Re: edition wars

On 11/8/2024 2:29 PM, Justisaur wrote:

On 10/22/2024 12:36 AM, David Chmelik wrote:

On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 11:01:29 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

You can't really hold up 1E and then say 2E is worse because of the
system itself.

>
People do because removed assassins, monks, etc... if bards, cavaliers,
druids, rangers, thief-acrobats weren't removed, were significantly
changed... Dungeon Master Guide (DMG) was significantly shortened,
removing much good material.  That's why my AD&D DM retained everything
from AD&D 1e and used what he wanted from 2e.  The point is by removing
relevant material, it basically became a variant--like mostly a subset
(smaller part of original with minor changes).  The fact it was a money-
grab by new CEO (gamers in general hated, because she considered them
beneath her) after they got rid of the original D&D creators, is well-
documented.  That doesn't make it bad to play if one allows older
compatible rules.  Just, on their own, new editions overall got worse.

 My best campaigns were in 2e.  I too used the 1e DMG to add certain bits back in though.
 I have to say the layouts and readability of 2e was better than any version before or after it.
 

I think 2e was a good, but slightly flawed system. It has neither the weird Gygaxian approach of 1e, but it also isn't as overweight as 3e. It was fine for what it was. I think it would not be bad if people would start looking more fondly at 2e instead of 1e.
The issues mostly came with the glut of other products that TSR put out without focus, many of them absolutely redundant to one another. Also I guess sanitizing the system didn't help.
The game just felt... neutered.