Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mac Callum" data-source="post: 1402885" data-attributes="member: 17035">I think what Monte Cook has coined &quot;the implied setting&quot; of D&amp;D has become more dilute.&nbsp; The D&amp;D-isms (like racial level limits) had to change from setting to setting, so that Dark Sun elves and dwarves were very different creatures than the ones of Ravenloft, Krynn or the Players Handbook.&nbsp; The 1e and 2e Player's Handbooks were really setting books.&nbsp; The 3rd Ed. has taken another route.WotC made the decision that D&amp;D would be a basic rule-set and that a lot of the &quot;flavor &amp; soul&quot; would come from third-party d20 publishers.&nbsp; To do this the rules became very bland - not because the designers were bland people, but because they wanted the rules to fit as seemlessly as possible into other people's worlds.&nbsp; To get this level of flexibility, the chameleon-like qualities of 3E also mean it has no character of its own.The same can be seen in the artwork.&nbsp; There are no scenes in the Core Rules.&nbsp; Nothing to suggest an implied setting.&nbsp; Just characters posing for a portrait, whereas the old art captured them in a moment of their adventuring career - in a world somewhere.I also think the idea of iconic characters was a bad one.&nbsp; Roleplaying is about making new characters, not being compared to some Platonic ideal.&nbsp; When I look through my 2E PHB (I have it right here) I see many different fighters.&nbsp; In 3E its just Redgar, over and over.I also think that the rule set may be too complete.&nbsp; It's relatively simple: choose DC, ad mods, roll d20; but it covers everything.&nbsp; It is a perfectly simple, perfectly complete system of interlocking gears, in which all the paths lead inward to the d20 - the core of the machine; but not its soul.&nbsp; There are no idiosyncratic rule sets which say such-and-such works this way &quot;just because.&quot;&nbsp; I never minded that, and in fact it often enhanced the feel of the &quot;implied setting.&quot;So what is 3E missing?&nbsp; What did 2E (and earlier) have?<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">A stronger implied setting</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Scenic artwork</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Practical/ believable arms and armor</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Multiple examples of class/race combos - not Icons</li>
</ul>I'm not downplaying what 3E has over earlier editions - it has a lot - but this is what it's missing, in my eyes.The man who says he has the answer to all thingsis either very wise or very dumband either way, he has put a knife in the heart or wonder</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mac Callum, post: 1402885, member: 17035"] I think what Monte Cook has coined "the implied setting" of D&D has become more dilute. The D&D-isms (like racial level limits) had to change from setting to setting, so that Dark Sun elves and dwarves were very different creatures than the ones of Ravenloft, Krynn or the Players Handbook. The 1e and 2e Player's Handbooks were really setting books. The 3rd Ed. has taken another route. WotC made the decision that D&D would be a basic rule-set and that a lot of the "flavor & soul" would come from third-party d20 publishers. To do this the rules became very bland - not because the designers were bland people, but because they wanted the rules to fit as seemlessly as possible into other people's worlds. To get this level of flexibility, the chameleon-like qualities of 3E also mean it has no character of its own. The same can be seen in the artwork. There are no scenes in the Core Rules. Nothing to suggest an implied setting. Just characters posing for a portrait, whereas the old art captured them in a moment of their adventuring career - in a world somewhere. I also think the idea of iconic characters was a bad one. Roleplaying is about making new characters, not being compared to some Platonic ideal. When I look through my 2E PHB (I have it right here) I see many different fighters. In 3E its just Redgar, over and over. I also think that the rule set may be too complete. It's relatively simple: choose DC, ad mods, roll d20; but it covers everything. It is a perfectly simple, perfectly complete system of interlocking gears, in which all the paths lead inward to the d20 - the core of the machine; but not its soul. There are no idiosyncratic rule sets which say such-and-such works this way "just because." I never minded that, and in fact it often enhanced the feel of the "implied setting." So what is 3E missing? What did 2E (and earlier) have? [list] [*]A stronger implied setting [*]Scenic artwork [*]Practical/ believable arms and armor [*]Multiple examples of class/race combos - not Icons [/list] I'm not downplaying what 3E has over earlier editions - it has a lot - but this is what it's missing, in my eyes. [I]The man who says he has the answer to all things is either very wise or very dumb and either way, he has put a knife in the heart or wonder[/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification