The reason I pointed out that quote however, was more to illustrate how the "perspective" of D&D has changed.
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.
Somehow, it is that perspective that has been lost to some degree
deimos3428 wrote:Our DM quite simply played Lloth wrong. Very, very wrong.
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
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.
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:
killjoy32 wrote: without getting the players handbook out, i thought you have 3 attacks in 2 rounds from 7th onwards and 2 attacks per round after 14th?
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.
killjoy32 wrote:hey frank...whats the item called in its entirety...as i wouldnt mind a look at that....
MShipley88 wrote:another less admirable trait of the geek-o-cracy that is gaming.
KingOfPain wrote:MShipley88 wrote:another less admirable trait of the geek-o-cracy that is gaming.Geek-o-cracy? Sounds more like a dorktatorship to me.
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.....")
The system has always more closely approximated what happens in professional wrestling than any sort of realistic combat.
Geek-o-cracy? Sounds more like a dorktatorship to me.
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
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.
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.
GraysonAC wrote:3E provides gameplay that gets a lot closer to being balanced than 1st and 2nd Edition versions did. How that is used is up to the DM, and the players. I think if you talk to some folks that actually play the system, you'll find just as many unbalanced encounters. The difference is that the unbalanced in the encounter will be intentional, rather than the result of a DM guessing how strong a given monster is.