The difference between Ad&d 1st and 2nd edition?

[TarionzCousin]

100 types of polearms was likely overkill.

Yeah. All you needed was the pike. It was superior in every way!

 

[Ariosto]

Yeah. All you needed was the pike. It was superior in every way!

In 1st edition, a halberd does more damage vs. all sizes of foes and gets a better chance to hit versus all armor classes.

The pike allows tighter files and reaching past more ranks, for more sharp ends per unit of frontage. The advantage of its length in a charge is a disadvantage when weapon speed factor is telling.

Other polearms are good for dismounting riders or disarming opponents -- the ranseur filling both those needs -- or doing more damage when set to receive a charge (the spear shining here).

The lance factors help make cavalry charges impressive, to say the least. A heavy lancer hits a size L creature for 6-36 points, usually enough to fell an ogre.

 

[Remathilis]

Is Dead Gods the Planescape module where Orcus comes back to life, and it starts with the PCs going off on an apparently unrelated adventure (maybe with Ratatosks?) and getting sucked into the Orcus plotline?

If so, then I've got it, read it but never tried to run it because it looked to me exactly like a railroad.

But I agree that 3e can have the same problem - I've got Return to the Demonweb Pits but never tried to run it for the same reason. There's no way my players would have their PCs just jump through a portal, or follow the directions of Rule-of-Three on nothing but his own say-so.

Given that RtDP was meant to have a "back to Planescape" vibe, I've always assumed that this railroady flavour was endemic to Planescape . . . but having been put off by this flavour, I've not explored Planescape further.

Dead Gods is only a railroad if you run every part of it back-to-back. It, like the Great Modron March, was supposed to be divided up into chunks and run intermixed with other adventures. Perhaps one week you run a scenario from DG, next the PCs go do something else, and a few sessions later, the DG plot advances. Its overly railroady when read, but when played it feels more sandbox-y (though not a true sandbox in any sense of the word) and natural.

Still PlaneScape was well known for its railroads (possibly surpassing all but the Realms and Dragonlance, though Ravenloft did have a few gems). It was a by-product of introducing narrative into modules; good for reading, not always so good for game. Still, when you consider that Against the Giants begins with you being sent to stop the hill giants on penalty of death(!) from the town you came from; things weren't all that better back then either.

 

[pemerton]

Remathilis, that's fair enough. I have run G1-3, but must confess I ignored the whole "threat of death" thing and drew on existing PC motivations (it has to be said, a two-handed sword wielding Dwarf Fighter with a two-handed sword wielding Ranger henchwoman didn't need that much prodding to be motivated to go and kill some giants).

 

[Raven Crowking]

2e adventures are organised into chapters, and they included subheadings like "If the party loses the fight..." followed by various agonised suggestions about how to force the adventure back onto its predetermined track if the three orcs somehow manage to defeat the party of 6th level characters. (1e does not have such sections. If the party loses the fight, then the DM grins evilly as he collects the character sheets and then crushes them beneath his sandalled feet, and hears the lamentation of their henchmen.) In 2e, monsters are placed according to their newly-added ecology sections in the Monstrous Manual, they live in smaller dungeons with fresh water and adequate toilet facilities, and they aren't allowed to use traps unless the player character gets a saving throw at +4. (Otherwise someone might fail and kill someone's precious character, which means the module author has to write a subheading called "If the trap kills anyone....")

Agreed.

We can only be thankful that this philosophy died out with 2e.


RC

 

[David Howery]

and of course, the most famous difference between 1E and 2E was:

the 1E DMG had a Random Prostitute table.

the 2E DMG did not.

This outrage was never rectified, and doubtless was the cause of TSR's eventual crash and fall into bankruptcy...

 

[Raven Crowking]

and of course, the most famous difference between 1E and 2E was:

the 1E DMG had a Random Prostitute table.

the 2E DMG did not.

This outrage was never rectified, and doubtless was the cause of TSR's eventual crash and fall into bankruptcy...

Agreed.

We can only be thankful that this philosophy died out with 2e.


RC

 

[JohnRTroy]

When it comes to the rote mechanics, I agree with what most posters say. AD&D 1e did not feel like a good "let's learn this game". As much as I loved Gary and still love his writing, I don't think he could ever do a very good job of making an easy-to-learn rule set. D&D benefited greatly from the basic sets. (DJ is almost like 1e in that regard, LA is the best so far but I still think it could benefit from a second party;s hand).

As far as philosophy of the game (such as game play styles, etc.) goes, it really isn't fair to measure 1st and 2nd edition by themselves. We are seeing a gradual evolution of the game system, and that comes from both expectations of the growing player base as well as the influence of other designers. I think arguments about it becoming more about "story" and less about "randomness", because if you look at the modules of the time, there was a lot of change of style and experiments.

Monster Ecology--heck, that was starting in Dragon, and Gary started doing more of that. Read WG4 to see how he adds some ecology to rather sketchy monsters in the FF? And EGG went with the boxed text paradigm.

Stories and Chapters--read some of the pre-Dragonlance Hickman modules. I3-5 is a great mix of both Randomness and tricky traps along with a lot more story driven stuff.

I think the hard division into camps between 1e and 2e ignore these gradual changes and the fact that there are many players who were okay with some changes and not the rest. I refuse to use the terms "golden age" or "silver age" because I don't think there's a good line to measure. I also fear the "scrappy doo" effect, where enough of a vocal group complaining about a change in the past end up transforming actual historical fact. (If people hated Scrappy Doo they would have written him out of the damn show pretty quickly). I think a few elements like Ed Greenwood and Unearthed Arcana suffer from the Scrappy Doo analysis.

Finally, a cute aside. The 1e Harlot Table--I am embarrassed to say for the first few years of my life I never looked up the word so I thought these guys were some sort of royal attendants or professions. (The word hooker or prostitute was not used, and terms like pimp weren't as saturated in the language back in the early 80s).

 

[MerricB]

When it comes to the rote mechanics, I agree with what most posters say. AD&D 1e did not feel like a good "let's learn this game". As much as I loved Gary and still love his writing, I don't think he could ever do a very good job of making an easy-to-learn rule set. D&D benefited greatly from the basic sets. (DJ is almost like 1e in that regard, LA is the best so far but I still think it could benefit from a second party;s hand).

"So far"? Are we expecting a new Gygax RPG?

Cheers!

 

[JohnRTroy]

"So far"? Are we expecting a new Gygax RPG?

Cheers!

Oh, no, I didn't mean to imply a new game! (There are some unpublished games but I believe he was reworking them to use LA as a base). I meant so far as based on the entire publishing history of Gygax.

(If there ever is another printing of LA in the near or far there's always the possibility of a co-writer re-organizing the rules, etc, just like somebody could perhaps publish AD&D 1e by taking the rules as a base and re-organizing them).

Although I WISH Gary was still alive.