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

[Ariosto]

It wasn't keeping track of characters it was that not everyone used the same dice.

I'm pretty sure everyone does in the original MM, PHB and DMG. That's more than one can say for damage dice in any edition except the very first, before Supplement I!

I can see how it might be a confusing way to describe the advantage! Remember, though, that the default always is a roll of 1-2 (on d6).

So, a swan is surprised only on a 1 in 10. A 1 in anything is 1 less than the usual 2. An invisible stalker normally surprises on 1-5. For the swan we count 1 less chance, or 1-4, and roll d10 instead of d6.

It combines the simple and the subtle, the bigger dice meaning less chance of surprise while the numbers on the dice -- side A vs. side B -- indicate different degrees (numbers of segments) of surprise. Guys with high dexterity get themselves together sooner.

The "Advanced" in 1st ed. AD&D was no joke! The Basic sets kept a lot of things simpler.

The 2nd ed. "core" definitely benefited in consistency from being released all at once (rather than over three years of changes to systems in development). The organization is clearer, the writing more straightforward, and the editing most evidently better than that of the 1st ed. DMG!

It also simplified some game-mechanical tools, which did not necessarily retain their full original power.

(For a real brain-bender, try the initiative system in OD&D Supplement III. Champions later used a similar but simpler system.)

 

[slwoyach]

There is very little difference in the core mechanics, not two editions of DnD are as similar to each other as 1e and 2e. A couple of the classes were changed and a bunch of the overpowered wang from the later 1e books were dropped but that's about it. My father swears that 2e killed dnd for him because it wasn't really dnd anymore, but I was never able to figure out what he was talking about.

The 3e and 4e games are so different that they shouldn't even be called D&D. WotC just made their own games and slapped the name on them to take advantage of brand loyalty. I like, play, and run 3e; but it really shouldn't be called Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

1e's a sword and sorcery game where the player characters are motivated by wealth. Influences are Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions, Jack Vance's Cugel stories, and Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, with a touch of Conan and a dash of Elric. Quasi-Tolkein material such as halflings and treants are thrown in as an afterthought. Traps cause Death No Save. Nobody in the party knows or cares if his character has a sister, but you can bet that someone has a 10ft pole.

2e's a high fantasy game where the player characters are motivated by story. Literary influences are all heroic fantasy, and the player characters are heroes (rather than protagonists, which is what 1e thinks they are). Several people in the party have their whole family trees mapped out, and most people can name three of the human tongues they speak (none of which are called "common"), but nobody has a 10ft pole. Peculiar concepts like alignment languages still get lip service in the rules but everyone forgets them in play.

 

[Odhanan]

The difference is pretty big. One is the greatest edition of D&D ever. The other was a complete waste, and destroyed D&D entirely.

...or something.

A bit over the top, but you got the basic logic right.

 

[billd91]

A bit over the top, but you got the basic logic right.

A totally unfair claim. 2e didn't do in TSR or D&D. Poor management of product lines did. 2e was a perfectly fine version of D&D with some much needed clean-up of rules (surprise being a primary one). Some new ideas presented didn't work out too well (priest spheres, anyone?) but were still worth trying.

 

[billd91]

I can see how it might be a confusing way to describe the advantage! Remember, though, that the default always is a roll of 1-2 (on d6).

So, a swan is surprised only on a 1 in 10. A 1 in anything is 1 less than the usual 2. An invisible stalker normally surprises on 1-5. For the swan we count 1 less chance, or 1-4, and roll d10 instead of d6.

I'm not sure that was the intent, and that's the problem with 1e surprise once you add non-d6 dice. And they were introduced fairly early too (G and D series brought drow and svifneblin). And let's not even talk about monks in the 1e PH.
So does the ranger's 3 in 6 to surprise a +16 2/3% chance or a -1 on any die rolled by the opposition? Is his 1 in 6 to be surprised a -16 2/3% applied to the enemy or a +1. Does the amount of bonus he gets depend on the die used by the enemy?
None of that was clear. Moving everything to d10 was a good reform of the system.

 

[Ariosto]

I'm not sure that was the intent

That's the intent indicated in the DMG, so unless you've got some compelling reason for uncertainty, such as some other way you think it works, and why, I don't see what else there is to say.

A ranger surprises on 1-3, and is surprised only on a 1. Ranger vs. ranger, that means 1-2 on d6 (the same as normal dude vs. normal dude). A halfling in certain circumstances surprises normal dudes on 1-4 on d6, a party with a ranger on 1-3 on d6, drow on 1-3 on d8, swans on 1-3 on d10, svirfnebli on 1-3 on d12, and leprechauns never ("Their keen ears prevent them from being surprised.").

It is perfectly clear to me, and to the overwhelmingly vast majority of people I have encountered who professed to have read the explanation in the first place:

Example: Party A is surprised only on a roll of 1, but party B surprises on 5 in 6 (d6, 1-5) due to its nature or the particular set of circumstances which the DM has noted are applicable to this encounter. The favorable factor normally accruing to party A is 1, i.e., parties of this sort are normally surprised on 1 or 2, but this party is surprised only on a 1 -- therefore they have an additional 1 in 6 to their favor (and not a 50% better chance). Party B will surprise them on 5 in 6 less 1 in 6, or 4 in 6. Assume A rolls a 4, so it is surprised for 4 segments unless B rolls a 1, in which case A party's inactive period will be only 3 segments, or if B rolls a 2, in which case surprise will last for only 2 segments (4-1=3, 4-2=2).

 

[Reynard]

1e's a sword and sorcery game where the player characters are motivated by wealth. Influences are Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions, Jack Vance's Cugel stories, and Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, with a touch of Conan and a dash of Elric. Quasi-Tolkein material such as halflings and treants are thrown in as an afterthought. Traps cause Death No Save. Nobody in the party knows or cares if his character has a sister, but you can bet that someone has a 10ft pole.

2e's a high fantasy game where the player characters are motivated by story. Literary influences are all heroic fantasy, and the player characters are heroes (rather than protagonists, which is what 1e thinks they are). Several people in the party have their whole family trees mapped out, and most people can name three of the human tongues they speak (none of which are called "common"), but nobody has a 10ft pole. Peculiar concepts like alignment languages still get lip service in the rules but everyone forgets them in play.

You must spread some experience points around before giving it to Papers and Paychecks again.

I concur.

 

[Henry]

I can concur with some of Papersand Paychecks' summary, in as much as the prevailing thought at the time AD&D1 was the main game in print. Lew Pulsipher's article "Be Aware, Take Care" in Dungeon Magazine (one of my favorite articles of all time) might as well have ben entitled "dirty tricks for mercenaries", because that was the gist of the article. It had very sound tactical advice, very sound strategies that work well if the "Game" aspect is emphasized. In fact, the article points out (paraphrasing here) that:

"Some people say that heroes like Conan don't make all sorts of careful provisions, etc. However, D&D characters aren't like Conan: You're those other guys."

It goes on to say that novel characters could be understood or said to be making these preparations off-stage, so to speak, but the stories don't show them doing such.

2E's rulebook prose does seem to focus more on the heroic aspects than the "boring" aspects. Gygax would approve of a table breaking down the costs piece by piece of building a castle; Zeb Cook and the other TSR writers of the time didn't find a need for such in the DMG2.

"Hey, how much to add a muder hole in my Barbican?"

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted