Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
This came up in the discussion started by @Yora regarding the importance of Tracy Hickman. When I responded, I referred to a classification of TSR that I realized I had been using internally for some time, but I don't know that I had fully explained here before. Let me lay this out, first, by starting with the "normal" taxonomy of TSR.
1. Traditional, or Edition-Based Taxonomy.
I'm going to go through this quickly, since I'm sure most people here are at least somewhat familiar with the D&D editions. Normally, we refer to the different periods of D&D through the editions, or "versions" of the game. The main thing to remember about TSR is that, for the most part, it is all interchangeable. I don't want to go to overboard on this- the differences between OD&D in 1974 and late-edition 2e with kits are ... well, big! But the games, including the AD&D / Basic split, are largely interoperable, to the extent that it was simple to use OD&D modules for Basic characters, or Expert modules for 2e characters, and so on. I wrote a little about the interoperability previously.
With that said, the main "editions" during the TSR era are as follows:
OD&D Original D&D, the 1974 rules (and supplements and other materials) until the released of AD&D. (1974 - 1978)
AD&D Advanced Dungeons & Dragons; sometimes only referring to 1e, but also refers to 1e and 2e. (1978* - 2000)
1e First Edition of AD&D. (1978 - 1989)
2e Second Edition of AD&D. (1989 - 2000)
Holmes (1977) Strangely, Holmes Basic is NOT "Basic" D&D like Moldvay and Mentzer, but is OD&D. Specifically, it was supposed to be a codification, for beginners (a "basic" ruleset) of the OD&D rules, and ended up having a tacked-on introduction to 1e.
B/X (1981)This is the Basic and Expert sets put out by Moldvay (Basic) and Cook (Expert), so it's sometimes called Moldvay/Cook, or just Moldvay.
BECMI (1983) Also called Mentzer, this is the Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, and Immortals rules.
RC or R/C (1994) Referred to, confusingly, both ways, this is the Rules Cyclopedia that is BECM (no I) plus some additional material.
*Dates have to be approximate in some cases- for 1e, I went with the PHB date.
With those editions in mind, many people roughly separate the editions of D&D, and thus the eras of TSR, into:
Main Line
OD&D & Holmes Basic (1974-1978)
1e (1978-1989)
2e (1989 - 2000)
Basic Line
Moldvay (1981 - 1983)
Mentzer (1983 - 1994)
RC (1994 - 2000)
And that's definitely one way of looking at it! But the more conversations I have, the more I think about it, the more I hear about the experiences of other players, and the more I look at the products and the ethos of different times of TSR, the more I think that this isn't the best, or easiest, way to think about it.
And let's face it- TSR has been in the news recently. Well, a nasty and revivified rotting corpse called "TSR" that no one want around, but ... still.
2. Snarf's Stupendous Sorting System.
I propose sorting the TSR era into three separate times as follows:
1. 1974- 1984 Early D&D (aka, the Gygax Era)
This is the founding era, when the game evolved from OD&D to 1e. We have a certain unity of art, and it was the "classic" era look (Otus, Trampier, Dee). Moldvay and Cook still was more widespread than Mentzer (which was coming on strong, as it was published in 1983). The majority of the classic modules were pumped out, as well as some deeply weird stuff for the time (Barrier Peaks, the Wonderland modules, and so on).
2. 1985 - 1994 Modern 1e (aka, the Zeb era)
I would actually say that the real beginning of 2e started with a good book and a bad book (my judgment, not fact). OA by Zeb Cook, despite not aging well in many ways, introduced a lot of game concepts that would make their way into 2e, such as NWPs and dex-based melee characters (the 2e ranger). UA, by Gygax, was a cash-grab consisting of Dragon Magazine articles, that seriously unbalanced the game (this is a trend in the history of D&D). That said, concepts from it also continued on throughout D&D. Most importantly, this is the time period that we saw the ouster of Gygax from TSR, and a completely new direction in the art department- this is the time of Elmore, Easley, Parkinson, Caldwell, and so on. We began to see increased emphasis on settings (first with hardcover rulebooks, like GHA and DLA, and later with boxed sets). The expansive character options in UA later saw light again as player-facing kits, in various handbooks. Continued support of the Mentzer line and Gazetteers. Not to mention Planescape.
3. 1995 - 2000 The Decline (Emptying the Cupboard)
Finally, there's the end. How about reprinting all of the BECMI stuff as the RC? How about reprinting the PHB and DMG? People like those kits, right? How about we just give them all sorts of player options-combat, spells, whatever? I don't mean to demean the products that good people were producing (Birthright, for example, came out in 1995) but by this point, we are looking at 20 years of roughly the same mechanics, and a company that was circling the drain.
So why bother with this? In the immortal words of Jake, who continues to insist that Jonathan Archer is the bestest Star Fleet captain ever .... "WHY BOTHER WITH ANYTHING???? SCOTT BAKULA IS THE MAN!"
