Any groups try and reject 3E?
Jeff
3rd edition? I played with a large group of veteran gamers (all in their late
20s to early/mid 30s, have all played for at least 15 years...) and while I
loved 3E and the regular DM thought it was a superior system, the rest of the
group either didn't care enough to support 3E or hated 3E outright. The ones
that didn't care basically felt they would play anything from 1E, 2E or 3E D&D
to Cthulu to Shadowrun or whatever. The ones that hated 3E thought it was too
big a change from 1E/2E, as we have so much ingrained into our systems over
15-20 years, that to change the system so radically was just too much for a
veteran, or they just didn't like the system.
Nocturnal Rambler
3E is not enough of the same line. It really is a new form of D&D like
your buddies pointed out. My players and I have gone over the
books(*1) every now and then with the same results; 3E is not the
game we grew up with. 3E is not AD&D we care to associate with. You
can count all of us a hard core haters of 3E.
PS: To those of enjoy 3E, play 3E. Our intense dislike of 3E is no
reason you can not enjoy and /or play it.
1: PH3 and DMG3 are both possessed by myself. I did this to make sure
I have enough material to give it a good proper examination. The
examination found 3E critically wanting in too many areas.
Shawn Cady
Nocturnal Rambler wrote in message ...
>On 06 Jan 2001 14:14:08 GMT, jk...@aol.comnojunk (Jeff) wrote:
>
>
>3E is not enough of the same line. It really is a new form of D&D like
>your buddies pointed out. My players and I have gone over the
>books(*1) every now and then with the same results; 3E is not the
>game we grew up with. 3E is not AD&D we care to associate with. You
>can count all of us a hard core haters of 3E.
>
>PS: To those of enjoy 3E, play 3E. Our intense dislike of 3E is no
>reason you can not enjoy and /or play it.
I agree that 3e is not quite the same game as earlier incarnations -
however, I believe it is a better game. Some people like classic cars, and
they're pretty and all, but the newer models are better machines. Same thing
here.
Of course, this is all extremely subjective. To each his own (and I think
the massive stagnation of AD&D over the last few years has helped push me
towards 3e).
- Shawn Cady
Anthony Merlock
Some of the players in our old 1e/2e hybrid campaign are hesitant about
playing 3e in our new campaign, primarily because they were content with
1e/2e, and don't want to spend the time learning the new rules. But, since
I'm running the new campaign, the're stuck with 3e....
If anyone decides they hate 3e to the point where they'll drop out of the
campaign, I'll let them play a 2e char with 2e rules alongside the 3e PC's.
However, since my experience is that while playing, 3e "feels" the same as
2e, we won't have any problems.
Tony Merlock
Barry Smith
I'm sort of mixed on 3e. The majority of it I don't like because of its
video game feel, but it does have some good ideas within, ideas I'll
probably add to my game after converting them into 2e format. Monsters,
certain spells, certain rulings like a modified AoOs, weaponry, things
like that. 3e is more of a campaign supplement than a new edition for
me, which isn't surprising... ;)
--
Long live 2e.
incrdbil
>
>Some of the players in our old 1e/2e hybrid campaign are hesitant about
>playing 3e in our new campaign, primarily because they were content with
>1e/2e, and don't want to spend the time learning the new rules. But, since
>I'm running the new campaign, the're stuck with 3e....
Hmm, there's a good DM attitude. Screw what the players want. This is
my campaign! Why do they think they should have any input?
incrdbil
Beau Yarbrough
Barry Smith <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote:
> I'm sort of mixed on 3e. The majority of it I don't like because of
its
> video game feel
"Video game feel?" Huh?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Beau Yarbrough
incr...@flinthills.com (incrdbil) wrote:
> Hmm, there's a good DM attitude. Screw what the players want. This is
> my campaign! Why do they think they should have any input?
Much better is to make the DM, who is required to play the game, and
who generally does TONS more work for it, the prisoner of the players'
whims?
James Kiley
Beau Yarbrough <comic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <3A5758FF...@premier1.net>,
> Barry Smith <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote:
>> I'm sort of mixed on 3e. The majority of it I don't like because of
>> its video game feel
>
>"Video game feel?" Huh?
You know, the way that Player's Handbooks now come with joysticks and
VR goggles. Video game feel. I mean, it's a shame how the DMG costs
$15,000 with the server you need to run games, but the scripting language
is decent enough.
jk
jbs
wrote:
They should have input, but if he's going to the trouble of being the
DM, he should get to use the rules he wants, dontcha think?
jbs
I'd rather be Bushed than Gored. It's much easier to recover.
incrdbil
>
>Much better is to make the DM, who is required to play the game, and
>who generally does TONS more work for it, the prisoner of the players'
>whims?
>
Hmm, since the game is for the enjoyment of all, if the majority of
players state that they would much rather prefer/enjoy to play another
edition, the DM should heed that. He might be doing a lion shares of
the work, but big deal--that's what a DM does in any system. the DM's
first priority is making a game his players enjoy, and choice of
system can effect that.
incrdbil
incrdbil
<comic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <3A5758FF...@premier1.net>,
> Barry Smith <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm sort of mixed on 3e. The majority of it I don't like because of
>its
>> video game feel
>
>"Video game feel?" Huh?
fairly cookie cutter classes, quick advancement, senseless
multi-classing--a lot of 3e seems aimed at pulling in Computer RPG
types. (I hate using that term, since those computer games are not
role playing in any sense--just hack n slash runs).
incrdbil
simon
news:3a576c8...@usenet.flinthills.com...
> I hate using that term, since those computer games are not
> role playing in any sense--just hack n slash runs
Hey, everybody's got to start somewhere, and when you get down to it, 2e is
much better suited for hack & slash (lot's of rules leftover from Chainmail)
then 3e. (I'm not gonna voice an opinion about 1e, I've never even seen it).
Besides, some groups even manage to turn RPG's such as Call of Cthulhu into
hack & slash. That's not even mentioning Werewolf: The Apocalypse. A
"storyteller" (ohboy, does that term suck) game focussed on combat almost
exclusively.
To Hack or not to Hack (KodT is the best, what happened to them in Dragon,
why've they gone?), it's more a style of play from the group rather than a
given from the system.
Leo Fellmann
news:isK56.29251$j7.1...@dbsch1.home.nl...
> hack & slash. That's not even mentioning Werewolf: The Apocalypse. A
> "storyteller" (ohboy, does that term suck) game focussed on combat almost
> exclusively.
You know, I played an entire game session of Werewolf once ( a couple days
ago ) without even touching a pair of dice. Diplomacy. :-)
--
Leo
The kraken stirs. And ten billion sushi dinners cry out for vengeance.
-- (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, Good Omens)
l.fel...@free.fr ICQ#84748583
Barry Smith
> >> I'm sort of mixed on 3e. The majority of it I don't like because of
> >its
> >> video game feel
> >
> >"Video game feel?" Huh?
>
> fairly cookie cutter classes, quick advancement, senseless
> multi-classing--a lot of 3e seems aimed at pulling in Computer RPG
> types. (I hate using that term, since those computer games are not
> role playing in any sense--just hack n slash runs).
Yeah, that's it. As well as using advancement rates that are so
perfectly symmetrical and linear, 10,000 to 20,000 to 30,000. Things
like that. Every computer game I've ever played has that same feel to
it. Follow the programmed mechanics and you'll "win", for lack of a
better word.
--
Long live 2e.
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> Hmm, since the game is for the enjoyment of all, if the majority of
> players state that they would much rather prefer/enjoy to play
> another edition, the DM should heed that.
No, the players should find a DM who also likes what they like.
--
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen <to...@chello.no>
We are Oemgee of Boochrg. Your design, as you have known it, is over. Your
notational and conceptual uniqueness will be added to our own. Resistance is
not a valid Use Case. You will be assUMLated.
Beau Yarbrough
incr...@flinthills.com (incrdbil) wrote:
> Hmm, since the game is for the enjoyment of all, if the majority of
> players state that they would much rather prefer/enjoy to play another
> edition, the DM should heed that. He might be doing a lion shares of
> the work, but big deal--that's what a DM does in any system. the DM's
> first priority is making a game his players enjoy, and choice of
> system can effect that.
At the bare minimum, they should reach a compromise together. But if
the players really don't like what the DM wants to do, one of them can
give up a lot of their free time and DM themselves.
The number of DMs on this group who report being bullied into something
they don't enjoy turns my stomach.
Beau Yarbrough
"Leo Fellmann" <l.fel...@free.fr> wrote:
> simon <simonv...@home.nl> wrote in message
> news:isK56.29251$j7.1...@dbsch1.home.nl...
> > hack & slash. That's not even mentioning Werewolf: The Apocalypse. A
> > "storyteller" (ohboy, does that term suck) game focussed on combat
almost
> > exclusively.
>
> You know, I played an entire game session of Werewolf once ( a couple
days
> ago ) without even touching a pair of dice. Diplomacy. :-)
Based on Mutually Assured Destruction, perhaps?
Beau Yarbrough
incr...@flinthills.com (incrdbil) wrote:
> fairly cookie cutter classes,
How are 3E classes more "cookie cutter" than 2E or 1E ones?
> quick advancement
Boy, my players will be surprised to hear that. They're ABOUT 2nd level
after nine months of play, and having converted (with a generous
straight conversion of XP) this fall.
> senseless
> multi-classing
How is it senseless? I don't understand what you mean here.
Beau Yarbrough
Barry Smith <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote:
> Yeah, that's it. As well as using advancement rates that are so
> perfectly symmetrical and linear, 10,000 to 20,000 to 30,000. Things
> like that.
You're objecting to round numbers? Huh?
> Every computer game I've ever played has that same feel to
> it. Follow the programmed mechanics and you'll "win", for lack of a
> better word.
What are the programmed mechanics to win 3E and how do they defer from
2E?
Stephanie M. Pennington
something I didn't want to run. For me it always went like this:
Hey gang, I'm thingking of running a new campaign:
Players: Really? Cool! What?
Well, either Espionage, French Resistance or Cyberpunk. Which one would
you guys like to play?
They pick one, but it's always something that I want to run. Also, my
players trust me to run something good. If I said to them, I want to run
a red book D&D Basic game, they'd probably say, "Okay, let's try
it," because they know that I won't steer them wrong. I usually let the
first game be able to be a one-off it they don't want to continue. If
they do, it's campaign time.
I've only run into to conflicts the entire time I've been GM'ing. Some
players really wanted me to continue the Swashbuckling game I did a one
off of, and I didn't want to (I didn't). And I've yet to run my French
Resistance game. But I will.
Steph
********
Sometimes I hear voices in my head
telling me to do strange things, but
I always wonder if that's just me thinking
about things I really want to do anyway.
Why do the voices never say,
"Your dosage needs adjustment"?
Current Characters:
-Constance Talmadge, Famed Silent Film Star with a heavy Flatbush accent
-Therrin Terragin, Big Dumb Blacksmith with a Revolutionaly Dwarvin Wife
-Jake Whitechapel, gay ex-Republican member of the House of
Representatives superhero. He can turn into steel.
Forrest Gott
john v verkuilen
>In article <3A577E21...@premier1.net>,
> Barry Smith <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote:
>> Yeah, that's it. As well as using advancement rates that are so
>> perfectly symmetrical and linear, 10,000 to 20,000 to 30,000. Things
>> like that.
>You're objecting to round numbers? Huh?
This I don't get. I don't really like the 3E XP system but round numbers
are nice. You don't even need a table to compute them.
Jay
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
"It will kill you faster than a bullet." --Claude LaMont
john v verkuilen
>simon <simonv...@home.nl> wrote in message
>news:isK56.29251$j7.1...@dbsch1.home.nl...
>> hack & slash. That's not even mentioning Werewolf: The Apocalypse. A
>> "storyteller" (ohboy, does that term suck) game focussed on combat almost
>> exclusively.
>You know, I played an entire game session of Werewolf once ( a couple days
>ago ) without even touching a pair of dice. Diplomacy. :-)
Yep--ditto.
john v verkuilen
We've got some existing campaigns going (some several years old) and like our
house rules, which give us IMO a feel closer to the original game than 3E but
adds a lot of the flexibility. Our player base is pretty stable so having
standard rules is not insanely useful and converting existing characters
didn't work out IMO. I ran a 3E campaign for a bit, though it's currently
stagnant. It was OK. I wouldn't say 3E helped or hindered it.
