Have you become disillusioned with 3rd edition?

[Shemeska]

3.0 rules with some minor tweaks. However portions of the design philosophy, crunch/fluff ratio, and handling of certain topics in 3e blows to some extent. I want the flavor from 2e, a less number/stat/crunch/feats/PrC centered approach to the game, a bit more intelligence put it. I want evocative writing, not a text book that lacks inspiration.

I won't be ditching the 3e rule set anytime soon though. Just lamenting the quality of the writing and the focus of the game to some extent outside of the rules themselves.

 

[genshou]

3.0 rules with some minor tweaks. However portions of the design philosophy, crunch/fluff ratio, and handling of certain topics in 3e blows to some extent. I want the flavor from 2e, a less number/stat/crunch/feats/PrC centered approach to the game, a bit more intelligence put it. I want evocative writing, not a text book that lacks inspiration.

I won't be ditching the 3e rule set anytime soon though. Just lamenting the quality of the writing and the focus of the game to some extent outside of the rules themselves.

Again, I think this is a matter of the GM and players rather than the ruleset used. In your case (from what I hear about the quality of your Story Hours that I am regrettably too busy to keep up with), there is no lack of this GM/player quality in your gaming group. In much the same way, my best friend and I function just fine in role-playing with no game rules at all (ala freeform). But when it comes time to start slugging away with sword and spell, both of us love a good set of rules, and though Pledge of Tyranny uses very complex variants of the d20 System rules, we both like it to be that way. Makes combat more fun for us, and all that.

 

[Pseudonym]

I'm just curious how many people here are still playing 3rd edition (3.0/3.5) or you've managed to find some other offshoot that you enjoy more?

We play 3.5 as written. I see no major need to modify it.

 

[painandgreed]

Exactly. "Disillusioned" may be too strong a term but it gets the idea across very well. The reliance on magic items and the rigor of DMing much over 12th Level is such that it makes me well disposed to talk of a 4th Edition. 3X is "broken" at higher levels. IMO.

Yep. I just tone down the items and keep that in mind when I choose monsters but if it makes them a little harder it just slows down level progresion. One of the changes I've been seriously thinking of using is to make the XP requirements not as shallow. Doubleing the XP from 1000 Xp to hit 2nd level is a little too steep, but 1.5 times the previous level's requirement XP seems about right. XP is about the same till 5th or 6th level and then it becomes much steeper to get to the teens.

 

[Shemeska]

Again, I think this is a matter of the GM and players rather than the ruleset used. In your case (from what I hear about the quality of your Story Hours that I am regrettably too busy to keep up with), there is no lack of this GM/player quality in your gaming group. In much the same way, my best friend and I function just fine in role-playing with no game rules at all (ala freeform). But when it comes time to start slugging away with sword and spell, both of us love a good set of rules, and though Pledge of Tyranny uses very complex variants of the d20 System rules, we both like it to be that way. Makes combat more fun for us, and all that.

*blush* Thank you

And to reply to what you said, it might have more to do with DM and players than the ruleset. One of the best DMs I've played under could run a DnD game with a single die and a deck of cards, nearly ignoring the rules entirely. And the game didn't suffer. But also that might just be what happens when you get very good players and very good DMs, the ruleset means less than it would if you had a less experienced DM and less experienced players. That latter group might prefer to have those rules as a safety net effectively.

My opposition to a select few thematic elements of 3.x have less to do with me using them or being hindered by them, than by the way they perhaps influence the style of game and perceptions of less experienced players just getting into the hobby. Just my opinion.

 

[genshou]

*blush* Thank you

And to reply to what you said, it might have more to do with DM and players than the ruleset. One of the best DMs I've played under could run a DnD game with a single die and a deck of cards, nearly ignoring the rules entirely. And the game didn't suffer. But also that might just be what happens when you get very good players and very good DMs, the ruleset means less than it would if you had a less experienced DM and less experienced players. That latter group might prefer to have those rules as a safety net effectively.

My opposition to a select few thematic elements of 3.x have less to do with me using them or being hindered by them, than by the way they perhaps influence the style of game and perceptions of less experienced players just getting into the hobby. Just my opinion.

Well, 3.x isn't perfect. That's why all those other systems are out there. But when it comes down to crunch time, d20 System is the best for what I need, so it's what I use.

 

[Ranger REG]

My biggest disillusionment with third edition still is that it became 3.5.

Ditto.

 

[Akrasia]

DM'ing two 3e campaigns was enough. I will not DM it again, as I simply find the tiresome aspects of the game to outweigh its beneficial aspects. If I'm going to GM, I'd rather run WFRP 2e, C&C, Cinematic Unisystem, or something else I find thoroughly fun.

However, I'd be happy to play it again with a good DM (and will likely do so in the near future).

 

[StupidSmurf]

There's just one problem I have regarding 3.5's release. It happened so soon, relatively speaking, and supposedly it was because there were flaws in 3.0 that really needed to be corrected ASAP. OK fine..well...if the problems were so danged glaring that they necessitated a 3.5, then wouldn't these problems have been found during 3.0 playtesting? Isn't that what playtesting is about/for? To find the holes and imbalances and rectify them BEFORE the fershlugginer thing goes to print? If anyone can shed light on this, I'd be right appreciative.

Here are the three things in 3.5 that I can think of at the top of my head, that I've "overridden."

Identify spell: Why was this de-powered so that you can only ID one item, regardless of the caster's level. This is stupid. I put it back as "one item per level".

Armor sizing: Magic armor sizes to fit. Period. That's one of the reasons why it's frickin' magic!

Small race weapons: Gee whiz, aren't there already enough things to factor in for attacks, defense, spells, movement, and going to the bathroom? Nope, sorry...one weapon damage for all races wielding it. Explanation for how a gnome can get the same benefit out of a short sword that a human can? Part of a gnome's upbringing is learning the Secret Ways of Gnome Fighting, the techniques taught to each generation that lets them compensate for their smaller stature and get the same hackin' goodness out of a weapon. In a setting where the dead can come back to life, people can disappear and reappear in a spot 1000 miles away, and bad guys can be turned into hamsters with the right spell, my explanation fits in rather well.

 

[Maggan]

There's just one problem I have regarding 3.5's release. It happened so soon, relatively speaking, and supposedly it was because there were flaws in 3.0 that really needed to be corrected ASAP. OK fine..well...if the problems were so danged glaring that they necessitated a 3.5, then wouldn't these problems have been found during 3.0 playtesting? Isn't that what playtesting is about/for? To find the holes and imbalances and rectify them BEFORE the fershlugginer thing goes to print? If anyone can shed light on this, I'd be right appreciative.

I don't know if this is shedding any light, but any product that is tested has a point where no more testing can be done. 3.0 probably reached that point, and WotC said "it is good enough, let's publish it". And it really was good enough, as people are still running the 3.0 core rules to their satisfaction.

Now, does "good enough" mean "perfect"? No, and it will never be so. When 3.0 hit the streets and people started playing with the rules, issues that didn't surface during the playtest, or which surfaced but were deemed not important enough to fix, might have had greater repercussions on the rules than imagined.

Also, the playtest version was probably not the same version that was released. We see the books, and judge the rule from the presentation of the books. The playtest material and documents and what have you are probably a lot more disorganised, which makes catching the small things very difficult.

It's a bit like proofreading. Many gamers can open a book and quickly find a typo. So the question then becomes "why didn't the proofreaders find the typo?". Well, often this is because they don't read a finished book, but draft manuscripts where they probably found 90% of the typos, but missed 10%. The 10% that we find, when we open the book.

Same thing with playtesting. At least that's IMO.

/M