I've figured it out.

[diaglo]

Someone explain this phenomenon to me.

why? why should someone explain it to you?

will it change your position? will it make you convert? will it give you new hair or straighter teeth?

IMO.... d02 ain't D&D. it is a different game. and my hat of d02 knows no limits.

i'm about to play another session of 3.11ed for Workgroup this weekend.

i can play other games. but that's just it. they are different. so i go into them with the full knowledge that it ain't OD&D that i will be playing. it is the only way i can have fun playing them.

 

[der_kluge]

IMO.... d02 ain't D&D. it is a different game. and my hat of d02 knows no limits.

To avoid derailing this thread, I've posted a new thread.

What does D&D mean to you?

I'd be interested in hearing your opinion.

 

[Henry]

Curtis, I'm not sure I can explain it better than I have, or that my previous explanations apply to ALL people who prefer older editions of D&D to 3E and later. All I can say is that it's what I've garnered from talking with people at Dragonsfoot, and ENWorld, and RPG.net, and seems to apply to the majority of them.

Past that, if it's one of those issues that bug the heck out of you (like "why did Hamilton agree to duel Burr?" or "where did the phrase cat's pajamas come from?") You could always lurk over at the various forums on Dragonsfoot to see if you could get a better feel for it. Otherwise, it's better to chalk it up to different tastes in games, and leave it at that.

 

[TerraDave]

die_kluge

These "reverters" want D&D, but without all of 3ed bells and whistles. They feel they take time and effort, and are confident they can improvise things when they hit a rules gap. They do not want to rewrite the D20 rules, and why should they when the Rules Cyclopedia is on the shelf, or they can get C&C online?

Oh, and they don't like the art in the newer books. Maybe that is the real reason

 

[Voadam]

I still don't see that anyone has answered my question. What is it about 1st edition, or C&C, or some other simplified ruleset that makes people want to forego 3e to play that other system instead? My GM wanted to switch to C&C rules. I told him that I wanted to play a half-elf paladin sorcerer who specialized in shield bash and bull rush attacks. Knowing full well that at least half of that was completely not doable using that ruleset.

So why? Why would someone go from a position of having options available to them, to going to where where options are not as available? Is there anything inherintly complicated about sorcerers that would make someone want to go back to a ruleset that didn't include them? Are the rules for bull rush or shield bashing so arcane and discombobulated that there would be a reason to go back to a system that doesn't include them? I don't think so. In doing so, isn't the GM going to either A) have to create the rules on the fly, or B) end up just frustrating his players in the long run? Because certainly the *idea* of being able to disarm, shield bash, bull rush, or grapple someone has been around in the game long before the rules were there. There just were no simple rules to handle those situations before now.

So why would a GM willingly go back to a position of not allowing those rules? In what world is a 18/92 strength *better* than a 20 strength. Since when are racial level limits or race/class restrictions better than having options? What *about* these old rules compels people to willingly abandon the presence of rules and options, for the lack of rules and options? Don't tell me simplicity. Because if it's simplicity you want, just ignore those rules. I could run 3e and say, "I'm only allowing the 4 core classes, and there is no such thing as bull rush in my world." Ok, that's silly, but I've just dumbed down 3e to a "simplistic" framework that might work for me.

No, I'm not saying 3e is better than any of the other systems one might choose to use. Don't misinterpret what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there are *more* options in 3e. One can choose to ignore those options, or not. There isn't any good reason that I can think of why one would choose to use a simpler ruleset.

edit: No, scratch that. One could choose to use 1e or an earlier edition if one had no desire to *learn* the 3e rules. Or, you did not want to purchase them. That might be a reason to *stick* with an earlier edition, but doesn't necessarily validate why one would choose to leave 3e after having learned it over an earlier edition. Another reason might be that you only wanted to run original modules, and to convert them to a newer edition would just take too much time. So, if all you wanted to do was play Isle of Dread, and Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, then that might be a reason to stick with an earlier edition. My GM is running WLD, so in using the C&C rules, he ends up creating *more* work for himself, not less. Which baffles me.

Someone explain this phenomenon to me.

For a DM the older edition ones can be intensely easier to set up and run.

Take stat blocks. For basic D&D this could be done in a single line for most critters and the numbers were simple. For 3e it is much more customizable but there are a dozen different factors that change the numbers and combat consequences slightly and in certain circumstances (take dodge feat, +1 AC against one foe, but only if not denied dex, requires dex 13).

