Post/Author/DateTime	Post
SwinginDick 11-05-05, 11:56 AM	Folks, I'm sure this question has been posted about 1E6 times, but I can't find a good discussion regarding it, so here goes (maybe this should be a sticky post?): I'm an old-school D&D guy, I cut my teeth on the 1981 Basic/Expert set (still have my manuals, dice, modules, etc.). I'm also now a father of two boys who want to learn the game. I've been away from the game since the early '80s and I'm now coming up to speed on the history up to today. So I'm hip to how we got to 3.5E but that's where my questions start: 1. What makes the current ruleset "better" vis a vis the 1981 "basic" game? Is it "better" or just "different" or is the question itself not even the right one to ask? 2. Is it worth teaching my boys the original rules, then moving on to the new ones? Stick with the old rules? Or skip the old rules entirely and get with the new program? Or does it even matter? 3. Are the new rules make the game easier (read: more enjoyable, less technical) for the players, DMs, both? 4. A very specific question - I have the 3.0E "Adventure Game" (I think this is the equivalent of my old "Basic Set") and it is played on a dungeon map with tokens. Is this the standard way 3.5E is played? The players are no longer mapping as part of their activities? I really appreciate any input from anyone. Thanks. -SwinginDick
Endarire 11-05-05, 12:31 PM	1. What makes the current ruleset "better" vis a vis the 1981 "basic" game? Is it "better" or just "different" or is the question itself not even the right one to ask? The "betterness," in my opinion, is the inclusion of rules in the core set, such as for nonlethal damage and grappling, that required house rules in past versions. What you believe is better is a matter of opinion. 2. Is it worth teaching my boys the original rules, then moving on to the new ones? Stick with the old rules? Or skip the old rules entirely and get with the new program? Or does it even matter? If you started from first edition, they would probably be confused by things such as, "Why can't dwarves be wizards," "What's with all these different experience tables," and, if you persisted, "Please, not the Tomb of Horrors!" Still, old modules can be updated. 3. Are the new rules make the game easier (read: more enjoyable, less technical) for the players, DMs, both? I am not sure about less technical, but I find that my +2 greatsword doing no damage against a foe when a +3 dagger does to be nonsensical. The rules are more complete, but perhaps a bit easier because of the same experience tables for everybody. 4. A very specific question - I have the 3.0E "Adventure Game" (I think this is the equivalent of my old "Basic Set") and it is played on a dungeon map with tokens. Is this the standard way 3.5E is played? The players are no longer mapping as part of their activities?This is not the default from my experience, but the adventure game is meant to introduce players and DMs to the concepts of grids, maps, miniatures, attacks of opportunity, and counting squares. You are welcome to have the players map everything, but the adventure set makes everything graphically prettier. For their first game, using the premade map is probably best. -EE
Attila 11-05-05, 01:42 PM	I started with the 1981 Basic Set as well and have played AD&D, 2E, and 3E (3.5) so that's where I'm coming from. 1) The new ruleset is based on a different philosophy. Basic D&D is big picture, tell a story. 3.5 is about details and rule mechanics. Basic D&D went on the idea that less is more and the DM used his judgement quite a bit. 3.5 is a very tight ruleset with a rule for just about everything. It makes the game more consistent but also adds quite a bit of recordkeeping. 2) I recommend teaching them Basic D&D. I think they would find it more enjoyable because they can start playing right away and very quickly get into storyline (the purpose of the game) without spending a lot of time creating characters and learning lots of rules. 3) The new rules are much more technical*. They can pose an enormous workload on the DM. Players can have fun customizing their characters, but it does take time to put them together. *Like comparing Risk to Advanced Squad Leader. 4) Not that familiar with the 3.0 adventure game but 3.5 is played just like basic D&D just with different rules (ie. imagination, pencil, paper and minatures only if you want them)
rogueattorney 11-05-05, 02:17 PM	1. What makes the current ruleset "better" vis a vis the 1981 "basic" game? Is it "better" or just "different" or is the question itself not even the right one to ask The differences between the rules are just so significant that you might as well be asking whether Monopoly is better than Risk. Any answer you get is going to be nothing more than opinion. The games were not even made for the same audience of gamer, as the 3.x ruleset is pretty heavily targetted towards the hard-core, while the 1981 Basic/Expert rules were targetted towards the more casual gamer. 2. Is it worth teaching my boys the original rules, then moving on to the new ones? Stick with the old rules? Or skip the old rules entirely and get with the new program? Or does it even matter? If you are looking for a similar experience to the one that you had playing the older rules, play with the older rules. The new game is different and it plays differently. Frankly, I think the 3.x rules are an awful rule set to teach new gamers and if I were going to start some youngish kids on an in-print game 3.x wouldn't be it. (Castles & Crusades or the new edition of Tunnels & Trolls would both be a better choice.) I know there are some here that will vociferously disagree with me on that point. 3. Are the new rules make the game easier (read: more enjoyable, less technical) for the players, DMs, both? You'll get a pretty big argument on most of this, although I don't think there's much question that the new rules have made the game quite a bit more technical. Personally, I think the new rules place a much heavier burden on the DMs. 4. A very specific question - I have the 3.0E "Adventure Game" (I think this is the equivalent of my old "Basic Set") and it is played on a dungeon map with tokens. Is this the standard way 3.5E is played? The players are no longer mapping as part of their activities By the 3.5e book, people are supposed to be playing with mini's (or counters) and battleboards. Many, many, many do not, but the books assume that players do. The converse is true of the 1981 Basic rules. The books assume that you aren't using mini's and a battleboard, but it certainly can be played that way. R.A.
weasel fierce 11-05-05, 02:18 PM	The basic / expert D&D is in my opinion, the best, simplest, most enjoyable and least bloated version. I dont really want to get into an "edition war", but basically its the choice between a light, fast game designed for improvisation and interpretation, or a heavy, comprehensive system designed as an inflexible entity, with rules for virtually everything. For kids, I cant really recommend D20, due to the high amount of number crunching involved.
