An Examination of Differences between Editions

[JeffB]

Where C&C falls short is that it doesn't do the options that are needed once the basics get old. For some, the basics will never get old, but I hate playing a fighter who is exactly like every other fighter except for the name on the character sheet. Truly, that's a major place where earlier editions fall short for me.

Because, yes, I *can* differentiate based solely on role-playing, but why would I when I have the option to do it based on role-playing *and* based on mechanics? If Bob the Fighter and Steve the Fighter can do different things, it helps make my play experience more novel and new, which is more fun for me.

I prefer C&C over 3.x, but yes..this is a point of the matter where I prefer 3.x...some kind of middle ground is where I'd like to be. Some options, without as much complication as 3.X or the lack thereof in older editions/C&C.

I prefer the overall ideas and mechanics of D20 vs. The SIEGE engine, but in the grand scheme of things I find I prefer the C&C approach to the game and it's much easier to graft on "feat-like" abilities and other 3.x-isms to C&C, rather than remove all the sticking points (IMO/IME) from 3.x.

Lately I've been considering taking the current Basic-Game rules set (3.5x) I bought for my son and working "up" from there...it's actually a nice little simplistic base game that I think could "open up" without getting overly complex.. with careful picking and choosing from the 3.5 core-books.


This is why I'm hopeful (and ready) for a 4E that hits the middle ground.

 

[Imaro]

Where C&C falls short is that it doesn't do the options that are needed once the basics get old. For some, the basics will never get old, but I hate playing a fighter who is exactly like every other fighter except for the name on the character sheet. Truly, that's a major place where earlier editions fall short for me.

Because, yes, I *can* differentiate based solely on role-playing, but why would I when I have the option to do it based on role-playing *and* based on mechanics? If Bob the Fighter and Steve the Fighter can do different things, it helps make my play experience more novel and new, which is more fun for me.

Let's give the game a little time, from my understanding the CKG will have alternate class abilities, and there was(though it's gone now, a PDF that gave XP costs per abilities so you could build your own classes. That's my contention with 3.x as opposed to C&C, it isn't a game where it starts simple and allows you to add what complexity you want. It's a game with a fair bit of complexity that steadily adds to it.

I see nothing wrong with individualizing your character through mechanics once your bored with the standards(just negotiate with your DM/CK for alternate abilities you both feel are balanced with what your replacing, isn't this the way it's suppose to work in 3.x anyway?), but for someone just starting out I think the other approach is better and it allows it to be more of a pick-up game when you want it to be(just for a night of monster bashing with your friends) and once you're players are comfortable, or you want to switch it up, allows you to add complexity, for longer term play. In other words it feels more flexible to me without the work of taking the system appart.

 

[Imaro]

I prefer C&C over 3.x, but yes..this is a point of the matter where I prefer 3.x...some kind of middle ground is where I'd like to be. Some options, without as much complication as 3.X or the lack thereof in older editions/C&C.

I prefer the overall ideas and mechanics of D20 vs. The SIEGE engine, but in the grand scheme of things I find I prefer the C&C approach to the game and it's much easier to graft on "feat-like" abilities and other 3.x-isms to C&C, rather than remove all the sticking points (IMO/IME) from 3.x.

Lately I've been considering taking the current Basic-Game rules set (3.5x) I bought for my son and working "up" from there...it's actually a nice little simplistic base game that I think could "open up" without getting overly complex.. with careful picking and choosing from the 3.5 core-books.


This is why I'm hopeful (and ready) for a 4E that hits the middle ground.

I think that's a good idea, and wish that's what the core game had been all along. For me personally the SIEGE mechanic feels better than D&D's granularity as far as skills go. IMHO the skill points are too low and not having enough can hamper certain classes. With the SIEGE mechanic you have all of your necessary abilities, can perform anything not covered by another classes abilities(niche protection), you get to add your level to it(fairly competent in most basic things someone who has spent time adventuring would do or know), Saves for all abilities, and the Primes allow you to specialize in broad areas as opposed to a single skill. If you want to be deficient in something tell your DM I'm not Prime when it comes to X, Y or Z...I don't think to many DM's would have a problem with that.

I find a big disconnect with D&D 3.x skills and classes. Why are the thieves abilities skills, but fighting with a weapon or casting a spell isn't? If I want to pick up certain(abilities) skills I have to take a whole other class...Not only can I now hit better, but with every weapon except exotic, I know how to use all armor and shields as well. I have the same problem with the other classes as well.

