I ran across a page on the Interweb from a guy basically blogging about the 3rd Edition release of the game. Some quotes below. Original post here.
Anything sound familiar?
Now, I have suggested that 3rd edition D&D does cater to more munchkinism and hack and slashing and combat than 2nd ed. did, and I genuinely fear this may mean new players picking up the game for the first time may be MORE inclined to think combat is the primary goal in such games. I may even have moved off combat sooner and looked to roleplaying earlier rather than later because 1st ed. AD&D combat was rather shoddy. ... If poor game mechanics was your problem with 2nd ed., then rejoice. It wasn't my problem, however, and I didn't find 2nd ed. difficult to understand or keep straight in my head.
What ho, good fellows, and roleplayers pay heed, for now 3rd edition is actually out and information is more than mere speculation. And it bodes not well to my sensibilities, this I can tell you with certainty. Seems many feel 3rd edition is geared up for little munchkins, most of the changes dealing with combat or related matters, and characters seem to have that as their goal in life, to acquire skills and feats in this arena, for that is their purpose in life, fighting. Sorry, that's not my idea of a roleplaying game.
So where are I now, opinion wise on matters concerning 3rd edition? I'm not happy. Alas, what else is new? Many tell me (though I freely admit all of them are already experienced gamers) that they will continue to play 2nd edition AD&D, though I've gotten my first letter from a guy (I'm not sure how old he is) who wishes to embrace 3rd edition D&D, though even he admits they should compile about 50 pages of house rules to satisfactorily repair the new system and make it roleplayer friendly. Good luck, in either case. I will always maintain that the game mechanical system that supports your roleplaying efforts isn't as important as the actual roleplaying, and whatever system helps you achieve roleplaying, no matter how much you may wish to adjust it, is fine with me.
I now have excellent reasons to believe that 3rd edition is not just a revamp of 2nd edition (as 2nd edition was a revamp of 1st edition), but is, in fact, more along the lines of a whole new game. Yes, there are many things that look like a simple rework or a new way to do the old stuff (like the new rolls to hit and the new AC ratings, since they just use simple conversions and go in a different direction, they are essentially the same thing and only use different numbers to represent the same thing), but an awful lot of 3rd edition D&D is very different.
There are many people who champion new systems and disparage the AD&D system as quite awful and practically insist you play THEIR favorite system, and when they do such that's fine with me for often I find they haven't really understood AD&D or its systems or have made one erroneous assumption upon another and got the wrong idea. To them I can only point out other possible ways of looking at it and show them how the system can and does work. I also frequently find they like a particular new system not because of innate superiority over AD&D, but simply because if supports a particular style of play they prefer as a personal choice (for example, if they love hack and slash and nitty-gritty detail in combat that takes hours even for trivial encounters, they might love a system geared up for realism in combat, but that wouldn't make it better for those who didn't like that).
There are also many people out there who, instead, for reasons only known to themselves, if at all, disparage not the game of AD&D itself, but certain ways of playing as inherently inferior or worse, the players of AD&D themselves as lame, immature, unintelligent, childish, or some such other derogatory designation. To them I can only say they are fools and idiots for holding such an opinion on anything. Everybody has different needs, and only if your own needs were to make other people feel badly would one need to go out of their way to say such a thing. Even I, though I do not think highly of particular playing styles like Hack and Slash, Monty Haulism, Munchkinism, Mini Maxing, etc. do not claim they are wrong, and anyone who wishes to play that way is fine with me. We just won't often be playing together as we have different ideas of what is fun, but it doesn't make them wrong or me right, it just makes us different.
However, if it does come to pass that 3rd edition doesn't have any real advantages, and what's more, a lot of odd things in it that make little sense to a roleplayer, then even I can't defend it as a roleplaying choice, and won't. I hope this doesn't mean you won't look at it and make up your own mind, for it will ultimately be those such people who may yet convince me 3rd edition D&D is worth something and does have something of value to offer. I'll await your letters on that matter.
For the Record...
I started Back in "Ye Olden Days" of AD&D 2nd ed. We played with all the books and Dragon Articles we could get our hands on. And we had an ---load of house rules. When 3rd edition came out we all hemmed and hawed and cried out "NEVAR! WE LOVE OUR 2ND EDITION!" And vowed to not move on no matter what.
What happened was we broke up and most stopped playing. A while back I decided the pull was too great and I returned to 3.5 (a year or so ago... Just my luck.) I do love the changes 3.5 brought around. My friend from way back still complained, but his game was so heavily house ruled it wasn't DnD anymore. And he's never happy anyway. 8P
I get a HUGE kick out of all the people who are so violently one way or another. That and, not to seem old and jaded, I've seen this before. It's much funnier to sit through this time.
|
How do you make a system more roleplayer friendly, and why would you need so many houserules to support it?
I would say a system that prevents you from doing anything interesting outside of combat forces you into combat much more than a system that doesn't appear to have many roleplaying rules (again, how many roleplaying rules do you need?).
|
I was initially "opposed" to 3rd edition at first...
I thought the most of iconic characters looked like they should have a blaster pistol on their hip instead of a sword...
But by the time 3e was out, my opinion had changed...
I think a lot had to do with that year long preview we got in Dragon...
I don't know...
Just my random thoughts/opinions...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
How do you make a system more roleplayer friendly, and why would you need so many houserules to support it?
Look at actors (either on stage, or in movies). They have a character that they portray...
That character is not made up totally by the actor playing him, it is made up by those that wrote him/her...
What I am getting at, is those are the "rules" the actor has to use to play the character. The more information the actor has about their character, the better they cay portray their character...
Set this to RPGs, and those rules to role-play by become the little stuff like non-combat related skills and feats or classed npcs that have not a single skill in anything related to combat...
Sure one can RP in a game of chess, but that is TOTAL freeform, and freeform RP has not nor needs a DM...
So RPGs NEED some rules in which to RP under...
But them, that's just my opinion...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Set this to RPGs, and those rules to role-play by become the little stuff like non-combat related skills and feats or classed npcs that have not a single skill in anything related to combat...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I don't really agree with this analysis. Some of the best roleplaying D&D games I ever played in were 1E AD&D. In fact, I found that my players RPed in that system better than they ever did in 3.5. When the social/RP rules are there, players tend to fall back on them in a very generic way. They use diplomacy or what have you and roll the dice. When "diplomacy" and a die roll weren't available, the players were more apt to roleplay the scenario.
In my 3.5E games I require some degree of RP to go with social skills checks, harkening back to what I did DMing 1E AD&D.
|
I think a lot had to do with that year long preview we got in Dragon...
I remember this being a really really good thing. They did a good job of giving you just enough meat to ask yourself what they were planning for other things. Even the transition from 3rd edition to 3.5 had really good communication with the players and the fans as to what kinds of things were being changed and why.
I had very good memories about the communication of those changes. (That's all I'm going to say about that.)
|
|
How do you make a system more roleplayer friendly, and why would you need so many houserules to support it?
I would say a system that prevents you from doing anything interesting outside of combat forces you into combat much more than a system that doesn't appear to have many roleplaying rules (again, how many roleplaying rules do you need?).
Exactly. 50 PAGES!! of houserules to make it roleplayer friendly. WTF is he talking about?
I've seen guidelines, but rules, no. Roleplaying is a personel preferance. You decide how little or how much roleplaying you want in the game, regardless of edition.
|
|
I don't really agree with this analysis.
I too RPed in 1e...
But, it went along the lines of...
If a player came to me and said he wanted to start an inn, I'd just say okay, and wing it (freeform RP, only dictated by my whim)...
Now, if a player comes to me and wants to start an inn, there are some skills (and rules) that can help determine the success of this venture (and sure, a little winging it in there as well)...
