I'm considering dropping Pathfinder to return to D&D 2e.

[Longtooth Studios]

Indeed. And having to learn that the milk goes in the milk refrigerator, the chicken goes in the chicken refrigerator, the beef goes in the red meat refrigerator, and the vegetables go in the vegetable refrigerator makes the game require more study than "Chilled foods go in the refrigerator. We only need one." Yes, by setting it at four degrees (or whatever) you lose the advantages of keeping the fish and the chicken very slightly colder than the beef and the vegetables. But it means that you don't need a map for the kitchen - you just look for cold stuff in the refrigerator. It is easier. It requires less study.

What if you are a vegetarian? Which refrigerator do we put Kevin Bacon in again? This is all very confusing, and now I am hungry....

 

[TheAuldGrump]

What if you are a vegetarian? Which refrigerator do we put Kevin Bacon in again? This is all very confusing, and now I am hungry....

Kevin Bacon goes in the one set to Six Degrees. Duh!

The Auld Grump, though, sadly, the site has now changed its name.....

 

[Neonchameleon]

a math formula is a math formula. you solve them the same way and it is all just addition and subtraction still.

Some formulae are much easier to solve than others. And if you don't think that formulae with subtractions and negative numbers are harder to solve than ones with positive numbers, all I can say is that you both don't have a good grounding in either number theory or fundamental areas of computer science, and haven't tried to teach young kids to do math.

Chicken refrigerator? Now you are just being silly.

Having just re-read the NWP section of the 2e PHB to remind myself (and the implicit implication that if something needs a NWP to do, if you don't have it you can't) and the thief skills, all I can say is not very.

But I think you're really reaching here. In fact, I'd say that we're looking at the opposite effect for players of 1e and 2e. Yes, they both have oddball subsystems to them that were largely reformed away with 3e. But, for the most part, they were not subsystems that players had to be overly concerned with knowing. 1e and 2e definitely put more complexity on the shoulders of the DM, while 3e and 4e transfers it out to the players in the form of more complex build choices.

Separate 3e from 4e there please? And then 4e from 4e Essentials*. Because a low level Slayer is inherently only very slightly more complex than your 2e "Just hit stuff" fighter (yes, it changes when you hit Paragon tier - or Lord + Retainer level in 2e), and that's more than made up for by even just the sub-systems the player had to know in 2e (hell, I'd argue that THAC0 was annoying enough that that was enough). Yes, you are right about 3e (assuming no Players Option books in play - I'm restricting to just PHBs (or Essentials)). But I believe you have outlined a fundamental problem with 3e - that they simplified the ruleset then decided to load back in the exptra complexity.

* I wonder if Essentials is the only expansion in any version of D&D to make the game easier for newbies if it's used.

 

[billd91]

Separate 3e from 4e there please? And then 4e from 4e Essentials*. Because a low level Slayer is inherently only very slightly more complex than your 2e "Just hit stuff" fighter (yes, it changes when you hit Paragon tier - or Lord + Retainer level in 2e), and that's more than made up for by even just the sub-systems the player had to know in 2e (hell, I'd argue that THAC0 was annoying enough that that was enough). Yes, you are right about 3e (assuming no Players Option books in play - I'm restricting to just PHBs (or Essentials)). But I believe you have outlined a fundamental problem with 3e - that they simplified the ruleset then decided to load back in the exptra complexity.

Oh, I'll separate 4e out as a different game from 3e any day. But I won't lump it back in as being simpler. Not only do you keep the complexity of feats from 3e, 4e keeps it up in play not just build by making so many of them short duration conditional effects. Plus there's the choice of a large array of powers that you're looking at and, ideally, coordinating with other players on because, as so many players point out, "It's a team game." And then when it comes to play, different powers are popping off pretty much every round making for a chaotic jumble.

So, no, I'm not seeing any reduction of complexity for the player with 4e at all.

 

[shadzar]

Some formulae are much easier to solve than others. And if you don't think that formulae with subtractions and negative numbers are harder to solve than ones with positive numbers, all I can say is that you both don't have a good grounding in either number theory or fundamental areas of computer science, and haven't tried to teach young kids to do math.

And I would say many things to you, but they would likely not be enough time for the moderators to fight over who gets to imply the infractions, so on this subject I would suggest you drop it NOW!

Having just re-read the NWP section of the 2e PHB to remind myself (and the implicit implication that if something needs a NWP to do, if you don't have it you can't) and the thief skills, all I can say is not very.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Are you saying the you, for some reason, think thief skills are NWPs and do not understand they are not NWPs is why you think it complicated?

 

[ssampier]

I had hella good time with AD&D 2ed in the past. Then the splatbooks and race books kinda took some of the simple fun out of the game.

If it were me I'd run the game as close to Core as possible. Sure there's some wonky stuff in there, but if you use the 50% rule it should work okay.

Combine A&D 2ed core with the FR Gray box and you're as close to heaven as you possibly can get. Unless you have a home brew that combines pirates and ninjas....

 

[Eridanis]

Stop the bickering, or there will be vacations handed out. Back on topic, please.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Are you saying the you, for some reason, think thief skills are NWPs and do not understand they are not NWPs is why you think it complicated?

I think that he is saying that 2e retained multiple dissimilar systems for what could, and should, have been handled with a single core system. And that the NWP rules, strictly enforced, prevented folks from attempting things that should have been general skills for adventurers.

For my part, I thought that 2e having any rules expanding on the NWP was a big step forward, and that putting points allocation for thiefly skills into the players' hands was a major improvement.

About the only thing that could tempt me with running a 2e game though is Birthright, it never quite translated properly to 3.X, but I loved that setting.

The Auld Grump

 

[Ulrick]

You think that was a pitch? Telling people that the time they'd sunk into the game would be rendered worthless?

For that matter, I really don't think you are right. THAC0. Completely different mechanics for different classes including two incompatable skill systems (so-called Non Weapon Proficiencies (and people claim that 4e is combat focussed!) and thief skills). Arbitrary save groups. Weapon vs AC tables. Hell, the very name Advanced Dungeons and Dragons is enough of a clue that this is not a simple game to learn. Honestly, I'd call both 3e and 4e much easier to learn because the rules are relatively consistent. There aren't separate subsystems all over everywhere. And if you change classes you aren't thrown back to square three or so.

I'm not saying not to play 2e - simply that the claim that it doesn't require study is right if and only if you have a good DM/set of teachers making the game simple rather than arcane. And that's down to the DM and teachers and independent of the edition. (There are games where this doesn't hold and you genuinely don't need either study or teaching - Wushu and Dread spring to mind). And I'm saying that your stated pitch would have almost certainly produced a negative reaction whether or not it was true.

It was a great pitch. One of my best in 20 years in RPGs. And it was successful. Most of the potential players had already pre-judged the product and were ready to move on. It's happened to me before with both 3.5e and 4e. Some people just don't want to sink a lot of time into mastering character building, learning all the nuances of combat, or figuring out all those feats. Those where the people I was pitching AD&D 2e to.

I've had similar responses when i've pitched other editions of D&D.

I once had a whole room of people once boo me for even mentioning that I wanted to start a 4e game.

 

[shadzar]

I think that he is saying that 2e retained multiple dissimilar systems for what could, and should, have been handled with a single core system. And that the NWP rules, strictly enforced, prevented folks from attempting things that should have been general skills for adventurers.

For my part, I thought that 2e having any rules expanding on the NWP was a big step forward, and that putting points allocation for thiefly skills into the players' hands was a major improvement.

About the only thing that could tempt me with running a 2e game though is Birthright, it never quite translated properly to 3.X, but I loved that setting.

The Auld Grump

The the problem wasn't using experimental rules that still don't work or make any sense. Was fire-building a skill or feat in 3rd? Is it in 4th?

In 2nd they were entirely optional. Something for ideas, like the secondary skills, that gave people an idea and say "Hey there is more to your character than what was in the books here is some ideas."

To me they were more of a background tool. Like if a PC had came to adventuring as the some of a blacksmith, those common skills learned before going ot to adventure are at his disposal in a fashion.

Like a father working on his car (do they still do that with all the excessive tech requirements in today's cars?) and having his son help, there would be knowledge gained for a certain allotment of skill sets from that.

The farmers son would have learned a bit about the land, and plants, etc...

Likewise some classes would instinctively carry certain skill sets with them.

Before NWPs, if not just making up these skills based on background and common sense, where fire-building didn't exist; how did an adventurer light a torch without having fire-building as a skill?

Most of the people I know laughed at the NWPs and used secondary skills as a concept but not strictly. The ingenuity inspired by giving some things that weren't found in everyday for the time period was where NWPs came in handy. How many people started playing D&D knowing what a cooper did, or even thought about what went into making barrels?

Did you need an expert rogue to open a locked door? Half-barrel hinges the door can be lifted off of them with the right leverage, rendering the lock moot. Thus making a rogue not required in the presence of a blacksmith.

I also NEVER knew a DM that would argue a PC couldn't build a fire without fire-building. Again it didn't exist before NWPs appeared, and somehow adventuring parties of 1st edition AD&D, and early editions of D&D built fires, and lit their torches.

YOU think, is correct, because it doesn't need to be this "core system" that everything uses when the parts are unrelated.

I don't want a plumber coming to fix my outlets, and don't want an electrician working on my bathroom. The toaster is libel to flush, and I fear what my toilet would do when I go to use it.

The only thing the NWP rules strictly did was set an arbitrary limit, just like all editions have silly arbitrary limits. That is proven by the secondary system itself wherein a blacksmith could have more skills than the allowed NWPs.

Upon understanding that, then augment the system to the proper number of NWPs across the board for all, using it as a background tool. IF that doesn't suit your taste, then o like many others did and disregard the limits and cross-class penalties and such and the DM allow the use of ANY skill if the player can explain why his PC would know this. Again presenting itself as part of a background tool.

In a serious discussion an entirely optional system shouldn't hold the edition at fault for people using that system. You only had the limits of the proficiency system (weapon and non) if you used it. You could have taken and created your own system or flat out not used it and let player ingenuity determine what skills their characters had.