Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

It was done for simplicity's sake then. And instead of coming up with something more (realistic? hrrrmmm), once they were done making straight translations of D&D into video games, developers continued to do what was easiest to program.

I mean....look at DF. That's one man's attempt to do something else other than HP, and look how horrifically complex that came out.

HPs are a terrible system, except for every system that has come before it. And if you compare other game systems not doing HPs.....you find many of them are just re-casting/re-naming/adding more math on top of the original concept, which is that "life" is a pool of some sort.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Sensei: I think 3E has a very regulated and thorough system for monsters. I also think some of the output of that system can be OK. I think some of the output can be idiotic.

Re: HP: Hit Points are actually just a nice way to handle combat at a table. Shadowrun's damage tracks are another decent way, one that works for Shadowrun. Both systems have some problems. But doing something more "realistic" generally just means "more complicated". While some players enjoy the feeling that what they're doing is more in-depth, other players don't find that particularly interesting especially since the ultimate outcome - how many enemy attacks will it take before I can't attack or flee anymore? - is identical. And how do you know that extra depth and complication isn't just concealing the probabilities from you enough to make it feel uncertain and surprising again?

Also with HP it's very easy to use the same stats to scale up to mass combat on the fly so that you only need extra rules for things like formation and morale.

[nenjin]

Like, for example. Anyone play RIFTS? The difference between SDC and MDC in theory should allow you to address the scale from an insect to a god. Unfortunately, in practice, it makes for a lot of "Why do we even represent SDC in a game like this" questions. Sometimes the HP value of a brickwall versus having a starship crash into it simply isn't relevant.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Oh right.

What did 3E D&D get wrong? Off the top of my head I want to say stripping Magic-Users of most of their limitations from 2E, giving them humungous amounts of spells per day, making their spells more powerful, reducing the final enemy chance to save against them, making magic item creation super easy, level advancement just as fast as a Fighter, full CON bonuses to HP, and on top of all that giving them multiple attacks per round.

No wonder everyone says Wizard is OP. 3E perverted just about every original intent where they're concerned.

[nenjin]

What killed 3E for more was the emphasis on combat positioning. The game went from feeling like it was based on my imagination and those of my friends, to a game based on a grid with fixed rules. Listening to people plan out their AoO and catching people Flat-footed and all that stuff ruined combat for me. What they did to Character Creation was just the nail in the game's coffin for me.

[Micro102]

It ended.

[Neonivek]

What killed 3E for more was the emphasis on combat positioning.

Uhhh >_>

3E was a shift to "less" emphasis on combat positioning. Though whether that shift started in 2e or 3e is beyond me.

Though remember there is a HUGE difference between "did wrong" and "did something I did not like".

The fact that it has a lot of emphasis on positioning can be considered style, so what about this focus broke it?

[Telgin]

Don't forget about how diablo 2 uses excessive amounts of speed bump skills.

Or rather skills that exist only to eat skill points.

The Barbarian was the absolute worst when it came to unhelpful skills.

Oh, yes.  A good example would be Leap.  1 point in Leap Attack gets you the same effect as 20 points in Leap and lets you hit things when you land.

Nevertheless, whatever solutions exist for this, Diablo III's was not how I wanted to see this fixed.  Or WoW's solution for that matter.  If it's possible to be any character with only a little switching, then I quickly lose interest.

[Bouchart]

Torchlight 1 seems to have handled that problem nicely, in my experience.

[nenjin]

The fact that it has a lot of emphasis on positioning can be considered style, so what about this focus broke it?

Coming from 2e, none of that was codified beyond "If an enemy tries to disengage with you, you get a free attack on him."

3E is where D&D started to resemble a table top board game or a video game more than an RPG, at least in my view. Classes got very "gamey", combat encouraged the use of maps and figs, measured down to the grid. 3E became less about visualizing stuff in your head and more about buying WotC brand supplements. And while 2e had plenty of splat books....I think 3E took it to a whole new level, what with Prestige classes and all this other noise.

And yes, while I agree there is a difference between "did wrong" and "did something I don't like", 99% of what is being said in here is an opinion, so I think that point is irrelevant. You can disagree on what is "wrong" vs. "different" and that's what discussion is for. If we're going to start coming up with objective definitions of "better" or "worse", this thread has little point.

[Neonivek]

It isn't that nenjin, you can tell the difference when you are harping on something because it is genuinely making a mistake and when it is doing something you don't like inside your own opinion.

I think Psychonauts focused too much on the crazy people and not enough on the campers (who are much more interesting subjects with more depth) and their psychology.

Yet that wasn't, in my opinion, a mistake. This might be 99% opinion, but there is a reason I never brought this up as a flaw.

Hence why I asked for positioning to be expanded, its flaw beyond "I don't like it" isn't self-evident and I was interested. (Though to admit, I expected it to be about the Conga)

[nenjin]

It slowed down combat, made players less reliant on their imaginations and more reliant on rule sets, combos and supplements. And, as I already said, it aped video games for the mechanics they used to engage players. All of that is "wrong" in my opinion. Or at least, something I did not like and that caused me to write WotC D&D off completely. A choice that has been reinforced with every new edition.

[N3rdm4n]

DWARF FORTRESS DOES NO WRONG!!

Ok, fave game right now is Cataclysm, and it's main failure is not having good NPCs. Other than that I can lose myself in the game days.

[mastahcheese]

On the debate of DnD 2E Vs 3E.

On Wizards: It ticked me off, LeoLeonardoIII put it perfectly, wizards shouldn't work like that, period. They shouldn't be magic-spam with a back-up crossbow.

On Combat positioning: While I do agree that 2E was more focused on imagination and less on a grid, personally I didn't feel much of a difference between the two. To me, the rules had just clarified any issues people still had regarding them, but overall, the whole system for both versions could still have been made better.

[NobodyPro]

Also, Deus Ex: Human Revolution forces combat in the boss fights where the rest of the game could be played stealthily. SS2's scenario was worse though, in my opinion.

Director's Cut.

Uh, I guess a couple of the Level 5 upgrades in Ratchet and Clank 3 were kinda lame.