We're back to AD&D1

[scadgrad]

hoping for the best

double post

 

[william_nova]

2e seemed as if it was designed for and written for a younger audience than 1e. TSR admitted as much, long ago. It's hard to put my finger on it, but for me the core 2e rules lacked that "creative spark" that 1e had.

I think this is a very important bit. "Creative spark" is absolutely non qualitative, and as such it's entirely possible what inspires one can completely disenchant another.

As for 4e being more combat intensive, I see that as a serious defect. I've run whole sessions without a hint of combat. I prefer the adventure, exploration, interaction of PCs with one another and NPCs, descriptions of vast uncharted realms, and sense of wonder that D&D offers. Maybe I'm DMing the game wrong.

I would say based on that description you are doing it completely right, however you are managing to do it. I'm just not entirely sure what it is about the rule set of 3e that inspires this in you and your players, to myself and obviously to many others here, the "feel" 3e brings does just exactly the opposite.

But to be honest, some days I'm not entirely sure that any of the editions really do encourage or discourage anything in and of themselves by simple virtue of their rule set. Perhaps it's this "spark" you mentioned. What they represent to us. Something abstract we're trying to rationalise. Maybe the spark is all we need to get things rolling, and the rest of it just subjective.

It is true there are many people who, like me, are inspired by 4e and "see" something there that excites them, and perhaps its this excitement we are linking to our memories of our best games. By extension, it is possible that those whose best memories and games that lay in the province of 3e simply see the exact opposite.

I know this is a little reaching, but it's just a thought. I personally find this whole debate on the merits of the editions fascinating, for what they mean to us may lie beyond the rules, and point toward something much more internal.

 

[Mort_Q]

The “role playing” part of the game is downgraded compared to 3E, and everything is around combat, combat and more combat (the famous “character roles” are exclusively defined by it). The “noncombat encounters” chapter in the DMG gets only 17 pages and includes puzzles and traps.

The less rules they have for "role playing" the better. You're not going to get people to agree on what role playing actually is, let alone what the right way to do it is. Let individual gaming groups decide that on their own.

 

[phloog]

...and of course the thought that just made me chuckle was based on the fairly wide amount of AGREEMENT here (with some exceptions) that you can roleplay regardless of the rules system...that thought was:

"...and so the sales pitch for me to buy the new set of books is what, exactly?"

(admittedly being a bit facetious there)

 

[Fifth Element]

You have got to be kidding. The accuracy of that assessment is on a par with that of the beagle in the tobacco factory, who thought its human handlers had never done it any harm.

No, if I was kidding I would have added .

Option bloat is not the same thing as rules bloat. 4E seems (can't be sure yet) to be built such that all powers etc. use the same basic system. So later books with bunches of new feats and powers don't actually add any new rules, just new options for use with existing rules. 3E suffered from rules bloat in the sense that later splat books introduced entirely new subsystems to fix perceived problems (Bo9S, warlocks, etc).

But thanks for being so dismissive. It always helps.

 

[WayneLigon]

3E suffered from rules bloat in the sense that later splat books introduced entirely new subsystems to fix perceived problems (Bo9S, warlocks, etc).

Since this has happened to every single RPG that ever produced books beyond it's basic line, why do you think this will not apply to 4E?

 

[Zinovia]

I can see where eliminating 3E's "A rule for everything, and everything by the rules" philosophy will help, rather than hinder, roleplaying. The best roleplaying is done without rules anyway, as it amounts to acting and storytelling. Those are usually the most memorable parts of the game.

Once I see more details on skills challenges I'll be able to judge how those work, and how difficult they are to run as a GM. From what I've read here my initial impressions are favorable. It sounds like a good method of getting the players to think creatively and to all become involved, rather than having one person make the single diplomacy check and be done with it. Not that we actually ran diplomacy encounters just on a single die roll. They were roleplayed out, with the skill check as a modifier.

What I do feel is lacking somewhat are secondary skills, or background skills. I'm all in favor of dropping many of the truly excessive number of skills from 3.5. Come on, who really took the Forgery skill? Even with a rogue who had a 16 int, I found myself often having to pick and choose among the rogue skills that I could take. There just weren't enough points to take everything I needed to have, much less optional stuff for the sake of roleplaying (even though I did it anyway). Too many skills, too few skill points.

For the next campaign regardless of whether it's 3.5 or 4E, my thought was to come up with some simple means of choosing what skills your character knew prior to becoming an adventurer. Were you trained as a scribe, a ship pilot, a blacksmith, a chef? I don't care so much about the numbers, but having that information about your character's background helps in fleshing out your character to make them seem more real. It provides a sense of who they are as well as encouraging players to make use of that background in game. The reason for making it subject to any rules at all is that I want to avoid the mid-game revelation "Oh, by the way, my character is a master jeweler, so of course I'll be able to get that diamond out of the setting without damaging it" problem.

I may have them choose a single profession and a couple of hobbies, or secondary skills for those who were not wealthy enough to indulge in hobbies. I don't care how *well* someone can sail a boat, only whether they have some experience with it. If so, the rest can be done on the fly.

So yeah, I feel the lack of secondary skills a bit with 4E, but they didn't work right anyway in 3.5, so I'm all in favor of the change. I just have to graft on a couple house rules, but I was going to do that in 3.5 anyway.

 

[Doug McCrae]

"Memorable nonplayer characters are best built on stereotype. The subtle nuances of a NPC’s personality are lost on the players. Just don’t rely on the same stereotype for every NPC you make"

1980 or 2008?

Good advice, that you would never have found in the 1e DMG. The main purpose of 1e NPCs is to provide obstacles to the PCs.

I don't know many rpgs that have rules for roleplaying, though it depends what you mean by that. If you mean acting, speaking in character, that's something you don't need rules for, they'd just get in the way. The acting side of things is people sitting around a table jawing freely. All a rule is going to do is interrupt the flow by telling a player he can't talk when he wants to or restrict what he says.

Advice, rather than rules, is what you need.

 

[buzz]

The “noncombat encounters” chapter in the DMG gets only 17 pages and includes puzzles and traps.

Well, that's 17 more pages than any other edition of D&D.

 

[Ghaerdon Fain]

...

4e is not about avoiding rules bloat; it's about scheduling massive doses of it for years to come.

Yup 3E ran it's lifespan and Hasbro wanted more money... 4E is their money maker, let's hope it's more Leopard than Vista ;-)