No Second Edition Love?

[eyebeams]

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.

S'all I'm saying. I think you do have to consider what the intended design was.

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.

One of 2e's problems was that they didn't revise weapon damage to fit with no or optional armour adjustments, so it ported over 1e's design problems there -- but those were only design problems if you ignores some 1e rules.

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.

It doesn't take genius so much as choosing the path of least resistance, I think. And BTW I do think the oodles of tables were a great idea. I even soloed using the random dungeon generator when I was a kid.

 

[Voadam]

The only rules I noticed ever being universally adopted were massive death thresholds and proficiencies.

I didn't adopt massive damage threshold in 2e or 3e.

 

[eyebeams]

I didn't adopt massive damage threshold in 2e or 3e.

That's odd. Falling damage was probably the single most contentious part of the rules in the 80s, largely because people who played other RPGs mocked them all the time.

 

[Voadam]

That's odd. Falling damage was probably the single most contentious part of the rules in the 80s, largely because people who played other RPGs mocked them all the time.

I house ruled falling damage to do 1d6 per 10', cumulative. so instead of 3d6 for 30' it was 1d6 + 2d6 + 3d6.

Same in 3e.

So falling was dangerous because of the big damage it did, not from a separate subsystem threat.

 

[tx7321]

JDawg, I'm referring to AD&D. I mentioned Arneson out of respect, he's often forgotten as a co-creator of the D&D game, just pretend I didn't mention him.

As for tables slowing you guys down, didn't you memorize the most common results pretty quickly? And Pirate Cat, did you use a standing screen so you could just glance over closer to eye level? I rarely crack a rule book when I play, just open the DM screen and go. I'm impressed that your 3E battles run quicker then those of 1E.

JDawg, the point of my post was that I think the differences between BTB and house ruled 1E weren't that big a deal in "game feel". As a player I wouldn't know what the DM is doing behind the screen, I just role a d20 when told. The true differences between 1E and 2E are rules related to stuff outside of combat (what you indicate as optional). Anyhows, thats really all I was trying to say.

Look I agree if the 3E DM took over the tasks of feats and skills for each player, then the player could just sit and play. But I think that would be too much work for the 3E DM realistically. Perhaps you disagree.


JDawg: "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. "

I never claimed 1E alone can do anything. I'm on a D&D website, and I'm talking about 1E (my preferred version of D&D).

Sure any FRPG can be simplifide by its players and GM and made to run as quickly as those playing 1E (even quicker). So what? Then do it if it helps. It sure helps with AD&D to ignore WSF, esp. for newbie DMs.

Jdawg, I think your attacks are getting a little personal. There are nicer ways to make your point. Remember, your claims sound just as "extraordinary" to others as mind do to you.

 

[Voadam]

What rules outside of combat were different in 1e and 2e? Proficiencies were in 1e: Oriental Adventures, Dungeoneers Survival Guide, and Wilderness Survival Guide. My players were using them before 2e came out.

My campaign went from 1e to 2e without missing a beat. I used the 2e PHs, copied the new xp and level limit rules I liked from a friend's 2e DMG but used my 1e one for my game. I loved the 2e monster formats and the new simplified xp stuff, but never bought them, using my old ones for stats. I used 1e and 2e and basic modules interchangeably. Two players were playing 1e wild elf assassins throughout the campaign.

Initiative was different and I adopted that, but not much else seemed big deals.

 

[Desdichado]

JDawg, I'm referring to AD&D. I mentioned Arneson out of respect, he's often forgotten as a co-creator of the D&D game, just pretend I didn't mention him.

Ahh, got it.

As for tables slowing you guys down, didn't you memorize the most common results pretty quickly? And Pirate Cat, you should have used a standing screen so you could just glance over now and then, I rarely crack a rule book when I play, just open the screen and go.

No, not really.

I'm impressed that your 3E battles run quicker then those of 1E. My 3E battles (and I'm not alone on these boards from what I've read) were both longer and more stressful (esp. when your talking big numbers of combatants, having to check magic effects etc.).

Mine do too--especially at higher level. It is a pain to run D&D---of any edition---at higher level. In fact, that's one of my most significant gripes with the system. But yeah--my 3e games combats run as fast as D&D combats have ever run for me. At least. Because at heart, 3e is just roll a d20, add modifiers, compare to a target number and move on. See how simple?

JDawg, the point of my post was that I think the differences between BTB and house ruled 1E weren't that big in how the game felt. As a player I wouldn't know what the DM is doing behind the screen, I just role a d20 when told. The true differences between 1E and 2E are rules related to stuff outside of combat (what you indicate as optional). Anyhows, thats really all I was trying to say.

Well, eyebeams indicated that's optional, not me, but I see your point--I think. Actually, I think two or more unrelated (except by proximity in the thread) points are bleeding over onto each other. My points are really two-fold: 1) I like d20 rolls vs. charts because it's faster, easier, and requires less administrative effort on the part of the DM, although that's only a recent point that I've made in the last post or two, and 2) I still haven't been able to put my finger on this nebulous "1e feel" you keep talking about. When you describe it, I get stuff that sounds like it could apply just as easily to 3e D&D, Runequest, GURPS fantasy, and just about any other fantasy game using just about any other system. If that's so, then what is the 1e feel, what makes it so special, and how is that contrasted to the 2e or 3e feel? That's where I'm really struggling to see where you're coming from here, to be honest.

I never claimed 1E alone can do anything. I'm on a D&D website, and I'm talking about 1E (my preferred version of D&D).

No, you're specifically saying that 1e does certain things and strongly implying--if not outright stating-- that other games or editions cannot. At least, if that's not what you're doing, I no longer have the capability of reading the English language, which of course is always a possibility.

Sure any FRPG can be simplifide by its players and GM and made to run as quickly as those playing 1E (even quicker). So what? Then do it if it helps. It sure helps with AD&D to ignore WSF, esp. for newbie DMs.

Yes, so what. Indeed. That's my whole point.

Jdawg, I think your attacks are getting a little personal. There are nicer ways to make your point. Remember, your claims sound just as "extraordinary" to others as mind do to you.

You may think that, but you are completely wrong. I'm neither attacking, nor am I personal. I am merely having a conversation about D&D, and the fact that 1e is not my favored system means that we disagree. I don't see how that makes anything I'm saying "an attack" though. Also, I've taken very great care to only comment on your statements and haven't said anything personal whatsoever. At all. So yeah. Neither attacking nor getting personal. Don't know where that came from.

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

2e Unarmed

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.

I second that. You know, not to derail the thread, but when a lot of people complain about combat not being "realistic", they are actually complaining that combat is not descriptive enough. Fighters were called the "poor cousins" of AD&D for exactly that reason (look at the backcover blurb of the Complete Fighter's Handbook). It's hit, damage, once in a blue moon take a hefty penalty to call a shot and achieve unspecified results. I usually envisioned them standing still, shields up, hacking diagonally with their swords at each other. Obviously no one wanted to play a fighter, being a mage was so much cooler...

Funny that they did away with the monk. It would probably have seen much love from me, if I knew about them. At any rate, I loved wrestlers on 2e because of that table, not because wrestling on 2e was particularly useful...

 

[Garnfellow]

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

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.

 

[tx7321]

jDawg: ""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"

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).

Anyhow, I don't see anything "remarkable" about saying 3E is more confusing to players then 1E. That it reduces play into button like moves (I "jump" I "tumble" I "bluff") found on many video games, or that not using tables reduces the mystery for the players (and increases their work load). Those are, in a nut shell, my comments about 3E, and of course I sometimes compare them to 1E. But thats not extraordinary. Its old recycled garbage from the edition war era. Its been said by others 100 times over, "very extraordinary claim" how about very ordinary and not particularly original.

As far as what the "1E Feel" is. Well, you have to play 1E for a while, and then compare it to 3E. I suppose that it'll be slightly different for each person. Just be sure to use the 1E core books. Hell, try playing BTB with all the rules and see how you like it. I went to hating 1Es level restrictions to likeing them (now that I understand why theyre there).