Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Why D&D 3rd Edition Was Part of the Decline

Deuce Traveler

2012 Newfag
Patron
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
2,902
Location
Okinawa, Japan
Grab the Codex by the pussy Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture
I believe the decline is everywhere, and not just in CRPGs, but also music, television, writing, politics, law, and numerous other points in our culture. So if I believe such a fact it probably won’t seem odd to you that I also believe that 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons (both 3.0 and 3.5) was part of the decline. I say this even though 3rd edition not only saved the brand, but also tabletop roleplaying in general.

I have have been playing pen and paper RPGs (BECMI D&D) and computer RPGs (Temple of Apshai) for 29 straight years, and so I’m a large fan of the genre and the literature in which the earlier versions were inspired. Gary Gygax wrote his Appendix N listing his favorite fantasy and science fiction works, and if you read those books you can see the direct connections with his game. Original and Advanced Dungeons and Dragons were very different, but they both had simplistic character creation and complex resolution tables. Events outside of the tables could be resolved quickly per the dungeon master, who often would declare something arbitrary such as “well, that pit is pretty wide. If you roll below your Dexterity score on a D20, I’ll rule that you make the leap. Else you’ll fall the 60 feet and take 6d6 points of damage. Up to you.”

The resolution tables and dungeon master fiat allowed the game to progress at a reasonable clip, because there was a dungeon to explore, and what was in that dungeon was greatly influenced by pulp literature. You were discovering the weird and the dangerous, filled with hostile denizens which stabbed and poisoned and permanently level drained, devious traps of all kinds that awaited adventurers foolhardy enough to stomp into a room without prodding for potential triggers, and hordes of treasure that gave the most experience points of the adventure just by pocketing such since the gold was the goal.

Advanced Dungeons and Dragons second edition came along, and some people would say that this unpopular version was the start of the decline of the brand name. And they have some valid points with how corporate and clean the feel of the books were compared with the 1st edition books and their Gygaxian prose and Erol Otus art. And although the 2nd edition rule books were boring, the campaign settings that were pushed along with the edition were not. This is the edition that brought us Planescape and its alien city of Sigil and Lady of Pain, Spelljammer and its magical sailing ships and miniaturized giant space hamsters flying though space, and Dark Sun with its dying, ruined planet, Bron artwork and cannibalistic Halflings. Despite the flaws of both TSR and 2nd edition, the game was still about exploring the strange.

Then 3rd edition came out, and the abandonment of imagination. Dungeons and Dragons gave way to Characters and Classes. Dungeon master fiat was discouraged and with it dungeons that did not follow well established and codified rules. We had the rise of the player character as the focal point of the game rather than the dungeon. Character creation and leveling went from a simplified format to the major effort of the game. Now players mapped exactly how they wanted to advance each character so that in a few levels they could have a rogue who could phase through shadows or a sorcerer that could grow wings. Characters were now unique butterflies to develop and grow into a beautiful vision of fantastic escapism, and because of this new focus anything that might harm this blooming flower had to be avoided. Players might roll a poor character and feel bad about playing next to the guy with better luck, so a point buy system was introduced to avoid feelings of inferiority. After all, the low level character deaths went from being fairly common to quite rare, so we wouldn’t want someone to play their subpar character all the way to the epic levels. Treasure no longer gave experience points, but encounters now did instead, meaning that there were specific rules developed on what made an allowable encounter for a dungeon master to create and combat became the goal rather than having characters find clever ways around monsters and obstacles to get the treasure if they wished to embark upon an alternate way to play.

Because of the emphasis on character creation and leveling, Wizards of the Coast decided that it would use the OGL licensing concept to offload the burden of developing adventure modules to 3rd party publishers and instead focus on splat books where they could throw in new character classes, character races and magic spells. But with some notable exceptions, the 3rd party developers shunned creating dungeons and also starting putting out splat books. And I admit there is a lot of fun in creating a character in Dungeons and Dragons 3rd edition (and Pathfinder) along with mapping out future progression. The dungeons themselves are not as fun as the magic items have to follow specific rules and are scaled to my level in the same way as monster encounters. Combat takes longer and there are a lot more sections to read over because dungeon master fiat was discouraged and there is a section of rules for any odd combat maneuver one may attempt. The NPC monsters may have templates added to them, such as demonic or fay, because the dungeon master should be allowed to have fun spending hours designing characters too, but this adds to the amount of time looking up rules instead of resolving combat.

