ok IM always hearing people blast 3E in favor of 2E so what I propose is that we use this thread to post rational non personal attack based opinions on what aspects of 2E or 3E make you prefer one over the other
I personally like 3E my self and will after a few others have posted here will state my reasons why

2nd has been out for a long time, and thus many many more people know the rules of 2nd edition.
3rd is a complete and total rewrite of the rules, and many (like me) would rather not have to learn a new set of rules to play the same adventures.

Second ed was full of loopholes and inconsistancies that expert players could abuse at will without having to consult(inuslt?) the DMG or PHB. This truned it into a game of minds. Thoes who were confused by a 20 sided die were laughed at and asked to leave as fast as possible.

Third ed is a rewrite to close up most (if not all) of these holes, expand on a few things, do away with some of the anachnisms of the old system and... here's the kicker... To allow new people to play with higher proficency.

If I wanted simplistic stuff, I'd have stuck with Mechwarrior. Personally I prefer Rifts over AD&D, but that's because I'm more of a sci-fi nut and I have this really bad habbit of "shoot first, ask questions later" that does NOT work too well when you're a low-level nobody within AD&D....

/me MUCH rather prefers Twilight 2000 over AD&D/D&D anyday

true but the great thing about 3E is how streamlined it is they got rid of many of the more confusing aspects of 2E, my biggest grip was how sometimes I wasnt sure if a high roll was preferred or not in 3E high rolls are always good
and they got rid of Thac0 huzzah I hated that it was needlessly complicated
the cleaned up the combat system and made saves much more streamlined and simple and the Skills and feat allow you to make your character much more of an individual cause back in 2E all you had were proficiencies and they were mostly either essential or hohum...plus I happen to like then new classes of Barbarians, Monks, and Sorcerers they are much better than thier 2E equivalents and the way the redid the Bard and Druid class also make them much more useful and Humans are much more viable in 3E than 2E in fact i would say they are the best race in the game IMHO an extra feat and skill points are NICE and the multiclassing rules are much simpler now and easier to understand all in all 3E is cleaned up and enhanced from 2E and much easier to just pick up and learn.

Except that 2nd ed Monks can solo dragons in one turn.

thats a gripe actually I hate uber characters! I always give my characters a flaw...

My biggest gripe with 2e lies in the fact that 2e started with a good idea, generally, and proceeded to get convoluted over time. What we call 3e in my opinion should really be 4e or 5e. Let me break down my logic for you.

First Edition had a lot of general inconsistencies, along with insane levels of power (see 1st edition Monk, Cavalier, or Barbarian). So they kinda scaled things back with 2e, ditched some problematic ideas at first, and started anew.

The biggest gripe that I have with 2e as it stands in the PHB rulebook is the general system of THAC0, AC, and Saving throws. Thac0 and AC work counter-logically to how it should seem. The better armored you get, the LOWER your AC!? The more experience you gain, the LOWER your Thac0 gets? Add to this the fact that All weapons are +1 or +2 or whatever to be better (which translates as a -1 or -2 to your Thac0), and all magic AC granting items are in effect +1 or +2 (acting as a -1 or -2 to your AC) and you generally get a lot of confused looks from new players.

Anyways, we start out with these rules. And things are happy. Kits get introduced in the "Complete" guides, and that's where the next problem starts. Now don't get me wrong; I like kits. They're handy. However, this starts off a chain reaction. A GM now has to know his way through a chain of optional rules. Doesn't sound too bad, but the fact is that in a game, a GM is paying so much attention to other things that a player submits a character to him, and he might not notice one or two things that really tweak him off later. Yeah he should have paid more attention, but geez folks should players really set out to screw over the guy running the game for them?

ANYWAYS...it just gets worse. With the Psionics guide, an entire new branch of magic opens (and let's face it folks, that's all Psionic power really is; an alternate way to think of magic mechanics-wise). It's not identical (or in a lot of cases, a psionic discipline is half of one spell and half of another), and has LOTS of new rules. But some GM's allow it. Now...keep in mind that Psionics, even moreso than magic (which has a standard "cast your spell, roll your dice, there's the effect" sort of mentality), slows things down. roll above your power score, and X happens. Below it, and Y happens. Above or below by too much and Z happens. Not to mention what happens if you hit your power score. Consulting the chart now takes longer.

And GM's get annoyed and pretty much don't use psionics unless they're in the Dark Sun setting or for some reason REALLY like Psionics. TSR, noticing that the Dark Sun setting is sucking bigtime, release a book called "The Will and the Way". It offers a much better, much less confusing way to think of psionics. In theory. The book was only published once, if at all, and after that you have to search the internet for copies (which you can still get). And you know what the longest-lasting effect is? All the players hear they're entitled to roll for a wild talent. Hell they're the heroes right? They're special! They DESERVE a wild talent. So the players start badgering their GM's. Much to the GM's chagrin.

Now this all still falls in the area that I think fits 2e. Now I'll describe what I think should have been 3e. Skills & Powers.

Let's face it; when S&P came out it was to save D&D. Dark Sun had bombed, Spelljammer had died out, and aside from a few hardcore players, no-one really got into Mystara (which was supposed to be the old D&D (not AD&D 1st edition) world in AD&D 2e terms). Bloodlines and Ravenloft had a few die-hard fanatics (Ravenloft more than Bloodlines, as Ravenloft in turn sparked the "Red Masque" Victorian Age AD&D offshoot). So basically you had Forgotten Realms (easily the best-selling world setting ever; Kara-Tur/Oriental Adventures, Red Steel, Maztica, etc were written for the Forgotten Realms setting), Greyhawk (another good setting, sold well, and was supposedly the main basis for 2e...don't ask me why), and Dragonlance (which started having problems not very far out of the gate). So they whipped up two new concepts to save D&D. The first was S&P, and the other was Planescape. (Planescape, by the way, went on to rival Forgotten Realms in a lot of arenas, and is to date my favorite campaign setting.)

Skills and Powers borrowed a LOT from point-based systems like GURPS. Aside from rolling your attributes and rolling your starting money, everything in S&P is point-based. Yes, you get to have a character who has the abilities you want. And yes, now a GM has to go back and double check the math in constructing a character because someone might fudge themselves a point or two here or there.

So why don't GM's just ditch the idea? Well...some of the races are interesting (even though all of the offered races have been offered in other books as player character races). And it's nice to have something new. The biggest problem is that once players get a taste of S&P, very VERY few want to go back to the original rules. And they start feeling that the use of S&P, Spells and Magic, and Tome of Magic is their god-given right. Why? Because it's all referred to as "Player's Option".

Here's a little secret: It's not Player's option. In a game you're not running, there's very little that's player's option. I GM. You don't have any right to stick it to me by claiming it's YOUR option whether to use Skills and Powers. It's MY choice, because I'M the one who has to go back behind you and double check behind you to make sure you don't fudge points I don't specifically use a GM fiat to fudge. It's ME who has to turn down min/maxed characters designed to SQUEEEEEEZE every...last...stinking...drop out of a system, and then who get's a bad reputation as a GM because players don't like being told no. I don't like being told what I have to or can't allow in a game. And those S&P/S&M/ToM items you chose? I have to learn all of those things, and if you take some oddball flaw to be afraid of cows or some other weird shit to squeeze a few extra points, I *HAVE* to incorporate that at least once in the story, or I might as well have given you some extra points to start with.

Now...S&P and S&M and ToM were okay. If they were taken as a separate edition unto themself, and if they in fact promoted roleplay. Some folks might say "they DO promote roleplay. They give referrable point values to interesting RP traits. In short, they ensure that we get recognition for what we do." No they don't. In my games I expect roleplay. If you don't roleplay, you don't last very long in my games. You get extra XP if you roleplay really well. I have entire sessions where there's not a blow of combat. THAT encourages roleplay. Assigning points to phobias and allergies encourages Math Class. And min/maxing. And munchkining.

So they should've ditched the "Player's Option" line and just released it all as a new Edition, and incorporated some real hardcore RP rules. In the very least they should have put in big shining letters "THE GM IS IN CONTROL". Yeah I know some GM's can be jerks. (News flash: Most starting games are run and played by teenagers, often teens in their earlier years, and often male. There's a strange race there to see who dominates who in the social order. If you outdo the GM, you win. If the GM outdoes you, he wins. It's not roleplay, but it's the situation. And generally people grow out of it.) They still run the game. You know why there are a lot more people who want to PLAY than RUN? Running a game is hard work. Even if you run a module, it's hard work. Modules are a skeleton. The GM has to add something of themself. And players seldom follow the connect-the-dots logic of module storylines, so you better be good at compensating. Flawlessly. Because if a player realizes they found an inconsistency where you patched something in, then they'll probably rag on you about it. GMing is stressful. And complicated. So tipping things a little in favor of helping the GM is a good idea.

