Discussion:
edition wars
(too old to reply)
David Chmelik
2024-10-20 10:06:34 UTC
Permalink
In edition wars, I'm not saying kill promoters of false editions (I played
a true edition mixed with earliest false one, which besides bad removals,
has a few good additions) but if I could, I'd fight (not attack) to keep
old editions in print. It was done in 2010s... don't know why not since.

true editions
* original D&D: had Arda (James RR Tolkien) material, so was good
* basic D&D (2nd ed., 2e): apparently made some things easier
* Advanced D&D (AD&D): many additions/improvements
* BX (3e): added levels to basic D&D
* BECMI (4e): added levels & immortal characters to basic & expert D&D
* Rules Cyclopedia (5e): simply collected BECM ('I' in later boxed set)

false editions (minor variants started, but somewhat backwards-compatible)
* AD&D 2e (half-false): major removals from AD&D 1e, but useful additions
* D&D '3e (so-called)': major removals from AD&D, bad videogame influence
* D&D '5e (so-called)': switch from 4e to some AD&D, bad videogame style

super-false edition (major variant)
* D&D '4e (so-called)': extreme bad videogame influence

Except for 'feats' (videogame/evil) and split ability scores, what are any
sets/rules or anything you like from '3e (so-called)' or later (including
4e)? I've never played it nor newer, but my recent AD&D Dungeon Master
(DM) uses split ability scores.

I looked at most newer character classes (already allowed magicians
without spellbooks in 1990) so not asking about those so much as useful
rules (without removing classic ones), settings/worlds, etc.

I know one simplification was getting rid of THAC0, but I like THAC0.

Since beginning of false editions, D&D has been for 'monetizing leveraging
business solutions': became money-making business solution of encouraging
gamers continually buy sets/books, rather than maintaining standardized
rules set like other tabletop games had hundreds or thousands years. D&D
'4e (so-called)' was such a change it's equivalent to chess with a weird
geometry for the board. Keep previously-standardized rules sets in print.

Is /The Making of Original Dungeons & Dragons: 1970-1977/ worth it, such
as is does it have /The Dalluhn Document/, any/all other rough-drafts,
original (Arda) brown box, or only later (Known World or Greyhawk) white
box? Does it include Chainmail, and why not /Gods, Demi-gods, & Heroes/?

One thing I'm interested in is how planescape (generic idea, not
capitalized) evolved in '3e, 4e, 5e (so-called)' and in retroactive clones
(retro-clones), alternative role-playing games you like any ideas/rules.
David Chmelik
2024-10-20 11:24:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Chmelik
true editions
* original D&D: had Arda (James RR Tolkien) material, so was good
* basic D&D (2nd ed., 2e): apparently made some things easier
* Advanced D&D (AD&D): many additions/improvements
* BX (3e): added levels to basic D&D
* BECMI (4e): added levels & immortal characters to basic & expert D&D
* Rules Cyclopedia (5e): simply collected BECM ('I' in later boxed set)
Above was supposed to be the formatting of my original post. Pan 2
newsreader seems to have reformatted me, or did people see the formatting
right?
David Chmelik
2024-10-20 11:25:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Chmelik
Above was supposed to be the formatting of my original post. Pan 2
newsreader seems to have reformatted me, or did people see the
formatting right?
It altered it again even though formatted after a reply... I'll have to
ask the Pan mailing list.
David Chmelik
2024-10-20 11:35:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Chmelik
Post by David Chmelik
true editions
* original D&D: had Arda (James RR Tolkien) material, so was good *
basic D&D (2nd ed., 2e): apparently made some things easier * Advanced
D&D (AD&D): many additions/improvements * BX (3e): added levels to basic
D&D * BECMI (4e): added levels & immortal characters to basic & expert
D&D * Rules Cyclopedia (5e): simply collected BECM ('I' in later boxed
set)
Above was supposed to be the formatting of my original post. Pan 2
newsreader seems to have reformatted me, or did people see the
formatting right?
Problem was word wrap. Looks fine now, just other posts scroll off side.
gbbgu
2024-10-21 05:04:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Chmelik
false editions (minor variants started, but somewhat backwards-compatible)
* AD&D 2e (half-false): major removals from AD&D 1e, but useful additions
I do have a soft spot for 2e. It was my first edition that I bought with my
own money.

