Quote from: BedrockBrendan;454388Well, after this discussion I definitely intend to run a 1E campaign when my   2E game is done.

Check out Swords & Wizardry: White Box. It's free and its raw "proto-D&D" simplicity is very exciting.

Quote from: Spinachcat;454467Check out Swords & Wizardry: White Box. It's free and its raw "proto-D&D" simplicity is very exciting.

Or he could you know play AD&D like he said.

Quote from: Benoist;454464I'm going to remember this, and remind you of it.

If I lag behind in posting in such a game beat me over the head with that post, your post, and this post.

(ps I still dig your game I have just had my hands full...time to look in on Ylarum the Doomed...)

There's a couple of things I really liked about 2E. The Bard became a viable jack-of-all-trades character class and there was a section which detailed how to create your own custom character classes. I thought both of those were winners.

Quote from: jeff37923;454476There's a couple of things I really liked about 2E. The Bard became a viable jack-of-all-trades character class and there was a section which detailed how to create your own custom character classes. I thought both of those were winners.

I've actually read the how to create your own character classes and it's pretty neat - I mean, I'd put it at "nice article for Dragon" level but it's still nice.

Also, even Gary said in his 2e he was going to tweak/fix the Bard so I can't fault them for at least trying.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;454479Also, even Gary said in his 2e he was going to tweak/fix the Bard so I can't fault them for at least trying.

I wouldn't fault them for trying either. But the bard as a "lame jack of all trades" sucks. I prefer the bard in 1e.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;454475If I lag behind in posting in such a game beat me over the head with that post, your post, and this post.

(ps I still dig your game I have just had my hands full...time to look in on Ylarum the Doomed...)

Heck that's what I was going to say: I'm going to start doing this for the Ptolus game first, and THEN I'm going to make things even worse on you with a G-D-Q game. Or throw G-D-Q hooks in the Ptolus game to motivate you.

Quote from: Benoist;454496Heck that's what I was going to say: I'm going to start doing this for the Ptolus game first, and THEN I'm going to make things even worse on you with a G-D-Q game. Or throw G-D-Q hooks in the Ptolus game to motivate you.

Hooks?

"Ylarum, come and see!  The friar was stabbed in the back with a giant dagger!  And giant footprints lead off in this direction!  Who?  Who could have done this?!"

Quote from: Benoist;454493I wouldn't fault them for trying either. But the bard as a "lame jack of all trades" sucks. I prefer the bard in 1e.

Oh I like the 1e bard...it's...it's hard to say, I'm of two minds about it.

The Bard as presented in 1e is a complex character both from a build standpoint and from a role-play standpoint.  You, the DM, have your hands full with finding training opportunities or at least creating the situation when a player-character arrives in Verbobonc and says "Hey, I want to train in my College, where might I find a Bard to do so?"

But this should be viewed not as a problem but as an opportunity!

With that said, the lute-strumming, typically viewed "bard" is difficult to get (requires higher stats than a ranger and a looooong time to get to the right levels), so creating one that starts as a 1st level character, I think there's some merit to that.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;454501Oh I like the 1e bard...it's...it's hard to say, I'm of two minds about it.

The Bard as presented in 1e is a complex character both from a build standpoint and from a role-play standpoint.  You, the DM, have your hands full with finding training opportunities or at least creating the situation when a player-character arrives in Verbobonc and says "Hey, I want to train in my College, where might I find a Bard to do so?"

But this should be viewed not as a problem but as an opportunity!

With that said, the lute-strumming, typically viewed "bard" is difficult to get (requires higher stats than a ranger and a looooong time to get to the right levels), so creating one that starts as a 1st level character, I think there's some merit to that.

Both approaches work, just differently. My own appreciation for the Bard as a stand-alone character class is that it covers more fictional characters as such (Fllewddwyffer Fflam of Lloyd Alexander's Chronicles of Prydain comes immediately to mind as a fictional character not easily shoe-horned into the AD&D version of the Bard). Also while there are character classes which cover specific roles in the game, the Bard of AD&D 2E and after is well-suited as a solo or solitaire play character, being a specialized generalist or jack-of-all-trades.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;454500Hooks?

"Ylarum, come and see!  The friar was stabbed in the back with a giant dagger!  And giant footprints lead off in this direction!  Who?  Who could have done this?!"

Could be just as refined and subtle as this! Master Game Master, indeed! LOL

Quote from: jeff37923;454504Both approaches work, just differently.

Caveat/disclaimer: one of my very good buddies in the 90s played a 2nd ed bard and it was easily one of the greatest D&D characters I have ever seen. So despite my dislike for the 2e bard its obviously working for some people. Just not especially me, whereas I have played a 1e bard and it's one of my favorite characters ever.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;454500Hooks?

"Ylarum, come and see!  The friar was stabbed in the back with a giant dagger!  And giant footprints lead off in this direction!  Who?  Who could have done this?!"

That's great!

Quote from: Justin Alexander;454338If there's one thing running OD&D over the past couple years has taught me, it's that unified resolution mechanics are fundamentally useful tools and trying to GM without them is needless masochism.

(OD&D worked really well when I using it in the limited capacity of running OD&D-style dungeons with it. The minute I tried to step outside of that narrow scope, however, I was painfully reminded how inflexible those rules could be. The number of times over the past few months I've wanted to be able to simply say, "Make a Reflex save." instead of trying to cobble together some fiat ruling is painful.)

This is just bizarre to me.

What special magic is there in saying "Reflex"?

All you're doing is making up a number. The probability is whatever you decide it is, from 0% to 100%, regardless of someone's Reflex bonus.

I can do the same thing just as easily in OD&D if I like, but I also have the more unified selection of five saving throw numbers as a basis.

Quote from: Benoist;454514Caveat/disclaimer: one of my very good buddies in the 90s played a 2nd ed bard and it was easily one of the greatest D&D characters I have ever seen. So despite my dislike for the 2e bard its obviously working for some people. Just not especially me, whereas I have played a 1e bard and it's one of my favorite characters ever.

Yeah, it is not that one is intrinsicly better than the other, it is just two different approaches and the one that is preferable to a Player is a point of personal taste. Nothing wrong with that.