2e - why you think it sucks, and why you're right

[DangerousPuhson]

I think you need something like that in a setting that still assumes most magical items are 'trapped' or 'locked' in ancient ruins constructed in earlier days. If there is clear and upward momentum in magical ability then dungeon crawling as a source of magical items stops making sense. There is a sort of assumed Fallen Age in standard D&D that must also be considered.

While I agree that a "lost age" is probably the best way to illicit the wonder of discovery in a world where things have already advanced beyond where they once were, but we must remember that "advanced" and "different" are two distinct terms. We have advanced technology that automatically synchronizes the phone in our pockets with the Atomic Clock, yet we'll still get excited if we dig up an old Aztec calendar or Han Dynasty water clock... these finds are not rendered worthless by virtue of there being better versions of them already existing in the world.

Insert quote about "advanced technology indistinguishable from magic".

 

[squeen]

You go wash your mouth with soap. Dark Sun was the tits.

I don't know Dark Sun from Adam. Breasts on the other hand...

 

[EOTB]

The trick is not the showing how magic can recreate our world; The trick is in the adapting of an entire world to the very existence of magic in a plausible, sensible, quasi-realistic way.

Keeping magic tucked away into the corners of the Earth is not exactly what I'd call realism in a scenario where a level-0 farmhand can cast magic missile if he ever just decides to start an adventuring career.

It's the same creativity employed if I asked you to write a story on how different the world would be if horses had never existed. You have to change the whole world, not just the streetlights.

This approach is still looking for different things. The reason why AD&D worlds are created as they are is to facilitate the adventure. Getting caught up in world building to the point where the world building becomes a reason unto itself tends to create lots of worlds people appreciate abstractly as reading material and have difficulty applying concretely through play. See threads on planescape for one example. Fairy tales aren't realistic, but using their "world" as a basis for play works in a way more "realistic" worlds don't.

I concentrate on creativity at the tree level, not the forest level. The forest I present to the players looks familiar, so they can get traction at the tree level. I don't care about readers. They're not my audience or concern. I want there to be no or little enjoyment by consuming the world in the abstract, as in "gee this is new and neat". Hint at differences in an intriguing fashion that will never be answered outside of the play process? Sure. I.e., "tucked away in the corners of the world".

Is that unsatisfying to readers? Good.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

The reason why AD&D worlds are created as they are is to facilitate the adventure. Getting caught up in world building to the point where the world building becomes a reason unto itself tends to create lots of worlds people appreciate abstractly as reading material and have difficulty applying concretely through play. See threads on planescape for one example.

Therein lies the issue - where you see the onus of magic prevalence set on the shoulders of the DM, I see that onus driven by the players interacting with the world with the DM filling the gaps. One approach requires a ton of prep-time and concrete lines to be drawn about where magic can or can't exist, while the other is a patch over a temporary gap in the lore.

"Dusk settles. The streetlamps illuminate to bathe the cobblestones in a soft orange glow. The sounds of hoofsteps echo from within the depths of misty alleys".

This is what I, the DM, have presented to the players. There's no inherent magic in any of these things, nor is there wonder - this is a mundane scene.

One player asks "how did those lamps come on? I didn't see any lamplighters at work".

You have a few options at your disposal:

- "Actually there are lamplighters lighting them, and one such lad throws up a ladder only a few feet away and busily gets to work".

- "Actually the lamps glow with a magical flame that requires no fuel".

- "Actually they were lit by lamplighters, you just didn't notice them at the time and I didn't mention them because it's so common a sight".

- "Actually you're not sure how those lamps lit themselves, but they did".

- "Actually the lamps are not wick and flame, but rather strange glass orbs that illuminate themselves and glow with a uniform whiteness"

Whatever option you choose has set a precedent in your world - if the street lamps are magic, then magic streetlamps will not be a rare sight, nor would it be bizarre to see other "mundane" magic at work. If street lamps are not magic, then the players can be awed when they arrive somewhere that the lamps are magical - it doesn't preclude the existence of magic street lamps elsewhere, but the players know how THESE lamps work at least. An issue was brought up (how the lamps get lit), an answer was given, the game can move on.

Here's the kicker though: the players aren't going to ask about streetlamps. They're playing Dungeons & Dragons, not City Planners & Civic Inspectors.

So, knowing that, I can either plan every meticulous detail of a magic/mundane hybridization world ahead of time, delineating how freely magic is available in the rare off-chance that some player gets too curious, or I can have some vague guidelines in my head as to the general level of magic in my setting and improvise based on that. I choose that latter, and anyone who doesn't is overthinking a likely non-issue, in my opinion.

 

[Pseudoephedrine]

Interesting. Examples?

One simple one is that auctions of antiquities and movable capital begin (strictly speaking, they are rediscovered) during the late 16th / early 17th-century historically. So you have states, corporations, and magnates sending out delegates to small, private, temporary and/or cyclical markets hosted by a variety of comparable entities (there are no "auction houses" until the late 17th-century).

Rather than the sort of market we late-moderns think of characterised by flat, equilateral relations mediated strictly by money (you walk into the store, plunk down cash on the counter, and walk out with your goods regardless of who you are), these early markets are mediated through networks that are often either patron-client (a patron hosts a market for a variety of clients) or lateral between magnates and quasi-states (the "customers" of the market are say, the Pope, the Bank of St. George, several Elector-Princes, the agents of the Exchequer of the English Crown, two barons of venerable ancestry and fabulous wealth, the VOC, there are no random walk-ins). So embedding yourself into one of these networks in order to get access to the market is part of being able to liquidate or acquire these goods.

In a fantasy milieu you can go much further afield, as Prince of Nothing notes, and create markets that deal in metaphysical properties, that use fabulous and bizarre currencies (souls, seconds of life, residuum whatever), or where the participants are bizarre (devils, angels, slaad, illithids, etc.).

I agree that you don't want a strict upwards progression of magical potency. I tend to favour difference rather than inferiority tho'. I tend to set it up so there is the emerging scientific-magico-philosophical consensus of faux-early-modern-Europe and its associated tat, and the stuff from the past is not necessarily superior, but rather the most interesting examples of it operate under radically different principles to create strange and difficult-to-characterise effects. Mechanically, I represent this by "modern" magic mainly recreating or logically extending effects derived from spell lists, while ancient magic (or foreign magic, for that matter) will do wondrous and strange things not directly relatable to a known spell.

Beyond that, many of the most interesting examples of ancient magic may require logistical operations in their creation that may not be easily recreated. e.g. This magical artifact can only be created by sacrificing a thousand sentient beings to a demon - some deranged faux-Roman aristocrat in the past bought a thousand slaves to sacrifice to create it, but no one could get away with creating another one in the modern day without the church or whoever coming down on them hard. Even for less bloody operations, it might simply be that the. stone of some particular location is required in its construction, and no one is quite sure where "Pozzuoli" is anymore.

 

[Malrex]

So you like 90's comics, eh? (kidding)


No comment. To my way of thinking, you just shot yourself in the foot there, Hoss.


Looking up something in a table may be slow, but "retarded"? Really? Do you like knowing the value of sine and cosine? How do you think your calculator does it? (BTW: I personally use THAC0 in my stat blocks---by attack type---because I like the quick math and am not too worried about +/-5% inaccuracy on most to-hit rolls. I also like S&W's single Saving Throw type for similar reasons of efficiency.)


(cough)


This is also DP's 5e argument. Why do you think this keeps being the case (post 1e)?

My contention is the game-system balance was lost and broke adventure design.

Your is that they just lost the ability to write/edit for 30 years.

Which one is more likely?

[ And I do apologize for my bluntness, I assumed everyone accepted the thread premise as true (except @Malrex who likes to trick out his character like a hot-rod and dislikes DMing). So, if you like 2e, and have good memories of playing it, that's great. Carry on. ]

J'accuse!!!!

Basically...DMs will always defend 1e as they have ALL the power and can 'enjoy' D&D solo by preparing a dungeon and creating new monsters and whatnot...HOWEVER, DMs quibble and complain if the player gets a chance to enjoy the hobby solo with just one tiny aspect of the game--the character....so they dislike 2e. Even on 1e forums, the DMs present ideas for new character classes...but if a player was to do that??! no way!! That's just not the 1e way! And why do they keep presenting these new classes and ideas???? go play 2e for christ's sake, stop trying to recreate the wheel. It's embarrassing.

I don't like to "trick-out" my character...but I DO like to give them a little substance or flavor. If they die within 5 minutes (which happens) then no worries...I was able to enjoy the game as a PLAYER when NOT at the table in the form of building my character. Not sure why that pisses DM's off so much? Without that substance or flavor, playing D&D can be completely boring to me. I view it the same as grabbing the car gaming piece from Monopoly and calling it Ed the Fighter. Hell, why not just play the game of Sorry, there is dice in that game too.

