Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

What did you like/hate about AD&D 2nd Edition

24

Comments

  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,757
    edited May 4
    Kyleran said:
    I think 2nd edition still had Paladins as human, lawful good only alignment, if so, it gets my vote for best feature.


    I believe in one of their "Splatbooks" as they are sometimes called, or "The Complete Guide to" in this case, the Complete Guide to Paladins, not only did they put in every race for paladins, they also put in an archetype for every alignment. Which meant that if you wanted to, you could roll up a Chaotic Evil Drow Paladin.

    Man those "Complete" guides were both an awesome addition to the game a total curse to 2nd Edition.
    Caffynated
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,291
    AlBQuirky said:
    <snip>
    What I find interesting about all D&D editions is the simplification of combat. <snip>

    D&D, in all it's forms/editions is a superb vehicle for "community storytelling" with bits of combat and action thrown in :)
    <snip>

    In context: "Dungeons & Dragons" was not the only game out there.

    In the beginning there was table top. And TSR said let there be rules. For WWI, for Romans, WWII, Carthaginians etc. For catapults and gatling gunds. And, in 1971, for giants and fireballs when Chainmail was released. TSR, publishers of Tactical Studies Rules. Then ...

    In 1974 Empire of the Petal Throne (EPT) (1974) was published. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_the_Petal_Throne 
    As was Basic D&D.  
    Not sure which came first but EPT was far, far more complicated and fleshed out than D&D!
    And in 1977 Chivalry & Sorcery (C&S) the, imo, undisputed champion of complex was first published.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry_&_Sorcery

    I played C&S, EPT and D&D. The people I gamed with discussed the pros and cons. Some liked complicated. Most of us didn't want to spend all day making sure our sword were sharp enough before attacking a mob .... you get the gist. If we wanted complicated we did tabletop or some of the S&T (Strategy & Tactics) "hex based" games. 

    D&D was "complicated enough" to facilitate what @AIBQuirky called community storytelling.

    As the rules evolved so did the discussions about "complicated". The move to Greyhawk - the first expansion to the original basic D&D - prompted a discussion. The arrival of AD&D (1st edition) prompted a big discussion. 

    I don't recall any big debate about the move from 1st ed. to 2nd ed. AD&D. Maybe that was me. At the end of the day you went with what the DM decreed - regardless of whether you had a 1st ed. set or 2nd ed set of AD&D. People typically had a mix of 1st or 2nd ed. books as well.  

    The arrival of Runequest also prompted a discussion. It was a simpler system but it was also well developed. Its ensuing popularity, imo. helped stop D&D becoming more and more complicated simply as a way of trying to sell more manuals. I think it was Runequest that resulted in THAC0 as well - not sure though.) 

    There were other games as well. Some - complicated - often based on C&S. Some based on Runequest. Plus expansions to AD&D or Runequest. (Some based on Traveller as well, an SF ruleset). Note: Warhammer represented a reversion to tabletop. (Yes there was a boxed game/ruleset.)  


    Context 2:
    The above is just my recollection. What I took part in in groups. What I observed at conventions which brought lots of people together. What I sometimes discussed when running competition dungeons or when giving talks: lots of questions and answers.

    There were discrepancies and I wrote articles about some of them - to go with the dungeons, adventures and other stuff I had published. Discussions followed, inputs from Gygax etc. I will stress though this remains simply my take on stuff - a quick overview at that.

    Anyway 2nd ed came out and it went on from there of course. I do believe though that Runequest helped keep things simple.

     
    TorvalAlBQuirky
  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,277
    My most disliked feature of 2nd Ed was that the game slavishly adhered to the 1st Ed Spells/day concept.  While it was intended to force spell casters to show some constraint, few did.  Entirely too many DMs capitulated with this by allowing players to 'spend the night' in every room in a dungeon.  The seemingly intended restriction of spells/day became a contest against the DM's random encounter roll (and the DM's laxity).  Competitor's games around the time were dabbling in a various cost-to-cast systems.  AD&D's adherence to the spell/day concept wasn't nearly as flexible, and made the game seem dated, even in the early-to-mid 80s.

    I am still totally in awe of the D&D systems.  Where else can a company sell us 'rules' where the basic premise is 'whatever the DM says, goes'?  The entire D&D experience is more a suggested set of guidelines rather than a concrete rules system.  And we bought it.

    P.T. Barnum might as well have been describing TSR's customers with his sucker observation.



    AlBQuirky

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • Sal1Sal1 Member UncommonPosts: 333
    Mendel said:
    My most disliked feature of 2nd Ed was that the game slavishly adhered to the 1st Ed Spells/day concept.  While it was intended to force spell casters to show some constraint, few did.  Entirely too many DMs capitulated with this by allowing players to 'spend the night' in every room in a dungeon.  The seemingly intended restriction of spells/day became a contest against the DM's random encounter roll (and the DM's laxity).  Competitor's games around the time were dabbling in a various cost-to-cast systems.  AD&D's adherence to the spell/day concept wasn't nearly as flexible, and made the game seem dated, even in the early-to-mid 80s.

    I am still totally in awe of the D&D systems.  Where else can a company sell us 'rules' where the basic premise is 'whatever the DM says, goes'?  The entire D&D experience is more a suggested set of guidelines rather than a concrete rules system.  And we bought it.

    P.T. Barnum might as well have been describing TSR's customers with his sucker observation.



    Read my previous post. I was not a sucker. I had hours of fun that TSR and Gary Gygax gave me. I wish I had had more money back then to give to them. But I was only a teenager. The hours to dollars ratio cannot be explained to you. :-P
  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,048
    I think D&D had the best ruleset for a game. Not Advanced D&D. The advanced rules get in the way of an enjoyable playing experience since we are not talking about a computer program automatically processing the rules.
    In my experience simple rules help develop the metagame and makes a game more approachable for the core mechanics it wishes to push forward.
    gervaise1Galadourn
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,757
    gervaise1 said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    <snip>
    What I find interesting about all D&D editions is the simplification of combat. <snip>

    D&D, in all it's forms/editions is a superb vehicle for "community storytelling" with bits of combat and action thrown in :)
    <snip>

    In context: "Dungeons & Dragons" was not the only game out there.