BladeDrinker 11-05-05, 02:55 PM	d20 (3/3.5E) requires more of an initial investment of time to learn the game than older editions did. The benefit is a more versatile system when you have a basic system of rules than can be used for anything. That is, in older editions if a character wanted to jump, grab a chandelier, swing over the orcs in the front line and then drop down and attack the orc shaman in back the DM would probably have to make up a ruling. In 3E, you just require a jump and then tumble check with a high DC. If your boys are very young or don't have the patience to learn 3.5, then the Basic system is best because you already know how to play. If they are really interested in learning how to play and have a lot of time on their hands, then d20 might be better because they can play it with friends too. Technically you could play Basic with your friends too, but good luck finding young gamers who are interested in playing it. The best advice is to learn d20 yourself, then play a couple of games in each edition with your chilluns and find out which your kids like best, rather than settling on what some losers on a message board want you to play. Weasel_Fierce, I don't think children have a hard time picking up d20. The ones I have seen learn faster than most adults do, and the more open options in races, classes, and stuff like psionics lets them play the outlandish characters they often prefer to the boring base classes I usually stick to. Of course, you may want to restrict them to the base classes, but thats another discussion . . .
a_psh 11-05-05, 02:59 PM	I game D&D 3.5e exclusively. I prefer it vastly to all other games (and, really, different editions other than the near-identical 3.0 are totally different games). I like the broad set of rules and the internal consistency. I'm going to suggest you use the old-school stuff, though, as it sounds like you want something that both resembles your old gaming experiences and lets them hit the ground running. 3.5e works better for roleplaying (my explanation of this is a bit too technical and overlong to post here; suffice it to say, I think having rules to support all kinds of different things builds immersion and whatnot; also, I see 3.x as having less, well, "dungeon" in it than before, and that appeals to me) and wargaming (more balanced and more technical than in the past), I think, but if you want the same humor, the same feeling of adventure, the same thrill that you got from playing the game back in 1981, play the game you played back in 1981! No others will be exactly the same (though no two gaming experiences under the same system are the same, too, so be prepared to adapt to your players' tastes, and adapt quickly, of course), and, honestly, d20-based D&D is a completely different game with a very different focus. If you want the old-school feel or anything like it, go straight for the old-school game.
MerricB 11-05-05, 03:31 PM	1. What makes the current ruleset "better" vis a vis the 1981 "basic" game? Is it "better" or just "different" or is the question itself not even the right one to ask? Different, rather than better. The 1981 Moldvay Basic set is as close to perfect as D&D ever got. What 3e opens up are options. The basic system is elegant, although some find all the possibilities overwhelming once they start going. 2. Is it worth teaching my boys the original rules, then moving on to the new ones? Stick with the old rules? Or skip the old rules entirely and get with the new program? Or does it even matter? It matters. There's a very good reason to teach the new rules rather than the old: they are the current rules. Thus, if your boys get their friends interested in the game, their frends will be able to buy copies of the rules. There's nothing more frustrating than wanting to get a new book or adventure, only to find that the game you play isn't supported any more. 3. Are the new rules make the game easier (read: more enjoyable, less technical) for the players, DMs, both? Yes in some areas, no in others. The very basic aspect of the game, task resolution, is much, much simpler than earlier editions. You roll 1d20, add your character's modifier, and compare to the target number to see if you succeed. And that's for *everything*. Thief skills, combat, opening doors, diplomacy checks, etc. Character generation is more complex than Moldvay Basic, mainly because of those extra options. The two added areas are Feats (specialisations) and Skills. Neither are really that difficult. The other aspect is combat. It assumes the use of miniatures and a battlegrid, which isn't a problem, but there is one rule, the "attack of opportunity" that some people can find confusing. I've never found it so, but I know people have. The 3.5e Basic Game (and the 3e Adventure Game) eliminate the Attack of Opportunity rule for simplicity. Instead, they say that if you're adjacent to someone, you can't cast a spell or fire a ranged weapon. 4. A very specific question - I have the 3.0E "Adventure Game" (I think this is the equivalent of my old "Basic Set") and it is played on a dungeon map with tokens. Is this the standard way 3.5E is played? The players are no longer mapping as part of their activities? It varies. In actual fact, player mapping went out during the 90s for many groups. In my groups, the players need to map most of the time. The introductory games (the 3e Adventure Game and the 3.5e Basic Game) use predrawn maps to simplify that area of the game. I've got a webpage describing the contents of the 3.5e Basic Game (http://www.3rdedition.org/merricb/basicset.htm) if you'd like more information on it. Cheers!
Waterhammer 11-05-05, 05:08 PM	If you like to multi-class 3.5 is the only way to go.
StormCrow42 11-05-05, 08:09 PM	If you like to multi-class 3.5 is the only way to go. Unless of course you just want to play a figher/magic-user. Then you just need to play an elf :D As for which is better to teach to kids, that's a good question. I picked up D&D in middle school with the red and blue boxed sets and didn't find the rules very difficult (the limited number of options makes it easy to get started without too much effort). I agree that it's probably better to just start with 3.5 though, the books are currently available so their friends can get in on the fun. The mechanics are simple, with the d20+mods being used for everything, you may just need to help out a bit with character creation to get around the greater number of options in the beginning (of course sticking with the iconic characters and kits suggested at the end of each class section can be helpful for a quick start). I'm not a big fan of teaching both editions, that just leads to confusion as to which rules you're playing with currently. I know several people who still mix up old 3.0 rules that have changed in 3.5, or rules for the D&D minis game that work differently in regular D&D. If you pick 3.5, stick with just the three core books for a while, there's no real reason to branch out until you've got everything down.
