Indeed, and if I wanted bonuses for each and every roleplaying element of my character, I would play d20 Fantasy.
The point behind 2nd Edition isn't getting bonuses for every whipstitch and problem your character has. The thing behind 2ed is the fact that you roleplay MORE. Instead of simply running around and becoming a "badass", you eventually aquire Lord or Lady status. Why? Because thats what the feudal system is all about. I understand becoming Epic Level is cool and all, but how many people get to kill the Tarrasque? He's UNIQUE for cripes sake. Quite honestly, if you think about it, there's a reason its so hard to get to 10th level in 2ed. I know I made a chart once that demonstrated the difference in XP advancement.
No, I am not picking favorites. I am siding with 2ed because it is the last D&D. d20 is simply Planescape... universalized. And reproduced a million times. And played by the 10-15 yo demographic.
If you say there is less roleplaying in D&D because of the new system, you are extremely mistaken. If you have played with people like that I feel very sorry for you. I on the other hand have played a lot of D&D where roleplaying was the main deal, not combat. And yes I was in Stahl's campaign and I will admit there was a lot of battle, but when it first started there was a lot of roleplaying. Most game degenerate into endless battle near the end because that is what makes it action. You kill the badguy. I don't care the system, I just want to play. Also I agree with Art on the fact you can do flashier stuff in 3rd ed, and I am a fan of flash.
Allright, he wasn't saying that there was alot of combat, that hasn't been his arguement. He said that there is a reason why he likes 2.0. It's because it focus is roleplay, not becomming a badass in your first 20 sessions. 3.5 was built around the the "idea" haha, the "beliefe" that you should be able to take out a goddamned Dragon by level 15 that you'll reach within the timespan of less than two months. I have to agree with him on that. The XP ratios in 3.5 are gearset twards making your character grow at a faster rate.
But it has been proven faster is better. If he is saying that roleplaying is the main focus than he is not stating his belief well. What he needs to do is tell us why. Also we are not arguing roleplaying ability what we are arguing is the system. The system is fine, it was designed for flash over boring in my opinion. There are differences there, but what makes D&D D&D is still there.
No faster is not better. In my personal experiance, somtimes slower is better. Would you rather eat a sauce that was stewed all day or one that was canned? But off the topic of food. I'm tired of this discussion and would like it to end personaly. Gryphon said it best, 1st ed D&D is like a bowl of ice cream, 2nd is like a Hot Fudge Sundae, and 3.5 is like a pepperoni pizza, it's nothing bad, it's just not ice cream.
That's been said before, and not what I am arguing. What I am arguing is that 3rd ed D&D is still D&D and should be recognized as that. Everything that makes D&D D&D is still there.
Indeed. And everything that makes Halo Halo is there in Halo 2, right?
Wrong. It's a new and ass backwards game! d20 CAN EVEN CAN BE CROSSOVERED INTO ANOTHER GAME!! LIEK L5R? OR BESM!?! WTF do BESM and D&D have in common? That's treachery. Look at halo2sucks.com if you are still failing to understand the devastation we True-schoolers felt when we picked up d20 Fantasy and it was called D&D.
On the note of plotline, D&D doesn't have plotlines, only history and heroes. And though they exist, it doesn't necessarily mean that the universe it is in is the same as another. Just because Cain is in Vampire doesn't mean our world is just like the World of Darkness, only slightly different.
Everything that made Halo Halo is in Halo 2, just that there are bad things along with it. And the WOD is our world, but really fucked up. And BESM is an open ended game, anything can go on within it's bounds. Right now we are making a soccer game.
D&D is not AD&D, I'll give you that. But D&D is still D&D because it feels like D&D. What makes a game is not the system it is the players and if you go into a game saying it is going to suck, then it probably is going to suck. You juist haven't given it a chance. I like the new open endedness of the new D&D because it allow you to do so much more with the world than AD&D ever did.
Honestly, I like d20. But that's just it! If something is in a new system that has different rules and is going to devour every other RPG on the face of the planet and make it part of the system, then it should have a universalized name (d20) attached to all systems it devours (AD&D). However, using D&D as the core rulebooks for EVERY d20 game is tantamount to making a new game! Now, if they would have called it AD&D d20 or d20 Fantasy, then I would have been less biased against it. But to declare that the new version of D&D is the basic books for all future RPGs WotC will be buying (I mean releasing like they made them), is like Drow on Wood Elves.
All I want is for people to understand that they just made D&D more accessible to the stupid people that we have nipping at our heels. I know what THACO is and how to use it, but that is because I like math. I enoy 2.0 but 3.0 took D&D universal so more people could play, and I think that is a good thing, because not everybody is a dice roller.
