Advanced Dungeons and Dragons

[Raganui Minamoto]

So, now I'm curious.

How many people here have played ADnD 2e, or at least have looked at it and thought you might like it?

This curiosity sprung from the fact that a lot of people seem to have an overall dislike for the system or even had some people rage-hate it. I can understand this, due to the fact that not everyone will like every game system (I, for one, are anti-4e.)  

[Deadusernamelol]

I enjoy it more than 3rd, 3.5, 3.75 and 4th.

 

[NayrVentess]

.... 3.75?  

[Disciple of Sakura]

Pathfinder is often referred to as 3.75?

I played AD&D 2nd edition, all the way back in the nineties, and it was alright for the time. There were so many inconsistencies and weird irregularities that, well - having played 3.x, I'd never go back unless I had to.

The penchant for the thing to skip around (sometimes you roll high, sometimes you roll low) and the lack of character options or ability to customize your characters was always a major frustration.  

[KamikaziFreak]

AD&D has always sounded a bit interesting, though I've never had opportunity to play it. I've heard about it's quirks (THAC0, something about weapon speeds?), and its seemingly arbitrary restrictions (certain races can't be certain classes?), but sometimes there's fun in limitation. I'd be interested in giving it a shot if someone was running.  

[Raganui Minamoto]

A lot of people don't use weapon speed, since it's an optional rule.  

[Raganui Minamoto]

Well, I enjoy ADnD, mostly because it makes players think. Too many times I've seen players go 'I roll int to solve puzzle' or 'I roll bluff to get by him' without actually talking with the person. Since ADnD doesn't have those things, players have to actually solve puzzles, converse with NPCs, and due to how much more deadly things are, you have to think out plans before rushing in. This makes the rarely used Divination (don't deny it), much more useful.  

[Arc Vembris]

I said this in 2000, in 2007 and I'll reference it again. Bullshit, the DM makes the players engage with the puzzles/NPCs/story, not the game. What 3e did was to make the rules more codified and consistent than 2e, and rules that the players grasp better puts more power in the hands of the players and takes it from the DM. Not all DMs liked that and there was, and still is in a some places, lots of rage against D&D in the Wizards generations.

Storytime. My first group in '96 had a player who was made to think. He was good at it, so good the rest of the party didn't really have to do much. His ranger had an int of 10 and yet he was able to trick, trap, and ambush his way through any challenge the DM had. It went beyond being tactically clever, he would argue and badger the DM into believing any quasi-science/physics that would support his plans. Maybe it's a matter of a certain player, maybe it's a matter of a certain DM, but when 3e came and skills, powers, and attacks were more solidly defined, this problem never cropped up again.

This said, games like Everquest and WoW owe a lot more to 2e than to later editions. The class restrictions are an example of this and they serve to define the races broadly along with gems like racial maximum and minimums for stats and level caps for different classes. I'm not a fan of these things, but I can see the appeal in certain situations. Dwarves were actually anti-magic to an extent, that's kinda cool in its own way. Elves were awesome at everything. That's cool for elf fans.

I wouldn't have a problem with playing 2e, it just requires a consistent and dedicated DM, which is important for any of these pbp games.  

[Raganui Minamoto]

You know, if I had 4 people that wanted to play it, I'd run a game.  

[KamikaziFreak]

I'd play, so long as you're willing to explain things and help with character creation. You should make a recruitment thread, and see if you can get enough people.  

[Seiryna]

Raganui Minamoto

Well, I enjoy ADnD, mostly because it makes players think. Too many times I've seen players go 'I roll int to solve puzzle' or 'I roll bluff to get by him' without actually talking with the person. Since ADnD doesn't have those things, players have to actually solve puzzles, converse with NPCs, and due to how much more deadly things are, you have to think out plans before rushing in. This makes the rarely used Divination (don't deny it), much more useful.

hate to be a b***h, but that's more the DMs fault, for allowing that s**t to happen. I love 3.5 more then any other edition. but even with bluff/diplomacy skill maxed out every level, and them being my favorite skills. I will never do that. just rolling to solve a puzzle, bluff, or diplomacy in my book is an automatic fail.
if you do that in any game the DM should make you automatically fail, or just out right kill you.
All a successful diplomacy check does is make you gain a slight advantage, it doesn't make you get pass the ogre who wants to rip your head off, it merely makes him less likely to want to rip your head off, you still have to talk your way out of, or past things. it was never meant to be a 'win all' skill check.
if you can't RP, get the ******** out of my ROLE PLAYING game.
that's my view on things.

but as for AD&D....

Quote:

The penchant for the thing to skip around (sometimes you roll high, sometimes you roll low) and the lack of character options or ability to customize your characters was always a major frustration.

have to agree with this, it seems way to limited and restrictive to me. I have the books, I've looked through them, but the lack of options, and stuff just kills it for me....not being able to read...seriously? no...just no =/ not bashing it, it's just not for me. and honestly if people would just learn how to Role Play instead of Roll Play, people would enjoy 3.5 more.
but Roll Players is what is seriously messing the game up, not the game itself.  

[Deadusernamelol]

Always so heard strong, as usual.

 

[Seiryna]

[EC2] Carthinator

Always so heard strong, as usual.

I just tell it like it is, and say the things everyone else is to scared to XD  

[Deadusernamelol]

Ha. Love your delusions of grandeur! Either way, you should be more open to the idea of trying new things.  

[Seiryna]

[EC2] Carthinator

Ha. Love your delusions of grandeur! Either way, you should be more open to the idea of trying new things.

who said I wasn't? I at least looked at AD&D before saying it wasn't for me, sorry if I like a little more open openendedness and being able to read. sue me for not liking the basic elf, dwarf or human races, and for liking multiclassing, and PrCs. noone has giving me a reason why AD&D is better, merely that it 'forces you to think and RP.' sorry but I don't have any delusions of grandeur! I can think and Role play in 3.5 just fine, and don't need AD&Ds limited system to try to 'force' me to RP. don't hate 3.5s system because of Roll players, hate the Roll players.

the only thing I like about AD&D is that once a rogue hits X level, you can build a thieves guild. but again...I try to do that in 3.5 anyways. I mean I need somewhere to store all my stolen goods.
and that Assassin can't level up past X with out killing the leader of an assassin guild, then can't reach epic level without killing the grandfather assassin of that region.
that aspect of role playing I like, but don't try to force it on me.
if you can't role play in 3.5 you're not gonna be able to role play in AD&D

on a sidenote Roll players are why we now have 4th edition ^^'
and anyone who doesn't believe me that you can actually role play better in 3.5 because of having more options. DM a game for me. I'll quickly restore your faith in 3.5.