2nd Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons is

[aramis]

I bought less than half the PHBR series... but wound up with the full series (AFAIK), as my rule was, "If I don't own a copy, it cannot be used in my games." My players made certain I had their favorite books. In the early 1990's, I ran a bunch of AD&D 2E; I was a player in a campaign in 1996.

Back in about 2010, I tried running AD&D 2E again...I found myself seriously unhappy with the fiddliness, the organization, and a number of minor rules that really just annoyed.

I don't think I'll ever try again. I can have as much fun with half the effort by using T&T + the article "Mirable Dictu" (Dorothy March, in Sorcerer's Apprentice), or using Cyclopedia (about 2/3 the effort), or even my own game (3/4 the effort).

I don't hate AD&D2E... I just don't like it anymore.

[jeffb]

Aug 28, 2021 14:22:55 GMT -6 tkdco2 said:

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.

I think some systems fit the genre better than others. GURPS= Jack of all trades, master of none. It works better for more realistic/less fantastical settings, IME- harder sci fi- historical based fiction, etc. But I only had experience with the 3rd editon, IDK if more recent versions are better.

[tkdco2]

I only have 3rd Edition stuff, if you don't count the free GURPS Lite 4th Edition booklet. I would happily use it for some of my campaigns, since I often prefer hard sci-fi and low fantasy.

[tdenmark]

Aug 28, 2021 14:22:55 GMT -6 tkdco2 said:

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.

The biggest problem with GURPS is the terrible name.

Ok, kidding aside. GURPS was the game I played the most in the 90's. My gaming group rejected 2e D&D and we switched over. The system itself is fine, if a bit too crunchy (overly detailed rules heavy). And it tried to be All Things To All People, meaning it wasn't great at anything in particular - except the man-to-man combat if you had a gladiator style fight is very well done, it makes maximum use of hexes, and for skirmishes I find it better than 4e D&D.

It is a toolkit, requiring a lot of work from the GM to turn into a game.

It is a matter of taste. Some people like frog legs and escargo. I don't. It is not objectively good or bad, but I'd say GURPS is a kind of flavorless, mealy, gruel.

INCREDIBLY useful sourcebooks though.

[jeffb]

Indeed the best part of GURPS were the sourcebooks. I had a fair number of them before I sold off the collection. I really enjoyed the MARS book, Conan, and they had a pulp one, but I cannot recall the name.

[tkdco2]

The GURPS sourcebooks are great. You can mix and match them for your campaign. You can even use them for other rpgs. I would like to resurrect my old campaign using the Swashbucklers and Martial Arts books. I often described my campaign as a mix of The Three Musketeers and Enter the Dragon. Fencing, Judo, and Karate would be the primary skills in that campaign. There's no magic, but there is 17th-century technology, including black powder weapons.

Now there's nothing stopping me from using AD&D (1e or 2e), but I'd have to do a bit of work. I'd only allow human characters with the fighter, thief, and monk classes. For a pure 2e game, I can use A Mighty Fortress and the monk class from The Scarlet Brotherhood (I don't have that supplement btw). However, the lack of magic in the campaign would mean giving some thought on healing. The Healing and Herbalism NWPs would help a lot, but some means of healing a lot of hit points should exist, especially for high-level fighters.

[aramis]

Aug 29, 2021 5:55:10 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

Aug 28, 2021 14:22:55 GMT -6 tkdco2 said:

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.

The biggest problem with GURPS is the terrible name.

Ok, kidding aside. GURPS was the game I played the most in the 90's. My gaming group rejected 2e D&D and we switched over. The system itself is fine, if a bit too crunchy (overly detailed rules heavy). And it tried to be All Things To All People, meaning it wasn't great at anything in particular - except the man-to-man combat if you had a gladiator style fight is very well done, it makes maximum use of hexes, and for skirmishes I find it better than 4e D&D.

Except that GURPS doesn't even get gladiator fights right. (I say this as an SCA fencer...) It plays them well, but utterly botches the realities of duels: the pauses, the circling, the waiting for a specific opening, the minor twitches that are the reality of many feints.

