Intuitive Rules - 2nd Ed. AD&D vs. D&D 3E/3.5

[alanschu]

The biggest problem with folks who prefer 2nd edition is that they're like Apple fans. It's not enough that they have a preferrence. It's that they must deride you because you don't share it.

 

Quoted for truth.

[Lancer]

The biggest problem with folks who prefer 2nd edition 3e/3.5e is that they're like Apple fans. It's not enough that they have a preferrence. It's that they must deride you because you don't share it.

 

Ahh... FIXED.

Edited June 29, 2006 by Lancer

[Cantousent]

hahahaha

 

Silly, silly, silly

 

But funny.

[alanschu]

Says the guy that refers to those that prefer 3rd edition as lost souls.

 

For what it's worth, I was able to figure out what RPG I played first between Ultima VI and Eye of the Beholder.

 

It was Eye of the Beholder.

Edited June 29, 2006 by alanschu

[Lancer]

Says the guy that refers to those that prefer 3rd edition as lost souls.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Says the guy who doesn't play PnP (or know the rules) and bases his "3e is better than 2ndEd" notion solely on his knowledge of PC RPGs.

 

EDIT: "Oh! AND 3e is betta cuz Armor counts up! " Oh....Please.

 

 

Ahh..yes.. I remember that question. I didn't like Eye of the Beholder. That it was an AD&D game was its only saving grace.

Edited June 29, 2006 by Lancer

[Cantousent]

Actually, Lancer, we were having quite an intelligent debate regarding this before you came back to gloat concerning making such a great thread.

 

The fact is, however, that this thread is not yours. You say, "[m]an this thread of mine's is STILL alive.. After half a year?" This thread stopped being yours the second someone responded to it. I give you credit for creating the thread, but the most intelligent and reasonable debate came after you left it.

 

"Damn, I don't know if to feel flattered or ashamed that this thing is still kicking." Neither. I think you should be glad that we have the opportunity to debate. Personally, I'd appreciate it if you kept the level of the debate we've had over the past several pages. If you start trolling "your own" thread, then I'd imagine you should feel ashamed. Otherwise, you can feel happy to have created an entertaining thread.

[alanschu]

Says the guy who doesn't play PnP (or know the rules) and bases his "3e is better than 2ndEd" notion solely on his knowledge of PC RPGs.

 

So? I don't insult people and get all hostile if they prefer 2nd edition.

 

EDIT: "Oh! AND 3e is betta cuz Armor counts up! " Oh....Please.

 

We were talking about how intuitive it is compared to 2nd edition, not which is better.

 

Given the responses that have occurred while you were gone, seems like I'm not the only person.

 

Surely you will put in your quibble about AoO right about now.

 

 

Ahh..yes.. I remember that question. I didn't like Eye of the Beholder. That it was an AD&D game was its only saving grace.

 

So? You were alleging that the only reason why I could make the relationship that a higher number in armor rating would be better is because of previous precedent.

[Lancer]

Actually, Lancer, we were having quite an intelligent debate regarding this before you came back to gloat concerning making such a great thread.

 

It was not meant to be a gloat although you took it as such. I was merely pointing out the fact that as the creator of the thread I am surprised it is still going after 6 months. Simple, harmless comment.

 

I give you credit for creating the thread, but the most intelligent and reasonable debate came after you left it.

 

All these points have been made before. There was nothing "new" or enlightening in this thread since I left since most of the points were brought up in older threads. I don't see anything intelligent about parroting and rehashing the same points over and over again. You apparently seem inclined to attack me here simply because I have expressed my preferences for 2ndEd over 3e. I imagine you wouldn't have made this post had I been a 3e fan.

 

Neither.  I think you should be glad that we have the opportunity to debate.  Personally, I'd appreciate it if you kept the level of the debate we've had over the past several pages. 

 

Don't patronize me. Maybe you haven't been paying attention to the downturn this thread has taken the last couple of pages well before I even posted anew. But of course, (me, the 2ndEd dude) I am the one who gets the lashing.. Hmmm..

 

If you start trolling "your own" thread, then I'd imagine you should feel ashamed.  Otherwise, you can feel happy to have created an entertaining thread.

 

Now I am trolling? LOL. Why? Just because I like THACO and happen to disagree with your position? How about you or alanschu in the last few posts? You are just as guilty of "trolling" as I am. Heated debate is all well and good buy don't let your gaming preferences/biases attack board members due to differences of opinion. Doesn't look good as a moderator.

