What's the Big Butthurt with 2E?

TLG d20, Necromancer Games and general. Discuss any game not covered in another forum.
User avatar
Traveller
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 2018
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 7:00 am

Re: What's the Big Butthurt with 2E?

Post by Traveller »

Most likely because Classic Traveller had by default the possibility of the characters dying during character generation. MegaTraveller and all subsequent versions of Traveller had failed survival rolls converted to injury and discharge from the career in question.

Personally, I prefer the possibility of dying during character generation.

The Imperium does not exist in the core rules of Classic Traveller until the publication of The Traveller Book. Most information about the Imperium appeared in the adventures. So, even Classic Traveller was setting agnostic. The problem was that some fans of the game latched onto the idea that the Third Imperium WAS Traveller, rather than the reality: Traveller being a rule set for adventures in a universe of YOUR creation.

I applaud Mongoose for making it abundantly clear that Traveller is setting agnostic by producing settings other than the Third Imperium for the rules (Judge Dredd, Hammer's Slammers, A Call To Arms). The OTU as it stands is a hindrance to adoption of the game system, since there are elements of the fanbase that want to protect the sanctity of the OTU. I'm of the opposite opinion, in that the OTU "canon" should be discarded, and a new setting using elements of the old be created to appeal to a modern audience.

Now, I know this discussion we're having has little bearing on Dungeons & Dragons, but it actually does. Because the same issues that Dungeons & Dragons encountered in going from 1st Edition to 2d Edition and onward are the same issues that Traveller had already dealt with. Except in Traveller's case, the butthurt is with Traveller: The New Era and T4. TNE because of the change in game system AND setting assumptions, and T4 because the additions to the game mechanics sucked along with the editing. So, what's the butthurt with 2E? Change.

People are afraid of it. They seek to prevent it at all costs, and fail every time. Yet they keep trying.

User avatar
redwullf
Ulthal
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:28 pm
Contact:

Re: What's the Big Butthurt with 2E?

Post by redwullf »

Well, I'll finish my thoughts by saying this about AD&D 2nd edition: At least it wasn't 3rd edition!

Now, having said that, I did not hate 3e/d20 D&D. Despite the massive changes, it still managed to retain the "D&D feel" in my eyes...if you didn't venture too deeply (or at all) into the metric ton of "Complete" books and accessories that came out for it. Like AD&D 2e, 3rd edition played "best" without all the extraneous crap, IMO.

Post-3rd edition, I've been playing Pathfinder since November of last year. Although it was pretty cool at first, DMing it is a real chore and I now find myself longing for a simpler, older system. I've been trying to push C&C on my big game group for a couple of months, but they're skeptical of another system change (in 7 months we switched from 3.0 to 3.5 to Pathfinder). I'd gladly play AD&D 2e or (more favorably) C&C over Pathfinder in a heartbeat. I'd even be happier going back to core 3.5 at this point. Pathfinder just gives too much to the players.
Image
"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs. He presents opportunities
for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own.” -- E. G. G.

--------------------------------------------------
Castles & Crusades Society Member

User avatar
redwullf
Ulthal
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:28 pm
Contact:

Re: What's the Big Butthurt with 2E?

Post by redwullf »

redwullf wrote:Speaking of "the old days," I've been gradually going through long-forgotten boxes in storage to reclaim my D&D hoard. Look what I've found (among a few others).
Every Saturday, I take a quick pilgrimage to one of my local game 'n' comic stores ("Heebeegeebeez") because they are regularly cycling in a vast collection of old school stuff. I've only walked out empty-handed a couple of times and usually walk out having spent way more than I should.

This week, I found quite a gem: an AD&D 2nd printing Player's Handbook (September 1978, 33 years ago this month!) in very decent shape for $20. Even Troll And Toad sells "heavily used" versions of this book for upwards of $30 and near mint they go for over $60.

Image

Image

I brought it home, cast several wards and protection spells on it, secured it in plastic, and will now take it out once in a while and gently, gently hug it.
Image
"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs. He presents opportunities
for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own.” -- E. G. G.

--------------------------------------------------
Castles & Crusades Society Member

User avatar
Relaxo
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 3350
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:00 am

Re: What's the Big Butthurt with 2E?

Post by Relaxo »

dude, that IS a find.
congrats!
Bill D.
Author: Yarr! Rules-Light Pirate RPG
BD Games - www.playBDgames.com
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/browse.ph ... rs_id=5781

User avatar
Lurker
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 3985
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:00 am
Location: Oklahoma

Re: What's the Big Butthurt with 2E?

Post by Lurker »


I thought the Complete Handbooks were pretty good. I always liked the kit idea as a way of making the classes more versatile. I rarely used the optional rules from any of AD&D's books. I remember the Ninja sourcebook was pretty cool and the Barbarians once sucked
Rgr on that. There were some good ideas in some of the handbooks. Also I liked the options with the kits. (And the fighter options with sets of weapons instead of a few specific weapons).

I really really liked the historical handbooks. I thought every one of those were pretty awesome. I used those probably more than any other sourcebook AD&D ever produced.
Rgr on that too. I LOVE the historical books and end up using some of them in my home brew worlds even now.


I really super hated the attribute mess. (I always thought AD&D's attributes were fine, even if they needed Comeliness (useless, I know, but my girlfriend insists on it)
Agree with you on this except for Comeliness. I've always liked the addition of that attribute. However the splitting of the attributes really made a mess of everything!




To be honest, not to stroke anyone's ego or anything, but I really feel like C&C is AD&D 2nd edition as I would have preferred to see it (except, of course, that there is still no mariner class). I like the seperation of spellcasters and non-spellcasters, the integration of essential skills as class abilities, the simplified combat and saves, and the alterations to the illusionist class (though I would have called it the enchanter class). So, if someone was to put out historical books, at least for Greece, Rome, and the Crusades, for C&C I'd pretty much be in geek heaven.
I'm with you on that too, especially on the C&C history books
"And so I am become a knight of the Kingdom of Dreams and Shadows!" - Mark Twain

Forgive all spelling errors.

Knight Errant & Humble C&C Society Contributor
C&C Society

Galannor
Mist Elf
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:00 am

Re: What's the Big Butthurt with 2E?

Post by Galannor »

Wait Wait Wait...
AD&D 2 ed. was my FAVOURITE edition of AD&D, above all because it focused the game more on travelling, exploration, interaction & roleplaying and character customization (at least for the standards of that time), rather than dungeon crawling.
I liked the streamlined skill and proficiency system, and I even appreciated most of the Player's Options experiment, even if I think it should have been playtested much more.
Yes, I missed the sheer power of the 1 ed. Cavalier and Barbarian and of the Fighter's Double Weapon Specialization, the shadowy and creepy flavour of the Assassin and of the Acrobat Thief, and the Half Orc, but I really loved the specialist wizards and the clerics of specific mythoi.
Nowadays I play above all Castles & Crusades, but back in the good old days AD&D 2 ed. was my sweet spot, hands down!
G. ;)

Galannor
Mist Elf
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:00 am

Re: What's the Big Butthurt with 2E?

Post by Galannor »

P.S.: One of the few things I didn't like of 2 ed. AD&D (and of 1 ed. AD&D as well) at all, was that it wasn't clear what happened (and how to handle) if or when a "non - thief" character tried to Move Silently, Hide in Shadow or use any one of the Thief Skills: I think that about these issues the d20 edition, and C&C as well, with its simple and elegant Siege Engine, have been a clear improvement and a huge step forward! :D
G.

User avatar
Traveller
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 2018
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 7:00 am

Re: What's the Big Butthurt with 2E?

Post by Traveller »

Galannor, how to handle a non-thief character wanting to use a thief skill was left up to the individual DM to decide. However, the AD&D rules not having non-thieves using thief skills was not an oversight. AD&D was intended as a tournament ruleset and it likely was not put into the rules in order to discourage dilution of the archetypes. Of course, in the case of AD&D, intent != reality.

User avatar
Andred of Albans
Hlobane Orc
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 5:15 pm

Re: What's the Big Butthurt with 2E?

Post by Andred of Albans »

those spake zarathustra wrote:A) 2e is seen by many grognards as the edition in which a deliberate attempt was made to expunge any Gygaxian influence from the game & replace it with mild, corporate/kiddie friendly dross.
Maybe, but D&D was always less a game than a system to design a game. You could add back Devils, Demons, Assassins and the like (I did!) but I did like the engine, the NWP let you customize the classes. I like the ideas in the Player Handbook Ref.
those spake zarathustra wrote:It came out after E.G.G had been forced from TSR in a series of bitter wranglings. The Gygaxian prose was gone, replaced by what some perceived as a bland or kiddie friendly style. This was seen as a slight by some on E.G.G and as "dumbing down" the game by others.
I never really liked Gary's purple prose, personally and I have nothing against E.G.G. but D&D was as much Dave Arneson's as Gary Gygax'.
those spake zarathustra wrote:B) Major upheavals were made to popular campaign worlds (Greyhawk, FR) to accomodate the switch. Alot of people didn't like the changes. Sure they could ignore them but then they couldn't use any of the new stuff getting produced.

People felt the changes to Greyhawk especially were ill thought out & that the line in general was badly neglected in this era (conspiracy theorists will again point to a desire to weaken E.G.G's influence, as Greyhawk was considered very much D&D as E.G.G enjoyed it).
Again, not too upset over E.G.G. - he did alright, and I always ran a homebrew so changes to Greyhawk weren't too big a deal for me.
those spake zarathustra wrote:So this caused some bitterness/pushback against the new 2nd ed.
Not that I disagree, but a lot of grognards saw 2nd edition was an improvement. We used it 1984-1999.
those spake zarathustra wrote:C) You have already covered the 2.5 & dubious quality splatbook issues (although some decent stuff sits in there too).
I agree there was a lot of splat books for 2e but I did like the Historical Reference series, the Players' Handbook Reference series, and the Arms & Equipment Guide.
those spake zarathustra wrote:D) Dragonlance & Drizzt. Although these are actually came out in the 1e era (Drizzt stays 1e compatible if you read the texts carefully I think) they were the beginning of a trend in which people were already becoming upset with what TSR was doing. Modules were seen as getting less "sandboxy" & player action driven & more "railroady" - think ravenloft & dragonlance style modules where you are "supposed" to follow a reset storyline which more or less happen no matter what.
DL was a major improvement since it integrated story into a module series, especially the death of Sturm Brightblade, the Marriage of Caramon & Tika, and the damnation of Raistlin.
those spake zarathustra wrote:E) Module quality. Aside from design & philosophy changes, many people felt the module quality badly dropped in 2e. They point to 1e "classics" (U1&2, B1, A4, T1, T1-4, G series, D series, S1, S3, I1 etc etc) & ask where the 2e equivalent is.
The "classic" modules were great for their day, but they weren't perfect either - the 2e modules weren't masterpieces but I ran some really popular homebrews during 2e.

All in all 2e is my personal favorite edition of D&D (though I never let go of my 1e books either)
Visit my

User avatar
redwullf
Ulthal
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:28 pm
Contact:

Re: What's the Big Butthurt with 2E?

Post by redwullf »

Andred of Albans wrote:Not that I disagree, but a lot of grognards saw 2nd edition was an improvement. We used it 1984-1999.
How? 2nd Edition was release in '89...
Image
"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs. He presents opportunities
for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own.” -- E. G. G.

--------------------------------------------------
Castles & Crusades Society Member

Lord Dynel
Maukling
Posts: 5842
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:00 am

Re: What's the Big Butthurt with 2E?

Post by Lord Dynel »

Andred of Albans wrote:All in all 2e is my personal favorite edition of D&D
I think that's apparent, hoss. Just messin' with ya. ;)

There were many things going against 2e. There were the devout of Gygax, who felt that Gary's departure was grossly mishandled, and that sentiment was more-or-less confirmed with the epitome of the disservice - Castle Greyhawk. There was the vanilla approach 2e took (half-orcs, assassins, demons, devils - all gone) in an effort to appease the naysayers. There was the splat bloat and the fracturing of the fan base. Then there was THAC0, which makes me laugh, because I think there are people who bitch about it that never even played 2e. If they did, I'd seriously call into question their mathematical skills. In the end, there were a lot going against it. I think, looking back, just when they were shedding the issues from the beginning of its life, the issues that led to its demise were starting to rear their ugly heads.

I think 2e was my favorite, too, to be honest. I played, and liked, 1e but I didn't gain a respect for it until years later. It wasn't until I turned the corner and finally realized more detail wasn't always better that I appreciated 1e more than I did back in the 80s.
LD's C&C creations - CL Checker, a witch class, the half-ogre, skills, and 0-level rules
Troll Lord wrote:Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

User avatar
zarathustra
Red Cap
Posts: 324
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 7:00 am
Location: Canberra, Australia

Re: What's the Big Butthurt with 2E?

