AD&D Second Edition

[Voros]

Aren't most if not all of those 2e modules you hold up as good also late releases? I think there was a shift in the adventures being offered from about 94 onwards. I think the ones you list are from that period. Before that it certainly seemed like everything was large font and railroad.

And yes, there are horrible Basic and 1e modules. I'd say that even some of the old modules which are revered are largely cack.

Hadn't thought of it like that. Can't recall all the release dates...a quick check on Drivethru says that Golden Voyages, Vale of the Mage, Castle Forlorn are all early 90s and City of Skulls, Dungeon of Death, Rod of Seven Parts, Night Below were after 94. The Dungeoncrawl series started in 96 and ended in 2000 with the excellent Dungeon of Death. Lost Tombs came out in 98.

Some other good 2e modules include Greyhawk Ruins (90); Rary the Traitor (92); the very inventive Dawn of the Overmind (98); Temple; Tower and Tomb (94); Eye to Eye (96) and especially the really good Skullport (99).

So some gems in the early 90s and a good run from 94 to 2000. Doesn't seem that bad to me. These modules span the entire existence of 2e with things getting better as the years passed.

 

[Spellslinging Sellsword]

I've probably played AD&D 2E more than any other rpg. It's what I ran in high school and I've been playing in an every other week campaign for the past two years. I would definitely change descending AC to ascending AC if I were running it. THACO is fine, but using it the past two years when we could be using ascending AC is baffling. I'd also drop the size based weapon damages and just have one damage for the weapon. Those are probably the two biggest modern D&Disms that I'd port to our AD&D 2E game. Some of the players at the table really like the kits, but I'm playing without one.

 

[Chris Brady]

I never got the hate for thaco. It meant not having to reference tables. Due to the oddities of descending AC, you occasionally had to subtract a negative number but it was still an improvement.

It's still subtraction, which slows down the brain.

We are currently playing a 2e game and the only changes we've made so far is switching to ascending AC.

There was always a noticeable pause in the game after someone rolled while they mentally calculated what AC they hit using THAC0. It was so easy in the 80's and 90's but just doesn't flow as well as ascending at the table for us.

I ran it for almost a decade, and even at the tail end, this was the same thing that happened to us.

 

[Picaroon Jack]

When we switched from AD&D to 2E I was one of those that struggled with THACO, "But we used to have the table in the DMG, man. Show me the table!" I liked the skills and some of the kits.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

I'm gonna be honest: I loved the shit out of rolling individual d10s for initiative every round, weapon speeds, and even weapon damage by size.

 

[Endless Flight]

I’ve got no problem with THAC0.

I’m also a person who has no problem with using charts for action resolution.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

God damnit. I wanna run 2e now. I wish I still had my whole "Complete..." set.

 

[TristramEvans]

God damnit. I wanna run 2e now. I wish I still had my whole "Complete..." set.

I still have a few that I've held onto despite no intention of running 2E gain. Some were just great reads and resources/inspiration.Complete Elves, Bards, and Psionicist handbooks, the Arms & Equipment Guide, the Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide, the Castle Guide, and the Historical Reference Sourcebooks: Celts, Vikings, A Mighty Fortress and Charlemagne's Paladins. They keep my Planescape series company on the shelf, I'll still pull them out and read them occassionally.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

I very stupidly dumped my massive 2e collection when my wife and I first started dating. Even though she had zero problems with me gaming. I kick myself for it every couple of years.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

Also, this is literally the most positive AD&D 2e thread I've ever seen on the internet.

 

[Dumarest]

Just out of curiosity, are there any differences (aside from the covers) between the versions I had

​

and these black-framed red-titled ones that showed up when I Googled 2nd edition?

​

 

[Silverlion]

Uglier layout, some errata clean up, worse art.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

I didn't mind the layout in the newer, but the art was definitely worse

 

[TristramEvans]

Yeah, those rereleases were so ugly. It was a real shame a few years back when WoTC put out those collector nostalgia editions of the TSR games, and they went with those second versions instead of the originals

 

[Jenx]

I liked 2e for this:

Loved the computer games (for the Amiga) and I hunted down all I could find for XXVC (managed to get it all I think) but never had anyone to play it because of work/life/beer/girlfriends and gaming group having scattered to the four winds. I know XXVC is hated because of the Williams woman but that washed over me because I loved the art and the game/skills system. As for AD&D 2e that presented an itch that BECMI scratched quite nicely so it was pretty much ignored though I have the core books in a lock up somewhere being eaten by moths I should think.

 

[Stevethulhu]

I’ve got no problem with THAC0.

I’m also a person who has no problem with using charts for action resolution.

THAC0 is one o those things that The Internet has made into a much bigger deal than it really was. Its regularly used as a rod to beat AD&D 2 with, even though it's also in BECMI.

