Does anybody miss D&D? Not 4e, 3.5 or 3e... I mean AD&D, 2e or even D&D.
Back in the day, it seemed more about the adventure and the roleplay. Now, since Wizards got their hands on it, the game forces you to look ahead at what the character will be later and start building it that way early... which leads to optimization. Choosing the feats that will give you the most bang for your buck. Now, I see a lot of "if I take a level in this, I can get that" or "with these feats, I can do sooooo much damage". And, because of that, it seems the game has become more about leveling the character up to get those abilities rather than the journey to get to the level. Before Wizards got ahold of D&D, it took a while to level up... Now, if someone doesn't level up in 4 game sessions, they start whining that the game's going too slow.
Some of my best memories are from my characters at low levels. I don't remember trying to hurry up and level so I could get a new cool ability. That was part of leveling, but that was just a by-product of playing the game. We would play for 2 or 3 months sometimes without leveling and we never noticed because the adventure itself was so much fun.
I remember when I played D&D (and AD&D and AD&D 2e), I rarely thought about my character's build. It took a lot longer to level and when you did, there wasn't a lot to do because most of the game revolved around the story and the role-play. There was never a problem with having characters that were under powered (except maybe a magic user and low levels), but if we came across something too powerful, we thought about an alternative tactic. Now, it seems to me, all the alternative tactics are laid out in rules (i.e. feats and skills). There are so many rules now, you HAVE to have all the books in front of you because you can't possible remember every single aspect of every single rule.
There was nothing may character couldn't do in AD&D 2e that he couldn't do after I converted him to 3e (and then, 3.5). Only then, I had rules telling me how I was doing the things I did before... but now with different modifiers, limitations and prerequisites that are spelled out in a book. Before, I would say what I want to do, the DM would decide what chance I have for doing it, then I would make an attempt. Or, I would role-play something with an NPC and the DM would role-play back. No Diplomacy skill needed. If I wasn't feeling that well during game, the DM would take it into account and not fault me for not being as diplomatic.
Don't get me wrong... I love Pathfinder. It's all I play... I was just feeling a little nostalgic for the old days.
Sorry if I offended anybody. That's not my intention. Like I said, I love Pathfinder... sometimes I miss real (TSR) D&D though.
In some ways i miss the 'old days' when times were simpler and you had to walk 40 miles through the burning snow up hills both ways just to get to your D&D game.
but to be honest? while the game was inspirational and ground breaking for its time the origonal game frankly had alot of bad rules Though with a profesioal editor going over it alot of the confusing mis leading things in the origonal books could probly have been cleared up. but sadly thats ultimately left to Dm interpetation now.
That said there were alot of things about the game i liked.
Everything I could think of to say was already said in
this thread
But here's to trying anyway, personally I think people remember what they like best about nostalgic things. My memories though positive involve frustration with slow level up, and I actually think that my group focuses more on storytelling now adays in pathfinder then we did back in junior high with AD&D. I think it's all about people, their preferences and thus what they want get out of the game. Nothing about AD&D prevented rules lawyering or promoted story telling any more or less then pathfinder does. I had characters then that I planned out from the beggining and I have characters now that I just wing and change as I develop the character. For me its all about what the current campaign is trying to be and what I am trying to be in that campaign.
Spoken like a true grognard! Alas, I too find myself pining for the days of yore, when character generation was more random and the STORY seemed more of the focus than the actual characters. Don't get me wrong now, I do believe that the characters should be an important part of the story... but they are not a substitution for the story itself. Maybe it's just the players that I have, but it seems there is a very real tendency nowadays for the players to focus more on their own style and abilities than to focus on the story or what they are trying to accomplish in terms of story-development.
I think that the uber-fast leveling progression is a very big part of that... I do believe that making a uniform advancement chart was both fair and practical. I do NOT believe that it should be necessary for characters to level up every 11 encounters, or whatever the guideline is nowadays. To me, this is just a rocket-sled to epic level play and the players barely have time to flex their muscles using the skills n' feats they acquired last level before it is time to level up again.
