Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Manshoon Prime 04-01-04, 03:24 PM	I know his own personal campaign is set before the Time of Troubles, but what edition does Ed Greenwood use to play it in? 1st/OD&D? 2nd/AD&D? 3.0? 3.5?
Misyrr 04-01-04, 03:33 PM	2nd Edition AD&D, heavily modified and improvised. He hasn't learned the new system entire yet, so he has stuck with 2nd edition.
Kuje31 04-01-04, 04:35 PM	Originally posted by Misyrr 2nd Edition AD&D, heavily modified and improvised. He hasn't learned the new system entire yet, so he has stuck with 2nd edition. Well not only that but his players also said they want to stick with 2e. He had a post over on Candlekeep about this recently and him and his group decide what edition they want to play.
Manshoon Prime 04-02-04, 12:08 PM	Then my path is clear. I must sell all of my 3.0/3.5e stuff and go back to AD&D. Clearly, it is the best thing to do if Ed Greenwood, creator of the Forgotten Realms, does it. :D
Faraer 04-02-04, 12:30 PM	It's clear enough which aspects of 3E aren't suited to Ed's style of play: the use of complex rules (e.g. combat manoeuvres) to generate detailed accounts of what occurs rather than a basic resolution system which the players and DM narrate; the whole gameist chocolate-box feats and prestige classes mentality; all the design choices which the kind of players like who trust rulebooks more than their DM. There really is a big gap in approach, and yes, of course you can play a system in a style other than what it's written for but it's time-consuming or difficult -- System Does Matter, as Ron Edwards says. Luckily, Realmslore is Realmslore for the most part, and no one needs to sell anything.
Plunderer_of_the_planes 04-02-04, 10:40 PM	Originally posted by Faraer It's clear enough which aspects of 3E aren't suited to Ed's style of play: the use of complex rules (e.g. combat manoeuvres) to generate detailed accounts of what occurs rather than a basic resolution system which the players and DM narrate; the whole gameist chocolate-box feats and prestige classes mentality; all the design choices which the kind of players like who trust rulebooks more than their DM. I tend more to a 'rules light' 3e myself. I don't like the new warhammerlike take to combat nor do I feel that the over use of rules in 3e was necessary. I do enjoy the shoot from the hip/ fast and loose style of play over the rules heavyness that has been the trend of recent years. I'm not saying that my style is right but it is what I am more comfortable with.
Kuje31 04-02-04, 10:52 PM	Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes I tend more to a 'rules light' 3e myself. I don't like the new warhammerlike take to combat nor do I feel that the over use of rules in 3e was necessary. I do enjoy the shoot from the hip/ fast and loose style of play over the rules heavyness that has been the trend of recent years. I'm not saying that my style is right but it is what I am more comfortable with. Same here. :) Which is why there is a PC in my game who is an incubus with no ECL..... OH no the horror! It's not balanced!
Plunderer_of_the_planes 04-02-04, 11:00 PM	Originally posted by Kuje31 Same here. :) Which is why there is a PC in my game who is an incubus with no ECL..... OH no the horror! It's not balanced! I could like that Idea...I've been toying with removing the ecl from certain races for awhile anyway......I knew there was a reason I liked you Kuje.....
Kuje31 04-02-04, 11:04 PM	Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes I could like that Idea...I've been toying with removing the ecl from certain races for awhile anyway......I knew there was a reason I liked you Kuje..... I just don't like ECL's at all. :) Some of them are just a real pain and they get in the way of RP.
madoule 04-02-04, 11:51 PM	Hey... why not use a stat restriction instead of ELC? like in day sof yor where you needed three 17's and such to be a this or that?? Personaly, 3ed is a Great deal better with some aspects of play than others, and then not. <shugh> its how you play the game, not how the game plays you...
Wooly Rupert 04-03-04, 01:21 AM	You know, an idea I was toying with... Remember how, in 2nd edition, if one of your ability scores was over 16, and that ability was a requirement for your class (IE, strength for fighters), you got a bonus 10% to your XP? Well, I was thinking that going the other way might be an alternative to ECL. Give the character an XP penalty that disappears after a while -- that way, they still pay for playing a more powerful character, but they aren't always gonna be lower level than their non-ECL equivalents...
