D&D 2E Now I have the hankering to play a 2E game...

[Alzrius]

Personally, I'm just glad that AD&D 2E finally got its own retro-clone in the form of For Gold & Glory. While my 2E books are still all on the shelf, it's nice to know that there's a community interested in that particular era of the game enough to reproduce it (particularly since the Core Rules PDF is free), such as the expansions from The Hawk Wolf Network.

Please note my use of affiliate links in this post.

 

[Mallus]

Do it!

2e is a wonderful system you ignore big chunks of, bolt on house rules/whole subsystems to, and generally suspend whenever you want or need to in favor of asking players to just roll something, ie the way I ran 2e or some semblance of it for many years.

Or run it RAW. That works, too, more or less. If nothing else, there's a ton of great supplemental material for AD&D 2e .

 

[Retreater]

TL;DR - we've been trying to get these darn kids off our lawns for DECADES, at least.

I get that some of my points are things that are true to a lesser extent from every edition change. But it's really a Ship of Theseus issue: how much can you change it and not have the same game?
To me, that line was between AD&D 2e and 3.x. All the previous stuff was fairly easily backwards compatible. A few extra hp for thieves, a cleric getting a spell at 1st level, different weapon damage dice, those types of things don't fundamentally change the game experience.
But not having to search a trapped hallway because you have an automatic detection ability. Spells and hit points getting reset between encounters. Those change it. And while I enjoy all editions and variations of D&D (including 5e, PF 1 & 2, 4E), I don't accept they are the same game.

 

[turnip_farmer]

PHOOEY!! on having so many fun editions, lol.

I'm thinking I might resolve my 'what system to use for the next campaign' dilemma by taking bits that I like from 5e; bits I like from previous editions or OSR games and mixing it all together with a percentile skill system into one mishapen and poorly-designed mess of house rules. That sounds like an old school gaming experience. Now to figure out how to sell it to the players.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I did a 1e throwback campaign some years ago. I meant to follow that up with a 2e campaign, then 3e, and even 4e, but I lost the gumption. I did a whole one-year campaign, but think it'd be easy enough to just pick a specific iconic module for an edition and just run that to completion, then move on. 2e definitely has a lot of fun parts, and I remember it quite fondly.

PHOOEY!! on having so many fun editions, lol.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I get that some of my points are things that are true to a lesser extent from every edition change. But it's really a Ship of Theseus issue: how much can you change it and not have the same game?
To me, that line was between AD&D 2e and 3.x. All the previous stuff was fairly easily backwards compatible. A few extra hp for thieves, a cleric getting a spell at 1st level, different weapon damage dice, those types of things don't fundamentally change the game experience.
But not having to search a trapped hallway because you have an automatic detection ability. Spells and hit points getting reset between encounters. Those change it. And while I enjoy all editions and variations of D&D (including 5e, PF 1 & 2, 4E), I don't accept they are the same game.

I never thought that was really arguable, was it?

OD&D begat Holmes Basic (which was a rewritten and cognizable version of OD&D) begat AD&D (which was previewed in Holmes Basic) begat AD&D Second Edition. This was the "AD&D line."

And B/X begat BECMI begat RC. This was the "Basic line."

And the entirety of the AD&D line, from OD&D through and including 2e, was compatible with the Basic line.

While there were differences from 1974 through 2000, all the different branches and variations were compatible with each other. A group could use characters created under the RC rules and play in an OD&D dungeon, or take Holmes Basic and play in a 2e campaign, with very little had to be changed or worried about.

3e deliberately broke that continuity; that is neither good nor bad (it had been 26 years), but it definitely happened.

 

[Marc_C]

2e is my favourite TSR edition. Longest lasting D&D campaign with the same 5 players. 3 years. From level 1 to 12. We used NWPs and individual initiatives. Just the 3 core books and other Monster Manuals. No Complete splat books or psionic handbook.

I recently bought POD versions of the three core books on DriveThru RPG. My old copies got lost while moving, don't remember how.

 

[overgeeked]

I'm thinking I might resolve my 'what system to use for the next campaign' dilemma by taking bits that I like from 5e; bits I like from previous editions or OSR games and mixing it all together with a percentile skill system into one mishapen and poorly-designed mess of house rules. That sounds like an old school gaming experience. Now to figure out how to sell it to the players.

That’s the trick, isn’t it. Something I’ve noticed in the last decade or so is a creeping resistance to house rules. Players seem more and more insistent on playing strictly RAW games, not even optional rules from the books. RAW RAW RAW. It’s a really odd modern trend. Easier to write the game you want and publish it, then get them to play it.

 

[Ath-kethin]

I get that some of my points are things that are true to a lesser extent from every edition change. But it's really a Ship of Theseus issue: how much can you change it and not have the same game?
To me, that line was between AD&D 2e and 3.x. All the previous stuff was fairly easily backwards compatible. A few extra hp for thieves, a cleric getting a spell at 1st level, different weapon damage dice, those types of things don't fundamentally change the game experience.
But not having to search a trapped hallway because you have an automatic detection ability. Spells and hit points getting reset between encounters. Those change it. And while I enjoy all editions and variations of D&D (including 5e, PF 1 & 2, 4E), I don't accept they are the same game.

It's funny; I had friends who refused to switch to 3e because they said it was too different a game, and I didn't understand that at all at the time. After all, I could still play my favorite type of character (an elven mage/thief, made possible in 3e by a sidebar in the DMG), so what was to worry about?

But at this point I largely agree with them (and you). I think the WotC era has been a net positive for D&D, inasmuch as the game is still being made and played and is apparently more popular than ever, but I am not a fan of many changes it has wrought. I don't like a la carte leveling. I don't like every class leveling at the same rate. I don't like changing the way thri-kreen look. I don't like spontaneous casters at all ("spells known" is a concept I feel should be taken out back and shot then run over for good measure, at least without being tied to an ability like it was in 2e). The hyping of ideas like "dead levels" I found/find absurd.

I don't really like video games, and on some level I resent D&D's (very necessary, TBH) shift to try and accommodate concepts that stem from such games to attract and retain folks who DO like them.

I don't disagree with your Ship of Theseus point. I guess I just don't see it as being a problem. D&D as of the Greyhawk supplement in 1975 was a different game than the original publication. The evolution has been underway for a LONG time. I think the 2e/3e demarcation is one of the easiest to spot, maybe, but I think it was less severe than the shift from 3e to 4e in most respects.

 

[Marc_C]

That’s the trick, isn’t it. Something I’ve noticed in the last decade or so is a creeping resistance to house rules. Players seem more and more insistent on playing strictly RAW games, not even optional rules from the books. RAW RAW RAW. It’s a really odd modern trend. Easier to write the game you want and publish it, then get them to play it.

Could be house rule fatigue. There comes a point where a group doesn't want to be the guinea pig of the DM. More so if they can spot, from the get go, that said house rule will not work or not bring more fun to the table. Only more hassle and risk being discarded at the end of a single session.