PDA

View Full Version : Dungeons & Dragons Editions



Chainsaw Hobbit
2013-12-27, 06:55 PM
I wrote short reviews (http://manicenthusiasm.com/2013/12/27/dungeons-dragons-editions-part-i/) of two early incarnations of D&D on my blog. I'm going to do the rest later.

Thoughts?

WbtE
2013-12-27, 07:40 PM
It reads more like a polemic than a review. You come out and say where you've gone at the start and the purpose of the piece seems to be proving that this was the right choice. Even understood in that way, this is a deficient work, as there's very little proof - the great majority of what's written is vague and subjective. Obviously, your opinion is your own and I can't argue with it, but a reviewer ought to try to describe the product as it is, rather than merely convey their impression of it.

One of the few factual statements,


TSR (the company that owned D&D until the new millennium) wanted players to start with the D&D Basic Set, and then move on to Advanced D&D

is so seriously misleading that it might as well be false. (The claim is true of 2e and the 1989 reprint of the Red Box, not of 1e and the 1983 original.)

Similarly,


One can’t buy the AD&D First Edition books in any digital format, but they were recently reprinted, and are available on Amazon for too much money.

is terribly misleading. Amazon is quoting me about $35 for a used set of 1e books - not bad as RPGs go.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2013-12-27, 07:52 PM
One of the few factual statements is so seriously misleading that it might as well be false. (The claim is true of 2e and the 1989 reprint of the Red Box, not of 1e and the 1983 original.)

Similarly, [the other factual statement] is terribly misleading. Amazon is quoting me about $35 for a used set of 1e books - not bad as RPGs go.

Ah. I was under the impression that Basic D&D was made to sell AD&D.

I hadn't known that amazon sold used versions of the AD&D First edition books. What I was talking about was the reprints.

WbtE
2013-12-27, 08:36 PM
Ah. I was under the impression that Basic D&D was made to sell AD&D.

Where did you get that impression? :smallconfused:


I hadn't known that amazon sold used versions of the AD&D First edition books. What I was talking about was the reprints.

You should have checked. I doubt Amazon cares, but you ended up making misleading and damaging claims about their business because of sloppy research. Surly replies on a message board are not the worst thing that can happen to a blogger.

erikun
2013-12-27, 08:41 PM
You might want to take a look at Wikipedia's entry on the editions of D&D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons) just to clarify a few issues and clear up some misunderstandings. Basic D&D was supported by TSR well into AD&D2e's print cycle, and mostly up until TSR went out of business and the license was sold to Wizards of the Coast.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2013-12-27, 09:02 PM
I corrected the factual errors.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2013-12-28, 12:25 AM
Part II (http://manicenthusiasm.com/2013/12/27/dungeons-dragons-editions-part-ii/) is up.

erikun
2013-12-28, 01:21 AM
Just so you know, Ravenloft was a 1st edition setting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravenloft_(module)).

I'm also wondering a bit about the point of these articles, because it seems like you just provided a brief description followed by "I wouldn't recommend it." At least, that's what the second part definitely feels like.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2013-12-28, 01:26 AM
Just so you know, Ravenloft was a 1st edition setting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravenloft_(module)).

I'm also wondering a bit about the point of these articles, because it seems like you just provided a brief description followed by "I wouldn't recommend it." At least, that's what the second part definitely feels like.

Ravenloft was First Edition? Huh. I really need to do more research.

The point is just to share some thoughts on each edition. I'm going to look at some D&D simulacra like Pathfinder later on, and be a bit more positive.

Talakeal
2013-12-28, 03:45 AM
Ravenloft was First Edition? Huh. I really need to do more research.

The point is just to share some thoughts on each edition. I'm going to look at some D&D simulacra like Pathfinder later on, and be a bit more positive.

