D&D 1st and 2nd Ed. sure was one crappy game, wasn't it?

[fbmf]

In my 2E games, we have a shit tonne more arguments then we have ever thought about happening in our 3E games. YMMV.

Game On,
fbmf

[RandomCasualty]

1131096263[/unixtime]]
It takes a few seconds to resolve in 3e too. Accept the DM's ruling or get out. You can debate it after or before the game, but nobody wants to bog down the game in session.

QUite simply I've never seen this in my game. Any 3E rules argument always begins with people flipping through books and coming up with obscure page references. At the very least, some book has to be opened.

[erik]

I think you need more courteous players then. Even if I adamantly know that a ruling is wrong, I'll accept it and look it up when it won't cause a hold-up, and that's the tacit agreement my regular group seems to have.

[power_word_wedgie]

Really, you need a more courteous group, period. That includes the DM as well.

In my brief 25 years of playing the game over a multitude of states, the two things that I have observed are:

1) I've seen games played in rule-minute detail that are as boring as dirt.

2) I've seen rules-light game that were fun to play.

3) I've seen the inverse of (1) and (2) be true as well.

4) I've never seen a "straight" rules D&D game ever played. Each group has their own house rules that make it their variant.

5) Adversarial games (players vs DMs to "one up" one another) never work. Furthermore, if the players are slaughtering monsters like you butter toast, the games are boring. If the DM is doing a TPK each gaming session, the games are boring. There's got to be risk involved with the player and they've got to have a fair chance to overcome such risk.

In all of the editions, the one thing the authors always mention is to make sure that everyone is having fun. If a rule promotes this, it's good that you're using the rule in question. If a rule seems to impede this, then it's good that the rule isn't used.

The group as a whole needs to agree beforehand on some basics variants and agree with a method of resolving differences as they come along. Furthermore, the DM has to modify the risk factor of the game so that things are not easy, but not impossible as well. If you have this, my experience is that it leads to a more fun game as a group. This goes for whatever edition of the game that you may be playing. Hence, this is the reason why I don't jump up and say one edition is much better than the other because the factors that make for an exciting game transcend the rules in general.

Just my opinion - of course your observations may vary ...

[Desdan_Mervolam]

Amen!

-Desdan

[PhoneLobster]

So, it doesn't matter what rules you use at all as long as the 'mojo' is right?

You would be just as happy using Rolemaster as Resus?

The rules are not only important they are vital. Sure you can have a successful game with varying rules sets but you can't have a successfu game when faced with too many bad rules.

There are only so many hurdles even a group having good mojo on a good day can hope to handle, if the rules throw too many into your way, like say the text of second edition polymorph all on its own, then the group is in serious danger of having a bad time.

Yeah you got to have the mojo but damnit, mojo and rule zero are NOT the solution to every problem under the sun and they were not the solution to 2nd edition, which needed one far more desperately than pretty much anything d20 does.

[power_word_wedgie]

I had sessions in Rolemaster that were funner than some of the sessions that I've played in D&D. Of course, I've had the opposite happen as well. So, yes, if you want to call having fun and having group dynamics clicking between players and DM "mojo", then the importance of having the mojo overrides the importance of having the rules. Heck, since at least 1st edition the authors of D&D have made that abundantly clear: if the rules block the group from having fun, change the rule since having fun is the point. The rules are not carved in stone.

As I noted in my previous post, the key is that group to communicate. Part of that communication is, as DMs and players, to decide which of the rules are good to keep and which are not with the sole purpose to have fun. Also, it is just as important that a DM balances the challenge to the party - if it is too easy or too hard, no one is going to have fun - and the "mojo" of communication gets this to happen.

Hey, it's a game and fun is a game's sole purpose. Let's put it this way - if you have the most perfectly balanced rule system but no one is having fun, what have you actually accomplished? How much longer do you really expect that group to get together to play in "the totally unfun balanced" gaming group - whether the reason for lack of mojo is (a) no communication between the DM and players or (b) the "balanced" rules make the system dry as dirt?

Bad mojo kills more gaming groups than bad rules. If you've got mojo in your group, you can overcome weaknesses in rules. We did this for the earlier editions and 3rd edition with no problem. However, even with the best of rules, if your group has no mojo, it's over - the group will disband to find other groups that have that mojo that brings fun.

