Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;4538592E characters did get their survival ramped up over the OD&D/1e dungeon crawlers with probably higher ability scores...

If you mean that 2e characters probably had higher scores, how do you figure? The official 2e options included methods (e.g., 3d6 in order) that yielded much lower ability scores on average than any of those listed in 1st edition!

Some of the others were in the same ballpark as those in the 1st ed. DMG. Despite the (even greater?) boosts to nonhumans in 2e, I don't think any method matched the impressive Method V for humans in the 1st ed. Unearthed Arcana.

OD&D is apples to oranges, and which species of apple depends on whether we're talking Volume 1 or Supplement I.

If we're talking the actual practice of Gary and friends, I read somewhere that they just kept rolling until they got a set of scores they liked. If someone enjoys the process then it's his free time, eh? He'll probably end up with a more "natural" assortment of characters than if he just went straight to exactly a set he had in mind beforehand.

Quote from: PeregrinMy complaint has nothing to do with including story mechanics, and everything with 2e trying to copy other gaming trends without thinking about how those styles of play mesh with the assumptions of d&d to produce satisfactory play.

You were spot on about the consequences of what the 2e books presented as the usual treatment of x.p., if the other rules were actually applied.

However, Vampire was in the vanguard of the trends in question, and the advice to Vampire Storytellers was to 'fudge' left and right for the sake of "the story". That had been the deal in the Dragonlance Saga, too, and 2e products in similar vein followed the pattern of making the rules irrelevant whenever they were inconvenient for a plot line.

Quote from: Phillip;453900I
However, Vampire was in the vanguard of the trends in question, and the advice to Vampire Storytellers was to 'fudge' left and right for the sake of "the story". That had been the deal in the Dragonlance Saga, too, and 2e products in similar vein followed the pattern of making the rules irrelevant whenever they were inconvenient for a plot line.

Are you speaking only supplements here? Because 2E (core rules) came out in 1989, and Vampire in 1991. Dragonlance Saga came in later--1995.

2E also had one of the largest--at the time, feedback "systems" via Dragon magazine, and significant portions of it came from articles, questions, and other elements created in Dragon Magazine years prior to its publication. (Example: The class creation table in DMG? Originally created for BECM/Cyclopedia D&D, and modified for AD&D.)

 The Bard class? Modified in a Dragon article and brought over from said article. (Hell I'm surprise we didn't get Jester as default class of Rogue....bleh.)


 I subscribed to Dragon for a large number of years. I know exactly where the origin of 2E was---in Dragon magazine. I didn't agree with every change, but I recognize where it was born.

Quote from: KenHR;453582I never had any problems with 2e.  Honestly, the core books pretty much reflected how AD&D was actually played back then before people started revising their past play history to show they were "old school" or whatever all along.

Couldn't have said it better myself. The vast majority of people who played AD&D back then used material from 1E, 2E, Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer, OD&D and stuff from Dragon and White Dwarf.

I always have and always will prefer 1E, for reasons having to do with nostalgia and familiarity. I also loved the atmosphere created by Trampier's artwork. When I think of a party from 1E I think of this:



When I think of a 2E party, this comes to mind:



There is a great deal of stuff in 2E that I didn't like, but it's obvious that the level of ass-hurt caused by the mere mention of 2E has fuckall to do with the quality of the product and everything to with grognards being the Teabaggers of gaming. "OH NOES! Zeb Cook applied THAC0 to PCs!"
:rolleyes:

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;453896Well, good for you, though I still don't what the problem is with 2E trying to be a more general FRPG rather than just dungeon-y.

There's nothing wrong with that.  There is something wrong with a game telling you to invest time in creating a "real" character for "real" roleplaying when the system is designed to kill them off like flies at the lower levels.  This stems from the Hickman type of AD&D gaming where a coherent narrative is more important than emergent play -- decide who you character is before play and weave them into the GM's plot, rather than ignoring who your character is at first and allowing them to evolve from play.

