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

[VorpalBunny]

Having grown up playing 1e and then 2e, I'll admit that I was guilty of a knee-jerk "3e is a dumbed-down 1e/2e! Where's weapon speed? Dwarves CANNOT BE WIZARDS! I can't believe WotC is releasing this crap!" reaction. Then I played it. I found it to be faster and more streamlined, but definitely not "dumbed down."

Bottom line - it's a game. It's supposed to be fun, and my group is having more fun playing 3e than we ever had playing 2e...but Dwarves still can't be wizards.

 

[aNenuphar]

Puzzled

As I said, I'm puzzled.

What exactly does 'dumbed-down' mean? Silverthrone (in another thread) seemed to feel that having more rules to cover situations not previously covered by rules constituted 'dumbing-down'.

Another poster (in yet another thread - I spend too much time on this board) seem to indicate that any rule changes, such as the removal of demi-human level caps was 'dumbing-down'.

So what is 'dumbing-down'? More rules? Less rules? Rule changes? Addition of rules for certain situations?

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Firstly I suggest ignoring Silverthrones comments unless you can argue with him constructively. Another thread recently dropped into near-flaming because he kept arguing the same things over and over again, and people kept telling him he was making assumptions, blah blah blah...very boring to read afterwards.

Secondly - D&D 3e is not dumbed down. Apart from the whole issue of 'what does dumbed down actually mean' I would say that the game has remained very similar, except now all the rules make sense, follow each other and are consistent.

Consider 2e - Thieves skills are percentages. Only thieves can have those skills. No one else is allowed to be as good as thieves.

3e - anyone can take those skills. They are less likely to be as good, because that's part of the choice you make as a player to take a character who won't have as many skills, but there is no artificial reason why other players can't take those skills.

2e - Dwarves can't be wizards. They are intrinsically magic resistant and have a social thing about not using magic. This is consistent.

3e - Anyone can be a wizard/sorceror. Dwarves are not so good at sorcery (-2 Cha penalty) but can excell at Wizardry. Backgrounds reflect this. Consistent.

Is either approach dumbed down? Is the 3e skills system superior to the 2e? I would say yes. It makes more sense that anyone can learn skills, but rogues are the best at them. The 'anyone can be any class' is more...logical...to me, though that's not the right word.

What I'm trying to say is that 3e is more internally consistent, follows its ideas throughout the whole game and requires, on the whole, one rule:

Roll a D20, add some modifiers, and beat the number the DM tells you to beat. Nothing more. If some of the numbers are out...well, we can deal with it.

Compare that to the 1e and 2e legions of different rule set ups, different things requiring different rules (eg combat/skills/proficiencies). The game rules may be simpler, but that doesn't mean the game is dumbed down.

Ramble over and out.

 

[evil_rmf]

I hope this thread doesn't de-generate further into bickering about XDnD versus other systems. It's bad enough with just 1E vs. 3E

I'm not some kind of roleplay vs. hackfest snob, but I can tell you that I don't think it would make much difference in overall enjoyment if my current 3E game was 1E, 0E, GURPS, or anything else. The game world is the game world. You may get killed in different ways, and some rule systems are certainly deadlier than others, but it's always been about roleplaying and making smart decisions in combat, or avoiding combat altogether. At least, that's how it is and has been with the people I have played with over the years.

The one phase that I went through, and have grown out of, is obsessing over the rules. RPGs are bigger than the rules, in my opinion. The mechanics laid down by the rules are a means to an end.

 

[Silverthrone]

Well, I definately differ from your opinion.



You are going to have to be more specific. I see little similarity between Diablo and 3e, except in the most general sense.

Both are mapped based, low imagination hack and slahsh fests aimed toward the vididdie crowd.


Player's Option was an abomination. It was horribly unbalanced and I can't imagine it even being playtested. It made the PCs 3-4 times as powerful with no corresponding increase in monster power.

It was a rather badly done rules set, which explains much of why 3e sucks so badly since it was based almost directly on many of the same principles.

You seem to be under the impression that "classless == good" and that simply isn't true. Its a matter of taste, and personally I find classless systems boring. In every one I've played, characters tend to have a sameness about them.

Classless equal borader spectrum of chracters and abilites and that is nearly always good. As for classless chracters having a smaeness, that is indeed the pot calling the kettle black. It is class and level based chracters that are almost all the same compared to similar class and level chracters of the smae rules set. Class and level based systems seldom even come close to approaching the same variety of their classless and levelless counterparts.



I'm sorry, but this is incredibly arrogant. Did it ever occur to you that some new players might be just starting the game? Certainly I don't need all the DMing advice in the 3e players handbook, but I don't begrudge that it's there. Much more useful and well written than the 2e DMG IMHO.

