D&D 2E On AD&D 2E

[James Gasik]

I did read your full post, but I think this quote sums it up. We just started playing 2E again last Sunday after 22 years and my friend and I who used to play together back then thought, eh we'll wing it at first, it'll come back to us, it did somewhat but it was rough at points. The other player who has only played 5E is somewhat confused. I just started reading the PHB over the last few days and I'm astounded how much I forgot, how many rules we probably never used to begin with, how much we probably had wrong, and how different the game truly is from 3E forward. It really is a different game.

Not long ago, after tiring of his whining about not being able to play D&D, I got my old 2e DM to join my current play group. Of course, he pitched his 2e campaign to see if anyone wanted to play (he's been adding to it for 35 years now...I think, I only started playing in his campaign in 1991).

So we tried playing 2e. And wow, was that a mess. Arbitrary rules, huge variance in player ability, classes that can barely function at low levels, trying to explain "ok, roll high to attack, roll high to save, roll low to make ability checks, roll d20 most of the time, but here are some d% rolls", trying to field questions of why AC goes down, or why sometimes a bonus to AC is a positive integer and sometimes it's a negative integer, or why there's a huge list of Non-Weapon Proficiencies but most characters get 3 of them (not counting some that cost more than one slot!), Kits, what Charisma even does, weapon speeds, how slowly characters advance (the guy who thought his Elf Fighter/Thief/Magic-User was the bee's knees balked when I explained how leveling up would work for him), and then an argument with me and my friend about using "languages known" to get more proficiency slots (he was fine with them being used for NWP's, but the language doesn't differentiate, since the Fighter wanted to know how to use more than 3 weapons without penalty- I tried to pitch the Blades broad group from the Fighter's Handbook, but 1, he wanted a bow and a melee weapon, and 2, the DM doesn't like weapon groups)...I could tell none of the newer players were having any fun.

And if that wasn't enough, the DM also tried to infuse some 1e rules on top of this "Jimmy, you know I use Comeliness in my games". "Oh yes, because they're not already confused, do you want to use weapon vs. armor types while we're at it?".

We had two sessions of this, but I wouldn't be shocked if we only played one, and the rest of the time was character creation and explaining rules.

I loved my time playing AD&D, many fond memories (and some not so fond memories), but despite any nostalgia, I definitely remember now why I was so quick to switch to 3e when it came out.

 

[R_J_K75]

Not long ago, after tiring of his whining about not being able to play D&D, I got my old 2e DM to join my current play group. Of course, he pitched his 2e campaign to see if anyone wanted to play (he's been adding to it for 35 years now...I think, I only started playing in his campaign in 1991).

So we tried playing 2e. And wow, was that a mess. Arbitrary rules, huge variance in player ability, classes that can barely function at low levels, trying to explain "ok, roll high to attack, roll high to save, roll low to make ability checks, roll d20 most of the time, but here are some d% rolls", trying to field questions of why AC goes down, or why sometimes a bonus to AC is a positive integer and sometimes it's a negative integer, or why there's a huge list of Non-Weapon Proficiencies but most characters get 3 of them (not counting some that cost more than one slot!), Kits, what Charisma even does, weapon speeds, how slowly characters advance (the guy who thought his Elf Fighter/Thief/Magic-User was the bee's knees balked when I explained how leveling up would work for him), and then an argument with me and my friend about using "languages known" to get more proficiency slots (he was fine with them being used for NWP's, but the language doesn't differentiate, since the Fighter wanted to know how to use more than 3 weapons without penalty- I tried to pitch the Blades broad group from the Fighter's Handbook, but 1, he wanted a bow and a melee weapon, and 2, the DM doesn't like weapon groups)...I could tell none of the newer players were having any fun.

And if that wasn't enough, the DM also tried to infuse some 1e rules on top of this "Jimmy, you know I use Comeliness in my games". "Oh yes, because they're not already confused, do you want to use weapon vs. armor types while we're at it?".

We had two sessions of this, but I wouldn't be shocked if we only played one, and the rest of the time was character creation and explaining rules.

