Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Eldritch_Lord" data-source="post: 5702106" data-attributes="member: 52073">There weren't as many edition wars over the 2e/3e transition, and those that existed weren't as bad, because 3e was more of a "logical transition" from 2e for many people: it incorporated houserules that people were already using or dropped rules they'd been ignoring for a while, it kept the mechanical basis for the game mostly the same while revising the core (to the point that a plurality of 3e spells, items, and other features were directly copy-pasted from 2e), and it just generally flowed better.  On the other hand, while 1e->2e was basically a fluff change to remove the "objectionable" material and introduce a bunch of new settings and 2e->3e kept the fluff and overall structure mostly the same while tweaking the mechanical core, 4e changed quite a bit about both at the same time, which is why the "3e is Diablo!" and "Put the A back in my D&D!" and similar misguided comments weren't nearly as vehement in 2000 as the "4e is WoW!" and such were in 2008.As to which edition I prefer, I'm torn.  On the one hand, when it comes to rules-heavy systems like D&D and GURPS, I'm a very strong believer in the DM/GM "playing by the same rules as the players," by which I mean the GM controls the world and can make you lose if he wants, so the real challenge is to work within the rules to make good challenges and exciting monsters and stuff.  Giving monsters arbitrary abilities, tweaking numbers on the fly if the baddies are dying too easily, or fudging rolls aren't really kosher in my book.  That's why I like 3e's more consistent and comprehensive rules base, the fact that monsters run on the same system as the PCs and monsters are playable, and similar changes that mean you can run adventures without the slightest need to make up rules or use DM fiat.  Not that it would be a problem if I did, of course--my players trust me and I trust them, and I houserule where necessary--but it's the principle of the thing.On the other hand, while conceptually 3e is everything I ever wanted, the implementation kind of sucked.  Monsters use the same system as the PCs...but it takes too long to stat random mooks.  Combat maneuvers are now standardized for everyone...but they're rarely worth it.  And so on and so forth; no need to rehash 3e's balance problems.  3e is one of the most playtested games out there, and is actually better-balanced and less-breakable than any of them, but when it comes right down to it AD&D didn't really have a magic/martial disparity nearly as bad as that of 3e (thanks to different XP tracks, the casting/initiative system, the lack of Concentration, etc.), there weren't nearly as many "trap options" as in 3e (because blasting actually worked, movement rules meant tanking was possible, etc.), and generally the problems that 2e and 3e share aren't as bad in 2e.  The fiddly and clunky things of 2e like THAC0, weapon speeds, and the like weren't ever problems for my groups because we were a bunch of math nerds who could handle varying subsystems and confusing details and such just fine.So overall, I'd have to say I like both, as much of a cop-out as that might seem to be.  Both let you stat practically anything, given Players Options/UA/splatbooks; both have that uniquely D&D flavor of alignment and color-coded dragons and Vancian magic and such; both are games I grew up with (though technically it went 2e->1e->3e with my group).</blockquote>

Verification