| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
 Posted - 21 Jul 2006 : 15:50:01
|
| 3e smoothes things out, no more high and low rolling. The system is accessible and well structured...lots of stuff that's easy to learn and that is, I think, the key to good gaming, because the rules do not distract anymore |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
 |
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2006 : 21:10:43
|
It's interesting that the basic argument is coming down to this:
- 3E is more rigid.
- No, it isn't.
- Yes, it is.
And so on.
Just a pure matter of interpretation. If I see rules for ANYTHING I consider it less flexible, whether it's optional or not, because it still has the potential to be implemented. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2006 : 21:41:52
|
I think there's still some good that can come of it though.
Going forward if we see someone here who is an old school gamer and is looking to possibly try and DM the new rules system, we'll be able to ask relevant questions about his DMing style (and the proclivities of his playes, if this is known) and give a good recommendation on whether 3E would likely be a good choice for him or her.
::::::
Anyone have more 3E Realms DMing experiences to share???
J. Grenemyer |
09/20/2008: Tiger Army at the Catalyst in Santa Cruz. You wouldn’t believe how many females rode it out in the pit. Santa Cruz women are all of them beautiful. Now I know to add tough to that description.
6/27/2008: WALL-E is about the best damn movie Pixar has ever made. It had my heart racing and had me rooting for the good guy.
9/9/2006: Dave Mathews Band was off the hook at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
Never, ever read the game books too literally, or make such assumptions that what is omitted cannot be. Bad DM form, that.
And no matter how compelling a picture string theory paints, if it does not accurately describe our universe, it will be no more relevant than an elaborate game of Dungeons and Dragons. --paragraph 1, chapter 9, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene |
|
|
|
Fletcher
Learned Scribe
USA
299 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jul 2006 : 23:12:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
If I see rules for ANYTHING I consider it less flexible, whether it's optional or not, because it still has the potential to be implemented.
Oooh! Great point! You know I have never thought of it that way. I think that this statement shall give me much to ponder for the next few candles. |
Run faster! The Kobolds are catching up! |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jul 2006 : 00:04:53
|
| Interesting; I wasn't trying to make someone ponder anything.... |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jul 2006 : 00:16:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
If I see rules for ANYTHING I consider it less flexible, whether it's optional or not, because it still has the potential to be implemented.
Um, I wanna play a tethyrian power ranger with a belt that can turn me invisible, invulnerable, and provide me with as much booze as I like...since you don't like rules!  |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jul 2006 : 00:38:35
|
No. :)
A DMing saying no for lore-reasons isn't considered following the rules or not following them, in my opinion - no more than an author deciding not to have ninjas in his novel-world would be. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
|
|
3catcircus
Acolyte
32 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2006 : 03:34:27
|
The problem for me is that the rules lend themselves to two different problem areas:
1. Rollplaying. It encourages players to roll dice when using social skills. Instead of "Well, you see it's like this..." some players tend to go the "I roll a bluff check" route.
2. The rules encourage a disproportionate amount of time spent studying the numbers to "build" the most powerful character at the expense of chosing a feat, class level or skill ranks that make sense for the background. Too many people throw in a few levels of Ranger for the two-weapon fighting, or a level or rogue to get the huge amount of skill points.
Until 3.x, I've never heard anyone use "build" in a sentence involving their PC's progression. There is a fascination with "levelling up" as if this were Zelda or Baldur's Gate.
Now - as to the arguments that the game is streamlined. Not really. In fact, with the literally thousands (I keep a database) of feats, hundreds of prestige classes, and unending number of supplements that players insist that they use because "if WotC didn't intend for it to be core for the player's use, they wouldn't have put a brown cover on it" it is cumbersome just adding a level to a PC.
The DM's job has gotten infinitely harder due to the need to fully stat out non-stock adversaries in the off chance that they might need to use a skill or ability.
I also find the "it should take 13 encounters to level up" and "a party of 4 PC's at level x is challenged by a NPC of the same level/CR" to be completely bogus. You level up when you have enough XP, period. The DM decides what is challenging - running away is a smart option not often used enough - and then they players cry foul at a TPK.
