|
Post by Draxy on Oct 4, 2003 11:57:58 GMT -5
Hi Loki,
I don't know, but I'm not able to honestly say that ALL 2e did for me was to put in a written form what I already had done to fix 1e. It did do that too, but thatv was FAR from all it accomplished. It opened out such a plethora of possibilities that I didn't have to create a thousand on the fly rules for, thus allowing me more creative time and less fixing the systems flaws, that I've a trio of players that are more than 6,000 kilometers away from where I presently ive that want to pay for a vacation for myself and my wife and two youngest kids back to the old home town to do a four day marathon revival session leaving the other week for me to show my Austrian wife and my little daughters the tawdry wonders of Orlando.
For example: I run a game presently that uses two completely different magic system basises... both of which are Official AD&D Magic systems. One uses a slight adaption of the 2nd edition "Players Option: Spells and Magic" point based alternate system and the other is the old stand by. Both systems are radicaly different from one another and still are completely interchangable and blend flawlessly with one another. That is something I'd be very reluctant to try with any other game system.
Now sure, the same could be adapted to 1e, as the basic 1e and 2e magic systems are very similiar, but it would take twenty times the tweaking that it did with 2e. That is the crux of my point.
Don't get me wrong. I still have a weak spot in my heart for the game that got me started in '79 when I was graduating High School (even though we had been occasionally playing the old D&D basic and expert sets since '76, I didn't really consider that true RPing as we were just hack and slashers then). The Original still is the Original and has it's place, but that damned Unearthed Arcana almost ruined the whole thing for me and caused me to strongly consider just heaving it all. Thankfully, not long after the UE, less than a year for me and my group, 2nd edition came out and I was able to pick it all back up again.
I guess for me it was really just the UE and Oriental Adventures that I actively disliked.
Still, for me, even with it's flaws, 1e will always be better than that candy coated abortion that now bears the name Dungeons and Dragons.
So, just for me and mine it's:
2e (after the Players and DM's Option Books) . . . . 2e (before said books) . 1e (before we got Unearthed Arcana and Oriental Adventures) . . . . . . . . . . . . 1e (after those awful books) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . having a root canal without anesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . 3e and 3.5e.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Loki3 on Oct 4, 2003 14:19:33 GMT -5
HAHAHAHA Ya know I like you Draxy...... ya have the same outlook on 3.0 and 3.5 as I do. I guess what it boild down to is simple. A person does as a person is comfortable with. We both as long term AD&D'rs...... is that a real word. ....... At any rate as long term players we both have seen the entire life of D&D to the point as it sits today, and we really know how things were in the "early" days of D&D I know entirely what you are saying about D&D and something kinda funny........ I remember playing (the old version) of just good ole D&D and seen the AD&D books in my local hobby shop and complained then................... Oh gee look TSR had to go and make everything all complicated..... ;D and I guess I sit here now many a year later doing the same thing. But THATS ME !!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 5, 2003 7:45:32 GMT -5
Hi Loki,
*chuckles*
That was me too. Each and every time. But, like you as well I imagine, I gave each new incarnation it's chance. I played 3rd edition exclusively for more than a year and so when I say I loathe it by comparison, with the seventy plus sessions of it I have under my belt, I have room for such comparison.
As to the rest... well, sometimes when we old folks look back fondly on the "craftsmanship" of the product of our day when compared with the modern, there is an actual difference.
If I took an old piece of Detroit rolling steel, say a '67 Mustang and with just the simple technical skills at my disposal and a SMALL toolkit in the trunk drove across the Australian Outback with it I about garauntee you that I'd make the trip back and forth an order of magnitude more often without having to call for a tow than about any vehicle of it's type produced today.
With even my mearly adequate skills as a mechanic I kept such a vehicle running in top form for more than twenty years and better than 300,000 miles. When I finally gave it to my eldest son it still ran better than most new cars on the road and had NEVER been to a mechanic. Show me ONE new car you could do that with today.
The kids all jump out and shout about we don't like it (3rd edition) simply because it's new. Horsefeathers! I don't like it because it's tawdry and cheap and plasticine with bright colors and gimmicks designed for todays disposable consumer. My 2nd edition game is like that old Mustang of mine. It's stood the test of time and can still out preform the new crap nine times out of ten.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 5, 2003 8:06:04 GMT -5
Well, since there have been lots of cheap shots at 3e, I feel I'm allowed in here for a breath of fresh air. Like many here, I've played since the late 70's, starting with Basic DnD and working my way through. To me, every new edition has been an improvement over the old.
1e to 2e - many great rules adjustments and additions of several new classes like specialist mages instead of the gibbled creature that was an illusionist. Sure you lost the monk and the assassin, but you gained in the kits and proficiencies department. Plus an absolute plethora of material to use and play with. Never did use the Player's Options because I thought it was munchkinny and, closer to the truth, I had no money at the time to buy new books with.
