Why should I down-grade?

[Pollip]

I like to go to Half-Price books a lot to look for Dnd stuff, but it seems like a vast majority of the products for sale there are for the super old editions from the seventies and eighties. I've been tempted to buy those old books before, mostly because the covers are so cool, but I've never really gone through with it.

My question is not whether or not I should buy second or first edition Dungeons and Dragons, because there's really no reason to. I already have a perfectly functional system with which my party and I are familiar. My question is Why should I most definitely buy first or second edition? Gimme the hard sell. Tell me what I missed buy starting with 3E.

[Erk]

Historical reasons? For me, playing 2nd edition d&d or anything in the Palladium verses has a feeling of nostalgia I couldn't get anywhere else. They have a certain atmosphere that modern editions don't capture entirely, although for me at least fourth edition has proven not far off. They are probably super cheap, so you could get them just for the sake of owning them and checking them out; I still find a lot of my old 2e books (and even my palladium books, from an entirely different game title!) to have useful material when I want inspiration.

Half-price is way too much though. I get my 2e books for a dollar or two a piece...

[Premier]

Gimme the hard sell.

Okay...

- By default, you get to play in actual Tolkienish / Medieval European fantasy worlds rather than in MMORPG / anime-inspired abominations.

- With 2E, lots of other, different and actually interesting published settings you can try. Dark Sun or Ravenloft kick Eberron's puny ass any day.

- Fighters will be fighters, thieves will be thieves, wizards will be wizards, etc.. None of them will be Half-Warforged Half-Gelatinous-Cube One-quarter Demon Paladin Necromancer Assassin Green Sword Twirler Metal Druids.

- On a similar note, character creation takes about 5 minutes rather than an hour. You don't need to plan out your character 20 levels in advance for every single feat and skill.

- In combat, you can be engaging twice as many enemies at a time, and every single combat round will still be three times (or more) as fast (in real time) as in 3E. Guess what? The whole "our new system makes everything simpler" spiel by WotC was a big fat corporate lie. What it did make everything is slower, not simpler.

- Lack of unified mechanics actually makes the game easier for DMs to houserule. You don't like thief skills, or proficiencies? Not a problem, replace them with something else, the rest of the system will work just the same, so you can concentrate on the bits you want to fiddle with. With 3E, if you change one thing, you change everything as everything is interconnected via the unified mechanics.

- Strategy and tactics mean actual strategy and tactics: stuff like misdirection, foreplanning, surprise, etc.. What little genuine strategy and tactics 3E might have is easily eclipsed by the mislabeled "strategy" of combining Feat A with Feat B and Skill C and Ability D for maximum damage per second. That's not strategy, that's a cardless version of Magic the Gathering.

[Eldariel]

- Strategy and tactics mean actual strategy and tactics: stuff like misdirection, foreplanning, surprise, etc.. What little genuine strategy and tactics 3E might have is easily eclipsed by the mislabeled "strategy" of combining Feat A with Feat B and Skill C and Ability D for maximum damage per second. That's not strategy, that's a cardless version of Magic the Gathering.

I'm sorry, but I can't still idle while you mock Magic like that. Magic is about so many other things than just maximizing deck efficiency that it's not even funny. In fact, playing a magic game tends to be more complex than fighting a war in D&D.

Anyways, 3E requires a lot of strategic planning and tactical playing - it's simply not something every group realizes since if monsters are dumb and the terrain bland, there's very little need for it. Still, I think this is the one problem that does not exist in 3E. Foreplanning goes a long way towards surviving and surprise can solve combats all by its lonesome, not to even mention how many encounters can simply be ignored by getting rid of the opposition through a distraction, and how many TPKs have been caused by PCs not realizing they're fighting a Major Image, not the Wizard himself.

[Matthew]

You might want to tag this thread with [B/AD&D] or something, otherwise the pro crowd might miss this.

Simplicity is my main answer. Preparing and running the game is a total breeze compared to D20/3e/4e, and it is open to just about any tinkering you want to attempt. That said, you might like to try Castles & Crusades first, as moving directly from something like D20 to AD&D is something of a paradigm shift.

[AstralFire]

You might want to tag this topic with [Blood], actually, as the 2E/3E wars were pretty bad (if slowly less frequent) right up until 4E was announced.

[Chronos]

The biggest difference between 3rd and 2nd is that 3rd edition has more rules. In 2nd edition, the DM and other players were expected to "wing it" a lot more: Most things that are handled by the rules in 3rd edition, if you wanted to try them in 2nd, the DM just made up a ruling on the spot about how to do it (or remembered a previous time when he had made something up in the same situation). And even the rules that were in the books were largely listed as optional: The 2e PHB contains at least three different systems corresponding to 3e skills, and just tells you to pick one (it turns out that almost everyone picked the nonweapon proficiencies system, though).

I'm not going to be the one to tell you which one is better or worse; it all comes down to your own preferred style.

[Morandir Nailo]

Simplicity is it for me, along with the fact that it's so easy to houserule; you can tinker with the system without worrying about the entire thing falling apart.

Then there's the fact that it represents a much smaller investment as well, provided you have good bookstores in your area. For instance, this weekend I picked up a 1e PHB, DMG, and Realms of Horror (a compilation of modules S1-4), all in great shape, for $13.00; less than half what you pay for a 4e PHB. You can typically find them on Ebay as well for similar prices, and there are some old-school games (like Labyrinth Lord, the Moldvay B/X retro-clone) which are free online. Given the enormous amount of fan-generated content available on the net, you'll never need to spend more than $15-30 to have a lifetime of good gaming.

[LibraryOgre]

Aside from nostalgia, simplicity is a big issue; if you've got either 1st or 2nd edition books, you can use this generator (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/fe/articles/1echargen.shtml) to cover most of the character generation tasks in the game... for fighters, you pick your weapon profs. Thieves need their thief scores. Wizards need their spells. Other than that, you're good to go in just a few minutes.

Really, though, this topic should be titled "Why should I upgrade to Advanced D&D?"

[horseboy]

I'm going to go with the art, especially 1st edition. That rust monster cartoon just cracked me up every time I saw it. Yeah, it also doesn't take itself so seriously. It knows what it is and doesn't try to be something else.

[Matthew]

You might want to tag this topic with [Blood], actually, as the 2E/3E wars were pretty bad (if slowly less frequent) right up until 4E was announced.

Not for a long time around these parts, I can assure you. :smallwink:

[ken-do-nim]

I doubt the OP is going to play 1E or 2E, so I'd say the reason to buy the books is to learn how the game evolved. I've been trying to buy the OD&D little brown books for years because they are just fascinating. I recently got the pdfs and those will have to do, though I don't tend to read pdfs as much.

[Prometheus]

I'm a third edition player, but I have to say that I am more intrigued by 1st and 2nd edition after seeing what WotC has done with 4th edition.

What I'm interested in hearing about is how it is faster and also more combat strategic?

