No Second Edition Love?

[tx7321]

JDawg: "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."

How so?

 

[eyebeams]

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.

The only rules I noticed ever being universally adopted were massive death thresholds and proficiencies. And proficiencies were the first stab at a skill system for the game. They made Int a power stat for non-M-Us for the first time, too.

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).

Actually, no. Those *aren't* 1e's rules. They're extremely common house rules. 1e's actual rules require comparing weapon speed for the possibility of extra/delayed attacks because of weapon type, and checking the weapon versus armour type. Oh, and a 1d6 head strike check for characters who aren't wearing helms. And this is without even going into unarmed combat, tactical movement, segmented casting times for spells . . .

These were ignored in many, many games, but they were designed as integral rules. Many 1e weapons do not work properly without weapon vs. AC modifiers (crossbows, staff vs. spear effectiveness, polearms) or weapon speeds (polearms, monk open hand attacks). Separate (and significant) rmor and helm pricing assumes the helm check rule.

So again, it's not 1e. It's the house rules.

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.

Sure, but all editions of D&D are hiers to the basic brilliance of the concept. The Critique needs to get a little more fine-grained when we talk editions.

 

[tx7321]

JDawg: "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."

Checking the tables in 1E never slowed me down. Nor has it slowed down any DM I know of. Infact, it takes alot of the preasure off the DM (which is usually what man makes tables and charts for in the first place).

JDawg: "Actually, no. Those *aren't* 1e's rules. They're extremely common house rules."

WTF, those are the rules. They aren't all the rules, I never said they were. Even if you were correct (each side roles d6, high goes first, role D20, check tables) and everyone played this way, who'd care. Thats still the "1E FEEL" . Infact, who cares how the DM chooses to figure out who hits and misses, as long as the players are rolling. What really matters in AD&D1E isn't how you figure out combat, its that its quick, that tables are used, and all the other stuff related to setting.

 

[eyebeams]

JDawg: "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."

Checking the tables in 1E never slowed me down. Nor has it slowed down any DM I know of. Infact, it takes alot of the preasure off the DM (which is usually what man makes tables and charts for in the first place).

I do wish 2e had added the 20s repeat 5 times feature from the tables.

 

[Piratecat]

Checking the tables in 1E never slowed me down. Nor has it slowed down any DM I know of.

It slowed us down substantially. My game runs far, far faster when I never have to pick up a rulebook during play.

And for everyone...
When you start arguing about a person instead of about the topic, there's a problem. Take a step back and ratchet down the hostility, everyone.

 

[Desdichado]

TX, you could really benefit from learning to use the quote button...

Jdawg, my friend, thats the most any of us can do in life, esp. when there are no records of this sort of thing.

Logical fallacies are the most any of us can do in life? What?!

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.

I was under the impression that you were talking about AD&D, not OD&D. Yes, Arneson was instrumental in the concept of D&D and editions prior to AD&D, but you're going out on a limb that I don't think you want to go out on with that claim now. Either you're talking specifically about AD&D or you're not. If not, then I'll happily point out that 3e D&D is just as much based on OD&D as AD&D is.

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.

But you're not actually quoting any rules, you're just summarizing their effect. You really haven't presented anything---convincing or otherwise---about their details. And besides---what you have described isn't really much different than what every single RPG ever created uses, so to present a vague summary that describes almost every RPG ever printed and then claim that that's the core of the 1e "feel" is at least disingenious, if not outright nonsensical.

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.

Except that players all over the place DO read the DMG. Besides, your description is no different than the way 2e or 3e or 3.5e is organized anyway.

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.

That is patently untrue. If that's your preferred style, you can easily do that in d20 too. I know. I've done it. The work still has to be done by the DM of course, but if the DM's doing the work, why does the player even care what the system is? And the if the DM's doing the work, at a certain point, why does he care about all the details of the system--he can assign them on the fly and the players will be none the wiser. Here's where we get to one of your other logical fallacies (and a new one! yay!) too--1) that all groups played the way you do (we didn't, nor did anyone I know) and the new one, 2) that your rather unusual playstyle was actually the norm for 1e and therefore constitutes it's "feel."

I've seen this very frequently from you--you make very extraordinary claims about what 1e and 1e alone can do, when in fact your claims are not all the remarkable, and practically any RPG system worth the paper it's printed on can do the exact same thing. You're ascribing to 1e uniqueness that it doesn't actually have at all. It does have uniqueness, yet bizarely, you're ignoring the uniqueness it does have to make these other rather extraordinary claims.

The cynical side of me would say that's because the uniqueness 1e does have is actually a weakness to it, not a strength, so you're scrambling about trying to shore up reasons why you prefer it that don't actually make any sense to someone who's used 1e, 3e and various other systems frequently. If 1e is what you prefer, just be happy preferring it. Like the Apple Jacks commercials where the dad asks the kids why they like Apple Jacks when they don't even taste like apples, just say, "because we like it" and move on. You don't need to go to these elaborate lengths to try to constantly "prove" to us that 1e is a great system. Especially when your "proofs" actually prove nothing of the sort, and most of the arguments you're putting forth for 1e's strengths actually apply equally well to 3e anyway.

 

[RFisher]

It's kind of ironic how so many of us looked at 1e--which didn't mark anything as explicitly optional--& saw "optional" all over the place. But then with 2e--which did have "optional" explicitly written on a lot of things--saw many of those things as essential. At least that was my experience.

Personally, I don't see much difference between playing 1e without armor v. weapon adjustments versus 2e without armor v. weapon adjustments. I don't see much difference between playing 1e without the all the fiddly initiative bits versus 2e without NWPs.

Choosing to ignore some things didn't mean that we weren't playing 1e. It wasn't some heroic acheivement of making it work in spite of the books. I'm sorry, I & my teenage friends just weren't that gifted.

 

[Desdichado]

How so?

What do you mean? How not so? What you described was an RPG, not AD&D 1e. What you described not only applies equally to 3e, it also applies equally to any system that's being used to run a sword & sorcery style game.

Checking the tables in 1E never slowed me down. Nor has it slowed down any DM I know of. Infact, it takes alot of the preasure off the DM (which is usually what man makes tables and charts for in the first place).

Anecdotal evidence. It did slow down almost all the DM's I know of. It's an inherently slower resolution process, so it can only not slow you down if you spent a lot of effort ahead of time learning the tables so well that you either didn't need to actually consult them anymore, or you knew exactly where they were in your books and they opened to them right away.

JDawg: "Actually, no. Those *aren't* 1e's rules. They're extremely common house rules."

I told you you should learn to use quote! I didn't say that, eyebeams did!

 

[Voadam]

I do wish 2e had added the 20s repeat 5 times feature from the tables.

I'm glad it didn't.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's kind of ironic how so many of us looked at 1e--which didn't mark anything as explicitly optional--& saw "optional" all over the place. But then with 2e--which did have "optional" explicitly written on a lot of things--saw many of those things as essential. At least that was my experience.

Personally, I don't see much difference between playing 1e without armor v. weapon adjustments versus 2e without armor v. weapon adjustments. I don't see much difference between playing 1e without the all the fiddly initiative bits versus 2e without NWPs.

Choosing to ignore some things didn't mean that we weren't playing 1e. It wasn't some heroic acheivement of making it work in spite of the books. I'm sorry, I & my teenage friends just weren't that gifted.

Actually, all parts of 1e were explicitly optional (see the 1e DMG).