I loved 2E- its easily the edition of D&D I played the most, and we had a blast with it. I started playing in the mid-80s with 1E and loved it, but 2E has the most special place in my heart. I'd still run or play it today happily if people wanted to or my old group was around.
The things I liked about 2E over 1E (and 3.xE) are:
1) De-emphasis of the dungeon and more emphasis on the world, story, and the place of the characters in it.
2) Settings- 2E had the best settings of any edition of D&D, with Birthright, Al-Quadim, and Ravenloft being my favorites. The revised Greyhawk was pretty good too.
3) The historical campaign books were great as well- I loved the Roman, Vikings and Celts books. Great background info and wonderful flavor.
4) The rules were streamlined and easier to index than 1E, but still very simple. I almost never had to reference a book when we were playing 2E to find how to do something (unlike 3E which has the worst rules bloat and complexity of all D&D of any editions). Game prep was also a breeze for statting out monsters and NPCs.
5) The old Monstrous Compendium formats were awesome! I loved the ecology and society additions to monsters- it sparked countless encouter and adventure ideas in my brain. I HATE the 3E format of the MMs though- it just throws stats at you without any brain teasers as to how to use the monsters.
6) Cleric spheres- this was one of the best innovations, although the spheres should have been fleshed out better to make clerics more equal. Domains are like a poor man's version of spheres.
I remember getting most of the supplement books, like Complete Fighter, Cleric, Thief, etc. I used ideas and equipment from them, but never the kits- I could see at a glance they were overpowered and wonky. Likewise, Skills and Powers never got used in my games- it looked too much like a powergamer's dream. So we didn't see any of the rules bloat or problems most people say they experienced with 2E- we just had fun and loved the game.
Shadowslayer said:
It may not force it, but it certainly does suggest it. And in the hands of a gamer that just bought the books and started playing, that suggestion is as good as forcing.
I'm not jumping in here to defend this so called forge-speak...personally it all sounds pretty pretentious to me. But to say that a style of play is only a result of the rules presented, and nothing else, is a fallacy IMO. A game's presentation has as much, if not more influence on playstyle than the actual nuts and bolts rules.
Yep, exactly- and this is one reason whyI am so dissatisfied with 3.x D&D and have moved on to other games. The rules present the idea that metagaming and stats matter most for character worth and efficiency, not the ideas and skills of the player. Players now have a sense of entitlement due to the changes in 3.x (CR, Treasure by level charts, etc)- I've seen this MANY times, and its much more common than in previous editions. The "options not restrictions" mantra of 3.x epitomizes this- if the DM doesn't allow you to use every option in the book or that is available, many players will get very upset and claim he is a "bad DM" (and I've seen this many times too). And most players who are new to D&D in 3.x are nothing but hack-n-slashers who loot dungeons every time- only with great effort have I been able to convince them that there is something beyond the dungeon and looting your enemies. I know it comes down to differing playstlyes, but in many ways, the attitudes and expectations prevalent in 3.x seem like a huge step backwards to me and my group.
