The former Tomb of Horrors / current 3e debate thread
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 5 of 1012, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8910
Author

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7969
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Nov 26, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:37 am 
 

Yama-Arashi wrote:I normally stay out of these kind of fights because they make me feel old. I'm hearing the Arduin vs. D&D fights again. I'm hearing the "my anti-paladin can beat up your ninja" fights.


We had the D&D vs Runequest fights in my neighborhood, no quarter asked for or given.

Video games are ruining today's youth? That's exactly the same argument I heard from my fossilized elders about how playing D&D "on a perfectly good day when you should be out riding your bike" was ruining me.


But they were right...look how overweight I am now.... :cry:

Those same elders seem pretty comfortable with my paying 35 grand a year in taxes to keep them in Social Security and Medicare, using skills I developed through years of role-playing, so I'm willing to cut kids today a little slack that they'll come out all right when it's their turn to step up and support me in my dotage.


Probably not, ever see "Soylent Green"?   I don't look for much better in the future from this generation of clods.    8O

I don't care who likes or plays what. I personally think that Champions was the lamest excuse for an RPG to ever come down the pike, but I have many good friends with great memories of their Champions games. Good on them. I know someone who still likes Aftermath!, which to me is a real puzzler, but, hey, it takes all types.


Champions did suck.  Villains and Vigilantes was MUCH better, IMO.

However, I have to step in and support the guys fighting the good fight for 3e.  It's a good system, it's an interesting system, and it's a flexible system. It isn't perfect, but neither was 1st edition. It can be roll-playing focused, or role-playing focus depending on the emphasis. I love the fact that when it was released, it was decried by the 1st editioners as being too "touchy feely" with its skills rules. "True AD&D," we were told, "is kicking in doors, killing the monsters, and taking their loot." This same group now decries 3e for being too "roll-playing focused?" Because you know, there was a lot of role-playing that took place in the Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl or Descent into the Depths of the Earth. They may be great memories, but be honest, how many times did you shoot the s**t with the Jarl or any of his cronies as opposed to going through their pockets for spare change after the fight?


People will always hate what they don't understand.  Truthfully, no one roleplayed back in the early days unless it was threatening to beat the shit out of Gremag and Rannos Duval in Hommlet for selling you a crappy horse, or hitting on the serving wench at the local tavern for fun because it made you feel cool.  It was all about killing the bad guys and counting the coins.  Memories are fuzzy things, no one cared about roleplaying until after Dragonlance came out anyway.....

As for arguments about d20 books being too shiny? Good lord. Still using a VGA monitor because SVGA is too colorful? 3e isn't the "true descendent" of 1e? I'm sorry, but the removal of negative AC scores does not create a rupture in continuity that forces 3e to a lifetime of bastardized shame. I actually heard someone complain about how 3e was "too miniature focused" as if 1e didn't list all of its distances in table top measurements.


I don't care about the books being shiny, just like them in a font I can read without squinting....

Grayson, Blackmoor -- we're fighting against the haze of nostalgia. It's hopeless. I know it because I have it, too. I love 1st edition because I loved it when I was 9 years old with the kind of passion that is impossible to work up over a game in my late 30s. But for me, it's a love that isn't blind, and I have as much fun growing with a new system as I do fondling my collection of the old.


Good post.  I wish I could change but I can't.  Playing 3e doesn't do a thing for me, but pulling out the 1e or 2e books gets my blood pumping like Jennifer Love Hewitt bending over in front of me to tie her shoes...

But, Eberron truly does suck.

Mike B.

