D&D 5E what is it about 2nd ed that we miss?

[Ancalagon]

I miss broadswords.

Oh man...

Back in the 2e days, where we were young and not that mature (say, 14-15 range), we had two fighters with roughly comparable stats. Trying to distinguish them a bit, I recommend one take the longsword weapon proficiency, the other one the broadsword. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

Of course the longsword is better than the broadsword - the damage was *slightly* better vs medium creatures, but vastly superior vs large creatures, but at the time we were new to the game and hadn't grasped that yet.

(BTW that is a thing about 2nd ed I do *not* miss at all!)

So the broadsword guy complained about being "stuck" with a broadsword for about 2 years, despite the fact that he also had a 2-handed sword proficiency and a pretty darn good magical one too - the fact that he had a "wasted" proficiency was something that just drove him nuts. This went on until one of the GMs invented a magical device that had 1% chance of allowing him to change his weapon proficiencies, and 99% chance of making all this ability scores fall to 3. Let's just say the broadsword player wasn't pleased...

So it's a bit of a troubled memory for me.

 

[Maxperson]

I never understood the "all characters of type X are exactly the same" argument. A simple look at characters from popular books is enough to demonstrate the falsehood of such an idea.

They are talking about mechanics, not roleplaying. Sure, you can take 20 identical characters and roleplaying them 20 different ways, but that still won't keep them from being exactly the same mechanically.

Pointing at the wrong thing and then declaring their arguments a falsehood is a bit disingenuous.

 

[Ath'kethin]

They are talking about mechanics, not roleplaying. Sure, you can take 20 identical characters and roleplaying them 20 different ways, but that still won't keep them from being exactly the same mechanically.

Pointing at the wrong thing and then declaring their arguments a falsehood is a bit disingenuous.

No, my point is that I don't see the necessity of mechanical differences to distinguish between characters. It can definitely help - it's what makes a thief different from a wizard, after all - but I challenge the notion that mechanically identical characters can't be distinguished from one another.

But this is an argument I've been having for over twenty years. YMMV.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The CCG term is wierd for me. If someone accuses 4e of "being a CCG" then I disagree. But if someone says "I feel like 4e is a CCG" then I acknowledge their view. CCG is kinda shorthand for:

Someone can 'feel like' the earth is flat all they want, and you can acknowledge their view (be it from ignorance, religious dogma or whatever), but they're still wrong.

4e PHB denied the OGL, and was funded by MtG - The Company. Did TSR sell CCGs?

Yes. TSR published the Spellfire CCG. TSR also launched a collectable dice game.

2e predated the OGL, and the earliest open-source TTRPGs, like FUDGE (though only by a few years).

And, 2e had sets of 'Spell Cards,' too. But so did every subsequent edition. All complete sets, not blind/random/collectable - all entirely optional.

4e PHB bucked tradition. 2e PHB claimed OD&D 1e compatability.

Compatibility was pushing it. 2e didn't change much, at first, it eventually went pretty far afield.

4e PHB had brighter fantasy artwork. 2e had dark shading & realistic artwork.

2e art was pretty varied, from blue-on-white line drawings to Elmore, from dark to realistic to amusing.

4e PHB didn't reference old settings much. 2e PHB didn't have settings to refer to?

The 'old' settings that pre-dated 2e included Greyhawk, Mystara, FR, Spelljammer, and Kara-Tur, among others, 2e was setting-happy publishing more of them than any other edition.
4e looked back to FR, Ebberon, & Dark Sun - the plan was a setting a year, it'd've done all of 'em, given time.

4e PHB/MM were organized rulebooks. 2e core books were I assume rules novels?

2e was at a bit better organized than 5e - again, at least at first. There was a style-over-substance / setting-first / presentation-over-content sort trend in the 90s, though. Not sure to what degree later 2e products succumbed to it.

4e PHB cleric was just another healer. 2e PHB cleric was the only allowed healer.

Close enough. The Druid was a special case of the Cleric, and the Paladin arguably half-cleric.

4e PHB had back-to-back pages of power cards with no artwork... or "toon" artwork.

The power listings were in no way 'cards,' and art was interspersed with them.

4e MM had the Nymph and Succubus as Politically correct. 2e showed skin.

2e got very politically correct, it avoided even using terms like Demon & Devil, and the art was all PG. 1e got a tad explicit - if you could consider line art explicit.

I challenge the notion that mechanically identical characters can't be distinguished from one another.

Sure, one of them can wear a funny hat or something. They can have different names, you can RP them differently. You can distinguish one from another, they're just not differentiated in what they are able to do.

 

[Shasarak]

I agree that 4e is nothing like a normal CCG.

For one thing, you have far more cards in your hand.

 

[Dorian_Grey]

Except that the rules need to cover the difference between a longsword and a broadsword? (As per your XP to post 240.)

Also, in building your two characters you've used the optional NWP rules. And you seem to be using those NWP to signal the difference between a religious background and a criminal background.

Do you have a criterion for distinguishing "good" rules from "bad" rules?

Yes, NWP were optional. You could drop all of them and just mention them in the background based on "what you know" per the rules. And yes, I was using them - in that I was using an existing tool that was in the PHB to build out my character without having to use 100 different splat books so I wouldn't have a boring fighter. As a DM, I also probably would have given the criminal background some thief skills (maybe handle it like a bard) ESPECIALLY if he or she roleplayed well. Cause rewards don't just have to be GP and XP . I would have given the religious character some spells as well, such as Bless or Light. If the player continued to roleplay well, I'd keep handing out these kind of rewards (probably tied to their holy symbol).

In terms of what rules are bad or good, that's up to you - I'm just saying it is possible to do something without needing specific rules - "2e doesn't have backgrounds - ooh noez!" Says Random Player Playerface. "But you don't NEED backgrounds to have a background!" Says 2e Enthusiast. That's all. It was a thought experiment not a hard and fast rule. Heck, with weapons, just make them all 1d6 damage (which one version of D&D did do) and leave that up to the player to describe ("My weapon is a rusty and old two handed sword, the blade pitted and scratched but still serviceable. The hilt is wrapped in rags, as the leather rotted away long ago." Player. "Okay, it does 1d6 damage!" DM).

The key takeaway isn't some rules are better than others, the key takeaway I was trying to express was "Do not be confined by the rules or feel you need a rule for everything." YMMV.

But while we're on the topic, one of my favorite campaigns was role playing in the BattleTech universe using nothing more than the original green box set. It had, I think, a 60 page rule book, 12 plastic miniatures, and two simple maps. The rule book? Most of that was focused on managing battles between Mechs. Your "character" was a two score pilot (Gunnery/Piloting). Around those two numbers my friends and I were able to build a three year campaign focusing on our own version of a war between the Federated Suns and the Draconis Combine. We weren't even using the 3025 or 3026 Technical Manual. Two numbers. That was it. Best campaign I've ever been in too.

Edit: Here was the edition of BattleTech we used. http://www.ebay.com/itm/111714446374 - Apparently it was the 3rd edition.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In terms of what rules are bad or good, that's up to you - I'm just saying it is possible to do something without needing specific rules

In an RPG, of course it is. RPGs are too open in play for it to be any other way. The point really isn't whether you can do something without a rule, but whether that something is going to be easy enough to deal with without a rule. What color your character's hair is won't likely cause much disagreement in play. Whether he can blow the top off a mountain might need some foundation in the rules to avoid problems.

Then there's the question of whether you're filling in a missing element with a 'good' (clear, balanced, playable, consistent, fun, &c) rule or a 'bad' (vague, broken, un-playable, contradictory, burdensome, lame, &c) rule. Tossing bad rules and falling back on the truism that you can play without any rule at all can be a good idea.

"2e doesn't have backgrounds - ooh noez!" Says Random Player Playerface. "But you don't NEED backgrounds to have a background!" Says 2e Enthusiast.

Except, 2e did have backgrounds, between Kits and NWPs. For that matter, 1e did, in the form of a random 'secondary skill.' They were rules that covered your character's pre-class background, or could to an extent.

They just weren't as 'good' as what we have now.

 

[Dorian_Grey]

Well, as I said - YMMV. I would say a good rule doesn't necessarily need to meet all your qualifications, just one: Does the table find it fun? As a DM I'd reward NWP points and WP points in addition to the more standard treasure. There was no rule over this, my friends and I liked the rule - but some might find it "unbalanced". Does that make it bad? Good and bad are inherently subjective, as is anything with an RPG. I just write what I like!

And my comment on backgrounds was about a set of rules called "Backgrounds." 2e didn't have that, though I agree with your analysis - but again, NWP and Kits aren't even necessary. Nothing is except what your table needs to have fun. At the same time, if your table needs 4e to e fun - then by all means, grab those 4e books and rock it.

Big Disclaimer: Everything I write is based on only MY perceptions, and my opinions and is only 100% guaranteed to be good for me. Anything you find helpful/insightful is purely coincidental!

 

[Maxperson]

No, my point is that I don't see the necessity of mechanical differences to distinguish between characters. It can definitely help - it's what makes a thief different from a wizard, after all - but I challenge the notion that mechanically identical characters can't be distinguished from one another.

You are missing the point completely. It's irrelevant if you can distinguish mechanically identical characters from one another. The ability to distinguish the character via non-mechanical means has zero bearing the the mechanical bore that is playing the same mechanics all the time. I don't want to have to change classes every time I want some variety. I'd rather have mechanical variety within each class so I can continue to play that class without the boredom that is mechanical sameness.

If that doesn't bother you, great. My daughter watched The Little Mermaid every day for half a year. Some people get bored by the same thing day in and day out, though. Their position is just as valid as yours.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, as I said - YMMV. I would say a good rule doesn't necessarily need to meet all your qualifications

Not all, no, and it might have to meet others I didn't list. Thus 'good' is scare quotes.

2e didn't have that, though I agree with your analysis - but again, NWP and Kits aren't even necessary. Nothing is except what your table needs to have fun.

That's a truism, a tautology. It's certainly, necessarily, unavoidably true. It's also meaningless. Yes, we can always just freestyle RP without rules. Doesn't mean rules can't be good or have value, just that, like games, they aren't, strictly speaking, necessary.