1e vs. 2e:

[rogueattorney]

Part of the problem with a 1e v. 2e debate is that a lot of the problems that 1e fans have with 2e were extant with latter (1984-ish to 1988) 1e. Specifically, the product trends typically thought of as "2e" (source books and new rules over adventures and play aids, quantity over quality, linked event-based adventures in specific game worlds over one-shot site based modular adventures, in-depth world sources over skeletal frame works) all began with late 1e.

So a lot of the panning of 2e supplemental products can be used to criticize late 1e. However, it is my opinion that 2e never had the good quality run of products that 1e had from '78 to '82, where you could feel pretty safe in buying everything that came out.

One of my particular problems with 2e was that two of the three core books were horrible. The PHB is what it is. Sure, there were a lot of changes, but the overall mechanics are about the same. The DMG, on the other hand, is a big list of magic items and 200 pages of uselessness. The original Monstrous Compendiums were a design disaster. I had dropped out of 2e by the time they finally rectified the situation in the mid-90's with the Monstrous Manual.

 

[Voadam]

(and note that, for my purposes, what I refer to as "1E" only really includes those products produced under the supervision of Gary Gygax; many of the modules and supplements from c. 1982 on, and everything from 1986 on are "transitional" products that have (at least IMO) as much or more in common with 2E than Gygax's 1E)

That's the first time I've ever heard somebody say that 1e stuff is not 1e stuff.

 

[Voadam]

2nd EDITION AD&D had "Greyhawk as target of stupid jokes".

That's enough for me to turn my nose up at it. And no, the late 90's attempts to make nice don't fix it, either.

Castle Greyhawk was a 1e module.

 

[Henry]

That's the first time I've ever heard somebody say that 1e stuff is not 1e stuff.

Pay attention to the "Classic" forums like Dragonsfoot and Knights and Knaves, and you'll find a variation of about thirty different shades of "1E," "2E", and "3E." Like so many things in life, it gets lumped into a monolithic whole, but the reality is fans all across the spectrum liking their specific "shade" of the rainbow -- 3E just hasn't had enough history for there to be more than four or five different shades yet.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Dragonlance feels a bit 2e to me even though it's not. It's certainly different from Gygaxian 1e being much more about telling a story, whereas traditional 1e is focused on overcoming challenges. Dramatist vs gamist.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

...the product trends typically thought of as "2e" all began with late 1e...So a lot of the panning of 2e supplemental products can be used to criticize late 1e.

Absolutely. I think that serves to reinforce the idea that the real problem wasn't so much that 2E core rules sucked, but rather that those holding the reins at TSR had lost their way (IMO). The stuff at the tail-end of 1E showed the same kinds of things that I disliked in 2E.

it is my opinion that 2e never had the good quality run of products that 1e had from '78 to '82, where you could feel pretty safe in buying everything that came out.

QFT.

Shortly after 2E hit, I tried running a 1E game, but most people were following the pied piper of "new & improved," and weren't interested. I ran a Basic/Expert D&D game, instead, which turned into a long-lived and very successful campaign. It always seemed odd to me that some of the same players that turned down the 1E game had no reservations about playing in the classic D&D game. I always wondered if it was just because it was being printed and supported. Dunno.

 

[dcas]

Dragonlance feels a bit 2e to me even though it's not. It's certainly different from Gygaxian 1e being much more about telling a story, whereas traditional 1e is focused on overcoming challenges. Dramatist vs gamist.

A lot of the rules changes that were to come with 2e were definitely foreshadowed in the Dragonlance Adventures hardcover (and in the Survival Guides and Oriental Adventures, too): Non-weapon proficiencies, specialty priests, specialized mages.

 

[T. Foster]

Pay attention to the "Classic" forums like Dragonsfoot and Knights and Knaves, and you'll find a variation of about thirty different shades of "1E," "2E", and "3E." Like so many things in life, it gets lumped into a monolithic whole, but the reality is fans all across the spectrum liking their specific "shade" of the rainbow -- 3E just hasn't had enough history for there to be more than four or five different shades yet.

