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

[Psion]

There's some truth to this, of course, but you'd have to agree that certain games encourage certain behaviors. D&D 3.X tends to encourage power-gaming, character optimization, and magic item creation/accumulation.

Not only don't I have to, I don't.

 

[Psion]

I also don't find the old mechanics to be simpler, insofar as there were a great many more of them.

Precisely.

This is why I am totally not on board with the often espoused but nonetheless unjustifiable notion that 1e/2e were "simpler". There were so many case specific implementations, that each element was a rule unto itself. If you had two or three different AC adjusting spells/items/whatever, the best you could hope for was that each spell or effect was written taking the others into account (and that made it more difficult to remember, required more lookups.) If they did not cover all cases, as they often did not, these issues were resolved by 1) assuming anything goes (which is the most powergamey take of all) or 2) by keeping tabs on rulings from "the sage". It was a mess. In software engineer parlance, it was like "spagetti code."

By simplifying (for example) mage armor to being an armor bonus and having a universal rule that defines what named bonuses are, how to implement a given spell or effect becomes easier to remember, easier to ajudicate, and requires less rules cross referencing.

 

[Psion]

Oh, and all of the maths/engineering/science guys I know prefer GURPS.

Hate it. "Don't make assumptions that aren't supported by the evidence."

- Engineering type.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'm going to have to agree 100% with the OP's take on 3.x.

The "new" D&D IS a nightmare to run as a DM. This is especially true if the DM is a casual gamer type - one that plays once or twice a week and doesn't pick up a book unless he's prepping for a session. There is such a quagmire of rules, option, errata to both, counter-errata to the errata... most casual DMs (like myself) can't keep up.

I think your problem might be that you're indecisive. Pick a version of 3e and stick with it - don't add in new expansions, books, rules, errata etc. Just stick with what you've got. You'll find your life becomes a lot easier.

The same goes for your indecision about game type - you sound like you try to cram everything in unless a book tells you not to. Pick a campaign style and stick with it. Throw other things in if you have a particularly good idea that's big enough for a whole adventure.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'm surprised also that no one has mentioned the slow-moving, tactical, wargame flavor of combat in 3.X. In AD&D it was "I rush across the room and hit the orc with my sword!"

DM: Which orc?
Player: I don't care! Number 3!
DM: OK
Player: Ok, I roll a 15 <mumbles as he works out what ac that actually hits>
DM: No, wait until you attack him.
Player: I am attacking him.
DM: No, he's too far away. I think. Let me work it out.

...
...

Right - because he's standing under an overhang, you have to switch to indoor movement, so you're too far away.

Player a: I thought you said they jumped us out of the bushes?
DM: Well, some did, but number 3 is archery support
Player a: Well I wouldn't be charging him then, would I?
DM: I thought you might be going for a soft target.
Player a: Well, I want to hit something - I go for the closest guy.
DM: Ok, roll again. Oh, and remember you probably take some sort of AC penalty for charging, but I can't find the rule, so I'll say it's -10.
Player a: <Grumbles> - 19! That's gotta be a hit!
DM: Right, the orc stays up. The other 12 orcs standing next to him attack you
Player a: The what? Another 12 orcs? Where'd they come from?
DM: I told you, they jumped you out of the bushes
Player a: I thought there was like 6!

...
...

Player b: I fireball all the orcs
DM: Ok, you catch 2 of them
Player b: But there's like 12 of them clustered around player a's corpse!
DM: They moved after they each ripped off a chunk to eat later
Player b: so surely I can get more than 2?
DM: Nope
Player b: ok, I fireball them
DM: Ok, roll damage. Player b and player c - make saves. Against fireball
Player b: What??
Player c: What kind of save is a save against fireball?
DM: I dunno. Rods and staves mebbe?
Player b: Wait - how come I fireballed myself?
DM: Overhang. You're on indoor rules. The fireball is twice as large as normal because it can't fill up the space that the ground takes up.
Player c: I rolled a 20! Is that a success? Do I add anything?
DM: I don't know - do saves go up or down with level?
Player b: I think it's save against breath weapon. You might get your dex bonus, but I'm not sure.

In D&D 3.X, it goes more like this:

Player: I rush across the room and hit the orc with my sword!"

...

Frankly, if play goes like this, both players and DM are either
a) Newbies
b) Morons

Either would be just as discouraged at the mere act of trying to work out exactly what saving throw they have to make in a situation.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

I'll say it again: Don't make assumptions that aren't supported by the evidence.

Look at me. I nearly failed maths at high school, and never studied any science in my final year (and took biology, the softest science they offered, in my second-last). I've got a Bachelor of Arts with a triple major in English, history, and studies of religion, with Honours in the latter.

I prefer Third Edition because it is elegant and coherent. I don't find anything to admire in a system which is incomplete and must be patched up with house rules to run in a consistently enjoyable manner, or in one which even the creator admits includes rules which make no sense to him.

The less work I have to do to make the game system run smoothly, the better, and the more time I have to work on the setting, plots, and characters.

What's with all the random boldfacing?

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Hate it. "Don't make assumptions that aren't supported by the evidence."

- Engineering type.

The difference being, I never suggested that GURPS only appeals to engineering types, or is the only game they like. Chainsaw Mage is all over the assertion that AD&D is for "artists", Third Edition is for "engineers". My examples merely question his false dichotomy.

 

[Crothian]

The difference being, I never suggested that GURPS only appeals to engineering types, or is the only game they like. Chainsaw Mage is all over the assertion that AD&D is for "artists", Third Edition is for "engineers". My examples merely question his false dichotomy.

Everyone knows that the old white wolf games are for the real artists.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

What's with all the random boldfacing?

Emphasis.

My essential argument is this: You propose a false dichotomy. The real split between proponents of First and Second Edition AD&D on the one hand and Third Edition D&D on the other is the difference between people who prefer a looser, more open system they can shape and mold to their own ends and those who prefer a coherent, elegant system which "covers all the bases" according to a few simple principles.

It has nothing to do with old-school and new-school, artists and engineers, or any other false dichotomy anyone wants to propose. Gaming preferences just don't map like that.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Everyone knows that the old white wolf games are for the real artists.

It's funny, but also somewhat true. I mean, we're still talking about D&D here - in any incarnation it's been reviled by the proponents of rules-light gaming as a confining, heavy system. From their perspective, Chainsaw Mage is focusing on very small differences between games on the very crunchy, restrictive end of the spectrum.