(Silly chronological order! This is Irdeggman’s thread, but these two posts were written earlier!)
Ah yes. 2nd Edition - no-one could play it without a book of house rules and home corrections as thick as the PHB 
Ah yes. 2nd Edition - no-one could play it without a book of house rules and home corrections as thick as the PHB
Ahhhh…sweet addendums of precious thought that enhanced the game for many.
It was a new era without the same ideas being resold over, and over, and over, and over, and over,…again.
The ideas enhanced the game, and they only got as thick as a PHB if your DM was anygood.
Later
:rolleyes:
Even though this subject really, really does not belong in discussion over BR itself there appears to be a constant flow of statements on this line.
So here is now a thread to keep them in.
There is actually no reason to constantly (well it appears that way) resort to this (or the reverse - that 3.5 is better than 2nd ed) statements as a part of the discussion on “how to accoplish” something.
In almost every single case 2 methods can be (and should be if the question is generic and not specific to a mechanic specific to one edition or the other) two answers. One for 2nd ed mechanics and one for 3.5 mechanics. There could even be other answers for those who use non D&D systems to play the game (and there are several who have posted such).
To start it off:
My take on the evolution of D&D (all opinion mind you)
Through the years D&D has followed a progression of decreasing flavor/color and increasing detail/mechanics.
What I mean is that OD&D was pretty much almost all color/flavor with real simple game mechanics.
1st started to insert more detailed mechanics with a slight reduction in the color/flavor
2nd ed inserted more mechanics (and more options as it progressed, the proficiency system quantum jump {which came with one of the "survivor’s guide, I just can’t remember which one - but it was only lightly handled in the PHB when that first came out} but really only had at most a slight drop in color/flavor
3.0 ed inserted a huge amount of mechanics and made the game very, very generic. The amount of color/flavor in the core rules was drastically reduced to match the increase in detail of the mechanic’s side.
3.5 increased the detail of the game mechanics (most notably things like DR and bonus types were greatly codified). While the color/flavor also went down somewhat.
This evolution, IMO, corresponds to the increase in the reliability of PC (and platform) gaming as the reference to the group being “targeted”. People read less and watch movies more and the like.
I have also noticed an increase in the “genericization” of the settings. That is to say that the “settings” have an decreasing amount of “uniqueness” and an increasing amount of “anything in a WotC book can be used in this setting”. Look at what Dragon/Dungeon did with their version of updating Dark Sun to 3.5. {I mean paladins in Dark Sun? Come on now that is a huge stretch for a world that is supposed to be more shades of grey than black and white as far as good and evil goes.}
Well those are my opinions. I think we should start to move any post that is simply a “one edition is better” type of post here to clear out the actual discussion topics.
Gods and the planes in Darksun… blech! (I’ve once seen DS 3ed/3.5 described as Forgotten Realms in a desert 
)
I’ve still got plenty of booklets for campaign notes and house rules (a lot of the stuff I house ruled in 2e is also in 3e and 3.5), so it’s not so much superiority as it is a bit of nostalgia since the rules and the settings are still going through a hack job to fit my needs. I liked a set of web rules for proficiencies because I had a certain appreciation for the Fuzion-ish systems and their skill emphasis. I will might enjoy the Green Ronin stuff.
Except for the historical accessories, but maybe a conversion would be possible: the Great War add-on to MotRD didn’t look too bad rules-wise (setting-wise, I like my worlds without eternal overarching conspiracies that actually have the power to influence Great Powers).
So, conclusion - a base set of mechanics and rules is certainly important, but the authors have to be aware that the DMs will house rule, and some DMs might even switch emphasis (level/skill/freeform xp, magic/technology/mix, etc); they certainly do it themselves, after all 
. Maybe some introduction of alternate systems could be done more easily with the wiki?
As for flavour and genericity - not trying to tie in everything to everything else would be a nice start. It was tried at first in 2ed, with Planescape and Spelljammer (maybe Ravenloft to a degree, but it was generally assumed that the only form of crossover was to Ravenloft, not out of it), but it generally felt tacked on and both settings looked better standing alone in most cases (opinion, but I’m surely not alone). There’s also a problem when the flavour and the mechanics don’t really fit (the maritime Rjuven whose lowest level provinces are mainly on the coast?). The generic campaign is not where I expect the leat genericity anyway*.
