The Emasculation of 3rd Edition

[Minstrel]

I didn't say that players had to play a certain edition/game/etc a certain way, but that each game system fosters a certain style of play. I'm talking tendencies, not absolutes. A group is free to ignore that style of play, as you state correctly. That does not mean it isn't encouraged by the system.

So what is the encouraged style of 1st Edition? Second Edition? Third Edition?

Halaster summed it up pretty well. I'd add that 3e also encouraged playing a more metagame centered game, with "builds" being as much a source of the fun of the game as anything else.

The game system defines mechanics and setting. Feel of the game is campaign controlled (home brew, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms, etc). Style of play is DM and player controlled.

Players can not ignore the style of play. They implement the style.

Can you clarify? I don't see what you're getting at there or which point of mine you were countering.

With that said, I never buy into the idea that a given group is going to play the way they want regardless of the game system.

I will restate my point. First, can you tell me what you mean by "the way they want"?

I should rephrase my statement. I can see where it could be too ambiguous or too absolute.

Rephrase: Style of play cannot be said to be entirely independent of the game system used. To go further, I agree with Halaster that the game system has a fairly significant effect upon how the game is played.

[Minstrel]

Jeffx wrote:

I'm getting tired. I had a much larger thought about feel, style, and mechanics. I am just having a hard time putting sentences together at the moment.

I'll try again tomorrow.

Be glad to read your thoughts then.

I think some of us are trying to get across the point that we don't feel comfortable saying that you CAN separate the game down into those components, as though they exist in independent vacuums.

Again, I can't restate enough: no one is talking in absolutes. Yes, a dedicated enough group could play a serious, gritty, Howard-esque game of 3rd edition, or a monty haul, super-kewl-powerz styled game of 1st edition. That doesn't mean you can give a rule set a free pass as not encouraging one or the other.

[jeffx]

Foo. I hit submit when I wanted to hit preview.

Then I tried to fix it and couldn't.

If you got the original post before I delete this, it is a collector's item.

I'm going to bed. I'll report my thought tomorrow.

[Minstrel]

The combat system is so complex that you really must use minis of some kind (which is why they have those little cut-out counters included if you don't have any real minis) to be able to run it properly via the rules.

So if 4e is simple over that that would be an improvement.

You've mentioned simplicity a few times. Mira will of course have to speak for herself, but I don't think anyone is arguing against what you've said based on whether or not something is simple.

From what you've said, I gather that 4e is supposed to be simpler, and I'll take that as truth. At the same time, I have read that it's going to introduce the idea of every class having "powers" that can be triggered every round, X times per encounter, or X times per day. Mages will be able to fling a minor damaging spell every round, with no limit based on memorization, for example. The fact that I think that absolutely sucks and makes for a game that I'd in no way like to play is in no way related to whether or not it's simple.

[Sangalor]

Also jefffx - you mention that if you couldn't play 3E without miniatures it wouldn't change the style of play. I can't see how you can suggest that the style of play with or without props isn't different? In 1st ed you didn't have to use miniatures. In 3rd ed, if you MUST use miniatures, then your style of play is going to be impacted by virtue of the fact that you are moving beyond the pure imagination of combat to the tactile observation of combat?

Because miniatures are an item of mechanics not style or feel. Yes in 3.X, the mechanics I would HAVE to use to play would change. The way I use the mechanics would not HAVE to change.

Don't get me wrong and I'm not trying to provoke a fight with you but earlier you said "Mechanics impact the feel of a game." I'm not sure how that statement fits with what your saying now?

[jeffx]

From what you've said, I gather that 4e is supposed to be simpler, and I'll take that as truth. At the same time, I have read that it's going to introduce the idea of every class having "powers" that can be triggered every round, X times per encounter, or X times per day. Mages will be able to fling a minor damaging spell every round, with no limit based on memorization, for example. The fact that I think that absolutely sucks and makes for a game that I'd in no way like to play is in no way related to whether or not it's simple.

I am not endorsing or praising 4E at all. I will not have an opinion, or judge it, until I have the books in my hands and can read for myself. I have seen way to many conflicting reports to know what is true or not. I will say I think spell memorization is just plain dumb. I read the "Dying Earth" and it didn't change my mind but it certainly entertained me. That is another topic for another thread I would guess.

I do know that if I read it and don't like it. I will say so and promptly put my set on eBay and try to recoup the expense.

I play 2E now and love it. Even if I love 4E, I may not move away from 2E.

With that I am going to bed. Seriously....I'm hitting the log out button.

[jeffx]

One more comment....then bed....really!

Because miniatures are an item of mechanics not style or feel. Yes in 3.X, the mechanics I would HAVE to use to play would change. The way I use the mechanics would not HAVE to change.

Don't get me wrong and I'm not trying to provoke a fight with you but earlier you said "Mechanics impact the feel of a game." I'm not sure how that statement fits with what your saying now?

You are 100% right about what I said. Mechanics impact the feel of the game. Putting feel in my later comment just confused the issue. Miniatures are an item of mechanics and not style....

Maybe....just thinking out loud here....this all boils down to game style vs. play style...I am talking about play style while everyone else is talking game style. Tomorrow.

[Zherbus]

Players can not ignore the style of play. They implement the style.

Just adding fuel to the blaze here...

I think that it's an invalid defense of any given system when I hear things like the quote above.

In the eternal debates/edition wars I've battled in before, it's only a matter of time before someone comes in and says something like "I played 3.x for years, and it works fine, has plenty of RP, and no power-gaming, makes me coffee in the morning, etc".

And while there may be a certain percentage of groups that game well with a particular system, it's not a point that can be made in terms of diminishing the detriments of a system.

I mean, we could game with a Candyland board, the colored pieces from Life, the metal pieces from Monopoly, some six-siders, and the rulebook from Mage Knight. Any decent group can make it "work" if they so chose. It doesn't make the system flaws any lesser.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Sangalor wrote:

I'd just to clarify a post I made earlier on younger gamers - I left open the interpretation (or implication if you prefer) that younger gamers are less intelligent than the older generation of gamers. I do not believe this at all, nor would I support such a comment if made by someone else.

I'll try to tip-toe around this as best I can, because I don't want to venture into my views on society too deeply. They're depressing and cause people to run off screaming into the night!

But I would argue - not as an absolute blanket truth, but rather as an overall pretty accurate generalization - that many gamers these days are nowhere near as intelligent as gamers from the old days. I mean, we've dumbed down our schools to the point where tests such as the SAT have removed the word comparison section, because it was decided that:

Hot is to cold as good is to _________

was too difficult for high school students.

I've noticed that modern gamers are less well-read (unless you count anime as "well read"). I read their posts and I see constant, rampant errors that my generation would have flunked 3rd grade for committing...

Definatly.
There going to the store to get food.
He could of/should of/would of passed the test had he studied.
Supposably (pronounced suppose-a-blee)
The dog wagged it's tail.
Irregardless.
I could care less. (Yes, you could.)
Rediculous.
1E is better then 3E.

And I know they're not typos just by following people's posts. Some of them obviously cannot be typos unlike the common "teh" instead of "the".

The bottom line for me is that if I were to have 2 candidates applying for a job and I was in charge of hiring, and the only thing I knew about them was that one grew up playing 1E and the other grew up playing 3E, I would without question, doubt, or hesitation hire the 1E gamer, because it is far more likely that he would be the more intelligent of the two, given my experiences over a lifetime.

I will however stick to my generalisation, that from my own personal experience, the younger generation are less well-read on classic sci-fi/fantasy lit and certainly most of them have never played any of the OOP classic 1st/2nd ed modules.

Unfamiliarity with classics is rampant in any subject. It irritates me to the point that I cannot enjoy discussion on most comic book forums, because most people there grew up reading the modern crap, or worse yet simply kept reading after the peak of comic book glory in the 70's, and have now come to embrace the garbage being shoveled out. So you have people who believe that Batman, given enough time to plan, could kill Galactus. For those of you unfamiliar with the characters, that's like saying your arthritic, 92 year old grandfather who is currently bed-ridden with the flu and sporting a 103 degree fever could kick the shit out of Bruce Lee in his prime. It's absurd beyond any sane understanding of reality.

