I think you don't get it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say 3e sucks and it doesn't suck. Make up your mind. Are you just playing devil's advocate and arguing with every statement made, or do you actually have a cogent opinion?
I can say parts of something suck, but that on the whole it's a good game, and mean every word of it. I doubt you're unable to understand this, it's a pretty simple concept.
For instance, I also consider that some parts of democracy as a political model suck. On the whole I think it's okay, though, and better than the alternatives.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll take your logic to task if you dismiss everything but 3E as crap and present it as fact.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I said that where?
It was a statement that 1E is a crappy RPG from someone else that I'm arguing against, not what you said. Get a clue.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay sunshine, I don't know what version of 1E you were playing, but it came with a hell of a lot more than just some rules mechanics like THAC0. I remember:
Monsters
Settings
Artwork
Adventures
Spells
NPCs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of which were no more than mechanics with names. Except for the artwork, of course, most of which I didn't like, even at the time when we didn't have way better artwork to compare it to, like we do now.
A D&D spell is a rules component alright, but not a mechanic. A mechanic is the "memorise first and forget on casting" system that runs the spells, or the number of spells you get per level. Declaring entire settings as "rules mechanics with names" borders on stupidity.
It implies nothing except that the idea of D&D was a good one.
Bollocks. You don't get game icons like mind flayers, Vecna and vorpal swords in other games (without conversion), because they're more or less artifacts of D&D (or more specifically, AD&D), and as such part of the game, and the edition which introduced them. Now who's attempting to have their cake and eat it?
The fact that most other mechanics have been changed strongly implies that the system needed serious work and overhaul.
That's what new editions are
for. I'm saying that what 1E may have lacked in mechanics was well and truly made up for in the form of monsters, spells, settings etc., and that the debt 3E owes to 1E is so large that to say that all of 1E sucks is to say that a great deal of 3E does as well.
And when you say "it sucks" like you did above, without qualification, that is indeed the stupidity you are suggesting.
And debt is a silly point to bring up. This is supposed to be an objective comparison of the systems that we've been engaged in for the last few pages of the thread. Debt doesn't even figure into that equation.
This may come as news to you:
Usually, new editions of a game owe a large debt to former editions, otherwise they wouldn't be the same game.
Guess what:
3E is a later edition of the same game as 1E (with stuff from oD&D as well).
So what? I didn't say that comment referred to you. I put in specific words to the effect of "initiators of threads" on this subject? Is that you? Please, try reading before you start jumping all over stuff I never said.
So what? Well, it means I don't fall into your neat little stereotype, and so you can't use it to imply I've never tried 3E.
Try again yourself, pal. This discussion has nothing whatsoever with 3e being a "state of the art" RPG. It has everything to do with a comparison between 1e and 3e.
No, this is all about how you are trying to prove that 1E unilaterally sucks because 3E exists (see above) and I'm arguing that that's not so.
You likened 1E to a horse and buggy. To play your silly little game, I likened 3E to a Porsche with wagon wheels attached in place of tyres, because it makes your argument leak. You don't like that, so you're moving the goal posts.
Anything else going on in the RPG hobby is irrelevant. Relative to 1e 3e certainly is state of the art. But I'd actually agree with you that it makes a number of compromises to it's detriment. But that's neither here nor there, since that's not the topic of the discussion. Unless you'd like it to be; I'm perfectly willing to change tacks here. But don't assume I'm arguing about the merits of 3e relative to anything other than 1e until I say I'm doing so.
So a lot of 3E is as crappy as 1E because of the huge debt of material it owes to it, and as you've stated above, 1E sucks.
Where's that critical thinking, then?
The critical thinking is in challenging blanket statements like "1E sucks" or is a "crappy RPG", and presenting arguments to the contrary. I've done that. Your blanket statements are the antithesis of critical thinking, and plant you firmly in the fanboy category.
So far, all you've done is call people names and make vague, unqualified and undescribed statements
Stating that 1E's strengths are not in it's rules so much as in it's material and "toys" (spells, monsters, settings, magic items, NPCs etc) is not vague and unqualified - it's pretty damn specific. No, you're Mr Vague and Unqualified here, you haven't even mentioned the rules mechanics you object to.
to the effect that you think all editions of D&D are equal.
I never said that all editions of D&D are equal, and I don't believe it either.
You're falling way, WAY short of your stated goal.
You should look after your side of the argument, don't worry about mine.
See above. Put your money where your wide-open mouth is.
Whatever you say, buster.
I don't see how you can make any kind of argument that someone who played 1e for years is closeminded about it. What I'm saying is based on experience with the game buddy, not anything else.
Most people reading this thread probably have experience with 1E. You need to have an argument that makes sense, instead of just saying you're right because "someone who played 1e for years" would know.
Insults without any description of what in the world it has to do with anything means very little. Especially from someone who claims (very speciously) to be trying to inject "critical thinking" into the thread.
I think "back in your box" means a lot applied to you.
The critical thinking is in challenging blanket statements like "1E sucks" or is a "crappy RPG", and presenting arguments to the contrary. I've done that. Your blanket statements are the antithesis of critical thinking, and plant you firmly in the fanboy category.
You have yet to show any "critical thinking."
Stating that 1E's strengths are not in it's rules so much as in it's material and "toys" (spells, monsters, settings, magic items, NPCs etc) constitutes criticism of your silly dismissal of all of 1E as "it sucks" based on rules mechanics alone.
You have yet to show much in the way of reading comprehension. You have yet to make much sense.
You spout too much rhetoric.
You have however, shown that you are quite the reactionary, tossing out insults based on percieved attacks on systems that weren't even being discussed.
Which system was attacked but isn't being discussed?
I will still stand by my opinion that relative to 3e, 1e sucks.
And I'll stand by mine, that 1E doesn't suck whether 3E is there or not - there's more to D&D than mere rules mechanics. Your shortsighted views are indeed being disagreed with here. And I'll go you one better - I back up my points.
You have yet to even propose a reason why I should change that opinion, or even address it.
I don't give a damn what you think - only that you don't present it as fact.
I question what in the world you're doing here in this thread in the first place, since you seem to have little desire to discuss the topic the rest of us were.
It got derailed into comments on "3E rules and 1E sucks" before I arrived. You're still playing "Let's Pretend", I see.
