The Emasculation of 3rd Edition

[jeffx]

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

So what are your thoughts on Coke and Coke Zero? I'm afraid to mention how I feel. I might get castrated.

It's not nostalgia. It's an observation made from almost 40 years of comic collecting, reading, and studying.

This isn't a comics forum so I'll only make this one comment. If all all you can point at is crossovers and events you are reading the wrong comics. I won't defend the "Civil Wars" and "52" style books. They are indefensible. I also wouldn't judge all comics on those type of titles either.

[jeffx]

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 think that is as close to Godwin's Law as I want to tread.

[Sangalor]

wrote:


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 get uncomfortable when people start talking in terms of absolute or universal good/evil, right/wrong. Its the sort of language that leads to totalitarianism esp. religious fundamentalism, where the victims are usually not only those who choose not to conform, but those who actually cannot conform.

In saying that, history does demonstrate that the values/mores of society do change and with that our understanding of morality also. These values are enforced by laws which are formed with the consent of the majority and enforced appropriately. Eg. 300 years ago slavery was acceptable, now it isn't - not because people suddently realised that slavery was an absolute evil or absolute wrong, but because they took up an understanding of the fundamental rights of the individual which slavery could not fit with and outlawed it. This may be a form of cultural relativism but it is also a historical reality.

Now the question of absolute good/evil arises and this delves into the realm of philosophy/theology. Again, we are informed by our culture and values - often, in this case, informed by our religious beliefs. I myself subscribe to certain religious beliefs which informs my views on this matter. But in an attempt to be objective, I would say that there are some things which can be considered inimical to humanity, and that these things are most probably understood as "evils" by the majority of people. Whether you could then scientifically prove them to be "absolute" evils is a question for better minds than mine, but I find it unlikely that you can move beyond general recognition of evils.

Sorry to be deep!

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 have to respectfully disagree with you here Halaster - although my preference is for the 60's Marvel lines, there have been some very good lines since the 70's - for instance 80s/90's had 2000AD (UK) and DC Sandman by Gaiman come to mind. Recently the Conan line has been fairly good with regards to Howard's stories and has nice art.

[Sangalor]

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.

Paladins are difficult characters to play because they operate with strict principles and a formulated ethos. Killing an enemy who was not attacking you may be considered unjust or unmerciful.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Sangalor wrote:

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.

Not sure if they ever conceived of such a crazy combo in those dreadful kit books (most of which I do not have, the ones I have coming to me by accident), but there's no way a paladin/assassin or paladin/thief could exist according to AD&D rules.

The moment the paladin commits an evil act (and both assassination and thieving are evil and chaotic acts), he immediately loses paladinhood. They are mutually exclusive terms.

Traveller and I asked Gary Gygax during the infamous Planet'Tard wars, and he said that as designed in AD&D, a thief or assassin could not turn over a new leaf and become a paladin because his soul was tainted. He did not fit the purity demanded by the archetype of the paladin, in other words.

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?

You got it! The moment he paladin committed the evil act, he would no longer be a paladin. The moment he became insane, he would not longer be a PC but rather an NPC under DM control.

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

What are your thoughts?

I think that those people who argue for the existence of paladin/assassins are clueless and clearly do not understand the rules, the spirit, the design, the intent, or the origins of the game.

[Sangalor]

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.

It's an interesting plot idea to put PC's through a situation which presents a moral dilemma but it wont work with paladins (or even clerics to a lesser extent) because their god can make it known that they are doing something against their principles by reducing their power (i.e. loss of paladin powers and/or loss of spells).

With regards to assassins, you could possibly have a LN assassin (in terms of the action, not as an actual character - cf. Halaster's later posts!) - they would justify the occasional assassination as being an excessive circumstance dictated by necessary requirements eg. assassinate their ruler's political rival who, if they came to power, would institute anarchy or be disastrous for society. They would resort to assassination because the failure to react quickly would lead to the worse situation eg. ends justifies means. But the circumstances would be so contrived as to make such a character unrealistic for play - far better an opportunity as a NPC. (Not that I would use this.)

[Sangalor]

Sangalor wrote:

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.

Not sure if they ever conceived of such a crazy combo in those dreadful kit books (most of which I do not have, the ones I have coming to me by accident), but there's no way a paladin/assassin or paladin/thief could exist according to AD&D rules.

