Quote from: SeanchaiOr it could be that there's much less need to house rule and ignore elements of the game.

Need? It isn't about need, its about what you want to play. AD&D 1st and 2nd ed, and also classic D&D, were all designed to be modular. Want to use, say, skills? Weapon specialisation/mastery? Funky powers? Fine, pick the right product and there they are all laid out for you, plug them in and play. Don't want to use them? Also fine, the game still holds together fine.

Want to not have a skill system in 3rd ed? You don't want loads of funky powers? Well, tough, because those things are so tightly integrated that it is going to require loads of work to engineer them out without breaking the game.

And that, I think, is why the argument that 3rd ed has lost players to computer games really starts to make sense. The less you can simply ignore such things, the more the game becomes constrained, the more you have to keep track of, the more rules you have to keep checking. And, ultimately, the more the game becomes about 'building' characters rather than playing characters. And computers do all of that very well indeed...

The story gamer has not been as encouraged by 3rd ed as he might have been, and I think that the trend towards fighting off computer games by being like a computer game will ultimately fail for that reason. The way to empower story based gaming, the way to encourage people into longer campaigns (such that they keep coming back to play) is by giving games that require less reference to the rules rather than more. Modular games where you can include as much complexity as you want but are not forced to do so. It isn't technological fixes for tabletop roleplaying that will keep the hobby alive, it is intelligently designed roleplaying games.

Quote from: CabNeed? It isn't about need, its about what you want to play. AD&D 1st and 2nd ed, and also classic D&D, were all designed to be modular. Want to use, say, skills? Weapon specialisation/mastery? Funky powers? Fine, pick the right product and there they are all laid out for you, plug them in and play. Don't want to use them? Also fine, the game still holds together fine.

Want to not have a skill system in 3rd ed? You don't want loads of funky powers? Well, tough, because those things are so tightly integrated that it is going to require loads of work to engineer them out without breaking the game.

And that, I think, is why the argument that 3rd ed has lost players to computer games really starts to make sense. The less you can simply ignore such things, the more the game becomes constrained, the more you have to keep track of, the more rules you have to keep checking. And, ultimately, the more the game becomes about 'building' characters rather than playing characters. And computers do all of that very well indeed...

The story gamer has not been as encouraged by 3rd ed as he might have been, and I think that the trend towards fighting off computer games by being like a computer game will ultimately fail for that reason. The way to empower story based gaming, the way to encourage people into longer campaigns (such that they keep coming back to play) is by giving games that require less reference to the rules rather than more. Modular games where you can include as much complexity as you want but are not forced to do so. It isn't technological fixes for tabletop roleplaying that will keep the hobby alive, it is intelligently designed roleplaying games.

Add to this intelligent computer support that doesn't try to take over the creative aspects of the game and I think you have a winning proposition.

As to whether or not Player Empowerment is required... I don't think so, personally.  Linking Story-Games to Player Empowerment, in my opinion, is not necessary.  You could do it, and depending on how, you could make it a worthwhile feature of the game, but so far I haven't seen it done in a way I can get behind, for the previously mentioned reasons.  

- Mark

Quote from: CabNeed? It isn't about need, its about what you want to play. AD&D 1st and 2nd ed, and also classic D&D, were all designed to be modular.

More dumbness directly contradicted by the designer.

Moreover, by your definition, 3e is wildly modular: There's tons of stuff, such Incarnum, which has been added since it was created and which you can easily ignore.

Oh, you want to bring up skills and Feats. Those were elements designed as part of the game as it exists in the PHB and DMG. If you want to compare apples and apples, you need to try to remove a core part of AD&D that exists in the PHB and DMG. Let's remove levels or classes. Or, I know, the use of a d20. And what happens when we're comparing apples to apples? The same thing that happens with 3e when you try to remove it's core parts.

Quote from: CabWant to use, say, skills? Weapon specialisation/mastery? Funky powers? Fine, pick the right product and there they are all laid out for you, plug them in and play.

Those are all right in the 1st edition PHB and DMG. Check 'em out sometime.

Quote from: CabAnd that, I think, is why the argument that 3rd ed has lost players to computer games really starts to make sense.

Clearly, it's 3e that's causing any exodus to computer games. There couldn't be any other factors such as the availability and sophistication of these games. And it's only 3e players who are leaving the hobby - the numbers are up across the board outside of D&D...