I do understand that the DM can pace the adventure or campaign to suit his preferences and tell the story the way he wants to... but the RAW doesn't support this method and seems to think that every opponent should be equipped a certain way in order for PC's to advance thru leveling at a pace akin to a 15-items-or-less line at the local grocery store. I just tend to favor a slower paced game where the players have to really EARN their levels, and not just by hacking down 11 opponents to achieve success. (Yes, I know that's gross over-simplification, so if I offend your style of play with my comments, please reflect that I don't care... this is just my preference, and may have nothing to do with yours.)
Does anybody miss D&D? Not 4e, 3.5 or 3e... I mean AD&D, 2e or even D&D.
You realize this is the Pathfinder forum, right? You must be new here.
*By which I mean, you just hit the jack pot, mofo.
I do understand that the DM can pace the adventure or campaign to suit his preferences and tell the story the way he wants to... but the RAW doesn't support this method and seems to think that every opponent should be equipped a certain way in order for PC's to advance thru leveling at a pace akin to a 15-items-or-less line at the local grocery store. I just tend to favor a slower paced game where the players have to really EARN their levels, and not just by hacking down 11 opponents to achieve success. (Yes, I know that's gross over-simplification, so if I offend your style of play with my comments, please reflect that I don't care... this is just my preference, and may have nothing to do with yours.)
You do know that Raw includes the slow xp progression where that 11 becomes around 33 right? If that is still rocket sled speed your group must have 20 encounters in every session and play nightly...
Yes. And No.
Yes = Simple rules to play by, quick combat, more role play, less skills.
NO = Race restriction, class restriction, multi-classing problems, THACO Charts. fewer spells.
Does anybody miss D&D? Not 4e, 3.5 or 3e... I mean AD&D, 2e or even D&D.You realize this is the Pathfinder forum, right? You must be new here.
*By which I mean, you just hit the jack pot, mofo.
Hehe, I agree, it seems there is a fairly high percentage (when compared to other rpg boards) of members here who started prior to the dnd numbering system. And many who began with an oddly colored box.
|
Yeah, I'm finding myself wanting to go back and play some 1st and 2nd edition AD&D games right at the moment. That or Castles and Crusades which I think would be a better sell to some of my friends.
I'm hoping I can find something though. I like a lot of the old rules, even if some didn't make sense.
I do have to point out, plenty of abusive builds in AD&D too. Female Dark Elf Cavalier charging with two lances on the back of a unicorn anyone? Plenty of humans roaming about with 2 levels of fighter and then wizard or priest. How about the infamous handbooks!?
|
I remember the complex, nay arcane THAC0 charts that I could never remember. I remember adventures designed specifically to kill off every single character the first time through. I remember my style of play being a lot different though. Back in 1st and 2nd edition, I wanted to play as many different characters as I could out to those maximum levels, and hit all of those multiclass characters. Now I just want to find enough people to get a character that I like up to a level where I don't get murdered by kobolds wielding slings. Back in the "good old days" I was a more hack and slash person, so that's how those games went, I am more story driven now. Which system is objectively "better" for rules or story I don't know. But right now I have Pathfinder and a group willing to play, I just need someone else to GM sometime so I can play that barbarian, or maybe a sorcerer, or maybe a monk, hell.. I'll play a cleric, just let me play!
I disagree. I saw no role playing in the parade of dungeon crawls and phat lewt grabbing that was just as rampant in the 2e games I saw. Monty Hallism was coined back in 2e for a reason. And I do not think it was until 3e that it was even suggested XP could be awarded for anything other than killing things and taking their stuff.
|
Yeah, I'm finding myself wanting to go back and play some 1st and 2nd edition AD&D games right at the moment. That or Castles and Crusades which I think would be a better sell to some of my friends.
I'm hoping I can find something though. I like a lot of the old rules, even if some didn't make sense.
I do have to point out, plenty of abusive builds in AD&D too. Female Dark Elf Cavalier charging with two lances on the back of a unicorn anyone? Plenty of humans roaming about with 2 levels of fighter and then wizard or priest. How about the infamous handbooks!?
Abusive builds were nothing close to 3.0+, and the infamous handbooks were actually just mostly fluff for making character types (swashbuckler, thug, etc) which were not covered in the very lean 2nd ed core rules.
I had no problem with the human ex-fighter/wizard or cleric split class combos, they had some severe (no xp if you used former class abilities) restrictions so they were balanced by sheer difficulty.
Actually, if it was not for the quality of the products that Paizo puts out I think I would have already reverted back to 2nd.
The more products which come out for PFRPG - talking rules products - not APs, the more I am inclined to just drop the game and go back to 2nd, or maybe a hybrid of 2nd.
The problems in 2nd are nothing compared to the problems presented by 3.0+: feats, PC builds and focus, disparity of PC power vs. encounters, Win button/rocket tag, default assumption of High Fantasy, and a ton of over-codified rules which attempt to address everything - and as a result seem to cause more problems as people fall over themselves to follow RAW.
I do miss the 1E and 2E days, but it would have to be modernized to some extent to bring what was done right in later editions. The biggest one being a solid skill system, which is seperate from a class, i.e. rogues would not be the only ones that can stealth, climb walls, etc. But any additions would have to be minimal, without any complicated rule baggage.
I would go the direction of 4E, but base all powers on use per day, with the exception of at-wills that can be used any time. I would also keep the scope of spells (powers) closer to GURPS, where the damage and effects are controlled like 4E, but with more flexibility.
|
|
I disagree. I saw no role playing in the parade of dungeon crawls and phat lewt grabbing that was just as rampant in the 2e games I saw. Monty Hallism was coined back in 2e for a reason. And I do not think it was until 3e that it was even suggested XP could be awarded for anything other than killing things and taking their stuff.
This is how I remember it..
For me the good old days was when we were not Playing D&D and where playing a game that rewarded you for Roleplaying. Playing Vampire: The Masquerade and Vampire: The Dark Ages for 10 years was the good old days for me. Ahhh I miss those days and that group of players.
Does anybody miss D&D? Not 4e, 3.5 or 3e... I mean AD&D, 2e or even D&D.
Back in the day, it seemed more about the adventure and the roleplay. Now, since Wizards got their hands on it, the game forces you to look ahead at what the character will be later and start building it that way early... which leads to optimization.
I think what you really miss is pre-Internet D&D. I guarantee you, if the Internet had existed in its present form back in the late 70s/early 80s, you would have seen the same optimization and bickering over rules back then, too.
The good-ole-days require good-ole-people. When RPGs started out, video games were pathetic. You HAD to use your imagination. You HAD to have a group of guys that were willing to feel a little embarrassed at first saying stuff like "I'm casting a lightning bolt" and enojoy the experience. We were a bunch of little geek clubs doing something that people made fun of for the next 20 years...fortunately we all have a good sense of humor.
The rules-heavy, "what do I get next" attitude is due to the incredible visual power of X-box, playstation, etc. Which are in actually easier to use than classic RPGs and low and behold you "level" all the bloody time...I think 4e especially is an attempt to get what are now called "gamers" but should be called "video gamers" to join what people on this board would refer to as gamers--us old farts that love dice, imagination, and cameraderie...although we also still love killing things and taking their stuff ;)
I think our love of the good-ole-people we used to game with all the time makes us nostaligic. That is why we are seeing such a resurgance in lighter games like the Castles and Crusades slimmed down D20 with 2nd ed "feel" or the return of Runequest, Traveler, and even a slight resurge in CoC...we'd rather play characters that go insane than be players that get run insane by the rules lawyers in our present groups.
I have tried getting people who dont remember when MTV was all music videos to play and it is often hard. The first and second generation (I'm actually more 2nd gen since I started on 3rd ed)are slowly tapering off in demographics for the 3rd gen who were weaned more on video games. And sadly, we have also been tainted a bit as we now find ourselves playing with people we dont know as well as the ones in are first groups...and so we end up also worrying more about our character getting XP than the totality of the old school gaming experience.
I've always loved D&D in every incarnation except 4e but I can't say that there was ever a time when I didn't look forward to leveling up. Getting XP at the end of the night was always a satisfying way to wrap up a session of play and it was even better when I finally got enough xp to level.
