tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-549940298295825812.post8828529687564850858..comments2024-03-27T01:53:40.812-06:00Comments on Classic RPG Realms: Spreadsheet Comparison of D&D systemsSizzaxehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13715649618278080709noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-549940298295825812.post-76105680123104238022012-02-22T04:32:53.945-07:002012-02-22T04:32:53.945-07:00Interesting post on the D&D variants!
@Mike M...Interesting post on the D&D variants!<br /><br />@Mike Monaco:<br />Nope. The B/X rules do not mention 'monsters' as a PC option.(Interestingly enough, (A)D&D defines a 'monster' as every creature *not* a player.) Unfortunately the most popular B/X's clones have followed suit; not even Labyrinth Lord's Original Edition Characters booklet mentions utilizing Monstrous races as PCs. However, Swords & Wizardry hints at the possibility: in Chapter 2, pg. 7, under 'Choose a Character Race', the rulebook states that 'the Referee might permit races that aren't covered here'. Probably because S&W was inspired more by OD&D/Holmes than Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X.<br /><br />Bitd, Dr. Holmes lamented the removal of 'Monsters as PCs' option in his review of the Moldvay Set in Dragon #52: "I am personally sorry to see the range of possibilities so restricted. The original rules (the three little brown books) specifically stated that a player could be a dragon if he wanted to be, and if he started at first level. For several years there was a dragon player character in my own game. At first level he could puff a little fire and do one die of damage. He could, of course, fly, even at first level. He was one of the most unpopular characters in the game, but this was because of the way he was played, not because he was a dragon. I enjoyed having dragons, centaurs, samurai and witch doctors in the game. My own most successful player character was a Dreenoi, an insectoid creature borrowed from McEwan’s Starguard. He reached fourth level (as high as any of my personal characters ever got), made an unfortunate decision, and was turned into a pool of green slime." <br /><br />Man, I'd love to have been in on Dr. Holme's games! I'm glad to say my groups play in his(and Dave Arneson's, and Dave Hargraves', and Ken St. Andre's, et. al) spirit!velaranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15689908090884198784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-549940298295825812.post-77787631241850307662012-02-21T22:38:16.983-07:002012-02-21T22:38:16.983-07:00I pretty much agree with your analysis but would a...I pretty much agree with your analysis but would add a few points.<br /><br />1. The tendency to power creep can be seen much earlier. Unearthed Arcana at the latest, and depending on what you think of as power creep, potentially some of the OD&D supplements. Even Mystara in the basic line had a boatload of classes added. I think this is just the nature of the beast. It only becomes a problem when people stop looking at the options as a toolbox and start treating them as player entitlements.<br /><br />2. I think 4E is too different to be considered the second edition of the d20 system. The new system for hit points, defenses rather than saving throws, a unified power progression for all classes, etc.Necropraxishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12716340801054739658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-549940298295825812.post-14782511967631942942012-02-21T20:52:32.738-07:002012-02-21T20:52:32.738-07:00I happen to agree with you—so great post :)
But w...I happen to agree with you—so great post :)<br /><br />But what I especially like is the structure of the argument. Even if you were wrong, it would be great to see similar methodology applied to proving it.<br />~V~Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-549940298295825812.post-59922568019730372202012-02-21T11:14:39.752-07:002012-02-21T11:14:39.752-07:00Very cool idea to compare these like this on a spr...Very cool idea to compare these like this on a spreadsheet. Some quibbles:<br /><br />No Holmes? He had pretty much the same alignments as 4e (!), which I'd also equate with the Warhammer world.<br /><br />Anyway 1/2 orcs are not really in AD&D2e as a 'core' race ... you need a splatbook for that.<br /><br />More significantly, Holmes Basic (maybe also B/X) and OD&D do mention PC monsters as an option. <br /><br />And you missed the BX hit dice. <br /><br />Re your larger point, I'd agree, d20 system is a real paradigm shift.Mike Monacohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11474135378521139178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-549940298295825812.post-14361345223700218162012-02-20T23:01:16.708-07:002012-02-20T23:01:16.708-07:00Yeah, thanks everyone. I know the spreadsheet need...Yeah, thanks everyone. I know the spreadsheet needs cleanup, and it's my intention to do so eventually. But as I kept adding to it here and there over the weekend my main goal was accomplished without actually finishing it completely. That was convincing myself of the predominant differences between stages in the development of our game.