This is the thing that many think of when they look at the broken Base trope for D&D these days. They feel different editions have broken up the base of D&D players. This is a sensitive issue, and though it covers ideas in edition wars...this is more about commenting about how the base is broken and why.
Some comment that there was a broken base in the 1e/2e days, something I never experienced...and which I didn't find any articles that truly epitomized the broken base ideas. It was easy to find articles about the recent 3.X to 4e changes...but with that being so recent I think emotions are to highly charged for people to comment on that idea while remaining respectful of others ideas and opinions. I don't want an edition war...but something that shows the basics of what types of ideas occur during an edition change which can cause the broken base effect.
I did find articles from when 3e was first coming out which captures the feel of it, and decided to post one of those with some of the comments which I think brings out the emotions of those who went one way...or the other.
This article is really even prior to some playing 3e, but shows their emotions towards the changes and why this would cause a broken base effect. Many will see that the same discussions that cause a broken base more recently in edition changes were the same discussions via the 3e edition change, which can be an interesting point. I'm hoping it was long enough ago that people can divorce their emotions from their analysis and write their analysis of the idea, rather than flaming...
The article...
The Demise of Dungeons & Dragons | gamegrene.com
The Demise of Dungeons & Dragons
d20Rants/Ravesrabbitman — Thu, 2000-08-10 06:25 .
Change can be a good thing. Without change, several of history's momentous events would never have come about. We would be currently living a life so much dissimilar to what we know it would hardly be recognizable. Change is not always good, though. Some things are better left the way they were. I'm not sure what Wizards of the Coast was thinking when they started this grand venture, but I'm hoping they missed the mark and are just too embarassed to admit it.
Change can be a good thing. Without change, several of history's momentous events would never have come about. We would be currently living a life so much dissimilar to what we know it would hardly be recognizable. Change is not always good, though. Some things are better left the way they were.
Wizards of the Coast have been a rising force in the gaming world since the advent of Magic: The Gathering. They have taken great leaps of faith in a card game that was sure to fail, it was so different from the norm. But, in the face of adversity, Magic flourished. Now WotC is turning it's visionary viewpoint on a tried and true favorite of gamers around the world, AD&D.
Dungeons & Dragons has went through a few changes already, from first edition to second edition, from basic to advanced. I have played D&D for 16 years now and was never so happy as to see 2nd edition grace the shelves of bookstores and game shops. It was new, refreshing and an answer to many problems and questions that arose out of 1st edition. Don't get me wrong, 1st edition was a blast to play and was a revolutionary step in roleplaying. 2nd edition, however, raised the standard even higher, adding new elements to the rules, changing some monsters and adding new ones. Some creatures were removed from the game, a few to placate angry parents who thought there was a satanic undertone to the game and a few to balance out the worlds created by the designers and gamers alike. Over all it is the best game, I feel, to ever come out of man's imagination and creativity. Now we have AD&D, 3rd edition.
I'm not sure what Wizards of the Coast was thinking when they started this grand venture, but I'm hoping they missed the mark and are just too embarassed to admit it. From the few bits and pieces about the 3rd edition I've seen, many changes have taken place, so much so that the original core set of rules almost seems non-existant. THAC0 has been removed entirely, relying on a challenge rating of the creature being fought by party members as well as a rating assigned to the party themselves. Action or battle also consists of feats, instead of proficiencies. Saving throws have been reduced to 3 categories and initiative has been reverted to highest number goes first.
Initiative
Initiative has always preceded any other action in a round of AD&D combat mode. Your necromancer wants to cast that spell he's been drooling over? Roll initiative. Your paladin took personal affront to the orc spitting on his holy symbol? Roll initiative. It's been the basis of combat and action since the game began. I have nothing against the change back to higher goes first. However, the roll is now made with a d20 instead of the d10 previously used. This may not be that big a deal, and certainly wouldn't make the game any less enjoyable, were it not for the fact that there are now all kinds of variables to add or subtract from the initiative roll. No longer do you have to take into account weapon speed or the casting time of spells, but now you have the feats and other special bonuses, etc. to make your roll higher or lower, depending on what it calls for. I'm sure the thought all this would make combat rounds much easier, but I fail to see their line of thinking. Adding in that many variables to take into account for such a simple part of the round as initiative does not seem, to me, to be beneficial and would take much more time rather than make the play more fast paced. Another change to initiative is the fact that you keep the same roll throughout the combat session. If you go third on the first round, you go third for each subsequent round. Unless you choose to focus your action, wherein you lose your action for that round but are allowed to automatically go first next round. Why not just keep the tried and true method of deciding who goes first each round?
