GreyLord
Legend
This is NOT an edition war type thing, but something that I think bears out in an opinion.
There is NO secret that a LOT of 3e and 3.5 players feel that this edition is the best edition ever. They feel that any other edition is flawed. They feel that 2e was terrible and horrendous, and feel that 4e is an aberration of D&D.
I would suggest that it is not 2e OR 4e that was the aberration but was in fact 3e. This is not to say 3e is a bad RPG, but it is in fact a great RPG, but not in line with what made D&D...D&D.
D&D from creation was a class based RPG. It was built around classes and each class having a gradual increase in power as it increased in levels. This was built around from the very first version of D&D. It wasn't the combat system, it wasn't the magic system, it wasn't even thieves, it was the class and level idea. Further more, in it's first incarnation there wasn't such a thing as multiclassing or dual classing. The closest was an elf which could choose each adventure whether to be a Fighter that adventure, or a Magic-User. The classes were hardset. There were no skills. There were no feats.
This started to change in AD&D, but multiclassing was specifically only for non-human races and still had SET multiclass types that they could be. There weren't really skills, though there were weapon proficiencies introduced. The closest you could get to what was introduced later was the Dual Classing mechanic...and that was almost impossible for a character to qualify for. It was an exception...not the norm.
2e started a radical departure...however the archtype class and the set levels still existed. Even the multiclasses were still the set archtypes. It also made proficiencies as options in the core rules themselves.
Now during this time there was a whole SLEW of people that HATED D&D and AD&D. Some would play Gurps, some would play Rolemaster. Rolemaster itself was bulit from the ideas that D&D wasn't big enough, that there needed to be more options and more rules. Rolemaster made these, original to incorporate into RPG campaigns, later as it's own ruleset. It was known for LOTS and LOTS of rules and stats. Ironically, some of the future 3e designers worked on Rolemaster.
Many of these Rolemaster fans wanted more skills, less strict class structure, and a more open system sort of like classes with skills. They hated THACO and considered AD&D combat flawed. They wanted more combat maneuvers. They wanted to be able to play any creature or race that existed. They had some many various ideas of what options should be included in an RPG, the only real defining thing that really set them all together was a hatred of anything D&D, most specifically 1e and later the core rules of 2e.
In fact, if one compiled many of their complaints, it boiled down to what MANY HARDCORE 3E PLAYERS THAT HATE OTHER D&D SYSTEMS COMPLAIN ABOUT. Why do I bring this up...
Because in the mid to late 90's AD&D recruited many of these designers of other RPG's, inclusive of Rolemaster and the game began to change. Some called it 2.5, others just avoided it. In it things started getting introduced as more open classes, classes as skill packets, open racial gaming as official rules...etc. The precursors of what was to come.
Which was 3e. This is the point of the entire post, 3e wasn't D&D, but was a reformed form of D&D in the fashion of it's idol...Rolemaster. It wasn't as complex, nor as rules intensive...but was more of a Rolemaster Extremely light. All the things those problem items that people pointed out were problems with AD&D, such as the THACO system, the restrictive class system...were done away.
The BASIC FUNDAMENTAL idea that classes were archtypes and closed...was done away with the multiclassing system. Classes became more of a skill packet thing...where players could pick and choose. This was the basic fundamental sacred cow of D&D from the VERY first iteration. It was 3e that differed from D&D so drastically that it basically killed the idea.
Not that it did that much anyways, since AD&D as a product with viability had been dying off for a decade. The players actually buying stuff were probably large enough to produce a profit, but not large enough to be anything landshaking.
A Lot of the old D&D players had stopped playing D&D finding problems with it and moving onto other systems, such as Rolemaster, Gurps, Shadowrun, etc. With 3e they saw many of the problems they had with the original AD&D, such as being too restrictive, as being corrected. It brought back these people in droves. 3e was a smash hit. It had that taste of D&D with the iconic classes, but corrected what many saw as problems.
