Welcome to /2eg/, a thread dedicated to all things 2nd Edition D&D related - including settings, lore, modules, and derived systems (Alternity, Buck Rogers XXVc, For Gold and Glory, Hackmaster, Myth and Magic, and more).Since 2e draws heavily from earlier editions, older modules are welcome too. Other media derived from AD&D (such as Infinity Engine video games) also has a home here.It's what you play, not how you play it. RAW or homebrew, as long as your table is having fun, there's no wrong way to play.There's a surprisingly complete 2e fan wiki for rules stuff, it's excellent for quick reference:https://adnd2e.fandom.com/wiki/Advanced_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_2nd_Edition_Wikiad&d 2e archiveaHR0cHM6Ly93ZWIuYXJjaGl2ZS5vcmcvd2ViLzIwMjUwMjA0MTczNzUwL2h0dHBzOi8vdGhlLWV5ZS5ldS9wdWJsaWMvQm9va3MvcnBnLnJlbS51ei9EdW5nZW9ucyUyMCYlMjBEcmFnb25zL0FEJkQlMjAybmQlMjBFZGl0aW9uLw==Remember to keep things civil.Previous thread: >>97806516Thread Question: What's your favorite kit?
Dead edition
>>97828530Bad faith trolling thread made by trolls from /osrg/2e belongs in /osrg/, mods delete this garbage.
> ACKS Errata v1.1 (unofficial circulation)"Clarification: Preserved fish counts as a valid medium of exchange for purposes of XP calculation when converted through trade."This is why fish loops can level domains faster than dungeons.
>>97828530I always loved that DMG art. Iiss old style oil painting art sometimes. This hit so hard for my metal head self back in the day.
>>97829560Easley is by far the most metal out of the four big TSR artists.
>>97830827He really is, that is a pure out metal. That could be an album cover.
>>97829266lol last time you went running to the mods they spanked you hard
>>97828530I don't think I have a favorite kit. I like the concept but the execution needs work.
>>97828530>Thread Question: What's your favorite kit?The Dragonslayer from Council of Wyrms.
>>97832391I never saw that one. CoW is sadly one I never got to play
Sup /2eg/, I think you might like this>>97834601
Making a thread, it will be d&d agnostic
>>97837576I enjoyed the spells and magic book
>>97837919PLAYER'S OPTION: Combat & Tactics is pretty good too
>>97839305That was the first one I got. I used the holy fuck out of that one.
>>97839308Yeah, it is so good. I come up with different ways to make your die throws matter based on how they landed in a "facing" chart, all based on the rules in that book. It was fun but only one player ever understood how to use the rules. FAVORITE KIT: Shadow from The Complete Handbook for Humanoids
I located a copy of DMG and PHB where I live. Each cost 1/5 of minimum wage. Are they worth it?
>>97839562Minimum wage for... an hour? A day? Week? Year? Are you *on* minimum wage?
>>97839593monthly, sorry for taking it granted.
>>97839593>>97839622And no, I'm not on minimum wage. But it's still quite something.
>>97839622>>97839624In that case I'm gonna go ahead and say no. Just download the PDFs.
>>97839767Or look up Purple Worm.
>>97839481Ah classic player confusion lol. I am shocked at how many people think "what do I roll" is a new thing.
>>97839622Gonna agree just get the PDFs at that point. Are these they new reprints or actually from the 90s?Also look at For Gold and Glory. It's a 2e retro clone.
>>97839562Get the pdf AND most likely get the books after checking them out.
>>97840655Wdym? It was just a to-hit roll. I was using facing rules which the players did understand but not exactly what I implemented. It didn't add any rolls just feints and a little bit of subterfuge. It only would have helped the martial classes anyway.
>>97842644I was just meaning there have always been players who get confused on things is all
>>97842674Yeah, true. I was still playing with excellent players that could not calculate THac0 to save their life no matter how I explained it or how many times I explained it. To me it was so easy but I was used to 1e at that point so it was actually an easier calculation than looking up a table for every time I rolled to hit. They could just not understand that they were doing the exact same thing, just in a different (and easier) way. I still don't understand why they had such a hard time with it. Maybe two of my players could calculate their own THac0s and the rest had to be walked down each and every time. These were not stupid people by far. Ig that they got used to doing it a certain way and nothing else made sense to them. I don't miss being a foreverDM at all.
>>97842800Another anon here, having started with 2e, it was pretty much an accepted ritual to spend a bit calculating every round in my party, though most everyone pulled it off. Maybe the order of the factors is just some kind of blind spot.
I saw someone claim 2e was the easiest D&D they ever ran for their group and I couldn't stop laughing when they said 5e was hard to run.
>>978439145e is hard to run correctly because balancing the game around 6 daily encounters is the most bonkers things i ve ever heard. the 4 daily encounters of 4e were already enough and they doubled down on it so hard that it baffles me.You could honestly run 2e in a 5e style and you would most probably have greater success just because the numbers are more balanced and there isnt the class disparity that exists in 5e. This is pretty much what Hackmaster 4e was, a completely forgotten game by now
>>97843957Bounded accuracy solves your encounter balance. Just use a higher CR and wreck the party.
