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

[Reynard]

Settings in 2e were GOLD.

Perhaps the only truly GOOD part of 2E, IMO. 2E was bland as hell, but that blandness allowed for all of those varied, distinct settings. I mean, if the core had been "flavorful" it would have been much more difficult to use the same game for Spelljammer and Dark Sun and Planescape and FR and Birthright and all the rest. And let's not forget the "green books" -- those were awesome.

 

[Pale Master]

Ah, 2nd edition. I was one of the holdouts, running two elven bladesingers around the Isle of Sahu while everyone else was gearing up for Bastion of Broken Souls.

But now I don't see why I bothered. When I read the 2E DM's guide, sometimes I just have to shake my head and laugh.

Magic item creation, for example. To scribe a scroll you might need a phoenix feather quill and giant squid ink. The poor sucker trying to make a magic sword has to find meteoric iron from deep in the bowels of the earth, quench it in a special spring, and imbue it with the "power of purity." All that stuff sounds great if you're writing Harry Potter fanfic, but it starts to wear on the nerves around the gaming table. It's like that jerk in the Burger King commercial - "get me a Whopper!" "First you have to go on a quest and then I'll assign a percentile chance and then maybe you can have your Whopper!"

And the optional rules. Weapon type vs. specific armors? Anyone? All those blue boxes telling you how to do weird things with your initiative or make your own character classes or complicate your aerial battles?

And the stern admonitions about making magic too common. The whole book is insistent about how magic items are so ridiculously rare, no one would possibly buy one or sell one, PCs should feel lucky if they find a +1 sword, etc. etc. "If magic were common, you'd have a crazy fantasy world with djinni-driven steamships and crystal-ball communications networks." But of course, there are precisely ZERO guidelines as to what an "appropriate" level of magic is. When should a fighter have a +3 sword? 6th level? 10th level? Never?

There was so much reliance on DM fiat, especially compared with 3rd edition. Some people may find this aspect appealing, but I dislike playing "mother-may-I" with the DM.

 

[Reynard]

Ah, 2nd edition. I was one of the holdouts, running two elven bladesingers around the Isle of Sahu while everyone else was gearing up for Bastion of Broken Souls.

But now I don't see why I bothered. When I read the 2E DM's guide, sometimes I just have to shake my head and laugh.

Magic item creation, for example. To scribe a scroll you might need a phoenix feather quill and giant squid ink. The poor sucker trying to make a magic sword has to find meteoric iron from deep in the bowels of the earth, quench it in a special spring, and imbue it with the "power of purity." All that stuff sounds great if you're writing Harry Potter fanfic, but it starts to wear on the nerves around the gaming table. It's like that jerk in the Burger King commercial - "get me a Whopper!" "First you have to go on a quest and then I'll assign a percentile chance and then maybe you can have your Whopper!"

And the optional rules. Weapon type vs. specific armors? Anyone? All those blue boxes telling you how to do weird things with your initiative or make your own character classes or complicate your aerial battles?

And the stern admonitions about making magic too common. The whole book is insistent about how magic items are so ridiculously rare, no one would possibly buy one or sell one, PCs should feel lucky if they find a +1 sword, etc. etc. "If magic were common, you'd have a crazy fantasy world with djinni-driven steamships and crystal-ball communications networks." But of course, there are precisely ZERO guidelines as to what an "appropriate" level of magic is. When should a fighter have a +3 sword? 6th level? 10th level? Never?

There was so much reliance on DM fiat, especially compared with 3rd edition. Some people may find this aspect appealing, but I dislike playing "mother-may-I" with the DM.

2E has lots of faults. These things are not among them.

 

[Lanefan]

I never played 2e as written; though I ended up with a fair amount of 2e stuff over time it was mostly for ideas-poaching to put into my 1e game. Thus, I can't truly say I *miss* 2e.

And 3e got some things right, most notably in bringing people back to the game. For those who like fast play with small parties it must have been like mana from heaven, and 4e just keeps it coming.

That said, there's things from 0-1-2e that could have been (and I say should have been) carried forward into 3e and thence to 4e. Revival-from-death mechanics for one: make a % roll based on Con to see if you come back at all, and if you do you're down a Con point; none of this messy lose-a-level stuff. System shock survival % for another: yes it's a form of save-or-die and thus 4e considers it doubleplusungood, but it's elegant, and more granular than a d20. Ditto for Thieves' skills - % tables are more granular than a d20. And as so many others have mentioned, 2e's settings were unmatched.

More than anything, however, if I were stuck in a place where by-the-book 3/3.5e was all that was played, the thing I'd miss is the 0-1-2e slower pace of play. I like a game where you have to actively search the walls instead of being player-lazy and Taking-20, where you don't level up every real-time month or even every real-time season and when you do you have to wait to get back to town to train, where your base stats don't necessarily make or break your character, where fireballs expand and lightning bolts bounce and the saves can take all night, and where bad things happen often enough that the good things that happen are not just taken as a right.

Lanefan

 

[Reynard]

where you don't level up every real-time month or even every real-time season and when you do you have to wait to get back to town to train,

One of the oft overlooked benefits of slow levelling is that other aspects of play become the focus of the "fun" to be had -- exploration, building, role-playing, etc...

 

[Psion]

Cue C&C-fanboi post in 3... 2... 1...

Eh, they've taken to dumping all over the NG forum of late.

 

[MrFilthyIke]

Eh, they've taken to dumping all over the NG forum of late.

So that's why it's quiet here these days.

 

[Pale Master]

2E has lots of faults. These things are not among them.

So, "it's not a bug, it's a feature" then?

But I can see (I think) what you mean. Adjudicating 2E certainly required a lot of creativity on the part of the DM.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

2E has lots of faults. These things are not among them.

Yes they were. For lots of people. Those reasons were the reasons nobody i knew bothered with 2e. Including me.
YMMV.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Immunities are far and away better at achieving the goal of simulating otherworldly, dangerous opponents, however. When the greatsword wielding barbarian can just pump up the power attack and still be able to hit, it cheapens the supernatural quality of the monster (even if it is more "fun" from a gamist perspective). Tiered pluses are better, too -- one of the worst changes between 3.0 and 3.5 was dropping it. I mean, why even given dragons DR when the CR for dragons means that the PCs are automatically going to be equipped with magic weapons?

IMHO tiered pluses are B-O-R-I-N-G.

Stick the strongest guy in front with the best +n weapon. Burn whatever magic available to keep him healthy. Spellcasters have no other value because "otherworldly, dangerous opponents" are usually immune. If not immune they have SR and other resistances. If those fail, 2e saving throws have very low effective DCs so the spell will probably do little or nothing anyway.

Yawn, yawn, yawn.

Mechanically, 3E tends to be more intuitive than previous editions. unfortunately, it is also much mroe integreated, which means adding and removing subsystems is a little more difficult than in previous editions. When the whole system is integrated, it gets broken a lot easier by messing with one little piece. When the "system" is really composed of discrete subsystems, it is harder to break.

I find the exact opposite to be true -- integrated mechanics are always a big win.

Integrated mechanics offer the designer two options: (1) write your new mechanics so they integrate with the rest of the system, or (2) write your mechanics as you please and silo them off from the rest of the mechanics by a trivial act of fiat.

Pre-3e mechanics force you to use option number two.

3e gives you all the advantages of option number two, if that is what you want. Or other advantages instead. Your choice. I find having options is usually a good thing.

For example, the grappling/punching rules of 1E and 2E were just a pain to use. They were also easily replaced, because they really didn't mesh with any other system in the game.

And 3e forces you to mesh with the rest of the system how exactly? Do the Thought Police come knocking on your door?