There's apparently some ruckus going on about AD&D 2e and whether or not it was a sign of the apocalypse, so I've decided to continue my previous post about game opinions and weigh in on 2e. I don't have much to say about it; I remember reading the build-up to 2e in Dragon magazine, where they ran a poll asking what the consumers wanted and announced that *anything* could change, if the poll showed people wanted change. There was a follow-up several issues later that mentioned a huge outpouring of hatred for Vancian magic, but TSR announced they would not in fact be changing that part at all.
Now, I like Vancian magic a bit, although I sometimes want it to be toned down. But a company asking their customers' opinions, then pointedly stating they didn't care about those opinions, strikes me as odd. I felt this was a bad sign.
Still, I bought the 2e Player's Handbook. I remember thinking a few tiny bits were interesting (I believe clerics were a little more flexible, and they had a magic specialization system,) but as far as I could tell, the only real changes were a different layout, purged "demonic" references, and enough tiny numeric changes to make people have to buy new books.
So, I gave up on 2e. I did see a ton of 2e books in the stores, but that struck me as a downside, not a benefit. Leafing through the various "player options" in particular wasn't encouraging.
Much later, I played in a D&D game that the GM announced was a 1e/2e hybrid. I don't think I noticed any changes, although I think he was using a 2e module.
So, my conclusions about 2e: I just don't see the point.