A simplified D&D? Aren't you all forgetting something...

[Warrior Poet]

I wish you the best. The whole point is to have fun, and if you have more fun playing 2nd Edition, then God's speed and may fair winds fill your sails.

Having said that, I think you'll eventually find problems in 2nd Edition AD&D that will plague you, too. Like 3rd Edition, the stress points and fractures will take a while to appear . . . I think it's possible to overdose on 3rd Edition. I've found myself gravitating toward Feng Shui, lately. I really need to buy the books for it. I'm looking at alternate systems simply because D&D (or d20 Modern) doesn't fit the needs of every imaginative expression or adventure that an imaginative mind can conceive of . . .

Haven't read all the way through the thread yet, so apologies if this has already been said, but I think molonel raises a good point, or at least one that has very much been my experience: take a break! Every so often, every system runs into its problems, inadequacies, and questionable mechanics, and then it may be time to switch to something else for a while. Try a different game with different feel and mechanics. It won't fix everything, and eventually you'll start to see it's not the end all, either, at which time, switch again!

I love 3.0 D&D, but I also need to play Call of Cthulhu (though my players don't want to . . . I wonder why ), or WEG's d6 system, particularly with a weird west-style setting, or a cyberpunk style, and I'm always interested in new games, new settings, and so forth. Great stuff! Mix it up! The other games will still be there when you're ready to go back.

Thanks,

Warrior Poet

On edit: See skinnydwarf's post above. Much more succint.

 

[rounser]

But ask yourself. Do you need "Assassin" written on your character sheet in order to be an assassin?

Not necessarily. But it's far better the other way, where the system supports your character concept by backing it up with the correct titles and abilities, instead of holding your character concept to ransom until level X. Meantime, you know your class combination is a diluted wannabe of the real item, because a class exists with precisely that name and role.

We don't all want to do an "Artemis Entreri" (high level FR assassin with only one level of assassin in 3E stats, from memory)....although Artemis is a good poster boy for your cause, because he's most definitely an assassin. But then, I don't like the design of 3E assassin class anyway (and I don't think the FRCS writers did either because they couldn't build Artemis convincingly with it) - what's with the spells for instance? Design convenience trumping archetype, I suppose. :\

Dancey stated that one of the reasons they went down this path is because kits rewarded players for restarting a new character from scratch, which dealt a blow to campaign longevity. The problem with going down the prestige class route (as I see it) is that now your character concept is a far-off carrot, a reward for sticking with the game. To this I suggest, D&D is already loaded with carrots to tempt players with - hands off my character concept!

Seriously, I think it's a genuine weak point with the current edition...

 

[molonel]

But it's far better the other way, where the system supports your character concept by backing it up with the correct titles and abilities, instead of holding your character concept to ransom until level X. Meantime, you know your class combination is a diluted wannabe of the real item. The problem with going down the prestige class route (as I see it) is that now your character concept is a far-off carrot, a reward for sticking with the game. To this I suggest, D&D is already loaded with carrots to tempt players with - hands off my character concept!

I disagree. Some character concepts are more appropriate for more advanced characters. Any street thug, be he a fighter or a rogue, can be hired to kill someone. An assassin is someone who makes a profession of it, and presumably has some experience in the craft. I think the idea of a prestige class - something you earn - is quite appropriate. Base classes are more generalized. I sometimes grow weary of the titles simply because many people seem to lack imagination in PLAYING those characters. I tell my players: your class is not your character. You aren't a barbarian. You're [character name]. All your class does is describe some of the things you can do. A barbarian isn't a barbarian unless that's what the player wants to call himself. Maybe he's a totem warrior. Maybe he just considers himself a fighter or a tribal protecter (and no, not the PrC from Sword and Fist), or a blood rager. Maybe he's a thief, like the early Conan called himself. Maybe he's a brigand or a thug or a ritually scarred wildman.

I think you're getting way too hung up on labels. It's one of the reasons I dislike the bloat of prestige classes. I wish people would come up with a concept and PLAY it sometimes instead of looking for a new prestige class.

There is no such thing as a "correct" title for a character. And prestige classes don't hold your character concept to ransom. That's just silly. Most prestige classes can be earned between levels 5 to 8. But you can build a lot of character concepts with nothing more than the base classes. If a 20th level rogue who can easily top 40+ in his Skill Mastery skills all the time, then if he wants to call himself a ninja, he can damn well do so. He's earned the title. There might be roleplaying elements to fulfill, and he might tease it out with light multiclassing for flavor, but really, does he NEED to buy Sword and Fist just so he can take that silly Ninja of the Crescent Moon Prc?

