Define "___-edition feel"?

[Dark Jezter]

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.

What is D&D (or any RPG, for that matter)? Basically, it's a glorified game of make-believe where players pretend to be a dwarf fighter, or an elf ranger, or a halfling thief, or some other fantasy character.

Yeah, RPGs are so much cooler than video games.

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!

If you think that rapid leveling is a video game trait, go play a game like Dragon Warrior or Everquest. Video game RPGs are very diverse, just like pen & paper RPGs. There are many video game RPGs where characters take a virtual eternity to level up.

 

[jasamcarl]

I've always thought that those who trot out the 'videogame' bs were copping out of their own lack of ability to imaginativly interrpret the rules. 3e in fact plays well both as a game (most of the things that people site as 'videogame'ish are most often just demonstrations of good game design period) and in evoking a certain quasit mythological high fantasy.

Let's be clear, its very easy to make a game with sucktastic rules that evokes something by clubbing you over the head with it (mages don't fight...THEY CAN'T HOLD SWORDS!!!!) and having little regard to playability, fun, or balance. I'm sure some of the more mastubatory dms loved going through 2e's piles of fluff and playing out an entire game in their head. Nevermind that when actual playtime came around it was terrible. 3e does both, but it evokes its own spin on the fantastic through actual play. Again, the great irony is that those who whine about it being to rules focused are more culpable for that vice than the game itself.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

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

Actually, I have read his earlier posts and you better take his word for it, folks. He'll just keep telling you its true until you give up, after which time he'll claim this his opinion has held.

 

[Belegbeth]

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.

Huh?!

The rules do NOT merely arbitrate pc adventuring. They include plenty of "macro" elements like how expensive magic items and spells are, how common high level NPCs are in towns and cities of differing sizes, etc.

Most players -- NOT ALL (including me) -- will tend (not always!) to play games in accordance with these rules.

The result? Campaigns which have pretty common magic items, high level NPCs, etc. Campaigns very different than those produced by 1E rules.

I guess you chose to ignore my earlier point that I was describing the kinds of campaigns GENERALLY produced by the different rules editions.

Again, I think rule variants, etc. are wonderful. I use them all the time. But I was merely indicating that -- given the fact that most campaigns will generally try to adhere to the rules as published -- the kinds of campaigns produced by 3E rules will tend to be different than the kinds of campaigns produced by 1E rules.

Of course to actually READ what I state would prevent you from having the petty pleasure of calling my points "moronic."

 

[diaglo]

Actually, I have read his earlier posts and you better take his word for it, folks. He'll just keep telling you its true until you give up, after which time he'll claim this his opinion has held.

i think you are confusing him with me.

go reread my opinion a few posts up on this page.

 

[Belegbeth]

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

Yes -- we are leaders in the field! You look like a natural.

 

[Belen]

Actually, I have read his earlier posts and you better take his word for it, folks. He'll just keep telling you its true until you give up, after which time he'll claim this his opinion has held.

Or it will get him banned again, in which case, we will not be able to recieve hi wizardly advice.

In any event, DnD is a group game. The argument that it is the fault of the poster regarding how they interpret the game is fallacious. Any GM can have imagination, but it requires the entire group to make it work.

 

[reiella]

The rules do NOT merely arbitrate pc adventuring. They include plenty of "macro" elements like how expensive magic items and spells are, how common high level NPCs are in towns and cities of differing sizes, etc.

Most players -- NOT ALL (including me) -- will tend (not always!) to play games in accordance with these rules.

The result? Campaigns which have pretty common magic items, high level NPCs, etc. Campaigns very different than those produced by 1E rules.

Well, let's see, by the rules, a metropolis (the largest town generally) has a gp limit of 100,000 gp, has four main power centers, and the highest level 'Wizard' is 1d4+12 levels, at best, level 16... There is a chance of a 20th level rogue or fighter in the area at least (1d8+12).

This is for the largest population centers possible in the game as written in the core rules, and it gets significantly less as you go on the increments.

Of course, given that this rule-set is rarely used or referenced, it's not surprising that one would have a perception of greater level potential.

[ Add ]
My personal opinion is 'feel' is determined by the group first and foremost... Any game will be modified past it's core rules in some way to accomodate the players, be it in changing the expectations, house rules, or just not using all the rules/tables presented.

 

[jasamcarl]

Huh?!

The rules do NOT merely arbitrate pc adventuring. They include plenty of "macro" elements like how expensive magic items and spells are, how common high level NPCs are in towns and cities of differing sizes, etc.

Most players -- NOT ALL (including me) -- will tend (not always!) to play games in accordance with these rules.

The result? Campaigns which have pretty common magic items, high level NPCs, etc. Campaigns very different than those produced by 1E rules.

I guess you chose to ignore my earlier point that I was describing the kinds of campaigns GENERALLY produced by the different rules editions.

Again, I think rule variants, etc. are wonderful. I use them all the time. But I was merely indicating that -- given the fact that most campaigns will generally try to adhere to the rules as published -- the kinds of campaigns produced by 3E rules will tend to be different than the kinds of campaigns produced by 1E rules.

Of course to actually READ what I state would prevent you from having the petty pleasure of calling my points "moronic."

1) Price is very much a factor meant to balance pcs in combat at specific levels. It goes hand in hand with the wealth by level chart. Does that indicate that all high level adventurers are insanly wealthy? NO. It says they have a good deal of equipment.

2) The wordbuilding chapter in the dmg with the wealth limits by city is specifically thrown out as GUIDELINES not rules, assuming a certain 'realistic' take on fantasy. Those guidlines are not the equivilant of hit die, and the dmg sure doesn't support you on that. Now do most campaigns follow those guidlines? Maybe, but i'm sure a sizable number of games have a powerful wizard as a BBG. That doesn't mean that it is a rule that has to be strictly followed.

Better arguments, please?

 

[kenjib]

1st Ed. AD&D was archaic and convoluted, and restricted more toward a certain cultural/literary milieu, and oddly I liked that. I spent time looking up two dozen variety of latin abbreviations, digging through a chart on the folkloric magical properties of herbs, an appendix detailing several dozen types of pole-arms each with multiple different forms illustrated, a detailed derivation of various gem types, and a bunch of arcane rules that were arbitrarily different for each type of action.

3rd Ed. D&D has been modernized and genericized. From references to "she" as gender neutral pronoun to weapons and armor more pulled from the air than based on historical or literary examples (which is not to say that AD&D didn't have some egregious errors, such as sword nomenclature, but 3e preserved all of these and added more), to character design that sacrifices reinforcement of archetype for flexibility, to a more streamlined and accessible set of rules, to a more modern and accessible use of language in the text itself.

What I think was interesting about 1e was that all of the convoluted properties of the rules and writing style helped me to think differently, to really enter a different world. The characters and system were almost like something out of an old cabalistic or alchemical treatise from the dark ages. 3e feels more like the Hercules/Xena TV shows. Everything is modern at it's core, but dressed up in ren-faire attire and pretending to be other-worldly.

3e is great, but I think the feel is quite different.