D&D 3e mark II WWYD

[Fellfrosch]

I'd augment the feat system with an ad/disad system. Every game needs one of those, and when I can figure out how to do it in Palladium I'll do it and never look back.

[Mr_Pleasington]

Saint, you wouldn't know it from my posts, but I actually had a great deal of fun running 3E for the better part of 2 years.  I'll never run it again though.  Play it, yes, run it, no.

I'm not alone on the whole "crumbles when you fiddle with it" page.  I know a lot of folks, mainly over the net, that feel the same way.  A lot of supporters even feel the same way.  

I should clarify what I mean by 'tinkering' by the way, because its probably a bit more extensive than you think.  For example, say I don't like feats because it makes the game feel too 'video gamey' (to note: I don't feel this way completely, but I see the point of those who argue this).  It's virtually impossible to take out the feats system or to heavily modify it without absolutely ruining the balance.  Same with skills (which I don't like the system for, by the way) or AoO.  They're too ingrained in the system.  You have to understand that I'm coming from the old school D&D camp where you could rework the system as much as you liked because it wasn't balanced on the head of a pin.  

I'm a tinkerer.  I like to modify systems to something that works better for me.  I could do this with old editions of D&D without a problem.  I haven't been able to modify 3E the way I'd like to successfully yet.  So I gave up because it just wasn't worth the effort.  There are other systems that do what I want without much tinkering at all.  

I don't fault anyone for liking 3E. Play what you enjoy.  But its definitely not the system I choose to run games in anymore.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

So you're saying that if you make fundamental changes to the core of the system without a well planned replacement, the system doesn't work?

[Mr_Pleasington]

Don't think I didn't try replacements.  Certain bonuses ineherent in classes as levels advanced, a new skill system.

See, you laugh now, but you could do this stuff with old D&D.  The skill system wasn't integrated into the classes and so you could modify, tweak, replace, or remove until your hearts content.  

You've just admitted that this kind of thing can't be done with 3E.  

There is great freedom in the non integration of the older editions.  There are disadvantages too, but for me the advantages outweight the disadvantages.

[42]

I agree with Mr. P. I like 3e but in the current campaign I run there is so much tight-rope walking that I'm never sure when I've crossed the line. Fortunately, I have PCs that don't whine every time one person becomes weak or powerful in a particular situation.

I have to disagree with fell. I don't particularly like advatage/disadvantage siystems. I've seen to many players take all sorts of irrelevant disadvantages just so they can be uber-powerful where it counts. Even though I'm not a big stickler for realism, it destroy even my sense of believability.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I guess I like 3e because it HAS a skill system. And no, that proficiency smack that had no application whatsoever didn't count as a system. So because they've tried to make the system less combat (because that's really all it was before) they get hated. Hrm. That's weird to me. However, I think the classes now are much more modular. You can do much more customization as a player, which means you can as a GM making NPCs. I guess my thought is really that if there's something so essential to a system like skills that I don't like, then I don't want to change it, I want to play a different system. Sure I admit you can't change the skill system easily. Why would you want to? There are other systems closer to what you want that you don't have to alter as fundamentally as that.

*I* want to take it a step further though. Rather than go back to a confused system with even worse realism than 3E and problems I feel too numerous to list that was taking up too much memory space in my brain (that I now use for other things, like memories of cupcakes and writing runon sentences), I'd rather ditch classes and provide a bunch modular advancements that you choose from as you advance. I guess it's something much more like Decipher's, only using d20 instead of 2d6.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Oh, and I hope I'm not coming off as a zealot here. I just can't see what the problem is. Naturally, especially since we don't game together, we're all entitled to our disparate opinions. I just wanted to see what the problem is, and still kinda don't understand why that WAS a problem. That's all.

[Mr_Pleasington]

The old proficiency system is as much a true system as skills in 3E.  It was simple and elegant.  You rolled, subtracted your level in a skill (which maxed at 2 or 3 if I remember correctly), and compared it to your ability score.  Nice.  3E skills start out fine, but by even level 10 the numbers you add to your roll just get ridiculous.  It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Speaking of classes, 3E blurred the lines with classes.  It's far too easy to be really good at skills and abilities that used to be reserved for a single class.  In OAD&D it was specifically designed for a party system.  Every class had its strength and weaknesses and the other classes were the perfect complement to those.  No, you couldn't make some characters (like Conan) well, but its just another one of those little D&D quirks.  It's too easy to min/max and make yourself good at too many things.  And don't get me started on prestige classes.  Good concept, terrible execution.  

It's easy to say, well, I don't allow that kind of power gaming in my game, but when designers are catering to that type of player it eventually becomes hard to ignore if you play with anything beyond the core books.  The WOTC classbooks themselves are just dripping with cheese and stupid prestige classes.  

So I don't like the constraints and presumptions of the class system, the skill system, or feats.  It doesn't feel like old D&D, which is fine if you don't like old D&D, but I was hoping 3E would update and fine tune the system already in place, not be a wholly different game with some D&D concepts tacked on and a logo stuck up top.

[42]

Actually, I like how d20 blurs classes. It bothers me when I can't create a character who is just mediocre at something. I don't like being stuck to a class that requires me to be 100% fighter or 100% spellcaster. I don't even like the ones that require me to be 50/50. I want to design characters that perhaps only have a little bit of something. It's sort of like cooking: Take 1 cup fighter add 1 tbs wizard and 2 tbs rogue with just a dash of monk.

