Third Edition Culture- Is is sustainable?

[Sebastian Francis]

i
i'm running an OD&D campaign. goto the Gamers seeking Gamers forum if you are in the Atlanta area and interested in real D&D.*

You're running an AD&D 1e campaign? Cool!

 

[Psion]

My old group had three optimizers. They competed with each other. It was sad, and frightening for those of us who wanted to have a fun, simple game.

Now this makes sense. I think that one of the central tenets of balance is that all players feel like they are given a chance to contribute. The rules try to acheive this, but really, when there are optimal and suboptimal builds (and indeed, optimal and suboptimal play styles), the capabilities of the players becomes a balance issue.

Does that mean you should switch to another game? Mmmm... maybe, maybe not. One thing seems certain, either those three players will just game the new game like they did the old one, or (if it's a heavily "GM empowerment" vice "player empowerment system") you will find that the game does not give those players what they want.

What to do?

Unfortunately, there are no easy answers. The GM can try to compensate by creating more opportunities for the remaining players, or by tipping the scales a little. But it could be that you have a group whose playstyles are so disparate that it may, in reality, be better to separate them.

The lesson to take home there, I think, is that you can't factor players out of the equation.

 

[Grayhawk]

if you fled melee combat... your opponent got a "Free" attack on you.

I think you are looking back at common house rules and assuming they were in the rules as written. This rule was a house rule, not a printed rule.

1st edition Player's Handbook, p.105:

'Fleeing means...[snip]... it exposes the character to rear attack at the time...'

and if you had missile weapons in OD&D and 1edADnD readied.... you got to fire at your opponent if he moved in your area of range...

And were not part of the 1e rules as written, but rather common house rules. (And your last example isn't even an AoO, and doesn't exist in the current version of the game in any form).

Readied action?

 

[Belen]

I agree the rules regarding grappling are a little wonky. Fortunately, it doesn't come up much in my games.

I disagree a whole bunch with feats being reduced to modular class abilities. Situational variations are one of the things I love most about 3E.

The heart of an RPG (IMHO) is choices. Do I take this feat or that feat? Skill point here or there? Close to get the +1 to the bow attack, or stay further back to keep the orc from attacking me?

And I am not saying that people should get rid of choice. I just believe that feats and spells requiring complex record keeping should be dropped from the game. Anything that modifies the "statblock" for a short period of time should be removed.

You can still have feats and abilities that work within the breath and depth of the rules that has no need to break them.

 

[Henry]

I think you are looking back at common house rules and assuming they were in the rules as written. This rule was a house rule, not a printed rule.

I can't speak for OD&D or 1E, but I can say that the rules for retreating and fighting withdrawals were in the Moldvay Basic D&D edition. The enemy did get one free swing at you if you simply turned tail and ran.

 

[Rasyr]

Ever since then, I have taken protestations about the alleged complexity of 3e with a salt-lick's worth of salt.

About your kid - Cool!!

Please note that I was only repeating what somebody else had said, and was not saying that D20 was more complex.

Personally, I think that the level of perceived complexity depends upon the individual. For you and your kid, D20 may not be complex. I know that I did not consider Rolemaster complex 15 years ago or so when I first started playing it, yet I know of others who did consider it to be complex. (what I find as funny - is that those folks who do complain about d20 are making the same complaints that were made against rolemaster all those years ago...)

The point is, that the rules to have a little bit of complexity built into them (most systems do), however, how much that complexity affects the total game will more often be determined by personal preferences and perecptions than by any actual complexity that might be there.

 

[diaglo]

I can't speak for OD&D or 1E, but I can say that the rules for retreating and fighting withdrawals were in the Moldvay Basic D&D edition. The enemy did get one free swing at you if you simply turned tail and ran.

they were in CHainmail too.

many of the rules have been changed but their basic premise is still there.

 

[fredramsey]

Which under 3rd Edtion is not quite the same. If all you do is move, the square that you start out in is not considered threatened for purposes of AoO. So, in most cases, if you run away, you don't get hit.

I can't speak for OD&D or 1E, but I can say that the rules for retreating and fighting withdrawals were in the Moldvay Basic D&D edition. The enemy did get one free swing at you if you simply turned tail and ran.

 

[diaglo]

You're running an AD&D 1e campaign? Cool!

bah...

EGG wrote the UA for his powergaming scions.

 

[fredramsey]

Well, good. I'm glad to see that 3rd Editon has not strayed from the original rules. That makes it a great game, right?

they were in CHainmail too.

many of the rules have been changed but their basic premise is still there.