| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7970 Posts |
 Posted - 05 Jan 2012 : 14:55:09
|
3.5E's "weathered parchment" style with the pseudo-Renaissance artwork was a passing fashion, late 1E and early 2E Realms products had something of the sort as well. Mind ye, 2E had many styles and not all of them were good ... IMO the Planescape lore was great but all the commentary about berks and cutters in the dead book (written in that interestingly awful Diablo-type font) dated itself pretty fast. The Spelljammer lore, also great, had an even worse almost amateur presentation format. The Ravenloft lore, pretty good, sometimes went a little overboard with the Goth stuff.
People complain that the yellowy foxing leathery-parchment page style makes photocopying and scanning difficult. This tends to point towards piracy in my mind, although I can see the merit of wanting to digitize your books so the hardcopies suffer less wear-and-tear ... photocopying seems unwarranted to me, aside perhaps from replacing missing or damaged pages. |
[/Ayrik] |
 |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jan 2012 : 16:15:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
IMHO, "daily powers" is one of the most cringeworthy parts. It's usually okay with magic, but otherwise looks... say... no better than if a thief would be able to pick pockets only 3/day.
Be that as it may, no worse than Stunning Fist X/day or the other 500 other X/day aspects of 3E.
And it was already bad enough, without hanging everything on those utility belts.
Agreed, but I personally don't see the enjoyment of a total simulationist game which in all honesty seems to pander to spellcasters and not weapon-toting individuals. Basically it comes down to spellcasters getting all the interesting options and choices during play and everyone else stuck with 1-move, attack, then full-attack. *Yawn* At least with some special abilities that are more "supernatural", it becomes a bit more exciting for them.
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I don't really see the AEDU mechanic (at-will/encounter/daily/utiliy) as abstract as others do. Realistically, I could Bench Press 320lbs., but to do that successfully more than once per day is highly unlikely. Apply those same physics to Fighting or Combat Maneuvers
Now add two dozen of such things, each of which is so tough it can't be done more than 1/day, but at the same time they don't interfere with each other at all - and that quickly starts to look silly.
Conversely, overexertion as such is trivial to handle without any utility belts - e.g. "+1 level of encumberance until full rest" or "N Fatigue Points [not recovered until full rest]" for PO. Note how either approach doesn't allow one to retain peak swimming, fencing and whatever performance right after maximum bench press.
And of course a lot of N/day things don't involve physical effort. Also, N grows with level, and very selective as to in what class. So it's a pure game-balance measure - and badly done at that.
Memorization of Vancian magic and recharging items are the only places when strict N/day have in-universe sense. And even there it can and sometimes needs to be explicitly modeled through an extensive resource - spell points, for example. The utility belt approach is not very flexible.
Again, 4E isn't really suited to simulationists, never has been nor does it try to hide those facts. But even if I can only 1-rep max 320lbs doens't mean I lose power on my Squat or Arm Curl or Dead-Lift, but all of those that are connected to chest are going to add some penalities. This is easily extrapolated with the level of your "Daily" powers. Consider my 1-rep max Bench the equivalent to a 9th level Daily power. I then go to my 1-rep max Squat, the equivalent to my 5th level daily. They're not intrinstically tied, but I still bear weight on my body and the stress is felt in my chest some-what. This compared to the damage output of said power. I then to a 1-set max of Tricept push-downs, the equivalent of my 1st level Daily. It's no where near as poweful as my Bench or my Squat and yet I can still pull it off pretty effectively. None of thse could I attempt to do again in a single day, which would require some rest to attempt again with any chance of performing at the same level.
Also, the MOST you can really have as Daily offensive powers are 4 total (29th, 25th, 21st, and 20th daily powers). Secondly, it's a game that doens't attempt to emulate actual world physics because....well that's not "truely" the intent of D&D and RPGs in the general scale (my own personal opinion). Some do it better than others, but over all I don't feel that's a driving factor with RPGs and D&D.
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
And of course the layout is really rather uninteresting and could've gained ALOT more support with older, more "Classic" looks of the 3E and prior books with the "weathered parchment" layout.
Er... What it's about?
When you look at the edges of the pages in some 3.x books, they have the appearance of being a "scroll" and of varying colors. The print is also smaller and nothing is really color-coded. I think 4E did itself a disservice by making the power-blocks so big and color-coded with a white background (I rather like the rustic tan of 3.X). Espically when they put 8-10 powers a page, makes it look too "Gamey" for my tastes. I'd have rather had a chart and possible a list of what's available and a whole chapter on powers later on for each class. I can see why, as to stop the back-and-forth of looking at classes and their spells, but it's more elegant the previous way.
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
As to 4E mechanics and Realms continunity, elves being Eladrin (in Mechanics only) is probably the only real change that would effect the story/setting material by any means. Everything else is, as they say "Easy Peasy".
