Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 4595428" data-attributes="member: 1210">Well sure, other than the crappy stuff, 2e was fine, but so was every edition.You actually exclude most of the reasons that people dislike 2e- and several of them are straight up core issues: crappy binding, demons and devils and the loss of all the flavor (i.e. going politically correct). Though it doesn't seem as though binding is a core rules issue, the quality (or lack thereof) of the books made a big difference to some people as far as how much they enjoyed the game went. Now, looking just at the mechanics of 2e, which I think is your question, the core rules were ok. But they lacked a lot of the flavor of 1e without bringing much new/better stuff to the table. The best thing about 2e was the specialty priest- but it took a dm who could balance classes to make them work (ime published specialty priests were rarely well-balanced, mostly because there wasn't much of a baseline to look at; the lack of a few examples, imho, is a 'core rules issue').I think 2e's problem- the reason it is the stepchild, as you put it- is that it is impossible to avoid comparing it to 1e, which has 67% of the mechanical goodness of 2e while containing 250% the amount of flavor. At the time I remember universal disappointment that the arcane tone of Gygaxian writing had been completely lost. No new words to add to my vocabulary! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown&nbsp; &nbsp; :("&nbsp; data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="the Jester, post: 4595428, member: 1210"] Well sure, [i]other than the crappy stuff,[/i] 2e was fine, but so was every edition. You actually exclude most of the reasons that people dislike 2e- and several of them are straight up core issues: crappy binding, demons and devils and the loss of all the [i]flavor[/i] (i.e. going politically correct). Though it doesn't seem as though binding is a core rules issue, the quality (or lack thereof) of the books made a big difference to some people as far as how much they enjoyed the game went. Now, looking just at the mechanics of 2e, which I think is your question, the core rules were ok. But they lacked a lot of the flavor of 1e without bringing much new/better stuff to the table. The best thing about 2e was the specialty priest- but it took a dm who could balance classes to make them work (ime published specialty priests were rarely well-balanced, mostly because there wasn't much of a baseline to look at; the lack of a few examples, imho, is a 'core rules issue'). I think 2e's problem- the reason it is the stepchild, as you put it- is that it is impossible to avoid comparing it to 1e, which has 67% of the mechanical goodness of 2e while containing 250% the amount of flavor. At the time I remember universal disappointment that the arcane tone of Gygaxian writing had been completely lost. No new words to add to my vocabulary! :( [/QUOTE]

Verification