[EDITION WARZ] Selling Out D&D's Soul?

[Thurbane]

And, you would be wrong in ascribing this to any sort of real thought process.

There are any number of creatures in 3e which destroy equipment. Of hand, there's the bebilith, babau, various oozes. Yet, none of these qualify as a Gotcha creature.

Why?

Because these creatures have other functions BESIDES screwing over the players. The rust monster, the disenchanter and various other gotcha creatures exist for the sole purpose of screwing over the players. They don't do anything else. A rust monster can't attack. It's only function is to destroy equipment.

Or as a plot device or adventure hook - i.e. "Oh no, the Dwarven mithril vein is being attacked by some kind of monster that is destroying the ore!"

Hint: anything that can "screw over" a player can also screw over an NPC.

Through some clever wrangling or a charm monster spell, the players unleash a rusty in the armory of the marauding Hobgoblin horde. Or sic it on an Iron Golem, for that matter...

Do we really need a monster for that?

Monster, trap, I fail to see the difference, except that a monster in ambulatory, of course. Why would you be OK with a trap that destroys equipment, but not OK with a monster that does so?

Also note: just because it's in the MM doesn't mean a DM has to use it. I see this as more of the "player vs. DM" mentality I keep seeing. You assume that because something exists, the DM will invariably use it "to screw over the players".

As far as dying and raising goes, well, difficulty varied across campaigns. One might be hard to find a cleric, the next it's easy. That isn't tied to edition. OTOH, losing a point of Con only mattered if you had a 15+ Con to begin with. I can go from a 14 to a 9 Con, FIVE raise deads and nothing happens to my character.

Compare that to losing a level.

I see your point, but then you also had the "System Shock/Resurrection" percentages to consider. The major difference is that one is something lasting, that if you let it happen too often, or didn't fall in the 9-14 range, there was a very noticable effect.

Who's going to care in the long run that they lost a level way back when, and caught up with the rest of the party in almost no time. No real disinsentive to being reckless, assuming availablility of a Cleric of appropriate level.

It's the same way I feel about comics where you just know that no matter how many times a superhero dies, there is going to be some hokey way for him to come back to life. It stops me having much investment in the character or the story, when you know his life isn't really in any lasting danger. I much prefer "gritty" comics where once a character dies, he is gone forever.

But I will freely admit this is a personal taste thing - different people enjoy different styles of play.

As far as "emphasis on builds" there's two reasons for that. One, in earlier editions, you couldn't do it at all. Whatever you played at 1st level was what you played at 21st level. All the "building" went on at chargen. There were no builds in earlier editions to complain about since there was no way you could do it.

Secondly, I fail to see the problem anyway. If a player plans out his character from 1st to 20th level, he's assuming two things: one, he's still going to be playing with you a year or two from now, and two; your campaign will still be going two years from now. How are either of those a bad thing? Planning a fighter from 1st to 20th is EXACTLY THE SAME as playing a 1e or 2e fighter. The only difference is that I'm in control of how the character will look in 19 levels instead of the PHB. OH, shock and horror that players have control over their characters.

Sarcasm aside, you have taken my "builds" comment in totally the wrong context. Perhaps I didn't word it well.

I really have no problem with "builds" - but I won't sit by and hear it said the 3.X places more emphasis on backstory and history than earlier editions, when by all of my experience and anectdotal evidence it is simply not the case. People can build richly detailed characters in any edition - I was simply pointing out that while the "dungeoneering" emphasis of earlier eds may have been one factor to less backstory back then, that "builds" are another aspect which may effect the amount of backstory now.

The number one thing that bugs me about these kinds of discussions, is the elitist attitudes that come out. That there are wrongbadfun sorts of inspirations for the game and that any other playstyle is also wrongbadfun. BR above calls CCG's "crap". Why? Is there something inherently bad about drawing inspiration from Yugioh?

I agree, but let me just say that I see elitism on both sides of the fence. I see just as many "1E was unplayable" comments in this thread as I do "3E isn't really D&D"...

Little story. I teach English in Japan. The other day, one of my younger students, about 10 years old, came in for class with a stack of Yugioh cards. To be honest, I've never really paid much attention to Yugioh and never seen the cartoon. So, this kid starts showing me his cards because he's all proud of his latest one. Fine. I wind up talking with him for about an hour about the game. Afterwards, I think to myself, "Wow, here's this kid, about the same age I was when I started gaming, getting into the genre in a fun way that's going to hold his attention for years." As I looked at the cards, I couldn't help but think that a number of the monsters would work great in my campaign as would a number of the effects.

