It's interesting how some folks feel the need to use extreme hyperbole to make a 'point'. Deadlord, it's unfortunate that you can't make your argument without the kind of garbage the "17 and under crowd" likes to sling around. How you choose to use the rules is up to you and your gaming group. Sorry to see you don't see the advantage in having a reasonably-balanced set of rules that encompass even the more bizarre aspects of our hobby.



Personally, I'd say 3E is designed for the older gamers. The rules are far, far more complicated, and there's no way in heck I could have started 3E as early as I started 2nd Edition. I plowed in when I was 10 with AD&D, and there's no way in heck I could have figured out the more complicated aspects of the 3E game at 15. Myself and the guys I play with, all above-average intelligence folks, still cramp our brains figuring out minutae of the rules  :P

The reason I pointed out that quote however, was more to illustrate how the "perspective" of D&D has changed.

Definately agree with you there. The "feel" of 3E is very different. Personally, I wish they'd used more of the original artists. I think that'd have done a service to the game

Essentially, the focus is on character creation and excelling in power and abilities. The center stage has been taken away from DMing and giving to the PCs.

That I definately agree with. I DM one game, and play in another game, and I have to say - I like the change. There's 4-6 players in most groups, and only 1 DM. As a DM, I'm telling a story for the players, not to the players. I enjoy having the rules and the progression focus more on their choices, and less on mine. You're completely right though, that is definately a seismic shift in perspective.

Somehow, it is that perspective that has been lost to some degree

I disagree with that though. That perspective is still there, but it's delayed until higher levels. A 10th level character in 2nd Edition is a very powerful figure indeed - in 3rd Edition, it's the same way, but not until 15th-20th level. By the time you're hitting level 20, you can go toe-to-toe with Pit Fiends and even moderate-tough dragons. At 10th level, you're far tougher than most folks out there, but there's still a pretty good chunk of the Monster Manual that considers you a light snack



Keep in mind that D&D originally progressed to level 36 - and to godhood. 3E is actually a step back in that regard.

grodog wrote:

deimos3428 wrote:Our DM quite simply played Lloth wrong. Very, very wrong.

MerricB over on Canonfire! has sussed out some interesting secrets of D3 and Q1: Lolth was basically a patsie for the Eilservs clan's activities, and if the PCs do in fact manage to defeat her, they've only further empowered the real threat in the modules, the Eilservs and their Elder Elemental God. Check out Canonfire! - Upon the True History of the Drow/Giant Incursion for some eye-opening reading

Huh, very interesting. Doubly so, coming from MerricB (he runs the best info resource on the web regarding the plastic D&D miniatures).



I kept reading EEG as EGG though, which although confusing, actually makes that article a lot more entertaining

grodog wrote:That said, 3e does give you more tools to challenge higher-level PCs too, although the rules still break down when you're in the near-Epic and Epic zones of play.

Agreed and agreed. But, in all fairness, AD&D doesn't do well at high levels either, nor does any other system I've played.

For some excellent game fiction based on 3e high-level play with wonderful 1e sensibilities (Graz'zt-backed conflict forms the backdrop for the PCs' activities), read Sepulchrave's Tales of Wyre story hour over on ENWorld. His fiction is fabulous, on par with George R. R. Martin and approaches the realms of Michael Moorcock's work. Great stuff:

Great link. This is great so far



""And this ‘Rurunoth' -- he is a Type VI demon," Eadric ventured.

"That phraseology is somewhat antiquated, but yes, more or less.""

zhowar1 wrote:

killjoy32 wrote:
hey frank...whats the item called in its entirety...as i wouldnt mind a look at that....

Frank is referring to the Basic-Expert-Companion-Masters-Immortals Sets; he was editor and/or writer.

 Ah!  Yes!  The tougher dragons in D&D was one of the best things about that version of the game.    :)

MShipley88 wrote:another less admirable trait of the geek-o-cracy that is gaming.

Geek-o-cracy?  Sounds more like a dorktatorship to me.  :lol:

MShipley88 wrote:3.5 is so rules-heavy that essentially every word is a specific and definable technical term. It takes a lot longer to start and finish a fight...but we also have a lot fewer arguments because most of the rules are very clear. ("I rolled a 20 so you guys can just.....")

Amen and all praise to Our Lord Vecna for that. There really isn't much "wiggle room" in 3.5, and the rules are almost always internally consistant.

The system has always more closely approximated what happens in professional wrestling than any sort of realistic combat.

As soon as I stop laughing, I'll try to work up some outrage at D&D being compared with wrestling

Geek-o-cracy?  Sounds more like a dorktatorship to me.

Maybe it's the pain meds I'm on (broken collarbone, whee!), but I have every intention of stealing 'dorktatorship' for my next campaign rules summary

killjoy32 wrote:i like my games nice and simple. 1E suits me perfectly from that perspective. i am very fair, i hardly use rules, more common sense and i never have an argument. the combats we have, i am told "absolutely rock" quoting my daughter there. i run the combats really fast to add the element of real-time to it and everyone loves it that way.



i have no problems making a game "more real" but the more rules there are, slows the game down and actually spoils it imo.



Al

Feel like a holiday in Australia?  I am looking for a gaming group.  :wink:

MShipley88 wrote:As for the video game influence on 3.5.....the D&D combat system was never really meant to reflect reality. The point of the combat rules was to simulate fantasy combat in which mere mortals defeat huge monsters. The system has always more closely approximated what happens in professional wrestling than any sort of realistic combat.

You make a solid point there, about the combat system never being realistic.  I have spent quite a great deal of time working on a "realistic" combat system, and the basic tenets of such a system are as follows:



#1.  Combat is invariably deadly.

#2.  Avoid combat at all costs.



The fact remains that d20 pulled D&D in precisely the wrong direction -- combat is far more complex, far less deadly, and not at all undesirable.

afoolandhis$ wrote:The proof's in the pudding. I actually tried to get my kids started on D&D with 3E, and almost killed their natural senses of wonder and creativity in the process, not to mention their budding enthusiasm for the game. We switched over to AD&D (1st edition, the only one), and haven't had time for much else. It's been eerily reminiscent of the way the game took hold of me as a youth. It consumes you. There is simply so much more imagination in it. And the realism Frank mentioned is why you get so attached to your characters in AD&D. Barring a blow to the head, I'll never play 3E at the table again - I'll play it on my pc (NWN), but never on paper.

well you kinda nailed it just right there i think.



i have nothing against 3.5 despite some of the things i say, its just not for me.



my daughter, whom is 15, i think, would generally adapt to anything as she loves RPG games. After playing 1E with me for a while, a friend of hers at school heard about it and invited her to play 3.5. she went once and really didnt like it. her words were something like "it was boring and did my head in - why wasnt it as easy and fun as your game?"



in the end, everyone will make their own choice, depending on what they want from an RPG.



Al