Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Roscoe_Greenbottle 12-17-06, 08:27 PM	I'm a 14 year old and the only version of DnD I've ever played is 3.5, and I have some questions about 2nd edition AD&D 1. Does it really not use a board for combat 2. if not, how is it done? 3. how different is it from 3.5 besides combat 4. is ther any way to get my hands of some cheap/free stuff about it 5. how much stuff is there about it the reasons are that I have some after school stuf with my friends that would be a great time for DnD, but there's no way to bring a board, minitures, and all the books and other stuff. It also seems to be faster pased, which is also good
pierow37 12-17-06, 08:31 PM	wait. i don't use a board to play. I just draw a map on graph paper and put symbols where the players are, then erase them... Doesn't everyone do that???
Sim_antix 12-17-06, 08:32 PM	I'm a 14 year old and the only version of DnD I've ever played is 3.5, and I have some questions about 2nd edition AD&D 1. Does it really not use a board for combat Yes 2. if not, how is it done? By the DM keeping track either on paper or in his head 3. how different is it from 3.5 besides combat Alot or not so much depending on what specific mechanic you are talking about 4. is ther any way to get my hands of some cheap/free stuff about it Cheap you can check out Ebay or your local game shop might have some 5. how much stuff is there about it Not as much as there is for 3.0 and up but depending on how complete a collection you want there are several monstrous compendiums and box sets to pick up the reasons are that I have some after school stuf with my friends that would be a great time for DnD, but there's no way to bring a board, minitures, and all the books and other stuff. It also seems to be faster pased, which is also good Well just so you know you do not need miniatures or a board to play 3.0 and up. You can just as easily keep general track of positions by using a piece of grid paper and thumb tacks or pencil marks.
pierow37 12-17-06, 08:36 PM	Well just so you know you do not need miniatures or a board to play 3.0 and up. You can just as easily keep general track of positions by using a piece of grid paper and thumb tacks or pencil marks. yah. mini's are a total waste of money.
Roscoe_Greenbottle 12-17-06, 08:38 PM	I mean the whole battle grid in general. Also, I've heard that combat in AD&D is a lot faster, which would be good when we only have an hour to an hour and a half
Roscoe_Greenbottle 12-17-06, 08:39 PM	I don't own anything but the core rule books and the minitures in the basic game. My friends have a bunch of minitures of books, though
pierow37 12-17-06, 08:40 PM	oh. for actual battles i totally use hex grids. they're amazing for ANYTHING that isn't a building. but for rivers, lakes, forests, and anything natural. So for combat, hex grids are AMAZING. use them!
Roscoe_Greenbottle 12-17-06, 08:46 PM	okay, but what does that have to do with my post? (sorry if I come off as a jerk)
pierow37 12-17-06, 08:55 PM	okay, but what does that have to do with my post? (sorry if I come off as a jerk) hmmmm... basicly...ummm... they didn't have hex grids in 2nd ed. and it's ok. u don't come off as a jerk. so ummm... i like 3.5 ed rules and no minis. You asked about no battle grid. It works just by drawing on graph paper your map, then when your done, ink it. Then draw the basics of where the monsters are in the dungeon. Then erase their old spots when they move, and draw their new spots. pretty simple really. and a whole hell of a lot cheaper.
Roscoe_Greenbottle 12-17-06, 09:14 PM	I know that, too it just takes quite a bit of time to do combat in 3.5, and again, I've heard that it is much faster in AD&D I hadn't thought of the graph paper thing though, I just use my friends minis and a big laminated poster I lined with a sharpie
Burgundy Lotus 12-17-06, 09:31 PM	In 2nd it was a lot more abstract with actual positioning being much less important. You'd just say what your character was going to do, maker the required rolls and what happened happened. P "I want to run by the Orc and slash him with my sword as I do, I stop by the window." DM "Okay make your attack roll." P "I hit AC 3 for 8 points." DM "Doesn't drop him but he is badly hurt. Whose go now?" Mine went a lot like this most of the time.
makeshiftwings 12-17-06, 09:37 PM	Honestly, I think 2nd edition's combat was more confusing and unintuitive, but that might just be because I was much younger when I was playing it. You don't really have to use a grid for 3.5. It will mess up the balance of different classes and monsters a little bit since you probably won't be using AoO's or reach or cover, but 2nd edition wasn't exactly the most balanced game in the world.
