What was so bad about the Core 2e rules? Why is it the red-headed stepchild of D&D?

[Remathilis]

Why do you have to throw an insult at me like that?

Seriously, we agree that TSR "dumbed down" the prose in 2E. We can have different opinions on whether that was good or not. To me, 1E is enjoyable reading and 2E isn't. Why do you have to put that last sentence in there? I'm not about to insult you in return.

Sorry if you were insulted, but many times (as Shark so nicely recalled in his tangent) there is a certain academic snobbishness that comes with mastery of a difficult text (my own experience in English education grants me that insight). I take more offense to the concept that complex writing is more "adult" or inherently "better", which is what your posts have hinted at.

 

[Stoat]

You might want to think about whether or not the phrase "dumbing down" has an inherently insulting quality to it. For a lot of people, myself included, it does. I think it fairly drips with intellectual elitism, of a desire to restrict gaming to a certain educated 'priesthood' rather than the dumb masses.

With all due respect to Delta, I agree. The phrase "dumbed down" grates on my nerves, and seems at least a little insulting to me. At worst, I find the phrase often accompanies a sort of lazy arrogance, in that it is used to end a discussion by presupposing that one side is "smarter" than the other. I say "lazy" because the phrase is often employed without explanation or elaboration.

On topic, I agree that the language in 2E is simplified than that used by Gygax in 1E. I am no expert, but I assume 2E is written at a "lower reading level" in some respect. I do not see how this translates to the rules being dumbed down. Nor do I see the simplification and streamlining of the text as an inherently bad thing.

 

[Delta]

You might want to think about whether or not the phrase "dumbing down" has an inherently insulting quality to it. For a lot of people, myself included, it does. I think it fairly drips with intellectual elitism, of a desire to restrict gaming to a certain educated 'priesthood' rather than the dumb masses.

If that's really your issue, then you'd probably point that complaint back at Mallus or Remathilis, who used the phrase before I ever did in this read (and then only in responses quoting them).

But I'm guessing you won't do that.

 

[Obryn]

You might want to think about whether or not the phrase "dumbing down" has an inherently insulting quality to it. For a lot of people, myself included, it does. I think it fairly drips with intellectual elitism, of a desire to restrict gaming to a certain educated 'priesthood' rather than the dumb masses.

I completely agree.

"Dumbed-down" is pretty much always derogatory.

"Simplified," "Clarified," or maybe "Pared-down" are better if you're not making a value judgment.

-O

 

[RFisher]

I completely agree.

"Dumbed-down" is pretty much always derogatory.

"Simplified," "Clarified," or maybe "Pared-down" are better if you're not making a value judgment.

-O

The “reading grade level” thing probably doesn’t help either. I think it’s a useful scale, but I think speaking in those terms is a bit unfortunate.

 

[billd91]

If that's really your issue, then you'd probably point that complaint back at Mallus or Remathilis, who used the phrase before I ever did in this read (and then only in responses quoting them).

But I'm guessing you won't do that.

You're right, I won't do it. Because you're the one defending the term right now and you're the one who said you felt insulted when criticized for it.

 

[Mallus]

If that's really your issue, then you'd probably point that complaint back at Mallus or Remathilis, who used the phrase before I ever did in this read (and then only in responses quoting them).

But I'm guessing you won't do that.

Err, just for the record, I was quoting/replying to another poster --Prisoner6-- who used the term "dumbed down".

You could look back and verify this... as to whether you will or won't, I don't have an opinion on that. Who am I to cast aspersions?

 

[DracoSuave]

When 'simplifying' something so that it is easier to read and understand for more people, it's not called 'dumbing down' but 'elegance' or 'eloquence.'

I always found 2e to be better than 1e by a fair margin. Things were better laid out, and there were less arbritrary numbers that had no real mirror to versimilitude (the weapon bonuses/penalties vs various ACs, for example).

The problem with it tho, was that you had no system unification. The systems for psionics was its own discrete entity, and had nothing to do with the system for armor, the spells were their own thing, then you had rules for martial arts which weren't the same as those for combat...


And none of it interlocked together in a good and pleasing way, which is why 3rd edition went with the unified AC/DC mechanic for test resolution.

2nd edition was a patchwork golem of fifty different game systems in one big mishmash system. That was partially the big problem with it, that and the classes weren't balanced towards each other, nor were the races.

 

[Ahglock]

Thing is how much more complex was 1es language. Were either of them complex enough in order for this to be a real issue? And that is where I say nope. It is sort of like saying bench pressing 50lbs is easier than bench pressing 60lbs. Well yeah sure, but they are both really easy.

It had a strong authors voice, and I can see people missing that, but more difficult meh.

 

[WayneLigon]

I liked the 2E ruleset at the time. It was a simplification, and enshrinement of many of our already-extent house rules. I've never understood the hate people had for it. I never even knew there was a particular dislike for it before joining this board. It was something I'd never heard before.