Quote from: Brad;1108938Sure, but "tactical combat" with a good referee can be very quick if he knows wtf he's doing. A real ref also means you can do whatever you want and success is a possible outcome; contrast this with the utter rigidity of some systems that claim to be tactical and detailed, but don't allow a lot of stuff because there are no defined rules.



Of course it's by design. And I'd say it's the opposite: people have gotten lazier and dumber (because they're lazy), so modern games need to cater to their lackluster GMing. "Look, man, I'm just applying the rules here!" I've heard that shit argument before whenever some idiotic result came about and the GM just wasn't willing to come up with a better solution. Modern games tend to assume laziness.



Well yeah, because you're actually responsible for running an OSR game. I probably made up more shit in 8th grade science class than most modern game designers have put into all their published works. I am *sure* there are other people on this who can claim the same thing.

Of course it's by design, of course modern games assume lazy and dumb people as the GM and players. In order to sell more you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. This is a dangerous balancing stunt, you have to dumb it down enough to attract more people while not losing your current customers. Most fail at the balancing and go full bore dumb it down.

I rather go the other way around, make it as OSR as possible in regards to the GMs power and ability (never mind the type of ruleset you're using) and the lazy but not dumb might like it enough to leave their laziness aside. For the really dumb they can go play making soap bubbles.

Quote from: RandyB;1108869I miscommunicated. I was agreeing with you and going one further.

And IMO, the farther that RPGs get from their wargaming roots, the worse they get.

My take is, if I wanted to play a wargame, I'd play a wargame.

An RPG shouldn't be overwhelmingly tactical combat, but when combat occurs it should be tactical.  Most RPGs today settle for "abstract dice shoot-out weighted in favor of the PCs" because players don't want the risk of tactical combat when they're not particularly good at it.  Most RPG players today couldn't handle the war games the 1st gen played regularly, and have devolved RPG combat to suite.

Quote from: EOTB;1108702I find there's a strong correlation between people who like Sammy Hagar as the lead singer of VH and those who like 2E.

I prefer 'Diamond Dave' myself. But I am used to being an outlier. It's my mutant superpower!

Quote from: Brad;1108938Of course it's by design. And I'd say it's the opposite: people have gotten lazier and dumber (because they're lazy), so modern games need to cater to their lackluster GMing. "Look, man, I'm just applying the rules here!" I've heard that shit argument before whenever some idiotic result came about and the GM just wasn't willing to come up with a better solution. Modern games tend to assume laziness.

HAHAHA! I heard that quote in some Bizarro version of Lebowski. "Hey man, like, it's your Fate point, you can change whatever you want, man. I'm just here to roll dice with you."

But it's good point.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1108615For me, its art was the most iconic any edition of D&D has ever had within its pages.

This.

I had two problems with AD&D in it's heyday.

First, I started playing with Champions 4E which literally allowed you make any character you wanted with the appropriate amount of points. From my POV at the time, it was a system that said "Yes".

Second, I played under a Dungeon Master that, because of my die rolls, I was only allowed to play a Fighter in my first campaign and I really wanted to play a wizard. It was immature, but it soured me. We never got magic items and his attitude is that if there isn't a rule for it, they you can't do it. From my POV at the time, it was a system that said "No".

However, when I discovered the OSR, I realized that older edition of D&D and their clones were about player creativity and the DM arbitrating the rules. Sure, you could say "No" or you could say "Roll a d6 and on a 1 or 2 you succeed". I also realized how magic items were often what separated one Fighter from another mechanically.

So basically I had a bad DM and looking at my shelf now, I'm glad I've got all of those books and AD&D 2E is the edition I prefer.

Because of the Monstrous Manual!

DiTerlizzi's art is awesome!

(also, people complimenting the art must have the original print... the revised ones have some of the most hideous art I have ever seem it any RPG, let alone D&D).

BTW, please post some of that cool art here! I miss it!

---

Longer response...

AD&D is a bit messy, and most people I talk to tell me they don't use the rules as written (weapon versus armor, for example).

I prefer the RC over 2E, but 2e has some cool concepts AD&D and the RC lacks. I like the four classes divide, for example (where ranger is a subset of warrior, for example). THAC0 is good enough. I usually like playing with skills.

Anyway, I love Moldvay and RC, but I might choose 2e over 1e just for the organization (which is not that great but at least a bit better).

Also, tons of great settings.

Quote from: Shasarak;1108613and I thought, so why is 2e the best edition of DnD ever produced?

OMG...how much ganja did you smoke before typing those words???

2e was the "made-clean-for-mommies" edition. Kinda like how 5e is the "made-safe-for-SJWs" edition.

That said, Planescape was a great setting, and 2e's setting material overall were excellent.

Quote from: EOTB;1108948An RPG shouldn't be overwhelmingly tactical combat, but when combat occurs it should be tactical.  Most RPGs today settle for "abstract dice shoot-out weighted in favor of the PCs" because players don't want the risk of tactical combat when they're not particularly good at it.  Most RPG players today couldn't handle the war games the 1st gen played regularly, and have devolved RPG combat to suite.

I'd definitely agree with this, and prefer games with a significant element of tactics. I don't really want the combat to be just about the PC's numbers vs the numbers of the enemy. When the players must engage their brain and work as a team everyone gets more out of it, including the DM. Thats the main reason I like the newer Paizo stuff. I'd say 2e doesn't have much more of that than 5e. 4e does, with the MMO style combat (tanks tanking, controllers controlling, etc).

As Eric said in terms of the art I do think 2e was the high point. Elmore, Easley, Caldwell, and Brom really made D&D come to life through those paintings. Many of those guys were around during the later part of 1e also so there is a lot of bleed over, but I'd say that art became the default once 2e came around.

For my money 5e is the best, primarily because I prefer the more modern take on the casters. 4e also has that but strayed a bit too far from the traditional formula for my taste.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1109241OMG...how much ganja did you smoke before typing those words???

How much ganja I smoke is off topic for this thread.  

Please stick to the reasons why 2e is the best edition of DnD ever produced.

Still yes. (and now it's legal in California, too )

QuoteSo let me know, what did you guys like best about running, playing, reading 2e DnD?

The best things about 2e are the things it shared with earlier editions.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1109241OMG...how much ganja did you smoke before typing those words???

2e was the "made-clean-for-mommies" edition. Kinda like how 5e is the "made-safe-for-SJWs" edition.

That said, Planescape was a great setting, and 2e's setting material overall were excellent.

That's pretty much why I mixed 1e/2e together. The settings of 2e are balls out the best.

This edition is what I cut my teeth on so i'm a bit biased. It felt thematically just right. I started bailing on it when it started feeling like 'printing for profit's sake' instead of quality content.  I stuck around for planeswalker but when they started doing 'kits' and eberron and darksun and spelljammer and the giant space hamster i'm like 'yeah, these guys are getting too fruity for their pebbles'.  I loved the categorization of monsters by terrain and the treasure types tables.  I loved the spell lists.  And I loved thac0.  I did like the fact that it wasnt mainstream. That it was mathy and technical enough that certain folks found it hard to grok was a feature not a bug to me.

Dark Sun, is the underpublished crown jewel of TSR era D & D.  It needs a campaign setting release, not just a WOTC adventure module.  Just do it.