Quote from: Opaopajr;829618It traded it in for spirit!

"We got spirit, yes we do! We got spirit, how 'bout you!"
:cheerleader: :highkicks:

Best. Response. Possible.

Quote from: The_Shadow;829701I kind of like the default, Ren-Faire, humanocentric feel of 2e, with its attempt at making the setting more important, whether home-made or store-bought, and its down playing of the dungeon in favor of a whole-world "simulation". It can feel cheesy but was a viable approach at the time.

Aesthetically, 2nd edition will always be "D&D" to me.

Quote from: The_Shadow;829701I kind of like the default, Ren-Faire, humanocentric feel of 2e, with its attempt at making the setting more important, whether home-made or store-bought, and its down playing of the dungeon in favor of a whole-world "simulation". It can feel cheesy but was a viable approach at the time.

I enjoy the aesthetic and the rem-faire vibe. I do think that they could have given more advice on dungeon making though.

Where 2E clicked for me was the Van Richten books with the monster hunts. Prior to that I was kind of floundering for adventure designs.

Some AD&D folks prefer a "best of AD&D" core: 1e DMG, 2e PHB and 2e MM.  The 2e PHB has some advantages over the 1e and the 2e MM is over the 1e as well.  The 2e MM random encounter charts are in one the of MC Anuals though, so there is that.

Quote from: jibbajibba;829695Tactics are strange things. I think a game has failed when you adopt game tactics in combats rather than adopting in world tactics that work and allow the game to abstract them into play.

Suprise was a difference for sure but no reason you weren't able to just use the AD&D rule if you like (suprise in 2e was agianst a d10 remember). Furthermore I think the AD&D rule isn't terribly good as a rule in any case.
The monster to hit isn't very far out at all and if I recall the hit tabel jumped in 2 HD increments live fighter levels so in fact odd hit diced creatures might even be a little stronger so I think there is some exaggeration there (please feel free to cite the actual differences).
The main difference in 2e is Specialisation. Now if you played 1e without UA that is a game changer. If you used UA then in fact 2e dials it down a notch as you can't double specialise at 1st level.

The initiative system in 2e is much cleaner though expressed in an overly complex way (a bit like Thaco); d10+ dex bonus + weapon speed (or spell casting time) - lowest goes first is great and it also allows you to much better space additional attacks although again that is not actually clearly stated, but we generally placed additional attacks at Weapon Speed increments.

The code of ethics made no difference to us at all as we never used any pregen content.
The 2e DMG is awful, but largely redundant so .. meh.
We continued to use 1e Magic item tables and the various spell lists from 1e Greyhawk in particular becuase of their Vancian colour

To make comparing monster attacks easier, here's a breakdown that P&P had already done over on DF (apologize for the formatting - I can't get the table to line up right regardless of what I do in the post)

THACO vs HD

MonsterHD  1E    2E   OSRIC    LL/AEC   S&W complete   OD&D   Holmes

1 HD           19     19     19          19         18                  19        19
1+ HD   18   19    18         18         18                  18        18
2 HD           16     19     18          18         17                  17        18
3 HD           16     17     17          17         16                  17        17
4 HD           15     17     16          16         15                  15        15
5 HD           15     15     15          15         14                  14        14

What constitutes a noticeable variance is subjective of course.  For me, the difference between 1E and 2E is wide enough that it matters.  In 2E, a Hobgoblin is better than an orc because of 1 extra hit point, but not really better in combat.  A lizard man or brigand's war dog is significantly better in 1E.  2E just felt...easier.  Less challenging in some ways.

In other ways 2E was harder.  In 1E, a non-intelligent creature made non-physical saves (spells, etc.) at half their actual hit dice.  

Our opinions on the worthiness of the 1E surprise rolls differs, but I stand by my experience that it changed the game in a big way.

You mention specialization - the way multiple attacks were done (1E if you had 3/2 attacks, your 2-attack round was round 1 and following odd rounds, in 2E it was round 2 and following even rounds) also made a big difference.  1E's rule about fighter-types with multiple attack routines automatically going first in a round was a difference maker.  Especially in sword-versus-spell situations.

Actually sword-verses-spell is probably a big part of where I think 2E's cumulative weight of changes made a lasting impact.  So many of those discarded rules actually helped fighters against spell casters.

