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

[Kormydigar]

Okay, here's something to help get at the core of this a bit more.

It has been said that the new edition is not "D&D", that it's a different game.

What has the new edition lost that the other edition(s) retained? When does D&D stop being D&D and start being just an RPG with the brand tacked on? What elements of "D&D" must be retained for it to be D&D?

Why isn't this edition good enough?

And, the corrollary to that, are those defining elements of D&D worth preserving? Are they valuable to more than nostalgia and message board bickering? Is the new edition somehow BETTER because it is different?

The new edition is different but I never said that it wasn't D&D. There are different styles that appeal to different people but I won't say that one is BETTER than the other. It is simply a question of better to whom.

 

[BroccoliRage]

Okay, here's something to help get at the core of this a bit more.

It has been said that the new edition is not "D&D", that it's a different game.

What has the new edition lost that the other edition(s) retained? When does D&D stop being D&D and start being just an RPG with the brand tacked on? What elements of "D&D" must be retained for it to be D&D?

I don't mean this to be rude, but have you ever played AD&D 1e or 2e, B/X D&D, Hackmaster, The Arcanum, or Dragonfist (non-d20)? The mechanics are not the same. Combat, saving throws, Armor Class, and a host of others have seriously been overhauled for 3e. They are basically the same in all earlier editions. One can easily take his OD&D character and update it to 2e, with very little effort. You can run the different versions of the game simultaneously with little to no problem. The game, while undergoing some small changes version to version, has remained largely the same beast until now.

The fact that you asked this gives me the impression that you probably aren't familiar with older versions of (A)D&D. Am I wrong? Was it rhetorical?

Why isn't this edition good enough?

now who said that? it's a matter of taste is all. I feel that d20 is far too unwieldy for running fantasy games, but if someone disagrees their opinion is every bit as valid. I feel that the addition of feats and skills are too much like "special moves" in anime, comic books about superheroes, and video games. But that's me, some folks like that kind of thing. It doesn't mean it's any better or worse. Just indicative of what folks like.

And, the corrollary to that, are those defining elements of D&D worth preserving? Are they valuable to more than nostalgia and message board bickering? Is the new edition somehow BETTER because it is different?

Better at what? Like I said, it's a matter of taste. The defining elements are things like the combat system (THAC0 or hit charts), Saving Throw system, and the attitude towards player/DM relations. That last one is a little suibjective, as I've said in the past, but if you break it down to mechanics the d20 system does not work the same way as the (A)D&D system. They are not the same game, and that is evidenced by the lack of interchangeability between 3e and all prior editions.

As far as nostalgia, I'm 24. Most people probably expect that I play 3e at first, but I don't as a matter of preference, not fond memories.

Worth preserving? That matters on if you like them or not. And anyway, who says they aren't preserved? My books are in excellent shape

 

[Remathilis]

Okay, here's something to help get at the core of this a bit more.

It has been said that the new edition is not "D&D", that it's a different game.

What has the new edition lost that the other edition(s) retained? When does D&D stop being D&D and start being just an RPG with the brand tacked on? What elements of "D&D" must be retained for it to be D&D?

Why isn't this edition good enough?

And, the corrollary to that, are those defining elements of D&D worth preserving? Are they valuable to more than nostalgia and message board bickering? Is the new edition somehow BETTER because it is different?

Want my honest opinion?

O/B/RC/1e/2e D&D mentality; Its banned unless I say its ok. You are given a default set of assumptions (no dwarven wizards, clerics use blunt weapons) and they are LAW unless the DM says otherwise. This gives tremendous power to the DM to allow only what he wants for his world.

3e/3.5 D&D menality: Its ok unless I ban it. Its the opposite view; you can be any class, any race, any mix, with any skill or feat unless the DM SPECIFICALLY doesn't allow it. This gives more choice to the players, but less power to the DM (since its always easier to say "Yes" to breaking a rule than "no" to supressing a choice)

Older D&D is Exclusive: you are allowed only what I say. 3e is inclusive: unless you say otherwise, I can play X.

