The Gaming Den

thank you for pretending I'm stupid and that I have never read any other post you have made ever.

Your point is, more or less, "3e is weaker than 2e. 2e is so much better." Your example is "I see people having fun with 2e. People playing 3e don't have fun."

fectin said "I don't see people having fun with 2e. People playing 3e have fun", and he backed it up with the same level of proof you used. Therefore, your point is WRONG because things CONTRADICT it.

And just to prevent you from being an idiot and throwing around some gibberish about "HAHA NO THAT WASN'T ACTUALLY WHAT I'M SAYING AT ALL LOLOLOL" like you seem to do, or jumping on just one paragraph (or one sentence, or one phrase, or one insult) like you seem to do, let me tell you this:

2nd edition is not better than 3rd edition.

If you don't think you were aiming for that, do us a favor and stop saying it or implying it or whatever, so the big boys can talk. If you think you were aiming for that, "come back when you have any debating skills and try again".

Here, let me direct Shadzar to the appropriate thread for his grievances. I'll even freshen it up with a post!

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50416

Shadzar? Threadshitting? IT'S UNPOSSIBLE!

Also let's get back to the topic of cooking bees. Or someone make an intricate minigame for brewing alcohol or something.

EDIT: post was not actually helpful.
Nothing to see here; move along.

For Valor: Shadzar is an idiot. He's the only person here I have on ignore. I don't like several other people here (and I'm sure the feeling is mutual), but I find their posts worth reading. Shadzar is such a moron that I know for certain that I'm not losing anything by putting him on ignore.

quanta wrote:You're making several massive unfounded assumptions. First, the rules would have to not suck, and I've never encountered a set of even vaguely detailed rules that didn't either lead to retarded consequences on some level or just not cover some situations. Second, even if the rules do a good job of simulating the world and meeting the design goals, it has to be worth the time to learn the common rules and worth the time to look up the less-used rules on the fly.

I am not making any unfounded assumptions. The rules would have to not suck for it to be better, but since we are talking about the abstract of rules vs no rules, it's understood that we can have good rules. And yes, knowing or looking up the rules has to be worth it, but again, it usually is, and it specifically is in the sense of 3e vs 2e.

"or just not cover some situations."

Not covering every situation but covering most situations is superior to not covering any situations.

And I didn't say you'd have perfect knowledge and no uncertainty. I said you'd have consistency. That's what creates the ability to interact meaningfully.

shadzar wrote: i did not see 2nd edition players sit with their thumbs up their asses.

This is a poor argument because frankly there were less distractions 20 years ago than there are now. Plus, most of your players have effectively attention deficit disorder and can't focus on anything for more than 90 seconds at a time due to TV, the internet, their cell phone, and a litany of other things.

If what you're saying is true, that 3rd and 4th are measurably inferior based on the ability to focus on the game, then there's a simple experiment that can prove this and is reproducible. Find a group of gamers who play 3rd and/or 4th that exhibit the short attention spans that you're referring to, and have them play 2nd edition. They should have a measurably better time focusing on the game if what you say is true.

Does complaining loudly about how shit the game is and how many cocks the MC eats count as focusing on the game?

If so, I could probably focus on a 2E game. Especially one run by shadzar.

2e players are just as bad as 3e players, because they are the same damn people.

You know, there's something in this paying attention thing for older games. At least in theory.

In AD&D, the module would say "there's 300 gp hidden in a fake floor of the desk drawer". In 3e/4e that became "a DC 25 search check reveals 300 gp hidden in a secret compartment in the desk". In the former, players have to enquire about the game world to get things done. In the latter everyone can get by with routines of rolling dice (or taking 20).

In practice, people don't pay attention all session. Combat could be painfully slow in 2nd edition, and my players in the day would zone out then. 4e combat's hugely demanding for attention at higher levels, but between times may as well not exist.

2nd edition is not better than 3rd edition.

True that. It does have some good things in it by comparison though, IMO.

tussock wrote:

2e players are just as bad as 3e players, because they are the same damn people.

You know, there's something in this paying attention thing for older games. At least in theory.

In AD&D, the module would say "there's 300 gp hidden in a fake floor of the desk drawer". In 3e/4e that became "a DC 25 search check reveals 300 gp hidden in a secret compartment in the desk". In the former, players have to enquire about the game world to get things done. In the latter everyone can get by with routines of rolling dice (or taking 20).

