I don't think it's any matter of controversy to assert that AD&D 2nd edition (or, in the vulgar tongue, "2e") is the red-headed stepchild of the D&D community. Too much of a symbol of post-Gygax "T$R" to some, a symbol of 90s splatbook bloat, the edition that nearly killed D&D, too mechanically similar to 1e to merit its own retro-clone, too clunky to draw in the new generations, and so on. To a large extent, I agree with all these assessments. For some time, I have debated running a 2e campaign as a sort of exercise in getting back in touch with my gaming roots - having started in 1990, I just missed the 1e era - but I have my doubts. By the time 3e rolled around, I welcomed it with open arms; I loathed the Frankensteinian system that AD&D had grown to become, like most gamers of the day. I have the feeling that if I somehow managed to get past the planning stages, a 2e game would soon collapse under the weight of "Oh right, I forgot how lame that was"-moments.
And yet...
There are undeniably some things that 2e got right. That phrase will almost universally elicit a response along the lines of, "Yes, the settings were awesome!" And that's quite true. But I think 2e deserves a fresh reappraisal across the board. The much-maligned kits, for example, held a nugget of a good idea. It just simply wasn't executed very well. If I ever get around to running my hypothetical 2e campaign, I'll certainly include a very pared-down list of kits.
What sparked this blog post, though, is another aspect of 2e that I'd rather forgotten about and one that I don't often see discussed: the format of the Monstrous Compendium entries. Specifically, it was seeing this entry over on one of the few 2e-centered blogs out there, THAC0 Forever. For those who don't know, the entry is written in the format of 2e-era monster entries, sub-divided into four sections: an intro, a Combat section, a section discussing the creature's Habitat/Society, and an Ecology section.
I've seen this format criticized (shocking!) by some, who have called it a further sign of the bloat that afflicted D&D products of this era. But I have to say, seeing a monster written up in that format made me smile. Having a monster entry be more than hard numbers and a couple paragraphs on appearance and combat tactics had an immeasurable effect on how I approached my D&D gameplay from the get-go. It implicitly communicated a strong message of Gygaxian naturalism. Personally, I never had to read articles on dungeon ecology or building a believable fantasy world. I got the message loud and clear just by paging through the Monstrous Compendium. From Day One, my AD&D games were focused on role-playing as much as dungeon delving.
In fact, it wasn't until the advent of the OSR and its focus on getting back to the roots of D&D that I ventured into running more dungeon/exploration-centered campaigns. Seeing the old 2e monster format was just another reminder for me of my own D&D roots, which may have been quite different from the roots espoused by certain parties in the OSR but, for me at least, were far more arresting and "of the essence" of what D&D means to me.
What I loved is that 2e finally got rid of the 1 gp = 1 xp form of advancement. It became an optional rule and helped to encourage thinking about story, urban adventures and other styles of play besides, "Kick in the door, kill the residents within and take their stuff."
ReplyDeleteYes, that's another one! We never used that rule (or training for level advancement, for that matter).
ReplyDeleteI didn't realize at the time that those had been integral parts of earlier editions. I can appreciate the subtle positive effects that 1XP=1GP can have on gameplay now, but at the time we thought the optional rule unbelievably ridiculous and saw an outcome precisely of the sort you describe.
The AD&D2 monster manual is my favourite of any edition. The art is -- mostly -- better than that of the previous edition, and as you suggest it's actually a fun read, unlike the following edition.
ReplyDeleteI've never run AD&D2, and I barely played it back in the day, but that monster book will always have a place on my bookshelf.
AD&D2 is how I started gaming. We loved the system, including its quirks like THAC0 and such. Maybe a part of it for me was that we had access to every AD&D2 book published and were able to spend a lot of time just reading them. We also had a DM who was passionately in love with the system, his energy fueling the group.
ReplyDeleteI remember one player wanting to switch to 3rd ed and he tried to persuade us for a few weeks. We thought it was crazy to fix what wasn't broken. Eventually, our campaign ended and we were reintroduced to 3rd ed which became our new favorite.
AD&D2 will always be a good system in my memory.
I have a number of RPG'ing friends who started playing on 2e and speak highly of it. I never did, though, and I don't know quite what you mean by "kits." Maybe you could briefly gloss that term for someone ignorant of 2e ways?
ReplyDeleteAh, of course.
ReplyDeleteA kit was basically a lens that could applied to a character class. You'd get a small bonus in exchange for a commensurate penalty. They were usually class-specific (although attempts were made towards the end of the edition's run to make generic kits).
So, for example, a fighter could choose to take the Barbarian kit or Archer kit and excel at raging out or shooting arrows. Sometimes kits were used to fiddle with a given class's abilites; a Paladin could take the Undead Hunter kit and trade in a couple baseline Paladin abilities for greater Turning and access to priest spells. Demi-human races also had access to race-specific kits (Dwarven Battlerager (fighters), Elven Bladesinger (fighter/mages), etc.). In theory, kits were small mods, not enough to justify a whole new class. Some of the later kits violated this theory rather egregiously.
The problem, of course, is that kits were like the feats of their day--they were in books, Dragon magazine articles, all over the place. Plus, kits suffered from the usual power creep. The above-mentioned Bladesinger is the usual example cited for kits at their worst in terms of brokenness.
Kits at their best, such as in the Al-Qadim line, could be used to add flavor to a game world and differentiate different characters of the same class.
Gotcha, THANKS!
ReplyDeleteActually, now that you have explained it, I think I am partially using a simplified version of a 2e kit in my current game: I have a PC playing a Bard, and while we are using the Brave Halfling Bard rules as a basis, I have allowed his character to have a couple abilities from the "Jongleur" at his request -- which is a 2e Bard kit, as I believe.
If you look at the very first kits to come out - in The Complete Fighter's Handbook - you will see a work of genius.
ReplyDeleteThe bonuses provided were mechanically very minor, but the kits went a long way to helping players see their character as more than just another generic member of a class. Of course, kits very soon got very out of hand - but it was a great idea.
So, what do you think of New Haven Games' project of recasting 2e in Myth & Magic?
ReplyDeleteCarter: No problem! Yup, the Jongleur was indeed a kit in The Complete Bard's Handbook--one of my favorite entries in the series, actually.
ReplyDeleteRed DM: Precisely! Although I liked some of the "flashier" kits that came along later on, the early PHBR kits had the right idea on the whole.
Theodoric: I hadn't heard of that! After looking at the website, consider me intrigued...
You know, in retrospect 2e was my favorite edition. 1e had better adventures published for it. And 3e - I thought it was a huge improvement when it came out but a lot of the unintended changes over time (mini dependency, christmas tree effect, more rules bound) are negative - when I went back recently and ran some 2e for an old friend that had been in a 2e campaign, I was like "Damn... This is a lot more flexible and easy."
ReplyDelete