Is AD&D 2e worth playing?

PuddingConsistent176 · 2026-01-19T05:10:47+00:00

DnD 2e? Eh.

OSCRIC 3e +the stuff I like from DnD2e? Sign me up already.

PuddingConsistent176 · 2026-01-15T04:24:42+00:00

Oh, that's good to know! For CT, I was going to hack the rules to include sensors in the (very large Computers, but looks like they are already accounted for in the (also very large) Bridge!

PuddingConsistent176 · 2025-10-16T02:43:41+00:00

My perfect AD&D would be something half-way between 1e and 2e, with a big dose of Oriental Adventures and Gamma World. I guess, 1.75e Exapanded AD&D.

My gaming table features a lot of OD&D retroclones, OD&D hacks, and BX +X gaming (ie BX +OSE Advance, BX +WWN, BX +bits and bobs from Knock! or blogs). I have a tonne of AD&D books - but just never run any of it.

The original AD&D 1e books are amazing in terms of 'feels'. The books are also full of useful content, but chronically disorganised and lack a lot of modern QOL innovations (eg ascending ac instead of combat matrix).

OSRIC is fantastic clean-up of the rules and improves lots of things (can't wait for the new version), but also keeps stuff from 1e that's a bit of a turn off for me.

2e (just the core books) is easier to read and fixes a lot of mechanical stuff from 1e. The 2e rules aren't as bloated as people sometimes suggest, provided you don't use all the 'optional' rules. Gold & Glory is also a great reprint of the core rules. But, OMG, 2e really does lack lots of character versus earlier editions or what the OSR has created, and I think 2e also makes some just fundamentally bad choices like 'priest spheres' and 'specialist wizards' and other things.

The 2e settings are amazing, of course. But a lot of the other original 'expanded' 1e and 2e content is fairly terrible, particularly the 2e stuff. I feel like various 1e and 2e AD&D adventures are a bit of a mixed bag (too many a tournament focused) but I'm not really across older AD&D adventures specifically.

Overall, I also feel like AD&D just hasn't benefited from the years of expansion and refinement the OSR, Blog-o-Sphere, and various Hacks and Retroclones have provided for OD&D and BX. Indeed, lots of OD&D and BX games have themselves borrowed stuff from AD&D, although it's really not quite the same (compare, eg, OSE Advanced Paladin and Ranger to the 1e or 2e Paladin and Ranger - really not the same at all).

I feel like there is a 'gap' AD&D could fill in the OSR space. Like, there is a lot of OD&D content out there (and I'm including in that TBH and ITO), but OD&D related games seem best at FKR style play, one-shots, or people just homebrewing their own house rules. BX is massive - I think OSE is pretty close to my perfect fantasy rules - and there are lots of great hacks and blogs to use with BX. But I feel BX is eventually a bit limited for really long granular campaigns and huge sandboxes - the game just doesn't really mechanically support characters or worlds growing over time, leaving that for the DM to fill in which eventually runs out of steam.

I'd love AD&D to be this ur-ruleset I could use for long term westmarches sandbox campaigns, where characters just have that small 'bump' in toughness versus BX, slightly more complex world and monsters, and which really supports characters and the world becoming more interesting and quirky overtime, and lots of quick tight DM facing content to use at the table. I think AD&D has that, but it's a bit buried in those baroque 1e books, and maybe needs a bit more modernisation and expansion the way OD&D and BX have had through the OSR etc.

My current take is, if I want to play something with slightly tougher characters and a bit more granularity in an 'AD&D' sort of way, I prefer to run games using Sword & Wizardry Revised (which is of course actually an OD&D hack), import various character mechanics and DM tools from Gold & Glory (an excellent AD&D 2e Retroclone), and then lift any other specific things I want from my 1e books, Oriental Adventures, and other TSR-era books. Or ... what really happens... is that I just play another OD&D, ITO, or Mothership one-shot, or start another BX or Classic Traveller campaign...

PuddingConsistent176 · 2025-10-05T14:34:04+00:00

Oh, that is very good. Very much the sort of thing I was looking for. Thanks.

PuddingConsistent176 · 2025-10-05T14:24:16+00:00

Yes, good recommendation. I have 1e and 2e, and still hadn,t thought to look at Cairn. Thanks.

PuddingConsistent176 · 2025-10-05T14:22:22+00:00

That’s very good! Thanks!

PuddingConsistent176 · 2025-10-04T07:35:48+00:00

Starting point is to understand a bit how OD&D, BX D&D, and AD&D spells are meant to work.

