Where did it all go so wrong?

[Josh_Kablack]

HERO and Champion are different systems. One maybe a subset of the other, but they are different.

Yeah, Champs is a subset of HERO, and that makes double counting iffy, especially on a list that counts all of WoD as just one system.

Unless of course you mean Champions New Millennium, which was a '97 release (post-bankruptcy) and so crappy that it's not fair to count it as competition for anything. Those were dark days for gaming rights.

[sabs]

Have you played HERO and Champions though? They do play differently, certainly as differently as Runequest and DragonQuest do.

And I started by listing each WoD system seperately, but my fingers got tired, so I just listed it as WoD

[kzt]

You've also left out most/all of the FGU games, like Bushido, Space Opera, and Aftermath.

The "deal" that Stafford made with AH for RuneQuest was another example of why game designers should employ business managers and lawyers who understand how to write and negotiate contracts.

[sabs]

I did say I only listed the games I'd played personally
Still, I think my list showed that there was tons of 'competition' for 2nd Edition. I like 3E but lets not get carried away in touting how it was some super-awesome Roleplaying Industry Saving Giant of Money Making.

[shadzar]

As for more competition for 3E than 2?
I think that's complete rubish.

Just off the top of my heads the games that were competing with D&D 2nd Edition:

Gamma World
Traveller
GURPS
TORG
Shadowrun
Earthdawn
Paladium Fantasy
Paladium Rifts
World of Darkness
Rolemaster
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying Game
Twillight 2000
In Nomine
Aberrant
Teenagers from Outerspace
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Champions
it Came from the Late Late Night Show
Call of Cthullu
Paranoia
Cyberpunk2020
Villains and Vigilantes
Marvel SuperHeroes
Dark Conspiracy
DC Heroes
Legend of the Five Rings
DragonQuest
Elric
Elfquest
Fading Suns
HERO System
Millenium's End
Mutants and Masterminds
Nephilim
Tales from the Floating Vagabond

And that's just the ones I've personally played.
EVERY single one of these is first published in the 80's or 90's. They're all contemporaries of 1st AND 2nd edition. So saying that 3E had more competition and sold more is just bullshit.

(I still maintain 2e was crap and 3e was a much better game, though I miss 1st)

Thanks, my Pen & Paper RPG site search skills to make such a list was lacking and the dragon magazine archive was slow for to me find one to be able to shove down Finkin's throat so (s)he could chew on it for a while along with his/her foot at the comment about competition.

The crazy builds from "unwashed masses" like the celestial half dragon whatevers, is also what kept me from being interested in 3rd edition. If a flood of blatant gaming retards didnt come directly with 3rd edition, it might have not gotten the hostility and people given it chances more often, but the players of it for the most part did, still do, most of the damage to it in where people have no interest in playing it, if they have to play with "them".

[shadzar]

2nd edition had about a 4-year window before Magic came out and started to devour the earth.

Magic didnt get big that fast either, it wasnt until about Ice Age or Fallen Empires until it came into its own and starting sitting in ALL stores alongside D&D.

I still don't think you can call 2nd a failure either, just because the company failed, again because WotC was still producing 2nd edition material, and TSR had started a 2rd edition, like Gary started a 2nd edition. If WotC had seen it as a failure they wouldn't have produced anything for it for those 3 years until 3rd was ready, and would have devoted every possible man-hour to making 3rd to get it out faster.

The very reason 2nd, and 3.x like it was taken OFF the market with each new edition under WotC was because it was strong enough to prevent sales of the newer edition as people stayed with the older.

The only way to make the new edition have total view, is to remove the older, as WotC likes to do and try to act like the older editions didn't exist or weren't worth playing. See the 4th edition video and other rollout advertising claiming how much 3rd edition sucks. Its just their tactic, to sell a new edition, rather than proof of failure of an older one even from an economic standpoint.

The only way to prove economically something had failed would to have kept an old edition on the market at the same time as a new one, which is why nobody makes a similar clain that 1st edition failed, because it and OD&D were on the market simultaneously as 2nd.

Using these as examples, it means they feared so much that 3rd and 4th would be failures in the presence of the edition before them. 3rd even going so far as to counter the website lawsuits for fan created content with the OGL, even though they had removed 2nd from the market. I would say that then means 3rd was seen as a high risk edition, in the presence of a very strong one, is so MANY steps had to be taken in order to give 3rd edition a secure footing to start on.

