TheRPGSite

I saw RPG Pundit lambasting 2e on Twitter today and I thought, so why is 2e the best edition of DnD ever produced?

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

For me, its art was the most iconic any edition of D&D has ever had within its pages.

I mostly skipped 2E.  Played it once at a convention.  Didn't have anything in particular against it, but wasn't blown away compared to 1E.  Mined a few of the books for material in other systems late in the 2E run, but that was about it.  I get why a lot of people enjoy the various settings, but most of them did not interest me.  Didn't help any that the 2E run almost exactly corresponded to my lack of interest in running D&D at all.  The few times I did run D&D during that time, it was Rules Compendium.

I always felt that early 2e and late 2e were almost entirely different games. Did anyone else feel this way?

Quote from: Shasarak;1108613I saw RPG Pundit lambasting 2e on Twitter today and I thought, so why is 2e the best edition of DnD ever produced?

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

I love AD&D 2E, it has great artwork and gave us Ravenloft: Realm of Terror and Masque of the Red Death.

Plus, 2E has sentimental value since it's my Dad's favorite edition.

Quote from: Shasarak;1108613I saw RPG Pundit lambasting 2e on Twitter today and I thought, so why is 2e the best edition of DnD ever produced?

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

Because it was basically 1e but cleaned up.

Honestly a lot of the main complaints that people had with 2E - the bowdlerisation of content - are nothing now.  They may have mattered at the time.  But these days now that both editions of AD&D are long dead if you want  Demons rather than T'narri or want to put back in Half-Orc assassins - it's not an issue.

2e felt like a compromise edition.
It was a Watered down 1st ed ADnD (due to the whole Satanic panic thing) and the skill system felt bolted on as an afterthought.
It was the edition that caused to me to move onto other RPGs and I never came back to DnD until Pathfinder and later 5e.

I Did give 4e a go I suppose, but for me that way way the worst edition of DnD and I only played for a few sessions as a friend REALLY wanted me to try it out.

I skipped the entire DnD 3e and 3.5.

Quote from: Shasarak;1108613I saw RPG Pundit lambasting 2e on Twitter today and I thought, so why is 2e the best edition of DnD ever produced?

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

I think 2nd ed is a good spot for complexity. Considering Basic, AD&D and then 3rd edition.
2nd is where the game started moving away from xp for treasure and towards xp as reward for playing the game. (Class awards, etc.)

And this was a fertile ground for the boxed settings that came out for 2nd. Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, etc. They could have been created for other editions, but I think there was a certain direction that 2nd took, that facilitated them especially.
But then, this was also the direction of story over gameplay, which was not so good.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1108618I always felt that early 2e and late 2e were almost entirely different games. Did anyone else feel this way?

Are you talking about the hardback "Player's Options" stuff for late 2nd? Because yes, I feel that's where the game became 2.5, leading into 3rd edition.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1108634Are you talking about the hardback "Player's Options" stuff for late 2nd? Because yes, I feel that's where the game became 2.5, leading into 3rd edition.

Yep. Spells & Magic, Combat & Tactics, and Skills & Powers (or titles similar to those) were what I was talking about.

EDIT: I wonder when we'll get the product(s) that marks the unofficial start of 5.5...

I have mixed feelings about 2e.

Yes, it's a bit cleaned up. It's organized in a somewhat rational way. But it also split chapters randomly between the PH and the DMG, which can make it hard to find specific rules quickly. And while the text is easy to read, it isn't a good example of technical writing. For instance, how does THAC0 work? Or skill checks? Those are core mechanics, and should be called out, explained upfront, and how to roll, what you need to roll, and how to apply the modifiers should be clearly explained. Except they're not, both of those rules are buried in kind of random places in the middle of a paragraph, and the descriptions are very sloppy. Do you add or subtract modifiers from the roll, or from THAC0? It doesn't actually tell you.

