So how does one find a Skype group to play with? I have been trying to find a group for months now and I just don't see it coming together. Is there a good site that you'd recommend for hooking up with a group?
@Trevb0t I would try to find players on the Dragonsfoot Forums (the home of the OSR some say). I know there is a sub-forum on there to find players or already existing groups, and I'm sure some of them are looking for online players. The Skype game I played in was with YouTubers.
@WhyMeMoFo I ran several 1-shots of the game at a convention and they turned out very well. I really like 2nd because there are a ton of spells made for it. I also like it with most of the options turned off, but I could probably get used to the options if a group really liked proficiencies, etc.
@Samwise7RPG another reason I'm trying 2nd edition is that too often 4e will turn from a role playing game into a power leveling game. Also I enjoyed your review.
2nd edition was the best. It was all downhill from there. WOTC wont get a dime off me just like EA wont, they are just too greedy. There was no need to release 4th ed other than to cash in on the video game kiddies. I already have all the 2nd ed stuff, and books, and that's all I'll ever need :-)
@Jeet27 The nice thing about finding a RPG you love, is it really never becomes "obsolete." It is just as good as it was when it first came out. I don't buy into this whole, "New games rock, and old games suck." mentality.
Rolling mechanics are great, but roleplaying is better when you use simple logic to explain why things can or cannot happen or be possible to achieve, but you have to be a good story teller to pull it off.
@pspboy7 The older I get the more I just let happen with good role-playing and less dice rolling. I ask for less and less perception checks and rather just give them the information if they look in the right places. Mechanics can be a crutch for new GMs, and people like different things, but for me as long as I have a basic framework I can just make up the rest on the fly. The easiest way of doing things is just coming up with a percentage chance something needs to succeed, then roll a D100.
I personally feel that 2nd edition is a more realistic feeling game compared to the very seemingly video gameish 3.5 and especially 4. This is my favorite edition by far. =]
@pallmid Second edition is growing on me. I'm going to run 2 one-shot modules of it (Eye of Pain & Eye of Doom from TSR) at a convention at the end of Sept. I think I'm going to run it without proficiencies since they are optional.
@christhediablomaster You are asking a guy who has multiple book shelves if you should buy a RPG. :) hehe. I think 2nd Edition is a good purchase. I'm a little bit more rules-lite in my GMing style, so I tend to like games like Labyrinth Lord / Basic Expert Classic D&D or their retro-clones, etc. I have a lot of 2nd Edition books though.
"The Complete Book of...." series of 2E were priceless IMO. After reading those, you got a much better view of the demi-humans outlook, culture, myths, gods, appearance and lifestyle. Also the artwork died after 2E. I like the game mechanics of Pathfinder, but 'opening the game up' standardized the game far too much. We need to combine everything from 2nd, with the game play of 3rd!
@kIDcHA0S I have a bunch of the complete books for 2E. I did like all of the fluff in there. I think I've used the Priest book for flesh out pantheons even for games that aren't D&D.
i hated the weapon speed rule because a weapon with reach like as spear would ber slower than a weapon w/no reach like a dagger. it seemed too unrealistic and another xample would be a fighter would cause more damgae throwing 4 darts/rd then a palading swinging a 2handed sword with all his might. the battle system was pretty plain and boring. you couldn't do much with it. i regret buying so many 2ed books. what waste of money. i could come up with better ideas for better gameplay.
@ACIDOCEAN1 Some people like the weapon speed rules, and other people dislike them. I kind of like a simple battle system in a RPG, but I know it isn't for everyone.
There are still more 2ed dedicated 2ed DMs in the world today, wotc games produced player/dms cause many dedicated dms turned away from 3rd and up cause truly the game was saying "Player screw those DMs that challenged you, here you can run the game yourself cause it relies less on the DM and this is not the DMs game". Feats are the most unbalancing things i seen used in gaming in a long time, they are like poison to a dm trying to keep game balance.
@CondorDM "Feats are the most unbalancing things i seen used in gaming ..." so... allowing you to mechanically customize your character to be something more than what the class block gives you is bad? having your fighter being even slightly mechanically different from another fighter is bad? sure you can differentiate them with rping, but when they all essentially have the same abilities (which are non existent in 1e for the fighter) then it is just boring. i prefer 4e and pathfinder.
@TheOnlyAttrition I don't think Feats are "Bad" but I have seem them unbalance a character if the right combination of them is chosen with the right stats, and magic items, etc. It's just something for GMs to look out for when they run a game. When it comes down to it, play the game you most enjoy. Some people like the extra mechanics and ways to differentiate their characters, and others prefer to do that mainly with fluff and character backgrounds/role-playing etc. It's not right or wrong
@Samwise7RPG That is very true. in my games, i have my players tell me how they got their feats. Example: in 4e their is the 'Linguist' Feat (learn 3 new languages). unless they chose it at first level, i will require them to spend in-game time usually 4 - 6 months depending on their INT score learning those languages by being with native speakers and being taught by them. but im thinking of limiting it to just 1 language or otherwise you will be REALLY unbalanced.
@TheOnlyAttrition It can be good to tell the GM how you get your special doo-dads and new powers. I got this feat from talking to this magic guy over here, or I got these skills from training or from the last adventure etc.
@Samwise7RPG Not sure if you agree...or are sarcastic. Either way, i hated 1e because my favorite kind of class to play (a melee fighter) was boring, static, and very unsatisfying to play. sure you get the best Thaco table and high hit points but when you have no options other than "i slash with my sword" (something along those lines) it gets old and boring. I like Pathfinder and DnD 4e and 3.5 because you are able to mechanically make your character stand out among a bunch of other ... (cont'd)
@TheOnlyAttrition I wasn't being sarcastic. In defense of simple characters, I think a lot can be said about having unique magic items to make your characters more interesting and memorable. For me it matters less on what is on the character sheet, but I know not everyone is like that. I also like running more rules-lite games, as they tend to help me shoot from the hip when I GM so that flavors my opinions. Just because it isn't on your character sheet doesn't mean you can't do it.
@Samwise7RPG True, i like running rules lite games. (currently im running a very rules lite rp system i found on the interwebs that uses archetypes and stuff). Now back to the point of my original reply: just because your character has a bunch of abilities doesnt mean it requires less brainwork. Example off the top of my head: You (a fighter) and your friend (a wizard) come upon a deep yet narrow chasm that is about 50 feet deep. you could use your 50 ft rope to climb down, but the wizard....
@Samwise7RPG decides to let the fighter jump down while he casts feather fall on him to slow his fall so he can get the big gem at the bottom (oh yeah, the fact that there is a big shiny gem is important). on the way back up, the fighter can use the rope to get back up. other example: an Eladrin is bound in a chair and being interrogated. he doesnt have a good acrobatics skill (so wrigling out of the ropes is futile) so he teleports about 20 feet out of the constraints and runs away.
@Samwise7RPG My point: Use your abilities to your advantage, that way you rely less on equipment and more on your character's talents.
Also some points i dont like about 1e and 2e. class restrictions, very vague and incoherent combat system, literally no chance of survival against more than 2 hits as a 1st level wizard, as i said earlier fighters are boring and lame, to-hit rolls are more complex than they need to be,, how the fuck do segments work?, wizards get 1 spell per day at first level.
@TheOnlyAttrition I think every edition of D&D views equipment as character abilities in a way, some more so than others I guess though. The Class Restrictions are pretty lame. That's what houserules are for. ;)
As far as segments, when I played we all rolled a D10 for initiative, and that is what segment you went in. We didn't use weapon speeds, but we did use casting times so spells could be interrupted. You just add your casting time to your initiative so it happens on that segment.
@TheOnlyAttrition I also don't really care for tactics and miniatures rules in RPGs, so later editions sort of leave me cold (even after playing them).
I started played in 1989 the years 2ed came out, been DMing it 19 years table top and even ten years around programs like openrpg. I stopped playing characters in 1994 for the most part and prefer a game with loose rules that gives me the say and not a game so bogged down with rules it tries to run itself while using me as it's platform, I prefer it the other way around.
@CondorDM Sounds like you like running better than playing. I actually prefer playing, but I've been told I'm a good GM so I keep running games. I do enjoy elements of running, but I tend to burn out fairly quickly unless I'm running a more rules-lite game. That is probably why the Basic/Expert & Labyrinth Lord type rules have so much appeal to me.
@Samwise7RPG Your correct, i find playing majority of the time boring and the burn out thing i admit is white noise to myself. DMing excites me to much to get bored, maybe the same way some get excited to play but i enjoy my end i am sure then even most players enjoy the game.
2ed for a gamer like myself allows me to use it as a platforms, gives loose rules and lets you run your game instead of you running it's game.
AD&D Second Edition is my game of choice, and have been DMing it for a while. I'm slowly, but surely, weaning my players off of new age games back to the old school!
I love the old school movement (the OSR) I totally love running first and second edition for my players as they are my favorites. As a young DM (only 20 years old) I shall keep the tradition alive!!!
Thanks for revisiting this old game. There's a small part of me that misses 2nd Ed. from time to time, back when we (meaning my friends and I) played D&D with a more "light & breezy" attitude and when your character's personality was held in higher esteem than his/her stats. I remember being in a very unorthodox party of a human Fighter who specialized in net throwing, a dwarf Cleric that humped everything in sight and 3 Thieves (elf, halfling and human). One of the most memorable games ever.
@Webhead123 There are also lots of settings for AD&D 2nd Edition, as well as other books and modules for the system. I love my Encyclopedia Magica books. :) I also really love all the boxed settings/games, etc. I prefer light & breezy, hehe.
I love the sounds of that party makeup! :) That sounds like a fan-frickin-tastic group of characters to go adventure with. hehe.
I really liked weapon speed, most people didn't & they took it out of 3.0 I wish they had kept using it. I've thought about bringing that into my 3.5 game as it totally makes sense. I really disliked percentile rolling for str, so many people cheated on that. I saw 00 so many times but never saw 01, not ever once!
@woodwwad I like the initiative system in Basic/Expert D&D, 1st Edition AD&D, and 2nd Edition AD&D. They are all pretty cool in their own right. I like the casting times and weapon speeds too.
@Webhead123 The image of a caster waving his hands around, and then having a sword hit him in the chest, and he messes up a syllable of an important word (cough Army of Darkness cough) really comes to mind when spells are interrupted. :)
@Samwise7RPG Plus, I think it helps bring the playing field a bit more level between the Fighter and the Wizard. Yes, the Wizard can summon up eldritch earth-shattering power but if the Fighter can get to him before his spell goes off, he might have a chance to stop it. In that vein, I also like the idea of a spellcaster losing Dex to Armor Class while casting. I'd never heard of that rule (and thus never used it) but it sounds like something I would do if I ever played 2nd Ed. again.
@Webhead123 If you think of it, the Wizard is focusing on not messing up his spell, so it makes sense that he isn't as focused on his surroundings as much as he normally would. His situational awareness isn't that great when you are manipulating the powerful forces of strange arcane powers, hehe.
gald to see you finally got to these, great stuff! 1 of the big difference between 3.0/3.5 & AD&D is a huge power difference. Characters from AD&D are way weak in terms of what they get from stats, saving throws, and a total lack of feats (other than weapon specialization), also it is way harder to get xp. I disagree cha is a total dump stat in AD&D, as someone that played it, they did a better job of making it mean something in 3. I liked multiclassed characters, great vid
@woodwwad I guess if you don't use Retainers/Henchmen than Cha could be a dump stat. If you roll your dice straight down though, you can't dump on any stat. :) I like that the earlier versions you play heros and not superheros. With the percentile roll on Str, that would be solved by rolling the dice in front of the DM at the start of the campaign. :)
@Samwise7RPG Well, I played lots of 2nd & that seemed to be the dump stat for most people. I like having a good cha. Always hated the roll dice straight down way, it made the game less fun as it limited you in what you could make (there were stat reqs in AD&D for classes) & even rolling in front of the DM wasn't enough to keep people from cheeting on % str. I remember having to start keeping copies of people's sheets. I like they way stats are handled in 3 better, you actually get use out of 12s
@Samwise7RPG yeah, I played with more than 1 person in High School that cheated. I've found that there is way less cheating in 3rd as lower stats still give you something. In AD&D a 15 str gave you no bonuses while a 15 str in 3rd gave you a +2. So everyone that had say a fighter wanted to have a really high strength since there was a huge difference in having a low str & a high one, also there aren't feats so there are few ways to up your ability to hit, if you have a low str, as an example.