In practice, people don't pay attention all session. Combat could be painfully slow in 2nd edition, and my players in the day would zone out then. 4e combat's hugely demanding for attention at higher levels, but between times may as well not exist.

some would argue with that statement as many are recently talking about how quick combat was in 2nd ass opposed to 3rd and 4ths drag out slug-fest.

with "system mastery" of both of the newer editions having plenty of time to be had now...it seems enough time has been had to figure out the speed of combat.

as for keeping player engaged, 3rd really doesnt and 4th makes it worse with its removal of roleplaying for rollplaying (see skill challenges), where you just mumble something and roll some dice rather than actually use your own skills and weaknesses to play, like finding that hidden gold in your desk.

How is 3rd edition combat slow.

I roll my d20, I add my bonuses, subtract my minuses. GM compares to AC, tell me yay or nay, I roll damage.

How freaking hard is that?

Ooh, maybe to spice things up I use a feat. Most feats are pretty well spelled out on what they do. Your character has maybe 5 or 6 combat feats? at most.. if you can't figure out what 5 feats do before the start of combat, you suck.

In 3rd Edition, I could even pregen like 50 d20 rolls before the session, and just walk through them one at a time. For /everything/

2nd edition had calculated thac0, which could change depending on circumstances, you could never be sure if you needed to roll high or low, or a d20 or a d100. Saying that 3rd Edition combat is slower than 2nd edition is stupidly disingenuous.

sabs wrote:2nd edition had calculated thac0, which could change depending on circumstances, you could never be sure if you needed to roll high or low, or a d20 or a d100. Saying that 3rd Edition combat is slower than 2nd edition is stupidly disingenuous.

you obviously dont know how to play 2nd edition so i wont discuss that with you.

3rd edition i played, and some threads on various boards like i said is where people are discussing it that know more about 3rd and played it more than myself. they mention "christmas trees" among other things.

I haven't played 2nd edition since the mid 90's. So it has been a while.

Christmas Trees? That doesn't even make sense. What does that even mean.

I mean literally, even including targets of opportunity, you're talking a handful of dicerolls per round. (Depending on number of attacks)

I'm not sure how that's slower than 2nd edition.

But then again, we are talking about D&D the /worse/ roleplaying game this side of WoSyn

The options of 3e extend rounds out. Savvy players will mitigate this substantially, but 3e combat's intricacies remains.

Welcome to the Den!

sabs wrote:Christmas Trees? That doesn't even make sense. What does that even mean.

something about the 400 magic items being used by each player because of WBL or something like that...i never really understood the term but it has to do with all the modifiers you ahve to figure IF are in action during ANYTHING you do that requires a die roll for 3rd.

Life becomes complicated if you let 2E characters have a few bazillion magic items too. That's a serious strawman argument.

fectin wrote:I did. When I played 2nd ed, the plots were unmemorable, the rules and player stifled creativity (e.g., I spent weeks trying to hack together a way to use poison with a blowgun, and got repeatedly shot down. There are other examples also), and life was like an unwashed dwarf: nasty, brutish, and short. Aside from Monty Python quotes, everyone basically just sat around uncomfortably out of combat (and in combat too).

I had the exact opposite situation. Then again one of the best DMs I ever played under was during this time. We had so much fun with poison. The best example was a near TTK (total party ... hah we nearly killed everyone in the entire town) when a poison made from drow's blood which we were not supposed to discover until a few levels later was accidentially discovered and then released into the air by the thief who didn't know what actually was in the vial.

Later on in that campaign my Lawful Good Dwarf had to watch the horrible incineration of a dozen human children when, after getting them out from the burning church, he was unable to run to the delayed blass fireball that was thrown by the drow right into the middle of the children.

sabs wrote:Life becomes complicated if you let 2E characters have a few bazillion magic items too. That's a serious strawman argument.

you dont have bags of rats and WCL in 3rd that make the game silly though.

not to mention, and you just stated you arent recently familiar with 2nd, you cant have that number of magic items being used at once in 2nd, and 2nd doesnt required you have them, let alone good luck finding any IF the DM wanted you to have them to begin with....but that is where some will want to bitch about something else about second because they arent getting their way and will want to throw a DM vs player tantrum....

but basically, if the systems promoters are wanting to change because they learn the system is flawed beyond initial novelty and awe/hype presetned it to them...then there is the problem....but we are far from lzy players and onto something else.

the point being when those things people praised (all the "options" provided by trying to make a rule for everything) become the thing that makes play not fun...there is something to be said about that.

shadzar wrote:

sabs wrote:2nd edition had calculated thac0, which could change depending on circumstances, you could never be sure if you needed to roll high or low, or a d20 or a d100. Saying that 3rd Edition combat is slower than 2nd edition is stupidly disingenuous.

you obviously dont know how to play 2nd edition so i wont discuss that with you.