Depends on what to compare. For things done looking over one shoulder at a different model, some replacement can be found, but it's still a replacement. And for modeling from scratch the core built more and more around Miniature Game MUD concepts doesn't help - even if it wasn't interspersed with pearls like Bear Lore and Bloody Path. I'm not saying that nails can't be driven in with a footstool, but hold that it's a suboptimal solution. 
I'm drawing a black to what your referring to. |
Edited by - Diffan on 06 Jan 2012 04:56:07 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jan 2012 : 18:50:51
|
A mechanical discussion. Let's see . . .
I played 1e starting around 6th grade. It was fun, even if I had to do all the work, including all the math calculations for my friends (sorry, friends!). That lasted about two years.
I then moved onto 2e and played that through the first half of high school with what would become my main/classic D&D group. That was really where I cut my teeth on the game. Somehow, the vast inequities (why oh why would you play a druid when you can play a WIZARD?) seemed perfectly ok to me, and my games (unsurprisingly) turned heavily toward story, rather than mechanics.
I resisted 3e for a LONG time, as I saw it as boiling the story out of the game in favor of a very mathematical, balanced tactical system. (Sound familiar to anyone?) But ultimately my long-time group experimented with the system, and found that it was really quite fun. Still, that was pretty much the end of my group--that, and graduating from high school and moving away to go to college.
3.5 hit while I was in college and actively writing Ghostwalker. I remember distinctly, because I managed to talk my editor into sending me the core rule books (+). I didn't honestly play all that much in college aside from vacations and a few abortive attempts to get my college friends into it. Could have done a lot more but hey, I had a novel to write.  I moved to Seattle and found a group here and played a LOT of 3.5 (my post-college Realms game, which went from 3rd level to about 9th). That was a good game, though it pettered out in favor of a short lived evil campaign (also DMed by me), and then the group broke up.
This was about the time 4e came out, which at first I felt pretty indifferent about (it honestly did NOT seem that different from 3.5--the differences being mostly cosmetic and a question of who's rolling the dice, the DM or the player), but I got into a campaign that taught me a lot about the 4e system, and I've been playing it ever since.
I find it awkward going back to 3.5, as I see so many ridiculously weird/broken things about the system (like how crazy powerful certain classes can be vs. others--something that didn't bother me in the 2e days). There's a lot of customization *in theory,* but a lot of it costs a lot in terms of XP and feats (which are pretty hard to come by if you aren't a fighter). I have to modify the system heavily to make it usable at my table.
(I am pointedly NOT applying that logic to Pathfinder, which I feel is a pretty slick system that fixes a lot of the crazy in 3.5--I'm looking at you, grapple and skills! The Paizo guys are doing some awesome stuff there.)
So ultimately, 2e is pretty much my classic as well, and when I think of the Realms, I think of the 2e Realms, and I don't see it having changed all that much, honestly. I love the lore that came out in that era, and regularly use it and some 3.x in my current writing (Eye of Justice draws extensively on Cloak and Dagger and Lords of Darkness, to such a level that I include frequent notes in the margin so my editor knows what page to look at) and my current games (I use the old 2e FR campaign box sigils and many of the sourcebooks in my current 4e FR game).
I think that every D&D gamer has an edition (usually but not always the one you start on or spend the most early time in) which is the RIGHT edition of D&D for that gamer. I introduced numerous friends to the game in 4e, and when we tried a 3.5 game they just could not stand the system. A friend of mine simply will not play anything other than 3e (she has reservations about upgrading from 3.0 to 3.5, but will play it if coached extensively). My old gaming group embraced 3.5 but had no interest in moving to 4e, but I think if you asked them, they would all say that 2e was where it was at.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jan 2012 : 19:15:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
A mechanical discussion. Let's see . . .
I played 1e starting around 6th grade. It was fun, even if I had to do all the work, including all the math calculations for my friends (sorry, friends!). That lasted about two years.
I then moved onto 2e and played that through the first half of high school with what would become my main/classic D&D group. That was really where I cut my teeth on the game. Somehow, the vast inequities (why oh why would you play a druid when you can play a WIZARD?) seemed perfectly ok to me, and my games (unsurprisingly) turned heavily toward story, rather than mechanics.
I resisted 3e for a LONG time, as I saw it as boiling the story out of the game in favor of a very mathematical, balanced tactical system. (Sound familiar to anyone?) But ultimately my long-time group experimented with the system, and found that it was really quite fun. Still, that was pretty much the end of my group--that, and graduating from high school and moving away to go to college.
3.5 hit while I was in college and actively writing Ghostwalker. I remember distinctly, because I managed to talk my editor into sending me the core rule books (+). I didn't honestly play all that much in college aside from vacations and a few abortive attempts to get my college friends into it. Could have done a lot more but hey, I had a novel to write. I moved to Seattle and found a group here and played a LOT of 3.5 (my post-college Realms game, which went from 3rd level to about 9th). That was a good game, though it pettered out in favor of a short lived evil campaign (also DMed by me), and then the group broke up.
