When D&D lost its soul

[TigerStripedDog]

That's not my opinion, it is an objective fact

This made me lol.

Jaded - I have agreed with everything you said here. There is a lot of grognardiness (this is a word not) going on here. Halaster may not have a neck beard and be furiously typing away - but he comes off that way. (Not an insult, Halaster you said as much yourself - people perceive you as being angry. I can see why. Not saying you ARE that way).

I typically fall somewhere in between the two of you. I started AD&D after 3E came out. And my first experience ever was with 3E. Honestly, I didn't like it. I sat there thinking "I'd rather be playing Diablo". My DM did the best he could with a crappy system (and 3E had only recently been released).

A month or two later a hardcore gamer (Marcus) invited me to his 2nd Edition campaign. That was the real beginning for me. It sent me down the path of nerddom forever. And I sort of always held a chip on my shoulder against 3E and 3E-adjacent systems (re: pathfinder, 4E, D20, etc). I held onto that opinion for a long time. And had it cemented after the disaster that was 4E. I can't say I was ever angry about it though? More disappointed. I really wanted 4E to be great. It just wasn't.

I really do think 5E is a different story however. I think it is a fantastic return to the Gygax-roots that made the game great. Group cohesion is central, roleplaying has been brought back to the forefront, and epic-storytelling has become the true center of the game. A lot of what was rough and unfinished about 1E and 2E has been polished - and parts of the game which had been unpopular (the deadliness, for one) have been toned down. The best part? The core books even address - after the "DM" rule some specific homebrew ways to make the campaigns deadlier. I have actually seen higher turnover of characters in my 5E campaigns than I have in my old 2E campaigns.

Tiger

[JadedDM]

I was also never bitter about it....it didn't affect me

Are you serious? That's like your entire shtick. If someone said to me, "Halaster-Blackcloak? Which one is he again?" I'd tell them, "He's the one who cannot go five minutes without bruteforcing his dislike of 3E and everyone who plays it into every single conversation." Your bitterness toward 3E is your defining personality trait on this forum.

You started this entire thread to bitch about 3E and how it's ruined D&D.

The Bunker Buddies at K&K Alehouse and DF used to think of me as being consumed with hatred during these posts at Green Dragon Inn.

I mean, just a shot in the dark here, but they probably thought that for the same reason I do--because it's literally all you talk about. Seriously, if Cole decided to ban all edition wars here, I would wonder what you'd even have left to talk about anymore.

Depending on the time between adventures, the wizard can go on the next adventure with perhaps several dozen scrolls and potions of haste.

This is true, but it's not without cost. Remember, creating magical items (including scrolls and potions) in 3E drained your XP. So you could craft a massive ton of Haste scrolls, sure, but every time you do, you lose more XP.

And with no chance of dying, why not do it as often as possible?

Well, that's an exaggeration. Characters died in 3E all of the time. The game could be quite unforgiving, especially if you didn't possess rules mastery. It was very easy to accidentally create a character that was crippled in combat. It was one of the game's main flaws, in my opinion.

In addition to the massive population growth I mentioned earlier, I forgot to mention the fact that new editions have become more mainstream and therefore more acceptable.

I agree. But that was the point I was making. The audience is larger and more inclusive now. It's changed, and the game has changed to reflect it.

And we have a Millenial Generation that just seems unable to grow up, so you have more adults playing games and collecting toys.

That seems kind of hypocritical, don't you think? Criticizing a generation for not 'growing up' and giving up their 'childish games,' the same 'childish game' you still play yourself?

Nope. I rarely see women online whining about sexism in games unless they're Millenial Snowflakes looking for something to be offended about. Seriously.

Do you seriously read the stuff you write? So women never complain about sexism in D&D, except when they do, but when they do, it's only because they're looking to be offended.

I notice you say stuff like that quite frequently. "Nobody ever complained about level draining, except the people who did, but they only did it because they were immature powergamers."

What a dismissive argument. Let me try it on you now.

"Nobody ever has criticized 3E. Except for all of the people who did criticize it, but they were just whining brats looking for something to complain about." Wow, have I blown your mind here?

You talk about how you love to 'debate' but you really don't. You just shut down everyone who disagrees with you as immature, whiny, looking to be offended, stupid, etc.

There were also very few girls into AD&D back then.

Thankfully, that is starting to change now.

The spirit of the game. The goals of the game.

But this assumes there is only one spirit, one set of goals. D&D is a very versatile game, for all editions (some more than others). You can play a mindless beer and pretzel dungeon hack, a deep and nuanced political thriller, a gritty sword and sorcery adventure, or a completely goofy game nobody takes seriously.

If you ask me, the only spirit of the game is a spirit of cooperation. The only goal is to have fun.

Because the game must have an internal logic and consistency in order to retain suspension of disbelief.

Must it? I'm sure it must for you, but that's your own personal tastes. If a group of people have more fun throwing realism out the window, I say more power to them.

I feel like your views are fairly myopic. You have your own way of viewing the game, and what it should be and how it should play, and that's fine, but you seem to feel your viewpoint is objectively the only one that should count, and that's just not true.

Also, stop bringing up politics. I already had this discussion with you before, Hal.

[garhkal]

That must have been an insane sight to see. I can't imagine something like that. I'd just be sitting there saying: "Did I just enter the Twilight Zone?".

Its not as bad as some of the stories i've heard of other "Rage-quit" like events other DM's have gone on about.. Such as one guy over on DF who said to a player he won't use X rule the player almost demanded to be allow in from another game system, the player responded with flipping the table over, and attempted to assault the DM..
Or others, who fliped out and tried to be violent to the DM or others in the game...

The words "demand that the DM" in my world gets that person booted out immediately. I'm a pretty good DM when it comes to accommodating the players' wishes and making the game fun for everyone. But they don't come to me demanding anything!

Same here. My first group up here, came to be before one game session and listed some concerns they had, and though they didn't say "THESE are our demands, please note that these things are making the game unenjoyable for all of us and we will quit if they are not at least addressed, we would like them heard".
Copying the post from the CJ thread..

Code: Select all

During the period where we were standing around waiting, the group DID mention that some are getting bummed out with the game, cause of the differences between 1/2e and 3.5/pathfinder etc, with the whole Random encounters NOT being gauged to level, The whole dropping into the negatives requiring a week of bed rest which makes the person combat useless for that period of time, and that they felt there was too MUCH free-formness, and would like a BIT more structure to things (not to the module level, but at least something more story-lined for certain aspects.

We chatted about it, and though they agree that having the bed-rest IS one of the core differences between the editions, we at least came to a compromise that they are ok with (and so am i).
From now on, when someone drops into the negatives, each negative HP they go down to equals one day of bed rest needed (Max of a week as normal), so if someone only went to -2, they don't need a full week out.
When they get returned to positive HP, they get to make a system shock roll at -5% per negative HP they were sent down to (so if say Telgorath bleed out to -5 before being healed, he would have a System shock roll at -25). If this check was successful, they would HALVE the # of days (round up) they would need bed rest for, and my normal HR where each Cure moderate kills off a day of bed rest need, was reduced to where a cure LIGHT also does that now..

This modification suited everyone. And we started WITH using it when we kicked back into gaming (it was just after 4.20pm now, so it gave us only really 2 hrs 45 to game with for having our normal 7pm end time)..

