AD&D First Edition inferior?
- Thread starter Theuderic
- Start date
Tharkun
First Post
Well, I don't know how "inferior" 1st edition is but I just about have every sourcebook for that edition 
Why may you ask? Well, say someone doesn't like playing 3rd edition (God forbid right 
). Well, I just need to pull out whatever edition of D&D they want to play and we're good to go.
Why may you ask? Well, say someone doesn't like playing 3rd edition (God forbid right ). Well, I just need to pull out whatever edition of D&D they want to play and we're good to go.
Bryan Vining
First Post
Various reactions
Gary... right on! Discussions like these end up much like discussions about whether or not abortion should be legal. whether or not the US should have been in Vietnam, whether or not welfare is a good idea. You'll get a lot of noise, and almost no one (if anyone) will have their minds changed.
It IS a matter of taste. There is no one participating in this thread who is not projecting his/her values into the analysis. Such a thing is impossible. Everyone has their biases, and their view of the game systems will be filtered through those. No edition of D&D is better than any other, except for a given group of people at a given time that is a miniscule subset of the universe of D&D players. In any larger scope than that, the question of superior systems is meaningless (not that this discussion hasn't been fun). 3E may fit better with game design theory, but that theory has been formulated by people with opinions and biases of their own. So, it does not exist as an independent standard of excellence handed down by a divine maker. In short, play what you like for whatever reason you like. Just take the time to pick a game that suits you well.
Popularity does not equal quality, though something can be both popular and high in quality. Proof of this exists in the fact that both the BeeGees and Steely Dan were very popular bands in the 70s.
Anyway, I do think that questions like this are just not answerable, as the answer is truly personal. However, watching the fur fly during the discussion can be rather entertaining.
Gary... right on! Discussions like these end up much like discussions about whether or not abortion should be legal. whether or not the US should have been in Vietnam, whether or not welfare is a good idea. You'll get a lot of noise, and almost no one (if anyone) will have their minds changed.
It IS a matter of taste. There is no one participating in this thread who is not projecting his/her values into the analysis. Such a thing is impossible. Everyone has their biases, and their view of the game systems will be filtered through those. No edition of D&D is better than any other, except for a given group of people at a given time that is a miniscule subset of the universe of D&D players. In any larger scope than that, the question of superior systems is meaningless (not that this discussion hasn't been fun). 3E may fit better with game design theory, but that theory has been formulated by people with opinions and biases of their own. So, it does not exist as an independent standard of excellence handed down by a divine maker. In short, play what you like for whatever reason you like. Just take the time to pick a game that suits you well.
Popularity does not equal quality, though something can be both popular and high in quality. Proof of this exists in the fact that both the BeeGees and Steely Dan were very popular bands in the 70s.
Anyway, I do think that questions like this are just not answerable, as the answer is truly personal. However, watching the fur fly during the discussion can be rather entertaining.
Col_Pladoh
Gary Gygax
Theuderic said:
Yuppers! My poiny is, how can someone be wring when they are playing a game system and having fun doing it. That's the whole purpose of any game--amusement. RPGs. of course, are more a hobby, and so the amusement translates into a great deal of loong-term enjoyment.
Of course my tastes might be wildly varying from dome other gamers; but in allwe are all gamers, and why attack one another? There are lots of non-gamers happily doing that all the time...
Cheerio,
Gary
Col_Pladoh
Gary Gygax
Piratecat said:
You usually say that only when no one else is around...
Heh,
Gary
Ulrick
First Post
I really don't care which edition I'd play in, each edition is simply a tool to help facilitate a gaming experience.
I back when I first played 1st Ed. (1989), I really didn't care about the rules. I wanted to tell a cool story about heroes fighting monsters. I wanted to explore places that I had read about in
The Hobbit and the Chronicles of Narnia and other places.
I didn't care about the system at all. I barely read the rules. The first few characters I had created I rolled a d20 to generate stats ignoring results below a 3 and above 18. This happened until my brother showed me otherwise when I forced him to DM a game for me.
Then 2ed starting coming about. I held off until my 10 year old brain decided that it was easier to convert (I hadn't bought any of the 1st ed. books, my brother had given them to me). When I bought the 2ed Player's Handbook I was fascinated at all the new cool powers that Paladins got...and then my brother said, "Um, they were in first edition."
