2e?

[zephiros]

Something that I just kind of realized

Based on this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edition...gons#Time_linehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edition...gons#Time_line

I was wondering which edition actually constituted Second Edition

There's 1e and AD&D, is 2e the Second Edition of AD&D, or the various versions of the "Basic Set"?

If it is the AD&D 2e, then are the Basic Set ones generally excluded from counting?

If it is the Basic Set, do they consider both AD&D just to be "AD&D"

Just wondering about the discrepancy there.

Anyway, thanks.

[Glimbur]

The easiest thing to do is to call everything by what it says on the cover. This does lead to problems like 0th Edition(s), but it's still easier in the long run.

[HunterOfJello]

Holy Crap. I didn't realize the editions were this complex.


I can't believe there's a revised edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition.

That's like the second of the second of the second edition. Or is it?

[Dairun Cates]

Holy Crap. I didn't realize the editions were this complex.


I can't believe there's a revised edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition.

That's like the second of the second of the second edition. Or is it?

Paranoia gets worse. There's a first edition, a Second Edition, a Fifth Edition (that doesn't exist), and XP. Why did they skip so much? Are you questioning Friend Computer, citizen?

[BobVosh]

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition

Revised wasn't different enough to be a new edition. Please ignore the stack of books behind the curtain.

[Gorgondantess]

There was this crappy thing at the beginning, then it became D&D, then it became AD&D, then it became AD&D second edition, then that was revised, the WotC took over and made 3rd edition, then that was bollocks so they made 3.5, then they made 4th edition coz they're greedy cash grabbing monsters.
Pretty simple, really.

[Dubious Pie]

There was this crappy thing at the beginning, then it became D&D, then it became AD&D, then it became AD&D second edition, then that was revised, the WotC took over and made 3rd edition, then that was bollocks so they made 3.5, then they made 4th edition coz they're greedy cash grabbing monsters. they hate good things.
Pretty simple, really.

Fixed it for you.

[Talakeal]

There was no revised second edition. Never. They simply reprinted the books with different covers and color illustrations, but the content was the exact same.

[Kurald Galain]

I can't believe there's a revised edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition.

Ah, it becomes easier once you consider that there never was a second edition of non-advanced D&D, and that the "revision" means some minor typographical fixes and a few new pieces of art in there.

3E is the continuation of Advanced D&D; they just dropped the word "Advanced" since the "Basic" line has long gone. Of course, now they're bringing "Basic" back for 4E...

{table]Basic line|Advanced line
0E|
1E Basic|1E Advanced
n/a|2E AD&D
n/a|2E S&P (2.5)
n/a|3E D&D
n/a|3.5 D&D
n/a|Pathfinder (3.75)
Essentials (4.4)|4E
[/table]

[BobVosh]

Thats an amusing thought for how 4.4 works.

[Yora]

Now why are people calling it 4.4? Brcause "it's NOT 4.5!"?

[Kurald Galain]

Now why are people calling it 4.4? Brcause "it's NOT 4.5!"?

Because it's a convenient shorthand. I find it rather surprising that some people seem to attach a deep emotional or philosophical meaning to two digits and a dot

[Yora]

But wouldn't it be much more logical to have 4.1 follow to 4?

[Kurald Galain]

But wouldn't it be much more logical to have 4.1 follow to 4?

Considering the line goes 0 - 1.B - 1.A - 2 - 2.5 - 3 - 3.5 - 4 - 3.75, I would say that logic has little to do with it

Besides, 4.4 contains twice as much 4 as a regular 4, how is that not good?

[potatocubed]

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition

Yeah, when people say '2e' this is the game they're talking about.

Unravelling game editions is a lot like tracing a genome through successive, incestuous generations - each parent creates offspring which share some of its traits, some of which breed with the parent to produce further offspring with further mixtures of traits, crossbreeding with other species introduces new traits... it gets very messy, very fast.

[KiltedGrappler]

Don't forget, there were also two version of Basic D&D. The Holmes Blue Box, referred to as B/X, and the Moldvey/Cook Red Box, referred to as BECMI. Then there was the Rules Cyclopedia, which was a compelation of all of the BECMI boxes.

[Matthew]

Don't forget, there were also two version of Basic D&D. The Holmes Blue Box, referred to as B/X, and the Moldvey/Cook Red Box, referred to as BECMI. Then there was the Rules Cyclopedia, which was a compelation of all of the BECMI boxes.

Not quite. Holmes is different from B/X, which is different from BECMI (but not by much). Here are some handy links:

• OD&D (Gygax/Arneson Original D&D, 1974)
• HBD&D (Holmes/Gygax Basic D&D, 1977)
• AD&D/OAD&D (Gygax Original Advanced D&D, 1977-1979)
• Moldvay B/X (Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert D&D, 1981)
• Mentzer BECMI (Mentzer Basic/Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal, 1983)
• AD&D 2e (Cook Advanced D&D, 2nd Edition, 1989)
• RC (Allston Rules Cyclopedia, 1991)

[hamishspence]

A notable difference between Holmes Basic and BCEMI- Holmes Basic had five alignments (LG, CG, N, LE, CE.)

