Forked Thread: D&D: Generic and Specific Both?

[M.L. Martin]

As a final note, there is one edition of D&D that is relatively generic. It had six of the most common fantasy races (human, dwarf, elf, halfling, gnome, half-elf) and nine classes representing classic archetypes (fighter, ranger, paladin, cleric, specialty priest (example druid), mage, specialist wizard (example illusionist), thief, bard) a passable method of customizing priesthoods, only a handful of named spells, an optional skills system, an explandable Monster Manual system that only include the monsters from the sources you want, and absolutely NO implied setting; no sample deities, no Greyhawk artifacts, no implied world beyond the "rules", no dragonborn, warforged, or other weird races except in the various supplemental rule-sets.

It was called Second Edition. Its the most typically reviled and skipped-over edition of D&D for precisely the reason it was too generic and betrayed Gary's implied world. It was also dull as dishwater.

Careful what you wish for...

And I would be quite satisfied to see 2E's philosophy married to a SWSE-style or modified 4E-style rules set.

I suppose that makes me a traitor to D&D--and I freely admit that I tend to be more interested in the outliers (Ravenloft), variants (FF/JRPG-style) or source material (Tolkien/high medievalism) than 'true' D&D. Ah, well. Does this mean I have to be drawn, quartered, and offered up in sacrifice before golden idols of Gygax, Orcus, and Paizo?

 

[Remathilis]

And I would be quite satisfied to see 2E's philosophy married to a SWSE-style or modified 4E-style rules set.

I suppose that makes me a traitor to D&D--and I freely admit that I tend to be more interested in the outliers (Ravenloft), variants (FF/JRPG-style) or source material (Tolkien/high medievalism) than 'true' D&D. Ah, well. Does this mean I have to be drawn, quartered, and offered up in sacrifice before golden idols of Gygax, Orcus, and Paizo?

Yup.

(actually, a 2e/SWSE hybrid would rock on toast)

 

[M.L. Martin]

Yup.

(actually, a 2e/SWSE hybrid would rock on toast)

Kits and specialist wizards and priests just cry out for the talent tree approach, don't they?

 

[rounser]

It was called Second Edition. Its the most typically reviled and skipped-over edition of D&D for precisely the reason it was too generic and betrayed Gary's implied world. It was also dull as dishwater.

Pah. It spawned the best campaign setting material D&D ever saw in an "explosion of imagination", and it seems is ever likely to see. And I'd take it's implied setting any day over the implied setting 4E has served up.

2E was recently referred to as "unfairly reviled", and I agree with that. 2E bashing will not serve your cause in bigging up 4E. I also suspect that 4E has exceeded it in the reviled and skipped-over stakes.

 

[Remathilis]

Pah. It spawned the best campaign setting material D&D ever saw in an "explosion of imagination", and it seems is ever likely to see. And I'd take it's implied setting any day over the implied setting 4E has served up.

2E was recently referred to as "unfairly reviled", and I agree with that. 2E bashing will not serve your cause in bigging up 4E. I also suspect that 4E has exceeded it in the reviled and skipped-over stakes.

Talk about damning with faint praise.

As someone who grew up with 2e (and never really "got" how it was "worse than 1e" until I got here) I see a lot of parallels between the two. YMMV of course, but I just want to point out 2e got a lot of tar-n-feathers for having a mechanically-superior-but-utterly-soulless core rules followed by some of the best fluffy supplements/settings under the sun. (There are people at Dragonsfoot who would gladly disagree with me that point).

As to 4e being more reviled; give it time. There are plenty of people who came in at 2e (and can't, for the life of them, understand 1e), and there are plenty of people who came in a 3e and scratch their heads at how we ever put up with level limits and negative AC. In a few years, a new crop of 4e players will emerge in gaming clubs and schools and will now, for the life of them, understand how we played D&D without at-will/encounter/daily powers or healing surges.

Time marches ever forward.

 

[justanobody]

And yet, I'd play 2e over 1e anytime~~~

Maybe because 2e had the best settings and streamlined some of the crazy Gygaxness of 1e, and because I could easily use 1e's modules (its best feature) with it.

Me as well. Probably because of the book organization as well as what you mention, but those 2 may go hand-in-hand where the Gygaxian craziness was the organization.

I just want to point out 2e got a lot of tar-n-feathers for having a mechanically-superior-but-utterly-soulless core rules followed by some of the best fluffy supplements/settings under the sun.

The fact you were not tied to Greyhawk in 2nd offered a LOT to players and DMs alike to create their own worlds or use the openness of the campaign setting system. So like 4th 2nd had no soul in the core, but enough fluuf was in 2nd to interest you; and both leave the soul of settings up to the settings and players.

 

[Remathilis]

Me as well. Probably because of the book organization as well as what you mention, but those 2 may go hand-in-hand where the Gygaxian craziness was the organization.

The fact you were not tied to Greyhawk in 2nd offered a LOT to players and DMs alike to create their own worlds or use the openness of the campaign setting system. So like 4th 2nd had no soul in the core, but enough fluuf was in 2nd to interest you; and both leave the soul of settings up to the settings and players.

