Is 3rd edition too "quantitative"

[MerricB]

It seems to me that this is exactly the reverse of the truth!

3e lets you extend subsystems (new feats, new skill uses, new spells) within an existing framework, but it is an order of magnitude more difficult to change the framework. In 1/2e it was much easier to change the framework without causing repercussions as Woodelf illustrates.

So in your analogy, 3e allows you to change the decorations of your cell, but 1/2e allowed you to change pretty much anything.

1e didn't have a framework. You had to build the entire edifice yourself (except for simple combat and adventuring!)

It is probably important to realise that 1e had an asymmetrical framework: the DM and players were using different sets of rules.

3e has a symmetrical framework, which allows easy porting of elements from one side to the other.

Thus, in 1e or 2e, to have Ogre Rogues of level 3, 6 and 9 required the DM to invent the rules themselves, and they wouldn't necessarily correspond to what other DMs would do.

Ignoring 1e (which really didn't have anything in the way of supplements), you reach 2e, which uses supplements which build on the more robust framework that 2e provided.

However, if you discarded the proficiency system, you also threw out a great deal of the supplemental material.

3e begins from the assumption that people want supplemental material and the ability to differentiate their characters and monsters. This is as opposed to 1e's assumption that people just want to play the game with cookie-cutter characters and monsters. (or that rules need not be portable between games).

Yes, variation was achieved in 1e, by the individual DM changing the rules. This doesn't matter so much with the monsters, but it did make variant characters less portable from one game to another...

Cheers!

 

[Jupp]

To me it is like this:

3E is to me like the 2e rulebooks with all the Option/Complete books condensed into one big book. There are not really any optional rules left for the group and the DM to add to the game because the foundation is already in the core rules. All that is left for improvement is adding additional feats, PrCs, skills, whatever. But its not as modular as previous incarnations of D&D. It is also not as flexible when it comes to altering the core rules itself because lots of rules depend or interact with alot of other rules.

Pro: Whatever you ask, the core rules have it (almost always). Players and DMs have a common ground on where they can build their game on and there wont be too many discussions about adding or removing optional stuff because everything's there already. You can take your char sheet and go to the next gaming group to continue with your PC without too much tweaking and adjusting.

Con: There are so many rules already in the core books that it will be hard for DMs to take away stuff he doesnt really like. This is getting even harder when the DMs starts to alter rules at the foundation of the game. Where in 2e it was not too hard to alter and add/remove tools because the system already was more open and tweaker-friendly in 3E you have many more inter-dependencies of rules that affect each other. Changingn or removing those rules sometimes triggers a chain-reaction that has to be well thought about beforehand. For the players it will be a more complex as well because they have many rules to watch when they play. Bonus/Malus, AoO, Special attacks, yadayadayada. It's a different kind of gaming where the gameplay shifts more to the wargaming side with a lot of number crunching.

2e/1e had a core rule book with the bare minimum needed to play. Not too much optional stuff but you were ready to sit down and have an ejoyable session/campaign/whatever. Then there were the optional rulebooks and accessories like "Complete..." or those "Option" books. Players and DMs could choose a bunch of those books and agree upon what should be packed into their game and what had to stay outside.

Pro: Building rulesets to your liking by adding optional rules with those books you really wanna have. If you dont want to it wont hurt the game at all.

Con: Fragmented rules all over the place. You could not really take you char sheet and just sit down with the next group and continue with your PC without serious char-tweaking beforehand


So to me, essentially the 3E ruleset is a something like 2E core rules + all options. And thats already with the core rulebooks ( not counting all those additional books like the 3.x versions of "complete xxxxxxx" or similar stuff). I once stopped playing 2e because of rules inflation and went out to other rpg systems. When 3E came out and I got the PHB I just had the feeling that I read a 2e rules cyclopedia. Just with the problem that there was no real way to take out all those rules I didnt like. Some months ago our group decided to go back from 3E to 2e sans any optional rules and a handfull of houserules. Since then our game has improved alot, roleplaying wise, because we dont have to think about numbers that much anymore.

 

[Belen]

Also, on a personal note, I'd like to see the perjorative term "fluff" dead and buried.

It would make much more sense to refer to that kind of content as "Context" IMO. Thus we would discuss "Crunch vs Context" in RPG documents, raising the descriptive writing to an equal status.

How about it?

Finally, a term to replace fluff! You, Plane Sailing, rock!

 

[Belen]

1e didn't have a framework. You had to build the entire edifice yourself (except for simple combat and adventuring!)

It is probably important to realise that 1e had an asymmetrical framework: the DM and players were using different sets of rules.

3e has a symmetrical framework, which allows easy porting of elements from one side to the other.

Thus, in 1e or 2e, to have Ogre Rogues of level 3, 6 and 9 required the DM to invent the rules themselves, and they wouldn't necessarily correspond to what other DMs would do.

