[EDITION WARZ] Selling Out D&D's Soul?

[Ourph]

Mechanically, the WSG and DSG weren't any more 2nd Editon than was Oriental Adventures. Nothing in those texts actually reflect 2nd Edition rules.

Technically, that's untrue on two counts. First, Oriental Adventures was written by David "Zeb" Cook, who was also the primary author/editor of the 2nd Edition re-write of AD&D. His influence can easily be seen in both products. There are a lot of deviations from the 1e core rules in Oriental Adventures that mesh a lot more cleanly with the 2e rules than they do with the rules they were nominally meant to be compatible with. Second, The WSG, DSG and Oriental Adventures all did their share to make Non-Weapon Proficiencies an integral part of the game - which is one of the biggest transitions in actual mechanics from original 1e core rules to the 2e core rules. The combo of OA/WSG/DSG was essentially a 1.5th edition that paved the way for 2e in the same way that 2e's Skills & Powers books were a 2.5th edition that paved the way for 3e.

Whether you want to label them 1e, 1.5e or "2e in all but name" it's unquestionable that the later 1e hardbacks weren't just supplements to the core rules they were modifications of the core rules that changed some of the original approaches to areas of the game. Contrast this with some of the "Wilderness" 3.5e books which work seamlessly with the core rules and you'll see that there's definitely a distinction to be made.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

That strikes me as an awfully elitist attitude. What about people who are too young to have taken English 101 (not to be taking you extremely literally, but I assume you get my point)? Should aspiring 10 year-old gamers be excluded because the original author wrote to a generally college-educated adult audience? What about gamers for whom English is not their first language?

Several answers.

First, yes, I'm an elitist. What's the problem with that? Hobbies aren't democratic; whether your hobby is golf or chess or fly fishing or RPGs, some people are just better suited to them than others.

I wouldn't advise a semi-literate person to play RPGs any more than I'd advise a blind person to take up clay pigeon shooting. At the end of the day, almost everyone who has fun playing RPGs is on the high end of the intelligence curve and they're generally fairly articulate and well-educated. And a lot of us are nerds, too.

I happen to be an elitist nerd.

Second, I could read the AD&D DMG at the age of 10 and so could my friends. You don't need a "college education."

Third, AD&D was published in several languages.

 

[Thurbane]

IMO this is why so many gamers write fondly about "1e flavor": because reading the rule books felt like reading a fantasy novel, not a tech manual.

Actually, that's very true in my own case. I still remember thumbing though the 1E PHB which I managed to get cheap from a guy who retired from gaming. It's exactly as you say - I had a genuine sense of wonder when I was reading it. It held my interest the way a novel would.

With the 3.5PHB (I skipped 3E entirely, fortunately - *$cha-ching$*), it felt more like I was reading a Beginner's Guide to C++. The rules are so neatly set out, so structured, and so interwoven and airtight; coupled with that, there was no real "feeling" put into the writing that I could pick up on - everything is presented in totally factual and clinical terms.

It goes without saying that this is completely and totally a case of personal opinion. I should also point out that I was about 12 when I got the 1E PHB, and 33 when I got the 3.5 PHB, so I may be a lot more jaded these days.

 

[Keldryn]

Many of those prohibitions were, I suspect, for flavour reasons...the no-Dwarf-wizards is a good example, same with the Elvenkind items are only made by Elves example (why would Elves allow the knowledge to escape?)...while some - like the no-swords-for-wizards - were to keep the classes distinct and separate. You're a wizard? Then manual combat is Not Your Job.

Sure they were there for flavour reasons. But perhaps rigid prohibitions in the rules are not the best way to enforce those reasons. I'm not sure why dwarves couldn't be wizards in early editions. Sure, the archetype of the typical wizard with his staff and spellbook may not fit the dwarf, but all those magical dwarven weapons and armour had to come from somewhere. Oh, yeah, right, dwarven clerics made all of them.

Manual combat is certainly not the wizard's job... but his d4 hit points and crappy attack progression already illustrate this pretty well. Does letting a wizard use a sword that does 1d8 damage instead of the staff's 1d6 suddenly make the wizard significantly more effective in hand to hand combat? No. And since they can't wear armour and cast spells at the same time (the effects vary from one edition to another), let the wizard use a 1d10 two-handed sword for all I care. He's still going to get creamed if he gets in a toe-to-toe fight with any reasonably competent melee combatant.

3e tends much more to allow everyone to do everything, blurring the class definitions and resulting in many more jack-of-all-trades PC's...Gestalt being the next step on this evolution. PC parties were big in 1e mainly to have all the roles covered, with a bit of backup, and for various reasons I prefer this to the 4-character 3e strike force.

I disagree about allowing everyone to do everything. 3e rewards specialization quite heavily, especially when it comes to spellcasters. 1e and 2e double and triple class characters were true jacks-of-all-trades. 3e doesn't place the same rigid restrictions to one's particular class role that 1e and 2d do, but at the same time it very strongly encourages sticking to what you're really good at. Even dabbling in 2 or 3 levels of another class can seriously inhibit your effectiveness in your primary class -- the extent to which this happens does vary from one class to the next, but is particularly harsh on full-progression spellcasters.