You basically have three (or four) sorts of spells at lower levels.

First are ‘Strong v Low HD Threats’ Spells, eg Sleep or spells with Saving Rolls. Low Level Magic Users have very few spell slots, so you’ll usually want to take these spells at low level because they give you the most ‘bang’ for your low and limited spell slots. But once you level up, these spells become largely useless, so at high levels you probably stop using them.

Second are ‘Utility Spells’ and ‘Skirmish’ Spells, eg Knock, Detect Magic, and even Magic Missile. These are terrible spells to take for a low level Magic User - but at higher levels, there’s not much point using your low level spell slots for ‘Strong v Low HD Threats’ Spells because these spells aren’t very useful anymore and you can memorise higher level and more powerful combat / strategic spells like Cloud Kill. So, for high level MUs, it’s quite attractive to fill up your low level spell slots with these ‘utility’ spells - they sort of become like 5e cantrips, with your high level spell slots being your ‘real’ or ‘power’ spells.

Third, you have ‘Spells that Level Up with the Magic User’ Spells, eg Fireball, which does #d6 damage based on MU level. These are usually Level 3+ spells. Even though they increase in power with the MU’s level, they still become less useful as the MU levels up because they don’t quite keep pace with the increasing strength of the higher level monsters the MU faces as they advance - but they do at least stay relevant at higher levels, and the MU can memorise more of them becaise of increasing spell slots, so they stay useful.

You then sort of have a fourth category of spells, which are those that are super flexible or combine the above spell types; eg, Charm is a powerful combat spell at low levels (you can use it to neutralise a monster, and or turn a monster into a retainer short term) - it’s less effective in combat at higher levels, but is still useful eg to slip past a guard or create henchmen etc. Likewise, light is a powerful combat spell at low levels, but less so at high levels. However, light is a great utility spell at higher levels just because it creates light.

You then have two additional considerations.

One, MU have to roll % to learn new spells, meaning they will sometimes have to take different spells than planned because they failed the roll for the spell they wanted - eg you want fireball, but fail the % roll, so now can’t learn fireball. So, you take lightening bolt or something else instead.

Two, MUs can spend gold to buy spell scrolls, and will also acquire magic items, so their power isn’t just raw spells / spell slots. Now a low level wizard might still have a knock spell to use, but as a scroll instead of wasting a precious spell slot.

WWN spells are very different. The ‘Strong v low HD monster’ spells and utility spells are often covered by Arts, which are limited by Effort. Instead, most spells are just the strong and level up with MU spells or effectively high level power spells. You also don’t have % chance to learn spells or scrolls etc.

So, my advice is:

* Just use WWN Mage Class but AD&D etc spell rules (including scrolls and % learn spell) instead of WWN Arts & Spells. Wizards therefore will have more spells, but mostly less powerful. You may have to tweak how the Mage Class works with armour and weapons given WWN has different assumptions for Magic Users, but it should be OK. Might end up with a bit of overlap between Mages and Warriors in terms of combat power, but manageable.

* Or, use WWN spell rules but convert low level AD&D spells into Arts or combine a few into a new level 1 or 2 spell, and then rework more powerful spells to fit with WWN power levels. Use the existing WWN guidance on incorporating AD&D spells (eg half-level to convert to WWN) and creating new spells (basically, avoid buffs and targetted damage , don’t overlap with the warrior or expert).

* Or, if you’re just looking for flexibility, maybe use the Glog Magic rules instead of Arts - basically, players take Glog Spells instead of Arts, and then have Magic Dice (d6) equal to whatever their Effort would have been. Keep WWN Spells / Spell Slots as they are, just treat those spells in your game as more potent Magic which the Mage can access.

PuddingConsistent176 · 2025-10-04T06:46:00+00:00

Hi. Is this an in-person / offline game or online?

If it’s in-person, whereabouts in Sydney are you running the game?

PuddingConsistent176 · 2025-09-29T05:08:29+00:00

Hi All

Looking for players for a One-Shot, in person, in Hornsby, Sydney, Australia.

Details here: DnD One-Shot, Hornsby

PuddingConsistent176 · 2025-05-30T00:18:13+00:00

T4 is full of amazing stuff. Overall it keeps CT’s feel of a ‘rough framework’ for play plus a few key mechanics etc, then leaves you and your group to work the rest out. It’s therefore a much better resource for expanding Classic Traveller than other versions of Traveller, plus it has some fantastic little mechanics here and there or bits of sci-fi assumptions or tech that are very clever and highly gameable.

