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

[Thurbane]

I hope you'll forgive the rest of us (probably the majority of people) who don't enjoy spending hours building a world that will never have a use beyond self-amusement.

It works for you, and that's good, but it cannot work for the majority of people, I believe, so something else needs to be there to meet that need. 3e helps more things be there.

Sure, I can understand that not everyone would enjoy this. I still think I'm hardly in the vast minority though - I think you find most DMs who don't use a published camapign setting feel the same way I do.

In fact, I'm curious now - I might just create a poll too see.

You misunderstand. It's not that 1e or 2e were poor. They were just poorer at delivering what most people wanted to do with the game. It's not that legos are bad, it's just that when people want action figures, they're a pretty lame substitute.

Perhaps I did misunderstand - but now that you've clarified your point for me, I still diagree.

I personally think the Lego/action figure example is just about as flawed as it can get. If I was to create an analaogy similar to Lego/action figures, I would call 3.X the "AD&D for Dummies" book, but that would just be unfair... Basically, it's like trying to say that Hip Hop is inherently better than Metal - there is no right or wrong, just personal taste.

I played 1E/2E for a good 15 years or more before I got into 3.X, and honestly, now having played them all, I can say I still don't feel that 1E/2E were lacking anything significant that 3.X mysteriously delivers. Again, not a scientific fact, just personal preference.

I can respect that some people prefer 3.X, heck, that's what I'm using these days myself, so it's not like I hate it or anything. But I just hate seeing older editions being bashed (not saying that's what you are doing KM, just in general).

I would say that the plethora of campaign settings out there and the enduring popularity of some of them points to a fairly large number of gamers who don't want to detail out a setting.

I used to spend hours detailing things only to realize after game night that I wasted that time that could have been better spent making the parts that did get played better. So, now I am far closer to the 15 minute campaign side of things. If I don't think it will get air time, I don't bother with it.

That's cool, different strokes for different folks. Like I said, I find detailing my campaign world in my downtime very enjoyable and rewarding - I choose to do it freely, rather than feel forced to. I always leave enough time aside to fully prepare for the game at hand, though...

 

[Crothian]

I hope you'll forgive the rest of us (probably the majority of people) who don't enjoy spending hours building a world that will never have a use beyond self-amusement.

Not really just self amusement, you get to share it with your friends and if you want use it for many years. I've shared mine with many dozens of gamers over 8 years. And with the net it is a lot easier to share ones world with the world.

 

[Crothian]

You misunderstand. It's not that 1e or 2e were poor. They were just poorer at delivering what most people wanted to do with the game.

What do most people want to do with the game?

 

[Thurbane]

Not really just self amusement, you get to share it with your friends and if you want use it for many years. I've shared mine with many dozens of gamers over 8 years. And with the net it is a lot easier to share ones world with the world.

Very good point.

While I don't personally publish my campaign material for use by others (yet?), I have a friend who deatils his own camapign world meticulously for exactly this reason.

Remember, Greyhawk, Faerun et. al. all started off as someone's "personal" campaign...

 

[I'm A Banana]

Sure, I can understand that not everyone would enjoy this. I still think I'm hardly in the vast minority though - I think you find most DMs who don't use a published camapign setting feel the same way I do.

In fact, I'm curious now - I might just create a poll too see.

I think, on ENWorld, heavy as it is with DMs and Old Skoolers, you're going to get biased results. I think WotC, with their small armada of market research, is perhaps a better barometer. The fact that they catered to those who don't use a published setting by giving them an effective baseline, I believe, speaks well to the point of there being a big demand for it.

I personally think the Lego/action figure example is just about as flawed as it can get. If I was to create an analaogy similar to Lego/action figures, I would call 3.X the "AD&D for Dummies" book, but that would just be unfair... Basically, it's like trying to say that Hip Hop is inherently better than Metal - there is no right or wrong, just personal taste.

I played 1E/2E for a good 15 years or more before I got into 3.X, and honestly, now having played them all, I can say I still don't feel that 1E/2E were lacking anything significant that 3.X mysteriously delivers. Again, not a scientific fact, just personal preference.

I can respect that some people prefer 3.X, heck, that's what I'm using these days myself, so it's not like I hate it or anything. But I just hate seeing older editions being bashed (not saying that's what you are doing KM, just in general).

It's not the best analogy....a better one might be to compare wooden trains to action figures.

You don't think it's got something special because you've not had a need of what it delivers that is special, as far as I can tell. You enjoy doing for yourself many of the things 3e wants to do for you because WotC's research showed that not many people enjoy doing that (the "twenty minutes of fun in four hours" problem). Now that 3e does things that in previous editions were neglected or ill-explained, the game itself runs much smoother without a heavy-handed DM input.

Not really just self amusement, you get to share it with your friends and if you want use it for many years. I've shared mine with many dozens of gamers over 8 years. And with the net it is a lot easier to share ones world with the world.

