• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 2E [2e] What made 2e great?

Ariosto

First Post
Where I find that 2E (having in mind the PHB and DMG) really shines is in the presentation.

The 1E DMG in particular went to press with a less than stellar job of editing. Later printings added appendices, but never harmonized the three volumes or incorporated the bulk of errata. In some areas, "original intent" is hard to discern and one may be left by default making rulings where perhaps "really optional" but at least clear rules were meant to be.

The Gygaxian prose could be at once delightful and confounding, and for some perhaps just the latter. The 2E style is comparatively bland, but the straightforward text is more widely accessible. Much less is assumed of the reader, much more made explicit and explained in some detail.

Typesetting and layout are easier on the eyes, with both decorative and informative use of spot color. Organization is well suited both to instruction and to reference -- the spell lists coming to mind as a favorite example of the latter.

Backing off from the "standardization" conceit of the first edition, there is a consistent attention to offering variations in approach. There is also a trend to simplify or even to eliminate (though they might reappear in supplements) things widely perceived as needless complications.

OSRIC brings much of the above to what is mainly a restatement of the 1st edition rules, informed in part by Gygax's own mentions of things he might revise had he the opportunity.

To an extent, 2E may have served best as a compliment to, rather than supplanting of, the 1E works. In that light, I think one viable way to approach the topic might be to write material as supplementary to OSRIC.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️
Where I find that 2E (having in mind the PHB and DMG) really shines is in the presentation.

The 1E DMG in particular went to press with a less than stellar job of editing. Later printings added appendices, but never harmonized the three volumes or incorporated the bulk of errata. In some areas, "original intent" is hard to discern and one may be left by default making rulings where perhaps "really optional" but at least clear rules were meant to be.

The Gygaxian prose could be at once delightful and confounding, and for some perhaps just the latter. The 2E style is comparatively bland, but the straightforward text is more widely accessible. Much less is assumed of the reader, much more made explicit and explained in some detail.

Typesetting and layout are easier on the eyes, with both decorative and informative use of spot color. Organization is well suited both to instruction and to reference -- the spell lists coming to mind as a favorite example of the latter.

While I can agree on the better presentation, I always felt that the 2e DMG paled in comparision to the 1e one. It really falls down in content. Much of the combat section is virtually the same as in the PH since that edition focused on presenting many more of the combat rules directly to the player. Lots of the turgid Gygaxian prose is gone, but so is a lot of the evocative general, if scattershot, content. Heck, it even got rid of price values on magic items.

Of all of the DMGs, the 2e stands out as least useful and by a significant margin.
 


Ahnehnois

First Post
I didn't play 2e for long, but I always liked the non-weapon proficiency system; buying abilities had a real 'kid in a candy store' feel to it.

I also liked their psionics system; it was different from magic.

3e never quite matched up to these aspects of the 2e game for me, though some of the later stuff such as the XPH and some of the UA rules comes close.
 

Remove ads

Top