As I've grown older I've also been able to participate in much better stories, deeper character development and stronger groups. Sure, there's a nostalgia to playing AD&D 2nd ed. in my early 20's but the game play itself wasn't nearly as rich as it has been since.
I do agree with the OP when it comes to the optimization, however. I hate feeling like I have to craft the most perfect fighter/ranger/wizard/rogue I can to be able to stand up beside other players or just to survive. I don't like the christmas tree effect of magic items, or the grinding complexity of high level combat.
But maybe my nostalgia in that is misplaced. I can't remember what it was like to play high level games in 2nd ed and I know I never made it to high level in D&D. Magic items seemed rare and wonderous to discover but maybe that's just because I was too young to realize how insanely powerful those characters were. It's definitely true that time leaves a golden hue on memories.
As I see it The old days are not much different to me than now. A lot of the younger players are, but not the game. I've played 1-4, and am a fan of 4E now, the only reason I don't see the change is because no matter the system it hasn't changed the way I play the game. A new rule set may change how I adjudicate the game, but it in no way affects how I detail rooms, speak in character, create backstory, control the gods and kings decisions. There is no ruleset for that and it will be with me whatever I play. Mind you I am and have been a rules lawyer forever, but it's so that everyone at my table knows what to expect mechanically from the results of any action. And the less obtrusive, unclear, overloaded the rules are the better I can leave them in the background to allow my story take center stage. For me, I just found this to be best done with 4E (not trying to anger any, just my opinion that I find them to be the most clear and balanced rules I have played with). Back on point, the old days are no different, as my game hasn't changed, just the edition.
While I loved the old days, I still love the new ones. For me, it's still the same game at heart, and I don't let the changes keep me from playing the game the way we like. Here are a few of the major differences, without any judgment as to which is "better":
1) More rules/less GM discretion
2) General power up of both characters and monsters
3) Quicker character advancement
4) More player options
5) Different optional character generation methods (i.e. point buy)
There are lots of other changes, but those are the most meaningful ones for me. They can lead to a very different flavor in games, and I suspect that the average game now has a very different flavor from the average game then. However, with a certain amount of tinkering and houseruling (which is very old school) you can create any flavor game you want, even one that harks back to the days of yore. I think its only if you let the RAW straightjacket you that you find 3.5/PF leads inevitably to a different type of game.
|
|
I disagree. I saw no role playing in the parade of dungeon crawls and phat lewt grabbing that was just as rampant in the 2e games I saw. Monty Hallism was coined back in 2e for a reason. And I do not think it was until 3e that it was even suggested XP could be awarded for anything other than killing things and taking their stuff.I'm pretty certain Monty Haul being used to describe campaigns back in 1st edition days. I'd have to look through some of the letters pages from my older magazines to be certain. Kill things and take their stuff (sometimes not in that order) was certainly something associated with D&D from the early days.
Pre-1e, I think. It was, IIRC, in use when The Dragon was still The Strategic Review.
Does anybody miss D&D? Not 4e, 3.5 or 3e... I mean AD&D, 2e or even D&D.
Back in the day, it seemed more about the adventure and the roleplay. Now, since Wizards got their hands on it, the game forces you to look ahead at what the character will be later and start building it that way early... which leads to optimization. Choosing the feats that will give you the most bang for your buck. Now, I see a lot of "if I take a level in this, I can get that" or "with these feats, I can do sooooo much damage". And, because of that, it seems the game has become more about leveling the character up to get those abilities rather than the journey to get to the level. Before Wizards got ahold of D&D, it took a while to level up... Now, if someone doesn't level up in 4 game sessions, they start whining that the game's going too slow.
Some of my best memories are from my characters at low levels. I don't remember trying to hurry up and level so I could get a new cool ability. That was part of leveling, but that was just a by-product of playing the game. We would play for 2 or 3 months sometimes without leveling and we never noticed because the adventure itself was so much fun.