In closing I really don't see 4e going this route( though I'm with you on hoping for it.), it just doesn't make sense business wise. The game promotes the purchase of the minis, more player oriented sourcebooks, etc. and apparently it's working for them. I could see them maybe selling a simpler corer rules, to sell more add-ons spread out over more books, but as far as the mini-centric combat and other things along those lines...I don't see WotC shooting themselves in the foot by promoting a game that uses these things less.

 

[AllisterH]

Wow....

You guys still talking about this? HEH....It's good to see some things never change....

As for the focus on "optimization", shrug, that's system independent since frankly, back in 1E days, you didn't have thousands of people discussing, "What's the best build?".

I know in 2E days on r.g.f.d, we regularly used to talk about "what's the best specialty priest from Faith & Avatars? (go go Mystra!!!)", "what's the weakest handbook" (Priest's Handbook, no question).

So I'm not convinced this can be laid at the feet of ANY roleplaying game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is why I'm hopeful (and ready) for a 4E that hits the middle ground.

Bingo. I think the best kind of 4e would be one that refines the 3.5 system where it's sticking points are deep. I'd like it to be simple with the *option* for complexity. I'd like to see both vertical and lateral advancement (you can soar up in levels or you can achieve a lot of different abilities at about the same level). I'd like NPCs and PCs to follow the same rules...but I'd like to be able to simplify without loosing some of the impact of diversity. I'd like to see pick-up-and-play modules, and I'd like to see 316 page books on world-building.

I want it all and I want it all now.

I find a big disconnect with D&D 3.x skills and classes. Why are the thieves abilities skills, but fighting with a weapon or casting a spell isn't? If I want to pick up certain(abilities) skills I have to take a whole other class...Not only can I now hit better, but with every weapon except exotic, I know how to use all armor and shields as well. I have the same problem with the other classes as well.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the criticism in light of C&C. You seem to be saying that everything should follow a skill system, but it kind of does already in 3e: you roll a d20, add your modifiers (skill bonus, attack bonus, ability bonus), compare the total against a DC (or an AC) and resolve the action (dealing damage or accomplishing a use of the skill). Casting spells is a different system, but Caster Level (for SR or for increasing spell damage and effect) work according to the same model. For certain skills that are niche-protected (like attack bonus or caster level) you need to take another class, and you seem to defend C&C's use of the same tactic above. Both systems have things you can't increase within your own class.

So, yeah, I think D&D could learn quite a bit from C&C, but I also think C&C tends to throw out the baby with the bathwater in many cases. Does the game need 6 saves? Heck, for simplification, it could probably do with just a *single* save.

In closing I really don't see 4e going this route( though I'm with you on hoping for it.), it just doesn't make sense business wise. The game promotes the purchase of the minis, more player oriented sourcebooks, etc. and apparently it's working for them. I could see them maybe selling a simpler corer rules, to sell more add-ons spread out over more books, but as far as the mini-centric combat and other things along those lines...I don't see WotC shooting themselves in the foot by promoting a game that uses these things less.

I don't see how finding a middle ground between complexity and simplification would lead to decreased minis sales by default. In many situations, they just need to standardize various combat actions that we're already familiar with -- the grapple, the disarm, the trip, the sunder...all could follow various "stunt" mechanics pretty easily, rather than using four or five different sub-systems for each. Attacks of Opportunity, similarly, just need to be kind of standardized -- give each critter an Opportunity Attack score that, if it beats the target's AC, they can deal damage whenever certain stunts or actions are performed in reach...

Those are just some off-the-head examples. You can always sell more add-ons and more books and more minis, even with a simpler system.

 

[Imaro]

I'm not entirely sure I understand the criticism in light of C&C. You seem to be saying that everything should follow a skill system, but it kind of does already in 3e: you roll a d20, add your modifiers (skill bonus, attack bonus, ability bonus), compare the total against a DC (or an AC) and resolve the action (dealing damage or accomplishing a use of the skill). Casting spells is a different system, but Caster Level (for SR or for increasing spell damage and effect) work according to the same model. For certain skills that are niche-protected (like attack bonus or caster level) you need to take another class, and you seem to defend C&C's use of the same tactic above. Both systems have things you can't increase within your own class.

So, yeah, I think D&D could learn quite a bit from C&C, but I also think C&C tends to throw out the baby with the bathwater in many cases. Does the game need 6 saves? Heck, for simplification, it could probably do with just a *single* save.

I mean the disconnect of how some abilities are skills and others are "class" abilities. I can learn to move silently, hide, disable device, etc. just by spending skill points. In order to fight better(in a general sense) I have to take a new class, or to fight better (w/a specific weapon)spend a feat. It's a disconnect in my mind. C&C makes everything relevant to that class an actual class ability, and since there are no skills there is no disconnect for me. YMMV of course

I think the six saves stops the Charisma as throw away attribute(unless your a sorcerer, paladin or bard in D&D 3.x). It means all your attributes are relevant to a point and I like this better, it's a stylistic thing IMHO. I think that 3.x simplifies the saves too much and draws an often confusing parallel between Wisdom and Charisma. I still don't get how being wise equates to your actual willpower. There have been countles people who may not have been wise but we're able to force their views on others and resist attempts at persuasion.

 

[molonel]

I was more so talking about less of a "rules buy in" for players and DM's. I think this is one of the failures of 3.x... I mean it's a great game but it is soooo far gone from the make up a character in five minutes and get playing model, it's almost ridiculous. D&D once was a game where it was almost pick-up and play. Characters could be made in about five minutes and a module run afterwards. Now, unless you use pre-gens(which in my mind kind of makes all the "options" of 3.x pointless) it's taking almost a whole game session just to get everybody's characters up and ready to go(especially if you've only got one book.).

Zuh?

I still make low-level characters in 5 minutes. Rogues take a little longer because you're allocating skill points, and sometimes choosing wizard spells takes a little longer, but I really think you're confusing mid- and high-level options with low-level games. Most 1st through 6th level characters can't even QUALIFY for a lot of feats or prestige classes.

I play pick-up games a LOT, and taking all day to invent a 1st through 6th level character just doesn't happen.

In other words, I think you're exaggerating.

Even at low level you have numerous options: class, race, feats, skills, spells, etc. On top of this there is a vastly increased gulf of knowledge needed to both play the game and construct your character than in former editions. If you don't know how the game works, how can you pick feats and assign points to skills. Some will argue, just limit options or assign a feat, but then I don't see where this is any different from a game like C&C where class abilities are set to easily make sure a starting character can accomplish his role in the party. It doesn't hide complexity because everything is really interlocked. I have to understand the combat rules to pick a feat for my fighter, gotta understand how skills and DC's work to pick skills for my rogue, gotta understand spells before...you get the picure. Now if you handwave this and select for them for the player or just say tell me what your character wants to do and give them feats and skills based on that...then you can do the same thing for a point system game.

If you're talking about players who are new to the game having to learn what their race or class can do, then THAT is certainly nothing new. I've guided new players through the game in multiple editions, and frankly, I find it a lot easier to explain things now where I hold up a 20-sided die, and say, "When I tell you to roll this, you roll it and I'll tell you what to add."

That's a LOT easier than explaining, "Well, this is a saving throw/attack roll/armor class, so higher/lower is better in this particular circumstance, and we need to look at this chart on this page of this book to know whether or not you succeeded."

Where C&C falls short is that it doesn't do the options that are needed once the basics get old. For some, the basics will never get old, but I hate playing a fighter who is exactly like every other fighter except for the name on the character sheet. Truly, that's a major place where earlier editions fall short for me.

Agreed. Just about every 1st Edition fighter looked EXACTLY the same, even down to their gear.

Because, yes, I *can* differentiate based solely on role-playing, but why would I when I have the option to do it based on role-playing *and* based on mechanics? If Bob the Fighter and Steve the Fighter can do different things, it helps make my play experience more novel and new, which is more fun for me.

Also, agreed.

I prefer C&C over 3.x, but yes..this is a point of the matter where I prefer 3.x...some kind of middle ground is where I'd like to be. Some options, without as much complication as 3.X or the lack thereof in older editions/C&C. I prefer the overall ideas and mechanics of D20 vs. The SIEGE engine, but in the grand scheme of things I find I prefer the C&C approach to the game and it's much easier to graft on "feat-like" abilities and other 3.x-isms to C&C, rather than remove all the sticking points (IMO/IME) from 3.x.

Personally, I find it easier to remove extraneous material from 3rd Edition D&D than to add mechanics or options to a "simpler" game.

Lately I've been considering taking the current Basic-Game rules set (3.5x) I bought for my son and working "up" from there...it's actually a nice little simplistic base game that I think could "open up" without getting overly complex.. with careful picking and choosing from the 3.5 core-books.