This was about the time 4e came out, which at first I felt pretty indifferent about (it honestly did NOT seem that different from 3.5--the differences being mostly cosmetic and a question of who's rolling the dice, the DM or the player), but I got into a campaign that taught me a lot about the 4e system, and I've been playing it ever since.
I find it awkward going back to 3.5, as I see so many ridiculously weird/broken things about the system (like how crazy powerful certain classes can be vs. others--something that didn't bother me in the 2e days). There's a lot of customization *in theory,* but a lot of it costs a lot in terms of XP and feats (which are pretty hard to come by if you aren't a fighter). I have to modify the system heavily to make it usable at my table.
(I am pointedly NOT applying that logic to Pathfinder, which I feel is a pretty slick system that fixes a lot of the crazy in 3.5--I'm looking at you, grapple and skills! The Paizo guys are doing some awesome stuff there.)
So ultimately, 2e is pretty much my classic as well, and when I think of the Realms, I think of the 2e Realms, and I don't see it having changed all that much, honestly. I love the lore that came out in that era, and regularly use it and some 3.x in my current writing (Eye of Justice draws extensively on Cloak and Dagger and Lords of Darkness, to such a level that I include frequent notes in the margin so my editor knows what page to look at) and my current games (I use the old 2e FR campaign box sigils and many of the sourcebooks in my current 4e FR game).
I think that every D&D gamer has an edition (usually but not always the one you start on or spend the most early time in) which is the RIGHT edition of D&D for that gamer. I introduced numerous friends to the game in 4e, and when we tried a 3.5 game they just could not stand the system. A friend of mine simply will not play anything other than 3e (she has reservations about upgrading from 3.0 to 3.5, but will play it if coached extensively). My old gaming group embraced 3.5 but had no interest in moving to 4e, but I think if you asked them, they would all say that 2e was where it was at.
Cheers
Well said Erik. 2E is my classic as well and I will always think of the Realms as 2E. Some of the other editions have too many calculations which I feel will severely steal the momentum of a campaign. |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jan 2012 : 19:31:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
People complain that the yellowy foxing leathery-parchment page style makes photocopying and scanning difficult. This tends to point towards piracy in my mind, although I can see the merit of wanting to digitize your books so the hardcopies suffer less wear-and-tear ... photocopying seems unwarranted to me, aside perhaps from replacing missing or damaged pages.
I've got stuff I photocopied, either to make a digital copy or because I wanted certain material handy while traveling. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2012 : 00:15:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
People complain that the yellowy foxing leathery-parchment page style makes photocopying and scanning difficult. This tends to point towards piracy in my mind, although I can see the merit of wanting to digitize your books so the hardcopies suffer less wear-and-tear ... photocopying seems unwarranted to me, aside perhaps from replacing missing or damaged pages.
I've got stuff I photocopied, either to make a digital copy or because I wanted certain material handy while traveling.
Indeed. And using portable drive units or USBs with digital copies often makes travelling a great deal easier -- provided their is the requisite technology for reading my drives or USB at the gaming location. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2012 : 04:26:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
People complain that the yellowy foxing leathery-parchment page style makes photocopying and scanning difficult. This tends to point towards piracy in my mind, although I can see the merit of wanting to digitize your books so the hardcopies suffer less wear-and-tear ... photocopying seems unwarranted to me, aside perhaps from replacing missing or damaged pages.
I've got stuff I photocopied, either to make a digital copy or because I wanted certain material handy while traveling.
Indeed. And using portable drive units or USBs with digital copies often makes travelling a great deal easier -- provided their is the requisite technology for reading my drives or USB at the gaming location.
Ditto. At the time I was making photocopies for traveling, I didn't have a working laptop, and it wouldn't have been easier to use one on some of those trips, anyway...
Now, of course, I do not travel without me laptop. And I don't go anywhere without a 16GB thumb drive in my pocket, which contains a lot of WotC/TSR pdfs (all legal, too) and a fair amount of Pathfinder pdfs. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 05:42:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Now, of course, I do not travel without me laptop. And I don't go anywhere without a 16GB thumb drive in my pocket, which contains a lot of WotC/TSR pdfs (all legal, too) and a fair amount of Pathfinder pdfs.