I wouldn't have a problem playing 3E though. Which ain't to say I *like*
everything they did in it, but it wouldn't bother me. By contrast, vanilla
2E would.
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
And if he doesn't enjoy the game hinself, because of the system that's
his hard luck, right? I can assure you that if your DM's not enjoying
the game, it's very unlikely that anyone else will for long. I heed my
players' preferences, but only in that I'll present them with a range
of games/systems I'm willing to run or use, and they gets to state
preferences. If they want something not on the list it's just tough -
if they absolutely won't play something I'm willing to run instead
they can DM it themselves.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Inside every cynic is a romantic trying to get out."
Rupert Boleyn
<comic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <3A5758FF...@premier1.net>,
> Barry Smith <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm sort of mixed on 3e. The majority of it I don't like because of
>its
>> video game feel
>
>"Video game feel?" Huh?
Precisely my reaction, too.
simon
designers (see back of the book) for my statement. Numbers 2 (even simpler
than Vampire) and 3 (Violence) most importantly.
Maybe it is only 'coz I encountered my Hack & Slash player in a werewolf
group (the man killed everything in sight and was only happy when he could
rip some throat). God, the man killed EVERYBODY (except the rest of the
troupe, so they wouldn't help me out), every NPC, every animal, everything
that could help move the plot. Actually, he also killed anything that would
INTRODUCE the plot. It was like having Bob and Dave from KodT rolled into
one person...
<sob>
...
Thanks for yer patience guys.
;-)
"john v verkuilen" <ja...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:bhO56.860$WF6....@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 18:31:57 GMT, Beau Yarbrough
><comic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <3A5758FF...@premier1.net>,
>> Barry Smith <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sort of mixed on 3e. The majority of it I don't like because of
>>its
>>> video game feel
>>
>>"Video game feel?" Huh?
>
>fairly cookie cutter classes,
That are far less so than in any prevoius version of xD&D. They're so
open compared to older versions that they're more like Rolemaster
classes than traditional xD&D ones.
>quick advancement,
That is custonizable if you don't like it, and IME no faster than my
GMs ran their games anyway.
>senseless multi-classing
Please explain. Unless you mean that there are no restictions in the
basic rules - which makes sense to me, seeing as they go to
considerable lengths in both the PHB and DMG to emphasize that each
DM's world will have its own house rules for such things.
>--a lot of 3e seems aimed at pulling in Computer RPG
>types. (I hate using that term, since those computer games are not
>role playing in any sense--just hack n slash runs).
Like a fair number of those old AD&D modules.
Rupert Boleyn
<comic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <3a576c8...@usenet.flinthills.com>,
> incr...@flinthills.com (incrdbil) wrote:
>
>> fairly cookie cutter classes,
>
>How are 3E classes more "cookie cutter" than 2E or 1E ones?
>
>> quick advancement
>
>Boy, my players will be surprised to hear that. They're ABOUT 2nd level
>after nine months of play, and having converted (with a generous
>straight conversion of XP) this fall.
I started a fortnightly game when the PHB went on sale. There's been a
bit if a break over the holidays, but it's been fairly consistent
aside from that, and the PCs just about made a 4th level average
yesterday. Another game, also fortnightly, was started when the MM
came out and the PCs are mid-4th to just under 5th level, but the
sessions are mcuh longer (10-12 hours as opposed to 6 hours) and the
party more aggressive. This is about twice as fast as my old 2e game,
but that's in part because I'm being generous with XP (I want fairly
fast advancement to make up for not playing evey week - this way
advancement in RL time is about the same). Another factor is that
these 3e games are tending to involve nastier opponents than the 2e
games did, so the winners get more XP.
Beau Yarbrough
rbo...@paradise.net.nz (Rupert Boleyn) wrote:
> I started a fortnightly game when the PHB went on sale. There's been a
> bit if a break over the holidays, but it's been fairly consistent
> aside from that, and the PCs just about made a 4th level average
> yesterday. Another game, also fortnightly, was started when the MM
> came out and the PCs are mid-4th to just under 5th level, but the
> sessions are mcuh longer (10-12 hours as opposed to 6 hours) and the
> party more aggressive. This is about twice as fast as my old 2e game,
> but that's in part because I'm being generous with XP (I want fairly
> fast advancement to make up for not playing evey week - this way
> advancement in RL time is about the same). Another factor is that
> these 3e games are tending to involve nastier opponents than the 2e
> games did, so the winners get more XP.
My two campaigns range from twice a month to once a month, but it's a
small group in one (two players) and four (now three) in the other, so
both the players and I have been careful not to dump them in at the
deep end. They've taken on very moderate challenges -- and still almost
died repeatedly -- so their rate of progression is very slow.
Still everyone's having a lot of fun, and I'm going to start running
solo adventures for one of the campaigns soon to help pick up the pace
of advancement there.
MES
( I ran a Gamma World hybrid). Some we liked, some we didn't, and quit.
Try it as an alternative now and then and look on it as a different
game? Take into acount that learning a new game can somtimes be a pain.
However, if the old one is stale, try it if you want. I remember the
2e was alot more simplistic than 1e and took less imagination to me. We
always "added" character classes instead of sticking them together into
one. (duelist, barbarian, healer, ect.) Variety keeps a game going.
MES
The ONLY car in my family that does not break down is my 70 LeMans.. It
is pretty much stock except for the paint. Which is much better as well.
I didn't even know there was a 3rd generation . Haven't gamed for a
few years since my dm got killed in a car wreck. I hated the 2 edition
by the way. mes.
incrdbil
<comic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>At the bare minimum, they should reach a compromise together. But if
>the players really don't like what the DM wants to do, one of them can
>give up a lot of their free time and DM themselves.
Absolutely true--of course, that DM will probably not get to do the
game they were wanting in the first place. I think it all comes down
to occasionally making sacrifices for the group. everyone has to be
prepared to give--but if you have a group of 6 players and 1 gm, and 5
or 6 players say "hell no" to 3e, the DM needs to bear with 2e and
continue. Not like 2e suddenly became horribly unenjoyable once 3e
came out anyway. However, the group should give the DM the benefit of
the doubt--play one or two sessions of 3e with some pre-made
characters and see if they like it. I was assuming in the original
post the group in question had at least read the game, if not tried it
once.
incrdbil
incrdbil
<comic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <3A577E21...@premier1.net>,
> Barry Smith <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, that's it. As well as using advancement rates that are so
>> perfectly symmetrical and linear, 10,000 to 20,000 to 30,000. Things
>> like that.
>
>You're objecting to round numbers? Huh?
>
nno--hyped up advancement rate so the kiddies get more "cool stuff" to
hack with for their characters at a fairly quick rate, as opposed to
the slower advancement rates of 2e. Being a high level character in 3e
isn't as big a deal as having a high level character in 2e.
incrdbil
incrdbil
<comic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <3a576c8...@usenet.flinthills.com>,
> incr...@flinthills.com (incrdbil) wrote:
>
>> fairly cookie cutter classes,
>
>How are 3E classes more "cookie cutter" than 2E or 1E ones?
I used the players options rules helped fix the problems with
unbalanced kits in the players guides supplements. You could make a
more detailed type of charcter than what 3e allaows--with all fighters
knowing every weapons and being proficient with every type of armor.
Clerics, at least, have some decet customization, but still look too
much alike.
>
>> quick advancement
>
>Boy, my players will be surprised to hear that. They're ABOUT 2nd level
>after nine months of play, and having converted (with a generous
>straight conversion of XP) this fall.
then you are handing out XP abnormally slow, or having tremendously
low amounts of encounters--playying every other week for few moths had
us to 4th level. Advancement is considerably faster in 3e
incrdbil
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
"Beau Yarbrough" <comic...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:937oau$vnh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3A5758FF...@premier1.net>,
> Barry Smith <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm sort of mixed on 3e. The majority of it I don't like because of
> its
> > video game feel
>
> "Video game feel?" Huh?
For me, the video game feel is more obvious in the combat system. ("if I
do this, this will happen....*every time*"). I'm sure there are other things
also. I've heard 3E described as "a video game transferred to paper" more
than a few times, so there has to be something to it. *shrug* If one is
having one playing 3E, great. Have a blast. For me and my group, 3E has too
many things we don't like or makes no sense to us. We'll stick with
1E-Basic-Arcanum-Darkurthe-Powers&Perils system we use. :-)
^_^
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
incrdbil
>>--a lot of 3e seems aimed at pulling in Computer RPG
>>types. (I hate using that term, since those computer games are not
>>role playing in any sense--just hack n slash runs).
>
>Like a fair number of those old AD&D modules.
even the most hack and slash D&D moduule has more role playing in it
than any mere computer game ever can. You can't role-play in a
computer game.
incrdbil
John Carney
MESmo...@webtv.net (MES) wrote:
> I wouldn't put down clasic cars if I were you. Unless you have one.
> The ONLY car in my family that does not break down is my 70
> LeMans.. It is pretty much stock except for the paint. Which is much
While I generally agree that they don't make 'em like they used to, ask
yourself two questions: (1) how much and what kind of use does your
LeMans see compared to the other cars in your family? (2) How much
loving (if not obsessive) care and attention do the other cars in your
family get compared to your LeMans?
--
John Carney,
john....@pacific.net.au
John R. Cooper
wrote:
>To Hack or not to Hack (KodT is the best, what happened to them in Dragon,
>why've they gone?), it's more a style of play from the group rather than a
>given from the system.
>
It's not politically correct to blame the players for anything,
it's always the system's fault, didn't you know that? Just like
min-maxing in point-based systems isn't the fault of munchkiny
players, it's the fault of the system for providing the means to
min-max. And providing the means is equivalent to openly advocating
the practice, which supplies the necessary incentive all by itself.
Always remember that it's the system's fault...never the players'
fault. Bah.
- John
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>nno--hyped up advancement rate so the kiddies get more "cool stuff" to
>hack with for their characters at a fairly quick rate, as opposed to
>the slower advancement rates of 2e. Being a high level character in 3e
>isn't as big a deal as having a high level character in 2e.
>incrdbil
IMo this is more a matter for the individual group than for the rules
themselves. I've seen 1e games with similar advancement to the
'official' 3e rates. I've also seen games with almost no advancement
at all, and both these games were considered to be 'correct' by the
groups playing them. Personally I can't see the point in having rules
for high levels if you never get to use 'em.
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>
Only if you look for it. And some computer games have more
role-playing in them than some of the old FTF games I played in back
in the early 80s.
Rupert Boleyn
I thought I hadn't thrown them in at the deep end, and I got this huge
casaulty rate, too. Of the three games I running one (for three, now
two players) has had 2-3 party kills, plus a couple of individual
deaths (there was a joke about how going up to second level made you a
tall poppy for a while). Another (for three, now two - each with two
PCs) has had one party kill and about another 1 1/2 party's worth of
individual deaths. The third game (for four) had a party kill in the
first session (which was declared to be a bad dream because nobody
felt like rolling up new characters after having just finished the
first lot), and has had two deaths since then, both of whom were
raised.
Michael Scott Brown
> > "Video game feel?" Huh?
>
> For me, the video game feel is more obvious in the combat system. ("if
I
> do this, this will happen....*every time*").
????
> I'm sure there are other things
> also. I've heard 3E described as "a video game transferred to paper" more
> than a few times, so there has to be something to it.
This is remarkably poor reasoning. Do better. Immediately.
-Michael
Rupert Boleyn
<pm...@home.com> wrote:
> For me, the video game feel is more obvious in the combat system. ("if I
>do this, this will happen....*every time*").
Where does 3e's combat have things happen a certain way 'every time'
that other editions don't? To me it's the old versions that are
deterministic - if you've a better THAC0 and more HP you'll have to
work very hard to lose under the old rules, because there are
effectively no tactical options worth pursuing unless you've magic.
> I'm sure there are other things
>also. I've heard 3E described as "a video game transferred to paper" more
>than a few times, so there has to be something to it.
