3rd edition promotes the imagination...

[Psion]

As for you finding me predictable, well, I can't think of anyone on this board with less objectivity towards the game than yourself. As a reviewer with hundreds of d20 products and time spent analysing the game than almost anyone else here, you're so heavily bought into d20 that I'm surprised you can see past your nose.

I would be insulted, but I do have to keep in mind who it is coming from. The quintessential complainer.

I don't expect to convince rounser otherwise, but to disabuse any onlookers of the picture you are painting of me, I am the first person to point out when I authentically think there are problems. Take a visit over to RPGnet sometime, and you will find that amongst d20 advocates, I am considered the one with a realistic appraisal of what it can and can't do.

Further, to debunk the "I'm so invested in it" attempt to invalidate my position, that is rather putting the cart before the horse. I wouldn't have invested in it if I hadn't tried it and found it useful, would have I? In fact, I was NOT sold on 3e due to too many conversion headaches. When I run, it's game world first, system second. But when the MM came out, I realized it was really worthwhile.

 

[Henry]

Re: What is it you want?

I would recommend that you go use something else (and it looks like you have) and let those who do use it, and like it, discuss what they like without you.

I'm going to be a shocker and say that he SHOULD. He hasn't been demeaning and he's a player of 3E; whether he likes the system or not, he knows it.

Upon reading further: what is this, a discussion or a jingoistic 3E rally?

No reason it can't be both.

P.S. - Let's also discontinue the personal attacks. Discussion's always welcome, but insults aren't.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I wonder if, say, poker fans spend as much time and effort hand-wringing over why draw poker is inferior to stud? Or do they just play the game they like and forget about the ones they don't?

 

[WSmith]

I just don't appreciate the assertion that a given game system involves more imagination because it includes a few less combat rules and no magic item creation rules.

It all depends on the person and or group. For some, like me, having a codified set of rules for everylittle thing that could happen, is like handcuffing my imagination. Now I have to actually give a full blown class to barmaids & blacksmiths where they may only have one interaction for a whole campaign. There was nothing wrong with "normal man" or 0 level characters, cause that was the function they served. This is just one example of many. 3rd editon cleaned up a ton of inconsistancies, but I think it went too far in others. A lot more rules leads to a lot more checks and balances by the DM/GM, not neccesarily meaning less imagination, but more time that has to be used for adjucticating the rules than allowing flowing creativity.

How anyone can come on here and say that 3rd edition has not sparked the imagination of gamers in a way that has never been done before irks me. I cannot help but voice my displeasure with that opinion and point to the plethora of evidence available at this website and many others that utterly destroy the credibility of the person making such an assertion.

Just because it does spark creativity in many gamers, doesen't mean that it is the perfect game for ALL gamers. Why do I have to like 3rd edition in its entirety? What does that have to do with my credability? ZERO! So, why can't I or others express my disappointment with certain parts of the rules without getting flak?

3rd edition is the most imaginative version of D&D to date, period, not only in terms of the wide assortement of options it gives DM's and players, but also in terms of the wide assortment of business opportunities it provides to the gaming community.

What are you talking about when you say business opportunties?

The Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert editon of D&D is the most "imaginative" version of D&D to date, period, not only for the wide assortment of options it gives to Dm's and players through open-ended simplistic rules, but because no other version can seem stir the imagination WHILE providing a complete RPG engine in two 64 page books.

 

[Piratecat]

Actually, I'd like to know why this is in a separate thread instead of Tom's original. Don't be surprised if it disappears and gets merged into Tom's other thread.

 

[Henry]

TOM - what I would like to know is why you consider 3E a "creativity challenged" game, when you yourself have seen the sheer number of powerfully original idea threads, story hours, and house rules discussions that go on here? Do you believe that creativity is truly defined by making up game rules on the fly, as you seem to be asserting?

 

[Tom Cashel]

Re: What is it you want?

I would recommend that you go use something else (and it looks like you have) and let those who do use it, and like it, dicuss what they like without you.

Right, right..."go somewhere else if you can't agree with us."

These boards are for all kinds of discussions, not just the ones that support your worldview, Encephalitis.

 

[rounser]

I would be insulted, but I do have to keep in mind who it is coming from. The quintessential complainer.

Coming from a reviewer, the irony is staggering. When you do it, it's a critique, then?

I don't expect to convince rounser otherwise, but to disabuse any onlookers of the picture you are painting of me, I am the first person to point out when I authentically think there are problems. Take a visit over to RPGnet sometime, and you will find that amongst d20 advocates, I am considered the one with a realistic appraisal of what it can and can't do.

Save that reputation of yours, Alan. Even the casual observer notes that you're a vindictive sniper who holds grudges far past their use-by-date. You act the victim, yet you always cast the first stone - why is that?

Further, to debunk the "I'm so invested in it" attempt to invalidate my position, that is rather putting the cart before the horse. I wouldn't have invested in it if I hadn't tried it and found it useful, would have I? In fact, I was NOT sold on 3e due to too many conversion headaches. When I run, it's game world first, system second. But when the MM came out, I realized it was really worthwhile.

You are invested in it up to your eyebrows. You're more about d20 now than you are about D&D, as seen by your attempts to drive Hackmaster from the boards based on the flimsiest of logic. Some of us don't kiss and scrape to a mere system, but realise that D&D is more than a bunch of mechanics. That's where we differ...as well as on the psionics.

Now, leave me alone and I'll leave you be...

 

[WizarDru]

Re: Re: 3rd edition promotes the imagination...

I admire your gumption, Celtavian, but nobody ever said you had to agree with my 3E dissatisfaction. I was posing a question, and trying to figure out why, after 20 years of playing D&D, 3E had snuffed out my glowing inner light after only 1.5 years.

Because in my opinion, they've turned a role-playing game back into the tactical simulation from which it spawned. To me, that equals a gut-shot to the belly of imagination.

Well, judging by the discussion from which this thread grew, I gathered the problem was your players and your personal dissatisfaction with D&D in general, not 3E. Neither 3E nor WotC are above criticism or reproach...but so far, all you've pretty much discussed is that you found that 3rd edition snuffed out all of your creativity, because you feel the rules are too comprehensive, giving you, as the DM, little power or flexibility. Others, such as Psion, Piratecat and myself have activley disagreed with that assessment, since it goes directly contrary to our experience. A good example: read Sagiro's, Wulf's or Piratecat's Story Hours, and ask yourself if they feel "uncreative". If they do, then nothing will change your mind. However, since two of those games started in 2nd Edition, and didn't get any less creative under 3rd edition, you have to ask yourself "why not?".

And considering some of the arguments I've had with Alan over the last couple of years, I sincerely doubt I'd label him as a blind slave to WotC's grand design.

 

[Piratecat]

Ignore Henry, win a free thread closure. Congratulations. And just so we're clear, Rounser, I'd like you to go read the part of Henry's post where he mentioned no personal attacks. Or do you somehow think that EN World's rules changed overnight?

Email me if this is somehow a problem.

Incidentally, I also take issue with an assertion that Tom should go elsewhere. This place would be incredibly boring if everyone always agreed with one another, and I for one want as many well-informed members as possible. I'm not personally insulted by the fact that not all of them agree with me.

Thread closed.