Player's Option does not, by the way, fix the problem with THACO, AC, and Saving Throws. Which brings me to what should have been either 4th Edition, or a separate game altogether. Combat & Tactics.

How many people here have played with Combat and Tactics rules? I did. Once. Never used the combat rules in there again. For one thing, it uses the same thac0/AC/Saving Throw rules that the rest of 2e does, which irritates me. For another thing, It goes out of its way to make combat more "realistic" (read: time-consuming, complex, and irritating). Read the critical hit charts. You get hit with a critical hit, and there's a REALLY good chance you've broken a bone (which in C&T rules can't be healed with a "Cure Light Wounds" or similar spell. Yeah, get that "Heal" spell ready) or worse, LOST A LIMB. Realistic? yeah. but it sure has a way of ending a campaign when your character loses his right arm for the fourth time and thinks "Gee maybe fighting goblins isn't a good idea. I'll stop adventuring at 4th level."

In other words, Combat and Tactics really lived up to its name. It turned a ROLE PLAYING game into a game of strategic combat.

Add to that the entire new slew of rules from Planescape (I love it, but facts are facts) concerning what spells work how where (yeah just try casting an illusion on Mechanus), what magic weapons work where (Go on; take that +5 Holy Avenger from Mount Celestia into Baator and expect the damned thing to work. I dare ya.), and so on.

So...what some people might call evolution in 2e is in my opinion a snarled knot of rules that all the players feel entitled to use, and all the GM's feel pretty powerless to prevent.

So moving on to Third Edition...

I like Third edition. It's much easier to explain to a new player how combat works (see all your bonuses to strike? add them up. roll a 20-sided die. add it to your bonuses. that's your "to hit" roll. If that number is higher than your opponent's AC number, you hit.), and the same logic carries over to Saving Throws (add up your saves, roll a 20. Is it higher than the Difficulty Check/DC? Great you passed), to skill checks, and to just about everything else. SIMPLE. The d20 system works beautifully.

Now...there are a lot of people who point out there are rules for half-dragons, half-celestials (not to be confused with Aasimar), half-fiends (not to be confused with tieflings), fiendish and celestial versions of existing creatures, and the possibility (however miniscule) of such odd combinations as a half-dragon troll paladin. Yeah...it is possible. No you can't play one. Why? Chances are your GM says "NO!" and that's where the second big strength of 3e lays. All those optional rules? All those Prestige Classes? GM's option. And easily applicable, thanks to a Challenge Rating.

Basically, a Challenge Rating is this: You take your average 4-person party (Healer, Tank, Wizard, and another of any of the first three). If the challenge rating is, say, 3, then a group of four 3rd level characters can take one of the creature in question in combat and have things be pretty well balanced. This applies to any "template" character (the assorted celestial and exotic halfbreed races), and any unusual player character race (as monsters have a base CR modifier if made as a player character). So the GM would know that his 1st level Half-Dragon, Half-elf Monk, for example, is really equivalent to a 3rd level human monk if he grants all the bonuses listed. Much easier than sitting down and having to crunch the numbers yourself.

So...it's much easier for a GM to plan an adventure thanks to Challenge Ratings. It's much easier for a GM to balance a player character party based on Challenge Ratings and what they mean, and it's easier for a GM to help a new player understand the important stuff like skill checks, attack/defense, and saving throws.

Now there's the question of "Well there aren't all the campaign settings they had for 2e". Well...the base game setting is Greyhawk. They released the Forgotten Realms Monster Manual, Psionics Guide, and Gazeteer since the start of 2001. Planes guide comes out in September. And MOST (but not all) of the stuff in all your old guides is still valid and applicable. There's a free translation guide (used to translate 2e characters, monsters, etc to 3e) available.

Let's see....Ah yes. For some reason, people don't like Prestige Classes. I wonder why not. A fighter starts out at level 1. He works his ass off to be good with weapons, and reaches a degree with a whip that's pretty impressive. Now that he's learned the basics, he starts using the Lasher Prestige Class. Prestige Classes are just like kits. The only difference is that you work a little to get to the point where you've earned the right to the cool stuff rather than just getting it because you're playing.