Ohh boo hoo...weapon specialization and skills and whatever else you want to say about 2e imbalances the game??!!....my DM adds that shit to monsters too...its a even playing field! TA DAH! Holy shit, what a concept!! Suddenly we got bugbear berserkers with +2 to hit and +4 damage running around and goblins who know how to track. We never know what to expect and it keeps us on our toes. Not sure how "game-system balance was lost" except you chose not to apply the same rules/guidelines to monsters? That's on you.

Adventure design in 2e was broken though. I never noticed at the time because we stuck with 1e adventures. I won't defend 2e adventures, but I will definitely defend a player's right to creativity and enjoying the game.

 

[squeen]

Without that substance or flavor, playing D&D can be completely boring to me.

 

[EOTB]

If more players could enjoy that creativity while remaining detached from losing the work suddenly, I wouldn't be bothered with it.

When I say that a recognized problems with DMs is the tendency where, if they bothered to create it, the players will experience it - that their creativity is unsatisfied unless it is used at the table - the same problem arises in players who invest lots of time in characters outside of play: the attachment ramps up unbalanced from play, to where the attachment exceeds the survival likelihood. And if the character bites it the player takes it hard; now there's a feeling of "wasted time" (which is the same mental hump as a DM who feels their dungeon is wasted unless they can see players go through it).

I don't have issues with players having creative ability, per se. That's the 1st degree effect. There are 2nd and 3rd degree effects for most people making that time investment, though.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

When I say that a recognized problems with DMs is the tendency where, if they bothered to create it, the players will experience it

I thought the maxim of the DM was always "If you build it, they will go somewhere else".

As for players developing their characters: that's what an RPG is, almost by literal definition in its entirety. To stifle a player from getting excited over developing their characters... it just seems so against the spirit of the game. Do you know what is just as common as a player getting excited about the character they've built? A player getting excited about the character they're planning to build next. Like the DM, most players don't immediately stop thinking about the game when the session ends.

 

[Malrex]

If more players could enjoy that creativity while remaining detached from losing the work suddenly, I wouldn't be bothered with it.

When I say that a recognized problems with DMs is the tendency where, if they bothered to create it, the players will experience it - that their creativity is unsatisfied unless it is used at the table - the same problem arises in players who invest lots of time in characters outside of play: the attachment ramps up unbalanced from play, to where the attachment exceeds the survival likelihood. And if the character bites it the player takes it hard; now there's a feeling of "wasted time" (which is the same mental hump as a DM who feels their dungeon is wasted unless they can see players go through it).

I don't have issues with players having creative ability, per se. That's the 1st degree effect. There are 2nd and 3rd degree effects for most people making that time investment, though.

I can agree with that.
I've always been easy to detach from a character due to death...why? because then I get to have fun again and create a new one. Maybe I'm in the minority in that regard.

 

[The1True]

So you like 90's comics, eh? (kidding)

My collection of 90's comics is enormous, amazing and worth quite a bit at this point

 

[squeen]

...and worth quite a bit at this point

Probably not in adult (I-have-a-job) dollars.

Not surprisingly, my collection is/was late 70's--early 80's, ye' lover of the 2nd-edition.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

My collection of 90's comics is enormous, amazing and worth quite a bit at this point

Are you sure? 90s comics are almost worthless on the collector's market (I looked into it while valuing my own collection). Most of it was mass-produced during the "collect them because they're going to be worth a fortune" phase of the industry.

 

[squeen]

Holy smokes! DP and I just agreed on something...90's comics are worthless!

 

[EOTB]

Therein lies the issue - where you see the onus of magic prevalence set on the shoulders of the DM, I see that onus driven by the players interacting with the world with the DM filling the gaps. One approach requires a ton of prep-time and concrete lines to be drawn about where magic can or can't exist, while the other is a patch over a temporary gap in the lore.

.....

So, knowing that, I can either plan every meticulous detail of a magic/mundane hybridization world ahead of time, delineating how freely magic is available in the rare off-chance that some player gets too curious, or I can have some vague guidelines in my head as to the general level of magic in my setting and improvise based on that. I choose that latter, and anyone who doesn't is overthinking a likely non-issue, in my opinion.

This isn't what I was talking about at all.

 

[EOTB]

As for players developing their characters: that's what an RPG is, almost by literal definition in its entirety. To stifle a player from getting excited over developing their characters... it just seems so against the spirit of the game. Do you know what is just as common as a player getting excited about the character they've built? A player getting excited about the character they're planning to build next. Like the DM, most players don't immediately stop thinking about the game when the session ends.