Likewise, the 3E+ crowd fails to understand the roots of the D&D game, they do not understand archetypes and therefore they cannot comprehend why there cannot be any such thing as a paladin/assassin in AD&D. We went over this at Planet'Tard for weeks, and they just could not comprehend it. Worse yet, they simply don't want to understand it. Society is breeding people to believe that they're little princes and princesses and that it's ok if they color outside the lines, because our little precious is a Picasso at heart. People are more interested in reinforcing their arbitrarily chosen delusions than they are in perceiving the truth about anything. Ego taken to the nth level. Which is why 1 in 5 adult Americans believe that the sun revolves around the earth! I knew better than that in 2nd grade, when I drew a map of the planets in the solar system!

Twenty-five percent (25%) of Britons believe that Winston Churchill was a fictional character. In America, only 52% of public school students in the 50 largest cities graduates high school. Detroit's main school district has a mere 24.9% graduation rate, New York City's main school district has a 45.2% graduation rate, while LA has a mere 45.3% graduation rate.

And we have to take into consideration the dumbing-down of school tests, academic tests (ACT, SAT, etc). And still we have such poor numbers. I clearly recall being given nothing more than a pencil and a sheet of paper for the math problems on the ACT and SAT. Now they get to use calculators.

Now see what you did? You got me on a rant after all!

Anyway, I truly believe there is a direct link between dumbing down society and dumbing down games.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Another thought. As far as the rules of the game affecting the style or feel of play, let's look at Monopoly as an analogy.

What would happen if we were to produce the Monopoly game with the same board pieces (the shoe, the train engine, the dog, etc), the same board layout (I always win because they put Baltic and Mediterranean right after Go), the same color cards, etc, but they changed the rules?

What if, instead of focusing on gathering money and bankrupting the other players, the rules were changed so that the focus was on investing money into Illinois to fight urban blight or investing money into North Carolina to save the environment? What if landing on another player's property resulted in a court battle instead of simply paying him rent? What if the main thrust of the game was not a race to stockpile money and property, but rather a race to see whose portfolio is most diversified, or who had achieved the most recognition for cleaning the parks?

It would no longer be Monopoly despite retaining the familiar markings...the board layout, the board pieces, the cards, the fake cash.

Same thing with D&D. I have spent the last 8 years watching 3E games here and there, and never have I seen one that in any way, shape, or form resembled anything I played in AD&D. There was some overlap of language (thac0, hit points, etc), but it was as alien to me as Martians.

Ok, enough for me. I gotta go write some rooms for Level 7 and maybe tweak some stuff on the Level 8 map just to provoke Doirche, who's been far too quiet lately.

[Minstrel]

One more comment....then bed....really!

Hah! I know that feeling...

Maybe....just thinking out loud here....this all boils down to game style vs. play style...I am talking about play style while everyone else is talking game style. Tomorrow.

If you're using play style to mean the general tendency of a given group to play one way or another, I'd say a group with a given play style will tend to gravitate to a game system that encourages play of that style.

Re: 4e (too lazy to pull a quote): I didn't suggest that you were for or against the system. I was only addressing the issue (or non-issue as I saw it) of simplicity of play.

[Sangalor]

Jeffx - I cannot speak for the other posters on here but when you are referring to "game style" I am thinking of "feel". That explains why, at least, we have been talking opposite each other.

Halaster - I can't speak for the US education system as I have no direct experience with it and as a foreigner I'm loathe to comment or generalise on this matter in US society from an uninformed position.

I can however sympathise with your perspective on modern comic lines - although born well after the 60's I always preferred the earliest Marvel lines because they had IMHO better stories and art. The only modern comic line I read today is the Conan series which I think does a fairly decent job of translating Howard's work with nice art work and the older Sandman series.

I had to have a chuckle over the Batman v Galactus idea though!

Btw, are you talking about dual or multi-class paladin/assassin or those characters generally not being in AD&D? The first is obviously absurd, but if your suggesting the alternative I'd like to hear your views.

And perhaps I'm being a bit harsh but I knew as soon as WOTC took over TSR that it was only going to go down from there - look what the company did with MtG which was originally a great game but quickly became a money-making enterprise totally separated from its original gaming base. If you care for a good example of how bad the 4th ed changes are go no further than the revisions to the FR setting - they have jumped into the future by almost 100 years and made all pre-4th ed products redundant.

[jeffx]

Players can not ignore the style of play. They implement the style.

Just adding fuel to the blaze here...

I think that it's an invalid defense of any given system when I hear things like the quote above.

I am not defending any system. No defense is necessary. I just don't see how a system impacts style. That is it.

