The Inside Scoop on Gaming

The present review is part of a series of reviews of fantasy games. By fantasy I mean pre-modern fantasy involving low levels of technology (up to the equivalent of 15th century Europe without gunpowder guns), magic and fantastic creatures. After the review you can find links to the games that were covered before.

BEFORE WE START

Some time ago I reviewed the Basic D&D boxed set (Portuguese edition) – check my review at http://www.rpg.net/news reviews/reviews/rev_8045.html. Now it’s time to review the last instalment of the game: the 3rd edition. In the past I had some contacts with ADD, most notably the initial stages of a tabletop campaign and an online game. Both got nowhere not long after they started. Once I had a copy of the ADD Players Book but never read it (too confusing and boring). I own the ADD CD-rom 2: Only use it for the cartographer software. I guess this clears my past involvement with xD&D.

When the D&D 3rd Edition Players Handbook came out I decided it was time to give D&D a try. The response for the game was so enthusiastic that it seemed the moment had, even for me, soo I acquired that book. Of course, it had to find a place in my fantasy roleplaying games review series. Here it is. Since this book has been reviewed so often I guess you have a very good understanding of what it contains, so I’ll concentrate my review on the major issues I have with it.

STYLE

The PHB is hardbound and in full colour. The text is in two columns (three for spells) and in a small but readable font. On what concerns organization, I said what I have to say in one of my The Travels of Mendes Pinto columns (http://www.rpg.net/news reviews/columns/ruleslaw30aug01.html). In terms of reference, there is the obligatory table of content at the beginning, and a glossary and an index at the end. Furthermore, each page refers the respective chapter at the external margin. The art varies from the very good to the bad (like that wizard in page 201). On average it is reasonable.

I give it a 4 in terms of form.

SUBSTANCE I – SETTING

What? Am I supposed to speak about setting when D&D is a GENERIC fantasy game? Yes. Since the game is genre oriented, it limits the setting options of the players. Settings created with D&D3 are to be directed at the pseudo-medieval with faeries type. I suppose that by now there’s not much more one can say about this.

Or else, yes. Just a call to the fact that D&D’s setting is strongly b(i)ased on strong and well defined stereotypes of characters and races: fighters, rogues, wizards, clerics, etc.; humans, dwarves, elves, halflings, etc. Do I need to say anything more? Ok, let’s stop here.

The basic setting concepts on which D&D is built are solid and have a strong “brand recognition”. That’s good, even if not groundbreaking. But, hey, D&D made it.

A stout 4 for setting.

SUBSTANCE II – SYSTEM

This is D&D. That means that it has the staple of the D&D family: races, classes and levels. Unlike Basic D&D races are not classes, so one creates a character by combining both. It makes sense. What I said about BD&D when considering races / classes still holds in D&D3. I still think that it is a viable and interesting approach to character design. So far so good.

Helas, there is more to D&D3 than that. It seems that the designers of this game (maybe due to the ADD legacy) knew of the different paths followed by RPG rules designers in the almost 30 years since D&D first came into the public and they decided to incorporate it into their game. The result is that D&D3 has a lot of things that were not there in Basic D&D. Things like skills or feats, for instance.

If you read my review of Basic D&D you may have remarked that my main complain about that system was the multiplication of resolution systems it incorporated. D&D3 did like the crab: one step forward, two steps back. Let’s see:

The major advance is the fact that D&D3 uses a single dicing mechanic: roll d20 plus modifiers against a target number; high roll is better. Yes, this is good. (Not that I like this type of mechanics – I don’t – but I can see that they work and do what they are supposed to do. From the point of view of a review that’s more than enough.) You want to attack? Roll d20 plus attack modifiers. You want to pick a pocket? Roll d20 plus the corresponding skill modifiers.

So, where’s the problem? If you have a copy of the D&D3 PHB, please, open it at page 4 and 5. Look at the inserted character sheet. Ok, suppose a character wants to do something. What are the alternatives? You have:

First, Armor Class. (true, technically one does not roll AC, but it is 10 plus modifiers. Since 10 corresponds to the rounded average of 1d20, it is statistically the same as to roll the die. In fact, I just can’t figure why there’s no option for the defending character to roll 1d20 instead of just having 10 plus mods for his AC.)

Second, Initiative.