[horseboy]

Well, for starters people don't spend 20 minutes on a battlemap counting and recounting paths trying to figure out how to get to where they want to go. Then there's fighters work (better) because they can just say "I keep myself between him and the magic-user". Clerics hit more often in melee even without buffs, so things are taking more damage. Hit points pretty much stop at 10th level, so you don't have to grind away forever. There's no mechanic getting in the way of you wanting to, say, attack with doors. Of course, your DM has to agree that you can and there will be discussion as to how much damage a door should do, but you're using it against up to 4 hit point kobolds, so your damage mod plus 1 should knock them cold.

[ken-do-nim]

For me one of the most refreshing things about 1st edition is the simultaneous combat movement. I dislike the 2E/3E model of one person moves their full distance while everyone else freezes in place. In 1E, if two sides charge at each other they meet in the middle; in 3E it tends to be whichever side wins initiative moves all the way over to the other - only to get pounded upon because the side which lost initiative gets a full attack thank you kindly.

Another great part of 1st edition is realizing that not every weapon is right for every job. There's weapon lengths, speeds, spacing, and various armor adjustments, and if you use all the game rules (as admittedly few do), they all can come into play. For instance, in 1st edition plate mail is truly scary as it was meant to be, because most weapons have an additional penalty to hit against it. A few weapons actually hit plate mail armor better than normal like two-handed swords, flails, and maces. However, all of those 3 weapons require more space than the average, so you can't get as many two-handed sword wielding people to square off against one plate-mail wearing foe than you can say shortsword wielders.

Also first and second edition use facing, so if you come up on somebody's rear or side flank you can avoid their shield. Oh, and shields can only be used against a certain amount of foes depending upon how big they are.

[Ascension]

Another great part of 1st edition is realizing that not every weapon is right for every job. There's weapon lengths, speeds, spacing, and various armor adjustments, and if you use all the game rules (as admittedly few do), they all can come into play. For instance, in 1st edition plate mail is truly scary as it was meant to be, because most weapons have an additional penalty to hit against it. A few weapons actually hit plate mail armor better than normal like two-handed swords, flails, and maces. However, all of those 3 weapons require more space than the average, so you can't get as many two-handed sword wielding people to square off against one plate-mail wearing foe than you can say shortsword wielders.

Also first and second edition use facing, so if you come up on somebody's rear or side flank you can avoid their shield. Oh, and shields can only be used against a certain amount of foes depending upon how big they are.

Simultaneous movement can be a little difficult to coordinate, but I love the sound of this with the greater variety of weapon and armor rules. This is 1st Ed., you say? I might have to investigate it.

[LibraryOgre]

What I'm interested in hearing about is how it is faster and also more combat strategic?

Actually, I would disagree that AD&D combat is more strategic than xD20*. I find it to be far more tactical, while xD20 is more strategic.

In xD20, strategy is a major part of the game. What's your build? What kind of tactics are you optimized for, with classes, feat and power selections, and gear? Tactics are still a major part of the game... you have to react to the individual circumstances, and tactical movement is of huge importance. But the major aspect of xD20 is strategic.

AD&D, however, is tactical. It is somewhat important which weapons you choose, depending on what rules the DM is using, but it is far more important what tactical choices you make. A lot contributes to this... fewer powers and options, generally smaller spellbooks, there are fewer races adding myriad powers to the mix, more random magic items... but it means you have fewer strategic choices to make, and it much more relies on tactics. How do I defend the wizard? How does the wizard defend me? What spells does he have, and what can he afford to get rid of? What's the thief able to do? AD&D combat comes down to tactics... the questions of the moment. While a good strategic sense is important, so your party knows how to react to general situations, nothing matches tactics in AD&D.

*3.x is 1D20... the first edition of d20 rules. 4th is 2D20... the second edition of the d20 rules... far more unites them than separates them. Therefore, when talking about both of them, they are xD20. I don't call them "Dungeons and Dragons" because that can equally apply to Mentzer, Moldvay, the White Box or the Brown books.

[Teron]

On a different note - and I realise it's not exactly what you asked for, but it's worth a mention - you can get some damned good fluff to add or adapt into your 3rd Edition games by picking up the right 2nd Edition books. You'd have to ask someone with more first-hand experience which books those are, though; or better yet, find the time to look through them yourself and see what appeals to you.

[TheElfLord]

Simultaneous movement can be a little difficult to coordinate, but I love the sound of this with the greater variety of weapon and armor rules. This is 1st Ed., you say? I might have to investigate it.

Second edition does the same thing and may be easier to find books for.

[BobVosh]

I would recommend first ed over second.

Although some first ed modules are silly. Such as there is one that starts with a bard pointing the way to a castle and saying he is too scared to go in. This makes WAY more sense in 3.x. In 1st ed to become a bard you are at least a 6th level character (3 fighter, 2 thief, 1 wizard) and more likely than not a 14th level multiclass (or is it dual classed?). So he sends 4 level 1s off.

[bosssmiley]

So you can know where your hobby comes from, and what the creators of the game actually intended.

Also: BECMI/1E/2E is far less number-crunchy and permission (ie: feats) dependent than 3E/4E, and far more free-wheelingly <Mills Lane>"I'll allow it"</Mills Lane> in feel.
Ability checks actually mean something and get used in play.
Multi-classing that works...if you're a non-human. Human dual classing? B0rked!
Less chance for optimisation cheese: people don't fall off the RNG if they fail to tweak their skills, AB, DCs, or saves to the point of absurdity.
Magic is less all-conquering (no metamagic) and magic items aren't Diablo-esque in feel.
Level loss and poison really are scary.
More delicious setting material than you can shake a stick at (Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Mystara, Hollow World, Birthright, Ravenloft, Gothic Earth, etc.)
The 1E DMG is probably one of the most useful gaming books you will ever read; there's good stuff on every page. If you can find even a pdf of the 1E DMG (clue: paizo.com) you owe it to yourself to have a copy.

[Tengu_temp]

- By default, you get to play in extremely generic and bland fantasy worlds rather than something fun and interesting.


Modified to show that this statement can go both ways.

[leperkhaun]

hehe,

When i bought my first 3.0 book, i took it back to the store because i thought it was misprinted....no thaco or weapon speeds.


Like many others when i do play 2E..... its a fond memory of the past.

[nagora]

Modified to show that this statement can go both ways.
That's the thing about pouring oil on troubled water: there's always some eejit who'll chuck a match on it.

Anyway: 1e is a framework which is much easier, I think, to build a long-running campaign with. 3e assumes that the campaign will reach an end - what we would call a campaign collapse in 1e. 4e has taken this further, it seems. In 1e a campaign is not simply where the characters live while they are waiting to become gods; it is where they live, marry, raise kids, and die either as obscure nobodies or world-renowed heroes.

I just think everything in 1e is much more heroic than 3e, while 4e has thrown out so much of the baby with the bathwater that it's certainly not D&D anymore; although it may be a game worth playing if you're really into that sort of manga/MMO-inspired combat-centric play. For me, the super-detailed combat systems of 3e and 4e are just boring - they're no more realistic or exciting than 1e, so what's the point of all that extra effort?

