3E shortcomings

[I'm A Banana]

1) That 'min-maxing' can be said to simply be a realization of the character's power. Now if you want your character to be good at something you have the tools to make them good at that thing. There is nothing I can think of that encourages points over RP. It's just that points are now a recognized and valued way to play the system. It's not anti-munchkin anymore, and that makes it definately less open to abuse. Which makes for an overall more enjoyable game. If somebody wants numerical power, they can have it, and not ruin the fun for somebody who would rather realize their character. And, as always, this is more a player/DM issue than a system issue.

2) What's wrong with the fast-paced action sequences of the martial arts/superhero movies? D&D characters are HEROES! LotR characters are more people who are a bit special (sometimes). They're kind of...average, relatable, mortal creatures. D&D characters slay dragons by the dozen, have trophy rooms of monsters, and an armory of magic swords. LotR is decent fantasy, but it's almost painfully low-powered compared to D&D. I mean, they had one magical sword, and a handful of daggers -- those are sold in armories at the basic level of D&D, where the characters are HEROIC not just because of the plot, but because of their individual achievements of power and might. They can truly be the strongest man in the world, eventually. That's D&D-style heroism.

3) This is more of a player/DM issue than a system issue. D&D certainly supports the ability to do that, if you want, but it doesn't force you to want it. You don't have to be a min-maxer to enjoy the sysem or the mechanics it creates, because there are so many options that you can realize the character you have in your head without resulting to dirty tricks and mapping and number-crunching, which is largely only for those who would do it regardless of 1e, 2e, 3e, or any other system.

4) Feats don't come from your background. They come from your present as your character trains. Only special feats come from your culture or back-story, and those are exceptions to the rules and demonstrate your aquisition of skill through the culture. Feats are developing talents. A whilrwind attack is a Fighter's version of Fireball, in a way -- they work towards it and dedicate levels and powers to it, and when they achieve it, they can enjoy dishing it out. Fighters get more feats because they receive more special combat training. And that's what it is -- combat training. Why would a Fighter train at anything else? I mean, what would you want a feat to do if not assist a character in doing something mechanical? What would be the achievement, the training for?

5) Some of the richest plots and best character development I've seen have been in videogames. What's wrong with videogames? What's wrong with 20th level characters? Do you have something against characters who have a lot of powerful abilities inherently? What's wrong with being heroic? What's the problem in having a system that can actually handle all 20 levels and then some without a major breakdown as in previous editions?

 

[Dark Jezter]

Yes, I think 3E has shortcomings (although I'm happy to see that some of my complaints will be fixed in 3.5E), no RPG system is perfect. But I still waaaaay perfer it over 1E and 2E D&D.

I also don't think 3E necessarily promotes powergaming over role-playing. I've seen arguments like this before, and I've also seen arguments that state that 1E and 2E are more geared towards munchkinism than 3E is. It all depends on the campaign. I've played sessions of D&D that were pure role-playing with no combat at all, and other sessions where the entire time was spent in various combat encounters. Both were fun.

 

[Olive]

i don't think 3e is perfect, but i think it kicks 2e's butt all the way to the door.

if you haven't tried it i really recomend it.

 

[tleilaxu]

...........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..............

(snort, turn over)
...zzzzzzzz...................

 

[Shadowlord]

I was overjoyed when the Player's Option books came out and there were traits and disadvantages given as official rules. Feats are great but are, under the current rules, more for combatative purposes than for anything else.

Harold, I agree with some of your points, especially that D&D has become too combat oriented, and although it is possible to play with a different emphasize, it needs some adaptation which isn't justified seen the number of books needed to play this game. especially if you compare with other d20 games that do manage to present some roleplay rules (instead of combat being the majority) in a lot smaller pagecount.

For ex d20 Modern does that and I hope D&D will go in the same direction. Maybe the revised books will "steal" something from d20M. If so, that would be the moment for you to switch to 3,5e.
Otherwise you have 2 options:
- adapt D&D with minimal changes
- find a different game (I wouldn't know which)

I think my other thread will be of interest to you:
D&D outdated ?

 

[Najo]

3e Short Comings reply

I have been playing D&D for the last twenty years and I feel the current edition is so much more intuitive (all d20 checks, roll high and DC numbers), easier for new players (Positive AC, reflex, fortitude and will saves, simplier multiclassing, the way the spell section is orgainzed) and more realistic (monster have statistics, skill rank progression, ability increases). Of course there is things I would personaly change, all of us would. BUt like many peopl in this thread have said, if you don't like it change it. The irony is ALL of the problems wih 1ed and 2nd (and they do have problems) are FIXED in 3e. I mean, if you have faith in the talented people who have been making D&D products for the last 25+ years (all of the stuff you have been buying) then you should have faith that 3e is an improvement on what came before, by those creative people (and just as 3.5 will be an improvement). So far, any problem I have seen or system I didn't like as a DM is getting fixed and I consider myself a fairly impartial individual. I would be one of the first to turn on D&D if I felt it betrayed what it was or didn't support roleplaying (I come from the camp that tries keep the need of the rules and dice to a minimum).

Two more things I would like to say: One many people have compared D&D to LOTR and critised its power levels, which is understandable. But it owes as much to Michael Moorcock, Roger Zelazy, Fritz Liber etc.. and to Greek, Egyptian,Chinese, Celtic etc etc mythology. Maybe LOTR heroes are mortal, but what about characters such as Elric, Corwyn, Gilgamesh, Hercules or Merlin? D&D has to balance all of these varients, and does a fairly good job considering.

