Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="khyron1144" data-source="post: 3424642" data-attributes="member: 8004">The <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=187918" target="_blank">first one</a> didn't really work out the way that I had hoped for.  I think a lot of it is sleep deprivation while writing the initial essay.  I think this one is better, I hope you do too:Grey Beards & Grognards 2 Who Dies (And My Life In Gaming Editions)?ByJustiN Orion Neal TaylorI am about 25 years old.  I have been involved with the D&D game in some way since about the time I was nine.  One of the earliest things that I got into the game with was the Ravenloft Realm of Terror boxed set.  I thought at the time that games came in boxes, only being familiar with board games.I eventually also picked up the D&D Basic red box (at a Good Will, no less) and the board game-like version of basic D&D that had a paper dungeon map and heavier paper stock stand ups.  I still had no idea what to do with Ravenloft at this time, but had read it backwards and forwards about three times that year alone.  Eventually I used the rules in the book with the board game-like D&D set to create a dungeon on a piece of graph paper and had my dad try to play in it.  I had no idea how to run an RPG or design an adventure at the time.Flash forward to middle school and I’ve picked up the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition Player’s Handbook and Dungeon Master’s Guide.  I also met my friend Jarod, who is my only friend from that era I’ve stayed in contact with.  I’m now a better DM, but I still don’t understand what makes and RPG different from Hero Quest or Monopoly other than the possibility of playing it with only a graph paper map (no board).In high school, I discover Vampire: The Masquerade and learn more about the RP aspects of RPGs.  I believe there may be some cause and effect there.  I run entire sessions of both Vampire and D&D with zero dice rolled and zero rulebooks consulted mid-adventure.  I also run both games very tactically on occasion.  On a road trip during these years, I pick up copies of the AD&D 1st edition Player’s Handbook and Deities and Demigods Cyclopedia (sadly a later printing without the Elric and Cthulhu material).I’m in my freshman year of college when the third edition of D&D comes out.  I eventually acquire all three of the core rulebooks as well as The Creature Collection.  It feels like a very different game system than I’m used to, but I still have a blast playing it.Last year, I picked up an old issue of Dragon from the tail end of the 1e era.  It contains the second installment of the Game Wizards column to be entitled “Who Dies?”  The two “Who Dies?” articles are about the new 2nd edition of the game that’s coming out.There are a number of points raised in the “Who Dies?” articles that got me thinking about how the 1e to 2e changeover may have differed from the 2e to 3e changeover.  Believe it or not, I do not want to start an edition war (for readers on <a href="http://khyron1144.proboards22.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=Debate&thread=1174455953" target="_blank">my forum</a> or the <a href="http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum.php" target="_blank">CBG</a> or <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forumdisplay.php?f=2" target="_blank">ENworld</a> and Jerod, this comment is mostly directed at people on the <a href="http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=8" target="_blank">WotC boards</a>).  I have my preferences.  You have yours.  Different salves for different wounds.One comment made in the second “Who Dies?” article is particularly telling, in my opinion.  The author states that 100% backwards compatibility was a major design goal.  He then goes on to state that any change from the previous edition will lower backwards compatibility from that 100% standard, so it is not an attainable goal.  The highest possible standard of compatibility would be strived for, though.I honestly don’t think that this degree of backwards compatibility was a design goal in 3e.  This is just my gut feeling, but inverting the AC system and adding a new class that had never been in any version of D&D before (Sorcerer) are moves that don’t seem like they fit with as much backwards compatibility as we can get as a chief design goal.Another point he raises is that certain character classes had to be cut from the current edition, either because of balance issues (Barbarian and Cavalier) or for party harmony reasons (Assassin).  He goes on to say such a thing is not that big of a problem for players loyal to those classes because they can be carried over from 1st edition rules, if the group really wants to.  This indicates a fairly high degree of backwards compatibility.  I believe this to be true.  One could play a 1st edition Assassin in a 2nd edition game, if you had a willing DM and a 1st edition Player’s Handbook.It doesn’t really work the same way for a 2nd edition to 3rd edition character.  There may be a class called Fighter in both games.  They might both use d10s for hit dice.  They might both have wide access to weapons and armor, but they are not as mechanically identical as they should be to ensure a high degree of backwards compatibility.If I have a point, and don’t assume that because I took the time to type this up in Word and subject it to spelling and grammar checks and email a copy to my best friend and post it on <a href="http://khyron1144.proboards22.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=Debate&thread=1174455953" target="_blank">my forum</a> and x-post it here that I have a point, it is this:  3e is a cool game, but it does not maintain enough backwards compatibility to be thought of as essentially the same game as the previous versions of D&D.</blockquote>

Verification