Third Edition Culture- Is is sustainable?

[Ranger REG]

i was never on the d02 bandwagon.

i've been playtesting it for 4+ years. but...

my hat of d02 knows no limits.

Just curious. If you hate d20, exactly what do you contribute in playtesting d20 products?

:\

 

[Acid_crash]

Sure. See the section in the DMG about customizing classes to get you started. What's printed in the PHB isn't written in stone.

Sure, but ONLY if the DM is willing to allow the player to customize the class to suit the character's concept. I've played in many games with many DM's who don't diverge from what's written, despite the concepts I come up with.
---------
As for 3rd culture, I'm a part of it, I like D&D but I don't like it as well, but I try to have fun with it. It's not a game I will run, because I just don't like it that much to want to run it, but I like it enough to play it and can find the fun in it.

I will GM just about any other d20 product except D&D. I find other d20 products (most notably d20 Modern) just easier to understand, grasp, and justify according to the rules (I guess the classes make more sense to me). Give me Grim Tales or d20 Modern any day, along with Conan, Spycraft, OGL Cybernet/Horror/Steampunk, Blue Rose, Mutants and Masterminds...ALL of those make more sense than D&D.

Why am I saying all this? I haven't the faintest idea really, I guess it's late but in a way it shows that somebody can like d20 and not really care for D&D, despite D&D being proclaimed as the father of d20 (personally, I would say that Talislanta is the father of the d20 system core game mechanic).

 

[Akrasia]

.... Why am I saying all this? I haven't the faintest idea really, I guess it's late but in a way it shows that somebody can like d20 and not really care for D&D, despite D&D being proclaimed as the father of d20 (personally, I would say that Talislanta is the father of the d20 system core game mechanic).

Venting is healthy! And fun!

Besides, everyone knows that Rolemaster (1/2 Ed) is the father of the "core mechanic" (core mechanic -- for skills, combat, and spells, all in 1981.)

Talislatna is just a follower.

 

[Mystery Man]

Thanks for gracing us with your insightful comments. ENWorld is a better place for it.

Well I hope I didn't hurt your feelings.

 

[eyebeams]

Wasn't this message board or website or whatever started out as d20reviews.com? Or something such like that? Doesn't it have as its background wallpaper a THREE in a circle signifying 3rd Edition? Why are you people here if you don't like it? Wha..? I just..don't...

Going to go lie down now.

Please do not equate any criticism whatsoever with hatred. You lower the quality and tone of the discussion by doing so.

 

[Storm Raven]

I find the "it's not rocket science" posts very condescending. Of course it's not but it implies that the person isn't capable of adding. Voicing your opinion or an alternate view is fine, I just don't like the demeaning replies.

But the point is that it isn't rocket science. Some people here seem to be arguing that the game is so complicated, when in reality it isn't. There are a couple of modifiers that need to be added together, and the math is simple and the rules generally clear (and simple) on what adds together and what doesn't.

The math in 3ed is not complicated by any means. The main "problem", especially on the DM's part, is there is a lot to remember. And it only increases as the levels get higher. It's not so much not being able to add, it's forgetting what stacks with what and who has what spell working. Sure the players can write stuff down but what if the DM has a couple of spellcasters, some demons, and undead and orcs minions all at once?

He writes it down for his guys. This isn't that difficult to do. If you stat out your monsters, make an index card for the groups of monsters you are using and mark any modifiers directly on the card during combat.

High-level play in 3.x requires the DM to have a very strong grasp of the rules and be able to spout mechanics off the top of his. If you have a skittish DM or someone who has to consult the book about every spell, feat, or combat maneuver, you're going to be in for a long night.

Something not unique to 3.x D&D. Virtually all game systems bog down when the DM is not familiar with the rules and/or is unprepared. Every version of D&D certainly has, and most other game systems do as well.

In the various campaigns I've been in, almost once per session the DM or a players says "Damn! I forgot this guy's special ability" or "oops, I added the bonuses from Righteous Might, Divine Power, Holy Aura, and Greater Magic Weapon together wrong, sorry about that".

And as a DM, I would say: "Too bad, add it in next time. We aren't going back to retcon just because you (or I) forgot a modifier." This speeds up play tremendously (and provides players more incentive to get their modifiers straight the first time).

Once again, making a 3.x D&D game flow smoothly is not that difficult, you just have to be organized, be prepared, and not worry if something gets missed here and there.

 

[Desdichado]

While we're in the business of plugging things, I found C&C to be, to some extent, what the RC would be, had it been revised to use the much vaunted single "d20 mechanic".

Huh. That's the most intrigueing description of C&C that I've heard to date.

 

[Psion]

Sorry, but the last sentence in this paragraph this strikes me as absolute nonsense.

I fail completely to see why an "easier system" cannot be just as consistent, or have just as much internal logical, as a "meatier" system.

Indeed, if it is adequately consistent in its parsimonious rules, a simpler system is less likely to suffer from breakdowns of consistency and/or internal logic in application than are more complex systems.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree then, because I firmly beleive that less robust systems invariably result in less consistency. Unless you are a master of memory (in which case, half these complaints disolve anyways), a system that relies on the GM making ad hoc calls as opposed to referring to a codified method will result in different calls in similar situations at different times. There simply is no way around it and no denying it.

 

[Psion]

And let me make (another) plug for Rules Cyclopedia D&D, which is, by many peoples' reckoning, the best version of D&D ever. Even 3/3.5 die-hards tend to respect RC D&D.

I find someone pining for days gone gone by calling those who are following the current norm "die hards" a rather curious choice of terms to say the least.

 

[Belen]

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree then, because I firmly beleive that less robust systems invariably result in less consistency. Unless you are a master of memory (in which case, half these complaints disolve anyways), a system that relies on the GM making ad hoc calls as opposed to referring to a codified method will result in different calls in similar situations at different times. There simply is no way around it and no denying it.

I do not think anyone wants a system that relies on ad hoc calls. My personal desire would be to see a tightened, more unified mechanic for advanced combat. At the moment, we have several different by very similiar mechanics, making it very easy to get confused. Then, we have feats layered on top of each mechanic that breaks the rule.

That's not options, that's insanity, imo.

A more simple system is not ad hoc, any more than a complex system is more robust.