Yama-Arashi wrote:I normally stay out of these kind of fights because they make me feel old. I'm hearing the Arduin vs. D&D fights again. I'm hearing the "my anti-paladin can beat up your ninja" fights. We had the D&D vs Runequest fights in my neighborhood, no quarter asked for or given.Video games are ruining today's youth? That's exactly the same argument I heard from my fossilized elders about how playing D&D "on a perfectly good day when you should be out riding your bike" was ruining me. But they were right...look how overweight I am now.... Those same elders seem pretty comfortable with my paying 35 grand a year in taxes to keep them in Social Security and Medicare, using skills I developed through years of role-playing, so I'm willing to cut kids today a little slack that they'll come out all right when it's their turn to step up and support me in my dotage. Probably not, ever see "Soylent Green"? I don't look for much better in the future from this generation of clods. 8O I don't care who likes or plays what. I personally think that Champions was the lamest excuse for an RPG to ever come down the pike, but I have many good friends with great memories of their Champions games. Good on them. I know someone who still likes Aftermath!, which to me is a real puzzler, but, hey, it takes all types.Champions did suck. Villains and Vigilantes was MUCH better, IMO.However, I have to step in and support the guys fighting the good fight for 3e. It's a good system, it's an interesting system, and it's a flexible system. It isn't perfect, but neither was 1st edition. It can be roll-playing focused, or role-playing focus depending on the emphasis. I love the fact that when it was released, it was decried by the 1st editioners as being too "touchy feely" with its skills rules. "True AD&D," we were told, "is kicking in doors, killing the monsters, and taking their loot." This same group now decries 3e for being too "roll-playing focused?" Because you know, there was a lot of role-playing that took place in the Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl or Descent into the Depths of the Earth. They may be great memories, but be honest, how many times did you shoot the s**t with the Jarl or any of his cronies as opposed to going through their pockets for spare change after the fight?People will always hate what they don't understand. Truthfully, no one roleplayed back in the early days unless it was threatening to beat the shit out of Gremag and Rannos Duval in Hommlet for selling you a crappy horse, or hitting on the serving wench at the local tavern for fun because it made you feel cool. It was all about killing the bad guys and counting the coins. Memories are fuzzy things, no one cared about roleplaying until after Dragonlance came out anyway.....As for arguments about d20 books being too shiny? Good lord. Still using a VGA monitor because SVGA is too colorful? 3e isn't the "true descendent" of 1e? I'm sorry, but the removal of negative AC scores does not create a rupture in continuity that forces 3e to a lifetime of bastardized shame. I actually heard someone complain about how 3e was "too miniature focused" as if 1e didn't list all of its distances in table top measurements.I don't care about the books being shiny, just like them in a font I can read without squinting....Grayson, Blackmoor -- we're fighting against the haze of nostalgia. It's hopeless. I know it because I have it, too. I love 1st edition because I loved it when I was 9 years old with the kind of passion that is impossible to work up over a game in my late 30s. But for me, it's a love that isn't blind, and I have as much fun growing with a new system as I do fondling my collection of the old.
Yama-Arashi wrote:I normally stay out of these kind of fights because they make me feel old. I'm hearing the Arduin vs. D&D fights again. I'm hearing the "my anti-paladin can beat up your ninja" fights. We had the D&D vs Runequest fights in my neighborhood, no quarter asked for or given.Video games are ruining today's youth? That's exactly the same argument I heard from my fossilized elders about how playing D&D "on a perfectly good day when you should be out riding your bike" was ruining me.
Yama-Arashi wrote:I normally stay out of these kind of fights because they make me feel old. I'm hearing the Arduin vs. D&D fights again. I'm hearing the "my anti-paladin can beat up your ninja" fights.
Video games are ruining today's youth? That's exactly the same argument I heard from my fossilized elders about how playing D&D "on a perfectly good day when you should be out riding your bike" was ruining me.
Those same elders seem pretty comfortable with my paying 35 grand a year in taxes to keep them in Social Security and Medicare, using skills I developed through years of role-playing, so I'm willing to cut kids today a little slack that they'll come out all right when it's their turn to step up and support me in my dotage.
I don't care who likes or plays what. I personally think that Champions was the lamest excuse for an RPG to ever come down the pike, but I have many good friends with great memories of their Champions games. Good on them. I know someone who still likes Aftermath!, which to me is a real puzzler, but, hey, it takes all types.
However, I have to step in and support the guys fighting the good fight for 3e. It's a good system, it's an interesting system, and it's a flexible system. It isn't perfect, but neither was 1st edition. It can be roll-playing focused, or role-playing focus depending on the emphasis. I love the fact that when it was released, it was decried by the 1st editioners as being too "touchy feely" with its skills rules. "True AD&D," we were told, "is kicking in doors, killing the monsters, and taking their loot." This same group now decries 3e for being too "roll-playing focused?" Because you know, there was a lot of role-playing that took place in the Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl or Descent into the Depths of the Earth. They may be great memories, but be honest, how many times did you shoot the s**t with the Jarl or any of his cronies as opposed to going through their pockets for spare change after the fight?
As for arguments about d20 books being too shiny? Good lord. Still using a VGA monitor because SVGA is too colorful? 3e isn't the "true descendent" of 1e? I'm sorry, but the removal of negative AC scores does not create a rupture in continuity that forces 3e to a lifetime of bastardized shame. I actually heard someone complain about how 3e was "too miniature focused" as if 1e didn't list all of its distances in table top measurements.
