PDA

View Full Version : The Evolution of an RPG



Arimathea
2007-05-22, 08:41 PM
Hello all!

I'm new to the forums, and through due diligence have just finished the arduously enjoyable task of catching up on all of the previous OOTS strips.

I have a gaming musing.

I am one of *those* guys, raised by an ex-Traveller gamer and a man who still has most of the original D&D publications. I was brought up on 2nd edition D&D alone. So my question is this: For those of you who have played the "ancient" forms of D&D, how do 3rd edition and later versions stand up? I always had qualms about picking up a 3rd edition or d20 handbook, but I don't know if I am being unnecessarily purist about the whole thing.:smallwink:

Shoyliguad
2007-05-22, 08:43 PM
its broken, always was and hopefully they'll fix it but I doubt it. Overall though they did a pretty nice job fixing it up and its really nice so go ahead and pick up 3.5.

Quietus
2007-05-22, 08:43 PM
I haven't played 2nd myself, but most of my gaming group has, and they all unanimously agree that 3.x is FAR superior.

Jasdoif
2007-05-22, 08:45 PM
Here, decide for yourself (http://www.d20srd.org/). Except for specifics about levelling (which is now uniform across all classes) and certain monsters, all the basic mechanical rules for 3.5 are available for anyone.

Pirate_King
2007-05-22, 08:49 PM
I rather like 3.5

I was looking at an old fiend folio, and it was fun to watch the evolution of different monsters that are still around in 3.5

Fat Daddy
2007-05-22, 08:49 PM
I cut my teeth on 1e. Played 2e extensively and resisted the change to 3.x for quite a while. I love 1e and 2e for nostalgic reasons but for simple gaming enjoyment I have to go with 3.x I like the streamlined mechanics, no THAC0 or 'save charts' etc. Plus, 3.x gives me the flexibility I always found lacking in the older versions.

From an old school gamer, I recommend picking up 3.5 and running with it.

Arimathea
2007-05-22, 08:49 PM
Great, thanks guys!

Amphimir Míriel
2007-05-22, 08:58 PM
Great, thanks guys!

Yeah, you will find people here complaining about class imbalance, silly rules and other imperfections.

But every time I think 3.5 is broken or silly I remember THAC0 or Dwarves not being able to be Paladins (or Wizards)

The AD&D overly specific saving throws (petrification? breath weapon?) also bring a smile to my face... Man, how did we manage to play that for such a long time?

Ethdred
2007-05-23, 07:36 AM
Yep, I've played since 1st edition and I have to admit that overall 3.5 is the best. There are loads of problems with it, but there were with all other editions. But in those days we didn't have the Internet, rules lawyers and other rubbish, so we felt quite happy house-ruling everything and just having fun.

bosssmiley
2007-05-23, 03:27 PM
3.5? It's the "more like R.Talsorians's Interlock" version of D&D I prayed for through the inherited kludge of 2nd Ed. One unified "Die Roll + mod vs. difficulty number" mechanic which you can happily elaborate on until the system begins to buckle under its own weight.

"Was that really so beyond you in the 70s Gary?" :smallannoyed:

Raum
2007-05-23, 05:08 PM
So my question is this: For those of you who have played the "ancient" forms of D&D, how do 3rd edition and later versions stand up? I always had qualms about picking up a 3rd edition or d20 handbook, but I don't know if I am being unnecessarily purist about the whole thing.:smallwink:Whether or not you'll like 3.5 really depends on what aspects of the game you like / emphasize most. Compared to previous versions, 3.5 is far more detailed. There's is a feat, class ability, skill, or rule to cover almost any situation you can think up.

For what I like in RPGs it's become too detailed. With previous editions, jumping off the balcony to swing on the chandelier and attack the bad guy depended on good descriptions and a flexible DM. Now you need skill ranks and feats. In too many ways, the detail limits creativity.

Indon
2007-05-23, 05:10 PM
It's so much more modular and faster to execute, it's not even funny.

Until you crack a THAC0 joke, anyway. Then it's funny.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-23, 05:20 PM
3.5? It's the "more like R.Talsorians's Interlock" version of D&D I prayed for through the inherited kludge of 2nd Ed. One unified "Die Roll + mod vs. difficulty number" mechanic which you can happily elaborate on until the system begins to buckle under its own weight.