[shadzar]

It's funny, I liked 1st edition so much better than 2nd. Although I admit my mind is blurry on the change over, it was so long ago. I played Red Box Set from 1984 till 1988/89. I played AD&D from 89-91 or so.. But I played so many different games from 90-94 it's hard to remember exactly.

I remember playing the Red Box (and up through the color wheel) sets too. I played very little 1E before this, and it was all of the variety of "here's a character sheet, try to keep up." So, playing primarily with the Red Box, it always struck me as odd that Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling were both races and classes. I liked that 2e broke those out, so you could have Dwarf Clerics and Elf Thieves. It felt less weirdly racist.

as mentioned 1st had classes and races, while BASIC just had classes pretty much. the race was assumed to be "human", so being an elf, meant you were a human living in another place which over years cause those "racial" differences.

One thing lost in ALL D&D is that unlike the real world where someones race is african, american, whatever, we are all the same species, but in 1st and up D&D it is no longer races of humans, as a dragonborn is not a human races, but the humanoids are all close resembling human SPECIES....

But who would want to choose Species/Class combinations.

So BD&D you only chose a class, and Elf was your class, not race. It was basic. Advanced, advanced the game and the rules to change them in a way where things meant and became different to let you become an Elf, but choose your profession and area of expertise, rather than being an Elf given you all those things you needed just from being an elf.

Note there wasn't really much multiclassing of any level known today in Basic, cause I never saw a Drawf/Elf.

[shadzar]

Did I mentioned 2nd edition was around for 11 years, while 3.0 lasted just under 3, and 3.5 about 5 years on the market?

Minor nitpick since you mention sub editions whcih really is a WoTC thing. 2E exists from 1989 to the bankrupcy in 1997 ... the WoTC years should not be considered an extension of the edition period because it was a complete company transition. Normally one got the change to work on the next edition during the run of the previous edition. 2E, for example used material from various campaign worlds and supplements from the 1E days.

But. One can technically consider the release of the options series in 1995 as a new minor edition and is still referred to today as 2.5 So that gives us ...

2.0 6 Years
2.5 2 Years
Transition Period 3 Years (3E is released in 2000)

This has all the books of the editions with publication dates

Looking at that timeline and the events therein it is a miracle that D&D even survived at all.

No, the thing WotC did differently starting with 3rd, is pretty much switch to the sub edition completely. I think even 4th editionis moving to Essentials only material now that it is out. This amkes everything designed forward compatible on the market.

WotC with 2nd edition did NOT put out solely Players Options material.

They did put out, until 3rd edition came out, BOTH 2.0 and 2.5, unlike when 3.5 came out, the changes force 3.0 off the market and everything was solely for 3.5.

2nd edition lasted form 1989-2000
2.5 from i think 1995 - 2000

The WotC produced 2nd edition material DOES exist, and the edition WAS supported until 2000. You can think it being a transitional period makes a different, but it doesn't.

2nd edition was in production and print from: 1989-2000 (with a few product i think released in 2001 but those were anniversary or something)
2.5 was in print from 1995-2000

There is no such thing as a transition edition...there wasnt a 2.75 made by WotC.

That again is why I stated initially in this thread 20th century is up to 2nd, and 21st century starts with 3rd; rather than TSR v WotC.

Hell WotC even produced BD&D material, which means D&D, prior to the bastardization of the name with 3rd, lasted from 1979-2000. Sporadically mind you, but Basic D&D was in print for that span of years.

Which again is funny about Mike Mearls latest Legends and Lore, with 4th trying to emulate the "feel" of B/OD&D, and not including it in his comparisons in Stay Classy from Monday.

2nd edition product produced in 1999 by WotC: http://www.tsrinfo.net/archive/rp/rp-wand.htm

BD&D product produced in 1999 by WotC: http://www.tsrinfo.net/archive/dd/dd-smoke.htm

2nd edition, not 2.5, not a transitional edition.

Wand of Archael has no fortitude, willpower, or reflex related sub-abilities such as the 2.5 does that become the 3rd edition saves.

The link you provide has a nice little list, but like WotC seems to mismanage the data it has collected. It does not present the data in a truthful way, but one to serve its own purpose.

