3rd Edition FAQ

[yehoshua]

It's all about time.  Endel is at a different time then when I can play.  We shall see.  I have been actively recruiting at the Wizard site for online players.  I have received many e-mails wondering how to get started, and that they were looking for 3e games.

Look even if there is only one person who could play at a time, then that's it works.  You know what has been a large sucess is recruiting in Open Dev II.  You put in the title "D&D 3e game (recruiting)" and point them to Thardferr.

36 new members this month alone, the Largest in Thardferr history, all we need to do is keep their interest.  Make sure that they download OpenRPG.

In fact.  I have a generic E-mail already written, I'm gonna start sending to ever new player.  Here it is:

Thank you for your interest in Thardferr.

OpenRPG sounds right up your alley for online gaming.  It is an online table top with character sheets, dice, map area, miniatures, chat rooms, etc. and it’s free.  This is their download page:

http://www.openrpg.com/index.php?page=install

They have instructions there, but let me give you the gist.  You download Python v2.3, then wxPython v2.4, and final the OpenRPG.  The Python program allows you to run OpenRPG.

Once in OpenRPG you can browse the servers.  Thardferr’s server reads "Thardferr 2e/3e" or something to that nature.  But with OpenRPG you are not limited to Thardferr, there are tons of servers.  I recommend also checking out Open Dev II; it is ran by OpenRPG and is usually packed.

Do not forget to check out our IC forums as well as discussions of game mechanics and additions to the history of Thardferr.

If you have any more questions, feel free to contact me.

Joshua

[Suleidan]

Gibreel I so compeltely agree...

I had a 2 page post typed out today that I deleted.. that said alot of stuff similar to what you just posted (your 2nd post up from here)...


It seems to me that the '3e' side is bending over backwards to try to make the 'Theme' of the Thardferr Setting applicable and compliant.

But the 2e side is not willing to even consider any changes to help the process go smoother.




I had stuff typed up about fighters and barbarians too, like.. So if you are playing 3e, you see two different people's skillsets as Fighter or barbarian, but in 2e perhaps one would just see those people as fighters and  a bit more 'beefy' fighter.   With the 2e Perks how they are, you can already create a character that gets very close to the 'idea' of a barbarian... in 3e the 'idea' is just quantified as a Class...




I have never felt we were trying to rewrite IC Thardferr, but merely how OOC rules could be applied to 'better make' 2e and 3e cooperate.

What does it matter if the OOC aspects of 'when' a specialty priests powers come into play (( 2e delaying the start until lvl 4-5 so that prestige classes can be used in 3e )),  when IC it would make sense for this to be something 'gained' while playing.


I very much am seeing a hard lined ' not willing to even consider change ' opinion by a core group of people, even if it is only changes that would affect OOC not IC.


I am beginning to think even whether it would not be wise just to split thardferr into Thardferr 2e and Thardferr 3xe and forget Thardferr 2e/3e.

Make them exist separately from eachother... have very similar histories up to this point, but be like splintered realities from here on out (where events in one would no longer affect another)...

This would certainly make adapting 3e how some of us WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT USED an easier prospect.  there would still be tons of work to do imho but as Endel likes to say.. it is work that can be done on an as needed basis.




either way I am more than willing to host both realities if it comes to that.

[Lalina]

I agree as well, as I keep saying.  I personally think limiting 3e or changing 2e too much either way, just makes 2.5e which no one wants.

As for the SPs gaining powers later (as this seems to be something I've been called out on), I pointed out a lot of IC reasons why having a 2e cleric transform into a 2e SP doesn't really make sense.  IC, I think it doesn't make any sense for a person to train as a cleric (learning how to wear heavy armor properly, use certain weapons, etc.) just to abandon that entire thing likely less than a year later in IC time to take up an entirely different path.

If people want to tinker around with the SP classes and have some granted powers come in later, that's fine by me.  I just want to point out that many do not operate at 1st level now anyway.  If you have a specific class balance or IC reason why a power should not come into play at the level it now does, then feel free to suggest changes to the gods committee (which I believe is myself and kluu at the moment).

By the logic used to justify why SPs should be granted powers later, you could say Rangers and Paladins need to begin as fighters and get their granted powers later, specialized mages need to begin as general mages (afterall, they need "general" training/spellcasting before they can specialize right?), etc.  You could make the argument that it is needed for every non-basic class, but I don't like the idea personally.  

That being said, I'm fine with allowing 3e Barbarians.  I'm fine with 3e Monks and even Sorcerers (to convert Sorcerer to 2e just make give them a big UKS that allows innate spellcasting, some PCs already have this).  I'm fine with 3e players having access to classes that 2e doesn't have.  Those PCs can be converted into 2e classes if there is ever a need.  Now that being said, I don't think 3e players have to necessarily have access to every class available to 2e players.  The 2e classes can surely be converted into 3e ones if need be and people want.  2e players won't have access to feats, skills and prestige classes that 3e players have and 3e players won't have access to 2e perks and possibly some other unique 2e things.

All that being said, as I've said over and over, realistically, 3e players and DMs are probably going to stay in their system and 2e players and DMs will stick with theirs.  The main part of Thardferr is the common setting and the ability for IC events of one group to impact another. Neither of those two things requires having the systems line up.

I have to agree with Nyr (and all of you know how much I hate to do that  :lol: ) when he said a long time ago "let the 3e people do their thing and let the 2e people do their thing."  About the only time I think we should meddle in either system is to preserve IC continuity which pretty much accounts to race/class combinations and a few other minor things.

My opinion is that 3e and 2e both should only have to accomodate the IC common setting.  Now, it's not out of any 2e purity movement, it's just that as Thardferr IC has always been 2e, the 2e rules are in line with the common setting already.  We don't need to change 2e to make it fit Thardferr.  All we have to do is tweak 3e a tiny bit to fit the IC common setting.  Notice I say a tiny bit.  As Gibreel, myself and others have already pointed out, very little actually needs to change from standard 3e.

We should be less concerned with having the ability to convert the systems and we should be spending our time and effort into making this a dynamic and fun Shared World setting that people want to actually play in, regardless of system.  That's the meat and drink of Thardferr and is the reason anyone would want to play here to begin with.  Ontop of that, it's much more fun to work on that than this stuff.


I just looked over what Gibreel has at the very start of this now long thread.  In my opinion, what he has their is perfect.  We do not need to anything more to have 3e fit Thardferr.  About the only thing I'd allow is possibly adding some of the 3e unique classes (Barbarian, Monk, Sorcerer) but I doubt people will agree with me to allow them.

[kluu]

I don't consier myself a hardlin 2nd ed DM. It is the one I know best right now. From reading the core 3e books through once, I think it is a better game mechnic. 2nd ed has always been a poor system IMO.

The thing I am seeing though in'st the 2nd ed people saying 3e has to be limited to fit us, but the 3e people slaying we dont want to play in your wrold if your world won't let us play 3e without any kind of limitations.

All I have ever asked is that when using the 3e system you maintain the integrity of the online world that has been around for over five years. With this in mind we have attempted to set soem regulations to make this more clear to the 3e players and DMs so that they will not use parts of the 3e game mechnics that would not fit in with the Thardferr setting.

I wouldn't have a problem wtih barbarians being played in Thardferr as long a they are form a culture and area that would have a barbarian mind and skill set. There would not be any gnome barbarians or halfling barbarians. But the horde land is filled with human ones, the back areas of khardfee and the WC canhave barbarain tribes living there even some dwarven ones might fit in western and southern Khardfee.  But there cnanot be any sorcerers or dwarven and halflign magic users. These do nto fit the setting.

Using a game mechnic does not entitle a person to use any part of it jsut becasue it is in the book. The DMs and players of a world must accept the setting they are going to play in and agree to keep it if they want to share it. Thardferr has a histroy a culture and a setting that has limits on the 3e game mechnics. Not to be rude but if a person doesn't want to acept playing in the setting then it doens't mateter what game mechnic is used. It is not the limitations to the 3e game that seems to be keeping people away it is that they do not like the wrold setting that is being given them to play within.

I think we need to stop thinking of this as a 2nd ed vs 3e problem. I do not think it is. If a DM and players want to plya in a Thardferr based game using the thardferr and Kyranth world setting, regardless of what game mechnic they use they cna't have dwarf and halfing magic users or non spell book spell casting mages, etc... Elves do not culturally have the racial background to let them be paladins, gnomes can only racially fathom \illusionary magic, the gods are the gods we have for this setting.

It is not a fight over game systems at all. Use whichever youlike jsut make it follow and fit into the setting and no one wil bother you. The only problem is at such times you have to interacti with a group with a different system and then the characters have to be made to interact on an even basis. so dont argue how one game mechnic is limiting another, jsut tell ushow when they interact we can play with the different characters on an even keel.

As for me, I don't care which is used. As long as I know the basics of the game system I can run a game without anyone making a character conversion. Each system cna worlk independantly and at the same time as far as I am concerned. Using each specific system, the DM can adjudicate how the RP and interaction plays out based ontheir indipdndant resolution rules. But since I am more knowledgeable of the 2nd ed, my own group will be using it.

[Jelani]

This is the first time I have posted on this thread and for good reason -- I was hardlined against adding 3E in this world.  After seeing all the new blood coming in, I am willing to admit I was wrong. This new infusion was needed and hopefully we even keep a few for the long run.

However, I think it is somewhere in the middle of Gib and Kluu's argument. There are those who will come in and complain because they want everything available and Thardferr isn't allowing it. This may cause some fireworks that could otherwise be avoided. Kluu also brings up a good point. This world limits the classes based on the setting. It is just the way it is.

I think we have a number of people who have realized this and are working to make the best of things.

We can't make everyone happy and we shouldn't try to. Stick to the basics of 3E as much as we can for this setting and let 2E remain as it is. I honestly don't think the transfers will happen much, if at all, and we have enough people to help with the conversions that I think we are worrying way too much about this. As Thrag has said so eloquently "Keep it simple, stupid"

[Kyrell]

Now aside from everything that has been said, what is the true reason that 3e could not be adapted readily and quickly? SP's? no. Domains? no. Classes? no. IC/storyline compatibility? no. Simply put, 3e is not wanted.  Now the minor tweaks that need to be done are easy to do. In all honesty, how many new PC's are going to want to jump straight in to an SP? From what I have seen so far, none.  Now that being said, the SP question can be put on the back burner.  First things first, get a group acclimated with 3e and its placement within the storyline. Mechanics and such will be worked out as the group progresses along. You get the group moving and playing, then slowly branch out to other aspects (domains, SP's and such). Gib has already set the ground rules for xp, the story will help develop the PC's and work out the kinks.

Hamstringing it at the outset is going to drive away any new blood we get. Let the group get moving as they may be able to work some situations out amongst themselves that will work IC'ly.

Let's give Endel a chance to get moving before we start to pick things apart.

[Jelani]

Endel has been trying to put together for a week or two now. It isn't always a simple thing to create PCs, especially for those new to the world. In the meantime, it simply gives us more time to argue about things that maybe won't even matter.

Saying things are simple and don't need to be worked out is an oversimplification.  We are making it harder than it needs to be, but there do need to be some general groundrules laid down. With so many people involved, the opinions on what exacty is needed has become confusing.

[kluu]

Who is stillarguing to not let 3e be played in Thardferr?

What is being proposed to let conversoin be more simple that in any way stops 3e from being used to run a group?

How is anyone stopping Endel from starting running his group using 3e?

As far as I can see the answer to al of these it no one and nothing. Most are trying to help as best we can to get his and any other 3e group going. It appears to me the ones still hesitating are those 3e people that do not like the world setting and what restrictions that may cause to their running their group. This was no different in the 2nd Ed system before. We have always had DMs that came in looked at the wrold setting in more detail and then never ran a game becasue it didn't allow them perfect freedom to do as they liked.

This is not a 3e vs 2nd ed problem it is only a problem with some people not wanting to play by the rules of thie world setting or those we use to have a shared world.

Argements about allowing 3e or limiting it so far as to make it not worth using are a waste of time I believe. Don't argue that we arne't lettign you use 3e or limiting it, jsut atart using it and try and fit it to this shared world and you will have no problems. If you cna't fit your game into this shared wrold and the stetting that has been created then it doen'st matter what system you use, it is that you don't want to be here for whatever reason.

Anyone interested in using 3e here, please do. No one is trying to stop you. We are only wanting you to stay in our world and use our world setting and the restrictions that are caused by playing in a shared world setting.

[Dingo]

It appears to me the ones still hesitating are those 3e people that do not like the world setting and what restrictions that may cause to their running their group. This was no different in the 2nd Ed system before. We have always had DMs that came in looked at the wrold setting in more detail and then never ran a game becasue it didn't allow them perfect freedom to do as they liked.

Honestly I don't see this as being as much of a problem (though I am new and have not seen very much) as the fact that the 3e restrictions are still in debate.  If I where coming in looking to DM I would be turned away simply because the rules are not laid out yet.  I think things will probably calm down and the flow of people will be more regular once there is a link under character creation and house rules to the extensive set of 3e rules for Thardferr.  There are a lot of people working on that right now and I say let them work... no wait, help them work.  On that note is there anything a new player (me) might be able to do to help out?

[Marxus]

I know i'm new here (this is my first post!) and all, but have been cruising the boards since last night, reading up on the setting (which is pretty decent), and seeing what the 3rd edition scene was all about here.  Considering coming in and playing some, possibly DMing.

Maybe its that lack of knowledge of the actual ammount of content in the world that has led me to this opinion... but why does Thardferr 3rd edition need to be interchangable with the 2nd edition?  It seems like theres a pretty clear indication that doing a perfect conversion would only cause problems for both worlds and drive players and DM's away from both worlds.  From the discussion i've seen so far the 2nd edition hardcore players and DM's don't necisarrily love 2nd edition so much that they would not embrace changes but its more their displeasure at new rules and a general dislike of the 3rd edition system that makes them not want 3rd edition as part of the world.  Then the 3rd edition folks (those who aren't already used to the restrictions here) come in and think... "wait, why should I be saddled be down by silly restrictions just because of old 2nd edition stuff".

With that in mind, who's to say there can't just be 2 settings?  You don't even have to share the same webspace.  If i've gathered anything from my time here its that its more the community than the rules that have made you guys successfull thus far and kept this going over the years.  You could take the setting, and build a new Thardferr with all new characters and more fitting rules than just a mish mash of converted 2nd edition stuff.  Heck it can even be based off the current conditions of the setting.  Old PC's can be NPC's in the new setting, events that happend since you started can all be part of the storyline, you can tell tales of the PC's of past and their adventures.  You could play or DM in either world, so the purists could have their 3rd edition free setting and newcomers would likely be more open to joining with new rules and a clean slate.  

Anyhow, im rambling now, thats just my 2 cents.  I think you get the idea of what im getting at.

[Dingo]

Weclome in!   I hope you find a good place here Marxus,

[Zee]

The reason why we decided not to have a seperate world idea, is because groups interacting with each other. Ideas may have changed and it may be there are going to be two seperate thards. I personally would hate to miss the opportunity to play with new 3e players though simply because they dont want to be 'saddled' as you put it.

[Thragnar]

It isn't about one system versus another or even one way of thinking versus another.   It is about fitting the world setting that has been established for years to fit house rules that have been created.   This includes specific classes and races that are specific to Thardferr.   It includes the religious spectrum of Thardferr.   It includes house rules about restrictions that may be endemic to Thardferr.   But it is never 2E versus 3E.    Yes there will be some growing pains, but eventually it will work out to benefit all.

When 3E was created, it was set in a specific world, Greyhawk.   Now you have books about any number of settings and worlds.   Each has specific house rules that impact the world based on the setting.   That is what is going to be discovered in Endel's new campaign using the 3E system.  Roleplaying does not change.    All you need to do is look at Endel's IC Board post to see that.   It is time to see what happens.    I wish each of the new PCs in Endel's campaign the best  and I hope to see what ideas  come out of it.

[Endel]

RP will change a little just because the tools in 3e let you use the game mechanics to determine some of the things that were left up in the air in 2e. Like telling if a person is lying (bluff check vs. sense motive check) or being able to successfully get your message across without straight out saying it(innuendo check vs. a DC set by DM). I should clarify it just makes my life easier when it comes to things of this nature as they are not really talked about in the 2e rule books. It shoulcn't affect the interaction between characters.

[Firewielder]

3E is great i believe because it allows almost anything in a simplified manner.  The skills that are there encompass everything...and just in case they don't, well they've got blank spots for any that the DM can come up with.

It's a fantabulous (like that word? i do)...a fantabulous system, that while becoming a bit redundant for several things...overall smooths out complications that many other games have.  To me, reading a 3.5E and a 2E book are like reading english and then ancient draconic...if you haven't been tutored by a three-hundred year old wizard, you're not going to get the 2E book.

Now I'm not knocking it...because anything that's D&D is gravy to me and I'm all about it...but for the up and coming..."I want it served easy" generation, simplicity is what it's all about.

But then again...I guess I shouldn't talk.  I think the story is much more important than the actual rolling of the dice...maybe that's why I always spent so much time on the RP boards...