1E vs. 2E

[Forest Eyes]

I was wondering what everybody's opinions on which version they preferred. Call me crazy, but I prefer 1E. The 2E books are beautifully put together, but I think some of the rules got too complicated for their own good. The tick system looks great on paper, but in practice I prefer simpler, more elegant combat. Sure, there are probably some easy abuses in 1E combat, but honestly I prefer less numbers to more. The other major advancement is Excellency Charms, and while they're a good idea, I feel like they make charms less special.


I'm also not really a fan of social combat. Maybe the goal was to make social characters balanced with combat characters, but honestly I prefer to use dice in combat situations more abstractly. Getting too boggled down with rules doesn't make as much sense to me. Maybe it makes social situations less arbitrary, but if you have a good storyteller, NPC reactions shouldn't seem arbitrary to begin with. More rules don't make better STs.


Any other thoughts?

 

[Ledaal Kajiri]

I onj the other hand am fond of social combat having rules. In 1E there is no protection against someone simply rolling 5 successes on a social roll and then telling anyone and everyone what they were going to be doing. After all, that's what the examples in the rules listed. Now, in no game I played did we allow such, but it was theoretically the rules. Now there is a reasonable system. Do we use the dice for every conversation? No. But if something is unsure, or someone is trying something major, having a proper system is a good thing. Overall, I think the charm system is better put together. There are exceptions, and sometimes a writer forgets the changes between editions, but overall the system is much smoother. The downsides are of course the books which have not come out yet, and needing to relearn things to some extent. Overall, I think it's worth it, even if I'm still a bit annoyed at 1E being half finished when it was halted...I would have liked to see caste books for the remaining castes...the aspect books gave me hope that such would be worthwhile...even if the solar caste books did not.

 

[memesis]

The tick system looks great on paper' date=' but in practice I prefer simpler, more elegant combat.[/quote']
The tick system works great in practice too.  You don't worry about initiative declaration or rolling, you just run figures around a circle.  You don't roll defenses anymore, which speeds things up.  Everything happens at once so you don't have to suddenly adjudicate wound penalties for your attack.

Sure' date=' there are probably some easy abuses in 1E combat, but honestly I prefer less numbers to more.[/quote']
It is not clear what "more numbers" you are referring to.  2E combat involves fewer rolls, the same overall number of stats to consider (initiative vs. join battle, defense roll vs. DV, speed vs. speed).  So please be specific, because as of right now you don't seem to have a case.

Maybe it makes social situations less arbitrary' date=' but if you have a good storyteller, NPC reactions shouldn't seem arbitrary to begin with. More rules don't make better STs.[/quote']
If you have a good Storyteller, you don't even have to roll combat either.  Perhaps 30% of the encounters in my games have been combat and nobody rolled a single die.  This whole "a good enough ST" thing is basically crap, because it doesn't mean anything.


All rules exist to support the Storyteller.  If a ST wants mechanics for resolving social situations where he either can't or won't rule by fiat, he now has some.  He is not obligated to use them, though.  But given the choice of using a tool you don't have, or not using a tool you do have, wouldn't you rather have the rules?

 

[Samiel]

Social Combat.


No topic is as contentious in second edition. I have several reccomendations to anyone disliking the new system, which allay most objections.


1) Firstly, remove the word "Combat" from the name and it'll immediately seem more worthy of consideration.


2) Generally you won't need it. Don't break out the system where RPing will suffice adequately.


3) Remember that despite what the rules say, an Extra will certainly not spend 4 willpower to resist that charm. Hell, it's a charm; he probably won't even spend 1.


4) When someone has to spend willpower to resist an attack, it's because they were convinced, and are refusing to accept the point on obstinacy alone. This important detail clears up much confusion.


5) Remember that despite initial appearances, it doesn't have to take away from good roleplaying, and with good flow and a good group the system can take place on the table without interrupting the discussion above.


6) Note carefully the use of intimacies and motivations, and consider that the willpower-per-scene limit can be worked around through stunts and use of a character's motivation.


7) The system is best used only when there is a conflict; discussions and negotiations need not feature the system unless it's come down to a heated argument of a stubborn deadlock, in which case the system sorts out the trouble and helps things move along nicely.


There's more to this, but ultimately the point is, the 2e Social System can be used to great effect if you read it carefully and consider it in a positive light. It was well overdue, but if you don't like it you can abstract it away without much trouble.


Combat: The Tick System


The 2e combat system uses ticks, and the lack of a framework to sort out how this is handled means many people are left confused or irritated by a seemingly cumbersome system.


