D&D SHOULD NOT have a defined atmosphere/style *Semi Rant*

[nothing to see here]

We don't need an accurate breakdown, it was a poll that asked do you use the current or older edition. It did not break down other systems. So, I agree it doesn't give that breakdown since those answeres were not offereed. The poll tells us that a majority of people here perfer 3e to older editions, and I'm saying we can trust that.

I hope you're right. ENWorld will have certainly evolved if that fact ever changes.

As per the ratio breakdown however, there is no credability to the 90%-10% split. Maybe it's 60%-40%...may be it's 55%-45%. Barring requiring every ENworld member being required to state their prescence when they register...or somebody doing a random sample picked from the entire member population (including those like me, who generally avoid message board polls) we won't know for sure.

I for one, greatly enjoy 3e...but do look wistfully at the older materials I still own, and the good memories that come with them.

 

[Tarangil]

I'm also of the belief that a lot of these debates were generational.

For a lot of the older members D&D was cool because it was the sort of thing youth at the time found cool. Today's D&D is aimed at what the youth of today find cool. I feel that, a lot of the people who are bothered about the 'changes' in D&D, are simply using it as a scapegoat for a deepr disastisfaction...they're not as young as they once were and and no longer able to enjoy the hobby in the carefree way they once did.

Most of the people I know who enjoy 3e enjoy the game in a different manner than how they first enjoyed playing roleplaying games...as they've matured, the way they enjoy their hobby has matured. For others -- it seems they want the game to replicate the feel of being 12 years old and sitting around a comfortable basement rolling some dice with some buddies on a lazy saturday afternoon. That's a tall order for any set of rules.

That's an excellent point! Once you have kids (in my case 3 young ones) and do shift work that is random 24/7 it's a real bitch to have a consistant game at all. Let alone with other players who also have random shift work. Dammit Nothing's ever easy.

 

[Storm Raven]

Actually, it wasn't the only game in town. My group also played Runequest, CoC, Stormbringer, etc. By 1984-5 we had left AD&D entirely for MERP/Rolemaster (largely because of my Tolkien obsession at the time).

Which would be evidence that 1e wasn't all you seem to say it was.

Well, the fighter needs fewer experience points to advance, does not have the alignment restrictions of the ranger and paladin (including the potential loss of abilities if he deviates from his 'code'), and can make multiple attacks in a single round against monsters with less than 1HD above a certain level. I don't think the fighter was that badly off.

The paladin and ranger get the multiple attacks benefit too. And the alignment restrictions were trivial for most players. And none of what you've described even comes close to making up for (for example): druid spells, magic-user spells, the ability to deal massive damage to "giant class" creatures (a definition that seemed to cover half the MM), the ability to use a variety of additional magic items, tracking, and bonuses to surprise (and avoid being surprised).

But really, despite making it very clear that I have no interest in debating the 'balance' or lack thereof in 1e, you seem determined to press this point. I don't understand why you feel this need, and see no reason to indulge it, as it strikes me as inconsiderate on your part (especially since playing 1e is not even part of this debate).

Because you seem to think 1e was balanced, but flavorful. I'm saying that what you remember as flavor was just the oddities of a system that was unbalanced, and in most cases a direct conseqeunce of its imbalance.

And for someone who isn't interested in debating the balance of 1e, you sure seem to be more than willing to post on the subject.

I thought it was relatively obvious why 'balance' is considered a positive feature of 3e D&D. (Viz. no particular classes or races dominate the game, many different options are meaningful, every PC feels as though he/she can 'contribute' or whatever, etc.) Please excuse me for assuming this 'common knowledge'.

It isn't, because many people don't like it. Lots of 1e/2e proponents like the imbalance between classes and races, touting it as a feature. In point of fact, it is actually where a lot of the flavor of 1e comes from.

Actually, I haven't decried the CR system from a 'flavour' perspective. I don't like the CR system because I find it a nuisance, but my dislike for it has nothing to do with 'flavour'.

Actually, you do. You just don't realize it.

