2e.... more flavor than 3e?

This is a comment that comes up a lot and one that I'm very curious about...

When I first started playing D&D, I started at the very tail-end of 2e, so I never really got much exposure to it until many years later and that was only to plunder it's settings. So... I never really read many of the 'Player's Options...' or 'Complete Shrub Elf' styled books or... really any of the setting generic material released during 2e. Most of what I was exposed to was setting material.

I'm curious to know if the generic setting 2e books really had more flavor than the generic setting 3e books. I'm sure if we included the campaign settings, 2e would beat 3e down with a shovel, considering that there were, what, 6 settings going at once during the reign of 2e?

What's a "generic setting?" Don't settings have to specific? I don't understand the question, please rephrase it.

From reading your post, I don't think you mean the rule add ons, like Player's Option books versus Complete Hedgetrimmer, or whatever. Do you mean generic adventures?

Keep in mind that with the open gaming license, a lot of companies are now producing work for 3e, so you really have a pretty wide range of stuff to pick from. Sure, Strugeon's Law (90% of everything is crap) is applicable here, but there are so many different styles, from WotC to Green Ronin to White Wolf, etc. so there really isn't a drought of new material to work and build from.

Also, keep in mind that you can always bring over whatever you think is cool from 2e to your current game.

Rev. Jesse said:

What's a "generic setting?" Don't settings have to specific? I don't understand the question, please rephrase it.

Click to expand...

Anything that doesn't have a specific setting specified in the book, IE Complete Warrior, 2E Monstrous Manual, or even Lords of Madness.

From reading your post, I don't think you mean the rule add ons, like Player's Option books versus Complete Hedgetrimmer, or whatever. Do you mean generic adventures?

Click to expand...

Actually, those are exactly the types of books that I'm talking about. Seeing as I've read very, very few of them, I'm curious as to how full of flavor-text they are compared to most 3e WotC non-setting specific books.

It varied between books, honestly. The Complete Priest's Handbook had more flavor than 3E's Deities & Demigods, but The Complete Psionics Handbook didn't strike me as being that much more flavorful than the Expanded Psionics Handbook.

All in all though, I think 2E still has a greater ratio of flavorful generic books than 3E does. Books like The Complete Book of Necromancers, The Complete Villain's Handbook, Chronomancer, Shaman, and any of the Historical Reference series, were all of a kind that you don't see from 3E WotC books nowadays, which is a real shame.

The 2nd edition's Player's Option books really broke and rebuilt the rules for characters, particularly the magic book, and cleared the way for the customization of 3rd edition. You don't really see WotC turning the rules on their heads right now in the same manner, probably because:
a.) 3rd edition allows for tremendous customization in player characters and creatures. You don't really need a player's option because the feat system, multiclassing, and prestige classes allow you greatly customize your character within the existing rules.
b.) 3rd party publishers do a great job of turning the rules on their heads.

The Complete X series in 2nd edition was a hit or miss afair. For the Complete Races series, I think you had a lot of information on the cultural aspects of the races that may not have carried over the 3rd edition. The Complete Class books for 2nd edition could be pretty boring, particularly if you already had an idea of what a priest should do, and the kits provided look pretty lame in a 3rd edition light.

The Complete books of Necromancers and Villains I think compare reasonably with the Book of Vile Darkness. I think the Complete books had more info on how to roleplay masterminds, whereas the BoVD has some more interesting guidelines for evil for evil's sake.

The Historical Settings books probably have analogs in third party publishers these days.

Really though, you should consider that 2nd edition was around for a good number of years, so there are a lot of good books from that timeframe, and a lot of crappy ones. We just tend to forget the crappy ones. If you want to devel into the yellow-paged abyss of 2nd edition, you are best off cherry picking the best ones and skipping the rest.

Finally, I think that 3rd edition generic books are really rules focused and therefore tend to skimp over flavour in favour of crunchy bits. Not that this is bad, but it puts the responsibility of creating theme and flavour on the DM.

