What is 3.0 & 3.5 missing that previous editions had?

[jasamcarl]

Fake, no. What is fake in a game where everything is made up? Since 3E has endorced the concept of monster advancment, I like to think of it as visionary

Any way, I didn't do it on the fly. My point was making changes to 3 or 4 things was easier then the detail it goes into now where you have to detail out 15 or so things. If I want to fudge numbers, it's a heck of a lot easier to make up a number, but to be fair to the players I try not to do that.



Quick give an ankeg, ettin and theiflings stats without looking. Look, I'm not saying it is a great burden that keeps me from creating a fun game. I'm just saying the other streamlined system was easier to GM, and as a GM, I appreciated that.

Easier in the sense that just not playing a game is easier because of all those messy rules? In other words, it doesn't matter to you that earlier edition's half-assed statblocks neglected a lot of important detail?

And you didn't really address his main point, which is that you can choose to ignore most of the details in 3e which you feel burdened by. He might not be able to cite all the stats of an ankeg, ettin, and tiefling, but, in much the same way that it was easy to simply memorize initiative, dmg, and attack mods in earlier editions, he could probably memorize the 3e equivilants. The difference is that 3e provides those extra details for those who want a reasonably complete tactical game without the fudging.

But I'm sorry if not using all those details makes you feel guilty. Why can't the rules text just leave you alone?

 

[qstor]

I miss the number of settings, monsters and spells. Of course now that is a marketing decision from WOTC and there's tons of non-official settings monsters and spells, but all that goes back to the collapse of TSR.

I newer played 2e much, but I do occasionally pick up a 2e setting or rules book for old times sake, but I dont use any of the rules material from it.
I'm some what of a collector too...

Mike

 

[Desdichado]

I miss the number of settings, monsters and spells. Of course now that is a marketing decision from WOTC and there's tons of non-official settings monsters and spells, but all that goes back to the collapse of TSR.

I'm not sure I understand. There's a good deal more settings, monsters and spells in print today then at any point in the past. And yet you recognize that; are you saying you want it all to be "official D&D?"

I actually like the plethora of unofficial options. Gives gaming a much more loose, pioneering feel than in the past.

 

[Belen]

I tend to agree with Kamosa. 3e does require a more significant amount of time dedicated to stats and numbers. I still do a lot of number crunching on the fly, but all of the named enemies need personal attention in order to be fair to the players.

I do think computer programs can make things easier because they can manage the numbers better and more accurately than humans; however, a lot of people do not want to spend time on a computer to get the game sessions prepared.

The rules may be more straightforward in 3e, but there are a TON of them, which is a lot to remember while sitting at the table.

This all has the effect of distracting a GM from actually running the game and the story and I think that is what really sucks the life from the 3e game.

GM data overload, less time to get the story elements to mesh well, and too many rules to master that can slow down the game.

However, I generally love 3e simple, straightforward rules set. They make more sense and are usually more clear. Personally, I am still struggling to find the balance, but I think that the only true method to same time and get the same feel of earlier editions is to use the computer constructively in order to have time for story generation.

 

[jasamcarl]

I tend to agree with Kamosa. 3e does require a more significant amount of time dedicated to stats and numbers. I still do a lot of number crunching on the fly, but all of the named enemies need personal attention in order to be fair to the players.

I do think computer programs can make things easier because they can manage the numbers better and more accurately than humans; however, a lot of people do not want to spend time on a computer to get the game sessions prepared.

The rules may be more straightforward in 3e, but there are a TON of them, which is a lot to remember while sitting at the table.

This all has the effect of distracting a GM from actually running the game and the story and I think that is what really sucks the life from the 3e game.

GM data overload, less time to get the story elements to mesh well, and too many rules to master that can slow down the game.

As oppossed to earlier editions, which were not fair to the players because they mandated copious DM fudging? Dumb argument.

 

[Belen]

Well, the current edition it more unbalanced for GMs. I think that changes could be made that appeal to both GMs and players.

**edit from the last post**

However, I generally love 3e simple, straightforward rules set. They make more sense and are usually more clear. Personally, I am still struggling to find the balance, but I think that the only true method to same time and get the same feel of earlier editions is to use the computer constructively in order to have time for story generation.

 

[Quasqueton]

Any way, I didn't do it on the fly. My point was making changes to 3 or 4 things was easier then the detail it goes into now where you have to detail out 15 or so things.

So tell me, what 3 or 4 things in AD&D have turned into 15 things in D&D? If you used to just run with AC, HD, HP, and Attack in AD&D, what's stopping you from doing the same in D&D? And unless you're advancing or adding levels to a creature (which is just an option, not an order), what detail is left out of the base stats block in the MM?

