3rd Edition Rules, 2nd Edition Feel?

In a brief statement, I'd say that the "2nd Edition Feel" could be largely summed up with the expression: "Flavor over Rules". If it sounded cool, made for a fun game and represented the setting well, it was in, even if it was imbalanced. The "Balance rules all" mentality of 3e was right out. The entire Dark Sun setting and Spellfire were two things that really emphasized this, especially when you look at how it was treated then and now. Ruleswise, 3e beats 2e any day, but flavorwise, 2e runs circles around 3e.

The Multiverse is something I definitely miss and feel was a real part of the "2nd Edition Feel". The idea that all the various settings linked together, however tenuously, and could cross over as often, or rarely as the DM wanted, but the players knew that somewhere, out there was all of it. The books contributed, with the occasional offhand reference to something from somewhere else, be it a god from another world who got momentarily involved in another world's affairs, a famous wizard who crossed over for a brief stay, or an order of knights or wizards who meddled briefly in affairs beyond their normal reach. All the settings shared one universal cosmology, and through planewalking and spelljamming you could go almost anywhere (Athas was mighty hard to get into, and Ravenloft was mighty hard to get out of though).

That's a feel I still try to evoke in my D&D games, with the rare reference to things from beyond. It's rare and obscure enough that to characters it should be completely unknown (or vague rumors), but to the player it's that friendly wink & nudge that yeah, it's out there somewhere.

The flavor-richness of many of the setting books is also something I miss. So many books were written from an in-character point of view (at least mostly): Aurora's Whole Realms Catalog, The Factol's Manifesto, The Planewalker's Handbook, Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark, the entire Volo's Guide series. . .when you read many 2e setting books, it was like you were reading something for fun (I often did, that's for sure), you could pick up a book and immerse yourself into the campaign world. Now, books seem like so much of a textbook or a reference manual. The books are often prettier, and well made, but a certain spark of creative life is often missing.

I also miss specialty priests. I liked being able to have a divine spellcaster that precisely fit his priesthood at 1st level, instead of the One Size Fits All Cleric that has to hit 6th level to get a Prestige Class that fits his faith, or multiclass and lose a level of spellcasting to try and kludge together a Specialty Priest equivalent. I really miss that there is no option in core D&D for a (non-nature oriented) priest that is not a heavily armored, mace swinging, undead-turning battle-cleric. The Favored Soul and Mystic (from DLCS) are much closer to what I'd have in mind for many priests.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Shemeska said:
3e books are comparatively dry and written almost exclusively from an OOC point of view; they're boring as textbooks. You'll find 2e books written from an in character perspective, something that you'd never find in 3e, and in general many of them were written to entertain and inspire, rather than just list the rules in a plodding, methodical manner. That's a loss in my opinion.

You should try reading the Iron Kingdoms books. They are written very well and don't feel as much like a text book as it does an accounting of things by those that live within.
 

wingsandsword said:
Ruleswise, 3e beats 2e any day, but flavorwise, 2e runs circles around 3e.

Agreed.

The Multiverse is something I definitely miss and feel was a real part of the "2nd Edition Feel".

<snip>

In some ways I miss it, in some ways I don't. Some settings, like Dragonlance, are better off not being connected to the others. Some, like Ravenloft, wasn't the same afterwards, IMO.

The flavor-richness of many of the setting books is also something I miss. So many books were written from an in-character point of view (at least mostly): Aurora's Whole Realms Catalog, The Factol's Manifesto, The Planewalker's Handbook, Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark, the entire Volo's Guide series. . .when you read many 2e setting books, it was like you were reading something for fun (I often did, that's for sure), you could pick up a book and immerse yourself into the campaign world. Now, books seem like so much of a textbook or a reference manual. The books are often prettier, and well made, but a certain spark of creative life is often missing.

For the most part, I agree with this sentiment as well. I don't enjoy the 3e Realms books as much as I enjoyed the 2e ones. The whole feel is different for some reason.

I will say that Dragonlance is better than ever, though I'm obviously biased, and DL is licensed.

I remember picking up my Spelljammer boxed set for the first time, and experiencing a sense of wonder. Dark Sun has a similar effect with me. I just can't seem to find that any more. I don't know if it's because I'm older, or the writing style is different, or both.


I also miss specialty priests. I liked being able to have a divine spellcaster that precisely fit his priesthood at 1st level, instead of the One Size Fits All Cleric that has to hit 6th level to get a Prestige Class that fits his faith, or multiclass and lose a level of spellcasting to try and kludge together a Specialty Priest equivalent.

Agreed. Perhaps substitution levels could be used here to tailor-make priests to become specialty priests.

I really miss that there is no option in core D&D for a (non-nature oriented) priest that is not a heavily armored, mace swinging, undead-turning battle-cleric. The Favored Soul and Mystic (from DLCS) are much closer to what I'd have in mind for many priests.

I'm a huge fan of the mystic, though again, I'm biased. ;) If I were to run Dark Sun again, I think I'd use it in place of the cleric in Dark Sun.

I appreciate all the responses on this thread thus far. It has really expanded my own thinking of what I like from what editions. :)
 

wingsandsword said:
Ruleswise, 3e beats 2e any day, but flavorwise, 2e runs circles around 3e.

