1st Ed - Hated Levels 2nd Ed - Hated Levels 3rd Ed - Hated Levels 3.5 Ed - Hated Levels 4th Ed - never played - would have hated levels 5E - hate levels PF - Hated levels Every d20 system that had/has level - hate levels
Levels are a crutch.
And your idea is?
I started out playing the Chaosium/Avalon Hill games, percentile with usage progression.
The point is, if the rules are too loose and "do whatever you want" you don't get that great a satisfaction for "beating the rules" and coming out triumphant. There needs to be a balance between rules lawyering and improvisation.
See this is where we kinda part ways.
I don't view playing a game as a means to beat the rules, but to overcome the challenges and enjoy the setting and adventure, with the rules as nothing more than a means to govern how we interact with the environment.
To be honest, I think the mind frame of trying to beat the rules, as opposed to focusing on the encounter and situation, is what hurt Table Top Games to start with, because those kinds of people are simply not fun to play with.
To be fair, they are not 'more fun' to deal with in MMO's as these are often the Min-Max power gamers we see, that always talking about Max DPS, and everyone is either meta or shit to them. So they do have a means to suck the fun out of digital games as well, and they often are the cause of FOTM Builds and Balance/Nerf patches.
The only good side is, when it comes to MMO's I can safely ignore them, and play as I want to play.
The sad part is, I have at least one such player in my static, but, since they just focus on min-max optimization of their own build and not asinine about it.. we all can get along.
The bad part is, if we were at a table top, their style of play and trying to game the rules, if I was a DM, I would find ways to kill them, or make them totally worthless, if I was just a player, they would at the very least be annoying the DM which would pull from the overall fun of the encounter.
The thing is, there is no way to make a "Happy Point" regarding this from a "Game Design" point, outside maybe printing in bold on the cover "This Game is not Suitable for Asshats"
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I always felt the stats in general were out of whack. It's like you had to roll a yahtzee just to get a bonus. Then, mysteriously, there was always at least one player with two 18's.
THACO too. It seemed like we were constantly in "roll 19 or above to not die" situations. Whoever designed this crap didn't realize that my D20 had 6 1's on it...
HP rolls. We had a graveyard of new characters because 1D4. I lost a full health character to a flight of slippery stairs once. Good thing making new characters was my favorite part.
A lot of the time we just ignored rules we didn't like or the DM would dig us out when things were unreasonable. In the end, the worst part of 2nd edition was 3rd coming out and materials getting spread across more editions. I lost my career fighter to a monk npc because the DM didn't realize his pre-fab adventure was for 3rd edition. Ironically, I had originally wanted that character to be a monk style fighter and he shot me down because the rules didn't support it.
this always happen in a game, gm bend rules to keep people alive
I don't see much diference in the base, on 3rd they bring several home made rules most players and gms used on the 2nd edition, like the unconcious before dead.
but what I find better on 2nd edition is every single point of your stats matter, now only even matter odd numbers are wasted
By "beating the rules" I don't mean playing with the ruleset in mind or min/maxing attitude; I mean having a way to gauge your judgement and decisions in-game against an "objective" frame of reference. As you very well said "a means to govern how we interact with the environment", I'm not suggesting anything different.
By "beating the rules" I don't mean playing with the ruleset in mind or min/maxing attitude; I mean having a way to gauge your judgement and decisions in-game against an "objective" frame of reference. As you very well said "a means to govern how we interact with the environment", I'm not suggesting anything different.
This reminds me of a writers discussion I was involved with, and I want to clear this up, I am not some aspiring writer, I only got involved with this because it helped with World Building for D&D games, as Authors and Gamers, use the same kind of mental creativity tools when it comes to world building, and setting design. So it was very helpful when it came to designing my own campaigns.
This also exposed something to me.. has anyone ever noticed that almost every DM plays a Wizard?
Anyway, moving on.
One of the people there was talking about Magic, and this was a published author, so you would think everyone would listen to them, and they said (Paraphrased) "When it comes to world building, the thing with magic is that is needs rules by which it behaves"
The topic exploded, with many writers going back and forth on this issue.
But the counter point could have been summed up as (paraphrased) "What makes Magic, Magic, is the fact that is does not have rules that govern it, otherwise, it is simply a science"
Both had solid points, as you can see.
But, the main issue with Magic needing rules, was not that it could be controlled, like casting spells,. but that it did not break the reality of the world itself, where it was not a crutch by which a writer could do anything no matter how preposterous.. "Lone child faces an army coming to kill them.. and Poof.. Magic.. Wins" that takes away from the whole idea of a story. At the same time. how someone gets teleported from one realm to another to visit a dying wizard, adn told about an epic artifact, they must acquire, does not need to explained, as it is simply a tool to progress the story, and does not break the world.
