What was so bad about the Core 2e rules? Why is it the red-headed stepchild of D&D?

[Staffan]

* Clerics were still in the game. Still called Clerics. Gained access to nearly every spell they had in 1e (and a few extras thanks to the sphere system) and had all the classic cleric trappings (turn undead, blunt weapons, etc). Most DMs replaced them with Priests of Specific Mythoi (Specialty Priests) but generic clerics still were in 2e.

One of the more interesting priest variants was in the Jakandor setting. I don't remember the kit's exact name (or kits', I think there were two that used this mechanic), but basically they got more spheres at higher levels. IIRC, they were more philosophy-inclined priests rather than priests of specific gods, though.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I loved using THAC0 with the "Defend Yourself!" procedure. Players rolled the attack rolls for their own opponents and add their armor class to the result. If the result is equal or greater than the opponents' THAC0, they are hit.

 

[Desdichado]

My problems with 2e weren't exactly with what it did include but with what it didn't. It didn't go enough. After all the years that 1e was out, gaming had had all kinds of iterative improvements, tweaks and whatnot, and the theory of game-design was significantly advanced. 2e should have been an improvement on 1e; instead it was mostly just a re-hashing of 1e. All of the things that already annoyed me about 1e and D&D in general were retained instead of corrected, updated or improved on.

So, 2e wasn't necessarily bad, it was just blah. By that time, I wasn't interested in the paradigm that it presented anymore, and hadn't been for several years.

 

[Achan hiArusa]

Um... No.

Here's just a brief list of some of the Monster Manual monsters that were in MC2...

<list snipped>

Given that I was incredibly tired from a day of work, I'll check it again tonight. But if you want to look at it in terms of inflation:

Monster Manual I when it came out in 1980 was $15.00 which was $29.49 in 1989 dollars (using the share of the GDP measurement of wealth).

Monster Manual II when in came out in 1983 was $15.00 which was $23.26 in 1989 dollars (again using the same measurement).

Monstrous Compendium volumes 1 and 2 were $19.95 and $18.00 respectively in 1989.

I won't argue quality since the rings on mine are bent and many of the pages require those little sticky holes to keep them in (and most of those are old enough to have lost their stickiness), but basically you got what you paid for. And you really needed MC8: The Outer Planes Index which was $14.99 (if you weren't going to do Planescape). But I liked the full page spreads, it made them more than things to kill.

 

[Gentlegamer]

My problems with 2e weren't exactly with what it did include but with what it didn't. It didn't go enough. After all the years that 1e was out, gaming had had all kinds of iterative improvements, tweaks and whatnot, and the theory of game-design was significantly advanced. 2e should have been an improvement on 1e; instead it was mostly just a re-hashing of 1e. All of the things that already annoyed me about 1e and D&D in general were retained instead of corrected, updated or improved on.

So, 2e wasn't necessarily bad, it was just blah. By that time, I wasn't interested in the paradigm that it presented anymore, and hadn't been for several years.

In other words, it didn't go far enough in becoming a different game, which is what 3e did.

 

[Desdichado]

In other words, it didn't go far enough in becoming a different game, which is what 3e did.

Yep, exactly.

A lot of folks claim to have left D&D because of 2e; I left it before that because of what it already was. 2e was not sufficiently different than 1e to entice me back.

 

[Remathilis]

In other words, it didn't go far enough in becoming a different game, which is what 3e did.

Isn't THAT an ironic statement amist all the "4e isn't D&D" threads these days?

4e had been, essentially, 3.75, it would have suffered the 2e syndrome (not going far enough). On the other hand, too many people think its gone too far and removed the "D&D" from itself. Talk about a catch-22; you cleave too close to the established game and your hung out for not doing enough to change it, cleave too far and your accused of doing too much.

Somebody from WotC ought to send Zeb some flowers out of sympathy...

 

[billd91]

Isn't THAT an ironic statement amist all the "4e isn't D&D" threads these days?

4e had been, essentially, 3.75, it would have suffered the 2e syndrome (not going far enough). On the other hand, too many people think its gone too far and removed the "D&D" from itself. Talk about a catch-22; you cleave too close to the established game and your hung out for not doing enough to change it, cleave too far and your accused of doing too much.

Somebody from WotC ought to send Zeb some flowers out of sympathy...

But it depends how you cleave, in some ways. 3e was very successful cleaving from a lot of the mechanics but cleaving to a lot of the setting and core features.
We'll see if 4e's cleavage draws the same crowd.

 

[Desdichado]

But it depends how you cleave, in some ways. 3e was very successful cleaving from a lot of the mechanics but cleaving to a lot of the setting and core features.

Exactly; 3e cleft to the stuff that was pretty cool about D&D, overall, while getting rid of a lot of the stuff that wasn't, and only gradually started going in new directions. 4e, on the other hand, changed all kinds of things, making it a very different kind of departure. 3e, in fact, had as a rallying cry the idea of returning to classic D&D feel, but with better rules. "Back to the dungeon!" and all that.

We'll see if 4e's cleavage draws the same crowd.

Mrowr! Unless you mean dragonboobie cleavage. Then you get a "Do not want."

 

[Gentlegamer]

Somebody from WotC ought to send Zeb some flowers out of sympathy...

Zeb had a Q&A thread over at Dragonsfoot. I'm sure he'd appreciate any virtual flowers players would like to send him.