I don't get it...


3.5/d20/OGL

1 to 50 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I've been playing D&D for quite some time (1982), and I've played extensively with every edition except 4th, but I just don't quite get this 1st edition Grognard movement entirely.

Each time I read about a 1st edition renaissance gaming group they almost always end up house ruling their game in some way shape or form toward 3rd edition. I just don't think it is widely understood that 3rd edition was supposed to be the FINAL edition of the existing game, not a new game. Sure marketing called it "3rd" edition but the intent was to be the final game based on 1st edition.

3E IS FIRST EDITION, just with standardized mechanics and fully fleshed out rules. 1E, 2E, and Final (ie 3E) D&D are the SAME game. 4th broke the mold, but that's another story.

For instance, isn't this: Greyhawk Grognard) exactly what 3rd edition did?


Hands OP flame suit , a shield and a good sword


"I may be an advanced Half-vampiric half-dragon half-titan Bar-Igura, but I aint flame proof!"

Runs shreiking for the hills

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

There is no 'final' edition. Perfection is unattainable, so there is always room for improvement.

3rd edition does not provide the same feel at 1st edition to some players. So for them it is better to adjust the rules of 1st rather than use 3rd. That some of the changes are similar or were done in 3rd only means that 3rd had the advantage of designers having years of experience with 1st and knowing what did and did not work.


"Well, it's more fun to put ya out is all. And it amuses the succubi"


Mr. Fishy heard someone say flame, Mr. Fishy is freezing his fins off. Bring of the warm. Fight fight...Mr. Fishy hasn't argued in days, maybe a week, Mr. Fishy is starting to get that itch.

Mr. Fishy will start, explain your point please.

Dark Archive

TriOmegaZero wrote:

There is no 'final' edition. Perfection is unattainable, so there is always room for improvement.

3rd edition does not provide the same feel at 1st edition to some players. So for them it is better to adjust the rules of 1st rather than use 3rd. That some of the changes are similar or were done in 3rd only means that 3rd had the advantage of designers having years of experience with 1st and knowing what did and did not work.

I agree with this. It could be argued that everything past 1st edition was just collections of house rules.


David Fryer wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

There is no 'final' edition. Perfection is unattainable, so there is always room for improvement.

3rd edition does not provide the same feel at 1st edition to some players. So for them it is better to adjust the rules of 1st rather than use 3rd. That some of the changes are similar or were done in 3rd only means that 3rd had the advantage of designers having years of experience with 1st and knowing what did and did not work.

I agree with this. It could be argued that everything past 1st edition was just collections of house rules.

Given the amount of math and how the rules for 3rd were put together, I think it remains just an argument.

To the original point: why does it matter if some folks prefer a different game, but like to use certain innovations from later editions? (I find myself liking some elements from 4E to import into Pathfinder, but I don't use Fourth.)

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Much of the push-back against 3rd Edition might be articulated in this document on Old-School Gaming.

The objection seems to be to 3rd Edition's skill systems displacing player craftiness and role-playing.


Fear of change.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

David Fryer wrote:
I agree with this. It could be argued that everything past 1st edition was just collections of house rules.

It could be argued that it's all just house rules :)

As someone who's played every version of D&D except for white box and Expert, I don't see 1st/2nd edition and 3rd edition as the same at all.

However, I don't really care anyways - I've always been able to play the game I wanted to play - the rules were just secondary. The fact that I'm running a 3.5e epic level game now doesn't mean I couldn't do the same thing with any edition (including 4th, their 30-level-cap be damned).

(self-editing any further edition commentary due to lack of flame-retardant clothing)

Dark Archive

gbonehead wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
I agree with this. It could be argued that everything past 1st edition was just collections of house rules.

It could be argued that it's all just house rules :)

That is true, and to be fair, while there were a lot of similarities between 1st and 2nd edition, 3/3.5 was a pretty radical departure from what had come before. Almost as radical as the change between 3.5 and 4th edition. And, at least where I live there was a big move to bocot 3rd edition for many of the same reasons.


I appreciate the grognards, but I insist that the feel change had more to do with the players, and especially DMs, and not the rules themselves. We adopted the rules and plugged them right into the same way we had always been playing. If anything changed the feel of play, it was our adoption of miniatures that we didn't use for 1e, which is hardly more 3.x than it is OD&D/Chainmail. Whenever I read their documents, they fasten onto the d20 basis, and esp. the skill check, as replacing role-playing, as if the system intended to replace the role-playing instead of giving a resolution mechanic for that role-playing. So I benefit from what the grogs write, but I don't buy what they're selling.

