PDA

View Full Version : 2nd ed vs 3x what should i run



lisiecki
2007-12-19, 04:32 PM
So i feel the need to run a campagn
as i do every few years
I have 2nd ed and 3rd ed
im about as frimilure with one as i am the other
since im going to have some n00bs
what version is more n00b friendly?

Nerd-o-rama
2007-12-19, 04:35 PM
3rd Edition is by far the more intuitive to learn. At least it is if you stick to core material (PHB/DMG/MM), as there's significant feature creep from the secondary books.

psychoticbarber
2007-12-19, 04:36 PM
The Hero system. (http://herogames.com/home.htm;jsessionid=abySuaJV_1v6)

Ahem.

Personally, I prefer 3.X out of the two options provided, but neither is without their flaws.

ALOR
2007-12-19, 04:38 PM
3rd Edition is by far the more intuitive to learn. At least it is if you stick to core material (PHB/DMG/MM), as there's significant feature creep from the secondary books.

the same can be said of 2e, remember the kits??

noob freindly? I'd say 3e. You don't need to explain thaco and the system is rather simple at it's core.

MrNexx
2007-12-19, 04:46 PM
3.x is more intuitive in some ways; increasing numbers are always good, and BAB and ACs are easier to figure out. It's also got a rule for everything, and if you need those, they're good to have.

However, 2nd edition is a bit easier in other ways. 3.x, even within the core, gives you tons of options. For experienced players, this can be a lot of fun. For those with no experience, it can be daunting. They want to make the "right" choices, and having so many choices can make it difficult... especially when they run into a feat or skill they wish they'd invested in, but didn't.

For myself, I prefer 2nd edition. I feel that a less defined system makes it a bit easier for me to say "yes" to whatever the players want to try. However, it can go either way, and the fact that the SRD is up free to read for those who are motivated to do so is another plus, in some people's minds.

bugsysservant
2007-12-19, 04:58 PM
Well, each has its advantages. Disregarding all the feature creep/kits/splatbooks/whatever it boils down to two things: 3 ed is easy to learn, 2 ed is easier to learn fully. 3rd is built around a single thing: roll a d20 and hope to get a high result. 2ed lacks this consistency which leads to some rather annoying, yet crucial, mechanics (I'm looking at you THAC0). Once you get past this 2ed is fairly strait forward. 3ed is not. While you will quickly master saves, attack roles, AC and the like, for months or even years you will be plagued with questions about the little nitpicky rules "how do you handle mounted combat?" "do I gain an advantage for higher ground" "How do you randomly determine the space this spell effects" and so on. 3ed is, by general consensus, a better system with more vision, planning, and coherence, but it is still very rules heavy. If you like that (and a lot of people don't) then you should do well, if not try 2ed.

MrNexx
2007-12-19, 05:06 PM
the same can be said of 2e, remember the kits??

Kits could add a layer of complexity, but they were also one-time choices, and could be a method of zeroing in on a character concept, instead of actually increasing the multitude of choices available. If you simply drop a stack of supplements in front of anyone and say "Make a character", it's going to be intimidating, and the choices will seem overwhelming.

On the other hand, if someone has an idea that they want to play, say, Rutger Hauer's daytime character from Ladyhawke, you can say "Ok, how about a ranger with the Falconer kit? You can be proficient in the Bastard Sword, Short Sword, and Crossbow, and you'd have a well-trained hawk that goes with you."

Comparing this with 3.x, you have a lot of important choices to make at 1st level. Feat from a broad selection, allocation of skill points, etc. While you might have a character concept, you have to look at how you can build this character from level to level, instead of creating him at 1st level and then making only a few improvements as time goes on.

Some will point to 2nd edition's WPs and NWPs as being similar to this; I disagree. Weapon proficiencies, unless you choose truly horribly ("I'm gonna specialize in the Grain Flail and the Light Hammer!") aren't game-shattering choices, especially if your DM is willing to tailor the found magical items to you a bit ("Ok, it says a sword, but our main fighter uses halberds... that's a little change to make."). NWPs amounted to an average of about 6 choices, and they rarely had as large of an impact on the game, IME, as making sure your skill points and feats are properly allocated for Prestige Class X. The only 2e character of comparable mechanical complexity to a 3.x character would be a rogue (bard or thief), with the allocation of their skill points... and even then, they had a limited menu of choices. And in 3.x, this complexity continues from level to level... when I get to 2nd level, I have to pick anew which class I know, and, in some cases, what feats I gain, what features I use, etc.

This is not saying that 2e is better than 3.x; that is not in anyway my argument. However, I think that those who are accustomed to 3.x overlook some of the complexity and the multiplicity of choices that will confront a new player, much as 2e players overlook the counter-intuitiveness and gaps of 2e because they are used to the system as-is and have become accustomed to "walking on the left side" (to make another Ladyhawke reference)... i.e. stepping around the places 2e doesn't cover, or building their own bridges over them.

Matthew
2007-12-19, 05:56 PM
Whichever you are more comfortable running, seems like the best answer. A lot depends on how many options you include. If you're running the basic version of both editions, then it's a choice between relative positions of rules heaviness/lightness. If you're the kind of DM who likes a lot of freedom, then 2e, if you like a lot of codification, then 3e. Both are perfectly easy for a new player to learn, so long as the DM has equal skill with both editions.

lisiecki
2007-12-19, 07:10 PM
Whichever you are more comfortable running, seems like the best answer. A lot depends on how many options you include. If you're running the basic version of both editions, then it's a choice between relative positions of rules heaviness/lightness. If you're the kind of DM who likes a lot of freedom, then 2e, if you like a lot of codification, then 3e. Both are perfectly easy for a new player to learn, so long as the DM has equal skill with both editions.

Its been about 15 years since i ran 2nd ed on any kind of regular basis. Ive run a hand full of 3rd now and again.


psychoticbarber, never tried hero, but perhaps its just the fact im getting old, but theres something charming about DandDs flaws
not always, but some times

Matthew
2007-12-19, 07:25 PM
If I were you, I would probably run a stripped down session of 2e, just using the basic classes, races and rules. No proficiencies, specialisation, paladins, rangers, etc... Alternatively, you might consider giving Basic Dungeons & Dragons a go (or one of it's free simulacrums, such as Labyrinth Lord).

Then try a session of D20 with them. Alternatively, try it the other way round. That way you can find what best suits you and your group.

Of course, you could always download the Quick Start Rules to Castles & Crusades and one of the free adventures; that's a nice modernised old school rule set.

Links:



Labyrinth Lord

Rules

Labyrinth Lord (http://goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.htm)





Castles & Crusades

Rules

Quick Start Rules (http://www.trolllord.com/newsite/cnc/ccqs.html)
Monsters & Treasures (http://trolllord.com/files/monsters.pdf)

Adventures

A Lion in the Ropes (Short Adventure) (http://www.trolllord.com/files/cclion.pdf)
The Rising Knight (Short Adventure) (http://www.trolllord.com/newsite/cnc/8000C.html)

The House of Rogat Demazien (http://www.judgesguild.com/fans/rogat_demazien.pdf)
The Garden of Al-astorion (http://www.judgesguild.com/fans/al-astorion_cc.pdf)
Systema Tartarobasis (http://cncplayer.net/download/Systema_Tartarobasis.pdf)