| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Xaralin
Acolyte
USA
16 Posts |
 Posted - 04 Jun 2003 : 04:57:24
|
|
Which do you play? I play 3rd edition because I started playing about two years ago when AD&D was a thing of the past because it wasn't printed anymore. I wanted to give AD&D a try but I hear from a lot of people that 3rd ed is better and there is no point to playind AD&D anymore.
|
cheers |
|
|
Bookwyrm
Great Reader
USA
4740 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2003 : 05:33:47
|
| Actually, it's the same with me. Sort of. Haven't really done much playing, just a few PbeM posts. However, I've looked at the AD&D things, albeit not in-depth, and the 3e game rules make more sense on average. Not I say on average -- still a lot of things I think could be a lot better. |
Hell hath no fury like all of Candlekeep rising in defense of one of its own.
Download the brickfilm masterpiece by Leftfield Studios! See this page for more. |
 |
|
|
Lord Rad
Great Reader
United Kingdom
2080 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2003 : 06:51:49
|
| I started with the old D&D then went to 2nd edition AD&D and now 3rd edition D&D and I have to say that the new 3rd edition is much better than any previous rules. The whole mechanics of it is much easier to understand and looking back at AD&D it seems so complicated and unnecessary. Stick with D&D 3ed! |
Lord Rad
"What? No, I wasn't reading your module. I was just looking at the pictures"
|
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31774 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2003 : 12:39:46
|
I started way back in the ancient days of 1e. The rules were basic, the fun was simple. When the AD&D 2e rules appeared it changed everything, I found it hard to adjust. The rules were a little more complicated, some rules appeared to contradict other published material, and finally some of the rules where just plain impossible to work properly.
At last, 3e edition arrived, and the rules of D&D finally seemed to make sense, at least to me. Everything was more accurate in terms of structure and the rules provided an unprecedented level of control over the entire game.
Having played all three versions of the D&D game, I believe that 3e is the best in terms of playability and enjoyment, it has a lot of potential and promises to promote a greater level of creativity for many years to come.
May your learning be free and unfettered
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2003 : 17:02:45
|
AD&D is an eccentric but elegant system with its own internal logic that does pretty much exactly what Gygax wanted it to do.
AD&D 2nd edition is mechanically very similar. It tried to be all things to all people, and in losing sight of that logic allowed several different versions of the game -- not in terms of raw mechanics, but metaphysics and underlying assumptions -- including Ed Greenwood's.
D&D 3rd edition was very well crafted by some first-rate game designers (especially Jonathan Tweet) to be a gameist system that could handle a range of swords of sorcery while hanging on to most tropes of AD&D. What I don't like about it is that it has two separate levels of rules -- classes/feats/abilities and base attack bonus/skills/saving throws -- when a system only needs one, the plethora of feats and prestige classes published to do stuff that the core rules do already, and the complex tactical combat system that concretizes in the rules subtleties I prefer to be roleplayed between players and DM.
As some of us know, Ed's players voted not to convert their campaign to third edition. That doesn't mean D&D doesn't fit the Realms better in some ways, just that the games are similar enough in approach that any of them can be adapted to the off-D&D-baseline style of play the Realms has always embodied. |
|
|
|
Edain Shadowstar
Senior Scribe
USA
455 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2003 : 21:57:05
|
I am one of those old guys (well, I'm not that old) who can say he began with First Edition. Though I haven't played it in years I still have all the rule books, locked away in my extra-planar vault, under the watchful eye of the three Solars I employ to keep the books safe. They are Larry, Daryl, and Daryl (See Daryl? I told you they were the wrong generation.) and if they catch you in there they will throw you through the portal to Baator in my bathroom.
Some time ago, while I was still playing with my original group (at that time we went by the very unoriginal Knights of Oerth) we swtich over to AD&D, and frankly it wasn't too bad. Sure I was a bit reluctant, but everyone was, but we didn't ever really regret it. Just on a side note, my original group, the Knights, get together every year in New York for a game (we play our original characters, Edain Shadowstar [me], Durnal Truesteel [100,000,000,000 orc skulls crushed], Searnyx [loveingly refered to at "the Stalker", and it has nothing to do with him being a rogue  ], Myrja [Mmmmmmm...cleric...], Aeannya [Can't say anything, she's wathcing me], Durgax Thunderaxe [Dwarf go smash you now!], and Alastra [the only bard I've ever met who made money by not singing]). Well, now that I have relived most of my past...I continued playing AD&D until I was forced (well, more or less) to convert to Third Edition by my current group (NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! The Player's Handbook! It burns my skin!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!). Frankly, Third Edition is okay, but I liked AD&D and First Edition much, much better. Ahhh...for the old days... |
Edain Shadowstar
Archwizard of Rel Astra and Waterdeep
"Mmm…pie…"
- Gaius Solarian, Captain General |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2003 : 23:08:54
|
I started with 1st edition, but I bought the ORIGINAL basic set in 1982. I probably played AD&D about 1983. And things move up from there. Where I love 1st edition with all my heart, I think 3rd edition did a great job of bringing some of those 1st edition feelings into the game. What do I think is the most workable? 3rd edition. Which one do I love the most... BY far 1st edition.
