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

[Ancalagon]

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.

I'll be frank here and note that my experience of 4e is very limited. I started looking at the rules, went NOPE and walked away. Not saying it was not good, but it was clearly not good for me. I dabbled a bit with essentials later on but not much more beyond level 1-2 stuff.

So I had no idea about this "baked in epic hero stuff". I'm going to take your word for it. And I do like this kind of epic heroic stuff! But... should it be baked in the system? What happens if we want to play a bunch of shifty rogue-ish anti-heroes?

 

[Ancalagon]

I have never played 5 E because after looking a 3 E I shook my head and said just give me AD&D 2 and that has been how it is ever since. maybe I should check out 5 E , but truly, I love the world Ulear that my husband created using AD&D 2. Perhaps I will check out 5 and if I like it I will buy it and then see if my husband and work his world using 5's system. Just a thought. Though I agree perhaps it is the nostalgia I like the most.

Welcome to the forum!

A big "improvement" of 3e was taking some of the mechanics of D&D and streamlining them into a solid, clear unified mechanism - the d20 system. So the foundations of the system are *very* strong.

And now that they had this rock solid foundation, they built a much more complex game on top. Some people liked this new game, but others thought it went just too far.

Me... I'm of two mind. I like playing a 3.x/pathfinder game. But when it comes to *running* the game... it's just too much. 5e seems to be a bit like a return to sanity. The solid foundation is kept, but the game built on it is far simpler, and has some elements of 2nd ed still in it. So yes, I too encourage you to look a the free rules. If you don't like it, 2nd ed is still there for you

 

[pemerton]

should it be baked in the system? What happens if we want to play a bunch of shifty rogue-ish anti-heroes?

To answer the second question - I think in 4e you'll struggle a bit, or at least will have to drift the system in various ways. For instance, as written magic items aren't something you win, but something you accrue - which mightn't work for your roguish game. Also, as written combat tends towards the florid and overt rather than the subtle and covert - which mightn't work for your roguish game either. There are things that can be done to change both these things a bit (various 4e players have posted various options and approaches over the years), but I think I've given a fair description of the default.

As to your first question: personally I like a game that knows what it wants to do and does it well. If it doesn't do what I'm looking for, I'll find something else. Not everyone looks at games the same way, though.

If I wanted to do roguish anti-heroes using a version of D&D I'd probably adapt 1st ed AD&D and insist that every character be a multi-classed thief.

 

[Ancalagon]

I meant more "rogueish" in character, not class

I'll also note that the background mechanics in 5e are a great way to give basic "rogueish" attribues to classes that may no have them otherwise

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'll be frank here and note that my experience of 4e is very limited. ...
So I had no idea about this "baked in epic hero stuff". I'm going to take your word for it.

Don't take anyone's word about 4e. There's been too much - let's politely call it 'controversy' - and over-analysis.

What happens if we want to play a bunch of shifty rogue-ish anti-heroes?

Then you do that. For instance, I'm playing a shifty (shifty doesn't begin to describe it, really) dishonored dragonborn in a campaign that'll be entering Epic level when it re-convenes in June.

In heroic fantasy there's this trope that the hero has to face terrible foes, suffer set-backs, rally and carry the day. Over and over again, in defiance of odds, common sense, &c. Games like 13A go there, and so did 4e (which is what pemerton was getting at, I think, though maybe not because 'epic' oversells it, 'merely' heroic says it all, IMHO), but for the most part, D&D doesn't. It goes part way there, with hit points and saving throws acting something like 'plot armor' (another familiar, related, trope from fiction), but then takes a left turn by making said come-from-behind rallying contingent upon having a pious guy in heavy armor lay glowy healing on you.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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!"
​

A good hypothetical example. A lot of discussions did fall into that structure. Someone likes one edition and hates another, but the reasons given are inherently self-contradictory. Liking the 'simplicity' of one edition over the 'complexity' of another, when it is actually the preferred edition that is the more complicated one. There is something going on with arguments like that, and it can very easily start to look like animosity or dishonesty, when it's more likely just a lack of reflection.

