Thank you for watching today's Dragonlance setting episode. Do you think playing other versions of D&D makes you a more inventive and creative player? Leave a comment below!
I grew up playing AD&D and played it exclusively until 2020. Sitting around the table, playing with other people in person, no distractions... I long for those days again.
Hey I’m in the PNW (Sequim) and attempting to have in-person D&D with a group of adults. We are playing 5E. I played AD&D as a teen and loved it, but just never really had opportunities to continue playing. I’d still like to try it again someday.
As someone who has run D&D 5e & 3.5e for 20 years, I completely agree. I returned to AD&D 2 years ago and introduced all of my “modern d20” players to it. The result: they loved the change and how more meaningful and interesting the game got. Granted, the power gamers & min-maxers had issues with the change, but got over it eventually when they saw how their PCs evolved over time. And my kids (ages 13 & 11) prefer AD&D because “it matters more” than in 5e where they felt overly “safe” all the time and thus their decisions were less meaningful.
2e was my system of choice but mostly because it was my system of introduction, and the campaign settings were 2nd to none. It's when the game veered away from the simple Dungeon crawl to actual roleplay. My problem with 1e and 2e was that everything was contained to the character sheet. Saves, attacks, skills were all on the character sheet. When you attacked, your rolled against your own thac0 score. Spell saves were your own saves, and not against the strength of the spell caster. Skills you rolled under your own ability modifier. Thus made the game very confusing as you'd have both negative and positive modifiers that could be applied either way. For instance, you could have a negative modifier that reduced your thac0, making the target number easier to hit and in the same roll have a positive modifier that increased your roll result. Both were good to have and very confusing. I especially hated spell casting sense I always played a wizard. As I went up in level, my spells got more powerful but never got harder to resist. While I could cast stronger spells, the ability for mobs to resist them got easier, which nullified most spells completely. I always felt like my spells should be harder to resist if I was higher level. 5e fixed all these problems but swung the pendulum too far with superhero characters that lose their luster after a few levels. Yes. It's better to build a character from nothing, but 1e characters didn't feel special enough. I think 2e was the best middle ground between 1e Zeroes and 5e superheroes. In 2e, you felt like a hero, but you never felt invincible like in 5e characters.
One thing I always say is the system does not matter as long as you can have fun with your friends around the table. Roleplaying is a collaborative story telling experience or a hack and slash dungeon crawl or a bit of both. Like they say on the players guide in the 1st edition ad&d book "This game is unlike chess in that the rules are not cut and dried. In many places they are guidelines and suggested methods only.". Ultimately it's a game. Have fun. If the group you play with is not making it fun then have a conversation with the group and make suggestions. Find a compromise that works for everyone. Or don't. It's just a game.
Absolutely! I would never suggest anyone change their style of play. I just like exploring a host of editions and systems, as I do think it helps round out a player.
I feel the main problem is that players of neo D&D have an overabundance of options on their character sheet. This results in choice paralysis at run time as the try to work out what is the best thing to do. It also means that they only look at their sheet. It is an unintended consequence of a game designed to let characters do anything while being good at certain things. Anyone can sneak but the high dex characters with skills are better at it. Anyone can try and bandage their wounds and attempt first aid, but some characters have magic or know how to use a healers kit. And so on.
Thanks for the video! I've heard many of these same critiques from most of the older crowd--eventually, when you hear enough folks making these same points, you have to wonder if the system is, indeed, the issue. I can agree to a lot of these points, but I have a lot of the same perspective that others possess. I got into the hobby through 2nd Edition AD&D and got introduced to 1st Edition AD&D through a friend of a friend. As much as some folks enjoy the play style of 1st Edition AD&D, I have a LOT of bad memories and experiences surrounding the game (as well as 2nd Edition to a degree). It always felt like I could never get invested in a character (and by extension, the plot), due to the high lethality of these systems. Creativity is a mindset folks have to develop, and isn't mutually exclusive to the older editions, but the older editions tend to require it in order to get any enjoyment out of it. Some of us just aren't that creative, or worse, it only ends up fostering a procedural routine of Heightened paranoia where every flagstone is tapped with a 10ft pole, every torch sconce is pulled with a hook at the end of said polen and everyone needs ropes and pitons the moment any elevation change greater than 5 feet is required. It got to the point where we spent more time checking every shadow and every inch for traps and snares rather than doing anything actually interesting or heroic. 5th edition is very simple, and a lot of folks find a cozy and chill atmosphere in that simplicity. My favorite editions are 3.5 and 1st edition pathfinder, as it seems like a relatively healthy equilibrium between the extremes. That being saidn I enjoy 5th edition because I can get truly invested in a character and in the story. Having a binder full of character sheets just feels like how board games would handle D&D, rather than truly role-playing, but that's just my perspective. The weakness of characters doesn't make me play more carefully in 1st edition AD&D, it just makes me value the character, the sheet, and by extension, the campaign less. Why not just charge in if any route I pick results in death and I'll just be using a new character in the next ten minutes? That's just me though. Once again, thanks for the video and the explanation on your perspective. Hope all is well!
You bring up some of the same ideas I had. I actually began playing with AD&D 2e so I'm familiar with the older stuff as well as 5e. I think the whole thing is a spectrum between really deadly games where you better bring several character sheets to each session and the other end where you're never really feeling in danger and you measure success by how fast you win rather than whether you win. People mostly seem happy with something in the middle. Most people aren't happy to deal with one or both extremes. They either don't respect the time you put into creating a character or they make you feel like you were never challenged. Personally, I also prefer games that let me invest in a character. I had one OSR horror game where I began the session roleplaying and having some snappy banter with the party. Then I got one-shotted. The second character was a bit more subdued. And also got one-shotted. By the third, I didn't care and I was checked out for the rest of that first session. I didn't continue with that game because there was nothing for me to continue. I do see where people have some complaints about games where the characters are virtually immortal though. I think an adventure game like D&D does need some threat of death. Some way to push the narrative of the character's mortality. Heroes are made in adventure stories by knowing they face possible death and choosing to stand up regardless. But the death of a PC has to be rare enough to have meaning. Otherwise it just makes the story a cheap adventure knock-off. I don't think AD&D actually teaches imagination so much as it removes other things until you might be more likely to stumble over that as an option. Because you'll quickly run out of other ways to address a lot of problems. This is why puzzle dungeons could work in older editions. I don't know that something like the original White Plume Mountain would work all that well with an average 5e group. Also a bit of an aside - traps in D&D don't work. They're setup as a bad mystery game. If your scenario was an actual mystery you'd have plenty of advice from all sorts of sources telling you to make your clues obvious so your players don't miss them. I find advice like that for traps is exceedingly rare yet they are a mystery minigame. And one that's encouraged by having mechanics for them even in systems that otherwise lack skills. The end result is you have to read into how your DM describes your environment and guess that there's a trap. Or yes, you end up tediously checking every 5 feet of floor, walls, and ceiling. My solution has been to either not play rogues or tell my DMs that I will never check for traps and will be completely ignoring that part of the game. That they should assume every trap will hit us every time. I just find this part of the game is a disrespectful waste of everyone's time.
Maybe you're way too focused on your character and having an emotional attachment to something that doesn't exist. Seem to be a recurring issue with the post-TSR crowd.
@@lanir9543 I absolutely agree with that perspective, yes. An issue a lot of new DM's face in 5e is difficulty--the Monster Manual for 5e is rather useless in making proper encounters with difficulty, because you either end up heavily under-estimating what the players are capable of or heavily over-estimating. Most of the time, the DMs have to spend a lot of trial and error to dial things in, which can lead to that sense of never being challenged. I'll admit, 5th edition has a habit of making characters feel immortal at times--a lot of the newer crowd tends to prefer that from an emotional comfort perspective, but ultimately, they land on the same position you do: no one likes feeling unchallenged. I remember playing a card-based dungeon-crawl game several years ago. Each room was represented by a theme, a creature, and a twist. The twist was always face-down, and it represented the party's ability to sense that something was 'amiss' and needed to be investigated. Sometimes, it was a trap, or a secret door, or something akin to that. Having a bit more of a hint of that sort of thing would be helpful in terms of the game, though I know a few DMs that wouldn't like that sort of 'hand-tipping' arrangement. Still, I agree with your perspective, thank you!
@@jeremycarnes1656 Here's my issue with that: if the DM is supposed to be my eyes and ears into the world they have created, then my character is supposed to be my hands and feet. Through the DM, I see the world, but through my character, I explore it. Without both of these things being valued, without both of these things having my emotional attachment, then I might as well play video games instead. If I don't care about what is going on, then why am I even at the table? Spending time with friends will always be valuable, but everyone has different tastes in what they would prefer to do. The way some folks--like myself--truly enjoy the game is when we care about the avatar we are playing, and therefore, we end up truly caring about the events that occur through the DM. In the olden days, back in the days of TSR, video games weren't as accessible or immersive as they are today. Before TSR existed, games like Ocarina of Time or Morrowind had not been released yet, games which do a phenomenal job of creating a sort of solo-D&D-type of adventure experience. TSR invented something truly phenomenal that inspired generations of games and concepts, all of which video games have tried to replicate over the decades. Story-telling--both scripted and emergent--have vastly improved by the presence of both tabletop and video game experiences. Why is this important to point out? Because it illustrates that D&D has competition but also examples that could be followed. Because if the game at the table is going to be a cycle of rolling up new characters every session (or every other session), there are video games that do that better, so tabletop D&D needs to focus on what computers cannot hope to replicate.
You really nailed why I can't get into these newer editions. Homogeneity. I often wonder if I'm just old. Would I have loved 5th edition if I played it as a kid? I yearn for the experience of the old editions and it is getting harder and harder to find it, even in video games.
I started with 2ED and switched to 3 and 3.5. I am not crazy about 5 it lacks the gritty feel that I enjoy. One of my favorite memories is being trapped in a dungeon with no rest. We had to use our creativity to survive. As a sorcerer I had to actually use my rapier since I was out of spells. We had to change our usual way of foing things. It was fun and we still talk about it twenty years later. I think players should experiment with older editions. Roll 3d6 put in order then figure out what you can do with those stats. It really opens up your creative thinking. Two things I really miss about AD&D the first is clerics I liked how different thry were depending on their god now they all feel the same snd have since third edition. The second was that the races felt different. I am over parties made up of a bunch of different races that are played the same so they come across as humans wearing costumes. In my games if you play a tiefling expect villagers to be afraid if you. You might hear we don't serve that kind here. I love Dragonlance and I hate how generic it feels in fifth I feel the same way about Eberon. I played in a fifth edition Dragonlance game the party had a war forged, teifling warlock, bugbear, lizard folk and my human white robed wizard. As a generic fantasy game it was fun but it was not Dragonlance.
Worst player is the rules lawyer. Sure some discussion is healthy and concessions can and are made for the players. However, if you've ever had a player that views the rules as superordinate to rulings it can be frustrating. Depending on the edition the rules are written in a way that allows multiple interpretations to provide flexibility. There is nothing like the feeling of thinking you are going to play D&D but then realizing you are playing out a civil case at the table.
My favorite edition is 2nd. True I came in at the tail end of 2nd edition in my teens and I think you are right about new players having recently engaged in some. I ended up opening all the doors in my first session; usually by throwin g another character through it once it was open to make sure there were no traps in the room beyond it; but then again I am playing an evil necromancer drow in the current campaign I am in. I am the only evil aligned character also so I have the challenge of usually be against the wishes of the rest of the party/group. Still enjoying myself despite that fact. Edit: They are not necessarily bad players these newbies, they are just too indecisive at crucial moments that are not combat related. Also only just this their fourth session my 2nd at my suggestion they did not think to have a party leader, in the end they decided to have things democratically done, voting on all decisions. I pushed for the Tiefling to take charge as she seemed the most experienced; but that didn't happen. In the end it all comes down to voting on our actions.:
Have you tried more narrative systems? Bc I think you want narrative RPGs :) (Blades in the Dark, Fate, Genesys, etc) I think those really drive ingenuity. I played every edition since the 80s. Fond memories, but i do like 5e most, even though it has many flaws, and you probably identified the biggest ones (homogeneity, system designed around frequent tactical grid combat with easy recovery). AD&D was very flawed, too, though, in many other ways. These days, I'm trying to include more narrative system elements into 5e. "Clocks" as time/goal/ event trackers; background- driven skills; fate coins to flip to introduce elements into the narrative or get a second chance; devil's bargains and partial success/ success with complications; more free form abilities; more dynamic movement and environment interaction; flashbacks and generic equipment prep slots; stress.
I haven’t played those, but I’ve played a lot of TTRPG and board games. As this is a DL channel I focused on AD&D as that is what DL came out of, but yea, you’re right, playing many systems makes better players too.
Once I had played 3e, I didn't have any wish to go back to AD&D. But I would gladly take a group of modern players and run them thru 1e the way it was, just to give them some perspective. I think you're right. It would be very instructive and make them raise their game. 5e is fine and fun, but it's a different game. Not better, not worse. Just different. And the more you know...
Tbh, having played the entire gambit of editions from the red box against bargle to 5e, I have to say my favorite version is 2e. However, I don't think the edition makes a player better than the other rather than their grasp of what they want out of the game as a whole. Also, there are rpg's out there better than d&d or ad&d.
I noti e a huge change in writing style. Old books- 2e PHB, DMG, MM were FuN to read. at 3 it felt more and more like a textbook. coreect me if I'm wrong there
WOW trained people to have the hurry go, go, go mentality which has crept its way into table top gaming. They were not around before online video games lol.
Your "perspective" is condescending to new players and ones who LIKE to play heroes in hack and slash games. Some people just want to kill monsters with their friends. What you're saying is you don't like that, and players who do are kind of sucky. No?🤔
@@DLSaga But that's not what you're saying. You're saying, there IS something wrong with people who don't play the way you like. You're saying they should be better players. You're derisively calling them out and mocking them as bad players. You keep saying "it's not the players, it's the game" (while at the same time saying you're playing 5e, which is weird), but every other word is calling out the players as unimaginative bad players who should do better.
I understand your point, but your character sheet represents what your character is and what she/he can do. You have to know how to use it, otherwise you'll be asking all the time "can I do this?"... or wanting to do things like start fighting with two swords without knowing that you receive significant attack penalties.
