Discontinuity: 3e and D&D

[Quasqueton]

The complexity of the system is what you make of it. You don't *have* to use all the options in any system.

Yeah, what he said.

"Oh man, the new cars suck. They're so complicated. I mean, how can you enjoy driving when you've got to push in the cigerette lighter, open the sun roof, set the AC, adjust the seat angle, change the radio stations, etc. Driving used to be so much simpler when you just had to push the gas peddle and steer."

Quasqueton

 

[rogueattorney]

So to not get caught up in a "yes it is," "no it isn't," discussion let me propose this: tell me what is the key to earlier editions of D&D that made all of them D&D that has been changed in this edition?

I explained the big two in my previous post - archetypes versus option in terms of character creation, and abstract versus tactical in terms of combat. I'd consider those the big two.

Of your similarities:

Classes - While they're called classes in both rulesets, the class of the 3.5e is more like, say, the profession of CoC. It's a template that allows for you to pick from a menu of skill, feats, and spells.

Levels - In earlier versions levels were almost entirely subsumed within the class structure. (Human dual-classing being the exception, and that was more like starting over on a new class than the 3e 'tale a level'.) In 3e a level, while not entirely independant of class, is outside the class structure.

Alignments - no argument

Fire and Forget Magic - no argument, although characters have a many, many more spells available to cast at lower levels than in earlier editions. In 1e, a 1st level cleric might have 3 1st levels spells to cast, in 3e, it's what? 4 0th level and 4 1st levels.

Armor Class - While called the same thing, AC in 3e models a slightly different aspect of the fight than it did in 1e. AC in 1e took into account size, it doesn't in 3e. Thus you get size modifiers in 3e when larger creatures are attacking smaller, and vice versa.

Hit Points - again, hp model a slightly different aspect of the fight. In 3e, according to the text, hit points model only the amount of physical damage that can be taken. In 1e, they also model luck and skill. This leads to slightly different rules interpretations throughout the system. For example, in 1e, illusions do 'real' damage. Lost hit points are actually lost as 'psychic damage'.

9 levels of spells - Clerics, Illusionists, and Druids only had 7 levels of spells. '0-level' spells also didn't exist except for the optional cantrip rules for m-u's in Unearthed Arcana, so actually 3e really has 10 levels of spells.

Saving Throws - These are handled very differently. In 1e they were reliant on the source - i.e. are you saving against Poison? In 3e they are reliant on the defense - are you using your Will-power? There were 5 saves in 1e, three in 3e. Saves were almost always solely determined by the level of the defender in 1e (exceptions for +/- for certain Poisions, etc.). In 3e, save probability factors in both the level of the defender and the level of the attacker.

6 attributes: strength, intelligence, wisdom, dexterity, constitution, charisma...even if it orders them differently - agreed

All the same old monsters. Heck it even has the flail snail - the stats of many are significantly different, as are the concepts of templates and leveled monsters

Magic Missile, Fireball, Ressurection - again spell descriptions are often significantly different, especially at lower levels, where many of the more powerful 1st and 2nd level spells of past editions are significantly changed, compare 3.5e Sleep and Charm Person to their 1e versions.

You can call these nit-picks, but how many nit-picks need to exist before they all add up to being a new game? The truth is that all fantasy role-playing games have some mechanism for pretty much all of the above. A wizard can cast a fireball in nearly every FRPG. The question is how the game handles the mechanics. And 3e doesn't handle these mechanisms in a way that is any significantly closer to 1e than many other FRPG's. Especially when you have, what you might call, first-generational derivitives like Hackmaster and C&C running around. In a lot of ways, 3e is a second-generational derivitive, having been filtered through 2e first. And in that respect it's about as far from 1e as the Palladium FRPG and Chaosium's BRP games. I don't find it any easier converting 3e <> 1e than I do with Cthulhu Dark Ages, for example.

Is there really any argument that after acquiring the rights to D&D, WotC radically redesigned the game? They call it D&D. They have the rights to D&D. It's D&D. However, it is really a different game from what used to go by the name of D&D. Does that make it illegitimate? No, stuff like that happens all the time. But it does mean that a significant portion of those who liked the previous versions of the game won't like it. It will also mean that a significant portion of those who didn't like the previous versions of the game will like it. I know some like neither and some like both. That's just the way personal taste works.

