Mercule said:
Absolutely agree. For this reason alone, I would not ever return to earlier editions (okay, maybe as a player, but not DM). The designers did an awesome job of tweaking balance and playability in 3E. Especially playability.
3E lets me get on with the game and stop worrying about the loose ends in the rules. Basically, I can be a Game Master and not a game designer.
There really isn't much more to say. I just find the idea that 3.x is less friendly toward DMs than earlier editions too incomprehensible.
Personal view: So why aren't I having as much fun now as I had with 2E? I've been DM'ing since, ooh, about 1980, when I first bought the D&D Basic set. I've been DM'ing continuously since 1996. I've had less fun as DM since late 2000, when my group switched to 3E, than I had in the previous 4 years DM'ing with 2E. For me, the reason is simple. In 3E combat is a mechanical process with rigid rules. The DM doesn't have to make decisions, the rules provide the answers. By contrast, 2E combat was infinitely fluid. Characters didn't have to take skills and feats to do things. The players just said 'I do this', or 'I try this', and I said 'OK', or 'OK, roll a d20, and roll high', or 'nope you can't because...'. Absolute power in the hands of the DM - and open to absolute abuse. Funnily enough, because I was fair, and because by the end of 2E I had an extremely well-developed ability to judge the balance between PCs and the bad guys in combat and could invariably guarantee that the PCs would win by the bare skin of their teeth if they did things right, the players loved it. Combat involved tension, drama, theatrical flair, and forced the players to think. 3E combat is constrained by the rules, not liberated. My group is more consistently disappointed by my rulings in 3E than in 2E, because I compare what they want to do with existing rules, and the rules do not
permit things they want to do, at least without serious downsides.
(A recent example is a barbarian wanting to lean his greastword against a wall while he switched weapons, so he could pick it back up as a free action later. OK, but on the basis that drawing a weapon is a move-equivalent action, leaning the weapon against a wall is also a move-equivalent action, and on the basis that your barbarian will be leaning it against the wall so that it doesn't fall over and can be picked up easily in future, his attention is distracted by doing so, and it provokes an attack of opportunity, rules I. Well, in that case I just drop the {expletive} thing, responds he. In 2E, I'd rule the proposed action was fine and dandy, it's not like drawing a weapon or picking one up took any time or had any consequences in 2E combat, where each round was 1 minute long.)
But having said that, 3E does a good job of ensuring consistency in combat. This is important if (a) you play in multiple groups; (b) you play with multiple DMs; (c) you play in tournaments; (d) your DM thinks D&D is a competition between him or her and the players. Those people who denigrate 2E tend to be the people who have been forced to deal with at least one or more of the above situations. Yes, the 2E ruleset was a mess, but that provided every oportunity for good DMs to shine - and bad ones to alienate the rest of the gaming community.
I reiterate, one of the major features of the 3E rulset is the reduction of DM intervention and discretion. Good for players suffering under bad DMs. Bad for players with good DMs. In my view, there is now no excuse for bad DM'ing, but precious little incentive for good DM'ing.
Cheers, Al'Kelhar
