An Examination of Differences between Editions

[Hussar]

*snip*


It is my understanding that it isn't in the 3.5 PHB either, though I'd be happy to learn I was wrong.


RC

Character Creation... ((First point)) Check with your Dungeon Master. (In large bold type)

Your DM may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from these rules.

Check with your Dungeon Master ((First point, also in large bold type)). Your Dungeon Master (DM) may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from the standard rules.

Players should ask their DMs about incorporating any elements of this book beforehand

Players should ask their DMs about incorporating any elements of this book beforehand

So, a great many books, including the DMG and PHB ALL STATE that the DM has final say. It's generally the very first thing that they state. In both PHB's it's stated in large bold text. Even though the PHB2 doesn't carry this warning, it does state that you need the Core 3 to use this book, so, it's fair to say that anyone reading the PHB2 has access to the same information.

Again, how much plainer do they need to make it? At what point does gamer illiteracy lose its cache as an excuse? Many books, from both 3.0 and 3.5 have Rule 0 stated.

Just as a question, where is Rule 0 stated in the Unearthed Arcana? Or in Faiths and Avatars? How many times did Dragon state that you should check with your DM before using a new class at the time? I'm sure those with access to those books or the Dragon CD's can answer that question.

 

[RFisher]

And if the DM changes the rules without a good and defensible reason, he's going to be considered unfair by the players.

I'm not convinced, though, that the 3e designers intended this. I think they wanted to provide comprehensive rules for DMs that wanted them. They thought that novice DMs would be made better by this. (Which it does--for some.) I also think they expected experienced DMs/groups to gloss over the details & play it more the way they always had.

So for me, the DM disenfrachisement / player empowerment angle doesn't really play a part in my preference for classic D&D over 3e. It's more about the changes that made sense when I thought lots of things were broken in previous editions, but which make less sense to me now that I've learned to look at the older editions differently.

What I am bad at is coming up with stuff on the fly. If I had to do it several times per game session because I was using a less comprehensive rules set, I think the overall quality of my games will suffer.

The following comments do not necessarily refer to FireLance. I'm just spring-boarding off this quote.

I think sometimes people mistake playing a "rules light" game as "rules heavy but with the rules made-up on-the-fly". When I run a "rules light" game, I don't tend to call for a lot of ad hoc rolls. A lot of the things that I'd call for skill checks for when running 3e, I just decide when running classic D&D. If it's in sight, you spot it. If you search--unless intentionally well concealed--you find it. If it's a distance most people could jump across & you have at least an average Str, you jump it. If there's a rope, you climb it.

(Although, to be fair, I wouldn't call for a lot of those rolls when running 3e either. Call it setting low DCs & assuming Take 10 if you like. ^_^)

The other thing to realize is that when you think neither success or failure is certain, you can very often get by with flipping a coin for the ad hoc situations. Unless it's something that keeps coming up a lot. (In which case, it's becoming something you can't really call ad hoc anymore.)

Another point--that I need to be better about myself--is that it's often more interesting to think in terms of partial success v. full success rather than failure v. success. e.g. The gap is just wide enough that jumping it isn't automatic. So, a "failed roll" doesn't mean the PC falls in, it means they're now hanging from the edge of the other side!

 

[Raven Crowking]

While I may have gone off on this one, how many times have we seen these same tired old garbage lines trotted out as if they are fact?

Two things I would like to note:

(1) The comment about min/maxing is not simply a "garbage line" because the game itself assumes some level of min/maxing, and you need to look forward in order to qualify for some things (feats, prestige classes), meaning that you must make careful selection of character abilities even in the low levels.

Role-playing games are largely about making meaningful decisions, IMHO. In 3.X, there is an emphasis on meaningful decisions during character creation, while at the same time there is an apparent disconnect between actual game play and the traditional rewards gained from game play.

By this I mean that, especially for those new to DMing, or who cut their teeth on 3.X, the Wealth-by-Level guidelines and the admonition to "Just say Yes" can mean that the PCs should have a certain level of wealth, as well as complete control over how that wealth is manifested, regardless of their actions in the game milieu.

If you read the book this way -- and judging by posts on EN World, many do -- decisions made while adventuring have less impact on character development in 3.X than in previous editions. This in turn makes those choices less meaningful, which increases the emphasis on more "meaningful" choices during character building.