    In the beginning there was table top. And TSR said let there be rules. For WWI, for Romans, WWII, Carthaginians etc. For catapults and gatling gunds. And, in 1971, for giants and fireballs when Chainmail was released. TSR, publishers of Tactical Studies Rules. Then ...

    In 1974 Empire of the Petal Throne (EPT) (1974) was published. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_the_Petal_Throne 
    As was Basic D&D.  
    Not sure which came first but EPT was far, far more complicated and fleshed out than D&D!
    And in 1977 Chivalry & Sorcery (C&S) the, imo, undisputed champion of complex was first published.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry_&_Sorcery

    I played C&S, EPT and D&D. The people I gamed with discussed the pros and cons. Some liked complicated. Most of us didn't want to spend all day making sure our sword were sharp enough before attacking a mob .... you get the gist. If we wanted complicated we did tabletop or some of the S&T (Strategy & Tactics) "hex based" games. 

    D&D was "complicated enough" to facilitate what @AIBQuirky called community storytelling.

    As the rules evolved so did the discussions about "complicated". The move to Greyhawk - the first expansion to the original basic D&D - prompted a discussion. The arrival of AD&D (1st edition) prompted a big discussion. 

    I don't recall any big debate about the move from 1st ed. to 2nd ed. AD&D. Maybe that was me. At the end of the day you went with what the DM decreed - regardless of whether you had a 1st ed. set or 2nd ed set of AD&D. People typically had a mix of 1st or 2nd ed. books as well.  

    The arrival of Runequest also prompted a discussion. It was a simpler system but it was also well developed. Its ensuing popularity, imo. helped stop D&D becoming more and more complicated simply as a way of trying to sell more manuals. I think it was Runequest that resulted in THAC0 as well - not sure though.) 

    There were other games as well. Some - complicated - often based on C&S. Some based on Runequest. Plus expansions to AD&D or Runequest. (Some based on Traveller as well, an SF ruleset). Note: Warhammer represented a reversion to tabletop. (Yes there was a boxed game/ruleset.)  


    Context 2:
    The above is just my recollection. What I took part in in groups. What I observed at conventions which brought lots of people together. What I sometimes discussed when running competition dungeons or when giving talks: lots of questions and answers.

    There were discrepancies and I wrote articles about some of them - to go with the dungeons, adventures and other stuff I had published. Discussions followed, inputs from Gygax etc. I will stress though this remains simply my take on stuff - a quick overview at that.

    Anyway 2nd ed came out and it went on from there of course. I do believe though that Runequest helped keep things simple.

     
    Hummmm.. 

    This kinda disagrees with what I have always thought.

    As I understood things.

    Dungeons and Dragons, is what we call 1st Edition.

    Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, is what we called 2nd Edition.

    Now, the rules between 1st and 2nd did not work well at all, given that in Dungeons and Dragons, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, were both a Race and a Class designation, with only Humans being able to have an Actual "Class"

    Now AFIK, there is no AD&D 2nd Edition Books.. but you know, I am open to being wrong on this one, as AD&D did go through a lot of changes, with Dragon Magazine offering Additional rules, as well as many.. a great many.. additional books were added to the system, everything from things like Unearth Arcaina, Oriental Adventures, and Fiend Folio, Manual of the Planes, Dungeoneers Survival Guide, Wilderness Survival Guide, to later with just sheer volumed added, with things like Monster Manual II, as well as 'reprints' of many of the original books, like Players Handbook, DM's Guide, Monster Manual, and Deities and Demigods, that had ever so slight rules changes in them.

    So.. in that venture, I suppose.. people could have made a claim that AD&D evolved from one edition to another without an official Edition being declared, like they did with 3rd edition.

    It was a very vast game, or at least grew into one.
    gervaise1
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,757
    Mendel said:
    My most disliked feature of 2nd Ed was that the game slavishly adhered to the 1st Ed Spells/day concept.  While it was intended to force spell casters to show some constraint, few did.  Entirely too many DMs capitulated with this by allowing players to 'spend the night' in every room in a dungeon.  The seemingly intended restriction of spells/day became a contest against the DM's random encounter roll (and the DM's laxity).  Competitor's games around the time were dabbling in a various cost-to-cast systems.  AD&D's adherence to the spell/day concept wasn't nearly as flexible, and made the game seem dated, even in the early-to-mid 80s.

    I am still totally in awe of the D&D systems.  Where else can a company sell us 'rules' where the basic premise is 'whatever the DM says, goes'?  The entire D&D experience is more a suggested set of guidelines rather than a concrete rules system.  And we bought it.

    P.T. Barnum might as well have been describing TSR's customers with his sucker observation.



    The fact that the rules were not set in stone was there so that the DM could world build, even adapt to situations and allow for off the cuff encounters.

    Otherwise, if the rules were set in stone, with zero allowance for anything, you may as well go play a single player computer game and get the same feeling.

    In fact, people that would argue the rules and rules lawyer like they were set in stone, made me wish they would go away and play a computer game.

    After all.. Zork was released in 1977, so.. RPG games did exist for players who could not handle just having some fun, and playing a game of make-believe with base rules to work from, without being anal about it.

    Which.. people getting really nasty about rules lawyering and sucking the life out a game and crying about everything, is why I gave up on Table Top games and moved to video games, where they can take the rules as they are, or go home.. which I would often rather they went home.
  • Sal1Sal1 Member UncommonPosts: 333
    Ungood said:
    gervaise1 said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    <snip>
    What I find interesting about all D&D editions is the simplification of combat. <snip>

    D&D, in all it's forms/editions is a superb vehicle for "community storytelling" with bits of combat and action thrown in :)
    <snip>

    In context: "Dungeons & Dragons" was not the only game out there.

