It would appear that Don Fernando and I share a similar opinion and its just that: opinion; and therefore inarguable (Because an opinion is a individual position based on the point of view, experience and facts and merits that the individual holds to.) however the facts and merits that an opinion are based on can be argued, and have been exceedingly well on this thread. I have enjoyed reading the posts.
It would seem from the consensus of those who have voiced their opinions on the matter that these are the valid points:
*3.X rules are preferred by most who have weighed in on the matter
*The gazetteers are the finest products of the "new" line.
*The VRG's and VRA are good books to own.
*Champs of dark, and Heroes of Light were not well done.
*the "new" line had
many "near-duplicate" books that recycled material from a recent previous publication (mainly due to the rules change) with little new material included to justify them.
Specifically the
Ravenloft players handbook and
Ravenloft 3rd edtion (setting rulebook), and the
Denizens of D. books.
I would consider 4 out of 20
many. that is 20% of the products!
in contrast, if you consider the black and red boxes, a major event (the grand Conjunction) happened and much new information added and some was corrected.
Domains of Dread was not at all a replacement product rather an updated timeline and more new information, and again corrected some faults. It is considered by many to be the best of the three products. (rather than a nearly identical reprint.)
The reprinting of the Monstrous Compendiums 1&2 was necessary because of the long run of the Ravenloft line and a valuable (nearly essential) product had gone out of print, and the reprinting of Van Richten's guides was hardly superfluous in my opinion because they too had gone out of print and were valuable resources to the DM and they included new information such as commentary by the Weathermay-Foxgrove Twins and a new guide to witches!
Most individuals didn't champion the RL books from the "new" line per se (with exception of the Gazeteers and Van Richten books), rather staunchly defended the 3.x rules system.
So what I can take from that is that while some superior quality material was published (8 titles), the remainder of the line of 20 titles has many dissenters and a few advocates and is relegated to one's personal taste.
Ail wrote:
the point is that this thread has been about how 3E does not make justice to 2nd Ed (and the title of the thread is pretty clear in that) and that's what I, personally, and others have been contesting.
there are two things here: first, the rules per se: you know my opinion in this. second, the books published for each ruleset To be honest, I can no longer say what point of view Eldritch was criticizing the most. But if we take now the second point, you'll see the several examples given suggest the 3E run has not been inferior, in material, to the 2nd Ed. In both, there have been great and bad moments, flawed and excellent products, so we should simply stay with the best ones and pick the ruleset we're most comfortable with.
Ail
Yes as a general statement I would have to agree that both runs have had excellent and shoddy material published, and I like the idea of picking which products and rules suit you and stay with that. Sound advice.
Ail[/quote]
indeed there are two distinct points of debate here, whether the 2nd ed. or 3rd ed rules are preferred, and whether the new product line was better than the old.
As far as the first point, actually I can't really criticize the 3E rules as I am mostly unfamiliar with them. It would seem that those who play Ravenloft prefer the 3E to the old 2E rules system (based on those who commented.)
But I did gripe that the change was made from something I was familiar with to something radically different that I was reluctant to learn.
As far as rules go it seems that the newer system has many superior qualities that players and DM's enjoy but is still not perfect as it seems that many more who play under this system have "house" rules to deal with undesired material than it seemed the 2nd edition rules had. It seems that the whole new product line in general is geared towards Dms really designing their own type of role playing than the formal structure of set rules that was mostly adhered to in the past. It seems to me that each and every gaming group is playing in a very customized "house"setup.
Incidently it would seem that "rules lawyers" and "strictly by the book DMs" are a thing of the past. (I'm not sure whether that is a positve factor or not, I would lean towards not, after all that's why they established rules in the first place.)
It seems that many prefer the new rules and deem it worthy to attempt the lengthy conversion of titles of the 2E products into 3E rules. That in itself is a strong merit for the newer rules.
In response to the second point,
I think as a whole judging by the quantity and quality of both the 2E product run and the 3E product run, 2E is
vastly better and withholds the title of this thread concept well. My main merits for this argument are:
*The majority of background information on Domains, NPCs, and gothic flavor has come from the 2E line.
*Nearly all of the published adventures and adventure hooks were from the 2E line.
*Sheer volume of products. (around 66 gaming products give or take for the 2nd edition, vs. 2 for original Avanced Dungeons & Dragons, and 20 titles for 3.X products.)
*Fold out color maps from 2E, there are none from the new product line.
*superior artwork (in my opinion.)
I'm sure that I could think of more to argue my point of view on this matter but I will let these suffice.
Would anyone actually prefer to own a complete 3E run over 2E if you could only choose one?
I think that 2E is better in many respects to the 3E line and therefore, superior. I am happy that there are any newer products out at all however, rather than a completely dead line. Much of what I have read so far in the 3E line is entertaining and interesting. I am not completely blasting the material and saying it is a waste of time rather on the contrary I am pleased to have a few well written treatises like the gazeteers. I merely stated for the record that I felt the new line is a mere shadow of the old and even after the discussion and many well thought out posts to the contrary, I will maintain that position.
Now my question is this: do you own (and use) more 2E or 3E Ravenloft products in your campaign?