I loved my time playing AD&D, many fond memories (and some not so fond memories), but despite any nostalgia, I definitely remember now why I was so quick to switch to 3e when it came out.

Gotta run, but Im definiteley replying to this later

 

[ValamirCleaver]

Not just for D&D but also Star Frontiers and Paranoia.

... BattleTech, Cryptworld, Middle-Earth Role Playing, Dungeon Crawl Classics...

 

[Kai Lord]

... BattleTech, Cryptworld, Middle-Earth Role Playing, Dungeon Crawl Classics...

Of those games I've only played DCC and was very pleasantly surprised to see his illustrations making a comeback.

I feel like the pic of the terrified townspeople trying to impale the skeleton with the pitchfork is already a modern classic.

 

[ValamirCleaver]

I feel like the pic of the terrified townspeople trying to impale the skeleton with the pitchfork is already a modern classic.

Remembering Jim Holloway|Goodman Games

goodman-games.com

 

[Kai Lord]

Yes!

Remembering Jim Holloway|Goodman Games

goodman-games.com

View attachment 276403

Yes!!

Plus this one with the fainting halfling and the elf doing the outtake to the reader thinking I'm gonna die with these idiots aren't I, lol.

 

[ValamirCleaver]

Yes!!

I've really liked this one of a cleric laying the smackdown upon some of what I assume to be heathens ever since I first saw it in Dragon Magazine back in the '80s.

The Art of Jim Holloway

www.facebook.com

 

[Kai Lord]

I've really liked this one of a cleric laying the smackdown upon some of what I assume to be heathens ever since I first saw it in Dragon Magazine back in the '80s.

The Art of Jim Holloway

www.facebook.com

View attachment 276405

That is really cool. I could really go on and on with regard to Holloway. He was such a master of seamlessly blending badass with buffoonery which exemplified so very many of my actual early role-playing experiences, lol.

 

[Hex08]

I would love to play 2E again. When the bug hits me to run that style of game I turn to Castles & Crusades but 2E is my first love when it comes to RPGs so I would happily return to it. I played the Basic & Expert sets and 1E but my favorite campaigns that I ran and played in were all 2E.

 

[ValamirCleaver]

I could really go on and on with regard to Holloway. He was such a master of seamlessly blending badass with buffoonery which exemplified so very many of my actual early role-playing experiences, lol.

A no-nonsense power couple drawn in a not so serious way.

Graz'zt - Greyhawk Wiki

greyhawkonline.com

Derro Attack!

Safe Place To Rest?...

Trying to directly address the original post, during the '90s I played or ran games that were a mishmash of AD&D 1E, 2E and bits of Mayfair Role-Aids material and/or BECMI/Known World/Mystrara. Today I prefer BRW Games' Adventures Dark and Deep (which is re-written AD&D 1e with Unearthed Arcana incorporated and with all kinds of additional things culled from Gygax's musing from Dragon magazines in the first half of the '80s of what he planned to put in 2nd Edition).

 

[Kai Lord]

Trying to directly address the original post, during the '90s I played or ran games that were a mishmash of AD&D 1E, 2E and bits of Mayfair Role-Aids material and/or BECMI/Known World/Mystrara. Today I prefer BRW Games' Adventures Dark and Deep (which is re-written AD&D 1e with Unearthed Arcana incorporated and with all kinds of additional things culled from Gygax's musing from Dragon magazines in the first half of the '80s of what he planned to put in 2nd Edition).

Wow, thanks for posting the link to "Adventures Dark and Deep" (nice initials, heh heh.) I'd never heard of that unofficial expansion but now I'm off to hunt for reviews on YouTube.

 

[ValamirCleaver]

Wow, thanks for posting the link to "Adventures Dark and Deep". I'd never heard of that unofficial expansion but now I'm off to hunt for reviews on YouTube.

You're welcome, unfortunately there's not a lot of YouTube material for "ADD". I linked to some reviews in this post I made & you can find more info on the author's blog/homepage. If you're interested in some more in depth information feel free to directly ask me.

