Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8990589" data-attributes="member: 85555">I was younger when I started playing AD&amp;D in the 80s, and so I was fully on board when 2E came out (to me newer was just better I think, and I didn't really understand that there were these massive differences in flavor at the time). But I very clearly remember many of the older players not being pleased with the new edition. And even into the late 90s, I knew a lot of people who were strict AD&amp;D players (because of backwards compatibility my group used both 2E and 1E books at the table so we could keep things like the monk) This went a little over my head when it happened, but I can appreciate it as both my taste in music and RPGs got snagged in the satanic panic. I understand why TSR felt they needed to run in the opposite direction. It may be hard to understand now just how much of an effect an accusation of a game being demonic would have, but the culture was very different at the time and calling music, games and other media satanic was a very effective tactic. That said, as much as people refer to 2E as PG, there is a lot of stuff in there that, in hindsight, is definitely not PG. It isn't sword and sorcery, but still some pretty risqué material (Curse of the Azure Bonds leaps to mind)One change I loved was the 2E bard. I know people often ridicule them. But I was a very into listening to and playing music so bards connected with me in a big way. And so much of 2E was RP focused that we weren't really concerned about whether the class contributed heavily to combat or something. The monk people missed. I had a player who brought the 1E PHB to games so he could play the monk (he adored the Quivering Palm ability).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 8990589, member: 85555"] I was younger when I started playing AD&D in the 80s, and so I was fully on board when 2E came out (to me newer was just better I think, and I didn't really understand that there were these massive differences in flavor at the time). But I very clearly remember many of the older players not being pleased with the new edition. And even into the late 90s, I knew a lot of people who were strict AD&D players (because of backwards compatibility my group used both 2E and 1E books at the table so we could keep things like the monk) This went a little over my head when it happened, but I can appreciate it as both my taste in music and RPGs got snagged in the satanic panic. I understand why TSR felt they needed to run in the opposite direction. It may be hard to understand now just how much of an effect an accusation of a game being demonic would have, but the culture was very different at the time and calling music, games and other media satanic was a very effective tactic. That said, as much as people refer to 2E as PG, there is a lot of stuff in there that, in hindsight, is definitely not PG. It isn't sword and sorcery, but still some pretty risqué material (Curse of the Azure Bonds leaps to mind) One change I loved was the 2E bard. I know people often ridicule them. But I was a very into listening to and playing music so bards connected with me in a big way. And so much of 2E was RP focused that we weren't really concerned about whether the class contributed heavily to combat or something. The monk people missed. I had a player who brought the 1E PHB to games so he could play the monk (he adored the Quivering Palm ability). [/QUOTE]

Verification