What is 3.0 & 3.5 missing that previous editions had?

[JoeGKushner]

The nostalgia value of something that you got into when you were a little kid.

Bingo. A lot of people try to argue mechanics or flavor but I find the game runs better, has more options and a lot of these 3rd party publishers are bringing the life into the game that Judge's Guild and others helped great some odd 20 years ago.

 

[JoeGKushner]

What about players that got into gaming when they were in their 20's a few years prior to 3E? I've spoken with some and even they say that 3E is missing something. I think there is something more than that.

You say this, but don't say what. It's the equivilant of a shoulder shrug. I only point it out because on another post, you talk about this being what 3.0/3.5 doesn't have as opposed to the quick templates another poster though could help curb time in character creation.

For some people, it just is the "something" factor but to me, that's not really a factor as it's not something that can be discussed outside of a "Yeah whatever" reply.

 

[kamosa]

I'll let the discussion cool while I think this concept over, try not to get the thread locked in the meanwhile ok?

Good advice

 

[kenjib]

I think it's a matter of player perceptions, and I do see it in the system because the system has rules that establish your expectations.

1e
Default: We won't likely survive very long.
DM goes easy: Man, we're lucky we all survived.
DM goes hard: Aw, we all got killed, but thems the breaks. The system is tough.

3e
Default: We can expect that most encounters will deplete 25% of our resources and not kill anyone.
DM goes easy: There was no risk of dying.
DM goes hard: DM screwed us over.

This is of course an oversimplification, and not universal to all people, but I really believe that the statement that the system just doesn't make a difference since you can always play it differently is not accurate. Expectations matter, and the rules establish the baseline. When you deviate you will be compared against the baseline.

A more tough and deadly baseline lets you fudge in the player's favor more while still keeping the expectation and suspense of deadliness. On the flipside, if you play it straight, you will have lots of meaningless deaths, because 1e AD&D was not as much about telling a story as 2e and 3e were. It was more of a game because it was still closer to it's wargaming roots. Characters were more expendible. That's a difference in mindset.

Whether or not you like this is preference, I think that the difference really is there. This thread isn't about which is better, but what the differences are. I think this is clearly a difference, even though lots of people (I would say most) like the new way much better.

This also ties into the much quicker character creation of 1e. You aren't as much invested because you can whip up a new level X character in 1/10 the time.

 

[d4]

i think you've done a great job in this post (quoted from, below) of explaining your particular style of gaming. however, the impression i'm getting is that you aren't really seeing that there are people who enjoy a very different kind of gaming.

My thesis is that the fear of death drive dramatic tension more then knowing you will probably win because the game is balanced. We've all seen movies where it never felt like that hero was in danger, and it never felt like they were truely challenged. These movies feel very flat and predictable and well boring.

On the other hand a good suspenseful movie where you constantly feel like the hero could fail at any minute and the villian will win is much more interesting.

i don't agree. i prefer the first kind of movie. seriously, i like watching butt-kicking action movies, and i don't particularly care for overly suspenseful tense movies or tragedies where the heroes die...

and i like my gaming the same way.

I'm saying that gaming has a similar axiom. Saying things are balanced, doesn't mean things are fun, in fact too much balance can lead to a feeling of no threat and this no tension.

gaming for you has a similar axiom. for me, gaming is, to put it bluntly, a power trip. i want to play a powerful, heroic figure who kicks ass and takes names and looks good doing it. i don't want to have to run around scared and paranoid because i'm afraid the next encounter might kill me. i don't want to have to spend a lot of time thinking tactically; i want to charge in and kick some booty. games that are too lethal or random or tense are incredibly boring and frustrating for me.

i game for stress relief. games with too much "threat" and "tension" only make me more stressed, not less. i can't enjoy that.

In the end, even in the movies, the heroes will win and evil will be defeated. But the real enjoyment and satisfaction is in how you go from point A to point b, not in how balanced that journey was.

i agree with the first part of your statement. the most important thing is the journey, not the destination. thus, the focus for me is not on whether or not the heroes survive and win (since we know they will, ultimately), but on how. you seem to get a lot of enjoyment on the whether part as well, but that's just not fun for me.

