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

[HellHound]

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.

LOL...

Or you can teach them how to use logarithmic functions and we can all learn to play K.A.B.A.L.! The only RPG I've ever played where a scientific calculator isn't helpful, it is REQUIRED to run combat!

I quote from the KABAL rulebook (sections in italics are my own additions to help explain the system):

Combat results are done as follows; The attacker's Dexterity factor (the square root of the character's Dexterity score) is divided by the total of the attacker's and defender's Dexterity factors. The resultant number is a decimal version of the attacker's chance to hit the defender.

 

[evil_rmf]

If players want to try a PrC, take a look at it, see if you think it would fit, and make a decision then. You don't need to be aware of every PrC before you start a campaign.

Well, when the players are trying to build their chars, and are angling for a particular prestige class down the road, you have to be aware of at least that particular PrC so you can decide if it will fit your game down the road. Again, i'm not complaining, it's part of being the DM.

However, it does require more "paperwork" (for lack of a better term) to sort through all of this.

The best results we've had with PrCs in our group is when players come to me with a PrC and say "I like this, can we use this". Since I'm a stickler for PrCs fitting in the game world, I usually question them until we distill down what they like best about it, then we cooperativley build a new PrC based on those core elements. The results have been very good PrCs, which are balanced (crunchy) and fit the world (creamy). This works great and the process has been a lot of fun. However, if I was tasked with doing that on my own, it would have been probably more than twice the work (meaning time) and the players probably wouldn't have been as happy with the results.

Again, I think this illustrates the point that at least for the DM, 3E is more complex because there are so many options. Sure, I don't use them all. But unless you at least try to accomodate your player's wishes, your group won't last long. Like I've said before, being a DM requires lots of time, and I'm happy I am able to devote the time to it. However, it sure seems to me that it is more complex and harder to DM than 1E.

 

[Mercule]

Ding, Ding! We have a winner! This game isn't as much fun to run as 1e or basic. WOTC should put out a D20 3e lite version for people like me who don't want to keep track of all the mods and whatnot. A little GURPS litish type deal.

Wow! Let's not ever sit at the same gaming table. I love how 3E flows.

One mechanic. If the players are ever in doubt, I give them a DC and a skill/stat/whatever and they're happy and we move on.

3E is the easiest system I've ever run, and I've GMed quite a few.

 

[the Jester]

The main reason that I used to think 3e was dumbed down has to do with vocabulary.

Now it's all "gloves" and "belts" instead of gauntlets and girdles, f'rex.

Having played the game for a couple of years, I have to say my opinion has changed. Though I still lament the loss of archaic terms, I just use them in my game (see the 1000 unique magic items thread when I bump it again).

The game system treats you like you're intelligent and the books don't talk down to you like the 2e books did. Bravo, and I take it all back (I started a thread on this very subject on the wizards board about two years ago and boy did it get heated).

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

I wonder-if I designed an RPG that used tensor calculus, could I get anyone to play?

I'd play!

 

[sunbeam60]

... SNIP ... If you're not playing with a battlemap, this should be good enough for most purposes.

Not playing with battlemap... ? And this works?

I don't mean to sound demeaning; this is actually an honest question. The rules seem so tied into battlemaps, I never even considered not using them.

regards
Toft

 

[D'karr]

The only thing I've seen "dumbed-down" are some of the comments from people on messageboards.

 

[sunbeam60]

... SNIP ... but does it seem to anyone else that the rules system of 3E is MUCH more geared towards combat and fighting than the other editions? ... SNIP ... and the focus on almost every official WoTC adventure on huge numbers of combats.

I agree, the rules seem more centered around fighting, but to be honest; over the 10 years we played 2nd edition, I think 99.99% of all rule discussions were on the fighting logic/rules. I think the rules needed to focus much more on fighting because that's where the rules are used.

Walking, talking and all that is all trivial d20 rolls.

But besides that, I do agree. The few WotC adventures I picked up seemed very combat heavy.

regards
Toft

 

[sunbeam60]

Well, the group I still play 1E with doesn't want to shell out for new books. Nor do they want to bother to learn a new system. We all have jobs, wives, kids, other hobbies, households to maintain, cars to service, etc...
... SNIP ...

Hmmm ... right .... I guess what I meant was dissing 3rd edition on the account that it is simple, not becuase it involves buying new books.

Should have been clearer on that, sorry.

The most important reason, however, is that we are still having a blast running 1E. That's the point, isn't it?

It truly is. Cheers.

regards
Toft

 

[BButler]

I wonder-if I designed an RPG that used tensor calculus, could I get anyone to play?

I'd play! (as long as you did all the figuring for me)


"hmm Tenser's Calculus . . . Must be a new spell from the Book of Mighty Engineering"