Meanwhile, as it brought back many of these, who had played D&D in the past, but had gone the way of other systems because of flaws they saw with AD&D...those who had been hardcore AD&D supporters...were driven away. The old battles of the 80's and 90s between the AD&D players and everyone else who saw problems with AD&D came to the forefront in what people called edition wars...with the old timers claiming 3e was just built off Diablo and video game sensations (afterall, a Barbarian with Whirlwind and other similarities to the Diablo game...etc.) where others who we could call the Rolemaster crowd claiming that instead 3e corrected many problems with AD&D that had existed for decades.
Claims of THACO being too complex (lots of people hence claiming that they hadn't passed 1st grade math with learning subtraction), claims of classes being too restrictive in AD&D (so why even call it D&D if it did away with the class archtype) or that levels as game balance was too restrictive abounded all around. But these old AD&D holdouts vs. 3e players wasn't something new. Many claimed it was...but these WERE THE SAME ARGUMENTS that had been around for DECADES between the AD&D players and the Rolemaster/Gurps/etc. players who disliked AD&D.
Fast forwards a few years...and then you get 4e. The 3e players cried foul claiming that it killed sacred cows...but in truth the only real sacred cow that it killed was Vancian magic...and even then...psionics hadn't existed with Vancian casting ever, and some magics in 3e (not core rules) had already done away with the Vancian Magic idea (take the Unearthed arcana points for magic ideas and such). All 4e did was take some ideas already introduce in 3e, solidify them, and make them core. Take away the ideas from nine swords, or all the powers of the melee classes...and the D20 mechanic still existed. In fact 4e acted a LOT like 3e in it's core idea...more so than 3e was like AD&D.
What 4e really changed was the openess of 3e...Classes returned to being more like Archetypes and Multiclassing got MORE restrictive (at least up until the PHB3, and even with the hybrid classes, you weren't really all that rewarded for taking hybrid classes as you would be with the idea of classes as skill packets). THIS was the sacred cow that 4e killed, not the Vancian magic, but the idea of classes as skill packets.
Hence, all the old arguments arose again, except this time framed in the arguments between 3.x and 4e. In fact, if you look back at the arguments between 3e and AD&D, as well as the arguments between AD&D/D&D and Rolemaster/Gurps, you can see that all of them basically are fundamentally the same in many ways.
So if you've read through this entire LONG WINDED post...in summation I am trying to make this point.
I'm NOT trying to make an edition war with this post at all...but spark a discussion around this point. These ideas of edition wars are actually NOT about sacred cows that 4e killed, nor are they even new. These are arguments that have literally existed for DECADES (not just one, but several).
It's an difference of opinion of what makes a good RPG between the AD&D/D&D types that prefer a Class/Level/Archtype system (much like 4e now has the archtype eve more personified into defenders, controllers, strikers, leaders), and those that feel a good RPG should be more open into more of a skill based system where you can design what you want without having to worry overly about a precedent set in fiction...history...or life.
3e was DIFFERENT then any other version of D&D in that it alone did away with the archetype idea that symbolized D&D previously, and now with 4e. These two groups have NEVER agreed on what made a good RPG in the past...and probably would not now. What is significant is that 3e was the ONLY D&D system that actually would appeal to the old AD&D haters...whilst with it's name and usage of iconic classes having the ability to draw in the old time AD&D players eventually as well. In a way the only real meeting point that had plausibility of combining the two (and yet overall it failed in many ways too, as was seen by what I would term were even MORE strongly worded "Edition Wars" against 3e then I've seen with 4e). 3e appealed to the Rolemaster players...to put it lightly.
With that, of course those that were hardcore into it (rolemaster lite/3e) would never prefer AD&D nor 4e. The very style of these games are abhorrent to them. But their preferences are not new either. What is a mystery is why they would forget the entire history of these same arguments going back to the mid to late 80's with the different skill systems vs. AD&D back then...then the 3e vs AD&D arguments in the late 90s and early 2000s.
