What is 3.0 & 3.5 missing that previous editions had?

[jeffhartsell]

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?

Previous editions had magic items that felt "magical". With the crafting system in 3.x it loses the "wow" of discovery that the old editions fostered. Parties can take loot and sell and then recraft into better custom loot. This creates PCs with very similar "optimal adventuring" gear.

The new system is better mechanically, but some of the cool mechanics when used create a much different "world". The designer items are the big change IMO. You take out crafting of weapons, armor, and wondrous items and this helps.

Also, 3.x is more tactical that the old editions which relied on the DM to give out more information since minis were not as common.

 

[kamosa]

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

I think his point was not that arbitrary death was a good thing, but that the threat of arbitrary death was a good thing. It wasn't that DM's went around killing parties with insta death spells all the time, at least not in the games I played in or DM'ed. It was that the players were more wary about taking on encounters because of the palpable threat of death or atleast a serious beat down.

Like a good movie, the threat must be feel real, or the plot feels flat and uninteresting. I've played in some 3E games where this lack of threat was taken to the extreme and the game lost fun. Every encounter the fighter just charged and killed the bad guys, with no thought, discussion or tactics. Just take improved initative and power attack and you win every time. Now, some of that was an inexperienced DM that didn't know how to challenge a party, but some of it also rests on a system where the very experienced player running the fighter knew they were very unlikely to suffer any harsh consequenses from charging every encounter.

Compare this to how this player played in 2E, where they were very carefull and tacitcal because they knew how deadly the system could turn in an instant.

So, to sum up, insta death bad, threat of insta death good. Suspense is a good thing in D&D. Not being able to predict sucess, but going into the adventure anyway is a good thing. Having players that feel a real sense of acomplishment when they pull victory from the seeming jaws of defeat is a good thing. Some of this is lost in a system where the encounters are so "balanced" that you never really worry about losing your character as a consequence of battle.

 

[jasamcarl]

I think his point was not that arbitrary death was a good thing, but that the threat of arbitrary death was a good thing. It wasn't that DM's went around killing parties with insta death spells all the time, at least not in the games I played in or DM'ed. It was that the players were more wary about taking on encounters because of the palpable threat of death or atleast a serious beat down.

Like a good movie, the threat must be feel real, or the plot feels flat and uninteresting. I've played in some 3E games where this lack of threat was taken to the extreme and the game lost fun. Every encounter the fighter just charged and killed the bad guys, with no thought, discussion or tactics. Just take improved initative and power attack and you win every time. Now, some of that was an inexperienced DM that didn't know how to challenge a party, but some of it also rests on a system where the very experienced player running the fighter knew they were very unlikely to suffer any harsh consequenses from charging every encounter.

Compare this to how this player played in 2E, where they were very carefull and tacitcal because they knew how deadly the system could turn in an instant.

So, to sum up, insta death bad, threat of insta death good. Suspense is a good thing in D&D. Not being able to predict sucess, but going into the adventure anyway is a good thing. Having players that feel a real sense of acomplishment when they pull victory from the seeming jaws of defeat is a good thing. Some of this is lost in a system where the encounters are so "balanced" that you never really worry about losing your character as a consequence of battle.

Oh, god, this is a dumb argument. For one, arbitrary death by neccessity makes tactics irrelevant, because it is entirely random. The fact that deaths in 3e come about more from player or dm mistep in fact makes combat more tactical.

And two, it's no more difficult for a dm to challenge the party in combat than it was in older editions. A DM can easily ramp up the EL of a combat and come up with something that strains the pcs' resources; the difference is, under 3e, they have a better idea of what they are putting their players through. What you seem to want is the possibility of a random death beyond the immediate control of either players or dms; i.e. and enforced level of difficulty. Why? 3e can be played like, but it is flexible and balanced enough to work at various levels of difficulty. Some need to think before they post. I especially liked the lack of any logic in the quoted post.

 

[Piratecat]

Some need to think before they post. I especially liked the lack of any logic in the quoted post.

The rules here are pretty straightforward: make your point without insults, or don't post at all. If this is somehow a problem, feel free to email me.

 

[Goblyn]

1e/2e weren't full fledged games to begin with, so any comparison

Maybe that's the one thing that is missing from 3.xe because 1e and 2e weren't complete: anyone playing HAD to create the rest of the mechanics and such themselves, making the game unquestionably personalized, whereas though that's available in 3.xe, it's not necessary. Thus the game is not necessarily personalized, especially for those who lack the time it takes to imbue the system with their own preferences.

Maybe?

 

[jasamcarl]

Maybe that's the one thing that is missing from 3.xe because 1e and 2e weren't complete: anyone playing HAD to create the rest of the mechanics and such themselves, making the game unquestionably personalized, whereas though that's available in 3.xe, it's not necessary. Thus the game is not necessarily personalized, especially for those who lack the time it takes to imbue the system with their own preferences.

