A new name for Late 1E

[Geoffrey]

I think that 1980 and 1981 are transition years in regards to AD&D. The AD&D line in 1977-1979 was pure gold. In 1980 spots started showing in the module line-up:

A1 Slave Pits of the Undercity
C1 The Hidden Shrine of Tomoachan
C2 Ghost Tower of Inverness
Q1 Queen of the Demonweb Pits
S3 Expedition to Barrier Peak

While I hold C1 and S3 to be pure gold, C2 is mixed (some great stuff in the module, but the overall module is rather "thin"). Q1 is a HUGE let-down after the masterful D trilogy. While I know a lot of people like the A series, I don't particularly care for it.

Here is the line of 1981 modules:

A2 Secret of the Slavers Stockade
A3 Assault on the Aerie of the Slave Lords
A4 In the Dungeon of the Slave Lords
D1-2 Descent into the Depths of the Earth
G1-2-3 Against the Giants
I1 Dwellers of the Forbidden City
L1 The Secret of Bone Hill
U1 The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh

Here we have reprints and the rest of the A series. Hmph. I never cared for the U trilogy. I'd say I1 is the best of the bunch. I've never read L1.

Also, even though the Fiend Folio wasn't published until 1981, I think it was essentially finished in late 1979. The FOREWORD is dated August 1979. DDG (which was published in 1980) references the Fiend Folio. I think it was just publishing hijinx and screw-ups that made the FF have a publication date of 1981 instead of 1979 or 1980.

Here is an excellent chronological list of AD&D products:
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15120

 

[MerricB]

I think that 1980 and 1981 are transition years in regards to AD&D. The AD&D line in 1977-1979 was pure gold. In 1980 spots started showing in the module line-up:

Here we have reprints and the rest of the A series. Hmph. I never cared for the U trilogy. I'd say I1 is the best of the bunch. I've never read L1.

Very nice post, Geoffrey. Yeah, I think I have to bow to your analysis. I've generally drawn the line at 1983 - Ravenloft and the Desert of Desoltion series - as being the last of the truly classic adventures to come out. (T1-4 is a great disappointment) However, the cracks were definitely showing before that.

Have you never read L1? It's a mess, as far as structure goes, although it has some good ideas.

Cheers!

 

[Brennin Magalus]

...T1-4 is a great disappointment...

Blasphemy!

 

[the Jester]

Have you never read L1? It's a mess, as far as structure goes, although it has some good ideas.

I have to step up to defend L1, my first (and one of my favorites!) module ever. (Well, ok, I bought L1 and the Basic set at the same time, but still.) It isn't a structured adventure so much as an entire mini-setting. It's very well fleshed out, with tons of interesting adventure hooks dangling throughout the town and its surrounding environs. I love L1 with all of my heart and soul.

 

[JamesM]

I have to step up to defend L1, my first (and one of my favorites!) module ever. (Well, ok, I bought L1 and the Basic set at the same time, but still.) It isn't a structured adventure so much as an entire mini-setting. It's very well fleshed out, with tons of interesting adventure hooks dangling throughout the town and its surrounding environs. I love L1 with all of my heart and soul.

Indeed. L1 is a prime example of the older style of module, which were essentially adventure locales fleshed out to varying degrees of detail. The actual adventures themselves were often quite thin, because it was assumed that adventures were what the DM and players created together through the use of the module. Nowadays, it seems downright bizarre and lacking in "structure," but that's, as they say, a feature not a bug. It's not for nothing that old timers like to think back fondly on the days before modules "held the DM's hand" every step of the way and provided him with actual adventures rather than a collection of locales and ideas he could spin into adventures of his own making.

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

In my personal collection list, I break up 1st edition into "Advanced, 1977" and "Advanced, 1983 revision" even though the so-called revision only involved errata, new covers and the release of some more hardbacks.

I'm pretty sure the 1983 revision took place around the same time as the release of the new Mentzer "basic" edition books, so that's a nice milestone to use for both versions of the game.