I remember when I played D&D (and AD&D and AD&D 2e), I rarely thought about my character's build. It took a lot longer to level and when you did, there wasn't a lot to do because most of the game revolved around the story and the role-play. There was never a problem with having characters that were under powered (except maybe a magic user and low levels), but if we came across something too powerful, we thought about an alternative tactic. Now, it seems to me, all the alternative tactics are laid out in rules (i.e. feats and skills). There are so many rules now, you HAVE to have all the books in front of you because you can't possible remember every single aspect of every single rule.
There was nothing may character couldn't do in AD&D 2e that he couldn't do after I converted him to 3e (and then, 3.5). Only then, I had rules telling me how I...
Amen, my brother. Could you be my long lost twin?
I miss it all prior to second edition's "Complete ________'s Handbook" series.
|
Nostalgia is a powerful thing. I started playing in high school, back in the 1980s, and I still have my books and original set of dice. I hadn't played from about 1984 until now, and I was surprised to see how much has changed in that time; I was relieved to see how much has not changed. The players are still a bunch of guys - and women! - who like to pretend to shoot lightning bolts and arrows and swing weapons at evil monsters. The roleplaying/story/power balance seems about the same to me now as it did back then. I do like the uniformity of PFS play; it reduces the maniacally evil GM and "Monty Haul" campaigns.
I miss the old game, but not as much as I miss being young and healthy.
And my daughter plays in the same group as I do. Yay!
I have a great love of the old days. However, there are a lot of things I don't miss: THAC0; armor classes that cap at -10; level caps for non-humans; having above average stats mean nothing unless they were 16 or higher; clerics never being able to cast their cool spells because they needed to keep their slots filled with cure spells...etc, etc, etc.
My undying love for this game started there, but it can't stay there. Pathfinder is just too much darned fun.
Heh, its funny. I'm no grognard by any means (I started around the end of 3.0 going into 3.5), but what you describe accurately sums up my first many experiences with the system. I was young (well, younger than I am now), around 13 maybe? Anyways, I had my little brother (around 11 or 10 at the time), my little brother's best friend, and my best friend all in one group. We didn't know how anything worked, and I remember spending three days straight jotting down meticulous notes on things I "needed to know" like attack rolls and spells per day and skill DCs. As it turns out, I never used them once. My friend and I were flipping through the Players Handbook looking at races, when my little brother opens up the Monster Manual and finds the Hound Archon, which was, at the time, the coolest thing ever for some reason, so I let him be one. We had no idea how to use Level Adjustments and whatnot, but we just played it by ear and went along. We opened with a bunch of Orcs attacking the town they lived in, and then a huge red dragon flies over and burns the town, them being the only survivors after the attack. Seeking vengeance, they tracked it down as best they could (or as we could manage, given the rules), and encountered their hardest enemy yet: a rope bridge.
The rope bridge broke underneath the weight of the fighter and his equipment, and we had the time of our lives spending 4 hours trying to make the appropriate checks to safely get out of there, all the while ramping up the action with the remaining ropes creaking and groaning, threatening to snap any moment. EXP was never factored into the equation; we just kept playing until we realized that we needed to get some sleep to play some more tomorrow morning.
Spells weren't just "I cast burning hands," they were "Whoa! Your character can shoot fire from his hand?! Awesome!" There was no competition over who had the "best build," everyone was happy when someone did something helpful, even when the hound archon was blatantly superior... the wizard was just happy to have someone keeping him from the marauding orcs on the front lines. There were no miniatures, we didn't know what Attacks of Opportunity were, and everyone was eager to know if "they finally caught up to the dragon." That campaign lasted almost 2 years, long past they had finally found the dragon. I loved it, even though, looking back on it, we were incredibly unaware of the rules or what we were doing half the time... it was just a way of telling a story that you could be a character in. We still have times where we get together and say "Remember that time the fighter got stung by a giant scorpion in his arm and you, the cleric, amputated it your sword because you thought thats 'what doctors would do in the real world'?" or "Remember the time when you threw the petrified Kobold at the Hobgoblin and critted?" Its times like those that I, too, long for, but I'm still playing and I still love it, even if I'm stuck with a bunch of rules lawyers who are convinced I'm out to kill them.
