Community

Although it can be confusing and maybe isn't even accurate I could say that 2e got things right with different XP tables to advance different classes.  This doesn't really translate well into 3e with its easy multiclassing but it enable class to advance more quickly when they are "weak" but slows the advancement of strong classes.

It also seems to me like 2e was written more for lower level character because once you get to "high levels" it seems like it will throw anything and everything at you.  Maybe it is just me but if I look at some of those "high level" 2ed adventures and try to convert them into 3e they become insane if you think a party can finish those adventures in the time a 2e party would.

It's not exactly saying AD&D and earlier editions got something right or not, but there is difference in mentalitiy in later edition (3.X & 4E) and earlier edition (OD&D - AD&D 2nd Ed.) players and DM's.

I am aware I am only drawing from a small portion of the overall population as I am referencing only the people I know, in this statement.

It almost seems that later edition players have this drive to obtain large amounts of before the game even begins. When I look at the way almost all of the later edition players design their characters, there is a heavy focus on making the character as powerful as possible for the class type. When I ask why the stats, skills, feats, etc were arranged the way they were, I usually get answers similar to "well I want to be able to use X Power at Y level so I can do Z1 to Z2 damage". The focus is on how much power is attained and how quickly.

Conversely when I look at the way an older edition character is set up, there is more of a focus on what the player can do to make the character different from others in the class type. When I ask the same question (stats, proficiencies, etc.) I get answers like "well he's a X Class who was injured by a monster and his wounds never healed properly. The focus tends to be more on story.

There are many other examples I can site but I don't feel there is a great need to add to the above.

Jan 29, 2013 -- 12:19AM, Alaster337 wrote:

It's not exactly saying AD&D and earlier editions got something right or not, but there is difference in mentalitiy in later edition (3.X & 4E) and earlier edition (OD&D - AD&D 2nd Ed.) players and DM's.

I am aware I am only drawing from a small portion of the overall population as I am referencing only the people I know, in this statement.

It almost seems that later edition players have this drive to obtain large amounts of before the game even begins. When I look at the way almost all of the later edition players design their characters, there is a heavy focus on making the character as powerful as possible for the class type. When I ask why the stats, skills, feats, etc were arranged the way they were, I usually get answers similar to "well I want to be able to use X Power at Y level so I can do Z1 to Z2 damage". The focus is on how much power is attained and how quickly.

Conversely when I look at the way an older edition character is set up, there is more of a focus on what the player can do to make the character different from others in the class type. When I ask the same question (stats, proficiencies, etc.) I get answers like "well he's a X Class who was injured by a monster and his wounds never healed properly. The focus tends to be more on story.

There are many other examples I can site but I don't feel there is a great need to add to the above.

*raises hand*

Umm, hi.  Played for over 20 years and have experience with 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5, 4e and Pathfinder (among other games).  My friends and I have always designed characters both ways in every edition.  I do admit that the newer editions make it more difficult to play something that's less than optimal but it is possible (er, maybe not in 4e).  Anyhoo, there's exceptions to your generalization.  To me, that means the game has less to do with it than the people playing.

[/quote]
*raises hand*

Umm, hi.  Played for over 20 years and have experience with 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5, 4e and Pathfinder (among other games).  My friends and I have always designed characters both ways in every edition.  I do admit that the newer editions make it more difficult to play something that's less than optimal but it is possible (er, maybe not in 4e).  Anyhoo, there's exceptions to your generalization.  To me, that means the game has less to do with it than the people playing.[/quote]


Well you apparently missed the part where I said I was only referencing people I know, so of course there will be exceptions to the generalization.  I've played for twenty years myself from in the same editions you have in addition to OD&D, B/X, and BECMI, and while I have noted this observation in the players and DMs I will say I think the differences in mindsets are systemic not social. I cannot confirm that as I have preformed no experiments to that effect, but it is my suspicion. I won't explain further however, as such conversations often degenerate into me being accused of bias, despite the fact that I have played editions across the board.