Quote from: CabThe story gamer has not been as encouraged by 3rd ed as he might have been, and I think that the trend towards fighting off computer games by being like a computer game will ultimately fail for that reason.

Just do us all a favor and head on back to Dragonsfoot, where you can crusade against 3e without reality intruding in your edition drama.

Quote from: CabThe way to empower story based gaming, the way to encourage people into longer campaigns (such that they keep coming back to play) is by giving games that require less reference to the rules rather than more.

Uh-huh.

Here's your problem: You're holding up AD&D 1st edition as a model of a "modular game" that "empowers story-based gaming and longer campaigns." But AD&D 1st edition players were the people who pioneered rules lawyers, min-maxing, metagaming, etc.

If AD&D doesn't encourage these sorts of things, how did they come to be wide-spread part of gaming culture despite 22 years AD&D's dominance?

Answer: You're wrong.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiMore dumbness directly contradicted by the designer.

Go talk to the designer. Go on. Go ask him. He'll tell you that AD&D is designed such that you can use what you like. You can find him sometimes on Dragonsfoot, where he has a Q&A thread.

QuoteMoreover, by your definition, 3e is wildly modular: There's tons of stuff, such Incarnum, which has been added since it was created and which you can easily ignore.

Its added on top of what is already quite a complex system; not complex as in difficult at its heart, but complex in that you cannot easily pull elements out without unsettlign the whole bally lot of it. And it didn't have to be that complex; thats why it isn't modular in the same way, thats why its harder to fiddle about with, to form it into the image of a game you really want (if what you want is in any way more streamlined than what is presented).

QuoteOh, you want to bring up skills and Feats. Those were elements designed as part of the game as it exists in the PHB and DMG. If you want to compare apples and apples, you need to try to remove a core part of AD&D that exists in the PHB and DMG. Let's remove levels or classes. Or, I know, the use of a d20. And what happens when we're comparing apples to apples? The same thing that happens with 3e when you try to remove it's core parts.

Meanwhile, away from Planet Seanchai, here on Earth, earlier editions of D&D had extra skills, sometimes things resembling feats, as add ons, that you could remove or use as you saw fit without balance issues; level, class and suchlike operated sufficiently independently of those such that they worked fine without. In 3rd ed you have a skills/feats systen that is undoubtedly more integrated (although mechanically, in play, the same) and in some ways a joy to behold, but so stubbornly embedded that you can't get it out withot pulling the legs off the game. Fine, if thats what you want, but it does mean that you've got that extra complexity (and it gets more and more complex as you continue with a character, as more powers come your way) that means that you will be flicking through the rule book more, you will be munching up the powers carefully to get a more potent character, and you will have more to keep track of. And as a result, the game will appeal to the same demographic who like those elements in computer games, with the regrettable result that ultimately computers are better at that style of gaming.

QuoteThose are all right in the 1st edition PHB and DMG. Check 'em out sometime.

They don't actually, one of those only exists in classic D&D (masters set and RC). But otherwise, yes, they're right there where they exist as options that you can use or not without affecting whether the game works.

QuoteClearly, it's 3e that's causing any exodus to computer games. There couldn't be any other factors such as the availability and sophistication of these games. And it's only 3e players who are leaving the hobby - the numbers are up across the board outside of D&D...

You have the capacity to make the most ridiculous points. I didn't say that, I didn't imply it, that isn't a logical conclusion of anything I have said. I laid this out as one factor that I think is a mistake in the design of 3rd ed, and possibly a huge lack of foresight thus far shown by the designers of 4th ed who are openly trying to emulate that kind of element in computer games.

(more pointless abuse cut)

QuoteHere's your problem: You're holding up AD&D 1st edition as a model of a "modular game" that "empowers story-based gaming and longer campaigns." But AD&D 1st edition players were the people who pioneered rules lawyers, min-maxing, metagaming, etc.
[/quopte]

No, I'm really not. I'm holding it up as a game that is rather better at that than 3rd ed, but in no way a perfect model.

QuoteIf AD&D doesn't encourage these sorts of things, how did they come to be wide-spread part of gaming culture despite 22 years AD&D's dominance?

Answer: You're wrong.

Seanchai

You get rules lawyers, powergamers and the like flocking around the most popular game of any era. Whether its D&D, AD&D (any edition) or World of Darkness, we've all encountered them. Not sure what point you're making.

Its amazing, isn't it, that everyone but you seems to be wrong...