I like the fact they really fixed the classes. How many people in 2e played Druids? (Was it just me or was the idea of having to beat the crap out of your superiors in the druidic order in order to assume the character level you'd otherwise earned a pain in the ass? plus if YOU got challenged and lost, you'd LOSE the level!). How many people really thought that a 19th level wizard should have a cat familiar who has 6hp, and who, if it got killed, permanently maimed the wizard? Or that a 15th level paladin riding into battle on his mount? If this wussy horse got hurt or "mistreated" then a paladin is permanently maimed class-wise. And why bother playing a straight up fighter? Did any GM's really enforce the "Only a fighter can go past specialization in weapons" rule?

Classes in 3e got fixed with the advent of Feats. A feat is basically a highly-specialized skill. It covers things like two-weapon fighting, a thief's backstab ability, a paladin's mount, etc. A lot of feats are restricted to certain classes (Paladin Mount, thief's backstab, Ranger's racial enemies (of which there are now more than one), and the like), but there are oodles that aren't. A fighter gets more than other classes (with the exception of monks, but monks don't get as many new feats...they get upgraded feats and a fighter can take upgraded feats if he wants to keep up with a monk), and because of them can even take on a high level wizard when he reaches high levels (wizards were the big smackdown-layers in 2e followed by priests at mid to high levels. In 3e they're still dangerous, but fighters are a thorn in their side, and often, a sword at their throat. So the classes all have new things to play with. They also brought back Monks (Monks in 2e were modified priests...) and Barbarians (barbarians in 2e were a joke at best), and added Sorcerers (wizards without spellbooks, who don't memorize, but who'd never have the full power of a true wizard). And they all balance in with the other classes. So in 3e, you're looking at better class balance, and with Prestige Classes, you've got LOTS of good options for what to do with your character. Oh...and the XP tables are equal. The number of XP for a fighter to get to 5th level is the same number of XP it takes for everyone else to get to 5th level.

Last but not least, they fixed the starting races in the PHB. Thank god. In 2e, why would ANYONE play a human? Half-Elves were just as good, plus they had infravision and some of the bonuses of elves. In 3e, humans get more skill points to put in skills per level, and have an additional feat. Oh yes. And every race now has a preferred class. That means that say you're an elven fighter who becomes a thief. Well...you take an XP penalty for the thief. If you were an elven wizard, then switching to thief wouldn't penalize you. Likewise if you were an elven fighter switching to wizard, the wizard half wouldn't be penalized. How does this help humans? well...all races other than human have a set preferred class (dwarves favor fighters, elves favor wizards, etc). Humans get to pick their's. Any they like.

Halflings are now quite literally half the size of a human, gnomes are shorter than dwarves, dwarves are now markedly shorter than humans, elves are now more than just humans with pointy ears and funny names (they look more fae). So you really have to think about what you're going to play because now it really does matter.

So...overall 3e fixes the problems I had with 2e plus it adds some nice bonuses I really didn't have too many gripes with.

That answer the question?

3e is good. All those 'old school 2e-ers' should just go with 3e, simply because its...More efficiant.

Bump this thread!

Oh and Ja Deth pretty much right on with you but... we are running a Planescape campaign in 3E at the moment and the DM loves Combat and Tactics, Aint that right Thirdwizard?, and I personally in 2E enjoyed the new spells in Tome of Magic and PO: S&M, IMHO the spell point system is much better than the mem and forget is kinda stupid in some ways and the some of the systems of magic gave extra RP aspects to magic, btw I also do not like the Skills and Powers points system sections of the book.

I can understand most of Ja'Deth's points, and agree with many of them. Despite this, I play 2E and not 3E. Why? That has to do with what happened when I first saw 3E.

The person who showed me 3E was a GM friend of mine, who bought the PHB before any of the other books were out. She liked the race clarifications (except for the half-ogre, which she figured got the short end up the arse), and the redesign of THAC0/AC to something positive. However one thing turned her immediately and forever away from 3E... the experience system. The experience needed for low levels was about the same. However, with the amount of experience that would hit 8th or 9th level in 2E, characters in 3E would already be level 20! For all the searching she did, she could find no reason for this... and neither could I when she showed the book to me.