There is at least some mechanical support for making the races different, specifically the multi-classing rules. Humans are the great specialists who will outstrip any non-human in one field, while the demi-humans can advance across a wide front, as it were. It's a nice touch, I think, and preferable to the 3e "we're all the same" approach to so many things. And, with so few rules interrelating to each other, it's fairly easy to change if you don't like it without fearing that you've accidently given some munchkin the chance to multiply the effectiveness of some obscure splatbook feat by 1000%.

Which brings us to: modularity. The rules are not balanced against each other; they can be fiddled with to customise your campaign without too much worry about wrecking other rules.

The clarity of the classes is vastly greater in 1e; classes in 3e and 4e are almost pointless. In 3e there's too many of them and in 4e they are so overshadowed by combat roles that saying "I'm a ranger" is just shorthand for a list of feats - it says nothing very much about what sort of character you are playing.

Finally, magic in 1e is done really well. Vancian magic before silly people fiddled with the spells and broke them. Tactical and fantastically powerful when used carefully; but impossible to build an invulnerable caster who makes everyone else redundant.

Finally finally, the lack of hand-holding. You walk into a dungeon room without care and you may never walk out again, no matter your level. You have to think about what you are doing when you go into danger. Hit points can be overridden and "save or die" means exactly that. Act stupid, and you get to play dead - permanently!

Naturally, a bad DM can break all of the above, but that's true of any RPG. On the other hand, I think 1e demands more of the DM and it can overwhelm a newbie with the amount of adjudication they are expected to do compared to later systems which have built-in mechanisms for make bad adjudications for you.

In short: don't downgrade! Upgrade to the original by the original designers; scrap the pale imitations by dilettantes and pushers of plastic dolls to pre-teens.


Step up to Advanced Dungeons and Dragons! (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=17004&it=1&filters=0_0_1300)

[The Rose Dragon]

Also, if you play 2nd Edition, Grease is an awesome spell. I had a 2nd level character in an adventure where everyone else was 6th level and I dominated the battlefield. With Grease.

Also, I rolled a 20 on my one attack roll, so that helped a bit.

[BobVosh]

Also, if you play 2nd Edition, Grease is an awesome spell. I had a 2nd level character in an adventure where everyone else was 6th level and I dominated the battlefield. With Grease.

Also, I rolled a 20 on my one attack roll, so that helped a bit.

As opposed to now?

While I disagree with most of the combat stuff Nagora says (no offense) I do like how the spells worked in 1ed much more. Except for the 1st level spell "cantrips." Or is that 2ed? meh.

The only thing I've always hated was how an elf who lived for thousands of years couldn't advance past level 8 fighter but a 20 year old human could.

I know humans are the "master specialist" and have funny dual classing stuff, but still...>1k years old and never?

[Ascension]

Okay, most of this has been a d20 vs. AD&D discussion, but allow me to shift the topic just a bit... 1E or 2E? I'm seriously considering picking up an older edition, so I'm wondering which one it should be.

From the way discussion has gone so far I'm leaning slightly towards 1E, but I'm not sure... Could I at least see a listing of points at which they differ?

[Matthew]

From the way discussion has gone so far I'm leaning slightly towards 1E, but I'm not sure... Could I at least see a listing of points at which they differ?
Here you go:



1. Ability score tables now list scores from 1 to 25 in the PHB.
2. Ability score functions changed slightly, such as weight allowance for scores less than 10 and % chance to learn spells for scores from 10 to 16.
3. Ability scores of 5 or lower no longer limits class selection.
4. Open doors changed from a d6 to a d20.
5. Intelligence no longer affects the minimum number of spells per level for magic-users.
6. Maximum spells per level has been reduced to an optional rule.
7. Loyalty and NPC reaction changed from d% to d20.
8. Half-orcs removed.
9. Racial level limits increased and no longer based on ability scores.
10. Slow unlimited advancement for demi-humans is an optional rule.
11. Gnomes now receive ability score adjustments.
12. Racial ability minimum and maximums changed.
13. Demi-humans no longer begin knowing several languages.
14. Additional languages for demi-humans no longer limited by race.
15. Life expectancy of most demi-humans greatly reduced.
16. Dwarves now have a 20% chance for all magic items not specifically suited to their class to fail instead of a 20% chance of failure for rings only.
17. Dwarves’ underground skills have slightly different probabilites.
18. The resurrection spell now affects elves, and raise dead may affect elves at the DM’s option.
19. Gnomes now have a 20% chance for all magic items except weapons, armor, shields, illusionist items, and thief items to fail.
20. Gnomes’ underground skills have slightly different probabilities.
21. Halflings now receive a +1 to their attack rolls when using thrown weapons or slings.
22. Halflings no longer have the 20% chance for magic rings to fail when they use them.
23. Experience point requirements for classes changed, most notable is the paladin.
24. Weapons and armor permissible to some classes changed slightly.
25. Class prime requisite ability scores changed.
26. Classes were divided into four main groups (warrior, priest, wizard, rogue), no sub-classes exist.
27. Class titles removed.
28. Assassin, barbarian, cavalier, and monk classes were removed.
29. Bard and ranger classes changed entirely.
30. Fighters no longer make a number of attacks equal to their level when fighting enemies with less than one hit die.
31. Weapon specialization changed for bows.
32. The monthly income for establishing a stronghold was removed.
33. Paladins now receive four weapons proficiencies at 1st level (and gain one every 3 levels instead of every 2 levels as in the UA).
34. Magic-users now called mages.
35. Mages, illusionists, and other specialist wizards share the same experience, hit die, and spell progression tables.
36. Mages now receive hit dice up to level 10 instead of level 11.
37. Mages no longer have the ability to construct strongholds.
38. Illusionists no longer are a separate class, but are now specialist wizards.
39. Illusionists no longer have their own spell list.
40. Cleric turn undead table changed and included in the PHB instead of the DMG.
41. Druids are no longer a separate class, but are now priests of a specific mythos.
42. Druids no longer have their own spell list.
43. Druids no longer have a class level limit.
44. Thieves now allocate a number of percentage points to each skill at 1st level and with each additional level increase to their various skills instead of having each skill increase by the same amount for all thieves.
45. The pick pockets skill functions differently.
46. The open locks skill functions differently.
47. Thieves can now remain hidden in the shadows while making very small, slow movements; and a hidden thief is equally hidden from creatures with or without infravision.
48. Multi-class combinations allowed changed slightly.
49. Half-elven multi-classed clerics no longer require a minimum wisdom of 13.
50. Multi-classed wizards cannot cast spells while wearing armor.
51. Multi-classed priests are still restricted to priest weapons.
52. Dual-classed characters may now have up to four classes.
53. Dual-classed characters may only select one class from each class group.
54. Alignment definitions changed.
55. A change in alignment now doubles the amount of experience needed to reach the next level instead of causing a loss of a level.
56. Additional weapon proficiencies for level advancement now start counting from 1st level instead of including 1st level.
57. Non-weapon proficiencies*.
58. Silver pieces are now 1/10th of a gold.
59. Starting funds for a mage is now 1d4 + 1 instead of 2d4.
60. Priests may not retain any starting funds after purchasing initial equipment.
61. Prices for various items, including weapons and armor changed.
62. Some new items added.
63. Field plate and full plate no longer reduce damage.
64. Weapon vs. AC type replaced with weapon type vs. armor and made optional.
65. Missile weapon range now given in tens of yards for all situations.
66. Encumbrance now calculated off of actual weight and does not include bulk.
67. Spell components made optional.
68. Spell lists were changed, all wizards now use the same spell list. Priest spells are divided into spheres and clerics and druids use the same list.
69. Some individual spells have changed.
70. Awarding experience points changed.
71. Training reduced to an optional rule.
72. A natural roll of 20 is always a hit, regardless of the AC of the target.
73. THAC0 for thieves and magic-users changed and is unlimited in progression.
74. Segments are removed from the combat round.
75. Initiative is changed.
76. Group initiative and individual initiative optional rules.
77. Characters and creatures with multiple attacks do not automatically attack first in the round.
78. Weapon speed now affects initiative as an optional rule.
79. Two weapon fighting is only available to warriors and rogues.
80. Non-lethal combat rules changed.
81. Parrying rules changed and reduced to optional.
82. Some saving throws now have a priority over others.
83. Magic resistance no longer affected by caster level.
84. Not all monster poisons are lethal anymore.
85. Characters now gain 3 h.p. per day of bed rest instead of 1.
86. Characters can now die if they suffer 50 points of damage from one attack, regardless of their hit point total, if they fail to make a save vs. death.
87. Surprise changed, uses a d10 and represents one full round of surprise instead of a variable number of segments. Spells cannot be cast during the surprise round.
88. Surprised characters lose their dexterity bonus to AC, they are assumed to be totally non-reactant.
89. Henchmen are now special NPCs that the DM introduces into the group and are friends and allies but not employees of PCs. There is no restrictions on the level of a henchmen acquired.
90. The illumination radius of torches, magic weapons, and other items is reduced.
91. Halflings’ base movement changed from 9” to 6.
92. Jogging and running optional rules added.
93. All characters have a 40% chance to climb walls.
94. Climbing modifiers changed.