Sorry if I don't quite fit in, but I wanted to share my first experiences since they didn't seem that far off from yours :).
|
Well, if you really want to play retro D&D, there's nothing to stop you. Even if you don't own a set of the rules, you can download free retro-clones. I recommend Swords and Wizardry (Original D&D), Dark Dungeons (BECMI Basic D&D), and OSRIC (AD&D). No 2E AD&D ones exist that I know of, but I'm sure they'll pop up eventually.
I too preferred the relative ease of creating characters and DM-ing back then. But I’m new to Pathfinder. Maybe this system too becomes second nature with time. I do have to agree with the complaints about the game trending more towards optimization and tactical combat though. Things were much more…fluffy in the old day days.
And, no, you’re not the only one. There are a fair number of ‘retro’ games out there at the moment like Castles and Crusades and Labyrinth Lord (many of which are free to download). People yearning for older style gaming have become a small but real presence in the gaming world. I certainly count myself one. I’m trying out Pathfinder because, well, it’s there, and a lot good players play it and it has some nice products.
But if 2e or a similar retro games were more readily available, I’d go with them, and put that massive Pathfinder Core Rules textbook aside. The older games were just so easy to play and run.
Does anybody miss D&D? Not 4e, 3.5 or 3e... I mean AD&D, 2e or even D&D.
Not really, I still play AD&D 2 edition Dark Sun on a bi-weekly basis, so I do not miss it at all. It is still part of my regular gaming. I am only a recent convert to 3.5, so my 2ed PHB has served me well for 18 years. It is no longer new and shiny, but still just as useful now as when I bought it for 20$ in sixth grade.
I disagree. I saw no role playing in the parade of dungeon crawls and phat lewt grabbing that was just as rampant in the 2e games I saw. Monty Hallism was coined back in 2e for a reason. And I do not think it was until 3e that it was even suggested XP could be awarded for anything other than killing things and taking their stuff.
OK CF as I was reading this post I had to jump in on your statement about the way exp was awarded.
As a player of wizards in sec and 3/3.5 you got massive exp for doing other stuff.Such as when ever you cast a spell to over come a foe OR a problem, don't know what that item is hey cast identify and get EXP. Need to get to the top of a tower and not enough rope, no problem one fly spell and the wizard ferrys everybody up and gets exp. Plus the makeing of magic items GAVE exp, but then again you couldn't even make scrolls till 7th level or better and all the other stuff was even higher. \
I do kindda miss the staggered exp chart for classes, I mean you had a 8th lvl theif with a 7th level fighter and a 6th level mage because they all had the same exp. but at least the mage could keep up because his spells were alot more powerful in earlier editions.
If anything in my opinion the 3/3.5 game only awards exp for monsters you defeat but I still love it.
|
|
If anything in my opinion the 3/3.5 game only awards exp for monsters you defeat but I still love it.
Exactly. In 2E, the non-adventuring wizard who secludes himself in his tower and does nothing but research new spells, create magical items, etc would grow increasingly powerful. Using the 3.X rules, he's actually bleeding out XP doing these things, and needs to go kill some monsters if he ever wants to grow past 1st level.
I have played AD&D, 3.0, 3.5, 4th Edition, and Pathfinder and I've had fun playing and running games with each rule set so far. Currently my favourite is Pathfiner as it caters more to my sensibilities and tastes than any of the other editions. I recently tried to start an AD&D game, purely out of nostalgia, and the rules proved painful to get back to.
As others have pointed out, nostalgia is a powerful thing. I have very fond memories of my first AD&D games, but they have less to do with the actual rules system than the fact that I was younger, it all was more wonderous, and that I mostly remember the good moments.
From my experience, as long as you have a fun group of players, interesting characters, an engaging story, and a decent GM any variation of the rules can make for a great and memorable game. The rules should never get in the way of having a fun time.
