D&D 3E/3.5 Fond Memories of ENWorld and the 3E Launch

[Orcus]

The funny thing to me is the "grognard" element. Many 4E rejecters are serious old school types. Now, some never even embraced 3E, so it is no surpirse that they reject 4E.

But I find that funny. Because many of those grognards played back in the day.

Let me ask this: did you reject the AD&D Monster Manual and Player's Handbook when they came out? Or the DMG? Did you say "that's not my D&D, its taking away my control and my freedom, that isnt the game I play." For the most part, I would guess you didnt. Most of you were probably like me: you couldnt get enough! When the Greyhawk supplement came out you loved it. When Eldritch Wzardry came out, you loved it. When AD&D came out, you loved it.

So why accept those rule changes but then reject these? Why reject advances to the game?

Is it because of who the authors of the changes are? If so, then you wouldnt ever accept a new version of the game. What can we do about that? If the position is "Gygax didnt write it so I dont want it?" Is that it?

Is it that you have mastered the rules as they are and dont want to change?

Is there something inherent in 3E that makes you say "this is it, this is the ultimate incarnation of the game and I refuse to even view another one"?

Is it the nostalgia? "This is how it is, dont change it, because if you do then you are changing my beloved memory"?

Maybe I am mis-remembering because I was relatively young, but I remember D&D players absolutely embracing changes and advances to our game. Why are those same old school guys the ones now who seem so against change?

An interesting question, to me anyway. Maybe not to anyone else

Clark

 

[Orcus]

As I think back, AD&D actually did cause a huge amount of controversy. Lots of people were pissed at Gygax. I remember the whole flame war stemming from Gygax basically saying "if you werent playing AD&D exactly by these rules then you werent playing D&D." That turned alot of people off. Because that boxed set, those rules were real loose. We DMs and players were making up tons of house rules. And tehre were all sorts of supplements--Arduin, those rules from Cal Tech that were so great (Complete Warlock, if I remember correctly) that I used, etc. Gygax took control, centralized power, and said this is it--this is D&D and nothing else is. Maybe the true OD&D grognards were the AD&D rejectors But most of us here who associate ourselves with old school are talking about AD&D, and that was a pretty controversial rules advancement in its own way.

I'll have to remember where Gygax's statement comes from that angered so many. I cant remember if it is in the preface to the PHB or DMG or if it was in a Dragon article. Maybe someone can help me with that bit of history. Believe it or not, I do recally people saying "how dare he tell me how I have to play this game." Seems wierd...

Clark

 

[JohnRTroy]

There was a dragon--67 or 68, Poker, Chess, and the AD&D game. And also an editorial where he gives his opinion about Tolkien's world and how he felt it was lacking in variety.

I once asked him about that, since I wanted to write for Dangerous Journeys, and if I remember correctly, he said he felt AD&D was the type of game that could be hurt by too many changes--change one thing and the whole thing could get out of whack--but that he encouraged people to contribute to DJ (and later LA), and he stopped caring about official and unofficial. (Remember the old Days where sometimes Gary would mark contributions from others as "official". I remember those days when "contributing editors" created things like the Dwarven and Elven pantheons and the Astral Plane.)

There's a good thread at ENWorld where somebody brings up a few of these quotes (I think it's an old Gygax thread):

http://www.enworld.org/archive/index.php/t-121380-p-2.html

I think it points out how AD&D was meant to be a correction from all the "house rules" D&D grabbed.

 

[DaveMage]

So why accept those rule changes but then reject these? Why reject advances to the game?

Is it because of who the authors of the changes are? If so, then you wouldnt ever accept a new version of the game. What can we do about that? If the position is "Gygax didnt write it so I dont want it?" Is that it?

Is it that you have mastered the rules as they are and dont want to change?

Is there something inherent in 3E that makes you say "this is it, this is the ultimate incarnation of the game and I refuse to even view another one"?

