Is your love for 3E waning? Waxing? Staying steady?

[francisca]

Waxing. 3E has gotten me back into the game, and in a twist of irony has gotten me back into playing 1E, as well.

I had been out of RPGs (even computer based) for years. When 3E came out, my interest was piqued. Conversations led to me picking up 1E again, while I was accumulating and digesting the 3E material.

After playing 1E for about a year (and I'm still playing), I decided it was time for to DM a 3E game. I needed the year of 1E, with a ruleset I remembered, to knock the rust off and get me thinking about the kind of game I was interested in running. When the time came to form up the group ,we evaluated several rule sets, and settled on 3E.

The more I've DM'd 3E, the more I like it.

But in the end, it's still D&D to me, no matter what ruleset.

 

[Teflon Billy]

Re: Re

If people don't like the power of wizards, they should disallow them. If you are trying to get a low-magic feel akin to some novels you have read, then just eliminate the wizard and priest classes.

Rely on the healing skill and time. That is how real warriors used to do it.

I see all these folks belly aching about a low-magic campaign, yet I don't see it set in stone that you can't tinker to make one.

In a low magic campaign, you most likely aren't going to have creatures that need magic weapons to hit. You aren't going to have alot of powerful wizards if any running around. Priests won't actually possess magical power, they will be more like fighter clerics. Heck, you could use the Paladin as a substitue for a true priest....

Try actually reading the post you adressing before you respond.

I said...

...You essentially *must* play a high magic game (with tons of magic items) if you intend to allow all of the classes/races...

That is to say, if you want to make use of the rules you have purchased, and not re-write them so that they match your needs...and be able to get some value out of supplementary material you purchase (which, I think you'll agree, seem to largely be about magical power-ups), then you had best look elsewhere...becasue in 3E...You essentially *must* play a high magic game (with tons of magic items) if you intend to allow all of the classes/races.

I purchase things so that I don't have to create them myself. In something like GURPS or HERO system, what I'm purchasing is a toolkit. In 3E, that is not the case. The game's claim to fame was (initially) it's balance...but with the power creep of new supplements the game is becoming mroe like it's predecessor: all about magic.

 

[Wolfen Priest]

I agree with you Teflon Billy.

For a long time I've been seeing posts on this board saying they want to play in a low-magic campaign, and for a long time, I never understood that position. Now I also yearn for that type of game; not necessarily grim&gritty (still heroic), just something where spellcasters, boots of speed, and +5 flaming keen falcions don't dominate the entire game.

I'm thinking one simple solution that I heard applies in some Middle Earth d20 setting is that you can't single-class in any spellcasting class; you have to go multi-class. For example, you'd have to be a wizard5/commoner5 rather than a wiz 10, or a cleric5/fighter5 rather than clr 10, etc.

Of course, I'm not sure how you'd actually enforce that for bards, or make it completely balanced, but it's a start. It might lean toward making fighters and warriors a little more powerful, but honestly I really don't see anything wrong with that anyway, because in a truly low-magic setting, any magic at all is going to be powerful. And, as we all know, even Gandalf was pretty F'in dangerous with a sword. Could be fun.

 

[WizarDru]

Re: Re: Re

That is to say, if you want to make use of the rules you have purchased, and not re-write them so that they match your needs...and be able to get some value out of supplementary material you purchase (which, I think you'll agree, seem to largely be about magical power-ups), then you had best look elsewhere...becasue in 3E...You essentially *must* play a high magic game (with tons of magic items) if you intend to allow all of the classes/races.

I tend to disagree, but that's my opinion. I can certainly see where you're coming from. Personally, I think that you can easily limit magic, in the rules, by following them much more strictly than most players and DMs want to bother with. Most groups I know aren't terribly restrictive about material components, for example, but magic would be a lot more restricted if they did. Enforcing the requirements for say, Stoneskin or Leomund's Secret Chest, for example. That helps temper that sort of thing.

On the other hand, it's more a matter of taste. Some folks like that style, and others don't. As a player, I always wanted the neat magic toys, but many folks detest the perceived lack of verisimilitude such an environment engenders.

I'd disagree that 3E isn't a toolkit. I see it as exactly that. YMMV.

 

[jasamcarl]

Re: Re: Re

Try actually reading the post you adressing before you respond.

I said...



That is to say, if you want to make use of the rules you have purchased, and not re-write them so that they match your needs...and be able to get some value out of supplementary material you purchase (which, I think you'll agree, seem to largely be about magical power-ups), then you had best look elsewhere...becasue in 3E...You essentially *must* play a high magic game (with tons of magic items) if you intend to allow all of the classes/races.

I purchase things so that I don't have to create them myself. In something like GURPS or HERO system, what I'm purchasing is a toolkit. In 3E, that is not the case. The game's claim to fame was (initially) it's balance...but with the power creep of new supplements the game is becoming mroe like it's predecessor: all about magic. [/B]

Uh, how much would you like to bet that 3e still beats most if not all systems in terms of balance? Your symantics should also be clarified. Are you equating mechanical balance with the degree to which the game stresses magic?

And are you actually claiming that GURPS and HERO are such great tool kits as to allow for a GM to work within multiple gameplay paradigms (gritty/cinematic, low/high magic, etc.) while still maintaing balance. From what I've seen neither cover all that territory while still providing reasonable options in any given style.

 

[barsoomcore]

The game is a fine reworking of old the old D&D rules, but it lacks flexibility. You essentially *must* play a high magic game (with tons of magic items) if you intend to allow all of the classes/races.

I have trouble picturing a low-magic campaign with 20th-level wizards, right off the bat. But I guess what you're saying, and forgive me if I misunderstand, is that at higher levels non-spellcasting classes need magic items in order to hold their own against spellcasters.

I disagree.

You can quite simply disallow item creation feats, restrict the spell lists and your uncle = Bob. You've got all the classes, all the races and a low-magic campaign.

Now, if you're saying you want all the spells, all the feats, all the magic items, all the classes, all the races... AND a low-magic campaign -- well, alright then, now you're hosed. But you're also confusing me.

D&D is not a low-magic game by default. If you want to play low-magic, you simply have to make changes to the rules. I don't see how this translates into a lack of flexibility.

On the contrary, I find 3E massively flexible, just like 1E was. I can do all sorts of wacky things to it and it remains playable and fun.

The characters become defined more by their equipment than anything else...I'm aware that you die-hard roleplayers sink a lot into your PC's personas, but on a nuts and bolts level, they are their equipment as the game approaches high levels.

Is it really "die-hard" roleplaying to come up with personalities that overpower gear? I don't think I even understand what you're saying, here. Sorry.

I find 3E extremely flexible and forgiving a system and having tons of fun running a low-magic game with it.

 

[Teflon Billy]

Re: Re: Re: Re

Uh, how much would you like to bet that 3e still beats most if not all systems in terms of balance? Your symantics should also be clarified. Are you equating mechanical balance with the degree to which the game stresses magic?

No, I'm saying it's balanced fine, so long as you play it as a high magic game (that is guaranteed numbers of magic items/level for the non spellcasting classes to be viable). if you play it as a low magic game, it's balancee goes out the window.

I actually think my previous posts made that pretty clear, but I could be wrong.

And are you actually claiming that GURPS and HERO are such great tool kits as to allow for a GM to work within multiple gameplay paradigms (gritty/cinematic, low/high magic, etc.) while still maintaing balance. From what I've seen neither cover all that territory while still providing reasonable options in any given style.

No, they don't cover all the territory, but they provide a modular set of options that dovetail together to provide the setting/power level/whatever that the purchaser wants. That's what they are designed for: modularity.

3E is not designed to be modular. It's cut from "whole cloth" so to speak. The supplementary material, however, seems to alter the "whole cloth" by being largely about magical power-ups.

How's that for clarification of my "symantics"?