TSR Why would anyone want to play 1e?

SableWyvern said:

If thief skills allow you to do things no one else possible can, the dynamic changes completely. For example, if a thief is hiding in shadows, I treat them as being invisible to basically everything other than True Seeing. Unlike magical invisibility, their invisiblity cannot be dispelled or detected.

Click to expand...

SableWyvern said:

I still consider that thieves, especially at low levels, as a reasonably weak class, but they are certainly not useless.

Click to expand...

SableWyvern said:

Sure. And a 4 tonne rigid truck is objectively slower than a Maclaren F1. But that has nothing to do with either being objectively better overall than the other.

Click to expand...

Sacrosanct said:

I already said (twice now) that what is "better or worse" is subjective, but what I was listing out (rules differences that make it slower) was largely objective. Which it is. Not sure why you keep going down this path of a strawman, but ok. I did not make the argument that more rules and tables makes 1e worse than 2e. I said it makes it slower than 2e. There's a difference.

Click to expand...

• Your thesis appears to be that you, personally, don't feel that there is a good reason to play 1e over 2e (beyond "feels"). [Note that this is a perfectly reasonable position for you to hold, even if it's not one I agree with.]
• We all already agree that 1e and 2e are different.
• When you point out that 2e has less charts and thus is objectively faster, what underlying point are you trying to make, if you're not suggesting that 2e is therefore better?

SableWyvern said:

Because I'm not really sure what else you're trying to achieve with these comparisons.

Click to expand...

SableWyvern said:

• Your thesis appears to be that you, personally, don't feel that there is a good reason to play 1e over 2e (beyond "feels"). [Note that this is a perfectly reasonable position for you to hold, even if it's not one I agree with.]
• We all already agree that 1e and 2e are different.
• When you point out that 2e has less charts and thus is objectively and faster, what point are you trying to make, if you're not suggesting that 2e is therefore better?

Click to expand...

Sacrosanct said:

No offense, but your lack of understanding of my point doesn't mean you can make up an argument I'm not making. That sounds harsher than I intend, but I don't know how else to rephrase it.

My question, as stated in the OP and a few times elsewhere, is since 1e is a lot more complex. less intuitive, and clunky than 2e, why do we see all of the retroclones and old school gaming groups for 1e but hardly ever see one for 2e. That's been....the entire discussion of this thread, with people giving reasons for either side of the argument.

Click to expand...

SableWyvern said:

OK, fair enough. I have probably fixated on the thread title over the more nuance comment in the body of the OP. Apologies if I have misrepresented your position or engaged with my own reframing of the question over your own.

Click to expand...

Theory of Games said:

TSR Thieves are bad to some people. There's been people in this thread who've posted their enjoyment of playing the class. This idea that they were objectively bad doesn't pass the sniff test, especially when you consider that once the Magic-User ran out of spells, that class was a liability to many parties

Click to expand...

Voadam said:

That's a lot for the 4d10 (avg 22, max 40) + con bonus per level that a 4th level fighter gets. 18 con and a little above average rolls or 15-17 con and really good rolls.

Click to expand...

Sacrosanct said:

I apologize if I'm coming off as cranky. That wouldn't be fair to you or anyone else.

Click to expand...