AD&D 2nd edition, 1989-2000
AD&D 2.5, 1995(Combat and Tactics)-2000

2nd edition was produced and in print for 11 years. 2.5 for 5 years mostly because PO books were produced and being sold during that time, but not much else for 2.5 unlike 3.5 and the sub-editions were treated under WotC, and unlike 1st edition with 1.5 as done by UA.

2.5 had the least support of ANY (A)D&D product line. It was, and IS a joke.

[shadzar]

http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110315

Legends & Lore Archive | 3/15/2011
The Incredible, Expanding Gamer Brain
Legends and Lore
Mike Mearls

~

With each passing year, the game has become more complicated. So what’s going on here? As the title of this column indicates, I think we’re seeing an overall rise in player skill, more established tropes of gaming, and a better network of tutoring and knowledge. Our collective gaming brain has grown larger and larger, and therefore seeks out deeper, more complex games.

~
But of course, explaining why we see complexity on the rise overlooks the real question. Is complexity a good thing—is the game better served by having lots of rules and options? Should it feature a lot of depth, should it remain relatively simple—or are we best served by a game that offers a broad range of complexity?

No complexity for the sake of complexity is NOT a good thing, nor is having a lot of rules to create fake options via list of mechanical advantages from said options.

Here the fucktard got at exactly what I was saying, the game has taken a wrong turn. The game is being made to be more and more complex....wait... wasn't 4th supposed to be streamlined and simpler?

Don't set out to make a game where the game is played and "won" with some kind of rules mastery, but understand the game of D&D is NEVER WON or LOST, just played. The fake options you create with some shoehorned list of options to provide some mechanical advantage in order to make more and more rules, does not let the game play better. It jsut takes longer to do the same things.

Now if 4th edition is taking longer to play, then its 3 year lifespan before Essentials makes it more like 1 year worth of lifespan since it took 3 times as long as previous editions to play the same things out.

An edition worth only a year of play?

The game doesn't need the complexity, the morons like Mearls need it to prove they have value in their job. Without this mountain of bullshit in the game, then there would not need some specialist in this bullshit to understand and fix it. I mean anyone could do it for a LOT less. Mearls point in this article is to just prove he is only trying to keep his job, like the plumbers not wanting eco-friendly liquid drain uncloggers, so that the buttcracks can be forced on you at $100 an hour to unclog your pipes.

Mearls, D&D doesn't need you or the complexity you add to it in order to prove your position and you have value in it. You should be fired and replaced with someone that can make a better game that will get the attention of more people to want to spend their money on it. You are not qualified to design a game, because you are NOT designing games, but designing things to show your worth as a designer of system. Yeah you can develop contrite systems just a good as the Department of Transportation can place traffic signals.

Not step down, and let someone interested in designing a game to be played take over, since your not useful for designing a game, only in showing your own worth to avoid the next round of WotC lay-offs. Easter is coming.

I find funny how still there was no mention of D&D in the comparison, and how simple it really was, and that is what got the whole thiing started. Nobody at WotC owns the Rules Compendium, or do they think the only crap of that name, and the 4E red box, were the first and only ones of those things?

Also he built a 2.5 character using rules that hardly ANYONE used, and only for the few years it existed, because they went into the 3rd edition as a primer for it.

He still never really built a 2nd edition character for comparison to show it was not that the editions are getting MUCH MORE COMPLEX WITH EACH PASSING YEAR, as he claims, because many of his "steps" are removed using NO optinal rules, especially not the player's options crap, and not even Chapter 5 Proficiencies (Optional).

All that was proven is what I was trying to avoid, the split between WotC and TSR version of D&D. Well Mearls, you put it out there tying 2nd only so close to 3rd, without giving it room to breath so fuck it!

WotC created the problem then, not the 21st century.

WotC thinks there is a need to add unneeded complexity to rules. I can only fathom then that this is NOT for the purpose of tying to video games and such, so that the game can be more easily ported to them; but for the sole purpose of driving sales or slowing down the need for editions as people must slowly grasp those more complex rules to find where they break, like many of every previous edition.

The rules complexity and design directions then are STILL not for the sake of making a TTRPG, but a marketing ploy and gimmick to slow down people being able to use all of one book so that they will buy more books after giving up with complex rule #21 and more to #22.

The game is becoming more codified so people like Mike Mearls will have job security. D&D is no longer about making a game, TTRPG or other, but making jobs for elitist friends.

The amount of time people have to get togheter these days with more people that know the game, doesnt mean the game requires more complexity to be played. It means there COULD be more playtime for those people that DO have time to get together to play, if the game wasnt bloated with unneeded complexities.