In short, I guess we agree to disagree. As I stated in my last sentence in my previous post, this is just my experience in groups that I have played.

[PhoneLobster]

In short, I guess we agree to disagree.

I despise that statement and anyone who blithely uses it in reference to my attitude on any matter.

You agree to disagree.

I agree to point out that you are wrong.

Bad rules and bad mojo suck. Two wrongs don't make a right.

But oddly in this case two rights make a better right than a wrong and a right (which sometimes makes a wrong).

Any pretense to the contrary is insanity.

[power_word_wedgie]

1133510525[/unixtime]]
I despise that statement and anyone who blithely uses it in reference to my attitude on any matter.

You agree to disagree.

I agree to point out that you are wrong.

My experiences on this matter is that I am not wrong. By definition, we disagree just on this basis alone. Agreed?

Bad rules and bad mojo suck. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Bad mojo sucks and can't be overcome. Bad rules sucks but can be overcome with the good group mojo. I've done it several times playing 1st editions, 2nd edition, and 3rd edition.

But oddly in this case two rights make a better right than a wrong and a right (which sometimes makes a wrong).

Any pretense to the contrary is insanity.

The qualifier in the above statement is "which sometimes makes it wrong." In the 1st edition and 2nd edition games that I have played, if I was playing in a group that communicated freely amongst one another with everyone striving to make it fun, I have never had the rules cripple the game to the point where the game is no fun. In a 3rd edition games (as well as 1st edition and 2nd edition games) with bad group dynamics, I've played games that were just not fun which eventually led to the dissolution of the group - even with the more streamlined rules which 3rd edition provides.

The goal is to have fun. If you have a group that has great dynamics, you can have fun playing any edition.

Keep in mind that I'm saying two rights are better than a wrong and a right. It's just that I'm saying that the influencing variable is mojo. (or group dynamics) If you disagree with this, that's fine. This is a message board which the sole purpose to discuss a variety of opinions. However, at the end of the day, the only common ground that we will probably find is that we agree to disagree with each other's assesstment of this situation. (As well as bad mojo being bad for games, I guess, but I figured that was a given)

[Crissa]

Pretending that the rule system does not impact the 'fun' had is inane.

The whole point of the rules is to further fun.

If they're not doing that, it doesn't matter the mojo, because you're probably not using the rules at the point at which you're having fun.

And that's the point. Anyone can have fun with good mojo and a ruleless system.

-Crissa

(Though, seeing how badly characters die in Rolemaster was sortof fun. But that wasn't playing with the whole rules - we were skipping a good portion of them in order to have fun. And that's why everyone depises it in retrospect.)

[power_word_wedgie]

1133529401[/unixtime]]Pretending that the rule system does not impact the 'fun' had is inane.

The whole point of the rules is to further fun.

Rule systems do not impact fun. It is how group dynamics handle bad rules (and well as good rules) that impacts fun. In my 25 years of playing the game, I've never seen a group disband because of a rules system. However, I've seen numerous groups disband because of bad group dynamics (or "mojo"). The groups with good group dynamics can determine work-arounds to the few rules that present a problem.

What's the proof? If the Classic, 1st edition, and 2nd edition were so bad as to drive people away from the game, people would have been driven away from the game and there would have never been a 3rd edition in the first place. The game would have died in the mid-1970's.

Now, am I saying that there are no bad rules? Heck no - bad rules exist in 1st edition, 2nd edition, and 3rd edition. However, I've never seen it ruin a gaming situation to the point of not having fun. All we would do is just throw out certain bad rules (like emcumbrance and grappling/overbear) and replace them with rules that the gaming group agrees upon.

If they're not doing that, it doesn't matter the mojo, because you're probably not using the rules at the point at which you're having fun.

And that's the point. Anyone can have fun with good mojo and a ruleless system.

Probably at the "highest point" of playing with house rules for 1st edition and 2nd edition, I would say that we still played with 90% of the rules as written. We only addressed the rules that we had problems with to help streamline the game. Hey, that's what separates this game from a board game and the designers have been appreciating this ever since I started to play the game - if something is preventing anyone from having fun, have the group get together (work that "mojo") to come up with a solution where everyone can have fun.

