JRRNeiklot
First Post
You know, this is funny. If I'd posted this, yet inverted it with 3e being the crappy Wright brothers plane, I'd bet the thread would have been locked by the third post.
AD&D1 is like a B-17
- Thread starter Quasqueton
- Start date
Geron Raveneye
Explorer
Yeah, it's kinda funny how quickly the OP's intention was misinterpreted as trying to start an edition war. Seems it brought out lots of people's different opinions on what "technological superiority" means in context with fighter planes. 
delericho
Legend
Quasqueton said:
Perhaps flaws was the wrong word. However, those planes aren't used today, and wouldn't be in any objective analysis of the use of aircraft in modern warfare. This suggests they are at least no longer at the cutting edge.
Truth is, I know next to nothing about planes, so I'll accept your analysis. However, I would be surprised if there really was that little real risk to pilots - I would have assumed that the chance of a lucky shot was always sufficiently high for it to be considered risky. But, as I said, I'm hardly an expert.
Quasqueton
First Post
For the record: The gold text posts were not from "Quasqueton". Check the by line at the bottom of the messages. The gold posts were examples of responses we see here, but that I've never heard/read in plane enthusiasts discussions.
D&D sucks! No edition was as good as Rolemaster.
-- MasterRoler
Quasqueton
D&D sucks! No edition was as good as Rolemaster.
-- MasterRoler
Quasqueton
Last edited:
Lorne
First Post
Geron Raveneye said:Yeah, it's kinda funny how quickly the OP's intention was misinterpreted as trying to start an edition war. Seems it brought out lots of people's different opinions on what "technological superiority" means in context with fighter planes.
Sorry gents, my fault. It was my intnetion to make the point that newer isn't necessarily better. In hindsight, I should have just said that instead of trying to illustrate the point with specific differences betweeen editions. Rookie mistake.
Lorne
Sound of Azure
Contemplative Soul
Quasqueton said:
Thanks for doing that, it was very creative and a nice change from the "other stuff" going on right now. I found myself grinning earlier today as your "vignettes" came up in the thread, as all those things have become so very familiar in recent days.
Well done
Quasqueton
First Post
"This has a flaw," does NOT equal "This is a bad thing and I hate it and you are stupid for liking it."
"I like this," does NOT equal "I hate that and you are stupid for liking it."
"This is an evolved form," does NOT mean "that is ugly, stupid, and worthless, and so are you."
"That is the classic form," does NOT mean "this is watered down, mutated, and unnecessary, and you are ignorant for liking it."
All things evolve/advance -- airplane technology and game mechanics, strategic doctrines and game design philosophy.
Gary Gygax was the leader in evolving and advancing the D&D game, even from the first publication of Original D&D. He produced many supplements (pretty much immediately) for OD&D. He and others wrote expansions, advancements, and new rules (constantly) in The Dragon magazine.
Within 3 years of the first OD&D rules, TSR produced Basic D&D -- evolved from OD&D.
Within 4 years, Gygax, himself, produced Advanced D&D -- advanced from OD&D and BD&D.
And Gygax continued to advance and evolve the D&D game in the pages of The Dragon and Dragon magazines. He produced Unearthed Arcana which expanded the game even more.
Gygax has said that before he left TSR, he was contemplating another revision to the game (even including a skill system). Gygax has said that he never even played his campaigns straight out of the rule books. His personal table game was evolving/advancing faster than the published form. The master himself didn't consider the game perfect and sacrosanct as people now think of it.
And read Dragonsfoot sometime -- people are *still* discussing house rules and "fixes" for things in the AD&D rules. (The same kinds of discussions for house rules and fixes take place here on ENWorld for things in the D&D3 rules.)
With airplane technology, we can identify certain eras -- WWI, WWII, jet age, modern (for examples) -- but the advances didn't come in big jumps. The Spitfire didn't spring whole from the Camel. But advances in airplanes does not detract from the beauty and possibly even preference for previous planes. (Personally, I love WWII fighters the most of all the eras. I'm not an emotional fan of the jets and modern era planes -- but I recognize and appreciate the advances and evolution of the technology.)
