[EDITION WARZ] Selling Out D&D's Soul?

[PapersAndPaychecks]

That depends on your definition of "merit". If the entire purpose of the thing was to be popular (ie, used by a lot of players), then popularity indicates its merit. It serves its purpose.

If by "merit" you mean some subjective judgement of quality based on some unstated criteria, than I can agree with you.

For me and, I think, for most gamers, merit is an objective judgment of quality based on the admittedly unstated but I think fairly obvious criterion of whether my gaming group actually likes it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm obviously with 5th Element here. RC, you can talk about something having merit, but, if no one uses it, AND, after thousands of game hours (probably hundreds of game years actually), no one STILL uses it, whatever "it" is, has very little merit.

Sure....If you say "no one".

Yes, I'm sure that some people have used the rust monster and had a blast with it. That doesn't make it a good monster. That means that some people are very good at spinning straw into gold.

Or, conversely, that not everyone is equally good at recognizing all forms of gold.

Look, I didn't get that much use out of the WLD (which uses the rust monster, btw, in the "gotcha" way you think it designed to be used). Price, page count, and use I got from it, I consider it to be a considerable net loss. Love the map, though, the room conditions, and some of the encounters. For my game, this wasn't a great product. However, I wouldn't dare claim that it isn't a good product for you.

Because I dislike the current Paladin's Mount is no reason to suggest that it should be banned from all games everywhere.


RC

 

[thedungeondelver]

It is utterly ridiculous to think that with four (FOUR...!) MONSTER MANUALs in print now for the current edition that somehow, inclusion of the rust monster is taking away valuable space.

There are, I'm sure, creations (or data) in any one of those books which is wholly redundant and could be trimmed long before removing such a classic D&D staple.

 

[tx7321]

The rust monster is a GREAT monster. If its not used much by module writers or isn't popular with most who cares, all that should matter Hussar is that you and your group like it. Don't fall for the mistake of going through life assigning value to things based on others opinions....trust your own intuition. Usually if you like something, most other people will too. Rust monsters, btw, were heavily used by DMs (for as long as I've played D&D). They are a great kind of trap. Open a door and out run 2 rust monsters destroying armor and weapons. DD, the rust monster is not in the 3E MM...I never noticed that?

 

[Raven Crowking]

The rust monster is a GREAT monster. If its not used much by module writers or isn't popular with most who cares, all that should matter Hussar is that you and your group like it. Don't fall for the mistake of going through life assigning value to things based on others opinions....trust your own intuition. Usually if you like something, most other people will too. Rust monsters, btw, were heavily used by DMs (for as long as I've played D&D). They are a great kind of trap. Open a door and out run 2 rust monsters destroying armor and weapons. DD, the rust monster is not in the 3E MM...I never noticed that?

LOL.

Hussar's instincts are that the rust monster should be a hazard at best....which your statements rather support.

And it is in the 3e & 3.5 MMs -- Hussar argued it was wasted space.

I disagree, and I trust my instincts on that one.

RC

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Rust monsters, btw, were heavily used by DMs

By you or your DMs maybe, but not by any DMs I've played under. The only times I've ever run into Rust Monsters have been through D&D video games. Never through any table top game I have played.

 

[Storm Raven]

The former makes it more difficult to "role play" as in emersion, because your constantly reading your sheet (unless your Merric B) and figuring your roles (calculating odds); while the later makes role play very easy, because your sheet is rarely looked at and the roles are controlled by the DM via tables.

I guess I've been playing 3e wrong for the last six (or so) years then. I don't remember "constantly reading my character sheet and figuring my roles [sic] (calculating odds). I remember playing a lot of D&D with piles of adventuring and roleplay mixed in with bad jokes, puns, and talking about OotS.

These are 2 different focuses, and 2 different reasons to play the game. Also, 3E with its feats and skills comes off as "push button" feel. Want to get past those orcs, press "tumble", want to get over that pit, bush "jump", want to get past that gaurd, press "fast talk"...you get the idea. Thats the same system used in most video games (with buttons being replaced by feats and skills). Its the same old stuff from years ago...nothing new. And no I have zero interest in an edition war. To each their own. Alot of people who liked Magic would probably like 3E. Its for a different market and kind of player then 1E...thats for sure.

Oh yes, the "3e as a video game" canard. I've played 3e since the day the 3e PHB came out, and I've never seen that style of play. Ever. But keep saying that's how the game works. It makes you look so informed on the subject.

 

[Storm Raven]

There are dozens of threads on EN World wherein people have positted that the rules of 3e by logical necessity give rise to magic shops, or magic street lighting, etc.

The rules of 1e and 2e, by logical necessity, gave rise to magic shops, magic street lighting, and so on. This was hand waved away by many people, but when you examined the system assumptions, the idea that such things would not arise in the most of the world environments assumed by those systems from published material put out by TSR becomes patently silly.

I don't believe that D&D ever had to be about buckets of +x items.

If you played the published 1e adventures as written, sure it was.

 

[Jim Hague]

As others have stated, 3E D&D is no longer the same game as 1E. It shares similarities in names of monsters and attributes, weapons etc. but its basically a game about building PCs and making them unique. 1E is about adventure first and foremost. PC building is not really that big an issue as a 7th level fighter is basically the same as all other 7th level fighters (they typically pick the same armor and weapons more or less) and differ only in the personality the player might give it (CE, LG) shy, outgoing etc.

Can you actually offer real proof of your claim? Because from where I'm sitting, you just said that playing cookie-cutter characters somehow enhances roleplaying. Homogeny doesn't equal variety.

The former makes it more difficult to "role play" as in emersion, because your constantly reading your sheet (unless your Merric B) and figuring your roles (calculating odds); while the later makes role play very easy, because your sheet is rarely looked at and the roles are controlled by the DM via tables.

You mean like we had to do in previous editions, where it was a matter of iguirng out if it was save vs. wands, death or whatever? Having to calculate THAC0? Making up rules on the fly because there weren't any to cover a situation? A lack of consistent rules means more time spent by the GM making up rules, or negotiating a fair, consistent resolution with the players. Worse, it de-empowers the players, which can lead to a lot of dissatisfaction. I know in previous editions I had to look at my character sheet more, because the rules made no damn sense.

These are 2 different focuses, and 2 different reasons to play the game. Also, 3E with its feats and skills comes off as "push button" feel. Want to get past those orcs, press "tumble", want to get over that pit, bush "jump", want to get past that gaurd, press "fast talk"...you get the idea. Thats the same system used in most video games (with buttons being replaced by feats and skills). Its the same old stuff from years ago...nothing new. And no I have zero interest in an edition war. To each their own. Alot of people who liked Magic would probably like 3E. Its for a different market and kind of player then 1E...thats for sure.

Funny, for someone with no interest in it, you went out and started a thread on it, trotted out the tired old 'video game' argument, and are blithely ignoring that plenty of people are roleplaying just fine. Don't believe me? Go look in the Story Hour threads right here on ENWorld. 3.x doesn't seem to be interfering with the roleplay there one bit...

 

[Piratecat]

You know, I think we're done here.

Klunk.