67 replies to this topic

[hlidskialf]

I've partaken in enough of these discussions that most who know me know I'm an old 1st ed. loving fogey. Besides the Sorcerer class, I don't much care for the newer editions. Here's a link to an article that is pretty damn close to my own opinion. (The Delver too is an old 1st ed. loving fogey. heheh)
The Delver's Dungeon 1st Edition AD&D Fansite

[Stone Wolf]

I thought that article made a lot of good points, until I got to the end and saw that crack about my beloved Rolemaster.

[AG3]

I used to play a Cleric in 1E AD&D back in junior high, and I bought some of the 2E and 3E books that came later, but they were never used.

I've always preferred 2E over 3E. I dislike the multi-class system of 3E, where anyone can be anything at the snap of their fingers, no basic training required. And while mages/sorcerers being able to wield swords makes sense, I always thought that the limitations on equipment defined the classes, gave them kind of a "personality". Besides, my image of a mage isn't one in armor (arcane spell casting failure % aside) with a sword in hand, but with robes and a staff who's enchantments improves the mage's role in the party, not makes him an all-time melee fighter. Call me old-fashioned if you wish.

Complex isn't always better, IMO.

[Erephine]

3E is the worst thing they could possibly do to it.

AD&D was such a good system - why did they have to mess it up?

[Stone Wolf]

They tried to dumb it down and make a generic system that could be used by any genre. If I wanted that, I'd play GURPS.

[VigaHrolf]

Stone Wolf,

I think you hit it on the head. They wanted to take a big franchise and just make it entirely interchangable with their d20 game system they've been pushing. And in doing so, I think lost something very vital and special about AD&D. Yes, it as a game system had its flaws, but those gave it is flavor, much like the White Wolf systems or others...

[Stone Wolf]

As long as they leave Rolemaster alone, I've got at least one system I like that's free of their taint.


Hmmm, that sounded a little bitter, didn't it?

[JPS]

There are pros and cons to both systems, but I think I like 2E a bit better for the simplicity of it.  Now some may say that I am obviously smoking something, but let me explain.

In 2nd edition, you did have a lot of numbers you had to figure out, like THACO, AC, all the adjustments and saving throws, but once you did that once, you didn't have to calculate so much on the fly.  You just rolled the dice.  In 3E you have not just regular AC, but Deflection AC, unarmored AC (for certain spells), and all sorts of weird adjustments.  Combat, due to all the feats actually becomes more complex, with more calculation and more modifiers.  And don't get me started on Attacks of Opportunity.  While it makes sense in some cases, the rules don't in others.  A lot of these changes were wrought for realism, but really only added more complexity. 

(I chose to reply to this post because it has the most material to work with. Nothing personal )

Are you sure you are really comparing 2nd edition to 3rd edition here, and not "a game you've played for several years" to "a game where you haven't had time to get used to the quirks yet"? The 3rd edition is by no means perfect, but many of the arguments against it that I've seen against it (and in favour of 2nd edition) come down to familiarity and preference rather than any real difference in quality (they're both good games) or complexity (they can both be insanely complicated if you're not familiar with them).

And then there is the Hit points and Attack Bonuses situation.  You have creatures with 500 hp and a +45 to hit.  That means a player's got to be able to dish out some insane amounts of damage.

And these creatures are rare and should be encountered sparingly and killed even less often. I agree that giving, say, a dragon lots and lots of hit points doesn't automatically make it impressive, and anyone who tries to make an encounter with it exciting and dramatic based only on the numbers would probably fail. But I don't see anything inherently dramatic or exciting about 185 hit points and a THAC0 of -10 either...

And finally, the biggest thing was the discounting of stat points.  No adjustments and a 16 and a 17 are effectively the same thing.  That sucks in my opinion because a 17 is statistically harder to get than a 16 (6+6+5 as opposed to 6+5+5 or 6+6+4) but it doesn't mean anything.  So those stat points you get don't mean much either.

Compared to 2nd edition, where 6 is in some circumstances effectively the same thing as 14 but you have to look at a table in order to remember which numbers apply to which stats

Then there are things I'm ambivalent about, such as having to AIM magical attacks.  And having to use the native combat bonuses of your spellcaster (which suck) to do so, effectively limiting his usefulness to anything other than buffing spells or magic missile until he's high high level.  While it is A LOT more realistic, it add another roll.  And no combat action in my opinion should have more than 2 rolls except in special occaisions.  Which it now can (to hit, saves, and damage)  At least they should have had a spellcaster attack chart, different from the usual one.

I agree about trying to keep down the number of dice rolls, but I don't agree that this made spellcasters useless. I would point out that ranged attack rolls are usually against a lower AC than normal attacks, but this would mean that you were right about 3rd edition being more complex, so;

Look behind you! A three-headed monkey!

Now, there are some things I like, the higher the number the better the AC (but not all the weird situational stacking rules they have now), improving stat numbers over time, a better skill system (but not the skill point distribution or the distribution across classes: like why do priests and mages only get 2 points per level and wh aren't spot and listen, two basic skills if you ask me, not just general??)

I agree about the skill points. When I played, we used to take a more relaxed approach to this and let the characters have the skills that made sense for them, as I'm sure players everywhere do and have done, whatever game or edition they are playing.

As to the flexibility - I don't like the removal of the stat restrictions because it does cheapen the classes some, now anyone can be a pally or a ranger instead of having to roll well enough to be one.  The species restrictions don't bother me as much.  But this flexibility, this ability to choose usually leads in one way.  MASSIVE UBER POWERGAMING.  Which I do in CRPG but I absolutely despise in RPG.  At least in 2E it was damn hard to get away with it.  Now, you can create UU's uber cheese characters and make em legal.  2E you could allow an elven paladin or a gnome mage fighter or a tiefling or anything, but as a DM you could just say no and have the rules back you up.  Now, if someone produces a character that is pure mutated powergamer goodness, if you say no, they can whine and complain about how the rules clearly allow them to do it.  It's the reason I stopped DMing.

I'm sorry to hear that you've had bad experiences with this, and even more that it made you stop playing (I stopped because of lack of time and because we all moved in different directions, which I guess is kind of bad, too).

But I'm afraid I'm going to have to scrutinize you a bit anyway: are these the same people you played 2nd edition games with, and if so, did they really never try to exploit the rules to their advantage in any situation back then? I seriously doubt that the rules as such encourage people to be powergamers (or that other rules would have stopped people who were determined to make overly powerful characters).

The problem I have with the more restrictive rules of 2nd edition is that I feel that they restrict the characters way too much and therefore interfere with my enjoyment of the game. But then again, I haven't played much with those rules... (yes, I'm trying to suggest something here (the smilie is supposed to be looking up at my first paragraph, in case anyone was wondering (and yes, I know double parentheses are bad, so let's make them triple)))

So, some of the cosmetic stuff was pretty dang good.  But the core changes they made in my opinion take away a lot of the difficulty and challenge, that is now replaced with overpowered monsters and the like.  If I ever do play again, it will probably be a mutated form of the two.

Okay.. I've rambled long enough.

You never said what the "difficulty or challenge" of 2nd edition was, so I'll take the liberty of interpreting it in a way that suits my own devious agenda. I hope that's alright with you.

If the changes took away a lot of the difficulty and challenge for the players and replaced this with bigger challenges for the characters, I fail to see how that's a bad thing...

Yeah, I know. That's not what you meant. Let's just have a turnip and be friends, shall we?

:turnip:

[Archmage Silver]

Just a sec... I'll call the Jansen Turnip Pizzeria ™ and order a couple of turnip pizzas with double cheeze...

[Amazor'dra]

1st and 2nd Edition will always be my ultimate fav, simply because these versions still had the spell Phantasmal Force (and its higher lvl variants).

You know, back when Illusionists actually kicked arse.

[Archmage Silver]

Ah, the nostalgy! Nowdays its just the uber multi-classers who rule... or I'm just being short-sighted.

[raptor]

Hm personally i see more pureclass FIGHTER's and WIZARD's kick than any multiclass'es in 3rd editoin that is. Persoally i like 3rd editions ruleset, and 2nd editions greater collection of story and lore (mostly in reference to Forgotten Realms for example) wich the 3rd edition seems so much more focused on slapping out prestige classes and new spells and so forth. Never "played" 1st edition, but have teh basic corebok for it in my shelf here and read a bit on it. loks kinda funky, but i feel it is to limited after ahving played the other ones.

And really, the BEST RPG ever is one where the DM makes teh rules to fit everything that happens al the time and not limited by levels or weapons, or stats and such. (pitty its almost imposible to play like that)

[Archmage Silver]

Almost. It might take time to arrange that. Its possible imo.

