Referendum on AD&D 2e

[diaglo]

...and not one person in the entire world, so far as I can tell, prefers 2E to 3E.

i prefer 2edADnD to the expletive that is d02.

but i still rate 2edADnD as not more than just playable.

 

[rogueattorney]

None of the poll responses really fit me.

I was a long-time B/X D&D/1e player and DM when 2e came out. I really didn't like the changes to the core rules in 2e, but they were close enough to what I had been playing that I could adopt them partially. In practice, I was playing a 1e/2e/B/X D&D mish-mash.

The quality of TSR's 2e products just kept going down, down, down, and the count of mind-numbing splat books my players kept bringing to the table went up, up, up. TSR seemed obsessed with bringing out new setting, supporting them briefly, then dropping them quickly for the next setting just as quickly. They pretty much stopped making adventures for AD&D. So by 1991 or 92, I dropped 2e altogether and stayed completely with what was then RC D&D. When TSR dropped D&D in '93, they lost a customer; I never bought another thing from them until they went out of business.

3e isn't my cup of tea either, but for different reasons. I have more problems with 3e's core rules and more problems with 2e's peripheral items. 2e's core rules don't really inspire to want to game with them, but they don't leave me scratching my head the way 3e's do. Or to put it another way... 2e is a crappy version of the game I like, and 3e is a completely different game. So in that respect, I have a lot more respect for 3e than 2e.

So long story short, I'd play any D&D (and pretty much any other RPG) with a good DM. I would prefer to DM 1e or B/X D&D. I'd DM 2e using only the core if someone put a gun to my head. I wouldn't DM 3e.

R.A.

 

[Nisarg]

It's interesting to note that although the majority of people replying to this thread have been outright venomous in their attacks on 2e, claiming that 2e raped their sister, assassinated JFK, and was responsible for the AIDS crisis, they are a minority of people in the poll...

That old "silent majority" thing; maybe there's something to that...

At any rate, continue voting, gentlemen.

That has to do with the way the poll was laid out.. its clear that the guy who did this is either not a professional at this sort of thing, or he's REALLY good at it but with a particular agenda.

The question, first of all, is set up in such a way that it gives people a lot of room to end up "voting for" 2e even though they really didn't care for 2e at all.

Its asking you IF you had a "REALLY GOOD" DM would you still play 2e; topped with one of the answers options being "sure but my main pref is still 3e".

Thats like asking "If the Red Party was full of honest politicians, would you vote for them?" and then giving one of the answer options as "sure, though I still prefer the Blue Party".
Then you go and interpret the fact that you got 44% in that answer, plus a mere 18% who really do support the "red party" as meaning that the "red party" is ahead in the polls.

They aren't, they're way behind. The only way to analyze this poll is to say that 82% of gamers dislike 2nd edition, while 37% ACTIVELY DESPISE it to the point that they would REFUSE to play it even if they had a "really good DM".

That isn't support, that's a glaring condemnation.

Nisarg

 

[Mouseferatu]

There is no system so incredibly bad that a good GM and players cannot make it fun. So, yes, with the right people, I'll play 2e.

There is no system so incredibly good that it cannot be ruined by a bad GM or players. So, with the wrong people, I'd rather not play at all.

Word.

 

[Pants]

Word.

Ditto, though I'd NEVER DM it.

 

[molonel]

Very few people, in my experience, have EVER played 2E, and not one person in the entire world, so far as I can tell, prefers 2E to 3E. Those sound like daring statements - and the first one looks obviously wrong - until you realize that when I say 2E (and 3E for that matter) I mean as written, using only core materials. Player's Option, in that reckoning, is not what I have in mind when I say 2E. Allowing enough stuff from the Complete XXX Handbook series makes a game not what I have in mind when I say 2E. And the heavily house-ruled "2E" games I know of that are still going on are definitely not what I have in mind when I say 2E.

Definitely. Someone else already mentioned their 25 pages of house rules for 2nd Edition. My first thought was, "Wow! Only 25 pages?" I saw 3" thick three-ring binders with house rules for 2nd Edition AD&D. People love 2nd Edition for the same reason some people love Linux: it's THEIR game/OS. Nothing will ever have the same feel as YOUR game the same way nobody will ever make country fried steak like grandma used to make. It's just impossible.

2nd Edition AD&D, without all the splat books and Player's Options crap, and without extensive houseruling, was a crappy game.

And no, saying you'd play 2nd Edition "with a good DM" is not a compliment. Whoever said that is really reaching.

 

[WalkingDead]

I just can't go back to AD&D 2E. To be forced to calculate THAC0 again..... The horrors. But seriously, I really didn't like the game system. I got bored of it. I got frustrated with it. I actually gave up running any manner of AD&D for a few years. I only came back at the launch of D&D 3E. I was hearing good reviews of the new system, and I liked what descriptions I was reading. So here I am, a D&D player again.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I would play in a 2e game if I knew I had a good DM. I played right through the 2e years and had a lot of fun. There were a few aspects I thought were improvements over AD&D and the rest I did not think detracted from the game enough to make me hate it, but then again I had a great group of players and a good (and fun) DM running it most of the time. We never let the rules get in the way of having fun.

Oh, yes, I could use my THAC0 calculators again! I had put together several THAC0 calculators to help out some friends who were new to the game. I gave them out about three months prior to the release of 3.0 so it ended up feeling like a lot of wasted effort once we saw thart 3.0 didn't use them.

 

[Gothmog]

Sure, I'd play 2e again. I still don't understand what was so terrible about 2e, and why people loathed it. Ok, Complete book of Elves and the Player's Option stuff aside, it was playable, and I ran and played it for longer than I have 1e or 3e. The best game I ever ran began in 2e (continued to 3e with some revisions), and the worst game I've ever played in was in 3e. The quality of the game has a lot more to do with the folks playing and running it than with the rules. The 2e rules never fell apart during play, 2e didn't kill my dog, nor did it drag the moon out of orbit and nearly make it collide with the earth. I have seen a LOT more twinkery and rampant powergaming since 3e came out than I ever did in 1e and 2e combined. And yeah, while I houseruled 2e (about 5 pages), I have MORE houserules for 3e because my preferences and playstyle have changed somewhat over the years. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy running/playing 3e and its flexibility and customizibility, but sometimes the strengths of 3e are also its downfall.

 

[WayneLigon]

I'd play 2E with a great GM and players, but I'd still prefer 3E.

Still don't understand 'teh special hat' for 2E. It was certainly a step up from 1E in several small ways (specialty clerics, no infravision, several other things) though it certainly was not what it should have been, not after a 10 year break.