Has 3E become too much like 2E yet?

[Treebore]

This applies only to those of us who used to play 2E.

Many of us either quit 2E because of all the extra rules books, or kept playing and ignored the extra books, or kept playing and used the extra books to some extent.

So I am curious. How do you feel about all these extra rules books in 3E compared to how you felt about the similiar books in 2E?


In 2E I owned all the optional books and other books, but I largely ignored what was in them. Out of all the Optional books I think I used 5 rules out of them. I used none of the kits. I used Specialty Priests wholesale.

In 3E I found myself doing much the same thing. Using very little and ignoring 90%+. The only main difference for me this time around was even though I ignored so much of it, I was still open to using most of it sometime down the road.

So all these extra books in 3E have much more "potential" for my using them in the future, where as with 2E after I combed through the books I had no desire to go back to them. No further use possible for me. I could have burned or got rid of them and I would never have missed them.

With 3E I have to admit that I regularly like to read through them for new ideas to use.

Since I am most excited by products that give me new ideas, or neat twists on old ideas, I have to admit that 3E has been the best edition for me on that particular front.

I still have the same over all feeling with 3E that 2E gave me. Too much stuff for a "simple" game. But I do get a lot more re-reading mileage this time around.

So how does your experience compare this time around?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The supplements are a LOT more balanced this time around -- although still not perfect -- and the add-on systems are much more modular, instead of being replacements for core elements.

 

[Treebore]

So your liking it much better this time around?

 

[Blackwind]

I played 2E, owned a great deal of the splatbooks, and used almost all of the 'extra' material -- specialty priests, elven bladesingers, even Player's Option. At the time, I welcomed the new ideas. On the other hand, I was in junior high. Even then, though, I realized that my friend's Wood Elf Bladesinger with 19 Str (iirc) was ridiculously overpowered and was ruining my campaign. By the time we were playing with all three Player's Option books, our group was starting to fall apart. Mind you, that might have happened anyway; we were a scrappy bunch of kids.

As for 3.x, yes, I am getting tired of the splatbooks. Yes, I think the situation is *similar* to the situation at the end of 2E (i.e. when they came out with the PO books). It is interesting that you say you are getting so much inspiration from the new supplements; personally, I don't like them so much. I liked the *flavor* of (most of) the 2E supplements (favorites included the Complete Book of Elves and the Complete Paladin's Handbook as well as the blue DM series and the green Historical Reference series). Like I said though, I was in middle school. I would certainly react to these products differently if they were released now. That said, I am not a big fan of the 3E splatbooks. The 'statistical optimization' aspect of the game does not appeal to me at all, and the fluffy parts of the new books are not really to my taste. I like very little of the art, and I think most of the writing is either corny or legalistic. I have said before that some of the setting materials are well done (Eberron is very well designed, even if after running a game in it I've decided I don't like the feel) -- here I am referring mostly to the rules supplements like, say, PHB2.

Completely subjective aesthetic problems aside, though, the new sourcebooks present a great deal of crunch that I would never want to use in my game. Obviously, other people do and that's great. But I see the direction all this new material is taking my game in and I don't like it. As the DM, it's my responsibility (and prerogative) to intervene before all these new rules get in the way of a fun game, and you can bet that I will do whatever it takes. YMMV.

Sorry for rambling; it's Valentine's Day and I've had a few glasses of wine.

After re-reading the OP, let me just say this -- I used to read and re-read my 2E supplements all the time for inspiration, while I have a huge stack of 3.x books that I never even finished reading because they were so boring (once again, IMHO and YMMV, etc).

Sorry if this comes off as rude or edition-warsy, that is not my intention at all. I play 3.5 and do like a few of the writers and game designers who currently work for WotC.

 

[MerricB]

Hmm - no, I don't think it's that similar.

Mind you, I use a *lot* of D&D supplementary material in my campaigns. In the 2e days, I mostly shied away from it (until Player's Option), mainly because so much of it was *bad*.

More to the point, my players love the new material.

