Assess this chap's position (3.0 and older versions)

[National Acrobat]

I don't see much difference in the editions in the magic and treasure issues, because I do 3E treasure the same way that I used to do back in 1E and 2E.

Characters gain their treasure from encounters, and I place treasure with encounters off of tables like I did in the old days. Characters can't buy magic items in my games and the only way to dispose of ones they don't use are to trade them in, for a price to temples and powerful organizations.

I think a lot of people keep forgetting that as DM, you can set some rules on magic use and the amount of magic items popping up. Heck, you can encourage PC's to create items now, and it's much easier to do so now than it ever was back in the old days.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Every highlighted section is 100% correct, I believe.

Not that it bothers me, as I run (and occasionally play) 'd20 fantasy', among other things. As do many people.

So, in other words, what might hold true for the base game (the strict RAW), might not when you start meddling with it and/or throwing in stuff from elsewhere.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

Maybe a dozen more rules, yes there are more but they are consistant and its easier for a player and DM if they can do actions which there are rules for then not. That was one of the problems with the older editions, they didn't have rules for common things some players like to try.

That's why we had Dungeon Masters. They ran the game. They used creativity! It was cool. In 3.X, the DM has been reduced to "rules-interpreter" rather than true "dungeon master".

Now, I'm not saying D&D 3rd ed is easy for everyone, I've seen more then my fair share of DMs that did not do a good job with the system. I'm a big supporter of the right game for the right GM and group. THis is another problem that not many people seem to realize, they might not be cut out for this game.

Totally. I agree. As I said in an earlier post, AD&D seems to cater to a more creative/artistic, story-driven mindset, whereas D&D 3.X is more geared to a mathematical/scientific, number-crunching mindset. I bet if you polled the enworld users who are in university, for example, you'd find that a disproportionate number of them are math, science, or engineering majors. D&D 3.X attracts that type of person. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

It's tough to argue the logical superiority of AD&D on any serious grounds. The game's appeal is largely its simplicity, its charm, its tone. D&D 3.X, however, is a mathematically engineered precision machine. AD&D is an RPG for artists and philosophers and creative types, D&D 3.X is an RPG for logical, mathematically-gifted, scientists.

This argument is pretty weak. I'm none of the latter and I prefer Third Edition. As far as I'm concerned the "charm" of either edition of AD&D is nonexistent, because I don't find contradictory hodgepodges of arbitrary rules charming.

The fact that Third Edition is a big machine doesn't alter the fact that it's a big, elegant machine. That systemic elegance is far more appealing to me as a "philosophical type" of gamer because it means everything just works and I don't have to make it work by applying houserules and arbitrary judgement. Judgement which is arbitrary because neither version of AD&D possessed any kind of systemic principles from which you could derive the "proper" solution to a problem; you can see Gary Gygax himself on these very forums admitting that First Edition included rules which he himself never used or thought were appropriate for the game, included merely to appeal to a certain kind of verisimilitude-obsessed gamer.

Cases like this exist in both editions of AD&D because neither were designed to be systemically coherent. This does not make them bad games - but it does mean that they cannot lay any claim to logical superiority, because their appeal relies on their mutability! Mutability and elegance are opposed values in game design - the more coherent and elegant a system is, the less room there exists for changes and messing around to suit an individual gaming group because this degrades coherence if not handled carefully.

You can't compare AD&D to Third Edition D&D on this level. You can only compare them on the level of whether they do what you want them to do - and personally, I prefer to buy games which are complete systems when I buy them.

I also like the world Third Edition assumes, because I'm not in the least bit interested in emulating fantasy fiction - I'm interested in playing a roleplaying game.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

That's why we had Dungeon Masters. They ran the game. They used creativity! It was cool. In 3.X, the DM has been reduced to "rules-interpreter" rather than true "dungeon master".

Sorry. I prefer to use my creativity to create settings, stories, and characters. Not to make the game work.

Totally. I agree. As I said in an earlier post, AD&D seems to cater to a more creative/artistic, story-driven mindset, whereas D&D 3.X is more geared to a mathematical/scientific, number-crunching mindset.

Not in any way reflective of my experience - and frankly, calling any version of D&D "story-driven" is a joke.

