I've finally figured out why 3rd edition bugs me
- Thread starter Sebastian Francis
- Start date
I thought this quote was good enough that it merited repeating:
He is, of course, exactly right. Nobody made scrolls in 1st Edition AD&D. The flavor-text listed in the first post of this thread was both flavorful, and useless. For making a special, particular scroll or an artifact, yes, it was marvelously creative and useful. For making scrolls as general use disposable magic items in D&D, it was overly specific, too complicated, the components too rare and the height of the flaming hoops the players had to jump through was too high. Magical economics made no sense in either 1st or 2nd Edition. Now, before anyone says it, I know: there were alternate rules for creating items in 2nd Edition AD&D. But then again, there are a ton of flavorful source books in 3rd Edition D&D, too. It seems that this discussion focuses on the crunch versus fluff content ratio in the core rules. And, as Ridley's Cohort so adroitly pointed out, there were no rules for item creation in 1st or 2nd Edition AD&D. So the clear winner in this contest is the edition with the actual rules, rather than the editions which lacked them.
Some of you folks are a smidgen too jaded and nostalgic. Don't get me wrong: I have two long shelves of 1st Edition and 2nd Edition books, modules, supplements and issues of Dragon. But when I hear people say, "3rd Edition can't inspire new gamers the way 1st Edition/whatever edition inspired us!" I feel the overwhelming urge to spit. Get over yourselves, for goodness sake. My just-entered college cousin just started playing D&D about a year ago. She can talk for HOURS about her characters, the adventures she's played or run for her friends, and the backstories they write for their characters. She sounds just like I did when I played 1st Edition. I'm also old enough to remember some of the blatant powergaming lovefests we had in 1st/2nd Edition. Remember the days? Yeah, back when you could claim you rolled all 18s on your character and actually expect anyone to believe it? Yeah.
Ridley's Cohort said:
He is, of course, exactly right. Nobody made scrolls in 1st Edition AD&D. The flavor-text listed in the first post of this thread was both flavorful, and useless. For making a special, particular scroll or an artifact, yes, it was marvelously creative and useful. For making scrolls as general use disposable magic items in D&D, it was overly specific, too complicated, the components too rare and the height of the flaming hoops the players had to jump through was too high. Magical economics made no sense in either 1st or 2nd Edition. Now, before anyone says it, I know: there were alternate rules for creating items in 2nd Edition AD&D. But then again, there are a ton of flavorful source books in 3rd Edition D&D, too. It seems that this discussion focuses on the crunch versus fluff content ratio in the core rules. And, as Ridley's Cohort so adroitly pointed out, there were no rules for item creation in 1st or 2nd Edition AD&D. So the clear winner in this contest is the edition with the actual rules, rather than the editions which lacked them.
Some of you folks are a smidgen too jaded and nostalgic. Don't get me wrong: I have two long shelves of 1st Edition and 2nd Edition books, modules, supplements and issues of Dragon. But when I hear people say, "3rd Edition can't inspire new gamers the way 1st Edition/whatever edition inspired us!" I feel the overwhelming urge to spit. Get over yourselves, for goodness sake. My just-entered college cousin just started playing D&D about a year ago. She can talk for HOURS about her characters, the adventures she's played or run for her friends, and the backstories they write for their characters. She sounds just like I did when I played 1st Edition. I'm also old enough to remember some of the blatant powergaming lovefests we had in 1st/2nd Edition. Remember the days? Yeah, back when you could claim you rolled all 18s on your character and actually expect anyone to believe it? Yeah.
"I still use my 2e core rules CD for flavor text on core monsters. Habitat, ecology, and society were much more fleshed out back then and provided more hooks for me to use than the raw combat stat emphasis of the current set. And I can get the color pictures off the WotC site for the current incarnations.
So while I like the rules of 3.5 creatures, I prefer a bunch of 2e descriptions of the same monsters."
I saw this, and I do so much have to agree with it. I think the habitat, ecology and such allows the DM to get a good feel for the creatures. It allows the DM to get a good 'feel' of them and maybe do them 'right' sure, you can throw a group of goblins in the grasslands, the hills, or whatnot, or come up with your own ideas of them, but by reading about the habitat, ecololy, and such, it can plant seeds of imagination into the DMs head and maybe more will come of it.
I must admit, it has been a while since I have been in a steady group, but I did like the the general 'flavor' feeling of 2nd ed. Did it have to be pages and pages and pages as some have said, no. But the flavor did put you in a certain state of mind. I liked the idea of needing certain spell components to make scrolls/wands/staves and such, after all, you need items for spells. Got any bat guano for that fireball? Sure, there might not be many that enforce the material component side of the house, I must admit that I have found it somewhat annoying myself.
