TSR On the Relative Merits of the TSR Editions

DammitVictor

Trust the Fungus
Supporter
In this thread, @Sacrosanct asked why so many paleo-grognards and neo-grognards-- two distinct camps I have separate feet in-- prefer AD&D 1E to 2E and why there are so many more clones and offshoots of the former than the latter.

I can easily go off at length about why 1E is my least favorite version of D&D, and how the history of D&D is subsequent designers removing its errors one at a time. But nobody enjoys or benefits from that discussion and the people who prefer 1E have a point.

So, this isn't a [+] thread, but it's not for Edition Warriors, either-- this is a thread for why we like our most-preferred rulesets better than others, not why we like our least-preferred rulesets less. Or, if you prefer, a thread for telling people who disagree with you why they're right.




Caveat: I have no real firsthand experience with OD&D. Never owned it (outside of PDF), never played it. I know a little bit about it, from a historical perspective, but that's about it.

Advanced (1E): Second-most popular basis for retroclones, and the first D&D to get cloned. You get the complete experience from the core rulebooks and  maybe UA/OA, making it easy to make an all-in-one corebook out of it. As much more content as 2E recieved... everything that was missing from 1E was (IMO) sorely missed.

Basic/Expert (Moldvay/Cook): The least popular edition in its original run, the most popular in the OSR. Classic is (IMO) cleaner and better designed than AD&D. I will die on the hill that Classic "race as class" was a better mechanic than "race as class" ever got until 3PP PF1 supplements published after Paizo published PF2. (Fight me.) Much as I prefer high-level play in other editions, it's hard to argue that spells above 5th level have always problematic for game balance.

BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia: Real D&D goes up to level 36. Then starts over, goes back up to level 36, and then actually starts. (I'm only exaggerating a little.) Best "weapon mastery" rules in D&D,  period, proto- PrCs/PPs for "the Four in the Core"... so much tasty.

Advanced (2E): In the core rules, this is just cleaned up/watered down AD&D with some of the (worst IMO) supplemental rules included as "optional" rules. But if you asked "What is D&D?", every 2E campaign setting (including the green leatherettes) had a different answer. The PHBRs, especially 5/10/15, brought back most of what was  removed from Classic and Advanced.

"2.5" -- Black Borders and Player's Option: This is my game. (If only it was based on BECMI!) This is the version of the rules that takes all of the modularity of the 2E core and gives umpires the tools to use it. Replace all of the subraces, or even core races, with your setting-specific preference. Replace the Mage with the Schools of Effect and Thaumaturgy. Replace the Cleric and Druid with a Specialty Priest (with its own Kit) for every religion in your setting. Use a different spellcasting mechanic for every magic class. Combine it with PHBR15 to give every class WFM.

Between 1996 and 2000, I did all of that and more for every single AD&D campaign I ran. I fell for 3.X/PF1 hard... and spent fifteen years chasing what I'd left behind! (Though, admittedly, the 3.PF ecosystem has caught back up in the following decade.)




So, which edition of TSR D&D do you prefer, for your preferred playstyle, and what kind of game would prompt you to use a different one?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Basic/Expert (Moldvay/Cook): The least popular edition in its original run
We have the actual sales data that disproves this claim.

Over here.

 


I'll repost this from the other thread

We still used Gold for XP in 2e. It was stupid not too. Unless one uses the completely arbitrary story awards which have no real basis (IMO) of what standard to really rely on except DM judgement and the "feel" of it in an analogous way to some suggestions, levelling is slowed down to a snails pace in 2e comparatively to other editions without the Gold for XP option.

We didn't use story awards (often).

Overall, though, with that, 2e core was really just a cleaned up 1e. With the inclusion (for those who read it) of the Grandfather clause (everything in 1e was grandfathered into 2e, thus 2e also was ALL of 1e with you being able to pick and choose which rule to use if they conflicted), the core rules of 2e were basically just a version of 1e.

The problem for me is with all the additions that came in and made it overly complicated or broken (many of the complete books, Spells and Powers, etc). That's what is the real division between what some 2e players love and 1e.

I love the 2e core rules for some of the things they made easier and simpler (I actually really like 2e's take on THACO and I prefer the 2e initiative rules for example).

However, throwing everything in 2e and the kitchen sink (all the supplements and other rule additions) made 2e overly large and burdensome to handle.

That right there is one big reason to prefer 1e. Even with all the 1e hardback rulebooks you had far less to know and remember than if you had all the 2e rulebooks at the table.

I'll get back sometime later on the editions themselves.

But personally, I'd probably prefer them in an order similar to

2e core with 1e grandfathered in (as it was at the start of 2e, all 1e stuff was grandfathered into 2e). (occasionally can include Complete Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Rogue/Bard/Ninja/Psionic if one REALLY REALLY feels strongly about it).

BECMI

AD&D 1e

BX

OD&D

RC

AD&D 2e/2.5 with just the Core and Combat and Tactics

AD&D 2e (with all supplements)

AD&D 2.5 (as you would put it)

AD&D 2.5 (as you would put it) with all the supplements
 

My love for 2e comes down to two things:

1) It was my first D&D edition I played regularly.

2) I could understand the rules. I had tried reading the 1e rules but always felt I needed a decoder ring to understand them.

And that’s really it. Nostalgia is powerful.
 

Remove ads

Top