General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Now my group by and large played AD&D 2e after we had done with and discarded the D&D Basic Set. We (like many younger gamers, I suppose) thought that Basic ---> Advanced, and never even knew that it was a separate game that went onto Expert &c.
So we grew up with 2e. Certainly, at the time, lots of "1e-isms" still dominated the AD&D-playing culture, but we just kind of dismissed them as archaisms which were of no use to us modern-day gamers. "What are these 'magic-users' you speak of? Do you happen to mean 'mages,' old-timer?"
After a while, though, I really started to feel the lack of certain character options, like half-orcs and monks and barbarians, that ought to have been retained in 2e. We got half-orcs back in a Complete Book of Humanoids, and barbarians in a Complete Book of Barbarians, and we even sort of got assassins back in the Complete Book of Ninjas, which served as our "Oriental Adventures" rulebook throughout the 2e years. But an official 2e monk didn't come along until very late in the game (The Scarlett Brotherhood of Greyhawk supplement, from 1999!), so in order to have kung-fu kickin' monastics in our 2e games, we actually had to go dig up a 1e PHB. I did so, and my impressions were... mixed.
Mainly, it was a whole lot of snickering and "WTF?" reactions to the black and white cartoony art, the arcane and arbitrary rules, the flowery prose, and the odd race and class advancements. Demihuman level limits were mind-bogglingly lower in 2e than 1e; certain human classes (assassins, druids, monks) had level caps for no apparent reason; and then there was the crazy business with monks and rangers starting off at 2 hit dice, and "prestige" bards. (It wasn't until much, much later that I learned that all of these quirks were simply holdovers from OD&D and the Greyhawk and Blackmoor supplements, but I still thank my lucky stars that I grew up in the 2e era, so that I can be nostalgic about some clean and sensible rules!)
We ported the 1e monk into our 2e games, and in order to surpass the level 17 experience cap, we looked to the only analogue we knew: hierophant druids. So we just added some rules for grandmaster monks above level 17, and we were quite happy with our second edition game that used all the 2e core stuff, plus 2e ninjas, and 1e monks and half-orcs.
And we were happy that way for short couple of years: those were the best campaigns of our young gaming lives. The rules-bogged 3e games that followed them just never came close. 3e got me so fed up with the "rules heavy" style that I switched to the Cyclopedia, but that's another story.
It sounds like your experiences and mine were similar. I also went from "Basic" (actually the RC) to 2e as I went from middle school to high school (and thus, met a larger play group with a more 2e base). I also looked back at 1e (buying many of the books from a local used bookstore) with a sense of WTF. And for years, we played 2e even with warts (read: kits & complete books) and loved the expansion of classes (ninjas, barbarians, psionicists) and races (humanoids) and even a house-ruled monk (based on the psionics rules, don't ask).
Eventually, we adapted SOME rules from the PO line (which brought half-orcs and half-ogres back as "near-core") such as some of the new priests, wizard specializations, their version of kits (read not as broken) and weapon mastery (to replicate RC's rules). In addition to PS bringing Fiends back and Scarlet Brotherhood bringing us "true" monks and assassins (the best versions for 2e ever. Worth checking out for all pre-2000 players)
Had 3e not been announced, I had intended to go through and again "revamp" 2e to make my own 3e; no more exceptional str, revised class fixes, no more level limits, humans that don't suck, etc. 3e actually looked close enough to how we were starting to play 2e (ignoring the radical AC and save changes) that it was natural to convert.
the amateurish but full-of-life art that really draws you in and makes you want to be part of the game is almost entirely absent from 2E...
If there is one thing I really miss from 1e I would have to mention the art. It looked like someone had bought a Bob Ross beginner's oil painting kit from Michaels and painted it at their kitchen table in a few hours one evening. Yes it was bad compared to today's standards (the original Monster Manual cover for example) but did it ever drag me in.
__________________
"There is no charge for AWESOMENESS!" - Po the Dragon Warrior
If there is one thing I really miss from 1e I would have to mention the art. It looked like someone had bought a Bob Ross beginner's oil painting kit from Michaels and painted it at their kitchen table in a few hours one evening. Yes it was bad compared to today's standards (the original Monster Manual cover for example) but did it ever drag me in.
I see many people invoking a mystical ideal of 1E AD&D that seems to me far above the objective reality of how the game was actually played. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a lot of the small changes and refocusing of D&D that occured with the 2E revision a response to how most people played the game, and the most commonly used houserules? A lot of what 2E revised and/or discarded from 1E are included in this mystical ideal of 1E that gets brought up here. While the 2E revision alienated some people, the vast majority of D&D players happily converted. I think that fact gets lost in the cloud of 1E nostalgia sometimes.