Random encounters will continue as is, but i will make mention to them WHEN an encounter is Random vice scheduled. They are ok for NOW with keeping it that way.

As for the story-line stuff (inc puzzles and traps, if they go to areas where those exist they can get into using those skills...)

So after hearing and addressing their concerns, i made 1 whole rule change.. ANd it was with BOTH sides making points, counter points and coming to an agreement. NOT them saying "HERES OUR DEMANDS, change or else!"

Well, characters in modern games are cartoonish, so I guess it fits.

Artwork wise, hell yes..

True. They want things to be the way they want to see it despite reality arguing otherwise. And reality always wins. I think it was part of that same discussion at DF, where they argued that the clerics of Ares and Athena should be able to adventure together, when Deities & Demigods specifically says that when Ares' priests encounter those of Athena: "Blood is expected to be shed". Ares demands that his clerics shed the blood of clerics of Athena on sight, but they can adventure together? Idiotic! The rest of the party would spend every waking moment keeping the two apart and refereeing them. They couldn't possibly adventure together! Same for a cleric of Horus and a cleric of Set. Not happening unless your game is some sort of twisted screwball game run by a crappy DM who doesn't know the rules.

Or like the oft mentioned paladin adventuring with an assassin!

Not sure what you mean by the granularity of them.

IN many cases its the added die rolling, not just to figure what the crit is, but WHERE it is (what limb got hit) and impending penalties caused by it (like 1/2 movement, or -2 to hit using that arm) and the like.

I wish to god I had saved the countless numbers of PMs I used to get over at DF. I cannot even estimate how many hundreds I received over the years from people who agreed with me 100% but who were afraid to even say so out loud, because they were terrified of guilt by association (with that damned madman Halaster! ) because they knew how biased and pathetic the admin and moderators were. Defending me was akin to a death sentence. At first I was disappointed with a lot of them, but over time I saw the big picture and realized that sometimes others are simply not willing to risk being ostracized. So I fought the good fight for over a decade, damn the consequences! Someone had to!

Exactly. I've known other sites the same way, where people want to agree with things i've said over the years, but cause of 'peer pressure to ostracise me for my right wing views', they couldn't lest they get added to that list to ostracise..
So as to not get into politics, that's all i will say on that!

[TigerStripedDog]

Thankfully, that is starting to change now.

(In regards to more women in D&D). I too am very excited about this. I think the gender inclusivity might be the best part of the changes. As a father to a daughter, and husband to a wife I am excited about the prospect of playing this as a family. There are a few reasons why I chose to have three children. One of them is that a 3-4 PC party is just about right

I have also recently DMed for my first long-term playing woman, a friend of mine named Suzanna. It has been a real learning curve. Never realized just how different the nuance could be until she joined the group. Very glad she did, I am definitely a better DM, and a better person for it.

Tiger

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

TigerStripedDog wrote:

This made me lol.

That's such a pet peeve of mine - when people laugh off something they don't agree with, or simply say "that's not true". If it's not true, show me how I'm wrong. I made the case that proves it, so if you think that I'm wrong, why not show me where I'm wrong? It always makes me think of a scene from a movie (and I'll be damned if I can remember it, but if this rings a bell, someone please let me know) about a court case, and the prosecution goes through this super long list of evidence and analysis for around 15 or 20 minutes, and then when the defense lawyer gets up, he sorta chuckles and says "Well that's not true!". And then he sits down. And the judge, jury, prosecution, and everyone in the courtroom (after a short dramatic pause) turns and stares at the defense attorney. The judge says..."Is there anything else you'd like to say, counsel'? It was a hysterical movie, but again, I can't think of the name or even who was in it. Anyway, that's how I see so many of these debates. I'll list out a gaggle of facts, and the other person simply says "That's not true.". That's not debate, that's denial.

Jaded - I have agreed with everything you said here. There is a lot of grognardiness (this is a word not) going on here. Halaster may not have a neck beard and be furiously typing away - but he comes off that way. (Not an insult, Halaster you said as much yourself - people perceive you as being angry. I can see why. Not saying you ARE that way).

Not taken as an insult at it. It's cool. That's why sometimes I have to explain myself, because I can get very excited by a topic (some refer to it as "rabid" ) but rest assured, I'm rarely if ever angry.

I can't say I was ever angry about it though? More disappointed. I really wanted 4E to be great. It just wasn't.

I'd have to say I wasn't even disappointed. When 3E came out, I toyed with the idea of switching over, so I bought the PHB/DMG. It was almost more like a relief that 3E sucked so bad, because that meant not having to spend money for a bunch of new edition stuff. It was more like buying something, saying "Wow, this is real crap, I don't want to spend good money on it" and then getting a refund.

A lot of what was rough and unfinished about 1E and 2E has been polished - and parts of the game which had been unpopular (the deadliness, for one) have been toned down.

I never thought of 1E or 2E as being particularly deadly. Maybe I've been blessed with mainly good players, but we never really had as many deaths as so many other DMs I knew had. Of course, some of them were killer DMs and poor DMs, but still.

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

JadedDM wrote:

Are you serious? That's like your entire shtick.

You get it, but you don't get it. You're right. It sort of is a shtick. I'm kinda known for telling it like it is and refusing to sugar coat things, and being dramatic and vigorous to the point of being rabid. So it's just fun. I'm not foaming at the mouth, angry and bitter about 3E, 3E, 3.5E, 4E, 5E, etc...these games exist only for me to have something to laugh at, shake my head at, and belittle. For me I mean. They don't offend me or upset me or anger me despite how some may interpret my posts. If that were the case, I'd get therapy! I have a rule I live by:

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

1E and 2E ain't broke, so I never need to fix them. To me it's a non-issue, but fun to tear into.

If someone said to me, "Halaster-Blackcloak? Which one is he again?" I'd tell them, "He's the one who cannot go five minutes without bruteforcing his dislike of 3E and everyone who plays it into every single conversation." Your bitterness toward 3E is your defining personality trait on this forum

You haven't been reading all my posts then, because most of them don't mention 3E. A lot do, sure, especially lately because it's what we're discussing. But mainly no. It's not bitterness. I just like to make fun of how terrible the 3E system is and how it changed everything. If I were part of the design team, I'd be hanging my head in shame and refusing to admit I ever worked on it.

You started this entire thread to bitch about 3E and how it's ruined D&D.

Well actually it started because I saw the 5E MM, and saw how it was nothing more than a giant stat block. Which of course logically led me to where that trend started, which is 3E.

I mean, just a shot in the dark here, but they probably thought that for the same reason I do--because it's literally all you talk about. Seriously, if Cole decided to ban all edition wars here, I would wonder what you'd even have left to talk about anymore.

Oh no, trust me on this one! That group was a hardcore Gygaxian fanatic group who really, really just hated me because I would never back down no matter how many of them teamed up on me, even when tbey had moderators on their side! How do you think I ended up holding a record for being banned so many times? Half of the moderators were part of that group!

This is true, but it's not without cost. Remember, creating magical items (including scrolls and potions) in 3E drained your XP. So you could craft a massive ton of Haste scrolls, sure, but every time you do, you lose more XP.

Another ass-backwards 3E mechanic that made zero sense. That's like saying the more I practice my marksmanship, the worse I get. Whoever came up with that mechanic had brain damage! But even so, it's a miniscule cost of xp, especially when compared to how many more xp the wizard will gain when using those spells and defeating those monsters. How stupid is that rule? It's so stupid, it makes demi-human level limits, alignment languages and 2E spell damage caps look brilliant!