I'd also say that I've also played with house rules for 3rd edition/revision 3.5. Weapon sizing and DR versus weapon metal type comes to mind quite readily in which we have house ruled. Heck, we left the Haste spell with two spells per round because (a) our DM really liked that option for his bad guys and (b) we were having a blast playing the game with our DM. It is something as a group which we agreed to house rule. The group had excellent "mojo."

I don't have rose-tinted glasses of the earlier editions. They had warts. However, the current edition has its own warts, and the same thing that is done today to address those issues is what we did back "in the day." Thus, with good group "mojo", everyone at the end of the day had fun, which is the point of a game.

[PhoneLobster]

Do you even have a point here or do you just love wasting everyones time restating the Oberoni fallacy again and again.

[power_word_wedgie]

If my memory serves me correctly, I believe that the Oberoni fallacy states that a rule is not broken just because you can house rule a solution. I'm not stating that. I've said numerous times that there are broken rules in all editions of D&D.

However, what I have also stated is that good "mojo" can overcome bad rules making the game fun whereas bad rules can not overcome bad mojo. Thus, through my 25 years of playing D&D, I've seen groups enjoy all editions of D&D due to good mojo. Hence, I really don't fret between the editions of D&D since frankly about 85% - 90% of the rules are the same - in fact I'e enjoyed playing all of them with good mojo. That's the point.

[Crissa]

'Rule systems don't impact fun, because we played with broken rules!'

Dude, that's all sorts of wrong. I'll leave it to Frank to remember the fancy word for that fallacy... Which is wrong on several points.

First off, it's wrong because your experience is unique, and in no way determines the average. Now, if you worked a game parlor, maybe...

...But saying group dynamic is all that's needed means that making games to bring people together as a mediator is totally fruitless, and we should just go back to running around hitting each other with sticks and staying 'I got you!'

Rules are designed, or should be designed, to make the adventure, the interaction, flow - be it through complex charts which iterate the every interaction with the world or through a system which encourages players to create a dialog and storyline with others.

Rules which place the onus onto one person at the table are just plain more likely to fail - whether they do or not in your practice is irrelevent - because one point of stress is always more likely to fail.

But it sure sounds like the Oberoni Fallacy.

-Crissa

[power_word_wedgie]

Let me then clear up what I said. Basically, it was, "The bad rules don't impact fun because (a) 85% to 90% of the rules were good (and frankly common between the three D&D editions) and (b) groups with good "mojo" can work out the bad rules to make the game fun." Oberoni fallacy state, "You really can't say that a rule is not broken just because you can rule zero a solution." Once again, let me stress that at no time am I saying that there are not bad rules or that certain rules are not broken. I'm just saying that they shouldn't (and in my experience haven't) crippled D&D games to the point that they are unplayable. What does this is the fact that you have bad group "mojo" - or poor group communication. Just because something sounds like a thing doesn't mean that it is that thing.

When you say there's onus on one person at the table, that's where I would say that bad group dynamics is happening. Really, for the groups that I've seen work, it is up to the group to discuss it with the DM about how they want to handle a bad rule in their gaming system.

Yes, a bad or broken rule can be the subject where conflict can start - but it is the group dynamics that will cause the conflict to start and escalate to the point where the game is unplayable. If you have a DM that says, "For this broken rule, my ruling is this - and yeah I know the rest of you don't like it so screw you all", then I'm saying that the group is having problems because of poor group "mojo", not the rule.

In all of the editions, I've frankly seen groups with good "mojo" having the DM say, "This is how I would rule on this broken rule and let's discuss if this great for all in the gaming group." Now, at the end of the day, the group may not be in concensus and the DM may be the final arbitrator, but everyone knows that they were a part of discussing the solution and people walk away knowing that it is a group decision, not just one person. This is what I mean about good group "mojo."

Whether you consider my observation relevant or not (and I've always stated that through all of my posts), that's cool. That's what a message board is all about - the discussion of ideas and the conveyance of observations. Hey, I don't take everything that I read on a message board as gospel.

