AD&D second edition: Why be hatin'?

[Biohazard]

All these recent threads about older versions of the game have me puzzled.

On the one hand, most D&Ders agree, I think, that Dark Sun, Ravenloft, and Planescape (and perhaps Spelljammer) are some of the most innovative, immersive, engaging, and rewarding campaign settings ever devised. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems that it is rare to find a gamer who doesn't respect these settings. (I know someone will follow up to this post by saying "I don't respect them" or something witty like that, but that hardly proves anything).

On the other hand, while OD&D, RCD&D, and AD&D 1e seem to garner respect from today's gamers, even if in the name of nostalgia and/or history, AD&D 2e seems cursed with the "red-headed stepchild" syndrome.

How do we reconcile the fact that we admire these brilliant campaign settings yet show no honor to the version of the game that gave them birth?

 

[drothgery]

It's not at all difficult to have great "fluff" (background and setting information, descriptive text, artwork) and terrible "crunch" (actual game mechanics) in the same product. This was pervasive in AD&D 2e.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Game mechanics (crunch) and story/setting etc (fluff) are two seperate things. On the extremes a game can have excellent crunch and no fluff (or very bad fluff which is worse) or a game can have lots of fluff and no crunch (or very bad crunch which is worse). While the AD&D 2e campaign settings were very good as far as history, feel and story goes the game mechanics themselves sucked.

Another way of explaining it is while I may like the music someone writes I may not like that person (or something else but you get the idea).

 

[diaglo]

She who shall not be named is to blame for some if not most gamers hat of 2edADnD

 

[LeifVignirsson]

Well, I think I can chime in on that one... It is the usual with any changes that are made for the better in anything that people look back and think What were we thinking when we were doing xxx?

3E has less restrictions but feels more like a video game, much like a FF or Tactic Ogre. 1E and before was the standard and still is for some people, while 2E is in that middle ground. It was an "improvement" on 1E but 2E pales to 3E. Savy?

It is more a taste and preference. Some people HATE 3.X, some people hate 2E. It is the same as the elections, you have your conservatives and your liberals. I enjoyed them both myself, I see the merits to both...

But what do I know...?

 

[Nisarg]

All these recent threads about older versions of the game have me puzzled.

On the one hand, most D&Ders agree, I think, that Dark Sun, Ravenloft, and Planescape (and perhaps Spelljammer) are some of the most innovative, immersive, engaging, and rewarding campaign settings ever devised. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems that it is rare to find a gamer who doesn't respect these settings. (I know someone will follow up to this post by saying "I don't respect them" or something witty like that, but that hardly proves anything).

To me, the 2e rules were bad, the design philosophy (ie. "try to take all the naughty bits out of D&D" and "we'll tell gamers what they like") was bad, and finally most of the settings were bad or became bad after a very short while.

This can be blamed squarely and entirely on story-based gaming.

2e butchered the Forgotten Realms, turning them into a mere vehicle for the novels, and making the PCs in most campaigns hapless witness for predetermined metaplots. The "elminster saves the world" syndrome started in 2e.

Dark Sun started out as a creative idea, but very quickly de-evolved into a story-based mess, again due to the novels being more important than the game.

Ravenloft had its origins in 1e, and I forget if it became a full-blown setting in 1e or 2e, but over the course of 2e it slowly became more and more bloated, more and more meta-plotty.

Planescape added a lot of new material about the planes, which was good.
It also turned the Planes into a cross between a Sex Pistols album and a episode of Eastenders, which was bad.
Thank the gods that's been fixed with the MoTP.

Spelljammer, Birthright, and most of the other settings for 2e not mentioned were pretty appalling.

In summation, all that was good about 2e was also destroyed by 2e. In 3e some of it has been rehabilitated, to become a productive member of role-playing society. For some, like the Realms, this rehabilitiation is a long, slow ongoing process and its unclear whether it will ever recover fully.

Nisarg

 

[Algolei]

The truth of the matter is, most people don't like conflicting optional rules. They feel pressured to use them all, which is impossible (unless you're crazy).

 

[Philip]

She who shall not be named is to blame for some if not most gamers hat of 2edADnD

Tharizduna?

Hasturina?

 

[Henry]

Tharizduna?

Hasturina?

http://www.enworld.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=printpage&artid=33

Interview with Gary Gygax. Search the page for "Lorraine Dille Williams" and read from there. It's not the whole story, of course, but it gives you a place to start.

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

I don't hate any of the editions, versions, half-versions, or any of that. I just wish Al-Qadim had gotten its props. From a fluff point of view, those rulebooks and boxed sets were gorgeously written and illustrated. I had no interest in Ravenloft, Dark Sun, and especially Spelljammer, but I really wish Al-Qadim had caught on as well as they did.

Anyway..my whine is over. While I don't "hate" anything in the earlier editions, I didn't like Thac0. It was a hassle. I got REALLY tired of all the Forgotten Realms stuff that TSR cranked out like mad (and is still doing...where are the innumerable sourcebooks for Greyhawk, the "official" D&D setting)? I thought the splat books with the kits was a good idea, but many of those turned out to be either completely worthless or completely over the top. I loved the concept of Skills and Powers (still do), but boy howdy, were those rules broken.

Anyway.........