Help Me Prove That 3 > 2 [Archive] - Wizards Community

Help Me Prove That 3 > 2 [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Reinforcements
05-19-05, 04:57 PM I've been playing DnD with a certain DM and long-time friend for many years now, and with summer upon us we're revving up once more. Now, once upon a time I was young and ignorant and perfectly happy playing 2nd Edition DnD, but I've been participating in the playing (and purchasing) of much 3.5 lately, and quite frankly I'm finding myself increasingly unable to stand the insane hodgepodge of rules that makes up 2nd Ed. Unfortunately, said DM is set in his ways, and despite being relatively familiar with 3rd Edition doesn't want to make the switch. Given that I and the other players would be either ambivalent to or happy with a change to 3.5, how can I convince my DM that 3.5 is, in fact, much, much, so much better than 2nd Edition?
Thoronmir
05-19-05, 05:16 PM The first step is to present your DM with your list of reasons for believing that 3.5 is "much, much, so much better than 2nd Edition."

The second step is ... well, actually, there is no second step.

3.5 is not objectively "better" than 2nd edition anymore than Texas Hold'em is "better" than Draw Poker. It's all a matter of preference ... realizing what elements of D&D appeal to you and deciding which rules set best serves your personal criteria.

One of the first things that appealed to me in 3.0 was the skills system. I've always been sucker for skills. Back "in the day" (circa 1986 I think), I took the trouble to develop my own skills system for the game Boot Hill because, let's face, nothing but gunfights gets boring eventually.

I'd always used miniatures in D&D (since 1979), so I also enjoyed the d20 combat system, since it clarified and codified a method for adjudicating combat that wasn't much different than what I was used to.

I prefer the flexibility in character creation, even with just the Core rules. You can be any Race and Class you like, without regard for level limitations, etc.

But these are my reasons for prefering 3.X to 2nd edition ... you must have your own or you wouldn't have made this thread.
Skaughtisch
05-19-05, 05:24 PM I don't know. I can't help with specific reasons why WotC's versions are better then TSR's, cause I still love 2nd, but if you and the other players want the change just sit down and ask him nicely to give it a try. However, if he still won't agree, I suggest offering to DM a 3.5 campaign yourself. If you just try hounding him into making the change, you'll just tick him off. There is no definitive measure that 3.5>2nd, it is a matter of opinion, and the most important factor of all is to have a happy group.

Good luck, and I hope you won't hold 2nd Ed in disdain forever,
Skaught :D
Myst_the_Moonscout
05-19-05, 05:36 PM I haven't played 2e for some time but for me the key word is "efficiency." 3 and 3.5 require a lot less rolling for combat which speeds things up, and the skills provide a quick way to deal with some situations. I don't mind number crunching when I make a character but not in the middle of the game.
Gryllmyre
05-19-05, 05:42 PM Honestly, the number system and all the little rules (tumble, entangled, flanking, cover, undead traits, etc. and the way the books might mention something in one section, forcing you to find its particulars wherever it may be) were overwhelming.

However, I can say that after 9 months of DMing and playing, I'm finally starting to get past the rules and am seeing the game again.

I am thankful that in 3.x, the combat rules are very well defined, whereas in 1e and 2e, a lot of rules we winged because they just didn't seem right the way they were (a wizard casting a lightning bolt in your face without interruption because he won initiative, even though the book describes the perfect conditions needed under which a spell can be cast, etc.)
DM Zoc
05-19-05, 05:58 PM For me at least, the major difference between 3.x and the older editions is the setting. 3.x assumes that you have magic as a fairly pervasive force in life, and it's hard to change this because the experience tables are linked to the CR system which is intertwined with that blasted "character wealth by level" table. The older editions allowed for less wealth, and they didn't make a big fuss about how much you should or should not have, except that most NPCs were level 0 and magic was rare and to be feared.

Other than that, the rules don't have much to do with the game. I like the new skill system, but the old skill system had its merit as well (namely, it was possible to be a good tailor without being able to kill someone six times before they hit the ground as a pre-requisite). Really, you can create the same character in any edition and it's pretty much just as good (though 2E had a good number of balance issues, similar to 3E except all of those issues you could pull off at first level -- there's less of a sense of progression, which generally means you don't worry so much about gaining levels).

Honestly, right now I have a hard time recommending anything other than 1E AD&D, but any system needs a good dose of house rules (customized to the DM) to be fully playable.
eudas
05-19-05, 06:34 PM (namely, it was possible to be a good tailor without being able to kill someone six times before they hit the ground as a pre-requisite).

