Quote from: Tyberious Funk;1139044Actually, I think what's being illustrated in this thread is that most of the criticisms about 2e are basically that it was different to 1e.  As someone that went from BECMI to 2e (and never played 1e), a lot of those criticisms kinda just blow past me... like the lack of devils/demons/assassins or half-orcs.  It's like... "meh?"  You can't really miss something you never had.

What you start with does make a first impression, but a lot of the people that like 1E didn't start with it either.  I started with one of the Basic red box sets, for instance.  

I think the biggest difference (maybe not in the posts here, because most of the posters are a self-selected group of people with strong interests) are the settings.  If you love 2E Raveloft or Dark Sun or Planescape or any of the others from the big TSR setting push, then some of that love probably attaches to 2E--even in some cases where the setting started before that.  Heck, even the first big expansion of Forgotten Realms was 2E. If those settings didn't grab you, or you just liked Greyhawk or your own thing more, then there is a big chance that 2E didn't grab you all that much either.  

But those are all relative generalities.  I said that 2E was like 3.5 to me, but that's only in the sense that I'd rather play 1E than 2E same as I'd rather play 3E than 3.5.  Yet, I don't dislike 2E the way I do 3.*.  Given the proverbial castaways on a desert resort with nothing but 2E and 3E to pick from, I'd run 2E every time.  Just the game at the table would be bent back to something more like 1E than the typical 2E setting would suggest.

Quote from: Tyberious Funk;1139064Like I said... I went from BECMI to 2e.  We didn't use any of the more advanced BECMI rules... since it was only the DM that even had rulebooks past Basic, we didn't even know some of them existed.  So moving to 2e seemed amazing.  New races, classes, weapons, armor, spells, proficiencies... you could play a dwarven cleric instead of just a 'dwarf', or an elven magic-user instead of an elf, or whatever.  And the books had full colour artwork (not just on the cover).

This was pretty much my experience of D&D. I started out with Basic, then immediately went to 2e (which had recently come out at the time) when I started getting my own books, and I was just blown away by the options--not just because I liked them, but because they were ALL major gripes of mine playing Basic that kept me from truly liking the game (only the idea of it). Then suddenly ALL those gripes were gone. I could finally play dwarves and elves just like a species and treat their profession separately rather than my species being my profession at the same time (which was just DUMB, and NO explanation for why that should be the case from people obsessed with Basic has ever made sense to me). I finally had skills that let me define what my character could do, beyond just killing things and taking their stuff. I could even multi-class and take multiple classes. ALL of this stuff had come up while playing Basic, and I finally had a book that had these rules.

Granted, 1e also had some of this stuff to some extend as well, but I never even saw a 1e book till years later when another player gave me an old crusty PHB with stuff written over it that they didn't want. And stuff like proficiencies was handled through separate supplements, plus level limits and class restrictions were harsher.

Quote from: Tyberious Funk;1139064I remember reading a few Dragon Magazines at the time, and 1e grognards were bitching like crazy.  It goes to show you that edition wars have existed for a very long time.  But to me, having not played 1e... their complaints seemed trivial.  In retrospect, I think it helps to understand younger players.  The edition you start with becomes your frame of reference for everything else.  5e (apparently) bought in a lot of new players... they'll forever define their D&D experiences through that particular edition.

I frequently got into arguments with some of the people I knew who only played Basic (I never met anyone who played 1e) and all of their arguments basically stemmed from 2e being different from Basic. They were also the least likely to play or be able to comprehend ANY system other than Basic D&D. I never had issues with anyone who played Basic but also played other games.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1139086What you start with does make a first impression, but a lot of the people that like 1E didn't start with it either.  I started with one of the Basic red box sets, for instance.

I think the biggest difference (maybe not in the posts here, because most of the posters are a self-selected group of people with strong interests) are the settings.  If you love 2E Raveloft or Dark Sun or Planescape or any of the others from the big TSR setting push, then some of that love probably attaches to 2E--even in some cases where the setting started before that.  Heck, even the first big expansion of Forgotten Realms was 2E. If those settings didn't grab you, or you just liked Greyhawk or your own thing more, then there is a big chance that 2E didn't grab you all that much either.  

But those are all relative generalities.  I said that 2E was like 3.5 to me, but that's only in the sense that I'd rather play 1E than 2E same as I'd rather play 3E than 3.5.  Yet, I don't dislike 2E the way I do 3.*.  Given the proverbial castaways on a desert resort with nothing but 2E and 3E to pick from, I'd run 2E every time.  Just the game at the table would be bent back to something more like 1E than the typical 2E setting would suggest.

It's possible that settings help create nostalgia that's inevitably attached to the edition, since a lot of those settings have strong 2e elements. Dark Sun in particular (which was my first impression of 2e, ever) had a lot of custom material based off the 2e rule set (like custom classes and class changes, notes on proficiencies, etc.), so it had 2e built right into it. And while you could probably modify it to run it on 1e, it probably needed a lot of tweaking and either ignoring or adding the proficiency system. Most settings could be played with any system, though, and even Dark Sun could be adapted to other games (classes could just be ability packages in skill-based/point-buy games), and I think most people play homebrewed worlds or vanilla settings, like FR or Greyhawk, which could easily be played with any edition of D&D.

I came into D&D mainly through PC games in the late 90's (was already into ttrpgs). Got an AD&D intro set and the red box Basic set. This was a weird time to get into D&D since it was right in the middle of the transition into 3ed. 3ed edition turned me off because of its complexity. And I missed the boat on buying the 2ed core books while still in stock. So I have no real nostalgia for either AD&D1ed or 2ed (BECMI though...). But later on I starter collecting for all the TSR D&D systems and OSR stuff around the time Basic Fantasy and OSRIC came along. Lately I've had an urge to play some AD&D and just starting rereading the rules for both versions.  

2ed is easier to read, better organized and easier when to look things up. All respects to Gary, but I dont really see the charm in his writing making up for it. 2ed just seems to me as building on what Gary already done. Looking at 2ed core books I just see essentially the same game as before with its roots in AD&D and Unearthed Arcana. Granted I have the same problems as many others with the skill system. Im not that keen on specialitey priests and wizard schools since it made the whole process of making a spellcaster a chore. Not to mention the preassure to have a fully defined pantheon organized with portfolios at hand (and an excellent way to sell campaign specific books on gods). Especially when you have that guy in your group that demands knowing all details of all spells before making a decision. All three of these things  were good in concept, but not great in execution. But they were all presented as optional and easily ignored like the rest of the 70% of rules one ignores when playing AD&D. 2ed core books works fine for an essential AD&D experience.

It is annoying that classes and the half-orc were cut out. The demons&devils stuff likewise, though I never noticed that much since I already had the Planescape monster compendiums. The Planescape setting made it clear that they were demons&devils and later 2ed books had titels like A Guide to Hell and A Paladin in Hell. The Diablo module is another example. So for me coming into 2ed late, I never had the impression that it was toned down at the time, but rather carrying the Satanic Panic as a badge of honor. Granted this was probably due to WotC buying TSR. But this was still in the 2ed era and this was a trend  that had began with (Dark) Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Dark Sun and Planescape. They are all pretty metal.

2ed went completly bonkers with slicing out parts of modules to sell more shit. By far the most disgusting thing I've seen in this regard was when reading through through the Silver Anniversiary editions for Ravenloft and Dragonlance. You want the stats for majorly important Sunsword for killing Strahd? Buy the latest version of Ravenloft campaign guide/Domains of Dread! Want the full stats and descriptions for those draconians IN THE FUCKING ANNIVERSIARY HOMAGE TO DRAGONLANCE? Buy the Dragonlance Monster Compendium!

Im not getting into splatbooks (those are the true road to hell) since I never touched them except Complete Psionics for use with Planescape and Dark Sun. I have a soft spot for the green historical setting books as well. At least as a concept.

All in all I think 2ed the core game is not that different from 1ed. It is the last edition with a hardcoded lineage from original D&D.

Has anyone ever posted that they loved 2E just the way it was, without any changes?  RAW 2E?

Quote from: Razor 007;1139173Has anyone ever posted that they loved 2E just the way it was, without any changes?  RAW 2E?

Just like ADnD there is no such thing as RAW 2e

Quote from: Razor 007;1139173Has anyone ever posted that they loved 2E just the way it was, without any changes?  RAW 2E?

