Discontinuity: 3e and D&D

[ColonelHardisson]

I dont see why its hard to accept that they are wildly different games

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.

 

[Akrasia]

Ad hominem attack? Please. Don't be a martyr.

What are you talking about? I am not trying to be a 'martyr'. I simply object to the fact that you are making false claims about me -- someone you don't even know.

Comprendez-vous?

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?

Again, what is the basis of your claim here? I don't currently DM a game called "D&D" -- my last 3e campaign ended in January. But I happen to play in a game called "D&D".

Your claims about me are false.

[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? ....

Please try to actually read what I say before attacking my views.

From my original post:

.... 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....

Also:

... Troll at work.]

Please try to actually read the warnings given to you by the mods:

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

If you want to make more ad hominem attacks, feel free to send me a private message.

 

[Akrasia]

You do realize, Akrasia, that going to a 3e D&D forum, making posts claiming that 3e isn't D&D at all ...

Please try to actually read my posts before criticizing my position.

If you actually read my posts, you will discover that I never claimed that "3e isn't D&D at all..."

From my very first post:

.... 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....

As for this snarky remark:

... and then acting like you're being unfairly persecuted when people laugh at you and your "points" ...

Actually, a number of posters have agreed with me.

Only certain individuals who disagree with me have felt it necessary to become unnecessarily insulting.
:\

This is the truth. Accept it.

I am glad to see that my mode of expression has inspired you so much that you have taken to adopting it as your own!

 

[Maggan]

Right off the bat

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.

Considering this thread started with a lengthy "I'm right, and you're wrong" declaration, after which any critics were handily dismissed with the "don't give me the usual rubbish arguments to try to prove differently", I would say this thread had little chance of going anywhere but... let's say sideways, at best.

FWIW, to me the name is very important. I'm kinda silly that way. For me any game that calls itself D&D, and has several aspects in common with previous incarnations (such as levels, classes, AC, HP, spell levels, chromatic dragons, saving throws, beholders, et al ad nauseum), is simply D&D.

And to me, 3e is not a fundamentally different game. It's basically the same overall concepts that's been there for quite a while, with different resolution mechanics. Many of the fundamentals (if there is such a word), are the same. The deep level ideas that was the foundation for what I call(ed) D&D are still there, and if I was to teach someone to play D&D3e, who had prevoius experience with say Basic D&D or AD&D, I would say something like "The basic premise is very similar, but the execution is different. Basically the same game, so let's make a character from the beginning. I'm sure you'll pick it up easily, what with your experience with AD&D".

But, if I was to try to teach a Call of Cthulhu player D&D, I would say "this is a different beast than you are used to. It's a fundamentally different game."

M.

 

[Quasqueton]

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.

My interest in posting this has only to clarify the fact that 3e is (IMO) a fundamentally different game -- in both theory and practice -- than pre-3e versions of D&D.

I think that 3e is a fundamentally different game from earlier versions of D&D, but whenever I point this fact out, some people react as though this is an 'insult'.

The reason? 3e is a fundamentally different system.

Indeed, since WotC owns the legal rights to the name, and is producing the d20 fantasy system.

You. Are. Trolling.

I'm just playing along. I'm rather surprised that others haven't noticed, especially Darkness. I mean, you've used all the buzzwords and phrases, "intellectually honest", "plain and simple", "fact", "truth". You've resorted to surprised defense when your statements are challenged.

Oh come on, people. Did everyone put their troll detectors away because this thread was started on April Fool's day?

Anyway, I've run out of time this weekend to keep up the foolishness. Hong? Wanna step in here in my absence? Your usually pretty good and playing with trolls; much better than me, anyway.

Quasqueton

 

[Akrasia]

... 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).

Right. As I have been at pains to make clear, I have never asserted this once.

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").

Good point. However, I am not sure it is a completely 'subjective' question -- after all, if 3e had no levels, classes, or dragons in it, I don't think that anyone could plausibly claim that it is a new version of D&D. Also, I don't think "which pervious version of A/D&D you use for comparison" really matters that much. All pre-3e versions of D&D were very similar -- this can be seen in the fact that it is easy to use B/X D&D materials with the 1e or 2e AD&D systems (and vice versa).

No one denies that 3e changed many things about the game (new tactical combat system; feats; skills; easy multiclassing; etc.).

