Quote from: AkrasiaHowever, I think that his core point about how 3e is a different kind of game -- or, more precisely, encourages a different 'kind of gaming' -- than other RPGs (including earlier versions of D&D) is legitimate.

Guess what. I don't. I find it cleaner than earlier iterations of the game. And I find it refreshingly devoid of the "options and supplements are bad" mantra that fans of smaller press systems repeat to try to validate their RPG buying decisions. But when it comes right down to it, I run the same sorts of game I ran with D&D years ago.

QuoteBut when it comes right down to it, I run the same sorts of game I ran with D&D years ago.

Which were different from other games years ago, also. See RC.

Quote from: SettembriniWhich were different from other games years ago, also. See RC.

Have you been spying on me? Do you know what iterations of D&D I played years ago?

I honestly don't know what you are asserting here. What about RC is not consistent with the way I play(ed)? Because I see a lot about RC that is the sort of thing I see as "required support" that others are trying to disclaim.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadGuess what. I don't. I find it cleaner than earlier iterations of the game. And I find it refreshingly devoid of the "options and supplements are bad" mantra that fans of smaller press systems repeat to try to validate their RPG buying decisions. But when it comes right down to it, I run the same sorts of game I ran with D&D years ago.

Umm, fair enough.  

(I actually agree that 3e is 'cleaner' than earlier versions, with the possible exception of the RC, if by that you mean more 'coherent' and 'consistent', but that's completely beside the point.  I would never deny that 3e is an impressively 'clean' system.  I'm also not sure what 'mantra' you're referring to here, as other systems have supplements as well.)

I obviously have no idea what your earlier D&D games were like, or your current ones for that matter.  I understand that some people always played D&D with a battlemat and figures, frequently focused on the rules during play, etc.

In my own experience, as I've already stated, I found running 3e to be a bit of a shock.  I had never really used a battlemat for my games (even the 'rules heavy' ones that I played like Rolemaster didn't require one).  Furthermore, 3e really 'forced' everyone to make regular, explicit references to the rules throughout the game.  This was quite different from my experiences with other systems, where the 'rules' were largely in the  background and were only rarely the subject of explicit discussion and analysis during gameplay.  During my first campaign I assumed that this was largely a consequence of the group's lack of familiarity with the rules (well, not the battlemat thing, which I never could get into, but the other stuff).  But after my second one, I realised that this mode of play seemed to be encouraged by the nature of the game itself.

Of course, that was just my own experience, although it seems to be mirrored in the experiences of (some/many) others.

I was actually worried that I had started to view my earlier RPG experiences through 'rose-tinted glasses'.  And then I finally took a break from 3e, tried some other games, and realised -- lo and behold -- that my recollections were correct, and that the mechanics of 3e conflicted with my style of GMing.  

(I'm somewhat curious to see if I could change certain aspects of 3e, as well as my GMing style, to see if a happier consequence might be possible.  Maybe someday I'll try.  But for now I'm happier with other systems.)

The 3e campaigns were successful.  I enjoyed them overall, and my players   had a good time.  But looking back on them, I enjoyed them to a great extend despite of the rules, not because of them.

QuoteHave you been spying on me? Do you know what iterations of D&D I played years ago?

No, no, I was trying to support your point. Sorry. Published Adventures can easyily be exchanged between all versions of D&D.
It`s the same game since it beginning. It`s only now that it has the clean rules it needed.

Quote from: Settembrini...Published Adventures can easyily be exchanged between all versions of D&D.
It`s the same game since it beginning....

Sorry, but this is complete bullshit.  It takes practically no effort to convert a Basic D&D module into 1e AD&D terms, and vice versa.  The same is simply not true of 3e and earlier versions of A/D&D.

Really, the notion that you could take the 1e AD&D module G1-3 off the shelf and run it 'as is' with 3e is laughable.  The amount of conversion work is considerable (comparable to converting it to some different game altogether).

Making claims like this really undermine your credibility.

EDIT: This should not be interpreted as a criticism of 3e.  I'm simply pointing out a fact here.

Quote from: AkrasiaI obviously have no idea what your earlier D&D games were like, or your current ones for that matter.  I understand that some people always played D&D with a battlemat and figures, frequently focused on the rules during play, etc.

FWIW, I frequently don't (even now), and a few changes that made it harder to ignore battlemats are the 3.5 changes I disliked the most. But also FWIW, I do remember them historically getting plenty of use in groups outside my own.

QuoteI was actually worried that I had started to view my earlier RPG experiences through 'rose-tinted glasses'.  And then I finally took a break from 3e, tried some other games, and realised -- lo and behold -- that my recollections were correct, and that the mechanics of 3e conflicted with my style of GMing.

That's fair enough. What I am taking umbrage with is the image that D&D is only and always about the battlemat and the optimized combat experience. I have seen some segments where this is true -- like the RPGA, which by nature seems a more competitive environment. But my experience is that most "kitchen table" D&D games boil down to the same quest style RPG that I experienced before 3e.

Quote from: SettembriniNo, no, I was trying to support your point.

Which is why I said I really didn't know what you were asserting.

QuoteSorry. Published Adventures can easyily be exchanged between all versions of D&D.
It`s the same game since it beginning. It`s only now that it has the clean rules it needed.

