1e vs. 2e - Which is more fun?

[Spinachcat]

I have played PF 1e original and enjoyed the game back when David Lee Roth was still in Van Halen and when I have played since then at local conventions, the GM runs 1e. So I have not played 2e. I read over the differences in the editions on this forum, but the discussions were mostly mechanical, not issues of fun.

I have asked this question on another site and they complained that "Riftification" of the rules had damaged to coolness of 1e. Do you agree?

For those of you who have played both 1e original and 2e, which do you feel is more fun to play? Why?

I own Adventures in the Northern Wilderness and I am deciding to just hunt down a 1e black cover / red dragon on eBay or buy a new 2e book.

Help me out.

[Sentinel]

I have had fun with both, and I am sure there are people who continue to have great fun with 1st edition.

I like the changes of 2nd edition however; I like characters having SDC and Hit Points, I like the combat being more in line with the other games (although I have long since taken to using N&SS martial arts to beef up my HtH combats), and so on.

[Josh Sinsapaugh]

They're both good.

Though I will say that I have had more fun with 2nd Edition.

~ Josh

[J. Lionheart]

Except for priests, I prefer the 2E rules.

That and 1E had better hand-to-hand skill variety.

2E is smoother and easier to play really, easier to create characters with, and has more variety in everything else. I love 1E and would happily play it any day, but 2E was an improvement in most things.

Here is a thread discussing the differences between the editions. It isn't a debate on which is more fun, it just discusses what's different between them.

[GA]

I liked 1st edition myself. The skills are more streamlined so its easier to make a character, and simpler to play. Second edition has a number of skills that overlap for no good reason, particularly in the wilderness survival area. Also i don't much like the concept of SDC, other than for armor or objects.

[TechnoGothic]

i like 2e, but with just Hit Points, no SDC. Makes it much more deadlier.

[Denaes]

IMO, I like 1e a lot as it's own standalone RPG. I don't like the magic/psionics terribly, but they have flavour. I love each class using specific HTH styles so a Knight actually is more likely to be better at combat than a Theif.

But I like 2e better overal for it's being more compatable with other Palladium stuff. I like being able to snake an OCC or RCC from another book and rebalance them a little... or visa versa.

[lather]

I prefer 1E any day.
The older, the better I think.

[Yisterwald]

Another vote for 1st Edition here. After some initial enthusiasm about 2nd, I found myself drifting back to 1st fairly quickly. Particularly if you have no need for your campaign to be compatible with the rest of the Magaverse, 1st is just cooler. 2nd does have ideas worth lifting, though, so I think most of us who have been exposed to both wind up with a hybrid -- myself included.

[Tigermuppetcut]

1st. Combat was fast, things were dangerous, it was exciting. SDC broke it IMO.

[Entiago]

Fun is Fun. IMMHO both are fun, it's the players that got "Rifterized". In all honesty, when I began playing PFRPG I had no idea there was a difference in the rule books (1e and 2e). I had the 2e main book and all of my other books (OO, AHS, ANW, FANW, M&A) were all 1e. So I was basically playing both at the same time.
I have seen a slight difference in the rules but I played mostly 2e....so my preferance is 2e.

[Ridley]

The only thing that i can think of that should be different is the comabt rules. THe idea of a class having its own comabt rules is cool.

unfortunatly, i have never looked through a first edition core book, so i dont have much else to say.

[Denaes]

2e has (that 1e doesn't) SDC, Physical Skills, figured rather than fixes skill progressions, PPE (with slightly different spells), ISP (with some majorly different psionics) mostly generic HTH combat styles and I believe more OCC abilities.

I'm sure there are other things.

I just really like 1e except that it locks wizards into being combat schmucks without options to break free. Such a D&Dism.

[Rimmer]

Such a D&Dism.

Is that even a word ? anyway, my vote for 1e, but like the others have ued 2e concepts like PPE and stuff.

[Nekira Sudacne]

I like 2nd Ed, of course, i've never so much as seen a copy of 1st ed, so I can't compare.

[maasenstodt]

I have to admit that by virtue of having played in a standout 2nd ed. campaign, I've probably had more fun while using 2nd ed. rules. Nevertheless, my preference for 1st ed. is unwavering.

People have mentioned the more distinct flavor in 1st ed. of magic, psionics, SDC-less characters, and H2H combat skills - all of which are terrific - but I think the fact that characters are quicker to create, the system is a bit quicker to learn, and that gameplay moves faster are important in making it a superior game as well.

I'm currently GMing a Castles & Crusades campaign and having a blast. I mention that because I've found that C&C and 1st ed. PFRPG share quite a bit in common in terms of their seemlessness in play. The main difference is that C&C is actively supported and has, in my opinion, a more refined system. I wish Kevin had not moved to make PFRPG more broadly compatible and simply streamlined 1st ed. even further. Ah well...

[Denaes]

Why would 2e characters take longer to make than 1e characters?

The longest part is picking skills and the skills were even more annoying in 1e to write down the starting percentages.

Next is gear, and thats the same in both.