Kuje31 04-03-04, 01:30 AM	Originally posted by Wooly Rupert You know, an idea I was toying with... Remember how, in 2nd edition, if one of your ability scores was over 16, and that ability was a requirement for your class (IE, strength for fighters), you got a bonus 10% to your XP? Well, I was thinking that going the other way might be an alternative to ECL. Give the character an XP penalty that disappears after a while -- that way, they still pay for playing a more powerful character, but they aren't always gonna be lower level than their non-ECL equivalents... This is what I was basically doing...... If I worried about it at all. :)
jasamcarl 04-03-04, 10:22 AM	Originally posted by Faraer It's clear enough which aspects of 3E aren't suited to Ed's style of play: the use of complex rules (e.g. combat manoeuvres) to generate detailed accounts of what occurs rather than a basic resolution system which the players and DM narrate; the whole gameist chocolate-box feats and prestige classes mentality; all the design choices which the kind of players like who trust rulebooks more than their DM. There really is a big gap in approach, and yes, of course you can play a system in a style other than what it's written for but it's time-consuming or difficult -- System Does Matter, as Ron Edwards says. Luckily, Realmslore is Realmslore for the most part, and no one needs to sell anything. Wrong on all counts. The above is one of those poorly thought-out B.S. arguments that is so often repeated by sour dms. 2e can barely be recognized as a system, but rather a hodge podge of mechanics. To that effect, to achieve the same 'tyrant dm' nirvana, all you would have to do is subtract something from 3e, i.e. LAs, AoOs, etc. The game would still be as balanced as 1e/2e ever was and still a lot more logical given its unified mechanics.
Plunderer_of_the_planes 04-03-04, 10:33 AM	Originally posted by jasamcarl Wrong on all counts. The above is one of those poorly thought-out B.S. arguments that is so often repeated by sour dms. 2e can barely be recognized as a system, but rather a hodge podge of mechanics. To that effect, to achieve the same 'tyrant dm' nirvana, all you would have to do is subtract something from 3e, i.e. LAs, AoOs, etc. The game would still be as balanced as 1e/2e ever was and still a lot more logical given its unified mechanics. Funny my version removes the annoying AoO's, Grids, and retools the Item creation rules for skills instead of feats. Not one player has complained no one sees it as tyrant Dming and most of the group agress that 3e is alot better once about half the rules are removed. And no matter what you think 2e was a system and was logical. TSR did a fine job with it just as they did 1e. I will be honest if there was an edition I have had to retool due to complaints it was 3e/3.5 not 1e or 2e....
jasamcarl 04-03-04, 10:42 AM	Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes Funny my version removes the annoying AoO's, Grids, and retools the Item creation rules for skills instead of feats. Not one player has complained no one sees it as tyrant Dming and most of the group agress that 3e is alot better once about half the rules are removed. And no matter what you think 2e was a system and was logical. TSR did a fine job with it just as they did 1e. I will be honest if there was an edition I have had to retool due to complaints it was 3e/3.5 not 1e or 2e.... If by 'logical' you are referring to the ever present existence a thousand subsystems and copious exceptions that consistently never amounted to anything even close to balance I will agree with. I'm not doubting that you might find little utility in everything 3e actually added, but then, I'm guessing you really don't like playing coherent, balanced, tactical systems in general. Probably because it removes the scene you had planned out in your head. But maybe tyrant was the wrong word; if your players enjoyed I'd go with 'benevolant dictator'. ;) Doesn't change the fact that 3e does just about everything 1e/2e does, only better. :)
Plunderer_of_the_planes 04-03-04, 11:05 AM	Originally posted by jasamcarl If by 'logical' you are referring to the ever present existence a thousand subsystems and copious exceptions that consistently never amounted to anything even close to balance I will agree with. I'm not doubting that you might find little utility in everything 3e actually added, but then, I'm guessing you really don't like playing coherent, balanced, tactical systems in general. Probably because it removes the scene you had planned out in your head. But maybe tyrant was the wrong word; if your players enjoyed I'd go with 'benevolant dictator'. ;) Doesn't change the fact that 3e does just about everything 1e/2e does, only better. :) Please...most of 2e's rules were optional. The honest truth was that there were people who played that 1. did not understand that or 2. lacked the minimum intellgence to play AD&D anyway. I love how you sling the 'balance' thing as well. Wotc's analretentive obsession with it has nearly ruined 3e for me. They damn near destroyed magic in the process as well. Balance, heh, Got news for ya 3e is not balanced either and I won't buy that it is until a 1st level PC is a threat to a 20th level PC (no LA's or savage stupidity either) Theres true balance. And By not playing "coherent tactical nonsense" I'm guessing you mean that your elitist style is better that anyone elses. Benvolent dictator Man I laughed my ass off with that....it's more like we understand that the DM runs the game not the rules....