>>97843974Nigga, have you ran 5e before? If your players have Abilities that are higher than that of the standard array, they will fucking steamroll almost everything. I've seen a 5th level party face fuck an adult Red Dragon, easily.
>>97844048Dragon has multiple attacks and legendary resistance, there.
>>97843914It might not be a mathematically heavier ruleset but 5e is full of player-facing bullshit that 2e has no equivalent to and that fucks up running it.
>>97850033NTA, but I'll agree with this. 3e onward things changed, that's one reason you get the OSR divide. Players deal with a lot more information and rules. So much so it's hard to get them to try other games as they think they will all be that complicated.5e, like 3e can be stripped down into something that runs smoother with less complexity. But that complexity sells products. That was the big thing with 3e, not just the GM brought all those books.
>>97850033>5e is full of player-facing bullshit that 2e has no equivalent toNot following, what do you mean? 5e has way way fewer splatbooks aimed at players to make their ultimate kitted out PC.
>>97850262>that's one reason you get the OSR divideDoesn't make sense, since the OSR divide is between BECMI and AD&D 2e.
>>97851280NTA, but abilities and feats alone add far more player facing rules than 2e did.
>>97851325OSR started as a reaction to 3rd edition dropping and all support for previous editions disappearing, and people were scared that WotC would never reprint any pre-2000 material so as to not create competition for 3rd. The whole "revival" business started out as people trying to figure out how to keep pre3e editions of D&D from completely disappearing while WotC retained all their rights.
>>97851624Sure fishfag.
>>97851743What evidence do you have to disprove it?
>>978513842e had feats in splatbooks, and everyone wanted them. Anon even said >that complexity sells products >>97850262
>>97851624Don't feed the troll
>>97851901You mean the skills and powers stuff?
>>97851927Yeah
>>978439145e is simple in its presentation but an absolute chore to run. The amount of encounters you need to run PER ADVENTURING DAY makes it an actual slog to get through. The system focused too heavy on the epic side of epic fantasy, that it became more of a power fantasy than an adventuring questing game. You can throw monsters well above the Party's level at them and there is a high possibility they will not only kill the thing but do so without any real threat to themselves.So, designing encounters in 5e requires a lot more effort and needs to have a lot of combat to make even exploration more exciting. Its also a mentality thing, because a lot of 5e players treat the game as an MMORPG which we can thank 4e for.
>>97852088>Its also a mentality thing, because a lot of 5e players treat the game as an MMORPG which we can thank 4e for.3.5 is the one with not one but two MMOs.
>>97852088D&D is ideally MMO, it's the idea behind West Marches and what Gygax envisioned when stressing the need for time keeping. WoW just gave MMOs a bad name.
>>97851624>completely make-believe false narrative of the OSR, yet againDo you think if you just spam this any time the OSR is mentioned outside of /osrg/ people will eventually start believing it, or something?>>97851773>What evidence do you have to disprove it?Those blog posts an anon posted were incredibly well researched and backed up by people who were there in the comments, I actually read them and you should too.
>>97852399Can you show me evidence of the OSR community starting in the 90s? Can you show me evidence of these supposed communities?
>>97851624>>97852492>Repeats the same schizo theories for the hundredth time.We're not an autistic fixation support group, fishfag. Seek medical help.
>>97852492Total non sequitur response. Try answering the question I asked instead. Do you actually believe spamming your pretend history will make people believe it and then besiege the /osrg/ based on their misunderstanding? You were already told that we're not your personal army and we're not going to brigade /osrg/ for you.
>>97852553>>97852597Can you or can you not show me evidence that the OSR started in the 90s? Can you show me the communities they supposedly hung out in? Can you show me their discussions?
>>97852751The first mention of the term "OSR" is in 2004. D&D 3.5e was published in 2003. Therefore, the OSR was born as a reaction to D&D 3.5e.Therefore, D&D 3e is OSR.
>>97852751>Retarded zoomer doesn't know the basic history of the World Wide Web.This one of your most idiotic takes, fishfag.The technological infrastructure that enabled the birth of the OSR movement did not exist in the 1990s yet. The internet had still relatively few users, and pre-internet-forum technologies like mailing lists and Usenet were very niche.The timeline of the birth of the OSR movement is tied to when the technologies that enable public, open discussions about early D&D became widely available and popular:- phpBB is from 2000. - The first post on Dragonsfoot is from 2002. - The web 2.0 is from 2004.
>>97852751>continued deflection and refusal to answer or even acknowledge a simple, straightforward questionAbsolute hallmark troll behavior. Either answer the question or fuck off.
>>97853191lmao at fishfag having been so thoroughly raped by the replies he got>>97852796>>97852849that he acts like those replies were never written
>>97852796You're thinking of the term "Old School Renaissance." That was first used in 2004. On Dragonsfoot, there's mentions of an "Old School Revival" as early as 2003, and even some "revival' talk related to figuring out how to get older editions reprinted in 2002. A good amount of the discussion that lead to C&C began around this time, with C&C being published in 2004 and really expanding the popularity and public consciousness of the "Old School" style and the efforts to revive it.There were also some scatterings of revival talk on EnWorld and Wizard's forums. With the last pre-3e material being printed in 2000, a large 2e adventure with a cataclysm that would change Greyhawk, Planescape, and Ravenloft forever (and update them for 3e), it's reasonable to expect it to take one or two years for more and more people to have tried 3e and seen that not all the same itches were being scratched, and started to grow concerned about pre-3e material not being supported anymore after at least a year.>>97852849Newsletters/e-zines/magazines (with letters being printed and replied to, which is a fun source of some incredible amounts of passive aggressive nerd rage), conventions, and other forms of communication between people existed prior to the internet. You'd be amazed by how many movements/trends began prior to the year 2000.
