* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : Question for people who've gone from 2nd Edition to 3rd and vice-versa Started at 04-21-04 10:38 PM by Coldpenguin625 Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=225652 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Coldpenguin625 Date : 04-21-04 10:38 PM Thread Title : Question for people who've gone from 2nd Edition to 3rd and vice-versa Me and my group started out in second edition back in 1999 or 98, I'm not sure. Anyways, when I DM'ed 2nd Edition I always remember it took me very little time to compose an adventure or location complete with stats. Then we switched to 3rd edition and I find myself taking hours...even though I've read the rules over. I don't want this to degenerate into a 2nd vs. 3rd thread, I just want to know if other people have experienced the same thing? I recently moved my group back to 2nd simply because I find myself wasting time creating stuff for 3rd that I had done in 10 minutes with 2nd. Is it just because 3rd Edition has more number work involved? Am I just dumb? Has anyone else experienced this? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : blackprinceofmuncie Date : 04-22-04 12:00 AM Thread Title : Re: Question for people who've gone from 2nd Edition to 3rd and vice-versa Originally posted by Coldpenguin625 Am I just dumb? I doubt it. Has anyone else experienced this? Yes. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Incenjucar Date : 04-22-04 12:22 AM It's fully understandable. The new features and flexibility of 3e also makes for much more to consider when creating things. Monsters, especially, are much more complex than they used to be. Heck, I used to be able to write out the monster information (Habit/Society, Alignment, Treasure, blah blah blah) exactly as it was formatted by memory. It's kind of like how some software is. There's a point where all the spiffy keen options start slowing down normal use. Thankfully, D&D is still D&D, and there's nothing wrong, bad, or limiting by playing older editions. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : GreyLord Date : 04-22-04 01:08 AM Originally posted by Incenjucar It's fully understandable. The new features and flexibility of 3e also makes for much more to consider when creating things. Monsters, especially, are much more complex than they used to be. Heck, I used to be able to write out the monster information (Habit/Society, Alignment, Treasure, blah blah blah) exactly as it was formatted by memory. It's kind of like how some software is. There's a point where all the spiffy keen options start slowing down normal use. Thankfully, D&D is still D&D, and there's nothing wrong, bad, or limiting by playing older editions. I have to respectfully disagree with this assessment. 3e is not more flexible than 2e or any other game. As long as you follow the rule...The DM is always right, any RPG can be as flexible or inflexible as you make it. I actually find 1e much more flexible than other editions due to a lack of rules stating what should occur in specific actions or activities. But that's just me...as you find 3e more flexible. On the otherhand, I was running my first 3e dungeon within hours of getting the 3e book. The original PHB came with some notes on dungeon creation randomly, etc. as all of the books have in the DM and MM. I think after that, if going in depth, creation of dungeons took me longer at first in 3e only because I was not as familiar with the rules as I was with the earlier editions. As I grew more familiar with 3e putting together games got quicker. Granted, when I put together PC's, I did it rather quickly, and wrote quick biographies unless they were really really important. For very minor PC's I'd just rip out a starting example or template and arrange it appropriately. Overall, it doesn't take me much longer currently with 3e than other editions for preparation, but character creation CAN take longer, as well as certain other items, since they typically have more statistics and scores that need to be figured out. I would suggest creating templates that you like that you can rip rapidly, or use examples of things in the core rule books and use them to speed up the process. On the otherhand, perhaps I'm a little too indepth when I create adventures using other editions, which may be why it's not all that much longer in 3e than it was in 1e, or even OD&D. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Incenjucar Date : 04-22-04 01:17 AM I shall be more clear, then: "More flexible without house rules." If you add or subtract to and from the basic material, I can't exactly make a statement on anything. You can house rule that a 1e fighter gets Feats, and a 3e Fighter gets none, thus making the 1e fighter more complex and flexible than the 3e fighter in that situation. I was trying to avoid dropping in to minutae, is all. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Algolei Date : 04-22-04 02:28 AM I agree with both Incenjucar and GreyLord (each about 50/50). I find it takes a lot longer for me to make a 3.xE encounter than any previous edition because of all the extra detail involved. And in the end, I find all that detail leads to a less flexible encounter. GreyLord's "template characters" sound like a good idea, but how many of them can you be expected to carry around with you? Personally, I already committed mental health suicide ages ago, lugging around all those 2E tidbits in my head. :brainburst: :oh_the_pain: :oh_the_pain: But then, 6E is the only true game, all others are merely poor imitations of the real thing. :smirk: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : rogueattorney Date : 04-22-04 01:03 PM Coldpenguin, you've just described the A#1 reason many DM's familiar with the older editions dislike the newer edition. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Kuje31 Date : 04-22-04 01:08 PM Have to agree with the original poster. 