Quote from: jgantsPerhaps the dumbest criticism I've ever heard.  D&D isn't supposed to have a unique vision - that's the whole point.  And what did Dancey replace it with?  Some "dungeonpunk" crap that isn't evocative of the old D&D whatsoever.

Strange, then, that I began playing going on 30 years ago, and 3e sure seemed to evoke that old game for me. And "dungeonpunk" is a trite, overused, and totally inaccurate term for the game, mostly used by those who have never actually played it, in my experience.

Quote from: jgantsBesides, 3e is clearly aimed at 12 year old boys.  The art alone makes that obvious.

While art for the earliest editions looked like it was drawn by 12 year olds. 12 year olds who weren't particularly gifted. "I spent like three hours doing the shading on your upper lip. It's probably the best drawing I've ever done."

Plus, it sure seems 3e has attracted a helluva lot more than 12 year olds, given that this 41 year old likes it, and has played in groups with people even older.

:forge:

Quote from: ColonelHardissonStrange, then, that I began playing going on 30 years ago, and 3e sure seemed to evoke that old game for me. And "dungeonpunk" is a trite, overused, and totally inaccurate term for the game, mostly used by those who have never actually played it, in my experience.

My statement was in reference to the style of art.  Dancey's complaint was that 2e art wasn't uniform enough to suggest the type of game world being played in.  My rebuttal is that the 3e art style is not at all reminiscent of any prior artistic style - so he created something uniform, but completely different than any style used in any past edition of the game.

I think the game can play more or less like the previous versions.  Though I have to say, I played in a D&D 3 campaign for a year and a half and didn't care for the 3e rules at all (for at least a dozen different reasons).

Quote from: ColonelHardissonWhile art for the earliest editions looked like it was drawn by 12 year olds. 12 year olds who weren't particularly gifted. "I spent like three hours doing the shading on your upper lip. It's probably the best drawing I've ever done."

I agree.  AD&D 1e had horrid art (except for the revised book covers).  BD&D and AD&D 2e had much better art, though.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonPlus, it sure seems 3e has attracted a helluva lot more than 12 year olds, given that this 41 year old likes it, and has played in groups with people even older.

I didn't say that it wouldn't appeal to people other than teenage boys, just that teenage boys are clearly the target audience for 3e (and not the college age audience targeted by 1e).

As a kid I had some absolutely wonderful times playing AD&D2.  Mechanically it was cleaner and more comprehensible than 1st edition.  The Monstrous Manual is still one of the best hardbound critter books in the industry.  The PHB was pretty darn good, too.  The DMG was a real disappointment, but adequate.

I loathe pretty much the rest of the line.  If we agree that the "Swine" theory of RPG culture is true (which I consider a debatable point), then Settembrini is right in calling the AD&D line swinish.  The corebooks can support old school adventure gaming, but there was a definite sea change in the modules and settings.  Metaplot and storytelling became the word of the day.

I agree with Calithena that a lot of the charm of 1st edition was deliberately drained out of the 2nd.  In fact, my most successful AD&D2nd campaign was heavily hybrided with the 1st edition.  Towards the end of that game the players still used the 2nd edition PHB and I was using almost nothing but 1st ed materials.  But then I also played a ripping fun campaign run by a friend that was strictly 2nd ed.

Quote from: jrientsThe Monstrous Manual is still one of the best hardbound critter books in the industry.

Yes, absolutely.  I think that's the one area that 3e went downhill.  I loved the mini-ecology sections and writeups on each of the beasties inside.

-O

Okay, I've played all three editions and this is how I feel.  1st edition was completely broken and took a rocket scientist to understand.  2nd Edition was by far the best.  It allowed for the most leeway and customization without resorting to cumbersome feats and such.  I mean really, how confusing is it to roll 6 stats, pick a class, race, and alignment and plug in the rest of the #'s? (such as thac0, ac, and saves) 2E left the most room open to interpretation to players and dm's.

To those of you who bitched about figuring out your to hit number.  Not terribly complicated. Take your thac0 and subtract the ac your trying to hit.  This is the number you need or higher to hit.  How hard is that really and if you can't figure that out then you need to go back to first grade math.

As far as the expansions went these were nice optional accessories that added as much depth as a player or dm wanted.  It's not like 3e and 3.5 e haven't done the same thing, just copy and pasting from previous editions with slightly better artwork.

3E and 3.5E where do I start.  Or finish. Maybe this sums it up.  While walking through a bookstore a friend of mind happened to spot a Dungeons and Dragons for Dummies handbook.  My friend turns to me and says "Hey look, it's a 3rd edition players handbook!"  3e and 3.5e were nothing but lame attempts for wizards of the coast do what they've done to everything else they've got their hands on.... Dumb it down to a first grade level and market it towards all the little pokemon/magic/you name the current fad geeks.  Just a way of trying to milk it out and make everyone who bought the old school stuff shell out even more dough.

Seriously, was 2nd edition so busted it needed a whole new line... no.  Confused by some of the rules, the only ones you really need are basic combat rules.  I mean, how often are you going to be performing aerial dueling.

So, to those of you who still rant that 2e sucked even though some of us have been enjoying it since before you started sucking on mama, Take you pile of crap that you call 3E and stuff it.

To those who know how much fun 2E really is, and stuck to your guns... Good for you.