The same holds true for a D&D campaign. Some things do not need to be explained, they do not need to be set down by the rules, and they do not need to be governed, because they are simply put, plot tools, designed to build up the story and adventure, and move things along.
Other times, when the players beat the dragon, that needs to follow rules, as breaking the reality of the game to offer a player an undeserved or instant win, pulls away from the enjoyment of the encounter and the adventure itself.
The problem becomes when players want to argue over either of those rule situations.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
The point is, if the rules are too loose and "do whatever you want" you don't get that great a satisfaction for "beating the rules" and coming out triumphant. There needs to be a balance between rules lawyering and improvisation.
I think it's more about the players no so much "beating the rules" but being able to make decisions and then have rewards/positive outcomes or consequences to those decisions.
Too many die rolls bog things down. Having to constantly find charts and graphs in order to proceed is not great storytelling.
YES there do need to be die rolls but simplifying is what I think is called for in order to keep the adventure flowing.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
My first copy was the "original" 1974 version that @Torval showed - with the mage on the box. Followed by 4 supplements: Greyhawk; Blackmoor; Eldritch Wizardry; Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes. And the folks I played with when Greyhawk came out (1976) had a discussion about "should we adopt these as the standard".
And then AD&D came out ('77) and we pretty much switched probably around in 1978. Maybe around the time the more substantial DM Manual came out.
Some key points:
1. The adventures / dungeons I had published were all pretty flexible. That is how I wrote them anyway but the point being that the publishers (Dragon, Imagine, White Dwarf) didn't "force" a particular version. Which to me would make sense. Maybe some of the later stuff in Dragon did?
What I did pick up on was "can you do some of this campaign stuff we want to develop" - so that you would want to come back and buy next month's edition. Of course Games Workshop / White Dwarf went a little further and developed a whole different game centred on "back to figures"!
2. Whilst I got later books e.g. Fiend Folio - along with lots of other rules sets to mine for ideas (Indiana Jones & the Lost Crusade spring to mind for some reason) - I never went back and bought later version of AD&D. Years later my children did - along with other stuff - but I never did. Again as @Torval said they were just "repubs" .... obviously not in hindsight!
I suspect I wasn't the only one. Which might tie back into point 1 - a publisher, I think, would want to appeal to people with any version.
3. If I ever found myself playing in a group in which people had different versions - if indeed I realised - - and someone cast a spell that wasn't in "my edition" it was obviously from a scroll they had found and I hadn't. As long as it was OK with the DM.
And as DM I have memories of players in a group casting spells on occasion that I didn't expect (conventions, tournaments, etc.). So they must have been "reasonable" and not "I win" . As mentioned above the issue was when "things" were unreasonable - but if that was so I would change the scenario so that players would have a fair chance. (They know that of they really were stupid they would die though!)
Which - for me and those I gamed with - comes back to the "rules" being just a framework; flexible when needed.
I think it was really the weakest rpg system out there. It was just lite and super bland and boring. What was good about it is that it was so bad people interested in more involved systems dramatically increased sales and popularity of other systems, like GURPS, Traveler, Harn, TDE, Riddle of Steel, etc. 3e and 3.5 fixed that mostly.
I still have my issues with the various editions of d20 in games, but that is mostly due to non-d20 issues (like NWN and NWN2 letting you rest after every fight with no penalty, and the games having way too much high level magic items, etc, but that is not on d20).
And speaking of that, not long ago a new mod came out for most of the EE IE games that converts it to a 3.5ish system that is very well done (if not very accurate). For me, at least, it has made playing BG2 and IWD a lot more enjoyable.
What you say - fine. However a lot of the discussion in this thread goes back a long way - decades!
Back then the D&D system was indeed "very weak" but the alternatives, EPT and C&S, were very complex. And as you say it was the simple that helped it gain in popularity - ditto Runequest. The size of the bags we carried around back then; weight lifter training!
And it may surprise you to learn that Traveller - when it first came out - was even "simpler". The first booklets had very little in them. (And I do mean first!)
Fast forward today and we have, I suggest, some far better systems e.g. Modiphius's 2D20 system. Their recently published John Carter of Mars is, I think, their latest game to use it. (Very well produced.) The point about the system though is that it generates (in simple terms) options rather than specifics. https://www.modiphius.com/john-carter.html
My first experience of role playing games was Dungeons and Dragons. It was Advanced D&D 1st Edition (I don't know the exact edition names) pencil and paper set. It was limited by today's standards. It was constrained and restricted by todays standards. But I loved every minute of it. And Gary Gygax is still one of my personal hero's for giving me so many hours of role playing fun.