Regarding the argument that doing away with THAC0 made things easier? Maybe, but having an attack bonus progression is the same exact thing as a THAC0 table, except it is presented differently. Besides, unless you are a kid just learning the game, you should be able to do basic math. And if you are a kid, the game *used* to be able to help improve math skills. |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2006 : 03:48:09
|
Heh.
I never had a problem with THAC0.
To-hit-armor-class-0. That's the number you had to roll on a D20 to hit armor class 0. For every point lower than 0, you had to roll 1 higher.
It's really not that hard. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2006 : 04:49:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by 3catcircus
Until 3.x, I've never heard anyone use "build" in a sentence involving their PC's progression. There is a fascination with "levelling up" as if this were Zelda or Baldur's Gate.
I play Neverwinter Nights, and on the NWN/NWN2 forums, the word "build"--instead of "character"--is used all the time...for example, "Anyone have any suggestions as to what build I should use for this game?"
I think it's a bit sad. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2006 : 05:16:55
|
3cat's two points eloquently sum up a lot of my problems with 3e, though I've seen it taken even further. I saw one game where the DM would have players roleplay whatever interaction and THEN roll whatever check to see if it actually worked. Argh! The Character Optimization boards over at WotC are a good example of point #2 (though I wander through there on occasion to see what the other side is doing, so to speak).
Now, I do think there are a few things that 3e does better than 2e. For the most part, skills are one of them, despite what I said above. Most things that can be actively traiined, like Craft, Profession (which, to my mind, ought to be combined with Craft), Perform, various Knoweldges, etc. work better to my mind in a rank-and-DC environment than proficiencies and their total dependence on ability scores. Even something like Intimidate can work well if you're doing something non-verbal ("I stare the guard down."). Unfortunately, all the thief skills got rolled into general skills, making it hard to lift the skill system and port it back to 2e.
Out of curiosity, has anyone compiled a list of kits released for 2e? Do we know how many there were in total and how long ago PrC's surpassed them in number? |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2006 : 06:52:22
|
| I never felt the need to encyclopediacally make lists of 2E mechanics like I do 3E, so I don't have such a list... I pretty much referenced whatever book I thought might have an appropriate type of kit in it for the character-type in question. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2006 : 06:53:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
I never had a problem with THAC0. ... It's really not that hard.
For the official record: Lots of people did. Or at least a signigicant portion of the sample base during the build up to 3E.
Probably would have gone by the wayside anyway, given the 'D20 Concept' inherent to 3E (literally, roll a D20 and add modifiers to do just about anything in the game).
Historically, 3E was deliberately designed to encouraged players to pick and choose from classes as needed when building their characters.
This may surprise some but I always felt this was counterintuitive ("I'm a Ranger, Fighter, Monk, Sorcerer." ...what?), even though I understood the game design reasoning, which was that players always tried to multi-class in 2E anyway, so the rules should accomodate to make this possible while still maintaining balance and some restrictions (i.e. Favored Class but also XP Penalties...that later which does work, BTW).
However, I've found over the years that players tend to refer to their characters by one class or PrC name, regardless of what classes/PrCs they've mixed and matched to build their character.
And because it bears repeating: players in 2E did try (with what rules they had) to do the exact same character min-maxing we see in 3E. The term "Monty Haul Gaming Style" wasn't coined during 3E, after all. 
J. Grenemyer |
09/20/2008: Tiger Army at the Catalyst in Santa Cruz. You wouldn’t believe how many females rode it out in the pit. Santa Cruz women are all of them beautiful. Now I know to add tough to that description.
6/27/2008: WALL-E is about the best damn movie Pixar has ever made. It had my heart racing and had me rooting for the good guy.
9/9/2006: Dave Mathews Band was off the hook at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
Never, ever read the game books too literally, or make such assumptions that what is omitted cannot be. Bad DM form, that.
And no matter how compelling a picture string theory paints, if it does not accurately describe our universe, it will be no more relevant than an elaborate game of Dungeons and Dragons. --paragraph 1, chapter 9, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene |
Edited by - Sanishiver on 24 Jul 2006 06:55:22 |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2006 : 07:16:16
|
quote:
For the official record: Lots of people did. Or at least a signigicant portion of the sample base during the build up to 3E.