So, it isn't the random death that makes the game fun, it's the feeling that you cheated death and came out on top. Your plan avoided the insta deaths and traps of the bad guys and in the end you came out on top. Those moments are the ones that seems to stick with players. And I guess my feeling is that the CR is being used in a fashion that creates less of those dramatic moments.

on the other hand, i've seen random deaths and TPKs completely destroy campaigns and break up gaming groups. it's a fine line to walk... not enough random death, and you feel you didn't "earn" the victory. too much, and you risk short-circuiting the whole adventure, and then no one has any fun.

and for my part, i don't think i've ever seen a player react positively or even completely neutral when their favorite PC dies. everyone gets a little sad, a little bitter, a little disappointed. i play games to have fun -- i don't want anyone at my table leaving sad, bitter, or disappointed. perhaps your players react differently. that's fine. but don't assume that everyone behaves the same way or wants the same things.

as far as your last point, i'm just not seeing it. as others have pointed out, the DMG does not tell DMs to make every encounter exactly balanced and matched for the party. it specifically tells DMs to create a variety of difficulties, from fairly easy to extremely tough. so the CR system is not levelling the playing field and removing those dramatic moments.

in addition, experienced DMs already know not to make every encounter of the exact same difficulty, and i've never seen a published adventure that had every encounter in it at the same EL.

so i don't really understand where your argument against the CR/EL system is coming from.

 

[Mouseferatu]

While I do miss some elements of 1E/2E, lethality isn't one of them. Despite the depletion of "save or die" effects, I've found 3.x far more lethal; in fact, the number of character deaths I've both suffered and inflicted in 3.x is several times that of 2E.

3E characters are a lot tougher than their 2E counterparts, but so are the monsters. The addition of critical hits, of different sized hit-dice for monsters, and so forth have made a huge difference. I've found players actually fear 3.x poisons more than 2E. Somehow, being drastically weakened in the face of a wyvern or giant scorpion is scarier than the notion of it just killing you outright.

My players trust me not to kill them arbitrarily, but they also know that I'm not going to limit their encounters to monsters of the "appropriate" CR, and I won't play with anyone who throws a fit because they faced a creature they couldn't steamroller. So in that respect, it's a player problem, not a system problem.

As to whether the system is encouraging that mindset in the new generation of players? I can't speak to that, so I suppose it's possible. Still, I think the game does a good job of trying to explain that it's not meant to be 100% even fights 100% of the time. As someone pointed out, check the encounter chart; there's a small but real chance of meeting somethign way above your level.

On a different note, and back to the original topic (gasp!):

I miss the idea that different clances advance at different rates. I understand why they went to a uniform advancement system; it was, among other things, required for a multiclassing system that is far superior to the old one. Still, it also forces a balance between classes that rubs me the wrong way. A 17th-level wizard should be more powerful, IMO, than a 17th-level rogue; he's a wizard, for Pete's sake! The tradeoff to that is that it's a lot easier and faster to become a 17th-level rogue. I liked the idea of faster advancement for weaker classes; it was still balanced across the party, but it made more sense to me.

But that is, overall, a minor issue to me, and certainly not one worth going back to 2E, or even tweaking the 3E system, for.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

What 3.x is missing:

* Distinct, narrow roles for PCs to fall into. Fighters Fight, Thieves Steal, Wizards blow things up, and Clerics Heal. Thats all.

Good
*

Arbitrary restrictions with "flavor text" to explain them (Halflings don't trust magic...)

Good

* 10 systems to do the same thing (unarmed combat?)

Bad

* A variety of dice mechanic (1d20, 1d100)

Good

* A higher dependancy on high ability scores.

This, I'm neutral on.

* A higher dependancy on Luck/good die rolls.

Good

* The concept of the Ominverse, with Greyhawk, Realms, and all other settings sharing the same cosmology.

Again, nothing wrong with this. Nothing wrong with another system, either.

* Magical Items, Weapons, and Spells that were CLEARLY superior to others.

This is as it should be, and is in 3e, as well. For example, the robe of useful items is one of my favorite items, but building a 3e character, I'd never choose this, as it's way inferior to other items at $8,000 gps.

* Classes and races that were CLEARLY superior to others.

We still have that.

* Classic Modules

Good

* Too many choices (Players Options)

Yeah, player's option was over the top - it had some good ideas, but they were implemented poorly.

* Too many restrictions (d20 publishers?)

Too many restrictions is preferrable to too many options imo.

* Clear Inbalance in favor of the DM

Good

* Rule Loopholes

All rules have loopholes.

