Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;888332"Nostalgia" and "hates change" are the two biggies.

The notion that I play the game because, you know, I actually like it is not permitted.

Yeah, I've noticed "conventional wisdom" in RPGs does a complete 180 about every 10 years. But "you only like older systems because nostalgia/hate change" is been a constant. I can even cite the dated phrase that would often come up in the mid- to late 90's. Rose-colored glasses.

They even used to have mock threads, probably still do over at that other RPG site for sissies, that the best edition is whatever one I started with. My favorite is AD&D 1st Ed. I started with Red Box basic. And although I collected a lot of AD&D 1st Ed stuff--see, because back then, different editions didn't mean different game, so we could still use stuff from other lines--I eventually transitioned to 2nd Ed, before reverting back to Basic, and then finally settling on 1st Ed as being the best one.

So "bad reasons" are demonstrably false.

Hey, maybe people like new shit for bad reasons. Maybe it's because since they never actually fucking learned to play the game, they aren't having fun, and so are continuously suckered into buying new shit under the pretext that they will finally find their salvation in the pages of a newer book.

I could make a far, far stronger case for that given the amount of whining that goes on or the sense of marvel at brand new innovations that are pretty much the way I've been doing things all along.

Quote from: Omega;888371I hate change for changes sake. I despise change for supposed marketings sake when its been proven false over and over. I will though at least give a new system a glance over and try. Even ones I have a pretty good idea I am not going to be particularly not fond of. That way I at least have a real basis for why I don't like XYZ game or edition rather than the usual "I hate it because someone told me to." sheep.

Get that in board and even wargaming with the "cult of the new" who freak out at the idea of someone daring to keep playing that dirty old version when theres a shiny new version.

I played a fair bit of SW d20 and about a years' worth of Pathfinder.  I have LOTS of stuff I can hate through experience.

I like new stuff.  I'd like to try it out at least once.

What I don't like is when the old fogey's come in all the time and bash the new stuff without any reference other than either something they heard and twisted, or make up some reason why X is bad.

The whole 2e to 3e crap where 3e was accused of trying to be a video game (namely Diablo 2) or the 3e to 4e crap, where people once again made things up about 4e, BEFORE EITHER EDITIONS EVEN CAME OUT!

That is what I have a problem with.

You keep rockin' those old editions.  You keep having your fun.  Just don't accuse us of 'doin' it wrong' because some of us like to try the newer stuff.

That is, and always has been, my beef.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;888564What I don't like is when the old fogey's come in all the time and bash the new stuff without any reference other than either something they heard and twisted, or make up some reason why X is bad.

You keep rockin' those old editions.  You keep having your fun.  Just don't accuse us of 'doin' it wrong' because some of us like to try the newer stuff.

1:Problem is the "new kids" do that to the older games ten times more. And usually its very obvious that they really are just hating because someone told them to.

2: Tarely see that with the older players vs new. Its usually more of a "They changed it. I'd rather stick with what I have since its still playable." rather than "The new version sucks!" except when said new version really does. We are looking at YOU d20 and 4e D&D Gamma World!!!

Back on topic

Another thing I think 3e got right was that is was more or less still backwards compatible with previous editions with a little tweaking. Someone else here I believe pointed out that you can use any pre 3e module with 3e and not break anything overall. Whereas 4e is not backwards compatible.

Quote from: Omega;8886091:Problem is the "new kids" do that to the older games ten times more. And usually its very obvious that they really are just hating because someone told them to.

I'm sure it's more 50/50 than you'd want to believe.  Although, given how older the RPG generation seems to be, my experience has been happening with every knew edition that comes out.  From 0e to 1e, to 2e, to 3e, and so on.  You always have this old guard, and they're just getting older, who will slam a new edition just because it's new.

Quote from: Omega;8886092: Tarely see that with the older players vs new. Its usually more of a "They changed it. I'd rather stick with what I have since its still playable." rather than "The new version sucks!" except when said new version really does. We are looking at YOU d20 and 4e D&D Gamma World!!!

Whereas I've seen it the opposite.  Go into the local game store, and people STILL make disparaging remarks about 3rd edition of D&D, and all the insufferable self-righteousness about how they were right and how 4e is the DEVIL!  And how smart they were by not touching it, and then going off on why, like it's too video game-y or some other BS.

You should have seen the Paizo forums before they purged it.  Then there's TBP even after they sent D&D to the Ghetto Forum.  Then there was WoTC's D&D forums, especially during the transition between 3-4e.  Enworld wasn't exactly kind either...

My anecdote is not fact, but neither is your statement.

Quote from: Omega;888609Back on topic

Another thing I think 3e got right was that is was more or less still backwards compatible with previous editions with a little tweaking. Someone else here I believe pointed out that you can use any pre 3e module with 3e and not break anything overall. Whereas 4e is not backwards compatible.