Grayson, Blackmoor -- we're fighting against the haze of nostalgia. It's hopeless. I know it because I have it, too. I love 1st edition because I loved it when I was 9 years old with the kind of passion that is impossible to work up over a game in my late 30s. But for me, it's a love that isn't blind, and I have as much fun growing with a new system as I do fondling my collection of the old.
bclarkie wrote:Let me repost my previous post as I imagine folks didnt see it on the other page:Personally IMHO I think this 1 edition versus 3 edition argument is kind of silly. I say this becuase it is like trying to compare apples and oranges. The current rules system in place for 3rd edition is not Dungeons and Dragons. The similarities in 1st ed and 3rd ed are the fact that they are both FRPGs and they both deal with characters and monsters. Other than that there is virtually no common ground shared by the 2 editions at all. Personally I dont see who you can take a game, tear up everything and start from the begining again, make it completely different than the original and want to call it the same thing. Imagine if some modern day artist took the original Mona Lisa tore it up and made a new painting. In this new painitng there was a dark haired woman standing at a party of people with all of her freinds in the mid-city location.This new painting created the artist now wanted it the Mona Lisa. Would anyone in their right mind ever believe that the new painting was now the Mona Lisa? Of course not, so why does anyone accept the fact that 3rd edition is actually Dungeons & Dragons, because it is clearly not. The current edition of D&D is clearly geared toward the video game crowd, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't mean that it should be accepted as D&D either..
Badmike wrote:But then again I'm willing to believe the kids I see play 3e would have min/maxed 2e also down to a souless video game.
Truthfully, no one roleplayed back in the early days unless it was threatening to beat the shit out of Gremag and Rannos Duval in Hommlet for selling you a crappy horse, or hitting on the serving wench at the local tavern for fun because it made you feel cool. It was all about killing the bad guys and counting the coins. Memories are fuzzy things, no one cared about roleplaying until after Dragonlance came out anyway.....
Deadlord36 wrote:Let's see someone come forward and name a 3E player that they know that adds skill points to etiquette. Or weaving. Or forgery. No, can;t do that, it would be wasting points......
Badmike wrote:Properly Dmed, D1-3 should be able to challenge levels over 10th.
Traveller wrote:Show me an average d20 Fantasy player that can describe what their character looks like and what his personality is?
"He's got an 18/00 strength with X, Y, and Z abilities."
GraysonAC wrote:Traveller wrote:"He's got an 18/00 strength with X, Y, and Z abilities."18/00 strength eh? Mixing your systems
Traveller wrote:"He's got an 18/00 strength with X, Y, and Z abilities."
GraysonAC wrote:I'm not "fighting" anything ...
Xaxaxe wrote:WOTC has updated their site with their every-so-often look back at the real D&D. This time, it's a Halloween tribute to the Tomb of Horrors, complete with an art gallery and a 3.5 version of the classic module. It all appears to be freely download-able, for those interested.http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ag/20051031a
Xaxaxe wrote:GraysonAC wrote:I'm not "fighting" anything ... Are you sure about that? You've got 13 posts in this thread ...
did anyone actually download the damn thing?
MShipley88 wrote:deimos3428 wrote:I don't see any modifications to the fighter class in UA at all, unless you're referring to comeliness, social class, or weaponless combat... Barbarian/Cavalier, sure...they were experiments gone awry that unfortunately spawned what we have today. See also: "weapon specialization" and "double weapon specialization."
deimos3428 wrote:I don't see any modifications to the fighter class in UA at all, unless you're referring to comeliness, social class, or weaponless combat... Barbarian/Cavalier, sure...they were experiments gone awry that unfortunately spawned what we have today.
deimos3428 wrote:I had hoped they would have fixed these sort of "power loopholes" by now. Instead, they seem to be creating more, and trying to balance them.
Traveller wrote:GraysonAC wrote:Ah. Well, I certainly concede that then. I do remember the system shock roll, although I think by 2nd Edition (again, if memory serves), there was no bed rest required.I happen to agree that raising characters from the dead is too easy. In my game, Raise Dead (normally 5th) takes the place of Ressurection (7th), and Ressurection gets moved to True Ressurection (9th). True Res is the domain of the Powers only, not players or NPC spellcasters.I forgot the Constitution loss for making the system shock roll (CON permanently reduced by 1), but that's a minor thing.
GraysonAC wrote:Ah. Well, I certainly concede that then. I do remember the system shock roll, although I think by 2nd Edition (again, if memory serves), there was no bed rest required.I happen to agree that raising characters from the dead is too easy. In my game, Raise Dead (normally 5th) takes the place of Ressurection (7th), and Ressurection gets moved to True Ressurection (9th). True Res is the domain of the Powers only, not players or NPC spellcasters.
deimos3428 wrote:Traveller wrote:I forgot the Constitution loss for making the system shock roll (CON permanently reduced by 1), but that's a minor thing. Actually, it is a very, very major thing. The initial constitution score of the character limited the number of times a character could be raised/ressurected. This number could never be changed, even if the constitution was later restored in some manner. Far more severe than a mere level of experience loss.
Traveller wrote:I forgot the Constitution loss for making the system shock roll (CON permanently reduced by 1), but that's a minor thing.