Thats what I can think of. Whether these are good or bad are up to you.

 

[d4]

I miss the idea that different clances advance at different rates. I understand why they went to a uniform advancement system; it was, among other things, required for a multiclassing system that is far superior to the old one. Still, it also forces a balance between classes that rubs me the wrong way. A 17th-level wizard should be more powerful, IMO, than a 17th-level rogue; he's a wizard, for Pete's sake! The tradeoff to that is that it's a lot easier and faster to become a 17th-level rogue. I liked the idea of faster advancement for weaker classes; it was still balanced across the party, but it made more sense to me.

i'm sorry, but i don't really see the issue.

if a 17th-level wizard is more powerful than a 17th-level rogue, then either the wizard or the rogue aren't really 17th-level. by making power not equate to level, you are essentially depriving the term "character level" of a lot of its meaning, IMO.

in 1e, for example, it was obvious that a wizard and a thief of the same level were not at the same power level. but thieves progressed faster. would you say that a wizard and a thief with the same amount of experience points were at the same power level?

if so, then simplifying the system so that they are also at the same level is IMO a good thing (it makes character level actually mean something, as i alluded to above). if not, then the game is inherently unfair to thieves WRT wizards (or any other combination where this comparison holds), which i also don't think is a good idea.

 

[d4]

Too many restrictions is preferrable to too many options imo.

could you expand on this?

from my point of view, it seems easier to remove an option than it does to remove a restriction.

and people who may lack experience or confidence in their game design skills can feel that they are causing less harm to the system overall when they remove options than restrictions. you usually don't question whether its going to wreck the consistency or (that dreaded word) balance of the system when you remove an option, but removing a restriction does carry that risk.

 

[Victim]

I think it's a matter of player perceptions, and I do see it in the system because the system has rules that establish your expectations.

1e
Default: We won't likely survive very long.
DM goes easy: Man, we're lucky we all survived.
DM goes hard: Aw, we all got killed, but thems the breaks. The system is tough.

3e
Default: We can expect that most encounters will deplete 25% of our resources and not kill anyone.
DM goes easy: There was no risk of dying.
DM goes hard: DM screwed us over.

This is of course an oversimplification, and not universal to all people, but I really believe that the statement that the system just doesn't make a difference since you can always play it differently is not accurate. Expectations matter, and the rules establish the baseline. When you deviate you will be compared against the baseline.

A more tough and deadly baseline lets you fudge in the player's favor more while still keeping the expectation and suspense of deadliness. On the flipside, if you play it straight, you will have lots of meaningless deaths, because 1e AD&D was not as much about telling a story as 2e and 3e were. It was more of a game because it was still closer to it's wargaming roots. Characters were more expendible. That's a difference in mindset.

Whether or not you like this is preference, I think that the difference really is there. This thread isn't about which is better, but what the differences are. I think this is clearly a difference, even though lots of people (I would say most) like the new way much better.

This also ties into the much quicker character creation of 1e. You aren't as much invested because you can whip up a new level X character in 1/10 the time.

Hmm. I wouldn't say that at all.

From my experiences, 1e characters generally are pretty good against HP death in most cases. Fighter types will generally have roughly the same HP totals between editions at early to mid levels. At higher levels, first and second ed pretty much stopped, and in 3.0 Con increasing magic will add to character's HP.

However, most conventional monster attacks were less threatening in prior editions. Unfortunately, I don't have my 2nd ed MM, and acrobat reader keeps crashing, so I'll have to rely on crappy memory for old monster stats. 2nd ed orcs: THACO 20, 1d8 or 1d10 damage. 3.0 orcs: attack +3, damage 1d12+3, nasty critical hits. At higher levels, more monsters have multiple attacks and huge strength scores, so their damage increases alot. Since most giants have 3 attacks instead of 1, they can kill characters in melee far more readily.

Also, the changes to saving throws mean that even high level characters fear save based effects.

Black Lotus Extract is pertty much save or die poison. Dark Reaver powder, burnt othur fumes, deathblade, and wyvern poison also do decent Con damage.

In my opinion, much of the nastiness in 1e was in all the no-save or die effects, or other rather arbitrary effects. One edition is no more deadly than the other, just the methods used are different. The Heart of Nightfang Spire versus the Tomb of Horrors, if you will.