Roscoe_Greenbottle 12-17-06, 09:41 PM	I can probably just do it like that to save on time. I can also cut out some of the more complicated, tecnical manuvers. don't know how the players will respond. should be fine though
revnk 12-17-06, 10:57 PM	3.x simplifies a lot of the rules from earlier editions of D&D. In particular, 3.x reduces almost everything to "roll a d20, higher numbers are good"; earlier editions used different charts for everything, some things were resolved with d20 and some with d%, and sometimes high was good and other times low was good. (Later 1E supplements and subsequently 2E at least replaced the combat charts with THAC0, but THAC0 was more convenient than fun.) You can play 3.x without minis and without a battle grid. Wizards likes to push the minis because there's money in them, but all you really need to do to play without the minis is simply don't use them when you play. It requires players to use their imaginations and the DM to stay on the ball with keeping track of where people are in his head. If the latter becomes a problem, you can simply use a piece of notebook paper and a pencil to keep track of characters' relative positions. I grew up on (Basic/Expanded/etc.) D&D and first edition AD&D (like many 1E players, I skipped 2E for a variety of reasons)--and I wouldn't go back to AD&D unless it was for a nostalgia trip. Don't get me wrong: there are things I miss about AD&D--a sense of whimsy, a smarter tone, an emphasis on creative aspects of the game, and so forth--but "faster rules" isn't one of them. Stick with the rules you have and are familiar with, and just don't use minis. Good gaming!
Roscoe_Greenbottle 12-17-06, 11:14 PM	Thanks! I have a pretty good idea how to do it now with out all the books. I know the basic rules and can wing the rest because I know the general ideas of them.
rjjr71 12-17-06, 11:16 PM	(me, reading Revnk's post): Nods, smiles in agreement. Couldn't have said it better. Go with the core books, pencil in your characters for combat when necessary, and when anything bogs the game down or confuses everyone at the table, make a reasonable DM's call to streamline the situation. No one wants to spend a session sitting around a table trying to figure out rules. Step back, take a look at it from a practical standpoint and make a ruling. Be fair, be consistent, facilitate the fun- BINGO- you're a good DM!
Darkwolf71 12-17-06, 11:18 PM	Also the AD&D rule books were written with the college student in mind. If your comprehension and vocabulary aren't at that level they can be hard to read. I have played and loved all editions of D&D, but none of them are truly 'simple'. Even the Basic D&D rules would be full of mechanics and concepts totally foreign to what we have now. Graph paper is a great idea. small portable. And pierow, we used hex maps all the time in 2nd ed. Heck even 1st. Hexs have always been used for outdoor maps.
Chrono Nexus 12-17-06, 11:53 PM	I do prefer the current edition of DnD to it's predecessor, but there are aspects of ADnD I still employ in my games. I use the gem charts listed in the 2ed DMG, and the weapons lists in the 2ed PHB. I sometimes pull monsters out of the 2ed MM and convert them to the current system. Or thief Jargon. ADnD had a more.. historical feel to it. It was chucked full of facts and information that have added greatly to the game.. But it was also chucked full of ridiculous advice and poorly conceived ideas.
CryoSilver 12-17-06, 11:55 PM	Grids are highly overrated I've taken to hooking my laptop up to a projector and using my AutoCAD map directly on the screen.
jeffepp 12-18-06, 12:54 AM	And remember, a battle grid can be of the fold-up/roll-up sort, such as the ones that came with the first mini starer sets. And you can use paper chits to replace minis, the put them in an envelope and slip it and the folded grid in your DMG or PHB. But, as others have said, you don't need either minis or a grid to play. I personally like minis, and feel it speeds up play, but some prefer to play without.
Man in the Funny Hat 12-18-06, 01:02 AM	1. Does it really not use a board for combat?The rules are not written to directly incorporate a "board" for combat. However, you can use one for AD&D just as you can decide NOT to use one for 3E. 2. if not, how is it done?I've played since 1976 and have never NOT used a board and miniatures/markers of some kind. Back in those days the group I played with did not adhere to the GRID, however. By that I mean that your character was not assumed to be in any particular square - we simply used the board as an erasable medium to draw upon with wet-erase markers and to facilitate measurement rather than ALWAYS using rulers or small tape measures. On those few occasions when we dispensed with a board it was generally because the position and movement of everyone and everything was clear from verbal descriptions and no additional mechanism like a grid was felt to be necessary to keep track of things. 3. how different is it from 3.5 besides combat?Fairly. Much more of your characters capabilities are determined directly as class ablilities rather than player choices of skills. Feats do not exist at all. In that respect it is simpler, but the AD&D rules are less consistent with a wide variety of mechanics and different die rolls. And there's more differences of course. These changes are either good or bad depending on your point of view. The biggest source of disrespect for 2E AD&D (as opposed to 1E AD&D) is the editorial tone of the rules. Older editions were written by adults FOR other adults. 2E was written intentionally to attempt to appeal to younger players and many (like me) think that the result was to make it seem "dumbed down". 4. is there any way to get my hands of some cheap/free stuff about it?2E? I'm not sure but I seem to recall that WotC has 2E core books available for download. 1E AD&D was sort of picked up by/expanded as the Hackmaster rules so you might look into those. 5. how much stuff is there about it?About 2E? OMG, there was SO MUCH STUFF - though both good and bad - that was published for 2E. the reasons are that I have some after school stuf with my friends that would be a great time for DnD, but there's no way to bring a board, minitures, and all the books and other stuff. It also seems to be faster pased, which is also goodboard and miniatures aren't required for any version of D&D. IMO they always help but no version of D&D should really require more than the PH, DMG and MM.
