Quote from: Haffrung;1028167However, even when it comes to the latter, I think 2E gets short shrift. Most of the material TSR put out for 2E was poor,  but they put out an enormous number of books in that era - so many that even with a 10 per cent hit rate there is some great and overlooked adventures and setting books.

While the vast majority of the 2e adventures/supplements that I purchased were crap (IMO), there are a handful I found worthwhile. I liked Return to the Tomb of Horrors. I also liked the HR1 Vikings supplement. The Celt supplement was pretty good, too.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1028190While the vast majority of the 2e adventures/supplements that I purchased were crap (IMO), there are a handful I found worthwhile. I liked Return to the Tomb of Horrors. I also liked the HR1 Vikings supplement. The Celt supplement was pretty good, too.

I think plenty of the supplements, and several of the settings, were good, if not necessarily what I was looking for. The elf book was bad, but Complete Fighter and Complete Thief and even Complete Humanoid were solid. So was the Dark Sun setting and Birthright, and the Historical Reference Sourcebook series (Vikings, Charlemagne, Celts, "A Mighty Fortress," Rome, "Age of Heroes," and the Crusades). Even some of the special interest books like Of Ships and the Sea, Encyclopedia Magica  I-IV and the Spell Compendiums, I, Tyrant and The Illithiad were fine products for what they were supposed to be.

I just took delivery of two copies of For Gold & Glory, the 2nd ed retroclone. I didn't play 2e for a bunch of reasons, but I did pick up the odd book, especially the green historical manuals a they were ace. As I'm gearing up to run Birthright, I thought I might as well give second edition a whirl, in case a 5e conversion isn't necessary.

My completely unsubstantiated opinion ties into point #3 - 2E was an edition that started trying to fix things to appeal to those who didn't like 1st edition's distinctive approach.  And while it was liked at the time because it brought the game closer to what a lot of people wanted, it didn't go far enough for what most of them really wanted.

I base this off of comments made when 3E was announced - how many celebrated the strong departure from the sacred cows of 1E that 2E only weakly departed from.  

So while there are a fair number of people who prefer the 2E customization approach to AD&D, many more who were willing to leave 1E wanted even stronger and more varied customization (as well as substantial changes to the underlying framework - ascending AC, redone saves, etc.)

We started with red box basic in 88 but when we discovered 2nd ed AD&D switched straight to it. The 2e PHB went up to level 20 all in one book, unlike the red box which was up to 3rd I think. It was a no brainer for us, we wanted more, and the 2e book had lots more. And ostensibly it was an improved "second edition" after all. We didnt even blink, straight into it.

The changes from 1e to 2e, while minor, tended towards a game more geared towards epic quests and heroic adventure. Personally, if I'm playing AD&D, I'm looking to use it for dungeoneering. The changes are therefore, IMO, moving the game away from it's strengths. Certainly, any game that can be played by one system can be played using the other, but why use something that even has minor changes in what I consider the wrong direction?

I've been playing in a 2E game since this past July, but I doubt there is any data as to how many people are playing 1E and 2E in in 2018.

Do people actually play 1e? It gets very little representation in the OSR at least . Probably 70% OD&D, 25% B/X, 5% AD&D including 1e/2e together. Pretty much you only have Dragonsfoot and most of the people there seem to have gone to 5e (and still bitching about 3e).

I mean, even the OSRIC authors don't play 1e. One plays S&W and the other (the Doctor Who avatar guy) plays 5e like a lot of Dragonsfoot.

Personally I have to think most people who run AD&D use a mix of both 1e and 2e.  Many 1e monsters in the MM were just taken directly from Oe, yet AD&D characters hit bit and harder and have more hit points. An 8+8 HD Balrog/Balor is probably only a slightly challenge for 4th level characters in 1e, while meant for 8th in OD&D.  Ditto for dragons. 2e made them dangerous.

Quote from: JeremyR;1028224I mean, even the OSRIC authors don't play 1e. One plays S&W and the other (the Doctor Who avatar guy) plays 5e like a lot of Dragonsfoot.

Matt developed OSRIC, but for his own game, decided he wanted a degree of tinkering and changes that original D&D seemed better suited to, so he developed S&W. Stuart (the Doctor Who avatar guy) runs OSRIC for his home games (although I know he's also played 5e). I don't know anything about his online play, if any. While Matt and Stuart were the main guys, there are a bunch of other people that were involved in the development of OSRIC. Almost all of them prefer to *run* 1e AD&D (instead of running OSRIC -- Stuart is an exception), but use OSRIC for supporting material, adventures, and such. OSRIC was originally envisioned as a tool for publishers to put out 1e products, not really as a game to run. (Although you can certainly run a game with OSRIC. It's kind of like a "Rules Cyclopedia for 1e": a single volume version of the game.)

I'm the same way. When I run D&D, it's either original D&D or 1e AD&D. If I run original D&D, I use original D&D (not a clone), but I'll happily grab "clone" supplements and adventures. Same with 1e. If I run AD&D, I run AD&D, but I'll happily grab OSRIC supplements (e.g. Monsters of Myth) and adventures. There are a lot of OSRIC modules out there. Just XRP's "Advanced Adventures" line is something like 39 or 40 modules.

I recall something Gary Gygax wrote about the change of Deities and Demigods to Legends and Lore: "retitled to appease those who do not buy our products."

I think that describes the entire second edition philosophy.

I'd imagine this is a regional thing, because 2e still has a posse in my neck of the woods.

They tend to be very hardcore old-schoolers. Fun guys to play with, absolutely zero pretension. Lots of overlap with Palladium fandom.

I just fired up AD&D recently...within a month of starting, we were adding elements of 2nd edition--specialization, for example. So, while I say I'm playing AD&D, it looks like 2nd edition, even if most rules are closer to AD&D than 2nd.

Quote from: Doom;1028247I just fired up AD&D recently...within a month of starting, we were adding elements of 2nd edition--specialization, for example. So, while I say I'm playing AD&D, it looks like 2nd edition, even if most rules are closer to AD&D than 2nd.

Weapon specialization was added in 1e (Unearthed Arcana).

Perhaps an aside to the main discussion here, but I've always felt like weapon specialization of any sort, either in 1E, 2E or BECMI/RC, is just another form of grade inflation - a kind of power creep similar in effect to all the goofy schemes people use to jack up their stats or give themselves extra EXP or whatever. Basically, weapon specialization is a way for a 2nd level fighter to seem like a 5th level fighter, because you don't want to wait.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1028250I've always felt like weapon specialization of any sort, either in 1E, 2E or BECMI/RC, is just another form of grade inflation - a kind of power creep...

I agree. I've tried weapon specialization in campaigns, a few times. Every time I've regretted it. It just jacks up the power levels across the board. I don't think it's a game-breaker, but I think it's unnecessary.

I do think that if you use it (e.g., to bump up fighters relative to magic-users as party level goes up), the best approach is to limit it based on Fighter level. For example, no specialization until you hit Hero (4th), and no double-specialization until you hit Superhero or Lord (8th or 9th), if at all. Or something like T. Foster's house rule from his AD&D Companion document:

QuoteFighters and rangers who choose to specialize in a weapon suffer a -1 penalty to hit with all other weapons, both proficient and non-proficient. At “name”
level or higher (i.e. 9th level (Lord) for fighters and 10th level (Ranger Lord) for rangers) the character may spend an additional weapon proficiency slot to “proof” their
proficiencies and remove the -1 penalty for proficient weapons (though they will still have the additional -1 to hit will all non-proficient weapons).

I've also seen house-rules to bump the fighter by simply adjusting the Fighter attack matrix. You think Fighters need a bump? Give them a bump.