An Examination of Differences between Editions

[molonel]

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.

I used to DM at a lot of local cons and pick-up games at the FLGS. I've introduced a LOT of new players to 3rd Edition. I've walked someone through making a 1st level character in 15 minutes. You're making it sound a LOT harder than it is.

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.

Because most people have to see first, and then understand. Most people are tactile learners. They learn by doing. Understanding comes later, and the d20 + modifiers = success or failure is EXTREMELY easy to learn.

I've also watched people learn earlier editions, and trying to teach them "high = good in THIS case" and "low = good in THAT case" when the high or low has no logical purpose is NOT as easy to learn.

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

Inventing mechanics is simply harder than deciding what NOT to include. Game design is a harder occupation than letting someone else do the work, and then deciding what to include, and what to discard. That's why people get paid for game design, but every DM in any edition of the game is assumed to have the competence to decide what belongs in his or her game, and what doesn't.

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.

I've taught dozens of people to play 3rd Edition D&D in the course of one single game at a con. I've also watched them showing other people how to play during the next 4-hour session they played.

That's not my opinion, either. That's observed fact.

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.

That's because I've taught dozens of new people how to play. It's not intidimidating at all. It's a game. It's a learning curve for anyone. But some folks here are making it sound like it's learning particle physics, and it's not.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Woah.

Sorry. I call 'em as I see 'em, even when that means saying I was wrong earlier.

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.

Let me put it this way -- I think Chess is an infinitely more fun game than Snakes & Ladders, and much of that has to do with the relative level of work (and hence involvement) that the game requires. Likewise, I'd rather play Chess against an opponent who is likely to beat me (forcing me to a better game) than one I know I can defeat easily.

It all depends on what you want from your leisure time. If I wanted to just relax, I'd go hiking or fishing. Or watch Doctor Who. YMMV.

 

[MerricB]

Even at low level you have numerous options: class, race, feats, skills, spells, etc.

Funnily enough, almost all those categories are also true of AD&D (1e), AD&D (2e), and BECM D&D.

AD&D 1E: Class, Race, Spells, Weapon Proficiences (Feats); with UA you get more Feat-like with Weapon Specialisation.

AD&D 2E: Class, Race, Spells, Skills (for rogues), Weapon Proficiencies, Non-Weapon Proficiencies.

BECM D&D: Class, Race, Spells, Weapon Mastery, Other Skills.

Let's make one thing clear: D&D 3E is not an introductory game. That is the D&D Basic Game. AD&D is even less of an introductory game than 3E is.

 

[Imaro]

I used to DM at a lot of local cons and pick-up games at the FLGS. I've introduced a LOT of new players to 3rd Edition. I've walked someone through making a 1st level character in 15 minutes. You're making it sound a LOT harder than it is.

No I'm not saying making a character in 3.x is equivalent to a calculus exam. I'm saying I remember when a character really took five minutes. You want to say amking a character in 3.x is still as easy and quick as BD&D, C&C or even AD&D ok, that's your experience I just don't see it, unless the player is making a character without knowing and understanding everything available to them. In other words your making the character for them or limiting the options available to them.

Because most people have to see first, and then understand. Most people are tactile learners. They learn by doing. Understanding comes later, and the d20 + modifiers = success or failure is EXTREMELY easy to learn.

I've also watched people learn earlier editions, and trying to teach them "high = good in THIS case" and "low = good in THAT case" when the high or low has no logical purpose is NOT as easy to learn.

Never disagreed that the universal "roll high" mechanic didn't simplify game play. That's why I use C&C instead of AD&D. My point was that if all your telling them to do is roll a die, when do they ever understand the why's and how's of the game.

Inventing mechanics is simply harder than deciding what NOT to include. Game design is a harder occupation than letting someone else do the work, and then deciding what to include, and what to discard. That's why people get paid for game design, but every DM in any edition of the game is assumed to have the competence to decide what belongs in his or her game, and what doesn't.

Disagree here, especially when there is no formula for what's being created. PrC's still aren't made in any unified way, so determining balance is the same as making up your own stuff, a total judgement call. No one's asking you to design a game from the bottom up, or even saying you have to add stuff...but once again I don't see how judging PrC's that are made arbitrarily by someone else's idea of balance is any harder than making your own. Less time consuming, maye...harder, still not convinced.

