Quote from: Ratman_tf;898137Aside from some very minor, easily houseruled bits, we interchanged Basic, AD&D & 2nd edition depending on which game had the rule we liked better that moment. Not to mention all the modules being nearly the same system. It was a far cry from, say,  going from 3rd to 4th...

Yeah, I remember running AD&D modules for 2E without thinking about it. I also seem to recall bringing in some shaman material from one of the D&D books into AD&D.

I think the big difference between then and now, was the mass of setting material. That is really the thing that stands out from when I was playing. But it wasn't like everyone was running the settings purely out of the box. Many GMs made their own setting and drew on the monster manuals for various settings to help shape the flavor. Especially with the 2E monster manual binder, you could customize your monster stuff around that. So a GM might decide he wants 50% ravenloft monsters, 20% Forgotten Realms, etc. to get a particular feel. In my group I was sort of the Ravenloft GM, another guy ran Darksun, someone else ran a home-brew. I was also playing lots of other systems at the time though too. I was in an occasional TORG game and and the guy who did Darksun also ran Vampire and eventually Changeling (he also did spelljammer and planescape as well). I remember some Birthright campaigns and one of my friends would sometimes do Dragonlance. Really what I recall is playing a bunch of different settings. Also, lots and lots of modules. There were way more modules I think during the 1E and 2E eras than during 3E. And they didn't tend to be that big. They were usually 30-96 pages. If it was a 96 page adventure, I would typically expect to see a fair amount of setting material in it.

Quote from: Opaopajr;897022What was part of your concept that made it so radically different from the base 4 classes of the Four Archetypes, (let alone the vast array of optional classes and kits,) that required a custom class? An Eastern weapon? A lower Hit Die? Having a reason for high INT & WIS score (anyone can do that for any class, it's what you *need* to get for it that'd warrant a custom class)? So far from what little you're describing I don't see the need even remotely.

Wait... did you two pull out the PO: Skills and Powers book?

Nothing, except it was supposed to be a fighter that can use the "hide in shadows", "move silently" and "climb sheer walls" skills, to kill sentries silently, and wasn't a Ranger.
The GM was one of those that thought that classes without those skills can't climb, sneak, or use a garotte, which sounded insane for someone in good physical condition:).

Quote from: RPGPundit;898022I started in the 1e era, and was around when 2e came out.  In my circles at least, most of play didn't really change in the EARLY 2e era.  It was only later, when more emphasis started to be placed on adventures with big metaplots, copycatting the WoD 'storyteller' style, and the idea of 'kits' making you think that it was mechanics that would be important in making your character special started to get more prevalent, that things started to go sour.  I think also one of the first things I noted that started to change was the increased 'sanitization' of the setting products, making D&D seem more bland and banal.  Demons and Devils being changed into 'bateezu' and 'tanari', and getting rid of assassins (not just as a class, but generally de-emphasizing the idea of the PCs being scumbags), were the early signs. 2e quickly shifted in that sense, not so much in mechanics, but it started to feel like it had gone from being "Heavy Metal" to being "the New Adventures of Hercules".

The sad influence of that is still felt today;).

So I think I can offer some insight as to what was going on then, as I learned 2e out of the 1989 book, purchased in 1989, and I had no idea how to play it, and I had no friends who played.

I also lived about 20mi from TSR at the time.  This my come off a bit as conjecture, but a lot of the art in that book seems to be influenced by landscapes local to rural Wisconsin.  There's also a ren faire nearby (Bristol), and the buildings there are pretty similar.

Our group, because we were in junior high/high school at the time, didn't have much income so we played pretty much out of the PHB and maybe a couple of modules.  We pooled money for a DMG.

More importantly, we left out all the optional rules, like proficiencies, because the group that played rotated a lot, and we had some hand-me-down modules from B/X and BECMI.  They were more common to find 2nd hand than AD&D material.

There was a lot less of an emphasis on 'Use only official material".

