Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4069033" data-attributes="member: 22779">I've seen this a bunch of times being brought up here.  The Trek Law, for those of you who may not know, states that every odd numbered Trek movie will suck and every even numbered one will be good.People are pointing to 2e and now 4e and claiming that, in some sort of Trek logic, we can apply an inverse of the law and even numbered editions will suck.There's a serious problem with this little gem though.  The idea that 2e sucked.  Yeah, I know, there's lots of people who flatly claim that 2e sucked.  But, mechanically, 2e was a pretty decent improvement on 1e.  They cleaned up a lot of the crap that littered 1e, brought the game at least a little further away from the tactical wargame that was 1e, and introduced all sorts of concepts which have gone on to inform later editions - the idea of customizing your character through kits (the grandfather of PrC's), the introduction of rules to play non-standard races, etc.  Yeah, yeah, I know that people are going to start jumping up and down about how could I possibly defend 2e.  Fine.  But, then again, 2e lasted just as long as 1e and did pretty darn well.  It's just that those who jumped from 1e to 2e dropped 2e like a bad habit when 3e came around.  We're rules whores.  Absolutely no loyalty to a given system.Anyway, just wanted to get that bit off my chest.</blockquote>