It's just that in this thread that others "observations" were that earlier editions were worse than current edition because of the bad rules and thus it made the game less fun. I'm just stating that since 1980 I've had a blast playing under all three of the D&D editions and the times that I didn't were because of bad group dynamics, not bad rules.

edit: To furthermore help clarify my position, I'll add that saying bad rules ruin D&D games and not group dynamics is like saying cars are bad for people because people get killed in them every year in head-on collisions. In my opinion, that's not accurate because it not the car that kills the person, it is the poor driving skills of one (or both) of the drivers. YMMV.

[PhoneLobster]

(b) groups with good "mojo" can work out the bad rules to make the game fun

Thats that thar fallacy if I ever saw it. Yay, lets say good groups use rule zero so any comparison of rules systems is moot.

The bad rules don't impact fun because (a) 85% to 90% of the rules were good (and frankly common between the three D&D editions)

That crys out to me that you basically didn't use 85% of the rules of any edition. If you HAD used them you'd know that each edition changed the majority of rules one way or another.

First, Second and third edition changed the entire basis of the system each time. Unique class lists, different experience, different ways of dealing with skills/proficiencies/feats, different spell descriptions, different movement rules, different attack resolution, different saving throws, different everything.

Even when things remained the same (sort of) such as partial elements of some spell descriptions or the whole charges per day thing for spell casters the numbers involved all change and the rules they interact with (like saving throws and DCs and such) all changed.

What the hell HAS stayed the same between the editions? Especially between 2nd and 3rd.

[Neeek]

1133680782[/unixtime]]
What the hell HAS stayed the same between the editions? Especially between 2nd and 3rd.

Things I can think of off the top of my head:

Cleric rock, Bards suck. The number necessary to hit a unarmored, average Dex, human opponent by a non-Full BAB class at first level is the same. Paladins must be LG. The alignment system is largely unchanged. The damage on some spells is unchanged(MM, FB for example), though that damage number doesn't really mean the same thing. The "hit-or-miss, armor helps you dodge" AC system is still around. The names of a bunch of things are the same, though they now mean something different than they used to.

That's all I can think of, and really, that's not much.

[power_word_wedgie]

1133680782[/unixtime]]

(b) groups with good "mojo" can work out the bad rules to make the game fun

Thats that thar fallacy if I ever saw it.

Except that it isn't the Oberoni fallacy. I pretty much highlighted the differences between what I stated and the Oberoni fallacy in the previous post. I'm not saying that there are bad rules.

Yay, lets say good groups use rule zero so any comparison of rules systems is moot.

Compare all you want. However, at the end of the day, fun is going to be determined by group dynamics, not rules. You think that I am wrong and I think that you are wrong. Like I said earlier, we agree to disagree.

The bad rules don't impact fun because (a) 85% to 90% of the rules were good (and frankly common between the three D&D editions)

That crys out to me that you basically didn't use 85% of the rules of any edition. If you HAD used them you'd know that each edition changed the majority of rules one way or another.

First, Second and third edition changed the entire basis of the system each time. Unique class lists, different experience, different ways of dealing with skills/proficiencies/feats, different spell descriptions, different movement rules, different attack resolution, different saving throws, different everything.

Even when things remained the same (sort of) such as partial elements of some spell descriptions or the whole charges per day thing for spell casters the numbers involved all change and the rules they interact with (like saving throws and DCs and such) all changed.

What the hell HAS stayed the same between the editions? Especially between 2nd and 3rd.

Well, since I'm in a pinch for time, I'll list some of the basic ones that pop to my mind:


1) The ability system basic generation method is based on a 3d6 dice rolling. Thus, prior to applying bonuses and penatlies, you are going to have the score between 3 to 18.

2) There are six abilities: Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma.

3) Strength determine how strong a character is.

4) Strength can influence hit probability in combat.

5) Strength can influence damage adjustment in combat.

6) Strength influences how much a character can carry without being encumbered.

7) Intelligence determines mnemonic ability, reasoning, and learning ability a character is.

8) Intelligence influences how many languages a character can learn.

9) Wisdom determines how wise a character is.

10) Wisdom influence how well a character can resist mind-controlling spells.

11) Dexterity determines how well a character hand/eye coordination is.

12) Dexterity influences initiative rolls.

13) Deterity can influence defensive adjustments to attacks.

14) Constitution determines a characters physique, fitnss, health, and resistance.

