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

[WayneLigon]

Thats the basic problem with the 3.X rules. As soon as the DM does anything outside the programmer's parameters the players cry foul and want to reboot him or move to another server.

I have yet to see a '3e = videogamy' thread or post that makes any sense at all. You're obviously using English, since I can understand the glyphs in the order you've placed them, but that's about all the sense it makes.

 

[Kormydigar]

I have yet to see a '3e = videogamy' thread or post that makes any sense at all. You're obviously using English, since I can understand the glyphs in the order you've placed them, but that's about all the sense it makes.

3.X games don't HAVE to be like that. I run a 3.5 campaign and it is going fine. It is the way the rules are presented and interpreted by some newer players. Most of my players have been gaming since the late 70's- early 80's though. I think that makes a huge difference in attitude and how the game is approached.

 

[dcas]

What did a module sell?

The top module sellers for 1e were T1 - The Village of Hommlet, S1 - Tomb of Horrors, and I6 - Ravenloft, at least according to Gary, and all sold in six figures. Another bestseller was B2 - Keep on the Borderlands (but that was for Basic D&D and was included in many boxed sets). Goodness knows how many of them were sold.

It is possible that 3.x might eventually sell as many rulebooks as 1e. I somehow doubt it, though -- I think the market is smaller than it was in the late 70s/early 80s (many of those who might be playing RPGs are playing CRPGs instead), and this is not necessarily related to the goodness/badness of the current version of the game. It just is.

Remember, too, that the PHB was in print for eleven years (1978-1989). There were even some printed after the second edition of the game had been released. I doubt that 3e/3.5e will still be in print in 2011.

 

[Lanefan]

And, finally, KM, while you seemed to understand the point that marketing forces and sales do not offer a fair indication of the relative value of a product, you ignored the other half of the equation: Market forces tend to pull toward the lowest common denominator.

I really noticed this with the change from 1e to 2e; it seemed everything had been dumbed down to appeal to a lower (and younger) common denominator...except the game mechanics. 3e streamlines some of the game mechanics (at a cost), but put back some of the atmosphere that was lost with 2e.

Lanefan

 

[SteveC]

I thought I would jump in here and make a few points, from the perspective of someone who played (and ran) a lot of D&D from the late 70's on. I dearly loved those games, and as I think back on it, some of the best roleplaying fun I ever had was in O/AD&D.

In looking back, I think it was the GM (err "referee") that made the game. You had very few rules for dealing with even basic adventuring tasks, and more than that, you didn't have any sort of uniform resolution mechanic for anything, so it was on the shoulders of the referee to make everything work out. I think that many of the the old-schoolers who still support the "O" rules are coming from that perspective: that is to say, with an excellent ref, GM fiat can make for an incredible game. I wouldn't hesitate to play in the games of almost any of the old-schoolers here on EN World, because they have what it takes to be an excellent GM. So while I've moved on from O/AD&D, I think it's the free form GM fiat from an excellent GM that makes it an excellent game.

...And can also make a game out of nightmares. I played in many games where the ref took the lack of specific rules for a situation to mean that you couldn't do it. Want to climb over the fence surrounding the mansion grounds? Well, you're not a thief, so you can't do it. Want to try and sneak up on the guards by the mansion's gatehouse? You're a fighter, sorry, can't do it. And so on.

My point is that the quality of a O/AD&D game had a lot more to do with the quality of the ref/DM/GM than the current rules. It's been said a number of times here, and I'm going to echo it: 3.X D&D doesn't make a GREAT GM by any stretch of the immagination, but it can make an acceptable one. Now a GREAT GM is still going to be open minded and able to respond player creativity, but that great GM would do that in ANY version of the rules. It's just in the earlier editions, he would have to make up a lot more of the mechanics out of whole cloth. Since I enjoy a wide variety of games, I think there are a lot of great mechanics outside of D20's, so I think that can make for an exceptional campaign...or not!

Two specific points about 3.X versus earlier editions:

First, I'd say that the earlier editions offered a lot more risk outside of combat. Look at some of the early modules and you have a healthy dose of "do this, and rocks fall, the party is dead." In 3.X, you have saves and rolled damage for those sorts of things. In that way, early D&D was much more lethal than 3.X.