I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but this is just too funny.

Quote from: SeanchaiOh, you want to bring up skills and Feats. Those were elements designed as part of the game as it exists in the PHB and DMG. If you want to compare apples and apples, you need to try to remove a core part of AD&D that exists in the PHB and DMG. Let's remove levels or classes. Or, I know, the use of a d20. And what happens when we're comparing apples to apples? The same thing that happens with 3e when you try to remove it's core parts.

Thanks. You've just made my point for me.

The core stuff I needed to know to play AD&D as a player was much less the core stuff you need to know to play 3E. And don't give me any more shit about what's written in the AD&D PHB and DMG. We've already established that very few players actually used that stuff. 3E requires the same core knowledge you need to play AD&D, plus skills, plus feats, plus detailed tactical combat. 3E encourages players to take the books home and minimax their attributes, class abilities, racial abilities, skills, and feats. In AD&D, once you've decided whether you want to put that 16 on Con or Str, and written down your +1 Con racial modifier for dwarves, you're done minimaxing forever.

This isn't the edition war you want it to be. It's just a clown talking out of his ass about AD&D, and a bunch of other people shaking their heads at his hysterical beligerence. Give it a rest before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself.

Quote from: CabGo talk to the designer.

Don't have to - he's already on record, stating that if you're not playing with all his rules, you're not playing AD&D. Doesn't sound like it was designed to be modular after all, does it?

Quote from: CabIts added on top of what is already quite a complex system; not complex as in difficult at its heart, but complex in that you cannot easily pull elements out without unsettlign the whole bally lot of it. And it didn't have to be that complex; thats why it isn't modular in the same way, thats why its harder to fiddle about with, to form it into the image of a game you really want (if what you want is in any way more streamlined than what is presented).

Try addressing the point.

Quote from: CabMeanwhile, away from Planet Seanchai, here on Earth, earlier editions of D&D had extra skills, sometimes things resembling feats, as add ons, that you could remove or use as you saw fit without balance issues;

Back to apples and oranges, are you?

Quote from: CabIn 3rd ed you have a skills/feats systen that is undoubtedly more integrated...

Yes, which is why your comparison is dumbness. You're saying that because 3e has an integrated skill system and AD&D 1st edition doesn't per se, that AD&D is modular. Sorry, but there's tacked on bits you can remove from 3e and parts of AD&D that you can't without it collapsing.

Quote from: CabThey don't actually, one of those only exists in classic D&D (masters set and RC).

Skills: Page 28 and 34 of the PHB, page 12 of the DMG

Weapon specialization: Page 36 of the PHB

Funky powers: As an example, check out the Monk on page 30 of the PHB.

Quote from: CabBut otherwise, yes, they're right there where they exist as options that you can use or not without affecting whether the game works.

First, they're not necessarily optional.

Second, yes, many of the little things can be taken out without affecting the game. But, again, there are tons of little things in 3e that can be taken out without affecting the game. And yet your go-to example is always skills and Feats.

Quote from: CabSeanchai: Here's your problem: You're holding up AD&D 1st edition as a model of a "modular game" that "empowers story-based gaming and longer campaigns."

Cab: No, I'm really not. I'm holding it up as a game that is rather better at that than 3rd ed, but in no way a perfect model.

Yeah. Who said "perfect"? Beyond you, that is? I said you were using it as a model. Then you agreed.

Quote from: CabYou get rules lawyers, powergamers and the like flocking around the most popular game of any era. Whether its D&D, AD&D (any edition) or World of Darkness, we've all encountered them. Not sure what point you're making.

"If AD&D doesn't encourage these sorts of things, how did they come to be wide-spread part of gaming culture despite 22 years AD&D's dominance?"

Seanchai

Double post.

Seanchai

Quote from: HaffrungThanks. You've just made my point for me.

That 3e has skills and Feats? Yeah, we know that.

Quote from: HaffrungThe core stuff I needed to know to play AD&D as a player was much less the core stuff you need to know to play 3E.

Only when you ignore all the little fun stuff like weapon speeds, facing, etc..

Quote from: HaffrungAnd don't give me any more shit about what's written in the AD&D PHB and DMG. We've already established that very few players actually used that stuff.

And not established why that remotely helps your case.

Quote from: Haffrung3E requires the same core knowledge you need to play AD&D, plus skills, plus feats, plus detailed tactical combat.