Oh. I hadn't even looked at the paladin once I read they had to be Lawful Good...which back then I considered a "boring goody two-shoes" alignment.
But overtime I did learn the rules.
Then 3ed came out. And what I saw what an almost complete different rules set. I feared I'd have to relearn a whole bunch of rules where it'd taken me 10years with 2ed. It turned out it was a better rules system. Nice and streamlined. You can make it as complex or as simple as you wish. The way I like it.
So yes, I think the rules are better than in previous editions.
However, 1st edition isn't inferior....I was using the 1st Edition Dungeon Master's Guide last night to generate random city encounters for the game I was running. It worked out fine.
As Mr. Gygax said its "nothing but subjectivity and personal taste."
I'd have to add: It doesn't matter to me anyway cause I'd rather just tell a great story. I use materials from all the editions to this See the "Tharizdun" topic for an example on how this relates to my Greyhawk Campaign.
One more thing: It isn't the edition that's inferior or superior, its the DM. A superior DM can make any edition of D&D fun and exciting, and inferior DM can't do that with any edition.
Edit: I hope 4th edition waits until we have advanced Holodeck technology.
Ulrick
I back when I first played 1st Ed. (1989), I really didn't care about the rules. I wanted to tell a cool story about heroes fighting monsters. I wanted to explore places that I had read about in
The Hobbit and the Chronicles of Narnia and other places.
I didn't care about the system at all. I barely read the rules. The first few characters I had created I rolled a d20 to generate stats ignoring results below a 3 and above 18. This happened until my brother showed me otherwise when I forced him to DM a game for me.
Then 2ed starting coming about. I held off until my 10 year old brain decided that it was easier to convert (I hadn't bought any of the 1st ed. books, my brother had given them to me). When I bought the 2ed Player's Handbook I was fascinated at all the new cool powers that Paladins got...and then my brother said, "Um, they were in first edition."
Oh. I hadn't even looked at the paladin once I read they had to be Lawful Good...which back then I considered a "boring goody two-shoes" alignment.
But overtime I did learn the rules.
Then 3ed came out. And what I saw what an almost complete different rules set. I feared I'd have to relearn a whole bunch of rules where it'd taken me 10years with 2ed. It turned out it was a better rules system. Nice and streamlined. You can make it as complex or as simple as you wish. The way I like it.
So yes, I think the rules are better than in previous editions.
However, 1st edition isn't inferior....I was using the 1st Edition Dungeon Master's Guide last night to generate random city encounters for the game I was running. It worked out fine.
As Mr. Gygax said its "nothing but subjectivity and personal taste."
I'd have to add: It doesn't matter to me anyway cause I'd rather just tell a great story. I use materials from all the editions to this See the "Tharizdun" topic for an example on how this relates to my Greyhawk Campaign.
One more thing: It isn't the edition that's inferior or superior, its the DM. A superior DM can make any edition of D&D fun and exciting, and inferior DM can't do that with any edition.
Edit: I hope 4th edition waits until we have advanced Holodeck technology.
Ulrick
Last edited:
oh please....
The aspects of 3e which are being argued here are hardly popular amongst only a 'small subset of gamers'. Please express to me your (Bryan) problem with consistent, stream-lined mechanics, greater and more balanced strategies, etc. The overwhelmingly majority of people place SOME value on these qualities. Its may not stand up to the value one places on say..the history/nostalgia factor of the game, but i have my doubts that anyone is positivly turned off by it.
If you want to argue that popularity doesn't reflect on the intrinsic quality of a game, fine. If you find the positivism in game theory to be banal, fine. Both are salient points, regardless of my personal distaste for extreme post modernism. But lets not argue that there is not a trend in what tends to be popular in order to force the relativist argument, please.
The aspects of 3e which are being argued here are hardly popular amongst only a 'small subset of gamers'. Please express to me your (Bryan) problem with consistent, stream-lined mechanics, greater and more balanced strategies, etc. The overwhelmingly majority of people place SOME value on these qualities. Its may not stand up to the value one places on say..the history/nostalgia factor of the game, but i have my doubts that anyone is positivly turned off by it.
If you want to argue that popularity doesn't reflect on the intrinsic quality of a game, fine. If you find the positivism in game theory to be banal, fine. Both are salient points, regardless of my personal distaste for extreme post modernism. But lets not argue that there is not a trend in what tends to be popular in order to force the relativist argument, please.
Similar Threads
- Poll
