TheRPGSite

We've all read the threads which say how much AD&D2 sucked.  We've all read how the game was "dumbed down", and even how "the art sucked."  Personally, my answers to those are 1) It's written plainly instead of in unintelligible Ancient Gygaxian, 2) The demons were still in the game under different racial names, and descriptions even noted that humans called them demons, 3) IMO, the art was worlds better than just about everything else in game books at the time.

But, enough of that.  The cry of hardcore fandom is that AD&D2 sucks as much as the Palladium system.  It somehow ruined AD&D1.  So, what I want to know is this:

What did AD&D2 do differently that you prefered the AD&D1 rules for?  Did you start playing AD&D2 and bemoan the loss of the older Weapon Speed rules?  Did you crave the old unarmed combat rules from the old DMG?  What was it that was changed that made AD&D2 so sucky in your eyes?

That topic is too large to fit on the entire internet, but here's my list.

Impossibly dry text.  I never played with a single gamer who'd actually read the rules.

Totally messed up weapon stats.  The long bow doing a d8 and 2 attacks per round and heavy crossbows a d4+1 and one attack every three rounds is just the tip of the iceberg.  This is because the game designers just ported across 1st edition and didn't really think about it much.

Including secondary skills and non-weapon proficiencies in the same book.  Everyone seemed to have both on their character sheet.  It's one or the other people.

Non-weapon proficiencies that didn't mesh with theives abilities.  What?  I can hide in shadows 25% of the time but I've got a 14 in 20 as a blacksmith?  I'm in the wrong line of work.  Actually the theives abilities were a compound mess as it is.  See Buck Rogers XXVc for how 2nd edition should have worked on just about every count.

Complete books of cheese.  Character kits as background would be fine.  As archetypes with special abilities.  Cheeese!

TSR management's phobia of anything offensive has to fit in here somewhere.

I'm no grognard, but when I was a teenager I pretty much just played WoD games and anything that wasn't D&D.  Secretly, I found D&D2e confusing as all hell rules-wise.

It just didn't make sense to me.  It makes more sense nowadays, but it took C&C to make me actually get a handle on the system...so I could convert it properly!

AD&D2 sucked because it didn't significantly improve on AD&D1.  Twice. And then they dumped all those supplement books on top of it that it wasn't strong enough for and it collapsed.

My first RPG was AD&D 2e.

*ducks*

Actually, I have some fond memories of it. I also remember asking myself (several times) why the hell did something work this or that way. Simply put, some stuff made no sense at all.

Quote from: JongWKMy first RPG was AD&D 2e.

*ducks*

Actually, I have some fond memories of it. I also remember asking myself (several times) why the hell did something work this or that way. Simply put, some stuff made no sense at all.

AD&D 2e was also my first. It is still my favorite version of D&D.

Are people arguing that AD&D2e was a bad system on its own merits?  Most of the arguments here seem to be that it was inferior to AD&D ... but that's a long way from saying that it's a bad system.  AD&D is a high standard to hold games to.

I personally think that 2E wasn't as good as AD&D, but was still a serviceable game.  Certainly I had a lot of fun with it.  It had a bit of a thicket of intertwining and over-built rules, but that's pretty typical of the era in which it was designed.

Quote from: TonyLBAre people arguing that AD&D2e was a bad system on its own merits?  Most of the arguments here seem to be that it was inferior to AD&D ... but that's a long way from saying that it's a bad system.  AD&D is a high standard to hold games to.

Well, if it isn't abundantly apparrent, I think AD&D2 is a fine game.  I really enjoy it better than the edition before or the ones after.

I've often heard that AD&D2 is a "sucky game."  The arguments I've read in the past are more or less that AD&D1 is better and AD&D2 somehow ruined everything.  Honestly, that seems pretty irrational to me.  So, I'm wanting to draw some explanations out in the open, discuss them, and possibly understand this, to me, strange attitude.

Sorry, can't help you.  I liked 2nd edition probably better than any other edition (though basic D&D is my favorite, I recognize AD&D 2nd as being the better design).

I never really saw what the big uproar was about with 2nd edition.

The rules are, what, 90% similar to what's in AD&D 1st.

Here's what I see as the advantages of 2nd edition:
* The writing style was much more clean and concise.
* All of the rules necessary to play were put in the Player's Guide.
* It reduced the emphasis on using miniatures.
* It removed a few things that didn't really "fit" from the core - Half-Orcs, Monks, Assassins, Level Titles (which I liked, but weren't needed), Psionics, etc.
* It completely ignored the pile of crap that was Unearthed Arcana.
* It had a wide variety of character options in the supplements.
* It had the best campaign worlds and introduced concepts other than generic fantasy worlds (like Greyhawk and Dragonlance for 1st ed).

The biggest problem I had with 2nd ed was that the DMG was essentially worthless.  They could have stuck a lot of the "flavour" stuff from the 1st ed DMG in there and made it worthwhile.  Instead, it's just a bland, pointless book.  The absolutely only thing you need it for is the treasure tables.

My only other issue with 2nd ed - they never gave an update for Oriental Adventures.

My first game was Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, which actually happened by accident, when I went to the library to complete my personal project of transcribing the 1e AD&D books into notebooks and some other kids were getting ready to play. Anyway that's neither here nor there, because after playing 1e for a while I convinced my guardians to buy me 2e. I played it for about 6 years before moving on.

There were a few things that struck me about 2e vs 1e.

2e had awesome setting and background material. Everything from Spelljammer, to Dark Sun, to Planescape- awesome, inspiring stuff.  

However, aside from the monster books, the core rules struck me as dull and uninspired. Zeb Cook was no Gygax. Where in 1e it seemed like the sky was the limit, 2e was all about saying no, it seemed to me, even with the great setting stuff I've talked about above. It kept some of the worst aspects of 1e (like, IMO Racial level limits), and dilluted the best aspects. You had to ignore what the books said about what to allow and go it alone if you wanted the really cool stuff in your game. Luckily we had settings like Dark Sun to show to rules-lawyers who didn't want to let the DM get away with house rules.

So I guess what I'm saying is that AD&D 2e was a mixed bag for me.

Quote from: GabrielBut, enough of that.  The cry of hardcore fandom is that AD&D2 sucks as much as the Palladium system.  It somehow ruined AD&D1.  So, what I want to know is this:

What did AD&D2 do differently that you prefered the AD&D1 rules for?  Did you start playing AD&D2 and bemoan the loss of the older Weapon Speed rules?  Did you crave the old unarmed combat rules from the old DMG?  What was it that was changed that made AD&D2 so sucky in your eyes?

I have to say that, like others, the fact I did not like 2nd edition as much as 1st doesn't mean I think it was a bad game.

I just felt the edition wasn't a worthwhile upgrade AND lost most of its charm in the process. I also felt most of the additions made weren't improving the experience much either. That's three strikes against it.

I'm an AD&D 2nd ed hater.

Basically, mechanics-wise, it's AD&D1 with a couple things cleaned up, a lot of things not cleaned up, a lot of conflicting ad hoc mechanics grafted on, and so on. Plus the splatbooks. All of this sucks pretty hard, but it's not a big deal, because there was a lot of confusing shit in AD&D too, and most people played it with ad hoc rules, etc.

So not much reason to hate it there, ultimately. I never played AD&D1 BtB either. AD&D was for me always an OD&D supplement, the best one, but the original game and the various basic boxed sets were always better games at the core IMO. Start with the simple and use AD&D to build up.

But the reason for the brutal, blistering, mind-numbing hate that so many of us feel doesn't have so much to do with the system ultimately, I don't think. What it has to do with is the giant black hole sucking every last ounce of color out of D&D. Because D&D was a very colorful game. Some of that color people hated (a lot of people hated alignment, frex, or got put out at the swords & sorcery/tolkien hybrid implicit in the rules), but there was a lot of it, and a lot of it people liked. Demons, devils, assassins, erol otus art, weird artifacts, ancient technology, that seventies-early eighties heavy metal/renfaire vibe, etc.

AD&D2 was like a negative plane paraelemental came in and just sucked all that into the void, leaving sterile boredom everywhere in its wake. Gygaxian prose has its problems, but it's better than engineering textbook prose for stoking the imagination. A lot better.

AD&D3 completed the job of killing 'real' D&D by also destroying the loose systematic continuity that had lasted from 1974 to 1997, but that's another thread.

One thing I did like about 2e rules was Thac0. I'm not a math guy, but i heard it was used by some 1e groups, is that true?

I'm actually agreeing with Blakkie.

AD&D1 was pretty good, but obviously a product of its time. It definitely had problems. However, there was still wide open space where nobody had thought of a rule or only vaguely defined a rule, and in situations like that, those guidelines got gleefully ignored.

AD&D2 did not improve on many of these area, and in many cases they actually set down suddenly very clear rules that were a lot less fun to play. The example I often use is the very clear cut example of the character that started as Lawful Neutral, and played through several adventures doing basicly good acts and the DM decides she needs her alignment changed. So he changes it to Lawful Good, and docks her like 2500 XP.

That's an example of a player being punished for developing their character. Not to mention, she probably picked 'good' acts to do because of adventures that same DM was coming up with, and then it was the DM arbitrarily laying down a punishment at the end.

In AD&D1, I think there's some vague advice about "if a character seems to act differently than their alignment, it may warrant docking some XP.."

But I think most of us read that as "...and it also may NOT warrant docking any XP.."

In AD&D1, people felt very free to just make shit up within the guidelines provided. I'm not sure why, but I always felt there was a lot less freedom in AD&D2 to just make shit up. (I certainly felt it and I couln't really articulate it at the time as to why or why not).