3rd edition gave way to 4th edition, which was influenced by video games such as World of Warcraft. Again, you play a unique butterfly, but now your butterfly has even more advanced powers at first level, which is the result of edition power creep. 4th edition is giving way to D&D Next, and I have no idea what it is and I don’t care, but a part of me is curious whether or not the paladin will be able to have arrows bounce off his chest while shooting laser beams from his eyes.

But what 3rd edition did was give us the OGL and with it a revival of the old school RPGs. Because of the OGL there are now free, downloadable games that emulate the earlier editions such as OSRIC and Dark Dungeons. The D&D grognard site called Dragonsfoot also houses fan-made adventure modules based on these clones of older editions. Castles and Crusades and Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG are purchasable newer games which put welcome twists on the older editions and are also made possible because of the Open Game License of D&D 3rd edition. In fact, the goal of the originator of the OGL was to make the game more easily available to the public so that Dungeons and Dragons would never die.

But despite the OGL, 3rd edition has a lot that to answer for. It got away from the idea of exploring the dangerous and unknown, shirking it in order to make the player feel as if his character was a destined hero and I do enjoy it for what it is. But I prefer the feeling of dread and anticipation that occurs when my low-ability score adventurer is hanging out with his injured fellows midway through the giant mushroom dungeon and wondering whether they should push on for a chance for the big score, or try to escape with the few coppers and silver pieces they were able to swipe from the nest of blood-sucking stirges.
 

Mother Russia

Andhaira
Andhaira
Dumbfuck Queued
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
3,876
Codex 2013
We had the rise of the player character as the focal point of the game rather than the dungeon.

This is a GOOD thing, one of the main good things about 3e as it resulted in many new rpgs that did similar and offered great character options. No more would 2 fighters be mechanically the same and utterly boring from level to level.

Overall the above article is not that good. For one thing, AD&D 2e was a great edition, superior to Gygax's version. Ofcourse, that is to be expected, as more people tinkered with the rules, hundreds of thousands playtested the originals to their breaking point, etc etc. Apart from the obvious flaws, AD&D 2e was unlucky in a couple of different respects: First, it came about in the heyday of the DAEMONIK D&D movement that was taking parents of nerds by storm, and thus had to gloss over certain things. Demons could no longer be called demons and had to use retarded names that I still cannot pronounce properly and that inspire no dread whatsoever (Glaberzu? WTF is that? Some type of cheese?) Furthermore, cool classes like the assassin had to be cut.

Anyhow, D&D has always been shit to be honest. It only rightfully deserves praise for starting the whole shebang, without which we would also not have had the wonderful crpgs we played during our youths, games we all will likely remember fondly till the day we die, some of which will probably never be surpassed, at least not in our nostalgia tinged memories.

However, there is no such thing as the perfect rpg. The best tabletop fantasy rpg has been IMO WFRP v2.0, but even that was flawed. One of the flaws being there were not many character options. However, the career system did make up for that to a good extent, as did PC expendibility (note though that WFRP v 2.0 was less lethal than V1.0 due to the Fate Point mechanic)

The New Iron Kingdoms rpg seems pretty good too though, but I haven't really given it a closer look. Legend of the 5 Rings 4th edition also looks amazing, but it too has some flaws. But these games offer an experience D&D cannot give, which is ok I guess as D&D too has not become a niche type of game, catering to a certain playing style all it's own.
 

catfood

AGAIN
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
9,350
Location
Nirvana for mice
I just want to point out the irony in the fact that, over the years, P&P games have gotten more complex than their fore-bearers, while CRPGs have only gotten more and more simplified.

Also Grunker :troll:
 

DeepOcean

Arcane
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
7,395
Never understood why the only redeemable trait of a paladin can be achieved with level one in IWD 2 and both NWNs.
 

Deuce Traveler

2012 Newfag
Patron
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
2,902
Location
Okinawa, Japan
Grab the Codex by the pussy Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture
Mother Russia , you say the article is not that good, but then you pick apart the article by saying you have a differing opinion on Gygaxian awesomeness and you give support to AD&D second edition, which I never really took a swing at besides saying I had found the core rulebooks dull in comparison to 1e.

A crap article would not be one that defies your own opinion, but instead would be one with extraneous grammatical or spelling errors, statements of opinion posing as facts or full of rambling incoherence.

You should have wrote "Overall the above article needed better editing. There were two unneeded, additional words which a child would have recognized as extraneous. The author of this piece is likely too impatient to proofread his own work, therefore it is likely that he lacks in discipline and rigorous care and is a product of this generation's media which regards Youtube K-Pop and tentacle anime as forms of high art. He could also be said to lack friends or people otherwise familiar, as he could not find someone to proofread his work, and so we may surmise that he is deficient in mental or physical attributes which leads society to shun him. Therefore we should ignore any pronouncements made by this degenerate individual."