First, your argument that 3ed is somehow "faster" than AD&D is false. That is entirely dependent upon what your DM decides to throw your way. I could throw nothing but dragons at you ever session. If you kill them all, of course you are going to level quickly, no matter the game.
Once again, ROLE PLAYING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SYSTEM!
You do know that other games use the d20 system, right? That are not D&D? Star Wars, Wheel of Time, BESM d20, and even your vaunted "new" Legend of the 5 Rings all use the d20 system. And they are all quite different games. In particular is the Wheel of Time game, which is not D&D 3ed, even if the setting is quite fantasy based. D&D 3edis not the main system, as it itself is a d20 product.
You DO realize that BESM d20 is not a Wizards of the Coast product? It is done by Guardians of Order using the open source gaming set down with d20. Wizards may (or may not, I am not sure...) have made d20, but they do not own d20. One could make Mission Accepted a d20 game, if you so wished, and no one could get on our case about it.
In final, d20 is not D&D 3ed. The reverse is true, however. d20 is the system, and D&D is the game.
Yes, I know D&D is D&D, buit it seems that the people supporting AD&D are supporting the system. Look back through my posts and you will se that I have said that the system does not make the game. But these people want to discuss the system. So, let's have at it.
and even your vaunted "new" Legend of the 5 Rings all use the d20 system.
Correction #1: Third Edition Legend of the Five Rings has five stats, not six. It is not based on a twenty sided die, it is based on a ten. Lastly, the L5R version you are thinking of in d20 is the amagalmation of a good game (L5R) and a failed attempted a Chinese RPG genre on behalf of Gary Gygax (short may he stand in the unemployment line) called ORIENTAL ADVENTURES. There is a reason OA was not printed in 2nd Edition. It was because AEG was making a superior game for WotC to destroy later.
You DO realize that BESM d20 is not a Wizards of the Coast product?
Correction #2: If this is true, then why on earth is there a Wizards of the Coast logo on the book. Take a look sometime. I believe it is on the back cover, near the UPC.
In final, d20 is not D&D 3ed. The reverse is true, however. d20 is the system, and D&D is the game.
Correction #3: Again, this takes a bit of looking while you have another expansion book (like BESM of Modern). On the back, shortly after the synopsis, there is a section that says something about being usable with the core rulebooks. Also, take into consideration that each "world" of the d20 Multiverse that WotC established refers back to the original 9 or 10 (again, I don't remember) classes. If they were each a previously established and unique game, they would not fall back on pre-established class archetypes.
Now, for my argument back. System is as system does. Editions of an RPG are designed to improve the dynamics of the system, not rewrite them altogether. Sure, d20 is simpler to understand, but it isn't what D&D has been traditionally. And the problem is deeper than THAC0 vs To Hit and Proficiencies vs Feats. It has to do with expecting one thing and getting another altogether. I can't emphasize enough; d20 is a good system. But 2nd Edition is better. This is not because it is older (normally I would have asserted this) but instead because it is the last refinement of the orignal D&D (loev teh fixeded bonuses and race/classes).
Post by Atreides Conscript on Jun 6, 2005 3:22:54 GMT -5
Argument Fault #1
eunhathes said:
Editions of an RPG are designed to improve the dynamics of the system, not rewrite them altogether.
Editions of an RPG are designed to errata, or change, or modify, or whatever the hell they want. You're following a concept of "edition" that has itself been revised. When 3rd Edition D&D hit, if it hadn't already happened elsewhere, a new precedent was set. "Edition's" meaning reformed to fit the new precedent.
If a word (like "edition"), or thing (like D&D), or person (like my uncle who lives like it's still 1964) cannot adapt to fit new circumstances, what happens? They all become things of the past. They become archaic. They become outdated and suffer diminished usage.
That doesn't mean that 2nd Edition can't be used anymore... it just means that you have something newer that you can use more readily. There will always be people who learn Olde English. It just won't help them in many situations. Bottom line... more people play 3rd Edition D&D (or 3 and 3.5 now).
Argument Fault #2
eunhathes said:
Sure, d20 is simpler to understand, but it isn't what D&D has been traditionally.
This one comes down to personal rationale. Tradition isn't as important to everyone as you seem to make it sound like. Traditionally men are the "bread winners" and women are the "stay at home" mothers and homemakers. I personally think that's all a load of shit.
Tradition can be fun and interesting, but you shouldn't bog yourself down with it. I find it much more utilitarian to be a progressive about things. I may not always like change, but I'm not such a fool as to not embrace it most of the time.
Liking the things of the past doesn't mean that you have to reject the future. That is an oversight, and a blindness. All it means is that you're more sentimental about things.
