Recent Dungeons & Dragons editions: Why all the hate?
ShapiroKeatsDarkMage
Member Posts: 2,428
in Off-Topic
Why many AD&D fans are so butthurt about the newer editions? I understand 4th since i dislike it too, but third and fifth editions are pretty good in my opinion.
0
Comments
But mostly it's just because a large portion of RPG players are nerds and nerds love to get hung up on and argue about stupid shit and/or have trouble understanding that just because somebody else likes another thing better that doesn't make the thing you like worth less.
The transition from 1st to 2nd edition was fairly painless because there wasn't much change in the core rules. It was more like the 3.0 -> 3.5 -> Pathfinder transition.
I think the concern with 5th edition is it isn't well resourced at the moment, and is very difficult to get hold of outside the USA, leading people to fear for the financial viability of the publisher, and hence future support.
Well, the changes to the settings were terrible, but the game mechanics themselves were sound. It's main problems seem to have been that 1, all the classes were too samey, and 2, that it lacked the DnD atmosphere.
I can't say anything about 4th and 5th editions, I never looked at them.
Combining that with the perfect storm slaughtering the campaign setting, a pissed-off Paizo and the open source D20 licence and it was a recipe for corparate sucide.
I haven't played enough 5e to really comment, but tbh, I'm going off D&D in general. I don't think it's a very good system, and I think it's only the brand itself that makes it te most popular. Give me Warhammer FRP 2e over any version of D&D any day.
I never played 4E, but everything I heard and everything I read suggested that the changes were mainly in aid of the belief that CRPG gaming was the future. The system was altered so that it was more easily translatable into computer gaming (I am merely reporting what I read, not what I know to be the case). In that, I think they ended up changing it beyond what players were willing to accept (for good or evil).
I don't know much about 5th edition, so I won't comment on it. I've heard people like it, but do not know if they like it 'in comparison with 4th edition' or simply because it is a good game.
Given my choice, I'll play 2E first and then 3.5E.
I played a 5th level Wizard in a party that was predominantly 8-9th level and never thought twice about it.
It all comes down to (in my subjective view) who the DM is and how they handle the game. Unfortunately, enter the age of computer gaming (which I thoroughly LOVE) and all of the sudden "Balance" becomes an issue. Ah, well. Such is life. But I do share your hope that games like BG and IWD would bring back some of the classic D&D as I remember it.
I HOPE NOT! I don't want to be forced to be a human in order to be a paladin or not be able of playing as a monstruos humanoid or not be able of multi-classing without some ridiculously high stats.
Also BG e IWD are too old to reach a great popularity these days.
Also is highly unlikely that WOTC will suddendly create a carbon copy of 2nd edition AD&D.
But again, I don't really like D&D anymore anyway. I have quite a few problems with a few of the underlying mechanics. My ideal version would be 2nd edition, with some of 3rd edition's extra classes, some feats (which would take the place of proficiencies), a reduced HP progression, slightly expanded race/class restrictions (e.g. I'd have hill dwarves and sun elves able to be paladins, but not wood elves) and a change in the combat system to a DR based model...or at least one where your combat skill has some effect on your AC, because it doesn't make sense that, no matter how skillful a swordsman you are, you're just as easy to hit as an amateur with the same dexterity and wearing the same armour.
The problem was, without the experienced players using the system to induct new players, there was no reason for youngsters to switch from WoW to PnP.
Even so, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have flopped so hard if it hadn't been for the earlier decision to make the D20 licence open. This made it easier for 3rd party publishers to continue to support the old system than adopt the new one. This is an problem that persists for the 5th edition.
And I really hope that the current generation of Role Players aren't coming FROM WoW. That would be depressing.
I just don't see a lot of 'Role playing' that goes on in your traditional MMO. This isn't to say that people "Can't", but I think that the game style has 'Evolved' to the point where it is as much social media with better graphics as it is any sort of role playing. Certainly, the Role Play elements are not the only reason that people play them.
Before people get out the torches and pitchforks here, yes role players play MMO style games. Yes, there can be a thriving role playing presence in the game. No, I am not looking down my nose at anyone who plays them for any reason what so ever. I just don't think that the main 'hook' to draw people in is 'Role playing' anymore; certainly not 'Exclusively' at any rate.
I've played AD&D for so many years (over 35) it simply IS the game to me. I've played some of the other rule sets with other DMs. Enough to say the story and game management by a good DM matter far more than which rule set is chosen.
Which comes back to; when I'm running the game its going to be 2E. More or less. I own all the books. Multiple copies even; and including some of the recent re-issues from WotC. I can run whichever variation of the rules I want; 2E is what I know best, so its going to be the starting point. "Newer" is a meaningless term, I OWN all I need.
Because of how strongly I relate to it, CRPGs based on AD&D will always get my attention. CRPGs based on other fantasy games including later rules for D&D simply don't interest me. I have so many hobbies and interests, far more than I have time available, so learning the intricacies of more rules just isn't a priority or interest. So no hostility, I just don't care about other rule sets.
Something I never got used to about 3E was the whole plus to STATS as you progress.
Increases to stats as you progress actually makes sense to me...you work out a lot, you're going to get stronger. You keep training your dexterity, you're going to get better at things that require it. You keep exercising your brain, you're going to get better at doing intelligence related things.
But that's just a difference of opinion, I guess. Like I said, I'm going off D&D for several reasons, some of which include the whole hitpoints/AC system, which is the foundation of all D&D games.
My problem with Stat bonuses as you level up is that it precludes someone from starting out as a prodigy. So creating a character such as Wulfgar or Raistlin is precluded entirely from the equation. There is no scenario wherein a 1st level fighter is 'The strongest guy around'. She will ALWAYS be trumped by a 12th level or 20th level fighter (or other character focused on the same stat).
What's worse, in 2E, 19 STR and above were beyond human max. 20 and above were relegated to Giants. Not anymore. Want a 30 STR (or whatever the adjusted max is in 3E)? Take a few levels in Barbarian/Frienzied Berzerker, and dump CHA stat, and hey presto. You are stronger than a Titan. Makes very little sense.
I could see 1-2 points max increase over the life time of adventuring, with a cap of 18 (short of magical influence). But this almost unlimited increase guaranteed? makes no sense to me.
But this is merely my subjective view (and quite probably bias based on growing up on 2E). I should say that I don't like it, not that it makes no sense. That's more accurate.
I agree wrt stat increases...a cap of 18 would be better, because, as you say, 19 and above should be beyond the scope of a human. 18 was always meant to be the very peak of human fitness/agility/intelligence/whatever, so having a human able to advance beyond 18 is just silly.
Speaking of stats, that's another thing, actually...3e's massive strength bonuses to attack rolls don't make sense to me either, because swordfighting isn't all about big "raaagh!" attacks...you fight like that, you'll miss more often than not. Even the "clumsy and unskilled" European knights, or the vikings who "got drunk and went crazy",* didn't fight with just big "raaagh" attacks.
Also, saying that something "makes no sense to me" is, IMO, a perfectly acceptable way of stating one's opinion...but then, I'm an old fogie who grew up without the internet (and even saw the beginnings of the internet with dial up modems and AOL accounts in my late-teenage years), so what do I know about forum etiquette?
* - none of those are true, but it is what popular history would have us believe, for some reason!