TheRPGSite

I know, its all going to end in tears, but what the hell.

What did you *like* about the D20 system? Did you backport any of the new rules into older games? Were there any awesome 3rd-party supplements you always used?

There's a horrible little bit of me that's been working on ripping the D20 system apart and sticking it back together as a gritty, dark little dungeon crawler... Lots of OSR influence and bits and bobs of other stuff.

D&D3 was an amazing game when we played it like AD&D2.

Quote from: PiebaldWookie;885704I know, its all going to end in tears, but what the hell.

What did you *like* about the D20 system?

The fact that you could multiclass almost freely, and treat classes as skill packages (but which class you started as mattered).
Standardising some status effects.
Giving the different sources of armour class bonus different names.
AFAIK, introducing the concept of Touch Attacks.
Stating it clearly when you suffer Attacks of Opportunity.
Arguably, stating it clearly that you get full HP at 1st level.

I think that's the whole of it;).

QuoteDid you backport any of the new rules into older games? Were there any awesome 3rd-party supplements you always used?

Apart from Book of Nine Swords, I don't think so.
Arguably, I heard nice things about Iron Heroes, but I'd burned out on 3.5 and didn't really bother trying it out.

QuoteThere's a horrible little bit of me that's been working on ripping the D20 system apart and sticking it back together as a gritty, dark little dungeon crawler... Lots of OSR influence and bits and bobs of other stuff.

IMO, that game is already written, and is called DCC:D!

Having a standardised resolution mechanic was a great help to coming up with spot rulings - no more um-ing and ah-ing about whether it made more sense to do something as a D6 roll or a percentile roll or whatever, just pick an appropriate skill/stat combination and a difficulty level and go.

The skill system also put a big fat stake through the heart of the idea that only thieves could hide and climb stuff, which was very welcome. Anyone can try to do anything that doesn't require specialised class-specific training to do (like spellcasting), some characters will have more aptitude at some tasks than others - great, thank you, love it.

They immediately undermined that by presenting Feats which seemed to imply that you needed the Feat in question to try a particular thing, and by having way too many skills - Use Rope, anyone? - but the basic idea of it was sound. The more modest skill list in 5E - and the fact that there isn't really an "unskilled" penalty in that game - works much better for my money, but 3E laid the foundations of that.

I think the core of the system was basically solid. Both Conan d20 and Lone Wolf d20 were excellent games, IMO, although I'd hesitate to go back to Conan because of the need to factor in feat selection and too many special abilities when designing NPCs (although a lot of that can be hand-waved or eye-balled close enough to work in play, with system familiarity).

Quote from: PiebaldWookie;885704I know, its all going to end in tears, but what the hell.

What did you *like* about the D20 system? Did you backport any of the new rules into older games? Were there any awesome 3rd-party supplements you always used?

There's a horrible little bit of me that's been working on ripping the D20 system apart and sticking it back together as a gritty, dark little dungeon crawler... Lots of OSR influence and bits and bobs of other stuff.

It allowed for extensive character customization and remain recognizably D&D.

:(
/tears
 :rant:
... and it didn't have the decency to fade gracefully, too.
:p

Standardized ascending mechanic.

Use of skills.

As others have said:

Streamlined mechanics(but instead much heavier and slower in play so the positive sides gets overshadowed)

Ability score mods streamlined. Although Basic D&D had already done it.

Multiclassing that made sense

Stats for lots of humanoid races as PC's in the MM

Saving throw categories that made sense
I liked the effort, but not the results, of the skill system

Feats was a good idea, but not a very good implementation (I think 5e did them good)

It was a very complete game with just the core books

Even if the d20boom was not that great in itself, the SRD/OGL layed the foundations of the OSR. And for that I am very thankfull.

Standardizing saving throws was nice.

Standardizing Abilities and what they do, also nice.

But I think the best part was getting rid of things like THAC0.

I can sum it up simply by saying "the d20 system". It's not perfect. I would have liked it better sans feats. But it's a straight-forward system that doesn't try to reinvent the wheel or teach us all yet one more not-so-clever way of rolling dice. You can plug it in to pretty much any setting or genre.

Most of my gripes about the game was that it called itself D&D while not being backwards compatible with earlier versions of the game. If it had been called anything else, there'd be a lot to like about it.

Nothing.

I wipe my ass on 3rd edition and all its spawn.

I liked a lot of the art. It was a nice middle ground between the wobbly inconsistencies of 2nd ed and the overslick generic "IP identity" stuff of 4e. I still use many 3e pieces as my definitive mental image of some creatures, items, classes and effects.

The unified task resolution system in d20 was fantastic.

Roll d20 / add bonuses / compare to a number in the GM's head.

It's simple, versatile, immersive, it gives the players lots of fiddly bits for character customization, and... the GM has the final say.

Pretty much the rest was crap...

On second thought, I like the unified XP system that allows for easy multi-classing.  I also like the higher stat modifiers and the simplification of what stats do.  I didn't mind the 3 saving throws though they lack character.  I personally like skills (sacrilege to some) though D&D is fine without them. Race/class combos made the game fresh again, for a while, but character customization options galore was more disaster than cool.

For sanity's sake I won't even mention the stuff that drove me crazy, except that Gronan can use 3rd editions pretense at game balance for TP for all I care.

The heart of d20 a good game.  I'll just say that if I want to play D&D I'd rather play DCC, Fantastic Heroes and Witchery, Crypts and Things or some mish-mash of older editions and OSR stuff.

QuoteOriginally Posted by Shipyard Locked
I liked a lot of the art.

I think art matters - and its pretty subjective - but for me the art in 3rd, 4th, Pathfinder and 5th is pretty flat and uninspiring.  Give me DCC's art any day!

Standardized mechanic, based on a single additive roll.  Unified XP system.  Moddability.

Pretty much all I can think of.

It wasnt 4th Edition. :D

Quote from: Christopher Brady;885836Standardized mechanic, based on a single additive roll.

I tend to agree that this is the beginning and end of what 3E did right. Everything else, even if it started out good, eventually devolved into muck, but standardizing the mechanic? Gold.

3e drew the min/max dickheads which was great for me at cons because I was left with people who really enjoyed OD&D.

As for the system, I must give kudos for Ascending AC. WTF didn't we think of that sooner? I personally feel like an idiot for not inventing it in 1983.

I can't give kudos for the Unified XP chart because Tunnels & Trolls invented that circa 1976.

Some really good creative shit came out of the D20 / OGL boom.

Personally, I think ascending AC is a null either way, uniform resolution mechanic is a minor negative, and the same XP for all classes is a huge negative.

The had some nice art.

Quote from: tenbones;885873The had some nice art.

If you like every monster in the monster manual looking like the poster child for anorexics-r-us. Some of the most gawd-awefull art in the MM.

Quote from: Spinachcat;885854As for the system, I must give kudos for Ascending AC. WTF didn't we think of that sooner? I personally feel like an idiot for not inventing it in 1983.

It was invented at least several years before that. The first professional publication I saw of such a system for D&D was in the second part of the "Vardy Combat System" article published in Different Worlds #7 (April/May 1980), written by John Sapienza -- see page 22.

I skipped that era.

I like ascending AC and "simple" weapons.

Quote from: RandallS;885911It was invented at least several years before that. The first professional publication I saw of such a system for D&D was in the second part of the "Vardy Combat System" article published in Different Worlds #7 (April/May 1980), written by John Sapienza -- see page 22.

Descending AC is among the sacredest of sacred cows: pointless, non-intuitive, confusing to newcomers, abandoned by practically every other system of similar design long before D&D did, yet still vigorously defended by otherwise pragmatic people.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;885915Descending AC is among the sacredest of sacred cows: pointless, non-intuitive, confusing to newcomers, abandoned by practically every other system of similar design long before D&D did, yet still vigorously defended by otherwise pragmatic people.

As far as I can tell, it's a matter of taste. Mathematically, all the various D&D-variant combat system based on rolling a D20 work out about the same. The main exception is the combat system from 1e with its repeated 20s in the table. While a lot of people can come up with excellent reasons to support their favorite variant as the "One Best Way", I can't really see any one variant as objectively so much better than another that it is obvious "best".

Any step towards Rolemaster is a good thing? :D

I think 3e was better thought out than 2e and avoided many of the pitfalls of just dropping the parts of the game people didn't use because they didn't understand them.  That said, I think the entire weapon verses armor table thing was too integral to AD&D's weapon stats and carrying them forward without it was the biggest fault in second edition, well that and elves wielding longbows with sheaf arrows for +1 to hit, 2d4 damage, 2 shots, rate of fire 2.

But we were talking about 3e so deliberate and thoughtful design over regurgitation without reflection.  I'm not a big 3e fan, I already have Rolemaster and GURPS if I want them and D&D being more like them isn't really a plus from where I sit.

Oh and THAC0 is design neutral and charts are fine by me.

Quote from: RandallS;885911It was invented at least several years before that. The first professional publication I saw of such a system for D&D was in the second part of the "Vardy Combat System" article published in Different Worlds #7 (April/May 1980), written by John Sapienza -- see page 22.

  2nd Edition almost adopted ascending AC, but backed off for fear of invalidating their extensive library of backstock. I think they somewhat underestimated gamers' ability to adapt, but I can see why they'd choose the safer route.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;8859262nd Edition almost adopted ascending AC, but backed off for fear of invalidating their extensive library of backstock. I think they somewhat underestimated gamers' ability to adapt, but I can see why they'd choose the safer route.

Second edition is probably the most conservative edition ever published. They played with peripheral stuff, but completely shied away from changing anything that was part of the core. Look at saves, for instance -- they didn't just keep the same five categories, they even kept the exact same numbers. But it was a natural first step; just consolidating the mess that was 1e was a major undertaking.

Third edition in a lot of ways is the 2nd edition they shied away from. They made a lot of small changes that each, individually, made sense and seemed to be natural outgrowth of 2e. But when all those changes were taken in toto, what emerged was a game that plays nothing like earlier editions. That's why 3e worked so well initially, because people played it like 2e. But it's also why it started to break down, when people started to drop their old preconceptions and treat it as a game in itself. Because that's when things like the build mentality, caster supremacy, save or dies over blasting, the three Hs, overly complex monsters and NPCs, and so on became growing problems.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;885915Descending AC is among the sacredest of sacred cows: pointless, non-intuitive, confusing to newcomers, abandoned by practically every other system of similar design long before D&D did, yet still vigorously defended by otherwise pragmatic people.

Meh.  When you use a lookup chart it really doesn't matter.  And I still use a hit chart rather than a formula to this very day.  Graphical information is easier for me to use.  I never did like THACO.

In fact, when I was playing a lot of CHAMPIONS I made myself a to hit chart for OCV -10 to OCV +10 versus DCV -10 to DCV +10 because I found it easier to use.

I liked that Thieves/Rogues could actually do their stuff successfully at 1st level. I back-ported that into my Classic D&D game by giving up to +50% bonuses to Thief skill checks, it works a lot better IMO.

I like 3e combat better than pre-3e up through 5th level, the tactical design works well with minis to make an exciting game.  I like having a 3rd or 4th level greatsword-wielding Fighter attack for lots of damage.

Everything else is pretty bad, but these are two major factors in making 1st-5th 3e a fun game.

The OGL.

It broke the grip of the death-cult of Vampire and brought d&d back in from the cold.

Quote from: CRKrueger;886104The OGL.

The greatest gift the RPG community ever received.

IMO making the core of the system free for use to other game companies was a great idea.  There were a hell of a lot of companies out there that had great ideas for games, but crap systems.  By having a freely available system, it allowed those companies to focus on their setting, and not try to have to nit pick math and bonuses and such.

OTOH, there are also a lot of companies out there that had some really crap ideas for games, and it allowed them to make their games available as well.
as well as having companies that had an already good game and crap out a d20 version of the game.

I have only a casual relationship with D&D in its various incarnations so take what I say with a pinch of salt, but when D&D 3.0 first came out it struck me as very polished and well designed. I could never make heads or tail of AD&D.It didn't help that most DM seemed to run it differently. Basic D&D, as it was called, was more my speed. But even that seemed odd. A lot of it seemed very arbitrary. Sometimes you aimed to roll high, sometime low. I puzzled by the array of different saves ( who exactly is Rod and why do I need to be saved from him?).

D&D 3.0 was smooth, a breathe of fresh air. It brought a unified mechanic that seemed much easier to understand than the previous patchwork of systems. And more to the point, it seemed the had managed to do the impossible, "modernise" (apologies if that terms causes offence) the system while at the same time respecting the spirit and tradition of the game. I appreciate for the real fans of the game might violently disagree with this sentiment and have a very different view on what accurately reflects the spirit of the game really, this was just my perception from the outside.

In the event I didn't really play D&D 3.0 long enough to get caught out by the creeping level of complexity and the whole character optimisation culture that followed.  And when the time came to pared down my game collection, it's the D&D Cyclopedia I kept on the basis that a game should probably have a version of D&D in his collection, and the D&D 3.0 PHB that got binned.

What is unquestionable is that it was a hugely influential game and it brought a surge of players back into the hobby in a way few other games have.

I like the ascending AC, unified ability score chart, spell progression charts, and 3 saving throws. I think you could have a very solid Basic D&D by dropping feats and skills out of 3rd Edition.

Nice unified mechanics that were SO easy to hack and modify. I think they had issues with math on bonuses, etc. But that was more a problem of mounting numbers and not enough alternative means of handling power in game. Level math yo.