    In the beginning there was table top. And TSR said let there be rules. For WWI, for Romans, WWII, Carthaginians etc. For catapults and gatling gunds. And, in 1971, for giants and fireballs when Chainmail was released. TSR, publishers of Tactical Studies Rules. Then ...

    In 1974 Empire of the Petal Throne (EPT) (1974) was published. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_the_Petal_Throne 
    As was Basic D&D.  
    Not sure which came first but EPT was far, far more complicated and fleshed out than D&D!
    And in 1977 Chivalry & Sorcery (C&S) the, imo, undisputed champion of complex was first published.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry_&_Sorcery

    I played C&S, EPT and D&D. The people I gamed with discussed the pros and cons. Some liked complicated. Most of us didn't want to spend all day making sure our sword were sharp enough before attacking a mob .... you get the gist. If we wanted complicated we did tabletop or some of the S&T (Strategy & Tactics) "hex based" games. 

    D&D was "complicated enough" to facilitate what @AIBQuirky called community storytelling.

    As the rules evolved so did the discussions about "complicated". The move to Greyhawk - the first expansion to the original basic D&D - prompted a discussion. The arrival of AD&D (1st edition) prompted a big discussion. 

    I don't recall any big debate about the move from 1st ed. to 2nd ed. AD&D. Maybe that was me. At the end of the day you went with what the DM decreed - regardless of whether you had a 1st ed. set or 2nd ed set of AD&D. People typically had a mix of 1st or 2nd ed. books as well.  

    The arrival of Runequest also prompted a discussion. It was a simpler system but it was also well developed. Its ensuing popularity, imo. helped stop D&D becoming more and more complicated simply as a way of trying to sell more manuals. I think it was Runequest that resulted in THAC0 as well - not sure though.) 

    There were other games as well. Some - complicated - often based on C&S. Some based on Runequest. Plus expansions to AD&D or Runequest. (Some based on Traveller as well, an SF ruleset). Note: Warhammer represented a reversion to tabletop. (Yes there was a boxed game/ruleset.)  


    Context 2:
    The above is just my recollection. What I took part in in groups. What I observed at conventions which brought lots of people together. What I sometimes discussed when running competition dungeons or when giving talks: lots of questions and answers.

    There were discrepancies and I wrote articles about some of them - to go with the dungeons, adventures and other stuff I had published. Discussions followed, inputs from Gygax etc. I will stress though this remains simply my take on stuff - a quick overview at that.

    Anyway 2nd ed came out and it went on from there of course. I do believe though that Runequest helped keep things simple.

     
    Hummmm.. 

    This kinda disagrees with what I have always thought.

    As I understood things.

    Dungeons and Dragons, is what we call 1st Edition.

    Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, is what we called 2nd Edition.

    Now, the rules between 1st and 2nd did not work well at all, given that in Dungeons and Dragons, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, were both a Race and a Class designation, with only Humans being able to have an Actual "Class"

    Now AFIK, there is no AD&D 2nd Edition Books.. but you know, I am open to being wrong on this one, as AD&D did go through a lot of changes, with Dragon Magazine offering Additional rules, as well as many.. a great many.. additional books were added to the system, everything from things like Unearth Arcaina, Oriental Adventures, and Fiend Folio, Manual of the Planes, Dungeoneers Survival Guide, Wilderness Survival Guide, to later with just sheer volumed added, with things like Monster Manual II, as well as 'reprints' of many of the original books, like Players Handbook, DM's Guide, Monster Manual, and Deities and Demigods, that had ever so slight rules changes in them.

    So.. in that venture, I suppose.. people could have made a claim that AD&D evolved from one edition to another without an official Edition being declared, like they did with 3rd edition.

    It was a very vast game, or at least grew into one.
    I believe there were Elves and Dwarves as races in the original Basic Dungeons and Dragons rule set.
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,291
    Ungood said:
    gervaise1 said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    <snip>
    What I find interesting about all D&D editions is the simplification of combat. <snip>

    D&D, in all it's forms/editions is a superb vehicle for "community storytelling" with bits of combat and action thrown in :)
    <snip>

    In context: "Dungeons & Dragons" was not the only game out there.

    In the beginning there was table top. And TSR said let there be rules. For WWI, for Romans, WWII, Carthaginians etc. For catapults and gatling gunds. And, in 1971, for giants and fireballs when Chainmail was released. TSR, publishers of Tactical Studies Rules. Then ...

    In 1974 Empire of the Petal Throne (EPT) (1974) was published. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_the_Petal_Throne 
    As was Basic D&D.  
    Not sure which came first but EPT was far, far more complicated and fleshed out than D&D!
    And in 1977 Chivalry & Sorcery (C&S) the, imo, undisputed champion of complex was first published.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry_&_Sorcery

    I played C&S, EPT and D&D. The people I gamed with discussed the pros and cons. Some liked complicated. Most of us didn't want to spend all day making sure our sword were sharp enough before attacking a mob .... you get the gist. If we wanted complicated we did tabletop or some of the S&T (Strategy & Tactics) "hex based" games. 

    D&D was "complicated enough" to facilitate what @AIBQuirky called community storytelling.

    As the rules evolved so did the discussions about "complicated". The move to Greyhawk - the first expansion to the original basic D&D - prompted a discussion. The arrival of AD&D (1st edition) prompted a big discussion. 

    I don't recall any big debate about the move from 1st ed. to 2nd ed. AD&D. Maybe that was me. At the end of the day you went with what the DM decreed - regardless of whether you had a 1st ed. set or 2nd ed set of AD&D. People typically had a mix of 1st or 2nd ed. books as well.  

    The arrival of Runequest also prompted a discussion. It was a simpler system but it was also well developed. Its ensuing popularity, imo. helped stop D&D becoming more and more complicated simply as a way of trying to sell more manuals. I think it was Runequest that resulted in THAC0 as well - not sure though.) 

