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

[Tarangil]

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.

Yeek! I remember trying to Decipher the way Psionics were handled in 1st ed. Both the DMG Psionic charts, and what was in the players handbook was a nightmare to try figger out.

I was wondering when someone was going to bring up 1E psionics up.

 

[Akrasia]

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.

There was no 'switch'. I never claimed that the poll was for D&D 'in general' (and if I created that impression, I apologize).

My point has consistently been that the poll is meaningless as a measurement of the ENworld population as a whole because it is entirely voluntary! It is not a random sample of Enworld posters as a whole.

'atom crash' and 'nothing to see here' have also made this point.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Voluntary message board polls do not give you reliable data!

 

[Akrasia]

...
I was wondering when someone was going to bring up 1E psionics up.

1e psionics were indeed strange. However, it was an optional rule (included in the appendix).

 

[ThirdWizard]

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.

Now, this isn't a scientific observation, but I'm willing to bet that you're more likely to find a larger percentage of ENWorlders are sympathetic toward earlier editions, and probably more prefer earlier editions, than the general D&D playing population (any incarnation). Most ENWorlders grew up on older editions of D&D, and I wonder what percentage of people who play (any edition of) D&D even started on earlier editions than on 3E.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

Except that all of your arguments concerning the flavor of 1e are driven by the unbalanced nature of the rule set. I'm not making this stuff up, I'm merely pointing out the natural conclusions one must draw based upon what you have said.

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.

I know what you have said about your experience. That's enough to draw conclusions.

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

Apparently not, since the "flavor based" arguments you make later in the exact same post go back to the mechanical issues related to CR. You don't even understand what your arguments are at this point.

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

Complainint about dungeonpunk art is minor, so minor that it is trivial and silly to do so. I did.

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.

Caveats that you don't seem to be able to connect the dots between.

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.

You mean, my experience with the "old school" elements of the system based upon actual game play in recent years, possession of the actual books and adventures in question, and the perspective of having played the system at two different points in my life? You can look back through rose-colored glasses all you want about 1e, but it doesn't change the fact that what you are remembering isn't the system as it was. Based on your comments and assertions concerning what you regard as "old school", you are remembering the system as you think it was pumped up with nostalgia.

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.

Your "perspective" is flawed by the fact that your factual basis is wanting. You state that "3e is different from 1e in this regard", when it isn't. You state that "1e gave me this" when it didn't. When you start looking at 1e for what it actually was, then you can give a definition of "old school", since the one you are giving now bears no relationship to 1e at all.

 

[Storm Raven]

1e psionics were indeed strange. However, it was an optional rule (included in the appendix).

Just like prestige classes. So, what makes one different than the other?

 

[Tarangil]

1e psionics were indeed strange. However, it was an optional rule (included in the appendix).

Yes Optional, but when you had players wanting to try that option it didn't have a leg to stand on, even if you wanted to implement it.

I enjoyed 2E pscionics, but when I tried it as a player it was Waaaaaaaaaay too powerful. Heh heh it was well exploited by me. but what 4th lvl player got to fu*k around with a age 12 white dragon?? and succeed.

I wouldn't try that with 3E though, I like the fact that it's more balanced under this new edition than it ever was.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Just like prestige classes. So, what makes one different than the other?

Well, one's 3E, of course.

 

[atom crash]

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?

No, "a random sample (that people can choose to participate in)" is still not a valid sample. A poll with a volunteer sample creates meaningless results. Why? Because they can't be generalized back to the population. You've only found out the opinions of those who chose to participate.

Don't take my word for it. Google "poll" and "volunteer sample" and see what comes up.

Maybe someone who has more background in statistics can explain more.

 

[Crothian]

No, "a random sample (that people can choose to participate in)" is still not a valid sample. A poll with a volunteer sample creates meaningless results. Why? Because they can't be generalized back to the population. You've only found out the opinions of those who chose to participate.

I'm not doubting it, what I'm doubting is that unless you are forcing people to participate in a poll, aren't all polls voluntary? Even if as in a random sample you are asking a computer list of random people, they still have the choice of participating. So, if only opinionated people are going to answer an on line poll open to all, why does a random sample poll not have that same problem?