>>97853358Here's a very simple timeline.>August 2000 - D&D 3e was published>This included Dragon Magazine switching from publishing material for several editions/systems to being exclusively for 3rd Edition>The last official 2e adventures finished being published shortly after>2002 - People were getting concerned because no more material from previous editions was being planned or announced for reprinting, and they began to discuss actions like creating petitions to convince Wizards to reprint these books. This is where the "Old School Revival" discussions began.>In these discussions, the plans for C&C were also discussed>2004 - C&C was publishedEverything is fairly tight, fairly ordered, and incredibly logical, with one thing leading to the next, and no huge gaps. The two years it took for C&C to be made falls in line with how long it took for many similar games to be made in this era, with OSRIC being a direct reaction to C&C and coming out (in online pdf form) two years after C&C, in 2006.
>>97853358No matter how much evidence you give this troll he will ignore it and keep trolling
>>97853358>You're thinking of the term "Old School Renaissance." No, I'm thinking of any acronym that matches OSR, be it Renaissance, Revival, Reconstruction, or whatever.>On Dragonsfoot, there's mentions of an "Old School Revival" as early as 2003Liar. The first mention of Old School Revival is the post by T. Foster in Picrel. It's from 2004.So the OSR was a reaction to 3.5e.So D&D 3e is OSR confirmed.>B-but somebody used the word "revival" once. LMAOYou're fucking retarded and desperate, fishfag.>Newsletters/e-zines/magazinesLMAOYeah, right, exactly the same as internet forums in the 2000s when it comes to the ease of sharing ideas between random people across the world.
>>97853534>2002 - People were getting concerned because no more material from previous editions was being planned or announced for reprinting, and they began to discuss actions like creating petitions to convince Wizards to reprint these books. This is where the "Old School Revival" discussions began.Liar. The first mention of "Old School Revival" is from 2004. See here: >>97853558But let's assume for the sake of discussion that it's from 2002. That still doesn't mean anything: People could perfectly well have decided in 2002 that they were only interested in reviving the Gygax editions, either because either didn't like AD&D 2e, or because didn't care about it, or for whatever other reason.It's not like once 3e comes out then people are forced to include 2e into any revival of old editions.
>>97853558Here buddy, here's something from 2003, with the objectively cooler spelling of "skool".
Do not feed the anti-2e troll. Just ignore him and let him slink back to the osrg thread
>>97853583>People could perfectly well have decided in 2002 that they were only interested in reviving the Gygax editionsBut, they didn't. Even C&C, made in part with Gygax and becoming the continuation of Greyhawk (though renamed Zagyg because WotC still held the actual rights), included 2e mechanics and largely held the broader, less limited 2e philosophy that's also present in OD&D/B/X.It seems that while some people preferred 1e over 2e (or OD&D over 1e, or Basic over OD&D, or 2e over 1e), the idea of "old school" really was just "Pre-2000 D&D and related", in no small part because of just how compatible these games were with each other.
>>97853534>B-but people could have used fax machines and photocopied zines delivered by trained golden retrievers!LMAO kill yourself, fishfag>>97853539>Fishfag replying to himself to make it look like he's more than one person.First you'll have to learn to speak like a real human being instead of as an ESL subhuman.
>>97853587>Old skool AD&D revivalThanks for proving that it wasn't about 2e, but only about AD&D.
>>97853655...>>97828530...Buddy...
>>97853630>here's something from 2003Posted in the 1st Edition AD&D forum. Thanks for proving that it was about AD&D and not AD&D 2e.>But, they didn't.They did, retard.>B-but C&C included mechanics from 2e.Right, and everybody thought it was a pile of retarded dog shit, which is why they started working on OSRIC, and practically nobody who isn't utterly retarded uses C&C anymore.
>>97852059That was a shift in design and aimed at the players true. I think it may have been a grab to get more players to buy books. It really split the base though. Some loved it some hated it with a passion we would not see again until the 3.5s book of nine swords.2e as a whole didn't go with that idea, but I often think S&P stuff had some effect on 3e. But 3e was a big shift in philosophy. From the gate it gave you more options, more power it was a totally new system.You can take pretty much any DND adventure or monster pre 3e and run it with very little conversion. Because they are all the same base system with stuff bolted on. You can run 2e stuff in 1e or basic or those in 2e with little issue3e however, while it used the same terms is very much its own system. It was a redesign from the ground up. You can not just converted 1e into 3e, you have to rebuild it. You recall those utterly useless 3e "conversion" booklets?
>>97853670
>>97853587>here's something from 2003Let's look at the post's date.It says 13th August 2003All three core D&D 3.5e books were published in July 2003.So you're confirming that the OSR is a reaction to D&D 3.5e.So you're confirming that D&D 3e is OSR.
