D&D 2E What was wrong with 2e?

[Deuce Traveler]

There have been entire posts covering the differences between 1st and 2nd edition. Despite that, 1st edition and 2nd edition AD&D are very similar; more similar than BECMI D&D is to 1st edition AD&D. Because of that, I believe 2nd edition is simply forgotten about when discussion on editions come up. You could run 1st edition AD&D modules with 2nd edition rulebooks and in a 2nd edition campaign world with little to no tweaking necessary.

You would have to do some tweaking in order to run a BECMI DnD module for 1st or 2nd edition rules, especially when it comes to rules for clerics and demi-humans.

This is how I think of DnD editions:
Chainmail
Original DnD => Gygax/Holmes/Moldvay and Cook/Mentzer BECMI
ADnD => Including 1st and 2nd Editions, Unearthed Arcana, Oriental Adventures and Class Kits
3.5 => 3rd Edition and 3.5 along with associated 3rd party rulesets for d20 system
4E

So for me, 2nd edition has an important mark, but generationally I associate it with 1st edition, just like I would with the various ODnD editions and 3rd edition with 3.5.

 

[TheEvil]

Most of the "legacy love" for D&D seems focused on AD&D 1e (tho there are grognards like me who still prefer BECMI, B/X, Holmes, or even the LBB's). I have heard/read a lot of derisive comments about 2e; but I always thought that, at least initially, 2e was a distillation of 1e + UA + whatever other mechanics improvements. I believe it had the longest run as the "currently supported version"; and some features, like specialty clerics, are still house-ruled even with later versions. Now, Myth & Magic seems to be bringing some modern mechanics to 2e.

I have 3 questions I'd like to throw out there:

1. What was wrong with 2e that has earned so many haters?

2. What was Right with 2e that got lost in the version shuffle?

3. If 2e were used as the baseline for 5e, what would the end product look like?

As someone who started with 1st edition and played through 4th I feel:

1. The bad:
Terrible modules.
Power creep.
The Complete Book of Elves. This book single-handedly made elves the most hated race for non-mechanical reasons (check past polls). It all but said 'act like an egotistical jerk'.

2. The lost:
Add another vote to speciality priests, though they got a little crazy in some of the Forgotten Realms Faiths & Pantheons books.

3. Okay, I will level with you here. I really just chimed in to pile on 2nd edition.

 

[Wik]

I love this thread.

2e did a lot of stuff wrong, and it did a lot of stuff right. I have a lot of fond memories playing the game, and while I probably wouldn't go back to it, I think it does sometimes get the short end of the stick.

I think the biggest problem the game had is its schizophrenia regarding narrative - namely, the designers had come to the conclusion that the game had somehow moved beyond dungeon-exploration roots. It often would say that dungeon exploration was okay, but that eventually, players would want to move beyond the dungeon doors and do some "serious role-playing".

The game seemed to feel it was all about interactive storytelling, to the detriment of other details. Or, as one poster put it above, that the mechanics didn't mesh with the narrative.

What this lead to were game designers designing stories that were interesting... but that the players couldn't interact with in any interesting way (ie, railroads). NPCs that were exceptions to the rule, so that players would say "Why can't *I* be a wizard with armour, if he can be?". And settings where the players were expected to be second fiddle to characters from novels (and feel thankful for the privilege!).

It's no surprise that 2e was a product of the 90s. Many of us recall the "multimedia" craze of games that were on the market at the time - interactive movies that were, plainly, absolutely no fun. For awhile, everything was multimedia... and then the bubble burst when it was realized that people weren't going to pay for little more than a good story - they had movies and books for that.

That was the big problem with 2e. It was trying to sell people a story, but not giving them the tools to interact with it. Compare that to later editions, where the story is less stressed, and the players are given much more in the way of interacting with the story (and GMs are not outright encouraged to manipulate players as they were in the 2e books).

That was the big 2e problem, beyond anything to do with mechanics.

 

[HoolMarshes Dweller]

I love 2e, and　I'm a grognard through and through. When it came out, I was aghast at some of the changes and really happy with others. I just incorporated this into my 1e campaign. Overall, I love 2e where it was good and just incorporated that into my 1e campaigns. I still use a mix of both today. Even today my campaigns are 1e/2e mix just being 1e with the best of 2e included.

1. What was wrong with 2e that has earned so many haters?
I wanted to preface this by saying, I don't think there's that much hate out there. I think many folks lump this in as a 1.5e if you will. Anyways...

- DMG was an absolute mockery of the 1e version, I'm sure they thought they were streamlining things but it seemed more of a middle finger to Gary than anything else. They should have kept and reorganized the countless appendices and tables. I personally think this was the beginning of "dumbing down" DMing.

- Removal of evil characters, half-orcs, the assassin, the psionic and the monk.

- Devils and demons are tanar'ri and baatezu...blech, just call them for what they are.

