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

[Akrasia]

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...

Well, I never played with UA, and agree that it appears to have ruined things. Whatever.

Anyway, as I already mentioned, IME the system worked fine. I found core 1e to be adequately balanced back in the day (perhaps it was just the people I played with, I don't know). We'll just have to disagree over this. In any case, the whole point seems rather moot IMO, as I don't play it anymore, and am not advocating it here.

Furthermore, I never denied that 3e is a better balanced system than 1e (though I think the RC did a reasonably good job in terms of balance). I just don't think that 1e was as bad as you make it out to be. YMMV and all that.

No, you haven't. ...

Yes I have:

... 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.

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

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

I don't have a problem with changing 3e in order to achieve 1e 'flavour'. I'm not sure where you got that idea. I do think that if balance is one of 3e's great virtues, that wanting to maintain that virtue is a desirable thing for DMs and players.

And I do not equate the 'flavour' of 1e with 'unbalanced mechanics' (as you appear to do). I actually think that the 'flavour' of 1e is somewhat distinct from the game's mechanics.

 

[Tarangil]

I find that 3E is fairly adaptable, but I do find that it is more or less standardized, it's like the game was written to be a Video game format, and the style of play (Dungeonpunk) is video game style, ie. Character trees and level gaining..."Story? what story? I want more xp, I'm going back to the high xp forest and run back and forth until I'm level 20."

I try keep the 'old feel' of 1e & 2e when I game, and try to avoid the Dungeonpunk atmosphere that it seems to give. I just follow some simple rules similar to Arashi Ravenblade's. I do use 3E xp values at lower levels, but I tend to reduce it around the level 5-6 range so the progression is slower, but they've now made a character that may hold it's own when I feel cruel.

 

[Crothian]

Character trees and level gaining..."Story? what story? I want more xp, I'm going back to the high xp forest and run back and forth until I'm level 20."

That's the players not the game

 

[Storm Raven]

Well, I never played with UA, and agree that it appears to have ruined things. Whatever.

Anyway, as I already mentioned, IME the system worked fine. I found core 1e to be adequately balanced back in the day (perhaps it was just the people I played with, I don't know). We'll just have to disagree over this. In any case, the whole point seems rather moot IMO, as I don't play it anymore, and am not advocating it here.

You probably didn't notice it at the time since it was really the only game in town. For further evidence of lack of balance, try comparing the 1e fighter to the 1e ranger and paladin from the core rules. It is clear that the fighter is the red-headed stepchild in this comparison.

Furthermore, I never denied that 3e is a better balanced system than 1e (though I think the RC did a reasonably good job in terms of balance). I just don't think that 1e was as bad as you make it out to be. YMMV and all that.

Druids, psionics, and on and on and on. 1e was a mess. It was just the only mess in town, so you overlooked the problems. Or you wrote 80 pages of house rules to paper over them.

Yes I have:

Nope, you still haven't. You've dodged the question like an expert, but you still haven't answered it. You've said that it is a concern, my question is why.

I don't have a problem with changing 3e in order to achieve 1e 'flavour'. I'm not sure where you got that idea. I do think that if balance is one of 3e's great virtues, that wanting to maintain that virtue is a desirable thing for DMs and players.

And the balance is driven by those things that you have decried as driving the flavor of the current system (things like the CR system). You can't have it both ways.

And I do not equate the 'flavour' of 1e with 'unbalanced mechanics' (as you appear to do). I actually think that the 'flavour' of 1e is somewhat distinct from the game's mechanics.

Like what? Black and white art? Opaque prose? Unclear and unbalanced rules?

 

[Akrasia]

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.)

Okay, here are some examples. Sorry for the delay, but I had to try to put out some more annoying fires first.

RC D&D is a pretty simple system. However, it includes lots of options that can be added without worrying about unintended consequences for other parts of the game (at least for the most part), because the options tend to apply 'accross the board'. For example, the optional skill system can be used because it applies to all PCs (and NPCs) equally. The system is already 'balanced' without the skill system, and so adding a new 'module' to it is fine, so long as it applies equally to all elements of the game. Thus the skill system in RC D&D is 'modular' -- it can be added or taken away from RC D&D games without too much worry about how it will affect the game as a whole. In contrast, removing the 3e D&D skill system will radically alter the game as a whole -- all kinds of other things would have to be changed as a result. Hence the skill system in 3e D&D is not a 'module' in the same way. (RC is not perfect in its modularity, but I think it does a pretty good job. The only potentially unbalancing optional rule in it is the weapon mastery system, but even that can be tweaked IMO.)

TLG's C&C is similar in this respect, and probably does a better job than the RC because it's benefited from the past 14 years of gaming experience, plus it draws upon the consistent underlying mechanic provided in the OGL. The core system of C&C -- the SEIGE system -- is very simple. The combat system is somewhat different, but is also simple. Now, you can add a skill system -- or a feat system, or a different combat system -- to the C&C core rules without too much worry because of its modularity. If the new skill, feat, or combat module applies equally to all elements within the game, then it can be used or not used without much worry. In contrast, removing feats from 3e D&D has all kinds of consequences for the game as whole -- feats are not a 'module' with respect to 3e.

