POLL: Dueling Editions

Remove all ads!

I want to get a sense of who has actually played which editions(2nd & 3rd) and which they prefer.

[ December 20, 2002, 00:49: Message edited by: Izaad ]

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 25 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Dueling Editions (25 votes.)

What are your experiences with 2nd and 3rd edition? (Choose 1)
* You have only played 2nd edition because the opportunity to play 3rd has never come up. - 16% (4)
* You have only played 3rd edition because the opportunity to play 2nd has never come up. - 8% (2)
* You started with 2nd, tried 3rd, but stayed with 2nd because it is far superior. - 8% (2)
* You started with 3rd, tried 2nd, but stayed with 3rd because it is far superior. - 12% (3)
* You began with 2nd, but switched to 3rd because you loved it. - 48% (12)
* You began with 3rd, but switched to 2nd because you loved it. - 0% (0)
* You play 3rd edition, but would try 2nd if the resources were readily available. - 8% (2)

 

My only experience with 2E is with games such as Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale. I thought the D&D system worked well, but after digesting 3E, I considered 3rd Edition much better - less complicated and more flexible.

 

Where is the "you started with the original "D&D basic set", took up 1e right away, skipped 2e cuz it sucked, and now use 3e because it is da bomb?" option?

 

You've missed out 1E but anyhow...
And how can you say that 2E sucks if you've skipped it?

 

Try this link: http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000389

Personally, I like a mix and I am currently developing my own rules for a new campaign.

 

I started out with 2nd, but after I came in touch with 3rd, I loved it

Silly multiclassing rules in 2nd.

 

Tell me, Faragon. Does your nifty 3rd edition Monster Manual detail the mating habits of manticores? Or the social structure of Myconid societies? The problem with 3rd edition is that it cast off what remnants of roleplaying D&D had left to make room for the blood thirsty powergamers. 2nd edition had such non weapon proficiencies as acting and artistic talent. 3rd edition has 'feats' such as Mighty Cleave and Bull Rush. At least 2nd edition provided some guidelines for giving your characters character ,in 3rd edition, you are simply expected to mutter something in your fighter's gruff voice about getting treasure to pass the time between combat rounds, if that. 2nd edition had its shortcomings, but 3rd edition has tainted the title of 'role playing game', ask those who know nothing but 3rd edition what a roleplaying game is, and they will tell you, "Oh yeah, one of those games where you create an adventurer and hunt monsters."

No, that is not roleplaying! That is hack and slash! For a good hack and slash, buy 'Blade of Darkness' for PC, you can cut off a man's arm and beat him with it! I digress, but is that what The great D&D has come to? A series of battles tied together by weak plot lines and even weaker telling? And what happens when even the battle becomes dull and grating, and you have more treasure than a small kingdom? When your adventures become hollow, meaningless husks, and your precious 3rd edition fails you?

 

Well. As with C'Jacob, my only experience with 2E was with games like BG and IWD II. And my only PnP experience was with 3E, so I can't really say which I liked better. Personally, I found 3E to have plenty of room for adding personality to my characters. Maybe not nessesarily with various skills, but otherwise. But again, I never PnPd with 2E, so I can't really say for sure which I liked better.

 

Well I like 3E more because its simpler to understand, in comparison ti 2E.

 

Izaad is right, the 3E MM (or MM2) does not detail that mating habits of monster X and the social structure of monster Y. But WotC will tell you that they did that so that they could save space and print more monsters in their book. And yes, I know that the price of the 3E MM is around the same as the 2E Monstrous Compendium but has less in it, but the 2E book was printed years ago and prices have gone up with everything, so you can't use the less-for-your-money argument.

Izaad wrote:

Well, last I checked, 3E had perform, craft, profession and knowledge skills in the system. They certainly seem non-combat oriented to me. And hey, your right on the count that 3E has combat oriented feats (Great Cleave and Improved Bull Rush, among them). But let us not forget the various skill oriented feats as well (in just the PHB):
- Alertness (+2 to Listen and Spot)
- Leadership (get people to like you and follow you)
- Run (move real fast)
- all those Craft (magic item) feats
- and the most restrictive of all, Skill Focus

Is 3E heavily geared towards combat? Yes, but no more so then 2E. Over half of the PHB and DMG in either edition deals with combat. But just like 2E, 3E has rules on interacting with NPCs in order to influence them. Prices on non-weapon and non-armor goods. 3E also has decent rules on training animals, abiltiy scores for monsters, and a multiclassing system that makes more sense.

