Maybe 2e fell into the trap of reverse Star Trek movie quality.  All the odd numbered (A)D&Ds are good, the even numbered ones are lousy.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;453757Maybe 2e fell into the trap of reverse Star Trek movie quality.  All the odd numbered (A)D&Ds are good, the even numbered ones are lousy.

Well, that's a theory that fits my own perspective on the game at this point.

Quote from: Vigilance;453756I think 2e suffers from being the 2nd worst edition of D&D.

Taken on its own merits, it's a good game, maybe even a great one.

However, AD&D, BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia, 3rd edition and OD&D are all *better* versions of D&D, to my mind.

Those aren't put in any particular order btw.

So basically, I think whenever you see people discuss 2e online, they're talking about an edition of D&D they don't prefer. So yeah, there's going to be negative connotations.

Basically. I would never call 2e "great", but 2e is not objectively "abysmal" or "unplayable" by any stretch of the imagination. It's perfectly playable and enjoyable on its own merits. It's just that nearly all other iterations of the game work better for me, each depending on particular circumstances.

I would maintain that 2e has a lot of role-playing options. When you have choices in 3e these lead to mechanical advantages and that leads to the system mastery issue I refered to. Build optimisations and the like to me are not fun.
The Kit model has all the role play colour that comes with options but the benefits are role play based.

Take the Barbarian class from AD&D . The Barbarian was a broken class (I knwo its from UA but ...) and in reality what is a barbarian, just a warrior from a certain society. If all Oriental fighters are Samurai or Kensai, all Arab fighters are Mameluks, all primitive figthers are barbarians then who are the fighters ...? It is far more logical to have fighter and reskin them with kits. The 2e take on a barbarian is much better. It puts the focus into role-playing a barbarian not on all the mecanical advantages of barbarians.

Some Kits were broken or stupid , Bladesinger, 3 armed tree rangers etc ... but the principle which was that there are 4 core classes and a few hybrids (Wizard, Rogue, Figther, Priest with Wiz/Rogues = Bards, Priest/warriors = Paladins/Rangers) and everythign you can imagine fits into that model with minor tweaks.

Priests make sense in 2e in a way they never made sense in older or more recent editions.

NWP are a bit of a kludge. A fully developed skill system would have been an improvement but NWP as written are playable and simple to use with minor tweaks.

Very little that made D&D D&D was lost in the revision, characters could easily be converted, none of the colour was lost. So you used to be a 8th level fighter in AD&D lets convert you to a 8th level warrior and hey maybe there is a kit that suits how you used to play.
Dropping assasins was a minor foible but an assasin is just a rogue with a firm career choice and an assasin kit is easy.
Monks, well you could easily say monks are just fighters with an oriental flavour if you wanted to you might loose some of that colour but .... who is to say a galadiator from the arenas of Ur who trains 6 hours a day would be any worse at combat that a guy that does that in a monestry.

Yes but if I'm going to use what I want out of 1e in 2e why wouldn't I just play 1e instead.

(There, that's a nice welcome mat for the ZOMG HATE GYGAX crowd to stampede in on.)

Quote from: thedungeondelver;453763Yes but if I'm going to use what I want out of 1e in 2e why wouldn't I just play 1e instead.

(There, that's a nice welcome mat for the ZOMG HATE GYGAX crowd to stampede in on.)

Though I do prefer 2E (and I believe my reasons are mostly because I played more of it than 1E), I have been reading the 1E core books and there is definitely something to be said for Gygax's touch. The 1E DMG is a great book IMO. Lots of material as well as explanation (and a clear point of view).

So I was running Swords & Wizardry White Box last year at a convention.  Big honking all-day 14 hour event where players could come and go. It was awesome, we had an average of 8 players at the table, ranging from 4 to 14 players with them running around the ruins of an island slapping monsters, getting treasure and exploring mysteries. Had a total of 22 different players. Much fun for all, especially me.

The thank yous from players were hysterical to me because I spend too much time on forums.  Only one of my players ever heard of Dragonsfoot or the OSR. The older guys were so happy to play 1e again and the middle-age guys were happy to play 2e again. I didn't correct them...because THIS SHIT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER.

Quote from: Spinachcat;453784So I was running Swords & Wizardry White Box last year at a convention.  Big honking all-day 14 hour event where players could come and go. It was awesome, we had an average of 8 players at the table, ranging from 4 to 14 players with them running around the ruins of an island slapping monsters, getting treasure and exploring mysteries. Had a total of 22 different players. Much fun for all, especially me.

