Anbody else still prefer AD&D 2nd? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Anbody else still prefer AD&D 2nd? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
wereooze
09-02-04, 09:21 PM I got the 3.0 books, read all the updates on 3.5. I just don't like them as much.

Granted, thac0 was an incredibly confusing attack system. But I just like the play of 2.0 (as I call it) better. No half-orc, monster PC's, sorcerery was a monster ability, etc etc etc.

So I guess my question is: Am I the only person who likes the older game version more, or is not liking 3.0/3.5 a common theme?

BONUS:

Now that the material is "old" I can pick up all the 2nd ed AD&D material on Ebay for pennies on the dollar. Now if only I could find a local 2.0 group :sad:
Count Arioch the 28th
09-02-04, 09:39 PM I played 2E for about three or four years, and I absolutely hated it.

I prefer 3E to 2E. Of course, I prefer most games to 2E, for the record, on account that I thought it sucked. (Too many limitations in 2E, too many rules, very restrictive to the imagination, in my opinion.)
Midnight Lurker
09-02-04, 09:44 PM Honestly, I'm still undecided. I've played 2e for a long time, and we've got it to the point where there are no bugs. I was like you, where I hated most of the changes in 3e. At GenCon, I played my first game of 3.5... and found the system to be much better than I expected.

I'm not yet a convert, but one session was enough to make me think about it.
Seeker95
09-02-04, 11:03 PM Probably, but you'll want to check over on the Out of Print board to reach them more effectively.
protonik
09-03-04, 12:55 AM Both have their bonuses and drawbacks. AD&D is a nice, rules lite system with fast chargen for easier pick up games but the detail and consistency of 3e really shines and makes for a smoother game. Chargen is a -itch.

jason
Ranger REG
09-03-04, 03:47 AM The only thing I miss about 2e is its factory-set stringent rules. Because of the very strict rules, it makes me a cool DM that can say, "You know what? Screw the rules. I'll let you play an elf paladin character." (Not a DL world.)

So, it makes me a cool DM but cast an evil eye on TSR's Headmistress from my former gaming group.

I also miss that only those with high Dex can and should ride a horse with ease and those with low Dex must walk or run. Hehehe. After all, it's a Nonweapon Proficiency to acquire, not a Skill to develop and improve. You either have the knack for it or you don't.
Kheldren
09-03-04, 05:21 AM The Out of Print board (where this belongs) is buried under the "other Roleplaying Worlds" section and can be hard to find...
Tenzhi
09-03-04, 05:28 AM The Out of Print board (where this belongs) is buried under the "other Roleplaying Worlds" section and can be hard to find...

I wouldn't be so sure about that... as the original post makes some mention of 3.xE they'd likely get up-in-arms over this thread.
Agamemnon667
09-03-04, 07:17 AM To answer the question in the topic: No. Of the three reasons you mention, none are linked to the game system itself. Half-orcs, monstrous PCs and sorcerers are not a fixed part of the game. Making a world without them is easy.
Darrett
09-03-04, 12:31 PM I prefer 2nd Edition AD&D in some ways, and 3.5 in others.

It really just depends on the situation. I found the characters in 2nd Edition were more likely to be weaker, as pretty much everyone only used the core rules. In 3.5, the game is more based around huge battles and pulp fiction heroes. That's fun sometimes, but eventually you do get to the point where the party has so many spells that they can circumvent the normal "Plot Hook, Research, Plan, Fight" procedures.

This does mean that 3.5 takes a lot more work to put a mission together, as you have to plan for the players doing things that simply weren't possible in 2nd Edition AD&D.
fistanthius
09-03-04, 12:50 PM I laugh when people say 2.0 has too many rules. The core game had a lot less rules, 3.x has most of them plus a whole lot more. Its a more detailed combat system that makes battles take a LOT longer.

