Why do we like D&D (3e)?

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:51 pm

It's a clunky, mechanical nightmare composed of mathrape and game-shattering imbalance.

So tell me again why we love it. I can't put my finger on it, but D&D resonates with me in a way that other RPGs don't.

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:15 pm

I blame the tumor in my head. Or the fact it was the first one I had the chance to play. Hard to say which.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:21 pm

Toolkit.

TarkisFlux · Post by **TarkisFlux** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:22 pm

Familiarity, nostalgia, and the relative ease in getting a group together.

Count Arioch the 28th · Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:31 pm

The fact that I'm more familiar with 3E than any other system.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:38 pm

3E, more than any other Dungeons and Dragons, tried to get you interested in minigames over than the combat engine. You know, they had an item crafting minigame, a castle-building minigame, a spell-creation minigame, a leadership minigame, a tactical skirmish minigame...

Granted, the attempts were overall a failure and made us cry when you applied any real thought to it.

But here's the thing: at least 3rd edition attempted to make these elements work. There was at least an attempt at world-building and versimilitude.

But Andy Collins and Mike Mearls and Dave Doonan are a bunch of fucking pussies and either let their laziness or simpering fear discourage them from elaborating on these elements. All pretense of there being a symmetrical system or a world beyond the bare elements required to run an MMORPG were either removed outright or handwaved.

And you know what? If there weren't so may legacy elements of 1st-3rd Edition, I bet they would've taken out even more things. The game designers still don't know what to do with wondrous items and potions and poison and flight, but know people would get pissed off if they got rid of them. So they just slap some shit together and hope we won't notice.

That's exactly why 4th Edition is so infuriating. Even if the combat system was absolutely perfect it's just a giant step backwards as far as game philosophy goes.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:52 pm

I love the fantasy genre, and D&D does (it's own brand of) fantasy rather well.

Also, the basic mechanics of 3.x are fine: they're simple and infinitely moddable. Roll a d20 + add your mods + check the DC. Done.

Also, it's easy and fun to write new feats, spells, monsters, etc. I love monsters, and I have a 770+ KB Word document of homemade monsters on my hard drive. That's just the ones I consider "finished."

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:The fact that I'm more familiar with 3E than any other system.

Also this. I have a metric ton of D&D books and such.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:56 pm

3rd Edition wasn't my first system. 2nd was, by a few years. I never had the same feelings towards 2nd as I did towards 3rd, mostly because 2nd Edition didn't try to get me involved in the game.

Any time you tried to look behind the curtain or deviate from the rails the game planned, the game either guilt-tripped you into doing what the DM wanted you to do or told the GM to kill your ass.

Things like prestige classes and Stronghold Builder's Guide, broken as they were, endeared me to the game because it was encouraging me to make an emotional investment into the setting.

3rd Edition wasn't the first system I played and got familiar with, but it was the first system that I loved. Big difference.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:05 am

Mostly I tend to like the potential of 3E.

The open multiclassing system especially just brought the game to a new level conceptually, where you could be part fighter, part druid and part rogue. There's something attractive in a system that lets you do that. It's taking the best parts of a classless system, but still mixing them with all that benefits of a class system. Add feats to the mix for customization and there was just so much potential there.

That's something 4E really lacked. With 4E you really started to feel the weight of the class system again and were once again locked into being just a fighter, or just a wizard. That was one thing in 4E that they absolutely should not have gotten rid of.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:06 am

RandomCasualty2 wrote:Mostly I tend to like the potential of 3E.

The open multiclassing system especially just brought the game to a new level conceptually, where you could be part fighter, part druid and part rogue. There's something attractive in a system that lets you do that. It's taking the best parts of a classless system, but still mixing them with all that benefits of a class system. Add feats to the mix for customization and there was just so much potential there.

That's something 4E really lacked. With 4E you really started to feel the weight of the class system again and were once again locked into being just a fighter, or just a wizard. That was one thing in 4E that they absolutely should not have gotten rid of.

But RC2, that's so very, very hard to fucking balance.

Doesn't your heart bleed at least a little fucking bit for poor Mearls and Collins?

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:27 am

Lago PARANOIA wrote: But RC2, that's so very, very hard to fucking balance. Doesn't your heart bleed at least a little fucking bit for poor Mearls and Collins?

Not really.

The main issue with balancing the multiclassing came mostly from the spell level based magic system, which they tossed anyway in 4E.

There are certain things that I'm okay with the designers just saying "we can't balance it so lets not put it in the game." but open multiclassing is just one of those things they really should have worked on.

