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

[Raven Crowking]

KM, if you are claiming that McDonalds hamburgers are the best, then I have to say that my expectations are a bit higher than yours. As a result, I will have to disagree.

If you are claiming that D&D 3.X is the McDonalds of rpgs, then I have to say that I like the system a bit more than that. As a result, I will have to disagree.

 

[Thurbane]

KM, if you are claiming that McDonalds hamburgers are the best, then I have to say that my expectations are a bit higher than yours. As a result, I will have to disagree.

If you are claiming that D&D 3.X is the McDonalds of rpgs, then I have to say that I like the system a bit more than that. As a result, I will have to disagree.

Well said.

The simple fact of the matter is, there is no scientific formula that will show one RPG system to be "better" than another, unless your definition of "better" is "better selling".

Sorry to keep trotting this example out, but are the Pussycat Dolls "better" than Tool because their singles sell more copies?

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Sorry to keep trotting this example out, but are the Pussycat Dolls "better" than Tool because their singles sell more copies?

Seeing that this thread has finally drifted into a discussion of truly important matters, I'm compelled to contribute, again.

I prefer just about any hamburger to McDonalds hamburgers.
Tool over Pussycat Dolls.
C&C or B/X over 3E.
Single Malt Scotch over blended scotch.
Microbrews or imports (German, Belgian) over Miller or Budweiser.
Sushi over Chicken-of-the-Sea.
La Gloria Cubana over Garcia Y Vega.

Oh, and King Crimson blows me away. I can't get enough of them, lately.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So because the wind seems to be blowing in that direction, and it happens to be that time of year, I'm creating a thread to help contain the random sniping littering other threads. Specifically, I'm interested in figuring out about the "soul of the game." What is specifically D&D? What is the core appeal of the game? The thing that people have fun doing, the cause of it's existence and it's reason for being and your reason for playing are.....what?

And how does the most recent edition/trends/design of the game violate that? How does what D&D is becoming/has become/became before pervert what you think this spirit and soul of D&D is?

And, here's the clincher: why is that a bad thing? Obviously, many people feel that D&D's trends now are beating and deflowering their precious game, but what would you rather have WotC publish? What new things would satisfy what you need?

My own opine will become evident shortly, I'm sure, but I'm more interested in why others feel that the recent edition/recent trends/modern design choices are spitting in the face of what D&D is to them. I wanna hear your gripes, so gripe them!

I also wanna hear people disagreeing with these gripes, so defend the recent path/design choices/modern trends! Tell me why D&D is either still being true to it's origins, or why spitting in the face of what D&D has been is a good thing for the game.

Is D&D still being true to what it once was? If it's not, is that bad?

This, by the way, seems a lot more interested in the "soul" of the game than in the "sales" of the game. Unless you believe soul and sales to be the same thing? To me, the soul isn't in the mechanics, but rather in how those mechanics are used (and, as a result, in what those mechanics encourage/reward).

n effect, criticizing McD's for bad hambugers is pointless complaining and griping about 3e for "too many options" (for instance) is similarly whining -- McD's is interested in the more-profitable venues of convienience and cost, they never claimed to win taste tests with French chefs. 3e is interested in tools and customization, they never claimed that a limited suite of selectable classes (for instance) was something they'd ever be interested in.

Now, the REAL issues to gripe about 3e are numerous enough, I don't know why people would invent issues such as "videogamey" or "too easy on the players" (pretty much entirely false and/or subjective criticisms) based entirely on snap judgements of limited evidence just to have something new to whine about.

We know what 3e offers in the way of a balanced, codified, easily-tweakable ruleset and a baseline that allows for said balance (and controlled deviations from it). What did earlier editions offer that was special to them, that has been lost?

And I want *real* offers that can be backed up by *real* differences, none of this vague griping about how it feels. Tell me, with specifics, what 2e and 1e and OD&D did that 3e does not and cannot do, and why it was *good* that they did that and why it is *bad* that 3e doesn't.

So, I guess that answers your question, at least in part.

3e, if one is to accept your statements at face value, isn't interested in "flavour", whereas flavour was the primary concern (IMHO & IME) of earlier editions. You simply cannot have any kind of meaningful discussion of the "soul" of D&D (or, I expect, anything else) without getting into abstractions.