I do play 3.5 and its fun, just like any D&D game should be. But I remember a day when minis were not required for game play. Sometimes I forget, am I playing stratego, or D&D.
coolraygun
09-03-04, 01:54 PM I have played all the editions, first, second, players option, 3.0 and 3.5.

I can say that I prefer 3.0/3.5 to all the previous versions. I wont go into all the details of why, because thats all subjective opinion anyway.

You asked if anyone was still playing 2.0... I am not... want my books? ;)
Kaedarn Everdark
09-03-04, 02:26 PM As a DM, there are things in both editions that I find merit in. Musticlassing has been tremendously improved in 3.x, and I generally like character creation better as well. I find the most pain in 3.x being building encounters and custom creatures (which I love to use... my players practically memorize the MM, DMG, PHB and every expansion they can afford to aquire). It used to be pretty simple, create creature... play game. In 3.x assigning skills and feats to creatures is pretty time consuming compared to 2ed.

The big thing that changed though seems to be that 3.x feels more mechanical than 2ed. As a DM you really need to remind players that it's an RPG not a combat simulation. This seems to be caused more by how the books are written than how the rules work though.

My 2 cp,

Kaedarn Everdark
undeadsuperman
09-03-04, 02:31 PM First off
--------
I also miss that only those with high Dex can and should ride a horse with ease and those with low Dex must walk or run. Hehehe. After all, it's a Nonweapon Proficiency to acquire, not a Skill to develop and improve. You either have the knack for it or you don't.
---------
Where in the world did you dream this up about having the knack or not about riding a horse? Have you ever ridden a horse or even seen on in real life but it is most defintly a skill that can become better with use and time not a "knack" as you so elegantly called it. Sorry if it sounds rough but you dont know what your talking about.

Now about the subject at hand, i Prefer 1st edition over second and 1st also over 3rd i just play 3rd more cause i play with some younger guys in highschool who like the idea of making a powerful cahracter and 3rd alows that with set rules vs. havig to have a good dm to do it in 1st. anywho just my opinion.
reifidom
09-03-04, 02:36 PM I'll always have fond memories of 2nd Ed. It was a game that my friends and I had a lot of fun with. I had learned the system pretty well, and when I first played 3.0 I stared at it, dumbfounded, wondering what they had done to my game. I may have drooled a little bit.

Now with 3.5 out I found the 3.0 books at a Hastings for $4.99. Can't beat that. I picked up a bunch of them, and now we're starting a 3.0 game. It's nice that everybody will have a player's handbook. It's a first for us.
Count Arioch the 28th
09-03-04, 08:07 PM Where in the world did you dream this up about having the knack or not about riding a horse? Have you ever ridden a horse or even seen on in real life but it is most defintly a skill that can become better with use and time not a "knack" as you so elegantly called it. Sorry if it sounds rough but you dont know what your talking about.

I think your sarcasm meter need calibrating. ;)
Ranger REG
09-03-04, 09:29 PM It really just depends on the situation. I found the characters in 2nd Edition were more likely to be weaker, as pretty much everyone only used the core rules.
Tell that to my former DM. He once confessed he upped the monsters' hit die type to d20 in his AD&D game. I knew something was wrong when my 3rd-level PCs took about three one-minute rounds to kill one kobold. :eek:
edwardlynxx
09-04-04, 01:10 PM I learned how to play with 2nd edition, but when 3.0 came out I never looked back. Character creation has become much easier. What do you have against half-orcs and sorcerors. I had a lot of fun playing a monster character (it was an Orc Fighter/Wizard. who would've seen that one coming?) I'm not saying that 3.x dosn't have it's flaws, just that it's more versatile in my opinion.
Darrett
09-04-04, 02:16 PM I think that there's really a simple difference between the two. They were made for different gamers.

2nd Edition AD&D was more based on the Survival RPG than 3.5, and appeals to gamers who enjoy Call of Cthulhu, I find. It was more descriptive, and tended to encourage down-time more than 3.X, in which adventurers are more likely to constantly adventure.

