D&D 5E what is it about 2nd ed that we miss?

[Ancalagon]

At the end of the day this thread is about "What do you like about 2e?" And some people have been curious why someone would like something when they see a better version. Let's look at it in the "city": There is a restaurant people like to go to. Person A talks about how to get their the fastest by taking this road to this road to this road and BAM. Done. Person B talks about how they like to take this longer route to the restaurant because they like the view. Neither route is inherently wrong. Both routes accomplish the end goal - while also best serving the individual who takes that path. WHY Person A likes one thing, and Person B likes another is only knowable to them (intrinsically), but their why is irrelevant to an objective outside observer - who should ask not "What route would I have used?" (rules for rules) but instead, "Did the route achieve the objective?" (Getting to the restaurant, or the use made from the form of the rules).

I agree with your analysis that neither route is inherently wrong. But I do disagree that the why is irrelevant to an objective outsider. Explaining the why is the only way we can actually have a discussion that is productive. Otherwise it's nothing but "this route/edition is the best" "no that route/edition is far better, are you blind?!" etc etc.

Also, why are people arguing about 4e in a thread where we try to understand the appeal of 2nd edition?

 

[Dorian_Grey]

See my post below!

 

[Dorian_Grey]

I agree with your analysis that neither route is inherently wrong. But I do disagree that the why is irrelevant to an objective outsider. Explaining the why is the only way we can actually have a discussion that is productive. Otherwise it's nothing but "this route/edition is the best" "no that route/edition is far better, are you blind?!" etc etc.

Also, why are people arguing about 4e in a thread where we try to understand the appeal of 2nd edition?

I came completely to the opposite conclusion - though for a different reason: I think what you are saying is that understanding why someone likes something helps with understanding them. And you're right to an extent. However, I find that the why usually dissolves into an effort to "Prove" why someone's specific statement is fundamentally wrong. For example:

Player A: "I hate 4e because it's to complex! But I like 2e weapon rules!"
Player B: "But 2e weapon rules were to complex! You're fundamentally wrong!"
​

Where the goal discussion becomes more like this:

Player A: "I had a lot of fun with the 2e weapon rules!"
Player B: "I had a lot of fun with the 4e character creation rules!"
Player C: "I am not having fun with 3e skills."
Player A: "This is how we handle skills in 2e! Do you like this option?"
Player B: "This is how we handle skills in 4e! Do you like this option?"
​

Now, you would see an ideal situation of someone coming in and saying:

Player D: "WHY don't you like the skills in 3e? I know a lot of systems and maybe I can help you find something you'll like!"​

Which would be awesome... I just don't think it happens to much.

 

[pemerton]

Come to think of it, how many pictures of castles were in the 4e PHB versus 2e PHB? I don't remember any distinct castle pictures in 4e PHB, maybe I'm wrong. I'm pretty sure 2e had more castles.

Interesting question.

I haven't reviewed my 2nd ed PHB. In the 4e PHB and DMG, all I found was a picture of a German-style turret tower sticking out of trees (PHB, p 40), an audience chamber (PHB, p184) and a tower surrounded in swirling energy (DMG, p 109). There were more illustrations of structures and settlements in various later books, including a very nice shrine illustration in (I think) Complete Divine, and quite a bit in the Essentials books.

 

[pemerton]

Did 2e use the same rules for NPCs as it did for PCs?

I'm not 100% sure, but I thought that it still used the AD&D conventions of 0-level NPCs, mercenaries with 1d4+3 hp attacking as 0-level fighters, etc.

It was not until 3E that NPCs were put into a universal class-level framework. (Although they still had to invent pseudo-classes - the so-called NPC classes - to actually make this work.)

 

[pemerton]

why are people arguing about 4e in a thread where we try to understand the appeal of 2nd edition?

I think because 4e and 2nd ed AD&D both aspire to produce stories of fantasy heroes undertaking fantastic adventures (and so are both quite different from classic Gygaxian D&D), but use extremely different methods to get there.

2nd ed AD&D has almost no mechanics to produce this outcome - it has almost no mechanics beyond those found in AD&D (and before that, in OD&D + Supplements). So it relies almost entirely on GM force to produce this outcome - as per, say, [MENTION=6801878]Dorian_Grey[/MENTION]'s example in post 250 upthread, of gifting players with special resources for their PCs.

4e has probably the most intricate mechanics of any version of D&D. The combat mechanics come close to guaranteeing conflicts in which the heroes will struggle, but then - by drawing upon the depth of their resources, which will include the inspiration of the divinely gifted or merely gifted - turn the tide and overcome the odds confronting them. 4e also has mechanics for resolving non-violent conflicts in a similar dynamic way, with a story-like finality of outcome built in (ie the skill challenge mechanics).

The monster build rules, as set out in the default MMs, in conjunction with the PC build and tier system, come close to guaranteeing that a default campaign will unfold "the story of D&D" - starting with kobolds, finishing with Orcus or Demogorgon. And the PC build rules, especially for Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies, also guarantee that the PCs will be invested in the escalating fiction of the campaign - as Knight Commanders, Demigods, Archmages, etc.

