What is 3.0 & 3.5 missing that previous editions had?

[Oni Baloney]

I think the biggest difference between the 3e and previous editions, beyond style and presentation, is philosophy behind the development of the game. 3e is meant to be a balanced, equal playing field game. Characters of the same level should be nearly equal in power. Previous editions didn't really bother so much with the meticulous play balance of 3e. I have found that playing hard and fast by the rules of 3e leads to a game with more of a war or board game feel to it. It's to players and DM's advantage to carefully select and design characters for the most advantage. In previous editions, the imbalance of characters (an elf was almost always more powerfull than a human of equal level in 2e ) made actually roleplaying the equalizer in the enjoyment of the game. This is the spirit that I think 3e lacks in its design. Not that good roleplaying can't be had with 3e, I've had some of my best games using that system, and I prefer it to previous editions.

The pseudo-nonlinear character creation is a big plus in my book and the OGL has inspired some of the best and most creative fantasy gaming in a long time.

 

[jasamcarl]

And therein lies the clincher, I think. 1E, to draw an analogy between a body and a game system*, most people would happily ignore what could be considered fingers or toes of the rules system, such as the polearm modifiers versus armour types rules, and still pretend you had a semblance of balance. The things people might like to ignore to "speed up" or "simplify" the system come 3E, such as the feat or skill subsystems, are tightly integrated vital organs, and it's more difficult to pretend that you've still got an intact game once they've been extracted.

Now, jasamcarl, I've seen you argue before that this point is moot because 1E had no balance to speak of. The reality of it matters less than what people accept as balanced, and the bleeding wounds that the 3E system suffers from ripping out the feat or skill systems are in an entirely different league as the nips and tucks all DMs seemed to make in playing 1E, such that it's easier to accept a slightly meddled with 1E as intact than a largely modified 3E, with repercussions springing up everywhere from classes to spells to CR.

*: Yes, silly I know, but bear with me...

What Ridley said. It's nice that you concede that a hacked 3e is just as playable as 2e with just as little work, but I find the notion that perception has become reality in this case (implying that 3e should have adapted to this perception) a bit weak.

Yes, some dms (including some on these boards) do like to play victim, being slaves to the obvious design integration of 3e (It makes...too much sense...CAN'T RESIST!! AHHHHHH!), because, either they have too much respect for authority or they don't want to give up good game design, something they were certainly never reminded of in 1e/2e.

But given that you are falling back on the subjective as common, you must have gone through some inductive process. How do you know the majority of people hold this perception? I don't. Others have alluded to the poor reasoning behind the assertion that the rules of 3e are too restrictive (noting that some rules are necessary to functioning game, which 2e obviously wasn't). You might counter that you don't see enough houserules, but that would simply betray a preference for 3e rules. Maybe you and others have a deeper view on the mental turmoil that results from 3e's contradiction, namely that the rules skeleton works so well to support rp, but...maybe a bit too well..because they are just too darn Beautiful..but i should be thinking about other things...but those devilish rules...

Conclusion: I find it amazing how those who claim 3e is too rules/narrow focused relative to earlier editions fall back on an argument that indicates a strange preocupation with rules aesthetics and fidelity.

 

[kenjib]

Snorri Sturluson had rather limited opportunities to learn of the world outside northern Europe, thus explaining the nature of his work. You, on the other hand, have no such excuse. Do you?

More to the point, tell me exactly why D&D should be limited to one particular folkloric tradition.

Man, Legend of the Five Rings rpg is so culturally insensitive. Everyone is asian!!!

-K

 

[hrafnagud]

This is because you took off your tinfoil hat.

Your logic is so sound, I fear there is no rubuttal; I needs must leave this discussion for the shame!

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I think the biggest difference between the 3e and previous editions, beyond style and presentation, is philosophy behind the development of the game. 3e is meant to be a balanced, equal playing field game. Characters of the same level should be nearly equal in power. Previous editions didn't really bother so much with the meticulous play balance of 3e. I have found that playing hard and fast by the rules of 3e leads to a game with more of a war or board game feel to it. It's to players and DM's advantage to carefully select and design characters for the most advantage. In previous editions, the imbalance of characters (an elf was almost always more powerfull than a human of equal level in 2e ) made actually roleplaying the equalizer in the enjoyment of the game. This is the spirit that I think 3e lacks in its design. Not that good roleplaying can't be had with 3e, I've had some of my best games using that system, and I prefer it to previous editions.