Third, Saving throws (three of them connected with the attributes Con, Dex and Wis).

Four, Melee and ranged attacks.

Five, Skills.

All of this works the same way. Why not use a single and uniform terminology and concept, say, skills? I just can’t get it. It makes much harder to grasp and learn the game with zero value-added from the multiplication of concepts.

This problem is made even worse because there’s not even a uniform approach in the design of things that correspond to action. For instance, D&D3 keeps ST from the previous versions of the game. Like in the past, one may only guess why there are ST for Con, Dex and Wis, and there are no ST for Str, Int and Cha.

Yes, all of them underlie some skills. But so does Dex and Wis. My question remains: why not ST for all attributes; or, why not to give up with ST all-together.

There is more. Pure strength efforts are handled with a fixed maximum effort basis (lift over head, lift off ground, and push or drag). This means that in this instance the uniformity of the neat d20 plus mods mechanic does not hold true. Why not? There’s nowhere to go to find an explanation.

And then there are feats. Boy, I really don’t like this type of game design. It’s the “everything goes (and let’s hope it does not break apart)” approach to rule making. I like neat designs where I can see the rationale of everything, and how it relates to the whole. This is just not possible in the casuistic approach that is intrinsic to feats. Now, most feats are just modifiers to skills or whatever you use to roll a d20. In other words, what they provide should be part of the thing they are used to modify. My take: feats are fancy gadgets that complicate what could and should be simple.

Let’s conclude: D&D3 keeps the good things of Basic D&D, corrects some of the shortcomings of this game but adds a lot of needless complexities. Because of that I give it a 3 for system.

SUBSTANCE III – THE FUN FACTOR

D&D3 tries to be serious. It tries to be what Basic D&D was not. And it tries to do this while keeping the same foundations that are there in BDD. It shouldn’t. It is bound to fail. Because it looses the major quality of BDD: the fact that it was a game for gamers, for people that just want to get together and have fun, while not being able to provide the flexibility and depth needed in a more involved game. (Don’t take me wrong. It can be done. But if it is done, it is despite of D&D3, not because of it.)

Given the open nature of the setting, system is at the core of this game. On the overall, it gets 3 for substance.

In any case, I want to…

* Re-read the book: If I need to… What will surely happen to clarify the application of rules if I ever play D&D3. 2.

* Be an occasional player: Yes, it can be done. Just give me a pre-made character that corresponds to the class of my choice. And don’t expect me to actually know how to play. 4. Now, if you want me to create a character, make it 1.

* Play in a campaign: With these rules? I have better options. Of course, if you have a solid setting… 2.

* Be an occasional game master: I’ll never be able to know the rules well enough to use D&D3. 1.

* Game master a campaign: There are better options. Besides, it will be a hell of a work to produce NPCs and I don’t have time for it. 1.

APPENDIX: FROM D&D3 TO MAGIC THE GATTERING AND BACK

Ok, I’ll give you a bonus: did you notice how close D&D3 is to M:TG? You didn’t? Shame on you. Just look at it this way:

First, get rid of the d20. All you have are mods that can be combined. Write each mod on a different card, give it a name, some useless text and a graphic.

Now, pick some basic type of cards and call them Classes. Use a different colour for each.

A character is a set of cards. Character creation and development are the rules that condition how to compose that set. Say, each level allows for a maximum number of cards in the set; character classes and races introduce limitations on the type of cards you can use. And so on.

I’ve told you, D&D3 is only a step away from M:TG. And I’m sure I’m not the first person to have noticed it.

PREVIOUS REVIEWS IN THE SERIES

Hero Wars: http://www.rpg.net/news reviews/reviews/rev_3385.html (technically not part of the series, I've included it because the game falls into the scope of games I'm reviewing)

RuneQuest 2: http://www.rpg.net/news reviews/reviews/rev_7969.html

RuneQuest 3: http://www.rpg.net/news reviews/reviews/rev_8012.html

Basic D&D: http://www.rpg.net/news reviews/reviews/rev_8045.html

D&D3 Players Handbook
D&D3 Players Handbook Capsule Review by Sergio Mascarenhas on 23/02/03 Style: 4 (Classy and well done) Substance: 3 (Average) THE FANTASY SERIES #4: Solid ideas with a needlessly complex and confusing implementation. Within 10 years we will have D&D4, so there's hope. Product: D&D3 Players Handbook Author: Monte Cook et al. Category: RPG Company/Publisher: Wizards of the Coast Line: Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition Cost: USD $19.95 Page count: 304 Year published: n/a ISBN: 0-7869-1550-1 SKU: TSR11550 Comp copy?: no Capsule Review by Sergio Mascarenhas on 23/02/03 Genre tags: Fantasy	The present review is part of a series of reviews of fantasy games. By fantasy I mean pre-modern fantasy involving low levels of technology (up to the equivalent of 15th century Europe without gunpowder guns), magic and fantastic creatures. After the review you can find links to the games that were covered before. BEFORE WE START Some time ago I reviewed the Basic D&D boxed set (Portuguese edition) – check my review at http://www.rpg.net/news reviews/reviews/rev_8045.html. Now it’s time to review the last instalment of the game: the 3rd edition. In the past I had some contacts with ADD, most notably the initial stages of a tabletop campaign and an online game. Both got nowhere not long after they started. Once I had a copy of the ADD Players Book but never read it (too confusing and boring). I own the ADD CD-rom 2: Only use it for the cartographer software. I guess this clears my past involvement with xD&D. When the D&D 3rd Edition Players Handbook came out I decided it was time to give D&D a try. The response for the game was so enthusiastic that it seemed the moment had, even for me, soo I acquired that book. Of course, it had to find a place in my fantasy roleplaying games review series. Here it is. Since this book has been reviewed so often I guess you have a very good understanding of what it contains, so I’ll concentrate my review on the major issues I have with it. STYLE The PHB is hardbound and in full colour. The text is in two columns (three for spells) and in a small but readable font. On what concerns organization, I said what I have to say in one of my The Travels of Mendes Pinto columns (http://www.rpg.net/news reviews/columns/ruleslaw30aug01.html). In terms of reference, there is the obligatory table of content at the beginning, and a glossary and an index at the end. Furthermore, each page refers the respective chapter at the external margin. The art varies from the very good to the bad (like that wizard in page 201). On average it is reasonable. I give it a 4 in terms of form. SUBSTANCE I – SETTING What? Am I supposed to speak about setting when D&D is a GENERIC fantasy game? Yes. Since the game is genre oriented, it limits the setting options of the players. Settings created with D&D3 are to be directed at the pseudo-medieval with faeries type. I suppose that by now there’s not much more one can say about this. Or else, yes. Just a call to the fact that D&D’s setting is strongly b(i)ased on strong and well defined stereotypes of characters and races: fighters, rogues, wizards, clerics, etc.; humans, dwarves, elves, halflings, etc. Do I need to say anything more? Ok, let’s stop here. The basic setting concepts on which D&D is built are solid and have a strong “brand recognition”. That’s good, even if not groundbreaking. But, hey, D&D made it. A stout 4 for setting. SUBSTANCE II – SYSTEM This is D&D. That means that it has the staple of the D&D family: races, classes and levels. Unlike Basic D&D races are not classes, so one creates a character by combining both. It makes sense. What I said about BD&D when considering races / classes still holds in D&D3. I still think that it is a viable and interesting approach to character design. So far so good. Helas, there is more to D&D3 than that. It seems that the designers of this game (maybe due to the ADD legacy) knew of the different paths followed by RPG rules designers in the almost 30 years since D&D first came into the public and they decided to incorporate it into their game. The result is that D&D3 has a lot of things that were not there in Basic D&D. Things like skills or feats, for instance. If you read my review of Basic D&D you may have remarked that my main complain about that system was the multiplication of resolution systems it incorporated. D&D3 did like the crab: one step forward, two steps back. Let’s see: The major advance is the fact that D&D3 uses a single dicing mechanic: roll d20 plus modifiers against a target number; high roll is better. Yes, this is good. (Not that I like this type of mechanics – I don’t – but I can see that they work and do what they are supposed to do. From the point of view of a review that’s more than enough.) You want to attack? Roll d20 plus attack modifiers. You want to pick a pocket? Roll d20 plus the corresponding skill modifiers. So, where’s the problem? If you have a copy of the D&D3 PHB, please, open it at page 4 and 5. Look at the inserted character sheet. Ok, suppose a character wants to do something. What are the alternatives? You have: First, Armor Class. (true, technically one does not roll AC, but it is 10 plus modifiers. Since 10 corresponds to the rounded average of 1d20, it is statistically the same as to roll the die. In fact, I just can’t figure why there’s no option for the defending character to roll 1d20 instead of just having 10 plus mods for his AC.) Second, Initiative. Third, Saving throws (three of them connected with the attributes Con, Dex and Wis). Four, Melee and ranged attacks. Five, Skills. All of this works the same way. Why not use a single and uniform terminology and concept, say, skills? I just can’t get it. It makes much harder to grasp and learn the game with zero value-added from the multiplication of concepts. This problem is made even worse because there’s not even a uniform approach in the design of things that correspond to action. For instance, D&D3 keeps ST from the previous versions of the game. Like in the past, one may only guess why there are ST for Con, Dex and Wis, and there are no ST for Str, Int and Cha. Yes, all of them underlie some skills. But so does Dex and Wis. My question remains: why not ST for all attributes; or, why not to give up with ST all-together. There is more. Pure strength efforts are handled with a fixed maximum effort basis (lift over head, lift off ground, and push or drag). This means that in this instance the uniformity of the neat d20 plus mods mechanic does not hold true. Why not? There’s nowhere to go to find an explanation. And then there are feats. Boy, I really don’t like this type of game design. It’s the “everything goes (and let’s hope it does not break apart)” approach to rule making. I like neat designs where I can see the rationale of everything, and how it relates to the whole. This is just not possible in the casuistic approach that is intrinsic to feats. Now, most feats are just modifiers to skills or whatever you use to roll a d20. In other words, what they provide should be part of the thing they are used to modify. My take: feats are fancy gadgets that complicate what could and should be simple. Let’s conclude: D&D3 keeps the good things of Basic D&D, corrects some of the shortcomings of this game but adds a lot of needless complexities. Because of that I give it a 3 for system. SUBSTANCE III – THE FUN FACTOR D&D3 tries to be serious. It tries to be what Basic D&D was not. And it tries to do this while keeping the same foundations that are there in BDD. It shouldn’t. It is bound to fail. Because it looses the major quality of BDD: the fact that it was a game for gamers, for people that just want to get together and have fun, while not being able to provide the flexibility and depth needed in a more involved game. (Don’t take me wrong. It can be done. But if it is done, it is despite of D&D3, not because of it.) Given the open nature of the setting, system is at the core of this game. On the overall, it gets 3 for substance. In any case, I want to… * Re-read the book: If I need to… What will surely happen to clarify the application of rules if I ever play D&D3. 2. * Be an occasional player: Yes, it can be done. Just give me a pre-made character that corresponds to the class of my choice. And don’t expect me to actually know how to play. 4. Now, if you want me to create a character, make it 1. * Play in a campaign: With these rules? I have better options. Of course, if you have a solid setting… 2. * Be an occasional game master: I’ll never be able to know the rules well enough to use D&D3. 1. * Game master a campaign: There are better options. Besides, it will be a hell of a work to produce NPCs and I don’t have time for it. 1. APPENDIX: FROM D&D3 TO MAGIC THE GATTERING AND BACK Ok, I’ll give you a bonus: did you notice how close D&D3 is to M:TG? You didn’t? Shame on you. Just look at it this way: First, get rid of the d20. All you have are mods that can be combined. Write each mod on a different card, give it a name, some useless text and a graphic. Now, pick some basic type of cards and call them Classes. Use a different colour for each. A character is a set of cards. Character creation and development are the rules that condition how to compose that set. Say, each level allows for a maximum number of cards in the set; character classes and races introduce limitations on the type of cards you can use. And so on. I’ve told you, D&D3 is only a step away from M:TG. And I’m sure I’m not the first person to have noticed it. PREVIOUS REVIEWS IN THE SERIES Hero Wars: http://www.rpg.net/news reviews/reviews/rev_3385.html (technically not part of the series, I've included it because the game falls into the scope of games I'm reviewing) RuneQuest 2: http://www.rpg.net/news reviews/reviews/rev_7969.html RuneQuest 3: http://www.rpg.net/news reviews/reviews/rev_8012.html Basic D&D: http://www.rpg.net/news reviews/reviews/rev_8045.html

D&D3 Players Handbook