PDA

View Full Version : New to 2e



Erith
2009-10-13, 11:03 PM
I just raided a used book store for all of their 2e books. I got the players handbook, dungeon masters guide, tome of magic, and a couple class guides, I think it was ranger, priest, and psion. Unfortunately there were no monster manuals.

I now have 2 questions.

Is there a good online source for 2e encounters, or do I need to hunt down a copy of the monster manual?

What are some of the main differences between 2e and 3.5? To me it just seems that 2e had a new mechanic for every check, and 3e tried to tie everything into a core mechanic(ability or skill checks) and adjust dc's accordingly.

infinitypanda
2009-10-14, 01:00 AM
Is there a good online source for 2e encounters, or do I need to hunt down a copy of the monster manual?
I think that with a bit of tweaking, you could adapt OSRIC's monsters to 2e. http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/ I haven't really looked at OSRIC in-depth, but OSRIC is similar to 1e which is similar to 2e, so it might work.


What are some of the main differences between 2e and 3.5? To me it just seems that 2e had a new mechanic for every check, and 3e tried to tie everything into a core mechanic(ability or skill checks) and adjust dc's accordingly.

2e is pretty much completely different in every single way. Don't go into it thinking the rules are the same as 3.5, except for when they're different. Go into it thinking that the rules are different from 3.5, except where they're the same.

sambo.
2009-10-14, 01:12 AM
What are some of the main differences between 2e and 3.5?
2ed fixed some of the more obviously FUBAR aspects of 1ed, but didn't manage to make the game any easier to understand, especially for newbies.

3ed basically scrapped everything that came before it in terms of dice mechanics, skill checks and the like and became a while lot easier to understand.

for example: a Dex check in 1ed (and some aspects of 2ed) involved rolling under your Dexterity with 1d20. sometimes you wanted to roll high, sometimes you wanted to roll low and don't get me started on the mind bending magic of THAC0. sometimes you added AC bonus', sometimes you subtracted them and all the while thinking "there had got to be a better way".

i have a large amount of 1ed and 2ed stuff in boxes under my bed. i only ever pull them out when i'm looking for some wierd plot hook.

having played 1ed extensivly and a decent smattering of 2ed, i can honestly say 3ed is a much, much better game system to work with. both as a DM and as a player. i havn't looked at 4ed yet so am unqualified to comment.

sadi
2009-10-14, 01:20 AM
Limited weapon proficiencies. Your fighter type starts with 4 and gets 1 more every 3 levels, clerics + thieves/bards get 2 and 1 more every 4 levels i believe, wizards get 1 and 1 more every 6 i think. The armor class system is a bit weird, you start at 10 as naked and go towards -10 as being the best. The to hit system is based on what number you need to roll to hit armor class 0. No bonus spells for wizard types based on ability scores so they're extremely fragile at low levels. No free form multiclassing, if you want to be multiclass you have to do it at level 1, and you divide your xp by the number of classes you have. Normally multiclass choices are based on your race too.

The main difference is 3.x is all about player flexibility, if you want to do something you can pretty much do it, while the older versions gave players fewer options to work with. If this is a bad thing is all up to personal opinion.

JadedDM
2009-10-14, 01:29 AM
Honestly, there are so many differences between 2E and 3E that it'd be easier for you to just read through the rulebooks than for us to list them off for you. I mean, there's level limits, race/class restrictions, magic spells and items are far more dangerous, THAC0, reversed AC, static XP, no CR or LA, five saving throws instead of three, initiative each round, and so on and so on...

That's just off the top of my head!

Korivan
2009-10-14, 02:01 AM
2e is pretty much completely different in every single way. Don't go into it thinking the rules are the same as 3.5, except for when they're different. Go into it thinking that the rules are different from 3.5, except where they're the same.

The problem with some of my players is that they still think in terms of 2E. Familers are a liability

evocation spells don't suck as much

MR is rarer and harder to bypass (though you have Lower Resistance in TOM)

make sure your players get magic weapons when they need them as there is no more DR.

Rulings tend to be more DM dependent, having checks for everything will get tedius, sometimes its easier just to railroad certain things.

Power and options is a bit more limited, you'll see fighters, thieves, and alot of cleric and mages played about the same.

Matthew
2009-10-14, 05:21 AM
Welcome to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Erith.

Some of the best online resources going for monsters and encounters are Kellri's CDD#1 Statblock References (http://kellri.truculent.org/CDD%231%20-%20Statblock%20Reference.pdf) and CDD#4 Encounter References (http://kellri.truculent.org/CDD%234%20-%20ENCOUNTERS%20Reference.pdf). As mentioned above, OSRIC is your best bet for complete monster entries via the OGL.

The Rose Dragon
2009-10-14, 05:46 AM
You know why 2nd Edition is Advanced D&D while 3rd Edition is only D&D? Because 3rd Edition may be simpler, but it also took away many things that made AD&D great.

So, while it will take you sometime to get used to 2nd Edition, you can't go wrong with it.

((Except for the level limits for some class / race combinations. What the hell is up with that, anyway?))

Matthew
2009-10-14, 05:58 AM
((Except for the level limits for some class / race combinations. What the hell is up with that, anyway?))

Heh, heh. Archetype reinforcement in the case of the latter, and an attempt to prevent multiclass characters from dominating for the former, I would say.

bosssmiley
2009-10-14, 07:39 AM
I just raided a used book store for all of their 2e books. I got the players handbook, dungeon masters guide, tome of magic, and a couple class guides, I think it was ranger, priest, and psion. Unfortunately there were no monster manuals.

Shoot! That right there is more rules than I ever used in about 10 years of TSR D&D play. :smallamused:


I now have 2 questions.

Is there a good online source for 2e encounters, or do I need to hunt down a copy of the monster manual?

Find a copy of the Monstrous Manual if you can (it is what MMs should be IMO). Bidding can get steep on a good copy online, but you might get lucky with bargain bins again.


What are some of the main differences between 2e and 3.5? To me it just seems that 2e had a new mechanic for every check, and 3e tried to tie everything into a core mechanic(ability or skill checks) and adjust dc's accordingly.