2e - 3e Like going from a 1972 Jaguar to a 2004 BMW. Sure the Jag looks great and goes like hell, but you have to have it in the shop every two weeks to fix it. The stack of house rules that every DM has meant that going from one campaign to another was like learning an entirely new game. Fine for those who like to tinker, but for those of us who like stability and reliability, 3e was the way to go. In all honesty, I haven't run into the munchkinism that many complain about. I guess I've been lucky. I just find that 3e combines the best of 1e with 2e and creates the best system.
Feel free to bash me with a stick. ;D
|
|
Omote
Peasant
FPQ Extraordinarius!
Posts: 60
|
Post by Omote on Oct 5, 2003 8:40:16 GMT -5
Maybe it was just my players, but I never really had a problem with that many rules situation. If there was a rule that was not clearly define, I as DM had the final say. We wrote down the rule and played on from that point. To be honest, I like 2E for the fact that it is a bit "open ended". Rules could be made up and thrown in.
1 don;t really have that much of a problem with 1E, it just happens to be that I always played OD&D and skipped the 1st incarnation of advanced D&D and jumped right into 2E in about 1989.
If you want simple, with no "lock down crappy rules" that get in the middle of having fun, I suggest everybody go back to Basic D&D (OD&D). I just finished a 1 1/2 year campaign of OD&D a few months ago, and it went very well. A role-players delight IMO.
........................Omote
|
|
|
Post by Loki3 on Oct 5, 2003 10:47:38 GMT -5
Hussar,.......
Me and Draxy arent cheaply bashing 3.0 we are frankly giving our opinion as to the new product. I have to agree that the D20 system is awesome,...
But awesome in the sense that it is a OPEN system. Instead of 20 game makers with 20 sorted systems,..... it brought things together. And I clao me hands together for that.
Saying that HOWEVER I do agree with Draxy that 3.0 and ESPECIALLY 3.5 are mass produced,.... poorly put together,...... yes I admit they clarify the rules..... but rule clarification isnt all of it. They put a boat load of manuals all 30 - 40 bucks.... all designed to ram down the throat something new so people can say OOOHH I GOTTA HAVE IT and drop another Jackson or Grant over the counter.
RPG's today among the makers is all about sonsumerism, and less about the game. As an old school player you can remember the old days of GenCon and Winterfests......
Remember when ya could actually sit down and chat with Gary, Ed, Doug, and the rest of the guys...... a time when you werent ushered through like cattle by assistants,... and security........no bash to those guys but I remember when ya also could sit down and simply play a game with them with no time limits, or no pushiness........ GenCon has become today what D&D has become today.
A consumer driven, we want your bucks, here kid buy the book and shut up more is on the way experience.
I dont like it. No bashing meant, my best friend loves 3.0 D&D I myself have the manuals and have played it, and actually still do. I personally prefer 1st edition. But I do play 3.0.
I guess what my ultimate point here is, that as a player from the "day 1" days....... I prefer 1.0 I do play 3.0 and when I play I do enjoy 3.0 it is a fun game, and I enjoy the everall mechanics of it. BUT!!! As far as preference 1.0 will allways be the game I go back to.
So no offense meant at ya Hussar, but I am not "bashing" 3.0 I am offering a well thought out, and very well educated opinion of it. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 5, 2003 15:28:34 GMT -5
Like I've said Hussar, this is the reason (hurt feelings) that I don't express things this way in the 3e forum.
Hey, the d20 system is extremely broad and versatile. Anyone who doesn't think so has never used it. It does NOT though, provide as much rich detail or as much modality for rich detail in the fantasy genre as old AD&D did. 3e gives you the NEED to tinker with it, but makes such tinkering dangerous to game balance.
Hey, personally I love to tinker, but the nice thing about 2e is that it doesn't need tinkering if you use the rules as they stand. I've had to tinker less with 2e than with any other system I've played. Sometimes I have tinkered it around, through sheer desire to do so, but the system certainly doesn't need it if you actually use it, instead of ignoring the checks and balances of it.
I've got to ask both of you though; what rules did they clarify with 3e?
They simplified some, but they didn't clarify diddly in my opinion. See, I do NOT equate simplification with clarification. When you simplify you change, you don't clarify.
Now the thing that I am willing to grant 3e is that in simplifying things they are able to appeal to a wider audience. Fine. Hey, The Mad Max movies also appeal to a wider audience than Mel Gibson's protrayal of Hamlet did, yet I doubt that anyone can succesfully argue that the level of acting and production was as good in Thunderdome as in Hamlet.
Loki hit the nail on the head when he talked about what D&D has switched it's focus too though. They make more money that way and that is what Hasbro wants. They could give a flying hairball less about the consumer except in so far as he is a vehicle to grab more cash. That's the spirit of commericialism today. I think that it will eventually catch up with them and the game will die because of their utterly uncaring greed. But I say, so what?
