Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
2e, the most lethal edition?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="GreyLord" data-source="post: 7638692" data-attributes="member: 4348"><p>DMG says it pretty plainly it is options. I quoted it where it actually encourages the DM to cut rules from it and not use everything in it. This was something that Gary through his actions constantly did, though more so probably in homegames. ONLY someone reading it with modern reading as they would with 4e would make the conclusion it says something else. Others (arneson was famous for it) would flat out alter rules as they saw fit (rather than DMG, they saw EVERY rule as optional in D&D and AD&D).</p><p></p><p>AS PER THE OFFICIAL RULINGS, the PHB, pg 105 WAS the actual official rule in most games held. Just because you decided to ignore it doesn't make your mistaken interpretation of a rule the one that was considered the official one used..</p><p></p><p>Anyways, you are free to your own opinion (along with what...3-4 others in this thread out of millions who played AD&D 1e) that 2e is the most lethal. Obviously, for you, it is...but it is OBVIOUSLY NOT the most lethal for many others.</p><p></p><p>Obviously, you disagree about 1e or 3e being able to be more lethal, and it being more of a DM's view. We will just disagree.</p><p></p><p>However, I'm done arguing with 4e guys over how 1e and the DMG was run. You want to read it with a modern view (instead of how it actually was, this is how part of the OSR branches came about, with DM's having the power to pick the options out of the DMG...not rule lawyers and players saying since an option is listed in the DMG it must be a rule...something NOT EVEN GYGAX adhered to...and he WROTE the dang thing...though his stance on the PHB was a little stricter and stronger as far as rules go...every rule in the DMG...not as much. Of course, if you adhered to every rule in the DMG...it could be a very interesting game...but then again HE wouldn't have misinterpreted the ZHP as it has been in this thread).</p><p></p><p>I came to point out a fallacy of interpretation. I was OPEN to being convinced if one could have actually used the correct rules as they were used. I didn't side necessarily with 1e being the most lethal and in fact my opinion was open for any edition being lethal. I pointed out why I wasn't convinced by the discussions here, and...I WAS NOT. </p><p></p><p>Anyways, you are free to your opinion, but if YOU ACTUALLY WANT to convince those who don't SHARE your opinion you probably should have addressed the things we had a problem with. I was never arguing that 2e couldn't be more lethal than 1e, but the representation of the 1e rules. If you are going to ignore the actual official rules and rulings of 1e, than there's probably NO WAY your going to convince those who are long time players and were around during the 1e years of your opinion.</p><p></p><p>Thus far, even the 3e argument (which is why I now will say 3e could be just as lethal, as before I probably would have put 2e or 1e in front of it as far as lethality went) is better than the one presented here.</p><p></p><p>As such, I can see there is no REAL desire to actually convince those looking at it about the point of the thread, but merely try to argue that ONE point of contention determines which edition is actually more lethal (and there are FAR more other points, some which I brought up briefly, that could be utilized to say 2e was NOT as lethal if one used the official rules or looked at it). </p><p></p><p> There are a host of other things that would go counter to the idea of 2e (theif specializing in Remove traps not as likely to be killed outright using that skill, Weapon Specialization in core 2e, but not core 1e giving Fighters multiple attacks at 1st level, some wizard spells having greater power and ability to be abused...etc...etc...etc) being more lethal and they could have been addressed or discussed</p><p></p><p>Those here seem FAR more concerned about what was an OPTIONAL rule (as in, officially not utilized in many official games, with deference to the PHB ruling...though ZHP could be used by DMs if they wanted to have there players unconscious rather than dead...Something I believe Gygax would do [though he would just ignore the death at 0 or even -3 HP rulings and would even go to -200 HP and PC's being unconscious if it fitted his more personal games] and arguing that they HAD to have the correct ruling on it and no one else ever used anything else (as if, especially in AD&D 1e) or that others even interpreted it or saw it differently.</p><p></p><p>Thus, I AM NOT convinced, and as I don't see any arguments actually addressing my concerns or thoughts (show that 2e was more lethal WITHOUT what I would say is your misinterpretation of the ZHP rule), I'd say there's really no point in continuing the conversation.</p><p></p><p>Thanks for your time, but until someone actually comes up with a more convincing argument, I'm going to have to say that at this point we are probably going to have to agree to disagree.</p><p></p><p>My opinion being that 1e-3e can be more or less lethal, any of them could be more lethal than the other, it being more dependent on the DM and the way they run their game and interpret the rules.