@woodwwad I am not a fan of feats/cheats, the idea for any dedicated DM is to balance their game before they could try and challenge you. 2ed never tried to keep balance or give you all the answers, it was a set of rules you the DM could borrow from to make your medieval game. Due to this view and approach 2ed is not broken at all, it is actually what any good hard working DM needs and gives the DM the proper control they need to keep the game balance on their end and challenge players.
@woodwwad I would agree there are bad 2ed DMs but unlike other games they cannot hide how bad they suck, where in 3rd there be so many rules that the dm does little thinking and if he/she did suck at dming 3rd and up helped cover there asses you might say. Leaving players to depend on bonuses and feats makes it that they think less outside the box and need to be bailed out when a real challenge hits them in many cases. Smart players made dumb by wotc games woot lol
Sweet, Its nice to have comprehensive run down on AD&D 2nd edition. Yea I do like acting or calling out what happens as a player, sometimes it helps the story move a bit quicker and more socially realistic. I kind of see a new form of playing where everyone is a DM/GM and Player. Thanks Tim and Good Video.
@MetaRockwell There are GM-less games out there. There are "Story Games" that really try to strip the GM of duties and pass them out to the players to some degree or another. In a game called Polaris, the GMing duties were handled by the person across the table from you, when it was your turn. It's different, and there are pros and cons to them. You're welcome. :)
this is my favorite edition of AD&D. love it!
falanius 1 month ago
So how does one find a Skype group to play with? I have been trying to find a group for months now and I just don't see it coming together. Is there a good site that you'd recommend for hooking up with a group?
Trevb0t 1 month ago
@Trevb0t I would try to find players on the Dragonsfoot Forums (the home of the OSR some say). I know there is a sub-forum on there to find players or already existing groups, and I'm sure some of them are looking for online players. The Skype game I played in was with YouTubers.
Samwise7RPG 1 month ago
@WhyMeMoFo I ran several 1-shots of the game at a convention and they turned out very well. I really like 2nd because there are a ton of spells made for it. I also like it with most of the options turned off, but I could probably get used to the options if a group really liked proficiencies, etc.
Samwise7RPG 3 months ago
I play 2nd edition since I was 17 years old, now i'm 33. And I love it! never becomes obsolete
rockracso 3 months ago
Ive started looking into AD&D 2e because my uncles have some fond memories of it. ( I'm 1 year older than the print of the players hand book i own)
Korgaroth 4 months ago
@Korgaroth It's really cool playing with really old books. I really like 2nd Edition with most of the options turned off. :)
Samwise7RPG 4 months ago
@Samwise7RPG another reason I'm trying 2nd edition is that too often 4e will turn from a role playing game into a power leveling game. Also I enjoyed your review.
Korgaroth 4 months ago
@Korgaroth The newer games really got me interested... in older games. hehe. So I know what you mean. Thanks.
Samwise7RPG 4 months ago
2nd edition was the best. It was all downhill from there. WOTC wont get a dime off me just like EA wont, they are just too greedy. There was no need to release 4th ed other than to cash in on the video game kiddies. I already have all the 2nd ed stuff, and books, and that's all I'll ever need :-)
Jeet27 4 months ago
@Jeet27 The nice thing about finding a RPG you love, is it really never becomes "obsolete." It is just as good as it was when it first came out. I don't buy into this whole, "New games rock, and old games suck." mentality.