I've taught dozens of people to play 3rd Edition D&D in the course of one single game at a con. I've also watched them showing other people how to play during the next 4-hour session they played.

That's not my opinion, either. That's observed fact.

I also remeber articles from Dragon magazine that advised and even listed why you should set aside a whole session for character creation when 3.x first came out, so I guess everyone has they're own "observed facts". These are people with way more understanding and experience with the game system so I think I'll go with they're observed facts, as well as my own. Even at 15 min a PC that's an hour for four PC's. Sorry most people that are new to a game don't want to spend an hour plus getting ready to play, especially if they're new to it.

That's because I've taught dozens of new people how to play. It's not intidimidating at all. It's a game. It's a learning curve for anyone. But some folks here are making it sound like it's learning particle physics, and it's not.

No, but it is alot of investment for someone to expend for something they're not sure they will like. I like C&C because there is less initial investment and then it allows(once a player has decided they do or don't like the game) complexity(feats, skills, multi-classing, AoO,etc.) to be added with a full grasp of their usage in incremental steps. I think It's better to get a player started in the hobby with a game that(IMHO) is quick to make characters for, doesn't bog down in play, is easy to grasp all the rules, etc. C&C is my go to game for this. Once they like playing rpg's then I think a person is more willing to invest in a $90 core set and the reading that comes along with that, as well as taking the time to read over and understand feats, skill usage, combat rules, etc. YMMV.

 

[Imaro]

Funnily enough, almost all those categories are also true of AD&D (1e), AD&D (2e), and BECM D&D.

What?

AD&D 1E: Class, Race, Spells, Weapon Proficiences (Feats); with UA you get more Feat-like with Weapon Specialisation.

UA,Wpn Prof(I believe, but am not certain) are supplemental...now are we going to start adding all the supplemental stuff for D&D 3.x as well?

AD&D 2E: Class, Race, Spells, Skills (for rogues), Weapon Proficiencies, Non-Weapon Proficiencies.

The skills for Rogues were set percentages, no figuring out where to put skill points, or even if you had enough to cover all the skills you needed. Again I believe Wpn Prof. and Non-wpn Prof were optional.

BECM D&D: Class, Race, Spells, Weapon Mastery, Other Skills.

Wpn. Mastery and Skills were added later and even in the RC are again optional.

Let's make one thing clear: D&D 3E is not an introductory game. That is the D&D Basic Game. AD&D is even less of an introductory game than 3E is.

Totally agree here, but people try to make it seem like it's just as beginner friendly as BD&D and it's just not. Feats, Skills, etc. are not optional in the RAW.

 

[MerricB]

UA,Wpn Prof(I believe, but am not certain) are supplemental...now are we going to start adding all the supplemental stuff for D&D 3.x as well?

UA was not an optional supplement: it was an official addition to the rules. Pre-UA, Weapon Proficiences were not optional.

The skills for Rogues were set percentages, no figuring out where to put skill points, or even if you had enough to cover all the skills you needed. Again I believe Wpn Prof. and Non-wpn Prof were optional.

In 2e, Skills for Rogues were not set percentages: you had a base percentage and 60 more points to split between them. NWP were optional, however.

Totally agree here, but people try to make it seem like it's just as beginner friendly as BD&D and it's just not. Feats, Skills, etc. are not optional in the RAW.

I agree that Moldvay or Mentzer Basic is much more friendly to newbies than 3E. (Not the case with Holmes Basic!) Mind you, the starting packages make creating characters in 3E not really that hard.

Cheers!

 

[Raven Crowking]

UA was not an optional supplement: it was an official addition to the rules. Pre-UA, Weapon Proficiences were not optional.

Nitpick: Everything was optional in 1e. That was made quite clear in the 1e ruleset.

(Of course, everything is optional in 2e and 3e, too, even though labelling some things as "optional" and not labelling other things might confuse the issue somewhat....Anything in the rules is subject to change, based upon DM and group dynamics.[/i]

RC

 

[RFisher]

See, now, that wasn't hard. I have no problems with someone not liking things. My beef was with presenting it in such a way that it appears to be incontrovertible fact, rather than opinion. I actually agree with much of what you say here.

See, I have a huge problem with the disclaimerism trend. It used to be people stated their opinion & labelled when they were citing facts. It was obvious that anything not specifically called out as fact was opinion. Now we have to label our opinions in triplicate.

