Café de Nuit

Book? I was actually ripping off this webcomic:

http://www.crfh.net/d/20050606.html

Reginald de Curry wrote:Book? I was actually ripping off this webcomic:

http://www.crfh.net/d/20050606.html

I mean the WWE D20 book. I saw a copy. It's got Kurt Angle and Bob Holly on the cover.

Speaking of Spell compediums . . .

BA-ACK HOME!



Just to leave another comment on 4th: I personally would like to see D&D develop abit further too... Basically, major D&D fanboys are still from the 80s and 90s... I'd like to see them publish a campaign setting for the current ruleset that grasps my interest, not just relaunches from old times... like RL obviously is.

*Good to be home!*

Well, Heres to being crucified..
3rd edition is a joke.
the idea of a 4th edition makes me laugh.
I have always been rather disappointed with the d20 system. Granted it is a great concept, integrating multiple games into one compatable system, but overall it isnt needed. Actually I think that was the d20 systems only justafiable strength. The only reason for me to buy any 3rd edition products was for that reason, and well, it really wasnt a good enough reason.
I have always been satisfied with 2nd edition due to the fact that it was a challange.
Feats are fun for about five minutes, after that, if your lucky You still know how to roleplay.
I'm sticking to my guns on the viewpoint that the d20 system was created for munchkins.
Now please, I'd like to request a blindfold...

Don't worry, you aren't the only one here to prefer 2nd edition.

However, I completely disagree with you. I never DMed a 2nd edition D&D game.
The system was lame. I have house-ruled anything (using the D&D of 1984 as a base) in a process that took me years. In the end I have came up with a system like the 3rd edition but far more complicated.

In hindsight I know what was so wrong (IMO) with 2nd edition. It wasn't the edition I have started with. I used to play D&D (the edition of 1984) with things stolen out of the 2nd edition until I got the 3rd edition PHB. That's why I was so fond of the 3rd edition, it fixed everything (or so it seemed at the time).
Yes, it is powergamer oriented, but that's in the player not in the DM. It isn't a problem of the 3rd edition but of the players that believe that by making the most powerful character to ever be, will have a great time.
And BTW some players really enjoy making the most powerful character to ever exist.

As for the 4th edition, you'll probably like it more than you think (even if not much). They'll probably bring back some things you valued in the 2nd edition, mix in things you like in the 3rd edition and add some interesting things that you have never thought of and they'll be good.

alhoon wrote:As for the 4th edition, you'll probably like it more than you think (even if not much). They'll probably bring back some things you valued in the 2nd edition, mix in things you like in the 3rd edition and add some interesting things that you have never thought of and they'll be good.

Yeah, this imagine of 4th ed. sounds well to me. And if it would be publish acc. to you above mentioned scheme I will be zestful.
On the other hand I´m affraid that this transformation (or better merging of systems) to bring even better one, will be terribly delayed because of switching rights between WotC and S&S.
How long will that take now to issue a brand new RL publication?

Well, If they could make 4th edition a conglomerate of the two that would be nice.
It is true though that I do favor 2nd edition as apposed to 3rd because that is where I started.
If they could take the simplicity of character creation, along with the initial customization of those characters, and mix that with the challenge of second edition, that would be great.
I think that the whole prestige class and feats aspect could definatley be toned down alot though. It just seemed like since the launch of third, everyone has been concentrating on making bigger and better prestige classses and bigger and better feats and it got to be like "whats the point"
I think that is why I only played 3rd edition for a couple years and let it just fade out from my interests.
Well back to the point, I do agree that it would be very interesting to see if they could pull of a good mix of the two systems.

I don't know. I found 2e to be far more restrictive. It had more flavour because there was more text devoted to it, but the rules were not consistant, anywhere near balanced, and punished you for playing anything other than a human. While 3e has problems it is easier to balance and design (and adjust) the rules for. It also allows player to make unique characters that the rules actually support and help DM's have a better idea as to what makes a proper challenge.

I'd rather have the customization of 3e taken further balance wise than go back to the cookie cutter methods of 2e.

I do see were your coming from, but I think that all the customization and all the additional add ons for characters made it easier to pay attention to the numbers presented on the character sheet, rather than promoting focus on roleplaying.
Granted 2nd edition was very "cookie cutter" but that helped promote better role playing by striving to make your character more unique through role playing.
I just see 3rd edition as a good intention gone bad through no moderation.

BigBadQDaddy wrote:I do see were your coming from, but I think that all the customization and all the additional add ons for characters made it easier to pay attention to the numbers presented on the character sheet, rather than promoting focus on roleplaying.
Granted 2nd edition was very "cookie cutter" but that helped promote better role playing by striving to make your character more unique through role playing.
I just see 3rd edition as a good intention gone bad through no moderation.

I found that it also meant that the system focused solely on combat. If you didn't fight, you didn't get experience, which is different from 3e. There was no way to become a real diplomat as there was no rules for social encounters. If the DM didn't want you to be able to convince the king that the army of darkness was coming, there was no way in hell that you could talk around him.