Samwise7RPG 4 months ago
Rolling mechanics are great, but roleplaying is better when you use simple logic to explain why things can or cannot happen or be possible to achieve, but you have to be a good story teller to pull it off.
pspboy7 5 months ago
@pspboy7 The older I get the more I just let happen with good role-playing and less dice rolling. I ask for less and less perception checks and rather just give them the information if they look in the right places. Mechanics can be a crutch for new GMs, and people like different things, but for me as long as I have a basic framework I can just make up the rest on the fly. The easiest way of doing things is just coming up with a percentage chance something needs to succeed, then roll a D100.
Samwise7RPG 5 months ago
I personally feel that 2nd edition is a more realistic feeling game compared to the very seemingly video gameish 3.5 and especially 4. This is my favorite edition by far. =]
pallmid 6 months ago
@pallmid Second edition is growing on me. I'm going to run 2 one-shot modules of it (Eye of Pain & Eye of Doom from TSR) at a convention at the end of Sept. I think I'm going to run it without proficiencies since they are optional.
Samwise7RPG 6 months ago
@kIDcHA0S That would D&D 5th edition ;)
christhediablomaster 8 months ago
Ah yes, basis D&D. We're actually doing a game with the rules of 1974 D&D, and it's pretty fun! :)
christhediablomaster 9 months ago
I'm really thinking of buying the 2nd Edition AD&D books. Would you recommend it? Thanks!
christhediablomaster 9 months ago
@christhediablomaster You are asking a guy who has multiple book shelves if you should buy a RPG. :) hehe. I think 2nd Edition is a good purchase. I'm a little bit more rules-lite in my GMing style, so I tend to like games like Labyrinth Lord / Basic Expert Classic D&D or their retro-clones, etc. I have a lot of 2nd Edition books though.
Samwise7RPG 9 months ago
"The Complete Book of...." series of 2E were priceless IMO. After reading those, you got a much better view of the demi-humans outlook, culture, myths, gods, appearance and lifestyle. Also the artwork died after 2E. I like the game mechanics of Pathfinder, but 'opening the game up' standardized the game far too much. We need to combine everything from 2nd, with the game play of 3rd!
kIDcHA0S 9 months ago
@kIDcHA0S I have a bunch of the complete books for 2E. I did like all of the fluff in there. I think I've used the Priest book for flesh out pantheons even for games that aren't D&D.
Samwise7RPG 9 months ago
i hated the weapon speed rule because a weapon with reach like as spear would ber slower than a weapon w/no reach like a dagger. it seemed too unrealistic and another xample would be a fighter would cause more damgae throwing 4 darts/rd then a palading swinging a 2handed sword with all his might. the battle system was pretty plain and boring. you couldn't do much with it. i regret buying so many 2ed books. what waste of money. i could come up with better ideas for better gameplay.
ACIDOCEAN1 9 months ago
@ACIDOCEAN1 Some people like the weapon speed rules, and other people dislike them. I kind of like a simple battle system in a RPG, but I know it isn't for everyone.
Samwise7RPG 9 months ago
There are still more 2ed dedicated 2ed DMs in the world today, wotc games produced player/dms cause many dedicated dms turned away from 3rd and up cause truly the game was saying "Player screw those DMs that challenged you, here you can run the game yourself cause it relies less on the DM and this is not the DMs game". Feats are the most unbalancing things i seen used in gaming in a long time, they are like poison to a dm trying to keep game balance.
CondorDM 1 year ago
@CondorDM "Feats are the most unbalancing things i seen used in gaming ..." so... allowing you to mechanically customize your character to be something more than what the class block gives you is bad? having your fighter being even slightly mechanically different from another fighter is bad? sure you can differentiate them with rping, but when they all essentially have the same abilities (which are non existent in 1e for the fighter) then it is just boring. i prefer 4e and pathfinder.
