Is 3rd edition too "quantitative"

[reanjr]

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

On that note, I only know a single individual personally who started playing D&D when 3e came out who still really enjoys the system. Most still play it, but besides myself, I only know one person who actually still buys a significant number of supplements. 3.5 was a tiny hit on several people (I never bothered; I use the SRD), but when they started re-releasing all their stuff as 3.5 instead of making free online updates or FAQs for 3.5, a lot of people just out and out stopped buying. Several have gotten out of role-playing altogether. A few use third party systems for their D&D games. At least one person I know is taking my route and simply making their own system. Both of us started our respective systems with the goal of making it compatible with D20, but as we found logic, reason, and simple rules clashed too harshly with the system, we slowly gave up the system. I'm a collector (pronounced cunsoomerhore), so I will still buy plenty of books, but when he's done, he'll just stop buying. I urge my players NOT to buy Wizards books since I don't want to deal with the hassle and I don't want them wasting $30 on something that I'll allow only a single feat and minor rules option from. His players will just stop buying altogether.

What's funny is that TSR failed due to flooding the market with too many different brands. WotC (not to say they will fail, just making an observation), on the other hand, is simply flooding the market with unbranded books loaded with material that would work well in a brand. They're not really doing anything different; they're just forcing their customers to purchase a dozen books to get all the information that they used to be able to get out of 2. This works in the short term. We'll see how well it does long term when we see the release date for 4e.

 

[Arnwyn]

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?

Silly, if you are still considering the use of the word "crunch".

 

[Kanegrundar]

My experience is different from Reanjr and BelenUmeria. I know of only a handful of people that are tired of 3E, and most of them weren't really D&D players anyway so it's not really a surprise that they have moved on. I actually know of several new groups of new players (not just the same old players in a new group configuration). I would expect that depending on the area experiences are going to be different. At least around here (Mid Missouri) the game is growing.

C&C is seeing a bit of an upswing in momentum, but most of the players that I know of aren't really into it. It works, but they feel more constrained. Yeah, they know they can houserule, but why should they? I liked it, but all in all it wasn't for me. However, there is still a small and growing core of C&C players, but I know of at least 2 shops that haven't sold out of their stock yet. So, at least around here, rules lite systems aren't en vogue yet.

As far as flooding the market is concerned. No matter who's in charge, the game will reach a saturation point. However, if the books are selling, then WotC won't change what they are putting out.

Kane

 

[BryonD]

My experience is different from Reanjr and BelenUmeria.
Kane

Mine as well.



It is only obvious that as new options become available that some people will migrate to that option. It doens't mean they like the old system less, its just that it was hard for them to select option B before it existed.

I do find the claims that D&D is complex to be boggling however.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

Baloney. If you stick to the three core books 1e/2e characters do not have 1% of the potential variety of 3e. And I mean that more than simply mathematically.

It also so happens that 3e provides useful mechanical formulas for describing how the numbers were crunched. Lots of 2e Options fiends did the exact same thing.

It is all fine and dandy that you prefer a particular style. The fact that a game can be played in another style is neither a strike against that system nor evidence the system in question cannot be played in your style too.

 

[satori01]

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.

Not to be rude, but what you are saying is so F.O.S as to be laughable. having DM'd all versions of D&D I infinetely enjoy the 3E much more simply due to the fact as a DM I can say yes much more often. In 1e a Earthlord fist would have been some twinkish NPC class from Dragon Magazine that being intended for NPC would be all out of whack compared to regular classes, and would be something you would have to say no to. Irregular rules means as a DM I have to vete what players bring to me much more stringently then if I feel comfortable with a common grouping of good rules.

{ Quote}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. {quote}

Which is frankly the fault of the players and DMs, period. Players and DMs have control over the "context" of their actions. My paladin player uses Detect Evil all the time. The mechanics are adjudicated just like the spell, only the Paladin sees images above the head of an Evil doer.
So when the Paladin detects evil I tell her the mechanical result,(yes it is evil), and she tells the party not by saying "its evil", rather by describing a disturbing vision.... " I see a skull of flame and fiendish snakes dripping posion from their bared fangs protruding from the eye sockets".

