D&D 3E/3.5 AD&D 2nd vs 3.5

[Jimlock]

You all seem to agree that there were rules-lawyers before 3e. Ok fine, I agree there were. There have always been players who get into the art, and there will always be, no matter how many D&D editions come out.

Permit me to rephrase my poorly expressed argument, through a question.

Are you saying that there is the same amount and "type" of rules-lawyering now with 3.x than there was with AD&D?

Personally, I think there is a big difference, and I've attempted to explain that difference in my previous post.

 

[Dandu]

I wouldn't know. I never played 2e back in the day, and there were never any surveys or studies done either so I doubt anyone else would really know either.

 

[Jimlock]

A joke ceases to be funny once you have explained it.

Granted, it was not funny before you explained it either, so I guess no harm has been done.

There was no joke in first place. But I'm sure you know that.

Your comment wasn't funny either, just a little snarky, as intended.

Keep up the good work

 

[Eridanis]

Impressive. One page of good commentary, and two pages of some of the most cynical, snarky, and unpleasant comments I've seen in one place in a while. Get the thread back on topic, please.

 

[TheEvil]

I wouldn't know. I never played 2e back in the day, and there were never any surveys or studies done either so I doubt anyone else would really know either.

Be that as it may, I would agree with Arrowhawk that the nature of arguing about rules defiantely changed between 2nd and 3rd editions. Rules 'lawyering' as seen in 3rd was driven largely by appeals to the Rules and Written or Intended. As Arrowhawk put it, what happened in 2nd edition was more often politicking as there were far less concrete rules to appeal to.

One difference I also notice between editions what what features were in Dragon magazine. It seemed to me that during 1st and 2nd, there were quite a few articles about how one could handle situations not covered explicitely by the rules. Once 3.x came out, it seemed* like there were fewer of those.

*Disclaimer: I grew up playing 1st and 2nd edition in rural Alaska and read each month's Dragon from cover to cover. Several times. It may well be that I simply didn't read the 3rd editions ones as closely, since by then I had moved to the 'lower 48', as we say.

 

[TheEvil]

Impressive. One page of good commentary, and two pages of some of the most cynical, snarky, and unpleasant comments I've seen in one place in a while. Get the thread back on topic, please.

I'm trying!

 

[billd91]

Are you saying that there is the same amount and "type" of rules-lawyering now with 3.x than there was with AD&D?

Personally, I think there is a big difference, and I've attempted to explain that difference in my previous post.

Same type? Definitely. It all depended on how the players and DM approached the rules. Were they flexible or not? If not, you could get the same type of rules lawyering I think you noticed with 3e. I don't believe that has changed at all.

Same amount? Who can tell? The widespread communication via the internet has significantly changed our perception of the issue. Drawn out discussions about RAW were confined to Dragon magazine forum pages or harder to find in listservs and usenet groups. By comparison, you can't go to any gaming site on the internet now without encountering it. I strongly suspect it's more of a change in perception than a change in reality.

 

[Jimlock]

It is obvious we disagree. No problem.

 

[the Jester]

I vastly prefer 3e over 2e.

A lot of the reason is flavor: 2e stripped out much of the darkness and grit 1e had in favor of more "high heroism". Which is fine, but not to my preference. I HATED that demons and devils weren't called demons and devils (they were in my campaign!), that there weren't stats for demon princes, that all the stuff that smacked of "evil pcs" got yanked out of the PH.

OTOH 2e had the best specialty priest system D&D has ever seen, if it was handled carefully by the dm and he did all custom gods.

3e is much more of a kit-bashing kind of system; it's much more modular, easier to assemble pretty much any kind of pc or monster without going outside the rules, etc. It's got a ton more fiddly bits.

2e is faster-playing and quicker when it comes to generating new characters.

Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, but for me, 3e is a far better system until about 9th level. Once you hit the "scry-buff-teleport" levels, 3e adds certain complexities and tactical issues that drag it down to some extent, making it take much longer to run a combat, making certain tactics and defenses obligatory, etc.

Still, on balance, 3e wins for me.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Same type? Definitely. [...]

Same amount? Who can tell? The widespread communication via the internet has significantly changed our perception of the issue.

This, exactly.

I mean, consider just this thread alone - we've got, in one "room," people who have been playing for multiple years across dozens of different systems in a variety of geographic locations.

Previously, we might have chatted around the bar after a day at GenCon.

Today, we chat daily.