Rolemaster vs. AD&D, or 3e vs all other D&D

[BryonD]

It is very funny how we all perceive things- as I've always felt that 3.X was written by all the kids growing up playing 1E or what have you that moved along to Rolemaster, RQ, GURPS, HERO, and other more "realistic" games. The people who didn't like D&D as a rule set,the "rules lawyer" type, and those players who suffered at the hands of poor DMs and felt the need for everything to be codified and clarified to the 9s. I certainly got that feeling from the 3E design team (Monte, and Tweet in particular). I think this is precisely why I never have been able to come to terms with 3.X (and lately PF).

I'm a big 4E fan (though will admit its far from perfect), and I also love (and cut my teeth on) the LBBs, MCM and AD&D. I also like 2E (core).Then again I was never a big stickler for "realism" or simulation in my RPGS (though admittedly I was a big RQ2 fan). Being that 4E is more gamist than 3E, maybe that is why I find it similar in many more ways to the O/D&D games than 3.x.

:shrug:


As you say of course though- it's all opinion and E(veryone's)MMV.

I, and I think virtually all of the rest of us, take exception to negative implications of "rules lawyers" and "suffering".

BUT, I think that just comes down to the difference in perception. So swap out the negatives for all the "because creating all those details was and is awesome fun" and we agree 100%.

 

[pawsplay]

What do you mean by "set-piece"?

In the cinematic sense. An elaborate, dramatic scene, which serves as a building block for a film.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_piece_(film)

 

[Votan]

I don't see it; in 3E, like its predecessors, you need a cleric on the team. You need a rogue. You need a fighter. From what little I've seen of 4E, you don't actually need a cleric any more. And if 4e goes back to archetypes, they don't feel the archetypes I'm familiar with.

While the idea of having a range of classes dates back to the earliest versions of the game, I founbd a lot of BECMI and 1E AD&D games would work remarkably well with a limited set of archetypes represented in the party. In particular, I was used to a lot of fighter heavy parties, especially at low levels. Clerics were nice and wizards could be amazing but the game seemed geared for the lower levels (above 6 wasn't especially common) where the thief did not have reliable skills and both the cleric and wizard had a very small spell selection (although this got less true in AD&D for the cleric).

Sure, sleep could decide the battle but low level wizards were hard to keep alive (and first level BECMI clerics did not even have spells at all).

 

[pawsplay]

While the idea of having a range of classes dates back to the earliest versions of the game, I founbd a lot of BECMI and 1E AD&D games would work remarkably well with a limited set of archetypes represented in the party. In particular, I was used to a lot of fighter heavy parties, especially at low levels. Clerics were nice and wizards could be amazing but the game seemed geared for the lower levels (above 6 wasn't especially common) where the thief did not have reliable skills and both the cleric and wizard had a very small spell selection (although this got less true in AD&D for the cleric).

Sure, sleep could decide the battle but low level wizards were hard to keep alive (and first level BECMI clerics did not even have spells at all).

Yeah, the cleric as fulltime medic was more of an AD&D thing. In BECMI, they didn't get spells until 2nd, which means it was 3rd before they could do cure light wounds + something else. BECMI CLW also heals less damage, and BECMI clerics don't get bonus spell slots based on Wisdom scores. I saw more clerics healing the party outside of combat and dungeons, rather than during pitched combat.

When I used to play Pool of Radiance, I used my clerics for spamming prayer and hold person, which was usually much better at preventing damage than cure spells were for repairing it.