[jeffx]

I think I should take a moment to explain my terms. Robin Law wrote in his book, "Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering", 7 player styles: tactician, power gamer, method actor, storyteller, butt-kicker, specialist, and casual gamer. These are styles that exist outside of any rule system. Outside of any feel. Outside of any edition. You can change rules. You can add miniatures. You can change the dice to coin flips The option to play the desired style is still present. When it comes to style, the edition is insignificant. Unless you are saying that 3.X changes the game to a miniatures game like Warhammer, or I install it on my computer, it will always be this way.

Feel is more difficult of a topic. Depending on how you look at it, D&D is all varying degrees of one feel. Heroic, medieval, fantasy. The emasculation points are well made and agreeable. However, that feel has been there since the moment a stat called hit points was added.

I have been viewing a lot of different groups play D&D lately. I have also been looking over some of my old gaming notes. When comparing the sessions I have witnessed to notes of my own games, I don't see that the community has changed all that much. A table of younger players, plays a very loose and stat stacking game. Tables of older players tend to be more tactical or storytelling. This is all using 3.5 rules.

What happens to the younger players as they get older is yet to be seen. Will they become stupid players because of the rules? Will they mature into better 4.5E and 5E players? That is very hard to determine. That is where societal views come into the picture. I hope to shape, at least a small group, into playing smarter games and being smarter players.

[jeffx]

What if, instead of focusing on gathering money and bankrupting the other players, the rules were changed so that the focus was on investing money into Illinois to fight urban blight or investing money into North Carolina [snip]

So 3.5E went away from being, primarily, a game about heroic fantasy? It became a board game with the new rules? I have seen nothing that drastic.

[Minstrel]

I have been viewing a lot of different groups play D&D lately. I have also been looking over some of my old gaming notes. When comparing the sessions I have witnessed to notes of my own games, I don't see that the community has changed all that much. A table of younger players, plays a very loose and stat stacking game. Tables of older players tend to be more tactical or storytelling. This is all using 3.5 rules.

I can't say I've seen that. I've seen a few youtube videos of people playing a somewhat thespian game of 3.x, but all the games I've seen in hobby shops around have been kids crunching blocks of stats and talking about feats and builds and combos. Doubtlessly some older players did drop AD&D, are now playing 3.x, will play 4.x and beyond, and play in a manner similar to how they always did. But I strongly expect that is the exception and does not prove the rule.

Whether it is the game shaping how people play, or people gravitating to the game which encourages play style most closely matches their own (as Forrest Gump would say, I think maybe it's both), all of my experience says that the correlation is, indeed, there.

[jeffx]

I am going to get way off-topic commenting on this message. By all means, delete if necessary.

Sangalor wrote:
I've noticed that modern gamers are less well-read (unless you count anime as "well read"). I read their posts and I see constant, rampant errors that my generation would have flunked 3rd grade for committing...

I have this argument with my girlfriend all the time. She is a linguist. Pick a language. She is more fluent in that language than I am in my native tongue. I wish I was better at writing. I have a real problem with commas. I also know that my writing on forums is horrible compared to what I write professionally or even in most of my e-mails.

I think it is a slippery slope to judge a generation's intelligence based on it's electronic communications. Especially the informal communications. I am not sure what generation you are from, but I am willing to bet that I could go to textfiles.com, compile a list of old BBS messages from that era, and determine, based on spelling errors, that that generation is stupid.

However, I do agree with you. In this day of computers, there is no reason for a spelling error. Yet, I see 'em all the time. I had an English professor who would give you a 0 for a misspelled word. That taught me a lot about where the spell checker is in all word processors.

Supposably (pronounced suppose-a-blee)

I am guessing you have heard the Jeff Foxworthy bit? It is hilarious because it true.

The bottom line for me is that if I were to have 2 candidates applying for a job and I was in charge of hiring, and the only thing I knew about them was that one grew up playing 1E and the other grew up playing 3E, I would without question, doubt, or hesitation hire the 1E gamer, because it is far more likely that he would be the more intelligent of the two, given my experiences over a lifetime.

You must have big feet. Even with tip-toeing, you stepped in it.

Are you serious? Two candidates, everything else being equal, in the column that says "D&D edition I grew up with" one marks 1E the other marks 3E, you take the 1E candidate? Wow! I hope their computer skills aren't 1E still.