But other than that? It was great! And is the foundation of many wonderful systems I enjoy. M&M, 5E, etc.

So, step in the right direction?

Quote from: One Horse Town;886105It broke the grip of the death-cult of Vampire and brought d&d back in from the cold.

And this, very much this. It is the demarking line of the end of 90's story gaming glut...sadly also the end of the cool 90's mecha/anime games. And the birth of the d20 era.

Quote from: ptingler;886175I like the ascending AC, unified ability score chart, spell progression charts, and 3 saving throws. I think you could have a very solid Basic D&D by dropping feats and skills out of 3rd Edition.

You know, now that I think about it, I think you may be right on that. Microlite -20 is the only version oh 3.x I run, and it runs fairly close to basic with regards to feel. However, I also think 5E without the feats and skills makes for a good Basic.

1) The OGL. This cannot be stressed enough.

2) Ascending AC.

3) Rejuvenating D&D and RPGs in general. Getting gamers to re-appraise older editions.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;8864281) The OGL. This cannot be stressed enough.

Yes, it's so successful that only two companies are actually making money with it.  So very successful.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;8864282) Ascending AC.

This I can't argue.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;8864283) Rejuvenating D&D and RPGs in general. Getting gamers to re-appraise older editions.

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

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

I would think there are other ways of determining success here, other than profit margin. The OGL certainly gave us a wide array of choices and additional material. Have to agree with your assertion that 3.x didn't necessarily rejuvenate D&D.  Speaking only for me, I've never purchased any 3E material, outside used modules.

To say it didn't rejuventate D&D is a bit myopic.  There were midnight release events at major chain stores and the sales of 3e core were very high (don't ask me to source this info though).  Does anyone have these numbers?

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

Two 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.

I assume you are referring to Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition

Well, as someone who was actively dubious about the game to begin with (only roll initiative once? MADNESS!), I tried it and ended up preferring it. Then I launched the best D&D campaign I've ever run.

Now it could have been the players, or it could have been me. But I think that what 3e brought to the table helped.

A few retrospectives on contributors:
1) The OGL
Yup, amidst all the caterwauling about how horrible the 3rd party content was, the OGL opened the creative floodgates of many good designers. I'm still working off adventure and setting content created by some of the better 3rd party authors.

2) Core system
Moving everything to D20+mods made everything more intuitive and, at the same time, more hackable.

3) Skills
I was never satisfied with previous iteration of skills/proficiencies in D&D, and never liked the older approach of having the system pretty much only address combat and traps. That the skill system is something that post-3e designers have actively walked back is nothing short of stunning to me.

I could chase down smaller things, but those are the biggies. Now, 3e did go off the path, especially in the 3.5 era (making grids not just convenient but central, class-mill marketing philosophy, etc.), but overall, it took my gaming to a better place.

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.

Quote from: CRKrueger;886682Actually 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.

I'd argue that the version of "balance" which became fetishized in 3rd Edition design is the death of the system, too. The game plays best when you don't buy into that crap.

Looking at my house rules document, I think my answer is: Everything except grappling, flying, and the concept of "class skills".

For me, D&D 3.5 was my first RPG ever, and I started playing it when I was thirteen, way back in 2007 when 3e/3.5/D20 was in its death throes and 4e was on the way (although when I started playing, I didn't know that until a few months after 4e came out) and so 3e/3.5 has a special place in my heart.

So, here's my reasons why 3e was a good thing.

1. The OGL

2. Ascending AC

3. More customization

1. It wasn't AD&D

2. Dumb things like racial restrictions based on class were removed.

3. A unified resolution system based on the d20.

4. Feats and Skill idea, though pretty horribly implemented.

5. Character customization and an ease of things like Multiclassing.

6. It made spellcasting fun, though later it became broken

7. It gave us E6

No more THAC0, and no more low/negative armor classes being good.

No more 18/100 strength.

No more attribute requirements for classes.

No more random tables like the 'bend bars/lift gates' table, or that base percent chance to disarm traps or sneak around if you aren't a thief.

Will, Reflex, and Fort. saves instead of abstract-to-the-point-of-meaningless 'save vs. petrification and polymorph' and that sort of crap.

An actual skill system.

universalizing multi-classing across races, instead of humans doing it one way (dual classing) and everybody else doing it another way. No more fixed lists of what multi-class combinations each race could experiment with.

Feats. Especially weapon and armor proficiency feats, which gave some justification to initial gear selection beyond "Your cleric can't swing a short sword because shut up." Combat feats that gave a warrior actual options in combat and build.

Hit dice- combining monster stats with their challenge rating in a way that makes it easy to generate more/less experienced monsters.

Quote from: Agkistro;888014"Your cleric can't swing a short sword because shut up."

It was somewhat explained as that the classes didn't get the training for certain weapons outside of what was allowed in AD&D 2e.

I agree with the rest though.  So many subsystems that really didn't work all that well.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;888017It was somewhat explained as that the classes didn't get the training for certain weapons outside of what was allowed in AD&D 2e.

I agree with the rest though.  So many subsystems that really didn't work all that well.

Yeah, they had their justifications.  Having universalized simple weapon, martial weapon, and exotic weapon feats made it feel a lot less arbitary to me though.

Quote from: Agkistro;888019Yeah, they had their justifications.  Having universalized simple weapon, martial weapon, and exotic weapon feats made it feel a lot less arbitary to me though.

Hmm.  OK, on the surface I agree with you, once you get past the surface you get some oddities, where some weapons get stuffed as an Exotic but isn't in 'real life' but is put there for 'balance' reasons.

Good idea, flawed execution, I'd say.

Character customization. Ability Score Bonus (so much better than an entire chart for each ability score to see how it affected different things). Dropping Exceptional Strength. A fairly universal mechanic (though there were still exceptions).

Unfortunately, I feel like it collapsed under its own weight and fiddliness.

The thing that sucked me into 3ed the most was the chargen mini-game. Spend way to long combing through books to put together combinations of feats to make some goofball character concept actually work. Sometimes they choked in actual play but I got a hugely entertaining quasi-pacifist half-orc character out of it (very good at sundering, non-lethal damage and intimidation).

Not really sure having the stuff that made that mini-game so attractive to me is good for the system in general though.

Oh and ascending AC, I've gotten so used to that that I convert old-style AC in my head to ascending style on the fly when playing stuff older editions.

Quote from: Daztur;888145The thing that sucked me into 3ed the most was the chargen mini-game. Spend way to long combing through books to put together combinations of feats to make some goofball character concept actually work. Sometimes they choked in actual play but I got a hugely entertaining quasi-pacifist half-orc character out of it (very good at sundering, non-lethal damage and intimidation).

