What is your second edition experience (no edition war!!!)

[Voadam]

I preordered the 2e PHBs and we started using them pretty quickly in the same games as 1e stuff.

I liked how the saves and attack scores were in the PHB for players to be responsible for.

We adopted 2e init pretty quickly.

We had already been using non weapon proficiencies from 1e OA and DSG so that was not a change.

Unarmed had always been screwy so puching and wrestling charts were a little simplified.

I never got the 2e DMG or monster books until the CD compendium came out, but I was happy to copy over the xp and level limit info from a friend's DMG and use their monstrous compendiums or my 1e set of monster books.

2e was almost completely compatible with 1e stuff, we kept the assassins, drow, grugach, and martial arts unchanged from 1e as we switched to 2e. I had no problems using basic or 1e magic items in 2e. Same with monsters, I just used 2e xp and init.

 

[Mallus]

Castle Greyhawk, the joke module, was 1e, not 2e.

And really, couldn't a lot of 1e modules be considered species of joke module? At the very least that generation's published support material didn't shy away from funny, even silly, stuff (consider classic AD&D pre-gens like Gleep Wurp the Eyebiter).

Elf-fancying seemed a lot less serious back then...

 

[El Mahdi]

I started playing D&D with 2E. I enjoyed the sub-races in the Race books and the kits in the Class books. I voraciously tore into each book as it came out. My favorites were the Forrest Gnome Beastrider and the Elven Bladesinger. When 3E came out, I converted to the new system and felt it was a vast improvement (although not perfect). However, 2E was the beginning for me, and set the mold for me of what D&D "is".

 

[Mokona]

I played 2nd edition and it drove me to abandon D&D in favor of Vampire: the Masquerade. 3rd edition brought me back to the Dungeons & Dragons fold but 4th edition is better.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

We started out with HeroQuest and moved into 2nd Edition once we learned about roleplaying.

 

[diaglo]

i started with OD&D(1974) and still play it.

but i tried 2edADnD. i don't hate it as much as i hate d02. but it ain't far behind.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Castle Greyhawk, the joke module, was 1e, not 2e.

So it was. The late 1e period and the early 2e period kind of blur together, for me. Actually, one of the reasons I originally looked forward to 2e is because I wasn't seeing much that I liked in the late 1e products, and was hoping for a "clearing of the decks."

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

And really, couldn't a lot of 1e modules be considered species of joke module? At the very least that generation's published support material didn't shy away from funny, even silly, stuff (consider classic AD&D pre-gens like Gleep Wurp the Eyebiter).

I think there's a distinction between including some humorous elements vs. the entire product being set up as a joke. Also, I'm not dead-set against a humor product at all -- there's a place for that -- but Castle Greyhawk is *the* dungeon of the setting, something almost legendary that fans of the setting had anticipated for years. To release it as a joke module spoke volumes, to me (and to many other Greyhawk fans).

Tangentially, I think the name "Gleep Wurp the Eyebiter" is not really as random at it seems. That is, it obviously sounds funny to us, and I think that was intentional, but the name actually means something. EGG created those names by referencing a book, Poplollies & Bellibones: A Celebration of Lost Words. For example, eyebite is another way of referring to the act of giving the evil eye, or bewitching with the eyes. There's a list of what some of those names mean. I just looked, and apparently "Gleed" was the original tournament character's name (later changed to Gleep), and means "a glowing ember or burning coal." That info puts a whole different spin on the character, suggesting a wizard who can hex or enchant you with his burning, potent gaze.

 

[seusomon]

I started with AD&D in the late 1970s. Switched to 2nd edition as soon as it was released. Didn't find it much of change, in terms of rules and mechanics. I appreciated that the presentation was more coherent and sensible, as opposed to the disorganized quirkiness of the original AD&D books. Also liked the specialized priests and mages, and the greater emphasis on story and atmosphere. Some things were not as well done (Monstrous Compendium), but oh well. I was starting to play less at this time, just because of life changes. By the time the Players' Option books came out, I was reading them more for fun than using them in play.

When my daughter got old enough to play, I bought 3.5, and used it just because it was the current edition. No strong opinions about it, although I did miss the familiarity of the old rules, and never quite managed to put in the time and attention needed to really master everything in the rule books.

We just switched to 4e, and once again I feel like I know the game very well and can focus on the fun.

 

[RFisher]

I'd be interested to here why people went back to 1e (or in general, didn't play 2e).

I stopped playing 2e because I stopped playing D&D. I was done with classes. I was done with D&D magic. I was done with levels. NWP were a sad kludge instead of a real skill system.

None of that applies anymore, though. (Except that I still find NWP something of a sad kludge, but for slightly different reasons now. ^_^)

Things I like about 1e over 2e:

While I like the idea of specialist priests, they didn’t really work for me in play. I think it’s because creating a specialist priest is really creating a new class, which is not an easy thing to do well. (At least not for me.)

While I like the idea of specialist wizards, I find the 1e illusionist much more satisfying than the actual implementation in 2e. Likewise for Druids.

Plus, there’s the flavor. 2e may be better rule books, but I enjoy reading 1e more.

Among the people I played 1e with, we all either started with a Basic set or learned the game through play from the rest of us. When I first saw a 1e PHB, I couldn’t make heads or tails of it either. After the Basic set, however, I could. And the truth is that we ignored a lot of AD&D and just played things the way Basic had taught us.

Once we were at that point, the fact that 2e might have been easier to understand didn’t matter. That wasn’t a reason for a 1e player to switch or stay with 2e.

In truth, 1e and 2e were almost as close as 3.0 and 3.5 -- at least when the 2e PHB was released. That means that the people who prefer 1e over 2e are doing it for some minor reasons.

Yeah. All the pre-2000 editions tend to be close enough that people got by just fine mixing them without any conversion. Heck, the 1e MM was out a year before the PHB and two years before the DMG. And, of course, 1e and 2e—both being AD&D—are particularly close. (Check out the first issue of Dungeon magazine after 2e was released if you ever get the chance.)