Bullgrit 11-06-05, 08:19 AM	If you were going to get your boys into computers, would you start by teaching them on the Comadore 64 or on a modern PC? Seriously. There was a lot of fun to be had on/with the C-64 back in the 80s, but computers and people have progressed since then. And I hear/read the same complaints about updated D&D as I hear/read about updated computers. Some people complain about the number of rules in modern D&D. But the thing about it is, in previous editions, if a Player ever wanted to grapple or bullrush or trip or disarm an opponent, the DM had to come up with some kind of rule for the action. Now the rules already include rules for such actions (that match the core mechanic). A group may never see a bullrush or disarm action in their entire campaign, but if it does ever come up, they have set rules for handling it without anyone having to stop the game and figure something out. Take the current edition, strip out skills and feats, and you essentially have AD&D. Then strip out many of the classes down to fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard, and strip out the races other than human, elf, dwarf, and halfling, then you essentially have BD&D. Bullgrit
SwinginDick 11-06-05, 09:03 AM	Folks, THANKS for the opinions and guidance. You have all been extremely entertaining, though-provoking and helpful. I espcially like Bullgrit's last comment: If you were going to get your boys into computers, would you start by teaching them on the Comadore 64 or on a modern PC? Seriously. You are right on, but I must admit that I've been steeping them in the old-school video game consoles (Nintendo, Atari 2600/7800/Jaguar, Colecovision) etc, for a couple of reasons: I think that in many (but not all) cases the gameplay is more engaging since there is less focus on wowing the player with immersive graphics. I think it is key to know your roots, if only in passing, so you recognize that everything old is new again. That said, last night we had a bunch of friends and their boys over. The boys begged me to play D&D and so I figured I'd try the new 3.0E Adventure Game on them. It was a total success! Everyone (including me) had a great time, and that is what it is supposed to be all about, right? I will say that the new rules make things much easier, especially the combat rules (I like the fact that I don't have to refer to AC and "to hit" tables constantly). But I can see that they are also somewhat limiting in the way that you all have mentioned - every situation is pretty much defined so the DM has less creative control (if you look at it that way). So, I have conflicting emotions about the new rules. They do make things easier, but it almost feels like we've (DMs especially) "given up" and traded richness/opportunity/creativity for ease of gameplay and standardization. On the other hand, any ruleset that can keep fidgety 5- and 6-year old boys engaged for an hour and a half is a good thing. They even took the whole "getting killed" thing in stride and were encouraging the remaining members of the party after their own characters had died - great team spirit. And they are now STILL begging me to play. Well, this is going to be an ongoing thing for me. I am starting to come to realization that my situation is a lot like a car enthusiast, or as Bullgrit put, a computer hobbyist. The modern cars/computers are more refined, more powerful, streamlined, reliable, efficient, etc. And that's good, that is what you want for your meat and potatoes. But there is always a place for the history of your favorite car or platform (or RPG) and especially the origins of it; that original idea in it's purest (?) but flawed form that kicked the whole thing off. You probably won't drive your '65 Mustang everyday, but you cherish it for what it is and tried to be. And every now and then you take it for a drive and realize that while it is far from perfect, it represented somebody aiming pretty high and creating something really special. I think that is why I'm clinging to the old ruleset more than I probably should - not necessarily because I don't want to get with the new rules or becuase I hate change, blah, blah , blah, but because the old rules represent what the game could have been, or was supposed to be(?). 3.5E is where we ended up, and I know we aren't done (and kudos to WOC folks for their philosophy - I am a huge proponent of Open Source) but it has gotten so slick and somewhat pre-digested that (for me) the wide-open appeal of the old game is dimished somewhat. I have to admit that DMing last night felt somewhat like turning the crank more than "creating" a story, but it is very early in my 3.5E experience, so I will be patient. My feelings ... Confusing? Yep. Conflicting? You bet. But very cool. I am having a blast with my boys and with myself as I figure this all out. I'd love to keep this thread/discussion going as I love hearing all these opinions and reflecting on observations made by others. -SwinginDick Like Tempest? Check out www.chaosreins.com (http://www.chaosreins.com) for my spinner controllers for the Atari Jaguar.
Gilean 11-06-05, 10:28 AM	They do make things easier, but it almost feels like we've (DMs especially) "given up" and traded richness/opportunity/creativity for ease of gameplay and standardization.GMs are not appreciated. 3rd edtion D&D (I don't know about former) is very player-centric. They know everything and have it pretty easy. Resurrection is too easy. Magical toys are everywhere. Might suit kids. I don't know.
Novacat 11-06-05, 11:56 AM	1. What makes the current ruleset "better" vis a vis the 1981 "basic" game? Is it "better" or just "different" or is the question itself not even the right one to ask? I learned to play on 3.5 (though I have played one session of D&D Basic), so these are mostly gathered from what I've heard. The rules of 3.5 cover a great deal more possibilities that older editions. However, while being more expansive, the rules are highly streamlined. Once a player is familiar with the nature of 3.5 rules, tables and charts need rarely be consulted. 2. Is it worth teaching my boys the original rules, then moving on to the new ones? Stick with the old rules? Or skip the old rules entirely and get with the new program? Or does it even matter? It would be utterly confusing to teach multiple rulesets. You should choose one and stick with it. Personally, I would highly suggest 3.5 over basic, as the newer system is not only more expansive, allowing the player almost limitless options, but it makes much more sense in the ways of logic. 3. Are the new rules make the game easier (read: more enjoyable, less technical) for the players, DMs, both? As stated above, the new rules are streamlined and specifically designed to require as little book-consultation as possible. As far as learning them, I wouldn't be able to compare newer versions with older ones due to lack of experience, but 3.5 is very easy to learn, especially if you play with someone who knows how to play. 4. A very specific question - I have the 3.0E "Adventure Game" (I think this is the equivalent of my old "Basic Set") and it is played on a dungeon map with tokens. Is this the standard way 3.5E is played? The players are no longer mapping as part of their activities? I've never heard of tokens. Your old adventure set won't be compatible with the newer rules, but dungeon maps are still the standard way to go. Generally speaking, the DM has his own map, and the players make their own as they discover new areas.[/QUOTE]