Another example would be Eden's Cinematic Unisystem (Buffy/Angel), which is a pretty simple system at its core. You can take out certain elements rather easily (e.g. remove drama points -- just make sure everyone's a 'Hero' equivalent, i.e. no 'White Hats'), and you can also add elements rather easily (e.g. replace the simple CU skill system with the more complex 'standard' Unisystem one). Indeed, it is very easy to build up the version of Unisystem you like by adding and subtracting features from both the Cinimatic and 'Classical' versions of the game -- and other sources, of course!

 

[Tarangil]

Originally Posted by Tarangil
Character trees and level gaining..."Story? what story? I want more xp, I'm going back to the high xp forest and run back and forth until I'm level 20."

That's the players not the game

You are correct.

That quote was put there to paint the videogame mindset...and it was funny.

Luckily I've never had players like that. But at risk of sounding like an old fart, quite a few of the younger generation percieves D&D to be played videogame style. Some DM's here have had a problems like that. At least not all are like that though, I get good reviews and bad reviews on certain players. Some older ones are just as annoying because they refuse to adapt to little changes.

 

[nothing to see here]

So you don't think a poll that asks people here "Do you like D&D[3]?" will accurately reflect whether people here like D&D[3]?

That's what the poll shows.

I would suspect the same poll taken at Dragonsfoot would get the exact opposite results. Would you discount that poll too?

Quasqueton

Call in/Write in/E-mail/Message board polls have a novelty appeal but are absolutely useless at extrapolating any relevant information outside of the individuals who chose to participate. I must admit, as someone who has worked heavily in public opinion research, this is a real pet peeve of mine.

 

[Akrasia]

You probably didn't notice it at the time since it was really the only game in town....

Actually, it wasn't the only game in town. My group also played Runequest, CoC, Stormbringer, etc. By 1984-5 we had left AD&D entirely for MERP/Rolemaster (largely because of my Tolkien obsession at the time).

For further evidence of lack of balance, try comparing the 1e fighter to the 1e ranger and paladin from the core rules. It is clear that the fighter is the red-headed stepchild in this comparison....

Well, the fighter needs fewer experience points to advance, does not have the alignment restrictions of the ranger and paladin (including the potential loss of abilities if he deviates from his 'code'), and can make multiple attacks in a single round against monsters with less than 1HD above a certain level. I don't think the fighter was that badly off.

But really, despite making it very clear that I have no interest in debating the 'balance' or lack thereof in 1e, you seem determined to press this point. I don't understand why you feel this need, and see no reason to indulge it, as it strikes me as inconsiderate on your part (especially since playing 1e is not even part of this debate).

...
Nope, you still haven't. You've dodged the question like an expert, but you still haven't answered it. You've said that it is a concern, my question is why...

I thought it was relatively obvious why 'balance' is considered a positive feature of 3e D&D. (Viz. no particular classes or races dominate the game, many different options are meaningful, every PC feels as though he/she can 'contribute' or whatever, etc.) Please excuse me for assuming this 'common knowledge'.

...
And the balance is driven by those things that you have decried as driving the flavor of the current system (things like the CR system). You can't have it both ways. ...

Actually, I haven't decried the CR system from a 'flavour' perspective. I don't like the CR system because I find it a nuisance, but my dislike for it has nothing to do with 'flavour'.

If you want to know what aspects I don't like about 3e from a 'flavour' perspective, they are: the 'dungeonpunk' art style, the assumption of ubiquitous magic items (which, yes, can be ignored, but is assumed in the game), how common spellcasters are (only fighters, rogues, barbarians, and monks don't eventually cast spells), the rapid experience rate progression (which, yes, can be altered -- I made this very point myself earlier -- but is nonetheless part of the 'flavour' of 3e), the kinds of prestige classes that are available (even in the core rules -- I dislike the kind of campaign style they suggest), etc.

For the most part, though, these flavour issues can be altered by the DM. (Even with respect to the art, I can use the Mongoose pocket books instead.) But I still don't like them.

...
Like what? Black and white art? Opaque prose? Unclear and unbalanced rules?

I don't really know what to say to this. :\

I'd recommend looking at Goodman's "Dungeon Crawl Classics" and some of the stuff put out by Necromancer -- especially the new Judges' Guild 'Wilderlands' material -- if you want to know how '1e flavour' can be understood to be somewhat distinct from '1e rules'.

 

[Breakdaddy]

Love to tell you this: the majority of posters on this message board are "greybeards" who have played all/many of the earlier editions, and now choose to play the current edition because they like it best. There are some relatively few here who wear their hate on their sleeve, but they (and you) are mightily outnumbered.

83.41% prefer the current edition
10.49% prefer an earlier edition

And on a side note, being a condescending jerk has never been easier!!!11111

 

[nothing to see here]

I'm also of the belief that a lot of these debates were generational.

For a lot of the older members D&D was cool because it was the sort of thing youth at the time found cool. Today's D&D is aimed at what the youth of today find cool. I feel that, a lot of the people who are bothered about the 'changes' in D&D, are simply using it as a scapegoat for a deepr disastisfaction...they're not as young as they once were and and no longer able to enjoy the hobby in the carefree way they once did.

Most of the people I know who enjoy 3e enjoy the game in a different manner than how they first enjoyed playing roleplaying games...as they've matured, the way they enjoy their hobby has matured. For others -- it seems they want the game to replicate the feel of being 12 years old and sitting around a comfortable basement rolling some dice with some buddies on a lazy saturday afternoon. That's a tall order for any set of rules.