* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : 1E or 2E? Started at 12-27-07 02:24 AM by Jedi_Master_Trobon Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=970745 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Jedi_Master_Trobon Date : 12-27-07 02:24 AM Thread Title : 1E or 2E? I know that I just posted saying that I will be playing 2E, but I was wondering which the general population here thinks is better? My friend, know my eccentric D&D collection ways, gave me his old 1E books so I have those as well. I looked over them and was surprised by the fact that there were classes in there that just weren't in the 2E version. So which is better? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 12-27-07 08:07 AM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? You ought to get over to Dragonsfoot where you can learn that any game published since 1975 is for sissies. ;) 1e is quirkier, no doubt. Still, read the 1e DMG cover to cover and treasure it as the single greatest RPG book ever written. Then, you're just going to have to figure out if half-orcs, assassins, devils, and demons are more important to you than that $%%^@#$ initiative system. Never mind the mixed bag that is UA. So many of us-myself included-keep pondering 1e vs. 2e, and the more I think about it the more I come back to the answer we actually implemented back in the day: Run a hybrid. Whichever way, welcome back to D&D. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Varl Date : 12-27-07 10:37 AM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I got to go with the hybrid system too, even though 90% of my game is 2e. The other 10% is Unearthed Arcana. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 12-27-07 10:53 AM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I guess the campaign I used to run is also a hybrid of sorts, about 70% 2nd and 30% 1st. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Jedi_Master_Trobon Date : 12-27-07 12:49 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? Were the rule sytems of 1E and 2E easier to hybridize than the 3,x system is now? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Extempus Date : 12-27-07 01:07 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? Much, much easier... I really did not see much difference between 1e and 2e, but that's just me. My campaign is about 99% 1e, with some 2e ideas thrown in (like the beefed-up dragons, for instance... in 1e, they were designed to challenge very low level characters, but really not much else). I rather liked the idea of separating clerical spells into spheres, but thought the idea of the gods granting access to certain spheres really sucked (which meant that lots of priests and druids suddenly no longer had access to spells that made them priests and druids), so I have spheres that are basically only for one or the other that each respective class has full access to. Ultimately, IMHO: if it ain't broke, don't fix it... which is why I stayed with 1e and have no intention of ever changing... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : Dvalin Date : 12-27-07 01:19 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I love the video ad for 4e, which is supposed to make the earlier editions look lame and unplayable. What I really noticed is, except for using erasers as miniatures, the 1e players were having the easiest time playing and the most fun... 1e or 2e? Probably depends on when you started gaming, and how much you like or dislike complexity in rules. I started gaming around 1981 (red box, MM, and coloring book!), so I had most of the decade and all of my relevant childhood to get really comfortable with 1e. I felt that 2e was born with Unearthed Arcana, which is about when I started getting frustrated with TSR (about 1986?) - Gygax was fired, Trampier mysteriously quit, Jeff Grubb started changing basic assumptions about the rules (that's just my opinion, no offense intended to Mr. G), Dragon started using more stock clip art, and the games and supplements became increasingly twee. Instead of great modules like "Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth" and "White Plume Mountain", TSR started pumping out stuff like "Needle" and "Castle Greyhawk". In 1988 I let my Dungeon subscription run out, and in 1989 I quit buying Dragon from the local comic shop. It just wasn't the same game. Spelljammer was the last supplement I bought, mainly as a larf, and I was really disappointed. I heard from friends who did move to 2e that the rules were really different. Classes were dropped or shifted around. The MM was set as binder, and the angry mums (bless 'em) finally got TSR to ban devils and demons (although those creatures were just renamed, so whatever). I was like, this is not something I want to do with my time. But some of my friends were really, really into it. I have to say that the two guys who loved 2e the most were rules fanatics. They were both very detail-oriented, and went bananas for additional charts, skills, feats, etc. They loved it much, much better than 1e. In a way, the different editions of D&D are really different games altogether. IMO, it's like learning how to play chess (not just how the pieces move, but the different strategies, etc.), and then in a few years being told that there's a new board, some new pieces, new moves, and new strategies. It's still chess, just a different edition of chess. You'll like it more 'cause we took out all the things people have been complaining about. And stuff. Oh yeah, there won't be any support for the outdated version of chess; play it if you want, but don't say you like it better because if you do you're just a grognard who can't keep up with the times. (The funny thing is, everyone becomes a grognard at some point... players who dissed 2e fans are now saying they won't migrate away from 3.5... hmmm...) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : elondir Date : 12-27-07 02:04 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I prefer a hybrid of all editions based mostly on 2e. I like 2e mostly because I started playing in 1990, and never bought adventures (except Dragon Mountain, what a waste), so I didn't end up with Castle Greyhawk or Needle garbage. I liked Dark Sun and Spelljammer, but my favorite campaign ever was a Lankhmar/Ravenloft crossover. The breakdown of my "ideal edition": OD&D: mass combat, ruling a domain AD&D 1e: the stuff that was left out of 2e (monk, assassin), equipment lists, Wilderness Survival Guide, Dungeoneer's Survival Guide AD&D 2e: everything except THAC0, facing, and other things deemed too complex. Player's Option: if I have access to my core rules 2.0 expansion CD-ROM, it's great for character creation. Combat and Tactics is too complex, though. 3.0: upward AC with 2e BAB = 20 - THAC0, one initiative per combat, no racial class restrictions or level limits. I hate the 3.x skill system, feats were cool at first but got way out of hand, and prestige classes became so numerous that it took the fun out of the core. 3.5: not really much of anything. I tried DMing it but it's slow, overpowered, clunky, too reliant on miniatures (I hate minis), has crappy multiclassing that leaves you useless unless you're going for a special build (like diplomancer) (and too much level dipping as a result), and I think it would really be better if everyone just played factotums (factoti?). Overall I think it really misses the point of D&D by aiming for the CO and rules fanatics. 