I think it was really the weakest rpg system out there. It was just lite and super bland and boring. What was good about it is that it was so bad people interested in more involved systems dramatically increased sales and popularity of other systems, like GURPS, Traveler, Harn, TDE, Riddle of Steel, etc. 3e and 3.5 fixed that mostly.
I still have my issues with the various editions of d20 in games, but that is mostly due to non-d20 issues (like NWN and NWN2 letting you rest after every fight with no penalty, and the games having way too much high level magic items, etc, but that is not on d20).
And speaking of that, not long ago a new mod came out for most of the EE IE games that converts it to a 3.5ish system that is very well done (if not very accurate). For me, at least, it has made playing BG2 and IWD a lot more enjoyable.
What you say - fine. However a lot of the discussion in this thread goes back a long way - decades!
Back then the D&D system was indeed "very weak" but the alternatives, EPT and C&S, were very complex. And as you say it was the simple that helped it gain in popularity - ditto Runequest. The size of the bags we carried around back then; weight lifter training!
And it may surprise you to learn that Traveller - when it first came out - was even "simpler". The first booklets had very little in them. (And I do mean first!)
Fast forward today and we have, I suggest, some far better systems e.g. Modiphius's 2D20 system. Their recently published John Carter of Mars is, I think, their latest game to use it. (Very well produced.) The point about the system though is that it generates (in simple terms) options rather than specifics. https://www.modiphius.com/john-carter.html
I can't disagree. I know even now there are tons of people that prefer 2nd edition to 3.5 or later (I'm not familiar with 4 or 5 personally).
I think its strong suite was all the material released for it.
You have to admit Chivalry & Sorcery was pretty awesome though. Or is. Its still a good system. There are so many good ones. Or at least ones you have to really appreciate for what they do from a systems perspective. Like The Burning Wheel.
What you say - fine. However a lot of the discussion in this thread goes back a long way - decades!
Back then the D&D system was indeed "very weak" but the alternatives, EPT and C&S, were very complex. And as you say it was the simple that helped it gain in popularity - ditto Runequest. The size of the bags we carried around back then; weight lifter training!
And it may surprise you to learn that Traveller - when it first came out - was even "simpler". The first booklets had very little in them. (And I do mean first!)
Fast forward today and we have, I suggest, some far better systems e.g. Modiphius's 2D20 system. Their recently published John Carter of Mars is, I think, their latest game to use it. (Very well produced.) The point about the system though is that it generates (in simple terms) options rather than specifics. https://www.modiphius.com/john-carter.html
I can't disagree. I know even now there are tons of people that prefer 2nd edition to 3.5 or later (I'm not familiar with 4 or 5 personally).
I think its strong suite was all the material released for it.
You have to admit Chivalry & Sorcery was pretty awesome though. Or is. Its still a good system. There are so many good ones. Or at least ones you have to really appreciate for what they do from a systems perspective. Like The Burning Wheel.
I wouldn't disagree. C&S was in its own way "awesome".
Not so much as a system for spending some hours "adventuring" but as a system for a year long campaign with more micro-management than you could throw a pitchfork at.
It wasn't for me. In my experience it appealed to people with medieval armies. Maybe the (popular) equivalent today would be Warhammer rulesets appealing to people with Warhammer armies. (It was the same deal back then, painted figures, x thousand point armies etc. )
What you say - fine. However a lot of the discussion in this thread goes back a long way - decades!
Back then the D&D system was indeed "very weak" but the alternatives, EPT and C&S, were very complex. And as you say it was the simple that helped it gain in popularity - ditto Runequest. The size of the bags we carried around back then; weight lifter training!
And it may surprise you to learn that Traveller - when it first came out - was even "simpler". The first booklets had very little in them. (And I do mean first!)
Fast forward today and we have, I suggest, some far better systems e.g. Modiphius's 2D20 system. Their recently published John Carter of Mars is, I think, their latest game to use it. (Very well produced.) The point about the system though is that it generates (in simple terms) options rather than specifics. https://www.modiphius.com/john-carter.html
I can't disagree. I know even now there are tons of people that prefer 2nd edition to 3.5 or later (I'm not familiar with 4 or 5 personally).
I think its strong suite was all the material released for it.
You have to admit Chivalry & Sorcery was pretty awesome though. Or is. Its still a good system. There are so many good ones. Or at least ones you have to really appreciate for what they do from a systems perspective. Like The Burning Wheel.
I wouldn't disagree. C&S was in its own way "awesome".
Not so much as a system for spending some hours "adventuring" but as a system for a year long campaign with more micro-management than you could throw a pitchfork at.
It wasn't for me. In my experience it appealed to people with medieval armies. Maybe the (popular) equivalent today would be Warhammer rulesets appealing to people with Warhammer armies. (It was the same deal back then, painted figures, x thousand point armies etc. )
The version of C&S I have I ordered in the early to mid 00's. I don't have the energy to look for it now, but I don't remember it being wargame-ish. It had a more involved character generation and development system, as well as magic system than standard rpgs, but nothing wargamey I remember at all.