"Was that really so beyond you in the 70s Gary?" :smallannoyed:

Gary was starting from nothing. Or he was starting from 4000 years of wargame history but nobody counts DnD as an evolution of chess.

Earlier editions did work you know.

Kind of.

As long as you had enough duct tape.

silentknight
2007-05-23, 06:18 PM
Played 1E and 2E, but I love 3.0/3.5. Many of the house rules I had implemented (skill points, darkvision vs. infravision) were in the new books, so of course I would prefer it.

Daze
2007-05-23, 07:09 PM
I started on the old D&D rules cyclopedia and supplemented it with the AD&D material.

There was obvious weirdness with some of the systems. THACO, saving throws, class restrictions... but once you knew em, it was no biggie.
House ruling was key though.. we nixed the class restrictions almost immediately and adjusted many other things.

I do agree that sometimes 3.x can be a bit too structured for it's own good. If you play out a great scene, it shouldnt require a roll for every little thing. An attentive DM who rewards good roleplay allows for great flexibility in your game.

With that being said, nothing wrong with 3.x or D20.. except buying the new books!

Fhaolan
2007-05-23, 07:55 PM
3.x is a good system, really. You just have to be careful with it, just like with previous editions.

1st edition's main glitches were inconsistant base mechanics and a truely awful editing job. Was a success above or below the target number? Where the heck is this paragraph going?

2nd edition cleaned up the editing job. It still had the inconsistant base mechanics, but just being able to *find* things was wonderful. It's main problem was that it collapsed under it's own weight. Supplement creep killed it.

3rd edition has revised the base mechanics to make them consistant and kept the better editing job. However, it is already reaching the level of supplement creep that killed 2nd edition. Everyone wants supplements, supplements keep the publishing companies in business, but game systems really suffer under their weight. Once all the really useful stuff is published, the writers have to constantly outdo the previously published stuff to make it saleable. Which means power creep and you end up with 'the player with the most books wins'...

EDIT: You can tell I'm tired, my grammar goes all to heck. :smallsmile:

Justin_Bacon
2007-05-23, 10:52 PM
So my question is this: For those of you who have played the "ancient" forms of D&D, how do 3rd edition and later versions stand up? I always had qualms about picking up a 3rd edition or d20 handbook, but I don't know if I am being unnecessarily purist about the whole thing.:smallwink:

80% of the changes for 3rd Edition looked exactly like my houserules for 2nd Edition. The other 20% of the changes would have been my houserules if I'd thought of them first. ;)

It's still not perfect. But it's the best version of D&D yet.

Matthew
2007-06-01, 10:56 AM
That would be because something like 80% of the changes were those voiced time and time again in Dragon or else directly inherited from the Player's Option Series.

You might as well jump on board the 3.x bandwagon, but I wouldn't throw away your old edition books. Instead of viewing it as a replacement system, try thinking of it as more supplemental and optional material. Play a few games using the system as is to test the limits, so you can discover which parts you like and which parts you don't.

Dervag
2007-06-01, 11:13 AM
The AD&D overly specific saving throws (petrification? breath weapon?) also bring a smile to my face... Man, how did we manage to play that for such a long time?Because those 'specific' saving throws actually reflected broader categories of effects to save against.

To use a new term to describe the old system, the save DC for 'petrification' was supposed to cover polymorph and other effects that transform the target's physical shape or makeup. 'Breath weapon' was supposed to cover non-spell effects that affected a large area.

As for the other three types: 'poison' is not overly specific; it can actually makes realistic sense for a character's resistance to poison to be different from his resistance to being blasted into atoms by a wizard's disintegrate spell.

Saving against 'spell' is, if anything, not specific enough, which was one of the main problems with the save system in the first place.


The new system is better, but the old system isn't quite as bad as some people here make it out to be.

Premier
2007-06-01, 12:22 PM
Pretty big question, so I'll be terse with points.

1,
All earlier editions of (A)D&D were built around a number of non-mechanics- and metamechanics-related assumptions, such as the idea of playing archetypes, relatively high character mortality (especially at low levels, depending on exact edition), slow level advancement, the expectation that DM's will customise and houserule their games, etc.. WotC completely did away with these assumptions and built their version of D&D around completely different ones ("encounters must be fair", "there must be a written rule for everything", class-dipping, quick levelling up, etc.). These are some fundamental changes which some people might and others loathe. What I guess it boils down to is that old editions all encompass a range of styles between High Fantasy and Sword & Sorcery, depending on how the GM wants to run it. 3E is a superhero game in a quasi-medieval setting.
If you're interest in the mechanics of WotC D&D but don't want the "new-school sensibilities", you should check out Castles & Crusades.