Taken from a post by RogueAttorney, which can be found here (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31570).

Generally speaking, the aesthetic between editions is very different and the writing level as well; second edition was written to be comprehensible to children, first edition didn't worry about that.

[nagora]

As opposed to now?

While I disagree with most of the combat stuff Nagora says (no offense) I do like how the spells worked in 1ed much more. Except for the 1st level spell "cantrips." Or is that 2ed? meh.
1e gained cantrips as individual mini-spells; I think 2e is what you're thinking of.


The only thing I've always hated was how an elf who lived for thousands of years couldn't advance past level 8 fighter but a 20 year old human could.
That limit was raised fairly substantially, I think (I don't have UA to hand). Edit: no it wasn't except for Drow. The max level post-UA for a multi-classed grey-elf fighter was 8 at 18/90 STR; single-classed added 2 to that.


I know humans are the "master specialist" and have funny dual classing stuff, but still...>1k years old and never?
The flip side is - if elves live to be 2000 years old and don't have limits then why are humans not all kept as pets?

Anyway; it's a flavour thing and a lot of people drop it (without explaining that last point, but that's just me being picky).


Okay, most of this has been a d20 vs. AD&D discussion, but allow me to shift the topic just a bit... 1E or 2E? I'm seriously considering picking up an older edition, so I'm wondering which one it should be.

From the way discussion has gone so far I'm leaning slightly towards 1E, but I'm not sure... Could I at least see a listing of points at which they differ?
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7116

I think 2e tidied some things up that needed tidied up; but it also fiddled where fiddling was not needed. On balance, I felt that I could do what it did right for myself without having to try to fix what it did wrong. The political-correctness of the Demon/Devil change offended me too and was part of a general feeling of blandness I felt on looking over the changes when they were discussed in The Dragon, so I never tried it.

Matt will probably have more to say on this as he's a 2e player/DM albeit with many houserules. Edit: Ninja'd

[AstralFire]

Looking at that list Matt posted, I am startlingly reminded of Computer Game patch lists.

...To pre-empt the reaction: That's not a knock on anything. It's just one of those amusing, small and harmless reminders of how the two have influenced each other over the years.

[Matthew]

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7116

Great minds and all that. I didn't realise that was originally posted by Sieg. Ah well, live and learn. I'm not sure that list is 100% accurate either. I'll have to check into it, but I'm pretty sure everyone can fight with two weapons.



I think 2e tidied some things up that needed tidied up; but it also fiddled where fiddling was not needed. On balance, I felt that I could do what it did right for myself without having to try to fix what it did wrong. The political-correctness of the Demon/Devil change offended me too and was part of a general feeling of blandness I felt on looking over the changes when they were discussed in The Dragon, so I never tried it.

Oh yeah, that demon/devil thing was pretty annoying. The first edition versions are much cooler.



Matt will probably have more to say on this as he's a 2e player/DM albeit with many houserules.

Edit: ninja'd.

Heh, heh. I would probably recommend getting hold of both, but if I had to recommend one for someone coming from D20/3e/4e it would probably be second edition with a view towards eventually getting hold of first edition. They are about 95% compatible, though, so I wouldn't worry. Also, the second draft of OSRIC is very shortly up for release so you might want to check that out beforehand (the pdf version is free).



Looking at that list Matt posted, I am startlingly reminded of Computer Game patch lists.

Ha, yeah. It does look like a patch list. Well, some changes were good and some were bad. Of course, which is which is largely preferencial. :smallbiggrin:

[nagora]

Looking at that list Matt posted, I am startlingly reminded of Computer Game patch lists.
You could argue that any new edition of any book or game should be like a unified patchset rather than something completely different from what went before.

[BobVosh]

The flip side is - if elves live to be 2000 years old and don't have limits then why are humans not all kept as pets?

Anyway; it's a flavour thing and a lot of people drop it (without explaining that last point, but that's just me being picky).


Sheer numbers and birth rate. Also human pick up the skills faster anyway.

So you have a large number of moderate level vs small numbers of high levels. In 1st ed the moderate should win as >level 10 nets about 2hp per level. Unless that is 2nd ed again (where you stop rolling for hp, but I'm pretty sure it is both).

So you have good odds from numbers on humans with similiar hit points. Admittably the elven wizards are going to slay tons, but so will level 10 human wizards.

Then the enlarged human barbarians will rush in and show why enlarging in 1st ed is so amazing on the fighter-types.

Man I want to watch this fight now.