Draxy
PS: As a side note, if... it broke down, I could probably fix that 72 Jag with the small tool box in my trunk in a few hours tops... but God couldn't fix the Beamer with those tools of anything other than the most minor of problems. Built in obsolesence and the neccesity to have a shop full of tools just to get past the computerized fuel flow system do not allow tinkering or self repair. It fosters absolute reliance on someone else to do it for you.
I don't want anyone else doing it for me. I want to rely on myself. I want a tool that doesn't have a built in obsolescence, even if it costs a bit more that way. THAT is what 2e gives you too.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 5, 2003 23:02:34 GMT -5
Really? Draxy, I think you are the first person I have ever seen that has not tinkered with the 2e rules.
Fair enough. You don't like 3e. I can accept that. I don't really understand it, but I can accept it.
Also, I would like to say that I have never seen any house rules in 3e. None. I've played in 5 or six campaigns in the last 3 years and I have yet to even hear about a single house rule. Can you say that about 2e?
You ask about what 3e clarified. Well, off the top of my head, Clerics. Especially Specialty Priests. A character class listed in the PHB which couldn't be played without DM intervention and the creation of a stack of house rules. One of the core classes. If you doubt me, then, tell me, what spells can he cast, what armour and weapons can he use and what bonus abilities does he get? Now, prove it. What you say he gets, what Tom, Dick and Harry say he gets is totally different and all equally correct.
In 3e, the same priest of fire takes about 1.3 seconds to create and that time is spent picking his other domain since his first would be fire.
Simplification? Maybe. Improvement? Definitely.
That being said, I had huge amounts of fun with 2e and 1e before that. I certainly spent enough hours designing campaigns and dungeons to say that I truly loved the game. What I find with 3e is that I spend far less time around the table biatching about this or that ruling and far more time playing.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 6, 2003 1:02:06 GMT -5
Hi Hussar,
First off, I said very specificly that I DO tinker with the rules. I said too though that it wasn't a neccesity. I stand by that.
Two: the specialty Priest is NOT a "core class". It is, according to the 2ePHB itself, an optional specialty class. This includes Druids and ALL priests of specific mythoi. THAT you see is the thing that I meant when I said to use the 2e rules you actually have to read them.
The Cleric (the "core class") could (and should have been if you weren't also tinkering ALL the other classes as well) be played as it stood. The specialty priest, like the Druid, had to have DM (or other background, such as the Forgotten Realms dieties that are ALL massively detailed out in official products) input if he wanted that "optional class" in his game. Of course, it's the same as "prestige classes are in 3e.
Two B: the problem with 3e is that everything is so desperately generic. ALL "priests of Fire" conform to a single set pattern that can be delianated in "about 1.3 seconds".
Sorry man, but I do not want Haephestus and A'Arr an, the Lovian god of Fire and Torturers to have to be the same. Big H, the Greek god of Fire and Smithcraft and being gilted is a VASTLY different kind of being than A'Arr an, who's primary attributes are all about burning the world and everthing in it for kicks and to watch the mortals squirm as they die.
In 2e you can give these two dieties servants that actually fit them since not all gods of Fire are the same generic being.
Three: because of the desperately generic nature of 3e we had nothing but house rules to help cover the details that 3e wants everyone to ignore. The same was appearant in all four other campaigns of it that I saw during the year and nearly a half that I suffered with it to try to give it a chance.
So, the genericized Cleric of Fire from 3e. Simplified? Hell yes! Improved or clarified? A resounding and absolute; NO!
I'm sorry to say that I did not have a good time with 3e. It was nothing but headaches and tons of extra work trying to de-genericize everything to the point that it could have a detailed and free flowing feeling. I DMed somewhere between 60 and 70 sessions in 3e and had to fight off my players through the last 50 to 60 of them to "please, for the love of God and the safety of your children, change back to 2e!".
But, all of that said; if you like 3e better, more power to you. It is all about enjoying yourself anyway.
Draxy
Draxy
|
|
agamoto
Soldier
Greetings and salutations one and all!!
Posts: 239
|
Post by agamoto on Oct 7, 2003 14:44:31 GMT -5
They put a boat load of manuals all 30 - 40 bucks.... all designed to ram down the throat something new so people can say OOOHH I GOTTA HAVE IT and drop another Jackson or Grant over the counter. I know this is a little off topic. I know Grant is a $50 bill, what bill is Jackson on? BTW I started with D&D then droped out for a while and returned to AD&D 2nd ed. I still play 2nd because I don't have the money to buy any thing more.
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on Oct 28, 2003 10:24:37 GMT -5
The $20 - approximately the cost of every basic D&D book (plus or minus a Hamilton)
|
|