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

[ZzarkLinux]

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

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

And the 4e community encourages you to print your own power cards.
If it was a CCG, you'd get scolded for "counterfeit" printing.
Definitely not a card game.

i.e. Wish I had a laugh button in mobile view :'(

2e got very politically correct, it avoided even using terms like Demon & Devil, and the art was all PG.

Thanks, somehow forgot that. I did go to Catholic schools growing up, but I think it was a hair after the big "witch hunt against devils" thing. We did scare some teachers by fabricating stories of us using ouija boards after school. Two of our religion teachers were very superstitious. Man ... those were the days...

Oh, speaking of Politcal Correctness, I did have a friend in 2004 who was scared of the D&D taboo. But, then she switched colleges and became a goth. Somehow that happened.

Anyone else have stories of scaring people with D&D?

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

Based on how you described 2.0e and 2.5e, it sounds like the "Core 2e PHB" was back-compatible but all the splat / 2.5 wasn't. Seems like it's easy for people to get those versions mixed up. FWIW I was trying to compare PHBs only, since that is what 4e was originally judged on.

4e looked back to FR, Ebberon, & Dark Sun - the plan was a setting a year, it'd've done all of 'em, given time.

But the 4.0 PHB didn't have many references to those, right? It had to be added later. Come to think of it, how many pictures of castles were in the 4e PHB versus 2e PHB? I don't remember any distinct castle pictures in 4e PHB, maybe I'm wrong. I'm pretty sure 2e had more castles.

Besides, we all know the 4e PHB presentation was the large issue. Rules were mostly fine, but most of my points were marks "against" 4th's PHB presentation. I guess people prefer the 2e PHB presentation better.

 

[Ath-kethin]

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.

Sure. But I will say that I never saw a listless, boring fighter until 3e/WotC era D&D. When you give people a list of discrete stuff they can do, they tend to only try to do stuff that's on the list.

But - and I've said this before - maybe I was just lucky with the groups I played with.

 

[Ath-kethin]

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.

Sure. But I will say that I never saw a listless, boring fighter until 3e/WotC era D&D. When you give people a list of discrete stuff they can do, they tend to only try to do stuff that's on the list.

But - and I've said this before - maybe I was just lucky with the groups I played with.

 

[Dorian_Grey]

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.

And what is good, or valuable, is only knowable to the gamer in question. I don't dispute that - I just dispute anyone saying any particular thing is a universal constant. Your second sentence sums up the true purpose of any debate on the merit of a rules system in a game. It's meaningless. Online or in person.

If you were able to come up with a quantifiable, verifiable, peer reviewed definition of "good"... well you'd have done something humans have been struggling with since Aristotle.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But I will say that I never saw a listless, boring fighter until 3e/WotC era D&D.

I'll say the opposite: the fighter came alive with 3.0 in a way it had never come close to before. It wasn't until the Essentials Slayer that it was beaten back down to boredom-inducing beatstick.

And what is good, or valuable, is only knowable to the gamer in question.

Subjectivity is only that theoretically absolute in philosophy (and quantum physics, but I repeat myself). We go much further down this path, you'll be invoking Solipsism.

Thanks, somehow forgot that. I did go to Catholic schools growing up, but I think it was a hair after the big "witch hunt against devils" thing.

Yeah, if it wasn't for the 80s Satanism scare D&D might not have gotten as popular as it did.

Anyone else have stories of scaring people with D&D?

Dena, the young (at the time, but older than me) lady who was basically my D&D mentor, was standing in line to see a movie with some other D&D-playing friends one day, and she described how her character had taken down someone who tried to jump her.

In the first person.

An older woman standing line in front of her turned around with a horrified expression, and she had to hurriedly try to explain what D&D was, and that she had not inadvertently confessed to a crime...

Based on how you described 2.0e and 2.5e, it sounds like the "Core 2e PHB" was back-compatible but all the splat / 2.5 wasn't.

Really, D&D had barely been compatible with itself prior to 2e. It was really pretty messy, and '2e' is a misnomer, since there had already been Original D&D, 3 major supplements that significantly re-worked it, Basic D&D meant to lead into AD&D, a different Basic D&D that led into the Expert Set and was followed by more boxed sets later (BECMI), and, the 0D&D purists answer to AD&D and arguably first retro-clone, the copyright-violating Arduin Grimoire (the Pathfinder of the 80s).