[potatocubed]

Your AD&D books will be compatible with all the existing material for the Planescape setting, and most of the material for Dark Sun, and several epic boxed sets (Dragon Mountain, Night Below, etc.) all of which can be had in pdf form for dirt cheap these days. No fiddling about with conversions!

[BobVosh]

What did they do to devils/demons?


You could argue that any new edition of any book or game should be like a unified patchset rather than something completely different from what went before.

I disagree, erratas should be for the same edition. I don't want to spend more for the same ole with +1 patches of fixin'

[AstralFire]

You could argue that any new edition of any book or game should be like a unified patchset rather than something completely different from what went before.


...To pre-empt the reaction: That's not a knock on anything. It's just one of those amusing, small and harmless reminders of how the two have influenced each other over the years.

IOW, I really don't have an opinion on that. I just thought it was funny.


What did they do to devils/demons?

The words Baatezu and Tanar'ri originated in 2E.

[nagora]

So you have good odds from numbers on humans with similiar hit points. Admittably the elven wizards are going to slay tons, but so will level 10 human wizards.
Hmm. I think the Lv 60 elven fighters (The XP chart will keep the numbers of MU60's very low compared to the fighters) may be more of a problem for the human rebels. With only 1% of the humans above level-0, ten F60's will slaughter 36,000 human troops in an hour of combat-so much for numbers!

Meanwhile, the leveled humans will be no match for their elven counter-parts, topping out at 15th to 18th level in all probability.

Still, an interesting exercise and perhaps worth a short-run game of a year or so, but long term I think would dissolve into silliness.


IOW, I really don't have an opinion on that. I just thought it was funny.
I wasn't criticising, just observing.


I disagree, erratas should be for the same edition. I don't want to spend more for the same ole with +1 patches of fixin'
When the errata and expansions have piled up for 10 years or so, it's nice to get them into a single binding - especially for newbies. That's what I want as a new edition; not something that I have to relearn from scratch.

[BobVosh]

Hmm. I think the Lv 60 elven fighters (The XP chart will keep the numbers of MU60's very low compared to the fighters) may be more of a problem for the human rebels. With only 1% of the humans above level-0, ten F60's will slaughter 36,000 human troops in an hour of combat-so much for numbers!
Except in order to reach level 60 they would have to grind...elves. Lolth only is like CR (not that CR really existed then) 25. She had...what, 180 hp?
Also, how do you figure only 1% above 0?



When the errata and expansions have piled up for 10 years or so, it's nice to get them into a single binding - especially for newbies. That's what I want as a new edition; not something that I have to relearn from scratch.

Couldn't they just release one book for that...like the rules compendium?

[Matthew]

Also, how do you figure only 1% above 0?

Henchmen recruiting charts I would think. 2e takes a more open approach, suggesting that you should decide for yourself, but has a similar idea of the ratio of 0 to levelled characters (2% is mentioned as a possible figure).

[Premier]

Okay, most of this has been a d20 vs. AD&D discussion, but allow me to shift the topic just a bit... 1E or 2E? I'm seriously considering picking up an older edition, so I'm wondering which one it should be.

From the way discussion has gone so far I'm leaning slightly towards 1E, but I'm not sure... Could I at least see a listing of points at which they differ?

Here are the differences that matter to me:

- 1E has combat matrices to determine whether an attack hits, 2E has THAC0. (Well, 1E already had THAC0, but as an optional rule.) Personally, I prefer THAC0, but it takes zero effort to run an otherwise 1E game with THAC0 transplanted into it.

- Half-orcs, assassins, oriental monks removed from 2E. 1E grogs tend to whine about it a lot, but no big deal. If you want to have them in your 2E game, it takes zero effort to put them back in.

- Demons and Devils renamed with funny names. Same thing as above, word-by-word.

- Spellcasting classes. This is more important to me than the above. In 1E, Magic Users and Illusionists were two different classes with separate spell lists; same with Clerics and Druids. 2E sort of eliminated that, making Illusionists a sub-class of Mage and Druids a sub-class of Priest, so they used the same master spell list as their parent class, but without access to some spell spheres and extra access to others. All in all, I imagine this would make it easier for a DM to create special sub-classes for clerics of certain deities and the like; however, I still dislike the system, because it just feel bland to me. I prefer to retain these classes as entirely separate and having very, very little overlap in the spell lists, and take the extra effort when creating a specialist cleric. On a similar note, 2E introduced specialist wizards, but the effort was rather meh. Yay, I get a few extra spells in my school and my victims get a -2 penalty to saving throws! Colour me unimpressed.

- Skill systems, non-weapon proficiencies, whatever. I used to like the 2E NWP system, but found myself eventually drifting away from it in favour of something simpler. But whatever - you can easily use NWPs in a 1E game, or any other system in either edition.

- 2E Splatbook parade. I used to love having all those dozens of optional kits and whatnot for every class and race, but after a while you do get satiated on them, and I'm presently aiming for something more pure and "minimalistic". But that's just me, someone coming from 3E might find them a lasting addition to his game. It does give the game a very different feel, as compared to vanilla 1E. Having said that, I do find the 2E splatbooks very useful for cherry-picking ideas from them, potentially even for a 1E game.

- 2E has a number of brave and exciting non-Tolkienish settings, like Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Savage Coast, Curse of the Red Death, Planescape, etc. etc., and it also has some nice supplements for running historically-inspired campaigns in the Roman era, or with Vikings, etc.. Depending on your tastes, you might find any or each of these great, or you might just pass them up.


For what it's worth, my next campaign will be on a 1E chassis, but using THAC0 and a largely freeform homegrown skill system (and some other homebrew odds and ends).

[Thane of Fife]

On a similar note, 2E introduced specialist wizards, but the effort was rather meh. Yay, I get a few extra spells in my school and my victims get a -2 penalty to saving throws! Colour me unimpressed.


That could be a interesting homebrew project - create full spell lists for specialists in the other seven schools of magic.

[Tormsskull]

As some have already mentioned, the huge difference between 1e/2e and 3e/4e to me is the quality of the books and the campaign settings. I'll take Dark Sun, Ravenloft, or Birthright over Eberron any day.

I would forewarn, however, that if you're coming from 3e/4e and actually trying to run a game of 1e or 2e, make sure you have:


A lot of time to read the books. The differences between 1e/2e and 3e/4e are HUGE.
Open-minded players. A lot of 1e/2e is open to DM interpretation and is practically designed for the DM to be ad hoc ruling all the time. A lot of 3e/4e players will feel uncomfortable with this.
Players interested in role-playing. 1e/2e are designed to facilitate role-playing very well. There isn't a whole lot of optimization that goes on in 1e/2e, so if your players are much more focused on 'building' characters they may get bored easily with 1e/2e.

[hamlet]

Henchmen recruiting charts I would think. 2e takes a more open approach, suggesting that you should decide for yourself, but has a similar idea of the ratio of 0 to levelled characters (2% is mentioned as a possible figure).

