What Do You Play?
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 4 of 712, 3, 4, 567
Author

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5648
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Nov 18, 2021
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:23 pm 
 

Diablo characters are the epitome of 3E. I have an account full of 99's, another of 90+, a third of 85+, and my ladders are 85+. It takes mere hours to level to 80 or so.
Here's something to chew on:
My wife plays Diablo as well. She created a character a few months ago, and was going thru each quest, nice and slow. (For the uninitiated, Diablo has 3 successive difficulties). She was level 14. I asked her if she wanted me to "power level" her, and she said no. I said Are you sure, then you'll be able to use Blah Blah Blah Sword of Etc.
Her reply:
Well, I'm in normal difficulty, and I can kill the creatures here just fine with normal equipment. Isn't it the same as being in Hell difficulty and using all the super equipment?

Needless to say, I had no answer other than "Yup, you're right."
What it boils down to is this: If you are a 2nd level fighter with decent equipment, and you fight 3 orcs, it is the same as being a level 18 fighter with godly gear, fighting 3 Type VI demons. As long as the challenge equals the abilities, it is the same.
That being said, it really doesn't matter if you gain a level once a week, month or year, as long as the challenges are appropriate. However, in order to promote interest and realism, leveling once every 1/2 hour as 3E seems to want you to do is absurd, not to mention a fresh-off-the-farm 1st level fighter being able to have abilities like cleave, tumble, etc. It is just way too far from being realistic. I personally like as much realism as I can get in my games, right down to having to replace clothes and boots, damaged lockpicks, etc.


If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

 WWW  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Post Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:30 pm 
 

First of all, you're probably right.  Seems like most of us are a bunch of set-in-our-ways old foggies.  :)  But to respond to your main points...

Complexity: The rules may be more streamlined, but they certainly seem daunting, at least to me.  There are free actions, there are five-foot steps, there are bull rushes, and various other things to memorize, presumably in addition to what has been carried over from previous editions.  I'm not about to try to count the total number of basic rules in each edition, but there certainly seem to be more of them in 3.0.  (I have no 3.5 books, so I can't compare).  In regards to the "kits" -- let's not go there.  I'll just start ranting against 2nd edition and the end of all things pure and good.

Munchkinry:  Hmm, sounds like the name of a skill.  I'll take 4 ranks in it on my next character.  I think we agree that all systems are susceptible to this phenomenon.

Fast Leveling:  This phenomenon was bad enough in first edition that we wrote world-specific optional rules countering it in our development.  Progression was nearly halted completely, in fact.  Of course we were actively trying to discourage power gamers...some people like fast leveling, and that's ok.

Feats:  There were "feats" in first edition, of course.  These were what your character actually did.  They just weren't predetermined.  For example, your character might attempt to swim across a river, and if he succeeded at the attempt, you learned that your character could swim.  

If he failed, well, at least you learned whether or not he was wearing a ring of water breathing/walking/flying or not.  I was a merciful enough DM to allow some improvements to the check over time.  

My main point:  the character you're currently playing should always be the character of your dreams.  It's not about what's written on the sheet of paper -- it's what they become in spite of what's written on the paper!

Will I try 3rd edition?  Maybe.  I'd probably want to choose the feats/skills that each character has myself, if I were DM.  But I like the fatal(istic) approach.

 YIM  


Active Collector

Posts: 92
Joined: Oct 07, 2004
Last Visit: Sep 04, 2010

Post Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:30 pm 
 

Cool. I understand that making charcters different isn't all stats and whatnot, but you can equally see my point, right?

I hope you do try 3e, and use whatever mods you deem necessary. If you don't like it then, I can understand and respect that. But, then again, you may be surprised.

  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Post Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:42 pm 
 

Shingen wrote:Cool. I understand that making charcters different isn't all stats and whatnot, but you can equally see my point, right?

I hope you do try 3e, and use whatever mods you deem necessary. If you don't like it then, I can understand and respect that. But, then again, you may be surprised.