Someone mentioned before that many who felt that 4e killed sacred cows for 3e were those who started gaming under 3e. Sometimes I wonder if people just say they played the earlier versions of D&D to try to give their opinions an air of authority...because to me it seems mysterious how they could forget the past. On the otherhand I can see some older Rolemaster players who make the same arguments...but I wonder how they could forget how they argued against AD&D originally as well.
Either way however...I feel that these arguments that some make have NOTHING to do with the sacred cows of what makes D&D, but the preferences of the gaming systems...or the class/archtype systems vs. the skill based systems...aka Rolemaster vs. AD&D...aka...3.X vs. all other forms of D&D.
Arguments almost as old as AD&D itself. Don't start edition wars...but informative, postulation and well backed (either opinionated evidence or factual points to back an opinion) are welcome in voicing your views in this regard.
Commentary?
PS: As a point to make before people try to make it an edition war, this is NOT A SLAM against any game system. I've played Rolemaster...and more to the point, a lot of MERPS. I've played Warhammer which is even more open in some ways with classes as skills and steps without levels. I think 3.5 is one of the best designed game systems ever, but I also currently play 4e and AD&D. I think the design philosophies behind these different systems however, are formed in different ways...as I described above, and there are many that favor one or the other so strongly as to create the strong opinions they have against one...or the other. I think 3e reflected the backgrounds of the designers...as well as the majority of the trend of RPG's at the time (which was much less AD&D like as it was very much on the decline, and very much on the skill based systems that had been rising up more so in comparison) and they did a very good job of it. 4e...I think in many ways goes back to some of the ideas of the original...whilst building up on some other ideas and is very good in terms of balance and rules. I do have to wonder what caused them to backtrack as I didn't see Class/Archtypes as being all that popular again yet when they came out with 4e...and I see the subsequent backlash against it by some as verification of this...but I still think IT'S A GREAT SYSTEM. So nothing against either one...just thoughts on why people see them in such a polarizing manner.
There is NO secret that a LOT of 3e and 3.5 players feel that this edition is the best edition ever. They feel that any other edition is flawed. They feel that 2e was terrible and horrendous, and feel that 4e is an aberration of D&D.
I would suggest that it is not 2e OR 4e that was the aberration but was in fact 3e. This is not to say 3e is a bad RPG, but it is in fact a great RPG, but not in line with what made D&D...D&D.
D&D from creation was a class based RPG. It was built around classes and each class having a gradual increase in power as it increased in levels. This was built around from the very first version of D&D. It wasn't the combat system, it wasn't the magic system, it wasn't even thieves, it was the class and level idea. Further more, in it's first incarnation there wasn't such a thing as multiclassing or dual classing. The closest was an elf which could choose each adventure whether to be a Fighter that adventure, or a Magic-User. The classes were hardset. There were no skills. There were no feats.
This started to change in AD&D, but multiclassing was specifically only for non-human races and still had SET multiclass types that they could be. There weren't really skills, though there were weapon proficiencies introduced. The closest you could get to what was introduced later was the Dual Classing mechanic...and that was almost impossible for a character to qualify for. It was an exception...not the norm.
2e started a radical departure...however the archtype class and the set levels still existed. Even the multiclasses were still the set archtypes. It also made proficiencies as options in the core rules themselves.
Now during this time there was a whole SLEW of people that HATED D&D and AD&D. Some would play Gurps, some would play Rolemaster. Rolemaster itself was bulit from the ideas that D&D wasn't big enough, that there needed to be more options and more rules. Rolemaster made these, original to incorporate into RPG campaigns, later as it's own ruleset. It was known for LOTS and LOTS of rules and stats. Ironically, some of the future 3e designers worked on Rolemaster.
