Does 3E/3.5 dictate a certain style of play?

[thedungeondelver]

Actually, there are several earlier threads where I updated material I had written for my 1e or 2e houserules and/or campaign flavour documents. I returned the electrum piece to my world's currency. I restored equipment options from 1e and 2e. I restored some of the descriptive text, and I restored Gary's advice to players from the 1e PHB (absolutely a must).

If you want more, email me.

RC

I do, and done!

 

[Rothe]

To continue the gaming love.

I loved OD&D, I loved 1e AD&D when it came out, I completely missed 2e, and don't know enough about 3.xe to form a strong view one way or the other. But I also loved CT, CoC and TFT.

What I don't love is D&D centricism, or even worse, edition centricism that leads to "the way it was meant to be" thinking.

But to the OP, I haven't played 3.xe but remember the different mechanics when we went from OD&D to 1e did influence tactics but not style of play, even though character progression and combat were fairly different in the advantages and restrictions. The same could be said when we went from OD&D to CT to TFT and back again. The rules that worked for our style of play got the most use, those that did not were not used, simple as that.

 

[00Machado]

I don't think the game dictates a certain style of play, but the RAW reward a certain style. Breaking out of that mold is easy if the people at the table have an agreed upon idea of what they want to get out of the game, campaign, etc. It can usually be a few minor and consistent changes that make it work for everyone. For example, you might give out more skill points for a skill heavy game, then give more XP for successful and appropriate skill use than for fighting, and so on.

 

[Hussar]

Pardon me for saying this, but that means you and your players really don't like D&D. You like d20 (Fantasy).

I know this one raised Mod hackles, and I don't mean to pour any fuel on the fire, but, I'm honestly curious what is meant by this.

D&D is a fairly generic gaming system for playing heroic fantasy. To me, the only difference between D&D and d20 Fantasy is the inclusion of certain creatures and names. Since I've never really cared for published settings, the names and creatures mean nothing to me and never have. Mordenkainen was just a name in a book that I vaguely knew was a character played by the game's creators. His role within Greyhawk was of no interest to me as I never had any interest in the setting.

Does that mean that for the past twenty years or so, I haven't been playing D&D? That only those who tie their games into particular settings, namely Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms are truly playing D&D?

Or are you saying that D&D in it's current edition is somehow not D&D. That by prefering 3e, and strongly disliking earlier editions, somehow means that it's not D&D?

I have to admit, I play 3e, not because I dislike 1e or 2e or even Basic/Expert D&D, but because I feel that it is a better game for me. It does what I want it to when I want it to do it. It also helps that there are a large number of gamers who feel the same as I do, meaning I can always find players. That doesn't make earlier editions bad. Not at all. I certainly hope I didn't spend all those years playing a game I didn't like. However, I do view 3e as an improvement. Just as I viewed 2e in the same light. And AD&D as well over Basic/Expert D&D. Purely for myself, I view each iteration of the game that I've played as a step forward, with each new generation correcting the problems I had with the previous generation. And, likely, the next generation of D&D will correct issues I have with 3e.

 

[Sound of Azure]

And, likely, the next generation of D&D will correct issues I have with 3e.

I think that's something we all want. If D&D become something I don't like, I'll just play around with d20 for longer, or go play something else. It's pretty simple.

 

[Raven Crowking]

D&D is a fairly generic gaming system for playing heroic fantasy.

Unless one suggests that the D&D rules should be able to model classical fantasy novels, in which case D&D is its own genre.

D&D = The Game with Multiple Personality Disorder!

 

[MerricB]

Unless one suggests that the D&D rules should be able to model classical fantasy novels, in which case D&D is its own genre.

D&D = The Game with Multiple Personality Disorder!

LOL! Yeah, too true.

I tend to feel that D&D is its own genre, but that 3e D&D has the ability to model more types of world than 1e did. Hmm. That's not quite right - you can do a lot with 1e - but I think the level of tinkering needed is different.

Although I enjoy all editions of D&D, I can definitely say that most of my players prefer 3e greatly. (And given I don't have the problems some people have running 3e, there's no hassle there).

Cheers!

 

[el-remmen]

Rubbish.

D&D has a range of play-styles, from heavy role-playing/narrative to strict gaming/dungeon-delving and many axes as well. However, if you play a heavy role-playing game with no rule use, then you're not playing D&D.

Yeah, I TOTALLY disagree with this.

As far as I am concerned, unless you are playing some wholly different rule set - it is ALL D&D - we all play D&D, from the strict by the rules type to people with monstrous numbers of house rules that just use some stuff from D&D rulebooks as its basis.

To me D&D is not a brand, D&D is an idea that is implemented in as many different ways as there are gaming groups.

 

[Hussar]

Unless one suggests that the D&D rules should be able to model classical fantasy novels, in which case D&D is its own genre.

D&D = The Game with Multiple Personality Disorder!

I did say fairly.

Really though, D&D has never been about novel simulation. It's been a very poor fit in any edition. D&D does heroic fantasy - which is a genre that covers pretty much anything from Conan to Middle Earth (Conan being Sword and Sorcery fantasy which is a sub-genre of Heroic Fantasy as Leiber defined it). Can it simulate a specific novel? Not particularly well since novels don't fit into games very well. Can it simulate the genre? I'd say fairly well.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I don't know. There are so many assumptions built into 3.x that I feel it only really does a good job of modeling D&D. If you want to model Conan style S&S you have to make a lot of changes, or buy OGL Conan. If you want to model ME style fantasy you have to make a lot of changes. Now if you want to model FR style fantasy with a vast abundance of magic, or Eberron, or Greyhawk, then you are fine as is. D&D does D&D style fantasy very well, other types not so well without modification. This isn't unique to 3e by any means though.