Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Caedrel" data-source="post: 2114654" data-attributes="member: 7477">Interesting...I agree that the advice to ignore ALL of the posts saying to &quot;forget everything, etc&quot; was overly general: however, I do think Ike had a valid point that some of those posts were disparaging 3e qualititatively. Certainly it seems that the majority have interpreted Diaglo's statement &quot;IT AIN'T D&amp;D&quot; not as a very reasonable statement that 3e D&amp;D &lt;&gt; pre-3e D&amp;D, but as an inflammatory statement that 3e has somehow lost the essence of what made D&amp;D fun. It's hard interpreting nuances on message boards, but from the other comments I've seen, it looks like Diaglo's views are well known elsewhere. By refusing to acknowledge this, Akrasia is hurting her own otherwise well constructed arguments.She does have a point that &quot;better&quot; is an entirely subjective perception, though. For those people who think consistency and transparency and balance is important in a a set of mechanics, then 3e will be &quot;better&quot; than the D&amp;D versions that preceded it. However, some people won't share this view because they like the greater absolute (and therefore potentially arbitrary ) power previous editions invested in the DM, giving him (or her) more freedom to forcibly direct the PCs into situations for the sake of storytelling or atmosphere or whatever. By codifying a lot of these things, 3e has taken a lot of the mysticism and perhaps some of the romanticism out of the game. Personally, I like 3e very much.Spider, I think it would be helpful to post just how experienced your &quot;new&quot; players were in 2e - much of the advice in this thread assumes that they had a very deep and still current knowledge of the 2e rules, but if they only played it in high school and had only a very high level view of it, then they may not have that much to &quot;unlearn&quot; and can just start over with the game mechanics.I think it's worth pointing out that the things they need to forget really only relates to the game mechanics, though... they'll find that, flavour-wise, 3e tries to retain much of the settings and history that they are familiar with, whether they were Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms fans. Mind flayers and beholders are still ultra dangerous, drow still super cool <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> dwarves still doughty, halflings still short, etc etc etc <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Caedrel, post: 2114654, member: 7477"] [b]Interesting...[/b] I agree that the advice to ignore ALL of the posts saying to "forget everything, etc" was overly general: however, I do think Ike had a valid point that some of those posts were disparaging 3e qualititatively. Certainly it seems that the majority have interpreted Diaglo's statement "IT AIN'T D&D" not as a very reasonable statement that 3e D&D <> pre-3e D&D, but as an inflammatory statement that 3e has somehow lost the essence of what made D&D fun. It's hard interpreting nuances on message boards, but from the other comments I've seen, it looks like Diaglo's views are well known elsewhere. By refusing to acknowledge this, Akrasia is hurting her own otherwise well constructed arguments. She does have a point that "better" is an entirely subjective perception, though. For those people who think consistency and transparency and balance is important in a a set of mechanics, then 3e will be "better" than the D&D versions that preceded it. However, some people won't share this view because they like the greater absolute (and therefore potentially arbitrary ) power previous editions invested in the DM, giving him (or her) more freedom to forcibly direct the PCs into situations for the sake of storytelling or atmosphere or whatever. By codifying a lot of these things, 3e has taken a lot of the mysticism and perhaps some of the romanticism out of the game. Personally, I like 3e very much. Spider, I think it would be helpful to post just how experienced your "new" players were in 2e - much of the advice in this thread assumes that they had a very deep and still current knowledge of the 2e rules, but if they only played it in high school and had only a very high level view of it, then they may not have that much to "unlearn" and can just start over with the game mechanics. I think it's worth pointing out that the things they need to forget really only relates to the game mechanics, though... they'll find that, flavour-wise, 3e tries to retain much of the settings and history that they are familiar with, whether they were Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms fans. Mind flayers and beholders are still ultra dangerous, drow still super cool :) dwarves still doughty, halflings still short, etc etc etc :) [/QUOTE]

Verification