I cannot enjoy discussion on most comic book forums, because most people there grew up reading the modern crap, or worse yet simply kept reading after the peak of comic book glory in the 70's

Unfair. Modern comics are not crap just because they are post 70's. That is nostalgia talking. I, also, cannot participate in discussion of comic book forums. And not because they say Batman can beat-up Galactus. Come on, Batman is DC and Galactus is Marvel. Geesh! Don't make me go on my tirade about how comics are more literary now than they have ever been.

Ego taken to the nth level. Which is why 1 in 5 adult Americans believe that the sun revolves around the earth! I knew better than that in 2nd grade, when I drew a map of the planets in the solar system!

What?!?! Next you are going to tell me there is no Santa Claus? Hogwash! The sun revolves around the earth. The earth is also flat. Where did you go to school?

Anyway, I truly believe there is a direct link between dumbing down society and dumbing down games.

Possibly. Actually, I agree with that statement. I just don't think the games are dumbing down first. I also don't think the rules are dumbing done but I will wait until I have some real experience with a modern D&D system. I think the players are dumb and the rules allow dumb players as well as smart ones.

[jeffx]

but all the games I've seen in hobby shops around have been kids crunching blocks of stats and talking about feats and builds and combos.

Define kid for me. I know when I was a kid my games (1E at the time) were all about stats. Granted, it wasn't feat and level stacking but it was certainly combos. Plus/minusing has been in games since the beginning. Maturity will hopefully pull players out of that.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Sangalor wrote:

Btw, are you talking about dual or multi-class paladin/assassin or those characters generally not being in AD&D? The first is obviously absurd, but if your suggesting the alternative I'd like to hear your views.

What they were saying at that site is that you could have a paladin/assassin dual- or multi- class character. Then they got into how if the paladin only commits "neutral" assassinations, he can retain his LG alignment and all other sorts of insane nonsense. They tried injecting modern moral relativism into the discussion, which only sank their boat all the more. It was really a pitiful sight to behold. I pray that Zherbus gets the ADNDC.com forum back up, at least long enough for us to grab relevant posts. I had one there that summed up the paladin/assassin "debate" that was both hysterical and shocking at the same time.

And perhaps I'm being a bit harsh but I knew as soon as WOTC took over TSR that it was only going to go down from there - look what the company did with MtG which was originally a great game but quickly became a money-making enterprise totally separated from its original gaming base. If you care for a good example of how bad the 4th ed changes are go no further than the revisions to the FR setting - they have jumped into the future by almost 100 years and made all pre-4th ed products redundant.

We can clearly see its money-hungry tendencies. If you think about it, 1E lasted 12 years, 2E lasted 11 years. We had one edition change in 23 years.

Then along comes 3E, 3.5E, and 4E inside of 8 years. At that pace, we'll have 4.5E by 2012 and 5E by 2016. Five edition changes in 16 years. Then 5.5E in 2020 and 6E in 2024. Seven edition changes in the same time that it took us to get one edition change.

And of course, they come out with a whole set of new books for the Forgotten Realms, the campaign setting, every area over-developed in individual, pricey (and bulky!) hardcover, overly slick, over-priced books. And then they re-do it again for the next edition. And people are addicted to it. Sick.

[Minstrel]

but all the games I've seen in hobby shops around have been kids crunching blocks of stats and talking about feats and builds and combos.

Define kid for me. I know when I was a kid my games (1E at the time) were all about stats. Granted, it wasn't feat and level stacking but it was certainly combos. Plus/minusing has been in games since the beginning. Maturity will hopefully pull players out of that.

I'm 30 and still call people my own age kids. The word by itself didn't mean anything in particular.

As for the age ranges I run into, it's primarily younger players, I'd say teenage through mid 20's, but there are plenty of late 20, 30-somethings gaming in the local stores too. I think it likely those older ones were the people that played splat book 2e style and have since moved on to 3e because it suits them better.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Jeffx wrote:

I think I should take a moment to explain my terms. Robin Law wrote in his book, "Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering", 7 player styles: tactician, power gamer, method actor, storyteller, butt-kicker, specialist, and casual gamer.

Please tell me he didn't use the word "butt-kicker". I have a general rule that says anyone who feels intimidated by the use of the proper phrase "ass-kicker" or "ass kicking" should not be using the phrase improperly by substituting the word "butt" in the first place.

