Quotehow easy is it to use material (e.g. a module) from pre-3e D&D with D&D 3e+?

Easy as eating pancakes. I DM "Against the Giants" directly from the modules, no work needed. Only monster stats change, and they are in the MM. The names, roles of items, characters, monsters and tasks are all compatible

I think it's great that d20 and the World of Darkness monsters are being combined.  Previously I had two lines of books to ignore, now only the one

Nah, I kid, we have to wait and see.  Who knows what it means right now, it'll be months at minimum before we know anything concrete.  Odds are though it will mean some d20 fans get a tried and tested setting that they will enjoy, which is cool, and that it won't appeal to me as the only bit of NWoD I like is the mortals stuff (which is very good, but doesn't much need a d20 treatment).

Quote from: SettembriniEasy as eating pancakes. I DM "Against the Giants" directly from the modules, no work needed. Only monster stats change, and they are in the MM. The names, roles of items, characters, monsters and tasks are all compatible

Yeah, and I can do exactly the same thing with any other FRPG.  You've completely missed my point.  Substituting the stats from one system to another is a friggin' conversion.

I've run 'Keep On the Borderlands' in the past with Rolemaster, but I'm not about to claim that Basic D&D and Rolemaster are the 'same system'.

A giant in 3.5 fills the same role as a giant in RC. It is way more compatible than it is to Harnmaster.

Quote from: SettembriniA giant in 3.5 fills the same role as a giant in RC. It is way more compatible than it is to Harnmaster.

That's bullshit.  

A giant in Rolemaster (or Palladium, or HARP, or Fantasy HERO, or whatever) fills pretty much the same damn 'role' as a giant in D&D.

To the extent that there are differences, those differences also exist between pre-3e D&D and 3e+ D&D.  As you example brilliantly demonstrates.
A giant is 3.5 is far more deadly than a giant in the RC.  Four 8th level PCs could easily take down a few giants in RC D&D; it would be far more difficult for the same party to succeed in 3.5.

As I said, RC D&D and 3.5 D&D are two different systems.

Quote from: SettembriniA giant in 3.5 fills the same role as a giant in RC. It is way more compatible than it is to Harnmaster.

And a vorpal sword is still a vorpal sword, and a +1 longsword is still a +1 longsword.  The names of things haven't changed much at all, it's the underlying mechanics that are tuned up a bit.  And even many of those still look the damn same to me.    

Akrasia's just having a shit-fit because he can't stand to have his beloved RC compared to 3.x.

I have to admit, to me 3.5 doesn't look that much like earlier forms of DnD.  Certainly no more than say Palladium Fantasy or Rolemaster.

I mean, I can see the family connection, but to me it ain't the same game anymore than Rolemaster is an edition of DnD.

That said, I don't actually care, the more important question is whether or not 3.5 is a good game and clearly to that the answer has to be yes.

I come at 3.5 from a hiatus. I'd never even had a chance to play 2nd. (barely read the players handbook... bought it used to boot). When I got a first look at D&D via the players handbook after all this time it struck me how different it was. I could still tell it was D&D. I like 3.5 much more. I think I'd resist playing anything earlier. (ok DC would capture my interest).

Quote from: J Arcane... Akrasia's just having a shit-fit because he can't stand to have his beloved RC compared to 3.x.

I'm not having a 'shit-fit'.  :rolleyes:   Please don't attribute such silly reactions to someone you don't even know.

Nothing in what I've said should be construed as indicating that RC is 'better' or 'worse' than 3.x.  That is a wholly separate matter -- just as the question of whether WFRP 2e is 'better' or 'worse' than 3.x D&D.  They're just different games -- that's all I'm claiming.  We can debate their relative merits some other time.

Yes they share some superficial similarities.  Well so do a lot of other games.  Yes both the 'RC' and '3.x' are called 'D&D' and use ability scores, etc.  I don't deny that there are indeed many similarities.  But such similarities do not suffice to make it the 'same game'.

Again, I consider my 'conversion test' a good one for determining whether or not a new edition constitutes a 'new game'.  You can use any pre-3e module with any pre-3e version of the A/D&D rules with minimal conversion work (you can easily do it 'on the fly').  In contrast, you cannot do this with 3e+.  It's a pretty simple test.  And claiming that you can simply read the 3e stats 'directly from the MM' is a cop out, since you can do that with any other FRPG as well.