revnk 12-18-06, 01:29 AM	The biggest source of disrespect for 2E AD&D (as opposed to 1E AD&D) is the editorial tone of the rules. Older editions were written by adults FOR other adults. 2E was written intentionally to attempt to appeal to younger players and many (like me) think that the result was to make it seem "dumbed down". That was one issue. The two big issues that bugged me and a lot of my friends at the time were (1) the way 2E seemed to incorporate a lot of the more controversial rules from the 1E Unearthed Arcana (a lot of people thought that the nonweapon proficiencies were a half-assed attempt to keep up with other RPGs that had skill systems, e.g. almost all of them) and (2) the sense that 2E was more about housecleaning at TSR than anything else--it got Gygax's name off the front cover while attempting to boost TSR's flagging sales by "reselling" their flagship game to everyone. Of course, in retrospect it looks like exactly the kind of thing one gets all upset and partisan about in high school and then 15 or 20 years later you're not even clear why you were so outraged. (Waters-vs.-Gilmour, same thing.*) But I digress. The real point is play what you enjoy. Even if it's Second Edition.;) Good gaming, everyone! *Gilmour, dude. He totally rocks. I mean, c'mon. It's not even close.:D
Coven 12-18-06, 11:53 AM	Don't let anyone fool you, minis were always a part of D&D. Not saying to play with them, just that minis were with D&D from the beginning, nothing more.
escherblacksmith 12-18-06, 12:39 PM	In addition to everything said thusfar, it still took awhile to battle and such. you still had to decide movements and battle orders and adjucating moves and vhatnot. I don't think you will inherently gain any time that way. If you also incorporated all of the added stuff (many-many optional books that ended up being incorporated into 3.0 and 3.5), you had whole other ways of playing which added more time to adjucating... So, speed is dependent on the complexity of actions, the numbers involved, and the intelligence/preparedness of one's players and oneself. Regardless of the version you are playing.
dayrat 12-18-06, 12:51 PM	I'm a 14 year old and the only version of DnD I've ever played is 3.5, and I have some questions about 2nd edition AD&D 1. Does it really not use a board for combat 2. if not, how is it done? 3. how different is it from 3.5 besides combat 4. is ther any way to get my hands of some cheap/free stuff about it 5. how much stuff is there about it the reasons are that I have some after school stuf with my friends that would be a great time for DnD, but there's no way to bring a board, minitures, and all the books and other stuff. It also seems to be faster pased, which is also good 1. Yes back in the day the game did not require a board to play out combat. You could still use miniatures if you wanted to but the rules were not designed around miniature use. 2. In the player's imaginations. 3. Very, very different. Not as streamlined, but the rules were more open (and enjoyable). 4. Online shoppin or your local hobby shop. 5. Tons and tons of it.
Anaxander 12-18-06, 01:02 PM	There are also some old editions downloads at the site of wizards (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/downloads) Of course, no basic rulebooks...
ladyeve 12-18-06, 01:06 PM	2E was also way more sexist than 3E.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 12-18-06, 01:22 PM	2E was also way more sexist than 3E. Care to share why?
ladyeve 12-18-06, 01:28 PM	Care to share why? Remember the interior art from the original 2E players handbook and DMG? Scantily clad warrior women. Erotic female wizards. Remember Caldwell's cover art for just about any Forgotten Realms module or Novel? Think "Curse of the Azure Bonds".
Sereno 12-18-06, 01:35 PM	the reasons are that I have some after school stuf with my friends that would be a great time for DnD, but there's no way to bring a board, minitures, and all the books and other stuff. It also seems to be faster pased, which is also good No reason you can't accomplish what you want with 3.5. Don't need a board, or minis, or a ton of books. You can play just fine with Core and dice and an imagination. That said, I've been using a battlemat and minis since the early 80's ... and have played every version of the game since the original Chainmail pamphlet. Speed is relative. It's related to how well you know the rules or how quickly your DM can think on his/her feet. If you're going to argue every ruling and flip endlessly through books looking for rules, nothing is really going to help speed up your game. Most of my 3.5 combat seems to move much quicker than my prior-to-3rd-edition combats.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 12-18-06, 01:37 PM	Remember the interior art from the original 2E players handbook and DMG? Scantily clad warrior women. Erotic female wizards. Remember Caldwell's cover art for just about any Forgotten Realms module or Novel? Think "Curse of the Azure Bonds". And is that any more sexist than the numerous scantily clad men throughout the 2e books?
ladyeve 12-18-06, 01:41 PM	And is that any more sexist than the numerous scantily clad men throughout the 2e books? The men were no where nearly as scantily cald. They had full-plate and the wizards were fully clothed. There were some exceptions, but for the most part, this was a very sexist edition. Its famous for it. I am looking at my copies of the old PHB and DMG right now. I assure you they were sexist.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 12-18-06, 01:46 PM	The men were no where nearly as scantily cald. They had full-plate and the wizards were fully clothed. There were some exceptions, but for the most part, this was a very sexist edition. Its famous for it. I am looking at my copies of the old PHB and DMG right now. I assure you they were sexist. And I'm looking at my copies, and I'm seeing men in nothing more than a loincloth. On several covers. On an aside, you sure you're looking at the 2e copy and not one of the 1e copies? 1e was famous for its sexism, what with men and women having different ability scores. And 3e has plenty of scantily clas women, or even actual nudity.
ladyeve 12-18-06, 01:48 PM	And I'm looking at my copies, and I'm seeing men in nothing more than a loincloth. On several covers. On an aside, you sure you're looking at the 2e copy and not one of the 1e copies? 1e was famous for its sexism, what with men and women having different ability scores. And 3e has plenty of scantily clas women, or even actual nudity. I am looking at 2E. Even in the cases where men are scantily clad, it is not in a sexual way. The women are deliberately alluring. 3E is much more tastful. The women are clearly not sex objects but paragons of physical excellence on par with the men.
Orchomenos 12-18-06, 01:54 PM	Here's a site (http://www.planetadnd.com/interactive_books/mm00000.php) with the 2nd Edition stats & description of monsters. While the 3.X Monster Manual are built like a modern geographic manual, where everything is sure, the general mood in 2nd Edition was more on rumors, bardic tales, and what a loremaster could read in an ancient tome. 3.X humanoid monsters are humanoids who can progress in any class up to any level, from a CR of 1/4 up to a CR of 20. In 2nd edition, everything was pretty much set in stone. There was stats for the common orc warrior, the orc guard, the orc shaman, and it was done. Another difference was the level progression. In 3.X, you can multi-class every level you take, in any class available to you. In 2nd Edition, human could Dual-Class: they would progress up to, let's say, 6th level in one class. Then they would loose your class features in your first class and stop gaining XP in that class and restart at level 1 in another class. The XP needed to go from fighter6/thief1 to fighter6/thief2 was the same than to go from thief1 to thief2. So you would gain levels much more quickly. Then when you reach fighter6/thief7, you would regain your fighter class features. But this was different for other humanoids. An elf could be, for example, fighter/mage. He would advance in XP simultaneously in both classes. The XP needed to gain a level in two classes was different. Thus, a thief could get to level 2 at 600 XP, while a fighter would get to level 2 at 1000 XP. So the best way to compare two character was not by character level, but by XP.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 12-18-06, 01:55 PM	I am looking at 2E. Even in the cases where men are scantily clad, it is not in a sexual way. Perhaps we're looking at different books. Some of the images I'm seeing look like they're taken out of a book of male pin-ups. The women are deliberately alluring. And, in my view, so are the men. 3E is much more tastful. The women are clearly not sex objects but paragons of physical excellence on par with the men. I'm looking at the Nymph and I'm seeing a sex object.
dayrat 12-18-06, 01:56 PM	Perhaps we're looking at different books. Some of the images I'm seeing look like they're taken out of a book of male pin-ups. And, in my view, so are the men. . AS a gay man, I strongly disagree. LOL.