Iron Kingdoms is a pretty nifty concept, making your heroes awesome because of their derpy super powers and not because of the magical items they have collected over the years.

DeepOcean , BECMI Dungeons and Dragons handles this more to your liking. A fighter who reaches name level and meets certain requirements is eligible to become a paladin or an avenger (original D&D's anti-paladin). Those not meeting the requirements can still become knights instead, with different associated benefits.
 

Mother Russia

Andhaira
Andhaira
Dumbfuck Queued
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
3,876
Codex 2013
Mother Russia , you say the article is not that good, but then you pick apart the article by saying you have a differing opinion on Gygaxian awesomeness and you give support to AD&D second edition, which I never really took a swing at besides saying I had found the core rulebooks dull in comparison to 1e.

A crap article would not be one that defies your own opinion, but instead would be one with extraneous grammatical or spelling errors, statements of opinion posing as facts or full of rambling incoherence.

You should have wrote "Overall the above article needed better editing. There were two unneeded, additional words which a child would have recognized as extraneous. The author of this piece is likely too impatient to proofread his own work, therefore it is likely that he lacks in discipline and rigorous care and is a product of this generation's media which regards Youtube K-Pop and tentacle anime as forms of high art. He could also be said to lack friends or people otherwise familiar, as he could not find someone to proofread his work, and so we may surmise that he is deficient in mental or physical attributes which leads society to shun him. Therefore we should ignore any pronouncements made by this degenerate individual."

Iron Kingdoms is a pretty nifty concept, making your heroes awesome because of their derpy super powers and not because of the magical items they have collected over the years.

DeepOcean , BECMI Dungeons and Dragons handles this more to your liking. A fighter who reaches name level and meets certain requirements is eligible to become a paladin or an avenger (original D&D's anti-paladin). Those not meeting the requirements can still become knights instead, with different associated benefits.

You misunderstand me. I am not attacking you, I just meant that I think the article is not good because it contains fallacies such as saying AD&D 2e was bad, focus on characters rather than on dungeons is bad, etc etc.

Also Iron Kingdoms is different to Iron Heroes, which I think is what you are referring to when you say super powers. Iron Kingdoms is a new rpg released last year (there was also a d20 OGl version released back in the day) which is set in a steampunk world where magick meets teknology. Like Arcanum. In fact, this game is the closest to the feel of Arcanum than any pnp rpg released, IMO. It utilizes a character system similar to wfrp 1 & 2's career system.
 
Self-Ejected

Excidium

P. banal
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
13,696
Location
Third World
I really dislike the class system and everything relating to it in third edition. I've gone through this already in another thread but yeah, it's shit, and had me horribly prejudiced against D&D for a long time. The one positive thing about in my opinion is the core d20 system, it's not the best thing evar but it's certainly better than every little shit working differently and following its own tables and shit like in AD&D.

But a lot of that stuff you posted there has less to do with the actual game and more to how you play. Sure, a lot of people that like 3E play it to build horribly minmaxed characters and test their mechanics against monsters but nothing stops you from allowing more freedom and creativity in YOUR game. Fuck it's even faster/easier because everything is d20+modifier vs a DC. You can think of a roll for anything in a second.

And they have some valid points with how corporate and clean the feel of the books were compared with the 1st edition books and their Gygaxian prose and Erol Otus art.
Now, I'll agree about the art, the 2nd edition books have some really wtf-inducing art here and there (and the revised books with their hideous black covers) but this "Gygaxian prose" is some serious grognard bullshit. Good times when books were edited and formatted by completely inept people so learning the rules was a chore, huh?

