So these are my thoughts:

1. 2e is not considerably worse than 1e, system wise. It's just somewhat less aesthetically appealing, having been made more lukewarm and less edgy.

2. 1e was first. The appeal of going back to the origin is a lot more than any appeal of "going back to an edition that existed at a certain point in time but wasn't first, and was later replaced by another system".

3. People who were around in the 1e era and stuck with 1e when 2e came around are committed. People who were around and switched to 2e already updated once, so there was less rationale for them to stay loyal to 2e when 3e (and later 5e) came along.

Yes.

I am actually GMing 2e AD&D currently, because I'm running a Council of Wyrms* campaign and it's a lot easier just to stick with the 2e dragon stats it's built around. I went with a single unified saving throw (add hd to roll, need 20+) and ascending AC, but I didn't want to have to convert the 2e dragon stats, spells etc to a different version. The 1 minute combat round works well when the PCs are 100' long invincible flying demigods/battleships.

But in terms of flavour, 1e is a lot more edgy/cool/interesting. I recently re-bought a copy of the 2e PHB for the CoW game, it cost me on ebay all of £1.50, ca £4.50 with postage & packaging. Clearly 2e is not hugely sought after. Compared to the 1e PHB the presentation is clearer, more accessible... and less fun.

*I love how they say that chromatic/evil dragons are NPC only, in compliance with the TSR Ethics Code, then give full XP tables and everything needed for my players to play them as PCs.

I prefer 2nd to 5th, but don't have anyone that wants to play it.

You can just get the three core books for 1e and it's great.  For whatever reason, 2e didn't seem to get it's legs unless you had all the Complete Books.  

I also think that 1e was a bit more focused on what kind of game it was.  2e came across as trying to encompass a lot more territory for better or worse.  

All that being said, I really liked vibe of 2e.

I enjoy 3.5/Pathfinder and 5E yet I still have most of my 2E book. I prefer 2E over 1E even if I find the advice for how DMs are supposed to act towards player in terms piss poor imo. Their seems to be at least to me a vibe of player vs DM. Players have high stats target their weak saves. Low stats not a problem play a flawed to very flawed character even if in 2E low stats are a major liability imo. Player wants to keep using a Silver weapon for every fight. Punish him by making it snap and bend. I dug out my old 2E books and while I still enjoy it I can see why so many DMs were jerks during it's heyday. Don't even get me started on the example fight scene they use to explain initiative .

Talk about all your player stereotypes wrapped up in one. If it's not the dumb Dwarf Fighter charging Orcs because "me dumb Dwarf Fighter me charge when me see ORCS!!!" ignoring the rank of Trolls walking forward. The Wizard who seems lost and out of her element and seems only able to cast Fireball even when her own party in the way. While needing to be almost yelled at not too when other players tell her not to. The DM seems  a equally bigger dick " c'mon c'mon pick a spell or you lose your turn".

I enjoyed playing both 1E and 2E and would do so again with the right DM for 2E. No wonder their was a rash of " I am god" DMs in my neck of the woods for awhile those really don't do a good job of teaching potential DMs a much needed dose of humility.

Selective observation of your area and/or 2e players don't bother with Convention presence? :confused:

I hear of plenty of home games and a lot of happy nostalgia about it around me.

Again I never said no one could ever get any enjoyment from it. Seeing how less adversarial and more player friendly later editions are imo. I can see why some may not want to play it. If I were to follow what they suggezt to do to players in certain cases. My group would pick me up and toss me outside the nearest window of my third store apartment head first.

I enjoyed and would enjoy playing and or running a 2E game. My first advice to anyone wanting to run it for the first time is to ignore most of the DM advice in the DMG.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1028126So these are my thoughts:

1. 2e is not considerably worse than 1e, system wise. It's just somewhat less aesthetically appealing, having been made more lukewarm and less edgy.

2. 1e was first. The appeal of going back to the origin is a lot more than any appeal of "going back to an edition that existed at a certain point in time but wasn't first, and was later replaced by another system".