Original, 1974 (is this date correct?) starting with Chainmail and ending with Sword & Spells.

Basic, 1977 Holmes edition.

Below this, we fork the line into two directions, one is Advanced and the other is Basic. The Basic line is much more complex with cover changes, printings and revisions.

 

[Henry]

Also keep in mind that not all of the material in UA is Gary's - some was the work of individual authors from Dragon magazine, e.g. the Cavalier (David Howery?) But as a mechanical line, pre- and post-UA works for me, especially since it was released from TSR in 1985, as was Gary.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Has anyone ever coined a name or phrase to destinguish late 1E from Early 1E?

It has never occurred to me that there might be a distinction - could you describe how you differentiate it?

 

[Valiant]

These are all different distinctions, aren't they? The one to use depends on what cut-off point is significant to what you're saying. More than one thing changed between 1975 and 1990.That's a matter of opinion. As I see it, Gary's thinking has been in motion from the early 70s through to the present, and UA is just one point in it that you happen not to like.

No no no. UA was the first core rule book of 1E after the PH, DMG. It not only introduced new classes (completely out of line) but introduced new core rules and concepts that destroyed the character balance. Suddenly the guy with weapons specialization appeared more powerful and "cool" (and his pluses made a real difference) then the classic fighter with standard "old fashioned" weapons selection "user of many master of none". Players started to stick with 1 weapon and drop the rest, taking away a key richness of the fighter class and at the same time changing the focus from creative and intellegent play to sexy "character building" and power gaming (which 3E/3.5 took to its fullest extreme).

I don't see OA as a turning point in the game, as it was a supplement to the game not a core rule book (its setting alone made it completey different). Infact, I've never met (in person) anyone who ever used OA (though most 1E gamers own the book). In fact, if UA had been presented in that same fashion as OA (rather then as a core rules system change) it probably would have better served its purpose. Instead DMs were overpowered by munchkin players demanding to use the book (I know I was one of them).

 

[Valiant]

It has never occurred to me that there might be a distinction - could you describe how you differentiate it?

I think there were 2 changes that occured, one in rules and one in style (art and presentation).

I think the big change in rules was UA. and the big change in style really started with Dragon Lance series: 1. in artwork (focusing on character details rather then the mood and general setting, it was stiff realism often posed, and the players could no longer see themselves as the people in the pictures...reduced to spectator rather then partisipant);

and 2. the change from story evolution (randomly created as the players wondered around) to "railroading" (where the story is supplied to the DM and the players pretty much follow along its course; this also led to highly linked modules, before that modules were pretty much dropped in as 1 shots).

In early 1E the DM was encouraged to supply his own setting (even Greyhawk was bare bones) in late 1E the DM was asked to drop his own stuff and use the "official" published setting (loosing perhaps the most important aspect to the game: The "magic" and spirit found in AD&D/OD&D was largely due to the DMs presentation of his own imaginary world, and the players stumbling around in it, together they made up stories. If you ask me this is the real power of AD&D (and all FRPGs really). Whenever you supply most of the setting and story expect a spiritless and dull game (despite how great the artwork and depictions might be). AD&D is all about "ownership" and individualization. For a publisher its a terrible game because of this (once you have the 3 core books you really never need to buy another product).

EDIT- One more thing. Late 1E changes did increase revenue and save the company, but only for a few years (as the target market of buyers became smaller and smaller). Its a fine example of how marketing usually ends up destroying stuff we like. It was the switch from Gary "the guy in the basement" churning out work he loves making a good living to, "corporate big wigs" needing endless profits (ie sales) to cover unreal expenses and overhead (ie. waisting money) and handing it over to marketers (rather then designers) to make it work.

It is interesting to think what might have happened if Gygax had retained control of TSR and purposely kept the core rules stable. Would we still have AD&D today (like we have monopoly) unchanged? Or would other "copy cats" have come in and burried Gygax and TSR beating them to the "Dragonlancesque" punch.