Bullgrit 11-06-05, 12:44 PM	First: Glad you had fun. But I can see that they are also somewhat limiting in the way that you all have mentioned - every situation is pretty much defined so the DM has less creative control (if you look at it that way).Mechanics are defined, and that's all. There's a crystal orb on a pedastal in the middle of a chamber. What is it? The magic item crystal ball (with defined powers, just like in every other edition of the game)? A trap absorbing the souls of those who approach? The key for opening a portal later in the dungeon? The "cork" holding a terrible demon at bay? What happens when the PCs approach, touch, pick up, carry away this item? Just because the game mecahnics are well defined, doesn't mean a DM's creativity, imagination, etc. is restricted in any way. The boys you are introducing to the game right now are experiencing this mystery and wonder for the first time. A +1 sword will be as wonderous and cool when they first find one as it was when you first found one -- and they work exactly the same way in all editions, and they were just as well defined in all editions (although in BD&D they were listed right in the main book for Players to see, and now they're listed in the DMG where Players shouldn't be looking). it almost feels like we've (DMs especially) "given up" and traded richness/opportunity/creativity for ease of gameplay and standardization.What richness/opportunity/creativity has been lost? The PCs enter a room with 4 beastial-looking humanoids with armor and axes. What's the difference in experience between a BD&D orc and a D&D3 orc? From the new Players view point, the experience is the same. But, now, those orcs may not just be 1 HD monsters -- they may be 3rd level barbarians. So in fact, the DM is given more tools/options for richness/opportunity/creativity. it has gotten so slick and somewhat pre-digested that (for me) the wide-open appeal of the old game is dimished somewhat.Well, realize that BD&D was slick for 1981. It had to be to attract attention and bring in and keep players. Each edition has been updated in look and appeal to look slick and cool to the relevant generation of gamer. BD&D and AD&D were updated from OD&D, with more rules, better written and designed rules, and using better packaging (cover art and illustrations). D&D3 did the same with BD&D and AD&D. But the wide-open options for adventure and campaigning is the same. Just like your car analogy -- even old/classic cars were originally designed and built to be slick and cool for their time. Love the old/classic stuff, but don't let nostalgia turn you bitter for the new stuff. Just like new D&D players shouldn't be dismissive and condescending of their game's forerunners. In 20 years, your sons and their friends will look back on D&D3 with the same nostalgia and love that you look back on BD&D. Remember, BD&D wasn't the first, and D&D3 probably won't be the last. Bullgrit
Attila 11-06-05, 01:57 PM	Some people complain about the number of rules in modern D&D. But the thing about it is, in previous editions, if a Player ever wanted to grapple or bullrush or trip or disarm an opponent, the DM had to come up with some kind of rule for the action. Now the rules already include rules for such actions (that match the core mechanic). A group may never see a bullrush or disarm action in their entire campaign, but if it does ever come up, they have set rules for handling it without anyone having to stop the game and figure something out. The theory is good but in practice it doesn't work that way, in my experience. If something came up like that in BD&D the DM would instantly make a ruling as to how it would be handled. In 3.5 the game stops as everyone cracks their books and starts searching for the appropriate rule or rules. Once the rules are tracked down everyone starts arguing over how to interpret them and how they should apply. 15 minutes later a decision is reached (just to get the game moving) and everyone vows to research the rules more. The abundance of FAQs and serial columns covering rules questions on this website is testament to this. I think that is why I'm clinging to the old ruleset more than I probably should - not necessarily because I don't want to get with the new rules or becuase I hate change, blah, blah , blah............................... My feelings ... Confusing? Yep. Conflicting? You bet. But very cool. I am having a blast with my boys and with myself as I figure this all out. Your feelings are shared by many that started with the early editions. They apply not just to D&D but to many things in life. People have to find the level of perfection that best matches their needs and wants. An appropriate analogy would be comparing an SUV to a sports car. Both are the result of trade offs. They're different but neither is really better than the other. It just depends on what you want. choice between a light, fast game designed for improvisation and interpretation, or a heavy, comprehensive system designed as an inflexible entity, with rules for virtually everything. I have to admit that DMing last night felt somewhat like turning the crank more than "creating" a story... These two comments capture the differences between the games quite well.
weasel fierce 11-06-05, 02:25 PM	Well, if you want to teach them a modern roleplaying game, then D&D is a pretty poor choice, given that its still grounded in conventions and assumptions that were considered "new" in 1974. ;)
Bullgrit 11-06-05, 02:30 PM	The theory is good but in practice it doesn't work that way, in my experience. If something came up like that in BD&D the DM would instantly make a ruling as to how it would be handled. In 3.5 the game stops as everyone cracks their books and starts searching for the appropriate rule or rules. Once the rules are tracked down everyone starts arguing over how to interpret them and how they should apply. 15 minutes later a decision is reached (just to get the game moving) and everyone vows to research the rules more. The abundance of FAQs and serial columns covering rules questions on this website is testament to this. This complaint is purely theoritical itself. I've not seen this happen in any of the D&D3 games I've played in. If a DM needs to look the rule up, it doesn't take any longer than if he had to think and make up the rule on the spot. (And at least he has the option of knowing the rule before the situation comes up, and so probably doesn't even need to look it up, anyway.) And Players who would argue over interpretation or application would also argue over the DM's "whole clothe" creation. A bad Player is a bad Player, and can screw up the fun for any edition and any game. If the Players in your game are like this, I suggest getting new Players or reminding them the duty, responsibility, and power of the DM. Previous editions had FAQs and columns explaining the rules and straightening out problems with them, too, for many years before D&D3. The Sage Advice column dates back to OD&D. (I've played this game for 25+ years, so I do know what I'm talking about.) And I don't think SwinginDick wanted this thread to be turned into an edition war, as silly as they are. I have to admit that DMing last night felt somewhat like turning the crank more than "creating" a story...It was the first game session. How much "creating a story" did you do in your first game of BD&D in 1981? Hell, how much "creating a story" did you do in your first year of BD&D? If you were like me, you were just playing a really fun game of dungeon delving and monster hacking, not trying to create a story. Bullgrit
Bullgrit 11-06-05, 02:31 PM	Well, if you want to teach them a modern roleplaying game, then D&D is a pretty poor choice, given that its still grounded in conventions and assumptions that were considered "new" in 1974.Well, it doesn't seem that he's wanting to teach them RPGs in general, but rather introduce them to D&D specifically. And you can't beat D&D for the D&D experience :-) Bullgrit
Majorafire77 11-06-05, 02:51 PM	The theory is good but in practice it doesn't work that way, in my experience. If something came up like that in BD&D the DM would instantly make a ruling as to how it would be handled. In 3.5 the game stops as everyone cracks their books and starts searching for the appropriate rule or rules. Once the rules are tracked down everyone starts arguing over how to interpret them and how they should apply. 15 minutes later a decision is reached (just to get the game moving) and everyone vows to research the rules more. The abundance of FAQs and serial columns covering rules questions on this website is testament to this. There's absolutely nothing preventing you from making up a rule with 3.5 either. If you really wanted, you could simply streamline the combat system to the basic things that make it tick and then come up with rulings on the spot for things like bull rushes just like you could in BD&D. The only difference between 3.5 and BD&D in that regard is that it's defined in the book for those who want consistent rules for bull rushes, which makes perfect sense. Anything presented in any of the books is optional for the DM. That's what we have house rules for. If you don't like the way it's put in a book, then you change it, no problem. If you don't like how 3.5e inhibits roleplaying to an extent because of skills like Diplomacy, Bluff, and Sense Motive then there's absolutely nothing stopping you from taking them out. A rules system is just like a campaign setting, you can take what you want, throw out what you dislike, and add stuff as you see fit.
