Why 2nd ed is better than 3.5

[Thelandrin]

(Silly chronological order! This is Irdeggman's thread, but these two posts were written earlier!)

Ah yes. 2nd Edition - no-one could play it without a book of house rules and home corrections as thick as the PHB

[MatanThunder]

Ah yes. 2nd Edition - no-one could play it without a book of house rules and home corrections as thick as the PHB

Ahhhh....sweet addendums of precious thought that enhanced the game for many.

It was a new era without the same ideas being resold over, and over, and over, and over, and over,.......again.

The ideas enhanced the game, and they only got as thick as a PHB if your DM was anygood.

Later

[irdeggman]

Even though this subject really, really does not belong in discussion over BR itself there appears to be a constant flow of statements on this line.

So here is now a thread to keep them in.

There is actually no reason to constantly (well it appears that way) resort to this (or the reverse - that 3.5 is better than 2nd ed) statements as a part of the discussion on "how to accoplish" something.

In almost every single case 2 methods can be (and should be if the question is generic and not specific to a mechanic specific to one edition or the other) two answers. One for 2nd ed mechanics and one for 3.5 mechanics. There could even be other answers for those who use non D&D systems to play the game (and there are several who have posted such).


To start it off:

My take on the evolution of D&D (all opinion mind you)

Through the years D&D has followed a progression of decreasing flavor/color and increasing detail/mechanics.

What I mean is that OD&D was pretty much almost all color/flavor with real simple game mechanics.

1st started to insert more detailed mechanics with a slight reduction in the color/flavor

2nd ed inserted more mechanics (and more options as it progressed, the proficiency system quantum jump {which came with one of the "survivor's guide, I just can't remember which one - but it was only lightly handled in the PHB when that first came out} but really only had at most a slight drop in color/flavor

3.0 ed inserted a huge amount of mechanics and made the game very, very generic. The amount of color/flavor in the core rules was drastically reduced to match the increase in detail of the mechanic's side.

3.5 increased the detail of the game mechanics (most notably things like DR and bonus types were greatly codified). While the color/flavor also went down somewhat.

This evolution, IMO, corresponds to the increase in the reliability of PC (and platform) gaming as the reference to the group being "targeted". People read less and watch movies more and the like.

I have also noticed an increase in the "genericization" of the settings. That is to say that the "settings" have an decreasing amount of "uniqueness" and an increasing amount of "anything in a WotC book can be used in this setting". Look at what Dragon/Dungeon did with their version of updating Dark Sun to 3.5. {I mean paladins in Dark Sun? Come on now that is a huge stretch for a world that is supposed to be more shades of grey than black and white as far as good and evil goes.}

Well those are my opinions. I think we should start to move any post that is simply a "one edition is better" type of post here to clear out the actual discussion topics.

[Gwrthefyr]

Gods and the planes in Darksun... blech! (I've once seen DS 3ed/3.5 described as Forgotten Realms in a desert )

I've still got plenty of booklets for campaign notes and house rules (a lot of the stuff I house ruled in 2e is also in 3e and 3.5), so it's not so much superiority as it is a bit of nostalgia since the rules and the settings are still going through a hack job to fit my needs. I liked a set of web rules for proficiencies because I had a certain appreciation for the Fuzion-ish systems and their skill emphasis. I will might enjoy the Green Ronin stuff.

Except for the historical accessories, but maybe a conversion would be possible: the Great War add-on to MotRD didn't look too bad rules-wise (setting-wise, I like my worlds without eternal overarching conspiracies that actually have the power to influence Great Powers).

So, conclusion - a base set of mechanics and rules is certainly important, but the authors have to be aware that the DMs will house rule, and some DMs might even switch emphasis (level/skill/freeform xp, magic/technology/mix, etc); they certainly do it themselves, after all . Maybe some introduction of alternate systems could be done more easily with the wiki?

As for flavour and genericity - not trying to tie in everything to everything else would be a nice start. It was tried at first in 2ed, with Planescape and Spelljammer (maybe Ravenloft to a degree, but it was generally assumed that the only form of crossover was to Ravenloft, not out of it), but it generally felt tacked on and both settings looked better standing alone in most cases (opinion, but I'm surely not alone). There's also a problem when the flavour and the mechanics don't really fit (the maritime Rjuven whose lowest level provinces are mainly on the coast?). The generic campaign is not where I expect the leat genericity anyway*.

And no matter the edition, equipment weight should no be based off the 1st ed tables, not anymore ever.

*And I seem to have read your point backwards

[kgauck]

I have also noticed an increase in the "genericization" of the settings. That is to say that the "settings" have an decreasing amount of "uniqueness" and an increasing amount of "anything in a WotC book can be used in this setting".

I'd call this the GURPS effect.

[ShadowMoon]

I agree with irdeggman in regard of settings using flavour, and losing specific settings all together, but still D&D 3.5 is utterly superior over previous editions... And mechanic means much, leaving DM to deal with the story, as well as providing him/her needed support to depict alternative realities through game system.

Tho, D&D 3.5 system that I use in my Birthright campaign is heavily modified...

[Elton Robb]

AD&D 2nd Edition is easier to use than D&D 3.x. That's not to mean that they are less complex; both have their strengths and weaknesses over each other. It just depends on how you are going to achieve your fun.

I use Arms Law with AD&D 2nd Edition, just as much as I would use Arms Law with d20. 3.x is more of a character construction kit; you engineer characters you don't tend to let them grow naturally in 3.x. In AD&D, growth is more natural.

In other RPG circles, especially of the HarnMaster kind, our fellow RPGers believe that level systems are the bane of a good time. Whose to say that they are wrong?

[irdeggman]

Gods and the planes in Darksun... blech! (I've once seen DS 3ed/3.5 described as Forgotten Realms in a desert )

Ahh but only the Paizo version.

The Athas.org (official fan site and the other "Official" version) kept very true to the original setting, IMO. It was not WotC - ized.

[DanMcSorley]

On 6/22/07, Elton Robb <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> In other RPG circles, especially of the HarnMaster kind, our fellow RPGers believe that level
> systems are the bane of a good time. Whose to say that they are wrong?

All the people who have a good time playing D&D every week, including
me, prove that they`re wrong.

--
Daniel McSorley

[irdeggman]

AD&D 2nd Edition is easier to use than D&D 3.x. That's not to mean that they are less complex; both have their strengths and weaknesses over each other. It just depends on how you are going to achieve your fun.

Interesting.

My take.

3.5 is easier to use "out of the box". The DM can more readily match up encounterw with PC's level in order to keep things on a more "even keel" and not go to the TPK or "cake walk" scenarios as easily as could be done with 2nd ed.

Now I have found that (from personal experience mind you) - that one of the biggest difficulties that old time gamers have is in "letting go". When we switched to 3.0 the DM was still playing the game like he was in 2nd ed, relying on memory and not really paying attention to how things worked. The systems are substantially different.

It is this "unlearning" that causes more issues than not.

I really believe based on the "quality and detail" of the rule books that a newbie gamer, who has never played a table-top game before could much more easily walk into a 3.5 game and play it than he could a 2nd ed one. It also comes much closer to matching the electronic games that he is likely to be familiar with than does 2nd ed.

I've already commented on the parrallels to society here and am not saying one is "better" only that this is how it is, or at least how I see it.