No Second Edition Love?

[Mark Hope]

And it might be that one time and something else the next.

This part would annoy me no end. Pick a house rule and stick with it. Sure, circumstances change and one jump might be different to another, but then just impose a modifier. A DM should have creative freedom, but he should also be consistent.

 

[tx7321]

Yeah, some guys don't appreciate it. I didn't but I do now (esp. after playing 3E). The best thing about 3E for me was that it showed me why 1E was designed the way it was. And I'm sure if you asked Gygax he could confirm this. BTW, when a player doesn't like an inconsistancy of mine (having them role a d100 one time and a d20 the next to get over a pit say) I try to explain to them its better if they don't get caught up in the rules, to focus on really pretending to be there and see it. Whats it really matter if they role a d100, a d20 or pick from a deck of cards. As long as the % chance in the DMs head is the same.

 

[Seeten]

I dont appreciate it. I especially dont like being told, "Sorry, you cant jump 5 feet, it isnt on your sheet. So you try to jump it, fail, and fall in, you take 10d6 falling dmg and make a poison save".

 

[Mark Hope]

As long as the % chance in the DMs head is the same.

Ah, OK. Well in that case it's fine . No problem with using different methods as long as the DM isn't messing with your chances for no good reason.

 

[MerricB]

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

I think you mean Assassins and Half-Orcs. Paladins were still part of the game.

Cheers!

 

[Ourph]

I especially dont like being told, "Sorry, you cant jump 5 feet, it isnt on your sheet. So you try to jump it, fail, and fall in, you take 10d6 falling dmg and make a poison save".

Which game systems have rules that enforce this scenario? I'd like to know so I can stay far, far away from them.

 

[Ranger REG]

No, I'm thinking 1e vs. 2e RAW. People talk about their love for 1e but I'm willing to bet that virtually none of them ran 1e RAW compared to 2e. I remember reading in Dragon just before 2e's release that among TSR staff Skip Williams was the only one who ran by the book 1e.

It would be an unfair comparison though they have the same mechanics, 2e have a bit more (based on selective 1e supplementary rules material).

At least I can still play a monk PC using 1e RAW; not so with 2e RAW.

 

[dcas]

This part would annoy me no end. Pick a house rule and stick with it. Sure, circumstances change and one jump might be different to another, but then just impose a modifier. A DM should have creative freedom, but he should also be consistent.

I wholly agree. I don't like having everything spelled out for me in advance, but I do appreciate a GM who makes consistent rulings, and as a GM I try to make consistent rulings myself, writing them down if need be so I can refer to them in the future.

 

[dcas]

YBTW, when a player doesn't like an inconsistancy of mine (having them role a d100 one time and a d20 the next to get over a pit say) I try to explain to them its better if they don't get caught up in the rules, to focus on really pretending to be there and see it.

It's just a game, dude. You don't have to pretend to be there.

 

[tx7321]

I wholly agree. I don't like having everything spelled out for me in advance, but I do appreciate a GM who makes consistent rulings, and as a GM I try to make consistent rulings myself, writing them down if need be so I can refer to them in the future.

Having a player role petrification to get over one pit, and then their dex for another is just changing the players chance based on difficulty. Its not really any different then saying in one case you have a 30% chance with one pit (say firm ground 13 foot) and only a 20% chance with another (say soft ground 13 foot). In D20 you can do the same thing, just approximate on a d100. Or you could say role a d6 on a 1-3 for 50% you make it, or whatever. This confuses the PCs, it keeps the player guessing ("I know I'll probably make it, but not exactly sure") and the game fresh. Now, thats not really the same thing as the typical "consistant ruling" people typically talk about. For instance, a good DM shouldn't change when arrows fire off from one combat sequence to another in the same game. Thats "unfair" to the players and creates a unstable platform for them. But having a player role petrification to get past one type of trap (say a dart), and then role dex to get past another type (a pit trap) is fine in my book.

dcas.....dcas.........dude...............you have to..............be.......................there.