What's the difference between D20 Fantasy and D&D?

[teitan]

I left AD&D shortly after 2e came out. I missed the later developments. I played lots of other games.

When 3e came out, I was excited. It looked like the D&D I would have designed, based on my experience with non-D&D games.

But then I found a new appreciation for the older D&D & AD&D. So, now, 3e looks to me like either: (1) One of those other games I'd played with D&D window dressing or (2) a bunch of fixes for things I no longer see as broken.

So, you don't have to be someone who never played anything besides D&D & AD&D to see 3e as a different game.

& I completely understand why some people don't see the distinction.



OAD&D is more similar to oD&D than 3e is to either of them. It can be pretty hard to distinguish an oD&D game using all the supplements & bits from The Strategic Review from a oAD&D game.

As I recall T.Foster did a pretty thorough analysis of the differences between oD&D & oAD&D that was quite interesting.

Have you seen OD&D? I don't mean Basic, the BX series stuff, but the OCE and back? Ability scores give a max +1 bonus, you have Fighting Man, Cleric and Magic User. Monsters were very, very simple, an AC, hit die and damage plus some FX. Elves could flip flop between Fighting Man and Magic User between sessions. Three Alignments. There are HUGE differences even when you add the later supplements of Greyhawk, Blackmoor and Eldritch Wizardry it is still a huge difference from AD&D and B/X.

 

[BroccoliRage]

Passive aggression aside, noone is insulting you, and the fence most certainly is there, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. If fans choose to infer statements about inferiority into what I type, that's really not my problem.

I'm 26, but I've been playing D&D a long time, too. And when I see something ebing called D&D that seems to me to be more of a usurper of the crown (at least 2e kept the similiarities), I refuse to bend my knee to it. If you feel my protest is petty, fine; all the more reason it should not offend you.

D&D has become a brand and not a system, under WOTC. You may disagree with me, but my d20 Modern and 3.5 Rulebooks bear so much similiarity to each other as to be...compatible. Kind of like all non-d20 Fantasy versions. which means...the system is largely the same. The Dungeons and Dragons 'engine', if you will, is defunct. (Well it lives on, but under a different name). The D&D brand is very much alive, however. The d20 'engine' is alive and kickin'. It's pretty good for Sci-Fi, too, though I don't like it's treatment of fantasy.

Does this mean you're less of a gamer than me? Uh, only if YOU think so. I don't like that fantasy system White Wolf just released (the name escapes me at the moment), that doesn't mean I spit on kids playing it or that I won't sit down for a game. However, is said game started calling itself, say, 'Gamma World', I would refuse to call it that.

The only offense is the one you infer. I'll explain myself, but I won't retract or apologize. I don't believe I'm wrong, and maybe you guys should not read so much into an opinion without asking what is meant first.

I'm innocent. mln

 

[DonTadow]

Is dungeons and dragons a system or a game. The mechanics have changed but I don't think dungeons and dragons is any different now than 30 years ago. It's evolved to accomodate a variety of more playstyles as opposed to dungeon crawling which is how it starteed.

Saying 3.e is not dungeons and dragons is like saying the 2006 mustang isn't a car compared to the 1978.

 

[BroccoliRage]

You're car analogy isn't very good , because I agree with it entirely

By the way, D&D originally was a "gaming system". So I don't get the point behind your question.

And the way the game is played is very different today than even ten years ago. The rules are different.

 

[Maggan]

The only offense is the one you infer. I'll explain myself, but I won't retract or apologize. I don't believe I'm wrong, and maybe you guys should not read so much into an opinion without asking what is meant first.

While I agree that people should not infer so much, continuing to use a term which people find offense in, is kinda pointless. Makes the discussion more about attitudes to the game than the game itself.

This is only speaking for me, but if I found out people were offended by my use of a term, I'd cut down on the use of that term.

YMMV.

/M

 

[el-remmen]

Again, I am not saying I am insulted, but that that is what is seems like to me - a pointless denial of tradition.

 

[teitan]

In that case, I think it's easily robbed.

If you said that 1e "wasn't D&D", I wouldn't feel 'robbed of authenticity'. I'd be about halfway between 'amused' and 'perplexed', but there'd be no feeling of insult.

Edited to add: On thinking some more, this is more complex than my initial reaction suggests.

I wouldn't feel insulted by the claim that 1e wasn't D&D. I do feel... not insulted, but less than entirely comfortable... by claims that 3.x is D&D.

Except it IS D&D and there is nothing that can be done about it. WOTC owns the property and they have the right to do what they want with it. It is D&D, just not the D&D you choose to play. To keep on with this "its not D&D" is ridiculous and like saying the new Star Wars movies aren't Star Wars just because you might not have enjoyed them. 3e clarified and cleaned up a LOT of problems in D&D like skills which had how many different mechanics? Percentiles and different roll under variations. Its snobbish.

I'm a huge fan of 1e, heck, I was a grognard. I hated 2e and only started playing it as 1e books became more and more scarce in my area. The changes to the system like Priests I think needlessly complicated the game. The only change I liked was customizable skill systems for Thieves and Morale for monsters, the rest of the changes were die alterations that changed little in the final execution of the rules. 3e codified the skills to a more cohesive system, simplified and clarified the multiclassing system so it made more sense, eliminated racial level limits few people used.

I think a lot of the people who complain about 3e and WOTC forget how BAD TSR really was to its fans. WOTC listens to the fans and tries to produce what fans want. I'm sorry they aren't going to support the system of choice for the grognards but they can do that now with 1e and Basic. I imagine someone will use OSRIC to reproduce the 2e experience soon and that will be opened up. But it just makes you all seem like sour grapes when you complain about 3e and call it TETSNBN or D20 Fantasy. From reading posts on Dragonsfoot it seems to me like more than half are basing their opinions on what they have heard and/ lack of experience with the system. The other half just seem to really like the old stuff or think Gary has some hate on for 3e, which isn't the case, it just isn't his system of choice. Neither is AD&D.

 

[BroccoliRage]

And I am saying there is no tradition present to be denied.

See, Catch 22? You have one opinion, I have another. And I don't get angry and start five page long threads over you guys disagreeing with me. I'll ocassionaly make a joke (last one I made apparently made some people really sad or something, half the board was railing about my apparent egomania ), or just accept it and move on.

How about this...I've told you why the game can be called d20 Fantasy, you tell me why that term cannot be applied. Deal?

 

[BroccoliRage]

Except it IS D&D and there is nothing that can be done about it. WOTC owns the property and they have the right to do what they want with it. It is D&D, just not the D&D you choose to play. To keep on with this "its not D&D" is ridiculous and like saying the new Star Wars movies aren't Star Wars just because you might not have enjoyed them. 3e clarified and cleaned up a LOT of problems in D&D like skills which had how many different mechanics? Percentiles and different roll under variations. Its snobbish.

I'm a huge fan of 1e, heck, I was a grognard. I hated 2e and only started playing it as 1e books became more and more scarce in my area. The changes to the system like Priests I think needlessly complicated the game. The only change I liked was customizable skill systems for Thieves and Morale for monsters, the rest of the changes were die alterations that changed little in the final execution of the rules. 3e codified the skills to a more cohesive system, simplified and clarified the multiclassing system so it made more sense, eliminated racial level limits few people used.

I think a lot of the people who complain about 3e and WOTC forget how BAD TSR really was to its fans. WOTC listens to the fans and tries to produce what fans want. I'm sorry they aren't going to support the system of choice for the grognards but they can do that now with 1e and Basic. I imagine someone will use OSRIC to reproduce the 2e experience soon and that will be opened up. But it just makes you all seem like sour grapes when you complain about 3e and call it TETSNBN or D20 Fantasy. From reading posts on Dragonsfoot it seems to me like more than half are basing their opinions on what they have heard and/ lack of experience with the system. The other half just seem to really like the old stuff or think Gary has some hate on for 3e, which isn't the case, it just isn't his system of choice. Neither is AD&D.

Topics discussing 3e are not allowed at DF, and are locked and deleted almost immediately. What threads were you reading?

 

[Maggan]

Topics discussing 3e are not allowed at DF, and are locked and deleted almost immediately.

Wow, that's taking offense at a term to a new level ...

/M