I have zero interest in wargames, or Warhammer other than WFRP. I have no interest in video games that have "units" instead of characters like Battle Brothers either, and it bothers me people consider them rpgs.
Since I am sure you are more knowledgeable about early versions of C&S than I am, you would know if there was anything specific in the rules that made it more attractive as an rpg system to people wanting to run an rpg in a meta wargamish way. I don't think WFRP is a very involved or good rpg system from a system perspective personally, but when I was buying and reading a lot of systems I saw a lot of people play it with figurines.
But, they don't have to. You could, and I've seen pictures of people doing so too, run any version of D&D more wargamey with units and figurines, etc.
If you are saying certain rulesets lend themselves to this type of play and player, or are more easily adapted rules or house rule creation to do so, okay. But that's up to the players and DM, and is not the fault of the system itself if created, written, and made to be played as a standard rpg.
Another question would be settings of various systems attracting certain types of people or seem to repel them. I love the Buck Rogers crpgs that came out that was very similar to and used the same engine as the goldbox games. I love the Buck Rogers version of 2nd edition. Most people I talk to over the years that love the D&D goldbox games, or 2nd edition D&D, never played the Buck Rogers crpgs or are interested in the Buck Rogers version of 2nd edition. This has always confused me. I think the Buck Rogers system is superior to regular D&D in every way. I can understand it from setting though - its a weird setting that may not be attractive or interest people like a high medieval fantasy setting.
So, generally, maybe people's likes and dislikes of any specific system, like 2nd edition, really has less to do with the system or materials related to the system specifically, and more to do with what they are looking to get out of P&P or crpgs and how well that system lends itself to that (including the crowd drawn to it, if they are of similar mind in what they want out of it, etc.).
So, generally, maybe people's likes and dislikes of any specific system, like 2nd edition, really has less to do with the system or materials related to the system specifically, and more to do with what they are looking to get out of P&P or crpgs and how well that system lends itself to that (including the crowd drawn to it, if they are of similar mind in what they want out of it, etc.).
This says it all, to me. It really depends on what players seek. Even within the D&D game system, I have "better liked" editions. 4th edition was a travesty to me, being more of a video game system than a tabletop one. Other players love that edition.
There are more detailed and involved systems than D&D and less detailed and involved ones. D&D rose out of traditional wargaming, so maybe that's why you like it less?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
The Buck Rogers connection to D&D was mostly an excuse for the then owners to siphon money out of TSR. Just so happens that they were the owners of the Buck Rogers IP as well.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I find the different artwork on the books intriguing. The first set I got looked like this:
I loved the artwork! I probably would never have picked up the set if it had been illustrated in that weird and incredibly ugly western comic style that someone posted earlier.
I drew those dragons so many times when i was a kid, haha.
The Buck Rogers connection to D&D was mostly an excuse for the then owners to siphon money out of TSR. Just so happens that they were the owners of the Buck Rogers IP as well.
Honestly, if this is true I wish more companies would try and siphon money from whatever by making crpgs and rpg systems I think are far more involved and superior than their regular games and products. Races, classes, a really great skill system and character development, interesting ship to ship combat, etc. I'll take it anyway I can get it.
So, generally, maybe people's likes and dislikes of any specific system, like 2nd edition, really has less to do with the system or materials related to the system specifically, and more to do with what they are looking to get out of P&P or crpgs and how well that system lends itself to that (including the crowd drawn to it, if they are of similar mind in what they want out of it, etc.).
This says it all, to me. It really depends on what players seek. Even within the D&D game system, I have "better liked" editions. 4th edition was a travesty to me, being more of a video game system than a tabletop one. Other players love that edition.
There are more detailed and involved systems than D&D and less detailed and involved ones. D&D rose out of traditional wargaming, so maybe that's why you like it less?
For me its easy to figure out why I like a system or not - does it have an involved and choice heavy character creation as well as character development? Until 3rd edition and d20 D&D really didn't. Its kind of like being more of a single issue voter versus supoorting a party and their candidates I guess.
@blamo, my favorite system was Champions, now called H.E.R.O.(do I put another period here to end the sentence?). It has just basic powers and the fluff is all up to the player. An energy blast does Xd6 damage. How it looks, what its element is, and how they got it is all up to the player. I did wrankle a bit at D&D spell system where a fireball is a fireball is a fireball, so I see where you're coming from. Good points
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
@blamo, my favorite system was Champions, now called H.E.R.O.(do I put another period here to end the sentence?). It has just basic powers and the fluff is all up to the player. An energy blast does Xd6 damage. How it looks, what its element is, and how they got it is all up to the player. I did wrankle a bit at D&D spell system where a fireball is a fireball is a fireball, so I see where you're coming from. Good points
Champions is pretty awesome. I also like Champions online. I would like it a lot more if it was closer to the P&P version, but the game is still really good in my opinion. I was surprised it wasn't more popular when it came out.
@blamo, my favorite system was Champions, now called H.E.R.O.(do I put another period here to end the sentence?). It has just basic powers and the fluff is all up to the player. An energy blast does Xd6 damage. How it looks, what its element is, and how they got it is all up to the player. I did wrankle a bit at D&D spell system where a fireball is a fireball is a fireball, so I see where you're coming from. Good points
Champions is pretty awesome. I also like Champions online. I would like it a lot more if it was closer to the P&P version, but the game is still really good in my opinion. I was surprised it wasn't more popular when it came out.
I tried Champions Online, but it was just far too short of the PnP for me to enjoy it. No character building points, no Arch Enemy (though I think they added something similar to this later?), no dependent NPCs, even the powers didn't feel the same. It felt like more of a City of Heroes copy than it did Champions tabletop. I even bought the damn box when it released!
I have to admit, though, that I really didn't give the game a fighting chance
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
@blamo, my favorite system was Champions, now called H.E.R.O.(do I put another period here to end the sentence?). It has just basic powers and the fluff is all up to the player. An energy blast does Xd6 damage. How it looks, what its element is, and how they got it is all up to the player. I did wrankle a bit at D&D spell system where a fireball is a fireball is a fireball, so I see where you're coming from. Good points
Champions is pretty awesome. I also like Champions online. I would like it a lot more if it was closer to the P&P version, but the game is still really good in my opinion. I was surprised it wasn't more popular when it came out.
I tried Champions Online, but it was just far too short of the PnP for me to enjoy it. No character building points, no Arch Enemy (though I think they added something similar to this later?), no dependent NPCs, even the powers didn't feel the same. It felt like more of a City of Heroes copy than it did Champions tabletop. I even bought the damn box when it released!
I have to admit, though, that I really didn't give the game a fighting chance
It had (if I am remembering correctly) a system where you created a "Nemesis" which had its own story-arc and missions, etc. This was in the base game from the start, it just opened up around level 10 or so I think.
If you are between mmorpgs and looking for something new giving it a whirl now is still possible. It has a decent sized community and I thought leveling up was a lot of fun. But, your reasoning for not playing is 100% valid to me. Its the reason I dislike a lot of games claiming to be based of a specific D&D system (Neverwinter and Sword Coast Legends as obvious examples).
By "beating the rules" I don't mean playing with the ruleset in mind or min/maxing attitude; I mean having a way to gauge your judgement and decisions in-game against an "objective" frame of reference. As you very well said "a means to govern how we interact with the environment", I'm not suggesting anything different.
This reminds me of a writers discussion I was involved with, and I want to clear this up, I am not some aspiring writer, I only got involved with this because it helped with World Building for D&D games, as Authors and Gamers, use the same kind of mental creativity tools when it comes to world building, and setting design. So it was very helpful when it came to designing my own campaigns.
This also exposed something to me.. has anyone ever noticed that almost every DM plays a Wizard?
Anyway, moving on.
One of the people there was talking about Magic, and this was a published author, so you would think everyone would listen to them, and they said (Paraphrased) "When it comes to world building, the thing with magic is that is needs rules by which it behaves"
The topic exploded, with many writers going back and forth on this issue.
But the counter point could have been summed up as (paraphrased) "What makes Magic, Magic, is the fact that is does not have rules that govern it, otherwise, it is simply a science"
Both had solid points, as you can see.
But, the main issue with Magic needing rules, was not that it could be controlled, like casting spells,. but that it did not break the reality of the world itself, where it was not a crutch by which a writer could do anything no matter how preposterous.. "Lone child faces an army coming to kill them.. and Poof.. Magic.. Wins" that takes away from the whole idea of a story. At the same time. how someone gets teleported from one realm to another to visit a dying wizard, adn told about an epic artifact, they must acquire, does not need to explained, as it is simply a tool to progress the story, and does not break the world.
The same holds true for a D&D campaign. Some things do not need to be explained, they do not need to be set down by the rules, and they do not need to be governed, because they are simply put, plot tools, designed to build up the story and adventure, and move things along.
Other times, when the players beat the dragon, that needs to follow rules, as breaking the reality of the game to offer a player an undeserved or instant win, pulls away from the enjoyment of the encounter and the adventure itself.
