Do you like D&D?

[Joshua Randall]

D&D has reached this stage of excellence due to a 30-year development cycle with expansive play testing.

No amount of whining and counter claims will change the fact that D&D still lives, now fully and vibrantly, in its current edition.

Preach on, brother Quasqueton, preach on.

And thanks to all who answered my earlier question ("Why are you here?") without rancor.

 

[diaglo]

And thanks to all who answered my earlier question ("Why are you here?") without rancor.

Oops sorry must've missed that one.

as I told Eric Noah's Grandmother in a couple post cards, i'm here b/c i love D&D.

i've played it most of my life.

so anywhere there are people gathering together to talk about D&D, i'm there to add my two cents. they may be old pennies with wheat symbols on the back but they are still worth the same as any other two pennies.

 

[T. Foster]

I voted that I absolutely hate the current edition of D&D. That isn't actually true -- I'm actually completely indifferent to it -- but I've never played it and never had any desire to and doubt I ever will. I'm perfectly happy with my edition(s) of choice (basically everything up to 1985) and don't see that playing the current edition would do anything to make me happier with the game, and would be very likely to do things to make me less happy with it (exactly what and why being beyond the scope of this poll).

That said, I still come here to read and even post occasionally. I do so because EN World has a very high level of traffic (much larger than even the largest oop-D&D oriented site (dragonsfoot.org)) which includes a lot of 'non-edition specific' discussions that I can read and post to where it doesn't particularly matter that I actually prefer and play a different edition of the game -- discussions of the history of the game, discussions of game-philosophy and dynamics of play, and so forth.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Please everyone remember that saying what you *like* about the version you *like* is good, saying what you *don't like* about the version you don't prefer is OK too.

*Disparaging* the version you don't like isn't good since it is needlessly offending other people. Because I'm a sensitive little soul I might have to edit out any of that in subsequent posts to prevent the thread devolving into a flame war. I'll do my best to be even handed, but with any luck there won't be any necessity.

Cheers

 

[Gentlegamer]

Yes, it does make it the latest edition of the game. By virtue of the fact that the owners of the trademark say so, and print that name right there on the book.

Again, branding doesn't make it so.

I'm not arguing that OD&D, BD&D, AD&D and D&D3.x aren't all different games, to varying degrees, but refusing to call D&D D&D and instead calling it d20 makes no sense whatsoever, and is technically wrong. Maybe you've got a really good reason for doing so that I can't see, but the only one I can think of is to cast subtle aspersions against the current edition.

Because I call a spade, a spade. I also think it is inaccurate to talk about the d20 system as "D&D" because the mechanics, premises, and flavor of the two games are almost wholly different.

And again, I like d20, or at least I have every time I've played as both Game Master and player character, so it has nothing to do with casting aspersions, subtle or otherwise.

 

[hexgrid]

Yes, it does make it the latest edition of the game. By virtue of the fact that the owners of the trademark say so, and print that name right there on the book.

Or, you could argue, it's a different game that happens to have the same name.

Which actually makes sense. The third in third edition is a reference to the first and second editions of "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons."

At some point (I forget when) "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons." had it's name shortened to "Dungeons & Dragons," but 3.x it isn't an edition of the game that formerly bore that title.

 

[Desdichado]

Again, branding doesn't make it so.

IMO, it does so much more than anything else you've put forward.

Because I call a spade, a spade. I also think it is inaccurate to talk about the d20 system as "D&D" because the mechanics, premises, and flavor of the two games are almost wholly different.

Wholly different from what? D&D is d20 by definition so it is a nonsensical statement to say that d20 and D&D "are almost wholly different. Although the reverse isn't necessarily true; there are other d20 games that are not D&D, of course.

I mean, I'm not trying to "counterslam" you or anything like that, and yes, I understand the differences between 3e and earlier editions of the game. I'm just trying to understand your reasoning behind your insistence in making that claim. If that's true, than only OD&D (1974) is D&D; a conclusion that will make diaglo happy, but which everyone else will take to be fairly nonsensical. After all--there were some serious changes from OD&D to BD&D, and BD&D and AD&D had as many differences from each other as either does from D&D3e.

 

[painandgreed]

I said moderatly prefer 3.5 to all others. When I was first shown the new rules, I was impressed with how elegant and simple they were. It all made sence and I was ready to switch (although waited another four months till 3.5 came out). When another friend of mine started her 1E game, I dug out old books without issue. However, once she saw some of my 3.x books, notably Savage Species which was the "killer app that made her adopt 3.5, we switched over and started a new campaign using them overnight. Nobody in my group has seriously considered going back to an older edition (although there is bitching about creating high level NPCs and stating out monsters).

While branding does not make it so( e.g. the movies Starship Troopers and I, Robot), to say that 3.x is not D&D is a bit of denile IMHO.

 

[Gentlegamer]

IMO, it does so much more than anything else you've put forward.