Asbestos:
Viva 3.x! Viva Pathfinder!


didnt gygax write that if your werent playing the game exactly as stated in the rules you werent playing d&d?

oh, wait, he said just the oppisite. he said the rules were a guildline, and to do what was best for your own table.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Asbestos:
Viva 3.x! Viva Pathfinder!

heheheheh

That's awesome.

I'm totally stealing that for myself.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

donnald johnson wrote:

Didn't Gygax write that if your weren't playing the game exactly as stated in the rules you weren't playing D&D?

Oh, wait; he said just the opposite.

As I recall, Donnald, he said both. In several of his "Up on a Soapbox" columns in the early '80's Dragon magazines, he pooh-poohed "house rules" as "variant" games, and said exactly what you reference: those guys aren't really playing D&D.

Those of us playing with house rules at the time ended up more-or-less apologizing to our players.

Gary might have been trying to protect the D&D brand. He might have been talking about convention gaming, where house rules are often more trouble than they're worth, or he might have had huge, sweeping system rewrites --Arduin-- in mind. He didn't say. what he said was "If you change the rules, you're no longer playing the game right, and you shouldn't call it D&D."


Gary was a boon to gamers everywhere, but he was also highly opinionated, arguably idiosyncratic, and trying to make a living off of his hobby. Unfortunately, some people have a hard time seeing him as a human being, and consult him as an oracle. As an oracle, he's a disaster. I will always be a fan, but a critical fan.

Liberty's Edge

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Gary was a boon to gamers everywhere, but he was also highly opinionated, arguably idiosyncratic, and trying to make a living off of his hobby. Unfortunately, some people have a hard time seeing him as a human being, and consult him as an oracle. As an oracle, he's a disaster. I will always be a fan, but a critical fan.

Exactly. Gary was remarkably contradictory. It all depended if he was speaking as Gary Gygax (gamer) or Gary Gygax (TSR President).

And some of the misinterpretations of Gary's words come from the occasional lack of contextual understanding. Some of that orginates fans taking quotes out of context. Some of it has to do with temporal distance. Finally, some of it has to do with Gary not providing the proper context for his words.

Ultimately, Gary Gygax spoke about the game for thirty-odd years. Contradictions are going to crop up over that span of time.

Like you said, Gary was a human. He was a fan of D&D and roleplaying in general. He gave birth to a phenomenon, which must have been hard to deal with sometimes. But he was only human and his words reflect that.

I am like you, a fan, but one who understands not everything Gary said should be taken as a body of divine laws.


Mr.Fishy wrote:
Mr. Fishy is starting to get that itch.

Mr. Fishy should take his medicine. And be more particular about his overnight company :P

Silver Crusade

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Gary was a boon to gamers everywhere, but he was also highly opinionated, arguably idiosyncratic, and trying to make a living off of his hobby. Unfortunately, some people have a hard time seeing him as a human being, and consult him as an oracle. As an oracle, he's a disaster. I will always be a fan, but a critical fan.

BLASPHEMER!

Dark Archive

alleynbard wrote:


I am like you, a fan, but one who understands not everything Gary said should be taken as a body of divine laws.

Othrwise we would all be playing Dangerous Journeys.


I see a lot of people who invoke Gygax when it supports their position. Just another thinly veiled way to tell others they are having bad/wrong fun.

Spoiler:
For the record, I admit to telling people they are having bad/wrong fun. However, I never invoke Gygax. In fact, I do not think Gygax and I would have gotten along.


The divine laws don't work without a divine interpreter!

SMITE! SMITE! SMITE!

Liberty's Edge

cibet44 wrote:


For instance, isn't this: Greyhawk Grognard) exactly what 3rd edition did?

While this might sound like what 3e did, it is not exactly what this gentleman is going for. So, while 3e did clean up a great deal this design is going in a different direction. Many roads, one goal, though the end product won't look the same at all.

I can safely say that if Gary had written 2e (or 3e) it would look nothing like the game we have right now. Gary had a ton of plans for 2e before he was forced out of TSR. Some of those plans involved new classes, new sub-systems, and other material. But none of it really looks like 2e or 3e.

