3e and the Test of Time

[Akrasia]

...
Fact is, the biggest divide in the history of D&D was between 1e/2e, and 3e; prior to that time, people had few difficulties mixing and matching what they wished with little effort. ..

As usual Henry, you make a good point. Although there are disputes between some adherents of 1e versus 2e (and the 1E bard unquestionably kicks the 2E bard's arse ) , the two systems are quite similar --as similar to each other as 3.0 is to 3.5.

Still, the 1E books by Gygax were written in a very distinctive style, and encouraged a certain kind of play. (Whether people like this 'Gygaxian' style is a different question -- but that it is there is beyond question.) In recent years I've mainly played RC D&D and 3E, but I recently joined an occasional 1E group, and was surprised at how much the rules of OAD&D have a very distinctive feel (and how they structure the game in certain ways). Again, I am sure that many people dislike that feel, but it is certainly ingrained in the playing habits of many people who started role-playing in the late 1970s and early to mid 1980s, and partially explains the loyalty that some 'grognards' have to 1E.

D20 might have longevity -- but it will it in the same way that GURPS does, not in the way that OAD&D does. It is a toolkit that can be deployed for different purposes (fantasy, modern, etc.), but that lacks any distinctive character itself. I am sure that d20 will be revised and reworked over time -- and that if WotC ever dumped it for some other system, it would survive in the hands of other publishers and players -- just as GURPS has been reworked and revised over time (and continues to be, with the new 4th edition).

This could very well be a good thing for most people. Some people will want to run games in which the players play traditional dwarven fighters and elven mages working together despite their cultural antipathies, while other people will want to run games inwhich everyone is a half-drow, half-mindflayer sorcerer/barbarian. But I suspect 20 years from now, people will feel nostalgia for certain campaign settings (e.g. "Man, Midnight really rocked"), and not the details of the d20 incarnation of D&D.

 

[Akrasia]

... Which is why I still do this better than you.

Sure, just keep telling yourself that.

 

[Belen]

Akrasia hit the nail on the head. Of course, that was the entire point of my initial post; however muddled I may have said it.

3e does not have the quirks that will make it last beyond this revision. Heck, it does not even have the "feel" of the older DnD games. When I think of Dungeons and Dragons, 3e is not the first game that pops into my head.

Honestly, I usually think of my 3e DnD games as d20 these days. Dungeons and Dragons just seems dead to me.

Recently, I started reading Midnight though and that has really led to a lot of excitement on my part. It is the very first d20 book that has me reading it cover to cover. Heck, I had to read small sections of both the PHB and DMG over time just to get through them as they are so godawful boring.

I think that 3e brought in a lot of kids that played computer games and TCGs, yet 3e will not instill the love of the game that was a hallmark of ages past. This will be especially true with kids that had no experienced teacher.

 

[Henry]

I think that 3e brought in a lot of kids that played computer games and TCGs, yet 3e will not instill the love of the game that was a hallmark of ages past. This will be especially true with kids that had no experienced teacher.

I still think you may be underestimating the appeal of the d20 state of things to younger generations, (as I was saying, it's "their 1st edition"), but only time will tell, of course.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

But I suspect 20 years from now, people will feel nostalgia for certain campaign settings (e.g. "Man, Midnight really rocked"), and not the details of the d20 incarnation of D&D.

But how different is this from how things are NOW? Sure, there will always be some people that play the older editions(and 3e/d20 will be just the same when it becomes 'old', however that happens), but it really is the Campaign Settings that are remembered. Its hard to look into the future for both sides of this, but judging by how things are now, we can make some assumptions.

People look back to older editions now and the feel is usually from the campaign settings. Key word is usually. Of course there are exceptions, and these are usually the people who still play older editions. 3e/d20 will be the SAME WAY. A few will likely still play it, but the nostalgia really will be in the campaign settings.

Planescape and Darksun are perfect examples of this from 2e. Though even Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms can arguablly fit into this, too.

 

[shilsen]

1E and 3E, locked in a codependent spiral. It's almost Homeric.

No, no - it's Shakespearean. Two game systems, both alike in dignity...

 

[Akrasia]

But how different is this from how things are NOW? Sure, there will always be some people that play the older editions ... but it really is the Campaign Settings that are remembered. ...

The difference is that the 1E Gygaxian books encouraged a particular kind of game and campaign style. Indeed, the way that different classes and races were 'balanced' with each other was done in a manner that made certain assumptions about the kind of setting appropriate for AD&D. Those Gygaxian assumptions were built into many campaigns, and can be seen in many of the 'classic' modules that people reminisce about even today. Similar 'thick' assumptions about the nature of campaigns were built into most early fantasy RPGs (Runequest being the most obvious example here, but T&T and Dragonquest also had this feature).

In contrast, d20 is flavourless -- it is like plain toast, not maple doughnuts. This makes it much more versatile -- I can add jam to d20 (yum!), while you can use Nutella (yuck!). But the system itself lacks the distinctive character and quirkiness of OAD&D. (I think that this was also true of the 'de-Gygax-ized' 2E -- which probably explains why it has fewer adherents than 1E, and why most people remember the campaign settings with more fondness than the system itself.)

Look, I am not saying that this is a bad thing about d20. It is probably a very good thing, in that the system can satisfy a wider range of tastes. But it means that the system itself will not inspire nostalgia and deep fondness as the decades progress. (Or so I predict.)

A fifth level OAD&D bard belongs to the College 'Mac-Fuimidh'. A fifth level 3E bard ... well, whatever.

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

T Those Gygaxian assumptions were built into many campaigns, and can be seen in many of the 'classic' modules that people reminisce about even today. Similar 'thick' assumptions about the nature of campaigns were built into most early fantasy RPGs (Runequest being the most obvious example here, but T&T and Dragonquest also had this feature).

In contrast, d20 is flavourless -- it is like plain toast, not maple doughnuts. This makes it much more versatile -- I can add jam to d20 (yum!), while you can use Nutella (yuck!). But the system itself lacks the distinctive character and quirkiness of OAD&D.

I think your nostalgia is blinding you to the "distinctive quirks" of AD&D and OD&D that the rest of us remember and hate:

- parties where everyone was an elf, since elves were unbalanced with respect to the standard races
- games where all 10th level fighters were identical!
- games that basically had to reset every 10 levels (or less!) because demi-human players complained that they had hit their level limits
- amazingly illogical dungeons and "modules."
- in the case of Moldvay D&D, races as character classes. What do you do, sir Elf? Me? I elf!

Hey, if you enjoy those old systems, great! But some of us actually like having games that are balanced, and game systems that are designed with a semblance of logic in them. And I say this from the point of view of someone who played both OD&D and AD&D 1e with great enthusiasm as a kid.

 

[Belen]

I think your nostalgia is blinding you to the "distinctive quirks" of AD&D and OD&D that the rest of us remember and hate:

- parties where everyone was an elf, since elves were unbalanced with respect to the standard races
- games where all 10th level fighters were identical!
- games that basically had to reset every 10 levels (or less!) because demi-human players complained that they had hit their level limits
- amazingly illogical dungeons and "modules."
- in the case of Moldvay D&D, races as character classes. What do you do, sir Elf? Me? I elf!

Hey, if you enjoy those old systems, great! But some of us actually like having games that are balanced, and game systems that are designed with a semblance of logic in them. And I say this from the point of view of someone who played both OD&D and AD&D 1e with great enthusiasm as a kid.

You mean like:

- parties where everyone is a human, since humans are optimal with respect to the standard races.
- game where 10th level fighters are just a set up stats with mechanics or prestige classes the only way to tell them apart.
- games where every one had to reset at around 10th level or so because all the melee types complain about how powerful the casters are getting.
- amazingly crunchy modules and dungeons where the GM has to spend hours creating special challenges for 3 round battles.
- in the case of the 3.5 books everyone describes their character as half-flubber/ half-cheese fighter 10, magesayer 4, pikachu 3 with a flaming, frosty, snapple sucking +1 greatsword

Every edition has its problems. 3e may have spent more time in constructing a set of rules that interlocked with each other, but it does not necessarily mean that it IS better.

Your argument sounds a lot like marketing from a WOTC brand manager. Every time someone suggests that 3e could have room for improvement, or says that they liked x feature from an older edition, we get "nostalgia" and this same argument.

 

[Akrasia]

I think your nostalgia is blinding you to the "distinctive quirks" of AD&D and OD&D that the rest of us remember and hate...

Nonesense.
I am well aware that some people did not like certain features of OAD&D. To quote myself: "Still, the 1E books by Gygax were written in a very distinctive style, and encouraged a certain kind of play. (Whether people like this 'Gygaxian' style is a different question -- but that it is there is beyond question.)"

- parties where everyone was an elf, since elves were unbalanced with respect to the standard races

Huh? You might be thinking of 2E here, since in OAD&D (at least pre-UA), elves had some serious disadvantages.

- games where all 10th level fighters were identical!

Maybe in your games. I remember all the fighters I played with in my old games as being extremely distinct.

- games that basically had to reset every 10 levels (or less!) because demi-human players complained that they had hit their level limits

Huh? Don't generalize on the basis of your own bad experiences here.

- amazingly illogical dungeons and "modules."

Huh? I challenge anyone to come up with a better module than UK4. Many old school modules were quite 'logical'. And the adventures I made always had great 'internal logic'.

Really, you should not assume that the problems with your own campaigns were universally shared.

But some of us actually like having games that are balanced, and game systems that are designed with a semblance of logic in them. And I say this from the point of view of someone who played both OD&D and AD&D 1e with great enthusiasm as a kid.

I play 3E too, but I think 1E has certain virtues that 3E lacks.

(Which is why I am psyched about C&C -- hopefully the best of both worlds. )

But really, logic can be overrated. There is something to be said for the quirkiness and idiosyncratic nature of those early games. And hell, I teach logic.