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

[justanobody]

I also didn't mind the demons/devils bit. I mean you can call any monster anything you want.

If you come across a "fred" in the forest do you pick it up and pet it or run for your life?

It isn't like you can't just grab them from 1st ediiton and use them for 2nd if you want them named demon or devil.

That is another boon for the system is it could use everything from 1st, and often did.

 

[Psion]

Overall, I felt it was an improvement to the prior rules, but they had a long way to go. I think many people got bent out of shape by nixing of bits like the assassin (which overall felt like a positive move to me when it came to making a good group game.)

And lordy, did some people get upset about the absence of demons and devils. Some neurotically so.

I liked 2Ed for the most part, and even most of the supplements.

My main issue was that there was a LOT of sub-par editing and I don't know how many of my 2Ed books fell apart within a few weeks of use, but it was definitely too many.

When it came to supplements, one of the real problems was the lack of consistency and quality control. They relied heavily on freelancers and many books took an inconsistent approach from earlier books. Sometimes the writing and design was very good, it just didn't seem to fit with the surroundings.

 

[Fifth Element]

I also didn't mind the demons/devils bit. I mean you can call any monster anything you want.

Agreed. Demons and devils weren't absent. The were AKA'ed.

And you're right, the specific word used really doesn't matter.

 

[NN]

To me 2E felt like a rip-off.

- Too similar to 1E to be worth buying
- Not different enough to be a new system.

 

[justanobody]

Agreed. Demons and devils weren't absent. The were AKA'ed.

And you're right, the specific word used really doesn't matter.

Now cut that out and don't EVEN start it! Leave that in the other thread.

 

[billd91]

Agreed. Demons and devils weren't absent. The were AKA'ed.

And you're right, the specific word used really doesn't matter.

Depends on when you started playing 2e. For a couple of years, they were simply absent from the system, and might have remained that way had TSR not listened to the fans and grown a pair.

 

[Fifth Element]

Depends on when you started playing 2e. For a couple of years, they were simply absent from the system, and might have remained that way had TSR not listened to the fans and grown a pair.

Really? I had memories of tanari and baatezu being in the original Monstrous Compendium. Colour me corrected.

 

[justanobody]

Depends on when you started playing 2e. For a couple of years, they were simply absent from the system, and might have remained that way had TSR not listened to the fans and grown a pair.

LW had a pair of nuts. The Blumes. :rimshot:

 

[Chainsaw]

No gripes in my old 2E high school group (except that I was too stingy a DM), but we didn't have any comps either. Well, I guess we DID have the Basic set (the one in the black box with the big red dragon on the front), but we much preferred 2E to that - 2E was ADVANCED for God's sake and we were smarter than the average 8th-9th graders, so we had to use ADVANCED. We only used the core book as guidelines anyway though. We liberally changed anything we wanted. If it screwed up our experience, we changed it back.

 

[Lizard]

My feelings?

Bland, dumbed-down, simplified, whitewashed. I was turned off the instant I saw the books -- huge type font, lots of whitespace, helpful little icons everywhere, like the pictures of the food on the cash registers at fast food places. The actual game content kept almost all the "bugs" of 1e and had none of the wacky, gonzo, charm. The removal of demons, devils, assassins, and half-orcs was a feeble, and failed, attempt to placate the Angry Mother faction. D&D went from being Iron Maiden to Pat Boone. Soulless. Utterly soulless.

2e kept me out of D&D (but not roleplaying) from 1989 to 2000.