D&D 3E/3.5 D&D 3e to be changed to new d20 rules? 4e coming!

[Psion]

Re: Re: Re: D&D 3e to be changed to new d20 rules? 4e coming!

People want to "seriously shift the kilter of the game" though -- and that doesn't mean it has to be more complex (a la Rolemaster)

Never said it would be. At least not significantly. (Though some people have problems subracting armor rating from damage from every hit problematic, most players I know can handle it...)

or less heroic.

That is where you are wrong. Right now, the balance in D&D is centered around the character's capabilities, but accomodates a variety of character concepts, from the nimble rogue to the marvelous mage to the brute fighter.

Now, when you throw armor into the DR column what happens? The nimble characters lose their edge as hurting a character in plate mail (who may be of much lower level) with a small weapon and low strength become untenable. The game shifts away from heroic fantasy and towards an infantry simulation.

Sure, you can tweak this and that and the other thing to push it back in the direction of heroic... but if you do that, it WILL be more complex to accomodate that one change that you felt like you had to have. In the end, you will acheive the same result as you had before with AC and HP.

A lot of playtesting and consideration went into 3e. While I can see why they might want to change things for other D20 system games, I seriously doubt that they are going to screw that up by trying to make D&D into a game it is not, and lose the ground they regained with 3e.

It's not because of hit points and armor class.

Again: you are wrong. IMNSHO.

 

[Zappo]

You're drawing a common false dichotomy, suggesting that our only options are either D&D or GURPS, that we can have simple, heroic and unrealistic or complex, unheroic, and realistic. There's so much middle ground between those two options that it's silly to dismiss any tweak to D&D as turning it into GURPS.

What do you call a tweak? I have nothing against tweaks to D&D. Like, I dunno, giving 1d6 hit points to sorcerers. D&D is one of the most tweakable games around. I do dismiss radical changes that would completely change the game flavor, such as using WP/VP, for example. More in general, take the sacred cows list WotC made before starting the work on 3e - I agree with most of them.

I will say it in a direct way: most of the changes I've seen proposed in this thread for a hypotetical 'D&D 4e' are a recipe for a commercial disaster. While I'm sure a group can enjoy them locally, there's no way they appeal to a relevant majority of gamers.

 

[mmadsen]

Re: Dichotomy

Mmadsen, I've participated in past threads with you, and I'm sorry, but you've always come across as someone who'd rather be playing GURPS than D&D. I certainly encourage you to publish your suggested changes to D&D under the OGL (and the d20 licenses) and see how quickly they fail to take off. In the marketplace of ideas, unless you have something to add that lots of other people value, I'm afraid your wishes for D&D to evolve into GURPS will continue to fall upon deaf ears.

I guess I haven't made myself clear then. Both GURPS and D&D have their strengths. In some cases, there's a tradeoff involved (e.g. increased complexity for increased "realism"), but in other cases, we can take good ideas and mix and match them.

Third Edition D&D obviously uses many "modern" gaming mechanics without becoming GURPS. Should we go back back to Second Edition because Third has evolved into GURPS?

Or should we accept that some changes would improve the game without increasing complexity, without reducing the heroic scope of the game, etc.? The Defense bonus of Star Wars and Wheel of Time is just such a mechanic. It's not complex, it's quite heroic, and it makes the game play more sensibly. The wound/vitality system, on the other hand, offers up some improvements, but it does so at the cost of some complexity. If you want to keep the game simple, you probably don't want to implement that rule change.

 

[birdboy2000]

Personally, I like the standard ways of RPGs. Like monster rancher(With my favorite combat system) DnD has an HP rating and a dodge rating. Though I would rather have an MP system then the current one, this is good.

 

[Zappo]

Re: Re: Dichotomy

Or should we accept that some changes would improve the game without increasing complexity, without reducing the heroic scope of the game, etc.? The Defense bonus of Star Wars and Wheel of Time is just such a mechanic. It's not complex, it's quite heroic, and it makes the game play more sensibly. The wound/vitality system, on the other hand, offers up some improvements, but it does so at the cost of some complexity. If you want to keep the game simple, you probably don't want to implement that rule change.

No, you see, that's not the point. It's not about complexity. The point is that making the game play more sensibly is not an issue for most players. We don't care. I don't consider it an improvement at all. Actually, most players play the game exactly because their characters can take twelve arrows in the chest and still fight as well as when they've just had a six months holiday, even if they play a wizard who has never made something resembling physical exercise. Some of them don't even know it. They are the uncountable ones who play one game of [insert any 'sensible' system] and then say "That was cool, but it doesn't beat D&D, I dunno why...".

 

[mmadsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: D&D 3e to be changed to new d20 rules? 4e coming!

That is where you are wrong. Right now, the balance in D&D is centered around the character's capabilities, but accomodates a variety of character concepts, from the nimble rogue to the marvelous mage to the brute fighter.

