2nd Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons is

[jeffb]

Dec 14, 2021 22:59:54 GMT -6 tombowings said:

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.

One of the things I did with my son and his friends, from the very beginning, was to tell them that every table will be different. I run certain types of games and use/ don't use certain rules because that's what I like (of course I was open to changing style/rules/system if the group really had an issue with something that was killing fun). And I told them that if in HS they start playing games with other kids, or playing with family, things are likely to be different. And if ever they decide to run their own games they will play the game "their way" too.

I guess I was blessed in the way I learned how to play and with the group I had. I'd absolutely hate it if everyone ran the same game with the same rules all the time. That is killing the mojo of what an RPG is. The only case I find that beneficial for is tournament/RPGA play.

[aramis]

Dec 14, 2021 22:59:54 GMT -6 tombowings said:

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.

It's a nightmare world for most of the people I game with. The WORST POSSIBLE THING that can happen for the industry.

And, while it was the dominant mode expressed in the rules, D&D didn't, and IMO, couldn't, go mainstream. And why Free Kriegspiel couldn't, either.

[tombowings]

Dec 17, 2021 17:17:59 GMT -6 aramis said:

It's a nightmare world for most of the people I game with. The WORST POSSIBLE THING that can happen for the industry.

And, while it was the dominant mode expressed in the rules, D&D didn't, and IMO, couldn't, go mainstream. And why Free Kriegspiel couldn't, either.

Why would they consider games individually personalized to their down desires a nightmare?

As for the gaming industry and D&D going mainstream, I have zero interest in either.

[verhaden]

I'm currently reading The Oxford Guide to Card Games by David Parlett. Here a few excerpts from the chapter "Hoyle on troubled waters"

In sum, the rules of a game normally consist in its definitive rules (how the game is supposed to go) plus its associated laws (how to ensure that it does). In the world of play, such rules are of the essence--'The rules of a game are absolutely binding and allow no doubt', as Huizinga puts it. That this reflects an everyday perception is demonstrated by the apparent appeal of any book labelled 'Official Rules', and by the steady stream of letters to authors and card manufacturers seeking clarification or arbitration on tricky points that have given rise to problems over the card-table. Players might reasonably be expected to discuss and agree their own remedies in such matters, and probably many do--though how many is an open question, since we only ever hear of those who seek guidance from a supposed external authority.

Such everyday perception is further supported by the fact that such universally accepted definitive rules do exist for a handful of formal games like Chess and Contract Bridge. Bridge, however, is exceptional. Card games, for the most part, are not played formally, and few are governed by universally accepted official rules. The most popular card games are best described as folk games, being played with greater or lesser degrees of variation from place to place--so, if you move from place to place, you might be ready to acquaint yourself with local rules before becoming too involved. This applies even to such well-established traditional games as Crib and Solo, for which there may appear to exist a standard set of rules coincident with that perpetuated in all the gamebooks. Close examination of the books concerned will usually throw up differences of detail as between themselves (except where one has cribbed entirely from another author) and even more, as between their bookish theory and actual practice. The latter differences arise because living games evolve, whereas gamebook writers generally do not, many remaining unaware that evolution is a fact of card-game life. Books on card games therefore date rapidly, in part if not in whole.

***

...

With this consciousness may go the unconscious belief that everyone in the world plays that game to exactly the same set of absolutely binding rules, but, except for a tiny handful of formal games, it is mistaken. Whether players in Pontefract play the way they do in Pittsburgh or Perpignan, or in Foster's Complete Hoyle of nineteen-umpty-ump, is really unimportant. All that counts to their enjoyment of the game at hand can be summed up in Parlett's Universal Rules of Card Games, which are two in number and read:

1. Everyone at the same table should be following the same rules at the same time.
2. Everyone at the table should know which rules they are supposed to be following.

How they achieve this is up to them. Theoretically, they constitute their own authority, and should agree beforehand on all the details of their rules of play. In practice, problems tend to arise in the middle of a hand, giving rise to disputes upon which it is practically impossible to be both creative and impartial at the same time--though in this connection attention may be drawn to the assertion of Aquarius, in Spanish Card Games (London, 1890);

"[The Spaniards'] way of referring to the dealer to settle every doubtful point or dispute is very marked. A book is never mentioned. The decision of the dealer, right or wrong, settles everything or anything, without a murmur, during outplay. Thus little hitches are readily disposed of, and any game can continue. A dealer can ask for advice or consult with others, but his decision is his own, and must be immediate. Players come in and leave a game with a substitute very suddenly, and agree to anything done for them. The coolness, courtesy and skill of the Spaniard at card games renders him in such things superior to card players of other nations."