Argument Fault #3
eunhathes said:
And the problem is deeper than THAC0 vs To Hit and Proficiencies vs Feats. It has to do with expecting one thing and getting another altogether. I can't emphasize enough; d20 is a good system. But 2nd Edition is better.
You expected an errata to the 2nd Edition system, but you got d20. GET OVER IT ALREADY! I expected 4th Edition Masquerade, but I got Requiem... I'm pretty much over it, and I've only had half a year to cope.
Do I like Requiem? No, but I judge it for what it is, rather than what it isn't. Was I biased? Hell yeah in the beginning... but I calmed down and started looking at it from an objective viewpoint. You need to do the same. Let go of your prejudices and look at it for what it is, rather than what it isn't. Requiem is (and always will be) Vampire.
They call it Requiem because it isn't part of the Masquerade storyline. It follows pretty much the same system, but a different history and plotline. If they kept the Masquerade story and changed the system... they would have called it 4th Edition Masquerade.
Editions are for system changes, and overhauls, and replacements. Different names are for different stories. 3rd Edition D&D is called that because it was a system change. It isn't d20 Fantasy because the history, world, and plotlines are all the same as before. They have been expanded upon, but not erased.
So.... Is 2nd Edition D&D better than 3rd Edition D&D and D&D 3.5? That is in the eye of the beholder. We all have our likes and dislikes. I vote for 3.5 because I prefer the system and like the advancements in the plotline. Does that make D&D 2.0 crap? Not in my book. I just don't like the system. This whole argument has been little more than semantics, partisantism, and misunderstandings.
I can only hope that you have all gotten something out of this whole argument... because if you didn't, then my posting here has been nothing more than a waste of time.
Conscript has a point now that I think about it. I've had pretty much the same stand, only I was abit more biased in my point of view of the 3.5 system. Now I do admit that I like the 2nd ed system better, but that dosn't mean that 3.5 isn't a vaild system.
I guess it was when he made the comparison to Requiem and Masqerade. Was I expecting 4th Ed Masquerade? Yes. Did I get it? Hell no. Did I want to strangle the White Wolf staff for making it? You bet your ass I did. But the fact of the matter is, he is right. 3.5 is a newer system and thus will get more "air time" than 2nd because it's newer.
I hate to say it, but newer things normaly take the forefront when it comes to people likeing them. Does it make them better? No, not really. But it does mean that 2nd ed will not be as recognized as it used to be.
Az also has a good point. It's not the system that makes the game. I remember along time ago when Bhurman introduced me to the White Wolf games, he told me "It dosn't matter what your take on the system is, it dosn't matter how many of the books you have, it also dosn't matter, what your personal take on the setting is. All that matters when it comes to a game is, that you and your PCs are having fun." He is right, without a doubt. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten people together in my early days of Storytelling/DMing/GMing what have you, and we just made things up as we went along and had a blast. There was no formal system and there was no set rules list. But we had fun....and isn't that what matters when your bring out that dice bag, or that character sheet?
And with that, I think I am stepping out of this discussion. I have run out of logical points to work with, and Atreides did a good job summing up my final steps.
Great discussion, folks! This is how it should be done!
Due to severe misinterpertation, I continue to be pegged as "hating d20". This is not so. d20 is fine. But it's just not D&D to me.
@ Atreides: Yes, your points are valid. Yes, something comes from them; More discussion. I justify my statement that 3rd Edition is simply a farse conjured up by Magic: the Gathering, I mean, umm, Wizards of the Coast, to sell to a larger audience by stating that the rules from one "edition" of D&D to another "edition" of it are so radically different, that an entire new set of rules is born!
Allow me to elaborate: Attack of Opportunity - 3ed Mainstay of Combat, 2ed Player's Option Book. Multiple Attacks per Round - 3ed Combat Reflexes, Cleave, Base Combat Modifiers, etc; 2ed 4lvl for warriors. all others eat crow. Attacks - 3ed to hit; 2ed THAC0 Damage - 3ed Critical Threat Range; 2ed grounded in low fantasy (crits dont do upwards of 30hp damage)
So, I imagine the argument boils down to: If you lieked Willow, Ecks vs Sever, and LotR Books play 2nd Edition. If you lieked LotR Movies, the Matrix, or Harry Potter books, play 3rd Edition. It's all about High Fantasy (3rd Edition) vs Low Fantasy (2nd Edition).
And neither is the Matrix. But, if D&D were to be put into a moder setting, those are the two resulting games, in 2 and 3, respectively.
I do have to say I am glad the Leekey/Berry argument of "Bigger Numbers are Better" hasn't come up. I would be pissed to have to break out the Square-Enix/Bungie Defense.