Well, that's an exaggeration. Characters died in 3E all of the time. The game could be quite unforgiving, especially if you didn't possess rules mastery. It was very easy to accidentally create a character that was crippled in combat. It was one of the game's main flaws, in my opinion.

A bit of an exaggeration, but not much of one. I can name a dozen or more ways for a character to die in 1E or 2E that simply won't happen in 3E. I can name a dozen spells that cause a risk of death in 1E and 2E that no longer do so in 3E. I can name several forms of lethal damage in 1E and 2E that do not exist in 3E. Or that in each case was toned down dramatically. But you said a few magic words there...

"especially if you didn't possess rules mastery"

Bingo! If you don't "build" a character with enough "kewl powerz", he's gonna have hard time surviving. It's all about power in 3E.

I agree. But that was the point I was making. The audience is larger and more inclusive now. It's changed, and the game has changed to reflect it.

And as I said, the game changed because any time you dumb down something for the general masses, it loses its integrity. If you have to cater to the lowest common denominator, that's what you get.

That seems kind of hypocritical, don't you think? Criticizing a generation for not 'growing up' and giving up their 'childish games,' the same 'childish game' you still play yourself?

Not at all. What I'm saying is simply that a lot of older players simply grew up. They got jobs, degrees and families. A lot of them no longer have the time or energy or opportunity to play, even if they want to. On the other hand, we have a generation that lives at home longer than any generation in history, and that puts off life goals such as marriage and jobs much longer than ever. So of course we're going to see a far greater number of sales because there are simply more people with the leisure to play. Never confuse large numbers with quality.

Do you seriously read the stuff you write? So women never complain about sexism in D&D, except when they do, but when they do, it's only because they're looking to be offended.

Of course I read my own posts!

I never said they never complain. Only that today it's in style to cry "I'm offended" by everything and anything. In my experience, it was pretty rare for girls to complain about it being "sexist". Either they thought the game was a dumb guy thing and didn't bother to play, or they played and just accepted the game for what it was. In my early days when I played every week for years on end, I only remember one girl (the girlfriend of another gamer) who complained about it "denigrating women", but then she complained about comic books, Playboy, NFL ads, and just about anything she could manage to find to be offended by .

I notice you say stuff like that quite frequently. "Nobody ever complained about level draining, except the people who did, but they only did it because they were immature powergamers."

Facts are facts. I rarely heard complaints about level drains except from those players who in my experience were poor players. We all hated it - even I hated it as a DM. But only the poor players whined about it.

What a dismissive argument. Let me try it on you now.

It's not dismissive at all. It's an observation of reality. It's my personal experience.

"Nobody ever has criticized 3E. Except for all of the people who did criticize it, but they were just whining brats looking for something to complain about." Wow, have I blown your mind here?

Not at all. It's just not accurate, that's all.

You talk about how you love to 'debate' but you really don't. You just shut down everyone who disagrees with you as immature, whiny, looking to be offended, stupid, etc.

LMAO! Oh thanks! First it was Garhkal with the fruitcake and now tonight I just blew hot chocolate out my nose. I gotta start writing these posts AFTER I finish snacking! Now that is rich! I always - ALWAYS - back up my arguments with examples, analogies, explanations, rules quotes, etc. If anything, it's others who try to shut down the discussion by simply not responding to points made. You can search the DF archive. There are countless (and I mean countless!) posts I made where the other person would simply say "That's not true, that's just your opinion" and I would say "No, those are debate points and facts and quoted rules from the books. If I'm wrong, prove me wrong." And they would adamantly refuse to discuss the debating points. Par for the course. That's even happened here several times. Heck, just reference my last post to TigerStripedDog, where I asked him what was there to laugh about, and that if I was wrong, show me where.

Thankfully, that is starting to change now.

I wonder about that. Every time I pass a gaming store, I never, ever see girls. It's always guys. Every time, every store. Maybe it's a local thing though?

But this assumes there is only one spirit, one set of goals. D&D is a very versatile game, for all editions (some more than others). You can play a mindless beer and pretzel dungeon hack, a deep and nuanced political thriller, a gritty sword and sorcery adventure, or a completely goofy game nobody takes seriously.

If you ask me, the only spirit of the game is a spirit of cooperation. The only goal is to have fun.

Well sure, I agree. The purpose of the game is to have fun. And if a bunch of gamers enjoy playing half-pixie/half-dragon druid/paladin/assassins and they're having fun, more power to them. I think it's idiotic. But it's legitimate. it's just not D&D or AD&D in spirit. When I speak of the spirit of the game, I'm referring to its original or at least early intent and spirit. It was, as I mentioned, designed to be a sort of war game based on mythology and medieval fantasy and what not, along with being a test of the player's guile and wisdom. Character development was also part of it, but that got expanded on more in 2E. 3E shares nothing in common with AD&D spirit-wise. It did away with archetypes, it blurred the lines between classes, it copped an "anything goes" attitude, it switched the focus from medieval fantasy and mythology to video game fantasy, it changed the emphasis from roleplaying to collecting kewl powerz and feats, and it filed off anything sharp and cushioned it by making everything safe to the point of being virtually risk free. 3E is more like Final Fantasy than AD&D. If I'm wrong about any of this, please feel free to show me how my claims are wrong.

Must it? I'm sure it must for you, but that's your own personal tastes. If a group of people have more fun throwing realism out the window, I say more power to them.

You just made my point. If they throw any sense of realism out the window, if they throw out internal logic and consistency, then they're not really playing the game. They know that it makes no sense. I'll give you an analogy, based on your own analogy. You said:

You can play a mindless beer and pretzel dungeon hack, a deep and nuanced political thriller, a gritty sword and sorcery adventure, or a completely goofy game nobody takes seriously.

So using movies as an analogy, you can watch a comedy movie if you want to laugh. The purpose of watching the movie is to watch the story, which makes you laugh. If you want to feel scared, you watch a horror movie and as you get into the story it scares you. If you want to learn something, you watch a documentary. In each case, watching the movie is the purpose of what you're doing. Watching the movie is the goal, the thing you are doing. Just like playing a game as you described. You can play in a campaign that has lots of politics and intrigue if you want lots of plot, or you can play in a hack-and-slash game if you enjoy combat or adventure. But again, the purpose of what you are doing is playing a game. The action is its own reason. I'm having trouble explaining this clearly, it feels like. Long day and I'm struggling for words (probably from doing reports all day). I think you all get what I mean though. The purpose of watching a movie is to watch a movie. The purpose of playing a game is to play a game. But to throw it all to the wind and just play a silly, stupid, anything goes game where you have pixie/dragon druid/paladin/assassins and green slime monks and whatever - that's like having a group of people who are buzzed (or fully drunk) who decide to watch a movie considered to be tragically and hysterically bad (Plan 9 From Outer Space, Troll 2, etc) and make fun of it, Mystery Science Theater style. The purpose is not to watch a movie. The goal is to get a laugh out of laughing at something. It's a distinct and different activity from simply watching a comedy, otherwise why not just watch a comedy? The goal there is to have fun making fun of something and to just be absurd. I'm hoping I'm making sense here. It's like I understand what I'm trying to say intuitively but not sure I'm explaining it well to someone who isn't seeing inside my head.

