AD&D1 is like a B-17

[Quasqueton]

I recently saw a calendar at a mall kiosk with an image of three warplanes – a Sopwith Camel, a P-51 Mustang, and a F14 Tomcat – flying in formation with each other. I’ve often compared the history of D&D with the history of fighter planes in my mind, so I thought I’d see how it would work out with some actual thought.

Dungeons & Dragons rules editions compared to Airplane history


[Original] Dungeons & Dragons (OD&D)

Compare to the Wright brothers’ first airplane – It flew, and was an exciting new breakthrough, but needed improvement and expansion to become a full-fledge useful machine.

Basic Dungeons & Dragons (BD&D)

Compare this to World War I era planes – built on the original design, but a step improved; basic, relatively simple, yet effective in their role and time.

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D1)

Compare this to World War II era planes – more building on the original design, but expanding; advanced, complicated, but more effective.

Unearthed Arcana and other supplements:

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Second Edition (AD&D2)

Compare this to Korean War era planes – expanding on the technology to the point of regularly using jets, missiles, and radar; advancing, and even more effective.

All the supplements take the plane analogy to the Vietnam era planes.

Dungeons & Dragons (D&D3)

Compare this to post-Cold War plane designs – expansions and refinements not only to the technology (like “fly by wire”), but to the whole deployment theory; no longer do bombers bomb and fighters fight as separate missions, but operations include an entire “package” of diverse but interworking units, including radar/control, bombers, air attack, ground attack, and even ground and sea forces.

What more will come?

_______________________

I can find all kinds of parallels/comparisons in this concept, including how airplane aficionados all have their preferred era.

Quasqueton

 

[Qualidar]

The Wright Brothers Airplane is the only true airplane, all others are imitators.

My hat of B-2 know no limit.

~Qualidar~

 

[Umbran]

I can find all kinds of parallels/comparisons in this concept, including how airplane aficionados all have their preferred era.

Hm, I can see the technological analogies, certainly. But it can easily continue. The earlier games are a lot more like barnstorming, later games require filing a flight plan with authorities.

For an analogy, not too shabby.

 

[Lorne]

For an analogy, not too shabby.

If we assume that higher tech planes are better, I'd agree. But I'm not so sure they're better all the time. Please don't construe the following as 3.5-bashing. I just don't want to minimize the features of the old versions of the game that, in my experience, outclass version 3.5.

Consider the following:

* For basic set D&D, you had the entire game for 10 bucks. The core rules for 3.5 cost me roughly 10 times as much.

* The sparse rules of the basic set, coupled with encouragement from the authors to expand/interpret as needed, left a DM's imagination unconstrained. In fact, it forced the DM to be creative, since no campaign settings were published; the DM had to create his or her own campaign setting. The current Player's Handbook goes so far as to tell your PCs what immortals to follow, and pre-fab adventure settings have made homebrew worlds far less common.

* The experience point tables are much more generous in providing new levels to PCs. For an 'old timer' who has been running a 1e/2e campaign on and off for 10 continuous years of real time (the highest level hero is now level 13), I'm a bit saddened that heroes advance so quickly in 3.5. It seems to me that the accomplishment of gaining levels has been cheapened and the lifespan of a typical campaign has been shortened; that 13th-level hero has enough xp to be level 40 under the current rules, a power level none of us would find enjoyable.

* Use of miniatures in old editions was optional; version 3.5 all but requires them, as many of the combat feats and spell effects are connected to line-of-sight, threatened squares, five-foot-steps and such, and it's too much of a bother to try and track a large combat without a battle grid. I miss the days when a PC's exact location wasn't as important. I've started collecting/painting figures again to play 3.5 with a grid, so I can add the miniatures expenses to the aforementioned 100 bucks spent on core rulebooks.

*Lastly, the concept of a prestige class has thrown the door wide open for every powergaming munchkin to try an end-run around rules that once balanced them. I realize that such abuse wasn't the intent of the prestige class mechanic and that not all prestige classes are unbalancing, but many of the prestige classes I've seen appear to be either poorly tested, untested, or dreamed up by some power-hungry player. Some of the older modules may have been predictable, but at least an adventure designer didn't have to worry about a half-kobold/half-dragon crypt ranger exploring the ruins.

