Re: edition wars

On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 07:36:43 -0000 (UTC), David Chmelik
<dchmelik@gmail.com> 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.

Except those character classes weren't really removed. They were added
back in by the first four splat-books, which were an intended part of
the redesign from the start. Similarly, a lot of the 'removed
material' from DMG was added back in with the Dungeon Master Guide
books, which -again- was the intended plan from the start.

Now, you can make argument that this plan of making players buy more
books to get the same material was scummy; that TSR was
nickel-and-dimming its player-base. I'm not entirely sure I'd disagree
there. But it was _also_ an attempt to streamline the rules. 1E DMG
was an absolute mess in organization, and a lot of the material
therein was unnecessary to most players. 2nd Ed was a significantly
improved rewrite, focusing on the stuff people actually needed to just
play the game, with less important material shunted off to optional
books.

2E is 1E rules... just better written and with a lot of the nonsense
either chucked away entirely or pushed into optional texts. I see that
as a marked improvement.

2E is as much a 'variant' to 1E as 1E is to OD&D. It added stuff and
it removed stuff. It's undeniably based on its predecessor; it shares
many of its strengths and weaknesses. It's certaintly (and
intentionally) not as much of a rewrite as 3E/d20 was. But it stands
as its own version quite well and has its own strengths, not least of
which was the ease with which the game could be adapted and modified
to new settings.

But I still hold that most of the complaints about 2E have less to do
with the system itself than with the meta surrounding it: with Gygax's
departure, with TSR's financial shenanigans, with the changing culture
around tabletop RPGs, etc.