Post by zarathustra »

Andred of Albans wrote:I never really liked Gary's purple prose, personally and I have nothing against E.G.G. but D&D was as much Dave Arneson's as Gary Gygax'.
I dunno, I have a sneaky admiration for "antithesis of weal" even if it did send us scurryng for our dictionaries. Writing style in any context is one of those subjective tastes, dif'rent strokes and all that.

Agreed completely on Arnesons role too.

Andred of Albans wrote: I agree there was a lot of splat books for 2e but I did like the Historical Reference series
I found most of the others (barring the green historical books) pretty useless IMC but enjoyed the Tome of Magic & Humanoids Handbook. I am actually using the Charlemagnes Paladins book as a gaming reference for my current Carolingian (well, fantasy Carolingian) campaign.
Andred of Albans wrote:DL was a major improvement since it integrated story into a module series, especially the death of Sturm Brightblade, the Marriage of Caramon & Tika, and the damnation of Raistlin.
Well we just disagree there. I like the story to be formed from what my players & I do, not come prepackaged.

I can imagine my own stories, I would just use a module sometimes for the framework.

Things like the "U" series in 1e actually did a great job of having a potentially thriller-like plotline whilst still leaving the scenario open ended enough that it can be come at from a variety of angles. I have not heard that about the DL series, although perhaps it can be run otherwise.

I enthusiastically embraced 2e back in the day, but became less & less enamoured with it as time went on. These days I play C&C if my players demand some prescribed, mechanical crunch as they level or Labyrinth Lord if I have a group willing to come up with their own crunch on the fly so to speak.

User avatar
Andred of Albans
Hlobane Orc
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 5:15 pm

Re: What's the Big Butthurt with 2E?

Post by Andred of Albans »

redwullf wrote:
Andred of Albans wrote:Not that I disagree, but a lot of grognards saw 2nd edition was an improvement. We used it 1984-1999.
How? 2nd Edition was release in '89...
Yep, the campaign ran 1984-1999, we changed rules midstream. I should have been more clear
Lord Dynel wrote:
Andred of Albans wrote:All in all 2e is my personal favorite edition of D&D
I think that's apparent, hoss. Just messin' with ya. ;)
Does it show? :shock:
Lord Dynel wrote:There were many things going against 2e. There were the devout of Gygax, who felt that Gary's departure was grossly mishandled, and that sentiment was more-or-less confirmed with the epitome of the disservice - Castle Greyhawk.
While this wasn't a huge problem for me personally, I do agree with you there was a lot of Gary-hating going on at TSR in those days.

Gary didn't really deserve that, he struck me as a decent guy trying to profit from his creative ideas - nothing at all wrong with that. But, with that said, Dave Arneson got an equally raw deal from E.G.G. back in the day as the extensive litigation between D.A. and TSR shows. Seems to me there was plenty of $$ and to share in those days for all concerned.
Lord Dynel wrote:There was the vanilla approach 2e took (half-orcs, assassins, demons, devils - all gone) in an effort to appease the naysayers.
Yeah, I gotta agree there - that did annoy me. I hate "Tanari" and "Baatezu" with a passion. The demons and devils should have been left alone. Baator is not hell, but an inmate thereof - specifically a corrupt politician or businessman (c.f. Dante's Inferno). I have no idea where the hell "Tanari" came from!

A demon is an evil spirit, typically an angel cast out of Heaven (Christian) or created as an evil angel (Judaism) charged with tempting the living and exacting justice on the dead. A devil is a named demon - one of the principalities of Hell (Satan, Astorath, Dis, Baalzebub, etc.). If you are not using a Jewish/Christian/Islamic style cosmology then you need to re-visit the hierarchy of the lower planes - which to his credit, E.G.G. did in his Greyhawk campaign.
Lord Dynel wrote: There was the splat bloat and the fracturing of the fan base. Then there was THAC0, which makes me laugh, because I think there are people who bitch about it that never even played 2e. If they did, I'd seriously call into question their mathematical skills. In the end, there were a lot going against it. I think, looking back, just when they were shedding the issues from the beginning of its life, the issues that led to its demise were starting to rear their ugly heads.
Some of the splatbooks were okay - l liked the PHB ref series for the most part and really liked the HR ref series.