Also
Players might roll a poor character and feel bad about playing next to the guy with better luck, so a point buy system was introduced to avoid feelings of inferiority.
This is grognardian bullshit too for two reasons. One, AD&D already had a bunch of alternative rolling methods to reduce the chance of getting a shitty character and two, in the 3e system lower ability scores are much more detrimental than in AD&D where outside of class requirements it only really makes any difference if it's really high or really low.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
6,207
Location
The island of misfit mascots
I've still got a soft spot for 2nd edition that makes it my favourite, but I'd have to say that 3rd edition improved some things and declined others, and in a different way to the OP's view. Firstly I should point out that I think the different strengths of the different systems means that things that are advantageous in a computer D&D game are often disadvantageous in P&P. 2nd edition remains my favourite for computer D&D adaptations, and not just because of the infinity engine games. A large part of computer D&D is combining diverse classes, none of which are capable of standing alone, and party makeup is a large element of the strategic fun, having to balance early game strengths (fighter classes), mid-game strengths (how many of your party can you afford to dual-class, knowing that they'll be a dead weight on the party until the late game; how many multiclass characters do you want knowing that while they'll dominate the mid-game they'll be overtaken by dual-class characters and max-level mages later), and late-game strengths (when that rogue that you dual-classed to mage a while back finally becomes a powerhouse). Not to mention that with relatively strict class roles, the choice to go fighter-heavy, magic-heavy, or whether or not to employ a rogue, what hybrid classes you include etc contributes greatly to both character creation in a 'create your whole party' game, and to the various choices whether to keep or swap out a party member in a 'gather a party around you game' (back when you weren't handed the entire character roster on a plate, but had to find and actively choose who to recruit and who to dump to make room for them).

But there were definitely things that needed improvement. Even the biggest fans of mages doing the 'start weak, end up all-powerful if they survive to mid-levels' should recognise that it was a bit silly that in 2nd edition a 1st level mage with optimum spell choice and application (i.e. using grease to its maximum effect - it's an incredibly powerful spell in P&P due to the ability to localise it to, say, the cat's feet) was demonstrated to still have statistically 50/50 odds in a fight against a housecat:) Not a giant or monstrous housecat - just ye plain old cat that commoners keep as pets. Of my cats, one is a pretty mean son-of-a-bitch who quickly established himself as the dominant cat in the neighbourhood, and yet my 2 yr old kid can smack it down, so having ANY adventurer having only a 50% chance of beating a housecat means that they really did overdo the early vulnerability of mages. Also, playing an individual character is very different to playing a party - you don't want there to be any time when a player's character has become superflous because the party mage has reached the stage of being able to negate the need for a tank via immunity and 'protection from...' spells whilst also becoming an 'obliterate everything' machine. In that sense, the greater diversity of roles and character builds was very welcome in the P&P version, while weakening the strategic elements of the crpg version.

They could have done it a lot better though - there isn't enough of a sacrifice imposed on fighter-caster builds (whether through multiclassing, or just through the bard in it's enhanced 3.5 version (especially if you include the rogue/bard speciality player's book), as the advantages (to the player, not the party) of multiclassing clearly outweigh the disadvantages (unless you deliberately mimic the traditional 2nd edition 'fighter/caster multiclass' by taking altenating levels in each, rather than using a few fighter levels to turn your cleric into a melee powerhouse that heal almost as well as pure clerics, or a few mage levels to give your fighter a bunch of protection spells, which can be cast with armour at the cost of a feat or two, or can be combined with a dexterity fighter to give him superior protection to heavy armour with none of the dex penalties (e.g. combining mage armour, protection from non-magical weapons, mirror image, stoneskin, with grease to cast on a melee opponent's weapon hand, etc). Eliminate the ability to create characters that can be masters of their trade and STILL take a side-interest in a completely different role, and the character creation would be a much bigger improvement from 2nd ed.

But the thing that pisses me off in 3rd edition P&P is the way the exp system basically mandates a high magic setting. Try playing an ultra-low magic setting and you'll see what I mean - the monsters' challenge levels (and hence exp) is set assuming a certain degree of loot and magic items at each level (some versions even give estimates of what degree of magic items characters should have at each level). If you buck that with a low-magic setting, then after a few level-ups, the challenge rating gets thrown out of whack and you basically have to rewrite the whole challenge rating/experience-given relationship to avoid characters getting WEAKER vs the same challenge rating as they increase in level.

2nd edition really only needed 3 substantial improvements:
- a skill system (3 and 3.5 both inclined in this regard);
- keep mages vulnerable early, but give them enough of a 1st level hp bonus to avoid the absurdity of house cats being a serious threat.
- allow mid-level straight fighters to choose between their traditional general weapon-damage role (with an increase in tactical options ala 3rd ed), and becoming 'mage-killers' with massive resistances and abilities designed to keep mages under threat (an increasing chance of bypassing protection spells, increased ability to charge down mages mid-cast - whatever is needed to make sure mages are always facing some serious threat).
 
