Quote from: Benoist;454046If 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.

Were video games like Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, etc ... the main influences for the incorporation of "special moves" into D&D and other rpg games?

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.

By "Dragonlance Saga", I meant the series begun with DL1 Dragons of Despair in 1983, and concluded with DL14 Dragons of Triumph in 1986 (followed by "setting supplements" DL15 and DL16).

By the latter date, IIRC the accounts of some fellows, RPGA tournaments were already going downhill.

Ars Magica (a game I found interesting) made a splash in 1987. One of the designers went on to make Vampire.

The "Time of Troubles" modules making the Forgotten Realms "2nd Edition compliant" may have been (uncertain as I passed them up) an early 2e example of the sort of attitude that became utterly and decisively intolerable to me with Vecna Lives!.

Vampire, as I think you meant to point out, came after these and other works (e.g., Shadows of Yog Sothoth and the Enemy Within campaign) had brought techniques of plot line management to some prominence both within and outside the D&D scene.

"In the vanguard" was an infelicitous description!

Drawing special attention to it seemed meet to me because
(a) It attained tremendous commercial success.
(b) Its promotion of the practice in question impressed me unfavorably around the same time as the trend was driving me away from the new AD&D culture.
(c) It seems to draw at least as much ire from Ron Edwards and company (the "Forge" crowd) as does D&D.

QuoteI 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.

I referred in an earlier post to the great volume of input that TSR solicited and received from players to inform planning of the 2e line. I am sorry that I suggested more of a leading role than Vampire played.

Quote from: islan;454041I'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.

Sigh. I suppose it's possible that someone has said as much in this thread. Again, personally, I think it's likely that 2e comes up short in the overall comparison with 1e, due to both omissions and additions. "Which 1e?" is a relevant question; so is "which 2e?". I know that a lot of 1e fans disdain Oriental Adventures, Unearthed Arcana, or the Survival Guides. I don't even know them beyond brief skims.

For my purposes, the recognizably "D&D" part of the various editions has the greatest benefits and least drawbacks in the simpler and more woolly incarnations. If I want something with more involved character generation and advancement, I'll look to Palladium, Talislanta, or another of D&D's "near relatives"--or farther afield to BRP or whatever. I'm not very interested in any of the 2e setting materials except possibly the Lankhmar modules (though I doubt it; the first one is probably enough). I'm not keen on the High Renfaire aesthetic, and to the extent I'd go in that direction, there are other games that handle it just fine. So if I have 1e and some version of Basic or White Box, 2e is superfluous. I doubt the reverse is true; in any case, I'm not especially motivated to go to the trouble of buying 2e and selling off my other D&D stuff, and my shelves are already stuffed.

Quote from: ggroy;454047Were video games like Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, etc ... the main influences for the incorporation of "special moves" into D&D and other rpg games?

I have no idea. Probably not. That wasn't the point of my post. My post was basically saying "each edition of D&D does some thing that some people like, and others don't like for this that reason. AD&D2 seems to me to be the blandest edition of the game in that regard in that it's a mix of stuff, it's like a half-assed middle ground throughout." If I want to play AD&D then I play First Ed. If I want to play d20 gaming then I play 3rd ed. AD&D2's only validation in my eyes is that it does a little bit of everything and in the end, no one thing with excellence.

Quote from: Benoist;454050I have no idea. Probably not.

I have no idea either.

I was never really into video games like Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Double Dragon, etc ...  I was never able to figure out the right combinations of joystick moves + pressing buttons, to do all those "special moves" and other cool stuff in those games.

I more or less stopped going to the arcade regularly, by the time it was mid 1980's.  There were less and less video games which caught my interest.  No point in pumping in more quarters into uninteresting arcade games.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;454049I'm not keen on the High Renfaire aesthetic, and to the extent I'd go in that direction, there are other games that handle it just fine. So if I have 1e and some version of Basic or White Box, 2e is superfluous. I doubt the reverse is true; in any case, I'm not especially motivated to go to the trouble of buying 2e and selling off my other D&D stuff, and my shelves are already stuffed.

And I can understand and respect that 2e is not for you; I don't mean to come off as trying to shove 2e down people's throats.

Quote from: Benoist;454050AD&D2 seems to me to be the blandest edition of the game in that regard in that it's a mix of stuff, it's like a half-assed middle ground throughout." If I want to play AD&D then I play First Ed. If I want to play d20 gaming then I play 3rd ed. AD&D2's only validation in my eyes is that it does a little bit of everything and in the end, no one thing with excellence.