15) Constitution influences the amount of hit point adjustment bonus.

16) Charisma is the character's combined physical attractiveness, persuasiveness, and personal magnetism.

17) Strength is the prinicple ability for the fighter class.

18) Intelligence is the principle ability for the wizard (magic-user) class.

19) Wisdom is the principle ability for the cleric class.

20) Dexterity is the principle ability for a rogue (thief) class.

21) Dwarves have a +1 modifier to constitution and a -1 modifier to charisma.

22) Elves have a +1 modifier to dexterity and a -1 modifier to constitution.

23) Halflings have a +1 modifier to dexterity and a -1 modifier to strength.


Ok, that only just looking at ability scores. This is why I'm saying that 85% to 90% of the rules are pretty much the same. I think that what is happening is that they are so engrained in the game that people just take them for granted now. However, they are still rules that are in the game all the same.

[Oberoni]

The Oberoni Fallacy thing is just a way to shut someone up when they say "there's nothing wrong with the rules, since you can just change them to suit your needs."

I've only skimmed this thread, but that doesn't seem to be what PWW is saying at all.

He seems to be saying "well, the basic rules had a lot of problems, but my group (like so many others) changed what we needed to change, and we still had fun."

Ain't nothin' wrong wit' dat.

[power_word_wedgie]

And I'll note that each edition, with different rules, definitely provide a different challenge (some due to bad rules) for gaming groups to overcome. The editions are definitely different, and I see how others have a better feel to one edition than another.

All I'm taking to task is that the differences in rules (including bad rules) in certain editions make it so that the RPG is unplayable/no fun. IMX, it is the gaming group that determines how to address bad rules, not bad rules themselves. The bad rule is still a bad rule all the same and I would agree that game design were right to/should address the bad rule in question.

Heck, one of the rules that comes to my mind for basic edition is that the cleric didn't have spells at 1st level. Right now, I'm teaching my wife how to play D&D so I want to start her with the Moldavy/Cook basic edition since it seems to be the most streamlined so she doesn't get mixed up in the rule. Anyway, I'm going to house rule that the cleric gets a spell at 1st level because I think that it is a bad rule. Am I glad that they fixed that for 1st edition AD&D? You betcha, and it needed to be done.

[PhoneLobster]

1) The ability system basic generation method is based on a 3d6 dice rolling. Thus, prior to applying bonuses and penatlies, you are going to have the score between 3 to 18.

- Well thats changed. Officially now 4d6 drop the lowest and the resulting attributes now provide modifiers on a completely different scale.

2) There are six abilities: Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma.

- All of which function differently to the way they previously did.

3) Strength determine how strong a character is.

- On a different scale to what it previously did.

4) Strength can influence hit probability in combat.

- As part of an all new to hit mechanic thats been literally turned upside down and inside out.

5) Strength can influence damage adjustment in combat.

- Different scale again.

6) Strength influences how much a character can carry without being encumbered.

- Wouldn't know for certain but since there is no longer 18/xx let me just guess, uh, different scale?

7) Intelligence determines mnemonic ability, reasoning, and learning ability a character is.

- And now also all new bonus skill points for an all new skill system, DCs for wizards in an all new saves/DCs system, all on a new uniform attribute scale, yay!

8) Intelligence influences how many languages a character can learn.

- If you ignore the all new skill points means of learning aditional languages maybe. But again let me say the numbers are... all new and on a different scale.

9) Wisdom determines how wise a character is.

- And does so on a different scale and adds to DCs for certain casters in a way unseen until now, and adds to spot and listen checks, which is also new.

10) Wisdom influence how well a character can resist mind-controlling spells.

- Just lets see the last jillion entries for the obvious answer to that.

11) Dexterity determines how well a character hand/eye coordination is.

- yawn

12) Dexterity influences initiative rolls.

-double yawn

13) Deterity can influence defensive adjustments to attacks.

-and now with touch AC, flat footed AC, different AC bonuses and such its all new in the way that functions.

14) Constitution determines a characters physique, fitnss, health, and resistance.

- still no news on this front, like all your "but the attribute has the same name" claims it functions in the game in significantly different ways.

15) Constitution influences the amount of hit point adjustment bonus.

- still spurious.