I'm also not sure why, but I feel like D&D3, and 3.5, I'm back to that freedom. Although now, it's not a matter of making things up, as it is knowing the way the rules work.

Monster Manuel,

Yes. Thac0 was actually originally put into the Gamelords "Thieves' Guild" system as Hac0, and allowed math to substitute for tables plus math. TSR took this up eventually, but lots of groups borrowed it from TG or just made it up themselves before that.

In early D&D when there were only a few modifiers the tables were way better and quicker. But when you get to higher levels or too many attribute modifiers you have to add and subtract lots of things anyway, so the math approach makes more sense.

Which is why ascending armor class in 3e is an improvement relative to 2e, it makes this math simpler. If you play OD&D though the tables are often better because usually there are minimal modifiers to keep track of.

I've looked at Buck Rogers in the XXVc's skills and thought, Hey, if I ever run AD&D 2nd Ed. again like I keep threatening to, here's my upgrade pack...

Quote from: David JohansenTotally messed up weapon stats.

Including secondary skills and non-weapon proficiencies in the same book.  

Non-weapon proficiencies that didn't mesh with theives abilities.

Complete books of cheese.  

Everything above is pretty much a 1e thing still wrong with 2e.  It doesn't give a reason for preferring 1e over 2e.  1e rules were a mess, 2e applied only a few bandaids.  It went from one variety of art of varied quality to another variety of art of varied quality.

Mechanically, I found 2e superior.  I thought the demon renames and the other lip services to PC were stupid but just ignored them.  2e also brought new settings - most of them had limited replay value but they did offer new options.

Quote from: Monster ManuelOne thing I did like about 2e rules was Thac0. I'm not a math guy, but i heard it was used by some 1e groups, is that true?

I think a lot of games sat in limbo-land between 1e and 2e. Pieces here and there from both.

I played 2e from the time it came out until I headed off to college, and even a few times since then.

I don't think it's a bad game, really.  I did think it was an improvement over 1e.

What it lacked for me, though, was a sense of wonder and mystery.  I got a lot more of that out of the 1e books.  Admittedly, though, part of that 'wonder & mystery' was along the lines of, "I wonder why I need a random insanity table?"

The 2e PHB was pretty devoid of flavor, overall.  It tried to address the power creep that seemed to happen pretty inevitably with 1e, but went too far.  (Sorry, but I really don't think Relf was a playable character for most dungeoneering games ;))

System-wise, it was stronger than 1e.  It had many improvements, particularly in monsters and whatnot.

3e drastically improved on both, in my mind.

With that said, were I to go back to any previous edition, I think I'd pick 1e or RC.  I'd be doing it for the sake of nostalgia, and I have a lot more 1e nostalgia than 2e.

-O

Quote from: Monster ManuelOne thing I did like about 2e rules was Thac0. I'm not a math guy, but i heard it was used by some 1e groups, is that true?

Thac0 was a big improvement on tables - you just remember your number and you know what you need to hit any AC.  3E is essentally the same thing but they made high AC good to that people didn't have worry about subracting negative numbers.

Quote from: Monster ManuelOne thing I did like about 2e rules was Thac0. I'm not a math guy, but i heard it was used by some 1e groups, is that true?

The whole anti-THAC0 argument mystifies me.  When I got into AD&D1 around 1984 or 85, most of the modules were already using THAC0.  It was simple.  You subtracted the armor class from the THAC0 number to find what you needed to roll to hit.  It was easier to do than searching through the book or cross referencing a GM's screen for the to hit charts.

(The only complicated part was if you were following the "6 20s rule" from the AD&D1 DMG.  But I'm pretty sure that even Gary didn't know about it 10 minutes after he wrote it.)

But some people (not meaning you MM) act like THAC0 requires them to do advanced trigonometry or something.  I mean, yeah, subtraction is a slightly less intuitive operation than addition, and there are instances where you'll be subtracting negative numbers (adding), but come on!

Quote from: GabrielBut some people (not meaning you MM) act like THAC0 requires them to do advanced trigonometry or something.  I mean, yeah, subtraction is a slightly less intuitive operation than addition, and there are instances where you'll be subtracting negative numbers (adding), but come on!

Yeah, Thac0 was pretty basic. My group and I used to actually get a kick out of calculating it and finding out what our chances were.

When I said I wasn't a math guy I was trying to say that I never would have come up with it independently at that age. Using it once I could read how to do it was very easy.

Quote from: blakkieI think a lot of games sat in limbo-land between 1e and 2e. Pieces here and there from both.

Absolutely. Mine did too, especially at the beginning. The first class I wrote up was a psionicist class before the Complete Psionics Handbook came out. It sucked, but we had fun with it.

Pretty much what David and Cali said. I guess one can't argue that in some ways 2E was an "improvement", i.e. at least there *were* secondary skills now, plus the Bard was properly boring, as opposed to being this awesome figure of legend whose stats you will never ever manage to roll up. But that's just it. It's like 1E rewritten by Lev Lafayette. 2E was turning into something else, except not really. Worst of two worlds.

Also, Skillz & Powerz, Players Options, etc.

A lot depends on whether 2E was your first D&D game or not. If it was, you're probably ok with it, and in that case 1E will look like a bambling, senile greatuncle.

I realize that Planescape, Dark Sun etc. were probably great settings. If you played Planescape and stayed away from the Realms, you were probably playing a really valid successor to 1E. Me, I just couldn't bring myself to check it out after reading the 2E PHB.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAlso, Skillz & Powerz, Players Options, etc.

Those were crap but they cam on the tail end of 2e, maybe 6-7 years after the phb.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI'm also not sure why, but I feel like D&D3, and 3.5, I'm back to that freedom. Although now, it's not a matter of making things up, as it is knowing the way the rules work.

"Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty." - Henry M. Robert

Of course he was military AND an engineer. So he's going to have a more rules orientated view on things. But the longevity of his Rules Of Order are a testimate to explicit rules structure done right having a great deal of value.

Quote from: GabrielBut, enough of that. The cry of hardcore fandom is that AD&D2 sucks as much as the Palladium system.

AD&D2 and Rifts brought about similar experiences.  The buying of endless supplements by the players and GM that eventually knocked the system off it's hinges.  It also brought about my nostalgia phase and a minimalist approach to purchasing RPGs.  Just the core, I'll work from there thank you very much.

Quote from: blakkieOf course he was military AND an engineer. So he's going to have a more rules orientated view on things. But the longevity of his Rules Of Order are a testimate to explicit rules structure done right having a great deal of value.

Yeah well, so does Eco's notion of the open, rather than closed, work of art.

As rules I always compared AD&D 2nd to B/X D&D and felt let down by the unwieldy juggernaut of rules crud that had buried such an elegant frame. I wondered if Advanced was supposed to mean unwieldy and over-complex. The best thing AD&D2 had were the incredible settings made in its name.

Then again I don't mind RIFTS, so note that my life is replete with such contradictions.

Quote from: NicephorusThose were crap but they cam on the tail end of 2e, maybe 6-7 years after the phb.

I think that's one of the problems here - a lot of people judge AD&D 2e off of the crappy supplements and splatbooks it gained later.  A lot of us just used the core books and did just fine.

It's the equivalent of judging AD&D 1e by the incredibly shitty and poorly written Unearthed Arcana book.  Just because UA was a mess doesn't mean that 1st ed as a whole sucked.

Judge by the core books, people.  Nearly every game has at least one or two crappy supplements come out for it later on.

AD&D 2nd sucked because it was swine-ified.

All fluff, no adventure.
The PHB is okay.
The DMG is an abomination only surpassed by Vampire.

Quote from: SettembriniAD&D 2nd sucked because it was swine-ified.

AD&D 2E is a swine game now?  :rotfl:

I dunno. I prefered 2E. It was easy to drift my way. 3E is sleek and focused, and leaves me cold. iE was cool, but 2E was better. Mind you I houseruled the hell out of it, but I liked the fact that I could do so, without any trouble. I guess I'm not a dungeony sort of GM :D

-clash

AD&D 2e was my first game but it's easily my least favourite version of the game. As I said in my vote on the Worst Game thread, it's the D&D that's secretly ashamed of being D&D. Systemwise, it's alright, but the presentation (and the decisions made about which things to add to the system and which to take out) scream blandness to me.

Specifically, AD&D 2e seems to have been designed by people who are very conscious of two pressures: the idea that games can be about telling stories instead of killing monsters, which was gaining currency at the time, and the whining and wailing of the anti-gaming movement. Playing up to the expectations of the first crowd was a mistake which meant that AD&D 2e didn't play to its strength; trying to appease the anti-gaming movement was an incredibly stupid mistake. The sort of person who thinks that D&D is going to lead kids to Satan isn't going to be fooled by a few cosmetic changes, so all they achieved was removing everything suggesting violence, chaos, mayhem and *fun* from the game.

AD&D 1e was written with the assumption that players would be college age. AD&D 2e was written for a younger audience but toned things down far too much, gunning for a "family friendly" approach which simply didn't work. D&D 3.X, meanwhile, is absolutely perfect for teenagers.

Quote from: Abyssal MawAD&D2 did not improve on many of these area, and in many cases they actually set down suddenly very clear rules that were a lot less fun to play. The example I often use is the very clear cut example of the character that started as Lawful Neutral, and played through several adventures doing basicly good acts and the DM decides she needs her alignment changed. So he changes it to Lawful Good, and docks her like 2500 XP.

That's an example of a player being punished for developing their character. Not to mention, she probably picked 'good' acts to do because of adventures that same DM was coming up with, and then it was the DM arbitrarily laying down a punishment at the end.

In AD&D1, I think there's some vague advice about "if a character seems to act differently than their alignment, it may warrant docking some XP.."