Ignoring 1e (which really didn't have anything in the way of supplements), you reach 2e, which uses supplements which build on the more robust framework that 2e provided.

However, if you discarded the proficiency system, you also threw out a great deal of the supplemental material.

3e begins from the assumption that people want supplemental material and the ability to differentiate their characters and monsters. This is as opposed to 1e's assumption that people just want to play the game with cookie-cutter characters and monsters. (or that rules need not be portable between games).

Yes, variation was achieved in 1e, by the individual DM changing the rules. This doesn't matter so much with the monsters, but it did make variant characters less portable from one game to another...

Cheers!

Yes and No.

You're ignoring the fact that 1e/2e had just as much variation as 3e, but in an entirely different way. In 1e/2e you had characters such as Grunthor, Mighty Fist of the Earthlord. In 3e, you have half-earh genasi fighter 4/barb 3/earth hammer/2 with the feats mighty blow, earth shaker and tremble giver.

The issue I have is that you rarely see people in 3e refer to their character in anything but mechanics speak. Most characters in 3e have mechanics that really differentiate their abilitae, but no substance to them other than a set of numbers.

Somewhere out there, a happy medium exists between the two sides. That happy medium needs to come from WOTC just as much as the GM.

I just do not think that WOTC has the talent/ design depth to do it any longer. I still love the company, but the bean counters are the tyrannical rulers there now, which, IMO, offers the same threat as that darned harridan from TSR.

 

[Belen]

So to me, essentially the 3E ruleset is a something like 2E core rules + all options. And thats already with the core rulebooks ( not counting all those additional books like the 3.x versions of "complete xxxxxxx" or similar stuff). I once stopped playing 2e because of rules inflation and went out to other rpg systems. When 3E came out and I got the PHB I just had the feeling that I read a 2e rules cyclopedia. Just with the problem that there was no real way to take out all those rules I didnt like. Some months ago our group decided to go back from 3E to 2e sans any optional rules and a handfull of houserules. Since then our game has improved alot, roleplaying wise, because we dont have to think about numbers that much anymore.

I agree with the fundamentals of your argument. It does seem like more and more experienced people are becoming less enamored of the 3e rules set. This has a lot to do with the sheer number of rules in the core books coupled with an ever increasing number of rules in the supplements.

In 2e, you had large numbers of GM crafting there own house rules. In 3e, the house rules are in the form of supplements. The effect on the game is the same. No player can be certain of what rules a particular group uses, unless the group remains core rules only. I see no difference in the situation as it stands now, than in the end days of 2e. In fact, 3e weighted itself down that much faster.

The game would be well-served if the core rules were paired down to a more basic level and allowed a more modular approach to extra rules. Feats, AoO, and advanced combat (bull rush, grapple) should all be optional rules rather than included in the core set. Not only would it make the game more accessible, the weight of the rules would not hinder game play.

 

[Jupp]

...8<....snippedysnipp....8<...
Not only would it make the game more accessible, the weight of the rules would not hinder game play.

Observation of the day

 

[Kanegrundar]

It does seem like more and more experienced people are becoming less enamored of the 3e rules set. This has a lot to do with the sheer number of rules in the core books coupled with an ever increasing number of rules in the supplements.

Huh? AFAIK, D&D is still selling very well. Sure, there have been a lot of publishers bail, but those that are left still sell many copies of their D&D products. At each of the LGS's that I frequent D&D is the only line that they can feel certain is going to sell. White Wolf comes close, and all other lines they order very conservatively. Beyond the re-launch of the WoD, the only preorders that a couple of the store do are for D&D/D20 material and minis.

Remember, just because there are a few people on these boards that complain about 3E, doesn't mean that's reflective on the whole of the D&D gaming populace.

Kane

 

[Jupp]

Well I dont think he was discussing about how well the game sells but more about its complexity (or non-complexity depending on your taste).

 

[Kanegrundar]

Well I dont think he was discussing about how well the game sells but more about its complexity (or non-complexity depending on your taste).

I understand that, but he made it sound like there are a lot of people that are getting tired of 3E. Therefore, if that was the case, there would be a sales slump.

Kane

 

[Belen]

I understand that, but he made it sound like there are a lot of people that are getting tired of 3E. Therefore, if that was the case, there would be a sales slump.

Kane

Just because people are tired of the rules set or have stopped playing the game does not mean that people are not buying the books. I still buy the books even if I do not use them. For instance, I have not played FR since 2e, yet I still collect the FR books.

My comments are based on the growing number of people I know who are disinchanted with 3e and even the number of people here that seem to be growing tired of it. Over the last year, it seems that there has been a growing trend for a simpler game and a lot of people are just not playing the game any longer.

I am not an expert by any means, but I do believe that a backlash to the current version of the game is forming. It is a great game, but just like 2e formed a core of dissent, I also see 3e forming the same core.

And the weight of the rules is really beginning to affect game play.