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7969
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Nov 26, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:40 am 
 

bclarkie wrote:Let me repost my previous post as I imagine folks didnt see it on the other page:

Personally IMHO I think this 1 edition versus 3 edition argument is kind of silly. I say this becuase it is like trying to compare apples and oranges. The current rules system in place for 3rd edition is not Dungeons and Dragons. The similarities in 1st ed and 3rd ed are the fact that they are both FRPGs and they both deal with characters and monsters. Other than that there is virtually no common ground shared by the 2 editions at all. Personally I dont see who you can take a game, tear up everything and start from the begining again, make it completely different than the original and want to call it the same thing. Imagine if some modern day artist took the original Mona Lisa tore it up and made a new painting. In this new painitng there was a dark haired woman standing at a party of people with all of her freinds in the mid-city location.This new painting created the artist now wanted it the Mona Lisa. Would anyone in their right mind ever believe that the new painting was now the Mona Lisa? Of course not, so why does anyone accept the fact that 3rd edition is actually Dungeons & Dragons, because it is clearly not. The current edition of D&D is clearly geared toward the video game crowd, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't mean that it should be accepted as D&D either.
.


Greatg post, this is what I have always said.  It's a completely different game so shouldn't be held to the same standards.  They share a name but really aren't compatible, along with some similarities.  It's just not the same game and should not be considered such.

Mike B.

 WWW  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 752
Joined: Jun 29, 2005
Last Visit: Aug 09, 2020
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada, eh?

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 1:15 am 
 

Badmike wrote:But then again I'm willing to believe the kids I see play 3e would have min/maxed 2e also down to a souless video game.


Precisely. A player that wants to min/max will min/max whatever system they're playing. It happened all the time in the 2nd Ed games I ran, and I'm sure it happened in many (if not most) other games.

Truthfully, no one roleplayed back in the early days unless it was threatening to beat the shit out of Gremag and Rannos Duval in Hommlet for selling you a crappy horse, or hitting on the serving wench at the local tavern for fun because it made you feel cool.  It was all about killing the bad guys and counting the coins.  Memories are fuzzy things, no one cared about roleplaying until after Dragonlance came out anyway.....


I've read most of the original modules, front to back, and I have to agree - there's nothing inherent in the modules to get roleplaying going. Ditto for 3rd Edition modules. Roleplaying comes from the DM, and from people, not from rules.

The only original setting/series of adventures that I've seen that really encourages roleplaying is Planescape. Ravenloft too, to a certain extent, but that always seemed overshadowed by the "This must be cool, it's got vampires!" efforts.

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

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

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 1:51 am 
 

A fire giant in 1E doesn't get +4/+10. His damage is preset, and his attacking ability is determined by his hit dice. If you give fire giants +4/+10, then you need to give dragons +6/+12 or some such, and pruple worms the same. All of their abilities are figured in according to HD.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the d20 system. It is the ridiculous powers and characters that are in the game. From my point of view a ROLEPLAYING game is just that. Roleplaying. I don't think rushing from fight to fight in order to throw a handful of damage dice qualifies.
I think some of you are missing my point. I don't care whether a game has fantastic and unrealistic abilities like forming storm clouds or flying on carpets. But the 3E crap that is out today is unquestionably skewed towards characters that are designed to be cuisinarts.
Let's see someone come forward and name a 3E player that they know that adds skill points to etiquette. Or weaving. Or forgery. No, can;t do that, it would be wasting points......
Of the General feats in the Player's Handbook 68 out of 90 are combat related. That is well over 2/3. The addition of Feats in 3E is what ruins the game. No player, not even myself, can avoid min/maxing feats and skills in 3E, and that is not roleplaying, it's powergaming.
The beef I have has already been stated: Wizards calls it D&D, when it is the farthest thing from it.


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

 WWW  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 752
Joined: Jun 29, 2005
Last Visit: Aug 09, 2020
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada, eh?

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:12 am 
 

Deadlord36 wrote:Let's see someone come forward and name a 3E player that they know that adds skill points to etiquette. Or weaving. Or forgery. No, can;t do that, it would be wasting points......


Which is contrasted by what in 1st Ed?

 WWW  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

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

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:32 am 
 

Badmike wrote:Properly Dmed, D1-3 should be able to challenge levels over 10th.

*Puts this thread right back on track.*

Tomb of Horrors is challenging for levels over 10th.  :twisted:



  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

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

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:44 am 
 

Deadlord36 wrote:Let's see someone come forward and name a 3E player that they know that adds skill points to etiquette. Or weaving. Or forgery. No, can;t do that, it would be wasting points......

*Promptly veers the thread back OFF track again.*

Show me an average d20 Fantasy player that can describe what their character looks like and what his personality is?  I have an anecdote from Peter Bradley (chief illustrator for Castles & Crusades).  At Gen Con he offered to draw portraits of player's characters.  Almost invariably, the d20 Fantasy players would come up to him to have their portraits drawn.  When asked the inevitable question of "What does he look like" the player would respond somewhere along the lines of "He's got an 18/00 strength with X, Y, and Z abilities."  The thing is that when Peter prompted them again with the question, phrased somewhat differently, the player could not answer, because he hadn't thought about it.  The stats are what defined the character to the player.

There may be some exceptional d20 Fantasy players out there who do in fact develop their characters, but they seem to be rare.



  


Prolific Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 144
Joined: Apr 26, 2005
Last Visit: May 03, 2021
Location: Rhosgobel

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:36 am 
 

I'm an italian old fashion player (and now collector): I love too much the first editions of D&D to appreciate even AD&D ... not to speak about 3rd edition (and 3.5).
I grow up with the five boxed sets edition (elmore art) and I honour F. Mentzer for have made them. If Gygax and Arneson are something like Old Ones (or Eru Iluvatar), then Mentzer is nothing less then a chief Hierarch (or Manwe Sulimo). :)  :)

Given that, when I discovered OD&D (in particular "The Palace of the Vampire Queen") I was struck by a particular feeling: it  seems to me another world, completely different. Less details, less rules, more simple.
Now, with my group, I'm playing a mix of 3.5 and elder editions (I'm a barbarian, chosen by Crom) even if my-life's character is Gandalf the Grey (a 20th level wizard).

I don't think to be able to say any definitive word about the discussion of this thread but it seems to me that the point is this:
every RPG is based on the immagination of the DM and the Players.
Rules are given to define a sort of coherent world, a backstage, where the characters can play their role. Then the backstage can be more or less defined, more or less realistic ... I don't think that is important.
To make some examples, everytime I have played I've never considered encumbrance nor food ... my characters simply eat,even if in their equipment there's no food.
the fun of the game is in other things, according to my opinion, but I understand that other people could think quite different things ...

I don't like weapon mastery, I don't like multiclass characters, I don't like the proliferation of rules and options of 3.5 ... I think that when we had only seven classes (fighter, priest, wizard, thief, elf, dwarf, halfling) there was much more freedom than if we can be paladin, ninja, half elf/demi orc etc. My Gandalf was quite different from my friend's Saruman just because I am different from him.
but this is simply what I like  :wink: . Every people likes what he likes, isn't it?!  :D

And more rules or less rules ... cannot make an important difference. DM and the players can.

In Italy some says that D&D is EUMATE "Entra Uccidi Mostro Arraffa Tesoro Esci" (something like "Go in, Kill the monster, Grab Treasure, Go out"): I've never thought so. I love D&D (more than every other RPG, AD&D or 3.5 included) for its easyness and freedom left to player.
But I accept that every game can be free as Master and Players want.
Don't you think?!?

And, BTW, I love D&D at low levels. When characters reach Name-level they become to powerful for adventure against monsters, but a campaign with rulers, diplomatics, etc etc (a companion level campaign) needs too time and energies.  :(  I cannot be a full time player (even if I love to  :wink: ).

So that's my impression.
Finally, it is a very beautiful thread: i've learnt a lot of things reading your posts.
Thank you very much.

Have a nice day
Giorgio

  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 752
Joined: Jun 29, 2005
Last Visit: Aug 09, 2020
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada, eh?