Quoted for truth.


wingsandsword said:
The Multiverse is something I definitely miss and feel was a real part of the "2nd Edition Feel". The idea that all the various settings linked together, however tenuously, and could cross over as often, or rarely as the DM wanted, but the players knew that somewhere, out there was all of it. The books contributed, with the occasional offhand reference to something from somewhere else, be it a god from another world who got momentarily involved in another world's affairs, a famous wizard who crossed over for a brief stay, or an order of knights or wizards who meddled briefly in affairs beyond their normal reach. All the settings shared one universal cosmology, and through planewalking and spelljamming you could go almost anywhere (Athas was mighty hard to get into, and Ravenloft was mighty hard to get out of though).

I suppose.... but in my opinion 3e (or I should say d20 and the OGL) has allowed us to have varied and unrelated game worlds, may EXTREMELY rich, such as Scarred Lands, Midnight, Iron Kingdoms, Oathbound, etc. (many others not mentioned, yet not without merit)

To much of the linking of game worlds felt kind of.... I don't know... to marketing-esque. "Buy this, but you should know about the planes too, so buy that too." Don't get me wrong, the sheer volume of 3.xE stuff out there boggles the mind and has become a nightmare for guys like me that wants to buy everything I see. But I can focus on a game "world" and go for it, knowing that WOTC won't write a book and change canon with metaplot.

Geez... that was like 3 unlinked ideas all spurted out at once.


wingsandsword said:
The flavor-richness of many of the setting books is also something I miss. So many books were written from an in-character point of view (at least mostly): Aurora's Whole Realms Catalog, The Factol's Manifesto, The Planewalker's Handbook, Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark, the entire Volo's Guide series. . .when you read many 2e setting books, it was like you were reading something for fun (I often did, that's for sure), you could pick up a book and immerse yourself into the campaign world. Now, books seem like so much of a textbook or a reference manual. The books are often prettier, and well made, but a certain spark of creative life is often missing.

I still think there are some very good flavor rich worlds available in 3.xE, though they are not all WOTC products.
 

Heh... I just realized that during the 2e days I tried to run "2e with 1e feel"...

I'd agree that the two big emphases of 2e were kits and settings. I definitely cared for the settings a lot more than for the kits. ;)
 

the Jester said:
Heh... I just realized that during the 2e days I tried to run "2e with 1e feel"...

Ditto! Except that I was running Fantasy Hero instead.

Honestly, I couldn't get past the rules of 2e enough to find that much worthwhile flavor-wise. The best stuff for 2e IMO were the Lankhmar supplements (which owed their feel to Fritz Lieber), and The Complete Thief's Handbook -- which ALSO owed its feel to Fritz Lieber.

How about, now that people are getting through their "rediscover old school" phase, we start creating a NEW feel?

-The Gneech :cool:
 

I'd split this into two areas. DMs and players.

Stuff like CRs and wealth levels , are all DM stuff. The players never need to know what it is. They give the DM restrictive rules, that constrain the imaginination. 3E DMing by the book is a step backwards. Its trying to turn the DM into a computer . And the result is a soulless game.
If you treat all the 3E DM only rules as just guidelines, you get a better game. But for people picking up the rules for the first time, it will produce a genertion of poor DMs, who don't knon how to DM.

The player side of the 3E is great. Everything is better organised and functional. Once you have a good understanding of D20 syatem, its easy to add/houserule for thing you want to create, withing the rule structure.
Where I think there is a problem is that WOTC has a concept that the core rules , are core to every setting. Everything in the core rules ahould apply to any setting. And that you can add stuff for a setting , but not take anything away. I beilive the core rules should be more core. To allow for more setting variation. High and low magic, High and low fantasy
 

I think some of the blame regarding the sheer dullery of 3e books lies with the standardized rules set. I like that the mechanics have a reason, but sometimes the sheer cool factor just disappears. The spells in 3e are especially bad. Magic has become so mechanical. I think that the game loses something when this happens.

The other problem that has reduced some of the excellent flavor that 2e had is the idea of "options with consequences." There are no real consequences for anything these days. You even have to fail a skill check by 5 in order to have something go wrong.

They have so minimized failure that it is no wonder that players always expect to suceed. They usually do not have to worry about the consequences of failing.

I say "bring back the old resurrection when it took a week to recover from it!" :D
 

I still think that of the Complete Handbooks, that one in addition to being first, was one the best. It heralded the return of the thief-acrobat and assassin, but also really opened up the class with some great options and ideas.

The_Gneech said:
The best stuff for 2e IMO were the Lankhmar supplements (which owed their feel to Fritz Lieber), and The Complete Thief's Handbook -- which ALSO owed its feel to Fritz Lieber.
 

Jyrdan Fairblade said:
I still think that of the Complete Handbooks, that one (Thief) in addition to being first, was one the best. It heralded the return of the thief-acrobat and assassin, but also really opened up the class with some great options and ideas.
I liked them all, but the Priest was probably my favourite.

However, I got the most use out of the thief's handbook, because I must have spent days rolling up various thieves' guilds using the rules in the book. There's something about taking a completely random assortment of NPCs and then coming up with a story linking them all together which appealed to me.

The nearest I ever came to it with Complete Adventurer was spending 10 minutes seeing what sort of sorcerer / monk I could design using the Ascetic Mage feat.
 

Remove ads

Top