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

[Quasqueton]

D&D prior to 3e was a good game, too.

I corrected your statement. You made it sound like D&D3 was not a good game.

Quasqueton

 

[rogueattorney]

I corrected your statement. You made it sound like D&D3 was not a good game.

I don't know if I should assume you're joking and wisecrack back, or assume that you really are that sensitive and leave well enough alone... I guess life is full of hard choices. Allow me to re-correct my statement:

D&D prior to 3e was a good game. 3e ran over my dog, impregnated my sister, and supports international terrorism.

R.A.

 

[Henry]

fah! My first 45 was Juke Box Hero by Foreigner...
My first car was an '85 Renault Encore...

My first 45 was Phil Collins - I still listen to him. My first car was an '88 grand Am. I still own a '91 Grand Am, that, while crappy, still runs. Yet, I listen to Black Eyed Peas and drive a newer car FAR more than I listen to Phil Collins or drive my crappy Grand Am. One can also accept nostalgia for what it is, recognizing and going with it.

...if that first experience isn't a positive experience, then you aren't going to be nostalgic are you? No one waxes poetically about their first trip to the dentist.

Still miss that first dentist office, because he had some really cool coloring books. Even in pain is nostalgia to be found. I haven't asked, but I imagine even a soldier might find a good memory or lesson they learned back from boot camp years ago.

My point is that the experience we had with D&D as children, teens or young adults heavily influence just how good we see the games we first played to be. Looking at it objectively, what were good points in some cases just don't turn out as well when you measure it by an audience that has seen it before. I don't deny they were good games; I however have my doubts that they had lots of things that have been removed from D&D now. I have played games of 3E with people that I played 1E with; I had just as much fun, and the phrase "just like old times" easily comes to mind when I reminesce over it. It's not so much the game, as the people I play with.

 

[diaglo]

It's not so much the game, as the people I play with.

it's the game.

i'm having just as much fun playing the same game now that i did back then. different people tho... now.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

The 3.x versions of the game lack the quirks, idiosyncratic writing styles, and aesthetic/stylistic charms of 1st edition AD&D or Basic/Expert D&D. Hence 3.x will never generate the same amount of nostalgia as the early versions of D&D do (yes, there will be some nostalgia, but just not very much of it in comparison to O/AD&D).

I mean, you don't see much in the way of nostalgia for Dragonquest -- a very slick and well-done game in its time. The same goes, to a lesser extent, for 2nd edition AD&D. The reason: Dragonquest and 2nd edition AD&D lacked the charm and character of the 1st edition AD&D or basic/expert D&D rules. (Yes, there are many 2nd editions fans out there, but their numbers are dwarfed by those who have nostalgic feelings for 1st edition AD&D or basic/expert D&D.)

The same goes for 3.x. Technically, the system has many virtues that the earlier editions lack. It is also a much "slicker" product. But it simply lacks the (admittedly semi-professional and decidedly "unslick") charm and character of 1st edition AD&D and basic/expert D&D.

You just wait 20 years and I'll show you the meaning of nostalgia .

 

[Henry]

it's the game.

i'm having just as much fun playing the same game now that i did back then. different people tho... now.

If it's all about the game, then why do people who try it without a good DM, never re-play it?

 

[talinthas]

You know what? I _do_ miss the D&D of 2000. That was when i ran my first game (despite having played off and on for ten years) to a willing group of total newbies who i taught to play. We only had the 3e phb, since the DMG and MM hadnt come out yet, and nobody knew the rules well enough to be a hardcore lawyer, and ruin cinematically cool moments by saying that the BBEG can't do so and so because he's got hte wrong feat package. I ran a Dragonlance game for 13 people, and it was probably the best campaign i ever played. It was early in my college career, so i had all the time in the world, and we could play till the sun came up. I miss not having to worry about splat books and knowitall players who grapple my bad guys to death. I miss having groups of gamers who were so new that every goblin was frightening, every roll breathtaking, and every crit a reason for jubilation. I can finally understand what these grognards mean when they say they miss the newness and the soul of 1e. I truly miss the early days of 3e.

 

[rogueattorney]

If it's all about the game, then why do people who try it without a good DM, never re-play it?

This is what I'm talking about with people who refuse to acknowledge that OD&D/1e was a good game. From '75 to '85 or so it sold millions and millions of books. A whole bunch of people played it, and a whole bunch of people had fun with it. It's not just the fact that they all had "good DM's". Jeesh! How many people who've played 3e (or any other RPG) without a decent DM never played the game again?

You know, I could turn this whole nostalgia thing around and accuse 3e fans of being the type who'll buy anything spewed into a box, so long as it's bright and shiny and says "new edition" on it. You know that's part of the attraction, just like nostalgia is part of the attraction to fans of OOP games. However, I'm not going to go all the way and say that's the only reason people like the game. I see there is some merit in the new edition, even if it isn't my preferred game.

R.A.

 

[Henry]

This is what I'm talking about with people who refuse to acknowledge that OD&D/1e was a good game. From '75 to '85 or so it sold millions and millions of books. A whole bunch of people played it, and a whole bunch of people had fun with it. It's not just the fact that they all had "good DM's". Jeesh! How many people who've played 3e (or any other RPG) without a decent DM never played the game again?

That can be easily attributed to the fact that it was new, at the time. This, plus the lack of twenty years of game development, hides quite a few minor flaws. Also, 1e's popularity was never greater than during the B.A.D.D. debacle of the early 1980's. This is something that Gary Gygax has actually substantiated during interviews. He actually said that the whole Satanic flap heralded a huge jump in sales at the time.

You know, I could turn this whole nostalgia thing around and accuse 3e fans of being the type who'll buy anything spewed into a box, so long as it's bright and shiny and says "new edition" on it. You know that's part of the attraction, just like nostalgia is part of the attraction to fans of OOP games. However, I'm not going to go all the way and say that's the only reason people like the game. I see there is some merit in the new edition, even if it isn't my preferred game.

Except that it doesn't come in a box anymore (much to my chagrin). "New" was part of the attraction back then, too, don't forget that. The innovation of the game was part of its success, as was the quality, the right people at the right time helming the project, and the political & social climate.

If you look at the game, though, and do a critical analysis of the actual contents and organization of the original D&D game, it's nowhere near flawless. As a teaching tool to the uninitiated, it leaves a lot to be desired; it assumes you are a wargamer with quite a bit of experience under your belt. As a full supplement to playing a complete campaign setting, it's a bare-bones setup; however, some do see this (as Diaglo does) as one of its greatest strengths. I see it was a complete non-draw to someone who wants to start playing with no prior knowledge.

Looking back at OD&D, and AD&D, if it weren't for the Basic editions, I never would have played! It was only by the grace of Moldvay that I went before AD&D, and only years later that I figured out all the rules I had gotten wrong because I simply assumed the same rules from Basic D&D or imported my own. AD&D, nor the Basic set, made any acknowledgement of each other, no info on how they differed, or any such thing that would have saved me years of floundering around not knowing how to play the game even remotely true to the rules.

Fast forward to years of hindsight, and years of seeing shortcomings noted and addressed. The 3E PHB does IMO a much better job of teaching its rules than AD&D did; it does a better job of keeping on target to its stated goals of encouraging variety, but within the rules rather than breaking them to encompass the same. Even then I recognize big flaws in the structure, in that those self same goals make it harder to design outside the box of the interlocking of feats, skills, and a unified XP chart.

Good game? Yes!
Better Game? I have to agree to disagree.

 

[buzz]

Slick? I'd call the mess that was the Dragonquest rules set a lot of things, but "slick" isn't one of them. The same goes for "well-done".

Them's fightin' words.

I remember dusting off my copy of DQ a few years ago and (finally) giving it a good read. The kicking myself for not having actually read it and played it back in the day took a long time to die down.