No Second Edition Love?

[billd91]

How can you not love a system that has a separate proficiency just for cheesemaking?

Didn't that one first appear in the Complete Book of Humanoids? Seeing it there, we assume it was making cheese under the armpits.

 

[billd91]

Really? Then it's just an amazing coincidence that 2E Rangers had nothing in common with 1E Rangers except for a vaguely similar favored enemy concept and the name Ranger, yet became nimble, lightly armored, dual-wielding warriors in some sort of case of parallel evolution a mere year or so after Drizzt was introduced?

That's quite an amazing coincidence.

It's particularly amazing since every ranger I had ever seen played before that point was an archer primarily and not a dual-wielder. It made sense. They were out in the wild, living off the land, had to be good at a primary hunting weapon. I found that a pretty weird thing to overlook with the 3.0 revision. Thankfully, the 3.5 revision cleared that up.

For what it's worth, I thought giving them a move silently and hide in shadows score was a good call, but it was sad to see the thief get to spread his points about as desired but not the ranger.

 

[eyebeams]

2e vs 3e RAW only? Meh. That's like comparing vinyl vs. MP3.

No, I'm thinking 1e vs. 2e RAW. People talk about their love for 1e but I'm willing to bet that virtually none of them ran 1e RAW compared to 2e. I remember reading in Dragon just before 2e's release that among TSR staff Skip Williams was the only one who ran by the book 1e.

 

[tx7321]

No, I'm thinking 1e vs. 2e RAW. People talk about their love for 1e but I'm willing to bet that virtually none of them ran 1e RAW compared to 2e. I remember reading in Dragon just before 2e's release that among TSR staff Skip Williams was the only one who ran by the book 1e.

Eyebeam, what variation existed between the vast majority of 1E players (ie house rules, or miss-interpretations of rules) only effected combat (who goes first, do you use surprise etc. etc.) or perhaps things like encumberance, movement, level limits, breaking through doors, damage done by crossbows, etc. It DID NOT effect the overall "feel" of the game, nor its "look". What others at this site have described as the "1E goodness" was preserved. Infact, the vast majority of house rules effected only the DM (and how he ran things behind the scenes) not the players who'd never see it (still oblivious as to what was going on rules wise). The most heavily house ruled DM I've sat for still presented a game just as "1E feeling" as the DM who played as closely BTB as possible. The reason for this similarity is that the things that defined the players world (its class archetypes, the things you did, the weapons and armor used, the monsters you encountered, etc) weren't changed. And the same books were used, which assured only so much drift could occur.

As long as the classes aren't changed (ie magicusers using armor etc.) and the game still moves quickly and simply (with only min. knowledge and record keeping needed by the player) its going to feel like 1E to the players.

What many people still don't understand is that what made 1E 1E was not its combat rules,
but all the other rules and setting described in the text which when played out resulted in a specific feel (different from both 2E and 3E). 1E RAW (I'm assuming RAW means BTB) is nice to know, but in the end isn't really a big deal. The games I play now BTB are identical to those I played in grade school.

2E on the other hand can be house ruled heavily, but it still was unpleasant for many 1E players at the time, because of its core changes to classes (including rules that allowed tweeking) its switch to more player record keeping, and its accumulative "2E feel" (using its books, monsters, world setting etc.). The change in attitude and focus of the 2 game systems (1E and 2E) were well represented in the change in artwork at the time. One placed more focus on the feel and mood, allowing the player and DM to fill in the blanks. The other focused heavily on the specifics and less on the mood. Like 2E art or not, it did reflect the change in design into 2E (the same, of course, is true for Dragon Lance).

