My position is a lot of the "differences" you're seeing here are cultural or generational. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if 2e adventures (or retro-clones) being written today bore little resemblance to the older ones. More time means more time to learn from previous mistakes.
first, I think those cultutal and generational diffrences are reflected in the rules. I do not look back saying "Man I want to play 2e again"
I even understand some of the changes are needed one, and alot of them make the game better. I am now though looking for what changes made the game diffrent.
And I disagree. Other than the warforged, those races or equivalents existed in 2e. There were weird undead races in Ravenloft (or was that Requiem?), just like there's weird robot races in Eberron in 3.x. While some of the 4e core races (dragonborn) are weird, some have existed a long time (tieflings, I don't believe they were ever core previously). 4e even dropped a weird race - gnomes, seemingly a comedic cross between dwarves, halflings and elves - that only seem to have a reason to exist in Eberron. (Kudos to Keith Baker's Gnomes of Zilargo article for making gnomes cool again.)
I disagree 2e was set up to be PHB1 as core, and everything else added. 4e was set up to be everything core.
Example: 2e Mul did not get support in any non DS books (that I know of)
example: 4e genesi and swordmage get support in arcane power.
It is diffrent set ups. Did you see weird stuff in 2e, YES. Was the defualt assumtion that all of it was there, no.
I remeber councle of wyrms had half dragons, and the under dark book had drow, and 12 or 13 years ago I could most likely name 10 more races in books.
How ever 4e has 3 Phb, 3 campaing worlds, and gnoll and reverant in Dragon, and now heros of shadow and heroes of fey bringing more.
DO you really look at them and see the exact same?
If you didn't want weird races affecting the story, you should have told your players they can only play PH1 or PH1-3 races.
1st of all I am one of 6 people sitting down to game, I think it highly rude to say "No one can play what they want tonight" second, I was not complaining, or stating a value judgment. I was telling you what changed.
That would mean no vampires, no revenants, no warforged, and they wouldn't be affecting your story. Instead, you allowed anything. If you did that in 2e, you could have a party full of werescorpions -- as I saw in one of my first games -- or any of the weird races in Spelljammer (zikchil, rastipede, giff), Planescape (bariaur), Dark Sun (muls, thri-kreen, half-giants) and what have you.
I saw 3 bariaurs, 2 muls, 3-4 half dragons, more drow then I want to count, the flying elf, a pixy, a vampire, 2 were wolfs, a were rat, and 3 were bears... and like 200 humans, 100 elf, 50 dwarf and 50 half elfs...
in 4e the choices are more vairied...it makes the group of 5 out there races more likly.
So in short, that's a game issue -- your decision to allow everything -- and has nothing to do with editions.
I disagree
now to the big one:
Sure.
There is only one solution to the problem. Your players have gone through the adventure already and so know it. What if they didn't? They could have missed a clue, failed a NWP/skill check, etc. And then they're stuck. That's bad adventure writing.
there was no skil or NWP or clue that was soo important missing it meant throwing the game away. Not in high school, not now. You are just makeing things up here.
the game flows...and you have multi clues and multi checks and It is HIGHLY unlikly that they miss them all (But if they do you put in more).
Of course, saying that, this was before I knew that getting the swords was as big a part of the adventure as facing the bad guy.
so was learnign of the story of the swords, and talking to lots of things along the way...
But I think, based on cultural evolution rather than rules, that it's still bad writing, and today's adventures, regardless of edition or even rule set, wouldn't be written that way.
So let me get this straight. I designed a contanant and placed in it 5 artafact swords (In pentagram patern of cource) that made a cirlce of power that locked a giant evil away. Each of these items had there own feel, and powers, and each was more then powerful enough to take out the courption angel.
I let the PCs explore the land, make friends and enemies. They choose to get the swords (the first time with no thought, this time as a last hail mary) Months of 2e gameing every week were spent traveling and searching and getting the swords.
When the PCs got the swords they loved them, and used them and beat the coruption angel. The problem was that when they were getting the second sword they had freed a greater threat (Praxton) and they were now moving on to handle him when game blew up.
and you think that is bad gameing and bad story telling?
You could certainly make a mistake like that in 4e. "This character is a demi-god/demon prince/whatever. Only the Five Swords of Whatever can kill him. He's just immune to everything else." The rules don't stop it. New trends in adventure writing usually do.
see this is NOT what it was in 2e, but what it came to be in 4e. Again the swords were not built to be the prison (they were used to power the prision but that was not any of there orignal purpose they all had stories) They were not meant to fight the bad guy at all.
They were POWERFUL enough to be used by the PCs that way. In 2e the rule of needing +x to hit was not a rare and mighty enchantment.
If I remember wights and vampires could at low level have need +1. I 3e they took away immunity (Not a judgment call I am not debating good or bad here) and made DR. so it would look like DR 20/+3 or something...but PCs could craft there own weapons (in 2e they could but it was unlikly). in 3.5 they made it easier still by makeing it 20/magic (Not a judgment call I am not debating good or bad here). a +1 became just as likly to hurt something as a +5. They kept the idea of /epic though.
In 4e that stuff is now gone (Not a judgment call I am not debating good or bad here). ressist works diffrent then DR or immunity.
In 2e they sat down and heard "Need a +3 to hurt them" and "Legend of a mighty +3 sword" and that was fine... in 4e "Non magic weapons don't work" does nto fit the system as well.
Now remember None of this stoped me. I just found solutions...some easy, some took a little time, none too hard. However when the rules help shape the world and the story, the changes to rules change the story and the world.
I think culture shapes them a lot more. But you keep going at the rules and not changes in the way people play. Maybe it's an age difference - I'm in my thirties, so old enough to have played 2e but not as set in my ways as an older player might be. I'm sure younger people who write and run 2e DnD adventures today will do so differently than your group does.
I turn 31 in sept. so we are closer in age then you think. And I doubt 1/10th of the number of 15 year olds are playing 2e today as back in 95...so that is really hard to say.
I know there are "retro-clones" out there. I wonder if anyone has read any of their adventures, and can see if I'm onto something there.
I would as well, but I also wonder if you could step back and see this a diffrent way.
try this one. In 2e my 2nd level wizard had 2d4 hp, and could cast 2 1st level spells per day.
In 4e my 2nd level wizard has 30hp, and has 2 at wills, 1 encounter, 1 daily, and a utlitiy power.
they story of Linus the Evocer is very diffrent at level 2 in both. In 2e he needs to be very afraid (1d10 can kill him, and he only has 2 rounds at his best). In 4e he is part of the party from day one.
at level 12 the worm has turned, and 2e wizard (still maybe with 30 hp) can put up buffs like stone skin that just negate attacks (I use to love waiting for a DM to call enough damage to kill me then say "Wow I only have X hp, but pink...thats one off my stone skin" there is just no equvalant in 4e to that.
