AD&D 2nd Edition Games?

[morganm]

How often do 2nd edition AD&D games come up? I'd like to get the software here but thats pretty much all I'd want to play. Wondering if it would even be worth it with 3.5 edtion being so popular.

[SurlyDwarf]

Can I ask an honest question? It isn't loaded, I swear. I just don't understand why so many people want to play the older systems. Other than nostalgia... why is that idea appealing? I am an ex-2E player myself. Heck, I even played Basic...

Curious,

SD

[morganm]

I'm just not hip to the 3.5 scene I guess. I read alot about it and it seems very convoluted for no reason other than to make it 'bigger and better!' or 'new and improved!'. It didnt seem to have anything I wanted or needed to know to enjoy AD&D.

[richvalle]

I know someone made a rule set for an older version of dnd. I think it was 2nd ed. Elric's.

Not sure how many games are playing it though. In a pinch you could alwasy run one. :)

rv

[jayson23]

Can I ask an honest question? It isn't loaded, I swear. I just don't understand why so many people want to play the older systems. Other than nostalgia... why is that idea appealing? I am an ex-2E player myself. Heck, I even played Basic...

Curious,

SD


I grew up with 1st edition AD&D, so maybe it's a nostalgia thing. I really preferred the underground feel of the game then - with the different style of artwork for all the books, and the arcane rules that seemed like only the rarest of DMs even knew about.

To me, AD&D 1st edition was the perfect system. The original D&D was too simple, and later editions seemed to be too intent on polishing the game and making it more accessible to lots of people.

I liked the fact that AD&D was a great game to create your own worlds, classes, items, monsters and rules for. Playing AD&D in the '80s was like being a computer nerd. It involved clunky systems, lots of do-it-yourself, and the fun was as much about the journey as the destination.

Back in those days, my world was all about punk rock records, my Apple ][, and AD&D. I'd love to go back and play the 1st edition again.

Wow, I just outed myself as SUCH a geek. Oh well.

[Doval]

I think my reasoning for playing 1st ed. AD&D goes back to he basic reason I even want to do role playing in the first place. My reason is pure entertainment. I have no desire to recreate a fantasy world that is "real" or to set a novel in the world or any other grand motive. If I already know a system and have fun playing it, I do not feel any compunction to go out and spend lots of money of "new and improved" rules that don't add anything to my enjoyment factor.

Now, if you learn the new and improved rules and you are having a good time playing under them, that's wonderful. I've played 3.5 and to me it seems as if there are at least 10 times more rules to keep track of. Arcane things that only seasoned players know. What exactly a feat does when used to augment this skill, provided the moon in 3/4 waxing and you have one toe immersed in the river and are scratching your head with your left index finger.

I like the basic nature of AD&D 1st edition. All the rules fit in at most 6 books, and many of those were not really necessary. In one book (the players handbook) you really did have all you needed to know to play. Then Unearthed Arcana came out and players probably should have that book as well. From a GM prespective, you also needed the Dungeon Masters Guide and the Monster Manuel.

Matt

PS - I am currently running a 1st edition AD&D game using FG. As of right ow we are not looking for players, but in a month or two we might be.

[Alarian]

I am also currently running a 2nd edition campaign, and my reasons were several. First off, we run mainly by Email with FG sessions perhaps 2 to 3 times a month. We wanted something simple to run and we only use the DMG, Players Handbook and the Monster Manual. That said, I wouldn't play 3rd edition (or 3.5) anyway mainly because it's not really D&D. to me, it's more like someone bought the rights to the name D&D and then published thier own system under the name. It's way more complicated than need be and to me, it's a system for a more munckin type of player. Who really needs 50,000 different feats and 28,000 prestige classes. The amount of crap you need just to create an NPC in the system is staggering. Look at any current Dungeon Mag and look up an NPC. Many of them have an entire page devoted to them. I can't imagine the amount of work it would take to create an adventure when you have to spend that much time just creating a single person for a single encounter. To create an encounter with 4 or 5 human NPC's in it would probably take 1/2 a day. In second edition, I can do it in 15 minutes.

Anyway, I know a lot (if not most) of you will disagree with me, but thats my story and I'm sticken to it!.:p

[Face]

Have you guys tried HackMaster? I'm thinking of evaluating Fantasy Grounds to run a HackMaster game on it. HackMaster is often referred to as 4th edition D&D.....

[DarkStar]

Some people enjoy Eye of the Beholder, while I play Knights of the Old Republic... I don't like dungeon crawls and that's how RPGs looked like years ago. For me, a role playing game has to imitate a fantastic world, with politics, intrigues, wars and lives of small, not important people. Yes, I do enjoy battles, but not just because they are battles. If I was to explore a dungeon and kill monsters, and push a lever or two - no, thank you.

But I understand your point of view, though it's a flip side of mine. De gustibus non est disputandum.

