The_Gunslinger658
First Post
test of time
I dunno, but I think Chess and Checkers have stood the test of time without a revision.
Scott
I dunno, but I think Chess and Checkers have stood the test of time without a revision.
Scott
3e and the Test of Time
- Thread starter Belen
- Start date
Ankh-Morpork Guard
First Post
Only because no one will admit the fact that pawns got the shaft.Doomed Battalions said:
When 3E came out and I first heard of it I was very sceptical. What I heard, burned by the 2E kit crazyness and unbalanced - imho - rules sounded like a mumnchkin's game. I remember making some nasty remarks about catering to powergamers and hack&slashers. Then a player dumped the PHB on the table one evening a few weeks later, I thumbed through it, and ordered my copy at once. We had been running a core-book only 2E campaign, and converted to 3E at level 4.
3E offered so many freedoms, yet was so much more balanced in our campaign than 2E that converting was a no brainer. Not that we converted completely - our "no xp, all party members level up at the same time when we feel like it" house rule was kept, and I never bothered with the wealth/level/CR tables, running a game with much less magic present. Still, 3E convinced me to switch through inherently more solid mechanics.
3.5E didn't, but then, 3.5E was more of a slight tweaking than a new edition. By that time we have had tons of splatbooks, and most of it I'd never want to see in my game. The fixes of 3.5E I liked I took, the rest - the things more suited to a "13.5 encounters per level, 4 encounters per session, battlemat and dungeon crawl and treasure table" campaign I never touched. My players did not want to switch anyway, 3E with our house rules already being good enough for them to play.
I am curious how 4E will work. So far I can't imagine a better edition than 3E, better being better suited to my playstyle, but who knows?
3E offered so many freedoms, yet was so much more balanced in our campaign than 2E that converting was a no brainer. Not that we converted completely - our "no xp, all party members level up at the same time when we feel like it" house rule was kept, and I never bothered with the wealth/level/CR tables, running a game with much less magic present. Still, 3E convinced me to switch through inherently more solid mechanics.
3.5E didn't, but then, 3.5E was more of a slight tweaking than a new edition. By that time we have had tons of splatbooks, and most of it I'd never want to see in my game. The fixes of 3.5E I liked I took, the rest - the things more suited to a "13.5 encounters per level, 4 encounters per session, battlemat and dungeon crawl and treasure table" campaign I never touched. My players did not want to switch anyway, 3E with our house rules already being good enough for them to play.
I am curious how 4E will work. So far I can't imagine a better edition than 3E, better being better suited to my playstyle, but who knows?
Doomed Battalions said:
Surprisingly enough, they haven't. I'm not a complete chess fanatic (ok, I lied), but the rule set has changed several times, most recently in the 1500's, I believe, to add the capability to castle. The original chess game, developed by the Indians, or the Persians, depending on your source, was actually quite different from the game we play currently.
Of course, if we had 1400 years to perfect D&D, I'm quite sure it'd look quite a bit different.
[/end know-it-all mode]
Last edited:
Henry
Autoexreginated
Akrasia, when you said...
I am mindful that these 1E players usually don't play "just 1e." From my experiences at Dragonsfoot and elsewhere, these 1E players play 1e, with a bit of Unearthed Arcana mixed in, and a bit of 2e, and a bit of house rules, etc. Yet your statement separates 3E players from 3.5 players.
Fact is, the biggest divide in the history of D&D was between 1e/2e, and 3e; prior to that time, people had few difficulties mixing and matching what they wished with little effort. The huge block of "1e players" (and I'll admit there's quite a few, more than WotC cares to admit), are actually playing a patchwork quilt of their favored designs, and 3E/3.5 players are pretty much doing the same. Those who went "whole hog" to 3.5 are still playing 3E, regardless of semantics. Whether they, too are playing with 3.5 with important parts of 3E drafted in, or whether they are using 3.5 in total with a 3E prestige class here or there, or they use 3e cover and concealment rules instead (like I do), they're still playing 3E in the EXACT same way that that monolithic block of 1e players is NOT so monolithic. In short, the reason why there is such a divide is the biggest rules breakage in 2000, which provides the artificial dividing line that we see today; most people rarely made the distinction between 1E and 2E, other than by individual component. "I'm using the 1E Ranger, with 2E illusionists and the options from the Complete fighter's handbook", etc.
Will 3E inspire the same kind of loyalty? "3E" won't, but d20 will, I guarantee it. I can but look at responses from people here that they are playing "d20 hodge-podge games" of their own design to know that these people will be playing some form of the d20 system for years to come, as long as they're playing RPG's; Young players will be taking all the d20 info they have and merging them into d20 super-campaigns when they're well into their 20's and 30's. It's their version of 1e!
Will this block be as big as that block of 1E die-hards? Who can say, because we have no hard stats on how many people are still roleplaying from the early 1980's. There could have been 6 million people playing back then, and we'll never know it! What we do know NOW is that block that's left is MUCH smaller than those who used to play, and put it away because they "dropped childish things." What I CAN say is that a certain percentage of those new 4 million estimated players in 2004 willbe playing 20 years from now, and it won't be so far off that percentage of those who played 1E in the 80's and still play now. The rest of the young newcomers will be in their 30's in 10 or 20 years and playing whatever's hot then.
Akrasia said:
I am mindful that these 1E players usually don't play "just 1e." From my experiences at Dragonsfoot and elsewhere, these 1E players play 1e, with a bit of Unearthed Arcana mixed in, and a bit of 2e, and a bit of house rules, etc. Yet your statement separates 3E players from 3.5 players.
Fact is, the biggest divide in the history of D&D was between 1e/2e, and 3e; prior to that time, people had few difficulties mixing and matching what they wished with little effort. The huge block of "1e players" (and I'll admit there's quite a few, more than WotC cares to admit), are actually playing a patchwork quilt of their favored designs, and 3E/3.5 players are pretty much doing the same. Those who went "whole hog" to 3.5 are still playing 3E, regardless of semantics. Whether they, too are playing with 3.5 with important parts of 3E drafted in, or whether they are using 3.5 in total with a 3E prestige class here or there, or they use 3e cover and concealment rules instead (like I do), they're still playing 3E in the EXACT same way that that monolithic block of 1e players is NOT so monolithic. In short, the reason why there is such a divide is the biggest rules breakage in 2000, which provides the artificial dividing line that we see today; most people rarely made the distinction between 1E and 2E, other than by individual component. "I'm using the 1E Ranger, with 2E illusionists and the options from the Complete fighter's handbook", etc.
Will 3E inspire the same kind of loyalty? "3E" won't, but d20 will, I guarantee it. I can but look at responses from people here that they are playing "d20 hodge-podge games" of their own design to know that these people will be playing some form of the d20 system for years to come, as long as they're playing RPG's; Young players will be taking all the d20 info they have and merging them into d20 super-campaigns when they're well into their 20's and 30's. It's their version of 1e!
Will this block be as big as that block of 1E die-hards? Who can say, because we have no hard stats on how many people are still roleplaying from the early 1980's. There could have been 6 million people playing back then, and we'll never know it! What we do know NOW is that block that's left is MUCH smaller than those who used to play, and put it away because they "dropped childish things." What I CAN say is that a certain percentage of those new 4 million estimated players in 2004 willbe playing 20 years from now, and it won't be so far off that percentage of those who played 1E in the 80's and still play now. The rest of the young newcomers will be in their 30's in 10 or 20 years and playing whatever's hot then.