Dragonfoot classifies 2e as OSR. Those who hated that fled to make Thier own failed community years ago.OSR is pre 3e systems. Period.This will be my only post responding to the lier.
>>97853703>First mention of old skool AD&D revival is in the AD&D 1e forum.Clearly AD&D 1e is old school AD&D and AD&D 2e is new school AD&D.Thereby confirming that AD&D 2e is not old school D&D.
>>97853724>Thier>lier.>This will be my only post responding to the lier.Fishfag trying to pose as more than one person, but still spelling like an ESL retard.LMAO>OSR is pre 3e systems. Period.OSR excludes 2e, and you can't have periods, since you're neither a woman nor a member of the human species.
>>97853727>AD&D 1e is old school AD&D>AD&D 2e is new school AD&DYeah, that's obviously what he was saying.Thanks for confirming that AD&D 2e is not old school anything.
>>97853674>Posted in the 1st Edition AD&D forum.In a discussion about a video game. There's a pretty strong indication that hard lines weren't being drawn about what games might be discussed.>and everybody Actually, only a very small group went off to work on and support OSRIC. An incredibly small group, but a ferociously aggressive one, that actually started flame wars on Dragonsfoot and the Troll Lord forums (and succeeded in getting OSRIC banned from the TL forums as a result, and most of their posts were deleted on Dragonsfoot with mostly only people mentioning their existence remaining), and they started their own forum that only ever had a few hundred people joining it.C&C was actually remarkably popular for what it was and sold well, and likely would have had a much better legacy if Gygax hadn't died in 2008, which not only delayed the revised edition of C&C (that was to be released in 2009) but also put Troll Lord in a lengthy legal battle with Gygax's widow over the rights to Gygax's stuff. Essentially, C&C put all its eggs in the Gygax basket, rode that into commercial success and used it to grant themselves legitimacy as successors to the "Old School" legacy, and then got fucked when the old man kicked the bucket.On the other side of things, OSRIC was a game made by a few disgruntled people (with Matt Finch having worked on C&C but had his ideas about gaming purity rejected), which didn't even have enough popularity for a physical release until 2009, and even then only as a PoD service.
>>97852492>>97852751>evidence of the OSR community starting in the 90s?Why would this be necessary? Why couldn't you start a movement to recreate 1e in the 2000s? Or the 2010s, or really any time you liked?The conditions for the OSR (notably, WotC being far less litigious than 2e-era TSR and releasing the OGL, and widespread internet adoption) came about in the 2000s so that's when the OSR, a movement to revive the original play style of D&D in its first years (as supported through early 1e), arose. It's that simple.
>>97853716I understand you're just trolling, but you're missing a key ingredient: A clear and obvious line of logic.>>97853534This timeline shows the logic. There's no huge leaps of faith being made, or huge gaps of unexplained time.No mental gymnastics neccesary, and its supported by easily found evidence such as posts discussing the old school revival still existing alongside something as basic as recognizing C&C was released in 2004.It's clear, direct, logical, and straightforward.
>>97853759>C&C schizobabble againNo, actually, the direct precursor to OSRIC and the old-school revival was Necromancer Games' adventure series – and what was their slogan? "Third Edition Rules, First Edition Feel". But according to you this was somehow impossible since 2e came in between? It's just so retarded it's hard to take seriously.
>>97853827>There's no huge leaps of faith being madeYes, there is: The idea that because a movement started in the 2000s then it MUST include 2e. There's no logic to it, just wishful thinking that smells like rotten fish.
>>97853841OSRIC was not just a direct reaction to C&C (And made by people who worked on C&C), there's even a post from someone who was working on OSRIC directly stating that C&C served as a precedent for the legal argument for their game. C&C essentially showed that an OSR game (ie, a game intended to revive the "Old School" style of pre-2000 D&D) could be published without WotC jumping on their backs.There's no doubt that OSRIC was the child of 1e. But, OSRIC was not the entirety of the OSR, or even a large portion of it, and 1e also was not the entirety of the OSR. Using your arguments, not only would you be trying to exclude 2e, but OD&D and the Basic line as well.>Necromancer Games' adventure seriesNot a system, and didn't even use AD&D, but the d20 system.
>>97853898>an OSR game (ie, a game intended to revive the "Old School" style of pre-2000 D&D) That's a TSR game, not an OSR game. We invented a new acronym instead of using TSR because we wanted to exclude 2e.
>>97853827>you're missing a key ingredient: A clear and obvious line of logic.>Proceeds to repeat his schizo theory about C&C defining what the OSR is for the hundredth time.
>>97853896No, it must include 2e because it did include 2e. That's a simple, objective truth that you can only deny by trying to retroactively reconfigure what OSR and "Old School" meant, and exclude important parts of the OSR while trying to inflate more minor aspects of it.>There's no logic to it,No, there's some pretty clear logic to B follows A and would be a direct result of A.A gunshot is heard, and a smoking gun is found. What's illogical would be to hear a gunshot, and then to jump right over the smoking gun to point at a gun that hasn't been fired in a decade.
>>97853759>Posted in the 1st Edition AD&D forum.Thanks for confirming that the OSR was about AD&D and not about AD&D 2e.