But I think most of us read that as "...and it also may NOT warrant docking any XP.."

AD&D1e (p25 DMG) says that if a character changes their alignment, they drop an experience level to the minimum required, losing all abilities etc. If the change was involuntary, not only do they require to regain the xp they must also make atonement through a cleric with a treasure of 10,000 gp per level.

In AD&D2e (p28-29 DMG) initial changes to alignment incur no penalty, however if the character is established and changes their alignment the cost to go up their next level is doubled; they are undergoing a "personality crisis".

So your DM erred. IMO the AD&D2e method is better.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityYeah well, so does Eco's notion of the open, rather than closed, work of art.

Fortunately 3e overall definately falls into the "open" category. Even moreso when including d20/OGL. Perfectly so? Nah, but the flexibility is there.

Quote from: GabrielWhat was it that was changed that made AD&D2 so sucky in your eyes?

I wasn't playing D&D actively at the time, so I can't comment personally.  But here are some more comments Ryan Dancey from that discussion he had on the Pyramid message boards in 2000 that I frequently quote.

About how things changed between D&D 1st Edition and the 1990s:

QuotePick up an adventure for D&D circa 1985.  The adventure will begin on at worst page 2.

Pick up an adventure for D&D circa 1995.  The adventure will begin somewhere in the middle of the product, after a lengthy story and setting exposition, details of NPCs, geography and history, and perhaps a substantial boxed text essay to be read to the players to "set the mood".

Compare the core rules for several game systems:

D&D 1E:  Character creation begins on page 8.

D&D 2E.  Character creation rules begin on page 12.

Shadowrun 1E:  Page 30.

Werewolf 1E:  Page 73.

Mage 1E:  Page 95.

7th Sea:  Page 112.

(Note:  Character creation in the 3e PHB:  Page 4.)

In a follow up message, he writes:

QuoteI don't agree that a page-count analysis of rules vs. storytelling is the best way to determine if a game 'supports roleplaying' or not.  The 3e PHB is packed with things designed to trigger the imagination of players, and imagery designed to help them create an internal vision of the shared D&D fantasy.  Having 30 or 40 pages about theater and drama doesn't actually add much to the value of the book, in my opinion.

About specifically what went wrong with D&D 2nd Edition:

QuoteThey were given the aforementioned design constraints from management.  Those included removing demons & devils from the game, taking out anything perceived as "evil" like half-orcs and Assassins, and planning a shift away from the DM as the most important consumer towards the players being the most important consumer.  That's why you sometimes get the feeling in the 2e core books that someone "has" to be the DM, rather than someone "gets" to be the DM.

[...]

So, my critique of the design problems of 2e would be as follows:

1)  No standardization of systems.  [...] Nobody during the 2e design worried about standardization because they felt that the weight of existing rules knowledge overcame the problem.

2)  The game took things away from the players and didn't give them anything back that was a suitable replacement.  Monks, Assassins and Half-Orcs are the obvious subtractions.  There was a sizable number of people playing Barbarians and Cavaliers too[...]

3)  The artwork in the 2e core books was not evocative of a unique vision of the game.  [...]

4)  Optional Rules In the Player's Handbook Are A Bad Thing.  [...]

5)  The original "Monstrous Compendium" concept didn't work. [...]

There are a whole host of other things I think are "missed opportunities" in 2e.  [... he lists a series of things they could have fixed but didn't ...]

On D&D 2nd Editions effect on the market:

QuoteCuriously, in the twelve years since the release of 2E in 1989, rather than try to capture those consumers, the RPG industry has done everything in its power to make games as far away from those customers' interests as possible.  And, as a result, sales in the RPG category have been in decline since 1993.

[...]

The period from 1993 to the present should have been a golden age of RPG business, and instead it was a near-death experience.

(Remember, these quotes are from 2000.)

About who D&D 2nd Edition was aimed at:

QuoteBy management fiat, 2E was aimed at 12 year old girls.  The owner of the company had a 12 year old daughter, and wanted the company she ran to produce things her kid wanted to play.  That subtle bias affected the entire 2E product line.

As the first reason why RPG market share declined in the 1990s:

Quote*  Sales declined because publishers stopped making products consumers wanted to buy.

The only real bad thing I can say about AD&D 2nd Edition is that it didn't suck when I was 15, but 30 had a different story to tell.

Quote from: NicephorusEverything above is pretty much a 1e thing still wrong with 2e.  It doesn't give a reason for preferring 1e over 2e.  1e rules were a mess, 2e applied only a few bandaids.  It went from one variety of art of varied quality to another variety of art of varied quality.

Mechanically, I found 2e superior.  I thought the demon renames and the other lip services to PC were stupid but just ignored them.  2e also brought new settings - most of them had limited replay value but they did offer new options.

sigh

Totally messed up weapon stats: Just because you didn't use the Weapon vs armour chart from first edition doesn't mean you can ignore it as a design choice.

Including secondary skills and non-weapon proficiencies in the same book: In first edition nwps were added in Oriental Adventures, Wilderness Survival Guide, and Dungeoneers Survival Guide.  Obviously an optional rule too.

Non-weapon proficiencies that didn't mesh with theives abilities: Again, this is because non-weapon proficiencies were a badly designed option from a supplement.

Complete books of cheese:  Well, there was Unearthed Arcana...

Quote from: jgantsJudge by the core books, people.

I think the only time we played with the core is when we converted our 1st ed. characters to 2nd.  After some minor character deballing, we wished we had just kept on playing our characters in 1st because the system didn't seem that different.  I think the kit books were bought to spice it up and that was an on again/off again campaign crashing experience.  I don't blame 2nd ed. for that.  It just wasn't that big of improvement.

Quote from: lev_lafayetteAD&D1e (p25 DMG) says that if a character changes their alignment, they drop an experience level to the minimum required, losing all abilities etc. If the change was involuntary, not only do they require to regain the xp they must also make atonement through a cleric with a treasure of 10,000 gp per level.

In AD&D2e (p28-29 DMG) initial changes to alignment incur no penalty, however if the character is established and changes their alignment the cost to go up their next level is doubled; they are undergoing a "personality crisis".

So your DM erred. IMO the AD&D2e method is better.

See but it was easier to ignore the 1st Edition. Where is a 1st level character going to get 10,000 gp? It's simply not serious, and you just tossed it out.

One other thought, in general XXVc is the model I'd have preferred third edition to take.  It was pretty well thought out for the most part.  They could've spent more on interior art though.

Anyhow, I'd have ditched d20s to hit and made weapon skills based on Dex.  And probably gone with stat based saving throws on percentile.  But I digress.

My gaming group and I used a mix of 1st and 2nd edition. I and the other DMs(including myself, there were 4 full time and an aditional 2-3 part time) in our group used the 1st edition DMG for 90% of most things.  

I liked the addition of non-weapon prof, but wish it had been done better. I think Hackmaster did a better job at that.(the skills start low and are percentile based)

The new bard sucked hard. Though I did like how Psionics now had an actual class. I hated to see the dropping of the monk class and others.

THAC0 was a lot better than the old matrices though. I never understood people who couldn't figure that simple math out. Hell, I've show people who were terrible at math how to work THAC0.(I took as much time as needed till the deer-in-headlights look disappeared off their faces)

I hated how the ranged went from a Giant(and Giant-kin) killing bad ass to a warrior who could wield two weapons in light armour and had tracking.

Still, I liked more about 2nd edition than 3rd. I picked up the 3rd edition players when it came out. Read through it a few time to make sure what I was seeing was real and then gave it away.

Then I found Hackmaster and found out what they should  have done for 3rd.

The previous statements are all the opinions  of Nazgul and do not in any way affect your ability to play the game of your choice. Should you wish to respond in part or in whole to this, try  to do so in a rational manner.

The only thing I really hated about 2E was the magic system, but unfortunately fire and forget magic seems to be a staple of D&D magic.

QuoteAD&D 2E is a swine game now?

It is. Your lack of Punditlore is astounding.

You know what really pisses me off about 2nd ed. is that 3rd ed. did everything that 2nd ed. should've done.  Things that you hated weren't really addressed so it wasn't a substantial upgrade over 1st ed.  After 2nd ed., 3rd ed. made us wary that we would be walking into the same situation.  Wizards of the Coast would've of aptly named it 1.5 ed.

Quote from: John MorrowBut here are some more comments Ryan Dancey from that discussion he had on the Pyramid message boards in 2000 that I frequently quote.

My personal opinion about those quotes is that Dancey is telling the grognards what they want to hear.  At that time Dancey was making the intention plain that WotC was going after the "lapsed AD&D1 player".  His reasons for the failure of AD&D2 are just prettied up versions of what AD&D2 haters have used as excuses for years.  The twelve year old girl comment is pretty telling as to his motives and the reaction he's seeking.  That's not to say that there aren't some possible valid complaints there.  I just doubt Dancey's motives for the statements.

Quote from: TonyLBAD&D 2E is a swine game now?  :rotfl:

Because WW snuck into TSR's offices at night and rewrote the game. Or they used their mind rays or something. I forget which. You really have to keep track of the details of Punditlore™ by pure rote because the details don't follow any rational form.  Or you just come to realise that RPGPundit is a loon and ignorance of the details of Punditlore™ is The Way to wisdom. One of those two.

Quote from: John MorrowI wasn't playing D&D actively at the time, so I can't comment personally.  But here are some more comments Ryan Dancey from that discussion he had on the Pyramid message boards in 2000 that I frequently quote.

Well, I consider Dancey to be about as trustworthy as President Bush.

Quote from: DumbassD&D 1E: Character creation begins on page 8.

