[spin-off] 3E is NOT "dumbed down."
- Thread starter Tom Cashel
- Start date
dema
First Post
Gonna just jump in having read just page 3 in this thread.
The first instance of dumbing down that we 2ers felt was the name changes of some magic items, namly the belts thing.
3e is very rules intensive (ask Gygax too) and it takes more out of a person to make an NPC and adventure than the older ADnD rules. Almost everything is accounted for in 3e, in 2e we had to make things up on the fly. Maybe that is considered dumbing down, but i see it as the opposite. Sure the rules are streamlines, but they also handly many more situations, that IMHO is a more defines system and not dumbed down.
I have enjoyed 2e because it's less rules and more story, 3e is very mechanical and seems like less story (fluff that is.) Do I feel 3e is dumbed down? They renamed some things and lifted some old restrictions, created rules for most situations - I really don't think that is dumbed down.
Why didn't they change the name of a lichs phylatic (damn thing that keeps them going) to lichs amulet to keep people like we from having to look up what a damn PHYAHSJDJLSJS#$@#$ is?
They didn't so I don't think it's dumbed down, just a bit different.
just a rant-
-dem
The first instance of dumbing down that we 2ers felt was the name changes of some magic items, namly the belts thing.
3e is very rules intensive (ask Gygax too) and it takes more out of a person to make an NPC and adventure than the older ADnD rules. Almost everything is accounted for in 3e, in 2e we had to make things up on the fly. Maybe that is considered dumbing down, but i see it as the opposite. Sure the rules are streamlines, but they also handly many more situations, that IMHO is a more defines system and not dumbed down.
I have enjoyed 2e because it's less rules and more story, 3e is very mechanical and seems like less story (fluff that is.) Do I feel 3e is dumbed down? They renamed some things and lifted some old restrictions, created rules for most situations - I really don't think that is dumbed down.
Why didn't they change the name of a lichs phylatic (damn thing that keeps them going) to lichs amulet to keep people like we from having to look up what a damn PHYAHSJDJLSJS#$@#$ is?
They didn't so I don't think it's dumbed down, just a bit different.
just a rant-
-dem
Corinth
First Post
It doesn't help Silverthrone that his positions are directly contradicted by the 1998 WOTC Market Survey, as noted by Ryan Dancey and others in the interview archives here at EN World.
The overwhelming majority of gamers like, want and prefer class/level systems because it is easy for both GMs and players to discern what a character can do (or handle) and how well he does (handles) it. Nothing makes this clearer than in writing adventure modules, either for publication or for home use.
They also despise wasting time learning new sets of rules when they just want to play the bloody game. D20 has what Joe Gamer wants, and it allows him to play the games that he wants to play without wasting scads of time relearning the rules- rules that he, quite rightly, believes that he doesn't need to play the game.
The overwhelming majority of gamers like, want and prefer class/level systems because it is easy for both GMs and players to discern what a character can do (or handle) and how well he does (handles) it. Nothing makes this clearer than in writing adventure modules, either for publication or for home use.
They also despise wasting time learning new sets of rules when they just want to play the bloody game. D20 has what Joe Gamer wants, and it allows him to play the games that he wants to play without wasting scads of time relearning the rules- rules that he, quite rightly, believes that he doesn't need to play the game.
Last edited:
MeepoTheMighty
First Post
dema said:
Well, they probably changed that because every time someone found a "girdle," they'd snicker.
Honestly, half the time I'd have to explain that girdle was another word for a belt, so why not just call it a belt?
JeffB said:
Hey, no offense meant Jeff. My comments about RM and WOD are jokes. I'm not a system snob. I don't have the time or the players for a new system. But if I met someone who wanted me to try a game of either, I'd go for it.
Besides, I used to use Combat and Tactics, so I got no room to complain about overly complex systems
And if the rumors of a d20 Vampire ever come to frutition I'll be all over it. I love the concept and setting, just not nuts over dice pools.
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
Just one thing - in general, if you are writing technically (as I would expect you'd be when writing the nuts-and-bolts of something like a game system), it is considered good writing technique to use the simplest word which describes what you mean. Especially in fields such as engineering and science. I would hope that people don't consider these fields "dumbed-down" simply because of this fact. The point is to concisely convey your meaning, not compete in the world vocabulary stakes.
