Name one flaw
>>44593517
It's not the revised version.
IDK, I've never played it. My FLGS has the reprints though.
>>44593517
I ran that system for quite a few years and remember it very fondly. That said, even I don't think it was perfect.
To answer you question: class / level based system.
it's still d&d
>>44593573
Bug, not feature.
>>44593517
It existed during the 90s, when everything nerds liked was a pile of shit, they just didn't have as many alternatives yet.
No half-orcs. No assassins. No Gygaxian tangents.
>>44593517
THAC0
H
A
C
0
>>44593517
Is it true that 5e is very close to AD&D?
>>44593573
>Class and levels are a flaw
Incorrect. Classless games without levels are pointless exercises in "story telling" experiences. If you want a system, you need classes and levels.
>>44593662
I've heard people say its what 2E would have evoloved into but IDK never played 2e
it does theater of the mind too though
>>44593517
Alignments
No Monks.
Pussied out and changed 'demons' and 'devils' to 'tanari' and 'baatezu' or whatever the fuck they were called.
>>44593672
here's your (you)
>>44593672
Counterpoint: Savage Worlds
>>44593517
>races
>THE CLASS
while it doesnt need to be like 3.pf/5e where any race can be their own special snowflake but jesus...
It's tabletastic.
>>44593662
Not that much. It has same vibe with powerlevels and magic.
>>44593672
Eh, classes aren't as important if there's a system in place to build characters using skills and abilities. Granted, I've only seen it used in generic systems like savage worlds.
Dark heresy talent lists could be adapted to a classless system, but you'd have to rework the whole advancement deal. It only allows some talents at some ranks for some classes at specific xp costs, but the framework is there.
>>44593748
>>44593714
I'm guessing that the design philosophy is similar?
Less emphasis on combat and a greater focus on theater of the mind and exploration?
>>44593779
How much focus did AD&D have on exploration, on a system level?
Serious question.
>>44593517
It's not 1st Edition AD&D.
>>44593517
>Racial level caps
>Racial ability score requirements
>Extraordinary Strength
>Fighter xp requirements
>Paladins get to be OP because the ability score requirements are so high that the mere opportunity to play the class is rare
>Thief backstab is literally unusable as printed
>Clerics don't like drawing blood, so they only use weapons like a mace
>Druids can't use metal gear, except scimitars because reasons
>Casters still OP
>Monsters that look like cloaks, stalactites, dungeon ceilings/walls/floors, fear (feyr?) itself
>Ten different kinds of myconid. One type of goblin.
>Blue men who stand around in dungeons selling magic items
>A cursed version of pretty much every item
>Tables tables tables tables and a side order of tables with subtables and tables of other tables
>>44593517
Hmmm.
I got nothing.
>>44593925
>blue men
Wut?
>>44593517
Lorraine Williams
the storybased adventures overtook the location based adventures in this era IIRC
>>44593949
Mercanes
>>44593925
Most of that is good stuff.
Lv caps are great.
18% strength was great.
Cursed magic items are great.
Nigga wtf? That's good stuff you're hacking on.
>>44593972
> the storybased adventures overtook the location based adventures in this era IIRC
This is the biggest one. They changed how the game was supposed to be played. XP was taken off the gp=xp standard and instead became a weird combination of beating up monsters, roleplaying, "story goals" and arbitrary GM awards. It completely changed what the game was about and incentivized, compared to previous editions.
>>44593672
1. gamist scum detected
2. actually even if "playing a game" is your goal you can do as well without such stupid simplifications as classes and levels. there are many crunch-heavy games based only on creating custom skillsets not restricted by "boxed sets" and developed directly and individually from experience poinst (or name-it-differently) and not in tied packs with artificial intervals
>>44593517
A lot of mechanics are needlessly complicated/unintuitive.
>44593857
I have only little experience of both ( Hoard of Dragon Queen on 5e and short 2e adventure ).
We played with the pick&mix point-buy class features ( optional rule ).
While there are lot non-combat abilities and proficiencies available, it felt sort of afterthought - to supporr time outside of dungeoncrawling. It was still more crawl-orientated than 3.x. At least, that's how it felt.
5e has more I'd say, with the backgrounds and whatnot.