 

[AsenRG]

THAC0 is one o those things that The Internet has made into a much bigger deal than it really was. Its regularly used as a rod to beat AD&D 2 with, even though it's also in BECMI.

Yeah, and it's in a multiple popular OSR titles without anyone batting an eye, either.

 

[Armchair Gamer]

Yeah, those rereleases were so ugly. It was a real shame a few years back when WoTC put out those collector nostalgia editions of the TSR games, and they went with those second versions instead of the originals

That whole release seemed grudging and perfunctory in comparison to the 1E and 3E rereleases, so I imagine they went with the easiest versions to recreate, and they probably had easier access to electronic copies of the 95 versions than the 89 versions. I do like the 95 PHB class illustrations, though--nicely archetypal.

 

[CRKrueger]

THACO’s just taking a table and making it so you can do it in your head. I always wrote on the side of my character sheet my current column of the hit table, so THACO changed literally nothing for me. It’s the biggest non-issue in the history of gaming, as it’s not a change at all, just a different method of looking at the exact same numbers.

 

[Armchair Gamer]

THACO’s just taking a table and making it so you can do it in your head. I always wrote on the side of my character sheet my current column of the hit table, so THACO changed literally nothing for me. It’s the biggest non-issue in the history of gaming, as it’s not a change at all, just a different method of looking at the exact same numbers.

There was the whole 'repeating 20s' issue, but aside from that, you're right. In fact, the Rules Cyclopedia included both, and if you're willing to play around with numbers and expectations, there are all sorts of ways to get the same results. (I'm leaning towards '1d20+AC>=THAC0' at the moment, although it means the DM has to let players know the AC, which some may not like.)

 

[Gabriel]

THAC0 is one o those things that The Internet has made into a much bigger deal than it really was. Its regularly used as a rod to beat AD&D 2 with, even though it's also in BECMI.

THAC0 was fine for what it was. It and descending AC were most likely kept for general compatibility with AD&D1 and Basic.

Would it have been better and more intuitive to change all monster ACs to ascending numbers then just have the bonus to THAC0 be a bonus to hit and the aim be to roll equal to or higher than the AC? Yes. As the concept was written, it would have eliminated two calculation steps had they gone for ascending AC. Does it work out the same either way? Yes.

I think they should have changed it, as it would have been a good and easy place to streamline things.

 

[Gabriel]

There was the whole 'repeating 20s' issue, but aside from that, you're right.

Yeah, I was about to type about that.

I think the first 20 on the chart could be hit by any combination of die roll + modifiers which equaled or exceeded 20.

The next five 20s on the chart could only be hit by natural 20s.

After those six 20s in a row, the number started increasing again with the note being that you still needed a natural 20 + modifiers of that high in order to hit.

 

[Squeakula]

As the DM I have no problem with THAC0, it was an improvement over the charts and I happily used it until ascending AC came along.

It's just the amount of effort to change 2e to ascending is minimal and so much time is saved at the table, especially for players who've only ever played 3e and up.

 

[Baulderstone]

When we switched from AD&D to 2E I was one of those that struggled with THACO, "But we used to have the table in the DMG, man. Show me the table!" I liked the skills and some of the kits.

There is something be said for the table. For some people new to RPGs, having their line from the table on their character sheet can actually be clearer in wrapping their head around the game than presenting them with a formula.

THAC0 is one o those things that The Internet has made into a much bigger deal than it really was. Its regularly used as a rod to beat AD&D 2 with, even though it's also in BECMI.

Yes. I get people preferring ascending AC, but I also feel like their was an overblown expression of hatred towards THAC0 for a while there.

Yeah, and it's in a multiple popular OSR titles without anyone batting an eye, either.

I wouldn't go that far. The debate about whether to adopt ascending AC can get heavy in the OSR at times. There is a reason that while B/X Essentials doesn't have it at all, Old School Essentials added ascending AC as an option.

 

[Armchair Gamer]

THAC0 was fine for what it was. It and descending AC were most likely kept for general compatibility with AD&D1 and Basic.

Would it have been better and more intuitive to change all monster ACs to ascending numbers then just have the bonus to THAC0 be a bonus to hit and the aim be to roll equal to or higher than the AC? Yes. As the concept was written, it would have eliminated two calculation steps had they gone for ascending AC. Does it work out the same either way? Yes.

I think they should have changed it, as it would have been a good and easy place to streamline things.

According to a column in DRAGON Magazine at the time about the design, they seriously considered it, but they were afraid it would invalidate the backstock. They also foretold the rise of decimalized edition numbering as a joke.

 

[Gabriel]

According to a column in DRAGON Magazine at the time about the design, they seriously considered it, but they were afraid it would invalid the backstock. They also foretold the rise of decimalized edition numbering as a joke.

