I've finally figured out why 3rd edition bugs me

[Savage Jim]

Ask and Ye Shall Receive

Skip down to Post #11 and read the quoted section. The rest of the thread is additional information about the system.

Kewl... I'll have to digest that for a few, but looks nice.

If you think it's bad at that "other site" you should check out rec.games.frp.dnd. *Those* guys are the biggest rules-Nazis I've ever seen. And downright nasty, a lot of them. Usenet has always been the wild west. Brrrrr....

Nah, that's okay. I've made it a point to hang out in moderate- to friendly-forums during the last two years.

Thanks for the warning, though.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

My take after only reading through page 5:

3E is great for people that already know how to play D&D, but it really doesn't convey the experience of play to new players. You could argue that many gamers learn from current players, but most players I know either learned the game out of the box or from someone who had learned it out of the box.

 

[SSquirrel]

3.x class supplements just throw lots of Prc's, feats, and spells. 2e supplements gave you lots of rules options to tailor the game itself (e.g., kits, specialty wizards, optional combat rules, optional spell casting systems.)

Kits=PrCs really. Specialty wizards are an accepted standard in 3E. There are optional combat rules listed in the PHB. Optional spell system called Psionics in seperate book *grin*

All of these extra infinite seeming rules are one of the reasons most people cite for disliking 2E. Because even when a rule was listed in a book as Optional, so many people seemed to take it as the Pure Word of God that it must be in the game.

Until Unearthed Arcana, everything is pretty much prestige classes despite customizing characters (i.e., class variants) actually being in the PHB (p.94/3.0 and p.110/3.5) and PrC's being listed in the DMG as completely optional.

This is the fault of WOTC how? They gave people the rules for character customization on the pages you specify and even show the creation of the Witch class in the DMG as well. If DMs don't take advantage of the material already presented in the books to tailor classes for their world, how is this WOTCs fault?

Looking at what I like about the 2e supplements, it was no surprise that people on Andy's boards realized that I enjoyed Unearthed Arcana, because it gave the campaign altering options that were found in the 2e book, but lacking in thier 3.x counterparts. As they pointed out, WOTC appears to not be really interested in giving DMs and players things in the splat books to really alter the game in the sense that 2e was-- the exception being a book like UA. To me this is the real problem of 3.X at least as far as Wizards is concerned. WOTC appears to not really be interested in helping DMs tailor the rules to create truly unique campaigns. So, until things change, I will continue supporting third party companies.

Basically what it comes down to is this:WOTC realized there are books that are core rules, books that are DM type books for world building (Manual of the Planes), books that are DM/Player crossover and include new goodies to spice your campaign with (Splatbooks), setting books (FRCS, ECS, Greyhawk Gazetteer), and optional rule books (Unearthed Arcana). There are indeed some new rules and options (usually new ways of using skills etc) found in splatbooks and such, but they realize that splatbooks are as much a player resource as a DM one, so generally new rules aren't a major focus.

Something like UA comes along and they jam it full with more rules and alternate takes than you would ever want to use in one campaign. Instead of every book in 2E seeming to have a "kitchen sink" design, 3E books are focused and organized. The new splatbooks (Complete Warrior, Divine, Arcane, etc) are more focused than their previous bretheren and more useful from what I've seen and read about them. This is the "A place for everything and everything in its place" style of game design which I appreciate. WHen I buy a book that is supposed to be new ways to play warriors, new eq, new PrCs, etc, I don't expect tons of new rules about X, Y and Zee. I expect class variants (magicless Ranger anyone?), PrCs etc.

This really seems like a chocolate/peanut butter kinda arguement at this point *grin*

On other points:

If people want to see TONS of divergent rules, complete guttings of the d20 system and some very cool stuff in general, set the House Rules forum to last 6 months and read thru a bunch of goodies. Wanna find a way to make all weapons largely equal and put the skill back into the hands of your character and not penalize someone for what weapon they choose to use? Go here. Maybe you want to be able to use the AU magic system and turn D&D into a point buy using the core classes or AU classes. Go here. Use Ken Hood's Revised Grim N Gritty Rules which we helped him tweak here on ENWorld? Here. All of these rules are fairly large rewrites of various aspects of the game and are quite cool. I know I plan on utilizing all 3 in my next game.

