2E vs 3E: 8 Years Later. A new perspective?

[Ridley's Cohort]

1e & 2e were far easier (IMO) to wing, prep, & throw together a party for an evening. But then we never used the latter 2e stuff "P&O".

That raises an important point I would like to mention.

To be fair, if one were to complain about the stack of 3e splatbooks, would not it be logical to compare to a 2e campaign with a stack of P&O books? (I am not referring to you, in particular.)

I am getting the very strong impression that many are complaining about rules bloat while using a very skew context.

Flipping through 6 different books to generate a PC is not for the faint of heart, regardless of the RPG system.

 

[green slime]

If for the sake of argument I concede your point, there is no logical connection to the hyperbole of needing to rebuild entire game systems because of modest changes, due to the curse of integrated mechanics.

My main bone to pick is that I believe the Curse of Integration is not merely over hyped, but mythical.

Perhaps 3e is a bit rules heavier than 2e, and people are confounding those issues? By some measures the 3e mechanics are heavier. By some other measures, not. Does not your post hint as much?

Yes. Thank you for your most reasonable and measured response to my post. Now I can comfortably go back to lurking.

My major bone of contention is with the mythical mirage of in-game "balance". It never exists in any RPG, isn't necessary nor even desireable. Its sole raison d'etre is to stroke player ego (or rather, deflect feelings of inadequecy). Which sort of says more about the players than the game.

Of course, if I may speculate a little here, as 4e "progresses forward" (in the interests of "balance") by making martial characters more wizard-like (limited spectacular special effects!), and spellcasters more fighter-like (at will combat abilities), it runs the risk of making a bland mix, where choice of class really matters very little... This can of course be seen as either a good or a bad thing, depending on your perspective.

 

[green slime]

That raises an important point I would like to mention.

To be fair, if one were to complain about the stack of 3e splatbooks, would not it be logical to compare to a 2e campaign with a stack of P&O books? (I am not referring to you, in particular.)

I am getting the very strong impression that many are complaining about rules bloat while using a very skew context.

Flipping through 6 different books to generate a PC is not for the faint of heart, regardless of the RPG system.

Probably. I was never into the P&O books, but even without them, there was all the class books, race books, rules for various settings we handled for 2e... so yes, it could be daunting to create a new character with those options. Still, because the options (mostly kits, & equipment) were more strongly tied to the primary selection of class-race, rather than todays "concept" with PrC's, feat selection, skill prerequisites, feat prerequisites, it is a more lengthy process than what I at least remember. Another issue is increasing age (read "senility") combined with less time to "peruse", means it is harder to recall exactly what in which book.

That said, I enjoy gaming (DM or player) in 'most any system, so don't interpret my postings to be system bashing of any kind.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

My major bone of contention is with the mythical mirage of in-game "balance". It never exists in any RPG, isn't necessary nor even desireable. Its sole raison d'etre is to stroke player ego (or rather, deflect feelings of inadequecy). Which sort of says more about the players than the game.

Using "mythical" here seems rather too strong.

It is more than reasonable to challenge whether a very strong concept of balance is genuinely desirable. It is certainly not always a necessity.

My personal opinion is that a good degree of balanced design is practically always desirable in professional RPG rules. Unless I am specifically buying for the fluff, I am usually not willing to pay good money for neat ideas that probably need a lot of polishing.

I also believe balance, even if imperfect, is a usually good starting point regardless of your end goal. Whether that is a good ending point is a matter of personal preference.

 

[green slime]

The best thing for me with the upgrade to 3e was the greater character flexibility afforded through feats, & skills, and the sensible save categories (so much more simple!). And, I'll grudingly admit, a d20 roll-high-is-always-good. (but the last one hurts to admit!)

The worst thing for me about 3e; that magical spells, items and effects added numerical bonuses everywhere. Cool in the beginning, it quickly got out of hand as the levels piled on, complicating DM load and player memory during combat. Combined with the fact that actual skill knowledge becomes virtually pointless at mid to high level, due to spells and magical items.

To be fair this problem with skills was existant even in earlier editions of the game, it was just far less apparent, as the DM had greater control over magical items. The players were far less likely to assemble their own "perfect suite", and the skill improving items went to those who needed them, rather than those who could afford them (a very important distinction).

 

[green slime]

I also believe balance, even if imperfect, is a usually good starting point regardless of your end goal. Whether that is a good ending point is a matter of personal preference.

Ok, 1 point to you!

I think it is probably more important to achieve a modicum of balance between similar roles/archetypes than disparate ones. If only to give the choice of exact class meaning.

 

[Aus_Snow]

To be fair this problem with skills was existant even in earlier editions of the game, it was just far less apparent, as the DM had greater control over magical items.

Greater than absolute? Wow.

 

[green slime]

Greater than absolute? Wow.

*sigh* As well you might be...

Let me explain something, in simple terms.

Entering the game, players have certain expectations. These may not be firmly adjusted to the reality of that particular DM's world, but they are there nonetheless.

Entering a 2e game, playing by the book, the players cannot assume that there is any magical item their character can create, without first consulting the DM at length.

Entering a 3e game, playing by the RAW, a player may well expect their character to be able to create magical items of all sorts described in the DMG, given enough time, if his character has taken the correct feats.

Of course, the DM can veto, blackmail, steal, railroad, refuse downtime, and be generally obtuse, whatever. Regardless of how much of a rat bastard DM the DM is, you cannot deny that there is a fundamental shift in player expectation between 2e and 3e in this regard.

 

[Aus_Snow]

*sigh* As well you might be...

Cool, whatever.

Using 3e, the DM has absolute control over that aspect of the RPG when it is being used. And over many others, but that's perhaps besides the point.

So it is in fact impossible for DMs to have (or to have had) any degree of control greater than that. Simple, really.

 

[green slime]

Cool, whatever.

Using 3e, the DM has absolute control over that aspect of the RPG when it is being used. And over many others, but that's perhaps besides the point.

So it is in fact impossible for DMs to have (or to have had) any degree of control greater than that. Simple, really.

Are you denying the fact that DM's are people and are subject to all the failities and weaknesses of humans? Peer acceptance, peer pressure, wanting to be accepted, and the actual fact that players may get up and leave? Cool, whatever.

The game, when played, is actually far bigger than that which is contained within the books. It includes social expectations and interactions between people far beyond mere "item acquisition".