2E is the result of a very different design methodology to 3E. 3E was designed from the ground up using a single core mechanic. 2E is an attempted clean-up of a collection of linked sub-systems that Gygax et al kludged together over years.

The thing is: you're not expected to use all the rules. You only use the ones that make sense for/appeal to your gaming group.

Do the [foo], [bar] or [skub] rules presented not match the requirements of your game? (too/insufficiently abstract/realistic/complex) Throw them out and replace them with something you like better! The plug-and-play modularity of the TSR D&D system makes this much easier than trying to modify the intricate spider-web of the 3E mechanics.


Except for the level limits for some class / race combinations. What the hell is up with that, anyway?

Zarus commands that them uppity non-humans larn thur place. Even the idea of them having separate classes and races was a step too far. :smalltongue:

"What class are you?"
"I'm a multi-classed wood elf fighter/magic-user/thie-" *SLAP!*
"Let's try that again, shall we? What class are you?"
"I'm an Elf. Just an Elf. Please stop hitting me."

Matthew
2009-10-14, 07:43 AM
Actually, that reminds me, there is an online version of the Monstrous Manual. Perhaps it was released like the Complete Book of Necromancers, I am not sure; anyway, I think it is hosted by a D&D site here (http://www.dotd.com/mm/index.htm).

hamlet
2009-10-14, 08:20 AM
While OSRIC can definately provide you with enough monsters to go on, I do recommend that you grab hold of the monstrous compendiums for 2nd edition. They are, as was mentioned above, truly superior in form if not content. Plus, 2nd edition put out a LOT of monsters that were just plain old cool. Grave elementals? Doppleganger plants? Oh, those just scream fun. And for extra win, there's the ghoul lord. Spring one of them on your players and watch them squirm!

They are not expensive despite what others say. Head over to Noble Knight and you can pick them all up (or most of them anyway) for reasonable prices. I'd recommend the monstrous compendiums (MC) over the Monstrous Manual (MM) most days even though MM's art was, IMO, superior because when they were transfered to the MM, a number of monsters got their numbers flubbed, or important abilities left off.

As for rules, you don't need ANYTHING other than the PHB, DMG, and either the MC or MM (or OSRIC for that matter). I'd recommend leaving out the class guide books, at least for now. They complicate matters unduly, especially when trying to learn the game.

t_catt11
2009-10-14, 08:58 AM
I love me some 2e. Add in a few houserules to fix the broken stuff, and you're good to go.

Free multiclassing? Psh. I personally LIKE the idea that if you spent your whole life training to be a knight, you can't just pick up spellcasting abilities in one level. Yes, it kills flexibility, but it's much more realistic, in my opinion.

OP, check for my PM.

Kylarra
2009-10-14, 09:02 AM
Woo 2e, I got a nice hardcopy of the pbh for only $0.50 at a booksale a while ago.

In addition to the differing rules of 3.X vs 2e, the entire mentality is different. In 3.x there's an expectation of player survival to high levels, 2e... not so much.

The Rose Dragon
2009-10-14, 09:04 AM
In addition to the differing rules of 3.X vs 2e, the entire mentality is different. In 3.x there's an expectation of player survival to high levels, 2e... not so much.

In 2nd Edition, there is no expectation of player survival, period. Mostly, you die in your second dungeon.

Speaking from personal experience.

Kylarra
2009-10-14, 09:05 AM
In 2nd Edition, there is no expectation of player survival, period. Mostly, you die in your second dungeon.

Speaking from personal experience.Indeed. I was trying to break the news gently. :smalltongue:

The Rose Dragon
2009-10-14, 09:10 AM
There is no gentility in 2nd Edition. Life is brutish, nasty and short. That's how your Lord the Gygax has decreed.

hamlet
2009-10-14, 09:23 AM
There is no gentility in 2nd Edition. Life is brutish, nasty and short. That's how your Lord the Gygax has decreed.

Point of order, Gygax had no hand in 2nd edition.

However, life was still brutish, nasty, and often short as Gygax did decree. And damnit we liked it that way!

However, the thing that changed between 1st and 2nd was that by 2nd, you were expected to be heroic and not just a greedy bastard looking for coin.

The Rose Dragon
2009-10-14, 09:24 AM
Point of order, Gygax had no hand in 2nd edition.

I realize that. That is still how Gygax decreed it to be, so it is correct.

hamlet
2009-10-14, 09:59 AM
I realize that. That is still how Gygax decreed it to be, so it is correct.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, merely pointing out a fact that sometimes gets lost, especially on this board, when some either forget or ignore the history of the game for whatever reason.

t_catt11
2009-10-14, 10:05 AM
Life is often short in 2e... especially with an inexperienced DM running the game, since there are no handy CRs to go by. DMing 2e is more of an art, since you need a really good feel for what the party is capable of versus what the real impact of that one special ability your monster has might truly be.

However, do note that this does not HAVE to be the case. For rookie DMs, I would advise that you start with matching up monster hit dice (of generic, non special monsters) to your adventuring party, and seeing what the results are. Adjust their numbers as need be. Once you get a feel for it, start mixing in the odd special ability or spellcaster, and be prepared to make the monsters act stupid/smart and/or adjusting a few rolls to keep things fun.

Incidentally, I like the danger.

t_catt11
2009-10-14, 10:07 AM
Oh, and OP, I overlooked your question of a good source of online adventures for 2e - check out RPG Archve (http://www.rpgarchive.com/index.php?sysid=1&page=adv&sort=Alpha). Here's 128 pre-written adventures... some good, some not so much.

Ozymandias9
2009-10-14, 11:07 AM
What are some of the main differences between 2e and 3.5? To me it just seems that 2e had a new mechanic for every check, and 3e tried to tie everything into a core mechanic(ability or skill checks) and adjust dc's accordingly.

First off, 2nd is a but more mechanically complex: you'll probably have to check things for a bit longer as you learn the system. I thoroughly recommend a cheat sheet: as you use something (particularly more than once) write it down. Write the THAC0 formula down before you start: its not especially complex, but it can take time to get conceptually.

