TSR On the Relative Merits of the TSR Editions

[cbwjm]

I swear, there was a time in the relatively recent past when I  knew all of this. I can't remember anything right this week.

We've been through so many editions it isn't surprising that some things blur together.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I never got to play Moldvay/Cook or Mentzer. My introduction to BECMI was the Rules Cyclopedia, which I bought and used (along with The Orcs of Thar) before I fully understoof that 1E and 2E weren't exactly the game game, and that AD&D was different from D&D.

My highest level  legit AD&D character wwasa multiclassed Troll/Assassin/Shaman. He didn't so much die as cease to exist alongside Vecna at the end of Die, Vecna, Die, because the DM allowed us to beat one of the Biggest Bads of D&D of D&D history with a schoolyard prank... but not without extracting his pound of flesh.

The other two PCs were a Klingon Jedi with a lightsabre-bat'leth and a human Fighter who mastered the smallsword.

I think my highest legit AD&D character made it to 14th level or so. But my highest level character was a 30th+ level Magic-User from BECMI. I still have his character sheet, too. I was 9 or 10 and there's no way that was on the level.

Problem is, there's two kinds of Kits: there'a what PF1 calls Archetypes and whay 5E calls Backgrounds. Both of them should exist, but they shouldn't occupy the same design space.

The Complete Book of Thieves was probably my favorite of them. It was the first time I felt like the Thief was a viable class. The kits enabled you to be decent at a few specialties early on, instead of terrible at everything. Kits could've worked, had they been better balanced. And I feel like as time went on, the balance got worse and worse.

I think a case can be made for 10th (OD&D) or 14th (B/X).

Absolutely. Heck, from what Wizards has said about how high most characters level up to, the use case of the game supports that.

 

[Willie the Duck]

We've been through so many editions it isn't surprising that some things blur together.

I think that might be pertinent to the notion of the thread topic of relative merits between them. By all accounts, most of us played hodge-podges, or at the very least 'version X, but heavily influenced by versions Y and Z.' Since the golden age of TSR D&D (like comics and all other nerd interests) was (as the adage goes) twelve, the most meritorious version is also likely a mixture.

 

[Parmandur]

Absolutely. Heck, from what Wizards has said about how high most characters level up to, the use case of the game supports that.

Yeah, I don't think thst higher levels need to go away...but everything above Level 10 are already Epic tier.

 

[Spellslinging Sellsword]

I've long thought that a core book that covers play from 1-10 and a second book that covers play 11+ would make sense.

 

[JML]

AD&D 1e - Occultic, dense, shambolic, completely Gygaxian. Just looking at those Elmore covers is exciting, takes me back.

Guessing you're referring to the Jeff Easley covers of the Orange Spine version? Larry Elmore didn't do any AD&D 1E covers.

I think all of the editions have merits and fun contained therein for those with the desire to find them. I started with B/X (which we also merged with AD&D 1E because we were kids and going from Basic to Expert and then Advanced made perfect sense to us!) and I've played every edition since to one extent or another and while I prefer some to others, I've had a lot of fun with them all. (yes, even the frequently reviled 4E)

I've probably tackled BECMI the least of any edition/version, partly because we had moved to AD&D, but partly because we quite literally never saw a copy of the Companion or Masters rules in my town. Literally never knew anyone who had them back then. I've probably played Original D&D more, because rather than hit up BECMI we would have been in B/X. I suppose Holmes Basic is also in the "barely ever played" category since again: myself and the people I knew had B/X and never saw the need to acquire Holmes or Mentzer editions.

I think the proliferation of B/X retroclones is part in that it was wildly popular for an extended period, but also that it's a fairly comprehensive set of rules without being too expansive. There's probably not enough to the Holmes Basic for many people and BECMI might be too much. 1E has similar advantages over 2E in defining scope. And between the OGL and Pathfinder...who needs to create a clone for 3E?

I wonder if there will be a 4E renaissance in the next decade or so? or will things like Pathfinder 2E or 13th Age hold enough of that territory?

I'm thoroughly uninterested in "edition wars" but conversation about the various positives and interesting aspects of different editions? That's fun.

 

[Gradine]

I know that I played 1e at some point as a small child, but I have absolutely no memory of it outside of it happening. Mostly I was around 2nd edition because those were the books my older brother had and that was the edition they played, and I got to watch him and his friends play when I didn't get shooed away for being the obnoxious kid sibling. Then, of course, I was introduced to the Eye of the Beholder games, and then Baldur's Gate... It was basically my edition growing up. I remember being extremely skeptical of 3rd edition for a while, to the extent that by the time I started actually having friends of my own to play with in college 3.5 was already the system of choice.

It helped that I also really loved all of the different settings, and my brother had pretty much all of the box sets.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Guessing you're referring to the Jeff Easley covers of the Orange Spine version? Larry Elmore didn't do any AD&D 1E covers.

Whoops, temporary brain jam-up there! Thanks for correcting.