I'm hoping to soon be able to put together my own collection of legal TSR/WotC pdfs... honestly, if WotC is going to make all the older material available again, it only makes sense to go with a PDF and print-on-demand system. At any rate, I bring my laptop to my Pathfinder game (because I have the legal PDFs for that game) and my core rulebooks to my 3.5 game (because we're playing in a homebrew world and the DM doesn't use anything outside of the core rules except for a couple of house rules yanked from Pathfinder; if a player wants to take a feat from a 3.5 splat, the DM reviews it on a case-by-case basis, and I have all the books, so the DM just lets me know which additional book to bring to next game). The funny thing is, I can still remember my page numbers from the original 2E PHB; I was in college during 2E, so I played a LOT. I'm 200 miles from my 1E and 2E library, but I can tell you with absolute confidence that the THAC0 tables are on page 91 and the saving throw tables are on page 101. That's the original 2E PHB, not the 2.5 PHB with the swirly titles and extra art. That being said, Combat & Tactics and Skills & Powers were possibly the most interesting books published for 2E... and much of it contributed in no small way to 3E, which I still think made some brilliant core rules changes, particularly to AC and saving throws... although I would have gone a step further and done away with AC, calling it a defense bonus... "AC" is what you get when you take 10 on your defense roll, which you can do at any time, except when flat-footed.
This comes back to the "construction kit" I've heard mentioned with respect to 5E; we really should be able to make the game as simple or as complex as the players want it, and (although it wasn't stated in the 3.x books anywhere) it was a fairly straightforward process to simply ignore chapters 4 and/or 5 (according to the 3.x PHB) and eliminate skills and/or feats from the game. Magical item creation then becomes a DM-mediated ad hoc process, much as it was in 1E and 2E, if it's even possible at all. Mind you, in a game without skills, rogues will be next to useless and bards will be significantly impeded (unless the DM implements some sort of ad hoc ruling for determining how successful a skill-related action is, which I can see taking longer than it would using the skill system), and in a game without feats, fighters will be much less effective. Still, it makes for an interesting variation of simplicity if you want to throw together an impromptu session and don't want to spend all evening creating characters.
Anyway, this post rambled on rather extensively from its original purpose, but I think it might have got the scroll back on topic after all that. |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
|
|
|
Imp
Learned Scribe
231 Posts |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 11:02:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imp
I play 3.P.
As for the realism - D&D is "kinda" realistic up to 5th or 6th level. Anything higher is super-hero territory.
E6 variant on v3.5 is the way to go. Keeps things balanced, keeps spellcasters competitive yet not broken, keeps fighters useful but not boring or out-classed and makes multiclassing well worth it. It's a lot grittier too, and probably more realistic IMO. |
|
|
|
Imp
Learned Scribe
231 Posts |
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 16:50:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Imp
I play 3.P.
As for the realism - D&D is "kinda" realistic up to 5th or 6th level. Anything higher is super-hero territory.
E6 variant on v3.5 is the way to go. Keeps things balanced, keeps spellcasters competitive yet not broken, keeps fighters useful but not boring or out-classed and makes multiclassing well worth it. It's a lot grittier too, and probably more realistic IMO.
The more realistic roleplaying was always more fun IMHO Where is the fun if you know your character can always blast their way out of any situation or hack a giant monster to pieces? |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
Edited by - Artemas Entreri on 09 Feb 2012 16:51:16 |
|
|
|
Imp
Learned Scribe
231 Posts |
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 18:08:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imp
quote:
Where is the fun if you know your character can always blast their way out of any situation or hack a giant monster to pieces?
What does realism have to do with the games easiness? Unrealistic gameplay can be as much if not more fun and challenging.
Hence the "IMHO." You play your way and I'll play my way. |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
|
|
|
Imp
Learned Scribe
231 Posts |
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 20:04:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imp
If it's IMHO, then why are you asking "Where's the fun if..."?
And my question has nothing to do with preference. You questioned the challenge in playing unrealistically. I asked what does "realism" have to do with challenge. Super-heroes can also be challenged.
Have you heard of rhetorical questions? <-- not an example of a rhetorical question.
I dislike all of the feats and epic level abilities of the later editions of D&D. Being able to punch down doors, do crazy martial arts moves, et cetera definitely makes the game less challenging. At that point you need to create over-powered antagonists to offer up a challenge for your character.
Second edition for me was roleplaying in a nice simple realistic form. The later editions began to cater to the super-heroe type of character. |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
Edited by - Artemas Entreri on 09 Feb 2012 20:22:01 |
|
|
|
Imp
Learned Scribe
231 Posts |
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 20:30:44
|
quote:
Being able to punch down doors, do crazy martial arts moves, et cetera definitely makes the game less challenging.
How?
[/quote]
Finding creative ways to circumvent common obstacles is something that can make roleplaying extremely fun. If you are able solve many problems using feats or high-level abilities then this is limited.
To pseudoquote the annoying court wizard from Whiterun in Skyrim: "Your mind is the best weapon you own." |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
|
|
|
Imp
Learned Scribe
231 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 21:00:18
|
quote:
Finding creative ways to circumvent common obstacles is something that can make roleplaying extremely fun.
Finding creative ways to circumvent uncommon obstacles is something that can make roeplaying extremely fun too.
quote:
If you are able solve many problems using feats or high-level abilities then this is limited.
