log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 2E Yup, it's confirmed, 5E is the easiest version to run since 2E.

Reynard

Legend
Last weekend with HotDQ, our 5th level moon druid died. And my 5th level Shadow monk went down to 1 hp. :D

At TotalCon this weekend I had half the party down at one point, but given it usually takes 4 or 5 rounds to bleed out, no one actually bought it. Between stabilizing and healing, characters were able to avoid death. I do like that PCs can and do go down, though -- it means the characters that are still up have to decide whether stabilizing a buddy or continuing to hammer the bad guy is better, and meaningful decisions are the heart of what makes D&D fun.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Nellisir

Adventurer
Ive never lived in the 70s or 80s. I am just getting to know this so revered system, and i am yet to run it. Dont get me wrong i find it intriguing, but needs a definitive houserule here and there.

If you mean 2e, yeah. I was soooo happy when 3e came out. I had a binder of house rules with more pages than the PHB for 2e.
 

I find 5e easy to run, because I spent a couple decades running AD&D. Running AD&D is extremely hard - for the first 5 years or so. Eventually, though, I learned to change or ignore the rules and mostly wing it. That's how I run 5e. I hardly need notes, I just have a DM screen so players can't peek over my shoulder to check my math, and monsters hit often enough, do just enough damage, and bring just scary enough special abilities to seem formidable, yet courteously die at the dramatically appropriate time.

Now, if you didn't devote half your adult life to running D&D before 5e came out, running it is very, very hard. Running 4e, as a newbie, for instance, is night-and-day easier than trying to run 5e out of the box, if only because the encounters balance so neatly in comparison (and that is far from the only reason). Heck, even calculating the exp budget for a 5e encounter and the equivalent exp value of the monsters and resultant difficulty for the party has given even modestly experienced DMs fits. I don't find it that difficult, personally, but I also don't bother with it because I don't /need/ it and it doesn't work very consistently anyway.

5e is great for us long-time fans of the game - exactly who it was made for, IMHO, and with good reason - but it only seems simple or easy to us because it's complex and difficult in familiar ways we've long since learned to cope with to the point its second nature (and dealing with a genuinely simple or easy to run system requires effort to /not/ employ all those coping mechanisms).
 

Sonny

Adventurer
Uhh id say that 2nd edition is really awkward to run, as the system assumes that gm does absolutely everything. Calculates even attack rolls and thaco and such

That was first edition. THAC0 and the ability to calculate hits was moved to the Player's Handbook in second edition so players could do it themselves. (Though to be fair most players seemed to calculate their hits in 1e anyways.)
 

Bupp

Adventurer
5e by far is the best... Ive been playing for 30+ years, cut my teeth on 1st ed ADnD and BECMI. When 2nd ed came out it was like the greatest Xmas gift a million times over, I still love 2nd, lots of nostalgia for me with that Edition. Ive played 3, 3.5 pathfinder and 4th. I love all of them. As a fan of DnD and Table Top RPG's, I love and cherish the fact that we have 40 years and several versions to choose from and play. But 5th is different, I dont know what it is, cant really put my finger on it. But for me, 5th ed just "clicks" for me. I mean I truly get it, i get the feel and the mood and the theme, I get the essence and direction of this one, more so than I ever had with 1st, 2nd or BECMI. I think 5th may turn out to be the best by far. We can only hope:)

I feel the same way.
 

Uhh id say that 2nd edition is really awkward to run, as the system assumes that gm does absolutely everything. Calculates even attack rolls and thaco and such

Back when I was running 2e, I had players list adjusted THAC0 on their character sheets, like so:

Base THAC0: 17
Melee bonus: +1
Melee THAC0: 16
Ranged bonus: 0
Ranged THAC0: 17

Longsword +1: #AT 3/2, THAC0 14, Speed 4, Damage S-M 1d8+5/L 1d12+5
Longbow: #AT 2, THAC0 17, Speed (whatever), Damage S-M 1d8+2/L 1d8+2

(Though the weapons would be in table format - that also includes the bonus for weapon specialization for the longsword, BTW)

Then the player rolled an attack, calculated adjusted THAC0 minus the roll, and called that out as the lowest AC they'd hit. Basically the same as in 3e+, except with subtraction instead of addition.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Publisher
That was first edition. THAC0 and the ability to calculate hits was moved to the Player's Handbook in second edition so players could do it themselves. (Though to be fair most players seemed to calculate their hits in 1e anyways.)

There wasn't much calculating. Most character sheets had the attack matrix on it somewhere. So you simply rolled your attack, added your bonuses, and looked at what AC you hit. This is a Basic one, but the AD&D ones were similar

D%26D+Basic+Sheet+-+ALL1.gif
 

There wasn't much calculating. Most character sheets had the attack matrix on it somewhere. So you simply rolled your attack, added your bonuses, and looked at what AC you hit. This is a Basic one, but the AD&D ones were similar
Unlike THAC0 in 2E (and maybe BECMI... I forget), in 1E it's wasn't perfectly static. Once you got to requiring a "20," it repeated the 20 multiple times until it became 21. Also, on the other end, you could get automatic hits for additional damage. Some character sheets might have had spaces for it, as you showed, but the chart was only in the DMG.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Publisher
Unlike THAC0 in 2E (and maybe BECMI... I forget), in 1E it's wasn't perfectly static. Once you got to requiring a "20," it repeated the 20 multiple times until it became 21. Also, on the other end, you could get automatic hits for additional damage. Some character sheets might have had spaces for it, as you showed, but the chart was only in the DMG.

Yeah, the chart was only in the DMG, which is fine. but every official character sheet I ever saw had that little line of boxes on it where you put what # you needed to hit the AC. It's always been there for as long as I can remember. I still have some orange character sheets I got in 1981 I think that had them. I've never seen a character sheet without them. So I don't really buy the argument that in 1e, the DM did most of the calculations. I'm sure some did, but I'm sure the majority did not.
 

Gecko85

Explorer
Yeah, the chart was only in the DMG, which is fine. but every official character sheet I ever saw had that little line of boxes on it where you put what # you needed to hit the AC. It's always been there for as long as I can remember. I still have some orange character sheets I got in 1981 I think that had them. I've never seen a character sheet without them. So I don't really buy the argument that in 1e, the DM did most of the calculations. I'm sure some did, but I'm sure the majority did not.

Every 1e DM I knew (myself included) had the "to hit" chart from the DMG taped/stapled/glued to the inside of our DM screen. So, even if the players didn't have the info on their character sheet, it was pretty easy to look up as we went.

BTW, totally irrelevant, but...my first DM screen was the double-album sleeve for KISS Double Platinum, with important info (hit charts, etc.) affixed to the inside.
 

Icon_Charlie

First Post
Funny, my grandfather said the same thing about the 50's and 60's. Told us youngin's the 70's and 80's needed to slow down. Disco?

I'm probably closer to your Grand Father's age. So yea They indeed made a similar quote. But then again Things to me did not sped up until 1976 when we had a massive recession + economy similar to what is going on today. I can look back on the 60's, 70's, 80's, (and so on) and see the changes to our USA lifestyle. Thing really sped up when society got plugged into the internet, then again cell phones, then smart phones and so on.

Add the cost of living of today and compare it to past and now and you will find that people in this time period need to put in more hours to live their lifestyle. This means less leisure time.

To be honest generally speaking when people now want to rp, they want a casual game, not a crunchy one.

Back then we had crunchy games. Like Chart Master! (Role Master) Chivalry & Sorcery, The Fantasy Trip (one of my favorites) Traveller, (very crunchy) and so on.

But you have to remember that IMHO the beginnings of the game mechanics of RPG games derived from Miniature Board Games of that era, when I played Napoleonic Miniatures on a actual 4x8 sand table!! We contoured our hills dug out our roads and lightly sprayed it with water to pack it firm. Very cerebral, in rules and in tactics.

Then over the years RPG games evolved to what you have now. Nothing wrong with that as well.

5ED game mechanics are very easy to learn and if it brings more new blood into the realm of RPG games then I'm all for it.

Added.
I wanted to post this URL here. In a nut shell it is about productivity vs pay for that productivity.
This is important as money can = freedom = leisure time = to do as you damn well want to do. This supports my comment. People working in this era do not have the buying power as in the past. and this means you have to work more to keep what you have.

You guys are essentially overworked with less time on your hands. Generally speaking, the last thing that most people wants to do on what is left of their leisure time is something that reminds them of work.

5th ED is casual gaming like board games. Casual gaming, not cerebral crunchy gaming.

And I am a proponent of anything that brings in more people into the realm of RPG's, since I believe it builds imagination and character.


The article is from the
Atlantic web site.
The name of the article in question is -
Why the Gap Between Worker Pay and Productivity Is So Problematic
The URL is - http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ay-and-productivity-is-so-problematic/385931/

This is just informative reading. Enjoy
.B-)
 
Last edited:

GX.Sigma

Adventurer
Now, if you didn't devote half your adult life to running D&D before 5e came out, running it is very, very hard. Running 4e, as a newbie, for instance, is night-and-day easier than trying to run 5e out of the box, if only because the encounters balance so neatly in comparison (and that is far from the only reason).

