AD&D1 is like a B-17

[delericho]

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.

Yeah, but every one of those war planes was used in some conflict or other. It's rather hard to dismiss the technical flaws of the Spitfire and Hurricane when you realise that those planes were good enough to win the Battle of Britain*. Likewise, hurling insults at the Gulf War planes is disrespectful when you think that a lot of good men trusted their lives to the quality of the planes under their control.

And, of course, the original Wright Brothers design is a marvel.

D&D doesn't have the same storied history. No-one trusted their life to AD&D 2nd Edition. And so, it can be attacked without the risk of being disrespectful - an attack on a given edition cannot be construed as an attack on the players who lost their lives using it to defend their country.

* In concert with a whole host of other factors, of course. Not the least of which was the skill of the pilots.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I think the analogy isn't too far-fetched, and nicely illustrated, too. And not at all an Edition War either. I think Quas is saying that each edition of D&D did what it was supposed to do at the time it came out, and it still does so if what it does is what you are looking for.

 

[RFisher]

Wow! This rings amazingly true for me.

I prefer biplane simulations & enjoy a good P-51 or Hellcat simulator. Anything with a jet engine starts losing my interest. (Unless it's an arcade style game like Ace Combat.)

Not just simulations either, I suppose. I prefer reading/learning about those era planes as well.

 

[BroccoliRage]

Why do I get the feeling that If I had reversed your analogy, everyone here would have been vomiting pee soup and spinning thier heads in complete circles?

I disagree with your analogy, of course, but I'm not so sure you were trying to edition bash; if you were, you failed miserably; I'm a Navy trained aircraft mechanic who worked at the Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola and have performed maintenance on at least a variation on all save the Wright flyer that you mentioned.

That's a story for another time, though. The pictures you provided were very nice, but I'm just not so sure I agree.

I'm 26, by the way, so I have actually had a chance to turn some wrenches on newer models, as well. You would be surprised at the weaknesses, some you would never expect.

 

[Melan]

Well, let me sum it up:
Old editions = obsolote, outdated trash
New editions = shiny awesome!!!

:\

Way to go, Ace...

 

[thedungeondelver]

I'd rather say that AD&D is like a B-52. Big, loud, lumbering, and destined to serve longer than those things that "superseded" it.

 

[BroccoliRage]

I would say it is way closer to the EA-6B Prowler- Light, fast, and capable of doing everything newer models can, but louder and more impressive, and highly dependent upon a pilot's individual skill


Melan, why be snarky towards me? I was only observing that if this was an attack on older editions, it was a very poorly informed one.

 

[Lorne]

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."

True enough, although I think my clumsy example illustrates my meaning clearly enough, even without adjusting for inflation. We could just as easily use your $30 figure to press the same point - it would still cost three times as much for new players to get started, assuming that they don't purchase battle mats or miniatures.

Lorne

 

[Glyfair]

True enough, although I think my clumsy example illustrates my meaning clearly enough, even without adjusting for inflation. We could just as easily use your $30 figure to press the same point - it would still cost three times as much for new players to get started, assuming that they don't purchase battle mats or miniatures.

To get started from scratch. I'll wager most new players get by with a $30 PHB. Only those who considering DMing a game will typically get the MM & DMG.

To tell the truth, the game has changed a lot from the early days. Today the boxed set is almost defunct. Those were the most common way of distributing a game system in those days (with AD&D being the exception). You could have a player's book, gamemaster book, character sheets and maybe an adventure.

Today you have pretty much two choices. Go the multiple book route, or combine everything in a single book. The first is really only an option for entrenched game systems in the purest form. Of course, some games give a very barebones core system with tons of expansion material or world books (the current Runequest comes to mind).

 

[Nikosandros]

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?"

They don't because airplane technology has improved. It's an undeniable fact.

Which edition of D&D is better is purely a matter of personal taste (and there are also insane people like me that like all of them!) .