 

[eyebeams]

Eyebeam, what variation existed in the vast majority of 1E (ie house rules, or miss-readings of rules) only effected combat (who goes first, do you use surprise etc. etc.) or perhaps things like encumberance, movement, level limits, breaking through doors, damage done by crossbows, etc. It did not effect the feel of the game, nor its "look". Infact, the vast majority of house rules effected the DM not the players. The most heavily house ruled DM I've sat for still presented a game just as "1E feeling" as the DM who played as closely BTB as possible. The reason for this similarity is that the things that defined the world weren't changed. And the same books were used.

I submit that "feel" was mostly the product of good DMs adapting a poor rules set. Combat is one of the central elements of any edition of D&D. 1e's combat rules were utterly borked, to the extent that most games ignored around half of the rules. If you're having fun with 50% of the combat rules altered or ignored, then *you* deserve the credit, not AD&D1e. Even when you talk about a 1e feel, I have the sense you really mean the spirit of adventures and gaming groups from that period, which were quite good. I personally prefer 1e's visual aesthetic and genre assumptions to any other version of the game. 2e made the game cleave to the high fantasy genre D&D helped reignite, but D&D was originally designed with a grubbier swords and sorcery/science fantasy feel.

As long as the classes aren't changed (ie magicusers using armor etc.) and the game still moves quickly and simply (with only min. knowledge and record keeping needed by the player) its going to feel like 1E to the players.

The funny thing is that these essentials are basically what's in 2e -- and what other posters said made 2e bad for not going far enough. So which is it? Too far, or not far enough?

2E on the other hand can be house ruled heavily, but it still was unpleasant for many 1E players at the time, because of its core changes to classes (including rules that allowed tweeking) its switch to more player record keeping, and its accumulative "2E feel" (using its books, monsters, world setting etc.). The change in attitude and focus of the 2 game systems (1E and 2E) were well represented in the change in artwork at the time. One placed more focus on the feel and mood, allowing the player and DM to fill in the blanks. The other focused heavily on the specifics and less on the mood. Like 2E art or not, it did reflect the change in design into 2E (the same, of course, is true for Dragon Lance).

I very much disagree. Just as the credit for 1e really rests on the shoulders of the people who made it work despite its flaws, the blame for 2e rests on the shoulders of people who didn't cooperate with the idea that optional rules were just that. The Complete series was originally written with that modularity in mind, as this was a principle built right into 2e. Note, for example, that proficiencies in 2e are actually an optional system -- the most complex of three suggestions, once of which is the 1e DMG secondary skills system. Virtually every revision outside of class changes are presented this way. If a DM doesn't have the stones to rule on an option *that is clearly presented as just that*, whose fault is that? Contrast with 1e, which everyone heavily modded but which was designed to be an official tournament system to standardize play.

In both 1e and 2e, the community did the opposite of what the books suggested. This was good for 1e and bad for 2e.

 

[tx7321]

Eyebeam: " very much disagree. Just as the credit for 1e really rests on the shoulders of the people who made it work despite its flaws, the blame for 2e rests on the shoulders of people who didn't cooperate with the idea that optional rules were just that"

As I recall, those that played 2E did so FOR these "optional rules" otherwise they'd have stuck with 1E. Those DMs that did attempt to play without these rules were shown the pavement pronto. Thats why DMs either embraced the games changes (you say are optional) or left it altogether.

A Game Table is no different then a pirate ship. The captains captain only as long as he has support of his crew.



eyebeam: "1e's combat rules were utterly borked, to the extent that most games ignored around half of the rules. If you're having fun with 50% of the combat rules altered or ignored, then *you* deserve the credit, not AD&D1e. "

Well, the 1E rules boil down to this: each side (monsters) vs. (PCs) role a d6. The high role goes first. What you role on the D20 is checked on the to hit tables (for class or monster).
This was understood by everyone (despite feeling like they were missing something else).

All the house rules were hung on this skeleton, a very simple and quick combat system. Even if you used a d10 and reversed order it didn't matter, it was essentially the same thing.