In my opinion...according to my experience...your milage may vary. (^_^)

This rule 0 makes it impossible to share DMing duties. It assumes that every group will have one and only one DM.

Neither of these things have been true in my experience. When we switched campaigns, the new DM had the final say. Things could be completely different from how they were in the previous campaign, & that was part of the fun.

Even when I've been in a group in which we switched DMs in the same campaign, some things might change when that happened. Of course, things would potentially change much less in those cases. (In practice, usually not so much.) & we tried very hard to make sure that nothing invalidated a previous, long-term decision a player had made about his character.

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?

Good question! For me it often comes down to something like this:

Designers want to give you two characters who do basically the same thing in two different ways. They feel this deserves (for the reason KM stated) two mechanics. So, they build two different mechanics. They work very hard to balance the two. If they succeed, then you have the unnecessary complication of two mechanics that give almost exactly the same results. If they fail, then you have a superior option that almost everyone chooses & an inferior one that almost nobody chooses.

Ideally you get a situation where you get different but balanced results. Even in this rare circumstance, however, it's even rarer that the difference in the results really lines up very well with what you'd expect based on the fluffy difference that you started with.

So, I tend to prefer to keep the mechanics simple & leave most of the differentiation to fluff.

That said, I don't know that I'd want to play Risus--where one mechanic & its three variations tends to be used for everything--all the time. But there's a point at which I reach my personal mechanics-saturation point.

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.

Sure, but don't carry it too far. I don't believe in changing the basic nature of something to make it suit people who don't like it's basic nature. (^_^) Let the people who want WoW play WoW. Let the people who want D&D play D&D.

As to D&D...

I admire the d20 system a lot. It may not be my first choice, but I enjoy playing it, & I'm really glad that it is there as an option for the people for whom it is their first choice. But, I think it isn't good as the big name in our hobby--the game most likely to be someone's first contact with the hobby. The current Basic box doesn't feel like a good introduction either. (How many of you actually use it to introduce new players to the hobby?)

Truth be told, I'm not so sure classic Basic would be the best flagship either, but I think--at least in some ways--it served us better.

I used to DM at a lot of local cons and pick-up games at the FLGS. I've introduced a LOT of new players to 3rd Edition. I've walked someone through making a 1st level character in 15 minutes. You're making it sound a LOT harder than it is.

My experience is different. Even when shown the templates in the PHB, I've seen new players get discouraged by the complexity of creating a 3e character. When I haven't been playing 3e for a while (usually the case when creating a new PC), it takes me AT LEAST a whole game session. & that's with just the core rules. (I tend to avoid supplements even when they're allowed.)

This is not my opinion. This is my observation.

Just because you know the system well & are good at introducing new players to it doesn't mean that other people's observations are exaggerations.

 

[RFisher]

BECM D&D: Class, Race, Spells, Weapon Mastery, Other Skills.

It's just: class-race. Plus spells for elves & magic-users only. (1st level clerics didn't have to pick spells.) One choice for most. Two choices for some.

Actually, it's: class-race, ability score adjustments (add 1 to prime req. by taking 2 from another ability), spells (if elf or MU), alignment, languages (if Int > 12), & buying gear.

Though I tend to substitute ability score adjustments with arranging scores to taste.

Granted I'm talking from a Moldvay viewpoint, but I'm pretty sure that holds at least through Mentzer's Basic, Expert, & Companion sets.

 

[T. Foster]

It's just: class-race. Plus spells for elves & magic-users only. (1st level clerics didn't have to pick spells.) One choice for most. Two choices for some.

Actually, it's: class-race, ability score adjustments (add 1 to prime req. by taking 2 from another ability), spells (if elf or MU), alignment, languages (if Int > 12), & buying gear.

Though I tend to substitute ability score adjustments with arranging scores to taste.

Granted I'm talking from a Moldvay viewpoint, but I'm pretty sure that holds at least through Mentzer's Basic, Expert, & Companion sets.

And, of course, OD&D. If you're playing a fighter (including a dwarf or hobbit) or cleric, buying gear is likely to take longer than all the rest of char-gen combined (which is why I advocate the use of pre-selected "Adventurer's Packs" (like in modules B3 & B4) for novice players).