Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: David Chmelik <dchmelik@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: [Starburst Magazine] Next Edition of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Changes
 Everything
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 07:42:03 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <v53asb$23llk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v4u803$tpm$5@ereborbbs.duckdns.org>
	<v4u82o$tpm$6@ereborbbs.duckdns.org>
	<1cc67jh04fk2l819emdis1bb7q2e76bi01@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 09:42:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b1fa6ffc3468a8cc574a0221a59164d8";
	logging-data="2217652"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+EiHWfvRKDNce+za8UPr78nh4rEGBmfNg="
User-Agent: Pan/0.154 (Izium; 517acf4)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+oxsPPFMsxPNKwNQ9H8jmgkq4vg=
Bytes: 5650

On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 15:36:35 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 11:23:45 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 6/19/2024 11:22 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
[...]
> Everything I've read about the new books is that it's basically "AD&D
> 2nd Edition" for D&D 5th Edition.
> 
> Which mathematically makes it D&D 7th Edition, not 6th. ;-)

Early Dungeons & Dragons (DD) creators/designers/writers through 1990s 
didn't do job of numbering editions like more professional language/
academic writers do.  There were five standard DD editions before Advanced 
DD (ADD) second edition (2nd ed., 2E, ADD2.  See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_&_Dragons ).  If you 
count those, not just ADD, not half/revised editions, any future 6E (if 
not '5.5E') will (in literary history) be about 9E.  Original 1E was 1974; 
2E was 1977; 3E was 1981; 4E was 1983; 5E was 1991.
 
> Which, you know, being the rare /fan/ of 2nd Edition AD&D (I can
> calculate THAC0 in my head! ;-), sounds pretty cool to me. While not
> without its flaws, 2nd Edition made a /much/ better read -and
> introduction to the game- than the original books. Not quite up to the
> standard of the Mentzer books, certainly, but a much needed
> clarification and consolidation of the rules. It wouldn't be a terrible
> thing of these new books follow suit.
 
I like ADD2 (and all previous editions) many ways and dislike a few.  I 
liked everything through ADD2 was backwards-compatible with all previous  
with minor adjustments (armour class (AC), etc.), like I read you can play 
a standard DD elf as ADD class similar (not same) to ADD fighter/magician 
elf, but you get experience (XP)/levels (so hit points (HP) and spells) 
different rates, so progress slightly quicker for levels but the other  
does slower yet also has some advantages (I forgot details).

What I disliked about ADD2 is it's when rules removals started which were 
exacerbated in DD so-called '3E' (6E in more accuracy/history).  ADD2 
removed monks (and other things) and a large amount of well-written ADD1 
Dungeon Masters' Guide (DMG) such as dungeon generation and just tons of  
neat stuff... I'd still use an ADD2 DMG, which is somewhat good but also 
somewhat simplistic/small/watered-down, so I'd use comprehensive/
marvellous ADD1 DMG simultaneously.  I don't know that removal of classes 
was worth adding skills on top of ADD1 professions (most people don't 
become experts in more than one thing).  Nevertheless, game groups I was 
in, or ran, mostly used Basic & Expert & Companion & Master & (almost) 
Immortals (BECMI) or (combined) ADD1&2.

DD so-called '3E' (6E) took removals to ludicrous level by removing most 
skills, and eventually adding idiotic videogame-derived things like 
'feats', and lost backwards-compatibility of all previous editions from 1E 
through ADD2.  That's part why I will never play DD so-called '3E' (6E).

I heard so-called 5E (8E) put some sense back in, yet retained videogame-
derived things like feats.  In comparison/contrast to chess, DD so-called 
'3E' (6E) & '4E' (7E) & '5E' (8E) are like chess variants with different 
rules/pieces/boards, but not standard chess.  Original DD through ADD2 
already had 99% good rules.  Only thing I heard DD so-called '3E' (6E) had 
that was neat is splitting ability scores into two sub-scores that make 
sense, which is fun but nonessential.  Standard DD could be perfect adding 
races as well as classes, and ADD2 could be perfect by omitting removals, 
and using DD4&5 (BECMI, Rules Cyclopedia) weapon skills, and using ability 
sub-scores (I read some older game designers had been  working on 
alternative ADD2 & maybe 'ADD3').  Since ADD2 (though ADD2.5 was good) we 
really haven't needed new editions/variants--little benefit.

Maybe I saw more of interest in 'retroactive clones' (retro-clones) than 
everything from DD so-called '3E' (6E) to now.  New editions after ADD1 
(due to businessmen/corporatist/suit takeover of TSR) were largely about 
profit, though despite that, I have fond memories of playing ADD2 in 
1990s.  People who prefer Dave Arneson (first DD creator/father/writer  
before Gary Gygax) might say same about ADD1 (businessman takeover meant 
to disenfranchise Dave Arneson) and have a point, but there's much good 
stuff ADD added most roleplaying games (RPGs) couldn't do without.

> Heck, I might even give it a try if they make it so armor class goes
> down as it gets better. ;-)

Yes: THAC0 is more fun.