Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why Is the 5th Edition of Dungeons & Dragons a Big Deal?"--
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Ubiquitous
Jan 13, 2012, 5:18:18 AM1/13/12
to
By Ed Grabianowski
Yesterday, roleplaying game publisher Wizards of the Coast announced the
development of a new edition of D&D. This revision comes less than four
years after the release of the last edition of the stalwart RPG. For
years, D&D players have drawn battle lines over which edition of the game
they prefer, and Wizards is now hoping this new version will lead to a
cease-fire. But how will they reunite these various D&D tribes after 40
years of rules revisions?
The latest edition of D&D doesn't have a name yet, though everyone's
calling it 5th Edition (or 5E), mainly because the last edition was 4th
(not unlike Led Zeppelin IV). The announcement was heralded by articles
at mainstream media sites like Forbes and the New York Times –- Wizards
flew a bunch of media folks out to their Renton, WA headquarters to
unveil the game and even run them through a play session with D&D R&D
head Mike Mearls as the dungeon master. Details are hidden behind
non-disclosure agreements for the time being.
There are two important things to note in the official announcement of
the new edition. First, Wizards will "crowdsource" the design to some
extent by releasing parts of the rules for gamers to test and play with,
then offer feedback on. It's essentially an open beta, and a method with
proven success –- Paizo Publishing used it when developing the Pathfinder
RPG in 2009, and that game now reportedly outsells D&D. Second, in the
words of Mike Mearls, "We want a game that rises above differences of
play styles, campaign settings, and editions, one that takes the
fundamental essence of D&D and brings it to the forefront of the game."
Is edition unification even possible? A trip through the convoluted
history of D&D's editions will show us how we got here, and if there's a
way out.
D&D debuted in the mid-1970s as a boxed set, with rules based on
Chainmail, a tactical miniatures game. A few digest-sized supplements
were published, too. Copies are fairly rare. This version of D&D could be
considered "0th Edition." In the late 70s, the D&D rules were compiled,
reworked, tweaked, fixed and altered significantly, incorporating many of
the new rules from the supplements. This version was published as
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D) in 1977, and enjoyed a fairly robust
life with a lot of supplements and adventure modules. When someone says,
"I only play 1st Edition," this is what they're talking about.
Here's where things get slightly complicated. Simultaneous to the
development of AD&D, game publisher TSR put out a series of boxed sets
simply called Dungeons & Dragons. These were intended as introductory
products to make it easier for players to learn the game and eventually
move up to AD&D. Many gamer have fond memories of the "Red Box" basic set
released in the 80s, so much so that Wizards put out an introductory set
with a nostalgic reuse of the Red Box's cover in 2010. These sets
remained in production from 1977 through the mid-90s, when they were
combined into a single book called the D&D Rules Cyclopedia. For all
intents and purposes, this is a completely separate game from AD&D,
although it obviously shares many rules and concepts.
The 2nd Edition of AD&D was published in 1989. This is the edition that
stripped out all references to demons and devils to sidestep the Satanic
panic that was in vogue at the time. It changed the rules significantly,
most famously for creating a strange system for figuring out what you
needed to roll to make a successful attack, known as THAC0. Combat was
much more tactically detailed in this edition.
3rd Edition came out in 2000. At this point, the D&D boxed sets were
discontinued, and this main branch of the D&D product line did away with
the "Advanced" prefix. 3rd Edition did away with THAC0, brought fiendish
monsters back to the game, and made several other major changes. A
revision of 3rd Edition was published in 2003. Known as D&D 3.5, it
angered many players who felt it forced them to rebuy all the core
rulebooks so shortly after they were first published.
The really important thing about 3rd Edition is that it was published
under the Open Gaming License, or OGL. The core mechanical rules of the
game, known as the D20 System, could be used, expanded upon and
republished by third party companies, much like open source software. No
one needed permission from Wizards of the Coast to publish something
based on the D20 rules, resulting in an explosion of third party
supplements, adventures and entirely new games.
As the publishing life of 3rd Edition ended and 4th Edition was
developed, the D&D story took some twists and turns worthy of the most
devious dungeon master. Wizards had licensed their two flagship gaming
magazines, Dragon and Dungeon, to Paizo Publishing. In anticipation of
4th Edition, they revoked that license. Paizo in turn used the OGL to
revise and refine the 3.5 D&D rules and create their own role-playing
game, Pathfinder. Pathfinder is essentially D&D 3.75. Paizo recently
started claiming that Pathfinder is the best-selling RPG in the world,
and while I'm not sure what the claim is based on (Wizards doesn't
release sales numbers), I don't doubt that it is true or very nearly
true.
What of 4th Edition D&D? It's the most drastic change in the rules yet,
such a thorough reworking of the game that characters made with older
editions are virtually impossible to convert for use in 4E. All character
classes are balanced, giving everyone "powers" to use in combat –-
wizards have spells, fighters have elaborate attack moves, and so forth.