Perhaps that's because it's come out after the video games? After all
a fair few video games have been called 'D&D on a computer'.
Brandon Blackmoor
>
>Hi there. I was wondering if any groups out there have tried and then
rejected
>3rd edition?
Not around here, but there are some tucked away here and there. There are
people who swear by first edition Shadowrun, too -- it's a big universe,
room enough for everyone to like what they like.
BBlac...@blackgate.net
7.january.2001
KiM
> On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 02:45:17 GMT, "Denakhan the Arch-Mage"
> <pm...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > For me, the video game feel is more obvious in the combat system. ("if I
> >do this, this will happen....*every time*").
>
> Where does 3e's combat have things happen a certain way 'every time'
> that other editions don't? To me it's the old versions that are
> deterministic - if you've a better THAC0 and more HP you'll have to
> work very hard to lose under the old rules, because there are
> effectively no tactical options worth pursuing unless you've magic.
You're not being very creative then, there are plenty of options people can take
to increase there chances of success in battle. Preparing ambushes, tricks,
targeting items (shield smashing, disarming etc) taking a position benefitial to
their numbers etc.
3e tends to anoy me because many of the basic rping elements have been replaced
with stats like Sense Motive. Personally I think I'll decide whether or not my
character is convinced by the NPC or not thankyou, just as I'll decide whether or
not he can tell a lie convincingly (and the DM will decide whether or not the NPC
is convinced).
> > I'm sure there are other things
> >also. I've heard 3E described as "a video game transferred to paper" more
> >than a few times, so there has to be something to it.
>
> Perhaps that's because it's come out after the video games? After all
> a fair few video games have been called 'D&D on a computer'.
Actually to me it's more due to the fact that the system appears to be modeled
after the system used in the Fallout series (perks are feats now etc) and
converted to fantasy system. Now while the Fallout was based of pen and paper
games (David "Zeb" Cook was one of the designers) it did change greatly, sadly
many things from 3rd Ed haven't changed back (bluff, sense motive etc).
Sadly they didn't adopt the Karma system which was IMO vastly superior to the
interpretation driven alignment system.
--
KiM
email: ki...@dingoblue.net.au
url: http://www.geocities.com/k_i_m_13
"A kind word a loaded .45 generally gets you more than a kind word alone."
Cerberus AOD
work. The video game feel thing is basically BS. I want to work plot, not rules.
I can't think of that sort of thing on the fly. Now I don't need to because the
system handles it. I can get on with what is going on in the world. Video games
don't allow roleplay.
On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 09:42:23 -0800, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which
was quite moldy, Barry Smith, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his
antennae:
:)>Jeff wrote:
:)>>
:)>> Hi there. I was wondering if any groups out there have tried and then rejected
:)>> 3rd edition? I played with a large group of veteran gamers (all in their late
:)>> 20s to early/mid 30s, have all played for at least 15 years...) and while I
:)>> loved 3E and the regular DM thought it was a superior system, the rest of the
:)>> group either didn't care enough to support 3E or hated 3E outright. The ones
:)>> that didn't care basically felt they would play anything from 1E, 2E or 3E D&D
:)>> to Cthulu to Shadowrun or whatever. The ones that hated 3E thought it was too
:)>> big a change from 1E/2E, as we have so much ingrained into our systems over
:)>> 15-20 years, that to change the system so radically was just too much for a
:)>> veteran, or they just didn't like the system.
:)>
:)>I'm sort of mixed on 3e. The majority of it I don't like because of its
:)>video game feel, but it does have some good ideas within, ideas I'll
:)>probably add to my game after converting them into 2e format. Monsters,
:)>certain spells, certain rulings like a modified AoOs, weaponry, things
:)>like that. 3e is more of a campaign supplement than a new edition for
:)>me, which isn't surprising... ;)
------------------
Cerberus AOD / A Paper Cut (ernieSCR...@DoddsTech.com)
ICQ UIN: 8878412 (take out SCREWTHESPAM to mail me, okay?)
"Children of tomorrow live in the tears that fall today"
-Children of the Grave, Black Sabbath
damagejackal
> "Denakhan the Arch-Mage" <pm...@home.com> wrote...
> > I've heard 3E described as "a video game transferred to paper"
> > more than a few times, so there has to be something to it.
>
> This is remarkably poor reasoning. Do better. Immediately.
I'm glad that someone pointed that out. Hearing something a few times does
not make it true or even partially so.
Over the course of about 30 years, I've heard of more than a few idiotic
people slipping and giving themselves major head injuries on the porcelain
fixtures in their bathrooms. This is no reason to abandon a forward way of
thinking in favor of reintroducing the outhouse... ;-)
- Jeneth J. Hawke
Cerberus AOD
On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 19:07:28 GMT, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which was
quite moldy, incrdbil, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his antennae:
:)>On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 18:31:57 GMT, Beau Yarbrough
:)><comic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
:)>
:)>>In article <3A5758FF...@premier1.net>,
:)>> Barry Smith <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote:
:)>>
:)>>> I'm sort of mixed on 3e. The majority of it I don't like because of
:)>>its
:)>>> video game feel
:)>>
:)>>"Video game feel?" Huh?
:)>
:)>fairly cookie cutter classes, quick advancement, senseless
:)>multi-classing--a lot of 3e seems aimed at pulling in Computer RPG
:)>types. (I hate using that term, since those computer games are not
:)>role playing in any sense--just hack n slash runs).
:)>incrdbil
Have the classes ever NOT been cookie-cutter? Level advancement is based solely
on DM. IMHO, the book numbers are too high, but advancement speed is a BIG
factor when it comes to the game...each DM does it differently. The
multiclassing...yup, multiclassing that allows variation in one's
abilities...you can easily have someone dabble in magic now, as opposed to being
only a level or two behind the wizard and the fighter.
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>You're not being very creative then, there are plenty of options people can take
>to increase there chances of success in battle. Preparing ambushes,
Gives you one extra attack, maybe. And given the surprise rules you'll
be lucky to get that unless your opponents are a very noisy bunch.
> tricks,
Like? Tricks aren't covered in the rules, so they're a DM call, and
using the rules as a guide they should never give more than maybe a +1
to hit.
>targeting items (shield smashing, disarming etc) taking a position benefitial to
>their numbers etc.
However these are all darned hard to do. To smash something an enemy
is weilding takes a called shot (-4 to hit, +1 initiative) and for it
to fail a saving throw. As for positioning, even getting behind
someone (hard to do unless the opponents are idiots) only net you a +2
to hit. In 1e/2e there are very tactical options that mean _anything_
and there's way too much movement.
>3e tends to anoy me because many of the basic rping elements have been replaced
>with stats like Sense Motive. Personally I think I'll decide whether or not my
>character is convinced by the NPC or not thankyou, just as I'll decide whether or
>not he can tell a lie convincingly (and the DM will decide whether or not the NPC
>is convinced).
And I'll give my PCs and NPCs Sense Motive if they're that sort of
person, and not if they're not, and that way I won't have to rely on
my own acting ability, or try to firewall the fact that I know player
x is lying (in character), because I know him well. These skills also
mean that there's an objective way of telling whether PC x can tell if
NPC y is lying if we haven't the time or inclination to roleplay out
the whole encounter. Do you also require players to play out combats?
>Actually to me it's more due to the fact that the system appears to be modeled
>after the system used in the Fallout series (perks are feats now etc) and
>converted to fantasy system.
Which as you point out below is from pen-and-paper, so what you're
saying is that 3e is like some other pen-and-paper rpgs. I never would
have noticed.
>Now while the Fallout was based of pen and paper
>games (David "Zeb" Cook was one of the designers) it did change greatly, sadly
>many things from 3rd Ed haven't changed back (bluff, sense motive etc).
IMO Fallout didn't change greatly - it's very like GURPS. BTW most
other rpgs have these skills or their equivilent.
>Sadly they didn't adopt the Karma system which was IMO vastly superior to the
>interpretation driven alignment system.
And a karma system's not 'intrepretation driven'?
Brandon Blackmoor
news:3a5e1c57...@news.matnet.com...
>
> :)>>"Video game feel?" Huh?
> :)>
> :)>fairly cookie cutter classes, quick advancement, senseless
>
No kidding. I don't get these "video game" comments at all -- D&D has
*always* been more or less a video game. You kill the enemies, you collect
your power-ups, you find bigger weapons, and so on. That's one of the
reasons I detested it for 15 years. D&D2000 ameliorated enough of that
videogame tendency to make the game palatable to me.
BBlac...@blackgate.net
7.january.2001
Cerberus AOD
On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 02:35:07 GMT, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which was
quite moldy, incrdbil, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his antennae:
:)>On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 20:49:12 GMT, Beau Yarbrough
:)><comic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
:)>
:)>>In article <3A577E21...@premier1.net>,
:)>> Barry Smith <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote:
:)>>
:)>>> Yeah, that's it. As well as using advancement rates that are so
:)>>> perfectly symmetrical and linear, 10,000 to 20,000 to 30,000. Things
:)>>> like that.
:)>>
:)>>You're objecting to round numbers? Huh?
:)>>
:)>
:)>nno--hyped up advancement rate so the kiddies get more "cool stuff" to
:)>hack with for their characters at a fairly quick rate, as opposed to
:)>the slower advancement rates of 2e. Being a high level character in 3e
:)>isn't as big a deal as having a high level character in 2e.
:)>incrdbil
How so? If you are in the suggested high magic world of the DMG it is. everyone
might have magical items, but you have the ones that are the best. And the
advancement rate is quite alterable. It is stated quite in the DMG that it is
meant as a guideline.
Cerberus AOD
On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 02:39:20 GMT, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which was
quite moldy, incrdbil, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his antennae:
:)>On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 20:47:32 GMT, Beau Yarbrough
:)><comic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
:)>
:)>>In article <3a576c8...@usenet.flinthills.com>,
:)>> incr...@flinthills.com (incrdbil) wrote:
:)>>
:)>>> fairly cookie cutter classes,
:)>>
:)>>How are 3E classes more "cookie cutter" than 2E or 1E ones?
:)>
:)>I used the players options rules helped fix the problems with
:)>unbalanced kits in the players guides supplements. You could make a
:)>more detailed type of charcter than what 3e allaows--with all fighters
:)>knowing every weapons and being proficient with every type of armor.
:)>Clerics, at least, have some decet customization, but still look too
:)>much alike.
Knowing every weapon? Yeah, they are fighters.
Now get them to 4th level.
He has taken Exotic Weapon Proficiency[Bastard Sword], Weapon Focus[Bastard
Sword], and Weapon Specialization[Bastard Sword].
Is he going to want to fight with anything else? Not unless he absolutely has
to.
:)>>> quick advancement
:)>>
:)>>Boy, my players will be surprised to hear that. They're ABOUT 2nd level
:)>>after nine months of play, and having converted (with a generous
:)>>straight conversion of XP) this fall.
:)>
:)>then you are handing out XP abnormally slow, or having tremendously
:)>low amounts of encounters--playying every other week for few moths had
:)>us to 4th level. Advancement is considerably faster in 3e
:)>
:)>incrdbil
If you have lots of encounters it will be. My group has 1 maybe every 3
sessions. The rest is interaction with other stuff in the world. If you don't
agree with how it is handled, don't worry then. I personally can't remember
those tables anyway, and except for basic items, if I have to look it up, it is
worth my time and effort just to make it up and not worry about it.
Cerberus AOD
On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 16:50:25 +1000, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which
was quite moldy, KiM, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his antennae:
:)>Rupert Boleyn wrote:
:)>
:)>> On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 02:45:17 GMT, "Denakhan the Arch-Mage"
:)>> <pm...@home.com> wrote:
:)>>
:)>> > For me, the video game feel is more obvious in the combat system. ("if I
:)>> >do this, this will happen....*every time*").
:)>>
:)>> Where does 3e's combat have things happen a certain way 'every time'
:)>> that other editions don't? To me it's the old versions that are
:)>> deterministic - if you've a better THAC0 and more HP you'll have to
:)>> work very hard to lose under the old rules, because there are
:)>> effectively no tactical options worth pursuing unless you've magic.
:)>
:)>You're not being very creative then, there are plenty of options people can take
:)>to increase there chances of success in battle. Preparing ambushes, tricks,
:)>targeting items (shield smashing, disarming etc) taking a position benefitial to
:)>their numbers etc.
And this time around, they actually handle that in the system! Some of us like
having a system like that. If you don't, you might want to try a more simplistic
one, like Legendmaker (Need to play more of that too...and at only $15, buy the
book)
:)>3e tends to anoy me because many of the basic rping elements have been replaced
:)>with stats like Sense Motive. Personally I think I'll decide whether or not my
:)>character is convinced by the NPC or not thankyou, just as I'll decide whether or
:)>not he can tell a lie convincingly (and the DM will decide whether or not the NPC
:)>is convinced).
The DM decides that :)
If you replace the roleplaying with a roll, it will be a BAD THING™. If you
append it, it works OK.
...<roleplays through talking with guy who is trying to swindle them...secretly
do a Bluff check. 24>...
"Sense Motive check."
"18."
"They are very high quality golden figurines."
<player buys.>
...<later that week>...
"You notice that there are streaks of silverish metal on your Orc Chieftan
figurine. Upon closer examination, it appears they are some cheaper metal,
plated in gold."
The key to this is ALWAYS requiring the check afterward, not just when the guy
is bluffing. The check would be required after the bargaining if the merchant
were actually selling solid gold figurines.
:)>> > I'm sure there are other things
:)>> >also. I've heard 3E described as "a video game transferred to paper" more
:)>> >than a few times, so there has to be something to it.
:)>>
:)>> Perhaps that's because it's come out after the video games? After all
:)>> a fair few video games have been called 'D&D on a computer'.
:)>
:)>Actually to me it's more due to the fact that the system appears to be modeled
:)>after the system used in the Fallout series (perks are feats now etc) and
:)>converted to fantasy system. Now while the Fallout was based of pen and paper
:)>games (David "Zeb" Cook was one of the designers) it did change greatly, sadly
:)>many things from 3rd Ed haven't changed back (bluff, sense motive etc).
:)>
:)>Sadly they didn't adopt the Karma system which was IMO vastly superior to the
:)>interpretation driven alignment system.
Never played fallout, so no comments here. But if it was so superior, that might
end these alignment flame wars! :-) That'd be terrible!
BlakGard
This sounds like my group all over... except even I, the DM, fell into the
category of "not caring" enough to support the new system. There were a few
reasons for this:
1. Our system has evolved to the point where you could hardly call it Dungeons
and Dragons with any degree of correctness, though we still refer to it as
such.
2. Many of 3E's systems seem almost like computer game programmers planned it
out. With all of the talk of "making things simpler," WotC failed miserably to
follow through with this idea.
3. Some things that became trivialized in 3E are major factors in our game,
language being one of the biggest. And we just could not come up with an excuse
for a Fighter knowing how to use all standard weapons.
4. Feats. No one in our group even likes the mention of systems with "feats."
It makes us think about superheroes too much. By our estimation, ALL feats can
simply be considered "Skills."
5. Conversion was too difficult. This objection came mostly from me, when I
estimated that it would take me until about June or July to convert enough
characters, gods, etc. for our game to work.
6. The biggest complaint came from the way the Classes were handled. They
seemed too rigid by our standards, and absolute none of the characters we had
(PC and NPC) would fit nicely into the templates that were provided. If
everything (and I mean everything) has to be fudged, then what is the sense of
using a new "system?"
7. Many things seemed to be changed just for the sake of change.
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
BlakGard
>>
>>How are 3E classes more "cookie cutter" than 2E or 1E ones?
>
>I used the players options rules helped fix the problems with
>unbalanced kits in the players guides supplements. You could make a
>more detailed type of charcter than what 3e allaows--with all fighters
>knowing every weapons and being proficient with every type of armor.
>Clerics, at least, have some decet customization, but still look too
>much alike.
This is the exact same feeling we had, as well. But confidentially, in my day,
we didn't need no stinking "Player's Option" rules to create more detailed
characters. Characters were unique by the way they acted, their skills
(proficiencies), and how efficiently they were roleplayed (what contacts they
made, what friends/enemies they made, etc.).
BlakGard
>people slipping and giving themselves major head injuries on the porcelain
>fixtures in their bathrooms. This is no reason to abandon a forward way of
>thinking in favor of reintroducing the outhouse... ;-)
Of course not... NO ONE slips on their toilet (into their toilet is another
thing altogether), which is the only thing an outhouse was.
BlakGard
and
>more HP you'll have to work very hard to lose under the old rules
Yet people were losing ALL OF THE TIME?!?! You must not have been actually
playing the game then.
BlakGard
>> also. I've heard 3E described as "a video game transferred to paper" more
>> than a few times, so there has to be something to it.
>
> This is remarkably poor reasoning. Do better. Immediately.
Actually, this is extremely good reasoning. Those of us who have been saying
this for months must be seeing something that the rest of you are too blind to
see. And frankly, I really do recall some of the architects of this very game
stating that they wanted a "video game" feel.
KiM
> On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 16:50:25 +1000, KiM <ki...@dingoblue.net.au>
> wrote:
>
> >You're not being very creative then, there are plenty of options people can take
> >to increase there chances of success in battle. Preparing ambushes,
>
> Gives you one extra attack, maybe. And given the surprise rules you'll
> be lucky to get that unless your opponents are a very noisy bunch.
You can do a lot in your extra round. Concentrated attacks can kill or severly injure
a key opponent. Most groups I've played in seriously reconsider the wisdom of fighting
on if the party's lead fighter loses half his hit points before he gets to attack or
if the party mage gets aced before the fight.
> > tricks,
>
> Like? Tricks aren't covered in the rules, so they're a DM call, and
> using the rules as a guide they should never give more than maybe a +1
> to hit.
What rules exactly?
> >targeting items (shield smashing, disarming etc) taking a position benefitial to
> >their numbers etc.
>
> However these are all darned hard to do. To smash something an enemy
> is weilding takes a called shot (-4 to hit, +1 initiative) and for it
> to fail a saving throw. As for positioning, even getting behind
> someone (hard to do unless the opponents are idiots) only net you a +2
> to hit. In 1e/2e there are very tactical options that mean _anything_
> and there's way too much movement.
Look at your opponents, if they're a patrol on a long route they'll have backpacks for
supplies, or quivers etc. Cut a strap... for a -4 against their natural AC minus Dex
(armour won't protect an item worn outside it) you can hamper one arm (which should
IMO give at least -2 penalties).... wow a called shot that was useful and tactical
viable.
> >3e tends to anoy me because many of the basic rping elements have been replaced
> >with stats like Sense Motive. Personally I think I'll decide whether or not my
> >character is convinced by the NPC or not thankyou, just as I'll decide whether or
> >not he can tell a lie convincingly (and the DM will decide whether or not the NPC
> >is convinced).
>
> And I'll give my PCs and NPCs Sense Motive if they're that sort of
> person, and not if they're not, and that way I won't have to rely on
> my own acting ability, or try to firewall the fact that I know player
> x is lying (in character), because I know him well. These skills also
> mean that there's an objective way of telling whether PC x can tell if
> NPC y is lying if we haven't the time or inclination to roleplay out
> the whole encounter. Do you also require players to play out combats?
Yes I do, hence how they get to use their tactics. We draw maps, they explain their
characters actions, if it's not something that translates easily to an attack roll we
may need to discuss it and then it goes through. At the same time all my NPCs tend to
do the same. Beats the heck outta rolling dice "I hit for 3... I miss..."
> >Actually to me it's more due to the fact that the system appears to be modeled
> >after the system used in the Fallout series (perks are feats now etc) and
> >converted to fantasy system.
> Which as you point out below is from pen-and-paper, so what you're
> saying is that 3e is like some other pen-and-paper rpgs. I never would
> have noticed.
Fallout is modeled after the pen-and-paper RPG because remarkably pen and paper was
invented long before the computer. However to make Fallout interesting and allow
diverse character selections they added extra parts to replace standard roleplaying.
You had a speech skill in Fallout, the higher your skill the more eloquent and helpful
your speech options became, were you playing it with real people your speech options
would be limitless so this skill would be useless.
> >Now while the Fallout was based of pen and paper
> >games (David "Zeb" Cook was one of the designers) it did change greatly, sadly
> >many things from 3rd Ed haven't changed back (bluff, sense motive etc).
>
> IMO Fallout didn't change greatly - it's very like GURPS. BTW most
> other rpgs have these skills or their equivilent.
Good for them, another reason not to buy them.
> >Sadly they didn't adopt the Karma system which was IMO vastly superior to the
> >interpretation driven alignment system.
>
> And a karma system's not 'intrepretation driven'?
Not by half, your Karma was based on what happened to people around you and sided with
you, if it was good then it went up. If it was bad then it went down. Your
motivations, interpretations and moral compass were all of secondary importance since
all that mattered in it was how people saw you.
If bad things happened, they came to associate you with them, if good things happened,
they associated you with that instead. Though I'm sure people would and could argue
over it for fun and the chance to call each other idiots.
KiM
> On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 16:50:25 +1000, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which was
> quite moldy, KiM, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his antennae:
I've been promoted to dying weevil?
> And this time around, they actually handle that in the system! Some of us like
> having a system like that. If you don't, you might want to try a more simplistic
> one, like Legendmaker (Need to play more of that too...and at only $15, buy the book)
2nd Ed system covered it for me, it had enough rules etc that finding a simple answer to
any nonstandard tactic was fairly easy with a little creativity. Simplistic combat
bores me... I could roll dice for hours hoping for high numbers by myself. :)
> :)>3e tends to anoy me because many of the basic rping elements have been replaced
> :)>with stats like Sense Motive. Personally I think I'll decide whether or not my
> :)>character is convinced by the NPC or not thankyou, just as I'll decide whether or
> :)>not he can tell a lie convincingly (and the DM will decide whether or not the NPC
> :)>is convinced).
>
> The DM decides that :)
> If you replace the roleplaying with a roll, it will be a BAD THING™. If you
> append it, it works OK.
>
> ...<roleplays through talking with guy who is trying to swindle them...secretly
> do a Bluff check. 24>...
> "Sense Motive check."
> "18."
> "They are very high quality golden figurines."
> <player buys.>
> ...<later that week>...
> "You notice that there are streaks of silverish metal on your Orc Chieftan
> figurine. Upon closer examination, it appears they are some cheaper metal,
> plated in gold."
>
> The key to this is ALWAYS requiring the check afterward, not just when the guy is
> bluffing. The check would be required after the bargaining if the merchant were
> actually selling solid gold figurines.
Easily substituited by a wisdom, intelligence or charisma (which is most appropraite to
the way they're trying to assess if the merchant is bluffing) in the few cases where it
turns up. After all players realistically have many ways to figure out whether or not
he's bluffing.
Someone may do it analytically, summing up the balance of the apparent value of the
merchandise, then comparing it to the price and the likelihood of the a merchant having
it, then looking at whether the merchant can afford to cheap the party (if he's leaving
town tomorrow, his ruse only needs to last a day or two). Intelligence.
Someone else may simply go off their feelings over whether or not this man seems
trustworthy, whether it feels right to invest their money in these figurines or whether
it would be a stupid idea. Wisdom.
Others who are more socially ept than may simply watch the merchant looking for telltale
signs of dishonestly. They're not caring how it feels, they're caring whether the
merchant is looking them calmly in the eye or whether he's looking all about and
touching his face. Charisma.
Three possible ways different characters would sense motives based off their personality
and skills. All for the sake 3e bundled under one roll which is based off how many skill
points and stats the chars have. Kinda robs you of roleplaying IMO.
> Never played fallout, so no comments here. But if it was so superior, that might end
> these alignment flame wars! :-) That'd be terrible!
Fear not, there wold simply be flame wars over how much Karma should have been allocated
or removed for a specific act.... then we still discuss what is good and evil but in
terms of quantification ("How good was this?" instead of "Was this chaotic good or
neutral good?")
Brian
"Forrest Gott" <Forres...@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
news:3A579931...@ndsu.nodak.edu...
