Last night, I rolled up my first Dungeons and Dragons character in over a decade. I never played third edition (not sure how that happened), and haven’t made a character for second edition since… Well, maybe it was one of Bobo’s games in Bloomington, in which I was playing a vampire-hunting Ranger. (My memories of those times are hazy, but rose-colored, and feature using a ballista a shoot a message bearer at 100 yards.)
Okay, I didn’t “roll” anything. My friend Steve walked me through the character creation process on his laptop, using WotC’s online character tool. No dice – not even virtual ones – were rolled. With the software taking us step-by-step through the process, and Steve explaining some of the more technical details of the mechanics (“Shift means you can move without provoking opportunity actions.”) it was relatively painless.
I was a little surprised to see that most of my character sheet was filled with character powers. You get powers for leveling up (it’s a 6th level character), powers for feats, powers for equipment. But then I remembered: Third edition was the same way. (No, I never played it, but I read a lot of it.) Classes were always giving you special abilities as you leveled up. A class was pretty much *defined* by the abilities it gave you.
Come to think of it, wasn’t second ed like that too? Lots of unique special abilities, divided up by class? (Seriously, I don’t remember. Wasn’t it like that?)
So the big difference is that the powers are now codified to heck and back. All timing questions are answered. All interaction questions are answered. And all the powers’ core systems work the same as the core systems of the game. (One of my biggest pet peeves with early D&D editions is abilities with unique systems. Grrrr.)
Codification seems to be a good thing. So why does it bother me somewhere in my old-school gamer gut?
I don’t know. But I’m sure I’ll still have fun, so long as I don’t stop to analyze every little thing with my game-designer monocle on. (Mental note: Leave the monocle at home.)
Ah yes. That game with the ballista….
I would posit this:
I used to think that having everything codified was the way to go; I even wrote the first version of my game to that end. But whenever I played 3ed or Pathfinder at GenCon, I would find myself confused and avoiding combat at all costs. Feats, Spells, Powers..AGGGHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! Whenever I playtested my game, the system was well balanced, but damn did it just suck the fun out of doing back flips and flying side kicks.
IMHO, sometimes that interpretation element and the on the fly judgments really make the night, especially in a tabletop rpg. Finding the rules holes would result in hilarious situations, some of which would turn the tide of battle! My feeling is that the codification sanitized a game that I wanted to remain organic at my gaming table. I don’t care what bonuses and penalties are going to be applied to parkouring 27 meters and doing a leaping side kick into a snake man’s nose as one action; just let me throw the die and tell me what happens!
I guess after my rant, I’m not saying codification is bad, but I always like to say “Rules are for those who need them”. Perhaps, like me, you feel that you like having the rules should an argument arise for others, but your sensibilities tell you that it is just a game, for having fun, and you would just rather “go with it and let the dice sort it out…”
Comments are closed.