AFAIK the Ravenloft campaign setting was not published until 1990 during second edition. The campaign setting, however, was based on first edition adventures published some years earlier.

andresrhoodie
2013-12-28, 04:06 AM
Part II (http://manicenthusiasm.com/2013/12/27/dungeons-dragons-editions-part-ii/) is up.

that players handbook with the guy on the horse was the first one I owned an it has a special place for me. Sure we houseruled it into something closer to warhammer 2e (before it came out) then what was in the books because the game as written was awful.

But it spurred our imagination and made us all want to keep playing. So its worth remembering fondly.

You seem to hate every edition of D&D, which makes you a terrible reviewer.

Sure none of them were awesome games per se. And other games have certainly done better on their various themes. But D&D is the game that doesnt need a theme.

Its just general fantasy action. So no its not the best at anything. It cant be because it has to be all things to all people and the precludes any product from homing in the way takes to be the best at anything.

But dang if those older, weird as hell, games dont deserve some respect for being what created, whole cloth, out of someones imagination, an entire world wide hobby.

If they were that awful none of us would be here now talking about them

Chainsaw Hobbit
2013-12-28, 12:13 PM
that players handbook with the guy on the horse was the first one I owned an it has a special place for me. Sure we houseruled it into something closer to warhammer 2e (before it came out) then what was in the books because the game as written was awful.

But it spurred our imagination and made us all want to keep playing. So its worth remembering fondly.

You seem to hate every edition of D&D, which makes you a terrible reviewer.

Sure none of them were awesome games per se. And other games have certainly done better on their various themes. But D&D is the game that doesnt need a theme.

Its just general fantasy action. So no its not the best at anything. It cant be because it has to be all things to all people and the precludes any product from homing in the way takes to be the best at anything.

But dang if those older, weird as hell, games dont deserve some respect for being what created, whole cloth, out of someones imagination, an entire world wide hobby.

If they were that awful none of us would be here now talking about them

To quote myself:


[I] still view [D&D] with a great deal of love and nostalgia. It shaped my childhood and enriched my imagination.


I was introduced to D&D with the 1983 Basic Set by Frank Mentzer, and because of that, it holds a special place in my heart.


Despite all of this, I think AD&D has a distinct charm. It isn’t what I would call a good game, but it has this contagious sense of wonder and fun. The third book of the three-volume set, called the Monster Manual, contains some of the most inventive creatures I have ever seen in a work of fantasy. There is an invisible emaciated platypus that feeds on psychic energy.
I don't hate every version of D&D. I'm just able to look past my nostalgia goggles and acknowledge its flaws. Besides, I don't need to like D&D to be a good reviewer.

Rhynn
2013-12-28, 11:19 PM
Ah. I was under the impression that Basic D&D was made to sell AD&D.

If you don't even know the three different versions of "Basic D&D" (Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer) you probably shouldn't be reviewing D&D history, but rather learning more. :smallamused:

They're fairly different games, although Holmes and Moldvay are less so; they generally get lumped together under "B/X". Mentzer Basic became BECM (Basic, Expert, Companion, Master), which is a rather different beast.

Basically, Holmes' Basic D&D was just a clean-up of Gygax's original D&D (OD&D), Moldvay's Basic expanded on that with Dave Cook's Expert Set, and BECM added much, much, much more.

I actually wrote an edition history (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=287020&p=15389011) on these forums, if you're interested. That's about as accurate as I can make it (I guess I should've included the distinction that the first Expert Set was edited by Dave Cook, rather than implying it is "Tom Moldvay's").

Rhynn
2013-12-29, 12:44 AM
Reviewing your review...

(NB: I haven't been playing long enough to have personal experience of D&D from before AD&D 2E and BECM, but I do have years of reading grognards' writings and OSR blogs, and I have read and own every single D&D corebook set up to 4E.)

Part I (http://manicenthusiasm.com/2013/12/27/dungeons-dragons-editions-part-i/)


This includes the original 1974 boxed set, which is extremely rare and obscure.

Hugely disagree. OD&D is one of the cornerstones of the OSR (Old School Renaissance) movement, it is played by many OSR people, many OSR bloggers recommend reading it no matter what D&D you play, and many OSR people play it and create material for it. Many D&D retroclones are based as much or more on OD&D as any other edition. OD&D even has its own active subforum at Dragonsfoot (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewforum.php?f=88&sid=4e3835988fee14292a1dcd2a900032c4), which IMO rules out any obscurity relative to other old editions.