Second, they're designed with different goals. The structure of 3.X is designed towards high player control. Some have gone so far as to call it an infinite creation engine. It's also notable that the DM and players operate on the same basic ruleset. 2nd is designed towards an epic fantasy story: player customizability (and to a some extent DM options) are lower in the absence of homebrew, and the DM is presumed to have greater reign over the story and mechanics of the game in pursuit of that epic story. This best manifests in terms of the tips the books give to DMs: some of the things that 2nd recommends, 3rd recommends against.

An off-shoot of this is information availability. 2nd really, truly assumes that players will reference nothing but the PHB: there are options provided in other books that contradict each other. The books other than the big 3 (and even the DMG to some extent) aren't generally set up in quick reference format.

There are, for example, a couple variants on cleric turning that won't work together, and a couple of variants on clerics without turning, and a system to turn clerics into specialist priests like druids. Unlike 3.X, where these would be delegated to prestige classes (which are, more or less, modeled after the specialist priest idea), these are structured to replace your base class. And they're all presented as limited homebrew exercises: there's no particularly easy quick reference. If you use them, you'll probably want to draw up a class table and give a copy to the cleric player.

hamlet
2009-10-14, 12:29 PM
2nd is designed towards an epic fantasy story: player customizability (and to a some extent DM options) are lower in the absence of homebrew, and the DM is presumed to have greater reign over the story and mechanics of the game in pursuit of that epic story. This best manifests in terms of the tips the books give to DMs: some of the things that 2nd recommends, 3rd recommends against.

Just as a world to the OP, I'm gonna say that probably the best bit of advice I can give to a new DM for 2nd edition is to forget entirely the concepts of "story," "plot" and "epic." You may have an idea for a story of stunning brilliance, carefully plotted and drawn out, but I assure you that it will detonate instantly on contact with players, or if you force it on them, your players will detonate which is even worse.

AD&D does not work well with "plot" and, I'd argue, neither does any RPG worth its salt.

Korivan
2009-10-14, 12:53 PM
If you do find yourself too limited, grab the Players Option series. Some good ones are Combat and Tactics, Spells and Magic, Skills and Powers.

The Rose Dragon
2009-10-14, 12:58 PM
I haven't heard a lot of good things about kits, though, so you might want to stay away from them.

My only brush with kits was in Baldur's Gate 2, where there were several awesome kits (kensai, for one, was awesome for a human who would later dual-class to mage).

Speaking of dual-classing, it is one of the most interesting and confusing parts of 2nd Edition. Only humans can do it, they have to have very high stats to be able to do it (17 in a primary stat, if I recall) and you lose all of your first class's benefits until your level in your second class exceeds the first's.

Or something. Like I said, it was confusing. But it makes for some great characters.

LibraryOgre
2009-10-14, 01:07 PM
In 2nd Edition, there is no expectation of player survival, period. Mostly, you die in your second dungeon.

Speaking from personal experience.

Character survival, on the other hand, was a thing of legends. Characters passing through the hands of legions of players, the previous player having died in a horrible accident.

2nd edition was cursed! Cursed, I tell you!

hamlet
2009-10-14, 01:25 PM
I haven't heard a lot of good things about kits, though, so you might want to stay away from them.



In all honesty, I'd recommend eschewing kits. There's very little in them that could not be accomplished by good roleplaying, and in the end they boiled down to what extra tidbits of mechanical bonuses could be gotten rather than anything else. This is not to mention some of the truly terrible kits that popped up over time (including a ranger kit that turned the PC into an ambulatory tree-person with a third arm growing out of his chest) and breaking the prime rule of kits (that they are available only to single class, non-dual classed characters) almost within the same breath as first uttering it.

Of course this isn't saying that fun can't be had with kits and that they're complete trash, just that IMO they're not neccessary. Like I said above, all you really need is the PHB, DMG, and MM and you're good to go pretty much forever.

Oh, and as for the Players Options series, stay far, FAR away from it. Nothing good came out of it.

t_catt11
2009-10-14, 01:38 PM
Just as a world to the OP, I'm gonna say that probably the best bit of advice I can give to a new DM for 2nd edition is to forget entirely the concepts of "story," "plot" and "epic." You may have an idea for a story of stunning brilliance, carefully plotted and drawn out, but I assure you that it will detonate instantly on contact with players, or if you force it on them, your players will detonate which is even worse.

AD&D does not work well with "plot" and, I'd argue, neither does any RPG worth its salt.


Huh? I see conflicting advice on this page (use kits! avoid kits! player's options are awesome! player's options suck!), and I can see the arguments for both sides. But this one... there can be no plot in AD&D, let alone epic fantasy? No RPG works with plot?

This is truly, truly baffling. Was this sarcasm that I missed?

I find that AD&D, if anything, lends itself to plot so much easier, since you don't need stacks of status markers, a huge bag of miniatures, or an hour to resolve even the simplest of combats (did I provoke an AoE that time or not?).

That being said, I daresay that any GM worth their salt can provide a great plot... even an epic one. If not, why play a tabletop RPG at all? Why not simply load up a computer RPG, or a MMORPG if you are wanting to chat while playing?

I've run campaigns that have lasted years under lowly AD&D, and have players who tell stories about them to this day. I know quite a few others who do the same. Heck, I'll be more than happy to relate to you some of the adventures of Arien Aston Thedell the Third, a plain old human knight (read: fighter) that I played in a friend's game. We had shapechanging monsters, we had demons, we had loss, we had heroism, we had sacrifice, we had betrayal... a kingdom was shaped by our actions. I'd play for that GM again in a heartbeat, as would any of his players.

No, do not set your sights low in AD&D. Sure, you need to run a few minor encounters to get the hang of how things work, mechanically, but stick to that grand DM vision that you have (while understanding that players tend to muck up plots, but this is not a bad thing!).

Ozymandias9
2009-10-14, 02:12 PM
Just as a world to the OP, I'm gonna say that probably the best bit of advice I can give to a new DM for 2nd edition is to forget entirely the concepts of "story," "plot" and "epic." You may have an idea for a story of stunning brilliance, carefully plotted and drawn out, but I assure you that it will detonate instantly on contact with players, or if you force it on them, your players will detonate which is even worse.