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:17 am

What drew me to 3e over previous editions was the ambition of it. There were so many mechanics that tried to increase the verisimilitude of the game and open up more character options to players. It also brought D&D into the modern world of roleplaying with an actual skills system and more consistent mechanics (no more trying to remember whether you wanted a high or low result on a given roll).

I'm not sure where 3.x stacks up in the universe of roleplaying games, but it was a huge improvement (conceputally) over earlier versions of D&D. Since 4e is a wholesale retreat away from some key concepts, including improvements in previous D&D editions, 3.x looks really good by comparison.

ZER0 · Post by **ZER0** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:56 am

I'm with what everyone else just said.

Also, Frank and K's stuff was designed for 3.x; therefore, 3.x is more awesome.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:20 am

My first system was DC Heroes circa '88.

What was yours?

3e was D&D without all the legacy crap. They turned it on its head, made it simple enough to modify. Balance was an issue, but... It tried. And it was one combat resolution system for Rokugon, Greyhawk, etc.

But you know what? There were more settings published by TSR for 2e than for 3e. There were more settings published by Wizards for 3e than for 4e. Admittedly, it is only a year out.

But there were as many settings over all for 3e as for GURPS. At that point... That's when I liked it.

-Crissa

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:07 am

Crissa wrote:My first system was DC Heroes circa '88.

What was yours?

Legend of the Five Rings 1st Edition.

Ravengm · Post by **Ravengm** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:13 am

3e was a bloody mess, mechanically, flavor-wise, and in balance. It crapped all over me when I tried to do something, caused me to spend sleepless nights as a DM statting up random monsters, and was wildly unfair in many situations. Half the classes were close to unplayable, whether it was because they were useless or a paperwork nightmare. So many extra subsystems came out that it was like learning a new game every time a book was released.

But it was FUN, dammit!

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:13 am

I started playing D&D with 2E in 1992, and played weekly since then. When I heard there was going to be a 3E, my gut instinct was "why should I change? What I have works!". One player brought the PHB first printing to the table, right when it came out, and I looked through it, and after a few minutes I wanted to run and play 3E.

Like RC2 I like the multiclassing and prestige classes - they offer so many options to customize your characters, and so much flexibility.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:01 pm

Crissa wrote:My first system was DC Heroes circa '88.

What was yours?

Basic Set D&D, red box.

Man, fuck Bargle.

In other news, I love 3rd Edition for what it could have been if its ideas had worked. They were good ideas.

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Fri Jan 09, 2009 3:12 pm

I fucking learned to read so I could could play red box with my brother. I might have actually been a productive member of society had it not been for those books.

What I don't like about 3e is that while it gives us the illusion that you can make just about any character concept, you really can't without being shit. That and levels beyond 12 get stupid.

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:19 am

angelfromanotherpin wrote:
Crissa wrote:My first system was DC Heroes circa '88.

What was yours?
Basic Set D&D, red box.

Ditto.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:35 am

DnD 3e here.

Strictly low levels, the highest was 6 and everyone was unsublty encouraged to make some of those levels cleric levels in one of the games.(no multiclassing XP penalty for being a cleric, if you had no cleric levels beyond third level you start taking multiclassing XP penalties)

Naturally, everyone was a cleric or beat cleric/fighter.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:37 am

angelfromanotherpin wrote:
Man, fuck Bargle.

Is that the mage who kills your cleric friend?

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:57 am

Neeeek wrote:
angelfromanotherpin wrote:
Man, fuck Bargle.
Is that the mage who kills your cleric friend?

Yes. Yes it is.

I was six years old when Ma brought home the Red Box. Reading about how I/my character (not a strong distinction at the time) got mind-controlled and made to stand by while my friend was murdered has stuck with me pretty strongly to this day.

I remember there was a video where someone went around a convention and discovered how many people there had shared in the Bargle-related trauma. It was a lot.

It was an interesting decision, to make the very first D&D experience that many people would ever have be essentially a tragedy.

zeruslord · Post by **zeruslord** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:25 am

name_here is a liar and a fool and I am ashamed of him. The cleric game was level 9, but it was a single long adventure that has been on hiatus for a year because it was played with our cousins and we haven't seen the DM and the other player together since.

My first game was 2e when I was very young, but I don't remember any of it except one adventure when I was nine or ten. I played a mystic, killed a few trolls, and rescued the mayor's son. For my birthday or Christmas the next year, I got the 3e core rulebooks.

ludomastro · Post by **ludomastro** » Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:45 am

Why do we like 3.x? Because 4e is FUBAR which I suppose is SNAFU at WOTC.

That, and, we know and are comfortable with it.