How is 2nd Edition?

[billd91]

Prior to the advent of 3E -- or at least 2.5 -- I don't think any of these things ever came up as an issue. The play paradigm of AD&D -- both editions -- in regards to most of the above is simple: these things happen, or don't, how the DM decides they do, which is ultimately a benefit.

Actually, they had, a lot, but there was Dragon magazine and the 1e DMG to help address them. Dragon frequently had advice on the distribution of treasure and how to prevent the Monty Haul campaign. The 1e DMG also had plenty of advice on being stingy with treasure and making sure it was appropriately protected by traps, tricks, and monsters to make it challenging to get.

It's true that 1e/2e didn't go as far as 3e in quantifying the system's expectations. That was, undoubtedly, an effort to lift some of the curtain in 3e for DMs who needed the additional advice. Unfortunately, there are too many people who saw (and still see) the guidelines as mandates to be followed.

As far as creating, buying, and selling magic items. You always could buy and sell in 1e. 2e is the only edition without prices for the items in the DMG. The main difference was in crafting them yourself. Both 1e and 2e talked about it and made it more the subject of DM creativity and adventuring to get components, which meant that very few people regularly pursued making magic items. 3e decided to make that easier and, I think, opened up a Pandora's Box of aggravation.

 

[Nebulous]

As far as creating, buying, and selling magic items. You always could buy and sell in 1e. 2e is the only edition without prices for the items in the DMG. The main difference was in crafting them yourself. Both 1e and 2e talked about it and made it more the subject of DM creativity and adventuring to get components, which meant that very few people regularly pursued making magic items. 3e decided to make that easier and, I think, opened up a Pandora's Box of aggravation.

Indeed, i never have, and probably never will, use a codified system of magic item creation. I don't recall ever having a player actually WANT to make something. I prefer to leave it to the whim of the DM and NPCs who make magic.

 

[Thanael]

Many have said that the fluff/settings where oneof 2E's strengths. Judge for yourself and grab a few of WoTC Previous Edition Dungeons & Dragons Downloads

 

[Melba Toast]

Beyond that, it's problems were mostly due to lacking rules for stuff:
-No rules for tripping, pushing, grappling
-No rules on how much magic items to give out at what level or what items are too powerful
-No way except through experience and guessing to know exactly how powerful a particular monster was
-No rules on what constitutes a fun encounter, how many if each creature would be good before they'll be overwhelming, and so on
-No rules on creating, buying or selling magic items. The game says that magic items aren't bought and sold, but adventures hand out so many of them that the PCs will have hundreds of them with no way to get rid of them.

Oh, man.

You just hit on all the reasons I LIKE 2nd Edition! Let's break this down:

1 - "No rules for tripping, pushing, grappling"
1st and 2nd Edition both based their combat system on Douglas Fairbanks style swashbuckling. The rules presume there was much back and forth within each round (hence the reason one round = 1 minute). Jumping, flipping, somersaults, trips, pushing, scrapes and cuts where all left to the mind's eye.

2 - "No rules on how much magic items to give out at what level or what items are too powerful"
Why would any self-respecting DM want that? Magic items should be rare and mysterious.

3 - "No way except through experience and guessing to know exactly how powerful a particular monster was"
Huh? Are you talking about players or DMs? A DM can assess a monster in seconds by considering it's Hit Dice, which translate to experience level, and then consider any special attacks and defenses that might cripple their PCs.

4 - "No rules on what constitutes a fun encounter, how many if each creature would be good before they'll be overwhelming, and so on"
Oh? So... which edition finally unravelled the "secret formula for a fun encounter"?
An encounter is just an encounter. The way the players deal with the encounter determines whether the encounter is any fun. 3 1st level Wizards encountering a party of 200 Orcs can be a fun encounter, provided the players aren't stupid.

5 - "No rules on creating, buying or selling magic items. The game says that magic items aren't bought and sold, but adventures hand out so many of them that the PCs will have hundreds of them with no way to get rid of them."
See #2. In this case, it sounds like the problem is the DM, not the system. Stop giving out so many magic items if it's become such a problem.

If magic is so common in your world, magic items would be cheap. Maybe you shouldn't even call it magic!

Personally, I imagine my worlds as not only low on magic, but also low on equipment. It's not often you'll see someone in my games carrying a sword. Swords are for the wealthy. Even less common is metal armour. Nobody wears metal armour unless you're in the army, or a knight. The average blacksmith can't even make armour. You'd probably have to go to a castle. And it will cost a fortune.

Seriously, why do some people insist that everything be regulated? Why do players have to have special abilities to have fun? Why is it that combat is increasing becoming the central focus of the game?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Oh, man.


4 - "No rules on what constitutes a fun encounter, how many if each creature would be good before they'll be overwhelming, and so on"
Oh? So... which edition finally unravelled the "secret formula for a fun encounter"?
An encounter is just an encounter. The way the players deal with the encounter determines whether the encounter is any fun. 3 1st level Wizards encountering a party of 200 Orcs can be a fun encounter, provided the players aren't stupid.