Next up - rules-light versus rules-heavy is an argument that persists across roleplaying as a whole. Some people like rules-light, some people like rules-heavy. That's it. That's all there is to it. Neither is better, and certainly neither is superior. Both are superior to a rules-heavy system which fails to supply what you need in it's rules, or a rules-light system which restricts your running of a game.
The same goes for classed vs classless. I fail to see how D&D still qualifies as a classed system - with the freer multiclassing rules which are available, I don't see how any characters are being needlessly restricted. Certainly the restrictions applied are no more severe than those in the WoD games. They're certainly a lot looser than other games out there in which a character has one and only one direction in which to develop.
Magic items, and the diablo syndrome... It's the nethack system thank you very much. And before that it was the rogue system, and before that it was... D&D. Altered, certainly, but it still started out being D&D. And if there was one thing in D&D which set different members of a class apart, it was the amount of magic items they were carrying, and what those items let them do. That didn't change in 2nd edition. And noone played players option because it was so utterly broken. 3rd ed broke the character-defined-by-his-gear mould, which is why magic items can now be distributed in a free and sane manner. Rather than the "despite all the magic lying around in dungeons, noone in normal society owns them" rubbish that was prevalent in 1st and 2nd ed.
Next up - rules-light versus rules-heavy is an argument that persists across roleplaying as a whole. Some people like rules-light, some people like rules-heavy. That's it. That's all there is to it. Neither is better, and certainly neither is superior. Both are superior to a rules-heavy system which fails to supply what you need in it's rules, or a rules-light system which restricts your running of a game.
The same goes for classed vs classless. I fail to see how D&D still qualifies as a classed system - with the freer multiclassing rules which are available, I don't see how any characters are being needlessly restricted. Certainly the restrictions applied are no more severe than those in the WoD games. They're certainly a lot looser than other games out there in which a character has one and only one direction in which to develop.
Magic items, and the diablo syndrome... It's the nethack system thank you very much. And before that it was the rogue system, and before that it was... D&D. Altered, certainly, but it still started out being D&D. And if there was one thing in D&D which set different members of a class apart, it was the amount of magic items they were carrying, and what those items let them do. That didn't change in 2nd edition. And noone played players option because it was so utterly broken. 3rd ed broke the character-defined-by-his-gear mould, which is why magic items can now be distributed in a free and sane manner. Rather than the "despite all the magic lying around in dungeons, noone in normal society owns them" rubbish that was prevalent in 1st and 2nd ed.
NoOneofConsequence
First Post
First: I was going to wade in against Silverthrone but then I realised that he was just in this to wind everyone up, so...to hell with that.
Second: I'm one of those who came back to D&D because of 3e. I hadn't played D&D for over ten years but the new edition seemed to have made all of the changes that I felt should have been made when 2e came out. In fact, if ever there was a bald faced marketing ploy, it was 2e. (NB. - I'm not talking about the player's options stuff here, I have no experience of that. Frankly it sounds even less like D&D to me than 3e, IMHO.) 2e hardly changed the rules of D&D at all and most of the arcane leftovers from early seventies wargaming were left in place. I just walked away in disgust.
There's only one thing that possibly constitutes dumbing down in 3e and that's the re-introduction of "Gygax worship". Of the entire of D&D 3e culture, it's the adoration of Gary that I can't stand. I cut my teeth in gaming on pre-GW White Dwarf and the now defunct Different Worlds magazines. When I began playing the industry was full of experiment and creativity and even then, twenty years ago, Gary didn't get it. If it wasn't a dungeon, he didn't want to know. Reading his column in Dragon, nothing much seems to have changed. He's giving out gaming advice based on his experience in the the mid 70's - surely he is aware of things that have happened since. Surely he's gamed since then? A lot of good things have happened in this hobby since he ran Tenser and Mordenkainnen et al through the dungeons of Greyhawk Castle.
I wouldn't kneel before Gary then, I won't kneel now. My heroes in this industry are names that the majority probably wouldn't recognise - Steve Perrin, who designed some of the best gaming materials across rules systems and genres. Sandy Peterson, who wrote the first classless rpg. People like this should be remembered. They took the hobby further than Gary even imagined was possible.
