Philosophy of 3d edition changes?
Gary J. Robinson
changes from 2nd to 3d edition? Or reviews of 3d edition relative to
earlier editions? I mean objective reviews, not "here's why 3d edition
is better" type stuff.
opengl
"Gary J. Robinson" <wig...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:wiggler-16E8EB...@news.hcs.net...
Jeremy Reaban
Gary J. Robinson wrote in message ...
I think it was mostly to bring the game into the 80s/90s, essentially
eliminating all the different mechanics into 1 basic resolution
system.
They didn't quite do it (since things still are completely percentile
based), but for the most part they suceeded.
Reinvigorating D&D sales was likely the goal too. WOTC had killed off
all the unprofitable game lines/settings, but they needed a way to
sell products to people who cared less about the Forgotten Realms or
Greyhawk...
Drew Id
I don't know of any other websites, but without trying to compare which
version is "better", I think there were two guiding principles in terms of
game mechanics, and they are integration and modularization. I think there
were two other principles in terms of game "feel" and they were player
choice and character differentiation.
Any RPG rule set can essentially be boiled down to instructions on how to
determine the results of a given action. Integration means trying to get
every piece to fit into the same determination mechanic (rolling a d20).
This meant taking all of the thief skills, weapon proficiencies, non-weapon
proficiencies, suprise rolls, attack rolls, spell resistance, etc. and
changing them to all be determined in the same way, by rolling a d20. Part
of the goal of this principle is that it reduces lookups on tables or
memorization of specific rolls. Players and DMs can learn a single "ability
modifier" list and then another list of common combat modifiers (firing into
melee = -4, defender is prone = +4, etc.) and eliminate a lot of
situation-specific tables. Without the book in front of me I can't say for
sure, but there are probably less than half as many tables in the 3E PHB and
DMG as in either earlier edition.
Modularization means taking each piece of the system and trying to make it
as self-contained as possible, not so that it is *different in rules* from
the rest of the system, but so that it can be removed, modified, added to,
or ignored without harming the rest of the system. The spell list is an
example of a piece that was always modular. You could eliminate or add
spells to your campaign in the old editions without any kind of rule
changes. You just changed the spell list. In the new edition, this
modularization was expanded to include skills, feats, races, classes, and
prestige classes. The difference here from before is that additions like the
Skills and Powers and Complete Class books from 2E sometimes changed or
replaced original rules, and offered additional *rules* to use. In 3E, the
additional books such as Sword and Fist or Relics and Rituals only offer
additional "list content", such as feats, prestige classes, spells and
items. Part of the goal of this principle was most likely the expectation
and encouragement of third party development of more content, such as Relics
and Rituals and Netbooks of feats.
Finally, in terms of game "feel" the first principle seems to be about
player choice. By this I mean removing specific restrictions from the rules
barring players from doing anything. This ability was turned over to the DM.
This principle is what allows characters to multiclass more easily, to pick
up cross-class skills, to advance beyond a racial maximum, etc. I think the
goal of this principle is that it is easier to *start* with a limitless
system and then impose limits afterwards than to take a closed system and
remove limits. If I want to disallow dwarven mages in my campaign, I can do
this knowing that the system remains balanced. In a closed system, I could
remove restrictions, but I couldn't guarantee that the system would still
work.
Character differentiation means that two identical starting characters
should be able to quickly differentiate themselves. I think the new feat,
skill, and multiclassing mechanics were partly an attempt to do this.
Gary J. Robinson
Gary
Barry Smith
> Modularization means taking each piece of the system and trying to make it
> as self-contained as possible, not so that it is *different in rules* from
> the rest of the system, but so that it can be removed, modified, added to,
> or ignored without harming the rest of the system. The spell list is an
> example of a piece that was always modular. You could eliminate or add
> spells to your campaign in the old editions without any kind of rule
> changes. You just changed the spell list. In the new edition, this
> modularization was expanded to include skills, feats, races, classes, and
> prestige classes. The difference here from before is that additions like the
> Skills and Powers and Complete Class books from 2E sometimes changed or
> replaced original rules, and offered additional *rules* to use.
Could you explain to me how adding new NWPs, races, classes, and
specialty classes within a 2e campaign would require "rules changes" to
implement? I don't think I've ever made major rules changes to the game
to accommodate my inclusion of new NWPs, races, classes, and the like
within my campaign. They fit into the engine as well as the next game
ime.