And no matter the edition, equipment weight should no be based off the 1st ed tables, not anymore ever.
*And I seem to have read your point backwards
I’d call this the GURPS effect.
I agree with irdeggman in regard of settings using flavour, and losing specific settings all together, but still D&D 3.5 is utterly superior over previous editions… And mechanic means much, leaving DM to deal with the story, as well as providing him/her needed support to depict alternative realities through game system.
Tho, D&D 3.5 system that I use in my Birthright campaign is heavily modified…
AD&D 2nd Edition is easier to use than D&D 3.x. That’s not to mean that they are less complex; both have their strengths and weaknesses over each other. It just depends on how you are going to achieve your fun.
I use Arms Law with AD&D 2nd Edition, just as much as I would use Arms Law with d20. 3.x is more of a character construction kit; you engineer characters you don’t tend to let them grow naturally in 3.x. In AD&D, growth is more natural.
In other RPG circles, especially of the HarnMaster kind, our fellow RPGers believe that level systems are the bane of a good time. Whose to say that they are wrong?
Ahh but only the Paizo version.
The Athas.org (official fan site and the other “Official” version) kept very true to the original setting, IMO. It was not WotC - ized.
On 6/22/07, Elton Robb <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> In other RPG circles, especially of the HarnMaster kind, our fellow RPGers believe that level
> systems are the bane of a good time. Whose to say that they are wrong?
All the people who have a good time playing D&D every week, including
me, prove that they`re wrong.
–
Daniel McSorley
Interesting.
My take.
3.5 is easier to use “out of the box”. The DM can more readily match up encounterw with PC’s level in order to keep things on a more “even keel” and not go to the TPK or “cake walk” scenarios as easily as could be done with 2nd ed.
Now I have found that (from personal experience mind you) - that one of the biggest difficulties that old time gamers have is in “letting go”. When we switched to 3.0 the DM was still playing the game like he was in 2nd ed, relying on memory and not really paying attention to how things worked. The systems are substantially different.
It is this “unlearning” that causes more issues than not.
I really believe based on the “quality and detail” of the rule books that a newbie gamer, who has never played a table-top game before could much more easily walk into a 3.5 game and play it than he could a 2nd ed one. It also comes much closer to matching the electronic games that he is likely to be familiar with than does 2nd ed.
I’ve already commented on the parrallels to society here and am not saying one is “better” only that this is how it is, or at least how I see it.
Ah, exactly. People get their fun from different RPGs. I think the debate is largely one of personalities; actually. Different people prefer different games.
Quoted For Truth
Daniel McSorley schrieb:
> On 6/22/07, Elton Robb <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
>> In other RPG circles, especially of the HarnMaster kind, our fellow
>> RPGers believe that level
>> systems are the bane of a good time. Whose to say that they are wrong?
>
> All the people who have a good time playing D&D every week, including
> me, prove that they`re wrong.
No, you only prove that you have a different opinion than they do.
Neither side proves the other wrong by believing something
Yup it has always been the D.M.s job to supply the flavor. Having a good mechanical basis to squish it into just aids that imo…
Of course I should also point out that I do not think the game is perfect, I play D&D mostly because of the amount of other people that do as well..when I d.m. I seek out interesting settings such as B.R. or come up with my own.
I have other games and other systems that I prefer to the d20 system, they are just rarely as well supported.
And that is its selling point…It has been more easy to relearn these rules and introduce them to players who never played before then it ever was to learn the 2nd edition rules.
Oh I was hooked the first time I played (Basic D&D and the Keep on the Borderlands) and learned like most everyone else, but I remember the Glazed look that came over peoples faces when say for example you attempted to explain THACO and negative AC to them…
Later I will post a reply that sort of gives my opinion on the pro’s and con’s of both systems…
With this post I simply want to post that if I call something a “Waste of Time” that I consider it offered nothing to the game as a whole like CR’s.
Also each of use as DM’s should always feel free to offer whatever flavor we like. For some it is adding components of Gurps and Arms/Spell Law aspects. No one is right or wrong, just different.