    There were other games as well. Some - complicated - often based on C&S. Some based on Runequest. Plus expansions to AD&D or Runequest. (Some based on Traveller as well, an SF ruleset). Note: Warhammer represented a reversion to tabletop. (Yes there was a boxed game/ruleset.)  


    Context 2:
    The above is just my recollection. What I took part in in groups. What I observed at conventions which brought lots of people together. What I sometimes discussed when running competition dungeons or when giving talks: lots of questions and answers.

    There were discrepancies and I wrote articles about some of them - to go with the dungeons, adventures and other stuff I had published. Discussions followed, inputs from Gygax etc. I will stress though this remains simply my take on stuff - a quick overview at that.

    Anyway 2nd ed came out and it went on from there of course. I do believe though that Runequest helped keep things simple.

     
    Hummmm.. 

    This kinda disagrees with what I have always thought.

    As I understood things.

    Dungeons and Dragons, is what we call 1st Edition.

    Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, is what we called 2nd Edition.

    Now, the rules between 1st and 2nd did not work well at all, given that in Dungeons and Dragons, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, were both a Race and a Class designation, with only Humans being able to have an Actual "Class"

    Now AFIK, there is no AD&D 2nd Edition Books.. but you know, I am open to being wrong on this one, as AD&D did go through a lot of changes, with Dragon Magazine offering Additional rules, as well as many.. a great many.. additional books were added to the system, everything from things like Unearth Arcaina, Oriental Adventures, and Fiend Folio, Manual of the Planes, Dungeoneers Survival Guide, Wilderness Survival Guide, to later with just sheer volumed added, with things like Monster Manual II, as well as 'reprints' of many of the original books, like Players Handbook, DM's Guide, Monster Manual, and Deities and Demigods, that had ever so slight rules changes in them.

    So.. in that venture, I suppose.. people could have made a claim that AD&D evolved from one edition to another without an official Edition being declared, like they did with 3rd edition.

    It was a very vast game, or at least grew into one.


    I was going to say "maybe" and "I would go and check in the attic to see what my AD&D copy said 1st printing or 1st edition". I checked wiki first though and it suggests that there was both a 1st edition AD&D and a later 2nd edition.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_&_Dragons#Advanced_Dungeons_&amp;_Dragons

    I never upgraded though. Pretty sure I never got one later. No one I know did either! So I couldn't say what - if anything - was different. Or what the inside cover said. Later editions - courtesy of children who have now moved out I could check if I really wanted to!)

    Nor And as the wiki doesn't list Greyhawk as a key publication 

    It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest though if someone who bought AD&D "2nd edition" and didn't know about the 1st edition thought that D&D was the "1st edition".

    As I said though there were lots of discrepancies and I only picked up on them because I attended e.g. conventions + its the type of thing I have always picked up on.

    And as you say it became "vast" with lots of later publications as you say. The merits of which could be debated of course!
    Ungood
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,757
    gervaise1 said:
    Ungood said:
    gervaise1 said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    <snip>
    What I find interesting about all D&D editions is the simplification of combat. <snip>

    D&D, in all it's forms/editions is a superb vehicle for "community storytelling" with bits of combat and action thrown in :)
    <snip>

    In context: "Dungeons & Dragons" was not the only game out there.

    In the beginning there was table top. And TSR said let there be rules. For WWI, for Romans, WWII, Carthaginians etc. For catapults and gatling gunds. And, in 1971, for giants and fireballs when Chainmail was released. TSR, publishers of Tactical Studies Rules. Then ...

    In 1974 Empire of the Petal Throne (EPT) (1974) was published. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_the_Petal_Throne 
    As was Basic D&D.  
    Not sure which came first but EPT was far, far more complicated and fleshed out than D&D!
    And in 1977 Chivalry & Sorcery (C&S) the, imo, undisputed champion of complex was first published.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry_&_Sorcery

    I played C&S, EPT and D&D. The people I gamed with discussed the pros and cons. Some liked complicated. Most of us didn't want to spend all day making sure our sword were sharp enough before attacking a mob .... you get the gist. If we wanted complicated we did tabletop or some of the S&T (Strategy & Tactics) "hex based" games. 

    D&D was "complicated enough" to facilitate what @AIBQuirky called community storytelling.

    As the rules evolved so did the discussions about "complicated". The move to Greyhawk - the first expansion to the original basic D&D - prompted a discussion. The arrival of AD&D (1st edition) prompted a big discussion. 

    I don't recall any big debate about the move from 1st ed. to 2nd ed. AD&D. Maybe that was me. At the end of the day you went with what the DM decreed - regardless of whether you had a 1st ed. set or 2nd ed set of AD&D. People typically had a mix of 1st or 2nd ed. books as well.  

    The arrival of Runequest also prompted a discussion. It was a simpler system but it was also well developed. Its ensuing popularity, imo. helped stop D&D becoming more and more complicated simply as a way of trying to sell more manuals. I think it was Runequest that resulted in THAC0 as well - not sure though.) 

    There were other games as well. Some - complicated - often based on C&S. Some based on Runequest. Plus expansions to AD&D or Runequest. (Some based on Traveller as well, an SF ruleset). Note: Warhammer represented a reversion to tabletop. (Yes there was a boxed game/ruleset.)  


    Context 2:
    The above is just my recollection. What I took part in in groups. What I observed at conventions which brought lots of people together. What I sometimes discussed when running competition dungeons or when giving talks: lots of questions and answers.

    There were discrepancies and I wrote articles about some of them - to go with the dungeons, adventures and other stuff I had published. Discussions followed, inputs from Gygax etc. I will stress though this remains simply my take on stuff - a quick overview at that.

    Anyway 2nd ed came out and it went on from there of course. I do believe though that Runequest helped keep things simple.

     
    Hummmm.. 

    This kinda disagrees with what I have always thought.

    As I understood things.

    Dungeons and Dragons, is what we call 1st Edition.

    Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, is what we called 2nd Edition.