And I have the exact opposite experience.

Your 1e Human Fighter completely sucks compared to my Elven Fighter/Wizard? Tough cookies. You should have minmaxed more if care about combat, otherwise making up through roleplaying.

My 1e Elven Fighter/Wizard is still better than you outside combat and during roleplaying because of all my cool freebie racial abilities and a few utility spells thrown in for good measure? Don't worry, you will have the last laugh when you character reaches 13th level and I am stuck at 11th...in 9 1/2 years game time...if the campaign last that long.

In 3e I see people roleplaying much more interesting concepts than ever before. The inherent balance between classes means that most any logical class combination will give you a character that will easily contribute to the party and have ample opportunities to shine. Yes, there are modest variations in combat power between PCs in 3e, but they are minor compared to the huge disparities that 1e/2e forced onto the game.

What you are complaining about is purely a matter of how the players choose to approach the game. 3e can be played as a reasonable wargame, therefore some groups choose to play that style. The fact that the wargame style was less practical and enjoyable in 1e/2e is not really a mark against 3e. You and your game group have made choices in game tone that you find less satisfying in some respects. Who should take responsibiltiy for that, hmm?

 

[Desdichado]

Ridley's Cohort, I've noticed more and more that folks have problems with players and really want to blame it on their system. I'm starting to develop a second mantra, that I've repeated now in many threads that complain about some aspect of the rules, "Sounds like a player problem to me."

 

[Kormydigar]

Rather than steal a discussion about a problem player who wants to go back to 2E I thought I'd start my own. A lot of people talk about the new editions of D&D missing that special something that previous editions had. Heck, Goodman Games has started publishing a series of modules that harken back to the early TSR modules in look and feel.

In your opinion what is that special something that the earlier editions had that all of us old gamers are now missing with the new editions?

The primary difference between the old school D&D game and the version being played today is this: The old D&D was a game designed for adults to play, that kids enjoyed playing as well. The new D&D game is designed for kids, that adults may or may not enjoy playing as well. The new version of the game has made some tremendous leaps in game mechanic design, and smooth overall playability. What the new version is lacking is simply salt.
Back in the old days if you failed a save versus poison you died, end of story. The new version seems a bit watered down in intensity by comparison. I know that a great game is made by the GM and the players combined effort, and no set of rules can truly ruin a game unless those playing it allow this to happen. That being said, when I read the description for the Disintigrate spell in the 3.5 PHB, I knew that the vital spirit of the old game was gone. Things like this are the core of the problem. The reduction of anything spectacular, shocking, wonderous, or even dissappointing to a range of vanilla flavored damage, be it hit points, ability damage, ect. Nothing just HAPPENS anymore. I for one miss that.

 

[Mac Callum]

What the new version is lacking is simply salt.

Back in the old days if you failed a save versus poison you died, end of story. The new version seems a bit watered down in intensity by comparison. I know that a great game is made by the GM and the players combined effort, and no set of rules can truly ruin a game unless those playing it allow this to happen. That being said, when I read the description for the Disintigrate spell in the 3.5 PHB, I knew that the vital spirit of the old game was gone. Things like this are the core of the problem. The reduction of anything spectacular, shocking, wonderous, or even dissappointing to a range of vanilla flavored damage, be it hit points, ability damage, ect. Nothing just HAPPENS anymore. I for one miss that.

Indeed. What sense of accomplishment is there when there was no danger to begin with? Even in a game, it matters.

Mac Callum

 

[cildarith]

"Sounds like a player problem to me."

You're getting to be as bad a Diaglo...

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Back in the old days if you failed a save versus poison you died, end of story. The new version seems a bit watered down in intensity by comparison. I know that a great game is made by the GM and the players combined effort, and no set of rules can truly ruin a game unless those playing it allow this to happen. That being said, when I read the description for the Disintigrate spell in the 3.5 PHB, I knew that the vital spirit of the old game was gone. Things like this are the core of the problem. The reduction of anything spectacular, shocking, wonderous, or even dissappointing to a range of vanilla flavored damage, be it hit points, ability damage, ect. Nothing just HAPPENS anymore. I for one miss that.

That is a legitimate POV, but I really do not understand why you are bothering with an ablative hit point system if you like that kind of excitement. I would think some kind of wound system would be more to your liking.