Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thasmodious" data-source="post: 4533053" data-attributes="member: 63272">That's really irrelevant, though.&nbsp; Someone could consider rafting a core element of D&amp;D gameplay because all their games have featured a heavy rafting element because their DM is a river guide.&nbsp; D&amp;D has never hidden what its about.&nbsp; It states it clearly in the introductions to every editions core books.&nbsp; It is about the things I said, not because those are what it is about to me, but because those are core concepts the game is built around (not the stuck doors thing, that was just a color comment).&nbsp; It is also irrelevant that other FRPGs use many of the same elements as core elements of their game systems.&nbsp; Other FRPGs are all built from the groundwork of D&amp;D.&nbsp; If you really wish to examine the editions and accuse one of being less &quot;D&amp;D&quot; than the others, that edition would be 3e and specifically through the area of what many people consider it's major strength - it's wide open multiclassing/character building.&nbsp; In every other edition, including 4th, class is a/the central identity of a PC.&nbsp; It is integral.&nbsp; In 3e, class is more a suite of abilities to plug in as you see fit, rather than your character's defining trait as an adventurer. This is a pretty strong departure from every other edition of D&amp;D, with the semi-exception of late Player's Option 2e.&nbsp; I don't feel, at all, that this change made 3e &quot;not D&amp;D&quot;, but many did (it was one of the major sources of 3e hate when the game came out).&nbsp; It was still D&amp;D to me because that introduction described the same game as every other edition, the one I'd been playing since the late 70s.The day edition x comes along and the introduction reads - &quot;D&amp;D is a game in which you play arsticratic businessmen who seek to blend the pressures of upper crust society with their sensitivities for the broader world of social issues, while managing career and social status through deep, Machiavellian strategies.&quot;&nbsp; Then I will take up arms and cry &quot;not my D&amp;D!&quot;&nbsp; Vancian isn't entirely gone, there are still daily slots, that once used, are gone until after a full rest and wizards still memorize those daily spells, both attack and utility, from a spellbook.I find 4e easily backwards compatible (core to core, as you say).&nbsp; You just sometimes have to divorce the 3e class from the 4e class (just like if you wanted to make a 1e cavalier in some other edition).&nbsp; Roles matter as much as class name.&nbsp; A lightly armored, speedy, finesse fighter in 3e is a ranger in 4e, for example.&nbsp; Then you aren't trying hard enough, and your conclusion is entirely faulty.&nbsp; It does not arise from your previous statements.&nbsp; 3e is a very different game than 1e/2e because I no longer use To-Hit tables, is just as invalid a conclusion.&nbsp; Sure, there are some concepts that were built because of what is in a particular edition, especially 3rd, that would seem to be hard or impossible to translate, but, most of the time, those concepts are equally hard to translate backwards as forwards, without substantial reimagining.&nbsp; Still, any concept can be stripped down to basics and adapted to a changing edition (or an entirely new system) in either direction.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thasmodious, post: 4533053, member: 63272"] That's really irrelevant, though. Someone could consider rafting a core element of D&D gameplay because all their games have featured a heavy rafting element because their DM is a river guide. D&D has never hidden what its about. It states it clearly in the introductions to every editions core books. It is about the things I said, not because those are what it is about to me, but because those are core concepts the game is built around (not the stuck doors thing, that was just a color comment). It is also irrelevant that other FRPGs use many of the same elements as core elements of their game systems. Other FRPGs are all built from the groundwork of D&D. If you really wish to examine the editions and accuse one of being less "D&D" than the others, that edition would be 3e and specifically through the area of what many people consider it's major strength - it's wide open multiclassing/character building. In every other edition, including 4th, class is a/the central identity of a PC. It is integral. In 3e, class is more a suite of abilities to plug in as you see fit, rather than your character's defining trait as an adventurer. This is a pretty strong departure from every other edition of D&D, with the semi-exception of late Player's Option 2e. I don't feel, at all, that this change made 3e "not D&D", but many did (it was one of the major sources of 3e hate when the game came out). It was still D&D to me because that introduction described the same game as every other edition, the one I'd been playing since the late 70s. The day edition x comes along and the introduction reads - "D&D is a game in which you play arsticratic businessmen who seek to blend the pressures of upper crust society with their sensitivities for the broader world of social issues, while managing career and social status through deep, Machiavellian strategies." Then I will take up arms and cry "not my D&D!" Vancian isn't entirely gone, there are still daily slots, that once used, are gone until after a full rest and wizards still memorize those daily spells, both attack and utility, from a spellbook. I find 4e easily backwards compatible (core to core, as you say). You just sometimes have to divorce the 3e class from the 4e class (just like if you wanted to make a 1e cavalier in some other edition). Roles matter as much as class name. A lightly armored, speedy, finesse fighter in 3e is a ranger in 4e, for example. Then you aren't trying hard enough, and your conclusion is entirely faulty. It does not arise from your previous statements. 3e is a very different game than 1e/2e because I no longer use To-Hit tables, is just as invalid a conclusion. Sure, there are some concepts that were built because of what is in a particular edition, especially 3rd, that would seem to be hard or impossible to translate, but, most of the time, those concepts are equally hard to translate backwards as forwards, without substantial reimagining. Still, any concept can be stripped down to basics and adapted to a changing edition (or an entirely new system) in either direction. [/QUOTE]

Verification