Discontinuity: 3e and D&D

[jgbrowning]

I still disagree. "Getting together with friends, rolling some dice and having a good time" can apply to Risk or monopoly -- games that simply are not D&D by any reasonable definition. It can also apply to Traveller, GURPS, etc., games that are role-playing games, but not D&D.

The point at which a game has been changed enough to be considered a new game might be vague. That does not mean it is enitrely sujective.

I posted earlier but must have been overlooked.

1. What do you define as D&D and what isn't D&D?
2. How have these things changed enough for you to say that the current edition is a radically different game than what came before in earlier editions?
3. And more importantly how did the changes in the previous incarnations not result in radically different games when compared from edition to edition, but the last two incarnations did result in a radically different game?

We have to know your critia before any meaningful discussion can occur. Please let us all know the mental steps you went through to reach your conclusion. Then people can tear them apart or agree with them on a case-by-case basis.

joe b.

 

[Kuld]

AD&D and new D&D. They smell the same. Yup, they taste the same...

Just looks a little different..

I am going through the "edition transition" as we speak. Aye, I am only a few months (at one game a month) into playing our new edition. So, maybe my opinion is a wee fresher than most. I'm no novice mind you; spent most of two decades out of my three rolling to hit AC 0. IMO, it's just D&D under some new regs that aren't too hard to grasp. Old, new, newer, newest, ThAC0, BAB, -10 AC, 45+ AC, proficiencies, skills... It's all good, and it's still my old Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[fanboy2000]

The name game is so much fun to play. It's like counting D&D editions. The question "how do you count to 3 in D&D?" is always fun. There should be a drinking game about it.

The bit about Thesues' ship reminds me of a joke:

A man is driving thru the New England countryside when he meets a farmer.
Man: Wow, there sure is a lot of history in this area.
Farmer: There sure is. Hell, I've got a pice of it myself. An ax from George Washington's plantation.
Man: Really? Wow, that's some piece of history.
Farmer: Yep. It works pretty well to.
Man: Really? You still use it?
Farmer: I sure do, and I've only had to change the head twice and the handle three times.

What's most interesting to me, is that if WotC had done things like call the new system d20, OGL the system, and published a game called d20 Modern, you wouldn't have antother name to call it. Acording to the Sapir-Worf Hypothesis linguistic determinism sugests that you wouldn't have made the argument if WotC hadn't provided you with the terminology for it.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't call D&D 3e d20 Fantasy, because it isn't flexable in the same way that it's implied counter part, d20 Modern is. I'd call it d20 Greyhawk, that's name is closer to the core book's presentation of the rules.

 

[twofalls]

Akrasia, I apologize for asking an off topic question, but its about your avatar. That face is hauntingly familiar but I just can't place her. Celebrity?

 

[Psion]

Akrasia, I apologize for asking an off topic question, but its about your avatar. That face is hauntingly familiar but I just can't place her. Celebrity?

I'd put odds on Sarah Michelle Gellar as Buffy (considering his av on RPGnet is Allison Hannigan).

 

[Crothian]

I'd put odds on Sarah Michelle Gellar as Buffy (considering his av on RPGnet is Allison Hannigan).

that's who it is

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Wow, some of you are getting a little too worked up over this. If you're concerned that someone's going to label you as not one of the "D&D faithful" or something, I don't think that's the point of this thread.

But I will say that 3e plays sufficiently differently from earlier editions that it's a different play experience. If it wasn't, I don't think people would be defending 3e or moving off to systems like C&C that are reminiscent of earlier editions.

I think the real question in the thread is "Does System Matter?" Considering how rabid those kinds of debates get on various forums, a thread that even skirts close to asking that tends to get derailed with arguments. I think it's a fascinating question, though (and I believe the answer is a resounding "yes").

 

[weasel fierce]

I think people would accept it if they were, indeed, "wildly" different games. They aren't "wildly" different. Different, yes, in the sense that 3e is a new edition, but "wildly" different? No. "Wildly" different might be a good descriptor if 3e was diceless or became completely skill-based.

How many rules can you name that works the same way in both 3.x and AD&D ?

 

[Psion]

How many rules can you name that works the same way in both 3.x and AD&D ?

Honestly, lots.

 

[diaglo]

And there's the insult - people like you can't help but toss in that snide little, "But it ain't really D&D."

d02 ain't D&D.

heck, i'd go so far as to say 1edADnD ain't D&D.