Change: the universal fear? (in General)
I have every one of those books except the 3rd edition junk :)
So who else is proud to own every one of those books? =)
haha.. Sefton, you replied before I hit Submit. 3rd edition is bad... it's just... somewhat flawed.
Or in this case
: There is something inherently ironic in a RPG system that is based around representing the future in excruciating detail that uses prehistoric, outdated and "quaint" means.
I think the katana poster needs to be updated to vorpal blade.
Heh, my buddy who has all those books has accepted 3.5, what's wrong with you two?
July 20 2006 3:44 PM EDT
I got a friend with them all, I play a bit but, eh, alot of the players take it wayyyyy too seriously. But what can one do lol
3rd edition is a dumbing down/step backwards to make it more universally appealing. The simplier and the more flexible the system is, the more people that can enjoy it. However; when used to the Advanced 2nd edition rules, well it is like graduating high school and then going straight into kindergarten.
Sefton if you are trying to seriously make the argument that complex convoluted crap is better then streamlined, smart and easy to use, then I feel very sorry for you.
There is something to be said for "ease of use" and "organizing data to reduce work" in this day and age of "more infomation then you could ever read in your lifetime"
I hope he's saying that they should have made a move towards a simpler system, however how do make money off selling a single easy to read book? Why are geeks going to play a game with well established rules that you can't argue? 3.5 offers such a massive choice of options, it keeps us so busy we can't find time to play...
So, do you guys actually have the "pamphlets" from the 70's at the top left? The ones where Halflings were still called Hobbits, along with all the other direct Tolkien references that they eventually had to remove? I do, I'm so old... ;)
I wish I did, only my friend Matt has those...
Yes I do I even have the yellow DM screen with Balrogs and Hobbits as monsters referenced there.
As for 3 or 3.5, everyone seems to think simpler is better.
So you have 1500 channels to choose from, and you say man I just do not know what to watch, I say, let me make it "easy" for you and take you off your dish, and put in an antenna. Now you have 12 channels, much easier to choose. And much better right?
Some will say yah, but that is because they want to be able to apply some simple easy cliche to everything to make the world a simpler place. Simple and easy is not ALWAYS better, it is OFTEN better, but now always.
And when it comes to 3 or 3.5, it is easier, it is simpler, it is not better, just like telling you to unplug your VCR is simpler and easier than teaching you how to program it to stop blinking the time all day long and to go buy a clock, preferable one run by batteries and with hands that tell time, because well they are simple and easy and thus better.
July 20 2006 6:41 PM EDT
The original poster should learn how to post proper HTML links ;)
bah, triple-click to select rules all :P
Second Ed rocked. Second Ed Players Options sucked.
DDO sucks even more... >_<
July 20 2006 9:18 PM EDT
Almost on topic...
First, to novice et. al.: s/is/isn\'t/g in my first post. In fact, if someone wouldn't mind firing my post through that sed script, I'd appreciate it.
Second, to Sefton, this is one of those rare times when I do disagree with you. 3rd Edition is not bad at all. It was flawed, and those flaws were addressed in 3.5. It is DIFFERENT than Advanced 2E Revised -- that doesn't make it worse.
2E was quite flawed in certain areas that Monte Cook wanted to address: it was very limiting, it was counter-intuitive, it was even archaic at times, and the intricacies of some of the rule systems turned anything outside of rudimentary "ok, I hit for 30 damage" nonsense into extremely long, gameplay-destructive rule arbitration.
The goal of 3E was to simplify the rule system so that it could be expanded to only the limits of the DM. Now, yes, it's flawed. It's easy to grow an overpowered character if your DM isn't on his toes (What's overpowered? If you can slay a Great Wyrm by yourself at CL 10, something's off.) However, what's most important is that you can grow *any character you want*. Want a mage that wears armor? No problem. Go for it. You'll have to pay the price for it (arcane spell failure), but the fact is, you can. It brings logic back to the rule system. It simplifies it so that you can do ANYTHING. Want to try somersaulting off a ledge over an ogre, downtrusting your rapier into the nap of his neck while he's flatfooted as a sneak attack? Sweet! It's going to be hard, but you can do it. It needs a tumble check, dex check, attack check, and a further tumble check, all with their respective penalties.... but you can do it.
It makes things realistic. A round is 6 seconds, not a minute. You can have a ready action, an attack of opportunity, a simultaneous attack. It's clear, it's accurate, and it allows the imagination to run the game, guided by a set of rules expandable to the largest degree (especially with the epic level handbook).
I will say this: Experience blows. The leveling system is easily adaptable if you want to make things harder for characters, but you lose the joys of earning two million XP when you knock off the tarrasque. Further, the main six abilities blow. 18(00) strength used to mean something. Now, it's trash. Called shots are lame. Called shots were an awesome part of 2E. Things like that, yes, are flawed. They can all be dealt with, though, if your DM has a few brain cells kicking around.
I think the biggest reason why people were against 3E when it came out is that now that things were easier, now that EVERYONE knew the rules, now it's harder for the DM to maintain control of the game. It's easier for players to challenge the DM, which can result in disruptive gameplay.
The bottom line is, though... if you miss that old style of 2980384 hours spent learning rules.... play Alternity. If you're there for the gameplay... for the strategy... for the comradery of your friends.... 3E has the potential to offer far more than 2E ever did. You just have to learn how to use it properly.
In short, Sean, Skip, and Monte did an amazing job of putting together a wonderful system. I've had conversations at great length with all three, gaining insight into a lot of the decisions they made -- some good, some bad. If you give it a chance, for real, without any stalwart, "I don't like it because it's different" bias, and try to see what they were going for... you'll see that your options, your possibilities, have skyrocketed.
.... wow... no clue why I typed all that..... and I actually referenced sed and D&D in the same post...............
"I actually referenced sed and D&D in the same post"
mass respect for NightStrike :)
Nightstrike, I will admit, I have not given 3.5 a fair chance. 3 turned me off so much, that I did not give the newest version more than a cursory glance. Sounds like I should go back and give it another look.
I know everyone likes to be informed. But I think, in some cases too much information is a bad thing.
If you know the ending before you see sixth sense for the first time, your enjoyment will be greatly dimenished.
If you read a mystery novel and someone has already told you the mystery and the solution, you very well might stop reading.
I think that was a strength, not a weakness of 2nd edition. The fact that the rules were arcane, interprettable, and kept in the hands of the DM was a plus, not a minus. The first time I DM'd with a rules lawyer, he died inexplicably from a bolt of blue lighting from the sky. He could not find that in the rules BTW.
Anyway, I will freely admit that I cannot speak intelligently about 3.5, and if the changes made from 3 are a great improvement, I might have to take a better, closer look.
July 21 2006 12:43 PM EDT
I played 1st edition AD&D, then went on an RPG sabbatical for 15 years, and returned to find 3.5 the current ruleset.
I must admit, I was floored by how far the game had advanced. It was an absolute joy to see the same ideas that were a maze in 1st arranged into a (somewhat) elegant framework.
I have played 3.5 for two years or so now, and I'm still loving it. My only experience with 3rd ed was playing Icewind Dale II, which was based on it, and even allowing for the necessary computer simplifications, 3.5 seems superior by far.
BTW, if you haven't done it yet, check out the DMG2. It is, IMHO, the best book in the 3.5 range.
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001rMg">Change: the universal fear?</a>