 

 

And in response to one of your earlier posts.. Don't talk to me about credentials (speaking of gloating and your two Suma **** Laudes.. lol!) .

Back off man, I'm a rocket scientist. So don't even go there.

Edited June 29, 2006 by Lancer

[Lancer]

So?  I don't insult people and get all hostile if they prefer 2nd edition.

 

Calling people "lost souls" was said in jest, and not an actual insult.

 

Anyways, if any of you want to engage in this intelligent debate that Eldar has been craving, I'm still waiting for something intelligent and not this childish bickering.

[Cantousent]

I only patronize you because there is so much to patronize. You might be a rocket scientist, but pushing for a confrontation doesn't seem particularly smart.

 

I notice that you're all about credentials. I mean, you don't like alan's views because he doesn't have the rich experience you claim to enjoy. When someone else comes into the thread with a comparable history, you feel compelled to pull out a rocket scientist card? For the record, I believe you. I just think it's irrelevant and I have to wonder what compels you to fall back on such an argument. Making up for other... deficiencies? I will gladly "go there." I'm a bit uncertain as where that is, but I don't think your credentials as a rocket scientist really make for much sale in regards to judging an RPG. Have our best RPGs come from NASA?

 

As for your other comments, I'll gladly let folks read our comments and decide as they will. However, I will so one thing, your manner and your tone have been hostile since you re-entered the thread. When someone calls you on an offensive comment, you rely on the stale excuse: It's a joke.

 

Frankly, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that the bulk of participants in this thread don't seem to hold to your opinion. Recalcitrance is no substitute for a good argument. Jediphile and I disagree on this subject and our parroted arguments actually strayed away from the entire 2nd/3.x debate for quite a while.

[Lancer]

I notice that you're all about credentials.  I mean, you don't like alan's views because he doesn't have the rich experience you claim to enjoy.

 

I merely pointed out in his case that his opinions on 2ndEd vs. 3e aren't nearly as objective as somebody who actually has PLAYED/GMED both systems... Not just the PC RPGs.

 

When someone else comes into the thread with a comparable history, you feel compelled to pull out a rocket scientist card?  For the record, I believe you.  I just think it's irrelevant and I have to wonder what compels you to fall back on such an argument.  Making up for other... deficiencies?  I will gladly "go there."

 

 

Remember, you were the first one to bring up academic history and so I responded in kind:

 

Hahahahahaha. This really is funny. The lengths to which you will go to defend THAC0 is amazing. Of course counting up is more intuitive. I

Edited June 29, 2006 by Lancer

[Cantousent]

All fair enough. Actually, I honestly didn't realize you were being light-hearted.

 

So, I guess the point is, we're not lost souls. Merely wandering monsters, tearing big holes in the fabric of the RPG universe.

[Lancer]

All fair enough.  Actually, I honestly didn't realize you were being light-hearted.

 

And I apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

And although you like 3e, you are alright

[Kaftan Barlast]

To potentially blow new life into this discussion, Ive been playing RPG's for over ten years and when I compare my first experiences with v.2 and v.3.5 I have to say that I found the latter much easier to understand.

 

I still dont understand how THACO works, I dont understand armour and I most of all dont understand if like 1 1/3 attacks is better or worse than 2

[Lancer]

My comments at the beginning of this thread was an attempt to get to the heart of the matter from a different approach:

 

I was trying to find a psychological explanation based on what one grew up with that would help explain one's preference for one system or the other, rather than wholistically comparing each system's weaknesses and strengths.

 

From people's responses, I find no real correlation. This just confounds me even more especially since nor I nor my gaming buddies found THACO (or anything in 2ndEd for that matter) notably hard to learn.

 

It really is hard for me to believe that anyone would find 3e/3.5e easier to learn than 2ndEd. This is because in my own experience that has not been the case.. at all.

 

My own half-rationale explanation at this point would be that people learned 2ndEd at a relatively young age.. It was probably the first RPG for many and as such was correspondingly difficult to learn. And then they ditched it for easier systems like d6, Vampire...etc. As they got older and having much more RPG experience under their belts, that made 3e (or any other new RPG they would come across) that much easier to learn.

 

EDIT: Either that or people gave 3e more of a chance when they first learned it due to its more streamlined (not necessarily easier) nature.