The moment the paladin commits an evil act (and both assassination and thieving are evil and chaotic acts), he immediately loses paladinhood. They are mutually exclusive terms.

Traveller and I asked Gary Gygax during the infamous Planet'Tard wars, and he said that as designed in AD&D, a thief or assassin could not turn over a new leaf and become a paladin because his soul was tainted. He did not fit the purity demanded by the archetype of the paladin, in other words.

I could envisage certain thief skills as not being completely against the paladin's ethos eg. climb walls and detect noise. However, the majority would be over the line or would have to be so carefully used as to make play extremely difficult for the PC.

I didn't know about the tainted soul thing and I'm happy to go with the founder's view on this - when I suggested the possibility I had in mind some sort of divinely influenced scenario eg. a god changes the PC as a result of conversion experience etc - but as I have always maintained, this would be so far fetched as to almost preclude possible play.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Jeffx wrote:

Assassins don't necessarily need to be evil. I don't mean from a rules point of view.

They most certainly DO! As Gary so eloquently states in the 1E PHB:

"Assassins are evil in alignment (perforce, as the killing of humans and other intelligent life forms for the purpose of profit is basically held to be the antithesis of weal)."

So what are your thoughts on Coke and Coke Zero? I'm afraid to mention how I feel. I might get castrated.

Coke? It's poison. And I mean that literally.

It was bad enough when it was loaded with sugar. Now they load it with high fructose corn syrup. Your liver metabolizes it differently than sugar, and it raises your blood sugar levels higher and for longer than sugar. It causes insulin resistance. This is one reason why we have a diabetic (Type II) pandemic going on. Sodas went from sugar to high fructose corn syrup and drink sizes went from 8 oz to 44 oz! HFCS converts to fat faster than any other type of sugar.

The high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) depletes minerals from your bones because your body must cannibalize them from somewhere in order to compensate for the lack of minerals in the HFCS. HFCS causes a general increase in both total cholesterol and LDL. It raises your triglyceride levels. HFCS also increases lactic acid levels in the blood, which leads to al sorts of complicated acidotioc conditions including cancer. It's converted to fatty acids by the liver much faster than glucose (sugar).

HFCS increases calcium in the urine, which, along with the acid of the soda, increases the risk of kidney stones. It depletes the body of minerals, especially iron, calcium, magnesium, and zinc. HFCS causes accelerated oxidative damage of the cells, and affects the cross-linking of the collagen of the skin.

HFCS is so difficult to digest that it robs ATP from the liver, resulting in decreased energy in the cells. It depletes copper, which leads to weak bones, anemia, defects of connective tissue, etc.

And that's just what's bad with the HFCS! What about the carbonation? The carbon dioxide (carbonation) turns to carbonic acid in the stomach, which acidifies the body and greatly amplifies the loss of minerals (especially calcium), which causes weakening of bone. Dentists sure love it though...all those dental caries (cavities) earn them lots of money. And then they get to put toxic mercury fillings in your teeth! With all that acidity from the corn syrup and the carbonic acid, your body becomes acidic (it takes 32 8oz glasses of neutral pH7.0 water to neutralize one can of Coke!). That's two gallons of water to neutralize the acid of one 8oz can of coke! Cancer can only grow in an acidic environment...a doctor won a Nobel Prize for proving this. So it encourages cancer growth by acidifying the body.

Of course, the artificial colors and preservatives suck too. Coke Zero? Those artificial sweeteners are even worse than the HFCS in some ways. It's all garbage.

So, using the definition of "food" as anything that nourishes the body and "poison" as anything that destroys or kills the body, Coke is a poison, not a food. Don't even get me started on pasteurized/homogenized milk!

This isn't a comics forum so I'll only make this one comment. If all all you can point at is crossovers and events you are reading the wrong comics. I won't defend the "Civil Wars" and "52" style books. They are indefensible. I also wouldn't judge all comics on those type of titles either.

Oh, I'm not judging them on those titles only, believe me. I cannot pick up a comic off the stands these days without retching and tasting my own bile. It seems to get worse and worse the more I see or hear about it.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Sangalor wrote:

With regards to assassins, you could possibly have a LN assassin -

You can't have a LN assassin in AD&D. It simply cannot be done because assassins are evil..."perforce, as the killing of humans and other intelligent life forms for the purpose of profit is basically held to be the antithesis of weal".