A lot of the disagreement in this discussion has been over whether these changes are great enough to consider 3e effectively a new game. My position has been that they do. Having played 1e AD&D, B/X/RC D&D, 3e D&D, Rolemaster, MERP, GURPS, Call of Cthulhu, Stormbringer, Traveller, and a slew of other games over the past 23 years, IMO and IME 3e seems like a different system from pre-3e versions of D&D. Moreover, this in itself is neither a 'good' nor 'bad' thing.

Many of those who disagree with me have claimed that since 3e still has wizards, elves, fireballs, etc. is should be considered 'D&D'. My reply to that is that many other FRPGs have these things, and yet we consider them 'different games'.

Anyway, the answer to this question depends on what degree of 'similarity' is required between different editions of the game in order to warrant understanding them as in fact the same game. I think that the incompatibility of 3e material with pre-3e material is a good indicator that the former is effectively a new game. (IMO and IME of course.)

 

[Akrasia]

Considering this thread started with a lengthy "I'm right, and you're wrong" declaration ...

Heh. I admit that my manner of expression can be a bit provocative at times ...

However, when not being insulted, I have made a point of replying to the content of the posts in question.

 

[Darkness]

Quasqueton, nobody's forcing you to read this thread. There are thousands of threads on these boards. If, for whatever reason, this one bothers you so much that you can't refrain from name-calling, please feel free to find another you like better and go there instead.

In any case, bringing up an arguably unpopular opinion doesn't necessarily mean someone is trolling. Giving people the benefit of the doubt is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.
Also, if you think someone is trolling, just don't reply to the post in question - trolls thrive on attention, so replying to them merely gives them what they want. Instead, report the post if it's objectionable (or don't - your choice) or simply ignore it if it isn't.
But calling someone a troll or whatever is very inappropriate. So please don't do that.

 

[Ourph]

Good point. However, I am not sure it is a completely 'subjective' question -- after all, if 3e had no levels, classes, or dragons in it, I don't think that anyone could plausibly claim that it is a new version of D&D.

Well, since we've had people define D&D as (I'm paraphrasing here) "Getting together with friends, rolling some dice and having a good time", I'd say the question is most definitely subjective. More to the point, it's a useless and contentious point to debate. Even if you enumerate endless facts about the components of the game and how they are similar or different in each edition, whether those facts add up to "essentially the same" or "fundamentally different" is completely a matter of opinion.

Also, I don't think "which pervious version of A/D&D you use for comparison" really matters that much. All pre-3e versions of D&D were very similar -- this can be seen in the fact that it is easy to use B/X D&D materials with the 1e or 2e AD&D systems (and vice versa).

Again, we're at the level of opinion. Look at character creation in OD&D and character creation in AD&D2e. No one can deny the fact that the process of character creation exhibits differences between the two editions (at the very least, 2e has weapon and non-weapon proficiencies to choose at chargen and OD&D doesn't). How much those two processes seem the same or different to an individual is fundamentally and unquestionably a matter of opinion and personal perspective.

A lot of the disagreement in this discussion has been over whether these changes are great enough to consider 3e effectively a new game.

Which is unfortunate, as that's really a silly question to address, because again, it's a completely subjective question.

Your original question, the one in your first post, concerning whether and how to address someone's previous experiences with D&D when teaching them 3e is, IMO, a legitimate and useful point to discuss. Unfortunately, no one (including you, surprisingly) really seems interested in exploring that particular question at this point. :\

 

[Akrasia]

Well, since we've had people define D&D as (I'm paraphrasing here) "Getting together with friends, rolling some dice and having a good time", I'd say the question is most definitely subjective. More to the point, it's a useless and contentious point to debate.
Even if you enumerate endless facts about the components of the game and how they are similar or different in each edition, whether those facts add up to "essentially the same" or "fundamentally different" is completely a matter of opinion.

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.

As for this being "a useless and contentious point to debate" -- well, this is a RPG message board after all! I mean, we see heated debates about the demographics and economics of Eberron here, for crying out loud.

Your original question, the one in your first post, concerning whether and how to address someone's previous experiences with D&D when teaching them 3e is, IMO, a legitimate and useful point to discuss. Unfortunately, no one (including you, surprisingly) really seems interested in exploring that particular question at this point. :\

Yeah, I guess things went off track at some point. Oh well... :\