Those are some thoughts. Hopefully, this will be a non-dumpster fire TSR thread. I promise that no Michaels were harmed when writing this.
1. Traditional, or Edition-Based Taxonomy.
I'm going to go through this quickly, since I'm sure most people here are at least somewhat familiar with the D&D editions. Normally, we refer to the different periods of D&D through the editions, or "versions" of the game. The main thing to remember about TSR is that, for the most part, it is all interchangeable. I don't want to go to overboard on this- the differences between OD&D in 1974 and late-edition 2e with kits are ... well, big! But the games, including the AD&D / Basic split, are largely interoperable, to the extent that it was simple to use OD&D modules for Basic characters, or Expert modules for 2e characters, and so on. I wrote a little about the interoperability previously.
With that said, the main "editions" during the TSR era are as follows:
OD&D Original D&D, the 1974 rules (and supplements and other materials) until the released of AD&D. (1974 - 1978)
AD&D Advanced Dungeons & Dragons; sometimes only referring to 1e, but also refers to 1e and 2e. (1978* - 2000)
1e First Edition of AD&D. (1978 - 1989)
2e Second Edition of AD&D. (1989 - 2000)
Holmes (1977) Strangely, Holmes Basic is NOT "Basic" D&D like Moldvay and Mentzer, but is OD&D. Specifically, it was supposed to be a codification, for beginners (a "basic" ruleset) of the OD&D rules, and ended up having a tacked-on introduction to 1e.
B/X (1981)This is the Basic and Expert sets put out by Moldvay (Basic) and Cook (Expert), so it's sometimes called Moldvay/Cook, or just Moldvay.
BECMI (1983) Also called Mentzer, this is the Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, and Immortals rules.
RC or R/C (1994) Referred to, confusingly, both ways, this is the Rules Cyclopedia that is BECM (no I) plus some additional material.
*Dates have to be approximate in some cases- for 1e, I went with the PHB date.
With those editions in mind, many people roughly separate the editions of D&D, and thus the eras of TSR, into:
Main Line
OD&D & Holmes Basic (1974-1978)
1e (1978-1989)
2e (1989 - 2000)
Basic Line
Moldvay (1981 - 1983)
Mentzer (1983 - 1994)
RC (1994 - 2000)
And that's definitely one way of looking at it! But the more conversations I have, the more I think about it, the more I hear about the experiences of other players, and the more I look at the products and the ethos of different times of TSR, the more I think that this isn't the best, or easiest, way to think about it.
And let's face it- TSR has been in the news recently. Well, a nasty and revivified rotting corpse called "TSR" that no one want around, but ... still.
2. Snarf's Stupendous Sorting System.
I propose sorting the TSR era into three separate times as follows:
1. 1974- 1984 Early D&D (aka, the Gygax Era)
This is the founding era, when the game evolved from OD&D to 1e. We have a certain unity of art, and it was the "classic" era look (Otus, Trampier, Dee). Moldvay and Cook still was more widespread than Mentzer (which was coming on strong, as it was published in 1983). The majority of the classic modules were pumped out, as well as some deeply weird stuff for the time (Barrier Peaks, the Wonderland modules, and so on).
2. 1985 - 1994 Modern 1e (aka, the Zeb era)
I would actually say that the real beginning of 2e started with a good book and a bad book (my judgment, not fact). OA by Zeb Cook, despite not aging well in many ways, introduced a lot of game concepts that would make their way into 2e, such as NWPs and dex-based melee characters (the 2e ranger). UA, by Gygax, was a cash-grab consisting of Dragon Magazine articles, that seriously unbalanced the game (this is a trend in the history of D&D). That said, concepts from it also continued on throughout D&D. Most importantly, this is the time period that we saw the ouster of Gygax from TSR, and a completely new direction in the art department- this is the time of Elmore, Easley, Parkinson, Caldwell, and so on. We began to see increased emphasis on settings (first with hardcover rulebooks, like GHA and DLA, and later with boxed sets). The expansive character options in UA later saw light again as player-facing kits, in various handbooks. Continued support of the Mentzer line and Gazetteers. Not to mention Planescape.
3. 1995 - 2000 The Decline (Emptying the Cupboard)
Finally, there's the end. How about reprinting all of the BECMI stuff as the RC? How about reprinting the PHB and DMG? People like those kits, right? How about we just give them all sorts of player options-combat, spells, whatever? I don't mean to demean the products that good people were producing (Birthright, for example, came out in 1995) but by this point, we are looking at 20 years of roughly the same mechanics, and a company that was circling the drain.
So why bother with this? In the immortal words of Jake, who continues to insist that Jonathan Archer is the bestest Star Fleet captain ever .... "WHY BOTHER WITH ANYTHING???? SCOTT BAKULA IS THE MAN!"
Those are some thoughts. Hopefully, this will be a non-dumpster fire TSR thread. I promise that no Michaels were harmed when writing this.