<br /><br />And yes, it's true that 2e got a bit of the focus in my entry as a significant dividing point, but it wasn't meant to be negative. In fact none of my analysis was. Solely as statements of fact based on a quick and dirty breakdown of system structure. 2e is closer to AD&D than it is the d20 systems, and for this reason much of it could be used with earlier games; but it was the first significant diversion from the actual D&D.<br /><br />Now, that being said I think it took some steps towards offering the options players want while still preserving the core system more or less. The problem was that it introduced a level of complexity into the system that was in my opinion to inspire some of the complexity that was tacked onto the d20 model. <br /><br />The d20 model is actually incredibly lite and intuitive, but they bog it down with so many bonuses and combat variations, exceptions and the like you literally need a worksheet to create your PC. <br /><br />That's why C&C and BFRPG play so well. They take a core d20 model and play it lite and fast. The problem is they give too few options, and players can get a little bored or feel slighted with the simplicity they often feel forced to play within. And regardless, if you are playing d20 you aren't playing the actual D&D system you are playing d20 fantasy, which is what they really should call the system--regardless of whatever IPs they may own. <br /><br />And please understand this is not hate dialogue, it is simply the facts based upon an analysis that showed early on that it didn't need to be any more thorough. <br /><br />I suppose one could do like WoTC have been doing and define D&D by factors like HP, Abilities, Races, Classes and the like--but if that is the case it becomes very difficult to draw that line between where D&D ends and other class based fantasy RPGs begin. And when you come right down to it NONE of those factors have stayed the same in the d20 model.<br /><br />HP have gone to being con + die roll, Abilities have no limit instead of 3-25, and core races have morphed into something barely recognizable as classic fantasy.<br /><br />It just seems very clear to me that if you want to play actual D&D you will be playing under a certain model, and that model is not d20.<br /><br />But I'm not certain that many players are going to be happy playing without a way to customize and develop their PCs with a high degree of personalization--which is what d20 does in spades. And this movement really began under actual D&D with 2e. <br /><br />What is important to remember here is that what 2e did is not a bad thing. It could have been trying to address some of the very issues I'm talking about. But I'm not sure how successful all these changes were; 2e really proved to be one of the least popular versions of D&D, except for maybe the second edition of d20 (4e). And had the distinction of being the version under which the company failed (though to be fair this was due to many factors). <br /><br />I'm very intrigued at this point with Gary's LA system. I think he attempted to answer some of these questions--even though he did create a an entirely new system himself.Sizzaxehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13715649618278080709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-549940298295825812.post-56265537561516411552012-02-20T18:31:22.302-07:002012-02-20T18:31:22.302-07:00Good article, I'm not validating that it's...Good article, I'm not validating that it's 100% accurate but good legwork doing the spreadsheet to back up your arguement. Have a cookie!Castelainhttp://chivalry-and-sorcery.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-549940298295825812.post-78642960102109129512012-02-20T17:55:45.904-07:002012-02-20T17:55:45.904-07:00Mechanics matter. The change in feel was palpable ...Mechanics matter. The change in feel was palpable in 3E -- not saying it was bad or good, just different.<br /><br />In fact, I was less concerned about 4E than I was with 3.5. 4E deserved to be called its own edition, because the rules were so different. 3.5 left a bad taste in my mouth -- they could've been alternate rules.Alex Osiashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14851139031311819958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-549940298295825812.post-55491465501594046342012-02-20T17:40:13.994-07:002012-02-20T17:40:13.994-07:00I agree 100% on the bright bolded green. More peo...I agree 100% on the bright bolded green. More people need to figure that one out.<br /><br />I do think you're being a tiny smidge too hard on 2e. In my day we mixed 1e and 2e freely (I didn't even know we were using books from different editions!). That _did not_ happen with 3e. Considering just the core of 2e and ignoring the splatbooks, it even improves on 1e in some ways! Worse in others but better in some. <br /><br />Other than that small nitpick I think you're right on the money.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com