Sadly as you can see, anyone voting on the poll it is biased do to poor HTML coding and you may only pick ONE option for ONE edition, but may not vote on each edition. One form was used that ALL submit buttons use, and the radio options for the single form only allow one option.

So that means the data collected again is biased to give WotC the data that will only support their view, rather than collect real data to compare the editions...which is what is asked for in the poll.

[fbmf]

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

Game On,
fbmf

[shadzar]

If I made something unclear in my anger at MEarls when posting, I will be happy to explain it better if I know which part requires explaining form a post.

Again it all boils down to those fake choices via mechanical benefits. Its like what I call design by vanity. The 57 Chevy looked a heck of a lot better with those big fins to some people, but they didn't do a single thing to help the car perform.

The mountains of mechanics to choose from, don't help the game run, jsut make it look like it has more choices for people to make.

The problem is, everyone could play a human with a sword and shield and go through the game and have the same number of choices.

You don't need some rule for an action like Bull Rush, in order to run at someone. You don't need the mechanical bonus from it in order for it to give you a tactical advantage.

Running headfirst at someone shouldn't need a "to hit", cause in the heat of battle, the odds are they wont be able to dodge, and you WILL hit them unless you are blind or that clumsy.

So the choices aren't really choices, just a gathering of more and more bonuses to stack.

[Josh_Kablack]

Well I still stand by my original acknowledgement of your general point here. There was tons of competition for editions before 3rd - we totally agree. Yay!

Have you played HERO and Champions though? They do play differently, certainly as differently as Runequest and DragonQuest do.

Yes.

I have played and run Champions rather extensively - more than any single edition of D&D.

And Fantasy Hero only one semester.

My experience there seems to mirror the general gaming populace as regards the system(s).

And I started by listing each WoD system seperately, but my fingers got tired, so I just listed it as WoD

Ah, okay I understand now. Forgive my nitpicking.

[tussock]

If I made something unclear in my anger at MEarls when posting, I will be happy to explain it better if I know which part requires explaining form a post.

The polling Mearls is doing is garbage, it's just an attempt to get the fans to think a certain way about the issues of the day. You can design polls to get whatever answer you want, and that's what they're doing. WotC is getting valid complaints and trying to deflect them with strawmen, basically.

But shadzar, people who like 3e mostly know the options in the game are bullshit. There's 2000 odd published feats and you only use about 20 of them, ever.

Having rules for stuff, though, and getting players to pick a section of the rules they'll use and learn it properly, having a set of options for each character that's small enough to keep in mind: none of that is bad for the game. Some people don't need it, but it is providing a common framework for how the players can expect to interact with the game, without needing ten years experience with the DM. Rules can be very empowering for the player, though it helps if they're usable rules.

And at least in 3e, the rules are often much improved on the stuff in AD&D. 2nd edition is fairly clean at it's base, but pushing someone around BTB is still a mess, and you mostly just ignore it like you do in 3e anyway, because killing stuff is better.

[shadzar]

If I made something unclear in my anger at Mearls when posting, I will be happy to explain it better if I know which part requires explaining form a post.

The polling Mearls is doing is garbage, it's just an attempt to get the fans to think a certain way about the issues of the day. You can design polls to get whatever answer you want, and that's what they're doing. WotC is getting valid complaints and trying to deflect them with strawmen, basically.

But shadzar, people who like 3e mostly know the options in the game are bullshit. There's 2000 odd published feats and you only use about 20 of them, ever.

Having rules for stuff, though, and getting players to pick a section of the rules they'll use and learn it properly, having a set of options for each character that's small enough to keep in mind: none of that is bad for the game. Some people don't need it, but it is providing a common framework for how the players can expect to interact with the game, without needing ten years experience with the DM. Rules can be very empowering for the player, though it helps if they're usable rules.

And at least in 3e, the rules are often much improved on the stuff in AD&D. 2nd edition is fairly clean at it's base, but pushing someone around BTB is still a mess, and you mostly just ignore it like you do in 3e anyway, because killing stuff is better.

Lets take the chicken with stats from the other thread as a example of rules that work, vs rules that dont, or arent needed though.

With your 2000+ feats, yeah its a lot of excess crap, but the chicken having stats, show you can create ANY creature as an opponent.

