You can't look at the modules and the like especially a set of modules like dragon lance, and use them as the yardstick for the game.

We were playing more open games in cities and palaces long before 2e came out. Our characters started with backstories not pages and pages of fan fiction but backstories reasons why we were together and the like. This to me isn't some sop to narrativism its just role-playing.

If you had really gotten to 1987 and the only games you had played were dungeon crawls then you deserve 4e .


I find it odd that he complaints about 2e cam be summised as

i) They took out my favourite class/race combo
ii) They look out assassins and demons to make the game for little kiddies
iii) They organised the rule books and took out that (largely irrelevant) stuff on page xxx
iv) The modules were all driven by story arcs (as if Against the Giants or The Slave Lords aren't story arcs)
v) They encouraged me to role play more and I just want to kill things and take their stuff. If I wanted role-play I would have joined a fcuking theatre group
vi) I didn't like the font or the little blue graphics in the PHB
vii) They hired artists that could draw and so the art work is blandly professional rather than quirky cartoons
viii) They gave me optional rules for xp that i didn't like
ix) The NWP system is just tacked on as an after thought (I actually agree with this but its an afterthought that was in AD&D 5 years before 2e came out)

All of this basically comes down to its not the version I played when I was 12.
There are no mechanical differences of note.
The changes there are, like weapon styles, broad groups, priest spheres, are optional and I think on the whole add to the game, but importantly they are optional.  

The fact that you can take a monster straight from AD&D and use in 2e, or the fact that all the detail in the Wilderness/dungeoneers survival guides still works in 2e shows that they are basically the same game.

Quote from: Melan;453940Wow. Just wow. Do you have a source for this? Because it would explain a lot of things.

My remote gamer used to play with Tracy Hickman; I'll ask him tonight.

So, in conclusion, the 2e core books are an easy if dry read, lacking in Gygaxian flare but rich in high fantasy art and good layout with plentiful options granted to make the game your own.  The supplements for 2e offer a wide range of material, some hit and some miss, making it good for the discount racks but not so good for full-price retail.  The settings detailed in 2e are wide-ranging and interesting, and quite a few of them are crammed full of the magic that makes fantasy such a great genre.  2e's adventure modules sucked ass.

Did I sum it up pretty well?

They also lack a lot of 1e's bumpy but fascinating elements like illusionists and druids (as a distinct class), half-orcs, assassins and so forth; as well as some crucial rules like XP for GP. To claim these differences aren't substantial is either misguided or disingenious.

Quote from: Melan;454002They also lack a lot of 1e's bumpy but fascinating elements like illusionists and druids (as a distinct class), half-orcs, assassins and so forth; as well as some crucial rules like XP for GP. To claim these differences aren't substantial is either misguided or disingenious.

Other classes like bards, rangers functioning differently. Followers. Combat. Non-weapon proficiencies (considering pre-UA AD&D v. AD&D2). The whole DMG corpus (which is really the engine of pre-UA AD&D) completely altered. The list goes on and on.

Quote from: Melan;454002They also lack a lot of 1e's bumpy but fascinating elements like illusionists and druids (as a distinct class), half-orcs, assassins and so forth; as well as some crucial rules like XP for GP. To claim these differences aren't substantial is either misguided or disingenious.

Quote from: Benoist;454004Other classes like bards, rangers functioning differently. Followers. Combat. Non-weapon proficiencies (considering pre-UA AD&D v. AD&D2). The whole DMG corpus (which is really the engine of pre-UA AD&D) completely altered. The list goes on and on.

Yes, the list of differences between 1e and 2e goes on and on.  Because it's not 1e.  It's 2e.  Stop complaining that it's not 1e, because that makes no sense to me.  Basic D&D, also, isn't 1e.  1e isn't OD&D.  Yet it's amazing and wonderful to me just how compatible all these editions are despite their differences.  And, I for one celebrate their differences.

Quote from: Melan;454002as well as some crucial rules like XP for GP

Wait, for future reference: 2e

• Has XP for GP as a standard rule
• Doesn't have XP for GP as a standard rule, but does have XP for GP as an optional rule (in the core books? in a supplement?)
• Doesn't have XP for GP at all

Quote from: islan;454027Yes, the list of differences between 1e and 2e goes on and on.  Because it's not 1e.  It's 2e.  Stop complaining that it's not 1e, because that makes no sense to me.  Basic D&D, also, isn't 1e.  1e isn't OD&D.  Yet it's amazing and wonderful to me just how compatible all these editions are despite their differences.  And, I for one celebrate their differences.

Butthurt, meet special pleading. Special pleading, meet butthurt.

Is there anything else you'd like not to talk about because it doesn't make sense to you?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;454029Butthurt, meet special pleading. Special pleading, meet butthurt.

Is there anything else you'd like not to talk about because it doesn't make sense to you?

Okay, so let's pretend that "it's not 1e" is a valid criticism.  Then surely Basic D&D must suck; after all, it doesn't even have the assassin or half-orcs.  It even has weird Weapon Proficiencies and race-as-class.

Except Basic doesn't suck, and neither does 2e.  :rolleyes:

And didn't TheRPGSite conclude that GP for XP just doesn't work, anyway?  I was trying to come up with some ways of using it in RC before, but that thread made me wonder if it was even worth attempting.

