Greybeards and Grognards 2 Who Dies? And a bit of a gamer bio

[khyron1144]

Grey Beards & Grognards 2 Who Dies (And My Life In Gaming Editions)?
By
JustiN Orion Neal Taylor

I am about 25 years old.  I have been involved with the D&D game in some way since about the time I was nine.  One of the earliest things that I got into the game with was the Ravenloft Realm of Terror boxed set.  I thought at the time that games came in boxes, only being familiar with board games.

I eventually also picked up the D&D Basic red box (at a Good Will, no less) and the board game-like version of basic D&D that had a paper dungeon map and heavier paper stock stand ups.  I still had no idea what to do with Ravenloft at this time, but had read it backwards and forwards about three times that year alone.  Eventually I used the rules in the book with the board game-like D&D set to create a dungeon on a piece of graph paper and had my dad try to play in it.  I had no idea how to run an RPG or design an adventure at the time.

Flash forward to middle school and Iâ,¬,,¢ve picked up the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition Playerâ,¬,,¢s Handbook and Dungeon Masterâ,¬,,¢s Guide.  I also met my friend Jarod, who is my only friend from that era Iâ,¬,,¢ve stayed in contact with.  Iâ,¬,,¢m now a better DM, but I still donâ,¬,,¢t understand what makes and RPG different from Hero Quest or Monopoly other than the possibility of playing it with only a graph paper map (no board).

In high school, I discover Vampire: The Masquerade and learn more about the RP aspects of RPGs.  I believe there may be some cause and effect there.  I run entire sessions of both Vampire and D&D with zero dice rolled and zero rulebooks consulted mid-adventure.  I also run both games very tactically on occasion.  On a road trip during these years, I pick up copies of the AD&D 1st edition Playerâ,¬,,¢s Handbook and Deities and Demigods Cyclopedia (sadly a later printing without the Elric and Cthulhu material).

Iâ,¬,,¢m in my freshman year of college when the third edition of D&D comes out.  I eventually acquire all three of the core rulebooks as well as The Creature Collection.  It feels like a very different game system than Iâ,¬,,¢m used to, but I still have a blast playing it.

Last year, I picked up an old issue of Dragon from the tail end of the 1e era.  It contains the second installment of the Game Wizards column to be entitled â,¬Å"Who Dies?â,¬Â  The two â,¬Å"Who Dies?â,¬Â articles are about the new 2nd edition of the game thatâ,¬,,¢s coming out.

There are a number of points raised in the â,¬Å"Who Dies?â,¬Â articles that got me thinking about how the 1e to 2e changeover may have differed from the 2e to 3e changeover.  Believe it or not, I do not want to start an edition war (for readers on my forum or the CBG and Jerod, this comment is mostly directed at people on the WotC boards).  I have my preferences.  You have yours.  Different salves for different wounds.

One comment made in the second â,¬Å"Who Dies?â,¬Â article is particularly telling, in my opinion.  The author states that 100% backwards compatibility was a major design goal.  He then goes on to state that any change from the previous edition will lower backwards compatibility from that 100% standard, so it is not an attainable goal.  The highest possible standard of compatibility would be strived for, though.

I honestly donâ,¬,,¢t think that this degree of backwards compatibility was a design goal in 3e.  This is just my gut feeling, but inverting the AC system and adding a new class that had never been in any version of D&D before (Sorcerer) are moves that donâ,¬,,¢t seem like they fit with as much backwards compatibility as we can get as a chief design goal.

Another point he raises is that certain character classes had to be cut from the current edition, either because of balance issues (Barbarian and Cavalier) or for party harmony reasons (Assassin).  He goes on to say such a thing is not that big of a problem for players loyal to those classes because they can be carried over from 1st edition rules, if the group really wants to.  This indicates a fairly high degree of backwards compatibility.  I believe this to be true.  One could play a 1st edition Assassin in a 2nd edition game, if you had a willing DM and a 1st edition Playerâ,¬,,¢s Handbook.

It doesnâ,¬,,¢t really work the same way for a 2nd edition to 3rd edition character.  There may be a class called Fighter in both games.  They might both use d10s for hit dice.  They might both have wide access to weapons and armor, but they are not as mechanically identical as they should be to ensure a high degree of backwards compatibility.

If I have a point, and donâ,¬,,¢t assume that because I took the time to type this up in Word and subject it to spelling and grammar checks and email a copy to my best friend and post it on my forum and x-post it here that I have a point, it is this:  3e is a cool game, but it does not maintain enough backwards compatibility to be thought of as essentially the same game as the previous versions of D&D.


If the first one falls off the top page: here it is.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

A side note on some of the points you mention from the article:

The sorcerer seemed, to me, to be based on the idea of wild casters explored in some of the novels (like Spellfire), well before 3rd ed came out.  It seems like they were trying to incorporate a plot theme element mechanically.

As for cutting something like an assassin for party harmony - I can see reasons not to have an assassin class, but that's not one of them.  It's up to the players and DM to promote party harmony, if necessary to the degree of deciding about party construction.  That assume party harmony is even a goal (admittedly, for D&D, it usually is).  I've seen plenty of games where an oddly assorted game can run well, including games with assassins. And I'm sure everyone has seen games where parties of similar alignments/classes have still fallen apart.

[khyron1144]

A side note on some of the points you mention from the article:

1) The sorcerer seemed, to me, to be based on the idea of wild casters explored in some of the novels (like Spellfire), well before 3rd ed came out.  It seems like they were trying to incorporate a plot theme element mechanically.

