Akrasia
Procrastinator
Now that I have your attention... 
Okay, the title of this thread was a bit provocative. I actually don't think that there is any 'Platonic Form' of D&D that has not been realised by the 3e version. And legally, "Dungeons and Dragons" is whatever game the owners of the name happen to decide it is....
But anyway...
In a recent thread on how to introduce 3e D&D to a person familiar only with an earlier edition, many posters recommended that it would be best to advise this person to approach 3e simply as a new game. This struck me as eminently sensible advice. Yet, much to my surprise, many people were upset by this sage counsel -- they thought that it implied that 3e was 'not D&D'.
Leaving aside the fact that this perceived 'insult' was nonexistent, I think that this advice was entirely correct -- 3e (and the 'd20' system more generally) is a fundamentally different game from any pre-3 version of D&D (including 'brown booklet' OD&D, Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert D&D, Gygax OAD&D, Mentzer B/E/C/M/I D&D, Allston RC D&D, and 2e AD&D). Indeed, the skill system of 3e appears to have been lifted wholesale from Rolemaster (replace d100 with d20 and you have 3e skill system), and IME running a 3e game feels much more like running a (2e) Rolemaster game than a RC D&D game.
That quibble aside, the tactical combat system of 3e, the introduction of feats, the changes to multiclassing, etc., all manifestly demonstrate radical breaks from earlier versions of D&D.
In short, I think it is entirely appropriate -- and, more importantly, intellectually honest -- to point out that 3e D&D is a fundamentally different game from earlier versions of D&D. It is a different game -- plain and simple. This is not necessarily a bad thing -- obviously lots of people (including most people who post here) prefer 3e over earlier versions of D&D. But to suggest otherwise is simply incorrect.
(And don't give me any of that '3e still has magic users and elves and dungeons..." rubbish. So did/do a lot of other fantasy roleplaying games!)
This is the truth. Accept it.
(Finally, this is not an 'editions war' claim. I happen to like RC D&D more than 3e, but I would take 3e over 2e any day... My point is an empirical one, not a normative one.)
Okay, the title of this thread was a bit provocative. I actually don't think that there is any 'Platonic Form' of D&D that has not been realised by the 3e version. And legally, "Dungeons and Dragons" is whatever game the owners of the name happen to decide it is....
But anyway...
In a recent thread on how to introduce 3e D&D to a person familiar only with an earlier edition, many posters recommended that it would be best to advise this person to approach 3e simply as a new game. This struck me as eminently sensible advice. Yet, much to my surprise, many people were upset by this sage counsel -- they thought that it implied that 3e was 'not D&D'.
Leaving aside the fact that this perceived 'insult' was nonexistent, I think that this advice was entirely correct -- 3e (and the 'd20' system more generally) is a fundamentally different game from any pre-3 version of D&D (including 'brown booklet' OD&D, Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert D&D, Gygax OAD&D, Mentzer B/E/C/M/I D&D, Allston RC D&D, and 2e AD&D). Indeed, the skill system of 3e appears to have been lifted wholesale from Rolemaster (replace d100 with d20 and you have 3e skill system), and IME running a 3e game feels much more like running a (2e) Rolemaster game than a RC D&D game.
That quibble aside, the tactical combat system of 3e, the introduction of feats, the changes to multiclassing, etc., all manifestly demonstrate radical breaks from earlier versions of D&D.
In short, I think it is entirely appropriate -- and, more importantly, intellectually honest -- to point out that 3e D&D is a fundamentally different game from earlier versions of D&D. It is a different game -- plain and simple. This is not necessarily a bad thing -- obviously lots of people (including most people who post here) prefer 3e over earlier versions of D&D. But to suggest otherwise is simply incorrect.
(And don't give me any of that '3e still has magic users and elves and dungeons..." rubbish. So did/do a lot of other fantasy roleplaying games!)
This is the truth. Accept it.
(Finally, this is not an 'editions war' claim. I happen to like RC D&D more than 3e, but I would take 3e over 2e any day... My point is an empirical one, not a normative one.)