AD&D does not work well with "plot" and, I'd argue, neither does any RPG worth its salt.

First off, Hamlet has a very good underlying point: don't make an overly complex story, especially while you're still learning the mechanics of a new system. (I do, however, disagree with him about the role of storytelling in D&D in general. But that can wait for the spoilered section.)

My point on comparing 3.X as a creation engine to 2nd as a structure of an epic story was less targeted at that, and more at the kind of setting's its well suited for. 3rd can be adapted to almost anything; the mechanics are intentionally abstracted, significantly generalized, and highly modular. You can essentially run a sci-fi with 3rd by re-flavoring magic and item descriptions.

2nd, in contrast, is very much mechanically tied to the concept of heroic fantasy. The nonweapon proficiencies represent specific ideas and aren't necessarily standardized or modular. The combat system is tethered at points to the specific role of certain classes. You can do some homebrew and move it a bit, but short of a massive system redesign, you're not going to get nearly as far as you might be used to in 3.X. In reality, its going to seem mechanically ill-suited for anything much further removed than Ravenloft or Starjammers: it lacks the universal resolution engines presented by things like 3rd edition's skill system and the generalized D20 combat system.

This also means that you'll have less options for players to mechanically customize the characters because there simply isn't a mechanic that well suits the idea. You can homebrew one, but it's more hit or miss than in 3rd where you're merely plugging something into the D20 system.

RE: Hamlet's post (somewhat off topic)
I'll agree that a carefully drafted and drawn out plot would be a bad thing because it's likely to implode or shackle the players. But this is D&D, which very much been at the core of heroic fantasy RPGs for decades now; part of the experience is molding the mechanical action, which is driven by the randomness of the dice, into an epic story.

Moreover, there are concerns specific to 2nd edition. Remember, while 2nd introduced (more or less-- it had been in 1st supplements) the idea of nonweapon proficiencies to the game, there was still a presumption in the design that RP would be a major driver for non-combat play.

All of this requires more than just setting: it requires a dynamic background that the players interact with and alter. So yes, perhaps plot is the wrong word: letting the players determine how they succeed or fail is, in my mind, the mark of a well run campaign. But you should have a concept of what happens if the characters do nothing. It's their role as heros/villains to alter that course. And you should make efforts to weave the actions they decide to take into the world at large.

Unless, of course, you want to just kick in the door. Then go for it.

hamlet
2009-10-14, 02:19 PM
Huh? I see conflicting advice on this page (use kits! avoid kits! player's options are awesome! player's options suck!), and I can see the arguments for both sides. But this one... there can be no plot in AD&D, let alone epic fantasy? No RPG works with plot?

This is truly, truly baffling. Was this sarcasm that I missed?

I find that AD&D, if anything, lends itself to plot so much easier, since you don't need stacks of status markers, a huge bag of miniatures, or an hour to resolve even the simplest of combats (did I provoke an AoE that time or not?).

That being said, I daresay that any GM worth their salt can provide a great plot... even an epic one. If not, why play a tabletop RPG at all? Why not simply load up a computer RPG, or a MMORPG if you are wanting to chat while playing?

I've run campaigns that have lasted years under lowly AD&D, and have players who tell stories about them to this day. I know quite a few others who do the same. Heck, I'll be more than happy to relate to you some of the adventures of Arien Aston Thedell the Third, a plain old human knight (read: fighter) that I played in a friend's game. We had shapechanging monsters, we had demons, we had loss, we had heroism, we had sacrifice, we had betrayal... a kingdom was shaped by our actions. I'd play for that GM again in a heartbeat, as would any of his players.

No, do not set your sights low in AD&D. Sure, you need to run a few minor encounters to get the hang of how things work, mechanically, but stick to that grand DM vision that you have (while understanding that players tend to muck up plots, but this is not a bad thing!).

You've missed my point utterly, I think. My fault, I went for brevity and didn't belabor the point.

I'm not entirely against the concepts of epicness or story in fantasy, or even fantasy gaming. In fact, there's a lot to be said about adventures that, in the end, turn out to have a broad and far reaching scope and ramifications.

My point, though, was that pre-determined plots (i.e., scene 1 followed by scene 2 followed by scene 3 etc.) and even the concept of "big bad boss monsters" can be deleterious to the game, especially in the early stages of a campaign. In my experience, it tends to get worse the more "epic" the plot, and the more far reaching (i.e., how far it's "planned out" in advance). This is especially true, again in my experience, when the DM starts with a huge concept in advance (i.e., the vile dark lord is trying to destroy the world by claiming control of the four orbs of power or whatever) and then working backwards to create a series of adventures that leads to that culmination. Most often, the DM finds themselves hooking the players by the nose and dragging them in a certain direction rather than providing the clues and letting the PC's choose to go in that direction.

It has been my experience that the best results are gained by living by the adage "all politics are local." This is doubly true in a world without instant communication.

Bob the silt farmer doesn't care a whit that the ogre raiders are really mercenaries of the Southern Orc league hired to destabalize the Fanagrian trade routes and military in a pre-emptive action to invasion, which in itself is a diversionary tactic to distract the major metroplitan nations of the region from Angor the terrible's bid for the throne of Darkhauld which will grant him access to information concerning the Nexus of the Planes which, when he obtains it, will grant him the ability to reshape the world according to his whim. But what Bob the silt farmer does care about is the ogre's having kidnapped his children and stopped the caravan routes.

In order to get from A (ogre raiders) to Z (Angor the Terrible's bid for the Nexus of the Planes), a superior solution is, again in my experience, to leave B through Y largely or wholly undefined and to simply drop random clues here and there throughout otherwise local adventures. They don't have to mean anything at all when they're put there, but eventually, the players will start to add two and two together and suddenly pick a direction to go all on their own, and suddenly the connections that were, until now, vague, are much clearer to the DM and suddenly, your epic story is born.

Start small, start and continue local. Let epic merely "occur." This is a far more viable option in AD&D if only because leveling is significantly slower than in 3.x (and I presume 4.0). Thus, campaigns in 3.x had to be more tightly focused, more planned out and controlled while on the other hand, a "campaign" in AD&D could last for more than a decade could meander all over the place and, in the end, end up no place at all and still have an epic scope. In fact, in terms of AD&D, the concept of a "big bad guy" (as in the source from which the entire campaign's action springs) is largely alien since, over the course of the years, chances are that the party has confronted and defeated (or been defeated by) many "big bads" of equally epic scope.

