what is better

[The Hatter]

Celest, You need to start reading the threads before you post on them. Back up your reasoning with quotes and or reasons why you think that way. I'm looking out for your well being on the board sweetie.

[ravenstorme]

Okay... my turn, although mine will not be as lengthy or informative. I have played 2nd ed through 3.5. While I enjoyed playing all of them, I believe 3.5 is the best. I agree with Artemi on everything he has said thus far. How can you people say that 3.5 ed isn't D&D?? Same races, same basic classes, same kind of weapons, same kind of magic, same ideas. Just changed... made (to most people) better. There is a reason they have continued to make new editions. Yes, I know... the company has to make their money. But the people that sit down and hash it out, decide what needs to be changed... most of them are probably just like us... and don't care about the money. They just want to make the game better. There is a reason they got rid of THAC0... it was a very difficult system to teach. If you can't teach someone new thats interested in the game the system, then you won't be continuing the game very well. So what can I say? Every now and then I'll sit down with you guys and play 2nd ed for old times' sake, but I'll be buying the new 3.5 ed books and playing that more.

[gryphonpoet]

3rd Ed is a completely different system to play. Plain and simple. I have been playing D&D in various forms since 1980, from Basic (Lands of Karameikos) through AD&D (the modules of historic proportions) and including the New Game System of 3rd Ed. I can transpose characters from 1st Ed to 2nd Ed easily enough. They can NOT be brought from 2nd Ed to 3rd.

The races are not the same. There are major changes to a lot of the bonuses afforded to the races in the game. There are also MANY things changed about the classes, even the basic ones. The weapons are similar, only more complicated in the area of crits (both successes AND failures). Magic is COMPLETELY different in 3rd Ed. I am still puzzling why you assert it is the same. Sorry. Ideas are the same, but the ideas don't belong to the game, but to the people running it and playing it.

Just the same if I buy a farm and I rename my cows sheep, they will still be cows. If the system is different, then the name should be as well... similarities in titles not withstanding.

The analogy from my first post still stands.

gryphonpoet said:

1st ed AD&D is like a bowl of ice cream. 2nd Ed is a sundae with nuts, whipped cream and bananas. 3rd Ed is a pepperoni pizza.

Nothing wrong with it, it just isn't ice cream.

[Dyne]

Secretly I've been avoiding posting in this discussion. In the past a friend of mine and I got into a very heated discussion about this topic and we actually stopped talking because of it for a while. I would like to avoid this. After saying that here is my opinion.

Most of you who know me in RL know that I one of Troy's resident DM's. I mostly play 3.5 dnd and other games based on 3.0 and 3.5 such as Star Wars RPG and Mutants and Masterminds. But what most people do not know is that I started with 2nd ed. AD&D. I even ran some games online on a message board I ran oh so many years ago. I loved it and everything about it.

Then I learned of 3rd edition DnD. I played and loved it as much as I played 2nd ed. To me the system didn't matter. I was able to play in a world where I could be someone else. Escape from reality and be someone else. This is why I played dnd. It wasn't about mechanics or power leveling or getting that next spell so that I can deal 180 damage with a single spell (which by the way I can )it was about role playing.

But as a played I learned more about the systems and how they worked. I learned every inch and every nook and cranny. I started to want to play other races with other classes. Why can't a dwarf be a paladin? If you think about it, besides the fact that clan comes first, their lawful nature would allow them to lean toward a life of devotion to a single idea and belief. Some things just didn't make sense. It wasn't "open" enough for me.

So I started play mainly 3.0 and 3.5 dnd. I started learning every nook and cranny of those systems. I found flaws and unbalances on every turn. (seriously look at the fighter... whats the point?) 3.5 and its expansion books improved on such classes as the fighter and gave optional rules to balance out such imperfections but a Ranger will always win other classes will fall short.

Both systems have their flaws and we could sit here and name them till the end of time. But DnD is not about the system, its about the game. Saying something is DnD does not apply that it is a certain system. DnD is the soul and 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5 are the system. I'm in it for the soul, I don't know about the rest of you.

[curulambe]

Two questions for the floor.

1) For the proponents of the D&D continuity argument: What is that thing by virtue of which you call this game D&D? It is not the system; it is not the setting; it is not the company.

2) Eunhathes: You mentioned the high fantasy vs. low fantasy distinction. What is it, specifically, about WotC's product that makes it "high fantasy" as opposed to TSR's "low fantasy".

