ADnD 2nd ED VS. 3.5

[RFisher]

I abandoned AD&D for other systems c. 1990. I thought all forms of (A)D&D were hopelessly out of date.

In 2000, I happily adopted D&D3e. I thought it was D&D the way I would have designed it.

In time, though, I became dissatisfied with it. I still happily participate in 3e games as a player, but I don't enjoy running the system.

I've also realized that if I looked at classic D&D & AD&D without expectations, I rediscovered the joy that they used to give me before I started wanting them to be more general or more realistic or more flexible or whatever.

I could enjoy AD&D2e (sans kits & the other later options), but I prefer the c.1981 Basic & Expert sets.

 

[Bregh]

I presently run three individual campaigns:

1) OAD&D (1st edition)-- ongoing since 1994, personally playing since 1982 or so. Still my favourite version of D&D; this group meets once/month, usually.

2) OD&D (classic white box + supplements + Holmes' edit Basic D&D)-- this campaign began just before Christmas, and is currently my favourite campaign; this group has met once every week pretty much since it began. If the pace and level of fun keep up, it may very well eclipse OAD&D as my overall favourite.

3) d20 Everquest RPG--a fun, solid campaign. We meet, on average, twice/month. The Player group is considerably smaller than either of those above (only 3 participants, vs. 4 OD&D and 9 OAD&D above) so it has a closer-knit feel. I run it because 2 of the participants (who are very good friends) generally prefer the d20 system for what it does in terms of character customisation, and I'm happy to indulge them. Were it not for their preference, however, I likely wouldn't be running a d20 game: I find the prep time draining, encounters can be quite involved (meticulous attention to detail required to get the most out of skill and feat options), and background/colour elements are often constrained by the short time period we set aside to game.

In the past three years I've also run a 2nd edition AD&D Ravenloft Campaign and a d20 D&D campaign, which were fun, but basically dwindled due to my lack of enthusiasm for the rules I was using. 2nd edition bogged down while trying to streamline the material, and I was spending so much time trying to recreate OAD&D with 3rd edition, I felt I was better off just sticking with OAD&D.

I've also recently acquired the C&C rules, and my third group is interested in giving them a try once our present campaign winds up (2-3 months), so for now, an official verdict is still out (though on paper I find it quite appealing).

 

[Kae'Yoss]

3e.

 

[HellHound]

I can't really comment on the differences between 2e and 3e, as I am one of the many gamers who left the D&D fold with the release of 2e...

What appeals to me as a game writer about 3e is the modularity, but even more it is the unified mechanic. I love unified mechanics. And the d20 mechanic is clean and simple and works well, without going into strange other rules for surprise, thief abilities, NWPs, and so on.

 

[Gundark]

Diaglo will come......pimping OD&D........these kinds of threads seem to attract him

 

[Darth K'Trava]

As I've never played 2e, I'd have to go with 3e and 3.5 e. From what I've seen of earlier rulebooks, I'd have to say that the 3.5 rules are easier to deal with. They seem to streamline stuff to make it easier than a whole bunch of tables. I do look at a few 2e supplements for "fluff" that 3e just doesn't have.

 

[diaglo]

i prefer OD&D.

OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.


for me OD&D > OD&D with supplements > 1edADnD > 2edD&D Holmes > 3edD&D Holmes > Moldvay/CookD&D > 1edADnD post UA > Mentzer D&D > Alliston D&D > 2edADnD > 2edADnD post kits > 4edHackmaster >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2000ed > 3.11ed for Workgroups.

 

[der_kluge]

I do admit, though, that I'm puzzled that some people seem to be saying that "munchkinism" is a problem only with 3e. Do they not remember some of the class kits and player options found in 2e?

Egads, all too well. We loved Skills and Powers, in fact we used it, and I even modified my homebrew character sheets to support all the new ability scores, and other things. But man was it munchkiny. That should have just called those books "the munchkin's guide to D&D". Wow.

But the ideas in them were exciting and different, and the breakout of the stats really made a lot of sense. It just allowed for too much munchkinism.

 

[Numion]

D&D was a laughing stock in our group in the 90's. All the limitations and general nonsense was too much. Our tastes might have been at fault though, because my players were crazy about Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay - which has quite nonsensical rules in itself!

Somehow 3e sparked my interest (ok, Eric Noahs 3e site how), and I bought the book. I had to convince my group to try it (they were reluctant), but once we did, our gaming rose to new heights. We played over once a week, long sessions, everyone was hyped about the game - and still are.

From the release of 3e to this day we've played about once a week. Amazing. The game just keeps us interested like no other game has thus far. So hell yeah I (and my group) prefer 3e. 2ed gets no love around my way

ps I'm going to cop the new Warhammer anyway, even though we'll probably not play it, since it was very essential to our groups growth as roleplayers. Ran my first real campaign with the first edition.

 

[Ravellion]

Once you go 3e, you can't ever go back playing 2nd. The simple and streamlined rules meant that I could come up with ideas without asking for a DM on how his particular interpretation of the rules was (even initiative: I've never had two 2e groups use the same rules). As a Dm, it means that I don't have to constantly explain how I interpret the rules, and focus on the important stuff.

Of course, I have houseruled and "Unearthed Arcana"d my session to even greater heights of simplicity.

Rav