There Are Some Who Call Him...Jim

Now and then I get comments on my older posts, which I find strange because some of them were written quite awhile ago and I'm not even sure how anyone is finding them (I certainly don't go around looking for negative reviews of games I like). Sometimes it's a predictably anonymous account that, unable to refute any of criticisms, resorts to a juvenile insult. Others it's someone agreeing with me, which I suppose is nice but I'm still curious how are people finding those posts.

As odd as it is to stumble across a review going on four years old and bother to leave a comment, the most recent submission was stranger still because the guy wasn't even addressing my numerous criticisms of the postmodern vapidware trash game Troika--not that even its fans are capable of doing so--but expressing his disdain of D&D editions two and up because I mentioned enjoying them. Not in the review, mind you, but down in the comments section.

Here was his first shot:

Official D&D had already gone to shit by the time 3rd. Edition arrived on the scene. 3rd. was—much like 5th. is—a game for princesses who believed everything revolved around their PCs and who just wanted to hit things easier and harder. Any world building a DM had done was a mere afterthought. It turned a game about creating stories not unlike those that inspired the game into one primarily about combat, making it as vacuous as the most vacuous of video games.

It—like 5th.—was little more than a facilitator of the power fantasies of dickless losers. It had ironically made the game into what so many onlookers falsely thought it was when we were playing in the school library.

2nd. Edition was sanitized gayness that lacked the occult look and feel that made 1st. truer to the literary roots of the hobby.

By the time 2nd. arrived on the scene, gone were the influences of Vance and Leiber, of Howard, Moorcock, as it was more about the Tolkien pastiches found in TSR novels.

==========

I'd post my reply here but it's quite long because I like to be thorough, tackling responses point-by-point (which you'll see in a bit), so if you want full context, such as it is (he skips over a lot of what I say so probably no biggie if you don't), go here and scroll down until you find Jimpleton's comment. In any case, this was his chaser:

What I said implies or assumes no such things. It wasn't rulebooks as much as it was player behaviors and attitudes. 3rd. was the first edition that saw players coming from MMORPGs and bringing with them a prioritization of 'builds' over characterization and story. It was where we first saw players getting stroppy if some option wasn't available at a table. If a DM had decided his or her setting wasn't home to something. 3rd. is much like 5th. in that regard: a game for spoiled children who believe D&D has to meet their every whim and demand.

Not every player does want to hit things easier and harder because not every player is obsessed with combat and some of us prefer when the classes were actually unique. Not every player sees D&D as little more than a combat simulator. Making Wizards and Thieves into 'fighters' by giving the former spammable damage and changing the rules so the latter can just have a high DEX and a finesse weapon and be as deadly as a Fighter in combat is just dumb. These classes used to have their own roles and their own moments to shine. Fighters should be the only class that advance as far as 'to hit' goes. Making a Wizard as proficient as a Fighter with any weapon with which the class is proficient is just bad game design. And are you just going to pretend that domain-level play was never a thing or that some have used D&D to run campaigns more about court intrigue than just hitting things? This is also where 3rd. resembles 5th.: five minutes on the D&D Beyond forums and you will find most 5E diehards see D&D as little more than a game in which they get to optimize things in order to mostly if not strictly fight things. It reduces D&D to a most vapid pastime.

Challenge Rating? In the past we did not care about balance. In an edition prior to 3rd. we would have confronted deities at 1st level. Because we knew the game wasn't just about fighting things. All CR did was herald the present day's obsession with balance. Balance is a killer of tension and drama. Of good storytelling. And whether or not that storytelling is emergent is beside the point. It is still storytelling.

Many dickheads saw D&D as a game played by weaklings who just wanted to be able to fight things for once in their lives. It was a stereotype that became the norm once the game was reoriented to be more about building optimal combatants whatever the class. There was a time when the rules for the DM. Not the players. 3rd. changed all that. Even then many of us saw how Wizards had taken the game and tried to make it into something with which players would plot their advancement. When in the past that emergent storytelling would determine these things. Things would have to make narrative sense. Not just the player wanting this or that for optimal combat.

Are you blind? Even the artwork for 2nd. was safer.

Why 'pseudo'? Vance's influence on the game is manifold. Gygax wrote an article in 2001 about Vance's influence on the game. Not just the old magic system. But on the development of the thief class, on a number of specific spells and magic items. His influence was significantly greater than was Tolkien's.

2nd. had the look and feel of the worlds within TSR novels.

1st. that of the worlds within sword and sorcery stories and other pulps. D&D works just fine to run S&S. I have been doing for forty years.

==========

I felt my response would be easier to follow via blog post, plus I wanted to include some images, so here it is:

"What I said implies or assumes no such things."