Obviously, the game doesn't have to be played like this, but even a cursory examination of threads both on this site and on others demonstrates amply that the game is played like this at more than a few tables.

(Obviously, treasure is only one in-game mechanic to reward actions during play, as your own recent Bennies thread points out. However, the core 3.X books are fairly quiet on rewards that lie entirely within the hands of the DM to administer -- and, hence, that require braving the unknown to acquire.)

(2) I, for one, purchase RPG materials not only for their utilitie (i.e., crunchy bits), but also for reading. I want new ideas for using old material, discussions of world-building, and reminders of things that I might have overlooked. I enjoy the "fellow-to-fellow" tone that the older editions took. For me, the fluff is often more inspirational than the crunch.

In the case of a splatbook, I want to have the crunch, an interesting discussion of how the crunch might fit into a campaign, and some reasonable (and hopefully, fun to read) discussion of what the crunch is meant to represent fluff-wise.

Recently, I would say that Tome of Magic has done a good job in this respect. I just picked up Dungeoncraft about a week ago, and while I found it a bit uneven (mostly with regard to PrCs), but worth reading.

 

[Imaro]

This is a very good point. Personally I have a poor memory, but I am very good at improvisation/'coming up with stuff on the fly', as long as I don't have to worry too much about the 'crunch' (mechanics). I am best in "semi free kriegspiel" mode, with simple mechanics as a jumping off point for my own adjudication. So unfortunately 3e plays to my weaknesses (rules recall) and hampers my strengths (improvisation), ie I see now it's just not a very good system for me, whereas it clearly is a good system for some other GMs. C&C so far seems a better fit.

I think I fall into the same boat with memorization vs. improvisation, and find C&C to be a breath of fresh air. Maybe I don't take my game serious enough, but I find D&D to cumbersome because of the various interconnecting rules, exceptions in the form of feats and special abilities, and the length of time needed to make characters, monsters and NPC's etc. C&C gives me a base mechanic that can be used to adjudicate most rulings on, a save system that makes every ability important, simple and easy stat-blocks and quick character creation.

Another thing about D&D 3.x I'm not too keen on is the large advantages of rules mastery the game promotes. For my players the fun is in playing not really character building or fiddling with mechanics(I am in no way saying this is not a legetimate way to have fun...it's just not their fun.). They want a game where it doesn't take most of a 3 to 4 hour session to create characters or where you have to have a high level of rules knowledge and memorization to make and play an effective character. Some people may claim that they're just lazy, but I gotta disagree. They are students, workers etc. who feel 3.x is too much like having to learn a text book(with alot of minutae) for the pay-off, and I agree with this.YMMV of course

I've said it before and I'll say it again D&D 3.x needs to decide whether it's a point-buy system or a class-based system, rigt now IMHO it doesn't do either well. The speed and simplicity of a class-based system has been lost while the freedom of a point-buy still isn't there. Thus for my purposes of gaming it serves neither very well.

 

[MerricB]

I've said it before and I'll say it again D&D 3.x needs to decide whether it's a point-buy system or a class-based system, rigt now IMHO it doesn't do either well. The speed and simplicity of a class-based system has been lost while the freedom of a point-buy still isn't there. Thus for my purposes of gaming it serves neither very well.

One of the main strengths of D&D is the Level system - you can judge the combat effectiveness of a PC far better in D&D because of it. (GURPS has no such baseline.)

The Class/Level system isn't there for simplicity: it's there so the DM can judge the challenges the party can take on far more effectively than otherwise.

Cheers!

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, a great many books, including the DMG and PHB ALL STATE that the DM has final say.

Glad to hear that about the 3.5 PHB. In a much earlier thread, I said that when a DM houseruled he was within the rules due to Rule 0, and I was immediately countered with "Point to Rule 0 in the 3.5 PHB"....and other helpful people found it in the 3.5 DMG. Since I don't own the 3.5 books, I merely assumed that the omission existed. Again, glad to hear I am mistaken.

However, are you saying that it is your contention that "The DM has final say" is stated as strongly or as forcefully in 3.X as in earlier editions?

 

[hong]

One of the main strengths of D&D is the Level system - you can judge the combat effectiveness of a PC far better in D&D because of it. (GURPS has no such baseline.)