Ryngard 12-18-06, 02:01 PM	Its weird... in 2e we ALWAYS used a battle mat and minis. 3e plays almost the same for us as 2e did. Neither needs a mat and minis. You can also get a mat that folds to a sheet of paper size (Flip-Mat from Steel Squire). Its GREAT!
Ryngard 12-18-06, 02:02 PM	I'm looking at the Nymph and I'm seeing a sex object. Umm... they are SUPPOSED to be like that. Succubi too. THey're MO is that the SEDUCE men.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 12-18-06, 02:03 PM	Umm... they are SUPPOSED to be like that. Succubi too. THey're MO is that the SEDUCE men. Which is my point.
dayrat 12-18-06, 02:08 PM	Which is my point. I agree with eve. Not enough sexy men in those pages!
nastynate 12-18-06, 02:41 PM	What is up with this sexism BS? AD&D was not sexist; people can read whatever they want into the artwork, and if you want to see sexism or any other sort of prejudice you will. I don't see too many non-white people in D&D art either, so the artists must be racist too. For that matter, there's an awful lot of government systems in D&D, but there seems to be an alarming lack of communism or socialism, so D&D must be anti-Marxist too. What about drow society? They're extremely sexist, and still going strong in 3.5, but since they are anti-male nobody complains about it. Give me a break. As for playing AD&D over 3.5 for simplicity's sake, I don't think its worth it. AD&D is an easier system, but not if you are trying to work backwards from 3.5; learning new rules is still going to take more effort than using the ones you are familiar with, and some of the 2nd edition mechanics will seem very counter-intuitive unless you learned the game with them. If you want to play without a battle mat, just use graph paper and pencils; it works just as well. -peace- I agree with eve. Not enough sexy men in those pages! Not unless you dig the Conan inspired loin cloth wearing dudes. There seem to plenty of those if that happens to be your thing.
Ocalus 12-18-06, 02:41 PM	yah. mini's are a total waste of money. No, they aren't.
Ocalus 12-18-06, 02:46 PM	I'm looking at the Nymph and I'm seeing a sex object. That is cos that is there mythological role. The word nymphomania comes from nymph for that reason. Complaining that a nymph is portrayed as a sex object is like complaining that Conan is portrayed as a barbarian.
ladyeve 12-18-06, 02:52 PM	What is up with this sexism BS? AD&D was not sexist; people can read whatever they want into the artwork, and if you want to see sexism or any other sort of prejudice you will. I don't see too many non-white people in D&D art either, so the artists must be racist too. For that matter, there's an awful lot of government systems in D&D, but there seems to be an alarming lack of communism or socialism, so D&D must be anti-Marxist too. What about drow society? They're extremely sexist, and still going strong in 3.5, but since they are anti-male nobody complains about it. Give me a break. As for playing AD&D over 3.5 for simplicity's sake, I don't think its worth it. AD&D is an easier system, but not if you are trying to work backwards from 3.5; learning new rules is still going to take more effort than using the ones you are familiar with, and some of the 2nd edition mechanics will seem very counter-intuitive unless you learned the game with them. If you want to play without a battle mat, just use graph paper and pencils; it works just as well. -peace- Not unless you dig the Conan inspired loin cloth wearing dudes. There seem to plenty of those if that happens to be your thing. As a women I have to say I find much of whats out there on the RPG shelves offensive. In 2E the artwork clearlyu portrayed women as objects. The women were always half naked and in sensual poses. Most of the girls I game with agree.
Rancorpit 12-18-06, 02:55 PM	It's a game for lonely men made by lonely men... :rolleyes:
nastynate 12-18-06, 02:56 PM	As a women I have to say I find much of whats out there on the RPG shelves offensive. In 2E the artwork clearlyu portrayed women as objects. The women were always half naked and in sensual poses. Most of the girls I game with agree. I think Soap Operas (heck TV and Movies in general) are worse offenders. I also think romance novels are vulgar. D&D is hardly offensive when compared to basically any other form of media.
dayrat 12-18-06, 03:04 PM	I think Soap Operas (heck TV and Movies in general) are worse offenders. I also think romance novels are vulgar. D&D is hardly offensive when compared to basically any other form of media. I have to say that Eve has a point. I mean, I see the way women get oggled in gaming stores. And, while I think Wizards has been good about depicting women in a positive light, some other gaming companies have been pretty raunchy.
