Intuitive Rules - 2nd Ed. AD&D vs. D&D 3E/3.5

[Lancer]

To beginners, its a lot. Many newbies did not play more pnp becouse sys was too confusing to them, and left pnp RPG for ever. With the new sys this don't happen so much (only dummies don't understand the rules of the new sys...or hardcore AD&D-ers, if they don't want to understand it)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You understood Attack of Opportunity perfectly the first time? All the rules on stacking and deflection? and understood all the ins and outs about cross-class skills? WOW (w00t)

 

I know I didn't. Last time I checked I had to go online and see examples to completely comprehend the finer details about Attack of Opportunity.

 

I had a much easier time learning 2ndEd than 3e. And 2ndEd was one of the first systems I learned when I didn't know that much about RPGs. In fact, I had a much easier time learning most systems than 3e.

[Jorian Drake]

Ergo: Shadowstrider is way more then simply correct on this.

 

PS: intuitive-ness is better in 3.0/3.5 than AD&D becouse of the ability to costumize the char better, SS just mentioned why the new sys is better, but thats not the same as being more intuitive 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"Better" is entirely subjective, so it's as pointless as a cleric's weapon to discuss...

 

I have already said that I like 3e to-hit rules better than 2e, but that doesn't mean that I think the entire system is better. Of course 3e is better than 2e on some points. Being the conclusion to more than a decade of 2e, it bloody well better be, only it's not on a lot of points IMHO.

 

But there are good points. I like the to-hit rules, for example, and I like the multi-class better, too - 2e had horrible dual- and multi-class rules. Skills would also be infinitely better in 3e if it were not because their restricted based on level, which is preposterous.

 

You cannot declare 3e the winner without first addressing some of the concerns and flaws that Lancer and myself have pointed out in 3e, primarilly the peculiar Attack of Opportunity rules.

 

And some of the 3e classes are just silly and steal from role-playing. I particularly dislike the sorcerer, who was nicknamed "fireball-dispenser" in about five minutes on the official D&D board for good reason... A completely munchkin class with no redeeming features - bleh! It spoke volumes that WOTC subsequently released books that "removed" the one price sorcerers had to pay for extra spells, namely a limited knowledge of spells "

 

Another thing I really dislike is the plethora of classes and spells that spill out of every rulebook and magazine subsequently released under the principle of "well, to get a *really* powerful character, you just need to buy this book and use this new spell/class". The subsequent release of 3.5 after only a few years, truly turning Hasbro and Wizards into Ha$bro and Wizard$... Even one of the designers of 3e voiced criticism of 3.5!

 

But the worst thing in 3e is really the terrible game design. It's similar to previous D&D, of course, but then all those editions are pretty old. 3e is only a few years old, and it's still based on rigid and inflexible game mechanics that are more than three decades old. This was acceptable in 1988 when 2e came out. It is inexcusable today. Besides, 2e at least had a "grandfather clause" that kept it close to 1e rules. 3e rules, however, are completely incompatible with earlier editions. I have friends who like and play 3e, but while the don't agree with me, they do admit that it is an entirely different game. For an entirely newly designed game, 3e is founded on horribly outdated concepts - there are far better designed games out there today, I think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well... there is no perfect game sys <_< ...not yet, but I'm working on it :D

[alanschu]

Lancer, you seem stuck on AoO. Yes AoO is messed up and stupid....but IMO it's not something really required to play the game with the ruleset.

 

Again, show me a society where improving a value is naturally associated with a decrease in that value.

 

I think people aren't really sure what the word intuitive means.

[Jediphile]

Well... there is no perfect game sys  <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Didn't mean to say so. But that doesn't preclude decent game design.

 

...not yet, but I'm working on it  :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Funny - so am I

[Lancer]

THAC0 and 2nd edition AC are the least intuitive thing I have ever seen in a game.  Do you know what intuitive means?  The fact that it has to be explained to a person more than once, or even twice, pretty much destroys your whole "its intuitive!" debate.

 

See post #33. I already went over this. You should know better since you claim yourself that whether you are a night-time or day-time person is reflective of your schedule in terms of when you decide to sleep or not.

 

Likewise, what an individual deems as "intuitive" is greatly dependent on his or her past experiences. To tell you the truth, I had to do a double-take when I first saw the 3e AC system since I had gotten so used to 2ndEd.

 

And it is even ridiculous to bring this up, SS. Since it is such a trivial matter to change 2ndEd ACs to 3e ACs. Just subtract from 20. That's it. So stop whining.

 

Now how is THACO harder or less intuitive than AoO again? Can you explain that to me in more complete terms than "if he lets his guard down, the enemy gets a free attack?"

 

"Wait... so having a negative AC is GOOD?"

Yes.

"That makes no sense." <-- The reply you'll get, 9/10 times.

 

In most RPGs, higher ACs are better.

Because of that, 9 out of 10 people are used to playing RPGs where higher ACs are better. This does not mean necessarily that there is something inherently more intuitive about higher ACs being better.

 

 

I think we have a winner in terms of intuitiveness.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We sure do. 2ndEd.

Edited February 4, 2006 by Lancer

[Jorian Drake]

Well... there is no perfect game sys  <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Didn't mean to say so. But that doesn't preclude decent game design.

 

...not yet, but I'm working on it  :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Funny - so am I

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If I'm, and you're ready, we give the results to the other, and combine ideas

[Jediphile]

Lancer, you seem stuck on AoO.  Yes AoO is messed up and stupid....but IMO it's not something really required to play the game with the ruleset.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They are if you're going to play 3e as it was designed to be played. You can do whatever you want to at your own game table, of course - house rules will and should always be IMHO, I don't care whether Gygax agrees or not. But on the other hand, you can't just ignore that AoO were introduced as a measure to ensure game balance.

 

Again, show me a society where improving a value is naturally associated with a decrease in that value.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Crime figures going down are good.

 

Expenses going down are good.

 

Lots of examples are possible...

[alanschu]

Take a group of people that have never seen D&D before.

 

 

Tell them that their "attack rating" is 10. Then increase that value by 5. Ask them, did your attack rating improve?

[Lancer]

Lancer, you seem stuck on AoO.  Yes AoO is messed up and stupid....but IMO it's not something really required to play the game with the ruleset.

 

And you all are stuck on THACO. The difference is that THACO is easily fixed in 2ndEd whereas 3e AoO is not. As Jediphile pointed out, getting rid of AoO does not ensure game balance.

 

I think people aren't really sure what the word intuitive means.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And that is quite the point isn't it? Maybe this is more of a philosophical argument but...

There are only 2 possibilities:

 

a)Do people think 3e AC is more intuitive because it inherently IS necessarily... Or

b)Do you all find it more intuitive because you are just used to equating "higher ACs being better" from previous RPGs and adventure games you played?

 

In the case of "b" it is no surprise that you would feel something you are used to, to be more intuitive.

 

 

This is a chicken and egg question and I don't believe the answer is clear cut.

I personally believe that the latter is what is going on from my own experience.. But hey..

Edited February 4, 2006 by Lancer

[Jorian Drake]

To beginners, its a lot. Many newbies did not play more pnp becouse sys was too confusing to them, and left pnp RPG for ever. With the new sys this don't happen so much (only dummies don't understand the rules of the new sys...or hardcore AD&D-ers, if they don't want to understand it)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You understood Attack of Opportunity perfectly the first time? All the rules on stacking and deflection? and understood all the ins and outs about cross-class skills? WOW (w00t)

 

I know I didn't. Last time I checked I had to go online and see examples to completely comprehend the finer details about Attack of Opportunity.

 

I had a much easier time learning 2ndEd than 3e. And 2ndEd was one of the first systems I learned when I didn't know that much about RPGs. In fact, I had a much easier time learning most systems than 3e.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In a month, I already wrote this, Im not a genious , not Gary Gygax:

 

 

(w00t) :D " ^_^

Edited February 3, 2006 by jorian

[Lancer]

Crime figures going down are good.

 

Expenses going down are good.

 

Speeding tickets going down is good.

 

Population going down is good for some over-crowded countries..

 

 

Compulsive over-eating and gluttony (more is better) is not good

Edited February 3, 2006 by Lancer

[alanschu]

Crime figures going down are good.

 

Expenses going down are good.

