Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

AD&D in 1999

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Toby Jennings

unread,
Feb 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/27/99
to
Well, I just finished looking at TSR's online catalog for Q2/3 of 1999, and
am pretty unimpressed about what's on the horizon for the AD&D game.

I'm going to say that 50% of what's in the online catalog are reprints of
older, out-of-print material; another 35% is new forgotten realms stuff; 10%
is Marvel Superheroes stuff, and the other 5% is miscellaneous
AD&D/Alternity new stuff.

We'll get to see reprints of forgotten realms favorites such as Drow of the
Underdark, Draconomicon, the Menzoberranzan boxed set, but not the City of
Splendors box. They're also releasing the original Dragonlance "Classics"
adventures again, this time modified for AD&D or that new Dragonlance game
system, SAGA or whatever.

On the up-side, they're finally starting with the Priest Spell Compendiums,
but I only saw one volume in the catalog..one volume out of four. Also a
CD-ROM Forgotten Realms atlas.

Another reprint is the Council of Wyrms gets the revise/update treatment.
Let's see the Castle Guide again! In *print*, not a website download.

Unless there's a lot of product waiting in the wings that they're not
announcing yet, this is going to be pretty lackluster year for AD&D
material.

GX9000

unread,
Feb 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/27/99
to
Toby Jennings wrote in message <7b7uv6$5...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...

>Well, I just finished looking at TSR's online catalog for Q2/3 of 1999, and
>am pretty unimpressed about what's on the horizon for the AD&D game.

I agree.

>I'm going to say that 50% of what's in the online catalog are reprints of
>older, out-of-print material; another 35% is new forgotten realms stuff;
10%
>is Marvel Superheroes stuff, and the other 5% is miscellaneous
>AD&D/Alternity new stuff.

The MONSTROUS COMPENDIUM ANNUALs are simply rehashed or combinations of
monsters that came before (such as the Quickling, from 1st ed., and the
cenitor or something, which is a minotaur/centaur splice - unimaginative).

>We'll get to see reprints of forgotten realms favorites such as Drow of the
>Underdark, Draconomicon, the Menzoberranzan boxed set, but not the City of
>Splendors box. They're also releasing the original Dragonlance "Classics"
>adventures again, this time modified for AD&D or that new Dragonlance game
>system, SAGA or whatever.

Good, it's about time they re-released Menzo and DotU. Those will sell like
wildfire - those are products people like. City of Splendors, I don't know
how well that did... and I can't say anything for Dragonlance since I have
never played it and don't ever want to.

>On the up-side, they're finally starting with the Priest Spell Compendiums,

Priests deserve some recognition for a change...

>but I only saw one volume in the catalog..one volume out of four. Also a
>CD-ROM Forgotten Realms atlas.

Yep, TSR is slowly moving to the computer. It would be nice to see more than
just the Player's Handbook and the DMG on CD-ROM.

>Unless there's a lot of product waiting in the wings that they're not
>announcing yet, this is going to be pretty lackluster year for AD&D
>material.

Knowing TSR, I seriously doubt there's anything on the wing, otherwise they
would be pushing it like crazy, like they did when Player's Option had just
come out...

Kebenaran

unread,
Feb 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/27/99
to
>"Toby Jennings" <tcjen...@nospam.hotmail.com>wrote:

>Unless there's a lot of product waiting in the wings that they're not
>announcing yet, this is going to be pretty lackluster year for AD&D
>material.

My guess is that TSR is holding out on releasing too many new, non-reprint
items because they are concentrating on 3rd Edition and don't want too many new
items to conflict with the new edition. But that's just a guess on my part.


William K. McCarthy
kebe...@aol.com
Rec.games.frp.marketplace FAQ can be found at:
http://welcome.to/RGFM_FAQ


Toby Jennings

unread,
Feb 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/27/99
to
The idea of a 3rd Edition scares me...I just don't see how it is necessary.
2nd Edition itself was a gamble, but it payed off...they might not be so
lucky next time.

We have a system that has been working fine for 10 years, we have more
options than we know what do to with, and none of these options have a place
in the core rules of the game.

Aside from radically changing the game (probably for the worse), I don't see
what a 3rd Edition could accomplish.