Are West End Games and WotC's Star Wars RPG the same game? Or do they just have the same name attached?

Wholly different from what? D&D is d20 by definition so it is a nonsensical statement to say that d20 and D&D "are almost wholly different.

Not at all; you're starting with the premise that because it is marketed and branding as "D&D," it is "D&D." Let me put it this way: because of its long history, there are two forms of D&D: D&D the game (which encompasses the various versions from 1974 through the 90s), and D&D the gaming and genre style. You can play "D&D style" with several other systems, including d20. But the core mechanics, premises, and flavor of d20 and D&D are different, and constitute two seperate games, not a simple continuace of a new edition. Likewise, AD&D had recognizable elements from OD&D, but constituted a new game, not a new edition of the original rules.

I mean, I'm not trying to "counterslam" you or anything like that, and yes, I understand the differences between 3e and earlier editions of the game. I'm just trying to understand your reasoning behind your insistence in making that claim. If that's true, than only OD&D (1974) is D&D; a conclusion that will make diaglo happy, but which everyone else will take to be fairly nonsensical. After all--there were some serious changes from OD&D to BD&D, and BD&D and AD&D had as many differences from each other as either does from D&D3e.

You have to realize, at least for me, there is no quality judgment in my assessment. My statement that d20 is a different game from D&D and not a new edition is not a slam, denigration, insult or anything of that sort. For me, it is seeing the truth of the matter (calling a spade, a spade). I like D&D, AD&D, and d20 Fantasy. Each are different, and I treat them as such . . . different games.

The difference in basic game mechanics was not as radical between the "basic" D&D games and AD&D as d20 is from those games. It is the "distance" of this difference that not only makes d20 a new game, but not new version of D&D. That's how I see it.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Okay, this is going to be a long one, haven't looked into that post for nearly a day and there's a lot of stuff to comment on.

All the things you complain about were the good points of earlier editions. ThAC0 kept the riff-raff out,

I think this point is about personal preference: I for one don't like elitist thinking, especially not in a game system.

For a more objective statement about THAC0: It was needlessly complicated. It can be done better, without losing any of its functionality (and since it is a piece or rule, it only needs functionality), so it's only logical that it is done better. And if I want to show others that I'm smarter, I'll do that through smarter roleplaying, not by using complicated rules with more ease.

Levelling up took forever because it was supposed to confer a sense of accomplishment,

I think it confers a sense of being static, unchanging. The game is level based (which many don't like), so let's at least give us the levels reasonably fast. I can get my sense of accomplishment by turning level 6 (for example) instead of for every level. Come to think of it, I can get my accomplishments from completing quests in game.

and What you perceive as a lack of character flexibility was more than made up for by this litte thing we geezers like to call roleplaying.

So we who prefer the current version of D&D have character flexibility and roleplaying. I say we win.

My first character was a LG fighter with an 18 Charisma who didn't think he was worthy of being a paladin.

Personal note: A character with 18 Charisma should not have self-doubts. He's supposed to be the pinnacle of confidence.

He didn't need a prestige class to describe his particular version of LG fighterness. I supplied the details.

In current D&D, you still have to do this. You have to supply the details. But in 3e, these details will actually show up on the sheet, as a manifestation of the background.

For example, you can still say that you're a sage in all things magical. But now you can back it up by having many ranks in knowledge (arcana, the planes, and so on). Incidently, this also provides a general frame of power, so someone claiming to be a sage of all things magical, but being only 1st level and having only 3 ranks - total - in kowledge skills, will either have to reassign his skills or to change the character.

People who run with the pack don't need to explain themselves. Those whose stand apart are often required and/or feel compelled (unfortunately) to explain themselves. Its true in everything societal.

I might just read too much into this, but are you insulting those who like D&D 3e and come here?

You might call it "running with the pack", I call it "having a preference and seeking out like-minded individuals to discuss the hobby"

You 3.0/3.5 lovers would be in the same boat if you went to a Storyteller board (i wouldn't suggest it, they can be quite rude, especially to D&Ders).

So you claim that Storyteller-lovers can be an antisocial lot, while we 3e-fans are actually more open-minded about this?

Or are you saing that it would not be wise to go to a Storyteller board to bash the Storyteller system there?

Is that so? So you want to toss me because I really dislike the rules but find the supplements useful?

I don't want to toss you out because you don't like the rules, though I wondered why you are here (though there have been several good answers to that here). I would like to see those tossed out who come here just to bash about 3e. I lament the fact that you can't do to them the same you do to someone who came in to ruin your party. Because that's what they do: They come in here with the intention to ruin our day. There may be some exceptions where someone is just angry at the rules for any reason and wants to vent it here, but then again, you don't want a vocal vegan ranting on your barbeque, no matter how hit-and-missed he's about the conditions the animals in the local slaughterhouse are held in.