3rd edition i played, and some threads on various boards like i said is where people are discussing it that know more about 3rd and played it more than myself. they mention "christmas trees" among other things.

Pretty sure that was 4e. 3rd turns into rocket launcher tag instead.

fectin wrote:

shadzar wrote:

sabs wrote:2nd edition had calculated thac0, which could change depending on circumstances, you could never be sure if you needed to roll high or low, or a d20 or a d100. Saying that 3rd Edition combat is slower than 2nd edition is stupidly disingenuous.

you obviously dont know how to play 2nd edition so i wont discuss that with you.

3rd edition i played, and some threads on various boards like i said is where people are discussing it that know more about 3rd and played it more than myself. they mention "christmas trees" among other things.

Pretty sure that was 4e. 3rd turns into rocket launcher tag instead.

i recall "treasure parcels" being first mentioned and before the tables appeared on WotC DDi article, that people were asking about "christmas trees" being present in 4th, and James Wyatt(?) said they would not...so it had to have been 3rd that had them.

I am not making any unfounded assumptions. The rules would have to not suck for it to be better, but since we are talking about the abstract of rules vs no rules, it's understood that we can have good rules. And yes, knowing or looking up the rules has to be worth it, but again, it usually is, and it specifically is in the sense of 3e vs 2e.

"or just not cover some situations."

Not covering every situation but covering most situations is superior to not covering any situations.

And I didn't say you'd have perfect knowledge and no uncertainty. I said you'd have consistency. That's what creates the ability to interact meaningfully.

Eh, I'd say cover most situations of interest, but we're probably on the same page. I'd just rather the game left out rules that were overly narrow to be of any use for really simulating the world. Like the 3e rules on climb for placing pitons http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/SRD:Climb_Skill . Takes a minute per piton and you have to place them every 3 feet to get the check to DC 15. Even if you're a 20 ft. tall giant. The rule is only sensible if you assume it's a guideline and interpret as how an average human would use pitons rather than as an actual rule for using ptions. I don't think climbing comes up often enough in DnD or is central enough for the piton rules to be worth being that specific.

I suppose consistency makes more sense than predictability. Still, I feel it's important to allow for games where the goal is consistency in something like narrative flow or drama rather than world consistency (Obviously, in this case the world should probably be more abstracted to avoid really jarring
inconsistencies).

All of this edition shit doesn't really matter and I don't know why this discussion continues honestly.

What people care about when sitting down to a table was whether or not they had fun at the game. 2E I'd imagine was better for a lot of people because the players didn't have as much responsibility in keeping up with numbers or rules mongering since so much of it was MC fiat (apparently). So more time was spent finding an MC they could stand and all working with that MC to make the game better for everyone instead of worrying much about the actual rules. I believe this is true because I've played 7th Sea and a few WW games and my friends who doth profess that these are the best games in the world enjoy them for those reasons.

I enjoy 3e because it is more rules based and the system holds together better than does 2E, at least from what I've read here. However, in all the time I've played and ran 3E at the end of the day, most people do not care about the rules. What they care about is the question of "did they enjoy themselves". Even as I have played with MCs that didn't understand the rules I still managed to have a good time unless the Mc just wasn't good or another player was fucking it up for me. In my time running the game (and I have run much more than I've played) I try to keep the rules as close to the foreground as I can but honestly most of the people who've come to my table don't really care about the rules. People want to have a good time, that's it.

Let's not forget that this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vChEPj0dXXk

was 2nd edition. Nostalgia makes us think the past is better than what we have now, but that's not always the case.

Now let's be honest folks, with a handful of exceptions that relied on MC and the players more than the system, that video is more like what AD&D sessions were like.

@DeadAleWives reference

so shitty players and people just fucking around are what to base an edition's worth on?

then 3rd edition is the shitiest thing since used toilet paper.