The more I read treads that devolve into edition war the more I am convinced that many a time it is not any particular person fault (thought occasionally here there be trolls). I come to believe that most often the disagreements happen due to all participants having an unique perspective.
I will try to outline my own history in RPG and the options and the misconceptions I have developed.
First of all, my formative experiences have been shaped by using gamebooks like “The way of the Tiger” (which was based on the author's 1ed campaign) and reading books from the authors of Appendix N. All that years before I even heard of D&D.
Then in the late 90s (98 to be exact) I found myself moving to the States in order to get an education.
For about 3 years I run 2ed game using the “Adventure begins” starter box, the 2ed DMG and few Dungeon magazine. The only supplements I did get were the Villains handbook and Wizards Compendium vol 2. For a long time I could not see eye to eye with people who felt that 2ed is bloated with supplements or S&P changing the game too much. You see I never used any of those at the time.
Years latter thanks to Internet auction sites and used book stores I have amassed somewhat of a collection and would agree that the quality of material varies all over the place but there is a lot of good stuff.
When 3e came again I run it with Dungeon and the 3e DMG (+OA) for a time.
Before I continue let be get the following off my chest: I am very analytical person. I program for a living. The tight, clear and clean rules that 3e and 4e have were for a time detriment to role playing for me. I would see those beautifully structured equations and start thinking in terms of numbers instead of what those numeric values represented. It took time but eventually I learned to allow myself to make changes making the game my own. The RAW represent a solid, well balanced (more or less) specific play style. I just find that that particular style does not completely overlap with what me and my gaming group prefer.
When first starting with 3e we just converted the existing PC and continued the campaign. In 100% hindsight that was not such a good idea. For months I would frustrated as a DM because the published modules were proving to be too hard and I had to often think fast on my feat to avoid TPK from level appropriate encounters. “The math! She a-couldn't be wrong! It is so shiny!” It took me time to realize that while the system has changed the play style have not. In the initial campaign magic was more scarce, wands and potions were saved for desperate times, the players were used to going through 7-10 encounters a night. In other words I did not account for the differences in core game assumptions. What can I say, it was the first time I had changed editions. Once I understood the root of the problems and explained it to the rest of my group the old PCs were semi retired and new adventuring party was started from level 1 with far less problems due to lack of pre-existing experiences.
What impressions did I form from 3e well several (once again I am not saying the following is universally true, just that based on my experience and personality I come to think that)
It just happened to be my first edition change and a time when I got deeply invested both emotionally and physically (books, lots and lots of books) into a particular game. To reiterate a statement I made, I needed to allow myself to make the changes I wanted. That did not ruin the game for me and mine, instead it made it our own. I needed to see few unusual examples in the adventures published in Dungeon to get over my fear of making judgmental calls in my game (I like math remember, math is good. Math cannot be wrong. Oh, dancing lights. So shiny!) The modules did not hesitate to make their own answers (What does it take to kill a god? Dun 123 Quicksilver Hourglass. How about becoming becoming a demon lord with your own layer? Dun 107 Test of the Smoking Eye)
4e. What can I say? At first I was angry that the edition change happened. If the magazines were left in paper form for just another year, even half year, I think I would have (grudgingly) tried the game a lot sooner. It is a good game. Not my absolute favorite game of choice TM, but hey I am entitled to an opinion just like everyone else. Looking back I will admit that at least part of my initial resistance was due to RL issues. I was just started graduate school and thus was rather busy. While I would admit once you learn the system it is quite easy to deal with the mechanical side of adventure building, that initial investment was a big hurdle to overcome. After running 3e for close to 8 years non-stop it would take me much less time to prep an adventure since I did not have to constantly refer to the (new) rules. Which kept on piling on and on. Just reading discussions about the errata would kill my desire to try 4e. I though that I could not cope with so much evolving material. What brought me to 4e were the Essentials. Simple, easy and ready to play. I did not need lots and lots of option, what I needed was to get into the game and play. Those books got me started. Gradually I started getting more books- first the two DMGs then the PH2 and PH3 so on. Nowadays if somebody invites me to a 4e game I can fit into my schedule I will be there. Having learned my lesson from 3e I managed to get over the “beautiful” math of 4e fairly fast. The thick I found was that it work better (for me) to at first focus on creating the fluff (who,what, where,when, how) and afterwards go in and fill the numbers. Similarly when I read monster entries I do a two pass. Read the descriptions and try to imagine how this or that would look like, then once I am invested I go over the mechanics.
Yet another think I learned is when discussing and trying to pass judgment on a material to take due consideration when it was initially published. The wisdom of one edition is the common sense of the next one. First edition DMG has so much good material and advice that many of the points are repeated , rehashed and expanded on consequently to the point that when I first read that book (in 2009) initially I could not appreciate its worth. Then I looked at the date and it downed on me that at the time all of those advice was new revaluations.
A resent experience really drove that home to me. And no this is no call for vigilantism. I was reading an Amazon review about one of EGG's advice books. The review writer was comparing the book unfavorably to the 4e DMG. What he did not seem to take into account was the fact that the said book was published in 1989! An omitted fact that to me seems to make a lot of difference. Twenty years and three editions would definably have an impact IMHO. At first I was rather affected, but then I thought "So I think somebody is wrong on the Internet? Meh. Not worth my time to try to fix each and every mistake."
In conclusion, I would say that I like all the games I have played. Each bring a different kind of spice to the table. What was that saying?
“Cake! Beef, cheese (, ice cream vanilla strawberry blend). It's all good!”
I will try to outline my own history in RPG and the options and the misconceptions I have developed.
First of all, my formative experiences have been shaped by using gamebooks like “The way of the Tiger” (which was based on the author's 1ed campaign) and reading books from the authors of Appendix N. All that years before I even heard of D&D.
Then in the late 90s (98 to be exact) I found myself moving to the States in order to get an education.
For about 3 years I run 2ed game using the “Adventure begins” starter box, the 2ed DMG and few Dungeon magazine. The only supplements I did get were the Villains handbook and Wizards Compendium vol 2. For a long time I could not see eye to eye with people who felt that 2ed is bloated with supplements or S&P changing the game too much. You see I never used any of those at the time.
Years latter thanks to Internet auction sites and used book stores I have amassed somewhat of a collection and would agree that the quality of material varies all over the place but there is a lot of good stuff.
When 3e came again I run it with Dungeon and the 3e DMG (+OA) for a time.
Before I continue let be get the following off my chest: I am very analytical person. I program for a living. The tight, clear and clean rules that 3e and 4e have were for a time detriment to role playing for me. I would see those beautifully structured equations and start thinking in terms of numbers instead of what those numeric values represented. It took time but eventually I learned to allow myself to make changes making the game my own. The RAW represent a solid, well balanced (more or less) specific play style. I just find that that particular style does not completely overlap with what me and my gaming group prefer.
When first starting with 3e we just converted the existing PC and continued the campaign. In 100% hindsight that was not such a good idea. For months I would frustrated as a DM because the published modules were proving to be too hard and I had to often think fast on my feat to avoid TPK from level appropriate encounters. “The math! She a-couldn't be wrong! It is so shiny!” It took me time to realize that while the system has changed the play style have not. In the initial campaign magic was more scarce, wands and potions were saved for desperate times, the players were used to going through 7-10 encounters a night. In other words I did not account for the differences in core game assumptions. What can I say, it was the first time I had changed editions. Once I understood the root of the problems and explained it to the rest of my group the old PCs were semi retired and new adventuring party was started from level 1 with far less problems due to lack of pre-existing experiences.
What impressions did I form from 3e well several (once again I am not saying the following is universally true, just that based on my experience and personality I come to think that)
- Rules as written VS Rules as applied (game culture)
Reading (again) through some of the early publications- DMG, Dragon articles etc give that imprecision that the authors advocate as many people advice - the DM is in charge of the game and many parts of the game that cause long table side discussions PrC, rule application, rule calls are indeed the purview of the DM. With time there seems to be a shift in focus. While I cannot think of any particular place that it is stated that the DM should allow this class or that rule, well it seems to me that the later books target audience was the players rather then the DMs. And once you spend the money on that shiny new book you want to use it. However without the DM buy in (pun intended) it felt that more and more new stuff was foisted on the DM's shoulders. - The problems of instant feedback. Now I am glad when game designers take time to consider fans sounding off, however I got the feeling that a small vocal minority was dictating the development of the game disproportionately while the silent majority stood by. It is hard to pin down many reasons for that feeling of mine. However, few times I will see lets say for example people writhing Wizards that mind flayers are underpowered and provide examples how their 5 level group using WOC published rules can wipe the floor with multiple flayers. Few months latter we get new and improved mind flayers or whatever monsters/game feature the complaining was about. Not that I blame the designers, if the community is perceived to want X well why not give it to them.
- The math did not work. There was much effort to create a good solid system and arguable it was so at the beginning but eventually ... Well system mastery, one of the intended goals according to the designers, started to make a bid difference between the haves and have nots. What would be considered a power gaming in previous editions became a mater of survival. Newer materials were written with updated power levels in mind leaving the ones who have not converted further and further behind. To account for the increased damage potential monsters were given more hp by increasing their HD, that in turn raised the DC of their abilities to a point that unoptimized characters could not keep up.
- There are lots of different play styles out there, but as long people in a given group are ALL having fun we should stop trying to forcefully bring them around to our point of view. I am all for a intellectual discussion between both friends and strangers, but if somebody starts telling me that I am in denial about liking game X well try as I might there are times when I will take such level of their preference projection on me personal like.
It just happened to be my first edition change and a time when I got deeply invested both emotionally and physically (books, lots and lots of books) into a particular game. To reiterate a statement I made, I needed to allow myself to make the changes I wanted. That did not ruin the game for me and mine, instead it made it our own. I needed to see few unusual examples in the adventures published in Dungeon to get over my fear of making judgmental calls in my game (I like math remember, math is good. Math cannot be wrong. Oh, dancing lights. So shiny!) The modules did not hesitate to make their own answers (What does it take to kill a god? Dun 123 Quicksilver Hourglass. How about becoming becoming a demon lord with your own layer? Dun 107 Test of the Smoking Eye)
4e. What can I say? At first I was angry that the edition change happened. If the magazines were left in paper form for just another year, even half year, I think I would have (grudgingly) tried the game a lot sooner. It is a good game. Not my absolute favorite game of choice TM, but hey I am entitled to an opinion just like everyone else. Looking back I will admit that at least part of my initial resistance was due to RL issues. I was just started graduate school and thus was rather busy. While I would admit once you learn the system it is quite easy to deal with the mechanical side of adventure building, that initial investment was a big hurdle to overcome. After running 3e for close to 8 years non-stop it would take me much less time to prep an adventure since I did not have to constantly refer to the (new) rules. Which kept on piling on and on. Just reading discussions about the errata would kill my desire to try 4e. I though that I could not cope with so much evolving material. What brought me to 4e were the Essentials. Simple, easy and ready to play. I did not need lots and lots of option, what I needed was to get into the game and play. Those books got me started. Gradually I started getting more books- first the two DMGs then the PH2 and PH3 so on. Nowadays if somebody invites me to a 4e game I can fit into my schedule I will be there. Having learned my lesson from 3e I managed to get over the “beautiful” math of 4e fairly fast. The thick I found was that it work better (for me) to at first focus on creating the fluff (who,what, where,when, how) and afterwards go in and fill the numbers. Similarly when I read monster entries I do a two pass. Read the descriptions and try to imagine how this or that would look like, then once I am invested I go over the mechanics.
Yet another think I learned is when discussing and trying to pass judgment on a material to take due consideration when it was initially published. The wisdom of one edition is the common sense of the next one. First edition DMG has so much good material and advice that many of the points are repeated , rehashed and expanded on consequently to the point that when I first read that book (in 2009) initially I could not appreciate its worth. Then I looked at the date and it downed on me that at the time all of those advice was new revaluations.
A resent experience really drove that home to me. And no this is no call for vigilantism. I was reading an Amazon review about one of EGG's advice books. The review writer was comparing the book unfavorably to the 4e DMG. What he did not seem to take into account was the fact that the said book was published in 1989! An omitted fact that to me seems to make a lot of difference. Twenty years and three editions would definably have an impact IMHO. At first I was rather affected, but then I thought "So I think somebody is wrong on the Internet? Meh. Not worth my time to try to fix each and every mistake."
In conclusion, I would say that I like all the games I have played. Each bring a different kind of spice to the table. What was that saying?
“Cake! Beef, cheese (, ice cream vanilla strawberry blend). It's all good!”
