Quote from: StormBringer;593837I have been meaning to grab a copy of that one of these days.  Better than Lejendary Adventure, in your opinion?

I'd say I'd prefer Mythus Prime to Lejendary Adventure actually, yes. There are commonalities between the two like the percentiles and the like. I think that Mythus Prime is an under-rated, under-appreciated game system. When you start with just that instead of frontloading your game with the entire bulk of advanced Mythus rules, and then you add what you like from that corpus bit by bit as the campaign progresses, you can end up with your own "sweet spot" and it could be really nice to get there with it.

LA by comparison takes the rules light(ish) approach from the get go and tries to stick to it. It's a nice system, but it's very much about interpretation and adjudication, by design. With Mythus, you have the opportunity to start with the rules light and get where you want to go from there with the huge amount of rules the complete system offers to your game.

I reread the Gord books last year (they don't hold well), and I don't recall anything "new" in them.  Pretty standard classes: fighter, thief, f/mu, bard, cavalier, barbarian.  Nothing that wasn't in UA.

There's every chance that a Gygax 2e could have been a total disaster.

Of course, it might also have been a masterpiece. Who's to say?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;594043There's every chance that a Gygax 2e could have been a total disaster.

Of course, it might also have been a masterpiece. Who's to say?

RPGPundit

Speculation is always fun, though.

I have a feeling the Monstrous Compendiums would not have turned out the same, which would have been unfortunate, as the format is outstanding.  Perhaps a couple of interesting sub-classes would have been cool, too.  I don't imagine  the rest would have been drastically altered, maybe combat would have been closer to 1e.

I don't think it would have been all that close to either extreme, really.  Closer to a mild disappointment or a pleasant surprise, I would think.

Quote from: StormBringer;594070Speculation is always fun, though.

Only when its honest, and not axe-grinding, historical revisionism, or pointless idyllic nostalgia tripping.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;594408Only when its honest, and not axe-grinding, historical revisionism, or pointless idyllic nostalgia tripping.

RPGPundit

Pffft.  Nostalgia is fun, too.  2e came out the same year I went into the Air Force, and once I found a stable group, we had a good times with it.  The combination of the military and a role playing group provided some friends that I still have today.  Hence, 'musings'.

Quote from: StormBringer;594447Pffft.  Nostalgia is fun, too.  2e came out the same year I went into the Air Force, and once I found a stable group, we had a good times with it.  The combination of the military and a role playing group provided some friends that I still have today.  Hence, 'musings'.

Never mind Pundit, he's just doing the thought police thing, "sure, your speculation seem innocent enough, but is it IDEOLOGICALLY PURE? Because you could be a SWINE without even knowing it."

Quote from: The Butcher;594469Never mind Pundit, he's just doing the thought police thing, "sure, your speculation seem innocent enough, but is it IDEOLOGICALLY PURE? Because you could be a SWINE without even knowing it."

:hatsoff:
Everyone needs a hobby, I guess.  

Quote from: The Butcher;594469Never mind Pundit, he's just doing the thought police thing, "sure, your speculation seem innocent enough, but is it IDEOLOGICALLY PURE? Because you could be a SWINE without even knowing it."

On the contrary, its usually the nostalgia-mongers who tend to get into obsessions with ideological purity, in their attempts to recreate an "old school" that never actually was like that in the first place.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;594703On the contrary, its usually the nostalgia-mongers who tend to get into obsessions with ideological purity, in their attempts to recreate an "old school" that never actually was like that in the first place.

RPGPundit

Umm, says the guy who classifies people as 'swine'.  Watch that ideological purity, kettle.

Quote from: LordVreeg;594727Umm, says the guy who classifies people as 'swine'.  Watch that ideological purity, kettle.

:hatsoff:
Exactly.  

And perhaps I am not listening to myself or something, but 'ideological purity' doesn't sound like me.  I mean, the point of this thread is 'what might 2e have looked like with Uncle Gary at the till?'

Speaking of...  UA had a new Fighter sub-class with the Barbarian; a new class with the Cavalier, and the Paladin moved to a sub-class of that; the Thief-Acrobat as a sub-class of Thief; and adjustments for Druids above 15th level and tweaks on the racial class and level limits. What we seem to be missing are sub-classes for Clerics and Magic-Users.  

I think Uncle Gary was pretty firmly against spell-points, so that would have been highly unlikely.  Maybe something like a 3e type sorcerer?  Limited number of spells, but greater number of spells per day?  A different form of specialist than 2e implemented?  Psionicist?  I'm drawing a blank on what kind of Cleric sub-class could be added.  Maybe move Monks as a Cleric sub-class and give them some additional Cleric-y stuff?

Any thoughts on what might have been for spell casters?

Quote from: LordVreeg;594727Umm, says the guy who classifies people as 'swine'.  Watch that ideological purity, kettle.

I'm not against the idea of having ideology within the hobby; I just want to be sure its MY ideology.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;595037I'm not against the idea of having ideology within the hobby; I just want to be sure its MY ideology.

Quote from: StormBringer;594758I think Uncle Gary was pretty firmly against spell-points, so that would have been highly unlikely.  Maybe something like a 3e type sorcerer?  Limited number of spells, but greater number of spells per day?  A different form of specialist than 2e implemented?  Psionicist?  I'm drawing a blank on what kind of Cleric sub-class could be added.  Maybe move Monks as a Cleric sub-class and give them some additional Cleric-y stuff?

Any thoughts on what might have been for spell casters?

I don't know how Gary it is, but look at AS&SH for at least plausibly compatible magic-using subclasses?

Magician -> Illusionist, Necromancer, Pyromancer, Witch
Cleric -> Druid, Monk, Priest, Shaman
(he also has Fighter -> Warlock and Thief -> Legerdemainist)