I've looked at Buck Rogers in the XXVc's skills and thought, Hey, if I ever run AD&D 2nd Ed. again like I keep threatening to, here's my upgrade pack...

Quote from: David JohansenTotally messed up weapon stats.

Including secondary skills and non-weapon proficiencies in the same book.  

Non-weapon proficiencies that didn't mesh with theives abilities.

Complete books of cheese.  

Everything above is pretty much a 1e thing still wrong with 2e.  It doesn't give a reason for preferring 1e over 2e.  1e rules were a mess, 2e applied only a few bandaids.  It went from one variety of art of varied quality to another variety of art of varied quality.

Mechanically, I found 2e superior.  I thought the demon renames and the other lip services to PC were stupid but just ignored them.  2e also brought new settings - most of them had limited replay value but they did offer new options.

Quote from: Monster ManuelOne thing I did like about 2e rules was Thac0. I'm not a math guy, but i heard it was used by some 1e groups, is that true?

I think a lot of games sat in limbo-land between 1e and 2e. Pieces here and there from both.

I played 2e from the time it came out until I headed off to college, and even a few times since then.

I don't think it's a bad game, really.  I did think it was an improvement over 1e.

What it lacked for me, though, was a sense of wonder and mystery.  I got a lot more of that out of the 1e books.  Admittedly, though, part of that 'wonder & mystery' was along the lines of, "I wonder why I need a random insanity table?"

The 2e PHB was pretty devoid of flavor, overall.  It tried to address the power creep that seemed to happen pretty inevitably with 1e, but went too far.  (Sorry, but I really don't think Relf was a playable character for most dungeoneering games )

System-wise, it was stronger than 1e.  It had many improvements, particularly in monsters and whatnot.

3e drastically improved on both, in my mind.

With that said, were I to go back to any previous edition, I think I'd pick 1e or RC.  I'd be doing it for the sake of nostalgia, and I have a lot more 1e nostalgia than 2e.

-O

Quote from: Monster ManuelOne thing I did like about 2e rules was Thac0. I'm not a math guy, but i heard it was used by some 1e groups, is that true?

Thac0 was a big improvement on tables - you just remember your number and you know what you need to hit any AC.  3E is essentally the same thing but they made high AC good to that people didn't have worry about subracting negative numbers.

Quote from: Monster ManuelOne thing I did like about 2e rules was Thac0. I'm not a math guy, but i heard it was used by some 1e groups, is that true?

The whole anti-THAC0 argument mystifies me.  When I got into AD&D1 around 1984 or 85, most of the modules were already using THAC0.  It was simple.  You subtracted the armor class from the THAC0 number to find what you needed to roll to hit.  It was easier to do than searching through the book or cross referencing a GM's screen for the to hit charts.

(The only complicated part was if you were following the "6 20s rule" from the AD&D1 DMG.  But I'm pretty sure that even Gary didn't know about it 10 minutes after he wrote it.)

But some people (not meaning you MM) act like THAC0 requires them to do advanced trigonometry or something.  I mean, yeah, subtraction is a slightly less intuitive operation than addition, and there are instances where you'll be subtracting negative numbers (adding), but come on!

Quote from: GabrielBut some people (not meaning you MM) act like THAC0 requires them to do advanced trigonometry or something.  I mean, yeah, subtraction is a slightly less intuitive operation than addition, and there are instances where you'll be subtracting negative numbers (adding), but come on!

Yeah, Thac0 was pretty basic. My group and I used to actually get a kick out of calculating it and finding out what our chances were.

When I said I wasn't a math guy I was trying to say that I never would have come up with it independently at that age. Using it once I could read how to do it was very easy.

Quote from: blakkieI think a lot of games sat in limbo-land between 1e and 2e. Pieces here and there from both.

Absolutely. Mine did too, especially at the beginning. The first class I wrote up was a psionicist class before the Complete Psionics Handbook came out. It sucked, but we had fun with it.

Pretty much what David and Cali said. I guess one can't argue that in some ways 2E was an "improvement", i.e. at least there *were* secondary skills now, plus the Bard was properly boring, as opposed to being this awesome figure of legend whose stats you will never ever manage to roll up. But that's just it. It's like 1E rewritten by Lev Lafayette. 2E was turning into something else, except not really. Worst of two worlds.

Also, Skillz & Powerz, Players Options, etc.

A lot depends on whether 2E was your first D&D game or not. If it was, you're probably ok with it, and in that case 1E will look like a bambling, senile greatuncle.

I realize that Planescape, Dark Sun etc. were probably great settings. If you played Planescape and stayed away from the Realms, you were probably playing a really valid successor to 1E. Me, I just couldn't bring myself to check it out after reading the 2E PHB.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAlso, Skillz & Powerz, Players Options, etc.

Those were crap but they cam on the tail end of 2e, maybe 6-7 years after the phb.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI'm also not sure why, but I feel like D&D3, and 3.5, I'm back to that freedom. Although now, it's not a matter of making things up, as it is knowing the way the rules work.

"Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty." - Henry M. Robert

Of course he was military AND an engineer. So he's going to have a more rules orientated view on things. But the longevity of his Rules Of Order are a testimate to explicit rules structure done right having a great deal of value.

Quote from: GabrielBut, enough of that. The cry of hardcore fandom is that AD&D2 sucks as much as the Palladium system.

AD&D2 and Rifts brought about similar experiences.  The buying of endless supplements by the players and GM that eventually knocked the system off it's hinges.  It also brought about my nostalgia phase and a minimalist approach to purchasing RPGs.  Just the core, I'll work from there thank you very much.

Quote from: blakkieOf course he was military AND an engineer. So he's going to have a more rules orientated view on things. But the longevity of his Rules Of Order are a testimate to explicit rules structure done right having a great deal of value.

Yeah well, so does Eco's notion of the open, rather than closed, work of art.

As rules I always compared AD&D 2nd to B/X D&D and felt let down by the unwieldy juggernaut of rules crud that had buried such an elegant frame. I wondered if Advanced was supposed to mean unwieldy and over-complex. The best thing AD&D2 had were the incredible settings made in its name.

Then again I don't mind RIFTS, so note that my life is replete with such contradictions.

Quote from: NicephorusThose were crap but they cam on the tail end of 2e, maybe 6-7 years after the phb.

I think that's one of the problems here - a lot of people judge AD&D 2e off of the crappy supplements and splatbooks it gained later.  A lot of us just used the core books and did just fine.

It's the equivalent of judging AD&D 1e by the incredibly shitty and poorly written Unearthed Arcana book.  Just because UA was a mess doesn't mean that 1st ed as a whole sucked.

Judge by the core books, people.  Nearly every game has at least one or two crappy supplements come out for it later on.