Convince me to play second edition.
>>97853948>No, it must include 2e because it did include 2e.Bullshit.2e is not OSR. Get over it, fishfag.
>>97853952Either you play second edition or I cut your balls of and force you to eat them.>>97853948>No, there's some pretty clear logic to B follows A and would be a direct result of A.Yes, by your logic 3e is OSR because the OSR was mentioned for the first time after 3.5e was published. So it was a reaction to 3.5e. So 3e is OSR.That's your "logic", fishfag.
>>97853952Well if your interested in OSR games, 2e had a number of improvements over 1e. Readable and organization of the books alone is much better. But to be fair modern clones have modern organization.It's all in what you like, thaco is better than the combat matrix charts, the bard is actually playable. To better discuss this what is your experience with old school DND? Pre 3e.
>>97853948Why are you still arguing with the anti 2e troll? Facts don't matter, logic does not matter. Only his crusade and trolling matter to him
>>97853993>Why are you still arguing with the anti 2e troll?Because he wants to shit up the thread. It's hilarious how you still haven't figured out who the actual troll is.
>>97853993He's told us a hundred times in multiple different threads that he thinks /2eg/ shouldn't exist and that we should join his private army and you're still wondering why he's flooding the thread and trying to kill it?
>>97853962You're not accounting for the time it takes for an idea of proliferate, especially in that era of the internet. Look at this timeline again. >>97853534Roughly two years between each of these events, including OSRIC coming out. We know for absolutely certain that OSRIC was a response to C&C. Matt Finch left TLG in order to work on OSRIC, and it took two years before even an online release. That's basically the speed we're talking about here. >So it was a reaction to 3.5e.It actually could have played a part. 3.5 being released before any pre-WotC material may have been the final nail that convinced everyone that WotC would never reprint any pre-WotC material ever again. It wasn't the sole driving force behind the OSR, but it certainly could have played a part. It could not have been a reaction to 3.5 to try and recapture the spirit of 3e though, because that's not what people were discussing and a clear and direct inversin of what everyone understood "Old School" to mean at the time.
>>97854029>More schizo babble.None of that proves that 2e is OSR.Why couldn't you start a movement to recreate 1e in the 2000s?Or the 2010s? Or really any time you liked?The conditions for the OSR (notably, WotC being far less litigious than 2e-era TSR and releasing the OGL, and widespread internet adoption) came about in the 2000s so that's when the OSR, a movement to revive the original play style of D&D in its first years (as supported through early 1e), arose. It's that simple.
>>97854009He isn't the anti 2e troll.
>>97854028No, I am wondering why you are feeding him. I know the "2e isn't OSR" guy is trolling
>>97854029>a clear and direct inversin of what everyone understood "Old School" to mean at the timeExactly, they meant pre-2e D&D.If they wanted to include 2e, they would have called it TSR D&D: no need for a new acronym.
>>97853986I actually play 3lbb (started as a joke two years ago for the 50 years celebration and we likes It). I'm asking because second edition was my first dnd experience back in the early 2000 but I was too inexperienced to enjoy It.
>>97853993This isn't for him. He probably is well aware of this stuff. This is in case anyone is too lazy to just find out this stuff for themselves or is dumb enough to listen to that trolls nonsense.But, I think we're at the point where his mental gymnastics to try and figure out how to exclude 2e have been fully demonstrated for the jokes that they are. One last parting shot though.>>97854038>Why couldn't you start a movement to recreate 1e in the 2000s?Because that would exclude a lot of non-1e games from the OSR as well.
>>97854061>I am wondering why you are feeding him.He's feeding the anti-2e guy because he's using him to shit up the thread. Because he wants to kill /2eg/ and have us join his private army and raid /osrg/. It's really not that difficult, Anon. HE SAID SO EXPLICITLY.
>>97854067>Because that would exclude a lot of non-1e games from the OSR as well.Jesus fucking Christ you're beyond retarded.Why couldn't you start a movement to recreate Gygax-era D&D in the 2000s, excluding 2e?Or the 2010s, or really any time you liked?The conditions for the OSR (notably, WotC being far less litigious than 2e-era TSR and releasing the OGL, and widespread internet adoption) came about in the 2000s so that's when the OSR, a movement to revive the original play style of early D&D (roughly the first decade), arose. It's that simple.
>>978539522e is the best of both worlds.Gygax built 1e AD&D as a "structured and complete game system aimed at uniformity of play world-wide." He really thought he could make a game with rules so thorough that players could play under different DMs and still have an identical experience.He failed, and failed hard, and this was most immediately apparent during large tournaments with several DMs running identical modules and even being overseen by a higher level of judges, and there was still dramatic differences because players have infinite options and there would always be so much left open to interpretation that needed improvised rulings.At the time, the "AD&D" line was considered split and separate from the "D&D" line, which started with the original D&D and continued with Basic and then B/X and then BECMI. This D&D "promoted alteration and free-wheeling adaptation," something that AD&D "absolutely decried."What 2e did was take 1e AD&D, but offer DMs more flexibility and options, with official variant options and advice aimed at guiding DMs to find what worked best for their own groups, instead of seeking that "uniformity of play world-wide".For people who wanted 1e AD&D's promise of a more rigid "complete game system aimed at uniformity of play world-wide" over D&D's "free-wheeling adaptation", 2e had a philosophy that had moved in the exact opposite direction than the one they had wanted, a return to the original spirit of D&D. 2e did this because most people did not actually play 1e that rigidly, but the minority of diehard grognards found this entirely unacceptable, because if they wanted to play B/X, they would be playing B/X.The AD&D system went from "Either play in this way, or go play something else!" to "Just play in the way you want", and that's basically telling the first group that their whole gaming philosophy was wrong.And, it largely is.