The thank yous from players were hysterical to me because I spend too much time on forums.  Only one of my players ever heard of Dragonsfoot or the OSR. The older guys were so happy to play 1e again and the middle-age guys were happy to play 2e again. I didn't correct them...because THIS SHIT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER.

You could probably see some interesting venn diagrams of which editions of D&D are being played by which player in any given session.

Quote from: Cole;453786You could probably see some interesting venn diagrams of which editions of D&D are being played by which player in any given session.

For sure.

When I did the local HMGS cons the only thing close to edition war was the jibes from the now-RPG director guy (mentioned in another post) and (complimentary) comments from the guests saying "This is AD&D like I remember it."

I've never played 2E AD&D.

I got some of the books over the years.  The core books were sort of a dry read.  Some of the 2E setting books were more interesting reading, such as various splatbooks from Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, etc ...

I never had the opportunity to see the system in actual play.  Perhaps I wasn't missing much to begin with?

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;453674I never liked NWPs.  I dislike skill systems grafted onto a class/level based design, to begin with, and NWPs are a half-assed skill system, at that.

The "secondary skill" system is okay; out of all the various skill systems that have been proposed or published for D&D, I think it's the only one that fits well with the games class/level approach.  It's essentially just "hey, this is part of your PC background, so you're familiar with and competent at the stuff you'd expect from that background."

I think NWPs and talents (I think that was the D&D term) were meant to be basically just that, except with

(a) a base number that can be a useful starting point (like Open Doors, Reaction Adjustment, Saving Throws, etc.)
and
(B) in AD&D, some information about the field in question (partly, I reckon, because that's the sort of material people expected to find in the Survival Guides).

I have not read the books lately, so maybe I'm wrongly imagining that the approach I took in practice was in line with the printed advice.

Consider the design itself in light of this "new school" complaint:

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;453672the actual (non-NWP) class abilities also emphasize level over ability scores, while NWP & RC have it the other way around.

It seems to me the difference makes eminent sense in the context of D&D's class/level system.

As the 1st DMG points out in the section on Player Character Non-Professional Skills:

QuoteWhen a player character selects a class, this profession is assumed to be that which a character has been following previously, virtually to the exclusion of all other activities. Thus the particular individual is at 1st level of ability.

First level is the equivalent at least of 'journeyman' status, if not indeed 'master', in other skilled trades. Ordinary toilers even in the field of fighting are but 0-level, the same as common unskilled laborers.

It is curious that NWPs should factor in level at all, as NPC masons and wainwrights do not get fighting or magical ability for attainments in their crafts.

Oh, but they do in 3e, don't they? Watch out for that 6th-level wool carder!

Perhaps the rap against NWPs is that they are a compromise between the "make it up on the fly" secondary skills and the sub-game of 'builds' in WotC-D&D. Those extremes are both more popular, and NWPs get shot down in the crossfire.

From Gygax's DMG again:

QuoteWhen secondary skills are used, it is up to the DM to create and/or adjudicate situations in which these skills are used or useful to the player character.

If provision of materials that can, if the DM so wishes, lighten some of that burden, is some sort of imposition, then most of the DMG (and indeed the bulk of Mr. Gygax's work) could as reasonably be so reckoned.

It is not the procedures' existence but players' attitude toward them that brings them to such prominence as to warrant the all-pervading superstructure added in 3e.

I have never encountered the troubles in Traveller or Runequest that so many AD&Ders insist on making for themselves.

I will grant that the 'pick so many' (or trade one for a bonus) aspect of the NWP rules can be a significant step toward the game of builds, sort of a camel's nose under the tent. That depends, though, on a predisposition to pull in more of the beast!

I forgot to mention that the 1st ed. AD&D rules for the (human) character with two classes further reinforce the point that the classes adventurers pursue in their careers are fully (at least!) as demanding as other occupations.

That apprenticeship in a new class is another thing that falls by the wayside in 3e, further undermining the original class/level design.

The provisions for hirelings also add to the impression I get from the DMG, which includes this about secondary skills:

QuoteTo determine the extent of knowledge in question, simply assume the role of one of these skills, one that you know a little something about, and determine what could be done with this knowledge.

"Knowing a little something about it" suggests to me a tyro's acquaintance, not expertise.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;453688Clearly a perspective that sees 2e as a starting point. The same criticism can be (and has been) applied to all the other versions of D&D before 3e.

It's false for all except 2e.

Even in 2e, it depends upon making a particular choice among options for awarding x.p..

It's in 3e that "Faster pussycat, kill, kill!" becomes the solid rule (both in the gamer culture and by the books).