 

[Crothian]

That's why we had Dungeon Masters. They ran the game. They used creativity! It was cool. In 3.X, the DM has been reduced to "rules-interpreter" rather than true "dungeon master".

What game are you playing? DMs still run the game, least the good ones do. Another problem though with 3.X is more people are running the game that really don't know what they are doing and becoming the type of DM you refer to. Its a said thing to see.

Totally. I agree. As I said in an earlier post, AD&D seems to cater to a more creative/artistic, story-driven mindset, whereas D&D 3.X is more geared to a mathematical/scientific, number-crunching mindset. I bet if you polled the enworld users who are in university, for example, you'd find that a disproportionate number of them are math, science, or engineering majors. D&D 3.X attracts that type of person. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I'll say there is something wrong with that. I think more of an attempt to allow options and game play for other types of gamers needs to be made. Most RPGs though seem to only want a certain type of gamer to play the game. This divids the industry and brings about lots of the syatem hate gamers have for other games.

 

[Crothian]

Sorry. I prefer to use my creativity to create settings, stories, and characters. Not to make the game work.

Huh, most people I knew back then did both. Its not a one or another situtaion.

Not in any way reflective of my experience - and frankly, calling any version of D&D "story-driven" is a joke.

Story driven is a DM thing. It's easy for a DM his camapaign story driven. Well, easy for a DM that knows how to do that anyway. That style of DMing is not something everyone can do.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I also like the world Third Edition assumes, because I'm not in the least bit interested in emulating fantasy fiction - I'm interested in playing a roleplaying game.

Well er, interesting as that may be, the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

That's why we had Dungeon Masters. They ran the game. They used creativity! It was cool. In 3.X, the DM has been reduced to "rules-interpreter" rather than true "dungeon master".

Again, look to KoDT for examples of how the rules have always been the DM's best friend and worst enemy. Just think of Brian's rules-lawyering overruling B.A.'s gamemastering. Only in earlier editions the rules were often just thrown together in a haphazard kind of way. Remember all those tables from the 1E DMG? All those many, multitudinous tables?

Really, I think you're wrong about 3.X's quantity of rules. 3.X has a couple dozen rules that are applied to a few situations in different ways. It has standardized spell effects, resistances, saving throws, character building guidelines that apply to monsters and PCs alike, and other things that take a pile of what were individual rules in earlier editions and package them into single systems. 3.X covers more ground than the 1E rules do, and uses fewer rules to do it. These days, the DM can get everything he needs to know on a DM's screen. In the 1E days, you needed three or four, and you'd still be looking up the chance to fall off a horse in rough terrain during a sleet storm if you were a Fighter with an odd-numbered Dexterity score between 5th and 8th level on a Tuesday.

The difference between 1E DMing and 3E DMing, if there is any, is cultural, and doesn't stem from the rules. I seem to remember that back in the day, there was an assumption that the DM's word was law, and that he had final veto. Now, after 30 years of gaming, it has changed so that the DM and players are all equal partners in deciding the direction of the game, and so the DM has lost some of that veto power. In the absence of a referee, the group turns to the rules more often to resolve disputes. But that doesn't have to do with the rules, only with the gaming culture at the time. Personally, I think that the removal of a lot of arbitrary power from the DM will spare lots of new players all the headaches I had playing with monomaniacal DMs in the "DM is always right" era.

As I said in an earlier post, AD&D seems to cater to a more creative/artistic, story-driven mindset, whereas D&D 3.X is more geared to a mathematical/scientific, number-crunching mindset. I bet if you polled the enworld users who are in university, for example, you'd find that a disproportionate number of them are math, science, or engineering majors.

...many of whom got started playing AD&D. I don't see how 3.X is any more mathematical and 1E is any more story-oriented. If anything 1E was more hack & slash since it was during the 1E days that the idea of an NPC with a personality was developed...and that took a while to catch on. Otherwise, it was killthemonsterstaketheirstuff...just business as usual. And there is nothing inherent to the 3.X system that encourages a lack of roleplaying or an overabundance in number crunching. Besides, there were more charts and numbers to remember for AD&D because the system was so clunky and random. More math, more rules, not less.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Story driven is a DM thing. It's easy for a DM his camapaign story driven. Well, easy for a DM that knows how to do that anyway. That style of DMing is not something everyone can do.

That's what I was kinda trying to say. Story-driven games are independent of system.