Well to be fair... was it not always the actual raw  way of playing AD&D just running semi-Basic/Expert with races, classes, new spells, weapons, monsters and magic items from AD&D ? Regardless of edition.

Quote from: Razor 007;1139173Has anyone ever posted that they loved 2E just the way it was, without any changes?  RAW 2E?

I can't say that I loved 2e, because I have issues with D&D in general (pretty much all editions).  But my old group played it pretty vanilla for a number of years and we had a stack of fun.  IIRC, the only house rules we had were around Hit Points -- maximum for the first three levels, and no instant death at 0 HP.  That was mostly because we had a small group and combat would have been too brutal otherwise.  That was basically it.  But we consciously avoided any splat books or any of the players options (though, I owned plenty of them).  Then again, I joined another group in the early 2000s, and they issued me with a small book that covered all their house rules... it was voluminous.  But that was a much larger group, with much higher level character... so I wonder if that was a factor?

We also played BECMI pretty vanilla too.  But the races-as-classes thing was always a problem for me.

Quote from: Razor 007;1139173Has anyone ever posted that they loved 2E just the way it was, without any changes?  RAW 2E?

I can't say so. But then my complaints with 2nd are the same as the ones I had with 1st, so I was already house ruling some things.

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse;1138622Instead of a Monster Manual, we got loose sheets to put in binders. That worked out really well.

There was a physical Monster(ous) Manual book too, and it had some color art in it.

The group I was a  beta test group (credited as Excalibre Gamer's Association I believe in the feebly thin DMG). The proficiency system (including non-Weapon proficiencies) was sort of a big deal. One of our DMs wrote for Polyhedron so we played a lot of different games, and consequently, we got a number of free games that came in as review copies. It seemed to me that a lot of more complex games were coming out, and it made sense for AD&D to pile on. 2e didn't have the same magic as AD&D 1e had, but there was a seemingly unending gusher of support materials for it.

Quote from: Razor 007;1139173Has anyone ever posted that they loved 2E just the way it was, without any changes?  RAW 2E?

While we did not "love" it after a while (reasons above), we played it pretty much RAW. Our only major house rule was point-based ability scores (distribute a flat 70-80-90 points based on DM generosity); otherwise, we ran the game as it was laid down, without the optional rules in the blue boxes.

Quote from: Lynn;1139249There was a physical Monster(ous) Manual book too, and it had some color art in it.

  Although that didn't come out until 1993, and they didn't abandon the loose-leaf format altogether until 1994.

  (But wait ... I thought TSR under Williams was completely deaf to customer feedback and ignored the market until it collapsed, and then Peter Adkison and Ryan Dancey came riding in on the Dragon of Many Colors and of None to save D&D? )

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1139286Although that didn't come out until 1993, and they didn't abandon the loose-leaf format altogether until 1994.

(But wait ... I thought TSR under Williams was completely deaf to customer feedback and ignored the market until it collapsed, and then Peter Adkison and Ryan Dancey came riding in on the Dragon of Many Colors and of None to save D&D? )

The binder thing sure seems like someone made a decision without consulting all parts of the company. Putting a non-standard 'shape' and packaging into retail can be a recipe for disaster. Nobody I knew liked it, either.

Quote from: Lynn;1139336The binder thing sure seems like someone made a decision without consulting all parts of the company. Putting a non-standard 'shape' and packaging into retail can be a recipe for disaster. Nobody I knew liked it, either.

  There seems to have been precedent for it in wargaming. I've heard about ring-bound and hole-punched rule sets, and Rolemaster tried it with the Standard System in the mid-90s, although those were also perfect-bound as well. I think it was an 'interesting idea not quite thought through' and that didn't take into account all the possible problems and changes in the market, not something that came out of thin air.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1139286(But wait ... I thought TSR under Williams was completely deaf to customer feedback and ignored the market until it collapsed, and then Peter Adkison and Ryan Dancey came riding in on the Dragon of Many Colors and of None to save D&D? )

I know that in my area the customers were all screaming for more Buck Rogers products.

Players Option: Skills & Powers is what did in AD&D 2nd edition for me. It caused me to totally lose interest.

If I wanted a similar level of complexity that book brought, I would have still been playing Rolemaster.