>>97854064DESU I am unsure how much that relates to even basic D&D. I looked over OD&D ages ago but recall nothing from it.2e is pretty much the end of the line for the classic DND system. There is some tonel shifts to more heroic and less mercenary dungeon looters, but the system isn't a huge change from 1e. Both are which are likely to be big changes from OD&D2e was my first D&D so It's the one I like best of the OSR style games. It is more complex of course, adding more rules. Some of more interesting things are specialty priests and kits (add one that allows class alterations).Do you still have your books?
Unrelated to the argument or the actual topic of the thread but. Anyone have any clue why the acronym for To Be Honest always changes to DESU on a post?
>>97854154>Do you still have your books?A friend of mine should have some of them
>>97854072It's always these two or the shrill for the game I will not make it seems.
>>97854187My suggestion is to look over them, if not the OSR Archive has them. There is also a 2e clone called For Gold and Glory that adds more modern formatting.That's what I did when I burned out of PF/3.x hard many years ago. Dusted off my 2e books and kinda got lost in them for a bit. A lot of memories for me in those books
>>97853534This is classic textbook post hoc ergo propter hoc – literally such an ancient fallacy it has a Latin name. If your brain weren't rotted by autism you'd be ashamed of even trying this kind of mong tier shit.
>>97853948>No, it must include 2e because it did include 2e.>once again completely abandons any kind of evidence or indicium in favor of flat assertionIt doesn't include 2e because it never included 2e. Kindly stop spreading lies. This general isn't even related to the OSR, so why post about it here?
>>97854063Oh, I know this one. WotC owned the TSR trademark and had even published material under it (...sort of. They stopped using the TSR logo but still used things like the TSR numbering scheme that started with TSR). It wasn't until 2011 that someone noticed that WotC had quietly allowed the TSR trademark to lapse. You couldn't even put "TSR-era" on a book you plan to sell without risking legal action, just like you can't put "compatible with D&D" on a book and instead had to use either the OGL-allowed "compatible with d20 system" or in the 5e era "Compatible with 5e" without mentioning what it was the 5e of. WotC is highly protective of the D&D name, so there was a good chance they might have been protective of the TSR name if anyone tried to use it back when they first acquired it and people still cared about TSR.
>>97854067>Because that would exclude a lot of non-1e games from the OSR as well....wouldn't that be the POINT of starting a movement to recreate 1e in the 2000s? NAYRT and no real horse in the race but this argument seems obviously stupid to me.
>>97854181Lurk moar, thou newfest of aggots.
>>97854237No it's just basic logic. There's no leaps in logic being made or anything to indicate there's anything but a direct line of causationYou seem hung up around the idea of "MUST", rather than all signs showing it to being the probably cause. There's a chance the OSR was actually a reaction to 1e being released, but no one's arguing that because that happened even further back in the past and there's even less evidence to support that, and yet you're acting like you think all possibilities should stand on equal ground for some reason.You could do yourself a favor and find where people began to explicitly exclude 2e out of the OSR for us, but you seem much more concerned with arguing that just because there's a clear and logical chain of events that happened, Hell, even the whole OSRIC group's "C&C isn't good enough for us" was mostly because it was built on the d20 system (in order to try and exploit the OGL as a loophole) and not because C&C included 2e mechanics. Even the OSRIC beef was mostly a 3e thing.
>>97854261>You couldn't even put "TSR-era" on a book you plan to sellYou don't need to put "TSR-era" on a book, idiot. C&C, which was a TSR-era retroclone, was published without doing it.We're talking about how people discuss the OSR on Dragonsfoot, K&KA, 4chan, and other places. People say "TSR-era" all the time on 4chan, is Hasbro trying to sue anybody over that? Can it even try to?If people want to talk about all TSR-era, D&D they say "TSR-era D&D".If they want to exclude 2e, they say "OSR". Simple as.
>>97854089>Why couldn't you start a movement to recreate Gygax-era D&D in the 2000s, excluding 2e?A group did, they died out after their harassment caused them to be banned from their community; leaving the broader definition. History's repeating itself except unlike Dragonsfoot the mods won't stop you from harassing everyone who calls rightfully includes 2e as OSR.
>>97854328>There's no leaps in logic being made>CausationYou're not even able to create a character sheet for B/X, a game for literal children, that isn't chock full of errors, and you want to act like you understand how logic works, and what "causation" means, you fucking retard?
>>97854342>If they want to exclude 2e, they say "OSR". Simple as.No. They say B/X, or Basic or AD&D 1. OSR covers the broad range of TSR gsmes which the group was seeking to revive, including 2e.
