Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 2137815" data-attributes="member: 23012">Right.  As I have been at pains to make clear, I have never asserted this once.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.)</blockquote>

Verification