[Reverendratbastard]

bumbling in weeks/months later...

3e is the product of commerce in all ways. 3e books (except core rules) are just the compilations of feats and prestiges, support of role play elements is totally missing. I like only some rules and improvements mentioned in core rules. But the rest is... is bad... just derivates of great AD&D books.

support of roleplay elements? you mean the things that don't have anything to do with hard cold rules, right? so {hypothetically, not that i'm actually convincing you to go along with 3e} just continue to utilize other books, any material from any edition (of any game, for that matter), for those elements... okay, the 'commerce' argument holds water, at the start, but i'm seeing products {back before may, even} from 3e folks that are consistently more thorough, on every level, than anything TSR ever put out (with the exception of ed greenwood's first FR supplement, 1e even, for Waterdeep {gushes with inchoate worship}).

And then there is the Hit points and Attack Bonuses situation.  You have creatures with 500 hp and a +45 to hit.  That means a player's got to be able to dish out some insane amounts of damage.

funny, i never saw variance for critical hits with certain wicked weapons, or improved critical feats, instituted in 2e... and the Tarrasque ( :gun: !!!) was already plenty of challenge regardless of hp, HD or AC...
and to be honest, even back when they were taking questionnaires on what we wanted to happen with 2e, i hoped for a more palladium-like system of 'damage capacity'... hit points are still an awful mess. (rolemaster had a pretty good grip on it too...)

And finally, the biggest thing was the discounting of stat points.  No adjustments and a 16 and a 17 are effectively the same thing.  That sucks in my opinion because a 17 is statistically harder to get than a 16 (6+6+5 as opposed to 6+5+5 or 6+6+4) but it doesn't mean anything.  So those stat points you get don't mean much either.

that's really 'the biggest thing'? 'don't mean much'? then i think you've overlooked a couple of points, because a 17 >is< closer to an 18, which means it can be 'tangibly' (by your above standards) improved four experience levels sooner than a 16 could. and especially significant (and obviously planned) with regard to stat-boosting spells: a) the minimum boost is 2 (so that the stat's adjustment rating will automatically improve) and B) this is where i can't possibly see eye-to-eye with you on this one - if you have an even score in the stat, its derived +/- can improve by a maximum of 2. if you have an odd score, it can improve by up to 3!

As to the flexibility - I don't like the removal of the stat restrictions because it does cheapen the classes some

but you are free to re-institute those. it's not that much removed from the eventual grudging 'allowance' of the older game, that if a player was really tragically set on being a {e.g.}paladin, they could be permitted to go through the generation process and if they rolled under a minimum the stat could simply be set at its minimum... you could just tug the new rules in the other direction... {and specifically with regard to the paladin - at least they made CHA really mean something tangible to that class that it doesn't mean to other classes, like the way INT always was for arcanes and WIS for divines...}

(and to those of you who think getting to be a nifty class should be a reward for rolling well? ewww. but with XP progression at a flat rate, you have more of a point. so go ahead and bring restrictions back, and for tyr / hieroneous / silvanus / mielikki / ehlonna {and so on}'s sake, don't ease up on the roleplaying restrictions.. (i never saw anything wrong with paladins needing 2750 to get to 2nd level, myself)

i for one think the whole 'rangers can be of any alignment' is kinda screwy. but guess what? it's my campaign and i don't have to stand for that. or if it's not my campaign and the DM who insists on it can give me a rationale with substance, no problem. (maybe i'll just have to play a ranger fixated on purging her class of undesirable elements... )

...as a DM you could just say no and have the rules back you up. Now, if someone produces a character that is pure mutated powergamer goodness, if you say no, they can whine and complain about how the rules clearly allow them to do it.  It's the reason I stopped DMing.

i feel (have felt) your pain, but can you really blame any of that on the >rules<? if someone can't grow up and/or at least curb their powergamerhunger for the greater good of the group, ask yourself if you are any more desirous of playing with them within a more Officially Restricted framework than you are/would-be with increased flexibility of which you are still ultimately in charge, and boo hoo sucks to be them. perhaps it's unfeasible to want or expect an entire gaming group to be understanding on two levels at once. {and i don't have a lot of room for complaint because i have spent far more time building collections of supplements and dreaming up new twists and bags full of pages full of PCs and NPCs who still haven't seen the light of play, owing to schedule incompatibility with this damnable "real" world :bash: } and obviously maturity on both sides helps. but i should shut up about all that because this thread ain't so much for philosophy...