Unlike in 2nd ed AD&D, all these outcomes will be generated just by opening the books and pressing the play button - it doesn't need the GM manipulation that 2nd ed AD&D does. It's built into the system, and follows near-automatically from the deployment of that system.

Whether this difference is a positive or negative is something on which opinions differ.

 

[pemerton]

I never saw a listless, boring fighter until 3e/WotC era D&D. When you give people a list of discrete stuff they can do, they tend to only try to do stuff that's on the list.

The most "listless, boring" fighters that I ever saw were in 2nd ed AD&D, in the S&P game I mentioned upthread.

Because noone had advised them how to build effective characters, they were outshone in combat by my cleric. Who also had clerical magic.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Huh. I read those books several times but until you wrote that it never occurred to me that I didn't know how old Fflewddur Fflam was. I guess I thought of him as kind of middle-aged or something, purely because he was old (i.e. grown-up) compared to Taran and Eilonwy.

This slightly changes how I few Ffleddur.

Whoa. That is my weirdest typo of the past month. Not only did I type "few" instead of "view", but I reread it several times and didn't realize the typo was there until just now.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The CCG term is wierd for me. If someone accuses 4e of "being a CCG" then I disagree. But if someone says "I feel like 4e is a CCG" then I acknowledge their view. CCG is kinda shorthand for:

4e PHB bucked tradition. 2e PHB claimed OD&D 1e compatability.
4e PHB had brighter fantasy artwork. 2e had dark shading & realistic artwork.
4e PHB didn't reference old settings much. 2e PHB didn't have settings to refer to?
4e PHB/MM were organized rulebooks. 2e core books were I assume rules novels?
4e PHB denied the OGL, and was funded by MtG - The Company. Did TSR sell CCGs?
4e PHB cleric was just another healer. 2e PHB cleric was the only allowed healer.
4e PHB had back-to-back pages of power cards with no artwork... or "toon" artwork.
4e MM had the Nymph and Succubus as Politically correct. 2e showed skin.

So what did we miss from 2e? It attempted backward compatability, it used realistic artwork, it didn't ignore settings, it was written like a novel, it wasn't tied to a prominent CCG company, it wasn't responsible for ending the OGL, it enshrined the cleric with exclusive healing, didn't have back-to-back pages of Rules Boxes (with a token line of flavor text at the top), and it took the clothes off the succubus.

What did I miss?

The main card gamist/WotC influences I see in 5E, relative to 2nd edition, are that:

(1) Every capability has a reified name. Whereas TSR might have written "a bard's companions get +1 to saving throws vs. charm while the bard is singing," WotC will write, "Countercharm: as an action, the bard can begin a song... non-hostile creatures get advantage vs. charm..."

(2) Capabilities are defined primarily in gamist terms. WotC will think up a mechanically-cool ability like Bardic Inspiration, Cutting Words, give it a snappy name per #1 and a place in the action economy (bonus action/reaction), and give absolutely no thought to roleplaying considerations such as just how exactly a bard is using one mouth simultaneously to give an inspiring speech to a companion (bonus action Bardic Inspiration), insult an enemy (reaction Cutting Words), and cast a spell (action Fireball) using his kazoo as an arcane focus, all in the same six seconds. As I recall 2nd edition, there was no such strong distinction between "fluff" and "crunch" (unused terms back then) because the fluff was primary: if the bard can spend an hour giving a rousing speech to his companions which heartens them against fear and boosts their morale, we know exactly what he is doing in-universe. He's not "spending his bonus action to give them a d8 Inspiration Dice" that they can later expend.

(3) There's an implicit structure to capabilities, and the writers avoid going outside the box. Capabilities are strictly-defined to avoid potentially upsetting mechanical balances, even when it's probably not necessary. Contrast 2nd edition's Tarrasque which caused fear in anything that could see it (no range limitation, although higher-level/HD creatures were less vulnerable) to 5E's Tarrasque that causes fear within some ridiculously tiny radius (120'?) that WotC writers probably think is a large radius. Is there any reason why the Tarrasque's fear should have such a small radius of effect? Were they genuinely concerned that it would be bad if the Tarrasque caused fear in things a mile away? I don't get that impression. I think they're just used to thinking of 120' as an appropriate radius for a high-level creature ability (ancient black dragon breath goes 120') that allows easy access to a "typical" medium-sized battlegrid. It's not so much, I think, that WotC would have found unlimited-range Tarrasque fear a balance problem as that they simply have no reason to break their own pattern here; 120' is enough for the scenarios they're thinking about. They're not thinking in terms of an infinite-resolution roleplaying world, they're thinking primarily in terms of their own gamist jargon.

All three of these aspects remind me of card games.

 

[Maxperson]

The most "listless, boring" fighters that I ever saw were in 2nd ed AD&D, in the S&P game I mentioned upthread.

Because noone had advised them how to build effective characters, they were outshone in combat by my cleric. Who also had clerical magic.

Yeah, but it's a shame that it took Skills and Powers to allow fighters some bit of mechanical variation other than which weapon and non-weapon proficiencies were taken. That was waaaaaay too many years without that ability.