2E vs 3E: 8 Years Later. A new perspective?

[Storm Raven]

Are elves braver than grell? Are gray renders known for their bravery? How about beholders, mindflayers and medusas?

I think that these sorts of determinations should be up to the individual DM. In your campaign, medusa may be fearless combatants; in mine, sniveling, skulking cowards. And we are both right.

 

[Storm Raven]

True. But then, "balance" wasn't as big an issue because the power level was lower and the increases were much smaller from level to level and (perhaps most importantly) how aewsome a character was in combat was not the sole defining factor of a character's "usefulness".

But the lesser variance in power level by character level magnifies differences in magic item frequency - which would tend to make magic items (or the lack thereof) a bigger deal.

And really, given the lame skill system used in 1e/2e, the quantified elements of most characters were pretty much mostly about how awesome they were in a fight. The level of non-combat usefulness of a 1e/2e character was mostly off the sheet roleplaying, which is independent of system.

 

[Reynard]

No, 2e relied upon certain assumptions, but they just didn't bother to tell you what those assumptions were. Effectively, you were left with no guidance as to what the designers thought PCs would be equipped with when they designed monsters, adventures and other supplements.

This is a good thing. Each group sussed it out themselves, found where their comfort zones were, and played the game their way. That is the ultimate goal of any role-playing game: giving groups the tools to make their own fun. Any attempts to define fun for users is doomed to failure.

 

[Reynard]

And really, given the lame skill system used in 1e/2e, the quantified elements of most characters were pretty much mostly about how awesome they were in a fight.

I completely disagree. NWPs were sufficiently broad and generally useful and easy (unless you took one based on one of your low stats, but who did that?) that characters became mechanically very useful once they were introduced. You didn't need to be a ranger to be a "woodsy fighter" -- you just needed a few decent stats and a couple NWPs.

The level of non-combat usefulness of a 1e/2e character was mostly off the sheet roleplaying, which is independent of system.

1E certainly -- but that is the way the game is designed. Role-playing, exploration and all that stuff are considered *player skills* and only the stuff that can't be gagued on player skill get longwinded mechanical explanations.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

you are forgetting, maybe, that one of the design goals was make the old books almost 100% usable with the new edition? that's why the proficiencies are "optional", for example.

you say that this business decision is timid. maybe. i can still take out the temple of elemental evil and run it in the same campaign in which i ran dragon mountain or a module from the last 2e dungeon pretty much without troubles or conversions.

you might not appreciate that. many 1e players certainly didn't. i do.

Good point.

if i understand your point of view, yes, it would be . if one accepts that point of view, that is.

It is okay to apply different standards in my book if one is open about it, and not apparently pretending otherwise.

I try to judge 2e and 3e by the same standard. I judge 1e by a different, more lenient standard. IMO that is fair and appropriate.

 

[Fifth Element]

This is a good thing. Each group sussed it out themselves, found where their comfort zones were, and played the game their way. That is the ultimate goal of any role-playing game: giving groups the tools to make their own fun. Any attempts to define fun for users is doomed to failure.

Yes, but if you state the assumptions outright, it's easier for groups to figure out if those are the assumptions they want to use. With 2E, you first had to figure out what the assumptions were, and then decide whether you wanted to change those assumptions. Now, you know what the assumptions are, so you can start playing with them right away if you want to. There's no 'sussing out' period, where you're trying to figure out what the designers' assumptions are, and determining if they're what you find the most fun.

 

[Son_of_Thunder]

I completely disagree. NWPs were sufficiently broad and generally useful and easy (unless you took one based on one of your low stats, but who did that?) that characters became mechanically very useful once they were introduced. You didn't need to be a ranger to be a "woodsy fighter" -- you just needed a few decent stats and a couple NWPs.



1E certainly -- but that is the way the game is designed. Role-playing, exploration and all that stuff are considered *player skills* and only the stuff that can't be gagued on player skill get longwinded mechanical explanations.

I agree with you Reynard.

