A thing about d20 D&D I didn't like, and still don't know why it was done...

[Glyfair]

I read this a lot. Why did any of you play D&D prior to d20, then? Why? I mean, I absolutely hate Rolemaster. Hate hate hate it. Got dragged through it a few times - enough to know I hate it. I don't play it. I won't play it. I didn't grind through it for umpteen years talking nonstop about how I hated it, though.

For me, I wouldn't say I hated it. I would say I quickly grew to hate certain elements. As my experience with other systems grew, I moved to games that fit my style of gaming better.

Even so, I did play D&D when I hated large portions of it. Why? Because that's what the people I wanted to game with were playing. Who I gamed with was a bigger factor than what I was playing.

3E came out after I came to two realizations. First, that there is no perfect game system for me (and any "perfect" game system is going to be relative). I have too many things I like that are contradictory and game systems are going to balance them differently. Second, D&D was now a game system that eliminated most of the elements I disliked about D&D. Combined with the fact that D&D the game system that I could find the most players willing to play...

 

[Hussar]

I read this a lot. Why did any of you play D&D prior to d20, then? Why? I mean, I absolutely hate Rolemaster. Hate hate hate it. Got dragged through it a few times - enough to know I hate it. I don't play it. I won't play it. I didn't grind through it for umpteen years talking nonstop about how I hated it, though.

I enjoyed 1e and I enjoyed 2e. Unlike some others, I actually felt that 2e was an improvement on 1e. At least at first. Since I never really got into a lot of the supplements, I didn't run into the rampant imbalances that plagued 2e. ((Although I did pick up Faiths and Avatars - Woo hoo, my priest of Kossuth could cast fireballs as a cleric spell!)) I thought that the idea of kits was a fantastic one and we used them all the way through. 2e had some really fantastic writing in those books which, to me, was very inspirational in the game. The 2e Complete Paladin remains one of my all time favourite paly source books.

However, like many others, I moved on to 3e because 3e took all those house rules I had, polished them up, made 'em bright and shiny and then gave me a whole bunch extra on top.

I played each iteration of D&D because each one got better than the one before it.

 

[Nyaricus]

I level up all characters at the same time in my games when I feel they've gained enough experience to deal with what's coming at them. IOWs, when I saw "okay guys, you level up" - you level up.

So arguments like these I haven't had to deal with for about a half year, since I adopted the "Story-based leveling system" (not sure of an exact name for it).

Hope that helps someone, in any case.

cheers,
--N

 

[FireLance]

So why the heck we can't talk about things we don't like without resorting to an argument is beyond me.

I blame Fear. Fear leads to Anger, and Anger leads to Hate, and Hate leads to argumentative messageboard posts.

 

[Sound of Azure]

I blame Fear. Fear leads to Anger, and Anger leads to Hate, and Hate leads to the Snark Side.

FIFY

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I think it is. A wizard cannot make wand of fireballs if he doesn't have the training to cast fireball. Getting a Wizard to cast a cure spell is a little trickier but the basic idea is the same.

In First Edition, with its restrictive multiclassing rules? Under the not-uncommon type of DM who deplored multiclassing after game began for "realism" reasons? Come on.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

First edition got a lot of support in Dragon magizine. I don't have those so I have no idea how well it mechancially supported concepts. 3.x is a book glut game with so many freaking options from what seems like a hundred different publishers that of course it is going to support things better. The sheer amount of material ensures that.

Even without a single supplement, Third Edition is more flexible and robust when it comes to accomodating a broader range of character concepts than First Edition.

 

[RFisher]

Being able to model one of the great fantasy heroes by one of the half-dozen writers who inspired the game without having to resort to DM fiat is an improvement, in my opinion. YMMV.

My milage does vary. I don't agree with this. But I don't necessarily disagree with it either. (^_^)

In REH's Hyboria, Conan is the protagonist. In Melniboné, Elric is the protagonist. In Nehwon, the twain in the protagonist.

In classic D&D, however, the party is the protagonist. It isn't designed to emulate any one hero (or even two heroes) of myth, legend, or literature. It is designed to create a party of characters that together make up the hero. It's an ensemble cast.

That's not to say that games like Gurps are wrong or unfun. In fact, you can create just the same sort of ensemble in Gurps, but with more flexibility in where the lines are drawn.

Neither am I saying that creating house rules to make different characters for previous editions of D&D are wrong or unfun.

Rather, I'm saying that the limited range of characters available in classic D&D can be just as much fun as those other options. Furthermore, there's still a huge range to explore within those options.

Just as chess continues to be fun with only six kinds of pieces, many of which are severly limited, which fit together into a whole. Despite variants on chess or even other games that provide many more options being out there, many people still enjoy the original game.

Back to the XP progressions: DD's question was answered early on, so no need to repeat that. I'm not convinced that the progressions in previous editions were carefully thought out. Just that there was a purpose in them in the beginning, that they evolved, & that playtesting proved them not to be a problem. I'm just as happy with the unified XP table in 3e. It has its advantages, but they aren't so great that I'm trying to retrofit a unified XP table onto my classic D&D.

 

[WayneLigon]

The DM could allow your "Mouser" character to be a thief with the ability to cast cantrips. Done. I guess the objectional part is the "if the DM allows."

Yes, and no.

No because I've had GM's do that and it worked out fine. I've done the same and it's worked out fine.

Yes, because I shouldn't have to depend on the GM to provide my character with a special house rule to accomplish something that should be very simple to do. The rules should be broad and adaptable enough themselves to not require much in the way of such house ruling.

The vast majority of my house ruling for 3E involves things that are actually campaign specific fluff (for instance, in my current campaign elves are taller, not shorter, than humand, and demihuman aging is changed) and not part of the fundamental rules structure. For this campaign, I am experimenting with a couple fundamental rules changes to see how they play out (Using the Arcana Unearthed form of metamagic rather than the PHB feats; perhaps introducing the spell template feats).

The type of broad fundamental rules changes we see a lot of people making to 1E/2E makes it much more difficult for a person to move from campaign to campaign. I can now expect to go across the country, sit down at a 3e game, and be up and running with minimal explanations. I can expect that the same classes, XP chart, criticals, skill uses, and all that will be in use.

 

[billd91]

I have read all three pages of this thread and I guess I'm still missing the piece of information I expected to see by post #3: what would be gained by returning to the 1E experience system of different quantities of XP for different classes? In what way would the game improve as a result of this?

If someone would clue me in to that, I think I might be able to formulate a response.

The differing XP tables for classes rests on the assumption that characters approximately balance at different levels (sometimes differently at different times in their careers) and it's the amount of XP the character has that's the balancing factor.
Characters with 10,000 XP each are all expected to be approximately balanced even if they are at different levels.

I don't necessarily believe it works out that well in practice, but there you go. I'll confess that I like the 3E system better with its unified table, but that I never saw too many problems in actual play with the old tables except for comparisons between a few specific character classes.