 

[rounser]

I think you're getting way too hung up on labels.

I don't think so. There's power and efficiency in being able to think and talk about a "7th level Bard" which players seem to consistently overlook and take for granted.

Classes are, IMO, like an archetypal crutch to lean on. You use it as a departure point, but others go no further, and they benefit from the right label. Put another way - some of us use them as just a waypoint which describes something of the character, others hang their entire character concept on the word "wizzard" (sic.) and associated solid wizzardly abilities, not something abstract and ephemeral like "he's kinda like a barbarian, but...". No, he's playing exactly a Gandalf, or a Conan (hopefully with a different name) - I've met these players, they're out there, they exist...and sometimes I like to do it myself, and play an Assassin with a capital A.

I don't think your vision caters for the latter kind of player, whereas I think that mine caters for both.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I would note, too, that every problem with 2e that someone else has mentioned is only a problem for a certain segment of gamers. "Unbalanced" classes or "worthless" druids in one person's estimation may suit *you* just fine. Again, play 2e a bit more, see how you like it over time, and go from there.

I did mention the overly complicated saves that didn't account for anyone's prowess and were illogical to boot. I did mention the overly complicated manner ability scores were handled (Str 16 will give you +x to attacks, +y if you are fighter, and 18 is really 18/01 trhough 18/00, but that only for medium characters. The benefits of Wis 16 is something completely different, and some ability scores start giving bonuses earlier and all that). And someone did mention the crappy way having more than one class was handled. Or the fact that humans did have nothing to make them interesting per se, so they limited other races in their choice of classes and the maximum level in these classes (which made no sense at all, and wasn't rally relevant, since most played lower levels).

Not necessarily. But it's far better the other way, where the system supports your character concept by backing it up with the correct titles and abilities, instead of holding your character concept to ransom until level X.

3e doesn't "hold your concept ransom till level x" You can play an assassin without taking the PrC. Ever. You don't even need to be a rogue for it (not all assassins sneak up on their pray and stab them in the back. Some just show up, obliterate the bodyguards, and cut down the quarry. Or let their fireball do the work).

Meantime, you know your class combination is a diluted wannabe of the real item, because a class exists with precisely that name and role.

No, I know that labels don't matter.

We don't all want to do an "Artemis Entreri" (high level FR assassin with only one level of assassin in 3E stats, from memory)....although Artemis is a good poster boy for your cause, because he's most definitely an assassin. But then, I don't like the design of 3E assassin class anyway (and I don't think the FRCS writers did either because they couldn't build Artemis convincingly with it) - what's with the spells for instance? Design convenience trumping archetype, I suppose. :\

The spells help a character who wants to be an assassin, so the guild teaches magic. The 3e Assassin as it is in the DMG is really a raw version that's supposed to be flavoured by the DM and put into his campaign world, say "Drow Assassin of the Dark Dagger".

And Entreri wouldn't need a level of assassin, anyway. He is, rules-wise, a fighter/rogue, for he not only backstabs people, sometimes he just cuts them down in a straight-up fight.

Classes are, IMO, like an archetypal crutch to lean on. You use it as a departure point, but others go no further, and they benefit from the right label. Put another way - some of us use them as just a waypoint which describes something of the character, others hang their entire character concept on the word "wizzard" (sic.) and associated solid wizzardly abilities, not something abstract and ephemeral like "he's kinda like a barbarian, but...". No, he's playing exactly a Gandalf, or a Conan (hopefully with a different name) - I've met these players, they're out there, they exist...and sometimes I like to do it myself, and play an Assassin with a capital A.

Disclaimer: If you need a word with a capital in the "class" line of cour character sheet, you should really stick to the most basic concepts, namely "priest" "fighter" "thief" "wizard". Play these, look others gaming, and then, when you have some experience in roleplaying, think about playing some of the more challenging concepts!

I don't think your vision caters for the latter kind of player, whereas I think that mine caters for both.

Mine does cater to the latter kind of player - they can play their Barbarian or Wizard. And they should keep their hands away from assassins, for that is more than just attack people and then get more money than just what they had on their corpses.
Though, to be honest, I want those players who need to have their concept written down in the class line play Diablo instead. Even when one of us thinks about playing a hyper-stereotyped character, they know they can write whatever they want on their character sheet (one of my characters has written "Spymaster" on the sheet. Everyone who knew of his powers - and that doesn't include the other characters yet - would agree that he/she is a spymaster)


When we're talking about all that. What ability would you like your Assassin to have?