 

Lots of examples are possible...

 

THat's because Crime is perceived as a bad thing. The association is still the same. When they want to lessen crime, the decrease the crime value, not increase it.

 

And you all are stuck on THACO. The difference is that THACO is easily fixed in 2ndEd whereas 3e AoO is not.

 

I'm stuck on THAC0 and the other basic rules, because they are indeed the basic rules. A player can't even really participate in any game without you explaining what THAC0 is.

 

Do people think 3e AC is more intuitive because it inherently IS necessarily... Or rather do you all find it more intuitive because you guys are used to seeing higher ACs being better from previous RPGs.. As a result, of course you will feel much more comfortable with seeing higher ACs being better.

 

I don't think it's more intuitive because it is inherently necessary. Nor do I find it intuitive because I have played games were higher AC is better in the past. I think it's intuitive because someone with zero familiarity with the rules can look at two AC values, and state which one is better without much thought at all (which is what intuitiveness is).

 

This is a chicken and egg question and I don't believe the answer is clear cut.

I personally believe that the latter is what is going on from my own experience.. But hey..

 

It's not a chicken and egg experience. It's taking a look at the affordances set in a society. If people recognize that an increase in a value is an increase in that attribute, then they will apply this rule more universally.

 

There's no way you can honestly expect to take a random group of people with no D&D experience and have any significant portion (or I suspect any period) instantly associate a lower AC value as being a better AC without additional reasoning. Once the person starts thinking and putting the pieces together, even without help, we're outside the realm of intuition.

 

 

 

Speeding tickets going down is good.

 

Population going down is good for some over-crowded countries..

 

 

Compulsive over-eating and gluttony (more is better) is not good

 

Speeding tickets are bad, and people want less bad things. The association is still the same. We want to decrease how much speeding tickets affect us, so we decrease the number of speeding tickets. In the AD&D world, we'd want to increase the number of speeding tickets.

 

Good luck trying to convince me that people see AC as being a bad thing.

Edited February 3, 2006 by alanschu

[Lancer]

I had to explain a higher AC meant better defense before.

Apparently, it wasn't intuitive.

 

Learning any RPG concept is completely un-intuitive to a total novice. By novice, I mean people who haven't played PnP, console or PC RPGs. Someone that has tried one of those 3 media already has some predetermined bias and for these purposes can't be considered a novice.

 

Heck.. anybody who has played Zelda or other adventure games can't be considered novices because those games already have the concept of Levels, AC and Hit Points..etc

 

Alanshu, did you play many RPGS before playing Baldur's Gate I?

Did you play JRPGs before playing BG1?

We already know you didn't play AD&D PnP. Definitely a factor.

Edited February 4, 2006 by Lancer

[alanschu]

Hahaha, one counterexample disproves everything. You're gold Lancer.

 

The RPGs that I played prior to Baldur's Gate were:

 

Ultima VI, VII, Serpent Isle,

Eye of the Beholder 1, 2, 3.

Pools of Radiance

Forgotten Realms Unlimited Adventures,

Dungeon Hack (heh),

Actually, pretty much all the Gold Box games.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying prove anyways. I knew that a lower AC was better in the AD&D world long before playing Baldur's Gate.

 

The only JRPG I had significantly played was FF7.

 

 

Yes previous experience affects things, but apparently because you (allegedly) had to explain to someone that a higher AC value meant better, clearly it's no longer intuitive.

 

 

How many popular rulesets have lower AC = better AC, and how many have higher AC = better AC?

 

And I didn't say I never played AD&D PnP, I just didn't play it much....usually because it was always a gong show with the people I played it with.

Edited February 3, 2006 by alanschu

[Jorian Drake]

If you want a 2nd Ed. list, it would be twice as long.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd believe it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nah... don't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Many of that 'rules' r actually in the 2nd ED too (like paladin and the troll one)

[Lancer]

Adventure games? Zelda?

[alanschu]

Minimal Zelda.

 

I played through Link to the Past, but I don't know if I actually beat it or not. I played Ocarina of Time, but that was after.

[Jorian Drake]

Hahaha, one counterexample disproves everything.  You're gold Lancer.