Yeah, it makes sense. Despite the 1e-Only crowd being very status conscious and not wanting to defile themselves with filthy basic, everyone treated the two parallel game lines as one big game. If one had ascending AC and the other had descending, it would certainly have caused confusion.

 

[Voros]

THAC0 was fine for what it was. It and descending AC were most likely kept for general compatibility with AD&D1 and Basic.

Would it have been better and more intuitive to change all monster ACs to ascending numbers then just have the bonus to THAC0 be a bonus to hit and the aim be to roll equal to or higher than the AC? Yes. As the concept was written, it would have eliminated two calculation steps had they gone for ascending AC. Does it work out the same either way? Yes.

I think they should have changed it, as it would have been a good and easy place to streamline things.

David Cook talked about this and he said that they wanted to change it for 2e but thought it would piss off the playerbase too much.

I recall Lakofka or another buddy of Gygax’s saying they recommended switching to ascending AC while he was working on 1e and Gygax agreed but again thought that ship had sailed with the playerbase. So decades of rules determined by not pissing off the hardcores?

The irony being that when 3e finally bit the bullet and switched to ascending AC it wasn’t that big of a deal.

I really liked THAC0 when it was introduced in 2e, I realized I didn’t like having to refer to charts unless they were universal like in FASERIP or CoC but once I returned to D&D from a long hiatus and discovered ascending AC I thought ‘of course!’

 

[Stevethulhu]

David Cook talked about this and he said that they wanted to change it for 2e but thought it would piss off the playerbase too much.

I recall Lakofka or another buddy of Gygax’s saying they recommended switching to ascending AC while he was working on 1e and Gygax agreed but again thought that ship had sailed with the playerbase. So decades of rules determined by not pissing off the hardcores?

The irony being that when 3e finally bit the bullet and switched to ascending AC it wasn’t that big of a deal.

I really liked THAC0 when it was introduced in 2e, I realized I didn’t like having to refer to charts unless they were universal like in FASERIP or CoC but once I returned to D&D from a long hiatus and discovered ascending AC I though ‘of course!’

I remember charts being a source of scorn. And ascending AC being hailed as a revolution. Though to me, it was more a case of new system, new rules. No biggie.

 

[Silverlion]

Ascending AC is going to be there. (Roll high is the aim for all dice rolls, my biggest change that I WILL make for sure instead of the spitballing I've been doing.)

 

[EOTB]

2E isn't hated, it just isn't loved by as many. It tried to please both people who liked 1E, and people who wanted changes to 1E. But most of those who wanted changes wanted more changes than it delivered, and were *more* pleased by later editions than 2E itself.

So it has the fewest *devotees*, but the most non-AD&D players who give it thumbs-up while still preferring to play something else.

 

[TristramEvans]

I see it more as the last holdout of a time when a new edition of an RPG, meant a new edition, not a completely different game

As far as I'm concerned AD&D 1st edition and 2nd edition are the same game

 

[Chris Brady]

I see it more as the last holdout of a time when a new edition of an RPG, meant a new edition, not a completely different game

As far as I'm concerned AD&D 1st edition and 2nd edition are the same game

Having had both and looked them over, I'd disagree, there's enough changes to be considered different. YMMV as always, though.

 

[tenbones]

2e is my edition of choice. I kept *ALL* of my 2e material.

EOTB - That is a very interesting claim that I suspect you're probably right on. *MY* homebrewed 2e (much like most 2e devotees) were nowhere *close* to 2e RAW. I had 1e elements in there, I had elements of Talislanta converted over, I had Powers and Options, Dragon Magazine, all kinds of stuff - including my own sub-systems I created myself. So that kinda mirrors your claim about "most wanted more changes than was delivered"... the FUNNY thing about that is, I *never* looked at it that way. I looked at it as "here is the new baseline, I like it. Let's ADD MORE!".

Which gets me to your second claim...

So it has the fewest *devotees*, but the most non-AD&D players who give it thumbs-up while still preferring to play something else.

This one strikes DEEP to me, on a number of levels. It's TRUE even while I can rationalize it away. It's completely true because post-2e, we were led into this 3e universe that essentially forced many of us that adopted 3e (and boy did I) to walk away from 2e... Even though I *never* sold my 2e stuff, ran it top-to-bottom, from its inception to the launch of 3e itself, I have *never* once picked up 2e since. I did a lot of writing and dev work for 3e, and used a lot of the 2e material as reference (and I still do). And while I'll sit here and tell you (and everyone else) 2e is my favorite edition... I still don't play it, and it's given me some thought.

