3e and the Test of Time

[Virel]

Well, as a DM I actually don't see that point. I use 3.0 products in 3.5 games without real changes. I don't sit down and convert NPC's or monsters, except maybe a DR or the changes in buff durations, haste and polymorph. I don't convert a 3.0 ranger NPC to a 3.5 one. It does not interest me that one entry should read now "Survival". If some spell levels of a wizard are off, who cares? My players know that. As I don't introduce them to NPC's by listing their levels in classes and prestige classes, it does not really make a difference. Maybe, I'm just lucky that I don't have any ruleslaywers in my group .

I follow what your saying. I did the same with 2nd ed stuff and used it on the fly in my 1st ed game. The changes in 1st and 2nd were minimal as the games were 90 to 95 percent the same - at least at first. This also seems to be true with 3.0 and 3.5 ~90 to 95 percent the same, so I think the analogy holds.

3.5 like 2nd ed in many ways fixed a few issues and was a great chance to sell anothe set of core books to the fans.

As for the OGL keeping 3.x alive, seems that most product is moving toward 3.5 and away from 3.0, so I don't think OGL, will hurt but I doubt it will the savior of the OOP game. I mean if you youring going to sell something, you want to be first for the latest and greatest in most cases.

BTW - I'm not a fan of late 2nd ed in any way. It was a mess and 3e is much better than that travesty.

As a side note to what someone else said (not Turgen), I play both 1st ed and 3e. Gamers are gamers, I don't think playing 1st ed instead 3rd ed makes someone a better person, that idea is idiotic, I don't even understand why that's being mentioned in the discussion.

My 3e group plays a tight 3e game in the GreyHawk setting. They focus on the core books plus a few others. There is crunch to be sure but it's not like it's max/min game at all. When we play it's very similar most of the time to playing in a 1st ed campaign or a OD&D game IMO.

 

[myrdden]

omg if u dont ply old dnd u r stupid only old dnd (odnd!!) is 4 rolplayrs and rolplayrs r better thn ne1 else!!!

omg thos stoopd powr gamers need 2 die an go away 4evar!!!!

enworld is teh best bc it is 4 rolplayrs an no ppl who lik rulz! rolplay! no rulz! omg!

My God...I actually read AND understood what this said. I've been browsing messageboards too much...

 

[Akrasia]

... As a side note, I play both 1st ed and 3e. Gamers are gamers, I don't think playing 1st ed instead 3rd ed makes someone a better person, that idea is idiotic, I don't even understand why that's being mentioned in the discussion.

As someone who plays both 1E and 3E as well, I could not agree more.

 

[myrdden]

it is like plain toast, not maple doughnuts. This makes it much more versatile -- I can add jam to d20 (yum!), while you can use Nutella (yuck!).

*GASP*!

I was with you until the Nutella comment. Now the arguement is dead to me...

Don't dis the Nutella!

 

[Virel]

I think the "lack-o-flavor" in 3e goes back to 2e.

Cook hurt the core books and made them BORING for 2nd ed. I think WotC wanted and has more flavor with 3e core books, in part due to the art etc than the 2nd ed stuff. However, I think WotC didn't want to "season" the materials too much.

As for EGG and the flavor and style of 1st ed Ad&D, in someways EGG had a big advantage over those that followed in his footsteps. What EGG did was new and he didn't have to worry about his style being like someone elses. Likewise, for the most part, he had a vision of what AD&D should look like instead of having several major players to contend with. The flavor of 3e seems to taste like...designed by commitee, EGG didn't have to worry as much about that sort of thing IMO.

Fighters can be generic in 1st ed if you let them be that way. Usually, weapon specializatin really helped set them apart in our games. We had sword & shield fighters, duel weapon fighters, two-handed one weapon fighters, archer fighters, exceptional strength strong fighters, ones with lots of hit points, and of course combos and blends of all of this. Weapon choice also played a lot in the flavor. Armor varied greatly too. Making up a background that was different in some cases made two fighters in the same party that were almost xeroxs of each other very different. Next add in Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians, & Calvaliers etc... Limited only by ones imagination...

 

[Orius]

The difference is that the 1E Gygaxian books encouraged a particular kind of game and campaign style. Indeed, the way that different classes and races were 'balanced' with each other was done in a manner that made certain assumptions about the kind of setting appropriate for AD&D. [snip]
In contrast, d20 is flavourless -- it is like plain toast, not maple doughnuts. This makes it much more versatile -- I can add jam to d20 (yum!), while you can use Nutella (yuck!). But the system itself lacks the distinctive character and quirkiness of OAD&D.

I think the idea of what the nature of RPG back then also plays some part. D&D was originally written as an add-on to fantasy wargaming. And 1e wasn't all that removed from the original, in general it polished up the original rules and added a few new features. Today, RPGs are considered a type of game all to themselves, and 3e was designed as an RPG.

(I think that this was also true of the 'de-Gygax-ized' 2E -- which probably explains why it has fewer adherents than 1E, and why most people remember the campaign settings with more fondness than the system itself.)

I don't really believe that. A general lack of adherents for 2e probably reflects the problems with the ruleset, plus the general attitude of TSR execs which was seen as hostile to the games. While some people say that 2e works fine with just core, pretty much everyone seems to agree that it breaks down as you start adding stuff outside core, unless you've got a pretty good DM who can work with it.

Also, like Henry said, the 1e players added 2e stuff retroactively because the systems weren't really that different. With 2e and 3e, there are differences between the 2 systems that make it harder to do so. The 2e rules really don't handle stuff like feats and PrCs very well. So people who want to play with 3e stuff simply play 3e.

 

[Akrasia]

I think the idea of what the nature of RPG back then also plays some part. D&D was originally written as an add-on to fantasy wargaming. And 1e wasn't all that removed from the original, in general it polished up the original rules and added a few new features. Today, RPGs are considered a type of game all to themselves, and 3e was designed as an RPG.

Ironically, combat in 3E feels much more like a wargame than combat does with 1E. Some combats in 3E remind me quite a bit of my old 'Squad Leader' games.

Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on one's tastes.

A general lack of adherents for 2e probably reflects the problems with the ruleset...

That might be the case, but I still maintain that it lacks the distinctive character that 1E possesses -- just compare the writing, and the horrible 'sanitization' that D&D went through with 2E ("Dear Heavens, parents of America, there are no demons, devils, assassins, or any other such unwholesome elements in AD&D!")

Also, like Henry said, the 1e players added 2e stuff retroactively because the systems weren't really that different...

Well I agreed with Henry about this -- in terms of mechanics, the two systems are pretty similar.

But in terms of 'character', they are very different IMO. Just read through the 1E DMG, and you will see what I mean. E.g. pick any description for one of the artifacts -- I will wager you good imaginary money that it is far more evocative and colourful than anything in 2E.

With 3E we find a clear distinction between 'crunch' (the rules) and 'fluff' (campaign flavour, etc.). This distinction did not exist with 1E -- the crunch and fluff were interwoven. It is for this simple reason that some old school players look back at 1E with fondness (and others with profound irritation). If you liked playing in a Gygaxian 'Greyhawk-esque' setting, you probably pick up good vibes flipping through a copy of the 1E DMG.

In contrast, players look at back at 2E campaign settings (Dark Sun, Planescape, etc.) with fondness, but (generally) not the system itself. I predict that this will be even more the case with 3E -- 20 years from now, players might feel nostalia for particular 3E settings, but probably not the rules themselves.

 

[Ampolitor]

$$$$

10E....Good God man bite your tongue, I just heard a whimper from my wallet!

 

[Virel]

Being a wargamer first, I pretty much despised the orginal D&D due to the sloppy rule set. AD&D was better but not really a nice tight rule set like a wargame. 2nd AD&D has parts worth stealing for 1st AD&D but is a lame game if one drifts away from the core books. Late 2nd ed = puke

3e's rule set while dry and boring for the most part, reads nice and tight more like a wargame than other versions of the game. This is one thing I like about 3e, it calls out to my inner wargamer.

I was surprised, that in my 1st session of 3e, I was pointing out some finer points about flanking to some of the experienced players. One seemed to think I was lying about not having played 3e until my wargaming background was explained.

Having played Squad Leader, yes sometimes 3e combat reminds me of SL or Cross of Iron.

Yet, I have learned to appreciate 1st ed AD&D flexability, style and flavor...so I steal choice bits from 3e for my 1st ed AD&D game!

 

[Doug McCrae]

That's funny, I'm stealing choice bits of 1e for my 3e game.