Faraer 04-03-04, 11:38 AM	jasamcarl, Some people find it easier to subtract rules, some to add them. The fact that 3E is a relatively unified ruleset makes it hard to tinker with one thing without affecting another. You can't ignore feats because they're worked so heavily into character classes. That you can change a system, with arguable difficulty, doesn't make it the right system for everyone to choose. The balance and logic you mention are important for some players, but not for Ed's. Please lay off the vitriol. I'm not a sour DM, my opinion (and Ed's) that you disagree with is not poorly thought out. I'm not discussing playstyles in general, and which is 'better', but Ed Greenwood's in particular, which underlies the Realms.
Cunning Linguist 04-03-04, 11:39 AM	How could anyone say that 2.ed was balanced? It was a heap of rules on rules that supported rules that crashed in balance from level 1, and started to burn at level 10. Human fighter VS Dwarf fighter anyone? Sure, most of the rules where optional, and those where the rules that balanced out the game. Anyone running a pure 2.ed game, with no option rules would have a balance problem out of this world. TSR never hid the fact that AD&D was made from Wargames, and with 3.ed we don’t leave this behind either, BUT, battles in 3.ed are faster, and make more sense on a 1on1 type of battle, rather then the troupe mentality of 2.ed. The argument that Feats and PrC are just made to make all the muchkins love the game is also false. If anything Feats and PrC make your character unique. In 2.ed I would say my Fighter loved to use his twin axes, and do spin attacks, and that was it, with 3.ed I can take 2 weapon fighting feat, and specialise with Axe proficiency, weapon focus, weapon specialisation and take whirlwind attack. Now the description of the fighter is an important factor in a battle, and not just a passage in his description. 2 characters with the same class now stand apart, and become more unique then they did in 2.ed. Anyone that loves good characters with a good story should praise 3.ed for there capability to show this in the characters abilities. I myself had several restrictions when 3.ed came along, like “WHAT?! Any race can be a paladin?! Why I.. rabel rabel” and “ What!? 9 Level cleric spells!? That so unbalanced compared to the wizard! *Rabelrabe*” Well, I sat down at a gaming table with some of my newly awakened friends, who adored 3.ed and thought it was the blessing that RPG had been waiting for. After having done this a few times I also started to agree that 3.ed was far better then anything I had tried before. (Even the story teller system that Vampire has, and that was a huge step for me) Why would Ed still be using 2.ed then? Well, Ed is a old man, and his group is now exactly new either. I had only been playing AD&D for 6 or 7 years before 3.ed came along, and I was not exactly over ecstatic about it.. If I had been playing AD&D for over 20 years, I can’t even think of hard it would have been to let go of the old system.
jasamcarl 04-03-04, 11:50 AM	Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes Please...most of 2e's rules were optional. The honest truth was that there were people who played that 1. did not understand that or 2. lacked the minimum intellgence to play AD&D anyway. I love how you sling the 'balance' thing as well. Wotc's analretentive obsession with it has nearly ruined 3e for me. They damn near destroyed magic in the process as well. Balance, heh, Got news for ya 3e is not balanced either and I won't buy that it is until a 1st level PC is a threat to a 20th level PC (no LA's or savage stupidity either) Theres true balance. And By not playing "coherent tactical nonsense" I'm guessing you mean that your elitist style is better that anyone elses. Benvolent dictator Man I laughed my ass off with that....it's more like we understand that the DM runs the game not the rules.... What does 3e's rules being optional have to do with its eternal lack of balance? Stripped down to its core it was still outright unbalanced and offered even less options. The rules exceptions, which were suppossed to add both options and balance did so poorly. So your argument is that its a better game because i can basically make it a non game? As to your second point, your notion of what constitutes balance is ridiculous. Balance relies on predictability. The rules predict pretty accuratly that a 20th level character will floor a 1st level one. No balance problem there. Now if by balance you mean every conceivable thing can 'fight' ever other conceivable thing regardless of whether the rules actually state that as an option, then you are being disengenuous and should just stop there. 'Benevolent dictator' = DM telling a story and the players liking it. No conflict there. NEXT!!!
