AD&D 2E Edition Experience - Did/Do you Play AD&D 2E? How Was/Is It?

[Staffan]

+ Items may be a complication but for whatever reason it was never an issue in our minds. We knew lower AC was better, and this magic ring gave you a +2 benefit, so it lowered your AC by 2. Weird, I'm sure, but it made perfect sense. However, iirc even TSR thought they should change AC to ascending with 2e DND, but they didn't want to upset their core audience, who they believed wanted it to stay descending, and they were sure that DND wasn't going to get any bigger than it already was... So yeah!

It's not an issue in the same way that a hole in the floor in your home isn't an issue. I mean, you know it's there, and you can easily maneuver around it, even in the dark because you've been living in the place for a few years. But for someone who's new to the place and might be distracted by something else, it can cause a whole lot of trouble.

 

[cbwjm]

It's not an issue in the same way that a hole in the floor in your home isn't an issue. I mean, you know it's there, and you can easily maneuver around it, even in the dark because you've been living in the place for a few years. But for someone who's new to the place and might be distracted by something else, it can cause a whole lot of trouble.

It's funny, because I read your comment regarding 2e vs 3e and, honestly, it feels like you could be talking about either edition. with 3e it's the bonus types and how they overlap meaning sometimes a spell only affects some of the party and perhaps offering different modifiers (a mass bull's strength might grant a +4 to strength for some, effectively +2 for others, and nothing for others depending on magical items). 2e meant reading a description and determining the power of the effect on the party member (does a ring +1 add to AC or not). The different bonus types did kind of simplify things, but lead to other issues.

 

[Staffan]

It's funny, because I read your comment regarding 2e vs 3e and, honestly, it feels like you could be talking about either edition. with 3e it's the bonus types and how they overlap meaning sometimes a spell only affects some of the party and perhaps offering different modifiers (a mass bull's strength might grant a +4 to strength for some, effectively +2 for others, and nothing for others depending on magical items). 2e meant reading a description and determining the power of the effect on the party member (does a ring +1 add to AC or not). The different bonus types did kind of simplify things, but lead to other issues.

I'm not saying 3e was anywhere near perfect, but at least it was consistent in its complexity.
(And don't forget how that mass bull's strength could give people anywhere from +0 to +3 to damage, depending on whether they already had an enhancement bonus to Strength as well as what sort of weapon they were using...)

And don't remind me of the 9-page document I wrote to help a player keep track of her Wild Shape ability in Pathfinder...

 

[kermit4karate]

Anytime someone tries to tell me THAC0 was too complicated, my immediate response is "my stoner friends could figure it out when we were in high school, it wasn't that hard".

I played with THAC0 for at least a decade so I wouldn't call it "too complicated" for most folks, but I'm glad D&D proper moved beyond it.

 

[ART!]

I main thing I remember about 2E - I haven't played it since it was the current edition - is the layout of the core books.

I mean... I think it introduced THACO? And skills?

 

[Sacrosanct]

I main thing I remember about 2E - I haven't played it since it was the current edition - is the layout of the core books.

I mean... I think it introduced THACO? And skills?

Those existed in 1e (To Hit AC 0 was in the DMG and non-weapon proficiencies were books like the Survival Guides). But 2e really codified them and made them easier.

 

[kigmatzomat]

So my overall experiences

• I kind-of-sort-of played BECMI in that we rolled dice and attempted to do things based on what we thought the booklet said but 100% we did not get it.
• I played in several 1e games in the very early 90s. It was fun but also a lot of "really? This is d20 and that is %?"
• 2e I played in several dozen short lived games, but I DMed a lot, with my main experience of running 2e from 3rd-23rdish level (class-based xp charts!) for 9-15 players (meaning I didn't play if there weren't at least 9 players present).
• 3e I ran a 1st-22nd (23rd?) Level game for 5-8 players and played a couple short lived games
• 4e - skipped. Played it once, saw what they did, decided it wasn't for me.
• 5e -was a player in a 1st-20th game, but I didn't show up until 7th level. Have been in an Eberron alt game

So my take on 2e : It was much better organized than 1e, more balanced but also a bit more sanitized. It was, by comparison to many other products, well organized and well produced. It was also expanded to a fare thee well, with an insane number of supplements. Class books, race books, setting books, meta-rules, and so many creatures. I mean, I took all the entries for the Monstrous Compendium, put them in a spreadsheet, and made d1000 random encounter tables by geography. (Such a nerd...) but my point is you needed a d1000 because there were hundreds of creatures per environment.

I have fond memories of my campaign, but not the rules. However I don't have memories of hating the rules, either.

2e was kind of mooted by other games. Shadowrun, Mage/WW, Cyberpunk/gen. Will say MtA 1e was a mess and I did hate parts of that system. Mostly non-fantasy. Played Runequest, was never really invested in it. Earthdawn was the exception. It did D&D better than 2e because it leaned into the weird tropes and made them in-game canon. Layers of setting, rules and math. It is delicious.

3e I would play or run again tomorrow. 5e as well, though my personal preferences are towards 3e style crunch. 2e....only if someone really wanted to experience it. Which is probably as telling a commentary as anything else I could say.

 

[cbwjm]

I played with THAC0 for at least a decade so I wouldn't call it "too complicated" for most folks, but I'm glad D&D proper moved beyond it.

Yeah, I'm fine with thac0, never found it difficult and I will defend it as being fine and not as difficult as people make it out to be; however, ascending I think is better due to being generally easier for a lot of people.

Mind you, a lot of people I've played with have trouble adding a number to the die roll so maybe people just suck at maths.