Third Edition Culture- Is is sustainable?

[fredramsey]

Amen. 3rd Editon is not the best selling RPG because WOTC is going to anyone's house and twisting their arm to play it.

And where are all these people playing RC? Why don't I run into them at my FLGS? Or at cons?

Once again, people think if you yell something loud enough and long enough, it becomes the truth.

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.

 

[Rasyr]

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.

By less robust, do you mean less complex or less rules-heavy?

However you mean it, I do think it is possible to have lighter system that is very robust. That allows the GM to make calls on the fly, and yet still have a codified method of making those calls. This is not an impossibility.

Look at HARP, it has 4 main resolution methods (all-or-nothing (the default for most everything), percentage, bonus, and RR (i.e. saving throws)) for tasks. Using those 4 methods it is possible to resolve almost any situation that crops up in a consistant manner every time.

 

[Psion]

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

Once again, we agree to disagree. If you put a demand upon yourself to have fewer situational rules, you put the demand upon yourself to cover those situations when it comes up or ignore it.

You can add complexity without adding robustness (see paladium, AD&D 1e and 2e for examples), but you cannot add robustness without adding comlpexity.

 

[Zappo]

A simpler system's rules are simply more general -- they apply across a wider class of cases. Consequently, 'winging it' in a consistent manner is easier, because the rules in question just cover more situations that arise during the game. And since it is easier for the DM to keep these parsimonious rules in his/her head while running the game, he/she is more likely to apply them ('wing it') when in an appropriate manner.

Sounds like D20 to me. One mechanic, very general, applies to everything. A bunch of general modifiers each representing a character aspect (BAB, ability score modifiers, saves) are applied to the single mechanic. Whatever the PCs want to do, the DM just has to figure out a DC and what modifiers to apply; sometimes, he has to pull out specific situational modifiers. That's basically the definition of "winging it", isn't it?

The only difference between D20 and a "rules-light" system is that the winging is already done for most common scenarios, so that you don't have to argue with players about the best way to represent a situation, or remember how you ruled the DC for a Climb check three months earlier.

Many players, me included, dislike true rules-light systems not because we enjoy having to remember a dozen modifiers for every friggin' thing we do, but because we think that the DM pulling rules out of thin air without time to think if they are fair or consistent with previous rulings is a lot more annoying.

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.

Yeah, that's what I thought too. Weird choice of words, but I think I understood what he meant anyway. RC D&D definitely deserves respect, but I'll choose 3.X any day of the week.

 

[Psion]

Look at HARP, it has 4 main resolution methods (all-or-nothing (the default for most everything), percentage, bonus, and RR (i.e. saving throws)) for tasks.

Would is surprise you if I said I don't consider HARP particularly light? HARP is a robust system, not a rules light system, AFAIAC, in the way I divide things.

EDIT: IOW, saying that it is lighter than its predescessor RM ain't saying much.

 

[Psion]

Sounds like D20 to me. One mechanic, very general, applies to everything. A bunch of general modifiers each representing a character aspect (BAB, ability score modifiers, saves) are applied to the single mechanic. Whatever the PCs want to do, the DM just has to figure out a DC and what modifiers to apply; sometimes, he has to pull out specific situational modifiers. That's basically the definition of "winging it", isn't it?

The only difference between D20 and a "rules-light" system is that the winging is already done for most common scenarios, so that you don't have to argue with players about the best way to represent a situation, or remember how you ruled the DC for a Climb check three months earlier.

Precisely.

Yeah, that's what I thought too. Weird choice of words, but I think I understood what he meant anyway. RC D&D definitely deserves respect, but I'll choose 3.X any day of the week.

Well, yeah. I can definitely see what he was saying. I would consider playing RC if the choice was offered. I would rather not play than play 1e or 2e or C&C or Hackmaster.

 

[Belen]

Many players, me included, dislike true rules-light systems not because we enjoy having to remember a dozen modifiers for every friggin' thing we do, but because we think that the DM pulling rules out of thin air without time to think if they are fair or consistent with previous rulings is a lot more annoying.Yeah, that's what I thought too. Weird choice of words, but I think I understood what he meant anyway. RC D&D definitely deserves respect, but I'll choose 3.X any day of the week.

Not asking anyone to pull a rule out of thin air, just asking for a simple mechanic for advanced combat. In that case, you get a rule that is applied fairly, is easy to remember, and does not limit more imaginative actions.

Simplifying mechanics seems to make more sense to me as it benefits both GMs and players and makes for an easier game.

 

[der_kluge]

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.

Right, rule zero, obviously. The problem is - I want to tailor everything about the system.

I don't want all gnomes to be the same. Why should a gnome that grew up in the city learn how to speak to burrowing mammals? Why should a dwarf who grew up on an island learn the different rock strata?

I want customizable classes. I could purchase "Buy the numbers" to solve this, of course. Since the core game doesn't do this. There are also fundamental balance issues to resolve by doing this.