Winging it is fine, but it helps to have some guidelines to keep one in check...
*EDIT*
Then there is the issue of Diplomacy...
Without a skill, it's just the player trying to BS you...
At least with the roll (to augment what the the player actually says to the NPC), his BS might be believable to the NPC (even though YOU thought he did not do a good job of BSing the NPC)...
Again, this is just my opinion...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
One of the complaints of several versions of D&D is that XP is completely combat driven. Other systems give experience for things outside of wholesale slaughter, thus making them more "role play friendly".
People use the World of Darkness as an example of a more RP friendly system. I'd have to say that some of my best characters were from D&D. You can have some great roleplaying in D&D if you want to. But the the game is not necessarily centered on it, from a rules view point.
A good group or DM can change anything though.
|
|
I don't really agree with this analysis. Some of the best roleplaying D&D games I ever played in were 1E AD&D. In fact, I found that my players RPed in that system better than they ever did in 3.5. When the social/RP rules are there, players tend to fall back on them in a very generic way. They use diplomacy or what have you and roll the dice. When "diplomacy" and a die roll weren't available, the players were more apt to roleplay the scenario.
In my 3.5E games I require some degree of RP to go with social skills checks, harkening back to what I did DMing 1E AD&D.
Err... Ditto! I share the same experiences and outlook on this. You're starting to scare me, Steer (and I write this as I look over my shoulder to check if you aren't spying on me at this very moment...)! I agree a damn lot with you these days! ;-)
I too RPed in 1e...
But, it went along the lines of...
If a player came to me and said he wanted to start an inn, I'd just say okay, and wing it (freeform RP, only dictated by my whim)...
There wasn't much "winging" at our table. It was about the smarts of the players and the direct role-playing. Yes, the DM had the final word. Just like now. If ever you needed some roll, an attribute check was done (rarely). If we needed more specific rules (to run a business for instance) we were making them up between sessions. We weren't looking for the rule books to give us all the answers. They were guidelines. Starting points. Not ends.
And by the way, I really need to stop writing in the past tense here, because I still play AD&D.
Then there is the issue of Diplomacy...
Without a skill, it's just the player trying to BS you...
Honestly, a DM who can't take a step back and consider the RP of a player from a neutral standpoint (not the RP towards "me, DM", but as it relates to the NPC the player is talking to), or in other words, a DM who can't make abstraction of himself to be a referee and/or interpret NPCs, has to relearn the very basics of DMing by my book.
|
|
If we needed more specific rules (to run a business for instance) we were making them up between sessions. We weren't looking for the rule books to give us all the answers. They were guidelines. Starting points. Not ends.
**
I tried to think of something to say in direct response to what you stated in your post (not just from the quote above), and thought better of it. NOT because I don't have anything nice to say, but because this issue seems to have become like the whole "4e vs. 3e" discussion...
Pointless!!!
I'm going to state X and/or Y, and you (or someone else) is going to attempt to refute it...
I value rules that help add to role-playing. While you, and a few others here do not...
Or perhaps more accurately, don't see the need for them?
Either way...
That's fine...
But don't think me a sub par DM that needs to relearn things because he can't "step back"...
I like rules that are already in place, and the less I need to house-rule the better it is for me...
-That One DIgitalelf Fellow-
I'm not sure what the point of this thread is but...
I like 3.x edition for its rules but I prefer 2nd for its fluff (though I hate that term).
This is hilarious stuff - I remember all this. The very same accusations that were levelled at 3.0 are those being aimed at 4E. Very funny.
If anyone wants to see real nerdrage and edition hate, head over to the Dragonsfoot forums where 3.X is referred to as The Edition That Shall Not Speak Its Name.
Puts everything into perspective.
|
|
I'm not sure what the point of this thread is but...
I think that the original point was how cyclical things can be. There were a lot of people who were saying back in the day how 3rd edition was going to ruin D&D. And that didn't happen.
While there are some similarities between these two transitions, there are also some significant differences.