R.A.

 

[hong]

 

[diaglo]

Driving used to be so much simpler when you just had to push the gas peddle and steer."

driving used to be some much better when there were fewer idiots on the road. and the ones who were driving knew how to make the car run properly.

 

[Kanegrundar]

My car runs smooth. It runs a lot better than the older models I used to drive. That's not to say that the retro models won't have a special place in my heart.

Kane

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Of course it's a different system. From a financial perspective, AD&D 2e was dead and buried. They needed to recreate it in order to have something new to sell.

Whether it's "still D&D" or not depends on (a) what you think D&D is to you, and (b) whether you bring that to the table when you play.

It seems like the majority of people who play 3.x had given up on the hobby (or at least D&D) for quite a long time, so there wasn't much of a discontinuity for them.

 

[Rasyr]

Gee whiz Akrasia!

I seem to recall getting many similar flames and comments some months ago when I suggested something along the lines of D&D being more of a style of play, rather than whatever system is used to play it.....

 

[dungeon blaster]

Yeah, what he said.

"Oh man, the new cars suck. They're so complicated. I mean, how can you enjoy driving when you've got to push in the cigerette lighter, open the sun roof, set the AC, adjust the seat angle, change the radio stations, etc. Driving used to be so much simpler when you just had to push the gas peddle and steer."

Quasqueton

You must not have a BMW with iDrive or a Benz with COMMAND... pain in the arse. Power doors, power seats, power windows, chipsets, all this stuff is great until it breaks.

I'd say one of the major differences is the introduction of tactical movement. While all editions have some measure of tactical movement (being higher gives bonus to hit), it has been taken to a whole new level with 3ed. For many, particularly those who enjoy wargames, this is a good thing. For others (like me), it is a bit tedious. I would rather focus on the story being told during a fight than exact positioning or how many AoO I will incur if I charge with my spiked chain.

Another huge difference is the "punk" style of the art. I'm sure this has been discussed to death so I will end it at that unless others care to discuss it further.

Finally, 3e's capacity for customization heavily influences the style of play. Because the options exist, many players have focused much more heavily on the mechanics of the game; what bonuses or penalties they will incur through class/skill/feat choices, how many levels of one class should they take in order to maximize their character's abilities. In earlier editions this was not as easily done. Sure there were books such as Skills and Powers, but these books were clearly outside normal gameplay. I don't think the same could be said for books from the "Complete" series, which many gamers feel are essentially core. And yes, there were kits, but most kits had relatively little impact on the character's abilities, whereas most PrCs have a substantial impact.

 

[jmucchiello]

I'd say one of the major differences is the introduction of tactical movement. While all editions have some measure of tactical movement (being higher gives bonus to hit), it has been taken to a whole new level with 3ed. For many, particularly those who enjoy wargames, this is a good thing.

Read the 1e DMG again. Especially the parts about movement in combat. 1e combat is just as tactical as 3e combat. It's based on the rules to Chainmail after all. The reason most people think 1e was less tactical is because most people did not play by the rules in 1e.

If you want to cite the real difference between older D&D and 3.x D&D, it is that people would bend, fold or mutilate old D&D to fit their style of play. 3.x handles more styles of play out of the box and doesn't need to be smashed as hard to get into the styles it doesn't handle out of the box.

Back when edition wars were more popular, I sat down and read the 1e and 2e DMGs and found lots of little things that we never played by the rules. Why? Because most people learned D&D from someone else and never bothered to actually read the DMG. Someone up above said 1e D&D combat was simple if you ignored the weapon vs armor stuff and speed factors. Well, speed factors made initiative interesting in 2e. Read those rules. They are more complex than AoOs.

If you don't think 3e being different means 3e is not D&D then I think you did not play 1e. You played something like 1e D&D but it wasn't really D&D.

Someone once said if you weren't playing D&D by the rules in the book you were not playing D&D. Sounds to me like too many people took that to heart and are trying to apply it to 3e.

 

[Turanil]

Not that you cannot have that sense of wonder in a 3e game, just that it requires a great deal of conscious thought and effort on the part of a GM.

Agreed with that. For some incomprehansible reason, sense of wonder has been lost with D&D 3e, and I had to turn toward Grim Tales and C&C to get that back...