Again, a point for preference!  I understand that we all have our preferences.  For me, it probably comes down to that I was introduced to 2nd edition first.  Personally I like the "renfaire" aesthetic, so it of course seems like it has flavor to me, whereas those who don't like such an aesthetic would of course find it bland.

Quote from: islan;454054Personally I like the "renfaire" aesthetic, so it of course seems like it has flavor to me, whereas those who don't like such an aesthetic would of course find it bland.

What exactly is the "renfaire" aesthetic in 2E AD&D?

Quote from: Benoist;454050I have no idea. Probably not. That wasn't the point of my post. My post was basically saying "each edition of D&D does some thing that some people like, and others don't like for this that reason. AD&D2 seems to me to be the blandest edition of the game in that regard in that it's a mix of stuff, it's like a half-assed middle ground throughout." If I want to play AD&D then I play First Ed. If I want to play d20 gaming then I play 3rd ed. AD&D2's only validation in my eyes is that it does a little bit of everything and in the end, no one thing with excellence.

2e's speciality is role-playing.
The kits are all about extending role play options , not tactical combat options like you get in 3e, but role play options. The Monstrous compendium with it's ecology and backgrounds for each monster is all about role playing the monsters.
The sort of games 2e encourages with political sub-plots and city adventures are all about role playing. Even mechanical changes like Priest spheres and flexible thief skill allocations are all about role playing.
So that is the 2e edge for you.

Quote from: jibbajibba;4540592e's speciality is role-playing.
The kits are all about extending role play options , not tactical combat options like you get in 3e, but role play options. The Monstrous compendium with it's ecology and backgrounds for each monster is all about role playing the monsters.
The sort of games 2e encourages with political sub-plots and city adventures are all about role playing. Even mechanical changes like Priest spheres and flexible thief skill allocations are all about role playing.
So that is the 2e edge for you.

Perhaps this explains the existence of titles like "Elminster's Ecologies".

The first time I saw such titles, I initially thought they were superfluous and/or the designers pulling a joke or prank.

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

So, we need to explain in detail why we don't like each one of the many changes we find ill considered? I see how that is reasonable from your perspective. However...

That, right there, is one reason why "2e sucks". It sucks because it effected a deracination of the game, and an indoctrination that left a new generation ignorant of what the Dungeons & Dragons game was about, how it worked and why.

It's not just that it's "not 1e", either. Because it is a bizarre chimera neither fish nor fowl nor venison, it displeases a lot of people wanting just about anything that makes some kind of sense.

I will try to muster patience to explain more in a while.

For the moment, mull over this question. How does capping spell damage at 10 dice improve the lot of wizards (by which I mean specifically magic-users of level 11+)?

Here is a follow up question: In what sort of game would this make no such difference? Hint: If you could not think of the answer to the first question, then you probably have played in nothing but this sort!

These questions touch on pretty key issues of game balance that speak to very wide reaching differences in the larger game context to which the smaller detailed rules were originally fitted like gears within a machine built for a particular purpose.

Quote from: jibbajibba;453760I would maintain that 2e has a lot of role-playing options. When you have choices in 3e these lead to mechanical advantages and that leads to the system mastery issue I refered to. Build optimisations and the like to me are not fun.
The Kit model has all the role play colour that comes with options but the benefits are role play based.

Kits are OK, I suppose. The same goes for Skills & Powers. The only rub is that the DM often ends up having to audit these mix-and-match PCs. When I DM, I don't much care for it.

QuoteTake the Barbarian class from AD&D . The Barbarian was a broken class (I knwo its from UA but ...) and in reality what is a barbarian, just a warrior from a certain society. If all Oriental fighters are Samurai or Kensai, all Arab fighters are Mameluks, all primitive figthers are barbarians then who are the fighters ...? It is far more logical to have fighter and reskin them with kits. The 2e take on a barbarian is much better. It puts the focus into role-playing a barbarian not on all the mecanical advantages of barbarians.

You could say the same for other sub-classes too. Personally, I find a little imagination more useful than a bunch of sub-classes, kits and à la carte PC creation. But that's just me. IMC a knight, a barbarian, a samurai, etc is just a fighter, maybe with a bonus here and a debit there.

QuoteSome Kits were broken or stupid , Bladesinger, 3 armed tree rangers etc ... but the principle which was that there are 4 core classes and a few hybrids (Wizard, Rogue, Figther, Priest with Wiz/Rogues = Bards, Priest/warriors = Paladins/Rangers) and everythign you can imagine fits into that model with minor tweaks.

What in the name of Burl Ives' left nut is a "bladesinger"? I tried to Google the word, but the top result was "are you sure you weren't looking for someone to fist you?"