Quote from: ChuckMansonSo, to those of you who still rant that 2e sucked even though some of us have been enjoying it since before you started sucking on mama, Take you pile of crap that you call 3E and stuff it.

Watch out everyone!  It's time for NERD RAGE!

-O

Quote from: ChuckManson3e and 3.5e were nothing but lame attempts for wizards of the coast do what they've done to everything else they've got their hands on.... Dumb it down to a first grade level and market it towards all the little pokemon/magic/you name the current fad geeks.

Buh? 3.x is dumbed down? Just because it has a unified resolution scheme doesn't mean it's dumbed down. Good Lord, when you add feats and PrCs and include the variables in combat that AoO provide, the game has plenty of complexity and a whole new slew of abbreviations to boot .

It's cool you like 2nd ed and all, but the line above needed a solid whipping.

Quote from: ChuckMansonTo those who know how much fun 2E really is, and stuck to your guns... Good for you.

Actually, I updated to Castles & Crusades.  What REAL gamers play.

Quote from: ChuckMansonOkay, I've played all three editions and this is how I feel.  1st edition was completely broken and took a rocket scientist to understand.

and yet people still play and enjoy it, some even say that it was easier to deal with then 2nd ed.

Quote from: ChuckManson2nd Edition was by far the best.  It allowed for the most leeway and customization without resorting to cumbersome feats and such.  I mean really, how confusing is it to roll 6 stats, pick a class, race, and alignment and plug in the rest of the #'s? (such as thac0, ac, and saves) 2E left the most room open to interpretation to players and dm's.

Oh yes the saves...  please forgive me if I'm running a game and find it a LOT easier to figure that a trap requires a Con or Ref save then figuring out a save vs wands or such.

Quote from: ChuckMansonJust a way of trying to milk it out and make everyone who bought the old school stuff shell out even more dough.

Reminds me of the people writing letters into Dragon when 2nd Ed came out complaining that the magazine would be supporting the new edition and not that books they had paid for years before...  (and the letters when 3rd came out I'm guessing, I know there were letters as far as 3.0 vs 3.5)

Quote from: ChuckMansonSo, to those of you who still rant that 2e sucked even though some of us have been enjoying it since before you started sucking on mama, Take you pile of crap that you call 3E and stuff it.

To those who know how much fun 2E really is, and stuck to your guns... Good for you.

You know, what I've read of the thread hasn't really had all that much of people saying that 2ed sucked, more that they had issues with some mechanics or felt that problems with 1st ed still hadn't been fixed. I'm really hoping that you check out some more of the site and even the rest of this thread.

As far as people playing 2nd Ed and having fun? Rock on!! It was the first version of D&D that I played and I had tons of fun with it. So did a lot of other people who post here.  Open up a thread and I'm pretty sure that you will have people join you.

Quote from: joewolzActually, I updated to Castles & Crusades.  What REAL gamers play.

Fuck that, real gamers (like me) buy swords at the local sporting goods store and go do some classic appartment crawls. I'm really proud of the +1 Plasma Screen I looted last week.

Dice are for wimps.

Quote from: joewolzActually, I updated to Castles & Crusades.  What REAL gamers play.

I thought real gamers played Hackmaster.

Quote from: JamesVFuck that, real gamers (like me) buy swords at the local sporting goods store and go do some classic appartment crawls. I'm really proud of the +1 Plasma Screen I looted last week.

Dice are for wimps.

Dude! I want to play in your campaign!:D

2nd edition D&D did not "suck".

It was a highly playable game that worked for the situations encountered most often in my campaigns.

That said, it IS the worst edition of the 4 D&D editions thus far (OD&D, AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e and D&D 3e/3.5).

So it gets a lot of flack. Being the worst of something tends to do that, but I wouldn't confuse it with the game sucking.

Quote from: ChuckMansonOkay, I've played all three editions and this is how I feel.  1st edition was completely broken and took a rocket scientist to understand.  

I often wonder what sort of rocket me and the other 5th graders would have built had we not been misapplying our genius to playing AD&D...

Seriously, I had never heard of RPGs and yet somehow managed to figure it out. 1st ed was not broken, mine still runs just fine and I've never even changed the oil. The hobby as we know it wouldn't exist without that broken game that people still somehow manage to play.

2nd ed is OK rules-wise, the worst thing they did with that edition was to get rid of all the "evil" stuff (assassins, demons, etc) IMO. That and the whole addition of feats and what not towards the end there. I didnt mind the class/race books at the time, but now they seem kinda gimmicky. I like 2nd ed better than 3rd though. In the end, it's all D&D to me.

Kids are really comfortable with not understanding. They are used to it. It's happens all the time, most of their life has been spent not understanding this thing or that.  They just gloss over the parts they don't understand and run with the bits they do.  Have you ever witnessed two kids that are strangers to each other babble and gesture unintelligebly to each other and act satisfied that they've not only communicated but communicated fabulously? They didn't really but enough got through from the tone of voice and posture and hand gestures that it was enough.

Adults are usually, to some degree, less comfortable with things they don't understand....if they happen to notice them. Of course often things that they got into the habit of ignoring as a kid they will continue to ignore because nothing's changed to trigger them noticing. They've already filled in the gaps of non-understanding with something they've made up. That's just how people work. That is how we need to work to get by. To do otherwise would cause unknowns or the large amounts of details in everyday life to paralize us into inaction.

We use and do things without understanding them everyday. With mixed results.