    Now, the rules between 1st and 2nd did not work well at all, given that in Dungeons and Dragons, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, were both a Race and a Class designation, with only Humans being able to have an Actual "Class"

    Now AFIK, there is no AD&D 2nd Edition Books.. but you know, I am open to being wrong on this one, as AD&D did go through a lot of changes, with Dragon Magazine offering Additional rules, as well as many.. a great many.. additional books were added to the system, everything from things like Unearth Arcaina, Oriental Adventures, and Fiend Folio, Manual of the Planes, Dungeoneers Survival Guide, Wilderness Survival Guide, to later with just sheer volumed added, with things like Monster Manual II, as well as 'reprints' of many of the original books, like Players Handbook, DM's Guide, Monster Manual, and Deities and Demigods, that had ever so slight rules changes in them.

    So.. in that venture, I suppose.. people could have made a claim that AD&D evolved from one edition to another without an official Edition being declared, like they did with 3rd edition.

    It was a very vast game, or at least grew into one.


    I was going to say "maybe" and "I would go and check in the attic to see what my AD&D copy said 1st printing or 1st edition". I checked wiki first though and it suggests that there was both a 1st edition AD&D and a later 2nd edition.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_&_Dragons#Advanced_Dungeons_&amp;_Dragons

    I never upgraded though. Pretty sure I never got one later. No one I know did either! So I couldn't say what - if anything - was different. Or what the inside cover said. Later editions - courtesy of children who have now moved out I could check if I really wanted to!)

    Nor And as the wiki doesn't list Greyhawk as a key publication 

    It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest though if someone who bought AD&D "2nd edition" and didn't know about the 1st edition thought that D&D was the "1st edition".

    As I said though there were lots of discrepancies and I only picked up on them because I attended e.g. conventions + its the type of thing I have always picked up on.

    And as you say it became "vast" with lots of later publications as you say. The merits of which could be debated of course!
    Oh hell that link brought back memories.. none good mind you.

    Now that you linked that.. Yah.. and I recall one of things they did was remove Assassin, because one of my players made me end the campaign before it started over not being able to play an assassin.

    Never could understand why people always had to ruin games like that.. which is why I stopped playing.
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,291
    Sal1 said:

    I believe there were Elves and Dwarves as races in the original Basic Dungeons and Dragons rule set.
    Out of curiosity I looked.

    Acording to the Basic D&D "rules" - first printing for the avoidance of doubt - there were:

    Elves - able to start as a Fighter (limited to 4th level) or a Mage (limited to 8th level) and able to switch class between but not during adventures.

    Dwarves - limited to fighters max level 6.

    Halflings - limited to fighter max level .

    Humans are mentioned only insofar as they can be mages and that clerics have to be human. 

    And then they add this: there is "no reason why a player cannot be allowed to play as anything" and gives an example of a Dragon.

    Which is aligned to what the introduction says: play as you want basically, make it up as you go.


    There were also "inconsistencies". On changing class, for example, it doesn't recommend it - having already said that elves are dual classed and can not be clerics; halflings and dwarves are limited to fighters only and that no character could be a mage and a cleric. Obviously they were talking about human clerics / figthers. Oh and Dragons etc. of course!


    Simpler times!

  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,757
    gervaise1 said:
    Sal1 said:

    I believe there were Elves and Dwarves as races in the original Basic Dungeons and Dragons rule set.
    Out of curiosity I looked.

    Acording to the Basic D&D "rules" - first printing for the avoidance of doubt - there were:

    Elves - able to start as a Fighter (limited to 4th level) or a Mage (limited to 8th level) and able to switch class between but not during adventures.

    Dwarves - limited to fighters max level 6.

    Halflings - limited to fighter max level .

    Humans are mentioned only insofar as they can be mages and that clerics have to be human. 

    And then they add this: there is "no reason why a player cannot be allowed to play as anything" and gives an example of a Dragon.

    Which is aligned to what the introduction says: play as you want basically, make it up as you go.


    There were also "inconsistencies". On changing class, for example, it doesn't recommend it - having already said that elves are dual classed and can not be clerics; halflings and dwarves are limited to fighters only and that no character could be a mage and a cleric. Obviously they were talking about human clerics / figthers. Oh and Dragons etc. of course!


    Simpler times!

    From the Wiki, because.. I am a lazy shit.

    Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set[edit]

    Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set classes
    Human classesClericDruidFighter,
    Magic UserThief
    Demi-human classesDwarfElfHalfling

    The second version of the Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set combined the idea of race and class; non-human races did not have classes. Hence, a character might be a (human) Cleric or else simply an "Elf" or "Dwarf". The Basic Set presented four human classes: Cleric, Fighter, Magic User and Thief, and three demi-human classes: Dwarf, Elf and Halfling. The Companion Set introduced four optional classes for high-level characters: the Avenger, Paladin and Knight for Fighters, and the Druid for Clerics. The Master Set introduced one additional class: the Mystic. The Gazetteer series included many optional classes for humans and non-humans, including the shaman (GAZ12) and shamani (GAZ14). Additional human and race classes were also presented in other supplements.

  • previnprevin Member UncommonPosts: 47
    1st Ed - Hated Levels
    2nd Ed - Hated Levels
    3rd Ed - Hated Levels
    3.5 Ed - Hated Levels
    4th Ed - never played - would have hated levels
    5E - hate levels
    PF - Hated levels
    Every d20 system that had/has level - hate levels

    Levels are a crutch.
    Galadourn
  • bonzoso21bonzoso21 Member UncommonPosts: 294
    I was born in '82 and started playing D&D in 4th grade, and can 100% confirm that all of those AD&D manuals say "2nd Edition" on them. I upgraded to 3rd edition during college, but haven't played since those days. Oh, to be young again, working at Blockbuster Video, playing gigs in a rock band on weekends, and late nights of D&D...those were the days. 
    Ungood
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,291
    edited May 5
    Ungood said:
    gervaise1 said:
    Sal1 said:

    I believe there were Elves and Dwarves as races in the original Basic Dungeons and Dragons rule set.
    Out of curiosity I looked.

