You know, I'm reading 1st Edition through, cover to cover, for the first time.

And it's a way better game than I'd imagined. There are, obviously, some wonky things to my second-generation brain - the busted-ass dual-classing rules that reward you for rolling up a better character, f'rex - but I'd totally play or run it by the book, Gygax advice as canon. Preferably with people that aren't my current group and would actually take it seriously.

I just wanted to interject a little pro-1e chatter into the thread. 'cause I'm reading it, and it's cool, and all edition wars end up covering the whole gamut anyway.

Quote from: Christmas ApeI just wanted to interject a little pro-1e chatter into the thread. 'cause I'm reading it, and it's cool, and all edition wars end up covering the whole gamut anyway.

I think that's also why 2nd ed. gets the criticism it gets, so it's worthwhile to note.  2nd ed. didn't really do that much to enhance our D&D game and most of us felt dissapointed we converted to it.  When we tried to sexy it up with supplements, we completely broke it.

Quote from: Abyssal MawSee but it was easier to ignore the 1st Edition. Where is a 1st level character going to get 10,000 gp? It's simply not serious, and you just tossed it out.

Both seem equally easy to ignore (or modify) as they have no further influence on the mechanics of the game.

I started playing D&D way back in the day and transitioned from that to AD&D 2nd Edition.  I had to reply to this post.

I think 2nd Edition was great.  One thing that D&D carried with it from its inception was that humans for the most part were always comparable to real humans (like us).  Weapon, Non-Weapon, Thief, and other physical abilities fell within a range of things that real people could do.  Even the max strength lifting numbers were based on what a human lifted in real life.  The only thing that really transcended out of that realm of reality were magic/cleric spells (which actually applied to all races).  

Now I took a long break from D&D/AD&D and then tried out the new game 3.5  The new game has totally changed everything to be like a comic book.  Feats are a huge part of the game,a nd for the most part feats are things that real people cannot do (whirlwind attack, fire several arrows at once from a bow, etc).  Also, you can now get to strength levels that are totally impossible for real humans.  I only played again (3.5) for a short while (6 months to see if I could get back into it) and doubt I'll ever play an RPG again, I like real life better.  

D&D/AD&D also had a long history of accurately portraying weapons and their usage into the game by sticking to historical weapons from real life.  Now they have weapons that never existed (and would not even be practical to use in real life - double sword, double axe) in the game.  In addition, somebody went through and min/maxed every damn weapon in the whole game.  Why does a mace do bludgeoning and piercing damage, but not a flail.  The only reason I see is:  because a flail has the ability to trip as a weapon and giving it bludgeon/pierce status would unbalance the weapons.  In AD&D 2nd Edition, the weapons (except for the crossbow which has always gotten the shaft - no pun intended) were based more on their actual size/effectiveness.  Sure, the longsword was head and shoulders above most weapons and now in 3.5 it isn't, but in real life it WAS the damn weapon of choice because it was the most effective at several things.  In 2nd Edition, it was the player's choice, and if they picked a weapon that kinda sucked it was for roleplaying reasons.  Now, all of the choices have been made for you, all weapons are equal (what is this some PC BS).

Anyways, I hate edition 3.5  The miniatures really ruined the game.  Everything is decided for you.  You aren't rewarded for cool ideas because everything is a dice roll instead of giving the DM the ability to say "yeah, great idea, it works."  There is no imagination left.

The artwork.  Oh, the artwork!  The artwork of 3.5 can only be described as GAS (Gay As $hit).  It looks terrible.  If I saw some of that stuff in real life (characters or monsters) I would probably die from laughter.  It used to have high quality color artwork and the women were women you would want to be seduced by.  Now, I get to look at some anime chick with a big head and a stick body.  The artwork used to be very realistic and evoke a feeling that you were really there.  Now, everybody looks like a pussy or and ugly anime chick.

If you couldn't figure out THAC0, then you're retarded!

Well, that was certainly worth a necro.

:rollbarf:

Have a nice life!

I wonder who 2nd Edition Rocks is when he's not a sockpuppet.

Have a nice life!

Quote from: 2nd Edition RocksAnyways, I hate edition 3.5  The miniatures really ruined the game.  Everything is decided for you.  You aren't rewarded for cool ideas because everything is a dice roll instead of giving the DM the ability to say "yeah, great idea, it works."  There is no imagination left.

I think this bit is important and entirely relevant.

One of the big philosophy changes in D&D3 is that player proficiency during play isn't as important as character build and roll modifiers.  I commented on this indirectly not too long ago in a thread on traps.  In the days of Basic D&D, AD&D1, and AD&D2, traps were about exploring your environment with your character and otherwise being observant and experimental.  This led to a few strange things, like parties having a person tapping the floor ahead of them with a 10 foot pole checking for traps.  But the idea was to have traps be puzzles which players had to outhink.  Using Find/Remove Traps checks was an absolute last resort when everything else had failed.

(Some time back, I found a play log of a group of players going through the infamous module Tomb of Horrors.  These players knew what they were doing, and got through the module successfully by carefully and skillfully testing their environment.  They easily surpassed deathtraps which I've read for years and wondered how anyone was supposed to know they were there.  They did all this without so much as a single Find Traps check.)

But in D&D3 and D20, despite claims of changing the game to promote "mastery", this has changed.  Trap finding, and many other things, are now merely skill modifiers which you either roll or take 10/20 on.  The modifier is more important than the conduct of play.  In a few D&D modules I've read, I've noticed traps aren't even described.  They're merely DCs with an amount of damage you take if they aren't avoided by a die roll or disarmed by a die roll.

This really extends to everything in the Wizards D20 philosophy.  Do you have a surprising plan for combat?  Make a Bluff check.  Negotiating with an NPC?  No talking is required, just roll Bargain.  Does your character find the hidden safe behind the painting?  No reason to describe looking behind the painting, just roll a Search check.

There are good parts to this change, but I feel that the bad outweighs the good.

Oh, I also agree that the artwork sucks and the people who couldn't figure out THAC0 need to go back to their elementary mathematics classes.    Still, flipping around the ACs so that higher was better was a good and much needed change.

Have a nice life!

I don't know what the good Father's telling you, 2ER, but whatever it is you're playing in a bathroom stall ain't D&D. Also, read the fucking thread with both your accounts. I'm a 1e man these days, those times I play D&D. Which is almost never.

Have a nice life!

Quote from: 2nd Edition RocksYes, on the surprising plan for combat note.  I remember a time where if you came up with something really cool, the DM just winged how it worked and you could improvise results (DM and characters).

This taking 20 stuff is kind of silly.  Dice now dominate the game.  And IMO, using miniatures has taken the game from the head/imagination of the player to a gameboard/PC (Microsoftish) sort of game.  I won't be surprised if they come out with some kind of "game console" in which AofO's and all sorts of other things just happen.

Winging it isn't really a enviable mechanical option.  However, I do think in these two examples, the first one is superior:

Quote from: Example 1Player: Comes up with a plan.

GM: Thinks of the plan and it's implications for the game.  He also considers whether the opposition has considered this plan and created measures to prevent it from being effective.

Then the players do what they planned and the GM has the opposition organically react.

Quote from: Example 2Player: Comes up with a plan.

GM: Asks for a Bluff check (or whatever is applicable) to see if it is effective.

The benefit of Example 2 is that it gives the player action concrete mechanical effects which are ideally not influenced by GM fiat.

The bad thing is that it doesn't consider player intelligence or ingenuity.  All that matters is the character build and a die roll. That's why I strongly feel Example #1 is superior.  The player's skill and attentiveness to game detail is involved.  D&D3 encourages Example 2, and downplays Example 1.

I do think the Take 10/20 stuff is good.  It gives a concrete example of when skill rolls are really necessary or not.  While I've met many GMs who are just obsessed with requiring rolls to make players fail, I've met as many or more who just don't grasp the idea of when a skill check should be required.

So you're to defend a game you don't play? I think I know a place you'll fit right in...

:forge:

Have a nice life!