The same with the mechanics. Speed factors? Pretty good. Weapon vs. armor? Yes, it's simpler than 1e, but by making all slashing weapons and all bludgeoning weapons the same, it means knives are as good against armor as 2H swords or battle axes, and clubs are as good as maces. So it lost the point of the mechanic. A simpler morale? Great! Except while the core mechanic is simple, the actual conditions that trigger a morale check is a really long list. That hurts usability, especially since the morale system in B/X only had 2 conditions, but covered all the essentials. Or priest spheres -- great idea, I love the idea of customizable priests. But the spells assigned to each sphere make a horrible mish-mash of the priestly classes -- for instance, clerics get reincarnate, while druids do not. The worst is probably the XP system, which is stuck in this bizarre limbo where it's trying to graft story-based rewards on the traditional XP system, and does it in a way that's mathematically broken (giving a fixed XP reward doesn't scale when XP requirements increases geometrically).

But 2nd edition really shined in other areas. Like others in the thread, I loved the art (in the non-revised edition). The full color plates in particular were spectacular, and inspiring. It was heroic, whimsical, and mythic, in turns. It opened the doors to many possibilities. And some of the fluff really shined -- the section on Heward's Mystical Organ, for instance, is how legendary artifacts should be. But others parts clashed seriously with the rules. Probably the biggest problem is that based on the tone and fluff, 2nd edition clearly wanted to be heroic, high fantasy. But the rules really didn't change all that much, it's still mostly 1e under the hood. And 1st edition is brutal, unforgiving, doesn't guarantee you a zero to hero heroic arc, and rewards the greedy. So there was a contradiction between the expectations they created, and how the game actually ran.

Not a fan, the edition where there's no point in playing anything other than an elf fighter/magic-user because +1 to hit with long swords and long bows with longbows with sheaf arrows doing 2d4 twice a round and being able to specialize and get one built to your strength for the damage bonus.  Also, since everyone's playing fighter/magic-users you can pretty much level up by staying in town and trading the spells you have in your books.  It's a shame they didn't put non-weapon proficiencies on the same scale as thieves abilities and set them all at stat + up to 10 points per level.  It's also the edition where most adventurers are better at their non-weapon proficiencies than their class abilities.  As has been mentioned before they completely borked the weapons, particularly damage type verses armour but I've often wondered if the designers had ever actually played D&D.

 I do think the objective of streamlining and rationalizing the system was good.  In particular the combat turn was a lot easier to figure out. The integration and rationalization of the better parts of Unearthed Arcana was worthwhile.  Toned down weapon specialization, improved  The art in the first printing was fantastic, Elmore and Easley for the win, far better than anything they've used since.  The second run art was weird and not great.  There is one thing better than a long bow though, a staff sling, not quite as good for damage but two shots a round and you get your strength bonus to damage without paying for a personalized weapon.  The hardback Monstrous Manual is probably the best Monster Manual ever.

The art was stunning!  The rules generally worked.  The core books (and Ravenloft) invoked wonder in my impressionable mind.

Yes. :)

I love the 2nd Edition AD & D PHB.

I think you spelled Swords & Wizardry White Box wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's almost enough to change my mind. :D

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

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

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

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

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

QuoteI skipped the entire DnD 3e and 3.5.

Don't hate me! I had to! :p

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3900[/ATTACH]

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

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3900[/ATTACH]

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

I know it's Pundit site but man it's like watching a tabletop version of Ole Anderson. Everything he likes or approves of is the greatest thing ever. Everything else he dislikes is the shits.

2E to me flaws and all will always have a special place in my heart. It was the version of D&D I played the most.

2e's certainly better than 5e and 4e. At the very least magic is rarer, and combat is dangerous.

It's the ultimate toolbox, very easy to use anything from 1st. When I DM my worlds are 2nd edition but using the things I like and actually work from 1st. Because no matter what the purists say they'd are problems with 1st edition.

A fat amount of the dislikes are nomenclature changes, devils and demons where always there, just give them whatever name you want.

Quote from: Brad;1108653The best version of D&D is whatever version I played when I was a kid that used AD&D, B/X, BECMI, Rolemaster, Palladium, and Tunnels and Trolls mashed together.

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

At the zenith of our 2e campaigns, my group was a hybrid of: 2e/1e, with elements of Palladium Fantasy, Talislanta, Houserules, tons of stuff from Dragon, stuff from Gamma World, we even had bits of Rolemaster/MERP in there. But 2e was the chassis which we built our Titanic Frankenstein.