See?  You're also doing it.  You're attacking for 4e because of some slight.  Accurate or not, it's become such a reflex that frankly it's saddening.  As for 3e being backwards compatible...  Man, the amount of ire that would draw would be both horrific and awesome.  The Edition Warriors would have a field day stripping the flesh from your carcass.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;888611See?  You're also doing it.  You're attacking for 4e because of some slight.  Accurate or not, it's become such a reflex that frankly it's saddening.  As for 3e being backwards compatible...  Man, the amount of ire that would draw would be both horrific and awesome.  The Edition Warriors would have a field day stripping the flesh from your carcass.

Uh... How is pointing out that 4e is not backwards compatible "attacking" 4e or edition warring?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;888564The whole 2e to 3e crap where 3e was accused of trying to be a video game (namely Diablo 2)

So we move from accusing others of liking things for "bad reasons" to accusing others of disliking things for "bad reasons"?

Here's the thing. I eagerly bought 3E as soon as it hit the shelves. I simply found it to be a disappointment. And actually one of my initial impressions--and this was never meant to be a slight as I realize this was a perfectly valid reason why someone LIKED the game--is that it was trying to be a video game.

Not Diablo 2 specifically. I never played Diablo 2. At the time of the release, however, I had a regular table top game going on and I also had a group of friends I played a few different on-line RPGs with. I knew the difference in feel, and I knew how the feel differed even when I was playing with the same group. 3E had the video game feel. This was my first hand experience. I didn't pick it up on the internet as a way of bashing some newfangled system. This was my highly informed opinion based on actual play at the time of 3E's release.

So to see my highly informed opinion of the game characterized as just some hateful internet mythology (which again, is a stupid accusation on the face of it since some people might see its video game like feel as a plus) definitely falls under the heading of condescending bullshit of idiots who just can't handle someone having different tastes.

Quote from: Lunamancer;888623So we move from accusing others of liking things for "bad reasons" to accusing others of disliking things for "bad reasons"?

No.  The issue is lack of facts.  Look, let's pick on Gronan (sorry, dood) he apparently tried 3e (and the Star Wars version) and decided it wasn't for him.  And you know what?  I give him props for it.  He tried it and didn't like, that's perfectly fine.

The issue I have are those who come in and claim that 3e sucks because it's like Diablo 2, and end up never trying, sticking to their guns and disparaging everyone who deigns to try and prove them wrong (3e maps closer to EQ than D2, actually, with it's base conceits of Fighter High Armour, Low Damage, Wizard Low Armour, High Damage and Utility, The Rogue being a position Killer, and the Cleric being the Buff/Healer bot, which ended up being one of the more broken classes because of it.  Like in a lot of MMO's.  But that's not even the point.)  They're objectively wrong, but they flame everyone else who doesn't agree with them.  Vigourously and verbally violent.

I have no issues with people trying out other editions and not liking them.  I've got my issues with a lot of the older editions, most of which are from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with the SYSTEM.  Yes, I tried them, so I have a right to complain about things.  Like having played 2e the longest (3e being the second) I cannot stand THAC0, I find it clunky and counter-intuitive (which I also have issues with the earlier edition matrix systens too, but I haven't played them much, so they MIGHT grow on me.  Like mold.)  I'm also burnt out on 3.x because of the severe imbalance between Caster and everything else.  4e was OK, but it's own conceits get in the way of my fun, so I'm passing on it.

Notice that I've only talked about editions I know about?  I played like all of two, maybe three sessions of Rules Cyclopedia and one of White Box, in which I played a human Thief whose highest stat was 7, but even then I don't and won't pass judgement on them.  I don't know them well enough to.

Quote from: Omega;888621Uh... How is pointing out that 4e is not backwards compatible "attacking" 4e or edition warring?

Even as a 4e fan I believe Omega is correct. 4e wasn't backwards compatible, at least not for the first 2 years within it's release. Anyone who played the game could see that. Now, however, I'm fairly confident in saying that you can come close to re-creating most character concepts of older editions.


 Back on Topic:

I enjoyed the plethora of supplements that 3e put out. I know some were bad but a lot of them were really fun including: Complete Arcane (yay Warlock!), Complete Champion (yay, Paladin options!), Magic Item Compendium, and The Tome of Battle (for obvious reasons). Not to mention the ease of creating your own content.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;8887553e maps closer to EQ than D2, actually, with it's base conceits of Fighter High Armour, Low Damage, Wizard Low Armour, High Damage and Utility, The Rogue being a position Killer, and the Cleric being the Buff/Healer bot, which ended up being one of the more broken classes because of it.  Like in a lot of MMO's.  But that's not even the point.

Well, I'd like to make the point that all of the above is not the point. When I spoke of the different feel, none of the things you listed are relevant to what I meant by that. I'm talking transitioning from players trying creative things in combat to having a special feat for everything. Feats almost seemed like commands you would type into a text-based MU* or kind of like the hotkeys in any number of first-person shooters. I'm guessing Diablo and a lot of CRPGs had similar characteristics. Even the interior art and layout smacked of the sort of thing I see come with a computer game instruction booklet.