Despite never wanting to play it again, or god forbid run it, I actually think 3.x/PF is fun to build characters in in that nuts and bolts way. Its neat to see what you can make. (its even fun to try to make things like Pun Pun, or my, by far, favorite the Psychic Sandwich, just never as an actual exercise in making a real character for play)

It just, as you said, doesn't make for very good IN game play.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;888164Despite never wanting to play it again, or god forbid run it, I actually think 3.x/PF is fun to build characters in in that nuts and bolts way. Its neat to see what you can make. (its even fun to try to make things like Pun Pun, or my, by far, favorite the Psychic Sandwich, just never as an actual exercise in making a real character for play)

It just, as you said, doesn't make for very good IN game play.

Yeah, a lot of the goofball builds are boring one trick ponies in actual play (like the various trip biulds) which is why I liked my min-maxed orc as he could switch between charging, sundering and grappling. Had to squeeze every edge I could out of him to keep him up to par with the party's casters who did stuff like take those racial levels and lose caster levels.

Don't think there would've been so much of a cult of balance if 3ed hadn't borked balance so badly.

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.)

I like 5e overall. Just a few oddities that make it stumble. And the designers seem to not even know what they designed... ahem...

What bad reasons? Since B and more or less BX are OD&D, does that mean I am playing for bad reasons too? Can we form a club?

Quote from: Emperor Norton;888164Despite never wanting to play it again, or god forbid run it, I actually think 3.x/PF is fun to build characters in in that nuts and bolts way. Its neat to see what you can make. (its even fun to try to make things like Pun Pun, or my, by far, favorite the Psychic Sandwich, just never as an actual exercise in making a real character for play)

It just, as you said, doesn't make for very good IN game play.

That's hardly surprising. There are plenty of people who enjoy rolling up pre-gameplay character careers for Traveller at least as much as playing Traveller. Or, in an even more extreme case, there's a simple enjoyability to making vehicles using the oft mocked GURPS Vehicles rules. It's just not actually conducive to the game to have to use those rules for every rowboat (or to bring the analogy back, every monster you fight in 3.x).

Quote from: Omega;888296I like 5e overall. Just a few oddities that make it stumble. And the designers seem to not even know what they designed... ahem...

What bad reasons? Since B and more or less BX are OD&D, does that mean I am playing for bad reasons too? Can we form a club?

"Nostalgia" and "hates change" are the two biggies.

The notion that I play the game because, you know, I actually like it is not permitted.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;888332"Nostalgia" and "hates change" are the two biggies.

The notion that I play the game because, you know, I actually like it is not permitted.

I hate change for changes sake. I despise change for supposed marketings sake when its been proven false over and over. I will though at least give a new system a glance over and try. Even ones I have a pretty good idea I am not going to be particularly not fond of. That way I at least have a real basis for why I don't like XYZ game or edition rather than the usual "I hate it because someone told me to." sheep.

Get that in board and even wargaming with the "cult of the new" who freak out at the idea of someone daring to keep playing that dirty old version when theres a shiny new version.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;888332"Nostalgia" and "hates change" are the two biggies.

The notion that I play the game because, you know, I actually like it is not permitted.

Yeah, I've noticed "conventional wisdom" in RPGs does a complete 180 about every 10 years. But "you only like older systems because nostalgia/hate change" is been a constant. I can even cite the dated phrase that would often come up in the mid- to late 90's. Rose-colored glasses.

They even used to have mock threads, probably still do over at that other RPG site for sissies, that the best edition is whatever one I started with. My favorite is AD&D 1st Ed. I started with Red Box basic. And although I collected a lot of AD&D 1st Ed stuff--see, because back then, different editions didn't mean different game, so we could still use stuff from other lines--I eventually transitioned to 2nd Ed, before reverting back to Basic, and then finally settling on 1st Ed as being the best one.

So "bad reasons" are demonstrably false.

Hey, maybe people like new shit for bad reasons. Maybe it's because since they never actually fucking learned to play the game, they aren't having fun, and so are continuously suckered into buying new shit under the pretext that they will finally find their salvation in the pages of a newer book.

I could make a far, far stronger case for that given the amount of whining that goes on or the sense of marvel at brand new innovations that are pretty much the way I've been doing things all along.

Quote from: Omega;888371I hate change for changes sake. I despise change for supposed marketings sake when its been proven false over and over. I will though at least give a new system a glance over and try. Even ones I have a pretty good idea I am not going to be particularly not fond of. That way I at least have a real basis for why I don't like XYZ game or edition rather than the usual "I hate it because someone told me to." sheep.

Get that in board and even wargaming with the "cult of the new" who freak out at the idea of someone daring to keep playing that dirty old version when theres a shiny new version.

I played a fair bit of SW d20 and about a years' worth of Pathfinder.  I have LOTS of stuff I can hate through experience.

I like new stuff.  I'd like to try it out at least once.

What I don't like is when the old fogey's come in all the time and bash the new stuff without any reference other than either something they heard and twisted, or make up some reason why X is bad.

The whole 2e to 3e crap where 3e was accused of trying to be a video game (namely Diablo 2) or the 3e to 4e crap, where people once again made things up about 4e, BEFORE EITHER EDITIONS EVEN CAME OUT!

That is what I have a problem with.

You keep rockin' those old editions.  You keep having your fun.  Just don't accuse us of 'doin' it wrong' because some of us like to try the newer stuff.

That is, and always has been, my beef.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;888564What I don't like is when the old fogey's come in all the time and bash the new stuff without any reference other than either something they heard and twisted, or make up some reason why X is bad.

You keep rockin' those old editions.  You keep having your fun.  Just don't accuse us of 'doin' it wrong' because some of us like to try the newer stuff.

1:Problem is the "new kids" do that to the older games ten times more. And usually its very obvious that they really are just hating because someone told them to.

2: Tarely see that with the older players vs new. Its usually more of a "They changed it. I'd rather stick with what I have since its still playable." rather than "The new version sucks!" except when said new version really does. We are looking at YOU d20 and 4e D&D Gamma World!!!

Back on topic

Another thing I think 3e got right was that is was more or less still backwards compatible with previous editions with a little tweaking. Someone else here I believe pointed out that you can use any pre 3e module with 3e and not break anything overall. Whereas 4e is not backwards compatible.

Quote from: Omega;8886091:Problem is the "new kids" do that to the older games ten times more. And usually its very obvious that they really are just hating because someone told them to.

I'm sure it's more 50/50 than you'd want to believe.  Although, given how older the RPG generation seems to be, my experience has been happening with every knew edition that comes out.  From 0e to 1e, to 2e, to 3e, and so on.  You always have this old guard, and they're just getting older, who will slam a new edition just because it's new.

Quote from: Omega;8886092: Tarely see that with the older players vs new. Its usually more of a "They changed it. I'd rather stick with what I have since its still playable." rather than "The new version sucks!" except when said new version really does. We are looking at YOU d20 and 4e D&D Gamma World!!!

Whereas I've seen it the opposite.  Go into the local game store, and people STILL make disparaging remarks about 3rd edition of D&D, and all the insufferable self-righteousness about how they were right and how 4e is the DEVIL!  And how smart they were by not touching it, and then going off on why, like it's too video game-y or some other BS.

You should have seen the Paizo forums before they purged it.  Then there's TBP even after they sent D&D to the Ghetto Forum.  Then there was WoTC's D&D forums, especially during the transition between 3-4e.  Enworld wasn't exactly kind either...

My anecdote is not fact, but neither is your statement.

Quote from: Omega;888609Back on topic

Another thing I think 3e got right was that is was more or less still backwards compatible with previous editions with a little tweaking. Someone else here I believe pointed out that you can use any pre 3e module with 3e and not break anything overall. Whereas 4e is not backwards compatible.

See?  You're also doing it.  You're attacking for 4e because of some slight.  Accurate or not, it's become such a reflex that frankly it's saddening.  As for 3e being backwards compatible...  Man, the amount of ire that would draw would be both horrific and awesome.  The Edition Warriors would have a field day stripping the flesh from your carcass.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;888611See?  You're also doing it.  You're attacking for 4e because of some slight.  Accurate or not, it's become such a reflex that frankly it's saddening.  As for 3e being backwards compatible...  Man, the amount of ire that would draw would be both horrific and awesome.  The Edition Warriors would have a field day stripping the flesh from your carcass.

Uh... How is pointing out that 4e is not backwards compatible "attacking" 4e or edition warring?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;888564The whole 2e to 3e crap where 3e was accused of trying to be a video game (namely Diablo 2)

So we move from accusing others of liking things for "bad reasons" to accusing others of disliking things for "bad reasons"?

Here's the thing. I eagerly bought 3E as soon as it hit the shelves. I simply found it to be a disappointment. And actually one of my initial impressions--and this was never meant to be a slight as I realize this was a perfectly valid reason why someone LIKED the game--is that it was trying to be a video game.

Not Diablo 2 specifically. I never played Diablo 2. At the time of the release, however, I had a regular table top game going on and I also had a group of friends I played a few different on-line RPGs with. I knew the difference in feel, and I knew how the feel differed even when I was playing with the same group. 3E had the video game feel. This was my first hand experience. I didn't pick it up on the internet as a way of bashing some newfangled system. This was my highly informed opinion based on actual play at the time of 3E's release.

So to see my highly informed opinion of the game characterized as just some hateful internet mythology (which again, is a stupid accusation on the face of it since some people might see its video game like feel as a plus) definitely falls under the heading of condescending bullshit of idiots who just can't handle someone having different tastes.

Quote from: Lunamancer;888623So we move from accusing others of liking things for "bad reasons" to accusing others of disliking things for "bad reasons"?

No.  The issue is lack of facts.  Look, let's pick on Gronan (sorry, dood) he apparently tried 3e (and the Star Wars version) and decided it wasn't for him.  And you know what?  I give him props for it.  He tried it and didn't like, that's perfectly fine.

The issue I have are those who come in and claim that 3e sucks because it's like Diablo 2, and end up never trying, sticking to their guns and disparaging everyone who deigns to try and prove them wrong (3e maps closer to EQ than D2, actually, with it's base conceits of Fighter High Armour, Low Damage, Wizard Low Armour, High Damage and Utility, The Rogue being a position Killer, and the Cleric being the Buff/Healer bot, which ended up being one of the more broken classes because of it.  Like in a lot of MMO's.  But that's not even the point.)  They're objectively wrong, but they flame everyone else who doesn't agree with them.  Vigourously and verbally violent.

I have no issues with people trying out other editions and not liking them.  I've got my issues with a lot of the older editions, most of which are from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with the SYSTEM.  Yes, I tried them, so I have a right to complain about things.  Like having played 2e the longest (3e being the second) I cannot stand THAC0, I find it clunky and counter-intuitive (which I also have issues with the earlier edition matrix systens too, but I haven't played them much, so they MIGHT grow on me.  Like mold.)  I'm also burnt out on 3.x because of the severe imbalance between Caster and everything else.  4e was OK, but it's own conceits get in the way of my fun, so I'm passing on it.

Notice that I've only talked about editions I know about?  I played like all of two, maybe three sessions of Rules Cyclopedia and one of White Box, in which I played a human Thief whose highest stat was 7, but even then I don't and won't pass judgement on them.  I don't know them well enough to.

Quote from: Omega;888621Uh... How is pointing out that 4e is not backwards compatible "attacking" 4e or edition warring?

Even as a 4e fan I believe Omega is correct. 4e wasn't backwards compatible, at least not for the first 2 years within it's release. Anyone who played the game could see that. Now, however, I'm fairly confident in saying that you can come close to re-creating most character concepts of older editions.


 Back on Topic:

I enjoyed the plethora of supplements that 3e put out. I know some were bad but a lot of them were really fun including: Complete Arcane (yay Warlock!), Complete Champion (yay, Paladin options!), Magic Item Compendium, and The Tome of Battle (for obvious reasons). Not to mention the ease of creating your own content.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;8887553e maps closer to EQ than D2, actually, with it's base conceits of Fighter High Armour, Low Damage, Wizard Low Armour, High Damage and Utility, The Rogue being a position Killer, and the Cleric being the Buff/Healer bot, which ended up being one of the more broken classes because of it.  Like in a lot of MMO's.  But that's not even the point.

Well, I'd like to make the point that all of the above is not the point. When I spoke of the different feel, none of the things you listed are relevant to what I meant by that. I'm talking transitioning from players trying creative things in combat to having a special feat for everything. Feats almost seemed like commands you would type into a text-based MU* or kind of like the hotkeys in any number of first-person shooters. I'm guessing Diablo and a lot of CRPGs had similar characteristics. Even the interior art and layout smacked of the sort of thing I see come with a computer game instruction booklet.

So if Diablo is the first example of an RPG that comes to mind, just because you think EQ is closer doesn't mean it's inaccurate to compare it to D2.

QuoteThey're objectively wrong, but they flame everyone else who doesn't agree with them.  Vigourously and verbally violent.

Sure. I encountered some ignorant folk over on dragonsfoot. I nearly got banned for pointing out attacks of opportunity exist in 1E. Yes, I know, we didn't necessarily call them that, nor did we use the term coup de grace, but 1E had that, too. It's one thing to be unaware of these things. It's another thing to be so certain they didn't exist. It's hard for me to call these people true old-school fans because it sure seems they're more concerned about hating 3E than loving 1E.

QuoteI have no issues with people trying out other editions and not liking them.  I've got my issues with a lot of the older editions, most of which are from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with the SYSTEM.  Yes, I tried them, so I have a right to complain about things.