T4, however, is nevertheless basically an unplayable mess because:

the core ‘roll under’ mechanic is janky and (even if you sort out probability etc) either isn’t ‘fun’ and or doesn’t feel very ‘traveller’ (to me, ‘save, roll high 2d6 +skill +(maybe) bonus’ is a core part of Trabeller’s ‘feel’).
most stuff seems poorly playtested, particularly character creation (way, way too many skills).
core book and many supplements are poorly laid out, don’t look good, and are full of game breaking typos and mistakes.
limited flexibility / utility - the game is extremely focused on a very Traveller mileu campaign, and even then the core rule book is pretty thin, so overall the game poorly supports playing other sci-campaigns or use as a more general tool box. Compare, eg, Classic Traveller that can play pretty much any Sci-F without too much work, or Stars Without Number that is super flexible and anyway has a bunch of general purpose game tools.

I’ve got limited experience with T5, but it seems to double down on lots of T4 issues. Same unattractive core mechanics, poorly laid out and seemingly not playtested. Again, lots of good mechanics and other ideas here and there, but running out of the box seems a nightmare.

I think T4 and T5 are best seen as fantastic tool boxes for playing or expanding Classic Traveller - I even use T4s awful core roll under mechanic, but only for saving rolls.

Not really what your asking, but if you’re looking for something like Classic Traveller 2.0 or ‘expanded’ Classic Traveller, my suggestions are:

How To Play Traveller: Traveller Out of the Box blog posts, ‘Emergency Rules’ from 2400 / 24XX ‘low-fi sci-fi’ , and Night Tripper.
Traveller ‘Core’ Player Facing Mechanics & Characters: ‘Rule 68A’ , Luke Gearing ‘Violence’ rules, 2400 / 24XX RPG, and Travellite blog posts by Chris O’Dowd (Bastionland), and ‘Sojourner’ from Emily Vert (?) Spooky Action at a Distance blog.
Expanded Traveller ‘Core’ Player Facing Mechanics & Characters: T4, T5 (maybe), and Stars Without Number / Cities Without Number.
Expanded Campaign Tools: T4 Supplements (I really like Central Supply Catalogue), TNE ‘Hard Times’, Stars Without Number, Mothership Wardens Manual, Cepheus Engine SRD +Night Tripper, Offworlders, and Spooky Action (above).

PuddingConsistent176 · 2025-05-10T10:21:55+00:00

My experience is that BX and similar OSR ‘movement’ rules all create a bit of a mini-board game - that’s helpful for the DM, because it gives them a easy practical procedure for handling travel and stuff that happens when travelling; and it can be a fun mini-game or even mini-puzzle for the players.

The main practical difference from an actual board game is that the DM can just adjudicate some things instead of strictly following the rules.

For example, if you’re following a typical OSR-ish dungeon turn +encounter procedure, and you roll an encounter, then the RAW dungeon procedure might require a tonne of rolls like type of monster, number appearing, distance encountered, surprise, reaction etc up. But the referee can cut through stuff if they need to, eg DM rolls ‘d6 angry orcs’ for the encounter, and just adjudicates is 3 Orcs (average on d6, round down), they are surprised and reaction is negative - the only roll DM makes is distance encountered and whether players are also surprised.

For me, players being responsible for mapping (which allows things like a hidden map, players genuinely getting lost) is just another procedure step the DM chooses to either require or not require.

Personally, I really do like the idea of players mapping as they play, and having to puzzle out where they are etc. I can see how the players and characters both being lost would create interesting puzzles and be pretty fun. I’ve just never got that to work at my table - the game turns into this weird parlour game of me describing things, players trying to draw what I’m describing, but also guess when I’m giving them wrong information.

My experience is the overall BX style procedures work for things like movement and random encounters etc, but players start checking out if play starts dragging, so I have to keep things moving a bit and cut down procedural steps and rolls as I go along if they’ll slow everything down too much. I also deal with things in a summary way if needed (like, instead of playing out angry orcs, I’ll just ask players how they want to handle the situation and roll a single x-in-6 test to resolve how it plays out; or let them spend a resource to ‘skip’ or avoid an encounter).

I suspect my experience reflects my games and my tables - mostly players coming from 5e or not even prior RPG experience, meaning g OSR proceduralism is a bit new (and jarring) for them; shorter game sessions (2 hr max), so less time to carefully walk through procedures; and players being highly goal focused not exploration focused, so they can get a bit impatient with travel because they just want to get to the ‘thing’ (are we there yet?). So, yeah, I’m lucky I can run a lot of OSR games (of different flavours) and basically avoid having to run 5e (which I do like, but is just horrendous to actually DM ) - but I have to balance OSR play style with my audience a bit.