Much more assuming that the people reading it are not capable of grasping and understanding concepts cruical to the game without much hand holding and simlified rules explanations. Basically it is D&D for Dummies, but, since it was directed at today's kids, it is fitting it would be written for those that have diffculty grasping even slightly complex concepts.

You're right. There's no way d20 could support fantasy, superheroes, modern, science fiction, and horror. Wait - D&D, SASd20, d20Modern, Spycraft, T20, CoC - Oh, I guess you're wrong.

It can support them. It simply does not do so as well as a classless, levelless rules sysyem because of the sheer unrealsticness of such concepts and their weakness in handling untradtional and uniform concepts.

Again - Some people LIKE class based systems. Just because something isn't to your taste doesn't mean that it is 'dumbed down'.

If the proverbial shoe fits, and it does for D&D 3e, it can wear it. If the rules try to explain and cover virtually eveything imaginable as if the person reading them does not understand the concepts enough to use their own judgement, then it is written for dummies. The dummies book series uses the same approch, and it clearly states who the book is written for.


D&D isn't a'phase'. D&D players are not somehow inferior to people who play other games. As the good Col. said recently, this is just coming down to geeks calling geeks geeks. Get off your high horse. D&D isn't the short bus, its the express train through downtown that most people take.

While the others are taking the limo.

I have met few role players who did not consider D&D a phase, a game that most folk begin their role playing career with before moving on to more advanced games.

Oh, and I don't consider WoD to be a classless system. Just because you call them 'clans' or 'tribes' it doesn't change what they are .

Yeah, it doesn't change that it not a simplified set of rules targeted at the same low brow set that plays Magic, Pokemon, and online video games.

But as long as you're roleplaying it doesn't matter. Different types of gamers, and different types of games. Elitism will only hurt and furthur segment the hobby.

If it will get the hobby away from the low brow audience it has recently been introduced to, great.

 

[maddman75]

Well, I definately differ from your opinion.



You are going to have to be more specific. I see little similarity between Diablo and 3e, except in the most general sense.

Both are mapped based, low imagination hack and slahsh fests aimed toward the vididdie crowd.

I really don't see how. Map based? You don't need a map for 3e, though one is helpful in combat situations. Same as for any other RPG. And D&D is no more Hack and Slash than any other game. This is much more dependant on the players than the system.

Player's Option was an abomination. It was horribly unbalanced and I can't imagine it even being playtested. It made the PCs 3-4 times as powerful with no corresponding increase in monster power.

It was a rather badly done rules set, which explains much of why 3e sucks so badly since it was based almost directly on many of the same principles.

Now you are contradicting yourself. Before you talked as if S|<!LLz & P0\/\/3rZ was a step in the right direction, now they are the basis for 3e?

Have you even played 3e?

You seem to be under the impression that "classless == good" and that simply isn't true. Its a matter of taste, and personally I find classless systems boring. In every one I've played, characters tend to have a sameness about them.

Classless equal borader spectrum of chracters and abilites and that is nearly always good. As for classless chracters having a smaeness, that is indeed the pot calling the kettle black. It is class and level based chracters that are almost all the same compared to similar class and level chracters of the smae rules set. Class and level based systems seldom even come close to approaching the same variety of their classless and levelless counterparts.

In Your Opinion. You are not an omnisceint being, and your tastes do not represent absolute truth. It has been my experience that in classless systems characters have a sameness. This is true also of strongly classed systems, but 3e's combination of class achetypes and feat/skill abilities two fighter (or any other class) can be vastly different in skills and abilities.

I'm sorry, but this is incredibly arrogant. Did it ever occur to you that some new players might be just starting the game? Certainly I don't need all the DMing advice in the 3e players handbook, but I don't begrudge that it's there. Much more useful and well written than the 2e DMG IMHO.

Much more assuming that the people reading it are not capable of grasping and understanding concepts cruical to the game without much hand holding and simlified rules explanations. Basically it is D&D for Dummies, but, since it was directed at today's kids, it is fitting it would be written for those that have diffculty grasping even slightly complex concepts.

Have trouble finding players for your Rolemaster game, do you?

You're right. There's no way d20 could support fantasy, superheroes, modern, science fiction, and horror. Wait - D&D, SASd20, d20Modern, Spycraft, T20, CoC - Oh, I guess you're wrong.

It can support them. It simply does not do so as well as a classless, levelless rules sysyem because of the sheer unrealsticness of such concepts and their weakness in handling untradtional and uniform concepts.

Again - you seem to have trouble with this concept - this is a matter of taste. Certainly a system custom designed for a given genre is slightly better at representing the concept. But there is an innate advantage in using a known ruleset. Me and my group are (almost) all adults. We don't have time to read 300 pages on a new way to roll dice. d20 games give us the advantage of trying these different genres without having to start all over.

Again - Some people LIKE class based systems. Just because something isn't to your taste doesn't mean that it is 'dumbed down'.

If the proverbial shoe fits, and it does for D&D 3e, it can wear it. If the rules try to explain and cover virtually eveything imaginable as if the person reading them does not understand the concepts enough to use their own judgement, then it is written for dummies. The dummies book series uses the same approch, and it clearly states who the book is written for.

So D&D is for dummies because the rules are too detailed. You know, I kind of like that most effects can be categorized into a streamlined, consistant system. It allows me to focus my efforts on storytelling and adventure, not making up rules as we go along.

[/quote]D&D isn't a'phase'. D&D players are not somehow inferior to people who play other games. As the good Col. said recently, this is just coming down to geeks calling geeks geeks. Get off your high horse. D&D isn't the short bus, its the express train through downtown that most people take.

While the others are taking the limo.

I have met few role players who did not consider D&D a phase, a game that most folk begin their role playing career with before moving on to more advanced games.[/quote]

Role Playing Career? What's your dental plan look like?

You are taking this stuff way to seriously. Its not like deep immersive roleplay is any less pointless or meaningful than hack and slash. Its all still just a way of killing time.

Oh, and I don't consider WoD to be a classless system. Just because you call them 'clans' or 'tribes' it doesn't change what they are .

Yeah, it doesn't change that it not a simplified set of rules targeted at the same low brow set that plays Magic, Pokemon, and online video games.

ROFLMAO - No, it targets wanna-be goths who are angry at their parents. It also uses gimmicky dice mechanics that ensure you don't feel like you are playing D&D, no matter how wonky the statistics are.

But as long as you're roleplaying it doesn't matter. Different types of gamers, and different types of games. Elitism will only hurt and furthur segment the hobby.

If it will get the hobby away from the low brow audience it has recently been introduced to, great.

Aww, wassamatter - your precious niche hobby is starting to become mainstream? Now you can't feel superior over the 'unwashed masses' anymore? Get over yourself.

If you despise d20 so much, that's fine. Ain't nothing to me. But why are you arguing on a d20 board? You *do* realize that you are insulting just about every person here, right?

I think I'm done with this guy. Just about anything else I could say to him would end up crashing this thread into a hillside in a ball of flames, so I'll bow out gracefully.

I'm sorry you never had a good D&D game.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

I think I'm done with this guy. Just about anything else I could say to him would end up crashing this thread into a hillside in a ball of flames, so I'll bow out gracefully.

I'm sorry you never had a good D&D game.

I agree, pretty much everything this guy says is arrogant, condescending, and just basically designed to piss people off. I can respect that D&D might not be your thing, but I can't respect being mocked and insulted because it's my thing. Especially when you use falsehoods and hyperbole to prove your "point."

 

[Vhane]

He did have a few legitimate points.

The one which strikes me most of all is that 3e was balanced to play like Diablo (3e is as much about "stuff" as is that computer game)

3e is a marketing gimick on many levels, it plays to the same crowd which enjoyed the game Diablo and has done well for doing so... its not that its dumbed down its mass marketed.

 

[Wormwood]

3e is a marketing gimick on many levels, it plays to the same crowd which enjoyed the game Diablo and has done well for doing so... its not that its dumbed down its mass marketed.

Actually, 3e is also noteworthy in that it brought many 'old school' players back into the D&D fold. People in their 30's who had abandoned 2e and moved on to other, more fluid systems.

3e brought us back in droves, and for that I'm thankful.

ps. Take this thread to rpg.net where it belongs.

 

[Dark Jezter]

D&D is not as much about "stuff" as Diablo is. In Diablo, ALL values stack. D&D has various rules regarding which bonuses stack and which don't. In D&D, a character with powerful items can indeed be very powerful, but in Diablo, a character with the right combination of items can be virtually invincible.

That being said, Diablo is still a fantastic game. It isn't popular because it's "dumbed down" or "mass marketed", it's popular because it's simple, addictive, well-designed, and appeals to both hardcore and casual video game players.

As for Silverthorne, this guy is a troll if I've ever seen one. Think about it; he comes to a forum dedicated to D20 and D&D and starts talking about how it's "low-brow" and appeals only to dummies, basically insulting most everyone here. Does anybody remember the thread about RPG snobs a while back? Well, this is exactly what that thread was all about.