weasel fierce 11-06-05, 03:28 PM	A system should certainly be modified to fit what you want. The question is, whether something else already does what you want. Changing 3.x to be B/X D&D is counter intuitive when B/X D&D already exists. There is of course Castles & Crusades, which takes the basic principles of D20, and applies them in a thoroughly old school manner, to the point of being compatible with AD&D and oD&D adventures. Well worth checking out.
Attila 11-06-05, 03:44 PM	We seem to be in a time warp here. This whole topic is a throughback to 20+ years ago when people asked the question "should I play Basic D&D or AD&D?" The answer now is the same as it was then.
a_psh 11-06-05, 08:17 PM	GMs are not appreciated. 3rd edtion D&D (I don't know about former) is very player-centric. They know everything and have it pretty easy. Resurrection is too easy. Magical toys are everywhere. Might suit kids. I don't know. I run Eberron. Resurrection is hard. Minor magic is abolutely everywhere but high-powered toys are rare and special. And the group definitely does appreciate me. That said, yes, 3.x is player-centric. That's the way it should be. There is one DM but, typically, 4+ players, after all. The players should be the ones driving the story and taking up most of the decision-making time in battle. I'm a DM 98% of the time, but I really do like the focus on players.
SwinginDick 11-06-05, 08:34 PM	And I don't think SwinginDick wanted this thread to be turned into an edition war, as silly as they are. Right on - I'm really looking to see how others have dealt with this same situation. I'm the first one to say that at this point, it isn't really a question of "better" at all. It was the first game session. How much "creating a story" did you do in your first game of BD&D in 1981? Hell, how much "creating a story" did you do in your first year of BD&D? If you were like me, you were just playing a really fun game of dungeon delving and monster hacking, not trying to create a story. Point taken. :-) -SwinginDick
MerricB 11-06-05, 09:05 PM	I introduced a young girl to D&D through the 1981 Moldvay set, but I quickly changed to 3.5e. It wasn't worth cutting her off from the current games for the sake of a (slightly) better introductory set. Cheers!
ElectricElf 11-06-05, 10:21 PM	I don't know about the differences between the '81 version and 3.5, but as a relatively new gamer I find it fun to play 3.5. (Most of my group does heavy roleplaying, light battle) The one problem is that the expansion books do not say if they are printed in 3.0 or 3.5 format. If you like to roleplay with rules set in stone then go 3.5.
StormCrow42 11-06-05, 11:26 PM	There are a few simple guidelines to determining if books are 3.0 or 3.5. The most reliable is to check the copyright/printing date, anything after July 2003 (when the 3.5 PHB was published) is 3.5 material. There are no 3.5 "splatbooks" that are softcovered. The "Complete" and "Races" series are 3.5, as are the "environmental" series. Fiend Folio and MM 2 are both 3.0 books with full 3.5 conversion books available on the Wizards site.
WizO_Cat 11-06-05, 11:42 PM	Really, I'm in the process of introducing my wife t the game at the present time. My plan of introduction is as follows: Moldavy Set -> Basic 3.5 Set -> 3.5 D&D The reason is that (a) I wanted my wife to get an understanding of how the old rules were and (b) I have some modules that I wanted to run her through with the Moldavy set. Personally, I don't think that there is a "wrong" way to introduce a new player - just what the goal is when you introduce them. I really like all editions myself.
Bullgrit 11-06-05, 11:53 PM	What of the current full edition is actually included in the current basic edition? Can a Player take a character from a current basic edition game into (upgrade) a current full edition game? I can think of several ways to make the current full edition simpler for a current basic-style game by just removing some classes and races, and reducing the feat and spell selections to just the low-level stuff. I wonder if the current basic edition did like this. Bullgrit
SwinginDick 11-07-05, 07:21 AM	I haven't seen the 3.5 Basic Set, but the 3.0 Adventure Game has pre-rolled (I think they're called "iconic") characters that are pre-equipped and have all their spells, and six "adventures" that are supposed to get these PCs to 3rd level. There is a small selection of spells, magic items and stuff to buy. There is also a very limited population of monsters and that's about it. Very manageable. The only thing that I really don't like about this set is that there is absolutely no mention of how you'd roll up a character of your own. We have to use the pre-rolled PCs (unless I buy the Player's Handbook) and I think this is one of the reasons why it feels more like a board game than an RPG. Well, that and the whole printed dungeon map/token thing. -SwininDick
a_psh 11-07-05, 10:49 AM	choice between a light, fast game designed for improvisation and interpretation, or a heavy, comprehensive system designed as an inflexible entity, with rules for virtually everything. I have to admit that DMing last night felt somewhat like turning the crank more than "creating" a story... These two comments capture the differences between the games quite well. You'll note that he was talking about running the 3e Adventure Game here. One should not jump to over-broad conclusions about a system based on something that is, very much, designed to be at least 50% crank-turning to get people going.