As someone who started DMing 4e as a total newbie (and then didn't DM again until the D&D Next playtest), I strongly disagree. Encounter balance has nothing to do with it; we didn't even understand the 3 types of actions, 3 types of powers, 4 defenses, healing surges, second winds, action points, cover modifiers...
 


Gizmoduck_5000

First Post
I haven't run 5E, only played. But I can already tell that it will be much quicker and easier than 3 or 4E. Converting old adventure modules has been a breeze so far.
 

As someone who started DMing 4e as a total newbie (and then didn't DM again until the D&D Next playtest), I strongly disagree. Encounter balance has nothing to do with it; we didn't even understand the 3 types of actions, 3 types of powers, 4 defenses, healing surges, second winds, action points, cover modifiers...
So having already learned those things in 4e, you find it easier to re-learn the subtly (and not so subtly) different 3 types actions, 7 or so types of powers (spells, slots, attacks, cantrips, ki powers, totems, manuevers, etc), 7 defenses, Hit Dice, second wind, action surge, arcane recovery, expertise, mastery, adv/dis, proficiency, &c of 5e?

Sure, there's a learning curve for entering the hobby. If you think 4e strained you a bit, be thankful you didn't start with AD&D or 3e or Rolemaster or something....
 

Mark CMG

Creative Mountain Games
That is because back there society and lifestyle was a LOT slower. People had time to work and create with whatever gaming system that they had on hand, which in many cases were far more complex then they are now.

Most people today's society do not have the leisure time as they had back in the 70's - 80's.

Today it is the too fast paced, always on the go mentality.


I was born in the early 60s and have been a gamer (of all stripes) since the early 70s, yet I do not find this to be true. I'd have to also say that advancements in technology have made things easier by far: wrangling games, creating setting elements, running games, etc. I have more time now but in any given hour of time I can get hugely more done in regard to learning games, running them, and creating stuff for RPGs.


And 5th ED is easy to use.


I agree with this though, in and of itself. But I've mostly been a core rules guy who used almost no house rules ever, and I have never found any system all that tough to run. I've almost always used my own setting since (O)D&D and I guess it is easier now to do so than ever because 40 years of work has already gone into it.
 

I agree it is easy to run, as that is one of the design focuses. There is no way for 2nd edition, or AD&D to compete as those games did not have the huge advantage of hind sight.

I prefer something like 4E that was also simple to run, but had more depth and a consistency to the rule base.

More or less exactly my perspective on the matter. 4e was very simple--and also ported a lot of the complexity to the player side--if a DM took advantage of all the tools available, especially the Monster Builder. Yes, this meant paying for a subscription, but the tools were worth the money. Once we got the MM3-on-a-business-card, you didn't even really need the MB, except as inspiration for special abilities (and I'd hardly call that a need).

5e simplifies a lot of different things than 4e simplified. It also plays faster and looser with a lot of things--DCs are just scaled by 5s, monster balance is substantially more approximate, class balance is substantially more approximate, etc. I see it as the difference between two numerical solutions to a problem: one has more inner workings but is more precise (like an RK4 approximation) while the other is less resource-intensive but also has wider error bars and higher sensitivity to things like step-size changes. Both work; both will get you comfortably close to the "correct" answer. One is just more...rigorous than the other, and with something as aesthetic and personal as gaming, not everyone wants rigor.

My Pathfinder games would run as quickly as my current 5E games. Though I do think that less "system mastery" is involved in being able to maintain quick running.
The possible downside of this for 5E is I'm still not sure if 5E will continue to offer fresh experiences 18 to 36 months from now.
The narrative, of course, will be just as diverse. There is no difference whatsoever because that part isn't between the covers of any game.
But if the game doesn't deliver enough mechanical diversity to satisfy making a vast range of narratives constantly feel distinct, then it will wane for me. I've seen hints going both ways, so far.

Yeah, this is a concern of mine as well, if I ever get invited into a 5e game. I'm big on mechanical hooks and exploring a mechanical space. (For example, I love the fact that many races work in substantially different ways in the game Endless Legend--even bog-standard humans have special tricks.) I've played Dungeon World for a long time now, and playing in such a light system has sharpened my preference into hunger. I'm not sure 5e would prove satisfying, mechanically, in the long term. Just as you say, the narrative satisfaction would probably be just fine--but that's not defined by (though it might be informed by) what's written in the books.
 
Last edited:

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top