Welcome back to 2e! My current group of D&D players accidentally got into 2e after playing a few quickie sessions of 4e. They had decided they wanted to make their own PCs instead of the pregens they were using to get used to things, but the oldest of them (13) went looking for an online character generator and mistakenly used a 2e one. (These kids had never played D&D before, so they were unaware of the editions.) He didn't think it looked right, but had faith that I would know what to do with the info. The other two players are adults and have been gaming with me since 1e. They recognized the mistake, but their eyes widened with delight when I sighed and took B2 off the shelf. It was probably the most fun I have ever had running that module! For half of us it was Memory Lane. For the other half it was something totally new.
I explained the reason for why things felt a little different after the game. When I asked which version they liked better, they unanimously answered in favor of 2e. The big draw was the lack of a powers list, which the oldest compared to a list of actions you had to choose from. He said it felt more like you could just make it up as you went. (I didn't tell him that the vast majority of their combat actions had 4e counterparts in the powers list. I just used 4e to determine what the effects should be.)
So now my current group plays 1e/2e, and they do so with an enthusiasm I remember seeing in my own face way back when, in 1981.
I don't see the point in waving farewell to 4e on a 4e FORUM!
It is a flagrant play for attention. Instead go post a "AHOY Y'ALL!" on an AD&D site (if such a thing still exists).
Or you know he could be voicing his concerns in the hopes that 5e, which is coming (and probably sooner than you think), turns out differently than what it is now.
Don't let the streamlined rules, sweet minis, awesome character options, and official support hit you on the way out.
Sweet minis which are nothing but a money grab, poorly painted, and not worth the high price you pay for them.
Awesome character options that one gets when they buy multiple books just to get the same amount (or less) than they got in one book in previous editions. Then again, Wizards is in the business to make money so it's in their best interests to keep producing better and better powers to keep people buying. Can't wait to see PHB 8. Also, if by awesome options you mean powers that all do practically the same thing using the same formula: X[W] + rider effect....yeah, what options.
Finally by "official support", I presume you mean the support that you pay yearly to D&DI for? You mean the support that Wizards of the Coast used to give you for free in 3.x edition? Perhaps you are referring to errata? If you are, then you could get errata for your 2e books as well by mailing TSR and they would send you the most up-to-date errata document via mail. You seem to think that it's somehow the fault of a prior edition just because the internet wasn't pervasive like it is now to obtain that support more easily.
A slight tangent, so forgive me, but I notice that a number of people are/have been saying that in 4e you can't have narrative combat and that you have to have a grid etc. I disagree. I can do a purely narrative combat if I want (no die-rolls at all!), or I can use the combat system in full, or reduce it to a skill check, or whatever. I'm never constrained by a system - whatever the game! Oh, and I don't have a battle-grid, and sometimes I don't use mini's. The rules set for any RPG is simply a tool to be used; it's not a straightjacket.
I think you have that backwards. Why would a player put any emotional effort into a character 'if he dies, he dies'? Disposable characters do not encourage roleplay; there's no point to developing a background and personality for a character that's likely to die, especially with how easily previous editions doled out meaningless death (aka 'save or die').
Dying promotes a very vested interest in your character, it's called self-preservation. In 4e there is very little chance of dying and monsters typically do not do enough damage to really kill a character outright like they could in previous editions. How does that promote any more development or roleplay than prior editions? The players put as much development into the character as they want. If you spent a couple hours coming up with a good backstory for your character and you know it could be easy to die, that should encourage one to take care when playing their character and not take crazy actions or do stupid things. It promoted smart playing. Now one can just wade into battle and hit the healing surge button or have the cleric or warlord or bard heal him and keep going. Add onto that second wind, and one has less incentive to play smartly or even care when their character is assumed to win anyway.
Save or die effects were only meaningless death when in the hands of the DM that tried to punish his players for some reason. Most of the time they were the parts of the monster or whatever that made them cool. You guys who cry "meaningless death" must not have read the spell resurrection, true resurrection, raise dead, etc. Granted that normally wouldn't work someone who was disintegrated, but that's a rarity. Petrification, trap damage, etc. were much more common and easily avoidable with smart playing and use of the aforementioned spells.
