No Second Edition Love?

[mcrow]

I cut my RPG teeth on 2ed and I still perfer it to any of the other editions. It has its problems, but its not like 1st or 3rd don't.

 

[DaveyJones]

Where's the second edition love?

I love 2edD&D almost as much as OD&D(1974)

Holmes did a wonderful job of making the rules useable for play on a different level.
heck 3eD&D Holmes isn't much different.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

I found 2E easy for me to write adventures up for, and I spent a lot of time working on old homebrews. I have mixed feelings for kits however, and I hate the "oriental" kits in the Complete series. Looking back at it now, I find that most of the proficiencies came out as completely, utterly useless for adventuring, and ditto for most of the equipment (I enjoyed that there was no weight for rations...how does that work???).

I do note that once the hard covers with the new art came out...at least in the artwork, I detected a "back to the dungeon" philosophy, and I really enjoyed the "Return to..." and the Greyhawk: The Adventure Begins (though I do dislike some of the changes to the setting because of the Wars and From the Ashes) materials, if namely because assassins and monks were returned as classes, and at the time I couldn't really find any Greyhawk material anywhere.

Oh yeah, and much "hat" for the punching/grappling tables.

 

[Faraer]

I like the original AD&D for what it is. It's the perfect system for the World of Greyhawk and similar worlds, and for its own style of play. I admire those things and like to travel there, though they're far from what's most natural to me.

From that perspective, 2E misunderstood or changed the intent of certain rules and generally rounded the edges off, leaving something with less coherence and much less charm of its own. For the same reason it's a more versatile ruleset that works decently and fairly transparently for the TSR-published settings, in each of which it was implemented slightly differently. I prefer it to 3E in a lot of ways, such as overall philosophy, the less finicky accounting of modifiers and the absence of complications like feats which don't help the kind of play I prefer.

 

[jdrakeh]

It's easily the edition that I've played the most and, likewise, it produced the settings that I like the most, as well as my favorite versions of those settings (with the notable exception of FR). That said, it's probably my least favorite version of the rules due to splat bloat and poor design (especially where kits were concerned).

[Edit: I should clarify the "poor design" comment. Initially, the Second Edition of the game was altered to asuage a group of individuals who had no personal stake in the products or the hobby (right-wing political activists). That was bad right off the bat. The other big design blunder was the push for splats near the end of TSR's life, especially since most of them were never checked against existing books or other splats to determine whether the rules were actually valid extensions of the core rule set or if they even made sense when compared to other books marketed as companion volumes.]

 

[Pants]

I started playing during 2e so I have a certain nostalgic fondness for the game, but, that said, I don't think I'd want to go back to playing it. Everything I liked about 2e (flavor) is easily ported into my 3.5 game so there's no real reason to go back.

 

[Treebore]

I loved 2E, I would play it again in a heartbeat. I am convinced that I love it because I was smart enough not to allow anything outside of the "Core" books. No Kits, no Optional rules, except Weapon Mastery, saves rolled as a 1, 2, or 3 fail no matter your bonuses, and the dangers of using the Haste spell.

The only other stuff I used were specialized equipment, such as what was in the Thief book.

Plus my House Rules.

I have ten+ years of fond 2E memories.

Heck, I would even DM it again if I couldn't convince them to try C&C.

 

[DragonLancer]

I love 2nd edition. In some ways it will always be more D&D to me than 3.X or 1st ed ever is/was.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I think my favourite quote from second edition was in the campaign setting "Horde" (1989). From memory, it went something like this:

Owing to the vast distances in Kara-Tur, the overall size of Kara-Tur has been reduced by 1/3 to improve play. The hexes formerly 60 miles across are now 40 miles across...

I think that about sums it up. So many 2e products were hardly tested, playtested, or in fact barely even thought about before they were sold to an unsuspecting public, it was acutely embarrassing to waste money on them.

Oh sure the artwork was slick and glossy, if a bit soulless, and at least the initiative rules worked. But basically, my feeling is that where it was good, it wasn't new, and where it was new, it wasn't much good.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

I started playing during 2e so I have a certain nostalgic fondness for the game, but, that said, I don't think I'd want to go back to playing it. Everything I liked about 2e (flavor) is easily ported into my 3.5 game so there's no real reason to go back.

Same here, although my nostalgic fondness is tempered by how intensely I disliked the system. Admittedly, it was a good fit for our group in high school (providing enormous incentives to develop house rules and tinker with the mechanics until they suited us better), but it was also enough of a pain in the ass that when other systems came along there was really no reason to ever go back to it.

2e had great settings, though. Just a ridiculous amount of amazingly fun, interesting, creative stuff...and I can't express how happy I am that it's entirely possible to lift those things entirely out of 2e and use them in a system that I like better.

--
never played 1e, and i'm totally okay with knowing that i'll never have to
ryan