Also, so my own opinion is totally clear: I hate D&D, in all its incarnations. I appreciate what it has done for the hobby, much like I appreciate what Hume has done for philosophy, but that doesn't mean I have to like it (or him) one bit. "Classes" and "levels" are abhorrent concepts to me, and I don't think they have any place in tabletop roleplaying; furthermore, it has been my experience that the mechanics of the d20 system, while admirably universal, tend to discourage good roleplaying. I cannot speak thus for 2nd Edition AD&D as the last time I played it was when I was fourteen, and not the most mature of roleplayers.

TSR's worlds, however, are wonderful things. I am especially fond of Athas.

[eunhathes]

Low Fantasy: Any fantastic setting in which the emphasis and focus is on the impact the society has on the characters. Importance is placed upon the individual's worth to society, their station and office, and their utility to their lieges and vassals. This term is also applicable to the level of technology in the setting, most often a medieval era of a world's history. Common examples: BattleTech (not MechWarrior), Star Trek's Dominion War, most historical events.

High Fantasy: Any fantastic setting in which the main focus of the story is the characters and the way they utilize the society to their advantage. These stories consist of one hero(ine) or a small, expert group of heroes. Also, like low fantasy, High Fantasy can refer to the level of technology in the world in comparison to the best historical equivalent. Common examples: Final Fantasy, The Matrix, most mythologies.

In essence, the difference between High and Low fantasy is historical accuracy and politics. One is more likely to encounter geopolitical manipulation in Low Fantasy while one is more likely to encounter Air Ships in High Fantasy.

[curulambe]

While I appreciate the definitions, sir, you still have not addressed the question. What are the specific differences between WotC's and TSR's products that cause you to make the high/low fantasy distinction?

[gryphonpoet]

I hate D&D, in all its incarnations..."Classes" and "levels" are abhorrent concepts to me, and I don't think they have any place in tabletop roleplaying;

This confuses me and I have to ask. If you hate the subject we're talking about then why are you here posting? This is nothing more than a chat about which we prefer and why. If the ideas and concepts of Dungeons and Dragons (specifically as regards to the mechanics, which is what we are primarily discussing here), then why are you even posting here?

This has been a fun exercise to read and I doubt that anyone is so serious about it as to stop talking to a friend because of the discussion. That borders on obsession... in either direction.

Sorry, but I guess that I just don't understand. Mostly people don't post unless they are actually interested in the subject on which the thread focuses. Otherwise, I believe the intent is for the thread to be fun. Nothing more.

*shrugs*

[curulambe]

I am interested, to be sure, but frankly I'm more interested in the debate itself than in the topic thereof. I'm not a rabid OMG IF YOU PLAY DND THEN I KILL YOU type. I just very much don't enjoy it myself, which, like I said, doesn't mean that I don't appreciate that it has good points nor that I dislike discussion of what I see as a question which touches on one of the fundamental problems of tabletop roleplaying.

I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade. The only reason I brought up my own opinion on the matter was so that people would be clear on where I was coming from.

[gryphonpoet]

My bad...

It was the words "hate... in all its incarnations", "abhorrent" and "no place in tabletop gaming" that confused me for a while. They are pretty strong statements to make when you actually do mean that you prefer to play another game. Those words are used more often than not by the "OMG I'LL KILL YOU IF YOU PLAY DND" types of people.

KWIM?

[curulambe]

::laughs:: I see where the confusion arises. While I do in fact mean all of those statements, in all their strength, I recognize that many people don't agree with me, and I'm fine with that. It's similar to how I have a moral objection on general principle to taking a cucumber - which is already not the most appetizing of vegetables - and SOAKING IT IN BRINE FOR WEEKS before eating it. Doesn't mean I'm going to go around telling people they're awful and evil and bad if they eat pickles.

I'm not so much the I KILL YOU school as the I DONT PLAY IN THAT GAME WITH YOU REALLY SIR MOVE ALONG school. Apologies for the confusion.

[gryphonpoet]

So....... Pickles are an evil incarnation of Satan? And you are fine with things that you find abhorrent?

Wow... Has the English language changed so much in the last year or two? Or do I just misunderstand meanings of these words in particular?

Now, I am even MORE confused than ever.

[Dyne]

Not to be rude but this is getting off of topic. If you would like to argue how to debate create another thread or take it to personal messages. Other wise lets talk about the different DnD editions and why you like one more than another. That is the topic at hand.

Thanks,
Dyne

[gryphonpoet]

Sorry. That is my fault. Occasionally, I get nitpicky about words and this was one of those times. Curulambe and I have spoken offline and have resolved the confusion and we're all better now...

Well, he is all better and I am almost as well as I was. ;D

Joe