The need to have certain components for magic items makes them 'special'. This way the market will not get flooded with them. Does it make them difficult to make, yes it does. But when you are getting that cockatrice, I am hoping you are getting more than just ONE feather. Also, by making components necessary for the creation of magic items, you are also opening up the PCs to quests to obtain them from other sources. Someone could approach the PCs about requireing Gorgon blood. The PCs could go look for some gorgons and have 'x' happen to them either there or on the way.
I am very much opposed to the 'walmart' approach to magic items. I have seen DMs have pretty much supermarkets with magic items where you can get it IDed, and told how many charges are left and every single little subtle detail. That takes a fair amount of fun out of the game. I do not mind the occasion NPC who will have a small amount of magic that they are either willing to sell or trade away, but the walmart thing is something that I disagree with.
I have seen some say that the rules were never clear. Well, sometimes, yes and sometimes no. It just depends on the situation. I have been in many situations where I had to think on my feet, rules not withstanding, so I guess that aspect never bothered me much. I found PC's can do some of the darndest things to a DMs well made plans, no writer can think of every rule possible. That leaves it up to the DM to come up with a solution, on the fly sometimes.
Now, I do think 3rd is a leaps and bounds better than previous editions. I love how they streamlined everything. Skills and feats are a great thing, a player now actually has to think about their character. In the past, I could make a character in less than 5 min. Now, it is a different story, the characters are no longer cookie cutter. The CR aspect of challenges is a brilliant thing, it is about time they came up with something like that. It never did make any sense to me how that Ogre gave out the same xp to a group of 3rd lvl characters as it did to 10th lvl.
So while I like the rules of 3.5 creatures, I prefer a bunch of 2e descriptions of the same monsters."
I saw this, and I do so much have to agree with it. I think the habitat, ecology and such allows the DM to get a good feel for the creatures. It allows the DM to get a good 'feel' of them and maybe do them 'right' sure, you can throw a group of goblins in the grasslands, the hills, or whatnot, or come up with your own ideas of them, but by reading about the habitat, ecololy, and such, it can plant seeds of imagination into the DMs head and maybe more will come of it.
I must admit, it has been a while since I have been in a steady group, but I did like the the general 'flavor' feeling of 2nd ed. Did it have to be pages and pages and pages as some have said, no. But the flavor did put you in a certain state of mind. I liked the idea of needing certain spell components to make scrolls/wands/staves and such, after all, you need items for spells. Got any bat guano for that fireball? Sure, there might not be many that enforce the material component side of the house, I must admit that I have found it somewhat annoying myself.
The need to have certain components for magic items makes them 'special'. This way the market will not get flooded with them. Does it make them difficult to make, yes it does. But when you are getting that cockatrice, I am hoping you are getting more than just ONE feather. Also, by making components necessary for the creation of magic items, you are also opening up the PCs to quests to obtain them from other sources. Someone could approach the PCs about requireing Gorgon blood. The PCs could go look for some gorgons and have 'x' happen to them either there or on the way.
I am very much opposed to the 'walmart' approach to magic items. I have seen DMs have pretty much supermarkets with magic items where you can get it IDed, and told how many charges are left and every single little subtle detail. That takes a fair amount of fun out of the game. I do not mind the occasion NPC who will have a small amount of magic that they are either willing to sell or trade away, but the walmart thing is something that I disagree with.
I have seen some say that the rules were never clear. Well, sometimes, yes and sometimes no. It just depends on the situation. I have been in many situations where I had to think on my feet, rules not withstanding, so I guess that aspect never bothered me much. I found PC's can do some of the darndest things to a DMs well made plans, no writer can think of every rule possible. That leaves it up to the DM to come up with a solution, on the fly sometimes.
Now, I do think 3rd is a leaps and bounds better than previous editions. I love how they streamlined everything. Skills and feats are a great thing, a player now actually has to think about their character. In the past, I could make a character in less than 5 min. Now, it is a different story, the characters are no longer cookie cutter. The CR aspect of challenges is a brilliant thing, it is about time they came up with something like that. It never did make any sense to me how that Ogre gave out the same xp to a group of 3rd lvl characters as it did to 10th lvl.
S
shurai
Guest
I miss the old system too sometimes.
It's hard to quantify it exactly, but I think what I miss is the "oldness" of the old books, especially in the art.
