AD&D First Edition inferior?
- Thread starter Theuderic
- Start date
hellbender
First Post
Having played 1st edition for quite some time, I don't feel that the game is really that inferior, if anything, it is merely less politically correct than the touchy-feely game it is today. Arguably, it is much better than 2nd edition, ruleswise, being much easier to play.
Sure, the game isn't perfect, however, it is still just as playable today as it was back when. Yes, it there was a lot of monster killing for experience points, come on, we had Ataris and Intellivision back then for video games.
I do feel that the game, in all of its incarnations has remained very versatile and customizable, an aspect that I quite like in gaming that many other systems have never caught on to.
hellbender
Sure, the game isn't perfect, however, it is still just as playable today as it was back when. Yes, it there was a lot of monster killing for experience points, come on, we had Ataris and Intellivision back then for video games.
I do feel that the game, in all of its incarnations has remained very versatile and customizable, an aspect that I quite like in gaming that many other systems have never caught on to.
hellbender
JeffB
Legend
Theuderic said:
Tsk tsk...you are just asking for it now aren't you?
Seriously..my thoughts on every incarnation of the D&D game as well as other RPG games is they all have something to offer.
In D&D's case, each edition is both inferior and superior to the others..just the reasons are different.
So yep it is...and no it isn't...depending on what exactly people are talking about.
Those are my thoughts.
MeepoTheMighty
First Post
Boy, I sure hope I make my saving throw when the flames start coming. Now...would that be a save against rods, staves, and wands, or against petrification/polymorph? 
Dinkeldog said:
It's a personal pet peeve, so forgive me. A troll is not a solicitation of what might be an inciteful opinion. A troll is a sometimes subtle, more often not, misstatement of facts in such a way as to encourage helpful people to announce that they didn't get the joke.
A troll:
Monte's Ranger is BROKEN!! When Gary Shandling first wrote the players handbook, it was nothing like what he had in mind.
This troll is far from subtle and boarders on flamebaiting. More obvious flamebaiting might be:
Elven cleric archers are all fairies! When my Ranger/Peerless Archer/Deepwood Sniper runs into one he says, "God damn it woman! Where's my dinner? And when you're done cooking it, prance over here in those high heels and service me. Don't forget, wear that red lipstick I like so much." And then he kills them.
Celebrim
Legend
Well in the since that 3rd. edition is more flexible, 'elegant', complete, consistant, balanced, simpler, and in general meets the goals of good game design more fully than 1st edition ever did, sure 1st edition is 'inferior'. But while I think the 3rd. edition designers would agree that 3rd. edition was more elegant, consistant, and so forth because those were in indeed the goals that they set out to meet, I do not think that they would snub 1st edition with a term loaded with negative conatations like 'inferior'.
Nor do I think any of the 1st edition players, including people like me who played 1st edition for 15 years before the problems with its mechanics drove me away, would readily focus on 1st edition's 'inferiority', and would prefer to focus on 3rd editions 'superiority'. Even if those by logical necessity mean the same things, one carries different conatatations than the other. Deprived of its historical position, 1st edition was a horrible system. But, what do you expect of the first gaming system ever created? First edition was never 'designed'. It simply grew organically into being as people began to consider new ideas and problems to be solved. The rules it adopted were not always the best solution to the problem in question, but they were each in and of themselves simple solutions to complex problems. The complexity arose when trying to integrate all these disparate solutions.
Dispite all its problems, 1st edition D&D was a remarkably enduring and attractive system - especially with new and young players. It's basic mechanics were simple, and the game could easily progress in complexity as its players reexperienced and rediscovered the same problems that faced the original players and designers. No other game system has ever managed to attract as many people to gaming, nor maintain a strong precence in the culture for as long a period. Few even come close. Vampire attracted a very large body of new gamers, but had in many ways the attributes of a passing fad. Warhammer's system has been as enduring, but has never been a strong a presence. GURPS has been a consistant strong presence, but has never managed to attract nearly as many adherents and is subject to endless rules generation that tends to overwhelm its basic elegance.
D20 is a remarkably good gaming system, as good as GURPS in its own way, maybe even better than WEG's SW's (which I also loved).
But don't thumb your nose at your elders.
Nor do I think any of the 1st edition players, including people like me who played 1st edition for 15 years before the problems with its mechanics drove me away, would readily focus on 1st edition's 'inferiority', and would prefer to focus on 3rd editions 'superiority'. Even if those by logical necessity mean the same things, one carries different conatatations than the other. Deprived of its historical position, 1st edition was a horrible system. But, what do you expect of the first gaming system ever created? First edition was never 'designed'. It simply grew organically into being as people began to consider new ideas and problems to be solved. The rules it adopted were not always the best solution to the problem in question, but they were each in and of themselves simple solutions to complex problems. The complexity arose when trying to integrate all these disparate solutions.
Dispite all its problems, 1st edition D&D was a remarkably enduring and attractive system - especially with new and young players. It's basic mechanics were simple, and the game could easily progress in complexity as its players reexperienced and rediscovered the same problems that faced the original players and designers. No other game system has ever managed to attract as many people to gaming, nor maintain a strong precence in the culture for as long a period. Few even come close. Vampire attracted a very large body of new gamers, but had in many ways the attributes of a passing fad. Warhammer's system has been as enduring, but has never been a strong a presence. GURPS has been a consistant strong presence, but has never managed to attract nearly as many adherents and is subject to endless rules generation that tends to overwhelm its basic elegance.
D20 is a remarkably good gaming system, as good as GURPS in its own way, maybe even better than WEG's SW's (which I also loved).
But don't thumb your nose at your elders.
Similar Threads
- Poll