> All I can say is, I'd love to be in your shoes.
Since her name is Stephanie, it isn't being in her *shoes* that would hold
my primary interest. ('sides, I don't think they'd fit)
John Simpson
>>> I'm sure there are other things
>>> also. I've heard 3E described as "a video game transferred to paper" more
>>> than a few times, so there has to be something to it.
>>
>> This is remarkably poor reasoning. Do better. Immediately.
>
>Actually, this is extremely good reasoning. Those of us who have been saying
>this for months must be seeing something that the rest of you are too blind to
>see. And frankly, I really do recall some of the architects of this very game
>stating that they wanted a "video game" feel.
I had that vague impression, but all I've done is flip through the
PHB3. It was the artwork that struck me as resembling Diablo, in
which every character's stance and costuming screams "bad-ass." The
PHB2 seems to have more varied art, depicting characters in off-duty
mode. The PHB *looks* a little more like a role-playing manual.
That doesn't mean that the new rules are all hack 'n' slash, of
course, but I suspect that the 3E designers are trying to catch the
eye of the young newbie who has played a lot of computer games.
Indeed, it would have been silly *not* to make such an attempt, as
WotC has stated many times that they are on a campaign to lure new
blood into the hobby.
That new blood is out there, and it's playing Diablo and
Warcraft--if not Warhammer.
--
Peace,
John Simpson
Real username's in the URL
http://home.earthlink.net/~silverjohn
If someone asks if you're a god, say "Yes."
If someone asks if you're Sarah Conner, say "No."
jwal...@toad.net
>>I played with a large group of veteran gamers (all in their late
>>20s to early/mid 30s, have all played for at least 15 years...) and while I
>>loved 3E and the regular DM thought it was a superior system, the rest of the
>>group either didn't care enough to support 3E or hated 3E outright.
>
>This sounds like my group all over... except even I, the DM, fell into the
>category of "not caring" enough to support the new system. There were a few
>reasons for this:
>
>1. Our system has evolved to the point where you could hardly call it Dungeons
>and Dragons with any degree of correctness, though we still refer to it as
>such.
Fair enough, but you aren't really comparing 3E to 1/2E. You are
comparing to your homebrew system.
>2. Many of 3E's systems seem almost like computer game programmers planned it
>out. With all of the talk of "making things simpler," WotC failed miserably to
>follow through with this idea.
You may think that they didn't go far enough, or that they added new
complication to counter-balance the simplifications, but there are
significant simplifications in 3E. There are the unified d20
mechanics, the uniform ability charts, the uniform experience charts,
etc.
>3. Some things that became trivialized in 3E are major factors in our game,
>language being one of the biggest. And we just could not come up with an excuse
>for a Fighter knowing how to use all standard weapons.
How about "As part of their training, fighters are exposed to all the
standard weapons". Why isn't that acceptable? Remember that fighters
are supposed to be significantly better trained than common soldiers.
>4. Feats. No one in our group even likes the mention of systems with "feats."
>It makes us think about superheroes too much. By our estimation, ALL feats can
>simply be considered "Skills."
Please feel free to use a different name if the word "feat" itself
bothers you, but there are reasons for having different mechanics for
skills and feats. If you use the feat mechanics for skills, then it
becomes too expensive to buy more than one level in a skill. If you
use the skill mechanics for feats, then it becomes far too easy for a
fighter to specialize in every weapon.
>5. Conversion was too difficult. This objection came mostly from me, when I
>estimated that it would take me until about June or July to convert enough
>characters, gods, etc. for our game to work.
This has been debated in detail before. Exact conversion is very
difficult (as it is between any two systems with significant
difference) but approximate conversion is easy enough.
>6. The biggest complaint came from the way the Classes were handled. They
>seemed too rigid by our standards, and absolute none of the characters we had
>(PC and NPC) would fit nicely into the templates that were provided. If
>everything (and I mean everything) has to be fudged, then what is the sense of
>using a new "system?"
I find 3E classes vastly less rigid than 1E or vanilla 2E (I've never
bought the umpteen expansion books). Perhaps you are seeing the
difference between your homebrew system and 3E.
>7. Many things seemed to be changed just for the sake of change.
Like what?
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
"Rupert Boleyn" <rbo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:3a57e7e9...@news.paradise.net.nz...
> On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 02:45:17 GMT, "Denakhan the Arch-Mage"
> <pm...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > For me, the video game feel is more obvious in the combat system.
("if I
> >do this, this will happen....*every time*").
>
> Where does 3e's combat have things happen a certain way 'every time'
> that other editions don't? To me it's the old versions that are
> deterministic - if you've a better THAC0 and more HP you'll have to
> work very hard to lose under the old rules, because there are
> effectively no tactical options worth pursuing unless you've magic.
Player A and B are ganging up on a poor Orc. Player C sees another orc
enter the room, 20' away. Player C decided to jog over to engage the new
Orc. Player C jogs behind the Orc who is fighting Players A and B...that Orc
gets to take a stab at Player C. Everytime. This, to me, doesn't make much
sense; said Orc should be far too involved trying not to get skewered by two
PC's to turn around, hack at someone running by, and then turn back to
continue the fight vs. A & B. Heck, even if the Orc was attacking only one
PC he should be too engaged, IMHO, to do this. In other editions, this would
be a GM call...not a "see, says so right here in the rules" statement.
^_^
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Alan Kohler
jk...@aol.comnojunk (Jeff) wrote:
> Hi there. I was wondering if any groups out there have tried and then
rejected
their late
> 20s to early/mid 30s, have all played for at least 15 years...) and
while I
> loved 3E and the regular DM thought it was a superior system, the rest
of the
> group either didn't care enough to support 3E or hated 3E outright.
> that didn't care basically felt they would play anything from 1E, 2E
or 3E D&D
was too
over
for a
>
>
When the new edition came out, I did have some reservations, and some
material seems a little less handcrafted that it did under 2e/PO (I
still think the character point creation system and S&P style kits were
a boon to the system), but overall the cleaner feel, much lower need for
house rules, and method of treating monsters like all other NPCs won me
over. When I started a new campaign, I took the opportunity to switch.
There are a few other groups locally that are still running 1e or 2e
that I know of. In the case of the 2e group, its more a matter of
convenience than loathing... which I can understand: for me converting
my game world was a daunting task. In the case of the 1e group, it seems
like nothing more than pure nostalgia and bullheadedness, such as the
intense desire to keep (IMO) unworthy and clunky tidbits like 1e style
Bards and percentile strength.
--
Alan D. Kohler - http://members.tripod.com/~hawk_wind/homepage.html
"Look into my face and you will know I am a man possessed by DEMONS!
Polite demons... demons that would open a door for a lady carrying too
many parcels... but demons nonetheless!" - from KITH
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Alan Kohler
> >3. Some things that became trivialized in 3E are major factors in our
game,
> >language being one of the biggest. And we just could not come up with
an excuse
> >for a Fighter knowing how to use all standard weapons.
>
> How about "As part of their training, fighters are exposed to all the
> standard weapons". Why isn't that acceptable? Remember that fighters
> are supposed to be significantly better trained than common soldiers.
>
Sorry, I have converted and I have to agree that is a weak excuse. Were
all soldiers historically trained infantrymen, calvarymen, and archers?
I'm afraid not.
The only thing that makes it tolerable is that they have a warrior NPC
class, so the fighter doesn't just represent all soldiers, but a
particularly well trained and skilled warrior -- but I still find it a
pretty weak excuse. Fighters STILL should not be proficient in most non
exotic weapons. I did like the alternative weapon group system someone
posted a month or two ago.
> >5. Conversion was too difficult. This objection came mostly from me,
when I
> >estimated that it would take me until about June or July to convert
enough
> >characters, gods, etc. for our game to work.
>
> This has been debated in detail before. Exact conversion is very
> difficult (as it is between any two systems with significant
> difference) but approximate conversion is easy enough.
>
Feh. I wouldn't waste too much time worrying about details, but even if
you don't there are a couple of conversion stumbling blocks -- clerics
and high level (or ever moderate level) multiclass characters being two
examples that come to mind.
> >6. The biggest complaint came from the way the Classes were handled.
They
> >seemed too rigid by our standards, and absolute none of the
characters we had
> >(PC and NPC) would fit nicely into the templates that were provided.
If
> >everything (and I mean everything) has to be fudged, then what is the
sense of
> >using a new "system?"
>
> I find 3E classes vastly less rigid than 1E or vanilla 2E (I've never
> bought the umpteen expansion books). Perhaps you are seeing the
> difference between your homebrew system and 3E.
>
Well, I've got to agree there... since you said "vanilla."
Shawn Cady
Alan Kohler wrote in message <939vah$it5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> And we just could not come up with an excuse for a Fighter knowing how to
use >all standard weapons.
>>
>> How about "As part of their training, fighters are exposed to all the
>> standard weapons". Why isn't that acceptable? Remember that fighters
>> are supposed to be significantly better trained than common soldiers.
>>
>
>Sorry, I have converted and I have to agree that is a weak excuse. Were
>all soldiers historically trained infantrymen, calvarymen, and archers?
>I'm afraid not.
>
I always just worked with the premise that fighter's don't necessarily know
how to use every weapon (that would come with Weapon Focus and
Specialization). What they can do is be more adept at using weapons. Due to
their training, they intuitively pick up the basics of a majority of
weapons. I mean, I have no fighter training what-so-ever ;), but I've seen
someone swing a mace in movies enough times to figure it out if I ever
needed to hit someone with it. A fantasy fighter would be way more exposed
to stuff like that. Sure a longsword and a shortsword are different weapons,
but a good fighter should be smart enough (and have enough general martial
training) to figure out how one differs from the other.
Just like, say, someone who's a computer scientist. They may not know how to
use a certain programming language, but I'll bet thet can figure it out
faster than a layman can. Fighters can figure out and use a variety of
weapons better than most classes. That's all.
- Shawn Cady
Chronos
"Beau Yarbrough" <comic...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:937vjq$5gj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3a576c0...@usenet.flinthills.com>,
> incr...@flinthills.com (incrdbil) wrote:
>
> > Hmm, since the game is for the enjoyment of all, if the majority of
> > players state that they would much rather prefer/enjoy to play another
> > edition, the DM should heed that. He might be doing a lion shares of
> > the work, but big deal--that's what a DM does in any system. the DM's
> > first priority is making a game his players enjoy, and choice of
> > system can effect that.
>
> At the bare minimum, they should reach a compromise together. But if
> the players really don't like what the DM wants to do, one of them can
> give up a lot of their free time and DM themselves.
>
> The number of DMs on this group who report being bullied into something
> they don't enjoy turns my stomach.
>
I agree, if I'm going to run a 3e campaign, then I'm going to run a 3e
campaign. If I'm going to run a 1e campaign, then that's what it is.
I am not fond of 2e, but since SpellJammer is for 2e, and is so much
fun as a diversion, then I'll run a SpellJammer game..
To sum: If this campaign is 3e, then that's what you should expect to play.
You don't come to a Shadowrun game with Cyberpunk characters; and 3e
is just about as far removed from 1e as those two games are.
simon
> it's always the system's fault, didn't you know that? Just like
> min-maxing in point-based systems isn't the fault of munchkiny
> players, it's the fault of the system for providing the means to
> min-max. And providing the means is equivalent to openly advocating
> the practice, which supplies the necessary incentive all by itself.
>
> Always remember that it's the system's fault...never the players'
> fault. Bah.
>
> - John
Are you being sarcastic? I hope you are. The text wasn't too clear.
Just making sure. Wouldn't want to put up a whole rant just 'cause of a
misunderstanding (which could result in flaming, spamming, and ,maybe,
finally an understanding followed by a lot of laughs).
Barry Smith
> >Actually, this is extremely good reasoning. Those of us who have been saying
> >this for months must be seeing something that the rest of you are too blind to
> >see. And frankly, I really do recall some of the architects of this very game
> >stating that they wanted a "video game" feel.
>
> I had that vague impression, but all I've done is flip through the
> PHB3. It was the artwork that struck me as resembling Diablo, in
> which every character's stance and costuming screams "bad-ass." The
> PHB2 seems to have more varied art, depicting characters in off-duty
> mode. The PHB *looks* a little more like a role-playing manual.