Another analogy would be taking a chess game and making new rules for it, where knights can move anywhere, in any direction, any number of squares, and bishops can curse other pieces and checkmate doesn't kill your king, it just puts the queen in charge. It may be fun, but it's not chess.

I feel like your views are fairly myopic. You have your own way of viewing the game, and what it should be and how it should play, and that's fine, but you seem to feel your viewpoint is objectively the only one that should count, and that's just not true.

I wouldn't call it myopic at all. What I'm saying is simply that 3E is almost totally unrelated to AD&D in both spirit and intent, by design. The facts bear that out. My opinion means nothing. Factually speaking, they are completely different games to where they share only the names and terminologies.

Also, stop bringing up politics. I already had this discussion with you before, Hal.

Will do. Sorry, got too caught up in the post. I can delete those parts if you want. LMK.

[TigerStripedDog]

That's such a pet peeve of mine - when people laugh off something they don't agree with, or simply say "that's not true". If it's not true, show me how I'm wrong. I made the case that proves it, so if you think that I'm wrong, why not show me where I'm wrong? It always makes me think of a scene from a movie (and I'll be damned if I can remember it, but if this rings a bell, someone please let me know) about a court case, and the prosecution goes through this super long list of evidence and analysis for around 15 or 20 minutes, and then when the defense lawyer gets up, he sorta chuckles and says "Well that's not true!". And then he sits down. And the judge, jury, prosecution, and everyone in the courtroom (after a short dramatic pause) turns and stares at the defense attorney. The judge says..."Is there anything else you'd like to say, counsel'? It was a hysterical movie, but again, I can't think of the name or even who was in it. Anyway, that's how I see so many of these debates. I'll list out a gaggle of facts, and the other person simply says "That's not true.". That's not debate, that's denial.

Halaster - you stated an opinion, and then claimed that the opinion was fact. It is a fact that you have that opinion I suppose. But certainly your opinion isn't fact. Its just... your opinion. And its just as valid as Jaded's, or mine, or Gark, or whoever. Multiple times in this thread you do this:

These are facts, not opinions, so they cannot be argued.

(none of the things you were talking about were facts. You used nonspecific adjectives like "coddled" and "emasculated" all of which are subjective and predicated on your (wait for it...) opinion.

On top of that, we saw the emasculation of the game with 3E, which I've ranted on in detail about since 2000. Everything was rendered safe, easy and inexpensive. This cannot be disputed because it is not an opinion - it is a simple fact that can be verified by merely reading the PHB and DMG of each edition.

See example A here. You seem to quote a source (PHB and DMG) and yet I've read those books and seen no such moment. No where in the book do the authors state, authoritatively that they have emasculated the game or made it cheaper. You drew that opinion certainly. And again, you're welcome to that opinion. But it isn't fact. And shouting over, and over, and over, and over again that your opinion is a fact just makes you sound crazy. Crazy enough that I laughed out loud at it.

And then we have the massive body of anecdotal evidence showing us that in general, you can take a 1E or 2E player, put him in a 3E game, and watch him excel. But when you put a 3E gamer into a 1E or 2E game, he virtually cannot function.

"Massive body of anecdotal evidence". Well first, anecdotal evidence is terrible evidence. Every scientists knows this. It often misleads. But if you want to consider anecdotal evidence I also dispute it. All of my anecdotal evidence runs contrary to this. Literally all but one of the now 15+ players I have brought from 3E, 3.5E, and Pathfinder have become excellent RPers in 2nd edition. They thrived in that system - came to love it, and had high praise for my games. They all equipped themselves well - except one, who was fine but decided to leave the group for a Pathfinder group.

In every way, 3E rendered the game safer, less expensive, and easier for the players. They were coddled. They were emasculated.

Example B of using subjective form to state "fact".

It is also funny to me that you have this need - this compulsion to list your opinion as fact. Why? It belies a lack of sense of self, or of security. Simply be okay with having your opinion. This isn't a court of law. This isn't life or death. Its a game. And its okay to have a difference of opinion. Maybe it was different on DF, but most people in this small community are willing to listen to you - even listen to you as an expert voice. We all respect you - you don't need to try and browbeat respect out of us through tactics like this. Just relax bud. No one is questioning your opinion and if you stop, and simply state your opinion for what it is: your opinion we will happily engage you. Heck - if you don't like that word: "opinion" maybe call it "my judgement" or something.

Tiger

[JadedDM]

And I sort of always held a chip on my shoulder against 3E and 3E-adjacent systems (re: pathfinder, 4E, D20, etc). I held onto that opinion for a long time. And had it cemented after the disaster that was 4E. I can't say I was ever angry about it though? More disappointed. I really wanted 4E to be great. It just wasn't.

I think what happened with me, is I made the same mistake many nerds make even today, and I invested way too much of my own identity into something I enjoy--in this case, 2E. So when 2E was replaced, I felt like I was being replaced. That any attack on 2E was an attack on me. To the point that I refused to accept any criticism of 2E, even when people made pretty good points.

But in my defense, I was a dumb 18 year old kid at the time.

Now that I'm 35 (almost 36!), I've let go of all that. I see the new generation of kids and the new editions not as threats or replacements, but just a continuation of something great. It's not the D&D I grew up with, but just because it's different doesn't mean it's bad. I still enjoy 2E more, but I'm able to see the merits of the new stuff (and at times, steal that new stuff and house rule it into my own games ).

The best part? The core books even address - after the "DM" rule some specific homebrew ways to make the campaigns deadlier.

Yeah, I was just going over the 5E DMG recently (thinking of DMing a 5E game, just to see what it feels like), and I was surprised by what I found in it. The 2E DMG is almost a complete copy of the PHB, with some new stuff included like magical items and such. But the 5E DMG has a pretty big chunk of it devoted to explaining how to not only run a game, but how to create a world, characters, and so forth. It's like a mix of the Worldbuilder's Guide and the Villain's Handbook (two of my favorite 2E splatbooks) with a whole much of other stuff, including optional rules to make things more 'cinematic' or gritty or whatever flavor you're going for. I was impressed. Granted, a lot of the stuff it talked about was 101 for a veteran like me, but damn if that kind of info wouldn't have been immensely helpful when I was a 13 year old kid starting DMing for the first time!

I think the gender inclusivity might be the best part of the changes. As a father to a daughter, and husband to a wife I am excited about the prospect of playing this as a family.

Agreed. I don't have any kids myself, but I do have some nephews and nieces. They are too young right now, but someday I would love to be able to run a game for them. Although it would probably have to be an online game like all of my others, since half are in Georgia and the other half in Utah, while I'm over in Washington.

You haven't been reading all my posts then, because most of them don't mention 3E.

True, some of them are complaining about Dragonsfoot instead.

Another ass-backwards 3E mechanic that made zero sense. That's like saying the more I practice my marksmanship, the worse I get.

I think the idea was more, you are putting a bit of your own soul into the items you are creating. Or something like that. From a more gamist perspective, it was probably just meant to keep people from mass producing magical items for XP. Since in 3E, you can make magical items at any level, you could theoretically just scribe scrolls all day, grinding XP until you gain a few levels. So having them subtract XP instead was meant to curb that, I assume.

And as I said, the game changed because any time you dumb down something for the general masses, it loses its integrity. If you have to cater to the lowest common denominator, that's what you get.

