Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4780511" data-attributes="member: 80487">Where I find that 2E (having in mind the PHB and DMG) really shines is in the presentation.The 1E DMG in particular went to press with a less than stellar job of editing. Later printings added appendices, but never harmonized the three volumes or incorporated the bulk of errata. In some areas, "original intent" is hard to discern and one may be left by default making rulings where perhaps "really optional" but at least clear rules were meant to be.The Gygaxian prose could be at once delightful and confounding, and for some perhaps just the latter. The 2E style is comparatively bland, but the straightforward text is more widely accessible. Much less is assumed of the reader, much more made explicit and explained in some detail.Typesetting and layout are easier on the eyes, with both decorative and informative use of spot color. Organization is well suited both to instruction and to reference -- the spell lists coming to mind as a favorite example of the latter.Backing off from the "standardization" conceit of the first edition, there is a consistent attention to offering variations in approach. There is also a trend to simplify or even to eliminate (though they might reappear in supplements) things widely perceived as needless complications.OSRIC brings much of the above to what is mainly a restatement of the 1st edition rules, informed in part by Gygax's own mentions of things he might revise had he the opportunity.To an extent, 2E may have served best as a compliment to, rather than supplanting of, the 1E works. In that light, I think one viable way to approach the topic might be to write material as supplementary to OSRIC.</blockquote>

Verification