Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(un)reason" data-source="post: 4929978" data-attributes="member: 27780">Dragon Magazine Issue 142: February 1989Addendum: part 6/5The Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd edition preview: Yay! Thanks to <a href="http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=10886218&postcount=382" target="_blank">reader generosity,</a> I do now have access to this little bit of historical foreshadowing. Skimming it, it's obvious that although it was included in the magazine, it wasn't designed by their layout staff. And it actually looks a bit scrappy by comparison, with it's single column type, huge margins, and skimpy use of artwork. They could definitely have condensed this down to 28, possibly even 24 pages without losing anything. But anyway. As with the astral plane article, reviews, and other big deliveries, I shall divide up my review using the headers that they use. The cover is the only bit with any colour. On it, they display not only the three corebooks, but also the character record sheets, the Dungeon Master's screen, and the covers to volumes 2 and 3 of the monstrous compendia. Guess that shows they already have follow-ups aimed to support all segments of the game, pretty near completion and ready to roll. Are you ready for the supplement treadmill? Introduction: Ahh, here we get our first bit of possible controversy. Wanting to clean up the rules so they're better organized and easier to learn and reference during play is one thing that they've consistently championed all through the development process. However, the other big change in approach is a new one. They consciously reject the "There is One True Way to play the Official AD&D™ Game" proclamations made by Gary in the early 1st ed days, in favour of actively encouraging you to houserule and pick which bits and pieces from the supplements you use in your campaign.  They're also pretty open about the fact that this edition is going to change even more over it's lifespan, as they continue to learn and write new stuff. Actually, I do have to say that sounds more appealing to me than the idea of freezing the game in amber, I've never been a very enthusiastic chess player. But I can see why some people would take that as a personal snub, even though Gary was the personal architect of some pretty big changes to the game in UA and OA, and would probably have made more if he was still part of the company. What we've been doing: And here they affirm that most of the changes are purely due to public demand, and the reason it's been so long between editions is because of a combination of finding there was more corrections and tweaking needed than they thought at first, and the need to make sure they properly tested all these adjustments. All pretty consistent with what we've been reading in the bulletins from the top since 1985. They seem to be pretty much on the level here, given the conservativeness of the changes, the fact that only a few that everyone agreed on got made all adds up. No objections here. The new Players Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide: Hmm. This is probably the biggest bit of selling the new edition by crapping on the old one here. But then, given that even Gary admitted that the organization of the 1st ed PHB & DMG could do with some improvement, probably not unwarranted. They talk quite a lot about the choice between structuring it as an instruction manual and a reference book. Since basic D&D, particularly Mentzer ed, already does the step by step intro to roleplaying thing quite well, I think I agree with the reference manual choice. It is Advanced D&D still. Readers shouldn't feel patronised. The Monstrous Compendiums: Ahh yes, the loose leaf folder approach to assembling your monster collection, as suggested by Stuart Malone way back in issue 30. I still think that could have worked, if they'd only made sure that full alphabeticality was maintained by giving each monster it's own two page spread. (With some more condensation of multiple subtypes of the same monster into a single entry.) Having fewer creatures covered with greater depth and customisability, so we don't need crap like different humanoid races for the 1/2, 1-1, 1, 1+1, 1+2, etc hp ranges, and don't have multiple creatures filling the same role;  would definitely have made things more elegant.  But then, which ones do you cut in a situation like that? If one person was doing it, you could probably hammer something out. But with hundreds of clamouring voices, all with their own little personal favourites they'll fight to the death to keep, you soon wind up with barely any streamlining at all, which is soon negated as yet more cruft is added to the system. So it goes. Anyway, other notable tidbits are the fact that this time, they're leaving all the extraplanar creatures out until later. An understated hint towards certain controversies they'll have to deal with next year. And the fact that they're only introducing new monsters to make sure each letter of the alphabet has an even number of creatures amuses me somewhat. They certainly think they've planned this out well enough, even though they're making a few elementary errors. The Big Changes: Ahh yes, updating the maximum press so that 18/00 keeps track with the accomplishments of real world strongmen. I find that rather amusing. But you still run into the limits of their tables when portraying really big or otherwise powerful creatures, instead of providing a formula for infinite extension. And their lift capacities seem stupidly small for massive creatures that weigh tons. We'll have to wait another decade for that little improvement.  The rest of this bit is a demonstration of how much more attention spellcasters got back then. The considerable increase rogues get in flexibility and customizability gets only a few lines, compared to the massive bits on the new school specialisation and sphere systems. And of course, warriors actually got nerfed in the change, with the removal of double specialisation and the more twinked subclasses. If anything, they're the only ones that are even less interesting now. Roll on the complete fighters handbook. Similarly, it seems a little strange that they would only cut out a single race (half-orcs) from the corebook, especially when they're doubling it's size and adding so much. Course, they don't mention the real reason why, because mentioning rape in a positive preview would be impolitic. Still, at least THAC0 has been made official, and the combat table smoothed out so fighty sorts get benefits from leveling quicker and more evenly. That's definitely a good point. And of course, there's the elimination of sexism in the strength tables. That'll please a few people. So it's mostly good changes here, but also a few clunkers and some more that don't go nearly far enough. Which are which is of course a subject for much argument. What's new: More than half of this section is devoted to nonweapon proficiencies. Now this is an area that IMO, they definitely didn't go far enough on, and the fact that it was treated as optional in the corebook, but a huge number of supplements and gameworlds took it as standard really put horrible stresses on the system. The tiny number of them that you got was never enough, especially after a load of supplements added their own "must-haves" for particular roles, and it's no surprise that a lot of the complete handbooks gave out lots of bonus ones with kits, and interpreted the bonus language rules to allow you to spend those slots on other skills. Once again, I am reminded that at one point in the development process, Zeb wanted to fold thief skills into the nonweapon proficiency system, and I think that could probably work if you rolled them in and divided the number of % points they get per level by 5, allowing thieves and bards to become the generalised skill monkeys as well, getting several slots per level to pick up new ones and enhance existing abilities. One thing they have rolled properly into the skill system is the Ranger's tracking ability. While they can still do it best by far, now anyone can pick it up if they have the slots. And once again, they've tinkered with the modifiers. Actually, that probably is an improvement. As is the rest of the stuff. New equipment. Cleaned up mobility and visibility rules. The little advantages of ten years of consistent play.  Shifting gears: And finally, it's a little more fear allaying. The new system is entirely compatible with the old characters, and you don't have to ditch your old illusionists and assassins unless you really want too. You don't have to make the changes all at once, you don't have to throw out the old rulebooks. It's not a big deal. Not sure whether to feel reassured or patronized, but it definitely contrasts sharply with the aggressive conversion strategy of the 2-3 changeover, and the clean slate reboot of the 3-4e one. Goes to show, there are very different ways to go about an edition change, and it definitely affects how the customers respond. So all in all, it's a pretty straightforward, no frills little bit of advertising. It could definitely have stood a bit more prettying up for maximum selling ability, but it more than does the job both in showcasing the good points of the change, and hinting towards the controversies and problems they'll face in the next few years, with bowdlerisation, supplement bloat, and excess options confusion. We aren't going to be surprised by the big course of history here. It's just a matter of how interesting and amusing I'll find the little details. On we go then, to see the real thing.</blockquote>

Verification