An "assassin" as defined in AD&D is one who murders for monetary gain.

This is where discussions of such matters get bogged down. It's because we stray from the definitions given within the parameters of the game. The term "assassin" in AD&D terminology is very specific and not at all the same as the real world dictionary definition of the word "assassin". They are two very different things. We can't confuse one for the other.

According to AD&D rules, assassins are those who murder for money and such an act is by necessity evil, hence assassins must be evil. There's no getting around it. Unless of course you decide to chuck the archetype, change the rules, and form an alternate system.

I could envisage certain thief skills as not being completely against the paladin's ethos eg. climb walls and detect noise. However, the majority would be over the line or would have to be so carefully used as to make play extremely difficult for the PC.

I can agree there. No harm in a paladin climbing walls or being able to listen. But picking locks and picking pockets, sneaking around in the dark, backstabbing, etc are strictly against both his alignment and his paladinic code. The very concept of the thief as a sneaky, dishonorable combatant is against the paladin's code.

I didn't know about the tainted soul thing and I'm happy to go with the founder's view on this - when I suggested the possibility I had in mind some sort of divinely influenced scenario eg. a god changes the PC as a result of conversion experience etc - but as I have always maintained, this would be so far fetched as to almost preclude possible play.

Now that I could almost see happening. I guess the counter-argument would be that the god would probably prefer to choose someone more worthy, someone not already tainted. But I can see the scenario you paint as being legitimate in the game without breaking the spirit or the rules. It would be, as you said, extremely rare!

[Sangalor]

Jeffx wrote:

Assassins don't necessarily need to be evil. I don't mean from a rules point of view.

They most certainly DO! As Gary so eloquently states in the 1E PHB:

"Assassins are evil in alignment (perforce, as the killing of humans and other intelligent life forms for the purpose of profit is basically held to be the antithesis of weal)."

Hal - I don't think jeffx was trying to say that assassins aren't evil - because clearly the rules do say they must be evil, but he was suggesting that there are some relativist examples where you can argue that assassins are not necessarily evil.
(It also comes down to your definition of assassin - they don't all have to be for material profit of course, but the classical archetype is certainly constructed that way.)

(Jeffx feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Sangalor wrote:

Hal - I don't think jeffx was trying to say that assassins aren't evil - because clearly the rules do say they must be evil, but he was suggesting that there are some relativist examples where you can argue that assassins are not necessarily evil.(It also comes down to your definition of assassin - they don't all have to be for material profit of course, but the classical archetype is certainly constructed that way.)

Ah, I see what you're saying. I read Jeff's original post wrong. Sorry Jeff.

Still, the word "assassin" carries an evil connotation. If we'd killed Hitler, we wouldn't call it an assassination as we would with JFK. The word carries the connotation of one who kills for a living, kills for pleasure, or kills for profit, and the killing is usually construed as being done against an innocent or good person.

[Sangalor]

Sangalor wrote:

With regards to assassins, you could possibly have a LN assassin -

You can't have a LN assassin in AD&D. It simply cannot be done because assassins are evil..."perforce, as the killing of humans and other intelligent life forms for the purpose of profit is basically held to be the antithesis of weal".

An "assassin" as defined in AD&D is one who murders for monetary gain.

This is where discussions of such matters get bogged down. It's because we stray from the definitions given within the parameters of the game. The term "assassin" in AD&D terminology is very specific and not at all the same as the real world dictionary definition of the word "assassin". They are two very different things. We can't confuse one for the other.

According to AD&D rules, assassins are those who murder for money and such an act is by necessity evil, hence assassins must be evil. There's no getting around it. Unless of course you decide to chuck the archetype, change the rules, and form an alternate system.

My bad. I admit that I phrased that poorly - I was thinking of an example where you could assassinate someone without it being a necessarily evil act (or for personal profit). I wouldn't advocate an Assassin PC who wasn't evil because it would be, as you have pointed out, not in agreement with the rules.