TheOnlyAttrition 9 months ago
@TheOnlyAttrition I don't think Feats are "Bad" but I have seem them unbalance a character if the right combination of them is chosen with the right stats, and magic items, etc. It's just something for GMs to look out for when they run a game. When it comes down to it, play the game you most enjoy. Some people like the extra mechanics and ways to differentiate their characters, and others prefer to do that mainly with fluff and character backgrounds/role-playing etc. It's not right or wrong
Samwise7RPG 9 months ago
@Samwise7RPG That is very true. in my games, i have my players tell me how they got their feats. Example: in 4e their is the 'Linguist' Feat (learn 3 new languages). unless they chose it at first level, i will require them to spend in-game time usually 4 - 6 months depending on their INT score learning those languages by being with native speakers and being taught by them. but im thinking of limiting it to just 1 language or otherwise you will be REALLY unbalanced.
TheOnlyAttrition 9 months ago
@TheOnlyAttrition It can be good to tell the GM how you get your special doo-dads and new powers. I got this feat from talking to this magic guy over here, or I got these skills from training or from the last adventure etc.
Samwise7RPG 9 months ago
@Samwise7RPG Not sure if you agree...or are sarcastic. Either way, i hated 1e because my favorite kind of class to play (a melee fighter) was boring, static, and very unsatisfying to play. sure you get the best Thaco table and high hit points but when you have no options other than "i slash with my sword" (something along those lines) it gets old and boring. I like Pathfinder and DnD 4e and 3.5 because you are able to mechanically make your character stand out among a bunch of other ... (cont'd)
TheOnlyAttrition 9 months ago
@TheOnlyAttrition cookie cutter fighters, and thieves, and rangers, and fucking ridiculous paladins (17 charisma as a pre req, seriously?).
TheOnlyAttrition 9 months ago
@TheOnlyAttrition I wasn't being sarcastic. In defense of simple characters, I think a lot can be said about having unique magic items to make your characters more interesting and memorable. For me it matters less on what is on the character sheet, but I know not everyone is like that. I also like running more rules-lite games, as they tend to help me shoot from the hip when I GM so that flavors my opinions. Just because it isn't on your character sheet doesn't mean you can't do it.
Samwise7RPG 9 months ago
@Samwise7RPG True, i like running rules lite games. (currently im running a very rules lite rp system i found on the interwebs that uses archetypes and stuff). Now back to the point of my original reply: just because your character has a bunch of abilities doesnt mean it requires less brainwork. Example off the top of my head: You (a fighter) and your friend (a wizard) come upon a deep yet narrow chasm that is about 50 feet deep. you could use your 50 ft rope to climb down, but the wizard....
TheOnlyAttrition 9 months ago
@Samwise7RPG decides to let the fighter jump down while he casts feather fall on him to slow his fall so he can get the big gem at the bottom (oh yeah, the fact that there is a big shiny gem is important). on the way back up, the fighter can use the rope to get back up. other example: an Eladrin is bound in a chair and being interrogated. he doesnt have a good acrobatics skill (so wrigling out of the ropes is futile) so he teleports about 20 feet out of the constraints and runs away.
TheOnlyAttrition 9 months ago
@Samwise7RPG My point: Use your abilities to your advantage, that way you rely less on equipment and more on your character's talents.
Also some points i dont like about 1e and 2e. class restrictions, very vague and incoherent combat system, literally no chance of survival against more than 2 hits as a 1st level wizard, as i said earlier fighters are boring and lame, to-hit rolls are more complex than they need to be,, how the fuck do segments work?, wizards get 1 spell per day at first level.
TheOnlyAttrition 9 months ago
@TheOnlyAttrition I think every edition of D&D views equipment as character abilities in a way, some more so than others I guess though. The Class Restrictions are pretty lame. That's what houserules are for. ;)
As far as segments, when I played we all rolled a D10 for initiative, and that is what segment you went in. We didn't use weapon speeds, but we did use casting times so spells could be interrupted. You just add your casting time to your initiative so it happens on that segment.