Eh... I do have a problem with this logic. Have you ever been to the movies? How did you know the movie was going to be worth driving across town, spending a couple of hours of your afternoon watching it, and forking over 10 bucks if you'd never seen it before? People are called upon to make decisions under these conditions all the time.

It's unrealistic to insist people have to try something before forming an opinion. People have to form an opinion first as to whether or not it's worth a try. How many of the people you're griping about do you honestly think would enjoy 3E more than anything if only they gave it a fair chance?

QuoteLike having played 2e the longest (3e being the second) I cannot stand THAC0, I find it clunky and counter-intuitive (which I also have issues with the earlier edition matrix systens too, but I haven't played them much, so they MIGHT grow on me.  Like mold.)

It's worth dwelling on this bit of minutia because it epitomizes a couple of things here. First, THAC0 existed in 1E. The DMG even includes "To Hit AC 0" among the compiled monster stat appendix and in the section where the hit tables are presented, it explains how to calculate the number needed to hit. Repeating 20's and all.

Second, is to note that attempts to improve things sometimes make things worse. 2nd Ed gave the most godawful explanation on how to use THAC0 imaginable. I guess the intent was a little hand-holding should make the system easier to learn and use. Vs 1E which was more of a "have it your way" approach--you rather use a formula than look up a table? fine. You rather look up the number you need rather than do math? Also fine.

The way I use THAC0 is in fact easier than 3E's ascending ACs. So that part of the rules, anyway, went from good to horrible to fair. But "fair" is being exalted as great and an innovation. Beliefs in the popular version of what's actually in 1E are providing false context.

QuoteNotice that I've only talked about editions I know about?  I played like all of two, maybe three sessions of Rules Cyclopedia and one of White Box, in which I played a human Thief whose highest stat was 7, but even then I don't and won't pass judgement on them.  I don't know them well enough to.

I'm glad you recognize that a certain level of depth of knowledge/experience is necessary to accurately characterize the RPG in question. So riddle me this. If someone is having the most godawful shitty time playing a particular RPG, why would they continue playing it long enough to obtain the depth necessary to fully explore the game?

So I think it's a false standard. If something about a particular RPG is impeding a large number of people from experiencing it first hand to any appreciable degree, it is useful to criticize that impediment. I described above why I felt 3E was video game like. I could get that just out of reading it. Also just by reading it, I could see the grotesque stat blocks. If I want the computer game feel, I could just play a computer game. The computer will be far more efficient than I would at parsing 3E stat blocks. This is a perfectly valid criticism of 3E that can be observed without ever actually playing the game.

Quote from: Lunamancer;888796Sure. I encountered some ignorant folk over on dragonsfoot. I nearly got banned for pointing out attacks of opportunity exist in 1E. Yes, I know, we didn't necessarily call them that, nor did we use the term coup de grace, but 1E had that, too. It's one thing to be unaware of these things. It's another thing to be so certain they didn't exist. It's hard for me to call these people true old-school fans because it sure seems they're more concerned about hating 3E than loving 1E.

uh... what? How?
Breaking off From Melee. AD&D DMG page 70. BX had Retreat pages B25 and X24. (Not quite the same mechanic. But same concept of wacking someone as they try to disenguage.)

I don't know how the hell someone, especially someone on Dragonsfoot could miss that AD&D had attacks of opportunity.  Hell that's how I explained AoO to my players was by starting "You know that free attack you get in AD&D when they run..."

Then again I also don't get the people who think that THACO was a new combat system.  
It literally means the number needed To Hit Armor Class 0.  
Look at the table.
See the line for AC0?  
See those numbers?  
That's THACO.  
Jesus Wept.
They just formalized something people had been doing for years.

Look at stuff from 3e that was retroactively brought into some of the more popular OSR games. That will tell you what 3e did right.

Can you highlight those things?

Quote from: Doom;889956Can you highlight those things?

Ascending AC, attack bonus instead of ThAC0, streamlined skill resolution (though not usually the skill points system), the saving throws have been used in some OSR games (specifically DCC), getting rid of level limits for race, a single Xp table, and I'm sure there's more. Anyways, all the above have been used in a least a couple of OSR systems, and some (the first two in particular) have been widely adopted.

Quote from: RPGPundit;891143Ascending AC, attack bonus instead of ThAC0, streamlined skill resolution (though not usually the skill points system), the saving throws have been used in some OSR games (specifically DCC), getting rid of level limits for race, a single Xp table, and I'm sure there's more. Anyways, all the above have been used in a least a couple of OSR systems, and some (the first two in particular) have been widely adopted.

...How can they be 'OSR' if these systems use parts of a modernized system?  Doesn't that defeat the entire point?

Quote from: RPGPundit;891143Ascending AC, attack bonus instead of ThAC0,

streamlined skill resolution (though not usually the skill points system),

getting rid of level limits for race,

1: Attack bonus is just THAC0 from a different direction.

2: 2e had that as well. Just more skills than was perhaps necessary. Ok. Way more skills than was necessary.

3: 2e got rid of race limits. (The PHB says theres race limits. But never actually lists any.)

Quote from: Omega;8911791: Attack bonus is just THAC0 from a different direction.

But it's easier for the human brain to add than subtract, hence it's objectively superiour.

Quote from: Omega;8911792: 2e had that as well. Just more skills than was perhaps necessary.

Proficiencies and Secondary Skills, both of which used exclusionary rule systems.  Not easier. I'm afraid.

Quote from: Omega;8911793: 2e got rid of race limits. (The PHB says theres race limits. But never actually lists any.)

Then my memory is playing tricks, and I mean that, no snark.  Because I remember a chart listing the limits of most races, somewhere, not sure where, though.  The only thing I really remember, sadly, is Elven Rangers being limited to level 14.

But if it's not in the 2e PHB, then I'm misremembering which wouldn't be the first time.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;891180Proficiencies and Secondary Skills, both of which used exclusionary rule systems.  Not easier. I'm afraid.

Then my memory is playing tricks, and I mean that, no snark.  Because I remember a chart listing the limits of most races, somewhere, not sure where, though.  The only thing I really remember, sadly, is Elven Rangers being limited to level 14.

But if it's not in the 2e PHB, then I'm misremembering which wouldn't be the first time.

1: Skill mod+relevant stat(+/- any situational mods) = target number? Pretty simple. Especially if you note the target down for each skill.

2: I just went page by page through the whole 2e PHB and not a single racial level limit at all. Each class did list what races were allowed. But no level limit on the races that could.

3: I thought there was as well. Complete book of Humanoids has level limits chart. But also a suggestion for allowing unlimited advancement. Weird.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;891180Then my memory is playing tricks, and I mean that, no snark.  Because I remember a chart listing the limits of most races, somewhere, not sure where, though.  The only thing I really remember, sadly, is Elven Rangers being limited to level 14.

But if it's not in the 2e PHB, then I'm misremembering which wouldn't be the first time.

The level limits chart for 2E is in the DMG.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;891173...How can they be 'OSR' if these systems use parts of a modernized system?  Doesn't that defeat the entire point?

OSR is a collective construct. A system is OSR if it is similar enough for the audience to agree that it is OSR.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;891180Proficiencies and Secondary Skills, both of which used exclusionary rule systems.  Not easier. I'm afraid.

Exsqueeze me? "Exclusionary rule system?" What are you talking about?

AD&D had 3 "skill systems" where the default was literally "whatever you think makes reasonable sense for your adventuring! character to have -- which could even be your own skills in real life -- and you don't even have to write them down if you don't wanna."

The other two optional ones heavily focused on the concept of professionalism, as in "don't roll most of the time, you're so good at that it's usually unnecessary."

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;891198The level limits chart for 2E is in the DMG.

Correct, with reasonings on how doing otherwise can unintentionally affect your setting.

Unified "roll high is better" mechanic, especially ascending AC.
Saving throw system was much better than the older systems.
Removal of level limits.
Tons of great setting books (FR and Eberron especially).
The OGL, with all of the awesome stuff that came from it.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;891198The level limits chart for 2E is in the DMG.

Had a feeling it would be where it shouldnt be. So going just by the PHB. No limits! Yaaaay! :D

Quote from: Christopher Brady;891173...How can they be 'OSR' if these systems use parts of a modernized system?  Doesn't that defeat the entire point?

OSR doesn't mean you can't have new ideas in the game. If that was the case there wouldn't be OSR games. "OSR" would just mean "go buy D&D 1 or 2 and play that."

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;891198The level limits chart for 2E is in the DMG.

Aha!  And given that I bought the PHB and DMG in one go, back in the day (took me months of saving, lemme tell ya) I've mashed the two together in my mind.  Fair enough.

I never used the level limits anyway.

Quote from: Jetstream;891269OSR doesn't mean you can't have new ideas in the game. If that was the case there wouldn't be OSR games. "OSR" would just mean "go buy D&D 1 or 2 and play that."

What???  It's not reviving anything if you change it!  And YES, OSR should mean going back to the older editions.  That's what reviving means.

It's like adding a modern engine to a 1969 Boss 429 Mustang, it might look like an old muscle car, but it's not going to perform like one, and purists will laugh loudly at your pretension.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;891275What???  It's not reviving anything if you change it!  And YES, OSR should mean going back to the older editions.  That's what reviving means.

Which is why I prefer the Old School Renaissance version of the OSR. I'm far more interested in reaching back to re-explore things which have been forgotten and then using them to continue innovating and creating new things than I am in a nostalgia wankfest.

OSR One True Wayers are the most annoying people in gaming.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;891275What???  It's not reviving anything if you change it!  And YES, OSR should mean going back to the older editions.  That's what reviving means.

It's like adding a modern engine to a 1969 Boss 429 Mustang, it might look like an old muscle car, but it's not going to perform like one, and purists will laugh loudly at your pretension.

That comparison is pretty asinine. The OSR market is clearly trying to recapture the spirit of gaming's past. Restoring it identically is literally pointless.

OSR is not a hobbyist restoring a product. OSR is a market that wants to create things inspired by the past.

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.

Feel free to support your statement with evidence. Just because subtraction puzzles you doesn't make it a fact.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;891275It's like adding a modern engine to a 1969 Boss 429 Mustang, it might look like an old muscle car, but it's not going to perform like one, and purists will laugh loudly at your pretension.

Good for them. They can sit around and laugh as loudly as they want. Regardless, at least in the gaming industry there is a market for games with certain aesthetics of older games but with modern engines, if you will. That's the niche that OSR fills. If the purists have a problem with it being called OSR, they can try to change it with the power of their derision (and change the course of rivers by force of will, for all it will do). I look forward to continuing to ignore their attempts. Meanwhile, they can play the games that they want, and those who want to play OSR games can play the games that they want.

Quote from: Matt;891437Feel free to support your statement with evidence. Just because subtraction puzzles you doesn't make it a fact.

A quick google search got me several hundred results of why addition is easier than subtraction.  But let's see if I can find something from a medical journal.

Here's one, says that we use more of the brain when we subtract than we do when we add:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3216211/  

Quote from: Willie the Duck;891444Good for them. They can sit around and laugh as loudly as they want. Regardless, at least in the gaming industry there is a market for games with certain aesthetics of older games but with modern engines, if you will. That's the niche that OSR fills. If the purists have a problem with it being called OSR, they can try to change it with the power of their derision (and change the course of rivers by force of will, for all it will do). I look forward to continuing to ignore their attempts. Meanwhile, they can play the games that they want, and those who want to play OSR games can play the games that they want.

If you think the gamer police doesn't exist, man, have you not heard of peer pressure?  It exists, it's real. But that doesn't really matter to me.

If you like your Heartbreakers, go for it.  Play them all, and ignore me, please!

I'll just laugh at people who claim that they're like the 'good ole days', because they're nothing like, but at the same time, if you like the game, go play it.

Seriously, why are you still hanging around here?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;891476If you think the gamer police doesn't exist, man, have you not heard of peer pressure?  It exists, it's real. But that doesn't really matter to me.

Really? Because it seems like it matters to you quite a bit.

QuoteIf you like your Heartbreakers, go for it.  Play them all, and ignore me, please!

I haven't declared a position on Heartbreakers or OSR games. Likewise, I thought you were talking about hypothetical 'purists,' and not yourself. These characters in your example are doing some pretty hypocritical and un-self-aware things (laughing at other people's supposed pretention for wanting to play the types of games that they want to play, instead of what the purists think they should play), you might not want to associate yourself with them.

QuoteI'll just laugh at people who claim that they're like the 'good ole days', because they're nothing like, but at the same time, if you like the game, go play it.

Oh, is that what people are claiming? That's good to know. Thanks for informing us of this fact.

QuoteSeriously, why are you still hanging around here?

Why wouldn't I? The questions asked are interesting, the discussions are often insightful, and I'm interested to hear what others have to say. From the responses thus far, it seems my perspective on this subject has plenty of support. Besides, I'm perfectly comfortable if that's not the case. I don't expect everyone to always agree with me, and some of my opinions are undoubtedly unpopular hear.

The position I have presented on this thread, however, isn't really an opinion so much as an observation or perhaps prediction. These purists from your example can laugh all they want. It won't stop people from playing games relatively similar to older versions of D&D and other games, but with one change or another, and they will call such games OSR, regardless of what the laughing purists think about it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;891173...How can they be 'OSR' if these systems use parts of a modernized system?  Doesn't that defeat the entire point?

No. The OSR in its modern form is a framework for design.

It may be that at some point the idea was "you can only use mechanics that actually existed in the old-school period" but for quite some time now the rule has in fact been that you can and should make new rules that fit within the framework of old-school design.  That is, stuff that could have existed in the old-school period and not made the games any less old school.