Certainly the current incarnation of D&D has been playtested to make those character concepts (at each level) balanced and tenable. Do you think there's no way to do that besides the exact way it's being done now?

Now, when you throw armor into the DR column what happens? The nimble characters lose their edge as hurting a character in plate mail (who may be of much lower level) with a small weapon and low strength become untenable. The game shifts away from heroic fantasy and towards an infantry simulation.

Hardly. All you've pointed out is that making exactly one change (with no effort to rebalance things) could cause a problem. Any of the changes from Second to Third Edition could've been disastrous too. You obviously need to playtest and devise clever mechanics.

Just off the cuff I can see plenty of simple solutions; they'd just take some playtesting to iron out. Opening up crit threat ranges a notch would go a long way, as would changing Weapon Focus and/or Weapon Specialization to work as Improved Crit.

Further, if armor works as DR but limits Defense (as armor currently limits Dex bonuses), it limits itself (as it will in the new edition of Star Wars).

Sure, you can tweak this and that and the other thing to push it back in the direction of heroic... but if you do that, it WILL be more complex to accomodate that one change that you felt like you had to have. In the end, you will acheive the same result as you had before with AC and HP.

No, it doesn't have to be more complex at all. Certainly you'd have to learn a new set of rules (as you did when you picked up Third Edition), but they can be cleaner, simpler rules that make more sense. Wouldn't you say the current ruleset is, at least in some ways, cleaner and simpler than Second Edition?

A lot of playtesting and consideration went into 3e. While I can see why they might want to change things for other D20 system games, I seriously doubt that they are going to screw that up by trying to make D&D into a game it is not, and lose the ground they regained with 3e.

Lose what ground? They brought a lot of people back to D&D by cleaning it up. Was there something wrong with that?

 

[mmadsen]

The point is that making the game play more sensibly is not an issue for most players. We don't care. I don't consider it an improvement at all.

Obviously the people who stayed with D&D through the ages didn't mind its "issues", and those who moved on minded them quite a bit. Just about anyone who moved on from D&D to another game system gives hit points and armor class as examples of wackiness they finally couldn't take.

My point is that the argument then becomes this false either-or situation:

• Heroic, simple, high-hit point, unrealistic play, or
• Gritty, complex, low-hit point, realistic play.

We can keep it just as simple and just as heroic without some of the wackiness. (I shouldn't have to spell out all the examples everyone gripes about: hits that don't really hit, but do damage that has to be healed by potions that don't heal that damage as well as they seem to heal low-level non-heroes, etc.)

 

[Zappo]

mmadsen is right when he says that they could make a DR armor system that is balanced, doesn't screw light-armored characters, and is only slightly more difficult than the current system.

The real question is "should it be done?"

I say no.

 

[Zappo]

Obviously the people who stayed with D&D through the ages didn't mind its "issues", and those who moved on minded them quite a bit.

It's not that I don't mind D&D's issues. It's that to me they aren't issues at all, but 'features'. And, as I said, I've played *dozens* of games, and had my friends play them too, and I've been at many cons, and I've talked to the people there, and played with them at home-made games that tried to fix D&D's 'issues', and watched their reactions, so I can say I'm not someone who has only ever played D&D and is afraid of changing.

Just about anyone who moved on from D&D to another game system gives hit points and armor class as examples of wackiness they finally couldn't take.

What, all three of them? For every person who switches from D&D to another system there are ten more that tried the other system and then went back to D&D.

My point is that the argument then becomes this false either-or situation:

• Heroic, simple, high-hit point, unrealistic play, or
• Gritty, complex, low-hit point, realistic play.

We can keep it just as simple and just as heroic without some of the wackiness.

I've *understood*, I've never said that there's a dychotomy between heroic and realistic. But why should we do it? I don't care about the wackiness. I like some of it, such as fighting just as well with twelve arrows in my body. I don't want realism, and there are a lot of positive sales figures in WotC's offices, and a lot of negative ones in small offices of unknown publishers everywhere, that prove that I'm not alone.

 

[mmadsen]

It's not that I don't mind D&D's issues. It's that to me they aren't issues at all, but 'features'. And, as I said, I've played *dozens* of games, and had my friends play them too, and I've been at many cons, and I've talked to the people there, and played with them at home-made games that tried to fix D&D's 'issues', and watched their reactions, so I can say I'm not someone who has only ever played D&D and is afraid of changing.

But those games that tried to "fix" D&D didn't merely clean up the mechanics; they went whole-hog away from heroic gameplay toward gritty, complex simulation. They didn't just change a few rules; they aimed at a completely different target.

That's the false dichotomy that's usually left implicit that I'm trying to bring to the surface. You can keep the simplicity and heroism of D&D while introducing "fixes" to some of the wackiness, wackiness that shatters suspension of disbelief (in many people) and doesn't model the genre well either.

Other games haven't aimed at being a better D&D so much as a more realistic D&D. That doesn't turn out to be what people want.