|
|
Post by tdenmark on May 26, 2021 23:53:08 GMT -6
The Homer's Car of editions. 2e encourages players to make Homer's Car: their own personal version of D&D. Of course every edition involves players making house rules, but not so widely officially with a buffet of optional rules. I think that contributed to the fractioning of the player base, why TSR could no longer make a profit on a product, and why there isn't much in the way of homebrew fan material available on places like DriveThru the way other editions have. This isn't necessarily to bash 2e, there is a lot to like there, but also a lot to not like. It is a real mixed bag.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2021 5:30:42 GMT -6
My biggest issue with options in AD&D 2e is the problem I have with options in 5e - this was the beginning of players thinking that because something was in a published book, it was an option at the table. You don't have that expectation in OD&D. The referee might or might not use spells from "Eldritch Wizardry", but in AD&D as soon as "The Complete Ranger's Handbook" comes out, everyone is showing up at the table with options from that on their character sheet without consulting the GM. People assume this began in 3.5 but it did not. (I suppose it's possible 1e had similar issues, with players whining for things from Unearthed Arcana or Oriental Adventures, but that was firmly before my era.)
|
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jun 10, 2021 21:59:16 GMT -6
I'd say it's probably an issue of AD&D (1e included) that there are more options than some groups will prefer to have at the table, but 2e reinforced that impression.
From personal (2e) experience I can say it has often been an issue that players got new books and wanted to incorporate it all into the campaign. Usually we allowed it, but reserved the right to retroactively change stuff when we felt it didn't work. Back then, it was a rare case that I was DM, but the others didn't want to be pressured into reading all the new books before we could start playing with them. It mostly turned out to be fine, I have to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by barna10 on Aug 26, 2021 14:33:51 GMT -6
None of my groups had an issue with anything besides the Options books (and really only because no one ever wanted to research and read  ) |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 26, 2021 14:39:31 GMT -6
I'm softening my position on 2e. I've been rereading the books and borrowing some things for my home game.
My criticism stands that Homer's Car is the best analogy for 2e. Everyone makes their own version of D&D with it, far beyond what any previous edition, or edition since, has done.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 26, 2021 16:38:31 GMT -6
I'm softening my position on 2e. I've been rereading the books and borrowing some things for my home game. My criticism stands that Homer's Car is the best analogy for 2e. Everyone makes their own version of D&D with it, far beyond what any previous edition, or edition since, has done. I don't get the Simpsons reference - at least the car bit- but I would agree that 2E was and is very much moldable, and that was a feature, not a bug, IMO. A solid effort to reverse some of Gary's "authoritarian" views some might say- which may also be seen as a feature or bug. The sheer amount of products can be overwhelming and gives it an air of being "unfocused"- but the core books are solid. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 26, 2021 16:54:52 GMT -6
I don't get the Simpsons reference - at least the car bit- Homer's car is what you get when someone who is not a professional car designer gets to have their way with a car design. It is chock full of idiosyncratic parts that cater to the whims of one particular individual that no one else would like. So you end up with a Frankenstein of mismatched parts. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 26, 2021 18:30:31 GMT -6
I don't get the Simpsons reference - at least the car bit- Homer's car is what you get when someone who is not a professional car designer gets to have their way with a car design. It is chock full of idiosyncratic parts that cater to the whims of one particular individual that no one else would like. So you end up with a Frankenstein of mismatched parts. Then I would disagree. But thanks for the explanation! |
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Aug 26, 2021 21:27:07 GMT -6
I would disagree with getting a bunch of mismatched parts. It is possible, but no more than other editions.
2E is my favorite edition of AD&D, but I only use the core rules. I know a few folks who like the Players' Option books, but I was never impressed with them. And like the title states, they're OPTIONS. The DM is free to allow or disallow them, along with other supplemental material like the Handbooks, as he pleases.
