Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 3823577" data-attributes="member: 3887">Seeing as neither of us have any actual data on whose preferences are in the majority, let's drop this, ok? Oy vey.RC, let me try and explain where I'm coming from. I do, in fact, like D&amp;D. I started playing it around 22 years ago, in a 1e AD&amp;D campaign that sported a homemade spell point system (no memorization/Vancian magic), the crit tables from Arms Law, the non-weapon proficiencies from the wilderness guide book, which I think was the first full-fledged skill system in D&amp;D, plus a whole lot of optional material from the Dragon and White Dwarf and a slew of cottage press supplements.That was D&amp;D.During college and then for years after I played in a quasi-medieval 1.75e (AD&amp;D + Unearthed Arcana + limited 2e materials) campaign that eventually turned into a high-magictech game complete w/spell-powered fighter planes.That was D&amp;D, too. Currently I run a kitbashed mix of 3.5 (with a surprising number of options turned on) and Monte's Arcana Evolved, with a lot of homemade setting-based changes. Mechanically, it's a vastly different game.It's still D&amp;D.When you talk about my seeing &quot;none of it's charms&quot;, I have to wonder which &quot;it&quot; are you talking about; OD&amp;D, AD&amp;D, Rules Cyclopedia, 2nd Edition, 2nd Edition + Skills and Powers, 3rd/3.5? I've got news for you; over the past 30 years there have been several different games have been sold under the brand name &quot;D&amp;D&quot;. Sure, they bear some similarity to one another, but when you compare basic AD&amp;D --or OD&amp;D-- to late-era 3.5, it's hard for me to see them as the same game.And yet they're still all D&amp;D. Frankly, none of the proposed changes for 4e look more radical than the ones between 2e and 3e. D&amp;D has endured significant changes in it's basic mechanics multiple times over the past 30 years, and the prevailing wisdom, at least around here, is that the game's gotten stronger. We've all --even diaglo-- been doing that for 30+ years, why stop now?I hope they improve the industry leader. As do you. We disagree on how to accomplish it.At some level you must realize that people with different opinions about D&amp;D like the game as much as or more than you do, right? You're a smart guy, you should recognize this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mallus, post: 3823577, member: 3887"] Seeing as neither of us have any [i]actual data[/i] on whose preferences are in the majority, let's drop this, ok? Oy vey. RC, let me try and explain where I'm coming from. I do, in fact, like D&D. I started playing it around 22 years ago, in a 1e AD&D campaign that sported a homemade spell point system (no memorization/Vancian magic), the crit tables from Arms Law, the non-weapon proficiencies from the wilderness guide book, which I think was the first full-fledged skill system in D&D, plus a whole lot of optional material from the Dragon and White Dwarf and a slew of cottage press supplements. That was D&D. During college and then for years after I played in a quasi-medieval 1.75e (AD&D + Unearthed Arcana + limited 2e materials) campaign that eventually turned into a high-magictech game complete w/spell-powered fighter planes. That was D&D, too. Currently I run a kitbashed mix of 3.5 (with a surprising number of options turned on) and Monte's Arcana Evolved, with a lot of homemade setting-based changes. Mechanically, it's a vastly different game. It's [i]still[/i] D&D. When you talk about my seeing "none of it's charms", I have to wonder which "it" are you talking about; OD&D, AD&D, Rules Cyclopedia, 2nd Edition, 2nd Edition + Skills and Powers, 3rd/3.5? I've got news for you; over the past 30 years there have been several different games have been sold under the brand name "D&D". Sure, they bear some similarity to one another, but when you compare basic AD&D --or OD&D-- to late-era 3.5, it's hard for me to see them as the same game. And yet they're still all D&D. Frankly, none of the proposed changes for 4e look more radical than the ones between 2e and 3e. D&D has endured significant changes in it's basic mechanics multiple times over the past 30 years, and the prevailing wisdom, at least around here, is that the game's gotten stronger. We've all --even diaglo-- been doing that for 30+ years, why stop now? I hope they improve the industry leader. As do you. We disagree on how to accomplish it. At some level you must realize that people with different opinions about D&D like the game as much as or more than you do, right? You're a smart guy, you should recognize this. [/QUOTE]

Verification