The overall basic skeleton of the edition was an interesting development that has some intellectual elegance. Having all classes have the same xp costs means that you have to balance the classes, which they did poorly, but the concept is interesting, and allows other cool concepts like the 3e multiclassing system, ECL for other races, and PrCs (the concept, not the results). Removing level limits as a balance to race was long overdue. The simple/martial/exotic weapon proficiency system was a nice happy medium between everyone knowing everything and choose from the insanely specific list. Other things I like are standardization of status effects and most spells and monsters incurring those effects rather than necessarily having their own completely different specific rules, standardized attribute modifiers, and not arbitrarily excluding btb dwarven bards or halfling paladins.

The game only really ends up being truly problematic when you look at the specifics and/or the actual executions. Game balance was absent, but expected because it was declared a design goal. Feats were a logical extrapolation of where proficiencies were going in late 2e, but they never quite decided what they wanted to do with them or how powerful each one was supposed to be. Monsters having defined power based on monster type and hit dice made bizaare outcomes like minotaurs with better willpower defense than poison defense, or a creature type as varied as undead (with both effemeral ghosts and meat-shield zombies) using the same hp, save, and combat progressions, etc.

The greatest critique of 3e I have is that saying in effect that your system will have a rule for everything, interclass/race balance, and a working universal resolution mechanic does nothing but invite criticism where you have implemented these things poorly. I'm not going to pretend that any of the TSR era versions do things perfectly, but they also (to lesser or greater levels) admitted that they were just one way amongst many to do things, and to change them if you thought you knew better.

That said, 3e was a good first attempt at what they were trying to do (standardize, balance, unify). If digital books were the order of the day in 2000, and they could have easily made sure that people got versions 3.1, 3.11, etc., and they slowly tweaked it to a better system, we might still be singing its praise.

Actually the worst thing they did was introduce Balance Uber Alles.

Balance might be the life of a system, but it's the death of a setting.

Quote from: CRKrueger;886651Two companies?  Are you off your meds?  The entire OSR, Mongoose, FFG, White Wolf...damn near everyone made money off the OGL, and many still are.

Name me one Mongoose or White Wolf product that currently uses D20 system as per the WoTC OGL?

The OSR movement is using the older systems, not the D20 one.  Although...  I need to check, and you're right.  There are more than two companies that are currently using the D20 system as per the WoTC OGL.  Troll Lord Games is still making Castles and Crusades, which kinda-sorta uses the D20 and AD&D system.

Other than them, only Paizo and Green Ronin are using the D20 system as per the WoTC OGL to create a full line of games.

Everyone else is simply making source books that aren't the main point of their market.

So no, there and I will correct myself, only 3 companies that uses the D20 system as per the first WoTC OGL that are still in business using it primarily.

Simple and straightforward basic mechanics.

The skill resolution mechanic.

The 'to hit' mod, rather than Thaco, and ascending AC.

The three saving throws were ok.

The idea that D&D, modified somewhat as D20, could be used for all kinds of genres and settings.

Ascending AC somehow being better is just a confusing statement to me. Was the math that hard for you when lower AC = better?

Quote from: Matt;887210Ascending AC somehow being better is just a confusing statement to me. Was the math that hard for you when lower AC = better?

Because according to science, the human brain finds it easier to add, than subtract.  So objectively, additive is better than THAC0, less of a mental disconnect.

Agree or not, but facts are facts.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;887214Because according to science, the human brain finds it easier to add, than subtract.  So objectively, additive is better than THAC0, less of a mental disconnect.

Agree or not, but facts are facts.

For me, make everything roll high, instead of "this is high, but this is roll under" made more sense, likely for the reason you just stated.

Quote from: cranebump;887246For me, make everything roll high, instead of "this is high, but this is roll under" made more sense, likely for the reason you just stated.

That is also a good point, in AD&D 2e, there was a lot of random mechanics for just about everything, very little unifying them.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;887266That is also a good point, in AD&D 2e, there was a lot of random mechanics for just about everything, very little unifying them.

Exactly. That happens to be the edition I played the most of, prior to getting into a little bit of 3.5, then playing a lot of Microlite20. Of course, I guess if I'd have been smart, I would've just flipped the thieve's abilities over (subtract the chance of success from 100%, roll high), or just added monster AC to the attack roll, rather than chart consultation, or done something to tweak things. You didn't have the wonderful world of the web, where folks shared their shortcuts and tweaks (and now, whole systems).

Then again, those things could have just been baked into the system from the start. So thank you 3E for that, at least (but not for the math experiment that followed).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;886431Yes, it's so successful that only two companies are actually making money with it.  So very successful.

It was very good for the HOBBY. And since RPG businesses only need to exist (IMHO) to support the hobby, the good of the hobby is far more important to me than how what is good for the hobby affects some RPG company's profits. The OGL means the D&D hobby controls the rules which is great for the hobby.

QuoteAnd I have to call bullshit on this.  People are still playing the older editions because they hated the idea of change.

