Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RenoOfTheTurks" data-source="post: 1793832" data-attributes="member: 11634">Huh.&nbsp; I liked the extra options.&nbsp; Not ONCE did players in my campaigns do something so over the top as to unbalance a game.&nbsp; The games got more dangerous, certainly, with the dire critical effects and advanced specialization rules (and you know some BBEGs were grand masters of their weapons).&nbsp; The rules for using your surroundings in battle were cool, as were the campaign suggestions in High Level Campaigns, part of the same series....I didn't play 1E.&nbsp; I don't think that 2E encouraged min/maxing nearly as much as 3E does, though maybe the possibilities for such were greater.&nbsp; Wasn't a big concern of mine, or a problem for my groups.&nbsp; The feel of most 2E products was more immersive.&nbsp; Now it feels like I've bought new Magic cards every time I buy a book...yay, more kewl rule manipulations...not.As for the dislike of 2E in favor of 1E.&nbsp; A large segment of OD&amp;Ders liked Greyhawk.&nbsp; A lot.&nbsp; They're entitled to their opinion that the Bandit Kingdom or whatever it's called, was the raddest thing ever.&nbsp; But I don't value their judgments for one second as they bash the FR in fits of jealousy.People I know who played in FR loved that the timeline moved forward in a canonical way.&nbsp; Our home campaigns could always alter the published setting.&nbsp; It's common sense, unless you've already got a grudge.&nbsp; A setting tells you how the world is.&nbsp; Maybe if you don't like the world, then you b**ch if you have nothing better to do.&nbsp; I don't care for Eberron, but I'd never waste time insulting it except to mention it for the purposes of saying I'd never waste time insulting it.&nbsp; And I personally think good settings include changes with subsequent product releases.&nbsp; FR, Planescape, Ravenloft all did it well, I think.The good fluff/bad crunch distinction, I think, captures how a lot of people feel about 2E.&nbsp; And about 3E.&nbsp; One camp is hung up on the possibilities for munchkinism in the 2E ruleset, especially the Player's Option books, while others including myself think 3E is almost goading (new) players to focus on creating uber-characters and focus mostly on statistics.&nbsp; It's the invasion of a mentality, I guess like what some say was happening with the &quot;fluff&quot; in 2E.&nbsp; Bad crunch to some means lack of balance, while to others it means focusing on crunch to the exclusion of roleplaying.&nbsp; But you can't win this game.&nbsp; It's not Magic, yet.&nbsp; D&amp;D Minis is, basically, but hey.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RenoOfTheTurks, post: 1793832, member: 11634"] Huh. I liked the extra options. Not ONCE did players in my campaigns do something so over the top as to unbalance a game. The games got more dangerous, certainly, with the dire critical effects and advanced specialization rules (and you know some BBEGs were grand masters of their weapons). The rules for using your surroundings in battle were cool, as were the campaign suggestions in High Level Campaigns, part of the same series. ... I didn't play 1E. I don't think that 2E encouraged min/maxing nearly as much as 3E does, though maybe the possibilities for such were greater. Wasn't a big concern of mine, or a problem for my groups. The feel of most 2E products was more immersive. Now it feels like I've bought new Magic cards every time I buy a book...yay, more kewl rule manipulations...not. As for the dislike of 2E in favor of 1E. A large segment of OD&Ders liked Greyhawk. A lot. They're entitled to their opinion that the Bandit Kingdom or whatever it's called, was the raddest thing ever. But I don't value their judgments for one second as they bash the FR in fits of jealousy. People I know who played in FR loved that the timeline moved forward in a canonical way. Our home campaigns could always alter the published setting. It's common sense, unless you've already got a grudge. A setting tells you how the world is. Maybe if you don't like the world, then you b**ch if you have nothing better to do. I don't care for Eberron, but I'd never waste time insulting it except to mention it for the purposes of saying I'd never waste time insulting it. And I personally think good settings include changes with subsequent product releases. FR, Planescape, Ravenloft all did it well, I think. The good fluff/bad crunch distinction, I think, captures how a lot of people feel about 2E. And about 3E. One camp is hung up on the possibilities for munchkinism in the 2E ruleset, especially the Player's Option books, while others including myself think 3E is almost goading (new) players to focus on creating uber-characters and focus mostly on statistics. It's the invasion of a mentality, I guess like what some say was happening with the "fluff" in 2E. Bad crunch to some means lack of balance, while to others it means focusing on crunch to the exclusion of roleplaying. But you can't win this game. It's not Magic, yet. D&D Minis is, basically, but hey. [/QUOTE]

Verification