Fun has been officially quantified, defined and fully explained in the 4E DMG. It should answer all your questions on the matter including suggestions on what adds to the fun of YOUR game and what things are universally unfun for EVERYONE.







YMMV of course. Said definitions of fun not guaranteed by WOTC, Hasbro or any related parties. No purchase nessessary, consult the 4E DMG for details.

 

[Umbran]

2 - "No rules on how much magic items to give out at what level or what items are too powerful"[/COLOR]
Why would any self-respecting DM want that? Magic items should be rare and mysterious.

Sir, if you are going to contend that in order to be self-respecting, they have to like the balance of magic items that you like, determined in the same way you do... well, you are going to run into trouble getting that idea accepted.

We can respect ourselves and like things done, and presented, differently than you do.

Seriously, why do some people insist that everything be regulated? Why do players have to have special abilities to have fun? Why is it that combat is increasing becoming the central focus of the game?

Why do some people insist that things not be regulated? Why do they insist that having no special abilities is fun? Because that's how they like it, and they extrapolate that out to how it "should be". No differently than you did above.

And as far as the rule books are concerned, combat has always been a central focus of the game. That, and spells - and those are effectively special abilities - though you seem to imply they should not be important.

 

[Xyxox]

Fun has been officially quantified, defined and fully explained in the 4E DMG. It should answer all your questions on the matter including suggestions on what adds to the fun of YOUR game and what things are universally unfun for EVERYONE.







YMMV of course. Said definitions of fun not guaranteed by WOTC, Hasbro or any related parties. No purchase nessessary, consult the 4E DMG for details.

Isn't that currently Fun™ which is expected to evolve into Fun®?

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

I love 2E for its simplicity. As many have stated, keep to the 3 core books (PHB, DMG, MM) but if you must add a Complete Book, I highly recommend Complete Bard.

Played as written, the game can be very brutal; random hit point at first level (that fighter who roles a 1 isn't long for the world), death at 0 hp, 3d6 character generation. Many of the house rules that were designed to ease off the lethality begin here; death at -con or -10 hp, max hp at first level, 4d6 stat generation with player placement of stats, etc (all of these eventually became 3E core rules and have only expanded since). Its the last edition, rules as written, that expected character death often.

If you are intending to play rules as written (and this brutal style can be fun), I would encourage your players to come with little backstory for their characters. Allow the in-game events to become their backstories and the world's backstory. The duke's son (PC player) was killed by goblins, how will the duke respond, etc.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

2e is just heavily dependent on the DM to adjudicate things.

That's not a bug - it's a feature. Seriously.

-THACO confusing people

Consider that it was written with regard to players converting from 1E which used combat tables. Very few people were actually confused by THACO because it was a simplified expression of the combat tables of 1E. It only looks more confusing in hindsight and to players who never had to deal with even MORE confusing combat rules.

-No rules for tripping, pushing, grappling

Well, no rules for tripping specifically but non-lethal combat (wrestling, overbearing) was covered. The rules sucked as they do in any edition but they're there.

-No rules on how much magic items to give out at what level or what items are too powerful

The unwritten assumption carried forth from previous editions is that this was something for the DM to decide, not for the rules to restrict him to.

-No way except through experience and guessing to know exactly how powerful a particular monster was

Not entirely untrue but not entirely fair either to cite as a specific shortcoming. The entire system at the time just wasn't intended or even capable of that so it's a bit like saying they should be faulted for not selling fruit - AND they should be faulted for not selling apples.

-No rules on what constitutes a fun encounter, how many if each creature would be good before they'll be overwhelming, and so on

Again, the mindset of the time would be that this was something for the DM to decide and experiment with, not for the rules to dictate to him.

-No rules on creating, buying or selling magic items. The game says that magic items aren't bought and sold, but adventures hand out so many of them that the PCs will have hundreds of them with no way to get rid of them.

Now THIS was one of my own longstanding personal peeves - the lack of a functional magic item creation system.

 

[Ahglock]

-THACO confusing people
-Wizards being really weak at low levels and really powerful at high levels
-Multiclassing being very powerful, Dual Classing being useless except when starting at high levels
-Fighters not having any cool, interesting powers so becoming boring

As much as i loved 2e, late at night my mind had trouble with thaco. I don't know why subtraction into negatives just threw me when I was tired.

Wizards: I actually find wizard more powerful in comparison to other classes in 3e and 3.5e. That is where the real high level overpowered wizards are. Though I guess they were never really weak in 3e.

Multiclassing, I think it was powerful, but if you followed level limits it worked out. Especially the rules that allowed you to exceed the level limits if single classed so non-humans were not heavily penalized.

Dual classing, mostly yeah, though it also worked for short term gains. Like level 2 fighter for HP and weapon specilaization, rest in X class. But I have an inherent distate for things that only work well if you con the system.

Fighters doing riduculous damage is to me what always made them cool. I find the multiple attacks of mass damage much cooler, than a handful of powers that do okay damage with some side effect. What is cool and fun is kind of in the eye of the beholder.