My 2e thread

[Cel]

Guys, 2e > 3e and 3.$!

I guess WotC neer heard the "If it aint broken, dont fix it" ;D

I was thinking of a simple game. The good old taven cliche, the simple adventures, tasks and just treasure hunting. No connection to a huge complicated plot, just the simple stuff we used to enjoy... Like the good old days when we all started playing. Am I the only one who misses them?

How can you not miss the thac-0, the strange saves? The "shoot dragon in the eye?"

Any interested?

P.S
No, it wont be overpowered like ED. And no, it wont be based on combat.

[IstarinCale]

Last time we tried it on PnP it wasn't so good.. we played it like 2 times and returned to the 3e
Ofcourse I have to say it is more fun in the forums but.. somethings never change.

[Toptomcat]

You'd have to teach me- I'm a pre-2e gamer- but I'd like to learn.

[Cel]

I should get a PC today or tommorow. I got the books in PDF. And, flash jeck, it failed because you and that dumbass friend of yours couldnt understand the rules.

So, what? Just one person?

[Toptomcat]

A single-person 2e campaign could prove interesting... ;D

[BluSpecs]

2e was pretty cool

As Kman mentioned we've got a used book store out here that has tons of 2e stuff, most of it for under $10.

Let one of us know if you guys want anything.

Unfortunatly I sold off all of my 2e stuff to said book store.

[IstarinCale]

A) don't mess with me alex cause I realy don't have time for that.
B) the only reason for us not understanding the rules (if you sure WE were the problem) is cause you didn't explain them very well.
C) I don't realy remember the rules now so no examples

[K Man]

Cel/Flash...

Play nice.

2ed. rules are infinitely more complex than 3ed., it's no ones fault.

[Toptomcat]

From what I hear, they were also a good deal more abusable.
Tell me about 2e ridiculousness of yore- exploitably vague spell descrips and the like.

[Japic]

I have a friend that still actively plays 2e on a weekly basis who is looking at coming to the boards to potentially start a 2e compaign.

I may have to talk her into it.....

She's so old school that they still own a number of original 1e books and such. I'll have to see if she'll grace us with her presence.

[Toptomcat]

That would be truly awesome.

[Cel]

I'm not really sure what exploits are there... Never heard of any, never used them, and sure wont let others use them in my game. Fun > Rules

One good thing, is that there are no cha skills. You gotta RP that stuff now.

Umm... I still didnt get a PC so I cant tell you about spells and stuff. There are no bards, no sorceres... Not sure about barbarians. You dont get stealth and the like unless youre a rogue, AB works... Errr, differently. The save are different. You got saves against death, spells, rods/wands/staff, partrification, etc. I dont really remember, but I think they're getting lower all the time with levels and the idea is to rolls higher then the save. Initiative works differently. Again, I dont remember. I'll have to read the books before I start anything, but it was something like d10 + attack speed with weapon or something like that. AC starts at 10 and goes down... Uhh, I dont remember. Anyway, its fun.

Oh, and flash jeck. Does, "I piss on the tables in the tavern!" sound familiar to you? I'm sure it rings a bell.

So, just toptom and maybe japics friend.

[Lin]

I played second edition until about May of this year. I've got my 2nd edition players handbook in about 6 different pieces, but its there. Cerebril makes a good point though, Fun > Rules. The nice thing about second edition books in general (exception: those dreadful player's option books) was that they were filled with gameworld information and not just a slab of rules. I'm probably not joining anymore campaigns, but considering I hold the Fun > Rules postulate, it really doesn't matter what edition you play. I still use all the ideas I got from old D&D books, WoD books, unrealted fiction, etc. Edition really doesn't matter to me so long as the emphasis is on the players, story, and world: not the edition.

[IstarinCale]

Sure it rings a bell alex!
I remember Eddie doing it a lot of times
Damn that guy was crazy.

[K Man]

Umm... I still didnt get a PC so I cant tell you about spells and stuff. There are no bards, no sorceres... Not sure about barbarians. You dont get stealth and the like unless youre a rogue, AB works... Errr, differently. The save are different. You got saves against death, spells, rods/wands/staff, partrification, etc. I dont really remember, but I think they're getting lower all the time with levels and the idea is to rolls higher then the save. Initiative works differently. Again, I dont remember. I'll have to read the books before I start anything, but it was something like d10 + attack speed with weapon or something like that. AC starts at 10 and goes down... Uhh, I dont remember. Anyway, its fun.

To Elaborate:

Start with ability scores. Most were normal, ranging on a scale from 1 to 25, however STR was a bit different. Once you hit 18, you added a '/' and a numerical designation after it. I.E. - 18/25 Now, 18/25 granted you a higher modifier than 18/18, with, of course, 18/00 being the highest 18 you could get. Once you hit 19, it went back to normal progression. 19,20, 21 etc.

What scores gave you is infinitely different. For instance, STR just does not grant one +3 Modifier or whatever, your STR represented a few things. Hit Probability (Melee Attack Bonus), Damage Adjustment (You could reduce damage like damage reduction), Weight Allowance, Max Press (Both related to the amount of weight you can comfortably carry and push), Open Doors (Basically a Break DC), Bend Bars, Lift Gates. DEX related to Reaction Adjustment (Initiative), Missile attack adjusment (Ranged Attack Bonus), Def Adjustment. Etc etc...the list goes on.

There were Bards (Read: Crappy Class), Clerics, Fighters, Paladins, Ranger, Wizards, Clerics and Druid. There were no half-orcs and no monks. Barbarians, sorcerors and the like were called 'Kits' and they were much like prestige classes of today, except that you could take them at anytime you met the requirements. (I.E. - The 'Brute' = Barbarian, required and 18+ STR and a 16+ CON or whatever.) There were dozens of kits in hundreds of books...much like today. Complete Fighters, ranger and bards. Complete Thieves handbook etc.

Most classes had ridiculous requirements for stats. Paladin had to have at least a 17 CHA and 13 WIS and 14 STR or whatever. Humans were the only race that could advance to inifinite levels, every other race topped out at different levels in each class. I.E. - A Dwarf fighter could go to 18th level, but only 8th level as a rogue.

Also, each class had ITS OWN XP TABLE!! A Paladin had to get 2,205 to get to level 2 whereas a rogue could achieve level two at 1,500 or something simliar.

Mulit-classing was infinitely different. Say you wanted to play a fighter/mage. You would begin at 1/1 and when the DM doled out XP, you would halve that and if it was enough, you would advance to 2/2, taking the best score/bonus/whatever of each class. (Fighters to hit, thieves skill points etc) If you were 3 classes, you would divide your XP by a third before adding it to your total. Also, certain races could only be certain multiclasses. Humans could be any obviously, but a Dwarf could ONLY be a fighter/thief or fighter/cleric or cleric/thief.

Saves: There were five I believe. They were all labeled 'Save Vs.' I.E. -
Save Vs. Death
Save Vs. Polymorph or Petrification
Save Vs. Rod/Staff or Wand
Save Vs. Spell
Save Vs. Breath Weapon

Cel's right, these were solid numbers that got lower the higher you went up in levels, thusly easy to overcome on a D20 plus your modifier.

There were no feats. There was what was called Weapons Proficiencies and Non-Weapon Proficiences. Weapons Profs. obviously gave you the ability to use said weapon without any minuses, even going so far as to offer specializations to give pluses to hit. Non-Weapon Profs. were things like surival, track, fire-making etc. Basically skills to be used in the game. Fighters at creaton would get like 4 weapon Profs. and 1 Non-Weapon Profs. while wizards would get exactly the opposite.

Thieves however (Yes they were called thieves) has skills that came in percentages. So to open a lock, you would have 87% chance to do so. Same thing with pick pockets, listen and whatever esle. Theives got more percentages as they increased in levels.

Weapons did not have flaming ability or other special abilities, outside of +1-+5 weaponry, there were only lists of unique magic items that could not altered or modified. Also, if a creature could only be hit with a magic weapon and you didn't have one...better start running because there was NO WAY to bypass this. Damage Reduction in 2 ed. was broken...Magic item creation was entirely left to the DM...there were no solid rules.


AC had a range. It began at 10 and went down from there, the most achievable AC being -10. For instance, a character with chain mail dropped to 5 and their DEX could take them another 3-4 points down, possibly to 1. It's much different than today's world since AC is technically inifinite.

Now, with AC there came....thac0 (To Hit Armor Class Zero) Basically, this was a table that broke down what you needed roll over, after modifiers, to hit someone with an Armor Class or Zero. It progressed differently for each class. For instance, a 1st level fighter would have a Thac0 20, and at 2nd level, it would drop to 19. A mage, however, would not drop to 19 until like 4th level or something. Thac0 can go into the negative numbers as well.

So it goes like this. 10th level fighter has Thac0 10 and gets a +4 to hit. His enemy has an AC of -1. Effectively making the fighter's Thac0 11. (10+[-1]) He rolls a 7, adds 4 and beats or equals an 11, he hits. A 20th level figher with Thac0 meets a creature with a -10 AC, he must rolls over a 10 to hit the creature. (0Thac0+[-10]=10)


Also, the only thing I will say I miss about 2 ed., is turning undead. WAAAY easier than 3rd. You had a table, crossed your cleric level with HD of undead trying to turn. Success or failure depending on table. No rolls, no 1st level Cleric turning a vampire lord...jut success or failure. You can find a copy of the table here, at the bottom left of this character sheet.
www.geocities.com/arkangel83/HTML/adndpage1.html

Whew! Well, if that doesn't give you enough info, do some research on google or something.

Lin is right in his math. Fun > Rules. I enjoyed playing it and I sometimes get frustrated in today's games when someone's like - "I take a 5ft. step to avoid and AoO and use my whizbang feet to draw and AoO from him and using this other feat I get an bonus to my AC when he attempts it and I want to make an opposed roll to disarm him and take a free action to shout 'you stinky troll!'..." When, in 2ed., the DM was fully OK and expected to simply say - "No, learn to fight like a man."

[Wizard]

Meh...I think the art in the 2e PHB was by far better than that in the 3e PHB.

HOWEVER.

You guys have your math all wrong, or you're at least drawing the wrong conclusions from it.

Fun=xrules+y

THAT is how it is, IMO. Is it possible to have fun w/o the rules? Obviously. But what is MORE fun is to have the rules down so well that you don't even need to think about them. Feats allow characters to acquire "signature moves" in a way that proficiencies NEVER did. Character-driven creation of magic items allows for some AWESOME rp opportunities, though we haven't seen them yet, 'cause to my knowledge, no one's created anything more powerful than a scroll on these boards. One thing I DID like about 2e was the different xp tables for each class. It seems to give them a bit more flavor, though it probably caused inferiority complexes in everyone who played a fighter. The stat requirements for each class were cool, but really only mattered for the pally. (Sidenote---my first character ever was a paladin, HONESTLY ROLLED!)

Kits were crap. PrC's are richer, more defining, and have cooler names. Unfortunately, mishandling of PrC's by DM's and players alike have sent them in the direction of kits, but I'm trying to avoid repeating that mistake, as a player and DM. (For more on this subject, click here.)

Now, in terms of importance, your math is correct. Fun is infinitely more desirable than balance.

But that's like saying
Money>Working
I think we all agree that we'd rather have money than work for it. But that's tough---money comes from working. There are other ways to acquire it, but they are, for the most part, unreliable or uncommon. In the same way, rules ENABLE fun. Do you realize how frustrated I was that I couldn't create magic items in 2e? Before you rush in on me with Rule 0, remember that that relies on the DM, and
a) our DM was in 7th grade at the time
b) even though we probably could have reverse-engineered the rules to figure out what was balanced, that plan depended on consistency within the rules, which DID NOT EXIST. 3e & 3.5 rely on one simple mechanic---1d20+ability score mod+x*level. Hence, it's pretty easy to figure out what is and what isn't balanced. 2e had no such mechanic---that's why you had tables coming out of your !@#$%^ whenever you tried to do something at all different from hack/slash.

Which brings me to my next point---the REASON so many people who played 2e are for a "roleplaying renaissance" that says, "Screw balance, we'll RP it out." I'm obviously exaggerating the position, but that's the gist. Remember the work analogy? Say you're a garbageman---obviously, you don't get much money compared to how much work you put in. In the same way, with 2e, you had to know a LOT of rules to play a basic game and have fun. A lot of players (including myself) got tired of that. Fortunately, 3e came out two months before we got to that point, and our group switched over.

Remember---good rules ENCOURAGE fun and roleplay, they don't slow it down. In 2e, if you wanted to create a magical item, you had two choices---slow down the game and talk to the DM about what the rules should be, or suffer party imbalance as the wizard becomes McGuyver. Granted, wizards were pretty godly in 2e to begin with, but this only worsened the problem. Contrast that w/3e. You a) pick an item from the DMG or other source, pay your gold and time, and you're done (thereby sacrificing rp for raw speed) or, if you find that soulless and min/maxish, b)make up your own item, and then use a clearly established set of benchmarks (read: other items) to judge how hard your new item ought to be to create.

So just because having fun is more important than knowing the rules DOES NOT MEAN that one shouldn't care about knowing the rules. There are other ways to have fun---heck, that's what the R, C, I & F board is for. But the most consistent way is to obey the rules, within reason. Sure, it's "fun" to decide that the PC's have all spells as extraordinary special abilities with no components at will as a free action. In the short term. Do you really want to go play basketball without dribbling? I suppose a better question is, do you want to go play basketball and agree to never call fouls?

[Toptomcat]

*clappityclapclapclap*

[Wizard]

*pant, pant*

[Cel]

Well, now I know 2e. Read the PHB and DMG in 1 day, and I'm still recovering.

Well, looks like it wont start very soon... Just 1 player?

[Lin]

I'll see your speach, but raise you a personal experience.

I play a great deal of freeform roleplay, which fundamentally has zero rules. I find this to be an excellent form of roleplay, indeed, the best.

The limitation, however, the this require a high level of trust in the other players. Trust that the lack of rules won't end with you getting "screwed" and the like. Trust that the ohter players will respect your role in the story and trust that the players are invested enough in the story to make it fun.

As such, freeform in reality does have a set of rules, but ithey are rules of courtesy and respect rather than action. They can sink deeper than any "rules set" because when being utilized they are completely transparent, like the rules for going to a store.

I also play(ed) a lot of bridge and that is a game with extremely strict and rigid rules. Those rules are always in mind and drive the game. Even though while playing bridge, the table (in our case, box) in aflutter with convesation and Old School Rap is playing in the background, the rules are governing and guiding our actions not unlike every other bridge table across the world. That system makes the game fun and sets the challenge that all the players understand. The whole idea of creating conventions and having them vie for supremacy is fun. It creates the standard for the action, because it puts the players on a level of equality, even if there skill will quickly make them unequal.

Strict sets of rules can create a fun game, but I don't think they create or encourage much of anything besides the level of equality and mutual goal. If you have that pre-existing relationship or you feel confident you can build it, than rules like "Its DC 32 to jump 8 feet" really don't mean much as the group can decide for itself whether or not the character should be able to. A roleplaying game is not like bridge: a random set need not be in play and nothing needs to happen that the collaboration of people involved can't craft.

Also, I'm very dissatisified with how feats and the level system in 3 ed. work, but thats a different story for a different thread.