>>44593732
And GURPS.
And Hero System.
>>44593857
I don't really know about differences on a system level, but I think that RPGs in general were played dramatically different than how they are now. For one, a lot of the published material focused on cartography and maps that weren't exclusively combat spaces. A lot of the adventure modules had maps that lent more to exploration and problem solving than combat encounters.
>>44593622
What? There were tons of competitors to D&D back then.
>>44594116
Well, I guess 5e has that... Kinda? But then you could just use your previous maps so it doesn't matter?
>>44594092
And RuneQuest, the superior old school system
>>44593639
>THAC0
Came here to post this.
inb4
>too dumb for thac0, get out casual
>>44593857
On a system level? Probably about the same. Which is funny, because non-combat was a bigger part (I think) of the game back then. Specifically exploration. But there were not a ton of mechanics supporting it as a special thing. It was just part of the game, handling that part was what the player was supposed to bring to the game and not necessarily the character.
Although there was some stuff, now that I think about it more (like dwarf abilities).
>>44594159
5e has it in a different way, mostly in its emphasis on theater of the mind rather than published material. I really wish Wizards would pay writers to create original settings for 5e, TSR did really good creating Dark Sun, Planescape, etc.
>>44593573
>class / level based system.
Nice b8
2nd edition or 1st? I wanna buy the reprints.
>>44594037
>A lot of mechanics are needlessly complicated/unintuitive.
Or maybe you're just a dumbass.
>>44594228
>But there were not a ton of mechanics supporting it as a special thing.
Nah homie, there were. They were just kinda crappy, but that's seriously what most of the tables in the PHB were for.
>>44594259
I'd tell you 2e. While 2e introduced some new problems, it also solved a bunch of problems with 1e. Either are fine though.
>>44594238
>mostly in its emphasis on theater of the mind rather than published material.
What do you mean by "theater of the mind"? I ask this because that expression is usually used to denote mat-less combat, but that way it doesn't make sense in that context to me.
>>44594277
I'm just not thinking of it then. Until I picked up 5e, 2e was my game. But I am drawing a blank.
Now, there were some great supplements out there. Wilderness survival guide, etc.
But other than some racial stuff...not really remembering anything that was mechanic driven. Maybe it is more my lack of experience with 3e etc that is stopping me from drawing the contrast.
>>44593517
Look, I love AD&D 2e. I really do. But you have to admit, the game has so many warts it's not even funny.
>grapple system
>NWP with no rhyme or reason to why checks are modified at varying amounts
>can't decide whether to be simuationist or narrative
>why differing damages for weapons against S/M targets and L targets?
>why aren't things drastically bigger than an ogre given higher size catgories than L?
>why differing numbers of xp for advancement, but they are all so damn close to one another PCs will remain the same level pretty much always?
>why are rounds 1 minute?
>why are turns 10 minutes?
Etc etc.
>>44594312
What problems did it solve?
>>44594259
2e, 1e is basically only good if you want to run a really difficult dungeon crawl.
>>44594323
For me, I think it's about interacting with the world in a meaningful way, not simply a skill roll that determines whether your character manages to cut out roleplaying, exploration and problem solving.
>>44594312
>>44594392
With these guys, 2e all the way.
>>44593517
Shitty multiclass rules, no retraining rules.
Not enough in the way of alternate class features.
Somewhat poorly designed mathematical patterns for character progressions.
Better than most tabletop games I've played though, some of which are far more recent publications. You could do worse.
>>44594445
Alright, just know that I've mostly seen it used for mat-less battle.
Also... how does either edition do that?
>>44594445
That is how I tend to look at it. The skill system wasn't as assumed. If you could describe what you were doing, and it sounded reasonable, then your character could do it. Now days you have to have the skill and you have to make a roll.
>>44594363
We might be using mechanics in a different way. I'm talking about all of the random ass skills and whatnot that were sort of up to you and the dm to combine into some method of getting past whatever problem.
>>44594382
It expanded the game like >>44594392
said is one of the biggest one. Basically, it gives you more tools, which might be good/bad depending on your PoV, like, you definitely get into rulebloat with a ton of splats.
