Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RFisher" data-source="post: 4412733" data-attributes="member: 3608">I stopped playing 2e because I stopped playing D&amp;D. I was done with classes. I was done with D&amp;D magic. I was done with levels. NWP were a sad kludge instead of a real skill system.None of that applies anymore, though. (Except that I still find NWP something of a sad kludge, but for slightly different reasons now. ^_^)Things I like about 1e over 2e:While I like the idea of specialist priests, they didn’t really work for me in play. I think it’s because creating a specialist priest is really creating a new class, which is not an easy thing to do well. (At least not for me.)While I like the idea of specialist wizards, I find the 1e illusionist much more satisfying than the actual implementation in 2e. Likewise for Druids.Plus, there’s the flavor. 2e may be better rule books, but I enjoy reading 1e more.Among the people I played 1e with, we all either started with a Basic set or learned the game through play from the rest of us. When I first saw a 1e PHB, I couldn’t make heads or tails of it either. After the Basic set, however, I could. And the truth is that we ignored a lot of AD&amp;D and just played things the way Basic had taught us.Once we were at that point, the fact that 2e might have been easier to understand didn’t matter. That wasn’t a reason for a 1e player to switch or stay with 2e.Yeah. All the pre-2000 editions tend to be close enough that people got by just fine mixing them without any conversion. Heck, the 1e MM was out a year before the PHB and two years before the DMG. And, of course, 1e and 2e—both being AD&amp;D—are particularly close. (Check out the first issue of Dungeon magazine after 2e was released if you ever get the chance.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RFisher, post: 4412733, member: 3608"] I stopped playing 2e because I stopped playing D&D. I was done with classes. I was done with D&D magic. I was done with levels. NWP were a sad kludge instead of a real skill system. None of that applies anymore, though. (Except that I still find NWP something of a sad kludge, but for slightly different reasons now. ^_^) Things I like about 1e over 2e: While I like the [i]idea[/i] of specialist priests, they didn’t really work for me in play. I think it’s because creating a specialist priest is really creating a new class, which is not an easy thing to do well. (At least not for me.) While I like the [i]idea[/i] of specialist wizards, I find the 1e illusionist much more satisfying than the actual implementation in 2e. Likewise for Druids. Plus, there’s the flavor. 2e may be better rule books, but I enjoy reading 1e more. Among the people I played 1e with, we all either started with a Basic set or learned the game through play from the rest of us. When I first saw a 1e PHB, I couldn’t make heads or tails of it either. After the Basic set, however, I could. And the truth is that we ignored a lot of AD&D and just played things the way Basic had taught us. Once we were at that point, the fact that 2e might have been easier to understand didn’t matter. That wasn’t a reason for a 1e player to switch or stay with 2e. Yeah. All the pre-2000 editions tend to be close enough that people got by just fine mixing them without any conversion. Heck, the 1e MM was out a year before the PHB and two years before the DMG. And, of course, 1e and 2e—both being AD&D—are particularly close. (Check out the first issue of Dungeon magazine after 2e was released if you ever get the chance.) [/QUOTE]

Verification