Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What did you like/hate about AD&D 2nd Edition
Galadourn
Member RarePosts: 1,813
I've been reminiscing lately of my first RPG days and came across this page on the internet:
http://www.story-games.com/forums/discussion/18860/what-was-good-about-ad-d-2nd-edition
I thought it was an interesting read, so decided to bring the discussion to these fora. What did you like, what did you hate about AD&D 2nd Edition?
I'll start myself.
I liked the sense of incompleteness and limited choices in the character classes. I know it sounds crazy, but it's a bit like what WoW felt in the early days with equipment/talent min/maxing: Trying to work around the rules with kits/special rules/equipment in order to develop your character but ultimately knowing that you would never be the best compared to other classes in certain situations. Trying to prove that certain "hopeless builds" were actually competitive and could stand their ground (*ahem* sounds familiar?).
I liked the amazing settings created for the game, namely Dragonlance, Dark Sun and Ravenloft (was never much of a fan of Forgotten Realms because it felt like a mix-and-match of various settings, but I did love the FR Adventures module with the detailed descriptions for each city in the Sword Coast).
I stood in awe before the piles of textbooks with rules for all types of situations. Little did I know back then that those rules had never been put to test in a comprehensive manner and were oftimes contradicting themselves; the sheer amount of data gave me the impression that this was a perfectly thought-out game with answers for everything.
Last but not least: the amazing artwork, where big part of the credit goes for luring me to RPGs in general. The wonderful works by Larry Elmore, Jeff Easley, and so many others presented me with images of fantasy worlds I had never thought of before.
Now with the bad:
I hated the imbalance in low level gameplay; the hit points were ridiculous, you were one-shot all the time. If you were a caster, good luck using the ONE spell available at level 1 and then your knife forever after. It's like the game was made for level 9+; at that level, you felt decent - mind you, the world was still a threat, but you could afford the luxury of choosing your engagements.
The rules were all over the place. Impossible to keep track of every option. And at times, they just didn't make sense: why simply do double damage with +4 to hit against an immobilized target and not kill him instantly? Why can't my cleric wield a sword, but is perfectly proficient with a flail ffs (which is about twice as hard in reality to master)?
Rising from level 1 to level 9 presented the player with interesting options almost at every level-up. This can't be said for levels 9-20 (or 30). With the exception of druids, all other classes had reached "endgame" at around level 9 and were simply "alternately advancing" from then on. Sure the followers/army gained past level 9 was cool, but the game was designed around character progression, not territoy control and strategic gameplay.
These are some of my thoughts for 2e AD&D which, in my eyes, was at the time the most comprehensive RPG on the market.
http://www.story-games.com/forums/discussion/18860/what-was-good-about-ad-d-2nd-edition
I thought it was an interesting read, so decided to bring the discussion to these fora. What did you like, what did you hate about AD&D 2nd Edition?
I'll start myself.
I liked the sense of incompleteness and limited choices in the character classes. I know it sounds crazy, but it's a bit like what WoW felt in the early days with equipment/talent min/maxing: Trying to work around the rules with kits/special rules/equipment in order to develop your character but ultimately knowing that you would never be the best compared to other classes in certain situations. Trying to prove that certain "hopeless builds" were actually competitive and could stand their ground (*ahem* sounds familiar?).
I liked the amazing settings created for the game, namely Dragonlance, Dark Sun and Ravenloft (was never much of a fan of Forgotten Realms because it felt like a mix-and-match of various settings, but I did love the FR Adventures module with the detailed descriptions for each city in the Sword Coast).
I stood in awe before the piles of textbooks with rules for all types of situations. Little did I know back then that those rules had never been put to test in a comprehensive manner and were oftimes contradicting themselves; the sheer amount of data gave me the impression that this was a perfectly thought-out game with answers for everything.
Last but not least: the amazing artwork, where big part of the credit goes for luring me to RPGs in general. The wonderful works by Larry Elmore, Jeff Easley, and so many others presented me with images of fantasy worlds I had never thought of before.
Now with the bad:
I hated the imbalance in low level gameplay; the hit points were ridiculous, you were one-shot all the time. If you were a caster, good luck using the ONE spell available at level 1 and then your knife forever after. It's like the game was made for level 9+; at that level, you felt decent - mind you, the world was still a threat, but you could afford the luxury of choosing your engagements.