The other reason I like 2e, it added full page colour pictures and better
layouts to the phb and dmg, and I think it was a well presented book. I don't
know where the tri-column layout came from, but I miss it.
--
gbbgu
Spalls Hurgenson
2024-10-21 15:01:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by gbbgu
Post by David Chmelik
false editions (minor variants started, but somewhat backwards-compatible)
* AD&D 2e (half-false): major removals from AD&D 1e, but useful additions
I do have a soft spot for 2e. It was my first edition that I bought with my
own money.
The other reason I like 2e, it added full page colour pictures and better
layouts to the phb and dmg, and I think it was a well presented book. I don't
know where the tri-column layout came from, but I miss it.
Preach on, Brother* gbbgu! Amen, hallelujah! ;-)

<engage ramble mode>

2E is fun to hate on, but IMHO it is generally undeserved. A lot of
the issues people have with it are 'meta' and unrelated to the system
itself which --let's face it-- is just 1E with the rougher edges
sanded away. You can't really hold up 1E and then say 2E is worse
because of the system itself. People had a hate-on for 2E because it
was seen as a money-grab, or a de-Gygaxification of the rules, or
because TSR had to compromise and take out demons and devils (even
though they very quickly brought them back), or a dozen similar
reasons which really have nothing to do with the game itself. Because
you can't really hate 2E without hating 1E, and few people (at least
few who care about the issue) are really ready to do that.

But 2E itself is fine... or at least as fine as a tabletop RPGreleased
in the mid-80s could be. It's got its faults sure. Why, if pressed I
might even admit that I think 3E/d20 was a significant improvement in
terms of system design, and I rather enjoy 5E. But I'm happy with 2E
too (even if that probably has as much to do with nostalgia and
familiarity as satisfaction with the rules).

Honestly, the original post comes across very much like an attempt to
troll anyway. Still, it's nice to see somebody else stand up for 2E
;-)
David Chmelik
2024-10-22 07:36:43 UTC
Permalink
You can't really hold up 1E and then say 2E is worse because of the
system itself.
People do because removed assassins, monks, etc... if bards, cavaliers,
druids, rangers, thief-acrobats weren't removed, were significantly
changed... Dungeon Master Guide (DMG) was significantly shortened,
removing much good material. That's why my AD&D DM retained everything
from AD&D 1e and used what he wanted from 2e. The point is by removing
relevant material, it basically became a variant--like mostly a subset
(smaller part of original with minor changes). The fact it was a money-
grab by new CEO (gamers in general hated, because she considered them
beneath her) after they got rid of the original D&D creators, is well-
documented. That doesn't make it bad to play if one allows older
compatible rules. Just, on their own, new editions overall got worse.
Spalls Hurgenson
2024-10-22 15:27:22 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 07:36:43 -0000 (UTC), David Chmelik
Post by David Chmelik
You can't really hold up 1E and then say 2E is worse because of the
system itself.
People do because removed assassins, monks, etc... if bards, cavaliers,
druids, rangers, thief-acrobats weren't removed, were significantly
changed... Dungeon Master Guide (DMG) was significantly shortened,
removing much good material. That's why my AD&D DM retained everything
from AD&D 1e and used what he wanted from 2e. The point is by removing
relevant material, it basically became a variant--like mostly a subset
(smaller part of original with minor changes). The fact it was a money-
grab by new CEO (gamers in general hated, because she considered them
beneath her) after they got rid of the original D&D creators, is well-
documented. That doesn't make it bad to play if one allows older
compatible rules. Just, on their own, new editions overall got worse.
Except those character classes weren't really removed. They were added
back in by the first four splat-books, which were an intended part of
the redesign from the start. Similarly, a lot of the 'removed
material' from DMG was added back in with the Dungeon Master Guide
books, which -again- was the intended plan from the start.

Now, you can make argument that this plan of making players buy more
books to get the same material was scummy; that TSR was
nickel-and-dimming its player-base. I'm not entirely sure I'd disagree
there. But it was _also_ an attempt to streamline the rules. 1E DMG
was an absolute mess in organization, and a lot of the material
therein was unnecessary to most players. 2nd Ed was a significantly
improved rewrite, focusing on the stuff people actually needed to just
play the game, with less important material shunted off to optional
books.

2E is 1E rules... just better written and with a lot of the nonsense
either chucked away entirely or pushed into optional texts. I see that
as a marked improvement.

2E is as much a 'variant' to 1E as 1E is to OD&D. It added stuff and
it removed stuff. It's undeniably based on its predecessor; it shares
many of its strengths and weaknesses. It's certaintly (and
intentionally) not as much of a rewrite as 3E/d20 was. But it stands
as its own version quite well and has its own strengths, not least of
which was the ease with which the game could be adapted and modified
to new settings.

But I still hold that most of the complaints about 2E have less to do
with the system itself than with the meta surrounding it: with Gygax's
departure, with TSR's financial shenanigans, with the changing culture
around tabletop RPGs, etc.
Kyonshi
2024-10-23 17:49:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spalls Hurgenson
But I still hold that most of the complaints about 2E have less to do
with the system itself than with the meta surrounding it: with Gygax's
departure, with TSR's financial shenanigans, with the changing culture
around tabletop RPGs, etc.
I think the main issue was that a lot of stuff became much more
sophisticated in writing and production, but that most of the stuff also
felt incredibly generic. And of course it doesn't help that the whole
idea of roleplaying went away from previous habits into the more
railroady aspects the Hickmans did so successfully. Roleplaying became
playing a role in a prewritten story, a development that still is
happening, to the point that it's not even really possible to play a
more freeform game of 5e in my opinion.

