3rd Edition Rules, 2nd Edition Feel?

[ForceUser]

Don't get me wrong. I love 3E. I just want the mechanics to serve the story, not the other way around. A lot of this is how a group chooses to approach the game.

 

[Aaron L]

In comparison, my current character was crafted around the feats of using a bastard sword with one hand and a net. I didn't start with a character, I started with weapon feats and he has no soul. I don't really care if I play him or not and that is sad. He has the abilities to kick old Garth's butt but I would still put my money on the old guy because he had a soul.

I don't know. Maybe it is just having played for so many years it all is getting tired for me. But god...would I love to just play for the story again!!!

Well... it is the systems fault that you designed a soulless character based on combat stats how, exactly? What I see in these nostalgia threads is essentially "take away my options for character customization so that I dont have to think and can use my imagination again"

Thing is, you can STILL use your imaginiation. But now you can have mechanics to back up that imagination.

 

[ForceUser]

Thing is, you can STILL use your imaginiation. But now you can have mechanics to back up that imagination.

I think the issue is that a lot of us get wrapped up in the robust mechanics of 3E to the point that we forget or worse, forego, story in favor of crunchy characters. I don't recall this as being as much of an issue in previous editions (I admit that I could be wearing rose-colored glasses here.)

 

[Arnwyn]

I think ForceUser is on to something.

One (possible) concern is that people may be hesitant to allow certain things to be done because it may step on the toes of a feat. This can easily be seen as a potential problem.

For some who might feel that way, it may be due to the rather... ahem... "large" number of feats available and even allowable in a game with the purchase of only a small number of supplemental sourcebooks outside of the PHB.

 

[Imret]

Thing is, you can STILL use your imaginiation. But now you can have mechanics to back up that imagination.

Quoted for truth.

Having played from the red box on, I can say that 3.x in no way diminished my capacity to make interesting, fleshed-out characters that I really want to play. Instead, it gave me the capacity to make that concept fit into the rules with minimal extra effort. Clerics have ceased to be hit point dispensers, 1st-level wizards are no longer useless after firing off their magic missile, and there's more variance between fighters than the weapon they use.

When I'm reviewing characters for my games, the first question is always "Tell me about your character without using game mechanics". I don't want to hear "Human fighter/rogue, WF: Short Sword, Stealthy, Alertness, maxed ranks in blah blah blah".

I want something more like "He ran away at 11 and fell in with a gang on the docks, roughing up drunks for enough coppers to buy a couple jugs of cheap wine. He learned to see who's a mark and who's an undercover guard, keep his eyes and ears open and his step quiet, and practiced lifting a few purses in a crowd. A couple years ago he was press-ganged into a militia unit where he learned to fight with spears and fire a bow, but he'd spend most of his spare time in the yard practicing with a short sword. After mustering out with a handful of silver and a quick sword arm, he's taken up adventuring with an eye to making a quick score and retiring before something eats his internal organs like maple candy."

But hey, that's just a random concept off the top of my head. Maybe people do get bogged down in the numbers and the options and lose sight of the person behind the feats and plusses.

 

[Psion]

I just want the mechanics to serve the story, not the other way around.

I can get on board with that. I'd even go so far as to say it has an oddly familiar ring to it...

 

[Klaus]

The main characteristic of 2e feel is "metaplot".

Every single setting had a metaplot, and was supposed to evolve, like they weren't settings, but comic books in another format. First came the setting, then the novels, who changed the status quo, so you could have a Revised Setting, along with adventures that mimicked the novels and supplements for every aspect of the setting.

Dragonlance, FR, DS, RL, PS... They all had metaplots going, like the DMs were playing in someone else's sandbox.

 

[MerricB]

One of the problems in defining any system's "feel" is that we're usually talking about a time period over which it changed!

Consider the AD&D of 1980 to the AD&D of 1987! There's a big change in the approach.

Early 2nd Edition was all about "let's explore the AD&D mechanics!" Thus we got wildly divergent takes on what they could do. The Complete Priest's Handbook is my favourite example of an author creating something incompatible with the regular system, and pursuing it as an "option".

"Options, not compatibility" - that's the slogan of 2e.

2.5e - the Player's Options series did its darndest to bring everything together. Yes, the system could be broken, but it did afford me a great campaign, which has been the basis of many later great experiences in 3e.

2.5e is of the same nature as 3e: mechanics represents the concept. It didn't quite have the mechanics in place to do it really successfully, though. (Skills and Feats are *such* an advantage over NWP and WP)

I remember people whining back in those days about how a character isn't just his vorpal sword... it's not something new. Some people approach from the game side and the mechanics; other from the story side and use the mechanics to represent it.

Cheers!

 

[Samnell]

I think the issue is that a lot of us get wrapped up in the robust mechanics of 3E to the point that we forget or worse, forego, story in favor of crunchy characters. I don't recall this as being as much of an issue in previous editions (I admit that I could be wearing rose-colored glasses here.)

Sounds like (meaning no offense) an issue with the user, not the system. It was just as trivially easy to create a storyless crunchy character in 2e. I've never played 1e, but I see no reason to expect anything different there either.

 

[Psion]

Dragonlance, FR, DS, RL, PS... They all had metaplots going, like the DMs were playing in someone else's sandbox.

I think that may be painting with a broad brush, but it definitely true for DS. It's what ruined the setting IMO. It really couldn't help but be true for any setting with a novel series the way TSR ran it.

It wasn't really true for PS outside of faction war... which again, was a bad thing.