Except, he stated that he never got to use those secitons. So those sections he never got to use would only be used when he was inventing them, meaning the rest of the world wouldn't really care.

But you're right, the creative excersize can be it's own reward, and others could benefit from it, even indirectly.

What do most people want to do with the game?

Judging by what WotC is doing, most people want to play it.

 

[Crothian]

Judging by what WotC is doing, most people want to play it.

I'm getting on with age, so perhaps my memory is going. But I do recall rather vividly that people did play the old games. They played then and they play now, and I think that at the time those older editions were not any worse then today. Now, if we just compare those rules from then to the rules today, one can get an arguement for it. But one needs to look at the context of the game, and back then I never heard anyone having problems playing the game. I hear more of that about 3e, but that's becasue of the net and not the system I would argue.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm getting on with age, so perhaps my memory is going. But I do recall rather vividly that people did play the old games. They played then and they play now, and I think that at the time those older editions were not any worse then today. Now, if we just compare those rules from then to the rules today, one can get an arguement for it. But one needs to look at the context of the game, and back then I never heard anyone having problems playing the game. I hear more of that about 3e, but that's becasue of the net and not the system I would argue.

Oh, indeed, people played the game. But they also spent time working worlds from the ground up and re-working rules into house rules and variouos things that were NOT playing the game.

3e better enables people to bypass a lot of that and get on with the playing itself.

Just like wooden trains were perfectly fine, but they wouldn't let you re-enact your favorite fighting robot cartoon quite as well as action figures.

 

[Crothian]

3e better enables people to bypass a lot of that and get on with the playing itself.

I understand, though I disagree. We opend the 1e PHB and just played. It was easy and simple for us. Character options were a lot less so character creation was a lot faster. Basically we rolled out attributes then picked a race and class that helped reach a concept and mach the scores we had. The game has changed a lot since then.

 

[Thurbane]

I think, on ENWorld, heavy as it is with DMs and Old Skoolers, you're going to get biased results. I think WotC, with their small armada of market research, is perhaps a better barometer. The fact that they catered to those who don't use a published setting by giving them an effective baseline, I believe, speaks well to the point of there being a big demand for it.

Maybe - maybe not. Perhaps I am out of touch with today's gamers.

It's not the best analogy....a better one might be to compare wooden trains to action figures.

You don't think it's got something special because you've not had a need of what it delivers that is special, as far as I can tell. You enjoy doing for yourself many of the things 3e wants to do for you because WotC's research showed that not many people enjoy doing that (the "twenty minutes of fun in four hours" problem).

You do know that 1E and especially 2E did have the same type of "insta adventure" generator tables, right? 1E DMG even had a whole section for a Random Dungeon Generator. 2E had richly detailed instructions how to create believable NPCs on the fly. This isn't a new feature of 3.X - admittedly, 3.X probably does have marginally more of this type of thing built into the core books.

If you are saying that 3.X lends itself more to "on the fly" gaming by the relatively simple and streamlined rules compared to earlier editions, I probably agree.

Now that 3e does things that in previous editions were neglected or ill-explained, the game itself runs much smoother without a heavy-handed DM input.

And that's part of my problem with 3.X - it promotes a "DMless" style of play, where the DM is little more than an interface device between the players and the rule books. Maybe it doesn't promote it as such, but it's a much more prevalent attitude nowadays than before. Perhaps I may be misplaced in blaming 3.X for this advent.

I also agree that a DM shouldn't be heavy handed, he should be fair and balanced, but at the end of the day players need to realise that he IS final arbiter. Rule by democracy just doesn't work in a game like D&D, in my experience. A good DM will certainly weigh player complaints and wishes in his mind, but still needs to be free to overrule these in the name of game flow when required. I know that doesn't sit right with some people, but it is the way I (and my group) have always run things. Once again, this may or may not be directly related to 3.X rules. But my own belief is that the "copyright law" feel of the way the current rules are written lends itself to a "question all DM rulings" mentaility from a certain percentage of players.

 

[Thurbane]

Oh, indeed, people played the game. But they also spent time working worlds from the ground up and re-working rules into house rules and variouos things that were NOT playing the game.

3e better enables people to bypass a lot of that and get on with the playing itself.

Just like wooden trains were perfectly fine, but they wouldn't let you re-enact your favorite fighting robot cartoon quite as well as action figures.

I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but did you actually DM using 1E or 2E? It almost sounds like you are judging those rulesets by hearsay alone...sorry if you answered this already...

I understand, though I disagree. We opend the 1e PHB and just played. It was easy and simple for us. Character options were a lot less so character creation was a lot faster. Basically we rolled out attributes then picked a race and class that helped reach a concept and mach the scores we had. The game has changed a lot since then.

Sounds very much like my own experiences.