You made some very good points, actually.  You must have been talking to my older brother, who is a 3e fanatic  :D

It's unlikely I'll actually do more than look at the pretty pictures of any edition again...my weekends are increasingly being filled with non-roleplaying stuff like baby showers and house shopping.  (Man, how I'd love to be able to d20 my way out of that, and tell the wife I made the check!)  :roll:

 YIM  


Prolific Collector
Valuation Board

Posts: 682
Joined: Oct 13, 2003
Last Visit: Sep 13, 2019
Location: Denver, CO

Post Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:20 pm 
 

I should say what I am certain was not made clear in my other posts:  D&D 3.5 is a very good, entertaining, player-oriented game.
8O

Yep, I admit it.  It's full of options and fun.  It's even balanced within itself,  as long as you don't compare it to any other game or edition.

The reason that I'm so vocal against it is that it is completely alien to every version of D&D that has gone before.  Worse, it is against some of the basic precepts that made the earlier editions great.  Such as:

* Archetypal characters (wizards, warriors, etc.) leading to forced specialization, and through that, the requirement of teamwork
* Slow progression through challenges forcing players to develop creative thinking (not tactical thinking) and role-playing skill
* Measurable but not huge rewards in power that leave players wanting more, striving for more, and with a real sense of accomplishment when they achieve their goals (not just checking off agenda items on a weekly prestige-targeted checklist)
* A constant feeling that greater powers than the PCs are at work that could kill the group easily, unless they act ingeniously and with utmost determination (think LOTR)
* Limitations to class and race leading to a believable "us vs. them" xenophobic society, where monsters are monsters, not just PC racial options, thus lending interest and fear, instead of allowing mysterious races to become commonplace
* Miniatures combat as an option, not a requirement, allowing the DM more control over story pacing and "fudging" in favor of both the players and the monsters, instead of a focus on tactical action

All of these qualities can be built into 3.5 (I've tried), but you shouldn't have to.  Those are integral qualities to the D&D social experience.  Without any work on my part, they should BE there!

Now, when I try to shoehorn them back in, I have players laughing at me for trying to curb their power.  The difference between the systems is not just fundamental, it's generational.  Players today want a faster game, a more powerful game, a more "anime" game with everyone multiclassed and super-powered (feats) and with every PC creature race imaginable, a game in which they will become godlike with a fairly insubstantial attempt on their part to play the game with skill.  I see more 3.5 players metagaming, studying, and crunching numbers *outside* of play than ever before, so they can go on autopilot with the leet skillz once play begins.  That is not a good sign.

My biggest (HUGE) problem with 3.5 is the mentality that you should not try to kill the PCs.  You should coddle them, and design your encounters to be surmountable with a limited amount of PC triage.  Killer encounters that must be resolved through thought, planning, and teamwork alone (think Call of Cthulhu) are virtually non-existent.  When you try to put them in, players become outraged, because it conflicts with their mental image of the PCs as superheroes who plow through every obstacle.

It is my belief that every player should suffer character deaths at first, and through learning to circumvent death-causing situations with skill and teamwork, become a better and more social player - not just in D&D, but in all RPGs.  In short, I don't think today's new players want the same things that made me fall in love with D&D 25 years ago.  They've basically thrown aside 30 years of history to create a similar game in the same genre.  Which is fine, but to anyone who has played D&D for decades, the current game is NOT Dungeons & Dragons - it should be called Heroes & Demigods or something.

It's not that I won't give 3.5 a chance, because I have.  As a DM, I failed before I got started, multiple times, because groups would not accept me.  As a player, I had a good time, while all the while wondering why the game was called D&D.  So the game is good.  It just isn't what it should be.

I don't think it's a fixable issue - people like me will eventually fall by the wayside, and today's 3.5 people will be lamenting the hyper-kinetic kiddies playing D&D 10.0 30 years from now.
:P

  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Post Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:52 pm 
 

darkseraphim wrote:I should say what I am certain was not made clear in my other posts:  D&D 3.5 is a very good, entertaining, player-oriented game.
8O

Yep, I admit it.  It's full of options and fun.  It's even balanced within itself,  as long as you don't compare it to any other game or edition.
...<snip>...

I don't think it's a fixable issue - people like me will eventually fall by the wayside, and today's 3.5 people will be lamenting the hyper-kinetic kiddies playing D&D 10.0 30 years from now.
:P

It's sort of like comparing Pacman (with a whopping 10 points per dot) with any modern video game, where scores routinely are measured in the millions.

Do you ever wonder if we're now experiencing the same thing those "funny old weirdos" with the tactical military wargames did 30 years ago?  Why back in my day...  :)

 YIM  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5648
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Nov 18, 2021
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:09 pm 
 

I never agreed with the "kill the players" idea. To me, the concept of being DM is not to punish or persecute, merely to lay challenges/situations in front of characters and let them do as they will. I always try to make it as natural as it would be in real life. I have no compunctions about having 2nd level characters run into 4 trolls, because that is reality. Trolls do not wait until you are 6th level and above to meet you. What the characters do when they meet them is up to them, though running is usually the best option. Conversely, I also throw 12 kobolds at 10th level parties, because the shoe fits on the other foot.
The only thing I won't do is put characters into a situation which is certain doom. They have the option to do that themselves (see troll scenario), but there is always an out.
I guess I am a referee, not a "Dungeon Master". It's like a football game. The referee doesn't tell the players what to do, he just watches them and enforces the rules.


If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

 WWW  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Post Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:35 pm 
 

Deadlord36 wrote:I never agreed with the "kill the players" idea.

I'm going to assume you meant "kill the characters", but maybe you were just covering your butt in case someone from the government/law enforcement is snooping the forum...  :twisted:

I never went out of my way to kill off any characters, but if it happened, I wouldn't worry too much.  Reincarnation was cheap and fun.

 YIM  


Prolific Collector
Valuation Board

Posts: 682
Joined: Oct 13, 2003
Last Visit: Sep 13, 2019
Location: Denver, CO

Post Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 5:08 pm 
 

>>Do you ever wonder if we're now experiencing the same thing those "funny old weirdos" with the tactical military wargames did 30 years ago? Why back in my day...

Yup, I know for a fact the grognards lament the day that TSR focused on making D&D over wargames, with that silly little "brown box."  ;)

There's still some die-hard wargaming groups down in Colorado Springs that I hang out with every couple of years, so they give me (as the "whippersnapper") an earful every time.  The closest I can get them to D&D is through intense sessions of Diplomacy, which involve quite a bit of role-playing.  Actually quite a blast … so I'm sure the generational shift was inevitable.  I'll just have to cling to my out of prints and C&C and live out the glory days when I can.

FWIW, 3.0 had some very nice adventure hooks in the modules that I've modified and used.

On killing PCs … my players were always veterans, except when we all first began at age 8-12.  They became very resourceful very quickly.  I can count on two fingers the number of times a player felt they were dealt an "unfair" hand -- and each time was a truly heroic death they talked about for years afterwards.  I've saved PCs exactly twice as well -- two occasions when the players' dice were cursed, they did everything right, and I was rolling 19s and 20s for the monsters left and right.  Both situations required "fudging" that I couldn't have gotten away with unnoticed if I'd been using a battle grid.

All a matter of taste …
:)

  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 851
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Last Visit: Nov 09, 2021

Post Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:44 pm 
 

Shingen wrote:Even though I know that nothing I will say will make anyone here give 3e a chance, I will still say some things in its defense.

First, on the complexity. The rules are simpler than they have ever been. All rolls go on the same style, and the modifiers are simple and easy to use. Combat has a simple system with set actions. Most of the extra rules I hear talk about have little basis in actual fact. Most of the supplemental rules that come out are Skills, Feats, Prestig Classes, Races and Monsters. No new rules. It is just more optional stuff to use.
If you want to talk complexity, lets use all the optional rules in all the 2e books. At least 3/4 of the kits were all broken to hell.

Second, on the munchkinry. This system is no less or more predisposed to munchkinry than any other system. As with every system, it has a potential to be munchkined, but the DM maintains control over that fact.
Furthermore, the reference to the xp and gold to cast that spell was not showing munchkinry; it was an attempt to show how incredibly impossible that spell is, because none of my damn players could ever cast it. In 2e I saw lots of munchkins too; it just depends on the players and DMs.

Third, alot of people dislike the fast leveling. Well, I do too. So I slowed it down. No big deal. No system is perfect. And the DM's perogative is to fix what he dislikes. And I may have made  slight miscalculation + oversimplification, but yes, characters level up fast. In my first ongoing game, before tweaking, we had players at 5th level after about 3 months of weekly, 4 hour long games.