There is a difference between making something more inclusive and accessible, and 'dumbing it down' for the 'lowest common denominator.' People who have different tastes and preferences than you are not inferior to you.

Facts are facts. I rarely heard complaints about level drains except from those players who in my experience were poor players. We all hated it - even I hated it as a DM. But only the poor players whined about it.

So if you don't like something, complaining about it makes you a poor player? Good players grin and bear it, no matter how miserable they are? Think about what you are implying here. You even admit yourself you don't like level draining. So why not get rid of it?

Again, I reflect your logic back on yourself: Aren't you a bad player for complaining about level limits, alignment languages and spell damage caps? Seems like a good player would just stay quiet about those things! See, doesn't that sound completely bonkers?

I always - ALWAYS - back up my arguments with examples, analogies, explanations, rules quotes, etc.

Most of the time, the back ups for your arguments are just insults. You then use those insults to dismiss the other side. E.g., "Nobody ever complained about level draining unless they were whiners and bad players."

'The people who disagree with me are immature/stupid/whiny/easily offended/etc.' is not a valid counterargument to anything, sorry. That's known as the ad hominem fallacy, and if you were as much of a debate expert as you claim to be, you'd know that.

I wonder about that. Every time I pass a gaming store, I never, ever see girls. It's always guys. Every time, every store. Maybe it's a local thing though?

Could be. I can't speak for your local gaming store, obviously. But in my own games, it's not uncommon for half of my players to be women. Once, I even had a 3 to 1 female to male ratio. In my current games, one has 3 women (out of 6 players) and another has 1 woman (out of 4 players).

It's possible most women just avoid gaming stores, and do their shopping and run their games online, like I do. I haven't actually been in a gaming store since I was a kid. In fact, I'm not even sure there are any around here (well, surely they must be; WotC's headquarters are in Seattle, so it would be weird if there were no gaming stores anywhere nearby, right?).

When I speak of the spirit of the game, I'm referring to its original or at least early intent and spirit. It was, as I mentioned, designed to be a sort of war game based on mythology and medieval fantasy and what not, along with being a test of the player's guile and wisdom. Character development was also part of it, but that got expanded on more in 2E.

I don't disagree with any of that. That is what the game was originally meant to be. But it has grown and changed since then, to reflect the fact that it's audience has grown and changed, as well. I just don't think that's a bad thing, as you seem to.

If they throw any sense of realism out the window, if they throw out internal logic and consistency, then they're not really playing the game.

Sure they are. It's just not the same game you prefer to play. The rules as written, of any edition, are not some holy canon that can never be violated. People house rule. You yourself do, as you admitted you don't use level limits.

Another analogy would be taking a chess game and making new rules for it, where knights can move anywhere, in any direction, any number of squares, and bishops can curse other pieces and checkmate doesn't kill your king, it just puts the queen in charge. It may be fun, but it's not chess.

But if those new rules were adopted en mass by the chess playing community, and thus became 'official' rules of chess, then it would be chess. Chess' rules have changed in the past, after all. In fact, did you know that once upon a time, a queen could only move in one space at a time, and only diagonally? When they changed it, there were many people who complained about how it was ruining the spirit of the game, I'm sure. Now it's just accepted as part of the game.

What I'm saying is simply that 3E is almost totally unrelated to AD&D in both spirit and intent, by design. The facts bear that out. My opinion means nothing. Factually speaking, they are completely different games to where they share only the names and terminologies.

If that was all you were trying to communicate--that 3E is different from 2E, then yes, I completely agree. They are very different games, in spirit, in design and in mechanics. It's the part where you then imply or even outright state that this is a universally bad thing, that it was done to cater to people of low intelligence/maturity or was some kind of betrayal to the 'true' fans that I disagree.

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

TSD wrote:

Halaster - you stated an opinion, and then claimed that the opinion was fact. It is a fact that you have that opinion I suppose. But certainly your opinion isn't fact. Its just... your opinion. And its just as valid as Jaded's, or mine, or Gark, or whoever. Multiple times in this thread you do this:

Yes, and then I list FACTS to prove my point.

(none of the things you were talking about were facts. You used nonspecific adjectives like "coddled" and "emasculated" all of which are subjective and predicated on your (wait for it...) opinion.

Hang on a second...did you actually read my entire post? I'm asking that in all honesty, because I listed probably a hundred things that are factual and that have nothing to do with my opinion.

3E removed the CON limit on how many times you can be resurrected - FACT
3E removed system shock rolls from every spell that required it in 1E and 2E - FACT
3E gave level drains a saving throw to be made non-permanent - FACT
3E upped the power of spells such as heal, raise dead, etc - FACT
3E introduced quick-fix spells that can do things far beyond anything found in 1E and 2E (such as mass heal, greater restoration, etc) - FACT
3E removed the CON loss with each death - FACT
3E removed the resurrection survival roll, which means every raise dead or resurrection spell has a 100% chance of working - FACT
3E allowed PCs who die and are raised to immediately jump into combat with 1hp/level and likely having memorized spells still memorized, compared to 1hp and bed rest required in 1E/2E - FACT

And so on and so forth. Don't take my word for it - pick up the 3E DMG/PHB and check it out yourself. These are FACTS, not opinions. The FACT that this made the game safer and easier for players is also FACT, not opinion, as that FACT is based on other FACTS. It's not an opinion to say "it's easier to avoid permanent death in 3E than in 1E or 2E" because the FACTS I posted above prove that statement to be FACTUAL.

I'm not posting those words in all bold caps to be arrogant, btw, but rather to draw attention to the fact they they are...well...FACTS!

See example A here. You seem to quote a source (PHB and DMG) and yet I've read those books and seen no such moment. No where in the book do the authors state, authoritatively that they have emasculated the game or made it cheaper. You drew that opinion certainly. And again, you're welcome to that opinion. But it isn't fact. And shouting over, and over, and over, and over again that your opinion is a fact just makes you sound crazy. Crazy enough that I laughed out loud at it.

Wait a minute again...please tell me you didn't expect the authors of 3E to actually state: "We've weakened, cheapened and emasculated the game" in print!

Again, we don't care what the authors wrote. We look at the FACTS in the case. Imagine a court drama where the accused says "I didn't do it" and the prosecutor says "Well, we have receipts for the gun you bought on your credit card, we have the texts from your phone to the victim's stating stating your intent to shoot him, and we have you on video clearly seen shooting him, along with 6 witnesses of impeccable reputation". Who cares what the suspect says? The FACTS speak all the truth we need to make the decision.

Same here.

Casting spells is safer in 3E because no spell in 3E ages you or requires a system shock roll. FACT.
Casting spells in 1E/2E can kill you. They cannot do so in 3E. FACT.
It's far easier to come back from the dead in 3E because there are no CON limits, no CON loss to make it harder each time, and no resurrection survival roll is needed. FACT.

And so on and so forth. The anecdotal evidence also backs the facts. Countless times I have seen people post stories about how 1E/2E gamers who tried 3E excelled at it, but 3E gamers had avery rough time adjusting to 1E/2E. BECAUSE 3E IS EASIER! The evidence backs the FACTS.

3E gamer (playing 1E/2E): "Whattya mean I gotta roll to see if the resurrection spell works on my PC? It always works!"
1E/2E DM: "Not in 1E/2E".

"Massive body of anecdotal evidence". Well first, anecdotal evidence is terrible evidence. Every scientists knows this. It often misleads. But if you want to consider anecdotal evidence I also dispute it. All of my anecdotal evidence runs contrary to this. Literally all but one of the now 15+ players I have brought from 3E, 3.5E, and Pathfinder have become excellent RPers in 2nd edition. They thrived in that system - came to love it, and had high praise for my games. They all equipped themselves well - except one, who was fine but decided to leave the group for a Pathfinder group.

Anecdotal evidence proves nothing, you're right. But it does bolster the FACTUAL arguments. And for every one person such as yourself who's seen what you say you've seen, I've read 50 posts with the exact opposite anecdotal evidence. But if we simply cancel out the anecdotal evidence we can simply focus on the FACTS, which back each and every one of my claims.

Example B of using subjective form to state "fact".

Ok, this is starting to be tiresome, and it's one of my big pet peeves. When people chuckle at an argument made in good faith, it shows they don't have an argument and cannot handle the debate. You're laughing at this statement:

In every way, 3E rendered the game safer, less expensive, and easier for the players. They were coddled. They were emasculated.

As if it were not true. So instead of chuckling, why don't you enlighten me and show me how 3E did NOT make it safer, did NOT make it less expensive, did NOT make it easier for players? Can you provide some FACTS to shoot down my claims? Surely, if I'm factually wrong, you can disprove my claims with FACTS of your own. Chuckling is not a fact. Show me how spells are not safer to cast (for both caster and recipient) in 3E, show me how level drains are not softer in 3E, show me how death is not as harsh a setback in 3E as in 1E/2E, show me how it's harder to regain 6 level drains in 3E than in 1E/2E, etc. Just go back to my points-list above and refute the one by one.

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

JadedDM wrote:

I think what happened with me, is I made the same mistake many nerds make even today, and I invested way too much of my own identity into something I enjoy--in this case, 2E. So when 2E was replaced, I felt like I was being replaced. That any attack on 2E was an attack on me. To the point that I refused to accept any criticism of 2E, even when people made pretty good points.

That definitely doesn't describe me. I never felt "replaced" by 3E. Hell, by the end of 2E when nothing was coming out, I assumed the game was dead as far as the market goes. And remember, I'm harshly critical of lots of things in both 1E and 2E. Demi-human level limits, anyone? Spell damage caps?

True, some of them are complaining about Dragonsfoot instead

I actually feel sorry for them. The good members at least. Am I going to have to go through all 913 posts I have here to prove you wrong that all my posts are about 3E and DF as opposed to being a tiny portion of them?

I think the idea was more, you are putting a bit of your own soul into the items you are creating. Or something like that. From a more gamist perspective, it was probably just meant to keep people from mass producing magical items for XP. Since in 3E, you can make magical items at any level, you could theoretically just scribe scrolls all day, grinding XP until you gain a few levels. So having them subtract XP instead was meant to curb that, I assume.

It was a very poor mechanic by any measure. It was stupid. The fact that they allowed characters to create magic items at any level was another stupid mistake that only created the need for a highly illogical "fix" to a problem that didn't exist in 1E/2E. They created a problem that only resulted in a compounded problem. Stupidity.

There is a difference between making something more inclusive and accessible, and 'dumbing it down' for the 'lowest common denominator.' People who have different tastes and preferences than you are not inferior to you.

No, but when you simplify everything and make it easier, you are catering to the lowest common denominator. I know that sounds a bit haughty or snobbish, and maybe it is, but it's true.

So if you don't like something, complaining about it makes you a poor player? Good players grin and bear it, no matter how miserable they are? Think about what you are implying here. You even admit yourself you don't like level draining. So why not get rid of it?

Well, I don't like dying in AD&D either. Or failing a saving throw and being petrified. Or being possessed by a ghost and being turned against my friends and team mates. Or having my awesome magical weapons destroyed by a dragon's breath. But I don't whine about it. It's part of the game. If you don't like it, don't play it. You can't play Monopoly if you can't handle the fact that you're gonna be stuck paying money and perhaps going bankrupt. If we start removing everything detrimental that we don't like in AD&D, then we might as well just ditch AD&D and go play Candyland.

Again, I reflect your logic back on yourself: Aren't you a bad player for complaining about level limits, alignment languages and spell damage caps? Seems like a good player would just stay quiet about those things! See, doesn't that sound completely bonkers?

It's not at all the same. The changes I cite in 3E were made in response to players wanting things to be easier. Or WOTC wanting to make it easier in order to cater to the general masses, depending on how we look at that. Removing level limits did not make the game easier for players, or emasculate the game, or weaken it. It simply made it possible for demi-humans to keep pace with their team mates in a fair manner. I'm not going to cover that argument in detail again - it's posted in excruciating detail all over the place. Demihuman level limits were nothing more than an illogical, poorly designed mechanic that was included in a ham-handed attempt by Gygax solely to force more players to play human characters. That fact has been settled for years.

Spell damage caps made no sense from an in-game logical viewpoint, and it wasn't even a matter of removing them. We simply never added them in as a new rule like 2E did. We kept playing it the same way we had for over a decade. Again, that did not make it easier for players. It retained the status quo that had existed for over a decade. We looked at the new rule and said "Well, I don't see the need for that rule, it's illogical". It had nothing to do with making the game easier or harder. Removing alignment languages was the same thing. It didn't make the game easier or harder. They're just so whacky that nobody can make sense of it and nobody ever really used it. Even Gygax admitted it was a silly mistake to include them. We simply never found a way to use them or a need for them.

There is a world of difference between not adopting a new rule, or ignoring an old one, when that rule violates in-game logic and suspension of disbelief and/or serves no purpose in the game,as opposed to making every single spell that was once risky now totally safe to cast (or to have cast on oneself), giving characters an unlimited number of lives (no CON limit - in essence, they are immortal, like in a video game), removing things that were difficult to overcome by either removing them altogether (system shock rolls, resurrection survival rolls, artificial aging, etc), toning down the effects of certain things (level drains getting saving throws, not being permanent, etc), making spells uber-powerful (a single raise dead spell not only raises you from the dead - it also gives you 1hp/level, like a cure critical wounds spell, cures poison like a neutralize poison spell, wipes out disease like a cure disease spell, raises ability scores like...um...no spell in 1E/2E, gives the raised PC only a 50% chance of losing any memorized spell as opposed to a 100% chance in 1E/2E, and all this for a lousy 500 gp fee), creating even more uber-powerful spells such as greater restoration which can restore an unlimited number of levels lost to level drain for a mere 500 xp "cost", and so on and so forth.

Most of the time, the back ups for your arguments are just insults. You then use those insults to dismiss the other side. E.g., "Nobody ever complained about level draining unless they were whiners and bad players."

'The people who disagree with me are immature/stupid/whiny/easily offended/etc.' is not a valid counterargument to anything, sorry. That's known as the ad hominem fallacy, and if you were as much of a debate expert as you claim to be, you'd know that.

When did I say I was an expert? I never took formal classes in debate. I just know how to. Funny how you focus on the few lines where I call players bad players or DMs but ignore the glut of facts I stated. That tells me you simply cannot debate the facts. That's called evasion. I offer you the same challenge I gave TSD. Show me where I am wrong. Factually. Show me how spells are not safer in 3E, or how coming back from the dead is not easier in 3E, etc.