Actually, 2ed maintained the only 1% of the populace is classed thought patterns, at least in name. However, I believe it also introduced the meritocracy pattern (i.e., rank = power) as an optional model. Unfortunately, the meritocracy started to win out in the end and a lot of town guards seemed to become populated with 5th or 6th level fighters comanded by a 20th level Paladin.

Many, if not most, of us ignored that outside of modules. Had an interesting moment not terribly long ago when my players discovered to their great dismay that the "pope" figure that they took great pains to see in order to find a cure for lycanthropy for one of the characters was, in fact, a 0 level human who was completely incapable of casting spells and who's "cure" involved slaying the afflicted character.

[potatocubed]

if your players are much more focused on 'building' characters they may get bored easily with 1e/2e.

Perhaps you could try pointing out that in 2e (I can't speak for 1e at all) the 'build' of your characters happens during the game itself. The difference between a fighter with a legion of followers and a castle to put them in, and a fighter without, is all to do with what they did in game to get where they are - not what choices you made when levelling up.

[ken-do-nim]

Looking at that list Matt posted, I am startlingly reminded of Computer Game patch lists.


In my opinion, 1E:2E as 3.0E:3.5E.

To answer the person asking whether they should get 1E or 2E books, my answer is both. Most people, including myself, run a hybrid campaign. The books are pretty cheap, so cost needn't be a factor.

[nagora]

Except in order to reach level 60 they would have to grind...elves. Lolth only is like CR (not that CR really existed then) 25. She had...what, 180 hp?
Loth is a tenth level monster in 1e, with 66 hp (and -10 AC in spider form) but able to heal three times per day.

What do you mean by "grind...elves"?


Also, how do you figure only 1% above 0?
That's the BtB value in the 1e DMG somewhere; other races are 2%.


Couldn't they just release one book for that...like the rules compendium?
Well, to me that's a new edition. It's certainly not the same edition as the original one without all those changes, is it?

[Wolfpack]

Could we stop pretending that 3e and 4e are the same game? It's really annoying.

Probably the same thing for 1e and 2e though I haven't played 1e, so I wouldn't know. (Not to mention that I've seen several insinuations and outright statements that 3 and 4 are the same, and many fewer for 1 and 2.)

And how about instead of taking advantage of a poorly worded title to consistently insult every edition other then your favorite, can we just stop talking about up/down grading at all.

I don't see how offending people is in any way effective.

[nagora]

Could we stop pretending that 3e and 4e are the same game? It's really annoying.
Who is this directed at? I haven't noticed anyone doing it. 3e and 4e have a lot in common especially in contrast with 1e and 2e but they're not the same and saying "3e/4e" when talking about some feature both have in common is fair comment.

[ken-do-nim]

Originally Posted by Ascension
Simultaneous movement can be a little difficult to coordinate, but I love the sound of this with the greater variety of weapon and armor rules. This is 1st Ed., you say? I might have to investigate it.



Second edition does the same thing and may be easier to find books for.

Second edition does not have nearly the level of support for simultaneous movement, weapon, and armor rules that 1E does. It is still better than 3E though, which dropped those notions entirely. To differentiate weapons, 3E opted mainly for critical range and multiplier aside from the base damage, except for a few weapons which give bonuses to special maneuvers (which is something I like).

Actually the most underrated system for weapons is in BECMI D&D. The weapon mastery system basically rolls the concept of "feats" into the weapons. So for instance you can trip with a halberd because halberds have a hook on the end designed to do that. You can stun an opponent hit by a two-handed sword because they are really really heavy. Etc.

[AstralFire]

Players interested in role-playing. 1e/2e are designed to facilitate role-playing very well. There isn't a whole lot of optimization that goes on in 1e/2e, so if your players are much more focused on 'building' characters they may get bored easily with 1e/2e.

That's a requirement for every edition of every game that bears the title of 'Role-Playing Game.'

Full. Stop.

Also can't really say that there's a big difference in quality in 2E setting books - which I have plundered regularly before - and 3E, just that there is more of them. And whether or not you dislike Eberron does not make it lower quality. It's pretty well thought out, but it's designed to appeal to a specific few subgenres that don't overlap with FR, DS, Planescape, Spelljammer, Ravenloft, et al.

I wouldn't mind comparative threads so much if there wasn't so much of the jab-jab-jab at the game that is disfavored by an individual poster. It used to be between WoD and D&D, now I see it almost solely between D&D editions.

[Chronos]

Quoth bosssmiley:
Multi-classing that works...if you're a non-human. Human dual classing? B0rked!One of the things I most eagerly welcomed in 3e was the introduction of a multiclassing system that actually made sense. In 2e, it was either impossible, or gave you such a huge boost to your capabilities that it was hard to justify passing it up. My litmus test for how well multiclassing makes sense is to invent a new class, called fighter-prime, that's identical to a fighter except for the name, and then compare a fighter-prime/fighter to a straight fighter. In 3e, they're almost indistinguishable, but in 2e, the multiclass is bizzarely far ahead in some ways and bizarrely far behind in others. That, and it was a royal pain whenever you leveled up to figure out what all of your stats were now (or even to figure out when you leveled up).

Quoth nagora:
Which brings us to: modularity. The rules are not balanced against each other; they can be fiddled with to customise your campaign without too much worry about wrecking other rules.Yes and no... A single change might not break the balance of a bunch of other rules, but it might necessitate the creation of a whole bunch of other rules to support it. Changes still propagated through the system; it's just instead of the changes propagating automatically (which might take them in an unbalanced direction), you had to propagate the changes yourself (which is a lot of work).

As an example, if you introduced a new class, then you had to go through and decide what all of that class's saving throws were, and what proficiencies the class got access to, and what items the class could use, and what races could be members of that class and to what level, and what multiclass combinations are possible. OK, so a book with a new class will have all that information in it, in so far as it relates to the core rules.

But now, suppose that someone else publishes a book with a new race in it. That new book will say which of the core classes that new race can take, and to what level, and what multiclass options are available to it out of the core classes. But can you use that race with that class from that other book? And if some third book introduces yet another class, can you combine those two new classes? You have to answer on a case-by-case basis, since they're not all part of the same system.

[Matthew]

That could be a interesting homebrew project - create full spell lists for specialists in the other seven schools of magic.

Definitely. It is on my list of fun projects.



Actually, 2ed maintained the only 1% of the populace is classed thought patterns, at least in name. However, I believe it also introduced the meritocracy pattern (i.e., rank = power) as an optional model. Unfortunately, the meritocracy started to win out in the end and a lot of town guards seemed to become populated with 5th or 6th level fighters comanded by a 20th level Paladin.

Are you sure? I couldn't find anything to that effect in the PHB/DMG/MM, though I know I have read such things in Dragon before. The closest I found was the assertion that you would never find an army of 20,000 Level 4 fighters, and would be hard pressed to find 1,000 Level 2 fighters.



