Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
When did mixing editions become unusual?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dessert Nomad" data-source="post: 7527548" data-attributes="member: 6976536"><p>One thing that I remember about 1st edition era AD&D is that people really didn't see the rule set as something sacred and set in stone; people would pick and choose which rules to use, and casually would mix and match rules from Dragon Magazine, OD&D, BECMI, 2nd edition, and other games without thinking too much of it. Even crossing game systems was not frowned upon, the DMG rules for crossing over with Gamma World or Boot Hill were not an aberration, and doing things like running a D&D campaign but switching to a miniatures game for epic battles was not unheard of (TSR's Battlesystem was built for that, but people did it with other rule sets). </p><p></p><p></p><p>Someone might not like a particular additional rule because it was overpowered (especially things like optional classes), because it didn't fit the story of the campaign (extra races especially), or was too complicated, and it was consistently 'the DM decides what is valid in his campaign world(s)', but there wasn't an attitude of 'you're not REALLY playing AD&D because your campaign started off in the basic set' or 'That's not 1st edition because you used the psionics class from the 2e psionics guide' or 'your game doesn't count because you used a spell points system instead of Vancian magic'. And you wouldn't really expect to be able to just show up at a new group's game and drop in an existing character (or roll a new one by the rules), you'd need to check what all of their house rules and optional rules were before you could do that.</p><p></p><p></p><p>People also didn't feel the need to use the entire ruleset. For example, I never actually encountered anyone who used the full speed factor rules for 1e, where if two weapon-using combatants fought you compared speed factors and one could get 2-3 extra attacks depending on the ratio of speed factors, but also compared weapon lengths and the longer weapon would always hit first. The psionics rules were usually ignored and if someone did want psionics 'if you roll a small % chance, you basically get an extra class grafted onto your character for free'. The demi-human level limits were often just chucked out if a campaign got to the level where they became relevant. </p><p></p><p></p><p>So my question is: when did this change? My experience is that 3rd edition is when the game really went through a shift from 'jumble together whatever rules you want to use' to 'these are the real rules, and you're probably going to use them while maybe tacking on some specific variants'. I think part of it is that 3e (and later 4e and 5e) was mechanically different enough from 1e and 2e that you couldn't casually mix and match bits with the older editions - there were radical changes to ability scores, hit tables, core combat mechanics, and other areas that made this infeasable. The internet also really took off between the release of 2e and 3e, which made it much easier for players around the world to talk about rules and interpretations, instead of being limited to a local group that had an occasional person go to a convention. </p><p></p><p></p><p>What prompted this is that in a recent thread, some people accused me of lying about having played 1e because I used the term THAC0 when doing a quick 'how would this work' combat. Aside from the many logical flaws of the argument, I looked and found that THACO was used in TSR products going back to 1981, and that it wasn't actually coined in 1989 with 2nd edition like they claimed. This got me thinking about how casually (at least in my experience) people mixed rules back in the day, and how someone using monsters straight from 2e sources for a 1e campaign or running a 1e module for 2e characters didn't seem the least bit odd.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dessert Nomad, post: 7527548, member: 6976536"] One thing that I remember about 1st edition era AD&D is that people really didn't see the rule set as something sacred and set in stone; people would pick and choose which rules to use, and casually would mix and match rules from Dragon Magazine, OD&D, BECMI, 2nd edition, and other games without thinking too much of it. Even crossing game systems was not frowned upon, the DMG rules for crossing over with Gamma World or Boot Hill were not an aberration, and doing things like running a D&D campaign but switching to a miniatures game for epic battles was not unheard of (TSR's Battlesystem was built for that, but people did it with other rule sets). Someone might not like a particular additional rule because it was overpowered (especially things like optional classes), because it didn't fit the story of the campaign (extra races especially), or was too complicated, and it was consistently 'the DM decides what is valid in his campaign world(s)', but there wasn't an attitude of 'you're not REALLY playing AD&D because your campaign started off in the basic set' or 'That's not 1st edition because you used the psionics class from the 2e psionics guide' or 'your game doesn't count because you used a spell points system instead of Vancian magic'. And you wouldn't really expect to be able to just show up at a new group's game and drop in an existing character (or roll a new one by the rules), you'd need to check what all of their house rules and optional rules were before you could do that. People also didn't feel the need to use the entire ruleset. For example, I never actually encountered anyone who used the full speed factor rules for 1e, where if two weapon-using combatants fought you compared speed factors and one could get 2-3 extra attacks depending on the ratio of speed factors, but also compared weapon lengths and the longer weapon would always hit first. The psionics rules were usually ignored and if someone did want psionics 'if you roll a small % chance, you basically get an extra class grafted onto your character for free'. The demi-human level limits were often just chucked out if a campaign got to the level where they became relevant. So my question is: when did this change? My experience is that 3rd edition is when the game really went through a shift from 'jumble together whatever rules you want to use' to 'these are the real rules, and you're probably going to use them while maybe tacking on some specific variants'. I think part of it is that 3e (and later 4e and 5e) was mechanically different enough from 1e and 2e that you couldn't casually mix and match bits with the older editions - there were radical changes to ability scores, hit tables, core combat mechanics, and other areas that made this infeasable. The internet also really took off between the release of 2e and 3e, which made it much easier for players around the world to talk about rules and interpretations, instead of being limited to a local group that had an occasional person go to a convention. What prompted this is that in a recent thread, some people accused me of lying about having played 1e because I used the term THAC0 when doing a quick 'how would this work' combat. Aside from the many logical flaws of the argument, I looked and found that THACO was used in TSR products going back to 1981, and that it wasn't actually coined in 1989 with 2nd edition like they claimed. This got me thinking about how casually (at least in my experience) people mixed rules back in the day, and how someone using monsters straight from 2e sources for a 1e campaign or running a 1e module for 2e characters didn't seem the least bit odd. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
When did mixing editions become unusual?
Top