Personally, I found the 1e combat system to be very cumbersome: calculating and remembering inititives and sorting through all the initiative-modifying effects, sometimes mid-turn, made for a headache of a time whenever combat erupted.


If you pick and stick to a good tick system, you will not have this problem, and the combat will flow more realistically and with more feel for the action.


The system I use involves counters: Whenever someone takes an action, they take an appropriate number of counters (I use the Exalted Mote Counters). I, as ST, declare Tick! between actions until someone diminishes to 0 ticks and acts.


In this way, as long as people are paying attention the combat is a steady flow from action to action. If you want to take note of movements, have everyone show/declare their moves each tick also, but it's still faster than the turn system by far.


So far my only objection to the 2e tick system is how few ticks the average action involve, so that speed ratings have an inflated importance and charms like Distracting Finger-Gesture Technique are overpowered by far.


Combat: Techniques


The techniques are, in my opinion, a welcome addition to 2e. Although nobody wants an overly complex system in a dramatic game like Exalted, there are often occasions when a player declares "I cut his arm off" or the like, attacks which should be possible without charms but aren't covered in the rules and are hard to house-rule on the fly or with balance.


The techniques in 2e are added to cover thes occasions, rather than as a permenant and encouraged staple of the combat system. Players seeking to abuse a rule continually (such as the surprise attack rules, which are cumbersome and slow combat if abused) should be 'disabused' of the notion and asked to have some sense. They are clarifications, not suggestions, for the most part.


Conclusion


2e rocks, and it's got lots of extra stuff in it that doesn't suit everyone. However, it's a much better system at a fundamental level and the charms so far (Barring Immaculate Martial Arts and some DB charms...) seem to be better balanced and measured than in 1e by far: Solars can finally compete, and Lunars look set for a fix.


If you're still with the old system, you should seriously consider moving to the new. It's not hard, even if you're using rules with no published revision in 2e (Combat is the only big change, and it's easily translated with a bit of effort..).


2e Wins.

 

[Flyck]

I agree with Samiel.


At first glance towards the Tick System (hereafter TS in my post), I was very confused.  Hell, I had to put my book down, ponder over it, and pick it up  later to finally begin understanding it.  Especially since in my gaming group I was the first among us to fully read thru and understand the 1e Power Combat, and run it by everyone as to how it worked.  But now that I've read over 2e's TS, I understand why the change and welcome it.


For those of you who know, or don't care, skip this paragraph.  1e core-combat ran into the problem of what the Devs found to be the 'race to initiative 0'.  They found that no matter what someone's initiative was, it was more advantageous to hold their action to respond or 'interrupt' something if came up.  Eventually, they were seeing whole combat scenes where every action was held until the final '0' count, where it all exploded anyways.  Hence, 1e Power Combat was written in the Player's Guide.  Partly to address this, and partly to tweak the system a bit.  Of Power Combat's several changes, one of the major ones was penalizing someone who held their action.  For each initiative count held, they accrued a -1 penalty as they effectively began loosing their window of opportunity.  As my own gaming group found out (and I assume many others), this seemed to unjustly penalize players who literally had 'nothing better to do' with their actions.  If there were no targets at the moment (i.e. they were well behind cover and you beat them disgustingly on Initiative), then holding your actions for them to show accrued an often heinous penalty that got even worse the better your character was.  The 2e TS helps rectify this, while putting more emphasis on the actions your take and your positioning.  Furthermore, I particularly like the idea of standardized 'defense values' that just passively help you avoid incoming attacks (with penalties to them depending on your action).  Not exactly a new concept, but one I very much appreciate.


Overall, as a player who very much enjoys the customization and flexibility that Exalted gives to your characters, I find that what I like most of all is the much larger array of 'stuff'.  1e's Core Rules and even the Player's Guide were all a bit lacking in 'stuff' to find.  "I want an artifact great hammer...  well, there's Goremauls..."   "I want a big ass Scythe...  I guess I'll run a Grande Daiklave as one."  IMHO, one of the coolest things to 2e, the larger array of stuff, even if you're not taking into account the Mundane items.  I found that 1e tended to make you focus on the side books (such as Outcastes) to find interesting 'extra' items.  In 2e, even if the main book isn't enough, "Wonders of the Lost Age" will provide you with a disgusting amount of 'extra crap' to ponder over and attempt to bribe the ST to let you have.  Hell, Windblade's have quickly become a favorite of mine, and I was overjoyed to see an artifact switch-blade dagger.  Despite the repair issues, you can bet I'll be working on making a propper knife-fighter for my next character.      


Overall, I give 2e a thumbs up.  At first I was a bit confused and aggravated by it, but I've found it's kinda grown on me now...

 

[Flagg]

While 2E's by no means a perfect product, and portions of it could have  been written less confusingly, it does do a good job of correcting many of 1E's rather glaring shortcomings. I'm all for it.

 

[Dracogryff]

The fact that they seem to have fixed the overblown XP costs, speedbump charms and 'two survivable builds' that the Lunars suffered in 1E aside (yes, I'm a Lunar fangirl), 2E is actually easier to me. The fact that I no longer have to split to be able to defend (or use charms...but I'm not going to go into why I had issues with defensive charm usage...it's largely explained by 'I play mostly Lunars') is a wonderful thing in it's own right. I'm not as happy with the static defense, but it's certainly not the useless one they give you in NWoD, from what I've heard. This one actually works and has a chance of keeping you from getting hit.


I admit, I still am not completely fond of the tick system (though Samiel's idea of counters sounds like it might make it a lot less confusing to me...I think I might like to try that next 2E game session), but the rest of the fixes to the combat system make it flow a good deal better, from what I've seen.


And the social system (don't care whether it's called combat or not) makes me a lot happier actually having a SYSTEM at all. Sure, I'm likely to try to RP things out more than roll in a social situation, but knowing exactly how easy or hard it would be to convince someone of something is much better than a 'did I get at least one success?' sort of succeeding that 1E had. I was afraid of playing a social focused character in 1E because I didn't have any rules for how I would go about actually succeeding at doing something like seducing the Immaculate Monk with my legendary appearance former concubine Lunar...and just using a charm and thus succeeding takes all the fun out of it. Actually having an MDV to attack makes it so that I can actually probably enjoy doing this sort of thing. *chuckles*


On the whole...even though it still has its flaws (but, what doesn't?), I feel that the improvements 2E made over 1E make the issues I have quite minor by comparison.

 

[Samiel]

The constant DV defence is great, it speeds combat immesurably.


I'm seriously looking forward to the Lunars book. I only worry that they might occilate a little too much and make them better than Solars...


I'll accept "Better at close combat", but not "Better outright".

 

[Flyck]

While I haven't seen anything on the new Lunar book yet, I'm hoping that it's as good as they're hyping.  The Lunar concept has always been a close 2nd-favorite of mine.  But I agree that they were tragically given the-shaft in 1e.  Not to say they weren't capable of being bad-asses...  but generally speaking alot of the charms were bland, and the best bang for your buck was always Deadly Beastmen Tranformation...  Which honestly, I never say a PC Lunar without it.


-edit-


You raise a good point, Samiel.  I too hope they give them their due respect without making them 'better outright'.

 

[Dracogryff]

Well, according to the charm writer, they see the Lunars as having better versatility than Solars, but the Solars still come out on top. The fact that the charm costs for a Lunar are 10/12 (11 for Knacks) to a Solar's 8/10 alone gives the Solar an edge. I'm so very glad it's no longer the 12/15 insanity of 1E...blah. Will have to wait the two weeks till it comes out to know for sure, but it sounds like the Solars will have better staying power, while the Lunar will be more deadly immediately, but could get into trouble if they don't kill the enemy before then, they could be in trouble.

 

[Samiel]

Looks like:


1) They've taken shapeshifting to a non-charm system,


2) They've rewritten the charm system, hopefully social will remain based on social attributes, physical on physical etc. this time around..


3) They've added a lot to the Lunar setting and character. Can't wait to read about the factions and the many rivers thinger..

 

[Flyck]

Yeah, everything looks promising at the moment.  I know a player who'll be feverishly rewriting his character the minute the book is released, and our group gets it's dirty little hands on it.

 

[Dracogryff]

*chuckles* I'll probably be rewriting two of mine.

 

[Vanman]

I agree that 2E is superior to 1E, particularly in combat. Flyck's assessment of the '0' initiative count is spot on. I had this problem when I ran my 1E game, and had to implement the penalty for holding actions. The tick system takes care of this. I won't go into the other arguments made, since they've already been made, other than to say having the standardized defenses is vastly superior.


As for Lunars, I think I've stated before that I haven't read the 1E book because it just didn't interest me. But the 2E Lunars book greatly interests me. And I might just have to read the 1E book now so I can compare and contrast. I haven't decided yet - it may just be better to simply leave it alone and not taint my mind - but I'm getting the Lunar book.

 

[wordman]

I still play 1E because my players fear 2E (and, this campaign has been running for years already in 1E). I play around with 2E, though. Random observations:

• The tick system tends to keep players more engaged and interested than 1E, as they are usually not waiting around as long (or, at least it seems that way).
  
• The tick system is a definite and workable fix to the "race to zero" problem.
  
• 2E combat seems a bit more "arithmetic-y" than 1E.
  
• The basic idea of the passive defense/DV system does speed combat.
  
• When you look more deeply into the DV rules, particularly in how "dice pool" limits and penalties apply, they become contradictory and confusing, to the point where it is actually not possible to play them as written. You have to choose a handful of rules to ignore, or the system makes no sense. Worse different groups can legitimately choose to ignore different sets of rules and end up with multiple different, yet entirely workable, systems.
  
• The social combat system is primarily useful in dealing with magical metal effects. It is ten times better than 1E's way of dealing with metal attacks (although, ten times zero...). Other than that, I don't use it.
  
• I don't think we'll see the true impact of the DV system until the lunar and fair folk books come out. In 1E, these character types more or less lacked persistent defenses, which made a big difference.
  
• Charms are, for the most part, more tightly considered in 2E, making a more balanced game.

 

[Ledaal Kajiri]

Dragonblooded already also lacked persistent defenses...and they seem to be pretty reasonable in the new system. Then again, they remain the tac nukes...very shortlived essence pool, particularly since you will need to use their free reflexive ability pretty heavilly, but deadly until it runs out. We'll see how DV interacts further with the addition of more magical beings that lacked persistents, but DBs and mortals already did, and don't seem to have changed too much. It'll be interesting to see a bit more of the mortal level of things in the next game my wife'll be running... see how things look on the low magic level as PCs.

 

[wordman]

Dragonblooded already also lacked persistent defenses...

Dragon Blooded can also use reflexives whenever they want, so lack of persistants didn't suck quite as bad.

 

[Haku1]

In 1st Ed, DBs had limited persistents, such as 5 Dragon Defense, which allowed a persistent parry equal to their essence.


Defense from Anathema Method ( 1e DB Resistence ) allows a DB to add their essence to the difficulty level of magical enhanced attacks directed at them by anathema; solars, lunars, sidereals... which stacks on whatever defense the DB essays.


Arrow Consuming Flame Defense ( 1e DB Dodge ) allows for a persistent defense against ranged weapon if using mortal arrows and not some anathema essence construct or artifact weaponary. It also gives a bonus to soak.


Unassailable Body of Flame Defense from the 1e Fire Aspect book allows a DB to turn into flame for a turn, persistent defense for a turn, which IS useful even if draining.


So, DBs DO have persistents, they're just limited.

 

[Jack1]

Most points I would have made have already been covered by others, so I'll just chime in and say that 2nd is definitely better.

 

[Samiel]

You are posting in this quality thread.

 

[Vanman]

Look! Over yonder hill.


Could it be........Sir Spamalot?


:wink:

 

[Samiel]

Riding astride his salted horse! Hark! He bears tidings of ch33p vyrgra!

 

[Forest Eyes]

I've noted the "race to initiative 0" problem, but I've never run into that problem with any games I've run or participated in--maybe because even if players want to metagame that badly, storytellers won't. Waiting to see what your opponent does before acting is one thing, having an entire battlefield stare each other down for a while is a completely different kettle of fish, and is, in fact, metagaming.


I can see objectively why the tick system is better, I'm just still not entirely comfortable with it for some reason. Maybe I'm just making it more complicated in my head than it actually is. In any case, most of the people I play were familiar with other White Wolf games before they played Exalted, so 1E is more comfortable for them. Still, maybe one day I'll make the cross over.

 

[Flyck]

I will say this about DBs in 2e...  I've stumbled upon some thoroughly disgusting combinations with their abilities.  So far, my favorite being the Earth Caste one that adds +5 Strength to any 'feat of strength' involving earth.  The catch 22, is that it mentions for the purposes of use in combat for attacking, a weapon made of Jade is considered a suitable earth-based material for the charm.  This means, that if you're a Str 4 DB wielding say...  a Grand Goremaul of Jade, and you decide to REALLY lay the smackdown...    :twisted:

 

[Ker'ion]

In a game I just ran Wednsday, one of my players is a giant with a goremaul (the same as his last character was).  In a MA tourney, he swung at an Essence 5 Air Aspect and she botched her Dodge roll.  Needless to say, full Accuracy pool as successes, plus Strength (of 11!), plus 16B weapon damage, he knocked her ass across the ring and into the wall.  Quickest damn fight of the night.