That's what RPGs are today. If they were always that way, then roleplayers would never have complained that games didn't encourage roleplay in their rules.

For myself, I don't really care at all about the character. pre-gen is fine; roll 'em up is fine; one's as good as another. I don't really care either way. I'm here to see what and where, not "who". "Who" is pretty much interchangeable to me. You need "who" to go see what and where. Who is not the point though.

 

[The Heretic]

Fair point. The market economy destroyed D&D quality.
(Dragonlance = 2e? 1e ended with EGG's departure.)

Dragonlance was 1e.

Per Wikipedia, Dragonlance came out in 1984.
2nd Edition came out in 1989.

The Usurper didn't create 2nd edition immediately after she ousted Gary. It took a while to get it going. The crappiness started in 1st edition, with Dragonlance and Jim Ward.

 

[The Heretic]

In fact, I challenge you, squeen, to find and link a Bryce review where he shits on an adventure because of a problem inherent to its system and not to the author. Otherwise, you aren't demonstrating that there's a problem with a system - you're demonstrating a personal bias against a system which is not objectively a problem for everyone else using it.

That's easy, look at Bryce's review of the latter years of Dungeon magazine. He has a lot of nasty things to say about the 3rd edition statblock.

ALSO for what its worth, the 'commodifying' that Squeen is complaining about happened more in 3rd edition, where you'd get the lists of NPCs by level. Squeenly never took part in 3rd edition, so I can understand his ignorance here.

For Squeen and country!

 

[DangerousPuhson]

He has a lot of nasty things to say about the 3rd edition statblock.

Yes, but those statblocks were problematic because of a choice made by WotC and then forced upon the authors of Dungeon adventures, not because of the system itself. Many people have successfully condensed a 3e statblock into a more manageable format before; there was nothing preventing WotC from using them except by their own choosing. Amateur authors followed suit because they wanted to conform to the same style of "official" 3e publications.

 

[Malrex]

That's what RPGs are today. If they were always that way, then roleplayers would never have complained that games didn't encourage roleplay in their rules.

For myself, I don't really care at all about the character. pre-gen is fine; roll 'em up is fine; one's as good as another. I don't really care either way. I'm here to see what and where, not "who". "Who" is pretty much interchangeable to me. You need "who" to go see what and where. Who is not the point though.

I like the whole package...who, what, where, why, and sometimes when.

Who--I enjoy playing a variety of characters so it's interchangeable to me as well, BUT, I like to really know the Who. I prefer to have a visual in my mind what they look like. I like my 'who' to have motivations and goals, because it usually goes against someone else in the party which can create more interaction rather than just working as a team--which can get boring for me depending on the players and the DM. It gives me more to think about rather than just focusing on the dungeon/monsters. Game of Thrones within the party sometimes and maybe after a real life year or 2, it might lead to pvp. I despise pvp with no reason though, it needs to build up where everyone knows why its going to happen because people watch the characters struggle with one another and that usually takes a lot of time. IF someone wants to play a lawful good warrior and another wants to play a chaotic evil necromancer--cool! We don't automatically say it doesn't work out, people can play who they want, but it may not go as you think.

I think the Who IS the point...because if Who is not the point, why do we even need adventure hooks? Why not just start at the entrance of the dungeon and not worry about who hired you for the job or why your Who is even there to begin with?

BUT--I'm also against writing a whole storyline about the character. I think that is too restricting. Id rather play for a bit to figure out the Who. I also am not into the funny voices and stuff--once in awhile can be funny, but not trying to be a full on actor. Being interested in the Who doesn't automatically make you a 'trouble' player in my opinion. You got to know the players a bit and be cool and not a jerk...got to be subtle and see if anyone bites.

Why--If there is not a good Why, then I quickly get bored. Sometimes the Why is simply part of the What/Where as it pertains to exploration. But this is why I like to know the Who because then I can generate my own 'Why'.

I find that railroad adventures provide a "Why" and that actually turns me off and I can get bored, especially if the plot or whatever is boring.
But having a Why in the background (go save the princess) and letting me have the room to do my goals of my Who, makes it more fun for me.

What/where--probably in agreement

When--I only usually like this as a bard or on magic items for a little fluff history. Its not really a requirement. A little fluff or flavor makes things interesting to me.

Playing Pre-gens can be fine and fun and a lot of the Who wouldn't come into the picture during a convention or playing with strangers or a one-shot, but I think it really adds to the game without having to be silly.

Despite this whole thread...and the nastiness shown towards 2e (I forgive you).....I feel like if all of us played together, we would have a good time.