 

[woodelf]

Sometimes I think that this longing for a simpler rules set might have something to do with the avalanche of d20 stuff that has been thundering along for a couple of years?! In my search for the perfect PC, campaign world, PrC, rules for situation XX, etc. I've purchased book upon book on a whole lot of subjects. I use rules for Action Points from UA, fear and insanity rules from CoC, spells and PrCs from X different splatbooks, and even new core classes. It feels like a gigantic patchwork, and sometimes I get the urge to strip away a lot of it, and return to just using the core rule books together with a few selected supplements. Anyone else get the same feeling - too much "sugar" ruins your appetite?

Too much sugar always ruins my appetite. Half a can of soda, or one of those "funsize" candybars is about my limit. But i just don't have much of a sweettooth. Now, salty/greasy snacks...i once ate an entire giant bag of cheetos in about an hour. That was a mistake. Oh, wait, sugar was a metaphor.

Seriously, yes and no. That's actually exactly what i'm doing, but it's not just the accumulation of multiple, sometimes-conflicting rules. It's also the flavor of those rules. D&D3E drives me batty, and 3.5E makes it worse. Even using just the PH, i'd find it frustrating (i'd never run it, and got totally burned out on it when i was a player). But i used to love D&D, and want to run a D&D game, damnit! My solution? Arcana Unearthed + Book of Drawbacks and Distinctions (+ Artificer's Handbook, if anybody starts making magic items). I'm currently torn on whether to include Net Book of Feats (or a subset thereof) and/or Dynasties & Demagogues--i think they're both really great additions, but part of me just wants to stick to the bare minimum (i consider flaws/edges part of that "bare minimum" in any system as crunchy as D20 System).

Also, it sounds like in your particular case maybe you'd just be happier with a less-crunchy system, one where, except for campaign world, none of those goals you raise necessitate (or even leave room for) new books/rules. Something where you just invent the character you want to play, adjudicate the situations as makes sense, etc., so there is no impetus to be searching for "the perfect widget". Um, something like... Unisystem Light, BESM (maybe even BESM D20), EABA. Note that these are all only slightly less crunchy than D&D3.5E, but noticably more flexible. Or maybe you should look at The Burning Wheel--probably overall about the same crunch level as D&D3.5E, but in a slightly more-streamlined package, and with a bit more flexibility. I'm assuming you like crunch, or wouldn't be playing D20 System at all. If not, then you'd probably be really happy with Story Engine, Hero Quest (nee Hero Wars), Feng Shui (sure, you could run epic fantasy with it), or something along those lines.

 

[woodelf]

Although I had only an extremely limited experience with AD&D, I got the impression that it was quite complicated to run (especially as a DM), compared to 3.x, because most of the stuff was nonlinear. Therefore it was more difficult to remember many little things, and the DM used to have a large screen full of notes and a pile of printed tables. I think 3.x is much smoother. Mostly I played AD&D through the Baldur Gate's series and that was working very well... in fact the PC did all the job!

Not at all. You had to know 5 things to run AD&D2:

• the THAC0 chart
  
• the saving throws chart
  
• roll d% for thief abilites; low is good
  
• roll d20 for attacks and saves; high is good
  
• roll d20 for psionic powers and proficiencies; high is good, but you have to roll under your score
  

That pretty much sums it up. Yes, the THAC0 and saves charts were not something you were likely to memorize. But they'd easily fit on a single sheet of notebook paper (or panel of a GMs screen). Compare that with the 4 pages of 6pt type it took me to make a quick-reference guide for D&D3E combat. Now, you're absolutely correct that AD&D1/2 didn't benefit from a unity of mechanics, or the consistency that that engenders. OTOH, the total complexity of rules was so much less that, on balance, i think it comes out easier. AD&D2 is definitely less complex/detailed than D&D3E. Whether you find it easier will depend heavily on whether consistency or simplicity is easier for your brain to keep track of. For me, inconsistency isn't a problem, so long as the various bits are simple; complexity, however consistent it may be, overwhelms me. As for all the "little things" like monster special attacks, item powers, etc., those have gotten more complicated with D&D3E, compared to AD&D2--pretty much everything you needed to remember in AD&2, in this regard, is still there, and then some (like which feats a monster has, and what they do). Just look at a monster statblock for the two editions, to see what i mean. You can decide for yourself which is easier to run, but it is easily-measured objective fact that D&D3E is more complex and detailed than AD&D2. Whether that's good or bad depends on who you are.

Yes, I know that Basic D&D is coming out this months, but I am skeptic we really needed that. I think what is really needed to help newcomers enjoy a D&D game with very little preparation is a well-prepared DM who knows how to teach only the very minimum required (and not before it is really needed).

