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

[FireLance]

Different topic, to save another post: opening up magic item creation to PCs was outright one of the worst things 3e did. I'll stop there, on that one, before I get myself in trouble.

It is possible to discuss problems neutrally and clinically without getting into trouble, you know. Was it one of the following?

1. It reduced the ability of the DM to control the number and type of magic items available to the PCs, and hence, the tone and power level of his game.

2. It increased the ability of the players to further customize the PCs, thus leading to greater min-maxing.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

In systems like D&D where you are presented with both a large number of choices to consider when creating a character, and when you have many variables that interact with a lot of stats (Modifing 1 stat and having to adjust 2 or 3 others), it becomes essentially impossible to improvise an effective combatant NPC on the fly and still be consistent with the rules.

IME 1e/2e DMs tended to have builds of certain styles that were notched up or down. We as players got very good at guessing the stats of the NPCs; for most NPCs were were usually within +-1 for AC and <10% off for HPs.

The 3e equivalent would be to build the Standard Wizard, Standard Cleric, Standard Fighter, etc. in the style of the 3.0 DMG, and make modest tweaks as it strikes the DMs mood.

I have a bit of a Balance Nazi streak. But I do not see why there is any necessity for the DM to adhere to the rules precisely as long as it is approximately fair overall. Are the character generation rules restrictions that the DM adhere to? Or are they rough guidelines on power level and raw clay for inspiration?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

It is possible to discuss problems neutrally and clinically without getting into trouble, you know. Was it one of the following?

1. It reduced the ability of the DM to control the number and type of magic items available to the PCs, and hence, the tone and power level of his game.

2. It increased the ability of the players to further customize the PCs, thus leading to greater min-maxing.

One I have heard voiced by one of my DMs:

3. Magic items feel less special. Even the weirdest items used to treasured, and very few items other than plain magic weapons were considered "standard".

(There is more than a kernel of truth in #3. This is the problem of the Big Six stated another way. I also think that this could easily be solved by DM fiat -- make weird/multifunction items cheaper and PCs will start finding better uses for them than selling them for pocket change.)

 

[Reynard]

And it's part of a bigger problem: maintaining balance through rarity, which didn't work. The same thing was true of PCs, the paladin was very powerful compared to the ordinary fighter. The only thing balancing it was a required 17 Cha and several other relatively high (13+) stats. I don't remember the exact stats, but it was at least Str and Wis too. The idea that making the paladin rare balanced it out, but it didn't because if a player did roll one up, it's extra power would still be felt in thhe campaign. And I think this lead to alignment stomping with them. The same was true of rangers, druids and bards, though I don't think druids were all that overpowering compared to the cleric (though I saw few in 2e, so I can't be sure).

The rules also based this rarity on an assumption of the old 3d6 method, but most games I played and ran used Method 5 (aka 4d6), and that tossed the whole PC class balance out the window. I had few straight fighters in my games; everyone tended to play paladins, rangers, or multiclass.

The less you rely on random character generation, the less effective the "balancing" systems inherent in the system are. Also note that the balance wasn't necessarily based on any given moment -- it was supposed to be based over the course of the campaign (where players would be expected to run many, many characters). Using high stat minimums to "balance" powerful classes doesn't work because that means all the powerful classed characters will be even more powerful by virtue of the necessity of high stats. Which works fine when that character is a one in a million, but breaks down the moment you allow players to pick and choose what they want to play. And, if a player does get that lucky, he is going to want to hold on to that character and the character is going to be played with a sense of mortality that is rare among PCs.

I think a lot of the design elements and mechanics that people call "broken" or "bad" from previous editions are called that because those mechanics are designed, in many cases, for an entirely different sort of playstyle, one that D&D has slowly edged away from over the years (and certainly over the last few years since 3.5 came out). While it is true tere have been munchkins and power gamers since the game began, 3.5 has taken this to a new height by not just building the game system, but the entire business model, around munchkinism as it would have been traditionally called and is now called "optimization" and "build". Add that to the need for constant rewards (fast levelling and no dead levels) and the tone of the average game has changed quite a lot, I think. 4E was inevitable in more ways than one.