Grand Theft Otto 12-18-06, 03:08 PM	Honestly, I think 2nd edition's combat was more confusing and unintuitive, but that might just be because I was much younger when I was playing it. Its not. 1st/2nd editions were pretty bad systems that were counterintuitive. There's no good design reason for a bonus to be subtracted (as was the case with initiative, AC, and many other things). It features a wierd combination of wanting to roll high and roll low. Unless you were doing an opposed roll for something like a disarm, in which case your best case result (a 20 on an attack roll) was almost guaranteed to fail. Brilliant design there guys. It always struck me as something that was artificually complicated in order to give the appearance of being more intellectual than it was. If you want a crappy system, go for it.
dayrat 12-18-06, 03:54 PM	Its not. 1st/2nd editions were pretty bad systems that were counterintuitive. There's no good design reason for a bonus to be subtracted (as was the case with initiative, AC, and many other things). It features a wierd combination of wanting to roll high and roll low. Unless you were doing an opposed roll for something like a disarm, in which case your best case result (a 20 on an attack roll) was almost guaranteed to fail. Brilliant design there guys. It always struck me as something that was artificually complicated in order to give the appearance of being more intellectual than it was. If you want a crappy system, go for it. i agree the combat system was strange. On the other hand, and in a weird way, it was much simpler. So many of the rules were optional that, in my memory at least, combat ended up being a breeze.
Millennium 12-18-06, 04:29 PM	1. Does it really not use a board for combat That's right. Although miniatures rules were made for it, they weren't considered core. 2. if not, how is it done? For the most part it was all very abstract. As far as the rules were concerned, it was basically much like the Final Fantasy games, where the positions of the opponents didn't really matter much. 3. how different is it from 3.5 besides combat Skills weren't core ("nonweapon proficiencies" existed but were strictly optional), most races were restricted in what classes they could take and how high of a level they could reach (no dwarf wizards), sorcerers and barbarians didn't exist (monks did but weren't core), there was no such thing as a prestige class, and many other things. 4. is ther any way to get my hands of some cheap/free stuff about it Your best bet is probably to buy PDFs of the books from rpgnow.com or a similar reputable vendor. 5. how much stuff is there about it It's all out of print now, but I doubt that 3e has caught up to 2e in terms of sheer volume of printed material yet. This has been thought to have been one of the big reasons TSR went down, actually. But there were many more campaign settings (Spelljammer and Planescape are my two favorites), some very interesting books for running more historical campaigns, and such.
Sim_antix 12-18-06, 05:00 PM	2E was also way more sexist than 3E. No it wasn't Remember the interior art from the original 2E players handbook and DMG? Scantily clad warrior women. Erotic female wizards. Remember Caldwell's cover art for just about any Forgotten Realms module or Novel? Think "Curse of the Azure Bonds". As pointed out before there has always been scantily clad members of both genders throughout every fantasy genre ever The men were no where nearly as scantily cald. They had full-plate and the wizards were fully clothed. There were some exceptions, but for the most part, this was a very sexist edition. Its famous for it. I am looking at my copies of the old PHB and DMG right now. I assure you they were sexist. Yes the men were just as scantily clad as the women if not more so. No it was not famous for it's sexism that idea didn't even copme up until a bunch of femi nazis decided that referring to everyone as "he" was sexist but referring to everyone as "she" was much more acceptable :rolleyes: I am looking at 2E. Even in the cases where men are scantily clad, it is not in a sexual way. The women are deliberately alluring. 3E is much more tastful. The women are clearly not sex objects but paragons of physical excellence on par with the men. I disagree As a women I have to say I find much of whats out there on the RPG shelves offensive. In 2E the artwork clearlyu portrayed women as objects. The women were always half naked and in sensual poses. Most of the girls I game with agree. And yet my group consists of several females and none of them find 2E any more or less offensive than 3E or anything else related to fantasy for that matter.
ladyeve 12-18-06, 05:02 PM	I think Soap Operas (heck TV and Movies in general) are worse offenders. I also think romance novels are vulgar. D&D is hardly offensive when compared to basically any other form of media. Then you have not been paying attention to the cover art of many RPGs. Soap operas are aimed at women, we are the target audience. They are sensual, but not offensive. I am personally tired of being looked at as a piece of meat by the socially awkward that inhabit most gaming stores.
