D&D 2E What was wrong with 2e?

[paladinm]

Most of the "legacy love" for D&D seems focused on AD&D 1e (tho there are grognards like me who still prefer BECMI, B/X, Holmes, or even the LBB's). I have heard/read a lot of derisive comments about 2e; but I always thought that, at least initially, 2e was a distillation of 1e + UA + whatever other mechanics improvements. I believe it had the longest run as the "currently supported version"; and some features, like specialty clerics, are still house-ruled even with later versions. Now, Myth & Magic seems to be bringing some modern mechanics to 2e.

I have 3 questions I'd like to throw out there:

1. What was wrong with 2e that has earned so many haters?

2. What was Right with 2e that got lost in the version shuffle?

3. If 2e were used as the baseline for 5e, what would the end product look like?

 

[Viking Bastard]

From what I gather, it's less about 2e mechanics as such, and more about the changing trends in gaming at the time.

My problems with 2e were that the mechanics did not fit the narrative, though I did not really understand that at the time. The crunch and the fluff didn't sync up. This resulted in very unsatisfying play.

 

[delericho]

Most of the "legacy love" for D&D seems focused on AD&D 1e (tho there are grognards like me who still prefer BECMI, B/X, Holmes, or even the LBB's). I have heard/read a lot of derisive comments about 2e; but I always thought that, at least initially, 2e was a distillation of 1e + UA + whatever other mechanics improvements. I believe it had the longest run as the "currently supported version"; and some features, like specialty clerics, are still house-ruled even with later versions.

It may be worth bearing in mind that a lot of groups used bits of 2nd Edition in their ongoing 1st Edition campaigns, and may well have used various 2nd Edition supplements with their 1st Ed games. That probably contributed to its run as the longest supported version, and also means that there's probably a good bit more love out there than people really credit it with.

1. What was wrong with 2e that has earned so many haters?

IMO, the biggest thing was the neutering of the game in a failed attempt to satisfy BADD and the like - by removing Assassins and Half-orcs, by explicitly disallowing Evil characters, and by removing demons and devils from the core (and then renaming them).

The other big issue was that this was in some ways the anti-Gygax edition - this was the edition that TSR put out after they'd driven out GG.

Mechanically, 2nd Edition is okay, and very similar to 1st in most cases. With all the strengths and weaknesses that that implies.

(Oh, yes - the 2nd Ed DMG is also almost completely useless. In particular, all that good stuff from the 1st Ed appendices should have been retained - those are the best parts of that book, IMO, and it was near-criminal to produce a 2nd Ed DMG that replaced them with an utter vacuum of useful material.)

2. What was Right with 2e that got lost in the version shuffle?

Speciality priests was probably the single biggest thing. Eliminating the excesses of some of the later 1st Ed books (notably UA) was also a good move.

But the major enhancement of 2nd Edition was simply that it reorganised a lot of the material, and rewrote it into a much more approachable manner - had I moved from BD&D to 1st Ed, it's likely that I would have given up in disgust and no longer be a gamer.

The other big thing was of course the settings. In business terms, these were utter poison to TSR. However, in terms of ideas, they're absolutely great.

3. If 2e were used as the baseline for 5e, what would the end product look like?

That would be a mistake. The adoption of a consistent mechanic in the d20 system was absolutely a good thing, and although neither 3e nor 4e were perfect (or anywhere close), any step away from a consistent mechanic would be a retrograde step.

 

[Weregrognard]

1. What was wrong with 2e that has earned so many haters?

- Removed quite a few things from 1e, including its R-rated, sword & sorcery charm. More importantly (IMHO), info from the DMG, like random tables and "how to..." advice, is absent*
- No Gygax
- Probably caused the first Edition War/D&D fan rift

2. What was Right with 2e that got lost in the version shuffle?

- Made the 1e rules clearer/more accessible (still compatible with D&D/1e)
- Clearly delineated which rules were optional/tournament
- Robust monster manual entires
- Took AD&D in new directions (see settings)

3. If 2e were used as the baseline for 5e, what would the end product look like?

- Castles & Crusades ( I half kid )



* In retrospect, I think the 2e AD&D DMG assumed a familiarity (if not out right ownership of) BECMI D&D, which is why a lot of the "how to..." advice is absent. Not defending it, just a suspicion.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

1. What was wrong with 2e that has earned so many haters?

Whether by choice or by comparison with Gygax's writing its prose was perceived as "dumbed down". Probably a combination of both since TSR had said they wanted to target younger players and Gygax had seemed to be aiming at others his own age. Along with the tone/demographic shift came Political Correctness changes that were especially grating to some. Most of the rules changes were in some ways superficial, leaving many issues which were constant and deep-seated sources of complaint untouched. The monk class and half-orc race were dropped to the continued disappointment of many.

2. What was Right with 2e that got lost in the version shuffle?

At least addressing 1E's stupidly arcane and "archaic" initiative system (degree of success they acheived is subjective). Welcome changes to the cleric class. Shifting away from a set of rules still clinging to unneeded and unwanted legacy issues from miniatures wargaming. More campaign settings that stepped beyond the boundries of "stereotypical" D&D fantasy (Greyhawk, Blackmoor).

3. If 2e were used as the baseline for 5e, what would the end product look like?

Better.

 

[Alzrius]

Nothing was "wrong" with 2E per se.

Most of the hate comes from it falling into the proverbial middle between what's old and what's new.

Nostalgic grognards tend to reserve their love for OD&D/BD&D/1E because these were there first. Gamers with a love for contemporary systems (e.g. Pathfinder, 4E) see them as being direct continuations of (and improvements upon) Third Edition.

