New School Thinking of Going Ol' School

[Philotomy Jurament]

One thing I like about playing older editions is that there isn't a rule for every situation. The DM is expected to adjudicate such situations. I find this moves things alongs rapidly, because there's less tendency for things to bog down in rules lookups, rules debates, et cetera. There are a couple criticisms of this "rules light" approach. The first is consistency. The answer to that is fair-mindedness and practice, so it's true that a bad or inexperienced DM can flub this.

The second criticism, which is also related to consistency, is "you have to invent rules for the situation." IMO, that is a fallacy. You don't need a rule, you just need a ruling. And you can be fair and consistent in your rulings without being bound to a formal set of rules. DMing is a skill, and I like it that way -- with the DM able to exercise judgment, rather than acting as a rules-database/looker-upper. YMMV, as always. (And I acknowledge that 3E can be played in a similar manner. Nevertheless, I think 3E is more difficult to play in that manner, because of the "gravity" of the rules-set, the expectations of the players, et cetera.)

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Yes and no. Greyhawk had some 3e content, but not as much as it could have. The Forgotten Realms got good support. Dragonlance and Ravenloft were licensed. Dark Sun has the Paizo treatment as well as Athas.org. Planescape, Spelljammer, Mystara, and Birthright got support through official sites, and not much else, other than the rare Dragon article. To my knowledge, there is no official Al-Qadim or Kara-Tur site. However, there's been the rare Dragon article and support from fan efforts.

Well, how much support do you need? If you have the old material, all you need is some work to Thirdeditionise the stuff.

So we have GH, FR, DL, RL, PS (manual of the planes, planar handbook, some adventures, and non-Wizards stuff). That's not that bad!

And don't discount sites like Athas.org...

If we look at D&D proper and not 3rd party products, then we got Eberron.

That's your fault right there: You don't look at 3rd party d20 stuff. Just becuase there isn't a "D&D Logo" on it doesn't mean it isn't playable or anything. In fact, some of those settings are way better than any of the settings that were ditched before 3e was out.

Oh, and Kingdoms of Kalamar had the D&D logo.

Rokugan/L5R was a setting prior to d20. Without going into too much detail, it got tied to Oriental Adventures, then AEG continued on with the setting. Now it has come into its own with the 3rd edition L5R rules using the d10 system.

I know. I have the L5R 3e material - very cool, strongly recommended for everyone who's willing to go beyond d20. And that's the point: While Legend of the Five rings has been around for quite some time, only under 3e/d20 was it possible to turn it into a setting that could be played with D&D rules.

Midnight is a 3rd party product, as are other settings such as Dragonstar and Oathbound. While those are all new settings and great in their own right, they are not WotC/TSR D&D products, so I'm not including them for purposes of this discussion.

Why not? Just because Wizards didn't do them? You can play them together with the rules from the D&D core books. That's all that counts, not whether it was made by Wizards. (Frankly, a lot of the 3rd-party stuff is way better than similar stuff Wizards made)

One of the big advantages of 3e is that Wizards isn't the only company that can make stuff.

Third edition isn't really the era that is defined by settings. Rather, it's the era of rules, crunch, options, and balance.

...and the SRD, the d20 license, and many companies creating not only crunch, but also fluff. This includes new settings.

2e could be called the era of settings that TSR/Wizards abandoned because they didn't generate enough profit.

While there have been new settings and adventures for 3e, they are not the driving focus they were in prior editions, IMO.

Again, 3e's openness made lots of great adventures possible. Open a thread and ask for the best modules out there. There will be some Wizards products in that list, but most of it will be taken up by Paizo, Necromancer, and others.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

One thing I like about playing older editions is that there isn't a rule for every situation. The DM is expected to adjudicate such situations. I find this moves things alongs rapidly, because there's less tendency for things to bog down in rules lookups, rules debates, et cetera. There are a couple criticisms of this "rules light" approach. The first is consistency. The answer to that is fair-mindedness and practice, so it's true that a bad or inexperienced DM can flub this.