D&D 2E. Character creation rules begin on page 12.

What, exactly, does this prove?  The first section in the book is still character creation.  AD&D 2 just had a couple extra pages for an art picture, a introduction to the 2nd edition, and listing the credits for the people that worked on it.  Hardly something worth admonishing.

Quote from: DumbassThose included removing demons & devils from the game, taking out anything perceived as "evil" like half-orcs and Assassins...

This was a questionable decision, but given the level of "there's demons in them thar books!" parent reactions, it made some sense to do.  I know some people still consider it "urban legend", but paranoia from parents about D&D extended well into the 90's in the area I lived in.

Quote from: Dumbassand planning a shift away from the DM as the most important consumer towards the players being the most important consumer. That's why you sometimes get the feeling in the 2e core books that someone "has" to be the DM, rather than someone "gets" to be the DM.

Since Dancey's marketing plan for 3e revolved around focusing on the player as a consumer, I fail to see how he can criticize 2e for doing the same thing.  

Quote from: DumbassNo standardization of systems... Nobody during the 2e design worried about standardization because they felt that the weight of existing rules knowledge overcame the problem.

Yeah that, or the fact that they didn't want to drastically change the game that everyone already knew and loved.  Of course, unified systems weren't exactly a consumer mandate back in 1989.

Quote from: DumbassThe game took things away from the players and didn't give them anything back that was a suitable replacement. Monks, Assassins and Half-Orcs are the obvious subtractions. There was a sizable number of people playing Barbarians and Cavaliers too

I never thought getting rid of two classes and a race that weren't really even used that much (they hardly ever even appeared in modules) was a big deal.  As for barbarians and cavaliers, they weren't even in the game until Unearthed Arcana - and UA barely came out before 2e; hardly a staple of the game.

Quote from: DumbassThe artwork in the 2e core books was not evocative of a unique vision of the game.

Perhaps the dumbest criticism I've ever heard.  D&D isn't supposed to have a unique vision - that's the whole point.  And what did Dancey replace it with?  Some "dungeonpunk" crap that isn't evocative of the old D&D whatsoever.

Quote from: DumbassOptional Rules In the Player's Handbook Are A Bad Thing

Hardly a universal opinion.

Quote from: DumbassThe original "Monstrous Compendium" concept didn't work.

One of the few things I agree with him on.  They should have started with the hardback.  Still, hardly worth condemning the whole game over.

Quote from: DumbassCuriously, in the twelve years since the release of 2E in 1989, rather than try to capture those consumers, the RPG industry has done everything in its power to make games as far away from those customers' interests as possible. And, as a result, sales in the RPG category have been in decline since 1993.

I don't agree with Dancey's argument that the industry tried to alienate customers.  TSR may have tried to become more family-friendly.  And White Wolf emerged as a powerhouse by appealing to a new demographic.  But the rest of the industry was pretty much business as usual.  Except that the rest of the industry became plagued with financial problems - caused by internal and external problems.

Quote from: DumbassThe period from 1993 to the present should have been a golden age of RPG business, and instead it was a near-death experience.

This is just laughable.  RPGs were something of a fad in the 80's.  That's gone.  The industry will never be what it was then, no matter what anyone does.

Quote from: DumbassBy management fiat, 2E was aimed at 12 year old girls. The owner of the company had a 12 year old daughter, and wanted the company she ran to produce things her kid wanted to play. That subtle bias affected the entire 2E product line.

This sounds more like urban legend to me.  Can anyone actually confirm this?  Because all the stories suggest that Lorraine wouldn't want her daughter playing D&D at all.  I also fail to see anything in the books resembling this.

The books did try to be less "counterculture" and more friendly to younger demographics.  But that was a good thing.

Besides, 3e is clearly aimed at 12 year old boys.  The art alone makes that obvious.

Quote from: DumbassSales declined because publishers stopped making products consumers wanted to buy.

Again, which publishers is he talking about?  TSR had plenty of sales, what they had a problem with was spreading the sales out over too many lines and some failed board game attempts.  But the RPG sales weren't that bad - it was more of a problem of costs being too high.

White Wolf certainly made products consumers wanted to buy.  They made a mint.

So did Palladium.  Rifts was one of the biggest selling RPGs ever.

The other mid-tier companies kind of collapsed (ICE, WEG, R Talisorian, GDW, etc)  But a lot of that had to do with their own internal problems.  And before they collapsed, they were producing the same stuff they had been for years.

Quote from: jgantsWell, I consider Dancey to be about as trustworthy as President Bush.

The more I read by him the more Dancey sounds like a politician.  He presents a very slanted view as if it were obvious truth so suit his own ends.

Quote from: jgantsWell, I consider Dancey to be about as trustworthy as President Bush.

While his comments definitely had an agenda (selling 3e and the OGL vision), he's still more informed as an insider than most of the people who opine in online message boards.  And bear in mind that his critique of 2E is not the system, per se, but the whole package (including presentation) and how that sold.  Dancey is definitely looking at sales as an indication of success and trying to explain why it didn't sell.

Quote from: jgantsWhat, exactly, does this prove?  The first section in the book is still character creation.  AD&D 2 just had a couple extra pages for an art picture, a introduction to the 2nd edition, and listing the credits for the people that worked on it.  Hardly something worth admonishing.

His point there was that the trend of the industry was toward more exposition.  The more important point, with respect to 2E, was the point about adventures beginning "somewhere in the middle of the product".

Quote from: jgantsThis was a questionable decision, but given the level of "there's demons in them thar books!" parent reactions, it made some sense to do.  I know some people still consider it "urban legend", but paranoia from parents about D&D extended well into the 90's in the area I lived in.

Regardless of whether it was necessary or not, this change is cited by many people as a reason why they didn't like 2E.

Quote from: jgantsSince Dancey's marketing plan for 3e revolved around focusing on the player as a consumer, I fail to see how he can criticize 2e for doing the same thing.

And to be honest, having just run a D&D 3.5 campaign, I think D&D 3e's biggest liability and most frequently sited complaint is that it's horribly time-consuming and complicated to GM and just too much work.  So I would say that D&D 3e failed to at least some degree here, too.  I'm having fun playing in D&D 3.5 games but I'm not sure I'd ever want to run it again as more than a mini-campaign or prepared module.  Too.  Much.  Work.

Quote from: jgantsYeah that, or the fact that they didn't want to drastically change the game that everyone already knew and loved.  Of course, unified systems weren't exactly a consumer mandate back in 1989.

No, but they also were not unknown and the organic nature of AD&D 1E development meant that it was a particularly disorganized mess of different mechanics with little consistency across them.  His point here was that they missed an huge opportunity to make an improvement.  And I think that part of the reason he made that point is that in order to convince people to switch from 1E, 2E couldn't simply be just as good -- it had to be an improvement to justify the overhead of switching.

Quote from: jgantsI never thought getting rid of two classes and a race that weren't really even used that much (they hardly ever even appeared in modules) was a big deal.  As for barbarians and cavaliers, they weren't even in the game until Unearthed Arcana - and UA barely came out before 2e; hardly a staple of the game.

If you've read Robin Law's book Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering, he describes several player types and one of them he calls the "Specialist".  That's the guy who always has to play the Ninja. I think those classes attracted specialists and all a group needed was one player who had to play an Assassin, Monk, Half-Orc, Barbarian, or Cavalier (and let's not forget that the last two were featured in the D&D Cartoon) to keep a whole group from switching.  Another case where it's a problem is with the people who run campaigns that last for a decade or more rather than playing modules and running short campaigns.  If they have those classes in their long-term campaigns, it makes switching editions more difficult if the new edition doesn't have them.  Again, I agree with Dancey that a new edition needs to offer a compelling reason to switch and taking things away from people can offer them a compelling reason not to switch.

Personally, I think the logical next step of adding Prestige Classes would have been to make the Paladin (especially), Ranger, and Bard prestige classes like the Assassin, but I understand why they didn't.

Quote from: jgantsPerhaps the dumbest criticism I've ever heard.  D&D isn't supposed to have a unique vision - that's the whole point.  And what did Dancey replace it with?  Some "dungeonpunk" crap that isn't evocative of the old D&D whatsoever.

I agree with you here, by the way.

Quote from: jgantsHardly a universal opinion.

No, but this goes into the whole "network externality" idea that Dancey thinks is so important and he does make a good point that it puts splits into the player community between people who do things one way and people who do things a different way.  As someone who likes Fudge a great deal, I've seen the other extreme.  Since different Fudge games can be so different (heck, FATE and SotC are "Fudge games"), saying that one plays Fudge doesn't mean much.

Quote from: jgantsOne of the few things I agree with him on.  They should have started with the hardback.  Still, hardly worth condemning the whole game over.

No, but it does help explain the failure of it to sell and get older players to switch.  The binder is still annoying enough to deal with on my shelf (I own quite a bit of 2E stuff even though I never really played it).

Quote from: jgantsI don't agree with Dancey's argument that the industry tried to alienate customers.  TSR may have tried to become more family-friendly.  And White Wolf emerged as a powerhouse by appealing to a new demographic.  But the rest of the industry was pretty much business as usual.  Except that the rest of the industry became plagued with financial problems - caused by internal and external problems.

No, I don't agree.  I do think there was a shift to the whole "storytelling" idea and away from butt-kicking adventure.  And the sales numbers that Dancey provided (which you can doubt, but I have no reason to) suggest that the hobby did, in fact, implode.

Quote from: jgantsThis is just laughable.  RPGs were something of a fad in the 80's.  That's gone.  The industry will never be what it was then, no matter what anyone does.