So if Diablo is the first example of an RPG that comes to mind, just because you think EQ is closer doesn't mean it's inaccurate to compare it to D2.

QuoteThey're objectively wrong, but they flame everyone else who doesn't agree with them.  Vigourously and verbally violent.

Sure. I encountered some ignorant folk over on dragonsfoot. I nearly got banned for pointing out attacks of opportunity exist in 1E. Yes, I know, we didn't necessarily call them that, nor did we use the term coup de grace, but 1E had that, too. It's one thing to be unaware of these things. It's another thing to be so certain they didn't exist. It's hard for me to call these people true old-school fans because it sure seems they're more concerned about hating 3E than loving 1E.

QuoteI have no issues with people trying out other editions and not liking them.  I've got my issues with a lot of the older editions, most of which are from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with the SYSTEM.  Yes, I tried them, so I have a right to complain about things.

Eh... I do have a problem with this logic. Have you ever been to the movies? How did you know the movie was going to be worth driving across town, spending a couple of hours of your afternoon watching it, and forking over 10 bucks if you'd never seen it before? People are called upon to make decisions under these conditions all the time.

It's unrealistic to insist people have to try something before forming an opinion. People have to form an opinion first as to whether or not it's worth a try. How many of the people you're griping about do you honestly think would enjoy 3E more than anything if only they gave it a fair chance?

QuoteLike having played 2e the longest (3e being the second) I cannot stand THAC0, I find it clunky and counter-intuitive (which I also have issues with the earlier edition matrix systens too, but I haven't played them much, so they MIGHT grow on me.  Like mold.)

It's worth dwelling on this bit of minutia because it epitomizes a couple of things here. First, THAC0 existed in 1E. The DMG even includes "To Hit AC 0" among the compiled monster stat appendix and in the section where the hit tables are presented, it explains how to calculate the number needed to hit. Repeating 20's and all.

Second, is to note that attempts to improve things sometimes make things worse. 2nd Ed gave the most godawful explanation on how to use THAC0 imaginable. I guess the intent was a little hand-holding should make the system easier to learn and use. Vs 1E which was more of a "have it your way" approach--you rather use a formula than look up a table? fine. You rather look up the number you need rather than do math? Also fine.

The way I use THAC0 is in fact easier than 3E's ascending ACs. So that part of the rules, anyway, went from good to horrible to fair. But "fair" is being exalted as great and an innovation. Beliefs in the popular version of what's actually in 1E are providing false context.

QuoteNotice that I've only talked about editions I know about?  I played like all of two, maybe three sessions of Rules Cyclopedia and one of White Box, in which I played a human Thief whose highest stat was 7, but even then I don't and won't pass judgement on them.  I don't know them well enough to.

I'm glad you recognize that a certain level of depth of knowledge/experience is necessary to accurately characterize the RPG in question. So riddle me this. If someone is having the most godawful shitty time playing a particular RPG, why would they continue playing it long enough to obtain the depth necessary to fully explore the game?

So I think it's a false standard. If something about a particular RPG is impeding a large number of people from experiencing it first hand to any appreciable degree, it is useful to criticize that impediment. I described above why I felt 3E was video game like. I could get that just out of reading it. Also just by reading it, I could see the grotesque stat blocks. If I want the computer game feel, I could just play a computer game. The computer will be far more efficient than I would at parsing 3E stat blocks. This is a perfectly valid criticism of 3E that can be observed without ever actually playing the game.

Quote from: Lunamancer;888796Sure. I encountered some ignorant folk over on dragonsfoot. I nearly got banned for pointing out attacks of opportunity exist in 1E. Yes, I know, we didn't necessarily call them that, nor did we use the term coup de grace, but 1E had that, too. It's one thing to be unaware of these things. It's another thing to be so certain they didn't exist. It's hard for me to call these people true old-school fans because it sure seems they're more concerned about hating 3E than loving 1E.

uh... what? How?
Breaking off From Melee. AD&D DMG page 70. BX had Retreat pages B25 and X24. (Not quite the same mechanic. But same concept of wacking someone as they try to disenguage.)

I don't know how the hell someone, especially someone on Dragonsfoot could miss that AD&D had attacks of opportunity.  Hell that's how I explained AoO to my players was by starting "You know that free attack you get in AD&D when they run..."

Then again I also don't get the people who think that THACO was a new combat system.  
It literally means the number needed To Hit Armor Class 0.  
Look at the table.
See the line for AC0?  
See those numbers?  
That's THACO.  
Jesus Wept.
They just formalized something people had been doing for years.

Look at stuff from 3e that was retroactively brought into some of the more popular OSR games. That will tell you what 3e did right.

Can you highlight those things?

Quote from: Doom;889956Can you highlight those things?

Ascending AC, attack bonus instead of ThAC0, streamlined skill resolution (though not usually the skill points system), the saving throws have been used in some OSR games (specifically DCC), getting rid of level limits for race, a single Xp table, and I'm sure there's more. Anyways, all the above have been used in a least a couple of OSR systems, and some (the first two in particular) have been widely adopted.