I'm among those who prefer to have a rule for everything. The beauty of the situation is that you don't have to use it. If you think you can make better rules for disarming enemies, go ahead. Maybe you'll succeed. But if you don't want to bother inventing rules, or are not experienced enough to do so, 3e's approach is the better one. And since the hobby is always in need of new players and DMs, it always pays to make it easy for newbloods to join the ranks.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

And if someone got close to you and hit you (even for 1 point of damage!), you were S.O.L.

Really made fighters a bit better. And I loved it like that.

It never was my cup of tea. I prefer other methods of giving fighters an edge. It also goes against my favourite philosophy: Everything's possible (which doesn't mean that everything is advantageous or simple): It's possible to keep casting even after a hand-crossbow bolt hit your ankle. And not quite hared to achieve. A ballista bolt is another matter entirely.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Not sure if you were just being flippant, here, but some of this is wrong.

Good to hear. I never bothered to read the rules up as they were - the other players told me how it was done, and so it was done. I wasn't sure whether the rules as written were like this or whether it was houserules (or people not understanding the rules).

As you say, a round is 60 seconds. However, drawing your sword doesn't take a round, it takes a negligible amount of time in the context of the round (according to the 2E PH, you can even drop one weapon and draw another without affecting your ability to perform other tasks).

So the old group played it plain wrong. I always hated how I would take 60 seconds to draw my damned sword.

IMO, 60 seconds is still a bit long, but it's not as ridiculous as it might first appear.

Okay, I admit I was carried away on the Wave of Flippancy a bit there. I basically agree: Attack rolls and their ilk are abstract things. You don't hit a guy once and stand still for 58 seconds. But I still think 60 seconds were way too long. Things always felt static, not as dynamic as I wanted.

Casting a spell in 2E usually doesn't take a full round (although some spells do). In the case of magic missle, you add 1 to the initiative roll if you want to determine exactly when the spell goes off, relative to other actions. One can assume the rest of the round is spent in "recovery," preparing your next spell (getting out components, etc), et cetera.

It still seems too long to have something like 60 seconds between two castings of magic missile (or many other spells). Again, it seemed to static for me.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

But I still think 60 seconds were way too long.

I also prefer a shorter round. I use 10-12 seconds for my round lengths when I run OD&D or C&C. However, if I run AD&D, again, I'll likely stick to the 60 second round. While I agree that it seems long, in practice it doesn't make that much difference.

...since the hobby is always in need of new players and DMs, it always pays to make it easy for newbloods to join the ranks.

I think 3E has its own set of issues, as far as that goes.

If I were introducing an adult newbie to the hobby I'd use B/X (Moldvay/Cook/Marsh). If I were introducing a child to the hobby, I'd use a copy of the Mentzer Basic set and introduce them to Bargle and Aleena with the BECM sets. Basic Fantasy is another good option, if printed copies of B/X and BECM are hard to come by (which hasn't been the case, in my experience, but I guess they're getting rarer).

Actually, I introduced my eldest son to the hobby using the Mentzer basic set. First I ran him through some adventures using Basic Fantasy, and when he was hooked, I gave him a copy of Mentzer Basic. He did the whole Bargle/Aleena thing, and eventually made and DM'd his own dungeon levels for the ruins beneath Threshold. Since then, he's also played 3E, Arcana Unearthed, Mutants & Masterminds, C&C, and in my Holmes/OD&D campaign. His favorite is BECM, though.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

(Frankly, a lot of the 3rd-party stuff is way better than similar stuff Wizards made)

Yeah, I agree. I think there are some great 3rd party products out there. My favorites are Necromancer and Goodman stuff, but some of the Green Ronin and Malhavoc material impressed me, too. I liked the Maure Castle stuff that Paizo put out.

As for 3E settings, it's hard to beat the Wilderlands of High Fantasy, IMO. The Necromancer edition of the Wilderlands rocks.

One of the big advantages of 3e is that Wizards isn't the only company that can make stuff.