Boom, blamo, player get to be creative, I as the dm get to be entertained, other players wait for a chance to describe their abillities.
If people feel locked into just playing the numbers, it is they whom are doing the locking. The challenge of role playing is making the play of the statistics greater then the statistics themselves.

 

[Belen]

Not to be rude, but what you are saying is so F.O.S as to be laughable. having DM'd all versions of D&D I infinetely enjoy the 3E much more simply due to the fact as a DM I can say yes much more often. In 1e a Earthlord fist would have been some twinkish NPC class from Dragon Magazine that being intended for NPC would be all out of whack compared to regular classes, and would be something you would have to say no to. Irregular rules means as a DM I have to vete what players bring to me much more stringently then if I feel comfortable with a common grouping of good rules.

{ Quote}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. {quote}

Which is frankly the fault of the players and DMs, period. Players and DMs have control over the "context" of their actions. My paladin player uses Detect Evil all the time. The mechanics are adjudicated just like the spell, only the Paladin sees images above the head of an Evil doer.
So when the Paladin detects evil I tell her the mechanical result,(yes it is evil), and she tells the party not by saying "its evil", rather by describing a disturbing vision.... " I see a skull of flame and fiendish snakes dripping posion from their bared fangs protruding from the eye sockets".

Boom, blamo, player get to be creative, I as the dm get to be entertained, other players wait for a chance to describe their abillities.
If people feel locked into just playing the numbers, it is they whom are doing the locking. The challenge of role playing is making the play of the statistics greater then the statistics themselves.

So problems in the older systems were always a system fault, while if you have a problem with the vaunted 3e is the problem of the players and GM? Who's being laughable here?

The most twinked out character in 1e/2e would get the mess kicked out of them by a suboptimal 3e character.

I never had to watch my players before the advent of 3e and that was when I was using the entire range of books provided. In 3e, I have to approve evry option not listed in the core books. I have to spend time reading the feats, making a sample character, and running sample encounters just to evaluate the new crunchy crunch.

Why? Because half the crunch that WOTC churns out in the splat books break the core mechanics or add on to the core mechanics in such as way as to unbalance the game.

A lot of people hail the "internal" framework of 3e. However, I have found that framework can quickly turn to a disaster with even a few "options" tacked on. 3e requires a great more deal of work and number crunching to stay "balanced."

 

[Storm Raven]

The most twinked out character in 1e/2e would get the mess kicked out of them by a suboptimal 3e character.

So, what you are saying is that you never had to deal with a 1e elven Ftr/MU.

 

[Storyteller01]

Haven't read the whole post, but my two cents...

My problem stems from the games lack of story flexibility. I found it annoying that the rules are difficult to adjust to an environment that doesn't fit the miniatures mold. Reading the posts here, you can find dozens of examples of 'the rules say this, but how does it work in this situation?' (How do I do a running backflip off a wall, Like I saw in Mortal Combat?)'. If there is an answer, it generally requires a) having memorized the rules or b) more than a little research time.

The rules also predispose players to use them strictky as defined. I didn't see skill variations from WotC until I bought the 3.0 splat books (haven't bought 3.5 yet). I agree that it is the priority of the GM and the players to use their imagination, but the rules don't go out of their way to endorse variations (maybe that's what the OGL is for). I can think of a few times where a player has boxed themselvse into a corner, and don't apply a spell/skill/etc that could help simply because that method wasn't listed in the description. Or worse, you as the DM attempt to use the rules in a new way, just to have a player state 'you can't do that. It isn't listed in the PHB'.

These examples are the fault of the group, but the 3.x system doesn't seem to help the situation.


PS: Not bashing 3.x per se, but when I play much of the rules gets left out. It just takes too long to measure everything, and the result isn't worth the time needed. Less quantity could speed up to game and allow the players a greater amount of rules interpretation.

 

[woodelf]

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?

Well, since "crunch" is a pretty strong perjorative, too, i don't see the problem. If "fluff" is gonna get a new, positive, term, shouldn't "crunch", too? And "context" is something else, which already has a useful meaning in discussion of RPGs--something outside of either crunch or fluff. Plus, "context" could refer to game fiction, too, while, as i've normally seen it used, "fluff" is specifically game stuff (not fiction), just not mechanical stuff. So spell descriptions are fluff, and possibly also context, while game fiction is probably context (at least, i hope it is, if it's there) but isn't fluff.