TSR On the Relative Merits of the TSR Editions

[Gus L]

What kind of game do you think a game with a longer character generation time is? I don't see how that metric has any effect on a game's status as an RPG.

As far as rules mastery and introducing new players goes, obviously it's personal preference but I have no problem taking my time and easing people into the process. And as for the lethality issue, I just make sure we settle on that very clearly in session zero.

Three things here - and obviously we are coming from a different perspective of what we want in an RPG.

A) I don't know that character design time has any effect on a game's "status" as an RPG, of course it's still an RPG (though defining that exactly with specificity is it's own can of worms I suppose). I do think that how long it takes to develop characters is a design choice and one that makes a different game then one with quick generation. This seems pretty non-controversial to me.

B) What kind of game might work better with hour long character generation then 5 minute character generation? I think that long character generation times favor games with i) larger amounts of fiddly rules (usually combat for tactical combat) ii) where the backstory/player plans for the future of the character matter more and need to be planned out prior to play iii) where characters are expected to last a long time - one doesn't want to spend that long char gen process every few session if one is unlucky. So I suspect games that the genre leans into these sorts of ideas. I think superhero games (Champions, MERP and such come to mind as I'm not so familiar with the current crop) are great for character building for example - generally low lethality (you get to keep your PC even when they are downed usually), lots of mechanical variation in characters, a tendency towards tactical combat with many feats/moves and such, and "story" with a lot of space for backstory and planning.

C) Yes session 0 again. I get that it's popular in some RPG spaces and communities. It and the need for it are a design choice as well. It's not something I want for my games - I want people to be able to play right away. Background of the setting, table rules (such as safety tools/topics that might be worrying, how and where the game is run, etc) and char gen should be something one can fit in an email or flyer that anyone can read and understand, or clarify in a quick back and forth/10 minutes at the start of the first session. Of course I also want to help my players and make them comfortable with the rules - but I don't want people to spend an hour or two before we even play to do that.

All of these are design choices - and if I'm poking you about session zero and your preferences I apologize if it comes across as meanspirited, for me it's more friendly snark because you give an impression that your preferences are simply how things should be done. I find when I have this attitude about games (i.e. back in 1986 when I thought all RPGs were D&D) that people presenting different RPGs, different kinds of play, and different goals for play can be quite revelatory.

 

[The Soloist]

Does Holmes get no respect as it's own special edition?!? Sure it's close to OD&D but it's not. It's my intro to D&D so it has a special place in my heart

My first game was with Holmes. It was a solo adventure with a 1 hp magic-user that went very badly, very quickly. I asked for D&D for Christmas and got the Moldvay box. I had no idea it was different from Holmes until about 2010, when I started reading RPG blogs.

Since then, I read and played BlueHolmes solo a few times. The layout is much better than the original Holmes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Three things here - and obviously we are coming from a different perspective of what we want in an RPG.

A) I don't know that character design time has any effect on a game's "status" as an RPG, of course it's still an RPG (though defining that exactly with specificity is it's own can of worms I suppose). I do think that how long it takes to develop characters is a design choice and one that makes a different game then one with quick generation. This seems pretty non-controversial to me.

B) What kind of game might work better with hour long character generation then 5 minute character generation? I think that long character generation times favor games with i) larger amounts of fiddly rules (usually combat for tactical combat) ii) where the backstory/player plans for the future of the character matter more and need to be planned out prior to play iii) where characters are expected to last a long time - one doesn't want to spend that long char gen process every few session if one is unlucky. So I suspect games that the genre leans into these sorts of ideas. I think superhero games (Champions, MERP and such come to mind as I'm not so familiar with the current crop) are great for character building for example - generally low lethality (you get to keep your PC even when they are downed usually), lots of mechanical variation in characters, a tendency towards tactical combat with many feats/moves and such, and "story" with a lot of space for backstory and planning.

C) Yes session 0 again. I get that it's popular in some RPG spaces and communities. It and the need for it are a design choice as well. It's not something I want for my games - I want people to be able to play right away. Background of the setting, table rules (such as safety tools/topics that might be worrying, how and where the game is run, etc) and char gen should be something one can fit in an email or flyer that anyone can read and understand, or clarify in a quick back and forth/10 minutes at the start of the first session. Of course I also want to help my players and make them comfortable with the rules - but I don't want people to spend an hour or two before we even play to do that.

All of these are design choices - and if I'm poking you about session zero and your preferences I apologize if it comes across as meanspirited, for me it's more friendly snark because you give an impression that your preferences are simply how things should be done. I find when I have this attitude about games (i.e. back in 1986 when I thought all RPGs were D&D) that people presenting different RPGs, different kinds of play, and different goals for play can be quite revelatory.

Sorry about that. I'm careful about not stating that my preferences are better than others, and I really believe that, but I do think they're better for me; or I would prefer something else, and I have no interest in pretending otherwise. For me, worldbuilding and design, and especially the roles of setting and simulation in an RPG, are more important than anything else, and more fun. They're certainly more important than any one PC I or anyone else plays, no matter how long it takes to make them, and I practice that belief on both sides of the screen as much as I can without being disruptive to the enjoyment of others at the table.

