D&D SHOULD NOT have a defined atmosphere/style *Semi Rant*

[JoeGKushner]

Sure it is, there are options to be changed out all over the game.

I think that it's extremely modular, but people are afraid of tinkering with it.

I think that if there is a 4th edition, that there should be numerous sidebars discussing certain game mechanics. For example, "Removing Attacks of Opportunity: If the GM decides to go without attacks of opportunity, the following feats should be removed: X, Y, Z. In addition, monsters with a reach of greater than 10' or greater, may need to have their CR adjusted, especially if their default feat selection includes X, Y, Z. also note A, B, C is modified." Things like that may encourage people to tinker more with the game without worrying about the dreaded WoTC mechanic police.

 

[Crothian]

I don't doubt that the majority of people who visit this site like d20.

I do doubt whether a poll conducted here will give you an accurate breakdown of the relative proportions who prefer 3e, 2e, other systems, etc.

We don't need an accurate breakdown, it was a poll that asked do you use the current or older edition. It did not break down other systems. So, I agree it doesn't give that breakdown since those answeres were not offereed. The poll tells us that a majority of people here perfer 3e to older editions, and I'm saying we can trust that.

 

[Kanegrundar]

Sorry, I don't understand this. 3e is not modular.

Uh, yeah it is. Check out UA. Check out the numerous posts about how people are using X but removing Y from D&D. Check out all the things that are being done with the D20 System via D20 stamped products and the OGL.

Take for instance my home game. I've added class defense bonuses, made armor totally DR with only a couple lines of my own rules added in, use spell points for spell casting, reworked the way LA's are handled, and broke down weapon proficiencies to specific weapon types. There are a couple things that need to be tweaked upon occasion, but the system has never broke down on my group and I. If that's not modular, then I don't know what is.

Kane

 

[JoeGKushner]

In contrast, a more modular system has components that operate relatively autonomously of each other.

Well, instead of arguing with you, could you provide me an example of a more modular system? I know Hero, GURPS, and Tri-Stat do not fall into that category as each is balanced within it's own system and a chance of one thing will effect the whole system. (see hand to hand attack debate Hero 4th ed for an example.)

 

[Akrasia]

....
Just look at all the wildly different d20 and OGL products out there. Not modular? ...

Modularity does not mean the same thing as variability or adaptability.

 

[Storm Raven]

Sorry, I don't understand this. 3e is not modular.

Not as written. But if you start pulling elements out of it, then it becomes so. Once you disconnect things, the rest becomes, well, disconnected.

Ummm ... I think you're making assumptions about 1e (never played 2e) and my tastes here that are unwarranted.

I do indeed like the flavour of 1e AD&D material (and RC D&D). That doesn't mean that I love every aspect of the game. I don't play 1e or RC D&D anymore.

As for 'balance' issues concerning 3e, why shouldn't these be a concern? If I run a 3e campaign (and I've run two before), and I want to realize one of the system's much-touted advantages ('balance'), then maintaining this advantage is someting that I, as a 3e DM, should desire.

Your big complaints about 3e, as far as I can tell, center around the fact that the game enforces "balance" viaa elements like the CR system and the PC wealth guidelines. This creates, as far as I can tell, a style you dislike - since you think that the level of power given by this system isn't to your tastes. That's all well and good.

But then you go on to complain that by changing these things to better reflect what you think the game should be like in tone (making it more like 1e/2e), you throw off the balance of the system and it becomes unbalanced. To which I say: "and what"? 1e/2e was unbalanced six ways to Sunday. There was an implied balance in there, but you had to grope towards it, and people still played with dominating elves, wimpy thieves, and overwhelming wizards all the time. If the 1e/2e style of play suits you better, why is the fact that making changes to 3e makes it play more like 1e/2e a bad thing?

The fact that altering the system can have unintended consequences is thus a concern. Why does this confuse you?

It didn't concern you when you played 1e/2e, a system that you profess to prefer the style and tone of. Why does it bother you now?

As for your other points, well, I disagree with your understanding and characterization of the systems in question, but see no point in continuing to butt heads over that. You view those systems as horribly unbalanced, and I don't, etc.

I played the system and don't have difficulty in looking back with a clear eye. Sure I had fun playing 1e AD&D, in 1986. But I don't hold any illusions that it was somehow a balanced or well-designed system. I certainly don't look back and delude myself into thinking the AD&D rules of previous eras didn't have a "style" or "tone" built in to them, or that the system had anything resembling balance.

 

[Crothian]

I agree that the system can be altered, and that there are plenty of options that be used to tweak the game.

However, because most of the rules in 3e are interdependent, changing one part will have consequences elsewhere (often unforeseen ones). This is a design feature of 3e.

In contrast, a more modular system has components that operate relatively autonomously of each other.

Yes, a more modular one would have that, but that does not take away the fact that 3e is modular. It can be more modular, no doubt about it.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

I Dont think balance matters at all as long as the group is having fun.
There are things we dont do or completly forget about.
We dont worry about weight limits (i say if your gear section of the character sheet is full you cant carry anymore).
We dont make spellcaster look for components (you just find them in down time).
the only material Divine casters need is a holy symbol and all divine casters cast their spells like the warmage unless they cast like the sorcerer, shugenja style.
I make my players buy common with bonus languages or skill points.
Once you take a class with a skill it becomes a class skill for all classes you have.
We usually forget about skill synergy bonuses.
I use a varient turn and rebuke rul.
we dont play with figures or use maps for combats, we sorda fudge a little on that kinda stuff.
I ignore treasure reccomendations.
As long as you meet the prerequisites you can have it ( though no green star adepts or vows of poverty).
And im about to make my own magical item creations rules. the DMG ones suck.

Is my game balanced? I dont think so and one players cousin really dislikes the games he has sat in on. But you know what i tell stories i think will be fun and my players dont usually complain, if they do its usually because of a story point not because of rules

 

[Akrasia]

... I think that if there is a 4th edition, that there should be numerous sidebars discussing certain game mechanics. For example, "Removing Attacks of Opportunity: If the GM decides to go without attacks of opportunity, the following feats should be removed: X, Y, Z. In addition, monsters with a reach of greater than 10' or greater, may need to have their CR adjusted, especially if their default feat selection includes X, Y, Z. also note A, B, C is modified." Things like that may encourage people to tinker more with the game without worrying about the dreaded WoTC mechanic police.

Yes, I agree that that would be an excellent idea.

 

[Desdichado]

I own UA, and note that for most of the rule changes that are included, they explain other aspects of the game that you will need to take into account, and often also change, in order for the game to remain 'balanced'.

I don't deny the wealth of options available in various d20 supplements. That has nothing to do with the fact that 3e is a highly interdependent gaming system. And indeed, it was designed as such.

There are some interdependencies, or at least things to keep your eyes open for, but no more than any other modular application I've ever seen in my life.

I mean, as I mentioned before, I ran a campaign that had 2/3s of the character classes swapped out, had the races mostly all swapped out, had the magic system completely taken out and replaced by another one, had the action points module slapped on, the Defense rating module slapped on and the Sanity module slapped on all at once.

The fact that I was able to do that at all speaks to the modularity of the system. I didn't have to do much (if any) tweaking, it was just "unplug this system, and plug in this alternate one" for the most part. If that's not modular, then my understanding the concept of modularity must be completely different than yours.