EDIT

- the power creep with NPCs I think this is what brought us to the "hey, I can be fighter then switch to magic-user, then to druid, etc." kind of class progression. Players saw NPCs that were wizards wearing armor, fighters that could mentally control swords, etc. If I remember correctly, Mr. Gygax or one of that group even said (and I'm summarizing and restating at the same time so forgive me) "NPCs are different, they are special characters that go beyond the stated rules and can be/do things the players cannot / should not". I didn't think much of it then but it makes a lot of sense now, because you have players saying "hey, why can't i be a god?" The reality is that you WANT NPCs to go beyond what's possible, do things the PCs simply cannot do/attain, that is how worth adversaries are born. The funny thing about this is that some of Gary's original crew ended up being "quasi-deities", I'm sure it was just a nod to them but interesting nonetheless.


2. What was Right with 2e that got lost in the version shuffle?

- hands down, specialty priests and spheres

- Streamlined the presentation of the 1e/UA material

- THAC0 and initiative made easier!

- weapon specialization for fighters (too much silliness now in the name of "balance")

3. If 2e were used as the baseline for 5e, what would the end product look like?

This is a broader question but in a nutshell, I think they're on the right track with going back to the beginning and taking what worked there then working forward. Personally, I would love to see an OSR version come out that was an amalgam of 1e/2e/

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Came back to this thread and decided to do a casual tally of responses.

As for the bad, the clear winner was that the game was neutered for Political Correctness reasons. Next closest issues are that the 2E DMG was stripped of all the goodies that the 1E DMG had, and that players were fighting against the combination limitations and general issues with multi- and dual-classing rules. Following that is a wider spread of objections, but I find it quite telling that the Book of Elves was specifically mentioned three times in conjunction with power creep and generally awful influences.

For the good the two overwhelming winners are Specialty Priests and the terrific settings. The next closest mentions have to do with approval of improvements to the arcane prose and the more obnoxious rules bits of 1E.

 

[TerraDave]

A lot of the problems have been touched on....but still...

Starting with what would now be called the "core rules"

1) Pathetic replacements for the monster manual and DMG. The binder format for the monsters just didn't work, and you had to buy multiple inserts to just rebuild the MM1. The DMG...had magic items, and a sort of interesting discussion of mercenary types...combined with some terrible advice...

2) The PHB, and pretty much everything, was a stylistic step down, in terms of art, writing, general vibe (including the concessions to the BADD crowd). 2E would have good examples of all of these, but not really in the core, and so scattered over so many products, you would have a hard time finding it.

3) It was also a missed opportunity, mechanics wise. THACO? A roll under d20 mechanic to go with d20 roll high mechanics? Pretty much every existing legacy issue in terms of classes, races, spell casting, leveling, you name it. Yes, things were cleaned up, a little, but the heart of the problem was key designers who did not actually think mechanics were that important and did not actually play the game much...

4) Which helped feed the games split personality, dating back to the late 1E era. The game is now about story, and moderation, and things epic, not about killing things and taking there stuff, and using gonzo magic to do so, even thats what the mechanics were still about.

5) Those designers with mechanical aspirations could express those in supplements, which, to encourage sales (and this is not all unique to 2E) had a certain amount of power creep built in. I have now left the core...and did in a big way, but anyways the supplements, released in vast number, became overall a massively disruptive force in many games.

6) Yes, there were some pretty cool worlds, but very few good adventures. This was a manifestation of the games split personality...we won't give you what you actually need to play, but some things that seem cool.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

As for the bad, the clear winner was that the game was neutered for Political Correctness reasons.

Anecdotally, 2e was the edition I learned first and I thought 'baatezu' and 'tanar'ri' were really fun terminology. Probably because I subconsciously associated the terms with Planescape's great fluff text and DiTerlizzi's awesome artwork.

In retrospect I see how these terms are pretty silly -- especially since I've learned to hate "I'll add an apostrophe to my made-up word to make it sound more fantasy-ish!" -- and I totally get why their pandering nature irks so many D&Ders.

 

[NN]

What was wrong with 2E was that it was a cynical rip off

"How can we make the punters buy the rules again with the minimum effort".

 

[Wik]

What was wrong with 2E was that it was a cynical rip off

"How can we make the punters buy the rules again with the minimum effort".

Fully disagree.

Much of what was in 2e was from DRAGON magazines and suggested fixes. It was a way to combine something like twelve different books into one product - remember that the 1e PHB didn't have non-weapon proficiencies, THACO, specialist wizards (besides the illusionist), or much of the player gear. It was also only in B&W, and TSR wanted to show-off the higher production standards that it had compared to competitors at the time (at least in core products, the 2e books were prettier and on nicer paper than most contemporaries).

I still like my 2e PHB (both of them!) better than the 1e counterpart. Ditto for the Monstrous Manual as compared to the 1e Monster Manual. the 1e DMG, on the other hand... but you can't win them all.

 

[Alzrius]

I think the biggest problem the game had is its schizophrenia regarding narrative - namely, the designers had come to the conclusion that the game had somehow moved beyond dungeon-exploration roots. It often would say that dungeon exploration was okay, but that eventually, players would want to move beyond the dungeon doors and do some "serious role-playing".

To be fair, there's a good case to be made that the idea of "moving beyond the dungeon crawl" was there since long before 2E.