As the Grump said - so much to disagree with, so little time. Restricting myself (mostly) to the highlighted items...
Nowadays magic items are a dime a dozen, easy come easy go, like Christmas presents you don't want so you exchange them and buy what you DO want. The joy is gone, replaced with greed.
Bunk and nonsense. Greed (and powergaming) is a function of the player and DM, not the game itself. Availability of magic items is a function of the DM.
And anyone who thinks players weren't greedy in earlier editions is probably not remembering the past too clearly. For one thing, the players were generally younger, and more interested in the cool loot than in character personality development. And, if the point about XP coming from treasure is true, anyone who reached significant levels was, by definition, greedy
Basic mechanics were pretty similar, but much simpler.
Eh, no, unless the only "basic mechanics" under discussion is the to-hit roll. Most of the other mechanics have changed. I also don't find the old mechanics to be simpler, insofar as there were a great many more of them. People often mix up mechanics and rules in these discussions. 3.x may or may not have as many or more rules, but it has far fewer mechanics.
Certain minimum levels of magic equipment were not assumed in class balance, and many campaigns were far less magic-rich than the default 3E campaign.
Well, yes, insofar as earlier editions had no class balance to speak of. But, don't kid yourself - the "default" D&D game of yesteryear was a magic-rich environment, and high-level characters were generally well-defined by the gear they carried. A 12th level fighter without his gear was just as hampered then as now. And also don't kid yoruself that many campaigns todoay don't differ from the "default". I personally find it easier to run low-magic campaigns in 3.x than previously, because the more unified mechanic makes it rather easier to figure out what will be a challenge and what will kill the party.
Compared to 3E, older versions delivered a similar experience but would be "rules light" by comparison. The experience was more party-oriented rather than character-oriented. The game strove more for story and flavor rather than tactical richness; the rules were originally designed to "stay out of the way" and leave room for role-play and creativity, although many (if not most) players didn't seem to get this concept.
I strongly disagree with the idea that the new game is not party oriented, and that somehow the new rules stifle creativity. Those are both player-based, not rules-based. Failure to work as a party is generally deadly in 3.x, and despite having run previous editions for longer, I can run 3.x with fewer references to the rulebooks during the session.
Story and flavor?!? Previous editions, with fewer non-combat options, were even more about killing things and taking their stuff than 3.x. I can far more easily run an emotion or socially centered plot in 3.x than I ever could in previous editions.
The game generally had a more "historic medieval" feel in presentation and artwork, whereas the new game has a more Warhammer-esque "dungeonpunk" feel with tattoos and spikey armor and leather strappy outfits and attitude.
Artwork!?! How in Lolth's name is that relevant to the operation of the game? And anyone who says, "The artwork influences how people play the game" is gonna get the Spoon of Free Will stuck in their ear. Anyone who can't pull their minds away from artwork enough to think for themselves deserves what they get.
it has lost a lot of the flavor and quirkiness and charm of the original.
Ah, but it has a quirkiness and charm all it's own, you see.
It is a good game, but it is different...
Congrats! Sherlock here finally figured out that the game isn't the same!
Speaking of which the older editions, while giving fewer toys to the players, were MUCH easier to DM. Less prep time, less work running the game, less record keeping, less work to keep balanced.
Again, I disagree. The author has apparently not yet learned that 1)Not all encounters require the level of development and detail in bookkeeping as the PCs do, and 2)A unified mechanic makes it easier to "wing it" than ever before. Yes, if you treat each and every manster as if it were a PC, there's more bookkeeping. But, since nobody did that in previous editions, I don't see how it is fair to consider that as the default mode for 3.x.
The new game is finely balanced but you have to pay attention to the details to make the balance work
Very untrue. Despite the niggling of messageboard discusssion, the 3.x balance is pretty robust stuff.
(Yes you can do that in the new game too, but if you do that you're not playing 3.X as written and as intended, your playing old D&D with a different ruleset, just like if you whipped up a dungeon crawl in GURPS)
Um, sorry, no. The author is now slipping deeply into the land of double-standards. Somehow, with previous editions winging it and playing off the cuff is allowed, but not in 3.x? Why?
Consider that with the new game came the OGL and d20 licenses - opening the system up to alteration. Somehow, even though far more people are allowed to publish variations, you're still supposed to stick more slavishly to the core? I'm not buying it.
