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

[molonel]

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.

See, this is part of the problem I have with people who advocate for previous editions of the game. They expect me to admit every conceivable problem with the present edition of the game, while refusing to admit problems or limitations in previous editions. That argument is like a software developer telling me, "Hey, it's not a bug. It's a feature!"

No, it's a weakness of 1st Edition. It is not a strength. Chess is NOT a good comparison, either, because that is not a roleplaying game.

People have pointed out that 3rd Edition D&D tends to be a high magic game. While you can model the characters of classic roleplaying fiction better than in previous edition, low magic worlds like Robert E. Howard's and Fritz Leiber's are difficult to model with 3rd Edition D&D straight out of the box.

This argument is absolutely correct, and from the perspective of someone wanting to run a low magic game, that is a weakness in 3rd Edition D&D. There are ways around that, but if you are not aware of those options, they don't help you.

I think your argument would be stronger, and your perspective better, if you could simply admit that there are problems and weaknesses inherent in 1st Edition AD&D just like any other game, instead of shucking and jiving about, "It's the party that's the protagonist!" Because that's horse pucky. 1st Edition AD&D had a lot to learn. It's entirely arguable that 3rd Edition has a lot that it needs to remember, too, but it does some things better than previous editions of the game.

For anyone who is interested, too, they have a model of Conan's character for 3.0 rules located on this website here:

http://www.enworld.org/Inzeladun/conan.htm

It's very well done, too.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

No, it's a weakness of 1st Edition. It is not a strength. Chess is NOT a good comparison, either, because that is not a roleplaying game.

Whoa there, hold your horses!

I'll be the first to admit that 1e has problems. Anyone who's ever tried to implement the psionics rules, or even understand the pre-2e initiative rules, knows this! I also think weapon speed factors and weapons -v- AC type are pointlessly complicated without adding any value to the game, and... well, I'm sure you get the idea.

But I agree with RFisher that the 1e treatment of player characters is not a weakness.

I also agree with RFisher that Chess is a good comparison.

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.

Now, to some 3e players, this means 1e is wrong or bad or un-fun or silly. You're welcome to your view of that -- it so happens that I have a similarly contemptuous view of the amateur dramatics crowd -- but please do remember that this is your opinion. It isn't incontrovertible fact, so let's use appropriate language.

Hostile: 2nd person. "You're wrong."
Argumentative: Declamatory. "This is how it is."
Discussion: 1st person. "I think this is how it is."
Civil discussion: "The reason why I think this is how it is..."

 

[Turjan]

The varianble xp charts served one purpose. All classe are NOT created equally. How many threads have their been on how weak the fighter is? Just give him a faster exp progression. Done.

The way this problem was solved was giving the fighter better feats. In PHB II.

That's a solution without further complicating the system.

 

[Crothian]

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.

My biggest problem with this though is it did seem some modules were written for this play stle but you had no warning of that. So, for people not playing like this they could end up playing a module they could not handle because they had no way of knowing the module was assuming a different type of play style. When I was a kid we just played the game without understanding the wargaming element because it wasn't that well dealt with in the books we had.

 

[molonel]

Whoa there, hold your horses!

Whoa!!!!!!

*cracks whip*

Consider them held.

I'll be the first to admit that 1e has problems. Anyone who's ever tried to implement the psionics rules, or even understand the pre-2e initiative rules, knows this! I also think weapon speed factors and weapons -v- AC type are pointlessly complicated without adding any value to the game, and... well, I'm sure you get the idea.

I was there. It makes me shudder to remember.

But I agree with RFisher that the 1e treatment of player characters is not a weakness. I also agree with RFisher that Chess is a good comparison. 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.

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.

Now, to some 3e players, this means 1e is wrong or bad or un-fun or silly. You're welcome to your view of that -- it so happens that I have a similarly contemptuous view of the amateur dramatics crowd -- but please do remember that this is your opinion. It isn't incontrovertible fact, so let's use appropriate language.

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.

 

[Gentlegamer]

A game that requires the sledgehammer of DM fiat to accomplish this comparatively trivial exercise in character building has a problem.

It isn't DM fiat, it's player-DM co-operation.

You do highlight a core assumption that changed. The present game is about "character building" essentially as a metagame activity. The older game was about adventuring. Character development was done in-game and the result of DM-player interaction.

 

[Nikosandros]

I'm rather ambivalent on the idea of the level titles. On one hand, they were pretty cool, on the other hand, having the game designers dictate my campaign to me didn't sit very well. I was never much into the idea that D&D should be this or that, so, honestly, the titles thing got chucked out the window PDQ.

I really dislike level titles. A lot of them are inappropriate for many characters (for instance necromancer for magic-users). Also should clerics of all religions share the same titles?

I believe that titles only make sense in the context of a specific organization and shouldn't necessarily be directly tied to the level of the character.

 

[molonel]

It isn't DM fiat, it's player-DM co-operation.

You say tom-A-toe, I say tom-AH-toe. When a DM has to step in and change the rules of the game to make a very minor character decision, and that cannot happen without his doing so, that is a DM fiat.

You do highlight a core assumption that changed. The present game is about "character building" essentially as a metagame activity. The older game was about adventuring. Character development was done in-game and the result of DM-player interaction.

That's a false dichotomy, and equally untrue. Character building in D&D has always had a level-based, class-based, race-based mechanic. Character development, then and now, was equally the result of choices made during character creation through those mechanics, choices made when you leveled, magical gear that you found (or created, now) and interaction during the game. D&D has always been about adventuring, and that hasn't changed. But you are defending a weakness in the game, then, that we all knew was there. The present system does it better while not preventing the sort of ingame development we all enjoy.

I'm sorry, folks. But the rules do some things better, now.

 

[Nikosandros]

I'm sorry, folks. But the rules do some things better, now.

Look, as I already said I like 3e and I have played a lot of it. However, I believe that the correct statement is that the rules do some things differently now.

Yes, it's true, many characters from fantasy literature can't really be represented within the framework of the AD&D rules, but this doesn't make them bad rules, since their intent is not to allow such representation in the first place.

If flexibility in character creation is a valid gauge of a game quality, than RPG such as GURPS or HERO surely would be without doubt much better than any version of D&D.

 

[molonel]

Look, as I already said I like 3e and I have played a lot of it. However, I believe that the correct statement is that the rules do some things differently now. Yes, it's true, many characters from fantasy literature can't really be represented within the framework of the AD&D rules, but this doesn't make them bad rules, since their intent is not to allow such representation in the first place. If flexibility in character creation is a valid gauge of a game quality, than RPG such as GURPS or HERO surely would be without doubt much better than any version of D&D.

But that is something that GURPS does better than D&D. Not just differently. Better. The level of granularity in GURPS is incredible. I choose D&D for different reasons, but GURPS is certainly better than any version of D&D for flexibility in character creation and tracking, and in this regard, 3rd Edition is better than 1st Edition.

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.