Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chainsaw Mage" data-source="post: 2735339" data-attributes="member: 16679">Interesting post.&nbsp; Overall, I'd agree with him.&nbsp; Here's my own (condensed) view, focusing on AD&amp;D 1e/2e, which is my preferred version to DM:1. D&amp;D 3.X is fun to play but a nightmare to DM.&nbsp; I've DM'd every version of D&amp;D except for OD&amp;D, and I agree that 3.X demands a level of rules-knowledge and logical detail on the part of the DM that was absent in previous editions.&nbsp; 2. D&amp;D 3.X has approximately one million rules.&nbsp; They are perfectly balanced and beautiful in their internal consistency, but there are still one million of them.&nbsp; AD&amp;D 1e/2e had about five hundred rules, and they were often arbitrary and at times contradictory.&nbsp; But there were only five hundred of them.&nbsp; So is it better to have a huge amount of logical rules or a small amount of quirky ones? Largely depends on the person.&nbsp; I love the &quot;small-quirky&quot; rulesets of the older games, but many folks prefer the &quot;gargantuan-logical&quot; rules of 3.X.&nbsp; 3. D&amp;D 3.X is FAR more high-powered than previous versions and is focused strongly on building and &quot;optimising&quot; a powerful character.&nbsp; This is the whole purpose of feats.&nbsp; Each feat functions as a new &quot;card&quot; (so to speak) that can be added to your &quot;deck&quot;, building a more powerful character.&nbsp; There is a thematic influence here from Magic: the Gathering, which no one really denies.&nbsp; Whether this is a good or bad thing is another matter, of course.4. I think the &quot;Dungeonpunk&quot; thing about 3.X has been overstated.&nbsp; Personally, I *love* the art in 3.X.&nbsp; But art is, well, just window dressing.&nbsp; Largely irrelevant.5. His point about magic items is spot-on.&nbsp; D&amp;D 3.X tends to encourage Wal*Mart magic-item creation.&nbsp; In AD&amp;D 1e/2e, magic items tended to be rare and exotic (unless your DM was a 12-year-old munchkin, of course.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ).6. Speaking of munchkinism, it exists in ANY version of ANY RPG.&nbsp; Look at all those Knights of the Dinner Table comics: the whole point of that strip is that AD&amp;D was notorious for its munchkin players.&nbsp; On the other hand, it is FAR easier (and more fun) to be a munchkin in D&amp;D 3.X.&nbsp; Give it another ten years; we already have 20th level Half-celestial/Half-gelatinous cube blackguard monks.&nbsp; I shudder to think what kind of characters will be popular in the future!7. It's tough to argue the logical superiority of AD&amp;D on any serious grounds.&nbsp; The game's appeal is largely its simplicity, its charm, its tone.&nbsp; D&amp;D 3.X, however, is a mathematically engineered precision machine.&nbsp; AD&amp;D is an RPG for artists and philosophers and creative types, D&amp;D 3.X is an RPG for logical, mathematically-gifted, scientists.&nbsp; Each has its appeal.&nbsp; Each has its place.Just my thoughts.ByeChainsaw Mage5.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chainsaw Mage, post: 2735339, member: 16679"] Interesting post. Overall, I'd agree with him. Here's my own (condensed) view, focusing on AD&D 1e/2e, which is my preferred version to DM: 1. D&D 3.X is fun to play but a nightmare to DM. I've DM'd every version of D&D except for OD&D, and I agree that 3.X demands a level of rules-knowledge and logical detail on the part of the DM that was absent in previous editions. 2. D&D 3.X has approximately one million rules. They are perfectly balanced and beautiful in their internal consistency, but there are still one million of them. AD&D 1e/2e had about five hundred rules, and they were often arbitrary and at times contradictory. But there were only five hundred of them. So is it better to have a huge amount of logical rules or a small amount of quirky ones? Largely depends on the person. I love the "small-quirky" rulesets of the older games, but many folks prefer the "gargantuan-logical" rules of 3.X. 3. D&D 3.X is FAR more high-powered than previous versions and is focused strongly on building and "optimising" a powerful character. This is the whole purpose of feats. Each feat functions as a new "card" (so to speak) that can be added to your "deck", building a more powerful character. There is a thematic influence here from Magic: the Gathering, which no one really denies. Whether this is a good or bad thing is another matter, of course. 4. I think the "Dungeonpunk" thing about 3.X has been overstated. Personally, I *love* the art in 3.X. But art is, well, just window dressing. Largely irrelevant. 5. His point about magic items is spot-on. D&D 3.X tends to encourage Wal*Mart magic-item creation. In AD&D 1e/2e, magic items tended to be rare and exotic (unless your DM was a 12-year-old munchkin, of course. ;) ). 6. Speaking of munchkinism, it exists in ANY version of ANY RPG. Look at all those Knights of the Dinner Table comics: the whole point of that strip is that AD&D was notorious for its munchkin players. On the other hand, it is FAR easier (and more fun) to be a munchkin in D&D 3.X. Give it another ten years; we already have 20th level Half-celestial/Half-gelatinous cube blackguard monks. I shudder to think what kind of characters will be popular in the future! 7. 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. Each has its appeal. Each has its place. Just my thoughts. Bye Chainsaw Mage 5. [/QUOTE]

Verification