2e - a BEAST with 24-redundant arms, 15-extra tonsils, ramshackle jangly chunks and pieces... but it got the job done and worked great under dense pressure. While there ARE distinctions between 1e and 2e... the truth is you can mishmash them pretty easily to the point where if they nipped/tucked them together intelligently and added a couple of flourishes and said "3e" - I'd have been very happy and likely still playing D&D today.

I loved 2e when it came out and even gave away most of my 1e stuff. I ran a 2e campaign for about three years and played in one for two of those years, but, thinking back now, I don't really have any sort of fond memories of the rules. They sort of worked but they didn't do anything particularly well and felt very vanilla and generic, the art especially.

My "best" versions of D&D are OD&D and 3e. They both did different things and did them well. I'm currently trying to merge the two into one, ultimate edition.

The core of what made 2e great was it was fully compatible with AD&D. Yes, the skill system was tacked on...the better to bring AD&D characters into 2nd edition. You didn't really "adapt" your old  stuff to 2nd, the differences were so minute. Come 3e, and you've got real work, 4e is wtfbbq if you try to adapt to any D&D game before it. 5e is "in the area" with plenty of issues if you want to adapt from 3e/2e/1e.

But the jump from 1e to 2e is so little that 2e gets a great deal of credit spilled over from the previous edition, something the other editions cannot get.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1108634Are you talking about the hardback "Player's Options" stuff for late 2nd? Because yes, I feel that's where the game became 2.5, leading into 3rd edition.

If it had ever seen enforced use. But inbstead it was, well, optional. No one at TSR ever used it at a con that I ever heard of. They hardly ever spoke of it even in Dragon. It essentially ceased to exist after hitting the shelves.

2e was how to do an edition update right as the changes were minimal really and it was very backwards compatible once you got the hang of the changes. A-lot of the text was copied straight from AD&D in some sections, making it even more of an ease to get into.

Quote from: Omega;11087382e was how to do an edition update right as the changes were minimal really and it was very backwards compatible once you got the hang of the changes. A-lot of the text was copied straight from AD&D in some sections, making it even more of an ease to get into.

AD&D is notorious for Gary's "Gygaxian prose", and his haphazard approach to the rules. 2nd edition was a much more polished product, in explaining the rules. Even if the DMG could have used a lot more work.

Yes, The DMG was a low point. But for that was mostly the loss of all the random dungeon and wilderness gen tables. And is a bit over-wordy to get many points across.

But it has some good points i it. Such as actually having a section on the care and feeding of mounts and animals. And the DIY class gen system. Theough the 2e one is nowhere neare as functional as the one for BX from Dragon. It goes into more detail on a-lot of subjects that needed it and introduces some new elements that worked overall. So I guess some loss and some gain.

The Monsterous Compendiums, the loose leaf ones, were for others the real low point. I thought it was ok. If eventually unwieldy and impractical due to how they executed it. But eh. It was a potentially viable idea.

I cut my teeth on 3e. While 2e always looked neat, it was the edition the first D&D company died on. In terms of grand objective impact, 2e was worse for TSR than 4e was for WotC (I know a lot was going on, but the same can be said for 4e D&D). Even much of OSR cleaves to older or Basic versions of D&D with few reaching back towards 2e.

Now I loved the computer game spin-off from 2e and the system itself does look interesting, but I've never played it and probably never will. There are many OSR products that do lighter rules better and many RPGs that handle medium to heavy rules better. I don't have the nostalgia for the product and I don't see what it does better. Like sure some of the Rules Cyclopedia rules are dated (like to-hit tables), but it is a standout complete game and I take it with me when I run OSR games because I might reference some of it's extensive advice or rip monsters from it.

2e is the only edition I've never played (including OD&D). There is no good reason for that - I have nothing against 2e, my groups have just happened to never play it.

That said, I've played 2e adventures in other editions, and I own a bunch of 2e books.

I get the impression it had some of the best setting books ever, and some very solid adventures. We're adventuring in a City of Brass adventure right now, using 5e, and it's great!

Quote from: Brad;1108653The best version of D&D is whatever version I played when I was a kid that used AD&D, B/X, BECMI, Rolemaster, Palladium, and Tunnels and Trolls mashed together.

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

Accurate.  I didn't start with 2e but I played it the longest of any addition - or more accurately a blend of 1e and 2e.  Good times... good times.