WotC is giving us the basic rules and relying on the players and DMs *not to mention 3rd party game companies* to produce other material. Gee, that's the entire MARKETING scheme behind 3E. Go figure. You know WotC trolls these forums every day looking for new and interesting ideas that people post so they can rope them into 4th Ed. If ENWorld had existed before 3E was a glimmer in their eyes, they would have had access to even more of the standard house rules people use in their campaigns than what they had found when working on 3E. I fully expect 4E to be more transitional, but not quite to the level of change as you had from 2 to 3. Think more the 1E to 2E clarifications and such. Don't think we'll see many sacred cows killed, but we may well see more optional components *including many things from UA* combined into the main game.

Reading along I found Greg K's next post *my this is becoming a long post* so here's some more responses. *grin*

1. Lack of system changing alternatives. Yes, UA and the DMG give some real alternatives to changing the system, but outside of these books such options such as replacing major aspects of the system are not given. Examples of what I mean include Green Ronin's Skill and Feat system for Psychic Powers or Unearthed Arcana's introduction of Armor as DR, replacing HP with WP/VP) that can really define a campaign.
Is it too much for a book called *Complete* Arcane to examine new magic systems like a skill and feat system or variations on the alternative spell point system (e.g., Defiling Magic or dealing with extraplanar creatures as was presented in Second edition's PO: Spell and Magic) which can be used to redefine how magic works in a campaign?

I would say yes it IS too much to ask. I really addresed my thoughts on this above with how they're dividing up the kinds of things you see in different books.

2) The overuse of PrCs (which are listed as totally optional in the DMG) as a first resort in supplements while ignoring class variants via customizing the character which is right in the PHB (p.94/3.0 and p.110/3.5). Many of the character concepts being introduced as Prc's are concepts that can be done with a few slight tweaks to a base class, a new specialist wizard by creating a new spell list ( e.g., the artificer, elementalist, force mage, geometer, mentalist, shadow mage, song mage, dimensional mage, forcemage, were all handled this way in PO: spells and Magic) or the occassional new base class.

UA did a good job of introducing several class variants for different classes on a single page, compared to how many pages are wasted on PrCs in the various pages of the various splat books. I would rather see PrCs as the last resort not the first one.

See that's the thing. Designing a new base class isn't what most people need. Most people enjoy the core classes as they are and like them (or consider them sacred cows and won't change them) but PrCs are add ons as you get more experienced and are lil injectors of flavor. If you would prefer a million class variants in your world and less PrCs go right ahead, but the way the books are presented make PrCs a much more attractive (and far easier) option for most DMs. If you would prefer to tweak wizards in your game to allow for Force Mages, Mentalists etc w/o having them as PrCs go right ahead. Most of the rest of us will happily just use them as PrCs. PrCs are a good thing and allow the DM to inject a different flavor they maybe hadn't thought of by allowing specific ones. DMs like you would instead see the PrC and then tweak a base class to allow for it in the world. That's fine too. DIfferent play styles. It's all good.

3. The non PrC, feat, spell material in the generic books has, imo, not been as useful as similar as their 2e counterparts on the subject. Complete Warrior being an exception. Based on the previews of Complete Arcane, it is shaping up to be in the former group despite Rich Baker being the author of PO: Spells and Magic which was an excellent book.

I did find a lot of useful things in the Complete 2E series..like how to design my own Thieves Guild etc. Know how often that actually got used in a game I ever played in? Never. I'm sure many made use of it, but I never found them. Then you have things like the unarmed combat system in Complete Fighters, Priests AND Gladiators! All 3 of them different rulesets too. Again, with the SRD, other companies are welcome to step in and design niche products like is the current system and WOTC can focus on the core game. I really don't expect WOTC to be in the modding biz, but I do expect that of 3rd party companies.

