The moment of fragmentation

[seasong]

Hah. In MY day, we called fragmentation a grenade! And we LIKED it!

Seriously, I have not once ever run a game without house rules, some of them quite extensive. I still know what people are talking about. And even when they have a house rule that impacts an encounter they're talking about, a quick preface is usually all I need to know what they're talking about, even then.

The idea that "Thousands of people, around the world, were playing games that were pretty much indistinguishable from each other on a mechanical level" is a myth. It was a myth under 1st edition when Gary Gygax said it, and it's still a myth under 3rd.

Midnight and Arcana Unearthed look like the Golden Age of D&D to me. And Nyambe excites me in ways I can't talk about here. And 3.5, to me, is simply a big, delicious stew of new ingredients being sprinkled into the OGL, that I can pick and choose from.

And even with all that variety, the core books still provide a common language for quick pick-up games. Just say "we're doing it core 3.0/3.5" and you're good to go.

 

[smetzger]

I agree with Graff. Let me state it another way.

With 2e I quickly came to a point where I couldn't stand to play the game. I didn't like the rules as written. I had my house rules that made it palatable for me to DM, and I would have enjoyed playing under these house rules. But 2e was such a mess everyone had there own house rules, and I only found my house rules to be palatable.

When 3e came out I liked just about everything. So much so that I could actually play in a 3e game and the rules would not grate on my nerves. This was terrific.

Now with 3.5e I am finding that I need to make a bunch of house rules up again. This is because I find some things in 3.5e better and some things in 3.0e better. What I fear is that when I want to play, the DM I play with will pick the rules from 3.5 that grate on my nerves as well as the rules from 3.0 that grate on my nerves. Thus I am in the same boat I was in for 2e

 

[seasong]

Now with 3.5e I am finding that I need to make a bunch of house rules up again. This is because I find some things in 3.5e better and some things in 3.0e better. What I fear is that when I want to play, the DM I play with will pick the rules from 3.5 that grate on my nerves as well as the rules from 3.0 that grate on my nerves. Thus I am in the same boat I was in for 2e

Actually, it sounds like you are in the boat of opportunity to talk with your DM about which ones you think are better, and see if you can't be in an even better boat than you were in for 3.0 alone.

 

[smetzger]

Actually, it sounds like you are in the boat of opportunity to talk with your DM about which ones you think are better, and see if you can't be in an even better boat than you were in for 3.0 alone.

What if he disagrees? I also move every 3 yrs and thus must find a new group. A year from now everyone will have their own 3.0/3.5 hybrids.

3.5 has too many changes too soon. It should have been 3.1. Fix the books with errata, fix the Ranger(maybe), fix the glaring problem spells, and make some clarifications; but don't change fundementals.

 

[Mark]

Actually, it sounds like you are in the boat of opportunity...

In 4.0 I hear that will get you a Opposed Swim Check as a Freestyle Action...

 

[seasong]

What if he disagrees? I also move every 3 yrs and thus must find a new group. A year from now everyone will have their own 3.0/3.5 hybrids.

A year ago, I put together the house rules for Theralis - you might not even recognize it as D&D. This is not a new issue. Heck, HackMaster came out about what, two years ago? And it's basically a revised 2.0 with aspects of 1.0 hybridization. This is not a new issue.

And you still have the option, even when moving, of looking for a group that has either (a) stayed with 3.0, or (b) runs pretty close to core 3.5. I know they exist, I talk to some of them .

 

[seasong]

In 4.0 I hear that will get you a Opposed Swim Check as a Freestyle Action...

Only if you don't have Improved Tip.

 

[Mark]

Only if you don't have Improved Tip.

Touché! I should have known better than to get into a water-based joke-off with someone named seasong!

 

[seasong]

Touché! I should have known better than to get into a water-based joke-off with someone named seasong!

And I thank you for it! I laughed when I read it and realized, slowly, what I'd said in the previous post. I needed that laugh this morning . Sharp eye, sir, sharp eye!

 

[PowerWordDumb]

Philosophical question:

Is it better to have DnD 'fragmented' so that many different players can play their own preferred variants of the game in a way which is still ultimately clearly recognizeable as DnD, but may create some conversion issues for players or characters who move around from group to group,

or,

Is it better to have a solid, unified DnD which discourages variation and drives off potential gamers to alternate systems as happened in the 80's and 90's in the hope that those people who remain with the system can move about more freely?

I personally vote for the former. New blood is far better to the game than any false sense of unity. Be realistic here people, the game is still DnD even with the inevitable house rules and different mechanics. For people who want to move between several play groups it is still very easy to pick up the rules variants upon joining - despite the endless moaning and groaning and gnashing of teeth by the grognards on the internet.

If your tastes are such that you simply cannot lower yourself to play with people who prefer a slightly different style, then perhaps you deserve to have fewer choices of groups to play with. There's a point at which the world is not the problem - you are.