I'm not sure I fully agree with that.  A decade-and-a-half is a long shelf-life for just a "fad".  Part of what Dancey points out is that people kept playing -- their old games and old editions of games -- and just stopped buying games.  That's a big part of why he wanted to reach out past 2E to the old 1E players.  They were still playing, just not buying new stuff.

Quote from: jgantsThis sounds more like urban legend to me.  Can anyone actually confirm this?  Because all the stories suggest that Lorraine wouldn't want her daughter playing D&D at all.  I also fail to see anything in the books resembling this.

I have no idea if it's true or not, but part of his point here was also that the changes were not driven by market research or demands but by management fiat.

Quote from: jgantsThe books did try to be less "counterculture" and more friendly to younger demographics.  But that was a good thing.

I'm not sure it was and Dancey argues that it wasn't.  As a "fad", D&D had to appeal to college aged people, too, to keep going.  That's what WW did and they did pretty well for themselves during this period.

Quote from: jgantsBesides, 3e is clearly aimed at 12 year old boys.  The art alone makes that obvious.

I don't think that's true, though I certainly think it tries to be accessible to that group.

Quote from: jgantsAgain, which publishers is he talking about?  TSR had plenty of sales, what they had a problem with was spreading the sales out over too many lines and some failed board game attempts.  But the RPG sales weren't that bad - it was more of a problem of costs being too high.

Sure, but none of that was good for 2E or D&D, was it?

Quote from: jgantsWhite Wolf certainly made products consumers wanted to buy.  They made a mint.

While Wolf succeeded by tapping into a new community of players.  I'm not sure that many D&D players jumped ship to go play Vampire, though I'm sure some did.

Quote from: jgantsSo did Palladium.  Rifts was one of the biggest selling RPGs ever.

Correct.  But Palladium was selling what gamers wanted -- a traditional kick-butt adventure game.

Quote from: jgantsThe other mid-tier companies kind of collapsed (ICE, WEG, R Talisorian, GDW, etc)  But a lot of that had to do with their own internal problems.  And before they collapsed, they were producing the same stuff they had been for years.

The argument is not to produce the same stuff, per se, but to appeal to the same sensibilities.  And if you think D&D version wars are a problem, take a look at the Traveller community.

Quote from: NicephorusThe more I read by him the more Dancey sounds like a politician.  He presents a very slanted view as if it were obvious truth so suit his own ends.

Oh, he's definitely got an agenda, but when I read criticism of his comments, his opponents often sound much the same way with their own agenda.

3E did pull me back into D&D for a couple of years. But that was not because it felt like a return to 1E. It didn't feel like that at all. 3E is its own beast. Also, it's definitely targetted at teenagers, and that burned me out after a while.

Quote from: John MorrowDancey is definitely looking at sales as an indication of success and trying to explain why it didn't sell.

I think Dancey is a really smart guy.  But he's a salesman type.  Real slick, if you will.

I think he tells people what he thinks they want to hear so that he can sell them on his ideas.  I also think he skews his research to get exactly the results he was looking for.

I definately don't think he does anything for the love of the game, as it were.

Or to put it another way, I could totally see him being the main character in Thank You For Smoking.

Quote from: John MorrowHis point there was that the trend of the industry was toward more exposition.  The more important point, with respect to 2E, was the point about adventures beginning "somewhere in the middle of the product".

This, again, is a funny point for him to make about modules.  Particularly since the whole point of his plan for D20 was to avoid having WotC produce modules themselves.

Quote from: John MorrowRegardless of whether it was necessary or not, this change is cited by many people as a reason why they didn't like 2E.

I think its one of the symptoms people mention, but I don't think its the real reason.  The real reason, IMO, is that people were upset because by 2e because TSR had "sold out".  But that would have been inevitable.  Regardless of who the owner was or what small changes they did/didn't make, any new edition was going to make them look like a sell out.  People got really attached to the whole counterculture thing that came with D&D, not unlike the similar trends of the time with heavy metal, and then got mad because their "scene" went mainstream.

Quote from: John MorrowNo, but they also were not unknown and the organic nature of AD&D 1E development meant that it was a particularly disorganized mess of different mechanics with little consistency across them.  His point here was that they missed an huge opportunity to make an improvement.  And I think that part of the reason he made that point is that in order to convince people to switch from 1E, 2E couldn't simply be just as good -- it had to be an improvement to justify the overhead of switching.

If no other RPGs ever existed, he might have a point.  But, really, there were dozens of other games that moved to new editions with only slight changes like that.  Look at the versions of Traveller, Runequest, Twilight 2000, Star Wars, Call of Cthulhu, Stormbringer, Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, etc.  

This is just how the industry operates (and will likely always operate).

Of course, once again Dancey's words don't quite match up with what WotC did.  D&D 3.5 is enough of an update to be annoying, but not enough to really convince people to switch.  Consequently, a lot of people stuck with 3.0.

Quote from: John MorrowIf you've read Robin Law's book Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering, he describes several player types and one of them he calls the "Specialist".  That's the guy who always has to play the Ninja. I think those classes attracted specialists and all a group needed was one player who had to play an Assassin, Monk, Half-Orc, Barbarian, or Cavalier (and let's not forget that the last two were featured in the D&D Cartoon) to keep a whole group from switching.  

If the group was smart, they'd let the unique, little snowflake player go off and join some Vampire game instead.  :pundit:

And I still say Unearthed Arcana was a disasterous mess that TSR was smart not to use for 2e.

Quote from: John MorrowAnother case where it's a problem is with the people who run campaigns that last for a decade or more rather than playing modules and running short campaigns.  If they have those classes in their long-term campaigns, it makes switching editions more difficult if the new edition doesn't have them.  Again, I agree with Dancey that a new edition needs to offer a compelling reason to switch and taking things away from people can offer them a compelling reason not to switch.

And yet, 3e made it almost impossible to switch from 1e or 2e.

Quote from: John MorrowNo, but this goes into the whole "network externality" idea that Dancey thinks is so important and he does make a good point that it puts splits into the player community between people who do things one way and people who do things a different way.

How does that differ by putting the optional rules in the DM's guide instead?  And as long as people will have house rules (which is, pretty much, inevitable), you'll still run into these kind of problems.

Quote from: John MorrowNo, but it does help explain the failure of it to sell and get older players to switch.  The binder is still annoying enough to deal with on my shelf (I own quite a bit of 2E stuff even though I never really played it).

See - a lot of his arguments revolve around a bizarre assumption that there were millions of AD&D 1e players that were actively playing but didn't switch to 2e for some reason or another.

In reality, I think there were three groups of people:

1. People who used to play AD&D, but then stopped playing RPGs all together because the overall popularity of the hobby was in decline.

2. People who played AD&D at some point, but found they liked other games.

3. People who still played AD&D, but wouldn't have switched to any new edition even if it came with a hot girl.

I think D&D 3 may have appealed to some of #2 since it was a lot different.  And the big marketing push for 3e probably brought in a lot of #1.  But there's still a #3 group out there that 3e still didn't affect.

Quote from: John MorrowNo, I don't agree.  I do think there was a shift to the whole "storytelling" idea and away from butt-kicking adventure.  And the sales numbers that Dancey provided (which you can doubt, but I have no reason to) suggest that the hobby did, in fact, implode.

I saw plenty of story-telling in White Wolf's stuff.  I saw some in TSR's stuff.  I saw none of it in the other mid-tier publisher's stuff.

And I still contend the implosion of the industry was do to the overall decline in popularity of the hobby.  Not unlike what happened with the wargaming hobby.

Quote from: John MorrowI'm not sure I fully agree with that.  A decade-and-a-half is a long shelf-life for just a "fad".  Part of what Dancey points out is that people kept playing -- their old games and old editions of games -- and just stopped buying games.  That's a big part of why he wanted to reach out past 2E to the old 1E players.  They were still playing, just not buying new stuff.

People stopped buying stuff because they felt they had all they needed.  The endless supplement model for the industry just won't work long term.  Not enough people want to keep buying stuff.

And while 3e may have temporarily made people interested again, it was very short lived.  If you compare today's numbers with those from 2000, they probably won't look all that much better than the numbers were from 1989 to 1997.

Quote from: John MorrowI have no idea if it's true or not, but part of his point here was also that the changes were not driven by market research or demands but by management fiat.

I'll agree that TSR made some bad decisions this way, I'm just not sure that was one of them.

Quote from: John MorrowI'm not sure it was and Dancey argues that it wasn't.  As a "fad", D&D had to appeal to college aged people, too, to keep going.  That's what WW did and they did pretty well for themselves during this period.

And then WW's popularity dropped like a brick.  Again, trying to appeal solely to the college demographic tends to lead to short term success.

AD&D was "cool" because it presented the counterculture aspects of devils, etc - just like heavy metal was doing at the time.  Vampire was "cool" because it presented the moody, introspective, arty aspects - like the popular goth style of the time.

But WW had to change.  And I'd argue NWOD is a lot let "angsty" and a lot more friendly.  In other words, it's sold out (compare complaints of NWOD vs OWOD to the ones about AD&D 2e).

The next big RPG will probably also tap into this market, too.  But then once it bleeds it dry, it will also sell out.

Quote from: John MorrowI don't think that's true, though I certainly think it tries to be accessible to that group.

The art is cartoony and it plays like a video game.  In what way is it not pandering to the teen boy market?

Quote from: John MorrowWhile Wolf succeeded by tapping into a new community of players.  I'm not sure that many D&D players jumped ship to go play Vampire, though I'm sure some did.

And players = consumers, whether they are new or not.

Quote from: John MorrowThe argument is not to produce the same stuff, per se, but to appeal to the same sensibilities.

