What is your second edition experience (no edition war!!!)

[Aus_Snow]

Started by playing Basic/Expert. First thing I ran was AD&D 1st edition. Became disillusioned with D&D in general, for quite a few years thereafter, so played and ran other games exclusively. Skipped AD&D 2nd edition, totally. Picked up D&D 3.5 soon after its release, having been almost convinced to buy its first iteration (that being 3.0) for oh, about a year or so. I was blown away by just how great 3rd edition is. 'D&D that doesn't suck? Wow!' Soon enough, got into some d20 variants that better suited our preferences, and eventually decided to try Mutants & Masterminds 2nd edition, using it (as many before me, and many since) as a generic system, rather than as purely a superheroes game.

And that's where I am, for the most part, still. Happily so.

However, I'll just add that I see many other games as perfectly viable, and if someone wants to run one of them, I'm in!

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I found 2e to be a long series of disappointments. I wanted to like it, and I bought the core books as soon as they came out. That was the first disappointment. I found the writing dry and colorless, compared to 1e. I found the interior art (that blue stuff) to be abysmal. I missed things like demons/devils/assassins, and didn't buy the justifications for their removal. Most of the rules were pretty much the same, but others seemed like changes that didn't add anything, or were unnecessary (an actual change where a clarification might have been better). The DMG stunned me with its slenderness and mediocrity; my reaction was "*this* is the DMG -- where is all the cool stuff?" I thought the concept of the 3-ring binder Monstrous Compenium was good, but poorly executed. I didn't like the most of the art, and putting more than one monster on each page ruined the "build your own binder" idea. And the pages weren't perforated properly and didn't separate cleanly.

Then the adventures and supplements started coming out. I found the splat books and kits to be the worst kind of bonus/numbers inflation. I thought the adventures were...less than stellar. It didn't help that 2e tended to continue the "storyline" focus that started in late 1e with DragonLance; that's not my style. I've always liked Greyhawk; the 2e-period's treatment of Greyhawk was just pathetic. The premier dungeon of the setting released as a joke module? Gargoyle? Childs Play?

I still bought 2e products, for a while. I kept thinking and hoping that the next one would give me that "*this* is cool, *this* is D&D" feeling, but they never measured up. I kept being disappointed, and eventually I stopped buying. As I mentioned, above, I only ran 2e for a short time before converting to a BECM game, and other systems.

Long after I had quit running 2e, I played in a 2e game that used the "2.5" books (Skills & Powers and the expanded Combat book -- whatever that was called). That confirmed, for me, that 2e had continued down the path the early splat books seemed to suggest, and that it wasn't for me. Rolemaster did that kind of thing a lot better, if I wanted that kind of game.

There were a few 2e products that I liked. Return to the Tomb of Horrors was good. The historical reference series was good, too. I still use those, sometimes.

 

[cmrscorpio]

I started playing back in '97 with the core books and the Planescape campaign setting. I played 2e sporatically until the release of 3e. At the time, I was more fascinated by the way a roleplaying game was played but I tolerated the rules as a means to an end. I started playing 3e as soon as it came out and played it pretty regularly and never looked back at 2e.

 

[Hussar]

Started with Basic D&D and then on to 1e and then to 2e when it came out.

I liked 2e, despite some of its flaws. Never cared about published settings, so, they didn't register for me at all. I enjoyed the clarity (compared IMO to 1e) and, at the time, it appealed to me since I wanted to do that sort of epic story telling sort of gaming.

 

[Dragon Snack]

Your poll doesn't really answer the question you seem to be asking. It also leaves out far too many options, so I voted "Other"...

I played Basic and quickly switched to 1E. Played it for years.

In college I played a grand total of two 2E games (not campaigns). Didn't like it. It had odd changes for the sake of changes (not unlike my view of 4.0, only not as amplified) that annoyed me. I left RPGs for years.

Eventually someone I worked with talked me back into playing. It was a GURPS game set in a WW mash up (Vampire, Werewolf, and a Mage - plus my Psion). We played all sorts of systems for a while, finally settling on WEG d6 SW for a few years until 3.0 came out.

Played lots of 3.x since then, but also Savage Worlds (50 Fathoms and a Wonderland No More playtest) and some Serenity, with short lived forrays into Stargate SG-1 and SWSE. My Savage Worlds group just started a 3.x game, with a few Pathfinder tweaks thrown in.