jasamcarl 04-03-04, 11:59 AM	Originally posted by Faraer jasamcarl, Some people find it easier to subtract rules, some to add them. The fact that 3E is a relatively unified ruleset makes it hard to tinker with one thing without affecting another. You can't ignore feats because they're worked so heavily into character classes. That you can change a system, with arguable difficulty, doesn't make it the right system for everyone to choose. The balance and logic you mention are important for some players, but not for Ed's. Please lay off the vitriol. I'm not a sour DM, my opinion (and Ed's) that you disagree with is not poorly thought out. I'm not discussing playstyles in general, and which is 'better', but Ed Greenwood's in particular, which underlies the Realms. And what I'm saying is that if you strip away (basically ignore) any of 3e's mechanics, while it will have effects system wide on balance, that is largly irrelevant when comparing it to 1e/2e because neither of those editions were balanced in the least. Nothing leads me to believe that a hacked 3e would be any less so. So in conclusion: Standard 2e = unbalanced system with heinously contradictory mechanics. Hacked 3e = unbalanced system with unified mechanics. Why wouldn't I go with the latter?
Plunderer_of_the_planes 04-03-04, 12:20 PM	Hacked 3e = Better playability
jasamcarl 04-03-04, 12:29 PM	Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes Hacked 3e = Better playability Than 2e? No doubt... :)
Faraer 04-03-04, 12:30 PM	The factors of game balance and unified mechanics aren't the most important ones for many. Game balance on a system level isn't necessarily a major good. *Social* parity between the players is, in almost every case, and in a game where the rules are used as a relatively peripheral tool and are a lesser factor than the narration of players and DM, or where game situations differ from those that classes are balanced for, game balance (either in general or in its specific d20 use) isn't a major factor. If we're talking about, say, balance between PCs of a given level, I think we can infer that 2E is very well balanced from the millions of people who played it with no apparent difficulty, and the fact that, just as with 3E, the classes that various people are sure are under- or overpowered are all different. Obviously, the mechanics of 2E aren't unified in the way 3E is. I would argue that 1E was about as logical in its own very different way as 3E, but many of 1E's design principles didn't carry into the 2nd edition. That makes 2E harder to learn, just as certain complications of 3E (understanding how modifiers work, for instance) make it harder. 3E's philosophy is explicitly to model specific (largely combat) events, and nuances of characters' abilities, in the system. I'm not criticizing that approach, but it isn't mine, and Ed also prefers to have the rules a lighter presence in play. (And feats alone and the lengthy 3E stat block make it harder to improvise monsters and NPCs in play than if you just needed AC, hp and THAC0 or BAB.) If Ed's group was somehow starting from scratch, maybe it would be easier to adapt 3E to the Realms than 1E and 2E were. But these different design principles make that seem unlikely to me.
