Re: edition wars

On 10/22/2024 12:36 AM, David Chmelik wrote:

On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 11:01:29 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

You can't really hold up 1E and then say 2E is worse because of the
system itself.

 People do because removed assassins, monks, etc... if bards, cavaliers,
druids, rangers, thief-acrobats weren't removed, were significantly
changed... Dungeon Master Guide (DMG) was significantly shortened,
removing much good material.  That's why my AD&D DM retained everything
from AD&D 1e and used what he wanted from 2e.  The point is by removing
relevant material, it basically became a variant--like mostly a subset
(smaller part of original with minor changes).  The fact it was a money-
grab by new CEO (gamers in general hated, because she considered them
beneath her) after they got rid of the original D&D creators, is well-
documented.  That doesn't make it bad to play if one allows older
compatible rules.  Just, on their own, new editions overall got worse.

My best campaigns were in 2e.  I too used the 1e DMG to add certain bits back in though.
I have to say the layouts and readability of 2e was better than any version before or after it.
--
-Justisaur
  ø-ø
(\_/)\
  `-'\ `--.___,
   ¶¬'\( ,_.-'
        \
        ^'