Quote from: RPGPundit;891883No. The OSR in its modern form is a framework for design.

Then I contend that it's not 'Old School' at all, nor is it a revival of any sort.

Hence why I use the term Heartbreaker.  But if you're having fun, play pretend as an elf, what should it matter?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;891999Then I contend that it's not 'Old School' at all, nor is it a revival of any sort.

It's a 'revival' of interest in those older games and playstyles... and extrapolating new games and ideas from them.

Seriously, why is the OSR thing such a bugaboo for you? You lose your cool over it just about anytime it gets a mention... yet the 'purists' you hypothesize don't seem to materialize.
Well... except for Gronan/Geezer and I think he just enjoys being cranky.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;891999Then I contend that it's not 'Old School' at all, nor is it a revival of any sort.

Hence why I use the term Heartbreaker.  But if you're having fun, play pretend as an elf, what should it matter?

Heartbreakers implies you are operating in a vacuum hoping your latest idea revolutionizes the RPG hobby.

The OSR in contrast is not just about anything it is about classic editions of D&D and games related to classic edition D&D. And because the default for RPGs is to kitbash whatever a hard and fast line can't be drawn to say this is OSR and this is not. The only recourse is to try something and see what happens.

The more useful or fun something is for a fan of RAW classic edition of D&D more likely it will be considered as an OSR.

And if that not specific enough then tough.

Because one thing that make the OSR what it is the fact that it has a very low barrier for people to overcome to get product out there. This means there is a multitude of people and author all doing there different things centered around one or more of the classic editions of D&D. More importantly there are multiple example of the different ways one could get an OSR product or work out there. Pundit opted for a more traditional publisher-author relationship. I am a one man outfit relying on a network of collaborators and doing freelance work as well. Other have formal companies. And so forth and so on.

This produces a kaleidoscope of materials with no definitive boundary as to what is OSR and what is not. You obviously have a distaste for the whole mess which blinds you do what actually the OSR is.

And like what I told the Pundit repeatably before he got off his ass and wrote Arrows of Indra. The best way to illustrate your points is to go out there and do a project of your own and show how the rest of us are doing it wrong.

Finally I will say the OSR is no longer a new thing. It is at least 10 years old this year considering that Basic Fantasy and OSRIC were released in 2006. Nor has it faded. For the past several months James Spahn owned the top spots at RPGNow/DriveThruRPG with White Star and The Hero's Journey for the past several months.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;891999Then I contend that it's not 'Old School' at all, nor is it a revival of any sort.

Hence why I use the term Heartbreaker.  But if you're having fun, play pretend as an elf, what should it matter?

The Old School Renaissance started really as a D&D Revival, at that point it was misnamed.

Now it's moved beyond that, and is actually an Old School Renaissance.

Quote from: RPGPundit;891883It may be that at some point the idea was "you can only use mechanics that actually existed in the old-school period"....

Even with that restriction, lots of stuff from modern D&D was thought of and tried (and used regularly by some) back in the "old-school period". One example that I've pointed out before (although perhaps not on this forum) is ascending AC and the basic D20 roll system (in professional published form) dates back to at least 1980 as it was published in the second part of the "Vardy Combat System" article in Different Worlds #7. I tried something very similar to 5e's Advantage/Disadvantage system in house rules back in 1982 or so.

A lot (but certainly not all) of things many of today's D&D players see as innovation in WOTC editions isn't really all that new -- having been used in house rules and oftem published in some form in a gaming magazine of the era or in a "D&D-clone" published back then.  A lot of today's innovation seems to me (with my large collection of fantasy RPGs and RPG magazines from 1974-1995) to be just rediscovering something lost in those thousands and thousands of pages of stuff.

Quote from: RandallS;892024Even with that restriction, lots of stuff from modern D&D was thought of and tried (and used regularly by some) back in the "old-school period". One example that I've pointed out before (although perhaps not on this forum) is ascending AC and the basic D20 roll system (in professional published form) dates back to at least 1980 as it was published in the second part of the "Vardy Combat System" article in Different Worlds #7. I tried something very similar to 5e's Advantage/Disadvantage system in house rules back in 1982 or so.

A lot (but certainly not all) of things many of today's D&D players see as innovation in WOTC editions isn't really all that new -- having been used in house rules and oftem published in some form in a gaming magazine of the era or in a "D&D-clone" published back then.  A lot of today's innovation seems to me (with my large collection of fantasy RPGs and RPG magazines from 1974-1995) to be just rediscovering something lost in those thousands and thousands of pages of stuff.

yah or like how when 3e came out the 3 save of fort /will/ ref
had been used in a heart breaker 20 years before

Quote from: estar;892017For the past several months James Spahn owned the top spots at RPGNow/DriveThruRPG with White Star and The Hero's Journey for the past several months.

... Really? James Spahn? I know that name. I hang out with his wife in some chats...

I should probably check out his products at some point.

Quote from: RandallS;892024Even with that restriction, lots of stuff from modern D&D was thought of and tried (and used regularly by some) back in the "old-school period".

The SWINEY STORYGAMEY NAZI mechanic of players using a limited metagame resource to alter the narrative dates back to 1983, in the James Bond 007 RPG.  There really is nothing new under the sun.

Quote from: daniel_ream;892123The SWINEY STORYGAMEY NAZI mechanic of players using a limited metagame resource to alter the narrative dates back to 1983, in the James Bond 007 RPG.  There really is nothing new under the sun.

More like people keep re-inventing the wheel. Often unaware the wheel was invented. Usually from a different approach that gets a similar result. In board gaming we see that from new designers fairly often. New approaches to something old IS something new as I like to point out.

But yeah. You can see proto-attempts at this or that mechanic all over. Some pretty obscure.

Back on topic.

Another thing 3 and 3.5e did right was a return to the unified combat table like O and BX had.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;891999Then I contend that it's not 'Old School' at all, nor is it a revival of any sort.

That's not how the word "revival" works, either. Revivals of television programs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revival_%28television%29), sports teams (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revival_%28sports_team%29), theatrical plays (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revival_%28theatre%29), and even languages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_revitalization) all feature reinterpretations of the original material with a mixture of new materials of innovations.

When something becomes locked down and impervious to innovation or change that's not a revival. That's dead.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;892287That's not how the word "revival" works, either. Revivals of television programs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revival_%28television%29), sports teams (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revival_%28sports_team%29), theatrical plays (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revival_%28theatre%29), and even languages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_revitalization) all feature reinterpretations of the original material with a mixture of new materials of innovations.

When something becomes locked down and impervious to innovation or change that's not a revival. That's dead.

Yeah. It's also how the real RENAISSANCE worked. It wasn't people just repainting old roman frescoes.  It was NEW things but bounded within the classical concepts.