To use a metaphor: sure, Gary Gygax (along with his friends) found a giant gold nugget called roleplaying, and we're all thankful. But so many others deserve credit for taking that gold and making some genuinely beautiful jewellery with it.
Edit inserted:
Boy I really foamed at the mouth there...this is all IMHO, truly.
Second: I'm one of those who came back to D&D because of 3e. I hadn't played D&D for over ten years but the new edition seemed to have made all of the changes that I felt should have been made when 2e came out. In fact, if ever there was a bald faced marketing ploy, it was 2e. (NB. - I'm not talking about the player's options stuff here, I have no experience of that. Frankly it sounds even less like D&D to me than 3e, IMHO.) 2e hardly changed the rules of D&D at all and most of the arcane leftovers from early seventies wargaming were left in place. I just walked away in disgust.
There's only one thing that possibly constitutes dumbing down in 3e and that's the re-introduction of "Gygax worship". Of the entire of D&D 3e culture, it's the adoration of Gary that I can't stand. I cut my teeth in gaming on pre-GW White Dwarf and the now defunct Different Worlds magazines. When I began playing the industry was full of experiment and creativity and even then, twenty years ago, Gary didn't get it. If it wasn't a dungeon, he didn't want to know. Reading his column in Dragon, nothing much seems to have changed. He's giving out gaming advice based on his experience in the the mid 70's - surely he is aware of things that have happened since. Surely he's gamed since then? A lot of good things have happened in this hobby since he ran Tenser and Mordenkainnen et al through the dungeons of Greyhawk Castle.
I wouldn't kneel before Gary then, I won't kneel now. My heroes in this industry are names that the majority probably wouldn't recognise - Steve Perrin, who designed some of the best gaming materials across rules systems and genres. Sandy Peterson, who wrote the first classless rpg. People like this should be remembered. They took the hobby further than Gary even imagined was possible.
To use a metaphor: sure, Gary Gygax (along with his friends) found a giant gold nugget called roleplaying, and we're all thankful. But so many others deserve credit for taking that gold and making some genuinely beautiful jewellery with it.
Edit inserted:
Boy I really foamed at the mouth there...this is all IMHO, truly.
Last edited:
Sorry, I've never played Diablo. What's the connection with D&D?
In one of the other threads, someone referenced a nice article about the history of the game, from which I deduce that Gygax is a 'rules-heavy' kind of person, and Dave Arneson is a 'rules-light' exponent (rather like the guys who wrote Paranoia , so it would appear that this dichotomy was built into the industry from the get-go.
One of the things I like about D&D is that someone who isn't particularly charismatic or persuasive can still role-play the concept - because there's a mechanic to deal with it.
From that point of view, 3e seems like an improvement, because more areas can be covered by the game mechanic if you want to use it.
Come to think of it, are there really any areas of 'role-playing' that shouldn't have rules for them? Except sex, of course....
In one of the other threads, someone referenced a nice article about the history of the game, from which I deduce that Gygax is a 'rules-heavy' kind of person, and Dave Arneson is a 'rules-light' exponent (rather like the guys who wrote Paranoia , so it would appear that this dichotomy was built into the industry from the get-go.
One of the things I like about D&D is that someone who isn't particularly charismatic or persuasive can still role-play the concept - because there's a mechanic to deal with it.
From that point of view, 3e seems like an improvement, because more areas can be covered by the game mechanic if you want to use it.
Come to think of it, are there really any areas of 'role-playing' that shouldn't have rules for them? Except sex, of course....
Henry
Autoexreginated
aNenuphar said:
Gary has insisted that AD&D 1e and OD&D were rules-lite, and the fact that 1e is rules-lite is open for debate, but OD&D was CERTAINLY rules-lite, and he has continued the tradition with his Lejendary Adventures game. Think Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu, but without 90% of the stats.
Dave "Blackmoor" Arneson has never been obviously rules-heavy or rules-lite, but he has always had a reputation for role-play intensive, and many credit him with introduction of role-play elements into the fantasy game that Gary developed.