Many of these Rolemaster fans wanted more skills, less strict class structure, and a more open system sort of like classes with skills. They hated THACO and considered AD&D combat flawed. They wanted more combat maneuvers. They wanted to be able to play any creature or race that existed. They had some many various ideas of what options should be included in an RPG, the only real defining thing that really set them all together was a hatred of anything D&D, most specifically 1e and later the core rules of 2e.
In fact, if one compiled many of their complaints, it boiled down to what MANY HARDCORE 3E PLAYERS THAT HATE OTHER D&D SYSTEMS COMPLAIN ABOUT. Why do I bring this up...
Because in the mid to late 90's AD&D recruited many of these designers of other RPG's, inclusive of Rolemaster and the game began to change. Some called it 2.5, others just avoided it. In it things started getting introduced as more open classes, classes as skill packets, open racial gaming as official rules...etc. The precursors of what was to come.
Which was 3e. This is the point of the entire post, 3e wasn't D&D, but was a reformed form of D&D in the fashion of it's idol...Rolemaster. It wasn't as complex, nor as rules intensive...but was more of a Rolemaster Extremely light. All the things those problem items that people pointed out were problems with AD&D, such as the THACO system, the restrictive class system...were done away.
The BASIC FUNDAMENTAL idea that classes were archtypes and closed...was done away with the multiclassing system. Classes became more of a skill packet thing...where players could pick and choose. This was the basic fundamental sacred cow of D&D from the VERY first iteration. It was 3e that differed from D&D so drastically that it basically killed the idea.
Not that it did that much anyways, since AD&D as a product with viability had been dying off for a decade. The players actually buying stuff were probably large enough to produce a profit, but not large enough to be anything landshaking.
A Lot of the old D&D players had stopped playing D&D finding problems with it and moving onto other systems, such as Rolemaster, Gurps, Shadowrun, etc. With 3e they saw many of the problems they had with the original AD&D, such as being too restrictive, as being corrected. It brought back these people in droves. 3e was a smash hit. It had that taste of D&D with the iconic classes, but corrected what many saw as problems.
Meanwhile, as it brought back many of these, who had played D&D in the past, but had gone the way of other systems because of flaws they saw with AD&D...those who had been hardcore AD&D supporters...were driven away. The old battles of the 80's and 90s between the AD&D players and everyone else who saw problems with AD&D came to the forefront in what people called edition wars...with the old timers claiming 3e was just built off Diablo and video game sensations (afterall, a Barbarian with Whirlwind and other similarities to the Diablo game...etc.) where others who we could call the Rolemaster crowd claiming that instead 3e corrected many problems with AD&D that had existed for decades.
Claims of THACO being too complex (lots of people hence claiming that they hadn't passed 1st grade math with learning subtraction), claims of classes being too restrictive in AD&D (so why even call it D&D if it did away with the class archtype) or that levels as game balance was too restrictive abounded all around. But these old AD&D holdouts vs. 3e players wasn't something new. Many claimed it was...but these WERE THE SAME ARGUMENTS that had been around for DECADES between the AD&D players and the Rolemaster/Gurps/etc. players who disliked AD&D.
Fast forwards a few years...and then you get 4e. The 3e players cried foul claiming that it killed sacred cows...but in truth the only real sacred cow that it killed was Vancian magic...and even then...psionics hadn't existed with Vancian casting ever, and some magics in 3e (not core rules) had already done away with the Vancian Magic idea (take the Unearthed arcana points for magic ideas and such). All 4e did was take some ideas already introduce in 3e, solidify them, and make them core. Take away the ideas from nine swords, or all the powers of the melee classes...and the D20 mechanic still existed. In fact 4e acted a LOT like 3e in it's core idea...more so than 3e was like AD&D.
What 4e really changed was the openess of 3e...Classes returned to being more like Archetypes and Multiclassing got MORE restrictive (at least up until the PHB3, and even with the hybrid classes, you weren't really all that rewarded for taking hybrid classes as you would be with the idea of classes as skill packets). THIS was the sacred cow that 4e killed, not the Vancian magic, but the idea of classes as skill packets.
