I miss the old D&D of the 00's

[Dark Jezter]

Great post, Quasqueton! It's a fantastic parody of how some of the old timers' nostalgia causes them to view old editions through rose-tinted glasses. Your post even poked fun of people who say that old editions have more "soul" and "imagination" (and other indistinct, nebulous verbs) than 3e, because it allows them to bash the current edition without having a legitimate reason.

Anyways, you made me laugh. Thanks!

 

[Akrasia]

You are confusing popularity with charm/character.

Ummmm .... no. :\

 

[Akrasia]

... It's a fantastic parody of how some of the old timers' nostalgia causes them to view old editions through rose-tinted glasses. ...

While nostalgia certainly does influence the way in which some "old timers" view earlier editions, it is not the only reason why some long-time players like those earlier editions.

There are a number of legitimate, non-nostalgia-based, reasons why some "old timers" like certain aspects of earlier editions over 3.x. (Note that this does not mean that, in liking these certain aspects of OOP D&D, one has to deny that 3.x D&D has many virtues as well. Yes, that possibility may be hard to grasp, but it is perfectly coherent.) I will not bother trying to present an exhaustive list here, but here are a few: faster game pace (especially in combat); lower prep-time for DMs (important for DMs with jobs who do not want to write up half-page stat blocs for half-dragon, half-gnome, sorcerer/druid/mystic theurges); writing style (the 3.x manuals read as dry as dust); irritation with 3.x's need to quantify every single aspect of the game (hence contributing to criticisms -- admittedly not correct for every game -- that 3.x undermines creativity and role-playing); etc.

And frankly, claiming that all "old timers" like earlier editions of D&D only because they are wearing "rose tinted glasses" -- i.e. that the only reason why they like earlier editions is because of nostalgia -- is unfounded rubbish.

If you criticize others for making vague, unsupportable claims involving "soul" or "imagination," at least be consistent DJ, and don't do the same thing yourself.

 

[Dark Jezter]

And frankly, claiming that all "old timers" like earlier editions of D&D only because they are wearing "rose tinted glasses" -- i.e. that the only reason why they like earlier editions is because of nostalgia -- is unfounded rubbish.

Settle down. If you actually bothered to read my post, you would have seen that I said some old timers, not all.

If you criticize others for making vague, unsupportable claims involving "soul" or "imagination," at least be consistent DJ, and don't do the same thing yourself.

I don't. Note that I never said that 3e has more soul or is more imaginative than previous editions. That would be a bogus argument because, frankly, there's no way for me to back up such a statement.

 

[Akrasia]

Settle down. If you actually bothered to read my post, you would have seen that I said some old timers, not all.

I am both quite settled and quite down, but sorry for overlooking the "some" in your post!

 

[Quasqueton]

First off:

When nostalgia goes bad.

I'm curious, Piratecat, why would nostalgia over D&D3.X be "bad"?

Second:
"Soul" is not something a game system has. It is something the players bring to the game.


I played AD&D1 for around 15 years, even right through the early AD&D2 years. I *loved* that game. But I love D&D3 just as much now. Would I go back? For a 1-session, or 1-adventure game, probably. For a campaign, no. No amount of trying again is going to recapture the feel of a 13-year-old playing with his childhood buddies. But I can create whole new feelings with my adult friends with the new game.

It is a sad state of affairs that it seems almost no one can claim a love for AD&D1 without insulting or demeaning D&D3. Its pathetic. In reading all the threads referring to AD&D1, no one gives reasons why they like(d) it, or mention what they miss about it without a backhanded comment against the way D&D3 does it.

And anytime that someone says they like the newest edition of the game, the old grognards take that to mean the speaker dislikes the older edition.

Quasqueton

 

[Gez]

Original d20 (2000) is the one true game.

3.5 is a pale imitation of the real thing.

 

[Akrasia]

... I don't. Note that I never said that 3e has more soul or is more imaginative than previous editions. That would be a bogus argument because, frankly, there's no way for me to back up such a statement.

You misinterpreted what I actually said DJ. I was not attributing to you the claim that 3.x had more soul or imagination. I was claiming that just as assertions about 1st edition's "soul" or "imagination" are vague and unjustified, so too are assertions that "old timers" like OOP versions of D&D only because of nostalgia ("rose tinted glasses").

 

[Akrasia]

... It is a sad state of affairs that it seems almost no one can claim a love for AD&D1 without insulting or demeaning D&D3. Its pathetic.

This is simply not true -- unless you interpret any claim that an OOP version of D&D does something better (at least for certain purposes) than 3.x D&D as necessarily "insulting or demeaning." But that's just being thin-skinned.

For example, 3.x combat is much more tactical than OOP D&D combat. It is also much slower. Whether 3.x combat is superior to OOP D&D combat depends on what kind of game you want to play. If you want to play fast- paced adventures, OOP D&D helps you do that. If you want to have detailed tactical combat as part of your games, 3.x helps you do that.

In reading all the threads referring to AD&D1, no one gives reasons why they like(d) it, or mention what they miss about it without a backhanded comment against the way D&D3 does it.

And anytime that someone says they like the newest edition of the game, the old grognards take that to mean the speaker dislikes the older edition.

Quasqueton

Well, discussions of different editions of D&D are intrinsically comparative. In saying that OOP or 3.x D&D does something well, it is inevitable that the claim in question will be comparative in nature. Some people interpret all comparative claims of this sort as "insults".

 

[hong]

And frankly, claiming that all "old timers" like earlier editions of D&D only because they are wearing "rose tinted glasses" -- i.e. that the only reason why they like earlier editions is because of nostalgia -- is unfounded rubbish.

Correct. The other reason is lack of perspective.