Except you did and even agree with me when you immediately follow with:

"It wasn't rulebooks as much as it was player behaviors and attitudes."

Which is one of the possibilities I suggested so okay.

"3rd. was the first edition that saw players coming from MMORPGs..."

The first MMO I was aware of was EverQuest, which was exclusively played by our at the time 2nd Edition DM. But it also looks like MMOs have been around since the late 80s, maybe sooner if you count stuff like MUDs. It's a safe assumption that there was overlap back then, with some players going to MMOs after playing D&D and vice versa.

"...and bringing with them a prioritization of 'builds' over characterization and story."

So, what? The rulebooks don't require or encourage any sort of build mentality. It was certainly more flexible in a way that made sense, kind of, though a lot of options and combinations were garbage. And that is what bothers me: so, sooo many pages wasted on things no one would ever take. Granted, some of them were interesting in theory or perhaps conceptually, just horribly executed.

Anyway, you're blaming a game because some players might have played it a way you don't like, and I say some because throughout both 3rd and 4th Edition I only ever ran into one player that bothered planning a few of his character from level 1 to 20, though this didn't run contrary to any sort of characterization or somehow impede the "story" (and it was also a waste of time because we rarely even hit 10th-level).

"It was where we first saw players getting stroppy if some option wasn't available at a table."

Which I find amusing given that on page 6 of the Player's Handbook you're met with:

I recall people having issues with material in 1st Edition's Unearthed Arcana (something about a few of the classes like cavalier), and in 2nd Edition no one wanted to let anyone use psionics to the point where they assumed that 3rd Edition's psionic rules were just as busted (which, they were, just in the opposite direction). 2nd Edition also had those Complete [Class] Handbooks and the Player's Option stuff, but DMs wouldn't let you use those unless they also owned them and/or approved.

So, unless you think that players didn't get upset or push back if the DM said no to certain books or options (or only allowed the Player's Handbook), then it's not the first edition but it's still more of a player problem than anything to do with the rules.

"If a DM had decided his or her setting wasn't home to something."

Again:

So, still a player problem.

"3rd. is much like 5th. in that regard: a game for spoiled children who believe D&D has to meet their every whim and demand."

Aaagaaain:

Don't hate the game, hate the player.

That said, I think 5E panders more to entitled players, what with at-will spells, full healing on a nap, no race penalties, inspiration, etc. All I can recall from 3E is that it gave everyone bonus spells--as opposed to just the cleric--and made negative levels slightly easier to avoid/remove.

"Not every player does want to hit things easier and harder because not every player is obsessed with combat..."

You don't need to be "obsessed" with combat to want your character's chances of hitting to increase, especially when you are playing a game where combat is expected to happen at least once during a session. 

Also, again, see +x weapons and armor.

"...and some of us prefer when the classes were actually unique."

They were still unique in 3rd Edition. Hell, even in 4E.

Unless you're trying to argue, what, that a fighter played and felt the same as a rogue? Or a wizard felt the same as a fighter? I guess you could certainly give that a shot, having a wizard running around in padded armor and wielding a sword, just have fun not hitting anything and dying in one hit.

You know, like in 2nd Edition, and probably 1st Edition, assuming wizards just magically can't wear armor or swing swords.

"Not every player sees D&D as little more than a combat simulator."

Not sure how we ended up here, but I certainly never said that every or even most players perceive it as one. That said, D&D has always been a terrible game if you wanted to simulate combat, especially in earlier editions where a round lasted an entire minute and you could go from perfectly fine to immediately dead.

"Making Wizards and Thieves into 'fighters' by giving the former spammable damage and changing the rules so the latter can just have a high DEX and a finesse weapon and be as deadly as a Fighter in combat is just dumb."

I agree that allowing Dexterity to apply to both attack and damage rolls is a bad idea (though in 3E it only applied to attack rolls if you chose feat, and you had to specify the weapon each time), especially given that Dexterity also affects Armor Class, Initiative (some times, depends on edition), and Dexterity-based saves which are probably the most common save attempted. Oh, it also tends to affect sneaking and other thieving skills.

I also think that at-will spells are stupid, not because it makes a wizard into a fighter (it doesn't) but because it makes magic boring and is still disjointed from whatever shallow flavor magic might have had.

"These classes used to have their own roles and their own moments to shine."

If we're talking 2E or 3E, not sure what roles classes had but lost. 4E might have muddied things a bit since everyone has at-will attacks and your main stat tends to modify your attack and damage no matter what it is (ie, bards can use Charisma for attack and damage rolls), but each class still had a "role" that offered some sort of mechanic/trick that helped them stand out from each other. 

Fighters should be the only class that advance as far as 'to hit' goes.