 

[Spell]

On a side note, due to the wonkiness with the xp tables, you could actually come out significantly AHEAD if you chose the right classes. For example, the xp for a 9th level fighter makes a 8/9/9 fighter/thief/magic user (I think I've got those levels right). So, basically, you gave up one level of fighter to gain 18 levels of other classes.

I believe this is where issues of balance come into play.

did this happened just with three classes? i never allowed them and i don't remember any particular big balance issues... but then again it was years ago, and i might have smoothed things on a case by case basis.

i wish i had my books here!

Other issues of balance came into play because some elements were flat out better than others. You used a longsword because it was flat out better than any other weapon in the PHB. Actually, you used a longsword and short sword because, if you burned one weapon proficiency, you effectively doubled your attacks per round and doubled your damage.

agreed on both account.
gotta solve some of those problems, before staring playing again. i alredy bought a couple of real world weapons and armours book...

 

[SuStel]

Not really a lot of xp. Generally speaking, until you hit double digit levels, any 2 class character would be 1 level at most behind in each class compared to a single classed character. On a side note, due to the wonkiness with the xp tables, you could actually come out significantly AHEAD if you chose the right classes. For example, the xp for a 9th level fighter makes a 8/9/9 fighter/thief/magic user (I think I've got those levels right). So, basically, you gave up one level of fighter to gain 18 levels of other classes.

I believe this is where issues of balance come into play.

This description rather obscures what's really going on. A multi-classed character doesn't get the sum of all his levels as his attack matrix column, or to determine his saving throws, or anything like that. For anything that could potentially "stack," the multi-classed character only gets the best of the classes' scores. For hit points, you took the average of all your classes' hit dice.

Casting spells in armor and allowing clerics to use bladed weapons are the primary benefits of multi-classing (in the original AD&D; AD&D Second Edition took away the ability of fighter/mages and the like to cast spells while wearing armor).

Other issues of balance came into play because some elements were flat out better than others. You used a longsword because it was flat out better than any other weapon in the PHB. Actually, you used a longsword and short sword because, if you burned one weapon proficiency, you effectively doubled your attacks per round and doubled your damage.

Any other choice was just woefully sub par.

This is one reason the weapon vs. armor class table in the first edition is so valuable—it gives you a reason to choose something other than a longsword. Weapon specialization in Unearthed Arcana broke this, and AD&D Second Edition made it worse by loosening the first edition's restriction on using two weapons: daggers and hand axes only.

 

[Lanefan]

I do not think this double-standard is justified. IMHO.

1e was one of the first to be so ambitious. I may criticize it, but I actually cut it a lot of slack (although I understand I might not sound like I do sometimes).

IMO 3e is the game that 2e theoretically could have been,

*only* if they wanted to, at the time, pretty much throw out all of 1e and start over. As their intent seemed to be one of building on the foundation already laid, we had to wait till 3e for the throw-out-and-redo to happen.

I am skeptical of the implication that a "mere" 14+ years of roleplaying game design in the industry made highly competent game designers unavailable.

Just because they might have been available doesn't mean TSR hired 'em...

Perhaps it would be logical to judge 2e by a far harsher standard than 1e or 3e?

I disagree, not because I'm defending 2e, but because of the approach taken. WotC intentionally set out to design a 3e game that would sell (succeeded), and that would be and remain playable (mixed results). They did their homework - we can argue later about the merits of their research, but at least they did some - and designed from there. WotC also had at that point about 6 years of in-house experience designing and tweaking the most rules-laden game in the history of anything, that being M:tG, leading to the obvious expectation that their design department by 1999 knew what it was doing. The 1e designers had none of this. The 2e designers *could* have had the research but still didn't have the experience, nor did they come at it with the rules-first approach WotC brought from M:tG.

My expectations of 3e were thus pretty high, and - credit where it's due - it even lived up to some of them; that they didn't design the game I wanted to play is hardly their fault. (I'm referring to core 3e here; ditto core 2e where I reference it; splatbooks in either edition do not count) 2e I found disappointing, mostly because the direction taken was somewhat at variance with the direction Dragon articles seemed to be pointing...never mind the caving to the hardcore fundie nutballers and the atmosphere-destroying move away from the Gygaxian prose that made 1e what it was.

Lanefan