OTOH, in 2ndEd, once people saw THACOs counting "backwards" and negative ACs meaning good, they automatically turned themselves off to the system.. Without giving it much of a chance.

 

Again this is all speculation on my part..

Edited June 29, 2006 by Lancer

[Cantousent]

I'll go even further, Lancer. My problems with 2nd edition were never really all that much about "intuition" or "simplicity." I do think the basic 3.x rules are more intuitive, which is probably an area on which we'll never agree. On the other hand, I understood THAC0 and all the rules, so that wasn't a problem.

 

My biggest problem with 2nd edition was the fact that I was constantly dealing with players bringing out alternate rules, some of which were okay, but most of which didn't lend themselves to a fun game. Moreover, even the player would get tired of the alternate rules. No, it didn't stop me from playing 2nd edition DnD. I played and enjoyed it. Still, it was a pain.

 

Now, we've got the exact same thing happening with 3rd edition. Alternate rules. Tons of extra books detailing huge variants. Dammit, one of my players wanted to switch to a bird creature PC in the middle of a campaign. hahaha It just makes for more work.

 

So, between the time you started this topic, at least a little of the shine has rubbed off of 3.x. One of the reasons I liked 3.x is the streamlining of the rules. Now we don't even have that.

 

Yes, I do prefer 3.x, but the nature of RPG publishing means that WotC will continue to throw out all these optional books to muddy the waters on their own ruleset. Of course, I tend to look at these things from a DMs perspective. I might have different feelings if I got the chance to play a character every now and then.

[alanschu]

So?  I don't insult people and get all hostile if they prefer 2nd edition.

 

Calling people "lost souls" was said in jest, and not an actual insult.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You say stuff like it all the time though, so I figured you weren't talking "in jest."

Edited June 29, 2006 by alanschu

[Lancer]

My biggest problem with 2nd edition was the fact that I was constantly dealing with players bringing out alternate rules, some of which were okay, but most of which didn't lend themselves to a fun game.  Moreover, even the player would get tired of the alternate rules.  No, it didn't stop me from playing 2nd edition DnD.  I played and enjoyed it.  Still, it was a pain.

 

Now, we've got the exact same thing happening with 3rd edition.  Alternate rules.  Tons of extra books detailing huge variants.  Dammit, one of my players wanted to switch to a bird creature PC in the middle of a campaign.  hahaha  It just makes for more work.

 

As you know, Eldar, that was one of the key selling points by WotC, (aside from 3e being streamlined) that there would be a concise singular ruleset without many variants, no more kits..etc. I remember that campaign. Ironic how the reality is different from what they had first claimed.

 

And to go a step further as well, this is related to why many 2ndEd gamers refuse to to go 3.x. Myself and other diehard 2ndEd'ers have become quite content with 2ndEd over the years and have been able to make enough rules changes that our campaigns run close enough to our own liking that we don't see any motive to change.

So it was kinda like.. 3e is out.. But so what? Who would want to invest in the 5 years + of effort to get their old campaigns converted to 3e?

And this deluge of alternate rules put out by WotC only further discourages potential gamers of the new system from even trying it.

 

But as much as I love my 2ndEd + PO + House Rules campaign, and as much as 3e'ers love their new system, there are a lot of other systems that are as good if not better than both. And I am the first to admit it.

Systems like FUZION (which is free, btw) or Feng Shui, are as good if not better than any edition of D&D/AD&D. Of course, the only problem is getting your players to want to switch to the new system. But that is a different issue for another day...

 

Yes, I do prefer 3.x, but the nature of RPG publishing means that WotC will continue to throw out all these optional books to muddy the waters on their own ruleset.  Of course, I tend to look at these things from a DMs perspective.  I might have different feelings if I got the chance to play a character every now and then.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is what I don't like about WotC and OGL. The market is saturated with enough 3.x/d20 stuff as it is. I think OGL, in particular, inhibits creativity in the smaller game developers that otherwise would have come out with their own rulesets. Of course, 3.x/d20 is a BIG name and as such a major cash cow for these smaller companies.. But, this means that these smaller developers see less need to make their own rulesets due to the high lucrative potential of the powerful d20 license. This just kills competition and creative drive and in the long run I doubt it is good for the industry. Unless, of course, you want to see a world where the only RPGs around are d20 ones. Hades probably would.