Aliquid 11-07-05, 04:35 PM	What of the current full edition is actually included in the current basic edition? Can a Player take a character from a current basic edition game into (upgrade) a current full edition game?I was under the impression that this is the case, but I am not sure. I can think of several ways to make the current full edition simpler for a current basic-style game by just removing some classes and races, and reducing the feat and spell selections to just the low-level stuff.I agree that making a simplified version of the rules wouldn't be too complicated. Furthermore, it should be easy to make simplified rules that can easily be "upgraded" to the standard 3.5. It's more than removing classes and races though, and only including "low level" stuff. There was more than just low level stuff in the 1980s D&D, it could take characters from 1st level right up to "epic" levels. I think the progression for the "box sets" was Basic, Expert, Companion, Masters, Immortal. The Basic/Expert/etc rules were sold at the same time as AD&D 1st edition (they hit the market within months of each other), and the Basic D&D rules were still on the market when AD&D 2nd edition came out. Many people deliberately bought the Basic sets instead of buying AD&D. Why? Not because they wanted to play low level, and not because they wanted less choices, but because they wanted a simple streamlined set of rules. For 3.5, I think it would be more important to make the actual rules simpler (as opposed to removing classes and races etc). For example: remove attack of opportunity rules; remove flanking rules; remove “flat footed” rules; simplify the Action type rules (standard action vs full round action vs free action etc)....
Habronicus 11-07-05, 05:36 PM	First of all, I'd like to point out that I haven't read any of the previous replies yet, as I don't want to be influenced in my reply. Furthermore, as a frame of reference, I've been playing RPGs since 1992 (as a player), starting with a friend's homebrew system, and became a GM a year later (1993) also with a homebrew system of my own creation, but eventually moved to the 1984 "Red Box", and later AD&D 2nd Edition, as well as many other "non-D&D" systems. That being said... 1. What makes the current ruleset "better" vis a vis the 1981 "basic" game? Is it "better" or just "different" or is the question itself not even the right one to ask? It's a bit like asking "Is D&D better than World of Darkness?" They're very different systems and the "best" really is subjective. My suggestion, for any gamer (new or experienced) is to try them all and stick with the one that feels more confortable to the playing group (if the group is evenly divided, the GM should get "final vote" since he's the one who has to moderate the game anyway). 2. Is it worth teaching my boys the original rules, then moving on to the new ones? Stick with the old rules? Or skip the old rules entirely and get with the new program? Or does it even matter? Depends on their intentions. If they want to get some sort of "history lesson" and learn how the hobby started, it would be beneficial to start with the old rules and then go from there. However, if they don't care about that at all and simply want to maintain a gaming habit, the current rules have support and new stuff is being released for them, so it's the natural choice. Ideally, though, they should try a little of everything so they can make a more informed decision. In short, yes, it does matter. 3. Are the new rules make the game easier (read: more enjoyable, less technical) for the players, DMs, both? Again, it depends. The new rules are definitely MORE technical, but that can be a good or bad thing depending on how the players deal with technicalities. Likewise, the old rules are more open to interpretation, which allows for more freedom of choice (especially to the GM), but it can be bad when you get players who argue the GM's decision frequently. 4. A very specific question - I have the 3.0E "Adventure Game" (I think this is the equivalent of my old "Basic Set") and it is played on a dungeon map with tokens. Is this the standard way 3.5E is played? The players are no longer mapping as part of their activities? I don't find the 3.0 "Adventure" to be any indication of what a 3.5 game really is, so my answer would be "no". But, regarding "mapping", it's optional. In fact, I never understood it as a "mandatory" activity even in the old rules. I suggest you try and propose the activity to your players... if they like it, keep it. If not, skip it.
Ebenezer 11-07-05, 06:22 PM	For 3.5, I think it would be more important to make the actual rules simpler (as opposed to removing classes and races etc). For example: remove attack of opportunity rules; remove flanking rules; remove “flat footed” rules; simplify the Action type rules (standard action vs full round action vs free action etc).... I'm not sure if I'm adding anything to the discussion with this, but I thought I'd add that I'm playing through the 3.5 basic game right now and it does include attacks of opportunity and flanking rules. You get started with a small pamphlet that takes you through just the first couple of rooms, and then once you progress beyond that you use the bigger rulebook that it comes with. I don't remember if the rules are in the pamphlet or the book, but they're definitely in there somewhere. For the last battle with the young black dragon, the book informs the DM that when the dragon gets down to 45HP it retreats, and as it passes by, the players may have attacks of opportunity.
Attila 11-08-05, 12:14 AM	You'll note that he was talking about running the 3e Adventure Game here... He was, I wasn't. But yes it was disingenuous (although inadvertant) to selectively quote him in that way. I apologize for that. Keep in mind that all my comments about 3.5 are qualified by compared to Moldvay D&D because we are comparing the two here. I think 3.5 is a very good ruleset even though I have mixed feelings about it. Compared to Moldvay D&D, 3.5 tends to roll along on its own more and the DM has to keep up with it. The DM can be every bit as creative but he has to do a lot more work to make sure he is prepared and things work out the way he intends (without having to short circuit the rules). The '65 mustang analogy is really more appropriate for comparing 3.5 to AD&D. Basic D&D was a completely different evolutionary line.... Which brings me to my question, does anyone think there is room in the D&D line for an updated version of Moldvay D&D? I'm suggesting a d20 D&D game based on the Moldvay philosophy instead of the AD&D Gygax philosophy. Would there be any point given the existence of the 3.5 basic set? Is the 3.5 Basic set the heir to Moldvay D&D or is it just 3.5 with pre-rolled characters?
weasel fierce 11-08-05, 12:19 AM	Part of the allure, and indeed, marketing reason of Moldvay and later Mentzer was not that it was an introductory D&D (Holmes was), but that it was intentionally rules light, and open for players to do with it, whatever they wanted.