Lorne

 

[Glyfair]

* For basic set D&D, you had the entire game for 10 bucks. The core rules for 3.5 cost me roughly 10 times as much.

Adjusted for inflation, the BD&D set I picked up in 1978 would cost $30 in 2006 (maybe more because paper product are one of those things that skyrocketed since 1978, even past standard inflation).

Comparing prices over time is hardly a fair comparison.

"A $1 candy bar? I used to buy a gallon of milk for a nickel during the depression."

 

[EyeontheMountain]

Well, I must hand it tothe OP, this is one of the most artistic and nicly prettified up ways to start up the old edition wars (not to mention bandwith intensive).

But other than that I will stay out, except to agree with the above poster that mentioned that older editions are different, but not necessarily worse. Just as a lot of those old planes are still a lot of fun, and a totally different experiece than the newer ones. Like old cars.

Edit: Got a nice new background ,though, thanks.

 

[Akrasia]

Well, I must hand it tothe OP, this is one of the most artistic and nicly prettified up ways to start up the old edition wars (not to mention bandwith intensive)...

QFT.

Some things never change around here.

 

[Coplen]

Well, I must hand it tothe OP, this is one of the most artistic and nicly prettified up ways to start up the old edition wars (not to mention bandwith intensive).

Word.

 

[Quasqueton]

Well, I must hand it tothe OP, this is one of the most artistic and nicly prettified up ways to start up the old edition wars (not to mention bandwith intensive).

Funny. There are currently no less than 7 edition wars raging on the front page of this forum. Most of them started explicitly as edition wars. (One is actually named "EDITION WARZ".)

One difference between D&D players and fighter plane aficionados: the propeller heads don't deride one another and pick fights over whether a HUD is bad technology compared to a reflective site. WWII pilots don't harangue Desert Storm pilots, saying, "You have no fighting skill, you just let the computer do all the work." And WWI historians don't take offense when the AWACs crew asks, "Why was such a flamible gas used to float the observation dirigibles?"

The war plane guys can discuss the technologies (brilliance and flaws), the tactical strategies (successful and failed), and the feel of the actions (thrills and terrors) without insulting one another or taking offense at the mere existance of the other planes. [I was once a war plane guy, myself -- I used to talk the planes on other forums.] P-51 guys didin't pipe up about how the F22 can't fly, "It's just a rocket that the pilot just hangs on to for dear life."

I find it exasperatingly humorous that some people take offense (as a declaration of an edition war) to compare, for instance, AD&D1 to P-47s, Spitfires, Fw109s, and by God, Me262s. Or BD&D to Sopwith Camels and Fokker Dr.Is. People line up to see these aircraft sitting at an airport and flying overhead. Whole organizations exist to keep these planes in working order and in the public eye (much like D&D groups).

And no one stares up at the Wright Flyer and says, "Man, what a crappy machine." Everyone recognizes it as an amazing construction that was the base upon which the Space Shuttle eventually evolved.

I have never seen plane-lovers (actual pilots or just earth-bound aficionados) hurl tomatoes at each other or at planes from other eras, like D&D players do. As a whole, D&D players need to mature in this regard, and stop hurling offenses intentionally, and stop taking offense at questions asked to get understanding.

Quasqueton

 

[shilsen]

I have never seen plane-lovers (actual pilots or just earth-bound aficionados) hurl tomatoes at each other or at planes from other eras, like D&D players do. As a whole, D&D players need to mature in this regard, and stop hurling offenses intentionally, and stop taking offense at questions asked to get understanding.

Quasqueton

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

I play 3e and I love it. If someone else plays 2e or 1e or whatever else suits them, it doesn't matter to me. And if they hate 3e and think it's a game designed for and played by idiots, that still doesn't matter to me, because the opinions of some stranger on the internet really have no effect on my game, just as I don't expect my opinions to affect anyone else's game.

BTW, entertaining analogy.