@@the_epipan The flip side of that is that you look at the skill and spell list when your best / most creative solution is that random "trinket" that came with your background. To be fair I understand the fear of being told no by the DM because it wasn't how they expected it to be solved or even worse has a personal issue with you presenting/performing the idea. I am a part of a group where I quit being creative since everything I tried resulted in a punishment roll (typically a skill that was very weak for my character even when a different skill/ability made sense) or it was just a flat No. OK, maybe the DM considered them an over stretch, so I went with smaller things EX: We were told any WotC published spells were acceptable in addition to any Homebrew spells that the DM ok's. We have an airship/sailing ship that we have reinforced and given fire resistance. I again specifically confirmed that Spelljammer spells were allowed as choices. I was told yes. during an exploration point in the session I went to cast Create Speljammer Helm. This did three things to the ship that it didn't already have 1. it added space to the locations it could go and added the 100 million miles a day if not within a mile of an object of 1 ton or more (We already went to space and actually have a lunar base that is considered mine thanks to a wish spell so this might be beneficial for Downtime use even though I have Teleportation circle access whenever.) 2. makes the ship an attunement Item (Not a real issue since several of our crew are spellcasters that can attune to it plus it doesn't interfere with the existing systems so it could just be dormant.) 3. At any time, you can see and hear what is happening on and around the vessel as though you were standing in a location of your choice aboard it. (This was the reason for wanting to cast the spell. it was to be a permanent Arcane Eye that most of the party could have Attuned to if they choose to and would likely be Attuned to an NPC for the most part.) I was told no because I would not know that the spell exists. AFTER I CONFIRMED TWICE THAT IT WAS AN ACCEPTABLE CHOICE. We were lvl 19 at the time between that and another event, I have been saying since we were lvl 5 (so 6 years) that my goal for my sorcerer is to True Polymorph him into a metallic dragon so I could use change shape to revert to my humanoid form because our DM has ruled that you keep all your class abilities if you can use them in the new form. Our Cleric/Paladin multiclass didn't like that he didn't have high-level casting so got the DM to create an in-game situation to let him rebuild to full cleric. there was also a rewrite of an Artifact item that the cleric has had for awhile if he uses his channel divinity to cast true polymorph on himself the Channel Divinity auto succeeds. So what I have been tying to do within the written rules he got spoon fed. I am also sure that when I go to make my attempt (I have been using our last two levels worth of downtime to set it up and should be able to complete it on the next run.) I expect to be shut down again. Probably with some stupid reason like you wouldn't know that form or Bahamut doesn't allow it because you are attuned to the flail of Tiamat or something pointless like that.
@@DLSaga Adam have you heard a new release of Dragonlance games in 2024? Shadow of Dragon Queen was the last book. Krynn really holds my interest, and Greyhawk sounds interesting
2nd edition was a good mix of both. Which is why I prefer it. Its still difficult but has some nice upgrades to make you feel powerful after a few levels.
This is probably going to be a sacrilegious comment on this channel, but another option is to try various game systems. All have their merits and drawbacks but overall by expanding your game base helps you as a player (and GM if applicable). Personally I find the "hack and slash" culture of 5e very frustrating. I don't see it as any different between a table top wargame, which is fine from time to time. Just not as the entirety of the game.
the PCs are monsters and options are limitations... theyre practically psychotic in game... its horrifying... and any options are thus "You can solve most things by combat/spells, guard in the way? dont bribe em or intimidate, kill em, its faster."
@@elgatochurro too true. The game mechanics of PCs is BURST damage. The monsters have a harder time with this as they have considerably less action economy. The hardest battle I've ever thrown at the party was a smaller party of NPCs rolled as PCs of equal level.
I fully agree. AD&D teaches players to 'think off sheet', as in look for solutions not listed on their character sheet, far more. My experience with 5e players is that if an listed ability doesn't cover a thing then they say "I can't do anything". Rather than treating the world like a giant environmental puzzle to be solved, they frown at their character sheet and say 'nope'. AD&D players typically do this a lot less because, well, a fighter or whatever hasn't actually got many abilities to choose from and casters ran out of spells quickly, so looking for solutions off sheet is more required. Also, don't get me started on the build mentality that 5e encourages. I hate characters that have their progression 1-20 mapped out before play even starts. What happened to letting the game and their experiences shape and mold the character? I much prefer AD&D's power progression though magical items model where the player can't plan a build because they don't know what they will get. Your fighter was unique due to picking up a unique combination of items, he wasn't just a cookie cutter copied from a reddit post.
AD&D 1e is my system of choice, but I do enjoy 5e. 5e CAN be played in such a way so as to make the differences more prominent and meaningful... but it does require some tweaking and players who are prepared for it. The typical 5e player who hasn't tried anything else will likely rebel if you try some old school techniques... doesn't mean you shouldn't do it though... =)
AD&D2e hit the sweet spot between mechanics and role-playing. Although I like the concept crunch of 3.5 of D&D as a strategy build system- I prefer the 'only the DM knows' advantage of earlier editions you don't get to 'build' or factor against the DM behind his screen to cheese the rules- the world of Warcraft builds of mmos were designed on older editions- using the computer to crunch the numbers but with ridiculously high stats for damage and everything; VTT its like playing a video game and its lost the point of D&D. Also the AD&D video games had faulty mechanics interpretation of the rules. Try playing Dark Queen of Krynn and notice the difference. Hard stats applied and you find not all characters can do everything and yes it relies on some strategic cherry picking to win, but at an actual table is where that problem becomes even more apparent. Your characters are likely severely underpowered and so it helps to know how the classes coordinate at the table to win- which requires 'balance' but not Cheese the rules trying to build a character that can do everything.
Great vid! You hit the nail on the head with your homogenized comment. I struggle to put into words why I prefer the other editions of D&D more, but that's the number one reason I think. By trying so hard to make every character "balanced", it ignored the point of role-playing. They gave clerics a lot more abilities because they thought people would be bored just being a healer - but clerics were uniquely valued in AD&D, plus they were needed for undead etc. Magic Users had very few hp for a reason! Thieves were the only ones good at sneaking, picking locks, etc. When everyone can do everything, no one is that important to the group as they are replaceable. Really enjoyed this 👏
There are things where 5e improved upon previous iterations. I like the spell rank condensation, for example, but overall to me 5e feels like the game I introduce to people who have never done a TTRPG… and then we move on to more complicated stuff once it wears out. You stay too long in 5e and players figure out the broken stuff real fast. My biggest issue with core 5e is that not all classes are created equal, some are severely neutered. Pretty much now groups argue over which player gets which broken cross class of warlock/x. “Wait, lemme guess guys, you want to be a jaded paladin that has seen how society can be corrupt, and your patron and you have decided to rectify it… in the face. You say you want to act like Wolverine? Okay which of you is the Deadpool type joker? Four paladin/warlocks… again… Excellent…”
I can agree to the idea of trying other editions, and possibly even other games. While we really only had D&D way back when, now there are thousands of different systems, and it’s worthwhile to experiment and see if you like something better or worse. I also feel some things are a matter of perspective and one’s own experience. A 5e player can look back and see a game like 2e as too hard and unfun, while a 2e player can see 5e as too easy and unfun. And running 5e, I have never had players who ran in Willy nilly or who believed themselves to be gods. Ps. This discussion reminds me of dragons of autumn twilight, and my surprise that, despite being this band of heroes, most of the time the companions are running for their lives.
If you and the rest of the group are having fun, you're playing the game right. There might be mismatches with play style that could make one or two players "bad", but I think it's largely group dynamics. The good player from one group might be considered bad in another and vice versa. Someone once said that the issue they saw with 5e was that the players looked at their character sheet for the answer to the problem instead of using their imagination. I agree with this. I played mostly AD&D 2e and use the risk/reward as my argument between the two edition. AD&D is higher risk, but much better reward. I'm much more proud of my 7th level character in AD&D than I am with the same in 5e.
My take is a LOT simpler; 5e characters have video game progression. Shiny new abilities and aptitudes they unlock with each "ding". It's an avatar with a growing list of abilities. D&D is just a video game with a different format. FWIW, I love 5e, and have incorporated many of its elements into my 30+ year old home brew world. It would be hypocritical of me to talk too much crap. I do agree though, 5e only players have something "off" with the way they play. 2e characters had far simpler tool kits. There would be, at best, 2-5 significant class abilities gained over the course of leveling up. Some 2e characters would have level ups where only HP went up. That's it, half a year or more to finally ding and you got one more hit die. To make your 2e characters fun to play you had to make your 2e characters themselves fun. WHO they were was more important than WHAT they were. I also heavily blame character sheet apps. Those things do the math, load the fields, and think for you to the point no one even understands the mechanics of their character or remembers what they can do. It's frustrating as hell watching someone essentially start from scratch figuring out what actions their character can perform every time it is their turn in combat.
Wow! Beautiful video! Bravo! Personally, all the editions before 3e I love. But perfered edition is 2e. I know, people tend to roll their eyes at this. But 2e, for me, is a great way to play all the great stuff of 1e but with better explanations and an easier entry point for newer players. That being said, most osr products do things great and even better. 🙂
I find new 5e players to be really clever and creative until their characters reach 3rd level and then they realize that the game actually penalizes creative problem solving by making the characters so overpowered that they are better off just attacking. This is why when I’m a player in 5e, I just play the most basic human fighter possible.
For several years I have wanted to run or play an AD&D 2e game, since it is much more complex, realistic and thought out than 5e, has interesting concepts like demihuman multi-classes and its "official" content is generally better written, but most of my fellows want niether to delve into older editions of the game nor to try other game systems. Well, I guess that's what I get for being uncomfortable about playing with strangers or online.
I would personally play a combination of 1e with a few things from 2e if I were you. Take some of the ideas from 2e, then instead of giving then to your characters, make them earn via roleplay and outlay of gold any feat they want to acquire.
I feel you, I never got to play tabletop when I was a kid, my introduction to the universe was via the games (SSI games, baldurs gate, planescape torment) and the copious Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms novels my dad bought so AD&D 2e is my favourite aesthetically and mechanically if only for nostalgia's sake. My usual group of friends can barely wrap their heads around 5e, it takes them 5 minutes just to read through their character sheets when it's their turn in combat. I've mentioned running 2e but inevitably somebody mentions THAC0 and that's the end of that conversation.
@@starkraver-7938 The simple solution is for you to be the DM, and either use Thaco or not use it. I Usually DM more 1e style, but the easy way is for you to put use a character sheet that has a combat chart/table similar to 1e, then have them shake the dice, look at the chart and tell them what AC they hit. Or if you want to do the work, because they cant learn, just convert the monsters AC into a accending AC like 5e has, not that hard to do. the reality is, it works either way. Even in the Day, many people did not like thaco, It is not truely 2e, but was in the original 1e DMG as a easy way to describe the creatures combat ability in the Appendix of monsters. It is not difficult to translate onto a combat chart. There is very little I like about 5e, but the accending AC ( which I think came from 3e or 4e) actually has a few benefits, but in the long run, really doesn't solve anything as math in your head still has to be done once a person gets a magic weapon or goes up levels. Anyways, just make a combat table for your monsters, and one for you PC's and have the PC's have a small combat table on their character sheet.
I haven't played AD&D, but after playing Pathfinder 1e (which started out as a homebrew of 3.5 and remained very similar at its base), I actually really struggle to be invested in 5e, all the classes feel samey, and it's really freaking hard to challenge players. I've played 5e for about 10 years now, I know the system inside and out. But after going back in time and playing an older edition I have an extremely hard time getting invested in 5e anymore, there's no challenge or danger, some of that may be the system mastery of my group but a lot of it is the system itself. I imagine this would be true if I went back to AD&D as well, I guess I've turned into a reverse grognard, because I started playing TTRPGs with 5e shortly after it came out, so I don't belong to an older generation of gamers, but I find I enjoy older editions so much more. Whether it be Pathfinder 1e, DnD 3.5, or Magenta Box (basic DnD). One day I'll convince my DM to run AD&D 2e, he has the books but hasn't ran it yet. Or maybe I'll do a thing where I run through three campaigns of 1st through 3.5 edition after each other.
As long as you are having fun, play whatever works. It can be fun to play the older editions. And I get why some don't want to try them, but it can be worth the experience, even if you don't end up liking the system.
Dont ask your DM to run AD&D 2e for you, buy or download a copy of Basic or a basic clone, and YOU, yes YOU run Keep on the Borderlands for your gaming group, use the basic rules for a while, then if you can afford to acquire 2e ( I would receommend using 1e, then carefully adding a few things from 2e to it, if you find you need to) go ahead and run 2e. Its not hard to DM the "old school games" and many many players and DM started with basic, and then went to 1e or 2e. Because of the cost of old books, consider looking at Old School Essentials, or Basic Fantasy, or some similar clone, run them, and never look back. I say Keep on the borderlands because it is the best Learning module there is, hands down, its easy to DM and it will give you the Feel you are looking for. Then, get a big sheet a graph paper, and start sketching thing farther from the Keep, and start making YOUR world, at least a tiny corner of it, It will start your creative juices flowing. Make a larger town, ( doesnt need to be that detailed) that can be used as a base of operations and has a little more available to buy and has a bigger market to sell. and make that town 2 to 5 days journey from the Keep. Design your own cave for the Cave of the Unknown, and design a couple other places to adventure. So Truth be told, Most people played basic, in the day, even though they thought they were playing AD&D, because they essentially are the same thing HEHE!!! When you can buy the 1e DMG, read it, use the expanded treasure list, and the 2e Monster Manual. Also my advice, make your player pay to level, give XP for gold, and be slightly stingy when it comes to giving things to your characters, do not level them up to fast.
My personal favorite is probably... somewhere between BECMI (RC) and Player's Option. Or... maybe Rogue Genius Pathfinder with a choice of selection of Unearthed Arcana and Pathfinder Unchained Rules.
My experience with AD&D doesn't seem to be the same as yours. I started playing Basic D&D with the Red Box, but soon switched to 2E. The problem with AD&D, both 1E and 2E is that the game doesn't spell out the expected game play loop. Gygax intended that players would be careful and rarely fight, and Zeb Cook's rules in 2E were almost identical, so the game plays the same. But neither edition gives examples of the expected game play loop. I remember clearly the 2E PHB giving examples of the sample party charging into combat without any care, heedless of danger. Perhaps in AD&D 1E, where gold pieces earned provided XP, and monsters were really tough, would this game play loop make sense. But the real result was a game that expected behaviors that needed to be taught at the game table. I certainly wasn't taught how to play cleverly. Instead, I grew frustrated with the game. When 3.0 was released in 2000, I eagerly adopted it. Unfortunately, 3.X also had a game play loop different from the one that the books were explaining. Character optimization was expected, or your character would die quickly. I never developed a sufficient system mastery of 3.X, and grew frustrated with the game. At the same time I was playing Star Wars Saga Edition and saw ways 3.X could be improved. So I adopted 4E. 4E fixes some, but not all of the system mastery problems of 3.X. The main problem was that not all of my gaming circle adopted it. The lack of players was a serious issue. By the time I found a new group, they were playtesting D&D Next, which led to 5E. 5E keeps the best of the innovations of 4E while using terminology and ideas from older editions. It really is a culmination of the designs and development since Wizards of the Coast bought the failing TSR, and Peter Adkison set the direction for the next edition. At the same time, there are plenty of callbacks to AD&D and Basic. The problem with 5E is that the DMG for 5E buried the basic game play loop in chapters 4 and 5. PCs are expected to face 6-8 encounters in a day, with two short rests, before needing a long rest. Most DMs don't play this way. Furthermore, most learn how to play from actual play games, where running a dungeon crawl with 6-8 encounters is hard to pull off. In short, you are partially correct that 5E players learn the wrong lessons. But you're wrong that playing AD&D is a magic bullet for this problem.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I tend to agree with much you say here. And I loved SW Saga. My point was to play older versions for the difference in gameplay focus, which forces players to think differently about encounters and the game. It doesn't have to be AD&D that does it.
I played 2nd edition and loved it. Tried 3rd edition but stopped. I started playing Baldur's Gate 3, and my friends told me that 5th edition rules are in the game.
I agree with 100% advanced D&D 2e is the best and most emersive as far as I'm concerned. Even though I'm currently playing 5e and it's fine. I miss the thrill of being in real danger of losing my charector.
There were absolutely no rules for anythings like intimidation etc. in the older editions. BUT the thief had skills. Our assumption at that time: the thief can try to do things, everybody else can either bash somebody over the dead or cast spells. We moved away from D&D to a more skill based rpg fairly quickly.
This is frankly insulting. I play with a lot of different groups, upwards of 50 individual players or more. Most are under 30 (I am closer to 40). They all prefer RP, and they all play 5e. I vehemently disagree with this video, and I love 2e (preferred it over all other editions before 5e). After 28 years of DMing, I can say without a doubt that the most balanced and RP focused edition has been 5e. 2e also has the real unfortunate nature of being problematic in terms of various social aspects. I enjoy that 5e is less racist and more open to alternative viewpoints. Not to say you can't have fun and RP in other editions, and all D&D editions are mostly combat sims, but it's not REALLY the game that makes you a good player. It's your goals as a player or DM and your table atmosphere. The EXACT behavior you discussed (such as sneaking into a camp) I've seen in all editions.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. If you are insulted by others opinions, you may not want to stay on the internet much. This is the exact place where different opinions are expressed. All of which are welcome, including yours.
@@DLSaga my issue isn't your opinion that you prefer 2e over 5e, that's fine. People should talk about editions and their fun aspects and differences. But you're lumping all 5e players in with your slice of player experiences, when I can tell you (serving as mods on D&D servers, helping run games, and playing in them) that the new generation of players, all of whom came on with 5e, is not full of people who looking to hack and slash. Most want to RP, most want low combat. Most are happy to do play by post or focus on character interactions. Some do years of RP between them and another player, using D&D frameworks, without a DM! A lot of the behaviors you describe are just...D&D...regardless of edition. I heard the same complaints about 4e and 3e, about a greater focus on combat or power creep or lack of creativity, when it as really just the table you were at or your investment in the DM's story. I see creative play all the time in 5e, and I saw it in Pathfinder, 3.5, 3e. and 2e. I only played a few 4e one shots so I guess I am lacking a bit of experiential data there. But my point is, you're generalizing a stereotype and turning it into "those darn kids and their new game" when that's...not even a majority of 5e experiences. That is the part I find insulting, not your edition preference (which again, I shared for a long time, until 5e came out).
Everyone forgets, don't start with a hero in AD&D 1? Gary Gygax IN THE RULES< says if you don't have at LEAST 2 - 15's trash the character! Players would just intentionally get them killed off for another anyway!
Completelly agree.. but the game system Is dependent from the culture, video games made this type of game mechanichs and players grew with that and game designers gave the gamers what they only knew..
I played AD&D for 2 decades, and there was a significant amount of "run into combat, kill as much as possible, rinse and repeat." I've also run 5e for a decade, and my players have been very creative.... both rolepay and problem solving. My experience doesn't support your argument at all. I agree that playing a variety of games makes better players, I don't see any reason that AD&D makes better players than 5e. This argument sounds more like "giving in to internet... banter" as if I said "okay boomer" 😂
That’s great that you haven’t experienced this. My point was that you should stretch your gaming legs beyond the current edition. It’s always fun and it may make you a better player in the process.
@DLSaga I agree with that point. Playing a variety of games is good. But I don't think you can blame 5e for the problems you mentioned. I think those are just problems common with inexperienced players. I experienced more problem players in AD&D, Vampire the Masquerade, and Pathfinder than I have in 5e.
I think there is a huge difference between Gygaxian style play and modern D&D. The theme now is "the characters are the heroes! and they should only die if they do something stupid!" Unfortunately, the more I've played DnD in later editions, the less concerned players are with death. They simply expect to survive everything.
An interesting video and take on the issues with 5th Ed. I ran the Tomb of Annihilation campaign in 5th Ed., taking my group from 1st to 13th level. It was a lot of fun, however, I did change the healing rules, using the optional rules from the DMG, as I do not like the standard rules for Short and Long Rests. This made healing more like the older editions and the players more cautious. I also agree that %th Ed. characters do become homogenous at higher levels. My other criticism of 5E is how so many races all have Dark Vision. Personally, my favourite edition is AD&D 2nd Edition, and have been running the original War of the Lance campaign in 2E.
I played in 2 groups for almost 20 years that played only 2E, but with a lot of role playing, but i have played all the 2E classes and kits that i wanted to play! I prefer 3.5 and Pathfinder 1E, Our group plays mostly Pathfinder 1E, but currently we also have a Starfinder 1E game that just started!
I hate PF2 and D&D5 bc they're more like building a Video Game character and not TTRPG character. That gets reflected in gameplay and the lack of roleplaying.
I do think the short rest and long rest system is encouraging a more reckless gameplay (and strips the DM of whole way to wear down the resources of a party). However, I also think that most of the problem of players approaching problems with simple combat focused solutions instead of using roleplay (and not just portraying the character, but also immersing themselves to view things from their character's perspective) is not really edition (or even system) immanent. I trained a novice DM with two novice and one other veteran player to embrace the roleplaying aspect and we started with 5e and it worked just fine (though I have to admit I was a little disappointed we did not opt for optional slow healing rules ...). It is a lot more matter of gaming culture. DMs should deal with challenges players are facing in a "realistic" manner. Instead of letting a character die as lesson not to attempt unwarranted "heroic" stuff that obviously should not work (or at least has limited chance of success), I appeal to them to think in-character. To fear for their lifes, to be impacted be comrades falling next to their side, to immerse themselves into the characters perspective and evaluate challenges from that point of view.
Oh, and for added context: I have played AD&D 2nd Edition first (and still play it, most of the characters are even still around in our games), but we also had adaptions of a lot of AD&D 1st edition, and OD&D aspects into the 2nd E game. I also played 3rd edition, 3.5 and 5e and helped co-DMing the later.
Its funny that you anticipate the "ok boomer" comments because you absolutely sound like a grognard. Youre complaining about lack of setting importance, not lack of game mechanics, all the systems and restrictions that existed were meant to guide a very specific fantasy, one that 5e isnt interested in cattering to. Its okay if you like the style of AD&D, id recommend playing a better designed OSR if youre into that, but bashing on people for playing however they want "like its god of war or something" its just bothersome
I had a Lawful Good Cleric go insane as part of a mostly Chaotic Neutral party. I forced her to do sanity checks when the party happily did something utterly unhinged. Yet they weren't "Evil" just... amoral. She actually self-terminated in the middle of the encampment after a psychotic break. The idea that "normal" people could behave like this was too much so she "returned to her god." Alignment and races are just stats now with no real bearing on the persona of the character.
I love, love, love the sanity check mechanic! I reminded another OG 2e player about it last week and he's going to start using it in his group too. I have a Lawful Neutral Sorceress who has to do checks because "she's seen some things" and now hears voices in her head, and a paladin who's becoming an alcoholic for similar reasons - Far Realm influences are so much fun. You are so right about the stats. What's the point of the game if it's all vanilla.
@@strawberryhellcat4738 For those wondering, you can also use the Psychic Attack tables on AD&D DMG pg 78 and types of Insanity are detailed on 83-84. Because AD&D has such a good Psionics system (which is different from OD&D) it isn't hard to find ways to interpret intense experiences as if they are psychic attacks made against a non-psionic with effects based on Mental Fortitude (INT+WIS). Disease, curses, poisons, etc... can also cause insanity. It's a fun mechanic.
I grew up starting with Basic/Expert (which I feel is sorely missed for new young players these days) and then moved to AD&D and 2e. I echo a lot of the comments here. I feel RPGs influenced video games for the better and video game have now influenced RPGs in the worst ways with 5e being a great example.
Dragonlance makes one a better player than what, other D&D? In my experience playing other RPGs that aren't D&D, playing any D&D makes players into murder hobos, because D&D literally rewards killing things and taking their stuff. My recommendation then is to play older non-D&D games. How about a game of 5E Call of Cthulhu? Try killing everything in that game, or Cyberpunk 2020. I agree with your sentiments regarding 5e, but older D&D is not a whole lot better. I definitely prefer games that have strong negative consequences for stupidity. GURPS 4E, anyone?
Sorry to double-post- but I have to refer to @5:30ish... being stupid and dyeing in game - I played "Werewolf" the Vampire whitewolf thing.... 2 days, 8 hours making my character. TOTALLY thought I had "hero Immunity"... Dead and out of the game in 3 minutes. And I owned the damn club!!!! In real life! I guess what I'm saying there is - yeah - always give your players "proper" pressure. My reply is - have a bad back up character for them. If they ROYALLY cock up and have to die - ok - and make it dramatic, darling! But the players (not characters) re-entry should be quiet, unseen and make them vulnerable. NOW you have the Role Player. Not the smash and grab. Give them a weak character as a back up - they WILL grow. It will help your group.
The underlying (and most important) difference between older editions of D&D (pre-2000, including both AD&Ds, OD&D and BECMI) and the newer WoTC-era ones (3.x, 4th and 5th), is that the old ones were simulationist, and the newer are gamist. Dragonlance (as originally devised) is a perfect example of simulationism. It tries to explain in-world why the RPG rules and classes work as they do. The limitation on wizards forgetting spells (put there by the gods to avoid wizards reaching god-level power), why some races couldn't work wizardly magic, how the lack of priestly magic (and healing spells) impacted in the world, and a lot of other things. Older editions brought verisimilitude to the fantasy world. That included realistic demographics, including racial conflict (god forbid). I remember the "Ivid the Undying" sourcebook for Greyhawk, that explained the ascension of the Aerdy tribe with the kinds of specialty priests they had (including sphere access and granted powers), and the type of spells their wizards used, compared to the Flan. It seems modern editions don't explain anything, and have the feeling of "everything goes", with the ultra-varied PC parties (like in Critical Role), never explaining how all those different races live together. I know that most of this isn't related to rules, specifically, but it represents the spirit of the different editions. And that's why I love all old editions equally (AD&D 1e and 2e, and BECMI), because I'm a simulationist at heart. I like to think about the demographics of the world, the race distribution, the impact certain magics (or lack thereof) have in the world, with a realistic approach. I use AD&D 2e because that's what I started with (in 1992) and have the most books, but it could have easily been AD&D 1e or BECMI.
First got to play 1e in 2020, and now I prefer it and it's adjacent systems to anything else. A lot of it IS culture and style: if your DM gives you easy encounters or bails you out of tricky situations that weren't called for by Lady Luck, you're being robbed of a real experience, of the real challenge. I've grown to root for the enemy in "real play" podcasts that are just improve actors trying to dupe people into their predefined story. It's fake, and the stakes imaginary. The stakes facing one of my PC facing down a Pineman in the Four Counties, in the north of Seaward? That had real stakes. The numerous battles my mercenary captain in the region of Aeravir, all had the potential to put he and all 50 of his men into the dirt, from terrible flying monsters and evil barons, to armies of fishfolk. Every session that doesn't result in a 7k score personally for the company is a loss in his books, and there are far more of those than victories. Even a 4shot that went up into the infamous Skull Mountain, had real results, and we got to experience the true terror of the mountain...
Eh... While I agree with the notion that 5e's mechanical complexity often leads to players limiting themselves, IMO Basic DnD is preferable to Advanced DnD. Even further, I prefer Old School Essentials to TSR's Basic Dnd.
I've yet to hear a 5e player talk about choosing a race based on anything but stats or "Rule of Cool." Why not have an Evil Tiefling in a party with Paladins or LG Elves? It's because there's no way the Elf would tolerate the Tiefling. Even if they matched alignment, it wouldn't work. It's likely that the Elf barely tolorates Humans or Dwarves let alone an infernal "Outsider."
I do think the game mechanics have become overly complicated. We took the best from 1st, 2nd and 3rd then pretty much made up our own rules. But the basis for the ability scores covers all the unplanned stuff. You wanna outsmart an NPC? Roll under your intelligence. You wanna bend the bars to get out of a prison cell, have your fighter roll under their strength. I borrowed mana score from the Ultima PC games to make playing a magic user less boring and frustrating. The original players guide said it best, don't be bound by rules. Make up your own game.
I don't think 5e players are less inventive. but I will say as a long time player since 2e that it's gotten too easy at times. Short and long rests were, IMHO, a bad idea. 3e was too much of a minmaxer's wet dream, and 4e was World of Warcraft. 5e is an improvement, makes for quick and easy fun, but it puts too much work on the DM and it's still a little too super-hero'-y. Keep the movement mechanics, that was awesome, and keep the skills, because it was way better than managing with 3.5, but make it harder to play and make the character classes less reliant on 'powers'.
To be fair back in the 80s and early 90s when I played a d&d, it sounded exactly like how you're explaining 5e. The players would find out how to go in and be the kill all and take the gold types rather than talking to and negotiating with the villains. Whereas the games that I play in 5e now are very roleplay heavy and creative looking for alternatives to running in and fighting. Maybe it is just the DM and players style and not the system you're playing?
That’s awesome. There is definitely player and DM sensibilities involved. But I’m talking about the system prepping you for a style more so than a players inclinations thanks for sharing your experience!
Totally agree. Have played every edition except 4th, And while 5th is very fun, it is also less Challenging im0. But I have played with some great 5e players that have only ever played 5e. I think it depends a lot on their playing style. For tactics and strategy, playing those earlier editions very likely will make you a technically better player. But a good role player could really cut their teeth on any edition and be great. I, too, miss the older editions. I started playing out of the red box, so a long time ago, and honestly some of my fondest D&D memories come from basic and advanced editions. I remember when there were only 3 alignments, and when you'd have to roll for your ability scores before deciding what class you would play lol. But I actually like the evolution to 5e, because a larger pool of players means more options for finding games. Trying to find a new game in the 90's was like trying to find the ark of the covenant. And at the end of the day, it's all about having fun.
I live in a small town, and recently at the movie theater (shows movies on the weekends only) someoine started a small game store open when the theater was open, and they were running a 5e open gaming tables after the movies ended. I am a 1e DM, with a 3d printer or two, and lots of painted miniatures, I could only get 1 player and his kids to join my in a 1e game, ( I offered to run in off times when not in conflict with them) and I would either before or after, politely ask people if they were interested in a 1e game. ( all the while while I was playing 5e with them for the coarse of several months). The owners of the (game shop) who didnt actually play in the games, asked me to leave because he said I was bothering the 5e players by asking them if they were interested in a 1e game, at other times. Oh the game session before, I did get perturbed and asked if, just didnt do it right away, after at every session, at least one player would steal all the loot for them selves ( not the same player either, as the tables tended to have differnent dm's and players at the tables), so I asked if it were ok for me to attack and kill the player stealing all the loot. They became upset that I would even suggest killing a PC even though they were stealing everything. My observation is, dont even bother trying to introduce 5E players to 1e, its not worth your time or effort, and 5e really isnt that fun of a version. Everyone roll a perception check, all night long, if enough players all roll the odds are someone will succeed at the role so that the DM can continue the Railroad story he is trying to tell. Boring! Its like trying to talk religion or politics to someone who is a 5e player, instant conflict! Just try to convince someone who plays Warhammer, that there are other wargames besides Warhammer. In the same vein, its been futile to try to get someone to try other versions of the game. Better off just trying to find people who have never played then having to deal with 5e players. Oh, and miniatures vs straight theater of the mind, well most of the time, miniatures are better, even if only used to show marching order, and so people can visually what you want your player to look like. they ere all against that also. Not everyone can afford to have so many miniatures, I sure could not when I was a kid, but we found a way to have a miniature for our characters, and we used various things to represent monsters, I used cast lead bullets, with tape and numbers on them, but people over the years have used all sorts of things for monsters, including jelly beans. Use Miniatures also if you can, and at least use a white board and a dry erase markers to draw a few things out for your players, dont try to do all theater of the mind useing 5e, maybe its fine for Matt Mercers "TV" youtube show, but it sucks as a player, oh and Matt Mercer is ditching 5e also, seems he was only useing it as marketing ?
I’m sorry you have had such a bad time with players. I have been fortunate to be able to find a few players when needed, but mine is online. I will continue to celebrate earlier versions of D&D, even if no one is listening :)
5e edition was partly designed to make money. The owners of D&D IP thinking is: If players are challenged, or their characters die, they will be unhappy with the game. Thus they will not buy more product. This is also why the power creep is so out of control in 5e. More power sells to more players. As a 5e DM myself, I limit character class creation to the PHB ONLY (with a couple of exceptions). I also limit starting ability scores (No one starts with any score above a 15, period!), and starting equipment is limited (no one starts with greater then a chain shirt, a simple weapon that deals a d6 or less, and 5 silver). Also, spells are limited. Players don't get to pick their spells. I do. Finally, I have reduced all HD to one die lower for each class (fighters d8, clerics d6, wizards d4). All monsters get Max HP, and 1-3 legendary actions. Supernatural or powerful creatures get resistance to magic, and/or immunity to non-magical damage. I also add a weakness or vulnerability that players must discover or research. Like some rare metal (like iron forged in the blood of a fey creature), or some lost item (like a historic black arrow), or the essence of a rare plant, etc. When a PC hits 0 HP they get an exhaustion level, and another two exhaustion for each death save they fail (which the DC is 15 not 10), and no short rests. Character deaths are a real possibility, and happens often. In the 5e campaign I have been running for the past year, there have been 6 character deaths. My players keep coming back, and tell me how exciting my games are. So I must be doing something right. Great video!
I gave you a few minutes. The problem isn't the game/edition. The problem is you. As another old-timer that cut his teeth on the original red box and played AD&D for years, I have witnessed way more players doing way more creative stuff in the last 5 years of 5e than in my years of AD&D and 2nd ed. Take for example your claim about fleeing the dungeon to rest for a night. You call this a lack of imagination on the part of the players. I call it players who understand their characters' motivations. Fleeing the dungeon makes sense, if you don't care about rescuing the blacksmith's wife. It makes sense if you don't care about the impending orc invasion. It make sense if you don't have a beloved NPC who is dying, saved only by the cure buried in this tunnel. This may come as a surprise to you, but as DMs/authors, we try to create a sense of urgency that drives timelines. If the party can rest safely whenever they like, the casters in the party get all their spells, the paladins get all their smites, the rest of the martial classes get very little. So preventing the option of resting help balance the game. It gives martial characters more opportunities to shine and the casters decisions to expend spell slots more gravitas. If your party has the OPTION to leave and rest for a night, your adventure already sucks. Look at the guidance around CR and encounters. If you let the party rest after every fight, you better be running nothing but extremely deadly encounters. But, if you use some nuance, and limit their options for recovering resources, you can get them riding the edge of their seat with nothing but cantrips and hoping that Champion Fighter crits again. Also, the original DL campaign was unmitigated garbage. It was the harshest of harsh railroads. As someone who actually tried to DM it back in the late 80s/early 90s, it wasn't good. I'm way more impressed with BMG's new VotU series. The writing is a bit meh, but the story FEELS so much more dynamic than the original "re-enact the books or die" modules. Gatekeeping and edition wars can die with Takhisis. Est Sularas oth Mithas.
You bring up some really good situational arguments! I find people bring their own baggage to videos like this. My message was to try different editions in order to become a better player, and some people take offense. I thank you for watching nonetheless.
@@DLSaga the edition isn't going through change that though. 2nd Ed was rife with power builds and crazy combos. I'd suggest checking out your local Adventurers League scene instead. I learned more in the first 6 months of AL than I had in almost 30 years of home games. Every week a different table, different players, different DMs. So many tips, tricks, and strategies. I look back at all my old campaigns and cringe with what I've learned after getting active in Adventurers League. Give it a try some time, it's way more fun than being a grumpy old grognard fueling edition wars. ;)
I've never played AD&D 1st, but played every other edition (4th isnt d&d) and various other systems, currently I'm running classics dragonlance in pathfinder 1e (my system of joyce for GMing).... But I will consider AD&D 1e after I finish the classics (since 2019 on this job, lol). Adam, have you thought about DCC for dragonlance?
@@DLSaga they'll find that like you talking down to them. You're the DM, you know all the options and situations. In West marches, again with randoms in 5e, they didn't really work together and often were each targeting their own enemy. Often they were each trying to be the main protagonist. Every tpk I had in that was a result of that nonsense
Elite player=effectivly uses roleplaying constraints+abilities to decisively drive story forward. Takes little time to declare actions and works with dm and other players.
Disney just announced that they are going to massively cut back on superhero - and run-off - shows and movies. Hopefully we will FINALLY get a proper live action DragonLance series? Or at least a few decent TVM's? And whilst Netflix are blowing their wad on crap like Beacon 23 (COULD have been brilliant) They should look at re-purposing the sets for The Lost Fleet by Jack Campbell. Yes, I know thats not his name, but thats what he published. As for history.... I was kicked out of Sunday School at age 10 for playing D&D, and knowing the names of demons. I was head of RPG and board games at Virgin not long later, and chairman of WARPs - at the time the largest independent RPG society in UK. Yes, I walked away because like most hobbies that become an obsession - it took over my life! So I quit. But now I am slowly creeping back in 20 years on - but only as a player, nothing more. I live in very remote Spain - finding someone that speaks my language is a 6 month job let alone finding someone who games. Very lonely here.
@@DLSaga Could you link me to online groups? I'm an ape at online stuff.. I don't have ANY online.... "facebook" stuff or whatever. Gram... I dunno - I'm just crap at all of it.. Although I WAS a chairman etc - and my main game was RoleMaster (Very complicated)... yeah, I've been away for 20 years so... I'd consider myself a beginner for now. I just want to do basic gaming for a few weeks.
Keep your voice down when talking about races. If you promote that the races are different you'll get called bad names for it, which I find hilarious because while attempting to get rid of racism it sure still seems to exist in the rule books. What am I going on about some might ask? Well, I have in my hand both the 5th Edition PHP and the 2nd Ed Complete Book of Humanoids. Because 'orcs are barbarians' is racist so we went from Half-Orcs getting +1 Str, +1 Con but -2 Cha to getting +2 Str and +1 Con and no Cha adjustment. But we still have races with bonuses to Cha... do doesn't that still reinforce the 'orcs are strong but lack social skills'? People also say it's wrong to make certain races have certain aptitudes like old 2nd Ed did where Dwarves couldn't be Wizards and Elves couldn't get as high level of a Fighter as the Human. And yet we still have stats and traits that very much promote those races being very specific classes or just not being used. I guess I'm just going to get called a racist because I agreed with your comment about cultural differences. I do not understand why it's wrong for Dwarves to be rather anti-magical to where magic items often fail when they try to use them and they can not be Wizards, these all stem from the fact that the god that created them is the god of forges and made them out of stone and clay. Not the god of magic that made them out of mystical energies. All this being said, racism is 100% bad. I agree with that. However, Drizzt would not be as important a character if it wasn't for the fact that almost all Drow are spider worshiping human sacrificing horrible people but he becomes friends with Humans, Dwarves and even other Elves and he goes on to save the world multiple times.
You’re not racist. This is a game that modern players and designers fight to inject with their ideology to reach the broadest player base. I prefer the way outlined.
I think we have to accept there are two schools of thought when it comes to races. The older school, who thinks it's okay to paint an entire race as evil or ugly, and the newer school, who thinks that painting an entire race as evil or ugly is too close to real world social justice issues (which the older school may or may not believe in anyway). It boils down to different attitudes about race and ethics, and you should just find a group of like minded players. But accept that other players have a different attitude and agree to disagree. I think I'm saying it's a fundamental difference that we just need to accept. Like conservatives and liberals (which is also usually the line between old school and new school attitudes about race in D&D). Your argument about stats is a little strange though. First, CHA is about force of personality, not social skills. It literally says "Charisma, measuring force of personality" in the 5e PHB. Whether people like you and want to follow you, or whether they can dominate you. A character with high CHA but is socially awkward sounds pretty fun. Second, they stopped doing negative stats for racial traits in 5e because it's antithetical to the whole ethos of 5e--inclusive heroic fantasy. If you make half-orcs have -2 CHA, what happens when someone wants to play a charming or charismatic half-orc (which also sounds pretty fun)? And Tasha's did away with stat bonuses leaning into old archetypes anyway, and you can add +2 and +1 to whatever stats you like. But I think you're saying you don't like that. So, don't do that--lean into the old archetypes, and create an uncharismatic half-orc if that's your taste (sounds pretty boring though). Or, play 2e I guess.
@@DLSaga Fight to inject their ideology... fight to inject their ideology... I don't get that. I do understand "to reach the broadest player base". They want their game to be inclusive as possible to reach the broadest payer base. Sure. I don't get the "ideology" part though.
Everything you said about these early editions was accurate. But what they lack is a true central mechanic. You'll be rolling percentile a lot, and consulting a lot of tables, flipping pages, switching books. Something I really appreciate about newer editions is that they can largely be played just off the character sheet. My last second edition party I participated in once got in a pretty classic bar fight. Due to class and subclass (kit) choices, we rolled on three separate tables, in three separate sourcebooks, to see what kind of punch we threw.
@@loganfields159 Or is it. The reality is, Basic, 1e and 2e are the same game. You can start with Basic and blend it into 1e or 2e without hardly anyone noticing. A Basic version of the Elf can be played in 1e or 2e with no change. Same with a 2e character can be backwards played also. You can not directly take a Basic, 1e or 2e player Character and play 3e, 4e, 5e or the upcoming 6e. A person could choose not to take any 2e enhancements to their character and it would play just fine in any of the earlier editions. Take that character and you could play many sessions where you could not tell what actual edition you were playing. The biggest detriment of 2e was its move away from receiving XP for gold and training, and pushing the story based XP. Doing this is really the only meaningful difference between Basic/1e and 2e and doing such radically changed the game, but the game at the table really feels the same, but 2e brought about the "story" game instead of the Adventure game. Both editions could do the same, but 2e editions penalized someone for trying to get wealthy. Other than Ravenloft, there really weren't any memorable modules that I am aware off, that pushed story over adventure, and Ravenloft brought a change in the style of playing.
Yo dude, good video. I way prefer when peeps share they ideas like this. But can you cool it with the smug remarks like “perspective… which seems to be missing in the world at large” like bro, ion on this beef with ya, just chill. Its ight,
Thank you for watching today's Dragonlance setting episode. Do you think playing other versions of D&D makes you a more inventive and creative player? Leave a comment below!
I grew up playing AD&D and played it exclusively until 2020. Sitting around the table, playing with other people in person, no distractions... I long for those days again.
Yea, online is the only way for me to present them, and there is something missing from the in person setup.
Hey I’m in the PNW (Sequim) and attempting to have in-person D&D with a group of adults. We are playing 5E. I played AD&D as a teen and loved it, but just never really had opportunities to continue playing. I’d still like to try it again someday.
2 out of 5 of my group died irl 😢 life was good though, had a close call but counting on another 20-30yrs fingers crossed.
As someone who has run D&D 5e & 3.5e for 20 years, I completely agree. I returned to AD&D 2 years ago and introduced all of my “modern d20” players to it. The result: they loved the change and how more meaningful and interesting the game got. Granted, the power gamers & min-maxers had issues with the change, but got over it eventually when they saw how their PCs evolved over time. And my kids (ages 13 & 11) prefer AD&D because “it matters more” than in 5e where they felt overly “safe” all the time and thus their decisions were less meaningful.
Wow that’s great the group swapped successfully!
2e was my system of choice but mostly because it was my system of introduction, and the campaign settings were 2nd to none. It's when the game veered away from the simple Dungeon crawl to actual roleplay.
My problem with 1e and 2e was that everything was contained to the character sheet. Saves, attacks, skills were all on the character sheet. When you attacked, your rolled against your own thac0 score. Spell saves were your own saves, and not against the strength of the spell caster. Skills you rolled under your own ability modifier. Thus made the game very confusing as you'd have both negative and positive modifiers that could be applied either way. For instance, you could have a negative modifier that reduced your thac0, making the target number easier to hit and in the same roll have a positive modifier that increased your roll result. Both were good to have and very confusing.
I especially hated spell casting sense I always played a wizard. As I went up in level, my spells got more powerful but never got harder to resist. While I could cast stronger spells, the ability for mobs to resist them got easier, which nullified most spells completely. I always felt like my spells should be harder to resist if I was higher level.
5e fixed all these problems but swung the pendulum too far with superhero characters that lose their luster after a few levels. Yes. It's better to build a character from nothing, but 1e characters didn't feel special enough. I think 2e was the best middle ground between 1e Zeroes and 5e superheroes. In 2e, you felt like a hero, but you never felt invincible like in 5e characters.
Great points. Thank you for watching and sharing your thoughts!
One thing I always say is the system does not matter as long as you can have fun with your friends around the table. Roleplaying is a collaborative story telling experience or a hack and slash dungeon crawl or a bit of both. Like they say on the players guide in the 1st edition ad&d book "This game is unlike chess in that the rules are not cut and dried. In many places
they are guidelines and suggested methods only.".
Ultimately it's a game. Have fun. If the group you play with is not making it fun then have a conversation with the group and make suggestions. Find a compromise that works for everyone. Or don't. It's just a game.
Absolutely! I would never suggest anyone change their style of play. I just like exploring a host of editions and systems, as I do think it helps round out a player.
I feel the main problem is that players of neo D&D have an overabundance of options on their character sheet. This results in choice paralysis at run time as the try to work out what is the best thing to do. It also means that they only look at their sheet. It is an unintended consequence of a game designed to let characters do anything while being good at certain things. Anyone can sneak but the high dex characters with skills are better at it. Anyone can try and bandage their wounds and attempt first aid, but some characters have magic or know how to use a healers kit. And so on.
I can definitely see this as an issue. Thanks for watching!
Thanks for the video! I've heard many of these same critiques from most of the older crowd--eventually, when you hear enough folks making these same points, you have to wonder if the system is, indeed, the issue. I can agree to a lot of these points, but I have a lot of the same perspective that others possess. I got into the hobby through 2nd Edition AD&D and got introduced to 1st Edition AD&D through a friend of a friend.
As much as some folks enjoy the play style of 1st Edition AD&D, I have a LOT of bad memories and experiences surrounding the game (as well as 2nd Edition to a degree). It always felt like I could never get invested in a character (and by extension, the plot), due to the high lethality of these systems. Creativity is a mindset folks have to develop, and isn't mutually exclusive to the older editions, but the older editions tend to require it in order to get any enjoyment out of it. Some of us just aren't that creative, or worse, it only ends up fostering a procedural routine of Heightened paranoia where every flagstone is tapped with a 10ft pole, every torch sconce is pulled with a hook at the end of said polen and everyone needs ropes and pitons the moment any elevation change greater than 5 feet is required. It got to the point where we spent more time checking every shadow and every inch for traps and snares rather than doing anything actually interesting or heroic.
5th edition is very simple, and a lot of folks find a cozy and chill atmosphere in that simplicity. My favorite editions are 3.5 and 1st edition pathfinder, as it seems like a relatively healthy equilibrium between the extremes. That being saidn I enjoy 5th edition because I can get truly invested in a character and in the story. Having a binder full of character sheets just feels like how board games would handle D&D, rather than truly role-playing, but that's just my perspective.
The weakness of characters doesn't make me play more carefully in 1st edition AD&D, it just makes me value the character, the sheet, and by extension, the campaign less. Why not just charge in if any route I pick results in death and I'll just be using a new character in the next ten minutes? That's just me though.
Once again, thanks for the video and the explanation on your perspective. Hope all is well!
Thank you for sharing your perspective! You have some really valid points here. I can definitely understand where you’re coming from.
You bring up some of the same ideas I had. I actually began playing with AD&D 2e so I'm familiar with the older stuff as well as 5e. I think the whole thing is a spectrum between really deadly games where you better bring several character sheets to each session and the other end where you're never really feeling in danger and you measure success by how fast you win rather than whether you win. People mostly seem happy with something in the middle. Most people aren't happy to deal with one or both extremes. They either don't respect the time you put into creating a character or they make you feel like you were never challenged.
Personally, I also prefer games that let me invest in a character. I had one OSR horror game where I began the session roleplaying and having some snappy banter with the party. Then I got one-shotted. The second character was a bit more subdued. And also got one-shotted. By the third, I didn't care and I was checked out for the rest of that first session. I didn't continue with that game because there was nothing for me to continue.
I do see where people have some complaints about games where the characters are virtually immortal though. I think an adventure game like D&D does need some threat of death. Some way to push the narrative of the character's mortality. Heroes are made in adventure stories by knowing they face possible death and choosing to stand up regardless. But the death of a PC has to be rare enough to have meaning. Otherwise it just makes the story a cheap adventure knock-off.
I don't think AD&D actually teaches imagination so much as it removes other things until you might be more likely to stumble over that as an option. Because you'll quickly run out of other ways to address a lot of problems. This is why puzzle dungeons could work in older editions. I don't know that something like the original White Plume Mountain would work all that well with an average 5e group.
Also a bit of an aside - traps in D&D don't work. They're setup as a bad mystery game. If your scenario was an actual mystery you'd have plenty of advice from all sorts of sources telling you to make your clues obvious so your players don't miss them. I find advice like that for traps is exceedingly rare yet they are a mystery minigame. And one that's encouraged by having mechanics for them even in systems that otherwise lack skills. The end result is you have to read into how your DM describes your environment and guess that there's a trap. Or yes, you end up tediously checking every 5 feet of floor, walls, and ceiling. My solution has been to either not play rogues or tell my DMs that I will never check for traps and will be completely ignoring that part of the game. That they should assume every trap will hit us every time. I just find this part of the game is a disrespectful waste of everyone's time.
Maybe you're way too focused on your character and having an emotional attachment to something that doesn't exist.
Seem to be a recurring issue with the post-TSR crowd.
@@lanir9543 I absolutely agree with that perspective, yes. An issue a lot of new DM's face in 5e is difficulty--the Monster Manual for 5e is rather useless in making proper encounters with difficulty, because you either end up heavily under-estimating what the players are capable of or heavily over-estimating. Most of the time, the DMs have to spend a lot of trial and error to dial things in, which can lead to that sense of never being challenged. I'll admit, 5th edition has a habit of making characters feel immortal at times--a lot of the newer crowd tends to prefer that from an emotional comfort perspective, but ultimately, they land on the same position you do: no one likes feeling unchallenged.
I remember playing a card-based dungeon-crawl game several years ago. Each room was represented by a theme, a creature, and a twist. The twist was always face-down, and it represented the party's ability to sense that something was 'amiss' and needed to be investigated. Sometimes, it was a trap, or a secret door, or something akin to that. Having a bit more of a hint of that sort of thing would be helpful in terms of the game, though I know a few DMs that wouldn't like that sort of 'hand-tipping' arrangement. Still, I agree with your perspective, thank you!
@@jeremycarnes1656 Here's my issue with that:
if the DM is supposed to be my eyes and ears into the world they have created, then my character is supposed to be my hands and feet. Through the DM, I see the world, but through my character, I explore it. Without both of these things being valued, without both of these things having my emotional attachment, then I might as well play video games instead. If I don't care about what is going on, then why am I even at the table? Spending time with friends will always be valuable, but everyone has different tastes in what they would prefer to do. The way some folks--like myself--truly enjoy the game is when we care about the avatar we are playing, and therefore, we end up truly caring about the events that occur through the DM.
In the olden days, back in the days of TSR, video games weren't as accessible or immersive as they are today. Before TSR existed, games like Ocarina of Time or Morrowind had not been released yet, games which do a phenomenal job of creating a sort of solo-D&D-type of adventure experience. TSR invented something truly phenomenal that inspired generations of games and concepts, all of which video games have tried to replicate over the decades. Story-telling--both scripted and emergent--have vastly improved by the presence of both tabletop and video game experiences.
Why is this important to point out? Because it illustrates that D&D has competition but also examples that could be followed. Because if the game at the table is going to be a cycle of rolling up new characters every session (or every other session), there are video games that do that better, so tabletop D&D needs to focus on what computers cannot hope to replicate.
You really nailed why I can't get into these newer editions. Homogeneity.
I often wonder if I'm just old. Would I have loved 5th edition if I played it as a kid? I yearn for the experience of the old editions and it is getting harder and harder to find it, even in video games.
I enjoyed returning to it with DL1
I started with 2ED and switched to 3 and 3.5. I am not crazy about 5 it lacks the gritty feel that I enjoy. One of my favorite memories is being trapped in a dungeon with no rest. We had to use our creativity to survive. As a sorcerer I had to actually use my rapier since I was out of spells. We had to change our usual way of foing things. It was fun and we still talk about it twenty years later.
I think players should experiment with older editions. Roll 3d6 put in order then figure out what you can do with those stats. It really opens up your creative thinking.
Two things I really miss about AD&D the first is clerics I liked how different thry were depending on their god now they all feel the same snd have since third edition.
The second was that the races felt different. I am over parties made up of a bunch of different races that are played the same so they come across as humans wearing costumes.
In my games if you play a tiefling expect villagers to be afraid if you. You might hear we don't serve that kind here.
I love Dragonlance and I hate how generic it feels in fifth I feel the same way about Eberon.
I played in a fifth edition Dragonlance game the party had a war forged, teifling warlock, bugbear, lizard folk and my human white robed wizard.
As a generic fantasy game it was fun but it was not Dragonlance.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts! That doesn’t sound like DL at all to me either.
In season One of Stranger Things the kids were playing BECMI blue book Expert edition, so not even AD&D yet although in later seasons it was all AD&D.
Yea I mention that as it prompted ppl to look into D&D and I bet most grabbed the current edition rather than the one on screen.
Worst player is the rules lawyer. Sure some discussion is healthy and concessions can and are made for the players. However, if you've ever had a player that views the rules as superordinate to rulings it can be frustrating. Depending on the edition the rules are written in a way that allows multiple interpretations to provide flexibility. There is nothing like the feeling of thinking you are going to play D&D but then realizing you are playing out a civil case at the table.
Hahah 100%. I have dealt with this and I no longer play with them.
My favorite edition is 2nd. True I came in at the tail end of 2nd edition in my teens and I think you are right about new players having recently engaged in some. I ended up opening all the doors in my first session; usually by throwin g another character through it once it was open to make sure there were no traps in the room beyond it; but then again I am playing an evil necromancer drow in the current campaign I am in. I am the only evil aligned character also so I have the challenge of usually be against the wishes of the rest of the party/group. Still enjoying myself despite that fact.
Edit: They are not necessarily bad players these newbies, they are just too indecisive at crucial moments that are not combat related. Also only just this their fourth session my 2nd at my suggestion they did not think to have a party leader, in the end they decided to have things democratically done, voting on all decisions. I pushed for the Tiefling to take charge as she seemed the most experienced; but that didn't happen. In the end it all comes down to voting on our actions.:
Wow that sounds kinda frustrating to me. Thank you for sharing your experience.
Have you tried more narrative systems? Bc I think you want narrative RPGs :) (Blades in the Dark, Fate, Genesys, etc)
I think those really drive ingenuity.
I played every edition since the 80s. Fond memories, but i do like 5e most, even though it has many flaws, and you probably identified the biggest ones (homogeneity, system designed around frequent tactical grid combat with easy recovery). AD&D was very flawed, too, though, in many other ways.
These days, I'm trying to include more narrative system elements into 5e. "Clocks" as time/goal/ event trackers; background- driven skills; fate coins to flip to introduce elements into the narrative or get a second chance; devil's bargains and partial success/ success with complications; more free form abilities; more dynamic movement and environment interaction; flashbacks and generic equipment prep slots; stress.
I haven’t played those, but I’ve played a lot of TTRPG and board games. As this is a DL channel I focused on AD&D as that is what DL came out of, but yea, you’re right, playing many systems makes better players too.
Once I had played 3e, I didn't have any wish to go back to AD&D. But I would gladly take a group of modern players and run them thru 1e the way it was, just to give them some perspective. I think you're right. It would be very instructive and make them raise their game. 5e is fine and fun, but it's a different game. Not better, not worse. Just different. And the more you know...
Yep. I enjoy trying new systems and old versions of them just to stretch my rpg legs :)
Tbh, having played the entire gambit of editions from the red box against bargle to 5e, I have to say my favorite version is 2e. However, I don't think the edition makes a player better than the other rather than their grasp of what they want out of the game as a whole. Also, there are rpg's out there better than d&d or ad&d.
That’s completely fair. Thanks for watching!
I noti e a huge change in writing style. Old books- 2e PHB, DMG, MM were FuN to read. at 3 it felt more and more like a textbook. coreect me if I'm wrong there
It’s all personal tastes, but I like the older stuff
Hear, hear!
Thanks for watching!
WOW trained people to have the hurry go, go, go mentality which has crept its way into table top gaming. They were not around before online video games lol.
This is true. 4e tried to emulate it, and 5e dialed it back just enough.
This. It brought the “you either min/max or gtfo” mentality. But I also find that 5e rules feed this, so that mentality tends to be rewarded.
The modern versions of the game would have all if us fighting with the orcs and for the Bandit king.
Thank you for watching!
Absolutely agree! 5e is super lame!
Thanks for watching
Your "perspective" is condescending to new players and ones who LIKE to play heroes in hack and slash games. Some people just want to kill monsters with their friends. What you're saying is you don't like that, and players who do are kind of sucky. No?🤔
There is nothing wrong with that. There is more than one way to enjoy a game. Simply because I like one way, does not mean you have to.
@@DLSaga But that's not what you're saying. You're saying, there IS something wrong with people who don't play the way you like. You're saying they should be better players. You're derisively calling them out and mocking them as bad players. You keep saying "it's not the players, it's the game" (while at the same time saying you're playing 5e, which is weird), but every other word is calling out the players as unimaginative bad players who should do better.
I always tell new players that the answers they are looking for are not on their character sheet, they are in their imagination.
100%
I understand your point, but your character sheet represents what your character is and what she/he can do. You have to know how to use it, otherwise you'll be asking all the time "can I do this?"... or wanting to do things like start fighting with two swords without knowing that you receive significant attack penalties.
I really like that! I'm gonna use it from now on.
@@the_epipan The flip side of that is that you look at the skill and spell list when your best / most creative solution is that random "trinket" that came with your background. To be fair I understand the fear of being told no by the DM because it wasn't how they expected it to be solved or even worse has a personal issue with you presenting/performing the idea.
I am a part of a group where I quit being creative since everything I tried resulted in a punishment roll (typically a skill that was very weak for my character even when a different skill/ability made sense) or it was just a flat No. OK, maybe the DM considered them an over stretch, so I went with smaller things
EX: We were told any WotC published spells were acceptable in addition to any Homebrew spells that the DM ok's. We have an airship/sailing ship that we have reinforced and given fire resistance. I again specifically confirmed that Spelljammer spells were allowed as choices. I was told yes. during an exploration point in the session I went to cast Create Speljammer Helm. This did three things to the ship that it didn't already have
1. it added space to the locations it could go and added the 100 million miles a day if not within a mile of an object of 1 ton or more (We already went to space and actually have a lunar base that is considered mine thanks to a wish spell so this might be beneficial for Downtime use even though I have Teleportation circle access whenever.)
2. makes the ship an attunement Item (Not a real issue since several of our crew are spellcasters that can attune to it plus it doesn't interfere with the existing systems so it could just be dormant.)
3. At any time, you can see and hear what is happening on and around the vessel as though you were standing in a location of your choice aboard it. (This was the reason for wanting to cast the spell. it was to be a permanent Arcane Eye that most of the party could have Attuned to if they choose to and would likely be Attuned to an NPC for the most part.) I was told no because I would not know that the spell exists. AFTER I CONFIRMED TWICE THAT IT WAS AN ACCEPTABLE CHOICE. We were lvl 19 at the time
between that and another event, I have been saying since we were lvl 5 (so 6 years) that my goal for my sorcerer is to True Polymorph him into a metallic dragon so I could use change shape to revert to my humanoid form because our DM has ruled that you keep all your class abilities if you can use them in the new form. Our Cleric/Paladin multiclass didn't like that he didn't have high-level casting so got the DM to create an in-game situation to let him rebuild to full cleric. there was also a rewrite of an Artifact item that the cleric has had for awhile if he uses his channel divinity to cast true polymorph on himself the Channel Divinity auto succeeds. So what I have been tying to do within the written rules he got spoon fed. I am also sure that when I go to make my attempt (I have been using our last two levels worth of downtime to set it up and should be able to complete it on the next run.)
I expect to be shut down again. Probably with some stupid reason like you wouldn't know that form or Bahamut doesn't allow it because you are attuned to the flail of Tiamat or something pointless like that.
@@DLSaga Adam have you heard a new release of Dragonlance games in 2024? Shadow of Dragon Queen was the last book. Krynn really holds my interest, and Greyhawk sounds interesting
2nd edition was a good mix of both. Which is why I prefer it. Its still difficult but has some nice upgrades to make you feel powerful after a few levels.
100%
This is probably going to be a sacrilegious comment on this channel, but another option is to try various game systems. All have their merits and drawbacks but overall by expanding your game base helps you as a player (and GM if applicable). Personally I find the "hack and slash" culture of 5e very frustrating. I don't see it as any different between a table top wargame, which is fine from time to time. Just not as the entirety of the game.
I agree 100%. I enjoy playing new systems.
2e for the win!
I had a blast with 2e
2e is best e.
You were a great adventurer attempting to be a hero.
Some of 2e was better some worse, the brown books ruined 2e. I would agree EARLY 2e was the best, mostly!
2ed team go!
ah, AD&D, when the monsters were monsters instead of 5e, where the PCs are monsters...
lol
the PCs are monsters and options are limitations...
theyre practically psychotic in game... its horrifying...
and any options are thus "You can solve most things by combat/spells, guard in the way? dont bribe em or intimidate, kill em, its faster."
@@elgatochurro too true. The game mechanics of PCs is BURST damage. The monsters have a harder time with this as they have considerably less action economy. The hardest battle I've ever thrown at the party was a smaller party of NPCs rolled as PCs of equal level.
I fully agree. AD&D teaches players to 'think off sheet', as in look for solutions not listed on their character sheet, far more. My experience with 5e players is that if an listed ability doesn't cover a thing then they say "I can't do anything". Rather than treating the world like a giant environmental puzzle to be solved, they frown at their character sheet and say 'nope'.
AD&D players typically do this a lot less because, well, a fighter or whatever hasn't actually got many abilities to choose from and casters ran out of spells quickly, so looking for solutions off sheet is more required.
Also, don't get me started on the build mentality that 5e encourages. I hate characters that have their progression 1-20 mapped out before play even starts. What happened to letting the game and their experiences shape and mold the character? I much prefer AD&D's power progression though magical items model where the player can't plan a build because they don't know what they will get. Your fighter was unique due to picking up a unique combination of items, he wasn't just a cookie cutter copied from a reddit post.
I’m not a big fan of that either. It takes the focus away from the experience shaping you to a corporate, climbing the ladder, mentality.
AD&D 1e is my system of choice, but I do enjoy 5e. 5e CAN be played in such a way so as to make the differences more prominent and meaningful... but it does require some tweaking and players who are prepared for it. The typical 5e player who hasn't tried anything else will likely rebel if you try some old school techniques... doesn't mean you shouldn't do it though... =)
Definitely! I’m not trying to shut any edition down, just promote older editions.
@@DLSaga NOT worth the effort as a DM to try to convince 5e players, just find some new players!
AD&D2e hit the sweet spot between mechanics and role-playing. Although I like the concept crunch of 3.5 of D&D as a strategy build system- I prefer the 'only the DM knows' advantage of earlier editions you don't get to 'build' or factor against the DM behind his screen to cheese the rules- the world of Warcraft builds of mmos were designed on older editions- using the computer to crunch the numbers but with ridiculously high stats for damage and everything; VTT its like playing a video game and its lost the point of D&D. Also the AD&D video games had faulty mechanics interpretation of the rules. Try playing Dark Queen of Krynn and notice the difference. Hard stats applied and you find not all characters can do everything and yes it relies on some strategic cherry picking to win, but at an actual table is where that problem becomes even more apparent. Your characters are likely severely underpowered and so it helps to know how the classes coordinate at the table to win- which requires 'balance' but not Cheese the rules trying to build a character that can do everything.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
Great vid! You hit the nail on the head with your homogenized comment. I struggle to put into words why I prefer the other editions of D&D more, but that's the number one reason I think. By trying so hard to make every character "balanced", it ignored the point of role-playing. They gave clerics a lot more abilities because they thought people would be bored just being a healer - but clerics were uniquely valued in AD&D, plus they were needed for undead etc. Magic Users had very few hp for a reason! Thieves were the only ones good at sneaking, picking locks, etc. When everyone can do everything, no one is that important to the group as they are replaceable. Really enjoyed this 👏
Thanks for watching!
There are things where 5e improved upon previous iterations. I like the spell rank condensation, for example, but overall to me 5e feels like the game I introduce to people who have never done a TTRPG… and then we move on to more complicated stuff once it wears out. You stay too long in 5e and players figure out the broken stuff real fast.
My biggest issue with core 5e is that not all classes are created equal, some are severely neutered. Pretty much now groups argue over which player gets which broken cross class of warlock/x. “Wait, lemme guess guys, you want to be a jaded paladin that has seen how society can be corrupt, and your patron and you have decided to rectify it… in the face. You say you want to act like Wolverine? Okay which of you is the Deadpool type joker? Four paladin/warlocks… again… Excellent…”
Hehe thank you for watching. I agree with your points
I can agree to the idea of trying other editions, and possibly even other games. While we really only had D&D way back when, now there are thousands of different systems, and it’s worthwhile to experiment and see if you like something better or worse.
I also feel some things are a matter of perspective and one’s own experience. A 5e player can look back and see a game like 2e as too hard and unfun, while a 2e player can see 5e as too easy and unfun. And running 5e, I have never had players who ran in Willy nilly or who believed themselves to be gods.
Ps. This discussion reminds me of dragons of autumn twilight, and my surprise that, despite being this band of heroes, most of the time the companions are running for their lives.
You have some great points. It’s all about perspective for sure. And your ps made me laugh because it’s true.
If you and the rest of the group are having fun, you're playing the game right. There might be mismatches with play style that could make one or two players "bad", but I think it's largely group dynamics. The good player from one group might be considered bad in another and vice versa.
Someone once said that the issue they saw with 5e was that the players looked at their character sheet for the answer to the problem instead of using their imagination. I agree with this.
I played mostly AD&D 2e and use the risk/reward as my argument between the two edition. AD&D is higher risk, but much better reward. I'm much more proud of my 7th level character in AD&D than I am with the same in 5e.
Great points, and all true to my experience as well.
My take is a LOT simpler; 5e characters have video game progression. Shiny new abilities and aptitudes they unlock with each "ding". It's an avatar with a growing list of abilities. D&D is just a video game with a different format. FWIW, I love 5e, and have incorporated many of its elements into my 30+ year old home brew world. It would be hypocritical of me to talk too much crap. I do agree though, 5e only players have something "off" with the way they play.
2e characters had far simpler tool kits. There would be, at best, 2-5 significant class abilities gained over the course of leveling up. Some 2e characters would have level ups where only HP went up. That's it, half a year or more to finally ding and you got one more hit die. To make your 2e characters fun to play you had to make your 2e characters themselves fun. WHO they were was more important than WHAT they were.
I also heavily blame character sheet apps. Those things do the math, load the fields, and think for you to the point no one even understands the mechanics of their character or remembers what they can do. It's frustrating as hell watching someone essentially start from scratch figuring out what actions their character can perform every time it is their turn in combat.
Omg yes this is so true.
Wow! Beautiful video! Bravo!
Personally, all the editions before 3e I love. But perfered edition is 2e. I know, people tend to roll their eyes at this. But 2e, for me, is a great way to play all the great stuff of 1e but with better explanations and an easier entry point for newer players. That being said, most osr products do things great and even better. 🙂
That’s awesome! I enjoyed 2E a ton as a kid and I like returning to it once in a while.
I find new 5e players to be really clever and creative until their characters reach 3rd level and then they realize that the game actually penalizes creative problem solving by making the characters so overpowered that they are better off just attacking. This is why when I’m a player in 5e, I just play the most basic human fighter possible.
Yea, I agree. It's the system in 5e, not so much the players.
I run/D< 1e, and also play 5e. Everything you say is true. But so many 5e players will be enraged by your statements.
I hope some will try older editions, even if they don't enjoy them. If for no other reason, perspective.
For several years I have wanted to run or play an AD&D 2e game, since it is much more complex, realistic and thought out than 5e, has interesting concepts like demihuman multi-classes and its "official" content is generally better written, but most of my fellows want niether to delve into older editions of the game nor to try other game systems. Well, I guess that's what I get for being uncomfortable about playing with strangers or online.
The rules aren’t incredibly different just usually more convoluted. If you ever get a chance I’d love to hear your thoughts on older editions.
I would personally play a combination of 1e with a few things from 2e if I were you. Take some of the ideas from 2e, then instead of giving then to your characters, make them earn via roleplay and outlay of gold any feat they want to acquire.
I feel you, I never got to play tabletop when I was a kid, my introduction to the universe was via the games (SSI games, baldurs gate, planescape torment) and the copious Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms novels my dad bought so AD&D 2e is my favourite aesthetically and mechanically if only for nostalgia's sake.
My usual group of friends can barely wrap their heads around 5e, it takes them 5 minutes just to read through their character sheets when it's their turn in combat. I've mentioned running 2e but inevitably somebody mentions THAC0 and that's the end of that conversation.
@@starkraver-7938 The simple solution is for you to be the DM, and either use Thaco or not use it. I Usually DM more 1e style, but the easy way is for you to put use a character sheet that has a combat chart/table similar to 1e, then have them shake the dice, look at the chart and tell them what AC they hit. Or if you want to do the work, because they cant learn, just convert the monsters AC into a accending AC like 5e has, not that hard to do. the reality is, it works either way. Even in the Day, many people did not like thaco, It is not truely 2e, but was in the original 1e DMG as a easy way to describe the creatures combat ability in the Appendix of monsters. It is not difficult to translate onto a combat chart.
There is very little I like about 5e, but the accending AC ( which I think came from 3e or 4e) actually has a few benefits, but in the long run, really doesn't solve anything as math in your head still has to be done once a person gets a magic weapon or goes up levels.
Anyways, just make a combat table for your monsters, and one for you PC's and have the PC's have a small combat table on their character sheet.
Totally agree with you. Older versions made you think more. Just have/play with good people and have fun.
That’s what I do. Thank you for watching!
@@DLSaga Thank you for doing your Dragonlance video and shorts. Truly like them and DL!!
Excellent, liked and subscribed. I cut my teeth on a custom OD&D campaign. I still love AD&D 1e the most to this day.
That’s great! Thank you for watching, and welcome :)
Perfectly said. And you’re not a boomer, you’re clearly Gen-X. #weexist!
Very true!
I haven't played AD&D, but after playing Pathfinder 1e (which started out as a homebrew of 3.5 and remained very similar at its base), I actually really struggle to be invested in 5e, all the classes feel samey, and it's really freaking hard to challenge players. I've played 5e for about 10 years now, I know the system inside and out. But after going back in time and playing an older edition I have an extremely hard time getting invested in 5e anymore, there's no challenge or danger, some of that may be the system mastery of my group but a lot of it is the system itself. I imagine this would be true if I went back to AD&D as well, I guess I've turned into a reverse grognard, because I started playing TTRPGs with 5e shortly after it came out, so I don't belong to an older generation of gamers, but I find I enjoy older editions so much more. Whether it be Pathfinder 1e, DnD 3.5, or Magenta Box (basic DnD).
One day I'll convince my DM to run AD&D 2e, he has the books but hasn't ran it yet. Or maybe I'll do a thing where I run through three campaigns of 1st through 3.5 edition after each other.
As long as you are having fun, play whatever works. It can be fun to play the older editions. And I get why some don't want to try them, but it can be worth the experience, even if you don't end up liking the system.
Dont ask your DM to run AD&D 2e for you, buy or download a copy of Basic or a basic clone, and YOU, yes YOU run Keep on the Borderlands for your gaming group, use the basic rules for a while, then if you can afford to acquire 2e ( I would receommend using 1e, then carefully adding a few things from 2e to it, if you find you need to) go ahead and run 2e. Its not hard to DM the "old school games" and many many players and DM started with basic, and then went to 1e or 2e.
Because of the cost of old books, consider looking at Old School Essentials, or Basic Fantasy, or some similar clone, run them, and never look back.
I say Keep on the borderlands because it is the best Learning module there is, hands down, its easy to DM and it will give you the Feel you are looking for. Then, get a big sheet a graph paper, and start sketching thing farther from the Keep, and start making YOUR world, at least a tiny corner of it, It will start your creative juices flowing. Make a larger town, ( doesnt need to be that detailed) that can be used as a base of operations and has a little more available to buy and has a bigger market to sell. and make that town 2 to 5 days journey from the Keep.
Design your own cave for the Cave of the Unknown, and design a couple other places to adventure.
So Truth be told, Most people played basic, in the day, even though they thought they were playing AD&D, because they essentially are the same thing HEHE!!! When you can buy the 1e DMG, read it, use the expanded treasure list, and the 2e Monster Manual.
Also my advice, make your player pay to level, give XP for gold, and be slightly stingy when it comes to giving things to your characters, do not level them up to fast.
My personal favorite is probably... somewhere between BECMI (RC) and Player's Option. Or... maybe Rogue Genius Pathfinder with a choice of selection of Unearthed Arcana and Pathfinder Unchained Rules.
I have got to try pathfinder. I still havent.
My experience with AD&D doesn't seem to be the same as yours. I started playing Basic D&D with the Red Box, but soon switched to 2E. The problem with AD&D, both 1E and 2E is that the game doesn't spell out the expected game play loop. Gygax intended that players would be careful and rarely fight, and Zeb Cook's rules in 2E were almost identical, so the game plays the same. But neither edition gives examples of the expected game play loop. I remember clearly the 2E PHB giving examples of the sample party charging into combat without any care, heedless of danger.
Perhaps in AD&D 1E, where gold pieces earned provided XP, and monsters were really tough, would this game play loop make sense. But the real result was a game that expected behaviors that needed to be taught at the game table. I certainly wasn't taught how to play cleverly. Instead, I grew frustrated with the game. When 3.0 was released in 2000, I eagerly adopted it. Unfortunately, 3.X also had a game play loop different from the one that the books were explaining. Character optimization was expected, or your character would die quickly. I never developed a sufficient system mastery of 3.X, and grew frustrated with the game. At the same time I was playing Star Wars Saga Edition and saw ways 3.X could be improved. So I adopted 4E.
4E fixes some, but not all of the system mastery problems of 3.X. The main problem was that not all of my gaming circle adopted it. The lack of players was a serious issue. By the time I found a new group, they were playtesting D&D Next, which led to 5E.
5E keeps the best of the innovations of 4E while using terminology and ideas from older editions. It really is a culmination of the designs and development since Wizards of the Coast bought the failing TSR, and Peter Adkison set the direction for the next edition. At the same time, there are plenty of callbacks to AD&D and Basic.
The problem with 5E is that the DMG for 5E buried the basic game play loop in chapters 4 and 5. PCs are expected to face 6-8 encounters in a day, with two short rests, before needing a long rest. Most DMs don't play this way. Furthermore, most learn how to play from actual play games, where running a dungeon crawl with 6-8 encounters is hard to pull off.
In short, you are partially correct that 5E players learn the wrong lessons. But you're wrong that playing AD&D is a magic bullet for this problem.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I tend to agree with much you say here. And I loved SW Saga. My point was to play older versions for the difference in gameplay focus, which forces players to think differently about encounters and the game. It doesn't have to be AD&D that does it.
I played 2nd edition and loved it. Tried 3rd edition but stopped. I started playing Baldur's Gate 3, and my friends told me that 5th edition rules are in the game.
I’ve never played the video game but I hear it’s great!
@@DLSaga I grew up loving Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms. I have a lot of favorite characters from both.
Play BG 1&2. 2ed rules and Forgotten Realms at its prime!
I agree with 100% advanced D&D 2e is the best and most emersive as far as I'm concerned. Even though I'm currently playing 5e and it's fine. I miss the thrill of being in real danger of losing my charector.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on it.
There were absolutely no rules for anythings like intimidation etc. in the older editions. BUT the thief had skills. Our assumption at that time: the thief can try to do things, everybody else can either bash somebody over the dead or cast spells. We moved away from D&D to a more skill based rpg fairly quickly.
That’s cool, which one? I prefer a more stripped down system personally.
I ran an AD&D game in December, and it had my imagination running at full speed. I really enjoyed it.
That’s awesome!
This is frankly insulting. I play with a lot of different groups, upwards of 50 individual players or more. Most are under 30 (I am closer to 40). They all prefer RP, and they all play 5e. I vehemently disagree with this video, and I love 2e (preferred it over all other editions before 5e). After 28 years of DMing, I can say without a doubt that the most balanced and RP focused edition has been 5e. 2e also has the real unfortunate nature of being problematic in terms of various social aspects. I enjoy that 5e is less racist and more open to alternative viewpoints.
Not to say you can't have fun and RP in other editions, and all D&D editions are mostly combat sims, but it's not REALLY the game that makes you a good player. It's your goals as a player or DM and your table atmosphere. The EXACT behavior you discussed (such as sneaking into a camp) I've seen in all editions.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. If you are insulted by others opinions, you may not want to stay on the internet much. This is the exact place where different opinions are expressed. All of which are welcome, including yours.
@@DLSaga my issue isn't your opinion that you prefer 2e over 5e, that's fine. People should talk about editions and their fun aspects and differences. But you're lumping all 5e players in with your slice of player experiences, when I can tell you (serving as mods on D&D servers, helping run games, and playing in them) that the new generation of players, all of whom came on with 5e, is not full of people who looking to hack and slash. Most want to RP, most want low combat. Most are happy to do play by post or focus on character interactions. Some do years of RP between them and another player, using D&D frameworks, without a DM!
A lot of the behaviors you describe are just...D&D...regardless of edition. I heard the same complaints about 4e and 3e, about a greater focus on combat or power creep or lack of creativity, when it as really just the table you were at or your investment in the DM's story. I see creative play all the time in 5e, and I saw it in Pathfinder, 3.5, 3e. and 2e. I only played a few 4e one shots so I guess I am lacking a bit of experiential data there.
But my point is, you're generalizing a stereotype and turning it into "those darn kids and their new game" when that's...not even a majority of 5e experiences. That is the part I find insulting, not your edition preference (which again, I shared for a long time, until 5e came out).
@@DLSaga SO passive-aggressive and condescending, oh my god. What does the 'dislike' button do? Do you see that?
Everyone forgets, don't start with a hero in AD&D 1? Gary Gygax IN THE RULES< says if you don't have at LEAST 2 - 15's trash the character! Players would just intentionally get them killed off for another anyway!
Thanks for noting that!
Completelly agree.. but the game system Is dependent from the culture, video games made this type of game mechanichs and players grew with that and game designers gave the gamers what they only knew..
Yep. Thank you for watching!
I played AD&D for 2 decades, and there was a significant amount of "run into combat, kill as much as possible, rinse and repeat." I've also run 5e for a decade, and my players have been very creative.... both rolepay and problem solving. My experience doesn't support your argument at all. I agree that playing a variety of games makes better players, I don't see any reason that AD&D makes better players than 5e. This argument sounds more like "giving in to internet... banter" as if I said "okay boomer" 😂
That’s great that you haven’t experienced this. My point was that you should stretch your gaming legs beyond the current edition. It’s always fun and it may make you a better player in the process.
@DLSaga I agree with that point. Playing a variety of games is good. But I don't think you can blame 5e for the problems you mentioned. I think those are just problems common with inexperienced players. I experienced more problem players in AD&D, Vampire the Masquerade, and Pathfinder than I have in 5e.
I think there is a huge difference between Gygaxian style play and modern D&D.
The theme now is "the characters are the heroes! and they should only die if they do something stupid!"
Unfortunately, the more I've played DnD in later editions, the less concerned players are with death. They simply expect to survive everything.
I agree. In the D&D 5e Dragonlance: Shadow of the Dragon Queen campaign we have like three TPK's.
An interesting video and take on the issues with 5th Ed. I ran the Tomb of Annihilation campaign in 5th Ed., taking my group from 1st to 13th level. It was a lot of fun, however, I did change the healing rules, using the optional rules from the DMG, as I do not like the standard rules for Short and Long Rests. This made healing more like the older editions and the players more cautious. I also agree that %th Ed. characters do become homogenous at higher levels. My other criticism of 5E is how so many races all have Dark Vision. Personally, my favourite edition is AD&D 2nd Edition, and have been running the original War of the Lance campaign in 2E.
That’s awesome! I played DL in 2E for years and loved it.
I played in 2 groups for almost 20 years that played only 2E, but with a lot of role playing, but i have played all the 2E classes and kits that i wanted to play! I prefer 3.5 and Pathfinder 1E, Our group plays mostly Pathfinder 1E, but currently we also have a Starfinder 1E game that just started!
Nice! I’ve never played pathfinder or starfinder.
@@DLSaga My motto is "Monogamy isn't for TTRP's"
I hate PF2 and D&D5 bc they're more like building a Video Game character and not TTRPG character. That gets reflected in gameplay and the lack of roleplaying.
Exactly. It’s a completely different experience.
@@DLSaga Unfortunately I can't even find locals who want to play Pathfinder 1 let alone AD&D.
I do think the short rest and long rest system is encouraging a more reckless gameplay (and strips the DM of whole way to wear down the resources of a party).
However, I also think that most of the problem of players approaching problems with simple combat focused solutions instead of using roleplay (and not just portraying the character, but also immersing themselves to view things from their character's perspective) is not really edition (or even system) immanent. I trained a novice DM with two novice and one other veteran player to embrace the roleplaying aspect and we started with 5e and it worked just fine (though I have to admit I was a little disappointed we did not opt for optional slow healing rules ...). It is a lot more matter of gaming culture. DMs should deal with challenges players are facing in a "realistic" manner. Instead of letting a character die as lesson not to attempt unwarranted "heroic" stuff that obviously should not work (or at least has limited chance of success), I appeal to them to think in-character. To fear for their lifes, to be impacted be comrades falling next to their side, to immerse themselves into the characters perspective and evaluate challenges from that point of view.
Oh, and for added context: I have played AD&D 2nd Edition first (and still play it, most of the characters are even still around in our games), but we also had adaptions of a lot of AD&D 1st edition, and OD&D aspects into the 2nd E game. I also played 3rd edition, 3.5 and 5e and helped co-DMing the later.
I like your approach to players. Thanks for sharing your experience.
At least its easy to adapt source material to 2nd edition rules. My defiler Wild Mage was so much fun in his weakness and evil.
That’s what I love about all this stuff. It’s easy to manipulate stats and play in your favorite edition.
Its funny that you anticipate the "ok boomer" comments because you absolutely sound like a grognard.
Youre complaining about lack of setting importance, not lack of game mechanics, all the systems and restrictions that existed were meant to guide a very specific fantasy, one that 5e isnt interested in cattering to.
Its okay if you like the style of AD&D, id recommend playing a better designed OSR if youre into that, but bashing on people for playing however they want "like its god of war or something" its just bothersome
Great stuff, sir! Couldn't agree more!! 👏 👊🤓
Thanks for watching!
I play 1.5. Ad&d with Oriental Adventures updates to weapon and non weapon proficiencies
Nice! They were expanded in Dungeoneer’s, Wilderness Survival and Dragonlance Adventures.
I had a Lawful Good Cleric go insane as part of a mostly Chaotic Neutral party. I forced her to do sanity checks when the party happily did something utterly unhinged. Yet they weren't "Evil" just... amoral.
She actually self-terminated in the middle of the encampment after a psychotic break. The idea that "normal" people could behave like this was too much so she "returned to her god."
Alignment and races are just stats now with no real bearing on the persona of the character.
Oh I like that roleplaying! Thanks for sharing
I love, love, love the sanity check mechanic! I reminded another OG 2e player about it last week and he's going to start using it in his group too. I have a Lawful Neutral Sorceress who has to do checks because "she's seen some things" and now hears voices in her head, and a paladin who's becoming an alcoholic for similar reasons - Far Realm influences are so much fun.
You are so right about the stats. What's the point of the game if it's all vanilla.
@@strawberryhellcat4738 For those wondering, you can also use the Psychic Attack tables on AD&D DMG pg 78 and types of Insanity are detailed on 83-84. Because AD&D has such a good Psionics system (which is different from OD&D) it isn't hard to find ways to interpret intense experiences as if they are psychic attacks made against a non-psionic with effects based on Mental Fortitude (INT+WIS).
Disease, curses, poisons, etc... can also cause insanity. It's a fun mechanic.
I grew up starting with Basic/Expert (which I feel is sorely missed for new young players these days) and then moved to AD&D and 2e. I echo a lot of the comments here. I feel RPGs influenced video games for the better and video game have now influenced RPGs in the worst ways with 5e being a great example.
That's a great way of saying it.
Dragonlance makes one a better player than what, other D&D?
In my experience playing other RPGs that aren't D&D, playing any D&D makes players into murder hobos, because D&D literally rewards killing things and taking their stuff.
My recommendation then is to play older non-D&D games.
How about a game of 5E Call of Cthulhu? Try killing everything in that game, or Cyberpunk 2020.
I agree with your sentiments regarding 5e, but older D&D is not a whole lot better.
I definitely prefer games that have strong negative consequences for stupidity.
GURPS 4E, anyone?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I wasn’t saying DL makes better players, playing older editions of the game does.
Sorry to double-post- but I have to refer to @5:30ish... being stupid and dyeing in game - I played "Werewolf" the Vampire whitewolf thing.... 2 days, 8 hours making my character. TOTALLY thought I had "hero Immunity"... Dead and out of the game in 3 minutes. And I owned the damn club!!!! In real life! I guess what I'm saying there is - yeah - always give your players "proper" pressure. My reply is - have a bad back up character for them. If they ROYALLY cock up and have to die - ok - and make it dramatic, darling! But the players (not characters) re-entry should be quiet, unseen and make them vulnerable. NOW you have the Role Player. Not the smash and grab. Give them a weak character as a back up - they WILL grow. It will help your group.
Thank you for the tips!
The underlying (and most important) difference between older editions of D&D (pre-2000, including both AD&Ds, OD&D and BECMI) and the newer WoTC-era ones (3.x, 4th and 5th), is that the old ones were simulationist, and the newer are gamist.
Dragonlance (as originally devised) is a perfect example of simulationism. It tries to explain in-world why the RPG rules and classes work as they do. The limitation on wizards forgetting spells (put there by the gods to avoid wizards reaching god-level power), why some races couldn't work wizardly magic, how the lack of priestly magic (and healing spells) impacted in the world, and a lot of other things.
Older editions brought verisimilitude to the fantasy world. That included realistic demographics, including racial conflict (god forbid). I remember the "Ivid the Undying" sourcebook for Greyhawk, that explained the ascension of the Aerdy tribe with the kinds of specialty priests they had (including sphere access and granted powers), and the type of spells their wizards used, compared to the Flan.
It seems modern editions don't explain anything, and have the feeling of "everything goes", with the ultra-varied PC parties (like in Critical Role), never explaining how all those different races live together.
I know that most of this isn't related to rules, specifically, but it represents the spirit of the different editions.
And that's why I love all old editions equally (AD&D 1e and 2e, and BECMI), because I'm a simulationist at heart. I like to think about the demographics of the world, the race distribution, the impact certain magics (or lack thereof) have in the world, with a realistic approach. I use AD&D 2e because that's what I started with (in 1992) and have the most books, but it could have easily been AD&D 1e or BECMI.
This is a much more precise explanation of the differences. Thanks for sharing it!
First got to play 1e in 2020, and now I prefer it and it's adjacent systems to anything else. A lot of it IS culture and style: if your DM gives you easy encounters or bails you out of tricky situations that weren't called for by Lady Luck, you're being robbed of a real experience, of the real challenge. I've grown to root for the enemy in "real play" podcasts that are just improve actors trying to dupe people into their predefined story. It's fake, and the stakes imaginary.
The stakes facing one of my PC facing down a Pineman in the Four Counties, in the north of Seaward? That had real stakes.
The numerous battles my mercenary captain in the region of Aeravir, all had the potential to put he and all 50 of his men into the dirt, from terrible flying monsters and evil barons, to armies of fishfolk. Every session that doesn't result in a 7k score personally for the company is a loss in his books, and there are far more of those than victories.
Even a 4shot that went up into the infamous Skull Mountain, had real results, and we got to experience the true terror of the mountain...
That’s great! It sounds like you have had some really fantastic sessions.
Eh... While I agree with the notion that 5e's mechanical complexity often leads to players limiting themselves, IMO Basic DnD is preferable to Advanced DnD. Even further, I prefer Old School Essentials to TSR's Basic Dnd.
That’s cool. Thanks for watching!
I've yet to hear a 5e player talk about choosing a race based on anything but stats or "Rule of Cool." Why not have an Evil Tiefling in a party with Paladins or LG Elves? It's because there's no way the Elf would tolerate the Tiefling. Even if they matched alignment, it wouldn't work. It's likely that the Elf barely tolorates Humans or Dwarves let alone an infernal "Outsider."
This is how I think too. It’s as if all races are just costumes and regular humans are wearing them for the sake of interaction.
I do think the game mechanics have become overly complicated. We took the best from 1st, 2nd and 3rd then pretty much made up our own rules. But the basis for the ability scores covers all the unplanned stuff. You wanna outsmart an NPC? Roll under your intelligence. You wanna bend the bars to get out of a prison cell, have your fighter roll under their strength. I borrowed mana score from the Ultima PC games to make playing a magic user less boring and frustrating. The original players guide said it best, don't be bound by rules. Make up your own game.
This is a great way of playing.
Awesome commentary! 2e is my favorite!
2E is great!
I don't think 5e players are less inventive. but I will say as a long time player since 2e that it's gotten too easy at times. Short and long rests were, IMHO, a bad idea. 3e was too much of a minmaxer's wet dream, and 4e was World of Warcraft. 5e is an improvement, makes for quick and easy fun, but it puts too much work on the DM and it's still a little too super-hero'-y. Keep the movement mechanics, that was awesome, and keep the skills, because it was way better than managing with 3.5, but make it harder to play and make the character classes less reliant on 'powers'.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on it!
To be fair back in the 80s and early 90s when I played a d&d, it sounded exactly like how you're explaining 5e. The players would find out how to go in and be the kill all and take the gold types rather than talking to and negotiating with the villains. Whereas the games that I play in 5e now are very roleplay heavy and creative looking for alternatives to running in and fighting. Maybe it is just the DM and players style and not the system you're playing?
That’s awesome. There is definitely player and DM sensibilities involved. But I’m talking about the system prepping you for a style more so than a players inclinations thanks for sharing your experience!
Totally agree. Have played every edition except 4th, And while 5th is very fun, it is also less Challenging im0.
But I have played with some great 5e players that have only ever played 5e. I think it depends a lot on their playing style. For tactics and strategy, playing those earlier editions very likely will make you a technically better player. But a good role player could really cut their teeth on any edition and be great.
I, too, miss the older editions. I started playing out of the red box, so a long time ago, and honestly some of my fondest D&D memories come from basic and advanced editions. I remember when there were only 3 alignments, and when you'd have to roll for your ability scores before deciding what class you would play lol. But I actually like the evolution to 5e, because a larger pool of players means more options for finding games. Trying to find a new game in the 90's was like trying to find the ark of the covenant. And at the end of the day, it's all about having fun.
So true about finding players lol. Thank you for sharing your experience.
2nd edition. Glade you mentioned weapon speeds and interrupted spells as they made the game better
Yea, they really forced you to think about encounters.
