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

[Raven Crowking]

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?

Look to your own self, before you cast stones!

After all, it was not me who asked how people felt about something abstract, and then demanded something concrete as a response when the answers he got weren't to his liking.

By Dagon's Briny Beard! If you had read the responses to this thread, you would know that I am not saying "3e sucks more". What I am saying is that the ruleset is great, but the attitude sucks more....I have also said that this shift in attitude might not be the fault of the rules (but that the books could do more to combat it).

On one hand, we have a beautiful toolkit to create far more detailed and precise campaign settings than ever before. We have a toolkit that, we are told, can make a poor DM adequate and an adequate DM a little better than adequate (which is, if true, an improvement, right?) OTOH, we've stripped out nearly all of the language that allows the DM to use that toolkit to its best effect.

Then we've got the Interweb -- again, a fantastic tool. The Creature Forums alone on EN World are worth their weight in platinum. Yet, we've got people saying things like (and I am paraphrasing here, not intended to be the specific position of any one person) "The DM can say No when the players tell him he can," "You can't Awaken a rust monster (because it's not in the rules)", and "If you don't let the players pick what classes are available, you're a bad DM".

Really, I think my position was summed up pretty well in Post 159 (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3102928&postcount=159).

To me, the "soul of D&D" (as it were) is this: "You and your friends enter and explore a strange and unique location, where you encounter dangers and seek rewards." Also, "The DM roots for the players, but doesn't change the situation to ensure their survival."

RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

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!"...

I'd agree, which is why I started the thread to try to find out what was meant by various people by "the soul of D&D." To which I only really got answers that either 3e still satisfies (such as RC's) or vague opinions about player/DM culture and a general hatred of the default guidelines (which aren't realy an issue with any one edition or the other). Which leaves me concluding that saying "the soul of D&D has been lost" = "3e is not 1e/2e/OD&D and this is bad." Which, I do believe, someone posted waaaay back in the thread.

Then we've got the Interweb -- again, a fantastic tool. The Creature Forums alone on EN World are worth their weight in platinum. Yet, we've got people saying things like (and I am paraphrasing here, not intended to be the specific position of any one person) "The DM can say No when the players tell him he can," "You can't Awaken a rust monster (because it's not in the rules)", and "If you don't let the players pick what classes are available, you're a bad DM".

This stuff doesn't seem to be related to any edition, as it existed in preponderance in earlier editions to boot, and still has the same exact answer it did back then.

RC, you don't seem to be saying that 3e has lost D&D's essential soul at all, just that you don't like the "attitude of kids these days." That's really a whole seperate pile of old-man-ism.

I've been trying to understand why 3e is illigitiate D&D in some people's eyes, and it seems to boil down to those people deeming anything not earlier D&D "illigitimate," because it's different and new, rather than for any real fundamental difference in the game. I had hoped there was more to it than that, but if there's nothing in the rules that suggests something different, if there's nothing that the old books actually told you to do that is better than what 3e tells you to do, I may have to chalk it up to reactionary dislike. I don't WANT to, but I don't seem to be given many valid alternatives to why someone would ever say "3e has lost the soul of D&D."

 

[Thurbane]

I've been trying to understand why 3e is illigitiate D&D in some people's eyes, and it seems to boil down to those people deeming anything not earlier D&D "illigitimate," because it's different and new, rather than for any real fundamental difference in the game. I had hoped there was more to it than that, but if there's nothing in the rules that suggests something different, if there's nothing that the old books actually told you to do that is better than what 3e tells you to do, I may have to chalk it up to reactionary dislike. I don't WANT to, but I don't seem to be given many valid alternatives to why someone would ever say "3e has lost the soul of D&D."

OK dude, now I'm almost convinced you are just trolling. You've got over 13 pages of responses of what people do and don't like about the various editions of D&D, and you discount it all as just being personal opinion - when that's all it CAN be.

I seriously have no idea what kind of answer you are looking for.

Oh wait, yes I do..

"Golly gee, looks like I wuz wrong about good ole 3E after all. It's just the bee's knees, and it's soooo much better than those crusty old AD&D versions. You're so wise Kamikaze!"

 

[I'm A Banana]

You've got over 13 pages of responses of what people do and don't like about the various editions of D&D, and you discount it all as just being personal opinion - when that's all it CAN be.

I wasn't trying to just get responses about what people don't like (though I knew that would accompany it). I was trying to understand one specific issue people seemed to have with it -- that illigitimate "not D&D-ness" of 3e.

I mean, most posters have generally agreed that the soul of D&D really still is/can be/should be in 3e, most posts defining the "soul of D&D" are broad enough to really include 3e.

I wanted to find out what people meant by this, and if it had any real weight behind it or if it was just opinionated gripipng (which is fine). Those who post that 3e does is not legitimate D&D, that it has lost the soul, have no evidence that this is any more than subjective reaction.