Quote from: The_Shadow;11086882e was weirdly disjointed in that the engine was basically the same as 1e, which means at its heart all about Gygaxian dungeon exploration, yet all the fluff assumed it was a simulationist engine where the setting took precedence and the rules would drape elegantly around the GM's vision. Which wasn't the case at all.

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

Good analysis.  The settings were so evocative and fun too.  I also loved the class "kit" books.  The whole kit concept was very much a bolt on.  I think the entire class system could have been re-written around the four core classes and kits, but they were great for creating fun alternate characters.  

Quote from: Rhedyn;1108749I cut my teeth on 3e. While 2e always looked neat, it was the edition the first D&D company died on. In terms of grand objective impact, 2e was worse for TSR than 4e was for WotC (I know a lot was going on, but the same can be said for 4e D&D). Even much of OSR cleaves to older or Basic versions of D&D with few reaching back towards 2e.

The comparison between 2e and 4e isn't quite apt.  TSR didn't die because of 2e, but because of their financial mismanagement and dysfunctional corporate culture.  2e had a long and successful run that sold plenty of product.  4e resulted in D&D players fleeing the brand.

Quote from: Brad;1108653The best version of D&D is whatever version I played when I was a kid that used AD&D, B/X, BECMI, Rolemaster, Palladium, and Tunnels and Trolls mashed together.

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

If you expect to be able to play BtB in any edition, you are wrong. Every edition is a toolkit.

Quote from: sureshot;1108710I know it's Pundit site but man it's like watching a tabletop version of Ole Anderson. Everything he likes or approves of is the greatest thing ever. Everything else he dislikes is the shits.

I can't agree with you on this. I don't care for much of what Pundit likes, and I've never encountered (randomly or otherwise) an OSR product that I felt warranted a dime of my money. I do tend to agree with him on some of his dislikes, particularly with regards to storytelling/narrative mechanics, but I rarely take it to the degree that he does.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1108749Now I loved the computer game spin-off from 2e and the system itself does look interesting, but I've never played it and probably never will.

Good Old Games has the complete series of SSI D&D and Dragonlance PC games for sale at reasonable prices. Even better they have the Forgotten Realms Unlimited Adventures game maker for the series. The FRUA community is still active and the old Magic Mirror site still hosts an amazing array of modules for FRUA and it does not stop there. There have been mods made for it for MSH and Gamma World. And I did sprites for both of those. There are also tons of sprite packs.

So if you want to try them out you can.

Agree with most of the above.
I always considered 2e putting the game up to par with the DM. What I mean by this, is I always felt like the DM was lucky because they could "play" D&D by themselves by organizing their dungeon, studying up, etc. Whereas the players just showed up with a quick character roll-up. But with 2e, I felt as a player, that I could "play" by myself as I had to study up all the character kits, specialty priests, etc.

I didn't care for the Options books, but playing with 2e rules and 1e adventures was about perfect for our group.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1108749I cut my teeth on 3e. While 2e always looked neat, it was the edition the first D&D company died on. In terms of grand objective impact, 2e was worse for TSR than 4e was for WotC (I know a lot was going on, but the same can be said for 4e D&D). Even much of OSR cleaves to older or Basic versions of D&D with few reaching back towards 2e.

Now I loved the computer game spin-off from 2e and the system itself does look interesting, but I've never played it and probably never will. There are many OSR products that do lighter rules better and many RPGs that handle medium to heavy rules better. I don't have the nostalgia for the product and I don't see what it does better. Like sure some of the Rules Cyclopedia rules are dated (like to-hit tables), but it is a standout complete game and I take it with me when I run OSR games because I might reference some of it's extensive advice or rip monsters from it.

There sure was a lot of splat in 2E; but the core game has a nostalgia to it, whenever I dig into it.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1108760I can't agree with you on this. I don't care for much of what Pundit likes, and I've never encountered (randomly or otherwise) an OSR product that I felt warranted a dime of my money. I do tend to agree with him on some of his dislikes, particularly with regards to storytelling/narrative mechanics, but I rarely take it to the degree that he does.

I disagree with both of you on narrative mechanics even though I'm not huge of a fan of such mechanics. It just seems old or new it's the shits. Granted that it has become totally predictable at this point. Of all the rpgs I figured he would not dislike 2E.

It seems lately less informative videos and more ranting about everyone else playing rpgs differently than him.

Quote from: RandyB;1108756If you expect to be able to play BtB in any edition, you are wrong. Every edition is a toolkit.

I never expect to play BtB for any game. RPGs are nearly all written by people with way too much daydreaming DNA, and not enough war gaming experience (or maybe TOO much). That's what makes them good.

Quote from: Omega;1108737If it had ever seen enforced use. But inbstead it was, well, optional. No one at TSR ever used it at a con that I ever heard of. They hardly ever spoke of it even in Dragon. It essentially ceased to exist after hitting the shelves.

We just used them as "Build Your Own Kits" for 2E.

Quote from: Omega;1108737If it had ever seen enforced use. But inbstead it was, well, optional. No one at TSR ever used it at a con that I ever heard of. They hardly ever spoke of it even in Dragon. It essentially ceased to exist after hitting the shelves.

This is why I say that the closest thing to a 2.5 in the 'mandatory update for using future products' sense was the Tome of Magic, since other books assumed access to it. Similarly, Unearthed Arcana counts as '1.5'.

Quote from: Brad;1108817I never expect to play BtB for any game. RPGs are nearly all written by people with way too much daydreaming DNA, and not enough war gaming experience (or maybe TOO much). That's what makes them good.

I miscommunicated. I was agreeing with you and going one further.

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

Quote from: RandyB;1108869And IMO, the farther that RPGs get from their wargaming roots, the worse they get.

I'm starting to get tired of 45 minute combats every hour.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1108879I'm starting to get tired of 45 minute combats every hour.

That's because the entire notion of what a referee is supposed to do has become meaningless and irrelevant in more modern RPGs.

Quote from: Brad;1108898That's because the entire notion of what a referee is supposed to do has become meaningless and irrelevant in more modern RPGs.

Right, but I feel like while Wargame like combat can be pretty good for an RPG, I'd rather RPGs spend more time on strategic elements or RP rather than tactical combat.

Quote from: Brad;1108898That's because the entire notion of what a referee is supposed to do has become meaningless and irrelevant in more modern RPGs.

By design.

A good corollary to that is - has this phenomenon impacted the growth of GMing skill?

Quote from: tenbones;1108917A good corollary to that is - has this phenomenon impacted the growth of GMing skill?

I feel like OSR has taught me far more about GMing than any WotC D&D.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1108907Right, but I feel like while Wargame like combat can be pretty good for an RPG, I'd rather RPGs spend more time on strategic elements or RP rather than tactical combat.

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

Quote from: tenbones;1108917By design.

A good corollary to that is - has this phenomenon impacted the growth of GMing skill?

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

Quote from: Rhedyn;1108935I feel like OSR has taught me far more about GMing than any WotC D&D.

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

Quote from: Rhedyn;1108935I feel like OSR has taught me far more about GMing than any WotC D&D.

Quote from: Brad;1108938Well yeah, because you're actually responsible for running an OSR game. I probably made up more shit in 8th grade science class than most modern game designers have put into all their published works. I am *sure* there are other people on this who can claim the same thing.

Completely concur with both. Additionally, reading about the wargaming antecedents of OD&D, especially Tony Bath, et. al., has broadened my horizons on RPGs as a whole.

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it's good point.

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

This.

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

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

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

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

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

Because of the Monstrous Manual!

DiTerlizzi's art is awesome!

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

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

---

Longer response...

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

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

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

Also, tons of great settings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nope, it was any edition where characters  had skills. {besides rogues}
the edition where characters could do things beyond combat. (Diplomacy, Knowledge, Profession, Spellcraft)
before such ideas existed, 95% of the game was solely DM judgment calls: (wing it, fudge it, or probabilities)
IMHO
don't get me wrong, had tons of fun in a few 2E campaigns.

Quote from: Shasarak;1108613So let me know, what did you guys like best about running, playing, reading 2e DnD?

I cut my teeth on 2E so it will always have a soft spot in my heart. It has some quirks I'd rather it didn't, but overall it's very good. I used to bounce between 2E and the RC and I never even realized until decades later that they were different editions! I never had access to anything older until very recently so I don't think its fair to compare to, say, B/X, OD&D, or 5E which I would ultimately prefer today.

Definitely not.