Raven Crowking
First Post
Dyne said:
It makes some people feel better about their gaming choices.
Computers beat up my role player
- Thread starter Quasqueton
- Start date
It makes some people feel better about their gaming choices.
Numion said:
Sure. Although at least some of the UA was trying to improve balance. Maybe the monsters weren't made tougher across the board, but weapon specialization was a direct response to many people feeling fighters had become underpowered.
But, as I said, I'm not particularly interested in advocating that point. There are certainly many things in the UA that I never considered using in oAD&D.
One of the things that I think I don't really like about 3e is how as the numbers increase, they tend to increase on both sides of the equation, so your chances remain more static. So, I guess you could say I don't think 3e is munchkiny enough. (^_^)
& yeah. I do think grognards sometimes criticize 3e without really seeing the whole system. (As I did for rhetorical effect, in echo of Hussar.) Sure, you can pretty freely multiclass by-the-book, but it isn't really free. To really get advantage out of multiclassing, you have to really do some digging for synergies that are going to pay off. One of the things I admire about 3e is how it did an awfully good job of giving you consequences instead of limitations.
& while I used to use the UA as evidence in my adolescent Gygax-bashing sessions with my friends, I now know some of the problems he was facing at the time, so I tend to think it isn't the book he might have wanted it to be. & I certainly expect that he has learned quite a lot since then in any case.
Last edited:
Hussar
Legend
I suppose it's fair to echo my rhetoric, although, I was merely addressing the point made before me. The point was made that Gygax felt that 3e went further in empowering munchkins. Yet, the UA pretty much makes every power advancement in 3e pale in comparison. The fact that with the 9d6 stat gen system, you are almost guaranteed 3 18's. Certainly, your prime stats should be above 16.
While there are certainly elements in 3e that have upped the power scales, nothing, IMO, compares with UA. UA is more like some of the 3rd party stuff that came out in early 3e, than something that was published several years after the edition hit the street.
On a side note, how is pointing out that the UA is probably the most munchkin book published for D&D, "Bashing Gygax"? Are we now to never criticize?
While there are certainly elements in 3e that have upped the power scales, nothing, IMO, compares with UA. UA is more like some of the 3rd party stuff that came out in early 3e, than something that was published several years after the edition hit the street.
On a side note, how is pointing out that the UA is probably the most munchkin book published for D&D, "Bashing Gygax"? Are we now to never criticize?
Raven Crowking
First Post
Hussar said:Wasn't pointing at you RFisher, but Dyne and company above.
Let's call it one of a sequence of "your gaming experiences never happened" threads then.
People level faster in 3.X than they did in your early AD&D games? Nope. Doesn't matter what your experience is.
People get more treasure/have more control over what treasure they get in 3.X than in your early AD&D games? Nope. Doesn't matter what your experience is.
Notice that MagicMarts are a lot more common than they were? Nope. People don't use them, no matter who says they do, and the term shouldn't be used anyway. Doesn't matter what your experience is.
Think Gary's advice in the earlier books is better than the advice in the current books? Nope. He's a munchkin. Doesn't matter what your experience is.
Ignored that 9d6 method as obviously intended for some other group? Nope. Still the most munchkinny book around. Doesn't matter what your experience is.
Etc., etc., etc.
Hussar
Legend
So, now we should just ignore those inconvenient bits of gaming history when it suits us? I get taken to task for this over and over again, yet, here you are advocating sweeping it under the rug simply because it suits you?
I don't think so.
UA was an incredibly munchkinny book. Pretty much every part of it gave huge advantages to the PC's without giving anything to the critters. Being able to start as a lord for example. Heck, by UA, a paladin HAD to start off as upper society.
But, since we're not supposed to mention anything like this, because, you know, any mention of the bad stuff in 1e is automatically edition bashing and wrong. It's perfectly acceptable to use terminology that is insulting and elitist, but ONLY when discussing the perceived failings of 3e.
Or, perhaps, RC, you feel that selective editing of perception is more conducive to making your point? That if we allow ourselves to actually look at what is there, rather than what we would like to be there, that it would be a better way to discuss matters?
Considering the number of times you've chucked the midden at me for apparently doing that, I find it rather surprising that you would advocate such a position.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Hussar said:
No....But we should treat optional material as optional, rather than as the norm. That 9d6 method? Optional, and clearly described as such.
IOW, a little less selective perception might be in order.
Quasqueton
First Post
“The stat generation mechanics set forth in UA were an acknowledgement that most players fudged their PC's stats. It was meant to remove the guilt by providing a system that would allow considerable numbers without cheating.”
-- E. Gary Gygax
“I don't want to mislead anyone about those [ability scores] for my main PCs. I was most careful to add to them whenever I could with whatever means was at hand. So some of them have really high ones after around 10 years of intense, skillful and lucky play.”
-- E. Gary Gygax
“I do indeed get a bit fed up with disputes about which game is 'best,' for it is a matter or personal/group taste. The same with niggling over mechanics and rules. The RPG is a bloody GAME, after all is said and done.”
-- E. Gary Gygax
[All above from the "Ask Gary Gygax" thread, here on ENWorld.]
Quasqueton
-- E. Gary Gygax
“I don't want to mislead anyone about those [ability scores] for my main PCs. I was most careful to add to them whenever I could with whatever means was at hand. So some of them have really high ones after around 10 years of intense, skillful and lucky play.”
-- E. Gary Gygax
“I do indeed get a bit fed up with disputes about which game is 'best,' for it is a matter or personal/group taste. The same with niggling over mechanics and rules. The RPG is a bloody GAME, after all is said and done.”
-- E. Gary Gygax
[All above from the "Ask Gary Gygax" thread, here on ENWorld.]
Quasqueton
