AD&D 2E On AD&D 2E

[Zardnaar]

Born 78, started late 1993 with BECMI 2E 1995.

1E books I read and made me want to play. I like the 1E vibe and aspects of it. Terrible as a rules system though like OD&D. Playstyle can be fun.

 

[Belen]

I am 47. I started in 1992-93 with 2e. Actually, my first game was Werewolf but only 1 session and then it was 2e.

I still prefer 2e for the style and feel of the game.

 

[PHATsakk43]

As far as the “tone” goes, one of the best things about 2E compared with 1E, was the lack of “tone”.

Having never read the 1E books until really this year, there is a lot more explicit, “this is how you play” in Gary’s writing than Zeb’s. 2E left the table flavor out of the ruleset beyond a basic, “this is a game where you pretend to be heroes in a quasi medieval fantasy world” to the DM or for those who didn’t home brew their world, published campaigns.

 

[cbwjm]

I started with BECMI around '93 when I was 13 or 14, stuck with it for a few years as I remember running games with it at high school but by 6th or 7th form I was running 2e with my friends. I did have a look at some of the 1e stuff, mostly unearthed arcana that I borrowed from a friend but otherwise never played it.

Every now and then people say that DnD should go back to Gygaxian prose and I can only assume that they're joking since I'm sure that would turn people away from the game

 

[Zardnaar]

As far as the “tone” goes, one of the best things about 2E compared with 1E, was the lack of “tone”.

Having never read the 1E books until really this year, there is a lot more explicit, “this is how you play” in Gary’s writing than Zeb’s. 2E left the table flavor out of the ruleset beyond a basic, “this is a game where you pretend to be heroes in a quasi medieval fantasy world” to the DM or for those who didn’t home brew their world, published campaigns.

It's a ymmv. 2E was built more like a tool box. And a modern player can understand it.

I took the 1 DMG into my C&C session. It has magic items in it lacking from the C&C adventure. I was running a 1E adventure.

Random Harlot table got a laugh. Following week I rolled a random encounter number. Player nearest to me cracked up laughing when she saw it. It was a number between 68 and 70.

I started with BECMI around '93 when I was 13 or 14, stuck with it for a few years as I remember running games with it at high school but by 6th or 7th form I was running 2e with my friends. I did have a look at some of the 1e stuff, mostly unearthed arcana that I borrowed from a friend but otherwise never played it.

Every now and then people say that DnD should go back to Gygaxian prose and I can only assume that they're joking since I'm sure that would turn people away from the game

I like some rules from 1E abd the playstyle can be fun (eg in a clone).

Gygax I can take or leave with sight preference towards leave (B/X is better, so is E adding parts of 1E you like).

 

[James Gasik]

Born in '74. Played a little Basic when I found some 1e books at my local library- the two survival guides and the Fiend Folio. I lucked out and found a slightly battered DMG at a garage sale. I was fascinated by those books, they were mysterious and densely packed with ideas, concepts, snippets of lore, and some truly arcane rules.

When I finally had a chance to really play 1e, however, it was those rules that seemed so especially hard to grasp. Even with the DMG's index and having read the books cover to cover multiple times, it always felt like there was something tucked away in a random spot to throw you for a loop.

I knew a few DM's who learned all the wrong lessons from Gary's raving writing as well. Like the Bible, you could find support for any position buried in the DMG, but somehow the idea that the DM should be a curmudgeon and ready to rule against "those darned players" lest they overrun your adventures really caught on with them.

As a result, I quickly gravitated away from DM's who insisted on gritty conflicts that required you to keep a stable of PC's on hand to replace fallen ones- I knew one guy who put skulls on his DM screen like he was a damn fighter pilot racking up kills, and another who would gleefully light your character sheet on fire and keep the ashes in a ceramic coffin he'd specially made for the purpose! Crazy, I know.

When I finally saw the 2e books, I was enticed by the colorful art and crisper presentation. These were no longer arcane tomes of lore, however, as the writing was much more matter of fact. They were rulebooks, and no less arcane than their predecessors- despite having read them extensively, to this day, people who played AD&D for decades can be surprised to find some little tidbit tucked away in the rules that they had no idea existed- because the game quickly outgrew it's rulebooks, despite the bewildering array of supplements available, the game existed more in the interaction between players and DM's than in it's rules to the point that no two groups of players were really playing the same game.

Comparing notes with other players usually came down to "wait, what?" and "oh my DM lets me/allows...", lol. For a long time, I made characters the completely wrong way, somehow deluded into thinking that the game and the DM would facilitate me making whatever idea I had function. I was frustrated more often than not, because even though the books claimed you could play any character you desired, the truth was, that Fighter specialized in a crossbow with a Strength of 9 was never going to compare to their dual-wielding, 18%, plate mail wearing counterpart.