[KiltedGrappler]

Not quite. Holmes is different from B/X, which is different from BECMI (but not by much). Here are some handy links:

• OD&D (Gygax/Arneson Original D&D, 1974)
• HBD&D (Holmes/Gygax Basic D&D, 1977)
• AD&D/OAD&D (Gygax Original Advanced D&D, 1977-1979)
• Moldvay B/X (Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert D&D, 1981)
• Mentzer BECMI (Mentzer Basic/Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal, 1983)
• AD&D 2e (Cook Advanced D&D, 2nd Edition, 1989)
• RC (Allston Rules Cyclopedia, 1991)

Right. Forgot about Mentzer and got the others mixed all up. Just proves the point that the older editions get damn confusing to follow sometimes.

[Eldan]

What does the "HB" in "HBD&D" stand for?

[Eorran]

Where does the "black box" set fit in? That was my first intro to D&D, and I think it was published around 1993 or so.

[hamishspence]

Probably as a subsection of the Rules Cyclopedia. It was my introduction to D&D games as well-

though I managed much later to get a copy of Holmes Basic D&D.

[Lapak]

What does the "HB" in "HBD&D" stand for?

Holmes Basic, presumably. A blog I follow has been going through it chapter-by-chapter recently; it's been pretty interesting!

[LibraryOgre]

Holy Crap. I didn't realize the editions were this complex.


I can't believe there's a revised edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition.

That's like the second of the second of the second edition. Or is it?

There isn't, really. The "revised" edition of AD&D 2nd edition is exactly the same as the original, but with some errata, new art, and bigger page borders.

When people refer to 2.5 (a relatively new phenomenon, IME), they usually mean that they include the Player's Option line of books.

[Kurald Galain]

When people refer to 2.5 (a relatively new phenomenon, IME),

Yes. To my knowledge, nobody ever called it 2.5 until 3.5 came out.

[Matthew]

Right. Forgot about Mentzer and got the others mixed all up. Just proves the point that the older editions get damn confusing to follow sometimes.

No doubt. The thing to remember is that "AD&D" and "D&D" are two different lines of products stemming from the same initial game; once that is understood things fall more easily into place.

What does the "HB" in "HBD&D" stand for?

Holmes Basic, presumably. A blog I follow has been going through it chapter-by-chapter recently; it's been pretty interesting!

Yes; the editions of D&D (as contrasted with AD&D) are typically distinguished by the surname of their editor (Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer), whether the "basic" moniker is appropriate is sometimes more a matter of opinion.

Where does the "black box" set fit in? That was my first intro to D&D, and I think it was published around 1993 or so.

Probably as a subsection of the Rules Cyclopedia. It was my introduction to D&D games as well - though I managed much later to get a copy of Holmes Basic D&D.

During the 1990s a lot of "introductory" sets were put out for AD&D/2e and D&D/BECMI, some actually conveyed the rules of the games in question, whilst others only the generalities. They appear to have been relatively short runs analogous to the 3.0 "Basic Game" sets. The ones I know are:

• Dragon Quest (1992)
• Dungeons & Dragons Game (1991/2) [this is, I believe, the black box version]
• Dragon Strike (1993)
• Classic Dungeons & Dragons Game (1994)
• First Quest (1994) [an introduction to second edition AD&D]
• Introduction to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Game (1995) [a revision of First Quest with new artwork]
• The Complete Starter Set (1996)
• Dungeons & Dragons Adventure Game (1999)

There isn't, really. The "revised" edition of AD&D 2nd edition is exactly the same as the original, but with some errata, new art, and bigger page borders.

When people refer to 2.5 (a relatively new phenomenon, IME), they usually mean that they include the Player's Option line of books.

Yes. To my knowledge, nobody ever called it 2.5 until 3.5 came out.

Although probably not common parlance amongst the fan base, David Cook talked about the whole version number idea in an early Game Wizards article published in Dragon #121 discussing what second edition would mean for AD&D:

“In any case, no matter what you change in the AD&D game system, a good number of us will continue to play bards... and whatever else gets axed or deleted.” - Steve Null

Please do. I anticipate that many out there will mix parts of First and Second Editions together to get the game they want (along with a healthy dose of DRAGON Magazine articles and other ideas). Do this! Have fun and use your own creativity. At any rate, rest assured that as far as TSR is concerned, anything you liked in First Edition is legal in Second Edition. If you liked First Edition bards, they’re legal. If you liked monks, they’re legal. Ultimately, there will be people out there who will be playing Version 1.0, Version 1.5, Version 2.0, and probably even Version 2.3 of the AD&D game. Perhaps we should figure out some type of numbering system like that used on computer programs!

The more things change...

[Devils_Advocate]

Part of the confusion comes from WotC continuing the numbering from the AD&D line but dropping the "Advanced". Of course, keeping the "Advanced" would have been confusing, too, as it would suggest that a Basic version was still being produced as an alternative. Perhaps they would have done better to come up with a new adjective and restart the numbering from 1. But maybe not; I'm not sure that I'd trust a marketing department at the turn of the century not to choose a name like "X-treme Dungeons & Dragons 2000!"

A notable difference between Holmes Basic and BCEMI- Holmes Basic had five alignments (LG, CG, N, LE, CE.)

With the four other alignments as quadrants and Neutral in the middle, right? At least, Gygax once discussed that setup in The Strategic Review; I assume that it's the same as the one to which you refer. It's interesting to look at 4E's alignments as a sort of hybrid between that and the nine alignments model. As there, there are two Good, two Evil, and one Neutral alignments. But as with the 3 by 3 grid, the Good and Evil alignments do not border on each other, but are fully separated by Neutrality.

[Matthew]

Indeed. The whole 0e, 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e progression is a bit of a misnomer, and not one that Wizards of the Coast itself always recognises; third edition was an amalgamation of all previous versions, including B/X and BECMI.