In My Safe Space
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
21,899
Codex 2012
Dungeonpunk.
Going away from simulationism - instead of including the more modern discoveries about medieval martial arts and equipment into the game, they threw out all semblances of realism.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,418
Location
Copenhagen

You know, I thought about replying to this thread three or four times, but the premise is just so obviously flawed I have no clue where to even begin. There's one or two points that are correct when isolated from the central argument, but the central argument that OD&D facilitated a certain playstyle with its arbitrary and contrived bullshit is just so bizarre it's pointless to really go into this debate.

I mean, look at this:

Dungeonpunk.
Going away from simulationism - instead of including the more modern discoveries about medieval martial arts and equipment into the game, they threw out all semblances of realism.
Here we have someone plainly stating that AD&D aspired more to realism than the OGL. Where do you begin with this? There's just nothing to say. AD&D as simulationist. I mean CHRIST. Look at it. The Nathan Fillion meme is the only thing to adequately demonstrate how the reaction to Awor's statement should be:

nathan-fillion-firefly-gif.gif


But Awor's comment does serve to show that people have wildly different experiences playing with AD&D precisely because it was such a shattered and nonsensical system. People who play it often end up having GM directing a ton of on-the-fly rule decisions, so it turns out people have more fun together than they did because of AD&D specifically. There's nothing wrong with this, but there are systems specifically designed to do this. Giving the credit to the random collection of rules that really is D&D (it's hardly even a system in the sense of a set of coherent rules drawing from the same parameters) is giving credit to a system that should be given to its Campaign material, its GM and its players.

This place has its share of nostalgia, but since we always get accused of it I think we've been OK at distancing ourselves from it during cRPG discussions, actually. When it comes to AD&D though, it seems people of this forum will claim just about anything about AD&D without that being part of the actual system or product.

D&D 3.5 has many flaws. Chief among them Wizard of the Coast's total abandonment of cool Culture-related product, such as the Forgotten Realms material for AD&D. That's not a fault of the system at all though - it's not a flaw in mechanics or in system design. It's a failure of marketing direction. A fault of the suits. No system designer can be blamed for the low quality of Campaign material. Of course, 3.5 also has systemic flaws. But in no way are these flaws as numerous as a system literally designed to be more complex than it needed to be on purpose. AD&D is the only system I know of (beyond joke-systems like Hackmaster) that is so insanely complex in its quantity of rules, so completely non-systematic, yet so mind-boggingly simplistic in what it can achieve with those overly complex and arbitrary rules.

D&D 3.5 has nothing to answer for (it deserves massive praise, especially for ultimately bringing us Pathfinder and with that perhaps the very best adventure paths we have ever had for fantasy P&P). It deserves praise for thinking about what it wanted to achieve with its mechanics instead of just choosing "whatever looked or sounded cool" like the designers of AD&D did.

4th Edition was a failed experiment. I always giggle when people compare it to WoW. That's always a good tell-tale sign that people are just wanking off to nostalgia and actually haven't played any of these new systems they're criticizing. 4th Edition is not very good (though used in a turn-based cRPG it could be excellent), but it plays nothing like WoW. It's also pretty hilarious that the OP writes that

Characters were now unique butterflies

in 4th Edition, since perhaps the chief accusation towards 4th Edition is that it is a regression in the sense that suddenly every character played the same (sometimes even more so than in the dreaded AD&D).

OD&D is a fucked up system, currently only usable by mentally deranged players with glasses painted black with soot of nostalgia. That's why, when defending OD&D, people will always point to assets not related to the system, but rather to the fluff. They *know* the system is shit. But here's the kicker: systems and fluff are seperate. Wizards most definetely deserve a huge kick in the balls for abandoning the fantastic campaign material brought to us side by side with OD&D rule products.

But AD&D as a system is a pile of steaming dog-shit, and 3.5 is very, very, VERY good at doing what it wants to do. I think that with anything in this world, quality should be based on that judgment alone: what does this want, and how well does it do it?

EDIT: I want to stress that I very much respect OD&D. Given that it was created in a vacuum and something completely new, designers to come had a rock-solid game to build on. If not for most of the ancient systems - giants whose shoulders to stand on - none of the refined systems we have today would have been possible. Including GURPS for which I have so high praise. But claiming that system design itself has declined is a complete fallacy. Campaign materials have (for D&D at least, many other Campaign material have inclined hugely!), but that's a separate thing. Wizards waged they could sell more prestige classes than shitty fantasy fluff, and they were right.
 