You can argue with me til the cows come home that DMs in 3e have just as much veto power as they did before. And I'll say that no matter how long they played 1e/2e, you go back to the race/class restrictions and SOMEONE will gripe. If it was so easy, why does 3 million "My player wants to play X" threads pop up here?

 

[Korak]

Really, the power shift comes down to marketing. WoTC knows they can sell a lot more books if they are player focused, rather than DM focused. So, they have shifted the expectations in the playerbase to a point where players seek out new goodies for their characters on the shelves of the local gamestores instead of the DM's local dungeons while actually playing the game.


--edit: spelling is hard

 

[Crothian]

Older D&D is Exclusive: you are allowed only what I say. 3e is inclusive: unless you say otherwise, I can play X.

You can argue with me til the cows come home that DMs in 3e have just as much veto power as they did before. And I'll say that no matter how long they played 1e/2e, you go back to the race/class restrictions and SOMEONE will gripe. If it was so easy, why does 3 million "My player wants to play X" threads pop up here?

I hear plenty of threads round these parts of DMs that say This is allowed, anything more ask and I may allow it. That seems to go along with your 1ed definition. DMs still have veto power, just because players are whiney doesn't get rid of that power. No one said DMing was easy.

 

[thedungeondelver]

It's simple, really. The game now has to appeal to people who are all about NOW NOW NOW GIMME GIMME POWER LEVELS and I'm entirely sure that if someone had figured out a way to throw in sparkly computer graphics that lit up your character sheet every time you level dinged, they'd have thrown it in.

The game is no longer about building characters over time. Hell, Dancey and his lot flat out said that "D&D 3 is engineered to be more fun". Think about that. Engineered. To be. More fun. Lunacy! Utter lunacy! The whole f---ed up CR system?! The bang-zoom XP chart? All created because a bunch of marketroids listened to a tiny segment of gamers and decided that after n sessions over n weeks that everyone should be x level because that was a more sound ENGINEERING decision. Don't believe me? Go look up what Sean Reynolds did about Drow weapons disintigrating in sunlight. It was nerfed because that's not FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIR. Just like the rust monster. Pfft. Well somebody CALL THE WAAAAAAAMBULANCE life in the dungeon is a little DIFFICULT.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Also, the current D&D is one of the few role-playing games I've experienced in which all the parts are so beautifully & carefully put together that I find it difficult to simplify enough for my tastes.

I have never understood this POV in the slightest, although I have heard it voiced many time.

If you really have the skill to play one of the early editions, I find it unimaginable that it would be difficult for you to simply hack out that which you do not like of 3e.

For example, I can certainly appreciate why some people have great love of a simple system like OD&D. But if I wanted to play that way, I do not see any need to use the original rulebooks. I would just start from the barest, barest skeletal d20 rules and build up from there. The PHB and all the other books would be relegated to DM reference books. As 3e is so coherent and easy to remember, I would not even need to refer to these books very often -- they would more be just for inspiration.

What is so hard about that?

Another example would be if I dislike miniatures. What is so hard about just hacking out the AoOs rules, or most of them, and keeping movement at a more abstract level?

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

I'm interested in figuring out about the "soul of the game." What is specifically D&D?

D&D has no soul. It is the chance result of random evolutionary forces.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I definitely don't agree with KenSeg's description on the effects of computer and video games on tabletop RPGs. World of Warcraft and Everquest, perhaps, but not their better-selling, extremely story-driven console equivalents. In particular, I can't see nigh-plotless MMORPGs as the 'gateway drug' to fantasy gaming when compared to the sales of the Lord of the Rings movies, Harry Potter and Final Fantasy, all three of which seem more accessible to a younger market than MMOs, which are more aimed at adults. If any other type of game is to blame - and, indeed, if there's any 'blame' to assign - Collectible Card and Minis games seem the more probable culprits.

I'm not sure I agree with FireLance's comments on same. I think the 'disposable protagonist' meme came to tabletop RPGs from wargaming and has been bleeding out of the former for years. Books, movies, electronic RPGs, and most every other form of media lack disposable protagonists. Frodo doesn't die midway through The Two Towers, leaving Tolkien to roll up a new character to carry the ring.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Books...lack disposable protagonists.

I take it you're not a George R.R. Martin fan?