4E is deeply polarizing among D&D players –- many accused Wizards of
dumbing the game down, or trying desperately to appeal to World of
Warcraft players. There are many positive and innovative aspects to 4E,
but the numbers don't lie, D&D isn't healthy right now. You could write
entire articles about why Wizards stumbled with 4E – in fact, I have.
This brings us back to 5th Edition. There's no possible way to literally
unify the various editions under a single rule set. It would be like
trying to build a car that can use parts from a 2010 Mustang, a 1950
Packard, and a tractor. And the edition wars are a serious problem for
gamers, as RPGS are social games. You need a group to play, and if this
girl prefers 2nd Edition, this guy only plays 3rd and those two dudes are
only into Pathfinder, none of them get to play.
It seems like Wizards is aiming for a thematic unification, One System to
Rule Them All, a version of D&D so perfect, so adaptable and so in tune
with the game's ideals that it will win over every gamer. That's
impossible too, of course, but it pays to aim high. If you're interested
in being part of the 5E open playtest, you can sign up at the bottom of
the official announcement.
--
Yes, we can!
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1217081mugyear20.html
Yesterday, roleplaying game publisher Wizards of the Coast announced the
development of a new edition of D&D. This revision comes less than four
years after the release of the last edition of the stalwart RPG. For
years, D&D players have drawn battle lines over which edition of the game
they prefer, and Wizards is now hoping this new version will lead to a
cease-fire. But how will they reunite these various D&D tribes after 40
years of rules revisions?
The latest edition of D&D doesn't have a name yet, though everyone's
calling it 5th Edition (or 5E), mainly because the last edition was 4th
(not unlike Led Zeppelin IV). The announcement was heralded by articles
at mainstream media sites like Forbes and the New York Times –- Wizards
flew a bunch of media folks out to their Renton, WA headquarters to
unveil the game and even run them through a play session with D&D R&D
head Mike Mearls as the dungeon master. Details are hidden behind
non-disclosure agreements for the time being.
There are two important things to note in the official announcement of
the new edition. First, Wizards will "crowdsource" the design to some
extent by releasing parts of the rules for gamers to test and play with,
then offer feedback on. It's essentially an open beta, and a method with
proven success –- Paizo Publishing used it when developing the Pathfinder
RPG in 2009, and that game now reportedly outsells D&D. Second, in the
words of Mike Mearls, "We want a game that rises above differences of
play styles, campaign settings, and editions, one that takes the
fundamental essence of D&D and brings it to the forefront of the game."
Is edition unification even possible? A trip through the convoluted
history of D&D's editions will show us how we got here, and if there's a
way out.
D&D debuted in the mid-1970s as a boxed set, with rules based on
Chainmail, a tactical miniatures game. A few digest-sized supplements
were published, too. Copies are fairly rare. This version of D&D could be
considered "0th Edition." In the late 70s, the D&D rules were compiled,
reworked, tweaked, fixed and altered significantly, incorporating many of
the new rules from the supplements. This version was published as
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D) in 1977, and enjoyed a fairly robust
life with a lot of supplements and adventure modules. When someone says,
"I only play 1st Edition," this is what they're talking about.
Here's where things get slightly complicated. Simultaneous to the
development of AD&D, game publisher TSR put out a series of boxed sets
simply called Dungeons & Dragons. These were intended as introductory
products to make it easier for players to learn the game and eventually
move up to AD&D. Many gamer have fond memories of the "Red Box" basic set
released in the 80s, so much so that Wizards put out an introductory set
with a nostalgic reuse of the Red Box's cover in 2010. These sets
remained in production from 1977 through the mid-90s, when they were
combined into a single book called the D&D Rules Cyclopedia. For all
intents and purposes, this is a completely separate game from AD&D,
although it obviously shares many rules and concepts.
The 2nd Edition of AD&D was published in 1989. This is the edition that
stripped out all references to demons and devils to sidestep the Satanic
panic that was in vogue at the time. It changed the rules significantly,
most famously for creating a strange system for figuring out what you
needed to roll to make a successful attack, known as THAC0. Combat was
much more tactically detailed in this edition.
3rd Edition came out in 2000. At this point, the D&D boxed sets were
discontinued, and this main branch of the D&D product line did away with
the "Advanced" prefix. 3rd Edition did away with THAC0, brought fiendish
monsters back to the game, and made several other major changes. A
revision of 3rd Edition was published in 2003. Known as D&D 3.5, it
angered many players who felt it forced them to rebuy all the core
rulebooks so shortly after they were first published.
The really important thing about 3rd Edition is that it was published
under the Open Gaming License, or OGL. The core mechanical rules of the
game, known as the D20 System, could be used, expanded upon and
republished by third party companies, much like open source software. No
one needed permission from Wizards of the Coast to publish something
based on the D20 rules, resulting in an explosion of third party
supplements, adventures and entirely new games.