EDIT: Thast sounds more bad-wrong-fun than I intended. What I mean is that since 3.5 came out, both thegame system and the publishing strategy of the game have seemed to focus more and more on PC power and just the right combinations of abilities. The last couple years have been even more focused on defining "fun" as both PC power and constant mechanical rewards. I don't see this changing in 4E; in fact, all the evidence points to making it more fundamental to the game in 4E. Me gut feeling is that this has alot to do with Mearls' involvement in Des&Dev: it is his definition of "fun" that is guiding the direction of the game, but I can't be certain of that.

 

[Spell]

Integrated mechanics offer the designer two options: (1) write your new mechanics so they integrate with the rest of the system, or (2) write your mechanics as you please and silo them off from the rest of the mechanics by a trivial act of fiat.

WOW! i couldn't disagree more with you on this one!

now, surely you are right. there's nothing that stops me from stop giving magical items to the players if i want to run a nitty gritty low magic game. nothing apart from the fact that the *whole* system is built around the assumption that, say, you will have a +x magical weapon at level 3, and a +y magical defense bonus.

yeah, i could simply substitute those plusses with class bonuses. only, in my nitty gritty world, it doesn't make sense at all that a PC should have access to what effectly are superpowers.

in 2e, there's way those monsters that do need magical weapons to be fought often require a +1 weapon and nothing more. hardly stuff of legend in a "normal" campaign.


say i wanted to ignore completely the skill system. would the classes still be balanced? nope. say i wanted to run a late reinassance game where nobody wore heavy armours and magic was rare. would the classes would be balanced? nope.

surely i could redesign the system to play d20 nitty n gritty, or d20 without armour, or d20 without magic, or whatever. but that would be, indeed, REDESIGNING the system, not just plug in your nice little set of house rules.

that's why many people had heavily house ruled AD&D games, back in the dayswhereas many people today have bought arcana unearthed, iron heroes, or whatever "it's still D&D, only with a different flavour" RPG supplement it seem to offer an alternative rule set.

now, keep in mind that i see absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it's all good... it's good to have unified system to introduce people into the game and everything.
but i don't have lots of money to spend on "alternative d20" books. and, most importantly, i have zero time to read them... or to redesign the system by myself.

Pre-3e mechanics force you to use option number two.

i don't think so.
example: i don't like non weapon proficiencies. i want a subsystem that is similar to thieves' skills. a simple proportion: NWP value:20 = x:100 et voila', i have a percentage skill. every time the PC spends a NWP slot, i add +5% to the skill. end of the story.

similarly, i can turn all classes into kits, so that a PC is either a fighter, a claric, a wizard or a thief and then has his own specially definying kit. it takes a bit longer than the NWP trick up there, but balancing the classes out is quick, if you refer to the optional rules to create PC classes in the DMG.

And 3e forces you to mesh with the rest of the system how exactly? Do the Thought Police come knocking on your door?

exactly as i think i've shown you above: you touch the feats? your game is unbalanced. you touch the skills? sorry, unbalanced. hate tactical combat? unbalanced. don't want no magical item assumption? can you spell unbalanced?

in other words, 3e for me is less than "whatever game i want it to be" and more "the game as the majority play it". if i disagree with the majority, tough for me.

 

[Spell]

It is possible to discuss problems neutrally and clinically without getting into trouble, you know. Was it one of the following?

1. It reduced the ability of the DM to control the number and type of magic items available to the PCs, and hence, the tone and power level of his game.

2. It increased the ability of the players to further customize the PCs, thus leading to greater min-maxing.

i'll cite brian eno here: "if you have two options, choose both"

i'll add a third: improve the bookeeping in the game.

creating magical items was putting together some random evocative mundane items, officiate some mumbo jumbo ritual, and understand what was wrong if the DM hadn't granted you the item at the end of the process.

now you (no, sorry, your DM):
1. have to keep track of what exactly your character *needs* to create item X (which, by the book is the SAME in every setting, every campaign world... good night imagination).
2. after you have your shopping list of powers, feats, spells and what not checked, officiate the ritual.
3. enjoy the rule given *right* to have your item.


better rules: yup
more boring and uselessly complex rules at my table: no, thanks.