I live in a small town, and recently at the movie theater (shows movies on the weekends only) someoine started a small game store open when the theater was open, and they were running a 5e open gaming tables after the movies ended. I am a 1e DM, with a 3d printer or two, and lots of painted miniatures, I could only get 1 player and his kids to join my in a 1e game, ( I offered to run in off times when not in conflict with them) and I would either before or after, politely ask people if they were interested in a 1e game. ( all the while while I was playing 5e with them for the coarse of several months).
The owners of the (game shop) who didnt actually play in the games, asked me to leave because he said I was bothering the 5e players by asking them if they were interested in a 1e game, at other times. Oh the game session before, I did get perturbed and asked if, just didnt do it right away, after at every session, at least one player would steal all the loot for them selves ( not the same player either, as the tables tended to have differnent dm's and players at the tables), so I asked if it were ok for me to attack and kill the player stealing all the loot. They became upset that I would even suggest killing a PC even though they were stealing everything.
My observation is, dont even bother trying to introduce 5E players to 1e, its not worth your time or effort, and 5e really isnt that fun of a version. Everyone roll a perception check, all night long, if enough players all roll the odds are someone will succeed at the role so that the DM can continue the Railroad story he is trying to tell. Boring!
Its like trying to talk religion or politics to someone who is a 5e player, instant conflict! Just try to convince someone who plays Warhammer, that there are other wargames besides Warhammer. In the same vein, its been futile to try to get someone to try other versions of the game. Better off just trying to find people who have never played then having to deal with 5e players.
Oh, and miniatures vs straight theater of the mind, well most of the time, miniatures are better, even if only used to show marching order, and so people can visually what you want your player to look like. they ere all against that also.
Not everyone can afford to have so many miniatures, I sure could not when I was a kid, but we found a way to have a miniature for our characters, and we used various things to represent monsters, I used cast lead bullets, with tape and numbers on them, but people over the years have used all sorts of things for monsters, including jelly beans.
Use Miniatures also if you can, and at least use a white board and a dry erase markers to draw a few things out for your players, dont try to do all theater of the mind useing 5e, maybe its fine for Matt Mercers "TV" youtube show, but it sucks as a player, oh and Matt Mercer is ditching 5e also, seems he was only useing it as marketing ?
I’m sorry you have had such a bad time with players. I have been fortunate to be able to find a few players when needed, but mine is online. I will continue to celebrate earlier versions of D&D, even if no one is listening :)
D&D is kind of a one-trick pony. Ironically other game systems might suit Dragonlance better. Savage Worlds comes to mind.
I think DL is perfectly suited to 1E and 2e, even Saga.
First, I've been playing for 41 years.
Secondly, "Okay, Boomer." 😝
lol
Loved this one so much! It rings true. Thank you. Keep bringing us this great DragonLance and D&D content. And as always... Slàinte mhath, brother!
Absolutely!
I…don’t know who these players are that you’re playing with. They sound like they aren’t very bright.
It’s more the edition than the player as outlined. Thank you for watching!
Great video, sir! 👍Agree!!
Thank you for watching!
i play 5e, but i miss AD&D
You could always visit :)
5e edition was partly designed to make money. The owners of D&D IP thinking is: If players are challenged, or their characters die, they will be unhappy with the game. Thus they will not buy more product. This is also why the power creep is so out of control in 5e. More power sells to more players.
As a 5e DM myself, I limit character class creation to the PHB ONLY (with a couple of exceptions). I also limit starting ability scores (No one starts with any score above a 15, period!), and starting equipment is limited (no one starts with greater then a chain shirt, a simple weapon that deals a d6 or less, and 5 silver). Also, spells are limited. Players don't get to pick their spells. I do. Finally, I have reduced all HD to one die lower for each class (fighters d8, clerics d6, wizards d4).
All monsters get Max HP, and 1-3 legendary actions. Supernatural or powerful creatures get resistance to magic, and/or immunity to non-magical damage. I also add a weakness or vulnerability that players must discover or research. Like some rare metal (like iron forged in the blood of a fey creature), or some lost item (like a historic black arrow), or the essence of a rare plant, etc.
When a PC hits 0 HP they get an exhaustion level, and another two exhaustion for each death save they fail (which the DC is 15 not 10), and no short rests.
Character deaths are a real possibility, and happens often. In the 5e campaign I have been running for the past year, there have been 6 character deaths. My players keep coming back, and tell me how exciting my games are. So I must be doing something right.
Great video!
That’s awesome that the players are on board! I really like how you handle heath with exhaustion. Great idea.
@@DLSaga Thanks!
I gave you a few minutes. The problem isn't the game/edition. The problem is you. As another old-timer that cut his teeth on the original red box and played AD&D for years, I have witnessed way more players doing way more creative stuff in the last 5 years of 5e than in my years of AD&D and 2nd ed.
Take for example your claim about fleeing the dungeon to rest for a night. You call this a lack of imagination on the part of the players. I call it players who understand their characters' motivations. Fleeing the dungeon makes sense, if you don't care about rescuing the blacksmith's wife. It makes sense if you don't care about the impending orc invasion. It make sense if you don't have a beloved NPC who is dying, saved only by the cure buried in this tunnel.
This may come as a surprise to you, but as DMs/authors, we try to create a sense of urgency that drives timelines. If the party can rest safely whenever they like, the casters in the party get all their spells, the paladins get all their smites, the rest of the martial classes get very little. So preventing the option of resting help balance the game. It gives martial characters more opportunities to shine and the casters decisions to expend spell slots more gravitas. If your party has the OPTION to leave and rest for a night, your adventure already sucks. Look at the guidance around CR and encounters. If you let the party rest after every fight, you better be running nothing but extremely deadly encounters. But, if you use some nuance, and limit their options for recovering resources, you can get them riding the edge of their seat with nothing but cantrips and hoping that Champion Fighter crits again.
Also, the original DL campaign was unmitigated garbage. It was the harshest of harsh railroads. As someone who actually tried to DM it back in the late 80s/early 90s, it wasn't good. I'm way more impressed with BMG's new VotU series. The writing is a bit meh, but the story FEELS so much more dynamic than the original "re-enact the books or die" modules.
Gatekeeping and edition wars can die with Takhisis. Est Sularas oth Mithas.
You bring up some really good situational arguments! I find people bring their own baggage to videos like this. My message was to try different editions in order to become a better player, and some people take offense. I thank you for watching nonetheless.
@@DLSaga the edition isn't going through change that though. 2nd Ed was rife with power builds and crazy combos.
I'd suggest checking out your local Adventurers League scene instead. I learned more in the first 6 months of AL than I had in almost 30 years of home games. Every week a different table, different players, different DMs. So many tips, tricks, and strategies. I look back at all my old campaigns and cringe with what I've learned after getting active in Adventurers League.
Give it a try some time, it's way more fun than being a grumpy old grognard fueling edition wars. ;)
I like AD&D because I grew up playing it. It was the system I played the most in my life. And soon I'll be dusting off my good old player's handbook!
I really enjoy revisiting the AD&D DMG appendices.
@@DLSaga So much so that I created a channel just to tell the story of the Dark Sun tradition in the period before the freedom era, the boxed set.
I've never played AD&D 1st, but played every other edition (4th isnt d&d) and various other systems, currently I'm running classics dragonlance in pathfinder 1e (my system of joyce for GMing).... But I will consider AD&D 1e after I finish the classics (since 2019 on this job, lol).
Adam, have you thought about DCC for dragonlance?
I have not considered creating original DL content. I may in the future but for now there seems to be an active 5e community.
I completely agree!
Thank you for watching!
And BECMI does make better players? Why?
The exact same reason. Or playing multiple game systems. I just focused on AD&D because of the channel.
all the problem you name are present since third edition of D&D
Arguably even in the end of 2e lifespan too...
My experience in West Marches simply showed me that players do not learn from TPKs, they just get angry at it... they dont think about what happened.
That is unfortunate. I try to talk with players after a game about what happened. I found it helps a bit.
@@DLSaga they'll find that like you talking down to them. You're the DM, you know all the options and situations.
In West marches, again with randoms in 5e, they didn't really work together and often were each targeting their own enemy. Often they were each trying to be the main protagonist. Every tpk I had in that was a result of that nonsense
Elite player=effectivly uses roleplaying constraints+abilities to decisively drive story forward. Takes little time to declare actions and works with dm and other players.
To me, it’s active playing rather than waiting for your turn, then asking what’s going on.
@@DLSaga that works!
Disney just announced that they are going to massively cut back on superhero - and run-off - shows and movies. Hopefully we will FINALLY get a proper live action DragonLance series? Or at least a few decent TVM's? And whilst Netflix are blowing their wad on crap like Beacon 23 (COULD have been brilliant) They should look at re-purposing the sets for The Lost Fleet by Jack Campbell. Yes, I know thats not his name, but thats what he published. As for history.... I was kicked out of Sunday School at age 10 for playing D&D, and knowing the names of demons. I was head of RPG and board games at Virgin not long later, and chairman of WARPs - at the time the largest independent RPG society in UK. Yes, I walked away because like most hobbies that become an obsession - it took over my life! So I quit. But now I am slowly creeping back in 20 years on - but only as a player, nothing more. I live in very remote Spain - finding someone that speaks my language is a 6 month job let alone finding someone who games. Very lonely here.
That’s too bad, but you could always play online… re: DL show, I WISH! Omg I so badly want a faithful live action adaptation of Chronicles.
@@DLSaga Could you link me to online groups? I'm an ape at online stuff.. I don't have ANY online.... "facebook" stuff or whatever. Gram... I dunno - I'm just crap at all of it.. Although I WAS a chairman etc - and my main game was RoleMaster (Very complicated)... yeah, I've been away for 20 years so... I'd consider myself a beginner for now. I just want to do basic gaming for a few weeks.
@@damightyshabba439 I would suggest Rolll20: app.roll20.net/forum/ or D&D Beyond: www.dndbeyond.com/forums
Keep your voice down when talking about races. If you promote that the races are different you'll get called bad names for it, which I find hilarious because while attempting to get rid of racism it sure still seems to exist in the rule books.
What am I going on about some might ask?
Well, I have in my hand both the 5th Edition PHP and the 2nd Ed Complete Book of Humanoids. Because 'orcs are barbarians' is racist so we went from Half-Orcs getting +1 Str, +1 Con but -2 Cha to getting +2 Str and +1 Con and no Cha adjustment. But we still have races with bonuses to Cha... do doesn't that still reinforce the 'orcs are strong but lack social skills'?
People also say it's wrong to make certain races have certain aptitudes like old 2nd Ed did where Dwarves couldn't be Wizards and Elves couldn't get as high level of a Fighter as the Human. And yet we still have stats and traits that very much promote those races being very specific classes or just not being used.
I guess I'm just going to get called a racist because I agreed with your comment about cultural differences. I do not understand why it's wrong for Dwarves to be rather anti-magical to where magic items often fail when they try to use them and they can not be Wizards, these all stem from the fact that the god that created them is the god of forges and made them out of stone and clay. Not the god of magic that made them out of mystical energies.
All this being said, racism is 100% bad. I agree with that. However, Drizzt would not be as important a character if it wasn't for the fact that almost all Drow are spider worshiping human sacrificing horrible people but he becomes friends with Humans, Dwarves and even other Elves and he goes on to save the world multiple times.
You’re not racist. This is a game that modern players and designers fight to inject with their ideology to reach the broadest player base. I prefer the way outlined.
I think we have to accept there are two schools of thought when it comes to races. The older school, who thinks it's okay to paint an entire race as evil or ugly, and the newer school, who thinks that painting an entire race as evil or ugly is too close to real world social justice issues (which the older school may or may not believe in anyway). It boils down to different attitudes about race and ethics, and you should just find a group of like minded players. But accept that other players have a different attitude and agree to disagree. I think I'm saying it's a fundamental difference that we just need to accept. Like conservatives and liberals (which is also usually the line between old school and new school attitudes about race in D&D). Your argument about stats is a little strange though. First, CHA is about force of personality, not social skills. It literally says "Charisma, measuring force of personality" in the 5e PHB. Whether people like you and want to follow you, or whether they can dominate you. A character with high CHA but is socially awkward sounds pretty fun. Second, they stopped doing negative stats for racial traits in 5e because it's antithetical to the whole ethos of 5e--inclusive heroic fantasy. If you make half-orcs have -2 CHA, what happens when someone wants to play a charming or charismatic half-orc (which also sounds pretty fun)? And Tasha's did away with stat bonuses leaning into old archetypes anyway, and you can add +2 and +1 to whatever stats you like. But I think you're saying you don't like that. So, don't do that--lean into the old archetypes, and create an uncharismatic half-orc if that's your taste (sounds pretty boring though). Or, play 2e I guess.
@@DLSaga Fight to inject their ideology... fight to inject their ideology... I don't get that. I do understand "to reach the broadest player base". They want their game to be inclusive as possible to reach the broadest payer base. Sure. I don't get the "ideology" part though.
Everything you said about these early editions was accurate. But what they lack is a true central mechanic. You'll be rolling percentile a lot, and consulting a lot of tables, flipping pages, switching books. Something I really appreciate about newer editions is that they can largely be played just off the character sheet. My last second edition party I participated in once got in a pretty classic bar fight. Due to class and subclass (kit) choices, we rolled on three separate tables, in three separate sourcebooks, to see what kind of punch we threw.
Yea it could be messy.
All you need to play old school is a set of dice, a sheet of paper, and a combat chart ( but even the combat chart is optional)
@@nobody342 that is 100% true. But what you are describing is not Ad&d, or second edition. My critiques were on the editions.
@@loganfields159 Or is it. The reality is, Basic, 1e and 2e are the same game. You can start with Basic and blend it into 1e or 2e without hardly anyone noticing. A Basic version of the Elf can be played in 1e or 2e with no change. Same with a 2e character can be backwards played also. You can not directly take a Basic, 1e or 2e player Character and play 3e, 4e, 5e or the upcoming 6e.
A person could choose not to take any 2e enhancements to their character and it would play just fine in any of the earlier editions.
Take that character and you could play many sessions where you could not tell what actual edition you were playing.
The biggest detriment of 2e was its move away from receiving XP for gold and training, and pushing the story based XP. Doing this is really the only meaningful difference between Basic/1e and 2e and doing such radically changed the game, but the game at the table really feels the same, but 2e brought about the "story" game instead of the Adventure game. Both editions could do the same, but 2e editions penalized someone for trying to get wealthy. Other than Ravenloft, there really weren't any memorable modules that I am aware off, that pushed story over adventure, and Ravenloft brought a change in the style of playing.
@@nobody342 what you describe requires more than a set of dice, a sheet of paper, and a combat chart.
Really enjoyed this video. You have a compelling argument.
Cheers!
Thanks for watching!
Great video. Subscribed.
Thank you for watching!
look at my name. what do yoi think?.lol
Lol
Hey Dude! Welcome back!
I haven’t gone anywhere, but thanks for stopping by!
Yo dude, good video. I way prefer when peeps share they ideas like this. But can you cool it with the smug remarks like “perspective… which seems to be missing in the world at large” like bro, ion on this beef with ya, just chill. Its ight,
I can only present things in the light I see them.
@2:25 - 2:40 Boomer-iest victim-complex rant I've heard in a while. Grow up.
Thanks, I will try.