(I also think that it's a valid expression of roleplaying as an artform,
it's just not what DND started with and did best)
Justisaur
2024-11-08 13:55:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kyonshi
Post by Spalls Hurgenson
But I still hold that most of the complaints about 2E have less to do
with the system itself than with the meta surrounding it: with Gygax's
departure, with TSR's financial shenanigans, with the changing culture
around tabletop RPGs, etc.
I think the main issue was that a lot of stuff became much more
sophisticated in writing and production, but that most of the stuff also
felt incredibly generic. And of course it doesn't help that the whole
idea of roleplaying went away from previous habits into the more
railroady aspects the Hickmans did so successfully. Roleplaying became
playing a role in a prewritten story, a development that still is
happening, to the point that it's not even really possible to play a
more freeform game of 5e in my opinion.
(I also think that it's a valid expression of roleplaying as an artform,
it's just not what DND started with and did best)
I rarely if ever used 2e modules when I played 2e. Pretty much all
homebrew or occasional 1e modules converted.

I still think the majority of modules for 3e+ are pale garbage compared
to the 1e & Basic modules. The most fun I've had playing 5e is right
now my friend is running us through a an official converted B4 The Lost
City.

There was a couple parts of an adventure path I really enjoyed that he
ran in 3e-3.5e, the rest of it was meh at best. I ran a different one
which I found pretty bad. I read a starter module that sounded really
good but I never got around to running it. I enjoyed running the
starter module for 4e, but everything after that was not good on both
sides.

I did run a couple 3e campaigns that were very homebrew I enjoyed, but
nothing in 3.5e or 4e homebrew turned out well. 5e was more hit and
miss, I never got anything past 8th level, and there was one I ran with
converted KotB that didn't go well, but Zenopus and Lost Isle of
Castanamir did. I did have one homebrew I ran I kind of wished I'd kept
going that I ended at 5th I think when I had difficulty keeping up with
the pace of creating the adventures.
--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'
Kyonshi
2024-11-08 17:33:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justisaur
I rarely if ever used 2e modules when I played 2e. Pretty much all
homebrew or occasional 1e modules converted.
I still think the majority of modules for 3e+ are pale garbage compared
to the 1e & Basic modules.  The most fun I've had playing 5e is right
now my friend is running us through a an official converted B4 The Lost
City.
There was a couple parts of an adventure path I really enjoyed that he
ran in 3e-3.5e, the rest of it was meh at best. I ran a different one
which I found pretty bad.  I read a starter module that sounded really
good but I never got around to running it.  I enjoyed running the
starter module for 4e, but everything after that was not good on both
sides.
I did run a couple 3e campaigns that were very homebrew I enjoyed, but
nothing in 3.5e or 4e homebrew turned out well.  5e was more hit and
miss, I never got anything past 8th level, and there was one I ran with
converted KotB that didn't go well, but Zenopus and Lost Isle of
Castanamir did.  I did have one homebrew I ran I kind of wished I'd kept
going that I ended at 5th I think when I had difficulty keeping up with
the pace of creating the adventures.
I have been going through a lot of old modules to pick out the ones that
I actually would want to play nowadays, and from 3e on the whole way
they are written has changed so much that many of them are pretty much
worthless in my opinion.
I remember going through some of the adventure modules when 3e was new,
and I found it neither enjoyable, nor did my players really invest work
in understanding the system.
A good scenario from 2e or earlier is still kind of worth playing though.
Not that there are so many of them. The railroad tendencies that later
would make 3e so boring to me already were worming their way into them.

Still, they often had ideas that still can be useful.