There's a difference, you see, between "I don't like 3e" and "3e is not really good D&D." I knew they'd both be coming along for the ride, but I wanted to see where "3e is not really good D&D" was coming from. Part of this was trying to see what would make 3e good D&D in their minds. From whatever evidence I can gather, those that believe this can't tell me WHY, according to the books, they come to this conclusion.

I mean, opinions may be varied, but they're rarely unfounded. "3e has lost the soul of D&D" doesn't seem to be motivated by what 3e is or what the soul of D&D is, but rather the fact that there *is* a 3e at all and that it changes things so much.

If I'm trolling, I'm doing a bloody awful job of it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I mean, opinions may be varied, but they're rarely unfounded. "3e has lost the soul of D&D" doesn't seem to be motivated by what 3e is or what the soul of D&D is, but rather the fact that there *is* a 3e at all and that it changes things so much.

Again, I think I am pretty specific. The "soul of D&D" has the capacity to exist in this edition as much as it did in any other. However, because of changes in the guidance structure, you are actually bucking the trend when you play the new game the way that you played the old game.

Trying to get more specific actually makes it harder to convey what is meant, unless you are talking to someone who has had similar experiences.

When I started playing D&D with the Blue Box, and then AD&D 1e, the soul was there because TSR put the soul there. Both then and now, the soul is there (in my games at least) because I put the soul there, and my players put it there. But now, unlike then, I don't get that same sense of "soul" from the rulebooks. I do get that sense from a lot of third-party books, like Arcana Evolved, Necromancer Games stuff, Bastion Press stuff, and Green Ronin stuff.

I wouldn't call 3e illegitimate. Like I said, I quite enjoy the very tweakable ruleset. OTOH, going through this and similar threads, I understand exactly what people are saying about the problems they see with 3.X.

That rust monster thing is a good example of the mindset problems that can occur. I've followed lots of Hussar's posts, and I know that he's a good DM. I feel fairly certain that if he came up with a good idea that required an Awakened rust monster, he could and would use or change the rules to make it work. I feel certain that he could run a rust monster encounter for comedic potential. Yet, conversely, he points out that a rust monster can't be Awakened (letter of the rules trumps creativity) and claims that a rust monster is essentially a trap (mechanics of the rules trump creativity).

These are potent memes. And while, consciously, one might reject them, it seems fairly clear that subconsciously at least, they are widespread.


RC


EDIT: KM, if you are looking for something more concrete, pre-3e D&D was very concrete in its idea that the individual game was more important than the ruleset. Repeatedly, both player & DM were told that all of the rules were options, and that the DM had the right to veto anything. The ruleset existed to provide options and ideas, not to dictate how anything within the game must be done.

3.0 gave the idea of "Rule 0" a much lighter touch. 3.5 degraded it even further.

That isn't just old-man-ism; that is a fundamental difference in how the game is presented. 1e in particular was a tool to enable you to realize your own fantasy world. 3e is a tool to enable you to devise characters. In 1e, a character was very much defined by what he had done in various adventures. In 3e, a character is very much defined by his "build" over 1-20 levels, and which can be determined at each of those levels without actually playing the game at all.

 

[Hairfoot]

The "soul of D&D" has the capacity to exist in this edition as much as it did in any other.

That's my feeling, too. I think any sensation of "soullesssness" comes about because so many themes of D&D have been extrapolated, bastardised, mass-marketed, or simply overused since D&D began.

25 years ago it was easy to conjure up adventures and character templates which seemed novel. Now it's hard to create anything without someone commenting (correctly) that it's just like something from movie/book/comic/MMORPG/anime series X.

Today we're deluged with fantasy narratives and concepts, unlike a couple of decades ago, when any complex fantasy idea was new to its small audience of RPGers. Gaming "magic" is largely a sense of exploring the unknow. But the larger audiences grow for sci-fi/fantasy, the less chance a non-full-time creator (i.e. a DM) can conjure something unexpected.

That, and the sensible expectation of game designers that new DMs don't want to feel like they have to be talented story-tellers and world-designers to run a game, which means a more rules-based D&D.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I've been trying to understand why 3e is illigitiate D&D in some people's eyes, and it seems to boil down to those people deeming anything not earlier D&D "illigitimate," because it's different and new, rather than for any real fundamental difference in the game. I had hoped there was more to it than that, but if there's nothing in the rules that suggests something different, if there's nothing that the old books actually told you to do that is better than what 3e tells you to do, I may have to chalk it up to reactionary dislike. I don't WANT to, but I don't seem to be given many valid alternatives to why someone would ever say "3e has lost the soul of D&D."

Here's my answer.

You go to a restaurant, you see Steak Diane on the menu, you order it, and they serve you a vegetarian substitute made from soya protein.

You complain, and the waiter points out that their Soya Steak is much better than Steak Diane. It has half the fat, it cuts your cholestrol, it comes with crunchy vegetables and tastes better, it's cheaper, in fact, it's better in every way than the Steak Diane you ordered. His Soya Steak is an improvement. Shut up and stop whining.

My answer is, once you take certain things out, what you're serving is not and never will be steak.

In the same way, d20 fantasy is not and never will be D&D.

