An Opportunity for WotC in 2009

[thedungeondelver]

There are probably a few other checks around in the game, but I think I've made my point: 2e (and 1e) was a mess, because you never knew how any particular thing was resolved in the rules.

Yes, once you were exposed to the rules and learned them, you immediately forgot them and couldn't learn them again. Wait, I rolled high last time on my to-hit? Do I have to roll high on my to-hit again?! What kind of bizzarro mess of a rule system is this!

 

[Mallus]

With 3E, I always felt I had to justify certain things in the context of the system, since everything was so integrated.

Why did you feel this way? Did it have to do with player expectations? I run 3e as 'loosely' as I did 2e --for a group of players with a great deal of 'system mastery' -- as it works well enough.

 

[Remathilis]

Yes, once you were exposed to the rules and learned them, you immediately forgot them and couldn't learn them again. Wait, I rolled high last time on my to-hit? Do I have to roll high on my to-hit again?! What kind of bizzarro mess of a rule system is this!

Granted. I was the DM, I BETTER know the dang rules. Some of my not-so-devoted players, not so much.

and I STILL couldn't tell you if an "Open Doors" roll (str derived) is higher or lower!

 

[The Little Raven]

Sure. But hardly a deal breaker.

Not a deal breaker, but a barrier to entry. I remember introducing people to 2e and having them feel like they've got a handle on things until I ask for a particular check, which is different from other checks they've made, and it kinda knocks their feet out from under them.

To suggest that 2E is "unplayable" because it has different sub-systems is just silly, especially when the variation is pretty much limited to "this thing is roll high, this thing is roll low."

...or this is rolled on a 1d6 (like surprise), or this is rolled on a percentile (like unarmed attacks), and the like.

I'll agree that it wasn't unplayable, but it was definitely inconsistent to a huge degree. The problem with a game composed of subsystems is that it relies more on memorization multiple conflicting mechanics rather than simply memorizing one core mechanic and extrapolating that out to everything else.

 

[Krensky]

Nothing worse than having to ::gasp:: subtract.

I hate anti-THAC0-ism, as if adding is objectively superior to [/i] subtraction or, heavens forbid, charts.

Well, considering that computers don't actually do subtraction, it does appear that addition is superior.

Nerd jokes aside, for me and the people I played with the issue with 2e as a system was that it was inconsistent to the point of seeming irrational. the unified roll d20, add some numbers, and compare to a target number really appealed to us. Not because 2e was hard or confusing, but because 3e tried, and mostly succeeded, in applying a unified and consistent set of rules and a meaningful skill system. It failed in a lot of places, but we found it a success at our table.

 

[Reynard]

Well, considering that computers don't actually do subtraction, it does appear that addition is superior.

Nerd jokes aside, for me and the people I played with the issue with 2e as a system was that it was inconsistent to the point of seeming irrational. the unified roll d20, add some numbers, and compare to a target number really appealed to us. Not because 2e was hard or confusing, but because 3e tried, and mostly succeeded, in applying a unified and consistent set of rules and a meaningful skill system. It failed in a lot of places, but we found it a success at our table.

Obviously just an issue of preference, but in a class based game, a "meaningful" skill system isn't neither required nor necessarily desired.

 

[Krensky]

Obviously just an issue of preference, but in a class based game, a "meaningful" skill system isn't neither required nor necessarily desired.

I never said it was, but D&D had been drifting that way for years, and 3e did add one and it did so acceptably well for my table.

I also should note that meaningful as I meant it there has to do with a system where taking a skill actually has mechanical effects.

 

[RFisher]

You know what? I like tables.

It's more than that. It's a lack of consistency with mechanics, and Thac0 is a big offender. Thac0 itself starts high and goes down (lower is better). To-hit bonuses start low and get higher (higher is better). Armor Class starts high and gets lower (lower is better). Magic item enhancement bonuses start low and get higher (higher is better). Way too incoherent. Having a consistent way of doing things (higher is better) is much more efficient.

I used to feel that way. Could’ve probably written that myself at some point.

For some reason, none of that bothers me anymore.

1.) Not everyone is either a math-adept or willing to put a lot into learning and mastering the game.

Yep. I’m horrible at arithmetic. Calculus I was good at; arithmetic, horrid.

That’s why I brought/bring a calculator to sessions with me. But most of them time I just let others do the math for me. And I use tables for “to hit” because they’re faster for me than THAC0 or the new way.

When I DM, I don’t expect the players to know—much less master—the rules. Helping the players to understand their options and chance of success in plain terms is my job.

When I play a game I’m unfamiliar with, I’m glad I can depend on the GMs I game with to return the favor.

There are probably a few other checks around in the game, but I think I've made my point: 2e (and 1e) was a mess, because you never knew how any particular thing was resolved in the rules.

It seems you knew and still do. (^_^) (Or did you go look them all up?)

 

[joethelawyer]

i dont get the thaco confusion either. for us it made the game easier. the first time we ever heard of it was in a non-tsr product, lich lords i think it was, before we even used 2e. never had to use a chart again. still to this day, though i haven't played those editions in 10 yrs, thaco is easy to remember and understand how it works.

 

[MerricB]

i dont get the thaco confusion either. for us it made the game easier. the first time we ever heard of it was in a non-tsr product, lich lords i think it was, before we even used 2e. never had to use a chart again. still to this day, though i haven't played those editions in 10 yrs, thaco is easy to remember and understand how it works.

Thing is, you guys were good with that mechanic and it instantly clicked for you. It did with me as well. I thought it so much better than charts.

Then I met Julia, and I discovered exactly how much of a barrier THAC0 could be. It wasn't just her, but she was the most noticeable example.

###

The most wacky mechanic in 2e for me was Opposed Skill/Ability Checks. I can't remember if they were in the original rules or got added later - I suspect the latter. Here's the deal: Higher was better, but only if you didn't roll too high!

Now, as someone who is great at maths and is very intelligent, I didn't have any trouble with this at all. If, normally, I had to roll an 8 or lower to succeed and my opponent had to roll a 15 or lower to succeed, then (obviously), if we failed we were out, but otherwise the higher roll won.

The only problem was: these were skill checks. For non-opposed checks, you're in the habit of thinking "lower is better".

Cheers!