Weapon Vs AC Type?  Look at the adjustments against AC Type 10.  M-Us were even glassier cannons in 1E.

Adding weapon speeds to initiative rolls?  Definitely hurt the fighter with the heavier weapons, as opposed to the M-Us that cast spells with a CT of 3 or less quite often.

All of this little stuff adds up to someone who is more of an adventure gamer than an RPGA-style roleplayer.  *To me* it feels like 1E and 2E are "mostly identical" in the same way that Britney Spears' cover of (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction was "mostly identical" to the Rolling Stones version, since it had the same lyrics and most of the notes.

I'd say the common wisdom that the games' rules are 90% identical is pretty close to correct.  For me, the problem is in that 10%, and also the non-rules stuff.  

The non-rules stuff includes things like writing style, tone, advice, feel, et cetera.  All very subjective, but it's a pretty common opinion that 2e's presentation is bland and lifeless compared to 1e, and also common for people to prefer the inclusion of advice on how to run a game, explore a dungeon, etc. that exists in 1e.

The rules differences tend to be less obvious, but where 2e made a change, I usually either found that change to be neither here nor there, or I found it to be detrimental.  For example, 2e changed the rules for initiative.  In 2e's favor, the rules are clearer than the mess of the 1e initiative rules, but I also find them less desirable since they introduced some side effects I don't like (specifically the way 2e handles casting times and weapon speeds and how that affects casting in melee).  I also didn't like the change to surprise.  And the list goes on.

Truth be told, I have a visceral rejection of 2e. I've tried to overcome it with reason ("...eh, 2e isn't that bad -- it's mostly 1e, just not as cool..."), but it's no use; I've come to embrace my dislike of 2e. I think I'd almost rather play 3e. And that's weird, because 2e is undeniably more like 1e than 3e is. But maybe that's the problem: it's the profanation of something good that so offends me. The fact that 2e is so similar to 1e makes that worse, not better. 2e is 1e with all the life and soul and vitality and beauty sucked out of it. You can still see 1e in there, sorta, and you can even trick yourself into thinking it's still alive. And it's not dead, but it's not alive, either. It's common, mindless undead. It's the soulless, reeking husk of real AD&D, shambling along in a sort of sick parody of the genuine article. Disgusting.

(IMO, of course...

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;829615Its chief weakness is the DMG, which has a lot of useful stuff but you can read it front to back and have zero idea of how to run or prep a campaign. When I first started playing 2E, the GMs who still had the 1E material seemed a lot less confused about how to run a game. When I went and read the first edition DMG I saw why.

And this is why I tell people writing RPGs to put in a "What is an RPG" paragraph at the start and more importantly a "How to DM" section somewhere. Or at least lots of "how to" examples throughout.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;829731I'd say the common wisdom that the games' rules are 90% identical is pretty close to correct.  For me, the problem is in that 10%, and also the non-rules stuff.  

The non-rules stuff includes things like writing style, tone, advice, feel, et cetera.  All very subjective, but it's a pretty common opinion that 2e's presentation is bland and lifeless compared to 1e, and also common for people to prefer the inclusion of advice on how to run a game, explore a dungeon, etc. that exists in 1e.

The rules differences tend to be less obvious, but where 2e made a change, I usually either found that change to be neither here nor there, or I found it to be detrimental.  For example, 2e changed the rules for initiative.  In 2e's favor, the rules are clearer than the mess of the 1e initiative rules, but I also find them less desirable since they introduced some side effects I don't like (specifically the way 2e handles casting times and weapon speeds and how that affects casting in melee).  I also didn't like the change to surprise.  And the list goes on.

Truth be told, I have a visceral rejection of 2e. I've tried to overcome it with reason ("...eh, 2e isn't that bad -- it's mostly 1e, just not as cool..."), but it's no use; I've come to embrace my dislike of 2e. I think I'd almost rather play 3e. And that's weird, because 2e is undeniably more like 1e than 3e is. But maybe that's the problem: it's the profanation of something good that so offends me. The fact that 2e is so similar to 1e makes that worse, not better. 2e is 1e with all the life and soul and vitality and beauty sucked out of it. You can still see 1e in there, sorta, and you can even trick yourself into thinking it's still alive. And it's not dead, but it's not alive, either. It's common, mindless undead. It's the soulless, reeking husk of real AD&D, shambling along in a sort of sick parody of the genuine article. Disgusting.