MerricB 11-08-05, 03:48 AM	I'm not sure if I'm adding anything to the discussion with this, but I thought I'd add that I'm playing through the 3.5 basic game right now and it does include attacks of opportunity and flanking rules. You get started with a small pamphlet that takes you through just the first couple of rooms, and then once you progress beyond that you use the bigger rulebook that it comes with. I don't remember if the rules are in the pamphlet or the book, but they're definitely in there somewhere. For the last battle with the young black dragon, the book informs the DM that when the dragon gets down to 45HP it retreats, and as it passes by, the players may have attacks of opportunity. Indeed. Just a note: Attacks of Opportunity are in a simplified version from the full rules, and the "withdraw and take AoO" was a rule in Moldvay basic as well. Cheers!
MerricB 11-08-05, 03:54 AM	Is the 3.5 Basic set the heir to Moldvay D&D or is it just 3.5 with pre-rolled characters? Well, the 3.5e Basic Game does allow you to create your own characters and adventures. :) A drawback of the game is that the monster selection is quite limited, but the rules cover the basics of 3.5e quite well without overcomplicating matters. There are skills (a subset), feats, classes, races and spells. Note that there is a new edition of the Basic Game due out in June 2006, if my sources are correct. Cheers!
weasel fierce 11-08-05, 03:54 AM	Taking a strike when you run away has always been a rule, I think. Applying it to other things is a D20 phenomenom however
MerricB 11-08-05, 04:02 AM	What of the current full edition is actually included in the current basic edition? Can a Player take a character from a current basic edition game into (upgrade) a current full edition game? There's one area they'd have to change their character: the skill list. In the basic game, the skills are preset for classes, and only a subset are used. Oh, and clerics would need to choose an extra domain. ### What's included? Races: Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling Classes: Cleric, Fighter, Sorcerer, Rogue Character Levels: 1 & 2 Spells: a smal selection of 0-3rd level cleric and 0-3rd level sorcerer Monsters: Kobold, Dire Rat, Orc, Troglodyte, Skeleton, Wolf Skeleton, Black Dragon Feats: Cleave, Great Fortitude, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Martial Weapon Proficiency, Point Blank Shot, Power Attack, Precise Shot, Toughness, Weapon Focus. Skills: Diplomacy, Disable Device, Hide, Listen, Move Silently, Open Lock, Search, Spot. Cheers!
MerricB 11-08-05, 04:03 AM	Taking a strike when you run away has always been a rule, I think. Pretty much. Applying it to other things is a D20 phenomenom however Yes. It replaces rolling for initiative each round. Interestingly, initiative has turned out to be one of the hardest things for new players to grasp; it's why there's a set order in the Basic Game, and you don't roll for it at all. Cheers!
weasel fierce 11-08-05, 04:06 AM	I've played a lot of RPG's and initiative is one of those things that are just plain hard to do satisfactorily. In the end, my preferred initiative mechanic ever, is Moldvay;s :) Roll a D6. Halflings get a +1 Runequest isnt bad either, but thats a bit more "real" than D&D combat should be.
LordofNightmares 11-08-05, 08:15 AM	GMs are not appreciated. 3rd edtion D&D (I don't know about former) is very player-centric. They know everything and have it pretty easy. Resurrection is too easy. Magical toys are everywhere. Might suit kids. I don't know. I take difference to this statement. This only applies to a GM who runes a right from the book Greyhawk or Realms game. The DM's ability to ocntrol is not as limited as it seems at first look. If you write your own adventures then you have 100% control over treasure and magic the players can get their hands on. Ressurection is only "too easy" when the DM stocks every singe village and town with a near epic level cleric and the GM has given the players enough treasure to buy the raisess and ressurection spells at listed cost or more. As for teaching the kids with a variant of d20, think about their future as gamers. Some time in the future the kids will want to get inot groups at school or with other firends and it will be easier/better for them to look for players who know the newest set of rules of the most commonly played fantast table top RPG.
SwinginDick 11-08-05, 08:45 AM	Which brings me to my question, does anyone think there is room in the D&D line for an updated version of Moldvay D&D? I'm suggesting a d20 D&D game based on the Moldvay philosophy instead of the AD&D Gygax philosophy. Isn't this what Castles and Crusades purports to be, essentially D&D updated with d20 mechanics? I'm about to find out, anyway, since I pre-ordered the new printing of the PM and ordered a copy of the Castle Keeper's Guide (yucky name, BTW). I did some research on C&C and the philosophy (d20 mechanics, light ruleset, easy migration of BD&D characters and dungeons) appealed to me, so I figure I'd read up on it. I have to admit that the d20 combat mechanics are easier to deal with than the counter-intuitive D&D system with the "to hit" tables based on armor classes that get smaller in value as they increase in protection. My thinking initially when I started all this was "Gee, wouldn't it be nice to apply these improvements in bookkeeping to the old rules?" And, voila!, it seems that someone did. What is the feeling here on C&C? Other than their own boards, I couldn't find too many reviews/opinions on Troll Lord's system. BTW, my continuing gratitude for the comments and debate. I am enjoying this immensely.. -SwinginDick
Bullgrit 11-08-05, 09:31 AM	D&D game based on the Moldvay philosophy instead of the AD&D Gygax philosophy.What was the Moldvay philosophy? What is the feeling here on C&C?Sorry, can't help here. I play D&D, and come here to talk/read about D&D. Bullgrit
SwinginDick 11-08-05, 01:04 PM	What was the Moldvay philosophy? Let me reprhase, I meant the lighter B/ED&D ruleset as opposed to the not-so-light AD&D rulseset which, for some reason (right or wrong) I was associating with Mr. Gygax. I don't claim to be an expert on all this and if I said the wrong thing, a thousand pardons. :) I realize that all of this sprung out of the mind of Gygax originally but (as must be pretty obvious by now) I am no scholar on the evolution of the game. I had seen others associate the B/ED&D rules with Moldvay and so I followed that lead - perhaps I misunderstood. -SwinginDick
Bullgrit 11-08-05, 01:32 PM	Let me reprhase, I meant the lighter B/ED&D ruleset as opposed to the not-so-light AD&D rulseset which, for some reason (right or wrong) I was associating with Mr. Gygax. I don't claim to be an expert on all this and if I said the wrong thing, a thousand pardons. I realize that all of this sprung out of the mind of Gygax originally but (as must be pretty obvious by now) I am no scholar on the evolution of the game. I had seen others associate the B/ED&D rules with Moldvay and so I followed that lead - perhaps I misunderstood.Well, Atilla mentioned the "Moldvay philosophy" in his post. He is who I was asking about that term. There is plenty of places to fine Gygax's philosophy for AD&D -- he stated his philosophy directly many times in the books. But Moldvay didn't state his philosophy in how he edited the BD&D edition. Bullgrit
weasel fierce 11-08-05, 01:38 PM	Moldvay didnt state much of anything, anywhere, really. What we do know is what has been revealed by Gygax and Mentzer, both on Dragonsfoot and in old issues of Dragon.
