Discontinuity: 3e and D&D

[Akrasia]

Its all D&D... Its just not the same D&D.

I dont see why its hard to accept that they are wildly different games, while still being D&D. And if its all the same, why should I buy the new one ?

Exactly.

 

[Akrasia]

In a recent thread ....

Thanks DJ!

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I am so glad that my original post inspired you so much!

 

[Akrasia]

... Heh ...

... Can I borrow some of whatever crack-based derivative you were smoking when you posted this? ....

What does Akrasia know? He doesn't even play D&D, so he has no ground to stand on. Why is he even arguing? ...

In a recent thread on how to introduce ...

You do realize, folks, that unjustified ad hominem attacks and sophomoric attempts at mockery do not in fact make your position more plausible?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

do[/I] realize, folks, that unjustified ad hominem attacks and sophomoric attempts at mockery do not in fact make your position more plausible?

That is simply incorrect.

In fact, if we yell at you long enough, you'll eventually realize that d02 is the only true D&D game. All others are but pale imitations thereof.

 

[Darkness]

What does Akrasia know? He doesn't even play D&D, so he has no ground to stand on.

Please attack the argument, not the poster. This goes for everyone, of course. Thanks.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I honestly couldn't give a rat's backside about the D&D name, but that doesn't change that 3E is still D&D. I play the same types of games now as I did before my frustration with the 2E rules drove me away. The main difference now is that I'm having fun not only playing (as I did with earlier editions) but I'm having that fun with a system I don't have to patch or rework all the time.

Kane

I'm detecting that the implied insult is actually toward "earlier" versions of D&D . . .

 

[Kanegrundar]

I'm detecting that the implied insult is actually toward "earlier" versions of D&D . . .

There's no insult implied here. For me, the earlier versions of AD&D (I don't hold the same ire for Basic because it was an excellent beginner's game) were simply not as good as 3E. Before 3E came along, I quit playing fantasy altogether. With 2E I had a book of houserules that essentially reworked the entire game (and ironically, like other posters, looked very similar to 3E), I finally got sick of it and quit playing AD&D, but I looked for other fantasy game that could give me the same experience since I love the way that D&D played. I tried GURPS, Rolemaster, MERP, and none of them quite did it for me, so I picked up Alternity and played sci-fi campaigns until 3E came out and I haven't looked back.

The fact that 2E drove me from D&D isn't an insult. It wasn't a good enough system for me. Others may love it and that's great. I loved the campaigns I played under 2E, but I didn't care for the system at all. For me, 3E, which may be a different system but still plays like D&D for me and my group, is my game of choice and will continue to be for a long time to come.

Kane

 

[Quasqueton]

Ad hominem attack? Please. Don't be a martyr. By your own admittance, you don't play D&D. So how can you make any substantive statements about a game you don't even play?

I first played D&D in 1979. I have played every edition except 2nd edition AD&D. I have run two extended 3e campaigns (both lasted approximately a year each, and both were very successful, at least according to the players).

By your own definition, you don't play D&D. The earlier games were prototypes, tests, and practice systems. Heck, they weren't even *named* "Dungeons & Dragons".

Dungeons & Dragons [current edition] is the only true game. All previous editions were just attempts to reach this level of excellence.

[Ain't it funny how someone claims D&D3 is not D&D, yet that someone includes D&D3 in his list of proof that he plays D&D? Troll at work.]

Quasqueton

 

[satori01]

This reminds me very much of the question poised by Aristotle in the Ship of Thesues. If in the course of a long journey you replace every part of a ship can you still call it the same ship.

The answer you come to is going to depend on perceive the continuity of identity for the thing in question. Someone on the ship the entire time would probably still see it as the same ship, someone who had not seen the ship in a couple of years may not see it as the same ship.

I do not think it is fair to say that D&D 3.0/3.5 is merely D20 Fanatasy. The Designers of 3.0 took great care to try to keep the tropes of D&D, a truly D20 Fantasy product could be very different then what we play now. I would hazard a guess that most people that play D&D 3.0/3.5 feel there is a continuity to the old systems, and thus are playing D&D.

 

[Quasqueton]

If in the course of a long journey you replace every part of a ship can you still call it the same ship.

What if the ship has the same keel, sidewalls, masts, compass, and rudder? The rudder pole has been replaced by a wheel. The sails have been replaced with sturdier material, and a lateen sail added. The old wind-worn masthead has been refinished and polished up. The once completely open cargo hold has been compartmentalized for more effecient stowage, and a loading crane has been added.

The ship sails to the same ports, carries much the same cargo (plus some newly discovered spices), and many of the same old passengers board the vessel.

Some of the old passengers look at the ship and say, "The old ship is better than ever." Some of the old passengers look at the wheel, lateen sail, and pretty masthead, and say, "What happened to the old ship?"

"This is the old ship."

"No, it's not."

"Yes, it is. Look at the structure, frame, hull, etc."

"No, it isn't. Look at the wheel, the sails, the crane, etc."

"I've been sailing on this ship for 25 years, it's the same old ship."

"Sorry, but to be honest with yourself, you have to admit this is a different ship."

Quasqueton