So think of it as a project to create an "alternate reality" D&D. One where Gygax never left TSR. The people involved in the Old School Renaissance are a savvy bunch. They know more about the history of the game than I ever will. I am actually interested to see how this might turn out.

For the OSR, 3e is a departure from what they want out of D&D. For them, system matters, and 3e is not the system they want. I rarely see members of the OSR houseruling older editions towards a 3e style, but I am sure it happens with some playing groups. But for them, 3e is not an option they enjoy and there are some very sound reasons for that. Obviously, I agree with some of their suppositions even though I still love 3e/Pathfinder.

By the way, Greyhawk Grognard's version of Castle Greyhawk is great. Really good stuff and much of it based on notes and comments from Gary and others who played in his campaign.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
CourtFool wrote:

For the record, I admit to telling people they are having bad/wrong fun. However, I never invoke Gygax. In fact, I do not think Gygax and I would have gotten along.

You always quote Arneson instead.


Callous Jack wrote:
You always quote Arneson instead.

No, I just make stuff up really.


*Feigns surprise*

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
CourtFool wrote:
Callous Jack wrote:
You always quote Arneson instead.
No, I just make stuff up really.

So you don't actually play Hero and you love class-based systems?


I thought the end all was 3.5; there was a lot of confusion around here with books from 3.0 which has a lot of differences. I guess with homerules added; we could all play with arbitrary numbers like 3.55 version C and really get confused hehe.

If I would have known that now; years laters I would have like 50 of these 3.5 books; then I would have just said "Boyz and Garls; weez playin Gestalt characters; sheesh; what a sinkhole of cash and hardly use most of the books except for some obscure class someone wants to play and added feats and spells; sheesh; if it were not for some nice work by some outside sources like Crystal Keep; this stuff would be very hard to track.


Callous Jack wrote:
CourtFool wrote:
Callous Jack wrote:
You always quote Arneson instead.
No, I just make stuff up really.
So you don't actually play Hero and you love class-based systems?

D&D to be more exact, although I have this long list of house rules.

Liberty's Edge

CourtFool wrote:
Callous Jack wrote:
CourtFool wrote:
Callous Jack wrote:
You always quote Arneson instead.
No, I just make stuff up really.
So you don't actually play Hero and you love class-based systems?
D&D to be more exact, although I have this long list of house rules.

Well then, you aren't playing real D&D.


alleynbard wrote:
CourtFool wrote:
Callous Jack wrote:
CourtFool wrote:
Callous Jack wrote:
You always quote Arneson instead.
No, I just make stuff up really.
So you don't actually play Hero and you love class-based systems?
D&D to be more exact, although I have this long list of house rules.
Well then, you aren't playing real D&D.

Neither is Valegrim.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
alleynbard wrote:
CourtFool wrote:
Callous Jack wrote:
CourtFool wrote:
Callous Jack wrote:
You always quote Arneson instead.
No, I just make stuff up really.
So you don't actually play Hero and you love class-based systems?
D&D to be more exact, although I have this long list of house rules.
Well then, you aren't playing real D&D.

Neither is Valegrim.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Indeed. So says the Great Gygax. In fact, I think he mentioned Valegrim and CourtFool by name in Dragon Issue #34.25 on page 3 of his inspiring work, Do it Like Gygax or Take a Hike You Long-Haired Hippy. Or it might have been in the landmark article from issue #15.70, Dungeons and Dragons? Plastic Efreet and Poodles Need Not Apply.


Ooo...was Rone bummed when that issue came out.


I'm flattered.


CourtFool wrote:
I'm flattened. [corrected]

Trumpet!


Mr.Fishy wrote:
Mr. Fishy is starting to get that itch.

Mr. Fishy puts on the lotion or Mr. Fishy gets the hose.


What? I gots me lots of dungeons and lots of dragons; must be D&D :)

QUOTE="Mairkurion {tm}"]

alleynbard wrote:
CourtFool wrote:
Callous Jack wrote:
CourtFool wrote:
Callous Jack wrote:
You always quote Arneson instead.
No, I just make stuff up really.
So you don't actually play Hero and you love class-based systems?
D&D to be more exact, although I have this long list of house rules.
Well then, you aren't playing real D&D.

