Really, folks.
I can´t stress the awesome that is AD&D 2e enough.
My 3.5 Group was thrown back in time, into a different eon, were the laws of the universe were just a bit different.
I used the background of a German RPG, and used the reams of 2e homebrew and sandbox tools for adventuring.
One player was psyched to play 2e again, one was very wary, as he had made very bad experiences with 2e all other players were indifferent. All of them are 3.5 fans, who love all the stuff that comes with it.
Gameplay was faster.
Prep time was minimised.
NPCs could be created in under a minute.
For example, the Thief player got himself into a position were every scouty-rouguey-trap-disably-sappeury Dwarf looked up to him. He had the feat "Leadership" in 3.5. So I looked up the table for followers, and he got himself no less than 8 Dwarf thieves, who got a personality, stats, level and even Dwarven names rolled up with all these nifty little tools.
And the Sandbox awesome if there ever was one: Deck of encounters (http://www.tomeoftreasures.com/tot_second_edition_home/accessories/tsr9407_deckofencounters1.htm)!
I´ve got both and they are...indeed a worthwhile investment. THe encounter table construction ruiles from the DMG are also pretty nifty, and had me writing up tons of tables in no time.
The XP/HD "challenge rating" system is also just as precise as the 3.5 one is.
The change in tone/atmosphere was remarkable, and most players immedeately felt it too. They knew they were in a magical and mythical time, quite distinct from the Wilderlands which were perceived as far more gritty, or the gameworld´s 3.5 present, which was perceived as bad-ass-high-magic-high-population-high-octane environment
My point: take 2e´s rules and tools as what they are and surf with it! It´s different, but it still is great in doing what it wants to do.
Downside: X-Bows totally suck in 2e.
EDIT: mixed up some numbers
Glad to hear it, Sett.
Quote from: SettembriniTHe encounter table construction ruiles from the DMG are also pretty nifty, and had me writing up tons of tables in no time.
Tell me more. I've been thinking of vastly increasing my use of tables.
I did something similar once, sending my 3.0 PCs back to RC times, but with opposite results. Turns out, we like our fiddly bits. It also didn't help that I couldn't translate the PCs very effectively because of races being classes and the lack of multiclassing rules.
That problem, Jim, isn´t really pronounced in 2e. First you´ve got basically all classes and races. Secondly, you have all those complete books to find at least some neat stuff that matches the neat stuff from 3.5
Even Warlocks are possible, though pretty different.
@tables: Most table building advice and existing tables are very D&D centered. I´d be hard pressed to distill something meaningful from it for general application, that would not be insulting to your intellect at the same time. My excitement stems from the fact that much legwork has been done to alleviate D&D-homebrewing and sandboxing.
Like having dwarven name generators, encounter table templates, monster ecologies, character class design rules, character kit design rules, spell design rules, monster design rules, monsters that can be run on the fly, encounter decks, magical school design rules, castle building, pick pocketing table, world building book, etc.
Quote from: James McMurrayI did something similar once, sending my 3.0 PCs back to RC times, but with opposite results. Turns out, we like our fiddly bits. It also didn't help that I couldn't translate the PCs very effectively because of races being classes and the lack of multiclassing rules.
Guidance for such a conversion is all right there in the appendix of the RC (although, of course, thats guidance for converting from 2nd ed, it applies equally well to converting from 3rd ed).
Quote from: SettembriniMy point: take 2e´s rules and tools as what they are and surf with it! It´s different, but it still is great in doing what it wants to do.
Its a decent game in itself and it basically works. The engine that 2nd ed runs on is sound. My only real problems with 2nd ed are the massive rulebook sprawl and the way that the DM is treated like an idiot (e.g. rather than being left to do simple modifications to class at the request of a player, theres a kit for everything).
No, the kits are for you as a model!
The complete X books really say that, and show and encourage you to design kits for YOUR world!
Quote from: SettembriniNo, the kits are for you as a model!
The complete X books really say that, and show and encourage you to design kits for YOUR world!
No, they encourage the lowest kind of player to turn up with an unworkable, poorly thought through concept and get upset because you tell them it'll die within five minutes in your setting. Too much detail, too much ill-considered twaddle; all that was needed was a very simple set of guidelines showing how class traits can be kind of elastic and a couple of worked examples, instead we seem to have hundreds of meaningless variations on themes. Reminds me rather of prestige classes.
Quoteat was needed was a very simple set of guidelines showing how class traits can be kind of elastic and a couple of worked examples,
Funnily, that´s exactly what my Complete books contain.
How perceptions can vary!
