2nd edition?
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 21, 2

Active Collector

Posts: 87
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Last Visit: Aug 28, 2019

Post Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 11:17 pm 

I started playing Basic D&D back in '81, but that quickly morphed into playing AD&D as it was a much richer game system. My group quickly switched to 2nd edition when it came out years later, missed the demons & devils, but they were simple enough to put back in.

I'm not really sure why a person would play 1st edition AD&D, except for nostalgia's sake maybe. The rules are a chaotic mess, and not just for the number of books needed. Take the DMG, for example... One of the most disorganized rule books I've ever seen, and I've seen plenty... 2nd edition rules are basically the same, just much more cohesive.

2nd edition AD&D also fixed some glaring problems with the original rules. Weighing items in "gold pieces"...? 2nd ed. sensibly uses pounds. Remember Deities & Demi-Gods, which encouraged player character god-hunting expeditions? 2nd edition cleaned that up nicely in Legends & Lore with the concept of avatars. Wimpy dragons? Characters thought twice before taking on 2nd ed. dragons. Your character had no abilities beyond what was listed in the character class? 2nd ed. added a badly-needed skill system -Which the lack thereof was always D&D/AD&D's Original Sin...

I haven't played d20 D&D yet, but I'll give it a shot at a convention some time. The concept of Feats is interesting, and I like the increased emphasis on skills. What I find odd is attempting to use the d20 rules in modern/"realistic" backgrounds to which the heroics-based rules hardly seem suited. Oh, well...


Prolific Collector
Subweb Admin
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 199
Joined: Feb 06, 2005
Last Visit: Aug 12, 2017
Location: The Outlands

Post Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 11:26 pm 

I'm inclined to agree with fluff. I've had fun playing the original D&D when I tried it, second edition, and third (even though I'm not too fond of what they did to it...). It was more about the people and the story than the rules and regs. And, also, I've had some pretty crappy experiences in 2nd edition and, yes, *gasp* Planescape. I played in a horrible, god awful PS campaign that made me want to cry. But, it was purely the DM's (mis)interpretation of it and not the setting itself.

I agree, too, that 2nd edition is bogged with add-ons and extras that, in some of the games I've played in, have been argued about for hours. But, right now I'm playing in a very relaxed little campaign that actually borrows ideas and rules from all editions... kind of picking and choosing what works well. It's very enjoyable and there are very, very minimal arguments. Again, this might be due to the fact that the players mesh so well and generally have the same take on the rules, but regardless... All those books are more like guildelines, anyway. Right? Like fluff said, no need to use all of the rules and extras. :)

Waterdeep? Never heard of it.

               -Factol Pentar, Doomguard


User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6992
Joined: Jan 03, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 29, 2024
Location: UK

Post Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 1:44 am 

Thenraine wrote:Thanks for the info guys-I wonder where AD&D would be today if it had remained the first edition only with only slight rule additions over the last couple decades-certainly more unified if nothing else!

Hey! Maybe we'd have had a set of fighting wheels. :D

I think D&D of any persuasion is primarily a fantasy roleplaying game. Anything that encumbers the DM or Players, restricts gameplay or draws an encounter out ad infinitum, is contrary to the spirit of the game.

Perhaps a 1st Edition AD&D rule set and a stack of small press 'house rules', the usual magazines and fanzines and the wealth of module writing talent were all we really needed.

Still, you can't blame the primaries for wanting to make millions out of their game.

This week I've been mostly eating . . . The white ones with the little red flecks in them.

Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 21, 2