AD&D BEFORE editions

[thomaswhodoubts]

I just wanted to put something in here that wasn't about 4th edition, which, from what I understand, is about selling miniatures - of which I already have entirely too many. I notice some comments about corporate greed, and am reminded of a much younger me saying almost the exact same things when 2nd edition came out. Give me Greyhawk, Dragon Magazine, and the original hardbacks anytime. There's nothing in the rules that says you can't make up feats where appropriate, creating subclasses, and get all the fun without all the paperwork.

But I digress. Again. I was really just wondering if anyone else has a sense of deja vu all over again with the comments re: 4th and the original 'edition' being introduced, 2nd?

[Thoth-Amon]

In every edition there were the hardliners. They felt that there was no need for a newer edition and complained endlessly. It always amazed me because newer editions will always be released. All this being said, I never have a problem with newer and newer editions for it is the way of things.

Do i have a favorite edition? Yes i do.

Thoth-Amon

[Thoth-Amon]

"Give me Greyhawk, Dragon Magazine, and the original hardbacks anytime. There's nothing in the rules that says you can't make up feats where appropriate, creating subclasses, and get all the fun without all the paperwork."

I couldnt agree with you more.

Thoth-Amon

[Engar]

I see more comparison with 3.x, but that may be because 2e came out a short time after my group discovered Advanced (less vesting). There was a huge backlash over WotC buying TSR too.

I may have just missed out on the Adv-2e grumbling, but 2e-3.0 was hard to miss. The 3.0-3.5 then solidified my general distrust/dislike of WotC. That they may have "goofed" and doubled their money due to simple irresponsiblity which did not begin as greed is the kindest thing I have to say about the 3.x shenanigans.

[Oldgamer]

I never understood the Splat books, any book containing Complete ??... In the older editions, if you wanted to play a swashbuckler... you role-played one using the fighter class, you didn't need books to tell you what you were already imagining. I guiltily admit I have the Complete books, they were gifts though, so I never had the intention of buying them, but it aggravates me to no end to see people who forget that you dont need all the rules to play this game... and then the next edition comes out, and we all have to have it, regardless of common sense screaming that you don't need a whole new set of rules to keep playing the game that didn't need rules to begin with :) Playin' with imagination has no rules. But if you want rules, that's not a problem, buy the core books and imagine yourself as a Swashbuckler, heck, go so far as to imagine what Feats and Skills set them apart.. save yourself the money and imagine it, and not buy someone else's version of what you should already be imagining... you only feed the machine known as WotC :) Make your wallet smaller and continue telling them it's okay to come out with 3 versions in 8 years, the flock will most certainly be there to buy the next one coming down the line...:flock:

[Webhead]

I never understood the Splat books, any book containing Complete ??... In the older editions, if you wanted to play a swashbuckler... you role-played one using the fighter class, you didn't need books to tell you what you were already imagining.

Aye, and that is how we (my game group at the time) used to play our RPGs in the pre-3rd Edition days. If I wanted to be a frothing barbarian, I made a Fighter and described him as a frothing barbarian and everyone else (DM included) went along with it. We had fun. I've always approached my RPGs this way, but there seemed to be a tangible shift in this for the games I played in post-3e. It's what I refer to as 3e's "supplementitis". The idea that if you don't have a supplement that says you can do/be it, you can't.

...and then the next edition comes out, and we all have to have it, regardless of common sense screaming that you don't need a whole new set of rules to keep playing the game that didn't need rules to begin with :)

Sure, but as was eluded to elsewhere on these boards, often times as new editions come out, some players convert out of a desire to "upgrade" or just to try something different. The rules part and the imagination part are the sort of "Yin and Yang" of RPGs. The "imagination" makes it role playing and the "rules" make it a game. For most folks (and this is why there are so many RPGs and so many editions of them), it's a matter of finding the mixture of rules and imagination that makes for the most enjoyable game. Some like equal parts rules and imagination, some like more of one or the other and some just want all of one and to ignore the other completely.

So where am I going with this? The reason we have different editions is because there was a desire by some players to change that mixture. To redefine how the game works to better suit their tastes. Not everyone would be happy playing Basic D&D, or 1e...or 2e...or 3e...or 4e. But they can look at these different games and try to decide which is the best foundation to start from to give them the experience they are looking for. Some folks (like me) are perfectly happy playing a barbarian who is actually a "Fighter". Others say, "if I'm playing a barbarian, I want to have rules for being a barbarian" and those are the pebbles that begin the proverbial avalanche.

