* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : For 2nd ed players Started at 03-12-08 08:40 AM by Daebereth Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1002827 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Daebereth Date : 03-12-08 08:40 AM Thread Title : For 2nd ed players First things first: I'm currently undertaking my honours year, and my thesis is going to have something to do with the investment of the player community in D&D. I'm a player myself, so I'm not about to do anything awful to the game we all love. So, I'm here looking to talk to the community itself, because really... would be all kinds of stupid not to. At the moment, I'm curious to hear from those who played D&D before version 3, and to find out if there was the same sort of reaction to v3 as there is to v4. If people could post replies here, or pm me, I would be most grateful. Any extra information, if you would like it, I will be happy to supply, although at the moment, I'm just starting out in forming my research. Daebereth. EDIT: Due to some misunderstandings at the university, I'm going to make this a general thread (ie, not definitely related to my research) for awhile. Basically, when I began I inquired whether or not I needed ethical clearance to talk to people. I was told "no." So, here I am... and now I'm being told that, yes, I *do* need ethical clearance to be here, talking to you. And that until my application is cleared, I cannot use what is here. However, I am enjoying reading this thread and learning from those with more experience than me, so I'll be around. Once my clearance goes through, I will approach everyone who has already posted with some questions related and my piece of paper in hand. Thankyou so much, and I'll be here, learning. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 03-12-08 10:15 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players It was pretty obvious that 2e had run its course and the game needed some rejuvenation, so we were optimistic about 3e before it came out. Then we learned better. By 4e it's pretty clear that Wizbro has no interest in either designing or publishing a game anywhere near Dungeons and Dragons. Why should I care what they publish if they don't care what I buy? I'm viewing the alleged "4th edition" game itself with complete indifference, tempered only by the mild annoyance that Wizbro continues to pimp the D&D name for games which are not compatible with D&D. By comparison, if you want to go that far back, it was pretty clear that 1e had just sprawled into a complete lack of coherence, so we were enthused about the idea of a 2e to bring some order to the table. Hope that helps some. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : RedWizard Date : 03-13-08 12:38 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players The thing to remember with the release of 2nd edition was that at that time players were not yet inundated with the whole crank out a new edition to make more money concept. I started playing back in 1980 and when 2nd edition was given it's sneak preview in an issue of Dragon magazine we gobbled it up. We were genuinely excited to see what would change. In 1st edition, suppliments came out rarely so anything new was generally looked upon as a good thing. Then 2nd edition came out and while it had it's flaws, it was still very much compatable with 1st edition and thus people could take a little from 1st and a little from 2nd where they saw the rules made the most sense to create a very sturdy hybrid. Then the mass suppliments started. Kit books and boxed editions of various campaign worlds. Some were good but so many more were bad (SpellJammer anyone). The joke was TSR would package it's mother's if a dime was there to be made and in the end they saturated the market and the game went into a steep decline. So then 3rd edition comes out by WotC. Now you get a game that is no longer compatible with either of the earlier editions and is quite a bit more expensive. People gave it a try though for many the origional flavor was missing from the game. Even for those who started with 3.0 and liked it enough to buy up these books were shocked to find that suddenly (and comparatively quickly) another new edition was coming out, 3.5! 3.5's stated goal was to correct all the brokeness of 3.0 with another set of nice but expensive books. Now you couldn't give away the expensive 3.0 books. The new producers of the game had evidently learned very little from the fate of 2nd edition (or learned quite a lot, depending on how one looks at it) and again they started churning out splat books at a ridiculous pace matched only by the youthful exhuberance (and weekly allowance) of the high school fanboy set. And now after so many players have taken a break to catch their breaths and look over their awesome library, it is announced that all those books are now no longer compatible to what will be the 4th generation of the game! Huzaah! So you cannot really blame the players for taking this good news with a bit of salt. While others like myself have simply decided to go back to 1st edition.:P -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : Daebereth Date : 03-13-08 02:53 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Wow, thanks to you both. I had originally not intended to go as far back as v1, because I wasn't sure if such a community as *now* existed. (I'm aware that the net community we share is quite a new thing, and a lot of the hype over v4 is going on online.) Now, however, I think I might be able to do so. More than anything, it seems like you're agreeing that every version (excepting v1-v2) is really just a new game, rather than a different version of the same? Handsome Stranger: "Why should I care what they publish if they don't care what I buy?" Hm, so are you of the belief that you are no longer part of the Wizbro audience? This is (what I hope to be) a large part of my thesis, that all of a sudden, a different audience is being hailed... but what happens to those of us who are already playing? Aren't we wanted anymore? Redwizard: I agree with the expense part. Going out of compatability, and v3/v3.5 books are still a weekly pay packet (at least for a student :rolleyes:) It does make it hard when a group only has one PHB at levelling time, simply because you can't afford them. We all finally get them.... they upgrade. I do see that all of the splatbooks could become a problem. There's just so much material - I'm thinking of the "complete" set in particular. Luck points, divine points, add it altogether and it becomes mindboggling. In that respect, I could understand wanting to streamline the game a little more. v4 doesn't seem to be doing qutie that, however. Also, I'm curious on one other level: my gaming group went over the changes and agreed that it seems like v4 is really going back to v1 (things like classes seem to point this out.) You, however, don't seem to be of the same opinion? Please, fill me in, I only played v1 very little as a child (thus with very little comprehension of what was really going on). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Etarnon Date : 03-13-08 03:57 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players 4 is not going back to 1. 4 is making it such that it is fixing complaints that players have of 3rd, such as dead levels, while making it harder to die for new characters, and in my mind, even more mixing around the character classes, so much so that it is now almost a skill-based game, rather than a level based game. It won't have the flavor of 1st because 1e had PHB, DMG, and MM the big three books, and those were all you needed, unless you wanted a pre-made campaign like greyhawk. 3.0 and 3.5 went for brand line extension by the amount of books needed with all these options, which take the place of imagination, and fill it with rules to account for everything. Taking the power out of the hands of the DM. Players now are often of the mind, the DM needs less power, to avoid DM fiat. But then that means that the world has less power to fight the players' characters, thus victory is easier. It's all about the skill of the DM, and to be a good one back in the day, was pretty tough, just because it was all a judgement call. Now, being a DM means knowing all the rules on piles and piles of books, which used to be: D&D 1 Cyclopedia. (Plus the immortals rules in two thin booklets for completeness.) AD&D 1 DMG, 1 PHB, 1 MM AD&D 2E 1 DMG, 1 PHB, 1 MM, And then options books. Now, 3.0 can be played JUST with the PHB, DMG, and MM. Except not many do that, because they want the race books, and all of it. 3.5 Same deal. Many of the grognards of the old school are jacked off because of the 4th ed, to fix 3.5 which was to fix 3.0 which was a fix for 2nd ed. Except the same company is working on the last three "Fixes". I'm seeing a groundswell in a return to 1e, and 2e, because: They are cheap like dirt on Ebay. The people that played or DMed in back in the day already have decades of experience with it. The rules were a lot simpler, and you can spend more time on the story, rather than the stat blocks. Back in 1e, when i ran an adventure, I would write: Room 1 - 3 Orcs, AC7, HP 8, 7 5. And be done. I'd make up what the room, smelled like looked like sounded like as we went. These days, I can barely get a 3.5 adventure off the ground, cause I am rigging feats and skills, and figuring all this crap out, not to mention Balancing CR, and XP for parties not numbered 4. When the combat happens, there are too many things to keep track of that take too much time. Headaches abound, as my brain freezes up, when i am looking for a modifier, or equipment in the book. I'm definitely going back to the old ways, and starting an exciting campaign next month. I'm able to see characters now, ideas, towns, mental sketches.. where in 3.5, I'd still have to be combing all the piles of books for the rules on how to ddo those things. Old school isn't for everyone, certainly. In the end, it's all a process of "You see an orc!" "I Swing!" And rolls and damage. It's just a much easier process in the older editions, with far less rules, and less codified situations, spurring, I honestly believe, the DM to be freer, and looser with the story, and open to more things. My 1e character in Red Wizard's Game does not have a consolidated attack plan for the levels he's gonna stack on the way to 20, nor have pre-selected what prestige class he's gonna have at level 5. Right now, his focus is on getting to know the party, trying to stay alive, and hoping his paltry single spell a day, plus a sense of humor, backed up by darts, smarts, and a dagger, will win him the funds to enable him to survive another month. And that's how I like my AD&D, emphasis on the 'A'. There's something to be said for all sorts of options. There's also the idea that you play with what cards you got dealt. The way I see it, my wizard PC is likely to not make it out of this adventure alive, with all of 4 HP. But if he does? It'll be spectacular. If he had 20 or 30 hit points, it would be a yawn, when a kobold arrow came sailing past. 'Nuff said. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Ferns Date : 03-13-08 04:11 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I also started dungeons and dragons v1 when i was a very little boy, therefor i really dont remember the game mechanics and i havent had the time nor interest in catching up on it since. Actually i got from playing 1st ed to play "Heroquest" the boardgame and it really got my attention a lot. A friend of mine had the game and he also went to a school where roleplaying was on the agenda as an extrachoice. With my excitement over the whole fantasy world he invited me to come to the school and attend the class which were roleplaying, and so I did :) At first it was all very confusing and quite frankly a little scary, since all the other students were far my age. But I was accepted and joined a game called "Shadowrun", it wasnt really my "thing", but i was very commited to learn and exploit this new side of having fun. So when a couple of elder boys invited me over to play ad&d 2nd ed i went for it. And MAN was the exciting! i played a bard and was thrown into some good old fashion dungeon crawl with monsters i've never heard of and treasures so big it was hard for me to imagine. It came to grew on me, i played and played, sometimes so much that i was white as snow in the summertime, i was almost and addict. Thrillseeking and eager to learn all about Forgotten Realms as it was. Ofcourse the time came, when people started asking me to DM a group. Again me excitement was over the hills and i threw people out in a magic world so infested with monsters and magical items that i couldn't handle it in the end and the adventure died slowly. But i was hooked at getting better at it, i began to read lots of novels, core and supplement books and wanted my world to be "realistic". This i still do many years later, and my group and me love 2nd ed. Then 3rd ed was to come, we looked at eachother with a "Why would they do that"-look and when it hit the shelves, we were very negative towards it. A member of my group said a phrase that we have come to use a lot" it's Diablo on paper"! and so it was named "The pen and paper Diablo game". We didnt want to play Diablo on paper, that we could do for ourselves at our computers, so we continued playing 2nd ed. And everytime someone mentioned that the 3rd ed roleplaing game was soooo great and awsome, we just laughed and said "its not ROLEplaying, its ROLLplaying". We still joke at people who plays it, mainly beacuse we really dont understand the new mechanics and dont want to. Now 4th edition is on its way and from what we've read its just another build-up with a massive amount of hack'n slash your way to fame and fortune, so we keep on playing 2nd ed. Thats what we know, it works and we have so many books, that the game will last a lifetime and more. So coming 4th ed players (the youth today), go ahead play the thing you are excited about, thats what we say. We hope you will find as much fun in this edition as we have had in ours. But dont force us to play the new thing because you love it, we love the old ed just as much. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 03-13-08 06:34 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players My feelings on the matter are that the older crew, that is, those who have played 1st and 2nd edition, love the hobby, have it as a cornerstone of their social lives (and that is not as negative as it sounds) and see it as a teamwork game that involves quite a bit of imagination. We are a generation that has no problems conceptualising the original intent of the rules and I hear the words "spirit of the game" and awful lot. The rules were simple, on the whole, but the white space left over was filled in with creativity. Add to that a healthy dash of nostalgia and it is little wonder that we like the previous editions. TSR can be blamed for cranking out sourcebooks like no tomorrow, and there was incremental power creep in the PHBR series, despite the original wishes of the project team. It was inevitable. The two editions lasted over twenty years, with a host of books to support any aspect of the game that you cared to mention. The break, as I see it, was when 3.0 made a solid break from tradition. It seemed as though everything changed at the same time. The art, the mood, the feel, the products, were all suddenly different. The values I saw placed on D&D were in the 'builds' and a focus on feats. A newer generation grabbed the hobby and ran with it - in a different direction. In the FLGS, I heard conversation based on maths and min-maxing and nothing about adventuring. I recall one conversation with a younger player who, after I got excited when he pulled Mordenkainen from a box of minis, said to me distainfully "Am I meant to care who he is? His stats aren't that great, so I can't use him in my warband" All the iconics were gone and there was nothing to replace them.. No more Tomb of Horrors, Temple of Elemental Evil, Dragon Mountain or Undermountain; now we had The Sunless Citadel, The Forge of Fury and a host of signature characters I couldn't care less about. 4e seems to have left me behind. I see the parrallels between it an online gaming. I have never been on the MMORPG kick, or video games in general, but most of my group are; and listening to them tell of WoW, I can see the mechanics creeping. I understand that business-wise it is a good idea to capture the newer players - the hobby has to grow to be commercially viable. Dungeon and Dragon have gone digital and 4e borrows from MMORPGs. I prefer my information in paper copies (I print articles out at work to do my professional reading or rely on the print collection), so I won't have an Insider subscription. The more I read about 4e, the more I hang out here, ignore the advancement of the game, and realise how much potential the older editions of the game had - and I've now been playing for twenty years. My Basic, 1st ed and 2nd ed books and boxed sets (that was a format I wanted to see returned) are still so useful, and I don;t really own that much (less than a shelf on my bookcase - not counting twelve years of Dragon mags). I'm looking forward to this weekend, because I've gathered a group of like-minded people and we're running Tomb of Horrors, using the Rules Cyclopedia for character creation as a tribute to Mr E. Gary Gygax. It's still two days away, but I'm already excited about it. I'll let you know how it turns out. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Daebereth Date : 03-13-08 07:02 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players More thanks to responses, it is very much appreciated. Etarnon: Thankyou for clearing that up. Again, I only played 1st ed for a few years as a child before I was introduced right into 3.5 (played with parent's old stuff and managed to miss out 2 and 3 entirely) I know, certainly, from speaking to the DMs of my extended gaming group, that they are all quite excited about the simplification of the rules from a mechanical point of view. I don't begrudge them their position running games, know that I will never be not-shy enough to do so, and accept that there must be something going right with v4. I have, however, from a brief stint here, discovered that those who are mechanically minded seem happy, while (for lack of a better term) "pure roleplayers" are the miserable ones. I know this is a glaring generalisation, and that I could be quite wrong, yet I find it interesting enough. Ferns: Unfortunately, I've never really been able to play anything else. Finding gaming groups in this city is quite difficult. However, I love D&D well enough to stick with it week after week. 3.5 as Diablo has also been tossed around my extended group (by extended, I mean everyone at my university who I have played with, or have spoken with, but who are all generally D&D players. I see my weekly campaign group as my immediate D&D family. :) ) It is this immediate family who has already decided that we're not going to upgrade to v4. Perhaps its all the legwork involved in making characters (after a year and a half, we're almost epic) but no-one really wants to mess with their beloved characters that way. Not when you've given them backstory, and frontstory, and all of the sudden the very basic way they work is going to change them. What intrigues me is the amount of people who are also willing to forgo v4, and are already proclaiming "wait until v5." It seems a little premature, especially given that there seem to be plenty of people who stayed with v2, yet did not prevent v3 from living and sucking the money out of us. :rolleyes: True_Atlantean: The computer game theory is definitely out there. I also, have never played any online game (the net hates me so badly) so I can't make that comparison personally. I have, however, read a few of the comparisons people have made and tend to find myself in agreement. This does seem to come back to the idea that we need to simplify our game for an audience that is used to having a computer think for them, rather than working things out for themselves (honestly, attack bonus with 2 classes and a PrC is not *that* hard to work out, given a few minutes) (I feel a little silly mentioning all those classes, but one was purely for backstory reasons and I took a hit to my caster level because of it. Silly, really, but it made an interesting character.) And then, you turn to the "hardcore" gamers who don't like the idea of "casual" gamers joining in on their fun, and it gets a bit nasty. I'm working with the idea here, that digital gaming made games more accessible to more people, hence the "casual." Huge generalisation, yes I know. Your comment about the younger player with the minis was quite interesting. How old was said player? I'm wondering how much of a generational thing this is. I know, amongst my group, while we might not get excited about NPCs, we do still recognise them if they get mentioned. Certain members of my group is also known for making characters with quirks and a little flavour, rather than straight power, such as taking spells that the character in theory would have, but will never ever use. And please do. I look forward to my weekly game with a definite longing. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Ferns Date : 03-13-08 07:36 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players What intrigues me is the amount of people who are also willing to forgo v4, and are already proclaiming "wait until v5." It seems a little premature, especially given that there seem to be plenty of people who stayed with v2, yet did not prevent v3 from living and sucking the money out of us. :rolleyes: I haven't heard that statement before now, since the people i talk with are just fine with the edition we or they play (2nd or 3.x). But it really confuses me, that a version 5 should be better than 4th ed? I don't think it matters what ed you play, as long as you are having fun with it. Nostalgic as i seem to be though, I always praise 2nd ed in front of people who wants to hear about roleplaying. But thats because i know the mechanics and have loved the edition in so many years. I am sure 4th ed will attract new players and maybe even some old edition players, that are curious. And they too will burn off a whole lot of money :) as many of us have. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 03-13-08 08:17 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Wow, thanks to you both. Handsome Stranger: "Why should I care what they publish if they don't care what I buy?" Hm, so are you of the belief that you are no longer part of the Wizbro audience? This is (what I hope to be) a large part of my thesis, that all of a sudden, a different audience is being hailed... but what happens to those of us who are already playing? Aren't we wanted anymore? Oh, make no mistake, they hailed a different audience with the alleged 3rd edition, which was clearly not D&D. I'm okay with that, but really do wish they'd just called it D20 Fantasy and admitted that it's no more an edition of D&D than it is the new edition of Wuthering Heights. I bought some, played it for a few years giving it a fair shake as a new game system since players are easy to find, and eventually dumped the entire collection on friends still playing D20 Fantasy, then gave the rest to Half Price Books. I got $98 from that last after my friends cherry picked the bulk, which tells you something about how much time and effort I spent giving D20 Fantasy a fair shake. At the moment, I own some Wizbro minis, and that's the complete list of things in their catalog which are useful. As for 4th edition, they've created some "tactical skirmish rules" which really de-value the resource management angle. To me, integral virtues of Dungeons and Dragons are teamwork and that resource management. Even if I had a positive view of Wizbro's first two game systems, that would be enough to keep me away from the alleged 4th edition. I've been saying for quite some time that I've played worse game systems than Wizbro's D20 Fantasy core system, and I actually challenged myself to think of worse games from my 30 years gaming. Amusingly, the first names which come to mind were some of GDW's sequels, T2K 2.x and Megatraveller. I still haven't come up with any more. I've got a sense of community with the players nearby who've gone back to AD&D, and online I can find the sense of community with Dragonsfoot (discussion of Wizbro products forbidden, as all anybody can do is crap on them), Knights and Knaves, etc. There's no sense of abandonment, at least on my part, only disappointment. The FLGS is beginning to get an abandonment complex from dealing with so many of us who want D&D stuff, but it's not my fault he can't get it. The only emotion the games currently carrying the D&D label inspire is annoyance that I'm going to have to sort through people playing those games to find somebody who genuinely is playing D&D. I'm beginning to get pretty doggone annoyed about that, but not feeling wanted? Not an issue. One other thing: I have powergaming tendencies. As that's a confession rather than a boast, I'm not expecting to have to provide evidence. Anyway, I frequently run clerics both because nobody else will and because it makes sure that if I ever give in to those tendencies, it's usually expressed in becoming a force-multiplier for the rest of the party, rather than stealing the spotlight like some 9th grader with issues. The thing about D20 Fantasy that completely turned off the min-maxer in me is that there is simply no challenge to it; CoDzilla and Druidzilla, are hard NOT to do. It's a failure for both the role-player and the roll-player in me, and I'm not expecting the alleged 4th edition to be any different. Hope that helps, -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : sblaxman Date : 03-13-08 11:32 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players There was definatly a "what the" feeling the first time I looked at 3.0, and the same feeling is there in 4.0. I'm one who started playing right in the begining of 2.0, then started dming myself when I got the revised 2.0 books (had been using my friends old first prints until i finally got my own). One thing I did was get a copy of the 1e core books, and I still use them to this day. Although there were differences, as said before 1e and 2e were mostly compatable and you could easily take something from one and use it in the other. My only beef with the 1e books were the layout... Gary had some outstanding ideas, but he really needed to hire an editor. Tables are laid out in a most random fasion and it was a punk to find something that you needed. The plus side of it though, was that it had EVERYTHING you could ever need crammed into one little book. You'd need 3-4 3.x books to get the same amount of useful info that was in just the 1e DMG. The 2e books had most of the same info, but were laid out much clearer, which is probably the only reason I used them over the 1e. There was a major feeling that 2e was dead/dying, but I think I never got that until after 3.x came out and started talking online to people. I never bought any of the TSR mass printings of campaigns... I think the dragonlance and darksun box sets were the only two things outside of the core 3 that i ever purchased. I always just homebrewed as a DM, so I never had much of a need for adventures/setting books, so I never really paid attention to the fact that TSR was saturating the market. When 3.x came out, there was a definate feeling of "huh" when I read the books. A lot of the basic rules that had been around since the beginning were tossed out the window. Some small things were added that were good, and I took them out and put them in my 2e game, but 90% of it was just, as said before, "not d&d". It had some things that I could say, "hey, that's d&d", but a lot was just a different game. With 4e (I have only read some of it, so I'm doing my best to not make assuptions until I've seen it all, but from what I've read) it's totally left d&d behind. Players are now 100x more powerful than ever, it's become a completely mini-based game (no love for us non-battlemat or grid based DMs), and has codified any semblence of creativity from the game. What I loved about the old editions was the openess. It gave you enough rules to play, and said "go have fun". The books gave some suggestions on how you could play, and let you run with it. When 3.x came out, the books seemed to say "this is a fighter, and he should be played like XYZ", here is a cleric and he should be played like XYZ". It told you how you should play. Now, with 4.0, the feeling I get is: "Here is a fighter, he WILL be played like XYZ. Here is a Mage, he WILL be played like XYZ". It's got from saying how you can play, to how you should play, to how you will play. That is were I got off the boat -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Daebereth Date : 03-13-08 12:16 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players It's hitting 1.30 am right now, so I will come back later and address these responses when I am far more coherent. But one thing that ticked in my brain just now was something that was completely unrelated to what I'm doing and simply a personal curiosity. A non-mini game? I'm curious, you can play without minis and a grid? I've always loved painting the minis, and we made up a battlegrid for our DM, which matches our initiative board in design, but we only use it in battle, or to draw things on when we need to visualise things. For everything else, we simply talk it out. How does battle work without a grid? I've certainly played without one, and our battles always became so... messy. No-one knew who was hitting who, or where, or who was even left alive. Just a curiosity, I'd love to know how it works when done properly. Okay, bed. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : RedWizard Date : 03-13-08 03:57 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Minis have been in use for depicting battles since the days of Chain Mail, that really is how D&D started, a tactical simulation game for combat. That said, people could (but not always) play without the use of minis during 1st and 2nd edition. Simply telling the DM a marching order which can be written on a piece of paper went a long way. When battle was joined the players told the DM what they were doing and where they were positioning themselves. It is important to realize there were no attacks of opportunity to deal with. The DM had an idea of the size of the area and where the caster was situated already in his mind or if he were using a set module, he had a grid map in front of him that only he had any need to see. And players generally accepted his word on the results. Now of course the game is designed to help sell, err, I mean use minis. It wouldn't be possible to play a game in 3rd edition without a grid and minis. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : sblaxman Date : 03-13-08 05:25 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players It may be because I typically play w/ small groups (3-4), but even when I played w/ 6-8 we never found a need for it. I can completely understand using them though, I don't ever dis anyone who does, but I always prefered it without. For most battles, it was just verbal. If it was complex, or if there was some wierd terrain, I might just make a quick sketch of the room on graph paper w/ some ticks where the players are, but it wasn't a play-by-play thing, just something to get it started. I've never lost where a player is mid encounter AFAK. We might draw where everyone is if we're taking a break or if a session ends mid battle, but otherwise no. I am the least artistic person out there, and unless I was just painting the minis all red or all green, i wouldn't bother, so I never got into the painting them hobby. It's totally great, and I'm impressed by those than can do it (and some can do it AMAZINGLY), but not I. The closest thing to a "mini" that I remember was back in the heroquest game, so when I got to playing d&d, minis (in my head) were for playing a board game, which I considered for kids, while ad&d, which makes almost no reference to a mat or minis, did not use them. While now that I am much much older, and realize that minis are not for kids, I grew up never using them, so I never found the need. Same way all on play-by-post games work really player: "how far away is the ogre?" DM: "25 feet" player: "Ok, I charge and attack w/ my axe" The other reason I don't use battle maps is because I WANT some uncertanty in the game. If the players are sitting down mapping out a room, I'll help them out and draw out the room in detail. But in a fight, absolutes are hard to come by. Is the guy 20 feet away or 22 feet away? Is the mage 10 feet behind the fighter or 9? I don't like the idea of lining up a fireball spell so it exactly hits every enemy by just misses all your party members by 3 inches. Again, keep in mind I'm for my players succeeding. I won't try to trick them or mess them up, but if they are lobbing bombs into a crowd, chances are they are going to hit a friend. When you add that it (plus the harder aging effects and whatnot from the 1e/2e spells) then magic users become much less overpowered compared to the melee classes. Unless they are crazy enough to not care if they blast their buddies, but what is more scary than a mad wizard anyway. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : Werral Date : 03-13-08 06:09 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players We played lots of AD&D (and other RPG's) with no minis ever. We had loads of minis because we all played Warhammer Fantasy Battle and liked tactical miniatures play (and 1E battlesystem was a great miniatures game by the way). But we didn't go to RPGs for that. For one thing in tactical play surely you want to play someone who's TRYING TO WIN. But in a RPG the DM isn't meant to be trying to win, jsut trying to put you throuhg your paces. Even in 3E and playing by the book a DM who wanted to WIN could kick the players arses no problem - just give the orcs all those broken class/feat combos and see how they like it. So basically you just described the room and what was happening, they asked questions (maybe), said what they were doing and then rolled initiative. Anyway mini's actually create more confusion in a number of situations - flying, grapples, climbing (imagine that situation from the front cover of the Dungeoneers Survival Guide, how would you represent that with minis?). Plus you know, if you're trying to scare people, how can you scare them with a 2" high mini? Besides which in a "real" situation you would never have the kind of info that you get from looking down at a board - if you're dodging an orc's axe then you'd have a pretty clear idea about the orc, and maybe some idea about what your allies and other foes are up too, but your focus is on that axe because it could cut you in two. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 03-14-08 06:21 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players More thanks to responses, it is very much appreciated. True_Atlantean: The computer game theory is definitely out there. I also, have never played any online game (the net hates me so badly) so I can't make that comparison personally. I have, however, read a few of the comparisons people have made and tend to find myself in agreement. This does seem to come back to the idea that we need to simplify our game for an audience that is used to having a computer think for them, rather than working things out for themselves (honestly, attack bonus with 2 classes and a PrC is not *that* hard to work out, given a few minutes) (I feel a little silly mentioning all those classes, but one was purely for backstory reasons and I took a hit to my caster level because of it. Silly, really, but it made an interesting character.) And then, you turn to the "hardcore" gamers who don't like the idea of "casual" gamers joining in on their fun, and it gets a bit nasty. I'm working with the idea here, that digital gaming made games more accessible to more people, hence the "casual." Huge generalisation, yes I know. Your comment about the younger player with the minis was quite interesting. How old was said player? Certain members of my group is also known for making characters with quirks and a little flavour, rather than straight power, such as taking spells that the character in theory would have, but will never ever use. And please do. I look forward to my weekly game with a definite longing. :) Hey, this is a pretty good conversation all round, so I don;t mind throwing in - but I have the same sentiments about most of the conversations 'round here. Said younger player was fourteen (to my twenty-eight at the time). I do think that generation has a lot to play. I read the Order of the Stick comic dedicated to Gary Gygax and after laughing (tinged with sadness) I commented to my wife that there would be many younger players who just won't get any of the references. As for simplifying - there is a difference between a simplified system and one that has been purposefully "dumbed-down" to use the vernacular. Your point on the casual aspect of online gaming and its translation to the table intrigued me, becuase it typifies the behaviour I've seen in the party I no longer game with. Over the course of the last two years, I've been increasingly frustrated at the complete lack of manners as they skip out on games (without notifying me) and most of our games are called off at the last minute (or an hour after they're meant to start). I've found out afterward that they had pre-planned/become obsessed with an encounter on WoW, and that they appraoched their tabletop game with an increasingly casual nature. If they skipped a session here and there - so be it, the game would still be on like clockwork another time. I canned the game early this year in favour of another group. Because I'm not into WoW, I haven't heard from any of them since. My new group is comprised of non-MMORPGers and they are a dedicated bunch. I know this is gross over-generalisation, but I imagine there is a kernel of substance to the argument. Lastly, I can empathise with the role over roll playing. We played D&D for years searching for the right amount of role-playing and injected all sorts of things to personalise characters, including having the players describe their spells and changing the appearance/theme to suit them better. It added a new dimesnion to the game. Then we started playing Vampire and Werewolf, where characterisation is the core of the game, and found it changed the level we played our D&D games at. Never looked back. More grist for the mill. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : Etarnon Date : 03-14-08 10:05 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Well I agree with 90% of what was posted above, except: I'm a big fan of GDW, and Megatraveller and Twilight: 2000, 2.0 are among my favorite games of all time. The game without minis went like this: DM: As you travel along the corridors of the 3rd level of the Lost Keep of Zandozan, the 10 feet wide rough-hewn cavern that runs east now slightly dips, ending in the shore of a small pool. Ahead, the water shimmers reflected torchlight on the walls and ceiling of the cavern. Player # 1: I listen. DM: Ahead, some distance.. you're not sure, there are multiple echoes...you hear a scraping noise, and slight clinks of metal, rubbing together. Player # 2: To arms! Party: We draw weapons! DM: Roll for surprise. (Neither party is surprised, the party wins initiative) Player # 1: Form a line, across the corridor, dwarf in front! Player # 2: I fire my bow! Etc, etc. just without minis, all described in words. If you wanted to use a mini, you could, of course.. there were some neat dungeon tiles products printed on cardboard, but that was about the extent of it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : sblaxman Date : 03-14-08 11:44 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players This thread has all ready made my day. To much on these boards I feel like some old codger (and I'm not THAT old) talking to a bunch of wippersnappers. It's nice to find some people out there that remember/appreciate/still use the older methods. I remember my main group, we had two guys of TOTAL different style but we always had fun. I myself am an engineer (biomed). One of my good friends is a stage actor. Another friend is a ChemEng. I always DMed, and I'd make very meticulous maps/stats, things planned out in 3 dimensions, long term goals, etc. Very engineer mentality, set up all the variables (even those that won't interact), know the constants, etc etc. Our theater player (a Mul Psionist) loved to role play, acting out things, would try crazy illogical plans that were crazy creative and usally fun, and I'd allow them (to an extent) because he wasn't trying to powergame, but played loosy goosy with the rules. My Engineering buddy was a human Knight, he played very planned out and stoic (which worked for his character), wasn't a big role player but could plan out attacks well. They were a great pair to play with, very different styles that went well together. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : Etarnon Date : 03-15-08 04:59 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players sblaxman, you're not too old an not alone. My first game in 1978 was Gamma World 1e, then Traveller, then AD&D 1e DMG.. I loved that Gamma World game. Just crazy fun. Sadly, our generation is dying. A few of the notable traveller players died this year, now Gary G and a Wizo from here. I read recently that the last World War I vet in France passed away. So I say keep the old game alive, and teach the younger generation, be their mentors to keep the games alive...keep them simple, keep them honest. Hoping. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 03-15-08 10:54 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players So I say keep the old game alive, and teach the younger generation, be their mentors to keep the games alive...keep them simple, keep them honest. Hoping. We hosted a game at the FLGS of Tomb of Horrors today in honor of Gary, and to remember the good times gaming. We ran it using Rules Cyclopedia-based characters, and had a ball. Incidently, one of my group brought his son along, as his first game experience with the hobby. It was great to watch his imagination work, his role-playing and problem solving kick in too. I think we have someone that in a few years, will be a gamer. And he's being nurtured by the Old School. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : RedWizard Date : 03-15-08 11:08 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Well if anyone is interested, I am currently running a 1st Edition Greyhawk campaign for my fellow forumites on Monday nights using OpenRPG. We are currently doing the Village of Hommlet to lead into the Temple of Elemental Evil. Etarnon, Extempus, Otistew, Horemheb422, and Grndyfn19 are curently making up the group. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : Daebereth Date : 03-17-08 04:14 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players A big thankyou to everyone who replied. Sorry it took so long to return - I had work, a D&D session :) and homework and when I got back here, I decided I needed to print out all the replies and work through them. Giant post ahead - if you don't want to read it all, please read at least the very last paragraph. Ferns: But it really confuses me, that a version 5 should be better than 4th ed? I don't think it matters what ed you play, as long as you are having fun with it. I am sure 4th ed will attract new players and maybe even some old edition players As far as I can tell, the general sentiment is "how long before they (Wizbro) realise the mistake and change it back?" But... if that's the case, I don't see them republishin v3.x. My group is staying, not holding out for a rectified version. It's an interesting idea though... And, I'm more than certain it will attract new and old. Handsome Stranger: Oh, make no mistake, they hailed a different audience with the alleged 3rd edition, which was clearly not D&D. As for 4th edition, they've created some "tactical skirmish rules" I haven't actually heard about the tactical skirmish rules, unless you mean the combat powers? Is this creating a focus on a single player? That almost makes it sound like a single player computer RPG, where the single player PC is the star. That's... worrisome. D&D is a group game. Although, given the "play at home via the net with people" idea that's coming with v4, its almost not surprising. I know a lot of people I have approached are withdrawing because the game is becoming too "fighter/battle focused," and that is a game they just do not want to play. Thankyou for pointing out the "not D&D sentiment," because it is certainly something I have hit on, and am definitely going to be focusing on. At least... when I get that ethics clearance. sblaxman: it had EVERYTHING you could ever need crammed into one little book. 2e was dead/dying "not d&d". "Here is a fighter, he WILL be played like XYZ. To much on these boards I feel like some old codger I have heard that one criticism of v1 was that it tried to account for every scenario, rather than allowing a level of independence in DM decisions. I was too young to pick up on that when I was playing, so I'm wondering if that was so. Is v3.x dying as well, then? I think that it certainly is suffocating with all the books. But, could this be overcome by another 3.x (say... 3.75?) that just streamlines? Thankyou to you as well for raising the "not D&D" - it seems a rather important point, and when I get my clearance, I will definitely be addressing it. As for the "you WILL play like this": definitely. The "more defined character roles" was one of the first things that bothered me about v4. Doesn't the creation of, say gish, point out that people don't want to always play X or Y, but sometimes X&Y? And, now I just feel so young and so ignorant! :) at mere 21. But, I'm loving this learning curve. Red Wizard: Now of course the game is designed to help sell, err, I mean use minis. It wouldn't be possible to play a game in 3rd edition without a grid and minis. Well if anyone is interested, I am currently running a 1st Edition Greyhawk campaign This is quite possibly where we went wrong. :rolleyes: And oh, how I wish I had the time. I'd love to know how that goes, though. Weral: Plus you know, if you're trying to scare people, how can you scare them with a 2" high mini? Besides which in a "real" situation you would never have the kind of info that you get from looking down at a board - if you're dodging an orc's axe then you'd have a pretty clear idea about the orc, and maybe some idea about what your allies and other foes are up too, but your focus is on that axe because it could cut you in two. You don't. You scare them with the 12'' high "mini." Like, a few weeks ago: DM: "Alright you see... wait, close your eyes." *group does so and hears shuffling noises* "Okay!" Group:..... is that.... Optimus Prime?! It was an OP toy, even if that wasn't what we were actually facing. The size difference alone was enough to give us all a pause. Then, when our Rod of Wonder wielder cast "enlarge" on it, and we had to balance it on a 600ml water bottle to emulate its size... we all goggled at the board a while, before near fainting and promising to kill our Duskblade. It's a good point about the realism. By the same measure, though, wouldn't you also have some idea of what's going on around you? I think, ultimately, I play with a very visual group, myself included. I suppose it comes down to personal preference? True Atlantean: As for simplifying - there is a difference between a simplified system and one that has been purposefully "dumbed-down" to use the vernacular. including having the players describe their spells and changing the appearance/theme to suit them better. I've been trying to make the distinction between "streamlining" and "simplifying," as I'm terming it. Streamlining, as the making of ... less rules to grapple with, wheras simplifying it would equal "dumbing-down," as you put it. Our DM has always allowed us to make flavour changes to spells and such, within reason. I guess we're spoiled, but we always figured it wasn't THAT hard to carry out. We often carry out an action, then turn to our DM and excitedly ask "what did that do/look like." And sometimes get extra XP for making it more than relaying the action, ie "I cast Control Darkness and put the shadow on the altar" becomes "I step on the altar, raise my hands and cause the shadows to spiral around me and finally coalesce on the altar." It makes it more fun. Etarnon: So I say keep the old game alive, and teach the younger generation, be their mentors to keep the games alive...keep them simple, keep them honest. I learnt/started playing with my parents with v1. I definitely get an ache of "but the succubus has ALWAYS been a demon," over the demon-devil change, which I don't think some new players get. And I am definitely a different player than if I had started out with v3.x with my friends. I say we/you mold them/us! There seems to be more thought than simple "I kill!" in the earlier games. Just looking at my 12 year old brother playing tells me that. Everyone: I said this in the edit of the original post, but I'm going to put it here as well: Due to some misunderstandings at the university, I'm going to make this a "general" thread (ie, not definitely related to my research) for awhile. Basically, when I began I inquired whether or not I needed ethical clearance to talk to people. I was told "no." So, here I am... and now I'm being told that, yes, I *do* need ethical clearance to be here, talking to you. And that until my application is cleared, I cannot use what is here. :ahem: However, I am enjoying reading this thread and what comes up in it, and learning from those with more experience than me, so I'll be around. Once my clearance goes through, I will approach everyone who has already posted with some questions related and my piece of paper in hand. Thankyou so much, and I'll be here, learning. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 03-17-08 06:19 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players True Atlantean: I've been trying to make the distinction between "streamlining" and "simplifying," as I'm terming it. Streamlining, as the making of ... less rules to grapple with, wheras simplifying it would equal "dumbing-down," as you put it. Our DM has always allowed us to make flavour changes to spells and such, within reason. I guess we're spoiled, but we always figured it wasn't THAT hard to carry out. We often carry out an action, then turn to our DM and excitedly ask "what did that do/look like." And sometimes get extra XP for making it more than relaying the action, ie "I cast Control Darkness and put the shadow on the altar" becomes "I step on the altar, raise my hands and cause the shadows to spiral around me and finally coalesce on the altar." It makes it more fun. Okay, streamling as I see it is making gameplay faster and more exciting. It should remove/edit rules that are overly complicated and keep the flow of the game in mind. At my table, we have a rule that any rules query not found in three minutes is ruled automatically by me and checked after the game. It makes the flow of game continue, relatively uninterupted, and leaves the rules baggage until later whilst we're enjoying the post-game coffee. It's also an excellent learning tool. Simplifying is what you do when people don't understand (or you assume they don't understand) the rules or concept you're trying to convey. To me, it presupposes a level (or lack thereof) of intellect. The adherence to the rules is something I saw as the mainstay of 3.0/3.5. In most of my 2nd ed playing, the first question I would ask was what the house rules were. I didn't see house rules in 3.0/3.5, but rather a devotion ot the rules as written. This mindset doesn't promote the same creativity we're expressing with our spells description or with the DM encouraging the players to be co-storytellers, as it were. This is mirrored in the change of parlance, "character build" replacing "character creation" for example. The inference is that it is no longer a creative process, but a mathematical one, meticulously planned. I'm sure that others could come up with other terms which have faded into obscurity too. Stick around and enjoy the show. Even if it doesn't count for study, it has been a great thread. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : Daebereth Date : 03-17-08 06:31 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I agree with the simplifying/streamlining. That's exactly how I was trying to view it. Now I have it in the words! House rules... I know we definitely have moments of rules on the fly. If the same thing comes up again later, we use the same rule. If we happen to find the "real" rule in a book, then we bring it up at a session and decide together which version we'll go with. I do recall... having an argument over the 'holding breath underwater' rule, mostly because we all read the duration wrongly, namely as solely your CON modifier. How we resolved the length of time? Everyone holding their breath and timing it, of course. :rolleyes: My group is nuts. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 03-18-08 09:43 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Handsome Stranger: I haven't actually heard about the tactical skirmish rules, unless you mean the combat powers? Is this creating a focus on a single player? That almost makes it sound like a single player computer RPG, where the single player PC is the star. That's... worrisome. D&D is a group game. Although, given the "play at home via the net with people" idea that's coming with v4, its almost not surprising. I know a lot of people I have approached are withdrawing because the game is becoming too "fighter/battle focused," and that is a game they just do not want to play. Thankyou for pointing out the "not D&D sentiment," because it is certainly something I have hit on, and am definitely going to be focusing on. At least... when I get that ethics clearance. The main reason I'm looking at it as a "tactical skirmish" game is because now that they've done away with Vancian casting and instituted "per encounter" abilities, they've really removed that resource management angle. Once upon a time, the magic-user (particularly him, but the other spellcasters could be there, too) was occasionally a nuke/"get out of jail free card"/etc. but he really had to think about it and time it and play his cards right. When he did, the payoff was abso-fraggin-lutely spectacular. Now, with the "per encounter" approach where they're pretty explicitly aiming at players who lack the interest/ability to set up that kind of situation, they've deliberately designed their third game system to prohibit one of the truly sweet rewards of D&D. The "surge healing" thing strikes me as pretty silly, too, but at least it's conceivable that was playtested, which is more than can be said for divine metamagic. I've got to admit, I'm not very clear on what else is going on with the alleged 4e. I haven't read anything on it, just picked up some incidental buzz lurking on Giant in the Playground and hanging out here. In all frankness, I'm treating it as exactly what it is: The third game system designed by a company which has two bad systems under their belt. That's not exactly motivating, you know? Good luck with the project, -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : Werral Date : 03-19-08 07:41 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players You don't. You scare them with the 12'' high "mini." Like, a few weeks ago: DM: "Alright you see... wait, close your eyes." *group does so and hears shuffling noises* "Okay!" Group:..... is that.... Optimus Prime?! It was an OP toy, even if that wasn't what we were actually facing. The size difference alone was enough to give us all a pause. Then, when our Rod of Wonder wielder cast "enlarge" on it, and we had to balance it on a 600ml water bottle to emulate its size... we all goggled at the board a while, before near fainting and promising to kill our Duskblade.  This reminds of a youtube fan film I saw (pretty lame) but there was one moment where a guy put a live iguana on the table and said, "This it the Chaos Dragon". That might be fun, also using real spiders for giant spiders - if they move over your mini they attack, if they wander off - well then they wander off. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : elondir Date : 03-25-08 04:03 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players LOL I can picture my cat attacking a paladin mini, doing 10d10 hp damage with a claw/claw/bite pounce attack! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 04-01-08 06:50 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players This reminds of a youtube fan film I saw (pretty lame) but there was one moment where a guy put a live iguana on the table and said, "This it the Chaos Dragon". That might be fun, also using real spiders for giant spiders - if they move over your mini they attack, if they wander off - well then they wander off. There was a column running in Dragon for a while where you could nominate your DM for DM of the Month with a blurb on what they did that was so good to be given the award. One month it went ot a guy who had been running the party through a Temple filled with cobwebs and smaller spiders and the party realised that ebyond the next doors was the final horror in the Temple. The DM told them all that whatever they did when he revealed the encounter would be what the characters did - then he built up the scene with all the mood he could muster and let a real dinner-plate sized tarantula out onto the table. Players screamed, one locked himself in the bathroom and refused to come out; lots of people ran away (not one of them beat it into pulp with their PhB - sheesh!). After the initial month's publicity, he was allowed a small section of a column to defend himself due to the sheer amount of post TSR recieved about the action - both good and bad. I laughed, despite my fundamental differences with that style of DMing - my characters are an awfully lot more heroic than I'll ever be - and that is the attraction of role-playing. I'll see if I can find the issue number and I'll post it for those of us with decent collections, or others who might b able to track down a copy. Well worth the read, as are the letters columns in the next few issues. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : Etarnon Date : 04-02-08 04:16 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I do remember that incident well, from reading about it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 04-02-08 06:10 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I do remember that incident well, from reading about it. What was your initial reaction? Has it changed? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : tankschmidt Date : 04-02-08 12:00 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I had originally not intended to go as far back as v1, because I wasn't sure if such a community as *now* existed. (I'm aware that the net community we share is quite a new thing, and a lot of the hype over v4 is going on online.) Now, however, I think I might be able to do so. There are plenty of people out there. Personally, I find this particular forum to be more tuned into 2nd edition AD&D. There are several others out there: www.dragonsfoot.org These guys are big into 1st edition AD&D, but there are also forums for classic D&D (mostly Moldvay and Mentzer editions, although some 1974 OD&D is discussed there as well.) This is the best place to discuss classic (basic) D&D on the net. www.knights-n-knaves.com These guys are more "grognardy," and many think every product after about 1982 is a waste of time. But they know their stuff for 1st edition AD&D, OD&D, and Holmes Basic. www.odd74.proboards76.com This is the site if you want to talk about the original 1974 boxed set or the Blackmoor campaigns from ~1970 on. They have all sorts of links about the original history of the game, and several players of Dave Arneson's original Blackmoor campaign actually post over there. The bottom line is that if you want community, it's out there. There are literally tons of people playing TSR's versions of the game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : Daebereth Date : 04-08-08 08:00 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Well, I'm back. Kind of. I -still- don't have my ethics clearance, but I do have a question and everyone here has been really good, so I thought I'd come here first. Because my major sits in professional writing and publishing, I'm going to be writing articles about what I find out. I'm still looking for a magazine (preferably) aimed at gamers, which has articles (Dungeon and/or Dragon don't seem quite angled this way) that could be considered "honours worthy." (My supervisor explains this as "not something you'd run off quickly for Woman's Day," and will probably smack me over the head with a ruler otherwise :P bless her) Any recommendations? Otherwise, love reading all the stories posted here. If you could find the one about the tarantula, I'd love to read it. That's pretty much the reaction I would have. Never mind the arachnaphobic in our group. And big thanks to tankschmidt for that list. I'll have a look through. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 04-08-08 09:39 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players [QUOTE=Daebereth;15552753] Because my major sits in professional writing and publishing, I'm going to be writing articles about what I find out. I'm still looking for a magazine (preferably) aimed at gamers, which has articles (Dungeon and/or Dragon don't seem quite angled this way) that could be considered "honours worthy." (My supervisor explains this as "not something you'd run off quickly for Woman's Day," and will probably smack me over the head with a ruler otherwise :P bless her) Any recommendations? Otherwise, love reading all the stories posted here. If you could find the one about the tarantula, I'd love to read it. That's pretty much the reaction I would have. Never mind the arachnaphobic in our group. [QUOTE] I'll see if I can find it on the weekend - I'm still trolling through years of Dragon magazines for my FR campaign - so many ideas, so little time. On the issue of publishing - what faculty does your degree fall under? I only ask as I am a university librarian and have access to lists of resources for new academic writers, which are probaly mirrored by your university. Helping postgraduate research students and academic staff who are studying is a large part of my job. PM me if you want and I'll see what I can do to assist. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : RedWizard Date : 04-08-08 11:14 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Actually a great way to see the changes to gaming through the years and various editions would be to go through both Dungeon and Dragon magazines and look at where the focus has changed. I know floating around the internet are all the complete Dragon volumes which I think followed the issues gamers for any given time were concerned about. Dungeon will illustrate what type of adventures were preferred be they dungeon crawls or mor RP intense scenarios. These magazines truly have evolved with the people playing the game. I prefer the older Dragon magazines but then I am fond of the older editions. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 35] Author : Oxlar Date : 04-14-08 12:35 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Also, I'm curious on one other level: my gaming group went over the changes and agreed that it seems like v4 is really going back to v1 (things like classes seem to point this out.) You, however, don't seem to be of the same opinion? Please, fill me in, I only played v1 very little as a child (thus with very little comprehension of what was really going on). Wha wha huh? :uh-huh: How did you ever come up with this? As much as 3rd was so far removed from 1st/2nd, 4th is even further down that path. I'm curious how your group came to this conclusion, I would have never made that assessment. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 36] Author : Oxlar Date : 04-14-08 12:44 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players What I loved about the old editions was the openess. It gave you enough rules to play, and said "go have fun". The books gave some suggestions on how you could play, and let you run with it. When 3.x came out, the books seemed to say "this is a fighter, and he should be played like XYZ", here is a cleric and he should be played like XYZ". It told you how you should play. Now, with 4.0, the feeling I get is: "Here is a fighter, he WILL be played like XYZ. Here is a Mage, he WILL be played like XYZ". It's got from saying how you can play, to how you should play, to how you will play. That is were I got off the boat You really hit the nail on the head there. I've totally been trying to put that down into words and you totally nailed it (pun intended ;) ) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 37] Author : sblaxman Date : 04-14-08 02:44 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players The main reason I'm looking at it as a "tactical skirmish" game is because now that they've done away with Vancian casting and instituted "per encounter" abilities, they've really removed that resource management angle. Once upon a time, the magic-user (particularly him, but the other spellcasters could be there, too) was occasionally a nuke/"get out of jail free card"/etc. but he really had to think about it and time it and play his cards right. When he did, the payoff was abso-fraggin-lutely spectacular. Now, with the "per encounter" approach where they're pretty explicitly aiming at players who lack the interest/ability to set up that kind of situation, they've deliberately designed their third game system to prohibit one of the truly sweet rewards of D&D. The "surge healing" thing strikes me as pretty silly, too, but at least it's conceivable that was playtested, which is more than can be said for divine metamagic. I feel where you are coming from. Somewhere the game changed from strategy to tactics. At one point you had to plan out things in detail, how much food you'd need, what spells you'd need, do I have enough torches, etc. As time went on, it changed more to the tactics side. It originated way back as a tactics game (war/skirmish games), but w/ the "role playing" aspect it was changed into a strategy, but it's been creeping back to something else. Inventory management has been all but dropped, per round/per encounter effects remove most of long term planning. I have read it all, so maybe they'll make a lot of the higher power spells per/day, that you still need to 'prepare' them but you only get them per/day or /per encounter. I'm doing my best not to jump to conclusions, even if I have no intent to play it, I'll wait till it's out before judging... edit: I meant to say I have "NOT" read it all in respect to 4e, woops -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 38] Author : RedWizard Date : 04-14-08 03:16 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I feel where you are coming from. Somewhere the game changed from strategy to tactics. At one point you had to plan out things in detail, how much food you'd need, what spells you'd need, do I have enough torches, etc. As time went on, it changed more to the tactics side. It originated way back as a tactics game (war/skirmish games), but w/ the "role playing" aspect it was changed into a strategy, but it's been creeping back to something else. Inventory management has been all but dropped, per round/per encounter effects remove most of long term planning. I have read it all, so maybe they'll make a lot of the higher power spells per/day, that you still need to 'prepare' them but you only get them per/day or /per encounter. I'm doing my best not to jump to conclusions, even if I have no intent to play it, I'll wait till it's out before judging... I'd second this assessment. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 39] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 04-15-08 06:16 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players As for 4th edition, they've created some "tactical skirmish rules" which really de-value the resource management angle. To me, integral virtues of Dungeons and Dragons are teamwork and that resource management. Even if I had a positive view of Wizbro's first two game systems, that would be enough to keep me away from the alleged 4th edition. Admittedly, when I first heard about the rationale behind the per-encounter rules, I was slightly swayed. IT was mentioned thta gameplay effectively stops when the Cleric or Wizard needs to rest. However, when I started thinking about it, those rests have provided their own challenges whilst the party tries to find somewhere in the dungeon they can rest up safely for eight hours whilst the Cleric and Wizard pray, memorise and sleep. The fact that you have to manage these resources leads to thinking seriously about how you are going to manage that 'down-time'. therein lies a challenge. There is a sense of tension when the Cleric announces that he only has one spell left - does he use a combat spell to pitch in and help the party or does he reserve that last healing spell instead? Sure many people are hailing the new encounter based abilities because game-play does continue (and I can empathise with their stance), but I still think it isn;t a move in the right direction. From what I've seen, it is a play-style difference. The earlier editions have the gray space that allows for plenty of interpretation and plenty of imagination - where a fighter is defined as almost anything with a martial bent. With the newer editions, and 4e, the feats try to diversify your abilities, but with the prerequisites for many feats, you are effectively railroaded to get what you want anyway. I've played in a number of 3.5 campaigns where the players had mapped out their feat choices as far as 15th level, in order to have the right combination; and that was at 1st level. But that is only one example. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 40] Author : Daebereth Date : 04-15-08 07:19 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Wha wha huh? :uh-huh: How did you ever come up with this? As much as 3rd was so far removed from 1st/2nd, 4th is even further down that path. I'm curious how your group came to this conclusion, I would have never made that assessment. I... don't remember. Uh... I think it might have come from a discussion about classes, and how the druid used to be a sub of the cleric, and someone mentioned that's what they're doing now, and then it just ran away from there. I think. It was many many months ago. And apparently, we're all wrong anyway. :rolleyes: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 41] Author : sblaxman Date : 04-15-08 11:35 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players From what I've seen, it is a play-style difference. The earlier editions have the gray space that allows for plenty of interpretation and plenty of imagination - where a fighter is defined as almost anything with a martial bent. Just the other day myself and some people were "scolded" in a thread for running something a different way that RAW, they actually accused us of being "unimaginative" because we didn't work within RAW and changed things to fit our style. I laughed/cried when i saw that, and just abandoned that thread. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 42] Author : RedWizard Date : 04-15-08 12:08 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I always find it amusing when people talk about how the mage is useless after his spells are spent. There is much a mage offers to the party outside just his artillery aspect. In the 1st edition game I run for my fellow forumites here, Etarnon plays our magic-user and anyone is free to review our play logs to see just how useless he has proven despite having only 1 spell at his command. Read the logs then come back and tell me how the early editions make low level mages extra baggage. Any character can pull his or her own weight if played well. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 43] Author : Extempus Date : 04-15-08 01:08 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Wizards are highly intelligent and should be looked to for advice, they wear no armor and can therefore squeeze into tight places that fighters cannot, they carry few weapons and would certainly appear less threatening than a fully armed and armored fighter when talking to the leader of an opposing party, and so on. Wizards are hardly useless... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 44] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 04-15-08 10:33 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Wizards are highly intelligent and should be looked to for advice, they wear no armor and can therefore squeeze into tight places that fighters cannot, they carry few weapons and would certainly appear less threatening than a fully armed and armored fighter when talking to the leader of an opposing party, and so on. Wizards are hardly useless... Absolutely, the magic-user is useful almost all the time. He can be a dart-raining machine, a dagger-throwing machine, etc., if you just want to talk about straight combat. Heck, he probably hits fairly well at low levels, especially given a decent dexterity score. His usefulness during actual down-time is staggering, what with identify spells, then continual lights, etc. Not even counting the valuable things you're describing, the pure fun with a "you've got the brawn, I've got the brains (Let's make lots of money!)" angle, or how in some campaigns the magic-user is the only one who can do research on things, or how the magic-user earns the respect of the intelligentsia for adventure hooks/solutions, etc. Don't overlook that he's often the fastest member of the party without all that metal weighing him down. I think we can all go on for a while about how handy a smart guy is even when he's not incinerating critters. The thing that gets me about this "per encounter" nonsense is that you do give up that feeling of, "The muser just blew his sleep spell, and the cleric's out of healing. Oh %^&*$, I hope we can get out of here alive!" and you also give up the feeling of, "Oh, so THAT'S why we brought a muser along. I'd been wondering what you were doing back there, and you were waiting to save our bacon." As the guy who started whining about how it eliminates the "resource management" angle I don't want that confused with saying the spellcasters are ever useless. I'm just saying "per encounter" devalues the high points when they REALLY get to strut their stuff. I do also feel it leads to lazy play: "Critter! Spell!" Lather, rinse, repeat, no need to engage your brain. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 45] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 04-16-08 07:29 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players "Critter! Spell!" Lather, rinse, repeat, no need to engage your brain. Man, if only WotC would adopt this as the official tagline for 4e. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 46] Author : Extempus Date : 04-16-08 06:41 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Gary Gygax wrote in the 1e PHB (p. 25): Thus, while magic-users are not strong in combat with weapons, they are possibly the most fearsome of all character classes when high levels of ability are finally attained. Survival to that point can be a problem, however, as low-level magic users are quite weak. Weak does not mean useless! Wizards have always been useful in all sorts of situations... hell, just think of Gandalf in LOTR. How many spells did he actually cast throughout the entire trilogy??? I didn't count them, but it was probably less than half a dozen, and yet, he was one of the most important and influential of the entire cast of characters! As an aside, I remember an article in Dragon many a long year ago where the author determined that, based on what Gandalf did and/or was capable of, he was actually a 5th level magic-user in D&D terms! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 47] Author : sblaxman Date : 04-16-08 08:06 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Gandalfs always a hard one, since he wasn't really a magic user at all. They called him a wizard, but the "d&d" term is pretty different. If anything he was a Solar or something of the like, in human form.... Anyway, on the gigax comment, there is something else that seems to vanish a lot in the 'balance' arguements these days. Arguments start over "at lvl 20, the cleric and mage are 100x more powerful than the fighter, so the fighter is useless". How many mages actually GET to level 20? 1%? 5%? They are powerful because there are supposed to be rare. This kind of vanished then they changed the rule for what happens when a character dies. It used to be that you started your new character at 1st level (option in the 1e dmg to give them a 1000XP starting bonus). They had to get to the high level party, and survive until they caught up in levels. Now, you just start a new character a one level lower than you were. Your wizard can die at level 12, and suddenly you have a new one at lvl 11. Alternately, you could start w/ a fighter (strong at low levels) until they die at mid levels and switch to a mage. Not all players do this (or even most), but it's bothered me that that is the 'default' method. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 48] Author : Extempus Date : 04-16-08 09:10 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Anyway, on the gigax comment, there is something else that seems to vanish a lot in the 'balance' arguements these days. Arguments start over "at lvl 20, the cleric and mage are 100x more powerful than the fighter, so the fighter is useless". How many mages actually GET to level 20? 1%? 5%? They are powerful because there are supposed to be rare. This kind of vanished then they changed the rule for what happens when a character dies. My first 2 magic-users died at 1st level, but my 3rd one survived and is now 23rd level... in fact, in my campaign, we have 3 20th+ level wizards, but they've been around a very long time. Most of the other characters are of other classes (strangely enough, we have only 1 priest of high level, and he's 24th). I'm not so certain that wizards and priests are more powerful than fighters at levels 20+, especially since priests lack attack spells for the most part, and the ones that can be used as such (various reversed curative spells) are touch based and not ranged like fireball and lightning bolt (so I've introduced some to help out a bit). Wizards, while quite powerful, as still subject to instant assassination, and a quick archer can plant several arrows into one before he can get a spell off, both spoiling the spell and possibly killing him. In one adventure many years ago, I used the rules in Dungeon Master Option: High-Level Campaigns to create a paragon black dragon. The thing was a real monster that killed quite a few of the party, and the only one to survive the 300 hit point acid breath weapon was my brother's fighter! He just gave up and figured he was dead, but I insisted he roll a save, he made it and took half damage, leaving him with just a few hit points and barely hanging on to life! No one else could have survived that, not even a wizard (unless he had already cast a protective spell in advance). All things being equal, everyone has their own place and are powerful in their own ways, but no one is invulnerable... and even at levels above 20th, we still have the fighters leading the way into battle, because that's what they do... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 49] Author : sblaxman Date : 04-16-08 11:38 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Wasn't there an "arrow of slaying: magic user" back in the day? Now THAT would even the tables :D Edit, yup DMG pg 168 1st ed. Good stuff -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 50] Author : Extempus Date : 04-17-08 12:12 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players The black arrow of Iuz +3 is pretty cool too, you save vs. death or die if hit by it (good characters save at -2), and unlike other magic arrows (which are destroyed on a hit, 50% chance of being destroyed if it misses the target), the black arrow is permanent and reappears in the owner's quiver every day. An archer can also summon any arrow of slaying from the Iron Bow of Gesen once a day... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 51] Author : Etarnon Date : 04-17-08 03:19 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players RedWizard wrote: anyone is free to review our play logs to see just how useless he has proven R O F L, bud. That's not true, cause I was there, and critted me some ghoul skull. Must have been a frodoian slip. I like Abacar, he's fun. I hope he lives to see second Level. There's been so much combat... I think if he gets killed, the party will miss him, and his long winded speeches. But with a dex mod of +2 to hit, yeah, he'd be good at darts. I've been lucky. Loving the game, too. We've got great players, and DM. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 52] Author : RedWizard Date : 04-17-08 01:29 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players RedWizard wrote: R O F L, bud. That's not true, cause I was there, and critted me some ghoul skull. Must have been a frodoian slip. I like Abacar, he's fun. I hope he lives to see second Level. There's been so much combat... I think if he gets killed, the party will miss him, and his long winded speeches. But with a dex mod of +2 to hit, yeah, he'd be good at darts. I've been lucky. Loving the game, too. We've got great players, and DM. Sorry Etarnon, that was my poor attempt at sarcasm, meaning you have been very useful despite your spell limitations at low level;) In addition you have demonstrated why I have no issues with magic-users becoming potentially powerful at the higher levels as you have shown patience and humility at these the low levels. But then the whole party has really played their roles quite well. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 53] Author : Extempus Date : 04-17-08 05:51 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I like Abacar, he's fun. I hope he lives to see second Level. There's been so much combat... I think if he gets killed, the party will miss him, and his long winded speeches. That's why we have fighters... we can take the hits as well as deal them out (well, Metron keeps rolling low in combat and keeps being surprised... I am NOT happy about that, LOL! But, at least when he hits something, it counts). I'd like to see you reach 2nd level too... But with a dex mod of +2 to hit, yeah, he'd be good at darts. Using darts, you get 3 attacks per round, which is triple what my speed factor 10 two-handed sword gets (and I've noticed I usually attack last in every round, lol). I've been lucky. Loving the game, too. We've got great players, and DM. We've all been lucky so far, but we're also getting better at the teamwork thing too, and that's the part that counts most as far as keeping everyone alive... I have to agree with you, we have a great team and great players... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 54] Author : Etarnon Date : 04-18-08 04:26 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Yeah, i have my mondays blocked out for the game, as long as RW wants to run it. And even if Abacar dies, I'll gen up a new pc, and keep playing. I think we're a pretty good group. I'm wondering what will happen to Holdan. Crazy brave, that hobbit. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 55] Author : grayface Date : 04-21-08 08:59 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players 3.5 and 4.0 being released so close together made me realize something. Personally, I had played AD&D and AD&D2 for a handful of sessions each. Once 3e had come out, I was finally old enough to be generating disposable income and bought the books. I thought they were great, and you know what, I still think its a good system. We played a game, then forgot about it all for a while. Now I re-enter the RPG scene to find 3.5 has wiped 3rd edition off the face of the earth and 4.0 is on the way. So I read the 3.5 book, of course its over $30 and nearly identical to my 3.0 book. I said screw it, scooped up a few 3.0 sourcebooks at a comic shop for kicks (mostly Legends and Lairs stuff) and began running another game. That game is still going today. After reading all this drama about 4e, it made me realize something. During my 3.0 games, I never really use any of the few splat books I bought (the dungeon making one is actually pretty useful as a DM but that's about it), and in fact I ignore 50% of the rules in the core books too. They're just uneccessary and complicated. I suppose if you're the sort who likes involved rules for everything, these new editions would be up your alley, but be prepared to do a lot of book reading at the game table. Monster Manuals were the best part of 3.0, but even then most of them were useless. Who's going to take the time to make note of all those skills and feats and tactics, when its going to be alive and on-stage for 5 minutes? Just scribble down the BAB, AC, saves, and basic attack forms and move on. Read the fluff at your leisure to get ideas. I then got a chance to read a D&D Rules Cyclopedia (boxed set D&D's definitive book). I was amazed how simple everything was. Thieves use d% for most things, everything else is either d6 or no rules whatsoever, excepting battle of course. It makes so much sense. I think back on the 3.0 game I'm playing and what about that massive skill table? I think the system is great but its way too complicated to generate, and Jump, Climb and Balance make up 90% of the rolls anyway. We just RP everything else. I know that the RC isn't the "true" original D&D but from what I read it is very, very close. I can see why people liked it so much... its actually really easy. No doubt 4e will be a good system too, but its all really uneccessary and that's all there is to it. I forgot where I was going with this... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 56] Author : Daebereth Date : 04-21-08 11:35 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players 3.5 and 4.0 being released so close together made me realize something. Now I re-enter the RPG scene to find 3.5 has wiped 3rd edition off the face of the earth and 4.0 is on the way. And yet, people are already saying "Let's just wait for version 5." Actually guilty of having done this just the other day, albeit in irony. We had been debating "Buy version four, go over it and change stuff (ie, the succubus back to demon, as there are lots of us who feel quite strongly about the demon/devil thing, having played characters of this bloodline)" vs "What the hell point is there in that? Stay with version 3." Which lead to above comment, which strangely got affirmatives. Right... I come, I read, I babble... Goddess, I shouldn't try and do anything this late at night. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 57] Author : sblaxman Date : 04-21-08 12:31 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players re: grayface I think a lot of your comments hone in on the problems I had w/ 3.x. There were a lot of general changes that I thought were good ideas, but the game overall became very rules heavy. I was always more of the school of "Read the rules, take what you like, and play". There were rules that I thought worked and I used them. There were rules I thought didn't work so I dropped them or made my own. In ad&d this was actually promoted (there are many many spots in the books where is recomends the dm to be creative w/ the rules), where in d&d (3.x) it's discouraged, the rules are more to be followed as is. Of course you are free to do what you want, but in general that seemed to be the feel. Also, I never bought the splat books as well. One or two I would pick up for some flavor, but in general I always prefered to make up my own classes/races or, even better, have my players write up a class/race/PrC they think would be interesting and submit it to me. Often we'd get something that was way more interesting and flavorful that what was in the splat books, w/o changing overall balance or having to figure out how to cram in some class or race that just didn't fit (where did all these half tiger/half dragon men come from?!?!). re: daebereth I think in addition to my disagreement w/ the style changes in the rules that seem to be occuring in 4.0, I think I am even more put off by the change in feel of the game. Things seem to be changed for no reason (succubus), just for the sake of changing them. Changing the core races makes no sense to me as well (I don't mind adding one or two, but not taking others out). The reason I play d&d is the flavor, not the rules. I like the races, the setting, the feel, the gods, the fantasy... change that too much, and you've changed the game. 3.x changed the rules a lot, and really changed the style of play, but (for the most part) kept the feel/flavor. This changed a lot w/ the addition of the splat books if you used them, but in in comparison to (what seems to be) the feel of 4.0. Might be some interesting tidbits, but overall I don't see a chance in switching -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 58] Author : grayface Date : 04-21-08 05:52 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players ... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 59] Author : Extempus Date : 04-21-08 07:21 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players So I read the 3.5 book, of course its over $30 and nearly identical to my 3.0 book. Haven't I been saying for months now that people have been buying the same books over and over again with each "new" edition and wasting their hard-earned $$$??? You watch, 4.5e will be out in 3-5 years, will be nearly identical to 4e and will allegedly "fix" the (intentionally designed) problems with 4e. And how many will rush out to buy those same exact books again??? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 60] Author : Etarnon Date : 04-21-08 07:36 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I'm a big fan of the Cyclopedia, also. Simple, easy to use Rules, DM centered. Fun to read, easy to comprehend. Not a whole lot to remember. One book. Stood the test of time. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 61] Author : cutsleeve Date : 04-21-08 08:59 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I'd like to give a bit of history on my gaming experience before I shoot straight into discussion of editions and such. I remember the first time I encountered D&D. It was by finding my dads old 1st edition books and his dice. The fantasy art of the books entrigued me and the multicolored translucent dice made me thing of jewels and gems. I picked up the books and read them or at least browsed through them looking at the pictures and reading Monster descriptions. It was actually much later about, 10 or 11, that I played my first D&D game. It was fun and at that time the newest edition, 2e, and I bought up the books like mad. Shortly after i met a group that played many many different games and I received exposure to many systems through them. Throughout all of this we played 2nd edition D&D because it was the one avaliable at the time. I once tried to get them to play 1st ed and OD&D to try out the simplicity in rules and they decided against it because "why play that old system?". That group broke up just before the 3rd edition came out so I was left to explore the newest edition by myself for awhile. Overall I Liked alot of what was in 3.0 because it did fix many of the problems that 1st and 2nd edition had. However like many things it had its own complications and rule problems. When heard about 4th edition I had the same reaction as lot of the people who really experienced the older editions. The changes are significant and shocking. I looked at the material and heard about them dropping gnomes and adding Tielfings and Dragonborn. I heard about changes to the way spells would be cast and the addition of abilities given to other classes. I was disillusioned with the new edition already and decided to buy some of the old books as pdf's from Piazo Then I read a report from a person who witnessed a play test of the new system and I realized that "Hey the game doesn't sound that bad." That got me thinking about the past editions again. I realized that every edition was flawed and problematic. There was no game of D&D in my entire history of playing that was a straight rules as written game. There where always house rules and rules changes and I remembered how much we really complained about the second edition. We made those rules because we wanted more freedom in creating our characters ignoring TSR's "this is how its done." attitude. Ive also come to realize that the feeling of D&D is not in the rules but in how people play. You can still play the game with the same feeling using totally different game systems. The problem that people always had with feeling restricted by the rules was never the fault of the system but with the players, exemplified by the Raw only attitude. I've come to under stand that people just have favorite systems and that there are no perfect systems. Some people like Coke, some like Pepsi, some people like Mountain Dew, and others like Dr Pepper but which is better? None they're all different and I've drank them all and will probably drink them again sometime but I still have my favorite. RPG's are different though in that, Role-play exists independent of rules and thats what the flavor of D&D is Role-play. Role-play by the players and the role-play by the GM because its the GM who sets the tone not the game because he has choice in rules and he can always use his own. We just need to remember we are playing the role of the universe and not act out of character even though it might be a new system we're playing. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 62] Author : gamileo Date : 04-21-08 11:01 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I feel I am going to be a different person's perspective on this. Flat out I am super excited about 4E. I already printed out EN World's pre phb, and the sample characters, and am going to get some people together to try it out. So, with that said a little backstory will help. I first got involved in gaming through Star Wars WEG and the guy I played under stated flat out that the character's ability dice rolls were sacred, but the rest of the mechanics weren't. I liked that. I liked the idea that my character's abilities would not be ruled differently than other players, that gravity worked for me just like the others. We moved on quickly to Rifts, and I was asked to run it. I basically memorized the rules because I had really creative players who would come up with absolutely crazy character designs and actions. I got so good at creating NPC's that I could do it in about 5 minutes (that's for a palladium game people) I had bought 2nd Edition Ad&d and had read through its 2.5 version Player's Options and the monster manuel, etc. I only got to play a few times, but I realized quickly having been exposed to d20 high rolls from Rifts that THAC0 was not for me. Skills in the percentile sure, but rolling low just made me cringe on my d20 (the mojo on that d20 is still set to low, I can't use it in current games). I was very happy with 3.0 due to its simplifying things to a d20 high was good. I bought the PHB and the other core books, the FR setting, but spent most of my money on Dragonlance setting. I've ran a number games and quickly set the precedent that I knew all the rules so you didn't have to. I played with a lot of newbs, in fact there are about a dozen people who wouldn't be playing any rpgs today if not for me and my desire to run games. Playing wise I am a rules lawyer, I can't stand it when the DM screws around with what I feel is the physics of the game. So when I run games I run a very tight ship during combat. However I have also flat out stated that I reward RPing during combat if you do it with a flourish. I like describing the death blows and the clashing of battle to my players. To those who say 3.0 wasn't d&d, it was for me. It had the races, the classes, the spells, the combat, it had what I wanted. I wasn't even that upset by 3.5 because I hated playing the ranger before and loved the ranger after. I also forbid any splat books. The only books the players could use were the core books and the Dragonlance books that I approved. My players seemed to like this because it saved them money too. So here I am now... sad too I haven't played in over a year due to bad gaming groups (people who don't want to game every sunday or people who are just complete jerks to me outside of the game, etc.). I look forward to the new edition because its new rules I get to memorize, and its a jumping off point where I can recruit another dozen people. 2E is where I first thought of roleplaying, and I am glad for it. I don't like some of its rules, nor do I like some of the limitations (which I felt there were some in 2E that weren't in 3, and vice versa). I can complain about 3E as well in some regards. No system is perfect, but I will hold that as long as there is a rule system I can respect, I will memorize it, play it, and run it. Oh, forgot one thing. I play sometimes with guys who are about 10 years older than I am. From my quick census, they are all excited about 4E and played 3E with me with glee. Old school players all, they cut their teeth on 0th and 1st edition. So not all people didn't switch. To be fair, and this isn't a criticism of the other posters here, but asking the question you asked to the crowd that denied 3E is only getting half the story. There are others who fully embraced it but don't post here because they no longer play 2E or 1E. Keep that in mind for your analysis. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 63] Author : sblaxman Date : 04-22-08 01:47 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players To be fair, and this isn't a criticism of the other posters here, but asking the question you asked to the crowd that denied 3E is only getting half the story. There are others who fully embraced it but don't post here because they no longer play 2E or 1E. Keep that in mind for your analysis. I don't think anyone would (take it as criticism), that was a well written and clear post :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 64] Author : Etarnon Date : 04-22-08 02:41 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I agree. this is enjoyable leisure time. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 65] Author : grayface Date : 04-23-08 11:24 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players To finish my thought finally (and answer the OP question), do I feel differently about 4e than I did 3e way back then? I suppose so. 3e was my first chance to examine D&D closely (instead of just playing without direct access to books), so I digested the system and loved it for its faults. There were too many rules, I'm going to go ahead and admit it. I remember playing/DMing this system as a teenager, and the first few games fell flat... it was just boring to spend half a day making a character and remembering rules for grappling, skill synergies and the difference between dazed, stunned, staggered, etc. I removed the notions of prestige classes altogether (I felt the arguments for them were completely hollow). I simplified encumbrance. Eventually, my relationship with D&D3e improved, once I came back to it some years later and took a subtractive approach to the rules. Keep all the good stuff, subtract out or simplify what isn't necessary, and then play. Conversely, when I read the Basic D&D rules set, I am nothing but inspired. Everything in the book is nice and simple, I feel like I could remember everything at once if I had to. Monsters are simple too... try running a 3e D&D monster from memory! Having discovered the game after 3e, my need-for-rules tendancies do emerge a bit, but I find myself wanting to add more than take away. BD&D was a system that you created things for, instead of largely ignored. Now, I look at 4e. Honestly, if I were to sum up my opinions of 4e, it would go like this. They are trying to make it into a tactical miniatures game with roleplaying elements. Chainmail/D&D grew out of this, 2e paid homage to it, 3e embraced it once again, and now 4e is expanding it... influenced by the flavor of video games and collectible card games. Their preview books read more like a business proposal or a manditory errata than something that would whet my appetite. Personally, I hated that I had to use miniatures in my 3e games (we still used gridpaper and lego guys, I was never rich). But that's more an aside. When I look at 4e, I become worried. With these old editions I read, I feel the need to ammend the rules. With 3e, I felt the need to shear them. When I look at 4e, my reaction is: I'll need to do both! Their game setting seems a little patchwork... the new races seem thrown in and uninspired, the new classes seem to have no function besides mechanics. Why dragonborn? Can't a Warlord just be a Fighter? What happened to orcs and gnomes? The druid and bard? Ok, fine, we'll take out the hokey stuff and replace it. But will it be as easy as creating a DnD/3e class or race? Now, 30 levels of skills, feats and powers must be created and carefully balanced. After all, the point of 4e (aside from being an excuse to launch an online-subsctiption marketing scheme) is greater game balance and allowing players to do things more often. It will no doubt succeed in doing that, but it will be a game that you'll have to flex hard to make it feel like anything other than what it is, I think. Another aside: I was also saddened, after playing my AD&D2 games way back when, that they all and did away with followers and strongholds in 3rd edition. My games have always had a military-styled theme, and now that I read the RC I feel that this game more accurately depicts my game world on a macro level. I'm afraid that these elements will disappear entirely in 4e... making it a Dungeon Skirmish and The Rest Is Up to You style game. So, no... my reactions to 4e and 3e are not the same. After reading the 4e preview books and posts on this forum, I've decided to retrograde for my next game, instead of buying more books for the newer editions. If not because I'm getting fed up with WotC (and maybe I am, just a little), but to fill in the holes of my gaming experience that were created by my relative youth, and because old-school D&D is amazing. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 66] Author : Rosisha Date : 04-23-08 02:38 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I'm retrograding as well. I liked the d20 concept of D&D 3.X, but the style was not to my liking. The game system favors RAW instead of Roleplay. But to quickly sum up: I agree with the poster above me, on his conclusions. My experiences were different. AD&D 2nd Ed is about flexiability and creativity in my mind, and for me (maybe not for others). I learned on this system, and I will go back to this system. However, I'm going to have a few changes: 1) D20 approach to rolls, saves, etc. It is just easier in my mind to use this system, which will make taking in new players easier. 2) Feats -- though with the 2nd Ed system of WP = Feat, but I am adding NWP can be used to buy NW feats (i.e. Scribe Scroll, Spellcaster Only, 1 NWP Slot, 1st Level -- Allows the caster to scribe a magic scroll, storing a spell for later use. 1 scroll may be created per intelligence point above nine). 3) Nonweapon and weapon proficiencies. However, weapons are still classified as Simple, Martial, and Exotic. Advantage: Wizard gains 1 weapon proficiency which may be taken from the Simple Chart. This gives players a little bit more flexability, while also keeping limitations. 4) Others as I figure em out! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 67] Author : sblaxman Date : 04-23-08 06:41 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players There were definatly some good ideas in 3.x, I can't argue w/ that. I think I took the saving throws and used them in 2e the second I saw them. It's just more elegent than the 1/2e saving throws. Thaco/AC... was exactly the same thing, just flipped, so I left it. I found the unified XP tables a bad idea and left those as is. The CR system I (and from the boards, many people) did not like either. I don't like having to use a calculator to figure out the CR for an encounter when I mix and match monsters of different CRs just to find XP. The skill system wasn't bad, and I used that (I found it funny that in 2e someone w/o the swimming nwp didn't know how to swim AT ALL, they could just tread water but could not move). The list goes on. I'm sure there will be a few things in 4e that I like as well, once it comes out and I read through the books. I haven't seen anything yet, but I've only skimmed what's come out so far, so i can't say much either way. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 68] Author : Extempus Date : 04-23-08 07:23 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I removed the notions of prestige classes altogether (I felt the arguments for them were completely hollow). Prestige classes never made sense to me, and there really seemed to be little difference (to me, anyway) between the basic concept and the various kits available to each character class in 2e (which were really nothing more than subclasses of each character class or subclass). The skill system wasn't bad, and I used that (I found it funny that in 2e someone w/o the swimming nwp didn't know how to swim AT ALL, they could just tread water but could not move). That's a bizarre notion, but even in the 21st Century, there are people who have never learned how to swim, so I guess that way of thinking isn't necessarily inaccurate (although people who don't know how to swim usually can't even tread water). I always assume that basic proficiencies, such as swimming, horseback riding etc are known by everyone, and that most humans (in good, civilized nations anyway) and demi-humans have some degree of education, know how to read and write and are literate in math, history and geography (among other subjects). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 69] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 04-23-08 10:49 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Prestige classes never made sense to me, and there really seemed to be little difference (to me, anyway) between the basic concept and the various kits available to each character class in 2e (which were really nothing more than subclasses of each character class or subclass). Personally, the prestige classes always reminded me more of the 1e bard than the 2e kits. That's a compliment only to the 2e kits. That's a bizarre notion, but even in the 21st Century, there are people who have never learned how to swim, so I guess that way of thinking isn't necessarily inaccurate (although people who don't know how to swim usually can't even tread water). I always assume that basic proficiencies, such as swimming, horseback riding etc are known by everyone, and that most humans (in good, civilized nations anyway) and demi-humans have some degree of education, know how to read and write and are literate in math, history and geography (among other subjects). Some truth here. Still, I've seen enough people get fished out of the water (and actually fished somebody out myself once) to understand the view that swimming can be an all-or-nothing proposition. Pun aside, any beginning swimming class always makes me hold my breath. Any comments I could make on reading, math, etc. are based on my understanding of how history translates into a fantasy world, and are therefore only right on my campaign world, of course. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 70] Author : Rosisha Date : 04-24-08 01:59 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Oh yes. Prestiege classes. My number one problem about 3.x is: "Have it all!" If you wanted a kit, you wouold give something up for a bonus elsewhere. Not so with 3.x. To often the mechanics are set up so that the player gets whatever it is that they want, when they want it, and damn balance, damn the DM, and damn the other players. Its a very "Me first" attitude, that I think has no place in a social game. I understand that this is what seems to be popular, if WotC is to be believed, but not for me. I am willing to admit that I could be completely biased here, but these are the impresions that I'm getting from the posters, players, and the company. And in the end, our reality is dependent on our perceptions. Rosisha -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 71] Author : Extempus Date : 04-24-08 03:12 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Personally, the prestige classes always reminded me more of the 1e bard than the 2e kits. That's a compliment only to the 2e kits. That's a good point, but I guess I was thinking more in terms that the ones initially introduced in the 3e DMG seemed to me to be little different than variations on a theme regarding the major classes, which is what 2e kits were. Any comments I could make on reading, math, etc. are based on my understanding of how history translates into a fantasy world, and are therefore only right on my campaign world, of course. I assume you mean the history of the campaign world, which is what I was referring to... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 72] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 04-24-08 08:48 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players That's a good point, but I guess I was thinking more in terms that the ones initially introduced in the 3e DMG seemed to me to be little different than variations on a theme regarding the major classes, which is what 2e kits were. Also a fair way of looking at it. I think of how tedious it is to go through all that pre-bard time with some of the silly things (fighter->thief->druid? WTF does this have to do with music, memory, leadership and oratory?) required to become a bard and compare it to the silly things required as prerequisites (apparently just to justify the existence of some awful feats and useless skills) for prestige classes and see parallels, but the conceptual parallels between kits and prestige classes represent at least as valid a way of viewing them. I assume you mean the history of the campaign world, which is what I was referring to... Absolutely. I was just trying to separate my stricter view on swimming skills, which I feel to be supportable although by no means definitive from my stricter views on reading skills, etc. which have a very touchy-feely basis based on how each of us imagines a fantasy society. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 73] Author : Extempus Date : 04-25-08 12:13 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Also a fair way of looking at it. I think of how tedious it is to go through all that pre-bard time with some of the silly things (fighter->thief->druid? WTF does this have to do with music, memory, leadership and oratory?) required to become a bard and compare it to the silly things required as prerequisites (apparently just to justify the existence of some awful feats and useless skills) for prestige classes and see parallels, but the conceptual parallels between kits and prestige classes represent at least as valid a way of viewing them. That NEVER made any sense to me whatsoever. Why not just have a regular bard class, rather than what is essentially a multi-classed fighter/thief/druid? And just like everyone and their grandma, they can cast spells too??? wtf??? So much for magic evoking a "sense of wonder" if it's so commonplace that almost every character class can use it... lol Which is why, in my campaign, only wizards and priests (and their subclasses) and high-level rangers and paladins can cast spells. No one else can (but bards can use their music to simulate magical effects, but that's another story)... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 74] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 04-25-08 12:37 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players That NEVER made any sense to me whatsoever. Why not just have a regular bard class, rather than what is essentially a multi-classed fighter/thief/druid? And just like everyone and their grandma, they can cast spells too??? wtf??? So much for magic evoking a "sense of wonder" if it's so commonplace that almost every character class can use it... lol Which is why, in my campaign, only wizards and priests (and their subclasses) and high-level rangers and paladins can cast spells. No one else can (but bards can use their music to simulate magical effects, but that's another story)... Apropos of nothing whatsoever, what do you think of the Dragon #56 Bard? Personally, I'm not really a bard-type guy, but I liked that a heck of a lot more than the PHB one. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 75] Author : Extempus Date : 04-25-08 03:13 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I liked that treatment better, but why give them the ability to cast illusionist spells??? The explanation, "Bards also have some illusionist spell powers, derived from their ability to enter strong impressions upon people's minds," just doesn't cut it with me. If magic is supposed to be rare, why can so many character classes cast spells? The only ones who couldn't were fighters and monks... I prefer the concept that their songs can create spell-like effects. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 76] Author : Rosisha Date : 04-28-08 11:17 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I like just keeping it to the four primary classes: fighter, thief, cleric, wizard. Use kits for class modifications :D But then... I never liked Bards or Druids. LOL Maybe I'm biased. What was the point of making the bard so hard to get? was it very powerful? It does sound like a PRC though! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 77] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 04-28-08 12:25 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I'll respond 'ere I read the other posts, so my ideas are free of bias to others' opinions... I got into the AD&D game about 6 months before Unearthed Arcana was released for 1st edition. I was eight, and it took me about 30 minutes to make a character and basically learn the rules. The game had its flaws of course, but we had our house-rules to gloss over them. 2nd edition came out, and we all were ecstatic about it. It was compatable with 1st edition, so hybridization was easy if needed. Kits were introduced, so now different characters had more flavour from one-another. Even more races were allowed, which made for even more fun and variety. House-rules were less-necessary, since things were streamlined quite a bit. TSR released some products which didn't seem necessary, easily ignored... and later they came out with the Player's Options stuff, which the groups I played in ignored. There were rumours that 3rd edition would use alot of that stuff, but still be compatable with the previous editions, when released. I was in the army still when 3.0 came out, and at the time wasn't playing and hadn't for two years. 3.5 got released soon after. Now, I'd heard a lot of ******* and moaning about 3.0, but didn't know what to make of it other than the fact it wasn't compatable at all with the previous editions. I picked up the three main 3.5 books and was happy initially with the possibilities. Not being a power-gamer per se, it didn't occur to me the extent the system could be abused, or the fact that dice-rolling could so easily and completely do away with actual role-playing. Nor was I happy with the fact that some of my friends had essentially been ripped off by buying 3.0 and Star Wars (since 3.5 and Revised got released so soon after the initial books). The idea of 4.x bothers me. I've got Star Wars Saga edition, and that... isn't the kind of game I'd want for something calling itself D&D. Nor do I like what they're doing with their "preview" books. Actually, I read them at Borders and put them back on the shelf. No way am I paying money, especially THAT MUCH money, for what essentially is nothing more than advertising to what I consider an inferior computer game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 78] Author : Rosisha Date : 04-28-08 12:43 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I just want to point out a quick thought: WotC is going for the green computer game! Think about it, solar flairs or something else wipes out computers and greenhouse gases melt the poles flooding the earth and whats left of humanity is living in what was once high land with no computers. But we can still play a computer game. If this is their actual business plan, you have to admit, it is devious and clever. Rosisha -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 79] Author : Hans_Kelsen Date : 04-28-08 10:19 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I started playing GURPS (oh, the unspeakable game in these forums!) and AD&D some 10 years ago. Sure, AD&D had its problems, like stated by the players above, and like them, sometimes we just didn´t roll any dice to solve things. After I migrated to 3.0, things changed, and while making characters was better, playing them became more difficult. Every monster had gigantic stat blocks, and the rules on grappling and attacks of opportunity where not-so-elegant, plus the fact that we had to get some Mage Knight miniatures to play the tactical grid. Then, when 3.5 came out my friends gave up on D&D, started playing Werewolf, and although I played some 3.25 (3.0 with some modifications) I was quickly overwhelmed by the sheer number of new prestige classes, rules and mechanics that were introduced with every module. Now I won´t even bother with 4.0, simply because: I have other hobbies that are far more perennial, in the sense that I won´t have to buy a core set of rules every 3 years, and my players want to play something that reminds them of Conan and hack´n´slash, or other games like historical GURPS (the new edition is something really impressive) or pulp, like Werewolf. And I must add that one thing that WoTC didn´t take into account when making 4th ed. is the fact that if the books are expensive in dollars, think how much they would cost in other currencies. I´m from Brazil, and essentially, every book here costs twice as much due to taxes and imports, so, moving from one edition to another is a big step monetary wise. (Money better spent on my motorbike, for instance.