AD&D second edition: Why be hatin'?

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

in fact, the games which don't involve powergaming seldom hold much interest for me...

I never would have guessed that just be reading your handle.

Powergaming is nearly always the bane of roleplaying games, because it emphasizes competition (with the DM and with the other players) and metagaming. Roleplaying games tend to emphasize the cooperative nature (of the party), don't treat the DM as the adversary, and discourages metagaming.

 

[Orius]

The problem came in the form of the endless source books. Unlike the current incarnation of the game, 2e had no overriding design philosophy. As such, many of the source books had rules that contradicted each other, as well as varying widely in power (e.g. kits in book X were only for the most masochistic players, while kits in book Y were fairly powerful.) Then there was the pervasive amount of cross-referencing - every single product seemed to require the use of Battlesystem(tm) rules!

I'll agree that was one of the biggest flws of the 2e system, the fact that optional stuff was considered completely optional, and thus threw in all sorts of imbalances.

Ruleswise, the 2e wasn't horribly bad overall, but there were some gaping problems.

• Exceptional Strength. This was an old 1e or earlier relic that should have been thrown out, since 2e had stat tables that went to 25. And ES was only available to warriors so there was a whole can of worms about what happened when non-warriors boosted Str past 18. PO made it even worse with subabilites that let a character with a 17 Strength bump Muscle to 19, thus bypassing the execptional categories, and about half a dozen ranks on the Strength tables.
• Wacky multi/demi-classing rules. Why could only demihumans multi, and why could only humans demiclass? Made no sense. Even worse was the silliness about how you couldn't use class abilities when you took a new class until you hit a specific number of XPs.
• Breaking the weapon specialization rule. Weapon specialization was intended to be a single-class fighter only perk, but optional material quickly (starting with the Fighter's Handbook) let non multi-classed fighters, then all warriors then ANYONE who damn well pleased take weapon spec. Of course, this took from the fighter the only real benefit it had in the system.
• Balance that assumed the classic 3d6 system. Paladins, rangers and bards were definitely more powerful than than the standard 4 classes. This was balanced by stringent ability score requirements which made the classes rare if character were rolled up with the traditional 3d6 method. However, that was a fairly underused system for rolling scores, and it's not surprising, given that it limited the choices players had when creating characters.
• The core proficiency system. Definitely inferior compared to PO proficiencies and 3.xe skills. Proficiencies were really little more than specific ability checks with occasional modifiers tacked on, and they was little to chance to improve proficiencies.
• Alignments such as chaotic stupid. Alignments were badly interpreted in 2e, especially the -for-tat balance-seeking crap of true neutral, or the completely random behavior patterns of chaotic neutral. (Smileys? What the hell? CONTEXT, people! Sheesh! )

Those are the only real problems I have with the 2e rules as written.

I also never liked the cross-referencing. Having the monster from outside the MM was alright, provided the adventure or whatever gave the DM enough stats to use the encounter or whatever. An occasional spell from a source like ToM didn't matter too much either, since another spell could simply be substituted (and pretty much all adventures and suppliments said to substitute anyway). But stuff that pretty much required the DM to have a suppliment or something that was OOP, and couldn't be easily worked around was annoying.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

QUOTE=shadow][snip]as well as varying widely in power (e.g. kits in book X were only for the most masochistic players, while kits in book Y were fairly powerful.)

I'd like to point out that 3e has this problem, too. I'd still like to know what the Entropomancer and Radiant Servant of Pelor were doing in the same book, or even the same game system.

[*]Exceptional Strength. This was an old 1e or earlier relic that should have been thrown out, since 2e had stat tables that went to 25. And ES was only available to warriors so there was a whole can of worms about what happened when non-warriors boosted Str past 18. PO made it even worse with subabilites that let a character with a 17 Strength bump Muscle to 19, thus bypassing the execptional categories, and about half a dozen ranks on the Strength tables.

And then not all ability scores "increased" at the same rate. You needed a Strength score of 16 to get any benefit out of it, but you could benefits out of a Wisdom score fo 12.

This pushed me right into the waiting arms of Alternity (that and an actually functional skill system), and I didn't go back until 3e came out.

[*]Breaking the weapon specialization rule. Weapon specialization was intended to be a single-class fighter only perk, but optional material quickly (starting with the Fighter's Handbook) let non multi-classed fighters, then all warriors then ANYONE who damn well pleased take weapon spec. Of course, this took from the fighter the only real benefit it had in the system.

I recall breaking the ranger this way. I wanted to play a samurai character, but other characters were kind of cheesy, so of course I would play a ranger instead of a fighter. This particular samurai kit gave specialization in both wakizashi and katana as long as you were a warrior, and since rangers got (2e's overpowered) TWF for free... do you see where this is going? I gave up the character after only two sessions on the ground that it was raw powergaming with no flavor attached.