Great inspiration. But, then I think, hey if this kid comes online to look at D&D, he's going to run into some Curmudgeon who's going to tell him that his hobby is crap and immature. I know that would turn me off from D&D. Why play a game where other people are just going to look down their noses at me? I get enough of that in real life.

There are no bad inspirations, just bad players.

I agree with all of this too. As I said waaay back in this thread, I'm not so much attacking 3.X as defending earlier editions.

And as I keep saying until I'm blue in the face, there is no scientifically "better" edition of D&D, only those that are the most enjoyable for an individual or a group.

 

[Mokona]

D&D looks different but it plays the same. My friends and I fight with our characters and tell a story in a game with some randomness thrown in.

D&D does and should focus on K.I.S.S. (keep it simple, stupid). As D&D Miniatures get more time it seems clear from R&D articles that Wizards of the Coast is learning that D&D doesn't need to be this complicated. I look forward to the direction they're heading.

 

[BroccoliRage]

Collectible card games ARE crap in my opinion. You will never see me at a Yu-gi-oh board. I find them to be boring marketing devices. I hope that the boy isn't so impressionable as to take the word of a stranger as law. He can like what he wants.

If some kid is really going to take my opinion to heart, I fail to see how that's my problem. It's an opinion I stated, not a fact. Honestly, I really don't have an attachment to your students. If that makes me a "curmudgeon" (sticks and stones may break my bones, but Victorian era insults will never hurt me), so be it.

It's not my job to foster folks' interest in their hobby. If the boy has fun with his game, which I still consider crap more appropriate for a young child like him, then why should he worry about reading something I, someone he never met and most likely never will, think?

Besides, how long until the neighborhood bully berates him up for being a nerd, if he follows his hobby into his teenage years? Will he quit then? All of his here have been made fun of at some point for playing table top rpg's.


I never attacked any earlier editions. Folks on here have inferred statements about sales spikes, differences in game mechanics, and so forth, as attacks. I've noticed, in this thread, a few quotes made by P&P, Philotomy, and others that are falsely attributed to me. Stop being so sensitive.

And since the gauntlet keeps getting thrown, I'll throw one of my own. Both P&P and I both stated (albeit in different terms) a solid reason relating to mechanics why we say 3e isn't D&D. So far, the only replies I have seen can be summed up in the following sentence:

"It's D&D because there's still a group of adventurers killing things during combat."

Hmmm. So Hero Quest, Cardmaster, Rune Master, Holy Lands, Spiritual Warfare, Cthulhu: Dark Ages, Mage, Tunnels & Trolls, Dungeon!, Dragon Slayers, MERP, GURPS, RIFTS, Alternity, Gamma World, Boot Hill, Fringeworthy, and Gladiator are all D&D?

If so, what makes them the same OUTSIDE of ambigous statements that easily encompass the whole of RPG's?

If not, what makes them different? Is it mechanics? Kind of how 3e has very different mechanics when compared to ALL earlier editions of D&D, which all had similiar mechanics and are interchangeable?

Note: I have never said that d20 is an INEFERIOR system because it isn't D&D. I've only said it is different. I don't prefer it, but that is not indicative of objective quality, only of my preferences. I don't use the systems above for fantasy, because I don't need them. I'm a rabid Tolkein fan and I don't use MERP. Why? Because I don't need it, not because it's a bad system.

Let's stick to the argument at hand, instead of trying to defame me by screaming, "But what of the children? Shame on you, you curmudgeon!". I have not once insulted anything/anyone with the exception of CCG's (which are not the topic of this thread), don't kick mud on me. I don't tell people that they shouldn't like what they like. Just like my mind about d20 Fantasy hasn't been changed by this thread.

 

[BroccoliRage]

MY mistake. I did make a pretty lighthearted comment regarding 3e to another grognard about 3e monsters. It was intentionally silly and not meant to be any kind of real argument.

I'm not going to apologize for it, though. It's a harmless statement.

I'm not asking for apologies either. But if you want to debate me, at least do it like an adult and stay on target.

 

[Hussar]

I see your point, but then you also had the "System Shock/Resurrection" percentages to consider. The major difference is that one is something lasting, that if you let it happen too often, or didn't fall in the 9-14 range, there was a very noticable effect.

Who's going to care in the long run that they lost a level way back when, and caught up with the rest of the party in almost no time. No real disinsentive to being reckless, assuming availablility of a Cleric of appropriate level.

It's the same way I feel about comics where you just know that no matter how many times a superhero dies, there is going to be some hokey way for him to come back to life. It stops me having much investment in the character or the story, when you know his life isn't really in any lasting danger. I much prefer "gritty" comics where once a character dies, he is gone forever.

