DeadlyUematsu
Explorer
Aaron L said:
As if roleplaying only springs from narration and simulation and not actual gameplay!
No Second Edition Love?
- Thread starter Remathilis
- Start date
As if roleplaying only springs from narration and simulation and not actual gameplay!
Although Gary talks about D&D in 'game' terms, original D&D is not purely gameist -- it has a large simulationist element to do with recreating the feeling of fantasy fiction (see "Swords And Sorcery—In Wargaming", reprinted in Dungeon #112). While it isn't narrativist in Ron Edwards's sense, there's considerable emphasis on a shared narrative experience -- characters and events, not only tactical situations. A pure gameist wouldn't have created the World of Greyhawk.
We can certainly say that the authors of both rules and setting materials published in the 1990s for 2nd edition AD&D were, on average, not so much wargamers and more worldbuilders and storytellers in comparison. I think going much further than this risks overgeneralizing.
We can certainly say that the authors of both rules and setting materials published in the 1990s for 2nd edition AD&D were, on average, not so much wargamers and more worldbuilders and storytellers in comparison. I think going much further than this risks overgeneralizing.
Last edited:
Aaron L
Hero
mhacdebhandia said:
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.
And I challenge the claim that Drizzt wasn't phenomenally popular then, as I know of quite a number of horror stories of Drizzt clones popping up right after The Crystal Shard was published. I remember everyone telling me in my first 1E game, where I played a Ranger, that 1E Rangers were nothing at all like 2E Rangers, and that 2E Rangers were based on Drizzt and not the original class.
The Crystal Shard (and especially Drizzt) was very popular from the moment it was published, and it was plainly obvious when the 2E PH was released approx. a year and a half later that the re-working of the ranger class was at least partially intended to make it into "the Drizzt class."
I started with the Metzer Red Box, and then graduated from there. however, with my focus on the movie genre now, I'm off to make interesting and powerful adventures that is cinematic in nature.
2e didn't provide that, but I was going through a medieval historical "kick" back in the 90s. So, I liked 2e, when I got into it in 1997. I make it a principle point to find enjoyment in every game I bought. AD&D 2nd Edition wasn't an exception. With the advent of D&D 3e, I've started to realize that Dungeons and Dragons has lost some of its "magic." I think it's partly how my players played, and its partly me.
I shifted my focus for playing D&D from a historical point of view to a more cinematic vein. I want to write movies or Television shows now. Especially adventure movies you go see in the summer. And I like my gaming to reflect that. And it doesn't matter what system I use.
So I really liked the way 2e does things. It's a lot simpler out of the box than 3e is in some respects (I don't want to start an edition war). D&D 3e does some nice things, but like all systems, it does have it's flaws. But the nice thing about it is, you can adapt different kind of ideas to either system. Of course, some times it runs like a well oiled machine when you do, other times it seems like something that can fall apart.
Sorry, it's just not my day for impressing people.
2e didn't provide that, but I was going through a medieval historical "kick" back in the 90s. So, I liked 2e, when I got into it in 1997. I make it a principle point to find enjoyment in every game I bought. AD&D 2nd Edition wasn't an exception. With the advent of D&D 3e, I've started to realize that Dungeons and Dragons has lost some of its "magic." I think it's partly how my players played, and its partly me.
I shifted my focus for playing D&D from a historical point of view to a more cinematic vein. I want to write movies or Television shows now. Especially adventure movies you go see in the summer. And I like my gaming to reflect that. And it doesn't matter what system I use.
So I really liked the way 2e does things. It's a lot simpler out of the box than 3e is in some respects (I don't want to start an edition war). D&D 3e does some nice things, but like all systems, it does have it's flaws. But the nice thing about it is, you can adapt different kind of ideas to either system. Of course, some times it runs like a well oiled machine when you do, other times it seems like something that can fall apart.
Sorry, it's just not my day for impressing people.
That's six of one vs. a half dozen of the other, no? Whether the reasoning behind the change was "let's make this ranger class like Drizzt for all the players who want to be Drizzt" or "the book says Drizzt's a ranger, so we need to change the class to make sure it matches his depicition in the book" (and, in truth, it was probably a bit of both) the end result was still the same.dcas said:
I still run a A&D 2e game and I agree with everything here. AD&D 2e assumes a story-driven model, where there are no hard-and-fast rules; merely suggestions (even for the players). It emphasized roleplaying to resolve power creep/inconsistant rules.
The damn kits just made things worse (especially the gawd-awful Book of Elvis and I am a elf fan!).
The damn kits just made things worse (especially the gawd-awful Book of Elvis and I am a elf fan!).
Wik
First Post
I started playing when I was five years old. I was born in '83, so I came in just before 2e came along. Granted, I was pretty much playing with my dad and whoever else I could get involved...
When I was a bit older, we played either basic D&D, or a mish-mash of 1e and 2e. Thinking back, I used a lot of the 2e rules combined with the 1e "splatbooks" (the Book of Lairs I & 2 was used religiously, as were the monster manuals, the survival guides, and whatnot).
I never noticed a problem with 2e when I was playing it. While there were little problems that would come up from time to time, I was a "tinkerer" by nature and I was always messing with the rules somehow. So if I thought that the rules in Complete Book of Priests were crappy... well... I just didn't include 'em.
The one thing I notice about 2e is how easy it is to create a "munchkinized" character. I think the term comes from 2e, and it makes sense. Skills & Powers was an AWFUL book from that perspective.
The funny thing is, as players, we never did this. We often created characters with more, um, "Character" in 2e than in other systems, and I could never figure out why. We're the same players in 3e, the system works a lot better... and yet, people now use that system to create characters more based around the rules than the personality. It's an affliction my whole group suffers from, in one sense or another.
Our current group has characters with well-developed abilities, but the actual personalities of these characters are a bit one-dimensional. The dwarven dragon shaman is interesting, if a bit cliched. Our goliath warrior is a bruiser. The catfolk rogue acts so... normal... that were it not for her high dex abilities, everyone at the table would think she was a human. Only the paladin breaks out of the "class/race" description.... which is funny.
The exact same group, playing in the d6 system, had much more in-depth characters... and we played for only a few months.
In short, while 2e had a LOT of problems, I did like the "role-play" emphasis of the system. I think a lot of the more enjoyable characters I've seen/played came out of 2e.
When I was a bit older, we played either basic D&D, or a mish-mash of 1e and 2e. Thinking back, I used a lot of the 2e rules combined with the 1e "splatbooks" (the Book of Lairs I & 2 was used religiously, as were the monster manuals, the survival guides, and whatnot).
I never noticed a problem with 2e when I was playing it. While there were little problems that would come up from time to time, I was a "tinkerer" by nature and I was always messing with the rules somehow. So if I thought that the rules in Complete Book of Priests were crappy... well... I just didn't include 'em.
The one thing I notice about 2e is how easy it is to create a "munchkinized" character. I think the term comes from 2e, and it makes sense. Skills & Powers was an AWFUL book from that perspective.
The funny thing is, as players, we never did this. We often created characters with more, um, "Character" in 2e than in other systems, and I could never figure out why. We're the same players in 3e, the system works a lot better... and yet, people now use that system to create characters more based around the rules than the personality. It's an affliction my whole group suffers from, in one sense or another.
Our current group has characters with well-developed abilities, but the actual personalities of these characters are a bit one-dimensional. The dwarven dragon shaman is interesting, if a bit cliched. Our goliath warrior is a bruiser. The catfolk rogue acts so... normal... that were it not for her high dex abilities, everyone at the table would think she was a human. Only the paladin breaks out of the "class/race" description.... which is funny.
The exact same group, playing in the d6 system, had much more in-depth characters... and we played for only a few months.
In short, while 2e had a LOT of problems, I did like the "role-play" emphasis of the system. I think a lot of the more enjoyable characters I've seen/played came out of 2e.
Similar Threads