[fmitchell]

I never understood the Splat books, any book containing Complete ??... In the older editions, if you wanted to play a swashbuckler... you role-played one using the fighter class, you didn't need books to tell you what you were already imagining.

(I'll omit my usual mention of skill-based systems ... oh, wait ...)

The plethora of "core" classes, prestige classes, advanced classes, and so forth is one of the most off-putting things about 3.x ... despite the fact that feats should make classes more modular. With "powers" making classes yet more modular, I would hope that WotC stops pumping out new classes and starts adding new powers and feats to customize what we already have. I also hope that Angelina Jolie realizes her terrible mistake and leaves Brad Pitt for me, but I'm not holding my breath.

But to your deeper point ... I guess players and GMs want to be a measurable mechanical difference between Grond the Northland Axeman and El Cucaracha the Fuscia Pumpernickel. Unfortunately, in previous editions picking a rapier instead of a battleaxe or longsword meant a character did less damage with no apparent compensations. GMs had to invent house rules for a player to realize this vision of a nimble and dashing swashbuckler ... and most GMs lack the time, confidence, and/or expertise to add rules that don't make a player either a weakling or a one-man army. Thus WotC makes its money with "official rules" that consumers assume are playtested (wrongly, more often than not).

Maybe the base problem is that, when we don't like the rules, or an implication of the rules, we add more rules. To take the rapier example: if the GM simply declared that all players do 1d8 or 1d10 with their "signature weapon", and less damage with other weapons they pick up, we could avoid the whole mess and make sure nobody is left out of the action. Which seems to be a stated goal of D&D 4e, but I'll have to see for myself how well they realize that goal, and whether they maintain it over time.

[Engar]

If I wanted to be a frothing barbarian, I made a Fighter and described him as a frothing barbarian and everyone else (DM included) went along with it. We had fun. I've always approached my RPGs this way, but there seemed to be a tangible shift in this for the games I played in post-3e. It's what I refer to as 3e's "supplementitis". The idea that if you don't have a supplement that says you can do/be it, you can't.

Those without the creativity or the patience now have a work around to avoid ever having to stretch their imagination.

[Webhead]

Maybe the base problem is that, when we don't like the rules, or an implication of the rules, we add more rules. To take the rapier example: if the GM simply declared that all players do 1d8 or 1d10 with their "signature weapon", and less damage with other weapons they pick up, we could avoid the whole mess and make sure nobody is left out of the action. Which seems to be a stated goal of D&D 4e, but I'll have to see for myself how well they realize that goal, and whether they maintain it over time.

This ties somewhat into my attraction to the approach a few game systems (FATE, Risus, Wushu) take that instead of looking at combat in terms of "damage", they look at it in terms of "scene impact". Rather than focus on the direct physical injury a character inflicts, those games focus on how much "impact" your character's actions have on advancing/resolving the scene or defeating (either physically, psychologically, or whatever) the opposition. They take the stance that a character shouldn't be less "effective" because he chooses an "inferior" weapon or style.

The knife-fighter can be just as, or more, deadly than the guy the totes an axe. They just go about their fighting in different ways. The axe-guy swings hard and heavy, hoping to tear enemies in half with sheer strength and the knife-guy ducks and weaves until he can gouge his enemies' vital spots or sever their arteries. It's about style. Style should be a major consideration of a character. Many games can make some style choices harder for some players as they clearly favor some weapons, tactics or powers over others. Some games introduce some measure of balance for this (such as a Rogue's Sneak Attack abilities). That's just the nature of the beast, I guess.

[Engar]

I see a great deal of one-upsmanship encouraged in more recent editions of DnD (definitely not the style approach). There is a point very quickly reached in DnD where a "style" based character is obsoleted by a "system" based character and the system supports the latter.

Lets face it, those of us who spent the time fleshing out our character history and attitude and chose not to max out all the stats or specialize all the feats have to be tied to a storyteller that appreciates it or we might as well go see a movie.

[agoraderek]

I see a great deal of one-upsmanship encouraged in more recent editions of DnD (definitely not the style approach). There is a point very quickly reached in DnD where a "style" based character is obsoleted by a "system" based character and the system supports the latter.

