D&D editions/eras timelines

[jdrakeh]

At the time, I thought that both AD&D eras were too long. I moved away from AD&D towards the middle of the era. When 2nd edition was released I hoped that it would bring me back to D&D. It didn't touch any of the issues I had with the game (even though I did like one or two new things), so I never came back. When 3E was announced I was ready to come back to D&D, and loved what I saw.

For a little more personal perspective, I started with AD&D 1e, though not until 1995 -- the only group in the town where I lived used 2e material sparingly (when used at all). 2e, for me, didn't do anything to improve on the first edition while simultaneosuly taking a 'shotgun' approach to design. TSR peppered the market with many different rule expansions, giving little thought to how they would integrate with one another or with the core system, in an attempt to see what proved popular with consumers. If something was popular enough, they continued with it. If not, it got dropped like a hot rock.

I moved away from AD&D in the late 90s to pick up more unified systems such as Rifts, Shadowun, and Champions. Although I initally avoided 3e for fear of WotC taking TSR's tact where rule expansions were concerned, I later bought d20 Modern and then D&D 3.5 when I realized that rather than simply churning out new rules willy nilly in an effort to see what stuck to the wall, WotC was at least trying to integrate their rules into the core framework. That was the big difference for me -- WotC seemed to be basing their new products on actual market research.

As 3.5 moved forward, I eventually felt the drain of supplement bloat, though to this day I can't say that any of the supplements were truly bad or poorly designed. My issue wasn't product quality (as it had been with TSR) but, rather, product overload -- there was just too much good product and obtaining all of it (or even most of it) was not possible. And that left a bitter taste in my mouth. Luckily, I've been able to move past that in the last year and am happy having fun with what I do own.

[Edit: Obviously I didn't mean Rifts when I typed this post initially. I have no idea where that came from. Weird. I'm 99% certain that I meant GURPS.]

 

[M.L. Martin]

I divide eras based on 'what books does the published material assume are being used?' Based on that criterion, I wouldn't count the Player's Options era as a distinct era of 2E, since that material was hardly ever used in future published products, making it more of a spinoff than an evolution. (Unearthed Arcana material for 1E, by contrast, did make it into later 1E material.) You could make a case for the 'Monstrous Compendium' vs. 'Monstrous Manual', but that's not a substantive rules change in any degree.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

AD&D / AD&D 2nd edition (1978-1999) 21 years

I think it's pushing it a bit to try and combine AD&D and 2E. They were very different, both in terms of content and in terms of "style."

I got into D&D at the tail end of the AD&D era and it was very different from 2E, which seemed like a refreshing evolution.

 

[Glyfair]

I divide eras based on 'what books does the published material assume are being used?' Based on that criterion, I wouldn't count the Player's Options era as a distinct era of 2E, since that material was hardly ever used in future published products, making it more of a spinoff than an evolution.

As I recall (and remember, I wasn't playing D&D during this era) towards the end of 2E the book assumed you were using those expansions. I did pick up the Birthright books while waiting for 3E and it assumes you are using kits, which weren't in any core books I owned.

 

[JustinA]

I divide eras based on 'what books does the published material assume are being used?' Based on that criterion, I wouldn't count the Player's Options era as a distinct era of 2E, since that material was hardly ever used in future published products, making it more of a spinoff than an evolution. (Unearthed Arcana material for 1E, by contrast, did make it into later 1E material.) You could make a case for the 'Monstrous Compendium' vs. 'Monstrous Manual', but that's not a substantive rules change in any degree.

I left AD&D in the mid-'90s and didn't come back until 3rd Edition. But I did end up back-filling some material from the post-PO era: Every single product refers to and uses PO material.

Maybe I inadvertently cherry-picked the scant material that was referring to the PO books. But I don't think that's likely.

 

[Doug McCrae]

There wasn't a big difference in rules between 1e and 2e. On much the same order as 3.0-3.5. But there was a huge change in emphasis from the gamism of Gygax's DMG to the setting-heavy, story-heavy D&D of Dragonlance, Ravenloft and Dark Sun.

 

[Lanefan]

.
OD&D (1973-1977*) 4-6 years
AD&D (1977**-1989) 10-12 years
AD&D 2nd edition (1989-2000) 11 years
D&D 3E (2001-2008) 8 years
D&D 4E (2008-?) TBD

** 1977 is a vague start date. The AD&D Monster Manual was released in 1977, but the DMG wasn't released until 1979. PHB was 1978 which might be the fairest choice.

There should be a couple of years overlap of 1e and 2e; as 1e was still supported, with material being released, until about 1991.

I wasn't around for it, but was there a similar overlap between 0e and 1e? Is that causing the confusion in dates?

Also, 3e came out in 2000. The 3e game I'm in started in early 2001, and the system had been around for at least half a year at that point....

Lanefan

 

[Keldryn]

There wasn't a big difference in rules between 1e and 2e. On much the same order as 3.0-3.5. But there was a huge change in emphasis from the gamism of Gygax's DMG to the setting-heavy, story-heavy D&D of Dragonlance, Ravenloft and Dark Sun.

Agreed; 2nd Edition was mostly a compilation of some previous expansion material and an overall clean-up of the rules, but it was very similar mechanically. The difference in tone was substantial though, and I don't see how 2E would not be considered a different "era" than 1E. The only reason to clump 1E and 2E together into a 20+ year era is to try and criticize WOTC for releasing 4th Edition "too early."

 

[Vigilance]

I think 10 years is about right. 8 years for 3E seems a tad too short.

10 years is leaving money on the table, in my opinion.

And who let Wizards know that? Us.

By embracing 3.5, almost totally (3.0 books weren't worth the paper they were printed on after 3.5), we the customer base showed WOTC that we were willing to accept a shorter edition cycle.

People might have complained, but they bought it, in large numbers.

Just as I suspect, people will buy 4e in large numbers.

 

[Reynard]

Agreed; 2nd Edition was mostly a compilation of some previous expansion material and an overall clean-up of the rules, but it was very similar mechanically. The difference in tone was substantial though, and I don't see how 2E would not be considered a different "era" than 1E. The only reason to clump 1E and 2E together into a 20+ year era is to try and criticize WOTC for releasing 4th Edition "too early."

I agree. I happened to read both the 1e DMG and the 2e DMG as I am trying to decide which of the two to run. The differences between the two in terms of tone, style and emphasis of play is huge. Do you realize there isn't even a distinct section on dungeons in the 2e DMG, and there are no lists of traps? I hadn't until I got to the end of the 2e DMG and thought I had accidentally skipped a section. I went to the index. Nope. No dungeons, no traps, no underground exploration.

The 1e DMG is really a comprehensive tome, covering damn near everything that might happen in a "normal" D&D game. The 2e DMG is a lot of fluff and advice and not a lot of help for the first time DM. By contrast, the 3e DMG managed to bring back a lot of that crunch and an emphasis on dungeons, while severely shortchanging the DM on issues that weren't specific to going down in holes, whacking things. Despite some occassional overblown prose and finger wagging by Gygax, the 1e DMG is a work of art and should be the standard by which all other books labelled "DMG" should be measured.