Is 3e a different game than 1e/2e?

[Storminator]

Hey all you who purport and state that 3e is a "better" game, That is an opinion and not an absolute as some state. If you say you're of the opinion, or you think or for you it is a better game, I have no quibble. But a bald statement, "3e is a better game," is a closed-minded statement, IMHO. If I said OAD&D was better than 3e, I'd get plenty of argument. I <i>prefer</i> OAD&D and it is a better system for me. That states that I am open to other opinions and I'm not putting myself above anyone because my system is "better."

This always puzzles me. Why do people have to say they are stating their opinion? How can they be doing anything else?

PS

 

[Creideiki]

*Difference exists,
For those claiming broad changes,
Bitterness prevails.*

 

[Creideiki]

This always puzzles me. Why do people have to say they are stating their opinion? How can they be doing anything else?

PS

*If we agree--fact.
If we differ--opinion.*

 

[johnsemlak]

I originally started this thread to start discussion on whether 3e was different from other editions, not whether it was better or worse.

Of course, when we try to describe the differences, it's hard not to let our opinions about the editions surface.

Still, I'd like to hear more from people who have thought about the original question.

A lot of people have brought up the lack of THACO in 3e. But isn't 3e's attack role system deceptively similar? I don't ahve the rules in front of me, but as I recall, AC 0 in 1e is equal to AC 20 in 3e, and a fighter has to make the same roll to hit it in 3e as in 1e (assuming to-hit modifiers are the same). And a fighter's progression on attack rolls is the same, +1 per level.

Now, 3e's system for multiple attacks is truly different, I concede.