I actually wouldn't mind finding actually good scenarios from 3e or even
4e. But somehow I think the whole approach to scenario design changed
too much.
Spalls Hurgenson
2024-11-09 15:58:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kyonshi
Post by Justisaur
I rarely if ever used 2e modules when I played 2e. Pretty much all
homebrew or occasional 1e modules converted.
I still think the majority of modules for 3e+ are pale garbage compared
to the 1e & Basic modules.  The most fun I've had playing 5e is right
now my friend is running us through a an official converted B4 The Lost
City.
There was a couple parts of an adventure path I really enjoyed that he
ran in 3e-3.5e, the rest of it was meh at best. I ran a different one
which I found pretty bad.  I read a starter module that sounded really
good but I never got around to running it.  I enjoyed running the
starter module for 4e, but everything after that was not good on both
sides.
I did run a couple 3e campaigns that were very homebrew I enjoyed, but
nothing in 3.5e or 4e homebrew turned out well.  5e was more hit and
miss, I never got anything past 8th level, and there was one I ran with
converted KotB that didn't go well, but Zenopus and Lost Isle of
Castanamir did.  I did have one homebrew I ran I kind of wished I'd kept
going that I ended at 5th I think when I had difficulty keeping up with
the pace of creating the adventures.
I have been going through a lot of old modules to pick out the ones that
I actually would want to play nowadays, and from 3e on the whole way
they are written has changed so much that many of them are pretty much
worthless in my opinion.
I remember going through some of the adventure modules when 3e was new,
and I found it neither enjoyable, nor did my players really invest work
in understanding the system.
A good scenario from 2e or earlier is still kind of worth playing though.
Not that there are so many of them. The railroad tendencies that later
would make 3e so boring to me already were worming their way into them.
I generally agree. It's not so much that I think the new modules are
trying to railroad the players as that all the focus of the adventures
on the encounters, which leaves the rest of the world feeling so
barren that DMs just jump the PCs from one encounter to the next. It's
why later editions feel so combat-heavy and the characters so
comic-book superpowered; getting into constant scrabbles is all the
modules talk about.

Earlier modules put more effort into the in-between spaces, so the PCs
had some place to fuck around (usually to their own detriment). It let
them get lost, or follow the wrong lead, or get stuck in the minutea
of surviving in a hostile environment. It was often frustrating and
wasted a lot of time, but it made any eventual success all the more
sweet.

I'm not sure the intent of newer modules was to abandon the old style
of gameplay, rather than instead transfer this load to other
supplements. Why bother to describe all the NPCs and monsters and
landscape where the adventure will take place IN THE MODULE when it's
already been well covered in the campaign guide-book? The idea being
that the DM would use the main sourcebook to fill in those 'in-between
spaces', and then the modules could be laser-focused on the actual
EVENTS of the adventure. It was a matter of efficiency.

Except... that's not how most DMs are going to run their games. Some
might not own the sourcebook, others might not know that they needed
it, others might just be lazy. So the end result was to use the
modules as the end-all/be-all of the adventure, which led to
led-by-the-nose campaigns where you jump from one encounter to the
next without the DM nor the players really needing to figure out how
to get from the one to the next.

Until that became the EXPECTED way of doing things, and now some
players and DMs rebel against open-world modules which expect you to
fill in the blanks for yourself.

(Not all of them though, which is what I think led to the divisiveness
of 4th Edition, which embraced the new 'encounter-first' philosophy,
which so turned off some players that it spawned 'old school gaming'
systems.)

5th Edition seems to trying to strike a balance between the two
philosophies, although for some (myself included) any compromise in
this regard is too much.



TL;DR: WOTC created the event-first adventure modules in the name of
efficiency and playtested it amongst experienced DMs who knew how to
read between the lines, but failed to take into account the average
D&D group isn't quite so inspired.
David Chmelik
2024-11-04 02:41:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spalls Hurgenson
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 07:36:43 -0000 (UTC), David Chmelik
Post by David Chmelik
You can't really hold up 1E and then say 2E is worse because of the
system itself.
People do because removed assassins, monks, etc... if bards, cavaliers,
druids, rangers, thief-acrobats weren't removed, were significantly
changed... Dungeon Master Guide (DMG) was significantly shortened,
removing much good material. That's why my AD&D DM retained everything
from AD&D 1e and used what he wanted from 2e. The point is by removing
relevant material, it basically became a variant--like mostly a subset
(smaller part of original with minor changes). The fact it was a money-
grab by new CEO (gamers in general hated, because she considered them
beneath her) after they got rid of the original D&D creators, is well-
documented. That doesn't make it bad to play if one allows older
compatible rules. Just, on their own, new editions overall got worse.
Except those character classes weren't really removed. They were added
back in by the first four splat-books, which were an intended part of
the redesign from the start. Similarly, a lot of the 'removed material'
from DMG was added back in with the Dungeon Master Guide books, which
-again- was the intended plan from the start.
Of course they were removed: returned in name only, not as the rules for
them were. The new ones are mostly/all entirely different classes just
with same name (sort of like BECMI D&D mystic is most similar to AD&D 1e
monk but a different class). There's at least one exception that AD&D 1e
monk rules were returned in a Forgotten Realms set/book, but they may have
been lawful evil only, and specific to Toril, though I've seen people use
rules in other campaign settings.
Justisaur
2024-11-08 13:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Chmelik
You can't really hold up 1E and then say 2E is worse because of the
system itself.
People do because removed assassins, monks, etc... if bards, cavaliers,
druids, rangers, thief-acrobats weren't removed, were significantly
changed... Dungeon Master Guide (DMG) was significantly shortened,
removing much good material. That's why my AD&D DM retained everything
from AD&D 1e and used what he wanted from 2e. The point is by removing
relevant material, it basically became a variant--like mostly a subset
(smaller part of original with minor changes). The fact it was a money-
grab by new CEO (gamers in general hated, because she considered them
beneath her) after they got rid of the original D&D creators, is well-
documented. That doesn't make it bad to play if one allows older
compatible rules. Just, on their own, new editions overall got worse.
My best campaigns were in 2e. I too used the 1e DMG to add certain bits
back in though.

I have to say the layouts and readability of 2e was better than any
version before or after it.
--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'
Kyonshi
2024-11-08 17:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Chmelik
You can't really hold up 1E and then say 2E is worse because of the
system itself.
People do because removed assassins, monks, etc... if bards, cavaliers,
druids, rangers, thief-acrobats weren't removed, were significantly
changed... Dungeon Master Guide (DMG) was significantly shortened,
removing much good material.  That's why my AD&D DM retained everything
from AD&D 1e and used what he wanted from 2e.  The point is by removing
relevant material, it basically became a variant--like mostly a subset
(smaller part of original with minor changes).  The fact it was a money-
grab by new CEO (gamers in general hated, because she considered them
beneath her) after they got rid of the original D&D creators, is well-
documented.  That doesn't make it bad to play if one allows older
compatible rules.  Just, on their own, new editions overall got worse.
My best campaigns were in 2e.  I too used the 1e DMG to add certain bits
back in though.
I have to say the layouts and readability of 2e was better than any
version before or after it.
I think 2e was a good, but slightly flawed system. It has neither the
weird Gygaxian approach of 1e, but it also isn't as overweight as 3e. It
was fine for what it was. I think it would not be bad if people would
start looking more fondly at 2e instead of 1e.

The issues mostly came with the glut of other products that TSR put out
without focus, many of them absolutely redundant to one another. Also I
guess sanitizing the system didn't help.

The game just felt... neutered.
Spalls Hurgenson
2024-11-09 01:47:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justisaur
Post by David Chmelik
You can't really hold up 1E and then say 2E is worse because of the
system itself.
People do because removed assassins, monks, etc... if bards, cavaliers,
druids, rangers, thief-acrobats weren't removed, were significantly
changed... Dungeon Master Guide (DMG) was significantly shortened,
removing much good material. That's why my AD&D DM retained everything
from AD&D 1e and used what he wanted from 2e. The point is by removing
relevant material, it basically became a variant--like mostly a subset
(smaller part of original with minor changes). The fact it was a money-
grab by new CEO (gamers in general hated, because she considered them
beneath her) after they got rid of the original D&D creators, is well-
documented. That doesn't make it bad to play if one allows older
compatible rules. Just, on their own, new editions overall got worse.
My best campaigns were in 2e. I too used the 1e DMG to add certain bits
back in though.
I have to say the layouts and readability of 2e was better than any
version before or after it.
I'd agree with layouts... maybe. Readability I think I'd give to D&D
Basic (Mentzer).

(and for overall presentation, Star Frontiers: Alpha Dawn. It wasn't
as easy to read, but boy did the visuals make me want to wade through
all that minutia!)

But 2nd Edition runs a close second. DMG and PHB both used the same
organizational structure, so topics covered in one book were
referenced in the same chapter in the other. It was extremely useful
when running the game. And the initial PHBR/DMGR guides fit in well
with that structure (the later splat-books less so, as TSR let its
greed overcome the ideas that made those books so welcome)

Even when playing later editions, I _still_ use some of those
guidebooks as helpful references (namely, "DMGR1 Campaign Sourcebook
and Catacomb Guide" which is chock full of good advice for a DM
running a campaign, and "DMGR3 Arms and Equipment Guide", which is
just a useful (if not historically accurate) visual reference to all
those fantasy weapons in the game.
Kyonshi
2024-11-12 18:55:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spalls Hurgenson
Even when playing later editions, I _still_ use some of those
guidebooks as helpful references (namely, "DMGR1 Campaign Sourcebook
and Catacomb Guide" which is chock full of good advice for a DM
running a campaign, and "DMGR3 Arms and Equipment Guide", which is
just a useful (if not historically accurate) visual reference to all
those fantasy weapons in the game.
Well, these books are fantastic resources. And I also use some more ADnD
2e books to work out stuff, only really good adventures are a bit rare
(and when I tried to point out some good ones I just realized those were
all 1e rereleases)
Spalls Hurgenson
2024-11-13 15:46:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kyonshi
Post by Spalls Hurgenson
Even when playing later editions, I _still_ use some of those
guidebooks as helpful references (namely, "DMGR1 Campaign Sourcebook
and Catacomb Guide" which is chock full of good advice for a DM
running a campaign, and "DMGR3 Arms and Equipment Guide", which is
just a useful (if not historically accurate) visual reference to all
those fantasy weapons in the game.
Well, these books are fantastic resources. And I also use some more ADnD
2e books to work out stuff, only really good adventures are a bit rare
(and when I tried to point out some good ones I just realized those were
all 1e rereleases)
2nd Ed definitely was better when it came to campaign expansions than
with its modules. There were a handful of great adventures ("Dragon
Mountain", "Planescape: Dead Gods", "Rod of Seven Parts") but on the
whole I remember the edition more for its stuff like the
aforementioned "DMGR3 Arms & Equipment Guide", "Ravenloft Boxed Set"
and "Aurora's Whole Realms Catalog".