The same feats and high-level abilities can create new, exciting obstacles that you can overcome. |
[url=http://expensiveautomobile.com/2009-bmw-3-series-uk-version/]2009 bmw 3 series uk version[/url] [url=http://expensiveautomobile.com/2009-bmw-3-series-touring-uk-version/]2009 bmw 3 series touring uk version[/url] |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 21:18:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imp
quote:
Where is the fun if you know your character can always blast their way out of any situation or hack a giant monster to pieces?
What does realism have to do with the games easiness? Unrealistic gameplay can be as much if not more fun and challenging.
I tend to think that realism offers less ways of overcoming obsticles via magic. There also seem to be a LOT of traps in the level 1 though 8 range that can "off" character of low-level than high-level. And these traps need not even be magical, where as higher level traps need to be used with vicious spells to become effective against PCs heading into the 10+ level range. I infer from what entreri3478 is trying getting at is that at higher levels, there are far more solutions to problems with the simple cast of a spell or use of a feat. Whether this is fun or not is based on one's perception, something that changes from one person to the next.
I think2E and low-level 3E provide a good way to embrace that gritty, realism that people attempt to strive for. The feeling that any encounter (even ones far lower than your level) can turn deadly is a part of the fun. Others enjoy a super-heroic feel and love relishing in high-magic or fantastic campaigns. This doesn't mean that the danger isn't any less real for the charater IF they oppose equally challenging things. But the way in which magic and features work often gives Players more advantages in overcoming those problmes that low-level characters don't have access too.
|
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 10 Feb 2012 : 11:45:07
|
Started with other games, played Mentzer and 2nd. and never bothered with other versions of D&D. I didn't find anything of interest with the WotC 3ed. products (only one FR book I use and only two I like) and never bothered looking at the 4ed.
As for realism. Don't play a level and class based system then, realism is not as important as the gaming part in most of these. |
|
|
|
ZeshinX
Learned Scribe
Canada
210 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 03:41:09
|
The 1E/2E switch-over was when I started playing. 1E Oriental Adventures and 2E was when I did most of my gaming, so it has the biggest nostalgia/enjoyment factor. I did really like 3E and 3.5E once they appeared, as I truly loved the customizability it offered, as well as doing away with the silly race/class restrictions (I never played a 1E/2E game that actually used the racial level limits though).
I've played a great deal of 3E/3.5E/Pathfinder (Pathfinder being my current preferred system) and love it, but to this day my favourite characters remain 1E/2E creations. That would be Zeshin, my 1E LE Bamboo Spirit Folk Samurai (to this day my fav), and Evinger, my 2E CG Half-Elven Thief (using the Highdale Rogue kit from Wizards & Rogues of the Realms).
I also had a NG Elven Fighter/Mage named Cendril Mistraveler (using the Undead Slayer kit from Complete Book of Elves, focused on hunting banshees) that I enjoyed quite a lot. My DM even introduced a nice familiar for him too (an Azmyth bat named...Myth lol), since he loved the concept of that character.
Ah, good times. |
"...because despite the best advice of those who know what they are talking about, other people insist on doing the most massively stupid things."
-Galen, technomage |
Edited by - ZeshinX on 11 Feb 2012 03:47:05 |
|
|
|
EltonJ
Learned Scribe
USA
101 Posts |
Posted - 15 Apr 2012 : 18:46:53
|
I prefer to use Rolemaster (RMFRP) with the Realms. However, if I have to use a D&D system, it's AD&D 2nd Edition modified to my tastes second, and Pathfinder for practicality.
AD&D Second Edition is robust, especially if you start out as the game originally intended -- no skills or feats or weapon proficiencies or non-weapon proficiencies. You can play the game and fly by the seat of your pants. Rolemaster is a robust, skill based system that has realistic combat. Finally, there is Pathfinder. Streamlined 3.x that should have came into being in 2008.
Fourth? I GMed two Fourth campaigns. I had two disparate groups. I couldn't grapple with it, it seemed like too many changes at once. It had the brand name but none of the charm that comes with it. I tried, and I tried, and I tried. I put the game back down and I never advertised for it again. Fourth wanted me to do a BEMCI based game to compare the writing in BEMCI and Fourth (and I did, and the writing in BEMCI is a lot *BETTER* than in Fourth).
2nd Edition works barebones or with a lot of options. Pathfinder is streamlined, and Rolemaster is the kid your mother told you to leave alone. Fourth -- the movie Home Alone summs up Fourth. :) |
|
|
|
JohnnyGrognard
Acolyte
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 11 May 2012 : 15:55:55
|
Our group played 2nd Edition for years. As stated in a previous post, I learned on Basic, 1st and 2nd. I had an older brother, so with that had the honor and privilege of playing those editions at a young age.
When 3rd came out, we gave it a dedicated try. We believed in keeping the hobby alive by changing along with the times. We grew to enjoy 3rd and 3.5 quite a bit. 4th came around and I was a big pusher of it. I had the same attitude to support the hobby in whatever direction it took.