Realistically, the game claimed realism, but gave us an illusion.

Now? The biggest issue with GURPS isn't the name, it's the cultures that've grown around the game. The "GURPS DOES EVERYTHING WELL" zombies in one corner, the "Let's Min-max everything and drive atts up despite not being true to concept" crowd in another, the "Let's mix-n-matchsettings" crowd in yet another - but it overlaps with the min-maxers...

The "Let's model the concept" crowd seems to have largely been forced out.

[tkdco2]

Okay, you can argue that GURPS isn't as realistic as it claims to be. But the culture surrounding the game is a different story. Here we need to blame the singer, not the song. A friend once told me why he hated D&D. It was because he got pushed around by some players because their characters were a higher level than his PC. Those players were jerks, but it's not the game's fault.

We seem to have veered off track. Perhaps we should start a thread discussing GURPS to avoid further derailing this discussion about 2e.

[bobjester0e]

My only problem with 2e's "Options make it like you want it" means a whole lot of work to trim all the fat and gristle to get that 1e rare prime rib, when its much easier to use my 1e books for the rules I like.

And 2e didn't help me with my mixed metaphor problem one single bit.

[tkdco2]

I didn't even bother with the Player's Option books. While I got many of the handbooks, I eventually dropped them and stuck with the core rulebooks. If I wanted stuff from 1e, I could just incorporate them or get stuff from Dragon Magazine that I liked.

[calstaff]

one big splatbook of endless optional rules.

I didn't even bother with the 2e books. While I got the core rule books and started to buy the optional 'Complete' books as they were released, I eventually dropped them and stuck with 1e. I started to view it as a money-making venture for TSR and felt like I had everything I needed already to run a fun campaign. If I wanted stuff from 2e, I could just incorporate it into my well-known (and well-liked) 1e framework.

Also, I wasn't impressed with the quality of adventure modules published by TSR for 2e, especially those for the Greyhawk setting.

Looking back I think that the best part of 2e was the wide variety of settings they produced--that was where their creativity shined IMO.

[tdenmark]

Aug 27, 2021 22:39:18 GMT -6 tombowings said:

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).

We are coming at this from very different angles. When I came into the hobby in middle school there was rampant confusion as to how to play the game. I remember one kid who refused to play with us because he'd gotten some D&D books for Christmas and couldn't figure out how to play!

So to summarize my position. I believe, strongly, a Core Rulebook should be clear, concise, and decisive about the rules and how to play. Supplements and add-ons should be where all the options are.

It is even better when those options are tied to creating different flavors of the game for specific settings.

And it doesn't matter what the rulebooks say anyways, by the very nature of Roleplaying Games and how open ended they are players will house rule and customize.

[tombowings]

Dec 9, 2021 17:26:57 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

We are coming at this from very different angles. When I came into the hobby in middle school there was rampant confusion as to how to play the game. I remember one kid who refused to play with us because he'd gotten some D&D books for Christmas and couldn't figure out how to play!

So to summarize my position. I believe, strongly, a Core Rulebook should be clear, concise, and decisive about the rules and how to play. Supplements and add-ons should be where all the options are.

It is even better when those options are tied to creating different flavors of the game for specific settings.

And it doesn't matter what the rulebooks say anyways, by the very nature of Roleplaying Games and how open ended they are players will house rule and customize.

Of course are. I have no interest in growing the hobby. Clear rules will support the idea that they are anything more than loose guidelines. For me, the core of the rpg is the DM. The DM creates the world and brings it to life. "Rulebook" are simply collections of possible suggest that may serve to aid the DM with strategies to handle situations where the players and the DM's world come into conflict.

[tdenmark]

Funny thing is I've come completely around on 2e. From its initial release until just a little while ago I can say I hated it. Hate, a strong word that, but accurate.

When I decided to reread the books and tried playing it somewhat recently I came to appreciate what they did. Also learning what the designers had to go through, the hoops they were made to jump through, it is really quite the feat.

It does have some of the greatest supplements in the history of D&D like Planescape & Ravenloft. The hardcover Ravenloft book is one of my favorites. Planescape could really use that meaty hardcover treatment.

