3rd Edition Rules, 2nd Edition Feel?

[Cam Banks]

I want to get back to it being all about the story.

I only started to feel that it was about the story when I started playing 3rd edition D&D, so this is another interesting example of perspectives.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[painandgreed]

What do you define second edition feel as? I think that defintion really needs to be stated first.

When I hear it, I can only think of the system. An older feel means no unified XP chart, no feats (or all characters of the same class gets the same feats), a multitude of charts, and no easy multi-classing. If you tell a story, roleplay, or run a tactical game is all part of how the DM works it not the game system. Or rather, there isn't enough diference between the D&D systems to say that one promotes one type of play while another promotes a different style. I've never felt more restricted in 3.x than older editions. If there was a rule for it in 3.x, then there was probably a rule for it buried in the AD&D DMG and I can ignore a 3.x rule just as easily as I could ignore a AD&D rule.

 

[JustKim]

When the Advanced books (Both Green Ronin and Sword & Sorcery) were advertised I imagined them to have a 2E feel and that was what made me interested in them. If I were to define that 2E feel I'd call it extraneous, faux realism rules which bog down the system, in all honesty, and I was not interested in them for playing so much as for reading. After buying Green Ronin's book I realized this is not actually what the book is at all, it's just modular optional rules that aren't that good. I've never seen Sword & Sorcery's Advanced book so I can't speak to it.

I hadn't thought any about 2E feel until I bought Eldritch Sorcery, and it definitely brought back the interest in a good way. I went out and bought $80 in old 2E books recently for some of the unkempt imagination which is still absent in a lot of 3E products.

I must admit that I felt far less constrained by the game mechanics back in 2nd edition. Now I feel like if it's not in the rulebooks, I shouldn't do it; or alternately, if I want to do it I need to find a spell/feat/template/etc. combo that works, rather than handwaving something as magic and getting on with a rousing tale.

I'd wager this is an issue with not being familiar with the system, not the system itself. 3E is certainly no more restrictive than 2E was, many of the rules and concepts of 3E came from late 2E products, and there is as much encouragement of creative liberty as there ever was. If you're afraid you can't do something, it's not because the system is telling you that you can't.

 

[edemaitre]

D&D3.5/D20 with AD&D feel...

Don't forget Kenzer's Hackmaster series...

 

[Shemeska]

From my perspective (as someone who started playing in 3e, and never played a 1e or 2e game) the 2e 'feel' was one of expansive, incredibly rich and detailed campaign settings, and to a lesser extent, a push towards linked and longterm plots rather than just single adventures, and a move towards style, flavor, and DM empowerment at the expense of the explicite rules. That was what I gathered anyways, though I've never played within the actual ruleset of 2e, which as I understand it was a bit obtuse at times.

I could care less about rules, so that's not a part of 2e that I'd want to bring back; rather I'd like the non rules material, the richness of the settings, and the stylistic elements of 2e design philosophy to show their face more often. To me there was a feel of wonder and richness that I never gathered from the 1e material I've read, or as much from the 3e material from WotC as I've found in the 2e Planescape, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, and FR material.

You just don't find that in 3e material. You now see a reduction in setting detail so you can put in some more feats, PrCs and 'crunch'. Crunch doesn't inspire me, and I doubt it inspires many people. And so now, an edition later, I'm finding incredible use out of old 2e books for their flavor and detail, and I likely still will in 4e when my 3e books are largely relegated to obsolescence with the change of the ruleset when their crunch is useless, their rules irrelevant, and their typically thin fluff won't hold a candle to the 2e books.

Others may feel differently. Most of the anti-2e feeling I find is by disaffected original 1e players, the substance of which is certainly debateable, but best saved for another thread. And also, perhaps in their defense, keep in mind that I'm looking back on probably only the best aspects of 2e, when its ruleset might have had flaws worthy of valid criticism. The design philosophy and flavor though were often brilliant, and it's a loss to see a reduction in their influence in 3e with a romantic resurgence of 1e ideals in some products.

 

[ForceUser]

I'd wager this is an issue with not being familiar with the system, not the system itself. 3E is certainly no more restrictive than 2E was, many of the rules and concepts of 3E came from late 2E products, and there is as much encouragement of creative liberty as there ever was. If you're afraid you can't do something, it's not because the system is telling you that you can't.

I agree that it's largely mental; however, there is also a much higher expectation these days that a DM will always follow the RAW, and my groups seem to see it as much more of an issue in 3E when I don't. In past editions, DMs were expected to use a ton of house rules. I never caught guff about doing so. Now, whenever I deviate from core rules, I have to justify it or deal with disgruntled players.

 

[EricNoah]

To me, 2E = Kits, as far as the main rules design element that was pretty unique. I would love to see something like that for 3rd Ed -- not prestige classes, but maybe base classes that allow a lot of pick-n-choose type abilities at each level.

 

[KenSeg]

<It was all about the story.>

Forceuser stated a very deep cord with this comment. I have been playing D&D in one form or another since 1978. There have been numerous threads about old school feeling, etc... and this one statement sums it up for me. It just feels like the story has been lost due to too much material/options/whatever. When I read threads now, they are full of fine tunning this prestige class or planning sets of feats to achieve this souped up toon. Now instead of the dreams of some goat farming youth who picks up a sword and gets swept up in a magnificent adventure, it is comments about half dragon/half ogre spiked chain yielding mega master prestige dude with 14 feats that allow him to insta-kill gods or some such. Yeah, I know it is an exaggeration.

Even in my own playing I see it. My first character with my current group, 20 years back now, was named Garth and he was an average fighter with a 16 strength and no special abilities or feats. Just a heart that would not stop and a sense of adventure that helped me play him well. He participated in a wonderful story that our DM crafted, one that I can still remember today.

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!!!

-KenSeg
Gaming since 1978

 

[Argus Decimus Mokira]

To me, 2E = Kits, as far as the main rules design element that was pretty unique. I would love to see something like that for 3rd Ed -- not prestige classes, but maybe base classes that allow a lot of pick-n-choose type abilities at each level.

My reply exactly. Grew up with 2nd edition, and the one thing I would say HAS to be present for "2nd edition" feel is a kit mechanic. In short, I would define a kit as "fluff-based mechanical differences for base classes." Feats go some way to diferentiate one fighter from another, but with kits a noble warrior (Complete Fighter's Handbook) was muvh different from a Templar Knight (Crusade's Handbook). Even better were the wizard kits, which, when combined with specialization, could really differentiate one wizard from another.

A close second to kits in required 2e feel is Planescape dependence. 2e was when the planes were codified and connected in a way that I haven't seen in previous material, and which is lacking in 3e core material. In large part, this is due to the Planescape setting, but also, to lesser extents, Spelljammer and Ravenloft. The connections between the settings were numerous and well-defined, which occasionally pop up in 3e, but nowhere near the extent of late 2e products. This isn't necessarily a good or bad thing, it's just a thing.

All of the above is IMO.

Thanks,
-Matt

 

[Dragonhelm]

To me, 2E = Kits, as far as the main rules design element that was pretty unique. I would love to see something like that for 3rd Ed -- not prestige classes, but maybe base classes that allow a lot of pick-n-choose type abilities at each level.

We're starting to see this sort of thing with substitution levels. Most of these have been for kits, but Champions of Valor has introduced the idea of using them for organizations.

In essence, they're kits, but you have an even trade-off of abilities.