Quote from: SettembriniFunnily, that´s exactly what my Complete books contain.
How perceptions can vary!
Add all of those 'worked examples' and you have an almost limitless supply of bad ideas, in which you have to look very carefully to find the good stuff. Classic example of system bloat.
A very cool thread, Sett. Kudos to you :)
I actually enjoyed running 2e, as I felt it could be done without overwhelming prep. Though I think that it suffered from some serious rules bloating, it was all very optional.
I feel that 3.X is a better game, and a better D&D version, at that, but you could get some good gaming from 2e. And some of its published settings seriously rocked.
Glad you like it. But not only did the published systems rock.
The homebrew support and encouragement also did!
What I also really dig is the implicit and explicit assumption, that every new option leads to new adventure possibilities.
There are Elementalists? Explain them! Intruduce them! Weave them into your world!
Quote from: SettembriniGlad you like it. But not only did the published systems rock.
The homebrew support and encouragement also did!
What I also really dig is the implicit and explicit assumption, that every new option leads to new adventure possibilities.
There are Elementalists? Explain them! Intruduce them! Weave them into your world!
Absolutely agreed. When I read the Complete Warrior book, I loved the examples of how introducing the kits into the background of the world, though I understand that the same has been done with PrC.
Quote from: ImperatorI actually enjoyed running 2e, as I felt it could be done without overwhelming prep. Though I think that it suffered from some serious rules bloating, it was all very optional.
Thats the strongest defense of 2nd ed that I can think of, all of the bloat
is optional. My experience is that so few second edition players really cottoned on to that fact that in effect you ended up with some way over-complex campaigns. But strip all of that away, play it as a game with some good options, and you've got an excellent and very playable game. The optional nature of those add ons, in my view, makes it a stronger game than 3rd ed (where stripping things out that you don't want is a pretty involved business, as everything is designed to interract).
And the second ed era also saw the biggest bloat in campaign settings. While that was part of the downfall (making so many game worlds effectively split the market) it also provided us with some excellent gaming products. I still maintain that Spelljammer (for example) is one of the finest game settings I've encountered.
Quote from: CabAnd the second ed era also saw the biggest bloat in campaign settings. While that was part of the downfall (making so many game worlds effectively split the market) it also provided us with some excellent gaming products. I still maintain that Spelljammer (for example) is one of the finest game settings I've encountered.
It was an age of extremes. Some of the best settings, some of the worst, all for the same game.
I loved dearly Planescape, Dark Sun and Ravenloft. Original, well done ideas. And easily portable to other systems, if AD&D 2e happened to not be of your liking.
But I hate to death Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms. Utterly and totally hate them. There are few settings I hate more than them. Of course, take hate as "I can't really be arsed to give a shit about them".
Quote from: ImperatorBut I hate to death Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms. Utterly and totally hate them. There are few settings I hate more than them. Of course, take hate as "I can't really be arsed to give a shit about them".
I liked Forgotten Realms to begin with. Then it became the sort of 'dump setting'. I know thats a nasty thing to say, and that many of the products made for it were individually pretty good, but it just became so very big, so very over-powered, that you had to be very strict with how to use it. In the end it was quite unmanageable.
Dragonlance... I dunno, I've got a love-hate thing going on with that one. I love the setting, the original harback book (although that was 1st ed) gave us a nice, easy, playable game world. But the modules were just so railroady, I couldn't see why anyone would see one through to the end.
That isn't to say that other versions of D&D haven't given us some extremely playable game worlds. Eberron, for example, can rightly take its place among the best of them. And for classic, Mystara (later reissued for 2nd ed but a classic D&D setting of some pedigree) and Blackmoor are as both brilliant. But the wealth of settings produced for second ed was quite amazing.
Eberron is a joke. Not from the start, but the modules turn the background into a stupid world populated by illogical, retarded and moronic people.
Quote from: SettembriniEberron is a joke. Not from the start, but the modules turn the background into a stupid world populated by illogical, retarded and moronic people.
I'll confess that I haven't read the modules, but I found the setting book itself to be quite excellent. A fun setting to play in.
And I've clearly got to steal warforged for ancient (i.e. historic to Mystara) Blackmoor.
I loved 2e for all the reasons you name, Sett, it was my favorite iteration of D&D, but it was *my* 2e. It was seriously house-ruled, modded, and kit-bashed.
-clash
Quote from: CabGuidance for such a conversion is all right there in the appendix of the RC (although, of course, thats guidance for converting from 2nd ed, it applies equally well to converting from 3rd ed).
