Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 2134773" data-attributes="member: 23012">Now that I have your attention...&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Okay, the title of this thread was a bit provocative.&nbsp; I actually don't think that there is any 'Platonic Form' of D&amp;D that has not been realised by the 3e version.&nbsp;&nbsp; And legally, &quot;Dungeons and Dragons&quot; is whatever game the owners of the name happen to decide it is....But anyway... In a recent thread on how to introduce 3e D&amp;D to a person familiar only with an earlier edition, many posters recommended that it would be best to advise this person to approach 3e simply as a new game.&nbsp; This struck me as eminently sensible advice.&nbsp; Yet, much to my surprise, many people were upset by this sage counsel -- they thought that it implied that 3e was 'not D&amp;D'.&nbsp; Leaving aside the fact that this perceived 'insult' was nonexistent, I think that this advice was entirely correct -- 3e (and the 'd20' system more generally) is a fundamentally different game from any pre-3 version of D&amp;D (including 'brown booklet' OD&amp;D, Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert D&amp;D, Gygax OAD&amp;D, Mentzer B/E/C/M/I D&amp;D, Allston RC D&amp;D, and&nbsp; 2e AD&amp;D).&nbsp; Indeed, the skill system of 3e appears to have been lifted wholesale from Rolemaster (replace d100 with d20 and you have 3e skill system), and IME running a 3e game feels much more like running a (2e) Rolemaster game than a RC D&amp;D game.&nbsp; That quibble aside, the tactical combat system of 3e, the introduction of feats, the changes to multiclassing, etc., all manifestly demonstrate radical breaks from earlier versions of D&amp;D. In short, I think it is entirely appropriate -- and, more importantly, intellectually honest -- to point out that 3e D&amp;D is a fundamentally different game from earlier versions of D&amp;D.&nbsp; It is a different game -- plain and simple.&nbsp; This is not necessarily a bad thing -- obviously lots of people (including most people who post here) prefer 3e over earlier versions of D&amp;D.&nbsp; But to suggest otherwise is simply incorrect.(And don't give me any of that '3e still has magic users and elves and dungeons...&quot; rubbish.&nbsp; So did/do a lot of other fantasy roleplaying games!)&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; This is the truth.&nbsp; Accept it.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool&nbsp; &nbsp; :cool:"&nbsp; data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /> (Finally, this is not an 'editions war' claim.&nbsp; I happen to like RC D&amp;D more than 3e, but I would take 3e over 2e any day...&nbsp; My point is an empirical one, not a normative one.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Akrasia, post: 2134773, member: 23012"] Now that I have your attention... ;) Okay, the title of this thread was a[I] bit [/I] provocative. 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.... But anyway... In a recent thread on how to introduce 3e D&D to a person familiar only with an earlier edition, many posters recommended that it would be best to advise this person to approach 3e simply as a new game. This struck me as eminently sensible advice. Yet, much to my surprise, many people were upset by this sage counsel -- they thought that it implied that 3e was 'not D&D'. Leaving aside the fact that this perceived 'insult' was nonexistent, I think that this advice was [I]entirely[/I] correct -- 3e (and the 'd20' system more generally) is a fundamentally [I]different [/I] game from any pre-3 version of D&D (including 'brown booklet' OD&D, Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert D&D, Gygax OAD&D, Mentzer B/E/C/M/I D&D, Allston RC D&D, and 2e AD&D). Indeed, the skill system of 3e appears to have been lifted wholesale from Rolemaster (replace d100 with d20 and you have 3e skill system), and IME running a 3e game feels much more like running a (2e) Rolemaster game than a RC D&D game. That quibble aside, the tactical combat system of 3e, the introduction of feats, the changes to multiclassing, etc., all manifestly demonstrate radical breaks from earlier versions of D&D. In short, I think it is entirely appropriate -- and, more importantly, [I]intellectually honest [/I] -- 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. This is not necessarily a bad thing -- obviously lots of people (including most people who post here) prefer 3e over earlier versions of D&D. But to suggest otherwise is simply incorrect. (And don't give me any of that '3e still has magic users and elves and dungeons..." rubbish. So did/do a lot of other fantasy roleplaying games!) This is the truth. Accept it. :cool: (Finally, this is [B]not[/B] an 'editions war' claim. I happen to like RC D&D more than 3e, but I would take 3e over 2e any day... My point is an empirical one, not a normative one.) [/QUOTE]

Verification