[jeffx]

Hal - I don't think jeffx was trying to say that assassins aren't evil - because clearly the rules do say they must be evil, but he was suggesting that there are some relativist examples where you can argue that assassins are not necessarily evil.
(It also comes down to your definition of assassin - they don't all have to be for material profit of course, but the classical archetype is certainly constructed that way.)

(Jeffx feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

Nothing to correct.

I have no doubt that the rulebook says assassins are evil. I can just see examples where "assassins" don't need to be evil.

[jeffx]

This is where discussions of such matters get bogged down. It's because we stray from the definitions given within the parameters of the game. The term "assassin" in AD&D terminology is very specific and not at all the same as the real world dictionary definition of the word "assassin". They are two very different things. We can't confuse one for the other.

It was a long time ago and I am looking for my notes on the game. However, I do believe, in the example I used, there was not a single character with the class assassin. More of an assassin by action sort of thing. So my comment of assassins don't necessarily need to be evil is more of a dictionary definition and not a rules definition. I want to make sure I am clear on that.

Rules are rules. When it comes to games as complex as role-playing games rules are very important. I am not a rules lawyer, but you have to follow the rules as closely as possible. If not, you run the risk of inconsistency in your game. This does not suggest that you can't redo a rule with house rules. The writing of good house rules is very tough.

[jeffx]

Ah, I see what you're saying. I read Jeff's original post wrong. Sorry Jeff.

No worry. I tried to clear my point up this morning.

You are still wrong about the comic book thing.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Jeffx wrote:

You are still wrong about the comic book thing.

Humbug!

I think everything's decayed in the last 2 decades. Music, comics, tv, movies, D&D, toys, society in general, etc.

[Zherbus]

3E is more about numbers than the actual imaginative aspect.

The supporting arguements (because I believe in actually backing up what I say, not shooting from the hip) are:


I don't mean quantity of numbers. Even so, the whole Feats nonsense by itself adds a whole other layer of mathimatics that go into character generation, so your literal arguement doesn't hold up for me. I meant the quality of numbers. Maybe I differ than how WotC intended 3E to play, but when I make a fighter in an older edition, I'll generally only get a few pluses to play with (Specialization, maybe a Str bonus, maybe a racial bonus). The rest of the time I usually spend on his appearance, backstory, demeanor, and goals.

When I roll a 3E character up, not only do more stats give more pluses, but there's way more to calculate.

- You get, of course, higher pluses for core stats to appease the kiddies who want to see bigger, badder numbers.

- You get Feats, which are basically WotC's way of saying 'We did it with Magic, now I want rpg players to dream up some pretty nifty "builds".' (don't laugh, the FIRST Dragon magazine released after 3E came out features some 'killer combo' bard. I'll see if I can find an issue #)

- You get exaggerated skills... like weapon focus, X-TREME Mountain Dew Specialization (because regular specialization is for n00bz), weapon finess, or power attacks... all aspects of the game you can use to make numbers higher.

- You get a much more convoluted armor system. I gotta admit that to my suprise they put a limit on dexterity bonuses on heavier armors. Even with that limitation, you can finess your way into an extremely nice armor class. The ratio may equate across editions, but like all of the numbers BS, is it necessary? Should a guy dancing around in a tunic and cape really expect to avoid as much damage as the guy in shining plate mail when it comes to close-quartered melee?

I don't have my 3E stuff with me at the moment, but I'm sure there are things I am forgetting that specifically relate to the numbers arguement (so I can't utilize other things I hate like Elite Classes, the wacky spell system, etc).

The bottom line is that with all that focus on numbers, it's a miracle that new players to D&D ever catch on to the role-playing aspect of the game.

Every game has its min/maxers. 3E make it easier.

My example was: It's like owning a brand of car that doesn't lock. Thieves steal every type of car, but the kind with no locks makes it easier, therefore more commonly stolen.

Another could be: It's like owning a house that you never lock. Thieves break into every kind of house, but the kind with no locks makes it easier, therefore more commonly burglered.

What the hell is with everyone taking a level here and there as if they were spices? Why can't a Ranger just be a Ranger? Why does it have to be Ranger/Fighter/Cleric?

A ranger-esque character could have been a Ranger/Fighter easily enough, since those two are similiar, but I'm sure they were smart enough to take some Wizard levels or maybe wise enough to take some priest levels. They didn't, because being even an initiate in any profession takes more time than just 'taking' levels in something.

