Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 5404915" data-attributes="member: 40177">Rules wise, I really do prefer 2e to 1e, because it is defintely a simplified version in a lot of ways.&nbsp; In fact, I've often considered 2e to be vastly underrated.&nbsp; I think some of the vilification comes from the glut of splatbooks stretched out over more than a decade's edition run - 2e is, I believe, the longest-running edition.The thing that bugs me about 2e is the tone that is often taken in the books - it really does have a sort of &quot;one true way&quot; implied in many of the narratives, and I remember being twelve or thirteen years old and thinking I was somehow doing something wrong because my adventures were not even close to the level of suggested roleplay as written in the book (if you went by the books, a good chunk of the session should be spent RPing with kings and merchants, all coinage in the game should be intricately detailed, and skill in etiquette and dancing was much more useful than something like Blind Fighting).&nbsp; Basically, I loved the rules, but those rulebooks often gave me something of an inferiority complex because my games were not mimicking the books.&nbsp; This is probably why I shifted to games like Shadowrun and d6 Star Wars in the nineties - our sessions didn't feel like such failures to live up to the game.&nbsp; These days, my favourite part about 2e is just how GM friendly it is.&nbsp; It really is the only edition out there that makes unique world-building &quot;core&quot;.&nbsp; It is the only edition that doesn't assume a &quot;kitchen sink&quot; setting, and many products existed for GMs to take the game in completely non-core directions.&nbsp; If you wanted to make a setting that was based on imperial rome where the senator PCs fought viking goblins, 2e was your setting.&nbsp; And yes, I'm aware you can do that in any edition;&nbsp; but 2e actively encouraged this style of play.&nbsp; Regarding Player's Option - we used the spell points system, and loved them.&nbsp; It made lower-level play much more enjoyable for spell casters.&nbsp; Subabilities were not balanced in the slightest, and should be dropped.&nbsp; We did love the traits and disadvantage rules, though, and they are something I'd love to see more of.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wik, post: 5404915, member: 40177"] Rules wise, I really do prefer 2e to 1e, because it is defintely a simplified version in a lot of ways. In fact, I've often considered 2e to be vastly underrated. I think some of the vilification comes from the glut of splatbooks stretched out over more than a decade's edition run - 2e is, I believe, the longest-running edition. The thing that bugs me about 2e is the tone that is often taken in the books - it really does have a sort of "one true way" implied in many of the narratives, and I remember being twelve or thirteen years old and thinking I was somehow doing something wrong because my adventures were not even close to the level of suggested roleplay as written in the book (if you went by the books, a good chunk of the session should be spent RPing with kings and merchants, all coinage in the game should be intricately detailed, and skill in etiquette and dancing was much more useful than something like Blind Fighting). Basically, I loved the rules, but those rulebooks often gave me something of an inferiority complex because my games were not mimicking the books. This is probably why I shifted to games like Shadowrun and d6 Star Wars in the nineties - our sessions didn't feel like such failures to live up to the game. These days, my favourite part about 2e is just how GM friendly it is. It really is the only edition out there that makes unique world-building "core". It is the only edition that doesn't assume a "kitchen sink" setting, and many products existed for GMs to take the game in completely non-core directions. If you wanted to make a setting that was based on imperial rome where the senator PCs fought viking goblins, 2e was your setting. And yes, I'm aware you can do that in any edition; but 2e actively encouraged this style of play. Regarding Player's Option - we used the spell points system, and loved them. It made lower-level play much more enjoyable for spell casters. Subabilities were not balanced in the slightest, and should be dropped. We did love the traits and disadvantage rules, though, and they are something I'd love to see more of. [/QUOTE]

Verification