So, there, I said it. 2e ain't half bad.

[calstaff]

Dec 11, 2021 18:12:59 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

Funny thing is I've come completely around on 2e. From its initial release until just a little while ago I can say I hated it. Hate, a strong word that, but accurate.

When I decided to reread the books and tried playing it somewhat recently I came to appreciate what they did. Also learning what the designers had to go through, the hoops they were made to jump through, it is really quite the feat.

It does have some of the greatest supplements in the history of D&D like Planescape & Ravenloft. The hardcover Ravenloft book is one of my favorites. Planescape could really use that meaty hardcover treatment.

So, there, I said it. 2e ain't half bad.

I'm with you on that sentiment.  I hated 2e at first--just thought it was a money-grab by TSR, and a lot of the content was...superfluous to put it nicely.  Also, a lot of optional stuff they published didn't seem like it had been playtested very thoroughly--in years past that type of content was an article in The Dragon where you had the expectation that YMMV.  But the campaign settings they produced were pretty good conceptually, even if not always executed very well, and there is a lot of creativity there to mine--for my 1e game!

[tdenmark]

Dec 12, 2021 13:09:26 GMT -6 calstaff said:

a lot of optional stuff they published didn't seem like it had been playtested very thoroughly--in years past that type of content was an article in The Dragon where you had the expectation that YMMV.

That is a good way to put it. I've been trying to put my finger on the problem with all the optional rules and that is exactly it: they are essentially like Dragon Magazine articles that you know haven't been play tested.

Now, of course we all love Dragon magazine articles, but going in you know it is probably going to wreck your game if you don't adjudicate it carefully or rework it to fit your campaign.

[tombowings]

Dec 13, 2021 0:36:52 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

Now, of course we all love Dragon magazine articles, but going in you know it is probably going to wreck your game if you don't adjudicate it carefully or rework it to fit your campaign.

Isn't that the way any suggestion should be approached, regardless of source?

[tdenmark]

Dec 13, 2021 1:04:59 GMT -6 tombowings said:

Dec 13, 2021 0:36:52 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

Now, of course we all love Dragon magazine articles, but going in you know it is probably going to wreck your game if you don't adjudicate it carefully or rework it to fit your campaign.

Isn't that the way any suggestion should be approached, regardless of source?

NO!

You expect the designers when they put out a core rulebook that the rules will work! What else are they being paid for??

Magazine articles on the other hand you expect much looser standards.

[calstaff]

Dec 13, 2021 1:04:59 GMT -6 tombowings said:

Isn't that the way any suggestion should be approached, regardless of source?

Most definitely!  But I think that the expectation of most readers of supplementary rule books is that the work of play-testing was already put in before it was published, as opposed to the assumption that something published in a monthly gaming magazine may not have been rigorously vetted.

EDIT: Rule books are seen as much more than "suggestions"; magazine articles are many times specifically noted as such.

[tombowings]

Dec 13, 2021 10:00:45 GMT -6 calstaff said:

EDIT: Rule books are seen as much more than "suggestions"; magazine articles are many times specifically noted as such.

To me, everything the referee is the sole arbiter of play. Everything/everyone else is advice, including the rulebooks.

[jeffb]

This argument seems very weak at best

The optional rules systems in the CORE 2E books are clearly marked as such. There are de facto standard rules and then options laid out (highlighted in blue text, marked clearly).

All other books are clearly stated as being options, too.

3E and 5E are examples of mass playtesting and tight "better balanced" systems and yet there are still many problem areas of the rules in each edition.

Playtesting is never a guarantee of quality or worth, because your group and the playtester group are not the same people. This will never change.

[tombowings]

Dec 13, 2021 11:22:13 GMT -6 jeffb said:

This argument seems very weak at best

I disagree. The referee is the one who decides if and/or how all interactions at the table work. Often times, individual referees will default to a set of suggestions provided by a book. But it is the referee who decides if/how/when to adjudicate every mechanical interaction.

[jeffb]

Dec 13, 2021 11:54:00 GMT -6 tombowings said:

Dec 13, 2021 11:22:13 GMT -6 jeffb said:

This argument seems very weak at best

I disagree. The referee is the one who decides if and/or how all interactions at the table work. Often times, individual referees will default to a set of suggestions provided by a book. But it is the referee who decides if/how/when to adjudicate every mechanical interaction.

You misunderstand- the argument I find weak is that "optional rules" from 2E CORE are no better than Dragon articles, and that rules need to be playtested extensively before publication *. I also don't think providing tons of options in a ruleset is bad design, or being "lazy" as tdenmark and I have "argued" previous. As long as options are laid out clearly, and there is a standard rule (which is the case with 2E books- all optional rules are marked, and any material outside the core books is considered optional).


* precisely because , as you say, it's an individual group/DM thing. No amount of playtesting will ever provide perfect rules for you at your table- only playtesting at your table can accomplish such things.

[tdenmark]

Dec 13, 2021 12:06:31 GMT -6 jeffb said:

Dec 13, 2021 11:54:00 GMT -6 tombowings said:

I disagree. The referee is the one who decides if and/or how all interactions at the table work. Often times, individual referees will default to a set of suggestions provided by a book. But it is the referee who decides if/how/when to adjudicate every mechanical interaction.

You misunderstand- the argument I find weak is that "optional rules" from 2E CORE are no better than Dragon articles, and that rules need to be playtested extensively before publication *. I also don't think providing tons of options in a ruleset is bad design, or being "lazy" as tdenmark and I have "argued" previous. As long as options are laid out clearly, and there is a standard rule (which is the case with 2E books- all optional rules are marked, and any material outside the core books is considered optional).


* precisely because , as you say, it's an individual group/DM thing. No amount of playtesting will ever provide perfect rules for you at your table- only playtesting at your table can accomplish such things.

Here is my argument:

MATH IS POWERFUL

What I mean is, the more variables you have the more complicated the variations become. If you have 3 rules and each of those has 3 variations. 3x3 = 9 variations you have to play test. When you have 3x3x3 you have 27 variations. Soon they become exponential. Impossible to test. My time in software development we were acutely aware of this problem and we'd avoid creating exponential systems. (in particular a game I worked on called Battle of the Bands the designers created this system that had 10 variations, and each of those could have 10 options, and then each of those could have a dozen or so variables. I was assigned UI on that feature and it was a nightmare, I finally went to the project lead and said look, this feature requires millions of icons! We can't do it. One engineer quietly said "math is powerful", and that has always stuck with me)

RPG's already have more variables than you can reasonably test, the more variables the worse this problem gets. Even after nearly 50 years all the bugs still haven't been worked out of D&D.

I stand by my original assertion:
No optional rules in the Core Rule Books is best.
As many optional rules as you want in supplements because...whatever, player's like new crazy stuff and they can pick or choose what they want from the supplements.

To get back to 2nd edition, that was always my problem with it, but I've made my peace with the game. It is a fine game.

[aramis]

Aug 27, 2021 10:38:16 GMT -6 tombowings said:

Aug 27, 2021 10:18:27 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

Yes. That was the strength, and weakness of OD&D.

In what way is flexibility in scope a weakness?

Joe teaches Fred to play. Fred moves, finds new group supposedly playing the same game, lead by Sam. Sam and Joe picked different interpretations and opetions right along most of the options/open-to-interpretation points... and Fred finds he knows nothing at all about the game Sam's running... the odds of Fred continung thhe hobby just dropped radically, and may seriously negatively impact his views of either-/both-of Sam and Joe.

I've been on all three sides of that coin...

[aramis]

Aug 27, 2021 12:24:12 GMT -6 tombowings said:

Aug 27, 2021 12:11:38 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

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.

It's absolutely suckwad for most. z

one of the great things about Hero System and its core fanbase: Everyone's using the same rules. About 40 pages thereof. Everything else is character gen and a bit of "how to communicate your setting to your players"...i've been able to talk Hero with hero players from around the wolrd, and the most core mechanics divergeances were 2d10 or 1d20 replacing 3d6 for skill and attribute tests.