It's a tough call. I love some of the detail of Character Creation in pathfinder/3.5 games. Sometimes a feat or skill can plant the seed for an entire character. Clean math is also good. I remember the first time I saw the 3.0 PHB - I'd only been scanning it for 15 minutes or so when I suddenly realized what a /great/ thing this was going to be, and how much sense it all made. On the other hand, with the clean math and character detail comes a level of in-play detail that I'm not always fond of. Ensuring that the character details matter in play means there's a good deal more minutae involved in play, which has on occasion ran afoul of player imagination and ingenuity. It can be a careful balance, but, on the whole, a somewhat abstracted Pathfinder maintains enough "old-school" feel for my players and I.
From my experience, as long as you have a fun group of players, interesting characters, an engaging story, and a decent GM any variation of the rules can make for a great and memorable game. The rules should never get in the way of having a fun time.
+1.
No.
There is nothing that stops you from doing the same stuff you did in older games in newer editions.
The only difference is that now the rules don't blow so hard that you have to manually houserule or DM fiat everything.
When your best argument for your game is "Well see, the rules are so terrible, we just make things up!" you don't have a good game.
There are definitely elements of the older games that I miss. While things like cyclical initiative make running combats a bit smoother, they tend to unbalancing things in favor of the spellcasters. 1e/2e were really much better balanced games in play than a lot of people, I think, realize.
I have to say that it's nice getting some benefits more frequently in 3e and PF than in the old days. Gives you a nice feeling of steady improvement. On the other hand, people didn't get so bent out of shape about character build choices in 1e/2e. There was a lot less you had to choose so there was a lot less to get on each others' cases about in that regard.
There are definitely elements of the older games that I miss. While things like cyclical initiative make running combats a bit smoother, they tend to unbalancing things in favor of the spellcasters. 1e/2e were really much better balanced games in play than a lot of people, I think, realize.
I have to say that it's nice getting some benefits more frequently in 3e and PF than in the old days. Gives you a nice feeling of steady improvement. On the other hand, people didn't get so bent out of shape about character build choices in 1e/2e. There was a lot less you had to choose so there was a lot less to get on each others' cases about in that regard.
There wasn't anything to choose as you leveled ;p
Hehe, I agree, it seems there is a fairly high percentage (when compared to other rpg boards) of members here who started prior to the dnd numbering system. And many who began with an oddly colored box.Does anybody miss D&D? Not 4e, 3.5 or 3e... I mean AD&D, 2e or even D&D.You realize this is the Pathfinder forum, right? You must be new here.
*By which I mean, you just hit the jack pot, mofo.
There's nothing odd about magenta!
I've still got most of the old boxed sets.
Sadly, all my first edition books were wiped out in a flood caused by my cat.
(Cat claws and an unmade waterbed do NOT go along together. On the plus side, the cat never jumped on my bed again.)
I have played 1st and 2nd Edition extensively and 3.x a little. I have to say that while I have very fond memories of the old days, the rules changes that 3.x brought about has done nothing but improve the game. And Pathfinder has done even more to improve it. The game was groundbreaking back then but seriously flawed.
What makes a game good is the people that play it, not necessarily the rules.
THAC0? Bah! Am I the only here that remembers the Grappling rules from 1st edition? If you want to know what complicated is, you should look at that! We once wasted half a night's game time (about 2 hours) figuring out how our over-weight druid can grapple a guard. It took that long to calculate the chance(and argue all the poorly phrased rules). It was fun though. I can probably dig up my old DMG and look it up...
Pre-1e, I think. It was, IIRC, in use when The Dragon was still The Strategic Review.I disagree. I saw no role playing in the parade of dungeon crawls and phat lewt grabbing that was just as rampant in the 2e games I saw. Monty Hallism was coined back in 2e for a reason. And I do not think it was until 3e that it was even suggested XP could be awarded for anything other than killing things and taking their stuff.I'm pretty certain Monty Haul being used to describe campaigns back in 1st edition days. I'd have to look through some of the letters pages from my older magazines to be certain. Kill things and take their stuff (sometimes not in that order) was certainly something associated with D&D from the early days.
I'm fairly sure this is correct. Just to get the reference you need to have been at least a preteen in the '70's. I'm almost 40 and the reference is from before before my time.