2,
The whole thing about how unified game mechanics are supremely better only exists in the minds of WotC marketing people and those consumers who've been duped. Sure, you save a very small amount of time and effort by not having to think about "do I have to roll low or high on a saving throw", but this saving is dwarved by the amount of time and energy you'll spend checking modifiers, feats, class and racial ability descriptions and trying to figure out how they combine into a final difficulty number. For instance, you want to do a grapple. You know it's BAB + strength. But you can also resist with escape artist. No wait, that's only on your turn. Now is that a standard action or a full-round action? Now someone tries to trip you. Okay, I resist with BAB + strength, right? Nope, it's just strength. Or wait, I think you can choose your dexterity if it is higher. Is that only on defense, or can you trip with the higher of strength or dexterity? Is trip a standard action or just one attack? And so on, and so on. Unified, guess yes. Easy to use? Gimme a break.

3,
On a similar note, WotC D&D has the "must be a rule for everything" myth. Old editions assume that the Dungeon Master is at least reasonably competent, and if you want to perform an action that might or might not succeed and is not covered by the rules, he can just say "Erm, okay, let's say you roll against your DEX". In contrast, with 3E you know there's already a rule for it (I mean, there [i]must[i] be one, right?), you just have to find it. God forbid you make an ad hoc ruling, your players will call you unfair. So you open the PHB and look up the relevant rule. Then you realise it's in the DMG. Oh, wait, no, it must be in the PHB II. Or the DMG II. Or Races of the Wild, because it's a race-specific ability, and which book you don't actually own.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-01, 02:36 PM
3E is a superhero game in a quasi-medieval setting.


You know, with the exception of actual superhero games, I can't think of a single RPG I haven't seen somebody describe as "a superhero game in a [BLANK] setting"

Ethdred
2007-06-01, 04:06 PM
@Premier - didn't want to quote the whole thing, but very good summary of the difference. I've been thinking something similar but not been able to put it into words. I think that's one reason why you get all this 'I win D&D' game breaking cheese stuff. Nowadays players can say 'Well, according to the rules I can do this and this and bingo!' when back in the day any Dm would just have said 'Shove off, you're being silly, and not in a good way.'

Matthew
2007-06-01, 04:14 PM
Indeed. It is also worth remembering that anything is still strictly possible in D&D 3.x, it's just that it's de-emphasised, comparatively.

Indon
2007-06-01, 04:19 PM
So really, that's not about the game system itself, but about the culture that surrounds the game system; a culture that seems more heavily influenced by things such as computer games than previous tabletop cultures.

Matthew
2007-06-01, 04:26 PM
And the presentation and expectations of use of said Game System. But, yeah, basically. For instance, in any edition, any Character without Spring Attack can move, attack and move in a single round at the DM's discretion (and with an appropriate mechanic), but the DM is considerably less likely to okay it in a 3.x game, as far as I can see.

Tengu
2007-06-01, 04:39 PM
[hideous overgeneralisation]
Original 1st edition DND is a board game with the DM instead of a board. The one who gathers most exp and loot while you go through the dungeon to kill its evil master wins. Your character dies? Shrug and make a new one, nobody will cry, just like nobody cries when in Monopoly his boot goes to jail and his cannon goes bankrupt.

AD&D had a different rule for everything, with completely different systems and mechanics for solving different things. It also basically enforced the DM to houserule like crazy, and the only way of making your Fighter different from a mechanical point of view from other Fighters was to take the "Bearded warrior with red hair, fighting with a bastard sword, wearing a kilt" kit. Or simirarily nonsensical, there were kits for everything.

3.x is a rules-lawyer's and character optimizer's paradise, with its many loopholes and materials from differents book being written by different people who haven't consulted with each other, leading to horrible cheese when combined. It also is much more politically correct - Rogue instead of Thief? C'mon.
[/hideous overgeneralisation]

Take that with a pinch of salt.

The truth is that, as many have said before and many will say after, while 3.5 is still far from perfect (Exalted or Fading Suns are much closer in my book), it's the best incarnation of DND so far.

Matthew
2007-06-01, 04:51 PM
Best being a subjective term...