Sim_antix 12-18-06, 05:04 PM	Then you have not been paying attention to the cover art of many RPGs. Soap operas are aimed at women, we are the target audience. They are sensual, but not offensive. I am personally tired of being looked at as a piece of meat by the socially awkward that inhabit most gaming stores. Perhaps you are or perhaps you simply think you are because of the way you are looking at things?
ladyeve 12-18-06, 05:05 PM	And yet my group consists of several females and none of them find 2E any more or less offensive than 3E or anything else related to fantasy for that matter. Since you are clearly a sexist yourself (calling feminist who object to the masculine pronoun 'feminazis' is highly sexist), I doubt that any women who would suffer your presence at the gaming table are intellectually equiped to detect sexism. To say that the gaming industry does not have a history replete with sexism is just naive. I applaud the wizards for making a point of depicting women as strong and not over sexualized. You clearly do not see the difference.
Sim_antix 12-18-06, 05:09 PM	Since you are clearly a sexist yourself (calling feminist who object to the masculine pronoun 'feminazis' is highly sexist), I doubt that any women who would suffer your presence at the gaming table are intellectually equiped to detect sexism. To say that the gaming industry does not have a history replete with sexism is just naive. I applaud the wizards for making a point of depicting women as strong and not over sexualized. You clearly do not see the difference. I am neither sexist nor intellectually lacking nor is anyone in my group (including my gf) Disagree with me all you want but insulting me and the women in my life based off of one statement shows a serious lack of respect for your fellow poster and flames always get reported
ladyeve 12-18-06, 05:16 PM	I am neither sexist nor intellectually lacking nor is anyone in my group (including my gf) Disagree with me all you want but insulting me and the women in my life based off of one statement shows a serious lack of respect for your fellow poster and flames always get reported i am sorry, i should not have said something like that. but i take exception to the term 'feminazi'. It is offensive to women and to jews.
Sim_antix 12-18-06, 05:20 PM	i am sorry, i should not have said something like that. but i take exception to the term 'feminazi'. It is offensive to women and to jews. Apology accepted and perhaps I too should apologize since that term can be offensive. That being said I am all for equal rights but I feel some activists push too far while remaining highly hypocritical themselves.
dayrat 12-18-06, 05:21 PM	Apology accepted and perhaps I too should apologize since that term can be offensive. That being said I am all for equal rights but I feel some activists push too far while remaining highly hypocritical themselves. Yes. I don't get the whole pronoun thing.
Roscoe_Greenbottle 12-18-06, 05:33 PM	Girls play DnD???:confused: Me and my 3 friends are the only people in our entire school who play it. And out of them I'm the only one who doesn't whisper or tell them to shut up when talking about DnD in public. God, I'm such a nerd. I wish I could talk to a girl, let alone play Dungeons and Dragons with them!
Sim_antix 12-18-06, 05:37 PM	Girls play DnD???:confused: Yes! Hot ones! Hot ones that like nerdy guys! God, I'm such a nerd. I wish I could talk to a girl, let alone play Dungeons and Dragons with them! It's not so hard, girls are just as into guys as we are into them you just have to pay more attention to the ones casting looks your way :cool:
Anaxander 12-18-06, 05:37 PM	My girlfriend plays D&D in the game I DM. Never mind the classical stereotypes, D&D is a game for anyone with a creative mind, a great fantasy and a good sense of humor.
CryoSilver 12-18-06, 05:40 PM	I'd play D&D with girls, except that there's only about 5 girls AT Clarkson University. My exes used to game with me, and it was always pretty chill. As to the whole sexist issue, I don't even look at the pictures, but I use "he" in all cases of a gender-neutralpronoun being used, because he/she is just dumb.
Roscoe_Greenbottle 12-18-06, 05:43 PM	but my school is absolutly stereotypical. every last person It's not so hard, girls are just as into guys as we are into them you just have to pay more attention to the ones casting looks your way I wish they did :weep:
McSlugger 12-18-06, 06:00 PM	Girls play DnD???:confused: Me and my 3 friends are the only people in our entire school who play it. And out of them I'm the only one who doesn't whisper or tell them to shut up when talking about DnD in public. God, I'm such a nerd. I wish I could talk to a girl, let alone play Dungeons and Dragons with them! Just stand up straight and be confident lad. When ya see a women, walk up to her and say "woof!" That ought to get her attention.
Darkwolf71 12-18-06, 06:01 PM	ladyeve, I can't tell you how amusing it is to read your posts about sexism and then look at the amount of clevage your avatar is showing. Query: When you are being 'looked at like a piece of meat' what are you wearing? I mean that as an honest question, your profile says you are 18, and if you dress like most girls I see of that age, you are kind of asking to be oogled.
ladyeve 12-18-06, 06:05 PM	ladyeve, I can't tell you how amusing it is to read your posts about sexism and then look at the amount of clevage your avatar is showing. Query: When you are being 'looked at like a piece of meat' what are you wearing? I mean that as an honest question, your profile says you are 18, and if you dress like most girls I see of that age, you are kind of asking to be oogled. First, my avatar is tasteful and does not reveal too much cleavage. Second, how dare you blame the woman for being the object of sexual harasment. Saying 'she was asking for it' does not justify anything. Even if I walked around in a mini-skirt, high heels and a push up bra, I should not be the target of unwanted gazing. But for your information I always dress very modestly as my religion dictates.