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 26, 2021 21:58:12 GMT -6
I would disagree with getting a bunch of mismatched parts. It is possible, but no more than other editions. 2E is my favorite edition of AD&D, but I only use the core rules. I know a few folks who like the Players' Option books, but I was never impressed with them. And like the title states, they're OPTIONS. The DM is free to allow or disallow them, along with other supplemental material like the Handbooks, as he pleases. I didn't make this up. The design philosophy was a buffet of optional rules. That was the idea. At the time it seemed like a great decision, especially if you are going to take the safest design choices after the wildly successful 1st edition. The net affect was a fractured player base with different groups adapting different rules. |
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Aug 26, 2021 23:05:33 GMT -6
I can understand allowing some measure of customization. It allowed the players and DMs more options. If it became an issue, it was probably rules bloat that started with the Handbook series and continued with the Option series. The internet also added to this, as fan-made content became more accessible.
I don't blame TSR for putting out all that material. Companies need to put out new products in order to survive. But somewhere along the line, the strange "if it's in print, it must be official" mindset took hold. Even when it didn't, the amount of rules allowed for vastly different types of games among different groups. I don't see that as a problem per se unless you're running a game in a convention. In that case, you'd have to be very specific about what is and isn't allowed.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 27, 2021 6:07:02 GMT -6
The net affect was a fractured player base with different groups adapting different rules. Just like OD&D, which may or may not be a bad thing. If you are TSR/WOTC- I reckon that is a bad thing for the health of the game If you are a gamer- I reckon that is a good thing for the health of the game I don't think 2E's mass amount of options was really the problem in relation to loss of player base. As tkdco2 states- I only see 2Es mass of options an issue for sanctioned tournament play (which thankfully I don't give two you know whatsies about). From my perspective at the time, coming into 2E and gaming after a 7-8 year cold turkey layoff 2E's real problem was that it was still essentially a 1970s game design trying to thrive in a 1990s gaming scene. The proliferation of settings and options from TSR was an attempt to appeal to a market that had mostly moved on from "vanilla fantasy" and "dungeon crawling" at the time. Things had changed drastically in the marketplace, not even counting card games and such. Frankly, I really enjoyed coming back into the fold in the 1990s* because I felt the creativity was at a very high level, industry wide (but not always at TSR). I didn't like everything of course, but I was glad to see so many different games and such a massive expansion compared to 1985-ish. Then 3.0 happened and we were back to everyone jumping on a bandwagon again and doing the SOS (cos they could make money off of D&D's coattails now). * This is when I started collecting and was able to amass a huge collection of books/games for ridiculously low prices. That was also a great perk of that market. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 27, 2021 7:34:21 GMT -6
Just like OD&D, which may or may not be a bad thing. If you are TSR/WOTC- I reckon that is a bad thing for the health of the game If you are a gamer- I reckon that is a good thing for the health of the game Yeah, I don't know about that. Over the years I've developed an increasing dislike for optional rules in core books. It is the designer's job to playtest the heck out of every rule, and put together the best set they possible can instead of being lazy and leaving that work up to the players. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2021 7:54:59 GMT -6
Just like OD&D, which may or may not be a bad thing. If you are TSR/WOTC- I reckon that is a bad thing for the health of the game If you are a gamer- I reckon that is a good thing for the health of the game Yeah, I don't know about that. Over the years I've developed an increasing dislike for optional rules in core books. It is the designer's job to playtest the heck out of every rule, and put together the best set they possible can instead of being lazy and leaving that work up to the players. This is something in Swords & Wizardry that I waffle back and forth between liking and disliking. I understand the reasoning that in the seventies there wasn't one codified mechanic for certain procedures yet. That's objectively true. However, there's no reason not to just pick one they like and say "this is how it works in these rules." Personally I'd shuffle all the boxed optional rules in clones and AD&D 2e to some appendix or splat book. Unearthed Arcana and setting books served that purpose in 1e. I think most people getting into trpgs understand the concept of Rule Zero without being beaten over the head with it. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 27, 2021 9:29:35 GMT -6
Just like OD&D, which may or may not be a bad thing. If you are TSR/WOTC- I reckon that is a bad thing for the health of the game If you are a gamer- I reckon that is a good thing for the health of the game Yeah, I don't know about that. Over the years I've developed an increasing dislike for optional rules in core books. It is the designer's job to playtest the heck out of every rule, and put together the best set they possible can instead of being lazy and leaving that work up to the players. I respectfully disagree (politeness ensues, don't need a repeat of that other thread) I think "lazy" is not only unfair, but objectively incorrect in 2E's case as far as the core game goes (PHB,DMG,MC/MM). Zeb, Steve, and Jon were hamstringed from the get go by the Corporate Overlords to design a new edition that remained entirely backwards compatible with the previous edition's products. The "new edition" was in the options-that was the only way to get it into the book. Otherwise it would have just been a better organized re-print. Steve and Zeb have gone on record about this directive at various times and places over the years (interviews, DF, etc). Additionally , much of the DMG was stripped out, in order to put that material in supplements to come (e.g. DMGR1). These were corporate decisions, not design decisions. I would be inclined to agree about the "no options in the core game" if we were talking about games that had strict win conditions- Chess, Warhammer/Minis, Wargames, Football, the vast majority of boardgames, etc. They are "railroads" in the rules sense to make sure people all have a uniform play experience and are designed to reward mastery* by making winning more likely. RPGs are completely different, and why they were so revolutionary. One they have no win conditions (though I know many people approach them this way) The only time win conditions are set is in tournament style play. as DM, I much prefer a game like 13th Age or S&W Complete, or 2E that gives DMs a "core" way to do something and various options to tailor the game- The goal of the RPG is for everyone to have fun, not necessarily win, and the premise from the very beginning was to make the game "your own" in order to provide the kind of fun game "your group" likes. I actually feel that catering to a broader spectrum through options is MORE work, NOT lazy design. As long as the game remains focused (unlike say, Generic systems ala GURPS or HERO core), I'm all for it. *3E and PF crossed some strange boundary here because that was baked into the system- rewarding mastery- And the reason why those game became a bigger mess than any TSR edition -with no set "win conditions" it just ends up being a nightmare for a DM and players. I think it's telling that both systems were abandoned by WOTC/Paizo and subsequent editions were HEAVY re-writes (4/5E and PF2) |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 27, 2021 10:09:12 GMT -6
Yeah, I don't know about that. Over the years I've developed an increasing dislike for optional rules in core books. It is the designer's job to playtest the heck out of every rule, and put together the best set they possible can instead of being lazy and leaving that work up to the players. This is something in Swords & Wizardry that I waffle back and forth between liking and disliking. I understand the reasoning that in the seventies there wasn't one codified mechanic for certain procedures yet. That's objectively true. However, there's no reason not to just pick one they like and say "this is how it works in these rules." Personally I'd shuffle all the boxed optional rules in clones and AD&D 2e to some appendix or splat book. Unearthed Arcana and setting books served that purpose in 1e. I think most people getting into trpgs understand the concept of Rule Zero without being beaten over the head with it. S&W is a good example. I like how clean cut and focused it is. I can rely on it at the gaming table. And like most people I also LOVE sourcebooks that provide interesting additional material. I'm trying to differentiate between core rulebooks and options for personal campaigns. All I'm saying about 2e is they built that ambiguity in to the core. And then exacerbated it with additional core rulebooks later. |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Aug 27, 2021 10:11:18 GMT -6
I'm softening my position on 2e. I've been rereading the books and borrowing some things for my home game. My criticism stands that Homer's Car is the best analogy for 2e. Everyone makes their own version of D&D with it, far beyond what any previous edition, or edition since, has done. Sounds perfect. Ideally (to my mind), every table should be playing its own unique game. Perhaps I should give 2e another look. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 27, 2021 10:17:26 GMT -6
I think "lazy" is not only unfair, but objectively incorrect in 2E's case as far as the core game goes (PHB,DMG,MC/MM). Zeb, Steve, and Jon were hamstringed from the get go by the Corporate Overlords to design a new edition that remained entirely backwards compatible with the previous edition's products. That brings up another one of the flaws. From a business POV the corporate overlords didn't realize they were shooting themselves in the foot by making everything backwards compatible, and missing out on a HUGE market of doing reboots of old material for the new edition. Like WotC has learned to do. They probably had huge warehouses of stock they still wanted to sell - not knowing what collectivist nerds their customer base was who would always want to still buy the old stuff. I would say this was good for the gamers except that 1e (and be extension 2e) really needed a thorough revision that didn't happen until 3e. When I call out options as lazy game design, perhaps that is unfair in the case of Zeb, Steve, and Jon. I suspect they worked their buts off to make 2e. But I can't help but to see "here are 2, 3, or a dozen different rules for this thing. You sort out which one to use" as lazy game design. To put it another way, I prefer the options to be in the Races, Classes, Equipment, Spells, Magic Items, Creatures, etc. rather than the options be in which core rule to use. That said, in Fantasy World Campaign Settings it is fun and compelling to see twists on the rules, as long as they are internally consistent with that world. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 27, 2021 10:18:27 GMT -6
I'm softening my position on 2e. I've been rereading the books and borrowing some things for my home game. My criticism stands that Homer's Car is the best analogy for 2e. Everyone makes their own version of D&D with it, far beyond what any previous edition, or edition since, has done. Sounds perfect. Ideally (to my mind), every table should be playing its own unique game. Perhaps I should give 2e another look. Yes. That was the strength, and weakness of OD&D. |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Aug 27, 2021 10:38:16 GMT -6
Yes. That was the strength, and weakness of OD&D. In what way is flexibility in scope a weakness? |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 27, 2021 10:48:56 GMT -6
I think "lazy" is not only unfair, but objectively incorrect in 2E's case as far as the core game goes (PHB,DMG,MC/MM). Zeb, Steve, and Jon were hamstringed from the get go by the Corporate Overlords to design a new edition that remained entirely backwards compatible with the previous edition's products. That brings up another one of the flaws. From a business POV the corporate overlords didn't realize they were shooting themselves in the foot by making everything backwards compatible, and missing out on a HUGE market of doing reboots of old material for the new edition. Like WotC has learned to do. They probably had huge warehouses of stock they still wanted to sell - not knowing what collectivist nerds their customer base was who would always want to still buy the old stuff. I would say this was good for the gamers except that 1e (and be extension 2e) really needed a thorough revision that didn't happen until 3e. When I call out options as lazy game design, perhaps that is unfair in the case of Zeb, Steve, and Jon. I suspect they worked their buts off to make 2e. But I can't help but to see "here are 2, 3, or a dozen different rules for this thing. You sort out which one to use" as lazy game design. To put it another way, I prefer the options to be in the Races, Classes, Equipment, Spells, Magic Items, Creatures, etc. rather than the options be in which core rule to use. That said, in Fantasy World Campaign Settings it is fun and compelling to see twists on the rules, as long as they are internally consistent with that world. Absolutely it was a bad decision by the CO's, and Winter states the upper management thought the exact opposite (from the design team) They felt invalidating all the previous material would lead them to financial ruin. Completely the opposite of WOTC's MO. I guess in a way those Corporate Overlords were looking out for all the fans of previous material/editions  |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 27, 2021 12:11:38 GMT -6
Yes. That was the strength, and weakness of OD&D. In what way is flexibility in scope a weakness? Read the first 20 or so issues of Alarums & Excursions. The problem quickly becomes apparent. The problem is the reason Alarums & Excursions came about in the first place. I will say though, it was probably the best thing that could have happened to the nascent RPG hobby. |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Aug 27, 2021 12:24:12 GMT -6
Read the first 20 or so issues of Alarums & Excursions. The problem quickly becomes apparent. The problem is the reason Alarums & Excursions came about in the first place. I will say though, it was probably the best thing that could have happened to the nascent RPG hobby. From the Alarums & Excursions Wikipedia page: "...the initial aim of the publication was to prevent roleplaying games from becoming so divergent that people from different cities couldn't participate in games together." I see no problem with games "becoming so divergent that people from different cities couldn't participate in games together." In fact, I find it creative, thought-provoking, and individualistic. Wonderful. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 27, 2021 12:27:47 GMT -6
Read the first 20 or so issues of Alarums & Excursions. The problem quickly becomes apparent. The problem is the reason Alarums & Excursions came about in the first place. I will say though, it was probably the best thing that could have happened to the nascent RPG hobby. From the Alarums & Excursions Wikipedia page: "...the initial aim of the publication was to prevent roleplaying games from becoming so divergent that people from different cities couldn't participate in games together." I see no problem with games "becoming so divergent that people from different cities couldn't participate in games together." In fact, I find it creative, thought-provoking, and individualistic. Wonderful. I will say though, it was probably the best thing that could have happened to the nascent RPG hobby. Wait, I already said that. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 27, 2021 12:38:34 GMT -6
As I remember, A&E was like Baseball. 10 minutes of fun in the middle of 4-6 boring hours.
Some good stuff, but yeesh, the whackadoo was rampant.
|
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Aug 27, 2021 13:29:22 GMT -6
The thing about 2e is that it wasn't a game, it was a platform on which other things got built. Good examples of using 2e well exist - for instance, the book Arabian Adventures for Al-Qadim totally redefines how AD&D works in a very flavorful way. Other successful retools included Dark Sun (we played a bunch with the original set), Domains of Dread for Ravenloft, and the historical sourcebooks - the best was probably HR4 A Mighty Fortress.
One of its bigger issues was that things didn't play well together. For instance, the kits in the various Complete books didn't mesh with any of the above settings; neither did the various Player's Option books. And its "vanilla AD&D" implementation left something lacking, and quickly lost focus once you let supplement bloat in. The proficiency / attribute roll-under system was not particularly elegant, and combat could bog down if you started bringing in material from the Fighter's handbook and Combat & Tactics. Some books, like Skills & Powers, were not adequately playtested and made it fairly easy to min/max character generation. Others, like Spells & Magic, offered some refreshing options.
I'd say that 2e had many of the most interesting books in the life of D&D, although this is a result of retrospectively picking out the gems from the duds, and wasn't inspiring as a system. But, there are no holy wars over its initiative system, so at least it has that on 1e.
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 27, 2021 13:52:11 GMT -6
The thing about 2e is that it wasn't a game, it was a platform on which other things got built. Good examples of using 2e well exist - for instance, the book Arabian Adventures for Al-Qadim totally redefines how AD&D works in a very flavorful way. Other successful retools included Dark Sun (we played a bunch with the original set), Domains of Dread for Ravenloft, and the historical sourcebooks - the best was probably HR4 A Mighty Fortress. One of its bigger issues was that things didn't play well together. For instance, the kits in the various Complete books didn't mesh with any of the above settings; neither did the various Player's Option books. And its "vanilla AD&D" implementation left something lacking, and quickly lost focus once you let supplement bloat in. The proficiency / attribute roll-under system was not particularly elegant, and combat could bog down if you started bringing in material from the Fighter's handbook and Combat & Tactics. Some books, like Skills & Powers, were not adequately playtested and made it fairly easy to min/max character generation. Others, like Spells & Magic, offered some refreshing options. I'd say that 2e had many of the most interesting books in the life of D&D, although this is a result of retrospectively picking out the gems from the duds, and wasn't inspiring as a system. But, there are no holy wars over its initiative system, so at least it has that on 1e. You are articulating it better than me. I love plundering the Complete books for material, some good stuff in there (and a whole lot of not very good). 2e is more toolkit than game. Not unlike the GURPS splatbooks that are great to pillage. But do I want to play them as is, or GURPS? Not really. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 27, 2021 13:53:47 GMT -6
As I remember, A&E was like Baseball. 10 minutes of fun in the middle of 4-6 boring hours. Some good stuff, but yeesh, the whackadoo was rampant. A lot of it is pretty hard to get through. |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Aug 27, 2021 22:39:18 GMT -6
I can't imagine a single situation in which I would consider a "complete game" superior to a "toolkit". Even if the complete game is objectively superior (5e, for example), I'd still prefer the toolkit (OD&D).
|
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Aug 28, 2021 14:22:55 GMT -6
Agreed. I like having a toolkit, so I can customize my games.
What's wrong with GURPS? I haven't played it a lot, but I think it's a good system.
|
|
)
