On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 10:06:34 -0000 (UTC), David Chmelik wrote:
Above was supposed to be the formatting of my original post. Pan 2 newsreader seems to have reformatted me, or did people see the
formatting right?
true editions
* original D&D: had Arda (James RR Tolkien) material, so was good
* basic D&D (2nd ed., 2e): apparently made some things easier
* Advanced D&D (AD&D): many additions/improvements
* BX (3e): added levels to basic D&D
* BECMI (4e): added levels & immortal characters to basic & expert D&D
* Rules Cyclopedia (5e): simply collected BECM ('I' in later boxed set)
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 10:06:34 -0000 (UTC), David Chmelik wrote:
true editions
* original D&D: had Arda (James RR Tolkien) material, so was good *
basic D&D (2nd ed., 2e): apparently made some things easier * Advanced
D&D (AD&D): many additions/improvements * BX (3e): added levels to basic >>D&D * BECMI (4e): added levels & immortal characters to basic & expert
D&D * Rules Cyclopedia (5e): simply collected BECM ('I' in later boxed
set)
Above was supposed to be the formatting of my original post. Pan 2 newsreader seems to have reformatted me, or did people see the
formatting right?
false editions (minor variants started, but somewhat backwards-compatible)
* AD&D 2e (half-false): major removals from AD&D 1e, but useful additions
On 20 Oct 2024, David Chmelik wrote:
false editions (minor variants started, but somewhat backwards-compatible) >> * AD&D 2e (half-false): major removals from AD&D 1e, but useful additions
I do have a soft spot for 2e. It was my first edition that I bought with my >own money.
The other reason I like 2e, it added full page colour pictures and better >layouts to the phb and dmg, and I think it was a well presented book. I don't >know where the tri-column layout came from, but I miss it.
You can't really hold up 1E and then say 2E is worse because of the
system itself.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 11:01:29 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
You can't really hold up 1E and then say 2E is worse because of the
system itself.
People do because removed assassins, monks, etc... if bards, cavaliers, >druids, rangers, thief-acrobats weren't removed, were significantly >changed... Dungeon Master Guide (DMG) was significantly shortened,
removing much good material. That's why my AD&D DM retained everything
from AD&D 1e and used what he wanted from 2e. The point is by removing >relevant material, it basically became a variant--like mostly a subset >(smaller part of original with minor changes). The fact it was a money-
grab by new CEO (gamers in general hated, because she considered them >beneath her) after they got rid of the original D&D creators, is well- >documented. That doesn't make it bad to play if one allows older
compatible rules. Just, on their own, new editions overall got worse.
But I still hold that most of the complaints about 2E have less to do
with the system itself than with the meta surrounding it: with Gygax's departure, with TSR's financial shenanigans, with the changing culture
around tabletop RPGs, etc.
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 07:36:43 -0000 (UTC), David Chmelik
<dchmelik@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 11:01:29 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
You can't really hold up 1E and then say 2E is worse because of the
system itself.
People do because removed assassins, monks, etc... if bards, cavaliers, >>druids, rangers, thief-acrobats weren't removed, were significantly >>changed... Dungeon Master Guide (DMG) was significantly shortened,
removing much good material. That's why my AD&D DM retained everything >>from AD&D 1e and used what he wanted from 2e. The point is by removing >>relevant material, it basically became a variant--like mostly a subset >>(smaller part of original with minor changes). The fact it was a money- >>grab by new CEO (gamers in general hated, because she considered them >>beneath her) after they got rid of the original D&D creators, is well- >>documented. That doesn't make it bad to play if one allows older >>compatible rules. Just, on their own, new editions overall got worse.
Except those character classes weren't really removed. They were added
back in by the first four splat-books, which were an intended part of
the redesign from the start. Similarly, a lot of the 'removed material'
from DMG was added back in with the Dungeon Master Guide books, which
-again- was the intended plan from the start.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 11:01:29 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
You can't really hold up 1E and then say 2E is worse because of the
system itself.
People do because removed assassins, monks, etc... if bards, cavaliers, druids, rangers, thief-acrobats weren't removed, were significantly changed... Dungeon Master Guide (DMG) was significantly shortened,
removing much good material. That's why my AD&D DM retained everything
from AD&D 1e and used what he wanted from 2e. The point is by removing relevant material, it basically became a variant--like mostly a subset (smaller part of original with minor changes). The fact it was a money-
grab by new CEO (gamers in general hated, because she considered them
beneath her) after they got rid of the original D&D creators, is well- documented. That doesn't make it bad to play if one allows older
compatible rules. Just, on their own, new editions overall got worse.
On 10/22/2024 5:27 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
But I still hold that most of the complaints about 2E have less to do
with the system itself than with the meta surrounding it: with Gygax's
departure, with TSR's financial shenanigans, with the changing culture
around tabletop RPGs, etc.
I think the main issue was that a lot of stuff became much more sophisticated in writing and production, but that most of the stuff also felt incredibly generic. And of course it doesn't help that the whole
idea of roleplaying went away from previous habits into the more
railroady aspects the Hickmans did so successfully. Roleplaying became playing a role in a prewritten story, a development that still is
happening, to the point that it's not even really possible to play a
more freeform game of 5e in my opinion.
(I also think that it's a valid expression of roleplaying as an artform, it's just not what DND started with and did best)
I rarely if ever used 2e modules when I played 2e. Pretty much all
homebrew or occasional 1e modules converted.
I still think the majority of modules for 3e+ are pale garbage compared
to the 1e & Basic modules.-a The most fun I've had playing 5e is right
now my friend is running us through a an official converted B4 The Lost City.
There was a couple parts of an adventure path I really enjoyed that he
ran in 3e-3.5e, the rest of it was meh at best. I ran a different one
which I found pretty bad.-a I read a starter module that sounded really
good but I never got around to running it.-a I enjoyed running the
starter module for 4e, but everything after that was not good on both
sides.
I did run a couple 3e campaigns that were very homebrew I enjoyed, but nothing in 3.5e or 4e homebrew turned out well.-a 5e was more hit and
miss, I never got anything past 8th level, and there was one I ran with converted KotB that didn't go well, but Zenopus and Lost Isle of
Castanamir did.-a I did have one homebrew I ran I kind of wished I'd kept going that I ended at 5th I think when I had difficulty keeping up with
the pace of creating the adventures.
On 10/22/2024 12:36 AM, David Chmelik wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 11:01:29 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
You can't really hold up 1E and then say 2E is worse because of the
system itself.
People do because removed assassins, monks, etc... if bards, cavaliers,
druids, rangers, thief-acrobats weren't removed, were significantly
changed... Dungeon Master Guide (DMG) was significantly shortened,
removing much good material.-a That's why my AD&D DM retained everything
from AD&D 1e and used what he wanted from 2e.-a The point is by removing
relevant material, it basically became a variant--like mostly a subset
(smaller part of original with minor changes).-a The fact it was a money-
grab by new CEO (gamers in general hated, because she considered them
beneath her) after they got rid of the original D&D creators, is well-
documented.-a That doesn't make it bad to play if one allows older
compatible rules.-a Just, on their own, new editions overall got worse.
My best campaigns were in 2e.-a I too used the 1e DMG to add certain bits back in though.
I have to say the layouts and readability of 2e was better than any
version before or after it.
On 10/22/2024 12:36 AM, David Chmelik wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 11:01:29 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
You can't really hold up 1E and then say 2E is worse because of the
system itself.
People do because removed assassins, monks, etc... if bards, cavaliers,
druids, rangers, thief-acrobats weren't removed, were significantly
changed... Dungeon Master Guide (DMG) was significantly shortened,
removing much good material. That's why my AD&D DM retained everything
from AD&D 1e and used what he wanted from 2e. The point is by removing
relevant material, it basically became a variant--like mostly a subset
(smaller part of original with minor changes). The fact it was a money-
grab by new CEO (gamers in general hated, because she considered them
beneath her) after they got rid of the original D&D creators, is well-
documented. That doesn't make it bad to play if one allows older
compatible rules. Just, on their own, new editions overall got worse.