When I hear that word, it brings to mind an image of Chuck Norris trying to look like a bad ass in his movies while uttering words such as "Gosh darn"!

These are styles that exist outside of any rule system. Outside of any feel. Outside of any edition. You can change rules. You can add miniatures. You can change the dice to coin flips The option to play the desired style is still present. When it comes to style, the edition is insignificant. Unless you are saying that 3.X changes the game to a miniatures game like Warhammer, or I install it on my computer, it will always be this way.

Editions of the game can emphasize certain styles. 1E certainly had a stronger emphasis on the "tactician" aspect, while 2E had a palpably stronger focus on the "storyteller" aspect. 3E would probably fall under the "powergamer" style, although even that it's accurate, it's more a number-crunching, template/build focus.

Even the terminology of an edition elicits a feel for the game. In AD&D you develop a character. In 3E you build a template. Words carry meaning.

Feel is more difficult of a topic. Depending on how you look at it, D&D is all varying degrees of one feel. Heroic, medieval, fantasy. The emasculation points are well made and agreeable. However, that feel has been there since the moment a stat called hit points was added.

Not sure what you mean. Hit points were there since day one.

OD&D, Basic D&D, 1E AD&D, and 2E AD&D all had a mixed medieval/fantasy/heroic basic underlying feel. 3E has far more a video game/anime/pop culture feel.

I have been viewing a lot of different groups play D&D lately. I have also been looking over some of my old gaming notes. When comparing the sessions I have witnessed to notes of my own games, I don't see that the community has changed all that much. A table of younger players, plays a very loose and stat stacking game. Tables of older players tend to be more tactical or storytelling. This is all using 3.5 rules.

On the flip side of that, I've had younger players being tacticians and storytellers while the older players are hack'n'slash. In my newest campaign, my best friend (who's in his 30's) is more a gamist/storyteller, his sister (who's in her 40's) is pure hack'n'slash/powergamer, and the young niece (all of 15 years old) is a total tactician.

We can find exceptions to any rule. I'm just looking at general trends.

What happens to the younger players as they get older is yet to be seen. Will they become stupid players because of the rules? Will they mature into better 4.5E and 5E players? That is very hard to determine. That is where societal views come into the picture. I hope to shape, at least a small group, into playing smarter games and being smarter players.

They'd need some incentive to become more intelligent, and society (as well as gaming) offers very little incentive towards that goal. I recall several people at the Planet'Tard debates (paladin/assassins ...I want to strangle someone! ) who began playing 3E when it first came out, and 7 years later they sounded like they'd regressed if anything. No common sense, no reading comprehension, no inherent logic. Just spewing unfounded opinion that contradicted all the rules of the game.

So 3.5E went away from being, primarily, a game about heroic fantasy? It became a board game with the new rules? I have seen nothing that drastic.

Yes. Absolutely. The game went from developing characters to building templates. The focus changed from storytelling to numbers crunching. I can honestly say that if we took out certain tell-tale common words like thaco or hit points, and had an old timer (say one of my old gamers) sit down and watch a 3E group playing, he would not have any clue that it was supposedly a "D&D" game. Every 3E game I have observed was run more like card game than a roleplaying game. I have never seen roleplaying or character development. I have never seen players refer to their characters by name.

"My half/dragon part/pixie paladin/assassin/druid invokes Power A while using Feat B. Do I trump his DC rating?"

That's what it sounds like to me, anyway.

And yes, it did virtually become a board game, since the use of miniatures on a "board" (aka a battle mat) became pretty much a requirement where once it was simply icing on the cake. I hear that miniatures will be even more required in 4E. Quite drastic, if you ask me.

I think it is a slippery slope to judge a generation's intelligence based on it's electronic communications. Especially the informal communications. I am not sure what generation you are from, but I am willing to bet that I could go to textfiles.com, compile a list of old BBS messages from that era, and determine, based on spelling errors, that that generation is stupid.

I grew up in the 60's and 70's, for reference. We had phonics stressed heavily. They don't cover that anymore, nor do they delve into word origins, which is why we have people saying "should of" instead of "should've" and saying "I could care less" or "definatly".

How a person types is indicative of how he thinks. Granted, there are intelligent people who neglect to bother with typos or spell checking. Which is fine. But anyone who says "could of" is not just being sloppy. It shows a total ignorance of the language. Contractions were covered extensively in my generation in 3rd grade.