Kebenaran wrote in message <19990227155529...@ng11.aol.com>...

Sea Wasp

unread,
Feb 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/27/99
to
Toby Jennings wrote:
>
> The idea of a 3rd Edition scares me...I just don't see how it is necessary.
> 2nd Edition itself was a gamble, but it payed off...they might not be so
> lucky next time.

It's not luck. In this kind of business, the new editions are a
standard way of keeping interest up in the product. Wizards would be a
fool NOT to issue a third edition, I assure you.

--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html

The Wraith

unread,
Feb 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/28/99
to
On 28 Feb 1999 06:51:09 GMT, "Toby Jennings"
<tcjen...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

>Oh, its luck all right. To make heavy modifications to a core property like
>AD&D,

Excuse me, but precisely who said there would be heavy modifications
in a 3rd Edition of AD&D, if one was to be produced?

>At most, there should be a AD&D 2.5 just to iron out the miscellaneous
>errata and consolidate some of the more interesting options into the core
>rules...like the kit system and other gems from the Complete Handbooks.

That would most likely come out labelled (and justly so, I would say)
as the 3rd Edition of AD&D. Those incorporations are certainly no
greater than what are to be found in successive editions of many other
games.

--
Now, by popular demand, a new .sig!
I still can't think of anything witty to say, though.

The Wraith

boglin

unread,
Feb 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/28/99
to
On 27 Feb 1999 20:55:29 GMT, kebe...@aol.com (Kebenaran) uttered
(allegedly):

>>"Toby Jennings" <tcjen...@nospam.hotmail.com>wrote:
>>Unless there's a lot of product waiting in the wings that they're not
>>announcing yet, this is going to be pretty lackluster year for AD&D
>>material.
>
>My guess is that TSR is holding out on releasing too many new, non-reprint
>items because they are concentrating on 3rd Edition and don't want too many new
>items to conflict with the new edition. But that's just a guess on my part.

Hhhmmm... Looking back to my old D&D stuff I've noticed that the early
stuff had no AD&D conversions in it.... and then they suddenly
appeared.... (I should've guessed what would happen then) - The Rules
Cyclopedia even has a short paragraph on 'Why Convert?' (NB. It didn't
say 'we're not going to make D&D stuff soon...(the liars!!!)).

In my opinion, if they introduced a 3rd edition, they would have to be
VERY careful on the way they spring it on us. I mean, look what happed
to the Known World (aka Mystara), when they converted it to
2ndAD&D....

Remember folks.... Keep checking the back pages of those modules!

Oh no, another thought just struck my tiny little mind.... Would a 3rd
edition mean another set of cataclysmic events in all the gaming
worlds...... YET ANOTHER was of gods???? (May the Immortals prevent
this....)

:)

Lorien :)(:
(And that is my real name, anyone using it as a 'handle' I shall
shoot....)


boglin

arse!drink!feck!net!

Sea Wasp

unread,
Feb 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/28/99
to
The Wraith wrote:
>
> On 28 Feb 1999 06:51:09 GMT, "Toby Jennings"
> <tcjen...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Oh, its luck all right. To make heavy modifications to a core property like
> >AD&D,
>
> Excuse me, but precisely who said there would be heavy modifications
> in a 3rd Edition of AD&D, if one was to be produced?
>
> >At most, there should be a AD&D 2.5 just to iron out the miscellaneous
> >errata and consolidate some of the more interesting options into the core
> >rules...like the kit system and other gems from the Complete Handbooks.

Me, I'd modify it heavily, fixing the stuff that's been broken since
the first three booklets came out. There's something to be said for both
approaches. In the one, you don't risk alienating the old players. In
the other, you have the potential to attract new ones that might have an
aversion to the old game.

But I would most CERTAINLY make some kind of E3 -- if only one that
consolidated all the changes made to #2. The point of #2 was to
consolidate all the stuff that was done to original AD&D; that purpose
was served, but now AD&D2 is far, far more spread out and complex than
#1 EVER was, so it's time to do the same to it.

Yehoota

unread,
Feb 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/28/99
to
Toby Jennings wrote in message <7bap0t$a...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...

