No Second Edition Love?

[Piratecat]

As an aside, post-1983, I don't see any real classic adventures.

You sure you aren't forgetting Gargoyle?

No, I'm sorry. I take it back. Even I can't say that with a straight face.

 

[tx7321]

Its true, board games are different then FRPGs in the time investment required.

Merric: "If it were merely a fad, there wouldn't be so many supplements overloading your senses, as the lifespan would be shorter. Wizards produce about 2 books a month, which while a lot from an AD&D perspective, isn't really that much (certainly not from a 2E perspective!)"

I think to exist at all (in a profitable way) in this present market you have to use qualities associated with what we think of as fads (flashy popping art, gimmicky advertising etc.). Also, building pre-sales hype is more important then ever (esp. on the net).

Could 1E have survived 25 years unchanged in its core (like Monopoly)? I think yes and no. The game works (esp. if a reprint had been done like OSRIC that clearly explains the rules). In that form it would have stabilized but sales would be lower. Another point that should be made is that 1E didn't have to get worse with 2E (to those that preferred the 1E style). It could have gotten better, but TSR employees didn't really "get" 1E. The people in charge had a different vision, and thats what we got. Hell, it shows in the art (what happened to Trampier for instance?) We go from loose generic fantasy to specific characters posing in tight photo-real style.

Oh BTW, to get back to the original question. Although you don't see many people supporting 2E, you see alot of people preferring 2E style artwork to all others.


Personally, I had zero desire for new rules. All I wanted back then were new modules, new classes and new magic items and spells, and of course monsters. The last thing I wanted were new rules or series of modules with back story (as these interfered with my own world).

 

[eyebeams]

As an aside, post-1983, I don't see any real classic adventures.

Aside from the Ravenloft, Pharaoh and Dragonlance series, you mean? For box set D&D there's also the Desrt Nomads series. All notable releases, especially when two of them became huge campaign settings.

 

[Wik]

You sure you aren't forgetting Gargoyle?

No, I'm sorry. I take it back. Even I can't say that with a straight face.

I actually liked that one!

 

[T. Foster]

Aside from the Ravenloft, Pharaoh and Dragonlance series, you mean? For box set D&D there's also the Desrt Nomads series. All notable releases, especially when two of them became huge campaign settings.

But all of these except Dragonlance were released in 1983 (Pharaoh was actually released in 1982), and Merric's post specifically said post-1983. While I don't particularly care for any of those adventures (except for the monastery part of X4) I know that Merric is a huge fan of the "Desert of Desolation" series at very least, and surely phrased his post deliberately to include it.

 

[eyebeams]

But all of these except Dragonlance were released in 1983 (Pharaoh was actually released in 1982), and Merric's post specifically said post-1983. While I don't particularly care for any of those adventures (except for the monastery part of X4) I know that Merric is a huge fan of the "Desert of Desolation" series at very least, and surely phrased his post deliberately to include it.

I stand corrected. For some reason when I looked it up it said '84 for both.

 

[MerricB]

Oh BTW, to get back to the original question. Although you don't see many people supporting 2E, you see alot of people preferring 2E style artwork to all others.

Definitely. Although there's a lot of styles of 2e art! (Personally, I like mid-to-late 1E art a lot, although there are some early 1e classics).

Personally, I had zero desire for new rules. All I wanted back then were new modules, new classes and new magic items and spells, and of course monsters. The last thing I wanted were new rules or series of modules with back story (as these interfered with my own world).

It's funny: that pretty much sums up most of the 3E releases. New classes, new magic items, new spells, new monsters, and now new modules. There isn't really that much "new rules" in there, instead the books apply the existing rules.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Could 1E have survived 25 years unchanged in its core (like Monopoly)? I think yes and no. The game works (esp. if a reprint had been done like OSRIC that clearly explains the rules). In that form it would have stabilized but sales would be lower.

Oh, I agree. However, that brings up a related point: could TSR have survived if AD&D was unaltered?

It could have gotten better, but TSR employees didn't really "get" 1E.

Actually, to take this further, 1e (as you and I talk about it), is really "Gary's Game". There's a sensibility that Gary brought to the game that other people have a really hard time trying to recapture, and normally don't, as their view of D&D is quite different.

I don't think there are very many "classic" modules; there are several that are debatable as to their inclusion, and Gary's hand lies very heavily on those commonly acclaimed. As you reach 1982-3, and the advent of Tracy Hickman, a different sensibility is beginning to emerge, and there are a lot of different styles that are used as the rush of mid-80s adventures are produced. Although Hickman's adventures remain from that era, not many others do.

Cheers!

 

[Nikosandros]

I generally agree, but I've got to ask: if the system is irelevant, why does 3e "make your skin crawl"?

I used to think that myself, but now I no longer believe it...

For example, I like and play both 1e and 3e and I get quite different gaming experiences from them. All of this from two different but related game systems; currently I'm playing in a HARP campaign and the difference is even more pronounced.

IMVHO, system does matter.... quite a lot.

 

[Nikosandros]

Check out the grappling/overbearing rules - I really think the 2e rules were less confusing.

Yes, I don't like them, but at least I have an idea of what they are trying to accomplish...

What surprises me is that the one old rule I hate the most after-the-fact is proficiencies. Last time I played 2e, proficiencies grated on me far more than any other old rules. They're just so... so clunky, and hard to improve, and dependent on ability scores.

I've seen some nice ideas to tie the roll to both level and ability, but the way they are written they have exactly the problems that you noted.

I loved the clerical sphere system of 2e, though. I'd say that this differentiation between different clerics was the thing I missed most when converting to 3e.

The spheres were a great idea. The main problem I have with them that it is hard to make balanced specialty priests... and if you don't have access to the heling sphere, the party is going to suffer.