As someone else said - apparently people who had trouble with basic math, because I still don't see why it's difficult.
quote:
Historically, 3E was deliberately designed to encouraged players to pick and choose from classes as needed when building their characters.
This may surprise some but I always felt this was counterintuitive ("I'm a Ranger, Fighter, Monk, Sorcerer." ...what?), even though I understood the game design reasoning, which was that players always tried to multi-class in 2E anyway, so the rules should accomodate to make this possible while still maintaining balance and some restrictions (i.e. Favored Class but also XP Penalties...that later which does work, BTW).
I don't like the current multi-classing rules, because they're just too easy. But I wasn't entirely fond of 2E's either.
quote:
And because it bears repeating: players in 2E did try (with what rules they had) to do the exact same character min-maxing we see in 3E. The term "Monty Haul Gaming Style" wasn't coined during 3E, after all.
They tried it much less often, though, and, perhaps more significantly - with much less success.
Wasn't Monty Haul Gaming Style coined in 1E?
(Which I feel shared many of the same design methodologies as 3E, in some ways; specifically, before FR was published, a focus on combat and dungeon-crawling.) |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2006 : 08:07:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I play Neverwinter Nights, and on the NWN/NWN2 forums, the word "build"--instead of "character"--is used all the time...for example, "Anyone have any suggestions as to what build I should use for this game?"
I think it's a bit sad.
Level up, buff, tank, caster, rez... Yes, you too can mechanize and enervate your roleplaying experience on purpose!
The 'build' idea is particularly bad because it encourages people to plan out level progression in advance and thus play characters who rather than living in the present and responding as people to their experiences, are monomaniacal teleological psychopaths focused on future level progression irrespective of what happens in the game. |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2006 : 08:38:23
|
Here is where I agree with Faraer.
That's one of the reasons I never particularly liked the ideas of PrCs in general. I would much rather roleplay out a character actively seeking to achieve certain abilities or magical tendencies in the game; I don't want it neatly packaged in a mechanicsl PrC.
This is why I liked kits more - they had much smaller, minor impact on the mechanics overall. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
Mkhaiwati
Learned Scribe
USA
252 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2006 : 18:07:01
|
quote:
1. Rollplaying. It encourages players to roll dice when using social skills. Instead of "Well, you see it's like this..." some players tend to go the "I roll a bluff check" route.
Depends on how you run your game. I, on the other hand, had a very bad experience 20+ years ago when playing Champions and the GM wanted to know how my character was to escape from a cell. The character had levels in electronics, math, many other sciences, and I was actually only in high school. I said he rigs the electronic door to open. The GM wanted to know how.... my response "I don't know how, but the character would!" was not an acceptable answer. and thus he was stuck.
I have an aversion to that particular mindset, because it is always easier to play dumber than to play smarter than you really are. Bluff is a good example. How many people in real life do you know can't tell a lie to save their own life? Yet, they are expected to bluff their way past something? Granted, they should make an attempt to role-play, it should not be all roll-play, and you can give modifiers based on how well they do. But sometimes a character can have skill the player can't.
quote:
2. The rules encourage a disproportionate amount of time spent studying the numbers to "build" the most powerful character at the expense of chosing a feat, class level or skill ranks that make sense for the background. Too many people throw in a few levels of Ranger for the two-weapon fighting, or a level or rogue to get the huge amount of skill points.
agreed. The last group I was with were huge powergamers, and would devise ways of creating the most powerful character when they gained a new level, using combinations of prestige classes, spells, feats, etc. But this is also a reflection of the group and players. I seemed to always create the weakest character because I always considered the characters background, goals, etc. If I found myself in a pure role-playing group, they could have considered my character on the power side. Depends on the group.
I was advised at one point by another player to take some initiative feats to keep up with others. I declined because I wanted something else to benefit a future goal, such as a item creation feat. Well, I left the group after three straight sessions of not doing anything except being attacked. The others would always take care of the monsters before I could react. Also, when I would role-play in a non-planned encounetr, such as buying equipment, the GM would say things like "why do you want to talk to this guy?" and stuff like that, and then skip to the next, planned encounter.
The group also had another campaign going, where they transfered characters from a long standing 2e campaign to 3.x. They complained they weren't as powerful so decided to allow "purchasing" feats for money, since they were also incredibly rich.
quote:
Until 3.x, I've never heard anyone use "build" in a sentence involving their PC's progression. There is a fascination with "levelling up" as if this were Zelda or Baldur's Gate.