Armor Class and THAC0
Since the change between 1st edition and secone edition, THAC0 has been an integral part of combat. It was a simple equation to figure out how hard it was for you to hit whatever you decided to attack. The monster's AC is 0, you're a 2nd lvl warrior, so you need a base roll of 19 to hit the offending foe. Simple, right? Apparently Wizards of the Coast didn't think so. They wanted to simplify the rules for D&D even more and do away with THAC0, replacing it with a greater number of variables to add or subtract from your ability to damage a certain adversary. Challenge ratings, difficulty ratings, etc.. There are now so many different pluses and minuses that I wonder if the rulebooks will resemble algebra textbooks from high school. You can hit if your (blahblah) is added to the initial roll of (ugh), then subtracting your (squeak) from the base number of (honk)... OK, I'm generalizing and probably making it sound more complicated than it really is. But in my mind it's more difficult to do all this than to just keep it the way it was. Which brings me to Armor Class. They've changed that, too. Now, the higher your AC, the better. An AC of 20 is incredibly good for the defender and disheateningly bad for the attacker. What was wrong with the way it was? Nothing that I, nor the group I've had the fortune of DM'ing and playing with for years, could see.
I don't claim to know everything about the 3rd edition of our favorite roleplaying game (and the cause of many late, sleepness nights of pizza and bloodshed). I don't claim to be an expert on 2nd edition. What I am is a concerned gamer. Concerned with the path Wizards of the Coast has chosen for my favorite roleplaying game of all time. What's next? Will Tiamat become the very model of a modern major general? Will Elminster become a necromancer? Will umberhulks become the choice pet for kings and queens the land over? How many licks does it take to get to the center of... OK, you get my point.
Now with I'll post some of the responses to the article, and I think you'll be able to see some similarities between them and ANY edition change responses...regardless of which edition or game...
Basara (not verified) — Sun, 2000-08-27 23:41
Having played D&D and AD&D for 16 years, I can conclusively say after reading the d&d3 PH, it's not D&D. It's about as much D&D as, say, Palladium Fantasy or the Japanese Lodoss War RPG, both of which were inspired by D&D, but rule-wise, are no longer anything like it.
Let's see... You change 1. the combat offensive mechanic; 2. The character attribute mechanic; 3. the combat and spell defense mechanics; 4. the profession use/selection mechanic; 5. the spell mechanics (albeit, for actual mages, this is the least changed); 6. the skill use mechanic; and 7. the initiative mechanic. And these aren't subtle changes, but major rewrites.
The end result is a completely different RPG, no matter how you "WotC are gods" types want to rationalize it, despite the input of the D&D creators. I have read the system - it's a pretty nice system - but it's no more a new edition of Dungens and Dragons than a 2001 Jeep Grand Cherokee is a revision of a 1940s Willys Jeep. The problem lies in its being called something it is not - a new edition of an existing system. It is this incompatibility that will prevent me from ever playing it, as none of the local players will touch it, because of this lie.
Zaracas (not verified) — Tue, 2000-09-26 15:51
When second edition came out, I gave it a shot and didn't like it! I kept playing first edition. Now that third edition is out I have read the rules and I will admit it is alot different, even so it is still worth a shot. Personally I like the new rules but I understand that some people won't! The easy solution is if you don't like third edition keep playing 1st or 2nd. In the end, at least we have a variety to choose from.
John Blonn (not verified) — Mon, 2000-10-02 03:29
I was like many of my gaming brethren, hearing about the tyranny of third edition. (Half-orc barbaian/wizard/ROGUE/Paladin!?!?!?!)Then I picked up a 3rd Edition PHB and said "Wow." The book looked slick- granted that the little gems looked a little too much like the Magic the Gathering gems- but the general appearance of the book was intriguing. Yet, the appearance of a book doesnt make a game, so I put it back on the shelf.
Then my friend bought the game. After seeing a DM at the local card store in action and reading some of it, I started to like it. It was weird. I DESPISED the game for the months before that I had heard about it. But suddenly, I started to like it, it was strange. The aura of the game just sucked me in. And I feel that it will to other gamers that hated it just as much as me.
Benji (not verified) — Thu, 2000-10-12 11:49
I own a PHB, a DMG and will (by tomorrow) own a Monster Manual. In short, I'm in love with D&D 3rd Edition. I think the system is much cleaner, easier to understand and that newbie players will get the hang of it a whole lot faster than they did/do with 1st and 2nd ed. "..but I thought negatives were bad things." True, if you look at the system in the way of numbers, it all ends up the same either way. I especially love the fact that no matter what your ability score, you have the same modifiers for all. I also love it that the magic has been balanced (as far as the differences between clerics and wizards go). Also, all you combat twinks out there are gonna love this, the game is far more lethal. Beware!! This game is gonna sweep the floor with 1st and 2nd ed. saleswise. In summary, 3rd ed. rocks! I am so glad I made the switch.