Nobody knew what to do with the miniatures.  Most people painted a PC (Badly) and put it on the table.  We sometimes used them for marching order.

Dungeons were rarely if ever used.

There was a boom in European history interest.  Cadfael was running on TV and Dragon did a piece on it.  These two things were kind of a spin off from an early '90s 'neo-hippie' boom going on at the time that swelled the Ren Faire crowd at least in the area.

Does this help?  I can provide more cultural context from there if need be.

Quote from: RPGPundit;898022I think also one of the first things I noted that started to change was the increased 'sanitization' of the setting products, making D&D seem more bland and banal.  Demons and Devils being changed into 'bateezu' and 'tanari', and getting rid of assassins (not just as a class, but generally de-emphasizing the idea of the PCs being scumbags), were the early signs. 2e quickly shifted in that sense, not so much in mechanics, but it started to feel like it had gone from being "Heavy Metal" to being "the New Adventures of Hercules".

  And some of us grew up with this and prefer it to the grimier, nastier former iterations--more Tolkien and "knights in shining armor", less Leiber and "grubby thieves knifing each other for coppers." This, of course, is one of several ways you, your coconspirators Mearls and Zak, and your Dark Masters have pushed me away from both the OSR and current D&D.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;898104That reminds me of "Die, Vecna, Die!" the last adventure published under TSR. Not only are you trying to defeat on of the biggest, most iconic non-deity villain in the D&D canon, but series of events the PCs are involved with end up destroying whole demiplanes (liked playing Ravenloft? Well this last adventure wipes it away!).

  Not quite. I don't have Die Vecna Die! on hand, but I do own it, and as I recall, it explicitly states that it wipes out only the Burning Peaks cluster (Kas and Vecna's domains) and the rest of Ravenloft can be shattered or left alone as the DM desires, since each domain can be considered its own 'demiplane'. Ravenloft 3rd Edition launched only a year later, and while it took that adventure as 'canon', the Dread Domains were intact.
 
  The Ravenloft portion of that adventure was done by Steve Miller, who wasn't terribly enamored of the project but certainly didn't intend to blow up the setting he'd just redefined a few years prior--he's one of the two designers on Domains of Dread.

  Also, while it was the last 2nd Edition adventure published, it wasn't "the last TSR adventure"--TSR was retired as a separate entity at the end of 1999, after the Silver Anniversary. DVD and other 2nd Edition products from 2000 bear the Wizards logo.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;898193And some of us grew up with this and prefer it to the grimier, nastier former iterations--more Tolkien and "knights in shining armor", less Leiber and "grubby thieves knifing each other for coppers." This, of course, is one of several ways you, your coconspirators Mearls and Zak, and your Dark Masters have pushed me away from both the OSR and current D&D.

Also, I should bring up that I had a friend who was a very devout catholic at the time, and his dad wouldn't let him play it until he was able to see the books.  The 'toned down' material got the pass by his dad and we had a lot of fun.

Older players can bitch and moan all they want but this was a door that needed to be opened.  I had several more religious friends get into D&D because the 2e material wasn't so objectionable.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;898193And some of us grew up with this and prefer it to the grimier, nastier former iterations--more Tolkien and "knights in shining armor", less Leiber and "grubby thieves knifing each other for coppers."

I've never much understood the complaint about renaming the demons and devils, and removing the titty artwork, and similar.  To me that's the juvenile stuff; it reminds me of the kinds of things that middle-class whitebread 14-year-old death metal fans draw on their schoolbook covers because they think it's edgy.

The sanitization didn't bother me as much as the dumbing down; there's some marvelous material in, say, the BECMI Gazetteers, but you can see where any depth and sophistication has been stripped out because the writers are writing for twelve-year-olds.

I took a break from gaming from 1985-1987 so missed the changeover to AD&D2e. When I did start again in the summer of 87, I bought the new Rules Cyclopedia and a used white 74' bookset to replace the one my ex had auctioned off.