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:04 am 
 

Traveller wrote:Show me an average d20 Fantasy player that can describe what their character looks like and what his personality is?


Again, a people problem, not a system problem. Your average d20 player is going to be way younger than your average AD&D player ;)

Honestly, more and more this sounds like yelling at kids to get off your yard :P

Every person in my 3.5 game could tell you that in detail. Hell, I'm actually creating a character for someone in the group - she's basing her character off a miniature. She chose personality, and doesn't even particularily care what the stats/abilities are, as long as they're useful and fun to play.

I dunno, maybe you guys just have really crappy and/or young gamers where you live? When I play at local store gamedays (Living Eberron no less), there's always a ton of roleplaying. Ditto for the local conventions.

"He's got an 18/00 strength with X, Y, and Z abilities."


18/00 strength eh? Mixing your systems :P

 WWW  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 130
Joined: Mar 20, 2005
Last Visit: Mar 31, 2018
Location: Minneapolis

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:42 am 
 

Just to drive the point home -

I had the opportunity to listen to Monte Cook during a Q/A session on Games Day.   The question was posed, "How will 4E be different from 3E?".   His answered (as best as I can remember) seems to address the issues in the 1E/2E vs 3E debate.   And Monte forgive me if this is nowhere near correct.    He stated that while he has little knowledge of the 4E system changes, he can comment on the 3E design process.   The intent, he says, was to retain the cornerstones/sacred cows of the 1E/2E system, but buidl something completely new from there.   The cornerstones / sacred cows were 3d6 stats, retain the same 6 stats, alignment, concept of armor class, and the hit point structure.   Beyond that, everything was open for change.    Thus, it seems, even to Monte,  1E/2E is a different game than 3E.

In addition, I had the opportunity to play a session in his Ptolus campaign.  All of the characters we were give were not maxed out in any way.  Most characters had one combat feat and one non-combat feat.    We had a great time and I am now a 3E believer.   IF the game is controlled and managed by a competent DM who has pulled together a quality group of players.   Hey, as the DM, give me the backstory on why you have 10 combat feats, but still have not learned how to read . . . punk!!    

Will I mix my 1E/2E games (or even C&C) with 3E?   No.   Would I play 3E again.   Sure.

Shameless Monte plug - I am totally hooked on Ptolus.   Grtitty and dirty, with lots of meat on its bones.

  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

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

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 1:25 pm 
 

GraysonAC wrote:
Traveller wrote:"He's got an 18/00 strength with X, Y, and Z abilities."


18/00 strength eh? Mixing your systems :P

:lol:   I mixed them.  Forgot that there is no exceptional strength in d20 Fantasy.  And yes, them not being able to describe what the character is or looks like because they were totally focused on player stats is a player problem.  The problem is that the player in the anecdote is the average d20 Fantasy player, as Peter had encountered this problem repeatedly over the three days of Gen Con.

I did leave open the possibility that there would be a d20 Fantasy player who actually had thought his character through a little bit more than his skillz, kewl powerz, and his abilitiez.  However, as I said before, they are very rare, and likely longtime AD&D players.



  


Sage Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 2884
Joined: Nov 04, 2004
Last Visit: May 09, 2020

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 1:52 pm 
 

GraysonAC wrote:I'm not "fighting" anything ...


Are you sure about that? You've got 13 posts in this thread ...

 WWW  


Sage Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 2884
Joined: Nov 04, 2004
Last Visit: May 09, 2020

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 1:56 pm 
 

Xaxaxe wrote:WOTC has updated their site with their every-so-often look back at the real D&D. This time, it's a Halloween tribute to the Tomb of Horrors, complete with an art gallery and a 3.5 version of the classic module. It all appears to be freely download-able, for those interested.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ag/20051031a


I'll take a stab at getting this thread back to somewhere near its original intent: did anyone actually download the damn thing?