In My Safe Space
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
21,899
Codex 2012
Here we have someone plainly stating that AD&D aspired more to realism than the OGL. Where do you begin with this? There's just nothing to say. AD&D as simulationist. I mean CHRIST. Look at it. The Nathan Fillion meme is the only thing to adequately demonstrate how the reaction to Awor's statement should be:
No. Let's see:
AD&D 2nd Ed had lots of reality-based explanations for rules.
AD&D 2nd Ed had tons upon tons of real weapons and armour based on the knowledge of its days.
AD&D 2nd Ed tried to simulate differences between these weapons and armour based on the knowledge of its days.

D&D 3rd Ed had:
DUNGEONPUNK!
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,418
Location
Copenhagen
Here we have someone plainly stating that AD&D aspired more to realism than the OGL. Where do you begin with this? There's just nothing to say. AD&D as simulationist. I mean CHRIST. Look at it. The Nathan Fillion meme is the only thing to adequately demonstrate how the reaction to Awor's statement should be:
AD&D 2nd Ed had lots of reality-based explanations for rules.
AD&D 2nd Ed had tons upon tons of real weapons and armour based on the knowledge of its days.
AD&D 2nd Ed tried to simulate differences between these weapons and armour based on the knowledge of its days.

I... I lack words. I simply cannot believe what I am reading.

You're talking about a system where Armor makes you difficult to hit.

You're talking about a system where the only difference between a longsword and a two-handed sword is a slight variation in damage and when you'll get to act.

You're talking about a system where the difference between one armor and the other is solely how well it defends you.

You're talking about a system where a mage's powerlevel has no bearing on how hard his spells are to resist.

You're talking about a system with the most arbitrary bounderies on when strength allows you to do things and what it allows you.

You're talking about a system where your ability to use complicated physical feats is based on dex and uses a d20-roll, yet stuff like tinkering with traps or opening a lock is a percentile roll - Dex and differences in race hardly even factor into the equation. One feat of dexterity is one roll and based on a stat, the other, completely similar feat of dexterity works in a totally different way. There's no rhyme or reason as to why.

You're talking about a system where your amount of body-muscle and NOT your hand-to-eye coordination determines a bonus to your accuracy... unless you use bows, because why not.

You're talking about a system that groups people into locked career-paths with COMPLETELY locked assets, unless they from the day they chose their career decided to have wider focus, in which case they're locked into that instead. Except if your human. Why? BECAUSE!

You're talking about a system where almost any "WHY?" you ask can only be answered with "BECAUSE NO REASON."

You're talking about a system where the completely arbitrary process of "leveling up" - something only connected to the real world via "experience" - allows you to literally take more direct sword hits to the face.

You're talking about a system that caps every stat at an arbitrary level and uses completely different rules and systems for the six core stats, yet uses a similar way of leveling the assets, except for one stat where people of a certain career gain access to special new variables for Strength ONLY, and ONLY if they have exactly one numeric variable within the 25 total variables.

You're talking about a system where certain careers gain special benefits from a stat but ONLY on certain levels of that stat.

These are obvious, incontestable assets from the system in direct opposition to simulationism and sometimes even contradictory to the "system" itself.

I could go on and on and on... if you didn't say it with such conviction, I'd be 500% sure you were trolling the fuck out of me. Even the most die hard fans of AD&D should never claim in front of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary that AD&D could be called anything remotely related to simulationist or realistic. It never aspired to such.

Let me stress that I have NOTHING against a system simply because it is not simulationist, as I've said many times I don't think you can invalidate anything simply because it doesn't attempt to achieve realism. I even respect AD&D and the guys who wrote it because of the legacy they created.

But claiming AD&D is simulationist is answerable only with:

jackie-chan-images_14807.jpg


Even the mild simulationist elements in GURPS light outshines this system by miles. Hell, even a contrived and simplistic system like World of Darkness' is leagues more simulationist and attempts to emulate reality way, waaaay more than AD&D. Even motherfucking Warhammer rules attempt more motherfucking realism than motherfucking AD&D.

I have no idea why you would claim something so blatantly false, but I can only attribute it to a complete inability to accept facts.
 
In My Safe Space
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
21,899
Codex 2012
You're talking about a system with the most arbitrary bounderies on when strength allows you to do things and what it allows you.
IIRC strength tables were heavily based on real world stats.

You're talking about a system where your ability to use complicated physical feats is based on dex and uses a d20-roll, yet stuff like tinkering with traps or opening a lock is a percentile roll - Dex and differences in race hardly even factor into the equation. One feat of dexterity is one roll and based on a stat, the other, completely similar feat of dexterity works in a totally different way. There's no rhyme or reason as to why.
It's probably because it's based on in-depth knowledge on how locks work and how traps work and on various types of their designs, not just dexterity.

