Why all the Second Edition Haters?

[Faraer]

Obviously, this is a 3E forum; it includes people who never played 2E or who quite D&D in that era. The original AD&D was a coherent single entity (though people played it in a big range of ways), whereas the 1990s was more defined by campaign settings than the rules (with the famous split of the customer base), and the design principles of 2E varied a lot (David Cook didn't understand, or ignored, a lot of why 1E was why it was). 1E is more distant and its players may feel need to keep its name alive. Quite possibly 2E's *effectiveness* as a transparent ruleset leads people to not celebrate the rules per se.

 

[Zappo]

No tomato pizzas? You're nuts.....

I dunno BG's location, but in Italy tomatoes are absolutely considered vegetables, and putting fruit on pizza is probably a criminal offense (well, not really, but if you come here don't ask for fruit on pizza unless you're ready for a weirded look). Don't ask me for a rationale behind it, though .

 

[Staffan]

I didn't particularly like much of the rules stuff in 2e, but like many other posters I loved much of the setting stuff written back then - Dark Sun, Planescape, Al-Qadim (and Spelljammer gets honorable mention on account of a great idea poorly done). I find the 3e rule set so far superior to 2e that it isn't even funny, but I do miss my Dark Sun.

 

[Kelek72]

I enjoyed the heck out of my 2E games. The feel of the games was very magical and was always edgy. My players never knew what to expect from the system as well as the story. I guess that's what some people don't like about it though.

3E is an excellent game but is very mechanical. I do love all my D&D games though!

 

[Silver Moon]

Call me a heretic, but it's all D&D to me. It doesn't matter to me whether it's 3.5E, 3E, 2E, 1E, OE, BE or EIEIO (okay, I made up that last one). The way I see it, the real ingredients are a DM who wants to narrate a story and a table full of players with overactive imaginations and above average intelligence. The game mechanics used are just the guidelines to use to make the story flow. Each edition has its advantages and disadvantages, and each group should use whatever edition they are most comfortable with.

That said, I enjoyed 2E at gaming cons throughout the 1990's, just as I've also enjoy 3E the few opportunities I've had to play it, although the majority of the games that I've played in my lifetime have been 1E, which I also enjoy. As I started out, It's all D&D to me!

 

[WayneLigon]

I liked 2E at the time. I thought it was a great leap forward in some instances from 1E, and in some ways the rules were very much the same. It had a lot of the D&D baggage I didn't like, but toned down or made optional.

I think that was what kept me with D&D (though the 2E phase was also where I was most likely to play another system) was the idea of options. So much of the previous 'thou shalt not change anything' tone was gone from the books and support material. I never paid much attention to kits and to the 'Complete' series, so what they added was of no importance to me; they were optional books and treating them otherwise was foolish. Same way about Skills and Powers.

It had the beginnings of a skill system, which placated me for quite some time. I didn't really have a great deal of problem with the rules per se; they were not that different from 1E (which was one of the few main problems, also...) and the ways they were different were better. I loved the idea of specialty priests, mage schools, etc.

In the end, though, after seeing 3E, I'm kinda disappointed. I think that what we have now is what we should have had back in 1989.

 

[Davelozzi]

Like others here, I had lots of great times playing 2e that I look back upon fondly. I don't think the rules were terrible - frankly I think they were a significant improvement over 1e, but that 3e is an improvement still. It's not perfect, but it's improved enough that I'd rather use the new ruleset over the old one anyway.* But as has been said, lots of great products came out in the 2e era that are still very useful. I have two big bookshelves full of D&D stuff, and the majority of that was published under the 2e rules.

*Case in point: I'm currently running a Dark Sun side game. Before I got it upand running, I considered using 2e to avoid the hassles of converting. I picked up my 2e PHB and started flipping through it, but by the time I got to the proficencies chapter it was back on the shelf. 3e's just sleeker.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

I enjoyed playing 2E at the time, but I also felt it was far and away the worst, most irritating ruleset I ever had to deal with. I put up with a lot from that system just because we had a good GM and I was playing alongside some people who made the experience fun. I also have fond memories of Planescape, which is just such a lovely setting.

But I'd never, ever go back and play it again. I'll just take what I liked about the experience (playing with good friends and using an interesting setting) and just use them with a system that isn't a total mess.


I swear, nothing surprised me as much as looking through the D&D3 rulebook and discovering that they'd actually put together a coherent system that worked. I'm not saying 3E was perfect, because no system ever really is, but it had remarkably few blemishes. I compare that to the warty, pus-stained hog of 2E (which seemed on its best days to be only 75% blemishes and 25% good parts), and I can't even bear to look at the 2E rulebooks, let alone consider using them for something.

--
still, it was useful for learning that good games can be played even with bad systems
ryan

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I never really had a problem with 2E at all. I actually kinda like the 2E monster books alot more than the 3E ones (with lots of text about the creature, not just a small entry).

There were three things I didn't care for in 2E however.

1. Fighters were the most incredibly useless things.

2. Not very far into your career, all the monsters started to have some sort of save-or-die poison or power.

3. You could have a 2 ton boulder smash a gargoyle and it would be OK unless someone made the boulder magic first.

DS

 

[D+1]

Why does no one have fond memories of 2e?

Because the 2E rules, originally touted as an improvement/upgrade to AD&D (1E) rules didn't do much but rearrange deck chairs. It SHOULD have been what 3E is. People played it and probably had no less fun with 2E as 1E,, maybe more, but that doesn't mean they thought highly of the workmanship of the ruleset they were using.

There is no sites dedicated to it, no messageboards full of gushers, no "keep 2e alive" threads.

Because it isn't worth it. There is nothing worthwhile to champion in it. People may prefer 1E or 3E but 2E as rules simply has nothing to recommend it. Yet, as others have noted the SETTINGS that were popular under 2E certainly have their champions and associated websites.

I have fond memories of it, and would run it again if I found a few willing players, but in general, there seems to be a 2e = the devil attitude amonst the fans, and I'm curious as to why 1e or basic (or original) gets all the love, but 2e is the red-headed step child?

I'd NEVER run 2E again unless I simply had no access to any other ruleset for D&D. I'd much prefer to run a 1E game (perhaps incorporating Hackmaster) or even OD&D any day. That's not to say that 2E was a total disaster. There were perhaps worthy efforts at improvements to the rules after its release - there were certainly ENOUGH new rules thrown at the wall (albeit all optional ones) that something decent had to stick. But the basic framework upon which it was all bases was still fatally flawed and nothing less than the TOTAL redesign that 3E performed could begin to address them properly by treating the causes not the symptoms.