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

[RFisher]

It's Still D&D To Me

That was beautiful, man!

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?

I could do that, but why build up from a skeletal base extracted from the d20 rules when I have a perfectly good fleshed out system that I'm happy with?

I prefer almost everything about B/X when compared to d20: Classes, races, spells, &c.

Besides, B/X is so simple & easy to remember.

When it comes right down to it, for a "metarule" to fall back on, there are things I prefer to the d20 basic mechanic that I've used even when running d20 games.

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?

Eh, name is unimportant. All I can say is that they're different games, not that one is more deserving of the D&D brand.

I think Michael "Gronan" Mornard was on to something when he wrote (elsewhere):

There are two totally different ways people approach a set of game rules (RPG or other):

• Anything not specifically forbidden is permitted
• Anything not specifically permitted is forbidden

Which one of these you accept will make an incredible difference in how the game works. A lot of people seem to take the #2 viewpoint.

This is an interesting contrast to Remathilis' PoV.

When I first started playing these games, I definately tended towards viewpoint 2, & I think that was what drove me away from (classic) D&D & AD&D. My expectations didn't fit what the game was providing. I think my viewpoint has changed, so I was able to find a new appreciation for the old game.

(Another note is that I don't see the old game as needing ad hoc rules by the DM to make up for the missing rules. Rulings maybe, but not rules.)

 

[ThirdWizard]

Speaking as both a player and a DM (player only at the moment), I can't begin to tell you how incorrect that statement is, at least from my own experience.

Looking at it from both views (player & DM) 3E has its advantages and drawbacks.

Any DM who suddenly has "less power" because of the rule set is merely letting pushy rules lawyers badger him into giving them everything their way.

Compare to previous editions where the Players were specifically prevented from learning the rules of the game, and in which the DMG advised the DM to punish the Players' PCs if they read the DMG. Where large swaths of rules were contained in said DMG, and the Players had to rely on the DM knowing them in order for them to be enacted, unable to tell if the DM was ad hocing or if they were going by RAW.

Regardless of how you or I played, previous editions were definately less Player friendly as written.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

It is very nearly possible to run a PHB-only campaign in 3e. There are a few gaps, but mostly things that experienced DMs could wing.

That is a pretty significant change. I think it is reasonable to argue that is a positive change, although I can also understand that some may not see it as a practical advantage.

 

[Odhanan]

But why? What makes it better now then before? Not that I disagree with you, but the reasons are important.

D&D, for me, is better than it ever was because it makes an excellent job at mixing playing styles and influences into a whole to which anyone can adhere in a way or another and still feel "at home" with one of its aspects or another.

It makes an excellent job at being hack'n'slash or investigative or tactical or dramatic or whatever you want to do with it. The many incarnations of the d20 Systems, which are all basically particular applications of D&D's system, prove this to me.

Whether you're an old-schooler or a newbie, whether you like to kill stuff or to role-play deep inner dilemmas, whether you are a fan of HP Lovecraft or Anime, whatever fantasy tastes and inclinations, whatever gaming style and preferences, you can bend the game to fit your needs. That's what's awesome about it.

 

[Lanefan]

Compare to previous editions where the Players were specifically prevented from learning the rules of the game, and in which the DMG advised the DM to punish the Players' PCs if they read the DMG. Where large swaths of rules were contained in said DMG, and the Players had to rely on the DM knowing them in order for them to be enacted, unable to tell if the DM was ad hocing or if they were going by RAW.

And with a good DM, you never knew whether something was a RAW or a wing-it, nor had much reason to care. I fail to see a problem...

Regardless of how you or I played, previous editions were definately less Player friendly as written.

If by "player friendly" you mean the players having access to much of the nut-and-bolt core mechanics that made the game tick, you're right. But, in terms of preserving the mystery, such restrictions are a Good Thing To Have.

For example, I have a Red Book; a binder in which I keep my DM tables and notes for everything from new magic items to fumbles to wild magic surges to childbirth. Should this be player-accessible? Is my game any less "player friendly" because it isn't? From an admittedly biased viewpoint, I don't think so.

Lanefan

 

[MerricB]

Let's reverse these, shall we?

Fine.

Add level limits to elves like in AD&D. Suddenly, a whole bevy of prestige classes are out of the question.

Remove level limits to elves in AD&D. Suddenly, there's no reason to play humans (or a bunch of other races).

Heck, level-limits in AD&D were presuming a campaign went from 1st-12th level and then ended; thus, elves were worth playing with the knowledge that they'd be slightly weaker at the end. A lot of AD&D is like that - it presumes campaign play of those levels to maintain balance.

D&D 3E doesn't presume such (as much; although see Mystic Theurge for exception). Instead it believes that most classes should be viable at ALL levels of play.

Remove that stupid linear XP chart and put back varied XPs by class. Whoops, now the CR system is broken.

Put a linear XP chart in AD&D. Oops, rogues are now impossibly weak.

Take Feats away from the Fighter class and suddenly they are, by the numbers, less powerful fighters than thieves.

This one cracks me up.

AD&D actually changed the balance of Fighters significantly with Unearthed Arcana. Either fighters were too weak before (and thus for 7 years had been underpowered), or fighters became much, much stronger!

Consider a fighter with a 17 Str. In AD&D before UA, he had a THAC0 of 19 and +1 damage. In AD&D after UA, he had a THAC0 of 16 and +4 damage. Talk about a big change. In a system where HP were much lower, an additional +3 damage per strike was huge.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

The soul of the game: sitting around with friends, exercising wish fulfilment.

Man, I hate the sentiment that "roleplaying" = "wish fulfilment".

 

[Thurbane]

There is definitely more of a "DM versus player" vibe than "a group of friends all trying to have fun together" vibe from a lot of what I read online. Whether or not this is related to the most recent editions I couldn't say for sure, but I strongly suspect the "airtight legalese" that the books attempt to capture with their rules is a contributing factor. All of a sudden it's not as much about a DM interpreting rules or adventure in a way he considers the most fun, or convenient, or whatever - it's more about the players being able to jump up and shout "OBJECTION!" every time they perceive that the DM has stepped outside the RAW.

1E and 2E had their flaws, but guess what - so do 3E and 3.5E. No such thing as the "perfect" roleplaying system exists, or ever will as far as I'm concerned. There is only what works better for individuals and groups. While you could certainly argue that 3E is more coherent or more comprehensive and than 1E/2E, I defy anyone to show me a mathematical formula that either of those qualities equals "better" or more importantly "more fun".

 

[MerricB]

1E and 2E had their flaws, but guess what - so do 3E and 3.5E. No such thing as the "perfect" roleplaying system exists, or ever will as far as I'm concerned.

QFT.

Cheers!

 

[Crothian]

There is only what works better for individuals and groups. While you could certainly argue that 3E is more coherent or more comprehensive and than 1E/2E, I defy anyone to show me a mathematical formula that either of those qualities equals "better" or more importantly "more fun".

Okay: coherent + comprehensive = more fun