Any of you pine for AD&D 1/2?

[Psion]

As far as creating complex villains - the DM had the leeway to make them socially complex without needing to make them mechanically complex. Now, the emphasis on making half-dragon/half-demon lycanthrope Kobold Ftr6/Clr6/[Insert Prestige Class Umpty-Squat here][/b]

Gee, hyperbolize much?

The old "pick three templates" is an old Dragonsfoot "I hate 3e" carnard, and most of us who really run, utilize, and play the game almost never do that in actuality unless they have a really good reason. And you should know that. You are just exagarrating to try to create false appearances, which is dirty pool.

rather than making them "Groob the Kobold King," a kobold who was smarter and stronger than average and chose to terrorize a human village through Mafia tactics rather than the normal "kill-and-pillage" kobolds.

And in 1e, you were limited to adding extra HD to do that. I feel I am much more able to make these characters come to like when I am able to, for example, add rogue levels to the kobold.

My point was that unless your players are willing to go along with it, you will never be able to get away with not using feats

True. Feats are pretty inherent. But then AFAIAC, why would you want to. Feats add flexibility and customization without going the point gen route.

or prestige classes.

False. Prestige classes, generally and (especially) in specific, exist entirely at the GM's pleasure.

Banning specific items is one thing, but say "No prestige classes at all, no feats at all," and watch how fast your players stop playing with you...

Feats... why would you want to.

Prestige classes... I have played entire campaigns without them.

You are conflating two entirely different mechanics with entirely different levels of need in the game in order to make a patently false claim about the second one.

Uhh - because they are *monsters* and not PCs...

If they are intelligent, they are NPCs. NPCs can have classes.

But you would have them behave as if they are not... as if they wouldn't apply their intelligence. That makes no sense.

Who wanted/needed robust stat blocks for monsters?

Have I not repeatedly said I would.

I got along just fine without them.

Great for you. Go play 1e and enjoy it. You'll pardon those of us who are playing 3e if we were not totally satisfied by that experience.

The fact that the Tome of Horrors was able to 3.x-ize various monsters that didn't make it into 3e MM/MM2/FF *without* having full stat blocks is proof enough that they aren't necessary.

It is no such "proof". Just because they lacked helpful details does not mean that a clever person can extrapolate them. The difference was that in 1e, the GM was relied up to extrapolate those details themselves, often in an ad hoc and inconsistant manner. What if a quickling has to make a dex check?

In other times, the information had a correct and (within the rules as they existed) consistent manner, you were just forced to tread back and forth in the books if you wanted to apply it. Like saving throws. You had to look them up ... much like THAC0. And even then, since some creatures "saved as" certain classes, I hope you remembered to consult the right table. And you had to do this while your players were waiting for results.

Not good. I vastly prefer having the number I need to make a determination right in the stat block, for reasons of ease of reference and consistency.

And, as I stated before - you *don't* need mechanical complexity to make a villain complex.

And as I have said before, I would find your take on "complex" villains lacking.

It is, I would argue, more important that a villain have a *reason* for acting the way he/she/it acts rather than that they have PC levels. As a DM, I think it is way more important to know the how and why of the way they think and act.

That is hypocritical. First you tell me that intelligenct creatures shouldn't develop the same sorts of skills that PC races do, and now you are telling me there should be a reason for what they do? Do you not see the inconsistancy between those two stances? From my perspective, it seems to me you are half parroting supposed logical reason's for 1e's superiority, but you really are not logically thinking it through. You are just trying to validate your existing preferences.

 

[Psion]

Psion... RTFP... his friend says in the first line when he started.

Whoops. So it is.

i agree converts were made from older gamers. i'll pull an Umbran on you and say all internet polls are biased.

But in this case, it supports exactly what I said. I am not alone. (Since I never used the term "a majority" or somesuch, the biased-ness of internet polls or lack thereof is irrelevant. That I am not alone has been demonstrated.)

i would agree more old timers just gave up gaming than converted. they gave up for various reasons. but they still don't game.

Whatever you want to say about internet polls, I lend them more credence than pulling numbers out of your hiney...

 

[Piratecat]

try and find somebody who has been playing as long as me who prefers the atmosphere generated by the new game, it is not going to happen.

Heck, sure it is, and not just with Psion.

I was introduced to D&D in the late 70's as well, and I definitely prefer 3e to earlier incarnations of the game. I can make this version sing, and am much less stymied by irritating rules than I was in 1e or 2e.

I had fun with those versions, too -- but I prefer the one I'm currently playing.

