Re: edition wars

On 21 Oct 2024 05:04:10 GMT, gbbgu <gbbgu@gbbgu.com> wrote:

On 20 Oct 2024, David Chmelik wrote:
>

false editions (minor variants started, but somewhat backwards-compatible)
* AD&D 2e (half-false): major removals from AD&D 1e, but useful additions
 

>
I do have a soft spot for 2e. It was my first edition that I bought with my
own money.
>
The other reason I like 2e, it added full page colour pictures and better
layouts to the phb and dmg, and I think it was a well presented book. I don't
know where the tri-column layout came from, but I miss it.

Preach on, Brother* gbbgu! Amen, hallelujah! ;-)

<engage ramble mode>

2E is fun to hate on, but IMHO it is generally undeserved. A lot of
the issues people have with it are 'meta' and unrelated to the system
itself which --let's face it-- is just 1E with the rougher edges
sanded away. You can't really hold up 1E and then say 2E is worse
because of the system itself.  People had a hate-on for 2E because it
was seen as a money-grab, or a de-Gygaxification of the rules, or
because TSR had to compromise and take out demons and devils (even
though they very quickly brought them back), or a dozen similar
reasons which really have nothing to do with the game itself. Because
you can't really hate 2E without hating 1E, and few people (at least
few who care about the issue) are really ready to do that.

But 2E itself is fine... or at least as fine as a tabletop RPGreleased
in the mid-80s could be. It's got its faults sure. Why, if pressed I
might even admit that I think 3E/d20 was a significant improvement in
terms of system design, and I rather enjoy 5E. But I'm happy with 2E
too (even if that probably has as much to do with nostalgia and
familiarity as satisfaction with the rules).

Honestly, the original post comes across very much like an attempt to
troll anyway. Still, it's nice to see somebody else stand up for 2E
;-)