So. 3E/3.5E, is it still D&D to you?

[milotha]

IMHO: To me it's like ordering Coke and getting a diet Pepsi. Yes, it's an analogous game, but the flavor is very different, and it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. It's not what I'm used to expecting when I play. I should note that I have played 1ed, 2ed, and 3.Xed with a small subset of the same group of players AND GMs.

The main differences that cause my reaction are:
1) Combat that is more tactical and slower than previous editions. Fixed individual initiative vs. random group initiative has really altered our combats.
2) The social skills. I absolutely hate the fact that now instead of role playing a situation, we now have roll playing. Everything must be resolved by dice rolling.
3) Too many rules, too restrictive, too few skill points. With all the rules, I actually feel like my characters can do less. If it's not on the character sheet or you don't have skill points in it, you can't do it. The attempt to cover everything with a feat or a skill reduced your options. This narrowed the characters too me.
4) Some spells and items have been nerfed beyond any "balance" issues.

 

[Walter_J]

I voted "similar" because, for me, it depends which side of the screen I'm on. As a DM, it is a very different game. True, most of the raw mechanics, especially those that make D&D D&D, are similar if not the same, but the game plays very differently. It is different than the various versions of Basic and 1E, but more D&D than 2E. What has struck me as odd at times is how often 3E/3.5 brings my expereinces with Rolemaster to mind (both when playing 3E and reading/responding to posts).

As a player, well, I pretty much play all RPGs the same (genre being the only big difference)-- I come up with a character concept and then I play the character. Its the DM's job to tell me what happens when my character does something, so I've never worried much over mechanics one way or the other.

 

[Laslo Tremaine]

So the answer is, "No, 3e isn't D&D...because I actually like 3e".

This is exactly the answer I was going to give...

 

[Pseudonym]

The feel is still there for me, mechanics nonwithstanding.

 

[Son_of_Thunder]

Weird. 3e combat for us is very cinematic and much faster than it used to be in 1e or 2e. We spend a lot less time discussing rules, too.

Piratecat,

Question for you (after a few statements). I agree with you in that combat can be very cinematic and flowing. For a little time I "thought" I had burnt out on 3.x. I started going to Dragonsfoot and The Grognards Tavern and so forth. I didn't find what I was looking for. Then an epiphany hit. What I realized is that I had burnt out on my players. My players don't know how to plan basic tactics. They don't know their characters or their abilities. It seems they are incapable of learning the rules. My frustration know no limit.

So, now for the question. Do you think your groups combat goes so smoothly because the players know their characters very well or is it something else?

Thanks,

Son of Thunder

 

[Henry]

Piratecat,

...Do you think your groups combat goes so smoothly because the players know their characters very well or is it something else?

Sticking my nose in where it wasn't asked...

In my opinion, part of it is the DM's perogative (about 60%, actually). If the DM works on being smooth with combat, giving good descriptions, breathing life into the NPC's, and keeping the pace fast, then the players are quite likely to follow suit, and it will actually facilitate the RP experience from gamers who are hesitant about roleplaying. If the DM lets combat bog down in minutiae, gets more concerned about numbers than the results, and is not very enthused about his NPC's, then the players are not as likely to be similarly enthused. Not saying of course you are one way or the other, but I think it profits a DM to self-examine their play style periodically, reflect if they are too concerned with rules over substance, or exudes lack of confidence in the rules, because due to group dynamics, the other players pick up on these things and follow suit subconsciously.

PCat has DM'ed me ONE TIME (hopefully not the last time ) and one thing about his DM style that sets him apart is the enthusiasm he has for his NPC's, and for entertaining the players both with the situation, and with the description of the actions' outcomes. You're less playing a wargame, and more flipping a coin to see which way the story goes, and it's doable from d20, Feng Shui, Paranoia, Call of Cthulhu, or most any other game.

Sometimes, people have to see how they can be less stiff and more confident, and more entertaining; sometimes, it takes practice, for some it takes a different RPG system. But the DM can more often than not choose the tone and direction of a game for the players.

 

[d4]

i voted "Other", sorry.

i almost voted for "It is similar, but noticably a different experience." because, like others have said, i really like 3.xe but i have a strong dislike for earlier editions. but i figured that with that option you were actually implying the opposite, so i didn't vote that way.

i started with Basic/Expert D&D, moved on to AD&D1e, and then moved on to other gaming systems around 1985 or '86. tried 2e in the mid-90s and hated it. came back to D&D with 3e in 2000.

as far as i'm concerned, 3e was the first edition to get D&D right, and all the previous editions aren't really D&D to me, but merely preludes to the real thing.

 

[MerricB]

Sticking my nose in where it wasn't asked...

An epidemical problem around here...

Sometimes, people have to see how they can be less stiff and more confident, and more entertaining; sometimes, it takes practice, for some it takes a different RPG system. But the DM can more often than not choose the tone and direction of a game for the players.

Indeed. I remember my very first time DMing - it was the Keep on the Borderlands, and I remember how little I knew about the Fine Art of DMing. "Your horses are taken by a stableboy to 3." "What does '3' mean?" "Uh..." That was 20 years ago. The game lasted about 2 sessions before it broke up, and was with the Basic D&D (Moldvay) ruleset.

I ran Keep again last year - and it was a great experience for all concerned, and I was using 3E. So much of how enjoyable a game is depends on the styles of the DM and the players and how they interact.

In my case, because I'm so familiar with the 3.5E rules - and they fit my style of gaming very well - the player's need not worry so much about the exact rules: their intention must be stated, but from that intention I can tell them what they do.

"I want to attack the orc from behind!" becomes "Alright, you tumble behind the orc - make the checks." The rules-savvy in my group don't need this, of course, but it allows two different styles of player to participate in some fast combats - though I haven't run too many at the higher levels (13+).

With oD&D, to a very large part the DM was the rules; the players were unaware of the resolution systems or any guidelines as to what they could do in combat or other situations - they had to ask the DM.

With 3E, it supports both the "DM as the rules" and a more shared approach where the DM and the players all know the rules and apply them to create an experience where the game aspect of the RPG is emphasised.

Cheers!

 

[SemperJase]

My wife started with 3e. I started with Basic and went to 2nd edition. I tell my wife she didn't miss much in mechanics terms.
I don't believe in an additions "flavor". I think, people confuse past groups with an edition. Because the group they loved 20 years ago was playing 1st edition the edition was better.
I played in a second edition group that I loved. The flavor of the campaign was great. It was because of the DM, not the edition.

 

[francisca]

i voted "Other", sorry.

i almost voted for "It is similar, but noticably a different experience." because, like others have said, i really like 3.xe but i have a strong dislike for earlier editions. but i figured that with that option you were actually implying the opposite, so i didn't vote that way.

Nope, I was trying to make that as neutral as possible. No apolgies necessary, but please accept mine for not being more clear.