 

[WizarDru]

There have been more than a few threads where gamers have identified themselves here, and a large number (what relation to the whole of ENWorld, let alone most D&D gamers is unknown) of posters have indicated a simliar stance to myself and others. I started playing in 1980, and played Basic and 1e for several years. I then grew increasingly dissatisfied with AD&D, and moved on to other games in 1987. It took 3E to bring me back to D&D, and I haven't left it's side since.

I recently cracked open the AD&D books to feed a little nostalgia, and realized that nostalgia governed a large part of my emotions about the game. I had forgotten how many rules we ignored or didn't use, due to unneeded complexity, difficulty of use or inconsistency. I had forgotten, until I examined my notes, how often we used house-rules and alternate systems to shore up the game's deficiencies, such as the previously mentioned ICE supplements like Arms Law and so forth. Thinking back, I don't remember ANYONE who actually played the game as written. I'm sure there were plenty, but I've never met them.

As for the modules, some were classics, and others...not so much. The G-Series are fun, and all, but dramatically lacking in depth or scope, to me. Many of the 1e modules had great style, presence and flavor, but were still just gussied up mazes laden with traps and monsters to cut up. I mean, Tamoachan's plot isn't really that radically different from Tsocjanth or Tharizdun, now is it? Lots of twists on the individual formula, but at the 1000 foot level, not really that different at all. Many of the AD&D modules were classics, particularly ones like Saltmarsh and the Slaver series...but let's not forget they had their bad moements as well as good (remember the 'you wake up with all of your stuff gone' railroad?).

Sure, high-level 3.x requires some work to make interesting villains, that's a small price to pay for making truly unique and interesting creatures. Under AD&D, I just made things up with no guidelines. Under 3e, I have a framework to start from, with an idea of the ramifications of crossing a fire-elemental and a beholder. An orc is not an orc is not an orc, and I think that's swell.

 

[rogueattorney]

Edited, because my mom always told me if you can't say something nice, say nothing at all.

The games are different. The list of differences are too numerous to even go into. Despite having the same name, they are as different as any other FRPG is from any other game. It stands to reason that some will like OOP versions better than the current version, just as it stands to reason that some will like GURPS more than Palladium.

The punch-line is that 3e's differences don't make it quantifiably "better" in any but the most subjective measure. I find the assumption of superiority due to "evolution" and "advancement" by fans of the newer edition silly.

R.A.

 

[Piratecat]

The punch-line is that 3e's differences don't make it quantifiably "better" in any but the most subjective measure. I find the assumption of superiority due to "evolution" and "advancement" by fans of the newer edition silly.

For the most part I agree with you; I've had great fun with every version of D&D. There are a few areas where the newer editions have demonstrably better game design, though. Let's face it, have you ever tried to use 1e's punching/grappling/overbearing tables? I did, once, and my DM refused to have anything to do with them.

I think people should play what they enjoy, and not denigrate folks who prefer to play something different.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I've been playing for almost 25 years now, and I do prefer 3e. Various polls taken here show I am not alone.

That's not really very fair. Go to General Motors and take a poll on what the employees drive and see how many answer "Ford."

 

[francisca]

And in 1e, you were limited to adding extra HD to do that. I feel I am much more able to make these characters come to like when I am able to, for example, add rogue levels to the kobold.

And what kept you from doing so in 1E? (Besides the fact they were thieves? )

Seriously, in 1E, or Basic for that matter, if I want a humanoid with thieving abilities, I just decide what level he should be, make some notes, add the apropriate HD, have a look at the charts, and start rolling.

In 3E, I'm figuring out feat chains, adding skills points up.....sounds like a similar (though more complicated, in my opinion) process to me.

 

[Breakdaddy]

I don't miss it at all. Now, I'm not a 2e hater like the masses here at ENWorld (we had absolutely great times playing it), but 3.x is giving me the same fun experiences that 2e did, except now sessions go by a heckuva lot smoother.

Yeah, but in 1e/2e you could have a HUECUVA good time!

 

[Piratecat]

And what kept you from doing so in 1E? (Besides the fact they were thieves? )

Othar than that you were "breaking the rules" -- which for some people is a big discouragement -- I was always annoyed that the monsters had no stats. I had no idea what a normal Dexterity might be for that kobold. I could always fake it, as many people did, but it certainly made the task more challenging.

That's true for all the ability scores. Nowadays it seems obvious to me that big strong monsters should add strength damage to their blows; at the time we just hand-waved it away. In retrospect I prefer the current method.