Now some people from 3rd and 4th, thanks to their systems, wouldn't understand the concept of playing a 0th level character. While a chicken may not be the best example, it sets a baseline of something this 0th level character could expect to face.

There was a VERY good 0th level adventure I know of and a few more I heard of. Treasure Hunt aside, the function of having the ability to give stats to any creature, including by not limited to a chicken, is something the game needs in order to allow the game to function.

Take your feats, and they are a construct of 2.5, that a majority of people didn't like as it added crap in a fashion that creates a false choice.

It removes choices of things to do, and jsut tries to give those mechanical benefits.

Take also the [Radiant] keyword, and what it means, or what it might mean?

Trying to define the things people already think or know or would do things in the game is silly when it will only cause more arguments than the ones it strives to remove form the game.

Everytime you try to try someone, the action should be different, because the situation will be different everytime. You cannot really build a definite system that will function for every possible occurrence of trying to trip someone unless you do it on a physics and science elvel. The funny thing is those dont work well with D&D. Start flinging in physics, and Magic Missile can push levers.

Not to just pick on 3rd edition and its feats and such that i despise as a pure example of false choices, but look at some of the same ridiculous uses of "rules" that make no sense ot have and remove choices in 4th.

Now take into account that 4th edition is built around miniature wargaming, and this one spell proves very clearly that with its hard-coded rule. Fly. You can move in the air for only short periods of time to maneuver in combat. Sure one could argue there could be a ritual, but I then must look at the rules and ask what the hell they are trying to represent with this codification.

Wizards study magic for years, and the only thing they could do for a spell, their claim to fame, is fly a few feet for a few seconds? Did they just give up with the spell? If that is so hard, then how do some of the other things come about at higher levels form wizards? Why didn't one wizard spend his entire life perfecting the ability to fly for a greater duration?

Sure you could make a ritual for it, but where the hell is this ritual training coming from, and why are all wizards devoted to their craft to learn to fight in combat only?

When you look at the game it destroys that SoD because you no longer have a functioning world that is round, rhomboid, or a cracked-egg like Hollow World, but have moved into the territory of MMOs and board games that use a flat 2D world. I don't mean actual length, width, and height as the 3 dimensions, but flat as in having no depth. You are on a single plane looking down at the game from overhead. You are bound by the confines of those rules that take it from being a living world to become a part of to the world of a board game.

Take stories as they appear in novels and the depth of the world itself, and it IS a main character. The place where the action and story takes place is very important. I have never read a story based on the confines of a board game, or on the confines of an MMO.

One of my favorite examples is climbing a tree. You cannot do this very important thing, in the other 3D sense, in a board game or MMO (most).

Arbitrary rules are talked about for all editions, but with 3rd and 4th you get stronger and stronger arbitrary confines during game play.

Take those feats and if you havent picked one with a certain name or tactic, but want to use that tactic in 3rd, then you pretty much cant.

It is the reason why 2nd edition moved those NWPs and WP into clearly optional territory.

Even for those that missed it 1st edition has WPs, but states that they should be used by all or none, so if a fighter uses/has/gets weapon proficiencies, then so too should a wizard. Otherwise don't confine yourself with that subsytem.

Following Mearls Stay Classy articles, he used weapon profs for 1st and 2nd editions in his example, because they BECAME the feats of 3rd and 4th. So the trend to carry on these needles confines continues on. Likewise NWPs introduced in UA, then in 2nd PHB were turned fully into the skills of 3rd, then the reduced skills list in 4th. You can easily determine at the table one of the 6 ability scores that applies to ANYTHING done under the concept of skills, and roll against them to see if the character can succeed or fail at it in a case by case instance.

Want to climb, then roll versus your STR or DEX whichever you chose as the player. You don't need those 1000s of feats or even the skills to do things. They are adding needless codification, that is only needed for things like board games or video games to code the finite confines of the game world.

D&D is not played within the same confines as board game worlds, or video game worlds, and are not held back by the limits of the code, or edges of the game board, only the current group of players minds.

Can those 1000s of feats exist and the game still be held within the mind rather than a board or CPU? Yes, but do you NEED all that crap in order to play the game, or does it exist because of those other franchises that D&D might try to extend into?

The rules have a clear framework prior to 3rd, and the players still held all the power from 1974~2000. What did 3rd edition really offer to players except ammunition against the bad DMs?

