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

[Mark CMG]

Where 1st Edition falls down, in this regard, is in failing to accomplish what by any reasonable estimation it SHOULD do. I *should* be able to create the Grey Mouser in that game, because he's NOT a difficult character to conceive. He's also not a less valid character concept than Joe Blow, the 1st level human fighter. The game SHOULD support it. I shouldn't need the almighty hand of DM God to sweep apart the Red Sea just so I can have some lowly magical skills.

In any game, or just in any edition of D&D?

 

[molonel]

In any game, or just in any edition of D&D?

Are we talking about ANY game?

 

[Treebore]

Whoa!!!!!!

*cracks whip*

Consider them held.



I was there. It makes me shudder to remember.



So 1st Edition locks you into certain pre-conceived stereotypes, like chess only lets you be a pawn, a knight, a bishop, a queen, a king or a rook, and that's a GOOD thing?!??!!?

It's a ROLEPLAYING game!

When it prevents me from playing out the fantasy archetypes from the writers the game is based on, that's a BAD thing. That's a weakness.

And that's a fact.

It doesn't matter how you say it, or what sort of language you use. We're not talking about some contorted, obscure fantasy trope. We're talking about a thief like the Grey Mouser who dabbles as a hedge wizard. A game that requires the sledgehammer of DM fiat to accomplish this comparatively trivial exercise in character building has a problem.

Some limits are good, and helpful. This limit is not. The fact that DMs back when I played 1st Edition tended to ignore certain limitations and allow characters to skirt obviously ridiculous rules meant that those were problems that needed to be fixed, not "features" that needed to be explained ad nauseum until the person wanting to do something outside the limits of the game just gave up, and stopped asking.



It was silly to me as a 1st Edition AD&D player, and that was LONG before 3rd Edition came out. A dwarven paladin makes perfect sense. I couldn't play one, though. Heck, the first time I read the 1st Edition PHB, I was like, "Why can't I play an elven ranger?" But I couldn't do those things without saying, "Mother, may I?" to the DM.

Pointing out that this is my opinion is silly. Of course it's my opinion. That's why it's attached to my name. Just like your opinion is attached to yours, and is merely, only your opinion.

That is something else I don't get. Why so many people thought you were "locked into" some preconceived character concept. I played a number of various characters with the same class, and they were all very different. So how so many people seem to think that is something I don't get. Feats, and skill selections do not make your fighter all that different from every other fighter. Plus I often see people selecting the same feats, because those are the best feats.

So what ends up being different? On paper, a few feats may be different. Maybe. But what is different about the character? From what I have seen? The same thing that has always made a given character unique, how the player played/portrayed the character.

Feats, skills, and magic items don't make a "character" any different than they have ever been in previous editions, except in purely mechanical ways.

The heroic and extrememly honorable warrior/mage/thief/Druid/et al... is the same "character" in every edition of the game. The cleric that bends over backwards to help the poor and downtrodden is tha "same character" in every edition of the game.

So please, explain to me how "mechanics" equals "role playing"?

I see how rules facilitate certain role playing "actions", such as swinging across the room on the chandelier. But that was a "Dex check" in my games in past editions. Or to tumble past some enemies to get to another part of the room, but again, that was a DEX check in my games in previous editions.

So feats and codified rules allow for "every" DM to know how to handle such things in a consistant manner.

But to say that todays classes are better for roleplaying? That I have yet to see.

 

[Mark CMG]

Are we talking about ANY game?

I believe GURPS was also mentioned at some point, no?

 

[Storm Raven]

1e is, in part, a game of tricks and tactics and often involves what detractors call "metagaming" to solve problems. Often, it helps to step out of character, forget you're supposed to be a heroic fighter with long moustaches, and think through the problem precisely as if all the little miniatures were wargame pieces. After all, it did evolve from miniatures wargames.

And people criticize 3e as "video-gamey".

 

[molonel]

I believe GURPS was also mentioned at some point, no?

Someone else brought it up. Ask him. I'm talking about D&D.

 

[Nikosandros]

And people criticize 3e as "video-gamey".

There is no contradiction... 1e was a wargame and 3e is a videogame. I'll go play some CoC or Amber so that I can enjoy a real RPG...

 

[Nikosandros]

Someone else brought it up. Ask him. I'm talking about D&D.

Ehm... ask me what?

 

[Campbell]

I'm going to have to agree with Nikosandros and Gentlegamer. As far as I understand it, D&D, in all its incarnations has never been about emulating the fantasy genre, or even its source material. Rather, D&D has always been meant to use to play D&D. 3e is no different in this regard. It simply allows for a more diverse array of character options, while remaining firmly grounded in tactical adventuring game play.

Personally, I prefer the level of character diversity that 3e supports. It, along with smaller party sizes, and other features of 3e creates what I'd term a more personal game, where the adventuring is more firmly grounded into the game's setting, and where strategic and tactical decisions in the context of the capabilities and proclivities of the characters being represented at the game table, as well as providing more flexibility out of the box.

However, a game like that is not for everybody. 3e just happens to hit this Tactician/Story Teller's sweet spot.

 

[Campbell]

There is no contradiction... 1e was a wargame and 3e is a videogame. I'll go play some CoC or Amber so that I can enjoy a real RPG...

Now, this is a point I really have to follow up on. How exactly do you believe 3e like a video game ? Which kind of video game? I'd ask the same of your 1e comparison. There is an incredible breadth of difference between different games of each type in my experience.