***

...

Even so, I think it worth asserting that rules drawn up by any official body should be regarded not as the official rules of the game in question, but as the official rules of the body concerned, be it the International Bridge Federation or the Whist-Drive Committee of the Friends of Village Hall. And they are still only authoritative to the extent that players agree to abide by them.

This really speaks to me, and echos a lot of the sentiment I've read on this board over the years. While I think the health of the industry is important in an abstract sense, I think customization is essential to the spirit of D&D--the sacred cow--and a wonderful callback to the history of games and human culture before Coca Cola.

[jeffb]

And the customization of the game as we have all seen in the earliest years was expected and encouraged.

Then massive success.

It's only when the financial success of games became the #1 driver did we a shift towards rules and official stance from the powers that be. Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% on board with capitalism, just noting how things changed drastically @ TSR when $ become the priority---- lawsuits, new editions to standardize play, tournaments, modules, and the list gets ever deeper.

We've gone off on a tangent, but to circle around- 2E is the last edition where the designers were not on board with the finance folks, and serious compromises were made because of that in the rules. All editions post 2E were developed with a rather complex and detailed business model in mind to make sure people play the game the way each design team wanted you to- it sells more product and rulebooks.

[calstaff]

I agree that with the sale of TSR to WotC the "corporatization" of D&D accelerated exponentially, but I think it began when EGG was pushed out. That, to me, was when the creative side of TSR was pushed aside in order to make room for the profit-driven side.

[aramis]

Dec 18, 2021 0:22:10 GMT -6 tombowings said:

Dec 17, 2021 17:17:59 GMT -6 aramis said:

It's a nightmare world for most of the people I game with. The WORST POSSIBLE THING that can happen for the industry.

And, while it was the dominant mode expressed in the rules, D&D didn't, and IMO, couldn't, go mainstream. And why Free Kriegspiel couldn't, either.

Why would they consider games individually personalized to their down desires a nightmare?

As for the gaming industry and D&D going mainstream, I have zero interest in either.

Being a corporation, TSR was, and WotC is, required to pursue the maximum profit. Which means people like you get shoved aside for the larger slice of the economy.

Wizards, bottom line, only cares about separating people from their money.

For me, consistency means I don't have to reteach experienced players to some variation no one else uses.
It also gives my players a level of mechanical knowledge so that they can understand mechanically what their characters would have learned experientally: how the world works.
It also means that, since I live in a college town, my players can come in and be ready to play sooner.

This doesn't mean I don't houserule - but I do so very little. And I tell new players up front.

[poohgyrr]

In the end, it’s the DMs game, including the rules. Discussion about the game, and reaching some kind of agreement on things, is part of playing.

Change the adventure, whatever. Make it work.

[tkdco2]

Here's a video about 2nd Edition. Yes, it's still my favorite edition, tied with B/X. The last time I ran an official AD&D game, it was 2nd Edition.

[poohgyrr]

Awesome video, thanks. I still think 2E/AD&D are my favorite.

[tdenmark]

Since this thread was resurrected I reread some of my old posts and the responses. I was really at odds with the majority here! Haha.

I think it was my time working in the video game industry that colored a lot of my opinions on optional rules. They always sound great on paper, then in development you end up with an exponential nightmare. That is the "math is powerful" I referred to.

Since posting this I've read through my 2e books, I have a larger collection than intended because of various auction lots I've won over the years where there'd be one book I wanted, and several I didn't (mostly 2e stuff) in the lot as well. Now I'm glad that I have them because 2e is much better than I remembered it being.

I still think it had too many optional rules and that ultimately spelled disaster for TSR. Probably a good thing because in many ways Wizards was a better steward of D&D, until recently.

[b9anders]

I consider it probably the best version of D&D ever made. It polished and cleaned up 1e very well. Not just in the obvious way with class design, but also the nuts and bolts, going through all the spells and cleaning up the weird and insane ones, etc (ray of enfeeblement springs to mind), bringing back morale rules per monster and such.

