed Arcana for example - and you have stuff that is in no way rules light.
 

Hussar said:
Oh, I can agree with the father of the game thing.

What I don't agree with is your characterization of history. Gygax's leaving D&D had extremely little to do with rules mechanics and a lot to do with real world stuff. Add to that, Gygax's own additions to the game - Unearthed Arcana for example - and you have stuff that is in no way rules light.


Well, if that statement were true, then we wouldn't be talking about evolution, it would be called digression. Just read over these forums and look at all the complaints about the rules. For the most part, through the history of the game, rules have not been taken away, they have been added.

If Gary didn't feel that games were becoming too rules intensive, he wouldn't be trying to downsize them like he did with Castles & Crusades, or Lejendary Adventures.
 
Last edited:

Digression

What would it hurt to keep supporting the older rules systems?

That would be evolutionary in a marketing sense as well. But the reason I would like to see this, again in my own opinion, is that I would have the option to use quite a few sets of rules and still be able to purchase new material for those systems. The only reason I have the option to go back and play BASIC DnD, is because I've kept my material from the eighties. Going on to Ebay and purchasing all that stuff would cost a fortune and you would eventually hit a dead end. It can be done though. What would it hurt for WoTC to publish the old stuff on their website? Or to offer the old books with new art and keep the original text?

I'm not trying to start an argument here, I just happen to be well informed, have played this game since 1980, and I love the works of Monte Cook, Skip Williams, and others like Ed Greenwood. I'm just not privy to people trying to accommodate everybody on the planet. The REASON behind the evolution is silly in my opinion. Now, if you were to keep on supporting the older rules systems, then that would truly be remarkable and honorable.
 

Arauthator said:
The whole reason Gary left DnD was the rules were getting way to complex.

Arauthator said:
Gary moved to Lejendary Adventures because he felt that RPG's were becoming too complex in rules systems.

However, before Gary went to LA, he wrote Dangerous Journeys, which is infamous as one of the more rules-heavy and complicated RPGs ever created.

I suggest your depiction of why Gary left D&D is completely false.
 

MerricB said:
However, before Gary went to LA, he wrote Dangerous Journeys, which is infamous as one of the more rules-heavy and complicated RPGs ever created.

I suggest your depiction of why Gary left D&D is completely false.

The suggestion wasn't one of where he didn't make ANY rules heavy systems, it was a point being made, that he put out 2 very fine systems that were not. Better known as alternatives. But we'll come back to that later. You opened up a whole new can of worms, young grasshopper.

However you think I spread false statements is beyond the Great Abyss, which translates you into calling me a liar, bold words from somebody that doesn't even know me. You grasshopper, may read this interview and see for yourself that he is all about role playing, not rules. That my friends, translates into seeing the RPG's of today's world, as rules heavy because when they do get away from this emphasis, they concentrate on rules and turn you into their rulebook slaves. DnD was in it's original creation, designed to be a role playing game, not a table top hack and slash with comic book powers. Which, the later is I.E. "Rules Heavy".

http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/blog/2007/12/19/interview-with-living-legend-gary-gygax/


You guys need to realize something before you go any further. I'm the most dangerous kind of consumer to the RPG games. I'm the guy that has played just about ALL of the systems available and I have fun with each and every one because of one simple rule, which I've already stated earlier. I stay true to role playing and keep the power of the DM known. Gary Gygax being the Father of role playing games and in his career prime at the time of me growing up, developed my gaming style as DM into what it is today. My track record is fast moving combat, lots of role playing, and an empty bag of funyons after about six hours of play each and every time. Hell, I even got some players that are facing divorce because I do the job so well. That's AFTER getting them through Forge of Fury in less than 6 hours. Which was a pretty good adventure I might add.

So if you are going to argue a point, from here on out, at least have the courtesy to make statements you can back up. I mean my gosh.
 
Last edited:


Remove ads

Top