I was short on both time and printer ink back then, and never saw those conversions. Does it explain how to convert a half-dragon fighter / PrC x, a halfling sorcerer, a human Wu Jen, a human Samurai, an elven cleric, and a dwarven wizard (all around 18th level)?
Quote from: James McMurrayI was short on both time and printer ink back then, and never saw those conversions. Does it explain how to convert a half-dragon fighter / PrC x, a halfling sorcerer, a human Wu Jen, a human Samurai, an elven cleric, and a dwarven wizard (all around 18th level)?
Some of them, yes. I'd be lying if I said it gave you guidance on converting some of the stupid ones like half dragons.
Thanks for the info, and :rolleyes: for the judgemental crap. :)
QuoteI was short on both time and printer ink back then, and never saw those conversions. Does it explain how to convert a half-dragon fighter / PrC x, a halfling sorcerer, a human Wu Jen, a human Samurai, an elven cleric, and a dwarven wizard (all around 18th level)?
Half-Dragon Fighter: Complete Humanoids and the DMG give you a design sequence for Humanoids. PrC surely has a Kit equivalent, or you design a fighter kit following the design sequence in the Complete Fighters.
Halfling Sorceror: Halfling Wild-Mage OR you use the 3.5 spell allottment rules OR you use the Spell point system
Wu Jen: Either Oriental Adventures OR 2e Oriental Adventures = Kara-Tur
Samurai: Complete Fighters, Oriental Adventures/Kara-Tur
Elven Cleric: no-brainer
Dwarven Wizard: no-brainer
Quote from: SettembriniHalf-Dragon Fighter: Complete Humanoids and the DMG give you a design sequence for Humanoids. PrC surely has a Kit equivalent, or you design a fighter kit following the design sequence in the Complete Fighters.
Halfling Sorceror: Halfling Wild-Mage OR you use the 3.5 spell allottment rules OR you use the Spell point system
Wu Jen: Either Oriental Adventures OR 2e Oriental Adventures = Kara-Tur
Samurai: Complete Fighters, Oriental Adventures/Kara-Tur
Elven Cleric: no-brainer
Dwarven Wizard: no-brainer
As I said, it was RC, not 2e. I agree that conversions are pretty obvious between 1e/2e and 3e if you don't mind throwing class/race and level limits out the window.
Quote from: James McMurrayAs I said, it was RC, not 2e.
Shouldn't be too hard as long as you're willing to come up with unique characters which differ a bit from their basic class.
Elven Cleric - an ordinary elf, but he gains clerical spells instead of arcane ones. And can only use blunt weapons, if you want that part of clericness, too.
Dwarven Wizard - Option A: take an ordinary wizard, give it some of the dwarven racial abilities and up the level limits a bit. Option B: take an ordinary dwarf, give it the spellcasting abilities of magic users, and up the level limits a LOT. To figure out how much to up the limits by, use limits difference between fighters and elves as a benchmark. And maybe limit his weapon/armour choice and combat table progression a bit.
Samurai - a completely bog-standard Fighter who uses funny names for his weapons and armour. If you're using Weapons Mastery rules, make it mandatory for him to take mastery in longsword (katana), shortsword (wakizashi) and bow when he reaches the necessary levels. And/or just make it an RC "prestige class" that Fighters can change into when reaching name level, mechanically identical to the Knight.
Halfling Sorceror - only possible if you're converting the whole spellcasting system, but that's true for all pre-3E editions. Other than that, see dwarven wizard above.
Wu Jen - a Magic User with a custom spell list.
Half-Dragon Fighter - ordinary fighter, give it some custom abilities (breath fire, dwarf-like reduced damage from dragonfire at higher levels, etc.), up the level limits.
Even that (the creation of new rulesets and modifications of old) was something I didn't have the time for back then. It had also been years since I'd played any OD&D, and I prefer not to fiddle too much with the rules when I'm not familiar with them.
I ended up converting them based on which part of their character was the most closely tied to their makeup. I'm sure I'm misremembering the lineup, but of the ones I do recall, the elven cleric became a human cleric, the wujen became a wizard, and the samurai a fighter with tons of katana specialization.
Then again, the major differentiation from their original selves was part of the reason I used RC instead of just running 3.0 in ancient times. I wanted it to be clear that the universe functioned a lot differently 2000 years ago. The players made it clear that they preferred the present, and the PCs never went near that particular magical pool again. It was fun, but I wouldn't do it again, at least not as a surprise.
Quote from: James McMurrayThanks for the info, and :rolleyes: for the judgemental crap. :)
No problem. Any time you want more of either (especially the judgemental crap) just holler.