I think making it so modular through optional extensions is its greatest strength. If you simply play core rules, you have something very similar to Classic D&D. It works well enough as a standalone game.

And the optional rules are very well thought through. They will almost always consider how certain rules may or may not be impacted by using certain optional rules and make sure to address that in the text. My main quibble there is that the Fighter's only distinguishing feature, weapon specialization, is gated behind an optional system and I don't particularly care for weapon proficiencies.

I wish the DMG was better. Feels amputated. But other than that, a great core set.

[hamurai]

It's the same issue 5E has: Too many options to include them all, so the group must choose which to use and which to discard. Today's 5E has pretty much everything as "official" and many folks seem to think that's mandatory. Back then in AD&D 2E, we used the rules we wanted and forgot about the rest. And at some point we might go back to some rules and try them in our game, and discard them again if they sucked.

I think some people might have been overwhelmed by the pile of options, though.

[poohgyrr]

Yes, feel free to run your game the way you want (sorta).. If the game is fun then players will be there. If the game is not fun, then…

We had some great adventures.

[jeffb]

Definitely worth a watch -Steve and Zeb and friends- I believe there are also episodes for O/A, and WOTC editions as well

[aramis]

Rereading the thread...

The reasons a "rules are rules" was where D&D went breakout?
1) the increasing presence of persons on the Autism spectrum in gamerdom.
2) the increase in organized play. (Ah, RetailPlay...)
3) the increasing mobility of the US and European populations, and the need to switch groups because of it.
4) increase of desire for skilled play by players, and players expecting to not be punished for skilled play.
5) more GMs using modules, and more modules for them to use. The closer to the expected ruleset, the more accurate the predictions of level suitability.

AD&D 2 started moving that way. The early 90s Retail Play modules were fun to run, and by being a specific set of rules, meant one table was often as good as the next.

Not that it's all happiness and light.
It also leads to some really bad railroads at times, and it also lead to some frustration about GMs not houseruling... on both sides of that argument...

[tdenmark]

This resurrected thread has once again popped up in my feed (I view this forum mostly from the "Most Recent Posts" link)

Dec 18, 2021 11:10:21 GMT -6 jeffb said:

And the customization of the game as we have all seen in the earliest years was expected and encouraged.

Then massive success.

It interesting, I find I either super agree with jeffb or super disagree.

The massive success of D&D went exponential when the B/X edition came out, which is anything but about customization. It is pretty cut and dried how to play. Where it encourages player creativity is more in creating adventures than in creating new rules.

Dec 18, 2021 11:10:21 GMT -6 jeffb said:

2E is the last edition where the designers were not on board with the finance folks, and serious compromises were made because of that in the rules.

No. Lorraine Williams was in full dictatorship mode during 2e development, and it was all about business and finance. I think all the optional rules stuff slipped in because the designers waffled on making the hard decisions and instead of saying "no" like good designers should, they said "yes" to everything. Which is what bad designers do.

And, as I've said many times now, I've actually come around to liking a lot of 2e. But maybe that is because of the Rorschach test that optional rules create, the game is whatever you think it is.

[jeffb]

Sept 24, 2024 21:10:13 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

This resurrected thread has once again popped up in my feed (I view this forum mostly from the "Most Recent Posts" link)

Dec 18, 2021 11:10:21 GMT -6 jeffb said:

And the customization of the game as we have all seen in the earliest years was expected and encouraged.

Then massive success.

It interesting, I find I either super agree with jeffb or super disagree.

The massive success of D&D went exponential when the B/X edition came out, which is anything but about customization. It is pretty cut and dried how to play. Where it encourages player creativity is more in creating adventures than in creating new rules.

Dec 18, 2021 11:10:21 GMT -6 jeffb said:

2E is the last edition where the designers were not on board with the finance folks, and serious compromises were made because of that in the rules.

No. Lorraine Williams was in full dictatorship mode during 2e development, and it was all about business and finance. I think all the optional rules stuff slipped in because the designers waffled on making the hard decisions and instead of saying "no" like good designers should, they said "yes" to everything. Which is what bad designers do.

And, as I've said many times now, I've actually come around to liking a lot of 2e. But maybe that is because of the Rorschach test that optional rules create, the game is whatever you think it is.

I think you misunderstood me.

