Pathfinder 2E On the Differences Between 1e and 2e (Not all AD&D Is the Same)

Manbearcat · Dec 13, 2018

Garthanos said:
[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] has been making that argument over much more dramatic rules distinctions in later games and how things like NOT having save or dies or a presented timeclock based on wandering monsters and YES not having gold for experience points all generate different experiences.

Didn't see this thread.

I mentioned it in my thread (and elsewhere) that my thoughts on the primary changes from 1e and Basic/Expert to 2e weren't about rules organization, classes, bending the knee to mainstream outrage et al. There were a few very specific things that changed the culture of D&D play that were contemporary zeitgeist coinciding with (not coincidentally) 2e rules and ethos changes.

1) The Dragonlance novels (a few years leading up to release) and the Forgotten Realms novels. Metaplot becomes central to play.

2) "Big setting" with Forgotten Realms and Planescape.

3) The fundamental engine and reward cycle of 1e and Basic/Expert (Exploration Turns/Rest > Wandering Monster Clock > Monster Reaction > Morale > xp for Gold/Treasure) becomes muted or optional and xp for roleplaying (GM discretion) and xp for skill deployment (pseudo process sim) become mainstream.

4) Neutral refereeing mixed with the subtlety of D&D's Rule 0 gets basically culturally consumed by White Wolf's ("system doesn't matter") Golden Rule (effectively, “the GM may ignore or change any rule at any time for the sake of story/fun").

The combination of all of the above served, holistically, to change D&D fundamentally from a paradigm where neutral refereeing and system impetus rewarded skilled dungeoneering (which included meta/powergaming) and punished unskilled dungeoneering...to one of big metaplot/big setting and mandated GM Force/Illusionism which ensured the experience as players were rewarded for good characterizations/archetypal roleplaying and admonished for power/metagaming.

This was the big change I experienced (and the reasons for it).

Garthanos · Dec 13, 2018

Lanefan said:
When 2e came out our crew saw some of it as simply catching up to changes we'd already made to 1e (e.g. relaxed race-class level limits, no xp for gp thus slower advancement, Bards as a core class), some of it as complete garbage (e.g. all the stuff removed to assuage the moralists - we kept the lot) and a few bits of it as worth looking further into in hopes of adopting them into our existing game (e.g. a bunch of spells).

Nods...

Manbearcat said:
Didn't see this thread.

Figured it was invoking your thoughts enough to mention

Of note many of the things that 2e brought to the table a lot of people seemed to be houseruling in some sense it felt like the game was changing that direction off camera so to speak...the official rules were catching up, and generally speaking I thought it looked like a "good thing".

Zardnaar · Dec 13, 2018

AT the time of 2E we were kinda isolated in small town New Zealand. 17 or so went to the "big city" and played with some others who played a bit different to us. It was interesting.

It was basically our group of 6-12 people (not all at once) and one of thopse players brother+friend who ran 1E for us. Started on a box of old B/X stuff we found and then went to 2E and Spelljammer.

2E adventures never really gave RP and story xp equal to the gp 1E gave you. IIRC The Night Below gave you 100k xp which was maybe half a level at level 14/15. DM work was required to get the PCs up to the suggested levels. TNB being one of the few great 2E adventures. Return to the Tomb of Horrors gave out more IIRC but came right near the end of 2E.

2E tried to be more narrative I suppose less dungeon hack. Key problem being sub par adventures (most Spelljammer and Darksun adventures are meh).

Adventures from 1981 was the 1st time I can recall them giving out xp that was not treasure or combat related. It was one of the early B series (B2-B5 I can't recall).

Lanefan · Dec 13, 2018

Manbearcat said:
I mentioned it in my thread (and elsewhere) that my thoughts on the primary changes from 1e and Basic/Expert to 2e weren't about rules organization, classes, bending the knee to mainstream outrage et al. There were a few very specific things that changed the culture of D&D play that were contemporary zeitgeist coinciding with (not coincidentally) 2e rules and ethos changes.

1) The Dragonlance novels (a few years leading up to release) and the Forgotten Realms novels. Metaplot becomes central to play.

2) "Big setting" with Forgotten Realms and Planescape.

Agreed up to here, though I'll say the impetus to centralize and focus on metaplot came from more than just DL and the FR books. Fantasy novels in general were everywhere in the '80s and, naturally, many DMs thought "hey, I can dream up a plot like that and run it". Widely varying degrees of success followed, but the game designers took note of the trend.

3) The fundamental engine and reward cycle of 1e and Basic/Expert (Exploration Turns/Rest > Wandering Monster Clock > Monster Reaction > Morale > xp for Gold/Treasure) becomes muted or optional and xp for roleplaying (GM discretion) and xp for skill deployment (pseudo process sim) become mainstream.

Not sure this was as much a thing in early 2e as it was in mid-late 2e; and not in all circles in any case.

4) Neutral refereeing mixed with the subtlety of D&D's Rule 0 gets basically culturally consumed by White Wolf's ("system doesn't matter") Golden Rule (effectively, “the GM may ignore or change any rule at any time for the sake of story/fun").