Edited June 29, 2006 by Lancer

[Jediphile]

Says the guy who doesn't play PnP (or know the rules) and bases his "3e is better than 2ndEd" notion solely on his knowledge of PC RPGs.

 

So? I don't insult people and get all hostile if they prefer 2nd edition.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The biggest problem with folks who prefer 2nd edition is that they're like Apple fans. It's not enough that they have a preferrence. It's that they must deride you because you don't share it.

 

Quoted for truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

EDIT: "Oh! AND 3e is betta cuz Armor counts up! " Oh....Please.

 

We were talking about how intuitive it is compared to 2nd edition, not which is better.

 

Given the responses that have occurred while you were gone, seems like I'm not the only person.

 

Surely you will put in your quibble about AoO right about now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If not, I will. I don't agree with him that AD&D armor classes going down is better, but AoOs are an additional rule of top of the other rules that just serve to slow the game down more. You can ignore them, of course, but then game balance is out the window, because the rules are written with the assumption that you'll play with them.

 

Ahh..yes.. I remember that question. I didn't like Eye of the Beholder. That it was an AD&D game was its only saving grace.

 

So? You were alleging that the only reason why I could make the relationship that a higher number in armor rating would be better is because of previous precedent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Eye of the Beholder was fairly crap and was a total rip-off of the classic "Dungeon Master" anyway, only without most of the atmosphere...

[213374U]

Back off man, I'm a rocket scientist. So don't even go there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Aww, yeah baby. Give 'em hell with your mad vector analysis skillz.

[Jediphile]

My biggest problem with 2nd edition was the fact that I was constantly dealing with players bringing out alternate rules, some of which were okay, but most of which didn't lend themselves to a fun game.  Moreover, even the player would get tired of the alternate rules.  No, it didn't stop me from playing 2nd edition DnD.  I played and enjoyed it.  Still, it was a pain.

 

Now, we've got the exact same thing happening with 3rd edition.  Alternate rules.  Tons of extra books detailing huge variants.  Dammit, one of my players wanted to switch to a bird creature PC in the middle of a campaign.  hahaha  It just makes for more work.

 

As you know, Eldar, that was one of the key selling points by WotC, (aside from 3e being streamlined) that there would be a concise singular ruleset without many variants, no more kits..etc. I remember that campaign. Ironic how the reality is different from what they had first claimed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, I remember it as well. And I was actually looking forward to tossing out all of my old house rules. No more gazillion "optional" books, no more rules spread out all over the books, no more 100+ pages of house rules to reconcile it all... Oh, how mistaken I was... Oh no, there were no "kits" anymore, but it hardly matters when it's just called something else instead. Now there are no character classes and spells in every single new supplement, issue of dragon, revised rulebook, etc. etc.

 

Not to mention that 3e is every bit as rigid as 2e if not more so, and the 2e-to-3e conversion rules were just horrible - there was no way to fairly convert the 11th level minotaur fighter or 10th/10th level dwarven fighter/cleric to 3e screwing the players over royally, and with all the other stupid rules I kept hearing about, it was one of the easiest choices I ever made as a GM - I had no reason whatsoever to invest in 3e, because it was embarrasingly obvious that it would not enhance my game in any way.

 

That's not to say there aren't good things in 3e. The to-hit rules and Armor Classes are better than in 2e. I don't agree with Lancer here. I find it just easier in 3e, so I adopted it into my 2e campaign. Very easy. Just 20 - old AC = new AC. 20 - old THAC0 = new class to-hit modifier. That's it - end of conversion. But that is all the impact 3e had on my campaign. The rest was worthless.

 

I like other things. If I began a new campaign today, I would use 3e multi-class rules under 2e rules, since they make more sense to me. But 3e skills are terrible next to 2e proficiencies (which is just another word for skills). 3e forcing skills to be tied to class+level is just about the most idiotic thing I ever heard of, and the skill points are awarded very haphazardly as well. It doesn't look to me like a system that is in any way founded on any firmly established base as much as just applied according to what the creators "assume" players will choose - wizards will "probably" choose a high Intelligence, so they get few skill points, while Concentration is based on Constitution, because it would be unfair to base it on Wisdom (which is a measure of willpower even according to the 3e PHB, but apparently that is not relevant to a character's ability to concentrate ), because that favors clerics... So instead logic is thrown to the winds, which just tastes like an unfinished product to me. I preferred the proficiency rules from the Player Option: Skills & Powers, where you buy a skill with a beginning rating, modified by relevant ability, and can be increased to a maximum of 16 whenever you want to pay for it. Far more relevant. But 3e killed it because it insisted on enforcing fixed and inflexible classes over player choice, which is unkind, unflattering and very poor game design, if you ask me. Why should I waste any money on 3e? I still have no answer to that question, probably because there isn't one.