The problem becomes when players want to argue over either of those rule situations.
you could also point of whole if magic didn't have rules to follow then why use int to research and cast it? later sorcerers was made who used char, because they was naturals, so they didn't need to study magic, only to control, and comming down to it all things in life there is rules on it, not knowing the rules don't make it without then, with is what magic is, but in a way breaking some physical rules or bending rules to get the fact
so based on this you not knowing the rules to a certain thing don't make it without rules to follow, a gm will follow a certain set of rules even if said rules was never mentioned to the players, with in pen and paper gms bending rules to keep people alive is not the same as breaking then, having home made rules to some things is normal to most gms
I did some GMing in pen and paper (btw I play as a paladin not wizard ) hell I even made (or tried to) make a whole system to play rpg, you follow rules then players will go down by stupid decisions or by shear bad luck dice, on this momment to keep things going you start to try help then to stay alive, things are even worse if your game setting is a low mana or no mana world, with there is no magic or passing god to save then
My favorite was that to me Armor Class made more sense. I liked starting at 10 and then wearing armor to reduce the number, then having the difference applied to THAC0 (To Hit Armor Class 0). I also liked how proficiencies were optional. Later editions forced Feats/Proficiencies upon each character.
AD&D Second Edition also had conversion systems that made it compatible with original D&D campaigns, which was an added plus for me. There were also a lot of resources and back then there was also the Role Playing Gamers Association (RPGA) which I was a member. I would play frequently.
I also had fun making new character classes.
The largest complaint I had to 2nd Edition was that sheer amount of books one needed to buy to actually play the game.
You needed the following books on the minimum:
1) Players Handbook 2) Dungeon Masters Guide 3) Monster Compendium. 4) Character sheets (or make them yourself) 5) Either make your own campaign (or buy one)
and if you wanted anything decent you needed to buy the following books
1) Class Books (like fighters guide or Rogue Guide) 2) Legends and Lore (A must-have for clerics) 3) Tome of Magic (A must-have for clerics and wizards) 4) Monster Compendiums 5) Race books (Dwarves, Elves, etc)
and these were to get an idea of how it all worked. To be good at Dungeons and Dragons as I was a DM for many years and during that time made my own game universe I've written for many years with its own RPG system. However, Dungeon and Dragons and Star Wars were my first two Table Top RPGs.
Now for the thing I absolutely hated the most was in how Wizard Magic worked.
Magic was Energy that was stored in the mind of the wizard, that was foreign to the wizard, but controlled. The spell was cast, and then the wizard would forget the spell and had to relearn it. Even worse was the entire "I am going to learn 2 fireballs"
I was like.....NO! As Dungeon Master I made MP.
MP worked that the player would have a MAX MP equaling the total number of spells multiplied by their respecting spell levels. So for example, if a wizard at current level learn Level 1 x 5, Level 2 x 3, and Level 3 x 2, we would multiply those numbers, 1 x 5 = 5; 2z3 = 6; 3x2 = 6; 6 + 6 + 5 = 17 MP.
MP Recovery was added to Intelligence and Wisdom Attributes, and to gear and items and specific rules. None of that "Forget the spell once cast" BS that I hated so much! Not even in the Dungeons and Dragons movies did they ever follow that rule!
Dungeons and Dragons was a game in which in the Dungeon Masters Manual told you that it was up to you to use existing rules and to also alter, modify, and create your own rule for the sake of gameplay.
I made many rules to speed up combat which eventually evolved into my own system.
Comments
I don't view playing a game as a means to beat the rules, but to overcome the challenges and enjoy the setting and adventure, with the rules as nothing more than a means to govern how we interact with the environment.
To be honest, I think the mind frame of trying to beat the rules, as opposed to focusing on the encounter and situation, is what hurt Table Top Games to start with, because those kinds of people are simply not fun to play with.
To be fair, they are not 'more fun' to deal with in MMO's as these are often the Min-Max power gamers we see, that always talking about Max DPS, and everyone is either meta or shit to them. So they do have a means to suck the fun out of digital games as well, and they often are the cause of FOTM Builds and Balance/Nerf patches.
The only good side is, when it comes to MMO's I can safely ignore them, and play as I want to play.
The sad part is, I have at least one such player in my static, but, since they just focus on min-max optimization of their own build and not asinine about it.. we all can get along.
The bad part is, if we were at a table top, their style of play and trying to game the rules, if I was a DM, I would find ways to kill them, or make them totally worthless, if I was just a player, they would at the very least be annoying the DM which would pull from the overall fun of the encounter.
The thing is, there is no way to make a "Happy Point" regarding this from a "Game Design" point, outside maybe printing in bold on the cover "This Game is not Suitable for Asshats"
This also exposed something to me.. has anyone ever noticed that almost every DM plays a Wizard?
Anyway, moving on.
One of the people there was talking about Magic, and this was a published author, so you would think everyone would listen to them, and they said (Paraphrased) "When it comes to world building, the thing with magic is that is needs rules by which it behaves"
The topic exploded, with many writers going back and forth on this issue.