It's merely a difference in approach between the two systems.

hamlet
2009-10-14, 02:30 PM
I'll agree that a carefully plotted and drawn out plot would be a bad thing because its likely to implode. But this is D&D, which very much been at the core of heroic fantasy RPGd for decades now; part of the experience is molding the mechanical action, which is driven by randomness, into an epic story. Remember, while 2nd introduced (more or less-- it had been in 1st supplements) the idea of non weapon proficiencies to the game, there was still a presumption in the design that RP would be a major driver for non-combat play.

That requires more than just setting: it requires a dynamic background that the players interact with and alter. So yes, perhaps plot is the wrong word: letting the players determine how they succeed or fail is, in my mind, the mark of a well run campaign. But you should have a concept of what happens if the characters do nothing. It's their job as heros/villains to alter that course.

Agreed. I think you are agreeing with my by disagreeing here.

This is what I mean when I tell players "the world is not static." The "bad guys" are not there simply to be defeated by the players. How boring. Instead, they are there pursuing their own goals via their own means and, more than likely, the PC's have nothing to do with it until they choose to get involved. They will not kindly lay down and die just so the players can feel heroic. They will not politely wait, twiddling their thumbs, while the players excuse themselves to run out and renew their spells and heal up.

On a broader scope, this means that just because the players focus on looting the local dungeons and killing a few random goblins doesn't mean that there's not something bigger going on in the background, or elsewhere.

This is why I will shill "Castles Forlorn" everywhere as, quite possibly, the best D&D module ever in this context. Incredible, epic type story, bu absolutely no plot. The PC's get dumped into the middle of things and it's up to them to investigate and find out what's going on, or not. Everything's connected, even if that connection is stating inexplicably that this particular thing is a red herring and is there only to throw the PC's for a loop.

Anyway, this entire thing is off topic and I apologize for draggin everybody along for the ride with my mad rantings.

Ozymandias9
2009-10-14, 02:49 PM
Agreed. I think you are agreeing with my by disagreeing here.

Yeah, looks like we're merely disagreeing on terminology: perhaps story would be a better word.

ken-do-nim
2009-10-14, 03:16 PM
This is why I will shill "Castles Forlorn" everywhere as, quite possibly, the best D&D module ever in this context. Incredible, epic type story, bu absolutely no plot. The PC's get dumped into the middle of things and it's up to them to investigate and find out what's going on, or not. Everything's connected, even if that connection is stating inexplicably that this particular thing is a red herring and is there only to throw the PC's for a loop.


I played in Castles Forlorn in my senior year of college until the DM got too busy with finals. Man I wished we could have explored it more, because we never did figure out what was going on.

hamlet
2009-10-14, 03:19 PM
I played in Castles Forlorn in my senior year of college until the DM got too busy with finals. Man I wished we could have explored it more, because we never did figure out what was going on.

I'm in it now as a player and we've been futzing around with it for over a year of real time. It took us that long to get close enough to anything resembling "the truth" to determine a course of action, and I'm willing to bet we don't even know half of what's going on.

t_catt11
2009-10-14, 03:25 PM
Ah, okay. Hamlet, thanks so much for the clarification! I mistook your post to say that "It's impossible to have a plot in an RPG, and in AD&D in particular".

I do agree with you that it's a good idea to start locally in any campaign. Truly, a beginning adventurer party is going to be involved only in small scale stuff anyway, and it doesn't really make sense that Gralzazar, the Dark Demon Lord Himself, happens to be directing that band of goblins that took Farmer Joe's daughter in their latest raid.

Of course, If it later works for your plot that the goblin tribe happened to be working for Gralzazar, bonus points for you, the DM.

Starting local works great. Don't be afraid to shake things up, to involve the players on seemingly (or truthfully) unrelated adventures. Until they hit level five, ther lives balance on the edge of a blade, anyway.

Erith
2009-10-14, 05:12 PM
So what I'm hearing is that I need to approach 2e as it's own system and assume that any similarities to 3rd edition is the exception, rather than the norm. It also seems that I should run my group through a few short encounters to get the feel of the system and find out what works for us, rather than just try to run with is as is.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-10-14, 05:21 PM
A word of warning for character creation: LA doesn't exist.

That means you can pick the most broken stuff in any supplement you can find, slap a 1st level class on him, and run out the door at level 1 with it. This is what caused the Drizzt Syndrome, because Drow were stupidly powerful compared to the other elven races. In 2e, Drizzt's player was a min/maxing munchkin.

Kylarra
2009-10-14, 05:26 PM
A word of warning for character creation: LA doesn't exist.

That means you can pick the most broken stuff in any supplement you can find, slap a 1st level class on him, and run out the door at level 1 with it. This is what caused the Drizzt Syndrome, because Drow were stupidly powerful compared to the other elven races. In 2e, Drizzt's player was a min/maxing munchkin.Of course CR doesn't exist either so you may find yourself ganked in the first encounter and forced to reroll something more reasonable.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-10-14, 05:50 PM
Of course CR doesn't exist either so you may find yourself ganked in the first encounter and forced to reroll something more reasonable.

Of course, xp is given per creature rather than per CR, so if you DO survive, you may end up Level 4 after one encounter!

Skorj
2009-10-14, 06:17 PM
There is no gentility in 2nd Edition. Life is brutish, nasty and short.

No, wait, that's Gnomes. Gnomes are brutish, nasty and short. Or is that 4E?

Junk the Class/Level limit rule immmediately. It's just wrong.

The biggest difference IMO between 2 and 3 is multiclassing: because of exponential XP, multiclassing was totally different. A fighter/magic-user works because you can be a 9th level MU, or an 8th MU / 9th Fighter with the same XP. Human dual-class characters can get downright cheesy because of this.

There is no concentration system. A mage with a monster in his face has probably lost.