[*]Balance that assumed the classic 3d6 system. Paladins, rangers and bards were definitely more powerful than than the standard 4 classes. This was balanced by stringent ability score requirements which made the classes rare if character were rolled up with the traditional 3d6 method. However, that was a fairly underused system for rolling scores, and it's not surprising, given that it limited the choices players had when creating characters.

It wouldn't have made a difference. You're already rewarded for having high ability scores (as long as they exceeded different numbers for different stats ... rolls eyes) so why another bonus on top of that?

It's like the way they tried to balance Palladium psionics. You could only be psionics if you got lucky with the dice, but if you did you got uber powers. Of course, the GM learned the hard way that the system wasn't balanced at all the first time I played a Palladium psychic.

The new classes are so much better.

 

[Tyler Do'Urden]

I never would have guessed that just be reading your handle.

Powergaming is nearly always the bane of roleplaying games, because it emphasizes competition (with the DM and with the other players) and metagaming. Roleplaying games tend to emphasize the cooperative nature (of the party), don't treat the DM as the adversary, and discourages metagaming.

What's wrong with my handle?

Competition is essential to any game! It's part of life! The only reason people work together is because it benefits them to do so, after all.

Let's face it- D&D is, at it's heart, about killing monsters, gaining treasure and experience, and cool new powers. It's a power trip. Without that aspect, you might as well be doing improvisational theater.

The DM *IS* the adversary. As a player, you are supposed to overcome his challenges. As the DM, you are supposed to put challenges in front of your players that they are capable of overcoming yet will be taxed in the process of doing so. The challenge is to balance this- create a challenge that can defeat the characters in a fair fight if they perform subpar or don't use their tactical abilities to their fullest. Sure, you can always mash the characters with an encounter far above their level- but that's self-defeating. If the playing field isn't leveled between the DM and the players, there's no game. The DM must create the challenges within these constraints, but within these constraints he is the enemy.

Competition between PC's will happen. Competition between friends, students, co-workers, etc. happens every day. In a game oriented around the acquisition of wealth and power, what less can you expect? One of my greatest joys as a DM is when I get players to grow suspicious of each other and plot against their fellow PC's... that always adds intrigue to a campaign (and, provided the players are friends outside of the game, can work quite well. If they don't get along IRL, it's a recipe for disaster.) You don't expect the party Paladin and the party Necromancer to always see eye to eye, do you? Could a party of Knights all have their eye on winning the same lady's hand, capturing the same duchy, or acquiring the same Defending Longsword +5? Of course!

As for metagaming, that's just something one must live with. It happens. As a DM, that's another one of your challenges- stay two steps ahead of your player's knowledge...

Powergaming IS Roleplaying. The best roleplayers I've met have also been very good at Powergaming... though I do play with roleplayers who could care less about the power aspects (or so it seems, I just think such attitudes are "holier than thou" gamer hypocrisy), and with powergamers who can't roleplay at all (who annoy me just as much).

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

What's wrong with my handle?

I can't imagine...

Competition is essential to any game! It's part of life! The only reason people work together is because it benefits them to do so, after all.

Let's face it- D&D is, at it's heart, about killing monsters, gaining treasure and experience, and cool new powers. It's a power trip. Without that aspect, you might as well be doing improvisational theater.

I don't have any problem with power gaming, so long as there's an equal playing field. The DM can adjust to differences in power between the PCs and his adversaries but that's nothing like dealing with player 1 using underpowered nonsense 1, player 2 using overpowered nonsense 2 and player 3 using amazingly overpowered nonsense 3. No, really, that's not fair to players 1 and 2.

 

[Orius]

And then not all ability scores "increased" at the same rate. You needed a Strength score of 16 to get any benefit out of it, but you could benefits out of a Wisdom score fo 12.

But only if you were a cleric IIRC. Save bonus came higher up on the chart.

I recall breaking the ranger this way. I wanted to play a samurai character, but other characters were kind of cheesy, so of course I would play a ranger instead of a fighter. This particular samurai kit gave specialization in both wakizashi and katana as long as you were a warrior, and since rangers got (2e's overpowered) TWF for free... do you see where this is going?

If this is the Complete Fighter samurai with the Strength boosting shout...yeah.

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

The DM *IS* the adversary.

For this outlook alone, I would show you the door. When I want to compete with people, I would rather spar.

 

[Incenjucar]

What's wrong with my handle?

Competition is essential to any game! It's part of life! The only reason people work together is because it benefits them to do so, after all.