I disagree. Any class can pick up and use any weapon, and over a period of time should improve to varying degrees. It makes zero sense for a wizard to never ever get better at wielding weapons, even if he ends up resorting to one dozens or even hundreds of times. In fact, given limited spell use, especially in older editions, it would make more sense for him to improve.

Making a Wizard as proficient as a Fighter with any weapon with which the class is proficient is just bad game design.

I also disagree with this, as even if a wizard has the same base modifier to weapon attacks as a fighter, he still has fewer hit points and will likely be easier to hit. In our game we give fighters a class-based bonus to damage rolls, so even if a wizard has the same default chance to hit--which is unlikely--the fighter is going to deal more damage and have Talents to further boost it.

However, in the 2nd Edition of our game fighters start with a +2 to hit, wizards +1. Fighters scale a lot faster though, so at 5th-level a fighter will have a base +6 to hit, while a wizard will only have a +4. A fighter will also have a base damage modifier of +2 on top of whatever his Strength is and get to make two attacks per round.

Finally, the fighter will have, at the least, 10 more hit points and whatever Talents he picks. So, while the wizard will be able to likely hit things, the fighter is more likely, will hit harder, and have more chances to attack in the first place. 

"And are you just going to pretend that domain-level play was never a thing..."

You mean that thing that arbitrarily doesn't happen until around 10th-level?

"...or that some have used D&D to run campaigns more about court intrigue than just hitting things?"

It's pretty funny that I can say something as simple as "I imagine every player would like to be able to hit things easier and harder", and you somehow manage to interpret it as me regarding D&D as a combat simulator, and are now going on about court intrigue campaigns.

"This is also where 3rd. resembles 5th.: five minutes on the D&D Beyond forums..."

Didn't know there was still a forum, but why would I go to a forum about a game I don't give a fuck about?

"...and you will find most 5E diehards see D&D as little more than a game in which they get to optimize things in order to mostly if not strictly fight things."

And? I don't care about 5th Edition. Or D&D in general. I made and play my own game. But, how did you get from 3rd to 5th Edition? I didn't say I'd enjoy 5th Edition. I tried playing it during the playtesting phase and felt it was lazily recycled garbage (which is only slightly better than being recycled gay garbage).

I am surprised that anyone pretending to play 5E would talk bout killing shit in any capacity, as based on the books I thought it was about gay fantasy Starbucks baristas and Mexican orcs.

"It reduces D&D to a most vapid pastime."

For the they/thems, sure. I stopped playing official D&D over a decade ago, and don't much care what happens to the remains of its long-rotting corpse.

"Challenge Rating? In the past we did not care about balance."

Sure you did, unless you were fine with someone creating and playing a race that gets a bonus to all stats, and a class that's basically a fighter/wizard hybrid with all of the benefits, none of the drawbacks and minimal XP requirements to level up. Wasn't there even a table in the 1E DMG that helped assign XP based on a monster's Hit Die and special abilities?

But then Challenge Rating wasn't about maintaining "balance", but to--ideally--let the DM know about how tough a monster would be for a given party of a given level. If he used this knowledge to solely throw "level appropriate" encounters at his groups, that's a DM issue. In fact, here's a bit from the 3E DMG:

But then most adventures, even "old school" ones, are geared for a party of a general level range. Challenge Rating was just supposed to--again, ideally--make it easier and faster to judge things. The only issue with CR was that it was often inaccurate, so things that you thought would be a good fit ended up being way weaker or stronger than you were expecting.

"In an edition prior to 3rd. we would have confronted deities at 1st level."

Cool. You can also do that in 3E.

And 4E, though you'd have to stat them yourself.

"Because we knew the game wasn't just about fighting things."

No one said it was. Well, I didn't, so I'm not sure who you're mad at.

"All CR did was herald the present day's obsession with balance."

Not really. When I saw people whining about "balance" it was in regards to races and classes. Sometimes feats, and maybe prestige classes, but mostly races and classes since those were chosen at the start of the game and so could have an immediate impact.

That said, balance is good for those sorts of things. Not that I think you can achieve perfect balance, but it's good to avoid creating a class that's basically a fighter/wizard hybrid, with all the perks and none of the drawbacks. Because then why play either class individually? 

"Balance is a killer of tension and drama."

In regards to monsters, maybe? You know, if all you do is throw "level appropriate" or weaker encounters at your party, but we're yet again talking about a DM/player issue since the DMG doesn't tell you to do that.

"Of good storytelling."

Actually it would help, because you could use CR to help structure the adventure so that there's a gradual build up in difficulty, followed by a high CR climactic showdown. But that's only if you want to try and treat it as a vehicle for storytelling. I'd rather read a book or watch something for that sort of thing, though.