When I asked someone later about the experience table, they explained, "Well, if you're a higher level, you get less experience for the same kills." "What?!" "Well, there's this challenge rating, and if you're above the level indicated by the challenge rating you get less experience, if you're below it and lucky enough to come out on top you get more experence. If you're too high a level, you get no experience." "You're kidding." "Nope, it's all here in the DMG." "I'm glad I didn't buy that book."

And that was my long-standing exposure to 3E. I'd probably be willing to learn it if I had more time (I almost joined a 3E game with Suddar and a couple others), but my first impression of it left a sour taste in my mouth, so to speak. I bought the monster manual for an alternate reason, and was equally discouraged about 3E when I saw it. Yes, it was smaller, and that bothered me... but there was something else. All the creatures in it were combat-oriented. Even the nymph had a dagger! (They nymph's natural state from 2E was converted to an optional attack-style effect, and the picture didn't exactly look passive either.) Most of the habitat/society and ecology listings were gone. The bulk of the 2E creatures trimmed out of 3E were the less agressive ones, or those more suited for NPC's than for combat scenarios. It's like they took the role-play out of 3E "monsters" and made them all, well, monsters.

As for what Ja'Deth said about the attachments to 2E being like new editions... I agree in part. Some of them actually seem like partial conversions to the concepts used in 3E. Skills and Powers included 3E-style proficiency handling. Spells and Magic, for all its other additions, also shows signs of 3E's framework. So overall, it seems like what we call 3E is the result of an evolution, or the consolidation at the end of one.

The issue over Player's Options vs GM Options seems trivial. Most 2E GM's I've met will say, "I don't allow this or that book, and allow only these features from the other one. You can use elements from these books, but only if you justify them in a character history." That's been a fairly consistent response. Naming them "Player's Option" vs "DM Option" just means that the players are free to look at them (as opposed to the 2E DMG, which many GM's want their players not to look at), and ask about using them. It's the player's option, and the GM's decision.

I figure that's also why many GM's (and even more players) are hardcore 2E. They've tweaked the system so that it works for them, brings out the role-playing talents of their players, and isn't too top-heavy for them to handle.

[ 06-16-2001: Message edited by: Ford Prefect ]

Just as a note: most of the Planescape races return in the Forgotten Realms book - Tieflings, Aasimar, and the Genasi are all in there.

Just in case you 3E players want them.

The FR book also comes up with an interesting idea, that some races are more powerful than others, so they need more XP to get a level and stuff. Tieflings, Aasimar, Genasi, Drow (yeah, they're back too as PCs), Deep Gnomes....

The FR book has some interesting stuff in it. And also previews some stuff from the 'Epic' level book (LVL 20+) that apparently will be coming out. (This is how Elminster gets to be 28th level in a game that caps you at 20th.... special abilities, prestige classes, stuff like that.)

Heh, some of us never moved beyond 1st edition.

THe key I've found to making any type of RPG gaming session work well is to customize the rule set to your gaming group with "house rules". If you think theres a major loophole or a system that takes too long, decide amongst your group what would be a better system.

Of course, if the players do find something that totally breaks the story of the current game, the DM can always change the way things turn out, so that the incident is reduced in importance, etc. The main thing here is to make sure the players aren't punished, rather be actually rewarded for being innovative, but still "rule lawyers" type players will not find the incentive to find minute loopholes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cherveny:
THe key I've found to making any type of RPG gaming session work well is to customize the rule set to your gaming group with "house rules". If you think theres a major loophole or a system that takes too long, decide amongst your group what would be a better system.

---

Amen to that.

I like Whitewolf...
Whitewolf has a stable rule structure, but it's flexible enough...
And the Golden Rule of Whitewolf is: "If you don't like a rule, change it."

I also like Whitewolf's Genre and theme, in almost all their games... I play Mage, Vampire, Werewolf, Wraith, Abberant, and a bit of Changeling (I hate Changeling, but my friends sometimes play it, so I do to).

One thing I heard was nice about 3E by the was more character combinations and more information for more playable races...

Sure you can play half-dragons and half-celestials. I play both in your game, remember? And that half-celestial started out as just a fire genasi, Tal, (until we found out in the first half of our current game who her fahter was) so I'm well aware you can play and have fun with genasi in 3e.