Chrono Nexus 12-18-06, 06:13 PM	Listen folks, the topic is ADnD. Not other posters. WizoCat will come roaming to lock this thread unless you folks cut that out.
Roscoe_Greenbottle 12-18-06, 06:18 PM	Really, I'm only 14 and I know that it's not nice to go around flaming on other members. What religion are you ladyeve?
Sim_antix 12-18-06, 06:23 PM	Listen folks, the topic is ADnD. Not other posters. WizoCat will come roaming to lock this thread unless you folks cut that out. QFT
ladyeve 12-18-06, 06:28 PM	Really, I'm only 14 and I know that it's not nice to go around flaming on other members. What religion are you ladyeve? Baha'i
Roscoe_Greenbottle 12-18-06, 06:28 PM	QFT Baha'i what?
ladyeve 12-18-06, 06:30 PM	what? We should not talk about religion here too much. Here is a link: http://www.bahai.org/
Roscoe_Greenbottle 12-18-06, 06:33 PM	yeah, this is really off topic from my post about AD&D and faster combat
Darkwolf71 12-18-06, 08:14 PM	First, my avatar is tasteful and does not reveal too much cleavage. Second, how dare you blame the woman for being the object of sexual harasment. Saying 'she was asking for it' does not justify anything. Even if I walked around in a mini-skirt, high heels and a push up bra, I should not be the target of unwanted gazing. But for your information I always dress very modestly as my religion dictates. I'm sorry, perhaps I worded that poorly. I didn't mean to imply that anyone 'deserves' to be stared at. If you dress modestly and receiving looks, take it as a compliment. Life is too short to be so easily offended.
Sim_antix 12-18-06, 08:21 PM	I'm sorry, perhaps I worded that poorly. I didn't mean to imply that anyone 'deserves' to be stared at. If you dress modestly and receiving looks, take it as a compliment. Life is too short to be so easily offended. I agree with this statement. Also concerning the ability to wear mini skirts, high heels and push up bras and expect to not be looked at I feel compelled to point out that the only reason to dress up in something like that and then go out in public is to draw attention and to become offended because it wasn't the guy that you wanted to notice is ludicrous. If you want to dress up like that for just yourself or someone else then stay at home, going out in public is inferred consent to be looked at.
MogliGrimTooth 12-18-06, 09:49 PM	Im sorry this topic line utterly pathetic This is not the place to bring this up Get a grip and get over it. Lets get back to DnD .. In the many years i have played, we have always used Mini's to various extents, though it has evolved some what.... I actually prefer the current version of minis You dont pay the price you did to for Metal minis, which for me, having no desire to paint minis, is fantastic as they come pre painted as well...... Only down side to it as I find the game has become slightly more rules orientated, though thats down to DM style.... Thanks for the rant......
Roscoe_Greenbottle 12-18-06, 10:56 PM	cool, back on subject. It's only been the last 50 posts off of it.
WizO_Cat 12-18-06, 11:45 PM	Yes, let's get back on topic or else the thread gets closed.
Grand Theft Otto 12-20-06, 12:23 PM	i agree the combat system was strange. On the other hand, and in a weird way, it was much simpler. So many of the rules were optional that, in my memory at least, combat ended up being a breeze. How is coming up with a rule on trips, disarms, bull rushes, etc (or using the obscure and goofy rules in complete X's handbook) simpler than referencing the PHB? Combat was only simple if your fighter types never did anything more creative than say "I attack" every turn. Not to mention the goofy saving throw chart breakdown. What's the appropriate save to use when you get hit with a flesh to stone spell from a staff again? (The correct answer is Fortitude)
Soulkeeper 12-20-06, 01:08 PM	cool, back on subject. It's only been the last 50 posts off of it. My 2 copper, get 3.5...and use what you want. You can use any of the old adventures and what not with 3.5, it does work, but not always as easy, the other way. This is a game of guides and suggestions, not hard fast rules. Sure, if you want to play in official games, learn them RAW (rules as written), but if its just you and your friends, then simply play and enjoy.