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

[diaglo]

Then you need Cajun Injector Injectable Marinade! The only Marinade endorsed by Dee Snider!

the rock star or the author???

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...102-9047649-2302516?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

---------------------------------

As for flavor in 3E, I add it directly in proportion to how much my players want it. Some like role-playing out a tense scene, or roleplay the search for components to make a magic item; some just want to "make a transaction" and be done with it. Some just want me to wake them when the combat starts. I try to play to each one of their strengths, so that every one has a moment to shine. But 3E does allow me to customize the "flavor" I give without compromizing the game system. I did it with 2E too, but with 3E I have so many more tools available to do this with!

i would argue and continue to argue that you can do it without the tools.

not everything needs a + or - to a roll added or even a roll needed to make it work like the d02 would suggest.

 

[Psion]

I think you misunderstood me. I hated the rues for creating custom classes in 2e.

I assumed you were referrnig to the craptastic rules for creating classes in the DMG.

 

[Savage Jim]

We get lots of posts about how much flavor 1 and 2 had, but lets not forget that there was a reason people kept buying the new editions, the rules often sucked. They often discouraged customization by the DM.

In my experience, it seems to have been the opposite. That is to say, TSR (going into 2E) recognized that every game, every table, and every group, often played the game differently than every other game, table, and group. As such, the rules were presented in piece-meal components, leaving the individual groups to pick-and-choose what to use, what not to use, and what to alter.

The flavor text, in that sense, was most often a tool towards inspiration for using various components. [Flavor Text A] was used to represent what kind of in-game/RP influence [Rule System A] was meant to produce, and so on for , [C], and so forth.

With 3E, there's a different take. Rather than being a collection of piece-meal pick-and-choose components, it's a full system completely self-integrated (and thus more difficult to tinker with). In addition, rather than using flavor text to represent it's in-game/RP influence, the system is instead self-justified by use of Power Word: Balance, leaving a presentation that more resembles Final Fantasy video games or Doom-with-Dice than it does the fantasy/sword-and-sorcery fiction that originally inspired the game and the players themselves to begin with.

Which, consequently, is why folks have problems with the "flavor" of 3E, being that it's like comparing all the different possible milk shake combinations available at Baskin Robbins to a carton of Soy Milk.

 

[barsoomcore]

How is 3e "difficult to tinker with"? It's incredibly easy to tinker with. Pull out any feat you don't like. Pull out any class. Add any class. Invent new classes. Swap out hit points for a fatigue/wound system. Make AC based on Reflex Saves.

This isn't rocket science. I'm no rocket scientist, but right out of the box 3e is splendidly customizable, wether you just want to limit spell lists or wether you want to completely replace the entire magic system. Don't like classes? Don't use 'em. Don't like hit points? Fine, throw 'em away.

Okay, okay, I'm more talking d20 than D&D here again, but the rule holds. 3E is SIMPLE to customize and tinker with.

Self-integrated? I don't think I understand what that means. Things can only be integrated into other things, right?

Yeah, the presentation reminds me more of Final Fantasy than Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser -- but I reckon that's more the flavour of the month than anything else. And has NOTHING to do with the rules themselves.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Yeah, the presentation reminds me more of Final Fantasy than Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser -- but I reckon that's more the flavour of the month than anything else. And has NOTHING to do with the rules themselves.

AND it is very important that the game repesent the 'flavor of the month' as you put it. Without that, the hobby will die and we'll get no new players. Times change, and games change with them. There's nothing wrong with playing older editions(heck, I love the Rules Cyclopedia, too!) but one has to recognize that the game is a product of the times.

And really...nostalgia will usually be a larger factor than rules if you're playing older editions.

 

[Incenjucar]

I think you misunderstood me. I hated the rues for creating custom classes in 2e. Hated them. What I tried (and failed) to say was: "How come no one remembers how bad creating your own class was in 2e?" We get lots of posts about how much flavor 1 and 2 had, but lets not forget that there was a reason people kept buying the new editions, the rules often sucked. They often discouraged customization by the DM.

I understood you perfectly. The trick is, the 2e CCC rules were dealing with the way that the core classes were. 2e had some serious issues. Fighters vs. Rangers and Paladins, for instance. The CCC was screwy because it was trying to work balance in to an already-screwy system, while trying to avoid some massive potential abuse of the rest of the rule set.

Basically, they had to try to MacGuyver it.

As such, its not the system itself that was the bad idea, its that its the result of another bad system. The -attempt- wasn't that bad, considering it was rudimentary point buy used for a class-based system with varient XP by class, and the weirdness between classes.

It would be complaining about how bad the pie made out of beef jerky came out. They had to use -beef jerky- is the problem, not the pie-making attempt.

 

[fanboy2000]

Which, consequently, is why folks have problems with the "flavor" of 3E, being that it's like comparing all the different possible milk shake combinations available at Baskin Robbins to a carton of Soy Milk.

Out of curiosity, which one is the soy milk carton, 3e or 2e? See barsoomcore's reply for what I think.

It would be complaining about how bad the pie made out of beef jerky came out. They had to use -beef jerky- is the problem, not the pie-making attempt.

Ahhhh, I see what your saying. When I first read the CCC rules, (almost 10 years ago, which was around the time I last read the CCC rules) it sounded like a system for DMs to create classes for their games, not for a system for players to create classes. As such, min/maxing doesn't seem like a problem. I've never heard of a DM being acused of min/maxing.

I ususally write these posts after a long day of college, work, or both so please excuse me if I stop making sense. I know I'm setting my self up for a joke by saying that, but I'm too tired to care.

 

[Incenjucar]

<Stuff the Polar Bear Told Me>

No worries. And DMs do, alas, do that sort of thing (as do players who have DMed -- ever played a group where everyone has DMed? Rough stuff.). DM NPCs are especially notorious for such.

 

[diaglo]

after reading the 30 years of D&D book last night...

a lot of what people have been saying about the computer nature and numbers crunching and complexity of d02....etc...

is true at least according to Peter Adkison.

 

[Ranes]

Yep. Same as it ever was.