But I will freely admit this is a personal taste thing - different people enjoy different styles of play.

I'm curious about this, why do you think the PC would catch up? Since everyone at the table receives the same xp, losing a level means you are a level down for the duration of the campaign. You might catch up that level from time to time, but, everyone else at the table will level before you. All that would happen is that everyone at the table would get more xp/encounter since the average party level is lower.

Granted, dying at very early levels means that you don't lose much xp, but, then again, the odds of the party bothering to res a 5th level character or lower are pretty long. At higher levels, the level lost is actually pretty significant.

BR, let me ask you something then, outside of mechanics, what makes earlier editions D&D? I know it's poor form to answer a question with a question, but, then again, KM just got blasted for asking for concrete information about what can be done in earlier editions that can't be done in 3e, so, excuse me for not jumping up to your challenge.

 

[MerricB]

I'm curious about this, why do you think the PC would catch up? Since everyone at the table receives the same xp,

3.5e changed the way XP is assigned to the method introduced in the FRCS: each PC's XP is calculated invidually; their level vs. CR, rather than APL vs CR.

I use the 3.5e method myself. Although a lower-level PC *can* catch up, it isn't as fast as you might think if there's only one or two levels different.

In fact, 1e was even faster for low-level PCs "catching up". A 1st level PC with a group of 6th level PCs would find themselves very quickly (assuming they didn't die) at a level approaching that of the others.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

And since the gauntlet keeps getting thrown, I'll throw one of my own. Both P&P and I both stated (albeit in different terms) a solid reason relating to mechanics why we say 3e isn't D&D. So far, the only replies I have seen can be summed up in the following sentence:

"It's D&D because there's still a group of adventurers killing things during combat."

Hehe. And taking treasure. You forgot that. And taking treasure!

Seriously, I have played D&D since the AD&D days before Unearthed Arcana, and there's a clear line of descent from Original D&D to 3E.

Feats were introduced to the game in Unearthed Arcana and Oriental Adventures. Skills in Supplement 1: Greyhawk. Noncombat & variable Skills in Oriental Adventures. Variable thief skills in PHB 2nd Edition. Stat increases in Unearthed Arcana.

The key system of D&D is combat. (Let's face it, it was pretty much the only system in oD&D!) It consists of the following parts:

* Initiative - completely different in every edition. You can't take this as indicative of anything!
* Hit Points - the die sizes change from edition to edition, but the basic idea of roll Hit Die and add Con mod is there in all editions. Key difference for 1e/3e is that it keeps going beyond 9th level without hitting "name" for every class. (Mind you, see Bard & Monk in 1e)
* Armour Class - Starts at 10. Reversing in 3e just cosmetic.
* Damage rolls - roll a die, add modifiers. Same in all editions.
* Attack rolls - roll a d20, add modifiers. Compare to target. Same in all editions.

There are many, many other parts of core D&D that haven't changed that much over the years.

Cheers!

 

[BroccoliRage]

Initiative is pretty relative in all editions. That's one of my big beefs with Gygax. I like the guy a hell of a lot, but his writing is esoteric as hell at times. The 1e books are fun to read, and are great at teaching a DM the very basics of running a role playing game, but Gary seems to assume that everyone reading the book understands his stream of conciousness. To tell the truth, I came up with my own version of intiative based on just 1d6 roll.

Yeah, HP differs somewhat, but last I checked a hit die is 1d8 in all editions. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not sure what exactly I should be looking up about the bard and monk in 1e, though. I guess I missed the point.

Armor Class? Reversal? COSMETIC?!!!!!!! (sputters, goes into seizure, head explodes)

Yes, I understand what it is you're saying when referring to attack and damage rolls. But, then again, that's the same in damn near every RPG I ever played. So with that argument, then all those other games I mentioned are D&D as well. While we're applying Ocham's Razor, we could also say that every RPG is the same. Maybe I'm obstinate, but I'm just not seeing it. A 3e 1st level character would simply mow through 1e 1st level character, if you were to run both systems simultaneously. 1e vs 2e? the two characters would have a much more even fight. I'm a fan of running more than one system simultaneously since I saw Mentzer talk about it at DF and tried it myself, so I've run these situations and the results have almost only been the same.

The tables or THAC0 can be applied to every version of D&D, but d20 Fantasy just doesn't mesh well with them.

 

[MerricB]

Initiative is pretty relative in all editions. That's one of my big beefs with Gygax. I like the guy a hell of a lot, but his writing is esoteric as hell at times. The 1e books are fun to read, and are great at teaching a DM the very basics of running a role playing game, but Gary seems to assume that everyone reading the book understands his stream of conciousness. To tell the truth, I came up with my own version of intiative based on just 1d6 roll.