I agree, and agreeing about second edition is awesome!

 

[rounser]

Talk about damning with faint praise.

Maybe to you. 2E's settings are for the most part fracking fantastic, and the implied setting IMO far preferable to 4E's - how is that "faint praise"? The game mechanics are basically the same for all editions prior to 3E, so I didn't comment on those (although 2E does initiative better than 1E, and names for demons and devils worse).

 

[woodelf]

No thank you. I like the general D&D mixture of western medieval romance, oriental mysticism, myth & legend, pulp novels, high fantasy, and the occasional sci-fi element. It emulates nothing, but pays homage to much. It steals liberally (and has been stolen from in return) but still mixes it in a way that only D&D can. Sure, you can add food coloring to it (settings, house rules) but the moment you assume D&D would be better off without clerics, plate-mail, monks, dragonborn, elemental-themed giants, beholders, demon lords, warlocks, color-coded dragons, gnomes, thieves, tieflings, planar travel, or magic missile is the day I check out and get a WoW subscription.

You know, your argument would be a bit stronger, and fairly consistent, if you didn't include elements that are almost brand-new. Most of that stuff does, indeed, stem back almost to the dawning of D&D. And it is mostly distinct to D&D (as opposed to other subgenres of fantasy). But dragonborn have been with us for, what, 3 years? Less? And IMHO, the current version has no more in common with the version in Races of the Dragon than that has in common with draconians. Warlocks aren't much older than that (as a D&D element, that is). And even tieflings have only been a part of "general" D&D since D&D3E, and only showed up at all in the very specific context of Planescape before that.

I basically agree with your argument. But to make that argument, you need a well-defined target, not something that has moved substantially in the ~35 years since D&D was birthed. And certainly not a "baseline" that was only established a year ago--3 decades after the game was relatively stabilized (in terms of feel). Dragonborn, and so on, may well be a part of D&D now, but that's not the same as saying that they have always been part of what makes D&D "D&D". And if it hasn't always been there (for certain values of "always"), i find it hard to see it as a part of what defines D&D.

 

[woodelf]

Then what then should be considered "core"? What becomes D&D baseline? What should be in the Players Handbook?

Demi-humans? One person doesn't use halflings, another doesn't have elves, and a third doesn't use them at all. Yet I use all of them and more. Do demi-humans belong in the "core?" Which?
|snip|

Woah! Maybe you read a different thread than i just did. But the opening post very clearly was talking about what D&D is, not what it should be. This is a descriptive, not prescriptive, discussion.

And, speaking descriptively, it's the stuff that has been there through most, if not all, the lifespan of D&D that is what defines it. With an emphasis on those elements that are unique--entirely, or in context--to D&D. So, swords are a key element of D&D, frex, but not a defining element, because damn near every fantasy game has swords. However, D&D clerics are a defining element of D&D, because they have a very specific definition, and one that is relatively specific to D&D.

Repeat this with monsters, spells, magic items. Why does Mordenkainen's Hound get in the PHB, but not Elminster's Evasion or Strahd's Frightful Joining?

You're kidding on this one, right? It's because the first is a decade or more older, was created by the original creators of D&D, and has been a part of the [core] ruleset since at least AD&D1. It's as simple as that: older stuff has precedence over newer stuff, simply by virtue of being older. The longer something has been part of the game, the more it is part of that game. It's a general assumption that we make all the time when trying to define the essential nature of something. It's why Mickey Mouse is Disney's icon, even though he hasn't appeared in a feature movie in how many decades?

As a final note, there is one edition of D&D that is relatively generic. |snip|

It was called Second Edition. Its the most typically reviled and skipped-over edition of D&D for precisely the reason it was too generic and betrayed Gary's implied world. It was also dull as dishwater.

And it's my favorite edition, to date. Precisely because it was the most generic, but--and this is key--still retained all of what i thought were the core "D&Disms". It still had Vancian magic, D&D-style clerics and druids, beholders and mindflayers and color-coded dragons, etc. I mean, i had my problems with it, and had a pretty hefty set of houserules when i ran it. But fewer problems, and fewer houserules "required", than for any edition before or since.

In any case, I'm not sure you're right about the reasons that it was generally reviled (as opposed to your or my reasons). I think the biggest problem, from a market-satisfaction standpoint, was that it shifted too far from tactical to narrative in focus. But not far enough to actually be a good narrative-style RPG. So it ended up being fairly poor at supporting the sort of gameplay that D&D had, up until that point, championed, and not particularly good at supporting any other sort of gameplay--so you didn't gain enough to make up for what you lost, even if you were style-agnostic. Most of the people i've talked with who truly liked AD&D2 were like me: don't really care about the rules, just want cool characters and cool stories, so as long as the rules get out of our way, we're happy. And AD&D2 did the best job of getting out of the way, of any edition of D&D so far, precisely because it was relatively generic.