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
eilinel
Learned Scribe
France
296 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2003 : 11:08:40
|
I think exactly the same as Mournblade, the first is for ever in my heart. And i still think its a cool game with simple rules, pretty good for starters. The main problem of the 2nd edition, its a big mess everywhere. They made a thing, then an other... I think 3rd edtion will be a bit like that in 3 or 4 years. Its taking the way.
But for the moment, its cool and funny and they some things that they thought in the 2nd but didn't want to do beacause it was too far away from the 1st.
Well, anyway, the 3rd learnt a lot from the 2nd. |
|
|
|
Tombo
Seeker
56 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2003 : 19:41:57
|
I totally love the 2nd edition but that's probably because back in the 80's when I had all kinds of time to kill, I was able to totally familiarize myself with just about every little rule. 3e seems so much more in depth which is a strength and a weakness. I just don't have the time to re-learn everything. That's why I like 2e better. Ahhh... the good 'ole days of rolling the dice with your buddies in the basement, snacking on chips and root beer, all day & night! Yeah, I know I'm living in the past. I'm sure I'd like 3e much better if I just gave it a chance. Maybe someday I'll sit down and read through it all.
|
|
|
|
branmakmuffin
Senior Scribe
USA
428 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2003 : 22:00:50
|
Mournblade:
quote:
<snip> What do I think is the most workable? 3rd edition. Which one do I love the most... BY far 1st edition.
I find 1e to be the most arbitrary of the three. I guess I like it better than 2e, though. My 1e bard was cool.
2e is so substantially un-different from 1e I wonder why they bothered. 3e is what 2e should have been. |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2003 : 00:03:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tombo
I totally love the 2nd edition but that's probably because back in the 80's when I had all kinds of time to kill, I was able to totally familiarize myself with just about every little rule. 3e seems so much more in depth which is a strength and a weakness. I just don't have the time to re-learn everything. That's why I like 2e better. Ahhh... the good 'ole days of rolling the dice with your buddies in the basement, snacking on chips and root beer, all day & night! Yeah, I know I'm living in the past. I'm sure I'd like 3e much better if I just gave it a chance. Maybe someday I'll sit down and read through it all.
WEll TOmbo not to nit pick or anything...
BUT how did you spend the 80's poring over the 2nd edition? I mean you only had PART of '88 and 1989. And you would not even get the DM's guide until 89. That is quite a feat! Tell me how you did it!
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Tombo
Seeker
56 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2003 : 14:13:14
|
Ooops. I guess I misspoke. I was thinking that AD&D and 2e are the same thing. Shoot! My bad. I meant to say AD&D. Sorry 'bout that.
I remember starting out with the original D&D with the paper back and the adventure "The Keep" (denoted B-2). After a year or two we bought the hard cover AD&D books. That was AD&D which was also known as 1e.
It's kind of confusing. I think that the original rulebook in that little cardboard box should be called 1e and then AD&D should have been called 2e. |
|
|
|
Bookwyrm
Great Reader
USA
4740 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2003 : 14:16:44
|
| I understood AD&D to be like edition 1.5, like how they're doing a 3.5 now. |
Hell hath no fury like all of Candlekeep rising in defense of one of its own.
Download the brickfilm masterpiece by Leftfield Studios! See this page for more. |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31774 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2003 : 14:22:47
|
You are partially correct Bookwyrm, however AD&D really made a mess of some of the aspect game mechanics of 1e.
Let's hope that this is also not the case with 3.5.
May your learning be free and unfettered
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
branmakmuffin
Senior Scribe
USA
428 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2003 : 22:58:42
|
To the confused, there are 3 different incarnations of (A)D&D that people talk about before 2nd Edition AD&D:
The original "3 rulebook" set (first made in the late Jurassic), and its various supplments (Gods, Demigods and Heroes is the only one I can remember). These were staple-bound softcover books, about the size of an issue of Reader's Digest (not quite so thick, though).
Then there was 1st edition AD&D, the Player's Handbook, DM Guide and Monster Manual.
Then there was Basic D&D and its supplements. This was ostensibly a simplified version of AD&D (Elf, Halfing and Dwarf were character classes, not races). These were boxed sets with staple-bound softcover books about the size of a regular magazine. They may have continued to be published concurrently with 2nd edition AD&D.
If I am mistaken about any of this, it's someone else's fault. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
3rd Edition Vs AD&D