And no matter what edition you playing, your role-playing oppurtunites are only as good as the DM who runs the game. If the DM presents a hack-and-slash game without any real oppurtunity to interact with NPCs other than to kill them, who can blame the player for creating a uber-fighter. But if the DM lets you interview townfolk to find clues, sneak into the evil temple, or barter for a room when the party is low on gold, then you will find (most) players adding ranks to interpersonal skills and taking skill oriented feats.

As for me, I was just as against 3E as I was against 2E when the editions were new. But while I only played 2E because I had no real choice in the matter, I fully embraced 3E when I learned more about it.

Now, I know I am new here, but it seemed to me that everyone's posts were friendly "I like X edition, but not Y edition." or "I've played X, but not Y.", until Izaad posted. Did you really need to (essentially) attack Faragon for his choice? I couldn't care less what edition anyone plays, just play the one you enjoy the most. I wanted to counter your points against 3E. I have no intention of starting some board-wide conflict with you. So can we agree to disagree?

MrGrouch (yes, I earned the name legitimally)

 

Izaad, where the hell did that come from? Have I done anything to anger you? My post wasn't that much of a flamebait. If you don't agree with me fine. If you want to discuss about the good and bad points of both editions, fine. But don't try to bite my head of with this kind of posts. If you can't do that, I will ignore you from here on.

The social structures and mating rituals aren't in the monster manual no. I'm sure those rituals and structures haven't changed, so they could easily be taken from second edition and implemented into third. That would have nothing to do with the game system. Besides, you've got a DM. If you want to have that kind of depth in your game, the DM can arrange it. And, everyone has something different they want to get out of the game. If you and your RP group are enjoying themselves, that's great, but that doesn't mean what works for you, works for others.

As for a reply to the rest of the content of your post, I refer to McGrouch who made the comparison between 2nd and 3rd better than I could have.

 

Aren't social structures of Myconoids mentioned in Monster Manual II?

 

Indeed they are.

Page 157 MM2 for anyone interested.

 

In fact aren't many social structures mentioned in both Monster Manuels, some campaign books, and the epic level hand book?

 

Actually I started with 1st edition. I'm staying with 2nd Edition now.

 

You didn't have an option for my situation. I started when there was only Basic Dungeons & Dragons. I was around when the original Monster Manual first released. But I prefer the 3rd edition rules to all of the previous editions.

 

I just have to laugh after seeing Vormaerin's and Baldak's posts Are we getting old?

Having started with the original D&D games, and gone through 1st Edition AD&D, 2nd Edition AD&D, and the 2.11 Edition AD&D that the BG games were modelled on, 3rd Edition is far, far better. For me, one of the major reasons is that it is much more flexible - any PC race can play any PC class. Furthermore, monsters and creatures are not static - they can advance, get better, and tougher in much the same way that characters can.

Amongst other things, including a much simplified and yet still viable combat system, 3rd edition has a skill system that not only works well, but is quite thorough and, for those that wish it, easy to enhance. Combined with the Feat system, there is a far greater ability to personalise every character. For example, in previous editions, the *only* effective ways to make one race-class combination different from another similar combination was through physical characteristics, equipment and simple role-playing. In 3rd edition, similar race-class combinations (of which there are also more) are differentiated on a multitude of different levels, which is then further enhanced by how the character is roleplayed.

 

I've played a bit of everything as far as editions are concerned. I'll never go back to 2E because it was the most complex and yet inflexible set of rules I've seen. There were tables for this, tables for that, a screwed up multyclass system, level limits because of the race of a PC, monsters that weren't in the slightest variable and a still longer list of problems with it.
I'll observe that the ruleset does not dictate gameplay that's the job of the DM and the players. The campaign I just completed was not one where you would want to try to fight your way through it and yet it used 3E.

 

From my experience it occurs 2ed is more complex and detailed, but definitely less flexible with too many limitations based solely on balance-wishing. In certain aspects it was overly detailed. I mean almost everything was covered but by non-historians, non-literature-experts non-warfare-experts, non-social-science-experts and so on. The table of titles seems not that really needed, but it just is. And it is bugged. It's just what came to someone's mind when recalling something. Especially German titles are totally messed up in the table and certainly not corresponding to their given counterparts. It's only one example - there are many others apart from that sorry table. Things 'based' on Mediaeval era don't really resemble the actual Mediaeval standards as well. Pallies are completely out of blue with certain concepts which are neither historical nor from legends and tales. In 3ed nothing is specified this detailed way, but it's thus less bugged and allows more accuracy and rational thinking.

 

I start my D&D experience with the 3rd it's Multiclassing system is great and the skill feat are very well done, but hey If that book, doesn't social stucture for a certain race but hey YOU MAKE IT!!! 3rd is more open for DM who want to create a world...Sure you could use their rule, but hey you can ALSO use your own.