Could be. I can't speak for your local gaming store, obviously. But in my own games, it's not uncommon for half of my players to be women. Once, I even had a 3 to 1 female to male ratio. In my current games, one has 3 women (out of 6 players) and another has 1 woman (out of 4 players).

It's possible most women just avoid gaming stores, and do their shopping and run their games online, like I do. I haven't actually been in a gaming store since I was a kid. In fact, I'm not even sure there are any around here (well, surely they must be; WotC's headquarters are in Seattle, so it would be weird if there were no gaming stores anywhere nearby, right?).

True. We have a handful in the Chicago area, but I only pass by them now and then. It might well be that I'm simply missing "girls night" or something but I can't recall ever stopping in one or looking inside and seeing a girl there.

I don't disagree with any of that. That is what the game was originally meant to be. But it has grown and changed since then, to reflect the fact that it's audience has grown and changed, as well. I just don't think that's a bad thing, as you seem to.

Changed, yes. Grown, no. Devolved perhaps.

Sure they are. It's just not the same game you prefer to play. The rules as written, of any edition, are not some holy canon that can never be violated. People house rule. You yourself do, as you admitted you don't use level limits.

No, they're not playing the game because they're not using the rules. In AD&D you simply cannot be a paladin/assassin due to alignment restrictions. AD&D recognizes alignment as a core concept of the game. If you're playing a game with paladin/assassins, that's not AD&D, that's a derivative game based loosely on AD&D.

But if those new rules were adopted en mass by the chess playing community,

They weren't adopted en masse. A huge portion of gamers never went on to 3E or beyond.

Chess' rules have changed in the past, after all. In fact, did you know that once upon a time, a queen could only move in one space at a time, and only diagonally? When they changed it, there were many people who complained about how it was ruining the spirit of the game, I'm sure. Now it's just accepted as part of the game.

There's a difference between changing a few rules and changing the entire spirit, focus, feel, dynamic and direction of the game.

If that was all you were trying to communicate--that 3E is different from 2E, then yes, I completely agree. They are very different games, in spirit, in design and in mechanics. It's the part where you then imply or even outright state that this is a universally bad thing, that it was done to cater to people of low intelligence/maturity or was some kind of betrayal to the 'true' fans that I disagree.

I'm saying that 3E is a weakened, emasculated, watered down derivative of AD&D and the facts back that claim 100%. And I stand by that claim until proven otherwise.

[JadedDM]

It's part of the game. If you don't like it, don't play it.

Or just change it. That's what house rules are. Or new editions, for that matter.

Show me where I am wrong. Factually. Show me how spells are not safer in 3E, or how coming back from the dead is not easier in 3E, etc.

Um, I never argued those points, Hal. Show me where I ever disputed that spells in 3E are less punishing to players or that raising isn't easier. I completely agree that spells are safer and raising is easier in 3E. What I am arguing with you about is whether those are bad things or not, or whether the people who prefer them that way are immature/stupid/etc.

No, they're not playing the game because they're not using the rules. In AD&D you simply cannot be a paladin/assassin due to alignment restrictions. AD&D recognizes alignment as a core concept of the game. If you're playing a game with paladin/assassins, that's not AD&D, that's a derivative game based loosely on AD&D.

The rules state demi-humans have level limits. You do not use level limits. Therefore, by your own logic, you are not playing AD&D. You are merely playing a derivative game based loosely on AD&D.

They weren't adopted en masse. A huge portion of gamers never went on to 3E or beyond.

Citation needed. Please show how many gamers never switched. What percentage? More than 50%? Are there actual numbers on that? How would you even know that?

I'm saying that 3E is a weakened, emasculated, watered down derivative of AD&D and the facts back that claim 100%. And I stand by that claim until proven otherwise.

No, you're stating opinion. You want to argue 3E is different, fine, but nobody here is arguing with you on that. You want to argue that 3E is less punishing and grueling, fine, again, nobody here is arguing otherwise. But calling it 'weakened, emasculated and watered down' is just your opinion.

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

JadedDM wrote:

Or just change it. That's what house rules are. Or new editions, for that matter.

You're saying take out death, level drains, petrification, etc? Then play Candyland. It's not D&D. There's a difference between tweaking the rules and changing the entire focus of the game.

Um, I never argued those points, Hal. Show me where I ever disputed that spells in 3E are less punishing to players or that raising isn't easier. I completely agree that spells are safer and raising is easier in 3E. What I am arguing with you about is whether those are bad things or not, or whether the people who prefer them that way are immature/stupid/etc.

I never said that people who play it are immature and stupid for playing it, although admittedly a lot of them are. I also never said these things are bad per se...if you want to play a different game. It's bad if you still want to pretend to be playing D&D. Making the game easier, safer, less challenging for the players doesn't make them better players. This is why the general consensus I've observed over the past 17 years is that 3E players have a lot more problem adapting to earlier editions than earlier editions have adapting to older editions. They never developed the skills needed to play the game. A 3E player who is used to being able to haste his whole team, a player who is used to his 15th level fighter getting raised and being able to jump back into the action with 15 hp and the poison that killed him neutralized or the disease that killed him cured, the player who is used to facing off fearlessly against level draining undead because there is a saving throw and who cares if you miss it because a single cheap spell will restore all 12 levels you lost...they tend to have a seriously hard time playing a real D&D game where it doesn't work this way.

The rules state demi-humans have level limits. You do not use level limits. Therefore, by your own logic, you are not playing AD&D. You are merely playing a derivative game based loosely on AD&D.

You're missing a huge difference there. Changing one rule such as demihuman level limit does not change the core spirit, focus, or style of the game. It has zero effect on the campaign world, the campaign style, or anything else. Some players may choose demihumans than otherwise would have, but that's insignificant. But when you change a core mechanic such as violating the alignment system and allowing illogical, impossible combinations such as paladin/assassin or half-pixie/half-dragon characters, you're moved into a whole different realm of fantasy.

Citation needed.

I don't jump when someone barks "citation" because inevitably they simply refuse to accept the authority of the citation. You're just being argumentative. But I'll give you a few forums to back my claim: DF, K&K Alehouse, BIP Project, Grognard Tavern, Gene Weigel's Dungeon, the OOP Forums at WOTC, and so on.

Please show how many gamers never switched. What percentage? More than 50%? Are there actual numbers on that? How would you even know that?

Don't know. Don't care. A lot. Reference the numbers of players at the aforementioned forums and extrapolate. An accurate answer would be "a lot".

No, you're stating opinion. You want to argue 3E is different, fine, but nobody here is arguing with you on that. You want to argue that 3E is less punishing and grueling, fine, again, nobody here is arguing otherwise. But calling it 'weakened, emasculated and watered down' is just your opinion.

Emasculate - v. to deprive of strength or vigor; to weaken; to render effeminate; to vitiate by unmanly softness. Synonyms: sissify, undermine, unstrengthen.

3E made everything easier, safer and cheaper. This coddled the characters. That is emasculation. It's a sissified edition. "I don't want to get level drained, I don't want to need a system shock roll for being hasted, I don't want to make a resurrection survival roll to survive resurrection..."

It weakened the game by making it safer, easier and cheaper. It undermined the challenge. Case closed.

[garhkal]

Thankfully, that is starting to change now.

(In regards to more women in D&D). I too am very excited about this. I think the gender inclusivity might be the best part of the changes.

So am i.. Pity most females i see, still avoid old school adnd, and mostly do pathfinder, shadow run or such..