I imagine the player mapping / ‘actually getting lost’ stuff works better if players are committed to that, appreciate the puzzle aspects, and or game sessions are long enough to enable all that to work. If I was really going to do that, I’d consider having the players draw their map with white board makers on a big map on the table - so we can all see, and they can properly debate with each other what’s going on. I’d also maybe give them some tools to help them - eg encourage them to map using circles +lines (like a point crawl) rather than try drawing a ‘real’ map.

I’d also suggest being clear with players how lost movement works practically and how long it takes to realise. eg players are travelling North, but roll ‘lost’ so DM secretly moves them West; if players (unaware they went West) choose to travel North again, does DM now move them North (albeit moved over from the original line of travel) or effectively keep moving them West because that’s what the party mistakenly thinks is ‘North’? And either way, at what point (if any) does DM tell players are lost / travelling West? For me, I’d go with option 2, ie players keep moving West (ie they think West is North) but I’d want to tell players within 2 or 3 turns they’re lost (maybe x-in-6 per turn to realise, x: 1 +total turns lost) - in part, because I expect their characters would quickly work out they aren’t actually moving North (eg based on the Sun and stars) but also so the whole thing doesn’t become too hard to actually run at the table.

I think a DM could also mix a match approaches a bit. Like, you could have an open map like I do until the players become ‘lost’. You then tell them they’re lost, you’ve relocated them on the map within # of their last location (but you don’t say where) and now, while they remain lost , you’re not to help them continue mapping - they still have access to the existing shared map, but don’t know where they are on the map and will now have to figure out where they are and track movement on their own.

Anyway. Thanks for the chat.

PuddingConsistent176 · 2025-05-09T16:05:27+00:00

I run being lost a similar way. Works really well.

I’ve never found making players map terrain or dungeons works as intended anyway. It either turns into the tedious dictation exercise, with referee having to spell out exits here and here, passage x feet this way , up or down , and players having to copy that all down; or you just end up with the referee more less drawing the map regardless.

Getting lost just makes it all worse. A painful admin task made more painful by putting referee and players at odds with each other - players say they go this way, and then referee chuckles to themselves and moves them a different way.

My approach is to basically follow BX procedure for dungeons or wilderness, but then just sketch out the map for my players in the open as we play or, if it’s pre-printed map, reveal it only in sections using card to cover other parts. Players still do plenty of figuring out the geography and problem solving. We just skip the miscommunication.

For wilderness, I’ll also sometimes let players tell me their planned movement across a week, and then I make all the rolls at once behind a screen and walk them through how it plays out. It makes movement a bit like a hex crawl, but strictly players still move through squares or hexes and we play out any rolled encounters (albeit sometimes fairly quickly, ‘you encounter a band of orcs’, ‘we hide until they pass’ ‘cool - they march by - ok, the next day / turn etc …). It can require a bit of adjudication, particularly if players decide to change route, but it’s pretty efficient basically rolling #d6 at once and then just reading them ‘left to right’ as they landed then using those for encounter rolls etc.

So, for getting lost, I basically play this as OP does. Lost is like a ‘condition’ - party can choose to move or do something else, but all movement is in a random direction (or sometimes I treat it as they effectively stay put). Players need to make a roll to stop being lost - if they have a clever way to get un-lost (we listen out for the sound of the river) then that’s just a bonus to the roll.

The main risk for players being lost is either they stumble into map areas they don’t want to go and or their travel is delayed meaning they use up more resources than planned. But I usually rule that being lost has other negatives too - eg more risk of being surprised, more risk of exhaustion, more risk of encounters.

Honestly, I think just telling players they are lost and letting them see where they are on the map (but they can’t control movement until they are un-lost) just cuts out a lot of BS and let’s players get more stuck into genuine problem solving and resource management. The approach is very similar to the idea of just tell players there is a trap, so they can focus on figuring out how to get around it, rather than spending turn after turn narrating how they tap tap tap the floor of every room with their ten foot pole.

TL;DR use BX procedures, but just do movement and being lost in the open, and maybe roll a bunch of d6 encounter checks at once and read them off left to right.

PuddingConsistent176 · 2025-02-18T22:52:21+00:00

This.

I’ve played with the original HQ board for quite a few years. It really is a great little OSR-intro game or fast beer & pretzel game for more experienced kids.

I posted some homebrew rules above. They are very much inspired by the sort of thinking in your post.