Maybe it's not a problem for you, and that's cool if it isn't, but plenty of people here have expressed the sentiment that losing lots of characters or getting TPKed is disruptive to long-term campaign play that's focused on characterization.  Hell, re-loading save-after-save in Baldur's Gate 1 was annoying enough -- even Fallout wasn't that lethal.

QuoteOn the copying other gaming trends I'd have said the shifting focus from dungeon exploration to complex plots and characters was a trend within D&D, rather than outside, even though some of the mechanics it picked up to support this e.g. skills pioneered by other systems. If anything, D&D designers seem to be generally pretty bad at finding and absorbing innovations.

Generally they're slower to adopt more extreme or "bleeding edge" designs, but I think the focus on amateur fantasy fiction, worlds, and metaplot mirrors the precedents set by White-Wolf pretty well.

Quote from: PhillipHowever, Vampire was in the vanguard of the trends in question, and the advice to Vampire Storytellers was to 'fudge' left and right for the sake of "the story". That had been the deal in the Dragonlance Saga, too, and 2e products in similar vein followed the pattern of making the rules irrelevant whenever they were inconvenient for a plot line.

And that's a trend of gaming that I came into with late oWoD and even 3e -- DMs ignoring large swathes of system in order to get the "desired" result or outcome.  As someone who came late into the hobby, it was one of those "the fuck?" sort of reactions -- why would someone write a 200+ page rulebook if you're just going to say "fuck it" half the time?  

I understand that the system is the GM's toolbox, but if you're actively fighting against the system to get what you want, I think it's time to either re-evaluate the system you're using, or whether or not what you really want is a traditional RPG.

I'd actually thought 3d6 in order was the standard for 1e? No? Oh well.
Though I thought in actual practice the Unearthed Arcana method was banned at most tables along with the rest of it.

For 2E you're right in that I, II, and III (3d6 in order, 3d6 arrange as desired, 3d6 rolling twice for each) gave quite poor stats but methods IV through VI in 2e give quite reasonable scores e.g.
IV: 12 x 3d6, choose six best (most scores likely to be 12s through 14s)
V: 4d6 minus lowest, six times (bias toward higher scores, particularly with unlimited rolling - average of 12.3)
VI: base 8, roll 7d6 and allocate as desired (giving a high likelihood of one or two 18s and so large bonuses - a  couple of 8s as well but these aren't much of a handicap).

Other than that, XP in 2E shifted much more toward story awards over killing stuff with inclusion of class-based xp rewards and story/session xp. As regards rules fudging - I'd thought Dragonlance preceded Vampire, but even the 1E DMG would tell the GM to apply rule 0 where they like - though I know Gary wouldn't fudge his dice rolls (I'm not a fan of that either).

Quote from: Peregrin;453912There's nothing wrong with that.  There is something wrong with a game telling you to invest time in creating a "real" character for "real" roleplaying when the system is designed to kill them off like flies at the lower levels.  This stems from the Hickman type of AD&D gaming where a coherent narrative is more important than emergent play -- decide who you character is before play and weave them into the GM's plot, rather than ignoring who your character is at first and allowing them to evolve from play.

Maybe it's not a problem for you, and that's cool if it isn't, but plenty of people here have expressed the sentiment that losing lots of characters or getting TPKed is disruptive to long-term campaign play that's focused on characterization.  Hell, re-loading save-after-save in Baldur's Gate 1 was annoying enough -- even Fallout wasn't that lethal.


Generally they're slower to adopt more extreme or "bleeding edge" designs, but I think the focus on amateur fantasy fiction, worlds, and metaplot mirrors the precedents set by White-Wolf pretty well.


And that's a trend of gaming that I came into with late oWoD and even 3e -- DMs ignoring large swathes of system in order to get the "desired" result or outcome.  As someone who came late into the hobby, it was one of those "the fuck?" sort of reactions -- why would someone write a 200+ page rulebook if you're just going to say "fuck it" half the time?  