However, as much as I tried, 4th edition just failed....for me anyway. I just didn't like it and I gave it a real go.
I tried Pathfinder and felt at home since it was akin to 3.5 and I did enjoy it. But the art and flavor just seemed a little off putting to me. Great products and quality writing but not necessarily the feel I wanted.
So our group ended up going back to 2nd edition. And speaking quite frankly, we began to wonder why we ever left. Sure newer editions did certain things better and sure nostalgia probably has a lot to do with loving 2nd edition....but in all honesty to me, it is the best system.
It really captures the heart and soul of what Dungeons and Dragons is all about. I'll most likely pickup the core set for 5th edition and give it a go, but I am pretty much settled down pretty darn comfortably with 2nd edition. |
Door, Room, Monster, Treasure! |
|
|
|
LordXenophon
Learned Scribe
USA
147 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jun 2012 : 10:51:06
|
I've recently started running another 2e campaign. I only have one player, whom I'm tasking with rebuilding Castle Dragonspear, with a deadline of 1 year to have the castle battle-ready. I'm not going to make it easy for him to meet the deadline, but I have already hidden a few useful magic items he could use to speed up the construction a bit. That's assuming, of course, that he can deal with the castle's current occupant, of whom I will say nothing here. Let's just say the shrine of Tempus was eaten and leave it at that.
I'm also just starting to game with another 2e group. This group uses a few of the Player's Option rules (classes and points to spend on extra powers, but not disadvantages or score-splitting) It's set in the same part of the Realms, but this group has turned out to be a Monty Haul. Although I don't normally like that sort of game, this DM has some wild ideas popping out of his head. I just might start posting a chronicle here, just to share the weird loot and NPC's. Some of it is worth a laugh, at least. |
Disintegration is in the eye of the Beholder. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7970 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jun 2012 : 16:11:43
|
| Monty Haul, Monty Hall, Monte Carlo, Monty Python, Monte Cristo, Monte Cook, Montezuma ... they're all valid playstyles. I personally disdain Monty Haul gaming because it walks a fine line between powergaming and munchkin, but it's still fun when done well. The Realms can accomodate powergaming quite excellently, just as Greyhawk could during the Gygax era. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
LordXenophon
Learned Scribe
USA
147 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jun 2012 : 20:11:21
|
| Monty Haul means the rewards are out of balance with the efforts required to earn them. I have no problem with giving my players 50,000,000gp worth of loot if they have to fight a great wyrm or sack Darkhold to earn it. If you even try to walk that fine line, it's not Maunty Haul any more. It's just power gaming. |
Disintegration is in the eye of the Beholder. |
|
|
|
vorpalanvil
Seeker
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2012 : 13:02:04
|
To get back to brass tacks: I had the fortunate experience of playing in second grade(not 2ed) in the mid 80's. My buddy Steve was really creative but not too book smart so I would get our class assignment done in 10-15 minutes and the teacher would let us play in the coat closet. No books, No dice, etc. Steves' dad was a big fantasy fan and Steve consumed it all with zeal and had the innate ability to be a natural storyteller. We spent every spare minute of inclement weather playing a one on one organic game in second grade.
Fast forward to 1989,1990. My friend were all video game nerds in a time when playing video games was certainly not cool or mainstream like it is nowadays. My dude Jeremy was a few years older and suggested D&D, and with my fond memories I seconded the idea. 2ed was new and I spent all three years of junior high with the same group of friends, mostly with the same characters. In retrospect, how you can play D&D in thirty degree weather for 12 hours is beyond adult me. Then, like many of us I'm sure, no action in high school. Forgot about it, grew up, etc. Till one day in 2000 or so some guys I worked with were talking about "3rd ed" I mentioned a history and interest, and here I am in 2012 having been running a 2ed game for 5 years now.
So, I've a bit to comment on this topic. 3rd is a good system for young kids to learn on. If youn can grasp the basic idea/spirit of the rules you can with 99% accuracy infer the correct ruling of any other rule. But the players are too damn powerful, too much xp is for killing stuff, and every aspect of role playing from race/ class restrictions to spells that don't blow things up or heal stupid players has been removed. It is the first real move towards the video game culture we see in 4th ed. Pathfinder cleans it up a lot, especially in the skills area, but a pinto is a pinto even with a blown 429 cj. Also how you can compare the obvious talent of the Lakey's realistic art with the likes of W.A.R.'s comic book style is beyond me. Even the art of 3rd ed is just too over the top and ridiculous!
I have never played 4th ed but this forums comments speak for themselves. It appears to be WOW on paper which defeats the purpose. I can play some mmo any time without real people.
