Subthread of old, arise from your grave . . .
buzz said:
Exactamundo, Mr. Martin. One thing that I've noticed on these boards is that the people I encounter who actually played older D&Ds by RAW tend to be pretty satisfied with 3e... or else don't see it as different enough to bother switching.
I think we need to nuance this a bit more, though. It should be remembered that there are three different streams flowing into 3E--AD&D 1E, AD&D 2E, and BD&D. (I seriously doubt that the designers looked at OD&D, and the players still playing it now likely will not switch before the Day of Doom.
)
All three had differences not only in mechanics, but in philosophy. 1E, from my limited knowledge of it, seems to be what 3E holds to closest in many ways, but with the Gamist element turned up to 11.
For an example of how things were different, I submit the following selection from an essay by Steve Winter, found in the 1993 TSR Master Catalog, Collector's Edition, titled "Why do I Play the ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Game?"
Steve Winter said:
Three elements of the AD&D game keep me coming back: its simplicity, its flexibility, and its emphasis on heroic adventure.
Some people balk when told that the AD&D game is simple. The two essential rulebooks, the Player's Handbook and the DUNGEON MASTER Guide, contain 450 pages. That number alone makes any claim to simplicity seem a bit incredible.
Yet at its core, the AD&D game is very simple. A character has only three key attributes to worry about: class, race, and level. Most of the other characteristics are window dressing, designed to help visiualize the player charcter and make role-playing easier
. . .
The companion to simplicity is flexibility. Because the rules (or "systems" as we often call them) are simple, they can be bent in numerous ways without breaking.
Consider, for example, a player who announces that his PC is scooping up some dirt to fling in his opponent's face, hoping to blind him. The DM has several options on how to handle this. He might rule that the attack is a called shot . . . or he might allow a normal attack roll but give the victim a saving throw vs. breath weapon to shut or shield his eyes before the dirt blinds him. Either approach is valid; the choice is primarily one of personal preference. And the game can easily accommodate either, or both.
These two features combine to create an outstanding atmosphere for heroic fantasy. The action is fast-paced and anything is possible--two prime qualifications for epic adventure. The characters have clearly defined roles in the struggle between good and evil.
But beyond that, the simplicity and abstractness of the AD&D game's combat and magic rules work to reinforce rather than weaken the players' imaginations. In an ultra-tactical game with pieces and playing maps and movement points and combat turns measured in seconds, the player's attention is focused on the map. Instead of imagining his character facing the towering ogre, instead of smelling its matted hide and hearing its lumbering step, the player sees his inch-tall miniature figure standing next to an inch-and-a-half tall ogre figure. How much more frightening is a dark, web-filled, musty, dripping corridor when it is conjured in the player's mind than when it is reduced to a few paper hexes?
The AD&D game is tailored to be purely imaginary. There are no complex movement rules, no detailed battle options. The heroic feats of the player characters and the images they create in the players' minds are the most important elements. . . . Its richness is what keeps me involved and what has made the AD&D game the cornerstone of role-playing.
Now, you can argue with Winter's characterization of other systems and styles, and you can point out the downside of the virtues he touts: the lack of ways to make characters different mechanically, the reliance on DM judgement which can be a double-edged sword, and the lack of tactical options. You could even argue that this represents a departure from AD&D 1E's wargaming roots.
But what I think this selection
does demonstrate, without argument, is a philosophy of the game and its design that is dramatically different from that of today.
buzz said:
It's when I see people who talk wistfully of "sense of wonder" or other Sim- and Nar-drifted experiences that I see dissatisfaction. What I don't get is why these people don't just give all the cool RPGs that aren't D&D, and that fit their needs to a "T", a shot.
One of the unexpected boons of the d20 license, I think, and one that has only really begun to prosper in the past couple years, is the possibility to create variants on the core system that suit different styles of play. If you have a copy of
Thirty Years of Adventure, check out Peter Adkison's essay on 3E design philosophy. There were three different schools of thought at WotC--one that just wanted to tune up the rules, one that wanted a more streamlined 'storytelling' game, and one that wanted a fully integrated, systematized, and highly complex system. The third is what Adkison supported, and what won out.
However, I think C&C has filled the niche for the first, and True20 may do the same for the second. I know I'm giving it consideration, although STAR WARS d20 Saga Edition sounds very promising, and BESM 3E is a dark-horse candidate.
Matthew L. Martin
