Define "___-edition feel"?

[Belegbeth]

Huh? Why is it any easier to adjust progression rate in 3E than 1/2 ed? In either case, you simply adjust XP awards up or down in some manner.

Aaaah, but this possibility is OFFICIALLY recognized in 3E. Hence it is okay.

 

[Belegbeth]

The DM decides how many 18th level archmage NPCs there are or not. If the DM makes it so there's an 18th level archmage standing on every street corner, then yes, they are more common and less special than they used to be. Nothing in the 3e rules that states that 18th level archmages are commonplace.

There is nothing preventing a 3e DM from making 18th level archmages extremely rare, just as there is nothing preventing a 1e DM from hiding a high-level mage behind every tree and bush. .

True, but the structure of the rules lead to certain expectations about what is to be expected in a "standard" game. If going up levels is quick in the standard rules, high level characters will be more common in games that adhere to those rules (i.e. most games).

The DM could ban all spells above level 3 if she wanted -- but that would be a game that deviated from the standard rules, and would be quite unusual.

The rules tend to produce different kinds of games, since most people try to adhere to them "as published." Nothing prevents a DM from running a "low power" campaign in 3E, but the standard rules do not encourage such campaigns. (Similarly, in the late 70s and 80s people ran "Monty Haul" 1E games; but such games ignored many of the core 1E rules regarding experience, training, etc.)

 

[jasamcarl]

True, but the structure of the rules lead to certain expectations about what is to be expected in a "standard" game. If going up levels is quick in the standard rules, high level characters will be more common in games that adhere to those rules (i.e. most games).

The DM could ban all spells above level 3 if she wanted -- but that would be a game that deviated from the standard rules, and would be quite unusual.

The rules tend to produce different kinds of games, since most people try to adhere to them "as published." Nothing prevents a DM from running a "low power" campaign in 3E, but the standard rules do not encourage such campaigns. (Similarly, in the late 70s and 80s people ran "Monty Haul" 1E games; but such games ignored many of the core 1E rules regarding experience, training, etc.)

Dude, stop right there and admit you don't have an argument. When you take your own stupid assumptions and start projecting them on other's games, you should probably just...stop. The rules only cover combat balance, and make no pretense at actually simulating whatever world is in your head. If that is the conclusion you jump to, then that reflects your own limitations, not mine.

 

[Belegbeth]

1) Video games are somehow a lower form of entertainment than RPGs.
2) 3e places emphasis on internal rules consistancy and balance, much like many video games.
3) Therefore, 3e resembles a video game and is less sophisticated than (Insert RPG system of choice here).

Indeed, and my fiscal prudence intends to avoid tedium and keep the game exciting by not having my players work for months to gain a single level.

I don't think (2) plays any necessary role in the claim that 3E has a "video game" feel to it. (Rolemaster, for example, has as much "internal rules consistency and balance" as 3E -- years before 3E was a gleam in Monte Cook's eye -- and no one has ever accused it of feeling like a video game.)

I agree with the claim (1) but think that claim (2) is irrelevant. As for (2), 3E is pretty sophisticated. I like rules consistency and balance; but that doesn't mean that 3E, at least the materials produced by WotC, doesn't have a "video games" feel to it.

Ironically, the notion that the only way to "avoid tedium and keep the game exciting" is by letting characters level up quickly illustrates perfectly its "video game" character!

Finally, to emphasize a point I made earlier: I actually think that, in many respects, the 3E rules are *superior* to earlier versions of the game. And there are some great materials for 3E out there that do NOT have anything like a "video games" feel to them -- "Midnight" from FF comes to mind as an excellent example.

 

[jasamcarl]

Actually, going through this thread, I'm seeing a lot of the same dumb arguments that got me trouble last time, so I'll cede this thread to certain fools who shall go unnamed.

 

[Belegbeth]

Dude, stop right there and admit you don't have an argument. When you take your own stupid assumptions and start projecting them on other's games, you should probably just...stop. The rules only cover combat balance, and make no pretense at actually simulating whatever world is in your head. If that is the conclusion you jump to, then that reflects your own limitations, not mine.

Dude, I won't stop right there because I DO have an argument.

The rules only cover combat balance? What!?

I am not making stupid assumptions and projecting them on others' games.

I am reading the rules: the rules cover things like experience rewards, experience levels, magic items, etc.

Perhaps I am going out on a limb here by assuming that many people try to run games in accordance with these rules. I don't think I am.

Look, I am the champion of using variants and house rules. But the fact of the matter is that the rules in the core books structure, to a great extent, how most games are played.

This is a thread about the differences between different editions of DnD. The rules typically lead to different kinds of games.

Level progression was slower in 1E. This tended to produce lower powered games.

What exactly were my "stupid assumptions"?

 

[Belegbeth]

Actually, going through this thread, I'm seeing a lot of the same dumb arguments that got me trouble last time, so I'll cede this thread to certain fools who shall go unnamed.

If you debated the arguments made, rather than simply being a jerk and refering to them as "dumb", then you might find that you will not get in trouble.

This is a useful lesson in real life as well as message boards.

 

[jasamcarl]

Dude, I won't stop right there because I DO have an argument.

The rules only cover combat balance? What!?

I am not making stupid assumptions and projecting them on others' games.

I am reading the rules: the rules cover things like experience rewards, experience levels, magic items, etc.

Perhaps I am going out on a limb here by assuming that many people try to run games in accordance with these rules. I don't think I am.

Look, I am the champion of using variants and house rules. But the fact of the matter is that the rules in the core books structure, to a great extent, how most games are played.

This is a thread about the differences between different editions of DnD. The rules typically lead to different kinds of games.

Level progression was slower in 1E. This tended to produce lower powered games.

What exactly were my "stupid assumptions"?

Your stupid assumptions were that rules that arbitrate pc adventuring (and even there only in the tactical element) should be applied to some macro universe and that to do otherwise would be tantamount to changing AC to DR. That is just moronic.

 

[MerakSpielman]

The argument that the rules lead to a video-game feel is based on the idea that the rules that the books go into the most detail describing - i.e., the combat, money, and leveling up system - are the rules that will see the most play-time.

This is not necessarily the case. I don't see anywhere in the books where they say that combat is supposed to play a central role in most or all campaigns. It's just implied by the level of detail in the rules that cover it.

I can't find where it says you're not playing D&D the way the designers intended if you have high-role-playing and low-combat games.

 

[jasamcarl]

If you debated the arguments made, rather than simply being a jerk and refering to them as "dumb", then you might find that you will not get in trouble.

This is a useful lesson in real life as well as message boards.

Thanks. Now maybe I can get a job at your office, which I assume specializes in half-assed, poorly thought out generalizations.

You haven't read my earlier threads have you? My arguments pretty much always hold.