Neither is Valegrim.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Sovereign Court

... since 1982, huh? Well, I started the following spring and understand the OPs question.

I shall be brief:

The OP clearly understands that the game, Dungeons & Dragons went through some changes and much of what is called "edition" is a misnomer.

The OP is also keenly aware that 4e is a departure from the history and 30+ year history of the game.

The OP is actually pointing out that it is not only the new kids on the block (raised on 3e alone) but also the neo-grognards that are both (meaning both these groups) seem to be trying to polarize to opposite ends. Whereas the OP is indicated that there isn't a necessity to do so.

What the OP means by "final" edition of the game, might be otherwise worded in this way: Until the last decade, "edition" was never thought of as a new-version, but rather some reprinting, new art, rules addition or refinement/clarification, etc., of ostensibly the SAME game.

By contrast, a new "EDITION" of RISK is sold, and notice the parallel, by Hasbro, the parent company of the wotci who owned the IP for D&D. That is, when one plays Tolkein Risk, one is led to believe one is really playing risk. Discussions usually follow. The instance-based interpretaion of D&D, and reconcepting of the D&D game began in 2000 with 3e, but as the OP points out, it was still meant to be an arrival of the game in refinement, not some quasi bi-decadal flavor-of-the-week.

So, it is possible, imho, that the marketing messages of wotci in recent years have caused the fracturing of gamer bases and possibly driven them to react to the nonsense that is 4th edition.

Once 3.x arrived with all its marvelous sophistication and d20 internal consistency, it might make sense that the marketing team stepped back in horror as they discovered the game finally "arrived" in a near-to-complete masterpiece of v.3.5. Holy crap - now what?

Well, just as dungeonmasters do............ they probably just changed the conditions of the marketing game, and began promoting the "idea" that each edition was really another type of fashioned "instance" of the game itself, kind of like the way Dr. Who can change both personality and appearance, yet still be that zany president-elect errant timelord from Gallifry.

So................

As as to whether i can invoke or do invoke E. Gary Gygax, I sure can. In this case we don't really need to.

NeoGrognards are a bit too polarizing, in the same way the subsidiary of Hasbro, the wotci, have been polarizing the game group with the video shown at 2007 Gen Con. You can find this advertisement on YouTube. It generally depicts past gaming groups of the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00's playing D&D and struggling with the "grapple" action to cleave the head off of a troll. This video was the first of many polarizing, and divisive marketing efforts, imho, by wotc to push themselves even further away from the past, from tradition, and appeal to a completely fresh new "paying" consumer base.

It is too bad, so very bad for many of us to be part of such a clique-ish culture. What was once the most imaginative roleplaying game on earth, something that appealed to those who were not members of cliques but rather outcasts, introverts, dreamers, creatives, hopefuls, deep-thinkers, ... , is now seemingly run by the JOCKS of the coast, seeking to hammer away at making COMBAT mini tactics as appealing as Monday Night Football to testosterone-filled bad-mouthed headset gamerz who think the game is about killing things and taking their stuff.

Yes, the wotci have killed D&D. Long live D&D.

Viva 3.x. Viva Pathfinder RPG.
May we all eventually find our way back to being a community of gamers first, and sheepish-slaves to marketing messages second. With the harsh tones projected by the IP owners, their poor stewardship seems to be driving the divisive behavior described by the OP, imho.

-Pax


I should like to respond to Pax. However, it is obvious to me that our realities are so far removed, neither of us will understand the other.

Liberty's Edge

Pax Veritas wrote:
Once 3.x arrived with all its marvelous sophistication and d20 internal consistency, it might make sense that the marketing team stepped back in horror as they discovered the game finally "arrived" in a near-to-complete masterpiece of v.3.5. Holy crap - now what?

Funny I read a discussion from one of the authors of 3e (not 3.5e) who said pretty much what you just did with one word swap and a change of punctuation...

Holy crap - what now!

Not only is there the 3.5e vs pf vs 4e. There is also 3e vs 3.5e (not the same game).

S.


Pax Veritas wrote:


The OP clearly understands that the game, Dungeons & Dragons went through some changes and much of what is called "edition" is a misnomer.

The OP is also keenly aware that 4e is a departure from the history and 30+ year history of the game.

The OP is actually pointing out that it is not only the new kids on the block (raised on 3e alone) but also the neo-grognards that are both (meaning both these groups) seem to be trying to polarize to opposite ends. Whereas the OP is indicated that there isn't a necessity to do so.