The fireball spell. It doesn't stop at a 20' radius from the center; it expands to fill a really large number of 10' cubes (because all dungeon corridors are 10'x10', naturally) until it reaches a fixed volume. This is the source of much entertainment for DMs. Also, lightning bolts bounce back from fixed objects towards the caster. Once you appreciate combat spells that are as likely to kill the caster as the target, you appreciate Gygaxian D&D. :smallbiggrin:

The Rose Dragon
2009-10-14, 06:18 PM
Haste could kill you due to old age when cast. That was awesome.

Kylarra
2009-10-14, 06:31 PM
Of course, xp is given per creature rather than per CR, so if you DO survive, you may end up Level 4 after one encounter!Also true! Unfortunately for you there was no WBL, so even though you're level 4, you might still be wielding that ratty longsword!

The Rose Dragon
2009-10-14, 06:32 PM
Also true! unfortunately there was no WBL, so even though you're level 4, you might still be wielding that ratty longsword!

Unfortunately? That was one of the great things about AD&D.

Kylarra
2009-10-14, 06:34 PM
Unfortunately? That was one of the great things about AD&D.I meant "unfortunately for you" as the player with a newly level 4 char. :smallamused:

The Rose Dragon
2009-10-14, 06:37 PM
I meant "unfortunately for you" as the player with a newly level 4 char. :smallamused:

I was never the player, so I wouldn't know.

People did die a lot in my adventures, though. That's why I never could run a campaign. No one survived long enough for the campaign to develop.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-14, 06:45 PM
So what I'm hearing is that I need to approach 2e as it's own system and assume that any similarities to 3rd edition is the exception, rather than the norm. It also seems that I should run my group through a few short encounters to get the feel of the system and find out what works for us, rather than just try to run with is as is.
Yes.

But most importantly, adjust those player expectation.

WotC D&D is built on the assumption that your character will accumulate power and definition over time through the accumulation of levels, feats, and magic items. Character death is either strictly for low-levels, or an unexpected tragedy.

TSR D&D is built on the assumption that your character will survive long enough to enter a dungeon (Tomb of Horrors excepted :smalltongue:). Character power and definition (mechanically speaking) is largely static; a 5th level Fighter may not necessarily be all that tougher than a 3rd level Fighter. The story is what matters; any game that ends with an amusing/inspiring tale to tell is a good game.

If you don't appropriately shift these expectations, you'll face a mutiny when someone's 3rd level Fighter is one-shotted by a lucky giant or when someone fails a System Shock roll.

EDIT:
@The Rose Dragon - that's why you always had a central town for the PCs to return to. That way they could always "hire" a replacement character.

At LV 1, of course :smallbiggrin:

Matthew
2009-10-14, 06:56 PM
So what I'm hearing is that I need to approach 2e as it's own system and assume that any similarities to 3rd edition is the exception, rather than the norm. It also seems that I should run my group through a few short encounters to get the feel of the system and find out what works for us, rather than just try to run with is as is.

Probably easiest to just set up a small(ish) dungeon with some goblins, kobolds and vermin, then let the players have at it. That is pretty much the time honoured way of discovering how the game works. :smallbiggrin:



A word of warning for character creation: LA doesn't exist.

That means you can pick the most broken stuff in any supplement you can find, slap a 1st level class on him, and run out the door at level 1 with it. This is what caused the Drizzt Syndrome, because Drow were stupidly powerful compared to the other elven races. In 2e, Drizzt's player was a min/maxing munchkin.

Really, it was first edition that created Drizzt, second edition stripped the Drow of all their powers in the default case. After that, everything is at the approval of the game master, who has the entirety of responsibility for balancing the campaign (not an easy task).



Of course, xp is given per creature rather than per CR, so if you DO survive, you may end up Level 4 after one encounter!

Negative, with reagrds to that:

AD&D/2e DMG, Chapter 8: Experience: Rate of Advancement


There is only one hard and fast rule concerning advancement. Player characters should never advance more than one level per time experience is awarded. If a gaming session ends and a character has earned enough experience points to advance two levels, the excess points are lost. The DM should give the character enough experience to place him somewhere between halfway and one point below the next highest level.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-14, 07:05 PM
The fireball spell. It doesn't stop at a 20' radius from the center; it expands to fill a really large number of 10' cubes (because all dungeon corridors are 10'x10', naturally) until it reaches a fixed volume. This is the source of much entertainment for DMs. Also, lightning bolts bounce back from fixed objects towards the caster. Once you appreciate combat spells that are as likely to kill the caster as the target, you appreciate Gygaxian D&D. :smallbiggrin:

Better- Bards can use Fireball or Skull Trap (non-typed fireball effect with no MR and no damage cap). Bard use Wizard spells + a few of their own (in one of the splatbooks).

LibraryOgre
2009-10-14, 07:17 PM
Of course CR doesn't exist either so you may find yourself ganked in the first encounter and forced to reroll something more reasonable.

On the other hand, that somewhat plays into the ideas of AD&D... if a fight is too rough, RUN. Can't damage the bad guy because you don't have magic and/or silver weapons? RUN. It's not a matter of overpowering his DR, because you can't. It's a matter of getting out of there until you can hurt it.

Or, you can go nuts, and try to wrestle it off a cliff or something, but that's just crazy.

Kylarra
2009-10-14, 07:20 PM
On the other hand, that somewhat plays into the ideas of AD&D... if a fight is too rough, RUN. Can't damage the bad guy because you don't have magic and/or silver weapons? RUN. It's not a matter of overpowering his DR, because you can't. It's a matter of getting out of there until you can hurt it.

Or, you can go nuts, and try to wrestle it off a cliff or something, but that's just crazy.well if you're trying to "cheese" it out with an "overpowered" starting race, you're probably not thinking in AD&D terms. :smalltongue:

JadedDM
2009-10-14, 08:40 PM
On the other hand, that somewhat plays into the ideas of AD&D... if a fight is too rough, RUN. Can't damage the bad guy because you don't have magic and/or silver weapons? RUN. It's not a matter of overpowering his DR, because you can't. It's a matter of getting out of there until you can hurt it.

Or, you can go nuts, and try to wrestle it off a cliff or something, but that's just crazy.