I love 2e, but I'll warn you...it's not like modern RPGs in many significant ways. Unless you are playing a very high level campaign (like 15+) you won't see power levels like you see in PF/3.5 clones.
>>44593630
That's not a flaw.
>>44594312
>>44594392
>>44594450
Thanks amigos, going with 2e.
>>44593925
>>Paladins get to be OP because the ability score requirements are so high that the mere opportunity to play the class is rare
this is actually a pretty cool thing if you think about it
>>44594268
I grew upon stuff that ripped AD&D off so heavily they caught a lawsuit for it. I'm not averse to it, I'm not against complex crunch, I'm plenty smart for it. That doesn't mean we need to keep switching up whether a roll is roll-over or roll-under, apparently at random.
>>44594500
>I love 2e, but I'll warn you...it's not like modern RPGs in many significant ways. Unless you are playing a very high level campaign (like 15+) you won't see power levels like you see in PF/3.5 clones.
On this. The mechanics of older DnD (basic, AD&D, 2e) were focused primarily on supporting literature's hero's journey. It laughably falls apart at high levels and while you spend a lot of the time at what many would consider relatively powerless, it's not so much about killing monsters as exploring and growing in ability. If you're looking for power fantasy, it's not a good system for that. You can do it, but there's better choices out there.
>>44594655
>On this. The mechanics of older DnD (basic, AD&D, 2e) were focused primarily on supporting literature's hero's journey
Oh, I'm not saying that they did this on purpose, just that's what it seems to work best with.
>>44593517
Being stuck with a shitty character because you rolled terrible stats.
One thing that I've noticed about higher level aD&D campaigns is that they tend to become political kingdom management games. I remember talking to a lot of old grognards that would tell me how awesome their castles were. This one guy mentioned that their blackguard had a really sweet teleporting fortress a la Krull.
>>44594721
Yeah, like level 10 fighters get a keep or somesuch.
If you wanted you could literally turn it into Chainmaile
>>44594721
It was a big part of the game. Part of the built in focus, really. You had hirelings and henchman rules. It was kind of assumed (though many players didn't) that your party was not just the player-characters, but included a bunch of other guys as well.
>>44594775
That's kind of a cool feature man.. I play this one game with HIGHLY asymmetric character creation, but if you roll a noble, you could effectively purchase a castle/fortress and populate it with a seneschal, guards, servants, etc and furnish it with siege artillery, secret passages, etc. A lot of the fun is coming up with your castles floorplans.
>>44593517
Horrible generic fantasy art.
>>44593517
It's not Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 1st Edition.
>>44594854
Yeah, weren't you supposed to acquire followers no matter what (pretty much) if you had a CHA above a certain score?
>>44594861
I can't remember the rules too well for it, but I want to say that some of them (like sieges and large scale battles) were kinda wonky, but workable. Shifting over to politics could be a lot of fun though, especially if the party was kinda dumb about ruling.
>>44594936
40kfag pls go
>>44594989
..Not even that anon but .. really?
> Thinking Warhammer Fantasy has anything to do with 40k
> not realizing WHFRP1e came out 3 years before AD&D2e
underage plz go.
>>44594963
Not exactly, but most classes I remember get some form of follower for free at a certain level. Clerics get devout followers, thieves got padfoots and street urchins, etc. I don't think wizards got anything (though I'd assume picking up an apprentice was standard; maybe he got a tower?).The fighter was, IIRC, unique in that he was assures both lands/a sweet freaking base and competent adventure-worthy followers. One of the complaints about fighter nerfs come 3e is that they took the fighter's "get a goddamn army to follow you" feature and made it a feat available to everyone.
>>44595093
Players seemed a lot more invested in their games back then. Now you have a bunch of disinterested yokels that can't keep their attention away from their smart phones and tablets during the game while the DM isn't focusing JUST on their character.
>>44593548
/thread
>>44595126
I once had a player, who was not a new player mind you, break out his PSP when I switched over to deal with another set of player's scene. A fucking video game. During D&D. Like, what the actual fuck?
>>44593517
No Trampier cover.
RIP :(
>>44593639
>Imblying 20creep is a good thing.
>>44593716
Those were the families, they were still Demons and Devils in my books.
>>44593517
Too many tables increasing the time it takes to do everything, but not in a 4e "look, it's basically a mini-game in itself" sort of taking a long time, the "wait a minute, we've got to cross reference this table with another table in another part of the book" kind of taking a long time.
THAC0, while mathematically identical to AC in most ways, is intuitive and poorly presented. It's functional, but not elegant. Presentation Matters
Arbitrary race+class restrictions only serve to pidgeon hole PC's into fewer and fewer pre-defined archetypes.
Non-weapon proficiencies are awkward as fuck
The game markets itself as high-fantasy 1980's action movie/novel cinematic heroism. It's much more suited to gritty survivalism in medieval noteurope, while trying to collect enough treasure from treasure-filled deathtraps to retire, taking advantage of the only avenue of social mobility in your shitty medieval universe. Granted, that's a fine type of game, but the game is dishonestly marketed.
Seperate XP tracks is a fundemental part of class balance, necessitating the tracking of individual XP, rather than having a party-level. This is one of the most common and elegant house rules I've seen, and the system is built to actively fight it.
To piggyback on the last one, house-ruling it in general is a chore compared to other systems.
However, despite all this, it's still better than anything published under the D20 OGL.
>>44593662
5e emulates the experience that players who started with 3e imagined when grognards explained 2e to them, not the actual experience of playing 2e. In all fairness, that's probably a more marketable thing to emulate.
>>44593925
>hating on Cloakers and Piercers
I will FIGHT you.
Actually, most of your points up until then were fine, then you just veered off into this weird territory about how shitty Arcane are. They're from Spelljammer, man; I'm sorry if your DM put them in dungeons for no good reason.
>>44593672
>Classes done well>Classless>Classes done poorly.
>>44595697
The objectively correct rating. Not even samefag.
>>44593639
THAC0 was actually pretty simple, but it was explained poorly in the books. There are two very easy ways to use it.
>The DM tells you the monster's AC. You subtract it from your THAC0 and that's the modified roll you need to hit it. Example: You are fighting something with AC 5 and your THAC0 is 12. You need a 7 to hit it.
>You roll your dice and do your modifiers, then subtract it from your THAC0. That's the AC you hit. Example: You roll your attack, getting a final result of 14, and your THAC0 is 12. You hit an AC of -2.
Also note that if you were used to previous editions before trying 2e, you saw that THAC0 was just a way to incorporate the attack tables of those earlier editions without needing to take up space in the book.
>Your THAC0 is 15 at level 10 and will get better by 1 every other level from here on out? That means it's 14 at level 8, 13 at level 6, and so on.
It really was just the attack tables distilled to one number, for people that understand adding and subtracting whole numbers. The books just didn't make that clear enough for new players.
>>44595836
THAC0 isn't hard to understand, it's just pointlessly arcane.
>>44595881
I agree, because the books made it seem that way. I have had people that were borderline waterheads look at me and say 'well damn, that's easy" once I explained it to them the second way I listed in that post.
>>44593517
Not many.
Racial reqs and limits are good
Stats were done right (18+% for fighters)
Weapon proficiency was good
% thieving skills sorta sucked
Thac0 was silly. Could have been less cumbersome.
>>44595926
No, I mean, even when you know how it works, it's still stupid. It's the system I learned RPGs with and it's easily my least favorite.
Rolled 5, 2, 4 = 11 (3d6)
>>44593517
>>44594382
>What problems did it solve?
I started with 1st and made the transition to 2nd, and I think the thing that I was most impressed with at the time was the way that they diversified priests (it had always bugged me in 1e that, whether your cleric worshiped a goddess of love and mercy or a god of war and murder, they had access to the exact same spells, abilities, and restrictions).
>>44594370
>why aren't things drastically bigger than an ogre given higher size catgories than L?
Huge 12' to 25'
Gargantuan 25'+
>>44593746
Races as Classes wasn't in 2e, I believe that was an OD&D thing. Even AD&D had Races with separate Classes
>>44596049
>Thac0 was silly.
I never for the life of me understood the people who say THAC0 was confusing. "HURR HOW I ARITHMETIC????" Jesus Christ, it's first-grade level addition and subtraction you fucking morons, six year olds can do it.
>>44604095
>Races as Classes wasn't in 2e, I believe that was an OD&D thing. Even AD&D had Races with separate Classes
This is correct. AD&D always had races separate from classes; though there were race-based class restrictions in both 1st and 2nd edition.
It was the 'Basic D&D' box sets in which races were classes.
>>44604108
It's not that people can't understand or use it. It's just a really non-intuitive way of way of doing things. It's one more weird thing for new players to figure out. It also makes "bonuses" and "penalties" to hit and AC hard for newbies to figure out, because sometimes +1 really means minus one.
It's just one more hurdle that makes it harder for new players to get into the game. I understand the history of where it came from, but retrospectively, it almost seems like someone had the idea for BAB (as in 3e) and decided to make it purposely more confusing to keep out the normies.
>>44596049
I mostly agree, but I'm not with you on the racial level limits. It's really poor balance for all the demi-human benefits that you get at level one.In most games, it's effectively no balance, since most games don't get to a high enough level for it to matter. And when you do, then is the DM really gonna say no more levels for you? And expect players to want to keep playing that character? Even though those higher levels matter less in AD&D than in later editions, those levels still serve as an incentive for players.
So you end up with A) the limits getting house ruled to keep the game fun; or B) The players rolling up new characters so tey can keep leveling.
Level limits just don't really work in practice. Would have been better to just give humans a floating stat bonus or exp bonus.
>>44593517
The graphics.
>>44604709
> implying graphics make a game good or bad
>>44604709
>Implying AD&D 2e didn't have the most bitching great art ever.
Do you even iconic fantasy?
>>44594445
In 5e you interact with the world in the same way you do any other edition of D&D. There's no real difference between editions on how you do it, it just depends on how much you like "natural language."
>>44593517
It's D&D
>>44604819
8902378907238947923EDGEY2373487923478923897234780ME
>>44594370
Differing advancement was super common when using the bonus xp rules. Rogues got 2xp per gold in treasure AND had the fastest advancement. They should have rocketed past everyone else.
>>44604922
Too bad being 2-4 levels ahead of everyone else didn't help Thieves not suck.
>>44593517
To hard to find a group for.
>>44604095
I think that post was more referring to racial class restrictions.
>>44604933
Except thieves were required so bullshit traps didn't kill the party. The thief got to be the hero of the exploration phase
>>44593517
>thaco
>race maximum level restrictions
>class-alignment restrictions
>different experience tables for classes
>separate xp tables for classes
>monster entries are awkward (why the fuck does it give damage as "2-7" instead of giving it straight up as "1d6+1"? no fucking reason. why the fuck do they list HD but not HP? no fucking reason.)
In short: there is a reason that later editions exist.
>>44596049
>Stats were done right (18+% for fighters)
A 25 str titan still have 5% chance of not breaking a wooden door on the first try though.
>>44604989
>In short: there is a reason that later editions exist.
Because they started marketing to people who wanted to make special snowflake characters who did nothing but get teh epic lootz?
>>44605013
Eh, I'm a pretty strong guy but from time to time I have problems getting ketchup packets open.
>>44605013
If it's just a shitty wooden door then the DM shouldn't even make you roll
Chalk this up to shit-DM syndrome
>>44604986
And beyond that he got to do dick-all because he sucked at combat and couldn't cast spells.
Like, I WANT to like the Thief, but played as-is he sucks shit. It takes some house rules to make him playable, or a judicious amount of hand-waving from the DM.
>>44605033
If anything 2e and previous editions are more geared towards getting loot than today.
And yeah I'd rather make a character I want to play rather than the book telling me I can't make a paladin because I didn't roll high enough on my Constitution score so I need to go human fighter again.
>>44593517
No monk, half-orcs, or $5 words.
>>44605124
>not playing your "failed" paladin in the spirit of one
>being so unimaginative you can't play a paladin unless it says "Class: Paladin" on your character sheet
>>44593639
Thac0 was in-place in D&D since oD&D, and was first publish in 1979. It only became official in 2e, but was widely used before then. It is also the exact same system as the to-hit tables of previous editions, and is just a shorthand for factoring the tables without the need to reference them.
There is literally no legitimate complaint to be made against THAC0 that does not equally apply to all prior editions of D&D, and no way to defend the to-hit tables of earlier editions without admitting it's the same system as in 2e.