Now - as to the arguments that the game is streamlined. Not really. In fact, with the literally thousands (I keep a database) of feats, hundreds of prestige classes, and unending number of supplements that players insist that they use because "if WotC didn't intend for it to be core for the player's use, they wouldn't have put a brown cover on it" it is cumbersome just adding a level to a PC.
agreed again. But the group I played in came from 2e and had just as many supplements there. But they always created (the term build wasn't used then) the most powerful character then, also. The number of supplements, which include feats, spells, and prestige classes, is related to the state of the industry. It is how the industry workd in that they need the flow of new supplements to continue getting income. They cannot rely upon the backlist to cover costs.
quote:
The DM's job has gotten infinitely harder due to the need to fully stat out non-stock adversaries in the off chance that they might need to use a skill or ability.
I also find the "it should take 13 encounters to level up" and "a party of 4 PC's at level x is challenged by a NPC of the same level/CR" to be completely bogus. You level up when you have enough XP, period. The DM decides what is challenging - running away is a smart option not often used enough - and then they players cry foul at a TPK.
good points. I find the same x encounters to level up thing bogus also. But again, some groups will swear by it and the wrong player in the group will always say "but we should be x level by now, I just did the math!"
Mkhaiwati |
"Behold the work of the old... let your heritage not be lost but bequeath it as a memory, treasure and blessing... Gather the lost and the hidden and preserve it for thy children."
"not nale. not-nale. thog help nail not-nale, not nale. and thog knot not-nale while nale nail not-nale. nale, not not-nale, now nail not-nale by leaving not-nale, not nale, in jail." OotS #367 |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2006 : 18:41:51
|
quote:
I have an aversion to that particular mindset, because it is always easier to play dumber than to play smarter than you really are. Bluff is a good example. How many people in real life do you know can't tell a lie to save their own life? Yet, they are expected to bluff their way past something? Granted, they should make an attempt to role-play, it should not be all roll-play, and you can give modifiers based on how well they do. But sometimes a character can have skill the player can't.
I think you should be able to at least come up with a general idea - not the specifics, and not necessarily to act it out - before any rolls are required. I don't see the point in roleplaying if you completely disconnect yourself from your character's role. :) |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2006 : 22:11:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
The 'build' idea is particularly bad because it encourages people to plan out level progression in advance and thus play characters who rather than...
Hmmm....all the players in my campaign meticulously plan out there level progression (a habit all but one picked up from earlier editions of DnD, plus numerous other game systems; that last player learned to do this from the others in our group over the last 6 years of play together), yet they also don't conform to the silly, rabid stereotype you depicted. :p
In fact, they roleplay rather well and modify their level planning based on what happens in the game.
Case in point: Aasimar Paladin opts to take levels in the Purple Dragon PrC after the events of the War in Cormyr --he fought alongside and even led brave Cormyreans, so he thought it was appropriate. After he learned of the offer for Barony of the Stonelands, said player took more Purple Dragon levels and is looking for appropriate PrCs that will enhance his leadership ability.
Could it be there are players who can straddle both sides of the fence? Methinks yes.
Could it also be there are players (and DMs) who still remember that PrCs are by DM permission only and most importantly that the PrC concept was designed specifically to allow DMs to take lore from their settings and turn it into mechanics players could use be more a part of said setting?
Again, yes.
Having said such, I heartily recognize there’ll always be powergamer/build types, but this has been true through all editions. I also recognize WotC and other design companies have moved away from campaign specific PrCs via ‘generic PrCs’ that don’t fit the specifics of a given setting.
It’s my opinion that the capacity to roleplay and use the rules for more than maxed out gameplay is still just as much a part of players now as it was then, just as the reverse is true.
The beauty of 3E (to me, at any rate) is that it accommodates all types of players, none of which are inherently ‘better’.
J. Grenemyer
|
09/20/2008: Tiger Army at the Catalyst in Santa Cruz. You wouldn’t believe how many females rode it out in the pit. Santa Cruz women are all of them beautiful. Now I know to add tough to that description.