EDIT: Also the author published his own take on Castle "Greyheim" (totally not Greyhawk ).

 

[Scars Unseen]

how slowly characters advance

Honestly one of the big positives of the older editions in my opinion. Newer D&D campaigns feel like their on fast forward to me.

 

[James Gasik]

Honestly one of the big positives of the older editions in my opinion. Newer D&D campaigns feel like their on fast forward to me.

I mean this is up to personal taste, but the play loop of D&D gets old fast when there is no real "traction" or sign that your character is actually improving. Especially in 2e, when the primary means of earning xp is monsters (everything else is optional in the DMG).

And as a DM, I kind of got tired of having to treat the PC's with kid gloves at the early levels where a thrown spear can kill them, forcing them to make a new character, making it take even longer to actually be able to take a hit, to the point that I just stopped having "level one" be a thing in my AD&D games.

Though if I had to do it over again, I'd steal the "hit point kicker" from Hackmaster 1e instead.

 

[cbwjm]

I mean this is up to personal taste, but the play loop of D&D gets old fast when there is no real "traction" or sign that your character is actually improving. Especially in 2e, when the primary means of earning xp is monsters (everything else is optional in the DMG).

And as a DM, I kind of got tired of having to treat the PC's with kid gloves at the early levels where a thrown spear can kill them, forcing them to make a new character, making it take even longer to actually be able to take a hit, to the point that I just stopped having "level one" be a thing in my AD&D games.

Though if I had to do it over again, I'd steal the "hit point kicker" from Hackmaster 1e instead.

I think a quite common houserule back then was full hit points at level 1, now I think I might grant 2 hitdice at level 1 as well as max hit points just to make that 1st level more survivable. I do the same with 5e when starting at level 1.

 

[James Gasik]

I think a quite common houserule back then was full hit points at level 1, now I think I might grant 2 hitdice at level 1 as well as max hit points just to make that 1st level more survivable. I do the same with 5e when starting at level 1.

Yes, in fact, it was so common, I never played a AD&D character that had to roll their hit points at level 1. When 4e came out and basically said "uh, why don't we start characters out with 20-30 hit points?", I damn near applauded.

But tastes vary, as I said, some people prefer PC's who are always one die roll away from bleeding out on Death's Door, lol. Heck, I wish I had the link; a few months back, there was a poster who felt the hit points an AD&D Fighter could have was downright ludicrous! One of my longest running characters started with an 18 Con, and when he passed the 100 hit point mark, suddenly several of my DM's started getting very grumpy about it.

Nothing has changed much though, a few years back, I was running a Fighter/Rogue archer in Adventurer's League, and I ended up with an Amulet of Health, boosting my 14 Con to 19. One session, the DM got it into their head that they were tired of me shooting arrows at monsters with impunity, and decided to pressure me. I just drew my short sword and held them off, and after a few turns, the DM gave me this odd look and said "uh, how many hit points do you have left?".

"Well, last turn got me down to 57, I figure I'll Second Wind this turn and start taking the Dodge action until the rest of the party can get to me."

"That can't be right, let me see your character sheet."

slides it over

"ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN HIT POINTS?!" hands the sheet back in disgust

 

[Scars Unseen]

I mean this is up to personal taste, but the play loop of D&D gets old fast when there is no real "traction" or sign that your character is actually improving. Especially in 2e, when the primary means of earning xp is monsters (everything else is optional in the DMG).

And as a DM, I kind of got tired of having to treat the PC's with kid gloves at the early levels where a thrown spear can kill them, forcing them to make a new character, making it take even longer to actually be able to take a hit, to the point that I just stopped having "level one" be a thing in my AD&D games.

Though if I had to do it over again, I'd steal the "hit point kicker" from Hackmaster 1e instead.

Contrariwise, when the party starts out as a band of nobodies and then is capable of taking on a small dragon in the span of a couple of months in game, it sucks all my suspension of disbelief right out. So if you're leveling ever couple of sessions (as a lot of WotC campaigns do), either your characters are growing at a video game/anime rate of speed or your campaign is racing through time to compensate (i.e. moving in fast forward). Neither of those appeal to me at all. I've never gotten attached to a character in 3E and later editions like I did back in 2E when I might be playing the same character for a year or more.