</p><p></p><p>Your opinion, from what I can tell, being that 2e is the most lethal D&D as per the rules (which we disagree on how they are even interpreted, much less how they are applied) than any other edition.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GreyLord, post: 7638692, member: 4348"] DMG says it pretty plainly it is options. I quoted it where it actually encourages the DM to cut rules from it and not use everything in it. This was something that Gary through his actions constantly did, though more so probably in homegames. ONLY someone reading it with modern reading as they would with 4e would make the conclusion it says something else. Others (arneson was famous for it) would flat out alter rules as they saw fit (rather than DMG, they saw EVERY rule as optional in D&D and AD&D). AS PER THE OFFICIAL RULINGS, the PHB, pg 105 WAS the actual official rule in most games held. Just because you decided to ignore it doesn't make your mistaken interpretation of a rule the one that was considered the official one used.. Anyways, you are free to your own opinion (along with what...3-4 others in this thread out of millions who played AD&D 1e) that 2e is the most lethal. Obviously, for you, it is...but it is OBVIOUSLY NOT the most lethal for many others. Obviously, you disagree about 1e or 3e being able to be more lethal, and it being more of a DM's view. We will just disagree. However, I'm done arguing with 4e guys over how 1e and the DMG was run. You want to read it with a modern view (instead of how it actually was, this is how part of the OSR branches came about, with DM's having the power to pick the options out of the DMG...not rule lawyers and players saying since an option is listed in the DMG it must be a rule...something NOT EVEN GYGAX adhered to...and he WROTE the dang thing...though his stance on the PHB was a little stricter and stronger as far as rules go...every rule in the DMG...not as much. Of course, if you adhered to every rule in the DMG...it could be a very interesting game...but then again HE wouldn't have misinterpreted the ZHP as it has been in this thread). I came to point out a fallacy of interpretation. I was OPEN to being convinced if one could have actually used the correct rules as they were used. I didn't side necessarily with 1e being the most lethal and in fact my opinion was open for any edition being lethal. I pointed out why I wasn't convinced by the discussions here, and...I WAS NOT. Anyways, you are free to your opinion, but if YOU ACTUALLY WANT to convince those who don't SHARE your opinion you probably should have addressed the things we had a problem with. I was never arguing that 2e couldn't be more lethal than 1e, but the representation of the 1e rules. If you are going to ignore the actual official rules and rulings of 1e, than there's probably NO WAY your going to convince those who are long time players and were around during the 1e years of your opinion. Thus far, even the 3e argument (which is why I now will say 3e could be just as lethal, as before I probably would have put 2e or 1e in front of it as far as lethality went) is better than the one presented here. As such, I can see there is no REAL desire to actually convince those looking at it about the point of the thread, but merely try to argue that ONE point of contention determines which edition is actually more lethal (and there are FAR more other points, some which I brought up briefly, that could be utilized to say 2e was NOT as lethal if one used the official rules or looked at it). There are a host of other things that would go counter to the idea of 2e (theif specializing in Remove traps not as likely to be killed outright using that skill, Weapon Specialization in core 2e, but not core 1e giving Fighters multiple attacks at 1st level, some wizard spells having greater power and ability to be abused...etc...etc...etc) being more lethal and they could have been addressed or discussed Those here seem FAR more concerned about what was an OPTIONAL rule (as in, officially not utilized in many official games, with deference to the PHB ruling...though ZHP could be used by DMs if they wanted to have there players unconscious rather than dead...Something I believe Gygax would do [though he would just ignore the death at 0 or even -3 HP rulings and would even go to -200 HP and PC's being unconscious if it fitted his more personal games] and arguing that they HAD to have the correct ruling on it and no one else ever used anything else (as if, especially in AD&D 1e) or that others even interpreted it or saw it differently. Thus, I AM NOT convinced, and as I don't see any arguments actually addressing my concerns or thoughts (show that 2e was more lethal WITHOUT what I would say is your misinterpretation of the ZHP rule), I'd say there's really no point in continuing the conversation. Thanks for your time, but until someone actually comes up with a more convincing argument, I'm going to have to say that at this point we are probably going to have to agree to disagree. My opinion being that 1e-3e can be more or less lethal, any of them could be more lethal than the other, it being more dependent on the DM and the way they run their game and interpret the rules. Your opinion, from what I can tell, being that 2e is the most lethal D&D as per the rules (which we disagree on how they are even interpreted, much less how they are applied) than any other edition. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
2e, the most lethal edition?
Top