4. I think most of the designers, with a few exceptions, provide more interesting work on DND products that are for Dragon Magazine, 3rd party products, and their own websites than they do for the official generic books.
My same preference goes for many of the designers work on 2e related products.

Musical example. Prince has many songs that were left as B side tracks or even unreleased that are, many times, better than the tracks that were released. One of teh reasons some of these tracks aren't given wider circulation by him is that they ended up being too personal for him and he wasn't able to turn them into a generic enough statement. Songs ranging from lost love to the death of a friend to the loss of several friends thru their own drug addictions, we have many unreleased Prince songs that fit this bill.

To tie this to your point, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of this material was offered to WOTC but it was deemed to be too different or just not what they were looking for, so they publish it themselves. This is exactly how things should go. WOTC tries to keep the core game a bit more stable as it is one of their cash cows and you don't wanna drive your audience away too badly. (Don't ask me to explain a revision of a new edition after only 3 years heh)

Oh yeah, one point I missed from your 2nd post on teh matter, I do agree that a skills style psionics system ala SWRG's Force skills is a better way to approach things, but obviously that's not the way WOTC wanted to go for the core version. Skipping them for alternative Psi systems (including a coupla alternatives available from Bruce Cordell even) is obviously the correct method for you.

In conclusion (yes I'm FINALLY shutting up. Thanks if yr still reading, I did try to stay focused), we obviously differ on our opinions of what WOTC should be producing, but that's cool. Part of the fun of ENWorld is debate and finding new ways to play and different things people want to see from the game. If that means that you buy very little from WOTC but lots from 3rd party companies fabulous. If that means you're a strict WOTC only kinda guy, that works too. I would think the WOTC only people are missing out on some really great stuff, but hey. *grin*

Hagen

 

[Desdichado]

I remember that same feeling. The feeling of "wow, this is fantastic, this is something I want to be a part of".

For me, it was the very concept of roleplaying that gave me that feeling, and nothing about the specific implementation of D&D did that. In fact, I very quickly became disillusioned with the specific implementation of D&D. A lot of folks will tell you they played D&D until 2nd edition, which they hated. I was sick of D&D long before 2e came out, and was already looking into other RPG options.

 

[Greg K]

All of these extra infinite seeming rules are one of the reasons most people cite for disliking 2E. Because even when a rule was listed in a book as Optional, so many people seemed to take it as the Pure Word of God that it must be in the game.

I thought the problem was 1) people tired of power creep in the kits (which the class variants seem to avoid); 2) people getting tired of DNDisms; 3) those who were detractors of any new edition.

And yes, those individuals who take optional to mean it must be in the game were also a problem, but they exist in 3.x as well. Just look at the amount of player posts on wizard's site (and they can be found to some degree here on ENWorld) regarding players thinking that, just because they own a book or want a Prc, the DM has to let it the game.

This is the fault of WOTC how? They gave people the rules for character customization on the pages you specify and even show the creation of the Witch class in the DMG as well. If DMs don't take advantage of the material already presented in the books to tailor classes for their world, how is this WOTCs fault?

While not indicative of DMs in the community as a whole, based on exchanges that I have had here, monte's site, and at wizard's, many DM's ignored the customizing characters example from the PHB, because they did not feel WOTC gave them enough to work with the thug example or the example in the DMG . Without enough examples of class variants and WOTC's supplement focus on PrCs, many DM just ignored class variants and relied on multiclassing and PrCs.

Basically what it comes down to is this:WOTC realized there are books that are core rules, books that are DM type books for world building (Manual of the Planes), books that are DM/Player crossover and include new goodies to spice your campaign with (Splatbooks), setting books (FRCS, ECS, Greyhawk Gazetteer), and optional rule books (Unearthed Arcana). There are indeed some new rules and options (usually new ways of using skills etc) found in splatbooks and such, but they realize that splatbooks are as much a player resource as a DM one, so generally new rules aren't a major focus.

Something like UA comes along and they jam it full with more rules and alternate takes than you would ever want to use in one campaign. Instead of every book in 2E seeming to have a "kitchen sink" design, 3E books are focused and organized. The new splatbooks (Complete Warrior, Divine, Arcane, etc) are more focused than their previous bretheren and more useful from what I've seen and read about them. This is the "A place for everything and everything in its place" style of game design which I appreciate. WHen I buy a book that is supposed to be new ways to play warriors, new eq, new PrCs, etc, I don't expect tons of new rules about X, Y and Zee. I expect class variants (magicless Ranger anyone?), PrCs etc.

I don't mind the fact that splat books contain player options, but if it is a player/DM option, I expect more real options on the subject for the DM which is what I consider alternate combat mechanics or magic systems to be.

This really seems like a chocolate/peanut butter kinda arguement at this point *grin*
In conclusion (yes I'm FINALLY shutting up. Thanks if yr still reading, I did try to stay focused), we obviously differ on our opinions of what WOTC should be producing, but that's cool. Part of the fun of ENWorld is debate and finding new ways to play and different things people want to see from the game. If that means that you buy very little from WOTC but lots from 3rd party companies fabulous. If that means you're a strict WOTC only kinda guy, that works too. I would think the WOTC only people are missing out on some really great stuff, but hey. *grin*
Hagen

Exactly. I agree it is nice to be able to debate (which too often on message boards is misinterpreted as fighting or flaming). 3.x is good, because at least people are getting the material. I can respect the opinion of those on these boards, who truly like everything or the majority of things WOTC puts out for DND. The only opinions I really don't expect are those individuals, who despite not liking WoTC's DND stuff, continue purchasing WOTC products blindly and advocate that others do the same under the impression that this helps the game. I don't mind so much how they choose to spend their money other than they miss out on supporting some great 3rd party stuff and might be *possibly* distorting WOTC's perceptions of what things, if any, need to be changed.

 

[Greg K]

For me, it was the very concept of roleplaying that gave me that feeling, and nothing about the specific implementation of D&D did that. In fact, I very quickly became disillusioned with the specific implementation of D&D. A lot of folks will tell you they played D&D until 2nd edition, which they hated. I was sick of D&D long before 2e came out, and was already looking into other RPG options.

Like Joshua, I too became disillusioned with the specific implementation of DND under 1e. I got introduced to RM (which I think often gets a bad rap) while away for my first year of college, but unfortunately when I returned home for a summer break nobody wanted to try a new system. So, it was back to ADND right before 2e was released and we continued to 2e. Again, I got disllusioned with many of the D&Disms despite liking settings, the Complete Books and the concept of kits (if not often liking the implementation and power creep of many of the kits), started searching for new games, but did not try to introduce RM to my second group of ADnd players.
Despite not reintroducing RM to the current group (at the time), one of the players, a recent addition did just that when school and work demanded too much of my time to run or play. The group quickly switched completely from 2e to RM and still play RM (and until earlier this year, I continued gaming with them including GMing), but 3.X renewed my interest in DND since most of the core changes I asked for in my questionaire regarding a 3e were implemented.

However, in my case, if it were not for UA and 3rd party material, I would have abandoned DND again for a third time and never looked back. However with UA and 3rd party stuff, I can enjoy 3.x as much as RMSS-- as long as I stay away from WOTC's DND page where I keep hoping to find more products like UA or enhancements that are as far sweeping in change.

 

[SSquirrel]

I thought the problem was 1) people tired of power creep in the kits (which the class variants seem to avoid); 2) people getting tired of DNDisms; 3) those who were detractors of any new edition.