If you want to know what aspects I don't like about 3e from a 'flavour' perspective, they are: the 'dungeonpunk' art style,

Trivial and silly. And not even true for most supplements.

the assumption of ubiquitous magic items (which, yes, can be ignored, but is assumed in the game),

That is driven entirely by the CR system. In point of fact, the CR system is what drives a significant portion of your flavor based complaints about 3e.

how common spellcasters are (only fighters, rogues, barbarians, and monks don't eventually cast spells),

As opposed to, say 1e, where everyone except fighters, thieves, assassins, and monks could eventually cast spells. I'm not sure you have any ground to stand on here. In 1e spellcasters were just as ubiquitous as in 3e, probably more so since almost no one played a straight fighter or thief.

the rapid experience rate progression (which, yes, can be altered -- I made this very point myself earlier -- but is nonetheless part of the 'flavour' of 3e),

That's not part of the flavor of 3e, that's part of the flavor of an individual campaign. A point made pretty clearly in the rules.

the kinds of prestige classes that are available (even in the core rules -- I dislike the kind of campaign style they suggest), etc.

That's a lousy argument, since prestige classes are explicitly and repeatedly described as an optional rule. That's like saying that 1e had bad flavor because psionics were listed in the appendix to the Player's Handbook.

For the most part, though, these flavour issues can be altered by the DM. (Even with respect to the art, I can use the Mongoose pocket books instead.) But I still don't like them.

Most of them are too trivial to bother with, and the others aren't any different from 1e. I'm not seeing your argument as having much weight.

I'd recommend looking at Goodman's "Dungeon Crawl Classics" and some of the stuff put out by Necromancer -- especially the new Judges' Guild 'Wilderlands' material -- if you want to know how '1e flavour' can be understood to be somewhat distinct from '1e rules'.

Are they identical to the 1e modules I have where you had massive amounts of magic items and high level spellcasters living in every hamlet with more than six inhabitants? Or the "dungeonpunk" style art of Erol Otus? I'm not seeing how the old modules have any kind of feel different from the new stuff, other than the fact that you are nostalgic for them.

 

[Crothian]

As per the ratio breakdown however, there is no credability to the 90%-10% split. Maybe it's 60%-40%...may be it's 55%-45%. Barring requiring every ENworld member being required to state their prescence when they register...or somebody doing a random sample picked from the entire member population (including those like me, who generally avoid message board polls) we won't know for sure.

So, you only trust polls in which one hundred percent of a population participate in?

I for one, greatly enjoy 3e...but do look wistfully at the older materials I still own, and the good memories that come with them.

So do I and many people, but we perfer 3e and that's all the poll asked.

 

[atom crash]

So, you only trust polls in which one hundred percent of a population participate in?

I wouldn't trust any poll that doesn't include a random sample. An Internet message board poll is unreliable because it is not a random sample; respondents choose to participate, and those most likley to participate are those that already have a strong opinion.

 

[Storm Raven]

I'm also of the belief that a lot of these debates were generational.

For a lot of the older members D&D was cool because it was the sort of thing youth at the time found cool. Today's D&D is aimed at what the youth of today find cool. I feel that, a lot of the people who are bothered about the 'changes' in D&D, are simply using it as a scapegoat for a deepr disastisfaction...they're not as young as they once were and and no longer able to enjoy the hobby in the carefree way they once did.

Most of the people I know who enjoy 3e enjoy the game in a different manner than how they first enjoyed playing roleplaying games...as they've matured, the way they enjoy their hobby has matured. For others -- it seems they want the game to replicate the feel of being 12 years old and sitting around a comfortable basement rolling some dice with some buddies on a lazy saturday afternoon. That's a tall order for any set of rules.

Quoted for truth.

I'm one of those old grognards. I started playing D&D when I was 10, more than 25 years ago. I played through those old modules, I wondered how characters were supposed to advance from 3rd level to 9th to get from the basic set to G1, G2, and G3. I played through T1, and waited for eons to get the sequel. We played in the school cafeteria during lunch, and drew dungeons with 500 rooms, portals to Hell, and instakill traps.

Eventually I drifted away from D&D. Sometime early in the 2e era, I decided that Rolemaster and GURPS suited my tastes better, since I was looking for "realism" in my RPGing. Over the next several years I forgot most of what I knew about the mechanics of playing D&D. About two years before 3e came out, when TSR was dead, and D&D was on life support, I decided to play a revival 1e campaign. I put adventures together, went back and dug out my house rules and updated them, recruited some players, and started.