2) As for cutting something like an assassin for party harmony - I can see reasons not to have an assassin class, but that's not one of them.  It's up to the players and DM to promote party harmony, if necessary to the degree of deciding about party construction.  That assume party harmony is even a goal (admittedly, for D&D, it usually is).  I've seen plenty of games where an oddly assorted game can run well, including games with assassins. And I'm sure everyone has seen games where parties of similar alignments/classes have still fallen apart.

2) Well, the party harmony thing is a stated reason.  Also to alleviate some of the game's image problems is another.  I don't necesarily agree with it.  I personally, think paladins create party harmony issues with their detect evil ability and refusal to adventure with evil characters.

I'm thinking I could milk the two "Who Dies?" articles from Dragon for another couple essays.  Most of the above paragraph could be the seed for one, for example.

1) Okay, the sorcerer may represent a legitimate archetype, but I feel it also is a step towards a Final Fantasy magic Points magic system, which can be a good or bad thing depending on who you ask.  When I first got into 3e, I thought the sorcerer was a cool thing.

[snakefing]

I started with D&D back in, let's see, probably about 1978. Haven't played much lately, it is just hard to stay connected with the game community when you are moving around as much as I was. And now I'm just too old to connect with random people from the game shop bulletin board. And too busy, I suppose, but I bet I could find time if I wanted to.

I can say that over this time, there's been an on-going tendency to downplay the connection with occult and evil imagery. Partly this was an (over)reaction to some of the weird rants from the fringe religious community, and partly just to present an image that is safer and more appealing to a wider market. They have to tread a bit of a thin line here - dark gothic or occult stuff appeals to some of their market, but can scare away parents. And let's face it - most people get into this as teens when parents still have some say in it.

Also, I've always felt that the (1e) assassin class was not very well executed, so that would probably be another factor in removing it. As a character class, it wasn't really that powerful; as a foe, the instant death attack could be too devastating to be used.

It always seemed to me that the sorcerer was just basically a port to the 3e core of some wilder concepts from 2e settings. I never played with those, though, so it is pretty likely that there are major mechanical differences. But that's probably because as a core class, it needed to be more consistent with the rest of the system.

Anyway, that's the view from this greybeard. (Though in reality my beard is only just beginning to turn.)

[khyron1144]

Wow!  You've been gaming three more years than I've been alive.
Glad to hear from someone who more legitimately deserves the greybeard title.  I shave pretty regularly because I'm job hunting, but when I don't, my beard is not greying in the least.  So my greybeardness is largely metaphorical.

I was not around for any of the 70s.  I barely remember the 80s.  I have tried to learn about the history of the game and even acquire the older rulebooks.

In my opinion, any connection between D&D in the occult is largely the product of paranoid Christian imaginations.  There may have been some questionable things, like the cover of Eldritch Sorcery (although, I've never seen it, just heard about the fuss), but it was mostly using imagery to deliver an impact in the way that movies often do (and do poorly more often than not).  

As an interesting side note:  many magical practices have their roots in Christian tradition; like John Dee's Enochian system of magic.

I do notice that although the majority of the hubub regarding D&D was in the 80s, I do still have to watch my back some because I'm in Dutch-Christian-Reformed-land a.k.a. west Michigan.  It's not as bad as it might have been once, probably, but I have been accused of being a Satanist at school, by distant relatives at a family reunion, and, kind of indirectly, by someone at my church.  Mostly because I am a nerd and always bring something to read with me.  Nine times out of ten that's my newest D&D book or other RPG book.  

[snakefing]

I'd have to disagree, slightly, with the idea that there's no connection between D&D and the occult. D&D is a mishmash of things that come from various mythical, literary, and filmic traditions. The occult forms a part of that. It's not a major part of D&D - but all that stuff about demons and devils and Faustian bargains is in the warp and woof of fantasy legend and you can't entirely exorcise it.

That said, you can certainly run D&D without it, so it isn't really a central or necessary part. The loony fringe has always had a tendency to see satanic influence just about everywhere. Anyone who thinks that the concept of magic is inherently satanic just doesn't understand the genre. These people can't be taken seriously; but they do manage to create a strange undercurrent of "concern" amongst people who may be encountering it for the first time. Your experience in rural Michigan is like this - people who only know rumors are concerned.

I think that over time the writers of D&D have tried to de-emphasize these aspects without removing them entirely. That way, people who want to play with them can still do so, but it's not put front and center. This helps to minimize these "concerns" from parents and/or clergy who will often have only a superficial exposure or interest in it. If a quick skim of the material doesn't turn up things that might seem problematic, their concerns might be allayed, at least enough to prevent some of the strange over-reactions that occured in the '80s.

Taking things like "assassin" out of the core rules can be seen as part of that, as well as being more careful about the impression your cover art makes. You can see where some people - quickly skimming the rules or seeing the book in someone's backpack - might see this as "encouraging" evil behavior. So put it in a back appendix, or an optional expansion, or claim that it is an "NPC" class so it is only supposed to be used for the bad guys.

[khyron1144]

Thanks for another well-thought-out intelligent responce.


One itsy-bitsy nitpick that is actually my fault because I was pretty non-specific about my locality.  My area of Michigan is not all that rural.  I'm in the greater Grand Rapids area, which would be the second biggest city in Michigan and it's surrounding suburbs.  Most of my life, I was actually living in the big city, pretty much always a poorer neighborhood.