> That doesn't mean that the new rules are all hack 'n' slash, of
> course, but I suspect that the 3E designers are trying to catch the
> eye of the young newbie who has played a lot of computer games.
> Indeed, it would have been silly *not* to make such an attempt, as
> WotC has stated many times that they are on a campaign to lure new
> blood into the hobby.
> That new blood is out there, and it's playing Diablo and
> Warcraft--if not Warhammer.
Agreed. I have those impressions, as well as others posted at Deja.com,
that have details on that feeling as well.
--
Long live 2e.
incrdbil
>3e tends to anoy me because many of the basic rping elements have been replaced
definitely an ability designed for those too busy to think or pay
attention to the NPC's. :)
incrdbil
Barry Smith
> > Yeah, that's it. As well as using advancement rates that are so
> > perfectly symmetrical and linear, 10,000 to 20,000 to 30,000. Things
> > like that.
>
> You're objecting to round numbers? Huh?
Yeah, too linear for my tastes. Part of the appeal for certain classes
in 2e is the knowledge that certain classes get more skills and
abilities, and the tradeoff for that is higher XP requirements. I like
the feel that paladins, given the number of extra abilities they get as
a given, that it's harder for them to advance because they get those
abilities. Perhaps 3e does this as well, I don't know. Can you show me a
page number if it does? I'd prefer to lose this prejudice against that
linear system, if able.
> > Every computer game I've ever played has that same feel to
> > it. Follow the programmed mechanics and you'll "win", for lack of a
> > better word.
>
> What are the programmed mechanics to win 3E and how do they defer from
> 2E?
Part of it seems to be under the XP rates, a whiz bang kind of speed up
to the higher levels, especially when compared to 1e/2e. Another is the
amplified bonuses characters can get: take the base saves and attack
bonuses on p.22. I'm just not used to such inflated numbers. +50 in
total attack bonuses for a 20th level fighter, +30 for clerics and
others, and +15 for mages.
I know, I know, I'm crossing over systems, blah blah blah, but it just
"feels" weird, and I don't think I can get into such a system after so
many years under 1e/2e. I don't think if I want to, either.
I'm not condemning the system btw; it's simply different, and to me, has
a feel about it that just seems to include "computer game" aspects. I
plan on including elements from 3e in my game, so it's not like I hate
the whole damn thing. ;)
--
Long live 2e.
jwal...@toad.net
<hawkw...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <3a586dab...@news.toad.net>,
> jwal...@toad.net wrote:
>> On 07 Jan 2001 10:41:54 GMT, blak...@aol.comspiracy (BlakGard) wrote:
>
>> >3. Some things that became trivialized in 3E are major factors in our
>game,
>> >language being one of the biggest. And we just could not come up with
>an excuse
>> >for a Fighter knowing how to use all standard weapons.
>>
>> How about "As part of their training, fighters are exposed to all the
>> standard weapons". Why isn't that acceptable? Remember that fighters
>> are supposed to be significantly better trained than common soldiers.
>>
>
>Sorry, I have converted and I have to agree that is a weak excuse. Were
>all soldiers historically trained infantrymen, calvarymen, and archers?
>I'm afraid not.
You overstating your case somewhat, since skills like Ride are not
automatic parts of the fighter class.
>The only thing that makes it tolerable is that they have a warrior NPC
>class, so the fighter doesn't just represent all soldiers, but a
>particularly well trained and skilled warrior -- but I still find it a
>pretty weak excuse. Fighters STILL should not be proficient in most non
>exotic weapons. I did like the alternative weapon group system someone
>posted a month or two ago.
I suspect that modern elite units like the Rangers are familair with a
much wider range of weapons than standard soldiers. Also, are the
basic techniques of the handaxe, club, and mace really that different?
They are unbalanced weapons that are swung one handed.
Alan Kohler
I was alluding to training with the lance or horsebow as opposed to
longbow, infantry pike, etc.
>
> >The only thing that makes it tolerable is that they have a warrior
NPC
> >class, so the fighter doesn't just represent all soldiers, but a
> >particularly well trained and skilled warrior -- but I still find it
a
> >pretty weak excuse. Fighters STILL should not be proficient in most
non
> >exotic weapons. I did like the alternative weapon group system
someone
> >posted a month or two ago.
>
> I suspect that modern elite units like the Rangers are familair with a
> much wider range of weapons than standard soldiers.
Yes, making the assumption that the fighter class is somewhat equivalent
is the only thing that makes me able to stomach the system as it stands.
> Also, are the
> basic techniques of the handaxe, club, and mace really that different?
> They are unbalanced weapons that are swung one handed.
IIRC, the post I alluded to last month granted access to weapon groups
that would nominally take that into account. I agree that the old system
of "one proficiency for each weapon" was overkill. But saying "except
for exotic weapons, fighters can use all weapons" was overcompensating.
While your point about maces v. clubs is well taken, it breaks down when
you compare maces to lances and bows, frex.
Alan Kohler
Feh. Ridiculous. So we are to accept that all CHARACTER'S social
capabilities are limited by their players? That's rather narrow minded
and limiting, I think. It is perfectly possible to still roleplay
interations, and have the level of ability represent the intangible
difference between the player and PC. Doing exceptionally stupid things
still won't require a roll, or at the very least make it very difficult.
A shrewd DM will be able to ajudicate what DC is appropriate for by the
content of the player's roleplaying.
NtlAcrobat
more than the usual yearly maintenance needed to keep it up. It is the family
car, which should surprise many people since my wife has a 2000 4 door corolla.
The "banana" is just a superb car, well built, large and a great ride. Kinda
like the way my gaming group (all 15 year + vets of DnD) thinks about our 1e/2e
hybrid game. We love it. Most of us have the 3e books but we aren't playing the
game. Just a matter of choice I guess.
Michael Scott Brown
> Player A and B are ganging up on a poor Orc. Player C sees another orc
> enter the room, 20' away. Player C decided to jog over to engage the new
> Orc. Player C jogs behind the Orc who is fighting Players A and B...that
Orc
> gets to take a stab at Player C. Everytime. This, to me, doesn't make much
> sense; said Orc should be far too involved trying not to get skewered by
two
> PC's to turn around, hack at someone running by, and then turn back to
> continue the fight vs. A & B.
Who says he has to turn *around*? You need to review what it's like to
skirmish several people at once again. A 90 degree turn is adequate.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
news:3A58A55F...@premier1.net...
> Yeah, too linear for my tastes. Part of the appeal for certain classes
> in 2e is the knowledge that certain classes get more skills and
> abilities, and the tradeoff for that is higher XP requirements.
This didn't work. At all. Especially not at first level.
> I like
> the feel that paladins, given the number of extra abilities they get as
> a given, that it's harder for them to advance because they get those
> abilities. Perhaps 3e does this as well, I don't know. Can you show me a
> page number if it does? I'd prefer to lose this prejudice against that
> linear system, if able.
You might notice that the other classes are a lot tougher than they used
to be; the Paladin no longer has bell-and-whistle superiority over vanilla
fighters.
> Part of it seems to be under the XP rates, a whiz bang kind of speed up
> to the higher levels, especially when compared to 1e/2e. Another is the
> amplified bonuses characters can get: take the base saves and attack
> bonuses on p.22. I'm just not used to such inflated numbers. +50 in
> total attack bonuses for a 20th level fighter,
You are, too used to such "inflated" numbers - the 20th level fighter in
2E attacks at a rate of what, 2.5x/round if he's using his specialized
weapon? 2.5x 20 is *50* (well, there was no +1 at 1st level so it's really
47.5).
Also, total attack bonus isn't always a useful measurement, as its
distribution has a powerful effect on how often the character can hit and do
damage against a high AC critter.
-Michael
Beau Yarbrough
incr...@flinthills.com (incrdbil) wrote:
> >> fairly cookie cutter classes,
> >
> >How are 3E classes more "cookie cutter" than 2E or 1E ones?
>
> I used the players options rules helped fix the problems with
> unbalanced kits in the players guides supplements. You could make a
> more detailed type of charcter than what 3e allaows--with all fighters
> knowing every weapons and being proficient with every type of armor.
> Clerics, at least, have some decet customization, but still look too
> much alike.
So ... fighters knowing all weapons and armor, as they have in 1E and
2E, makes them more cookie cutter than PO characters. And this is a
ringing condemnation of 3E, that its character classes are like 1E and
2E?
> then you are handing out XP abnormally slow, or having tremendously
> low amounts of encounters--playying every other week for few moths had
> us to 4th level. Advancement is considerably faster in 3e
It's not possible that your group is giving out XP faster than the norm?
Beau Yarbrough
incr...@flinthills.com (incrdbil) wrote:
> nno--hyped up advancement rate so the kiddies get more "cool stuff" to
> hack with for their characters at a fairly quick rate, as opposed to
> the slower advancement rates of 2e. Being a high level character in 3e
> isn't as big a deal as having a high level character in 2e.
Not this again.
YOU DON'T GET AS MUCH EXPERIENCE IN 3E. 2E XP > 3E XP.
Again, nine months into one campaign I'm running and six months into
another, the characters are ALMOST at 2nd level, and they even got a
straight conversion of 2E XP, so that they have MORE than they would
have earned for doing the same in 3E.
Beau Yarbrough
rbo...@paradise.net.nz (Rupert Boleyn) wrote:
> >My two campaigns range from twice a month to once a month, but it's a
> >small group in one (two players) and four (now three) in the other,
so
> >both the players and I have been careful not to dump them in at the
> >deep end. They've taken on very moderate challenges -- and still
almost
> >died repeatedly -- so their rate of progression is very slow.
> >
> >Still everyone's having a lot of fun, and I'm going to start running
> >solo adventures for one of the campaigns soon to help pick up the
pace
> >of advancement there.
>
> I thought I hadn't thrown them in at the deep end, and I got this huge
> casaulty rate, too. Of the three games I running one (for three, now
> two players) has had 2-3 party kills, plus a couple of individual
> deaths (there was a joke about how going up to second level made you a
> tall poppy for a while). Another (for three, now two - each with two
> PCs) has had one party kill and about another 1 1/2 party's worth of
> individual deaths. The third game (for four) had a party kill in the
> first session (which was declared to be a bad dream because nobody
> felt like rolling up new characters after having just finished the
> first lot), and has had two deaths since then, both of whom were
> raised.
Well, nobody's died yet, but there's been a lot of retreating and
dragging bodies into safe areas and camping, huddled in fear, guarding
the door while the priest prayed for healing spells.
Which is a good thing: In one setting, there simply aren't any priests
capable of resurrection (that's one country over, at least) and in the
other, the characters have just now found a high powered temple that
can do such things. Which is, of course, why I'm going to have them
meet a super high level evil wizard next.
Dave
news:a1re5tc2ammvl3un0...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 17:55:08 GMT, incr...@flinthills.com (incrdbil)
> wrote:
> >>Some of the players in our old 1e/2e hybrid campaign are hesitant about
> >>playing 3e in our new campaign, primarily because they were content with
> >>1e/2e, and don't want to spend the time learning the new rules. But,
since
> >>I'm running the new campaign, the're stuck with 3e....
> >
> >
> >Hmm, there's a good DM attitude. Screw what the players want. This is
> >my campaign! Why do they think they should have any input?
> >incrdbil
>
> They should have input, but if he's going to the trouble of being the
> DM, he should get to use the rules he wants, dontcha think?
Aren't you the same person who said that players have the right to do
whatever they want regardless of the DM's feelings on the subject? I
believe it was in that whole dwarves without beards thread.
--
-Dave
Fairbanks was to Sullivan as Parcells is to Kraft
jbs
<davrion.97%spam...@concentric.net> wrote:
You're horribly misquoting me, but you got the general idea.
jbs
I'd rather be Bushed than Gored. It's much easier to recover.
James Kiley
Beau Yarbrough <comic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Again, nine months into one campaign I'm running and six months into
>another, the characters are ALMOST at 2nd level, and they even got a
>straight conversion of 2E XP, so that they have MORE than they would
>have earned for doing the same in 3E.