>>44593972
>>44594024
It's bizarre looking at AD&D1e and earlier adventures where most of them are "this is a dungeon, this is why you're here, succeed," or "This is a weird setting with wacky people, this is what's happening, figure out your involvement," and then comparing them to AD&D2e and later adventurers which tend to be of the "This is a massive plot relating to X novel or Y meta event, and your characters are involved and going to meet X NPCs for brief cameos while going through this specific series of dungeons and scenes."
>>44605124
>If anything 2e and previous editions are more geared towards getting loot than today.
Maybe toward finding, winning loot, yeah. Not being given loot as basically a part of the leveling system. I remember one campaign that ran for four months that was just to get a +3 sword so we could kill a vampire lord bbeg.
>>44604108
Because they aren't saying it's confusing, it's just illiterate chucklefucks not bothering to read what is said or bitter grognards refusing to believe someone might dislike it who interpret it in such a way.
THAC0 works, it's not terribly hard to understand. The problem is that it's unintuitive and inelegant. Note that this is not an endorsement of other systems, merely a statement that many believe THAC0 is silly.
>>44605430
No Grognards hate THAC0, by definition. THAC0 was the standard at conventions and stores long before 2e.
Clunky subsystems that work a bunch of different ways: d20 roll over for saves and attacks, d20 roll under for attribute checks and non-weapon proficiences, d10 for initiative, d% for thief skills, etc.
Many of the additional rules it has over base-level OD&D or Moldvay Basic (since that's the simplest of the true Basics) don't enhance game-play, but are just obnoxious restrictions or fiddly details. Percentile strength unnecessarily implements a whole new subsystem. Attribute minimums and maximums by race and gender is bullshit busy work and very clunky. Level caps are a terrible way to balance out overpowered demihumans, since they either haven't yet applied, or they completely shut down your advancement. System Shock and Resurrection Survival are exactly 5 percentiles away form each other (at least until the latter gets higher than 90%, and the gap between actually closes); why the fuck even bother having two separate stats?
Multiclassing is broken. Would you rather be a 10th level fighter or a fighter 9 / magic-user 10? Because they require an identical number of experience points. Thieves are retardedly bad at their jobs as their average skill percentage is really low.
If you get lucky and get high attribute rolls, thus making your character than others in your party, you get the opportunity to 'make up for that' by making yourself even more powerful via things like percentile strength, access to more classes and more powerful ones at that, and a bonus to earned experience which allows you to level a bit faster.
Differentiated XP requirements for level is obnoxious, and does not usually make a big enough difference to justify the trouble. It should tweak the power of classes if there is an imbalance.
Accuracy-reducing armor doesn't play right, and is therefore inferior to damage-reducing armor (at least if you can get the latter to work and not over-penalize light weapons).
>>44605487 continued
The way D&D does Vancian magic, the rate at which casters increase in power dramatically accelerates as they level. Going from 1st to 2nd level, a wizard gains only a 1st level spell; Going from 10th to 11th level, a wizard gains a 3rd level spell, a 4th level spell *and* a 5th level spell.
The ad hoc saving throw categories are bullshit.
The non-weapon proficiencies are all over the place with their modifiers (which I can't don't see a logical pattern in), and put too much importance on high attributes, which are the result of random rolls. (Which reminds me: crappy system for attribute generation that rewards in 'unfair' and unfun power gaps.) And NWPs overshadow and delegitimatize straight-out attribute checks, which were the default way of resolving shit not explicitly covered in the rules in previous editions.
THAC0 isn't the godawful thing that many people seem to think it is, and is just another way of solving the same math equation to see if you hit, but it's still a bit awkward and certainly isn't a plus.
Too many classes use Vancian magic, as it gets thrown around willy-nilly to differentiate classes like rangers and paladins from fighters. It doesn't work particularly well for this and just feels lazy. And this also highlights another issue: much of the added material that AD&D has over Basic is subpar and/or overly derivative. Don't get me wrong; more class choices and more spells are nice, but they just aren't executed as well on the whole.
Also, look at the same random spell in Basic and in AD&D, and chances are good that AD&D made it more complicated with no real improvement to show for it.
