AD&D second edition: Why be hatin'?

[Scribble]

The core rules for 2nd ed. weren't terrible. But every supplement added poorly playtested, and downright unbalancing, things to that core.

To an extent I agree.

In my opinion this falls into the whole fluff vrs crunch thing. I think in 2e the emphasis was on fluff. So as such the kits, and specialty priests, and complete books, were designed to add cool "fluff" to your character. I think the idea was supposed to be "Use these to add coolness to your character but don't powergame and use them to max out ok?" It was supposed to be an almost honor system.

But human nature doesn't really work like that. People used it to beef up their characters and that's pretty much it.

 

[Nisarg]

To an extent I agree.

In my opinion this falls into the whole fluff vrs crunch thing. I think in 2e the emphasis was on fluff. So as such the kits, and specialty priests, and complete books, were designed to add cool "fluff" to your character. I think the idea was supposed to be "Use these to add coolness to your character but don't powergame and use them to max out ok?" It was supposed to be an almost honor system.

But human nature doesn't really work like that. People used it to beef up their characters and that's pretty much it.

Yup, you'd think they wouldn't make the same mistake twice.. but here we are in 3e with feats and prestige classes, both of which are of course "meant" to individualize your character and enhance the roleplay experience, and are in no way meant to be a powergamer's wet dream and a blatant excuse to turn your pc into a demigod.

Nisarg

 

[billd91]

I don't hate 2nd edition at all and in some ways it was a very useful improvement over 1st edition. Merric pointed out initiative and surprise as being very good improvements. Specialty priests, while potentially dangerous for game balance, were an awesome way to build characters whose devotions to different gods led to very different powers. Thief characters could concentrate on specific skills. Weapon group proficiencies and kits were introduced in the complete books (for an example of really GOOD kit use, check out Al-Qadim).
Sure, there were problems. I thought the ranger wasn't properly balanced for the XP table he was put on (too weak compared to the paladin). The bard was pretty wimpy. And certain priest spell sphere lists were deficient in the inital core rules. There was a quality control issue with many of the "Complete" books, particularly over kit balancing. Players Option: Skills and Powers had very serious problems in design, but it was an add-on that came late and could very easily be completely ignored.
Overall, 2nd edition was a nice improvement over 1st edition in regularizing certain rules and adding character design flexibility.

 

[jasper]

My hate of 2nd was two reasons.
1. Enough minor rule changes where I had to update my books because new players could not get the old books.
2. Too many splatbooks with too much powergaming/munckin rules, too few players making either accept the splat or have less gamers.

I got over 2. but never 1.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

To an extent I agree.

In my opinion this falls into the whole fluff vrs crunch thing. I think in 2e the emphasis was on fluff. So as such the kits, and specialty priests, and complete books, were designed to add cool "fluff" to your character. I think the idea was supposed to be "Use these to add coolness to your character but don't powergame and use them to max out ok?" It was supposed to be an almost honor system.

But human nature doesn't really work like that. People used it to beef up their characters and that's pretty much it.

Oh, I won't argue too hard about that (with the exception of Complete Elf... I once had a player tell me 'its official, you have to let me use it!' I told him 'I have a door, it's official, you have to use it.' He got the point.) If I recall properly most of the early kits weren't too broken, but each book seemed in competition with the previous ones on how over the top they could be. But I really liked the idea. The character concepts in the Mongoose Quintessential books seem very much like a more balanced version of that concept.

While I have seen some munchkin action with feats and prestige classes, it has been much easier to control than in 2e. But I will agree with those who feel that 2e's core was an improvement over 1e's core.

And I do agree with Psion, while you could do Dark Sun or Spell Jammer it is not likely that you would see them coming out from WotC, though Eberron surprised me in how much it broke away from what I would have expected WotC to come out with. Too bad neither of the adventures have seen for it have caught my interest, they almost had me. (But ah, the sweet siren call of steam whistles has been holding my attention fast in her coal blackened grip...)

The Auld Grump

 

[HellHound]

Durring the 2e years most of the CONS I went to featured 2e not 1e. Sure there were always a few 1e games but not very many. Where were all the 1e over 2e people then?

We stopped going to the Cons.

Heck, all my 1e friends basically stopped D&Ding during 2e. We fell back to 1e, then switched back to the Basic / Expert / Companion / Master rules and kept running that until 2001.

And we played a lot of other games, we got deep into Vampire & CyberPunk, and only pulled out the D&D campaign when we were tired of the heavy role-playing of our Vampire chronicles, and the uber-speed and tech of our CyberSettings.

But, for all intents and purposes, we never played 2e. Because 2e was the defacto D&D for gaming at conventions, either we stopped attending, or we went to play other games. Personally, I went to the Cons during the 2e era to compete in the last of the Car Wars nationals, to check out new RPGs, and to summon cthulhu while running from cyberpsychos.

 

[Akrasia]

Yup, you'd think they wouldn't make the same mistake twice.. but here we are in 3e with feats and prestige classes, both of which are of course "meant" to individualize your character and enhance the roleplay experience, and are in no way meant to be a powergamer's wet dream and a blatant excuse to turn your pc into a demigod.

Nisarg

Heh!

 

[Akrasia]

I hate 2E because it RUINED the "Known World" (which was mutated into "Mystara").

The original GAZ series was amazing. Well thought-out cultures and settings, with excellent adventure seeds and optional rules (which, over the course of the 1980s, actually made B/X D&D far more interesting than AD&D).

But then around 1993 or so, TSR, in it "Nero phase", desided to throw out RC D&D (the best version of D&D they had ever come up with), translate all the "Known World" stuff into this heavily "meta-plotted" infected thing called "Mystara", and crap all over the players who were so impressed with the original GAZ series.

Argh! :\

 

[Incenjucar]

Mmn... unless TSR went and rewrote your earlier edition books... at most, they stopped producing your preffered material and confused potential gamers a bit about the world you prefer.

May as well say you hate the GameCube because it ruined your NES games.

 

[Akrasia]

Mmn... unless TSR went and rewrote your earlier edition books... at most, they stopped producing your preffered material and confused potential gamers a bit about the world you prefer.

May as well say you hate the GameCube because it ruined your NES games.

W-t--FF??? :\

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

My point was simple: the "Known World" (the original GAZ series) was excellent. A high point in TSR publishing.

Then around 1993/4 TSR decided to revamp the setting for 2nd edition which involved, like all their other worlds for 2nd edition, introducing a pointless "meta-plot" for the world, mangling the existing material, etc.

So I dislike 2E because its approach to campaign world design led to the degrading and abandonment of TSR's best world to date.

Sorta like hating the "2000+" George Lucas for degrading and ruining the 1977-83" George Lucas's Star Wars.