So all that remains is the old school. As 2ed is as sensible an update to 1st ed as pathfinder is to 3ed/3.5 2nd wins. Especially given the PO books that clean up the base clunky combat system that make combat a race to 0 hit points in the base system, and was clearly a marker for many of the ideas in 3rd. Some of the writing is near brilliant in both of the old editions, and anything is easily transferable from 1st to 2ed. Spells are as unique in nature as are classes. No, it isn't balanced. If you want balance look at the disaster that is the 3ed ranger, paladin, and bard. At one time special, different, and hard to obtain classes, were reduced to generic, underpowered, irrelevant after birth forgotten by anyone who diligently read the rules. Guess what? If you are a fan of the realms, which you probably are if you are reading this, the game world was made for rangers and bards! How in the nine hells should a Paladin be significantly less powerful than any regular jack off who can range from trained soldier to mob muscle is beyond the pale.
I digress. Anyone here who is really a fan of the setting really owes to themselves to read the old source material and see the inherit brilliance, creativity and forethought put in as compared to the low quality of materiel put fourth in recent years.
Mod edit: Adjective removed. Let's be a little more careful with our adjectives, please. We have those who would be offended by the adjective you chose for decribing an MMO. |
"I'm a busy man! I got places to go, monsters to kill!" attributed to 1st level bard |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 28 Jul 2012 14:15:31 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2012 : 21:02:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
So, I've a bit to comment on this topic. 3rd is a good system for young kids to learn on. If youn can grasp the basic idea/spirit of the rules you can with 99% accuracy infer the correct ruling of any other rule. But the players are too damn powerful, too much xp is for killing stuff, and every aspect of role playing from race/ class restrictions to spells that don't blow things up or heal stupid players has been removed.
Um.....like what, specifically? Most of the people who advocate 3E will likely say that damage dealing spells are pretty inferior to practically anything an arcane spellcaster can cook up with out-of-box thinking and some imagination. I dare say "deal xd6 damage" spells are limited in their power and aren't very good outside of Wands and Staffs. Frankly, having been a player of 3E for over a decade I'd only prepare a handful of direct damage spells over the 9 levels span. They're just not potent IMO. As for healing, "meh" most of your average (Good/neutral) clerics aren't going to prepare them because of spontaneous casting OR wands of cure______wounds. There are a few exceptions like Raise Dead, Mass Heal, and Revivify that are worth looking into, but your better off not preparing them (as a cleric, mind you) in lieu of more versatile/offensive/defensive spells (or utility spells to put into scrolls).
Next, lets look at Race/Class restrictions. I'm so very happy that they're gone and I hope they never return to the RPG table aside from DM fiat. If a DM wants to implement them at his table, by all means I think that's awesome. In my 4E games, I restrict Bladesingers to Elf, Eladrin, and Half-elves. If you want to cast spells and swing a sword BUT don't want to be one of those races, be a Bard, Hexblade, Fighter/Wizard, Dagger-based Sorcerer, Swordmage.
But to force it from an "Official" standpoint is wrong IMO. Personally I think it forces a narrow view of the overall D&D/Fantasy community as well as what roleplaying options are available for players.
Now, as for "too much XP for killing stuff" I'm pretty certain this has been involved with D&D since it's beginning. The DM dictates how much XP is earned for combat, for non-combat, for exploration, for quests completed, for treasure found, etc..... I've heard a multitude of ways to go around XP. One is to tell the Players when they level up as the DM feels necessary, not by numbers. Another is the DM calculates XP himself and then finds a good time to allow PCs to level up. A third way is to base it on quests and interaction with the environment. A fourth way is to promote non-combat solutions and give out XP based on them instead of killing things all the time.
Basically the Game's XP system is there as a guide for the DM to go off of as a base-line. Adjust as needed.
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
It is the first real move towards the video game culture we see in 4th ed. Pathfinder cleans it up a lot, especially in the skills area, but a pinto is a pinto even with a blown 429 cj. Also how you can compare the obvious talent of the Lakey's realistic art with the likes of W.A.R.'s comic book style is beyond me. Even the art of 3rd ed is just too over the top and ridiculous!
Actually Pathfinder is about 90% 3rd Edition with homebrew stuff thrown in. They make a few good adjustments to the base game, but most of them are on the mechanics side for more streamlining (combat maneuver system, for example). I don't see anything that Paizo did to remove any video-game culturisms. In fact, I think they added more. Gunslinger? Combat Maneuvers? At-Will spellcasting? Specific blasting xd6 damage powers for wizards? ALL speak to a combat-heavy system that even surpasses 3E. Also, the only thing Pathfinder did for skills is streamline a few and make it so you gained a proficiency instead of the level + 3 of 3rd Edition. Granted it's much much much better mechanically, but doesn't really promote the improvised actions of 2E very well.
As for the artwork, this will always be a subjective matter because it will either impact you positively or negatively. 2E's artwork, espically with a lot of TSR's novel covers were stricly  in my opinion. 3E had some good stuff along with some bad stuff and 4E's very much hit or miss with me as well. I tend to hate super-realistic artwork with simplistic armor and weapons. It's too bland for me. I have no problem with 5' greatswords, fullplate bristling with spikes, warhammers that look like they weigh 55 lbs. To me, that seems like fun fantasy.
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
I have never played 4th ed but this forums comments speak for themselves. It appears to be WOW on paper which defeats the purpose. I can play some mmo any time without real people.
I think a good majority of the animosity from CK towards 4th Edition where due to the massive changes the Realms received to promote 4E and the Realms to new fans. It's hard to say how things would've went if 4E kept the Realms 90% the same but I've read a lot of fan's comments such as "The rules themselves seem good, but they (being WotC) destroyed too much of the Realms for me to play in it or with 4E". Additionally, if you've never played 4th Edition, how can you draw the same conclusions as others? Personally, I never got the MMO vibe from 4E in the 4 years I've been playing it. Perhaps it's because of our gaming style, or how we run our games, or the fact that we never strictly adhere to the rules-as-written for specific aspects or create rules on the fly to make the game better? What I do know is that I don't have to worry about 1 character "winning" the game because he finds a loop-hole in the mechanics. I can play the sort of character I want from the moment I create him instead of playing a semi-fun character for X levels and then playing a character I want. That DM'ing 4E is probably the best aspect about the game and extreamly easy to mold so I can focus on more important aspects of the campaign such as NPCs, unique/fun/exotic items and treasure, stronger plot hooks and side quests, etc.. Monster creation (from scratch) takes approx 20 minutes and adjusting existing monsters takes 5. The online tools are amazing.
Also, I'd say most of the MMO analogies are based on hear-say and apperances. The power-structure does look MMO-ish. The Art does reflect MMO "toons". Some of the 4E's lingo use gamer words like "Solo", "Minion", "Defender", "Striker", "Squares of movement", "Aura 2", etc. And the base of the game is generic enough that the main source of XP gained is through killing monsters. But we already covered ways around that stuff.
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
No, it isn't balanced. If you want balance look at the disaster that is the 3ed ranger, paladin, and bard. At one time special, different, and hard to obtain classes, were reduced to generic, underpowered, irrelevant after birth forgotten by anyone who diligently read the rules.
I've been a pretty strong fan of the Paladin since my 2E days and he's only gotten better as the editions advanced. If by "hard to obtain" you mean you had to have a significant stat in your Wisdom or Charisma, then that's a good thing it got removed. The DM should dictate how hard it is to play a class (or if the option is viable at all) and NOT the rules.
Granted, I didn't have a lot of interaction with the Bard or Ranger of 2E and their 3E counterparts are OK. Bards, while I think the class is overall "blech", can be a lot of fun and pretty poweful if you look at their spell-list AND the fact that they have Use Magic Device skill, which allows them to use anything with a spell trigger. Prestige classes can increse their power further. Ranger.....well you can't win them all. I felt the Ranger's Favored Enemy feature was interesting, but far too limited in scope. The mechanic should've been handled differently IMO. And 3E is so FAR from balanced that it's pretty sad.
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
Guess what? If you are a fan of the realms, which you probably are if you are reading this, the game world was made for rangers and bards! How in the nine hells should a Paladin be significantly less powerful than any regular jack off who can range from trained soldier to mob muscle is beyond the pale.
How, exactly, do you measure "Powerful"? Is it damage-per-round? Survivability? Ending battles in 1 attack? Being useful near 99% of the time? Able to change the plot at a moment's notice? More importantly, how do you feel this changes negatively from 2E to 3E or 4E? What specifically made the Paladin, Ranger, or Bard better than say....a Fighter or Rogue in previous editions?
quote:
Originally posted by vorpalanvil
I digress. Anyone here who is really a fan of the setting really owes to themselves to read the old source material and see the inherit brilliance, creativity and forethought put in as compared to the low quality of materiel put fourth in recent years.
I've read the source material of 2E and I think most of their Forgotten Realms specific stuff (not mechanics, but lore) was pretty good. Very detailed and acute. If you need information about a specific organization, cult, god, region, race, relic/item, plot, or bad-guy then I'm sure there's SOME write-up somewhere about it. But to discount 3rd Edition's material (and even some outstanding 4E material) as low-quality is a bit too generalized. A lot of people don't like the Post-Spellplague Realms, but that doesn't mean supplements like the Neverwinter Campaign Setting are bad. In fact, that's probably my favorite material for the setting so far. And a LOT of Ed's Eye on the Realms articles are well written, involved, interesting, and could be utilized in any era or edition of the Realms. So in reading this part of your post, I'm hoping you don't mean to allude to the notion that if you don't enjoy older material, your not a true fan. It comes off that way, but I'd like to think I'm mistaken. . |
|
|
|
vorpalanvil
Seeker
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2012 : 08:57:20
|
| Good retort and argument! I'll give a reply sometime in the next few days when I get a chance. Until then' "Well Met" |
"I'm a busy man! I got places to go, monsters to kill!" attributed to 1st level bard |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
2nd edition forever