If there was some way to make sure DM's don't role for unnecessary stuff then roleplaying will win out every time. But roleplaying is dependant on the playstyle of all involved, not the system.

But roleplaying is dependant on the playstyle of all involved, not the system

I totally agree that roleplaying is dependent on the playstyle of those playing, but not entirely. I would say that about 98% is playstyle of those involved. I would place the remaining 2% in the system. That may seem like BS but there are definate philosephies involed in the general design of a game.
2nd edition may seem pretty slapdash in this aspect, but there is of course the underlying hack slash mentality. But included in the 2nd edition DMG there are rules for awarding XP for clever thinking and roleplaying. That is pretty much how I award experience in my games, due to my(sacrilege)Palladium system background.
Now when you consider involving virgin players, people interested, but whom have never played, I would definatley not recomend 3rd edition, due to its tendancy to lead to munchkin gaming. And I am a huge supporter of quality role players, not munchkins.
I will hand you this though, You have got me excited about 4th edition as a hopefull compromise of the two. It will be interesting to see what they end up doing.

I hear that a lot about X Edition being a joke and not comparing to the earlier Y edition. It’s the exact same stuff spouted by people back in ’87 when 2nd Edition came out. First edition AD&D was better, the rules were clearer, the feel of the game was superior, etc. There’s even a couple second-party games out there designed to mimic the ‘feel’ of the earlier editions (Hackmaster for example). Really, to each their own play whatever you enjoy more.
As for the “system X doesn’t let you roleplay much” or “system Y emphasizes combat”, quite frankly you don’t need to buy a single book to RP. You can RP with a character written up on a cocktail napkin and go strictly into shared storytelling where all success and failure is determined by the GM.
On the other hand, if you don’t trust your GM to do that and want to hedge your bets with some harder rules then you may want some books to describe the outcome of combat, spells, natural disasters, accidents and, yes, even diplomacy and social situations.

Personally I flip-flopped for a while on which edition I liked more but in the end 3E won out due to the more logical and consistent nature of the rules while 2E kept going back to strange arbitrary rules that had been the same since the ‘70s and the earliest versions of RPGs. Things like: AC getting better as it gets lower, THAC0, stats that only go up to 25 and percentile strength, racial level limits, racial class limits, how some classes and races were simply more powerful than others, core classes with pre-requs, a skill system where lower was better, heck the entire ‘optional and add-on’ feel to the proficiency system, the difficulty in determining the toughness of monsters, etc. All these throw-backs to when game designers didn’t know better that should have been dumped back in ’87 if they weren’t more into adding new rules than changing them, especially after the boom of alternate systems that showed there were easier and simpler ways to game.

If you want to discourage munchkin gaming at all stay away from D&D. Still to systems that don’t give out loot (some Palladium games despite it’s equally wonky game-system that needs balancing and a new edition, or White Wolf’s WoD lines) or simply go for shared storytelling. However, if you DM carefully and emphasis the character and story it doesn’t matter what game you play or what edition. I’ve played a 3E game that was a grind-fest and pen-n-paper version of a MMORPG where the characters just farmed xp and gold and essentially spawn camped (and this was with a group that’d never played 3E before but had just come out of a lengthy equally monty haul 2E game or two). I’ve also played a game with a new player in Ravenloft where they made it to 5th level without a single new item or magic toy and didn’t even think about power gaming.

I like that in 3E I can customize my character so there is some in-game benefit to whatever background or customization I make rather than go to a whole lot of effort to make him unique only to have him play exactly like every other character with the same class/race combo. I like the CR xp system and how it applies equally to monsters, traps, situations and how you get the xp for defeating a monster of X CR whether you kill it or deal with it through peaceful RPing. I like how rolling a 20 is always good and a 1 is always bad. I like how my half-elf ranger isn’t automatically a wimp because we have a human pally in the group (well, at least not in 3.5…). I like how there’s not strange limit to stats, armour class and the like.

There are problems with the game still. HUGE problems that should be resolved in 4E but nothing so big that it can’t wait. And as much as I don’t like WotC’s current uber-magic feel and how every NPC has to be strange and unique and different (are there any humans left anywhere??) that’s all cosmetic. I want a game that plays well as a game, rules that are fair and balanced and a system that prepares for any conceivable situation.

You definatley have many good points, and I definatley like the versitility of leveling up in 3rd edition, at least you are noy penalized for changing classes anymore.[/i]

I definatley give 2nd a home field advantage though. It always feels more familiar, were 3rd never really took with me. It always felt too out there. Mybe it just seemed too High Fantasy for a basic rule set. Sadly enough i thought it took alot of imagination away from the players. One thinhg I always appreciated in 2nd edition, was coming up with new idea's. Now new idea's are published every month, and the creativity just wanes from me.
I guess that is a personal problem. But that is one of the many reasons I stick to second. Maybe it is the feeling of an incomplete game that allows me to thrive creativley.