Gestalt isn't really part of the evolution. It is explicitly presented as an option intended for smaller groups so that parties of 2 or 3 players can still cover all of the roles without relying on DM-provided NPCs (i.e. Cleric) to supplement them.

The archetypal 4-character 3e strike force exists because WOTC's research showed that the average size of a gaming group was four players and one DM. A lot of adventures for 1e or B/X D&D suggest groups of 4-6 or 5-8 characters... which a lot of groups never have. Three fighters, a cleric, a magic-user, and a thief, or whatever the typical suggestion was. Much of 3e's design takes into account the ways in which the research suggested that the majority of gamers actually play the game. There are still your four basic roles, no matter which edition of the game you are playing.

 

[Keldryn]

Hmmm. Suppose I put 2 humans dressed similarly in a room. They must be identical, right? Nevermind one is Albert Einstein and the other Babe Ruth. They are identical. Albert Pujols and David Eckstein? Identical. They both use the same type of bat. I've never understood this fallacy. My characters in ANY edition were different. They had different goals, diffrent fears, different personalities. George the Dragon slayer charged at the drop of a hat, Shujo cautiosly surveyed the battlefield and chose his battles carefully. Some revered nature, some would cut down an acre just to find the right sapling for a long bow. If mechanics are the only way you can tell your characters apart, you're not playing an rpg of any kind.

I believe the key word in his post was mechanically identical. Of course characters will have different personalities and goals, but that wasn't the issue being presented. And two 9th-level human fighters in 1st edition will be mechanically identical, other than ability score bonuses for scores above 15 and a slightly different hit point total. But that's it. Pre-UA fighters didn't even get specialization, so the player doesn't get any choice as to how his fighter's abilities develop.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I believe the key word in his post was mechanically identical. Of course characters will have different personalities and goals, but that wasn't the issue being presented. And two 9th-level human fighters in 1st edition will be mechanically identical, other than ability score bonuses for scores above 15 and a slightly different hit point total. But that's it. Pre-UA fighters didn't even get specialization, so the player doesn't get any choice as to how his fighter's abilities develop.

Does this mean that chess is a boring game? Because all the pieces are mechanically identical each time you play?

 

[jcfiala]

Does this mean that chess is a boring game? Because all the pieces are mechanically identical each time you play?

Chess pieces are not meant to represent people, and D&D characters are. People, even in the same job, are different from each other in how well they can do different parts of their job.

 

[Thurbane]

So come again, was AD&D 'tinkerability' a good or a bad thing? Gary himself saw it as a bad thing. Maybe he would've done a different 2nd ed, had he not been booted

As much as I respect Gary for being a fundamental part of creating my favorite hobby, I do not credit him as the "be all and end all" of 1E.

Houseruling and tinkering with rules to make them work better for yourself and your group is at the very heart of D&D, in any edition. I did it under 1E, and I do it under 3.5E. If Mr. Gygax has (had) a problem with me doing that with 1E, he can take a running jump at an ochre jelly for all I care!

I just don't get all this 1E bashing backed up with "Gary sez!" anectdotes...

 

[Lanefan]

At that point, it was pretty much only wishes or effects from an item such as the deck of many things that would provide a permanent bonus to an ability score, wasn't it? 1e really seemed to go out of its way to prevent characters from gaining any permanent ability score bonuses, and then Unearthed Arcana went and gave it to Cavaliers and Paladins.

I wouldn't say "prevent" so much as "make it very rare and special" to get a stat boost. Several canned modules had stat boost items built in - Lost Temple of Tharizdun and Castle Amber are two I can think of off the top - and there were also the various Tomes, Librams, etc. that a DM could lob in to a treasury if one wasn't already there.

But yes, UA suddenly giving stat increments as a class ability to just 2 classes was a departure from the norm...and a welcome one in our group; we nigh-immediately gave it to everyone as a character ability.

Lanefan

 

[Thurbane]

I believe the key word in his post was mechanically identical. Of course characters will have different personalities and goals, but that wasn't the issue being presented. And two 9th-level human fighters in 1st edition will be mechanically identical, other than ability score bonuses for scores above 15 and a slightly different hit point total. But that's it. Pre-UA fighters didn't even get specialization, so the player doesn't get any choice as to how his fighter's abilities develop.

You're comparing apples and ornages here.

I will freely admit that 3.X allows for more mechanical customisation of characters, but back in 1E, two characters of the same level were by no means clones. In fact, I would argue that the very same factor actually encouraged more development of character personality and identity roleplay-wise to make your character unique, rather than relying on a page of Feat, Skill and PrC stats and figures.

Not to say you can't roleplay just as well in 3.X, before anyone jumps back on that argument again...