Plunderer_of_the_planes 04-03-04, 12:45 PM	Originally posted by jasamcarl Than 2e? No doubt... :) About the same actually...but it doesn't matter much since I am switching to Castle and Crusade for my games this summer.... Faraer: You hit the nail right on the head
jasamcarl 04-03-04, 01:10 PM	Originally posted by Faraer The factors of game balance and unified mechanics aren't the most important ones for many. Game balance on a system level isn't necessarily a major good. *Social* parity between the players is, in almost every case, and in a game where the rules are used as a relatively peripheral tool and are a lesser factor than the narration of players and DM, or where game situations differ from those that classes are balanced for, game balance (either in general or in its specific d20 use) isn't a major factor. Oh I agree with the above. Has nothing to do with which edition is to be preferred for different playstyles though. :) If we're talking about, say, balance between PCs of a given level, I think we can infer that 2E is very well balanced from the millions of people who played it with no apparent difficulty, and the fact that, just as with 3E, the classes that various people are sure are under- or overpowered are all different. That would be an incorrect assumption. 3e is balanced under some pretty explicit assumptions; combat in an enclosed environment against a relativly diverse set of encounters. When 3es balance is debated in that context, there are differences in opinion. But, because players of 1e/2e didn't hold such assumptions (because the design was so foggy), any debate over balance discussions were muddled; but if you were to assume the dungeon hack environtment and play conditions of 3e, early editions would be outright broken, especially on a level by level basis (note the differences in level advancement). I really shouldn't have to provide examples. In other words, atleast 3e has a balance point. Obviously, the mechanics of 2E aren't unified in the way 3E is. I would argue that 1E was about as logical in its own very different way as 3E, but many of 1E's design principles didn't carry into the 2nd edition. That makes 2E harder to learn, just as certain complications of 3E (understanding how modifiers work, for instance) make it harder. Except 3e doesn't have nearly as many complications and they don't show up nearly as much in game. 3E's philosophy is explicitly to model specific (largely combat) events, and nuances of characters' abilities, in the system. I'm not criticizing that approach, but it isn't mine, and Ed also prefers to have the rules a lighter presence in play. (And feats alone and the lengthy 3E stat block make it harder to improvise monsters and NPCs in play than if you just needed AC, hp and THAC0 or BAB.) If Ed's group was somehow starting from scratch, maybe it would be easier to adapt 3E to the Realms than 1E and 2E were. But these different design principles make that seem unlikely to me. Except, as i stated before, you can simply ignore the majority of stuff and it would still be just as balanced and playable as early editions. In conclusion: I agree that a game's quality is a subjective thing that arises from differences in playstyle. But you are not making the case especially well that earlier editions did anything better in regard to Ed's playstyle than 3e; and 3e has a unified mechanic. :)
Plunderer_of_the_planes 04-03-04, 01:20 PM	Originally posted by jasamcarl Except, as i stated before, you can simply ignore the majority of stuff and it would still be just as balanced and playable as early editions. In conclusion: I agree that a game's quality is a subjective thing that arises from differences in playstyle. But you are not making the case especially well that earlier editions did anything better in regard to Ed's playstyle than 3e; and 3e has a unified mechanic. :) Do You not realise that there are people who don't ncessarily see that the unified system or supposed balance as an issue in relation to their fun playing the game?
Kuje31 04-03-04, 01:35 PM	Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes Do You not realise that there are people who don't ncessarily see that the unified system or supposed balance as an issue in relation to their fun playing the game? I know I sure and the H E double hockey sticks don't. Story and char growth and RP come before rules and "balance" in my games. If a PC wants some thing and it fits there character then balance and rules have no meaning in my game. For example the incubus; He's third level, has exp as a third level char, and no ECL, but all the powers of that demon. Story and RP come before rules.
Plunderer_of_the_planes 04-03-04, 01:44 PM	Originally posted by Kuje31 Story and RP come before rules. With your permission i would like to add that to my sig (poper credit tthe origin will be given)
Kuje31 04-03-04, 01:54 PM	Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes With your permission i would like to add that to my sig (poper credit tthe origin will be given) Fine with me. :) To further expand on my light rant. I mix and match rules from 2e/3e/3.5e. Some things 3e fixed, some things 2e did better and some things 3.5 did better then either of the two editions.
Plunderer_of_the_planes 04-03-04, 02:14 PM	Originally posted by Kuje31 Fine with me. :) To further expand on my light rant. I mix and match rules from 2e/3e/3.5e. Some things 3e fixed, some things 2e did better and some things 3.5 did better then either of the two editions. Mine is a mix of 1e/2e/3e/3.5 Arcana unearthed (monte cooks) and Unearthed arcana.