Quote from: islan;454031Okay, so let's pretend that "it's not 1e" is a valid criticism.  Then surely Basic D&D must suck; after all, it doesn't even have the assassin or half-orcs.

If you start with a false premise, you can prove anything.

"It's not 1e" isn't a valid criticism in general.

On the other hand, "It's not 1e" is a valid criticism if you're comparing and asking why 2e gets little love vis à vis other versions of D&D. But then, the criticism is "it's not 1e or Basic, or White Box, or 3e, etc."

Personally, 2e is a nonentity as far as I'm concerned, but on threads here and elsewhere, it's been interesting to see thoughtful descriptions of its positive elements. Personal hurt over whether the game doesn't get enough respect doesn't fall into that category.

Quote from: islan;454027Yes, the list of differences between 1e and 2e goes on and on.  Because it's not 1e.  It's 2e.

Therefore, your summary at 06:24 PM is flawed.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;454028Wait, for future reference: 2e

• Has XP for GP as a standard rule
• Doesn't have XP for GP as a standard rule, but does have XP for GP as an optional rule (in the core books? in a supplement?)
• Doesn't have XP for GP at all

2e does away with the general 1 gp = 1 XP rule*. It only gives XP for loot to thieves as an optional rule, although at a more advantageous rate:

QuotePage 48 DMG:
Table 34:Individual Class Awards

Warrior:
Per hit die of creature defeated 10 XP/level

Priest:
Per successful use of granted power 100 XP
Spells cast to further ethos 100 XP/spell level
Making potion or scroll XP value
Making permanent magic item XP vaule

Wizard:
Spells cast to overcome foes or
problems 50 XP/spell level
Spells successfully reaserched 500 XP/spell level
Making potion or scroll XP value
Making permanent magic item XP value

Rogue:
Per successful use of special
ability 100 XP
Per gold piece value of treasure
obtained 2 XP
Per hit die of creatures defeated
(bard only) 5 XP

_________________
* Which a friend of mine called "AD&D's equation of shame"

Quote from: 2e DMGAs an option, the DM can award XP for the cash value of
non-magical treasures. One XP can be given per gold piece found.

It was there in the core books, albeit as an option.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;454032Personally, 2e is a nonentity as far as I'm concerned, but on threads here and elsewhere, it's been interesting to see thoughtful descriptions of its positive elements. Personal hurt over whether the game doesn't get enough respect doesn't fall into that category.

I'm not against discussion of a game's positives or negatives, nor against thoughtful comparisons.  Goodness knows I am aware of negatives in 2e.  I am just against the "it's not 1e, therefore it sucks" mindset.  Now, the posts that I quoted earlier I thought were meant as addendums to my conclusionary description of 2e, but looking back I see that they were probably additions to jibbajibba's post, and if so then I apologize on that misunderstanding.

Quote from: Melan;454033Therefore, your summary at 06:24 PM is flawed.

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing anywhere in my summary that says "2e is 1e", other than it is "lacking in Gygaxian flare", which I'd say is true that it doesn't have such flare that is attributed to the penmanship of one Gary Gygax.  Or were you referring to something else?

Quote from: islan;454031And didn't TheRPGSite conclude that GP for XP just doesn't work, anyway?  I was trying to come up with some ways of using it in RC before, but that thread made me wonder if it was even worth attempting.

We tried XP for treasure a few times back in the day.  It made the game kinda silly after awhile.

In one game, the players wanted to use both "XP for treasure" and "Monty Haul".  We were playing this game almost every day.  (It was during summer break).  It got so silly that we were leveling up once a day, or sometimes even twice a day.  We got bored after a week or so of doing this, and dropped the game.

Quote from: islan;454041I am just against the "it's not 1e, therefore it sucks" mindset.

To me, editions of D&D are like options you have available as a DM of systems already written for you to play the kind of game you want. Based on this assumption, it's only natural to look at the different editions of the game and say "okay, this edition does this which I like, and that one does that, which I do not like as much/don't like."

It's perfectly reasonable to say "given the differences between 1e and 2e, I feel 1e does it for me." Or to extend the field of comparisons "pretty much all other editions of the game do it better for me than 2e," which is my case. If I want to play with an open field to build a specific set of house rules that sticks organically to our groups play style and people are comfortable with a "less is more" approach to the game, I'd use OD&D. If I want a classic dungeon delving experience with more of everything, a medievalish feel with polearms, want to use hirelings, want to emphasize the game world and keep much of the mechanics on my side of the screen, want to have hex-crawling and callers and mapping or whatnot, then AD&D. If the group wants options on top of options, the same rules that describe everything in the world, want to have a full blown skills system, care about a certain mechanical game balance, then I'll go with 3rd ed. If I want off the hook superheroes are all special and you can do special moves once a day like in Street Fighter, I'll go with 4e.

Mechanically, excluding worlds and modules, concentrating on rules, I don't see anything AD&D2 provides that another edition of the game doesn't do better. It's a mix of stuff without much aim or focus, which is what I mean by "tasteless, lame hogwash." It's bland and without personality. That's the bottom line, to me.