Really, folks.
I can´t stress the awesome that is AD&D 2e enough.
My 3.5 Group was thrown back in time, into a different eon, were the laws of the universe were just a bit different.

I used the background of a German RPG, and used the reams of 2e homebrew and sandbox tools for adventuring.

One player was psyched to play 2e again, one was very wary, as he had made very bad experiences with 2e all other players were indifferent. All of them are 3.5 fans, who love all the stuff that comes with it.

Gameplay was faster.

Prep time was minimised.

NPCs could be created in under a minute.
For example, the Thief player got himself into a position were every scouty-rouguey-trap-disably-sappeury Dwarf looked up to him. He had the feat "Leadership" in 3.5. So I looked up the table for followers, and he got himself no less than 8 Dwarf thieves, who got a personality, stats, level and even Dwarven names rolled up with all these nifty little tools.


And the Sandbox awesome if there ever was one: Deck of encounters!

I´ve got both and they are...indeed a worthwhile investment. THe encounter table construction ruiles from the DMG are also pretty nifty, and had me writing up tons of tables in no time.

The XP/HD "challenge rating" system is also just as precise as the 3.5 one is.


The change in tone/atmosphere was remarkable, and most players immedeately felt it too. They knew they were in a magical and mythical time, quite distinct from the Wilderlands which were perceived as far more gritty, or the gameworld´s 3.5 present, which was perceived as bad-ass-high-magic-high-population-high-octane environment

My point: take 2e´s rules and tools as what they are and surf with it! It´s different, but it still is great in doing what it wants to do.

Downside: X-Bows totally suck in 2e.

EDIT: mixed up some numbers

Glad to hear it, Sett.

Quote from: SettembriniTHe encounter table construction ruiles from the DMG are also pretty nifty, and had me writing up tons of tables in no time.

Tell me more. I've been thinking of vastly increasing my use of tables.

I did something similar once, sending my 3.0 PCs back to RC times, but with opposite results. Turns out, we like our fiddly bits. It also didn't help that I couldn't translate the PCs very effectively because of races being classes and the lack of multiclassing rules.

That problem, Jim, isn´t really pronounced in 2e. First you´ve got basically all classes and races. Secondly, you have all those complete books to find at least some neat stuff that matches the neat stuff from 3.5
Even Warlocks are possible, though pretty different.

@tables: Most table building advice and existing tables are very D&D centered. I´d be hard pressed to distill something meaningful from it for general application, that would not be insulting to your intellect at the same time. My excitement stems from the fact that much legwork has been done to alleviate D&D-homebrewing and sandboxing.
Like having dwarven name generators, encounter table templates, monster ecologies, character class design rules, character kit design rules, spell design rules, monster design rules, monsters that can be run on the fly, encounter decks, magical school design rules, castle building, pick pocketing table, world building book, etc.

Quote from: James McMurrayI did something similar once, sending my 3.0 PCs back to RC times, but with opposite results. Turns out, we like our fiddly bits. It also didn't help that I couldn't translate the PCs very effectively because of races being classes and the lack of multiclassing rules.

Guidance for such a conversion is all right there in the appendix of the RC (although, of course, thats guidance for converting from 2nd ed, it applies equally well to converting from 3rd ed).

Quote from: SettembriniMy point: take 2e´s rules and tools as what they are and surf with it! It´s different, but it still is great in doing what it wants to do.

Its a decent game in itself and it basically works. The engine that 2nd ed runs on is sound. My only real problems with 2nd ed are the massive rulebook sprawl and the way that the DM is treated like an idiot (e.g. rather than being left to do simple modifications to class at the request of a player, theres a kit for everything).

No, the kits are for you as a model!

The complete X books really say that, and show and encourage you to design kits for YOUR world!

Quote from: SettembriniNo, the kits are for you as a model!

The complete X books really say that, and show and encourage you to design kits for YOUR world!

No, they encourage the lowest kind of player to turn up with an unworkable, poorly thought through concept and get upset because you tell them it'll die within five minutes in your setting. Too much detail, too much ill-considered twaddle; all that was needed was a very simple set of guidelines showing how class traits can be kind of elastic and a couple of worked examples, instead we seem to have hundreds of meaningless variations on themes. Reminds me rather of prestige classes.

Quoteat was needed was a very simple set of guidelines showing how class traits can be kind of elastic and a couple of worked examples,

Funnily, that´s exactly what my Complete books contain.
How perceptions can vary!

Quote from: SettembriniFunnily, that´s exactly what my Complete books contain.
How perceptions can vary!

Add all of those 'worked examples' and you have an almost limitless supply of bad ideas, in which you have to look very carefully to find the good stuff. Classic example of system bloat.

A very cool thread, Sett. Kudos to you
 
I actually enjoyed running 2e, as I felt it could be done without overwhelming prep. Though I think that it suffered from some serious rules bloating, it was all very optional.
 
I feel that 3.X is a better game, and a better D&D version, at that, but you could get some good gaming from 2e. And some of its published settings seriously rocked.

Glad you like it. But not only did the published systems rock.

The homebrew support and encouragement also did!

What I also really dig is the implicit and explicit assumption, that every new option leads to new adventure possibilities.

There are Elementalists? Explain them! Intruduce them! Weave them into your world!

Quote from: SettembriniGlad you like it. But not only did the published systems rock.
 
The homebrew support and encouragement also did!
 
What I also really dig is the implicit and explicit assumption, that every new option leads to new adventure possibilities.
 
There are Elementalists? Explain them! Intruduce them! Weave them into your world!

Absolutely agreed. When I read the Complete Warrior book, I loved the examples of how introducing the kits into the background of the world, though I understand that the same has been done with PrC.

Quote from: ImperatorI actually enjoyed running 2e, as I felt it could be done without overwhelming prep. Though I think that it suffered from some serious rules bloating, it was all very optional.
 

Thats the strongest defense of 2nd ed that I can think of, all of the bloat is optional. My experience is that so few second edition players really cottoned on to that fact that in effect you ended up with some way over-complex campaigns. But strip all of that away, play it as a game with some good options, and you've got an excellent and very playable game. The optional nature of those add ons, in my view, makes it a stronger game than 3rd ed (where stripping things out that you don't want is a pretty involved business, as everything is designed to interract).

And the second ed era also saw the biggest bloat in campaign settings. While that was part of the downfall (making so many game worlds effectively split the market) it also provided us with some excellent gaming products. I still maintain that Spelljammer (for example) is one of the finest game settings I've encountered.

Quote from: CabAnd the second ed era also saw the biggest bloat in campaign settings. While that was part of the downfall (making so many game worlds effectively split the market) it also provided us with some excellent gaming products. I still maintain that Spelljammer (for example) is one of the finest game settings I've encountered.

It was an age of extremes. Some of the best settings, some of the worst, all for the same game.
I loved dearly Planescape, Dark Sun and Ravenloft. Original, well done ideas. And easily portable to other systems, if AD&D 2e happened to not be of your liking.
But I hate to death Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms. Utterly and totally hate them. There are few settings I hate more than them. Of course, take hate as "I can't really be arsed to give a shit about them".