i suppose my bottom line is this (and it's been amply pointed out already, so at this point i'm *all* steam, not just partially... B) ):
if we can diverge from the realm of all-or-nothing criticism, i say that 3e is a welcome dose of precision and completeness that can be used for good or ill - pretty much just like any edition of any game ever. (the good or ill part, not the precision and completeness)

PS - and i PRAISE 3e that eighteen-slash STR is over and done with! CRAP it was! especially in light of how the infinity engine failed to deal with it, e.g. 'shadow hits char. with STR 19, who fails their save. their +3/+7 just became +1/+1', or 'non-fighter-type with STR 18 read the STR-boosting Tome. their +1/+2 just became +3/+7!' &c. &c. (has someone fixed this nonsense? is it hardcoded?)

[oralpain]

Anyone thats says any edition is plainy superior to any other either hasn't played anything besides their prefered edition, or never really bothered to makes the most of it.

I primarily play 2nd edition AD&D, but have played them all at least once. Combat has NEVER been simply move, attack, move, attack. There are disarms, trips, charges, blocks, parries, and all sorts of called shots. Flexibility is there, if you want it to be.

NONE of the editions of AD&D or D&D will ever be "realistic", nor should they. Properly played and DMed any can be reasonably plausible, but never realistic. Nor would I want it to be that realistic. It would be way too complex and would defeat the pourpose of the game in the first place.

Every edition has it's pros and cons. Stuff is fixed and broken in each new one. If you take the time to learn the rules (so you don't fix stuff that is not broken) and then apply some common sense to them you can do what ever you wnat with them.

The biggest problem with 2nd edition, in my opinion, is the fantastic lack of organization and consistency. Personally, I have the rules from dozens of sources mentally sorted out into a system I am quite content with. It took me 10 years or so to get to that point. It can be alot of trouble for people trying to get used to it.

The main problems I have with 3E are the general bloat of hit points/power, how multiple classes are gained and the psionics system. Also, I don't have the faintest idea why they made dragons so much more powerful, again. They defiantly did not need it. I've also never been big on extra classes, 2E had way too many and 3E has 10 fold more, but this is something that is easily fixed. The new saving throw system is probably the best change and the inversion of AC/removal of THAC0 wasn't a bad idea, not at all necissary, but it didn't hurt.

The Tarrasque has never been a challange and unless they give it a brain it never will be (maybe they did I don't think I've seen the 3E stats for it). The only thing it can do is regenerate it's masive number of hit points. It's slow, stupid, easy to spot, and has no ranged attack capability. If anyone would use there heads when they try to defeat it I would not be any where near as chalanging as a weak dragon, a vampire, or a drunken orc that had half a brain. Any character that would allow a tarrasque to come close enough to actualy take a swing at him/her is a moron.

When it comes right down to it I don't really have problems with any edition, just how some of them are usually played. Campaign settings are another matter, mos tof them are just plain bad, IMO. The Forgotten Realms has an interesting and detailed history, but you can't sneeze with out hitting a level 30+ wizard. The realms are too popular and I got bloated adn overpowered quite quickly as a result.

[Kish]

Anyone thats says any edition is plainy superior to any other either hasn't played anything besides their prefered edition, or never really bothered to makes the most of it.

So you think it's impossible to play more than one edition and conclude that one edition is just better than another?

[oralpain]

If you seriously give each one a shot and have(or are) a good DM, yes.

[mr2131]

I've partaken in enough of these discussions that most who know me know I'm an old 1st ed. loving fogey. Besides the Sorcerer class, I don't much care for the newer editions. Here's a link to an article that is pretty damn close to my own opinion. (The Delver too is an old 1st ed. loving fogey. heheh)
The Delver's Dungeon 1st Edition AD&D Fansite

I'm using 2nd Ed for my new Al-Qadim Campaign. I can still remember the old Chainmail miniatures rules that eventually morphed into D&D. I prefer the 2nd Ed rules, if only because they brought all of the scattered materials that you needed to run a good campaign, and combined them into a relatively succinct set of rulebooks. To me, 3rd Ed removes the concept of roleplaying from game. Instead, characters all are allowed to be and do anthing they wish. A NINTENDO version of D&D, if you will.

Happy Trails . . .

Mark

[Erephine]

Indeed. 3E's class system must be one of the most retarded systems you can think of