Of Edition Changes, Nostalgia, and Such (Long)

[Weregrognard]

I hate that I have to make such a disclaimer, but please don't make this an edition war thread. Everyone has a valid argument for liking or not liking X or Y edition, so no need to argue about it. Okay?

Now, I was thinking about why it has been so easy for me to switch D&D editions over the years, when for others it has been much more difficult if not impossible (or undesirable). Obviously, there are as many reasons as there are people, but when it comes to me I think I've figured it out: I am more attached to the general D&D idea than the editions themselves.

First, a little history: My progression with D&D and RPGs over the last 17 years or so has been approximately like this: Basic D&D/Rules Cyclopedia, AD&D 2nd edition, experimenting w/other RPGs, 3.0, 3.5, 4E.

My first switch, from Basic D&D to AD&D 2nd, was one born out of curiosity with the D&D universe. I had received a Mail Order Hobby Shop catalog because I submitted the consumer reply card from my Basic D&D set. It was like looking at the Sears catalog during Christmas time. So much cool stuff! "And, what's this? An Advanced version of D&D? I have to check this out!" So I pawned my old Nintendo in order to afford the AD&D 2E core books, and was awed by all the "improvements"* to the basic D&D rules.

After a few years, I started seeing the "flaws"* with the AD&D rules, I started to experiment with many other RPG's popular in the late 90's and they were fun in their own way, but they weren't D&D, so I still played AD&D "warts and all".

My next edition switch, to 3.0 was a huge breath of fresh air. Finally, I could have the rules mechanics of "better"* games with my favorite game. Win-win situation.

3.5 was, at first, sucker punch. Why the changes? Still, I rolled with it once I realized they "improved"* the system in several respects and went on to play quite happily.

So happily, in fact, that the 4dventure banner at Gen Con 07 hit me like a bullet train. Quite frightening since, you know, bullet trains run on rails and not on carpeted floors indoors. They were changing a perfectly good game I had spent much, much money on (what a difference from the Nintendo-pawning days). I felt betrayed.

Except, 3.5 wasn't such a "perfect"* game after all. I realized this when I was browsing the 4E preview books at the local bookstore (no, I didn't buy them since I was still huffy about the change, I'm slime, sue me). I read about the design goals behind it, and it got me thinking about a few things: When was the last time I ran a D&D game that didn't require so much rules-referencing? When was the last time I actually enjoyed game prep, or writing original campaign material/adventures, for that matter? When was the last time I taught D&D to somebody without being looked at with severe confusion?" Etc, etc. I'm really agreeing with their design philosophy. Maybe this edition change isn't so bad.

My apology for verbose history. In the end, what I realize is that I love D&D, period. The game system seemingly mattered, but I don't think it is ultimately what made edition changes easier. The game continues to evolve and no edition is perfect. I think the next edition will have its pros and cons just like the others. I still get inspired when I see Clyde Caldwell or Larry Elmore artwork in some of my older books, for example, but I don't pine for older D&D editions. It just makes me want to play D&D.

Anyone feel similarly?


*Quotation marks added due to high subjectivity.

 

[Wormwood]

When was the last time I actually enjoyed game prep, or writing original campaign material/adventures, for that matter? When was the last time I taught D&D to somebody without being looked at with severe confusion?"

If you're talking D&D, then I don't remember the exact date, but I seem to remember Color Me Badd and Marky Mark on the radio.

edit: Oh yeah, I totally forgot: Last year I was running a 3.5 game for my wife and nephews. After a couple of frustrating sessions, I threw up my hands and tossed out the books and dusted off my old Moldvay Basic Set.

The kids loved it---so much so that I let them keep the set when they moved to Texas.

 

[bobthehappyzombie]

I think my experiance mirrors yours right up until the introduction of 3.5.
We never made the change, just house ruled and handwaved where the rules didn't gel on 3.0.
I was actually very pleased to see 4e right from the onset, the 3.0 game I'm running is experiancing all the classic high level power differential problems that 3rd edition suffers from. Also if I'm honest, I am looking forward to the easier running of 4e, 3e has too many long duration buffs/debuffs to track, even with the complex aides I have devised I lose track.

