* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : Sometimes it takes a new edition... Started at 12-27-07 02:15 AM by Jedi_Master_Trobon Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=970741 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Jedi_Master_Trobon Date : 12-27-07 02:15 AM Thread Title : Sometimes it takes a new edition... Hello all, I have played D&D for about 8 years now. I started with AD&D 2E back then. When 3E came out I didn't make the move right away. however, after about a year I found it hard to get people to play with without moving so I went to 3E and enjoyed it enough to stay. When 3.5 came out I again waited, but eventually bought it. All the while I had felt like something was missing from the game. Something was just wrong. Now 4E is coming out and I've been on the forums over there discussing things like alignment and drow and preaching how important certain things are to the core feeling of D&D. And it's hit me. I miss 2nd edition. I've known this whole time that 2E had a special place in my heart and I had considered going back a few times, but each time it felt daunting to teach my core group how to play. However, I understand that this is vitaly important now and plan on going back. I've taken out of old 2E books and am re-reading them right now. I just wanted to come over and say hi to all of you. I think I've found my proper home on the boards. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : isobel Date : 12-27-07 06:25 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... Good for you. I played 3rd and 3.5 for the last five years or so. When i heard about 4 coing out. I got ******. Now i'm playing a second edition campaign. Tomb of Horror. I really missed the old days. I having a lot of fun -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Varl Date : 12-27-07 10:48 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... Welcome back to the light, Trobon. Where the stat blocks are small, the art isn't steampunked, the only half-races you'll find are half-elves and half-orcs, the math is wonderfully unconventional, and you'll never EVER see any of the ridiculousness of the 6-class, 4-race, d20 abominations they like to call characters. Long live AD&D2. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 12-27-07 11:26 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... Welcome back to the light, Trobon. Where the stat blocks are small, the art isn't steampunked, the only half-races you'll find are half-elves and half-orcs, the math is wonderfully unconventional, and you'll never EVER see any of the ridiculousness of the 6-class, 4-race, d20 abominations they like to call characters. Long live AD&D2. :) True. Yes. Except, they're not called characters... they're called "builds". -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Jedi_Master_Trobon Date : 12-27-07 12:47 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... True. Yes. Except, they're not called characters... they're called "builds". That is scarier and truer than I like to think. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Extempus Date : 12-27-07 01:19 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... I see 3e, 3.5e and 4e as little different than video games where you can be anything you want with little or no regard for common sense or logic. Dwarven wizards??? hahahahahahahahahahaha Just remember: 1e lasted for about 14 years (that's counting D&D and AD&D together), 2e lasted about 12, but was essentially the same as 1e, and now, there are three new editions in only eight years (and each of the books are very expensive too)!!! IMO, anything and everything past 2e is designed only to make $$$ and nothing more... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : havard Date : 12-28-07 04:17 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... I see 3e, 3.5e and 4e as little different than video games where you can be anything you want with little or no regard for common sense or logic. Dwarven wizards??? hahahahahahahahahahaha Not allowing Dwarf wizards has nothing to do with logic or common sense. For certain settings yes. But for all settings? As I see it each edition has its merits and flaws. To the OP, you have the benefit of having tried out the different editons before finding out which one you prefer. Don't forget the lessons you learned from 3E. I suspect there are many things about it you won't miss, but perhaps some that you will. Perhaps you can bring with you the things you liked and use that to make your 2e game even better. I know 2e taught me many things that helped me avoid the pit falls that many people complain about in 2e. Many people see new editions as a bad thing. I dont mean the specific new edition, but new editions in general. The 1e crowd has been complaining since 2e was published. the 2e crowd complained about 3e. Now perhaps even more people will complain about 4e. I dont see why. Is WotC interested in making money? Ofcourse! But noone prevents you from playing older games. At the same time, new editions are made primarily to draw new people and new generations into the hobby. You will have an easier time recruiting people for your 2e game from 3e players than you will from Golf enthusiasts. Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Extempus Date : 12-29-07 01:30 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... Not allowing Dwarf wizards has nothing to do with logic or common sense. For certain settings yes. But for all settings? What I see is that there are no limits anywhere, and that anyone can be anything they want, no matter how bizarre. In other words, it's a free-for-all. Personally, I like the limitations on races and classes in 1e because it does give it a more realistic flavor (granted, it's just a game), but it's no different than deciding that Vulcans have emotions in some episodes of Star Trek and that Romulans and Cardassians can be entrusted with a captaincy in Starfleet. This is why Enterprise failed: the executive producers didn't care about ST history and went off with their own agenda, and those who have been with ST since the very beginning were not happy. In like manner, we were given a game that defined things in a certain way, someone else inherited it and decided that anything goes, and made an entirely different game that looks kinda the same but really has little, if anything, in common with what was originally designed. Sure, it's OK to have dwarven wizards in other games, but don't call it D&D, because IMHO it's not. In like manner, Berman and Braga wanted Enterprise to be ST, but it didn't fool anyone, and it was cancelled in disgrace. JMHO. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Agathokles Date : 12-29-07 09:41 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... Many people see new editions as a bad thing. Many more people tend to think of new editions as a good thing, regardless of the merit. Just one example: when 3e got out, one of the things I immediately took a dislike to was the skill system. Obviously, the 3e crowd was quick to tell me how superior the new system was to the old one -- except that 4e recognizes that "superior" system for what it actually was... a design mistake (a point-buy system with linear growth!) and replaces it with the SW Saga system (which is little more than an algebraic variation of the old system, BTW, like BAB is w.r.t. THAC0). That said, 1e, 2e, and BECMI/RC are all recognizably D&D. From 3e on, it's actually a different game (e.g., no one ever felt much need to convert monsters between the various pre-2000 editions -- this only came up with 3e). 4e, while clearly aimed at the MMORPG people (and thus unlikely to please the older audience), seems at least developed using a more rational approach to game design than "do things as different as possible from the previous edition". GP -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Odhanan Date : 12-29-07 11:52 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... I miss 2nd edition. I've known this whole time that 2E had a special place in my heart and I had considered going back a few times, but each time it felt daunting to teach my core group how to play. However, I understand that this is vitaly important now and plan on going back. I've taken out of old 2E books and am re-reading them right now. I just wanted to come over and say hi to all of you. I think I've found my proper home on the boards. I'm glad you found out what you really like in D&D. 4E has been a wake-up call for me too. I'm a 1E guy, but I like some of the design variants brought up by 3rd ed and other d20 games like Iron Heroes. I decided to start my own "Advanced Castles & Crusades" system basically, but the core of the whole thing is 1E. So yeah, I guess many of us are having an epiphany right now with 4E looming around the corner. This, if anything, is a positive outcome to the whole mess we're going through right now, I think. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : Dvalin Date : 12-30-07 03:00 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... Many people see new editions as a bad thing. I dont mean the specific new edition, but new editions in general. The 1e crowd has been complaining since 2e was published. the 2e crowd complained about 3e. Now perhaps even more people will complain about 4e. I dont see why. Is WotC interested in making money? Ofcourse! But noone prevents you from playing older games. At the same time, new editions are made primarily to draw new people and new generations into the hobby. Havard Havard, there's an old saying: "don't fix it if it ain't broke." The 1e crowd (of which I am a member) complained because 2e didn't address our concerns: it came about because (post-Gygax) there were new designers who wanted to change fundamental aspects of the game; there were "angry mums" who wanted their children playing a kinder, gentler, funnier D&D; there were certain marketing pressures (the 2e MM released as a binder, etc.), and so on. Each edition changes enough of the game to be thought of as a completely new game, rather than an "edition." Is WoTC interested in making money, and is that wrong? Yes, they are; and no it's not. But there's something wrong (in my book) about planned obsolescence, about designing defective products to in order to churn a profit. "Defective by design" really relates to DRM, but it applies here, as well. When you make a product that won't last, that you don't intend to last, you're ensuring a certain level of annual (or at least routine) replacement profit. How many different PHBs, DMGs, and MMs have there been? Does anyone really believe that 4e is the definitive, pinnacle-of-evolution, never-have-to-buy-another-core-rule-book edition of D&D? No one prevents you from playing an older edition, except the company that stops producing older edition materials. Wanna help me track down a 1e game module in current production? Goodman Games is the only company I know of, and they only have like 2 games in 1e format - and pretty much as a larf. If you want new ideas, new classes, new monsters, new locations, you have to at least hybridize or make some educated guesses with new edition materials. "Making it up on your own" gets old after a few decades. "New editions" bring in new players? Really? Where's the new edition of golf? How is that played these days? Where's the new edition of, oh I don't know, every other hobby there is...? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 12-30-07 08:12 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... There's an old story (I first read it in a column by Col. Jeff Cooper) about the captain of an ocean liner in deep but not obvious distress, and it was necessary to evacuate the multi-national passengers who couldn't understand the danger. He gave each nationality a different reason tailored to what would make them drop everything and do what he wanted. As I recall it: He told the German passengers that getting into the lifeboats was an order. He told the British that it was proper to get into the lifeboats, the French that it was immoral, the Italians that it was illegal, and he told the Americans that it was new. I'm not going to point fingers across the Atlantic about the accuracy of most of those, but he nailed the last one. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Varl Date : 12-31-07 03:55 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... But there's something wrong (in my book) about planned obsolescence, about designing defective products to in order to churn a profit. "Defective by design" really relates to DRM, but it applies here, as well. When you make a product that won't last, that you don't intend to last, you're ensuring a certain level of annual (or at least routine) replacement profit. How many different PHBs, DMGs, and MMs have there been? Does anyone really believe that 4e is the definitive, pinnacle-of-evolution, never-have-to-buy-another-core-rule-book edition of D&D? Excellent point. Planned obsolescence is the perfect descriptor for the WotC business model. I'm not an economist, but perhaps that's their only viable business model for the product they sell. The lack of edition compatibility has always rubbed me wrong, particularly so since 2000, when WotC took over and destroyed any hope or measure of compatibility between d20 and AD&D. I'm curious what business model WoTC could have used other than planned obsolescence that would still allow them to stay in business? Is product repetitousness a naturally occurring symptom of the planned obsolescence business model? I'm actually amazed that the hobby itself still survives, and that gamers haven't woke up to this model by now, but I guess that's why they call it disposable income...:D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : Dvalin Date : 01-01-08 03:29 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... I'm curious what business model WoTC could have used other than planned obsolescence that would still allow them to stay in business? Is product repetitousness a naturally occurring symptom of the planned obsolescence business model? It's the "still stay in business" part that defines the business model. Generally speaking, you can emphasize quality or quantity, but not both. When TSR started out as a few guys working out of someone's living room, they could afford to be slow with product, and produce quality product. It's hard not to expand, though, and by the mid-80's it was pretty clear that TSR had grown to the point where they needed to make more money just to pay for their employees. Quality went down, quantity went up. I'm sure Hasbro has demanding expectations for profitability of the product line, so even more product has to be generated. (A fairly popular, toy-based game line, Xevoz, was canceled by Hasbro after a six-month run.) My take is that Hasbro is telling WoTC to jump, and how high. There are other models that WoTC could use, but planned obsolescence is the easiest, fastest, and most "business friendly." They could re-release and give support to 1e and 2e product lines, in smaller press runs, with original and new art. I never got an original Deities & Demigods with the Cthulhu and Melnibonean mythos. I'd buy it as a new release, though. As far as printing costs go, they could use a print-on-demand service. In fact, there's no reason why they couldn't put every OOP item in a print-on-demand service, since they'd be generating some kind of income with only a one-time cost of uploading the product - in perpetuity, since the item is never "out" of print. They could use the Wikipedia model and get people to work for them for free, or close to free. I thought the original Dungeon magazine was a brilliant method of ensuring quality and quantity, without paying for a ton of employees. The fanbase does all the work of crafting quality adventures; you only have to pay for a small staff, since the content is (mostly) coming from high school and college kids excited to see their name in print and be paid a hundred bucks or so per adventure. I haven't played the game in 20 years or so, but I'd submit stuff to a 1e line if I thought I had any chance of getting it published. As far as repetition goes, well, that's the name of the game. It doesn't really matter if you're in a dungeon, wilderness, planar, or exotic-setting campaign - you're rolling dice, figuring stuff out, killing monsters, getting treasure, and playing with your friends. That's the game. Everything else is window dressing. You don't have to put out a different version/edition of the game every 3-5 years to make that happen. Unless you're looking for a very efficient way to make money. Then (apparently) you do. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : Extempus Date : 01-01-08 06:12 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... 1e and 2e lasted a quarter of a century; 3e and 3.5e have lasted less than a third of that time. 4e will be gone by 2012, 2015 at the latest, and then it'll be 4.5e (which addresses all the problems in 4e). By then, all your hardcovers will be $40-$45 apiece, and ya'll will end up buying the same books with minor changes here and there all over again. No thanks. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 1e was never broke, and was never in need of fixing. And this year marks the 27th year of my 1e campaign, so it's obviously a viable, workable system. I certainly won't be buying any new 4e books when they're out, but I might pick up some cheap 3.5e books on ebay or amazon out of curiosity... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Varl Date : 01-01-08 07:13 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... 1e and 2e lasted a quarter of a century; 3e and 3.5e have lasted less than a third of that time. 4e will be gone by 2012, 2015 at the latest, and then it'll be 4.5e (which addresses all the problems in 4e). By then, all your hardcovers will be $40-$45 apiece, and ya'll will end up buying the same books with minor changes here and there all over again. I won't be. That's the problem with the planned obsolescence model. It's a repetitive sinkhole for our money in which the return on that money are typically superficial, cosmetic changes to the game. It's unfortunate, but I think WotC has become obsessed with defining of the rules of the game as being paramount to making good supplemental products to augment the game. I'm sick of new editions and the rules they slave themselves to, and I think that's one of the primary reasons why I prefer supplemental products like creature books and adventures to any rule books they may release. They don't tell me how I'm supposed to play or DM; they tell me what I can play with. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 01-01-08 10:57 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... Welcome aboard Trobon, I hope you enjoy your stay and keep us updated. I came to the same conclusion, despite the fact that I'll probably pick up 4e just out of curiousity. I can't stand not knowing things. It's a bit like roadkill - you know you shouldn't look, but you do. I have a hard time convinving my players to go back to 2nd ed. I'm using most of the 1st/2nd ed modules in my 3rd ed game (having never purchased 3.5) and the feel is so completely different to anything that 3.0/3.5 ever produced. The main aspect of the game that I've not seen in the post-2nd edition era is that there are no real iconics. Nothing has been able to compete with names like Bigby or Tharizdun (I'd include Warduke and Venger as well :D ); there have been no places created like the Temple of Elemental Evil or the Ghost Tower of Inverness. 3rd ed gave us sig characters for the classes, and no strong module line. I've also looked at the online content fo the "new and improved" Dungeon/Dragon. If you take all the month's articles for both and combine, you might end up with the content of one magazine. I'll not subscribe when the fees start rolling in. On a very positive note, this has been the perfect opportunity to re-read twelev years of Dragon on my shelves. It has reminded me of the excitement that 2nd ed generated in me - something 3rd has failed to do. All I need to do is convince my players of the same thing. But enough of my ranting. Extempus, I have questions about your 27 year campaign (my mind is trying to grasp that concept alone). What game world is it set in? Are there any original party members left? What is the current level of play? How have you managed (if at all) the continuity of play? I'm fascinated to know the answers. But back to my original point Trobon, welcome again and I hope we hear more from you. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : Extempus Date : 01-02-08 02:07 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... Extempus, I have questions about your 27 year campaign (my mind is trying to grasp that concept alone). What game world is it set in? Are there any original party members left? What is the current level of play? How have you managed (if at all) the continuity of play? I'm fascinated to know the answers. It's set in Greyhawk (that was the only one around in 1981, wasn't it?), and I started off as a player, but in early 1982, I became the DM. Things were a little quiet from early 1984 to late 1988 (moving from Australia back here, enlisting in the Air Force, etc), but we got things going again and haven't stopped. Basically, I took over the campaign we started at school in September 1981, and other than a few quiet years where I DM'd a few adventures with other players using my characters as NPC's, it's continued here at home ever since. By party members, do you mean players or PC's? For players, yes, my dad and myself (the original lot from school have long since departed, but my dad joined in about 3 months after me as did my youngest brother, and they're still around, although my brother rarely joins us these days), and for PC's, my original few characters died in the first few months, but the second lot I rolled up to replace them are still around. My dad and brother created new characters around 1988-89, and they're still around too. As far as level of play goes, we've done away with experience points (way to tedious to keep track of), and kinda use something that turned out to be similar to the Arduin system to award experience levels (as explained in The Compleat Arduin, Book One: The Rules, pp. 103-104), so we up our levels by 1 every few years real time after a few adventures (they can be very long and involved and often last several months of real time. It took us several years to get through the Second Greyhawk War!). Currently, my priest is 24th level, my wizard is 23rd, my ranger is 22nd, and my assassin is now the Grandfather of Assassins (15th level)/7th level cleric. My dad has a 20th level archer (it was an NPC class from Dragon, he wanted to try something different, and I said sure, why not?), a 20th level wizard (21st with his ioun stone), plus 2 archdruids (13th level). We also have many characters between 10th-15th levels, and some newer ones between 3rd and 9th. We actually don't have much in the way of thieves, so I introduced a 21st (now 22nd) level NPC thief who has proven useful on occasion... As far as continuity goes, we have extensive, detailed notes on our adventures, and we often refer to them, and yes, I started keeping track of things since Day One, and have notes on 99% of everything we've done. The campaign has covered 21 game years so far (581 to 602 CY), so there is a lot of history there! lol It's still challenging even at 20th level and up... in fact, in the last few weeks (based on ideas from other threads), we discovered the Lost City of the Suloise in the Suss Forest, explored the ziggurat, and found the Crystal of the Ebon Flame hidden inside... and since we have ultra-powerful characters, I beefed it up quite a bit. The result was my wizard, the 2 archdruids, and a 9th level gnome illusionist all failed their saves and fell under its power, then teleported away. Since they're all protected by medallions that confer mind blank, they cannot be tracked in any way, and could conceivably be out of play for months or even years as they build up another cult to worship the Crystal, but I plan to bring them back soon (and I'm going to have a lot of fun with this too! :D). I incorporated the Hollow World material with Greyhawk, so Oerth is hollow, and they will make their way there, conquer the Nithian Empire (easy once Pharoah has been charmed by the Crystal, which seems to have a thing for pyramids/ ziggurats), and the others will have to stop them somehow once they figure out where they escaped to... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 01-02-08 04:40 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... Thanks for the information Extempus. All I can say is one word - wow. This sounds very impressive and I'll stop bragging that I ran two campaigns simultaneously that lasted eight years and seven years respectively. Time to resurrect them and begin bragging in twenty years time.... Although, the mere fact that players have stuck with you that long should be taken as a testiment to your ability as a DM. I like the Hollow World setting as well, but have never had a chance to use it. Hope that your players find it as intriguing as I did. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : Extempus Date : 01-02-08 08:57 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... Thanks, Atlantean, I try... my dad takes over as DM occasionally, and my brother did too a few times, but I DM most of the time (thus, my characters are usually NPCs). Our campaign is not like most others (ie, medieval European or whatever) near as I can tell, since we have incorporated a lot of science fiction and action/adventure elements as well: our vimanas are essentially magical versions of starships equipped with cloaking devices and have extra-dimensional spaces much like the TARDIS in Doctor Who, and we once had an adventure with a dreadnought that swallowed other ships, like the Liparus in The Spy Who Loved Me. A time-travelling adventure 1,000 years in the past to the Suel Imperium introduced interesting new foods, such as hamburgers, hot dogs, french fries and so on (one can find these on the menu in a typical tavern these days), and it's not uncommon to see people (especially in Greyhawk) wearing sunglasses (invented in Dark Gate for exploration in the Sea of Dust, and they've caught on elsewhere and become rather fashionable). Two printing presses were retrieved from the Sea of Dust (the party knew where they were, since they'd seen them in action in the past), and so there are now two newspapers: the Greyhawk Gazette (the regular paper) and the Greyhawk Enquirer (the gossip paper). An entire new industry has grown up around them, including reporters, editors, artists, typesetters, etc, and Lord Mayor Nerof Gasgal even has a regular column in the Gazette! Obviously, while we take things seriously, we don't take them too seriously (it is a game, after all), and so we have fun... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : jimmyjimjam01 Date : 01-05-08 02:24 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... What I see is that there are no limits anywhere, and that anyone can be anything they want, no matter how bizarre. In other words, it's a free-for-all. Personally, Boy, if you think dwarf wizards are that outlandish, a tiefling character to you must seem like the creation of a psychopath. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 01-05-08 05:58 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... Boy, if you think dwarf wizards are that outlandish, a tiefling character to you must seem like the creation of a psychopath. Pretty much. So are half-dragons, aasimar, genasi, the list goes on and on and on... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : Extempus Date : 01-06-08 12:23 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... Boy, if you think dwarf wizards are that outlandish, a tiefling character to you must seem like the creation of a psychopath. From 1981, when I first started playing 1e, till 3e was introduced in 2000 (that is, 19 years), dwarves were not wizards (although I must admit I am not all that familiar with 2e, but I don't think there were any), so to suddenly say that they can be is like telling me that a dwarf can play pro basketball and hold his own against players twice his height... in other words, it's just rubbish. I honestly don't see what's wrong with having a handful of basic character races and classes instead of having a chaotic mix of whatever anyone wants. In fact, it reminds me of some idiot way back when who had an intelligent aardvark that was multi-classed (the DM at the time allowed it as a joke character)... I don't remember what it was precisely, but I joked for years about the aardvark that was a cleric/druid/fighter/paladin/ranger/magic-user/illusionist/thief/assassin/monk/bard... and that's precisely how I see 3e, 3.5e and the upcoming 4e... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : havard Date : 01-06-08 09:13 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... The fact that there is a huge precedent of Dwarf wizards in mythology and literature doesn't convince you that the concept is far from ridiculous then? I'm not saying they should be allowed in every setting or campaign, but I'm not buying any of these arguments for having them banned from all games. Alot of this also has to do with how you view PCs. Are options allowed for PCs a statement about the general culture of that race, or are indeed PCs unique individuals who are allowed to break with their cultural norms? Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : Agathokles Date : 01-06-08 11:29 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... I'm not saying they should be allowed in every setting or campaign, but I'm not buying any of these arguments for having them banned from all games. Not from all games, Havard, only from D&D games ;) Alot of this also has to do with how you view PCs. Are options allowed for PCs a statement about the general culture of that race, or are indeed PCs unique individuals who are allowed to break with their cultural norms? D&D, as a class-based RPG, is not really about PCs who break cultural norms. It should focus on cultural stereotypes as its strength, rather than going for the "unique individual" approach, where it will never be able to compete with skill-based systems (GURPS, e.g.). G. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : Agathokles Date : 01-06-08 11:35 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... From 1981, when I first started playing 1e, till 3e was introduced in 2000 (that is, 19 years), dwarves were not wizards (although I must admit I am not all that familiar with 2e, but I don't think there were any) No dwarven wizards in 2e either. You could get a dwarven mechanician or sha'ir in Al Qadim, but these are not real wizard (the mechanician doesn't cast spells at all, and the sha'irs only reuses lost spells by means of a genie-kin familiar). Also, dwarven bards are allowed in the CBH, but don't cast spells. GP -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : Agathokles Date : 01-06-08 11:39 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... Boy, if you think dwarf wizards are that outlandish, a tiefling character to you must seem like the creation of a psychopath. Not if they were left in their native campaign, Planescape, where they do make sense (and where, BTW, dwarf wizards don't exist). Unfortunately, Planescape nowadays is being used mostly to pick up cool names and stick them were they don't belong. GP -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : havard Date : 01-06-08 12:42 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... Not from all games, Havard, only from D&D games ;) Hehe, we havent discussed this topic before, have we GP? ;) D&D, as a class-based RPG, is not really about PCs who break cultural norms. But it is already implied in games like Classic D&D where you have 0-level humans as the norm that PCs are unique individuals. If that is so, why should they neccessarily conform to cultural norms? It should focus on cultural stereotypes as its strength, rather than going for the "unique individual" approach, where it will never be able to compete with skill-based systems (GURPS, e.g.). Not neccessarily. I like the flexibility in GURPS, but when I play it I miss having some rules that protect my character's niche, like D&D classes do. I like the fact that when I play a fighter, the wizard standing next to me isnt going to pick up a battleaxe and wield it better than I wield my sword. I like the fact that the class system ensures that as long as players pick different classes their PCs will be good at different things and dont overlap too much in ability. Still, my appreciation for flexibility makes me dislike restrictions that exist only because of a)game balance and b) Gary Gygax set that up for his campaign perhaps rather arbitrarily in 1974. As long as it is not the norm, I have no problem with Clerics or wizards wielding swords, the occasional dwarf wizard or elf Paladin. I have a much bigger problem with every drow ranger I meet wielding twin scimitars... Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : Agathokles Date : 01-06-08 01:20 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... But it is already implied in games like Classic D&D where you have 0-level humans as the norm that PCs are unique individuals. If that is so, why should they neccessarily conform to cultural norms? You'll note that human characters are given the highest flexibility in OD&D -- but demihumans don't have 0-level equivalents (e.g., there's no such thing as a 0-level dwarf or elf in BECMI/RC). That's because flexibility happens to be the racial trait of humans in D&D. Not neccessarily. I like the flexibility in GURPS, but when I play it I miss having some rules that protect my character's niche, like D&D classes do. I like the fact that when I play a fighter, the wizard standing next to me isnt going to pick up a battleaxe and wield it better than I wield my sword. One might argue that this infringes on the uniqueness of someone else's "wizard-who-wield-an-axe-better-than-fighters" character concept ;) GP -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 01-06-08 08:28 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... Hehe, we havent discussed this topic before, have we GP? ;) But it is already implied in games like Classic D&D where you have 0-level humans as the norm that PCs are unique individuals. If that is so, why should they neccessarily conform to cultural norms? Not neccessarily. I like the flexibility in GURPS, but when I play it I miss having some rules that protect my character's niche, like D&D classes do. I like the fact that when I play a fighter, the wizard standing next to me isnt going to pick up a battleaxe and wield it better than I wield my sword. I like the fact that the class system ensures that as long as players pick different classes their PCs will be good at different things and dont overlap too much in ability. Still, my appreciation for flexibility makes me dislike restrictions that exist only because of a)game balance and b) Gary Gygax set that up for his campaign perhaps rather arbitrarily in 1974. As long as it is not the norm, I have no problem with Clerics or wizards wielding swords, the occasional dwarf wizard or elf Paladin. I have a much bigger problem with every drow ranger I meet wielding twin scimitars... Havard Back in first edition, when Unearthed Arcana came out, I made a drow ranger who wielded twin katana. Now, I'm told that character, made long before RA Salvatore wrote his first Forgotten Realms novel as far as I know, is a "Drizzt clone". Drow were written to dual-wield. In the novels, it's made abundantly clear that they're supposed to have that ability commonly. Just because a player decides to go with dual-wield rather than say archery as a focus in 3.5 playing a ranger doesn't make him her her a player of a "Drizzt clone". It's a comparison I'm personally sick of. Only in the Dragonlance novels, involving the Theiwar I think, has a "D&D novel" made mentiuon of dwarven wizards; call me a traditionalist, but I like to stick with original concepts as well as established "fluff". -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : havard Date : 01-07-08 10:50 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... You'll note that human characters are given the highest flexibility in OD&D -- but demihumans don't have 0-level equivalents (e.g., there's no such thing as a 0-level dwarf or elf in BECMI/RC). That's because flexibility happens to be the racial trait of humans in D&D. Even so, PCs are assumed to be exceptional individuals. Flexibility is a human racial trait I agree, but that can be modelled in different ways. One might argue that this infringes on the uniqueness of someone else's "wizard-who-wield-an-axe-better-than-fighters" character concept ;) This is interesting, because it is something that comes up in point based games on occasion. IMO this is not a good concept. A concept could be an "Axe Wielding Mage" or an "Axe-fighting warrior who occasionally casts a spell". But you are right that D&D does a good job giving each character his or her niche, which is a good thing. However, IMO many of the editions impose alot of unneccessary restrictions. This is not an argument for changing to 3e/4e. It is much more a question of how you treat the rules than anything else. Removing all class/race restrictions and level limitations to demihumans in AD&D is a good start of getting the kind of game I want, perhaps a better way than using 3E. Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : havard Date : 01-07-08 10:54 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... Back in first edition, when Unearthed Arcana came out, I made a drow ranger who wielded twin katana. Now, I'm told that character, made long before RA Salvatore wrote his first Forgotten Realms novel as far as I know, is a "Drizzt clone". Drow were written to dual-wield. In the novels, it's made abundantly clear that they're supposed to have that ability commonly. Just because a player decides to go with dual-wield rather than say archery as a focus in 3.5 playing a ranger doesn't make him her her a player of a "Drizzt clone". It's a comparison I'm personally sick of. I agree. You made the character first, so it wasn't a Drizzt Clone. My beef isn't even with Drizzt Clones but the fact that the whole concept has been used to death. Only in the Dragonlance novels, involving the Theiwar I think, has a "D&D novel" made mentiuon of dwarven wizards; call me a traditionalist, but I like to stick with original concepts as well as established "fluff". I have no problem with people wanting to adhere to the standards set up by Gygax, but seeing as D&D can be used to used in many different fantasy settings, why should it not be allowed in some settings? Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : I'm Batman Date : 01-09-08 10:20 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... I started with 1E in '79. It was a great game back then. "Basic D&D" was easier (as in less complicated), but I liked the detail in the Advanced rules, so I never switched "backward." When 2E was announced, I had high hopes that they would fix some of the "problems" I had noticed in AD&D. But instead, the changes in 2E were almost completely the opposite of what I liked about 1E -- they tried to smooth out the details, make it less "complicated." The effect was to give me some good ideas of what to fix for my own rules, rather than to give me a shift completely from 1E to 2E. Towards the end of the 2E era, they started putting out the Options books, and I found even more good ideas of what to fix for my own rules. In late 1E, I had wanted Proficiencies/Skills/whatever -- I found them in 2E, but they were unsatisfying. One of the Options books provided me with (for my games) a better Proficiency system. When 3E was announced, I had hopes to see them fix the problems I'd encounter in 2E (which were even greater than the problems I'd encountered in 1E, naturally). I was sorely disappointed. They had taken everything I liked and discarded it. But there were still things they had done which I wanted to do with my own rules. Now 4E is coming out. I have no hopes for them to improve anything I don't like in 3E. But I'd still like to see what they come up with, because maybe -- like all the other systems I didn't actually play -- they'll come up with some good ideas I can steal for my own rules again. :cool: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : nickcan Date : 01-10-08 06:20 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... It's not just the Dwarven Wizards that turned me off 3ed and 3.5. But the idea that anyone can choose any class. I know it's a small thing but I liked the idea of ability requirements. You can't just sit down and decide to play a paladin, you have to roll the stats for it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 35] Author : Agathokles Date : 01-10-08 07:28 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... This is interesting, because it is something that comes up in point based games on occasion. IMO this is not a good concept. A concept could be an "Axe Wielding Mage" or an "Axe-fighting warrior who occasionally casts a spell". Not necessarily. The Goblinoid Wicca and the Elf of OD&D fill exactly that role -- fighter/wizard combos who are, at least at the early stages, as powerful as a wizard or fighter of comparable level in their department. "Old" editions balance this by making their progression slower. But you are right that D&D does a good job giving each character his or her niche, which is a good thing. However, IMO many of the editions impose alot of unneccessary restrictions. I don't see this. The "occasionally spell-casting fighter" is feasible in D&D -- because spellcasting is intrinsically occasional, so your fighter will simply cast spell less frequently than the standard wizard. Indeed, you get that model in the AD&D Paladin/Ranger/Defender, or in the OD&D Paladin (the Elf is another matter) -- it's less frequently available with wizardly spells because their are comparatively stronger. On the other hand, the "wizard with axe" variant is less easily implemented -- or, if you prefer, more easily abused -- since combat abilities are constantly active. AD&D 2e (PO) does allow wizard with swords, BTW, and OD&D allows the Elf Wizard which more or less fits the same concept. The actual difference with 3e is that you get your powers more or less fixed from first level -- but then if you go to the 3e boards you'll see that the practice of planning characters (including multiclassing) from 1st to 20th level is commonplace. So, what's the real difference? This is not an argument for changing to 3e/4e. It is much more a question of how you treat the rules than anything else. Removing all class/race restrictions and level limitations to demihumans in AD&D is a good start of getting the kind of game I want, perhaps a better way than using 3E. Level limitations have been removable since AD&D 2e at least (DMG), and RC in the OD&D version (though Attack Ranks are more or less the same in BECMI and standard RC). BTW, level limitations are not even specified in the AD&D 2e PHB. Class/race combos only depend on the setting. The default meta-setting of AD&D 2e doesn't include certain class/race combos, and certain multiclass combos. Once more, the DMG gives you the option of altering the setting. Unsurprisingly, the level and access limitation are referred to as "standard class and level limits". Basically, the idea is that class limits are useful to set the tone of your campaign -- make it more likely that the party will feature elven wizards or fighter/wizards, dwarven fighters, halfling thieves, half-elf bards, etc. Changing the limits changes the feeling -- you might get a party of dwarven wizards, elf paladins, halfling druids, etc. If you're ok with that, than nothing prevents you from allowing different class selections. The standard option is not that, because that is not the feel the designers wanted to propose. GP -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 36] Author : Varl Date : 01-10-08 11:17 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... It's not just the Dwarven Wizards that turned me off 3ed and 3.5. But the idea that anyone can choose any class. I know it's a small thing but I liked the idea of ability requirements. You can't just sit down and decide to play a paladin, you have to roll the stats for it. This is where I disagree. We just had a discussion about this last Saturday. A player wants to play a paladin, but he doesn't roll the scores for it on the first try. I've always found it eminently better for the game overall to just let the player play what they want instead of rolling through numerous die rolling episodes just so you can say he beats the odds of rolling one up. It's ridiculous. Most players come to the game to play D&D, not to test the game's character generation percentiles, and waste 1-2 hours or more simply trying to achieve a paladin or similarly difficult class to qualify for. Round the closest set of scores to a paladin up to the minimums requried, and get on with the game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 37] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 01-10-08 11:30 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... This is where I disagree. We just had a discussion about this last Saturday. A player wants to play a paladin, but he doesn't roll the scores for it on the first try. I've always found it eminently better for the game overall to just let the player play what they want instead of rolling through numerous die rolling episodes just so you can say he beats the odds of rolling one up. It's ridiculous. Most players come to the game to play D&D, not to test the game's character generation percentiles, and waste 1-2 hours or more simply trying to achieve a paladin or similarly difficult class to qualify for. Round the closest set of scores to a paladin up to the minimums requried, and get on with the game. Agreed. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 38] Author : havard Date : 01-10-08 03:50 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... It's not just the Dwarven Wizards that turned me off 3ed and 3.5. But the idea that anyone can choose any class. I know it's a small thing but I liked the idea of ability requirements. You can't just sit down and decide to play a paladin, you have to roll the stats for it. I think this has to do with different styles of playing. I hate randomness in character generation. Part of it probably has to do with the fact that we have a very low character turnover. I.e., once you have made a character you can expect to be stuck with it for a year or even longer in real time. This means it is important that the players are happy with their characters. Im not saying all their stats should be 18, but if they want to be able to play a certain class then they should. Ofcourse Paladins are very different in some editions from what they are in others. Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 39] Author : havard Date : 01-10-08 03:58 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... Not necessarily. The Goblinoid Wicca and the Elf of OD&D fill exactly that role -- fighter/wizard combos who are, at least at the early stages, as powerful as a wizard or fighter of comparable level in their department. "Old" editions balance this by making their progression slower. Yep. :) I don't see this. The "occasionally spell-casting fighter" is feasible in D&D -- because spellcasting is intrinsically occasional, so your fighter will simply cast spell less frequently than the standard wizard. Indeed, you get that model in the AD&D Paladin/Ranger/Defender, or in the OD&D Paladin (the Elf is another matter) -- it's less frequently available with wizardly spells because their are comparatively stronger. On the other hand, the "wizard with axe" variant is less easily implemented -- or, if you prefer, more easily abused -- since combat abilities are constantly active. AD&D 2e (PO) does allow wizard with swords, BTW, and OD&D allows the Elf Wizard which more or less fits the same concept. The actual difference with 3e is that you get your powers more or less fixed from first level -- but then if you go to the 3e boards you'll see that the practice of planning characters (including multiclassing) from 1st to 20th level is commonplace. So, what's the real difference? I agree. You can probably have pretty much the same flexibility that I like with Players Options. My impression is that PO is a bit unneccesarily complex, but I have never used those books in actual play. Level limitations have been removable since AD&D 2e at least (DMG), and RC in the OD&D version (though Attack Ranks are more or less the same in BECMI and standard RC). BTW, level limitations are not even specified in the AD&D 2e PHB. All good :) Class/race combos only depend on the setting. The default meta-setting of AD&D 2e doesn't include certain class/race combos, and certain multiclass combos. Once more, the DMG gives you the option of altering the setting. Unsurprisingly, the level and access limitation are referred to as "standard class and level limits". So its really a question of what I would have preferred as the default rules rather than a limitation of the rulesets themselves. I'm not really sure we disagree all that much. You have proved that the flexibility that I like can be implemented by both Classic and Advanced D&D2e. Maybe those games arent as different from 3E afterall? And now even that one is soon to be OOP ;) Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 40] Author : Agathokles Date : 01-10-08 04:36 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... I agree. You can probably have pretty much the same flexibility that I like with Players Options. My impression is that PO is a bit unneccesarily complex, but I have never used those books in actual play. It's all matter of trade-offs. It's indeed unnecessarily complex -- because it contains unnecessary elements such as sword-wielding wizards and the like ;) Much like 3e, which, BTW, takes many elements from the worst aspects of PO (e.g., AoO). So its really a question of what I would have preferred as the default rules rather than a limitation of the rulesets themselves. I'm not really sure we disagree all that much. You have proved that the flexibility that I like can be implemented by both Classic and Advanced D&D2e. Indeed it can. However, there is still a major difference: AD&D 2e and RC D&D focus on class niches and the D&D style/feel, while giving freedom to play in very different styles as well and fostering individual DMs to customize the game. 3e, OTOH, is much more player-oriented than DM-oriented. Thus, it gives little in terms of options (especially in the core rules), and favors player choices over setting coherence (all class/race and multiclass combo acceptable by default, and in practice always acceptable). GP -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 41] Author : Extempus Date : 01-11-08 02:47 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... This is where I disagree. We just had a discussion about this last Saturday. A player wants to play a paladin, but he doesn't roll the scores for it on the first try. I've always found it eminently better for the game overall to just let the player play what they want instead of rolling through numerous die rolling episodes just so you can say he beats the odds of rolling one up. It's ridiculous. Most players come to the game to play D&D, not to test the game's character generation percentiles, and waste 1-2 hours or more simply trying to achieve a paladin or similarly difficult class to qualify for. Round the closest set of scores to a paladin up to the minimums requried, and get on with the game. That's why I liked Method V for creating specific human characters, as outlined in the 1e Unearthed Arcana (p. 74)... you choose the class you want, then roll anywhere between 3d6 to 9d6 for each ability depending on class, and then you take the best 3 dice rolls for each and ended up with a pretty decent character. I used it to create a few characters myself way back when... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 42] Author : havard Date : 01-13-08 04:03 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... It's all matter of trade-offs. It's indeed unnecessarily complex -- because it contains unnecessary elements such as sword-wielding wizards and the like ;) LOL :) It depends what you consider unnecessary I suppose. But IMO PO took it too far and tried to turn AD&D into GURPS, while all I wanted was a little more flexibility. Simply allowing characters to spend Proficiencies to overcome class restrictions would have gone a good way of fulfilling my needs in that respect. Much like 3e, which, BTW, takes many elements from the worst aspects of PO (e.g., AoO). If you say so. I never had much of a problem with AoOs. Granted they become alot worse if you use miniatures instead of hand-waving of the GM which I did IMC. 3e, OTOH, is much more player-oriented than DM-oriented. Thus, it gives little in terms of options (especially in the core rules), and favors player choices over setting coherence (all class/race and multiclass combo acceptable by default, and in practice always acceptable). Personally I saw this as a long awaited reality check. DMs, you aren't Gods, you are just one of the dudes around the table trying to enjoy a game together! Is the presence or lack of dwarf wizards what defines a setting? If that weird dude in the corner wants to play an odd-ball character. Why not let him and move on? There are monsters to be slain and treasure to be collected! :) Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 43] Author : Agathokles Date : 01-13-08 04:46 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... If you say so. I never had much of a problem with AoOs. Granted they become alot worse if you use miniatures instead of hand-waving of the GM which I did IMC. I'm not referring to my own opinion of 3e. PO: Combat & Tactics (the source of AoO) had, let's say, a very limited success -- very few people used it. OTOH, 3e pushes for the use of miniatures, so the problem you mention is likely worse in the average campaign than in yours. Indeed, one of the things that have filtered out for 4e is that AoO are being toned down -- which hints to the fact that they weren't such a good idea. Personally I saw this as a long awaited reality check. DMs, you aren't Gods, you are just one of the dudes around the table trying to enjoy a game together! DMs may not be gods, but game decisions ultimately rest with them. Also, they get the hardest job, so the players shouldn't make themselves obnoxious (and asking for PCs that don't fit the setting/theme of the game qualifies as such). Is the presence or lack of dwarf wizards what defines a setting? Does the presence or lack of a dwarf wizard make the game more enjoyable? I don't think so, otherwise games where dwarves or wizards are not present at all would be significantly less entertaining. If that weird dude in the corner wants to play an odd-ball character. Why not let him and move on? Today a dwarf wizard, tomorrow a Q (or a Jedi, or anything else not related with the setting). It's the principle that matters -- the setting defines the character options, not the reverse. G. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 44] Author : roystonlodge Date : 01-17-08 10:24 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... My buddies and I just started a new AD&D 2e campaign last night, and it was heavenly. Most of us are getting back into it after a hiatus of from 7 to 10 years, and in my case I was playing modern/future games exclusively for many years before I stopped playing RPGs. With the release of the Lord of the Rings movies, and a pretty long stint of us playing World of Warcraft together at semi-regular LAN parties, it seemed like a natural time to give it a shot. It turned out REALLY well. With all of us many years older, "wiser", and arguably more mature, the game went smoothly, everybody stayed in character, and "role-playing" rather than "roll-playing" was dominant, even though our first warm-up adventure was a simple hack-and-slash. Slipping back into 2nd edition was SO painless, especially with SO MUCH information available cheap or for free on the Internet. I bought a PDF version of the Revised Player's Guide (printed and bound in a World of Warcraft binder) and read up on the history/geography/cultures of Greyhawk mostly on Wikipedia. The DM had looked into 3.5e and decided it just wasn't worth the trouble. We all agreed wholeheartedly (except for one player who didn't get the memo and went out and bought the 3.5e Player's Handbook inadvertantly). ASIDE: The two editions I prefer are original D&D (I use the Rules Cyclopedia edition), and AD&D 2e. If you want a simple , bare-bones game that you can get into immediately, original D&D is still immensely playable. If you want to upgrade, skipping AD&D1 and going straight to 2e is the way to go. I find the rules in AD&D 1e are too cumbersome. They're inelegant, and seem like a bunch of add-ons to original D&D without really being a cohesive "system". It's like D&D with way too many house rules. AD&D 2e streamlined the rules to make it much more of an actual "system", (the best example being wizard specializations instead of a dozen different classes for different types of magic-users). D&D 3e/3.5e again feels like way too much of a mash-up, with bits and pieces taken from different game systems. If I want a points-based system, I'll play a points-based system (Hero, GURPS, Shadowrun, etc). If I want a dice-and-levels-based system, I'll play 2e or Palladium. Yes, even the much-maligned Palladium seems stream-lined and elegant when compared to 3e or d20 modern (IMHO). When you try to mash together a dice-and-levels system with a points system, it gets needlessly complicated. That was one of the primary weaknesses of WEG's Star Wars RPG/d6 system, but was easily worked-around with simple house rules that turned it into a pure points-based system. The exception that proves the rule (again, IMHO) is Top Secret/S.I. I still consider it my favourite system for modern-day gaming, and I wish WotC had used it as the basis for their current modern-day gaming system instead of awkwardly converting D&D 3e to the modern day. Heck, Top Secret/S.I. would have been a better basis for a WotC Star Wars game as well. I simply despise the concept of experience levels for a modern/future game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 45] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 01-17-08 04:25 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... My buddies and I just started a new AD&D 2e campaign last night, and it was heavenly. Most of us are getting back into it after a hiatus of from 7 to 10 years, and in my case I was playing modern/future games exclusively for many years before I stopped playing RPGs. With the release of the Lord of the Rings movies, and a pretty long stint of us playing World of Warcraft together at semi-regular LAN parties, it seemed like a natural time to give it a shot. It turned out REALLY well. With all of us many years older, "wiser", and arguably more mature, the game went smoothly, everybody stayed in character, and "role-playing" rather than "roll-playing" was dominant, even though our first warm-up adventure was a simple hack-and-slash. Slipping back into 2nd edition was SO painless, especially with SO MUCH information available cheap or for free on the Internet. I bought a PDF version of the Revised Player's Guide (printed and bound in a World of Warcraft binder) and read up on the history/geography/cultures of Greyhawk mostly on Wikipedia. The DM had looked into 3.5e and decided it just wasn't worth the trouble. We all agreed wholeheartedly (except for one player who didn't get the memo and went out and bought the 3.5e Player's Handbook inadvertantly). ASIDE: The two editions I prefer are original D&D (I use the Rules Cyclopedia edition), and AD&D 2e. If you want a simple , bare-bones game that you can get into immediately, original D&D is still immensely playable. If you want to upgrade, skipping AD&D1 and going straight to 2e is the way to go. I find the rules in AD&D 1e are too cumbersome. They're inelegant, and seem like a bunch of add-ons to original D&D without really being a cohesive "system". It's like D&D with way too many house rules. AD&D 2e streamlined the rules to make it much more of an actual "system", (the best example being wizard specializations instead of a dozen different classes for different types of magic-users). D&D 3e/3.5e again feels like way too much of a mash-up, with bits and pieces taken from different game systems. If I want a points-based system, I'll play a points-based system (Hero, GURPS, Shadowrun, etc). If I want a dice-and-levels-based system, I'll play 2e or Palladium. Yes, even the much-maligned Palladium seems stream-lined and elegant when compared to 3e or d20 modern (IMHO). When you try to mash together a dice-and-levels system with a points system, it gets needlessly complicated. That was one of the primary weaknesses of WEG's Star Wars RPG/d6 system, but was easily worked-around with simple house rules that turned it into a pure points-based system. The exception that proves the rule (again, IMHO) is Top Secret/S.I. I still consider it my favourite system for modern-day gaming, and I wish WotC had used it as the basis for their current modern-day gaming system instead of awkwardly converting D&D 3e to the modern day. Heck, Top Secret/S.I. would have been a better basis for a WotC Star Wars game as well. I simply despise the concept of experience levels for a modern/future game. Never understood why Palladium is called "much maligned". I haven't met anyone who doesn't like it, and certainly it's one of my fave game systems (equal to Talislanta in my eyes...). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 46] Author : Votan Date : 01-17-08 05:19 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... D&D 3e/3.5e again feels like way too much of a mash-up, with bits and pieces taken from different game systems. One advantage to 2nd edition was that the characters got most of their abilities as class features. You could play a CG fighter with all scores between 8 and 14 and he really would be a viable character. 3rd edition complicated this immensely (with systematizing things) and resulted in some pretty strange outcomes where they put the (complex and unwieldy) system ahead of what made sense. The saving throw system, for example, was not an improvement . . . -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 47] Author : havard Date : 01-19-08 11:56 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... One advantage to 2nd edition was that the characters got most of their abilities as class features. You could play a CG fighter with all scores between 8 and 14 and he really would be a viable character. Depends on how you look at it. The advantage of the 2e version is that it is quicker to come up with a character. The downside is lack of flexibility. Once you have played 300 identical CG fighters you might want a change. The fighter you describe is still a viable character in 3E though, even if you have to pick one or two feats (power attack and cleave, most of the time). 3rd edition complicated this immensely (with systematizing things) and resulted in some pretty strange outcomes where they put the (complex and unwieldy) system ahead of what made sense. The saving throw system, for example, was not an improvement . . . I disagree. The system itself is in no way complex or unwieldy. The system is at its core very simple. The Complexity lays in what was added to the system. What don't you like about the Saving Throw system? That the categories now actually make sense? That a powerful wizard's spells are harder to resist than those cast by a 1st level acolyte? There are many things that aren't to my liking with the 3E system, but I'm surprised that you would pick the things you did to criticize it for. Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 48] Author : havard Date : 01-19-08 12:21 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... I'm not referring to my own opinion of 3e. PO: Combat & Tactics (the source of AoO) had, let's say, a very limited success -- very few people used it. Fair enough. I am not a particular fan of the AoOs either, but I think they have received an unfair amount of criticism on the web. The problem with AoOs in PO though is that AD&D works well without them. With 3E they are an integral part of the system so the comparison is a bit off. OTOH, 3e pushes for the use of miniatures, so the problem you mention is likely worse in the average campaign than in yours. Indeed, one of the things that have filtered out for 4e is that AoO are being toned down -- which hints to the fact that they weren't such a good idea. Agreed. I would have liked to see a more neutral attitude towards minis like in the older editions, but that isnt going to happen in 4e either. DMs may not be gods, but game decisions ultimately rest with them. Also, they get the hardest job, so the players shouldn't make themselves obnoxious (and asking for PCs that don't fit the setting/theme of the game qualifies as such). Im not saying the DM shouldnt have any authority, but I like that it is being taken down a notch. OTOH I have no problem with restrictions in character generation as long as they make sense: Does the presence or lack of a dwarf wizard make the game more enjoyable? I don't think so, otherwise games where dwarves or wizards are not present at all would be significantly less entertaining. I would have less of a problem with a DM saying no to Dwarf wizards than with a DM saying elves cant be Paladins. As we have discussed before, in Mystara there is a rationale for Dwarves not being able to cast arcane spells. Personally though, I think the problem here isnt with allowing all class/Race combos, but with the dwarf race. If you want dwarves that cannot cast spells, like in TSR D&D, they should have a racial disadvantage limiting them from casting spells (like they do in AD&D). Technically this would allow you to create a Dwarf Wizard who could not cast spells (but might still be able to create magic items). Back to the thing about enjoyability of the game. I think that giving players more options in character generation was in general a good idea. It can be taken too far I agree, but restrictions that have no setting rationale should be done away with. Game balance can be fixed in other ways. For instance: Clerics cannot use sharp weapons. At one point this made sense, but when you introduced more developed Gods and found that one God's favored weapon was the Spear and another's was the sword, this stopped making sense. Today a dwarf wizard, tomorrow a Q (or a Jedi, or anything else not related with the setting). It's the principle that matters -- the setting defines the character options, not the reverse. I agree, but I think it is a moot point. I am talking about core classes. Classes and rules from other books and systems should definately only be used at the DM's disgression. I have an extremely restrictive take on this in my own campaigns. Ofcourse if interpreted into the setting a Q could mean an Immortal (assuming you allow this level of play, if not you could hope to become one one day) and a Jedi could be reinterpreted as a Psionicist. But yes, this would have to remain within the realm of decisions made my the DM :) Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 49] Author : Varl Date : 01-21-08 11:52 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... I would have less of a problem with a DM saying no to Dwarf wizards than with a DM saying elves cant be Paladins. As we have discussed before, in Mystara there is a rationale for Dwarves not being able to cast arcane spells. In the past, I was one of those people that used to object to the whole notion of dwarven mages, but then I discovered a class that I could use that gave the possibility of allowing a "dwarf mage": the runecaster. An earth/stone based wizard that uses runestones, spells engraved upon small stone ingots. The runecaster maintains the earthy dwarven nature of the species, while still allowing an arcane-like version of a mage for the race, and yet, keeping dwarves away from the traditional mage classes. For instance: Clerics cannot use sharp weapons. At one point this made sense, but when you introduced more developed Gods and found that one God's favored weapon was the Spear and another's was the sword, this stopped making sense. I agree here. My turning point on this topic occurred when the 2e F&A triad of faith books were released. I was like, "Wait a second. My deity uses a longsword as his weapon of choice, but forbids his priests from using anything other than blunt weaponry? What a stupid deity!" ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 50] Author : ApollyonsChosen Date : 03-05-08 11:49 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... If a player wants to be a dwarven wizard how disruptive is that?I will admit it seems like a silly concept,but i enjoy playing the game more than i enjoy enforcing my views on others. I like third editions flexibility,and while i will admit some people take it to extremes ,thats what some players enjoy.Over the top craziness,or old school style restrictions all possible under the current ruleset.As long as players aren't using the rules to disrupt game balance,which is hard if as a DM you have any sense. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 51] Author : Etarnon Date : 03-12-08 04:50 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... Just wanted to jump in here as another vet who still runs 2e, after having tried 3.0 and 3.5 and found it to be too unwieldy, and GURPS-like. I wanted to go back to easy, fast combats. If you use minis, move it up there in range, roll the dice, roll damage, and move on. I was tired of five foot steps and AoO, and all the actions and steps and the rest. It got in the way of the story. Now instead of fighting players over rules, I spend my time in descriptions of battle. Oh yeah, 2e AD&D is the way for me. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 52] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 03-12-08 06:21 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... I've seen the topic of the miniatures-use come up several times and I'll throw a few thoughts into the mix. I have used counters/dice/coins to create ad hoc battlefields for years, just to give a broad view of the encounter. I find it is a visual tool that adds to the imaginative experience and keeps things well-ordered for me. I've never bothered mapping out a grid as we have a very 'give and take' sort of playing relationship in my party. The players know I'm not out to screw them, and they don't abide by unspotrtsman like behaviour on either side of the DM screen. The only objection I've ever had about the use of minis in 3e is the packaging and marketing. You 'need' (I use the term subjectively) to use them in the game - yet they are sold in random packets. I can't pick up a pack of twenty kobolds, or a Beholder. I've got to buy thirty-odd packs and hope - then trade (if I'm lucky enough to fund someone else who buys them - not too likely in my town), I know there is eBay, but after totalling an order and adding postage; I'd prefer to spend that money on a few new sourcebooks instead (and pay an equivalent amount of postage). My two zhents worth -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 53] Author : Werral Date : 03-12-08 08:40 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... [QUOTE=havard;14866320] For instance: Clerics cannot use sharp weapons. At one point this made sense, but when you introduced more developed Gods and found that one God's favored weapon was the Spear and another's was the sword, this stopped making sense. /QUOTE] But they're "Priests of a Specific Mythos" in 2e. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 54] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 03-13-08 06:42 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... Never understood why Palladium is called "much maligned". I haven't met anyone who doesn't like it, and certainly it's one of my fave game systems (equal to Talislanta in my eyes...). OFF TOPIC Now you have. :D I have always said that Rifts is one of the best game settings I have ever seen - but the system makes it pretty much unplayable. The Palladium system is complicated, unbalanced and unwieldy. I'm happy to run Rifts, just not with the system it was written for. Just my opinion though. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 55] Author : Varl Date : 03-13-08 03:27 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... The only objection I've ever had about the use of minis in 3e is the packaging and marketing. You 'need' (I use the term subjectively) to use them in the game - yet they are sold in random packets. I can't pick up a pack of twenty kobolds, or a Beholder. I've got to buy thirty-odd packs and hope - then trade (if I'm lucky enough to fund someone else who buys them - not too likely in my town), I know there is eBay, but after totalling an order and adding postage; I'd prefer to spend that money on a few new sourcebooks instead (and pay an equivalent amount of postage). This is my biggest pet peeve when it comes to my miniatures fetish. I don't think I'll ever see the logic behind random packaging, other than how much money and sense it makes for Wizards to do so. Even having to pay more for singles on ebay is better than needing a Gelatinous Cube (like I currently do) and hoping one of the next booster packs has it inside. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 56] Author : Werral Date : 03-13-08 05:32 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... Just make out of real jelly (gelo to you Americans). Obviously you'll have to put it on a little tray so as not to smear your dungeon (and it'll only be good for one session, but jelly costs next to nothing). Besides it'll look much more real than any miniature. For a permanent solution pour transparent resin into a square mold (you can even put bits of equipments or bones inside first to represent previous victims). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 57] Author : Oxlar Date : 03-14-08 05:05 PM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... Welcome Home. There aint nothing like a good home brewed 2nd ed game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 58] Author : Etarnon Date : 03-15-08 05:04 AM Thread Title : Re: Sometimes it takes a new edition... Amen to that statement. I'm back to 2e, too, after playing in RedWizard's game. Inspired. Man, how simple those old rules were. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:22 AM.