RC


(Side Note: Hussar, you may not be able to Awaken a rust monster, but I can. When I run a game, I am the DM. Just a nitpick right back atcha! )


EDIT: It occurs to me that this might have something to do with the soul of D&D, then and now. I don't think it would have occured to anyone in previous editions to tell another DM that he can't make a rust monster intelligent & self-aware. Or that he couldn't use a rust monster for comedic relief. The rust monster worked perfectly well for all sorts of encounters before....now it is just a trap? A trap on legs? That's all you're allowed to do with it?

For an edition that embraces options, it certainly has a following that embraces limits.


RC

 

[Odhanan]

3e, if one is to accept your statements at face value, isn't interested in "flavour", whereas flavour was the primary concern (IMHO & IME) of earlier editions.

Well, all that MacDonald comparison aside, do you truly believe that RC?

I certainly don't think 3E is not interested in flavor. And when you say flavor was the primary concern of earlier editions, how did you come to this conclusion, in your experience?

I'm not saying it's wrong, but honestly, I'd say that the focus of AD&D, for instance, was on the actual adventure and less the world that surrounded it, as opposed to AD&D2, which was more focussed on worlds and less on dungeon crawling, and 3E which is sort of an attempt in a blend of the two. Off the top of my head, without thinking too much about it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, all that MacDonald comparison aside, do you truly believe that RC?

I certainly don't think 3E is not interested in flavor. And when you say flavor was the primary concern of earlier editions, how did you come to this conclusion, in your experience?

I'm not saying it's wrong, but honestly, I'd say that the focus of AD&D, for instance, was on the actual adventure and less the world that surrounded it, as opposed to AD&D2, which was more focussed on worlds and less on dungeon crawling, and 3E which is sort of an attempt in a blend of the two. Off the top of my head, without thinking too much about it.

I was making an attempt to highlight the problem with the McGame School of Edition Comparison more than anything.

However, since you asked, I believe that the ruleset is excellent (though, for my purposes, still requires tweaking) but that the books themselves are not nearly as flavourful as those of earlier editions. It is good for a ruleset to offer the means to include many, many options, but the philosophy behind the ruleset should (IMHO, of course, YMMV) offer meaningful advice about limiting those options to create a cohesive milieu. Even if that milieu is going to be used for just one campaign. Limitations should exist because of campaign consistency, not because the rules don't contain a provision for Awakening a rust monster.

1e had a lot of material for world-building, and the conceptual importance of world-building was well supported in Dragon. When 2e came out, they promoted this aspect -- seemingly they thought it was the "soul of D&D". However, 2e went too far in that direction, creating modules in which it seemed that the PCs were an afterthought. Blech!

I am somewhat saddened by the diminishing role of the DM, not in terms of the rules so much as in terms of the setting. For example, the DM is either allowed to limit classes and races without being a "bad DM" or he is not.

Then again, I readily acknowledge that what I think is important for flavour is the antithesis of what is important for sales. I am more than willing to tweak a system into exactly what I want. And, in my case, that includes reproducing some of the player advice from 1e.

RC

 

[Thurbane]

...

 

[Thurbane]

You simply cannot have any kind of meaningful discussion of the "soul" of D&D (or, I expect, anything else) without getting into abstractions.

That's the point I've been trying to get accross - summed up very well.

For an edition that embraces options, it certainly has a following that embraces limits.

Also very true. This may or may not be a direct result of the ruleset, but it is certainly a sentiment I see time and again both here and (even moreso) at the WotC forums. Now, I'm sure people will howl me down and say that the Interweb isn't a good indicator, but I still say that there can't be THAT much smoke without SOME fire...

 

[I'm A Banana]

You simply cannot have any kind of meaningful discussion of the "soul" of D&D (or, I expect, anything else) without getting into abstractions.

So when people are saying that 3e has lost the "soul of D&D" that's really just another way to say "3e sucks more" and putting window dressing on it?

Did I give people on the internet too much credit for intellectual honesty again?

 

[Thurbane]

So when people are saying that 3e has lost the "soul of D&D" that's really just another way to say "3e sucks more" and putting window dressing on it?

Did I give people on the internet too much credit for intellectual honesty again?

Not at all, I don't know where you'd draw that conclusion from.

If someone said to me "3E has lost the soul of D&D", I would assume that, to that person, some essential part of what defines D&D for them has been lost along the way...not necessarily as "OMFG 3E suxx0rz!"...