And it was this experience that brought home to me what a complete mess the 1e rule set was. It was a mish-mash of rules with nothing to hold them together but spackle, twist-ties, and good wishes. Resolving anything was a chore, if the PCs went outside of the box on anything, you had to make up a ruling from whole cloth. And the system was horribly unbalanced to boot. It was then that I truly understood that what I remembered fondly about 1e D&D wasn't the game, it was the memory of being 12 and hanging out with my buddies around someone's kitchen table.

Having played both in close proximity to one another, 3e is a much easier system to deal with than 1e, all around. Including, for those of you talking about modularity and tweaking, from the perspective of making changes to the system to give it a different feel.

 

[jasper]

I don't doubt that the majority of people who visit this site like d20.

I do doubt whether a poll conducted here will give you an accurate breakdown of the relative proportions who prefer 3e, 2e, other systems, etc.

NICE switch. The poll is for people who are the audience of EnWorld. Not D&D in general.
Also when your opinon is ask. And you don't reply. Then your opinion does not matter.

 

[Akrasia]

...
Because you seem to think 1e was balanced, but flavorful. I'm saying that what you remember as flavor was just the oddities of a system that was unbalanced, and in most cases a direct conseqeunce of its imbalance...

I've already made the point that 3e is better 'balanced' than 1e. I just don't recall encountering all the problems in play with 1e that you describe.

As for your other claim, that the 'flavour' of 1e is 'a direct consequence of its imbalance', I'm sorry, but that is complete rubbish. Maybe that was true for you, but it would be a good idea to not assume that everyone shares your particular experiences.

More generally, I find it grating that you presume to 'know' about my gaming experiences, and what I understand the flavour of 1e to be. I also find grating your claims about what I 'remember' about 1e.

...
.... In point of fact, it is actually where a lot of the flavor of 1e comes from...

This is just your point of view about 1e AD&D. It is not mine.

...
Actually, you do. You just don't realize it....

Ummm, whatever. I think I know myself better than you know me, Storm Raven.

Nice patronizing tone, btw.

...Trivial and silly. ...

Your opinion expressed in an unnecessarily insulting manner (concerning a very minor point).

Strangely, in your post you leap upon a number of subjective observations that I made about the current incarnation of 3e. Interestingly, many of the very attacks you made were already included as caveats in my observations. I also noted at the end of my comments about 3e 'flavour' that all of the 'flavour' aspects I mentioned could be altered by the group in question.

So why in blazes are you trying to argue with me about my subjective responses to the D&D system, as currently produced by WotC (with its standard art, assumptions, etc.).

I simply don't understand your behaviour here.

...
Are they identical to the 1e modules I have where you had massive amounts of magic items and high level spellcasters living in every hamlet with more than six inhabitants? Or the "dungeonpunk" style art of Erol Otus? I'm not seeing how the old modules have any kind of feel different from the new stuff, other than the fact that you are nostalgic for them.

It is painfully clear to me now that your understanding of what constitutes 'old school' flavour is far away from mine, and that there is no point in discussing this further with you. You assume that the 'flavour' of 1e AD&D is entirely exhausted by its 'unbalanced' rules. I find that rather sad.

More generally, though, your tone is insulting, you make assumptions about what I 'remember' and 'think' that are unwarranted, and you demonstrate little or no desire to understand another perspective. If I want a conversation like that, I'll start up an argument about politics at the local pub.

 

[Crothian]

I wouldn't trust any poll that doesn't include a random sample. An Internet message board poll is unreliable because it is not a random sample; respondents choose to participate, and those most likley to participate are those that already have a strong opinion.

So, its better to take a random sample (that people can choose to participate in) then have a poll open for everyone to participate in? Why would you think people who don't participate in an open poll would particiapte in a closed sample poll?

 

[Nail]

..... It was then that I truly understood that what I remembered fondly about 1e D&D wasn't the game, it was the memory of being 12 and hanging out with my buddies around someone's kitchen table....

Nice post.

and FWIW, "me too".