3. People who were around in the 1e era and stuck with 1e when 2e came around are committed. People who were around and switched to 2e already updated once, so there was less rationale for them to stay loyal to 2e when 3e (and later 5e) came along.

My personal answers (i.e., not trying to draw any general conclusions):

1. While 1e and 2e are quite similar, system-wise, where there are differences I usually either prefer the 1e variation or I think that 2e had a good idea but a poor implementation. An example of the first type is 2e's changes to initiative. The 2e initiative rules are inarguably clearer and simpler than 1e initiative, but they introduce effects that I dislike. An example of the second is specialist magic-users. I think this is a fine concept (and one mentioned in the 1e books), but I find 2e's implementation of the idea to be bland and poor. I'd much rather create dedicated subclasses for specialist magic-users. In my case, the small system differences are significant enough to affect my preferences.

2. As you mention, I find 2e to be less appealing in presentation, prose, and general tone/feel, as well.

3. I adopted 2e when it was released, but eventually abandoned it. Both of the above reasons went into that decision. Also, I distinctly recall going through a period where almost every 2e purchase I made (from the rule books, to supplements, to adventure modules) ended up in buyer remorse. I kept buying 2e material thinking "this sounds cool," and ended up disappointed. Those experiences undoubtedly helped shape my opinion of 2e, as a whole.

I wonder if this is really true. Anecdotally, the only AD&D campaigns I've run into have been 2e.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1028145Also, I distinctly recall going through a period where almost every 2e purchase I made (from the rule books, to supplements, to adventure modules) ended up in buyer remorse. I kept buying 2e material thinking "this sounds cool," and ended up disappointed.

Lol, I remember a bunch of that with 2e as well!

I just got Combat & Tactics. It's a shockingly bad book. I can't imagine ever actually using it at the table.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1028152I just got Combat & Tactics. It's a shockingly bad book. I can't imagine ever actually using it at the table.

I had bailed before that came out, but I remember playing in someone else's game that used C&T and the other one (skills and powers?). It was pretty awful. Seemed like TSR was trying to make AD&D into a half-assed Rolemaster.

Each of Pundey's thoughts are certain possible, as could be fearsomepirate's thought that the initial premise is incorrect.

My perception is that oD&D, B/X, and 1e AD&D inspire a level of brand loyalty that the other versions don't (and I say that as a BECMI die-hard). So if you are going to dust off an edition and play (particularly, if, like most of us, you're really playing your own house system and the books you have on the table are merely reference material), you defer to one of these 3.

Honestly, most of the primary differences between the two AD&Ds, or between any within the basic/classic line, are relatively arbitrary to my game choices (in that each one has its' own issues). For instance 2e's initiative compared to 1e's (once you understood 1e) id 6-of-1/half-dozen-of-the-other. Switching to 2e initiative messes with the caster/non-caster balance, but the balance in 2e wanders all over the place depending upon which options and supplements one uses or not.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1028126So these are my thoughts:

1. 2e is not considerably worse than 1e, system wise. It's just somewhat less aesthetically appealing, having been made more lukewarm and less edgy.

2. 1e was first. The appeal of going back to the origin is a lot more than any appeal of "going back to an edition that existed at a certain point in time but wasn't first, and was later replaced by another system".

3. People who were around in the 1e era and stuck with 1e when 2e came around are committed. People who were around and switched to 2e already updated once, so there was less rationale for them to stay loyal to 2e when 3e (and later 5e) came along.

The same goes for Traveller players, too. The classic players saw MegaTraveller on the store shelves. Few made the switch. Those that did, switched with each new edition nearly.

My current group has been playing the same campaign, in 2e, since 1998 (though we only play a few times a year at this point). I haven't played 1e since 2e came out back in the '80s. We've played a one-shot of 3e and 5e (none of us wanted anything to do with 4e), but have maintained playing 2e (with a couple of house rules and the Player's Option books, which I think add a lot of great stuff). I wouldn't mind playing more 5e, but 2e has been our mainstay. I'd love to play other non-D&D games though.