Samwise7RPG 9 months ago
@TheOnlyAttrition I also don't really care for tactics and miniatures rules in RPGs, so later editions sort of leave me cold (even after playing them).
Samwise7RPG 9 months ago
Nice video so Far Samwise
CondorDM 1 year ago
@CondorDM Thanks.
Samwise7RPG 1 year ago
I started played in 1989 the years 2ed came out, been DMing it 19 years table top and even ten years around programs like openrpg. I stopped playing characters in 1994 for the most part and prefer a game with loose rules that gives me the say and not a game so bogged down with rules it tries to run itself while using me as it's platform, I prefer it the other way around.
CondorDM 1 year ago
@CondorDM Sounds like you like running better than playing. I actually prefer playing, but I've been told I'm a good GM so I keep running games. I do enjoy elements of running, but I tend to burn out fairly quickly unless I'm running a more rules-lite game. That is probably why the Basic/Expert & Labyrinth Lord type rules have so much appeal to me.
Samwise7RPG 1 year ago
@Samwise7RPG Your correct, i find playing majority of the time boring and the burn out thing i admit is white noise to myself. DMing excites me to much to get bored, maybe the same way some get excited to play but i enjoy my end i am sure then even most players enjoy the game.
2ed for a gamer like myself allows me to use it as a platforms, gives loose rules and lets you run your game instead of you running it's game.
Great Videos bud.
CondorDM 1 year ago
@CondorDM I like running my game, instead of the game running me. That is a good way to put it. :)
Samwise7RPG 1 year ago
@Samwise7RPG Still makes sense either way, correction unneeded but fair enough.
CondorDM 1 year ago
I really do like 2nd Edition D&D, but then again, I like every edition in some way or another.
TowerGuardDM 1 year ago
AD&D Second Edition is my game of choice, and have been DMing it for a while. I'm slowly, but surely, weaning my players off of new age games back to the old school!
RumekRavager 1 year ago
@RumekRavager I'm one of those new school to old school types, so keep up the good work. :)
Samwise7RPG 1 year ago
@Samwise7RPG
Will do my bud!
I love the old school movement (the OSR) I totally love running first and second edition for my players as they are my favorites. As a young DM (only 20 years old) I shall keep the tradition alive!!!
RumekRavager 1 year ago
Thanks for revisiting this old game. There's a small part of me that misses 2nd Ed. from time to time, back when we (meaning my friends and I) played D&D with a more "light & breezy" attitude and when your character's personality was held in higher esteem than his/her stats. I remember being in a very unorthodox party of a human Fighter who specialized in net throwing, a dwarf Cleric that humped everything in sight and 3 Thieves (elf, halfling and human). One of the most memorable games ever.
Webhead123 1 year ago
@Webhead123 There are also lots of settings for AD&D 2nd Edition, as well as other books and modules for the system. I love my Encyclopedia Magica books. :) I also really love all the boxed settings/games, etc. I prefer light & breezy, hehe.
I love the sounds of that party makeup! :) That sounds like a fan-frickin-tastic group of characters to go adventure with. hehe.
Samwise7RPG 1 year ago
I really liked weapon speed, most people didn't & they took it out of 3.0 I wish they had kept using it. I've thought about bringing that into my 3.5 game as it totally makes sense. I really disliked percentile rolling for str, so many people cheated on that. I saw 00 so many times but never saw 01, not ever once!
woodwwad 1 year ago
@woodwwad I like the initiative system in Basic/Expert D&D, 1st Edition AD&D, and 2nd Edition AD&D. They are all pretty cool in their own right. I like the casting times and weapon speeds too.
Samwise7RPG 1 year ago
@Samwise7RPG I agree. I liked weapon speed and casting time and, like you, I liked the idea that a spellcaster could be interrupted during his spell.
