An Examination of Differences between Editions

[MerricB]

I guess I feel as if, at a certain point why even be classed based if your complexity level is rivaling a point-based system, and 3.x is really toeing that line.

Hmm - does 3.5e have that complexity based only on the core rules (PHB, DMG, MM), in your opinion? More, is it required complexity (meaning the players can't escape it)?

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Complexity is more than the number of decisions -- the complexity of those decisions, and how far-reaching the consequences of a good or bad decision are, determine complexity far more than a simple numeric count of factors.

Funnily enough - the worst decision a fighter could make in AD&D was not to be proficient in the longsword. (Most magic swords were longswords).

Cheers!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Funnily enough - the worst decision a fighter could make in AD&D was not to be proficient in the longsword. (Most magic swords were longswords).

Yes, but as has often been pointed out, most "decision points" in 1e character creation are no-brainers. A decision that doesn't really require much thought hardly adds to the complexity of the game.

EDIT: And I'm not calling complexity a bad thing here, either. I like the extra options of 3.x. In fact, my house rules increase the complexity rather than decrease it -- for example, I use a weapon skill system, and racial choice includes the ability to take up to three levels in one or more racial classes.

ANOTHER EDIT: Remember also that in RAW 1e, a magic-user doesn't have to (or get to) select spells.


RC

 

[Imaro]

Hmm - does 3.5e have that complexity based only on the core rules (PHB, DMG, MM), in your opinion? More, is it required complexity (meaning the players can't escape it)?

Cheers!

IMO yes, it does. Mixing and matching levels in classes, feats, skills, PrC's(they're optional, but are in the core so...) can be just as complicated or even more so than a system where you define your character by skills alone.

In BRP or Strombringer 5th ed., Your character can start out the way you want him to, you have just as many options and a higher amount of customability with none of the wrangling, twisting and matching you have to do with D&D 3.x to get your concept together.

The reason I stuck with D&D over these systems(up until now) is that it afforded speed in the sense that it was class-bassed. Your abilitie we're laid out for you, it was quick, easy and fun. Did I have the same customization as the above games? No. but that wasn't what I played D&D for. We all understood we were playing archetypes, but speed and ease of getting started often outweighed customability. Now that's just not the case. It doesn't do either of these(point-buy or class bassed) gaming well.

 

[Imaro]

"...Magic also has a concept of "Timmy cards." These are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn't exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others.

Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it's not the best choice of feat. If you can use martial weapons, a longsword is better than many other one-handed weapons. And so on -- there are many other, far more intricate examples. (Arguably, this kind of thing has always existed in D&D. Mostly, we just made sure that we didn't design it away -- we wanted to reward mastery of the game.)"

This is a quote by Monte Cook from his website, discussing 3.x design. Right here he disscuses complexity and how certain aspects of it were engineered into 3.x. He says some of it was already there, but I gotta say with adding Feats it allows for a whole other level that can be daunting to new players. Toughness to a new player sounds cool, but unless they understand the rules how can they know it's crap.

 

[molonel]

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.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that whipping out a 3.X half-orc barbarian (anywhere from 1st through 6th level) is as difficult as a calculus exam?

An epic level character? Sure. I fully agree. But not a low level character.

A rogue would take a little longer. A wizard or sorcerer with spells to choose, probably a half-hour.

Does it take them a half-hour to understand the game in a general sense? No, they'd probably have to run through a pick-up game for that, just like it would probably take me one or two games to get back into the swing of 1st Edition, or get the idea of C&C when I played it for the first time.

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.

Nobody is ever going to roll a die for the first time, and then get a glimmer in their eye, and look at you, and explain what just happened through divine insight. There is a learning curve for ANY game.

But yes, I think you are exaggerating the learning curve for 3rd Edition D&D.

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.

Most of the DMs I know can scan down a Prestige Class and give you a general idea of whether it's balanced, cheesy, ubercheesy or just plain cherry-picking overpowered goodness in the time it takes to read it.

So yes, I'm saying that's a lot easier than designing game mechanics from scratch.

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.

Okay, so I've got my own experiences, and you've got some Dragon magazine article in the interdeterminate past that you've read ... somewhere.

I think I'll go with my own experience.

If I were throwing together a new gaming group with all first-time players, we might make a day of it just for fun the first time around. Pizza and Mt. Dew and a pile of books, and sitting around talking about the game, and running a mock combat, and maybe watching Gamers while we ate lunch.

Does that mean that low-level character generation is as hard as a calculus exam? Hardly.

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.

Look, I'm not trying to talk you out of C&C. I'm probably going to buy the books later this year, myself. I've heard good things about the game. It sounds quality, and interesting.

But part of the reason I haven't made the transition is because D&D really isn't THAT hard to keep in check. C&C is simple, yes. And simplicity is a virtue. But it's not the ONLY virtue in a game, and right now the drawbacks of C&C don't make it appealing enough for me to switch.

 

[an_idol_mind]

My experience on character creation through the editions:

Basic D&D - As simple as it comes. Roll your ability scores, pick a class, and you're done. I didn't use skills, weapon mastery, or the like, as these were not options introduced in the basic sets. You didn't go into character creation with a concept, because you could only modify your stats a little bit. Also, if your character died, a new one could be rolled up and introduced to the game by the time the rest of the group stepped into a new room in the dungeon.

1st edition AD&D - Also fairly quick, but more involved than basic D&D. There were a lot more factors. Your race and your class were separate. Each ability score had its own table instead of one universal modifier. You had to make sure your ability scores fit within racial minimums and maximums - there were no ugly elves, and women had a cap on how high their strength scores were. Things got incredibly slow if you introduced Unearthed Arcana, which involved you rolling a seventh ability score, checking how rich your family was, rolling up the number of siblings you had, and so on. 1e also had longer equipment lists, which meant your character couldn't just buy a polearm -- he had to choose from a list, with each one having their own benefits and hindrances.

2nd edition AD&D - At its core, slightly longer than core 1e thanks to the inclusion of proficiencies (which were technically optional but rarely treated as such) and minor bits like the free distribution of skill points for thieves. Increasingly longer as character kits were introduced, and then hours long when Skills & Powers came out. Skills & Powers gave you 18 ability scores instead of 6, and was essentially point buy D&D. Plus, it had kits on top of that.

3e - Potentially longer than the other editions at their core thanks to the introduction of skills and feats. However, starting packages speed things up immensly. I don't think character creation itself is slower, but leveling does become slower because there are more options available at each level up.

3.5 - About the same as 3e, but things get slower once you go past the core. 3.5 beyond the core books has the same dilemma that 1e had with Unearthed Arcana and that 2e had with the Complete Class series (and which, I would guess, basic D&D might have has with the Gazetteers), in that the introduction of new core classes can provide option overload. Still nothing even approaching 1e with Unearthed Arcana or 2e with Skills & Powers, though.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm not saying making a character in 3.x is equivalent to a calculus exam.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that whipping out a 3.X half-orc barbarian (anywhere from 1st through 6th level) is as difficult as a calculus exam?

Color me confused.

 

[molonel]

Color me confused.

That would be because I misread that particular sentence. Thank you for pointing it out.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That would be because I misread that particular sentence. Thank you for pointing it out.

No worries.

I do think 3.X is more complex than, say 1e or C&C (in terms of character creation), but as I said a little upthread, I think that's a good thing. I said in several previous threads that I think WotC needs to make NPC creation a little faster, and I note that WotC has responded in current books to that request.

Woot!