And, I'm too lazy to track down and quote the person claiming new gamers inherently grok rule zero... that's never been the case. Some might, but many don't. And it's less so now... as most of todays teens and 20-somethings have grown up with the games self-enforcing the rules... on their computers... it is even changing how many of them approach the most oft houseruled to suckage game ever: Monopoly. The new electronic versions enforce the auction rule, and also have gone to tracking your money. Can't steal from the kitty nor take money at free parking when the game is computer moderated.

[aramis]

Aug 28, 2021 14:22:55 GMT -6 tkdco2 said:

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.

Largely, IMO, Player Culture. But that's not a universally shared sentiment.

So... less subjective:

Skills too narrow for many. Over 200 discrete skills when you count the clusters and tech-level based skills for a moderns game.

The design is pretty tightly balanced; tinkerers often do serious changes unwittingly.

Like all point build systems, it encourages min-maxing.

Attribute and skill level scaling: it appears to be the same scaling as D&D but it's not. D&D 4 and 5 are closer than AD&D... This is an issue for crossover players. This also strongly immpacts the value and perceived value disconnect in play, most strongly in cross-over players.

Roll under design. Not a huge flaw, but one that is a noted effect.

Official attitude towards modifications is modify the setting to GURPS more than gURPS to the setting. This was a change around 2nd Ed GURPS. The most obvious is to compare GAD1 to GAD2...

GAD1 needed just GURPS core and GAD, and adapted GURPS to do Car Wars. Car Wars cars are easily converted in.
GAD2 needs GURPS core and G:Vehicles, and totally ignores compatibility/convertibility with Car Wars.

[tombowings]

Dec 14, 2021 0:14:37 GMT -6 aramis said:

Joe teaches Fred to play. Fred moves, finds new group supposedly playing the same game, lead by Sam. Sam and Joe picked different interpretations and opetions right along most of the options/open-to-interpretation points... and Fred finds he knows nothing at all about the game Sam's running... the odds of Fred continung thhe hobby just dropped radically, and may seriously negatively impact his views of either-/both-of Sam and Joe.

I've been on all three sides of that coin...

You have just described my ideal world. Every referee runs a completely different game. Setting down at Dan's table is a completely foreign experience from Gabby's. If Dan's and Gabby's tables suck, you can always try Hannah's. Or you can start your own and run a game that perfectly adheres to your unique sensibilities.

[captainjapan]

Dec 14, 2021 0:14:37 GMT -6 aramis said:

Aug 27, 2021 10:38:16 GMT -6 tombowings said:

In what way is flexibility in scope a weakness?

Joe teaches Fred to play. Fred moves, finds new group supposedly playing the same game, lead by Sam. Sam and Joe picked different interpretations and opetions right along most of the options/open-to-interpretation points... and Fred finds he knows nothing at all about the game Sam's running... the odds of Fred continung thhe hobby just dropped radically, and may seriously negatively impact his views of either-/both-of Sam and Joe.

I've been on all three sides of that coin...

Sounds like my wife's cooking. If I think I like the goulash she cooks this week, well, Too Bad! I will never get to eat that same goulash; not the next week or ever again!

That woman refuses to follow a recipe so the character of my meals is a total crap shoot.

[tombowings]

Dec 15, 2021 0:02:23 GMT -6 captainjapan said:

Sounds like my wife's cooking. If I think I like the goulash she cooks this week, well, Too Bad! I will never get to eat that same goulash; not the next week or ever again!

That woman refuses to follow a recipe so the character of my meals is a total crap shoot.

Why not cook your own meals? Or order out? Or get a divorce?

The world is bountiful and pregnant with possibilities. There is so much to do, to explore, to experiment with. The expectation that anyone else will conform to any set of standards - let alone any specific individual's - seems misplaced (in my opinion). We all have different priorities and tastes. Why bound the near infinite creativity of humankind to a box? Sometimes that creativity leads to disaster; other times it leaders to wonder and awe. Luckily, we humans are amazingly discerning animals. It's our jobs, as individuals, to decide which is which and decide what to do with out time (gaming) and our tongues (cooking).