The rules were all over the place. Impossible to keep track of every option. And at times, they just didn't make sense: why simply do double damage with +4 to hit against an immobilized target and not kill him instantly? Why can't my cleric wield a sword, but is perfectly proficient with a flail ffs (which is about twice as hard in reality to master)?
Rising from level 1 to level 9 presented the player with interesting options almost at every level-up. This can't be said for levels 9-20 (or 30). With the exception of druids, all other classes had reached "endgame" at around level 9 and were simply "alternately advancing" from then on. Sure the followers/army gained past level 9 was cool, but the game was designed around character progression, not territoy control and strategic gameplay.
These are some of my thoughts for 2e AD&D which, in my eyes, was at the time the most comprehensive RPG on the market.
![[Deleted User]](http://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a5231d9a9017cdf5f82125ccaf807f8f.svg)
Comments
I hated most of the people that I played with at the table top as they were often huge assholes that were always trying to rules lawyer in their favor and just sucked the fun out of the game.
Give me 2nd Ed D&D , Traveller(Mega) or any old RPG system over many, MANY of todays systems. Systems that WERE systems not what we have today which is lets make a Roll face over keyboard but in a tabletop RPG format.
Back then even today there will always be asshats that are rules lawyers in RPGs.
Weapon Mastery: Stone.
THACO too. It seemed like we were constantly in "roll 19 or above to not die" situations. Whoever designed this crap didn't realize that my D20 had 6 1's on it...
HP rolls. We had a graveyard of new characters because 1D4. I lost a full health character to a flight of slippery stairs once. Good thing making new characters was my favorite part.
A lot of the time we just ignored rules we didn't like or the DM would dig us out when things were unreasonable. In the end, the worst part of 2nd edition was 3rd coming out and materials getting spread across more editions. I lost my career fighter to a monk npc because the DM didn't realize his pre-fab adventure was for 3rd edition. Ironically, I had originally wanted that character to be a monk style fighter and he shot me down because the rules didn't support it.
For me I liked that the classes weren't balanced. I love 5E but it seems like everyone gets to do a bit of everything. I liked the restrictions.
I LOVED Darksun and it worked so well with 2nd edition (starting at level 3 of course). It just loses its rawness with future versions of D&D.
I enjoyed the handbooks as well. . just reading them.
Hated? The rules about XP going to who killed the monster? maybe that was optional but I found that horrible.
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
D&D's "rules" (ditto AD&D) were - on one level - intended to be about:
- creating your own adventures - by a DM at least but sometimes via interaction with players;
- for a DM to check that the party had a reasonable chance of succeeding in the adventure;
- for the DM to adjust the adventure, on the fly, for balance.
Trust between players and DM was needed. An adventure - to be worthy - had to be a challenge not a slaughter but with the prospect of death by stupidity always present.
Which put a lot of onus on the DM.
Needless to say TSR, in time, were happy to provide material. Judge's Guild actually printed some of the early stiff. Sadly, imo, this did lead to people somewhat slavishly turning the guidelines into rules.
As for the material some worked - some good Judge's Guild D&D stuff early days ; some didn't work the early 1st gen TSR stuff imo.
Some of the best stuff could be found in the likes of Dragon, Imagine and - in the early days - White Dwarf. (Disclaimer: I could be biased.) And in magazines like these "issues" were raised some of which were subsequently incorporated into future revisions.
Anyway I had a search and found this archive to issues 1 - 30 of Imagine.
https://archive.org/stream/Imagine14
There is some serious reading - memories in this archive. (Memories for me.)
Have not yet though. Maybe there is hope?
Nah there is really none for me or the human race.
However that era didn't last long,the industry advanced and left Dnd in the dust forever.
Most of the old school is lost to the archives,the Might n Magic series,wizardry series,lands of Lore..Westwood studios,New World computing,Lord British and his Ultima games,all amazing for that era but they just disappeared into the ether.
The only guy that seems to mildly stick around ,a bit hidden behind his employer Zenimax is John Carmack of Doom/Quake/heretic/Hexen fame.He is still rolling out games for Zeni.