Even if they took the time, there is a low likelyhood that everyone in the D&D fantasy world should have a few levels in Cleric here, a few Fighter levels there, with a smattering of ass-kickery in Sorcery.

To me, it's a huge gaping hole into the world of min/maxing... which is what I am saying 3E is about.

[Shacia Amastacia]

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 have stayed very quiet during this discussion, both because I am new to BIP, and because I have yet to participate in an AD&D campaign, though I'm scheduled to correct that starting next weekend.

I am a 28 year old, college educated, reasonably intelligent woman, who led a very sheltered childhood, with a father who considers D&D Satanism and devil worship. So I missed out on AD&D, even though I'm old enough to have played it. I started out as an adult and was introduced to Third Edition, about 5-6 years ago. I consider myself a "3E gamer" as you put it. According to your words, I am a total crazy idiot with no morals or ethics.

I don't mean to be confrontational, but I have been watching this thread and reading it with a grain of salt, trying to see things from everyone else's perspective, since I haven't actually played AD&D yet. I also thought to learn a little bit about what differences to expect with AD&D.

Many of the perceptions you all hold about third edition players are way off. I have never gamed with anyone that meets any of the "typical" third edition gamers that you all have described. That's not to say I disagree with your thoughts about how third edition changed D&D mechanics, and its style, for the worse. I can see your points there. What bothers me is how I am being labeled as a person for enjoying third edition despite the fact that I never had an opportunity to play AD&D.

There has been too much discussed in this thread for me to try to go back and express my opinions on those topics, so I’ll just leave my thoughts about them un-written. It seems to me that the entire purpose of BIP is to continue to produce products for current AD&D gamers, and in part, to attract new AD&D gamers. I have to say, this thread does not seems to represent the best you have to offer gamers, and does not show a good reflection of who you all are, and what you’re about.

~The 3E Gamer

[Blackmote]

It seems to me that the entire purpose of BIP is to continue to produce products for current AD&D gamers, and in part, to attract new AD&D gamers. I have to say, this thread does not seems to represent the best you have to offer gamers, and does not show a good reflection of who you all are, and what you’re about.

~The 3E Gamer

*applauds* well spoken.

And she's right you know. Halaster, I realize these forums belong to you. And you have the last say and obviously express your opinion however you like. But Melissa's right - if you're planning to attract more folks to this project, be they regular members or part of your staff, you should consider being a bit less antagonistic in your posts towards 'players in general'. If you plan to outright bash people for playing 3E when effectively that's all they've ever known, your forums may end up about as dead as they were before this recent surge in memberships.

I spoke my peace in this thread, but all I said was how I enjoyed AD&D (in particular 2E) moreso than 3.X editions. I've tried them and I prefer the old ways.

The only folks I've ever gamed with in 3.X have been people I've known who transitioned from 2E because... well, they took the carrot. I took the same carrot to start with. but then I realized it had this slightly bitter taste. And I kept looking back at that chocolate fudge cake. Then I'd study the carrot some more. Then the cake...

And now here I stand with icing on my face.

But I'm proud of it.

[Varl]

Admittedly, I've mellowed my stance towards 3e the past few years mainly because forehead vein-popping rants don't do any good, and are often ignored anyway, so why get one's blood pressure up over something you can do nothing about?

Except there is something we can do about it, and it's called BIP and similar private ventures motivated to keep AD&D alive. I've incorporated several creature features from 3e into my 1e/2e/3e game, and I've embraced their psionics system as a much better way than the old clunky mismatched powers all jumbled together system of 1e/2e. But other than these fairly cosmetic changes, it's still 1e/2e. AC still is negative (yah!), saves still have 5 categories, THAC0 is still preferred and easy to calculate, the primary game archetypes are still encouraged, and there are no tieflings or weird triple crossbred mutant weirdo characters.

It's AD&D at the core, and some of what AD&D should have been, for me at least. And for me, that's the positives that come from each new edition. The possibilities for improvement to whichever system you prefer. There's a great deal about 3e I can't stand too: the feel, the power inflation, the kewl powerz mystique it exudes, and the so-called better math (ya ok). So addition is truly better and easier to do, whoopie. What so many pro-3e people always seem to fail to acknowledge is how it's changed the feel of the game. Nevermind that it's easier; we understand that. For me, it's sticking to what AD&D was and is all about that matters. The fact that the AD&D systems aren't perfect or intuitive as they could is what makes it great imo. It's what gives AD&D its own special flavor.

