For AD&D with its reverse bell curve stat mechanics and class prerequisites I prefer the 1e higher stat generation methods over 2e’s method I 3d6 down the line.
At the same time, 2e included all but the most broken stat generation methods 1E and 1.5 had in the book as methods. I know 2e called 3d6 the default, but at this point in my life, I just can't get behind an optional vs. non-optional dichotomy. They included said rule in the rulebook, but did/didn't suggest you should always follow it -- what exactly does this supposedly prove? I certainly don't remember more 2e groups feeling beholden to that default than 1e groups. That and, by now, everyone is using the rules they think optimal.
The journey towards bardhood can be just as much fun as achieving it.
I played in a short lived 2e game where I convinced the GM to let me play a 1e bard. The campaign never went anywhere, but while it lasted I had much more fun playing a 1st level fighter who considered himself an apprentice bard than I would have had playing a 2e bard.
I think this highlights an important point. If you take specific X (1E bard or ranger, BECM elf, AD&D weapon charts, xp=gp) the games end up playing out very much the same -- which is to say, most people used half the rules, ported half the rest over from other versions, and mixed in a massive amount of group-specific house rules or playstyle changes. Oftentimes without even knowing it. Case in point:
- I believe chance to know rolls were removed
Not the case. Per 2e PHB p.16, chance to learn spell is alive and well and matches 1e up to a score of 19. It's possible that you remember it that way because your 2e DM simply didn't use the rule (and also didn't when they were playing 1e, if they ever did).
Generally my point is that we talk now, well after the (initial) fact, about little nuances like default attribute or XP rules, whether 1e bards (that weren't played much) were better than 2e bards (that were still pretty infrequent*), or similar. These are all important points to the discussion of which one any of us might generally prefer. However, I don't think (so, let's be clear, IMO) it really answers why anyone would play one over the other or why OP sees so much more 1e than 2e in the osr discussion.
*as they couldn't actually replace the thief class, so you needed 2 people interested in playing rogue-ish characters
To that, I think this might be an important point.
There are many reasons why people would want to play 1E.
If one is considering 1E for play though, the most practical question one can ask themselves is not dissimilar to the one that can be posed for any edition.
"Do I want to play with those who want to play 1E?"
If your actual preferences differ from the preferences of the players you are able to recruit, you'd be fighting an uphill battle. I prefer serious names, acting in first person, and other things. There are vocal segments in the 1E community that do not want these same things in their games. 2E, on the other hand, still seems to be less opinionated on the matter. Something to consider.
I don't actually know that I agree with this 1E/2E distinction, but I readily agree that there are people who are/have been 1E people*, and those who decisively made the switch to (/started with) 2E.
*who might have played 2E in '89-whenever, but then re-gravitated to a self-image as a 1E player
The categorical distinction I consider most convincing is that the 2e people were more likely to have gone on to 3.0 and maybe further. Thus, when they started exploring the OSR, were less likely to have had their AD&D mindframe sitting on the back burner the whole time. I think a lot of them then said,
'sure, let's strip this back to bare bones while we're re-exploring this general notion' and ended up associated with one of the BX-derived games.