The Class/Level system isn't there for simplicity: it's there so the DM can judge the challenges the party can take on far more effectively than otherwise.

Cheers!

He didn't say anything about levels. Only classes. You can have one without the other.

 

[Hussar]

If you read the book this way -- and judging by posts on EN World, many do -- decisions made while adventuring have less impact on character development in 3.X than in previous editions. This in turn makes those choices less meaningful, which increases the emphasis on more "meaningful" choices during character building.

But, in previous editions, there were very, very few decisions to be made for character development at all. If you were a fighter at 1st level, you were going to be a fighter at 15th level. The only difference was possibly a couple of proficiencies and equipment. Mechanically, there were almost no choices possible. It is a bit disingenious to say that 3e forces a certain playstyle without mentioning the fact that that playstyle wasn't even possible previously.

Yes, you should look ahead to what you may be doing a few levels or even several levels. That's the entire point of giving players control over how their characters develop. Previously, there was very little control over the development of a character. Note, I'm specifically referring to mechanical development. Role play development is a bit of a different beast and is possible in any edition.

Do decisions made while adventuring have more or less impact on character development? I don't really see how either way. You had almost no impact on character development mechanically previously and in 3e, it is possible to develop the mechanics of your character independently of the story in the game. If I want to take the Mystic Theurge PrC, for example, it doesn't really matter if the game is a high intrigue court plot or straight up dungeon crawl. I can do it in either campaign.

However, are you saying that it is your contention that "The DM has final say" is stated as strongly or as forcefully in 3.X as in earlier editions?

You didn't answer my question. Where is Rule 0 stated outside of the 1e PHB and maybe the DMG? It is stated in almost every player related book in 3e. It is stated numerous times in Dragon magazine. It has been stated and restated time and time again. How many times does it need to be stated?

How many times do you have to repeat the same refrain before it becomes a rule?

BTW, where is it stated that the DM should say yes in 3e?

 

[molonel]

I still find myself making on-the-fly judgements; it's just that with 3.5e I have a rules base to back me up. If someone wants to do something special, the skills system give me a guide already as to what is possible, but they don't give you the DC of everything... in those cases the judgement call is necessary.

I have to make on-the-fly judgments in nearly every game I run, whether D&D 3.X or d20 Modern.

Maybe that's it...I thought about this post for a while and realized part of the fun for me was creating those on-the-fly judgements or arbitrating the possible in my campaign(It was fun, it was mentally stimulating and gave me a sense of the game being my own.). I felt like I was a part of the game in the same way a player might as they explore the new abilities or levels that defined their character, I got to explore the definitions of my campaign through the rules I introduced and situations I judged. Now I've been regulated to actor, and really according to the rules the PC's can control how my NPC's act towards them(diplomacy check anyone?).

First of all, diplomacy checks are not a mind-controlling spell.

Secondly, I don't like the diplomacy rules either. So I took them out, like any good DM should do with a part of any rules set that he or she doesn't like, and replaced them with Rich Burlew's alternate rules:

http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html

Thirdly, I know people who play freeform roleplaying. No rules at all, except for what the GM creates moment-by-moment. They laugh at me for playing ANY edition of D&D, because a TRULY imaginative game master - in their opinion - doesn't need rules to tell a story.

Some things truly are a matter of perspective. 3rd Edition isn't the game for everyone. If it were, then no other games would exist, and the gaming world would be much poorer as a result. 1st Edition, or Castles & Crusades, scratches the imaginative itch of some folks better than 3rd Edition.

 

[Reynard]

One of the main strengths of D&D is the Level system - you can judge the combat effectiveness of a PC far better in D&D because of it. (GURPS has no such baseline.)

However, the more options that become available the less this is likely to be the case. Although not "point based" in a literal sense, D&D is becoming "point based" in its character design and development approach. In doing so, it becomes harder to assume a certain level of competency or effectiveness at a given character level. For the home grown campaign, it is less of an issue because the DM should be well versed in his PCs capabilities and power levels. The same cannot be said for prepackaged adventures and campaigns. Two 5th level fighters in D&D 3.x will look and play a lot different from one another. Two 5th level fighters in AD&D1 will be differentiated pretty much by equipment (maybe) and the player. In many cases, it is *more* work for the DM to adapt a published adventure than it is to create one from whole cloth.