A slight tangent, so forgive me, but I notice that a number of people are/have been saying that in 4e you can't have narrative combat and that you have to have a grid etc. I disagree. I can do a purely narrative combat if I want (no die-rolls at all!), or I can use the combat system in full, or reduce it to a skill check, or whatever. I'm never constrained by a system - whatever the game! Oh, and I don't have a battle-grid, and sometimes I don't use mini's. The rules set for any RPG is simply a tool to be used; it's not a straightjacket.
I think I should clear up that by "narrative combat" I mean that combat doesn't rely on a grid and paper. You still use dice to adjudicate damage and saves, you just rely on your imagination to take the place of the map and minis.
With that out of the way, what you are describing is taking the system and chucking the combat rules and using another method to achieve the same result. One could replace combat with a skill check, etc. but then why have the combat system as written at all? One would think you would then be cheating the players out of some of their class's cool abilities like the fighter's ability to mark, etc. That you have to go out of your way to use a different system to achieve the same results of a previous version's combat system speaks volumes (not of you, but of 4e's tactics-heavy approach), at least in my opinion.
I haven't found 4th edition to be ridiculously soft. Sure, a house cat can't assassinate my elven wizard anymore, but when you place them against an actual challenge, they can go down pretty fast.
I understand though that people feel differently about the different editions of D&D. At my friend's Halloween party, everyone was playing Magic while I devoured the 2e Player's Handbook. I made a dwarven fighter named Throg Coalbeard with proficiency (mastery!) in longsword, algebra (though I realized that THAT list was actually a real-world parallel to a D&D-esque skill list), and morningstars. I statted him out and wanted to try him out. (By the way, THAC0, wow.) The only other guy there who played 2e pitted him against a dragon. He won initiative the first round, definitely, and I saved (I think I was doing saving throws vs. Breath weapons right) against his breath and then I tried to hit with my longsword, but couldn't roll a 29 on my d20. I died the next round, so Throg's mission of spreading algebra was cut short.
Was 2e fun? Sure. I remember liking it a lot more when I was 8 and even then, it was a starter set. Could I imagine EVER making a campaign out of it? Never. It's a bit too restrictive for my taste.
Also, 5e coming out sooner than we think? Psh-shaw.
I haven't found 4th edition to be ridiculously soft. Sure, a house cat can't assassinate my elven wizard anymore, but when you place them against an actual challenge, they can go down pretty fast.
I understand though that people feel differently about the different editions of D&D. At my friend's Halloween party, everyone was playing Magic while I devoured the 2e Player's Handbook. I made a dwarven fighter named Throg Coalbeard with proficiency (mastery!) in longsword, algebra (though I realized that THAT list was actually a real-world parallel to a D&D-esque skill list), and morningstars. I statted him out and wanted to try him out. (By the way, THAC0, wow.) The only other guy there who played 2e pitted him against a dragon. He won initiative the first round, definitely, and I saved (I think I was doing saving throws vs. Breath weapons right) against his breath and then I tried to hit with my longsword, but couldn't roll a 29 on my d20. I died the next round, so Throg's mission of spreading algebra was cut short.
Was 2e fun? Sure. I remember liking it a lot more when I was 8 and even then, it was a starter set. Could I imagine EVER making a campaign out of it? Never. It's a bit too restrictive for my taste.
Also, 5e coming out sooner than we think? Psh-shaw.
Wow, that sounds like my first experience with D&D, at recess in 6th grade. I made a character, Evro the elf. Some guy said he was this incredible DM, so we let him run the game. Bam, first door, 3 red dragons. My poor little elf got toasted on the spot.
A bit later I got my hands on the rulebook and found out that you aren't supposed to pit red dragons against first level characters. My second character, Anborn the fighter, had much more luck against the goblins and orcs of the Caves of Chaos than poor little Evro did against the dragons.