3e does take longer to make PC's as well as NPC's. I used to be able to create a NPC or a PC in under a half hour, now it takes a hour or longer. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : diaglo Date : 04-22-04 01:17 PM this forum is for the discussion of OoP products.... questions for people ....polls ... not concerning OoP products are therefore not allowed/Should NOT be posted on this forum. please post them on the appropriate forum. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Coldpenguin625 Date : 04-22-04 03:31 PM Well I was asking a question about people's experience with 2nd Edition which is Out of Print if I recall correctly. If you have a problem with that then I'd appreciate it if you don't post here since I've read several of your posts on other threads and have yet to see one constructive post. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : Incenjucar Date : 04-22-04 07:53 PM Something of an odd irony, considering this discussion, right before my forced hiatus from gaming, I had actually begun dabbling with the idea of monsters with normal character statistics, I think because of the Humanoid's handbook. Only trick to it was that monsters had a range of damage that rarely included "pluses", like "Bite 2d6" and so forth. And Diaglo, seriously, please stop harrassing people who are interested in out of print material on the out of print board. I don't appreciate it, nor do many others. Comparisons are entirely valid. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Lord Gwydion Date : 04-22-04 10:34 PM I don't find creating encounters to take that much longer unless I either modify a creature (change ability scores, add a template, or add class levels), or have an NPC involved. If I do any of these, I have to recalculate save DCs, skill points, ability modifiers, spells, etc. Otherwise, I just use the stats in the MM, just like I did in every previous edition. I just jot down AC, HP, attack, damage, any special abilities I'm sure it will use, and page number to look up anything else I might need. Of course, back when I played BECM D&D, sometimes I'd just write down the name of the creature(s), numbers, and hit points, and look everything else up when I got there. That sure made writing up encounters quick, but I also tended to forget lots of special abilities during the encounters. So, 3E may take slightly longer to prepare, but I find I'm better prepared for encounters by taking that extra time and jotting down more info in my notes. If I ever get a group together to play one of the older editions, I'm sure this will also translate to me being more thoroughly prepared in those games, as well. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Falstaff the Fighter Date : 04-23-04 12:45 AM I have little trouble quickly devising monster stats or even NPC stats with 3e. I might gloss over a few points when wining it, but at one point, I had enough memorized where I could run it without the books, just as fast, for the most part, as 2e (Maybe a bit slower, like by two, three minutes tops.). The fastest D&D set up time I have ever had is original D&D. I can set up an original D&D adventure (Assuming I have recently refreshed my self with the rules.) in like five minutes at the most. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : vader42xx Date : 04-23-04 03:00 AM I have to agree with Incenjucar (and several others who have posted). 3e is more flexible but its focus has changed. Older editions are more flexible for the DM while 3e is more flexible for the players. One of the key concepts behind designing 3e was shifting the balance of power out of the hands of the DM and into the hands of the Players. Some of us don't agree with that but that was the focus whether we like it or not. The other key concept was making the game more simple and that means firm rules actually covering more situations. Again, many of us don't like it but that's the way the game was designed. So what that means is that DMs of old editions often feel like they can't be as creative because they actually have to follow a set of cookie-cutter rules instead of just covering a situation as they see fit. The advantage of this system is that your average player has more options "right out of the box." That isn't to say 3e is better, just that (like anything else) it has its good points and its bad. One of the bad points, as far as I'm concerned, is that writing up encounters, adventures, etc does indeed take longer than it used to. Part of this is due to the huge amount of information for each monster and part of it is due to the large amount of rules you have to sift through to determin exact encounter level, treasure awarded, etc. But, the advantage to this is that your monsters have a lot more data so you can more easily answer those odd questions when they come up (we all know them, the ones that the DM never thinks of but the player always wants to know right away...). Again, not better or worse, just different. Not to advertise 3e (I play both 3e and basic myself) but you'll find that the optional experience system in the Unearthed Arcana helps speed up things alot without actually changing advancement, etc. Anyway, just my take on things. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : RobertFisher Date : 04-23-04 01:11 PM Thread Title : Re: Question for people who've gone from 2nd Edition to 3rd and vice-versa Originally posted by Coldpenguin625 Then we switched to 3rd edition and I find myself taking hours...even though I've read the rules over. I don't want this to degenerate into a 2nd vs. 3rd thread, I just want to know if other people have experienced the same thing? I can't tell you why, but I can tell you that my prep time does seem much more productive when doing classic D&D or AD&D than with 3e. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Thorin Muglindir Date : 04-28-04 01:52 AM Thread Title : 3e more flexible Frankly I have found going from 2e to 3e was a real improvement in my gaming experience, including from a DM standpoint. [/QUOTE] So what that means is that DMs of old editions often feel like they can't be as creative because they actually have to follow a set of cookie-cutter rules instead of just covering a situation as they see fit. The advantage of this system is that your average player has more options "right out of the box." That isn't to say 3e is better, just that (like anything else) it has its good points and its bad. [QUOTE] I just love it that 3e has "rules for everything". For instance, even something as common as an invisible attacker is not covered usually in RPGs, be it 2e or others. Frankly when I'm DMing I prefer to play NPCs rather than make up rules on the fly about invisibility or something else, possibly being forced to be inconsistent if the rule I came up with ends up not working in some situations, or if it can be abused. Rarely having to decide things arbitrarly, the storyline of the games I DM is less in my control, hence it tends to go in unforeseen directions more often than it would otherwise, something which motivates my players towards more creativity (and forces me to be creative). Then, another great thing with 3e is that I can safely let my players be creative without much fear of seeing them break the game. Personally I don't really have issues with prep time in 3e either. It can be longer for sure, but that's only if you want it to... I mean, in 2e if you want the party to fight a minotaur, you just have to send them against the minotaur of the 2e MM. The thing is, in 3e, you can do that too. Adding levels to your minotaur makes up for more prep work, sure, but it is not mandatory. It's just that 3e offers the possibility of turning monsters into unique characters. Now there's the question of NPCs. In 2e, monsters and NPCs are separate entities. There are more choices to be made in 3e, and the reason why there is more prep work is because characters are better indivisualised (more unique), which I find to be worthy trade-off. In any case the longest step of creation is choosing spell for spellcasters, in 2e and 3e alike. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : vader42xx Date : 04-28-04 03:15 AM Third edition certainly has its advantages but it has its weak points as well. I myself enjoy both 3e and a good basic game...depends on what I'm looking for at the time. The rules (monsters included) are certainly more detailed but you'll find that this is exactly what many people don't like. Continuing your "invisible attacker" example; In 2e you had a very easy rule for it that covered 99% of anything you'd come up against. If someone was invisible you had to figure out where he was (usually by guessing but there are other ways) and then make your attack. If you're even in the right area you still get a penalty to the roll. Simple and lacking in detail. But it works very well for most any situation. In 3e you now have very clear rules that try to cover every situation when something invisible might attack you. It deals with concealment, listen checks, spot checks, attack roll penalties, and various other in game skills. So you've got that other 1% covered pretty well but the result is that any time an invisible foe attacks your party you have to know about a dozen more rules than you did before. Some people like this, some don't. Me, I see advantages to both systems (I still prefer the 2e and basic way of doing things here however). My biggest gripe with 3e is the shift of power from the DM to the players (speaking of how the game was designed not how many of us might actually play it). The players should well have control over what their characters do and, to a great degree, what they become. But 3e offers the players too much of a chance to "run" the world around them instead of just being a part of a world they are discovering. Not only does this make for more out of game debates but it also means the players enjoy the game less because they feel like mini-DMs themselves and don't get the full thrill of having to ask...."Hey, I want to do this...can I?" If you had a DM who wanted to make the game fun and was fair to all those who played, that was one of the greatest questions that came out of D&D's long history. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : Glak Date : 04-28-04 10:23 AM In 2nd edition you could generate an NPC on the fly. Create a whole character in a few seconds. Ok I want to make a fullplate/shield/longsword fighter: AC 0 1d8 damage, 3/2 attacks (from specialization) Thac0 17 (I guess I am making 4th level) Hp: 29 (gave him +1 Con) That's it. No picking feats, no worrying about ability scores as most people had no real bonuses, maybe a +1 to hp or damage. You just write it down. In 3e you have so much to do to get a character ready for combat. Need a Will save? You have to calculate his feats first, because a lot of NPCs have Iron Will, but plenty don't. Damage? What is his Str bonus? How do his feats interact with that? AC? Given his Dex what armor should he wear? Does he have Dodge? All this meant that the DM has to prepare much, much more. Which gives the players less freedom. They have to go on your adventure or you throw away all that planning time. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : Thorin Muglindir Date : 04-28-04 05:35 PM You just forgot the saves. But OK, I admit this character can be created in a moment's notice. But on the other hand that'd be a rather weak character. You did not give him any magic item, neither did you use the optional rules for skills. This makes the character rather useless, the only thing he can do is fight, and even that he does not do well... Frankly, the character would not be a very serious opposition to a party in combat... And, since he doesn't get access to the optional rules for non-rogue skills, there is nothing this character can do "well" except combat... Which he doesn't even do well by the way. Now, if you had given him skills and magic items, there would have been more prep work involved. And the NPC would still be not that efficient. Just a 2e fighter, the archetypal "nothing special" character. If you were creating a rogue you'd have to worry about the rogue skills which I personally found much of a pain to compute. If you had created a spellcaster you'd have to pick his spells known and spells prepared, which would have taken most of the time of character creation. My biggest gripe with 3e is the shift of power from the DM to the players (speaking of how the game was designed not how many of us might actually play it). That doesn't bother me personally. Anyway the DM keeps his power as he's the final referee of the game. Anyway, as a DM, although I have the power I prefer to let it slip away more often than not. The way I see it it's not that the DM is always right, it's just that the DM has the last say in case of a conflict that can't be solved. Personally, I see the "power" of the DM just as a secondary attribute of someone who is in charge of things (or if you prefer, I see it as a counterpart for the DM's responsability, not as an inherent quality of him). The rules (monsters included) are certainly more detailed but you'll find that this is exactly what many people don't like. Continuing your "invisible attacker" example; In 2e you had a very easy rule for it that covered 99% of anything you'd come up against. If someone was invisible you had to figure out where he was (usually by guessing but there are other ways) and then make your attack. If you're even in the right area you still get a penalty to the roll. Simple and lacking in detail. But it works very well for most any situation. It works only as long as the DM arbitrarly decides who exactly "guesses" and who doesn't. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : vader42xx Date : 04-29-04 02:00 AM As for the "power of the DM" I was speaking more of what Glak was talking about. I wasn't talking about a "game nazi DM" or something. But, in 3e, the DM has a lot less freedom (due to so many time consuming details, etc) to "play on the fly." So the game rests in the hands of the players and that's not quite as much fun. If you have a good DM players tend to enjoy the game more (in my experience) if they can play as they wish and they know that the DM can always modify the adventure on the fly if needs be. That's not nearly so easy in 3e. So, really, the players have more PLAY freedom in older editions. And this is because the DM had more of an ability to make judgment calls and come up with things on the fly. Third edition worked to take that away from the DM, and while that might make the game easier to pick up I think it was a bad idea. As for "guessing" where the invisible target it...not at all. The DM knows where the target and each party memeber is in a given encounter (let's say a 10x10 room). If you're using miniatures then you've got no problem at all. If not the DM draws a quick sketch (some don't even need that and a good description will do) and the players show (or tell) the DM where they want to attack. Now, unless you've got a bad DM (who might lie, etc) no problem comes up. If you've got that kind of DM you're not going to enjoy the game no matter what edition you play. So not only does it make invisability more fun and more useful, it also makes it a lot easier to deal with. And that's true with just about everything in the older editions. Which isn't a 3e flame. I currently play that edition as well. I'm just saying that the old editions are still fun and they did a great many things better than 3e does. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : Capn Charlie Date : 04-29-04 08:35 AM I agree 2e had signifigantly less prep time, and was far more suited to "fly by the seat of your pants" play. One of the reasons I became defacto DM in these parts was because I was the only one willing to put the required effort into doing the work so the rest of the guys could play the game they loved. In 2e I could just say that "this monster has 35 hp, 18 thaco, 7 ac, and did 1d8 points of damage and was worth 600xp" That was it, maybe it did it's damage with a weapon, maybe not. Maybe it had magical potions, maybe not. Quick, easy, simple. ANd quite bland. Not even just for the players, but for me as well. I love sitting around tinkering with rules, and feats, and classes, and skills, and more magic items,and all that. I get to do the little minutae that I really enjoy. IT bites me in the ass when I have to wing it, and then I jsut have the npcs be rules wise like the sword and board guy that was posted above in another post. YOu get out of the game what you put in. My long planning, and extra time and love I put into npcs and monsters adn traps are rewarding to me, rewarding to the players, and I like to think, rewarding to the hobby in general. I am just a craftsman by nature, not a jury rigger. 3e rewards that. I miss there being no actual rules for most things in 2e(from a dm stance) but still have a little resentment from the player's side for those arbitrary rulings that I neither agreed with, nor survived from. Having situations on paper makes for more work to know thenm all, but it does ensure at least a measure of impartiality. Obscure rules work the same every time you look them up, not always true wit fallible humans. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : Thorin Muglindir Date : 04-29-04 10:12 AM As for "guessing" where the invisible target it...not at all. The DM knows where the target and each party memeber is in a given encounter (let's say a 10x10 room). If you're using miniatures then you've got no problem at all. If not the DM draws a quick sketch (some don't even need that and a good description will do) and the players show (or tell) the DM where they want to attack. I stand by my opinion it is arbitrary. Either you use a grid and then you're doing it like in 3e. If you don't use a grid, there's no guideline for knowing how close the guess has to be. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : vader42xx Date : 04-29-04 10:33 AM There doesn't need to be a grid if you use good enough descriptions (both on the player's and DM's part) but if you use a grid that is certainly not restricted to 3e play. Gamers were doing that long before 3e came along. So if you want to take three seconds to draw a roughly 10x10 box and put a dot for each player and say "Ok, where do you want to attack" that's fine and works much better than the conealment, listen check, etc, etc method of 3e. Ok, actually I should say it works much better for me...but, for certain, it is much simpler no matter who you're talking about. And using a "grid" (I'm talking more about a sketch but whatever) is most certainly not random. It's even more exact than the 3e system...and it takes a lot less work while, at the same time, making invisability much more interesting. But hey, no worries, we all like one thing or another better. :) With regards to Capn Charlie's post I agree. The problem is that many of those little rules that have been added to 3e don't agree with the way many of us have been doing things for years. So when they came up with some little tiny rule for dozens upon dozens of situations we'd just been dealing with in some simple manner (dexterity check, -2 penalty to attack, etc) it gaves us all kinds of needless junk to think about and, in many cases, it was junk we thought made the game worse. On the flip side, however, you have rules that we never thought of that are better than our simple -2 penalty to attack and what not. For me, you have about 50/50 of these so I don't hate 3e like many do, but I think they could have done a much better job. My biggest gripe with 3e (overall gripe) is that they specifically focused on taking away alot of the DM's ability to "make the call" and they also specifically focused on making the game simple and "cookie-cutter" so more people could use it. I liked D&D better when more thought was actually needed to play. It was kind of like a prestige requirment. ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : James McMurray Date : 04-29-04 10:50 AM I too had the same experience when converting from older editions and Rolemaster over to 3e. I'd suggest running a few of the premade modules (with modifications to fit your group's play style) before jumping in whole hog. Even for an experienced DM who has made adventures by himself for years, a new system needs to have familarity. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : Glak Date : 04-30-04 02:37 PM Thorin Muglindir: "You just forgot the saves." Ok then, I'll just keep that page of the book open, it isn't like there are modifiers "But on the other hand that'd be a rather weak character. You did not give him any magic item, neither did you use the optional rules for skills." Not weak by 2nd edition standards. Magical items were much rarer, well they didn't have to be, but as DM you had the choice. In 3e you simply cannot have anything but a high magic campaign without significant work. Skills? There was no tumble, concentration, or spot. We had things like Mountaineering, Swimming, and Armorsmithing. None of which had any role in combat. So you didn't need to calculate them to get the combat stats of a character. "the only thing he can do is fight" Nope, I just generated his combat stats because he was in combat at the time. Later if the characters encounter him in another situation I can generate his NWP and anything else I need. The flavor of who he is: Baron Tressm of Bandirock is generated in the same way in any system. I just decide that is who he is. I pick his followers as needed (without having to look it up on the leadership chart). "Frankly, the character would not be a very serious opposition to a party in combat" Huh? What if the party is 1st level? Or small? Given one set of stats you have no idea, no idea at all how much of a challenge he is. "And, since he doesn't get access to the optional rules for non-rogue skills, there is nothing this character can do "well" except combat" I can pick NWP as I want. Now some things aren't covered by NWP, such as diplomatic ability. Guess what, I can just decide that as the game progresses. I am not constrained by whether he has the skill points, whether it is cross-class or other obstacles. I can just decide. "Just a 2e fighter, the archetypal "nothing special" character." Just like King Arthur, Beowulf, Achillese and a bunch of other "nothing special" characters from legend. Giving an NPC a flaming sword and whirlwind attack is the 3e way of making him cool. In 2nd edition we used the tried and true storytelling skills that have worked for thousands of years. And flaming swords. Capn Charlie: "Quick, easy, simple. ANd quite bland. Not even just for the players, but for me as well. I love sitting around tinkering with rules, and feats, and classes, and skills, and more magic items,and all that." Oh there are merits to 3e. I just don't think they outweigh the weaknesses. Free-form plot is more important to me than a bunch of rules that usually get in the way. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : vader42xx Date : 04-30-04 03:20 PM Well said Glak! I enjoy my games of 3e because it's D&D and the same spirit is there (among the players). But I couldn't have said it better myself...the ability to put playing first has been gummed up by a lot of needless rules in 3e and while that system does have its advantages they are outweighed by the weaknesses in my opinion. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : James McMurray Date : 04-30-04 04:01 PM I pick his followers as needed (without having to look it up on the leadership chart). Just want to point out that leadership really only applies to PCs. Its a fairly common misconception. NPCs get whatever followers they want to get (i.e. need for the story), the same as prior editions. Just like King Arthur, Beowulf, Achillese and a bunch of other "nothing special" characters from legend. Achilles was nigh-indestructible, and King Arthur had the ultimate sword. Its interesting to note that Achilles' most famous aspect is his heel. I certainly don't want to go down in history that way. ;) Any system can churn out an interesting NPC in moments. I personally thought that 2e was too loaded down with rules (because of the 50,000 splatbooks. 3.x will reach that point though, and at that time our group will go back to another system for a while, coming back for 4e. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : vader42xx Date : 04-30-04 04:56 PM I agree in part with your last statement...all of the editions have far too many "optional rules books." The difference between 2e and 3e is that in 2e those books could be left on the shelf. In 3e those books are actually all chapters in the core books. ;) But, personally, I play 3e as it's current and has the most support, not to mention a number of good things (along with the bad of course). But, I also play basic and that's my favorite of any of the D&D systems. So of the "advanced" games I play 3e because it's the most up to date and more players are familiar with it (so it's kind of a default choice) but I'd rather run games of basic any day. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : Thorin Muglindir Date : 04-30-04 08:04 PM Not weak by 2nd edition standards. Magical items were much rarer, well they didn't have to be, but as DM you had the choice. In 3e you simply cannot have anything but a high magic campaign without significant work. Skills? There was no tumble, concentration, or spot. We had things like Mountaineering, Swimming, and Armorsmithing. None of which had any role in combat. So you didn't need to calculate them to get the combat stats of a character. What? I'm curious to know what modules you are using. In my experience, magic items might have been less common in the world in previous editions, but not at all in the hands of PCs. Every single campaign that I played in 1e and 2e ended around 10th because the PCs were swimming in magic items. And that's by playing mostly official modules. Take a look at the original version of the temple of elemental evil for instance. In 2e modules, the treasure/XP ratio is way too high, considering the rate of advancement. And, still in official modules, ennemies would prefer to keep their magic items inside chests rather than using them against the PCs, something which always astonished me. 3e is the first version of the game where the amount of magic items that characters get is kept within reasonnable limits. And, add to that, the rest of the world is also supposed to use magic items! Isn't that great? Nope, I just generated his combat stats because he was in combat at the time. Later if the characters encounter him in another situation I can generate his NWP and anything else I need. I never do this (deciding what stats a NPC has only when he needs to use the stat in question). I feel that if I did that I would be too much in control, and my game would be prevented from going out of the track I have traced. As I said when playing of DMing, I'm expecting the story to go out of track at some point. That's when the real RPG experience begins. By curiosity, would you let players do the same with their PCs? After all they could also define their PC's abilities in terms of what they encounter... That would only be fair if the rest of the world is designed using this method. Just like King Arthur, Beowulf, Achillese and a bunch of other "nothing special" characters from legend. Giving an NPC a flaming sword and whirlwind attack is the 3e way of making him cool. In 2nd edition we used the tried and true storytelling skills that have worked for thousands of years. And flaming swords. Wait... Good storytelling has little to do with the system used. Besides, storytelling might have existed for thousands of years, but RPGs are much more recent than that, and there's more to RPGs than mere storytelling. The "story" in RPGs emerges from an interaction between a DM, players, and dices, rather than from the decisions of a single all-powerful author who has everything in control. At least that's my idea of it. I can pick NWP as I want. Now some things aren't covered by NWP, such as diplomatic ability. Guess what, I can just decide that as the game progresses. I am not constrained by whether he has the skill points, whether it is cross-class or other obstacles. I can just decide. Oh there are merits to 3e. I just don't think they outweigh the weaknesses. Free-form plot is more important to me than a bunch of rules that usually get in the way. If rules get in your way, or if you feel "constrained" by some parameter of the game, then it simply means that the story needs to go in another direction as the one you had preset, or as the one you are currently thinking about. There lies the originality, and the beauty of RPGs when they are compared to classic forms of fiction. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : Glak Date : 05-01-04 12:02 AM "What? I'm curious to know what modules you are using." Homemade reactive play (the players do whatever, the DM primarily reacts but throws in cool stuff too) There is no fixed or even suggested amount of treasure for NPCs in 2e. You could have as high or low magic as you wanted. I rarely used the treasure tables too, and there was no problem with that. In 3e if you change the amount of treasure the game falls apart. In 2e the game runs smoothly. "3e is the first version of the game where the amount of magic items that characters get is kept within reasonnable limits." 