Module Design: Questions, not Answers.

[Guest 85555]

I do like modules to provide information on likley courses of action, while generally leaving things pretty free-form.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Anyway, point being is that 3e and 4e sort-of require you to know the rules. Now I KNOW that you can improvise in any system. The logical part of my brain tells me that. But I also truly believe that people are hard-wired to follow-the-leader and fall into lock-step. So regardless of knowing this, I still tend to follow the rules and use them as written (or with houserules). And in part, this is also because everyone at the table expects me to do so. They all came to play 4e, not AD&D 4e.

This is one of the reasons why I'm quite excited by one of the aspects of 5e that has been touted, ie. bringing back improvisation and supporting it within the fundamental mechanics of the system. So even though I know I could just run a 4e game using page 42, having it as an expectation within the system makes my life a lot easier as a DM. The players expect that type of game and I don't have to fight the urge to fall into step with the rules.

This is a very interesting point, although you can easily run 4E very flexible with powers/p42 et al; our group found the same thing. Looking at powers cards for what to do, not using our in character selves. My hope for 5E is similar to yours!

 

[Mattachine]

Why is it that people reminisce about AD&D and 2e as being rules-light and easier to house rule and easy to improvise?

AD&D (the system I have played the most in my life) is extremely complicated, with detailed rules, multiple subsystems, and really tough to read books. Why do people say it was easier? I, for one, simply used some rules, ignored others, and improvised as I saw fit.

YOU CAN IMPROVISE IN ANY EDITION!

It doesn't matter if later editions have simpler, or more comprehensive, or streamlined rules. The gaming group (DM and Players) can improvise if they all simply agree to.

If your players don't want to improvise, if they want to use a standard set of rules, that is not the problem of the game system.

 

[Guest 85555]

Why is it that people reminisce about AD&D and 2e as being rules-light and easier to house rule and easy to improvise?

AD&D (the system I have played the most in my life) is extremely complicated, with detailed rules, multiple subsystems, and really tough to read books. Why do people say it was easier? I, for one, simply used some rules, ignored others, and improvised as I saw fit.

YOU CAN IMPROVISE IN ANY EDITION!

It doesn't matter if later editions have simpler, or more comprehensive, or streamlined rules. The gaming group (DM and Players) can improvise if they all simply agree to.

If your players don't want to improvise, if they want to use a standard set of rules, that is not the problem of the game system.

You can always ignore the actual rules, but because they are built around a system it can fall apart in play. Theoretically one could ignore every element you dont like of of an edition...but then why not just play en edition or game closer to what you want in the first place?

I have been playing 2e again for a while and would contend it is simpler and faster in many respects than 3e or 4e. Yes, it is less streamlined, with different dice rolls for things like initiative, nwps, etc. But these are all relatively light mechanics once you understand them. The biggest difference is combat moves so much faster in pre-3e games. There are just fewer moving parts in combat it seems.

 

[Mattachine]

I agree that combats were faster in AD&D and 2e. That was especially true if you ignored things like weapon vs. armor, speed factors, "segments", item saves on most attacks, and so forth.

In 3e and 4e, the game could also be made simpler by ignoring parts as well: AoO and threatening reach, certain spells (polymorph, anyone?), certain classes, facing (remember 3.0 facing?), level draining, miniatures/counters, etc.

Since later editions have streamlined/comprehensive rules, many players feel that the game must be played RAW. But it doesn't have to be. Both in 3e and 4e, I played and DMed in sessions that dispensed with strategic movement/squares, and ran combats by description with a simple map.

Again, improvising and making rules judgements is not dependent on a particular edition . . . though editions require more improvisation than others.

 

[Guest 85555]

I am no stranger to ignoring rules, but ignoring the battle grid in 3E or 4e (while not impossible) is considerably harder than in Ad&d IMO....and that granular tactical element is one of the thing that bogs down the game. Keep in mind that a large number of the rules in 2E are explicitly optional, but not so much in later editions. Default 2e doesn't use NWPs for example (they are optionsal , as are all proficiencies). Encumbrance, weapon type versus armor, weapon speed, etc were all optional mechanics.

 

[Mattachine]

AD&D assumes tactics and positioning as much as 4e: the expectation was miniature and/or detailed map, very specific spell and ranged weapon ranges, tacitcal movement rules, and so forth. When AD&D fights got slow in my games, it was because of a focus on tactics.

Third and fourth edition combats are slower in large part because of tactical combat rules, but they can be handwaved, ignored, or done on judgement calls if the players and DM want to.

Why is a 1st edition fireball less "tactical" than a 3e or 4e fireball? They all have specified ranges and areas of effects. It is how your group decides to play that matters. Did your AD&D groups use bouncing lightning bolts and fireballs that filled over 300' of dungeon corridor? You didn't have to.

 

[Guest 85555]

Why is a 1st edition fireball less "tactical" than a 3e or 4e fireball? They all have specified ranges and areas of effects. It is how your group decides to play that matters. Did your AD&D groups use bouncing lightning bolts and fireballs that filled over 300' of dungeon corridor? You didn't have to.

i dont think fireball or lightning blt ranges are what create the need for battlemat tactics. Stuff like marking, attacks of opportunity, line of site rules, etc are the issue. Spell ranges expressed in yards or feet can just asneasiy be handled without a grid.

In no way am I saying grids werent used, some groups used them and others didnt. But the point was in Ad&d it was assumed you could play the game either way and many, many groups didn't use grids. By 3e (particulalry 3.5) the grid became much more central to then mechanics themselves. In 4e the game is clearly designed for a grid. In fact i think running 4e sans grid would be very difficult to do.

 

[Mattachine]

I agree that 3e and 4e assume the use of the grid: that is absolutely the default. Combat in earlier editions is much simpler, and you can dispense with the grid more easily.

Still, this is only one aspect of the game. Improvisation is a style, not something codified into the rules.

 

[Kzach]

Sigh.