Which was fine with me, because that was the era when I pretty much
stopped using retail adventures and started building up my own
campaign worlds. I still _bought_ them, being the good little consumer
(as "research" and "inspiration", I told myself) but most never really
interested me enough to run them.

[Some were just horrible, though. Pretty much everything
Dragonlance did in 2nd Ed was just _awful_.]

But I'm not really surprised. The game itself was changing. Early 1E
adventures were either extremely simplistic, or often whole
supplements unto themselves. They were good not so much for their
adventures but because of the realms they described for us. But with
TSR putting out more stand-alone campaign material, the modules
focused more on _just_ the adventures... and those just weren't
satisfactory on their own.

TL;DR: don't disagree with 2E modules, but I think it the decline has
less to do with the system and more to do with how the industry was
changing overall.
kyonshi
2024-11-14 20:04:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spalls Hurgenson
2nd Ed definitely was better when it came to campaign expansions than
with its modules. There were a handful of great adventures ("Dragon
Mountain", "Planescape: Dead Gods", "Rod of Seven Parts") but on the
whole I remember the edition more for its stuff like the
aforementioned "DMGR3 Arms & Equipment Guide", "Ravenloft Boxed Set"
and "Aurora's Whole Realms Catalog".
Yes, some of the campaign expansions were great. Some of the more
generic things like the Odyssey line as well.
I still don't know what to think about other stuff though, e.g. the
whole line of Dark Sun adventures. They were ultimately... fine. Not
great. Just fine.

On the other hand Planescape had a higher amount of usable material from
what I have seen.

(don't get me started on the Forgotten Realms which I started to despise
at that time, which only solidified with 3rd edition)
Post by Spalls Hurgenson
Which was fine with me, because that was the era when I pretty much
stopped using retail adventures and started building up my own
campaign worlds. I still _bought_ them, being the good little consumer
(as "research" and "inspiration", I told myself) but most never really
interested me enough to run them.
Oh yes, I call it collecting. Of course I don't really collect, I just
like having particular stuff in the shelf.
Post by Spalls Hurgenson
[Some were just horrible, though. Pretty much everything
Dragonlance did in 2nd Ed was just _awful_.]
I think it just outlived itself. The original Dragonlance adventures
might not be my favorite, but they told a story. The whole franchise was
basically desperately searching for what it's point was afterwards, and
failing.
Post by Spalls Hurgenson
But I'm not really surprised. The game itself was changing. Early 1E
adventures were either extremely simplistic, or often whole
supplements unto themselves. They were good not so much for their
adventures but because of the realms they described for us. But with
TSR putting out more stand-alone campaign material, the modules
focused more on _just_ the adventures... and those just weren't
satisfactory on their own.
I would claim that it made more money as well. It's a bit of a perverse
intent: the more you focused on just the adventure the more you had to
shell out for additional modules.
Funnily enough I didn't see that as so much of a problem in the 90s when
I was socialized into RPGs with The Dark Eye, which had this model from
the beginning. It was a revelation later when I realized how stuff like
Keep on the Borderlands was intended to give longer-lasting material for
adventures, not just a single plotline.