So, I think you have to give ALLLLLL the credit to the creators of the game (ie Gygax and Arneson) not the players or DMs. Any DM good or bad (knowledge wise), who followed the above combat system, could produce an outstanding game. One of our groups all time favorite game sessions was DMed by a girl in the group who'd barely played but read alot of fantasy and science fiction. She stuck to using her common since on most things and just did the d6 high role goes first and checked the tables. She had good common sense, and the players would have had no idea she wasn't an experianced DM if they didn't already know her.

On the otherhand one of our worst experiances was DMed by a guy who new the rules very well (a sit in DM from another group) but didn't understand "fantasy" or how the philosophy of the game worked (basically a really gay adventure we were railroaded through).

Its a miss-conception on the part of most players (and people on these sites) that the core of 1E is complex. Its not. (I once asked Gary why he used so much of the book explaining the mundane like gem types and values, and nothing on the rules. He said the rules were very simple, it was everything else that people would need help with). 1E/OD&D is playing make believe in someone elses head, but using dice to determine who hits. Whats most important to 1E are its archetypes, and its setting (as you pointed out grungy underground sword and sworcery). As long as the players create the story, and the DM provides the proper setting your in good shape. Hell, the DM doesn't even need to bring a dungeon. Just do it on the fly.

EDIT - PS, I forgot to mention. The tables themselves are perhaps the most important part of the 1E experiance. D20 is equally simple, but results in a completely different feel. The sign of a good 1E DM was that he kept his players in their imaginations playing make believe, not fiddling with their papers. Thats the #1 problem difference between 1E and 3E, and the main problem I have with 3E (and ironically what I see as its "#1 problem", is what the games fans love most about it).

 

[prosfilaes]

Well, the 1E rules boil down to this: each side (monsters) vs. (PCs) role a d6. The high role goes first. What you role on the D20 is checked on the to hit tables (for class or monster).

I can boil just about any RPG's combat rules down to something about as complex. The interesting and problematic stuff is all the little details.

Its a miss-conception on the part of most players (and people on these sites) that the core of 1E is complex. Its not.

If the players think the rules are complex, then they are. Either that, or incoherent.

1E/OD&D is playing make believe in someone elses head, but using dice to determine who hits.

You mean like virtually all RPGs?

 

[Desdichado]

So, I think you have to give ALLLLLL the credit to the creators of the game (ie Gygax and Arneson) not the players or DMs. Any DM good or bad (knowledge wise), who followed the above combat system, could produce an outstanding game. One of our groups all time favorite game sessions was DMed by a girl in the group who'd barely played but read alot of fantasy and science fiction. She stuck to using her common since on most things and just did the d6 high role goes first and checked the tables. She had good common sense, and the players would have had no idea she wasn't an experianced DM if they didn't already know her.

You're guilty of several logical fallacies all at the same time: 1) speaking for all groups ever when in fact you have no knowledge of what most other groups did or didn't do with their games which is similar to 2) using anecdotal evidence from your own group and assuming that conditions were exactly the same in most other groups, 3) dramatic oversimplification of the combat rules in an attempt to "prove" that they were simply which leads to, 4) attacking a strawman argument that bears little to no resemblance to what eyebeams is actually claiming, and finally 4) not actually a logical fallacy, but it is a fallacy: Arneson had nothing to do with the design of AD&D--it was a purposeful attempt by Gygax to design an alternate version of D&D that cut him out of the loop.

Its a miss-conception on the part of most players (and people on these sites) that the core of 1E is complex. Its not. (I once asked Gary why he used so much of the book explaining the mundane like gem types and values, and nothing on the rules. He said the rules were very simple, it was everything else that people would need help with).

The misconception on the part of you is that most players (and people on these sites) didn't play AD&D when it was current and therefore have bizarre illusions about the game. The fact of the matter is, most of us did play them and know exactly how complex the game is or isn't.

For what it's worth, I'd also argue that 1e isn't particularly complex---it is, however, inconsistent, extremely poorly organized and bizarre as a system. Which can have all of the same drawbacks as complexity, without the advantages.

