Do you like D&D?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Yes, but I like D20 Modern a lot more. I don't run DnD anymore because of that.

Having said that, I voted in favor of 3.x over other editions of the game because, as a player (not a DM) I found it a lot better than 2e. While not as flexible as D20 Modern, most of the base classes leave you with room for a flexible character concept, feats help you design a character (I think Weapon Finesse alone saved the rogue), skill ranks let you customize your character, the mostly unified mechanics, ability scores actually making a difference without being broken, point buy (something that you couldn't really do in 2e), etc.

As a DM, magic item/treasure headaches drove me up the wall - it was like playing Angband, Diablo or WarCraft III rather than a pen-n-paper RPG. Magic item problems weren't good for players, either. As both a player and DM, I didn't like the inflexibility of many classes and I hated how characters couldn't learn to defend themselves. I suppose I could complain about crunchy supplements too, but really, it could be worse ... it could be Skills and Powers None of these problems that I've listed here show up in a D20 Modern campaign, of course.

 

[Desdichado]

The current edition of D&D is the grand result of 30 years of improvements to the core D&D game. It has become so wonderful, in fact, that a whole gaming system concept has spun off from it called "d20". And lame attempts to make "clever" insults doesn't change the fact that D&D3.x is the pennacle of evolution for this game, and has started a Rennaisance for the hobby. The success of D&D3.x's child, d20, is proof of the excellence.

And even if you disagree with that, it doesn't change the fact that the 3rd edition of Dungeons & Dragons says Dungeons & Dragons on it, is published by the owners of the trademark, and under no reasonable scenario can really be called not Dungeons & Dragons.

 

[hexgrid]

It's not as simple as simply liking or disliking 3rd Edition. For example- someone who considers themselves a dedicated fan of 3.x might also be someone who loathes the system at higher levels.

Being, that considering that this is a 3e/d20 primarily board, the amount of bashing of it is astonishing.

I think a lot of it is that D&D 3.x is so ubiquitous. Some people play it not because it's their preference, but because they can't find any one willing to play anything else. Or maybe they don't mind d20, but they don't like it being the only game they get to play, ever.

When they lash out on EnWorld, they're really lashing out in frustration at their fellow players for not being open to other systems.

 

[Gentlegamer]

The current edition of D&D is the grand result of 30 years of improvements to the core D&D game. It has become so wonderful, in fact, that a whole gaming system concept has spun off from it called "d20". And lame attempts to make "clever" insults doesn't change the fact that D&D3.x is the pennacle of evolution for this game, and has started a Rennaisance for the hobby. The success of D&D3.x's child, d20, is proof of the excellence.

I don't understand why you think stating that the d20 system is a different game from "D&D" is an insult. Basic D&D and AD&D were two different games, too. Is it because (to use Dancey's way of characterizing) you desperately want and need it "to really be D&D" . . . ?

d20 Fantasy and d20 Fantasy, 2nd edition are good games. Just not D&D.

 

[Glyfair]

Gary Gygax does not even consider 3.x to be D&D.

He also, at one time, said if you used house rules you weren't playing D&D, you were playing something else.

Oddly enough, I think the reason for that statement meshes partially with a D&D 3E design philosophy. Basically, that consistancy is good the for the game. If you go to play in a new D&D game, there is a hurdle if you have to learn a house rule. Players who go from game to game are more likely to drop out (or never start playing regularly), if too many things changes from game to game.

 

[der_kluge]

You really didn't have the option that I wanted - something along the lines of "I like D&D, but like game X better", so I selected the next to last option ("I prefer any game over the current edition of D&D") since it came the closest to what my actual choice would have been.

And of course, my "any game" is HARP. There should be no doubts about that.

I think I tend to agree with Rasyr. I don't dislike D&D. Hell, I've played it for over 15 years now. But there's a lot about 3rd edition that I don't like. But I still like it better than earlier editions, because it fixes a lot of the problems they had, IMHO.

Where I disagree with Rasyr is that I don't consider HARP to be the end-all-be-all either, but I do like many aspects of that system.

 

[Gentlegamer]

And even if you disagree with that, it doesn't change the fact that the 3rd edition of Dungeons & Dragons says Dungeons & Dragons on it, is published by the owners of the trademark, and under no reasonable scenario can really be called not Dungeons & Dragons.

I'm not fooled by branding. In a way "D&D" has become a license, kinda like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, that is independent of game rules. At least, that is the way it is treated by WotC. The truth of the matter is, D&D is really its own game (with certain varieties like Basic and Advanced), and just like slapping the name "Monopoly" on Risk, doesn't make the game into Monopoly.

 

[Wombat]

For those who voted against the current edition or don't play it --

Why are you here?

Honestly, what benefit do you gain from EN World? It seems like 99%+ of the message board topics, reviews, etc. here are geared towards 3e or 3.5e. So again, I ask, in all sincerity and without sarcasm:

Why are you here?

Heck, I audit GURPS sites and I loath GURPS as a system. Still, there are threads that pop up that are very useful for games I am running. I also am so-so on the current (apparently dead) Decipher version of Star Trek rpg, but I go to a board involved with that so that I can find material related to Trek rpging in general.

On another tack, I also audit news boards that have a very different political stances from my own, simply to find out what others are saying, thus improving my own debating techniques and helping me refine my own stances.

Heck, I barely fall into the D20 camp myself anymore, although I do play it and have had fun with it.

Given this, I can see why non-D20 players might be here.

 

[Psion]

I'm not fooled by branding. In a way "D&D" has become a license, kinda like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, that is independent of game rules. At least, that is the way it is treated by WotC. The truth of the matter is, D&D is really its own game (with certain varieties like Basic and Advanced), and just like slapping the name "Monopoly" on Risk, doesn't make the game into Monopoly.

And just because a disgruntled fan of an older edition is in denial about the obvious inherit features that are fundamental to the game does not make it not D&D.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think a lot of it is that D&D 3.x is so ubiquitous. Some people play it not because it's their preference, but because they can't find any one willing to play anything else. Or maybe they don't mind d20, but they don't like it being the only game they get to play, ever.

When they lash out on EnWorld, they're really lashing out in frustration at their fellow players for not being open to other systems.

This is an excellent point and bears repeating.