--
Long live 2e.
Chuck Capko
>specialty classes within a 2e campaign would require "rules changes" to
>implement? I don't think I've ever made major rules changes to the game
>to accommodate my inclusion of new NWPs, races, classes, and the like
>within my campaign. They fit into the engine as well as the next game
>ime.
I could, but the examples I could give would requier rules changes in
both 2nd and 3rd editions. However, adding a new race requiers more
work in 2nd edition than 3rd. For example in 2nd you would have to
decide (in adition to the things 2nd and 3rd have in common) what
clases this race could or could not be and what level restrictions you
have to add, for starters. If this new race can be a palidin or
cavaleer, or bard, how does this reduce the usefullness of being
human. It's all interconnected, though marganaly less so in 3rd
edition.
>Long live 2e.
I liked 1st edition better. Strange as it may be 3rd edition actualy
feels more like 1st edition than 2nd edition did. Don't ask me to
explain it, it's a gut reaction. :o) (I still have one of the early
printings of the DMG, and still played every once in a while when I
could.)
Is 3rd edition the best game ever? No, overall there are better games
out there. Is 3rd edition the best version of D&D ever? As a rules
system, yes. It's clean, it's quick, it's easy to learn, and best of
all it's modular and scaleable.
Is 3rd edition the best version of D&D as an overall game? Maybe. It
depends on what you like best about D&D. Some people actualy like the
complexity offered by the earlyer editions, actualy thats part of what
I liked about 1st edition over 2nd edition. I had all the arcane
nuances of the game memorised, 2nd edition seemed to add complexity
where it was not needed and took it away from where I liked it...
*shrug* enough quasi-psychological bull for today. It's all a matter
of opinion and anyone who tells you otherwise can suck eggs. :o)
Later,
-Chuck.
--------------------------------------
Http://www.Geocities.com/Wormspeaker/
Tremble you weaklings, cower in fear.
I am you ruler land, sea, and air.
Immense in my girth, erect I stand tall.
I am a nuclear murderer, I am Polaris.
-Rust in Peace...Polaris, Megadeath
Ford4223
it just to have it.
Barry Smith
> I could, but the examples I could give would requier rules changes in
> both 2nd and 3rd editions. However, adding a new race requiers more
> work in 2nd edition than 3rd. For example in 2nd you would have to
> decide (in adition to the things 2nd and 3rd have in common) what
> clases this race could or could not be and what level restrictions you
> have to add, for starters.
True, but I always thought this was part of the DM's job, not something
an entire game engine needed to fix. Any DM who just haphazardly adds
new components to his or her campaign is just asking for unnecessary
complications; the DM needs to modify these elements to their liking,
but imo, they're not major rules changes. Major rules changes, for
example, would be a class or race that changes how initiative works
imc, or a new mage type that completely redefines how the magic system
works imc. Without adjustments, it can become difficult to work with.
> Is 3rd edition the best version of D&D as an overall game? Maybe. It
> depends on what you like best about D&D. Some people actualy like the
> complexity offered by the earlyer editions, actualy thats part of what
> I liked about 1st edition over 2nd edition.
That's what I like about 2e. :)
I had all the arcane
> nuances of the game memorised, 2nd edition seemed to add complexity
> where it was not needed and took it away from where I liked it...
Ironically, this is pretty much the feelings 3e has given me. ;)
> *shrug* enough quasi-psychological bull for today. It's all a matter
> of opinion and anyone who tells you otherwise can suck eggs. :o)
It is all a matter of opinion, but everyone is entitled to their
opinion. :)
--
Long live 2e.
Jacobbooga
>buy
>it just to have it.
>
While reading these incredible pearls of wisdom, please keep in mind that all
statements made are either true or false.
Have a nice day!
Chuck Capko
wrote:
>Chuck Capko wrote:
>
>> I could, but the examples I could give would requier rules changes in
>> both 2nd and 3rd editions. However, adding a new race requiers more
>> work in 2nd edition than 3rd. For example in 2nd you would have to
>> decide (in adition to the things 2nd and 3rd have in common) what
>> clases this race could or could not be and what level restrictions you
>> have to add, for starters.