Many, if not most, of us ignored that outside of modules. Had an interesting moment not terribly long ago when my players discovered to their great dismay that the "pope" figure that they took great pains to see in order to find a cure for lycanthropy for one of the characters was, in fact, a 0 level human who was completely incapable of casting spells and who's "cure" involved slaying the afflicted character.

Heh, heh. I always like the 0 level Pope gag. Of course, even as a 0 level, he could have scads of spells if it was appropriate.



Well, to me that's a new edition. It's certainly not the same edition as the original one without all those changes, is it?

I have been recently wondering what really constitutes an edition.



Could we stop pretending that 3e and 4e are the same game? It's really annoying.

Probably the same thing for 1e and 2e though I haven't played 1e, so I wouldn't know. (Not to mention that I've seen several insinuations and outright statements that 3 and 4 are the same, and many fewer for 1 and 2.)

And how about instead of taking advantage of a poorly worded title to consistently insult every edition other then your favorite, can we just stop talking about up/down grading at all.

I don't see how offending people is in any way effective.

I think, as Nagora says, you may be confusing general statements about D20/3e/4e with specific statements. The title of this thread is "Why should I downgrade to AD&D?" I could say that was an insult just in its formulation, but I don't think it is intended to be. I would suggest that you consider the comments made in this thread in the same spirit. Contrasting AD&D/1e/2e favourably against D20/3e/4e is one way of "giving the hard sell", and not a surreptitious way of attacking D20.



Second edition does not have nearly the level of support for simultaneous movement, weapon, and armor rules that 1E does.

Well... the lack of a segment system could mean this, but it could also be argued that its lack more fully supports simultaneous movement. Probably a subject for another thread, though. Though 2e lacked the weapon versus armour modifiers, and weapon lengths/space of 1e it did have a lot of other rules for weapons and armour, both in the core books and in the various expansions.



That's a requirement for every edition of every game that bears the title of 'Role-Playing Game.'

This is true, but in lacking the "build option" , the emphasis is more clearly on the roleplaying, which I think is what Tormsskull is saying.



Also can't really say that there's a big difference in quality in 2E setting books - which I have plundered regularly before - and 3E, just that there is more of them. And whether or not you [i]dislike Eberron does not make it lower quality. It's pretty well thought out, but it's designed to appeal to a specific few subgenres that don't overlap with FR, DS, Planescape, Spelljammer, Ravenloft, et al.

Meh. Quality is in the eye of the beholder (not that sort). I don't think anybody was having a go at Eberron particularly, though.



I wouldn't mind comparative threads so much if there wasn't so much of the jab-jab-jab at the game that is disfavored by an individual poster. It used to be between WoD and D&D, now I see it almost solely between D&D editions.
These are hardly jabs. Comparing something unfavourably or favourably to something else is different to just promogulating misunderstandings about an edition. Nor is saying I prefer X because I don't like Y the same thing as sayng Y is universally bad.

[ken-do-nim]

Quoth bosssmiley:One of the things I most eagerly welcomed in 3e was the introduction of a multiclassing system that actually made sense. In 2e, it was either impossible, or gave you such a huge boost to your capabilities that it was hard to justify passing it up. My litmus test for how well multiclassing makes sense is to invent a new class, called fighter-prime, that's identical to a fighter except for the name, and then compare a fighter-prime/fighter to a straight fighter. In 3e, they're almost indistinguishable, but in 2e, the multiclass is bizzarely far ahead in some ways and bizarrely far behind in others. That, and it was a royal pain whenever you leveled up to figure out what all of your stats were now (or even to figure out when you leveled up).


When I first discovered 3E I thought the multi-classing system was genius. But after playing 3E for years & years I realize it just doesn't work; that's why they had to introduce prestige classes like Eldritch Knight & Mystic Theurge. Those aren't so much classes as fixes to allow multiclassing like AD&D has. Besides prestige classes, people multiclass in 3E largely for dipping purposes, and I've come to realize I really don't like the flavor of dipping. Most of the time dips are done for char op reasons, but class changes also effect the role-playing experience of who that person is, so you get a direct conflict between character identity and character optimization.

[nagora]

Quoth bosssmiley:One of the things I most eagerly welcomed in 3e was the introduction of a multiclassing system that actually made sense.
3e's multiclassing was a show-stopper for me. It's just so stupid I can't overlook it. The nonsense it allows pervades every 3e setting and discussion board.


As an example, if you introduced a new class, then you had to go through and decide what all of that class's saving throws were, and what proficiencies the class got access to, and what items the class could use, and what races could be members of that class and to what level, and what multiclass combinations are possible.

It's very rare to need a new class beyond core.


But now, suppose that someone else publishes a book with a new race in it. That new book will say which of the core classes that new race can take, and to what level, and what multiclass options are available to it out of the core classes. But can you use that race with that class from that other book? And if some third book introduces yet another class, can you combine those two new classes? You have to answer on a case-by-case basis, since they're not all part of the same system.

Fine. As I say, the frequency with which I find myself wanting to add a class is so low that none of that would be a real burden if it did happen.

[Matthew]

One of the things I most eagerly welcomed in 3e was the introduction of a multiclassing system that actually made sense.

I actually prefer the D20/4e approach to either the AD&D or D20/3e methods.

[AstralFire]

I actually prefer the D20/4e approach to either the AD&D or D20/3e methods.

Same. 3e, synergy is too important and the classes in the front end of the system weren't built with it in mind - ToB and Psionics are better built as far as multiclassing goes, and multiclass issues for them are almost non-existent. PrCs are just icing. In Core, the Monk Unarmed Base Attack Bonus was a very bad idea that's almost been universally forgotten to even exist now, and vancian casters go poorly with melee. 2e, the experience level setup is too complicated IMO.

[Rad]

That's a requirement for every edition of every game that bears the title of 'Role-Playing Game.'

Full. Stop.


3E and 4E have well developed sub-games: Character building and more tactical combat. They appeal to some players that consider them to be their favorite part of the game.
In earlier editions character building is just not there: there are extremely limited options both in the build and in the actions in combat. That means that those players that really want that to be part of their games will be disappointed.
On the other hand you will have better fortune to introduce to the game players who consider having to study several books before being able to play a decent fighter an annoying thing; those are the "roleplayers" that were referred to.
Of course you can do both under any system, but different systems allow you more or less space for the mechanical part to be played with and different systems will also require players to study their mechanics more or less.
So your tastes DO affect how much you enjoy a given system.

[AstralFire]

That's more of a preference between simplicity and complexity in design than roleplaying. Now, roleplayers probably do have a tendency towards preferring simplicity in my experience, but the two aren't actually causally related so much as both being products of general and stereotypical 'right-brain thinking.'

I know plenty of people I would hesitate to qualify as interested roleplayers or interested in optimization that greatly prefer simple games.

[Tormsskull]

Though 2e lacked the weapon versus armour modifiers, and weapon lengths/space of 1e it did have a lot of other rules for weapons and armour, both in the core books and in the various expansions.


Actually, 2e does have weapon versus armor types as an optional rule in the PHB. I tried using it once before, but unless the players are really into it, its just another time sink.



