If there was one thing about 3rdE that you could change, what would it be?

[Theuderic]

The work involved would be a lot less than learning a whole new sytem imo. And a lot less expensive.

 

[MerricB]

Well... yes. So?

A large number of people who play 3E do so because they prefer it to 1E or 2E, or other game systems. I am amongst that number.

I like 1E and 2E, but I prefer 3E.

If you don't like 3E, don't play it!

Cheers!

 

[Theuderic]

I don't see how you would know that most people who play 3E do so because of not liking 1E or 2E as much if you have cold hard proof of this let me know.

 

[MerricB]

I very deliberately did not say most.

Cheers!

 

[Theuderic]

Merric is that you? from Dragonsfoot? LOL its me Erma

 

[MerricB]

Of course it's you, Erma.

And of course it's me. Any board where I get a chance to interrogate Gary about all things RPing, I'll be there.

Cheers!

 

[Theuderic]

Ya I know how you feel. Damn I wish I was in Australia I would like to DM/play a 1E game.

 

[mmadsen]

That can be completely turned around. Do you need a book to tell you to allow dwarven wizards?

Hardly -- and many people played 1E and 2E that way, allowing Dwarf Wizards, ignoring demi-human level-limits, etc.

My point was that a book telling people how to play 3E with 1E flavor wouldn't provide much. The only people who'd want 1E flavor would be those with the 1E books, and they'd either want to use the 1E rules, or they'd make the two or three little changes to 3E to make it fit. What would a 3E-as-1E book provide?

 

[Ace]

any input would be greatly appreciated

One change?

I would either want to see a Defense Bonus (ala Star Wars 2 or WOT) as an official DMG option

or I would like to see a Low Magic or Realistic book put out by WOTC. That way you would have a higher recognition and use of lower magic gaming

 

[rounser]

It is far easier to remove what you don't like than it is to put into place elements that you don't have but wish to incorporate; the former is simple Rule Zero decision making, whereas the latter is game design in its most essential aspect.

IMO, this is a mass generalisation, and just like it's counterpart at the other extreme, a fallacy. For trivial parts of the system such as level limits, yes, it's easier to remove stuff than to put it in. For non-trivial, highly integrated parts of the system such as attempting to rip out skills, feats and AoO rules, the opposite is true, and game balance leaks will begin to sink the boat in the absence of significant patching.