Discontinuity: 3e and D&D

[JRRNeiklot]

Player: "Hey are we playing D&D tonight?"

GM*: "Yes and no. We are playing but not D&D."

Player: "Oh man! What happened? Why aren't we playing your game tonight? My Wizard was just about to level up."

GM: "We are still playing my game but it's not D&D."

Player: "What?? I don't understand. We have been playing in your game for a couple of years now."

GM: "Well I just found out that we are really playing d20 Fantasy and not Dungeons & Dragons 3.5. Some rules mix up. To play D&D we would have to be using the 1st Edition rules. That is the only true D&D. Everything that came after is different."

Player: "Oh man! That’s a bummer! I really liked you D&D game."


* Note I am using Game Master instead of Dungeon Master. You are only a Dungeon Master if you use 1st Edition D&D rules.

Finally! Somebody gets it.

 

[Dark Jezter]

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

You do realize, Akrasia, that going to a 3e D&D forum, making posts claiming that 3e isn't D&D at all, and then acting like you're being unfairly persecuted when people laugh at you and your "points" does not in fact make you look like a credible commentator on the state of Dungeons & Dragons.

This is the truth. Accept it.

 

[Belen]

You do realize, Akrasia, that going to a 3e D&D forum, making posts claiming that 3e isn't D&D at all, and then acting like you're being unfairly persecuted when people laugh at you and your "points" does not in fact make you look like a credible commentator on the state of Dungeons & Dragons.

This is the truth. Accept it.

Really? I always considered ENWorld the definitive d20 message boards.

 

[Belen]

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?
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

By his own admittance, he played 3e for 2 years.

I happen to like both of you guys. I just find it odd that whenever anyone mentions an aspect about 3e that they do not enjoy or that the game does not feel the same as previous editions, the opposition makes rabid and personal attacks against those who disagree with them.

The play style of 3e is fundamentally different than previous editions. That does not detract from the value of 3e. Like many of you, I prefer 3e and enjoy the system, but you can easily look at 3e and see it does not play the same, even if a lot of the window dressing remains the same.

 

[Ourph]

This thread hurt my brain and makes me weep for our hobby.

For all the people throwing barbs back and forth, you do realize that you're all addressing completely different question, right? Essentially I see people misinterpreting three different premises as one.

1. 3e D&D isn't legitimately D&D (a completely subjective opinion which I don't see anyone supporting but I see lots of people disagreeing with).

2. 3e D&D is fundamentally different from previous versions of A/D&D (again, subjective and competely dependent upon which previous version of A/D&D you use for comparison and how you define "fundamental" and "different").

3. When learning/playing 3e D&D, the further away chronologically the edition of pre-3e D&D your basic assumptions about how best to approach/play the game are based on, the more suspect you should be about having them actually apply to your current game. (the only really debatable issue).

If the people who are trying to say #3 would be more precise about what they're trying to say and if the people who are becoming offended would stop interpreting anything that's said by anyone in support of #3 as #1 or #2, I think all of this animosity would be completely avoidable.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Really? I always considered ENWorld the definitive d20 message boards.

I've always considered EN World to be primarily a D&D 3e forum, probably dating back to the time when it was known as Eric Noah's 3rd Edition D&D News and Reviews. To this date, D&D is still the only RPG specifically mentioned in ENWorld's title ("EN World - Morrus' D&D/D20 News & Reviews Site) as well as the only RPG that has its own forum set aside specifically for rules discussion.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I just find it odd that whenever anyone mentions an aspect about 3e that they do not enjoy or that the game does not feel the same as previous editions, the opposition makes rabid and personal attacks against those who disagree with them.

Funny thing is, this happens with both sides. If someone mentions an aspect of an older Edition or a non-D&D game they don't like, it suddenly becomes a rabid 'You're wrong, I'm right' thread.

Tis the way of geeks on the internet.

 

[Psion]

Funny thing is, this happens with both sides. If someone mentions an aspect of an older Edition or a non-D&D game they don't like, it suddenly becomes a rabid 'You're wrong, I'm right' thread.

It seems that the term "rabid" is getting invoked rather casually here.

I've seen nothing even close to rabid in this discussion.

 

[jgbrowning]

I guess this all depends on what Dungeons and Dragons is and is not.

joe b.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

It seems that the term "rabid" is getting invoked rather casually here.

I've seen nothing even close to rabid in this discussion.

But its such a fun word! C'mon, let us use rabid even if its not right. Though we could just use a long string of big, confusing words instead, I guess...