The 2nd edition AD&D books lose much of the energy and raw creativity that you feel in 1st edition (though to be fair, 2nd edition does tidy things up and make the rules less of a mess).
>>44594370
>grapple system
Agreed. terrible.
>NWP with no rhyme or reason to why checks are modified at varying amounts
Simulated difficulty. Surgery is harder than basket-weaving. It wasn't a very efficient way to do it, but this was the edition where they found themselves competing against a bunch of skill-based games on the market, so that's what happened. Kind of like when all FPS games collectively decided that iron-sights and chest-high walls were the way to go.
>can't decide whether to be simuationist or narrative
No D&D edition was ever particularly simulationist. Gamist or Narrative might've been the better comparison, if you're forcing it that way.. And this is why OSR types tend to dislike 2e. They changed the way the game was meant to be played. It became about heroic adventures, rather than being about robbing dangerous shit for riches and glory.
>why differing damages for weapons against S/M targets and L targets?
Larger creatures are harder to hit. One of the weirder ways they represent this is with varying damage vs Large creatures. A dagger is going to be decently effective against a peasant. It's going to be less effective against a giant. Not a great way to do it, but there is a rationale behind it.
>why aren't things drastically bigger than an ogre given higher size catgories than L?
There are. See >44604057
>>why differing numbers of xp for advancement, but they are all so damn close to one another PCs will remain the same level pretty much always?
Balance, to a degree. It's usually not that drastic, but you see the spread become more important at high level. By the time the wizard hits 16, the warrior is at 17 and the rogue is at 20.
>why are rounds 1 minute?
Combat rounds are the "we are fighting monsters" bit. Though a lot of people change what the time is at this level. as long as you're consistent I dont think it matters.
>why are turns 10 minutes?
Exploration turns. They are for tracking dungeon crawling actions.
>>44605727 continued
2e also moves away from straight-out dungeon crawling toward more story based games, which is great in theory (a wider scope means you can do more), but it's not something the D&D rules are particularly well designed for. So you end up trying to hammer in nails with a screwdriver.
Ramping hit points are obnoxious and silly. The extreme power arc of D&D in general makes the game unwieldy and difficult to work with.
I'm sure I'm forgetting a bunch of stuff, but that's what I can think of off the top of my head, and it's considerably more than the 'one flaw' OP asked for.
Nothing, it is the perfect game. Or was until spells and powers etc etc.
>>44605446
>No Grognards hate THAC0, by definition.
Oh you'd be surprised. I've seen people yelling about how THAC0 is dumbed-down babby shit and how could anyone NOT memorize the to-hit tables from oD&D, how dare these kids walk on my lawn etc etc.
If you think someone would bitch about a mechanic in D&D, even the most far-fetched shit, you can bet your sweet tits that it's out there.
>>44605807
You haven't heard it from actual grognards, who played D&D before 2e, is what I meant. Maybe "I only play basic!" purists, but people playing D&D before 2e? They have no problem with Thac0; they were already using it.
>>44605781
>2e also moves away from straight-out dungeon crawling toward more story based games, which is great in theory (a wider scope means you can do more), but it's not something the D&D rules are particularly well designed for. So you end up trying to hammer in nails with a screwdriver.
Was with your complaints up to this.
2e, with its dazzling array of supplements that have never been matched since, does story campaigns fucking beautifully.
>>44605834
>No REAL Scotsman!
>>44605924
It's not that. It's just how everyone learned to play. No one used the tables. Everyone figured out thac0 on their own. It was simply a natural thing to do, so that you didn't have to refer to tables. Or you figured out some other shortcut so that you didn't constantly reference them. Every single person who played D&D for a decent period of time--all of them--learned to play without referencing the tables. Thac0 is exactly what that is, and nothing else. That's why there aren't any grognards that are opposed to it--because literally every single one already had either that same, or a similar, system for doing the exact same thing. For most of us, it was THAC0, which was published long before 2e.
>>44605967
That's a lot of sweeping generalization of old players, while ignoring just how set-in-their-ways some groups of players are. I fully believe--and have seen first-hand--players who refuse to use THAC0 and only use the old charts.
Nerds hate change, and some REALLY hate change.
>>44594513
It is Ms. lorraine williams.