But the counter point could have been summed up as (paraphrased) "What makes Magic, Magic, is the fact that is does not have rules that govern it, otherwise, it is simply a science"
Both had solid points, as you can see.
But, the main issue with Magic needing rules, was not that it could be controlled, like casting spells,. but that it did not break the reality of the world itself, where it was not a crutch by which a writer could do anything no matter how preposterous.. "Lone child faces an army coming to kill them.. and Poof.. Magic.. Wins" that takes away from the whole idea of a story. At the same time. how someone gets teleported from one realm to another to visit a dying wizard, adn told about an epic artifact, they must acquire, does not need to explained, as it is simply a tool to progress the story, and does not break the world.
The same holds true for a D&D campaign. Some things do not need to be explained, they do not need to be set down by the rules, and they do not need to be governed, because they are simply put, plot tools, designed to build up the story and adventure, and move things along.
Other times, when the players beat the dragon, that needs to follow rules, as breaking the reality of the game to offer a player an undeserved or instant win, pulls away from the enjoyment of the encounter and the adventure itself.
The problem becomes when players want to argue over either of those rule situations.
Too many die rolls bog things down. Having to constantly find charts and graphs in order to proceed is not great storytelling.
YES there do need to be die rolls but simplifying is what I think is called for in order to keep the adventure flowing.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Followed by 4 supplements: Greyhawk; Blackmoor; Eldritch Wizardry; Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes. And the folks I played with when Greyhawk came out (1976) had a discussion about "should we adopt these as the standard".
And then AD&D came out ('77) and we pretty much switched probably around in 1978. Maybe around the time the more substantial DM Manual came out.
Some key points:
1. The adventures / dungeons I had published were all pretty flexible. That is how I wrote them anyway but the point being that the publishers (Dragon, Imagine, White Dwarf) didn't "force" a particular version. Which to me would make sense. Maybe some of the later stuff in Dragon did?
What I did pick up on was "can you do some of this campaign stuff we want to develop" - so that you would want to come back and buy next month's edition. Of course Games Workshop / White Dwarf went a little further and developed a whole different game centred on "back to figures"!
2. Whilst I got later books e.g. Fiend Folio - along with lots of other rules sets to mine for ideas (Indiana Jones & the Lost Crusade spring to mind for some reason) - I never went back and bought later version of AD&D. Years later my children did - along with other stuff - but I never did. Again as @Torval said they were just "repubs" .... obviously not in hindsight!
I suspect I wasn't the only one. Which might tie back into point 1 - a publisher, I think, would want to appeal to people with any version.
3. If I ever found myself playing in a group in which people had different versions - if indeed I realised - - and someone cast a spell that wasn't in "my edition" it was obviously from a scroll they had found and I hadn't. As long as it was OK with the DM.
And as DM I have memories of players in a group casting spells on occasion that I didn't expect (conventions, tournaments, etc.). So they must have been "reasonable" and not "I win" . As mentioned above the issue was when "things" were unreasonable - but if that was so I would change the scenario so that players would have a fair chance. (They know that of they really were stupid they would die though!)
Which - for me and those I gamed with - comes back to the "rules" being just a framework; flexible when needed.
Back then the D&D system was indeed "very weak" but the alternatives, EPT and C&S, were very complex. And as you say it was the simple that helped it gain in popularity - ditto Runequest. The size of the bags we carried around back then; weight lifter training!
And it may surprise you to learn that Traveller - when it first came out - was even "simpler". The first booklets had very little in them. (And I do mean first!)
Fast forward today and we have, I suggest, some far better systems e.g. Modiphius's 2D20 system. Their recently published John Carter of Mars is, I think, their latest game to use it. (Very well produced.) The point about the system though is that it generates (in simple terms) options rather than specifics. https://www.modiphius.com/john-carter.html
I think its strong suite was all the material released for it.
You have to admit Chivalry & Sorcery was pretty awesome though. Or is. Its still a good system. There are so many good ones. Or at least ones you have to really appreciate for what they do from a systems perspective. Like The Burning Wheel.
C&S was in its own way "awesome".
Not so much as a system for spending some hours "adventuring" but as a system for a year long campaign with more micro-management than you could throw a pitchfork at.
It wasn't for me. In my experience it appealed to people with medieval armies. Maybe the (popular) equivalent today would be Warhammer rulesets appealing to people with Warhammer armies. (It was the same deal back then, painted figures, x thousand point armies etc. )
I have zero interest in wargames, or Warhammer other than WFRP. I have no interest in video games that have "units" instead of characters like Battle Brothers either, and it bothers me people consider them rpgs.