THAC0 was a way of simplifying the combat tables, but I like the d20/C&C method of d20+class/level bonus+str bonus+magical plusses > AC better. Makes more sense and far mor flexible than the THAC0 system.
Lord Dynel wrote:I think 2e was my favorite, too, to be honest. I played, and liked, 1e but I didn't gain a respect for it until years later. It wasn't until I turned the corner and finally realized more detail wasn't always better that I appreciated 1e more than I did back in the 80s.
I sort of liked the NWP thing though that did exist in 1e via the Dungeoneers' and Wilderness Survival Guides, specialist wizards, and the priests of specific mythoi in 2e.

These days, I like C&C, you can add what you like and it plays smooth.
Visit my

User avatar
Relaxo
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 3350
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:00 am

Re: What's the Big Butthurt with 2E?

Post by Relaxo »

I'm reluctant to stir this pot, but I liked THAC0.
That said, I like ascending AC better. It's just more intuitive. Even after playing 2e for years, you'd have this moment... "Oh, a 20! SWEET!"
"Um, yeah, you wanted to roll LOW on that one..."
"DOH!"

I mean, not a breaker, but it was unclear. I think 2e was more a reorg of years of Oe/1e stuff (how easy was it to use 1e stuff without changing a thing?) than a truly new edition. YOu could see where some things had been added and made up as they went as there were different systems for everything (saves, turning undead, theif skills, proficiences etc.) not that that's bad, but you can see it's like a Cape Cod house with a stucco extention and an A=Frame garage... it's clearly not all from the same origin or style. (this is a weak metaphor, apologies, but you get the idea I hope.)
Bill D.
Author: Yarr! Rules-Light Pirate RPG
BD Games - www.playBDgames.com
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/browse.ph ... rs_id=5781

User avatar
Andred of Albans
Hlobane Orc
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 5:15 pm

Re: What's the Big Butthurt with 2E?

Post by Andred of Albans »

Relaxo wrote:I think 2e was more a reorg of years of Oe/1e stuff (how easy was it to use 1e stuff without changing a thing?) than a truly new edition. YOu could see where some things had been added and made up as they went as there were different systems for everything (saves, turning undead, theif skills, proficiences etc.) not that that's bad, but you can see it's like a Cape Cod house with a stucco extention and an A=Frame garage... it's clearly not all from the same origin or style. (this is a weak metaphor, apologies, but you get the idea I hope.)
I agree with you 100% - 2e was a revamp of 1e, not a redo of D&D.

C&C is more of a ground up redo of 1e.
Visit my

Danger
Mist Elf
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:00 am

Re: What's the Big Butthurt with 2E?

Post by Danger »

No hurting of the posterior here; 2nd was where I played the most D&D in my heyday years and I've nothing but fond memories of it. Still got all my books too.

Funny how gripes over its complexity paled in comparison to the later editions/years.

Pdiddy
Ungern
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:00 am

Re: What's the Big Butthurt with 2E?

Post by Pdiddy »

I prefer the clarity and modularity of 2E to 1E. I am currently DMing Paizo's Rise of the Runelords adventure path with 2E and it is great. However, I think that the next campaign will be with C&C with some bolt on's from Pathfinder.

User avatar
mordrene
Ulthal
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am

Re: What's the Big Butthurt with 2E?

Post by mordrene »

i think the best thing of second edition was the thief, err rogue skill progression and how it handled initiative. i agree with others in i didnt like the removal of demons and devils.

now what i didnt like and makes 2nd edition my least favorite was the kit books, expecially when the humanoids book came out. if i wanted to have 40 players option books i would stay with 3.0. its why cnc is so great. one players book plenty of options in the ckg and a great mecanic for handling non class and other class abilities.

User avatar
Relaxo
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 3350
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:00 am

Re: What's the Big Butthurt with 2E?

Post by Relaxo »

Mordrene, it's funny you mention that, I LOVE the 2e initiative also... especially with the optional weapon speed rules. They gave a reason to choose short sword over long or two handed sword, first blow may end the fight!
Bill D.
Author: Yarr! Rules-Light Pirate RPG
BD Games - www.playBDgames.com
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/browse.ph ... rs_id=5781

User avatar
Sir Osis of Liver
Unkbartig
Posts: 822
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:00 am

Re: What's the Big Butthurt with 2E?

Post by Sir Osis of Liver »

Danger wrote:No hurting of the posterior here; 2nd was where I played the most D&D in my heyday years and I've nothing but fond memories of it. Still got all my books too.

Funny how gripes over its complexity paled in comparison to the later editions/years.
+1 on all counts here. Well said.

Post Reply