Ars Magica, the Cyclopedia, and 3E

[Achan hiArusa]

That said, a lot of D&D changes are based on the RC, just not those ones. Off the top of my head:
- Prestige classes come from the Companion Set rules.
- Skills rather than non-weapon proficiencies.
- Maximum hit points at 1st level (optional Basic Set rule)
- The haymaker, approximated in 3e as a Power Attack
- Consistent ability score modifier chart (the 3e chart itself with +5 to -5 actually comes from either Buck Rogers XXVth Centurty or one of the Gamma World editions, not from Ars Magica)
- No minimum ability scores (RC required them for demihumans only)
- No separate longsword and broadsword entries
- Nightwalkers

Most of those are true, except for:
-Actually, the 1e Bard was the prototype prestige class. The RC anti-paladin/paladin/druid were based on it.
-The General Skills system as per my original post worked exactly like the NWP system, the only differences were the name and the fact that all skills cost one slot and didn't not have modifiers to ability scores.
-The Buck Rogers XXVc game used the exact same modifiers as 2nd Edition D&D. Gamma World borrowed from the Basic Set, it wasn't until 4th that it used a consistent system.
-The broad sword had been dropped from 2nd Edition anyway, only to have been reintroduced later.

 

[pawsplay]

Most of those are true, except for:
-Actually, the 1e Bard was the prototype prestige class. The RC anti-paladin/paladin/druid were based on it.

Sort of. I did think of the bard, but that character was defined as a special class variant. Although it was technically possible, you didn't just become a bard, you decided to play a bard and had to go through a specific path to fet there. It was, for instance, possible to take too much fighter.

By contrast, the Companion set paladin, avenger, knight, and druid were optional variations on the base class adopted at higher level and involved a specific in-game event. While pretige classes did kill kits and take their stuff, they are most clearly derived from the Companion set high level classes.

-The General Skills system as per my original post worked exactly like the NWP system, the only differences were the name and the fact that all skills cost one slot and didn't not have modifiers to ability scores.

Actually, it is a general (if simple) skill system with skills such as Deceiving, Intimidation, and Planar Geography. It's a simple roll-under system. The NWP system did not claim to be general and offered only exeptional abilities, such as the ability to recognize fungus, bonuses to surprise situations, and so forth. Thus, they are not exactly alike, although they are related in function. The RC version is definitely more evolved toward a general skill system.

-The Buck Rogers XXVc game used the exact same modifiers as 2nd Edition D&D. Gamma World borrowed from the Basic Set, it wasn't until 4th that it used a consistent system.

That's certainly possible. I own a copy of neither game.

-The broad sword had been dropped from 2nd Edition anyway, only to have been reintroduced later.

Here's another tidbit. The bastard sword was a "fighter only" weapon in the Companion Set, and hence precurses the Exotic Weapon Proficiency needed to wield it.

 

[jdrakeh]

Do not attribute to malice what can be easily explained otherwise.

You did see the "rant" smiley, right?

 

[pawsplay]

In any case, by 1990-1991 there developed a new state of the art, whereby an explosion of new design approaches and several years of cross-pollination produced a new wave of games that borrowed from each other a lot. Despite the lack of a central dictionary, the terms "attribute," "skill," and "character points," to name a few examples, became standard to dozens of different games. I wrote a blog post about it called "How D&D Became GURPS."

 

[Umbran]

You did see the "rant" smiley, right?

As a practical matter, smilies have been ruined as an indicator by the masses of folks who misuse and abuse them.

 

[Cam Banks]

I saw the Rolemaster influence most strongly in the skill system, too. Rolemaster's skill system uses rank + ability score modifier + modifiers from other sources + d100, and other than dividing the d100 by 5 the d20 version is the same. Now, there's no chart or table in d20, but you don't really need it in Rolemaster, either, once you know where the breakpoints are for difficulty.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Frost]

Actually, I always wondered if Gamma World 4th edition (written by Bruce Nesmith and James M. Ward) had some relation to 3e D&D. It's the first TSR game I played that had a unified mechanic. It felt like a tweaked AD&D 2e (higher was always better, etc.).

 

[Erik Mona]

Of course, this totally ignores the fact that Johnathan Tweet, co-author of Ars Magica, was involved in the creation of 3E. And by statements made by Erik Mona, Jonathan Tweet was clearly in control of the whole process. So let's look at this:

To be more precise, my interpretation of the design process was that Jonathan was "greatest among equals" rather than "clearly in control of the whole process."

--Erik

 

[Wombat]

As someone who has played both Ars Magica and D&D under multiple editions, I can say that while AM influenced 3e to a certain extent, it is in only a very limited manner.

 

[Frost]

Actually, I always wondered if Gamma World 4th edition (written by Bruce Nesmith and James M. Ward) had some relation to 3e D&D. It's the first TSR game I played that had a unified mechanic. It felt like a tweaked AD&D 2e (higher was always better, etc.).

For those keeping score at home, I wasn't 100% correct here. Actually, the only "higher is better" bit about Gamma World 4e was combat. Skill checks and such were ala AD&D 2e (lower being better).