Crazy AWESOME, that is.

hamlet
2009-10-15, 07:23 AM
On the other hand, that somewhat plays into the ideas of AD&D... if a fight is too rough, RUN. Can't damage the bad guy because you don't have magic and/or silver weapons? RUN. It's not a matter of overpowering his DR, because you can't. It's a matter of getting out of there until you can hurt it.

Or, you can go nuts, and try to wrestle it off a cliff or something, but that's just crazy.

We killed a couple of wererats that way back in the day.

Also, torches. Often overlooked as a viable source of damage against such entities.

But that's kind of the point, to reward out of the box thinking like that.

t_catt11
2009-10-15, 08:42 AM
Yep, never underestimate the usefulness of a torch + lamp oil.

The Rose Dragon
2009-10-15, 08:43 AM
@The Rose Dragon - that's why you always had a central town for the PCs to return to. That way they could always "hire" a replacement character.

At LV 1, of course :smallbiggrin:

That assumes there was anyone alive left to hire that replacement character.

Blacky the Blackball
2009-10-15, 09:44 AM
Yep, never underestimate the usefulness of a torch + lamp oil.

Or using a silver candelabra as a club...

Or having six people physically sit on the werewolf pinning it down while a seventh frantically files a sharp edge onto a silver coin to slit it's throat with...

hamlet
2009-10-15, 10:02 AM
Or using a silver candelabra as a club...

Or having six people physically sit on the werewolf pinning it down while a seventh frantically files a sharp edge onto a silver coin to slit it's throat with...

You never know how low you can sink until you go to the local blacksmith, hand him as many silver coins as you can get your hands on, and ask him if he can't forge you some sort of silvered weapon out of them. And then going into battle against a lycanthrope with a handful of silver nails.

It's all about thinking with your brain and not your character sheet.

Haven
2009-10-15, 10:08 AM
I bought all the 2e D&D books but never found anyone to play with, and this thread makes me sad.

And yet, also very happy that, yes, it actually did work that way.

Kaiyanwang
2009-10-15, 10:12 AM
Or using a silver candelabra as a club...

Or having six people physically sit on the werewolf pinning it down while a seventh frantically files a sharp edge onto a silver coin to slit it's throat with...

Well, that's the point. We had less tricks, so we had to invent a lot more. Not that cannot be done at all in 3.x or 4th edition, but...

t_catt11
2009-10-15, 10:39 AM
Hey Haven, my site's forum is very 2e friendly... feel free to drop by and jion a PBP game. No need to carry around that regret. ;)

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-15, 10:50 AM
That assumes there was anyone alive left to hire that replacement character.
In that case, the *new* party is drawn to adventure after hearing of the *old* party's untimely demise.

I mean, adventurers have lots of shineys, don't they? :smalltongue:

The Rose Dragon
2009-10-15, 10:52 AM
I mean, adventurers have lots of shineys, don't they? :smalltongue:

Apparently, I fail at DMing forever. Except for that one artifact of Bhaal, no one ever had any shiny things at all in my adventures.

satorian
2009-10-15, 11:17 AM
I don't know if fail at DMing forever, but I probably wouldn't have wanted to play with you. In most games I played, ADD/2e wasn't THAT brutish and short. Sure, a character died here and there, but it was a rare occurrence. My groups never went in for the Tomb of Horrors style dungeons. And even in those, the Monster Manuals did have treasure charts for everything. Even if what you got wasn't all that useful or was hard to lug around (5 sculptures and 3 paintings. a flail nobody is proficient with. um thanks), you were supposed to give something.

When we played 2e, magic items were generally rare and unique (and never in shops), but we did get them here and there. If we were high level (that did happen a few times and was more fun than high level 3e, IMHO) wanted something hella cool, like a staff of the magi or a holy avenger or something, the mage could usually do some research and find an ancient red dragon who was rumored to have one in his horde...

t_catt11
2009-10-15, 12:09 PM
My experience is much like yours, Satorian.

Man, I loves me some Staff of the Magi. A truly satisfying way to die, too, if all hope is lost. "Chew on some retributive strike, mofos!"

ken-do-nim
2009-10-15, 12:59 PM
My experience is much like yours, Satorian.

Man, I loves me some Staff of the Magi. A truly satisfying way to die, too, if all hope is lost. "Chew on some retributive strike, mofos!"

I once had a scenario where the party mage with the staff had already bit the dust, and the dwarf fighter picked up the staff and attempted a retri-however-you-spell-it strike. I ruled that the explosion didn't occur because the dwarf wasn't the owner (and couldn't be because it's an m-u item). Too harsh?

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-15, 01:12 PM
Apparently, I fail at DMing forever. Except for that one artifact of Bhaal, no one ever had any shiny things at all in my adventures.
But... why adventure if not to find shinies? :smallconfused:

More seriously, magic items should be rare in 2E, but they should exist. Low power items (+1 Swords, Scrolls & Potions) should, at the very least, be in the hands of Bosses. High-powered items, on the other hand, should be truly legendary - if you want a Staff of Power, you'll have to find a legend that describes one, and then track down its final resting place.

On character mortality: the real issue is that 2E, as a system, does not care about the "survivability" of a given PC. As a result, softie DMs would use rampant fudging to keep PCs alive - or give them other houserule boosts, like Death's Door. As written, a 5th level wizard could very well die from a single well-placed ogre club - which is why they always travel with meat shields warrior allies :smallbiggrin:

t_catt11
2009-10-15, 01:14 PM
I once had a scenario where the party mage with the staff had already bit the dust, and the dwarf fighter picked up the staff and attempted a retri-however-you-spell-it strike. I ruled that the explosion didn't occur because the dwarf wasn't the owner (and couldn't be because it's an m-u item). Too harsh?

I would say, yes, too harsh. It's supposed to happen whenever the staff is broken... though it's not terribly unreasonable for you to rule that he failed in the breaking attempt... a SotM is a major magic item.

As for magic items... I like them to be rare, but that's because I like low magic worlds. However, 2e can still be a lot of fun in a high magic campaign, too.