This was always in place. The only difference between 1e and 2e is that in 1e the DM is encouraged to change things to make the game better (which takes in the story/fun element) and-or more suited to his-her tastes ("make the game your own") where in 2e the changes are encouraged to make changes for the sake of story/fun without as much reference to the DM's own tastes.

The combination of all of the above served, holistically, to change D&D fundamentally from a paradigm where neutral refereeing and system impetus rewarded skilled dungeoneering (which included meta/powergaming) and punished unskilled dungeoneering...to one of big metaplot/big setting and mandated GM Force/Illusionism which ensured the experience as players were rewarded for good characterizations/archetypal roleplaying and admonished for power/metagaming.

This was the big change I experienced (and the reasons for it).

Admonishments for metagaming were front-and-centre in 1e as well - remember that in 1e the DMG and MM were supposed to be off-limits to non-DMs. That 2e maintained the anti-metagaming stance is to its credit.

It's also very possible to neutrally referee a big-plot big-setting campaign provided one is willing to be flexible as DM in how the story is approached and-or revealed.

Garthanos · Dec 13, 2018

Lanefan said:
3) The fundamental engine and reward cycle of 1e and Basic/Expert (Exploration Turns/Rest > Wandering Monster Clock > Monster Reaction > Morale > xp for Gold/Treasure) becomes muted or optional and xp for roleplaying (GM discretion) and xp for skill deployment (pseudo process sim) become mainstream.

Click to expand...

Not sure this was as much a thing in early 2e as it was in mid-late 2e; and not in all circles in any case.

So you are agreeing that the 1e engine he was describing, was undermined or saying you felt it was non-existent? I am confused.

Dannyalcatraz · Dec 14, 2018

lowkey13 said:
Building on my earlier comment, I wonder if that's the same for most people?

That their "favorite" edition is the one that they played during their teenage years?

Probably so, but not for me. I started with Basic & AD&D, but my fave is 3.5 and its clones.

Lanefan · Dec 14, 2018

Garthanos said:
So you are agreeing that the 1e engine he was describing, was undermined or saying you felt it was non-existent? I am confused.

I'm saying the change he's describing was both not as drastic as he seemed to suggest and was more noticeable in the mid-late 2e era than it was early on.

Garthanos · Dec 14, 2018

Lanefan said:
I'm saying the change he's describing was both not as drastic as he seemed to suggest and was more noticeable in the mid-late 2e era than it was early on.

At some level i see it as a process ex. gold as experience was still an option ... not just plain removed... And it may have been gradual for some but others as has been mentioned saw it as a done deal and confirmation of house rules existing at their table. (it didnt feel dramatic for them either just that something they were already doing felt supported). New players coming in would also see this new environment (and might if they went back to a 1e style table get a bit of culture shock)

lowkey13 · Dec 14, 2018

*Deleted by user*

Celebrim · Dec 14, 2018

lowkey13 said:
We (I include myself in this) often treat 1e and 2e interchangeably (I often use the 1e/2e descriptor). In many ways, that is fair- there is a great amount of overlap between them! Certainly more, IMO, than between any two other "numbered" editions. But here's the thing- while most of us normally easily differentiate between the other old compatible editions (OD&D, B/X, BECMI), we don't often think about or see the differences between 1e and 2e.

And I think that's a topic worth thinking and talking about. 1e was around from 1977 (PHB) until 1989 (2e).* 2e was around from 1989 until 2000. I mean .... it's kind of insane when you think about it.

I think the problem is that for the grognards that first got into the game in the late 70's or early 80's (I'd been exposed by older friends and relatives by 1979 and was playing by 1981), there is no single 1e/2e experience. Indeed, I think it is a misnomer to describe one. Each table had a separate AD&D experience that grew organically from their exposure and understanding of the rules, and each table developed its own style and procedures of play based on what their DM did and wanted. So it's easy for that group to talk about 1e/2e as a single era because while they might not have been using exactly the same rules in 1995 that they were using in 1985, and may have had a different process of play, the maturation between being say 15 and being 25 was probably at least as important to how their game changed as any rules changes.

Where I think you can have this conversation is with players who first came into the game as new 2e players without having their perceptions and expectations set by 1e. That group of players I think does have a distinct experience and one which is likely to be strongly influenced by both the RAW of 2e, and 2e's unique description of the processes of play as described in the rule books, presented in the supplements, and exemplified by the modules of that era. They are much more likely to have received all this as 'gospel' and tried to play the game as it was described to them, rather than the way they were used to playing or had evolved to playing. If you already had 10 or 12 years of play experience though, it's highly unlikely that the 2e rule changes can be said to have revolutionized how you play or that your style of play was "strongly influenced by the rules".

I think it is a mistake to look at a rules set and say, "Well it produces this sort of play." I think you would have to actually document what groups actually did with those rules - how they actually played rather than a theoretical prediction of how they should play based on perceived or actual designers intent.