Explaining 3.5 to a 2nd Edition Veteran

[William Ronald]

Spider, if the new players are familiar with the Skills and Powers Options Books (a group I was formerly in sometimes called it 2.5 before3.0 was released), point out what is similar in 3.5. As I recall, Skills and Powers had attacks of opportunity, and the ability to customize an individual character of a given race.

If you are playing in a published campaign setting, possibly showing how any major NPCs have changed between editions might be useful. I also like werk's prerolled generic character -- working with a preexisting character as an example might be a useful step to introduce players to the differences between editions. (In an old homebrew campaign I was involved in, there was a ranger NPC who served much the same purpose. Someone without a character would play him for a while, chose a character, and the ranger "just wandered off.")

I think that one can see 3.0 as an evolution of some late concepts in 2nd Edition. So, IMHO D&D 3.5 is not a completely different game from previous editions. Many of the concepts in previous editions, including some character classes (or prestige classes), have appeared in 3.0 and 3.5. So, let's figure out more ways to help Spider's new players.

 

[Caedrel]

Interesting...

I agree that the advice to ignore ALL of the posts saying to "forget everything, etc" was overly general: however, I do think Ike had a valid point that some of those posts were disparaging 3e qualititatively. Certainly it seems that the majority have interpreted Diaglo's statement "IT AIN'T D&D" not as a very reasonable statement that 3e D&D <> pre-3e D&D, but as an inflammatory statement that 3e has somehow lost the essence of what made D&D fun. It's hard interpreting nuances on message boards, but from the other comments I've seen, it looks like Diaglo's views are well known elsewhere. By refusing to acknowledge this, Akrasia is hurting her own otherwise well constructed arguments.

She does have a point that "better" is an entirely subjective perception, though. For those people who think consistency and transparency and balance is important in a a set of mechanics, then 3e will be "better" than the D&D versions that preceded it. However, some people won't share this view because they like the greater absolute (and therefore potentially arbitrary ) power previous editions invested in the DM, giving him (or her) more freedom to forcibly direct the PCs into situations for the sake of storytelling or atmosphere or whatever. By codifying a lot of these things, 3e has taken a lot of the mysticism and perhaps some of the romanticism out of the game. Personally, I like 3e very much.

Spider, I think it would be helpful to post just how experienced your "new" players were in 2e - much of the advice in this thread assumes that they had a very deep and still current knowledge of the 2e rules, but if they only played it in high school and had only a very high level view of it, then they may not have that much to "unlearn" and can just start over with the game mechanics.

I think it's worth pointing out that the things they need to forget really only relates to the game mechanics, though... they'll find that, flavour-wise, 3e tries to retain much of the settings and history that they are familiar with, whether they were Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms fans. Mind flayers and beholders are still ultra dangerous, drow still super cool dwarves still doughty, halflings still short, etc etc etc

 

[diaglo]

With the exception of Diaglo they were not knocking 3e.

i wasn't knocking. i was beating a dead horse.

 

[Gentlegamer]

. . . halflings still short, etc etc etc

Be sure to point out that now standard halflings are actually kender.

 

[Maliki]

Forget anything and everything you know, and approach it like a completely new and different game.

Exactly.

 

[TerraDave]

To Clarify:

3rd ed is better then 2nd ed FULL STOP

To answer the question, it may depend on "what" 2nd edition they were playing.

W Ronald is right about the options books. We went from an options campaign to 3.0 pretty effortlessly (helped by the fact that 3.0 was so much cleaner and more coherent). None of this "forget everything you know" nonesense.

Even if the players know a more plain vanilla form of 2ed, there are still a lot of commanalities in both overall structure but also a lot of "legacy" details. I don't think you need to explain that much upfront, though some of the suggestions from above won't hurt. But just aproach it like any RPG. Make charecters and start playing.

 

[Akrasia]

To Clarify:

3rd ed is better then 2nd ed FULL STOP
...

Gee -- thanks for clarifying that.

I never even played 2nd ed, but this strikes me as complete, annoying, arrogant crap.

What makes a game great is the DM and storyline.

FULL STOP.

 

[diaglo]

To Clarify:

3rd ed is better then 2nd ed FULL STOP

Oooo let me play this game.

To Clarify:

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


FULL STOP.

 

[TerraDave]

Ooh that got a good response (I have to try more of that FULL STOP).

But its not aragonce. I didn't write the 3ed rules, and played 2ed for many years in many forms. And we had a great time...hence my confidence...but if you play 2ed and like it and are used to THACO and the saves and a the kind of DM adjudication that is needed and the way it goes at high levels then good, enjoy.

 

[Akrasia]

... But its not aragonce. I didn't write the 3ed rules, and played 2ed for many years in many forms.

The generalization based on your own idiosyncratic experience is arrogance. The fact that you didn't write 3e has nothing to do with it.

And we had a great time...hence my confidence...but if you play 2ed and like it and are used to THACO and the saves and a the kind of DM adjudication that is needed and the way it goes at high levels then good, enjoy.

Whatever. I didn't even play 2e, but I can smell arrogant dismissiveness here, no problem. (I never understood the whole brouhaha over THAC0 anyway. THAC0 is a piece of cake. And IME keeping track of different feats, skills, class abilities, etc. is not any easier!)

But what I find most amusing is the way in which pre-3e critics disparage the need for 'DM adjudication' in earlier versions of D&D -- as though there exists some 'DM-independent' 'fact-of-the-matter' in 3e that successfully 'reigns in' the DM. What a load of rubbish.

People forget that the DM creates the whole bloody world. There is not some DM-independent 'fact' that determines whether or not a trap has a DC of 20 as opposed to 23, or whether a particular orc has 1HD as opposed to 3HD. The notion that the DM needs to be 'controlled' in 3e is both noxious and ridiculous. If you don't trust you DM to run a good game -- in any system (RC D&D, 3e, GURPS, Unisystem, whatever) -- then you shouldn't be playing in that group.

FULL STOP.