>
>True, but I always thought this was part of the DM's job, not something
>an entire game engine needed to fix. Any DM who just haphazardly adds
>new components to his or her campaign is just asking for unnecessary
>complications; the DM needs to modify these elements to their liking,
>but imo, they're not major rules changes. Major rules changes, for
>example, would be a class or race that changes how initiative works
>imc, or a new mage type that completely redefines how the magic system
>works imc. Without adjustments, it can become difficult to work with.
Perhaps it's something that the entire engine did not needed to fix,
but it's nice that it did... Very easy to add new things and house
rules without upsetting the balance.
>> Is 3rd edition the best version of D&D as an overall game? Maybe. It
>> depends on what you like best about D&D. Some people actualy like the
>> complexity offered by the earlyer editions, actualy thats part of what
>> I liked about 1st edition over 2nd edition.
>
>That's what I like about 2e. :)
I'll buy that.
> I had all the arcane
>> nuances of the game memorised, 2nd edition seemed to add complexity
>> where it was not needed and took it away from where I liked it...
>
>Ironically, this is pretty much the feelings 3e has given me. ;)
Me too, but I got past it.
At first I dismissed it out of hand, but decided to give it a try. It
is indeed very different than what came before, but it actulaly
captured the feel of D&D better than any edition sence I first ripped
the shrink wrap from my Basic D&D red boxed set way back when...
>> *shrug* enough quasi-psychological bull for today. It's all a matter
>> of opinion and anyone who tells you otherwise can suck eggs. :o)
>
>It is all a matter of opinion, but everyone is entitled to their
>opinion. :)
Heh. Yeah. :o)
Robert Baldwin
And your definition of "objective review" is...?
--
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well."
-
Remove the spam-block to reply
Bryant Berggren
Baldwin) wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:05:27 -0500, "Gary J. Robinson"
><wig...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>Does anyone know of any web sites discussing the philosophy behind the
>>changes from 2nd to 3d edition? Or reviews of 3d edition relative to
>>earlier editions? I mean objective reviews, not "here's why 3d edition
>>is better" type stuff.
>
>And your definition of "objective review" is...?
I think he gave it (or at least implied it): one that covers both the
potential pros *and* the potential cons of the system, rather than
card-stacking the good points.
BRB
Drew Id
"Barry Smith" <bsm...@premier1.net> wrote in message
news:3A9DB09F...@premier1.net...
Well, a better example might be the early versions of AoO rules in the 2E
Player's Option books. It was a completely new ruleset that got tacked on to
the existing ruleset and the two did not seem to come from the same place
and functioned in very different ways.
At least in theory, you could take some large set of new rules for 3E,
such as rules for ship-to-ship combat, and insert them into the base 3E
system by basing them on such ideas as move-equivalent actions, opposed
skill checks, feats, etc. rather than creating a completely unrelated system
and just attaching it to the base system. Also, for any completely new
ruleset that you *would* add, like the aforementioned ship-to-ship combat,
you really could design it any way you wanted in 2E and it did not have to
"feel" like the basic system. In other words, all ship-to-ship attacks could
be based on percentile rolls if you wanted. In 3E, there would be a certain
pressure to conform to the basic mechanics, so that you used a d20 to
resolve checks, etc.
Drew Id
> Thanks Drew for the interesting and thorough explanation.
>
;-) Well, it's something I have a certain professional interest in. Not as a
games designer, but as a programmer. 3E feels like the specifications for a
computer RPG. A lot of people have said that in a derogatory sense, that 3E
is a video game put into book form, but I don't think that is the way it was
designed intentionally, but rather as a natural side effect of a logical
design process.
Any RPG is a rules system, and any piece of software is also a rules
system. When someone sets out to improve an RPG, it would make sense that
they would approach it in many ways like improving a piece of software, and
the philosophies I mentioned were really just a listing of how one improves
software.
Michael Harvey
No websites or reviews that I know of.
Your question was a little vague, but here's my understanding of the
high-level considerations behind the changes (based on comments by Ryan
Dancey and other WOTC folks).