But second, actually IN COMBAT, 3.X is much deadlier than the traditional game. Think about it: monsters didn't have ability bonuses do damage, and there were no critical hits or feats (outside of house rules, of course) so if you were fighting an orc warrior and had 30 HP left, you would know that there was absolutely no way you could die in a single round, and the game was much more a game of resource management where you knew what the outcome of a battle was going to be, and the cleric could plan accordingly. In the current rules, I've had a couple of lucky die rolls instantly kill a powerful character. Heck, I watched a troll rip apart a high level fighter and kill him before he was able to act on the first round of combat in my last week's game! That could never have happened in the previous editions of the rules.

I'm not sure what those observations say about O/AD&D versus 3.X, but I at least found 'em interesting to bring up.

--Steve

 

[Thurbane]

I have yet to see a '3e = videogamy' thread or post that makes any sense at all. You're obviously using English, since I can understand the glyphs in the order you've placed them, but that's about all the sense it makes.

Funny, I understand him 100%, and totally agree with his point.

Perhaps "tightly structured" might be a better term than "videogamey". The attempted airtightness of the rules and the (perceived or otherwise) sense of greater player entitlement lend themselves to a certain type of gamer who likes to "upend the apple cart" any time he thinks the DMs interpretation of the rules and his do not match.

Though it is possible someone earlier may have hit the nail on the head that this may be less to do with rulesets and more to do with the "Me me me!" mentality that is quite prevalent in society today.

3.X games don't HAVE to be like that. I run a 3.5 campaign and it is going fine. It is the way the rules are presented and interpreted by some newer players. Most of my players have been gaming since the late 70's- early 80's though. I think that makes a huge difference in attitude and how the game is approached.

Not to be a "back in my day" fogey, but my own experiences tend to mirror this.

My own videogame analogy I tend to use is how some players tend to view the DM as little more than a CPU - something that is there only to allow their interaction with the Operating System (rulebooks) and not to add any input of it's own.

My view on 3.X and earlier editions is a little like my view on Hollywood Blockbusters and Independant Cinema - Hollywood might have flashier effects and bigger budgets, but by their very lack of these same factors Independant movies appeal to other people (assuming both types of movie have well written scripts and competent actors). Same reason I might want to go and see a local band with a raw sound instead of going to see a huge international act with highly polished production values.

 

[Odhanan]

3.X games don't HAVE to be like that. I run a 3.5 campaign and it is going fine. It is the way the rules are presented and interpreted by some newer players. Most of my players have been gaming since the late 70's- early 80's though. I think that makes a huge difference in attitude and how the game is approached.

I've got some players who were introduced to RPGs through the D&D game two years ago. I don't have that "videogamey" feel either. Ergo, that's not a trait of newer players. That just depends on how you interpret the rules, no matter what background you're coming from as far as "RPG XPs" are concerned. For instance, if one is an RPG grognard and thinks from the get-go that D&D is "videogamey" or "immature", then that's what the game is going to look like when s/he tries to run it, no question about it.

 

[Ranes]

Got to agree with Odhanan and like-minded posters here. And to pick up on Thurbane's most recent and colourful analogy, I too like to see a band in a small venue but I still appreciate it when they know how to mix their sound.

I think a problem with threads like these is that all concerned - both sides of the argument - have a tendency to over-simplify the issue when we (and please note the inclusiveness of the pronoun) have a point. I recently bought a copy of Eldritch Wizardry (OD&D supplement III) to replace the one I had and carelessly lost over twenty years ago. In the foreward, it says:

"But somewhere along the line, D&D began to lose some of its flavor... This came about as a result of the proliferation of rule sets; while this was great for the company, it was tough on the DM."

Doesn't that speak to the core of this thread? This is from a 1976 supplement. (I can hear Diaglo already. "1976? Bah!")

Whether D&D has lost some or all of its soul or not is moot. When I play - and I play 3.5 - I try to keep the spirit of the game I knew in '78 alive. Same goes for when I DM. The fact that I can create, in the new rules set, an amphibious, half-celestial, lycanthropic were-baboon doesn't change anything. I could do that back then too, if I had a mind to. Of course, it wouldn't have been called that back then and it doesn't get called that now. The fact that I have a set of rules - er, guidelines - now and didn't then is something I find interesting and entertaining but not any more prescriptive than the rules I had then. I have, after all, never played a game of any edition that didn't have at least one house rule in it.

