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

[Starman]

But, prejudice aside, 3.5 lacks a creative heart. Often it seems to take a didactic, inflexible approach. I am sure this isn't the intention, but nevertheless....perception is reality.

And I feel the exact opposite. I think 3.0/3.5 is much more flexible than previous editions. Does your "perception" that the new edition is unflexible come from the fact that it is a tighter, more cohesive rules set?

Starman

 

[knifespeaks]

Perhaps....I haven't really thought about that, to be honest. The presumption within the ruleset is simply that everyone plays the same way - consider those folks who post here with different approaches, and how much ire they draw!

For example, the el/cr system is less flexible, simply because it makes encounter design a mathematical equation.

My issue boils down to simply this - the paradox that MORE rules actually restricts flexibility. Of course, it exactly that which allows the game to be successful as a business venture - so it is understandable, if regrettable.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

The first house rule that I implemented with 3E was that you couldn't simply spin gold into magic items with the creation feats. You had to have components to do it. BUT then I (gasp) allowed the purchase of these components using the same general guidelines presented in the DMG for the buying and selling of stuff. In other words bit cities were places where it was easy to buy these components and little hamlets would likely have none for sale.

The effect this had on my campaign was that I had just created a new kind of treasure. So now I was in the position to say things like:

"Amid the Wizard's belongings you find some Wyvern Blood, Ground Wyvern Stinger and some Manticore Quills. The first two are worth 200 GP toward crafting magical Wands and the Quills are worth 75 GP toward scribing Scrolls."

"You find some strange flakes of metal that radiate faint magic. You believe (Knowledge - Aracana check) that if disolved in acid these might provide you with some components for crafting Magical Arms and Armor. That would require some time and an Alchemy check however."

"A search of the magical oak grove reveals some magical mushrooms (Knowlege - Nature/Wilderness Lore for knowing about their possible presence and finding them). If they were ground and boiled in a bit of Holy Water (Alchemy or Craft Brewing check) then they would be worth 150 GP toward brewing any sort of healing potions."

It would have required multiple pages of explanation and examples to add that kind of flavor in the PHB so it is (IMHO) better left out. But it isn't that hard to add it in and I think that a book giving these sorts of examples would be very useful for GM's old and new.

Awesome.

 

[Ranes]

But, prejudice aside, 3.5 lacks a creative heart. Often it seems to take a didactic, inflexible approach. I am sure this isn't the intention, but nevertheless....perception is reality.

Only if you have a really poor Will save.

I came to 3e after a long absence from 1e. Now, after playing (ok, DMing) 3e for a few years, I've been reunited with some of my old 1e books, which I've been having fun re-reading. I love the nostalgic feeling I get from so doing and I also still find the 1e DMG inspirational, despite the fact that Gary Gygax, to whom I mean no disrespect by saying this, can't write for toffee. I'm not trying to make any comparisons. First edition was written for a different audience and a different time.

Every edition of D&D has been an exercise in creativity. Nevertheless, with 3e I feel like my creativity is less arbitrary than it was under earlier rulesets and that's thanks to the cohesion of the rules and the clarity of the guidelines. There is more of a gearhead approach and there is a heck of a lot of game data in a stat block now but I must confess to prejudice of my own; I like that aspect of the game.

 

[Akrasia]

... Nevertheless, with 3e I feel like my creativity is less arbitrary than it was under earlier rulesets and that's thanks to the cohesion of the rules and the clarity of the guidelines. There is more of a gearhead approach and there is a heck of a lot of game data in a stat block now but I must confess to prejudice of my own; I like that aspect of the game.

You are conflating two very different things here.

(1.) "Less arbitrary" or more consistent rules.
(2.) More game data, i.e. a "gearhead approach".

I applaud 3E for accomplishing (1.).
I loathe it for accomplishing (2.).

(1.) Encourages creativity and DM innovation.
(2.) Discourages creativity and DM innovation (as any change affects many other aspects of the game, and has all kinds of "unintended consequences").

Given my limited time and natural inclinations, (2.) has proven to be a major pain. Others with far more free time than myself, and/or a more "gearheady mindset", obviously disagree.

From a marketing perspective, though, I can see the benefits of (2.) for WotC.

 

[Ranes]

I don't think so.

I just made the point that the gearhead approach encourages my creativity. I also find that it leads to fewer unintentional consequences.

Also, I claimed that 3e rules have the quality of consistency. You agree with this and assert that this quality 'encourages creativity and DM innovation'.

 

[Faraer]

IMO Gary Gygax was a genius. At game design. But he's an abysmal writer.

Gary is a professional author, and he reads these forums. The least you can do if you're making accusations of professional incompetence is to try to substantiate them.

 

[Rel]

Perhaps....I haven't really thought about that, to be honest. The presumption within the ruleset is simply that everyone plays the same way - consider those folks who post here with different approaches, and how much ire they draw!

I think that you are off the mark here. I've been around these boards for quite some time and I've found folks here to be very receptive of new ways of handling the rules (or ditching them altogether in some cases). But it all depends on how the subject is broached.

If you say, "The skill system for 3E sucks and completely crushes any creativity by making you roll for everything." then you are going to get plenty of people who respond with counter examples and refutations of your premise. If you say, "I am finding that the 3E skill system works at odds with the feel I'm trying to generate for my game. Can anybody suggest ways of handling it differently or possibly an alternate skill system?" then I'll bet people will come out of the woodwork with plenty of helpful examples.

To cite an example, I'll use your EL/CR point: I have on a number of occasions posted an alternate Experience Point system that I use that completely ditches the concept of EL/CR. I do no math whatsoever in coming up with encounters for my group and EL/CR plays no part in how much XP the characters get for defeating their foes. I have not in any way been derided for using this approach. Several people have loved the idea and adopted it. Some of these have even taken it in new directions and given me feedback on it, which I, in turn, have adopted into my use of the system.

But if you come in blazing with declarative sentences about how:

But, prejudice aside, 3.5 lacks a creative heart. Often it seems to take a didactic, inflexible approach. I am sure this isn't the intention, but nevertheless....perception is reality.

then you are basically saying that those who feel otherwise are simply wrong. It's condescending and you are going to take some flak for it. If you weave the criticism you get from this into the perception that this community is in lockstep with the "rules as written" and unwilling to consider alternative approaches then I'm afraid that your tenure here at ENWorld is going to be more frustrating than is warranted or necessary.

 

[Savage Jim]

...I have on a number of occasions posted an alternate Experience Point system that I use that completely ditches the concept of EL/CR. I do no math whatsoever in coming up with encounters for my group and EL/CR plays no part in how much XP the characters get for defeating their foes. I have not in any way been derided for using this approach. Several people have loved the idea and adopted it. Some of these have even taken it in new directions and given me feedback on it, which I, in turn, have adopted into my use of the system.

Got link?

[/Off Topic]

I must agree with Rel, here. True, there are a dozen or so folks that will post again and again and again and again and [ehr... You get the point] about the sanctity of the Core Rules, throw the buzzword "balance" around, and so forth, but over-all this site is highly receptive to alterations to the game for what-ever-reason despite the rantings of a very small vocal minority. There are other sites where such ideas are responded to as if some form of heresy has been committed (indeed, many people "reside" here because of the attitudes found elsewhere).

It's all a matter of approach.

 

[Rel]

Got link?

[/Off Topic]

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.