Computers beat up my role player

[TerraDave]

What is ironic about it?

I was going to say that.

 

[TerraDave]

More telling would be to know if he used stuff from it for his own characters.

EGG: "C'mon, my scores suck! Re-roll, c'mon?"
DM: "You know the rule; no re-rolls"
EGG: "Dayum.. whatever, my fighter falls on his sword"
EGG: *goes write UA method IX for stat rolls*

(From what I remember in one of the Q&A threads): Originally, abilities where generated by rolling 3d6 in order, as we know. BUT, Col Pladoh's players would simply refuse to play a bad set of stats....so they would roll, and roll, until they got the stats they wanted. Other methods, like the reasonable 4d6 drop one and arrange, and presumably the more exciting UA variant, where born from this.

 

[RFisher]

He did write UA, didn't he?

I didn't say he didn't cater to them. He's said himself that he did. I said that he limited how much he did. He could've gone further. In his opinion, 3e did go further.

It's also not unreasonable that his opinions in this matter could have changed between the publication of the UA & the publication of 3e. It seems obvious to me that they have, but not to the extent that the original quote v. his opinion of 3e qualifies as ironic. His change of opinion from Dangerous Journies to Lejendary Adventures is a much bigger shift, & even that is only ironic if you irrationally expect people to never have a change of opinion or taste.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Using Forge and Robin Laws terminology on Gary is like using psychoanalysis on Hannibal Lecter . He defies analysis.

Very well put.

 

[Hussar]

(From what I remember in one of the Q&A threads): Originally, abilities where generated by rolling 3d6 in order, as we know. BUT, Col Pladoh's players would simply refuse to play a bad set of stats....so they would roll, and roll, until they got the stats they wanted. Other methods, like the reasonable 4d6 drop one and arrange, and presumably the more exciting UA variant, where born from this.

In other words, just like pretty much every gamer I've ever played with.

I didn't say he didn't cater to them. He's said himself that he did. I said that he limited how much he did. He could've gone further. In his opinion, 3e did go further

Ok, I gotta ask. How much further can you go to empowering powergamers than allowing 9d6 stat generation, +3 to hit and damage and extra attacks at 1st level, raising the level limits for pretty much every race in the game, incrementally increasing stats, and allowing PC's to possibly start as major nobility all in the same book?

You can talk about powergaming in 3e all you like, but, it's a pretty pale shade compared to what went on in the Unearthed Arcana.

 

[RFisher]

Ok, I gotta ask. How much further can you go to empowering powergamers than allowing 9d6 stat generation, +3 to hit and damage and extra attacks at 1st level, raising the level limits for pretty much every race in the game, incrementally increasing stats, and allowing PC's to possibly start as major nobility all in the same book?

You could increase the modifiers based on ability scores so that a score as low as a 12 gives a +1 & bump an 18 to a +4. While you're raising them, you could drop any difference based on what's being modified, so that that 18 gives you a +4 on everything the ability modifies. Don't forget to give PCs ability score bumps every few levels too. Then you could change the XP progression to be shallower. Then remove the plateau in advancement at name level & just have everything increase linearly up to 20th level. You could give spellcasters a whole bunch of new slots & let them freely fill higher level slots with lower level spells. Blah, blah, blah.

But I don't think following that road any further is going to get us anywhere. Especially since I'm not the one who claimed 3e empowered the power gamers. & while I do love to play devil's advocate, I don't care to argue this one.

You can talk about powergaming in 3e all you like, but, it's a pretty pale shade compared to what went on in the Unearthed Arcana.

Maybe. Maybe I was wrong, & Gary doesn't think 3e went farther than UA. Maybe his criticism of 3e is based on his experience of making what he now considers mistakes in the UA.

 

[Numion]

You could increase the modifiers based on ability scores so that a score as low as a 12 gives a +1 & bump an 18 to a +4. While you're raising them, you could drop any difference based on what's being modified, so that that 18 gives you a +4 on everything the ability modifies. Don't forget to give PCs ability score bumps every few levels too. Then you could change the XP progression to be shallower. Then remove the plateau in advancement at name level & just have everything increase linearly up to 20th level. You could give spellcasters a whole bunch of new slots & let them freely fill higher level slots with lower level spells. Blah, blah, blah.

Yes, 3E increased everything. Unlike UA, also the challenges the PCs face. The fact how many extra hit points certain CON figure gives in 3E vs. 1E is irrelevant if you don't consider how the damage dealing elements also changed.

UA made the PCs more powerful without altering their opposition, that's munchkin. 3E made the characters more powerful compared to 1E, but also made the monsters doubly so.

 

[Doug McCrae]

You could increase the modifiers based on ability scores so that a score as low as a 12 gives a +1 & bump an 18 to a +4. While you're raising them, you could drop any difference based on what's being modified, so that that 18 gives you a +4 on everything the ability modifies.

Yeah, but now stats of 9 or lower give you a penalty, which they didn't before. 3e ability modifiers are not power creep, they're a way of making the full range of ability scores matter, not merely the extremes.

Advancement in 3e isn't any faster, as Quasqueton's analysis of old modules has proven, it's just that in 1e a lot of people houseruled that gold didn't give xp.

Also as Numion pointed out, it's all relative. The power level of PCs is meaningless unless you compare it to the monsters they're facing, which in 3e are extremely deadly. As Gary rightly points out in the 1e DMG, crits (and indeed all randomness) favour the monsters as eventually they will get lucky and roll two crits in a row, killing the tank. The only benefit the PCs can get from crits is that they kill an opponent faster than they would've otherwise.

 

[Dyne]

Yippee, yet another "Let's bash Gary Gygax!" thread.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

More telling would be to know if he used stuff from it for his own characters.

EGG: "C'mon, my scores suck! Re-roll, c'mon?"
DM: "You know the rule; no re-rolls"
EGG: "Dayum.. whatever, my fighter falls on his sword"
EGG: *goes write UA method IX for stat rolls*

Actually, I've seen just that happen. And the player get away with it. (No, it wasn't me.)