Or because the older editions of D&D support their playstyle/needs better than the newer editions.  For example, any version of D&D I am going to play as more than an occasional one shot has to have very fast combat (average combat lasts around 10 minutes) and not use minis/battlemats/terrain. It is also going to have to be close enough to the D&D of the 1970s/early 1980s that the homebrew settings I developed and still used back then will work without major rewriting. It also has to be playable by casual players who have no interest in builds, system mastery, or even reading the rules without being overshadowed by players in the same group who are into system mastery, builds, and who study the rules like they were preparing for the bar exam.  This is not me hating the idea of change, it's me refusing to play games that don't match what I want just because some company needed to publish a new version to meet their business goals.

Quote from: RandallS;887326This is not me hating the idea of change, it's me refusing to play games that don't match what I want just because some company needed to publish a new version to meet their business goals.

But but but ... all the KEWL kids are playing 5E!
(I'm pretty tired of people telling me that I'm playing OD&D for "bad reasons" too.)

The idea that people stuck with older editions because they "Hate change" is bizarre. Did you feel that way about players who stuck with 3e/Pathfinder when 4e came out?

I ran 3e for a while but got turned off by the complexity and went back to Basic. "Change" had nothing to do with it. And I use ascending AC in my current games so it's not like I hate or reject 3e or it's innovations.

Some people play older editions for their simplicity, some because it's the system they know and it works for what they want, some for nostalgia, but I've never met anyone in real-world face-to-face gaming who was playing Old School out of any weird ideological rejection of modernity.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;887341Some people play older editions for their simplicity, some because it's the system they know and it works for what they want, some for nostalgia, but I've never met anyone in real-world face-to-face gaming who was playing Old School out of any weird ideological rejection of modernity.

+1.  I have played every iteration of D&D, except OD&D.  I have gravitated back to the simpler stuff because of simplicity and speed of play.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;887341The idea that people stuck with older editions because they "Hate change" is bizarre. Did you feel that way about players who stuck with 3e/Pathfinder when 4e came out?

Have you actually HEARD/READ some of the reasons WHY people won't play X edition?  BEFORE THE EDITION IS EVEN OUT?

People are hating on the games before anything is actually concrete, or even past the rumour stage.  They don't even KNOW what the game will have, instead they make some of the stupidest reasons for why they will not play the next edition of the game.  They'll make shit up as an excuse not to.  Because their old game is 'better'.

And you're telling me that they're OK with change?  Really?  Really?

As for Pathfinder, FUCK YES.  ALL those haters who were whining about how WoTC betrayed Paizo (despite the fact that the split was pretty amicable, ACCORDING TO PAIZO THEMSELVES) and decided to stick with 3e because, and I swear this is what the fans of 3e said, that Pathfinder was the 'second coming' of D&D.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;887331But but but ... all the KEWL kids are playing 5E!
(I'm pretty tired of people telling me that I'm playing OD&D for "bad reasons" too.)

Look Gronie, most of us are cool with you sticking with your edition of D&D.  What we're NOT cool is your constant haranguing of us who don't want to play it, or have different ideas as to what we want our D&D to be, because we didn't play at the Great Gygax's knee.

We get it, we got it, and unless you have something constructive to say or suggest that doesn't snidely reference how your way was the 'first way' which somehow implies that it's the 'right' way, please don't.

I like new things because I can use all or parts of it to help my gaming in general.  If you prefer the older versions?  Fine, perfect, keep at it, but don't come at me either yelling, or passive-aggressively suggesting that what I like is wrong because it's not like YOUR edition.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;887341The idea that people stuck with older editions because they "Hate change" is bizarre. Did you feel that way about players who stuck with 3e/Pathfinder when 4e came out?

I ran 3e for a while but got turned off by the complexity and went back to Basic. "Change" had nothing to do with it. And I use ascending AC in my current games so it's not like I hate or reject 3e or it's innovations.

Yeah, I was enthusiastic about 3E when it first came out, bought the PHB as soon as it hit the shelves. I was just immediately turned off by the game. One of the things I didn't like actually is the ascending AC. It's not an innovation at all.

The way I had handled it prior to 3E was this: Roll your d20 hit roll. Apply any modifiers. Treat AC as a modifier. If that makes or beats your THAC0, you hit. Since positive or negative, AC was generally a single digit number, there was no two-digit addition or subtraction involved. Ascending AC's is a step backwards in that regards.

Now I understand that when 2nd Ed took the time to explain THAC0, it did a horrible job explaining how to use it and it made it seem more complicated than it actually is... made it seem like there was something that called for an innovation to fix it. And this is my key point. It didn't require a new system. All it required was people actually learn how to use what was already there.

QuoteSome people play older editions for their simplicity, some because it's the system they know and it works for what they want, some for nostalgia, but I've never met anyone in real-world face-to-face gaming who was playing Old School out of any weird ideological rejection of modernity.

Here's the thing. When it comes to books or movies, while there are a few notable exceptions, as a general rule, we pretty much know the sequels never measure up to the original. Given that fact, I don't understand why the default position would be that new editions of an RPG actually do add any good ideas no matter how many improvements they try to make.

We know there's a great degree of subjectivity to the RPG. People may learn how to play the game in different ways that work for them and their groups. All else held equal, when a new edition comes along, it inherently undermines those efforts. At best, it may enhance one possible approach. But it's to the detriment of others.