Dead Zed (not verified) — Sun, 2000-12-03 00:53
I've Played D&D since the early 70's and what what has happened to the game is a crime! At least the change from 1st to second was minor. They mearly gave more info...a lot more info. that you could take it or leave it. Now the whole damn game is diffrent. Almost un recognizable! This IS just a ploy for more money. And it looks like it's working because your all buying it! Ever see that Simpsons episode when they made the Lisa Lionheart, and everyone bought the Malibu Stacy because she had a "Stupid Cheap Hat". Well Enjoy you hat losers!
Figgadiggarow (not verified) — Sun, 2000-12-03 16:24
Way to go WOTC. I think that 3E is genius, pure genius. My friends and I would stay up many nights, without sleep, playing dungeons and dragons. We'd often change the rules, so much, that it was hardly recognizeable as AD&D. The game was better (to us anyways), we standardized the game with d20's, and added special abilities (just like feats). I think what WOTC did with the game, has satisfied A LOT of people, I know that me and my friends are certainly in that group. And why are so many people trying to defend AD&D ??? I mean, TSR stopped prining the books because they volentarily sold it to WOTC. Al you AD&D lover, stop living in the past, at the top of this article, it clearly says, that change is a good thing, witout it, we wouldn't have the society we have today. LONG LIVE WOTC !
Burt (not verified) — Sun, 2000-12-03 18:08
3E is a bastardization of a great gaming system, one which did not need a new edition. Our group ran a 3E campaign for about a month recently, and collectively agreed that is really sucks. It makes combat so boringly painful and overcomplicated, and the fact that you can refocus and add a 20 to your initiative is idiotic, essentially making initiative worthless to begin with. The overall tone smacks of Munchkinism, with the silly "building-block" stackable feats, no level limits, etc. The mystique has been stripped away, all in the name of money. WOTC will just keep re-releasing the 2nd worlds in 3E, milking gamers for every cent they can. My 3E Player's Handbook is going to Ebay soon, Dragon Magazine goes directly into the trash can each month now, and I will never buy another piece of crap that WOTC puts out. I feel dirty just because I bought the PHB. Remember, those who want to fix something that isn't broke are only looking to rip you off!!
Old Fart (not verified) — Thu, 2000-12-07 01:53
I've been playing D&D since I got the brown box three booklets version in early 1975, and was playing Chainmail before that. I find 3rd Edition to be a breath of fresh air. The old rules I started with were broken but we just sort of patched things as we went along. I never much liked AD&D 1st or 2nd because by then I was exposed to systems that were better crafted mechanically, Runequest & others. AD&D had a very cobbled together and bolted on feeling, retaining many of the basic design mistakes of the original and layering on more and more stuff with lots of holes until it groaned under the weight of the Complete Whatziz and Whosis books. I really like how the new game feels like it was DESIGNED and is not just a pile of hacks. I don't agree with every design decision they made, but it It has revived my interest in D&D and will be the first edition in 20 years to get me running the current set pretty much intact instead of my own variants with the original booklets. I am happy to have it. It has spawned a number of campaigns among players I know who would never have bothered to run another AD&D 1st or 2nd campaign for the rest of their lives.
Grathsnik (not verified) — Sun, 2000-12-10 22:18
I have looked over 3E quite a bit and it is a different game from the two previous editions. The biggest 'sin' was giving everyone the same Experience Table to go off of. The 'Multi Classing' is also a problem. The game is much more generic, and I still will never be able to look at a person playing a gnome paladin seriously (though I would love so see them try and pull it off). I am glad they brought back the half-orc. Those of us who did play 1st edition were quite unhappy with the elimination of the half-orc from 2nd ed. But as many others did (I'm sure), we just transferred the character on over. Change is inevitable. I am not going to throw out my 1st and 2nd edition books because of 3E. I like some of the concepts they put into it, but dislike others. What I like I plan on using, and what I don't I'll just toss out the window. Any creative DM's and gamers out there should do the same, and not be a slave to advocates of conformity. Adapt, change, tweak. No game system will ever be perfect.
It's a ROLEPLAYING game... (not verified) — Mon, 2001-03-05 22:59
"Basically, the reason I like 3e is NOT the combat. I like it because Charisma actually MEANS something now. There is a codified skill set for trying to do non-combat tasks (Bluff, Gather Information, Diplomacy, etc.) - of course as a DM I can fudge stuff, but it's nice to have a system already in place."
That's funny - I've never needed these sorts skills. Charisma means something in my campaign - just like the other stats. A dwarven fighter with an intelligence of 6 isn't going to be devising any grand strategies - not if the player ever wants to earn experience - just like a half-orc with a charisma of 7 isn't going to be "diplomatic". No dice involved - just imagination, dialogue, and a logical continuation of the story-line by the DM. Want to "gather information"? Go to the freaking tavern and talk to the bartender. Role-playing took care of what now is just another roll of the dice.
wanderingsurviver (not verified) — Sun, 2001-05-27 22:51
Third ediition clarifies and makes for an easier system.
