Rich Baker's New Blog Site

[havard]

Great seeing you posting!

-Havard

 

[Greg K]

I dislike the 3E approach, which I consider the worst of both worlds. It does not lead either to good simulation (house cats versus wizards for the win!) or to good game balance (as evidenced by how monsters often had to have their stats kludged with giant special modifiers), and it's a serious headache into the bargain.

I am of the opposite opinion. I find 3e the best. The 1e and 4e approach are among the reasons that I will not run/play either of those systems. And the 4e approach is the worst, in my opinion, of course.

 

[Dausuul]

I am of the opposite opinion. I find 3e the best. The 1e and 4e approach are among the reasons that I will not run/play either of those systems. And the 4e approach is the worst, in my opinion, of course.

What do you like about the 3E approach and dislike about 1E/4E?

 

[Greg K]

What do you like about the 3E approach and dislike about 1E/4E?

I like that it is a causal effect and I where the bonuses are coming form (natural armor, dex, size, deflection, etc.). Not knowing these things pre-3e became annoying for myself as a DM as well as for many others I knew and still know.

With 4e, I dislike it is about fitting within the math of the game (it is a 10th level "x" so the AC should fall into this range).

Do I think the designers of 3e, eventually, got out of hand with the various modifier types in various supplements? Yes. However, I disliked most WOTC supplements and incorporated very few of them in the games that I ran so it was never a problem (the same stands if I run 3e again).

 

[BryonD]

I dislike the 3E approach, which I consider the worst of both worlds. It does not lead either to good simulation (house cats versus wizards for the win!) or to good game balance (as evidenced by how monsters often had to have their stats kludged with giant special modifiers), and it's a serious headache into the bargain.

I will concede that I've never once had a great experience with house cat vs. wizard combat in my 3E game. But it works great for the thing that actually DO happen.

I will concede that balance doesn't always fit across the board in every situation and sometimes is best supported by a bit of "kludging". But I've found that having times when each character can shine is a feature, not a bug and that a little kludging here and there in exchange for a great feeling experience is a no-brainer compared to a sterile, balanced "game".

I will concede that some people have complained about getting headaches trying to run 3E. But I also know that there are many people, such as myself, who not only don't get a headache but find the experience quite enjoyable both when prepping for play and when enjoying the benefits of that prep with friends. So I guess that complaint is simply of no bearing to us.

 

[Klaus]

I will concede that I've never once had a great experience with house cat vs. wizard combat in my 3E game. But it works great for the thing that actually DO happen.

I will concede that balance doesn't always fit across the board in every situation and sometimes is best supported by a bit of "kludging". But I've found that having times when each character can shine is a feature, not a bug and that a little kludging here and there in exchange for a great feeling experience is a no-brainer compared to a sterile, balanced "game".

I will concede that some people have complained about getting headaches trying to run 3E. But I also know that there are many people, such as myself, who not only don't get a headache but find the experience quite enjoyable both when prepping for play and when enjoying the benefits of that prep with friends. So I guess that complaint is simply of no bearing to us.

I'll just make a quick comment on the "sterile, balanced" thing (not aimed directly at you, BryonD, your post was just an opportunity):

I see many DMs or players who don't like 4e claim that it is always balanced, to the point of becoming tedious. My own DM said that once. That will happen if you only choose monsters of the same level of the party, which was never the recommended approach. Even in the DMG, it is recommended that you create encounters using creatures/traps/hazards of mixed levels, even up to 5 levels above the party level (or up to 3 levels below) before the challenge outstrips the party's capabilities.

 

[BryonD]

I'll just make a quick comment on the "sterile, balanced" thing (not aimed directly at you, BryonD, your post was just an opportunity):

I see many DMs or players who don't like 4e claim that it is always balanced, to the point of becoming tedious. My own DM said that once. That will happen if you only choose monsters of the same level of the party, which was never the recommended approach. Even in the DMG, it is recommended that you create encounters using creatures/traps/hazards of mixed levels, even up to 5 levels above the party level (or up to 3 levels below) before the challenge outstrips the party's capabilities.

I agree you can and absolutely should do that. But I would still call it "sterile" and "balanced". It is just now a sterile and balanced stacked deck.

The funny thing, to me, is that this is a complaint that I had about 3E. And I STILL do. I think that creatures stats are far too tied to their HD. I had suggested that a great change for 4E would be to make things more independent. But as it turned out they took something I saw as a pimple needing correction and used it as one of the cornerstones of building.