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

[SuStel]

Is 2e really a rules light game though? Between the PHB and the DMG, you have 500 ish pages of rules. That's not how I'd define a rules light game.

Are you thinking of the original or revised rules? The revised edition filled out the page count a lot!

Don't forget: a great deal of the text of AD&D Second Edition is explanatory fluff. Another significant part is optional rules (the entire chapter on proficiencies, by the way). If AD&D Second Edition were stripped down to the essentials, it would be significantly smaller.

Something I don't consider "fluff," but which I do consider to be useless or a hindrance, is all the ecology detail in the Monstrous Compendium. If we don't count the MC, which you didn't above, then AD&D Second Edition is significantly smaller than AD&D.

 

[shilsen]

Heh, I'll agree with you on the morale rules. I miss those. I can see why they got chucked, but, man, I liked 'em. Now every fight seems to go to the death.

Are you the DM? If so, why not have the NPCs free when it makes sense for them? And if you're not the DM, just suggest that to him.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Are you the DM? If so, why not have the NPCs flee when it makes sense for them? And if you're not the DM, just suggest that to him.

It's something that is easy forgotten, my experience tells me. I sometimes forget that NPCs are supposed to be persons which have a life and don't like to die and thus might fight until _nearly_ not standing.

But its noticeable that it really depends on the type of monsters. Cultists fighting to death I like. A normal city watch men, a soldier or even a rampaging Ogre - why not let him give up or run before he is dead. Maybe we should just rule that any monster whose hit points are reduced below 0 isn't dead or dying, but just has given up? (At higher level, players wouldn't notice the 10 "extra hit points").

 

[Storm Raven]

Well, there is one thing to note. 3E seems also a lot more "rules-heavy" as a whole. Which means the assumptions affect a lot of rules, which makes changing the assumptions even harder.

3e might be somewhat more "rules-heavy" as you say (personally, I think it isn't, since the rules are generally intuitive and consistent), but D&D has never been a rules light game. 2e was, when published, one of the most rules-heavy games on the market - the only significant game that was probably more rules-heavy was Rolemaster. Even GURPS (when used just as a fantasy game) is significantly more rules-light than 2e D&D.

But I really disagree with you that changing the assumptions is hard to do in 3e. I know what the assumptions are. Thus, I know if I amy dealing with a party of PCs that has more magic than assumed, or lower stats than assumed, or larger or smaller in numbers than expected and so on. I can then take that into account.

How do you know any of those things in 2e? Generally, you didn't. You just hoped that your party of five 5th level characters carrying two magic items each was what the adventure designer had in mind when he wrote it. If he had in mind that the p[arty would have eight characters with three times as much magic, then you probably are lining up for a TPK, but you won't know that until you get on the spot.

I'd rather have them tell me what they were thinking ahead of time.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Rolemaster isn't all that rules-heavy. It's chart-heavy, but not rules-heavy; basically the same mechanic repeated ad nauseam.

I think the reason it's so popular to characterise 1e/2e as "rules-lite" is because so many of us know the rules like the backs of our hands, having read them to death as children, that they seem simple to us. In retrospect they aren't. They're a huge number of separate subsystems for different special cases all bolted together.

Personally I love all the special cases and subsystems, I think they ooze with flavour and I find generic mechanics bland. I do understand why the rules-lite crowd would disagree.

I agree that using the same mechanic for everything is "consistent" but disagree that it's "intuitive".

I'm also the kind of person who prefers charts to mental arithmetic. Not because I can't do mental arithmetic, it's just that charts allow more possibilities.

 

[shilsen]

It's something that is easy forgotten, my experience tells me. I sometimes forget that NPCs are supposed to be persons which have a life and don't like to die and thus might fight until _nearly_ not standing.

That can definitely happen. I am generally fairly focused on not running to the best of my tactical ability but doing so to whatever fits their personalities/background, so it tends to keep me aware of the point where they break and run.

But its noticeable that it really depends on the type of monsters. Cultists fighting to death I like. A normal city watch men, a soldier or even a rampaging Ogre - why not let him give up or run before he is dead.

Absolutely. That's how it should be, I think. The creature's nature, the circumstances, and its individual personality (one cultist will be more or less fanatical than another) should determine when a creature flees or gives up.

Maybe we should just rule that any monster whose hit points are reduced below 0 isn't dead or dying, but just has given up? (At higher level, players wouldn't notice the 10 "extra hit points").

Interesting idea. Of course, knowing most PCs, this rule just means the monsters will die running.

 

[Hussar]

LOL Shilsen

I admit that I DM most of the time, so, it's really my own failing. I forget to make the critters run. Sigh. I dunno, it just rubs me wrong to have the critters run away just because I decide to make them run. I'd rather leave it up to the dice gods.

 

[Arauthator]

Simply Amazing

All this rule mongering simply amazes me. I find it a bit weird that we are now in 2008 and still trying to come up with a rules system to make everybody happy from a game that was created in 1974.

Most of you guys seriously need to play a few good games of Castles & Crusades. The whole reason Gary left DnD was the rules were getting way to complex. I myself don't have that problem because I never did rely on the rules that often. It's a game of players overcoming challenges with some dice. The rule books are just guides to get that accomplished. I as a DM ultimately have the last say, as the game was originally designed to entail. I remind my players of that, and they always agree to it, because nobody likes to play an RPG like a ding dang chess game, thinking about your next move for the next 10 minutes, or in the case of complex rules, finding it in the book. I limit what can be used at the game table to only things the player knows well. If they can't come up with something quickly to make combat move fast, I throw in role playing tactics to get that player away from the combat. They love it.

(I.E. make a spot check, you see a pile of treasure 8 feet high through the wall beside you, appear and disappear like the wall is becoming transparent. Make a Will save, you now find yourself unable to resist to walk through this blinking portal-like section of the wall.)

From there I can take that player on one wild ride, giving him information to unlock a puzzle.

But if it's downsizing you need, Gary Gygax is the King of the Land in that realm and he's got one heck of a nice system going.

Castles & Crusades:
http://www.trolllord.com/newsite/cnc/index.html

 

[Hussar]

The whole reason Gary left DnD was the rules were getting way to complex.

Now that's a reinvisioning of history

I would point out though that we're not saying that there aren't different systems available. We're specifically discussing the evolution of the game from 2e to 3e. That some people have used d20 mechanics to make a derivative game that looks somewhat like earlier editions is irrelevant to this conversation.

 

[Arauthator]

Now that's a reinvisioning of history

I would point out though that we're not saying that there aren't different systems available. We're specifically discussing the evolution of the game from 2e to 3e. That some people have used d20 mechanics to make a derivative game that looks somewhat like earlier editions is irrelevant to this conversation.

Well with all due respect, you picked up on my second point but missed my first. The evolution of the game in my opinion is to make everyone happy and it just simply can't be done. This is why Ford isn't the ONLY car maker in the world, while they are the original designer of the car. I just think people need to look for alternatives to DnD instead of contemplating on the downfalls of the game. I personally happen to like ALL versions, even though there are some things done today that have improved it, but I would love to take a ride in that Model T mentioned below as well.