This is true, but in lacking the "build option" [i.e. the sub game of character creation to create mechanical differentiation], the emphasis is more clearly on the roleplaying, which I think is what Tormsskull is saying.


Exactly.

[AstralFire]

Exactly.

See above.

[hamlet]

Are you sure? I couldn't find anything to that effect in the PHB/DMG/MM, though I know I have read such things in Dragon before. The closest I found was the assertion that you would never find an army of 20,000 Level 4 fighters, and would be hard pressed to find 1,000 Level 2 fighters.


Heh, heh. I always like the 0 level Pope gag. Of course, even as a 0 level, he could have scads of spells if it was appropriate.



It was not really explicit the way it was in Gary's DMG, but the note that you quoted there pretty much said it implicitly, that the default was a whole lot of 0-level schlubs and only a few people with even one or two levels. The PC's were the cream of the crop so to speak.

However, it was forgotten pretty quickly as some DM's (those I call fools) started adding class levels to everybody. This lead to the Forgotten Realms problem where the tavern keeper was a 10th level fighter, all the bar maids were at least 3rd level somethings, and the 20 or 30 patrons in the room averaged out at 5th, but they still need your help to fend off the 2 dozen standard kobolds.

And in my case, the "pope gag" wasn't a gag, just realistic. It still earned me the "killer DM" moniker at the time, though.

[Morty]

However, it was forgotten pretty quickly as some DM's (those I call fools) started adding class levels to everybody. This lead to the Forgotten Realms problem where the tavern keeper was a 10th level fighter, all the bar maids were at least 3rd level somethings, and the 20 or 30 patrons in the room averaged out at 5th, but they still need your help to fend off the 2 dozen standard kobolds.


Not to start a setting-related flame war, but where does it come from? Yes, some of the bartenders or shopkeepers in FR are listed as 5th level warriors or so, but not even a half of them are 10th level fighters. I don't want to derail the thread, but I'm curious.

[Matthew]

That's more of a preference between simplicity and complexity in design than roleplaying. Now, roleplayers probably do have a tendency towards preferring simplicity in my experience, but the two aren't actually causally related so much as both being products of general and stereotypical 'right-brain thinking.'

I know plenty of people I would hesitate to qualify as interested roleplayers or interested in optimization that greatly prefer simple games.

I think there is a fair argument for talking about this in terms of time allocation. If I have to go searching for the right feats to portray a character, or the correct rules to run an encounter then that is time taken away that I could spend roleplaying or thinking about how I want to portray the characters, situation or environment, rather than the means by which I will. There is some degree of subjectivity, since the better acquainted you are with the rules, the more expediently you will be able to employ them. On the other hand, I would argue that it takes more concentration and studied effort to keep more rules "at your fingertips", as it were.

None of this is criticism; the "sub game" or "meta game" can be quite rewarding in and of itself; certainly, it has proven to be very attractive.



It was not really explicit the way it was in Gary's DMG, but the note that you quoted there pretty much said it implicitly, that the default was a whole lot of 0-level schlubs and only a few people with even one or two levels. The PC's were the cream of the crop so to speak.

Sure, but the DMG does discuss varying percentages of classed characters. It seems fair to say it defaults towards 1-2% read in context.



And in my case, the "pope gag" wasn't a gag, just realistic. It still earned me the "killer DM" moniker at the time, though.

Just jesting with you. :smallwink:

Perhaps the Forgotten Realms thing should get its own thread.

[Sebastian]

When it come to rules old editions can be a kind of acquired taste, but if there is a thing that IMHO 2nd edition (the oneI know better, but I think it apply to previous ones, too) has better than 3.x & c. is flavour.
Just look at the monster manuals for example, on the average 3.x's MMs are a collection of combat stats and little else, 4ed even removed that "little else" but if you read AD&D monster manuals you'll see that the designer at least tried (even if with mixed success) to make monster something more than just things to kill, they had an ecology, sometime even a culture even if schematic, they came with (sometime crazy) plot idea and a place in the world that was something more than "thing to kill at X level". Just check this thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=389945) in RPG.net where someone read and comment every entry in the monster manual if you want to see what I mean (it is much more interesting than how it sound, really :) )

Or for other examples check the Illithiad, or "I, tyrant" two whole books dedicated respecively to mind flayer and beholders (some of it was reprinted in lords of madness, but not everything, of course), or the planescape books, or Darksun, or Ravenloft, or Spelljammer, or Birthright, or...
Of course the more crunchy books would not be so interesting (with some exception, like the complete necromancer, IIRC) but the others can still be a gold mine of ideas and plot hooks.

[Chronos]

When I first discovered 3E I thought the multi-classing system was genius. But after playing 3E for years & years I realize it just doesn't work; that's why they had to introduce prestige classes like Eldritch Knight & Mystic Theurge.That's not a problem with the multiclassing system, but with the casting system. Non-casters (who increase in power mostly linearly) can multiclass just fine, without needing hybrid PrCs. It's just the casters who increase in power quadratically or cubicly that don't fit in.



Just look at the monster manuals for example, on the average 3.x's MMs are a collection of combat stats and little else, 4ed even removed that "little else" but if you read AD&D monster manuals you'll see that the designer at least tried (even if with mixed success) to make monster something more than just things to kill, they had an ecology, sometime even a culture even if schematic, they came with (sometime crazy) plot idea and a place in the world that was something more than "thing to kill at X level".OK, this I agree with wholeheartedly. I really miss monster entries that included details like rarity, activity cycle, and diet, and that was just in the summary table (the text had far more details). The one virtue of what we've got now is that if you still have the old books around, it's very easy to import the fluff into 3.x or 4e, while mechanics are not as easy to import.

[horseboy]

Sheer numbers and birth rate. Also human pick up the skills faster anyway.You know, there are more cats in the world than there are humans. Given how easily a cat can kill a commoner...:smallwink:

The words Baatezu and Tanar'ri originated in 2E.I'm pretty sure that wasn't 2nd edition but Planescape's fault.

[Tormsskull]

The only thing I've always hated was how an elf who lived for thousands of years couldn't advance past level 8 fighter but a 20 year old human could.

I know this was just an example, but if you had a 20 year-old human fighter past level 8 in 2e AD&D, you were doing it wrong.

[hamlet]

I know this was just an example, but if you had a 20 year-old human fighter past level 8 in 2e AD&D, you were doing it wrong.

Depends on your adventuring habits really.

I have a character that, for most of his life, did virtually nothing, then I picked him out of NPC land and into a PC and all of the sudden he gains 6 levels in the proverbial blink of an eye (the span of less than a game year). He was adventuring with characters well over his pay grade so to speak, so that explains most of it, and he's since leveled off. But it is possible.


Just not likely.

[BobVosh]

I know this was just an example, but if you had a 20 year-old human fighter past level 8 in 2e AD&D, you were doing it wrong.

I said could. Shouldn't, but could.