So (to paint in very broad strokes) you have the people who love First Edition, and the people who love Third Edition. Second Edition is the proverbial middle child. It's too watered-down for the old guard, and too antiquated for the newer gamers.

Now, it's not really that simple. The 4E and 3.X/Pathfinder people tend to edition war a lot. The grognards can be similarly fractious when it comes to which old-school D&D they prefer, but the unifying factor is how Second Edition as a whole tends to be rejected.

The flipside to this is found among Second Edition's various campaign worlds. Notwithstanding those that got their start in First Edition (e.g. Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance) or in Third Edition (e.g. Eberron), most of the love for Second Edition is divided amongst those who enjoy the campaign settings that were released during this era. It's not hard to find people who love Planescape, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, and others. Even among those 1E campaign worlds there's often a fair among of warm feelings for the 2E materials (though this can be iffy).

The difference here is that these aren't unified the way the other edition-supporters are (which is something of a microcosm of the problems of publishing for so many different campaigns at a time), and so don't usually see themselves as part of the various edition wars, particularly since for them it's about the setting, rather than the system. Worse, since you can't retro-clone settings, these groups tend to have less new material to rally around, and so have less impetus to get involved in the discussions to begin with (particularly since there's an undercurrent of "I can run the setting with any system anyway, if I wanted").

In other words, the 2E love is there. You just have to look in different places to find it.

 

[paladinm]

I can definitely agree about the mechanics.. D20 blows THAC0 out of the water. I also prefer the unified experience table and the Fortitude/Reflex/Will save model (I actually prefer one saving throw with modifiers, but I'm a grognard).

The biggest problem I have had with 3.x (and Pathfinder) is the abuse of the Feat concept. 2.x had weapon and non-weapon proficiencies, which I think is better and less intimidating for newer characters.

I've been rather intrigued by AD&D 3e, developed by Chris Perkins (I believe). It has a lot of the features of 2e with D20 mechanics. And I like a lot of Myth & Magic.

Does anyone else find the WP/NWP concept better than the 3.x Feat system? Or is there something out there that's better than either? I haven't been enamored with the C&C Siege engine.

 

[billd91]

Add me to the line of people saying there was nothing inherently wrong with 2e as a whole. It's an excellent game, enhanced by the fact that you could use pretty much anything from 1e with it to smooth over any places where 2e didn't improve on the game.

Things in 2e that didn't work as well as intended:

• The ranger. He had a lot of conditional powers compared to the paladin but was on the same XP schedule. He picked up the odd 2-weapon flavor which was actually quite limiting. His species enemy power was terribly limited compared to 1e. They had to nerf the hell out of the tracking non-weapon proficiency to make the ranger the most competent at it. He lost his ability to foil surprises better than most other PCs.
• The bard, similar to the ranger, was a little too based on conditional power to influence people. The power to influence people should have been better than just moving them one level on the reaction tables. His skills were also a bit on the weak side.
• Specialty priests were very cool but the organization of spheres needed some work. By casting the druid into this structure, they hurt the druid. Individual spell lists ended up working much better for druids. Some substantial work went into this later in the release that help a lot.
• They removed cash value from magic items, saying there was no market for them. That's just taking a normative stand on the game way too far. Fortunately, since the resources were compatible, the 1e DMG tables came to the rescue.
• Kits in the Complete X Handbooks were another good idea, not always well executed. Some were weak, some were "power kits". I think this was partly a symptom of them being new and previously untried. It was also a symptom of the philosophical approach to RPGs - that social interaction rules would be used and could significantly balance other mechanics. In some ways, I want that to be correct and true, in other ways, I know it doesn't work out that way.

Overall 2e is a fine game. I'd play it again. If 5e were significantly based on 2d, I'd be reasonably happy with the idea.

 

[the Jester]

1. What was wrong with 2e that has earned so many haters?

First of all, it wussed out a lot due to pressure from churches, moms and other non-gamers. It eliminated demons and devils; discarded monks, assassins and half-orcs, all of which had been core PH elements before; it put "storytelling" above actual gaming.

In addition to those rather structural flaws, 2e provided amazing examples of poor design and power creep. It had the Complete Book of Elves, which was perhaps the most overpowered official book for D&D players ever. Its powercreep started almost immediately after the core books released, with the "little brown books" that had tons of completely unbalanced kits in them (this was the edition that drove home the "don't balance mechanical benefits with roleplaying drawbacks" lesson).

It also had nothing but crap adventures.

Okay, that is a slight exaggeration, but the number of good 2e adventures can probably be counted on one hand.

And then there was Players Option: Skills & Powers. Ugh. The less said about that, the better.

2. What was Right with 2e that got lost in the version shuffle?

Great settings, some of which have never been seen again, are the traditionally-recognized strength of 2e. IMHO the real excellence of 2e was in the specialty priests, though.

3. If 2e were used as the baseline for 5e, what would the end product look like?

Probably an inferior version of what the end product would look like using 1e as the baseline.

 

[Viking Bastard]

I can definitely agree about the mechanics.. D20 blows THAC0 out of the water.

While my young teenage self *did* blame it all on "AD&D has awful and archaic mechanics but reads so cool", my gripe wasn't with bits like THAC0. It was that the flavor text was hard to reproduce with the mechanics given. So 2e became my source of fluff for other systems that we found to do it better.

Of course, a lot of that could've been mitigated by a stellar DMG, but alas.

When I later read a bunch of early 1e stuff (and learned more about the history of the game; hello internet!), it became apparent that this was what the 2e rules were meant to reproduce, not early 90s-styled epic storytelling.