But yes, this became much more of a thing in the 90s. People started to
want the event driven adventures that 5e seems to have perfected. I
personally don't really like it, but it's an expression of roleplaying
just like the older types.
Post by Spalls Hurgenson
TL;DR: don't disagree with 2E modules, but I think it the decline has
less to do with the system and more to do with how the industry was
changing overall.
Spalls Hurgenson
2024-11-15 17:05:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by kyonshi
Post by Spalls Hurgenson
2nd Ed definitely was better when it came to campaign expansions than
with its modules. There were a handful of great adventures ("Dragon
Mountain", "Planescape: Dead Gods", "Rod of Seven Parts") but on the
whole I remember the edition more for its stuff like the
aforementioned "DMGR3 Arms & Equipment Guide", "Ravenloft Boxed Set"
and "Aurora's Whole Realms Catalog".
Yes, some of the campaign expansions were great. Some of the more
generic things like the Odyssey line as well.
I still don't know what to think about other stuff though, e.g. the
whole line of Dark Sun adventures. They were ultimately... fine. Not
great. Just fine.
On the other hand Planescape had a higher amount of usable material from
what I have seen.
The setting material was generally fine, and quite varied. You had
stuff like "Forgotten Realms" and "Greyhawk" and "Lankhmar" for
traditional adventures, then more out-there ideas like "Ravenloft",
"Spelljammer" and "Planescape". You had things like "Birthright" and
"Dark Sun" which took the game in entirely new directions. There were
the Historical Reference guides. There was the Odyssey and Savage
Coast lines. There was the 2E version of Mystara. There was spin-off
stuff like Al Qadim, Kara Tur, the Hordelands, Maztica. There was such
incredible variety in 2E that we really haven't seen in D&D since.
Post by kyonshi
(don't get me started on the Forgotten Realms which I started to despise
at that time, which only solidified with 3rd edition)
"Forgotten Realms" got kitchen-sinked by TSR. It was such a consistent
money-maker that TSR was happy to attach the brand to all sorts of
stuff. Most of the material was fine, but it made the setting
overburdened. It became exceptionally difficult to balance a campaign
that was -all at the same time- dark-ages fantasy, Oriental
adventures, Arabian fabula, new world exploration, and Renaissance-era
adventures. The constant need to one-up themselves didn't help either;
new monsters, new magic items, new (and ever higher level) threats...
the setting just became way to busy for its own good.

And in the rush to publish new stuff --to keep that money train
rolling-- TSR also pushed out some real stinkers. Often the core ideas
were sound, but a lack of supporting material (or just good editing)
meant they were unusable.

Still, if you stuck to any one particular corner of the Forgotten
Realms, you usually were safe. Of course, this put a lot of onus on
the DM, since any one region got very little support. But so long as
you stayed in that part of the world, it was largely consistent and
usable. It was only once your players pushed out into the larger
Forgotten Realms that the problems started becoming more obvious.
Post by kyonshi
Post by Spalls Hurgenson
[Some were just horrible, though. Pretty much everything
Dragonlance did in 2nd Ed was just _awful_.]
I think it just outlived itself. The original Dragonlance adventures
might not be my favorite, but they told a story. The whole franchise was
basically desperately searching for what it's point was afterwards, and
failing.
That's a problem with almost all Epics. Once you get to the end, it's
_really_ hard to move on from there. 'Congratulations, you've defeated
the Big Bad... but now what?' Well, you can decide the Big Bad comes
back, or maybe there's a bigger Bad, or maybe you just have some
half-hearted adventures in the world you just saved... but none of
those choices really have the same impact as the original quest. The
best thing you can do is just move onto something new entirely.

But Dragonlance was too popular and too lucrative for TSR, so they
tried to keep the story going. "Taladas" was okay, but too much of the
Dragonlance mythos was based around the Paladine/Takhisis struggle,
and wedging an entirely new continent into that battle just never
really fit. It was all very messy. It would have worked better
/outside/ the Dragonlance universe, but money demanded otherwise.
Post by kyonshi
Post by Spalls Hurgenson
But I'm not really surprised. The game itself was changing. Early 1E
adventures were either extremely simplistic, or often whole
supplements unto themselves. They were good not so much for their
adventures but because of the realms they described for us. But with
TSR putting out more stand-alone campaign material, the modules
focused more on _just_ the adventures... and those just weren't
satisfactory on their own.
I would claim that it made more money as well. It's a bit of a perverse
intent: the more you focused on just the adventure the more you had to
shell out for additional modules.
Oh, definitely. To play the G123 series in 1E, you needed the core
rulebooks and the three adventure modules. Everything was fairly self
contained.

But with later modules, you not only needed the rulebooks and the
modules, but the supporting campaign material too. Often you'd need
additional reference material as well (e.g., with Dark Sun, you _had_
to buy "PHBR5 The Psionics Manual"). Or any of the innumerable
"Monstrous Compendium" supplements! The Forgotten Realms were the
worst, since they'd release a "FRx supplement (e.g., FR11 Dwarves
Deep) then only one or two adventures for that region. Then they'd
repeat with the next supplement. So to play all the Forgotten Realms
modules, you'd need all the adventures and all the supplementary
material. A lot of them came in boxes too, just so TSR could up the
price.

TSR was ruthless in extracting money from their players. For a while,
it worked, but it started alienating them from their base. A lot of
players left for other systems solely for that reason. You just didn't
feel like you were getting value for money from TSR products anymore.
Zaghadka
2024-11-15 22:22:12 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 12:05:50 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson
Post by Spalls Hurgenson
Post by kyonshi
I think it just outlived itself. The original Dragonlance adventures
might not be my favorite, but they told a story. The whole franchise was
basically desperately searching for what it's point was afterwards, and
failing.
That's a problem with almost all Epics. Once you get to the end, it's
_really_ hard to move on from there. 'Congratulations, you've defeated
the Big Bad... but now what?' Well, you can decide the Big Bad comes
back, or maybe there's a bigger Bad, or maybe you just have some
half-hearted adventures in the world you just saved... but none of
those choices really have the same impact as the original quest. The
best thing you can do is just move onto something new entirely.
Babylon V handled it pretty well. Shadows are gone, as are all the elder
god races. Well, now what? You thought they were the *real problem*, but
somehow you still have problems, because there's never just one. There's
the big one, and you made the mistake of ignoring the rest.