Is it the nostalgia? "This is how it is, dont change it, because if you do then you are changing my beloved memory"?

Bottom line: I have not explored the 3.5 ruleset completely enough to change at this time. We've only had 4 years of it. It's too soon.

Now if 4.0 was only a minor upgrade (as 3.5 was to 3.0) we would not be having this conversation. I would upgrade without thinking twice. However, with a major rules change, it means I've purchased around 30 *rules-heavy* books that I have not even begun to play with that will be rendered virtually useless. Heck, they *just* came out with MM5! I've barely had time to *skim* it much less use these creatures in a game!

Too soon for a major rules change.

How many WotC 3.5 edition books do you own, Clark?

 

[Aaron L]

I'm kind of wondering, who exactly is still around from those days?

I signed up on Eric's forums in October '99. I remember he had just posted the info on Elven Chain, and I was stoked, and hooked. I've been reading and posting ever since, from when it was just a comparative handful of us to the (seeming to me) millions of us there are around now but I don't have the post count lots of others do (I don't understand how they post so much! )

Does that make me an old guy? Oh God, I was 23 when I started posting here and now I'm 31. I AM old!

I remember Ruin Explorer was here before I was, I think. I'm pretty sure ColonelHardisson was there, too. Psion's been here quite a long time as well, but I can't remember if it was Eric's site or the beginnings of ENWorld.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head. Plus I'm bad with names. I'm sure there are lots of others.

Since the divvying up of the forums into lots of subs, I don't see lots of people I used too, but that's because I pretty much stick to the General forum and don't really look at the others very much. I miss people (hehe)

I'm optimistic about 4E and I'll at least be giving it a look. I started D&D with 2E in '92, encountered 1E in '94 when I met new gaming friends, and switched to 1E pretty much exclusively after that (except for Dark Sun that we used 2E for.) Since 1E and 2E were essentially the exact same system, just with the quirkiness and flowery language of 1E filed off and Demons and Devils removed as a sop to people who didn't even play the game, I grew to resent 2E as an offering to the unwashed masses who cried "satanist" because the game included demons (which were enemies to kill!)

I had just been ostracized from my church by a small but vocal group who whispered about the things I and my brother and our friends did because we played D&D (some said we wanted to watch porn movies at our Church Youth Group weekend sleepovers, had killed several dogs and cats, and other such ridiculous, vile, and hurtful things. We quit ging to church then, and to me, 2E came off as nothing more than a servile attempt to bend to the wishes of those kind of people, and I rejected it harshly for that reason.

Then Eric started gathering news abut3E, and it seemed like a genuine improvement of the system, and not the whitewashing and representation of the same rules minus the "offensive elements" that 2E had been. Demons and Devils were back. Character optimization went through the roof. I could play a human Fighter/Mage! Any race could be any class! The supposedly mighty and incredibly magically powerful Elven race was no longer restricted in how powerful it's wizards could become! Heck, I could just play a wizard with a sword! (like Gandalf) or be a powerful sorcerer-blademaster (like Rand al'Thor.)

I was thrilled!


I am really happy with 3.5, especially after PHB II. I like the crunchiness of it, the detail, and the character customization options. I like 6 second rounds and blow-by-blow detail of combat. But if 4E is better, well than, I'll go to 4E. But if 4E removes a lot of character customization in order to "streamline" things, I won't like it. If it cuts down on detail and abstracts things too much for the sake of "speeding up play" I won't like it. If it, to use Ryan Dancey's analogy, "pulls back the camera" and makes combat rounds so long that combat becomes some really abstract blurry thing, I won't like it at all. If it opens things up and presents more options, I will like it. If it allows me to make characters more tailored to just how I want them, I will like it.


So, I'm quietly optimistic about 4E, and I'll be getting at east the first books. If it's good enough, I'll be switching. If not, then I won't. But I'm not going to attack and knock the game before we know more then scattered hints and imaginings, like other people are. Ultimately I think I would have preferred to wait two or maybe 3 more years for 4E, but I definitely know that 3.5 isn't so good that there isn't room for improvement, and if Star Wars Saga is any indication of what 4E will be like, like they've said, then I think that I'll be happy.