>At most, there should be a AD&D 2.5 just to iron out the miscellaneous
>errata and consolidate some of the more interesting options into the core
>rules...like the kit system and other gems from the Complete Handbooks.
>
Egad! The first thing I'd do is remove the kit system. Then I'd pore over
the books and wonder why the hell I blew another couple hundred dollars to
adjust everything to my liking, that being 1st edition/2nd edition hybrid
thing we kind of do now... :-)

Anthony Toohey
Theryn of Nowhere
Knowing he's too weak to resist buying a new edition, no matter how much he
prattles on...

Werebat

unread,
Feb 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/28/99
to
Sea Wasp wrote:
>
> Toby Jennings wrote:
> >
> > The idea of a 3rd Edition scares me...I just don't see how it is necessary.
> > 2nd Edition itself was a gamble, but it payed off...they might not be so
> > lucky next time.
>
> It's not luck. In this kind of business, the new editions are a
> standard way of keeping interest up in the product. Wizards would be a
> fool NOT to issue a third edition, I assure you.

Sure.

They should really pick a worksable psionics system and stick with it,
too. As an adjuct to the core rules -- sort of like the Bard class in
2nd Edition.

- Ron ^*^

BluSponge

unread,
Feb 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/28/99
to
>>To make heavy modifications to a core property like AD&D, no matter how much
playtesting/market research/whatever ... its a roll of the dice when it hits
the market. We gamers are pretty fickle. If we want a product to die, it
dies. TSR oughta know this too. Buck Rogers XXVc... Amazing Engine ... 2nd
try at Buck Rogers, this time with more pulp! ...<<

Sure, and we all want AD&D to die in whatever form, right?

>>Issuing a 3rd Edition is not going to bring would-be gamers out of the
woodwork, and it's not necessary to keep interest in the AD&D game. 2nd
Edition AD&D is not broken, as far as I can see, no matter what people may
say.<<

I don't know about this. I imagine there are many folks out there who don't
play second ed, or even like AD&D, who will take a look at 3rd edition when it
comes out. I know I will, just because. There's always a chance the designers
might find a magic bullet and AD&D could become a pretty cool game system. The
odds are against it, but its still possible.

>>At most, there should be a AD&D 2.5 just to iron out the miscellaneous
errata and consolidate some of the more interesting options into the core
rules...like the kit system and other gems from the Complete Handbooks.<<

AD&D 2.5 has already been released. Integrating the Kit system into the core
rules would be a major deal, and quite fitting for 3rd edition.

I think most people fear 3rd edition because they think it will try and
integrate ALL the options from the books since AD&D2. I don't believe anything
of the sort. If the point system from the PO books was integrated into the
PHB, there'd be hardly enough room for the spells section. Rather, I expect
you'll see some of the new proficiencies (and maybe some tinkering with that
system), and some integrating the spells from ToM, PO:S&M, and maybe
BoNecromancers into the main list -- same with the magic items. Of course, I
could be wrong, but I think that is more along the lines with the changes.

AD&D2 has been tooling along for over 10 years without an overhaul or even a
tune-up. TSR just kept on adding chrome and glasspacks. If done well, AD&D3
will be a positive thing. If not? C'mon, its AD&D! How much can you really
screw it up? ;)

Tom
BluSponge's Gray Matter page (Political Rants, Greyhawk:SAGA)
http://web2.airmail.net/sponge2

Toby Jennings

unread,
Feb 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/28/99
to
>Excuse me, but precisely who said there would be heavy modifications
>in a 3rd Edition of AD&D, if one was to be produced?


If there weren't heavy modifications, why make the 3rd edition in the first
place?

Jimmy Kerl

unread,
Feb 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/28/99
to
Sea Wasp wrote:

> But I would most CERTAINLY make some kind of E3 -- if only one that
> consolidated all the changes made to #2. The point of #2 was to
> consolidate all the stuff that was done to original AD&D; that purpose
> was served, but now AD&D2 is far, far more spread out and complex than
> #1 EVER was, so it's time to do the same to it.

Me, i think they need to SIMPLIFY it again, go have a look at basic d&d for
some things. I think the whining about please no 3rd edition is people not
wanting to see even greater complexity.

They really need to go back to the simple system if they want to continue to
attract new players. All this just my humble opinion.