Neither of them are over-powered, either. The half-celestial, Riandar, is very powerful magically, but she sucks in combat, as a wizard should. Lia, the half-dragon, half-elf monk, is great in combat and can really beat the shit out of things, but doesn't have a lick of magic in her.

I really think it's all in how you roleplay someone, and I try not to make them too "uber" when I play them. All characters should be flawed in some way. Sure, Lia can knock out a hydra in one blow, but her sense of etiquette's flown out the window most times. Riandar can rain death from above with her magic, but she has a *nasty* temper, and isn't very easy to get along with.

I like the experience system, Murdoc. Perhaps I am spoiled with Deth, but I've noticed in the other games I've played in with other GMs from EC that they're entirely too combat heavy. I can think of one exception and that GM is very roleplay heavy and I like that, and it's even with a 2e game.

3e is much more roleplay friendly in that regard, because it's not a matter of "What monster will I throw at my players *this* time?" as "Let's see how they roleplay this scene, then see if they can handle this 'boss' at the end of their adventure".

And the experience system makes much more sense. As in EQ, if you're a much higher level than something, you *shouldn't* get experience for killing it. It offers the GMs a challenge to think up just what they should pit you against and where. GMs are a lot more selective with their monsters, and frankly I like the occasional monster and more roleplay than having monsters thrown at me every five seconds.

As for the rest of 3e, I pretty much agree with what Deth said. I like the fact that those rules aren't there anymore for some character to try to slip past a GM. Yes, the GM can and does say no. But that doesn't stop most players from nitpicking the entire system for that one little loophole that will let them do what they want. With 3e, it's simple. The rule's not there, so they can't get away with it, at least not now.

I've always had the opinion of "play what works for you," but I do have a couple things to say on the 2nd vs. 3rd Ed. debate:

1. DMs are the power the campaign bends to fit. The DM does not bend to fit the campaign. It's HIS game, and it is run with HIS rules. Accept that, and don't try to argue about some little rule. For the short time I was a DM, my motto was "Go with what makes sense." Can a level 20 warrior survive having the top half of a mountain dropped on him? NO, no matter what the rules say about you being able to catch it and throw it back at the deity. It doesn't make sense. Would your putting the log right past the blind curve in the road cause the horses to throw their riders and deal them small amounts of damage? Yes, because it makes sense - I'll assign the damage though, because leafing through the DMG is not something I want to do when we should be roleplaying.

2. House rules RULE. I didn't like the 3rd Ed. rules regarding half-dragons, so I worked with the person who wanted to be one and came up with a system we both could agree on. It balanced the power of the dragon form, while still allowing for its superhuman (or in this case superelven) nature. And I made sure to stipulate that if the changes turned out to be over-powered I would put the character into a "dragon sleep" until the time when it would be more suited to the difficulty of the campaign. You too can do this, and it makes for very interesting and non-homogeneous parties. Of course, explaining how the half-dragon thief met up with the werepanther and the elf with the curse that made her look like Drow took some extra work...

3. I prefer simplistic combat. 3rd Ed. has that, and I like the way it is handled more than 2nd Ed. I want combat to be "Okay, roll. I roll. You win. Now on to roleplaying!" I don't want combat to be the focus of the game, and I want it to be simplistic enough for people to be able to improvise and act during it without having to go digging through massive piles of reference materials. I want people not to focus on "hack, slash, use magic item, repeat." I want them to think "What would happen if I aimed my wand of magic missile at the stalactites on the ceiling and shot them down? Wouldn't that damage the enemy?" I want them to say as they roll, "I raise my battle axe high, and charge towards the goblins with a roaring bellow. I..." looks at roll "...swing my weapon down with a crushing blow, but he dodges out of the way with a sneer. You won't be so lucky next time, slimy creature." Essentially, I want the only excitement produced in combat to be the kind produced by the players' or my creatures' innovative actions and roleplay.

That's about it. As you can tell, I seriously prefer roleplay to rollplay. I enjoy and reward in-character actions whenever possible, and I seek to make the campaign world one that is as multifaceted as(but a lot more fun than) the real one. So far, the only D&D edition which has fully addressed the things I enjoy about the game has been the one I pieced together myself on the fly. Which is #4...

4. Be flexible and creative. Don't depend fully on the rules. Know the basics, and have the books handy so you can look things up if need be, but try and work with things as you go along. Try and make things as seamless and entertaining as possible for the group. If the rules as they exist don't do that, change them. As long as you have a good reason for it, go with it. It'll keep your campaign exciting, novel, and unique, so it'll keep your players coming back for more.