People consistently spelling the word "ridiculous" as "rediculous" shows how phonics is de-emphasized and how the "new way" of teaching results in poor spelling. They mispronounce the word, so they misspell the word. Same thing for "definatly". A total ignorance of the root word and its association to "finite".

Language is an expression of thought. When you see someone saying:

"Hey man, you know? I like, you know, went to the store, you know? And like, well, uh...you know, it was like, cool, you know?"

Well, that's Morons In Motion. It's a clear sign of a vapid, confused mind.

Perfect picture of where our kids are going:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQdhMSEq ... re=related

I am guessing you have heard the Jeff Foxworthy bit? It is hilarious because it true.

Not sure which, but I'd love to hear it!

You must have big feet. Even with tip-toeing, you stepped in it.

I swear, I just can't escape the rant compulsion!

Are you serious? Two candidates, everything else being equal, in the column that says "D&D edition I grew up with" one marks 1E the other marks 3E, you take the 1E candidate? Wow! I hope their computer skills aren't 1E still.

Absolutely! Virtually every 3E gamer I have discussed real-world politics, morals, or world events with has been a moron. Totally clueless, head-in-the-clouds bliss bunnies and space cadets. No moral compass, being confused by this moral relativism bullshit society embraces. I can see the 3E gamer stealing from me, then using a stupid Star Wars quote and saying "Well, what I did was good, from a particular point of view", then justifying it by claiming that he needed the money more than me to feed his kid (even though he's not married) or something. The fact that they cannot comprehend absolute good and evil or rather refuse to recognize it, shows they're insane. One of them, when I offered the idea that certain ideas are universally evil, such as raping and murdering babies, he claimed it was a good act from a certain point of view!

I don't want to hire someone like that, I want to castrate his ass before he can further degrade the gene pool!

Unfair. Modern comics are not crap just because they are post 70's. That is nostalgia talking.

It's not nostalgia. It's an observation made from almost 40 years of comic collecting, reading, and studying. Comics started to really dip in the 80's. All the great runs by the great artists and writers were finished for the most part. Company wide "events" became the norm, and characters were destroyed in an attempt to make sales through over-hyped non-events. The 90's was the age of gimmicks and comics sucked in that period even moreso. The 2000's and beyond are just toilet paper.

I, also, cannot participate in discussion of comic book forums. And not because they say Batman can beat-up Galactus. Come on, Batman is DC and Galactus is Marvel. Geesh!

They're talking crossovers.

Don't make me go on my tirade about how comics are more literary now than they have ever been.

Bah! They're overpriced toilet paper. Pretentious, preachy, overly slick garbage. The people writing them are the same breed as the 3E morons who believe that a paladin'/assassin/druid is a "kEwL dUdE".

What?!?! Next you are going to tell me there is no Santa Claus?

I still insist he exists!

Possibly. Actually, I agree with that statement. I just don't think the games are dumbing down first. I also don't think the rules are dumbing done but I will wait until I have some real experience with a modern D&D system. I think the players are dumb and the rules allow dumb players as well as smart ones.

There's no question that society is being dumbed down primarily. Games follow, because the quest is to addict the greatest number of stupid masses. Stupid people are easier to addict, easier to sell the addiction to, and less likely to object to stupid changes. Perfect consumers!

[Sangalor]

Sangalor wrote:

Btw, are you talking about dual or multi-class paladin/assassin or those characters generally not being in AD&D? The first is obviously absurd, but if your suggesting the alternative I'd like to hear your views.

What they were saying at that site is that you could have a paladin/assassin dual- or multi- class character. Then they got into how if the paladin only commits "neutral" assassinations, he can retain his LG alignment and all other sorts of insane nonsense. They tried injecting modern moral relativism into the discussion, which only sank their boat all the more. It was really a pitiful sight to behold. I pray that Zherbus gets the ADNDC.com forum back up, at least long enough for us to grab relevant posts. I had one there that summed up the paladin/assassin "debate" that was both hysterical and shocking at the same time.

