OSR What Do You prefer 1E vs 2E

[Celebrim]

I never fully transitioned from 1e to 2e, and I still prefer 1e but there were several simplifications that the group I was in (which had several DMs) did all jointly agree with and one of those was 2e style initiative. Some DMs adopted 2e Dragons, and mostly we accepted the expanded lists of NWP's and the 2e class and race splat books (except the elf one) as well as 2e style thieves' skills and specialty priests, and otherwise stuck to 1st edition. We were divided over the 2e bard.

If I went back to game 1e/2e, I would have to do a major overhaul of the rules, so much so that it would be a lot like 3e. It was the realization of how much 1e cleaned up would just be 3e with slightly different language that kept me from pursuing a retro-game.

 

[Zardnaar]

I never fully transitioned from 1e to 2e, and I still prefer 1e but there were several simplifications that the group I was in (which had several DMs) did all jointly agree with and one of those was 2e style initiative. Some DMs adopted 2e Dragons, and mostly we accepted the expanded lists of NWP's and the 2e class and race splat books (except the elf one) as well as 2e style thieves' skills and specialty priests, and otherwise stuck to 1st edition. We were divided over the 2e bard.

If I went back to game 1e/2e, I would have to do a major overhaul of the rules, so much so that it would be a lot like 3e. It was the realization of how much 1e cleaned up would just be 3e with slightly different language that kept me from pursuing a retro-game.

I kind of think of Castles and Crusades as AD&D 3E.

Ascending ACs and unified ability scores would be my main take away. Probably a mix of B/,X and 2E using modern mechanics and overhauling some classes.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I very much prefer 1e's aesthetics and art. I played 1e as my preferred edition from 1981 to 2012, with the following elements from 2e:

• bard class
• thief skill progression
• THAC0
• specialty schools and spheres of influence
• dragon stats

 

[Zardnaar]

I very much prefer 1e's aesthetics and art. I played 1e as my preferred edition from 1981 to 2012, with the following elements from 2e:

• bard class
• thief skill progression
• THAC0
• specialty schools and spheres of influence
• dragon stats

1E has the better aescthetics, 2E better mechanics/layout.

 

[GuyBoy]

1E but not really anything to do with rules, just with placement in my life.
1E was concurrent with school, when life was about rugby, girlfriends, punk rock and D&D, when Dragon magazines were printed, when Judges Guild stuff exploded into games, when we played all night sessions, when I had time to paint miniatures.
By 2E, career, marriage, mortgage and child all mitigated against gaming and there was certainly no time for THACO. That said, Night Below was awesome.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Not overall but two specific rules.
1. Multiclassing. 1E was more generous in regards to MC clerics and perhaps weapon specialization.

2. Magic resistance flat number eg 50% vs +/-5% per level under/over level 11.

1) 1E. I think this needs clarifying though. BASE 1E wasn't so much generous in general in regards to MC clerics (denying cleric as a class to most non-human PC's!), however it was inexplicably generous in regards to HALF ELF multi-class clerics where HALF of their MC combinations are cleric-something. Unearthed Arcana, on the other hand, was entirely OPTIONAL and in many ways gave away the store with regard to single-class access, multi-class options, and level limits. There's not a lot of readily apparent reasoning for either approach. I have pretty much ALWAYS treated multi-classing limitations as being strictly the purview of each individual DM for purposes of individualizing THEIR personal campaign settings.
2) 1E, and the MM-defined +/-5%/level over/under 11th. Not that it matters much as MR creatures are typically quite few and far between and I never saw any reason to change it.

1E has the better aescthetics, 2E better mechanics/layout.

I think people really don't appreciate how much 2E actually did change combat. In dropping many of the 1E mechanics I don't think even the 2E designers appreciated how they were changing those dynamics either. For example - the repeating 20's on the attack matrices gave even 1st level 1E combatants who had no bonuses the ability to continue to hit AC's WELL into the negatives that they otherwise would never be able to hit. That's chronically overlooked in significance. PC's then LOST that capability when 2E went to straight, uninterrupted, regular-progression ThAC0. That was compensated for somewhat when the monsters had HD significantly increased which gave them back some of the inflated ThAC0 they would need (a phenomenon most easily seen with giants and dragons) to hit PC's whose negative AC's now gave them SIGNIFICANTLY greater protection from a wide range of monsters.

Certainly 1E rules, especially combat mechanics, were just way more complicated, fiddley, even incomprehensible than they needed to be. It's interesting, though, that it was Gygax himself who DISLIKED all that extra complication and never used it in his own games, yet included it in the AD&D rules at the request of others. For 2E (which no longer had ANY input from Gygax), its default combat rules didn't clean up those poorly written and organized rules, but actually dropped all of it entirely and used a default actually closer to OD&D, with additional rules like 1E's then all being OPTIONS, yet not then well-implemented to work the same way as they did in 1E (or just work better), given the other combat rule changes it made.

