But that's the question. Is it just the "modern style" player? Or is there a fundamental difference in the way the game is played?

Good point. I think expectation is everything. Coming from Basic/Expert --> 1e --> 2e. I never thought the thief (rogue) should be as good at dealing damage when compared to a fighter. The 'modern' rogue to me is a lightly armoured fighter, or I guess a ranger (2W fighting). Not once in our 1e/2e games did any player with a thief complain that they were being out DPR'd by any other class - not there role in the adventure. If you played a thief you had a tonne of cool abilities that you could use long after the cleric and mage had run out of spells. 3e sort of killed the thief/rogue by making all of their primary powers 'skills' that anyone could have.

S.

thejeff wrote:

But that's the question. Is it just the "modern style" player? Or is there a fundamental difference in the way the game is played?

Good point. I think expectation is everything. Coming from Basic/Expert --> 1e --> 2e. I never thought the thief (rogue) should be as good at dealing damage when compared to a fighter. The 'modern' rogue to me is a lightly armoured fighter, or I guess a ranger (2W fighting). Not once in our 1e/2e games did any player with a thief complain that they were being out DPR'd by any other class - not there role in the adventure. If you played a thief you had a tonne of cool abilities that you could use long after the cleric and mage had run out of spells. 3e sort of killed the thief/rogue by making all of their primary powers 'skills' that anyone could have.

That's all I can think of too. I don't think 3E is really much more combat heavy than 1/2E. There were a lot of slugfests back in the old days too. And I don't think it's just expectations. It's always frustrating not to be able to accomplish anything. The thief's stuff was far more uniquely his back in the day. That may have made the difference.

Also, I think fighters didn't escalate so fast. Iterative attacks came slower. There weren't so many ways to boost DPR. Thieves may have been closer to fighters in DPR, even though rogues got boosted in combat ability, because fighters got boosted more.

Stefan Hill wrote:

thejeff wrote:

But that's the question. Is it just the "modern style" player? Or is there a fundamental difference in the way the game is played?

Good point. I think expectation is everything. Coming from Basic/Expert --> 1e --> 2e. I never thought the thief (rogue) should be as good at dealing damage when compared to a fighter. The 'modern' rogue to me is a lightly armoured fighter, or I guess a ranger (2W fighting). Not once in our 1e/2e games did any player with a thief complain that they were being out DPR'd by any other class - not there role in the adventure. If you played a thief you had a tonne of cool abilities that you could use long after the cleric and mage had run out of spells. 3e sort of killed the thief/rogue by making all of their primary powers 'skills' that anyone could have.

That's all I can think of too. I don't think 3E is really much more combat heavy than 1/2E. There were a lot of slugfests back in the old days too. And I don't think it's just expectations. It's always frustrating not to be able to accomplish anything. The thief's stuff was far more uniquely his back in the day. That may have made the difference.

Also, I think fighters didn't escalate so fast. Iterative attacks came slower. There weren't so many ways to boost DPR. Thieves may have been closer to fighters in DPR, even though rogues got boosted in combat ability, because fighters got boosted more.

I think you're probably right, although I'd say it's a bit of both.

I generally play all RPGs the same (ie the way I did with AD&D/0E), so it's not surprising that those editions suit me better and the others make me feel a little lost. Probably someone who learnt with 3.5/4E is going to play 0E by trying to conceptualise a "build" which is a pretty alien concept to the system. As you said above - many of the choices you'd make about your character in later editions are hardwired in via level limits, etcetera.

What we used to do in 1/2E, is when the demi-human reached their lvl limit, it would cost double the xp needed to go the the next lvl. So lets say you needed 20,000 xp to go up, you would need 40,000 instead. This allowed a demi-human to go up in lvl, just slower.

2nd Edition had this optional rule:

Slow Advancement (Optional Rule)

If you decide to allow demihumans unlimited advancement, consider this option: To counteract the demihumans' long life, slow down their advancement. Require demihumans to earn two, three, or even four times as many experience points as a human to advance a level.

This allows the short-lived humans to advance more quickly than their long-lived comrades, who will eventually catch up after the humans' demise. If this solution, though logical, is unacceptable to your players, a compromise may be called for.

The best compromise is to allow demihumans normal (or double-cost) advancement to their "maximum" levels. Then require them to earn triple or quadruple experience points to advance beyond that point. They will advance very slowly, but the players will still have a goal and the sense of accomplishment that comes with rising a level.

It made sense to me that a race, like an elf for example, that can live over a thousand years (as elves did back in 2nd edition) would not be in any great hurry to do anything...

After all, with centuries at one's disposal, taking a decade or two on a task is nothing to worry about.

And...

Obviously, elves see no need to hurry themselves through anything.

Example after example like these are given throughout the book as to what being a member such a long-lived race would be like...

Roger Moore did a great article along these lines for the races. Not sure of the original Dragon mag but it was in the Best of Dragon III.

Roger Moore did a great article along these lines for the races. Not sure of the original Dragon mag but it was in the Best of Dragon III.

Yes, the various "Point of View" articles...

The original articles did not appear in just a single issue of Dragon; they were spread out between issues 58-61 back in 1982...

And though (concerning elves, just to keep my original example going) the "Elven Point of View" Article says many of the same things as "The Complete Book of Elves" does, the latter however, goes into much more detail...

Easiest way to defeat a human, outlive them...

Easiest way to defeat a human, outlive them...

...and then proceed to defeat its 3 children and 7 grand children :)