QuotePriests make sense in 2e in a way they never made sense in older or more recent editions.

True, but the specialty priests in 2E are really just an extension of the specialty clerics Gygax and Lekofka drew up for Greyhawk.

QuoteNWP are a bit of a kludge. A fully developed skill system would have been an improvement but NWP as written are playable and simple to use with minor tweaks.

I think they work best as being a note on things the character is good at. Anything more (unless in unusual situations) is needless wank as far as I'm concerned.

QuoteVery little that made D&D D&D was lost in the revision, characters could easily be converted, none of the colour was lost. So you used to be a 8th level fighter in AD&D lets convert you to a 8th level warrior and hey maybe there is a kit that suits how you used to play.

You don't really need to do that much. Just play them as-is.

QuoteDropping assasins was a minor foible but an assasin is just a rogue with a firm career choice and an assasin kit is easy.

Except you now have to buy another book to have your assassin PC. If they had simply rolled the assassin abilities in with the thief (like with the acrobat) I would have been OK with it. Of course Cook's smarmy, handwaving, patronizing bullshit on the subject didn't help. But that's another issue.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;453714I think 2e is great, and I don't really treat it as a separate game from 1e. And yes, I fully understand the various reasons why the grogs have problems with 2e, but I just don't care.

I treat 2E the same way I treat all those Dragon articles: something useful in addition to 1E, not in place of it.

QuoteIf I were to rate 1e and 2e side-by-side, I'd say that 2e has a superior Player's Handbook, while 1e has a superior DMG. Monster Manuals from both editions are comparable, but 1e monster books are slightly better. 1e has better adventure modules, yet 2e has far superior campaign settings. Non-adventure supplements from both 1e and 2e are roughly equal in overall quality, but 2e has so much more stuff, that quality is obviously somewhat more variable.

Correct answer. I have yet to meet a DM who ever made use of the 2E DMG when a 1E version was available. I do think the 2E PHB is overall better than the 1E version, but it's pretty even and I can't imagine running a campaign without both.

QuoteSo yeah, 2e is worth playing....and I just mix 'n match 1e and 2e material together. That way I get the best of both worlds for my campaign. Win-win scenario for me.

You and probably >90% of people who play AD&D.

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

Dunno.  I'm not a big Dragonlance fan, so I don't know much about Hickman outside of what he wrote in Xtreme Dungeon Mastery or what I hear from other people.  In this case, it was a friend of mine who loves Hickman and the Dragonlance novels -- he wasn't trying to smear Hickman or anything, he just thought it was an interesting tidbit.

My friend seems to know a lot about Hickman's AD&D character (Raistlin, or something?) and "random things Hickman and Weiss did with D&D", so I'll ask him where he read this stuff -- the way he was detailing it made it sound like Hickman had written this down in a book -- some sort of memoirs or nostalgia pieces about the origins of Dragonlance.

Quote from: Phillip;454048I referred in an earlier post to the great volume of input that TSR solicited and received from players to inform planning of the 2e line. I am sorry that I suggested more of a leading role than Vampire played.

It isn't just that specific feedback, I'm talking about articles years before positing new ideas for how to do things, often those new ideas were popular (in Dragon) and got absorbed into what became 2E.

When people argue "That is how they played before 2E" they're accurately speaking. They probably read Dragon, and absorbed the idea. Or possibly generated a similar one on their own, so when 2E came out it was a "Hey, I like this!"


Elfdart:

As for Kits, I always felt they were options the GM switched on or off for his world. Picking what kits would be in what region, and why. Yes some were broken for what they were, agreed.

Quote from: ggroy;454055What exactly is the "renfaire" aesthetic in 2E AD&D?

To me it's most visible in the Elmore illustrations. I'm sure you can find more than one pair of curly-toed shoes and lurex tights. Oh, and cloaks with hoods. Flowing, sparkling hair.

The toning down of morally-ambiguous character & campaign options is another part of it.

Finally, and vaguely, since I'm pretty removed from actual play of 2e, and I haven't read much the modules or Dragon articles from the era...but I have an impression that scenarios also moved further away from "adventurers seeking fortune" toward "white hats saving the world in yet another quest". Of course, this started long before 2e was actually released, as noted in this thread.

I will say, I've had a look at the 2e Monstrous Manual hardcover and it seems like a good update of the 1e Monster Manual, with some nice illustrations and some new monsters. (Not sure if anything was dropped.) Whether it would be a good choice instead of adding the MM II and Fiend Folio, I don't know. I never saw much need for a proliferation of new monsters anyway.