Why 2nd ed is better than 3.5

[Elton Robb]

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

Ah, exactly. People get their fun from different RPGs. I think the debate is largely one of personalities; actually. Different people prefer different games.

[irdeggman]

Ah, exactly. People get their fun from different RPGs. I think the debate is largely one of personalities; actually. Different people prefer different games.

Quoted For Truth

[ConjurerDragon]

Daniel McSorley schrieb:
> 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.
No, you only prove that you have a different opinion than they do.
Neither side proves the other wrong by believing something ;-)

[Dcolby]

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...

Yup it has always been the D.M.s job to supply the flavor. Having a good mechanical basis to squish it into just aids that imo...

Of course I should also point out that I do not think the game is perfect, I play D&D mostly because of the amount of other people that do as well..when I d.m. I seek out interesting settings such as B.R. or come up with my own.

I have other games and other systems that I prefer to the d20 system, they are just rarely as well supported.

[Dcolby]

Interesting.
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.

And that is its selling point...It has been more easy to relearn these rules and introduce them to players who never played before then it ever was to learn the 2nd edition rules.

Oh I was hooked the first time I played (Basic D&D and the Keep on the Borderlands) and learned like most everyone else, but I remember the Glazed look that came over peoples faces when say for example you attempted to explain THACO and negative AC to them...

[MatanThunder]

Later I will post a reply that sort of gives my opinion on the pro's and con's of both systems.....

With this post I simply want to post that if I call something a "Waste of Time" that I consider it offered nothing to the game as a whole like CR's.

Also each of use as DM's should always feel free to offer whatever flavor we like. For some it is adding components of Gurps and Arms/Spell Law aspects. No one is right or wrong, just different.

Finally, I will simply post that I have always felt that d20/3.?? didn't really offer that much new to the game. It was a simple marketing ploy to get people to rebuy the same material over and over and over again as the tweaked the material for resale to the newest generation.

You don't have to agree with any of this, but this last statement is quite accurate.

Later



PS...Irreg this is exactly the spot for such discussions, since a lot of posters try to drown the site in the 3.?? viewpoint and information. I'm not saying it isn't the prevelent system, but I am mentioning that those of us who use other editions and games with a Birthright campaign should have equal access and debate points on this subject.....IN This Thread!!

[DanMcSorley]

On 6/22/07, Michael Romes <Archmage@t-online.de> wrote:
> > All the people who have a good time playing D&D every week, including
> > me, prove that they`re wrong.
> No, you only prove that you have a different opinion than they do.
> Neither side proves the other wrong by believing something ;-)

I sure did. Elton said they believe no one can have a good time with
"level systems". This is easily disproved, because many people do,
including me.

--
Daniel McSorley

[bbeau22]

I have been playing D&D a LONG time ... here is what I have seen.

D&D saw its creative golden years with 2nd edition. There were balance issues all over the place but with so many well done campaigns and adventures to do it didn't matter too much.

D&D3.5 certainly got balance down pretty well and there are some companies coming out with creative stuff ... but not like 2nd edition .... The Paizo stuff is alot of fun ... adventure paths are the way of the future.

I personally love what they did with 3.5 Birthright. Fixed many of the issues I had and now enjoy running with a few of my friends.

-BB

[AndrewTall]

With this post I simply want to post that if I call something a "Waste of Time" that I consider it offered nothing to the game as a whole like CR's.

I quite like CR's - not so much because its a short-hand to match a challenge to the PC's - some players I know make their characters punch way above/below their nominal weight - but as a part of the xp system to automatically mean that characters who smoke easy foes will gain little/no xp while those who use skill and imagination to take down someone 'out of their league' get more than the norm - without me having to weight the xp and potentially deal with the whining. A final canon end to 'I need 50xp? I teleport back to that goblin camp we hit 10 levels ago and drop a meteor swarm on them...'

Also each of use as DM's should always feel free to offer whatever flavor we like. For some it is adding components of Gurps and Arms/Spell Law aspects. No one is right or wrong, just different.

Always and forever truth

Finally, I will simply post that I have always felt that d20/3.?? didn't really offer that much new to the game. It was a simple marketing ploy to get people to rebuy the same material over and over and over again as the tweaked the material for resale to the newest generation.

Hmm, I have more than slight sympathy for the viewpoint - but the more I read on 3.5e the more changes I see to 2e despite the superficial similarity... Skill points for example is more than just an expansion to nwp's; even if I do think I should split the skill table into 'colour' and 'crunch' skills - should my rogue boost 'hide' or 'painting' hmm, I wonder...

But having no skills and powers book is a major loss to 3.5e, I need to find the BR conversion I did...

The consistency of D20 makes it easier to teach newbies the game than AD&D, although none of my players had problems with THAC0 for long (the non-geeks simply said 'THAC0 4 - what do I need?).

I've yet to be convinced by the 'you need a board and counters' combat stuff in 3.5e though - I always left combat more free form in AD&D and haven't enough 3/5e experience to say how much the combat rules do/don't constrain play.

The magic item system is far more consistent with the rest of the magic setting, but a lot of people reverse engineered the 'source spells' for 2e items anyway. Feats are new of course - and a major improvement in making fighters distinctive. Multi-classing and dual classing are definitely better, I never understood the old dual-classing design theory.

The loss of the hp cap, while linked to the multi-class change, was imho a failing of 3.5e - just compare the hp of the BRCS Gorgon to the old 2e one to see the problem...

Unlike MT I'm a big fan of the attempt to balance the classes - the old xp progression was only intermittently effective while internal level progression could produce interesting results for druids in particular. Similarly there is less attempt to balance roll with role which is a big improvement. that said to balance you need to do something about the magic system - while that's so broken

[Dcolby]

D&D saw its creative golden years with 2nd edition. There were balance issues all over the place but with so many well done campaigns and adventures to do it didn't matter too much.-BB

I don't know about the golden years, it had its share of dogs as well. (I am rereading the adventure The Sword of Roele for Instance)

1. Storm Giant/Statue out front supposed to return to life when someone tries to desecrate the Temple. Yet the Temple and parts of its environs have already been violated.

2. The place is lousy with undead created to "Protect its Treasures" yet it is a Temple to Avani erected by Khinasi worshipers who would never use "Undead".

3. The Plot Hooks are really vague. The D.M. has really got to push to fit his players into the adventure.

All in all, (And I am sure I will find more as I reread it) the Adventure was pretty useless without a great deal of D.M. reworking. It feels as if the adventure was hastily reworked from another setting in order to slap a Birthright Tag on it.

But Damn it I will make it work......If I have to recarve every little piece of it.