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 80] Author : Extempus Date : 04-28-08 11:45 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players And I must add that one thing that WoTC didn´t take into account when making 4th ed. is the fact that if the books are expensive in dollars, think how much they would cost in other currencies. I´m from Brazil, and essentially, every book here costs twice as much due to taxes and imports, so, moving from one edition to another is a big step monetary wise. (Money better spent on my motorbike, for instance.) Oh, I can guarantee you that they knew precisely that the books would be more expensive than previous editions, and not just here, but also in other countries! The only purpose behind any and all editions past 2e is to make $$$, nothing more, and WOTC knows that there are plenty of people who are more than happy to shell out their hard-earned $$$ every few years to buy the same core rulebooks over and over again. Not that there is anything wrong with making money, however, it would be nice (as I've said before) if they were honest about why anyone needed a new edition past 2e (especially since, IMHO, 3e and 3.5 were designed with specific flaws that would need "fixing" in a few years, and you can bet your bottom dollar that 4e is designed that way too. Get ready for 4.5e around 2012 or so!). There is no legitimate reason, they scrapped 2e just to churn out more and "better" editions every few years for the sole purpose of making someone very wealthy... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 81] Author : Hans_Kelsen Date : 04-29-08 10:24 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players And that is exactly the feeling I don´t get from Steve Jackson´s Games. Sure, a new edition of GURPS came out, but it took a long time of preparations and listening to customers. I don´t want to sound a GURPS fanboy or maniac, but the company that makes them has treated me much better than WoC. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 82] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 04-29-08 03:51 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players That NEVER made any sense to me whatsoever. Why not just have a regular bard class, rather than what is essentially a multi-classed fighter/thief/druid? And just like everyone and their grandma, they can cast spells too??? wtf??? So much for magic evoking a "sense of wonder" if it's so commonplace that almost every character class can use it... lol Which is why, in my campaign, only wizards and priests (and their subclasses) and high-level rangers and paladins can cast spells. No one else can (but bards can use their music to simulate magical effects, but that's another story)... Magic evokes a sense of wonder because, outside of the PCs, nae many people are spell-casters... 99.99% of the populace is mundane, at least as far as hoo-mahns go. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 83] Author : Rustmonster Date : 05-01-08 11:36 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I feel like I'm kind of sticking my neck out here, but I can't stop myself from speaking up. I mostly look at the 4E boards, so I believe I have a certain insight into this matter. I have been looking at this particular area of the forums for only a little while now, but it seems any time a poster talks of 4E, they say "Not D&D anymore!" and "Wizbro only cares about $!" and "It's just a videogame MMORPG!". These are, IMHO, very bad arguments. The most absurd in my view is the MMORPG or computer game comparison. I have played MMORPGs, and I can tell you, the material that I have seen of 4E is not anywhere close to one. This seems to just be used in the form of "I hate MMORPGs, so I'm going to say that 4E is that!" This also happened on the 4E forums, as well as posters using the scapegoat of "anime" and "super heros". Is this some sort of defense mechanism for what posters see as some sort of rival to P&PRPGs? Because I can tell you, they are not competitors, and in fact, many P&P players are also MMO players. And besides, MMOPRGs are not neccesarily bad. They can be quite fun, in a way completly different than P&PRPGs. Now, from the things I've heard here, a great deal of the posters here have never even taken the time to look at any of the new material. I find that a bit short sighted. How do you know you won't like it? How can you decry it when you seem to be just brushing it off? How many of you know the new mechanics that have been anounced? I'm not trying to sound rude, these are actual questions. I just don't understand the animosity towards the new edition. As an example of these new mechanics, did you know that in 4E, you gain a +1 to almost everything, except saving throws (which work MUCH differently now), every second level? Now, I know that may sound "power-gamey" at first, but if you look into the reason for the mechanic, and see how it actually ends up working, it's really quite inovative. Fighters still have better attack bonuses (I guess some of you would call that THAC0?) than a Wizard when swinging a sword, it's just now the gap does not become as insurmountable between them as before. I must admit, that was a very poor description of the rule, and I am still a little foggy on the details, so I would advise that you don't judge on what I said, but check it out for yourself. To the OP, I would advise hopping on over to the 4E forums for a while, perhaps set up a thread there, and poll the people of those forums. The reason I say this is that there are many players of the older (2E and older, specificly) who still love those ones, but are very excited about 4E. I'm just afraid that you are getting a false impression from all of the negativity from the posters of this section (no offense meant). This is not how the entirity of the old-school community is reacting to the new game. And yes, I say new game, for that it is. That doesn't make it "Not D&D". Just a different D&D. That would be like playing Final Fantasy I, and then playing Final Fantasy II, and saying "Not Final Fantasy anymore!". To those with apprehensions, I would also advise that you take at least a quick peek at the new stuff. Heck, some posters on the 4E forums have even talked about how they see similarities between 2E and 4E! Good luck, Rustmonster -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 84] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 05-01-08 11:43 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Now, from the things I've heard here, a great deal of the posters here have never even taken the time to look at any of the new material. True, dat. But then, Wizbro has pretty much lost the benefit of the doubt after the last two awful game systems it tried to pass off as D&D. Personally, I'm not going to pay any attention to the alleged 4th edition because there is simply no reason to believe the leopard has changed its spots and produced a playable, balanced game which won't be mangled beyond recognition in six months when the splatbook orgy starts. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times, I'll have some 4e books to show for it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 85] Author : RedWizard Date : 05-01-08 11:49 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I have been looking at this particular area of the forums for only a little while now, but it seems any time a poster talks of 4E, they say "Not D&D anymore!" and "Wizbro only cares about $!" and "It's just a videogame MMORPG!". These are, IMHO, very bad arguments. The most absurd in my view is the MMORPG or computer game comparison. I have played MMORPGs, and I can tell you, the material that I have seen of 4E is not anywhere close to one. This seems to just be used in the form of "I hate MMORPGs, so I'm going to say that 4E is that!" This also happened on the 4E forums, as well as posters using the scapegoat of "anime" and "super heros". Is this some sort of defense mechanism for what posters see as some sort of rival to P&PRPGs? Because I can tell you, they are not competitors, and in fact, many P&P players are also MMO players. And besides, MMOPRGs are not neccesarily bad. They can be quite fun, in a way completly different than P&PRPGs. Now, from the things I've heard here, a great deal of the posters here have never even taken the time to look at any of the new material. I find that a bit short sighted. How do you know you won't like it? How can you decry it when you seem to be just brushing it off? How many of you know the new mechanics that have been anounced? I'm not trying to sound rude, these are actual questions. I just don't understand the animosity towards the new edition. Question, is it true that after each battle, characters get to "reset" hitpoints? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 86] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 05-02-08 12:55 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players True, dat. But then, Wizbro has pretty much lost the benefit of the doubt after the last two awful game systems it tried to pass off as D&D. Personally, I'm not going to pay any attention to the alleged 4th edition because there is simply no reason to believe the leopard has changed its spots and produced a playable, balanced game which won't be mangled beyond recognition in six months when the splatbook orgy starts. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times, I'll have some 4e books to show for it. I agree, as well as being annoyed with the people who blindly defend 4.0 without really knowing that much more than the rest of us. So far as I'm concerned from reading the "preview books" and looking at Star Wars Saga, 4.0 and so on won't be the game for me. I consider my view to be at least somewhat informed. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 87] Author : Extempus Date : 05-02-08 06:31 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Magic evokes a sense of wonder because, outside of the PCs, nae many people are spell-casters... 99.99% of the populace is mundane, at least as far as hoo-mahns go. Perhaps so, but out of the basic 14 character classes and sub-classes in 1e, only 5 of them could not cast spells, which is 35.7% or roughly one third. Even sages have the ability to cast spells, as outlined in the DMG! Magic is more wondrous to me when the majority of people, including PCs, cannot use magic, which is why in my campaign, only wizards, priests/druids and high level paladins and rangers can cast spells... thieves and assassins don't have the ability to read magic scrolls, and bards' "magic" works on a completely different principle (and psionics isn't magic either, of course). Oh, and I like the "hoo-mahn" pronunciation... I've been using a variation of it myself for years now (hew-mahn), I picked it up from the Ferengi on Star Trek. Demons and devils (other than the princes and lords) and various humanoids pronounce it that way in my campaign... Metron of Urnst http://forums.gleemax.com/images/avatars/TSR-Miles.jpg -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 88] Author : Rustmonster Date : 05-02-08 09:10 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Question, is it true that after each battle, characters get to "reset" hitpoints? No, that is not true. If you have lost HP, you have lost HP. There is a mechanic called "healing surges", however. You get X of them daily, depending on your class and CON score. If I recall, you can only use one (1) of them DURING combat, but up to one (1) every five minutes out of combat. What they do is recover a set percent of your maximum HP. They use this mechanic to reduce reliance on a healer (Cleric) for survival. Clerics do have many abilities, however, that use these surges. For example, I believe I saw it said that Clerics can cause others to use a surge, and gain bonus HP on top, even if they have used their one-per-battle surge. It is important to note that surges are PER DAY. You only get so many before you need rest to recover them, so you can't just heal full after EVERY battle. Concider it this way. They took the Clerics healing, and split it up between all of the classes. They then made Clerics help people use those spells BETTER. That's a general idea. If you are interested, I would still advise checking some of the new stuff out. Even if you don't buy the new edition, maybe it'll give some nice houserule ideas? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 89] Author : Rustmonster Date : 05-02-08 09:26 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players True, dat. But then, Wizbro has pretty much lost the benefit of the doubt after the last two awful game systems it tried to pass off as D&D. Personally, I'm not going to pay any attention to the alleged 4th edition because there is simply no reason to believe the leopard has changed its spots and produced a playable, balanced game which won't be mangled beyond recognition in six months when the splatbook orgy starts. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times, I'll have some 4e books to show for it. I don't understand. Firstly, I am confused as to the "last two games". I'm assuming 3E, but which other one? Second, I find this very close minded. Can you give actual reason you dislike 4E? I'm guessing no, as you refuse to even look. I have never played 2E, but I've heard legends of negative AC, THAC0, arbitrary racial level restrictions, arbitrary rules, random death, etc. I could, just like you, say "I am not even going to pay attention to this alleged 2nd edition". But I would rather see for myself if it is actually any good. I mean, it seems many people play it, so it can't be that bad. Why do you assume the worst? WotC is trying to make a quality game. They are gamers too. If you would look at some of the things they are writing, you can see they are really making an effort. And, just a side note, please drop the "alleged" bit. It's a new edition of D&D, like 2E was a new edition of 3E. Using that sort of down-putting language makes you sound very confrontational, and I have tried to be civil, so I would ask the same in return. I get enough of this on the 4E Concerns and Critisism section, with cries of "$E" and the like. I agree, as well as being annoyed with the people who blindly defend 4.0 without really knowing that much more than the rest of us. So far as I'm concerned from reading the "preview books" and looking at Star Wars Saga, 4.0 and so on won't be the game for me. I consider my view to be at least somewhat informed. And that is perfectly fine. It's obvious it isn't the game for everyone, just like no edition of D&D or any RPG has been right for everyone. Stick to what you like. I would just ask for you not to be harsh on those who feel that they will enjoy the new edition. In closing, I would just like to say, 4E will have flaws. Just like 1E, 2E, and 3E had flaws. I am under no dillusion of a "perfect system". But I am looking forward to the new game. I ask not for you all to "convert" to 4E, I ask just that you take a few minutes to look. Judging on no facts is not the right way to go about things. Just as if I judged 1E or 2E, without having played them or even knowing the rules, I can't give any good arguments. If anyone has questions on the new edition, I can try to answer them, although I am not the best one to consult. Rustmonster -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 90] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 05-02-08 01:35 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I don't understand. Firstly, I am confused as to the "last two games". I'm assuming 3E, but which other one? The alleged 3rd edition, and then the alleged 3.5. The first was awful, and the second somehow managed to be even worse. Second, I find this very close minded. I find it to be a learning curve. Can you give actual reason you dislike 4E? I'm guessing no, as you refuse to even look. I also refuse to even look at the new model Yugo and Trabant, any new novel from Stephen King, any service pistol from Smith and Wesson, etc. If your track record is unmitigated disaster, what else do you expect? If I'm going to spend time (and possibly money) on products from a company that has NEVER produced anything but garbage, shouldn't I at least do so AFTER I've exhausted examining game systems from companies which are at least at neutral? I've never picked up a game system from AEG, for example, and it seems reasonable to at least examine that before going back to a company that has spent the better part of a decade with an uninterrupted stream of substandard rubbish. I have never played 2E, but I've heard legends of negative AC, THAC0, arbitrary racial level restrictions, arbitrary rules, random death, etc. I could, just like you, say "I am not even going to pay attention to this alleged 2nd edition". Second had its good points and its bad points, but there was nothing alleged about it being D&D. But I would rather see for myself if it is actually any good. I mean, it seems many people play it, so it can't be that bad. Why do you assume the worst? WotC is trying to make a quality game. In eight years, I have seen no evidence they are trying to make a quality game. Does a company with playtesters let Divine Metamagic out the door? What about Monte Cook's comments that some feats were deliberately designed to suck? They are gamers too. If you would look at some of the things they are writing, you can see they are really making an effort. They've always failed in the past. I suppose even a stopped clock is right twice a day and even a blind squirrel gathers some nuts, but past performance is the best predictor of future performance, and that argues strongly for them failing again. And, just a side note, please drop the "alleged" bit. It's a new edition of D&D, like 2E was a new edition of 3E. Using that sort of down-putting language makes you sound very confrontational, and I have tried to be civil, so I would ask the same in return. I get enough of this on the 4E Concerns and Critisism section, with cries of "$E" and the like. I'm sorry if you never played any edition of genuine Dungeons and Dragons, and so don't understand that 3e and 4e are nothing of the kind. I've gone through Keep on the Borderlands under three different rulesets with piddling modifications, and D20 Fantasy (mislabeled D&D 3.0) was a completely different game which won't allow you to do that. If you choose to view it as a good game, that's your right. All I know is that if it's not compatible with a quarter century of D&D stuff, then it must not be D&D. I tell you openly, Wizbro lying about their games being genuine Dungeons and Dragons is one of the things which annoys me most. I absolutely hate having to sort through their mislabeled games while looking for things to do with actual D&D. If they'll stop lying about their products being D&D, I'll stop calling them on it. In the meantime, I'd at least like to make clear I have no problems with players who think of them as D&D either for convenience or ignorance. And that is perfectly fine. It's obvious it isn't the game for everyone, just like no edition of D&D or any RPG has been right for everyone. Stick to what you like. I would just ask for you not to be harsh on those who feel that they will enjoy the new edition. I've never called anybody a "threetard" or a "fouron." If you want to play Wizbro's mislabeled games, I'm not interested in stopping you. Have fun with whatever floats your boat. Lots of people besides you have never played D&D and are quite happy with C&C, T&T, VtM, WtA, Traveller, T2K, etc. If you don't want to play D&D and are happier with some other system, I'm okay with that. In closing, I would just like to say, 4E will have flaws. Just like 1E, 2E, and 3E had flaws. I am under no dillusion of a "perfect system". But I am looking forward to the new game. I ask not for you all to "convert" to 4E, I ask just that you take a few minutes to look. Judging on no facts is not the right way to go about things. Just as if I judged 1E or 2E, without having played them or even knowing the rules, I can't give any good arguments. If anyone has questions on the new edition, I can try to answer them, although I am not the best one to consult. Rustmonster Again, Wizbro's track record is so consistently awful that there's simply no reason to even worry about what this week's disaster is. It's kind of like the Detroit Lions' draft that way. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 91] Author : readymeal Date : 05-02-08 02:20 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players ... I have never played 2E, but I've heard legends of negative AC, THAC0, arbitrary racial level restrictions, arbitrary rules, random death, etc. Rustmonster about the difference of ACs well you are comparing Degrees F and Degrees Centigrade...same same they don t have the same number for freezing water. Negative Ac... have you ever heard of Negative Temperature? Since you start with a 9 or 10 of AC.. adding armor bring it down and make you more difficult to be hit. at some point you get under the 0 mark THAC0: a simple reminder to know which number you need to roll to hit a armor class of Zero. from then you add/substract modif Arbitrary racial level restriction... it s called try to make things even...demi humans have numurous advantages on humans... mostly noticable a low levels. however a dwarf at level 12(top level) has really good saving throws and THAC0. there are additional guidelines to go above it anyway. arbitrary rule: i call it house rules as the game does not tell you the rule on how to scratch your nose... it gives DM some freedom and avoid endless arguments about rules interpretation. No offence but you don t know much about pre 3E and you defend a 4E you don t know much either... I stopped playing ADD1st edition more than 10 years ago, i only read the 2E a long time ago too... i m now would like to get back into it... i was really motivated to get into 4E however when i learn about powers, heal surge etc.. i thought WTF... if i wanted to play some super heroes i would play Marvel or DC comics not D&D. If everyone can do everything on its own (magic, healing, fighting...) there s no team work anymore... what the point for a fighter to protect a magic user when they are both at low level... well he knows that in a near future it could be now up to the magic user to protect him/party against powerful creatures... IMO leveling everyone is not the answer to improve team playing and FUN I m now reading D&D 5th edition (cyclopedia)=ADD1 and hope to get some adventures going soon... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 92] Author : RedWizard Date : 05-02-08 03:00 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players No, that is not true. If you have lost HP, you have lost HP. There is a mechanic called "healing surges", however. You get X of them daily, depending on your class and CON score. If I recall, you can only use one (1) of them DURING combat, but up to one (1) every five minutes out of combat. What they do is recover a set percent of your maximum HP. They use this mechanic to reduce reliance on a healer (Cleric) for survival. Clerics do have many abilities, however, that use these surges. For example, I believe I saw it said that Clerics can cause others to use a surge, and gain bonus HP on top, even if they have used their one-per-battle surge. It is important to note that surges are PER DAY. You only get so many before you need rest to recover them, so you can't just heal full after EVERY battle. Concider it this way. They took the Clerics healing, and split it up between all of the classes. They then made Clerics help people use those spells BETTER. That's a general idea. If you are interested, I would still advise checking some of the new stuff out. Even if you don't buy the new edition, maybe it'll give some nice houserule ideas? Uh, still sounds like a "reset" button thats simply split up throughout the day. How exactly do they explain these surges? If I get my leg split by an axe how do I explain it healing by the end of the day? That cannot be explained by natural healing and if it's magic, then how is it a fighter can cast it. He is not affiliated with a diety as is a cleric nor does he study magic as a mage. I think this is one of the biggest things that smacks of a video game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 93] Author : RedWizard Date : 05-02-08 03:30 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players If everyone can do everything on its own (magic, healing, fighting...) there s no team work anymore... what the point for a fighter to protect a magic user when they are both at low level... well he knows that in a near future it could be now up to the magic user to protect him/party against powerful creatures... IMO leveling everyone is not the answer to improve team playing and FUN This is ***in my opinion*** a big reason why both 3rd editions do and now 4th edition likely will lack the feel of the previous editions (the feel so many of us old timers talk about). In the old days people didn't complain so much about so-called game balance between the various classes as each class had it's purpose and each player had their favorite. If someone did not like the idea of being weak in close combat, then they could opt for a fighter subclass. Most often in fact this was the case and that actually worked well because logically there would be more fighter types running around then there would be magic-users or individuals touched by the gods (clerics). There was a need for the characters to rely upon one another to fill in each other's gaps. It was a group effort, individually the classes were not balanced so divided the party would certainly fall. Then came 3rd edition with this idea that every class should be equal at all times with every other class. Around the same time (coicidence?) video games like WoW began to gain prominence allowing characters to not only fight monsters but to fight one another (PvP). Characters in these games were better able to go "solo" in the world and thrive. Players in turn wanted their PnP characters to be able to do the same. A literal arms race resulted as each class now had to show that it could take down any other class through a plethora of PrCs and feats associated to the core class. The old idea of each class representing simply one integral aspect of the whole party seemed somehow less important. Newer players started to decry 1st and 2nd editions on the basis that classes were just not balanced. Here's the thing, in the old versions, classes did not need to be balanced so much as the "party" needed to be balanced. However, played properly, the classes in actuality were balanced. The mage's lack of durability in close combat was balanced by the fighter in front of him. The fighter's lack of powerful spell casting at high levels was balanced by the mage. The irreverant thief's lack of access to divine protection was balanced by the cleric. Etc, etc... Sounds balanced to me. The old players have heard about as much of what 4th edition will be as anyone else, all about how it will create a system where every character is able to be a party unto themself. No character class will be weaker at any point then any other. So, while teamwork will likely still be needed, you must admit that it wont be needed as much as it once was. That need to rely on other characters to balance out your own is part of what made Dungeons and Dragons, well, Dungeons and Dragons as opposed to D20 Fantasy. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 94] Author : readymeal Date : 05-02-08 04:00 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players This is ***in my opinion*** a big reason why both 3rd editions do and now 4th edition likely will lack the feel of the previous editions (the feel so many of us old timers talk about). In the old days people didn't complain so much about so-called game balance between the various classes as each class had it's purpose and each player had their favorite. If someone did not like the idea of being weak in close combat, then they could opt for a fighter subclass. Most often in fact this was the case and that actually worked well because logically there would be more fighter types running around then there would be magic-users or individuals touched by the gods (clerics). There was a need for the characters to rely upon one another to fill in each other's gaps. It was a group effort, individually the classes were not balanced so divided the party would certainly fall. Then came 3rd edition with this idea that every class should be equal at all times with every other class. Around the same time (coicidence?) video games like WoW began to gain prominence allowing characters to not only fight monsters but to fight one another (PvP). Characters in these games were better able to go "solo" in the world and thrive. Players in turn wanted their PnP characters to be able to do the same. A literal arms race resulted as each class now had to show that it could take down any other class through a plethora of PrCs and feats associated to the core class. The old idea of each class representing simply one integral aspect of the whole party seemed somehow less important. Newer players started to decry 1st and 2nd editions on the basis that classes were just not balanced. Here's the thing, in the old versions, classes did not need to be balanced so much as the "party" needed to be balanced. However, played properly, the classes in actuality were balanced. The mage's lack of durability in close combat was balanced by the fighter in front of him. The fighter's lack of powerful spell casting at high levels was balanced by the mage. The irreverant thief's lack of access to divine protection was balanced by the cleric. Etc, etc... Sounds balanced to me. The old players have heard about as much of what 4th edition will be as anyone else, all about how it will create a system where every character is able to be a party unto themself. No character class will be weaker at any point then any other. So, while teamwork will likely still be needed, you must admit that it wont be needed as much as it once was. That need to rely on other characters to balance out your own is part of what made Dungeons and Dragons, well, Dungeons and Dragons as opposed to D20 Fantasy. i concure...excelent post, i wish i saw your post about getting back into ADD1 sooner... well in fact it would not really matter since the only internet connection available is the one from work...and they block any kind of server connection so i can t use open RPG... anyways about your last paragraph... I personnaly like to make a slight difference between helping each other and teamwork... but that s just me. ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 95] Author : Rustmonster Date : 05-02-08 04:46 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I'm about done here. I feel as though I am not being listened to, and it seems that none of you are even making an effort to understand. I have been given no reasons for anything, just a lot of hatred. I tried to be civil, I tried to get my point across, but I just don't feel like anyone cares. I will respond to two more posts, and then I'm likely to never come here again. The alleged 3rd edition, and then the alleged 3.5. The first was awful, and the second somehow managed to be even worse. Have you played these editions? From your posts, I assume you have, but since you are not actually giving any reason you found the game worse, I'm not sure. Why were they worse, in you opinion? I find it to be a learning curve. That... doesn't seem to be the meaning of "learning curve". I understand what you are getting at, "I didn't like the other one, so why even bother?". That is not a "learning curve" in my opinion. That is being closed minded. You are ignoring something because of past experience, even when the products are so different. I also refuse to even look at the new model Yugo and Trabant, any new novel from Stephen King, any service pistol from Smith and Wesson, etc. If your track record is unmitigated disaster, what else do you expect? If I'm going to spend time (and possibly money) on products from a company that has NEVER produced anything but garbage, shouldn't I at least do so AFTER I've exhausted examining game systems from companies which are at least at neutral? I've never picked up a game system from AEG, for example, and it seems reasonable to at least examine that before going back to a company that has spent the better part of a decade with an uninterrupted stream of substandard rubbish. Can you name some of this "substandard garbage"? And give a reason for why you fouind it so? Second had its good points and its bad points, but there was nothing alleged about it being D&D. Why are you allowed to decide what is and is not D&D? I have read the rules (and will soon play) OD&D (or basic, or however you may refer to it). Why can't I just say that 2E is not D&D, and that only OD&D is? It came first, and 2E seems much different than it, so how can 2E be D&D? Yet again, look at my Final Fantasy analagy from a few posts ago. You are not the one who can decide what is X and what is "alleged X". You are more than welcome to choose whichever edition is you favourite D&D edition, but stop acting as if it was more "D&D" or more right to play pretend as an elf in 2E than it is to play pretend to be an elf in 3E or 4E. In eight years, I have seen no evidence they are trying to make a quality game. Does a company with playtesters let Divine Metamagic out the door? What about Monte Cook's comments that some feats were deliberately designed to suck? They've always failed in the past. I suppose even a stopped clock is right twice a day and even a blind squirrel gathers some nuts, but past performance is the best predictor of future performance, and that argues strongly for them failing again. Even a beautiful rose has it's thrones. Did 2E have no flaws? Yes, there were many bad things from 3E, especially during Splat Book Time near the end of it's run. Designers make mistakes. I'm sure 2E also had stuff like this. I'm sorry if you never played any edition of genuine Dungeons and Dragons, and so don't understand that 3e and 4e are nothing of the kind. I've gone through Keep on the Borderlands under three different rulesets with piddling modifications, and D20 Fantasy (mislabeled D&D 3.0) was a completely different game which won't allow you to do that. If you choose to view it as a good game, that's your right. All I know is that if it's not compatible with a quarter century of D&D stuff, then it must not be D&D. I find this offensive, if you can believe it. The way you are posting, especially with the "I'm sorry you never played any edition of genuine D&D", it sounds as if you are trying to condisend me, talking as if I'm just a poor, stupid child, unaware of the "good old days" when D&D was "genuine". I am 100% sure that even if I played 2E, even if I liked it more than 3E or 4E, I would not be running around using elitist phrases like this. They would still be D&D. And what does "compatibility" have to do with a franchise? Is GURPS 1E "compatible" with GURPS 4E? Is Old WoD "compatible" with New WoD? You understand that if they just kept everything "compatible" for these countless years, the game would stagnat, and it would die. All it would be is a pile of splats, each more broken then the last. This is pretty much what prompted the change from 3E to 4E. It's bloated. There are many things the designers want to but can't do with the old system. So they try something new. D&D is an increadibly slow growing RPG francise. Other RPGS, like GURPS, are already in their fourth edition, and they havn't been around for nearly as long as D&D has. Why should there not be change? I tell you openly, Wizbro lying about their games being genuine Dungeons and Dragons is one of the things which annoys me most. I absolutely hate having to sort through their mislabeled games while looking for things to do with actual D&D. If they'll stop lying about their products being D&D, I'll stop calling them on it. In the meantime, I'd at least like to make clear I have no problems with players who think of them as D&D either for convenience or ignorance. Ignorance? Convineince? Now, I am really offended. I could just as easily be name calling right along with you, but I won't. I have restraint. You are belittling a huge group of people, a huge group of what might be refered to as YOUR people. RPG gamers. I have never understood people who insult people who have exactly the same hobby, just because they arn't doing it "right". You have given me no reasons as to why 3E or 4E are not D&D. I have tried to talk about this with examples, I would ask the same of you. Give me examples as to what D&D "is", show me how the old editions gave you this, and why 3E and 4E don't have those qualities. Then maybe we can actually get somewhere. I've never called anybody a "threetard" or a "fouron." If you want to play Wizbro's mislabeled games, I'm not interested in stopping you. Have fun with whatever floats your boat. Lots of people besides you have never played D&D and are quite happy with C&C, T&T, VtM, WtA, Traveller, T2K, etc. If you don't want to play D&D and are happier with some other system, I'm okay with that. Firstly, by how you called me and everyone who plays 3E "ignorant", I highly doubt you did not fling some mud. Secondly, I do playing D&D. It is called D&D 3E. Thirdly, I am going to try out a system called "Labriynth Lords", which is a retro-clone of OD&D. I like how it looks so easy to play and set up (3E is no picnic to set up) and getting that feel of ye days of old, but I also have problems with the seemingly random demi-human level caps, the apparent imbalance in classes (I am aware that 3E had these too, mainly along the mundane-magic line, which seems to be a recurring problem for D&D), how some of the rules (or things that should have rules) are poorly defined, and how easy it seems try die because of every random thing. I will still try it despite perceived flaws, cause, hey, can't be perfect. Again, Wizbro's track record is so consistently awful that there's simply no reason to even worry about what this week's disaster is. It's kind of like the Detroit Lions' draft that way. Again, it seems that this "track record" of awful products is only shared by some people, not all. And again, please give examples. Uh, still sounds like a "reset" button thats simply split up throughout the day. In the same way that a Clerics healing spells were like a reset button split over the whole day. It's just now healing isn't lorded over by one class. How exactly do they explain these surges? If I get my leg split by an axe how do I explain it healing by the end of the day? That cannot be explained by natural healing and if it's magic, then how is it a fighter can cast it. He is not affiliated with a diety as is a cleric nor does he study magic as a mage. I think this is one of the biggest things that smacks of a video game. This is one of the things you have to understand about the rules. It has been said that very little of HP damage should be concidered any large hits, and that the "spliting left leg" stuff is saved for very low HP. Most HP loss is battle fatigue, loss of concentration, low morale, etc, basicly anything that gets you closer to that one single hit that concets square and kills you. It's abstract. Is it really realistic if every time you lose HP you lose some amount of skin? Now, with that aside, you can see that surges are NOT MAGIC. They represent resting, getting bursts of adrenaline, just sucking it up, refocusing, etc. It's abstract. Not magic. As a final note, I would advise people here to check out the 4E boards. There are many 2E players there who love teh concept of the new edition, and don't think that 4E (or even 3E!) were "not D&D. Try talking to them. Go to the Concerns and critisim section, there are about a million threads on why 4E is or is not D&D. Some people may share your veiws there. Whatever you choose to do, good luck. Rustmonster -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 96] Author : Rustmonster Date : 05-02-08 05:00 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players oH, just wanted to make a few more comments. That cannot be explained by natural healing and if it's magic, then how is it a fighter can cast it. As I stated, it is not magic, so it is not "cast". He is not affiliated with a diety as is a cleric nor does he study magic as a mage. Clerics in 3E and 4E don't need a deity, they can instead choose an ideal. Also, now a Fighter (or any class) basiclly can take Wizard training (sort of) with feats. They gain one spell they can use one time per encounter, but it's not really that impressive, especially compared to a Wizard. Another thing I wanted to mention is that there is no longer a Vancian style casting system. As well, every class now gets two groups of abilities, one group for Combat, one group for Utility. Wizards no longer have to decide to take a combat based spell over a utility based one. just wanted to throw that out there to clear up that it's not like the Fighter takes a feat and gains spell levels. I think this is one of the biggest things that smacks of a video game. How so? In videogame RPGs, if you lose health, you can't gain it back without items, magic, or rest. You know, like every edition of D&D ever. I really dislike when people use "videogame" as a derogitory term, as I am a videogamer as well as a P&PRPG player. I don't know if you play videogames, but I can tell you, 4E does not seem like it will play like a videogame. Mainly because it's on paper. :P And I just want to point out, Final Fantasy 1 was HEAVILY inspired by old editions of D&D. Vancian casting, Fighter/Thief/Cleric/Mage classes, monsters stolen straight from D&D, etc. Neat little game, has a very nostalgic feel to it. But it was still a totally different feel from sitting around a table with friends rolling dice. Videogames and P&P rpg games have different feels, but both are for the same purpose: fun. I think they can live in harmony peacefully, as I do both. No one is "worse" than the other, just different. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 97] Author : RedWizard Date : 05-02-08 05:07 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players In the same way that a Clerics healing spells were like a reset button split over the whole day. It's just now healing isn't lorded over by one class. Clerical spells were explained. They were powers granted by the gods to a specific group of priests. Again I ask, where is the in-game explanation for "healing Surges" This is one of the things you have to understand about the rules. It has been said that very little of HP damage should be concidered any large hits, and that the "spliting left leg" stuff is saved for very low HP. Most HP loss is battle fatigue, loss of concentration, low morale, etc, basicly anything that gets you closer to that one single hit that concets square and kills you. It's abstract. Is it really realistic if every time you lose HP you lose some amount of skin? Actually, yes. I think to a large degree it is. Even if it be just a bruise. Now, with that aside, you can see that surges are NOT MAGIC. They represent resting, getting bursts of adrenaline, just sucking it up, refocusing, etc. It's abstract. Not magic. Answer this then, If I lose 40 hitpoints at 1st level from a single blow can I assume I lost a good deal of skin? If so, is it possible that by the end of the day I will recover all those hitpoints via a "surge"? If I can and we agree that 40-50 hit points is a signifigant blow at 1st level then how can I explain that in-game? As a final note, I would advise people here to check out the 4E boards. There are many 2E players there who love teh concept of the new edition, and don't think that 4E (or even 3E!) were "not D&D. Try talking to them. Go to the Concerns and critisim section, there are about a million threads on why 4E is or is not D&D. Some people may share your veiws there. Whatever you choose to do, good luck. Rustmonster This assumes none of us have done any of our own research, lurked on those threads or already posted there. Perhaps we have, perhaps we know as much about 4th edition as you do and we just dont like it. There is no need to be offended, it's not like you wrote 4th edition. Accept that perhaps we post here on these threads because these threads deal with the game we like to play. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 98] Author : RedWizard Date : 05-02-08 05:11 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players How so? In videogame RPGs, if you lose health, you can't gain it back without items, magic, or rest. You know, like every edition of D&D ever. I really dislike when people use "videogame" as a derogitory term, as I am a videogamer as well as a P&PRPG player. I don't know if you play videogames, but I can tell you, 4E does not seem like it will play like a videogame. Mainly because it's on paper. :P Actually I do play videogames, I play Dungeons and Dragons Online every sunday night and yes, I can heal just by hanging out in the pub. Why, I have no idea, but evidently roast beef is a wonder cure for being smashed by a elemental. I have fun on the game, however, I would like to leave that aspect in "that" game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 99] Author : Rustmonster Date : 05-02-08 05:28 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Actually I do play videogames, I play Dungeons and Dragons Online every sunday night and yes, I can heal just by hanging out in the pub. Why, I have no idea, but evidently roast beef is a wonder cure for being smashed by a elemental. I have fun on the game, however, I would like to leave that aspect in "that" game. Well, then you'll be glad to know that it is left in that game. There is no "eat a food, get a heal" system. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 100] Author : Rustmonster Date : 05-02-08 05:28 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players This assumes none of us have done any of our own research, lurked on those threads or already posted there. Perhaps we have, perhaps we know as much about 4th edition as you do and we just dont like it. There is no need to be offended, it's not like you wrote 4th edition. Accept that perhaps we post here on these threads because these threads deal with the game we like to play. Have you lurked on those threads? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 101] Author : RedWizard Date : 05-02-08 05:51 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Have you lurked on those threads? As a matter of fact I have. Hence I learned of these Healing Surges. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 102] Author : RedWizard Date : 05-02-08 06:04 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Well, then you'll be glad to know that it is left in that game. There is no "eat a food, get a heal" system. That would at least allude to a reason I was healing though. In 4th edition, I just "reset" at the end of the day. In your earlier post you ask us to tell you why we do not think we will like 4th edition. As for my own reasons, you named many yourself. There is no vancian spell system, fighters now cast spells, paladins no longer exist and healing just seems to "happen" with absolutely no explanation. Finally, if I have understood this correctly, noone really needs to rely on any other member of the party to create party balance, because everyone can more or less do the same stuff. This was done in the name of ironically enough, party balance. It's all subjective of course, these may be the very reasons you love 4th Edition. In the end though, you sound somewhat surprised that noone here sees the obvious superiority of 4th Edition. You are offended that many of us refuse to refer to the new edition as being D&D. Take a moment to look at the title of the boards section you are in. The Out of Print section. This means we came here to escape the current editions when we speak of D&D. I.e. we like the older editions better. If you like the newer editions, bully for you but dont be offended when you come here only to discover that many of us would prefer to ignore WotC's offerings in favor of what TSR and Gary Gygax gave us. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 103] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 05-02-08 07:30 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Have you played these editions? From your posts, I assume you have, but since you are not actually giving any reason you found the game worse, I'm not sure. Why were they worse, in you opinion? Reasons are easy. Let's start with the fact that character power is a function of how many books the player has bought. The game has absolutely no balance between classes just in core, and it gets much, much worse once the splatbooks start showing up. The game was actually DESIGNED to have feats which suck. Got a few gigabytes, this could go on for a while... That... doesn't seem to be the meaning of "learning curve". I understand what you are getting at, "I didn't like the other one, so why even bother?". That is not a "learning curve" in my opinion. That is being closed minded. You are ignoring something because of past experience, even when the products are so different. Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I'll be sane, thank you. Can you name some of this "substandard garbage"? And give a reason for why you fouind it so? Complete Divine, for one. Game-breaking stupidity at its finest. You've heard the term "CoDzilla" and you know why it's wrong. It's not alone. Why are you allowed to decide what is and is not D&D? I have read the rules (and will soon play) OD&D (or basic, or however you may refer to it). Why can't I just say that 2E is not D&D, and that only OD&D is? It came first, and 2E seems much different than it, so how can 2E be D&D? Play KotB under BECMI, 1e, 2e, then try it under D20 Fantasy. You'll answer your own question. Yet again, look at my Final Fantasy analagy from a few posts ago. You are not the one who can decide what is X and what is "alleged X". You are more than welcome to choose whichever edition is you favourite D&D edition, but stop acting as if it was more "D&D" or more right to play pretend as an elf in 2E than it is to play pretend to be an elf in 3E or 4E. One of the things I have to point out here is that I've played T&T, Rolemaster, Runequest, D6 Fantasy, etc. The alleged 3e is no more D&D than any of them. Fantasy roleplaying game /= D&D. Of course, I never played Final Fantasy. Even a beautiful rose has it's thrones. Did 2E have no flaws? Yes, there were many bad things from 3E, especially during Splat Book Time near the end of it's run. Designers make mistakes. I'm sure 2E also had stuff like this. Exactly. Strangely, most of the worst of 2e's flaws made their way into the alleged 3e. Large chunks of Players' Option stuff for example. I find this offensive, if you can believe it. The way you are posting, especially with the "I'm sorry you never played any edition of genuine D&D", it sounds as if you are trying to condisend me, talking as if I'm just a poor, stupid child, unaware of the "good old days" when D&D was "genuine". I am 100% sure that even if I played 2E, even if I liked it more than 3E or 4E, I would not be running around using elitist phrases like this. They would still be D&D. Again, like D20 Fantasy all you want. I encourage you to play whatever system you enjoy. You've come out and said the only edition you ever played is D20 Fantasy, and I'm sorry if there's no way to say that I've played OD&D, Holmes, Mentzer, 1e, 2e, 3e, and 3.5e without making it sound like I've played more editions. Never mind a few dozen other games. When I say I have zero interest in Wizbro, that's an informed opinion of somebody who's been gaming for 30 years, and gave Wizbro two tries which are not at all encouraging. Three tries if you count D20 Modern. And what does "compatibility" have to do with a franchise? Is GURPS 1E "compatible" with GURPS 4E? Is Old WoD "compatible" with New WoD? You understand that if they just kept everything "compatible" for these countless years, the game would stagnat, and it would die. All it would be is a pile of splats, each more broken then the last. This is pretty much what prompted the change from 3E to 4E. It's bloated. There are many things the designers want to but can't do with the old system. So they try something new. D&D is an increadibly slow growing RPG francise. Other RPGS, like GURPS, are already in their fourth edition, and they havn't been around for nearly as long as D&D has. Why should there not be change? There are ways to do it right. One of the things 2e did right was try to clean up the sprawled, tangled, incoherent, disorganized mess that 1e had degenerated into. There were some political correctness problems, and the MC binder wasn't the best idea, but there's a huge difference between that and completely scrapping two whole systems as WotC did. BECMI is, I believe, the longest-lived edition by a huge margin. Oh, and if you're going to count editions of D&D, don't use Wizbro's math. Their count is very, very low. Ignorance? Convineince? Now, I am really offended. I could just as easily be name calling right along with you, but I won't. I have restraint. You are belittling a huge group of people, a huge group of what might be refered to as YOUR people. RPG gamers. I have never understood people who insult people who have exactly the same hobby, just because they arn't doing it "right". You have given me no reasons as to why 3E or 4E are not D&D. I have tried to talk about this with examples, I would ask the same of you. Give me examples as to what D&D "is", show me how the old editions gave you this, and why 3E and 4E don't have those qualities. Then maybe we can actually get somewhere. I know quite a few people who do call Wizbro's games "D&D" just because it's easiest to refer to them as the books proclaim themselves. If that's not convenience, I don't know what is. You only have to look in the mirror to find somebody who's never played D&D and so thinks D20 Fantasy is D&D. There's a difference between ignorance and stupidity, I'll only criticize somebody for one of them, and it's unfortunate we're stumbling over it. Firstly, by how you called me and everyone who plays 3E "ignorant", I highly doubt you did not fling some mud. Well, if you've never played actual D&D, "ignorant" is technically correct. It remains different than stupid. Secondly, I do playing D&D. It is called D&D 3E. Pick one. Thirdly, I am going to try out a system called "Labriynth Lords", which is a retro-clone of OD&D. I like how it looks so easy to play and set up (3E is no picnic to set up) and getting that feel of ye days of old, but I also have problems with the seemingly random demi-human level caps, the apparent imbalance in classes (I am aware that 3E had these too, mainly along the mundane-magic line, which seems to be a recurring problem for D&D), how some of the rules (or things that should have rules) are poorly defined, and how easy it seems try die because of every random thing. I will still try it despite perceived flaws, cause, hey, can't be perfect. This is exactly why I don't really see "ignorant" as an insult in this context. Stupidity would be a problem, but ignorance can be fixed, and you're doing so. The imbalance in classes isn't nearly so big as you imagine, as the XP charts will fix that, and at least the spellcasters won't outfight the fighters. As for the demi-human level caps, they're pretty transparently there to make it a human-centered campaign. Opinions on them divide over whether or not that's a good thing. Again, it seems that this "track record" of awful products is only shared by some people, not all. And again, please give examples. Already done. Feel free to add the Book of Exalted Deeds for the brokenness that is the VoP Druid. Heck, feel free to add any 3.x book with the word "cleric" "wizard" or "druid" anywhere in the text. As a final note, I would advise people here to check out the 4E boards. There are many 2E players there who love teh concept of the new edition, and don't think that 4E (or even 3E!) were "not D&D. Try talking to them. Go to the Concerns and critisim section, there are about a million threads on why 4E is or is not D&D. Some people may share your veiws there. Again, I point out that Wizbro has done absolutely nothing to earn a third chance. If they want my time or my money, all they have to do is publish the superior AD&D/D&D stuff they've kept locked away for a decade. Whatever you choose to do, good luck. Rustmonster And to you. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 104] Author : Etarnon Date : 05-02-08 09:12 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players That... doesn't seem to be the meaning of "learning curve". I understand what you are getting at, "I didn't like the other one, so why even bother?". That is not a "learning curve" in my opinion. That is being closed minded. You are ignoring something because of past experience, even when the products are so different. Maybe learn that some of us have read the preview books, don't want to move to minis based. Dislike surges like power ups, and want class specific roles, and for Fighters to be fighters, and Clerics to be Clerics. Thats all I've said to you, good bad or indifferent. You want people to be "open-minded to 4e" I want people to be open-minded to the idea that "I don't want to go to 4E, don't push me, because I know where they are going from their Pre 4e books, and I don't like any of it." Open-minded works both ways. I'll stay in my corner, no need to fight. I'm perfectly happy here, with 2e Birthright (having played 3.5, and going back), and having gamed since Basic set, across a dozen game companies' products. Feel free to buy, and play 4e. I'm not. I'm not also telling you, you need to give all this up and play 2e. It's not for you. Nor is 4e for me. That's the deal. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 105] Author : Kailwyn Date : 05-03-08 12:34 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I began playing AD&D in 1980. I have continued to play and write games for my group ever since. We as a whole have looked at and reviewed the more recent editions. In some instances have even used these rules. People seem to find the first and second editions to be to loosely organized for some people. Having started playing at such a young age and at the conception of the game, if you look at the beggining of the AD&D dungeon masters guide it is stated that these rules are a guidline for the rpg if particular rules slowed play to the detrement of the game we wouldn't use them. You may say that we bent the rules for our own enjoyment and you would be right. We did. Though the fourth edition is rather new and I haven't had time to use much of the material. I suspect as with all subsuquent editions I'm sure I will use some of the material for my games. Just as in the past I enjoyed the revamping of psionics into an idividual class, the introduction of spelljamming and the myraid ecosystems of the space between the stars added a new aspect to the game it has always been a choose what works for your game and get to rolling. People will often sacrifice the fun of the game for a particular rule. Long ago I quit using the standard equation for experience points for my own system which is based upon a brag system. Where the players turn in a sheet upon which they write what their charaters have done i.e. "my thief picked a lock", I've found this system to be very rewarding not only for my personal record of the games played but characters gain experience for roleplay and not just a monster kill and gold tally sheet. I have 28 years of these sheets from the first games we played to the present someday I'll get organized enough to publish the material. As for my library I have three full sets of first edition books and second edition AD&D books along with a huge expanse of suplementary material. I use pieces of just about all of it at one time or another. "TIME TELLS ALL" Wilfred Lebeouf -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 106] Author : gamileo Date : 05-04-08 12:34 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I personally disagree with both rust monster and handsome stranger. Let me start first with rust monster. Hey, you come onto a board where its dedicated to older editions and you expect people to want to play a new edition? Obviously they are playing 2E for a reason, and many of those reasons are they didn't like 3E and feel they won't like 4E. Leave them alone and they will leave you alone. Besides, they get only one board, you get like 40 or more. Also you did a crappy job with explaining roles in 4E. The idea behind roles is you have a defender (fighter or paladin (see its in 4E right away)), striker (rogue , ranger, or warlock), leader (cleric or warlord), and controller (wizard). The idea behind this is to promote teamwork. The defender would quickly get overrun and killed without the controller who blows up many of the opponents. The controller would get quickly killed (cuz he's crunchy) by opponents without a defender, or a leader to help him out. They put clerics as leaders to promote the helpful spell casting idea further. I remember from the few times I played a cleric in 2E I had to take all healing spells just to make it through the day, I got quickly bored with this as I wanted to use my other spells, but couldn't because without my healing the others would die as we ran into encounters. This removal of sole healing (or at least allowing the cleric to help in healing, not be the sole reason for it) allows the cleric to be more flexible and helpful in other situations. Basically, from what I have read, you really need to have at least one of each role in your group to function well against encounters. The healing is just IMO like healing in any other edition, hit points are brought back. What do hit points represent? Its up to you to decide. I feel its small things with small hits, large things with big hits. But nothing until 0 is something that drops you (so from 10 to -2 is a sword through the gut, but 22 to 10 is just a large gash on the shoulder or something). The healing surges then represent whatever it is that helps you out, adrenaline rush, a quick herbal ointment, whatever you want to create to explain that. That's the great part of D&D is to use your imagination. So basically Rust Monster, I feel you explained a few things for 4E incorrectly, but your basic overall premise of coming to a 2E board that talks about why you didn't switch to 3E and therefore 4E and not expecting negative criticism about 4E and 3E, seems a bit odd. Just my opinion though. Handsome Stranger: Personally I have no problem with your elitist thoughts on what makes D&D. However to say that there is anything different between TSR and WoTC is kinda ridiculous. TSR put out supplements that were complete crap too. Lots of them. In fact bad business decisions are what drove TSR to be bought out in the first place. You already pointed out the Player's Option (2.5E) which you didn't like, which was put out by TSR. Basically, a company is a company, and WoTC could have kept putting out product for 2E but as happened with 3E (due mainly to the OGL and SRD) there was an oversaturation of the market with new product whose quality is not up to snuff. Sometimes you need to clean the table before you can set new plates. Again however, you tried 3E (or at least read the books) and feel it isn't worth your while to even look at 4E, which is fine by me. I will continue playing "my" version of D&D which ever edition it might be. Because to say it isn't "D&D" is just your opinion, and overall just an argument of semantics. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 107] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 05-04-08 09:17 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players All he is saaaay-ing Is give 4th a chance... But from what I see of it, I won't bother. Sowwy. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 108] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 05-04-08 12:16 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Obviously they are playing 2E for a reason, and many of those reasons are they didn't like 3E and feel they won't like 4E. Who's playing 2e? Whippersnapper... :P TSR put out supplements that were complete crap too. Lots of them. In fact bad business decisions are what drove TSR to be bought out in the first place. You already pointed out the Player's Option (2.5E) which you didn't like, which was put out by TSR. The first TSR supplement I can recall as being crap was UA. Granted, the information on 16,347 polearms was just as useful in everyday life as it was at the gaming table, but those classes were best forgotten. I'll cheerfully admit most of the 2e "Complete Books" were awful, and they weren't alone. The difference, of course, is that the core game was much, much more resilient. Also, consider all those setting books. AD&D 2e had billions of them, and they may have diluted the fan base, but they managed to print all of those without including game-breaking proficiencies and combinations of proficiencies, which is more than Wizbro can say about feats in their setting books just for the Forgotten Realms. There are a lot of things D&D has over D20 Fantasy, and even when both games start to fail D&D does better. Again, I've got no problem with wiping the slate clean. There actually are things I like about second. The initiative system doesn't involve a SIXTEEN PAGE CHEAT SHEET, for example. That was one of the best examples of wiping the slate clean and improving the game. Heck, I'll even admit that the saving throw system in D20 Fantasy is a good idea. If it weren't so open to abuse with all those stat-modifying spells, it might even hold up in actual play. What I have a problem with is abandoning the slate altogether. The more I look at it, the more BECMI's longevity looks like a result of not being excessively screwed with. Not much of a business model, I admit. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 109] Author : Rosisha Date : 05-04-08 10:19 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I actually LIKE THAC0 and the saving throw tables from 2nd Ed AD&D! It is more fun for me to have complexity in that part of the mechanical system! But what do I like more about AD&D 2nd Ed? DM: The orc pushes towards you, and pulls back his arm for a mighty swing. You are now against the door. Player: I am going to duck at the last possible second. Is there a chance his sword gets stuck in the wood long enough for me to stab him with my dagger? DM: *thinks: hmmm* Make a dexterity check. Player: *Roles dice* Sweet! 15! DM: *Roles some dice* Okay. You duck as the sword comes in, and it clangs against the door behind you, bouncing off. The orc is off balance, and you can make an attack role with a +1 bonus. No looking up rules. Just calling it on the spot. This I loved. No damn rules lawyers being trained on page one of the players handbook. However, and I know I will be beaten up for this, but I like the Player's Option: Combat & Tactics (for the weapon selection) and Spells & Magic. And I love the Complete book series too. I'm a munchkin, please don't kill me! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 110] Author : sblaxman Date : 05-05-08 12:37 AM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I liked some of the Complete books. Most of them were either a) interesting fluff devoid of much mechanics or b) some minor mechanics that didn't unballance things. Granted I didn't read them ALL, but the ones I had were not bad. The kits in there were mosly minor (trade ability A for ability B). Compared to even the PHB in 3.x, I wouldn't dare call them munchkiny. Like I said though, I'm not intimatly familar with them all. Paladins Handbook, Rangers, Druids, Thieves and Clerics come to mind. Thieves and Clerics I thought had some interesting role play stuff, not much mechanics at all. The Paly's was probably my favorite 2e book (I still recomend 3.x players to read it it even if just for ideas), rangers wasn't that shabby either. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 111] Author : Rosisha Date : 05-05-08 02:24 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players Ranger was my favorite. I wanted to play a ranger in my first game, but I didn't get the right stats for it. But my DM let me modify one of the kits in the Complete Ranger for a fighter, and I took some of the gear from that book and BAM I had a ranger! It was a lot of fun, especially when my character (a fighter) built a fortress and attracted a body of troops as a chartered ranger force to protect a giant swath of woodland and small villages. Not a single ranger, but we had the King's support! Rosisha -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 112] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 05-05-08 06:55 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players FWIW, some of the complete books were good. I still believe the Fighter's was excellent, and the Thief's was quite good, even if the Swashbuckler was vulnerable to munchkins. The Paladin's and Ranger's had lots of good fluff, although some of the Ranger kits in particular struck me as, well, odd. The Wizard also had some good fluff, but the crunch didn't awe me. For $18.00, I'd like to see some of each and I don't think that's unreasonable. I also can't help but feel they went to the well too often. Most of the races books I thought quite weak, and apparently TSR did to some extent, too, or they wouldn't have put gnomes and halflings together. If I can lump them in, the "of the Realms" books didn't have much meat on them, to my mind. Even in the initial run, the Priest in particular was not very impressive. I never really "got" barbarians, ninjas, or bards, so I'm not really the guy to dump on those. And I will admit that the blue books were generally interesting reading. The green historical books are worth their weight in gold. As always, YMMV. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 113] Author : sblaxman Date : 05-05-08 10:09 PM Thread Title : Re: For 2nd ed players I think I have a an old copy of the fighters handbook, might have to dig it up, I really just don't remember it. I remember reading the 'races' books, but not getting too into them, can't say much else. Speaking of "odd" kits... the one that sticks out in my memory is the "greenwood" ranger. Most kits were just sub-classes... this one was totally out there... you turn into a tree, grow an extra limb.. doesn't eat or drink, but photosynthesises, drinks by dipping his feet in water. It definatly wasn't a munchkin class (had some big downsides too), but was definatly.... odd (never had a player pick that, though I admit it would be interesting to RP) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:22 AM.