1. To make money. They needed a replacement for 2e. The goals here were
to:
1.1. Convince existing D&D players to upgrade
1.1.1. Make it incompatible with previous editions.
1.1.2. Keep enough D&D flavor so people who hate GURPS* don't defect.
1.1.3. Add enough GURPS* so the people who like GURPS* don't defect.
1.1.4. Plan lots and lots and lots of "optional" add-on books
1.2. Convince new people to try the game.
1.2.1. Design it to play and feel like a video game; video games are
more popular than RPGs
1.2.2. Design it to appeal to kids, with kewl edgy classes and
super-abilities
1.2.3. Increase adult content, making it even more appealing to kids
1.3. Drive the competition out of business
1.3.1. Have the slickest, best, cheapest books in the industry
1.3.2. Get everyone else to write for D&D/d20 instead of developing
competing games.
1.3.2. Get everyone else to lose money on D&D modules and supplements.
2. To make a cool game. The designers (and WOTC execs) are/were old-time
gamers. 3e was their chance to take the game back to its 1st edition
roots, and also to add their own personal touch to it.
*I use 'GURPS' to refer to realistic/trendy/point-based systems in
general
I think that whenever there was a decision to be made, "making money"
always took precedence over "this would be cool". However when sales
wasn't at stake, I think that they were very much interested in making
the very coolest best game they could. I do not fault them for this.
They have shareholders to please, and now a corporate parent as well;
ignore that and they'd be in the toilent, and 3e would die a quick
death. Also, making money *usually* means making the very best product
possible, doing things right, etc. If they were out for a quick buck
they might have cut corners; I think the production quality we've seen
shows they're in for the long haul. But you've got to lay a solid
foundation financially if you plan to build on it.
I don't think that "modernization" was a goal in itself; rather I think
they were trying to make a good product for the two reasons I listed
above. Frankly I think that all the ruckus over "outdated vs modern" is
a bunch of hooey anyway. A good design doesn't go out of date, and it
doesn't become bad just because of changing fads. Some new games
succeed, others are dismal failures. Newness does not equate to
goodness, nor oldness with badness. (On a related note, it is as foolish
to criticize those people who do not jump on a bandwagon as it is to
criticize those who do.)
Now I do think there were tradeoffs in terms of their intended audience.
It is apparent to me that 3e is marketed squarely at the teen/college
video game crowd. It both looks and plays like a cross between a video
game and (to a lesser extent) a saturday morning cartoon. (IMO) This of
course is Job One: make money. Video games are far, far more popular
than RPGs; even though they bear superficial resemblance, and probably
were inspired by RPGs originally, the play is different. I think WOTC is
trying to change the D&D demographic by targeting the play style. Of
course like I said, WOTC are old gamers and they (IMO) a great job of
retaining D&D flavor and style where they could, but I do think this was
a secondary concern to the larger business issue.
Now, as to specific changes, I think a great many of them can be
explained simply by the above goals. For example, attacks of opportunity
make combat a lot more video-gamey (and less RPG-like), and also add a
level of tactical resolution that pleases GURPS-o-philes.
Mike
Ryan S. Dancey
news:3AA59FF8...@intel.com...
> 1. To make money. They needed a replacement for 2e. The goals here were
Accurate.
> 1.1. Convince existing D&D players to upgrade
> 1.1.1. Make it incompatible with previous editions.
> 1.1.2. Keep enough D&D flavor so people who hate GURPS* don't defect.
That's all accurate.
> 1.1.3. Add enough GURPS* so the people who like GURPS* don't defect.
That's not accurate.
> 1.1.4. Plan lots and lots and lots of "optional" add-on books
That's not accurate.
> 1.2. Convince new people to try the game.
That's accurate.
> 1.2.1. Design it to play and feel like a video game; video games are
> more popular than RPGs
That's neither true, nor accurate.
> 1.2.2. Design it to appeal to kids, with kewl edgy classes and
> super-abilities
Not accurate.
> 1.2.3. Increase adult content, making it even more appealing to kids
Not accurate.
> 1.3. Drive the competition out of business
Convince customers to use their buying power to drive competitive game
systems out of the market.
> 1.3.1. Have the slickest, best, cheapest books in the industry
Accurate.
> 1.3.2. Get everyone else to write for D&D/d20 instead of developing
> competing games.
Accurate.
> 1.3.2. Get everyone else to lose money on D&D modules and supplements.
Far from accurate. Hopefully anyone who publishes a d20 product will
receive more than enough profit to keep doing it. Unless what they're
producing is something the market doesn't want to buy.
