D&D General 50 years, 50 publications - results

[PHATsakk43]

Not going to say you’re not smart, but those few games likely set you up to understand the 1E stuff better than you ever could have without it.

I’m similar as I played in a handful of RC games and then got the 2E books and started DMing. Looking back, it’s shocking how much of that game was played by RC BECMI rules where I never bothered to check to see if there was a difference.

 

[Emerikol]

Not going to say you’re not smart, but those few games likely set you up to understand the 1E stuff better than you ever could have without it.

I’m similar as I played in a handful of RC games and then got the 2E books and started DMing. Looking back, it’s shocking how much of that game was played by RC BECMI rules where I never bothered to check to see if there was a difference.

Core concepts like AC or hit points sure. The initial play experience helped. It's one of many reasons why I don't think people as a rule should DM before they've played.

Would I have given up in those days if 1e AD&D had been my first experience? No. Teenage kids have a lot of time on their hands especially if they are geeky. I knew a guy who could quote so many passages and give you the page number and paragraph where it came from in that book. I couldn't do that but he sat around all day reading the books over and over. And yes he was my first rules lawyer. He probably helped make me a good DM and I probably ensured he actually had fun playing.

 

[GuardianLurker]

Seems like there is some serious nostalgia and likely demographic bias in these results.

The 1E core books are iconic, but they are borderline impossible to use solely by themselves and without lots of years of context or prior knowledge of OD&D and or B/X which was the case for a lot of people when they were released.

Whoo boy. No. Introduced to D&D as a player in 81 with no rulebook access. Picked up the 1e DMG and PHB immediately after that with NO other experience. Had absolutely no experience with OD&D or B/X prior. And had no trouble reading either publication cover to cover or understanding how to use them.

You greatly underestimate the capabilities of the people, and the complexity of the subject.

Of course, that was with a different US educational system than the one we have now, which is widely regarded as having failed our students, so that might be true NOW. It wasn't in the 80's, cause I assure you, I was far, far, far from alone.

The omission of OA is probably also one that is likely due to bias. The setting aspect of it and the problematic nature in a modern sense of it overshadowed what it did as a development of the game which is still in use today, particularly a skills system among other things.

No, that has actually more to do with the fact that the 1e OA book was so overpowered compared to the rest of the 1e oeuvre that it couldn't really be played in conjunction with them. You either had a OA campaign, or you didn't. OA also wasn't a really good product in other ways either. To put things in perspective, Kara Tur (the FR Oriental Expansion in 2e) was a better product and better received. Which is a very telling for OA, because that's not an easy bar to fit under.

The 2E Monstrous Manual should have been the top monster book.

Eh-eh. Hand wiggle. I loved the 3-ring binder format - even if I didn't take full advantage of it - but the actual content wasn't noticeably standout.

Notable missing items, the three deities books for the 2E Forgotten Realms.

<snark> You mean the three books I didn't even know existed, despite having been actively playing in FR when they came out? Those books? </snark> Sigh. Sorry. Truly, I have no idea which three books you're even talking about, which strongly argues against their inclusion in a top 50 best-SELLING product list. (Edit: Misremembered - 'twas a popularity poll. Not sales.)

But as for your first point the individual opinions after the OP are almost certainly showing a generational bias, if solely because ENWorld has a fairly significant bias itself.

 

[PHATsakk43]

Whoo boy. No. Introduced to D&D as a player in 81 with no rulebook access. Picked up the 1e DMG and PHB immediately after that with NO other experience. Had absolutely no experience with OD&D or B/X prior. And had no trouble reading either publication cover to cover or understanding how to use them.

You greatly underestimate the capabilities of the people, and the complexity of the subject.

Of course, that was with a different US educational system than the one we have now, which is widely regarded as having failed our students, so that might be true NOW. It wasn't in the 80's, cause I assure you, I was far, far, far from alone.

No, that has actually more to do with the fact that the 1e OA book was so overpowered compared to the rest of the 1e oeuvre that it couldn't really be played in conjunction with them. You either had a OA campaign, or you didn't. OA also wasn't a really good product in other ways either. To put things in perspective, Kara Tur (the FR Oriental Expansion in 2e) was a better product and better received. Which is a very telling for OA, because that's not an easy bar to fit under.


Eh-eh. Hand wiggle. I loved the 3-ring binder format - even if I didn't take full advantage of it - but the actual content wasn't noticeably standout.

<snark> You mean the three books I didn't even know existed, despite having been actively playing in FR when they came out? Those books? </snark> Sigh. Sorry. Truly, I have no idea which three books you're even talking about, which strongly argues against their inclusion in a top 50 best-SELLING product list. (Edit: Misremembered - 'twas a popularity poll. Not sales.)

But as for your first point the individual opinions after the OP are almost certainly showing a generational bias, if solely because ENWorld has a fairly significant bias itself.

I’m not a young man by any stretch and was around for most of this stuff.

As someone who has both the OA book and the Kara-Tur boxed sets (and the rest of the OA series modules) it’s not really an apples to apples comparison between the two items.

My point was how much of the mechanics first established in OA became central to D&D, specifically a skill and ability check system for non-combat mechanics.

As for the Monstrous Manual, that is the full color hardback. I can’t imagine anyone really liking the three-ring binder format, although the format was what made the design work, as the full sheet of paper per creature provide a lot of white space that was filled with tons of info about the creatures that have stuck around for decades and was a huge departure from the simple list of combat stats the previous monster collections consisted of.

As for the three deities books, I routinely see those listed as being truly “must haves” for any collection, even those who don’t have any interest in Forgotten Realms.

 

[GuardianLurker]

Huh. Dungeoneers * Wilderness Survival Guide were both '86. OA was '85. I would have quoted them as the origin of skill checks. I Learned Something Today(tm).

And since youu're so gung ho on them, and since I still have NO IDEA what book you're referencing, could you supply the titles to the FR Deity books?

As for the 3-ring binder format, from the GM view, it offers so MANY benefits. There's no flipping through multiple books ("Was that in MM, MMII, or that Devils book?"), I can organize the monsters however I like - by adventure, most used, terrain, idiosyncratic groupings, etc. Unhappily, it was too expensive then - for reasons that aren't too clear to me now. But I still miss the format.

 

[PHATsakk43]

Faiths & Avatars, Powers & Pantheons, and Demihuman Deities.

The format in these books was so popular that AuldDragon has been updating all the deities from the rest of the D&D mythos into the format.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm about 30 in print, and a handful more in PDF.

I have 38 in print, and I think all the others in pdf!

 

[Micah Sweet]

The 2E Monstrous Manual should have been the top monster book.

Notable missing items, the three deities books for the 2E Forgotten Realms.

Agreed on the Monstrous Manual. Best official monster book IMO by far.

And those three deity books are the best thing to come out of FR at all as far as I'm concerned (though the 3e FRCS is great).

 

[PHATsakk43]

I have 38 in print, and I think all the others in pdf!

I’ve got 26 of them.

The one part of my collection that is deficient is basic D&D and pre-2E modules, of which I have nothing, except the 5 1E OA modules.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Eh-eh. Hand wiggle. I loved the 3-ring binder format - even if I didn't take full advantage of it - but the actual content wasn't noticeably standout.

That's the Monstrous Compendium. The Monstrous Manual was when they came to their senses and put it in a hardcover book.