Many options were just terrible, many classes didn't really live up to the promised fantasy, and it was an endless quest for newer, more powerful options. By the time my friends started making characters with the black books (ie, the Players Option series), talking about Gnome Fighters specialized in darts making five attacks per round with split ability scores so you could dump the things you didn't care about (like carry capacity) to get the things you did (sweet, sweet bonuses), I was ready to move on.

But I never lost my sense of nostalgia for the game. Even with all the frustrations I had on both sides of the DM screen, fantasy TTRPG's were still my first love, and I always wanted to go back to that style of gaming. Even now that I'm (begrudgingly) a 5e DM, I keep going back to older adventures, trying to adapt them for newer players- even though a lot of the time it's like trying to push a square peg into a round hole with a sledgehammer.

 

[Count_Zero]

While I started playing in middle school in the early-to-mid '90s, my first game was using 1e. I didn't get into 2e until I got involved in the RPGA in the Raven's Bluff setting, but I generally spent the most time playing 2e through there - I then had a massive dry spell through most of 3e and 3.5, until finally getting into a regular game in 4e.

 

[GM Lent]

Born in '78, started playing D&D with 2nd Edition in 1994 when some friends at school asked if I wanted to play. This was a residential high school, so we all lived together in the same building, and we played D&D all the freakin' time - I'm talking I used to run 2 campaigns, each meeting once or twice weekly, plus I played in a bunch more. It was awesome.

I bought a handful of 1e supplements around that time, not really realizing it was supposed to be different. And a couple years later I came across the RC and I absolutely loved it, but couldn't interest anybody in switching over. I remember discussing the worldbuilding implications of all elves casting spells with my best friend, and specifically pondering how it would affect the Al-Qadim setting.

As a result, I quickly gravitated away from DM's who insisted on gritty conflicts that required you to keep a stable of PC's on hand to replace fallen ones- I knew one guy who put skulls on his DM screen like he was a damn fighter pilot racking up kills, and another who would gleefully light your character sheet on fire and keep the ashes in a ceramic coffin he'd specially made for the purpose! Crazy, I know.

I never understood this adversarial mindset, and I rejected it from the moment I began playing/running the game. It's the kind of thing that's funny to read in Knights of the Dinner Table, but is just a nightmare at the table. My preferred game these days is Dungeon Crawl Classics, and I still wholeheartedly reject the GM-vs.-players approach to gaming.

For a long time, I made characters the completely wrong way, somehow deluded into thinking that the game and the DM would facilitate me making whatever idea I had function. I was frustrated more often than not, because even though the books claimed you could play any character you desired, the truth was, that Fighter specialized in a crossbow with a Strength of 9 was never going to compare to their dual-wielding, 18%, plate mail wearing counterpart.

Wish you'd been in my groups back then. My philosophy has always been that we are all here to create stories and have a good time together, and there's nothing to be gained by kneecapping character concepts. Both Gygax and Cook - and now in later years Joe Goodman amongst many others - repeatedly stressed that rules are there to serve the game and not vice versa (though Gygax went back and forth on this quite a bit). You wanna play a gnome paladin in 2e? Cool! Let's figure out how to make it work. How about a Jedi knight or a gunslinger a la Stephen King's Dark Tower series? We did it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Every now and then people say that DnD should go back to Gygaxian prose and I can only assume that they're joking since I'm sure that would turn people away from the game

But they'd learn what milieu and puissant mean!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Born in '78, started playing D&D with 2nd Edition in 1994 when some friends at school asked if I wanted to play. This was a residential high school, so we all lived together in the same building, and we played D&D all the freakin' time - I'm talking I used to run 2 campaigns, each meeting once or twice weekly, plus I played in a bunch more, It was awesome.
I bought a handful of 1e supplements around that time, not really realizing it was supposed to be different. And a couple years later I came across the RC and I absolutely loved it, but couldn't interest anybody in switching over. I remember discussing the worldbuilding implications of all elves casting spells with my best friend, and specifically pondering how it would affect the Al-Qadim setting.


I never understood this adversarial mindset, and I rejected it from the moment I began playing/running the game. It's this kind of thin that's funny to read in Knights of the Dinner Table, but is just a nightmare at the table. My preferred game these days is Dungeon Crawl Classics, and I still wholeheartedly reject the GM-vs.-players approach to gaming.


Wish you'd been in my groups back then. My philosophy has always been that we are all here to create stories and have a goo time together, and there's nothing to be gained by kneecapping character concepts. Both Gygax and Cook - and now in later years Joe Goodman amongst many others - repeatedly stressed that rules are there to serve the game and not vice versa (though Gygax went back and forth on this quite a bit). You wanna play a gnome paladin in 2e? Cool! Let's figure out how to make it work. How about a Jedi knight or a gunslinger a la Stephen King's Dark Tower series? We did it.

If someone wants to play something that isn't in the rules of the game we're playing (and I can reconcile the concept with the setting), I just make new rules for it.