Maybe?

Nope. If you can fill the 101 holes of 1e/2e, you have enough time to modify 3e.

 

[kamosa]

For one, arbitrary death by neccessity makes tactics irrelevant, because it is entirely random. The fact that deaths in 3e come about more from player or dm mistep in fact makes combat more tactical.

I did lay a lot of the problem at the DM's feet in my post. I didn't mention the tactical aspects of combat at all in my post, so I don't get your point. I was refering to the tactics that players use when deciding whether or not to engauge in combat, how long they stay in the dungeon, how long they go between rests. There is much more to the game then just what happens after you roll initative.

Take the infamous Gary Gygax random encounter tables for example. They weren't balanced at all. There was no guarentee that the players could defeat an enemy rolled off of them. Two Bodaks for a 5th level party, you must be insane Gary! The players knew this table was in existance and didn't want to spend a bunch of down time sleeping or aimlessly wondering the dungeon. This provided a time spur to the party which increased tension in the game. Some of the encounters were "insta death" encounters, and it added to the game that they were a possibility. Now, I don't think I ever saw one used in a game, but just that they existed had an impact on the style of play.

Now, the modules come carefully balanced with proper CR encounters, if they bother to have random encounters at all. All prim and proper by the rules and true to the spirt of 3E. The players never fear what could come off that chart. They just think of it as extra XP.

Sure, you could add more deadly encounters and use higher CR values, and to be honest, I do. But the spirit of the system as writen in the books has changed. This impacts how people learn the game and how new GM's learn that the game should be played. It's at these people that I'm aiming my comments, not at the people that believe 3E can do no wrong.

 

[jasamcarl]

For one, arbitrary death by neccessity makes tactics irrelevant, because it is entirely random. The fact that deaths in 3e come about more from player or dm mistep in fact makes combat more tactical.

I did lay a lot of the problem at the DM's feet in my post. I didn't mention the tactical aspects of combat at all in my post, so I don't get your point. I was refering to the tactics that players use when deciding whether or not to engauge in combat, how long they stay in the dungeon, how long they go between rests. There is much more to the game then just what happens after you roll initative.

Take the infamous Gary Gygax random encounter tables for example. They weren't balanced at all. There was no guarentee that the players could defeat an enemy rolled off of them. Two Bodaks for a 5th level party, you must be insane Gary! The players knew this table was in existance and didn't want to spend a bunch of down time sleeping or aimlessly wondering the dungeon. This provided a time spur to the party which increased tension in the game. Some of the encounters were "insta death" encounters, and it added to the game that they were a possibility. Now, I don't think I ever saw one used in a game, but just that they existed had an impact on the style of play.

Now, the modules come carefully balanced with proper CR encounters, if they bother to have random encounters at all. All prim and proper by the rules and true to the spirt of 3E. The players never fear what could come off that chart. They just think of it as extra XP.

Sure, you could add more deadly encounters and use higher CR values, and to be honest, I do. But the spirit of the system as writen in the books has changed. This impacts how people learn the game and how new GM's learn that the game should be played. It's at these people that I'm aiming my comments, not at the people that believe 3E can do no wrong.

Care to share any proof? You and rounser are no longer discussing the system's merits, but instead have fallen back on a condescending argument that 3e brainwashes people. Care to cite any actual stats as to the size of this demographic of victims of 3e's good design? The larger gamer demo must be dumber than my experience lets on. I certainly didn't get this impression when I was reading the rulebooks.

Or should I let you loose this argument quietly?

 

[Victim]

Wow, you mean random encounters that actually make a little bit of sense for the area? If there are 2 bodaks on the random encounter chart for the dungeon, then bodaks must be wandering around inside of it, yes? Which means that there's probably lots of dead monsters from the bodaks, they have some lair, etc. They'd have some kind of impact on the area that isn't reflected by simply putting them on a chart.

On the other hand, a random orc patrol in or around an orc fortress makes lots of sense.

 

[kamosa]

Care to share any proof? You and rounser are no longer discussing the system's merits, but instead have fallen back on a condescending argument that 3e brainwashes people. Care to cite any actual stats as to the size of this demographic of victims of 3e's good design? The larger gamer demo must be dumber than my experience lets on.

Since I was directly commenting on how the CR system and module writing which come out of it is a bad design, I guess I don't see how I've gotten off of the flaws of 3E.

I find it funny that you say I think gamers are dumb, when you have openly insulted people many times by calling them dumb, or without any proof dismissed posts as poorly thought through. Nice. The kettle is black I tell you!

As for the CR system and the blandness it creates in the module, I would say the 0% have fallen victom to 3E's "Good" design. I don't have statistics for how many are not enjoying the game because it is turing into a bland flavorless boring exorcise in simply running the rules.