>>97854328>Hell, even the whole OSRIC group's "C&C isn't good enough for us" was mostly because it was built on the d20 system (in order to try and exploit the OGL as a loophole) and not because C&C included 2e mechanics.You're a fucking subhuman retard, fishfag.
>>97854364>including 2eWrong. 2e is not OSR and you will never be a woman.
>>97854375NTA, but so far your argument is "In the face of clear and direct logic and factual history, I beg you to accept my unsupported and illogical leaps while I shit myself hoping to meme my way out of this whole I dug with my mental gymnastics where I try to twist everything just to try and exclude 2e."
>>97854323You don't know, just say that dude
>>97854342OSR includes way more than just TSR-era D&D. OSR is a broader category than TSR-era, not a narrower.
>>97854418Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy, so the opposite of logic.
>>97854460They get real upset if you point out traveller is OSR too
>>97854461Like "meltdown", "logic" is one of those words that fishfag considers to be magic, so he keeps repeating it as if it made him magically win arguments.Yes, he's that stupid.
>>97854474>>97854466"Upset" is another one of those words fishfag thinks are magical.
>>97854461That's not how logical fallacies work.No one ever said "because X happened after Y, Y MUST have caused X."What's been said is "Because X happened relatively soon after Y, and the people who were part of X explicitly pointed at Y as causing X, and every other available fact makes it clear that X was caused by Y, Y very probably caused X."And, you, on the other hand, have-"Okay, so Z caused X, but everyone just sort of slept on it for more than a decade and didn't actually do anything and when they did do something no one even mentioned Z."
>>97854481Dude not everyone is one guy. You are obsessed and jump at shadows. I am the 2nd anon in your post by the way
Ya know the next 2e thread should say arguing about what is OSR is off topic. Being off topic is a flag able offence after all
>>978536863e was just more of what the players wanted, they brought those sorts of things into the core books, and then went all out with splat books again
>>97854591>the next 2e thread should say arguing about what is OSR is off topicAgree.
>>97853686>You recall those utterly useless 3e "conversion" booklets?Something like a prior-day Goodman Games modules?
>>97854656Yeah, gaming was changing. A&D was an old, old system. 1e was from the 70s, 2e was just the same system with minor changes and was 11 years old in 2000. It was an ancient system.Recall how vampire knocked it off as king in the last years of TSR?
>>97854780Don't recall those, but this thing. It was worthless as you can't mechanically convert 1e/2e to 3e. So it was a whole lot of "take your concept and pick x'
>>97854783>Recall how vampire knocked it off as king in the last years of TSR?That was mostly thanks to just how easy it was to turn the game, particularly the LARPs, into foursomes with dimwitted goth girls who wanted to be fucked while screaming "LESTAT."
>>97854783This tends to be overstated: White Wolf overtook TSR precisely once, for just one month/quarter (it's not clear from the context of the report). Still a big deal historically, but nothing that lasted for years.
>>97854824Lol that was a part of it. But a big part was the fade of d&d was over and it was an old system. Vampire was riding the vampire fade, which comes and goes. Current D&D is riding that wave hard right now. That happens.
>>97854844No, but it was mostly just a sign of the market. TSR didn't start innovating and modernizing the game until it was too late. It was just a small issue mind you, them making to many settings is what killed em.
>>97854850For the vast majority of people, RPG's are first and foremost a social hobby, a way to meet people. Thus, most people in the hobby would rather play a game in a system they aren't crazy about with people they enjoy the company of, or even might fuck, than play a system they like with bitter old guys with a chip on their shoulder.
>>97854964This is an issue across every fandom sadly. That idea of keeping the new ideas and people out to keep it "pure". I recall 1e fans being outright assholes to 2e players.Love or hate WotC, they have grown d&d. 5e is the most successful version ever. Rather it's good or not does not matter. It's welcoming.
>>97855192>It's welcoming.Wait so you're telling me that appealing to the lowest common denominator, in fact appeals to the lowest common denominator? Wow what a stunning Revelation thanksWow what a stunning Revelation thanks
>>97855329If you wanna play with only a tiny incel echo chamber go ahead. The rest of us won't miss you.
>>97855396>5e>us>In the 2e thread.And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why the OSR divide is between AD&D and AD&D 2e.
>>97854850I don't know if D&D is riding any sort of wave. There hasn't been any big D&D-esque fantasy movies or video games, aside from BG3 and the D&D movie (for about a week). If I had to point to a wave, I'd point at Dark Souls and all the RPGs that want that Dark Fantasy biz. >>97855329>lowest common denominatorYou know, not everything has to fall into a black and white false dichotomy.You also don't have to be dumb asshole ALL the time.
>>97855554It's been on a wave since stranger things came out, then covid gave it a boost. It's moved more into mainstream. It's now fine to actually play d&d. Even during its fad days that wasn't the case.
>>97855606Touche'. Forgot about Stranger Things. And, now that I think about it, completely forgot about Game of Thrones.
>>97854797Yes, it was utter dross. I got mine for free tho
>>97855441if 2e is OSR then so is 5e
>>978558125e itself is not, but there are games in the OSR sphere that take from 5e. Shadow dark and low fantasy come to mind
>>97855698Yeah D&D has been in a good spot to ride all these pop culture touch points. WotC have been good at that, so have other companies and even the OSR movement. It's been. Good time for RPGs
>>97855720Yeah it was utter trash.