However, I am a little annoyed with prestige classes. I think they stifle the creativity of players. Prestige classes seem to dictate to too many players what their character should be like. I've seen some players try to deviate from this, but most players are too content with just fitting into the mold the prestige class provides.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Erg. You like the old proficiency system better than the d20 system. I don't think we can ever come to an agreement.

d20 hardly emphasizes power gaming more than 2e. If anything, it improves on it. proficiencies took up all of what, 5 pages? While I liked the individual weapon proficiency system better than the grouped feat approach, the really de-emphasized skills. If you can solve things much easier and faster by hitting it with a rock than using skill, they haven't provided enough support for non-combat skills, and nearly universally that was the case (which was ok when I was 15, but now that I'm not). I think that characters should have non-combat skills commensurate to their fighting skills, at least. And just like you make combat harder when the characters are tougher, you make skill checks harder. Tracking through a rushing river, sneaking past guard dogs with enhanced hearing and some motion sensors, etc.

Yeah, there's power creep in the supplements. Yeah, a lot of it. And yes, a lot of the prestige classes are sucky. But then, a lot of those prestige classes are heavily dependent on setting, so even if you allow most things they find in books, you'll find a lot of it doesn't fit in to what you've done, so you have a VERY easy way out of allowing those classes (as if you couldn't just say "no" anyway).

And I'll agree with 42, blurring the lines is good. Which is why I want to make advancement even more modular, so you can mix them up even better. New multi-classing is one of the first things that won me over (along with an actual pattern to the rules, instead of an arbitrary new idea for each new thing -- they all fit together now). And yes, the new handling of feats and skills sealed the pact.

[Brian]

I agree with SaintEhlers. I don't see what the problem is. I am an inexperienced DM and have only been playing for about 3 years, but I'm confident that with some effort and solid planning I could tweak anything about 3e to my liking. I find it very open ended; I feel that even though they've attempted to address virtually every possibility in the books, its modular enough to make changes on almost any scale.

Give me (or SaintEhlers, naturally) a scenario and I suspect I could come up with a set of adjustments to meet the criteria, without the system "crumbling" or becoming unbalanced. I'm not stating that as a challenge, only a point of view -- although I suppose it could be a challenge if you wanted to take it that way.

*shrug*

[Fellfrosch]

Brian, are you Master Providian from AORP? If so, welcome--I'm Sir Carl the Magnificent Dragonslayer of Amazingness.

[Mr_Pleasington]

It makes sense that you, as an inexperienced DM, like 3E.  Everything is laid out for you.  Everything.  But it puts far too much power in the hands of the players and makes the DM a referee.  Run an older edition of the game an see how much easier it is.  Monster stat blocks are comparitively small and balancing an adventure didn't take an ELC chart...just a good eye.

3E spells a lot of stuff out that DMs have been doing for years, which makes it easy for newcomers.  Problem is, not everyone plays the way that the designers assumed (like me) and when people like me try to change things to something we like more, players get mad because its different than the way the rules are spelled out.  No one respects Rule Zero anymore.

And I, just like anyone, can tweak this or that to make an adventure run more smoothly or give a character something a little out of the ordinary.  That's not the kind of tinkering I'm talking about.  I'm a friggin' game system mechanic baby! You give me a system I like to dive in, get my hands dirty, keep what I like and change or throw out the rest.  D&D games have always supported this because they were completely internally inconsistent.  Virtually no part of the game relied on any other part.  As I said earlier, this had its advantages and disadavantages.

Say I don't like Feats.  Or Skills.  Say I want to make the game a little simpler just for the sake of running it faster by eliminating or streamlining these.  In older editions that was easy to do.  You can't do that in 3E without throwing off everything.  Eliminate feats and you screw the fighters, change skills and you potentially screw the rogue.  

I know how to change game systems, I've been doing it for a decade.  I've found that the 3E, and the d20 system by association, is incapable of doing what I like to be done without completely overhauling everything, which I'm not willing to do.  It's not worth the effort.  There's better editions, and even better games, to be played.  

There is no better version of D&D than the Rules Cyclopedia.  It's simple, it's fun, and it's complete.  It lets the DM have all the power and lets everyone enjoy the game.  3E can't even touch it.  

[42]

Again, I agree with Mr. P. I don't like feeling that I'm just a computer for the PCs when I'm running a game. If fact, my opinion of PCs who expect the DM to do everything by the book, is that they are socially-maladjusted, insecure, whiny brats. That's a little harsh, but you get the idea.

I just want to have some freedom as the DM to participate with the players and not just be their babysitter to make sure they play nicely.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

See, i perceive most of the problems of being a "referee" as being a player/dm relation problem. Either the players haven't been told to expect major tweaks or they're not mature enough to handle them. In the first place, they should have been told. In the second, maybe I'm snobbish, but I'd rather not play than play with people like that. Which is why it's so hard to get a game together out here. I know 5 or 6 people who I can play with, because they'll adapt to and make adaptations to a game and not worry so much about balance so long as everyone gets a chance to shine. That's what's ideal to me. However, these half dozen people have trouble coordinating schedules. Rather than just get a random group together from the WotC store, I don't play and continue to try and get a game together with people I know will play for fun instead of munchkin.