As the publishing life of 3rd Edition ended and 4th Edition was
developed, the D&D story took some twists and turns worthy of the most
devious dungeon master. Wizards had licensed their two flagship gaming
magazines, Dragon and Dungeon, to Paizo Publishing. In anticipation of
4th Edition, they revoked that license. Paizo in turn used the OGL to
revise and refine the 3.5 D&D rules and create their own role-playing
game, Pathfinder. Pathfinder is essentially D&D 3.75. Paizo recently
started claiming that Pathfinder is the best-selling RPG in the world,
and while I'm not sure what the claim is based on (Wizards doesn't
release sales numbers), I don't doubt that it is true or very nearly
true.
What of 4th Edition D&D? It's the most drastic change in the rules yet,
such a thorough reworking of the game that characters made with older
editions are virtually impossible to convert for use in 4E. All character
classes are balanced, giving everyone "powers" to use in combat –-
wizards have spells, fighters have elaborate attack moves, and so forth.
4E is deeply polarizing among D&D players –- many accused Wizards of
dumbing the game down, or trying desperately to appeal to World of
Warcraft players. There are many positive and innovative aspects to 4E,
but the numbers don't lie, D&D isn't healthy right now. You could write
entire articles about why Wizards stumbled with 4E – in fact, I have.
This brings us back to 5th Edition. There's no possible way to literally
unify the various editions under a single rule set. It would be like
trying to build a car that can use parts from a 2010 Mustang, a 1950
Packard, and a tractor. And the edition wars are a serious problem for
gamers, as RPGS are social games. You need a group to play, and if this
girl prefers 2nd Edition, this guy only plays 3rd and those two dudes are
only into Pathfinder, none of them get to play.
It seems like Wizards is aiming for a thematic unification, One System to
Rule Them All, a version of D&D so perfect, so adaptable and so in tune
with the game's ideals that it will win over every gamer. That's
impossible too, of course, but it pays to aim high. If you're interested
in being part of the 5E open playtest, you can sign up at the bottom of
the official announcement.
--
Yes, we can!
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1217081mugyear20.html
Justisaur
Jan 13, 2012, 11:07:26 AM1/13/12
to
On Jan 13, 2:18 am, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> By Ed Grabianowski
I'm also not sure what the subject has to do with the post...
- Justisaur
> By Ed Grabianowski
>
> The 2nd Edition of AD&D was published in 1989. This is the edition that
> stripped out all references to demons and devils to sidestep the Satanic
> panic that was in vogue at the time. It changed the rules significantly,
> most famously for creating a strange system for figuring out what you
> needed to roll to make a successful attack, known as THAC0. Combat was
> much more tactically detailed in this edition.
>
Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
> The 2nd Edition of AD&D was published in 1989. This is the edition that
> stripped out all references to demons and devils to sidestep the Satanic
> panic that was in vogue at the time. It changed the rules significantly,
> most famously for creating a strange system for figuring out what you
> needed to roll to make a successful attack, known as THAC0. Combat was
> much more tactically detailed in this edition.
>
I'm also not sure what the subject has to do with the post...
- Justisaur
Keith Davies
Jan 13, 2012, 11:17:39 AM1/13/12
to
Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
rows of 20s (six, IIRC) before continuing. THAC0 may have been
presented as a simplification in a module (Dragonlance, maybe?) but I'm
fairly sure that as far as core rules are concerned it was first seen in
AD&D2e.
Keith
--
Keith Davies "My fingers are freezing. For most people
keith....@kjdavies.org this is an annoyance. For writers,
KJD-IMC: http://www.kjd-imc.org seamstresses, and prostitutes, it's
Echelon: http://www.echelond20.org borderline catastrophic." -- Ari Marmell
> On Jan 13, 2:18?am, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> By Ed Grabianowski
>>
>
>> The 2nd Edition of AD&D was published in 1989. This is the edition that
>> stripped out all references to demons and devils to sidestep the Satanic
>> panic that was in vogue at the time. It changed the rules significantly,
>> most famously for creating a strange system for figuring out what you
>> needed to roll to make a successful attack, known as THAC0. Combat was
>> much more tactically detailed in this edition.
>>
>
> Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
DMG1e had attack tables for the various classes, including repeating
>> By Ed Grabianowski
>>
>
>> The 2nd Edition of AD&D was published in 1989. This is the edition that
>> stripped out all references to demons and devils to sidestep the Satanic
>> panic that was in vogue at the time. It changed the rules significantly,
>> most famously for creating a strange system for figuring out what you
>> needed to roll to make a successful attack, known as THAC0. Combat was
>> much more tactically detailed in this edition.
>>
>
> Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
rows of 20s (six, IIRC) before continuing. THAC0 may have been
presented as a simplification in a module (Dragonlance, maybe?) but I'm
fairly sure that as far as core rules are concerned it was first seen in
AD&D2e.