Except that's not so. It does add skills and Feats, but it also removes all the little crap that made AD&D such a pain in the ass.

And detailed tactical combat? What do you believe is in 3e that ain't in AD&D in terms of tactical combat?

Quote from: HaffrungIn AD&D, once you've decided whether you want to put that 16 on Con or Str, and written down your +1 Con racial modifier for dwarves, you're done minimaxing forever.

Actually, no. There's still a number of ways to increase your ability scores, such as magical items. There are still a number of ways to min-mix, such as dual classing.

Quote from: HaffrungIt's just a clown talking out of his ass about AD&D.

I've got - what? - twice your experience with the game and I actually read and refer back to the books as I make my points. Contrast this with the guy who, half way through the thread, has to shore up his flagging arguments with the clarification that he's not talking about AD&D, he's talking about the way he played AD&D...

Seanchai

Quote from: HaffrungThis isn't the edition war you want it to be. It's just a clown talking out of his ass about AD&D, and a bunch of other people shaking their heads at his hysterical beligerence. Give it a rest before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself.

Quoted just because its worth repeating. Dunno why I got sucked into such a ridiculous diversion!

Quote from: SeanchaiDon't have to - he's already on record, stating that if you're not playing with all his rules, you're not playing AD&D.

This is not true.  

Gary is on ENWorld and Dragonsfoot and is *always* answering questions about "how should I do X" in AD&D with "make something up / it's your game / etc".  He didn't use weapons vs AC or weapon speed factors in his own games.  You can't get any more "official" than the way Gary Gygax plays D&D.

Quote from: SeanchaiThat 3e has skills and Feats? Yeah, we know that... Seanchai

I'm rather disappointed to see this thread, which hitherto had begun to provide interesting and potentially enlightening information, especially from Ryan, descend into ... this.  For a while there it was a pretty damn good thread.  

EDIT: Which is to say, couldn't this entire sub-topic go into another thread?

- Mark

Quote from: SeanchaiI've got - what? - twice your experience with the game and I actually read and refer back to the books as I make my points. Contrast this with the guy who, half way through the thread, has to shore up his flagging arguments with the clarification that he's not talking about AD&D, he's talking about the way he played AD&D...

Well, he's talking about the way most people played AD&D anyways...:rolleyes:

But OK, for the sake of argument, let's say weapon speed and damage vs. armor type was used by everyone.  Weapon speed takes all of 5 seconds to write down on the character sheet at char gen, and the damage vs. armor type could be put on a DM screen.

Compare that to things like Feats and Skills, where very specific and detailed rules are given about each individual thing.  You can't write down all that on a character sheet, and most people do not desire to memorize that much material.  Thus, it gets referenced a lot more in play.

It's really quite simple:
* A fighter in AD&D never needs to look up anything in the PHB outside of char gen and knowing how much XP to get to the next level.
* Neither does a thief, who's abilities are not very defined and given a simple chance of success that can be recorded on his character sheet.
* Clerics and mages needed the PHB because they had spells.
* Character abilities were pretty static.  There weren't any big choices you had to make when creating a character and leveling up.

Compare this to 3e:
* Every class has a wide variety of skills and feats.  And you have to choose things at both char gen and when leveling up.  Making poor choices makes the character much less effective.  Thus, you will want to own the books and make sure you pick the right stuff.

Quote from: VBWyrdeI'm rather disappointed to see this thread, which hitherto had begun to provide interesting and potentially enlightening information, especially from Ryan, descend into ... this.  For a while there it was a pretty damn good thread.  

EDIT: Which is to say, couldn't this entire sub-topic go into another thread?

Given that we're up to 300+ responses here, I actually think starting a new thread about Dancey's plans would be for the best.

I see sharks!

Quote from: jgantsCompare this to 3e:
* Every class has a wide variety of skills and feats.  And you have to choose things at both char gen and when leveling up.  Making poor choices makes the character much less effective.  Thus, you will want to own the books and make sure you pick the right stuff.

That's absolutely not my experience.

Just like every game I've ever run, the only players who ever reference the books during play are spellcasters.

You do need to pick stuff when you level up, but that so far has placed no onus on my players to get copies of any books whatsoever.  I mean, you needed the books during leveling in older editions, too.  They use mine or the SRD.

I'm telling you - I run Arcana Evolved and other 3.5 games with a grand total of 2 PHBs for 6 players + me.  It works fine.

-O