    Acording to the Basic D&D "rules" - first printing for the avoidance of doubt - there were:

    Elves - able to start as a Fighter (limited to 4th level) or a Mage (limited to 8th level) and able to switch class between but not during adventures.

    Dwarves - limited to fighters max level 6.

    Halflings - limited to fighter max level .

    Humans are mentioned only insofar as they can be mages and that clerics have to be human. 

    And then they add this: there is "no reason why a player cannot be allowed to play as anything" and gives an example of a Dragon.

    Which is aligned to what the introduction says: play as you want basically, make it up as you go.


    There were also "inconsistencies". On changing class, for example, it doesn't recommend it - having already said that elves are dual classed and can not be clerics; halflings and dwarves are limited to fighters only and that no character could be a mage and a cleric. Obviously they were talking about human clerics / figthers. Oh and Dragons etc. of course!


    Simpler times!

    From the Wiki, because.. I am a lazy shit.

    Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set[edit]

    Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set classes
    Human classesClericDruidFighter,
    Magic UserThief
    Demi-human classesDwarfElfHalfling

    The second version of the Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set combined the idea of race and class; non-human races did not have classes. Hence, a character might be a (human) Cleric or else simply an "Elf" or "Dwarf". The Basic Set presented four human classes: Cleric, Fighter, Magic User and Thief, and three demi-human classes: Dwarf, Elf and Halfling. The Companion Set introduced four optional classes for high-level characters: the Avenger, Paladin and Knight for Fighters, and the Druid for Clerics. The Master Set introduced one additional class: the Mystic. The Gazetteer series included many optional classes for humans and non-humans, including the shaman (GAZ12) and shamani (GAZ14). Additional human and race classes were also presented in other supplements.

    No idea what the "Basic Set" said.

    I went and got my first printing (1974) booklets down off a shelf. 

    Thieves, for example, were added with Greyhawk - the booklet that came after the first three booklets - which isn't listed in the wiki. Other changes as well which is why its adoption prompted a discussion.

    The link to the Basic Set is to a version "based on" the earlier publications. 

    Edit: Druids were added with Supplement III Eldritch Wizardry by Gygax & Blume
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,291
    edited May 5
    bonzoso21 said:
    I was born in '82 and started playing D&D in 4th grade, and can 100% confirm that all of those AD&D manuals say "2nd Edition" on them. I upgraded to 3rd edition during college, but haven't played since those days. Oh, to be young again, working at Blockbuster Video, playing gigs in a rock band on weekends, and late nights of D&D...those were the days. 
    Mine do say 1st edition (checked). I did buy them before you were born though. Oh  to be young again indeed.
    TorvalAlBQuirky
  • ArglebargleArglebargle Member RarePosts: 2,608
    First you had what we termed as OD&D (or Old D&D).  The first box and additions.  But pretty much everyone played VD&D (Variant D&D), because the rules were so murky and haphazard.    Around here it was said that a generation of game designers were born due to everyone having to make judgments and develop their own interpretations of the rules.

    Then AD&D, AD&D(2nd ed), AD&D(3.x ed) and so on.  The 2nd edition snuck in skills and non combat stuff, mostly due to Aaron Allston.   The 3rd edition went deeper into convoluted while still keeping the classic D&D element of murky and haphazard.  

    The 2nd edition is still my favorite, but I didn't play much AD&D at all, having moved over to Runequest and Champions.
    Torvalgervaise1

    If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.

  • AethaerynAethaeryn Member RarePosts: 3,011
    Sal1 said:
    Ungood said:
    gervaise1 said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    <snip>
    What I find interesting about all D&D editions is the simplification of combat. <snip>

    D&D, in all it's forms/editions is a superb vehicle for "community storytelling" with bits of combat and action thrown in :)
    <snip>

    In context: "Dungeons & Dragons" was not the only game out there.

    In the beginning there was table top. And TSR said let there be rules. For WWI, for Romans, WWII, Carthaginians etc. For catapults and gatling gunds. And, in 1971, for giants and fireballs when Chainmail was released. TSR, publishers of Tactical Studies Rules. Then ...

    In 1974 Empire of the Petal Throne (EPT) (1974) was published. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_the_Petal_Throne 
    As was Basic D&D.  
    Not sure which came first but EPT was far, far more complicated and fleshed out than D&D!
    And in 1977 Chivalry & Sorcery (C&S) the, imo, undisputed champion of complex was first published.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry_&_Sorcery

    I played C&S, EPT and D&D. The people I gamed with discussed the pros and cons. Some liked complicated. Most of us didn't want to spend all day making sure our sword were sharp enough before attacking a mob .... you get the gist. If we wanted complicated we did tabletop or some of the S&T (Strategy & Tactics) "hex based" games. 

    D&D was "complicated enough" to facilitate what @AIBQuirky called community storytelling.

    As the rules evolved so did the discussions about "complicated". The move to Greyhawk - the first expansion to the original basic D&D - prompted a discussion. The arrival of AD&D (1st edition) prompted a big discussion. 

    I don't recall any big debate about the move from 1st ed. to 2nd ed. AD&D. Maybe that was me. At the end of the day you went with what the DM decreed - regardless of whether you had a 1st ed. set or 2nd ed set of AD&D. People typically had a mix of 1st or 2nd ed. books as well.  

    The arrival of Runequest also prompted a discussion. It was a simpler system but it was also well developed. Its ensuing popularity, imo. helped stop D&D becoming more and more complicated simply as a way of trying to sell more manuals. I think it was Runequest that resulted in THAC0 as well - not sure though.) 

    There were other games as well. Some - complicated - often based on C&S. Some based on Runequest. Plus expansions to AD&D or Runequest. (Some based on Traveller as well, an SF ruleset). Note: Warhammer represented a reversion to tabletop. (Yes there was a boxed game/ruleset.)  