Basically, what I do when I run a D&D game is that I start from core rules, and anything else has to be run by me before it finds its way into the game. That's my take on the game derived straight from the pages of the DMG.

I also read fairly widely on forums, and in alternate rules sets, and I am fully willing to design custom prestige classes or roleplaying opportunities to customize characters. In my last campaign, I had a character who started as a human barbarian and eventually wound up as a solar-in-training and taking levels in the Half-Celestial template class from Sean K. Reynolds's Anger of Angels. As a weapon, he wielded a chain that was used to bind a general of heaven in an abyssal prison.

There is absolutely no doubt that 3rd Edition is wrestling with the same problem as 2nd Edition AD&D faced: rules bloat.

Running back to 1st Edition AD&D, or embracing C&C, are both equally valid options which I considered and rejected, because to me the solution is really quite simple: don't let "it" in your game unless "it" belongs there, and that applies whether "it" is a prestige class, a spell, a feat, a magic item or whatever.

Let's give the game a little time, from my understanding the CKG will have alternate class abilities, and there was(though it's gone now, a PDF that gave XP costs per abilities so you could build your own classes. That's my contention with 3.x as opposed to C&C, it isn't a game where it starts simple and allows you to add what complexity you want. It's a game with a fair bit of complexity that steadily adds to it.

I don't think D&D starts complex, and gets worse. If you stay with the core rulebooks, you can list the possible breaks in the game on one hand. Maybe two, if your players are creative. All of those are easily solved. First through twelfth level runs incredibly smooth, and the breaks after that involve more on the area of DM prep than problem players.

I see nothing wrong with individualizing your character through mechanics once your bored with the standards(just negotiate with your DM/CK for alternate abilities you both feel are balanced with what your replacing, isn't this the way it's suppose to work in 3.x anyway?), but for someone just starting out I think the other approach is better and it allows it to be more of a pick-up game when you want it to be(just for a night of monster bashing with your friends) and once you're players are comfortable, or you want to switch it up, allows you to add complexity, for longer term play. In other words it feels more flexible to me without the work of taking the system appart.

The problem with that, though, is that designing game mechanics out of thin air is precisely the sort of difficulty I'd consider a game like C&C in order to avoid. Why would I run to a game for simplicity, and then start building complexity into the game?

I'm running two low-magic d20 Modern games right now that draw materials from a variety of sources, most of which I have purchased in PDF form through RPGhost, and the process of "negotiation" for stuff that I or the character have to write from scratch can become just as wearying and tiresome as considering which gaming books to include in my game.

As for the focus on "optimization", shrug, that's system independent since frankly, back in 1E days, you didn't have thousands of people discussing, "What's the best build?". I know in 2E days on r.g.f.d, we regularly used to talk about "what's the best specialty priest from Faith & Avatars? (go go Mystra!!!)", "what's the weakest handbook" (Priest's Handbook, no question). So I'm not convinced this can be laid at the feet of ANY roleplaying game.

Sure it can. Terms like "munchkin" and "powergamer" weren't invented recently. They are as Old Skool as you can get. You can read about them in Knights of the Dinner Table.

Part of the reason you didn't have thousands of people discussing anything about 1st Edition, back in the day, was because the internet didn't EXIST, and even after it did, TSR didn't seem too keen on letting people set up websites or maintain discussions outside their purview. You can read more about that here:

http://www.seankreynolds.com/misc/howIgothiredatTSR.html

 

[Raven Crowking]

100% agree. However, KM's point is more that writing that a game is "demanding" and "advanced" is perhaps a turn off for a number of people. Since the quote is being held up as a very good way to write Rule 0, I think the criticism isn't far off.

Well, I have to say that upon consideration of many, many people's stated experience with bad 1e DMs, I've been forced to revise my opinion and at least partially agree with KM. The DMG, at least, should be written with the LCD in mind.

That said, I don't know of any computer game that even remotely approaches the fun of tabletop gaming. (OTOH, I'm not a computer game guy.) I would also rather play a game where effort has been put into it by the participants than not. In fact, I would rather go fishing than play a game without any real effort put into it. The thing is, with D&D, that effort is part of the fun. IMHO, of course. YMMV.

No matter how many burgers McDonald's serves, they'll never be better burgers than Licks. I feel rather the same about World of Warcraft. Tabletop is just far, far more satisfying to me.