3rd Edition tightened up a lot of rules. It's more combat oriented, which appeals to Diablo and Everquest players. It gives rules for more situations, and made PCs more powerful. The numerous expansion books allowed the adventures to go to new areas, and gave more tools to the Players to explore areas and challenge more powerful beings.

(Remember that there have been 5 Editions of D&D, by the way, if you count 3.5 as a new Edition)
Zaxon D'Mir
09-04-04, 03:34 PM Each has there own flavor and vibe. Personally I'm partial to 2e because most of my role playing years involved this edition. My best campaigns were with 2e rules. We changed the rules to fit our gaming styles and used rules that eventually appeared in 3e. However, when I first saw 3.0 it was a shock and really 3.5 was even more of a shock but I'm not jumping off a bridge about it. I know a couple of old school gamers like me and we're not quite drinking the kool aid yet. We've discussed the various rules changes and as of this post we've decided to investigate a 2e/3.5 fusion. Take what we like from 2e and add a little flavor from 3.5. This could be kinda nice, although it may be more like a complete freak of nature, but we'll just see.
quarkstomper
09-04-04, 06:32 PM I play 2nd ed instead of 3rd< ed for a very simple reason. I haven't gotten around to buying the upgrade yet.

I have the core books for 2nd ed and pretty much everything I really need for a 2nd ed campaign, so I haven't felt a driving need to invest in a new set of core books and then some.

True, the 3.5e books call to me whenever I go to the game shop, and Eberron sounds really interesting; but getting them is low on my priority list.

I can't really say I prefer 2e to 3<e because I've only played the latter version once and that wasn't really a fair trial. I'll upgrade eventually, but for now what I have is adequate for my needs.
skathros
09-04-04, 07:40 PM I wouldn't be so sure about that... as the original post makes some mention of 3.xE they'd likely get up-in-arms over this thread.That's right...kindly keep your d20Fantasy out of my AD&D, please ;) (just an old grognard kiddin')