4e: from what I've seen of it, and that's not very much, it sounds like they have some cool concepts (points of light, unified BAB progression, no ASF, unaligned alignment, etc.), but it sounds like a completely different game. Overall I'd say use 2e with the elements of 1e that were left out of 2e, like monks, assassins, etc., get the 2e Complete Barbarian's Handbook, the Core Rules 2.0 CD-ROM and its expansion (the expansion REALLY makes a difference), Chronomancer, the Complete Psionics Handbook (I prefer it to Player's Option), The Will and the Way (some great psionics), and as many Monstrous Compendiums as you can get your hands on. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Agathokles Date : 12-27-07 02:07 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I know that I just posted saying that I will be playing 2E, but I was wondering which the general population here thinks is better? My friend, know my eccentric D&D collection ways, gave me his old 1E books so I have those as well. I looked over them and was surprised by the fact that there were classes in there that just weren't in the 2E version. So which is better? Most likely, each player feels the edition he started with is better than the others -- I'm more familiar with 2e, and I'd generally advise people to go with that rather than with 1e. However, the actual differences between 1e and 2e (and even BECMI or RC D&D), compared to those between any of those editions and either Original D&D or 3e are minimal, especially if you keep to the core books. The main differences between the various editions are summarized here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Dungeons_&_Dragons#Advanced_Dungeons_.26_Dragons Basically, 1e has the Half-Orc, Assassin and Monk, while 2e has several additional Specialist Wizard types (1e has only the Illusionist, IIRC), and the Non Weapon Proficiency system. Both editions have optional books that introduce (or reintroduce) the elements missing from the respective PHBs (e.g., the 2e Monk is in "The Scarlet Brotherhood"). There are some lesser adjustment (like the weight of coins or the initiative system) that can be easily ported from one system to the other. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 12-27-07 05:27 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? Most likely, each player feels the edition he started with is better than the others -- I'm more familiar with 2e, and I'd generally advise people to go with that rather than with 1e. However, the actual differences between 1e and 2e (and even BECMI or RC D&D), compared to those between any of those editions and either Original D&D or 3e are minimal, especially if you keep to the core books. The main differences between the various editions are summarized here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Dungeons_&_Dragons#Advanced_Dungeons_.26_Dragons Basically, 1e has the Half-Orc, Assassin and Monk, while 2e has several additional Specialist Wizard types (1e has only the Illusionist, IIRC), and the Non Weapon Proficiency system. Both editions have optional books that introduce (or reintroduce) the elements missing from the respective PHBs (e.g., the 2e Monk is in "The Scarlet Brotherhood"). There are some lesser adjustment (like the weight of coins or the initiative system) that can be easily ported from one system to the other. Maybe that's just an individual preference thing... I started with 1st, but prefer 2nd. That said, I enjoyed 1st, and wish there was someone around here who played either 1st or 2nd (I live in Colorado Springs). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : havard Date : 12-28-07 04:32 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? My impression is that 2E cleaned up alot of messy "quirks" from 1e. At the same time, I feel that 2e tries to make D&D more "realistic" thus IMO loosing out on some of the more heroic parts of 1e. Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Wyre Date : 12-28-07 07:05 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I play mostly 1ed with some 2nd thrown in. I took the Players Manual, D.M. Guide, Unearthed Acanum, Oriental Players Guide, the Dungeoners and Wilderness Survival Guides, sat down and worked out my own system. Some characters and rules were changed, but it is mostly true to the system. It works well, but I'm sure some D@D purist would grab their hearts and keel over if they saw my hybrid rules system. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Varl Date : 12-28-07 10:57 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? It works well, but I'm sure some D@D purist would grab their hearts and keel over if they saw my hybrid rules system. Heh. Hybrid rules....killing stodgy old AD&D purists one house rule at a time. Hybrid campaigns rule. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : Odhanan Date : 12-29-07 11:45 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I know that I just posted saying that I will be playing 2E, but I was wondering which the general population here thinks is better? My friend, know my eccentric D&D collection ways, gave me his old 1E books so I have those as well. I looked over them and was surprised by the fact that there were classes in there that just weren't in the 2E version. So which is better? Depends on what you grew up with and/or what style of D&D fantasy you like, I think. If you like gritty, medieval yet potentially magical fantasy, go with 1E. If you want Assassins, Monks and such go with 1E. If you're more into high fantasy, go with 2E. If you want an optional Skill system, go with 2E. I'm a 1E guy myself. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : Warhead Date : 12-30-07 03:57 AM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I played 1E back in the day, then in my frail dotage (long after it was condemned by TSR) found the beauty that was 2E. As has been said above, it irons out a lot of the quirks with 1E, and loses only a very little soul along the way. It was a crying shame about the demons and devils (but they're still there really!). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Odhanan Date : 12-30-07 10:35 AM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I played 1E back in the day, then in my frail dotage (long after it was condemned by TSR) found the beauty that was 2E. As has been said above, it irons out a lot of the quirks with 1E, and loses only a very little soul along the way. It was a crying shame about the demons and devils (but they're still there really!). Good point, which amounts to: if you like organic, "granular" game mechanics; if you and your players don't mind adjudications on the spot, you go with 1E. If you'd prefer smooth(er) game mechanics and less power to the DM, go with 2E. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 12-30-07 12:01 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? Good point, which amounts to: if you like organic, "granular" game mechanics; if you and your players don't mind adjudications on the spot, you go with 1E. If you'd prefer smooth(er) game mechanics and less power to the DM, go with 2E. In every group I was in for 1st, character creation night was also rules clarification/ creation night. We'd all sit around with the DM and figure out what rules needed to be used for what, so there was actually very little done "on the fly". -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : Varl Date : 12-30-07 01:55 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I just read a post over on a 1e board about henchmen, and according to the poster, henchmen in 1e do not contribute in determining the course of action or to help overcome puzzles, riddles, tricks, traps, etc. I thought that comment was a little weird. Sure, the main focus and goal is for PCs to try and solve issues like these, but NPC henchmen and hirelings are great for giving out clues or hints should that be needed. The impression I get is that 1e henchmen and hirelings are much closer to being true, expendable Red Shirts than any other edition, and that they're only with a group to strictly do what they've been hired for and nothing more. That's the kind of rules rigidity with 1e that made my mind up to move on to a much more openly-interpreted 2nd edition. YMMV. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : Extempus Date : 01-01-08 06:27 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? Never used henchmen. There were always plenty of PCs to deal with, henchmen just get in the way... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 01-01-08 11:09 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I love the video ad for 4e, which is supposed to make the earlier editions look lame and unplayable. What I really noticed is, except for using erasers as miniatures, the 1e players were having the easiest time playing and the most fun... That part of the video had my hackles up automatically - I didn't ever touch miniatures in a roleplaying game until 3d ed and didn't game in any party that did. That's what the imagination was for (and still is). I almost didn't watch the rest just based on that. You don't build a new business base by insulting the older members of you gaming community that have supported you since day one. I did use primarily 2nd ed and then referred back to 1st whenever the rules didn't quite suit or when I wanted something that failed to exist in 2nd ed. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 01-02-08 06:28 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I just read a post over on a 1e board about henchmen, and according to the poster, henchmen in 1e do not contribute in determining the course of action or to help overcome puzzles, riddles, tricks, traps, etc. I thought that comment was a little weird. Sure, the main focus and goal is for PCs to try and solve issues like these, but NPC henchmen and hirelings are great for giving out clues or hints should that be needed. The impression I get is that 1e henchmen and hirelings are much closer to being true, expendable Red Shirts than any other edition, and that they're only with a group to strictly do what they've been hired for and nothing more. That's the kind of rules rigidity with 1e that made my mind up to move on to a much more openly-interpreted 2nd edition. YMMV. We always used our henchmen to guard "base camp", help us with moving large amounts of treasure and objects, as well as being good companions and bodyguards... then again, we played each-other's henchmen rather than our own. Female henchmen were always given to female players, as well. Men just don't do it right {nor do women usually play men particularly well... as well as other confusing issues dealing with gender-benders). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : elondir Date : 01-07-08 09:40 AM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I didn't like the video either. It just wasn't convincing, and it made me feel that they don't "get it" in the same way that George Lucas didn't "get" Star Wars after 1983 until Episode III. I never touched a mini until 2006. I didn't buy 3.5 core when I found out how much of it was just miniatures rules. If I wanted minis I'd play chess. I don't really count anyway though because I'm bored with playing D&D in the normal way. I still love world building and a little solo play (letting my computer come up with random dungeons for my character to smash through), but I'm bored with playing with a group and DMing is way too much work. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 01-07-08 10:21 AM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? That part of the video had my hackles up automatically - I didn't ever touch miniatures in a roleplaying game until 3d ed and didn't game in any party that did. That's what the imagination was for (and still is). I almost didn't watch the rest just based on that. You don't build a new business base by insulting the older members of you gaming community that have supported you since day one. I did use primarily 2nd ed and then referred back to 1st whenever the rules didn't quite suit or when I wanted something that failed to exist in 2nd ed. Ditto. It's like they're trying to turn D&D into Warhammer... Don't get me wrong, I love mini wargames... I have two armies for Warhammer and 6 for 40k, but when I want to play an RPG, I don't want to have to deal too much with minis... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : Monteblanco Date : 01-09-08 04:42 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I started with the Molday D&D box but quickly moved to 1st edition AD&D, which was the first role-playing game I ever had. I have not played 2nd and 3rd edition that much. That said, 2nd edition AD&D is probably the best as the writing is much more clear and chapters are pretty well organized. A few things present in the first edition were removed but it is not hard to add them back if you really cares. The d20 version feels like a different game engine emulating the classic game. It doesn't do much for me, although I recognize some improvements such as the AC going up. The classic Basic and Expert boxes by Molday and Cook are probably my favourite versions. They include a simple yet complete version of the rules and they fix some AD&D quirks by shortening the duration of the round and standardizing the abilities' bonuses, both features latter included in d20. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : Mock26 Date : 01-10-08 03:57 AM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? When you get right down to it, though, there really wasn't all that much that was changed between the two editions. The only real major changes were elimination of a couple classes, renaming some monsters, the classification of clerical spells into spheres of influence and the introduction of the non-weapon proficiency system. Bear in mind, though, that I'm not talking about any of the additional supplements and especially not the Options books. But, by the core books, not all that lot changed between first and second. As for the video mentioned by Dvalin, I found it to be more than a bit stupid. I played both 1st and 2nd edition and I really don't think that in 2nd edition the game was mostly about sitting around waiting for you turn. You waited just as long in 1st edition for your turn as you did in 2nd, and as in 3.x. And while I still prefer 2nd over 3.x the bit about needing to look up the rules for grapple was simply stupid. Pretty much everyone has to constantly look up rules while they are learning the game. After you play for a while these things become second nature. To me the overall feel of the video was one that is looking back on the previous editions as being embarassments. The 1st edition players got a somewhat favorable light, but the 2nd and 3.x version were made to look like they were about as much fun as getting bamboo shoots shoved under your fingernails. I think that they would have been better off making a video that focused on the improvements from one edition to the other, like the game was constantly getting better, not that they were constantly trying to get it right. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : elondir Date : 01-10-08 09:01 AM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? Nonweapon Proficiencies were introduced in the 1e Dungeoneer's Survival Guide. 1e to 2e was more like the 3.0 to 3.5 change, so they're pretty much the same game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 01-10-08 11:37 AM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? When you get right down to it, though, there really wasn't all that much that was changed between the two editions. The only real major changes were elimination of a couple classes, renaming some monsters, the classification of clerical spells into spheres of influence and the introduction of the non-weapon proficiency system. Bear in mind, though, that I'm not talking about any of the additional supplements and especially not the Options books. But, by the core books, not all that lot changed between first and second. As for the video mentioned by Dvalin, I found it to be more than a bit stupid. I played both 1st and 2nd edition and I really don't think that in 2nd edition the game was mostly about sitting around waiting for you turn. You waited just as long in 1st edition for your turn as you did in 2nd, and as in 3.x. And while I still prefer 2nd over 3.x the bit about needing to look up the rules for grapple was simply stupid. Pretty much everyone has to constantly look up rules while they are learning the game. After you play for a while these things become second nature. To me the overall feel of the video was one that is looking back on the previous editions as being embarassments. The 1st edition players got a somewhat favorable light, but the 2nd and 3.x version were made to look like they were about as much fun as getting bamboo shoots shoved under your fingernails. I think that they would have been better off making a video that focused on the improvements from one edition to the other, like the game was constantly getting better, not that they were constantly trying to get it right. Yes. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : elondir Date : 01-10-08 04:40 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? The video was bad marketing, plain and simple. Bad accent, obviously skewed towards getting people to dislike previous editions, they used minis in 1e and 2e (granted, some people did, but I never met a single person who used them until an RPGA Living Greyhawk 3.5 campaign came to my FLGS), and so on. To me, D&D is best when you're all in recliners and easy chairs in a basement until 2AM with beer and pizza, some ambient music, and the DM is fast and loose with the rules (without being too much so), using a streamlined rules set (no fancy maneuvers like grappling, fear effects, save or dies, etc), and you've got the giant old Greyhawk hex map (or the FR gray box map, or even better yet, your DM's homebrew map) sprawled out on the coffee table and parts of the floor. You wander around on the map from town to town, visit a few taverns and houses of ill repute, and then go down in the dungeon, kill a few monsters, kill the big bad evil guy, and level up (by the book xp, not arbtrary DM "you level up"). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : bloodtalon Date : 01-10-08 04:59 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? i started out back in 79 with i had a box set called BASIC then a couple years went to 1e mainly cause of T1 VILLAGE OF HOMMLET. then got 2e and did a hybrid of 1e and 2e i liked the xp of 2e over 1e mainly i played in one game with minis and did not like it. if we needed to know where something or someone was that is what scrap paper is for also found out with dungeon tiles it slows the game cause if it looks like something is out of place people will go to that one space and look forever and a day to make sure they don't miss something -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : CCS Date : 01-10-08 09:19 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? but I was wondering which the general population here thinks is better? Personally I've never thought either one was "better". But they work best if you use them to create a hybrid system. I started out with the Basic (& then Expert) set but quickly began adding 1e stuff as I discovered there were two different versions of the game. So throughout most of the '80s I ran a basic/advanced hybrid game that gradually shifted more & more into AD&D 1st ed. When 2nd ed came out our games became a hybrid of 1st & 2nd. As others have said, it was easy enough to add "missing" 1E things into 2nd (or vise versa) & convert things back & forth. So throughout the '90s pretty much wich edition formed the foundation of a campaign was based upon which group I was playing with. Some people still had more 1E stuff, others had more 2nd ed stuff. Me? I had both. Thus the games I ran were a pretty even mix. The 3.x system though (shudders).... I skipped much of the 3.x era - due to life, other interests, other game systems, etc etc etc, only returning to playing/running D&D on a regular basis again in late '06. And gods what an overpowered, miniture heavy, player attitude/style, mess I've returned to.... It's not the same game I left back in '98/99. And not in a good way. I'm a 1E DM in a 3.5 world.... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : mdono Date : 01-13-08 01:40 AM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? The 3.x system though (shudders).... I skipped much of the 3.x era - due to life, other interests, other game systems, etc etc etc, only returning to playing/running D&D on a regular basis again in late '06. And gods what an overpowered, miniture heavy, player attitude/style, mess I've returned to.... It's not the same game I left back in '98/99. And not in a good way. I'm a 1E DM in a 3.5 world.... Similar history here, though I did get into 3.x with the family. The mini rules dominated everything, sucking nearly every bit of visual imagination and drama from combat. It's a bit like painted checkers with some die rolls to see which checker wins. I have decided to give up on 3.x entirely and will likely not even glance at 4e. I'm probably going back to 1e with some UA and some 2e mixed in - or I'm just going to create a new system from scratch. My best campaigns were a mix of 1e and 2e and ran for years. Getting a 3.x campaign off the ground has been incredibly difficult, as no matter how good the story, the mini mechanics and other elements get in the way like a hippo in a phone booth. Without the story elements playing a stronger role than the mechanics, it is a huge challenge keeping the interest of the players (or the DM for that matter). OD&D/1e/2e were all role-playing games with some miniature rules for use where such was actually useful. 