The system also covers a lot of things I had been dealing with for a long time. The skill system allows your players to actually do things out of combat that make more sense. It is easier to track what they are good at. Furthermore, the dreaded feats allow charcters to actually be different in combat style, unlike characters from previous editions.

The Feats system is a bittersweet thing. I know it seems overpowered, but it is actually quite balanced considering all the monsters and NPCs have feats and special abilities too. And that the monsters are a lot beefier than before. It makes combat larger and more dangerous. Feats actually allow a player to make a charcter of his dreams, by customizing what he can do in combat. There are many unbalanced feats, especially those put out by third parties, but DM perogative again.

I think that 3e is possibly the best system yet. It has a way to deal withg almost any situation with a small set of rules. All rolls are made off of a d20 to do anything. Characters are much more detailed. You can actually do alot of things out of combat that make more sense. All in all, the system is , like the others as good as the DM allows it to be.

I think alot of the sentiement here is a sort of stubborn refusal to change, or give 3.5 a fair shake, because of assuredness that your current system is the only good thing out there. If anyone can provide actual play experience problems with the system, or a more informed argument, instead of "I saw this and didn't like it so I won't try it," I would like to hear it. Just a more complete argument.

And BTW, no offense taken on earlier posts either. I hope I have similarly not offended anyone personally.

Ok, I'll bite.  Regarding the rules being less complex than in AD&D, I call bulls#!^.  In OD&D, Holmes D&D, and B/X D&D, combat involved knowing three factors:

  • When do I hit?
  • Do I hit?
  • How much damage do I do?
As a player, there was no absolute need to know what your to hit number was or how much damage your sword can do.  All that mattered is those three things.  The DM is the one that needs to know the to hit numbers and the amount of damage a sword can do.  So what do you have in d20 Fantasy?  You have feats such as "Great Cleave" that provide a bonus.  You have skills, that also provide a bonus.  You have Attacks of Opportunity, which results in more bookkeeping for the DM.  There's far too much math involved in d20 Fantasy combat to make it worthwhile.  I forgot where the post was, but a former d20 Fantasy player learning AD&D (praise him!) commented on how a simple combat between a party of four mid-level characters and their opponents took over an hour, of which most of that time was spent figuring out attack bonuses and figuring out whether 1d20+bonuses was sufficient to overcome the difficulty level.

Combat in d20 Fantasy no longer fits into the paradigm set out by the original games:

  • When do I hit?
  • Do I hit?
  • How much damage do I do?
Character creation is an absolute mess.  You roll for stats just like in the original game, but then you get to choose feats and skills to go along with the stats.  To me, the addition of feats and the poor execution of skills in the game turned the game into a min-maxer's paradise.  The system actively encourages munchkinism.  The older games had some balance to keep the min-maxers in check.  It was up to the DM to allow powergaming or not, whereas in d20 Fantasy, since the DM has no real power, powergaming runs rampant.

On the fast levelling, I do happen to agree with you on that the DM can slow it down, but the entire point is that the DM shouldn't HAVE to slow down advancement.  It should be slow, to give the characters time to develop, so that a bond with the characters can be established by the players.  d20 Fantasy doesn't permit this,instead requiring rapid advancement to satisfy the wants and needs of the wrong group of people.  This game caters to players, not to DM's.  And as someone else in this thread already pointed out, without DM's, you don't have a game.

On other forums, I have dealt with people such as you, and to the majority, I give my stock answer: try Castles & Crusades.  In case you are ill informed, Castles & Crusades uses open gaming content and simpler mechanics to bring back "old school" gameplay.  In it, you will NOT find feats, skills (except for Rogues), Attacks of Opportunity, overt mention of 5' steps, excessive dilution of class archetypes and the corresponding balance that was inherent in them, rapid advancement, and rampant empowerment of players.  What you will find is a modular, highly customizable game that actively puts the power back where it belongs, in the DM's hands.  You want to climb a tree?  Ok, you climb a tree.  What if you need to climb a tree while being chased by wolves?  Ok, beat [target number + difficulty].  You want to attack the orc from behind?  Beat [target number + difficulty] to do it.  It's a much more flexible system, not hamstrung by excessive amounts of numbers that require constant recalculation.  In fact, I can pretty much say that it is perhaps the only modern game system out there that fits in with the paradigm of the original games:

  • When do I hit?
  • Do I hit?
  • How much damage do I do?
One last thing.  You mention a small set of rules.  If you're a DM, you have 1000+ pages of material in your PHB, DMG, and MM.  OD&D and B/X D&D did it in about 100-150 pages apiece.  AD&D, being advanced, took about 500 pages to do everything.  But most of the DMG was essay material, and not absolutely critical.  My personal game involves using the PHB sans psionics and Holmes D&D, with a dash of magic items from the DMG.  I figure that I got AD&D cut down to about 200 pages.  The D&D Rules Cyclopedia provides pretty much everything (except jousting and artifacts) in 304 pages.  All of those are smaller than d20 Fantasy, but they aren't modern games either.

Castles & Cruasdes is a full game in 128 pages, including monsters.

Oh, I'm not personally offended by what you have said either.  I just don't believe you have seen all the alternatives that are available.



  


Active Collector

Posts: 92
Joined: Oct 07, 2004
Last Visit: Sep 04, 2010

Post Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:17 pm 
 

Traveller wrote:
  • When do I hit?
  • Do I hit?
  • How much damage do I do?
One last thing.  You mention a small set of rules.  If you're a DM, you have 1000+ pages of material in your PHB, DMG, and MM.  OD&D and B/X D&D did it in about 100-150 pages apiece.  AD&D, being advanced, took about 500 pages to do everything.  But most of the DMG was essay material, and not absolutely critical.  My personal game involves using the PHB sans psionics and Holmes D&D, with a dash of magic items from the DMG.  I figure that I got AD&D cut down to about 200 pages.  The D&D Rules Cyclopedia provides pretty much everything (except jousting and artifacts) in 304 pages.  All of those are smaller than d20 Fantasy, but they aren't modern games either.

Castles & Cruasdes is a full game in 128 pages, including monsters.

Oh, I'm not personally offended by what you have said either.  I just don't believe you have seen all the alternatives that are available.


I have seen all the alternatives. I have played GURPS, Palladium, etc. every system under the sun, including everything to basic D&D. I happen to prefer 3.5 the way darkseraphim prefers older versions of the game; because we have tried the others and chosen what fits us.

When do you hit? On your inititive. Rolled once, at teh beginning of combat.

Do you hit? Add your modifier to the roll. I'll tell you if it's enough.

How much damage?It's right there on your character sheet.

All of these things are still provided for. Great Cleave does not provide a bouns to you attack, but an ability. I am completely unable to see how Skills cause munchkinry, which is a consistent argument. It's a skill. if you try to do something, you roll a d20 and add it. If it makes the DC, you do it. The amount and ranks in skill syou have is limited. It has virtually nothing to do with power level.

Once again, feats can be problematic. But I have found as both player and DM that they allow you to have many options in the way a pC/NPC works.

There is a lot of material. But not that much more than 2e.

Darkseraphim: I still try to kill PCs. I am a rough DM, and 3.5 has never limited my ability to be completely in control of the game. I still put them in tough spots, and thye better learn of die.

I don't see a problem with a faster, more detailed game. I think some of you are allowing the PCs to much leeway. Just do it your damn self.

the miniatures combat I can understand as a problem. We don;t use minis, just dice or little cardboard tiles, but we use the grid. It has eliminated the "where is my guy?" stuff, and makes more sense in combat. The combat actions for the PCs to be much more tactical; they must be aware fo where, how big, and what monsters are doing. That is problem the stickiest part of the game, but it is easily simplified.

  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 851
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Last Visit: Nov 09, 2021

Post Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:00 pm 
 

Shingen wrote:
Traveller wrote:
  • When do I hit?
  • Do I hit?
  • How much damage do I do?
One last thing.  You mention a small set of rules.  If you're a DM, you have 1000+ pages of material in your PHB, DMG, and MM.  OD&D and B/X D&D did it in about 100-150 pages apiece.  AD&D, being advanced, took about 500 pages to do everything.  But most of the DMG was essay material, and not absolutely critical.  My personal game involves using the PHB sans psionics and Holmes D&D, with a dash of magic items from the DMG.  I figure that I got AD&D cut down to about 200 pages.  The D&D Rules Cyclopedia provides pretty much everything (except jousting and artifacts) in 304 pages.  All of those are smaller than d20 Fantasy, but they aren't modern games either.

Castles & Cruasdes is a full game in 128 pages, including monsters.

Oh, I'm not personally offended by what you have said either.  I just don't believe you have seen all the alternatives that are available.


I have seen all the alternatives. I have played GURPS, Palladium, etc. every system under the sun, including everything to basic D&D. I happen to prefer 3.5 the way darkseraphim prefers older versions of the game; because we have tried the others and chosen what fits us.

When do you hit? On your inititive. Rolled once, at teh beginning of combat.

Do you hit? Add your modifier to the roll. I'll tell you if it's enough.

How much damage?It's right there on your character sheet.

All of these things are still provided for. Great Cleave does not provide a bouns to you attack, but an ability. I am completely unable to see how Skills cause munchkinry, which is a consistent argument. It's a skill. if you try to do something, you roll a d20 and add it. If it makes the DC, you do it. The amount and ranks in skill syou have is limited. It has virtually nothing to do with power level.

Once again, feats can be problematic. But I have found as both player and DM that they allow you to have many options in the way a pC/NPC works.

There is a lot of material. But not that much more than 2e.

Darkseraphim: I still try to kill PCs. I am a rough DM, and 3.5 has never limited my ability to be completely in control of the game. I still put them in tough spots, and thye better learn of die.

I don't see a problem with a faster, more detailed game. I think some of you are allowing the PCs to much leeway. Just do it your damn self.

the miniatures combat I can understand as a problem. We don;t use minis, just dice or little cardboard tiles, but we use the grid. It has eliminated the "where is my guy?" stuff, and makes more sense in combat. The combat actions for the PCs to be much more tactical; they must be aware fo where, how big, and what monsters are doing. That is problem the stickiest part of the game, but it is easily simplified.

Obviously you haven't seen all the alternatives if you can't even respond to my assertion that there is a modern game that can do everything d20 Fantasy can do, and do it in 128 pages.  I have seen the monster that is d20 Fantasy, and I don't like it.  There is one thing I really did not touch on in answering your points, and that is why I don't like d20 Fantasy.  It doesn't FEEL like D&D.  Yes, we're slipping into esoterica here.  To me in order to play a game, it has to feel right.  I've played EVERY version of Dungeons & Dragons except OD&D.  I can even play that now if I choose, thanks to the kindness of one on these forums.  Every version of the game through second edition at least felt like it was the same game.  Everything was good, regardless of which version I played.  The rules to d20 Fantasy actually interfere with the roleplay.  They are everpresent, instead of transparent.  To me, a really good roleplaying game in the fantasy genre has rules that are nearly transparent, that flow with the game.  d20 Fantasy does not fit into that.

You are unable to see how skills cause munchkinry, because the skills themselves are not the problem.  They cannot be the problem if Gary Gygax himself hinted on changing the game to be more skill-based.  Skill-based games do abound, and many of them are good.  The grandfather of the skill-based game has got to be Traveller, with RuneQuest right on its heels.  Both games use skills, and do it quite well.  So no, skills aren't a problem.  Feats are a problem.  Who wouldn't benefit from a +4 bonus to initiative (Improved Initiative)?  A +1 bonus for using an exotic weapon (Exotic Weapon Proficiency)?  And my favorite of them all, Great Cleave.  According to the rules I'm looking at, the requirements are that you have both the Power Attack and Cleave feats.  What is Power Attack?  The ability to subtract a certain amount from your chance to hit and add that amount to the damage you do.  Cleave is the ability to take an extra swipe at an opponent at 0hp or below.  Great Cleave is the same as Cleave except that you can do the same thing multiple times.  While I did misread Great Cleave (thinking it provided a +4 bonus to attack), there is no way in hell you can deny that a feat that lets you hack away at a being as many times as you want is at the very least broken.  Who wouldn't want multiple attacks on one opponent in a round with no penalty?  Feats are utterly asinine, and only foster the viewpoint that d20 Fantasy is a video game on paper, with power ups and added special attacks you learn as you progress.  Castles & Crusades does not use feats, and doesn't need them.  Yet it's still highly entertaining, and it's still a modern game.

And did I mention that Castles & Crusades has the backing of two someones rather important to Dungeons & Dragons as a whole?  Yeah, you might know them.  Gary Gygax and Rob Kuntz.  Many of the new generation may believe Gary's out of step, but his thoughts are important to many here.  Do you know what he thinks of d20 Fantasy?  I do.  I spoke to him personally, and I do in fact share many of his thoughts on it.  But I'll let you see what he said to GameSpy.

Originally available at http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/538/538820p2.html
GameSpy: Have you had a chance to play or even look at some of the current Dungeons & Dragons games?

Gygax: I've looked at them, yes, but I'm not really a fan. The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good.

Now, should I tell you what I really think?

Gamespy got it.

Oh, and one last thing?  Nobody here, with the possible exception of me, is poo pooing your choice of game.  However, your pleas to try your game fall upon deaf ears.  I'm sure many here have, and have decided against the game.  Yet do you see them evangelizing the older systems like d20 Fantasy people such as yourself?  Other than in this thread and perhaps one other, have you seen me even discuss Castles & Crusades?  I try very hard to avoid peeing in the pool here because my experiences regarding Castles & Crusades as one of its playtesters have no place on a OD&D/AD&D/BXD&D collecting site.  To me, d20 Fantasy has no place here either.



  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5648
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Nov 18, 2021
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:45 pm 
 

Actually, you have Cleave wrong. It's much worse. If you KILL an opponent with a swing, it allows you to make an extra attack against another creature within range.
And Great Cleave? Same thing, except as long as you keep killing creatures in 1 stroke, you can keep on cleaving! Sort of Like in Kung Pao!! Enter the Fist, when he runs horizontally inside the circle of guys, kicking each one in the face.
3E is a joke.


If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7969
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Dec 01, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:51 am 
 

darkseraphim wrote:  In short, I don't think today's new players want the same things that made me fall in love with D&D 25 years ago.  They've basically thrown aside 30 years of history to create a similar game in the same genre.  Which is fine, but to anyone who has played D&D for decades, the current game is NOT Dungeons & Dragons - it should be called Heroes & Demigods or something.

It's not that I won't give 3.5 a chance, because I have.  As a DM, I failed before I got started, multiple times, because groups would not accept me.  As a player, I had a good time, while all the while wondering why the game was called D&D.  So the game is good.  It just isn't what it should be.

I don't think it's a fixable issue - people like me will eventually fall by the wayside, and today's 3.5 people will be lamenting the hyper-kinetic kiddies playing D&D 10.0 30 years from now.
:P


You have to understand that D&D is not the same game we played growing up 20 years ago.  It's an entirely new game with the same name.  Which is one of the reasons my group and I don't play, because all of us didn't feel like we wanted to learn a new game to play.  The old one worked for us just fine.  The new game is fun but it's not original D&D and we want to play original D&D, not the new game.
    Marketing wise, WOTC did a masterful job selling 3rd edition by not pandering to a bunch of old fools who were already set in their ways, like me, who didn't want to trash 20+ years of gaming rulebooks, supplements, modules and more to learn a brand new game and buy all brand new material.  This game was marketed to the CCG crowd and kids raised on a steady diet of video games, cable TV, anime, increasingly violent comic book characters, and instant gratification.  You can't help but admire the thought that went into this type of marketing. So don't feel bad, the game was NOT made with you or me in mind.  
    All hope is not lost.  If you can get to the kids early enough, you can train them for the game you know and love, even if it's your own house rules on a 3rd edition framework.  Right now I run a group for the kids of the friends I grew up playing D&D with.  Despite 3rd Edition's popularity, we run my homebrewed 2nd edition campaign with absolutely no thought of switching. Occassionally, one of the kids talks wistfully about getting "feats" or being able to hit something and do 10d10 pts of damage, but in the end it's the game that matters and not the particular rules.   They have plenty of chances to indulge in 3.5 edition madness, and always come back to my table, because the fun and camraderaie outweigh the benefits of going up two levels in one night.
    In the end it's a generational thing.  Nothing you can do about it but attempt to save a chosen few.

Mike B.

 WWW  


Active Collector

Posts: 92
Joined: Oct 07, 2004
Last Visit: Sep 04, 2010

Post Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:17 am 
 

Traveller wrote:Oh, and one last thing?  Nobody here, with the possible exception of me, is poo pooing your choice of game.  However, your pleas to try your game fall upon deaf ears.  I'm sure many here have, and have decided against the game.  Yet do you see them evangelizing the older systems like d20 Fantasy people such as yourself?  Other than in this thread and perhaps one other, have you seen me even discuss Castles & Crusades?  I try very hard to avoid peeing in the pool here because my experiences regarding Castles & Crusades as one of its playtesters have no place on a OD&D/AD&D/BXD&D collecting site.  To me, d20 Fantasy has no place here either.


I haven't asserted that. i have said some people are refusing to see it any different, even possible, without even trying it. I am not trying to evangelize, which is just ridiculous. I heard some players sya they didn't like d20, and attempted to correct inaccuracies, and try to get some people who may have been misinformed to look at it differently. And most people have been open minded, and willing to just say "I'm comfortable with what I got, but you make good points." You are the only one becoming so heated about it.

No one has to evangelize the old systems to me, because I have them. Simple.

I figured since this was a RP collectible site, people might play roleplaying games. But apparently, only talk about certain systems is acceptable.

Whatever. Since most people have been cool, I feel this was a cool thread, because everyone experessed an opinion, and defended it, in good faith. But this overtly hostile gesture, telling me what has no place in this forum, sours me. I'm done talking about it. Sorry for polluting your forum with divergent thoughts.

  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 408
Joined: Feb 06, 2003
Last Visit: Dec 04, 2021
Location: UK

Post Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:07 am 
 

Shingen,  If its any consolation I agree with you.

I normally lurk here but just had to come out and say it.  Why?  Well I've been playing D&D a long time (not as long as some) but about 20 years - since the erol otus covered basic set.  Moved rapidly on to AD&D and dropped out just as 2nd edition was coming in (other games and then other interests).

I got back into D&D with 3e.  Found a new group through a friend of mine and started playing.  I have also played other games with that group.  Now while I liked 3e  I too longed for the good old days of 1e.  So we started up playing 1e ToEE and I started running a HackMaster game.

And guess what.  After a while we didn't actually enjoy it as much as the 3e we were playing.  What we loved about 1e was mainly nostalgia and memories.

What did we do.  Well I stopped running HackMaster (i'm now running a d20 Call of Cthulhu game) and we converted our ToEE game over to 3e.  Guess what - we are all enjoying it more than ever!.  Nearly finished the temple and will be moving on to Giants (then Drow) all 3e conversions.

So don't rule 3e out.  I did but I was wrong and I changed my mind.  Sure 3e has its problems.  Yes it can be powergamer-y.  Yes some of the books have ridiculous feats in it (I would never touch a third party book because the stuff in them is not balanced IMHO).  But the challenge is still there.  Characters have still died.  And we are still having fun.

The thing I like about 3e is the way that you can use the rules to give your character so much more flexibility.  No longer are all fighters essentially the same.  The classes are no longfer rigid archetypes but with multiclassing and prestige classes are tools with which one can create really interesting characters with really interesting abilities.  And yes I realise you could differentiate characters by role-player rather than just with abilities but when you can differentiate them with role--playing AND abilities it really is something.

Well that is just my view and I realise there are some I will never convince.  But just as I was wrong some of you might be too and so you shouldn't rule it out just because you "think" you may not like it.

Sardan

  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Post Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:11 am 
 

Deadlord36 wrote:Actually, you have Cleave wrong. It's much worse. If you KILL an opponent with a swing, it allows you to make an extra attack against another creature within range.
And Great Cleave? Same thing, except as long as you keep killing creatures in 1 stroke, you can keep on cleaving! Sort of Like in Kung Pao!! Enter the Fist, when he runs horizontally inside the circle of guys, kicking each one in the face.
3E is a joke.

This is a horrible thing, but I believe it has it's roots in 1e.  IIRC, there was a rule somewhere that allowed a fighter to take a number attacks equal to his level against creatures less than 1 HD (ie, kobolds).  We didn't use this rule, as it seems awfully cheesy, but I believe the purpose was to avoid masses of kobolds from overbearing every high-level party.

Can someone please confirm the existence of this rule?

 YIM  


Verbose Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 1043
Joined: Jan 06, 2004
Last Visit: Jul 01, 2020
Location: Leicester, UK

Post Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:22 am 
 

I remember that too.  But I can't tell you where to find it.

  
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 4 of 712, 3, 4, 567