Ah, yes. I have said on other boards that the glories of the three editions are:

1e: The Adventures
2e: The Settings
3e: The Rules

I think this is why Necromancer and Goodman, who consciously try to mimic "old school" adventures, are the big 3rd party adventure publishers therse days. Of course, I find that even Goodmans Games' "NPCs are meant to be killed" attitude doesn't quite line up with my own attitude, then or now.

Quote from: AkrasiaSorry, but this is complete bullshit.  It takes practically no effort to convert a Basic D&D module into 1e AD&D terms, and vice versa.  The same is simply not true of 3e and earlier versions of A/D&D.

Really, the notion that you could take the 1e AD&D module G1-3 off the shelf and run it 'as is' with 3e is laughable.  The amount of conversion work is considerable (comparable to converting it to some different game altogether).

Making claims like this really undermine your credibility.

I don't think it's laughable, and I find the assertion that you can't run the likes of G1-3 off the shelf in 3e dubious myself.

Especially beause I've seen it done. That EXACT module, in fact.(Does Leopold or one of his alts hang 'round here anymore? He did it at GenCon a few years back.)

I also have converted Undermoutain, D1-3, and Isle of Dread on the fly.

Well, I can imagine running the Giant series on the fly, as most opponents are monsters. Yet with any previous editions (plus Hackmaster), I can just use the values from the book, with 3E I'd have to reference my Monster Manual. Not a big deal, though. But then, I could do the same with _any_ other fantasy RPG with giants in its bestiary. The relationship between AD&D and D&D 3E doesn't really help you all that much.

It really gets worse when you have lots of human(oid) characters with class levels. This takes quite a while to convert. Converting them on the fly loses a lot of the tactical charm that 3E offers.

I'd say even when you're converting on the fly and it works, it would work even better when you'd have some time to prepare (feats, items, more opportunities for skills etc.).

Quote from: SosthenesWell, I can imagine running the Giant series on the fly, as most opponents are monsters.

I totally agree, until the PCs run into the drow.  I wouldn't be too keen on running those on the fly.  But if the PCs just want to rampage through the Steading or the Glacial Rift, that's easy as cake.

Quote from: SosthenesWell, I can imagine running the Giant series on the fly, as most opponents are monsters. Yet with any previous editions (plus Hackmaster), I can just use the values from the book, with 3E I'd have to reference my Monster Manual. Not a big deal, though. But then, I could do the same with _any_ other fantasy RPG with giants in its bestiary. The relationship between AD&D and D&D 3E doesn't really help you all that much.

It really gets worse when you have lots of human(oid) characters with class levels. This takes quite a while to convert. Converting them on the fly loses a lot of the tactical charm that 3E offers.

This jibes with my undermoutain experience. As older modules didn't have a lot of classed creatures, the issue of making classes creatures didn't come up a whole lot. I did have to convert some drow and some other interesting NPCs (like the archmage in a kid's body)... but as most of those conversions were pretty cool, it wasn't all that bad for me.

(The old 3.0 NPC tables were pretty helpful for quick NPCs as well. The 3.5 DMG really hosed up in that regard.)

Point one: I have actually run Slavelords directly. It is possible.

Point two: Even if you would change all the stats, the actual adventure, the mode of play, the stuff you do, does not change.

Quote from: SettembriniNo, no, I was trying to support your point. Sorry. Published Adventures can easyily be exchanged between all versions of D&D.
It`s the same game since it beginning. It`s only now that it has the clean rules it needed.

I um.... disagree completely.  I've been playing (usually gamemastering) various iterations of (A)D&D since the mid-Eighties, still have my copies of D123 & T1-4, Keep on the Borderlands, etc. and generally love old-style adventures.  Converting them to 3.x on the fly is not as trivial as you might want to think.

In addition to worrying about NPC stats (which are hugely different in 3.x), the challenges of various encounters are way out of whack.

Converting isn't impossible by any means, and it's less work than creating that much detail from scratch, but to say it's easy ... well, I'd just call that wrong.

With that said, I'll just note that I love D&D.  I actually love the gamey aspects of it.  I love it FOR its gamey aspects.  Alongside it, I usually run a lighter game such as FATE or Call of Cthulhu because I love that kind of play, too.  You know, though, I'd say I get right around as much roleplaying out of my players in my D&D games as I do with the other ones...  Maybe my groups are just unusual...

-O

Quote from: Caesar SlaadAh, yes. I have said on other boards that the glories of the three editions are:

1e: The Adventures
2e: The Settings
3e: The Rules

This is totally true. I am very impressed by this insight.

I also want to agree that I think the real issue is that in 3e, you can't be lazy and still be a GM. I think D&D3 GM's need to prep to get good results. I think some of the prep being described is a bit of exaggeration, though.

Usually I  prep (rules intensive stuff) from around 30 minutes to an hour before each session. Sometimes it's less, such as  when I have an npc already done that appears in the next session or so.

But I have to add other types of preparation: mapmaking- I do in my sparetime anyhow. I also write up new areas of the map that are just outside of the explored areas, and keep track of plotting elements- planning what the main villians and different factions are up to, that sort of thing.  Some NPCs I build on the weekends or when I'm bored. It's a lot of fun to write up a really cool encounter. This afternoon I'm sending an email out to the players that describes the ship they just "liberated" in the last adventure. One of the fun things about being a D&D DM is that you can have fun with the game outside of the game.