It's not nostalgia if it's what you actually play. Are all the 3e players out there suddenly doing so out of nostalgia? Is it about a mystical ideal? Of course not. Neither is it so with the 1e players. If you mean people who post about 1e but don't play it, then perhaps the question makes sense. But then it's just an edition war between 1e and 2e. In which case I side with Original D&D.
I see many people invoking a mystical ideal of 1E AD&D that seems to me far above the objective reality of how the game was actually played. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a lot of the small changes and refocusing of D&D that occured with the 2E revision a response to how most people played the game, and the most commonly used houserules? A lot of what 2E revised and/or discarded from 1E are included in this mystical ideal of 1E that gets brought up here. While the 2E revision alienated some people, the vast majority of D&D players happily converted. I think that fact gets lost in the cloud of 1E nostalgia sometimes.
I was among the converted when 2E premiered, but it really didn't take long for the shine to wear off. Things nagged at me, and eventually I strayed from the hobby altogether, until I came to the belated realization (doh!) that there was no reason not to go back and play 1E again - and I had no trouble finding players.
I'd have to argue the point that 2E was revised as much from player input and houserules as it was from political correctness and a strong desire to remove EGG's influence from the game.
Some things that pained me:
The disappearance of the assassin and half-orc.
The nuetering of the bard and monk.
The disappearance of the armored fighter/magic-user
The political/religious motivated changes to demons and devils
The removal of druid-specific spells
The removal of illusionist-specific spells and most of the class itself
The DMG focus off of sandbox play and more on railroady type stuff
The sterilization of art and prose
The ruination of EGG's Greyhawk setting
2E was an enjoyable enough game, bolstered in part due to the emerging vibrance and popularity of the FR and DL settings, but the earlier editions were hand-crafted with affection by afficianados of Sword-n-Sorcery pulp novels and table-top wargaming. 2E was crafted by talented enough people, but with an increasingly obtrusive company agenda and policy to adhere to, and it shows.
__________________ "There are few problems a well-placed fireball cannot solve. Now, tell us more about this... orphanage?" - Balfour Grimstaff
----------
I have realized that even though I play by old-school rules now, I cannot and must not let other old-school gamers sway me from my own personal DMing style. This means that the little angels on my shoulder saying "DM fiat! Sandbox!" have to be flicked away, so that I can listen to the devils saying "Skill checks. Railroads. Come on, you know you love it. Stick with what works!"
If you were running 6th level characters with appropriate gear through the G series then there was probably some modifications going on.
Sorry, misremembered. I said 6th and should have said 8th. Sue me.
Quote:
A fighter didn't gain this power until 9th level per RAW AD&D.
Nice to know I got that one right.
Quote:
And so it seems your own experiences prove this to be true.
That would be why I said it. Am I missing something here?
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
but I still thank my lucky stars that I grew up in the 2e era, so that I can be nostalgic about some clean and sensible rules!
Now, this is what bothers me about these kinds of discussions. And I’m not picking on you, Jack, because I’m indicting my younger self who said the same and much worse.
Don’t you think the people who came up with those rules, the people who gave feedback while playing them, and the people who edited them all thought that they were perfectly sensible?
__________________ (^_^)
Anything I type is only my opinion unless explicitly stated otherwise, which should go without saying. Please assume that I've left out a smiley after every sentence. Thank you.
Now, this is what bothers me about these kinds of discussions. And I’m not picking on you, Jack, because I’m indicting my younger self who said the same and much worse.
Don’t you think the people who came up with those rules, the people who gave feedback while playing them, and the people who edited them all thought that they were perfectly sensible?
Well...
Gygax himself said there are rules in 1e he included as "favors" to other players that he himself never used. (Psionics is one example) In addition, there are elements of 1e (and earlier) D&D that wasn't thoroughly playtested, just kinda created, eyeballed, played once, and sent to the printer. (IIRC, the unarmed system was never really run through its paces and added as an afterthought).
I once asked Gary (in the Enworld thread) basically what was he thinking about cavaliers raising physical stats. His reply, in essence, was "it is what it is". Not the most assuring explanation I've heard.
There are things in 1e that needed fixing for no other reason than to make the game smoother and more uniform (removing monks with they're odd ability score uses or fixing initiative). Second edition went a little too far in some cases (removing half-orcs left a strong-man void) so I think 2e was necessary at its time. I do think though that Cook needed another co-author to aid with his rather dry prose and I think the whole project needed a bit more oversight in its later supplements (Complete Handbooks, I'm looking at you). Cie la vie.