When I used to read the 2nd Edition PHB, there were all these archaic-looking paintings of knights and wizards, done with fewer (or no) widgets and gadgets. It felt like I was looking at a painting hanging in a castle somewhere instead of reading a comic book. Granted, I haven't read too many of the old books, but I remember really exploring the art in the 2nd Edition Player's Handbook. I can't explain it, but it all seemed more . . . real. Less like a video game or a cartoon.
Part of it is the ridiculous armor depicted in the new editions. When you see a character painting nowadays, they've frequently got all kinds of weird, nonfunctional mess all over their body. I'm all for spikes when the guy is evil and insane, but it's hard to maintain a sense of versimilitude everybody looks so fake.
I suspect part of it may also be the use of acrylic paint instead of oil, too. I don't know much about art in general, but from what I understand it's a lot easier to get quieter, more neutral colors out of oils than acrylics. Acrylics tend to be more garish I think, so it's harder to get the colors to look real.
The new edition has some art that's good, of course. I really can't say I dislike it all.'
-S
It's hard to quantify it exactly, but I think what I miss is the "oldness" of the old books, especially in the art.
When I used to read the 2nd Edition PHB, there were all these archaic-looking paintings of knights and wizards, done with fewer (or no) widgets and gadgets. It felt like I was looking at a painting hanging in a castle somewhere instead of reading a comic book. Granted, I haven't read too many of the old books, but I remember really exploring the art in the 2nd Edition Player's Handbook. I can't explain it, but it all seemed more . . . real. Less like a video game or a cartoon.
Part of it is the ridiculous armor depicted in the new editions. When you see a character painting nowadays, they've frequently got all kinds of weird, nonfunctional mess all over their body. I'm all for spikes when the guy is evil and insane, but it's hard to maintain a sense of versimilitude everybody looks so fake.
I suspect part of it may also be the use of acrylic paint instead of oil, too. I don't know much about art in general, but from what I understand it's a lot easier to get quieter, more neutral colors out of oils than acrylics. Acrylics tend to be more garish I think, so it's harder to get the colors to look real.
The new edition has some art that's good, of course. I really can't say I dislike it all.'
-S
Orius
Unrepentant DM Supremacist
True. I still have my extensive 2e library. I can use my old monster books to look up what monster part are worth money. If I want character to assemble rare componets for magic item, I can use the item creation guidelines given in High Level Campaigns and Speels and Magic, and have them gather the components and maybe have them use them as power components rather than burning up XPs or something. Just because I don't use those rules doesn't mean I still can't get ideas from them, and many of those books still have great ideas.Tsunami said:
However, that doesn't change the fact the 3e generally provides better hard and fast rules that are more usable.
Orius
Unrepentant DM Supremacist
That's ok if you're playing a PC. You use some legend lore spells, hire sage, do research, and so on. For the DM though, you got to make this stuff up. Trying to figure out exactly what the "breath of a mountain" or "the lamentations of women" are and how to make it into riddles and clue the PCs have to figure out can be a pain.JoeGKushner said:
Orius
Unrepentant DM Supremacist
Then DMs have to lay down the rules at the beginning of the campaign. If you want to haul out the power components, then make it clear when the campaign begins. Pulling out power components in the middle of a campaign without warning is going to unpleasantly suprise some players.Sebastian Francis said:
Maggan
Writer for CY_BORG, Forbidden Lands and Dragonbane
Art&Armour
While I'm not an expert on medieval armor, a friend of mine is, and he condemns almost all fantasy art depicting armor och combat as "fake".
Most pictures in D&D and AD&D are representations of ideas about combat, and as such are more or less fake. They are not meant to be a realistic depiction of how things worked.
Still, it's art so it's all about perception. If they look fake to you, they do look fake to you. Can't argue with that. Personally, I always thought the chain mail bikinis of 1e and 2e looked more fake... but also more interesting to a 15 year old boy.
Cheers!
Maggan
shurai said:
While I'm not an expert on medieval armor, a friend of mine is, and he condemns almost all fantasy art depicting armor och combat as "fake".
Most pictures in D&D and AD&D are representations of ideas about combat, and as such are more or less fake. They are not meant to be a realistic depiction of how things worked.
Still, it's art so it's all about perception. If they look fake to you, they do look fake to you. Can't argue with that. Personally, I always thought the chain mail bikinis of 1e and 2e looked more fake... but also more interesting to a 15 year old boy.
Cheers!
Maggan
Similar Threads