Wow, that sounds like my first experience with D&D, at recess in 6th grade. I made a character, Evro the elf. Some guy said he was this incredible DM, so we let him run the game. Bam, first door, 3 red dragons. My poor little elf got toasted on the spot.
A bit later I got my hands on the rulebook and found out that you aren't supposed to pit red dragons against first level characters. My second character, Anborn the fighter, had much more luck against the goblins and orcs of the Caves of Chaos than poor little Evro did against the dragons.
Mine was just this past Saturday. I feel so behind the curve.
I think some of it has to do with the time needed for character creation. In 1E/2E, you could have a PC built from scratch in 15 minutes, with a fully realized background (including traits, disadvantages, etc. if you used the Player's Options books) in another 15 minutes. In 4E, it takes time...a lot of time. I am/was a DDI subscriber, so the CB made it easy as pie to whip out PC after PC in minutes. For those without the online initiative, it takes a long time. You have the PHB, the PHBII, the various Powers books, and the magazines all to draw your powers from. Then you have the PHB, Adventurer's Vault, AVII, and magazines to pick your items from. I've seen PC creation take an entire game session. As a matter of fact, I started devoting the first entire game session to nothing but PC creation with my 5 different groups. It was nothing to see a player take 3 hours to make his/her PC from scratch, including a background.
I call "shenanigans" on this one. If you are playing with nothing but power gamers trying to eke out every little bit of optimization then character creation doesn't take long at all. Pick a race, pick a class, look at the names/descriptions of the powers and take the ones that sound appropriate/cool. If, further down the road you don't like one of your choices there is a built in system to alter what you took.
The longest character creation I have ever seen in 4e was when we converted from Earthdawn (a completely different game system) to 4e for a jaunt through Sigil. They were 18th level characters being adapted from a game that has completely different classes. Took 6 hours.
Dying promotes a very vested interest in your character, it's called self-preservation. In 4e there is very little chance of dying and monsters typically do not do enough damage to really kill a character outright like they could in previous editions. How does that promote any more development or roleplay than prior editions? The players put as much development into the character as they want.
/snip
You guys who cry "meaningless death" must not have read the spell resurrection, true resurrection, raise dead, etc. Granted that normally wouldn't work someone who was disintegrated, but that's a rarity. Petrification, trap damage, etc. were much more common and easily avoidable with smart playing and use of the aforementioned spells.
Isn't this a double standard? Dying easily promotes good preservation skills and smart choices. If you die, don't worry, we'll just raise you.
Why, then, would anyone be worried about dying, or concerned about survival?
If the character is too flimsy, there is little point getting attached to them. Call of Cthulhu, although awesome, comes to mind; you bring three characters and half the fun is trying to have at least one live through it only halfway insane. Without constant revival, which might not be appropriate for certain campaigns, the character is removed from the story far too easily...and all plot hooks, npcs, and concepts tied to the character go up in smoke.
On the other hand, I haven't seen the constant fear of death as necessary for good roleplaying. 7th Sea, for example, states that you won't actually die unless circumstances declare it so. Shot? You'll probably wake up injured. Stabbed? Medical clinic. Fall over the side of the boat? Wash up on shore. The thing is though...it works. You fight to win, not just to live through it, and if you do something stupid enough that circumstances declare you really, really, really don't have a chance in hell, you'll kick the bucket. What does this mean for roleplaying? Well, since combat isn't as vital, you can afford to do flashy, extravagant, or outrageous stunts and moves, swinging, ducking, diving, and generally having a great time swashbuckling it up. Likewise, Eclipse Phase has mental backups of the character's mental profile, and will literally recopy you into a new body if you die. This doesn't kill roleplaying, in fact, the idea that you are close to invicible...but so is everyone else, including your enemies....makes the world a fascinating place.
Fear of death isn't the only thing that can drive RP. There is so much more.
I died the next round, so Throg's mission of spreading algebra was cut short.