But that's my point - the overall market decrease was not caused by one product not meeting the needs of consumers.  ICE, GDW, WEG, etc - they didn't go out of business because of changes to AD&D, or even their own games - they went out of business due to a decline in the overall popularity of the hobby.

Quote from: jgantsthey went out of business due to a decline in the overall popularity of the hobby.

What happened during the 90s?  Hint: What are you reading this post on right now? ;)

Quote from: StuartWhat happened during the 90s?  Hint: What are you reading this post on right now? ;)

The intraweb? Are the tubes clogged?

Quote from: StuartWhat are you reading this post on right now? ;)

Crystal Meth?

Grunge?

I didn't Like AD&D 2nd.

I went from D&D to Toon to Shadowrun to Vampire. After these 4 games was when I had my first experience playing AD&D2.

D&D had a chart for everything, easy enough.

Toon was 2d6 roll under. Easy.

Shadowrun had its Dicepool system; Vampire was a  simplified version of that using D10s.

Then I heard the term Thac0. It took me asking 5 times before I could rememeber what it meant. It took me games before I could do it myself. Combine that with all the illogical limits in the game and you have why I think it was shitty.

Being used to the freedom of choice in my last three games, it didn't make sense that a mage couldn't weild a sword, or wear armor, or had certain spells per day. The old Game Balance argument didn't hold up either, Shadowrun was balanced just fine without it.

Quote from: David JohansenThat topic is too large to fit on the entire internet, but here's my list.

Impossibly dry text.  I never played with a single gamer who'd actually read the rules.

Totally messed up weapon stats.  The long bow doing a d8 and 2 attacks per round and heavy crossbows a d4+1 and one attack every three rounds is just the tip of the iceberg.  This is because the game designers just ported across 1st edition and didn't really think about it much.

Including secondary skills and non-weapon proficiencies in the same book.  Everyone seemed to have both on their character sheet.  It's one or the other people.

Non-weapon proficiencies that didn't mesh with theives abilities.  What?  I can hide in shadows 25% of the time but I've got a 14 in 20 as a blacksmith?  I'm in the wrong line of work.  Actually the theives abilities were a compound mess as it is.  See Buck Rogers XXVc for how 2nd edition should have worked on just about every count.

Complete books of cheese.  Character kits as background would be fine.  As archetypes with special abilities.  Cheeese!

TSR management's phobia of anything offensive has to fit in here somewhere.

That sounds about right. This having been said, I found that it did do some things better (for instance, I like THAC0 better than I like cross-referencing charts). I think my best D&D experience was the long-running 1e/2e hybrid that I played in circa 1995-97 (it took the good and dumped the crap of both systems).

Quote from: jgantsPerhaps the dumbest criticism I've ever heard.  D&D isn't supposed to have a unique vision - that's the whole point.  And what did Dancey replace it with?  Some "dungeonpunk" crap that isn't evocative of the old D&D whatsoever.

Strange, then, that I began playing going on 30 years ago, and 3e sure seemed to evoke that old game for me. And "dungeonpunk" is a trite, overused, and totally inaccurate term for the game, mostly used by those who have never actually played it, in my experience.

Quote from: jgantsBesides, 3e is clearly aimed at 12 year old boys.  The art alone makes that obvious.

While art for the earliest editions looked like it was drawn by 12 year olds. 12 year olds who weren't particularly gifted. "I spent like three hours doing the shading on your upper lip. It's probably the best drawing I've ever done."

Plus, it sure seems 3e has attracted a helluva lot more than 12 year olds, given that this 41 year old likes it, and has played in groups with people even older.

:forge:

Quote from: ColonelHardissonStrange, then, that I began playing going on 30 years ago, and 3e sure seemed to evoke that old game for me. And "dungeonpunk" is a trite, overused, and totally inaccurate term for the game, mostly used by those who have never actually played it, in my experience.

My statement was in reference to the style of art.  Dancey's complaint was that 2e art wasn't uniform enough to suggest the type of game world being played in.  My rebuttal is that the 3e art style is not at all reminiscent of any prior artistic style - so he created something uniform, but completely different than any style used in any past edition of the game.

I think the game can play more or less like the previous versions.  Though I have to say, I played in a D&D 3 campaign for a year and a half and didn't care for the 3e rules at all (for at least a dozen different reasons).

Quote from: ColonelHardissonWhile art for the earliest editions looked like it was drawn by 12 year olds. 12 year olds who weren't particularly gifted. "I spent like three hours doing the shading on your upper lip. It's probably the best drawing I've ever done."

I agree.  AD&D 1e had horrid art (except for the revised book covers).  BD&D and AD&D 2e had much better art, though.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonPlus, it sure seems 3e has attracted a helluva lot more than 12 year olds, given that this 41 year old likes it, and has played in groups with people even older.

I didn't say that it wouldn't appeal to people other than teenage boys, just that teenage boys are clearly the target audience for 3e (and not the college age audience targeted by 1e).

As a kid I had some absolutely wonderful times playing AD&D2.  Mechanically it was cleaner and more comprehensible than 1st edition.  The Monstrous Manual is still one of the best hardbound critter books in the industry.  The PHB was pretty darn good, too.  The DMG was a real disappointment, but adequate.

I loathe pretty much the rest of the line.  If we agree that the "Swine" theory of RPG culture is true (which I consider a debatable point), then Settembrini is right in calling the AD&D line swinish.  The corebooks can support old school adventure gaming, but there was a definite sea change in the modules and settings.  Metaplot and storytelling became the word of the day.

I agree with Calithena that a lot of the charm of 1st edition was deliberately drained out of the 2nd.  In fact, my most successful AD&D2nd campaign was heavily hybrided with the 1st edition.  Towards the end of that game the players still used the 2nd edition PHB and I was using almost nothing but 1st ed materials.  But then I also played a ripping fun campaign run by a friend that was strictly 2nd ed.

Quote from: jrientsThe Monstrous Manual is still one of the best hardbound critter books in the industry.

Yes, absolutely.  I think that's the one area that 3e went downhill.  I loved the mini-ecology sections and writeups on each of the beasties inside.

-O

Okay, I've played all three editions and this is how I feel.  1st edition was completely broken and took a rocket scientist to understand.  2nd Edition was by far the best.  It allowed for the most leeway and customization without resorting to cumbersome feats and such.  I mean really, how confusing is it to roll 6 stats, pick a class, race, and alignment and plug in the rest of the #'s? (such as thac0, ac, and saves) 2E left the most room open to interpretation to players and dm's.

To those of you who bitched about figuring out your to hit number.  Not terribly complicated. Take your thac0 and subtract the ac your trying to hit.  This is the number you need or higher to hit.  How hard is that really and if you can't figure that out then you need to go back to first grade math.

As far as the expansions went these were nice optional accessories that added as much depth as a player or dm wanted.  It's not like 3e and 3.5 e haven't done the same thing, just copy and pasting from previous editions with slightly better artwork.

3E and 3.5E where do I start.  Or finish. Maybe this sums it up.  While walking through a bookstore a friend of mind happened to spot a Dungeons and Dragons for Dummies handbook.  My friend turns to me and says "Hey look, it's a 3rd edition players handbook!"  3e and 3.5e were nothing but lame attempts for wizards of the coast do what they've done to everything else they've got their hands on.... Dumb it down to a first grade level and market it towards all the little pokemon/magic/you name the current fad geeks.  Just a way of trying to milk it out and make everyone who bought the old school stuff shell out even more dough.

Seriously, was 2nd edition so busted it needed a whole new line... no.  Confused by some of the rules, the only ones you really need are basic combat rules.  I mean, how often are you going to be performing aerial dueling.

So, to those of you who still rant that 2e sucked even though some of us have been enjoying it since before you started sucking on mama, Take you pile of crap that you call 3E and stuff it.

To those who know how much fun 2E really is, and stuck to your guns... Good for you.

Quote from: ChuckMansonSo, to those of you who still rant that 2e sucked even though some of us have been enjoying it since before you started sucking on mama, Take you pile of crap that you call 3E and stuff it.

Watch out everyone!  It's time for NERD RAGE!

-O

Quote from: ChuckManson3e and 3.5e were nothing but lame attempts for wizards of the coast do what they've done to everything else they've got their hands on.... Dumb it down to a first grade level and market it towards all the little pokemon/magic/you name the current fad geeks.

Buh? 3.x is dumbed down? Just because it has a unified resolution scheme doesn't mean it's dumbed down. Good Lord, when you add feats and PrCs and include the variables in combat that AoO provide, the game has plenty of complexity and a whole new slew of abbreviations to boot :p .

It's cool you like 2nd ed and all, but the line above needed a solid whipping.

Quote from: ChuckMansonTo those who know how much fun 2E really is, and stuck to your guns... Good for you.

Actually, I updated to Castles & Crusades.  What REAL gamers play.

Quote from: ChuckMansonOkay, I've played all three editions and this is how I feel.  1st edition was completely broken and took a rocket scientist to understand.

and yet people still play and enjoy it, some even say that it was easier to deal with then 2nd ed.

Quote from: ChuckManson2nd Edition was by far the best.  It allowed for the most leeway and customization without resorting to cumbersome feats and such.  I mean really, how confusing is it to roll 6 stats, pick a class, race, and alignment and plug in the rest of the #'s? (such as thac0, ac, and saves) 2E left the most room open to interpretation to players and dm's.

Oh yes the saves...  please forgive me if I'm running a game and find it a LOT easier to figure that a trap requires a Con or Ref save then figuring out a save vs wands or such.

Quote from: ChuckMansonJust a way of trying to milk it out and make everyone who bought the old school stuff shell out even more dough.