Course i still play basic d&d and dont care what new editions they make as
im playing from 1 rule book now and probebly wont purchase any more _rule_ books.

Jimmy

Randal Svea

unread,
Feb 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/28/99
to
If anything, the second ed. has made me by _less_ stuff from TSR. I
didn't see a reason to buy a new PH and DMG for a few new rules and a
lot more headaches, and any product that relied on that nonsense was not
for me. So mostly, I buy new monster collections these days. Like
Microsoft, TSR has a tendency to make new versions that never address
most of the real problems of previous versions. It's too soon to put out
a new edition and it may just cut their sales rather than increase them.

SIurpSlurp

unread,
Feb 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/28/99
to
>> The idea of a 3rd Edition scares me...I just don't see how it is necessary.
>> 2nd Edition itself was a gamble, but it payed off...they might not be so
>> lucky next time.
>
> It's not luck. In this kind of business, the new editions are a
>standard way of keeping interest up in the product. Wizards would be a
>fool NOT to issue a third edition, I assure you.
>

now wether or not we like it is a different story hehe.

Toby Jennings

unread,
Feb 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/28/99
to
Oh, its luck all right. To make heavy modifications to a core property like

AD&D, no matter how much playtesting/market research/whatever ... its a roll
of the dice when it hits the market. We gamers are pretty fickle. If we
want a product to die, it dies. TSR oughta know this too. Buck Rogers XXVc
... Amazing Engine ... 2nd try at Buck Rogers, this time with more pulp! ...

Issuing a 3rd Edition is not going to bring would-be gamers out of the


woodwork, and it's not necessary to keep interest in the AD&D game. 2nd
Edition AD&D is not broken, as far as I can see, no matter what people may
say.

At most, there should be a AD&D 2.5 just to iron out the miscellaneous


errata and consolidate some of the more interesting options into the core
rules...like the kit system and other gems from the Complete Handbooks.

Sea Wasp wrote in message <36D8C2...@wizvax.net>...


>Toby Jennings wrote:
>>
>> The idea of a 3rd Edition scares me...I just don't see how it is
necessary.
>> 2nd Edition itself was a gamble, but it payed off...they might not be so
>> lucky next time.
>
> It's not luck. In this kind of business, the new editions are a
>standard way of keeping interest up in the product. Wizards would be a
>fool NOT to issue a third edition, I assure you.
>

Alexander Bernert

unread,
Mar 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/1/99
to
boglin <bog...@boglinscage.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
: Oh no, another thought just struck my tiny little mind.... Would a 3rd

: edition mean another set of cataclysmic events in all the gaming
: worlds...... YET ANOTHER was of gods???? (May the Immortals prevent
: this....)

Isn't there supposed to be agreat change to come over the realms as a result of
the current novel series (threat from the sea or so) ?

Alexander

--
This message was created by chaotic complex forces, generating bits and
bytes randomly, and only seems to have some meaning.

Die Nutzung meiner email-Adresse fuer Werbezwecke ist nicht gestattet. The
use of my email-address for advertising purposes is not allowed.


Larry Mead

unread,
Mar 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/1/99
to
Toby Jennings (tcjen...@nospam.hotmail.com) wrote:
: The idea of a 3rd Edition scares me...I just don't see how it is necessary.
: 2nd Edition itself was a gamble, but it payed off...they might not be so
: lucky next time.

: We have a system that has been working fine for 10 years, we have more


: options than we know what do to with, and none of these options have a place
: in the core rules of the game.

: Aside from radically changing the game (probably for the worse), I don't see
: what a 3rd Edition could accomplish.

Nor do I. Indeed, it is most likely to alienate a lot of 2nd editioners
just as 2nd edition did to many who play first ed to this day. There will
be an inevitable three-way split unless the game is designed by a panel of
1st and 2nd edition players with a *lot* of experience, both in the game
and in life.

DMGorgon
--
Lawrence R. Mead Ph.D. (Lawren...@usm.edu)
Eschew Obfuscation! Espouse Elucidation!
www-dept.usm.edu/~physics/mead.html


Larry Mead

unread,
Mar 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/1/99
to
Sea Wasp (sea...@wizvax.net) wrote:

: Toby Jennings wrote:
: >
: > The idea of a 3rd Edition scares me...I just don't see how it is necessary.
: > 2nd Edition itself was a gamble, but it payed off...they might not be so
: > lucky next time.

