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

[Akrasia]

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.

I agree that we don't need an 'accurate breakdown'. We don't need a poll at all if we want to know the answer to the question "do the majority of people who post at Enworld like d20?"

But the poll asked what people's preferences were with respect to the different editions. The breakdown given by that poll is meaningless, for the reason I pointed out. That is, it would be mistaken to claim that "86.3 percent" (or whatever) of Enworlders like 3e. That's a meaningless number.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.)

As far as I can tell, the only games that will qualify for his definition of "modularity" are ones that don't use any kind of core mechanic, like the older editions of AD&D. No major RPG system I know of has been designed that way in more than a decade, which makes it a not very useful definition.

In any event, I think he's wrong on ease of adaptability between 3e and 1e/2e, it is actually easier to predict the consequences of a given change in a consistent system like d20, since you know what the overall system is.

 

[Akrasia]

... To which I say: "and what"? 1e/2e was unbalanced six ways to Sunday. ......

I don't see any reason to continue arguing this point with you. Suffice to say we disagree (though I cannot comment on 2e, which I gather was quite unbalanced, esp. with the various optional books).

...
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?...

I already answered this, and see no point in repeating myself. (And it does not 'bother me' -- I was just making a point about one of 3e's alleged strengths.)

...
... 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...

I have explicitly said many times that 1e AD&D had a very distinctive flavour -- one I quite like.

 

[Crothian]

That is, it would be mistaken to claim that "86.3 percent" (or whatever) of Enworlders like 3e. That's a meaningless number.

as a poll it needs its variable, all polls are +/- X% and I think the number is goiung to be in a ball park.

 

[Akrasia]

As far as I can tell, the only games that will qualify for his definition of "modularity" are ones that don't use any kind of core mechanic, like the older editions of AD&D. No major RPG system I know of has been designed that way in more than a decade, which makes it a not very useful definition....

Well you would be sadly incorrect, then.

I will reply to Joe shortly, but I would prefer it if you would not claim to speak on my behalf.

...
In any event, I think he's wrong on ease of adaptability between 3e and 1e/2e, it is actually easier to predict the consequences of a given change in a consistent system like d20, since you know what the overall system is.

It is harder to predict the consequences of changing one variable in a highly interdependent system than it is to predict the consequences of changing one variable in a simpler system (or a modular system made up of simple systems). This is true in formal models, as well as game systems.

3e is more consistent than earlier editions. But it is also more interdependent. Again, this is a design feature of 3e. It was deliberately made this way (AFAIK).

 

[Akrasia]

as a poll it needs its variable, all polls are +/- X% and I think the number is goiung to be in a ball park.

Without getting into technical details, polls based on representative samples of the relevant population have varying degrees of accuracy. Polls that are based on voluntary respondents have no meaningful degree of accuracy, since the respondents are self-selected with reference to the question.

If I were to conduct a poll to determine what percentage of Dubliners like ice cream, I would need to ensure that I generated responses from a representative sample of Dubliners -- not simply those who happened to volunteer to respond to my question on a given day on Grafton Street.

(Anyway, I really see no need to pursue this any further. If people really want to believe that message board polls generate meaningful numbers, I can do nothing to help them.)

 

[Storm Raven]

I don't see any reason to continue arguing this point with you. Suffice to say we disagree (though I cannot comment on 2e, which I gather was quite unbalanced, esp. with the various optional books).

Do I need to get into the specifics of how 1e was unbalanced? Elven fighter/magic-users, human dual classing, the bard class, everything in Unearthed Arcana, and so on and so forth. Don't delude yourself into thinking it was even close to being balanced back then.

I already answered this, and see no point in repeating myself. (And it does not 'bother me' -- I was just making a point about one of 3e's alleged strengths.)

No, you haven't. You've complained that 3e becomes unbalanced if you tweak it, while claiming that you really liked 1e/2e better because of the tweakability. You conveniently leave out the fact that 1e/2e was wildly unbalanced to begin with, so there shouldn't be any concern with unbalancing 3e.

I have explicitly said many times that 1e AD&D had a very distinctive flavour -- one I quite like.

And yet, you have a problem when you change 3e and it starts to reflect similar flavor?

 

[Akrasia]

... 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.

Modularity is, of course, a matter of degree. I don't think our definitions are different -- I just think you had a good understanding of the rules, and thus could anticipate, for the most part, the consequences of combining the alternatives that you did.

Again: at no point have I stated that 3e or d20 is not highly adaptable. And it may be more modular than some other systems: but it is still, at its basis, a highly interdependent system.

 

[Von Ether]

I highly agree. It is expected, and even balanced, so that characters have to become walking Christmas trees in order to survive. The sheer amount of magic is frightening. Magical abilities have become a short-cut to bypass storytelling. Magical teleports and scrying reveal elements of the story that should remain hidden and the likes. In short, in my eyes D&D has killed magic: the super scope, the commonality, the power, the safeness of use, and magic items. Has magic ceased to be magical now? Are peasants amazed to see a low-level spell cast, or do they expect it as ordinary? This was probably my greatest disappointment when I was first introduced to D&D, the blandness of magic.

1.) Actually older versions of DnD had an implied setting rules. Demi-human multiclass limits anyone? Get your hands off my elves.

2.) On the other hand, I've never seen flavor to the spell slot system. You choose, you fire, you forget, repeat. The psionics rules allows power points to be stored, shared, manipulated and even given form as a construct. When I think of psionics, I get plenty of ideas for roleplaying the metaphysics. For DnD magic of any edition, I get componets, spells, spellbooks and gold. I feel like a librarian, not a wizard. ... until I see some of the thrid party stuff like Bad Axe's elf book, then DnD gets some flavor.

3.) TSR had a lot of setting for DnD, true, but they also wasted a ton of pages shoe horning the system to support those worlds. In the latest version, a few slight tweaks gets me close enough.

 

[Crothian]

Without getting into technical details, polls based on representative samples of the relevant population have varying degrees of accuracy. Polls that are based on voluntary respondents have no meaningful degree of accuracy, since the respondents are self-selected with reference to the question.

No different then other polls. A person calls you up and you choose to answer the questions or not, same with message board polls. You choose to answer them or not. Its just a sampling of data, its not going to be 100% accurate, but you treat it as if the numbers are meaningless even when they are obviously in the pallpark. I'm not talking about all message board polls either, you are painting them all with a very wide stroke. Only one poll was referenced in this thread and I see no reason to make generalizations about it.