But here's my rationalization - I think I've only realized in the last three-years that 2e is probably my favorite. I've had some of the most memorable campaigns with it. But I think it's because in hindsight, it's so jangly, and loosey-goosey despite its appearances, I could do nearly anything I wanted with it and it has this strong mechanical center that holds. It's why I look very fondly on it now. I simply *can't* have the gaming I want from 3e/4e/5e without sacrificing a lot more effort in making the system work for me than I could just using 2e. But it took *years* of digging around into the guts of d20 (across 5-editions no less - including 3rd party stuff) and playing and designing other systems, to get me to look back with fresh clear eyes.

And even now, and I've said this many times on this forum and elsewhere - *IF* I had to go back to D&D, I'd create my own version largely inspired by 2e... but it wouldn't *be* 2e. Which is really where your claims stab home to me.

 

[TristramEvans]

Having had both and looked them over, I'd disagree, there's enough changes to be considered different.

I'd struggle to come up with a reason any product for one wasn't perfectly backwards compatible with the other, or vice versa. Indeed, my original group used the 2nd ed PHB and the 1E DMG along with 1E Unearthed Arcana and 2nd Ed Handbooks.

 

[tenbones]

Yep. I used 2e+1e pretty much interchangeably. 3e could *EASILY* have had its cake and eaten it too and still be backwards compatible... but NOOOOOooooOOOOoooo

 

[OHT]

2e = Birthright for me.

 

[Stan]

That is a very interesting claim that I suspect you're probably right on. *MY* homebrewed 2e (much like most 2e devotees) were nowhere *close* to 2e RAW. I had 1e elements in there, I had elements of Talislanta converted over, I had Powers and Options, Dragon Magazine, all kinds of stuff - including my own sub-systems I created myself. So that kinda mirrors your claim about "most wanted more changes than was delivered"... the FUNNY thing about that is, I *never* looked at it that way. I looked at it as "here is the new baseline, I like it. Let's ADD MORE!".

One of the 3e designers (Monte Cook perhaps?) mentioned this aspect as being in their thoughts in the redesign. D&D was so heavily houseruled and modified that almost no 2 tables were playing the same game. I remember switching groups a couple of times due to moving and people graduating - house rules varied from a page or two to 50 page booklets that amounted to a complete redesign that would have been better off as a whole new game.

From that, part of 3e's design intent was a rigorous set of rules so that house rules weren't necessary. You can see it in their desire to have rules for everything to minimize DM judgement. It made sense at the time. After hindsight from years of playing, I think the cure might have been worse than the disease. Things often got bound up by minutiae. Plus, people still houseruled all over the place to make the game fit their vision and their setting.

I think one reason why people see parallels between 5e and 2e (despite all the 4e embedded in 5e) is that 5e took a step back from 3e's design philosophy. Personally, given that I like to adjust the baseline to fit the particulars of the game setting at the time, I prefer a simpler game to form the base. The resulting base plus extra is less likely to overwhelm players and you're less likely to break the math.

At the time, I had fun with 1e and 3e. Currently, if I were to jump into a D&D game other than 5e, it would be 2e or Basic derived.

 

[Voros]

2E isn't hated, it just isn't loved by as many. It tried to please both people who liked 1E, and people who wanted changes to 1E. But most of those who wanted changes wanted more changes than it delivered, and were *more* pleased by later editions than 2E itself.

So it has the fewest *devotees*, but the most non-AD&D players who give it thumbs-up while still preferring to play something else.

I don't buy that 2e is the red-haired stepchild of D&D, I think that idea is all based on perspective and the distortions of the net. Forums, social media and blogs are no way to track popularity in rpgs, by that measure one could assume that the OSR is huge when actual sales reveal it to be a tiny fraction compared to 5e and other games.

Any actual facts to back up the claim that 'no one' plays 2e are hard to come by, Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds lump 1e and 2e games into AD&D and of course table play could be very different.

I know my entire group of buddies who played 2e D&D just stopped playing rpgs as we went to school, got careers and started families. They did not embrace 3e. Those same players skipped 3e and 4e entirely, many have started to return to rpgs as their lives have settled and 5e and the OSR have attracted them back to the game. People forget that most 2e players were introduced to the game by B/X or BECMI, so when they've returned to D&D they've often gone back to OSR games based on those editions rather than 2e because as adults with less time for gaming they can better appreciate their simplicity and speed of play.

 

[Faylar]

2e holds a special place in my heart. It was the system of the golden age of Role playing for me and what brought my long time friends and I together.
I started with 1e in my Art teacher's class, then got the rules cyclopedia thinking it was for the game... oops...
Got involved ina 2e group and never looked back.

My favorite D&D is 3.5 but I have not the same memories as 2e.

Honestly, if I was offered to play in a 2e or 3x game I would jump at the chance. If I had to choose... it would come down to the players and not the system.

 

[EOTB]

Voros, I didn’t write the position you argued against