: It's not luck. In this kind of business, the new editions are a

: standard way of keeping interest up in the product. Wizards would be a
: fool NOT to issue a third edition, I assure you.

Only if the game goes back to its "roots" and remains thereby a game
with simple basic rules. I fear there are plans afoot to appease the young
and add tons of supplimentary rules (never needed in the first place) to
the core - the wrong direction to go.

Larry Mead

unread,
Mar 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/1/99
to
Toby Jennings (tcjen...@nospam.hotmail.com) wrote:
: Oh, its luck all right. To make heavy modifications to a core property like

: AD&D, no matter how much playtesting/market research/whatever ... its a roll
: of the dice when it hits the market. We gamers are pretty fickle. If we
: want a product to die, it dies. TSR oughta know this too. Buck Rogers XXVc
: ... Amazing Engine ... 2nd try at Buck Rogers, this time with more pulp! ...

: Issuing a 3rd Edition is not going to bring would-be gamers out of the
: woodwork, and it's not necessary to keep interest in the AD&D game. 2nd
: Edition AD&D is not broken, as far as I can see, no matter what people may
: say.

: At most, there should be a AD&D 2.5 just to iron out the miscellaneous
: errata and consolidate some of the more interesting options into the core
: rules...like the kit system and other gems from the Complete Handbooks.

Toby has just validated his own point. I might by/adopt 3rd edition, but
only if optional rules - like kits - remain optional and are not part of
the core rules. That would be a big mistake.

Larry Mead

unread,
Mar 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/1/99
to
The Wraith (wra...@powerup.com.au) wrote:
: On 28 Feb 1999 06:51:09 GMT, "Toby Jennings"
: <tcjen...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

: >Oh, its luck all right. To make heavy modifications to a core property like
: >AD&D,

: Excuse me, but precisely who said there would be heavy modifications


: in a 3rd Edition of AD&D, if one was to be produced?

: >At most, there should be a AD&D 2.5 just to iron out the miscellaneous


: >errata and consolidate some of the more interesting options into the core
: >rules...like the kit system and other gems from the Complete Handbooks.

: That would most likely come out labelled (and justly so, I would say)


: as the 3rd Edition of AD&D. Those incorporations are certainly no
: greater than what are to be found in successive editions of many other
: games.

That does not make them worthwhile or good does it?

Larry Mead

unread,
Mar 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/1/99
to
Toby Jennings (tcjen...@nospam.hotmail.com) wrote:
: >Excuse me, but precisely who said there would be heavy modifications
: >in a 3rd Edition of AD&D, if one was to be produced?


: If there weren't heavy modifications, why make the 3rd edition in the first
: place?


If there weren't heavy modifications, why make the 2nd edition in the
first place?

DMGorgon

Aardy R. DeVarque

unread,
Mar 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/1/99
to
"GX9000" <gx9...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Yep, TSR is slowly moving to the computer. It would be nice to see more than
>just the Player's Handbook and the DMG on CD-ROM.

Um, there're a *lot* of books on the CR2 CD-ROM. DMG, PH, ToM, PO/DMO, A&E,
etc., etc.

--
"Goo goo ga-joob" --Beatles, "I am the Walrus"

Aardy R. DeVarque
Feudalism: Serf & Turf
rgfd FAQ: http://www.enteract.com/~aardy/faq/rgfdfaq.html
RPG page: http://www.enteract.com/~aardy/rpg/index.html


The Wraith

unread,
Mar 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/2/99
to
On 28 Feb 1999 19:09:47 GMT, "Toby Jennings"
<tcjen...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

>>Excuse me, but precisely who said there would be heavy modifications
>>in a 3rd Edition of AD&D, if one was to be produced?
>
>
>If there weren't heavy modifications, why make the 3rd edition in the first
>place?

To integrate the minor modifications which are deemed worthwhile, to
realign the basic rules so as to fit more easily with the later
supplemental rules (not envisaged at the time the PHB and DMG were
produced), to incorporate such things as newer proficiencies, spells
and such into the basic rulebook. Probably a few other reasons
besides.