Lets face it, those of us who spent the time fleshing out our character history and attitude and chose not to max out all the stats or specialize all the feats have to be tied to a storyteller that appreciates it or we might as well go see a movie.

if you have a decent dm "smart beats stats", a theme pretty much borne out by the "kobolds are fodder" thread. with a good dm, works the same for players...

[Moritz]

To me, new additions are just out to make more money because it's like some hack rewriting the Lord of the Rings trilogy to make it 'better'.

[warlock]

To me, new additions are just out to make more money because it's like some hack rewriting the Lord of the Rings trilogy to make it 'better'.

So you are still playing Chainmail then? Or the original DnD Box?

[Moritz]

Heroically, I still have the blue box. :)

But no, I got on the 3.5 boat and it has sailed to golden horizons.
Same with Champions, I didn't 'upgrade' when 2.0 came out.

I played 'the buy the updated game' back in the day, Basic, Beginner, Expert, Advanced. I missed out on 2.0, but wasn't interested in D&D at that point. Then in 2002, a friend said, "Hey Mo, why don't you run a D&D game?" And I looked it over, and jumped right in.

WotC has enough of my money.

<edit: I will admit, the books are really pretty - but it strikes me as a lot of rules for a 'minatures' game now>

[Webhead]

<edit: I will admit, the books are really pretty - but it strikes me as a lot of rules for a 'minatures' game now>

That's how I began to feel about 3.X, minus the "looking pretty" part...but I'll admit that 4e doesn't seem to do anything to inherently discourage this mentality (that's why I generally tended to avoid games that encouraged the use of minis and battlemats in the past).

[tesral]

AD&D was better than D&D. But D&D was Awful. We played it because it is what was. AD&D was also Gygax being so full of himself you could barely stand to read it. (I just subjected myself to a taste of it, yuck.)

2e was far better organized than AD&D and I went for that. Some people complained that the rules change too much, I never noticed.

3e started the change for change sake. I dislike altering so many spells and the gratuitous changes of spell names. I don't think a class is needed for everything. I do like what they did with the basic mechanic. It should have been done in AD&D. It even mentions the idea of positive AC. They didn't, but should have. The change in saving throws was good. A true mix of good and bad.

4e is a total break with everything before it, different game

Oh, and I I'm glad Lizards bought T$R. They were bankrupt, and going down fast.

[Moritz]

That's how I began to feel about 3.X, minus the "looking pretty" part...but I'll admit that 4e doesn't seem to do anything to inherently discourage this mentality (that's why I generally tended to avoid games that encouraged the use of minis and battlemats in the past).

I don't think I got into the Mini aspect till about 2003, maybe 2004. D&D, regardless of the edition, was always cerebral for me. Telling the story to the players and letting them imagine the scene in their heads. The mini aspect of it came when we adopted two new players to the game who had a lot of mini's and said, "hey, can we use these?" - those players were used to playing MechWarrior, so huge battle maps came out and the game changed somewhat.

[Webhead]

I don't think I got into the Mini aspect till about 2003, maybe 2004. D&D, regardless of the edition, was always cerebral for me. Telling the story to the players and letting them imagine the scene in their heads. The mini aspect of it came when we adopted two new players to the game who had a lot of mini's and said, "hey, can we use these?" - those players were used to playing MechWarrior, so huge battle maps came out and the game changed somewhat.

I think the change came for me when we actually sat down and began to implement the 3.0 rules.

Pre-2e, some things were still measured, but they were in large enough increments that not using a battle map wasn't a problem. If you were in "melee" range, you could use your melee attacks. If your spell had a range of "100 feet" or had a "30 foot radius", that was easy enough to visualize and didn't require you to draw things out.

Post-3e, combat actions got segmented into much smaller units of measurement. Now you had things like the "5-foot adjustment" and "Attacks of Opportunity" that really required you to know, within 5 feet, where your character was in relation to others. You could handwave it if you chose, but that meant you either had to ignore AoO's and 5-foot steps completely which nerfed a lot of Feats and combat actions (not that I minded, but a lot of players would get defensive about this), or you had players constantly wrestling with their choices in combat, repeatedly checking with the DM to make sure they weren't opening themselves up to the risk of unforeseen consequences to their intended actions.

Anywho, just my 2 cents. I miss the days when we ran entire thousand-man battles in our minds, with PCs swinging through treetops and wading through tides of foes without having to worry about provoking AoO's or having to track the 5-foot steps of every footman on the field.