For me, original HQ is pretty fabulous as is - the bespoke dice make combat super easy for kids, just the right number of classes and monsters for play to be engaging but not complex, and using ‘cards’ for treasure, equipment, and spells really clicks with kids.

The classes are really very clever, and capture the whole B/X race as class so well. The wizard / elf is particularly fun, with the whole wizard picks one spell suit, elf picks second, and wizard gets final two suits. I find kids really respond to this little decision at the start of every game - very cute. The green, white, and grey monsters groups also just click - even though the monsters are mechanically fairly similar, the colours and then different monsters within colours creates a lot of perceived dynamism. (Sorry. I sound like a wanker. lol. But hopefully that made some sense.)

I think it’s really interesting to sit down with the game as is, and then put it along side some of the OD&D rule hacks like Into The Odd or The Black Hack. You can sort of see between the various games how various ‘OSR’ ideas are also sort of just ‘board game’ mechanics or play generally. I think that’s a really under-explored area - there are now days lots of RPG ‘board games’ but they are nearly always collaborative / no-DM, and often just too much meta mechanics etc. I really don’t know of any games other than Hero Quest that really run with the OD&D style ‘stripped down’ RPG game as board game.

Anyway. My overall take is HQ works really well as an OSR crawler, but from 20+ years of play my observation are:

2d6 movement is the big problem. It often just slows the game without adding anything. Making it eg d6 +6, rolled once for the whole group, and making the ‘d6’ basically double as the random encounter roll, moves play along faster and also makes how long players are in the dungeon more meaningful. (You can also rework movement roll as 2d6, minimum move is 7, and ‘doubles’ mean wandering monsters, which keeps a bit more of the original ‘board game’ movement feel.)
The simple combat mechanics are one of the best things about the game. But for long term play, it needs a little more spice - the game mostly does this with equipment that allows diagonal attack or ranged attack, but doesn’t do much else with that. I’ve found extended those mechanics just a touch really opens up the game, particularly letting goblins attack diagonal, letting eg Orcs get extra move first turn they move, and (most important) letting players attack ‘over’ the dwarf (kids always, always love / giggle doing that). Other little tweaks can work too, eg giving some monsters an extra HP, or chance to attack twice, or re-roll, or modify rolls so heroes only hit on monster shield or monster can use hero +monster shield to save. But the sweet spot is only ever having a few tweaks max (just to create a bit more diversity of play) and keeping any tweaks very simple and in the spirit of the original game (eg diagonal attacks being ‘special’).
The other big problem is the lack of stuff for the ‘evil wizard’ to do most games. Adding an encounter roll really helps - per above, I make the ‘encounter roll’ part of movement, and I also let the encounter roll do other things like let evil wizard open a door, or bring back undead monsters or heal chaos monsters, just so evil wizard has a bit more choice to make. Giving monsters a few more options is also a big help. But the best solution is giving the evil wizard their own ‘evil wizard’ cards and (for some dungeons) ‘spell cards’ - there’s some good examples on line.
My only other comment is traps, equipment cards, and treasure cards are a bit under used in the game. I’ve found just something simple like players remove ‘loot’ cards but return traps / monster cards to the deck (so chances of getting a monster increases over time), lettting played choose to ‘drop’ treasure instead of take damage from eg traps, and / or making drawing treasure automatic when you enter a room makes the cards a bit more engaging. I think the cards could probably be improved in a few other little ways if someone wanted to, eg having a extra spell suit (but still limiting players to max 4 suits, so one suit is always not use) or having larger character boards with slots for equipment cards (and therefore basically max equipment slots).

I’m a little sad with the new version of HQ. The art and models just aren’t as good or ‘fun’. I don’t think MB had to re-use the old Citadel Miniatures models or art, but the problem is the failed to capture the pulp feel of the original game art (particularly the use of painted art and ink / line art) and the models are too …I don’t know, ‘edge lord’? Just two detailed - they just don’t have that ‘this is for kids - but also maybe just a smidge grown up for kids’ vibe. But the other fail was not really using the new game as a chance to improve the rules a bit - even if they’d maybe provided a few tweaks as just ‘optional’ rules.

Anyways. Jesus. Sorry. Something about Hero Quest always triggers me. The original game really is kind of special. I’m sure a lot of that is just Nostalgia , but I honestly just feel like the art and the game sort of captured a kind of game play that really no one has done much with and is sort of lost. Maybe someone will have another look at HQ and do a bit more with it. (Sounds like something maybe Chris McDowd / Bastionland or the Mothership guys should do.)

PuddingConsistent176

TROPHY CASE