I understand that the system is the GM's toolbox, but if you're actively fighting against the system to get what you want, I think it's time to either re-evaluate the system you're using, or whether or not what you really want is a traditional RPG.

Well, I think 'dropping like flies' is perhaps an overstatement.

Unrelatedly, I once met Tracy Hickman at a con as it happens and you might be surprised to find he doesn't like 2E...I  remember him saying that anything later than 1E gave him that 'New coke feeling'. 1E also made it easier for him to make stuff up as he went along since no one he gamed with actually knew all the rules

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;453913Other than that, XP in 2E shifted much more toward story awards over killing stuff with inclusion of class-based xp rewards and story/session xp.

I've been recently rereading the 2E core books.  We played it a lot in the day, but (like most people) played more of a mix of 1E, 2E, Basic, and rules we pulled out of our asses.  I keep running into stuff in the 2E books and saying, "really?  I had no idea that was the actual rule!  Neat!"  Experience is one of those things.

I don't have the DMG in front of me, but if I recall the official experience rules were ex per monster with various awards for each class completing class specific tasks (i.e. wizards got 100 xp/spell level when ever they cast a 'useful' spell, thieves get 1 xp/stolen gp).  We never played like that, relying on primarily monster xp.  I was curious if anyone has ever played with the class based xp rules?

Quote from: Dixon Hill;453918I don't have the DMG in front of me, but if I recall the official experience rules were ex per monster with various awards for each class completing class specific tasks (i.e. wizards got 100 xp/spell level when ever they cast a 'useful' spell, thieves get 1 xp/stolen gp).  We never played like that, relying on primarily monster xp.  I was curious if anyone has ever played with the class based xp rules?

I tried it. It was a real pain in the ass, so I stopped using it regularly and only applied it when it was really good or interesting (like a thief stealing a bunch of money the characters needed, or a really good use of a particular spell by a wizard).

Quote from: Phillip;453883How does that make a FALSE claim -- "your primary XP comes from killing things" -- a valid criticism?

The general criticism which has been leveled at D&D over the years is that the experience system emphasizes combat & looting, and doesn't allow improvement by other means, so it "encourages" those behaviors. Peregrin may not have recited the exact credo, but his statement was in the same vein. My point, which I'm beginning to tire of making, is that singling 2e out for this is a nonsequitur in the context of the thread. Personally I think that the criticism has some validity, although it's easily addressed--but in any case, it isn't true for 2e particularly more than the previous editions.

QuoteArneson & Gygax: "As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign. They provide the framework around which you will build a game of simplicity or tremendous complexity  ... New details can be added and old 'laws' altered," and "the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way!"

Yes, it really was foolish of me to not to remember that D&D has this catchall somewhere in the three volumes.

Look: the fact that this disclaimer is found in many RPGs doesn't automatically head off all critiques of the rules that are actually provided in the books.

QuoteJust how dim a bulb would someone have to be to complain about the suggested x.p. awards and have no 'better' alternative in mind?

The game was set up so that players are free to choose whatever means they wish to secure treasures, without losing points for "doing the wrong thing". Richer ones are on average harder to get, at least by brute force, but the actual difficulty in practice depends on the effectiveness of one's chosen plan -- which may be something the DM never thought of.

The proposed 'improvements' tend to come in two main varieties:

(1) Nickle and Dime: "Kill, kill, kill" is of this variety, but there are all sorts of niggling details one can add to the accounting burden. Made a roll of some sort? Score a few points.

It's lovely for drunkard's walks, but not so great for encouraging strategic pursuit of objectives. "The Golden Egg Cup? Oh, yeah. Is this going to be like when we didn't get around to Mount Doom because Sam insisted on cleaning out Dol Guldur? < shudder > I hope never to see another mop or dustpan."