You're talking about a system where almost any "WHY?" you ask can only be answered with "BECAUSE NO REASON."
No. Everything is explained in the manual, usually basing on reality. Just because the explanation is wrong, it doesn't mean that there's no explanation.

I... I lack words. I simply cannot believe what I am reading.

You're talking about a system where Armor makes you difficult to hit.
Take into account that most of system make armour much weaker than it was in reality. I've seen stats for armour in realistic systems (GURPS from before the newest Low Tech isn't one of them) and piercing armour usually simply isn't an option, unless you're using a thrusting weapon, and even then is still pretty difficult. So, the main way of defeating armour is going around it, which is based on the opponent getting hit in a specific place, not with a specific force. So, they got it right.

You're talking about a system where the only difference between a longsword and a two-handed sword is a slight variation in damage and when you'll get to act.
As I have said, it's outdated. Knowledge about how exactl
According to the manual, it's because it's linked to speed with which you swing your weapon (because if you are stronger, you can move weight faster.)
y these weapons were used is a new thing. Too bad that 3rd ed didn't make use of this new knowledge and went dungeonpunk instead.

You're talking about a system where your amount of body-muscle and NOT your hand-to-eye coordination determines a bonus to your accuracy... unless you use bows, because why not.
According to the manual, it's because it's linked to speed with which you swing your weapon (because if you are stronger, you can move weight faster.)

You're talking about a system where the completely arbitrary process of "leveling up" - something only connected to the real world via "experience" - allows you to literally take more direct sword hits to the face.
It doesn't. It allows you to get hit in a less damaging way and to survive light/moderate wounds that would kill/incapacitate a less battle-hardened experienced person. Both of which is realistic, though AD&D cuts off drastic HP progression way too late.
Getting a hit when you are helpless still kills you like a less experienced person.

But claiming AD&D is simulationist is answerable only with:

jackie-chan-images_14807.jpg
Where did you learn that debating style? Is there some kind of a Jesus Camp for leftists, because I meet a lot of leftist people with the same debating style.

Even the mild simulationist elements in GURPS light outshines this system by miles. Hell, even a contrived and simplistic system like World of Darkness' is leagues more simulationist and attempts to emulate reality way, waaaay more than AD&D. Even motherfucking Warhammer rules attempt more motherfucking realism than motherfucking AD&D.

I have no idea why you would claim something so blatantly false, but I can only attribute it to a complete inability to accept facts.
I never claimed that it was good at being simulationist. Just that the origin of it's rules and stats was from reality.
 
Self-Ejected

Excidium

P. banal
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
13,696
Location
Third World
I never claimed that it was good at being simulationist. Just that the origin of it's rules and stats was from reality.
Like every RPG ever. That's what the rules exist for, simulating reality.

You know it's time to abandon a pnp thread when people start arguing over GNS shit
 
In My Safe Space
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
21,899
Codex 2012
Like every RPG ever. That's what the rules exist for, simulating reality.

You know it's time to abandon a pnp thread when people start arguing over GNS shit
Some invent rules for rules sake or simply simulate MMORPGs and stuff like that.
 

Alex

Arcane
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
8,752
Location
São Paulo - Brasil
I never claimed that it was good at being simulationist. Just that the origin of it's rules and stats was from reality.
Like every RPG ever. That's what the rules exist for, simulating reality.

You know it's time to abandon a pnp thread when people start arguing over GNS shit

Well, a lot of RPGs have rules designed to give you "story logic", or even "game logic" rather than reality. Like, in Polaris, all you do in every scene is roll a dice. If you meet the target number (which depends only in how many times you have failed before), then nothing bad happens. Of course, what happens depends on the context, but my point is that the specific target number mechanic is based on story purposes, it is trying to give you te basic fraework to tell a tragedy, not trying to encapsulate some aspect of the game world's reality.

Not that old D&D doesn't have any of this. Hit points is pretty much a game logic thing, and it is up to the game group to give meaning o that clawed attack by the dragon which just got 25 of the warrior's hps. Getting a keep/castle/thieve's guild on 10th level can either be game or story logic, but it certainly isn't based much on the reality of the world (unless you are in one of those wacky game where your level is actually a "thing").