Would the legendary Gary Gygax be able to perform something grand in 2019 if he were still alive?
I highly doubt it,he was a man of that era,great for that time but never advanced to become something better.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
E: 86% S: 53% A: 40% K: 20%
What I find interesting about all D&D editions is the simplification of combat. Many players rail against this, but unless you want a whole weekend for one combat encounter, simplification is good. The THAC0 and subsequent damage, if lucky enough to hit, was all the pieces put into a single attack roll and then a damage roll. Hit Points did not make a player bigger, huger, or harder, they represented everything the character learned put into a survival pool. Between AC, Hit Points, and THAC0, you had dodges, armor deflection/absorption, blocks, ripostes, and general combat skill and knowledge.
Depending on your DM, rules were observed or not. My group ignored weapon vs armor type boons/banes. If you've played or watched others play Pathfinder (3.5 edition of D&D), you will see more complicated combat, with die adjustments galore.
D&D, in all it's forms/editions is a superb vehicle for "community storytelling" with bits of combat and action thrown in
PS: I also never played a Wizard and only one Cleric due to their one spell at first level.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I had a great Dungeon Master friend (Vince) who introduced me to these games and he adapted the rules and changed things on the fly. It was always about the fun and role playing adventure of the games for him. And I learned this from him very early in my life. For example I had a multi- role Paladin back then but he allowed it.
We died often in the death dungeons he designed and it was ok. We would get resurrected by our jovial Cleric. Vince used the rules as a guidebook but didn't act like the Dungeon Master's Guide was the Bible set in stone.
I loved the lore created for their settings but much of it could really have been used for any rulesetting.
Man those "Complete" guides were both an awesome addition to the game a total curse to 2nd Edition.
In context: "Dungeons & Dragons" was not the only game out there.
In the beginning there was table top. And TSR said let there be rules. For WWI, for Romans, WWII, Carthaginians etc. For catapults and gatling gunds. And, in 1971, for giants and fireballs when Chainmail was released. TSR, publishers of Tactical Studies Rules. Then ...
In 1974 Empire of the Petal Throne (EPT) (1974) was published. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_the_Petal_Throne
As was Basic D&D.
Not sure which came first but EPT was far, far more complicated and fleshed out than D&D!
And in 1977 Chivalry & Sorcery (C&S) the, imo, undisputed champion of complex was first published. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry_&_Sorcery
I played C&S, EPT and D&D. The people I gamed with discussed the pros and cons. Some liked complicated. Most of us didn't want to spend all day making sure our sword were sharp enough before attacking a mob .... you get the gist. If we wanted complicated we did tabletop or some of the S&T (Strategy & Tactics) "hex based" games.
D&D was "complicated enough" to facilitate what @AIBQuirky called community storytelling.
As the rules evolved so did the discussions about "complicated". The move to Greyhawk - the first expansion to the original basic D&D - prompted a discussion. The arrival of AD&D (1st edition) prompted a big discussion.
I don't recall any big debate about the move from 1st ed. to 2nd ed. AD&D. Maybe that was me. At the end of the day you went with what the DM decreed - regardless of whether you had a 1st ed. set or 2nd ed set of AD&D. People typically had a mix of 1st or 2nd ed. books as well.
The arrival of Runequest also prompted a discussion. It was a simpler system but it was also well developed. Its ensuing popularity, imo. helped stop D&D becoming more and more complicated simply as a way of trying to sell more manuals. I think it was Runequest that resulted in THAC0 as well - not sure though.)
There were other games as well. Some - complicated - often based on C&S. Some based on Runequest. Plus expansions to AD&D or Runequest. (Some based on Traveller as well, an SF ruleset). Note: Warhammer represented a reversion to tabletop. (Yes there was a boxed game/ruleset.)
Context 2:
The above is just my recollection. What I took part in in groups. What I observed at conventions which brought lots of people together. What I sometimes discussed when running competition dungeons or when giving talks: lots of questions and answers.
There were discrepancies and I wrote articles about some of them - to go with the dungeons, adventures and other stuff I had published. Discussions followed, inputs from Gygax etc. I will stress though this remains simply my take on stuff - a quick overview at that.
Anyway 2nd ed came out and it went on from there of course. I do believe though that Runequest helped keep things simple.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.