Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4071164" data-attributes="member: 22779">To be honest, I think that the reason that 2e is poorly regarded is because it lacks a vocal following, not because it was any worse than other editions.  People who switched to 2e either jumped to 3e or dropped the hobby.  Very, very few people went to 2e, then back to 1e.  ((Yes, yes, in the back, I KNOW that you did, sit down please.))  So, we've got those who left 2e for 3e, or those that never went to 2e and stayed with 1e.  For those who moved on from 2e to 3e, most would not try to defend 2e mechanically, because you can't.  For those who stayed with 1e, anything else is bad, so, they won't defend it either.  I really don't think that 2e was mechanically bad.  I think it was a vast improvement mechanically on 1e.  I think there were some things in 2e, particularly at the corporate level, that drove D&D into the ground.  It wasn't system failings so much that caused the problems.People tend to gloss over the fact that after the bubble burst on 1e, TSR was scrambling to try to bring gamers back.  They released the Unearthed Arcana considerably early just for that reason.  IMO, 2e saved the hobby of D&D.  Had we stuck with 1e, people would have simply dropped the hobby or moved on to other systems entirely.</blockquote>