Reminds me of the people writing letters into Dragon when 2nd Ed came out complaining that the magazine would be supporting the new edition and not that books they had paid for years before...  (and the letters when 3rd came out I'm guessing, I know there were letters as far as 3.0 vs 3.5)

Quote from: ChuckMansonSo, to those of you who still rant that 2e sucked even though some of us have been enjoying it since before you started sucking on mama, Take you pile of crap that you call 3E and stuff it.

To those who know how much fun 2E really is, and stuck to your guns... Good for you.

You know, what I've read of the thread hasn't really had all that much of people saying that 2ed sucked, more that they had issues with some mechanics or felt that problems with 1st ed still hadn't been fixed. I'm really hoping that you check out some more of the site and even the rest of this thread.

As far as people playing 2nd Ed and having fun? Rock on!! It was the first version of D&D that I played and I had tons of fun with it. So did a lot of other people who post here.  Open up a thread and I'm pretty sure that you will have people join you.

Quote from: joewolzActually, I updated to Castles & Crusades.  What REAL gamers play.

Fuck that, real gamers (like me) buy swords at the local sporting goods store and go do some classic appartment crawls. I'm really proud of the +1 Plasma Screen I looted last week.

Dice are for wimps.

Quote from: joewolzActually, I updated to Castles & Crusades.  What REAL gamers play.

I thought real gamers played Hackmaster.:p

Quote from: JamesVFuck that, real gamers (like me) buy swords at the local sporting goods store and go do some classic appartment crawls. I'm really proud of the +1 Plasma Screen I looted last week.

Dice are for wimps.

Dude! I want to play in your campaign!:D

2nd edition D&D did not "suck".

It was a highly playable game that worked for the situations encountered most often in my campaigns.

That said, it IS the worst edition of the 4 D&D editions thus far (OD&D, AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e and D&D 3e/3.5).

So it gets a lot of flack. Being the worst of something tends to do that, but I wouldn't confuse it with the game sucking.

Quote from: ChuckMansonOkay, I've played all three editions and this is how I feel.  1st edition was completely broken and took a rocket scientist to understand.  

I often wonder what sort of rocket me and the other 5th graders would have built had we not been misapplying our genius to playing AD&D...

Seriously, I had never heard of RPGs and yet somehow managed to figure it out. 1st ed was not broken, mine still runs just fine and I've never even changed the oil.:D The hobby as we know it wouldn't exist without that broken game that people still somehow manage to play.

2nd ed is OK rules-wise, the worst thing they did with that edition was to get rid of all the "evil" stuff (assassins, demons, etc) IMO. That and the whole addition of feats and what not towards the end there. I didnt mind the class/race books at the time, but now they seem kinda gimmicky. I like 2nd ed better than 3rd though. In the end, it's all D&D to me.

Kids are really comfortable with not understanding. They are used to it. It's happens all the time, most of their life has been spent not understanding this thing or that.  They just gloss over the parts they don't understand and run with the bits they do.  Have you ever witnessed two kids that are strangers to each other babble and gesture unintelligebly to each other and act satisfied that they've not only communicated but communicated fabulously? They didn't really but enough got through from the tone of voice and posture and hand gestures that it was enough.

Adults are usually, to some degree, less comfortable with things they don't understand....if they happen to notice them. Of course often things that they got into the habit of ignoring as a kid they will continue to ignore because nothing's changed to trigger them noticing. They've already filled in the gaps of non-understanding with something they've made up. That's just how people work. That is how we need to work to get by. To do otherwise would cause unknowns or the large amounts of details in everyday life to paralize us into inaction.

We use and do things without understanding them everyday. With mixed results.

You know, I'm reading 1st Edition through, cover to cover, for the first time.

And it's a way better game than I'd imagined. There are, obviously, some wonky things to my second-generation brain - the busted-ass dual-classing rules that reward you for rolling up a better character, f'rex - but I'd totally play or run it by the book, Gygax advice as canon. Preferably with people that aren't my current group and would actually take it seriously.

I just wanted to interject a little pro-1e chatter into the thread. 'cause I'm reading it, and it's cool, and all edition wars end up covering the whole gamut anyway.

Quote from: Christmas ApeI just wanted to interject a little pro-1e chatter into the thread. 'cause I'm reading it, and it's cool, and all edition wars end up covering the whole gamut anyway.

I think that's also why 2nd ed. gets the criticism it gets, so it's worthwhile to note.  2nd ed. didn't really do that much to enhance our D&D game and most of us felt dissapointed we converted to it.  When we tried to sexy it up with supplements, we completely broke it.

Quote from: Abyssal MawSee but it was easier to ignore the 1st Edition. Where is a 1st level character going to get 10,000 gp? It's simply not serious, and you just tossed it out.

Both seem equally easy to ignore (or modify) as they have no further influence on the mechanics of the game.

I started playing D&D way back in the day and transitioned from that to AD&D 2nd Edition.  I had to reply to this post.

I think 2nd Edition was great.  One thing that D&D carried with it from its inception was that humans for the most part were always comparable to real humans (like us).  Weapon, Non-Weapon, Thief, and other physical abilities fell within a range of things that real people could do.  Even the max strength lifting numbers were based on what a human lifted in real life.  The only thing that really transcended out of that realm of reality were magic/cleric spells (which actually applied to all races).  

Now I took a long break from D&D/AD&D and then tried out the new game 3.5  The new game has totally changed everything to be like a comic book.  Feats are a huge part of the game,a nd for the most part feats are things that real people cannot do (whirlwind attack, fire several arrows at once from a bow, etc).  Also, you can now get to strength levels that are totally impossible for real humans.  I only played again (3.5) for a short while (6 months to see if I could get back into it) and doubt I'll ever play an RPG again, I like real life better.  

D&D/AD&D also had a long history of accurately portraying weapons and their usage into the game by sticking to historical weapons from real life.  Now they have weapons that never existed (and would not even be practical to use in real life - double sword, double axe) in the game.  In addition, somebody went through and min/maxed every damn weapon in the whole game.  Why does a mace do bludgeoning and piercing damage, but not a flail.  The only reason I see is:  because a flail has the ability to trip as a weapon and giving it bludgeon/pierce status would unbalance the weapons.  In AD&D 2nd Edition, the weapons (except for the crossbow which has always gotten the shaft - no pun intended) were based more on their actual size/effectiveness.  Sure, the longsword was head and shoulders above most weapons and now in 3.5 it isn't, but in real life it WAS the damn weapon of choice because it was the most effective at several things.  In 2nd Edition, it was the player's choice, and if they picked a weapon that kinda sucked it was for roleplaying reasons.  Now, all of the choices have been made for you, all weapons are equal (what is this some PC BS).

Anyways, I hate edition 3.5  The miniatures really ruined the game.  Everything is decided for you.  You aren't rewarded for cool ideas because everything is a dice roll instead of giving the DM the ability to say "yeah, great idea, it works."  There is no imagination left.

The artwork.  Oh, the artwork!  The artwork of 3.5 can only be described as GAS (Gay As $hit).  It looks terrible.  If I saw some of that stuff in real life (characters or monsters) I would probably die from laughter.  It used to have high quality color artwork and the women were women you would want to be seduced by.  Now, I get to look at some anime chick with a big head and a stick body.  The artwork used to be very realistic and evoke a feeling that you were really there.  Now, everybody looks like a pussy or and ugly anime chick.

If you couldn't figure out THAC0, then you're retarded!

Well, that was certainly worth a necro.

:rollbarf:

Have a nice life!

I wonder who 2nd Edition Rocks is when he's not a sockpuppet.

Have a nice life!

Quote from: 2nd Edition RocksAnyways, I hate edition 3.5  The miniatures really ruined the game.  Everything is decided for you.  You aren't rewarded for cool ideas because everything is a dice roll instead of giving the DM the ability to say "yeah, great idea, it works."  There is no imagination left.

I think this bit is important and entirely relevant.

One of the big philosophy changes in D&D3 is that player proficiency during play isn't as important as character build and roll modifiers.  I commented on this indirectly not too long ago in a thread on traps.  In the days of Basic D&D, AD&D1, and AD&D2, traps were about exploring your environment with your character and otherwise being observant and experimental.  This led to a few strange things, like parties having a person tapping the floor ahead of them with a 10 foot pole checking for traps.  But the idea was to have traps be puzzles which players had to outhink.  Using Find/Remove Traps checks was an absolute last resort when everything else had failed.

(Some time back, I found a play log of a group of players going through the infamous module Tomb of Horrors.  These players knew what they were doing, and got through the module successfully by carefully and skillfully testing their environment.  They easily surpassed deathtraps which I've read for years and wondered how anyone was supposed to know they were there.  They did all this without so much as a single Find Traps check.)

But in D&D3 and D20, despite claims of changing the game to promote "mastery", this has changed.  Trap finding, and many other things, are now merely skill modifiers which you either roll or take 10/20 on.  The modifier is more important than the conduct of play.  In a few D&D modules I've read, I've noticed traps aren't even described.  They're merely DCs with an amount of damage you take if they aren't avoided by a die roll or disarmed by a die roll.

This really extends to everything in the Wizards D20 philosophy.  Do you have a surprising plan for combat?  Make a Bluff check.  Negotiating with an NPC?  No talking is required, just roll Bargain.  Does your character find the hidden safe behind the painting?  No reason to describe looking behind the painting, just roll a Search check.

There are good parts to this change, but I feel that the bad outweighs the good.

Oh, I also agree that the artwork sucks and the people who couldn't figure out THAC0 need to go back to their elementary mathematics classes.  :p  Still, flipping around the ACs so that higher was better was a good and much needed change.

Have a nice life!

