Golem Joe
First Post
Re: Re
Funny. I was having a conversation on this same subject among some friends after playing a fun (but horribly unchallenging 3e adventure from Dungeon magazine (Redshore, which involved a party of 20th level characters and an whale druid).
I think we are really starting to split hairs here. Certainly it is not that 3e does nothing to inspire creativity. It is an RPG, after all. However, what it does, particularly in combat, is force the player into a certain mode of thinking. Suddenly out come the battlemat and the minis and we stop thinking in terms of "I dart in and attack him from his vulnerable side", we think in terms of "I do a charge attack and flank him, thus getting a +4 bonus to my attack." In other words, the "roleplaying" takes a back seat to the game system.
LA has situational modifiers that covers much the same level of detail as 3e, but it is far more seamless. With LA, the player need only describe his mode of attack and, with a few exceptions, the GM assigns a modifier and off we go. With 3e, there are far more considerations. Does the character charge? Is an attack of opportunity warranted? Does the opponent have a readied action? Does the character have Power Attack and, if so, what points is he assigning where? What about the opponent? Does he have Expertise? Are there any other feats that add to this (keep in mind each feat, while adhereing to the core mechanic, brings with it a new consideration for both the DM and player)? Did we remember the opponent monster's multi-attack penalties (something that DID NOT EXIST prior to 3e).
I could go on. But that would lead me into my "Hampstring Feat" rant, and you don't want that.
The difference here is simple. LA is often simple enough for the GM to eyeball modifiers and get on with the game. 3e offers a very specific assortment of modifiers that must be considered. Sure, this get's easier with time and familiarity, but those things do not make it less burdensome in a rules sense.
Furthermore, 3e isn't particularly modular in this regard. Aside from limiting the availablility of certain feats, you can't really remove many of the game's core rules without risking the foundation.
3e has a very easy mechanic with lots of specific exceptions and modifiers.
LA has a very easy mechanic and a very fluid system of modifiers.
3e empowers players and DMs through a comprehensive rule base -- every situation and possibility is given a rule, template, feat, whatever.
LA empowers players and GMs through a very open and fluid rules base -- a loose framework of rules provide unlimited options to those willing to exercise them.
That's the way I see it at least.
Keep in mind that this comes from the perspective of one whose chief exposure to 3e has come from DMing games for the RPGA, where Thou Shall Not Deviate From the Written Word for the sake of consistancy. And I'll admit to a bias for games such as Over the Edge, FUDGE, Unisystem and Castle Falkenstein.
Take that for what you will.
Celtavian said:
Funny. I was having a conversation on this same subject among some friends after playing a fun (but horribly unchallenging 3e adventure from Dungeon magazine (Redshore, which involved a party of 20th level characters and an whale druid).
I think we are really starting to split hairs here. Certainly it is not that 3e does nothing to inspire creativity. It is an RPG, after all. However, what it does, particularly in combat, is force the player into a certain mode of thinking. Suddenly out come the battlemat and the minis and we stop thinking in terms of "I dart in and attack him from his vulnerable side", we think in terms of "I do a charge attack and flank him, thus getting a +4 bonus to my attack." In other words, the "roleplaying" takes a back seat to the game system.
LA has situational modifiers that covers much the same level of detail as 3e, but it is far more seamless. With LA, the player need only describe his mode of attack and, with a few exceptions, the GM assigns a modifier and off we go. With 3e, there are far more considerations. Does the character charge? Is an attack of opportunity warranted? Does the opponent have a readied action? Does the character have Power Attack and, if so, what points is he assigning where? What about the opponent? Does he have Expertise? Are there any other feats that add to this (keep in mind each feat, while adhereing to the core mechanic, brings with it a new consideration for both the DM and player)? Did we remember the opponent monster's multi-attack penalties (something that DID NOT EXIST prior to 3e).
I could go on. But that would lead me into my "Hampstring Feat" rant, and you don't want that.
The difference here is simple. LA is often simple enough for the GM to eyeball modifiers and get on with the game. 3e offers a very specific assortment of modifiers that must be considered. Sure, this get's easier with time and familiarity, but those things do not make it less burdensome in a rules sense.
Furthermore, 3e isn't particularly modular in this regard. Aside from limiting the availablility of certain feats, you can't really remove many of the game's core rules without risking the foundation.
3e has a very easy mechanic with lots of specific exceptions and modifiers.
LA has a very easy mechanic and a very fluid system of modifiers.
3e empowers players and DMs through a comprehensive rule base -- every situation and possibility is given a rule, template, feat, whatever.
LA empowers players and GMs through a very open and fluid rules base -- a loose framework of rules provide unlimited options to those willing to exercise them.
That's the way I see it at least.
Keep in mind that this comes from the perspective of one whose chief exposure to 3e has come from DMing games for the RPGA, where Thou Shall Not Deviate From the Written Word for the sake of consistancy. And I'll admit to a bias for games such as Over the Edge, FUDGE, Unisystem and Castle Falkenstein.
Take that for what you will.
.