Basically, all the reasons a 2nd Edition was produced. The differences
between this and the 1st Edition are really not that great. Similar
effects can be seen in the later editions of many other games
currently on the market.

The Wraith

unread,
Mar 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/2/99
to
On 1 Mar 1999 13:48:17 GMT, lrm...@orca.st.usm.edu (Larry Mead) wrote:
>The Wraith (wra...@powerup.com.au) wrote:
>: On 28 Feb 1999 06:51:09 GMT, "Toby Jennings"

>: <tcjen...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>: That would most likely come out labelled (and justly so, I would say)
>: as the 3rd Edition of AD&D. Those incorporations are certainly no
>: greater than what are to be found in successive editions of many other
>: games.
>
>That does not make them worthwhile or good does it?

Not necessarily, no. Nor necessarily bad. What's your point?

Patrick M. Berry

unread,
Mar 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/2/99
to
In article <19990227231557...@ng138.aol.com>, siurp...@aol.comABC123 (SIurpSlurp) writes:
> >> The idea of a 3rd Edition scares me...I just don't see how it is necessary.
> >> 2nd Edition itself was a gamble, but it payed off...they might not be so
> >> lucky next time.
> >
> > It's not luck. In this kind of business, the new editions are a
> >standard way of keeping interest up in the product. Wizards would be a
> >fool NOT to issue a third edition, I assure you.
>
> now wether or not we like it is a different story hehe.

Perhaps, but how can we possibly know whether we'll like something that we
haven't seen? Quite a few posters to this newsgroup seem to have made up
their minds already about a third edition, but I have no idea what they're
basing their judgements on.


Patrick M. Berry

unread,
Mar 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/2/99
to
In article <7bap0t$a...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, "Toby Jennings" <tcjen...@nospam.hotmail.com> writes:

> Issuing a 3rd Edition is not going to bring would-be gamers out of the
> woodwork, and it's not necessary to keep interest in the AD&D game. 2nd
> Edition AD&D is not broken, as far as I can see, no matter what people may
> say.
>

> At most, there should be a AD&D 2.5 just to iron out the miscellaneous
> errata and consolidate some of the more interesting options into the core
> rules...like the kit system and other gems from the Complete Handbooks.

Suppose TSR does exactly that, and calls it Third Edition. Would you
object? I can't see how it makes any difference whether it's called
2.5 or 3.0.


Erik Ward

unread,
Mar 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/2/99
to
In article <7be5tl$9iv$1...@thorn.cc.usm.edu>, lrm...@orca.st.usm.edu says...

>
>Toby Jennings (tcjen...@nospam.hotmail.com) wrote:
>: >Excuse me, but precisely who said there would be heavy modifications
>: >in a 3rd Edition of AD&D, if one was to be produced?
>
>
>: If there weren't heavy modifications, why make the 3rd edition in the first
>: place?
>
>
>If there weren't heavy modifications, why make the 2nd edition in the
>first place?
>

>DMGorgon
>--
>Lawrence R. Mead Ph.D. (Lawren...@usm.edu)
>Eschew Obfuscation! Espouse Elucidation!
>www-dept.usm.edu/~physics/mead.html
>

Why worry about it? If you choose to use Xth Edition AD&D, do so. The only
problem with 1st/2cd/3rd is the large amount of time and energy used to defend
one/attack the others here in the newsgroup. I haven't heard anyone yet on
the newsgroup come back with a post such as "Gosh, thats a great point. I'm
going to switch (back) to 2cd (1st) edition!!!!"

the Nightshade,
Erik Ward


Patrick M. Berry

unread,
Mar 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/2/99
to
In article <36da56f4....@news.powerup.com.au>, wra...@powerup.com.au (The Wraith) writes:
> On 28 Feb 1999 19:09:47 GMT, "Toby Jennings"

> <tcjen...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >If there weren't heavy modifications, why make the 3rd edition in the first
> >place?
>
> To integrate the minor modifications which are deemed worthwhile, to
> realign the basic rules so as to fit more easily with the later
> supplemental rules (not envisaged at the time the PHB and DMG were
> produced), to incorporate such things as newer proficiencies, spells
> and such into the basic rulebook.