Hence, all the old arguments arose again, except this time framed in the arguments between 3.x and 4e. In fact, if you look back at the arguments between 3e and AD&D, as well as the arguments between AD&D/D&D and Rolemaster/Gurps, you can see that all of them basically are fundamentally the same in many ways.
So if you've read through this entire LONG WINDED post...in summation I am trying to make this point.
I'm NOT trying to make an edition war with this post at all...but spark a discussion around this point. These ideas of edition wars are actually NOT about sacred cows that 4e killed, nor are they even new. These are arguments that have literally existed for DECADES (not just one, but several).
It's an difference of opinion of what makes a good RPG between the AD&D/D&D types that prefer a Class/Level/Archtype system (much like 4e now has the archtype eve more personified into defenders, controllers, strikers, leaders), and those that feel a good RPG should be more open into more of a skill based system where you can design what you want without having to worry overly about a precedent set in fiction...history...or life.
3e was DIFFERENT then any other version of D&D in that it alone did away with the archetype idea that symbolized D&D previously, and now with 4e. These two groups have NEVER agreed on what made a good RPG in the past...and probably would not now. What is significant is that 3e was the ONLY D&D system that actually would appeal to the old AD&D haters...whilst with it's name and usage of iconic classes having the ability to draw in the old time AD&D players eventually as well. In a way the only real meeting point that had plausibility of combining the two (and yet overall it failed in many ways too, as was seen by what I would term were even MORE strongly worded "Edition Wars" against 3e then I've seen with 4e). 3e appealed to the Rolemaster players...to put it lightly.
With that, of course those that were hardcore into it (rolemaster lite/3e) would never prefer AD&D nor 4e. The very style of these games are abhorrent to them. But their preferences are not new either. What is a mystery is why they would forget the entire history of these same arguments going back to the mid to late 80's with the different skill systems vs. AD&D back then...then the 3e vs AD&D arguments in the late 90s and early 2000s.
Someone mentioned before that many who felt that 4e killed sacred cows for 3e were those who started gaming under 3e. Sometimes I wonder if people just say they played the earlier versions of D&D to try to give their opinions an air of authority...because to me it seems mysterious how they could forget the past. On the otherhand I can see some older Rolemaster players who make the same arguments...but I wonder how they could forget how they argued against AD&D originally as well.
Either way however...I feel that these arguments that some make have NOTHING to do with the sacred cows of what makes D&D, but the preferences of the gaming systems...or the class/archtype systems vs. the skill based systems...aka Rolemaster vs. AD&D...aka...3.X vs. all other forms of D&D.
Arguments almost as old as AD&D itself. Don't start edition wars...but informative, postulation and well backed (either opinionated evidence or factual points to back an opinion) are welcome in voicing your views in this regard.
Commentary?
PS: As a point to make before people try to make it an edition war, this is NOT A SLAM against any game system. I've played Rolemaster...and more to the point, a lot of MERPS. I've played Warhammer which is even more open in some ways with classes as skills and steps without levels. I think 3.5 is one of the best designed game systems ever, but I also currently play 4e and AD&D. I think the design philosophies behind these different systems however, are formed in different ways...as I described above, and there are many that favor one or the other so strongly as to create the strong opinions they have against one...or the other. I think 3e reflected the backgrounds of the designers...as well as the majority of the trend of RPG's at the time (which was much less AD&D like as it was very much on the decline, and very much on the skill based systems that had been rising up more so in comparison) and they did a very good job of it. 4e...I think in many ways goes back to some of the ideas of the original...whilst building up on some other ideas and is very good in terms of balance and rules. I do have to wonder what caused them to backtrack as I didn't see Class/Archtypes as being all that popular again yet when they came out with 4e...and I see the subsequent backlash against it by some as verification of this...but I still think IT'S A GREAT SYSTEM. So nothing against either one...just thoughts on why people see them in such a polarizing manner.
).
