Something 3E and 4E lost (that 2E had)

[Ariosto]

@The Little Raven: Ah, but you mean the same thing! It is simply that you regard the work as prescriptive ("Here is how you are to do it.") rather than merely descriptive ("Here is how we do it in Lake Geneva -- and here is how they do it in Minneapolis.").

 

[Hairfoot]

Because running the burger shop pays enough for him to do French stuff on the side, and hopefully build it up to a core business.

I'm not sure Gygax realised the amount of group-hopping that would go on for roleplayers when he was with the original players. That's why stuff needed to be more strongly codified later.

Personally, I love going into new settings with little knowledge. That way I can explore it through the character.

 

[Ariosto]

@ Garmorn, et al.: I think Hairfoot expressed quite succinctly the two sides of the coin. If only WotC had been able to include a copy of Jonathan Tweet with each Everway set, eh?

 

[Garmorn]

Because running the burger shop pays enough for him to do French stuff on the side, and hopefully build it up to a core business.

I'm not sure Gygax realised the amount of group-hopping that would go on for roleplayers when he was with the original players. That's why stuff needed to be more strongly codified later.

Personally, I love going into new settings with little knowledge. That way I can explore it through the character.

@ Garmorn, et al.: I think Hairfoot expressed quite succinctly the two sides of the coin. If only WotC had been able to include a copy of Jonathan Tweet with each Everway set, eh?

Man I blew my comprehension role on that one. With the second post I now understand what you meant. Yes I would agree with that.

Yea, I doubt I would have predicted the current market if I was involved.

My main point is that I don't think any thing has been lost. What I think has happen is that more and more DM's and plays spend more time on world/story creation. Rules codification does not mean the lack of creativity or the lost of inspiration, it has just moved to things that are more important and far more forgiving of errors. Even DM/groups that use boxed worlds take some time to make them their own (unless the play nothing but adventure for that world, and really who does?).

 

[Ulrick]

Mercurius--Wonderful thread. I've been looking for ways to promote running an AD&D 2e campaign. A few of my players complained that 2e didn't have many class options. I had forgotten about those class creation rules. So thanks!

 

[BryonD]

When it began it was loose, open and BY DEFINITION reliant upon DM additions, interpretations and alterations. That WAS the game for the DM - building YOUR world from the mere framework suggested by the rules.

...

What eventually happened, particulary with 3E and 4E is that well-meaning, clever people with experience and understanding of GAME DESIGN began to... DESIGN the game. They removed as much of the need and desire to "fill in the blanks" as they possibly could.

...

I agree with the OP that doing so was a significant mistake.

...

They treated the rules as officially sanctioned, unalterable and graven-in-stone. Never, ever, NOT ONCE since they have acquired D&D has anyone in an official capacity said that the answer to ANY rules question is EVER to just do what you want. The response has always been "DO IT THE WAY WE TELL YOU."

...

The tragedy is that they're dead wrong. And THAT is what's missing.

I personally find this post as bizarre as someone claiming the sun has ALWAYS come up in the west.

You could certainly claim that complete *examples* of using the system to build a complete system were present.
But can you give me ANY actual reference on which you base "DO IT THE WAY WE TELL YOU." ?
Perhaps you are confusing the idea that when someone asks a "how does this work under RAW" question, then a simple direct raw based answer is perfectly appropriate. But the constant refrain was, "here is the formal answer, now do with it whatever you want."

Yes, gaping holes earlier editions FORCED DMs to invent new subsystems. And since RAW itself was loaded with ad hoc, inconsistent and even contradictory subsystems, the DM was guided to make similar half-baked unhinged subsystems.

Does that mean it was not fun? Hell no, it could be a blast. And a really good DM could, of course, build quality subsystems as needed.

But a free hand to build within a well structured system is far better than a free hand to build in a inconsistent mess. The implication that a better structure somehow brought any limitations with it is absurd. There is nothing that you can do in 1e or 2e that I can't do in 3e. A lot of 3PPs produced total CRAP that was broken and disfunctional. And if it made the game more fun for you, then you can use it.

Green Ronin produced a lot of awesome stuff that was different than "the way". There was never any resistance. Want to play a game that is 40% D&D 3.5 and 60% Monte Cook AE? Sounds cool. Want to re-invite a whole new school of wizard spells? Go for it!!! Are you new spells balanced? "Yes, the structured system makes this easy". Great!! or maybe "Hell no man, this school is AWESOME DUDE, no way it should be limited to those loser school powers". Great!! Who cares? Whatever is fun is what goes.

My "need and desire" to create new content was ANYTHING but removed. By making that process far more rewarding, third edition simply enhanced my appetite for building.

Frankly, 3E was about the OGL. 1E went after Role Aids and 2E was the era of fan site cease and desists. Both system mechanically and company behavior historically the reality is the opposite of image you create.

 

[M.L. Martin]

The very heart of D20 was: "here are the pieces, now build."

The problem being, unfortunately, that too many of the pieces were welded-shut black boxes that you had to pry open and try to make sense of and reassemble yourself if you wanted to go off the beaten path. (This bugged me about 3E pretty much from Day 1.) Great for those who were willing to put in the time and effort to try and understand the hidden assumptions and expectations, but not so much for others. By the end of the system's lifespan, enough people had managed to test it to destruction that you could find the corrections, but that's a far cry from assuming it was a highly open and flexible system from the get-go.

1E/2E weren't exactly consistent, but they did have the benefit of keeping the number of variables in most equations and interdependencies between the system parts low so that you could tinker with less fear of throwing off the math or introducing a cascading effect. 3E gave the impression (whether true or false) of being a precisely orchestrated whole where you could only tinker with a few of the black boxes if you didn't want to risk system collapse.

However, as a long-time, on-and-off-and-on-again HERO System fan, I admit that I may have overly high expectations in this regard.

 

[Hairfoot]

I personally find this post as bizarre as someone claiming the sun has ALWAYS come up in the west.

You could certainly claim that complete *examples* of using the system to build a complete system were present.
But can you give me ANY actual reference on which you base "DO IT THE WAY WE TELL YOU." ?

Well, no car manufacturer specifically tells you to drive on the roads, but it's fairly plain that their products aren't great over other terrain.

 

[Glyfair]

OK, I can buy that if there was a way to port new classes and such into Insider, particularly Character Builder.

How ironic that what many are calling a drawback to 4E is the fact that it is the first D&D edition to have a functional computer character generator for most of its lifespan. 2E had the last interation of the Core Rules generator (I don't remember how good it was for customized classes, etc), but it was only around for that last few years of 2E.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

How ironic that what many are calling a drawback to 4E is the fact that it is the first D&D edition to have a functional computer character generator for most of its lifespan. 2E had the last interation of the Core Rules generator (I don't remember how good it was for customized classes, etc), but it was only around for that last few years of 2E.

No, the drawback is not the character generator - it is the inability to add custom or third party content - and that is a drawback. A small drawback to mainstream players, a larger one to folks who like third party material, and a huge one for the third party publishers.

There were several 3rd party character generators for 3e - most of which at least allowed the addition of new material. 4e blocks that.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT Removed some unnecessary snark.