"Seven in one blow!" -- Mickey Mouse the Tailor

:)

eudas
Encard
05-19-05, 07:01 PM It isn't better. As has already been said, it's all a matter of preference; personally, I'd say the two are about equal in terms of good and bad points. If you want to convince your DM, your best bet would be to simply talk to him about the things you prefer about 3.x - I suggest you remember that it IS just what you prefer, though and not some universal standard, since otherwise you may just inadvertently irritate him.
Nom
05-19-05, 07:55 PM Alternatively, run a 3.5 game and invite him to play. Don't make it a comparison, instead just treat 3.5 as a completely different rules system that just happens to share a common root (which is about 80% accurate). If he likes it, he might choose to switch his other games too. If not, no great loss.
DarkSoldier
05-19-05, 09:52 PM I haven't played 2e for some time but for me the key word is "efficiency."
What I like about 3E over 2E is that 3E standardized and streamlined a lot of things, while allowing more variety at the same time; 2E core fighters were differentiated only by the weapons they used, while two 3rd-level fighters in 3E could have completely different fighting styles (ie Power Attack vs. Two-Weapon Fighting).

The high point about 3E's efficiency is the change to "Skill" from "Non-Weapon Proficiency."

Non-Weapon Proficiency? :confused: Who decided to call them that?
Shaken, not Stunned
05-19-05, 10:20 PM I am having trouble understanding this 'help me convince my DM to do X' thing. I think I am seeing a whole lot of it lately because summer is coming up. From my point of view, it comes down to this: It's none of your bloody business. This is the DM's choice. If you want to determine things like the setting, limitations on material and character options, house rules, game engine, etc., then DM.

That doesn't mean you can't say, "I'd like to play in X." I am, as a DM, very receptive to such requests. It just means that your control ends there. If you really, really want to play in a 3.5 game, check your hobby shops. Check hobby shops that aren't 'your' hobby shops but are near by. If that fails, run a 3.5 game. If you insist on playing, then you'll just have to get over not having control over the game as if you were a DM.
weasel fierce
05-20-05, 01:52 AM If he doesnt want to downgrade, why should he ? Nah, just kidding.

Just run a smashing good 3.5 game, exciting and well run games tend to be the best way to make anyone buy into anything game-wise.

Dont make it a competition or "convincing" Just treat it as a game, because well, it is.

(a wizard casting a lightning bolt in your face without interruption because he won initiative, even though the book describes the perfect conditions needed under which a spell can be cast, etc.)

Not in AD&D1 he wouldnt, unless the other guy is swinging a two handed sword or such.
The Man from Uncle
05-20-05, 02:16 AM Tricky spot that. My table kind of went through it some years ago, though the roles were reversed. We were all happy with Ad&d but the DM wanted to move on with the times. We were never in a DM dictatorship though, we played as a group, not as a bunch of players who were lucky enough to have a DM and therefore should just do what he wants and be grateful for the chance.

Eventually we gave it a shot at Gencon one year. It was different, but ok. We played our own quest while we were there. We decided to finish the adventure when we got back. We turned it into a campaign and that was the end of the beginning. For a player the most difficult thing was saying goodbye to my old Ad&d character. But heck I’ve lost loads of characters, what’s one more epitaph that reads 'Died of Structural Universal reform'?

Apart from the save system, I think that 3e is pretty much better in every way. It’s certainly easier. You just have to lull your DM into trying it for a bit and let it grow on him. Running your own adventure for him might work. But if you can get him to a convention he might wake up to the change a bit easier.
weasel fierce
05-20-05, 02:21 AM I haven't played 2e for some time but for me the key word is "efficiency." 3 and 3.5 require a lot less rolling for combat which speeds things up, and the skills provide a quick way to deal with some situations. I don't mind number crunching when I make a character but not in the middle of the game.

I thought D20 had high level characters make multiple attacks, at descending modifiers. Maybe I got something wrong, but the numbers game certainly didnt get easier on the brain or time.
braindead345
05-20-05, 04:28 AM The disadvantage in 2nd ed. is lack of new material. The disadvantage of 3.5 is the over abundance of material. Sorting through all the OGL books to find classes and feats can drive you nuts just as fast as looking for new adventures for 2nd ed can. Of course, the big objection is most likely expense. Your DM has shelled out quite a bit of cash over the years and starting all over again really has no appeal. Think of it like your parents' collection of VHS movies and trying to get them to get a DVD player.