Still, even if you perceive these as flawed, the older D&Ds always tried to base its rules on reality somewhat. Hit points may be abstract as heck, but if you had lost hit points, you were supposed to be wounded, so that you would need some kind of healing to recover them. The keep on the 10th level was supposed to be something related to fame, which was abstracted by the character level. Spells may have been described as game elements, but what they were in game was supposed to be thought over, and creative use of it was encouraged. A fireball wasn't just supposed to create a static sphere o fire based damage, but actually expanded to fill its volume, and burned things it found on the way. Even levels were supposed to somehow be related to "vital force" so that undead monsters could drain you of it.

The point here then is that, older edition games, by having most of its rules based on some element of game reality, encouraged people to toy with reality to change rules in their favor. Maybe this is more so because of their associated culture rather than specific stuff in the game-books, but in AD&D 1st edition, you would be more likely to find a group trying to argue that, if the light spell's manifestation was a spark that became a ghostly ball of light, then they should be able to ignite oil by casting the spell directly on it. Or that they wanted to use the magic missile to try to move the level behind those grates. Or that, instead of using their thief's disarm traps skill, they wanted a description of the actual trap. After all, if they could think of a way to disarm it that was simple enough not dice should be rolled.

P.S. I also loved the way Gary Gygax wrote. Maybe it wasn't oncise or easy for rule keeping, but it had a lot of character.
 

tuluse

Arcane
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,400
Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong
A fireball wasn't just supposed to create a static sphere o fire based damage, but actually expanded to fill its volume, and burned things it found on the way.
3.5E Fireball said:
A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.
You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.) If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.
The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.

It sounds like they still do that as of 3.5E.
 

Alex

Arcane
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
8,752
Location
São Paulo - Brasil
tuluse

I may have misread it badly, but it seems to me that the fireball will, at most, a 20ft radius circle will be affected, whereas in 1st eidtion it would just expand to any shape until it consumed around 33,000 cubic feet. This page explains the different better than me. I shouldn't have used the fireball as an example, because 3rd edition inherits a lot of it that had been the default in earlier editions. But my point is that the metal melting and flame setting properties in 3rd edition are special effects, whereas in earlier ones it was assumed to be a direct consequence from the amount of fire damage (so that any other fire spell doing similar amount of damage would act similarly). Of course, you could do it like that in 3rd edition as well, but there was a culture, that grew bigger throughout 3e's life, that saw all this as game rules, so that they should be judged exactly rather than left for GM's fiat.
 

tuluse

Arcane
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,400
Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong
I think the idea behind a lot of stuff in 3E was to explicitly state what things did so there would be less confusion and more consistency. This doesn't stop the DM from doing anything (well other than saying metal isn't melted).

Your point about size of area affected is a separate issue from what you brought up in the first place. Yeah they toned it down in 3E, but it still has all the physical properties of a giant sphere of fire. You seemed to imply that 3E was ignoring the physical existence of the spells and what they might do in favor of just "everyone in this area takes XD6 fire damage". Which is not happening.

In your link the wording for fireball in AD&D is almost identical to 3.5.

The burst of the fireball does not expend a considerable amount of pressure...
Besides causing damage to creatures, the fireball ignites all combustible materials within its burst radius, and the heat of the fireball will melt soft metals such as gold, copper, silver, etc....
A streak flashes from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body prior to attaining the prescribed range, flowers into the fireball.
 

Alex

Arcane
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
8,752
Location
São Paulo - Brasil
tuluse

Like I said in my previous post, you could play 3e like people played 1e and 2e as well, with the reality driving the action rather than the game. The thing is that the greater focus on consistency and being explicit meant that it made the game easier to play if you were plying it as an exact game, with exact wording and what not. Meanwhile, because the game focused on self similarity and avoided too much complication, it had less material with which the players could go a little "wild".

One example I like to use is the chromatic orb. Chromatic Orb is a spell that, as far as I know, never made it to 3e (at least officially). The main reason is, probably, because it is broken as hell. It uses ts high price material component and scaling effects to justify that it is a 1st level spell that can cause instant death. This, I think, shows an important focus difference between the earlier and later editions. The earlier editions where concerned mostly in creating or recreating the interesting set ups of fantasy worlds. The point of chromatic orb isn't that it is broken, but that it is a freaking cool spell. Making a freaking cool spell is the most important thing about a spell, in these editions, with concerns such as level balance or class balance being secondary. In other words, the spell, as an element of the game world, is more important than the spell as a game element.

So, in the end, the question is not what each edition allows you to. Of course, if you want to play 3e like 1e or 2e is normally played, you can. And you can do the opposite as well. The problem here is that 1e lends itself for the more imaginative style of play better than 3e, in my opinion, while 2e lends itself better for an imaginative and detailed, style of play.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom