Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="T. Foster" data-source="post: 2061069" data-attributes="member: 16574"><p>Interesting question. I imagine I probably would've thrown a screaming fit if D&D had gone straight from 1E to 3E/3.5/d20, but at least the shift would've been obvious and blatant. That's what was (at least in my experience) so insidious about 2E -- on the surface it looked almost exactly like 1E (1E cleaned up and better organized and made easier to understand) and it was only after playing it for a few months that I began to realize that 2E was actually 1E stripped of all the things that (IMO) made 1E 'cool,' and that all that was left behind was the detritus of clunky and awkward rules and a cheesy Terry Brooks/Tolkein-lite atmosphere. 3E/3.5E/d20 is (despite what the logos say) "not D&D" to me -- it's a separate game with a lot of the same tropes and trappings but a completely different ruleset and (seemingly) underlying philosophy. Therefore I tend to think of 3E the same way I think of Chivalry & Sorcery, Tunnels & Trolls, Rolemaster, Dragonquest and all those other D&D-esque fantasty rpgs that I didn't play back in the 80s -- I don't have any problem with it, and don't really give it a second thought at all (except for some mild annoyance that it's "squatting" on the D&D brand-name and that if I try to talk about MY D&D to somebody they'll probably assume I'm actually talking about this other game). 2E, OTOH, IS still D&D to me, it's just D&D reimagined in such a way that it holds none of the same appeal (and is, in fact rather inane and in many ways downright embarrassing). And I find that much more bothersome. But maybe that's just me...</p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification