No Second Edition Love?

eyebeams said:
In terms of rules, 2e was only really worse when it came to unarmed combat, where it had a wacky chart instead of adopting a more straightforward system.

You are the second person to mention the suckiness of the 2E unarmed combat chart, but my players and I LOVED that chart, and I still miss it sometimes. The maneuver names and the KO % chance gave brawls such flavor, esp. when using "punching specialization" where you had a range of choices on the chart.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Allandaros said:
I think I fall in the camp of "2e rules, 1e flavor."

The games I run are totally 3E rules, 2E flavor. .. I think. . . I mean, heck, I made a separate specialty priest base class for each god in Aquerra's pantheons.
 

eyebeams said:
In terms of rules, 2e was only really worse when it came to unarmed combat, where it had a wacky chart instead of adopting a more straightforward system.
Check out the grappling/overbearing rules - I really think the 2e rules were less confusing.

What surprises me is that the one old rule I hate the most after-the-fact is proficiencies. Last time I played 2e, proficiencies grated on me far more than any other old rules. They're just so... so clunky, and hard to improve, and dependent on ability scores.

I loved the clerical sphere system of 2e, though. I'd say that this differentiation between different clerics was the thing I missed most when converting to 3e.
 

eyebeams said:
I really likes the Stun Point concept from the Complete Fighter's Handbook. It worked really well in our game. In terms of rules, 2e was only really worse when it came to unarmed combat, where it had a wacky chart instead of adopting a more straightforward system.

Are you contrasting with the 1e unarmed combat rules in the 1e DMG or in Oriental Adventures?

If the latter, I agree, and grandfathered the 1e OA martial arts rules. If the former... I really don't know what to say. I don't know how anyone could think that bizarre little percentile based thingy could be good compared to anything that came after.
 

Q: "I read a lot of posts here and elsewhere, and the general "edition war" boils down to 1e vs. 3e.

Where's the second edition love?"

Where indeed. :\

It just goes to show you, although it was assumed the switch to 2E by TSR (from 1E) was a good business decision (this switch actually started with DL during the late 1E period), it turns out it both sunk the company, and its players speak of it in past tense, and unlike 1E seems to be pretty much a dead system. That said 2E did make TSR alot of money quickly (it just couldn't keep up long term). One can only wonder what would have happened if Gary had kept control of TSR. If the model continued to be: support 1E with new modules, but create new role playing games for all the other genres and focus on capturing control of those markets. Instead, 2E pushed most players out of D&D and into other game systems (less hokey and story based).

I think 2E was a fad. It was the pumping out of tons of untested romance novel style modules that only appealed to a small percentage of the original D&D players. Although this effectively shrunk the number of D&D players, it drastically increased sales (because those that were left were prone to buying anything released by TSR). But the problem with this strategy was that 2E was fad based, and it was nec. to constantly invent new things to keep people buying. Eventually this pool of players grew too small to support the company. Whats going on with 3E is somewhat similar IMO. Once again WOTC is finding itself pumping out new material to a smaller percentage of players but one which buys anything official without much question (you know who you are ;) ). This increases sales but shrinks the base of players (who don't care for the increased complexity and flooding of new material). Eventually there won't be enough people playing 3E anymore to buy their new support material. Once that critical mass is hit they'll release 4E and continue with this same 2E model.

The 2 competing models are: slow and steady (early 1E) with lower profit goals, and fast and irregular (late 1E through 2E) make alot of money before the market crashes. As it turns out, 2Es model was the one that proved best suited for the market. This will be esp. true now with the numbers of competing games floating around, and having to compete with online computer role playing games (novel by definition).

Its the lightbulb burning bright and fast with a short life vs. the Thomas Edison dim bulbs still going after all this time.
 
Last edited:

Will you please define 'fad'? I'm not trying to be snarky, but I'm honestly at a loss as to how a game that's proven to be immensely popular over six years, and which has brought tens of thousands of people back to D&D, is a fad. That seems like a misnomer to me.
 

A fad, as I understand it (with some marketing classes under my belt back in undergrad) was a product release that focused on fast sales, and one that changed often to remain novel. Fads tend to generate fast sales but drop off quickly, which are then replaced by a slightly different but equally fadish product.
 

Garnfellow said:
I've certainly found 3e Rules + 1e Adventures = one kick-ass campaign.

I do have a download T1-T4 around here somewhere. :D


eyebeams said:
The Elf book was actually pretty good if you were going to play a game with elves and only elves, and humans, et al are rabble. Many 2e books seem to be written this way, where the author assumes you'll use the book in a certain way but doesn't say so. Aaron Allston's Complete Ninja Handbook was the same way....

That's why the Ninja book ruined my 2e game (of course my players wanted to play the Avatar Trilogy, so you could argue there wasn't much to ruin).
 
Last edited:

Garnfellow said:
I've certainly found 3e Rules + 1e Adventures = one kick-ass campaign.

Eeep, I'll say it kicks ass...the PC's asses, that is. I've TPKed two groups with 1E->3E conversions so far (making it 2 for 3). I'm not sure if it's because the monsters got a serious upgrade compared to PCs between versions, or poor adventure design back in the old days (not a knock on 1E, I'm saying it's maybe from a lack of experience), but it's probably a combo of both. If I run a 1E adventure again, it's getting seriously modded (but there are some classics I really want to try running again for my newer group...).
 


Remove ads

Top