The designers wanted 2E to be very different than it turned out. They were not on board with what the executives (people in charhge of $) wanted, but the executives,naturally, won out. Thus the game is full of options the designers wanted as non optional and also things that remained the same the designers wanted gone. There are plenty of interviews with Zeb and Steve stating just that. If you are saying that's not true, I'm not sure what you know, Zeb and Steve dont.

In future editions- the game rules would be designed around a specific business model in order to sell specific books/content. It all worked hand in hand.

[b9anders]

Do you have some sources where zeb talks about that?

[jeffb]

Sept 25, 2024 3:51:08 GMT -6 b9anders said:

Do you have some sources where zeb talks about that?

There are several interviews on youtube witb Zeb, Steve, or both. One is with Stan! (The TSR artist/deigner) and there is a large 6 hour discussion and play on the GenCon channel with Zeb and Steve I don't have links handy, but those two are from the last several months. I'm sure searching their names will pull it up.

Pretty sure zeb also did a Q&A thread on dragonsfoot many moons ago


Edit- one of them is just a few posts up from this post.

[tdenmark]

Sept 25, 2024 3:39:29 GMT -6 jeffb said:

The designers wanted 2E to be very different than it turned out. They were not on board with what the executives (people in charhge of $) wanted, but the executives,naturally, won out. Thus the game is full of options the designers wanted as non optional and also things that remained the same the designers wanted gone. There are plenty of interviews with Zeb and Steve stating just that. If you are saying that's not true, I'm not sure what you know, Zeb and Steve dont.

Ok.

I don't have any special knowledge. Just what I've seen on forums and the like over the years, old TSR folks I've hung out with at Gen Con (being an artist I've hung out with the artists a lot more than the designers), and the same books we've all read.

[jeffb]

This is a great interview with Steve I was trying to find. Maybe I posted it earlier in the thread. It's from a few years ago. About 20 minutes in, ge gets into his start at TSR

youtu.be/LXw7c6EcUz8?si=lzT_0PBw5gmR88Q4

EDIT- They also have a lengthy one with Zeb.

[b9anders]

Sept 25, 2024 4:39:34 GMT -6 jeffb said:

Sept 25, 2024 3:51:08 GMT -6 b9anders said:

Do you have some sources where zeb talks about that?

There are several interviews on youtube witb Zeb, Steve, or both. One is with Stan! (The TSR artist/deigner) and there is a large 6 hour discussion and play on the GenCon channel with Zeb and Steve I don't have links handy, but those two are from the last several months. I'm sure searching their names will pull it up.

Pretty sure zeb also did a Q&A thread on dragonsfoot many moons ago


Edit- one of them is just a few posts up from this post.

Alright.

I would have been interested to hear him talk about their vision for 2e, but I am not "trawling through 6 hour interviews hoping to find it" interested.

[jeffb]

Oct 1, 2024 5:50:45 GMT -6 b9anders said:

Sept 25, 2024 4:39:34 GMT -6 jeffb said:

There are several interviews on youtube witb Zeb, Steve, or both. One is with Stan! (The TSR artist/deigner) and there is a large 6 hour discussion and play on the GenCon channel with Zeb and Steve I don't have links handy, but those two are from the last several months. I'm sure searching their names will pull it up.

Pretty sure zeb also did a Q&A thread on dragonsfoot many moons ago


Edit- one of them is just a few posts up from this post.

Alright.

I would have been interested to hear him talk about their vision for 2e, but I am not "trawling through 6 hour interviews hoping to find it" interested.

Yep, you'll have to search through all the stuff out there to glean all the comments they have made over the years, sorry. That's what I did.

[jeffb]

Just happened to go over to DF dot org- been quite some time since I've been there. The alumni section is great and I wandered into the Zeb Cook Q&A. Something that was posted many moons ago

7. The second edition of AD&D, of which you were the lead designer, had its twentieth anniversary this year. Looking back on the work that you did, what aspect of the new edition were you most happy with and what aspect were you least happy with?

I think what I like most is that I wanted the rules to be guidelines, that you could use what you liked and ignore what you didn't. That and we didn't over-burden the game with rules. I'm a much more fast and loose player when it comes to rules. I think it's important to creating and telling a successful game session. If you're locked in by rules, you can't create the dramatic, exciting, funny event that's just right for the moment. Probably what I was least happy with was that it was still very hard to learn how to play. It was decided the rulebooks needed to work as reference first -- that would make them more useful in the long run, but it was still a hurdle to learn. People complain that we didn't do enough or we did too much, or that we sold out -- I just try to let that all go. There were reasons for many of the things we did that made sense at the time. I think people sometimes get too fixated about what's "official" to see what they could do with the whole.

[tdenmark]

Aug 26, 2021 18:30:31 GMT -6 jeffb said:

Aug 26, 2021 16:54:52 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

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!

My opinion remains exactly the same on this, even though since posting this I've read all the 2nd core rulebooks and the options books multiple times and have played in several sessions with different groups (in fact, just started a new 2e campaign last week with some old gaming buddies).

While my respect for 2e has gone up tremendously, I still think it is the Homer's Car edition, or Frankenstein if you prefer.

The only other thing I'd add to my criticism of 2e is that the art and trade dress of the core books are dorky, or as I like to call the style: dungeondork. When instead it should have been badass, like Darksun, Ravenloft, and some of Planescape were.

But enough with all that. The way the designers cleaned up 1e into 2e, unified some mechanics, organized it all, and made order out of chaos is admirable.

[tdenmark]

Dec 15, 2021 6:58:32 GMT -6 jeffb said:

I guess I was blessed in the way I learned how to play and with the group I had. I'd absolutely hate it if everyone ran the same game with the same rules all the time. That is killing the mojo of what an RPG is. The only case I find that beneficial for is tournament/RPGA play.

I partially agree. I don't like how the players who came into the hobby with 5th edition are genuine rules Nazis. Like any deviation from the published rules is heresy.

On the other hand, 2e was the other extreme. Too much was left up to the players to choose from a buffet of rules options.

I will agree strict standard rules are necessary for tournament play. Do they even do those anymore? Is the RPGA even a thing still?

[jeffb]

Is WOTC still doing Adventurers League for 5E?

I don't think the RPGA has been a thing for 20 years, but I don't pay much, if any, attention to that stuff, so I could be wrong.

I know during the 4E ara I ended up somehow getting some 4E tournament exclusives for being part of something that had superceded the RPGA...DM rewards or someshirt.

[b9anders]

Sept 24, 2024 21:10:13 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

This resurrected thread has once again popped up in my feed (I view this forum mostly from the "Most Recent Posts" link)

Dec 18, 2021 11:10:21 GMT -6 jeffb said:

And the customization of the game as we have all seen in the earliest years was expected and encouraged.

Then massive success.

It interesting, I find I either super agree with jeffb or super disagree.

The massive success of D&D went exponential when the B/X edition came out, which is anything but about customization. It is pretty cut and dried how to play. Where it encourages player creativity is more in creating adventures than in creating new rules.

Come on, now. From the very Introduction of Moldvay Basic:


"While the material in this booklet is referred to as rules, that is not really correct. Anything in this booklet (and other D&D booklets) should be thought of as changeable - anything, that is, that the Dungeon Master or referee thinks should be changed. This is not to say that everything in this booklet should be discarded! All of this material has been carefully thought out and playtested. However, if, after playing the rules as written for a while, you or your referee (the Dungeon Master) think that something should be changed, first think about how the changes will affect the game, and then go ahead. The purpose of these "rules" is to provide guidelines that enable you to play and have fun, so don't feel absolutely bound to them."

[tdenmark]

Oct 21, 2024 1:11:33 GMT -6 b9anders said:

Sept 24, 2024 21:10:13 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

This resurrected thread has once again popped up in my feed (I view this forum mostly from the "Most Recent Posts" link)

It interesting, I find I either super agree with jeffb or super disagree.

The massive success of D&D went exponential when the B/X edition came out, which is anything but about customization. It is pretty cut and dried how to play. Where it encourages player creativity is more in creating adventures than in creating new rules.

Come on, now. From the very Introduction of Moldvay Basic:


"While the material in this booklet is referred to as rules, that is not really correct. Anything in this booklet (and other D&D booklets) should be thought of as changeable - anything, that is, that the Dungeon Master or referee thinks should be changed. This is not to say that everything in this booklet should be discarded! All of this material has been carefully thought out and playtested. However, if, after playing the rules as written for a while, you or your referee (the Dungeon Master) think that something should be changed, first think about how the changes will affect the game, and then go ahead. The purpose of these "rules" is to provide guidelines that enable you to play and have fun, so don't feel absolutely bound to them."

Please list the optional rules described in B/X.