The rules will be trimmed and tuned to complement a computer-based RPG, which is what they will start shifting into. They would just as soon do away with tabletop products.

Mouse Police wrote:Does anyone else share the suspicion that "3rd Edition" is actually "Magic: The Role Playing Game"?

That WOTC had been developing it's own RPG, based upon the Magic CCG, but then it got put on the shelf after buying out TSR?

They NEEDED to make radical changes to the rules, to force people to buy the new 3rd edition.

Am I crazy here?

Every previous version of D&D and AD&D was compatable with each other.

I can take a 2E party through the Temple of the Frog, no problem!

thAC0 only made it easier to hit.

From Playstation and Neverwinter Nights, I've only seen a fraction of the changes to "Dungeons & Dragons", but I can't imagine that those came from inside.

WotC had been writing roleplaying games way before Magic since they had the Talislanta setting, then they designed a pre-Magic game called Everway that was a RPG game that also involved cards and elements.  The TSR acquisition wasn't anything more then a smart purchase, not so they could create a Magic RPG game.

ShaneG.

Plaag wrote:
WotC had been writing roleplaying games way before Magic since they had the Talislanta setting, then they designed a pre-Magic game called Everway that was a RPG game that also involved cards and elements.  The TSR acquisition wasn't anything more then a smart purchase, not so they could create a Magic RPG game.

ShaneG.

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought Wizards started publishing Magic: The Gathering in '93 and Everway in '95.  And I have read that Garfield was working up the design and rules for Magic as early as 1985.

Too bad WoTC never made a Magic: The Gathering RPG....probably would have sold like hotcakes.  The storylines running through some of the M:tG expansion sets were very interesting IMHO.

Mouse Police wrote:Plaag:

But where do the NEW RULES for 3rd edition come from?

Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Rich Baker, Andy Collins, David Noonan, Rich Redman, Bruce R. Cordell, John D. Rateliff, Thomas Reid, James Wyatt, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.

ShaneG.

Mouse Police wrote:OK, so blame my "1st Ed" puritanism for being suspicious.

But for all it's stupid simplicity, the combat system of D&D worked.

I was playing RPGs back in the early 80's, and it seemed like everyone else outside my D&D group was telling me "You should play THIS game, the combat is more realistic"

So I was playing Stormbringer with my neighbor friend, and he decided to introduce this "30 sided die" for "critical hits"...

...and my character got his leg cut off!

WOW!  REALISM!  But fun?  My character is permanently crippled!  If I wanted to have a one-legged character, I'd have rolled up a Beggar from Nadsokor!

That was always the knock against crit hits and charts; it goes both ways.  It's great when your fighter hammers the evil anti paladin for a roll that takes his head off, but not so fun if your character is walking away from a battle with kobolds without genitalia due to a few well placed rolls......!  

killjoy32 wrote:i always allow for something like that.

anything should be able to happen and i try and make sure that is the case.

Al

You're what I'd call a "kill joy"!

Busman wrote:
I've been contemplating this lately, and I actually think it's pretty sweet.

Varying weapon dmg is the first step to simulationism, min/maxing characters, rules complication and combat slowdown.

With 1d6 for all weapons, players are free to concentrate on making a character and not a series of awesome stat blocks.

With 1d6 for all weapons, why have a weapon list in the first place? Might as well grab a pointed stick and save the money for something else. Indeed, the mere existence of a weapon price list is the first argument for having SOME sort of descriminator, if only differing damages.

What, pray tell, is "simulationism" and why is it hurled around as an insult? And why should having a BB Gun and a 155mm Howitzer do precisely the same damage be considered good game design?

Like, this is so much fun: rolld20, rolld6; rolld20, rolld6; rolld20, rolld6; rolld20, rolld6; rolld20, rolld6; rolld20, rolld6; rolld20, rolld6; rolld20, rolld6; rolld20, rolld6; rolld20, rolld6; rolld20, rolld6; rolld20, rolld6; rolld20, rolld6; rolld20, rolld6; rolld20, rolld6; rolld20, rolld6; rolld20, rolld6; rolld20, rolld6; rolld20, rolld6;  rolld20, rolld6;....  

I'd rather watch paint dry. Least that way I won't get a cramp in my dice hand.

Don't get me wrong, I am wholly on board with avoiding min/maxing, clunky rules/mechanics, and keeping combat fast paced (throw in limiting stat bonuses, so there is less need to "goose" one's stats). Believe me, I hear you! There is such a thing as making something TOO simplistic and retarded, however.

The "d6 for all weapons" is stupid, really, and a giant step backwards from Chainmail's "Man to Man" rules. If you're so hell-bent on getting rid of different weapon damages, then at least get rid of randomly generated hit points as well, and go back to Chainmail. (BTW - I am serious; there are some play balance issues at work here. Interestingly, I'm actually looking at the old Chainmail rules and trying to formally integrate them into OD&D, as a game design exercise. Sort of a "how it ought to have been done" exercise, as I always felt that forcing new players to get Chainmail as well to have a "complete" game was chinzy on Gygax's part)

Personally, I feel the best way to get rid of "Munchkinism" in terms of weapon selection is actually to do some serious research into how real medieval combat was conducted. Really look at period "fechtbucher" and more recent studies on arms, armor, and their effectiveness. Think about it - in the real world there are a whole plethora of weapons. If there was really one "ultimate" weapon then there wouldn't be nearly so many varieties, now would there? The fact that there are so many means that, assuming you design the combat system right (and, yes, it can be done quite handily), players will actually have to think while in a fight, and seriously consider tactics and so forth vis a vis their foes and their equipment (if appropriate), which may well change from round to round as the very dynamic situation changes (not that that sort of thing is impossible in OD&D, but the rules aren't really geared that way). There would be no one ultimate solution, even against similar foes and circumstances.

And why on Oerth would having the players think and get immersed in the fight be such a bad thing?

Mouse Police wrote:
You're what I'd call a "kill joy"!

hey

i reward as much as i penalise. but either way, its more about common sense.

for instance, a kobold attacks a 6' human with a dagger. he's hardly going to be aiming for the head is he?

works both ways tho. as it does with misses on a 1 as well.

works well and can create some fun scenarios. like john spectacularly missing the shrew on mikes back and hitting mike in the head....not once, but twice.

martin missed a grappling roll to grab mike and hold him still, so instead of just grabbing him, being a dwarf to a human, his face ended up between mikes butt-cheeks.

voila...instantly fun

Al

If, like myself, you like a lot of realism and detail, then a game that addresses that is a "good game design", FOR THAT PERSON. If you like a paper and pencil video game, then 3E is a good design.
Overall, there is no "good game design". Puppy Pounders is as good as AD&D. A game is a game.