Indeed. I would line up to buy a third edition that contained NO new
material if it reorganized and consolidated the material we already have.
Just incorporating the non-weapon proficiencies and equipment lists from
the Complete Handbooks into the PHB would be worth a lot to me.

melchar

unread,
Mar 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/2/99
to
> : At most, there should be a AD&D 2.5 just to iron out the miscellaneous

> : errata and consolidate some of the more interesting options into the core
> : rules...like the kit system and other gems from the Complete Handbooks.
>
> Toby has just validated his own point. I might by/adopt 3rd edition, but
> only if optional rules - like kits - remain optional and are not part of
> the core rules. That would be a big mistake.

Yea! Fix the glitches and mistakes and keep the kits optional and
I'd get the 3rd edition stuff! Keep it simple. (& under the mistakes,
please have someone go thru the DMG treasure tables and make sure that
-everything- listed in the charts actually does have a description later
in the appropriate section!)


She/whispered/Oh/my/goodness/what/are/all/these/squirrels/doing/here?
**********************
/--\ ___ | http://www.jps.net/melchar
V-\ \_/ \ | mel...@rotfl.com
|@ @|^\ \ | mel...@jps.net
/===\ V | Barbara Johnson-Haddad
C___|| ||____D |
**********************

Larry Mead

unread,
Mar 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/2/99
to
Erik Ward (erik...@bogus.lexmark.com) wrote:
: In article <7be5tl$9iv$1...@thorn.cc.usm.edu>, lrm...@orca.st.usm.edu says...

: >
: >Toby Jennings (tcjen...@nospam.hotmail.com) wrote:
: >: >Excuse me, but precisely who said there would be heavy modifications
: >: >in a 3rd Edition of AD&D, if one was to be produced?
: >
: >
: >: If there weren't heavy modifications, why make the 3rd edition in the first
: >: place?
: >
: >
: >If there weren't heavy modifications, why make the 2nd edition in the
: >first place?
: >
: >DMGorgon

: >--
: >Lawrence R. Mead Ph.D. (Lawren...@usm.edu)
: >Eschew Obfuscation! Espouse Elucidation!
: >www-dept.usm.edu/~physics/mead.html
: >

: Why worry about it? If you choose to use Xth Edition AD&D, do so. The only
: problem with 1st/2cd/3rd is the large amount of time and energy used to defend
: one/attack the others here in the newsgroup. I haven't heard anyone yet on
: the newsgroup come back with a post such as "Gosh, thats a great point. I'm
: going to switch (back) to 2cd (1st) edition!!!!"

: the Nightshade,
: Erik Ward

Actually, there have been two such testimonials here, one just recently
8-). But your point is still well taken.

boglin

unread,
Mar 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/2/99
to
On 1 Mar 1999 11:15:42 GMT, Alexander Bernert
<aber...@aixterm4.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> uttered (allegedly):

>boglin <bog...@boglinscage.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>: Oh no, another thought just struck my tiny little mind.... Would a 3rd
>: edition mean another set of cataclysmic events in all the gaming
>: worlds...... YET ANOTHER was of gods???? (May the Immortals prevent
>: this....)
>
>Isn't there supposed to be agreat change to come over the realms as a result of
>the current novel series (threat from the sea or so) ?

No idea - though there have been rumours. Some say it's just going to
detail the underwater realms (sea elves etc).
I'm just fed up of the gods dropping in to most of the campaign
worlds...

Altering the Realms again, in my opinion, would be a bad move. People
are still exploring the changes made after the Time of Troubles.

Lorien

boglin

arse!drink!feck!net!

Philos Sophia

unread,
Mar 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/3/99
to
[Toby Jennings]
"Well, I just finished looking at TSR's online catalog for Q2/3 of 1999, and
am pretty unimpressed about what's on the horizon for the AD&D game.

I'm going to say that 50% of what's in the online catalog are reprints of
older, out-of-print material; another 35% is new forgotten realms stuff; 10%
is Marvel Superheroes stuff, and the other 5% is miscellaneous
AD&D/Alternity new stuff.