Did 2e innately have more flavour than 3e? No. But I find the settings for it were a lot more intereting than the ones WotC decided to put out for 3.x.

tetsujin28 said:

Did 2e innately have more flavour than 3e? No. But I find the settings for it were a lot more intereting than the ones WotC decided to put out for 3.x.

Click to expand...

While I don't entirely agree--I'm a huge Eberron fan--I think Tetsujin has hit on the crux of the matter.

Consider the following premises.

A) On average, setting material is going to be more flavorful than generic and/or rules material.

B) 2nd edition supported an enormous (and, as TSR proved, ultimately nonviable) number of settings. Thus, a larger percentage of their releases were setting-specific.

A + B = C. Because 2E had a higher proportion of setting material, it seemed or felt more flavorful.

I'm not saying this is the only issue at hand. Some of 2E's "generic" books were quite flavorful. But then, so are some of 3E's, particularly some of the more recent releases. I'd suggest that while the above analysis doesn't account for all of the "2E is more flavorful" sensation some people have, it probably does account for a huge proportion of it.

But even outside of the setting books (which have enought flavour for 4th edition even) you have books like the Tome of Magic which had a real feel to it. The three blue dm books were amazing, Arms & Equipment set a real bar depth of information, Castle guide was great for anybody that ever even saw a castle, Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb guide has stuff that I think every dm should be required to read. Even the monstrous compendiums had way more flavour for their critters.

Once you hit settings thing get even obvious. What 3e or 3.5 book can even compare to Aurora's Whole Realms Catalog?

I remember a long time back somebody posted the difference between creating magic items (scrolls specifically) in the two versions [I'm paraphrasing since I don't have my books with me]

3rd ed:

Wizards get this feat at 1st level. The character can create a scroll at a cost of 25gp * spell level * caster level. The xp level is 1/25 of the market cost. The scroll takes one day per 1000gp where one day is defined as at least 8 hours uninterrupted.


2nd ed:

Only the greatest of wizards are capable of creating items. Normal items are not sufficient to hold the great mystical powers involved so special ingredients are required. The scroll must be freshly dried papyrus from the wildest marshes. The ink must be made from water collected from the deepest stretches of the ocean. The quill pen used must be a tail feather plucked from a cockatrice at full moon by a left handed werebat singing 'oompa loompa' .... etc etc.


The 2nd ed was reeking with flavour and just reading the description probably sparked of 5 or 6 adventure ideas in the mind of the person reading it. However if you tried to play the rules as written then virtually nobody would ever write a scroll. Even if they did they probably gained so much xp from the adventures need to gain a level and so the reason for the scroll probably no longer exists. Why would anybody ever create a scroll of magic missile if they needed to do all that to make it?

The 3rd edition version is as dull as dishwater. Dump down money, xp and time and you have a scroll. However when used in an adventure it opens up whole new vistas for players. A bit of prep work in standard down time and come the next adventure you have the right spell for the right occasion. All those scrolls you picked up suddenly have an explanation for existing. Everything makes a lot more sense.

For me that's the difference between the two versions. 2nd ed has fascinating rule books but a confusing game. 3rd ed has dull rule books but a fascinating game.

I think there is another factor in the 3e vs. 2e flavor debate, one that was alluded to in an early posting. In 2e, TSR supported a relatively massive amount of campaign settings (not to mention historical era sourcebooks); consequentially, TSR produced a massive amount of supplements geared to very specific circumstances. That is perfect for allowing designers to write flavor and fluff to their hearts content (well, at least until the business practice of saturating the marketing and dividing your customer base helps destroy your poorly managed company).

However, supplements in 3e, even nominally setting specific books like Monsters of Faerun or Races of Eberron, were explicitly designed to be generic and portable. Lots of specific flavor does not make portability easier, at least on the surface. That, and a codified set of expansive rules, with limited space available, means a reduction in flavor.

That said, as 3e moved towards 3.5e, and the game system matured, I think you are seeing a return to more flavor in the sourcebooks (i.e. the monster series, the environment series, the races series, the new prestige class format).