I have used some fluff from old 2E Forgotten Realms books (that I picked up used) in my 3.x game, but that's about all I have good to say about it.

 

[Mark]

Started with (O)D&D and then 1e and then 2e and then 3e and then 3.5e.

 

[Quantarum]

I was a long time AD&D/basic player who'd moved to other games when 2nd came out. I bought the books and was a bit underwhelmed. I didn't like the art for the most part (though there was some nice pieces in the MM) and the rules changes didn't really impress me. I didn't run 2nd until the player's option books came out, they revived my interest in D&D and I ran a successful two year home brew. Without 2nd I'm not sure if I would have come back when 3rd came out. I still have all the books in my collection.

-Q.

 

[AtomicPope]

I found 2e to be a long series of disappointments. I wanted to like it, and I bought the core books as soon as they came out. That was the first disappointment. I found the writing dry and colorless, compared to 1e....

The DMG stunned me with its slenderness and mediocrity; my reaction was "*this* is the DMG -- where is all the cool stuff?"

I thought the concept of the 3-ring binder Monstrous Compenium was good, but poorly executed. I didn't like the most of the art, and putting more than one monster on each page ruined the "build your own binder" idea. And the pages weren't perforated properly and didn't separate cleanly.

Then the adventures and supplements started coming out.... I've always liked Greyhawk; the 2e-period's treatment of Greyhawk was just pathetic. The premier dungeon of the setting released as a joke module? Gargoyle? Childs Play?

I still bought 2e products, for a while. I kept thinking and hoping that the next one would give me that "*this* is cool, *this* is D&D" feeling, but they never measured up. I kept being disappointed, and eventually I stopped buying. As I mentioned, above, I only ran 2e for a short time before converting to a BECM game, and other systems.

Long after I had quit running 2e, I played in a 2e game that used the "2.5" books (Skills & Powers and the expanded Combat book -- whatever that was called)...

There were a few 2e products that I liked. Return to the Tomb of Horrors was good. The historical reference series was good, too. I still use those, sometimes.

This my experience as well.

I'm a huge Greyhawk fan. I love open settings, ones that are flexible enough to be changed to fit the campaign of the DM w/o worrying about canon - FR is not that setting. Nor is DL. I don't want to get into detail about my "luv" for TSR post Gygax but your post sums it up nicely. Thank you.

History

Basic--> 1e AD&D--> Marvel Superheroes--> Palladium (Robotech, Rifts)--> WHFRP--> GURPS--> Vampire: TM--> Werewolf: TA--> Mage: TA--> Heroes (converted to D&D, then loosely converted Beyond the Supernatural and published my campaign)--> D&D 3.0--> D&D 3.5--> Werewolf: TF--> Vampire: TR--> Mage: TA--> Promethean--> Changeling: TL--> D&D 4e

It just so happens that with every edition of D&D I didn't like, White Wolf was able to produce an edition of World of Darkness I do like. Funny that.

 

[Orius]

Started off with Basic after the release of 2e, and move up to 2e. Though that's not entirely accurate, since even in the short time I was using Basic, there was a lot of 2e material overlapping.

It wasn't a bad system overall, but I just preferred the way 3e updaed the rules when it first came out that I didn't bother going back to 2e. I found 3e to be better to run, though maybe I was just getting better as a DM.

 

[Ginnel]

My first RPG was 3rd edition set in the world of Zelda (it was so bad) as my introduction to RPGs when I was 19, I played various others, Five rings, Shadowrun, Starwars D6, Call of Cthulu D20, Ars Magica, Marvel Supers, Vampire the masquerade, and then back again to D&D for a tiny bit 3 sessions, then Star Was D20 was the main game for a while, until which is where we get on to 2nd edition kinda, I started playing 3.5 edition D&D with the 2nd edition planescape setting.

Apart from a brief albeit amazing Mutants and Masterminds campaign a brief revisit to Vampire and a brief Nobilis game and an amazingly fun Tribe 8 game, its been D&D campaigns since. (I ran a brief M&M cowboy bebop game and a 3.5, 2nd ed based planescape campaign but it fizzled)

So no I haven't played 2nd edition D&D as in the ruleset, but I have played for a long time (3 years) and enjoyed immensley one of it's settings (and own nearly all of the 2nd edition planescape stuff)