I have no problems with new systems, even if they prove to be flawed somewhere down the line, I have played literally dozens of different systems, and very few of them were so poor I'd never play them again. The main reason I prefer D&D if I'm honest with myself is a combination of misty eyed nostalgia and continuing product support.

 

[RFisher]

First, a little history: My progression with D&D and RPGs over the last 17 years or so has been approximately like this: Basic D&D/Rules Cyclopedia, AD&D 2nd edition, experimenting w/other RPGs, 3.0, 3.5, 4E.

My path wasn’t very different.

But—after a year or two of 3e—I realized that, for me, playing 3e was like playing Rolemaster. It’s a fine game. It’s similar to D&D. But it doesn’t “scratch my D&D itch” like the earlier editions did—just like Rolemaster didn’t.

Like you, I play 3e, I’m going to play 4e, and I’ll still play Rolemaster. But it is on their own merits. I’m going to break out classic D&D when I want to play “D&D”.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

First, a little history: My progression with D&D and RPGs over the last 17 years or so has been approximately like this: Basic D&D/Rules Cyclopedia, AD&D 2nd edition, experimenting w/other RPGs, 3.0, 3.5, 4E.

My path went like this:

Holmes + AD&D + B/X all mixed.
AD&D (1e) close to BtB
Rolemaster/Call of Cthulhu/Etc.
BECM/RC
3.0
C&C
AD&D (1e)
OD&D 1974

D&D has always been my first gaming love. When 2e hit, I didn't care for it, and drifted into other systems (e.g. Rolemaster) I'd already been dabbling with while still running 1e. I also wanted to run D&D, but few people wanted to play 1e, at the time. I ended up runing BECM/RC, which was great. That lasted all through the 2e period.

When 3.0 hit, I thought I'd give it try. At first I loved it. It gave me everything in D&D that I ever wanted...but it wasn't what I wanted. It wasn't giving the the D&D experience and style of play that I liked. After a while I realized that fact, and I started looking, again. I found C&C, which was great. I started using all my old AD&D and B/X books again. Pretty soon, I realized I was house-ruling C&C to be more and more like the old editions. I decided I might as well play the old editions, since that was what I really wanted. I moved to AD&D (1e) again.

Around that time, I also started looking at OD&D, which is the one edition I never owned and ran. It turns out that OD&D was an even more perfect fit, for me. It was definitely traditional D&D. It encouraged house-ruling and making the game my own (much like C&C did, but more rooted in the traditional D&D rules/feel). It let me use all my TSR D&D material. It's the perfect D&D, for me.

For me, it's not "all D&D." All the TSR editions feel "right" to me (less so for 2e, but it's still compatible). The WotC editions are fine games, but aren't the same. They're different games, to my way of thinking. I might enjoy playing 3.x or 4E on their own merits, but I won't be playing them to scratch my "D&D" itch.

 

[Yeoman99]

I have similar feelings. I started playing AD&D, and went on to DM Basic. I never failed to get the Wow feeling from those games and classic modules, but by the late 80's felt it was going flat - mostly through the quality of design. 2nd edition didn't really make much progress for me and there is little about that system which I remember fondly. 3.0 and 3.5 initially re-ignited those early days feelings in me, and I thoroughly enjoyed the system, until again it became apparent that the direction it took at higher level, and with the newly designed supplements made playing and designing adventures for it more and more complex.

That said I was not keen on some of what was rumoured for 4th edition. It began to sound like a game that I didn't recognise - but was that a bad thing? I am currently reading through it, and I know there are many changes to take on board, but I have an open mind, and won't get the feel for it until I play it. The artwork has not brought a nostalgia rush, but if it delivers what the designers and some of the posters on these boards say, then it looks like it may have lived up to its billing.