(IMO, of course...

Ah, PJ.  I thought you had moved on to bigger and better things like OD&D?  Oh wait, I mean C&C...  

One of the great things about 2e was.

Options. Tons and tons and tons of options and more importantly. Ways to customize and personalize your character and class. 5e in some small ways harkens back to that. But could have gone hog wild like 2e.

People may malign Skills & Powers. But take a good look at it. TSR gave the players a huge toolbox to tinker, create and personalize races and classes endlessly.

Quote from: Teazia;829747Ah, PJ.  I thought you had moved on to bigger and better things...

These days, I basically run three games: Original D&D, AD&D (1e), and variations of BRP/RQ -- depends what I'm after.

Also, FWIW, my post up there should be taken with a big smiley and as being slathered with hyperbole.  I have my opinions and preferences (which have probably grown more defined over the years), but I don't mind there being a lot of different options and people liking different things.  It's all fun and games, after all.

Initiative in 2e is one of my favorite things about it, it is so easy and yet alternately flexible.

There's one core initiative for 2e and it is as easy as it can be, about Tunnels and Trolls easy:

GM quietly decides NPCs action beforehand (avoiding GM temptation to metagame). PCs declare their intended actions beforehand (avoiding PCs temptation to metagame). PCs roll a d10 for their side, opponents roll a d10 for their side and compare. (That's all the dice mechanics right there.) Repeat at the start of each round (thus Fog of War).

It is Group Initiative, Group Modifier. That's it.

The two optional methods are Group Initiative, Individual Modifier (it's almost as fast as the first one,) and Individual Initiative, Individual Modifier. That last one makes people groan because people often defaulted to it regardless, and it really works best in very small skirmishes and duels.

All three methods are readily available to switch up with the GM as they see fit — or hold fast to one only. And they are surprisingly fluid between them as long as you keep an eye to combat size. Even within a large battle shrinking down to a lone duel, it works the switch ups like a prize workhorse. After very many RPG systems, it's hard for me to find one that comes close to both that simplicity and optional flexibility.

Granted, like any toolbox, turn everything on all the time willy nilly and you're going to get system overload and crash. Seen it time and again. You need a focused GM to avoid letting the system options master them, I think.

Most of my formative gaming was with 2E. At the time, I enjoyed all the flexibility granted by the innumerable splats. By the time I got hold of it, I knew a little of what I was doing, so I never missed the "How to GM" section (the lack of it makes me think they knew they were selling to an audience familiar with earlier version, though this does not excuse not adding it). I found it a lot easier to navigate than AD&D. However, I'm not sure how easy I'd have found anything had I not come to 2E through B/X and 1E. Looking at the rules now, I find them just as big a turn off as I do 1E, but that's only because I'm into very simple systems now.

2e is the game that drove me to quit D&D for several years.  I started with it after kits were already well out, so core-only was never how I pictured 2e, although I can see that making for a very different game.  And kits, at least in the groups where I saw them in the wild as a new player, were in no possible light balanced against each other.  Victory went to the players with the widest selection of books to shop from, and who took the most care when doing so.

But, a consequence of that was that I never dove into the back end, so it's quite likely I'm missing some of what you could do with it in principle.

That's a good criticism, player mastery of optional material (including splats) can really snow over GMs and their tables. Not the only game to suffer that, but an easy one to notice it. Technically a user issue, especially due to how much text space was repeatedly dedicated to stating "GMs, this is your game, check first before allowing it," but such a recurring one that it makes a strong argument against toolboxes in general.

The 'less is more' aesthetic really has a corollary grasp on the human capacity limits to accessorizing.

Quote from: Opaopajr;829771Not the only game to suffer that...

Oh, absolutely.  What I initially liked about 3e when it released was that it was a nice clean base game, with none of that power-gaming nonsense like 2e had.  Yeah...  :rolleyes:

Still, the nostalgia for 2e (and not just in this thread, but overall)... surprise isn't quite the right word, because clearly people played the game, but their experience must have been different from mine.  Either they got in earlier than I did, or they had the system mastery to make the splatbooks work for them.