Webhead123 1 year ago
@Webhead123 The image of a caster waving his hands around, and then having a sword hit him in the chest, and he messes up a syllable of an important word (cough Army of Darkness cough) really comes to mind when spells are interrupted. :)
Samwise7RPG 1 year ago
@Samwise7RPG Plus, I think it helps bring the playing field a bit more level between the Fighter and the Wizard. Yes, the Wizard can summon up eldritch earth-shattering power but if the Fighter can get to him before his spell goes off, he might have a chance to stop it. In that vein, I also like the idea of a spellcaster losing Dex to Armor Class while casting. I'd never heard of that rule (and thus never used it) but it sounds like something I would do if I ever played 2nd Ed. again.
Webhead123 1 year ago
@Webhead123 If you think of it, the Wizard is focusing on not messing up his spell, so it makes sense that he isn't as focused on his surroundings as much as he normally would. His situational awareness isn't that great when you are manipulating the powerful forces of strange arcane powers, hehe.
Samwise7RPG 1 year ago
gald to see you finally got to these, great stuff! 1 of the big difference between 3.0/3.5 & AD&D is a huge power difference. Characters from AD&D are way weak in terms of what they get from stats, saving throws, and a total lack of feats (other than weapon specialization), also it is way harder to get xp. I disagree cha is a total dump stat in AD&D, as someone that played it, they did a better job of making it mean something in 3. I liked multiclassed characters, great vid
woodwwad 1 year ago
@woodwwad I guess if you don't use Retainers/Henchmen than Cha could be a dump stat. If you roll your dice straight down though, you can't dump on any stat. :) I like that the earlier versions you play heros and not superheros. With the percentile roll on Str, that would be solved by rolling the dice in front of the DM at the start of the campaign. :)
Samwise7RPG 1 year ago
@Samwise7RPG Well, I played lots of 2nd & that seemed to be the dump stat for most people. I like having a good cha. Always hated the roll dice straight down way, it made the game less fun as it limited you in what you could make (there were stat reqs in AD&D for classes) & even rolling in front of the DM wasn't enough to keep people from cheeting on % str. I remember having to start keeping copies of people's sheets. I like they way stats are handled in 3 better, you actually get use out of 12s
woodwwad 1 year ago
@woodwwad Wow, that is pretty crappy that you had to keep copies of character's sheets...
Samwise7RPG 1 year ago
@Samwise7RPG yeah, I played with more than 1 person in High School that cheated. I've found that there is way less cheating in 3rd as lower stats still give you something. In AD&D a 15 str gave you no bonuses while a 15 str in 3rd gave you a +2. So everyone that had say a fighter wanted to have a really high strength since there was a huge difference in having a low str & a high one, also there aren't feats so there are few ways to up your ability to hit, if you have a low str, as an example.
woodwwad 1 year ago
@woodwwad I am not a fan of feats/cheats, the idea for any dedicated DM is to balance their game before they could try and challenge you. 2ed never tried to keep balance or give you all the answers, it was a set of rules you the DM could borrow from to make your medieval game. Due to this view and approach 2ed is not broken at all, it is actually what any good hard working DM needs and gives the DM the proper control they need to keep the game balance on their end and challenge players.
CondorDM 1 year ago
@woodwwad I would agree there are bad 2ed DMs but unlike other games they cannot hide how bad they suck, where in 3rd there be so many rules that the dm does little thinking and if he/she did suck at dming 3rd and up helped cover there asses you might say. Leaving players to depend on bonuses and feats makes it that they think less outside the box and need to be bailed out when a real challenge hits them in many cases. Smart players made dumb by wotc games woot lol
CondorDM 1 year ago
Sweet, Its nice to have comprehensive run down on AD&D 2nd edition. Yea I do like acting or calling out what happens as a player, sometimes it helps the story move a bit quicker and more socially realistic. I kind of see a new form of playing where everyone is a DM/GM and Player. Thanks Tim and Good Video.
MetaRockwell 1 year ago
@MetaRockwell There are GM-less games out there. There are "Story Games" that really try to strip the GM of duties and pass them out to the players to some degree or another. In a game called Polaris, the GMing duties were handled by the person across the table from you, when it was your turn. It's different, and there are pros and cons to them. You're welcome. :)
Samwise7RPG 1 year ago