Bifford 04-03-04, 02:35 PM	Mine is a mix of 1e/2e/3e/3.5 Arcana unearthed (monte cooks) and Unearthed arcana. Holy s***!
madoule 04-03-04, 02:54 PM	Kuje31 yes, I belive that what your thinking is right. RP comes before rules... So I guess for all intensive purposes, in any game... Rule 0 baby :D
Wooly Rupert 04-03-04, 03:16 PM	Speaking for myself, I didn't think that 2nd edition was all that bad... It certainly could've used some cleaning up, so that we'd not have a million and one duplicate kits and proficiencies, but it wasn't terribly broken. I do like some of the 3.x stuff, though.
pblogic 04-03-04, 04:12 PM	Originally posted by jasamcarl If by 'logical' you are referring to the ever present existence a thousand subsystems and copious exceptions that consistently never amounted to anything even close to balance I will agree with. I'm not doubting that you might find little utility in everything 3e actually added, but then, I'm guessing you really don't like playing coherent, balanced, tactical systems in general. Probably because it removes the scene you had planned out in your head. But maybe tyrant was the wrong word; if your players enjoyed I'd go with 'benevolant dictator'. ;) Doesn't change the fact that 3e does just about everything 1e/2e does, only better. :) I think every game is balanced for the group and DM that is playing it. I don't think we need to knock anyone's play style Personlly I don't use miniatures, or grids etc, and my players prefer it that way, we dont like tactical games, we like to focus on role-playing and we strip alot of the tactical stuff like AoO out. The whole group is very happy with the game. On the other hand, I love feats, and this is something I see as an improvement over 2nd edition I still havent decided about prestige classes Vs kits yet. I do know alot or prestige classes are pretty lame, but so were alot of kits. I also know that I will re write the bladesinger based on the 2nd edition incarnation, which was really cool. the 3rd edition one was so watered down, not just on stats but on story. Sometimes unfortunatley 3rd and 3.5 focuses too much on stat blocks and balance and alot of stuff that I see as tactical hoo ha However some people love tactical games I love the fact that 3.5 / 3 lets me do it either way sorry for spelling, im always in a hurry and dont care "P
jasamcarl 04-03-04, 04:36 PM	Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes Do You not realise that there are people who don't ncessarily see that the unified system or supposed balance as an issue in relation to their fun playing the game? Oh I realize and accept that. But nobody has made a case for 2e on those grounds. Or do you want me to repeat that again?
Plunderer_of_the_planes 04-03-04, 05:08 PM	Originally posted by Bifford Holy s***! Let me touch on the main points of how I have set my system up. From 1e I took The item creation rules and modified them to Use 3e's skill system instead of the feat based system that 3e has. I also have been redisgning the Arch-devils to be more in line with the 1e Ideals than the 3e ones (haven't got to far there due to time) i also have used alot of the tables and Kara-tur info to set up Kara-tur in 3e. (not used yet) from 2e: I reinstated reversable spells (ok 1e/2e but who's counting) and rate of fire. I also have been toying with the 2e spell progressions to beef up the arcane casters some ( this is still in planning) I also Have reinstated 2e wild magic and several spells that never made the cut to 3e. From 3e: most of the basic system is there but trimmed down. I have removed AoO's grids and went to a more 2e like combat system that does not require the tracking of actions and the other slowdown points we have had problems with. (you get 1 move and 1 attack [Multiple attacks count as the one attack] or you may replace a move or attack with an action) From 3.5: just a few of the classes but brought more in line with 3e (wizards don't have two opposing school for specilization and the Paldins Pokemount is gone being replaced by a normal Pally mount) From Arcana Unearthed : I have brought all the classes in from that book and also use the feats/talents some spells and the rule that allows your constitution score to dictate your negative hitpoints needed to die. From Unearthed arcana: The xp system varient contacts a Druid redesign and we are testing spell points and may be fully adopting them soon. My own whims: A compleatly rebuilt sorceror and various houserules (removing Iliiteracy from barbarians) Also I just won the 1e Uneathed arcana and Dungeoneers survival guide(ebay) so I may tweak some stuff from those books as well. All in all it is a system we like and one the whole group has worked on. what we wanted was a more free flowing game and we feel we are getting closer to that...However with the Summer release of C&C coming we may have found a system that allows for that style but uses the bare basics of the OGL to do so. I know it sound confusing but after you use what we have done you'll see the difference.
Kuje31 04-03-04, 06:23 PM	Originally posted by Plunderer_of_the_planes Mine is a mix of 1e/2e/3e/3.5 Arcana unearthed (monte cooks) and Unearthed arcana. I should have been more specific. :) When I said 3e/3.5, I meant d20 rules. Yes I know the two don't go hand and hand but it's easy to add d20 material be it from WOTC or 3rd party into the "rules" of 3/3.5.