 

The RPGs that I played prior to Baldur's Gate were:

 

Ultima VI, VII, Serpent Isle,

Eye of the Beholder 1, 2, 3.

Pools of Radiance

Forgotten Realms Unlimited Adventures,

Dungeon Hack (heh),

Actually, pretty much all the Gold Box games.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying prove anyways.  I knew that a lower AC was better in the AD&D world long before playing Baldur's Gate.

 

The only JRPG I had significantly played was FF7.

 

 

Yes previous experience affects things, but apparently because you (allegedly) had to explain to someone that a higher AC value meant better, clearly it's no longer intuitive.

 

 

How many popular rulesets have lower AC = better AC, and how many have higher AC = better AC?

 

And I didn't say I never played AD&D PnP, I just didn't play it much....usually because it was always a gong show with the people I played it with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

'Gong show' ???

[alanschu]

My PnP AD&D experiences were less than fun.

[Lancer]

Ultima VI was your first RPG?

 

I just don't think using numbers to characterize stats or explaining any sort of RPG "concept" would be intuitive to a complete novice. After you explain it once or twice or so then they finally say..

 

"oh yeah...I get it."

 

That goes for Armor Class in 3e too. Those who say that novices got 3e AC the first TIME, are lying.

 

In any case, perhaps I should get my parents who don't know anything about PnP or computer games and see what they think in regards to 3e/2ndEd AC and THACO.

 

I know in my experience, I had not a dang problem with AD&D THACO. It is like walking or breathing to me. But then again, maybe I am weirder than everyone else.

Edited February 4, 2006 by Lancer

[Jediphile]

Take a group of people that have never seen D&D before.

 

 

Tell them that their "attack rating" is 10.  Then increase that value by 5.  Ask them, did your attack rating improve?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So by that analogy, 5th edition Call of Cthulhu also has a "counter-intuitive" system when you have to roll 1d100 equal to or BELOW your percentile score in the relevant skill?

 

Sorry, but I don't agree - whether a bonus should make the value go up or down is completely dependent on the game mechanics. I don't think you can generalize that broadly.

[Jediphile]

It's not a chicken and egg experience.  It's taking a look at the affordances set in a society.  If people recognize that an increase in a value is an increase in that attribute, then they will apply this rule more universally.

 

There's no way you can honestly expect to take a random group of people with no D&D experience and have any significant portion (or I suspect any period) instantly associate a lower AC value as being a better AC without additional reasoning.  Once the person starts thinking and putting the pieces together, even without help, we're outside the realm of intuition.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think this discussion is getting a little too academic. It's also entirely theoretical.

 

Good luck trying to convince me that people see AC as being a bad thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah, but newbies will ask what Armor Class is in the first place, and so they are unlikely to associate high or low values to mean anything. You seem to forget that "Armor Class" is game concept tied specifically to the terminology of D&D. It's even a pretty bad one, since Armor Classes are horribly oversimplified and illogical and always were.

 

Look to GURPS (4th edition) for armor rules that actually *attempts* to emulate a realistic portrayal of what armors are in the simplest of ways and yet remain playable.

 

On second thought, even the armor system in the Fallout games are infinitely more logical than they are in D&D, so the discussion of AC would also fall into the category of "what we have gotten used to".

[Volourn]

"A player can't even really participate in any game without you explaining what THAC0 is."

 

False. I've played with players who didn't know or even really care for the 'rules' in any edition or game. They played for the thoguht of being part of a group, for role-playing, for the story, or whatever.

 

So, in conclusion, you don't need to know thaco or any other rule to play. You are, in fact, absolutely 100% wrong in your above statement.

 

Game over.

[Darque]

Take a group of people that have never seen D&D before.

 

 

Tell them that their "attack rating" is 10.  Then increase that value by 5.  Ask them, did your attack rating improve?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Shadowstrider]

Half of Lancer's replies are so fallacious and insane it is incomprehensible. Its pretty clear that arguing intuitiveness of something with someone who holds AD&D as intuitive, is a completely lost cause.

 

"Why can't elves be paladins?"

Cuz. It is intuitive!

"Why can't dwarves multiclass mage/thief/cleric/druid?"

Cuz. It is intuitive!

 

Ridiculous.