If you want to play D&D 3.5, find a simple adventure that you can DM. Invite your regular DM to play as a player-not DM. Let him see how streamlined the new system is and try to win him that way. Point out that he only needs the three core books to run adventures (still that runs you $90 U.S.) and mention all the stuff on-line to help him out. If he is still hesitant, find a new DM to play 3.5 with and stay in his 2nd ed game.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Reinforcements 05-19-05, 04:57 PM	I've been playing DnD with a certain DM and long-time friend for many years now, and with summer upon us we're revving up once more. Now, once upon a time I was young and ignorant and perfectly happy playing 2nd Edition DnD, but I've been participating in the playing (and purchasing) of much 3.5 lately, and quite frankly I'm finding myself increasingly unable to stand the insane hodgepodge of rules that makes up 2nd Ed. Unfortunately, said DM is set in his ways, and despite being relatively familiar with 3rd Edition doesn't want to make the switch. Given that I and the other players would be either ambivalent to or happy with a change to 3.5, how can I convince my DM that 3.5 is, in fact, much, much, so much better than 2nd Edition?
Thoronmir 05-19-05, 05:16 PM	The first step is to present your DM with your list of reasons for believing that 3.5 is "much, much, so much better than 2nd Edition." The second step is ... well, actually, there is no second step. 3.5 is not objectively "better" than 2nd edition anymore than Texas Hold'em is "better" than Draw Poker. It's all a matter of preference ... realizing what elements of D&D appeal to you and deciding which rules set best serves your personal criteria. One of the first things that appealed to me in 3.0 was the skills system. I've always been sucker for skills. Back "in the day" (circa 1986 I think), I took the trouble to develop my own skills system for the game Boot Hill because, let's face, nothing but gunfights gets boring eventually. I'd always used miniatures in D&D (since 1979), so I also enjoyed the d20 combat system, since it clarified and codified a method for adjudicating combat that wasn't much different than what I was used to. I prefer the flexibility in character creation, even with just the Core rules. You can be any Race and Class you like, without regard for level limitations, etc. But these are my reasons for prefering 3.X to 2nd edition ... you must have your own or you wouldn't have made this thread.
Skaughtisch 05-19-05, 05:24 PM	I don't know. I can't help with specific reasons why WotC's versions are better then TSR's, cause I still love 2nd, but if you and the other players want the change just sit down and ask him nicely to give it a try. However, if he still won't agree, I suggest offering to DM a 3.5 campaign yourself. If you just try hounding him into making the change, you'll just tick him off. There is no definitive measure that 3.5>2nd, it is a matter of opinion, and the most important factor of all is to have a happy group. Good luck, and I hope you won't hold 2nd Ed in disdain forever, Skaught :D
Myst_the_Moonscout 05-19-05, 05:36 PM	I haven't played 2e for some time but for me the key word is "efficiency." 3 and 3.5 require a lot less rolling for combat which speeds things up, and the skills provide a quick way to deal with some situations. I don't mind number crunching when I make a character but not in the middle of the game.
Gryllmyre 05-19-05, 05:42 PM	Honestly, the number system and all the little rules (tumble, entangled, flanking, cover, undead traits, etc. and the way the books might mention something in one section, forcing you to find its particulars wherever it may be) were overwhelming. However, I can say that after 9 months of DMing and playing, I'm finally starting to get past the rules and am seeing the game again. I am thankful that in 3.x, the combat rules are very well defined, whereas in 1e and 2e, a lot of rules we winged because they just didn't seem right the way they were (a wizard casting a lightning bolt in your face without interruption because he won initiative, even though the book describes the perfect conditions needed under which a spell can be cast, etc.)
DM Zoc 05-19-05, 05:58 PM	For me at least, the major difference between 3.x and the older editions is the setting. 3.x assumes that you have magic as a fairly pervasive force in life, and it's hard to change this because the experience tables are linked to the CR system which is intertwined with that blasted "character wealth by level" table. The older editions allowed for less wealth, and they didn't make a big fuss about how much you should or should not have, except that most NPCs were level 0 and magic was rare and to be feared. Other than that, the rules don't have much to do with the game. I like the new skill system, but the old skill system had its merit as well (namely, it was possible to be a good tailor without being able to kill someone six times before they hit the ground as a pre-requisite). Really, you can create the same character in any edition and it's pretty much just as good (though 2E had a good number of balance issues, similar to 3E except all of those issues you could pull off at first level -- there's less of a sense of progression, which generally means you don't worry so much about gaining levels). Honestly, right now I have a hard time recommending anything other than 1E AD&D, but any system needs a good dose of house rules (customized to the DM) to be fully playable.