Mark Temporis (not verified) — Sat, 2001-10-20 02:12
Whoever commented about Star Wars conversion being easy--what are you talking about? The d6 and d20 SW systems are more or less completely incompatible!
The WEG game was one of the first of the cinematic RPGs. PCs were nearly impossible to kill and had the ability to use xp and Force Points to alter their skill chances.
The d20 Star Wars, since its fundamentally identical to D&D3, is far less forgiving and character death WILL be far more frequent than under the d20 system.
Even if one was able to convert a favorite character from the WEG to the d20 Star Wars, they would have to play that character so differently that they might as well use a brand new character.
Besides, isn't the official "world" of the d20 SW 30+ years before the WEG game setting?
-Marc
Isotrope (not verified) — Wed, 2001-11-07 03:26
It has been 12 years since I last played AD&D/D&D2E. I stopped playing because, although 2nd Edition was less contradictory of itself and unclear (rule-wise) than AD&D, I found myself feeling as though I was manipulating a system of rules rather than playing a game. I can honestly say that with D&D3E this feeling has diminished to a great degree.
There are elements about trying to construct a pseudo-reality within the minds of players that seems to require a level of rules & tables bureaucracy. This element is not at all absent in D&D3E, however it seems more coherent from one level to the next. This, I expect is a result of the D20 system. Also there seems to be a real impact on game play for all ability scores. Example: Whereas before, unless you were a priest, a good wisdom score seemed pointless (especially when constitution or dexterity would likely save one in physical combat). Now (and, like I said it has been a long while since I have looked at a second edition book) wisdom matters because of the Will save and numerous important skills.
In closing, I must say I am looking forward to the Epic Level Adventures book and Deities and Demigods, as the new system seems to have great potential (I hope that the Chthulu Mythos, and the Nehwon Mythos return). I will also leave my 2 copper pieces worth of advice—fellas, it’s a game and is (presumably) meant to be enjoyed. To paraphrase a favorite writer of mine, attacking it as I’ve seen some do is tantamount to donning full plate and wagging war on an ice cream Sunday.
hewbadger (not verified) — Wed, 2005-02-23 04:49
Having had time to look at the 3rd edition for several years now, I totally agree with all your points. Right on! I also think that 3rd edition does appeal to some people, but these are generally young gamers raised on a steady diet of computer and video games. I think what is truly lamentable is the difficulty with which long-established gaming groups can lure new blood to the table.
So we can really see arguments that apply to many edition changes. If you take out the titles of one and replace it with another (let's say changes of Warhammer 40K Rogue Trader to Warhammer 2nd edition...or even just statements on why Games Workshop comes out with new editions for its games so quickly...or maybe 3e to 4e for D&D) the arguments basically sound the same from edition change to edition change.
In that way I think we can see that the broken base from editions really has similar feelings each time, regardless of game or edition.
Unfortunately instead of analyzing these ideas typically it turns into what some call an edition war.
I don't want that here...remember as with all these topics...try to remain respectful, but analytical. The following unfortunately is what normally happens
EndUser (not verified) — Tue, 2001-10-30 21:47
3d Ed vs AD&D, the little flamefest that could.
Or that would be, Old Warhammer fans vs. New Warhammer fans, or SW d6 vs. SW D20 vs. SWSE, or D&D 3e vs D&D4e.
See how it works...and yet each time the discussions remain the same...just the game changes.
Overall, edition wars can be viewed as being stupid and petty. However, the broken base is more of an economic thing. We can see above how people can get emotional and make all sorts of things about the new or old edition, saying one is broken, or another is based off of computer games, or one is streamlined, or one was simpler...etc...etc...etc. The big difficulty is NOT these opinions, but the division it makes amongst gamer ranks and the the divided groups in the hobby.
I actually see my last Broken Base Lookback as more significant at hurting the base of the hobby (Christians and how some view D&D), but I think that many gamers instead think of the above ideas, or edition changes when they think of a divided gaming base.
I think it creates discord many times amongst the hobby, and non-acceptance from one group to another. Some interesting dynamics however, and I think we can see that in an edition change you'll see MOST of the arguments rehashed from the edition change prior to it, just reapplied to the current edition...which is ironic...and yet seems to be how it is.
PS: Remember, be respectful, this is NOT to garner an edition war, but is more looking back at what causes a broken base in the D&D view. I posted an article on the original 3e since I think most who feel strongly on editions on these boards are not concerned with 3e itself anymore, but are inclined more along the 3.5/Pathfinder/4e lines. So this edition probably has a lesser impact in utilizing it to show an analysis of how editions cause Broken Bases than utilizing something more recent or another edition. Still, if you feel so strongly about 3e that you want to start an edition war instead of respectful analysis on it, refrain instead.