[Archmage]

Arbitrary rules are talked about for all editions, but with 3rd and 4th you get stronger and stronger arbitrary confines during game play.

OD&D and similar games where there are no skill systems or other means of measuring non-combat abilities have the most arbitrary rules of them all--you can do whatever the DM thinks your character should be able to do.

[shadzar]

Arbitrary rules are talked about for all editions, but with 3rd and 4th you get stronger and stronger arbitrary confines during game play.

OD&D and similar games where there are no skill systems or other means of measuring non-combat abilities have the most arbitrary rules of them all--you can do whatever the DM thinks your character should be able to do.

I find it not to be that way, but rather, as a character you can do whatever you wish to try to do within reason that your character could or would do it.

If you have a DM that jsut isnt letting you play the game, then the problem is not the game that needs a more defined set of rules to reign in the DM to allow the players to actually play, but the DM, and NO amount of rules codification will get those people to change.

A rules lawyer will always be a rules lawyer, no matter how many rules there are, or whether they are their own, or brought down from Mike Mearls Ivory Tower.

The first time a player asks me as a DM "What can I do?", I answer simply "whatever you think you would do as your character. you can try to do anything that your character physically could do."

Climb is right up there on my shitlist with fire-building and swimming, as being things that don't need rules or a limited amount to select from. If there is a reason your character would be able to know how to do something it was in your background in some way to indicate it, or by virtue of living in the world of the game your character would have information and skills that allows them to live there.

"My DM sucked, so i blame the edition"....
"My cab driver sucked, so i blame Chrysler for making the cab"....

[tussock]

Take your feats, and they are a construct of 2.5, that a majority of people didn't like as it added crap in a fashion that creates a false choice.

Most people loved them, better than all the things they'd tacked onto the WP system over the years at least. There's only a small selection in the 3.0 PHB, and you could see a use for most of them with some character or another. Fighters could end up getting nearly all the fighter feats, and most of your power still came from class and items rather than the feats. That changed in 3.5 and on, as the Fighter was weak and got feats, so they powered up the feats, rather than the Fighter. Oops.

Take also the [Radiant] keyword, and what it means, or what it might mean?

That's 4e though. 3e's still built around the idea of words meaning things, so to grapple someone you literally grab them and then hold on to them and the numbers are drawn from the right places to represent that. 4e's combat is just a pile of miniatures rules that don't represent much of anything, so you d20 + whatever vs Fort and they're grappled, with arbitrary numbers that work about the right amount of time (though the result is so weak no one cares).

Trying to define the things people already think or know or would do things in the game is silly when it will only cause more arguments than the ones it strives to remove form the game.

Nah, most of the argumentative types love the 3e rules. The problems with a big ruleset arise because people forget that it still only covers about 10% of everything you might do, and you still have to fall back on arbitrary calls.

And Magic Missile totally pushes leavers in my games, though it tends to break the fragile ones. It is, after all, just like an arrow that doesn't ever miss, not even ghosts, and fuck the rules saying otherwise.

And yes, 4e combat is a little 20*80 railroad station. You may not fly because some fighter somewhere won't be carrying a bow and might then complain, like an ass, and you have to punish everyone for that. Such is 4e. It's not a good game.

Don't get me wrong, not against reasonable limitations on flyers, but 20' off the ground and the sword boy with no bow and no super-jump needs to go hit someone else, all good.

Arbitrary rules are talked about for all editions, but with 3rd and 4th you get stronger and stronger arbitrary confines during game play.

I honestly don't think 3e is all that confining. In a core game you can get enough feats for 2 or 3 tricks, which can be ranged combat, melee combat, and mounted on a dragon combat.
With all the splats in it's stupid, you get stuck with one trick that's awesome, the DM uses bigger monsters to compensate, and your other stuff becomes outclassed. The exact same thing happened in late 2nd edition though, with kits and proficiencies, your backup abilities fall behind. Over-specialisation by virtue of a large number of options that sometimes stack. It's not inherent to 3e.

It is the reason why 2nd edition moved those NWPs and WP into clearly optional territory.

It said that, but it lied. Everything used the proficiency system. You can play without it, but you can play without feats in 3e as well, and you have to ignore just as many books to do it.

And yes, the Castles & Crusades skill/save/anything system is pretty neat, Gary did very well there, but it's based on a simplified 3e engine too.