Heh there were MANY problems. I know that all the ones you mentioned as well as the one I mentioned were hated by the various groups I've been in. Well, 2E was a clarifier of 1E and we still mixed some 1E stuff like Assassins in anyway, so we didn't blindly hate a new edition. The class variants do avoid the power creep b/c they're intended to be balanced against all the other core classes. I've seen posts on here saying the Cheater of Mystra is overpowered, some saying it's balanced or UNDERPOWERED. Same for Warforged in Eberron. You can find any opinion ya want to validate any belief ya have on the net after all heh.

And yes, those individuals who take optional to mean it must be in the game were also a problem, but they exist in 3.x as well. Just look at the amount of player posts on wizard's site (and they can be found to some degree here on ENWorld) regarding players thinking that, just because they own a book or want a Prc, the DM has to let it the game.

Yeah if I ever hear anyone saying that I refrain from the bitchslap but do make sure to let them know that the DM *who is usually not me* is the final arbiter of what is found in the world and they can choose to disallow anything they want. Then I tell them to stop whining you can't have your uber twinked PrC that is woefully unbalanced and instead look at the PrCs the DM has approved for his game.

While not indicative of DMs in the community as a whole, based on exchanges that I have had here, monte's site, and at wizard's, many DM's ignored the customizing characters example from the PHB, because they did not feel WOTC gave them enough to work with the thug example or the example in the DMG . Without enough examples of class variants and WOTC's supplement focus on PrCs, many DM just ignored class variants and relied on multiclassing and PrCs.

Well, if yr not sure you can tweak a class to a variant and keep it balanced, naturally look for others who have done that properly and use their stuff. Of course, sticking with published PrCs and multiclassing is fuly acceptable as well.

Eh, I'll just chalk this one up to disagreement over expected content. *grin*

Exactly. I agree it is nice to be able to debate (which too often on message boards is misinterpreted as fighting or flaming). 3.x is good, because at least people are getting the material. I can respect the opinion of those on these boards, who truly like everything or the majority of things WOTC puts out for DND. The only opinions I really don't expect are those individuals, who despite not liking WoTC's DND stuff, continue purchasing WOTC products blindly and advocate that others do the same under the impression that this helps the game. I don't mind so much how they choose to spend their money other than they miss out on supporting some great 3rd party stuff and might be *possibly* distorting WOTC's perceptions of what things, if any, need to be changed.

Totally. This has been a long drawn out thread, but it has also been productive and none/very few over reactions and such. Not always the standard sadly. Blindly following anything....a company whose product you buy, a religion or government, etc, is generally a bad thing in my eyes *grin* People should read critically of a product in maagzines or web reviews, and make sure to flip thru a product first before purchasing to make sure it actually is worthy of their money. I've been without spare cash so long I have LOTS of stuff lined up to buy. I've done my research on stuff as it comes out and know exactly what I want which is nice.

Hagen

 

[Saeviomagy]

For me, it was the very concept of roleplaying that gave me that feeling, and nothing about the specific implementation of D&D did that. In fact, I very quickly became disillusioned with the specific implementation of D&D. A lot of folks will tell you they played D&D until 2nd edition, which they hated. I was sick of D&D long before 2e came out, and was already looking into other RPG options.

That's what I was hitting upon, except that for me, the memory of excitement about the concept remains attached to the memories of the books themselves. Hence when I think of old-time D&D, I imagine a wonderful system full of flavour and quick and easy rules.

One that never existed.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

If you like the 2e scroll scribing rules then you obviously have never attempted to use them. "I love 2e for all these flavorful rules that I avoided using like the plague" is not exactly high praise.

The 3e scroll rules are a failure as a roleplaying experience. But some of us tend to believe torturing the entire game group over the acquisition of a measly disposable item might be a bad idea.

Now this flavorlessness criticism is indeed valid with respect to creating major magic items. But 1e/2e does not even have rules for that, so we know who wins the comparison there.

 

[Tranzquility]

I think that the 3e rules take out the fantacy and and hard rules yes but with that think of the books as the manual for the game and not where you should get your ideas from instead use your brain for the ideas and then take the rules to help make your idea in to a story......