For me, the acid test is: which of its roots does d20 fantasy most resemble? Is it closest to D&D? Of course not. It's closest to RM2 from ~1990.

Consider: Skill system -> RM2, converted to work with a d20 instead of a d%. Classes -> all use the same xp table, carefully balanced against one another, can switch from one to the other -> RM2 with options from RMC1. Ability scores increase as you gain a level -> RM2. Races -> No level limits, can use almost any creature in the game rather than a fixed range of options -> RM2. Experience point system, balanced between different kinds of action rather than focused around treasure -> RM2. Multiplicity of classes with 30+ options -> RM2. Resists instead of saving throws -> RM2.

D20 fantasy does contain d20 conversions of proper D&D creatures (although, as evidenced in this thread, most proper AD&D creatures are considered "gotcha" monsters which it's unfair for the DM to use -- I have the impression that many of the posters here think it's unreasonable for a DM to kill them when they take the Rambo approach to dungeoneering.) I feel this has a lot to do with preservation of trademarks rather than any inherent love of Umber Hulks or Rust Monsters or Carrion Crawlers, though.

D20 fantasy also does contain the D&D Vancian magic system, although many posters seem to dislike it, and it lacks the multiplicity of tables from RM2 -- but it does keep the inherent lethality of the RM2 combat tables, and there's an expectation that most PC deaths will be from combat, which is RM2.

When I see something called "D&D" I expect it to be D&D. I don't want a half-fat, reduced-cholestrol vegetarian alternative no matter how much better it is.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

EDIT: KM, if you are looking for something more concrete, pre-3e D&D was very concrete in its idea that the individual game was more important than the ruleset. Repeatedly, both player & DM were told that all of the rules were options, and that the DM had the right to veto anything. The ruleset existed to provide options and ideas, not to dictate how anything within the game must be done.

You're gonna get argument on that one because of Gary's statements about the universal and essential nature of the OAD&D rules in Dragon and elsewhere (including the prefaces to some of the 1E rulebooks). At one point, OAD&D was intended to be a universally accepted and applied rules set (i.e. if you're playing AD&D, you play exactly by-the-book or it isn't AD&D). However, I think you're correct when considering OD&D, Holmes, B/X, and BECMI. And I think that, despite Gary's intention, that freewheeling spirit carried over into the way people played OAD&D, too.

I agree with Papers & Paychecks that 3E is a very different beast from earlier editions -- it feels like a different game to me. That's not necessarily a bad thing -- 3E is a fine system -- but it's not the same. There are obvious rule differences (e.g. feats, skill system, universal XP progression, etc), but there's also a different focus or mindset, IMO. I find that 3E emphasizes the rules and rules mastery in a way that previous versions did not. I think that previous versions (especially my favorites, B/X or BECMI) offer a great deal more freedom, especially to the DM. 3E provides a detailed, consistent system, and that's fine, but the same rules and consistency that help "make a poor DM into an adequate one" also take away some of the freedom and creativity and judgment that I enjoy employing as a DM. Is my game in danger of being ruined by inconsistency and loose-cannon rulings? Not so far. I've been a DM a long time; I know what I'm doing, and I don't need a whole slew of detailed rules to "hold my hand."

I don't think 3E sucks. I've had some good games with 3E. But I think it plays very different from earlier editions, and I think it has a rules-oriented approach and emphasis that isn't my cup of tea, at this point. IMO, the whole discussion boils down to "different strokes, man."

 

[Hussar]

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?

Again, this is a case of experience. I had a player in 2e look me straight in the eye and tell me that I couldn't use a manticore in a particular adventure because it was in the wrong terrain. Quoting rules at the DM has existed since day one and is no more prevalent now than it was then. About the biggest difference now, that I see is that DM's who cannot be bothered to learn the rules in the first place suddenly get called out a lot more than they used to. DM's Fiat is no longer seen as a good thing, if it ever was.

Just to continue with the rust monster bit for a second. The vast majority of encounters, very close to all encounters with a rust monster will go one of two ways: either the rust monster gets the drop on the party and rusts someone's weapon before the armored guys shove the wizard out in front to club the rust monster to death or; the party spots the rust monster, and shoves the wizard out in front to club it to death.

BR has it entirely wrong. It's not that many monsters are Gotcha monsters. Gotcha monsters aren't simply me whining. They are a small number of creatures that fit the following criteria:

• They exist specifically to affect one group of players - rust monsters screw fighters, ear seekers screw thieves.
• They have abilities which are permanent or are very, very difficult to reverse
• Almost every encounter with said creature will result in almost the same events every time.

Now, creatures that don't fit those three aren't really Gotcha creatures. A medusa doesn't since a medusa can be used in so many different ways and aren't there specifically to screw over anyone in particular. I am completely at a loss to understand why people feel the need to defend these creatures. Why bother wasting the space in the Monster Manual when you could sort them out in a paragraph?

By the way, what is RM2?

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

RM2 = Rolemaster circa 1991, usually interpreted as the core 1e RM books plus the first three to five companions.