That's what I believe and what I want nine times out of ten regarding traditional RPGs. Others are perfectly valid in feeling differently, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend my preferences don't matter to me.

 

[Kaodi]

I got my D&D books at a garage sale and they were AD&D 1e. So that is my TSR edition.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well they all have their pros and cons.

In 2025 2E abd the RC are the easiest to groke. OD&D is essentially unplayable. 1E has aged terribly to the point some players (wonen) would refuse to play it RAW due to gendered ability scores. The vibe is nie though.

B/X is great but a bit to basic for modern players.

2E has gone down well with my pkayers. They'll play it occasionally instead of 5E 100% of the time. Its kind of Shackled by ad&d rules.


So.

1. 2E. I like a lot here.
2. B/X. Nice and basic.
3. BECMI. Number 2 with RC.
4. 1E. Dont mind playing it wouldn't run it.
5. OD&D. Its just to raw. I dont see the point vs B/X.

 

[The Soloist]

One thing I don't like about 1e and 2e is the initiative divided into segments. Spell casters in particular, are more affected by this as they add Casting Time to their initiative order. Do you have a house rules to circumvent that?

 

[Staffan]

One thing I don't like about 1e and 2e is the initiative divided into segments. Spell casters in particular, are more affected by this as they add Casting Time to their initiative order. Do you have a house rules to circumvent that?

2e doesn't have segments as such (even if some early books alluded to them). Rather, 2e has three different initiative rules depending on how complicated you want to get (four if you count Combat & Tactics). I might have the names wrong, but they basically work like this:

1. Group initiative. Each side rolls d10 for initiative, with very few possible modifiers. The side that rolls lowest acts first.
2. Modified group initiative. Each side rolls d10 for initiative. Each combatant on that side then adds various modifiers to the die to get their own initiative result. The most common modifiers are weapon speed factors, spell casting times, and monsters adding a size-based modifier for natural attacks (e.g. a frost giant attacking with a battle axe would add the battle axe's speed factor, but if they try to punch you they'd add whatever the modifier for a Huge creature is). Act in ascending initiative order.
3. Personal initiative: as Modified group initiative, but every combatant rolls their own d10 (or possibly per group for easily grouped opponents, like "8 orcs").
4. Combat & Tactics initiative: The round is divided into five phases: very fast, fast, average, slow, and very slow. Actions have a speed rating, usually fast, average, or slow (these are mostly based on the speed factor/cast time numbers, but IIRC the breakpoints were a little different – I think speed factor 4 was Fast, but cast time 4 was Average, so a slight hidden nerf to casters). Very fast and very slow are rarely used on their own, but usually only when things make a fast thing faster or a slow thing slower. Each side rolls a d10, and within each phase the lower roll goes first. On a 1, all actions are one phase faster, and on a 10 they are one phase slower. If both sides roll the same, a special event happens.

1e initiative worked differently, and I believe it was pretty weird and poorly explained – and yes, had casters act with a delay compared to melee. I think this was part of balancing casting – you really didn't want to cast a spell if someone was in your face.

 

[cbwjm]

One thing I don't like about 1e and 2e is the initiative divided into segments. Spell casters in particular, are more affected by this as they add Casting Time to their initiative order. Do you have a house rules to circumvent that?

I think as long as all the other modifiers are being used (weapon speed, various misc modifiers) then it isn't actually too bad (though I recall a halfling thief that eviscerated a powerful wizard who couldn't get a spell off due to the speed of his daggers).

 

[The Soloist]

2e doesn't have segments as such (even if some early books alluded to them). Rather, 2e has three different initiative rules depending on how complicated you want to get (four if you count Combat & Tactics). I might have the names wrong, but they basically work like this:

1. Group initiative. Each side rolls d10 for initiative, with very few possible modifiers. The side that rolls lowest acts first.
2. Modified group initiative. Each side rolls d10 for initiative. Each combatant on that side then adds various modifiers to the die to get their own initiative result. The most common modifiers are weapon speed factors, spell casting times, and monsters adding a size-based modifier for natural attacks (e.g. a frost giant attacking with a battle axe would add the battle axe's speed factor, but if they try to punch you they'd add whatever the modifier for a Huge creature is). Act in ascending initiative order.
3. Personal initiative: as Modified group initiative, but every combatant rolls their own d10 (or possibly per group for easily grouped opponents, like "8 orcs").
4. Combat & Tactics initiative: The round is divided into five phases: very fast, fast, average, slow, and very slow. Actions have a speed rating, usually fast, average, or slow (these are mostly based on the speed factor/cast time numbers, but IIRC the breakpoints were a little different – I think speed factor 4 was Fast, but cast time 4 was Average, so a slight hidden nerf to casters). Very fast and very slow are rarely used on their own, but usually only when things make a fast thing faster or a slow thing slower. Each side rolls a d10, and within each phase the lower roll goes first. On a 1, all actions are one phase faster, and on a 10 they are one phase slower. If both sides roll the same, a special event happens.

1e initiative worked differently, and I believe it was pretty weird and poorly explained – and yes, had casters act with a delay compared to melee. I think this was part of balancing casting – you really didn't want to cast a spell if someone was in your face.

I see that now. I guess I would use option 1 for solo play, as I don't want to deal with too many modifiers, since I play both sides.