Unfortunately, I really don't have time to review the whole thread, but I do want to repost my responce to a specific challenge of what I said, even if probably it has already been covered.
Although the material itself offers a lot more flexibility, not even mentioning the 3rd party d20 options, you have to consider the gaming culture. Homebrew rules were par for the course when 1e was around. That is true now, but I see a lot more people now that play 'by the books' than I ever did 15 or 20 years ago. How do you think all these other RPGs came to be?
I think that is a very suprious arguement. Homebrew rules were par for the course in 1 ed. because they were so clearly needed. This is evidence that the rules set was bad, not that it was good. However, there are plenty of house rules in 3rd. ed. as well, often to fill inadequisies in the rules true, but it is a testimony to how well the rules work that they can be used as is without problems.
However, that isn't what I meant by flexiblity. What I meant by flexibility is the ability of the system to change settings with the minimum of new house rules - which is entirely the opposite of what you are talking about. If a setting needs a bunch of house rules to meet the demands of a different setting then it is rather inflexible. It is very easy to adopt firearms rules to 3rd. edition, for example, but firearms were always problamatic for 1st. edition and even the best of them never felt right. You can play a very good D20 spy game or space opera (or as Call of Cthulu proves) even a Horror game. Try that with 1st edition rules.
AND, moreover, if your judge of flexibility is how much creativity it provokes, D20 has probably unleashed the single biggest spurt of creativity since gaming began. Where did all those other games come from you ask? They come from game referees and game designers who were disatisfied with AD&D and decided it would be simplier to scrap its rules and start fresh than house rule them. Where are all the new games coming from you ask? They come from game referees and game designers that are exicited about the possibilities of using the D20 system. That I think speaks for itself.
However, if you want to see D20 in action read Cthulu D20 or the Wheel of Time game for how very minor changes can have big impacts in 'game feel' without adding lots of tables and other complexity.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'elegant',
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What exactly does that mean?
I mean the property of achieving complexity from a simple set of premises. A rules set is elegant if you can apply the same set of rules to any situation without writing numerous special cases. D20 is a very elegant game system, on par with something like GURPS, and maybe more so because D20 is even more simple (though the results are less complex).
The term is NOT insubstantial. Let me give you some examples. First editions 'skill set' began with 'thief skills' which used thier own mechanic, and 'weapon proficiencies' which used thier own mechanic. In order to simulate 'skills', 1st edition successively added a variaty of things, 'secondary professions', non-weapon proficiencies and so forth, each of which added thier own separate mechanic. Any time a new class was introduced that depended on skills (say an alchemist or a mariner or a merchant), you had to introduce new and independent mechanics that weren't necessarily shared by any other class. That is not elegant.
Third edition is not as elegant in its skills as say GURPS, but it is a significant improvement over 1st edition.
Finally, I totally disagree that their are more supplements, errata, and confusing advice than 1 ed. had in its whole run. That is a ridiculous statement.
So that's why they keep releasing all those splat books, supplements, 3rd party class/race books, etc etc etc. 1e, 2e and 3e all have one thing in common. All you need to play is the PHB, DMG and MM. Hell, with 1e, you didn't even need a MM, since the DMG had monster charts with the basic 'stat block' stuff in them.
I actually manage quite well with only the PH and the SRD in 3rd. edition. If I pick up anything else it will probably be some of the excellent material Green Ronin is publishing.
However, to address your complaint, by 'complete' I mean that the rules are such that most additions to them is only an extension of existing mechanics. If you played 1 ed. the way I played 1 ed. you needed at minimum, the PHB, the DMG, at least 1 MM, the Wilderness Guide, and a variety of Dragon magazines (and latter the 2nd edition splat books), just to be able to follow along. Remember, the PHB didn't have the saving throw tables in the DMG, or the attack tables, skills weren't introduced till years latter, and the widely used criticals were an option mainly for those that had 'The Best of Dragon', etc., etc., etc.. The whole D20 system sans experience was basically introduced in the PHB and everything since that has just been more options. The Unearthed Arcana was a collection the same sort of extra 'fluff'. UA didn't alter the system just built on it. Some people like it, some didn't. Splat books; same thing.
"I suppose you mean the 'always high' and 'one roll to rule them all' concepts. Sure, consistent, but I've yet to meet anyone (except online) who really had that much trouble with 1e/2e dice mechanics."
Well, yes. It is not that those mechanics could cause trouble, it is simply that having +5 shields ADD to AC and not SUBTRACT from it is more consistant and well, elegant. It shows that thought went into simplifying the system even in areas were the learning curve was, as you point out, not that steep.
1e/2e balance relied heavily on what I call the 'low/high' concept. Some classes/races start out powerful and taper off, others start weak and ramp up. In the big picture, balance is achieved. 3e abandoned this in favor of making everyone kick ass right from the start. I don't consider this a good thing, YMMV.
Did you attually play 1st edition much? I'm inclined to wonder. Please explain to me what thieves were good for except tool boxes? And I might argue that they weren't even very good at that, since rapidly other classes gained surpassing abilities. Please explain to me what good clerics were except as healers? Please explain to me how the game retained its play balance once average party level got up over 8 or 9? The only class that 'started weak' and ramped up was the Magic User (and latter the Druid once they introduced the Heirophant levels). In the big picture balance was most certainly not achieved. Third edition lets every class pitch in all the time, and comparitively, third edition characters are much weaker than first edition characters compared to the challenges they face. All 1st edition modules scale up (at least all the ones I'm familiar with) and cannot be played by characters of the same level as originally intended. They do not 'kick ass right from the start' nearly the way a low level fighter in plate mail with weapon specialization did in 1st edition.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
simpler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VERY debatable! Case in point, explain to me, in 20 words or less, without pointing me to a passage to read, how attacks of opportunity work in 3e.
HA! Explain to me in 20 words or less the mechanics that the AoO replaced!
Still thinking? Some of you are probably thinking, 'What mechanics?' In part you are right, because many of the situations that AoO cover would have been covered by DM fiat in 1st edition, and for the rest the mechanics were so complex, vague, and poorly written that almost nobody used them, and involved some serious 'messing' with things like weapon speed, reach, initiative, etc.
In 20 words or less, AoO: "If you drop your guard while within reach of an enemy, they may make an extra attack."
All the other rules regarding AoO's simply provide increasing degrees of realism and specify exactly what 'dropping your guard' means so that thier isn't quarrelous debate by rules lawyers. However, had 1st edition ever provided anything like such a clear rule, I would have rejoiced.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and in general meets the goals of good game design
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where might the unenlightened among us find these 'rules'?
There are a variety of books on the subject. Gygax himself wrote at least one; if I remember correctly it was called something like 'Role Playing Mastery'. Richard Garfield and others use to write extensively about gaming theory in general in the back of Dragon. Please go read. These 'new school' thoughts are a good 20 years old.
But happily, those things are elements that I can easily change in my own campaign world, so it's not a problem.