Yes. This 100%.

Pax Veritas wrote:


What the OP means by "final" edition of the game, might be otherwise worded in this way: Until the last decade, "edition" was never thought of as a new-version, but rather some reprinting, new art, rules addition or refinement/clarification, etc., of ostensibly the SAME game.

100% Correct.

Pax Veritas wrote:


So, it is possible, imho, that the marketing messages of wotci in recent years have caused the fracturing of gamer bases and possibly driven them to react to the nonsense that is 4th edition.

Never thought of it this way, but makes sense.

Pax Veritas wrote:


Once 3.x arrived with all its marvelous sophistication and d20 internal consistency, it might make sense that the marketing team stepped back in horror as they discovered the game finally "arrived" in a near-to-complete masterpiece of v.3.5. Holy crap - now what?

Exactly.

Pax Veritas wrote:


NeoGrognards are a bit too polarizing, in the same way the subsidiary of Hasbro, the wotci, have been polarizing the game group with the video shown at 2007 Gen Con. You can find this advertisement on YouTube. It generally depicts past gaming groups of the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00's playing D&D and struggling with the "grapple" action to cleave the head off of a troll. This video was the first of many polarizing, and divisive marketing efforts, imho, by wotc to push themselves even further away from the past, from tradition, and appeal to a completely fresh new "paying" consumer base.

Never saw this video, I'll have to look it up. But now the 3 vs 4 schism is beginning to make more sense. I didn't realize this deliberate marketing strategy existed.

Pax Veritas wrote:


Yes, the wotci have killed D&D.

A bit harsh. My point in the OP was 1,2,3+ are all essentially the same game. 4E is a new bag of tricks so I understand the 3 vs 4 schism. The 1E retro movement is the one that makes little sense to me.


Major things changed between earlier versions and now. Turn structure being 1 of them, as well as action times. For instance, in 1&2e, when you cast a spell it happened accross multiple ticks in the initiative order, so you could easily disrupt a caster.

3.X is not the only evolution that 1e could have had. Its not even, arguably, the best. Many elements were dropped to reduce complexity that some people would like to see back in.

Liberty's Edge

cibet44 wrote:
A bit harsh. My point in the OP was 1,2,3+ are all essentially the same game.

I think this is very subjective. For me 1e/2e were "basically the same game". 3e was a departure from previous ideas and I never found it as satisfying as a DM than either 1e or 2e (A)D&D. Now I'm not saying for the betterment or detriment of the game, just a departure - personal judgement determines how the departure is viewed. It can also be argued that 4e is also nothing but a departure from 1e/2e. The problem lies on how much departure any one individual is willing to accept and still call a spade, a spade as it were. Given the vast amount of house-rulings that exist what is "the D&D" really?

S.


Stefan Hill wrote:
Given the vast amount of house-rulings that exist what is "the D&D" really?

My answer to this is: Whatever YOU want it to be.

If you feel that one version of one edition with your set of house rules are the only D&D, it is.

If you feel that every RPG ever made is D&D under a different name, then it's so.

Whatever view best facilitates your having a fun game, and making the game fun for the other players, go with it!


I don't think there is a single RPG that I have GM/DM'd or played in that did not have SOME house rules.

I played very little of 1E and a lot of 2ed. I did not find very large differences between them. I agree that 3.0/3.5 were a big departure from the previous editions. I have had discussions about 4E but never played so I can't really discuss whether I like it or dislike it, people I know think it is fun. Fun the is the name of the game with RPG's in my opinion. I don't think editions matter. If you are having fun playing more power to you.

Perhaps the "return" to 1E is like a retro movement to get back to the gaming roots after 30 years. Perhaps there is a purity that people see in the original edition. I like 3.5 because it has structure and because I have been playing/DMing it for so long now I have no desire to go back to 2ed (though I do use a tremendous amount of 2ed materials converted to 3.5). I do play in a 2ed game once in a blue moon though.


cibet44 wrote:

I've been playing D&D for quite some time (1982), and I've played extensively with every edition except 4th, but I just don't quite get this 1st edition Grognard movement entirely.

Ignoring the "Grognard" comment, I'll respond for myself.

I'm sure that some people have enough room in their brains to memorize six dozen feats, a range of skills, class powers, AOO's, grapple modifiers, terrain modifiers, etc.