    Context 2:
    The above is just my recollection. What I took part in in groups. What I observed at conventions which brought lots of people together. What I sometimes discussed when running competition dungeons or when giving talks: lots of questions and answers.

    There were discrepancies and I wrote articles about some of them - to go with the dungeons, adventures and other stuff I had published. Discussions followed, inputs from Gygax etc. I will stress though this remains simply my take on stuff - a quick overview at that.

    Anyway 2nd ed came out and it went on from there of course. I do believe though that Runequest helped keep things simple.

     
    Hummmm.. 

    This kinda disagrees with what I have always thought.

    As I understood things.

    Dungeons and Dragons, is what we call 1st Edition.

    Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, is what we called 2nd Edition.

    Now, the rules between 1st and 2nd did not work well at all, given that in Dungeons and Dragons, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, were both a Race and a Class designation, with only Humans being able to have an Actual "Class"

    Now AFIK, there is no AD&D 2nd Edition Books.. but you know, I am open to being wrong on this one, as AD&D did go through a lot of changes, with Dragon Magazine offering Additional rules, as well as many.. a great many.. additional books were added to the system, everything from things like Unearth Arcaina, Oriental Adventures, and Fiend Folio, Manual of the Planes, Dungeoneers Survival Guide, Wilderness Survival Guide, to later with just sheer volumed added, with things like Monster Manual II, as well as 'reprints' of many of the original books, like Players Handbook, DM's Guide, Monster Manual, and Deities and Demigods, that had ever so slight rules changes in them.

    So.. in that venture, I suppose.. people could have made a claim that AD&D evolved from one edition to another without an official Edition being declared, like they did with 3rd edition.

    It was a very vast game, or at least grew into one.
    I believe there were Elves and Dwarves as races in the original Basic Dungeons and Dragons rule set.
    Your race was your class in the basic game.
    Ungood

    Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!

  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,757
    gervaise1 said:
    Ungood said:
    gervaise1 said:
    Sal1 said:

    I believe there were Elves and Dwarves as races in the original Basic Dungeons and Dragons rule set.
    Out of curiosity I looked.

    Acording to the Basic D&D "rules" - first printing for the avoidance of doubt - there were:

    Elves - able to start as a Fighter (limited to 4th level) or a Mage (limited to 8th level) and able to switch class between but not during adventures.

    Dwarves - limited to fighters max level 6.

    Halflings - limited to fighter max level .

    Humans are mentioned only insofar as they can be mages and that clerics have to be human. 

    And then they add this: there is "no reason why a player cannot be allowed to play as anything" and gives an example of a Dragon.

    Which is aligned to what the introduction says: play as you want basically, make it up as you go.


    There were also "inconsistencies". On changing class, for example, it doesn't recommend it - having already said that elves are dual classed and can not be clerics; halflings and dwarves are limited to fighters only and that no character could be a mage and a cleric. Obviously they were talking about human clerics / figthers. Oh and Dragons etc. of course!


    Simpler times!

    From the Wiki, because.. I am a lazy shit.

    Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set[edit]

    Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set classes
    Human classesClericDruidFighter,
    Magic UserThief
    Demi-human classesDwarfElfHalfling

    The second version of the Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set combined the idea of race and class; non-human races did not have classes. Hence, a character might be a (human) Cleric or else simply an "Elf" or "Dwarf". The Basic Set presented four human classes: Cleric, Fighter, Magic User and Thief, and three demi-human classes: Dwarf, Elf and Halfling. The Companion Set introduced four optional classes for high-level characters: the Avenger, Paladin and Knight for Fighters, and the Druid for Clerics. The Master Set introduced one additional class: the Mystic. The Gazetteer series included many optional classes for humans and non-humans, including the shaman (GAZ12) and shamani (GAZ14). Additional human and race classes were also presented in other supplements.

    No idea what the "Basic Set" said.

    I went and got my first printing (1974) booklets down off a shelf. 

    Thieves, for example, were added with Greyhawk - the booklet that came after the first three booklets - which isn't listed in the wiki. Other changes as well which is why its adoption prompted a discussion.

    The link to the Basic Set is to a version "based on" the earlier publications. 

    Edit: Druids were added with Supplement III Eldritch Wizardry by Gygax & Blume




    Hope this helps bring back memories of what Basic D&D was.
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,757
    Basic is also when I started playing the game. When we used to use crayons to color in the numbers on the dice, and would use "Metallic" crayons for the low numbers because we believed they were heavier and would 'load' the dice.. some of use using dual colors on a single number because we felt we were special and badass, and since all the dice back then were all the same color, the only thing you had to custom them with was the color of crayon you used to do the numbers.. we went nuts with that as kids.
    GaladournAlBQuirky
  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,415
    previn said:
    1st Ed - Hated Levels
    2nd Ed - Hated Levels
    3rd Ed - Hated Levels
    3.5 Ed - Hated Levels
    4th Ed - never played - would have hated levels
    5E - hate levels
    PF - Hated levels
    Every d20 system that had/has level - hate levels

    Levels are a crutch.
    And your idea is?

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


    (And now Burger King has MEATLESS burgers!)

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,415
    Ungood said:
    Basic is also when I started playing the game. When we used to use crayons to color in the numbers on the dice, and would use "Metallic" crayons for the low numbers because we believed they were heavier and would 'load' the dice.. some of use using dual colors on a single number because we felt we were special and badass, and since all the dice back then were all the same color, the only thing you had to custom them with was the color of crayon you used to do the numbers.. we went nuts with that as kids.
    I still have my 4 crayons used for that sole purpose! I wonder if they still color things? :lol:

    I'm not sure, but it seems like your "Basic Set" was the box set that came out between the original 3 book set and AD&D? My first character was made with the basic box set (the red box) and then I was introduced to a group who played AD&D. My memory could be faulty on this :)
    Ungoodgervaise1

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


    (And now Burger King has MEATLESS burgers!)

  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,757
    AlBQuirky said:
    Ungood said:
    Basic is also when I started playing the game. When we used to use crayons to color in the numbers on the dice, and would use "Metallic" crayons for the low numbers because we believed they were heavier and would 'load' the dice.. some of use using dual colors on a single number because we felt we were special and badass, and since all the dice back then were all the same color, the only thing you had to custom them with was the color of crayon you used to do the numbers.. we went nuts with that as kids.
    I still have my 4 crayons used for that sole purpose! I wonder if they still color things? :lol:

    I'm not sure, but it seems like your "Basic Set" was the box set that came out between the original 3 book set and AD&D? My first character was made with the basic box set (the red box) and then I was introduced to a group who played AD&D. My memory could be faulty on this :)
    As far as I knew, the Box Set was the first set, and then they put out some added rule books. D&D also went though some revisions as well.

    You had Basic, and then you had Expert.

    To give you an idea.

    This was the Basic Rule Book.



    This would have been the basic rule book that many of us might remember.. might not. In any case, Basic game came with a set of those blue dice that were so sharp you could use them as weapons.

    Later they came out with Expert Level gaming, with more complex rules, no doubt this were Elves and Dwarves gained Classes.

    and that would have looked like this.



    The thing is, DnD has gone through a tone of changes over the years, it is it's own lore on the history and development of D&D.

    And I know for sure.. I do not know all of it.
    GaladournAlBQuirkygervaise1
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,660
    edited May 6
    Ungood said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    Ungood said:
    Basic is also when I started playing the game. When we used to use crayons to color in the numbers on the dice, and would use "Metallic" crayons for the low numbers because we believed they were heavier and would 'load' the dice.. some of use using dual colors on a single number because we felt we were special and badass, and since all the dice back then were all the same color, the only thing you had to custom them with was the color of crayon you used to do the numbers.. we went nuts with that as kids.
    I still have my 4 crayons used for that sole purpose! I wonder if they still color things? :lol:

    I'm not sure, but it seems like your "Basic Set" was the box set that came out between the original 3 book set and AD&D? My first character was made with the basic box set (the red box) and then I was introduced to a group who played AD&D. My memory could be faulty on this :)
    As far as I knew, the Box Set was the first set, and then they put out some added rule books. D&D also went though some revisions as well.

    You had Basic, and then you had Expert.

    To give you an idea.

    This was the Basic Rule Book.

    https://assets.dacw.co/itemimages/458073group.jpg

    This would have been the basic rule book that many of us might remember.. might not. In any case, Basic game came with a set of those blue dice that were so sharp you could use them as weapons.

    Later they came out with Expert Level gaming, with more complex rules, no doubt this were Elves and Dwarves gained Classes.

    and that would have looked like this.

    https://www.dragontrove.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/product_full/8295.jpg

    The thing is, DnD has gone through a tone of changes over the years, it is it's own lore on the history and development of D&D.

    And I know for sure.. I do not know all of it.
    Those weren't the original D&D basic set of books. "Basic" was a later re-issue and re-format of the rule books. The game wasn't called "Basic" when it first launched, it was just called D&D. Then AD&D hit which was called 1st edition. Our friends didn't really call it 1st edition until 2nd ed came out though. We just called it AD&D to differentiate it from the basic set. Once AD&D editions started rolling out we called them by their edition names for clarity.

    See the copyright date on that. It's a few years after the game was released in 74. This is what it originally looked like. I'm unsure if the reissue had modified rules or not. AD&D was released in 77, three years before the "Basic" set. 

    MendelGaladournAlBQuirkygervaise1
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

    It only took 3 people 8 words to rock Blizzard to its core.
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,757
    Torval said:
    Ungood said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    Ungood said:
    Basic is also when I started playing the game. When we used to use crayons to color in the numbers on the dice, and would use "Metallic" crayons for the low numbers because we believed they were heavier and would 'load' the dice.. some of use using dual colors on a single number because we felt we were special and badass, and since all the dice back then were all the same color, the only thing you had to custom them with was the color of crayon you used to do the numbers.. we went nuts with that as kids.
    I still have my 4 crayons used for that sole purpose! I wonder if they still color things? :lol:

    I'm not sure, but it seems like your "Basic Set" was the box set that came out between the original 3 book set and AD&D? My first character was made with the basic box set (the red box) and then I was introduced to a group who played AD&D. My memory could be faulty on this :)
    As far as I knew, the Box Set was the first set, and then they put out some added rule books. D&D also went though some revisions as well.

    You had Basic, and then you had Expert.

    To give you an idea.

    This was the Basic Rule Book.

    https://assets.dacw.co/itemimages/458073group.jpg

    This would have been the basic rule book that many of us might remember.. might not. In any case, Basic game came with a set of those blue dice that were so sharp you could use them as weapons.

    Later they came out with Expert Level gaming, with more complex rules, no doubt this were Elves and Dwarves gained Classes.

    and that would have looked like this.

    https://www.dragontrove.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/product_full/8295.jpg

    The thing is, DnD has gone through a tone of changes over the years, it is it's own lore on the history and development of D&D.

    And I know for sure.. I do not know all of it.
    Yeah, those weren't the original D&D basic set of books. That thing called "Basic" was a later re-issue and re-format of the rule books. The game wasn't called "Basic" when it first launched, it was just called D&D. Then AD&D hit which was called 1st edition. Our friends didn't really call it 1st edition until 2nd ed came out though. We just called it AD&D to differentiate it from the basic set. Once AD&D editions started rolling out we called them by their edition names for clarity.

    See the copyright date on that. It's a few years after the game was released in 74. This is what it originally looked like. I'm unsure if the reissue had modified rules or not. AD&D was released in 77, three years before the "Basic" set. 

    Minor Correction.

    Basic Set was Published in 1977

    I mean if we are going to get all into the technicals here, let's get our facts right.

    This should give a good history of the publications. 

    Live and Learn I guess.
    Dwaaawfful
Sign In or Register to comment.