So if you want something on the fly it can be easy to create a 5th level fighter NPC in basic that would take a significantly longer time to come up with in 3e.

This is not an insignificant factor in running a game.

 

[Voadam]

And do you really want to make a character who specializes in pushing other foes in combat? Truly?

 

[Narfellus]

I played 1e briefly and just made the transition to 2e. I didn't mind so much about losing certain classes as i always dm'd anyway, and had never played a monk before. 2e had more source material available to me, and i spent many a year devouring the books, never completely aware of the miasma of complications arising from all the splatbooks. I just took what i wanted and left the rest. Then i didn't play any RPG for years, and gradually got back into it about a a year before 3e came out. The transition from 2e to 3e was hard for my group, we really fought it tooth and nail, and it took a long time to realize that the changes we didn't really like much (like the AoO) could be heavily altered to our liking. Still, i hate having to houserule a game so much, even though i do like it.

 

[RFisher]

I'm going to be quoting out-of-order. Sorry.

Someone explain this phenomenon to me.

I don't know that I could explain it to you in just a single post. It took me years of playing & lots of time hanging out at DF & other places to figure it out myself.

Why would someone go from a position of having options available to them, to going to where where options are not as available?

Firstly, I don't believe that more options necessarily makes for a better game. Would chess be a better game if every piece could move like a queen?

Don't tell me simplicity. Because if it's simplicity you want, just ignore those rules. I could run 3e and say, "I'm only allowing the 4 core classes, and there is no such thing as bull rush in my world." Ok, that's silly, but I've just dumbed down 3e to a "simplistic" framework that might work for me.

Yes. I could play a bare-bones d20 system game. Classic D&D, however, is closer to what I want than the d20 system D&D. Why would I use the d20 system & change the XP progressions, put a max on HD, create race-classes, adjust classes to make up for the elimination of the feat & skills systems, &c. when classic D&D already has all those things?

Are the rules for bull rush or shield bashing so arcane and discombobulated that there would be a reason to go back to a system that doesn't include them? I don't think so. In doing so, isn't the GM going to either A) have to create the rules on the fly, or B) end up just frustrating his players in the long run? Because certainly the *idea* of being able to disarm, shield bash, bull rush, or grapple someone has been around in the game long before the rules were there. There just were no simple rules to handle those situations before now.

I have found that I want combat in a role playing game to be abstract. The player should think on a tactical & strategic level. Decisions like making a shield bash should be abstracted. The combat rules should be as simple as possible so that the optimal choices are obvious.

I'll grant you that some things, like grappling, are things that I add to classic D&D. (Although, there are published rules for grappling in classic D&D, just not in the books I happen to use as a base.) It's easier for me to add those things to classic D&D than to change lots of things in the d20 system to be more like classic D&D.

Is there anything inherintly complicated about sorcerers that would make someone want to go back to a ruleset that didn't include them?

We let clerics & MU's use spontaneous casting instead of memorization/preparation in the 1980s. We didn't need the 3e for that.

While I like the description of the 3e sorcerer--an inate spell caster--it's really weird to me that they cast the same formulaic spells that wizards do. If I were going to add a sorcerer to the game, I'd want their magic to be different from standard MU magic.

What *about* these old rules compels people to willingly abandon the presence of rules and options, for the lack of rules and options?

Generally, I find that many of the options provided by 3e are things that either:

• I don't want or need rules to regulate. (e.g. Craft, Profession, Knowledge)
• Are details that I prefer be abstracted away. (e.g. Power Attack, Combat Expertise)

(Hmm...I thought I had a 3rd point, but it's slipped my mind...)

& I don't discount the nostalgia factor. As much as I can appreciate the design of 3e, it will never evoke the emotions in me that OAD&D does. (Although, I did have a pretty poor opinion of OAD&D during the 1990s.) On the other hand, although I've played more OAD&D in my life than classic D&D, I now prefer classic D&D to OAD&D.

When it comes right down to it, though, whether my analysis is correct or not doesn't really matter. What matters is that when I DM classic D&D I'm happy. When I DM 3e, I'm not. I can enjoy playing 3e, but I find playing classic D&D more enjoyable. As much as I struggle to understand, that's just the way it is.