[SurlyDwarf]

I am also currently running a 2nd edition campaign, and my reasons were several. First off, we run mainly by Email with FG sessions perhaps 2 to 3 times a month. We wanted something simple to run and we only use the DMG, Players Handbook and the Monster Manual. That said, I wouldn't play 3rd edition (or 3.5) anyway mainly because it's not really D&D. to me, it's more like someone bought the rights to the name D&D and then published thier own system under the name. It's way more complicated than need be and to me, it's a system for a more munckin type of player. Who really needs 50,000 different feats and 28,000 prestige classes. The amount of crap you need just to create an NPC in the system is staggering. Look at any current Dungeon Mag and look up an NPC. Many of them have an entire page devoted to them. I can't imagine the amount of work it would take to create an adventure when you have to spend that much time just creating a single person for a single encounter. To create an encounter with 4 or 5 human NPC's in it would probably take 1/2 a day. In second edition, I can do it in 15 minutes.

Anyway, I know a lot (if not most) of you will disagree with me, but thats my story and I'm sticken to it!.:p

Well everyone is entitled to their opinion and that is what entitles you to be wrong. ;)

Seriously, a lot of those things can seem excessive and as if they needlessly complicate things. But, used properly, they are as a craftsman's tools allowing for great detail and intricacy. Yes, those NPC's may take a whole page, but they can come to life with a personality and individuality all their own yet remain bound in a consistent framework of rules to maintain balance.

Like anything, it's how you use it. That is not to say that things can not be so rich and intricate with the older rules, but things are likely to be much more at the whim and judgement of the DM (not always a bad thing) and things may seem capricous and arbitrary at times. At least, the game, as perceived by the player, will rely heavily on that DM's interpretation and will likely be very different in mechanics and texture should that player take his dice somewhere else.

[Doval]

I will definitely agree with SurlyDwarf, games are much more consistent from GM to GM in 3.5. Now, is that a feature or a bug? I think the jury is still out on that. 1st edition games are very definitely flavored by an individual GM.

I remember back in the 80's runnng a joint project with 3 or 4 other GM's to set up a "world" and each of us have a character in it. Then we take turns writing adventures for the characters. It was a fun diversion, but pointed out very dramatically how much influence the GM has over the system. I suspect that the same thing, done in 3.5 edition, would not seem nearly as disjoint from session to session.

Anyway, but to SD's original question:

<quote>I just don't understand why so many people want to play the older systems. Other than nostalgia... why is that idea appealing?</quote>

My reasoning is that I still enjoy playing 1st edition. The later editions are fine, but I feel no need to learn a new system (yes, d20 and AD&D are different systems) to have more fun.

Matt

PS - how do you quote text on this board?

[Ram Tyr]

I will definitely agree with SurlyDwarf, games are much more consistent from GM to GM in 3.5. Now, is that a feature or a bug? I think the jury is still out on that. 1st edition games are very definitely flavored by an individual GM.

I remember back in the 80's runnng a joint project with 3 or 4 other GM's to set up a "world" and each of us have a character in it. Then we take turns writing adventures for the characters. It was a fun diversion, but pointed out very dramatically how much influence the GM has over the system. I suspect that the same thing, done in 3.5 edition, would not seem nearly as disjoint from session to session.

Anyway, but to SD's original question:

<quote>I just don't understand why so many people want to play the older systems. Other than nostalgia... why is that idea appealing?</quote>

My reasoning is that I still enjoy playing 1st edition. The later editions are fine, but I feel no need to learn a new system (yes, d20 and AD&D are different systems) to have more fun.

Matt

PS - how do you quote text on this board?
I just hit the "QUOTE" button of the post I want to quote. Then I can trim the quote down if I want to. Or just copy and paste the commands again if I want to quote another post.

Later.
Ramza

[deckyon]

I am always confused by the animosity towards 3.5. I have a copy of the Boxed set, a set of 1st ed rule books and 2nd edition rulebooks. I even have all the Core Rules software for 2nd ed. I played 2nd for years, and put off joining in 3.5 games because I thought it was just "another way to make money."

So what? I have found the 3.5 system very streamlined from the older systems. As to the reported thousands of feats/prestige classes? Don't allow them. Stick with the PG, DMG and MM only. No one ever said you HAD to offer all the other stuff... Combat? YAY, No more THAC0 tables to redo every level for every weapon... Combat is one of the more streamlined aspects of 3.5.

If you think only the old systems offer the best fantasy, then you have crappy DMs. the system has nothing to do with the Role-Play of the game. The only limiting factor is immagination, or lack there of.

I have a lot of nostalgia for my old systems. I have many modules and maps I hand wrote/drew for the older systems. Converting this material is NOT that difficult. Stick with the core books until you get used to the system then introduce other sources as you see fit. Staying with a system just for stubborness sake is just childish. In my opinion!