3.x is a minis with skills system with some role-playing thrown in... somewhere... mdono :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : elondir Date : 01-14-08 02:43 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? Yeah, I lost interest in running 3.5 largely because it felt like a sterile classroom exercise instead of a party game. It was too slow, too powerful, too complicated, took all the imagination away, and overall was nothing like my early 90's heyday. Count me in as a nostalgic grognard because I prefer 1960's & 1970's fantasy to 2000's fantasy. And to me, most of the best 3.x accessories other than the first round of Complete Books were all third-party. I never got an official mass combat system (like Cry Havoc), custom construct creation (like Encyclopedia Arcane: Constructs), or a really good epic supplement (like the Immortal's Handbook). And the Seafarer's Handbook was better than Stormwrack in my opinion. And City State of the Invincible Overlord in the Wilderlands of High Fantasy is better than the 3.x edition of the Forgotten Realms, in my opinion. Unfortunately, I'm not liking the 4e look so far; it just doesn't feel right. Points of light is cool, kind of old school, but it feels even less like D&D than 3.5. I guess I'll stick with my Rules Cyclopedia and AD&D core (1e and 2e). Now I've got to convert a few races and classes (Eberron ones and Feytouched) to 2e though. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : Votan Date : 01-14-08 03:36 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? Unfortunately, I'm not liking the 4e look so far; it just doesn't feel right. Points of light is cool, kind of old school, but it feels even less like D&D than 3.5. I guess I'll stick with my Rules Cyclopedia and AD&D core (1e and 2e). Now I've got to convert a few races and classes (Eberron ones and Feytouched) to 2e though. Curiously, the things that I enjoy the most about 4th edition previews are elements that seem to bring D&D closer to 1st and 2nd edition. The overhead of the complex system simply did not pay off for me. It turned character and monster creation into a chore and made for some (initially fun) very complex optimization algorithms. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : Varl Date : 01-15-08 11:46 AM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I have to admit that one thing about 4e that does intrigue me is the points of light concept as well as how they describe creature combat interactions. I still don't know if these fleeting concepts would be enough for me to buy into 4e though. I kinda doubt it, but I am interested in reading about it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 35] Author : Votan Date : 01-15-08 01:12 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I have to admit that one thing about 4e that does intrigue me is the points of light concept as well as how they describe creature combat interactions. I still don't know if these fleeting concepts would be enough for me to buy into 4e though. I kinda doubt it, but I am interested in reading about it. I agree that the new setting could be very good. I am not a conservative with gaming systems and recognize that the new can be a major improvement over the old. However, in the case of D&D, the new added much complexity for a rather minimal return. I am also thinking that the strong attribute and magic item linking was a mistake. In the earlier editions you could play a fighter with all stats between 7 and 14 and have a completely viable character. In 3.5 that is possible but they will be weaker than a character with all 14s, especially now that so many class features run off attributes. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 36] Author : Extempus Date : 01-15-08 04:47 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I have to admit that one thing about 4e that does intrigue me is the points of light concept as well as how they describe creature combat interactions. I still don't know if these fleeting concepts would be enough for me to buy into 4e though. I kinda doubt it, but I am interested in reading about it. I spent plenty of $$$ on 1e and 2e stuff, and wasted $$$ on the handful of 3e books I bought (I never used them, but I did find the psionics stuff pretty good). I wasn't about to waste my hard-earned $$$ on the same books all over again for 3.5e (except for the Expanded Psionics Handbook, Complete Psionic and Sword & Sorcery's Hyperconscious: Explorations in Psionics), and sure as hell won't be wasting my hard-earned $$$ on the same books for 4e... I know I sound like a broken record, but that's how I see things... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 37] Author : elondir Date : 01-16-08 10:00 AM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I agree, there is a cycle of "mandatory" books for D&D, and it's been repeated several times. PHB DMG MM1, MM2, Fiend Folio Deities and Demigods (aka Legends and Lore, Faiths and Pantheons) Manual of the Planes (aka Planar Handbook) Psionics Handbook Castle Guide (aka Stronghold Builder's Guidebook) "Complete" books for each class and race -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 38] Author : Votan Date : 01-16-08 01:37 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I agree, there is a cycle of "mandatory" books for D&D, and it's been repeated several times. PHB DMG MM1, MM2, Fiend Folio Deities and Demigods (aka Legends and Lore, Faiths and Pantheons) Manual of the Planes (aka Planar Handbook) Psionics Handbook Castle Guide (aka Stronghold Builder's Guidebook) "Complete" books for each class and race Yeah, part of the problem with the more rapid pace of the newer editions is that they release all of the these elements each time they release a new edition. The changes between 3.0 and 3.5 were as dramatic as the changes between 1 and 2 and they, therefore, re-released all of the 3.0 material in the 3.5 context. This adds up to substantial costs but also to long "learning period" effects too!! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 39] Author : Toran Ironfinder Date : 01-16-08 07:49 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I never did a lot of DnD back in the day, but I did play a lot of Star Wars in the old WEG system. It seems to me that one of the posters has already noted that one of the big differences is the players, and their demands that are running the new systems. Older systems were more GM/DM intensive, character death happened from time to time, and it wasn't the end of the world (though some GM's went to far with killing everyone off), and the accumulation of power was slower (and not necessarily as important), and the storyline was considered to be important. Younger players, for whatever reason, don't like these elements; RPing is less important than killing monsters faster than anyone else. While I did update to the RCR and will probably run my next campaign in Saga (our 4e), that is more out of pragmatism (its easier to introduce players to game that is in print than to one that isn't). However, I don't know when I will try to build another group; RPG gamers aren't what they used to be. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 40] Author : Varl Date : 01-16-08 08:15 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I spent plenty of $$$ on 1e and 2e stuff, and wasted $$$ on the handful of 3e books I bought (I never used them, but I did find the psionics stuff pretty good). I wasn't about to waste my hard-earned $$$ on the same books all over again for 3.5e (except for the Expanded Psionics Handbook, Complete Psionic and Sword & Sorcery's Hyperconscious: Explorations in Psionics), and sure as hell won't be wasting my hard-earned $$$ on the same books for 4e... I know I sound like a broken record, but that's how I see things... I feel the same way. I bought some 3.x books, mainly monster books, because they can always be converted to AD&D using the template I created, so they have the most utility imo. But buying into the Completely Recycled Handbooks of Pointlessness or two DMGs and PHBs (lol!) was where I scratched the line in the sand. For a system they claimed was going to streamline rules from the so-called rules bloat of 1e/2e, they sure came out with a LOT of supplemental books, didn't they? :rolleyes: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 41] Author : Extempus Date : 01-16-08 09:14 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? It's called "making money," but there is a difference between capitalism and greed... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 42] Author : Cynipid Date : 01-17-08 03:18 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I asked the same question of Ed Greenwood and had to agree with him... 2nd Edition is better than 1st Edition. While Thac0 is Thac0... what a concept... 2nd offered a slightly better balanced system with a few more options than 1st Ed. Plus, Forgotten Realms is a result of the 2nd Edition times and I love The Realms. I have to agree with a previous post though... The 1st Edition Dungeon Master's Guide is one of the best books ever - I still use lists from it for my current 3.5 Campaign. The players in my campaign have all admitted to having fun, but they noticed the campaign being more fun since I made the "10 second rule". If you don't say what your character does in 10 seconds or less, your character doesn't do anything. With 12 players, we need things to flow smoothly - and they do. The players tell me that the last DM couldn't make it work with 8 players. I think that's because I played 1st and 2nd Edition and don't worry about the rules in 3rd Edition (which just bog the game down in people looking things up). I make a judgement call on the rules based upon how well someone roleplayed vs what the book said. The truth is that I try to play my 3.5 Campaign like it's 1st or 2nd Edtion - LESS RULES are BETTER... unless they are House Rules... then just have fun! Anyone got a D30? I rolled a 20 and got a Critical Hit!?! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 43] Author : Votan Date : 01-17-08 05:15 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I asked the same question of Ed Greenwood and had to agree with him... 2nd Edition is better than 1st Edition. While Thac0 is Thac0... what a concept... 2nd offered a slightly better balanced system with a few more options than 1st Ed. Plus, Forgotten Realms is a result of the 2nd Edition times and I love The Realms. I think 2nd edition smoothed rough edges off of first edition without trying to alter the system. I am struck by how much 3rd edition "demoted" the Fighter and Rogue in favor of the spellcasters. From improving the ability of casters to cast in combat, increasing their number of spells and improving their THAC0 progression to making rogue skills available to any class. I remembered a fighter as a simple and viable class. I also note that it played into the worst attribute boosting tendencies of 1st and 2nd edition by making things more dependent on ability scores rather than less . . . -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 44] Author : Mock26 Date : 01-21-08 03:58 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I really liked that the XP tables for 1st and 2nd edition were skewed so that classes advanced at different rates to compensate for the "unbalanced" power factor than can arise between the classes. These days, with the current rules system, you have mobs of people who will whine and complain and say it is unfair if characters within the same group are at different levels. (On an aside, and even worse, are those who say it is unfair to award differenet amounts of XP to different players, especially bonus XP, which, according to some, is a form of punishment for those who don't get the bonus XP). As for the 1st edition DMG (and to a lesser extent the Monster Manual), I miss the cartoons! Those cartoons in those two books were great. They added a bit of levity to the rules that reminded people that it was, at the end of it all, still just a game. My favorites (from the DMG) are the one with the group of characters charging the giant snake with a giant forked stick, the Papers & Paychecks players, the platemail-clad fighter jumping into the arms of the wizard at the sight of the rust monster and (from the Monster Manual) the one of the lynx with the group of tired looking adventurers and the one is saying, "Whaddya mean we gotta talk to this lynx?? The last monster we talked to ate half of the party!" Not only were the cartoons great, but I think that the best artwork was for 1st edition (I think, though, that the best non-book related D&D artwork was from the heyday of 2nd edition). I absolutely loathe, hate, and despise those childish bluish drawings by Jean E. Martin throughout the 2nd edition DMG and PHB. They are so horrid as to detract from the few drawings by talented artists that are also in the books. As for 3.x, I think the artwork sucks troll butt. It is too Pokemon-ish for my taste, too cartoonish in nature, in particular the fondness of weapons that are SUPER HUGE, like they are out of some anime movie. I especially hate the way the ears on elves are super long and super pointy. I also hate how some of the artists have to give their characters funky looking, discolored noses (like Lidda the thief). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 45] Author : Extempus Date : 01-21-08 07:43 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I think 2nd edition smoothed rough edges off of first edition without trying to alter the system. I am struck by how much 3rd edition "demoted" the Fighter and Rogue in favor of the spellcasters. From improving the ability of casters to cast in combat, increasing their number of spells and improving their THAC0 progression to making rogue skills available to any class. In other words, you can be anything and do anything you want, no matter how odd, bizarre or inconsistent it is. The rules in 3e and 3.5e as such aren't really rules in the end, which is what I liked about 1e: if you are this type of character, you can be one of these classes, and if you want to be this class, you can only be one of these character races. No ands, ifs or buts about it... 3e and 3.5e reminds me of the joke character (I mentioned in another thread) that the DM allowed many a long year ago: an intelligent aardvark that was a cleric/druid/fighter/ranger/paladin/magic-user/illusionist/thief/assassin/monk/bard... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 46] Author : fretrockcrusher Date : 01-25-08 10:14 AM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? Personally I've never thought either one was "better". But they work best if you use them to create a hybrid system. I started out with the Basic (& then Expert) set but quickly began adding 1e stuff as I discovered there were two different versions of the game. So throughout most of the '80s I ran a basic/advanced hybrid game that gradually shifted more & more into AD&D 1st ed. When 2nd ed came out our games became a hybrid of 1st & 2nd. As others have said, it was easy enough to add "missing" 1E things into 2nd (or vise versa) & convert things back & forth. So throughout the '90s pretty much wich edition formed the foundation of a campaign was based upon which group I was playing with. Some people still had more 1E stuff, others had more 2nd ed stuff. Me? I had both. Thus the games I ran were a pretty even mix. The 3.x system though (shudders).... I skipped much of the 3.x era - due to life, other interests, other game systems, etc etc etc, only returning to playing/running D&D on a regular basis again in late '06. And gods what an overpowered, miniture heavy, player attitude/style, mess I've returned to.... It's not the same game I left back in '98/99. And not in a good way. I'm a 1E DM in a 3.5 world.... 1st ed and 2nd ed are the ways to play d&d, the new editions are worthless because they take out the fun and more rules than needed. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 47] Author : Varl Date : 01-25-08 12:00 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I really liked that the XP tables for 1st and 2nd edition were skewed so that classes advanced at different rates to compensate for the "unbalanced" power factor than can arise between the classes. These days, with the current rules system, you have mobs of people who will whine and complain and say it is unfair if characters within the same group are at different levels. (On an aside, and even worse, are those who say it is unfair to award differenet amounts of XP to different players, especially bonus XP, which, according to some, is a form of punishment for those who don't get the bonus XP). Waa waa waa. Im so tired of whiny, sniveling people like that. Life's unfair; get over it. Their measurement of fairness is measured by the amount of satisfaction from which other people have acquired. What a great standard by which to live your life. :rolleyes: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 48] Author : Mock26 Date : 01-25-08 02:14 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? Waa waa waa. Im so tired of whiny, sniveling people like that. Life's unfair; get over it. Their measurement of fairness is measured by the amount of satisfaction from which other people have acquired. What a great standard by which to live your life. :rolleyes: I have actually run across players who claim that the RAW is everything and must be obeyed, but when you mention bonus XP awards (which are part of the RAW) they then say that they just don't follow that bit. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 49] Author : Varl Date : 01-25-08 08:33 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I have actually run across players who claim that the RAW is everything and must be obeyed, but when you mention bonus XP awards (which are part of the RAW) they then say that they just don't follow that bit. Even when they're the beneficiaries? Heh. That's funny. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 50] Author : RedWizard Date : 01-25-08 09:45 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I liked the Bard class much better in 1st edition. 2ed ruined them for me. But otherwise I am ok with 2nd ed. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 51] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 01-25-08 11:30 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I never played "Basic D&D" and held off playing 1st Ed for about a year, starting in late 1979. I was afraid I would get too "hooked" and boy was I right. We started with a friend of mine's home grown dungeon and we always used minis...mainly, at first because we all liked to paint them. I have played with and without minis and after several arguments with, "as the door busts open it strikes your thief who was listening at the door." "No it didn't, I moved back after I listened!" "But you never said you moved." "Yes I did." "When?" "Well, I meant to, but you didn't give me a chance..." and so on, have used them for years...and with no appreciable lack of imagination. Initially, I held off on 2nd Ed whan it came out, but eventually succumed to it's overwealming quality and detail. Currently we play a hybred of about 95% 2nd Ed and 5% 1st Ed. I tried 3.0 & 3.5 and couldn't stand them, so they play no part. My idea of Fantasy gaming, which includes AD&D, live scale with IFGS (the International Fantasy Gaming Society) here in Colorado, Mechwarrior and Shadowrun is just like I used to introduce people to when I managed and owned Hobby stores. " Imagine yourself miraculously transported to another world. Now, in that world everything is just like in this one, except for two things. Magic works and because it does, the monsters are real! In this world, you will find your abilities are different than the one you left. Here, you may be exceptionally strong...or weak, or you might be amazingly agile and good with your hands. This will all be determined as you come to understand the character you are in this new world." So the detail of the world you adventure is a combination of fantasy rules and Natural Science. :rimshot: By the way, Vrycolas2K, there is an IFGS chapter in Colorado Springs, IFGS Southern Colorado. If you look them up, I'll bet you can find some of them who play AD&D. Start with a search on Dogpile.com for Internationas Fantasy Gaming Society. It will lead you to them. Good luck. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 52] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 01-26-08 03:17 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I never played "Basic D&D" and held off playing 1st Ed for about a year, starting in late 1979. I was afraid I would get too "hooked" and boy was I right. We started with a friend of mine's home grown dungeon and we always used minis...mainly, at first because we all liked to paint them. I have played with and without minis and after several arguments with, "as the door busts open it strikes your thief who was listening at the door." "No it didn't, I moved back after I listened!" "But you never said you moved." "Yes I did." "When?" "Well, I meant to, but you didn't give me a chance..." and so on, have used them for years...and with no appreciable lack of imagination. Initially, I held off on 2nd Ed whan it came out, but eventually succumed to it's overwealming quality and detail. Currently we play a hybred of about 95% 2nd Ed and 5% 1st Ed. I tried 3.0 & 3.5 and couldn't stand them, so they play no part. My idea of Fantasy gaming, which includes AD&D, live scale with IFGS (the Internationas Fantasy Gaming Society) here in Colorado, Mechwarrior and Shadowrun is just like I used to introduce people to when I managed and owned Hobby stores. " Imagine yourself miraculously transported to another world. Now, in that world everything is just like in this one, except for two things. Magic works and because it does, the monsters are real! In this world, you will find your abilities are different than the one you left. Here, you may be exceptionally strong...or weak, or you might be amazingly agile and good with your hands. This will all be determined as you come to understand the character you are in this new world." So the detail of the world you adventure is a combination of fantasy rules and Natural Science. :rimshot: By the way, Vrycolas2K, there is an IFGS chapter in Colorado Springs, IFGS Southern Colorado. If you look them up, I'll bet you can find some of them who play AD&D. Start with a search on Dogpile.com for Internationas Fantasy Gaming Society. It will lead you to them. Good luck. I appreciate the info, but that seems to be LARP, and I've never been into LARP... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 53] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 01-27-08 02:41 AM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? Vrykolas2k, It is LARP but this is their "down time" and a lot of them still do "sit down gaming" even during the season. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 54] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 01-27-08 10:49 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I spent plenty of $$$ on 1e and 2e stuff, and wasted $$$ on the handful of 3e books I bought (I never used them, but I did find the psionics stuff pretty good). I wasn't about to waste my hard-earned $$$ on the same books all over again for 3.5e (except for the Expanded Psionics Handbook, Complete Psionic and Sword & Sorcery's Hyperconscious: Explorations in Psionics), and sure as hell won't be wasting my hard-earned $$$ on the same books for 4e... I know I sound like a broken record, but that's how I see things... I know exactly how you feel. I look over my bookcase and realise that the 1st and 2nd edition books I bought are more use to me twenty years on than most of my 3rd ed gear is. Luckily, I diodn't buy any 3rd edition sourcebooks, so now my money is being directed towards plugging gaps in my 2nd edition collection instead. It is hard not to feel jaded as the new set of books roll out and you realise the cash you'll have to play just to keep playing the current edition. I dug my heels in whith White Wolf when they did their World of Darkness makeover. No way I am shelling out more dollars for new books that are completely (in WW's case) and utterly incompatible with the books I've purchased already. It's taken a while, but I think I'm on a sensible route now.... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 55] Author : Mock26 Date : 01-27-08 11:31 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? For those looking to fill some gaps in old collections, rpgnow.com is an authorized dealer in PDF files of out of print products. Most downloads run about $4.95. While a PDF file isn't as nice as an actual book it can be a nice way to get something that is elusive and hard to find. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 56] Author : Extempus Date : 01-28-08 03:54 AM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I've managed to round up quite a few 1e and 2e things... it takes time, if one is willing to do a little searching and waiting... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 57] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 01-28-08 05:56 AM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I have been using www.paizo.com to do exactly the same. The base price for all the 1st and 2nd edition titles is $4.00. This applies to boxed sets as well. Since then, my collection is looking a little better and I'm slowly weaning myself from the nagging feeling that I'd actually prefer the 'real' book, not the printed and bound .pdf. At the end of the day though, there really isn't a difference. Given the prices of some of the titles I'm looking for, plus postage (to Australia), US$4 is a great buy. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 58] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 01-28-08 02:49 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I've managed to round up quite a few 1e and 2e things... it takes time, if one is willing to do a little searching and waiting... I've found a few things on e-bay... the problem is when someone waits until the last second to outbid you. Literally. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 59] Author : Mock26 Date : 01-28-08 05:22 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I've found a few things on e-bay... the problem is when someone waits until the last second to outbid you. Literally. Oh, was that you bidding on the Complete Book of Dwarves? Sorry. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 60] Author : Extempus Date : 01-28-08 07:09 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? I've found a few things on e-bay... the problem is when someone waits until the last second to outbid you. Literally. I've had that happen a few times, but then, I've gotten other things that absolutely no one else has bid on! Which is fine with me... I got tired of waiting for Greyhawk Ruins on ebay, since the sellers were either asking too much money or I'd be outbid at the last second, so I found a reasonably good copy at amazon. It was a little pricey, but then, I figured that had I bid for and won one on ebay, I'd probably end up paying more in the end... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 61] Author : Varia Date : 02-08-08 08:02 AM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? Erm, at the risk of needing my eyeballing spoon, where can I find the D+D ad people have mentioned? I appear to suck at searching. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 62] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 02-08-08 01:34 PM Thread Title : Re: 1E or 2E? Oh, was that you bidding on the Complete Book of Dwarves? Sorry. :D No... I got that book in a bunch of others. But it DID take me 5 tries to get the 1st edition DMs Guide. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:22 AM.