jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
I think that they were re-introduced in a supplement, but most of the AD&D 2e players I knew were 'core only' due to the extremely hit or miss quality of non-setting supplements (notably the Complete books).
The mythical ideal of 1E?
- Thread starter thecasualoblivion
- Start date
I think that they were re-introduced in a supplement, but most of the AD&D 2e players I knew were 'core only' due to the extremely hit or miss quality of non-setting supplements (notably the Complete books).
Darrin Drader
Explorer
I agree with those who say that the core of 2E was an improvement upon the core of 1E, but that it lost something by losing the Gygaxian prose, as well as the artifacts and fiends. For most of the time I was running AD&D, I was running modules and Dungeon adventures that were designed for 1E using the 2E rules. I even did my own conversions of the arch-devils and unique demons - even went so far as to scan in the images from the 1E MM and MMII, inserted them into the Word doc I was working with at the time, printed them out, and put them together into a binder where I kept all the cool stuff they killed off in 2E.
But yeah, for all its coolness, there was a lot of stuff in 1E that just didn't work very well unless you houseruled it. That's why when I think of modern games with the old school flavor, I'm kind of leaning towards Castles and Crusades as being the idealized form. And I'm not saying that to dis OSRIC or any of the other retro clones - I think they're excellent and faithful reproductions of the originals, but what I want is something that feels old school but plays more inuitively, and that's what C&C seems to do.
I did recently haul my old 1E books out of storage and I've been having a great time looking through them. It's great to go back to the original for inspiration.
But yeah, for all its coolness, there was a lot of stuff in 1E that just didn't work very well unless you houseruled it. That's why when I think of modern games with the old school flavor, I'm kind of leaning towards Castles and Crusades as being the idealized form. And I'm not saying that to dis OSRIC or any of the other retro clones - I think they're excellent and faithful reproductions of the originals, but what I want is something that feels old school but plays more inuitively, and that's what C&C seems to do.
I did recently haul my old 1E books out of storage and I've been having a great time looking through them. It's great to go back to the original for inspiration.
Celebrim
Legend
I played in a 1st edition group that never adopted 2nd edition. For us, it did not reflect how we were playing AD&D.
It was however in all fairness very influential on how we played the game. Virtually all the major changes introduced by 2nd edition were adopted into our game in one form or the other as house rules. New bards replaced the old clunky ones. New dragons replaced the old glass canons. Specialty mages replaced illusionists. Theives could spend their points on skills rather than a defined advancement rate, you could take NWP's from 2nd edition splat books, and so forth.
The problem with 2nd edition is primarily that 2nd was all about taking things away (or seemed to be). The fact that they tried to take things from us (paladins and barbarians for example) overshadowed the improvements. The improvements became house rules alongside other things we thought were improvements (like critical hits).
My table still used weapon to hit AC modifiers, segments, and alot of really old official old school stuff, along side unofficial popular rules like critical hits and fumbles, along side our own house rules (like an even clunkier version of what in 3rd edition would be called an 'attack of oppurtunity') and changes brought about by 2nd edition.
It was however in all fairness very influential on how we played the game. Virtually all the major changes introduced by 2nd edition were adopted into our game in one form or the other as house rules. New bards replaced the old clunky ones. New dragons replaced the old glass canons. Specialty mages replaced illusionists. Theives could spend their points on skills rather than a defined advancement rate, you could take NWP's from 2nd edition splat books, and so forth.
The problem with 2nd edition is primarily that 2nd was all about taking things away (or seemed to be). The fact that they tried to take things from us (paladins and barbarians for example) overshadowed the improvements. The improvements became house rules alongside other things we thought were improvements (like critical hits).
My table still used weapon to hit AC modifiers, segments, and alot of really old official old school stuff, along side unofficial popular rules like critical hits and fumbles, along side our own house rules (like an even clunkier version of what in 3rd edition would be called an 'attack of oppurtunity') and changes brought about by 2nd edition.
SpiderMonkey
Explorer
Amen, brother. I'm reassessing my earlier (rather negative) sentiments on 2e, and I think that core only (with setting supplements, natch) was the only way to go. Those Complete books were...irritating. For all the complaining about the 3.x splats, they were really elegant compared to the Complete Mess.
Hussar
Legend
Heh, yeah, the Complete Guides were really, really all over the place. Some I enjoyed very much - Complete Fighter and Complete Paladin were great books IMO. Others were just BAD - Complete Priest is one of the worst books of 2e IMO. I think that the whole meme of "MUST BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ADD" really starts in 2e because of the vast amount of things you could add and the real lack of quality control of the splats.
Say what you like about 3e, they did at least try (with varying degrees of success) to control the power creep. 2e could get WAY out of hand very quickly and 1e had the Unearthed Arcana which wasn't power creep but power leaps and bounds.
IMNSHO, the real problem when trying to discuss earlier editions comes from each of us having such widely varying experiences with the game. My 1e game drew heavily on Basic/Expert rules and we played a lot of modules. Plus my own pretty piss poor understanding of the rules at the time as well.
This means that it's pretty hard for me to discuss what 1e was like "back in the day" with someone like, say (and I'm just picking a name here, not trying to start a fight) T Foster who played 1e pretty much straight up without a lot of house rules.
Our experiences were just miles apart. We both think we were playing D&D, and that's the name that was on the books on the table, but, our games might as well have been from different planets. To go back to the OP, it's not so much rose tinted glasses and nostalgia (although there is some of that), but the nature of 1e which encouraged DM's to kit bash the crap out of the game.
It's like we all played Risk, but some people added pages of new rules from Axis and Allies, some people played Nuclear Risk and some people played bog standard. Sure, we all think we're playing Risk, but, there's very few points of commonality between us.
Say what you like about 3e, they did at least try (with varying degrees of success) to control the power creep. 2e could get WAY out of hand very quickly and 1e had the Unearthed Arcana which wasn't power creep but power leaps and bounds.
IMNSHO, the real problem when trying to discuss earlier editions comes from each of us having such widely varying experiences with the game. My 1e game drew heavily on Basic/Expert rules and we played a lot of modules. Plus my own pretty piss poor understanding of the rules at the time as well.
This means that it's pretty hard for me to discuss what 1e was like "back in the day" with someone like, say (and I'm just picking a name here, not trying to start a fight) T Foster who played 1e pretty much straight up without a lot of house rules.Our experiences were just miles apart. We both think we were playing D&D, and that's the name that was on the books on the table, but, our games might as well have been from different planets. To go back to the OP, it's not so much rose tinted glasses and nostalgia (although there is some of that), but the nature of 1e which encouraged DM's to kit bash the crap out of the game.
It's like we all played Risk, but some people added pages of new rules from Axis and Allies, some people played Nuclear Risk and some people played bog standard. Sure, we all think we're playing Risk, but, there's very few points of commonality between us.
Betote
First Post
My first D&D was 2e, and I loathed that system. We had a lot of fun, but that's because we are fun people (and our DM was superb). We were core only, mostly because our DM refused to read anything else, so we just skipped all the complete and option madness.
But, when I compare 2e to 1e, I just find 2e to be a better system, despise the 2e hate you see around there from 1e grognards. It was more streamlined, and you could actually read the rules instead of pages and pages of Gygaxian musings. Things like the initiative system or schools/spheres are objective improvements, and the only thing lacking in 2e is the "nasty stuff" (demons, devils, assassins...), which you can just take from 1e and use as-is.
My retro D&D of choice is RC, which I actually didn't come upon until a couple of years ago. Since then, I've used it for my D&D DMing whenever I don't have minis, battlemat or prep time (3 indispensable items when I DM 3.x).
Moorcrys
Explorer
Loved priest spheres, a few of the cleaned up rules like initiative, and 'point buy' for thief skills. One of my favorite splat books of all time is Faiths and Pantheons, and the Wizard's, Priest's, and Magic Item compendiums are 'must haves' imho. All for 2e. I liked the 2e Bard more than the 3e bard.
I missed the 1e druid when I played 2e -- the flavor of it, the wonky experience progression and spell progression, and the UA addition of the hierophant druids (which we never would have gotten to or played but I thought the flavor of them was cool as hell).
Hated the loss of the illusionist as a distinct class, half-orcs, monks, assassins, the reworked ranger, the sterile writing. And I really wish I would have had a chance to see Gary's upcoming classes he mentioned he was writing for 2e in the old Dragon magazines, like the Mountebank and the Savant.
I missed the 1e druid when I played 2e -- the flavor of it, the wonky experience progression and spell progression, and the UA addition of the hierophant druids (which we never would have gotten to or played but I thought the flavor of them was cool as hell).
Hated the loss of the illusionist as a distinct class, half-orcs, monks, assassins, the reworked ranger, the sterile writing. And I really wish I would have had a chance to see Gary's upcoming classes he mentioned he was writing for 2e in the old Dragon magazines, like the Mountebank and the Savant.
SpiderMonkey
Explorer
Yeah, I recently rediscovered RC/BECMI and we're having a blast with it. I worry, however, about the re-play value. I think for my retro-needs in future games, I'm going to rely on a mash up of BECMI and 2e with a few of the 3/4e-isms like cycling initiative and action allotments.
I think one of the really cool things I've seen on ENWorld recently (after the wave of anti-4e sentiments and edition wars) has been how everyone's been revisiting older editions to see what was *good* about them rather than "Grognards vs. 3tards vs. 4ons." Man, was that lame.
Look at me gettin' all huggy.
thedungeondelver
Adventurer
A Prius is a mechanical improvement over a '63 Karman Ghia. It has air conditioning, superior in-car audio, is probably safer, and most certainly more up to snuff on modern emissions standards.
Guess which one I'd rather drive?
And it has zero to do with some fol-de-rol about nostalgia or a "mythical ideal".
It has to do with fun, and the partaking thereof.
I think that's the big difference between AD&D and now: in AD&D, the drive (character advancement) is the goal, not the destination (being superpowered). That's not mythical or mystical or whatever to me, that's concrete.
Well...as concrete as a dice-and-paper bildungsromen can be.
Betote
First Post
Yeah, I recently rediscovered RC/BECMI and we're having a blast with it. I worry, however, about the re-play value. I think for my retro-needs in future games, I'm going to rely on a mash up of BECMI and 2e with a few of the 3/4e-isms like cycling initiative and action allotments.
A good thing about Basic (being it OD&D, Holmes, B/X, BECMI, RC or LL) is how easy it is to tweak.
For example, I allow demihuman classed characters: they get attack, saves and spells as per their class and the special abilities from their "race class", plus a 10% penalty to xp.
Also, for campaign play, I use skills as per 3.x: ability + ranks + d20 >= DC, giving them 4+int mod ranks per level.
I think one of the really cool things I've seen on ENWorld recently (after the wave of anti-4e sentiments and edition wars) has been how everyone's been revisiting older editions to see what was *good* about them rather than "Grognards vs. 3tards vs. 4ons." Man, was that lame.
Look at me gettin' all huggy.
Hugs are good. Specially if you choose wisely who to hug
And yes, I'm having the same sentiment here. I think we should focus more on what we all love (D&D), instead of our differences (what exactly we're calling "D&D").
Similar Threads