Strange - I think you could have a dual class 2nd ed Thief (Assassin kit)/Paladin. It would be related to the idea that the thief had some religious experience and somehow became a paladin. This is plausible but extremely unlikely. They would essentially lose most of the functions of the kit/class that were not in line with the paladin requirements and ethos eg. backstab etc. A DM (and the PC) would have to think long and hard about this though as it is an exceptional situation. Additionally - the PC would have to have awesome stats to even get to the cross-over. Whatever the case, you couldn't have the Assassin function working with the Paladin ethos.

In terms of a scenario re. paladins and assassinations - the paladin could possibly start assassinating people if they were insane and imagined they were an instrument of their god. (Not assassinating as an assassin though, but just as a fighter). Objectively, their actions would be outside of their ethos and they would lose their divine favour, their paladin status and their alignment would have impediments - I'm not even sure how a PC could play such a scenario - they would most likely become an NPC?

Outside of this "extremely" limited situation, I wouldn't even consider moral relativist arguments or "neutral" assassination nonsense.

What are your thoughts?

[Minstrel]

Outside of this "extremely" limited situation, I wouldn't even consider moral relativist arguments or "neutral" assassination nonsense.

What are your thoughts?

I've always felt that certain exercises in morals and ethics were beyond the scope of the ad&d game. Assassins are evil, paladins are good and you don't need to think twice about running a goblin through just because he's standing there.

[Mira]

I think I should take a moment to explain my terms. Robin Law wrote in his book, "Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering", 7 player styles: tactician, power gamer, method actor, storyteller, butt-kicker, specialist, and casual gamer. These are styles that exist outside of any rule system. Outside of any feel. Outside of any edition. You can change rules. You can add miniatures. You can change the dice to coin flips The option to play the desired style is still present. When it comes to style, the edition is insignificant. Unless you are saying that 3.X changes the game to a miniatures game like Warhammer, or I install it on my computer, it will always be this way.

Well, as I noted before, 3E does make it much of a miniatures game. But that in of itself doesn't change the style as you defined it.

I do submit that the 3E rules cater to the power gamer though, with the myriad of rules crying out to be exploited, and the game books forwards which insist that the rules are the rules. (going so far as to state that the rules in the book over-ride any supplements that may come out) It's much harder for a DM to make the game NOT be a power-gamer's dream, since he or she has to fight the rules in order to do so. The whole idea of rules as guidelines was thrown out in 3E. Sure, you can get some old school gamers who were exposed to that idea in the other editions and decided to continue with it. But new players to the game will expect the rules to be the rules, and whether or not they make sense is irrelevant. A DM can try to mold the game into one that is story-driven, but working around those rules is much harder to do, it may force the story into a very different shape since 'cheating' isn't allowed.

The 3E rules are so defined that it's awfully easy to just make one mistake in a feat choice to ruin your character concept. Ideally, I'd like to be able to create the character as I go, I don't like to have to plan my character's skills and feats out ahead of time. But 3E is setup so that if you don't do that, you get burned. To me, there is so much more flexibility with the 1E/2E rules. with a flexible rule set, it's not difficult to adjust for a style of play, with a more rigid rule set, you can't adjust things nearly as easily. Impossible? No, but difficult enough that why bother? There are already working rule sets that have that flexibility.

In order to change 3E to work the way I'd want it, I'd have to do a TON of work. But I can make 1E/2E work the way I want quite easily. And I can handle people of differently playing styles within the game and keep it fun for all. (well, most, power-gamers may find it not so fun) Since I prefer a game style without power-gamers, and 3E caters to them, there's really no point in my playing it. I HAVE tried it, and that's why I now play a lot more non-D&D games now. I've played in some poor AD&D games before, but none of those drove me completely from the game. It only took a few 3E games to drive me into playing BESM and White Wolf games, even Solitaire is preferable to playing with those rules!

Mira (How many people thought of the Post-It note before it was invented but just didn't have anything to jot it down on?)

[jeffx]

I've always felt that certain exercises in morals and ethics were beyond the scope of the ad&d game. Assassins are evil, paladins are good and you don't need to think twice about running a goblin through just because he's standing there.

Assassins don't necessarily need to be evil. I don't mean from a rules point of view. I don't have a 1E PHB handy for reference. But evil, in some instances, is from a "certain point of view". I couldn't resist. One theme I used in a game was what the character's thought they were doing goodLater, their perspective changed.

With the right group, I like to bring moral and ethic choices into the game. It isn't something I suggest in just any old group.