>>97855915>Shadow darkNot OSR either.
>>97855915>there are games in the OSR sphere that take from 5ehmmmmm
>>97854104That explains a lot. Doesn't sell the game, but explains a lot.
>>97855698>>97855931Being "geek" is a trend these days, not a stigma, apparently.>>97854591I mean, it already is. All this meta bullshit has nothing to do with the thread subject and is currently spammed in what, two threads at once, maybe three?
>>97860573Yeah D&d has more general acceptance than ever before. Which is a good thing for the hobby as a whole.As for off topic, it doesn't say it's off topic but the same ass will show up ever 2e thread to tell you 2e is not OSR and lie Z out OSR history.I have noticed you have the anti 2e crusaders and the shrill you can not escape
>>97855192>It's welcoming.Judging by the constant posting about how much of the actual core demographic feels increasingly alienated by contemporary dnd, I don't think welcoming is the correct term.
>>97854964>a social hobby >a way to meet people.>the vast majority Do you actually think the vast majority of ttrpg play is between total strangers all the time? How would that even work? This is retardation from needing a constantly expanding client base.
>>97862190What core demographic are you talking about. Be very specific here.
>>97862216NRA but this is how most groups start now days. By people who don't actually know each other.
>>97862299You're not understanding. That anon is claiming the majority of PLAY AT ALL is total strangers. Which is even more fucked because it would necessarily be impossible, let alone the absurdity you propose.
>>97862294Specifically white middle class north american males. That's the majority of tabletop game play. This isn't in dispute.
>>97860573>All this meta bullshit has nothing to do with the thread subject and is currently spammed in what, two threads at once, maybe three?The crazy thing is it really seems to be just one guy who's hardcore invested in trying to force his fake definition of the OSR on everybody else. As if it even matters in a 2e thread!
>>97862379That's the identity you care about?Please, sincerely, fuck off back to /pol/. That's the board to obsess about race/economics/sex/etc.
>>97862417>caring about your main consumer basis is racist lol and you call me /pol/
>>97862363Ah, yep I misunderstood. >>97862379And only a sub group of that is having a hissy fit as the hobbies demographics are changing.
>>97862432>I'm a retarded faggot troll who's only here to shit this board upSee, this is how you actually read between the lines.I didn't call you a racist. I said you were obsessed with race/economics/sex/etc., and there's a board designed to contain disruptive people like you.
>>97862379Maybe if you are nogames and stupid.
>>97862435>as the hobbies demographics are changing.The biggest increasing segment is asians, still doesn't account for more than europe or north american markets individually let alone combined. I'm not even in the majority, but it would be deeply foolish to pretend a notable segment is feeling unwelcome.
>>97862379Just to be clear that demographic is shifting>>TTRPG players are predominantly young professionals and millennials (18–35 age group), with a rising, significant female player base now nearing 40%. The community has seen a major shift towards online play (41.7% started post-COVID) and has a high concentration of LGBTQIA+ individuals, representing over 50% in some studies
>>97862453While males make up 60% you are talking about a tiny minority of that group. Not the majority
Are they trying to kill this thread with /pol/-shit because they got BTFO above with 2e being objectively proven to be OSR?
>>97862462Could get into an interesting measure of which tiny minority being uncommon is larger, disaffected white males or whatever alphabet flavour is hip.
>>97862454>in some studies Its interesting to see which ones we're looking at. I found the various stats and bit of https://worldmetrics.org/tabletop-games-industry-statistics/particularity interesting. Sounds more like you're reading an aggregator, which are you looking at? There's also a bunch of weird >market projections into 2035 for investment opportunity! sort of stuff that's amusing.
This was more about boardgames specifically, but apparently they're the largest segment at all. A surprising amount of them in family units. https://www.statista.com/topics/12736/board-games-and-card-games/#editorsPicks
>>97862471>What they are you talking about. Be very specific here.
>>97862417>>97862444Holy seetheboxing, Maldman!
>>97862471>2e being objectively proven to be OSR?What's it like to be this delusional?
>>97862645Looks like I was right.
>>97862757Well >>97862515?
>>97862757Lmao>I am bleeding! That makes me the winner!
>>97854858>It was just a small issue mind you, them making to many settings is what killed em.More that they ended up competing with themselves by turning each setting into it's own independent brand. So you had:>Dragonlance players>Greyhawk players>Forgotten Realms players>Spelljammer players>Ravenloft players>Dark Sun players>Planescape players>Birthright players>Mystara playersRather than D&D and AD&D players. Each setting also had it's own gimmicks which meant that most product were exclusive rather than synergistic.
>>97862216No, I should have stuck an "and" in there. In my experience, most of my RPG groups have been a mix of people I already know quite well and people I either know merely as acquaintance or people I don't really know at all who are friends of the people I do already know.
>>97863281And it got worse. They always ordered the same product run size. Amount of sales be damned!
>>97863401You can just say >a social hobby meeting people is included in that, on account of needing to socialize to meet people.
Ya know, this is a good question. How much of your current groups or group did you know before the start of the group?
>>97834683I made a second thread>>97869607
