The Great D&D Schism: The End of an age and the scattering of gamers

[keterys]

The ability to argue about the definition of a word is the kind of thing that creates D&D schisms, and is something that many D&D players will do regardless of system, and about movies, TV, books.

So, yeah, they'll do it about the edition (or revision) of their choice just as much as they will about Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. Haters gonna hate.

The only way to win is not to play at all. Well, to win the "Meaningless Argument game". I mean, the only way to win D&D is to play at all. Any edition. Any time. Long as you're with friends.

 

[Desdichado]

Mate, I don't care how much text you type. It doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a new edition, nor was there enough base rules changes to even hint at it was one.

And it doesn't matter how often you repeat that, it doesn't change the fact that it was a new edition. So there.

Geez, if all you've got is just repeating "well, that's what the devs said" then why are we even having this discussion? I notice you still never answered my question earlier: what difference does it actually make, anyway? Why are you so invested in insisting that it was a revision instead of a new edition? What does it do for you to be one over the other?

See, that'd be a meaningful conversation (sorta. At least it'd have the potential to be.) Just saying, "no, look, right there in the PHB it says so" isn't a meaningful conversation. It doesn't mean anything at all.

 

[Imaro]

And it doesn't matter how often you repeat that, it doesn't change the fact that it was a new edition. So there.

Geez, if all you've got is just repeating "well, that's what the devs said" then why are we even having this discussion? I notice you still never answered my question earlier: what difference does it actually make, anyway? Why are you so invested in insisting that it was a revision instead of a new edition? What does it do for you to be one over the other?

See, that'd be a meaningful conversation (sorta. At least it'd have the potential to be.) Just saying, "no, look, right there in the PHB it says so" isn't a meaningful conversation. It doesn't mean anything at all.

Ha!! You seem pretty invested in saying the exact opposite of @XunValdorl_of_Kilsek ... So why are you so invested in insisting that it was a new edition?? What does it do for you to be one over the other... Just saying.

 

[CleverNickName]

I think the last two dozen posts in this thread have proven the OP's original statement: there is indeed a schism in the gaming community regarding Dungeons and Dragons, and it is highly unlikely that D&D Next will fix it.

Gamers are currently arguing about the definitions of "revision" and "edition." Before that, gamers were arguing about what range of dates were the "Golden Age of D&D." And before that, gamers were arguing about version compatibility. And before that, gamers were arguing (most ironically) about whether the rift in the gaming community was good or bad for the gaming community. Along the way, gamers managed to argue about the languages of Europe and the role of sarcasm in communication.

*sigh*

In the immortal words of Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?"

 

[Ichneumon]

3.5 wasn't explicitly a new edition, but gamers were forced to treat it as though it were.

 

[pemerton]

Revision seems the correct description of 3.5. You still had the same classes, you still had basically the same game. Comare that to 2E where they took our whole classes, reorganized the classes and rewrote all the text (taking out significant GM procedures and advice.

It wasn't like 1E to 2E where you switched from attack matrices to THAC0, made NWP a major option the core book, removed classes, made signif cant changes to classes, rewrote pretty much all of the text and took out large chunks of the exploration rules.

Because I wasn't using those GM procedures or following that GM advice, at least since 1986 and the release of Oriental Adventures; and because I was using weapon specialisation from UA and OA and was using non-weapon proficiencies from OA, WSG and DSG, I didn't find the move from AD&D to 2nd ed AD&D to be a big deal at all.

For instance, I was able to play with almost complete rules mastery in 2nd ed AD&D games without ever having read a 2nd ed AD&D rulebook. The only exception to that claim I can think of involved initiative, and that took one go to learn. (The unarmed combat rules were different, too, but they never came up, much as they had rarely come up before.)

Similarly, I was able to GM players who had learned to play from 2nd ed AD&D books, and were using PCs built from those books.

Of course the classes were a bit different in places: more spells for illusionists, different bards etc. But I was already used to different classes from Dragon magazines, including the revised bard that was published somewhere around issue #60. And THACO already existed in the DMG list of monsters (Appendix E, I think it was) so the only difference that made was in relation to the 6 natural 20s, which applied to ACs that rarely came up unless you were GMing the D series, and which in any bit was always an obscure part of the rules, to me at least.

So for me personally the change was no big deal at all.

You *can* sit down to play with three players, who have made characters using 3e, 3.5e, and Pathfinder, and play for quite some time before someone goes, "Wait a minute, what rules did you make that character under?"

There's really nothing that would stop you from bringing a 3.0 character sheet to a 3.5 or even PF session

I think this is equally true for 1st ed and 2nd ed AD&D PCs, as [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION] has pointed out.

It's also probably pretty true for HARP and Rolemaster PCs, for Runequest, Cthulhu and Stormbringer PCs, and for that matter for Stormbringer and Elric PCs. There are lots of games out there where PCs are built on basically the same chassis, and differences are located in particular story elements (eg what do bards look like in this game) and in somewhat marginal parts of the action resolution rules.

Although because I don't really know what's at stake in showing that a game is a new edition, or a revision, or a variant, I'm not really sure why these things matter as anything other than passing observations about resemblances among RPGs.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Pemerton, I started on 1E to , so I understand much of the material was taken from optional rules in later 1E books...but surely you can see the difference going from the 3 1E core books to 2E, versus going from 3.0 to 3.5.

these are both relatively minor edition shifts but enough material was altered from 1E to 2E that I would call it an edition change, while 3.5 reall felt more like the black PHB and DMG for 2E, which were pretty much revisions.

 

[innerdude]

It's unfortunate that a hobby with D&D's history has added even more negativity to the mix.

Frankly I'm not even sure that "D&D the Brand" is even a net positive itself anymore. To the public at large, it means, "Geeky, smelly people who pretend to be elves, but don't really have lives, and why would anyone cool do that?"

I'm not saying this is accurate in any particular, but by and large, it's what people generally think when they hear "D&D."

I have the Lords of Waterdeep board game and love it to death, but invariably any time I unveil it for a new group of people, I'll get a comment like, "No wait . . . Dungeons and Dragons? This is a board game, not some weird role-playing thing, right?"

Roleplaying, in my experience, is much, much easier to introduce and describe to people devoid of the long-standing cultural baggage associated with the World's Most Popular RPG. In my experience people are more apt to understand what an RPG is on a basic level if you actually describe the basic tenets and focus of gameplay, rather than simply use the shorthand, "It's D&D."

"It's D&D" invariably gets a negative reaction, while a non-game-specific explanation of the way a game actually works generally gets at worst a mild, "Interesting."

 

[pemerton]

Pemerton, I started on 1E to , so I understand much of the material was taken from optional rules in later 1E books...but surely you can see the difference going from the 3 1E core books to 2E, versus going from 3.0 to 3.5.

these are both relatively minor edition shifts but enough material was altered from 1E to 2E that I would call it an edition change, while 3.5 reall felt more like the black PHB and DMG for 2E, which were pretty much revisions.

I don't know the difference between original and black PHB for 2nd ed AD&D. I've played under both without reading either and don't remember every noticing anything. (Not saying it's not there, just that it didn't stand out to me.)

I only played a little bit of 3E, and have never played 3.5 and as far as I know don't own any 3.5 material (I think the last 3E book I got was Savage Species, and I think the last 3E module I got would be from 2001 or 2002). So I only know the differences from reading WotC material and reading threads on these boards. But didn't rangers get new weapon options, and also change from d10 to d8 HD? That seems comparable to the ranger changes from AD&D to 2nd ed AD&D. Bards changed too, didn't they, but not as much I imagine. And monks?

CORRECTION: I also have the revised version of Arcana Unearthed (Arcana Evolved), which is statted for 3E and 3.5 - so to me the differences seem mostly to be in the facing/space rules and the damage resistance rules. But other stuff I've read makes me think there might be more to it than that.

 

[Bluenose]

I think this is equally true for 1st ed and 2nd ed AD&D PCs, as @Hobo has pointed out.

In my experience, I could use some 1e characters in 2e without having much change. Others were a lot harder. Pretty much the same was true between 3.0 and 3.5.

It's also probably pretty true for HARP and Rolemaster PCs, for Runequest, Cthulhu and Stormbringer PCs, and for that matter for Stormbringer and Elric PCs. There are lots of games out there where PCs are built on basically the same chassis, and differences are located in particular story elements (eg what do bards look like in this game) and in somewhat marginal parts of the action resolution rules.

With Runequest at least it's often a matter of nomenclature. Battle Magic, Spirit Magic, Common Magic and Folk Magic; all the same thing, called by different names in different editions. Bladesharp 2 does the same thing in every case (+10% to weapon skill and +2 damage for the curious). There are systems which have changed, Sorcery is the largest example, but it''s rarely in a particularly fundamental way.

Although because I don't really know what's at stake in showing that a game is a new edition, or a revision, or a variant, I'm not really sure why these things matter as anything other than passing observations about resemblances among RPGs.

Proving that 3rd edition was the longest lasting edition of D&D ever, I believe was the original aim.