For what it's worth, though, Beau, my group's going up levels faster
than they did in the last 2e campaign I ran, on a per-session basis.
That's okay with me, please understand, but it is a little faster.
jk
Rupert Boleyn
<comic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Well, nobody's died yet, but there's been a lot of retreating and
>dragging bodies into safe areas and camping, huddled in fear, guarding
>the door while the priest prayed for healing spells.
Well experience says "Don't get ambushed by Orcs." The party's Ranger
(2nd level, 22HP) was on point, and he seriously muffed his Spot roll
and four Orcs (standard, vanilla 1st level Warrior Orcs) lept out of
the undergrowth, surrounding him. In the surprise phase three hit him
with their Great axes, with the result that he took 32 HP of damage
and died before he even got to cry out. The rest of the party then
killed all four Orcs without getting a scratch.
>Which is a good thing: In one setting, there simply aren't any priests
>capable of resurrection (that's one country over, at least) and in the
>other, the characters have just now found a high powered temple that
>can do such things. Which is, of course, why I'm going to have them
>meet a super high level evil wizard next.
In one world it's very rare and expensive (my version of Mystara), and
in another (my world, Arles) it's merely rare, and expensive and makes
you heavily indebited to your deity, the deity which arranged for your
raising (if different) and to Hecate, Goddess of the Gates to the
Underworld.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Inside every cynic is a romantic trying to get out."
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>Rupert Boleyn wrote:
>> Like? Tricks aren't covered in the rules, so they're a DM call, and
>> using the rules as a guide they should never give more than maybe a +1
>> to hit.
>
>What rules exactly?
That being on a person's flank is only good for a +1 to hit. Even
being behind them is only good for a +2. Very few 'tricks' are going
to advantage you maor than having come up behind someone.
>Look at your opponents, if they're a patrol on a long route they'll have backpacks for
>supplies, or quivers etc. Cut a strap... for a -4 against their natural AC minus Dex
>(armour won't protect an item worn outside it) you can hamper one arm (which should
>IMO give at least -2 penalties).... wow a called shot that was useful and tactical
>viable.
Except that the rounds are 1 minute long, so they're going to be
impeded for no more than about 1/5th of one, so no penalty there.
>Yes I do, hence how they get to use their tactics. We draw maps, they explain their
>characters actions, if it's not something that translates easily to an attack roll we
>may need to discuss it and then it goes through. At the same time all my NPCs tend to
>do the same. Beats the heck outta rolling dice "I hit for 3... I miss..."
And then you apply modifiers and roll 'to hit' rolls, right? How is
this different from someone (who isn't natually diplomatic) describing
how they're going to go about charming and impressing an important
contact and me applying modifiers and having him roll a Diplomacy roll
for his PC?
>> >Actually to me it's more due to the fact that the system appears to be modeled
>> >after the system used in the Fallout series (perks are feats now etc) and
>> >converted to fantasy system.
>> Which as you point out below is from pen-and-paper, so what you're
>> saying is that 3e is like some other pen-and-paper rpgs. I never would
>> have noticed.
>
>Fallout is modeled after the pen-and-paper RPG because remarkably pen and paper was
>invented long before the computer. However to make Fallout interesting and allow
>diverse character selections they added extra parts to replace standard roleplaying.
>You had a speech skill in Fallout, the higher your skill the more eloquent and helpful
>your speech options became, were you playing it with real people your speech options
>would be limitless so this skill would be useless.
Aside from the increased dialogue choices high Int, and various Perks
got you (which is how you should play your PC, anyway), it worksthe
same way as the many FTF rpgs that have social skills do.
>> >Sadly they didn't adopt the Karma system which was IMO vastly superior to the
>> >interpretation driven alignment system.
>>
>> And a karma system's not 'intrepretation driven'?
>
>Not by half, your Karma was based on what happened to people around you and sided with
>you, if it was good then it went up. If it was bad then it went down. Your
>motivations, interpretations and moral compass were all of secondary importance since
>all that mattered in it was how people saw you.
So it's interpretation driven. How people see you is just as
subjective as why you did what you did. By your reckoning if people
thought you'd murdered so-and-so your karma would go down, no matter
what you actually did. It sounds like you're talking about Fallout's
karma system, which didn't work like this, anyway. Your karma went up
and down for acts that were done with no witnesses out in the
wilderness where nobody could know, so it wasn't just based on what
people saw or thought about you.
Rupert Boleyn
wrote:
>Three possible ways different characters would sense motives based off their personality
>and skills. All for the sake 3e bundled under one roll which is based off how many skill
>points and stats the chars have. Kinda robs you of roleplaying IMO.
In that case you should get rid of 2e's non-weapon proficiencies,
saves and THAC0s. They are, afterall, the same thing. Just use
straight stats!
Rupert Boleyn
<pm...@home.com> wrote:
>Hiya.
>
>"Rupert Boleyn" <rbo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>news:3a57e7e9...@news.paradise.net.nz...
>> On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 02:45:17 GMT, "Denakhan the Arch-Mage"
>> <pm...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> > For me, the video game feel is more obvious in the combat system.
>("if I
>> >do this, this will happen....*every time*").
>>
>> Where does 3e's combat have things happen a certain way 'every time'
>> that other editions don't? To me it's the old versions that are
>> deterministic - if you've a better THAC0 and more HP you'll have to
>> work very hard to lose under the old rules, because there are
>> effectively no tactical options worth pursuing unless you've magic.
>
> Player A and B are ganging up on a poor Orc. Player C sees another orc
>enter the room, 20' away. Player C decided to jog over to engage the new
>Orc. Player C jogs behind the Orc who is fighting Players A and B...that Orc
>gets to take a stab at Player C. Everytime. This, to me, doesn't make much
>sense; said Orc should be far too involved trying not to get skewered by two
>PC's to turn around, hack at someone running by, and then turn back to
>continue the fight vs. A & B. Heck, even if the Orc was attacking only one
>PC he should be too engaged, IMHO, to do this. In other editions, this would
>be a GM call...not a "see, says so right here in the rules" statement.
A GM call - meaning that sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't.
Great.
In 3e all player C has to do to avoid the AoO is to go round the Orcs
a little wider. If there's no room to do this,then tough - he'l just
have to decide wheher to take the risk or not. Oh, dear - a decision.
Rupert Boleyn
>>To me it's the old versions that are deterministic - if you've a better THAC0
>and
>>more HP you'll have to work very hard to lose under the old rules
>
>Yet people were losing ALL OF THE TIME?!?! You must not have been actually
>playing the game then.
Where did I say that that's what happened?
Dave
Really? Point it out for us:
jbs <j...@excelonline.com> wrote in message
news:e9qkmso5n3508nkuf...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:56:40 GMT, USCM_Sulaco
> <uscm_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >So let me get this straight. You are saying that the player ahs the
> >right to do whatever eh wants, regardless of the setting, the rules or
> >the wishes of the GM?
>
> Yes. Otherwise, why bother having players. If the DM is going to run
> everything his way he may as well be righting a novel by himself.
Cerberus AOD
On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 22:55:22 +1000, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which
was quite moldy, KiM, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his antennae:
:)>Cerberus AOD wrote:
:)>
:)>> On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 16:50:25 +1000, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which was
:)>> quite moldy, KiM, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his antennae:
:)>
:)>I've been promoted to dying weevil?
:)>
:)>> And this time around, they actually handle that in the system! Some of us like
:)>> having a system like that. If you don't, you might want to try a more simplistic
:)>> one, like Legendmaker (Need to play more of that too...and at only $15, buy the book)
:)>
:)>2nd Ed system covered it for me, it had enough rules etc that finding a simple answer to
:)>any nonstandard tactic was fairly easy with a little creativity. Simplistic combat
:)>bores me... I could roll dice for hours hoping for high numbers by myself. :)
Simplistic? No...more simplistic than all-out C&T, sure.
:)>> :)>3e tends to anoy me because many of the basic rping elements have been replaced
:)>> :)>with stats like Sense Motive. Personally I think I'll decide whether or not my
:)>> :)>character is convinced by the NPC or not thankyou, just as I'll decide whether or
:)>> :)>not he can tell a lie convincingly (and the DM will decide whether or not the NPC
:)>> :)>is convinced).
:)>>
:)>> The DM decides that :)
:)>> If you replace the roleplaying with a roll, it will be a BAD THING™. If you
:)>> append it, it works OK.
:)>>
:)>> ...<roleplays through talking with guy who is trying to swindle them...secretly
:)>> do a Bluff check. 24>...
:)>> "Sense Motive check."
:)>> "18."
:)>> "They are very high quality golden figurines."
:)>> <player buys.>
:)>> ...<later that week>...
:)>> "You notice that there are streaks of silverish metal on your Orc Chieftan
:)>> figurine. Upon closer examination, it appears they are some cheaper metal,
:)>> plated in gold."
:)>>
:)>> The key to this is ALWAYS requiring the check afterward, not just when the guy is
:)>> bluffing. The check would be required after the bargaining if the merchant were
:)>> actually selling solid gold figurines.
:)>
:)>Easily substituited by a wisdom, intelligence or charisma (which is most appropraite to
:)>the way they're trying to assess if the merchant is bluffing) in the few cases where it
:)>turns up. After all players realistically have many ways to figure out whether or not
:)>he's bluffing.
Cha for sense motive? Ranks in a skill are the simplest way. Other ways would be
to distract him to examine the stuff he is selling (diplomacy), use magic
(Diviners have their uses!), etc.. The Sense Motive check is a straight "Can I
tell by his tone of voice, attitude, and body language whether he is telling the
truth or not?"
:)>Someone may do it analytically, summing up the balance of the apparent value of the
:)>merchandise, then comparing it to the price and the likelihood of the a merchant having
:)>it, then looking at whether the merchant can afford to cheap the party (if he's leaving
:)>town tomorrow, his ruse only needs to last a day or two). Intelligence.
Yup. Charm Person can do wonder also. As can inquiring about his travel. The
second here would use Diplomacy or Gather Information (depending on what methods
he used to get the info).
:)>Someone else may simply go off their feelings over whether or not this man seems
:)>trustworthy, whether it feels right to invest their money in these figurines or whether
:)>it would be a stupid idea. Wisdom.
Or roleplaying. A character who collects such things would be likely to buy
them. Assuming they appear, to all respects, to be what he says they are, he has
no reason to doubt him. My players wouldn't even roll for this. No reason to. If
they act on this feeling of him not being trustworthy, they'd be rolling for
what they find.
:)>Others who are more socially ept than may simply watch the merchant looking for telltale
:)>signs of dishonestly. They're not caring how it feels, they're caring whether the
:)>merchant is looking them calmly in the eye or whether he's looking all about and
:)>touching his face. Charisma.
Charisma and experience on the merchant's part. Training (skill) on the PC's
part. What you have there is exactly what Bluff and Sense Motive are there to be
used for. How well he hides the fact the is ripping them off comes in to play
with other methods. Bluff and Sense Motive are just how well he lies and how
well you detect lies.
:)>Three possible ways different characters would sense motives based off their personality
:)>and skills. All for the sake 3e bundled under one roll which is based off how many skill
:)>points and stats the chars have. Kinda robs you of roleplaying IMO.
No, it doesn't. That one roll is for that one method. How well you detect lies.
If you wish to inquire more, you use other skills, abilities, magic, and
roleplaying.
:)>> Never played fallout, so no comments here. But if it was so superior, that might end
:)>> these alignment flame wars! :-) That'd be terrible!
:)>
:)>Fear not, there wold simply be flame wars over how much Karma should have been allocated
:)>or removed for a specific act.... then we still discuss what is good and evil but in
:)>terms of quantification ("How good was this?" instead of "Was this chaotic good or
:)>neutral good?")
Heh.
:)>-
:)>KiM
:)>email: ki...@dingoblue.net.au
:)>url: http://www.geocities.com/k_i_m_13
:)>"A kind word a loaded .45 generally gets you more than a kind word alone."
:)>
------------------
Cerberus AOD / A Paper Cut (ernieSCR...@DoddsTech.com)
ICQ UIN: 8878412 (take out SCREWTHESPAM to mail me, okay?)