It turned out that the BBEG became a distraction, their lurking allies
are *pissed*, and other evils, now blossoming, have flourished. There are
now multiple NQABBEGS (Not Quite As Big Bad Evil Guys). They're fighting
for the scraps and doing a lot of collateral damage. And one of them, by
the end of the campaign, will rise to become the new BBEG. After all, you
can't take on all of them at once. Will you make the same mistake?

Nothing half hearted about that. Heroing is hard.

Now, Babylon V didn't produce good *tv* after the 4th season retaking of
Earth, but the premise for the next season was great, and there were some
real gems in their 5th season.

I also have a boxed set of Crusader on my shelf as a cautionary tale.

(Yes. This is a threadjacking to Babylon V. I didn't crosspost though
because that group is dead.)
--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten
Spalls Hurgenson
2024-11-16 16:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zaghadka
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 12:05:50 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson
Post by Spalls Hurgenson
Post by kyonshi
I think it just outlived itself. The original Dragonlance adventures
might not be my favorite, but they told a story. The whole franchise was
basically desperately searching for what it's point was afterwards, and
failing.
That's a problem with almost all Epics. Once you get to the end, it's
_really_ hard to move on from there. 'Congratulations, you've defeated
the Big Bad... but now what?' Well, you can decide the Big Bad comes
back, or maybe there's a bigger Bad, or maybe you just have some
half-hearted adventures in the world you just saved... but none of
those choices really have the same impact as the original quest. The
best thing you can do is just move onto something new entirely.
Babylon V handled it pretty well. Shadows are gone, as are all the elder
god races. Well, now what? You thought they were the *real problem*, but
somehow you still have problems, because there's never just one. There's
the big one, and you made the mistake of ignoring the rest.
It turned out that the BBEG became a distraction, their lurking allies
are *pissed*, and other evils, now blossoming, have flourished. There are
now multiple NQABBEGS (Not Quite As Big Bad Evil Guys). They're fighting
for the scraps and doing a lot of collateral damage. And one of them, by
the end of the campaign, will rise to become the new BBEG. After all, you
can't take on all of them at once. Will you make the same mistake?
Nothing half hearted about that. Heroing is hard.
Now, Babylon V didn't produce good *tv* after the 4th season retaking of
Earth, but the premise for the next season was great, and there were some
real gems in their 5th season.
I also have a boxed set of Crusader on my shelf as a cautionary tale.
(Yes. This is a threadjacking to Babylon V. I didn't crosspost though
because that group is dead.)
The difference, of course, is that the plot of Babylon 5 from the
beginning included the 'post war' storyline. There's very little to
Tolkien or Dragonlance that supports 'what happens after' adventuring.

And I'd point out that even _with_ that, there's been very little
support for new Babylon 5 material. Crusader tried, and it didn't do
very well. It's hard to get invested in a series when the
bigger-than-life heroes aren't involved, and all the villains are just
local ruffians compared to the Big Bads that were defeated in the main
arc.

I mean, once you Save The World, it's really hard to top that.

You either end up increasing the threat to ludicris new levels (see
Star Wars prequels: new death star, except this one can blow up FIVE
planets at the same time and not even be in the same solar system! And
two movies later, the good guys face off against a fleet of thousands
of spaceships each armed with a death-star laser!) or you just have a
bunch of guys fighting orcs. Either way, there's just no sense of
tension. There's no drama, because the stakes are either worthless
(because you know there will be a sequel with an even more stupidly
overpowered boss, or because the villains are nobodies).

When an epic's over, the best thing you can do is just... let it go.
Sure, logically there still might be adventures to be had, but none of
them will have the same emotional impact. You're just weaking the
original story while offering poor and poorer sequels.

And that was DragonLance's problem to a tee. There was no real place
for the story to go after Takhisis was defeated in "DL14 Dragons of
Triumph". Sure, there was the usual 'I'll be back' villainous ranting,
with a bit of 'the adventure continues...' at the tail-end, but it
could never top the main quest. Especially since the whole world of
Ansalon was built around that main quest, and attempts to wedge in
more adventures felt incredibly artificial. The Dragonlance world was
a shell designed to facilitate the main quest. It didn't have the
depth for anything beyond that, despite all the work and effort of TSR
to prove otherwise.

Still... that main quest really was something. It's remembered fondly
by millions for a reason.

Loading...