What is 3.0 & 3.5 missing that previous editions had?

[Kormydigar]

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.

Its not the hit point system per se. Its more a lack of effects that do things other than basic/ generic damage of some kind. I do like the GURPS system, for combat and magic. Lack of adventure support keeps me from running more of that. Just don't have the time to spend on adventure design these days.

 

[MerricB]

Its not the hit point system per se. Its more a lack of effects that do things other than basic/ generic damage of some kind.

Huh? I really must have missed something.

In 1E, there were basically two types of effect: either you took damage, or you were hors de combat - e.g. poisoned and dead, or paralysed and useless, or fleeing and useless. The third type was energy drain - something that a lot of people hated due to the difficulty of getting restoration spells and XP.

In 3E, there are a multiplicity of states, many common: ability score penaties, damage and drain, paralysation, states of fear (shaken, frightened, panicked), nausea, sickened, fatigued, exhausted...

In 1E, disintegrate was "save or die", but so was poison, flesh to stone, phantasamal killer... and hold person and fear were also of that nature.

Where 3E markedly differs from 1E is in its support of high-level play. In 1E, with characters assumed to be retiring at 12th level, they've only just reached the level of disintegrate and flesh to stone. In effect, spell levels 7-9 are irrelevant to most game play of AD&D.

In 3E, play above that level is encouraged. If the best spell you have is "save or die" as a 11th level wizard, then what for the next nine levels? Is there anything to look forward to? Thus, the really deadly spells are bumped upward in level or reduced in power.

Filling the gap are the multiplicity of states I mentioned earlier.

3E is not noticibly less deadly than 1E, as actual hit point damages can be quite severe, but it doesn't rely on the "save or die" mechanic quite so often.

Cheers!

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

3E is not noticibly less deadly than 1E, as actual hit point damages can be quite severe, but it doesn't rely on the "save or die" mechanic quite so often.

In particular, lucky and unlucky criticals make sudden death from HP loss a real threat at all levels. 30 or 40 hit points doesn't go as far as it used to when you are standing next to someone with a greataxe.

 

[hong]

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

Sigh.

You can produce a mythical resonance with a culturally limited setting.

This does not rule out producing a mythical resonance with a culturally polyglot setting.


Hong "how do you do talking SLOW and LOUD in text, anyway?" Ooi

 

[hong]

In 1E, there were basically two types of effect: either you took damage, or you were hors de combat

I gotta get me one of those hors de combat as a follower.

 

[kenjib]

Sigh.

You can produce a mythical resonance with a culturally limited setting.

This does not rule out producing a mythical resonance with a culturally polyglot setting.


Hong "how do you do talking SLOW and LOUD in text, anyway?" Ooi

I agree completely, and I also think that there's nothing wrong with preferring either type of setting. Here is your prior post:

I think if one of the requirements to "communicate with the collective thought of your ancestors" is that no black people are allowed, then those are probably not the ancestors you should be communicating with. Consider hanging up and redialing.

People, there are learned dissertations written up about how Star Wars captures the hero myth and whatnot, and that one has freakin' _spaceships_ in it. A mythic feel, for those who aspire to create one, should be able to survive superficialities like hairstyles or skin colour or fashion sense.

Here you are clearly claiming that a culturally polyglot setting is superior to a culturally limited one, and are even subtly implying that liking 1e for it's cultural focus is racist. Your more recent post seems to be backtracking from this hardline stance by implying that they are on more even footing, which is why I can agree with your more recent post, but not your older one.

 

[hong]

Here you are clearly claiming that a culturally polyglot setting is superior to a culturally limited one, and are even subtly implying that liking 1e for it's cultural focus is racist.

This is what Urbannen said:

The universe created by the founders of D&D from a collective European fantasy is now a kewl place to have adventures, not a place to communicate with the collective thought of our ancestors.

This is nonsense. First, D&D is whatever you make it out to be. The ruleset doesn't force any particular interpretation you want to use, or prohibit you from making it all deep and meaningful and fra-fra, if that's your taste. 1E may be deep and meaningful and fra-fra because it had elves and dwarves (and monks), but that doesn't mean 3E can't be deep and meaningful either. Second, the idea that a polyglot cultural focus means you can't "communicate with the collective thought of your ancestors" implies that those aspects of your ancestors' thoughts that require a limited cultural focus, are more important than those that don't. Since I believe that the aspects of my ancestors' thoughts that are most important are those that apply regardless of cultural focus, I think this too is a nonsense.

In other words: sharp sticks, foul dungeons, and big dragons are universal.

Your more recent post seems to be backtracking from this hardline stance by implying that they are on more even footing, which is why I can agree with your more recent post, but not your older one.

Fine by me.

 

[Zappo]

Indeed. What sense of accomplishment is there when there was no danger to begin with?

What sense of accomplishment is there when you've made a save versus poison in 2E? It's just luck. You have no merit for it.

Anyway, do you mean that 3E is less dangerous than previous editions? In a comparable amount of time, I've had about three times as many PC deaths in 3E than in 2E. Probably more. 2E had lots of save-or-die, but 3E has much nastier monsters. And if I wanted more or less lethality, it would be very easy to scale encounters appropriately.

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."

You're so right. I'm really getting tired of hearing that [game] is all about powergaming, prevents good roleplaying, is too rule-focused, stifles imagination, whatever. From certain posts, it seems that if you play 3E and ignore the CR system, the gaming police will bash open your door and handcuff you and your players.

 

[jasamcarl]

I'm glad Merric and Zappo got to this difficulty point before I did. There is a difference between death and arbitrary death. One adds tension because you know it can come about because of your actions, while the other is just frustrating and 'cheap'. Cheap, arbitrary death points to a broken design. In 3e, even in the case of save or dies that kill single party members, there is recourse to true ressurection; none of this all or nothing nonsense which just make for a narrow, boring experience.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Arbitrary death is fine in a pure wargame, but it seems illogical to criticize 3e for its lack unless you want a wargamey feel.