We'll get to see reprints of forgotten realms favorites such as Drow of the
Underdark, Draconomicon, the Menzoberranzan boxed set, but not the City of
Splendors box. They're also releasing the original Dragonlance "Classics"
adventures again, this time modified for AD&D or that new Dragonlance game
system, SAGA or whatever."

A couple of weeks ago, on the TSR board for Greyhawk, the topic of
"rehash" came up. I said that much of what was coming out was
re-hashed stuff and Sean Reyonlds came at me like a bat out of hell.
I tried to post this long response, but in my stupidity, I dumped it
all accidently before posting. Instead, not wanted to spend another
thirty minutes typing my response, I gave in and simply stated
something simplistically demurring. But I'm glad to see that many
others out there think the same thing.

If this is a slow down before the coming 3rd edition, then I best buy
up all those Elric! supplements and begin my final transition.

Jamie

Vogelback
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. USA

Ian R Malcomson

unread,
Mar 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/4/99
to
>: That would most likely come out labelled (and justly so, I would say)
>: as the 3rd Edition of AD&D. Those incorporations are certainly no
>: greater than what are to be found in successive editions of many other
>: games.
>
>That does not make them worthwhile or good does it?

It doesn't really make them inane, either.

I mean, consider (for example) Call of Cthulhu. Not really that much
has been done to it's basic system, but it's now on, what, 5th ed.?

This is hypothetical:

Now, say edition numbers weren't used, and you picked up an adventure or
supplement for a game for which you have the 1983 rulebook for. Since
'83, the game has an expanded list of skills available, has had some
minor tweaks in the system, and a bunch of new adversaries have been
added.

You read the adventure, and immediately start going "What the Hell is a
Broasfson? How does the Funk'n'Groove skill work?", and so on.

If the adventure had been marked "For edition x", and the different
releases of the game had also been marked, you'd know from the cover
that your '83 rules would probably not cover everything the adventure
called for. You'd still be able to use it (the base system is the
same), but you'd be more prepared for the differences and probable work
necessary to fit the module to your outdated rulebook.

And as far as whether games *should* be tweaked and changed, well, I'm a
great believer in Darwin :-)

--
Ian R Malcomson
Ure æghwylc sceal ende gebidan worolde lifes; wyrce se þe mote domes ær deaþe;
þæt bið driht-guman unlifgendum æfter selest.
Domicus Website, for all things Ian R Malcomson: http://www.domicus.demon.co.uk

The Wraith

unread,
Mar 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/4/99
to
On 2 Mar 1999 16:17:41 GMT, ber...@aur.alcatel.com (Patrick M. Berry)
wrote:

>
>Indeed. I would line up to buy a third edition that contained NO new
>material if it reorganized and consolidated the material we already have.

Actually, I bought the revised PHB and DMG, despite there not even
being any reorganization or consolidation of material, and my
possessing the older versions. Why? Because my older books were
wearing out.

Larry Mead

unread,
Mar 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/4/99
to
Ian R Malcomson (i...@domicus.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: >: That would most likely come out labelled (and justly so, I would say)

: >: as the 3rd Edition of AD&D. Those incorporations are certainly no
: >: greater than what are to be found in successive editions of many other
: >: games.
: >
: >That does not make them worthwhile or good does it?

: It doesn't really make them inane, either.

[snip]

: And as far as whether games *should* be tweaked and changed, well, I'm a


: great believer in Darwin :-)

What edition does he play ;-)

JenXen2

unread,
Mar 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/4/99
to
>: And as far as whether games *should* be tweaked and changed, well, I'm a
>: great believer in Darwin :-)
>
>What edition does he play ;-)

Galapagos, Isle of Controversy

Ian R Malcomson

unread,
Mar 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/4/99
to

>: And as far as whether games *should* be tweaked and changed, well, I'm a
>: great believer in Darwin :-)
>
>What edition does he play ;-)

Probably v.-6 - the slimy proto-game found in some pools on the
Galapagos islands :-)

DCatLarge

unread,
Mar 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/6/99
to
>Unless there's a lot of product waiting in the wings that they're not
>announcing yet, this is going to be pretty lackluster year for AD&D
>material.

I would say it's been a pretty lackluster decade for AD&D material. I
sometimes wonder if anyone involved in product design actually plays the game.
don

0 new messages