Matthew
2009-10-15, 02:16 PM
On character mortality: the real issue is that 2E, as a system, does not care about the "survivability" of a given PC. As a result, softie DMs would use rampant fudging to keep PCs alive - or give them other houserule boosts, like Death's Door. As written, a 5th level wizard could very well die from a single well-placed ogre club - which is why they always travel with meat shields warrior allies :smallbiggrin:

Three things spring to mind that differentiate:

1) Life Energy Level Drain
2) Save or Die Poison (or similar cause)
3) Difficulty of Level Advancement

All potentially frustrating elements of the game that were reduced in severity, or "nerfed", for D20/3e. For some, this made the game less difficult and, as a direct result, less rewarding.

I am not sure I would go as far as saying character death was more frequent, though it was perhaps more abrupt. At low levels a character is probably more likely to be killed in D20 as the result of a single blow because of critical hit multipliers, but then maximum hit points for fighter types was itself an optional add on. I think it probably just pissed people off more in AD&D to have their fourth level fighter go down from a failed saving throw versus poison than to lose all his hit points in combat, especially when it had taken 20 sessions to get that far and the game master made you start over at level one. Not such a big deal if you had henchmen as replacements, but that style of play seems to have gone out of vogue by the 90s.

hamlet
2009-10-15, 02:42 PM
That's the best way I've heard it put so far. Abrupt death as opposed to frequent death.

Maybe that's why so many of the old school type gamers have as many character death stories as character awesome stories.

Drakyn
2009-10-15, 02:50 PM
Abrupt death has kept going down, hasn't it? Instadeath poison vanished with 3.x, and unless I misremember, 4th messed with disintegrate and similar things too, didn't it? What about petrification?

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-15, 03:18 PM
Abrupt death has kept going down, hasn't it? Instadeath poison vanished with 3.x, and unless I misremember, 4th messed with disintegrate and similar things too, didn't it? What about petrification?
There is (IIRC) no Insta-Death in 4E - for much the reason Matthew cited. Particularly when you "invest" yourself in your character's advancement (mainly through conceptualizing it as a "build") it can be downright frustrating to have it all taken away from you. This feeling is magnified when the death is caused by misfortune rather than miscalculation. Losing your Fighter because he thought it would be a good idea to charge an Ancient Dragon is annoying, but understandable; losing your Fighter to a "coin-flip effect" (e.g. Save or Die) is enraging.

This change in aesthetic is also why equipment-destroying effects have been phased out. Particularly in WotC D&D, your magical items are essential to your character's survival - they are usually explicitly contemplated within a build. In TSR D&D this is not a realistic option; magic items are not commodities, so whatever you have depends largely on what you can find. There it can be irritating to lose your Sword +1 to a failed Black Dragon Breath Save, but that sword was hardly essential to your character; in WotC D&D using a Rust Monster was a sure way to cause your players to mutiny.

Kylarra
2009-10-15, 03:22 PM
Actually, there is still petrification in 4e, albeit only on a few monsters.

Drakyn
2009-10-15, 03:32 PM
I can see what you mean, Oracle Hunter. Especially given the comparative lengths of time needed to make a 2nd edition character and a 3.x one.


Actually, there is still petrification in 4e, albeit only on a few monsters.
How's it work? Easier to get rid of/avoid than the old fashioned kind?

hamishspence
2009-10-15, 03:35 PM
generally, the player has to fail multiple saves for it to hit.

The Gray Dragon in Draconomicon 4E, though, has a very nasty version- which is harder to escape from.

Kylarra
2009-10-15, 03:35 PM
I can see what you mean, Oracle Hunter. Especially given the comparative lengths of time needed to make a 2nd edition character and a 3.x one.


How's it work? Easier to get rid of/avoid than the old fashioned kind?
The one that I know of (Stone-eye basilisk) requires you to fail 2 saves in order to be hit by petrified. After being actually petrified though, you're just boned until you can be healed via ritual.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-15, 03:36 PM
How's it work? Easier to get rid of/avoid than the old fashioned kind?
It's just a status effect. You gain Resist 20 and basically are cut off from the outside world. Remove Affliction deals with it.

Which is a far cry from "Get a high-level cleric to cast Stone to Flesh and pray to the Dice Gods that you make your System Shock roll" :smallamused:

Kylarra
2009-10-15, 03:39 PM
The Gray Dragon in Draconomicon 4E, though, has a very nasty version- which is harder to escape from.
Well that one is save-ends, but yeah, you need to succeed on two saves to get out of it else you're stuck in an endless cycle of suckage.

hamlet
2009-10-15, 03:43 PM
It's just a status effect. You gain Resist 20 and basically are cut off from the outside world. Remove Affliction deals with it.

Which is a far cry from "Get a high-level cleric to cast Stone to Flesh and pray to the Dice Gods that you make your System Shock roll" :smallamused:

Better still when the DM quietly plays off of player fears over whether said caster can be trusted. Cue three 4 hour gaming sessions of the entire party (except the petrified wizard) dithering over whether or not to trust said caster and trying to hedge their bets.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-10-15, 03:48 PM
Better still when the DM quietly plays off of player fears over whether said caster can be trusted. Cue three 4 hour gaming sessions of the entire party (except the petrified wizard) dithering over whether or not to trust said caster and trying to hedge their bets.
And every session, the Doppleganger "Cleric" secretly replaces one of the other party members with a Doppleganger ally.

By the time they un-petrify the wizard, it'll only be because his Doppleganger Replacement needed the gear :smalltongue:

hamlet
2009-10-15, 03:55 PM
And every session, the Doppleganger "Cleric" secretly replaces one of the other party members with a Doppleganger ally.

By the time they un-petrify the wizard, it'll only be because his Doppleganger Replacement needed the gear :smalltongue:

And then you get to play the game of "which wizard is the real one?" and end up stabbing somebody, you hope the doppleganger.

Yeah, things can get wierd.

LibraryOgre
2009-10-15, 10:34 PM
well if you're trying to "cheese" it out with an "overpowered" starting race, you're probably not thinking in AD&D terms. :smalltongue:

The only overpowered starting races I can think of come from Complete Humanoids... fremlin (largely because they're immune to non-magical weapons) and ogre magi.