Indeed, because of the leisurely pace at which 1E hardbacks were released (1 per year, more or less -- there were no new AD&D hardbacks in 1982 or 84 and there were 2 apiece in 85, 86, and 87), it's possible to find 1E fans who draw their personal "line in the sand" after every single release (at least after the core 3 -- there may well be fans out there who accept, say, the MM and PH but reject the DMG but I don't know of any specifically). The broadest division seems to be in three groups -- the "fundamentalists" who accept only the 3 core books (possibly including Deities & Demigods (1980) and/or Fiend Folio (1981), but usually not) andwant nothing to do with any of the later stuff, even what Gygax wrote, the "Gygaxists" who accept the Monster Manual II (1983) and/or Unearthed Arcana (1985) (the 1983 World of Greyhawk boxed set typically falls into this category as well) but reject everything after Gygax's ouster/departure (I personally tend to fall into this camp when I'm playing AD&D), and the "completists" who include Oriental Adventures (1985), the Survival Guides (1986), Manual of the Planes (1987) and possibly even the Dragonlance (1987) and/or Greyhawk Adventures (1988) books in their "personal AD&D canon." All three of these groups will fight among each other; not perhaps quite as much as they'll fight with 2E or 3E (or GURPS or WoD) fans, but do a search at dragonsfoot on, say, "Unearthed Arcana" and "crap" and you'll probably come up with more than a couple matches...

 

[RFisher]

The rec.games.frp.dnd FAQ had a decent list of the changes between 1e & 2e.

For me, 2e is enough like 1e & classic D&D that my opinion of it doesn't fall far from my opinion of them. Anything that follows is nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. Ask me to play or run a 2e game, & (after making my case for classic D&D) I'm in!

From an AD&D viewpoint:

Specialty priests are a great idea, but they are basically creating a custom class, which is hard to do well. Even the Druid class seemed like an awful kludge compared to the 1e version. Good in theory, less so in implementation. I finally decided it they weren't worth the trouble, & at that point, 2e isn't giving you much of anything over 1e on the Cleric front.

The specialty MU thing I have similar opinions of. It worked out much better than things did on the Cleric side, but I would've rather had professional game designers & a serious playtesting effort put towards creating MU subclasses more in the vein of the 1e Illusionist.

(Although, probably more importantly, I don't think a huge range of classes or mechanical customization of PCs is something (A)D&D needs. There are plenty of games that do that sort of things better.)

The Monstrous Compendium was another one of those great ideas. The difference is that I don't know that--in the long run--I would've liked the result no matter how well implemented.

I think those are the biggies. So--from the AD&D perspective--I'd prefer to ignore large chunks of 1e (perhaps effectively Osric) than play 2e. The 1e books, however, I find to be the most inspirational of any edition. No matter what edition I may claim as my base, I'll treasure my 1e books for inspiration.

From a classic D&D perspective, however, I find 2e more interesting. If you don't use all the optional rules, it starts to look pretty similar to classic D&D. Still, I don't currently have any compelling reason to choose it over 2e.

Of course, the big caveat is that I'm not very familiar with late 2e.

Pay attention to the "Classic" forums like Dragonsfoot and Knights and Knaves, and you'll find a variation of about thirty different shades of "1E," "2E", and "3E." Like so many things in life, it gets lumped into a monolithic whole, but the reality is fans all across the spectrum liking their specific "shade" of the rainbow -- 3E just hasn't had enough history for there to be more than four or five different shades yet.

(O_O) I see at least four or five different shades of 3e.

When you're trying to generalize, though, you almost have to recognize at least two flavors of each edition: Core & core+supplements. There can be a huge continuum based on what supplements & what bits of what supplements you add, but you can't ignore that oD&D & oD&D+supplements or 1e & 1e+supplements or 2e & 2e+supplements or 3e & 3e+supplements can be significantly different. (The classic D&D line beyond oD&D doesn't quite follow the core+supplements pattern as neatly.)

 

[Voadam]

I used 1e, 2e, and red box basic D&D stuff side by side in my game with no problems. The major differences were some of the things I listed above, how xp is calculated, and how initiative is handled.

I never got the 2e DMG I just copied the xp charts and the new racial limits from a friend's copy and used my 1e DMG for the rest (mostly magic item descriptions).

I prefer the 2e PH for the attack and save charts and the fact that the spell rules are complete in one description without significant aspects hidden away in the DMG. I prefer the 1e PH for the art and presentation.