3e is incredibly high magic. You pretty much have to play that way. In 2e you could go much, much, lower on magic. That's how we always played and it worked perfectly. "I feel that if I did that I would be too much in control, and my game would be prevented from going out of the track" Generating what you need is no different from choosing from an array of stock characters. "As I said when playing of DMing, I'm expecting the story to go out of track at some point. That's when the real RPG experience begins." I agree completely. That is what 2e is good at. In 3e you have to prepare material and so you can't stray beyond what the DM prepares. In 2e the players can stray from what you have prepared (if anything is prepared at all) and you don't need to worry. "By curiosity, would you let players do the same with their PCs?" You know, I might just allow that. "Wait... Good storytelling has little to do with the system used." I was refuting the point where you said that a guy with a sword is boring. The characters mentioned had few or no special abilities. I don't think an NPC needs half a dozen feats and magical items to be an interesting. "The "story" in RPGs emerges from an interaction between a DM, players, and dices, rather than from the decisions of a single all-powerful author who has everything in control. At least that's my idea of it." I agree completely. In 3e the course of play is determined by the DM ahead of time. In 2e it is determined by the PCs and DM together. "then it simply means that the story needs to go in another direction as the one you had preset, or as the one you are currently thinking about." But in 3e I can't have NPCs generated for every possible story variation and I can't generate them on the fly. The result: 3e play is more linear and railroadish. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : blackprinceofmuncie Date : 05-01-04 12:09 AM Originally posted by Thorin Muglindir By curiosity, would you let players do the same with their PCs? After all they could also define their PC's abilities in terms of what they encounter... That would only be fair if the rest of the world is designed using this method. They give the DM a separate rulebook for a reason. The rules in the PHB are for PLAYERS. The DM is not constrained by them. It's not unfair for a DM to create things on the fly and in response to what's happening in the game at the time. It's not unfair for the DM to put challenges in the way of the players that don't conform to the standard rules set forth for PCs. It's a DMs JOB to think outside the box like this and doing so is what turns a good game into a great game IMO. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : James McMurray Date : 05-01-04 12:14 AM In 3e if you change the amount of treasure the game falls apart. In 2e the game runs smoothly. This is untrue. Just like in older editions, there are foes that will be difficult to tackle with low magic (try taking on a Type VI demon without a magic sword in 2e). It takes just as much forethought for the DM to run 3e low magic as it does with 2e. In either case care must be taken to ensure that spellcasters do not overshadow non-spellcasters. In 3e you have to prepare material and so you can't stray beyond what the DM prepares. This is also blatantly untrue. It is fairly easy to run the game off-the-cuff in 3e. The Challenge Ratign systemeven takes most of the guesswork out of random encounters. Nothing in 3e requires any more preparation than 2e. I don't think an NPC needs half a dozen feats and magical items to be an interesting. No, just a single artifact given to him by a half-faerie wizard, or a dip in a river that makes him nearly indestructible. :) In 3e the course of play is determined by the DM ahead of time. It sounds to me like you have had a bad experience with 3e. This statement is just not true. In my campaign I have players that love to side trek. That means I frequently get to run things without any forethought. In many ways this is easier in 3e, especially now that I am familiar with the system. But in 3e I can't have NPCs generated for every possible story variation and I can't generate them on the fly. The result: 3e play is more linear and railroadish. The only reason you can't generate them on the fly is that you aren't experienced with the system. It takes me less than a minute to toss together an NPC, and if I don't have that long the DMG has some easily referenced tables of NPCs for every core class at every level from 1-20. Just like in 2e you only generate what you need at the time. If its a combat encounter you figure his SDC and feats. If its noncombat you figure his skills. Once yo know the system its incredibly fast. I'm not trying to argue that anyone should play 3.x, because obviously you enjoy 2e much more. I just don't like it when someone's bad experiences make them generalize things that just aren't true. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : Glak Date : 05-01-04 03:03 AM "Just like in older editions, there are foes that will be difficult to tackle with low magic (try taking on a Type VI demon without a magic sword in 2e)." ok, but they don't have to fight those guys. In 3e so, so much of the game is based around set amount of treasure. In 2e you are on your own. "The Challenge Ratign systemeven takes most of the guesswork out of random encounters. Nothing in 3e requires any more preparation than 2e." Monsters sure, but I'm talking about people with levels. Humans and similar creatures make for the best roleplaying experience. Monsters should be the seasoning, not the main course. "It takes me less than a minute to toss together an NPC" A minute??? That is much, much too long. I want to take a deep breath and have the NPC done. The players should not be able to tell whether I made the NPC in advance or on the fly. A minute is not good enough. It simply isn't. You have basically admitted that 3e sucks for purely (or nearly) reactive DMing with that one line. "and if I don't have that long the DMG has some easily referenced tables of NPCs for every core class at every level from 1-20." laden with Monty Haul treasure that I don't want mucking up my reasonable magic level worlds. Legolas didn't have a magic bow, and Gimli didn't have a belt of potions. Even Gandalf barely had magic and he was half celestial. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : Sarta Date : 05-01-04 06:56 AM Originally posted by Glak ok, but they don't have to fight those guys. In 3e so, so much of the game is based around set amount of treasure. In 2e you are on your own. Actually, in my opinion the set amounts of treasure per level were included in order to help people not as good at balancing things realize how much is too much or not enough at any given level. This is to help new dm's avoid Monty Haul campaigns. They can be completely disregarded if this makes your game better... and should be disregarded if playing in a low-magic setting for example. Monsters sure, but I'm talking about people with levels. Humans and similar creatures make for the best roleplaying experience. Monsters should be the seasoning, not the main course. I couldn't agree with you more. I'm certain the creators of 3.X couldn't agree with you more. Perhaps this is one of the reasons they allow so much variety in how a character (pc or npc) advances in level. If, as you seem to argue, class levels add variety to an npc encounter, 3e seems to really deliver. A minute??? That is much, much too long. I want to take a deep breath and have the NPC done. The players should not be able to tell whether I made the NPC in advance or on the fly. A minute is not good enough. It simply isn't. You have basically admitted that 3e sucks for purely (or nearly) reactive DMing with that one line. Well, I can create a 3e npc that the players can interact with in the single breath time frame you seem to demand. The character will not be fully statted, nor all skills and feats chosen, but he can effectively fulfill any role that I need him to with just a few bare bones stats needed. If later I decide he will become a re-occurring npc I can spend the minute or two to fully flesh him out. I know that the same is true for 1e and 2e having played both extensively. I doubt that in your experiences generating npc's on the fly even you will have a fully fleshed out npc during your single deep breath (ie complete spell book, all saving throws, every proficiency if 2e, complete inventory, etc.). laden with Monty Haul treasure that I don't want mucking up my reasonable magic level worlds. Legolas didn't have a magic bow, and Gimli didn't have a belt of potions. Even Gandalf barely had magic and he was half celestial. I thought earlier you were complaining about the set amount of treasure rules, which if followed would negate the Monty Haul phenominon. /shrug Regardless, NPC's can have what you want them to have. It is your game after all. It really isn't that hard to look at the charts presented and decide that this level 8 ranger will not have that over-powering +1 studded leather armor, but instead will have just plain studded leather. You can probably even do it during your deep breath. I think that you will find that the average level 8 2e or 1e character have quite a bit more magical items than the average level 8 3e character, if that 3e character's dm has followed the "set amount of wealth" rules. Mainly since 1e and 2e characters advance slower and have more opportunity to horde wealth. If you are running a low magic game, good for you, you should continue to do so regardless of gaming system. Please note, I have been playing since 1978 in every edition as it has come out. I have found that each edition has its strengths and weaknesses and have favorite editions for specific styles of play and campaigns. I am merely playing devils advocate here and not trolling. If one is going through all the steps of calculating appropriate challenge ratings for encounters and generating fully statted npc's then yes, 3e can prove to take longer to prepare ahead of time. However, if in previous editions one did not take the time to fully flesh out npc's and encounters ahead of time then there is no reason to start doing this in 3e. Experienced DM's know what their party can handle regardless of what a chart may say. They also know which critical stats they need in order to effectively wing an encounter and which will probably not prove necessary. Sarta -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 35] Author : James McMurray Date : 05-01-04 11:41 AM I have to pretty much agree with everythng Sarta said (except I would replace 1978 with 1982 :) ). I'd also like to say that I said "less than a minute" and that figure is for afully fleshed out NPC. If all I need are combat stats or skills a breath is more than enough time. And unlike 2e, I can gnerate those stats (including saving throws) without having to check any tables. The save are the only things I ever had to look up in 2e, because they had no logical progression to them. Characters in 3.x no more have to fight Type VI demons (Balors in 3.x) then they do in 1/2e. Hoever, when you do use monsters as seasoning in older editions with low magic, you have to be areful that you do not choose something that the party cannot hurt because they dont have a magic weapon. My example was extreme but my point still holds. In 3.x a creature will often be strong against non-magical attacks (or non-silver, or non-god, or whatever). They will never be imune, nd thus can be overcome by a party without any magic whatsoever. That is not true in 1/2e. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:20 AM.