Adding up physical skill bonuses is the only thing I see adding any time.

Maybe that some classes have more special abilities to copy down?

And why would the system be easier to learn? Technically yes, there is no SDC on people, so that's a single step less. Is there anything else that really changed? I think the more complicated Psionics/Magic offset that a bit.

The HTH skills were really a double edged sword. They ensured the fighter would be a better combatant at higher levels, but it meant that you were all really pidgeonholed.

I think 1e had some things to clean up, but it was a very nice system. Yes, there were definately things to streamline.

[maasenstodt]

Why would 2e characters take longer to make than 1e characters?

I think you hit on most of the key points. Skills (including H2H and physical skills) are more limited in 1st ed. than second, both in number per character and in total selection available. I think the pre-defined skill percentages were not a problem, though I'd grant that 2nd ed. bettered its predecesor in that matter. On the other hand, listing available elective skills with each OCC is better than the 2nd ed. approach IMO.

A couple of other things that I've found easier in 1st than 2nd include the lack of PPE, psionic power selections, and figuring of combat bonuses. And of course, you'ved mentioned the class abilities that were introduced in 2nd ed.

I think 1e had some things to clean up, but it was a very nice system. Yes, there were definately things to streamline.

Yeah, I'd have liked to have seen skill percentages in the 2nd ed. mold. I'd also reduce the total number of skills available since I don't see the need to define characters through rather narrow skills that way (I suppose that's a reason why Castles & Crusades is such a great fit for me). However, I do think introducing a few physical skills and even bonuses for mental skills would be nice. Penalties for low attributes would be nice, too.

Most of all, I'd have liked to see a condensed version of the game that could fit comfortably in a single 64 page rulebook similar to the Moldvay edition of OD&D. Even if it only covered the first 5 levels (and spells and psionics to match), that would have been a sweet product. Another book could have addressed levels 6-10, and another for 11-15. I'm salivating just thinking about it.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Why would 2e characters take longer to make than 1e characters?

I think you hit on most of the key points. Skills (including H2H and physical skills) are more limited in 1st ed. than second, both in number per character and in total selection available. I think the pre-defined skill percentages were not a problem, though I'd grant that 2nd ed. bettered its predecesor in that matter. On the other hand, listing available elective skills with each OCC is better than the 2nd ed. approach IMO.

A couple of other things that I've found easier in 1st than 2nd include the lack of PPE, psionic power selections, and figuring of combat bonuses. And of course, you'ved mentioned the class abilities that were introduced in 2nd ed.

I think 1e had some things to clean up, but it was a very nice system. Yes, there were definately things to streamline.

Yeah, I'd have liked to have seen skill percentages in the 2nd ed. mold. I'd also reduce the total number of skills available since I don't see the need to define characters through rather narrow skills that way (I suppose that's a reason why Castles & Crusades is such a great fit for me). However, I do think introducing a few physical skills and even bonuses for mental skills would be nice. Penalties for low attributes would be nice, too.

Most of all, I'd have liked to see a condensed version of the game that could fit comfortably in a single 64 page rulebook similar to the Moldvay edition of OD&D. Even if it only covered the first 5 levels (and spells and psionics to match), that would have been a sweet product. Another book could have addressed levels 6-10, and another for 11-15. I'm salivating just thinking about it.

I'm not certain it's possible. there's so much magic in Palladium Fantasy for different classes, it'd be mroe than 64 pages on magic levels 1-5 alone, assuming you have nothing on characters in there...

[maasenstodt]

I'm not certain it's possible. there's so much magic in Palladium Fantasy for different classes, it'd be mroe than 64 pages on magic levels 1-5 alone, assuming you have nothing on characters in there...

It would certainly be a challenge requiring a significant streamlining of the text, if not leaving certain classes out altogether. Still, it would have been neat to see.

[Denaes]

It would certainly be a challenge requiring a significant streamlining of the text, if not leaving certain classes out altogether. Still, it would have been neat to see.

Not really much of a challenge at all. Remove a lot of the Palladium World specific fluff prior to the OCCs and you'll have plenty of room if you leave out the psychics & mages.

Also restructuring things so there is actually a single rules section (removing rules from skills, OCCs, Spells, etc) would also clarify/clean things up a bit.

That would still give you levels 1-15 characters, just minus the supernatural guys. Probobly get that in 50 pages or so.

If you leave in the Psychics and Mages it just wouldn't be possible without rewriting the classes. Too many of them can gain spells from any spell level unlike D&D, so restricting it to levels wouldn't even help.

Maybe if you boiled the spells down to like 1-3 line stat blocks, but that would severely hamper the game and their descriptions. Even then you're probobly looking at more than 50 pages by that point. Maybe in 100 pages.

Personally I don't see a fascination in having an incomplete RPG, no matter the size... and I don't even see much of a difference between 50 and 100 pages.

I can see removing all the world info and just having the rules/skills/classes/magic/etc.