> 2. To make a cool game. The designers (and WOTC execs) are/were old-time
> gamers. 3e was their chance to take the game back to its 1st edition
> roots, and also to add their own personal touch to it.
Accurate. Accurate. Not accurate. Accurate.
> I think that whenever there was a decision to be made, "making money"
> always took precedence over "this would be cool".
Not accurate. (By a long shot!)
> Also, making money *usually* means making the very best product
> possible, doing things right, etc.
Bingo.
> It is apparent to me that 3e is marketed squarely at the teen/college
> video game crowd.
Diablo is aimed at the video game crowd. 3E is not. If we had wanted to
aim the game at the video game crowd, then it would look very, very
different than it does. For one thing, the whole set of rules would have
fit into 16 pages. For another thing, we would have made sure the villians
said: All your base are belong to us!
The "look" of most current video games is aimed at the best market for those
games: 20+ year old hackers. The fact that 3E and the modern videogame biz
have some commonality in their graphic presentation is due to the interests
of the market, not one trying to copy the other.
> For example, attacks of opportunity
> make combat a lot more video-gamey (and less RPG-like)
An interesting theory. Want to explain that to the wargame crowd asking us
why we put zones of control in an RPG?
Ryan
Rupert Boleyn
<dan...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>> For example, attacks of opportunity
>> make combat a lot more video-gamey (and less RPG-like)
>
>An interesting theory. Want to explain that to the wargame crowd asking us
>why we put zones of control in an RPG?
And to me, seeing as about the only video games I can think of that
give out actual free attacks for prople running past you/away from you
are rpg (usually AD&D) based.
Besides the basis of AoO, AFAICT, is in AD&D1. Running away gave the
opponent a free attack at your back in 1e and 2e. Comabt and tactics
(for 2e) had rules that are like AoOs, but they apply in fewer cases.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Inside every cynic is a romantic trying to get out."
Drew Id
> video game crowd. It both looks and plays like a cross between a video
> game and (to a lesser extent) a saturday morning cartoon. (IMO) This of
> course is Job One: make money. Video games are far, far more popular
> than RPGs; even though they bear superficial resemblance, and probably
> were inspired by RPGs originally, the play is different. I think WOTC is
> trying to change the D&D demographic by targeting the play style.
I don't think the designers intended to make 3E feel like a video game,
I think this was a side effect of trying to design the system to answer most
questions before they required additional judement calls. I think one effect
with 3E was to let a DM run a combat without having to make as many side
judgements, because the system would have those judgements already made for
him. I don't think this was intentional, but rather a side effect of trying
to make the system unified and integrated.
From what I can gather, some people prefer a system where the rules are
left a little vague, and DM judgement calls make up a certain large
percentage of combat and other tasks. I can recall combats in earlier
editions where every player action was preceeded with "Can I do this?", "How
far away is he?", and "How much of this can I get done this round?", etc. In
3E, combat *was* made more digital, and miniatures further solidified many
answers, so that players don't ask as many questions along these lines, and
DM judgement is left for more unusual situations. Basically, in 3E, everyone
already *knows* what can and can not be done, and what their opponents can
do (minus an unknown feat or two), and they know what consequences a given
action will have, etc. So, the DM can just run the opposition and not make
as any other tertiary decisions. For my personal preference, if this is what
is meant by saying 3E is like a video game, then I am all for it, as it
makes my job as DM easier, and my decisions as a player more informed.
Michael Harvey
-- they just might show up! :-)
Seriously, I appreciate your response to my guesses. I must admit I was
surprised by some of your answers, but I'll accept them at face value.
You've earned my respect for being open and honest.
Mike
Wayne Shaw
>> make combat a lot more video-gamey (and less RPG-like)
>
>An interesting theory. Want to explain that to the wargame crowd asking us
>why we put zones of control in an RPG?
Kids these days. Most RPGs were remarkably wargamey at one point in
their evolution; the suprise, if anything, was that D&D had so little
of that for so long. The fact that 3e actually has some rigor to it's
core combat rules for the first time in its history is one of the
things that brought me back after a 20 year hiatus.
Nephilim
> 1.2.3. Increase adult content, making it even more appealing to kids
There's "adult content" in 3e? Where?
--
Jeff <jtho...@esker.com> "Float on a river, forever and ever, Emily"