Doesn't mean that they're competing, or should be. When I play an RPG, at worse, I'm competing to be the best roleplayer (if only because I love playing bards, and bards are an excuse to talk more than anyone else, so I can RP more)

Let's face it- D&D is, at it's heart, about killing monsters, gaining treasure and experience, and cool new powers. It's a power trip. Without that aspect, you might as well be doing improvisational theater.

No, that would be one of the play style options. I do RPGs for the RP first, the slaughtering second. Heck, I've been doing that free trial on EQ lately, and will let my character take damage so I have a chance to type something IC while I fight. Almost gets me killed on occassion, heh. I also used to freeform, which pretty much -is- improv, but rules let me avoid the situations I ended up in with powergamers trying to one-up each other.

The DM *IS* the adversary.

Or the ref. When I DM, I'm the ref, not the foe. I'm just in it for the story.

As a player, you are supposed to overcome his challenges.

The DM gives you something to do. If you were trying to -defeat-'em, he'd throw the terrasque at your 1st level characters.

As the DM, you are supposed to put challenges in front of your players that they are capable of overcoming yet will be taxed in the process of doing so.

Also known as "cooperating" with them.

The challenge is to balance this- create a challenge that can defeat the characters in a fair fight if they perform subpar or don't use their tactical abilities to their fullest. Sure, you can always mash the characters with an encounter far above their level- but that's self-defeating. If the playing field isn't leveled between the DM and the players, there's no game. The DM must create the challenges within these constraints, but within these constraints he is the enemy.

That would be cooperation again. Not competition.

Competition between PC's will happen. Competition between friends, students, co-workers, etc. happens every day.

Yes. This is called an 'option'. My last PC was more than happy to pretend that he respected the power of the other people in the party. He didn't need to compete with them, because that would just cause party conflict which wouldn't help him achieve his ends.

In a game oriented around the acquisition of wealth and power, what less can you expect?

What, you never save the princess with the sole intention of saving the princess?

One of my greatest joys as a DM is when I get players to grow suspicious of each other and plot against their fellow PC's... that always adds intrigue to a campaign (and, provided the players are friends outside of the game, can work quite well. If they don't get along IRL, it's a recipe for disaster.) You don't expect the party Paladin and the party Necromancer to always see eye to eye, do you? Could a party of Knights all have their eye on winning the same lady's hand, capturing the same duchy, or acquiring the same Defending Longsword +5? Of course!

Sounds repetative.

As for metagaming, that's just something one must live with. It happens. As a DM, that's another one of your challenges- stay two steps ahead of your player's knowledge...

Yep. Unless they have the ranks for it, heh.

Powergaming IS Roleplaying.

The two are unrelated. Some -characters- may well have a strong RP excuse to hyper-specialize. Some -characters- have an equal reason to go JOAT. I, for instance, am a JOAT IRL. I know science, math, literature, history, languages, psychology, philosophy, a bit of mechanics and computers, and, heck I ride horses and hunt things too. I'd never specialize. My role in life is as the person who can bring up obscure information in a myriad of topics. Works for PCs too.

The best roleplayers I've met have also been very good at Powergaming...

Stereotyping hardly helps anyone.

though I do play with roleplayers who could care less about the power aspects (or so it seems, I just think such attitudes are "holier than thou" gamer hypocrisy), and with powergamers who can't roleplay at all (who annoy me just as much).

Then why the bloody are you even saying this?

 

[Akrasia]

... p.s. Fortunately, I have recently managed to get my hands on a complete oD&D set: the Cyclopedia, all of the gazetteers, Dawn of the Emperors, the Princess Ark boxed set, the Blackmoor Series, some of the B and X series of adventures, Hollow World, Wrath of the Immortals, even the somewhat lamentable Red Steel boxed set. ....

Yes, I am envious!

 

[Akrasia]

.... The issue you have is basically 'coorporate reality' or even 'capitalism' not 'The 2nd edition rule set and settings'. You're upset because the company didn't continue producing books for you and those who share your taste. They did so because of money issues (that is, they wanted more of it). But 2e had no more to do with it than 3e did..

What are you talking about? I like corporations and capitalism. TSR during its "2nd edition phase" was an incompetent corporation. In the case of D&D and the "Known World," by the mid-90s they had destroyed a line that had a lot of supporters (the B/X/RC game), and had translated the KW into 2nd edition's "Mystara." In addition to doing an incompetent job in translating the setting, it introduced yet another 2E campaign setting (with yet another completely unnecessary/annoying meta-plot) to an already bloated market. The failure of TSR by the end of the 1990s was precisely because of idiotic decisions like the one involving Mystara.

It's fun, isn't it? Especially when people start crying because they just can't stand that someone disagrees.

Um ... what? :\

...
Hating a position is somewhat pointless unless it's a directly harmful position...

Having an incorrect position is harmful.