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

[Lancer]

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.

 

Just a slight clarification, Jediphile, although I agree with most of your anti-3e bashing arguments. . I didn't mean that 2ndEd's ACs going down is necessarily better than if they were going up like in 3e. All I am saying is that neither method amounts to rocket science (pun intended)and both ways are easy enough to learn. And I did also espouse the 3e AC conversion if one didn't like the 2ndEd one.

 

 

At any rate, people talk about how much more streamlined 3e is than 2ndEd. Ok.. Fair enough. I can agree with the consensus that 3e is certainly more streamlined than 2ndEd.... What I can't agree with is that 3e's streamlined nature somehow exonerates it from its glaringly piss-poor game mechanics (AoOs, skill/class systems, onerous rule exceptions..etc) or its atrocious marketing campaign.

 

Ironically, everything that people complained about 2ndEd is becoming true for 3e as well.

 

 

At any rate. We all need to chill and relax. Like Volourn said earlier, can't we all just get along?

 

 

 

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.

 

I prefer having variety as it tends to encourage competition and evolution of the industry, IMHO. But I do agree that 3e/d20 being chosen as the "standard" RPG is a big mistake. If there was going to be an uber ruleset that ruled over everything I'd even prefer Rolemaster over 3.x/d20.

 

Heck, I'd almost prefer the Shadowrun 1st edition ruleset over 3.x/d20

Edited July 6, 2006 by Lancer

[Darque]

Yeah, I think a time out would do everyone some good.

 

It's just a message board, no need for anger and frustration.

[Jediphile]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd like to respond to this, but what would be the point - you'll just delete my posts...

[Dark_Raven]

Come on now. Step away from the monitor, take a walk, grab something to drink, cool off and than come back when there are not any hot tempers.

[Lancer]

@ JEDIPHILE:

 

BTW, from your posts it is painfully obvious you don't play 3e or d20..

 

What is your ruleset of choice now?

[Jediphile]

@ JEDIPHILE:

 

BTW, from your posts it is painfully obvious you don't play 3e or d20.. 

 

What is your ruleset of choice now?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My Mystara campaign runs under 2e Player Option rules with the tidbits of 3e I've already described and my own fairly extensive house rules that attempt to reconcile it all (44 pages in Word at the last count...).

 

The campaign is likely to end soon, however, since the players are pushing level 16+, and under Player Option rules that makes them pretty powerful and difficult to challenge. What I'll be playing then is anybody's guess, though...

 

GURPS, Call of Cthulhu 5th Ed., LUG Trek, Exalted, or even more AD&D 2e/Player Option are all being considered, but then maybe I just won't even have time to play anymore... Real life has a way of cutting in on my role-playing these days, and my work as GM is now continuing solely on the basis of preparations I made years ago.

[Cantousent]

The question is, how can you assess a ruleset without trying it? I mean, that's a charge you've leveled at alan. He has limited table-top experience, and therefore his thoughts comparing rulesets are suspect?

 

For my part, I've always thought other factors were more important than ruleset. I had fun with Dungeons and Dragons and that fun has continued through every iteration. I liked the ideas behind 3rd edition. I still do. The sole problem is the whole thing regarding supplemental rule books. If 3rd edition weren't becoming so fat with extraneous material, I'd be perfectly happy with it.

[Jediphile]

The question is, how can you assess a ruleset without trying it?  I mean, that's a charge you've leveled at alan.  He has limited table-top experience, and therefore his thoughts comparing rulesets are suspect?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Precisely. That's my problem with Alan's stance. Then again, you may be implying by the above that I have not tried 3e. Who says I haven't? I actually do own the 3e rules, I have played 3e, and I've even written a few adventures for 3e, because we wanted to attract people to Mystara. Writing for 3e gives you pretty good insight into the system, but the more I learned about it, the less I liked it. My initial skepticism did not go away. And at some point I have to acknowledge that 3e is just a bad system from where I'm sitting. It doesn't matter how much WOTC plug or how much people say it's wonderful and dandy - if I dislike it, then I have to admit that. That's what I did, and now I say why. I'm not saying people have to agree with me - I'm just described why I feel the way I do. If people then resort to direct or indirect trolling against my person rather than against my observations, then I don't exactly see that as support for their claims of 3e's quality...

 

For my part, I've always thought other factors were more important than ruleset.  I had fun with Dungeons and Dragons and that fun has continued through every iteration.  I liked the ideas behind 3rd edition.  I still do.  The sole problem is the whole thing regarding supplemental rule books.  If 3rd edition weren't becoming so fat with extraneous material, I'd be perfectly happy with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, let me take a classic example that illustrates why I dislike 3e. Say I want to play a cleric. His father was a fisherman, so he lived by the sea, and he swam in the ocean almost every day. When he became older, he became a cleric with the god of the sea as his patron. As a cleric he put most of his ability into Wisdom, and only a little into Strength (+1 modifier).

 

Now the cleric goes on an adventure. One companion is a powerful half-orc warrior (Strength 18, possibly even higher), who comes from somewhere in the mountains. During the adventure, both the cleric and the warrior are thrown into a lake and have to swim to safety. The cleric has paid 4 skill points to max his skill, but since it's a cross-class skill for a cleric, he gets only to have 2 skill leves in it plus his +1 Strength modifier for a total of +3. The half-orc warrior has lived in the mountains all his life and never swam before, so he has no skill levels whatsoever. His strength gives him a massive +4 modifier, though, so he's actually a better swimmer than the cleric, who swam all his life...

 

Now, as if that isn't bad enough, after the adventure, both the cleric and the warrior advance to level two. They both agree that swimming was really useful and want to be better at it. The half-orc can take up to five skill levels now, if he has the skill points for it, pushing his modifier to a whopping +9 on every check, even though he only just began swimming for the first time a few days before. The cleric, however, still has to fight the cross-class and gets to spend only 1 measely skill point on swimming, and it doesn't even improve his modifier, because it'll end at +3

[Cantousent]

Okay, I have deleted or modified every post from page 18 forward so that the thread follows the subject of 3rd edition more or less thoroughly.

 

In terms of DnD, I don't think experience is king. It might help form an argument and drawing on personal experience is always good because you can attest to what has or has not worked for your games. The fact is, however, that we have people with a variety of PnP experience in this thread, and people of similar experience have different views.

 

As I've said before, in friendlier times, the problems you, Jediphile, associate with 3rd edition are the same problems that plague 2nd edition. At least somewhat.

 

I mean, I was born in the saddle with a saber in hand. I'm reared on goat's milk and fresh meat. I practice cavalry charges with my father all my life. ...And yet I have the same skill with a sword at first level as the farmer's son who wants to try a life of adventure.

 

As far as alan's credentials, I cited credentials in the first place because I don't think anyone should feel cowed just because he doesn't have quite as extensive of experience with the ruleset. After all, if his lack of experience means that he demonstrates faulty logic, then the logic will appear faulty. His credentials in the DnD gaming universe are not nearly as important as his ideas.

 

Let me use Lancer as an example. Lancer is a rocket scientist. If I argued physics with Lancer, he wouldn't need to know my credentials to know I didn't have a clue about the subject. Experience with the system helps make for a better argument, but a good argument is a good argument, no matter who makes it.

[alanschu]

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.

 

It always is. I'm just saying that that's the impression that I get from a lot of the AD&D fans. As with all generalizations, it doesn't mean everyone. Whether or not you think that categorization covers you is for you to decide.

Edited July 6, 2006 by alanschu