Yaeri 11-08-05, 03:13 PM	The only thing that I really don't like about this set is that there is absolutely no mention of how you'd roll up a character of your own. We have to use the pre-rolled PCs (unless I buy the Player's Handbook) and I think this is one of the reasons why it feels more like a board game than an RPG. Well, that and the whole printed dungeon map/token thing. Rolling up characters: Roll 4D6, discard the lowest. Write down the total. Repeat. Six times total, and assign each value to one of the six stats. Choose a class from the opensource srd. Their flavour isn't explained there but I'm sure you can fill it in for your kids. Their whole level progression is present there. (There's other ways to create characters than rolling 4D6, it's just what my group uses) Printed dungeon map/token thing. You'll be relieved to hear that it's not required. We've been playing for several years and've never used a grid/map. I draw down the map as we go. If it's not too complicated I describe the rooms/terrain to the players and one of them maps it out. When it's required we know the exact positions of players/monsters, I quickly make a very basic drawing (mostly first letter of their character's names) to see where everyone's standing, etc... (I've never played the first edition, but I've always been very curious about it. Our first games were 3.0 and we are now slooowly switching to 3.5) Glad to hear your kids are enjoying it so much :)
rogueattorney 11-08-05, 03:36 PM	Which brings me to my question, does anyone think there is room in the D&D line for an updated version of Moldvay D&D? I'm suggesting a d20 D&D game based on the Moldvay philosophy instead of the AD&D Gygax philosophy. Some would say this already exists and is called Castles & Crusades. http://www.trolllord.com/candc.htm I don't think the analogy is entirely accurate, but it is a much more streamlined and approachable version of D&D that I would feel far more comfortable introducing youngsters and casual gamers to. R.A.
chrisbender 11-08-05, 04:09 PM	I use a Basic D&D/D20 hybrid in the game I run for my wife and kids. Initially I started out using the Basic D&D rules, but tweaked combat to run like D20 by replacing the "To Hit" table with an attack bonus, and made AC's work like they do in D20. I think both versions have good and bad aspects to them, so creating my own version was the only way for me to have the "ultimate" D&D game. Chris
MerricB 11-08-05, 05:32 PM	The only thing that I really don't like about this set is that there is absolutely no mention of how you'd roll up a character of your own. We have to use the pre-rolled PCs (unless I buy the Player's Handbook) and I think this is one of the reasons why it feels more like a board game than an RPG. Well, that and the whole printed dungeon map/token thing. The 3.5e Basic Game includes rules for creating your own characters, btw. Just a note: the 3.5e Basic Game, in particular, was designed as a bridge between board games and RPGs. There's one very memorable encounter with a magic mirror in the 3.5e version which really brings the role-playing aspect of the game to the fore. Cheers!
Thornis 11-09-05, 09:53 AM	I am glad to see this topic being talked about. I have been playing "D" sing 1981 and have played every version since then. And I would have to say while I truly love the free-flowing feel of all the older version, the rules just never seemed to work. Man let me tell ya, I hate math and think its the work of the devil, but you still have to have rules that make sense! I mean 40 goblins CAN take down a 10th level fighter.. sorry, pilling on rules apply here!..LOL This debate is important because it has gripped my group as well. Some of them are old time players as well and they "HATE" the new game (without even reading a book) because they think its just a money grab by WoTC. While I do see some small truth in that, I still took the time to check out the rules and gave it a shot. The rules are solid and what folks need to remember, Rule are just guidelines, ignore what you don't want and use the rest. no big whoop! Just play they way you want and chose the rules for you. sounds simple to me. thanks gang, -Thornis :D
Attila 11-09-05, 08:53 PM	Well, Atilla mentioned the "Moldvay philosophy" in his post. He is who I was asking about that term. There is plenty of places to fine Gygax's philosophy for AD&D -- he stated his philosophy directly many times in the books. But Moldvay didn't state his philosophy in how he edited the BD&D edition. Bullgrit I was referring to the approach taken by the Moldvay edition rather than Moldvay the man. Although, I would assume that his personal philosophy is reflected somewhat in the game he created. I am glad to see this topic being talked about. I have been playing "D" sing 1981 and have played every version since then. And I would have to say while I truly love the free-flowing feel of all the older version, the rules just never seemed to work. It all depends on what you like and what works for your group. Every game is a compromise and designer have to choose where they place their emphasis and what areas are less critical. The DM and players have to make the rules work and need to be willing to live with certain things. One of my favorites was Star Frontiers. Lots of logic flaws and things that didn't work quite right but we loved it anyway. Wide open rules and free flowing feel to it. With me I prefer to fill in rules as needed rather than removing/ignoring rules. While I do it, there is usually more resistence than when you add something to fill in a void.