The rules have a clear framework prior to 3rd, and the players still held all the power from 1974~2000. What did 3rd edition really offer to players except ammunition against the bad DMs?

The rules in 1st edition are a fucking disgrace, people who play 1st edition now still don't know what a lot of them are trying to say. Gary didn't know how some of them worked, and he wrote them all. 2nd edition isn't good there, nearly every option given makes the gameplay worse, and without them it's a 20-page game plus spells that you just paid far too much money for.

Yes, 3rd's shit too, but not for the basic rules. It's just little things, the spells too easy to cast and regain, the monster presentation overly done, the power slipped into feats over time, a little too much precision here and there. 3.5 for the most part.

Anyhoo, what solid rules do is give players a sense of agency. That can help with immersion and attachment to the game. It also constrains the DM a little, and makes parts of the game take more work than they strictly need to, but it's not all bad.

[Archmage]

The first time a player asks me as a DM "What can I do?", I answer simply "whatever you think you would do as your character. you can try to do anything that your character physically could do."

That's just it, though.

How do you extrapolate things a character can physically do when they have superhuman abilities?

How do you determine non-physical actions, like whether my character knows which berries are edible and which are poisonous, how to build a trebuchet, or whether a shady merchant is lying?

[sabs]

In a gameworld with Thief-Acrobats, and castle walls, you're going to tell me that "Climb is just something you should be able to do?" Fire-Building? You do understand that NONE of these things are trivial? Firebuilding is /hard/ especially if you only have a flint to do it with.

Climbing castle walls is not simple, especially free hand with very little supportive equipment.

Should a Cleric of Ashababoobi who has spent his entire life living in a Monastery be able to climb walls or light a fire? Should he have a chance of failure at doing such things?

Doing it via "Mother may I, or Magical Tea Party" does not make it a better game.

[shadzar]

The first time a player asks me as a DM "What can I do?", I answer simply "whatever you think you would do as your character. you can try to do anything that your character physically could do."

That's just it, though.

How do you extrapolate things a character can physically do when they have superhuman abilities?

How do you determine non-physical actions, like whether my character knows which berries are edible and which are poisonous, how to build a trebuchet, or whether a shady merchant is lying?

Either part of their background, they have had experience with it on some level; part of the world they live in, they have need of the knowledge to live, or jsut like anyone else, intuition.

what is this superhuman abilities bit?

anyone who has ever eaten berries has likely had to gather them for themself, so would have learned signs of what to and what not to eat.

anyone building a trebuchet would have seen another and have an idea how to make one. if they are making the first in the game world, then will succumb to the same problems are the first one ever built for real. lots of failures before getting it right.

merchants lie all the time shady or not, ir it part of being a salesman. "a fool and his money are soon parted".

in a world where grocery stores dont exist, people would know more about nature to survive in it. people would have more experience with the things of the times they are living in that most people would in current times. the player doesn't know how to build a trebuchet for his character to do so, no does a player need to know what to forage for, for his character to do so.

it just requires a reasonable amount of time. and there is no standard for that even int he real world be it berry picking or building anything, as each time it is done it is different.

[shadzar]

In a gameworld with Thief-Acrobats, and castle walls, you're going to tell me that "Climb is just something you should be able to do?" Fire-Building? You do understand that NONE of these things are trivial? Firebuilding is /hard/ especially if you only have a flint to do it with.

Climbing castle walls is not simple, especially free hand with very little supportive equipment.

Should a Cleric of Ashababoobi who has spent his entire life living in a Monastery be able to climb walls or light a fire? Should he have a chance of failure at doing such things?

Doing it via "Mother may I, or Magical Tea Party" does not make it a better game.

knew there was something i was always forgetting to do, thankfully the latest Mearl's article and the other thread made me go back and check older threads...

So you have rules, now your party has a cleric of Ashenbooby that cant climb and must be carried over every wall?

do the rules state exactly what goes on in EVERY setting and EVERY monastery int he D&D game?

that is the problem...you arent playing WotC Setting YG#49, but your own, so the things going on in your monastery arent going to be the same as Bob's monastery.

again, in regards to those NWPs/etc and "art of DMing"...these ARE trivial things.

the list of NWPs gave an idea of what type of things, for those less than literate players could get inspiration from, but shouldnt exist as skill/feats to limit the ideas. if someone makes a new feats or skill, then why shouldnt they be able to use it?

i dont mean make something up, but generally come up with an idea, that doesnt have a listed form to follow to adjudicate. what about players making their own spells?

