I think you spelled Swords & Wizardry White Box wrong.

Pundit hates it. Mike Mearls hates it. Jonathan Tweet hates it. That suggests it has something going for it.

More seriously, while 2E's mechanics aren't particularly well-suited for what it's trying to do, that goal, tone and style is my favorite in all the various flavors of the game and something I've been looking for a system to capture properly for years.

The best version of D&D is whatever version I played when I was a kid that used AD&D, B/X, BECMI, Rolemaster, Palladium, and Tunnels and Trolls mashed together.

If you're playing BtB, you're doing it wrong.

I've said this on a few of these threads now but:  Modularity.

Most of the shitty stuff people complain about were optional rules.  But you could go anywhere from the basic, stripped down version all the way up to the complicated-as-heck Players Options plus Kits insanity.

AD&D 2E made the Bard its own character class, that alone makes the game worthy of note.

Quote from: jeff37923;1108660AD&D 2E made the Bard its own character class, that alone makes the game worthy of note.

Actually I agree with this, even though I dislike AD&D 2nd. The bard is easily the best thing the game has to offer.

Don't for get no Monk. How I loath monks.

2e was weirdly disjointed in that the engine was basically the same as 1e, which means at its heart all about Gygaxian dungeon exploration, yet all the fluff assumed it was a simulationist engine where the setting took precedence and the rules would drape elegantly around the GM's vision. Which wasn't the case at all.

But it scores high on the nostalgia-meter, and is a good version of D&D.

I remember when I purchased the core books for 2nd Edition, and took them to my 1st Edition group's gaming session.  I was a relatively new player, and I wasn't at all aware of there being different "editions".

My DM looked at the books; and said, "what is that?".  He wasn't aware of anything beyond OD & D, and 1st Edition AD & D himself.  The book covers were different, and lots of stuff was missing from the DMG.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1108652Pundit hates it. Mike Mearls hates it. Jonathan Tweet hates it. That suggests it has something going for it.

That's almost enough to change my mind.

Best? Not by my recollection though I enjoyed it because of Baldur's Gate. That's about it for me

It has a special appeal for me due simply to the fact that it was the first edition of D&D I was aware of. I had played the old Icewind Dale game and had poured over the game manual trying to tease out anything I could about the table top game (I seem to recall it had an explanation of THAC0 in it). Then one day a young airman in my grandmothers apartment complex needed help moving his stuff, his wife was big pregnant and he couldn't move it all by himself. He gave a cousin of mine and myself some money to help him move boxes to his U-Haul.

I don't recall how much I was payed, but I damn sure remember seeing the boxes of 2nd edition books he had. I have vivid memories of being enchanted by the cover of the Monstrous Manual, and being in awe of the hand drawn maps he had and the countless binders full of what must have been his home brew setting.

I find there's a strong correlation between people who like Sammy Hagar as the lead singer of VH and those who like 2E.

Quote from: danskmacabre;1108627I never came back to DnD until Pathfinder . . . .

QuoteI skipped the entire DnD 3e and 3.5.

Don't hate me! I had to!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3900[/ATTACH]

Quote from: GeekEclectic;1108703Don't hate me! I had to!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3900[/ATTACH]

Yeah, I'm quite aware PF is a reskin of 3.5. but there are significant differences.