[cplmac]

I have only played 2E, and currently don't see changing anytime in the near future. Of course, anyone just now starting may find that starting with the new 4E may be more advantageous for them, since there will be lots of supplemental materials to come. Personally, I like 2E. I'm not wild about the idea of having to deal with all kinds of different feats. Now I know that in 2E there is the proficiency slots, but we only use them as a place to notate something that a particular PC knows or is trained in (ie. metal smithing). I know there are folks out there that are not fond of it, but I like the Thaco for figuring out if you hit your intended target.

OK, so much for my ramblings, but just my 2 cents worth.

[starfalconkd]

I started playing with 2e and had a good time with it for many years. It was a good system for me.
3.5 is my system of choice now. I'm having a good time with it and don't see the need to put it aside. Maybe someday down the road I will. Who knows?
My games have evolved (story-wise) and I like to to think I've become a better dungeon master through the years. I've changed systems and changed the stats of the people in my game. But people are people. The adventure continues. The style may change but the song remains the same.

[warlock]

Heroically, I still have the blue box. :)

But no, I got on the 3.5 boat and it has sailed to golden horizons.
Same with Champions, I didn't 'upgrade' when 2.0 came out.

I played 'the buy the updated game' back in the day, Basic, Beginner, Expert, Advanced. I missed out on 2.0, but wasn't interested in D&D at that point. Then in 2002, a friend said, "Hey Mo, why don't you run a D&D game?" And I looked it over, and jumped right in.

WotC has enough of my money.

<edit: I will admit, the books are really pretty - but it strikes me as a lot of rules for a 'minatures' game now>


Well, some hack felt the need to re-write the stuff in the blue box, then all the upgrades through advanced, and then released a 2.0 of advanced. And then the idiots had the audacity to try to rewrite that!

I cant fault WOTC/TSR for trying to make money. Its why they are in this. But I can fault them for writing a ****ty system, which I think they have. I bought the 3e core books, and was terribly disappointed. This edition isn't looking much better to me, but if it does its job, it does its job. I can see this pulling in the MMO crowd like flies to teh cowpie, and I think thats what they are shooting for.

[agoraderek]

maybe im weird (and it sounds like it, reading the general opinions on the subject in these forums) but i LIKE AoOs. i like players having to think a bit more tactically and considering the pros and cons of a combat action. when im playing, i might consider the effect of an AoO if im ailing a bit, but, for the most part, if the tactical advantage outweighs the potential damage from a successful attack, so be it.

plus, i play mostly rogues anyway, so i rarely even have to think about it, unless i blow my tumble roll...

but, from a dming perspective, it does cut out the "but i want there, i was here" type arguments that always seemed to pop up when combat wasnt on a grid, and it cuts back on the "i run through the crowd of goblins and attack the wizard" craziness, when most of those goblins get a free swipe as you pass...

[Webhead]

I understand why AoO's were added to 3e and what they were trying to bring to the "tactical" considerations of combat, but I didn't care for them. I like epic, cinematic, over-the-top action anyway and AoO's (and 3e's movement system in general) were kind of a downer on that. Just personal experience, nothing more. YMMV.

[agoraderek]

I understand why AoO's were added to 3e and what they were trying to bring to the "tactical" considerations of combat, but I didn't care for them. I like epic, cinematic, over-the-top action anyway and AoO's (and 3e's movement system in general) were kind of a downer on that. Just personal experience, nothing more. YMMV.

exactly, i prefer low fantasy, mud on the boots, think of the little things when preparing to leave out away from civilization type games, so the addition of AoO was cool.

now, when i PLAY, all i care about is that the gm can help me have a fun time, dont give a whit about the genre or the rules set.

most of my 4.0 posts on here come from a dm's perspective, not a player's perspective. 4.0 looks fun, i'd play it, just ain't gonna run it...

[Webhead]

I like epic, cinematic, over-the-top action anyway...

I suppose I should qualify that. For many genres (including sword-and-sorcery fantasy), I prefer epic, cinematic, over-the-top action. Obviously, if I'm running a Zombie Survival-Horror game (:)) I take a more "down and dirty" approach to things, but it's all about style-emulation.

I've run (and played) "down and dirty" fantasy and it's not a bad thing. But if I'm gonna run D&D, I'd prefer it to be a bit more loose and over-the-top.