Third Edition Culture- Is is sustainable?

[Belen]

Hey, I got a radical idea.

If you like 3rd Edition, play it.

If you don't like 3rd Edition, save yourself some money and don't play it.

If you post on a messageboard how "crappy" 3rd Edition is, be prepared to hear from people who like it. We're not going to sit by and not say anything.

If you post on a messageboard that you like 3rd Edition, be prepared for people to post that they do not like 3rd Edition. They aren't going to sit by and not say anything.

Now, was that so hard?

:\

I like 3e. I love d20. You can like something and still have issues with it. No one is saying it is crappy, we're just saying that some problems exist that detract from the game.

 

[The_Universe]

I tend to think that the defining part of 3/3.5E is not that the game serves the rules, but rather that the game is the rules. As little flavor as is possible has been codified into the game, and I think that's great.

I hated D&D until 3E, and now I'm one of its fiercest proponents. I feel exactly 0 nostalgia for old editions, however, which may be slightly different than a lot of people posting here.

 

[Henry]

Just curious Akrasia - when you say "the slowest system you've encountered", do you refer specifically to combat, or to more than that?

BelenUmeria, I can definitely see where you are coming from, especially at higher levels; but even at lower levels, if you have a battlefield where the cleric just cast bless, and the PC's are fighting from higher ground, and there's a darkness spell covering the battlefield, things just got three times more complicated for every player at the table. I had a battle this Saturday where this very thing was highlighted, and three times we had PC's who we ret-conned misses into hits because they had forgotten about the bless in the middle of the battle.

With regards to speed, however, the experience has been in 3E's favor in my group - My experience has been mostly lower-level in 3E (1st to 9th level), but in combat-heavy sessions I've run as many as four combats in 3 hours, as opposed in 2E to only running 2 per 8 hour session - I was loath to try any more than that, due to the time sink. Granted, I also treat my NPC's more freeform, giving them stat blocks more like 2E than 3E, but I will stat up my NPC's when I get the time to do so.

However, I don't see an easy answer, short of removing most spells, and stripping the tactical heart out of the game - which IMO would not be a good goal, but one that diminished the current game. It can be fun for a player to figure out that a well-timed dispel magic can turn the tide of a battle, or to see the look on the fighter-player's face when he triple-cleaves the ineffectual enemy, or the look of horror when a 50-foot awakened scorprion comes air-walking over your battlements, ranting for your blood.

 

[fredramsey]

You are not part of the shrill crowd that message was aimed at.

There are people who are of the mind that the louder something is yelled, the more true it becomes.

Too much talk radio, I think.

Those are the people who I was speaking to; those that are stating opinions as fact, and squeal when someone disagrees with them.

I like 3e. I love d20. You can like something and still have issues with it. No one is saying it is crappy, we're just saying that some problems exist that detract from the game.

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

One of the guys I sometimes play with works with Troll Lord games (heck, I kinda know all those guys from college). He said they sold out of the C&C sets they took to GenCon Indy and they've already had lots of orders for more. I'll probably lay hands on a copy around Christmas time.

 

[Psion]

I like 3e. I love d20. You can like something and still have issues with it. No one is saying it is crappy, we're just saying that some problems exist that detract from the game.

Which is fair enough. And hopefully, if the messageboard is living up to its function, we can come up with methods and alternatives to play the game better. Or if needed, recommended alternatives.

What is not helpful is continual, incessant sarcastic jibes designed to inflame people who don't share your views. Or attempts to demonstrate that they are playing at wrong, or that your way is the one true way. Etc.

Flames produce more heat than light, as they say.

 

[Belen]

However, I don't see an easy answer, short of removing most spells, and stripping the tactical heart out of the game - which IMO would not be a good goal, but one that diminished the current game. It can be fun for a player to figure out that a well-timed dispel magic can turn the tide of a battle, or to see the look on the fighter-player's face when he triple-cleaves the ineffectual enemy, or the look of horror when a 50-foot awakened scorprion comes air-walking over your battlements, ranting for your blood.

My solution would be a unified mechanic covering advanced combat. A single roll and opposed roll. You can even keep the AoO in there, but the AoO does not cause the action to fail. Then you eleminate the feats that break this rule such as Improved Grapple etc. This allows for option and simplicity. A bull rush is the same as a grapple is the same as an overrun is the same as action x. Every player and GM knows that simple mechanic.

A feat should be more like a modular class ability. It should always work, not just when a condition is right. For instance, point blank shot? Why not just have a feat that allows +1 to hit/damage with range weapons regardless of the 30 feet? One way, you count squares and need to remember a mod. The other way, you add it to your BaB regardless and it is always there.

 

[Akrasia]

...
For me, the best part of 3e is the unified resolution mechanic. I don't give a damn how many rules the game has, because they're all handled in a consistent and intuitive way!* As a result, I seldom have to pick up a rule book while playing, and I love that.

- Piratecat

* Except for turning undead. Turning undead cheeses me off.

Many feats, class abilities, and spells involve various modifications to the "unified resolution mechanic". If you don't know how a specific feat or spell works (how it lets the N/PC 'break the rules', so to speak), you need to look it up. They are all individual variables that affect the game in different ways.

In contrast, I agree that skills generally work well and are very intuitive -- I have only looked up a skill description a handful of times since first reading the rules.

 

[Faraer]

Most people just don't think in the detailed, analytic, gameist way 3E asks DMs and players to. Lots of existing roleplayers like rules. You show 1000 pages of rules to ordinary people, and they just blank out. It really takes a very specific mentality to fit into the D&D culture. That's fine for those who do think that way, but people who would greatly enjoy RPGs -- people who work in the arts and enjoy other fictional media -- are blocked out from the first by the alienness of the insular, jargon-ridden, d20-driven RPG culture.

Now, I'm aware of the risk of talking about 'most people'! But does anyone really disagree?

 

[Belen]

You are not part of the shrill crowd that message was aimed at.

There are people who are of the mind that the louder something is yelled, the more true it becomes.

Too much talk radio, I think.

Those are the people who I was speaking to; those that are stating opinions as fact, and squeal when someone disagrees with them.

Ok, there are rabid haters out there. I usually do not encounter them on ENWorld, but I have met a few.