If I want to fudge numbers, it's a heck of a lot easier to make up a number, but to be fair to the players I try not to do that.

So it was OK to be unfair to the players in AD&D, but in D&D you *have* to be fair? Yeah, I'm actually kind of glad the D&D police have stepped up their patrols of game groups.

Quick give an ankeg, ettin and theiflings stats without looking. Look, I'm not saying it is a great burden that keeps me from creating a fun game. I'm just saying the other streamlined system was easier to GM, and as a GM, I appreciated that.

Quick, give me the stats of an ankeg, an ettin, and a tiefling from AD&D. If you can't give me the AD&D stats, then nothing has changed for you. If you can give me the AD&D stats, then how come you can't learn them now for D&D3?

You know what I used to do when I needed these stats? I'd open the MM and look them up. But now adays, damn, I *still* have to open a book and look on the page. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

You are basically complaining that the new edition of the game gives you too much info and options. You, personally, don't need all those options, and don't want to have to remember all that new information. Fine, ignore it. But it is foolish to complain about being given too much info.

"Remember when a fast food restaurant only served hamburgers and french fries? Yeah, things were much better then. The new restaurants make you read the whole freakin' menu and choose between hamburgers, hot dogs, chicken, salads, french fries, baked potatoes, onion rings. . . sigh. I used to be able to just walk in and tell the cashier I wanted one thing, but now there are a dozen things on the menu to have to consider."

The whole reason I spoke up in response to your post is because you tried to pull the same trick that I've seen lots of anti-D&D3'ers use: make absurd hyperboles about how complicated and difficult the game has gotten because it has given you more information and more options -- that most people have asked for over the years.

"I used to be able to color a picture in just a couple minutes with my box of 8 crayons. But now, with the new 64 crayon boxes, it takes me hours to color a dragon. And my goodness, but look at how detailed the line drawings of the dragons are now. I used to just could color the whole thing with two colors, but now I need a dozen colors to make the dragon look pretty."

Quasqueton

 

[Ylis]

Ooo! Ooo! I know what it's missing! That annoying THAC0! The 10 years per battle sequence because you had to do all the math! At least, that's what my players think....

For me, I first started playing in 2E. I loved it, really. And now I'll have to admit that it is a nostalgia thing more for me than anything else. Plus it's easier for me to run, for some reason....

 

[jasamcarl]

Well, the current edition it more unbalanced for GMs. I think that changes could be made that appeal to both GMs and players.

**edit from the last post**

However, I generally love 3e simple, straightforward rules set. They make more sense and are usually more clear. Personally, I am still struggling to find the balance, but I think that the only true method to same time and get the same feel of earlier editions is to use the computer constructively in order to have time for story generation.

Read my second to last post. There is no reason that most of 3e's details could not be ignored if that is the type of game you and your players prefer. It would still be as complete and balanced as anything you find in 2e or earlier.

 

[francisca]

3rd Edition was designed for a different generation than the generation posting on this board. I suspect people don't like 3rd edition as much as 1st edition for the same reason people don't like today's music as much as they liked the music when they were kids.

1E = Led Zeppelin (classic)

2E= Poison (even people who liked it didn't like it)

3E= Limp Bizkit (new and "edgy")

Everyone who likes Zep better (including myself) will swear it isn't just nostalgia, that they ARE better, but that argument doesn't work on teenagers who prefer Limp Bizkit. The problem is, I don't think the Limp Bizkit crowd is BUYING 3E, so you have this super-sleek, punked out armor and emphasis on power and coolness being marketed to people who are all to busy playing Diablo and EQ to bother with it and the people who ARE playing, just want to hear Stairway to Heaven again.

I was initially inclined to agree with you, and still do, partially. I agree that there is no convincing some people that their love affair with old editions is nothing more than nostalgia.

However, I don't think the current game was designed with young, edgy, Fred Durst fanboys in mind. If they did, I think they would be going against their own
research. Here is a quote:

"3. Adventure Gaming is an adult hobby
More than half the market for hobby games is older than 19. There is a
substantial “dip” in incidence of play from 16-18. "

Further:

"It may also indicate that the existing group of players is aging and not
being refreshed by younger players at the same rate as in previous years."

So, I think they are missing the target if they are using buckles, spikey hair, etc.. to attract younger gamers.

I really think it was a matter of the art director choosing a particular style of art that appealed to him/her, the designers, and whoever else needed to sign off on it. Or something. (shrugs)

It would be cool if they put out product aimed at the older, Zep-loving bunch. The Battle of Evermore CS, Songs of the Immigrants, etc..