Tenser's X, Tasha's Y...these and many more spells in the books werent made by Gary...but players, and the spells happened to be published in a book.

Tasha's was played by an 11 year old girl..BTW...

D&D was amde so that you could add to it for YOUR group, netbooks exist because they took lots of things and added them together that people liked and wanted to try. OGL extended the netbook idea, in that you could make profit from your home games. Complete series, also took collecitons of things form various places and tried to turn a profit form these ideas... it doesnt mean these are the defining limits of the game, that which is published in an official TSR/WorC product.

So is there an "official" AD&D game? Yes, but only when there needs to be. Although I don't have a crystal ball, it's likely that tournaments and other official events will use all of the core rules in these books. Optional rules may or may not be used, but it's fair to say that all players need to know about them even if they don't have the memorized.
The Player's Handbook and the Dungeon Master Guide give you what you're expected to know, but that doesn't mean the game begins and ends there. Your game will go in directions not yet explored and your players will try things others think strange. Sometimes these strange things will work; sometimes they won't. Just accept this, be ready for it, and enjoy it.

~~~~

At conventions, in letters, and over the phone I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question--what do you feel is right? And the people asking the questions discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines.


Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

[Hieronymous Rex]

i dont mean make something up, but generally come up with an idea, that doesnt have a listed form to follow to adjudicate. what about players making their own spells?

Tenser's X, Tasha's Y...these and many more spells in the books werent made by Gary...but players, and the spells happened to be published in a book.

Tasha's was played by an 11 year old girl..BTW...

It should be noted tat not all of the named spells were actually invented by their namesake. I'm not sure of which ones were, but I recall that Rary never achieved a high enough level to cast Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer; Gygax just put the name to it because it sounded good.

[shadzar]

i dont mean make something up, but generally come up with an idea, that doesnt have a listed form to follow to adjudicate. what about players making their own spells?

Tenser's X, Tasha's Y...these and many more spells in the books werent made by Gary...but players, and the spells happened to be published in a book.

Tasha's was played by an 11 year old girl..BTW...

It should be noted tat not all of the named spells were actually invented by their namesake. I'm not sure of which ones were, but I recall that Rary never achieved a high enough level to cast Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer; Gygax just put the name to it because it sounded good.

definately, but the concept remains.. these that WERE made by the player playing a character in Gary's games, became published because the fact that they were interesting. The game allowed for such thing as it wanted players and DMs to explore not only the world within the game, but their own imagination and see how things can be made to work, and what they would like to try, rather than being confined to watching Jan always yelling "Marcia Marcia Marcia", you could slap Jan in the face when she starts and have Alice laugh her ass off while poiting at Jan for getting slapped.

Like Kuntz said in that recent interview...the game was meant to be played by people, and like Gary, "Zeb", and others said, they arent trying to tell you how to play.

Sadly so many people DO get hung up on the rules, because they dont understand the games interface and want to treat it like every other game that came before.

I dont think Bigby exactly created every spell through play either, and some were originated in the books, but transferred over to the game.

ANY character that was Gary's could do anything and get anything pretty much, BUT other players contributed to the game in "print" form, because they contributed to the game at the group level.

Likewise the OGL allowing people to publish their long ago created adventurers.

D&D always gave authorship to all the players, just the DM had arbitration rights over the rules, to make sure the players didnt conflict with each other all the time. the players also had to do their part to do so, such that Tasha's Uncontrollable Hideous Laughter could exist at the gaming table for it to even be printed in a book later...

[OgreBattle]

You already have all the materials you need to run your favorite edition of D&D. You like player and DM innovation so obviously you don't need more books, in fact that's the opposite of what you like.


You've already established these people are retards, what are you going to do about it? Do you want to reform them, do you want to keep on hating them, do you want them to learn True D&D?

So what do you want? More people to play the style of D&D you enjoy? Dumb people to realize they're dumb? Show us how mad you are?

[shadzar]

You already have all the materials you need to run your favorite edition of D&D. You like player and DM innovation so obviously you don't need more books, in fact that's the opposite of what you like.


You've already established these people are retards, what are you going to do about it? Do you want to reform them, do you want to keep on hating them, do you want them to learn True D&D?

So what do you want? More people to play the style of D&D you enjoy? Dumb people to realize they're dumb? Show us how mad you are?

are you addressing me?