My finally point, Harold Mayo - these boards are full of intelligent, thoughful people who are most likely creative and above average intelligence. I read these post, just as I assume you did and when I came to you saying this:

It's rather amusing that people don't actually read posts but only the headings. Only one guy really addressed points of my post.

It bothered me enough that I felt I need to put my own two cents in. We all read your post, maybe you didn't understand some of what people were saying, but I did and I feel your statement is degrading to the good people who gave honest feedback to your thread (which you asked them to do). Maybe you didn't get the response that you wanted, but you should re-read the messages and rethink what you said and how it maybe taken. Noone here desevered to be treated with such negativity.

Thank you

Nate

 

[kengar]

If you really don't like 3e & d20, then don't play. I don't think it's the perfect system, but it suits the needs of my group pretty well and, as DM, I can influence the way things get played to some degree.

If you prefer a 1st/2nd edition feel, and want some updated rules that don't leave all your old material behind, check out HackMaster. It's a fairly robust engine closely based on AD&D. You can use a lot of 1st & 2nd ed. stuff with it as well.

Have fun with whatever you want to play.

 

[Quinn]

I like 3rd edition far more than previous versions because it acknowledges differences in gaming styles and goes about giving suggestions and variant rules to accomodate those styles. Level progression is easily changed, though I never understood the attraction of taking a year of playing just to go from 14th to 15th level. And I wonder why I never had a 20th level character before.

I don't see how 1st, 2nd and especially Player's Options solve any min-maxing or power gaming issues. Building a super-character is a choice made by the player and/or restricted by the DM. I know this thread is about 3e and it's problems, but really now...I think we've reached the point where anyone complaining about the problems in 3e should account for their own current system as well whether it be Harn, GURPS, White Wolf, 1st edition, 2nd, etc. Hopefully, if we beat these topics into the ground everyone will realize that there is no perfect, all-encompassing system out there.

 

[ichabod]

1) I really dislike that it is really promotes min-maxing. Even the "official" stuff feeds off of it (note the little "Power Play" asides in DRAGON magazine). Optimizing a character is fine, but it goes too far to actively promote this, IMO.

The alternative is worse. Min/maxing is about optimizing your choices. The only way to get rid of it is to take away player choices, and railroad them into a very specific character archetype. It's much harder to take a system that railroads and houserule it to give players choice than it is to deal with people who enjoy min/maxing more than you do.

2) It gives the tendency to create "super-characters" because of the abuse of the min-maxing potential. Instead of a nice fantasy combat like might be seen in (for example) the Fellowship of the Ring movie (where characters struggle), you end up with something more akin to a fight out of a cheesy martial arts movie. This is really, sort of, a continuation of (1) above but it's a separate gripe in my mind.

If the DM is not challenging the characters appropriately, that is generally not the fault of the system. I ran a 3E campaign all the way up to 17th level, and the players were challenged all the way.

3) It encourages mapping out the progress of a character from 1st level onward. This may not be a bad thing for some people, but I, as a player AND as a DM, would prefer to let my character's experiences in the game shape his development rather than KNOWING that I am going to take this or that prestige class at a certain level or that I am going to multiclass at level x so that I can gain special ability y.

This is a non-issue. You can play it either way and come out with a good character. Additionally, you seem to be saying that as a DM you don't like your players planning out their characters. First of all, that's not your job. Second of all, that's how some people are in real life. I know people who planned out their life from age 13, and achieved their goals.

4) Feats are a neat idea but they aren't really done "right". I REALLY like the feats that a lot of OGL companies are coming out with that are regional, cultural, or racial in nature. I REALLy like that because I never did like the sheer equality of older editions of AD&D. I was overjoyed when the Player's Option books came out and there were traits and disadvantages given as official rules. Feats are great but are, under the current rules, more for combatative purposes than for anything else. Since fighters gain more feats than anyone else, they can, potentially have more neat things from their "background" than any other character. The problem is that the feats were really designed more around enhancing the abilities of the character classes, especially fighters, than for adding "color" to the game and the system falls flat on its face when trying to use feats for this purpose.

Hmmm. A system not designed to do X falls on its face when used to do X. What a suprise. If you want regional stuff, you should be messing around with the races, not the feats.

And the fact that you dislike min/maxers and want disadvantages boggles me. Disadvantages are the ultimate way to min/max a character.

5) 3E has the "feel" of a computer game. Simplistic and enabling you to gain a lot of power quickly. 3E has been out for three years? Is that right? Have to check on that, but it seems about right. I have heard more people talk about 20th level characters since the 3E rules came out than EVER in all of my 24 years of playing D&D put together. It "feels" like Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale more than pen & paper role-playing. I heard a rumor that this was actually what the designers were shooting for since computer games have bitten into the pen & paper rpg market share so much that they felt that they needed something to lure them in. Don't know if it's true but, if it is, they sure succeeded.

This really sounds like you are unhappy that other people can play at a power level that is higher than the one you enjoy. If you don't want to play high levels, don't. It's really not that hard to avoid. Just slow down the acquisition of experience points. And having roleplayed as long as you have, I have not really noticed this difference in talking about 20th level characters.

I don't know about 2E, but I enjoy 3E far better than 1E, GURPS, Rolemaster, TFT, or Cyberpunk. And until something better comes out or I want to use Feng Shui for action movie rpging again, I'm sticking with it.

If so, how have you dealt with the perceived problems?

I think that really says it all.

 

[Storminator]

Am I the only guy who doesn't think that 3E just isn't all that great?
<SNIP>

Hey Harold! How's it going?

Rather than rehash my old points, I'll just say that on a board specifically devoted to 3E,you're going to find a large portion of the populous in favor. There are other communities much more critical of the system.

PS