"Children of tomorrow live in the tears that fall today"
-Children of the Grave, Black Sabbath
Cerberus AOD
On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 13:46:28 GMT, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which was
quite moldy, John Simpson, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his
antennae:
:)>On 07 Jan 2001 11:10:35 GMT, blak...@aol.comspiracy (BlakGard) wrote:
:)>
:)>>>> I'm sure there are other things
:)>>>> also. I've heard 3E described as "a video game transferred to paper" more
:)>>>> than a few times, so there has to be something to it.
:)>>>
:)>>> This is remarkably poor reasoning. Do better. Immediately.
:)>>
:)>>Actually, this is extremely good reasoning. Those of us who have been saying
:)>>this for months must be seeing something that the rest of you are too blind to
:)>>see. And frankly, I really do recall some of the architects of this very game
:)>>stating that they wanted a "video game" feel.
:)>
:)> I had that vague impression, but all I've done is flip through the
:)>PHB3. It was the artwork that struck me as resembling Diablo, in
:)>which every character's stance and costuming screams "bad-ass." The
:)>PHB2 seems to have more varied art, depicting characters in off-duty
:)>mode. The PHB *looks* a little more like a role-playing manual.
:)> That doesn't mean that the new rules are all hack 'n' slash, of
:)>course, but I suspect that the 3E designers are trying to catch the
:)>eye of the young newbie who has played a lot of computer games.
:)>Indeed, it would have been silly *not* to make such an attempt, as
:)>WotC has stated many times that they are on a campaign to lure new
:)>blood into the hobby.
:)> That new blood is out there, and it's playing Diablo and
:)>Warcraft--if not Warhammer.
Heh. Yup. And then get into a D&D group of players, and play...get the
munchiness out with the first few characters, and roleplay. The artwork
definitely resembles action/RPGs for the comp...I tell my players to go to the
library for weapon and armor sketches.
Cerberus AOD
On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 14:43:30 GMT, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which was
quite moldy, Alan Kohler, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his antennae:
:)>In article <3a586dab...@news.toad.net>,
:)> jwal...@toad.net wrote:
:)>> On 07 Jan 2001 10:41:54 GMT, blak...@aol.comspiracy (BlakGard) wrote:
:)>
:)>> >3. Some things that became trivialized in 3E are major factors in our
:)>game,
:)>> >language being one of the biggest. And we just could not come up with
:)>an excuse
:)>> >for a Fighter knowing how to use all standard weapons.
:)>>
:)>> How about "As part of their training, fighters are exposed to all the
:)>> standard weapons". Why isn't that acceptable? Remember that fighters
:)>> are supposed to be significantly better trained than common soldiers.
:)>>
:)>
:)>Sorry, I have converted and I have to agree that is a weak excuse. Were
:)>all soldiers historically trained infantrymen, calvarymen, and archers?
:)>I'm afraid not.
:)>
:)>The only thing that makes it tolerable is that they have a warrior NPC
:)>class, so the fighter doesn't just represent all soldiers, but a
:)>particularly well trained and skilled warrior -- but I still find it a
:)>pretty weak excuse. Fighters STILL should not be proficient in most non
:)>exotic weapons. I did like the alternative weapon group system someone
:)>posted a month or two ago.
I almost used this...but then my fighter and paladin got to level 3. Each now
has Weapon Focus for their primary weapon, and won't touch the others if at all
possible. Rather than not training in 3e, you decide which weapons to train
extra with...simple and effective. Nothing wrong with house rules though. :) And
replacing martial weapon feat with "choose X weapon types" doesn't limit a
character that much, either. They will likely devote feats to certain
weapons...or die when their foes have done such.
:)>> >5. Conversion was too difficult. This objection came mostly from me,
:)>when I
:)>> >estimated that it would take me until about June or July to convert
:)>enough
:)>> >characters, gods, etc. for our game to work.
:)>>
:)>> This has been debated in detail before. Exact conversion is very
:)>> difficult (as it is between any two systems with significant
:)>> difference) but approximate conversion is easy enough.
:)>>
:)>
:)>Feh. I wouldn't waste too much time worrying about details, but even if
:)>you don't there are a couple of conversion stumbling blocks -- clerics
:)>and high level (or ever moderate level) multiclass characters being two
:)>examples that come to mind.
But each level in 3e is usually powerful enough to make a decent trade-off and
not lose abilities.
:)>> >6. The biggest complaint came from the way the Classes were handled.
:)>They
:)>> >seemed too rigid by our standards, and absolute none of the
:)>characters we had
:)>> >(PC and NPC) would fit nicely into the templates that were provided.
:)>If
:)>> >everything (and I mean everything) has to be fudged, then what is the
:)>sense of
:)>> >using a new "system?"
:)>>
:)>> I find 3E classes vastly less rigid than 1E or vanilla 2E (I've never
:)>> bought the umpteen expansion books). Perhaps you are seeing the
:)>> difference between your homebrew system and 3E.
:)>>
:)>
:)>Well, I've got to agree there... since you said "vanilla."
Cerberus AOD
On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 09:20:31 -0800, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which
was quite moldy, Barry Smith, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his
antennae:
:)>Beau Yarbrough wrote:
:)>
:)>> > Yeah, that's it. As well as using advancement rates that are so
:)>> > perfectly symmetrical and linear, 10,000 to 20,000 to 30,000. Things
:)>> > like that.
:)>>
:)>> You're objecting to round numbers? Huh?
:)>
:)>Yeah, too linear for my tastes. Part of the appeal for certain classes
:)>in 2e is the knowledge that certain classes get more skills and
:)>abilities, and the tradeoff for that is higher XP requirements. I like
:)>the feel that paladins, given the number of extra abilities they get as
:)>a given, that it's harder for them to advance because they get those
:)>abilities. Perhaps 3e does this as well, I don't know. Can you show me a
:)>page number if it does? I'd prefer to lose this prejudice against that
:)>linear system, if able.
3e suggests giving a class more XP for use of its abilities, and has mostly
balanced out the class abilities, so there is no need for different XP
progressions.
:)>> > Every computer game I've ever played has that same feel to
:)>> > it. Follow the programmed mechanics and you'll "win", for lack of a
:)>> > better word.
:)>>
:)>> What are the programmed mechanics to win 3E and how do they defer from
:)>> 2E?
:)>
:)>Part of it seems to be under the XP rates, a whiz bang kind of speed up
:)>to the higher levels, especially when compared to 1e/2e. Another is the
:)>amplified bonuses characters can get: take the base saves and attack
:)>bonuses on p.22. I'm just not used to such inflated numbers. +50 in
:)>total attack bonuses for a 20th level fighter, +30 for clerics and
:)>others, and +15 for mages.
Huh? It is +20 (Ftr), +15(Clr), and +10(Wiz)
The saves I agree with. I tone them down IMC by using the 1/2L+2 and 1/3L, where
L is class levels. So all the classes with that save add up, then are modified,
so you don't get the +2 from two classes (1Ftr/1Clr have +4 Fort via book, I'd
have +3)
:)>I know, I know, I'm crossing over systems, blah blah blah, but it just
:)>"feels" weird, and I don't think I can get into such a system after so
:)>many years under 1e/2e. I don't think if I want to, either.
:)>I'm not condemning the system btw; it's simply different, and to me, has
:)>a feel about it that just seems to include "computer game" aspects. I
:)>plan on including elements from 3e in my game, so it's not like I hate
:)>the whole damn thing. ;)
Brandon Blackmoor
news:93ao5u$5sl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> Again, nine months into one campaign I'm running and six months into
> another, the characters are ALMOST at 2nd level, and they even got a
> straight conversion of 2E XP, so that they have MORE than they would
> have earned for doing the same in 3E.
I've run my game once a week for going on three months, and most of the PCs
have been 2nd level for a couple of weeks now. There are a couple of first
level PCs left, but their players either started recently or don't show up
every week.
BBlac...@blackgate.net
8.january.2001
craz...@my-deja.com
rbo...@paradise.net.nz (Rupert Boleyn) wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 21:50:22 GMT, Beau Yarbrough
> <comic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >Well, nobody's died yet, but there's been a lot of retreating and
> >dragging bodies into safe areas and camping, huddled in fear,
guarding
> >the door while the priest prayed for healing spells.
>
> Well experience says "Don't get ambushed by Orcs." The party's Ranger
> (2nd level, 22HP) was on point, and he seriously muffed his Spot roll
> and four Orcs (standard, vanilla 1st level Warrior Orcs) lept out of
> the undergrowth, surrounding him. In the surprise phase three hit him
> with their Great axes, with the result that he took 32 HP of damage
> and died before he even got to cry out. The rest of the party then
> killed all four Orcs without getting a scratch.
I've noticed the lethality is up too. Though my players rarely actually
die, its more because theres so many of them, which reflects on
initiative (they've all learned now how valuable winning initiative is),
but its common to see the main fighter and sometimes one or both of the
monks knocked out even against enemies that (by challenge rating) you
wouldn't expect to do TOO serious harm..
Part of it comes from the near total lack of healing in the party. Eight
people and all that can heal is the paladin and the bard, go figure....
>
> >Which is a good thing: In one setting, there simply aren't any
priests
> >capable of resurrection (that's one country over, at least) and in
the
> >other, the characters have just now found a high powered temple that
> >can do such things. Which is, of course, why I'm going to have them
> >meet a super high level evil wizard next.
>
> In one world it's very rare and expensive (my version of Mystara), and
> in another (my world, Arles) it's merely rare, and expensive and makes
> you heavily indebited to your deity, the deity which arranged for your
> raising (if different) and to Hecate, Goddess of the Gates to the
> Underworld.
Ever play with no resurrection at all? When death is a finality players
grow a lot more cautious with their high levels....
SD Anderson
blak...@aol.comspiracy (BlakGard) wrote:
> >I played with a large group of veteran gamers (all in their late
> >20s to early/mid 30s, have all played for at least 15 years...) and
while I
> >loved 3E and the regular DM thought it was a superior system, the
rest of the
> >group either didn't care enough to support 3E or hated 3E outright.
>
> This sounds like my group all over... except even I, the DM, fell
into the
> category of "not caring" enough to support the new system. There were
a few
> reasons for this:
>
> 1. Our system has evolved to the point where you could hardly call it
Dungeons
> and Dragons with any degree of correctness, though we still refer to
it as
> such.
> 2. Many of 3E's systems seem almost like computer game programmers
planned it
> out. With all of the talk of "making things simpler," WotC failed
miserably to
> follow through with this idea.
> 3. Some things that became trivialized in 3E are major factors in our
> language being one of the biggest. And we just could not come up with
> for a Fighter knowing how to use all standard weapons.
Alternate rule suggestion: Drop all feats entirely and give each
class a base pool of 'weapons use points' comsensurate with the
classes' base fighting potential. Fighters and barbarians would have
more of these than wizards and sorcerors. Simple weapons cost 1 point
per plus 1 gained. Martial Weapons cost two points per. Exotic weapons
cost three points per, though Monks get a class feat that drops the
cost of Exotic weapons down to Martial Weapons cost, and any player
whose *background* can justify, in the DM's opinion, being familiar
with a specific exotic weapon can get a discount on that weapon.
Sort of like Elemental Controls in Champions. Come up with a good
story for the DM, get a cost reduction.
I leave the issues of what the exact number of points per class
should be, what sort of bonus points per level and whether weapon and
skill points can be used to purchase the other abilities as mental
exercizes for anyone who wants to try these rules.
> 4. Feats. No one in our group even likes the mention of systems
with "feats."
> It makes us think about superheroes too much. By our estimation, ALL
feats can
> simply be considered "Skills."
Well 'Toughness' would be a merit or advantage under most other
systems. For that matter, Still Spell and Silent Spell allow you to do
magic without movement or speaking are things you can stretch into
skills or classify as advantages with a bit more ease.
If you include the feats from a D20 game like "The Foundation"
however, you get a larger list of abilities that wouldn't qualify as
skills per se however.
craz...@my-deja.com
Maybe he is, and maybe I do too... but L2 after nine months of playing?
If your players are having fun with that more power to you, but sheesh
that does sound kind of slow. (no offense meant)