I would be extremely interested in just having a set of palladium rules with all the rules in a rules section (not in skills or OCCs or RCCs or monsters or vehicles or weapons - unless it is uniquely specific to that section it's in), the skills streamlined including a single page listing the skills by category with their percentages (rather than without like they have now) and all the OCCs in one section, the Descriptions of the magic, psionics, spells and individual powers in their own sections grouped together, rather than breaking up all the OCCs. And it would have a real index at the back

And while I'm dreaming, it would also come with a coupon for a free Cheesecake from The Cheesecake Factory

[Stattick]

Such a D&Dism.

Coined. As a curse word.

[Nekira Sudacne]

I'm not certain it's possible. there's so much magic in Palladium Fantasy for different classes, it'd be mroe than 64 pages on magic levels 1-5 alone, assuming you have nothing on characters in there...

It would certainly be a challenge requiring a significant streamlining of the text, if not leaving certain classes out altogether. Still, it would have been neat to see.

if you streamline it that much, you take away everything that would make the game worth playing.

[Stattick]

I would be extremely interested in just having a set of palladium rules with all the rules in a rules section (not in skills or OCCs or RCCs or monsters or vehicles or weapons - unless it is uniquely specific to that section it's in), the skills streamlined including a single page listing the skills by category with their percentages (rather than without like they have now) and all the OCCs in one section, the Descriptions of the magic, psionics, spells and individual powers in their own sections grouped together, rather than breaking up all the OCCs. And it would have a real index at the back

Now that's what I'd like to see.

*Sigh* As much as I now dispise D&D, at least the player's handbook was well organized. At least 2nd Edition was. I never bought a 3rd Edition one, or a 3.5, or a 4.0, or... hey what they up to now? They're making a new edition every 2 years now, or is it every 3? And they're charging how much for the current edition, $50 or something?

[maasenstodt]

Personally I don't see a fascination in having an incomplete RPG, no matter the size... and I don't even see much of a difference between 50 and 100 pages.

I have a strong, negative reaction to games that call themselves complete but are not actually so. That's a major reason behind my frustration with Palladium in recent years with entries like Chaos Earth. But there is a difference between incomplete and limited in scope. RPGs like the old D&D basic set aren't incomplete at all. Rather, they simply aren't as expansive as they could be. That's not a bad thing; quite the contrary in some cases.

As for the size of a game, I suppose I just appreciate a concise, pithy RPG. Many of my favorites (e.g., Moldvay D&D, Ork!, EarthAD, Buck Rogers: HAC, The Mechanoid Invasion) are tightly written, packing a lot of content into a small package, often about 60 pages or less. PFRPG (1st ed.) always appealled to me for its easy mechanics and cool character possibilities, but it never fit into anything less than 250+ pages. Given that I've never taken to Kevin's work for its flowerly language or storytelling, I think it could stand to benefit from being distilled - streamlined. Getting down to 60 pages might be tough, but it would also showcase the best and most important aspects of the game, leaving the rest for supplements.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Personally I don't see a fascination in having an incomplete RPG, no matter the size... and I don't even see much of a difference between 50 and 100 pages.

I have a strong, negative reaction to games that call themselves complete but are not actually so. That's a major reason behind my frustration with Palladium in recent years with entries like Chaos Earth. But there is a difference between incomplete and limited in scope. RPGs like the old D&D basic set aren't incomplete at all. Rather, they simply aren't as expansive as they could be. That's not a bad thing; quite the contrary in some cases.

As for the size of a game, I suppose I just appreciate a concise, pithy RPG. Many of my favorites (e.g., Moldvay D&D, Ork!, EarthAD, Buck Rogers: HAC, The Mechanoid Invasion) are tightly written, packing a lot of content into a small package, often about 60 pages or less. PFRPG (1st ed.) always appealled to me for its easy mechanics and cool character possibilities, but it never fit into anything less than 250+ pages. Given that I've never taken to Kevin's work for its flowerly language or storytelling, I think it could stand to benefit from being distilled - streamlined. Getting down to 60 pages might be tough, but it would also showcase the best and most important aspects of the game, leaving the rest for supplements.

I think we have a disagreement as to what's important.

To me, it's Kevin's storytelling of his setting that makes Palladium Fantasy worth playing.

I just want a generic fantasy setting, that's all D&D basic set is good for.

[Denaes]

As far as flavour text, especially in relation to the setting (it is a RPG with a setting after all), flowery text is fine there. You don't want a concise encycopedic history and writeup on elven society, thats just boring.

As far as rules go, I want to just see the rule listed clearly and thuroughly, yet concise. No padding. Just the rule in complete text and exceptions to the rule. If at some other point you introduce a special circumstance (like a Monks ability to Parry Arrows) you clearly reference the rule, not repeat it slightly differently, and exactly how it differs.

Ideally an Index exists so you can find these little rules. In Palladiums case, if they just stuck them together, it wouldn't be a big deal as there are only like 20 pages of actual rules in the system.

But thats just my take on it and this isn't a write/wrong thing, just a matter of preference.

[runebeo]

I like second but first was so fast to play. And now dragons have thousands of hit points & sdcs. Satan got booted who was cool at 666 hit points.