16) Charisma is the character's combined physical attractiveness, persuasiveness, and personal magnetism.

- also not a solid or substantial similarity.

17) Strength is the prinicple ability for the fighter class.

- No it isn't. There is no strength requirement and the new uniform attributes make the other attributes more attractive than ever before to a fighter. Dex based fighters aren't all that crash hot (unless they are archers) but there are solid arguments for putting your best stat somewhere other than on strength.

18) Intelligence is the principle ability for the wizard (magic-user) class.

- Ditto with wizard.

19) Wisdom is the principle ability for the cleric class.

- Again same story, even more so with the clerics range of potential roles.

20) Dexterity is the principle ability for a rogue (thief) class.

Thats just plain ass. There is less reason for a rogue to go with high dex than there is for any other class to go with the archtypal attribute.

21) Dwarves have a +1 modifier to constitution and a -1 modifier to charisma.

Applied in a new and different way on a different attribute scale that affects the game in completely different ways along with a whole package of different race abilities.

22) Elves have a +1 modifier to dexterity and a -1 modifier to constitution.

Ditto

23) Halflings have a +1 modifier to dexterity and a -1 modifier to strength.

Ditto

etc...

My rating of these similarities... NONE.

[PhoneLobster]

While I'm at it...

Cleric rock, Bards suck.

I hear on the grape vine back in 1st advanced bards rocked.

Also they did so with completely different class abilities in all three editions.

The number necessary to hit a unarmored, average Dex, human opponent by a non-Full BAB class at first level is the same.

Perhaps but you'll recall in second though the number you needed to hit harder to hit opponents went up, their AC went down.

In 1st advanced it went all over the place as different weapons had different bonuses against different ACs.

Thats three different basic too hit mechanics for three different editions.

Paladins must be LG. The alignment system is largely unchanged.

I think you just hit part of the five or ten percent that has remained mostly unchanged. If you ignore the early days when there were only three alignments and a few other minor variations in reccomended/allowed alignments for players and such.

The damage on some spells is unchanged(MM, FB for example), though that damage number doesn't really mean the same thing.

Exactly my point.

The "hit-or-miss, armor helps you dodge" AC system is still around.

Functioning in a different way of course what with positive AC and different bonus types functioning in different circumstances.

The names of a bunch of things are the same, though they now mean something different than they used to.

I could see clear to saying the names being the same but everything else about various mechanics being different might give you a small percentage of similarity.

But not 85 to 90 percent. No way. Not even close.

[power_word_wedgie]

Well, if you want to argue that since same (or similar) rules interact with different rules, that's fine. However, the only one that I respond to (since it really is the only thing that my previous sentence doesn't respond to) was the 4d6 roll amd keep the highest 3 dice - we did that back in first edition and has been on the books since then.

As I said, we'll just agree to disagree.

[PhoneLobster]

Not interact with different, opperate entirely with different rules.

Charisma making you more sociable is NOT a rule.

Charisma interacting with a set of social skill mechanics that did not exist in previous editions IS a rule (or bunch of them).

Charisma providing you with a bonus applied to various checks when the scale is different to previous editions of the attribute, on the same scale as other attributes bonus (also new), applying to checks that previously didn't exist and indeed being a bonus which itself did not previously. That is a bunch of all new rules.

About the only thing, remotely, similar on charisma between 2nd and 3rd is henchmen, which have been renamed, split into multiple categories (cohorts, and several different levels of followers) then rolled out on an all new table based on level modified by charisma rather than just charisma. So actually, its not similar at all, its infact another whole batch of all new rules.

So your claims that say, charisma, still works the same and just interacts with some different rules is a dogs breakfast. Same goes for the rest of your "well the names the same so nothing changed" line of argument.

2nd to 3rd involved new rules from the ground up, the fundemental way even the most basic checks and tests are handled is different. Its a trivial matter to point out that almost nothing functions in the same way to previous editions. And as much as 1st and 2nd were a bit closer in their rules, there was still a world of difference.

[Neeek]

1133732524[/unixtime]]While I'm at it...

Cleric rock, Bards suck.

I hear on the grape vine back in 1st advanced bards rocked.

Also they did so with completely different class abilities in all three editions.

I should have been more specific: I was comparing 2nd and 3rd editions, not any other editions.