Thanks to the OGL, that's also true for systems beyond 3E. C&C is OGL. BFRPG is OGL. OSRIC is OGL. Pied Piper Publishing is putting out 1E products using the OGL. Et cetera. While 3E isn't my first choice for a FRPG system, I have nothing but praise for the OGL!

 

[RFisher]

Similarly, don't assume that because something is a class skill, other classes can't do it.

The last time I was browsing through my 2e PHB, I was reminded how much it explicitly covered these cases. It even tells you how to handle certain things if you aren't using NWPs, since they were officially optional.

I'm among those who prefer to have a rule for everything. The beauty of the situation is that you don't have to use it. If you think you can make better rules for disarming enemies, go ahead. Maybe you'll succeed. But if you don't want to bother inventing rules, or are not experienced enough to do so, 3e's approach is the better one. And since the hobby is always in need of new players and DMs, it always pays to make it easy for newbloods to join the ranks.

Heh! (^_^) All those rules make it hard for me, so I find it hard to believe it makes it easier for every newbie. (Heck, I've witnessed it making it hard on newbies.) I suspect this hinges on whether you are more of a detail-oriented or more of a big-picture-oriented person.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Well, how much support do you need? If you have the old material, all you need is some work to Thirdeditionise the stuff.

So we have GH, FR, DL, RL, PS (manual of the planes, planar handbook, some adventures, and non-Wizards stuff). That's not that bad!

Oh, I agree. A little work, and all these settings are still playable.

And don't discount sites like Athas.org...

Never do. I run such a site.

That's your fault right there: You don't look at 3rd party d20 stuff.

Sure I do.

Just becuase there isn't a "D&D Logo" on it doesn't mean it isn't playable or anything. In fact, some of those settings are way better than any of the settings that were ditched before 3e was out.

I agree, there have been some great settings made for d20.

The point I was trying to make was a comparison of D&D proper. I wasn't discounting any 3rd party products. In fact, I have the utmost respect for them.

Oh, and Kingdoms of Kalamar had the D&D logo.

True enough.

I know. I have the L5R 3e material - very cool, strongly recommended for everyone who's willing to go beyond d20. And that's the point: While Legend of the Five rings has been around for quite some time, only under 3e/d20 was it possible to turn it into a setting that could be played with D&D rules.

I'm in the minority myself of fans who enjoyed the setting with the d20 rules as well as the d10.

(Frankly, a lot of the 3rd-party stuff is way better than similar stuff Wizards made)

Agreed.

I don't disagree with you. I just think we're debating semantics.

 

[Wiseblood]

Well, how much support do you need? If you have the old material, all you need is some work to Thirdeditionise the stuff.

So we have GH, FR, DL, RL, PS (manual of the planes, planar handbook, some adventures, and non-Wizards stuff). That's not that bad!

And don't discount sites like Athas.org...

While I have disagreed with much Kae'Yoss has said I wholeheartedly agree here. Plus the old stuff you don't already have is generally cheaper (if not free in some form) than 3.5 stuff.

I currently play in 3.5 in a campaign. I am also about 1/2 way through reading the 2e DMG and 1/2 way through the 2e PHB.

You have seen what was mentioned about spellcasters, getting hit = losing spell, no spontaneous heals. This was a major balancing factor in 2e that is lost in 3.e wich is exactly why spellcasters are so over-powered in 3e.

Admittedly clerics and druids are even less palatable in earlier editions. Low HP, AC limits and such make healers very important. These same factors make Warriors more viable.

Classes like Paladin and Ranger had requirements that were greater than that of fighters. They were the PRC's of their day.

Like the OP I have been inclined to return to 2e. I have mentioned it to my players with predictable responses from them.

*players that like simple combat and dislike looking up rules (viewing this as a waste of gametime) Liked the idea.

*players that have no real intrest in Rules Mastery. liked the idea

*players that like Rules Mastery. dislike the idea

*players that like to "build" characters for specific abilities without interference from the DM. dislike the idea

I wish you luck in your effort. I will be seeing how my situation pans out probably after GenCon. Until then I will try to warm the 3.5 fans to the idea.