Let's just say backwards compatibility wasn't a big selling point.

Rules were mostly fine, but most of my points were marks "against" 4th's PHB presentation. I guess people prefer the 2e PHB presentation better.

It was the edition war, they were going off on anything/everything but mostly nothing.

But, 2e was the first edition of D&D that looked really slick & professional. And it got away from EGG's overwrought college-reading-level prose. So good presentation and art were among it's positives, along with the wealth of settings, of course.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Besides, we all know the 4e PHB presentation was the large issue. Rules were mostly fine, but most of my points were marks "against" 4th's PHB presentation. I guess people prefer the 2e PHB presentation better.

We don't know that at all, no. The biggest problem with 4E is that it tried simplifying NPCs down to just a couple of numbers, and there was no way to reconcile that with the system in place for PCs, with the obvious and most-egregious violation being the whole "minion" concept.

I don't know anyone who complained about the presentation of the rules, only the rules themselves.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

The biggest problem with 4E is that it tried simplifying NPCs down to just a couple of numbers, and there was no way to reconcile that with the system in place for PCs, with the obvious and most-egregious violation being the whole "minion" concepts

I agree that a lot of fluff was lacking. But you're right the NPC system was changed in 4e. We'll have to agree to disagree.

4e characters were above-average people, and the average NPC worked as a minion (in relation to the PCs). Whereas 2e I guess characters were viewed as more average NPCs with class levels. Well, except Drizzt.

Did 2e use the same rules for NPCs as it did for PCs? My exposure was with a roleplaying DM where we never really saw the stat blocks. Not sure what the "official" 2e system statted out NPCs...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Did 2e use the same rules for NPCs as it did for PCs? My exposure was with a roleplaying DM where we never really saw the stat blocks. Not sure what the "official" 2e system statted out NPCs...

Most NPCs had no class levels, a couple of HP, and maybe proficiency with a weapon or two, because they were level 0. Anyone with a level was treated like a PC. There were no generic high-level rangers or wizards, for example; if someone was worth fighting, then they were worth statting up properly.

 

[Dorian_Grey]

Subjectivity is only that theoretically absolute in philosophy (and quantum physics, but I repeat myself). We go much further down this path, you'll be invoking Solipsism.

Solipsism is not my goal. I was hampered by my desire for simplicity due to my awareness of 1) I'm not writing a thesis, and 2) we're bordering on what some might mistake as edition wars.

Actually, the direction I was aiming for was Wittgenstein's "Language City" applied to gaming. For example, I completely acknowledge that you and I exist, and that we both play games, but where you might find yourself out in the city center with traffic lights and narrow structured streets in a nice grid pattern - I could be out in the woods, traveling barely defined paths. Both of us are happy, both of us are gaming, both of us are fundamentally different while still in the same universe. It is the fundamental difference between looking and evaluating rules as rules versus the use made of the form of rules.

At the end of the day this thread is about "What do you like about 2e?" And some people have been curious why someone would like something when they see a better version. Let's look at it in the "city": There is a restaurant people like to go to. Person A talks about how to get their the fastest by taking this road to this road to this road and BAM. Done. Person B talks about how they like to take this longer route to the restaurant because they like the view. Neither route is inherently wrong. Both routes accomplish the end goal - while also best serving the individual who takes that path. WHY Person A likes one thing, and Person B likes another is only knowable to them (intrinsically), but their why is irrelevant to an objective outside observer - who should ask not "What route would I have used?" (rules for rules) but instead, "Did the route achieve the objective?" (Getting to the restaurant, or the use made from the form of the rules).

 

[Maxperson]

Sure. But I will say that I never saw a listless, boring fighter until 3e/WotC era D&D. When you give people a list of discrete stuff they can do, they tend to only try to do stuff that's on the list.

But - and I've said this before - maybe I was just lucky with the groups I played with.

You seem to be missing where the problem comes from. It didn't come from my being able to make a finesse fighter, strength fighter, brawler, disarmer, sunderer, and on and on, fighter. Class mechanics weren't the fault of what you are describing. The problem you are describing comes from the general combat rules and how it tried to spell out every little possible thing to try and make rules for it.