[spin-off] 3E is NOT "dumbed down."

[Tom Cashel]

This is a spin-off from Limper's gripe thread.

It has been asserted that 3E D&D is a "dumbed down" version of 1E. It is my opinion that this is not so. (This is not an attack on anyone; I just wanted to start a discussion about this w/o hijacking Limper's thread any more than it already has been.)

Here's what I think:

1E gives you tables and tables and tables of numbers that amount to the math worked out...e.g. the To Hit tables where you roll to hit, cross-reference with the AC you're trying to hit, and then see if you hit. Same for Saves.

3E gives you the formula behind the tables, and asks you to do the math yourself. If you know the formula, you can figure out the Save DC for any spell without the need for tables.

Now...this makes 1E more complex, insofar as there are lots and lots of tables, and lots and lots of rules. 3E streamlines those rules, and makes them work together (at times forces them to work together...nothing's perfect). In any case, I prefer to have the formula (10+spell level+ability mod.=Spell save DC) rather than the tables generated by iterations of said formula.

[I think 3E's focus on CRs and "balance," followed to the letter, can create a game environment that is much like a video game, where the foes increase in power in precise proportion to your character, and you'll never face anything you can't defeat (perhaps with a little luck).

However, I don't play that way. My players know that everything they meet isn't there to be annihilated. They know the dangers of playing my game like a video game (i.e. that skeleton could be a lich, even if you're 2nd level. Better get crafty, start fast-talking, running away, etc.). In a general design sense, I try to keep the adventures balanced to their level. I want them to be challenged, and I don't want a TPK unless it's unavoidable for whatever reason (player stupidity, bad dice rolls, etc.). The CR rules are helpful, but they shouldn't define the game.]

 

[sunbeam60]

I couldn't agree more. Anything simple often gets accused of being dumbed down, yet complex situations arise out of simple rules that work (e.g. chess).

I for one have a hard time understanding the diehard players who seem intent on continuing their 1st edition game (or even worse 2nd ed.).

Yes, 3rd ed. is simple, but not at all dumbed down. When rules work and are easily understood I kinda laugh at the people yelling "That's too simple".

regards
Toft

 

[Wolfspider]

You could also say that, since 1E actually works out all the formulas for the players and puts them in handy little tables, that 1E is actually assuming that the players have less ability to do such calculations than the 3E rules, which make the players do addition and such without the use of such aids.

 

[Dragongirl]

May not be dumbed down, but sure was watered down. The poor halflings and gnomes look like various sized humans now. I refuse to use the look.

 

[drnuncheon]

You could also say that, since 1E actually works out all the formulas for the players and puts them in handy little tables, that 1E is actually assuming that the players have less ability to do such calculations than the 3E rules, which make the players do addition and such without the use of such aids.

You have to watch out for that. Next thing you know they'll be doing long division, and then they'll all be playing Champions.

J

 

[diaglo]

simplicity is why i advocate Original D&D.

to me all the other versions of the game are just poor imitations of the real thing.

 

[Drawmack]

That is what I expected from Diaglo. Anyway. My personal opinion is that you can't compare the various versions of D&D. Each version of D&D represents the vision that the creator had at the time balanced with market interests of the time. I would much rather have a formula personally as it allows me to axtrapolate to any needed level, which is also the reason I see very little purpose in the ELH but that's another discussion. However there are lots of people who find it easier to look stuff up. Comparing the different editions of D&D is like saying that Super Mario Brothers isn't as good of a game as Mario Cart. They are uncomparable. Just because they bear the same monacher does not make them the same game.

 

[kingpaul]

You have to watch out for that. Next thing you know they'll be doing long division....

And what's wrong with that?

 

[JeffB]

I find the mechaincs of the 3E game simpler...but that's about it...I find the game considerably harder to run as a DM..there are tons of "hidden" rules, modifiers, exceptions, special abilities,and non-transparent feats that make the game more "mechanical" in nature. 3E is daunting for a DM who does not have a healthy command of the rules (not mechanics..rules). I know had 3E been around in 1978 when I started DMing, I'd likeley never have DMed again. I feel sorry for kids coming over from the adventure game box to the full blown rules...there's no stepping stone like the B/X boxes provided.

Not that 1E or other versions were perfect..they all have thier strengths and weaknesses....

3E is to D&D what RMSS is to RM. It standardized many things and was a much tighter, more cohesive rule set...it is also harder to run, and is more complicated in almost every area of the game.

IMO of course...

 

[kingpaul]

3E is to D&D what RMSS is to RM. It standardized many things and was a much tighter, more cohesive rule set...it is also harder to run, and is more complicated in almost every area of the game.

I have to agree with this, in part. The only thing my groups seem to have trouble with is AoO (does any one really know those rules inside-out, upside down and backwords?), flanking and sneak attack...and how they can interact with each other.