Cheers!

 

[Treebore]

Blackwind,

Nope. This is what I am looking for. There were certain extra books in 2E I really liked, like all the ones about Specialty Priests.

I did like elements of a lot of the books you mentioned, I just never found myself re-reading them just for the heck of it. Or I don't remember doing it. This is over 6 years ago now, and my brain is definitely acting older (forgetful).

By and large I don't like most of the new books. Adventures are what I like to reread the most.

But I do find myself re-reading Libris Mortis, Book of 9 Swords, UA, and parts of the Complete books. PH2 and DMG2 have been books my kids have liked much more than I.

Generally I don't reread the stuff for the rules, at least not as written. Book of 9 Swords I like because the "idea" is pretty darn cool. I'm just not a fan of their ideas on how to implement it. So when I reread it I am also trying to think of ways to implement in a manner I would like.

So, no, I am not in any way offended by your post. It is very much the kind of feedback I am looking for.

 

[Echohawk]

More to the point, my players love the new material.

What Merric said. In 2nd Edition, only rarely did my players find the expansion books interesting or balanced enough to want to use. In 3.X however, most of them have bought books beyond the PH and actively use them. (Especially the Complete range, Player's Handbook II and Spell Compendium.)

So perhaps the biggest difference between 2nd and 3rd Edition is that I'm no longer the only person lugging several heavy books to each game session .

 

[molonel]

Yes. 3rd Edition D&D is well on its way to experiencing 2nd Edition rules creep. I now have Tome and Blood, The Complete Arcane and The Complete Mage on my shelf. Do I really want to buy The Complete Scoundrel and set it next to Song and Silence and The Complete Adventurer? I have two sets of PHB, DMG and MM. Monster Manual FIVE will be out later this year, and they are closing on 1,000 prestige classes in WotC published materials alone, nevermind 3rd party materials, worlds and publishers.

These days, it's more of a matter of choosing what you do NOT want to use, and many people I know are trimming material down and running grittier, low magic and more character-oriented stories and campaigns that focus on less gear and more options with less classes and prestige classes. Unearthed Arcana, in that regard, and alternate rules sets like Iron Heroes and Conan d20 are more important than another crap-shoot of spells, magic items and prestige classes bundled together in yet another unsufficiently playtested book.

So yes, to answer your question, my friends and I are ignoring less than we're using. I've tired of reading books and looking for break points, and trying to anticipate broken material and bad prestige class combinations. I want stuff I can use in my games, and most of the stuff that comes out doesn't hit that bar.

 

[green slime]

I've been a T$R/WotC fanboy / DnD junkee for a long time. Almost long enough to earn the title grognard. Not quite, but almost.

IMO, I think we have reached the point of saturation, were what is produced has very little meaning/influence on our community, and only serves to fragment it even further. That said, at all stages of the game I've participated in (1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5), I've always found gems produced that have enriched my game and added to my fun.

These days, production values are higher: the books are glossier, better bound, colour pictures throughout. Yet none of that actually adds to the quality of the game. It just increases its saleability. Durability at the table is nice, but hardly neccessary when it is just collecting dust on my bookshelf.

I find I own many more 3.x books that have recieved no more than a single casual reading, than any previous edition. In fact, I think I still look at my 1e PHB and DMG more often than some of the later purchases. I too, find much of the latest 3.e fluff either corny, completely inappropriate for my campaign, or uninspiring. The crunch can often be described in the same words. IMO, the same symptoms were occuring at the end of 2e.

There are fantastic gems: Tome of Magic was nothing if not inspiring (too bad it fell over at the finish line), Libris Mortis, & Book of Horror.

 

[Nightfall]

Tree,

No because unlike 2nd edition, the novels don't play that huge a role in the "default" D&D world of Greyhawk.

FR and Eberron might have their "quirks" but as long as there's not tons of novels to mess with stuff, and decent Dragon/Dungeon stuff, I'm all for it.

But then I'm biased to 3.x since it's given me d20 which led into Scarred Lands.