My 2e thread

[Hero]

To jump in here - I started playing D&D when it was called "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons." By calling it "Advanced" it appealed to all of those of use who fancied ourselves intelligent. I had a lot of fun reading those 1st Ed books and the 2nd Ed books that followed shortly after. I had a lot of fun playing D&D with those systems.

But...

3rd edition was like a breath of fresh air to me. It was like I stopped hitting myself over the head with a hammer. It was a wonderful paradigm shift. Revelations included:

"Look, they made charisma useful!"

"Look, a reasonable system for making magic items!"

"Look, clerics don't have to prepare healing spells anymore. I don't have to be a medic with a mace ever again."

"Wow, now I can play a 10th level fighter and you can play a 10th level fighter and they won't be almost identical."

"Look! I roll this d20 for almost everything! A high roll is always good. A low roll is always bad. Hallelujah! I can stop trying to formulate Thac0 at 3 AM!"

"NO WEAPON SPEEDS! WHOO HOO!"

"NO RACIAL LEVEL LIMITS! WOO HOO!"

"Hey! I can now be an elven paladin. Remember that 2nd Ed book that had a whole essay about why elven paladins were a bad idea? Yeah, that essay was a bad idea. I can also be a dwarven wizard or a halfing cleric or a half-orc druid and a lot of other combos that were just not allowed in 2nd ed."

"Hey look! It doesn't suck to be a human anymore. Now, humans are an optimal choice for character race and every single party won't be 80% elves." Yay!

"Hey look, a 16 in a stat means you get a +3 for everything related to that stat. No more looking up the different bonuses for the same score in different stats! And now all the scores between 8 and 13 matter!"

[Toptomcat]

Yeah, 3e fixed a lot of b0rked things.

[Lin]

Perhaps 3rd edition did make a better a better rules set and a through that rules set encouraged more diversity to rules focused players.

HOWEVER, I really disliked that paradigm shift.

I think the new books writing and art are terrible now compared to the past. Van Ritchten's Guides are only one example of a series of excellently written books from 2nd edition which have no peer in the new books. The main problem with the newer books is they have so much space dedicated to feats, spells and PrCs, there is no room for anything to actually read! While I don't play in any premade campaign setting, I loved reading Ravenloft and other books for inspiration that might get indirectly used in the game and beyond that are just fun to read. A set of (reprinted) rules, not so much.

I'm not getting into the balance shift, which I also think is less desirable than average Joe gamer.

Cleaner rules: good

Change in paradigm: debatable

[Toptomcat]

Well, I prefer a playable, somewhat bland ruleset over a nigh-unplayable, flavorful one. If someone could hybridize the 2e and 3e books to have the best of both I'd love it, but I like it this way.

[Lin]

TTC: Perhaps, but why does a clean ruleset have to be exclusive from well written game books? The problem isn't that the ruleset is easier to use. The problem is the focus of the books has shifted so far to rules related options that they have become nigh-unreadible. Many read more like an encyclopedia than a roleplaying book. I think much of this relates to balance-obession: there is such a focus on making things fair rather than interesting, as if players and DMs can't houserule anything they don't like anyway, as if the word in an "official" book is more correct than something a player makes up.

I find it funny that one of the best things about the strict level balance system is that it makes modules easier to design, yet there are so few 3rd edition first party modules written and they lack a lot of the flavor of the older ones.

My complaints are more with idealogy and writing style changes than the rules. Having 2 pages in "average D&D book" deidcated to a PrC is going to have a minimal effect on my game if I use it and no effect if I don't. 2 pages of well written fluff or storytelling technique will be interesting to me if i don't use and it may have a wonderful effective if I do. That said, I refer more often to (some) 2nd edition books than my 3rd edition books.

[Toptomcat]

Well, if I have to choose one I choose a good ruleset...but I agree, both would be very nice indeed.

[Hero]

Oh there was tons of great flavor text in the 1st and 2nd ed books. By all means, get those books out and use that text. But "the game" is much better off now IMHO.

Incidentally, I would put the FRCS up against anything written for 1st or 2nd Ed in terms of flavor text. I love to sit around and just read it. Lords of Darkness is another good product with lots of good backgrounds and whatnot. I really like the chapters on major evil organizations in the realms. It also seems to keep the "crunchy" stuff to a minimum.

[Toptomcat]

I liked the FRCS too, though not the takes on the higher-level characters.