True, I occasionally get a player turning up who has a book and assumes he can use it, because it belongs to the latest edition. But that was true back in the days when the world was black and white, too. And I have players who point to a rule and say, "Broken!" And I remind them that if they want to exploit a rule I do allow, they can bet their bottom electrum piece (they just found, to their surprise) that one of my npcs or critters will have access to the same mechanic.

I chimed in earlier with a claim that I love the new rule set and that's true. I loved previous editions, too - apart from 2e, obviously - but how much soul there is in a game doesn't depend on the rules you use. It depends on you.

 

[Odhanan]

Great post, Ranes!

 

[Renfield]

Alright, I've got a few minutes so I suppose I can post here. I've been gaming since I was 11, roughly twelve years pretty much. I started off with 2e and am working with 3e (3.0, 3.5, it's all still 3rd edition ) and I've had mixed feelings about the new edition to say the least. The nostalgic part of me that remembers the good old days (bet I'm making you 1e people feel old huh MWAHAHAHA) of Wizards rolling a d4 at first level and praying to whatever diety they follow that they don't roll a 1. I remember adventures seeming a little more alive and fantastic. I essentially look back through rose color glasses. Taking the glasses off I remember the silly fact that the only reason to play a human was because of the level caps on the other races. Level caps that made absolutely no sense whatsoever on races that typically outlived humans. I remembered having a harder time finding certain rules and being annoyed that fighter A was a lot like fighter B mechanically.

3rd edition came along and there was a wonderful mix of things I liked and disliked. I cannot say it's absolutely better, I can only say it's better in some ways. I think they needlessly gimped some spells (especially in the transition of 3.0 to 3.5) and Wizards of the Coast seems to have a philosophy that if it's useful in combat then it's over powered. However I love the fact that you can make an agile destrous fighter as easily as you can make a strong knight. A cavalier or an archer. The creation of skill points is nice as well and Wizards redeemed themselves when they made the Ranger class useful again.

I do think that the game has become a little more focused on Crunch though. I also believe this to be influenced by computer games and Collectable Card Games and is more a sign of the times rather than a degredation of the system. It's easy to get too focused on the rules as well in 3e but if your group is fairly familiar with the rules and fairly competent then when you get to a point where focusing on rules would hamper the game a DM is encouraged (says so in the almighty rules even) to make a call and move things along.

I am presently in three games (four if you count a Play by Post Call of Cthulhu D20 game). In one game my DM didn't like the rules heavy D&D3e so he started a campaign using Castles and Crusades and the game is running nice and smoothly. I am running an Age of Worms campaign and that is doing fine as well using a mix of 3.0 and 3.5 rules tossing what we don't like from one system in favor of what we do like in another system. My third game is one I'm running for a new group. Gamers of limited or no experience. We are using 3.5 rules and so far I'm noticing something: I feel nostalgic watching these 'younguns' (as my friend calls them, there's really only a couple years in age difference but hey, they're new) get excited at the prospect of fighting their first (or their characters first) troll or see them get engaged as their PC persue their background.

Effectively all I can say is that D&D, present or past, is what you make of it. Why would 3e exist if 2e was so perfect, it was made because numerous gamers likely expressed their desire for change. The changes satisfied some, dissapointed others, and so on. One thing we cannot deny is that the changes helped bring more people to D&D than before. Wizards, for all their corporate evil (such as planning on making the 3.5 so us loyalists would have to shell out an extra $90 all over again, bastards!) they've gotten that part right. So ultimately it's what you make of it.

Oh, for those who hate the Dungeon Punk aspect of the game, it's fairly easy to remedy that. Such as the idiocy of all those silly double weapons i.e. Darth Maul inspired two bladed longsword and the dire flail. Those elements you can toss out with ease.

Sorry if what I've posted simply recapped what everyone else has written. Didn't have time to pour through all the other pages of text. Later.

Z