To harp on the same example, a complicated thing that you're very familiar with seems simple enough to use, while a simpler, but unfamiliar thing can be more difficult, at first.

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..."

Yep. And monsters started getting less generic names, too. It generates copyrightable/trademarkable IP, even if it sounds a little silly at times.

(2) Capabilities are defined primarily in gamist terms.

Meh. D&D has always been a game.

(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.

'Necessary' is a matter of degree, depending upon how functional a game you want to produce. Early D&D did go crazy piling limitations on things and trying to balance them. You had hard weapon/armor restrictions, stat minimums, exp bonuses, differing exp charts, weighted treasure tables - all manner of baroque mechanisms in place.

All three of these aspects remind me of card games.

Two examples where the developers came right out and said they were cribbing from WotC's successful CCG developments, were:
1) rewards for system mastery in 3e, and
2) 'exception based design' in 4e.

FWIW.

 

[pemerton]

I meant more "rogueish" in character, not class

Yes, I know! But still, if I was going to do that in D&D I'd probably use the approach I stated - 1st ed AD&D with obligatory thief multi-class.

I wouldn't use 4e for the reasons I've already given (and this has come up in another thread we're both posting in too).

I don't think I'd use 5e, because I'm not sure it's gritty enough to do roguish anti-heroes - in particular, I think it's a bit spell-laden.

Of course this is all just taste!

(And looking at [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]'s posts not far upthread, he seems to be pushing 4e into territory that I might not. RPGs can often be pretty flexible.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes, I know! But still, if I was going to do that in D&D I'd probably use the approach I stated - 1st ed AD&D with obligatory thief multi-class.

Odd coincidence: I started a campaign like that back in '85. It fairly quickly grew into a campaign that ran 10+ years and hit high levels - but only after almost all the players had abandoned that concept and started new, non-thiefly PC.

I don't think I'd use 5e, because I'm not sure it's gritty enough to do roguish anti-heroes - in particular, I think it's a bit spell-laden.

I don't see why that requires grit. You could be roguish anti-heroes and positively light-hearted and comical, for instance.

Seriously, though, anti-heroes don't necessarily deviate from genre conventions like standing up to seemingly hopeless odds or coming back from a beating to win the battle. They differ mostly in attitudes and motivations, and occasionally a little in the details of their tactics.

(And looking at [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]'s posts not far upthread, he seems to be pushing 4e into territory that I might not. RPGs can often be pretty flexible.)

Seems to me that 4e had a lot of options if you wanted to build a shadier sort of character.

 

[pemerton]

I don't see why that requires grit. You could be roguish anti-heroes and positively light-hearted and comical, for instance.

Seriously, though, anti-heroes don't necessarily deviate from genre conventions like standing up to seemingly hopeless odds or coming back from a beating to win the battle. They differ mostly in attitudes and motivations, and occasionally a little in the details of their tactics.

Seems to me that 4e had a lot of options if you wanted to build a shadier sort of character.

If by "roguish anti-heroes" we're meaning Conan at his more mercenary, or something a bit Vance-ish, then I think 4e can do it.

Though maybe you'd want to stop at or around Paragon tier - at that point, by default at least PCs tend to get invested in the gameworld in ways that are at odds with roguish anti-heroics. Perhaps they could all be Demonskin Adepts, Pit Fighters, some sort of sinister warlock, etc; but who would be their adversaries? Once you're taking on the leaders of the points of light, and the gods and angels who sustain them, I think you've graduated beyond mere roguish anti-heroics!

When [MENTION=23]Ancalagon[/MENTION] mentioned roguish anti-heroes I envisaged something a bit more gritty, and pettily rather than cosmologically dark in tone. That's what I feel 4e is not so well suited for.

 

[Tony Vargas]

When [MENTION=23]Ancalagon[/MENTION] mentioned roguish anti-heroes I envisaged something a bit more gritty, and pettily rather than cosmologically dark in tone. That's what I feel 4e is not so well suited for.

Like 'low fantasy,' in that, not just that there's grey morality in there, but that the scope is more constrained, the themes being more everyman challenges, and coping with bad personal consequences, than heroic challenges and heading off disastrous consequences of greater cope?