 

[Spell]

One I have heard voiced by one of my DMs:

3. Magic items feel less special. Even the weirdest items used to treasured, and very few items other than plain magic weapons were considered "standard".

in all fairness, that has nothing to do with the item creation rules. it's more the... ehm... (again) in built assumption in the ruleset that you can buy a +1 weapon (or +2, or +3, or...) at the cornershop of your metropolis.
i wonder if there is an offer on milk, too.

 

[Spell]

I think a lot of the design elements and mechanics that people call "broken" or "bad" from previous editions are called that because those mechanics are designed, in many cases, for an entirely different sort of playstyle

HEAR! o, HEAR!!!

While it is true tere have been munchkins and power gamers since the game began, 3.5 has taken this to a new height by not just building the game system, but the entire business model, around munchkinism as it would have been traditionally called and is now called "optimization" and "build". Add that to the need for constant rewards (fast levelling and no dead levels) and the tone of the average game has changed quite a lot, I think.

[tears in my eyes] what he said!

The last couple years have been even more focused on defining "fun" as both PC power and constant mechanical rewards. I don't see this changing in 4E; in fact, all the evidence points to making it more fundamental to the game in 4E.

i don't know, i don't have enough information to say. but if that is the case, i will:
1. steal what i can from 3e and 4e.
2. spend my first summer break in years writing down my own "AD&D 3rd edition", with other rules taken from OD&D, hackmaster and C&C.
3. only use that system when i want to play AD&D ever again.
4. live happy. because, you know, there are players out there that might just have stayed with 1e and 2e...

 

[jdrakeh]

exactly as i think i've shown you above: you touch the feats? your game is unbalanced. you touch the skills? sorry, unbalanced. hate tactical combat? unbalanced. don't want no magical item assumption? can you spell unbalanced?

All untrue. You can add new skills without unbalancing d20, you can add new feats without unbalancing d20, you can dump attacks of opportunity without unbalancing d20, you can remove magical items without unabalancing d20. How do I know? because multiple published products have done all of these things -- and more -- without unbalancing d20.

If what you claim were true, products such as Spycraft (no AoOs), Iron Heroes (no/low magic items), and hundreds of other products with varied skill lists and feat lists couldn't exist. Yet they do. Would you care to explain the existence of hundreds of products that completely disprove your assertions that you can't modify d20 without breaking it?

 

[Son_of_Thunder]

The less you rely on random character generation, the less effective the "balancing" systems inherent in the system are. Also note that the balance wasn't necessarily based on any given moment -- it was supposed to be based over the course of the campaign (where players would be expected to run many, many characters). Using high stat minimums to "balance" powerful classes doesn't work because that means all the powerful classed characters will be even more powerful by virtue of the necessity of high stats. Which works fine when that character is a one in a million, but breaks down the moment you allow players to pick and choose what they want to play. And, if a player does get that lucky, he is going to want to hold on to that character and the character is going to be played with a sense of mortality that is rare among PCs.

I think a lot of the design elements and mechanics that people call "broken" or "bad" from previous editions are called that because those mechanics are designed, in many cases, for an entirely different sort of playstyle, one that D&D has slowly edged away from over the years (and certainly over the last few years since 3.5 came out). While it is true tere have been munchkins and power gamers since the game began, 3.5 has taken this to a new height by not just building the game system, but the entire business model, around munchkinism as it would have been traditionally called and is now called "optimization" and "build". Add that to the need for constant rewards (fast levelling and no dead levels) and the tone of the average game has changed quite a lot, I think. 4E was inevitable in more ways than one.

EDIT: Thast sounds more bad-wrong-fun than I intended. What I mean is that since 3.5 came out, both thegame system and the publishing strategy of the game have seemed to focus more and more on PC power and just the right combinations of abilities. The last couple years have been even more focused on defining "fun" as both PC power and constant mechanical rewards. I don't see this changing in 4E; in fact, all the evidence points to making it more fundamental to the game in 4E. Me gut feeling is that this has alot to do with Mearls' involvement in Des&Dev: it is his definition of "fun" that is guiding the direction of the game, but I can't be certain of that.

I endorse this message and wish to subscibe to your newsletter sir.