Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ganders" data-source="post: 2682076" data-attributes="member: 37815">I've almost always used miniatures with D&D, since the first time it was called D&D, and through the AD&D versions.  So the grid-and-miniatures bit never phased me.  And I really believe that role-playing works just fine with v3.5 if the group wants it.  Still, I have a bunch of explanations of why people say this.1)The I-move-I-shoot-you-move-you-shoot feel of combat is definitely different.  Turn-based action like that is more like a board-game or card-game or, dare I say it, M:tG game.  It makes for less narrative action, more measurements (probably makes the game go a little faster and be easier to manage too, which explains why so many types of games are made this way).  The old system had initiative rolls, but not in the same manner.  Actions in AD&D were simultaneous -- you'd all describe your actions and then they would be resolved.  For instance, two fighters could charge at eachother and meet in the middle.  In today's game one of them would 'go first' and charge, the other one wouldn't get to move at all.  Really, the only thing missing is 'players move in clockwise order around the table'... maybe that will replace initiative rolls in v4 as a means of streamlining play.2)Any programmer who reads through the 3.0 or 3.5 book for the first time will immediately recognize how 'computerized' it feels.  It's terribly easy to imagine programming a computer to go through the steps of combat, one step at a time.  Whether this is just an impression, or if it was actually intended this way, I don't know.  I'm not going to defend this impression, but I know a lot of people had it.  So many people that it can't be ignored.  A lot of early reviews (and some more recent ones) were based on this first impression, so that could explain why you've heard it.3)Also, there weren't AoOs.  Those AoO rules really do change the flow of combat, in a way that old AD&D players don't appreciate.  Also readied actions are too reminiscent of cancel magic from M:tG.  I acknowledge that this is unfair, and there's nothing truly wrong with readied actions in D&D.  But I can't help it, I still cringe every time I see it used during play.4)v3 and v3.5 expanded options in a way that broke the shared-reality that millions of gamers had of D&D gameworlds.  Dwarven wizards, evil rangers, high-level halflings, and monstrous PCs were all explicitly forbidden in earlier versions.  The shared fantasy of 'what the gameworld is like' was permanently broken when such abberations were allowed.  It opened up many new options that seem like fun... and also increased the scope, for instance low-magic, avg-magic, and high-magic gameworlds.  But the shared experience is gone.  It used to be that gamers the world over 'knew' that elves were fighter-magic-users and that humans were the dominant race and boxes-with-legs were not alive and +3 swords were really rare and only one spell could be cast per round.  Adventures, modules, stories, and more could be built upon that common understanding.  Now all that depends on which setting/gameworld you play.  Stories are now harder to tell, they need more background, because that groundwork is no longer solid.5)Someone in this thread mentioned the Bluff and Diplomacy rules.  This is the best answer.  This explicitly and intentionally replaces playing out the situation with rolling dice.  Role-play for roll-play, what could be clearer?  As someone who played various different games, both home games and scattered conventions, in the 90s, I can see clearly why they did it.  There was a large and influential segment of the AD&D fanbase that thought it was best to play without dice or miniatures at all, and the more radical could do away with character sheets too.  They were clearly promoting role-play vs roll-play.  But somebody, somewhere, decided that no matter how wonderful and dramatic that type of game could be (and btw improvisational acting games can be really amazing and fun), it was not D&D and should be called by some other name.  The Player's Handbook in 2000 tried to declare with certainty that the player's ability as an orator should not determine his character's abilities.  Bluff, Diplomacy, and a few other things were the game mechanics supporting that decision.  Is it any surprise that such folks would say the new versions are more roll-play than role-play?  (Disclaimer: this paragraph is all me, I didn't read it from any official WOTC source.6)It may be that v3.5 rules just 'seem' more wargamy.  This is merely an impression.  It could come from something as simple as page layout or even choice of font.  Or it could be a matter of emphasis.  The new rules rarely point out to GMs/players that the play comes first, the rules second.  The new rules make it seem like the tactical rules come first, but you can roleplay in between, when it's not your turn to move.Odhanan's and Rasyr's posts explain the last two points better than me.</blockquote>

Verification