That's fine, but where's the well-prepared DM gonna learn the game? It needs to be possible for a complete beginner to pick up the game and run it, not just play it, and i don't think D&D3[.5]E comes anywhere close to that target. [re: this thread: i'm not sure AD&D2 managed that, either. But i think it was closer.]

 

[woodelf]

I almost quit playing *D&D during the 2e era due to issues I had with the game (see Remathlis' post for examples.) That "dreadful" players option stuff was the only thing that pulled me back in.

I really didn't find 1e or 2e simpler. In fact, I found some of it downright byzantine.

More Byzantine? Yes. Less complex? Yes. Do those two add up to "simpler"? Depends on how your brain works. For me, yes. For you, no.

Oh, and i did quit playing D&D around '95, after playing since before Unearthed Arcana. And it was precisely because of issues i had with the game mechanics--i discovered other RPGs (particularly Over the Edge, Ars Magica, and W:tA) and there was pretty much no going back. However, Players' Option, for me, was a step in the wrong direction: reinforcing class divisions, rather than breaking them down. And D&D3E managed to "break" some of the parts of AD&D2 that i really loved, and failed to fix most of the things that i thought were really broken. [I'm glossing over this right now, because i know Psion and i have had this discussion, and he doesn't need to hear it again. Just summarizing for the rest of the audience.] So, all the fixes in the world won't help if you turn the game into something the player doesn't like, or IOW, YMMV.

 

[woodelf]

Before I start going into details: I want to congratulate you. You're the first person who ever said he prefered AD&D 2e over D&D 3e, and who isn't one of the "Old Veterans" of the other game who are too set in the ways to ever get friends with the fact that they can have a paladin of a race other than human.

No he isn't. I've said it multiple times in threads of this sort, going back at least a year or 3. ;-)

Seriously, since you can presumably search up my previous posts, i'll give the summary version:

I don't particularly like AD&D2 any more. However, by being much less codified, it was much more easily twisted to my desires. I prefer a much more narrative/simulationist (roughly balanced) style of game, while D&D3E is heavily gamist with a touch of simulationist. Moreover, gamist design decisions tend to be a negative for my enjoyment of an RPG. Or, to invent some numbers (all games rated 1-10):

AD&D2: 4 gamist / 5 simulationist / 3 narrativist
D&D3E: 10 gamist / 4 simulationist / 1 narrativist
Hypothetical game: 7 gamist / 4 simulationist / 1 narrativist

Let's further suppose that the sum of those three scores is a meaningful measure of the overall worth of the game. What this means it that D&D3E is clearly the best of the games: total score of 15, vs. 12. However, if simulationism is the only part that really matters to you, you'll probably prefer AD&D2. Even moreso if you really prefer narrativism. And if what you want is a simulationist/narrativist game, it is noticeably inferior (5 vs. 8). Of course, if what you want is a narrativist/simulationist game, you really shouldn't be playing either of them (8 out of 20 is pretty piss-poor)--but AD&D2 will still make you happier, if only marginally, than D&D3E. Now, not only is that roughly where i sit, but i find that gamist elements actively detract from my enjoyment, in most cases. So the hypothetical game i described above, despite being no better than D&D3E on the other two axes, by simple dint of being less gamist, will probably suit me better.

I have a lot of problems with AD&D2. It took me 40pp of houserules, plus using a couple Dragon articles (like Perception) to turn it into a system i enjoyed, and wasn't constantly fighting. I'm not a grognard, attached to the old rules--i'd eliminated most of the restrictions (like race/class combos), and had problems getting hard-core AD&D players to join my campaign because i'd changed so much. But I have *more* problems with D&D3E, which implemented essentially none of the fixes i deemed "necessary", and introduced some other changes i'd have to undo. Of course, it also introduced a lot of things i think are improvements, but would've required more work than i was willing to do at the time. It also, IMHO, threw the baby out with the bathwater: in the process of dumping the bad mechanics, i think it dumped the feel of D&D, too. Obviously, much of this is IMHO, so YMMV. But no one RPG can ever be the be-all, end-all perfect RPG for all people. Tastes vary. Thus, as soon as you have RPGs with two different design goals, each can be reasonably considered the better system, by different people. Even if it were possible to demonstrate that, overall, one was objectively superior [due to whatever strengths the crappier game *did* have].

 

[woodelf]

The system isn't the problem. Second Edition was just as bad for supplement creep, and worse, because it had more time to bloat.

Hardly. There's way more supplements for D&D3E than there ever were for AD&D2, and in only 4 years. There may be fewer from WotC than there were from TSR, but you can't just ignore all the D20 System stuff from 3rd parties, most of which is still, 4 years later, aimed at D&D players.