In some games, if you are so well prepared that you sneak past all the traps and guards to bring home the Egg Cup or the Princess or whatever without a hitch, you have screwed yourself of points for "skipping encounters". Smart play is actually stupid, and stupid is smart.

(2) The DM's Whim: This, I understand, is how Arneson's proto-D&D started out. The DM "levels you up" (or maybe even hands out x.p.) whenever he or she thinks "the time is right" for reasons that might not be revealed (if at all) until after the fact.

The ability to form a strategy tends thus to boil down to guessing "what the DM wants us to do".

So what exactly are you saying? At this point, you're all over the place, first suggesting that better alternatives to ought to be obvious, and then reducing the most common ones to two possibilities which you immediately dismiss. Which is it--are there really any good alternatives, or are they all crap?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;453913I'd actually thought 3d6 in order was the standard for 1e? No? Oh well.

The PHB refers you to the DMG. The DMG mentions the standard 3d6 method in passing (obviously assuming that DMs are familiar with the original system), then recommends four alternate methods:

I: 4d6, drop lowest, roll six times, arrange in preferred order.

II: 3d6, roll twelve times, keep the highest 6, arrange in preferred order.

III: 3d6 rolled six times, keep highest score, assign to Strength. Repeat this procedure in order for each of the other five abilities.

IV: 3d6 rolled in order for each of the six abilities. Repeat 12 times, generating 12 characters. Select which of these 12 you wish to play.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;453917Unrelatedly, I once met Tracy Hickman at a con as it happens and you might be surprised to find he doesn't like 2E...I  remember him saying that anything later than 1E gave him that 'New coke feeling'. 1E also made it easier for him to make stuff up as he went along since no one he gamed with actually knew all the rules

I've read Hickman's Xtreme Dungeon Mastery -- so I can see what type of GM he is through the humor (and some practical advice).

The problem is that he's from the "story is everything" crowd, in very-much the "GM has this flowchart of events he wants to see happen."  I'm not such a fan of that, and 2e culture borrows heavily from the DL modules for how adventures should be run.  

I've also heard Hickman, Weiss, and the rest of their AD&D group used to re-play the same scenarios again and again until the desired outcome happened (a lot of which were written down as events in the DL books).  He seems like a creative guy, but his gaming history is pretty atypical, even if he professes to like 1e.  That's why I'm wary of the trends that sprung out of the DL modules -- to me it seems like people (especially non-wargamers) attempting to "patch" the current system to meet their expectations of "I'm going to play a high-fantasy hero in an exciting story!"  Which is, again, all fine and good, I'm just not sure I'd personally use a system originally designed for dungeon-crawling to do so.

So, I'll just go back to my first post and say that I'd use the rules, but absolutely ignore the actual-play advice from any of the books.

Quote from: Silverlion;453908Are you speaking only supplements here? Because 2E (core rules) came out in 1989, and Vampire in 1991. Dragonlance Saga came in later--1995.

I think the reference is to the original Dragonlance series of modules, which today are often referenced as the first major appearance of story-scripted scenarios in D&D, calling for player actions to be subverted and undermined whenever they got in the way of the pre-planned plot.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;453928I think the reference is to the original Dragonlance series of modules, which today are often referenced as the first major appearance of story-scripted scenarios in D&D, calling for player actions to be subverted and undermined whenever they got in the way of the pre-planned plot.

Ugh. I prefer games where there might be plots--by villains--but how and when it happens depends on the PC's. They can ignore it and suffer the consequences, but not A-B-C happens in that order and no other. Still, the mention of Vampire makes me thinking of game systems. Not game modules.

I also find Hickman's "bumper-model" annoying, since it's a style I see used a lot.

Quote from: Peregrin;453927I've also heard Hickman, Weiss, and the rest of their AD&D group used to re-play the same scenarios again and again until the desired outcome happened (a lot of which were written down as events in the DL books).

Wow. Just wow. Do you have a source for this? Because it would explain a lot of things.