Finally, I will simply post that I have always felt that d20/3.?? didn’t really offer that much new to the game. It was a simple marketing ploy to get people to rebuy the same material over and over and over again as the tweaked the material for resale to the newest generation.
You don’t have to agree with any of this, but this last statement is quite accurate.
Later
PS…Irreg this is exactly the spot for such discussions, since a lot of posters try to drown the site in the 3.?? viewpoint and information. I’m not saying it isn’t the prevelent system, but I am mentioning that those of us who use other editions and games with a Birthright campaign should have equal access and debate points on this subject…IN This Thread!!
On 6/22/07, Michael Romes <Archmage@t-online.de> wrote:
> > All the people who have a good time playing D&D every week, including
> > me, prove that they`re wrong.
> No, you only prove that you have a different opinion than they do.
> Neither side proves the other wrong by believing something
I sure did. Elton said they believe no one can have a good time with
“level systems”. This is easily disproved, because many people do,
including me.
–
Daniel McSorley
I have been playing D&D a LONG time … here is what I have seen.
D&D saw its creative golden years with 2nd edition. There were balance issues all over the place but with so many well done campaigns and adventures to do it didn’t matter too much.
D&D3.5 certainly got balance down pretty well and there are some companies coming out with creative stuff … but not like 2nd edition … The Paizo stuff is alot of fun … adventure paths are the way of the future.
I personally love what they did with 3.5 Birthright. Fixed many of the issues I had and now enjoy running with a few of my friends.
-BB
I quite like CR’s - not so much because its a short-hand to match a challenge to the PC’s - some players I know make their characters punch way above/below their nominal weight - but as a part of the xp system to automatically mean that characters who smoke easy foes will gain little/no xp while those who use skill and imagination to take down someone ‘out of their league’ get more than the norm - without me having to weight the xp and potentially deal with the whining. A final canon end to ‘I need 50xp? I teleport back to that goblin camp we hit 10 levels ago and drop a meteor swarm on them…’
Always and forever truth
Hmm, I have more than slight sympathy for the viewpoint - but the more I read on 3.5e the more changes I see to 2e despite the superficial similarity… Skill points for example is more than just an expansion to nwp’s; even if I do think I should split the skill table into ‘colour’ and ‘crunch’ skills - should my rogue boost ‘hide’ or ‘painting’ hmm, I wonder…
But having no skills and powers book is a major loss to 3.5e, I need to find the BR conversion I did…
The consistency of D20 makes it easier to teach newbies the game than AD&D, although none of my players had problems with THAC0 for long (the non-geeks simply said 'THAC0 4 - what do I need?).
I’ve yet to be convinced by the ‘you need a board and counters’ combat stuff in 3.5e though - I always left combat more free form in AD&D and haven’t enough 3/5e experience to say how much the combat rules do/don’t constrain play.
The magic item system is far more consistent with the rest of the magic setting, but a lot of people reverse engineered the ‘source spells’ for 2e items anyway. Feats are new of course - and a major improvement in making fighters distinctive. Multi-classing and dual classing are definitely better, I never understood the old dual-classing design theory.
The loss of the hp cap, while linked to the multi-class change, was imho a failing of 3.5e - just compare the hp of the BRCS Gorgon to the old 2e one to see the problem…
Unlike MT I’m a big fan of the attempt to balance the classes - the old xp progression was only intermittently effective while internal level progression could produce interesting results for druids in particular. Similarly there is less attempt to balance roll with role which is a big improvement. that said to balance you need to do something about the magic system - while that’s so broken
I don’t know about the golden years, it had its share of dogs as well. (I am rereading the adventure The Sword of Roele for Instance)
-
Storm Giant/Statue out front supposed to return to life when someone tries to desecrate the Temple. Yet the Temple and parts of its environs have already been violated.
-
The place is lousy with undead created to “Protect its Treasures” yet it is a Temple to Avani erected by Khinasi worshipers who would never use “Undead”.
-
The Plot Hooks are really vague. The D.M. has really got to push to fit his players into the adventure.
All in all, (And I am sure I will find more as I reread it) the Adventure was pretty useless without a great deal of D.M. reworking. It feels as if the adventure was hastily reworked from another setting in order to slap a Birthright Tag on it.
But Damn it I will make it work…If I have to recarve every little piece of it.