Perhaps the 'nostalgia' goes back not to the actual edition of D&D, but the things that subsystems like Skills neatly account for. I, like many of you, have played all four major iterations of D&D. 4E, for instance, bothers me significantly with the 'prepackaged' aspect. It seems to discourage the off-the-cuff theatrics that the GMs of earlier editions were encouraged to do and that made the earlier versions seem so fantastic.
However, would I ever want to go back to the repetitive 7-minute discussions on the finer points of using a 10-foot pole every time my character finds a new room? No way. The pole is out unless we're fighting and I'll take the Search check please. I'm fine falling into the occasional pit trap to avoid an hour's worth of real-time discussion about our party not finding pit traps or arrow slits that aren't there.
The crux for me is remembering the time and minutia that the modern die rolls cut out in favor of moving to the next important plot point or fight and from time to time, put the PCs in a place where this detail can be explored and fleshed out meaningfully.
Perhaps the 'nostalgia' goes back not to the actual edition of D&D, but the things that subsystems like Skills neatly account for. I, like many of you, have played all four major iterations of D&D. 4E, for instance, bothers me significantly with the 'prepackaged' aspect. It seems to discourage the off-the-cuff theatrics that the GMs of earlier editions were encouraged to do and that made the earlier versions seem so fantastic.
However, would I ever want to go back to the repetitive 7-minute discussions on the finer points of using a 10-foot pole every time my character finds a new room? No way. The pole is out unless we're fighting and I'll take the Search check please. I'm fine falling into the occasional pit trap to avoid an hour's worth of real-time discussion about our party not finding pit traps or arrow slits that aren't there.
The crux for me is remembering the time and minutia that the modern die rolls cut out in favor of moving to the next important plot point or fight and from time to time, put the PCs in a place where this detail can be explored and fleshed out meaningfully.
You know, this brings back 2E memories. I disliked it back then, and as a DM I handled it harshly. People using a 10-foot pole like that and searching for a hour for minutae that wasn't there got a "you search the room for an hour and find nothing, move along" comment from the me the DM.
However, would I ever want to go back to the repetitive 7-minute discussions on the finer points of using a 10-foot pole every time my character finds a new room? No way. The pole is out unless we're fighting and I'll take the Search check please. I'm fine falling into the occasional pit trap to avoid an hour's worth of real-time discussion about our party not finding pit traps or arrow slits that aren't there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion
You know, this brings back 2E memories. I disliked it back then, and as a DM I handled it harshly. People using a 10-foot pole like that and searching for a hour for minutae that wasn't there got a "you search the room for an hour and find nothing, move along" comment from the me the DM.
So, I take it neither of you used wandering monsters?
To be honest, no, there weren't a lot of wandering monsters. DM's or dice's decision? Not sure. I just remember a lot of 1E and 2E games coming down to 'guess what the DM is thinking' which is a lot of fun when there are people and toys in the room to play with. Not so much fun when you just didn't mention that you searched the space 6 and a HALF feet into the blank room because you wouldn't have set off the nerve gas trap if you had.
To be honest, no, there weren't a lot of wandering monsters. DM's or dice's decision? Not sure. I just remember a lot of 1E and 2E games coming down to 'guess what the DM is thinking' which is a lot of fun when there are people and toys in the room to play with. Not so much fun when you just didn't mention that you searched the space 6 and a HALF feet into the blank room because you wouldn't have set off the nerve gas trap if you had.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion
Nope, can't say that I did. I never found wandering monsters a terribly compelling concept.
Don't get me wrong - in my youth, I didn't use random encounters, either.
But what you're describing? That's why they're there.
__________________ ADVANCED DUNGEONS &DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn‘t been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. (1E DMG p. 9)
Now, Lanefan, a question. You've folded, spindled and mauled your 1e rules to where you like them.
Are you still playing D&D?
::shrug:: I think so. And my players seem to think so, or at least that's what they keep calling the game we play.
Taken in sum, our current game system is perhaps about as far removed from 1e RAW as 2e was, or maybe a bit further (though often in different directions); but nowhere *near* as far adrift as 3e or 4e. Yet those games call themselves D+D also...
One of these days - but don't hold yer breath, it's a ways off yet - we'll get the basics of our Victoria Rules system up on our website (link in sig). Right now, all that's there (in the "Commons Room" section) is a very brief and far from exhaustive overview of changes we've made to the 1e system over time to arrive at where we're at.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
