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

[NewJeffCT]

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.

between 3e and 3.5e, a lot of spells were changed - duration, effect, damage, area, etc. And, between 3.5e and Pathfinder, still more spells were changed and in similar fashion. I found it a constant annoyance to have to look up so many changes, "Wait, that was the 3.5e spell, does it do the same in PF? Let's look it up". Just Dispel Magic underwent changes from 3.0 to 3.5, and then was greatly changed moving to PF. (All those "buffing" spells like Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, etc went from 1 hr/level to 1 min/level and changed from a d4+1 bonus to a flat +4)

The same with feats between 3e, 3.5e and PF as well as skills.

Between 1e and 2e, there were not nearly so many spell changes, and spells take up half the PHB in both editions. They added in cleric spheres/domains, but the spells themselves were generally the same.

 

[Desdichado]

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?"

Why would we? Until this whole revision vs. edition thing started getting a little bit silly, this was an interesting discussion. Which means that yeah, I disagreed with a bunch of people about a bunch of things, but it was largely still an interesting discussion nonetheless. What's the value in us all having the same opinion about things? There's a reason I used to have the tagline "Most opinionated guy on the Internet" on my blog. But that doesn't mean that just because gamers are opinionated and their opinions differ that there's anything wrong with that.

If Bluenose is correct, and the whole revision vs. edition thing hinges on demonstrating that 3e (plus 3.5 plus Pathfinder) is the BEST D&D EVAR because it's been around for such a long time, then that would explain why the discussion took a turn that makes no sense to me. Having a discussion that is fruitful tends to work less well when folks are so personally invested in championing their editions that any dissenting opinion has to be immediately shut down because, "ZOMG, people might think that I'm wrong" or something.

Contrary to [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]'s assertion (see, I actually appreciated his sarcasm there, Umbran. It was kinda clever) I'm not really invested in defining 3.5 as an edition or a revision. Sure, I have an opinion on it. And I put my own definition out there for anyone to critique, shoot down, accept, condemn, or do whatever they like with it. I think my definition (do you need to rebuy all the books) makes more sense than "because the developers said so," and I'll stick by my definition, but I hardly think it's the last word on the question.

So why is healthy discussion about something seen as signs of a "schism" and why is it bad?

For that matter, what is this schism? I thought the premise of the original post was that the schism was precipitated by the release of 4e and how that was handled. Now, you're suggesting that their's a schism between gamers about the role of sarcasm, or one about European languages? All that suggests it that gamers are opinionated, or at least some of them are. That makes perfect sense to me, but isn't necessarily evidence of a schism. (Not saying that I don't think a schism related to the release of 4e isn't likely, but this certainly isn't evidence of it. Let's not mistake healthy discussion with deep-felt bitterness or whatever!)

 

[Stormonu]

All I can say is that I've lost ANY motivation to pick up any version of D&D or its clones/deriviatives. And for someone who has 6 bookshelves dedicated to the game, that just makes me sad.

And a lot of my lost enthusiasm has been derived from listening to the edition war bickering going on.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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 havent used the black books in ages. But there were minor alterations as i recall. Nothing too significant, but stuff that altered a few rules.

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?

there were minor changes to the ranger, but i think these were balance revisions, not comparable to how thy removed whole classes and races from 1E or how they pretty much completely altered the bard.

Therer were other significant changes in 3.5 that were important. But it wasnt strikingly different the way 2E was from 3E when you opened the book. That said, 2E had more in common with 1E mechanically than either had with 3E (though in a lot if ways 3E reflected the spirit of 1E more).

 

[Desdichado]

there were minor changes to the ranger, but i think these were balance revisions, not comparable to how thy removed whole classes and races from 1E or how they pretty much completely altered the bard.

I think the removal of classes and races is a red herring. Since the mechanics of classes and races didn't really change at all, any class or race from any of the family of BD&D, AD&D 1e or 2e could be used almost exactly as is in another edition, meaning that their removal was more cosmetic rather than substantive. That was clearly not true with regards to 3.5 classes or races in 4e.

To some extent, it's not even true of 3.5 classes or races (especially races) in Pathfinder either. Despite the obvious similarity, there are also marked differences, and any 3.5 race would work poorly in Pathfinder, for instance, without significant modification to make it fit.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think the removal of classes and races is a red herring. Since the mechanics of classes and races didn't really change at all, any class or race from any of the family of BD&D, AD&D 1e or 2e could be used almost exactly as is in another edition, meaning that their removal was more cosmetic rather than substantive. That was clearly not true with regards to 3.5 classes or races in 4e.

.

Clearly we disagree. Taking out whole races and classes is a big move. Completely rewriting all the text, taking out tons of gm procedures is a big move to me as well. Adding in lots of options like NWP (whoch appeared in later 1E books to be sure) is quite a change. Plus the classes also were altered, thieves had better progression for the skills, for example. So you had changes similar to those in 3.5 and thesome. The bard from 1E is pretty much changed ccompletely. And the initiative system was retooled. They are still similar games. 1e and 2e were highly compatible. And these are just the changes that leap immediately to mind. There were other serious differnces in many if the classes and in the rules.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think the removal of classes and races is a red herring. Since the mechanics of classes and races didn't really change at all, any class or race from any of the family of BD&D, AD&D 1e or 2e could be used almost exactly as is in another edition, meaning that their removal was more cosmetic rather than substantive. That was clearly not true with regards to 3.5 classes or races in 4e.

To some extent, it's not even true of 3.5 classes or races (especially races) in Pathfinder either. Despite the obvious similarity, there are also marked differences, and any 3.5 race would work poorly in Pathfinder, for instance, without significant modification to make it fit.

I am not saying 1e to 2e was a bigger shift than 3.5 to 4e (i think the later is the biggest change we have had). Just that the shift from 3.0 to 3.5 was small, less of a change than 1E to 2E.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

To some extent, it's not even true of 3.5 classes or races (especially races) in Pathfinder either. Despite the obvious similarity, there are also marked differences, and any 3.5 race would work poorly in Pathfinder, for instance, without significant modification to make it fit.

That is one of my biggest complaints with pathfinder. It is just backwards compatible enough if you squint, but since every race and class go an over hall you can't just take a 3.5 book and use it.

I have played in 4 pathfinder games, I have turned down playing in more then that, I will probably never play it again. There is no Warlock, there is no Swordsage, there is no Spell theif, and there is no hexblade... and I am yet to find a DM in the real world that will let me even take a feat from 3.5 inless it has been updated to pathfinder...

At Conn Con last year my friend's younger sister was ridiculed to the point where she left in tears because she only every played D&D and sat down at a pathfinder game and didn't understand the rules they were using...

 

[dd.stevenson]

If Bluenose is correct, and the whole revision vs. edition thing hinges on demonstrating that 3e (plus 3.5 plus Pathfinder) is the BEST D&D EVAR because it's been around for such a long time, then that would explain why the discussion took a turn that makes no sense to me.

Just as often, this argument is revisited by posters trying to show that 4E is the JUST AS SUCCESSFUL AS 3E because 3.x is really two editions, each of which ran as long as 4E.

Either way, it's still tiresome.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Just as often, this argument is revisited by posters trying to show that 4E is the JUST AS SUCCESSFUL AS 3E because 3.x is really two editions, each of which ran as long as 4E.

Either way, it's still tiresome.

this argument started when I said "I assume you are counting 3e, 3.5 and pathfinder all in that year count, so can't we compare that to 1e+2e?"

some how that then turned into 1e and 2e can't be counted togather, but because 3e and 3.5 are just a rivesion they do... not counting pathfinder (no way you can argue it is not a new edtion) 2e or 1e (either not both) were in print longer then 3e...