No Second Edition Love?

[Desdichado]

Except when they weren't. See, for example, Gygax's essay "Poker, Chess, and the AD&D System" from Dragon 67 for maybe the best example of the theme "If you aren't doing it the Lake Geneva way, you aren't really playing AD&D" -- though other examples from the pages of Dragon or Polyhedron are legion.

For a lot of people (myself included), the Gygaxian Infallibility Dogma was a huge turn-off to 1st edition. And I mean no disrespect to Gary here, but after Unearthed Arcana I wanted to play a rather different game than his "official AD&D" -- one with no cavaliers, drow PCs, method V ability score generation, or "anything items."

So for folks in my camp, second edition's embrace of the unofficial was a most welcome change of tone.

I think it's interesting that so much of this "feel" is stuff like this that was going on completely independent of what was actually printed in the rulebooks themselves.

I also wonder if it makes a big chunk of the "edition wars" type discussions really pretty silly, since if it's stuff going on independently of the edition in question, it begs the question if the "feel" and "tone" actually have any bearing on the discussion in the first place.

To me, 1e and 2e had pretty much the same "feel" and "tone", but by that time I wasn't playing anymore. 2e products later reflected a high fantasy, storytelling mode of gameplay, but again, I suspect that's all stuff that was going on independently in the industry, and that even if 1e had continued into the later 90s those products would still have resembled exactly what they do anyway, regardless of edition.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Except when they weren't. See, for example, Gygax's essay "Poker, Chess, and the AD&D System" from Dragon 67 for maybe the best example of the theme "If you aren't doing it the Lake Geneva way, you aren't really playing AD&D" -- though other examples from the pages of Dragon or Polyhedron are legion.

You are conflating the rules, which were all explicitly optional, with editorials, which are not rules and have no bearing on whether or not the rules were all explicitly optional.

 

[Desdichado]

This just came off as an attack to me (perhaps I'm being paranoid). "very extraordinary claims" (sounds like I'm saying bush is actually an alien), "your claims are not all that remarkable" (here it sounds like I was trying to be remarkable rather then make a point).

Yeah, I see. Sorry (negrep from diaglo pending somewhere.) My intention in using those words was merely to say that I've never found that what you're claiming 1e does well is what I think any good RPG system does well, so to say that it's a particular strength of 1e is very remarkable.

And yeah, I am also commenting on a pattern of posts, not just the contents of any single one that I'm replying directly to. But hey--I can back off if you're not enjoying the discussion. I think comparing and contrasting the editions--in a friendly style--is kinda fun. I like being exposed to viewpoints that I don't subscribe to, nor does anyone in my group or general acquintaince (i.e., that 1e or 2e either one was a better system in practically any way to d20). I may struggle with understanding where you're coming from, but that's what's driving me to ask follow-up questions and "rebutt" if you will your statements.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

What did anybody do for checks in 2E that would be the equivalent of Spot checks?

 

[tx7321]

J-Dawg: "But hey--I can back off if you're not enjoying the discussion. I think comparing and contrasting the editions--in a friendly style--is kinda fun. "

Me too. And I didn't feel any heat personally. I realized that to you it wasn't meant as an insult or anything. I only mentioned it because of Pirate-Cats warning. I don't want to see another thread bite the dust because of something I've contributed to in some way. Better to deal with it now then later. Or we'll get another edition war ban. Anyhow, I'm the first to admit my style of posting is a bit dramatic.

 

[prosfilaes]

That it reduces play into button like moves (I "jump" I "tumble" I "bluff") found on many video games,

How do you jump in AD&D 1e? I always thought you said "I'm going to jump over the pit." just like in 3rd ed. There may be an argument that the social skill checks make things that should be and were roleplayed into die rolls, but that's a far cry from the derisive way you put it there.

or that not using tables reduces the mystery for the players (and increases their work load).

It's a linear system for the most part, so the table didn't hide much, and many players are as familiar, if not more familiar, with the tables than the DM. Tables don't decrease the work load for the players; whatever you replace the table with can still be done by the DM. Removing the table in 2e makes it simpler for everyone.

 

[Ourph]

What did anybody do for checks in 2E that would be the equivalent of Spot checks?

Surprise rolls.

 

[Piratecat]

Thanks for working it out, guys. It's really nice to see two people disagree and not get nasty about it.

 

[Voadam]

What did anybody do for checks in 2E that would be the equivalent of Spot checks?

Hide in shadows worked or it did not, it was not an opposed check.

Surprise rolls determined whether there a player was surprised in a possible surprise encounter.

Ability checks (roll the ability or under on a d20, sometimes with modifiers) handled random functions like noticing small details if a DM wanted a PC roll.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm late to the thread because I'm tired of edition wars and didn't figure it could stay on topic. Suprisingly, its still here.

So, I'll post having no knowledge of what has been said and little inclination to read through it all.

There are two reasons why there is little second edition love. First, for every improvement that 2nd edition brought to the game, there is a corresponding destruction of something which was by that point deemed central to the feel of the game. The obvious example was the removal of Paladins from the game, but there are all sorts of things like that. The second reason is that the quality of published adventures for 2nd edition is markedly lower than either 1st or 3rd edition, especially early in the introduction of the edition when it really counts in winning people over. Towards the end, the group of writers responcible for 3rd edition (John, Monty, Skip, etc.) began producing good adventuring material, but by that time it was too late.

My groups essentially continued to play 1st edition and simply borrowed from 2nd edition where it seemed appropriate. For example, we long had known that 1st edition dragons had serious problems (not tough enough for high level opponents, all or nothing breath weapons), so the 2nd edition dragons were readily adopted. New monsters, new non-weapon proficiencies, new spells, and so forth were adopted fairly easy with minimal need for conversions. But by and large 2nd edition was ignored.