Since I am sure you are more knowledgeable about early versions of C&S than I am, you would know if there was anything specific in the rules that made it more attractive as an rpg system to people wanting to run an rpg in a meta wargamish way. I don't think WFRP is a very involved or good rpg system from a system perspective personally, but when I was buying and reading a lot of systems I saw a lot of people play it with figurines.
But, they don't have to. You could, and I've seen pictures of people doing so too, run any version of D&D more wargamey with units and figurines, etc.
If you are saying certain rulesets lend themselves to this type of play and player, or are more easily adapted rules or house rule creation to do so, okay. But that's up to the players and DM, and is not the fault of the system itself if created, written, and made to be played as a standard rpg.
Another question would be settings of various systems attracting certain types of people or seem to repel them. I love the Buck Rogers crpgs that came out that was very similar to and used the same engine as the goldbox games. I love the Buck Rogers version of 2nd edition. Most people I talk to over the years that love the D&D goldbox games, or 2nd edition D&D, never played the Buck Rogers crpgs or are interested in the Buck Rogers version of 2nd edition. This has always confused me. I think the Buck Rogers system is superior to regular D&D in every way. I can understand it from setting though - its a weird setting that may not be attractive or interest people like a high medieval fantasy setting.
So, generally, maybe people's likes and dislikes of any specific system, like 2nd edition, really has less to do with the system or materials related to the system specifically, and more to do with what they are looking to get out of P&P or crpgs and how well that system lends itself to that (including the crowd drawn to it, if they are of similar mind in what they want out of it, etc.).
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I loved the artwork! I probably would never have picked up the set if it had been illustrated in that weird and incredibly ugly western comic style that someone posted earlier.
I drew those dragons so many times when i was a kid, haha.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
For me its easy to figure out why I like a system or not - does it have an involved and choice heavy character creation as well as character development? Until 3rd edition and d20 D&D really didn't. Its kind of like being more of a single issue voter versus supoorting a party and their candidates I guess.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I have to admit, though, that I really didn't give the game a fighting chance
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
If you are between mmorpgs and looking for something new giving it a whirl now is still possible. It has a decent sized community and I thought leveling up was a lot of fun. But, your reasoning for not playing is 100% valid to me. Its the reason I dislike a lot of games claiming to be based of a specific D&D system (Neverwinter and Sword Coast Legends as obvious examples).
My favorite was that to me Armor Class made more sense.
I liked starting at 10 and then wearing armor to reduce the number, then having the difference applied to THAC0 (To Hit Armor Class 0). I also liked how proficiencies were optional. Later editions forced Feats/Proficiencies upon each character.
AD&D Second Edition also had conversion systems that made it compatible with original D&D campaigns, which was an added plus for me. There were also a lot of resources and back then there was also the Role Playing Gamers Association (RPGA) which I was a member. I would play frequently.
I also had fun making new character classes.
The largest complaint I had to 2nd Edition was that sheer amount of books one needed to buy to actually play the game.
You needed the following books on the minimum:
1) Players Handbook
2) Dungeon Masters Guide
3) Monster Compendium.
4) Character sheets (or make them yourself)
5) Either make your own campaign (or buy one)
and if you wanted anything decent you needed to buy the following books
1) Class Books (like fighters guide or Rogue Guide)
2) Legends and Lore (A must-have for clerics)
3) Tome of Magic (A must-have for clerics and wizards)
4) Monster Compendiums
5) Race books (Dwarves, Elves, etc)
and these were to get an idea of how it all worked.
To be good at Dungeons and Dragons as I was a DM for many years and during that time made my own game universe I've written for many years with its own RPG system. However, Dungeon and Dragons and Star Wars were my first two Table Top RPGs.
Now for the thing I absolutely hated the most was in how Wizard Magic worked.
Magic was Energy that was stored in the mind of the wizard, that was foreign to the wizard, but controlled. The spell was cast, and then the wizard would forget the spell and had to relearn it. Even worse was the entire "I am going to learn 2 fireballs"
I was like.....NO!
As Dungeon Master I made MP.
MP worked that the player would have a MAX MP equaling the total number of spells multiplied by their respecting spell levels. So for example, if a wizard at current level learn Level 1 x 5, Level 2 x 3, and Level 3 x 2, we would multiply those numbers, 1 x 5 = 5; 2z3 = 6; 3x2 = 6; 6 + 6 + 5 = 17 MP.
MP Recovery was added to Intelligence and Wisdom Attributes, and to gear and items and specific rules. None of that "Forget the spell once cast" BS that I hated so much! Not even in the Dungeons and Dragons movies did they ever follow that rule!
Dungeons and Dragons was a game in which in the Dungeon Masters Manual told you that it was up to you to use existing rules and to also alter, modify, and create your own rule for the sake of gameplay.
I made many rules to speed up combat which eventually evolved into my own system.