I, personally, use the storage capacity of my brain for my job, my family, my finances, my sideline tech support stuff, and my other hobbies.

I want to PLAY, not sit down with a book 500 pages thick and try to create a BBEG with seven feats, a half dozen class powers, magical items out the wazoo, and try to remember that moving the first diagonal square costs "1" while moving the second diagonal square costs "2."

I find 500 pages of rules hinder my enjoyment of the game.

I find that players want to min/max their characters to the point that I'm creating a house rule that says "the first time you say 'I'd do this but I have more skill points in that' your character gets a house dropped on his head." Case in point, there's another thread where someone asks "Why would anyone play a halfling bard? They're suboptimal." Guess what, there are darned few "optimal" people in the world. If you wanna play a computer game where you can turn on God mode and have everything handed to you, go ahead.

I find that fewer pages of rules means players actually have to play a role, instead of quote a skill modifier.
Semi true story:
Player: "I have 5 skill ranks in Sense Motive. Is this guy lying to me? I rolled a 15."
Me: "Do you think he's lying to you?"
Player: "I don't know, I'm asking you. I rolled a 15. That makes 20. Is he lying?"

Does 500 pages of rules actually create a better game? I still have the Red Box Basic Set. That game works just fine.

My son will likely play an RPG of sorts as he leaves his toddler years. It's called being a kid and having fun making stuff up. There are no rules, no feats, no skill points. He'll be telling stories. And he'll have more fun than his dad who has to sit in front of a 500 page rulebook in order to make up stories.

Seems like a waste of perfectly good time to me.


Stefan Hill wrote:
cibet44 wrote:
A bit harsh. My point in the OP was 1,2,3+ are all essentially the same game.
I think this is very subjective. For me 1e/2e were "basically the same game". 3e was a departure from previous ideas ...

I agree with that statement, Stefan. I remember after my first experience playing 3e, I was describing the system to some other friends. I distinctly remembering describing it as "a different game". I also said, it is Dungeons and Dragons, but you have to think of it as a different game. Whereas 1e to 2e wasn't terribly earth-shaking in rules changes, 3e required a different mindset.

Contrast that with 4e, which I begrudgingly tried out. Again, I commented that it is a different game, though not as radical a departure as 3e was to 2e. After playing several session, I can explain my dislike of 4e as that the game system seems "sterile". Different characters are _described_ as doing different things, but mechanically the same results occur. The wizard/fighter/whatever channels his arcane/martial/whatever focus and does XdY damage.

SO back on point, I found the system has changed radically once, and significantly once more. All are technically DnD, though the latest incarnation "feels" least like it to me, who dind't know what a grognard was until the Intarwebz told me how to play DnD. :)


Another though that occurs to me is that the constituency of players has changed GREATLY since I started playing. DnD used to be the under the sole proprietorship of outcast kids. Many were the classic ostracized nerd steretype with very high IQs and a predilection toward creative _and_ rules-driven fantasy. The others were the heavy metal kids with obsessions with weapons and a love of American Ninja movies - again, their violent fantasies left them ostracized.

As times, and marketing, changed the consumer changed. Less-dorky kids played (and admitted it). Girls played. Story lines received more emphasis. I think the edition changes tried to incorporate into the rules a greater sense of "fair play" to accomodate a more "typical" consumer. The super-nerds didn't mind the blatant unfairness of a high level wizard able to wipe the floor with a dozen high level fighters as they recognized the inherent unfairness of life, and harbored (not-so)secret fantasies of a lifetime of study granting them awesome (unfair) powers. Plus the metal kids liked playing fighters and cutting people/orcs open with swords and stuff - another reason the ttwo groups got along.

Just some ideas.


Doug's Workshop wrote:
... I find 500 pages of rules hinder my enjoyment of the game....

Word. I recall wanting more and more modules, and maybe a ten to twenty page (or less) set of rules "clarifications" for 1st ed. More modules, more settings, more adventures, but no need for more rules.

Now that I am an adult and can no longer spend 20 hours a week obsessing over my favorite hobby, I don't need to have orders of magnitude more rules to obsess over. Especially when the game is now supposed to be about balance, but has competing rule sets that sway that balance radically.

1 to 50 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 3.5/d20/OGL / I don't get it... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.