 WWW  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 752
Joined: Jun 29, 2005
Last Visit: Aug 09, 2020
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada, eh?

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 2:22 pm 
 

Xaxaxe wrote:
GraysonAC wrote:I'm not "fighting" anything ...


Are you sure about that? You've got 13 posts in this thread ...


Oh, I'll debate this until our fingers fall off. But I'm not going to be dissapointed if I don't change any minds. I know how hard it is for old dogs to learn new tricks  :lol:

(Put the sword down, I've got a 28 AC.. er.. wait, you're using THAC0? Crap!)

did anyone actually download the damn thing?


I did. Honestly, it's a piece of steaming crap. I like the original module a lot, but this one.. not so much. It depends really, really heavily on traps, and a lot of the traps just aren't as dangerous in 3E as they would have been in 1E or 2E.

And the Demilich fight would just be a slaughter, unless the group still had someone capable of doing massive melee damage.

 WWW  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

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

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:06 pm 
 

MShipley88 wrote:
deimos3428 wrote:I don't see any modifications to the fighter class in UA at all, unless you're referring to comeliness, social class, or weaponless combat... :? Barbarian/Cavalier, sure...they were experiments gone awry that unfortunately spawned what we have today. :wink:


 See also: "weapon specialization" and "double weapon specialization."

Ok, fair enough.  I missed that in my rapid flip-thru (pg. 18 is actually loose and fell on the floor!).  Still isn't much of an advantage, in my not-so-humble opinion -- and if it was too great, it's easily compensated against:  

"Hmm...everyone's spent their weapon profs. in bastard sword yet again...guess we won't be seeing a magical one of those anytime soon..."  :twisted:

Compared with a say, a Female Drow Paladin (UA version), weapon specialization is peanuts.  I had hoped they would have fixed these sort of "power loopholes" by now.  Instead, they seem to be creating more, and trying to balance them.

 YIM  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 752
Joined: Jun 29, 2005
Last Visit: Aug 09, 2020
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada, eh?

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:13 pm 
 

deimos3428 wrote:I had hoped they would have fixed these sort of "power loopholes" by now. Instead, they seem to be creating more, and trying to balance them.


It's not a 'power loophole' if it's balanced though ;)

The female drow example is funny to me, since the character I'm creating for one of my players (as mentioned before), happens to be a female drow. She's a bard/virtuoso though, not a paladin ;)

 WWW  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

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

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:24 pm 
 

Traveller wrote:
GraysonAC wrote:Ah. Well, I certainly concede that then. I do remember the system shock roll, although I think by 2nd Edition (again, if memory serves), there was no bed rest required.

I happen to agree that raising characters from the dead is too easy. In my game, Raise Dead (normally 5th) takes the place of Ressurection (7th), and Ressurection gets moved to True Ressurection (9th). True Res is the domain of the Powers only, not players or NPC spellcasters.

I forgot the Constitution loss for making the system shock roll (CON permanently reduced by 1), but that's a minor thing. :)

Actually, it is a very, very major thing.  The initial constitution score of the character limited the number of times a character could be raised/ressurected.  This number could never be changed, even if the constitution was later restored in some manner.  Far more severe than a mere level of experience loss.

 YIM  


Sage Collector

Posts: 2639
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 11, 2006

Post Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:46 pm 
 

deimos3428 wrote:
Traveller wrote:I forgot the Constitution loss for making the system shock roll (CON permanently reduced by 1), but that's a minor thing. :)

Actually, it is a very, very major thing. The initial constitution score of the character limited the number of times a character could be raised/ressurected. This number could never be changed, even if the constitution was later restored in some manner. Far more severe than a mere level of experience loss.

*mutters something about people "forgetting" things that had been posted on another thread, earlier the same day* ;)
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14478

(And here's me thinking you read everything, Traveller :)) *friendly jab* ^^

  
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 5 of 1012, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8910