 

I'm not a die-hard 2e gamer. I did give 3e a chance. It just failed miserably because it was so pathetic, and I will not hesitate in saying that I think so. It's not a particularly bad system as such, but it's not D&D (and I know 3e players who say so) and is woefully outdated for a game released after 2000. Most other new interesting RPGs out there have far better design than 3e has. It's no better than 2e even after more than a decade of RPG experience, which was disappointing in the extreme.

 

This is what I don't like about WotC and OGL. The market is saturated with enough 3.x/d20 stuff as it is. I think OGL, in particular, inhibits creativity in the smaller game developers that otherwise would have come out with their own rulesets. Of course, 3.x/d20 is a BIG name and as such a major cash cow for these smaller companies.. But, this means that these smaller developers see less need to make their own rulesets due to the high lucrative potential of the powerful d20 license. This just kills competition and creative drive and in the long run I doubt it is good for the industry. Unless, of course, you want to see a world where the only RPGs around are d20 ones. Hades probably would.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not going to deny that there could be advantages to having only one RPG base around. The problem is that if there is to be such a base, then 3e/d20 is about the LAST system ever that should be chosen for it, since it's the most rigid and inflexible system around at all. GURPS would be far better suited for that sort of thing IMHO.

[Volourn]

As for the topic, 2e and 3e have their strnegths, and wekanesses. I like them both, and 2e is easily more intuitive. However, overall, I have to side with 3e being the 'better' game system.

[alanschu]

Eye of the Beholder was fairly crap and was a total rip-off of the classic "Dungeon Master" anyway, only without most of the atmosphere.

 

 

So? It still had AC in it. The point was that Lancer claimed that my finding an AC that counts up as being more intuitive as based on my previous game experience.

 

 

Alan has never said anything I've read to suggest that he even played the tabletop games, so I don't think it's irrelevant to it out if he doesn't have practical RPG experience the system he is talking about. My apologies to Alan for this, though, because I don't mean to take him as hostage in this discussion - it's a bit unfair - but then I don't have much choice. Then again, maybe I should just shut up. After all, as they say, nothing can ruin a good discussion more than people who actually know what they're talking about...

 

I have played them before. Most of my AD&D experience has been through computer games though.

 

 

It honestly just sounds like people that consider themselves to be the "pure" D&D player because they've stuck with the original ways of doing things. And that change is never good. You played it, liked it, and got used to it. Just like Fallout fans screaming and complaining at the thought of Fallout not being turn-based/isometric. Anything else just cannot be Fallout, so don't call it that!

[Jediphile]

It honestly just sounds like people that consider themselves to be the "pure" D&D player because they've stuck with the original ways of doing things.  And that change is never good.  You played it, liked it, and got used to it.  Just like Fallout fans screaming and complaining at the thought of Fallout not being turn-based/isometric.  Anything else just cannot be Fallout, so don't call it that!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think it's pretty poor taste to paint those of us who don't like 3e as grumpy old hawks just because we don't like 3e.

 

For example, you could try to actually READ the reasons I gave for not liking 3e. I even said that ACs and to-hit going up is fine and that I like the 3e multi-class system better than the 2e one.

 

And yet you claim that people like me say that any change is bad?

 

I say: Bias, your name is Alanschu!

 

Try actually considering the points that other people make before you troll them - it does tend to improve on the level of discussion and civility...

[Cantousent]

I don't understand. We actually had a friendly environment going and now it's turned not only into a rant against me personally, but side flames between other member. Folks, why is this? Is it my fault? Did I handle things poorly?

 

I really like this thread, and rather than close it, which is one option, I'm asking for help. Let's try not to hate each other for, of all things, our preferrences in rulesets! Computer or tabletop, we've all had good experiences with DnD.

 

I beg forgiveness if I have caused grave offense. I forgive any offense given me. Let's get back to discussing the specifics of the ruleset rather than each other. Please.