The thing I miss most from AD&D is...

[billd91]

And then, just three level later, the DM says "now, you can't take that cool feat, because your charisma is not high enough". Another bunch of level and that's "yes, you can chose this attack power, but frankly, you will rarely be able to connect to your target, it's not on your build list*". And then "You can't take that parangon path. Nor this one : You should multiclass to take it, and you can't take the multiclass feat because bla-bla-bla".
It's roughly the same problem in 3e : feat and PRC pre-requisite are sometime so hard to reach that it's impossible to have them without planing from level 1. The retraining rules of 4e help a little, but not so much because of all the stat pre-requisites.

As I said elsewhere, I would rather have a few restriction based upon fluff than a lot of restrictions based upon crunch. A DM saying me "no, halfling can't be juggernaut berserkers, that's silly" is less irritating than "sorry, the rules says that you need 12 ranks in knowledge arcana to take that Prc, you won't be able to take it before level 21..."


Needless to say, after such an experience, the player will take hours to create a new character... And that's entirely because of the system.

The answer to all of this is still that the player need not stress out about it. You don't qualify for something, work on it. 3.x offers ways for the PC to improve. If you'll still never qualify for it, find something else that piques your interest.

No character needs to be super-optimized. Building a character without much forethought in the character build works reasonably well, particularly if the whole table is playing that way.

 

[jdrakeh]

Settings as sandboxes, though they seem to have returned to this with 4e. I like a setting book that paints things in broad strokes and encourages me to make it my own, rather than a setting book that tries to prescribe every last detail.

 

[Storm Raven]

Moreover, even if one randomizes the selections, more steps are still more steps!

How many more steps though?

In 1e, it was stats, race class, alignment, hp, (spells), equipment.

In 3e it was stats, race, class, alignment, skills, feat(s), hp, (spells), equipment.

Two additional steps expanding from 6 (or 7) to 8 (or 9). And those two steps can be completed in a couple minutes at most if you don't sit around agonizing over minor mechanical differences levels down the line.

To be perfectly honest, in either edition, in my experience, it usually takes much more time to come up with a character name and background than it does to come up with the mechanical elements of the character.

 

[Storm Raven]

And then, just three level later, the DM says "now, you can't take that cool feat, because your charisma is not high enough". Another bunch of level and that's "yes, you can chose this attack power, but frankly, you will rarely be able to connect to your target, it's not on your build list*". And then "You can't take that parangon path. Nor this one : You should multiclass to take it, and you can't take the multiclass feat because bla-bla-bla".

Once again, that's not the fault of the system. That's the fault of the player who thinks it is critical to get that feat or that attack power or whatever. Going through the books, one finds that there really are no feats that are "critical" to get to have a mechanically competent character, so the only thing that "system mastery" gets you is a coolness factor. But if you, as a player, don't worry about that, then character generation is quick and easy.

You can spend time worrying about the mechanical aspects of character creation in more recent editions. You certainly don't have to in order to have an effective enjoyable character. If you are spending time doing so, that's your issue, not the system's.

 

[Storm Raven]

They can do either as they wish or playing skill and familiarity with each other permits. I enjoy a level of cooperative skill that is less involved with system mastery.

The point is that with group initiaitve, the PCs aren't functioning as a group. They are simply functioning as they are as a byproduct of the rules. The PCs aren't doing any "functioning", the rules are functioning for them.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

Nothing.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The point is that with group initiaitve, the PCs aren't functioning as a group. They are simply functioning as they are as a byproduct of the rules. The PCs aren't doing any "functioning", the rules are functioning for them.

How exactly are the rules functioning for them? I find it to be quite the opposite. Once initiative is determined the PC's can all act as individuals if they wish or work together to coordinate actions as a team.

If the PC's win initiative then the melee fighters could just charge the enemy or wait until the magic user unleashes a spell so as not to be affected. This is actually a form of teamwork by decision rather than dictated by the rules. It's one reason that WOTC D&D has to have so many spells that target only "enemies" in a given area. This is done as a convenience so that players don't have to think about tactical positioning so much.

 

[Storm Raven]

How exactly are the rules functioning for them? I find it to be quite the opposite. Once initiative is determined the PC's can all act as individuals if they wish or work together to coordinate actions as a team.

I was talking about group initiative. Maybe you missed that.

 

[MerricB]

Settings as sandboxes, though they seem to have returned to this with 4e. I like a setting book that paints things in broad strokes and encourages me to make it my own, rather than a setting book that tries to prescribe every last detail.

That's not quite a "sandbox" is it? My understanding of a sandbox was that there are encounters designed for various regions, and the PCs can choose which region they go to. As opposed to the "railroad", where the DM chooses which region the PCs go to.

I'm not sure of what the term is for what you're talking about... although, I agree that I like that style of campaign setting. (Published) Greyhawk was designed as a place with a lot of different cultures so that DMs could drop their own campaign into it without trouble and then design to their hearts content... whilst still having a framework to build on.

4e FR and EB seem to use a similar structure; as opposed to the Forgotten Realms from 1e through 3e, where we had a *lot* of supplements.

The trouble is assigning the "don't describe in detail" view to AD&D is that Greyhawk actually ws very late in the Gygaxian AD&D days. How much would have been described if he'd stayed with the game? There were plans for Stoink, and you've got RJK writing city descriptions in "Fate of Istus"... Then, you have the Realms being described in moderate detail in late AD&D before 2e came along!

Cheers!

 

[Hairfoot]

How many more steps though?

In 1e, it was stats, race class, alignment, hp, (spells), equipment.

In 3e it was stats, race, class, alignment, skills, feat(s), hp, (spells), equipment.

Two additional steps expanding from 6 (or 7) to 8 (or 9). And those two steps can be completed in a couple minutes at most if you don't sit around agonizing over minor mechanical differences levels down the line.

That severely understates the time and system knowledge required to select skills and feats, as compared to the "roll and/or pick one" nature of the other elements, and it gets even worse if a player intends to take a PrC later.