What is 3.0 & 3.5 missing that previous editions had?

[kamosa]

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.

That was a flaw. My favorite was when you would come across a room that would have some random type of monster that A) couldn't get out of the room. B) Seems to have been there for ages with no obvious source of food, and C) was ready to attack you the instant you showed up.

It was silly and did need to be improved. However, I don't think taking out of the game the fear of death was a good thing. Insta death threat added to the drama and I think we could come up with a system that both had the threat and seemed plausible.

 

[Zappo]

I'm very curious to find out what 3E lacks that other editions had, but up to now I see nothing. I'm following this thread with interest.

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.

I don't get it. There is no "wow" of discovery when you craft an item, whatever the edition. Unless the DM adds some house rules, the item does exactly what you want it to do.

Parties can take loot and sell and then recraft into better custom loot. This creates PCs with very similar "optimal adventuring" gear.

Again, I don't understand. In my group, between all the campaigns we played, we had a grand total of three permanent items made. And they were three identical armors, created in the same circumstance. With the high XP cost for making good items, the "optimal adventuring gear" largely comes from buying the items, but this is entirely under the DM's control in any edition.

Maybe you're talking about the fact that in 2E you needed special components to create magical items. It would be a nice optional rule for 3E, but when I played 2E it only came into play once or twice (and it was quite a headache for the DM). I don't think that's a big part of "the feeling of past editions".

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.

Ok, this is basically the definition of "a problem with the players, not with the system". IME, 3E is way, way, way more deadly than 2E if the players don't make sure to know what they are up against before charging. The reasons are:
- variable ST difficulties. No matter how good your saves, you can't be sure that you need a 2 to save.
- much wider range of to-hit, damage, ACs, and special strikes. Try charging an elemental without knowing what it does in melee. "Aw, c'mon, it's made of air, how strong can it be?".
- classed and templated monsters. In 3E, even the classical orc ambush could be a death trap for what you know.

 

[jasamcarl]

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.

Well thanks for admitting you don't have an argument. Most players always preferred a 'balanced' game. 3e can do both. So its nice you slip in the assertion that the game as written is becoming bland despite having already conceded you have nothing to base it on.

Well its obvious most prefer to balanced modules. As you noted even in 1e days, dms actually attempted to balance games, because a game isn't fun when random death is all over the place. And no, the existence of some random death/monster/etc. table does not automatically increase the tension of game; more likely it just pisses the players off and sends them in search of a new dm. This is because most don't feel themselves victims of the rules and tend to be selective as to what stuff they actually use in game. This means they wouldn't view 3e's options as bland, but rather as what it is, a tool. Understand? Or are you now sulking?

 

[jasamcarl]

That was a flaw. My favorite was when you would come across a room that would have some random type of monster that A) couldn't get out of the room. B) Seems to have been there for ages with no obvious source of food, and C) was ready to attack you the instant you showed up.

It was silly and did need to be improved. However, I don't think taking out of the game the fear of death was a good thing. Insta death threat added to the drama and I think we could come up with a system that both had the threat and seemed plausible.

Uh, how about just coming up with a random monster table? Do you really need the dmg to give you an unbalanced field of monsters? You have way too much respect for authority.

 

[Goblyn]

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

You're forgetting timelines though. The original question was about something intangible lacking from 3e that was in 1e and 2e for those who have played them all. We were younger then, and thus had the time.

My suggestion does not imply a flaw in 3e, just unfortunate timing for us multi-editioners.

 

[jasamcarl]

You're forgetting timelines though. The original question was about something intangible lacking from 3e that was in 1e and 2e for those who have played them all. We were younger then, and thus had the time.

My suggestion does not imply a flaw in 3e, just unfortunate timing for us multi-editioners.

Gotcha. And good point. I was arguing more from the standpoint of 3e versus earlier editions now.

 

[kamosa]

Ok, this is basically the definition of "a problem with the players, not with the system". IME, 3E is way, way, way more deadly than 2E if the players don't make sure to know what they are up against before charging. The reasons are:
- variable ST difficulties. No matter how good your saves, you can't be sure that you need a 2 to save.
- much wider range of to-hit, damage, ACs, and special strikes. Try charging an elemental without knowing what it does in melee. "Aw, c'mon, it's made of air, how strong can it be?".
- classed and templated monsters. In 3E, even the classical orc ambush could be a death trap for what you know.

It can be more variable. And I definitly feel that 3E characters are weaker and are easier to attack then their 2E compatriots. All good things, really.

However, I don't believe that what I tried to point out is all "a player problem" Like I said, they guy I was refering to was a great 2E player. Really.

The CR system has been used as a way to "balance" the encounters. So even though there could be a great many variations to the power of the monsters, the CR rating system washes away the suspense and lets you know that the GM would never run you up against something that you couldn't defeat.

And as I have said, you can ignore the CR system and your fine. But, how many new GM's are going to ignore it? How many new players feel it is unfair to run players on encounter that have too high of a CR? The answer of course is unknown, but I've started to see the blandness and lack of fear creep into games and I don't think it is a good thing.

 

[Zappo]

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.

There's still something I don't understand, but I see a connection with the save or die argument of the last couple of pages. So let me get this straight. You're saying that completely random death which the PCs can't influence or prevent somehow makes the game more enjoyable? How?

I'm all for tension and lethality, and as I repeated again and again 3E actually kills more than previous editions, but when a character bites the dust, there should be some reason. Not even real life has that kind of randomness.

 

[jasamcarl]

It can be more variable. And I definitly feel that 3E characters are weaker and are easier to attack then their 2E compatriots. All good things, really.

However, I don't believe that what I tried to point out is all "a player problem" Like I said, they guy I was refering to was a great 2E player. Really.

The CR system has been used as a way to "balance" the encounters. So even though there could be a great many variations to the power of the monsters, the CR rating system washes away the suspense and lets you know that the GM would never run you up against something that you couldn't defeat.

And as I have said, you can ignore the CR system and your fine. But, how many new GM's are going to ignore it? How many new players feel it is unfair to run players on encounter that have too high of a CR? The answer of course is unknown, but I've started to see the blandness and lack of fear creep into games and I don't think it is a good thing.

Here is your problem. They don't have to ignore the CR system. If the Dms choose to peg an encounter in the standard survivable range, its because they wanted their characters to survive. They could just as easily used the CR system to creature an encounter that was beyond their players. Its dm/player choice, not system mandate.

And, by your logic, I could easily blame 1e/2e for arbitrary survival because the constant fudging forced dms to just decide on a conclusion to combat; a lot of tension removed there. You're not thinking.....

 

[Piratecat]

Understand? Or are you now sulking?

Jasam, apparently you're ignoring my warning. Last chance: stop being rude. Stop bickering. Or you stop posting.

It's fine not to agree with another poster, but making snide and insulting comments is just tacky. And just to be clear, it is not okay to make a rude comment and then add a smiley to make it somehow "okay."

EN World is like going to a party over at Morrus' house. Picking fights with the other guests simply isn't appropriate, and I'm disappointed that you're persisting.