Quote from: SettembriniIt's the more radical assumption, but basically the same I'm trying to say in my former post. There is a reason why even Pundit prefers True20 or BRP or WFRP  or the RCto D&D 3.5.

While this last statement is true, the real reason is mainly because D&D 3.5 has suffered from far too much rules and power creep.  I like D&D 3.0 with just the main books; and what I like best is D20 as a general system (in which I'd include True20 as probably my very favourite variant).

I think all of Eyebeamz' nonsense about "scenario adventure games" is really a bad analysis of what could more easily be explained by saying "D&D 3.5 is very rules-heavy these days". That will make 3.5 more appealing to some, and less to others (like me).

RPGPundit

Quote from: AkrasiaThis certainly conforms to my own experience.  But I'm not sure whether it covers kids who started with 3e.

I'm not sure either, as I've had no experience with someone who started with 3e.  Most of the friends I've gamed with came to gaming before the advent of 3e/d20.  There have been two cases where someone started gaming with us after 3e, but in each of those the game wasn't D&D, so...

Sorry, I don't really have any insight here.

Quote from: AkrasiaHowever, I think that his core point about how 3e is a different kind of game -- or, more precisely, encourages a different 'kind of gaming' -- than other RPGs (including earlier versions of D&D) is legitimate.  The 'game' aspects of 3e are far more salient during play than they are in many other RPGs, at least in my experience.  This makes for a very different kind of gaming experience overall.

In my case, it was coming to realize just how salient the "game" was during play that made me appreciate 3e for what it is.

Or, to put it another way:  When I first came to 3e, I found that the system seemed much cleaner, more coherent than other previous editions of D&D.  However, that was entirely on the level of reading it.

When it came to put it into practice, and actually play the game, it turned out to be much different than I imagined.  In fact, I rather strongly disliked 3e based on my first few games running under it.  

Why was that?  Because 3e is, on some level, intrinsically different than any of the previous editions of D&D, despite sharing many commonalities with them as far as theme and color goes.

Wherein 2e or even 1e, I found that I was able -- almost required, honestly -- to drop various rules, modify others, and generally be free to do what I would with the game, I found that 3e didn't really work as well when you started to ignore parts of it.

Specifically, I found that the combat system can be damn near nonsensical without the use of at least graph paper if not an actual battlemat and minis.  At first I thought it was simply a matter of the other players and me not being familiar with the rules.  However, as time went on, I came to realise that, no, we knew the rules, we just weren't using them to their full potential and the resulting game was frustrating, confusing and off-putting.

Even under 1e games, I never encountered that level of frustration.  I've been in 1e games where no map of any sort was used, except perhaps an internalized, mental one.  Yet there was never much confusion as to what was going on.

In 3e, without the use of some sort of physical map, I've found it to be damn near bewildering to run combat as it is written.  Once you drag out the map, however, the richness of one's options and the varieties of strategies really leap out.

I think that makes for a key, almost elemental difference between the play-style of earlier editions of D&D and 3.0/3.5.  Sure the game shares the aforementioned commonalities of color, having the same critters, settings and so forth, but the "game" aspect is decidedly different.

It's possible to just ignore those rules in 3e that cause the aforementioned confusion, but that seems to be missing the point of the game.  It's ignoring the game for what it does very well, and forcing it to do something it doesn't do well at all.  The interesting thing is that the core mechanic, the d20 bit is readily adaptable to numerous permutations, resulting in games with very different play-styles, some being more akin to the earlier editions of D&D than 3.x is, oddly enough.

Quote from: SettembriniSorry. Published Adventures can easyily be exchanged between all versions of D&D.

My own experiences didn't show this to be true.  While previously published adventures could easily fit into 3e in the context of their background, flavor text, color, whatever you like to call it, the actual game contents require significant reworking.

Yes, many of the elements are the same -- abiliity scores, hit points, &c -- between all the editions of D&D, but how those elements are actually implemented in play in each edition can be, and is, very different.  Those elements are particularly different once you get to 3.x.

I'm sure you could take something like the A-# modules (the Slavers series, back from 1e AD&D) and run them as-is under 3.x, converting the various stats on the fly from 1e to 3.x,  but I don't think you'd get a very rewarding experience out of the procedure.  Why?  Because the modules were written under an entirely different set of assumptions about risks and rewards.  

To properly get a 3.x experience out of the modules, the DM would need to go through the modules beforehand, and significally alter the challenges present.  Some things are going to need to be scaled different, as what a fighter in 1e can do is greatly different than what the same fighter can do in 3e.  Just the inclusion of feats alone radically alters the options that the player has under 3e, and that alters the challenges that the player can handle or not handle.  

Quote from: SettembriniIt`s the same game since it beginning. It`s only now that it has the clean rules it needed.

It's only the "same" insofar as each edition shares a fairly common background of critters -- lions, tigers and beholders! oh my! -- abilities, items, and all those other elements of color and setting.

However, it's not really the same game when you get down to the level of mechanics.  There's certainly a clear lineage between the games, but the child is not the father, despite having his lips and eye color.

Quote from: SettembriniI said the game is the same, not the rules. You do the stuff you did in the olden days. Just with sophisticated rules.

I would think that the rules are the game.

To argue otherwise is to miss the point that Akrasia and I have been trying to make here.  Yes, you can still go beat up some kobolds, take their Wand of Wonder and their +2 Egg Beater, and have your cleric heal your 7 points of damage.  It's the same "game" insofar as all those examples of color are similar from one edition of D&D to another*, but it's a very different game once you start dealing with the rules of how to accomplish those things.


* But not entirely on the level either.  Compare the concept of halflings before 3e to what they've become in 3e, for example.

Sorry for triple posting there, and repeating what others had already said.  That'll learn me to actually read through the entire post before replying.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadYou could construct them, but this is the same sort of effort that you decry when discussing statting out templated creatures for the game...

Well, for the record, I would run 3.5 D&D over GURPS any day of the week.  I was just using GURPS to make a point, namely, you can run 'D&D-ish' games with any number of systems.  Perhaps GURPS was not the best example, since it is so different in its core assumptions than D&D.  But there are definitely many systems that can be used for 'D&D-ish' games (e.g. Rolemaster, HARP, WFRP, Palladium, T&T, etc.).  To say this makes them all 'the same game' seems foolish.  IMO and IME, D&D 3.5 is almost as different from, say, RC D&D in terms of mechanics as MERP.