Anyway, despite my original intentions, I've gotten into this debate.  If you want to regard 3e+ as the 'same game' as pre-3e D&D, by all means, go ahead.   I think you're mistaken, for the reasons I've provided.  But I'm hardly going to have a 'shit-fit' if you persist in your incorrect belief.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckLook at the barbarian in 1e and the barbarian in 3e. They are radically different mechanically but the core archetype is basically the same.

If the core archetype is the same then at least one of those classes is totally fucked up.  I run a 3.5 Barbarian every other Wednesday, but the idea that it plays to the same archetype as the Gygaxian Barbarian seems difficult for me to swallow.  Although the rules about magic items were dodgy, the 1e version does a much better job of getting you straight into playing a R.E. Howard protagonist.  The modern version allows you to play the barbarian charicature that has become a parcel of the horror that is modern fantasy fiction.

Jeff,
Could you elaborate on the differences? I´m totally under-educated on Sword & Sorcery and R.E.H.

Howard's Conan possesses strength just like the typical muscled oaf that barbarians are portrayed as nowadays.  But Conan as originally written also possessed cunning, great talents in crafts besides warfare, and much natural intelligence.  These virtues are lost is the endless stream of bad pastiches and worse imitations that followed the original works, turning into today's modern 'Big Dumb Barbarian' who is capable, in 3.5, of little more than turning into the Incredible Hulk and hitting things with his axe.

Gygax knew Conan via the original stories.  I admit that his class as written is problematic, but it does present a totally different and clearer vision of the Howard-style barbarian.  For one thing, the Barbarian from Unearthed Arcana, in addition to being a killing machine, is an absolute skills whore.  Before even non-weapon proficiencies became the norm the Barbarian had a shitload of class features that were chock full of woodlore and other nifty stuff.

I use the 3.5 Barbarian gestalted with the Wilderness Rogue variant class to achieve the same effect.  In a non-gestalt game I wouldn't seriously consider the modern Barbarian for a Conan-like character.

In Akrasia's defense, 3e does have a different name than AD&D.  Though commonly called 'third edition', the name on the book simply says "Dungeons & Dragons", not "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition".

Though the difference between a totally different game and a new edition is not at all a firm one.  While you can argue the specifics of many rules changed, the basic feel of the game is the same - fighters and turning undead and magic missile and 30' pit traps.  Totally different means not only different rules but different genre to me.  But really, does it even matter?  It's a different version of D&D.

I'm going to agree with the other people who have said D&D 3.x is basically a different game system from the older games.  Certainly you can see there is a considerable distance between the 3 points of OD&D, AD&D2, and D&D3.x.

I think when designing D&D 3.x there were a few things that had to be included in the game to make it "feel like D&D":
* S, I, W, D, C, C
* Fighter, Cleric, Magic User, Thief
* Saving Throws
* d20 to attack
* Vancian Magic
* Turning Undead
* Hit Points
* Armour Class
* Dungeons
* Dragons

I bet you could drop some of those and still call it D&D.  I think it's more to do with the brand than the system itself.

Wow, I hate that I don't have the intern3ts on the weekend. This topic has blown up.
 
My thoughts on what MCWoD (new acronym!) will be:
 
A setting. The World of Darkness is coming up on six settings (Chicago, New Orleans, Rocky Mountains, Boston, with the meta-settings of UK and Mexico). However, there is no specific setting and no canon. Every city, covenant, tribe, and order can be something totally different from game to game.
 
I think MCWoD will be a Mega-Setting. I think he'll redefine everything.
 
There will probably be some setting specific new rules (bloodlines, disciplines, lodges etc.) but it will still use the Storytelling system.
Just like Ptolus was how Monte plays D&D, this will be how Monte plays WoD.
 
The difference Old D&D vs. 3.x D&D:
 
A friend of mine was running a dungeon crawl game. He started with 3.5 and had a TPW. He announced the next dungeon crawl would be in 2nd edition. Myself and some of the other players told him we would NOT be playing if it was 2nd Eition D&D.
 
I hope that helps