D&D 3E/3.5 D&D 3e to be changed to new d20 rules? 4e coming!

[LostSoul]

The "road" was to make the changes that were necessary and keep the aspects of the game that made it great.

Do you agree that it could be possible to make changes to the rule set and still keep the aspects of the game that made it great?

 

[mmadsen]

Not at all. You just think that your way is "the road".

You'll pardon me if I don't see how using the rules introduced by other Wizards-of-the-Coast d20 products is "my way".

Since the release of Third Edition, WotC has moved toward a Vitality/Wounds system, Defense bonuses, and, most recently, armor as Damage Reduction. Some of those changes I endorse strongly, others not so strongly, but I don't see how bringing them into D&D is "my way".

"The road" they followed to get here was not morphing D&D into GURPS, as you seem to want.

You keep repeating that, but I'll have to assume you're not reading what I'm writing. I haven't yet advocated "morphing D&D into GURPS".

 

[LostSoul]

The only false dichotomy here is wackiness versus fun. Wackiness is not a problem.

Last week I was talking with one of my players - one who has played D&D for ten years - and at a certain point I told him that I saw another system that tried to fix the 'problems' with D&D. He asked, "What problems?".

This may be true for you and your friend. It is not true for everyone.

Considering that removing the wackiness would improve the game for some and would - most likely - not hurt the game for those who enjoyed the wackiness, why wouldn't you want to do this?

 

[Psion]

Since the release of Third Edition, WotC has moved toward a Vitality/Wounds system, Defense bonuses, and, most recently, armor as Damage Resistance.

They have done so for more modern and futuristic setting where such simulations are more important (side not: I don't find the move the VP/WP as antithetical to the feel of the game as I do DP, BID). Have they done one thing that suggests "you should try this for D&D? No, they have not.

So I don't know where you are getting "this is the way that they are going."

Some of those changes I endorse strongly, others not so strongly, but I don't see how bringing them into D&D is "my way".

I would think that would be obvious. Since you endorse it makes it your way.

You keep repeating that, but I'll have to assume you're not reading what I'm writing. I haven't yet advocated "morphing D&D into GURPS".

Oh? You seem to think that there is some compulsory reason that we have to go towards DR type armor for D&D. That's moving towards GURPS and its ilk of more simulationist games.

Why do I feel like I am amplifying the obvious here?

 

[Psion]

Do you agree that it could be possible to make changes to the rule set and still keep the aspects of the game that made it great?

That is pretty much how 3e was made, so obviously its possible. However the tacit assumption you appear to be making here, and I must disagree with, is that massive changes remain that will improve the game.

 

[Psion]

This may be true for you and your friend.

By the same token, most of the the flaws that you see are not bugs but features to many or most players. They mirror reflects both ways.

 

[eXodus]

style over substance

it was not the beautiful psychotic mechanics of shadowrun that made me want to play that game.

i never felt myself going: "i need a game that requires me to throw down several dozen d6s to accomplish practically any action from firing my ares predator, to driving my car, to surfing the net, to avoiding getting popped by some trolls assault rifle."

i like so many others played that game because it was a cool setting. fantasy crossed with gibson-esque dark cyberfuture. still takes me back.

is it the horrifically ugly and often times scary mechanics of white wolf products that make people eagerly snatch them up?

nope. it is because it is a neat packaging. a game where you can be a werewolf, a vampire, a mage, and other cool things.

the various editions of d&d are no different. sure, 3e is the best yet, but still it could be better. but people are playing it for the high-fantasy me-against-the-horde fun.

i for one do not think d&d needs the high-fatality, grim and gritty rules. perhaps another system is needed to accomplish this. as d&d is geared from ground up to be high-fantasy and heroic. to accomplish something akin to george r. r. martin's fantasy world of grim death and tragedy you could use a system like this.

but as d&d stands it just would require too much to get where you people want to go.

to paraphrase:

if you build it. they will come.

 

[LostSoul]

By the same token, most of the the flaws that you see are not bugs but features to many or most players. They mirror reflects both ways.

Possibly true. The flaws that I see - those things that spoil your suspension of disbelief - don't make much sense to me as features. I don't know why you would design a fantasy role playing game that specifically and intentionally challenged the suspension of disbelief.

 

[LostSoul]

That is pretty much how 3e was made, so obviously its possible. However the tacit assumption you appear to be making here, and I must disagree with, is that massive changes remain that will improve the game.

Our difference of opinion is that I assume "sacred cows" need not be held onto to maintain the "feel of the game".

My changes, by the way, would look something like this:
-Open up the classes, making them more customizable
-Keeping hit points, but offering more than one system (so that gritty games are possible)
-Offering different types of magic systems so that different types of campaign settings are possible
-Offering a campaign world that takes into account the way the game system actually works.

 

[Psion]

Our difference of opinion is that I assume "sacred cows" need not be held onto to maintain the "feel of the game".

That is a somewhat circular statement. If they have a desirable quality, e.g. they help produce a desirable feel in the game, then they are not by definition sacred cows... tehy are useful components.

My changes, by the way, would look something like this:
-Open up the classes, making them more customizable
-Keeping hit points, but offering more than one system (so that gritty games are possible)
-Offering different types of magic systems so that different types of campaign settings are possible
-Offering a campaign world that takes into account the way the game system actually works.

I see no problem with most of those. For one, you have phrased them as options. Hey, if people want to play a different game than I do, more power to them. It is when they want to drag me with them (frex, by forcing DR armor in a heroic fantasy setting) that I get a little irate.

Second, I don't see most of those as antithetical to the heroic fantasy feel. HP can be, but it doesn't have to be. (Actually, I used a system very like WP/VP in my 2e game. I just came to the conclusion that it wasn't worth the extra tracking.)