Has 3E become too much like 2E yet?

[Voadam]

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?

I played 2e had a bunch of extra rules books and used a bunch of them (lots of spells from Tome of Magic, Forgotten Realms Adventures Hardcover, and Complete Wizard's Handbook; fighting styles, kits, and new weapons from Complete Fighter's Handbook; specialty priests from a variety of sources; etc.) I had more stuff than I used.

Pretty much the same in 3e.

I've got a 3.5 character (who started in 2e with a kit and various odd source spells) with spells from Tome and Blood, Quintessential Wizard, Spells and Magic, Oriental Adventures, Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, Into the Blue, Complete Mage, and Player's Handbook II.

Course this happened with 1e too. I had a character with martial arts and spells from Oriental Adventures, proficiencies from Dungeoneers Survival Guide, and spells and magic items from Unearthed Arcana.

 

[Korgoth]

In my opinion, 2e really did glut the market with a bunch of needless supplemental material ("Complete Book of Half-Elf Bards Rolled Up On A Tuesday") and each tome added more rules and often lame ideas, and that did indeed feed into my frustration with it. Although it was probably not 2e's undoing... I'm not schooled in these matters but I imagine that it was unwise to release and aggressively support a bunch of different settings at once: you're mostly just chopping up your own market.

3e is worse off than 2e in my opinion because even in "core only", which is certainly the only way I'd run 3e (not that I will again) the rules are already out of control (see thread where mages pump out over 100 points of damage a round with a 2nd level spell). If you add in supplemental material you go from "cat lady" crazy to "criminally insane" crazy pretty quickly, with the fearsome spectre of Pun Pun haunting the DM's stress dreams. But there's a certain crowd that's into that, and they're not dividing their own market too much (it's fine to have a few different settings, espcially with a really oddball one like Eberron that will draw in people who might not have played otherwise).

So I would say that for me it's already way worse than 2e and there's probably no fixing it. But perhaps their strategy is a bit more savvy than last time... though really that remains to be seen. I think there has been a surge of interest in old school gaming precisely because there's an experience that 3e doesn't and cannot deliver. It's really too soon to declare 3e's business model a success.

 

[WayneLigon]

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

I'd have to say that if you actually still buy them but don't use them, then you're 'part of the problem'; as long as people buy new releases, new releases will continue to be released and that's that.

I don't think any roleplaying game has ever destroyed itself by having too many options. If the majority of gamers really liked rules-lite systems, we'd see more of them and they'd be more popular. Instead, we have D&D, GURPS, RIFTS and a couple others, all very rules-heavy.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Core rules only. It works with all editions of D&D. The existance of a supplemental/optional rule book does not affect my game in the least. It would not affect your game either, if you did not take action to bring it in.

Complaining about supplemental/optional rule books hurting your D&D game is like complaining that McDonalds is making you fat. If you don't turn into the parking lot, if you don't order the Big Mac, if you don't eat it, it won't make you fat.

Quasqueton

Agreed. Coming from HERO system I guess I look at the D20 system like a toolkit as opposed to a MUST USE EVERYTHING mindset that some of the people in this thread seem to have. If I'm playing in a game I defer to the DM, if he wants to run a core only game or limit expansions to specific books that's his call. The same thing when I run my games, especially with new players, I start off with core only, then as I get used to their playstyle I make a judgement as to whether I want to open things up by a case by case basis.

Just because a player buys every splatbook out there doesnt entitle him to use all of that stuff in the game that I'm running. All of this talk about rules creep only applies if you let it, no one is forcing you to buy these books sight unseen. Rules creep only happens if you let it.

 

[SpiderMonkey]

This is possibly the most awesome mixed metaphor I've ever used.

*sigh* I've resisted for years, but please sign me up for Hong's fan list. Nicely done.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Tree,

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

Thank you, that's another reason why I abandonded 2E. Not so much as all the rules additions alot of which left a bad taste, but in finding players who we'rent married to what ever was going on in the books at the time. These players didnt want to play D&D they wanted to play out what was going on in the FR or DL books at the time and I had no interest in running that kind of game.

It's big part of my aversion in playing in and or running FR games now. When I was looking for players for my most recent game anyone who replied with "I'd prefer to play in FR but..." was automatically discounted from consideration.

 

[XO]

No, Not At All...

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...

1e was written in quirky but interesting style
2e was influenced by that style and the blah people tried to railroad the writing into something a little easier to interpret, but it was still legible w/o dying off...

3e holds some of the most horrid writing style and platitudes I have ever seen anywhere, let alone not even being written in English (the s/he his/her thing really gives me the creeps) by what appear to be feminist fanboys or feminist management. Don't know which, don't care!

It is all too repetitive in style, too boring, too generic, too "tries to be all things to all people" and too feminist pinkoe...

 

[Shade]

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.

Ditto on all the above.

I'd also state that 3E hasn't become enough like 2E in one area...campaign settings. Bemoan the number of settings and the effect it had on the game all you'd like, but it's hard to argue that the quality of most of the 3E setting supplements are even remotely on par with the majority of 2E setting supplements. Ironically, the "generic" campaign setting of Greyhawk has gotten the best, most cohesive supplementary material in 3E (Fiendish Codices, "Paizohawk", etc.)

 

[DaveyJones]

This is possibly the most awesome mixed metaphor I've ever used.

those are in the Book of Exotic Corn by the Malox Project.
or is that the Complete Corn?

i forget they all run together.

 

[Agamon]

So how does your experience compare this time around?

I didn't quit 2E because there were too many books. I quit because I got tired of the ruleset, both core (XP tables, multiclassing) and supplimental (kits).

3.5E is a fun game, on the other hand. I have few issues with it that are no more than quibbles.

So, for me, no, 2E and 3E are absolutlely nothing alike.