6/27/2008: WALL-E is about the best damn movie Pixar has ever made. It had my heart racing and had me rooting for the good guy.
9/9/2006: Dave Mathews Band was off the hook at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
Never, ever read the game books too literally, or make such assumptions that what is omitted cannot be. Bad DM form, that.
And no matter how compelling a picture string theory paints, if it does not accurately describe our universe, it will be no more relevant than an elaborate game of Dungeons and Dragons. --paragraph 1, chapter 9, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene |
|
|
|
Mkhaiwati
Learned Scribe
USA
252 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2006 : 22:43:51
|
I have to agree with your post, Sanishiver. It depends on how the group wants to play. If a group is composed primarily of powergamers, than expect them to run over everything. But if composed of role-players, choices of feats and prestige classes are much more reasonable.
I feel the generic prestige classes hurt more than those designed for a setting. It allows too much picking and choosing, especially if you incorporate 3rd party materiel. Munchkins tend to start running numbers on the best combinations at that point. Campaign specific prestige classes allow characters to join and have abilities for a reason beside "I can kick more butt, now"
As I said before, this was around before 3.x. The term "munchkin" existed during 2e.
Mkhaiwati |
"Behold the work of the old... let your heritage not be lost but bequeath it as a memory, treasure and blessing... Gather the lost and the hidden and preserve it for thy children."
"not nale. not-nale. thog help nail not-nale, not nale. and thog knot not-nale while nale nail not-nale. nale, not not-nale, now nail not-nale by leaving not-nale, not nale, in jail." OotS #367 |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2006 : 23:07:37
|
quote:
Hmmm....all the players in my campaign meticulously plan out there level progression (a habit all but one picked up from earlier editions of DnD, plus numerous other game systems;
How did they do this? There wasn't any real level progression planning in previous editions.. It was nigh-impossible to dual-class, and you multi-classed from 1st level.. *Blink*
quote:
The beauty of 3E (to me, at any rate) is that it accommodates all types of players, none of which are inherently ‘better’.
Which I guess is why I don't like it. I don't want certain players to play the game. Is that elitist? Sure. Is it pretentious? That depends on whether or not one thinks it's not right for me to want a game that caters to what I want to play. If someone considers that pretentious - sure, I'm pretentious, whatever.
But it's no different than me saying I don't like how preachy WhiteWolf (in the OWoD at least) is in their game design, and it's pretty obvious the type of players that such methodology attracts.
Simply put, I like a game that caters to what I want to play... Just like I read novels that, amazingly enough, are written in a way that I like to read them. :) |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
Edited by - GothicDan on 24 Jul 2006 23:13:39 |
|
|
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2006 : 23:19:34
|
C'mon now, don't pretend the rules were that stringent, or that the rules didn't provide for abilities to plan for. Either that or you must've had a hardcore DM back in the day.
Multiclassing wasn't that difficult. A'course a lot more did depend on the DM plus what you could pull off with magic items, but that doesn't change the fact that A) it was possible and B) players grabed for whatever they could (even the roleplayers, mind)
J. Grenemyer |
09/20/2008: Tiger Army at the Catalyst in Santa Cruz. You wouldn’t believe how many females rode it out in the pit. Santa Cruz women are all of them beautiful. Now I know to add tough to that description.
6/27/2008: WALL-E is about the best damn movie Pixar has ever made. It had my heart racing and had me rooting for the good guy.
9/9/2006: Dave Mathews Band was off the hook at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
Never, ever read the game books too literally, or make such assumptions that what is omitted cannot be. Bad DM form, that.
And no matter how compelling a picture string theory paints, if it does not accurately describe our universe, it will be no more relevant than an elaborate game of Dungeons and Dragons. --paragraph 1, chapter 9, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jul 2006 : 23:30:02
|
All right...I ran my first and second game-day with 3.5...
Was it any different than before? Yes. In a good way, the wizard got through memorizing his spells in under half an hour, since all spells are alphabetically organized and he made index cards for himself now using the SRD, that was a major plus since before it could take hours for him to select his spells...bogged the bugger down to almost a standstill. Same for the priest, with the spell lists showing the general effect she could make a preselection on what she wanted to learn. No brainwracking over high and low roles, like in the old version. Altho it still amazes me that after some 10 years of play some people never got the old system, but oh well.
