D&D 5E 15 Petty Reasons I Won't Buy 5e

[Hussar]

Hussar your experience varies from mine

Heh, rather obviously.

But, that's the point. At no point am I trying to claim that my experience is universal or indicative of any sort of norm of play. OTOH, you have repeatedly claimed, as again in the post two above this one, that your experiences are universal and "the way it was done" even in the face of people telling you specifically that they didn't do it this way.

Look, this is Enworld. By demographic, we trend in our 40s. This has been shown in poll after Enworld poll. Those of us who take the time to post, by and large, started gaming decades ago. My current group of seven players (including myself) has pushing 150 years of gaming experience between us. And, we're from all over North America, so our experiences have all been quite different.

Granted our play styles tend to mesh well, so, for the first time in a long time, I've got a very stable group. Makes me very happy. But, again, I would never try to claim that our experiences are universal. It would help the conversation immensely if you would stop.

 

[pemerton]

Here are some passages from UA which help explain why my recollection and experiences are the same as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=3586]MerricB[/MENTION].

Back Cover: "This, the latest of the AD&D game books, further defines and describes the game system."

Page 3, Gary Gygax:

The AD&D game system is dynamic. It grows and expands. . . .

As the original volumes of the game system (Monster Manual, Players Handbook, and Dungeon Masters Guide) have altered from their first editions, so the game has changed in form and substance. This new material grew from my own campaign, articles published in DRAGON magazine, and input from many Dungeon Masters and players also. The book has a single purpose: Unearthed Arcana brings new dimensions to the AD&D game system. . . .

All participant of a campaign will find this material of greatest interest and benefit to them. Dungeon Masters will discover new sub-races and their inter-relationships, new deity models for non-humans, and muhc in the way of magic . . . Players, of course, benefit from all of that and more. . . . There are new coices, new possibilities, new opportunities, and new ideas laid out before you.​

Page 4, Jeff Grub (in addition to what was posted upthread): "It is a book that will change the way the AD&D game is played."

Nothing in any of that text suggests that the book has, or is intended to have, a different status from the earlier books in the game line. If some gamers treated it that way, that was their own thing as far as I can tell.

I also think there is a clear contrast with PHB psionics, which begins the second sentecne of the opening paragraph with "If your DM opts to include psionic abilities in your campaign . . ."

 

[Emerikol]

Nothing you listed indicates to me its core rules.

Of course they are promoting the new book. Don't confuse the expectation that people will buy and use a book as an indication of anything. That is quite a stretch. That blurb text could appear on any 3e splatbook.

I'm not denying anyone's personal experience. I am of the belief that the predominant view of both tsr and the majority of the gaming public was that there was a core. If though your group was the type to generally allow anything I can see how you would get away from this thinking. My group was not that way. Any class or any spell had to be petitioned to the DM if not in the core books. The same way for the Complete series in 2e.

That is my opinion based on my having lived through that time period. It is the opinion of all my group members over the years as well. I don't have absolute proof nor do you. I'm confident but without something more this discussion is at an impasse.

 

[billd91]

It's kinda funny how 4e gets hammered for not including monsters in the 1st Monster Manual, but, 2e apparently gets the pass. By your definition, the following monsters are no longer core: Basilisks, dopplegangers, dryads, dwarves, drow (!), ettin, gargoyles, hippogriff, lamia, mimics, otyugh, roc, rust monster, and troglodytes (I'm only listing very, very common monsters).

Yet, I've seen all sorts of modules that assume that those monsters are in play and the DM has access to those monsters.

I reported what the 2e PH said was essential. I explicitly do so right in the text you quoted. You're assuming a lot more than that and, to channel Felix Unger, you know what you do when you assume...

 

[Remathilis]

It's kinda funny how 4e gets hammered for not including monsters in the 1st Monster Manual, but, 2e apparently gets the pass. By your definition, the following monsters are no longer core: Basilisks, dopplegangers, dryads, dwarves, drow (!), ettin, gargoyles, hippogriff, lamia, mimics, otyugh, roc, rust monster, and troglodytes (I'm only listing very, very common monsters).

To be fair, the Monstrous Compendium system didn't last very long before the Monstrous Manual replaced it in all references, even in the reprint of the PHB. The MM had all those monsters and more.

 

[Emerikol]

To be fair, the Monstrous Compendium system didn't last very long before the Monstrous Manual replaced it in all references, even in the reprint of the PHB. The MM had all those monsters and more.

I'm in the states and I don't feel it was that way here. The MM came along a good bit later after many MCs were released.

Not joining in the debate but just clarifying that one point.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm in the states and I don't feel it was that way here. The MM came along a good bit later after many MCs were released.

Not joining in the debate but just clarifying that one point.

Monstrous Compendium: 1989
Monstrous Manual: 1993

I guess four years could be considered a long time.

 

[Hussar]

Nothing you listed indicates to me its core rules.

Of course they are promoting the new book. Don't confuse the expectation that people will buy and use a book as an indication of anything. That is quite a stretch. That blurb text could appear on any 3e splatbook.

I'm not denying anyone's personal experience. I am of the belief that the predominant view of both tsr and the majority of the gaming public was that there was a core. If though your group was the type to generally allow anything I can see how you would get away from this thinking. My group was not that way. Any class or any spell had to be petitioned to the DM if not in the core books. The same way for the Complete series in 2e.

That is my opinion based on my having lived through that time period. It is the opinion of all my group members over the years as well. I don't have absolute proof nor do you. I'm confident but without something more this discussion is at an impasse.

Actually, no you wouldn't see that blurb on any WOTC book because it would expressly contradict the definition of Core that is outlined in the Core 3 books for 3e. Do you have any examples in mind?

Note, please, again, please, stop with the appeals to authority here. Yes, you lived and played in that era. Guess what? SO DID EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD. I started in 1980. I'm pretty sure everyone who has posted in the last ten posts started in the 80's or even earlier. The plural of anecdote is not data. You can be as confident in your views as you like, but, since you have absolutely no proof, your views are basically you trying to universalise your experience.

See, I don't need proof. I'm not making any claims here. I'm simply telling you what the books in question actually say on the issue. I'm not the one claiming that the majority view was anything. Claims require at least a modicum of proof or evidence, otherwise, they're pointless. Why are you making these claims? What are you trying to prove?

 

[MerricB]

I'm in the states and I don't feel it was that way here. The MM came along a good bit later after many MCs were released.

Here's the timeline:

1989: Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1 (MC01) , Vol 2 (MC 02), Forgotten Realms Appendix (MC03)
1990: Dragonlance Appendix (MC04), Greyhawk Adventures (MC05), Kara-Tur (MC06), Spelljammer (MC07)
1991: Outer Planes Appendix (MC08), Spelljammer (MC09), Ravenloft (MC10)
1992: Forgotten Realms (MC 11), Dark Sun (MC12), Al-Qadim (MC13), Fiend Folio (MC14)
1993: Ravenloft II (MC15), Monstrous Manual

Cheers!

 

[Savage Wombat]

Also, by my memory you really have to think of the first 2-3 MC volumes as the "core" Monster Manual. That was the intent as they were published, and is why, say, basilisks weren't in the first one.