Another ass-backwards 3E mechanic that made zero sense. That's like saying the more I practice my marksmanship, the worse I get. Whoever came up with that mechanic had brain damage!

IMO it was done to capitulate to the whiners about how HARD 1 and 2e made creating magic items..

And as I said, the game changed because any time you dumb down something for the general masses, it loses its integrity. If you have to cater to the lowest common denominator, that's what you get.

Very true. Trying to be more inclusive to all, kind of took away some of the core 'feel' that 1e and 2e had imo..

I wonder about that. Every time I pass a gaming store, I never, ever see girls. It's always guys. Every time, every store. Maybe it's a local thing though?

From my times in Ravenstone, i've seen roughly 4 girls, 3 of them Multiple times, playing pathfinder or 5e there.. The other was doing a Xwing tourny.. Over at the guard tower, most of the gals i've seen were for various clix events.. Only once did i see one there for an rpg (some game based on one of the Jap animes, not sure which).. MOST of the gals i see though, gaming, are at Conventions..

So if you don't like something, complaining about it makes you a poor player? Good players grin and bear it, no matter how miserable they are? Think about what you are implying here. You even admit yourself you don't like level draining. So why not get rid of it?

Its more of a "whining to either the editor, OR to your dm to 'get rid of it, i don't like it' that is making them sound like poor players.. I doubt there's a player of ANY RPG out there, that likes losing, or likes their character dying. BUT to remove any chance of failure from a game, turns it IMO no into a game, but into "Story time"..

I'm not posting those words in all bold caps to be arrogant, btw, but rather to draw attention to the fact they they are...well...FACTS!

Hal.. Maybe its HOW you are saying it, that grates people the wrong way..
Every thought of that?

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

Garhkal wrote:

IMO it was done to capitulate to the whiners about how HARD 1 and 2e made creating magic items..

Yup. And so they made it easier to create magic items, and therefore created a true problem - the proliferation of magic items at low levels. And so they had to invent perhaps the most idiotic rule ever created for a D&D based game, which is losing xp for creating magic items. I mean, seriously - even demi-human level limits are genius-level logic next to losing xp for creating magic items. And coming from me that says a lot, as I consider demi-human level limits to be the single most idiotic, nonsensical rule in all of AD&D (beyond even alignment languages and spell damage caps).

Very true. Trying to be more inclusive to all, kind of took away some of the core 'feel' that 1e and 2e had imo..

It's hard for me not to be extremely judgmental, I admit that freely. I hold myself, and therefore others, to extremely high standards. Comes from my upbringing and field of work. But I have to admit, having met large numbers of 3E/3.5E+ gamers, the vast majority fall far short of the level of player I routinely encountered playing 1E/2E. Before anyone starts jumping all over me about what I'm about to say, keep in mind that this is a very general blanket remark and does not exclude the obvious exceptions, but in my experience the 1E/2E players - overall, in general - have tended to be better read, smarter, more knowledgeable, and more mature than the 3E players. Obviously this isn't always the case. But the bottom line is that - from experience - over the course of decades of gaming and meeting hundreds of players from each edition, if I had to pick someone to play in my games (and I expect smart, mature, gamers who understand the source material), I would never, ever pick a 3E/3.5E+ gamer over a 1E/2E gamer, sight unseen. Never.

When I used to walk into a store with a group of gamers in the 1E/2E days, my mental conversation to myself would sound something like this...

"Good gamer, good, gamer, poor gamer, great gamer, wish I had this one in my campaigns, this one has potential, good gamer, two great gamers there, he's awesome, god that guy is a moron, good gamer, powergamer (don't want him in my game), is that guy even conscious, good gamer, good gamer, needs a bath or shower, awesome gamer."

Whenever I've seen a 3E game going on, it would sound more like this:

"Moron, powergamer, powergamer, what the hell is he talking about, rules lawyer, retarded at best, powergamer, moron, must be a Diablo fanatic, he might be ok, powergamer, does this guy know he's playing an RPG and not a video game, he looks 30 but acts 10, ok gamer, must be the ritalin or the anti-depressants, trying to be a good gamer I guess."

I'm not trying to be offensive, but this is the image I get. It's my experience - nothing more, nothing less.

From my times in Ravenstone, i've seen roughly 4 girls, 3 of them Multiple times, playing pathfinder or 5e there.. The other was doing a Xwing tourny.. Over at the guard tower, most of the gals i've seen were for various clix events.. Only once did i see one there for an rpg (some game based on one of the Jap animes, not sure which).. MOST of the gals i see though, gaming, are at Conventions..

I'd assume conventions would be the place they'd most likely be seen.

Its more of a "whining to either the editor, OR to your dm to 'get rid of it, i don't like it' that is making them sound like poor players.. I doubt there's a player of ANY RPG out there, that likes losing, or likes their character dying. BUT to remove any chance of failure from a game, turns it IMO no into a game, but into "Story time"..

In my day, people who whined about the game were not invited back. The game is like life - it's what you make of it. If things don't go your way, how do you handle it? Back in the day, brutal things used to happen. And we accepted it as part of the game. You got level drained - sucks to be you. Keep adventuring! You got a cursed sword? Sucks to be you. Try to find a cleric to remove curse. You died and your party managed to secure a raise dead or resurrection spell, but you fail your resurrection survival roll? Sucks to be you. Roll up a new character.

But 3E was designed, and this was admitted by the designers, to have accelerated advancement (leveling up) and to remove those things they felt impeded that advancement. I remember them posting that at WOTC. Hence, they did away with needing 1 day of bed rest for each day you were dead (if raised), and allowed you to retain memorized spells and all that. I don't care how hard anyone argues against this - because it makes them dead wrong - but 3E was designed to be easier, faster, less challenging, safer, etc. It coddled the players. Period. I hope no one challenges that, because then I'll have to write a 5 page post with example after example from each edition comparing and contrasting each and every change made to make it easier. I may have to learn how to insert a table in that post.

Hal.. Maybe its HOW you are saying it, that grates people the wrong way..
Every thought of that?

Well of course it is! But that's why I explain myself. Though some posts sound angry or bitter towards 3E, I'm not. Some things don't translate well on the internet. I rip on 3E out of principle and for fun, not because it alienated me or let me down or passed me by or any of that nonsense. What does irritate me though, is when someone laughs off an argument without addressing the facts. If that's how it is, why should I bother to post facts and analysis? Instead I can just say "This is the way it is. I'm right." And the other person can say "No I'm right". And without discussing a single rule or fact, we can have a "debate" that boils down to "yes I am/no you're not". But that's not debate, is it? And even then it's not so much anger at the other person as it is irritating disappointment. It's the fact that we could be having an interesting discussion/debate on the points of the matter, but one side is simply evading it, so why even reply?

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

I could swear there was another thread speaking more on topic about what I just came across, but I can't seem to find it. So I'm posting it in this old thread because it sorta fits I guess. I've written a lot, and quite often, about how AD&D became watered down and how once you water something down for the masses, it loses its soul. I've always argued that the game was better when it served a niche audience and that really the game should exist for more intelligent players. Today I came across an old quote in the 1E PHB that I haven't looked at in ages (and that I wished to quote earlier but forgot where to find it):

"After all, the game's major appeal is to those persons with unusually active imagination and superior, active intellect - a very demanding audience indeed."

- 1E PHB, pg. 5

Amen, Gary, amen!