The cool part: magic items! The group started, after getting their first 1500xp to spend them immediately on purchasing magic items, the plus for that was: they still haven't progressed significantly beyond their current level, and I got rid of all the excess cash the folks had amassed from their last adventure where GP=XP...now I can really go to town with them...and I will.
As for roleplaying: let's put it this way...nothing has changed in that department, and I did not expect it to change either. Maybe it's an advantage if you have a total of about 68 years of roleplaying experience total sitting around the table.
To sum it up, it was fun! |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 00:16:23
|
quote:
C'mon now, don't pretend the rules were that stringent, or that the rules didn't provide for abilities to plan for. Either that or you must've had a hardcore DM back in the day.
Multiclassing wasn't that difficult. A'course a lot more did depend on the DM plus what you could pull off with magic items, but that doesn't change the fact that A) it was possible and B) players grabed for whatever they could (even the roleplayers, mind)
Only demihumans could multiclass, and you had to multiclass at 1st level, and only a certain amount of multiclassing variants were even open to demihumans. I'm still confused. What do you mean it wasn't that difficult?
I'm not taking into account what my DMs did or did not do, merely what the books said. The closest you could come to trying to get 'builds' was choosing a kit (and you could only have one at a time, and switching to a new one was never easy) and proficiencies (which were few an far between and only in the rarest of cases very overpowered [specifically looking at Player's Options, here, which, amazingly enough, served as the foundation of 3E on many levels]).
quote:
As for roleplaying: let's put it this way...nothing has changed in that department, and I did not expect it to change either. Maybe it's an advantage if you have a total of about 68 years of roleplaying experience total sitting around the table.
That's the key, really. People who currently play 3E have played AD&D for years and years, before 3E ever came about. The only way to really judge 3E on its own merit, and how it adds to roleplaying or subtracts from it, is to specifically aim questions at people who had never roleplayed before D&D 3.X. :) |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
Edited by - GothicDan on 25 Jul 2006 00:21:28 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 01:07:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
The 'build' idea is particularly bad because it encourages people to plan out level progression in advance and thus play characters who rather than living in the present and responding as people to their experiences, are monomaniacal teleological psychopaths focused on future level progression irrespective of what happens in the game.
Perfectly well put.
I can understand "build" used to describe a game mechanic, but it seems to me sometimes that people just think about mechanics and forget about playing a character (isn't that the point of playing this game?), thus they substitute "build" for "character". |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 01:09:03
|
| When I started playing some 20 years ago I GMed immediately and I had no clue, so basically I ran my sister and a couple of friends thru one dungeon after another...there was no role-playing. To get into the roleplaying thingy I had to play with more experienced people... THAT is always the thing |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 01:16:24
|
I want to mention (for clarification) that I am an individualist, and thus I don't begrudge the playing styles of other people. If someone wants to play without roleplaying, hey--it's their game.
However, seeing "build" instead of "character" so often is sad for me, because for me much of the fun in this game comes from developing a personality. It's one thing to plan ahead a little (it's not like I've never done that), but these "build" threads I'm talking about involve stating a character out completely (with feats, skills, ability scores). Doesn't that take away some of the fun? |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 01:25:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
In fact, they roleplay rather well and modify their level planning based on what happens in the game.
Good for them. Why do they plan out their level progression?quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I can understand "build" used to describe a game mechanic, but it seems to me sometimes that people just think about mechanics and forget about playing a character (isn't that the point of playing this game?), thus they substitute "build" for "character".
What I don't understand about people not roleplaying in MORPGs is that, if they're treating it as an analytical exercise, what do they want pretty, atmospheric graphics for? |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 01:42:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
What I don't understand about people not roleplaying in MORPGs is that, if they're treating it as an analytical exercise, what do they want pretty, atmospheric graphics for?
Perhaps the focus is on having the most efficient character possible. However, in my experience (and I only play story-based single player games, not player vs. player or games that are intensely combat-focused), as long as you try to make a decent character, you'll do well. I think focusing on being the most "efficient" character possible sucks the fun out of the game and makes it less relaxing--but that's just my opinion. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Our experiences with 3.0 & 3.5 rules as Realms DMs