Keith
--
Keith Davies "My fingers are freezing. For most people
keith....@kjdavies.org this is an annoyance. For writers,
KJD-IMC: http://www.kjd-imc.org seamstresses, and prostitutes, it's
Echelon: http://www.echelond20.org borderline catastrophic." -- Ari Marmell
dr...@bin.sh
Jan 13, 2012, 11:45:45 AM1/13/12
to
In rec.games.frp.dnd Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The 2nd Edition of AD&D was published in 1989. This is the edition that
>> stripped out all references to demons and devils to sidestep the Satanic
>> panic that was in vogue at the time. It changed the rules significantly,
>> most famously for creating a strange system for figuring out what you
>> needed to roll to make a successful attack, known as THAC0. Combat was
>> much more tactically detailed in this edition.
>
> Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
people sometimes say that, but i'm reading through the book
>> The 2nd Edition of AD&D was published in 1989. This is the edition that
>> stripped out all references to demons and devils to sidestep the Satanic
>> panic that was in vogue at the time. It changed the rules significantly,
>> most famously for creating a strange system for figuring out what you
>> needed to roll to make a successful attack, known as THAC0. Combat was
>> much more tactically detailed in this edition.
>
> Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
right now, and its really not.
--
n_n n_n dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
|"|n_n_n|"| ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | " " | | "Basically, when you can look on CharOp and every single
|_|_[T]_|_| build includes mule ownership, you know there's a problem."
-- firesnakearies
Justisaur
Jan 13, 2012, 12:01:08 PM1/13/12
to
On Jan 13, 8:45 am, d...@bin.sh wrote:
- Justisaur
> In rec.games.frp.dnd Justisaur <justis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The 2nd Edition of AD&D was published in 1989. This is the edition that
> >> stripped out all references to demons and devils to sidestep the Satanic
> >> panic that was in vogue at the time. It changed the rules significantly,
> >> most famously for creating a strange system for figuring out what you
> >> needed to roll to make a successful attack, known as THAC0. Combat was
> >> much more tactically detailed in this edition.
>
> > Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
>
> people sometimes say that, but i'm reading through the book
> right now, and its really not.
Try Appendix E.
>
> >> The 2nd Edition of AD&D was published in 1989. This is the edition that
> >> stripped out all references to demons and devils to sidestep the Satanic
> >> panic that was in vogue at the time. It changed the rules significantly,
> >> most famously for creating a strange system for figuring out what you
> >> needed to roll to make a successful attack, known as THAC0. Combat was
> >> much more tactically detailed in this edition.
>
> > Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
>
> people sometimes say that, but i'm reading through the book
> right now, and its really not.
- Justisaur
Seebs
Jan 13, 2012, 2:50:51 PM1/13/12
to
On 2012-01-13, Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2:18?am, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2:18?am, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> The 2nd Edition of AD&D was published in 1989. This is the edition that
>> stripped out all references to demons and devils to sidestep the Satanic
>> panic that was in vogue at the time. It changed the rules significantly,
>> most famously for creating a strange system for figuring out what you
>> needed to roll to make a successful attack, known as THAC0. Combat was
>> much more tactically detailed in this edition.
> Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
Was it? I remember the giant tables, I don't remember THAC0.
>> stripped out all references to demons and devils to sidestep the Satanic
>> panic that was in vogue at the time. It changed the rules significantly,
>> most famously for creating a strange system for figuring out what you
>> needed to roll to make a successful attack, known as THAC0. Combat was
>> much more tactically detailed in this edition.
> Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
-s
--
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
Anonymous Jack
Jan 13, 2012, 3:20:54 PM1/13/12
to
On Jan 13, 11:17 am, Keith Davies <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> wrote:
an odditiy in the tables (uneven progression to hit at very low levels
for some of the different classes that would have prevented THAC0 from
working in 1E - guessing it was the cleric or thief tables.
With 2E and the move to THAC0, they smoothed that out
> Justisaur <justis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
>
> DMG1e had attack tables for the various classes, including repeating
> rows of 20s (six, IIRC) before continuing.
That is what I remember as well, no mention of THAC0. IIRC, there was
> > Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
>
> DMG1e had attack tables for the various classes, including repeating
> rows of 20s (six, IIRC) before continuing.
an odditiy in the tables (uneven progression to hit at very low levels
for some of the different classes that would have prevented THAC0 from
working in 1E - guessing it was the cleric or thief tables.
With 2E and the move to THAC0, they smoothed that out
Rast
Jan 13, 2012, 4:10:21 PM1/13/12
to
Ubiquitous wrote...
enough that if you prefer one, you should still be willing to play the
other (or compromise on 3.5E). Are there really any hardcore 2E fans
left?
The real divide, of course is between the 3.x (including Pathfinder)
crowd and the heretics playing the new 4.0 abomination.
> This brings us back to 5th Edition. There's no possible way to literally
> unify the various editions under a single rule set. It would be like
> trying to build a car that can use parts from a 2010 Mustang, a 1950
> Packard, and a tractor. And the edition wars are a serious problem for
> gamers, as RPGS are social games. You need a group to play, and if this
> girl prefers 2nd Edition, this guy only plays 3rd and those two dudes are
> only into Pathfinder, none of them get to play.
That last sentence is a bad example. 3E and Pathfinder are close
> unify the various editions under a single rule set. It would be like
> trying to build a car that can use parts from a 2010 Mustang, a 1950
> Packard, and a tractor. And the edition wars are a serious problem for
> gamers, as RPGS are social games. You need a group to play, and if this
> girl prefers 2nd Edition, this guy only plays 3rd and those two dudes are
> only into Pathfinder, none of them get to play.
enough that if you prefer one, you should still be willing to play the
other (or compromise on 3.5E). Are there really any hardcore 2E fans
left?
The real divide, of course is between the 3.x (including Pathfinder)
crowd and the heretics playing the new 4.0 abomination.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Jan 13, 2012, 4:27:46 PM1/13/12
to
On 1/13/12 2:50 PM, Seebs wrote:
> On 2012-01-13, Justisaur<just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 13, 2:18?am, Ubiquitous<web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> The 2nd Edition of AD&D was published in 1989. This is the edition that
>>> stripped out all references to demons and devils to sidestep the Satanic
>>> panic that was in vogue at the time. It changed the rules significantly,
>>> most famously for creating a strange system for figuring out what you
>>> needed to roll to make a successful attack, known as THAC0. Combat was
>>> much more tactically detailed in this edition.
>
>> Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
>
> Was it? I remember the giant tables, I don't remember THAC0.
I think it was in one of the 1e SUPPLEMENTS, not the DMG. But it was
> On 2012-01-13, Justisaur<just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 13, 2:18?am, Ubiquitous<web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> The 2nd Edition of AD&D was published in 1989. This is the edition that
>>> stripped out all references to demons and devils to sidestep the Satanic
>>> panic that was in vogue at the time. It changed the rules significantly,
>>> most famously for creating a strange system for figuring out what you
>>> needed to roll to make a successful attack, known as THAC0. Combat was
>>> much more tactically detailed in this edition.
>
>> Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
>
> Was it? I remember the giant tables, I don't remember THAC0.
around well before 2e.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Joe Claffey Jr.
Jan 13, 2012, 5:17:31 PM1/13/12
to
In article <slrnjh127q.1u6...@guild.seebs.net>,
It was in there, although it wasn't abbreviated. "To Hit AC 0".
--
Joe Claffey
india...@gmail.com
It was in there, although it wasn't abbreviated. "To Hit AC 0".
--
Joe Claffey
india...@gmail.com
dr...@bin.sh
Jan 13, 2012, 5:36:20 PM1/13/12
to
In rec.games.frp.dnd Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 13, 8:45?am, d...@bin.sh wrote:
>> > Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
>>
>> people sometimes say that, but i'm reading through the book
>> right now, and its really not.
>
> Try Appendix E.
cool. i'll accept that 'To Hit AC 0' exists as a heading in a summary
>> > Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
>>
>> people sometimes say that, but i'm reading through the book
>> right now, and its really not.
>
> Try Appendix E.
table of monsters, but i still call shenanigans.
--
n_n n_n dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
|"|n_n_n|"| ---------------------------------------------------------------
|_|_[T]_|_| i can has xp, plz? kthxbye!"
Jim Davies
Jan 13, 2012, 7:21:33 PM1/13/12
to
On the grave of Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> is inscribed:
>Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
>
>DMG1e had attack tables for the various classes, including repeating
>rows of 20s (six, IIRC) before continuing. THAC0 may have been
>presented as a simplification in a module (Dragonlance, maybe?) but I'm
>fairly sure that as far as core rules are concerned it was first seen in
>AD&D2e.
It's in the 1e DMG appendix E pp 196-215, but it's not abbreviated to
THAC0. It's "To Hit A.C. 0". So the concept is firmly embedded, though
not as an acronym.
--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
There is no God. But there is pudding!
>Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
>
>DMG1e had attack tables for the various classes, including repeating
>rows of 20s (six, IIRC) before continuing. THAC0 may have been
>presented as a simplification in a module (Dragonlance, maybe?) but I'm
>fairly sure that as far as core rules are concerned it was first seen in
>AD&D2e.
THAC0. It's "To Hit A.C. 0". So the concept is firmly embedded, though
not as an acronym.
--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
There is no God. But there is pudding!
Justisaur
Jan 13, 2012, 6:49:26 PM1/13/12
to
On Jan 13, 1:10 pm, Rast <ra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ubiquitous wrote...
> > This brings us back to 5th Edition. There's no possible way to literally
> > unify the various editions under a single rule set. It would be like
> > trying to build a car that can use parts from a 2010 Mustang, a 1950
> > Packard, and a tractor. And the edition wars are a serious problem for
> > gamers, as RPGS are social games. You need a group to play, and if this
> > girl prefers 2nd Edition, this guy only plays 3rd and those two dudes are
> > only into Pathfinder, none of them get to play.
>
> That last sentence is a bad example. 3E and Pathfinder are close
> enough that if you prefer one, you should still be willing to play the
> other (or compromise on 3.5E). Are there really any hardcore 2E fans
> left?
I think the hardcore are pretty much "Anything Pre 3e" from what I
> Ubiquitous wrote...
> > This brings us back to 5th Edition. There's no possible way to literally
> > unify the various editions under a single rule set. It would be like
> > trying to build a car that can use parts from a 2010 Mustang, a 1950
> > Packard, and a tractor. And the edition wars are a serious problem for
> > gamers, as RPGS are social games. You need a group to play, and if this
> > girl prefers 2nd Edition, this guy only plays 3rd and those two dudes are
> > only into Pathfinder, none of them get to play.
>
> That last sentence is a bad example. 3E and Pathfinder are close
> enough that if you prefer one, you should still be willing to play the
> other (or compromise on 3.5E). Are there really any hardcore 2E fans
> left?
can tell on DF, all with their preferred edition.
- Justisaur
Nicole Massey
Jan 13, 2012, 10:38:17 PM1/13/12
to
"Rast" <ra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.297a67b0c...@news.eternal-september.org...
knows of several active 2e lists, there are definitely still folks playing
all of the versions of the game, including the original digest sized boxed
set with all the supplements. And the divide between 3x and 4x is huge, but
the divide between 1x and 3x is about as big. And 1x players are much more
thick skinned about it, probably from getting called grognards for so long.
tussock
Jan 14, 2012, 2:43:40 AM1/14/12
to
Rast wrote:
> Ubiquitous wrote...
>> This brings us back to 5th Edition. There's no possible way to literally
>> unify the various editions under a single rule set. It would be like
>> trying to build a car that can use parts from a 2010 Mustang, a 1950
>> Packard, and a tractor. And the edition wars are a serious problem for
>> gamers, as RPGS are social games. You need a group to play, and if this
>> girl prefers 2nd Edition, this guy only plays 3rd and those two dudes are
>> only into Pathfinder, none of them get to play.
>
> That last sentence is a bad example. 3E and Pathfinder are close
> enough that if you prefer one, you should still be willing to play the
> other (or compromise on 3.5E). Are there really any hardcore 2E fans
> left?
Hell yes, though they're all playing such a heavily house-ruled game it
> Ubiquitous wrote...
>> This brings us back to 5th Edition. There's no possible way to literally
>> unify the various editions under a single rule set. It would be like
>> trying to build a car that can use parts from a 2010 Mustang, a 1950
>> Packard, and a tractor. And the edition wars are a serious problem for
>> gamers, as RPGS are social games. You need a group to play, and if this
>> girl prefers 2nd Edition, this guy only plays 3rd and those two dudes are
>> only into Pathfinder, none of them get to play.
>
> That last sentence is a bad example. 3E and Pathfinder are close
> enough that if you prefer one, you should still be willing to play the
> other (or compromise on 3.5E). Are there really any hardcore 2E fans
> left?
hardly counts, and most of them are groups that don't get together often.
There may be more AD&D players than 2nd edition though, and they don't all
get along (just as 3e people didn't all bite at the revision, and many never
went for Pathfinder either).
2nd edition's advantage is it takes /forever/ to go up levels, so you
can just keep playing the same character until you die.
> The real divide, of course is between the 3.x (including Pathfinder)
> crowd and the heretics playing the new 4.0 abomination.
g+ or somewhere yesterday that they'd taken 5e characters through Lost
Caverns of Tsocwhatever. Tsojcanth.
That's /extremely/ oldschool. If they keep playing the same characters
through famous 1st edition, 2nd edition, 3rd edition, and 4th edition
modules, ... well, marketing happens, eh. Dragon Mountain playable again.
--
tussock
Keith Davies
Jan 24, 2012, 10:26:20 AM1/24/12
to
Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
> On the grave of Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> is inscribed:
>
>>Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
>>
>>DMG1e had attack tables for the various classes, including repeating
>>rows of 20s (six, IIRC) before continuing. THAC0 may have been
>>presented as a simplification in a module (Dragonlance, maybe?) but I'm
>>fairly sure that as far as core rules are concerned it was first seen in
>>AD&D2e.
>
> It's in the 1e DMG appendix E pp 196-215, but it's not abbreviated to
> THAC0. It's "To Hit A.C. 0". So the concept is firmly embedded, though
> not as an acronym.
How did they reconcile that with the 'six 20s' in the tables?
> On the grave of Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> is inscribed:
>
>>Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
>>
>>DMG1e had attack tables for the various classes, including repeating
>>rows of 20s (six, IIRC) before continuing. THAC0 may have been
>>presented as a simplification in a module (Dragonlance, maybe?) but I'm
>>fairly sure that as far as core rules are concerned it was first seen in
>>AD&D2e.
>
> It's in the 1e DMG appendix E pp 196-215, but it's not abbreviated to
> THAC0. It's "To Hit A.C. 0". So the concept is firmly embedded, though
> not as an acronym.
Jim Davies
Jan 24, 2012, 2:35:07 PM1/24/12
to
On the grave of Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> is inscribed:
>Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
>> On the grave of Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> is inscribed:
>>
>>>Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
>>>
>>>DMG1e had attack tables for the various classes, including repeating
>>>rows of 20s (six, IIRC) before continuing. THAC0 may have been
>>>presented as a simplification in a module (Dragonlance, maybe?) but I'm
>>>fairly sure that as far as core rules are concerned it was first seen in
>>>AD&D2e.
>>
>> It's in the 1e DMG appendix E pp 196-215, but it's not abbreviated to
>> THAC0. It's "To Hit A.C. 0". So the concept is firmly embedded, though
>> not as an acronym.
>
>How did they reconcile that with the 'six 20s' in the tables?
If you need a 21 to hit under any version of D&D, you're doing it
>Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
>> On the grave of Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> is inscribed:
>>
>>>Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
>>>
>>>DMG1e had attack tables for the various classes, including repeating
>>>rows of 20s (six, IIRC) before continuing. THAC0 may have been
>>>presented as a simplification in a module (Dragonlance, maybe?) but I'm
>>>fairly sure that as far as core rules are concerned it was first seen in
>>>AD&D2e.
>>
>> It's in the 1e DMG appendix E pp 196-215, but it's not abbreviated to
>> THAC0. It's "To Hit A.C. 0". So the concept is firmly embedded, though
>> not as an acronym.
>
>How did they reconcile that with the 'six 20s' in the tables?
wrong anyway. And for all I know, the six 20s was just another rule
that Gygax didn't use anyway.
Justisaur
Jan 24, 2012, 2:01:35 PM1/24/12
to
On Jan 24, 7:26 am, Keith Davies <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> wrote:
> Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
> > On the grave of Keith Davies <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> is inscribed:
> Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
>
> >>Justisaur <justis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
>
> >>DMG1e had attack tables for the various classes, including repeating
> >>rows of 20s (six, IIRC) before continuing. THAC0 may have been
> >>presented as a simplification in a module (Dragonlance, maybe?) but I'm
> >>fairly sure that as far as core rules are concerned it was first seen in
> >>AD&D2e.
>
> > It's in the 1e DMG appendix E pp 196-215, but it's not abbreviated to
> > THAC0. It's "To Hit A.C. 0". So the concept is firmly embedded, though
> > not as an acronym.
>
> How did they reconcile that with the 'six 20s' in the tables?
They didn't. You'd have to look it up anyway if it got into the 20's.
> >>Justisaur <justis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
>
> >>DMG1e had attack tables for the various classes, including repeating
> >>rows of 20s (six, IIRC) before continuing. THAC0 may have been
> >>presented as a simplification in a module (Dragonlance, maybe?) but I'm
> >>fairly sure that as far as core rules are concerned it was first seen in
> >>AD&D2e.
>
> > It's in the 1e DMG appendix E pp 196-215, but it's not abbreviated to
> > THAC0. It's "To Hit A.C. 0". So the concept is firmly embedded, though
> > not as an acronym.
>
> How did they reconcile that with the 'six 20s' in the tables?
- Justisaur
Nicole Massey
Jan 24, 2012, 5:09:42 PM1/24/12
to
"Jim Davies" <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote in message
news:4t1uh750017vh22e2...@4ax.com...
> On the grave of Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> is inscribed:
>
>>Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
>>> On the grave of Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> is inscribed:
>>>
>>>>Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
>>>>
>>>>DMG1e had attack tables for the various classes, including repeating
>>>>rows of 20s (six, IIRC) before continuing. THAC0 may have been
>>>>presented as a simplification in a module (Dragonlance, maybe?) but I'm
>>>>fairly sure that as far as core rules are concerned it was first seen in
>>>>AD&D2e.
>>>
>>> It's in the 1e DMG appendix E pp 196-215, but it's not abbreviated to
>>> THAC0. It's "To Hit A.C. 0". So the concept is firmly embedded, though
>>> not as an acronym.
>>
>>How did they reconcile that with the 'six 20s' in the tables?
>
> If you need a 21 to hit under any version of D&D, you're doing it
> wrong anyway. And for all I know, the six 20s was just another rule
> that Gygax didn't use anyway.
Remember also that that appendix is for monsters to hit, so it's hit dice
>
>>Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
>>> On the grave of Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> is inscribed:
>>>
>>>>Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
>>>>
>>>>DMG1e had attack tables for the various classes, including repeating
>>>>rows of 20s (six, IIRC) before continuing. THAC0 may have been
>>>>presented as a simplification in a module (Dragonlance, maybe?) but I'm
>>>>fairly sure that as far as core rules are concerned it was first seen in
>>>>AD&D2e.
>>>
>>> It's in the 1e DMG appendix E pp 196-215, but it's not abbreviated to
>>> THAC0. It's "To Hit A.C. 0". So the concept is firmly embedded, though
>>> not as an acronym.
>>
>>How did they reconcile that with the 'six 20s' in the tables?
>
> If you need a 21 to hit under any version of D&D, you're doing it
> wrong anyway. And for all I know, the six 20s was just another rule
> that Gygax didn't use anyway.
based, not level based, and I haven't taken the time to review the monster
to hit chart to see if the six twenties fell into that anyway -- it's been a
while since I ran an Ad&D game.
Justisaur
Jan 24, 2012, 8:09:04 PM1/24/12
to
On Jan 24, 2:09 pm, "Nicole Massey" <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote:
> "Jim Davies" <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote in message
>
> news:4t1uh750017vh22e2...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On the grave of Keith Davies <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> is inscribed:
> "Jim Davies" <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote in message
>
> news:4t1uh750017vh22e2...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
> >>> On the grave of Keith Davies <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> is inscribed:
>
> >>Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
> >>> On the grave of Keith Davies <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> is inscribed:
>
> >>>>Justisaur <justis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
>
> >>>>DMG1e had attack tables for the various classes, including repeating
> >>>>rows of 20s (six, IIRC) before continuing. THAC0 may have been
> >>>>presented as a simplification in a module (Dragonlance, maybe?) but I'm
> >>>>fairly sure that as far as core rules are concerned it was first seen in
> >>>>AD&D2e.
>
> >>> It's in the 1e DMG appendix E pp 196-215, but it's not abbreviated to
> >>> THAC0. It's "To Hit A.C. 0". So the concept is firmly embedded, though
> >>> not as an acronym.
>
> >>How did they reconcile that with the 'six 20s' in the tables?
>
> > If you need a 21 to hit under any version of D&D, you're doing it
> > wrong anyway. And for all I know, the six 20s was just another rule
> > that Gygax didn't use anyway.
>
> Remember also that that appendix is for monsters to hit, so it's hit dice
> based, not level based, and I haven't taken the time to review the monster
> to hit chart to see if the six twenties fell into that anyway -- it's been a
> while since I ran an Ad&D game.
Yes they are there for monsters too.
>
> >>>>> Nit, THAC0 was(is?) in the 1e DMG.
>
> >>>>DMG1e had attack tables for the various classes, including repeating
> >>>>rows of 20s (six, IIRC) before continuing. THAC0 may have been
> >>>>presented as a simplification in a module (Dragonlance, maybe?) but I'm
> >>>>fairly sure that as far as core rules are concerned it was first seen in
> >>>>AD&D2e.
>
> >>> It's in the 1e DMG appendix E pp 196-215, but it's not abbreviated to
> >>> THAC0. It's "To Hit A.C. 0". So the concept is firmly embedded, though
> >>> not as an acronym.
>
> >>How did they reconcile that with the 'six 20s' in the tables?
>
> > If you need a 21 to hit under any version of D&D, you're doing it
> > wrong anyway. And for all I know, the six 20s was just another rule
> > that Gygax didn't use anyway.
>
> Remember also that that appendix is for monsters to hit, so it's hit dice
> based, not level based, and I haven't taken the time to review the monster
> to hit chart to see if the six twenties fell into that anyway -- it's been a
> while since I ran an Ad&D game.
I only checked one, giant rat which is a 1-1 or lower monster which
should be 20* (2nd 20) but it's just listed 20 in the appendix.
- Justisaur
Nicole Massey
Jan 24, 2012, 8:40:05 PM1/24/12
to
I've been thinking a lot about the reissue of the first edition AD&D core
three books, and I find the timing of this rather interesting. Right after
WOTC announces they want imput from gamers on what fifth edition will be and
they re-release three old school books. I know it's for the Gygax Memorial
Fund to build a statue of Gary, but still, this presents an interesting set
of thoughts when taken in context with the prior press release so recently.
They don't release sales figures, but it's not hard to judge the sales
figures of this latest version in light of how recently 4th edition came
out. And I've encountered even more vitrol against it than in previous
editions. Pathfinder is reputed to be doing well, too, so there's some
question as to how many folks they managed to lure over to 4th edition. I
personally haven't had a chance to check it out, as I'm on what they call a
fixed income, (though it always seems broken to me) and as a result haven't
had the money to spend on the latest iteration of the game. But still, it's
interesting to find first edition stuff coming out again.
three books, and I find the timing of this rather interesting. Right after
WOTC announces they want imput from gamers on what fifth edition will be and
they re-release three old school books. I know it's for the Gygax Memorial
Fund to build a statue of Gary, but still, this presents an interesting set
of thoughts when taken in context with the prior press release so recently.
They don't release sales figures, but it's not hard to judge the sales
figures of this latest version in light of how recently 4th edition came
out. And I've encountered even more vitrol against it than in previous
editions. Pathfinder is reputed to be doing well, too, so there's some
question as to how many folks they managed to lure over to 4th edition. I
personally haven't had a chance to check it out, as I'm on what they call a
fixed income, (though it always seems broken to me) and as a result haven't
had the money to spend on the latest iteration of the game. But still, it's
interesting to find first edition stuff coming out again.
0 new messages