1E/OD&D is playing make believe in someone elses head, but using dice to determine who hits. Whats most important to 1E are its archetypes, and its setting (as you pointed out grungy underground sword and sworcery). As long as the players create the story, and the DM provides the proper setting your in good shape. Hell, the DM doesn't even need to bring a dungeon. Just do it on the fly.

Back to the oversimplification and strawman. That description works just as well for 3e as it does for 1e, making it meaningless as a point of comparison.

EDIT - PS, I forgot to mention. The tables themselves are perhaps the most important part of the 1E experiance. D20 is equally simple, but results in a completely different feel. The sign of a good 1E DM was that he kept his players in their imaginations playing make believe, not fiddling with their papers. Thats the #1 problem difference between 1E and 3E, and the main problem I have with 3E (and ironically what I see as its "#1 problem", is what the games fans love most about it).

And yet again. That's the sign of a good 3e DM too. The difference being that without having to consult tables, it's actually easier to accomplish in 3e than it was in 1e. Although I do concede that in 3e, we do consult the rulebooks at least a couple times a session. Usually to consult spell effects for spells that we don't use frequently enough to remember off the top of our heads, though--so we'd do the same thing in 1e, I'd imagine.

 

[Shadeydm]

The rules present the idea that metagaming and stats matter most for character worth and efficiency, not the ideas and skills of the player. Players now have a sense of entitlement due to the changes in 3.x (CR, Treasure by level charts, etc)- I've seen this MANY times, and its much more common than in previous editions. The "options not restrictions" mantra of 3.x epitomizes this- if the DM doesn't allow you to use every option in the book or that is available, many players will get very upset and claim he is a "bad DM" (and I've seen this many times too). And most players who are new to D&D in 3.x are nothing but hack-n-slashers who loot dungeons every time- only with great effort have I been able to convince them that there is something beyond the dungeon and looting your enemies. I know it comes down to differing playstlyes, but in many ways, the attitudes and expectations prevalent in 3.x seem like a huge step backwards to me and my group.

QFT!

 

[tx7321]

JDawg: "You're guilty of several logical fallacies all at the same time: " Jdawg, my friend, thats the most any of us can do in life, esp. when there are no records of this sort of thing.

Q: "Arneson had nothing to do with the design of AD&D--", you must have never heard of OD&D then, the game AD&D is based on. Yes, I'm afraid Arney has alot to do with AD&D.

Q: "dramatic oversimplification of the combat rules in an attempt to "prove" that they were simply which leads to, " The core rules every DM I've sat for playing 1E are basically that. And the games they run feel identical in that way. IF they are doing surprise correctly, if they are using WSF or armor tables, etc. does not effect the "1E FEEL". The core rules are simple, the other rules (surprise etc. etc. etc.) not only are they complex, there next to impossible to figure out. But who cares if they don't change the game that much.


The majority of rules of 1E are not shared by the players (who don't read the DMG). You must mean the DM who adjudicates them. Anyhow, like I said, the core system everyone uses is simple (role d6 per side, high role goes first, role D20, check tables).

Sure, all FRPGs are playing make believe, but some make this easier then others. 1E required zero understanding of the rules. "Hey Joe, sit down. You want to play a dwarf fighter cause you thought Balin was cool. Here". You have 8 HPs and a 4 armor class (thats what your chain and shield give you). You use a long sword and axe. And you can see in the dark a good distance, you know these languages, oh and your good underground at detecting unsafe passages. OK so lets play". Thats the ideal player Someone who doesn't know the rules, and at most has read his race and character descriptions. (who you can have playing in your group in 5 minutes after sitting down for the first time).In 3E the player must have a good understanding of all the "buttons" that go to make up his character, how to write them down in a logical fashion, and constantly check them in game to see what he can do (tumble or dodge..) in 1E the less you know about the "buttons" the better.