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
wereooze 09-02-04, 09:21 PM	I got the 3.0 books, read all the updates on 3.5. I just don't like them as much. Granted, thac0 was an incredibly confusing attack system. But I just like the play of 2.0 (as I call it) better. No half-orc, monster PC's, sorcerery was a monster ability, etc etc etc. So I guess my question is: Am I the only person who likes the older game version more, or is not liking 3.0/3.5 a common theme? BONUS: Now that the material is "old" I can pick up all the 2nd ed AD&D material on Ebay for pennies on the dollar. Now if only I could find a local 2.0 group :sad:
Count Arioch the 28th 09-02-04, 09:39 PM	I played 2E for about three or four years, and I absolutely hated it. I prefer 3E to 2E. Of course, I prefer most games to 2E, for the record, on account that I thought it sucked. (Too many limitations in 2E, too many rules, very restrictive to the imagination, in my opinion.)
Midnight Lurker 09-02-04, 09:44 PM	Honestly, I'm still undecided. I've played 2e for a long time, and we've got it to the point where there are no bugs. I was like you, where I hated most of the changes in 3e. At GenCon, I played my first game of 3.5... and found the system to be much better than I expected. I'm not yet a convert, but one session was enough to make me think about it.
Seeker95 09-02-04, 11:03 PM	Probably, but you'll want to check over on the Out of Print board to reach them more effectively.
protonik 09-03-04, 12:55 AM	Both have their bonuses and drawbacks. AD&D is a nice, rules lite system with fast chargen for easier pick up games but the detail and consistency of 3e really shines and makes for a smoother game. Chargen is a -itch. jason
Ranger REG 09-03-04, 03:47 AM	The only thing I miss about 2e is its factory-set stringent rules. Because of the very strict rules, it makes me a cool DM that can say, "You know what? Screw the rules. I'll let you play an elf paladin character." (Not a DL world.) So, it makes me a cool DM but cast an evil eye on TSR's Headmistress from my former gaming group. I also miss that only those with high Dex can and should ride a horse with ease and those with low Dex must walk or run. Hehehe. After all, it's a Nonweapon Proficiency to acquire, not a Skill to develop and improve. You either have the knack for it or you don't.
Kheldren 09-03-04, 05:21 AM	The Out of Print board (where this belongs) is buried under the "other Roleplaying Worlds" section and can be hard to find...
Tenzhi 09-03-04, 05:28 AM	The Out of Print board (where this belongs) is buried under the "other Roleplaying Worlds" section and can be hard to find... I wouldn't be so sure about that... as the original post makes some mention of 3.xE they'd likely get up-in-arms over this thread.
Agamemnon667 09-03-04, 07:17 AM	To answer the question in the topic: No. Of the three reasons you mention, none are linked to the game system itself. Half-orcs, monstrous PCs and sorcerers are not a fixed part of the game. Making a world without them is easy.
Darrett 09-03-04, 12:31 PM	I prefer 2nd Edition AD&D in some ways, and 3.5 in others. It really just depends on the situation. I found the characters in 2nd Edition were more likely to be weaker, as pretty much everyone only used the core rules. In 3.5, the game is more based around huge battles and pulp fiction heroes. That's fun sometimes, but eventually you do get to the point where the party has so many spells that they can circumvent the normal "Plot Hook, Research, Plan, Fight" procedures. This does mean that 3.5 takes a lot more work to put a mission together, as you have to plan for the players doing things that simply weren't possible in 2nd Edition AD&D.
fistanthius 09-03-04, 12:50 PM	I laugh when people say 2.0 has too many rules. The core game had a lot less rules, 3.x has most of them plus a whole lot more. Its a more detailed combat system that makes battles take a LOT longer. I do play 3.5 and its fun, just like any D&D game should be. But I remember a day when minis were not required for game play. Sometimes I forget, am I playing stratego, or D&D.
coolraygun 09-03-04, 01:54 PM	I have played all the editions, first, second, players option, 3.0 and 3.5. I can say that I prefer 3.0/3.5 to all the previous versions. I wont go into all the details of why, because thats all subjective opinion anyway. You asked if anyone was still playing 2.0... I am not... want my books? ;)
Kaedarn Everdark 09-03-04, 02:26 PM	As a DM, there are things in both editions that I find merit in. Musticlassing has been tremendously improved in 3.x, and I generally like character creation better as well. I find the most pain in 3.x being building encounters and custom creatures (which I love to use... my players practically memorize the MM, DMG, PHB and every expansion they can afford to aquire). It used to be pretty simple, create creature... play game. In 3.x assigning skills and feats to creatures is pretty time consuming compared to 2ed. The big thing that changed though seems to be that 3.x feels more mechanical than 2ed. As a DM you really need to remind players that it's an RPG not a combat simulation. This seems to be caused more by how the books are written than how the rules work though. My 2 cp, Kaedarn Everdark