I don't know what the good Father's telling you, 2ER, but whatever it is you're playing in a bathroom stall ain't D&D. Also, read the fucking thread with both your accounts. I'm a 1e man these days, those times I play D&D. Which is almost never.

Have a nice life!

Quote from: 2nd Edition RocksYes, on the surprising plan for combat note.  I remember a time where if you came up with something really cool, the DM just winged how it worked and you could improvise results (DM and characters).

This taking 20 stuff is kind of silly.  Dice now dominate the game.  And IMO, using miniatures has taken the game from the head/imagination of the player to a gameboard/PC (Microsoftish) sort of game.  I won't be surprised if they come out with some kind of "game console" in which AofO's and all sorts of other things just happen.

Winging it isn't really a enviable mechanical option.  However, I do think in these two examples, the first one is superior:

Quote from: Example 1Player: Comes up with a plan.

GM: Thinks of the plan and it's implications for the game.  He also considers whether the opposition has considered this plan and created measures to prevent it from being effective.

Then the players do what they planned and the GM has the opposition organically react.

Quote from: Example 2Player: Comes up with a plan.

GM: Asks for a Bluff check (or whatever is applicable) to see if it is effective.

The benefit of Example 2 is that it gives the player action concrete mechanical effects which are ideally not influenced by GM fiat.

The bad thing is that it doesn't consider player intelligence or ingenuity.  All that matters is the character build and a die roll. That's why I strongly feel Example #1 is superior.  The player's skill and attentiveness to game detail is involved.  D&D3 encourages Example 2, and downplays Example 1.

I do think the Take 10/20 stuff is good.  It gives a concrete example of when skill rolls are really necessary or not.  While I've met many GMs who are just obsessed with requiring rolls to make players fail, I've met as many or more who just don't grasp the idea of when a skill check should be required.

So you're to defend a game you don't play? I think I know a place you'll fit right in...

:forge:

Have a nice life!

Quote from: 2nd Edition RocksI can only describe D&D 3.5 as sucking more c__k than 2 queers in the restroom of a gay bar!  It really sucks!

Blow me, you homophobic, basement dwelling motherfucker.

See what I did there? I can use inflammatory, sexually charged, theoretically taboo words too. Brilliant.

But seriously, get lost.

Quote from: 2nd Edition RocksI can only describe D&D 3.5 as sucking more c__k than 2 queers in the restroom of a gay bar!  It really sucks!

I was ready to give your comments an even break until you popped this little gem.  

If you want to be taken seriously, quit doing that.

Erm.

I'm really not understanding your use of an alt here.  Are you a regular who's too cowardly to state your opinions unless you're behind an alt?

Or are you a new poster so unimaginative your username is based on the first asinine thread you resurrect from the site's way-back machine?

-O

Haven't you guys learned yet not to bother arguing with Nox about his repugnant opinions?

Have a nice life!

Quote from: 2nd Edition RocksThanatos, I know you're proud of being a queer, but forunately we live in a country that allows free speech and I can say whatever I want and not have to give a shit about how you and your boyfriend feel about it.

Tell it to my girlfriend, you ignorant fuck.

Have a nice life!

We have a winner. I think 2er is the biggest asshole on the board. It's kinda fun to see you jumping about 'nicing' up your shitheaded posts. Good thing some of the crap got caught in quotes.

It really is an accomplishment. All for a game you dont even play.

I'm impressed, Nox, does this get you another notch on your belt?

Edit: My bad. Sorry Nox. I thought this was your thread.

Have a nice life!

Quote from: 2nd Edition RocksDo you really think I give a shit what you think about me?

You obviously do. You came crawling out of the woodwork in order to tell me and others your opinion and to telegraph that your an asshole. I think you've done both very well.

Quote from: 2nd Edition RocksI'll be gone, never to visit this site again by tomorrow (if that).

Uh uh. Good.

Do you mean:

Telegraph that "you're" an asshole.

I think you've just proven you have shit for brains.

Quote from: 2nd Edition RocksDo you mean:

Telegraph that "you're" and asshole.

I think you've just proven you have shit for brains.

Psst. You're thinking of:

Telegraph that you're "an" asshole.

But thanks for playing.

At least mine was a typo!

Awwwwww. Little too slow, chief. Maybe next time.

Quote from: 2nd Edition RocksAt least mine was a typo!

I had to quote just for the rich comedy action. In case 2er wants to edit more history.

Yow, times like this I wish I had it set to send me a daily list of the posts instead of just a notice of a reply, seems I missed a lot, and don't ever get to read most of it as it's been edited away... :(

Oh, the bulk of it is in either his first post to the thread, or quoted later. You didn't miss much.

Quote from: 2nd Edition RocksHave a nice life!

Awww, it looks like the troll took his ball and went home.

Well, assuming he had a ball to begin with.  He was short at least one.

-O

Quote from: 2nd Edition RocksI started playing D&D way back ....(whatever year)......

The artwork.  Oh, the artwork! The artwork of 3.5 can only be described as GAS (Gay As $hit).  It looks terrible.  If I saw some of that stuff in real life (characters or monsters) I would probably die from laughter.  It used to have high quality color artwork and the women were women you would want to be seduced by.  Now, I get to look at some anime chick with a big head and a stick body.  The artwork used to be very realistic and evoke a feeling that you were really there.  Now, everybody looks like a pussy or and ugly anime chick.

If you couldn't figure out THAC0, then you're retarded!

 Before he changes and edits this post into  : Have a Nice Life ...

 I don't know what the fuck he is talking about. I LOVE some of the artwork connected to D&D 3.09/3.5. Lidda the halfling Rogue ?  She looks  VERY hot , depening on which artist is portraying her.  Hell, I'm not even playing  D&D for the most part - and yet I still rip-offd.....er um "borrow" plenty of the artwork to use with my BANESTORM game.  Some Caldwell and Parkinson stuff that was meant for 2E AD&D is quite good too.

- Ed C.

For the record, I checked the IP addresses and I don't think 2ER is a sock puppet.

Quote from: jrientsFor the record, I checked the IP addresses and I don't think 2ER is a sock puppet.

That's actually more pathetic, I think.

I frankly roll more with Elmore, Easley, Parkinson and Caldwell, if it's D&D art we're talkin'. Just appeals to me more is all.

That said...many's been the time I've wanted to whip out some AD&D 2nd Ed. and totally wail on it like a ninja wails on his ghee-tar, but I'm actually more drawn to 1st Edition.

Why?

I prefer Second Edition art -it told a story as someone once said on tBP. But I REALLY loved the artwork in the boxed (Red,Blue...what the hell was the fourth colour...and Gold) D&D sets.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI prefer Second Edition art -it told a story as someone once said on tBP. But I REALLY loved the artwork in the boxed (Red,Blue...what the hell was the fourth colour...and Gold) D&D sets.

Regards,
David R

Red, Blue, Teal, Black, Gold (Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortals)

I know it's unpopular to say it, but I'll do it anyway. I LIKE SECOND EDITION. (AD&D, that is) :D

The rules aren't perfect, but they're easy enough for me to understand, and if I need to change something, I can do it in a snap. I'd also like to mention that the 2e Player's Handbook is clear, concise, and well-organized. The 2e DMG is boring, but that's ok, as it gives me the basic info I need. I plug in a few 1e rules to style things up, and I've got my magic 1e/2e hybrid. I dig that. :)

The 2e rules I find most useful (that I've read) are:

(1.) Player's Handbook
(2.) DMG
(3.) Monster Manual
(4.) Tome of Magic
(5.) The Complete Book of Necromancers
(6.) Vikings Campaign Sourcebook

The other stuff is unnecessary, though I have many other supplements I like. :)

Quote from: Sacrificial LambI know it's unpopular to say it, but I'll do it anyway. I LIKE SECOND EDITION. (AD&D, that is) :D

*shrug* Rock on, Lamb Dude.  I'd rather see a someone who's happy with his game, than one who's gonna poop on mine.

See?  This is how to be excellent to each other.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!See?  This is how to be excellent to each other.

Agreed, and once we can master that vital skill, we can take the next step, and Party On Dudes!!!

Quote from: GabrielThe bad thing is that it doesn't consider player intelligence or ingenuity.  All that matters is the character build and a die roll. That's why I strongly feel Example #1 is superior.  The player's skill and attentiveness to game detail is involved.  D&D3 encourages Example 2, and downplays Example 1.

The two examples you provided aren't mutually exclusive. But more importantly, these things should, IMO, be based more on the character than on the player's intelligence and skill. Otherwise, why bother having half the ability scores? Why even bother to make up a name? Just say "I'm playing myself, but stronger and more badass than I actually am." Part of having the character is accepting that it might, in the game world, have limitations that you wouldn't.

Sure, maybe you can figure out that stupid fucking riddle that serves no purpose other than to waste time, but that doesn't mean the character has the knowledge, skill, or insight to do so. Then what you end up with is too many situations where Grog DumbOrcBarbarian, who (to paraphrase from Battlelords), couldn't spell cat if you spotted him the C and the A, suddenly can figure out some arcane 13-digit puzzle lock on the vault door, or which candles have to be moved when, etc.

"Grog am idiot savant. With big axe."

I don't have a problem with GrogIdiotSavant I. It's kind of annoying after GrogIdiotSavant XIV.

And, IMO, the art for pretty much every edition has kind of sucked, except for Brom's DS art.

I always liked Planescape's. Actually, the whole damn setting was cool. If I'd play 2nd these days, it be for the Darksun or the Planescape, actually. But considering it's just as easy to port these things over, I don't feel the need.

I don't like 2nd, but I don't have anything against those that do. It meets and exceeds their needs! That's good times. Just as long as they don't mind me playing 3rd Ed. or something over here. ^_^