Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Valiant" data-source="post: 3798474" data-attributes="member: 54792">OK, I'm admittedly still recovering from seeing some of the 3E/3.5spikey armored, tattooed covered, mowhawked topped, spandex wearing, &quot;oddly&quot; preportioned (often dimorphic), overly action posed figures found in the computer generated &quot;wash look&quot; artwork of this period.&nbsp; I realize these &quot;modernizations&quot; toned down a bit (espl. so far with 4E).&nbsp; But still, it was definitely a &quot;look&quot; (presenting a visual reality) that suggested a different setting then &quot;The Hobbit&quot; (or similar) at least it did to me (I thought it looked more Road Warrior).&nbsp; People forget how incredibly important artwork can be in setting a general tone reflecting what the world is supposed to look like (in technology, dress, personalities, lighting, etc. etc.) the author wants to present.&nbsp; Every time I see the original PH and DMG covers, it reminds me of where I'm supposed to be more or less.&nbsp; And kudos to Mr. Gygax for placing these illustrations so prominantly.&nbsp; If a picture can say a 1000 words, in the case of FRPGs it says a million.Ever notice how 3E stuck nuetral covers on its original books. That should have been my first clue. &nbsp;Wayne: -If the antithesis of that is what it takes to be D&amp;D, then it is dead. And good riddance, 'cause it ain't coming back.-It is not a complete opposite, no (only in some ways).&nbsp; But the gamemoved away from some of the &quot;canon&quot; of D&amp;D (for example, the role of DM in 3E).&nbsp;&nbsp; Also the concept of customization and blending of &quot;archetypes&quot; was opposite of D&amp;Ds definitions.&nbsp; Those &quot;walls&quot; between types were there for a reason, and it wasn't to make players bored or feel restricted, it was to speed up game play, and establish a sense of experiance (so that you felt like a thief when you played a thief) its always tempting to blend your colors, but when you do you invariably end up with grey every time (something I started to realize after playing 3E for a few months.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;But, Some prefer the blending 3E way, and thats fine.&nbsp; BUt the experiance the game generates is pretty far down the spectrum then what the AD&amp;D or OD&amp;D rules generate.&nbsp; Surely D&amp;D and AD&amp;D are closer to other &quot;modern&quot; FRPGs then 3E, yet we don't call those D&amp;D.&nbsp; So, it really all depends on how inclusive you want to be.&nbsp; When outside games are more similar to the original in &quot;feel&quot; then later editions are, I think you'd need to have a big basket to call 3.5 D&amp;D (defined as what we new in 81').</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Valiant, post: 3798474, member: 54792"] OK, I'm admittedly still recovering from seeing some of the 3E/3.5 spikey armored, tattooed covered, mowhawked topped, spandex wearing, "oddly" preportioned (often dimorphic), overly action posed figures found in the computer generated "wash look" artwork of this period. I realize these "modernizations" toned down a bit (espl. so far with 4E). But still, it was definitely a "look" (presenting a visual reality) that suggested a different setting then "The Hobbit" (or similar) at least it did to me (I thought it looked more Road Warrior). People forget how incredibly important artwork can be in setting a general tone reflecting what the world is supposed to look like (in technology, dress, personalities, lighting, etc. etc.) the author wants to present. Every time I see the original PH and DMG covers, it reminds me of where I'm supposed to be more or less. And kudos to Mr. Gygax for placing these illustrations so prominantly. If a picture can say a 1000 words, in the case of FRPGs it says a million. Ever notice how 3E stuck nuetral covers on its original books. That should have been my first clue. Wayne: -If the antithesis of that is what it takes to be D&D, then it is dead. And good riddance, 'cause it ain't coming back.- It is not a complete opposite, no (only in some ways). But the gamemoved away from some of the "canon" of D&D (for example, the role of DM in 3E). Also the concept of customization and blending of "archetypes" was opposite of D&Ds definitions. Those "walls" between types were there for a reason, and it wasn't to make players bored or feel restricted, it was to speed up game play, and establish a sense of experiance (so that you felt like a thief when you played a thief) its always tempting to blend your colors, but when you do you invariably end up with grey every time (something I started to realize after playing 3E for a few months. ;) But, Some prefer the blending 3E way, and thats fine. BUt the experiance the game generates is pretty far down the spectrum then what the AD&D or OD&D rules generate. Surely D&D and AD&D are closer to other "modern" FRPGs then 3E, yet we don't call those D&D. So, it really all depends on how inclusive you want to be. When outside games are more similar to the original in "feel" then later editions are, I think you'd need to have a big basket to call 3.5 D&D (defined as what we new in 81'). [/QUOTE]

Verification