undeadsuperman 09-03-04, 02:31 PM	First off -------- I also miss that only those with high Dex can and should ride a horse with ease and those with low Dex must walk or run. Hehehe. After all, it's a Nonweapon Proficiency to acquire, not a Skill to develop and improve. You either have the knack for it or you don't. --------- Where in the world did you dream this up about having the knack or not about riding a horse? Have you ever ridden a horse or even seen on in real life but it is most defintly a skill that can become better with use and time not a "knack" as you so elegantly called it. Sorry if it sounds rough but you dont know what your talking about. Now about the subject at hand, i Prefer 1st edition over second and 1st also over 3rd i just play 3rd more cause i play with some younger guys in highschool who like the idea of making a powerful cahracter and 3rd alows that with set rules vs. havig to have a good dm to do it in 1st. anywho just my opinion.
reifidom 09-03-04, 02:36 PM	I'll always have fond memories of 2nd Ed. It was a game that my friends and I had a lot of fun with. I had learned the system pretty well, and when I first played 3.0 I stared at it, dumbfounded, wondering what they had done to my game. I may have drooled a little bit. Now with 3.5 out I found the 3.0 books at a Hastings for $4.99. Can't beat that. I picked up a bunch of them, and now we're starting a 3.0 game. It's nice that everybody will have a player's handbook. It's a first for us.
Count Arioch the 28th 09-03-04, 08:07 PM	Where in the world did you dream this up about having the knack or not about riding a horse? Have you ever ridden a horse or even seen on in real life but it is most defintly a skill that can become better with use and time not a "knack" as you so elegantly called it. Sorry if it sounds rough but you dont know what your talking about. I think your sarcasm meter need calibrating. ;)
Ranger REG 09-03-04, 09:29 PM	It really just depends on the situation. I found the characters in 2nd Edition were more likely to be weaker, as pretty much everyone only used the core rules. Tell that to my former DM. He once confessed he upped the monsters' hit die type to d20 in his AD&D game. I knew something was wrong when my 3rd-level PCs took about three one-minute rounds to kill one kobold. :eek:
edwardlynxx 09-04-04, 01:10 PM	I learned how to play with 2nd edition, but when 3.0 came out I never looked back. Character creation has become much easier. What do you have against half-orcs and sorcerors. I had a lot of fun playing a monster character (it was an Orc Fighter/Wizard. who would've seen that one coming?) I'm not saying that 3.x dosn't have it's flaws, just that it's more versatile in my opinion.
Darrett 09-04-04, 02:16 PM	I think that there's really a simple difference between the two. They were made for different gamers. 2nd Edition AD&D was more based on the Survival RPG than 3.5, and appeals to gamers who enjoy Call of Cthulhu, I find. It was more descriptive, and tended to encourage down-time more than 3.X, in which adventurers are more likely to constantly adventure. 3rd Edition tightened up a lot of rules. It's more combat oriented, which appeals to Diablo and Everquest players. It gives rules for more situations, and made PCs more powerful. The numerous expansion books allowed the adventures to go to new areas, and gave more tools to the Players to explore areas and challenge more powerful beings. (Remember that there have been 5 Editions of D&D, by the way, if you count 3.5 as a new Edition)
Zaxon D'Mir 09-04-04, 03:34 PM	Each has there own flavor and vibe. Personally I'm partial to 2e because most of my role playing years involved this edition. My best campaigns were with 2e rules. We changed the rules to fit our gaming styles and used rules that eventually appeared in 3e. However, when I first saw 3.0 it was a shock and really 3.5 was even more of a shock but I'm not jumping off a bridge about it. I know a couple of old school gamers like me and we're not quite drinking the kool aid yet. We've discussed the various rules changes and as of this post we've decided to investigate a 2e/3.5 fusion. Take what we like from 2e and add a little flavor from 3.5. This could be kinda nice, although it may be more like a complete freak of nature, but we'll just see.
quarkstomper 09-04-04, 06:32 PM	I play 2nd ed instead of 3rd< ed for a very simple reason. I haven't gotten around to buying the upgrade yet. I have the core books for 2nd ed and pretty much everything I really need for a 2nd ed campaign, so I haven't felt a driving need to invest in a new set of core books and then some. True, the 3.5e books call to me whenever I go to the game shop, and Eberron sounds really interesting; but getting them is low on my priority list. I can't really say I prefer 2e to 3<e because I've only played the latter version once and that wasn't really a fair trial. I'll upgrade eventually, but for now what I have is adequate for my needs.
skathros 09-04-04, 07:40 PM	I wouldn't be so sure about that... as the original post makes some mention of 3.xE they'd likely get up-in-arms over this thread.That's right...kindly keep your d20Fantasy out of my AD&D, please ;) (just an old grognard kiddin')