My best campaigns were in 2e. I too used the 1e DMG to add certain bits >back in though.
I have to say the layouts and readability of 2e was better than any
version before or after it.
On 11/8/2024 2:55 PM, Justisaur wrote:
I rarely if ever used 2e modules when I played 2e. Pretty much all
homebrew or occasional 1e modules converted.
I still think the majority of modules for 3e+ are pale garbage compared
to the 1e & Basic modules.a The most fun I've had playing 5e is right
now my friend is running us through a an official converted B4 The Lost
City.
There was a couple parts of an adventure path I really enjoyed that he
ran in 3e-3.5e, the rest of it was meh at best. I ran a different one
which I found pretty bad.a I read a starter module that sounded really
good but I never got around to running it.a I enjoyed running the
starter module for 4e, but everything after that was not good on both
sides.
I did run a couple 3e campaigns that were very homebrew I enjoyed, but
nothing in 3.5e or 4e homebrew turned out well.a 5e was more hit and
miss, I never got anything past 8th level, and there was one I ran with
converted KotB that didn't go well, but Zenopus and Lost Isle of
Castanamir did.a I did have one homebrew I ran I kind of wished I'd kept
going that I ended at 5th I think when I had difficulty keeping up with
the pace of creating the adventures.
I have been going through a lot of old modules to pick out the ones that
I actually would want to play nowadays, and from 3e on the whole way
they are written has changed so much that many of them are pretty much >worthless in my opinion.
I remember going through some of the adventure modules when 3e was new,
and I found it neither enjoyable, nor did my players really invest work
in understanding the system.
A good scenario from 2e or earlier is still kind of worth playing though.
Not that there are so many of them. The railroad tendencies that later
would make 3e so boring to me already were worming their way into them.
Even when playing later editions, I _still_ use some of those
guidebooks as helpful references (namely, "DMGR1 Campaign Sourcebook
and Catacomb Guide" which is chock full of good advice for a DM
running a campaign, and "DMGR3 Arms and Equipment Guide", which is
just a useful (if not historically accurate) visual reference to all
those fantasy weapons in the game.
On 11/9/2024 2:47 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Even when playing later editions, I _still_ use some of those
guidebooks as helpful references (namely, "DMGR1 Campaign Sourcebook
and Catacomb Guide" which is chock full of good advice for a DM
running a campaign, and "DMGR3 Arms and Equipment Guide", which is
just a useful (if not historically accurate) visual reference to all
those fantasy weapons in the game.
Well, these books are fantastic resources. And I also use some more ADnD
2e books to work out stuff, only really good adventures are a bit rare
(and when I tried to point out some good ones I just realized those were
all 1e rereleases)
2nd Ed definitely was better when it came to campaign expansions than
with its modules. There were a handful of great adventures ("Dragon Mountain", "Planescape: Dead Gods", "Rod of Seven Parts") but on the
whole I remember the edition more for its stuff like the
aforementioned "DMGR3 Arms & Equipment Guide", "Ravenloft Boxed Set"
and "Aurora's Whole Realms Catalog".
Which was fine with me, because that was the era when I pretty much
stopped using retail adventures and started building up my own
campaign worlds. I still _bought_ them, being the good little consumer
(as "research" and "inspiration", I told myself) but most never really interested me enough to run them.
[Some were just horrible, though. Pretty much everythingI think it just outlived itself. The original Dragonlance adventures
Dragonlance did in 2nd Ed was just _awful_.]
But I'm not really surprised. The game itself was changing. Early 1E adventures were either extremely simplistic, or often whole
supplements unto themselves. They were good not so much for their
adventures but because of the realms they described for us. But with
TSR putting out more stand-alone campaign material, the modules
focused more on _just_ the adventures... and those just weren't
satisfactory on their own.
TL;DR: don't disagree with 2E modules, but I think it the decline has
less to do with the system and more to do with how the industry was
changing overall.
On 11/13/24 16:46, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
2nd Ed definitely was better when it came to campaign expansions than
with its modules. There were a handful of great adventures ("Dragon
Mountain", "Planescape: Dead Gods", "Rod of Seven Parts") but on the
whole I remember the edition more for its stuff like the
aforementioned "DMGR3 Arms & Equipment Guide", "Ravenloft Boxed Set"
and "Aurora's Whole Realms Catalog".
Yes, some of the campaign expansions were great. Some of the more
generic things like the Odyssey line as well.
I still don't know what to think about other stuff though, e.g. the
whole line of Dark Sun adventures. They were ultimately... fine. Not
great. Just fine.
On the other hand Planescape had a higher amount of usable material from >what I have seen.
(don't get me started on the Forgotten Realms which I started to despise
at that time, which only solidified with 3rd edition)
[Some were just horrible, though. Pretty much everything
Dragonlance did in 2nd Ed was just _awful_.]
I think it just outlived itself. The original Dragonlance adventures
might not be my favorite, but they told a story. The whole franchise was >basically desperately searching for what it's point was afterwards, and >failing.
But I'm not really surprised. The game itself was changing. Early 1E
adventures were either extremely simplistic, or often whole
supplements unto themselves. They were good not so much for their
adventures but because of the realms they described for us. But with
TSR putting out more stand-alone campaign material, the modules
focused more on _just_ the adventures... and those just weren't
satisfactory on their own.
I would claim that it made more money as well. It's a bit of a perverse >intent: the more you focused on just the adventure the more you had to
shell out for additional modules.
I think it just outlived itself. The original Dragonlance adventures
might not be my favorite, but they told a story. The whole franchise was >>basically desperately searching for what it's point was afterwards, and >>failing.
That's a problem with almost all Epics. Once you get to the end, it's >_really_ hard to move on from there. 'Congratulations, you've defeated
the Big Bad... but now what?' Well, you can decide the Big Bad comes
back, or maybe there's a bigger Bad, or maybe you just have some
half-hearted adventures in the world you just saved... but none of
those choices really have the same impact as the original quest. The
best thing you can do is just move onto something new entirely.
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 12:05:50 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson ><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
I think it just outlived itself. The original Dragonlance adventures >>>might not be my favorite, but they told a story. The whole franchise was >>>basically desperately searching for what it's point was afterwards, and >>>failing.
That's a problem with almost all Epics. Once you get to the end, it's >>_really_ hard to move on from there. 'Congratulations, you've defeated
the Big Bad... but now what?' Well, you can decide the Big Bad comes
back, or maybe there's a bigger Bad, or maybe you just have some >>half-hearted adventures in the world you just saved... but none of
those choices really have the same impact as the original quest. The
best thing you can do is just move onto something new entirely.
Babylon V handled it pretty well. Shadows are gone, as are all the elder
god races. Well, now what? You thought they were the *real problem*, but >somehow you still have problems, because there's never just one. There's
the big one, and you made the mistake of ignoring the rest.
It turned out that the BBEG became a distraction, their lurking allies
are *pissed*, and other evils, now blossoming, have flourished. There are
now multiple NQABBEGS (Not Quite As Big Bad Evil Guys). They're fighting
for the scraps and doing a lot of collateral damage. And one of them, by
the end of the campaign, will rise to become the new BBEG. After all, you >can't take on all of them at once. Will you make the same mistake?
Nothing half hearted about that. Heroing is hard.
Now, Babylon V didn't produce good *tv* after the 4th season retaking of >Earth, but the premise for the next season was great, and there were some >real gems in their 5th season.
I also have a boxed set of Crusader on my shelf as a cautionary tale.
(Yes. This is a threadjacking to Babylon V. I didn't crosspost though
because that group is dead.)
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 02:08:10 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (20,373K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,321 |