Here's a link I enjoy...
Role-Playing Tips!

I like 3e better than 2e rules.

I'm more familar with 2e, but so far I prefer the changes that have been made in 3e.

Though I still like Rifts better than both 2e and 3e.

bada BUMP!

Reasons why I like 3rd Ed better:

1. It's Simpler

Sure, you can say "it's for dumb people" or "it's for n00bs". But before 3e, I couldn't get my friends to play because the rules were so complicated. Keep in mind, while these were intelligent people, many of the rules seemed to contradict logic.

I want as little complication as possible when playing. Combat should be swift, and it shouldn't take a whole minute to calculate everything so I can determine if I hit that kobold or not.

2. It makes sense

What stopped a gnome from being a pure wizard? Why should human rangers be able to exceed elven rangers in level when elves are more apt to the job? Why should a rogue take less experience to master than a fighter? 2e couldn't answer these questions, neither could 3e, that's why these problems don't exist anymore.

Those crazy weapon and non-weapon proficiencies are gone. After all, why would a fighter, being a master of weapons, only know how to use a longsword but not a short sword? Likewise, why could he only know a few practical skills?

3. It's more fun

3e encourages roleplaying and becoming your own person. Bernie the Fighter isn't exactly like Hugh the Fighter, and 3e emphasizes this. The classes and races manage to keep in balance of one another without losing their distinction.

Such are my reasons, such do I stand by.

Some of these reasons have been said already, but here is why I prefer 3rd -

1. THAC0 is gone - THAC0 was very complicated and confusing, especially to new players. THAC0 was way more compicated than it needed to be. The new to hit system is a lot easier to learn and use (great for new players).

2. AC goes the other way - Playing many roleplaying video games, it makes sense to me that high ac = good. In 2nd edition, that isn't the case. Now again, I think this is to help new players.

3. Better books (except Monster Manual bleh) - the books just look better. They are more eye pleasing, and they have a lot more of the cool paintings we all like to see in the fantasy genre. I don't want to read a book of mostly text. The many paintings make them a lot easier to read. Now I still prefer one page per moster like 2nd had it. I admit, they messed that up in 3rd.

4. Customizability - Do you want a fighter who can't hit worth a crap but is absolutely deadly with a bow? No problem! Do you want a fighter who can absolutely decimate enemy ranks with feats like Cleave, Great Cleave, and Improved Great Cleave? No problem! In 2nd edition, the fighter clases were very generic. Other than weapon proficiencies and maybe kits, there was very little to distinguish the melee classes. Consider my 6th level Fighter/Ranger - he has a fairly low strength and a very low ac (19) for his level. However, when he picks up his +1 Longbow, he is abosolutely deadly. Last week, I did 40 (5/6 hits, no criticals) points of damage in just 2 rounds of combat with that bow. That is ridiculous for a bow! Now that couldn't have been done as well in 2nd edition.

5. Prestige classes - I really like the idea of prestige classes. They give everyone something to shoot for. Unlike 2nd edition kits - you have to earn these. No one starts out as an Order of the Bow Initiate or Undead Hunter - they have to earn it. Also this means prestige classes generally have fewer (if any) disadvantages, which could not have been said for kits.

[ 06-18-2001: Message edited by: Lalian Viajante ]

Oh I agree. House rules are a good idea. The problem is that if you the GM use rules, then you really shouldn't keep the players from using the same rules. That's a good way to alienate players. So basically I find myself in the position to think "well this sucks...I want to use this in small controlled amounts for some of the major villains, but players will want to use it for their own devices, then I'll have a bajillion S&Ped, S&Med characters thrown at me...oi..."

And yes strictly speaking a GM can say "These are my rules, love it or leave it". But what GM likes to say that? Especially if there are good arguments for using some parts?

3e "fixes" that problem by setting the stage with the prime rules and making character creation using the alternate rules something the players have to come to the GM about if they want to get anything done. In other words, it comes pre-packaged with reasons against certain otherwise good arguments. And it makes it a lot easier for a GM to say "no" to certain things. In other words, whereas 2e left GM's out to dry with its phrasing, 3e not only doesn't do that, it gives the GM a boost. Semantics and Phrasing can make all the difference.