Discontinuity: 3e and D&D

[diaglo]

Honestly, lots.

ditto.

if you read my first post on this thread..iirc...

it isn't the like rules that cause the problems. it is the slight changes in the rules that people fight over on message boards... like harm, heal, haste, polymorph... and so on that cause the trouble.

 

[rogueattorney]

I'm a splitter, not a lumper. Splitters focus on differences. Lumpers focus on similarities. Maybe it has to do with my profession. I can't file a lawsuit in Missouri the same way I'd file a lawsuit in Illinois, thinking to myself, "It's basically the same thing." While it is, in fact, basically the same thing. I have to look at the differences to make sure I'm doing things correctly and my lawsuit doesn't get tossed for any of a number of little procedural things. My love of rules fueled by desire to be an attorney, and me being an attorney fuels my obsession with rules.

Anyway, the point is, that I think many of the fundametal disagreements in this thread come down to individual psychology far more than to anything else. Certain people will see a blue and a red flower and say they're both flowers - others will say one's a blue flower and the other is a red flower. They're both right.

I think it was Rayburr, who earlier in this thread stated that D&D is more of a style of play or a genre than a specific rule set. As much as I'd like to disagree with him, as much as it wouldn't be true in my own perfect little rpg world, I think he's correct given the degree to which people agree with him. For the vast majority of rpg'ers out there "D&D" is, in fact, a style of play pretty much independant of any rule set. The simple fact that the rules have changed so freakin' much from 1974 to 2005 with a great deal of people following right along proves this. It seems that for every person who get lost on the way with a new edition, another person comes aboard, saying "This is D&D, the way I always wanted it."

R.A.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Akrasia, do you have a poster named Gentlegamer on your Ignore list?

I ask because you keep claiming that no one in this thread or any other has said that 3E isn't D&D, and yet he keeps doing so - usually right after you claim that no one would ever say such a thing.

EDIT: Noted and changed, GG.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Akrasia, do you have a poster named Gentlegamer on your Ignore list?

I ask because you keep claiming that no one in this thread or any other has said that 3E isn't D&D, and yet he keeps doing so - usually right after you claim that no one would ever say such a thing.

I do, indeed. I've said so since the final previews for 3e came out in summer 2000. I doubt the Good Thread Starter is ignoring me specifically, but perhaps has not seen my posts in his haste to keep up with the thread.

And it is "he," if you please, my fellow gamer.

 

[Akrasia]

Akrasia, do you have a poster named Gentlegamer on your Ignore list?

I ask because you keep claiming that no one in this thread or any other has said that 3E isn't D&D, and yet he keeps doing so - usually right after you claim that no one would ever say such a thing.

EDIT: Noted and changed, GG.

No, Gentlegamer is not on my ignore list. I have only been clarifying my position in this thread -- namely, that (a.) 3e is a different game from pre-3e D&D; and (b.) it is pointless to claim that any particular edition is the 'true' D&D game, since I don't think there is an 'essence' or 'Platonic Form' to D&D. (I happen to like different editions to varying degrees, but that has nothing to do with their fidelity to the 'essence' of D&D.)

I don't recall making claims about what other people have said in this thread. (I think you might be referring to another thread, in which a number of people suggested approaching 3e as a 'new game', and IIRC only Diaglo's post seemed to imply that 3e was not 'really D&D'; in that thread the advice to approach 3e as a 'new game' was given by both fans and critics of 3e.)

Diaglo and GG both seem to think that 3e is not D&D. That has never been my position.

 

[Akrasia]

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

Right. Earlier avatars on these boards (and RPGnet) include Nicholas Brendan (Xander), Charsima Carpenter (Cordelia), and Anthony Steward Head (Giles).

Hmmm ... I might have to switch over to Xander or Giles again soon, as people have been making assumptions about my gender. (Not that that matters, obviously ...)

 

[Akrasia]

I posted earlier but must have been overlooked.

1. What do you define as D&D and what isn't D&D?

My point -- which I should have been clearer about, in retrospect -- had to do with the system (i.e. the actual rules) of the different versions of D&D. It did had nothing to do with other aspects of the 'D&D'. In fact, I think you can play a "D&D-ish" game with many different systems. If someone thinks that "D&D" is "playing characters like wizards and warriors with friends", then I suppose GURPS, Fantasy Hero, Rolemaster, etc., all count as "D&D".

Also, as I stated in my first post and consistently thereafter, I don't think any particular edition is "D&D" or is "not D&D". That hasn't been my purpose.

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?

Very roughly, I would refer back to a point that I have already made a few times -- namely, that it is very easy to 'convert' materials for any pre-3e edition of A/D&D into the rules of any other pre-3e edition. That is, it takes almost no time (indeed, can generally be done 'on the fly') to convert a basic D&D module for a 1e or 2e AD&D game (and vice versa).

In contrast, converting any pre-3e module or setting into 3e terms is a major task. It is as difficult, IME, as converting a pre-3e module for an entirely different system like Rolemaster or GURPS.

I could go into the various rules details, but that generalization does a good enough job (given the amount of energy that I willing to invest in this thread) to illustrate my position.

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?

See my answer to 2.

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.

You've got to be kidding if you want a breakdown of all my "mental steps" in arriving at my positions. This topic is just not that important.

Anyway, I spend my work days teaching freshmen students the difference between valid and invalid arguments, etc. I am not about to start constructing formal arguments on a FRPG message board during my spare time!

 

[MonsterMash]

Akrasia,

So to paraphrase your arguments

D&D is a set of forms (usually including as a non-exhaustive list: level based advancement, archetypes for character classes, dungeon based adventuring, vancian magic and a psuedo-medieval setting), which exist largely independently of the actual rules used for the game - which is demonstrated by the large number of widely differing rulesets which have been sold by the companies that own the D&D copyright at any given time.

No one of these rulesets can necessarily be described as superior or inferior, but different gamers or groups have strong preferences for these leading to the unedifying spectacle of edition wars. The 3e rulesets have the greatest degree of difference from earlier editions making using existing components from earlier editions more difficult than say using a 1e module with 2e rules.

 

[Akrasia]

Akrasia,

So to paraphrase your arguments

D&D is a set of forms (usually including as a non-exhaustive list: level based advancement, archetypes for character classes, dungeon based adventuring, vancian magic and a psuedo-medieval setting), which exist largely independently of the actual rules used for the game - which is demonstrated by the large number of widely differing rulesets which have been sold by the companies that own the D&D copyright at any given time.

No one of these rulesets can necessarily be described as superior or inferior, but different gamers or groups have strong preferences for these leading to the unedifying spectacle of edition wars. The 3e rulesets have the greatest degree of difference from earlier editions making using existing components from earlier editions more difficult than say using a 1e module with 2e rules.

Yes that is, roughly, my view (I might quibble with the exact terms and presentation, but I think you've clearly presented my overall position).

I only would add that the "greater degree of difference from earlier editions" is significant enough to warrant approaching it as effectively a separate/new game.

Hmmm ... hard to see why people got so upset. It must be my provocative way of expressing myself.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Hmmm ... hard to see why people got so upset. It must be my provocative way of expressing myself.

People got upset because they hate Buffy.

They see the avatar and go into Hyper-Rage.