For example, weapon-vs.-AC adjustments. In 1E it could at least be argued that whether the adjustments themselves were realistically representative or not, they were at least individualized to EACH combination of specific weapon and type of armor, whereas 2E (I suppose in an attempt to just simplify it so as to not require a full-page chart of optional fiddley bonuses) said that ALL slashing weapons, regardless of size, weight, length, etc. should have the same bonuses/penalties against a given type of armor. Piercing and bludgeoning weapons were similarly all categorized as ONE common set of adjustments and not individual to each weapon, making choice of weapon to use a key decision that changed with the actual armor worn by an opponent - often superseding the bonus to-hit from magical weapons. This eviscerated the whole purpose that 1E had in providing that big chart in the first place, for all weapons and armor class combinations individually. 2E designers seemed not to understand at all what that table was trying to do (even if it did it badly). Rather than make it work BETTER as an optional rule in accomplishing that original goal, they seemingly said, "It's simpler than 1E's full-page table and therefore empirically and uncontestably better for... whatever it is it's doing." I mean, I never personally liked WvAC and tried it and discarded it in both editions, but 2E's rule was awful compared to 1E's.

So, I think there are subtleties to 2E's changes that DO NOT make it automatically better than 1E's admittedly awfully organized and often clumsy mechanics. I love a lot of things that 2E did differently than 1E, especially the incredible potential of kits (when kept in check by the DM for customization of their setting, as opposed to all being free and open power-ups for players to use), but 2E also threw some babies out with the bathwater just because the bathwater itself was obviously dirty.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I prefer 1e.

With apologies to Zeb Cook, who I think is an amazing designer, I will list the reasons-

1. 1e correctly consigned Bards to the appendix.
2. 1e had better art. IMO.
3. 1e was weirder, in a good way.
4. 1e had better adventures.
5. 1e's form followed function; yes, the High Gygaxian of the rules wasn't great as "rules," but it was perfect for the game. The books themselves felt like a fantasy game.
6. 1e was adult, and not sanitized like 2e.

2e did a creditable job in cleaning up the messiness of 1e, and to its credit, provided a wealth of material (especially w/r/t campaign lore, such as Dark Sun and Planescape) that has stood the test of time. But the unkempt, wild, and messy 1e will always be the better game as far as I'm concerned.

 

[cbwjm]

think people really don't appreciate how much 2E actually did change combat. In dropping many of the 1E mechanics I don't think even the 2E designers appreciated how they were changing those dynamics either. For example - the repeating 20's on the attack matrices gave even 1st level 1E combatants who had no bonuses the ability to continue to hit AC's WELL into the negatives that they otherwise would never be able to hit. That's chronically overlooked in significance. PC's then LOST that capability when 2E went to straight, uninterrupted, regular-progression ThAC0. That was compensated for somewhat when the monsters had HD significantly increased which gave them back some of the inflated ThAC0 they would need (a phenomenon most easily seen with giants and dragons) to hit PC's whose negative AC's now gave them SIGNIFICANTLY greater protection from a wide range of monsters.

I don't understand, 20s always hit in 2e so a 1st level character could still hit something with a -12 AC, or do you mean that since it was 20 to hit on the 1e attack matrix, bonuses could make it easier to hit in 1e while in 2e they still had to hope for that natural 20?

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I don't understand, 20s always hit in 2e so a 1st level character could still hit something with a -12 AC, or do you mean that since it was 20 to hit on the 1e attack matrix, bonuses could make it easier to hit in 1e while in 2e they still had to hope for that natural 20?

Gah! Yeah, I forgot 2E does that (haven't actually played 2E in 20 years when 3E replaced it, but played it exclusively from its release up to that point). Pretty sure I've made that error before... Principle STILL applies though, even if it's in reverse.

By default 1E only considers totals UP TO the number indicated on the combat table to determine if you hit. 20's on the table mean if you have a die roll of 20 then +5 to hit from wherever/whatever, the result is still considered to have reached the inherent limit of 20 and the extra bonuses don't matter. When the table then shows 21 after several repeated 20's, the total required IS 21, so you'd have to have a +1 from somewhere, and if all you had was a +1 from somewhere, you'd still need a natural 20 on the die. There's a "hidden" option that limits that a bit further by saying that the second 20 and the other repeated 20's after that require a natural 20 on the die regardless of bonuses, but then when the table shows 21 you still need the natural 20, but have to have at least an additional +1 to go along with that.

It's amusing though that 2E is no better at clarity than 1E. Just checked a copy of 2E about the 20's-always-hit, and it can't decide what it wants either:

a roll of 20 is always considered a hit and a roll of 1 is always a miss, unless the DM rules otherwise. Under most circumstances, a natural 20 hits and a natural 1 misses, regardless of any modifiers applied to the die roll.

So a 20 always hits... except when the DM decides it doesn't... and therefore let's change that to say it's under MOST circumstances that a 20 always hits, not always that it always hits... Gygax couldn't have said it better himself.

Anyway, those differences between how each edition handles that do have an effect on how things would play out, right? And it becomes easy to overlook just what the difference really is, merely because 2E's rule IS simpler and a little too reflexively assumed to therefore be better. As I suggested I'm not overly opposed to 2E's changes and certainly general improvements in organization, but I'm enough of a 1E fanboy to insist that it's not as simple as just making rules simpler.

 

[johndesmarais]

Generally, I preferred 2E (ignoring the splat books) but 1E had some difficult to quantify feel about it that just screamed “D&D” in a way they 2E didn’t quite have.