"And whether or not that storytelling is emergent is beside the point. It is still storytelling."

No it does matter because there's a difference between a story that happens naturally through gameplay, and one that is pushed or forced due to game mechanics and DM fudgery. The latter is bad because I as a DM or player know it's all bullshit.

"Many dickheads saw D&D as a game played by weaklings who just wanted to be able to fight things for once in their lives."

Sounds like a highly personal experience for you.

"It was a stereotype that became the norm once the game was reoriented to be more about building optimal combatants whatever the class."

Yes, the game was "reoriented" so that over the course of months or even years you could perhaps incrementally build a character slightly better at fighting stuff than maybe some other guy, assuming the game went on that long and you didn't die. I guess some build obsessed players love playing the very, very long game, betting that some day their piece of paper might have certain numbers written on it. 

Why play something like one of the Diablo games, Monster Hunter, Space Marine 2, etc, where you can basically play whenever you want and see results within days or even mere hours when you can try to find a group and numbly go through the motions in the hopes of possibly realizing your dream build?

This argument works slightly better if you're just talking about 4E, since there were a bunch of powers to choose from at every level. In 3E not so much since you had feats and those provided very minor benefits.

"There was a time when the rules for the DM. Not the players."

The rules have never just been "for the DM". There's an entire book on rules oriented towards players so that they know what to expect and how things work. That said, even the 3E DMG makes it clear that the DM can add/change/remove rules.

"3rd. changed all that."

No, there's still an entire book of rules intended for the DM to know in order to run the game. There's even another that has a bunch of optional/variant rules you can use.

"Even then many of us saw how Wizards had taken the game and tried to make it into something with which players would plot their advancement."

Yes, those dastardly players plotting and scheming. I remember one Machiavellian bastard got his fighter to 2nd-level and chose Great Fortitude. Great. Fortitude. Truly that whopping +2 to Fortitude saves laid low my entire plan to...I dunno, maybe envenom his character at some point. Maybe. I don't remember if I ever got around to even attempting that.

Still, fuck that guy.

"Are you blind? Even the artwork for 2nd. was safer."

Oh now we're onto art? Okay, skimming the 1st Edition Player's Handbook, nothing really stands out as "dangerous". Here are a few images:

And here are some from 2nd Edition's Player's Handbook:

The only difference I can see is that 2nd Edition art tends to be more competent.

"Why 'pseudo'?"

I'd encourage you to read The Dying Earth. Spells aren't "memorized" and "forgotten". They are implied to be sentient and seek to leave the confines of the books they are written on, though I don't remember this being explored much and The Dying Earth RPG utilizes something like a spell point or spellcasting check system. It also explains more of how magic works, largely being spirits and elementals compelled by the wizard to do stuff.

In any case, they don't have levels and need to be "memorized" into leveled slots. Also, wizards aren't arbitrarily barred from wearing armor or wielding certain weapons (I remember Turjan I think packing a sword). Which D&D wizards shouldn't given how much time they are out and about adventuring.

"Vance's influence on the game is manifold."

I...didn't say otherwise.

"Gygax wrote an article in 2001 about Vance's influence on the game."

I'm guessing this is it, though I don't see how it's relevant.

"Not just the old magic system."

Just to be clear, you said this:

By the time 2nd. arrived on the scene, gone were the influences of Vance and Leiber, of Howard, Moorcock, as it was more about the Tolkien pastiches found in TSR novels.”

And I said this:

You’d have to elaborate on this because, for example, I’m not sure what (pseudo) Vancian influences were in 1E that were removed in 2E.

To emphasize:

I’m not sure what (pseudo) Vancian influences WERE in 1E that were REMOVED in 2E.

You claimed that these influences and more were removed from 2nd Edition, but it still has a thief class (that is even still called thief). There's still nonsense pseudo-Vancian magic. There's still a robe of eyes and IOUN stones. Also live boots that were changed to springing and striding in D&D. You still have spells with elaborate names like Mordenkainen's Magnificant Mansion. 

So, again: what was actually removed between editions?

"But on the development of the thief class, on a number of specific spells and magic items. His influence was significantly greater than was Tolkien's."

Okay, but I never said or implied that Tolkien had a greater influence. I didn't even mention his name.

"2nd. had the look and feel of the worlds within TSR novels."

I'm not sure what you mean by this. 

"1st. that of the worlds within sword and sorcery stories and other pulps. D&D works just fine to run S&S. I have been doing for forty years."

And both 2nd and 3rd would work equally well. Or poorly, as having read The Dying Earth, Conan, Lord of the Rings, etc, it strikes me as a pretty poor system to emulate those stories.