Have a look at the initiative system in Eldritch Wizardry. That's a mad, mad system.

OD&D had no initiative system - defaulted from Chainmail, I guess.
OD&D Eldritch Wizardry used a segment-based one. It's odd.
Basic D&D (Holmes) used highest Dex.
AD&D (Gygax) tried d6s with lots and lots of special cases. Bad.
Basic D&D (Moldvay) and later (Mentzer) used d6, and is the normal system we used.
Gary used d10 at home.
AD&D 2E used d10s, with optional system for modifiers and D&D
I've seen tournament D&D use a system from Dragon: spells were 1d4+casting time; it was odd.
AD&D 2E Player's Option went for first attack based on weapon speeds or casting times (slow, average, fast), with a d10 roll changing things occasionally.

Yeah, HP differs somewhat, but last I checked a hit die is 1d8 in all editions. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not sure what exactly I should be looking up about the bard and monk in 1e, though. I guess I missed the point.

Only a monster's HD is always d8. Well, it was d6 in oD&D...

According to edition, a Fighter has a d6, d8 or d10 Hit Die.

Fighters reached 9d10 HD in AD&D, and then went +3 hp per level beyond that. Monks could conceivably reach 18d4 HD, and Bards had d6 Hit Die every level they advance (to 23?) on top of their HD from fighter and thief levels as well.

Armor Class? Reversal? COSMETIC?!!!!!!! (sputters, goes into seizure, head explodes)

Really. (I do believe it was suggested in Dragon magazine in either 1e or 2e days as well as a method of simplifying things).

Yes, I understand what it is you're saying when referring to attack and damage rolls. But, then again, that's the same in damn near every RPG I ever played.

You haven't played nearly enough games, then.

D&D (in pretty much every edition) is 1d20 plus some mods against a target number. You then roll a number of polyhedral dice and subtract the result from the opponent's hp.

That is *significantly* different than other RPGs. Coming to mind:

Rolemaster - roll 1d100, open-ended. Add your attack modifier. Subtract your opponent's defense modifier. Compare the result, cross-referenced with the opponent's armour type, on a table specifically for your weapon. Subtract the number indicated from your opponent's hit points, and roll for a critical result if indicated. (Damage doesn't kill PCs, Crits kill PCs!)

James Bond - Multiply your Skill rating by the Difficulty Class of the shot (modified for distance, dodging, etc.) This is the % chance you'll hit. Roll d% and compare. Depending on how low you go (lower than the target number, lower than half the target number, lower than 1/10 the target number!) you get a result class of 1-4 (or F for fail). Cross reference the result class with the weapon damage table to discover whether the opponent is grazed, wounded, incapacitated or dead.

Vampire - I don't really know the system. Correct me if I'm wrong: Roll a number of d10s equal to your attack skill. Each one that exceeds the target number is a "hit". The opponent rolls a number of d10s to negate your hits.

Star Wars d6 - Roll d6s equal to your skill, and try and beat the target number (either determined by range or by opponent's roll if dodging). If you hit, roll damage d6s according to the weapon code. Your opponent rolls d6s according to their Strength score. Depending on the ratio of Damage to Strength, they may be stunned, wounded, incapacitated or killed.

Runequest - (Again, a system I don't know well) Roll d% and try to score under your skill percentage. The opponent tries to do the same with dodge or parry. If you hit, roll dice for damage, subtracting hits from total HP and hit-location HP. You can kill someone with a hit to the head even if you don't remove all the HP.

So with that argument, then all those other games I mentioned are D&D as well. While we're applying Ocham's Razor, we could also say that every RPG is the same. Maybe I'm obstinate, but I'm just not seeing it. A 3e 1st level character would simply mow through 1e 1st level character, if you were to run both systems simultaneously.

I really advise you to compare the difference between a oD&D fighter (d6 hit dice, at most a +1 con modifier, no bonuses to hit and damage) and an AD&D 1E UA fighter (d10 hit dice, at most a +4 con modifier, at most a +6 bonus to hit and +9 to damage.

Compare giants between 1e and 2e!

Cheers!

 

[BroccoliRage]

I'm not familiar with OD&D, I understand B/X though. The original D&D is something I have had no exposure to. I cut my teeth on 1e.

Are we counting the UA as core, for the purpose of this discussion?

There is a pretty big bump to giants and dragons between 1e and 2e, and I prefer the 2e treatment to be honest. But both can be faced by characters of either edition.

What I meant regarding all the games being the same is, since were eliminating the details between editions, that every rpg i have ever played has consisted of rolling a die and trying to hit a pre-determined target number, whether that be high or low.