We usually identify D&D editions as Original D&D, Basic (usually including Expert, Companion, Masters, and Immortal) D&D, Advanced D&D (1st edition), Advanced D&D Second Edition, and D&D 3rd edition (usually including the 3.5 revision). But each edition didn't just pop up wholly on its own -- it was a process of regular and constant advancement and evolution. This advancement and evolution is healthy and natural, and dare I say, necessary.
The OD&D game of 1977 was not the same as the OD&D game of 1974. The AD&D1 game of 1988 was not the same as the AD&D1 game of 1978. The AD&D2 game of 1999 was not the same as the AD&D2 game of 1989. Even before the successor editions were published, the game had changed -- advanced, evolved. Hell, the AD&D1 game played in my home (for almost 15 years) was not the same AD&D1 game played in your home. And it's all the same with D&D3.
But somehow, some people have this idea that D&D went from perfect beginning to perfect advancement and stayed there, in all it's perfect glory for a decade or two. And then gremlins started mucking with it and a new edition popped up from out of nowhere and without necessity. That's not what happened. The game is still advancing and evolving -- the game was never perfect, and it still isn't perfect.
When I was an airplane enthusiast (~6 years past, now), I never heard or read "era wars" or even "plane wars" among other enthusiasts. People could discuss the good and bad about all airplanes, from all eras, and no one felt offended or slighted. But then, also, no one intended offense or slight. Admitting that the jet engine is a better form of thrust is not, and would never be taken as, a slap in the face of the prop-lovers.
But here, among D&D enthusiasts, the lines of war are well marked. We can't discuss the good and bad about any edition without someone who prefers that edition taking offense or slight. And sometimes an offense or slight is intentional. And the take-offense and give-offense goes both ways. (I won't even give an example in this post because such would just provoke an edition war.)
Why are D&D enthusiasts so polar and quick to offend/take offense? It's almost pathological. Look at the responses to my analogy. How many people took comparing AD&D1 with WWII airplanes as an insult? (Should I take insult from that, because WWII airplanes are my favorites?) WWII was the era when airplanes really became a power in the world. Air superiority became a strategic necessity. The planes were constantly being upgraded and tweaked to for speed, manueverability, range, and altitude. It was an important and dynamic period in airplane technology. [sarcasm]But, of course, I meant the comparison strictly to insult AD&D1.[/sarcasm]
It has actually become no fun to discuss D&D here, because everything is taken as a spark for an edition war. There is no discussion for understanding, there is only fights.
For the record:
I do not hate AD&D. In fact, I love it.* If you find that statement hard to believe, then maybe you should reconsider how you discuss the game, and how you take how others discuss the game.
Quasqueton
*In fact, what makes me love D&D3 is that it is so much like AD&D1. The new edition combines its roots and its evolution for something I like a lot.
"I like this," does NOT equal "I hate that and you are stupid for liking it."
"This is an evolved form," does NOT mean "that is ugly, stupid, and worthless, and so are you."
"That is the classic form," does NOT mean "this is watered down, mutated, and unnecessary, and you are ignorant for liking it."
All things evolve/advance -- airplane technology and game mechanics, strategic doctrines and game design philosophy.
Gary Gygax was the leader in evolving and advancing the D&D game, even from the first publication of Original D&D. He produced many supplements (pretty much immediately) for OD&D. He and others wrote expansions, advancements, and new rules (constantly) in The Dragon magazine.
Within 3 years of the first OD&D rules, TSR produced Basic D&D -- evolved from OD&D.
Within 4 years, Gygax, himself, produced Advanced D&D -- advanced from OD&D and BD&D.
And Gygax continued to advance and evolve the D&D game in the pages of The Dragon and Dragon magazines. He produced Unearthed Arcana which expanded the game even more.
Gygax has said that before he left TSR, he was contemplating another revision to the game (even including a skill system). Gygax has said that he never even played his campaigns straight out of the rule books. His personal table game was evolving/advancing faster than the published form. The master himself didn't consider the game perfect and sacrosanct as people now think of it.
And read Dragonsfoot sometime -- people are *still* discussing house rules and "fixes" for things in the AD&D rules. (The same kinds of discussions for house rules and fixes take place here on ENWorld for things in the D&D3 rules.)
With airplane technology, we can identify certain eras -- WWI, WWII, jet age, modern (for examples) -- but the advances didn't come in big jumps. The Spitfire didn't spring whole from the Camel. But advances in airplanes does not detract from the beauty and possibly even preference for previous planes. (Personally, I love WWII fighters the most of all the eras. I'm not an emotional fan of the jets and modern era planes -- but I recognize and appreciate the advances and evolution of the technology.)
We usually identify D&D editions as Original D&D, Basic (usually including Expert, Companion, Masters, and Immortal) D&D, Advanced D&D (1st edition), Advanced D&D Second Edition, and D&D 3rd edition (usually including the 3.5 revision). But each edition didn't just pop up wholly on its own -- it was a process of regular and constant advancement and evolution. This advancement and evolution is healthy and natural, and dare I say, necessary.
The OD&D game of 1977 was not the same as the OD&D game of 1974. The AD&D1 game of 1988 was not the same as the AD&D1 game of 1978. The AD&D2 game of 1999 was not the same as the AD&D2 game of 1989. Even before the successor editions were published, the game had changed -- advanced, evolved. Hell, the AD&D1 game played in my home (for almost 15 years) was not the same AD&D1 game played in your home. And it's all the same with D&D3.
But somehow, some people have this idea that D&D went from perfect beginning to perfect advancement and stayed there, in all it's perfect glory for a decade or two. And then gremlins started mucking with it and a new edition popped up from out of nowhere and without necessity. That's not what happened. The game is still advancing and evolving -- the game was never perfect, and it still isn't perfect.
When I was an airplane enthusiast (~6 years past, now), I never heard or read "era wars" or even "plane wars" among other enthusiasts. People could discuss the good and bad about all airplanes, from all eras, and no one felt offended or slighted. But then, also, no one intended offense or slight. Admitting that the jet engine is a better form of thrust is not, and would never be taken as, a slap in the face of the prop-lovers.
But here, among D&D enthusiasts, the lines of war are well marked. We can't discuss the good and bad about any edition without someone who prefers that edition taking offense or slight. And sometimes an offense or slight is intentional. And the take-offense and give-offense goes both ways. (I won't even give an example in this post because such would just provoke an edition war.)
Why are D&D enthusiasts so polar and quick to offend/take offense? It's almost pathological. Look at the responses to my analogy. How many people took comparing AD&D1 with WWII airplanes as an insult? (Should I take insult from that, because WWII airplanes are my favorites?) WWII was the era when airplanes really became a power in the world. Air superiority became a strategic necessity. The planes were constantly being upgraded and tweaked to for speed, manueverability, range, and altitude. It was an important and dynamic period in airplane technology. [sarcasm]But, of course, I meant the comparison strictly to insult AD&D1.[/sarcasm]
It has actually become no fun to discuss D&D here, because everything is taken as a spark for an edition war. There is no discussion for understanding, there is only fights.
For the record:
I do not hate AD&D. In fact, I love it.* If you find that statement hard to believe, then maybe you should reconsider how you discuss the game, and how you take how others discuss the game.
Quasqueton
*In fact, what makes me love D&D3 is that it is so much like AD&D1. The new edition combines its roots and its evolution for something I like a lot.
Last edited:
Geron Raveneye
Explorer
I fear that is because, and here is where the analogy of plane evolution and RPG evolution comes to an end, in the evolution of D&D, many changes were expressively made to "erase/correct/clarify mistakes of the old edition rules and streamline them from the overabundance of supplements." every time a new edition came up, a phrase that was already used by Gygax in his ponders on a 2nd Edition, and a catchphrase when 3E was introduced. Planes did not so much evolve to correct mistakes but to simply upgrade the performace they already showed. True, the addition of new technology broadened the functionalities of a fighter plane some, gave it some new abilities...but the main effect of evolution was upgrade.
So if you are looking for the reasons why fans of the different editions get into an uproar so easily, and often, look for the reason why grognards feel as if some "new edition" fan is saying "You are STILL playing this error-riddled, overcomplicated, outdated version?", or why a 3E-diehard feels insulted when some self-professed old-timer tells him he doesn't even know what roleplaying is all about, and that he's just after the shiny kewl powerz and the numbers. It's the usual..people are not just trying to defend their favorite version of the game, but also feel they need to defend/justify WHY they are playing it, to somebody they never met, probably won't ever play with, and could as easily ignore...because they feel that it's their honor, ego, "professionalism" as a roleplayer, or whatever else personal and emotional that is being attacked. And many have a very thin skin by now, seeing that the "Internet Edition Wars" rage since 3E came out.
In a nutshell...typical silly human behaviour.
So if you are looking for the reasons why fans of the different editions get into an uproar so easily, and often, look for the reason why grognards feel as if some "new edition" fan is saying "You are STILL playing this error-riddled, overcomplicated, outdated version?", or why a 3E-diehard feels insulted when some self-professed old-timer tells him he doesn't even know what roleplaying is all about, and that he's just after the shiny kewl powerz and the numbers. It's the usual..people are not just trying to defend their favorite version of the game, but also feel they need to defend/justify WHY they are playing it, to somebody they never met, probably won't ever play with, and could as easily ignore...because they feel that it's their honor, ego, "professionalism" as a roleplayer, or whatever else personal and emotional that is being attacked. And many have a very thin skin by now, seeing that the "Internet Edition Wars" rage since 3E came out.
In a nutshell...typical silly human behaviour.
Quasqueton, that was just beautiful, man!
The funny thing is that I keep running into people online (& this is as true at DF as it is here & elsewhere) for whom the purpose of RPGs doesn't seem to be entertainment. I'm not sure what else it might be. & I'm not just talking about the false-seriousness that you can read into discussions about the game. I'm talking things like complaining because a group isn't "productive" enough each session.
Well, I don't see that. Maybe it's because I choose to try to read everything in the best possible light & with implied smileys. Sure, it may mean that I have a skewed view of discussions, but with the limitations of language & writing, that's pretty much guaranteed, so I'd rather have a positive skew rather than a negative one.
Please--at least--believe me when I say that nothing I post here is meant to offend. It is meant to simply offer my view & my opinion. Perhaps with a lousy attempt at rhetorical flare. I do this because of the benefit I've received from reading all your opinions, & I pray that others might find a tiny speck of benefit in my own words in return.
Nikosandros said:
The funny thing is that I keep running into people online (& this is as true at DF as it is here & elsewhere) for whom the purpose of RPGs doesn't seem to be entertainment. I'm not sure what else it might be. & I'm not just talking about the false-seriousness that you can read into discussions about the game. I'm talking things like complaining because a group isn't "productive" enough each session.
Quasqueton said:
Well, I don't see that. Maybe it's because I choose to try to read everything in the best possible light & with implied smileys. Sure, it may mean that I have a skewed view of discussions, but with the limitations of language & writing, that's pretty much guaranteed, so I'd rather have a positive skew rather than a negative one.
Please--at least--believe me when I say that nothing I post here is meant to offend. It is meant to simply offer my view & my opinion. Perhaps with a lousy attempt at rhetorical flare. I do this because of the benefit I've received from reading all your opinions, & I pray that others might find a tiny speck of benefit in my own words in return.
Similar Threads