In Monopoly, the game moves clockwise, everyone receives $200 for passing Go, and everyone wants Park Place and Broadway. Suddenly changing those standards to counterclockwise, $500, and the railroads being the most desired properties doesn't mean it's the wrong way to play, but doesn't have the same traditional feel to it if you do. It might be funner and more intuitive to play that way, and it might cause a major resurgence in the popularity of Monopoly and make Parker Brothers millions. They might even try to take Monopoly online.

The point being, Monopoly can be fun no matter how you play it, but there's something truly special about playing it the original way.

[jeffx]

Jeffx wrote:

You are still wrong about the comic book thing.

Humbug!

I think everything's decayed in the last 2 decades. Music, comics, tv, movies, D&D, toys, society in general, etc.

I want to comment so bad. I am biting my good typing pinky to prevent it. I will say I tend to believe in Sturgeon's Revelation. His "law" works as well just not for this conversation.

[jeffx]

There has been too much discussed in this thread for me to try to go back and express my opinions on those topics, so I’ll just leave my thoughts about them un-written. It seems to me that the entire purpose of BIP is to continue to produce products for current AD&D gamers, and in part, to attract new AD&D gamers. I have to say, this thread does not seems to represent the best you have to offer gamers, and does not show a good reflection of who you all are, and what you’re about.

Shacia,
As a major player, and instigator, in this thread, I apologize.

Jeff

[Blackmote]

...The point being, Monopoly can be fun no matter how you play it *snip*.

*shifty-eyed* uh... nekkid?










sorry, I felt like I needed to bring some levity to this thread before we all have a coronary. heh heh. excellent points as well Varl. And same here - I've mellowed over the years because I saw no sense in fighting the 500 pound gorilla in the room. It's just not going to go away. may as well let it sit there and eat all my bananas. I'll go to another room and find some bananas...

Look, there's some now! *points at Doirche, Shacia, Evil Eli, Zherbus, and jeffx*

[Shacia Amastacia]

Shacia,
As a major player, and instigator, in this thread, I apologize.

Jeff

Jeff,

Thank you very much. I wasn't looking for or expecting an apology, but thank you just the same. I just wanted to let everyone know how it looked from my perspective. I've been around long enough to see that you all are nice people, and I know even nice people have some not-so-nice moments. I figured that this was one of them, and thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention. =D I can't say I wasn't pissed when I read the paragraph of Hal's that I quoted, but I did wait a bit before writing my post so that I didn't sound angry. Angry posts never solve much. I think what you guys do here is awesome. It has gotten me really excited about gaming again, since I had taken a short break the last few months.

[Minstrel]

Admittedly, I've mellowed my stance towards 3e the past few years mainly because forehead vein-popping rants don't do any good, and are often ignored anyway, so why get one's blood pressure up over something you can do nothing about?

Heartily agree there. I've said most everything I care to say on the subject a few times now, and I'd rather spend my time supporting projects like BIP or give my money to companies like TLG than pound my head against the wall a few more time.

But I am certainly clear that I dislike 3.x. The people who own the rights to the franchise that I enjoy have turned the game into something I don't. I can no longer buy a 1st or 2nd edition PH or DMG or hope for more product for those systems outside independent projects or used markets. If I want a published, in-print, game that I like, I have to support underdog companies like TLG and hope they succeed, risking an investment in a game that might die off, leaving me with a few sourcebooks and no one with whom to play.

So yes, 3.x sucks. I'm not going to equivocate on that point.

I do think it's an unimaginative, cold, hollow game, devoid of the common bond of archetype and most of the games of 3.x I've seen fit that mold. Should I pretend I haven't?

I've met players of the game who profess to be the exception to the negative generalities one sees on sites like this.. It has never been so. I am sure those exceptions exist. I've not seen them. Should I pretend that I have?

So while I'm not going to spend too much energy making generalizations that, from my experience, are accurate, I'm not going to back away from them either.