RC


EDIT: DM-Rocco, I'll get on that request.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, I have to say that upon consideration of many, many people's stated experience with bad 1e DMs, I've been forced to revise my opinion and at least partially agree with KM.

Woah.

In fact, I would rather go fishing than play a game without any real effort put into it. The thing is, with D&D, that effort is part of the fun. IMHO, of course. YMMV. ... I feel rather the same about World of Warcraft. Tabletop is just far, far more satisfying to me.

I agree with you in that I think it's more fun when I get a "payoff for hard work." But I don't believe that most people are looking for that in a game. They're looking...y'know....to play a game. With some friends. And for that, WoW does the job pretty well.

 

[Imaro]

Zuh?

I still make low-level characters in 5 minutes. Rogues take a little longer because you're allocating skill points, and sometimes choosing wizard spells takes a little longer, but I really think you're confusing mid- and high-level options with low-level games. Most 1st through 6th level characters can't even QUALIFY for a lot of feats or prestige classes.

I play pick-up games a LOT, and taking all day to invent a 1st through 6th level character just doesn't happen.

In other words, I think you're exaggerating.

Think what you want, it's a free country. I have a hard time believing that someone without exstensive rules knowledge can make a character in five minutes, I think that is an exageration.

If you're talking about players who are new to the game having to learn what their race or class can do, then THAT is certainly nothing new. I've guided new players through the game in multiple editions, and frankly, I find it a lot easier to explain things now where I hold up a 20-sided die, and say, "When I tell you to roll this, you roll it and I'll tell you what to add."

That's a LOT easier than explaining, "Well, this is a saving throw/attack roll/armor class, so higher/lower is better in this particular circumstance, and we need to look at this chart on this page of this book to know whether or not you succeeded."

See and how is that understanding the game or it's mechanics. If you just have them roll a d20 and they have no idea of what the mechanics are behind it you might as well just play by DM fiat. Most people I know, want to understand a game they are playing, not just roll a die when told too, but YMMV.

Personally, I find it easier to remove extraneous material from 3rd Edition D&D than to add mechanics or options to a "simpler" game.

That's you, I've been adding and modifying since BD&D, I gues it just comes more naturally to me.

Basically, what I do when I run a D&D game is that I start from core rules, and anything else has to be run by me before it finds its way into the game. That's my take on the game derived straight from the pages of the DMG.

I also read fairly widely on forums, and in alternate rules sets, and I am fully willing to design custom prestige classes or roleplaying opportunities to customize characters. In my last campaign, I had a character who started as a human barbarian and eventually wound up as a solar-in-training and taking levels in the Half-Celestial template class from Sean K. Reynolds's Anger of Angels. As a weapon, he wielded a chain that was used to bind a general of heaven in an abyssal prison.

Thus you have a fair bit of familiarity, the person off the street doesn't, with the game. I find even the core rules more complex than an introductory game or pick-up game should be. Just my oppinion.

There is absolutely no doubt that 3rd Edition is wrestling with the same problem as 2nd Edition AD&D faced: rules bloat.

Running back to 1st Edition AD&D, or embracing C&C, are both equally valid options which I considered and rejected, because to me the solution is really quite simple: don't let "it" in your game unless "it" belongs there, and that applies whether "it" is a prestige class, a spell, a feat, a magic item or whatever.

Or you have to take it out if it's in the core rules. C&C is a vastly simpler system, even when compared to just core 3.x. It is also a simpler ruleset, as a whole, for a new player to grasp.

I don't think D&D starts complex, and gets worse. If you stay with the core rulebooks, you can list the possible breaks in the game on one hand. Maybe two, if your players are creative. All of those are easily solved. First through twelfth level runs incredibly smooth, and the breaks after that involve more on the area of DM prep than problem players.

I'm talking about the game itself...I can't believe how people who are familiar with 3.x can't see how intimidating learning and understanding the rules could be for a new player.

The problem with that, though, is that designing game mechanics out of thin air is precisely the sort of difficulty I'd consider a game like C&C in order to avoid. Why would I run to a game for simplicity, and then start building complexity into the game?

Because it makes it adaptable, nobody said you had to, but it's easy to do if you want.

I'm running two low-magic d20 Modern games right now that draw materials from a variety of sources, most of which I have purchased in PDF form through RPGhost, and the process of "negotiation" for stuff that I or the character have to write from scratch can become just as wearying and tiresome as considering which gaming books to include in my game.

Just as wearying or tiresome...maybe, but you ain't spending money on it either. Different strokes for different folks.