'Old School' Experiences with D&D 3.5

[Akrasia]

In fact, I do not like edition wars. I find them of no value whatsoever. I wish we could have discussions here without people insulting (vieled insults, misinformation, or backhand compliments). But, to quote you from another thread:Change "C&C" to "D&D".
...

While I'm always delighted to see people learn from me, you are not really pointing out an error in people's understanding of the game in this thread. Rather, you are objecting to the fact that, in other people's experiences, the introduction of social skills in 3e has contributed to a decline in role-playing in the games that they have observed or participated in.

I'm not sure how anything in the 3e rulebook will alter the nature of their experiences.

Just to be clear: this has not been my experience with 3e. Whatever problems I have with 3e as a DM have nothing to do with the relative quality of role-playing (it generally has always been pretty good, irrespective of the game in question). However, this fact about my own experiences does not invalidate the experiences of others.

 

[Quasqueton]

While I'm always delighted to see people learn from me...

Mighty pompous of you. I quoted you back to yourself so that maybe you'd learn from yourself.

Rather, you are objecting to the fact that, in other people's experiences, the introduction of social skills in 3e has contributed to a decline in role-playing in the games that they have observed or participated in.

Notice that no one ever says they've seen this decline in their groups or games. It's always "some people do" or "some people have" or "some people can", etc. Or its some anecdote from a convention game. It seems that no one has *actually* experienced a decline in role playing (their own or a friend's) themselves. No one has actually been struck role-playing-dumb by D&D3's social skills. Bad Players remain bad Players, and good Players remain good Players.

But of course, the lack of facts on the subject never stops anyone from making baseless complaints. And the presence of facts never changes an emotional opinion. And one who stands up for his right to defend his own love won't stand up for the right of anyone else to defend their love.

Quasqueton

 

[Akrasia]

Mighty pompous of you. I quoted you back to yourself so that maybe you'd learn from yourself.

Big mistake. I never learn from myself.

...And one who stands up for his right to defend his own love won't stand up for the right of anyone else to defend their love.

*sniff* That's beautiful, man.

Seriously, I was just trying to push this thread back on track. If you want to talk about this somewhere else, that's fine with me. But I think we've both contributed to the derailment of this thread enough at this point.

Cheers!

 

[Spell]

* All feats and rules related to AoO are omited

i think one could safely omit attacks of opportunity and live happily even after, but if the same approach is taken with feats, then some classes become obviously weaker than others. who would play a fighter, if there are no feats? in previous editions, fighters could specialize, they had quicker advancement, and so on. in od&d they were they only fighting class... how would you solve the problem?

in my opition, removing the feats is a plus (i just can't stand them, despite the fact that i do understand their usefulness and, sor some of them, their coolness), but it would require at least some reworking of the classes. or a new advancement table.
is so much work worth it?

besides, please, please, PLEASE, let's not start an edition war. this thread is very nice, and, for the first time in _years_ i am considering adopting some of the advices and run a d20 campaign. keep the advice coming, and the random bitter remarks for yourself.
if you have a crusade to do, please, start another tread

 

[Ourph]

* All feats and rules related to AoO are omited

i think one could safely omit attacks of opportunity and live happily even after, but if the same approach is taken with feats, then some classes become obviously weaker than others. who would play a fighter, if there are no feats?

You're reading Von Ether's statement as...

(All feats = omitted) and (all rules related to AoO = omitted).

I believe what he meant was...

(All feats related to AoO = omitted) and (all rules related to AoO = omitted).

That is a bit redundant (after all, feats are technically rules) but I'm pretty sure that's what he meant.

 

[Spell]

I believe what he meant was...

(All feats related to AoO = omitted) and (all rules related to AoO = omitted).

i believe that you are right.
that said, during the night (!) i decided that, in order to run the type of game i would like, with the rules that i like, i would have to do too much homework. it wouldn't be too much hassle, maybe, if i was sure that a new edition wasn't approaching any time soon (2 years is considered to be soon, in my book!), and i could count of open minded players that don't actually care too much about the rules i'm enforcing, as long as they have fun.

as things stand, i would probably spend some time taking on hackmaster, changing some bits, and adding a couple of new classes and racial variants. unless somebody else has done the homework for me... basically, what i'm after is a d20 modern/ d&d crossover, grittier and with feat lists tailored on each class concept.
i am aware of grim tales, but i really wouldn't like to spend more money on RPG books for some time... at least until i have a regular campaign going.

and, before the usual integralist start a flame war, let me state that:
1. i used to play AD&D or OD&D for iconic characters, not for freedom of choice. if i want a roguish, sword-wielding mage, i would play GURPS, not D&D.
2. this is the way _I_ fell about the game. i understand other people feel/ play differently, and i do concede that i might have great fun in their campaign. if i have to DM, though, things are different.

 

[S'mon]

Notice that no one ever says they've seen this decline in their groups or games. It's always "some people do" or "some people have" or "some people can", etc. Or its some anecdote from a convention game. It seems that no one has *actually* experienced a decline in role playing (their own or a friend's) themselves.

Naw, I've seen it and experienced it, in my last 3e campaign, which was my first long-lasting 3e campaign. IMO it was a combination of certain players & certain 3e rules. When I realised what was happening I tried to reverse it since it's not a style I enjoy.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Mighty pompous of you.

I believe Arkasia is a teacher by profession, so his statement is probably very appropriate and positive.

 

[Grazzt]

i think one could safely omit attacks of opportunity and live happily even after, but if the same approach is taken with feats, then some classes become obviously weaker than others. who would play a fighter, if there are no feats? in previous editions, fighters could specialize, they had quicker advancement, and so on. in od&d they were they only fighting class... how would you solve the problem?

We eliminated AoO quite a while ago IMC and no problems whatsoever arose from it. Just unnecessary (in our opinion).

As for fighters and removing feats. If ya remove feats from your game, simply grant fighters Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization as class abilities (like they used to be in 1e/2e...course they were one ability back then...but making them two separate ones should be that big a deal).

 

[Spell]

As for fighters and removing feats. If ya remove feats from your game, simply grant fighters Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization as class abilities (like they used to be in 1e/2e...course they were one ability back then...but making them two separate ones should be that big a deal).

maybe adding some other feat to make them cool? i've been looking in the rule section of the forum, and i found a good reworking of the fighter class (i think the author was a Gaz?)

the problem is that not only i am afraid to unbalance the game, but also to make it "uncool" for most players outside.

just an example: i am toying with the idea of reintroducing the 20% chance of magical item malfunction for dwarves, because i think that that drawback, stupid as it might be, adds something to the flavour of the race. i am also thinking of restricting wizard and arcane caster classes to them, for the same reason.
i think that if i execute this flavour thing fully, reintroducing some of the old rules, twisting them a bit, i would get a d20/ AD&D hybrid that would make me very happy, but would probably be hated by a good portion of people in this very forum.

it seems that most players tend to associate old school playing with hack and slash, illogical adventures in a two dimensional world... which might be true, but not necessarily.
after all the work that i would put into this, not finding player and facing people saying that "this game sucks because it's not true to the real 3rd edition spirit" would really be crap :\

(now a nice thing would be seeing some encouragement that would show me that, at the very list i could start on PBF game, at some point...)


EDIT:
another idea. instead of working on the changes, or picking up hackmaster, i could simply pick up the rules cyclopedia, create a bunch of new classes that would fit my campaign and the races i have in mind, add the skill system of chaosium's Basic Role Play and live happy...
that would be old school, simple, classy, and would not offend the sensibility of some potential players just because i messed up with their precious third edition...

any thought on this?