I started right away with a new homebrew gaming world. It was my third original campaign setting. The first was done in crayon and pen and was not very good, some of the detail remains with me. The second was done with markers, and I can still remember some of the maps. I have the maps for my third campaign setting (1987) in a three ring binder, though I didn't use good markers so these maps are fading. My fourth campaign setting, done up starting in 1991 was done with Pentel markers, and look as good today as they day I drew them twenty-five years ago.

In the late eighties I just never was interested in the new books as TSR without Gary had almost completely disappeared off my Radar, as I was running Chivalry & Sorcery, Traveller, and Runequest games. In the early nineties I ran lots of 0D&D and Rolemaster games, and only noticed TSR again after they had been acquired by WOTC at the time of the new announcement for the 3rd edition, which was supposed to go back to the true roots of D&D.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;898195

I'm not surprised that I'm not remembering it correctly. It's been since 2000. Still, wipe away Ravenloft or completely readjust the setting, it's still epic changes that happen with the PCs right on top of the changes. A far cry from 'go through the dungeon, get the treasure' of earlier modules.

Speaking of "Die, Vecna, Die," saw a copy of this module at half priced books, listed for $35. I assume this thing is rare or something (last official TSR product?)?

Quote from: daniel_ream;898216I've never much understood the complaint about renaming the demons and devils, and removing the titty artwork, and similar.  To me that's the juvenile stuff; it reminds me of the kinds of things that middle-class whitebread 14-year-old death metal fans draw on their schoolbook covers because they think it's edgy.

The sanitization didn't bother me as much as the dumbing down; there's some marvelous material in, say, the BECMI Gazetteers, but you can see where any depth and sophistication has been stripped out because the writers are writing for twelve-year-olds.

...but I was 12 at the time, and absorbing all I could about medieval history, and I still struggled to understand that stuff.  You can't please everyone.

Authors shouldn't try to.  I'm simply lamenting that at that time TSR chose to focus on a demographic I wasn't in.  Knowing what Aaron Allston could have produced had he not been required to play Tamora Pierce in reverse drag saddens me.

Quote from: Gnashtooth;898287...but I was 12 at the time, and absorbing all I could about medieval history, and I still struggled to understand that stuff.  You can't please everyone.

That is absolutely true. There are (at least) two levels of analysis on can do of the material--critique of its value to oneself, and value related to their goals. Generally when they did something that I personally didn't like, but I totally understand why they did it, I try to be understanding, but as Daniel puts it, lament that I wasn't the demographic they could reasonably target.

Quote from: The_Shadow;895765I basically sat out the 2e era, at least as far as D&D goes. Re-reading some old Dragon issues, I feel a kind of nostalgia, even though I wasn't taking part at the time. I can see the ren-faire thing going on, plenty of attempts to make play "serious" and with in-depth campaign worlds rather than just dungeon exploration, and so on. There's an attempt to make 2e a generic fantasy toolkit rather than a recognition that D&D is its own thing.

But how was your play at the time? Did you still approach things the way you had with 1e? Did you use one of the manifold TSR settings or a homebrew? Did you feel there was a tension between the rules and the play culture? Were you having a good time or was it starting to wear thin?

I only ever did Temple of Elemental Evil back in '98 for 2E. It was a lot of dungeon crawling as one might expect. System had to be explained to me a lot since I was new to RPGs back then.

Quote from: daniel_ream;898216I've never much understood the complaint about renaming the demons and devils, and removing the titty artwork, and similar.  To me that's the juvenile stuff; it reminds me of the kinds of things that middle-class whitebread 14-year-old death metal fans draw on their schoolbook covers because they think it's edgy.

The sanitization didn't bother me as much as the dumbing down; there's some marvelous material in, say, the BECMI Gazetteers, but you can see where any depth and sophistication has been stripped out because the writers are writing for twelve-year-olds.

I don't think they're directly related, but I do think it's in the same bucket of making the game more appealing to mass consumers. Dumb it down. Sanitize it. Market it next to ads for toilet paper and toothpaste.