Incidentally, WotC sells OD&D reprints (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/45390000).


The game flows pretty smoothly once the players have gotten used to its quirks.

You should probably expand on the "quirks."

Overall, you gloss over one of the biggest editions of D&D (BECMI spanned five boxed sets of two rulebooks each, plus dozens of modules and a huge setting, Mystara) without really telling the reader anything of substance about it. You don't explain how the rules differ from other editions (race as class, attack throws, saving throw classes, XP-for-treasure, etc.).

In particular, you fail to present any argument for your conclusion:


One could probably have a better experience playing a newer, more refined adventure game.

Given that many people have clearly found the opposite, you should probably present something more substantive than an assertion. :smallwink:


Basic D&D, and Advanced D&D. The latter has more rules, more options, more content, more strangeness.

You appear to be completely unaware of the fact that Mentzer Basic was the first quarter (or fifth, if you want to include the IMO execrable Immortals) of a much larger game. BECMI had rules for things AD&D never had them for, and some rulesets of at least comparable complexity by the time you got to the Master set.

Reviewing Basic without addressing its place as a part of a larger ruleset is deficient and inaccurate, I feel.


Characters can also advance to become much more powerful.

This is just incorrect. The Master Set has rules for 36th-level characters, creating artifacts, and becoming divinities. Such characters are far more powerful than any by-the-rules AD&D character, IMO.


Some of these classes blatantly outshine others, and several have strange and arbitrary traits.

...

Mechanically, the game is a convoluted mess. There are too many rules. Some of the rules contradict eachother.

Again, you should use arguments, not assertions. Explain and give examples! :smallwink:

For instance, the Psionics rules are a known Charlie-Foxtrot.


although the advice is hit-or-miss and the tools can feel unwieldy.

Given that there's a fairly broad consensus in the OSR that the AD&D 1E DMG is one of the best books on the subject, you should probably argue this more persuasively. Which ones are unwieldy and how?


So, Part I: I feel you should try to argue, not assert, a point, and that you need a larger and more comprehensive understanding of the games you review, their full extent, and their actual content. Addressing AD&D 1E but not Unearthed Arcana or Oriental Adventures seems like you're glossing over half the published game.


Part II (http://manicenthusiasm.com/2013/12/27/dungeons-dragons-editions-part-ii/):


This seems to have been done to appease angry parents, since demonic creatures were removed from the game, and the whole thing seems like it is trying to be inoffensive.

Just a small quibble: demons and devils were simply renamed tanar'ri and baatezu, and were right there in the original 2E Monstrous Compendiums. But yes, e.g. the assassin class was removed, as were half-orcs (supposedly for similar reasons).


and the whole thing seems like it is trying to be inoffensive.

While AD&D Second Edition may be underwhelming on its own

Again, you should probably argue more strongly for such strong claims. Many people (e.g. I) would disagree with these claims.


Like First Edition, there is no way to purchase digital copies of most of the Second Edition books, but hard copies can be bought second-hand on various websites. I wouldn’t recommend the Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master’s Guide, and Monster Manual – but some of the stranger supplements are definitely worth a look.

Like AD&D 1E, WotC sells reprints of AD&D 2E corebooks. (Not sure about PDFs.)

The parts about 3E and 4E don't have glaring inaccuracies, but again, you just assert, don't argue; your reviews are so thin as to be useless. They boil down to "I like, I don't like" which isn't useful to anyone who doesn't know their tastes line up with yours; from what you've written, we don't even get an understanding of what elements you like in the games you like.

Dawgmoah
2014-01-09, 04:58 PM
I was able to buy a copy of all of the 1st edition books sometime around 1997 I believe. I had the books but was moving towards running off of a laptop back then. I bought the books straight from TSR. I believe some of them can be found on DriveThruRPG now.