eudas 05-19-05, 06:34 PM	(namely, it was possible to be a good tailor without being able to kill someone six times before they hit the ground as a pre-requisite). "Seven in one blow!" -- Mickey Mouse the Tailor :) eudas
Encard 05-19-05, 07:01 PM	It isn't better. As has already been said, it's all a matter of preference; personally, I'd say the two are about equal in terms of good and bad points. If you want to convince your DM, your best bet would be to simply talk to him about the things you prefer about 3.x - I suggest you remember that it IS just what you prefer, though and not some universal standard, since otherwise you may just inadvertently irritate him.
Nom 05-19-05, 07:55 PM	Alternatively, run a 3.5 game and invite him to play. Don't make it a comparison, instead just treat 3.5 as a completely different rules system that just happens to share a common root (which is about 80% accurate). If he likes it, he might choose to switch his other games too. If not, no great loss.
DarkSoldier 05-19-05, 09:52 PM	I haven't played 2e for some time but for me the key word is "efficiency." What I like about 3E over 2E is that 3E standardized and streamlined a lot of things, while allowing more variety at the same time; 2E core fighters were differentiated only by the weapons they used, while two 3rd-level fighters in 3E could have completely different fighting styles (ie Power Attack vs. Two-Weapon Fighting). The high point about 3E's efficiency is the change to "Skill" from "Non-Weapon Proficiency." Non-Weapon Proficiency? :confused: Who decided to call them that?
Shaken, not Stunned 05-19-05, 10:20 PM	I am having trouble understanding this 'help me convince my DM to do X' thing. I think I am seeing a whole lot of it lately because summer is coming up. From my point of view, it comes down to this: It's none of your bloody business. This is the DM's choice. If you want to determine things like the setting, limitations on material and character options, house rules, game engine, etc., then DM. That doesn't mean you can't say, "I'd like to play in X." I am, as a DM, very receptive to such requests. It just means that your control ends there. If you really, really want to play in a 3.5 game, check your hobby shops. Check hobby shops that aren't 'your' hobby shops but are near by. If that fails, run a 3.5 game. If you insist on playing, then you'll just have to get over not having control over the game as if you were a DM.
weasel fierce 05-20-05, 01:52 AM	If he doesnt want to downgrade, why should he ? Nah, just kidding. Just run a smashing good 3.5 game, exciting and well run games tend to be the best way to make anyone buy into anything game-wise. Dont make it a competition or "convincing" Just treat it as a game, because well, it is. (a wizard casting a lightning bolt in your face without interruption because he won initiative, even though the book describes the perfect conditions needed under which a spell can be cast, etc.) Not in AD&D1 he wouldnt, unless the other guy is swinging a two handed sword or such.
The Man from Uncle 05-20-05, 02:16 AM	Tricky spot that. My table kind of went through it some years ago, though the roles were reversed. We were all happy with Ad&d but the DM wanted to move on with the times. We were never in a DM dictatorship though, we played as a group, not as a bunch of players who were lucky enough to have a DM and therefore should just do what he wants and be grateful for the chance. Eventually we gave it a shot at Gencon one year. It was different, but ok. We played our own quest while we were there. We decided to finish the adventure when we got back. We turned it into a campaign and that was the end of the beginning. For a player the most difficult thing was saying goodbye to my old Ad&d character. But heck I’ve lost loads of characters, what’s one more epitaph that reads 'Died of Structural Universal reform'? Apart from the save system, I think that 3e is pretty much better in every way. It’s certainly easier. You just have to lull your DM into trying it for a bit and let it grow on him. Running your own adventure for him might work. But if you can get him to a convention he might wake up to the change a bit easier.
weasel fierce 05-20-05, 02:21 AM	I haven't played 2e for some time but for me the key word is "efficiency." 3 and 3.5 require a lot less rolling for combat which speeds things up, and the skills provide a quick way to deal with some situations. I don't mind number crunching when I make a character but not in the middle of the game. I thought D20 had high level characters make multiple attacks, at descending modifiers. Maybe I got something wrong, but the numbers game certainly didnt get easier on the brain or time.
braindead345 05-20-05, 04:28 AM	The disadvantage in 2nd ed. is lack of new material. The disadvantage of 3.5 is the over abundance of material. Sorting through all the OGL books to find classes and feats can drive you nuts just as fast as looking for new adventures for 2nd ed can. Of course, the big objection is most likely expense. Your DM has shelled out quite a bit of cash over the years and starting all over again really has no appeal. Think of it like your parents' collection of VHS movies and trying to get them to get a DVD player. If you want to play D&D 3.5, find a simple adventure that you can DM. Invite your regular DM to play as a player-not DM. Let him see how streamlined the new system is and try to win him that way. Point out that he only needs the three core books to run adventures (still that runs you $90 U.S.) and mention all the stuff on-line to help him out. If he is still hesitant, find a new DM to play 3.5 with and stay in his 2nd ed game.