edition wars

[David Chmelik]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Spalls Hurgenson]

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]

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]

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]

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)

[David Chmelik]

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.