"Improvement" came from forging a reputation, making contacts, relationships. It came from the stories we told through the sessions of play. And yes, greater capabilities as we grew in level as well. But it's not like there was nothing to the game except level increases. If that's all D&D was, I'd go play a dungeon crawler. Less scheduling conflicts.

 

[James Gasik]

Contrariwise, when the party starts out as a band of nobodies and then is capable of taking on a small dragon in the span of a couple of months in game, it sucks all my suspension of disbelief right out. So if you're leveling ever couple of sessions (as a lot of WotC campaigns do), either your characters are growing at a video game/anime rate of speed or your campaign is racing through time to compensate (i.e. moving in fast forward). Neither of those appeal to me at all. I've never gotten attached to a character in 3E and later editions like I did back in 2E when I might be playing the same character for a year or more.

"Improvement" came from forging a reputation, making contacts, relationships. It came from the stories we told through the sessions of play. And yes, greater capabilities as we grew in level as well. But it's not like there was nothing to the game except level increases. If that's all D&D was, I'd go play a dungeon crawler. Less scheduling conflicts.

Yes, but at least early on, you don't make much of those (reputation, contacts, stories). Thinking of my longest running character, the stories I have of levels 1-5 are:

*Getting mauled by a bear.
*Getting mauled by a shark.
*Getting backstabbed by my own party member.

It's that last one that was a turning point, and set him on a new path, but ultimately, the only thing that allowed for even those feats were several levels of gained hit points. I'm not here to say I think my way of running games is superior; but ultimately how long the process of going from zero to her should take is entirely subjective; there's no timeline that says "you must spend X months to reach level Y", since level is a completely abstract concept.

You can't look at a decorated soldier in our world and say "ah, he's obviously level 7" and equate his age to how long it took him to reach his current status; if anything, his abilities may have degraded from disuse or lingering wounds, things that D&D characters don't typically have to worry about.

Fiction and mythology are full of many fantastic warriors who accomplish great feats at an early age; perhaps spending several months in a high risk environment dealing with lethal foes would force you to get skilled or perish.

It depends entirely on the story you want to tell. I have a character I've played on and off since about 1991, and still occasionally do to this day. In the campaign he's in, xp and gold and even most magical treasure have long since ceased to have any real meaning.

I had a character in 4e that got to level 22 inside of a year, fending off dragons and githyanki and demigods. I don't see the story of one as being superior to the other. I've been in games where three months can go by without seeing a level or a magic item. I've been in games where you get about half a level a session.

I don't see one as superior to the other; in fact, in these days, I've noticed you might as well start at level 3-5 and hand out xp like candy, because if a game lasts more than 6-7 months, that's incredible. Real life ends games way faster than running out of levels, or even getting to the levels where the DM might toss in the towel because the characters are difficult to challenge (the last time that happened to me was after 2 years, and in all honesty, it wasn't that I couldn't challenge the group, it's more that I didn't have the mental energy at that time to continue).

 

[deganawida]

After some reminiscing over the weekend in our group's chat, and how we all miss 2e, I'm seriously tempted to take 2e and houserule the fool out of it, to make it fit what I think it should have been. One thing that has always bothered me is that there are specialty priests and wizards, but no specialty warriors or rogues. What if Cook had done specialty warriors and rogues, and just included ranger, paladin, and bard as examples?

 

[Micah Sweet]

After some reminiscing over the weekend in our group's chat, and how we all miss 2e, I'm seriously tempted to take 2e and houserule the fool out of it, to make it fit what I think it should have been. One thing that has always bothered me is that there are specialty priests and wizards, but no specialty warriors or rogues. What if Cook had done specialty warriors and rogues, and just included ranger, paladin, and bard as examples?

Interesting idea. It seemed like they wanted to go that way at least partially, what with the different class groups.