I want a more realistic economy. I've never played in a D&D game where anyone in the party actually saved up for full plate armor. Incidentally, Everquest suffers from the same problem. There is this thing called mundane Full Plate, the price of it is listed in the PHB, and presumably it exists, although I've never seen anyone wear mundane full plate, nor purchase it during the course of the game. By the time anyone has the money to purchase full plate armor, they are already wearing better magical armor. Same with a masterwork weapon. In most cases, masterwork weapons are never purchased because of the common prevalance of +1 magical weapons. I want a game where the players actually save up for better versions of mundane equipment because magical options just don't readily exist. The economy of D&D just doesn't work well to suit this. And I want the scale lower. Most classes start with enough cash to buy chainmail right at the start. How many 1st level peasants do you know that can afford to buy chainmail armor? Heck, I have a good paying job in RL, and I cringe at the thought of purchasing high quality chainmail. That stuff is -expensive-!

At this stage of my life, I'm beyond the concept of alignment. I could remove alignment, but it is so ingrained in the system that to do so would require significant tweaking.

I want a more flexible spellcasting system. I could implement Elements of Magic, but that's introducing quite a bit of change.

The magic item creation system is complicated. That's easy enough, though, because I wrote the Artificer's Handbook, so that solves those problems. And yes, it has rules for rechargeable magic items, gestalt sets, and socketed items.

So, there's *my* D&D. Tons of house rules on races, Buy The Numbers, no alignment system, lots of house rules to reflect the lack of alignment. Elements of Magic for the spell system, and Artificer's Handbook for magic item costs and creation. *whew*.

Baseline is this - I want a system that provides players options, not restrictions. D&D 3e went a LOOONG ways towards that by removing racial level limits, and racial class restrictions, and even some alignment restrictions. I want to take it a step further. I want a game that allows the player to construct his vision of a character. Currently, D&D works the opposite - the players have to fit their ideas into the molds that D&D provides.

 

[Narfellus]

Whoa, long thread, couldn't read it all here at work. Here's my take: I played DnD on and off since 1st edition (i'm in my early 30's, was in love with the genre since about 8 or 9). I liked 2nd edition a lot, and we played without minis or boards and all that (fun) crapola. We didn't know any better. Now, 3rd edition came along and introduced the d20 mechanic, that admittably, i really like. In that regard the game is streamlined and fun, even though it took a severe power upgrade with ability bonuses, feats, and wealth/magic. But, and here's the thing i notice on a lot of posts, if i/we didn't like an aspect of 3.x, we didn't use it. A lot people complain about the complexity (which i agree, it is complex with all the sunder, trip, friggin grapple rules that give me a headache still after 4 years, bull rush, etc) but the game, in my opinion, is streamlined enough that it can be winged without too much problem, but winged consistently and logically, rather than randomly. I just hearken back to the early days of DnD when combat went faster, you couldn't buy everything, you couldn't CREATE everything, and we play like that. I've never once had a player take a Craft Magic Something Feat. No one wanted to. I don't pay attention to random encounter table, treasure charts, ENCOUNTER LEVELS (how??) and not even Challenge Rating that much, other than to get a guide from the MM as to how powerful something is at a glance. We severely modified AoO becauses they bogged the game down to a chess board, and consequently, we had to axe some feats that were specifically AoO dependent. We just tell that players, HEY, don't pick that feat! Flanking is easier in our game because you can maneuver a little easier, so we bumped down Sneak Attack to d4. Just little tweaks we house-ruled to play the game we wanted to play, and yes, we do enjoy it more than earlier editions, although the key FLAVOR of Dnd has unfortunately changed, but that was unavoidable. You see, i never used those rules when i weaned myself on the game, and i don't really need them now. Many of those numbers interfere with the STORY, and as others have stated, 3.x caters to a generation of video gamers with no patience, instant gratification. As DM, i determine how fast i want characters to level, what items fall into their laps (if someone wanted to craft an item we'd work it out, but it never came up after years of playing) and sometimes i determine if that Big Boss Monster has a few hitpoints left or maybe it dies a few rounds early.

Lastly, i think a lot of what people like about old Dnd was nostalgia. It was a "secret" game, misunderstood by adults and teachers. Complex rules that only the smartest (and usually dorkiest) kids could digest and implement. Nowadays, good lord, everyone and his brother knows about DnD. Movies, books, tshirts, mugs, videogames, it's mainstream, it's hip and cool to play Dnd, and the mystery that we once enjoyed has been shared world wide, almost like giving away a treasured toy.

 

[Psion]

I don't want all gnomes to be the same. Why should a gnome that grew up in the city learn how to speak to burrowing mammals? Why should a dwarf who grew up on an island learn the different rock strata?

I want customizable classes. I could purchase "Buy the numbers" to solve this, of course. Since the core game doesn't do this. There are also fundamental balance issues to resolve by doing this.

Noble goals to be sure.

(snip a bunch of other preferences)

So, there's *my* D&D. Tons of house rules on races, Buy The Numbers, no alignment system, lots of house rules to reflect the lack of alignment. Elements of Magic for the spell system, and Artificer's Handbook for magic item costs and creation. *whew*.

Sure. My list is not as long as yours, but I have my share of tweaks.

But now you realize that we are both massively outnumbered by those who use few or no tweaks.

Many here have professed the classic frustration here at having too many options at the options that do exist (feats, classes, etc.) You give the players too many options in the BASELINE of the system, even more people are going to find it unmanageable.