Heh, sorry for rambling for so long.

 

[Orcus]

"How many WotC 3.5 edition books do you own, Clark?"

Lots and lots! Too many to count. You should see my basement. I have probably 6+ bookcases full of roleplaying game stuff. My wife cant stand it. And dont forget, in addition to all the stuff I buy I also get lots of stuff for free. So much I could never use it all, let alone actually even read most of it.

I dont get that as a reason not to change. Not criticizing, just saying. I'm a gamer. I spend tons of money on game stuff. I have subscribed to Dungeon forever. I bought lots and lots of modules from TSR I never ran (including some really lame ones). I have boxed sets full of stuff I've never used. And that is before 3E. I got more of that with 3E. And I wont bat an eye getting more with 4E. I'm a gamer. I buy game stuff. I dont get this "I have to use up what I have first" thought process. Not criticizing, just saying. Its always there for you. It just means you have more stuff to work with. And staying with 3E wont fix that. Lets say there was not a 4E. You would still have more 3E stuff than you could use. Its not like companies would stop making it. You'd never catch up. You wont ever catch up.

That sounds like an after the fact excuse to justify not switching. I dont see the logic in it otherwise.

I've never yet in all my years met a gamer who said "I have to use the game stuff I have before I buy more." Not until someone wanted an argument not to change editions, that is....

Not judging. Just saying.

Clark

 

[Orcus]

"I have not explored the 3.5 ruleset completely enough to change at this time. We've only had 4 years of it. It's too soon."

I dont get that either. Gaming isnt a scientific exercise in "exploring rulesets." That just smacks of a justification for doing something you want to do--not change to 4E.

What, you are going to run a game session and "discover" a hidden "flavor" of a game mechanic you hadnt yet discovered? That doesnt make sense. You know how 3E works. You know what it does well and what it doesnt do well. I know you do.

And Dave, I'm not criticizing. I respect you greatly. I just dont buy that as an actual reason.

Clark

 

[DaveMage]

Clark,

No, I don't need to use everything before I buy more. That probably couldn't physically happen. My use of the word "completely" was incorrect. Take that out and it says things more accurately.

I'm trying to come up with a way to phrase it better, but the closest I can come to doing so is using a computer game as an example. It's like buying Neverwinter Nights, going through the story, but before the story is over, Neverwinter Nights 2 comes out. Well, I haven't finished Neverwinter Nights 1, and I'm still having fun. Why would I want to buy Neverwinter Nights 2? I'm not ready. Now, one day I might be ready - after I've finshed playing through Neverwinter Nights 1, but not until I'm done.

It's not a perfect analogy, but it kinda says what I want.

 

[Orcus]

Dave,

I hear you and I respect your opinion. I just see a role playing game as different from a computer game. A comptuer game is a discreet thing. It has a beginning and an end. You know when you are "done." I dont see RPGs the same way. But I dont to attack the example.

Clark

 

[DaveMage]

Dave,

I hear you and I respect your opinion. I just see a role playing game as different from a computer game. A comptuer game is a discreet thing. It has a beginning and an end. You know when you are "done." I dont see RPGs the same way. But I dont to attack the example.

Clark

Yeah, it's not a perfect analogy. (Although with NEverwinter Nights, there are lots of people that made add-ons, so technically, you could play that game over and over with a different experience each time.)

Thinking about it last night (and perusing my collection), part of it is that there are just so many good large *adventures* I still want to run without having to convert. Ptolus, City of Brass, the Accordlands campaign, Shackled City, etc.

However, I see where you're going - and I appreciate your point, which, I believe is basically that regardless of rule set, D&D stuff is cool. And I generally agree, but emotionally, I think 4E is too soon, and I choose not to support the decision to release a new edition at this time.