Thank you for this. You’ve shared a lot of D&D history which I never knew. Our local game store owner (Gary Switzer (of Aero Hobbies), Rest the Peace) and some of his D&D group created the “Thief” class and E. Gary Gygax incorporated it into the D&D pantheon. We only play the 1st edition of D&D as we care not for the changes within 5e/later variants.
I can imagine some groups playing Dragonlance killing a villain who the modules give an obscure death, then when the players encounter that villain again, the players become determined to kill that villain properly, like a vampire, stake through the heart, chop of the head, holy water in its mouth, etc.. "He's alive AGAIN?! This time we'll use disintegration!"
@@SimonAshworthWood Recurring villains - even those who have apparently returned from the dead (I've read a lot of Marvel comics, after all!) isn't the issue and, as you say, can make for some memorable gaming moments. One of my groups packed the severed head of such a recurring villain after what turned out to be their final encounter with her specifically to "make sure she's not coming back this time". My issue is with that being written on the page as a direction for the DM. To me, RPGs are a two-way storytelling effort between DM and players, with the flow unfolding over time subject to the players' actions and the actions/reactions of the world and the "bad guy" to them. Adventures which play through a story scene by scene - of which DragonLance is an early example - I think reduces and limits the game. Mileage varies, of course, but that's broadly my objection to the DL modules: that they closely follow the novels, and to do so they "force" the players and DM through specific hoops and rings.
I still hold it as the real AD@D, basic was good, it was great, but AD@D was the best ever. Drows, orcs and Goblins were evil, humans, elves dwarfs were good. I played AD@D back in the 70's and 80's.. I lost interest in the D&D universe with the second addition, and then they brought out 3Edition, then 4th edition, then 5th edition, Now I can be a good daemon, who has more power than a God in the original game. I still play the original AD@D game I have all of these books, I have every AD@D book
I still remember being asked to play AD&D in the late summer of 1978! I had just turned 12 and thus began a never-ending quest to adventure rpg style. I also remember as these books came out and we'd be in awe of them, the art, rules and where it all went. I still play, but more so the video game editions, but I still have my core books and drag them out to look over.....so many cool memories wrapped in those pages that led us to adventure. Excellent video and analysis, by the way! Cheers!
Nice overview. I appreciate your interpretation. I started playing the red and blue box of basic D&D in 1981, bought the Companion box and then moved on to AD&D the same year. I played 2E when it came out and we ran a pathfinder game later on, but I always keep coming back to 1E and I always will. I love me some house rules.
In my 2nd ed games we keep the race/sex restrictions. But as the DM, if a player came to me and wanted to play something that went against the restrictions I wouldn't say no. I'd say "sell it to me", make a character backstory that would explain this and this fighting against the norm has to be role played in character. We didn't see the restrictions as the game being "misogynistic", we played this as the norms of the world setting. We used the game restrictions as something to fuel creativity in the players. Removing all race/sex/whatever restrictions doesn't make the game more inclusive, it makes the game more boring from a creative point of view.
I think there's a lot of "mileage varies" in how they are interpreted. Personally, I have a sort of similar process to you - if there's some concept a character really wants to play, and they can justify it within the framework of the campaign, then fine. If it just extends to "because it's kewl" - not good enough. The male/female divisions also allow reversals of the "human norm" to be true for certain races. This is true, to some extent, for Drow - females tend to have far better stats than males. I don't consider having such separation misogynistic, either. Nor do I consider marked differences between fantasy species as being "racist". The more well-defined these things are (which includes restrictions), the more thought players have to put into their characters, but also the more different they will be from each other. With restrictions removed, and with what appears to be the current mode of thinking among "modern" game designers, everything becomes homogenised, and all you are really doing is replacing "race" with "appearance". Everyone has the same stats and access to abilities, but you're dragonborn so you have more scales than the next guy. Inclusion is about accommodating all different types of people, not painting everyone with the same brush. Anyway, all a long way of saying I largely agree with you. Although some of my finer thoughts on all of this will have to wait until we reach 3rd and 5th Edition videos!
I especially enjoyed your input on the overcomplicated aspects of the combat sequence for 1E. As written, it definitely bogged things down and had to be changed for 2E. I'm glad I wasn't the only person who thought this way about it and we certainly didn't follow those rules to the letter.
Personally, I don't know anyone that played 1st Ed. absolutely as written, and those strange complications in the combat system are among the first that seem to get house-ruled. You are not alone in thinking a rework here was essential for 2nd!
Thanks for uploading the video, I'm about halfway through. Besides the few usual things, you've done a good job in putting it together. I'm one of those pre-UA only AD&D players, I feel it didn't add anything but more power. Again, thank you.
I don't think you're wrong at all in the power regard. There certainly is a power-creep (leap, in some areas) with the UA. I won't profess to be a purist - we did use chunks of it - but it is definitely a book that should state clearly "handle with care, lest this break your campaign".
27:00 I felt a disturbance tremor through twitter, a million voices seething. Love your video by the way, joining my first AD&D game soon and this historical context really helps me understand the rules better.
Thank-you, I'm glad you found it useful! What is this "Twitter" of which you speak? ;) (Not somewhere I frequent... I get the feeling sometimes that it's the asylum of the Internet, an the inmates took over)
43:41 The only real maximums based on gender were limitations to the exceptional Strength roll. This was back when D&D attempted something resembling a "simulationist" approach, where the ability scores were supposed to represent something concrete outside of their bonuses or penalties. So with these rules, a human female fighter could have a maximum Strength of 18/50, which doesn't just mean +1 to hit and +3 to damage, it means she is capable of lifting 280 pounds above her head in a military press. Not a bench press, a military press, which is is much harder to do. I think the average military press is roughly equal to about two-thirds of what you can bench press. So that's fairly generous, but much more so to the shorter demi-humans, like male gnomes (who could be about equal to human females), male elves and female half-orcs (18/75 strength maximum), male half-elves (18/90 max strength), male dwarves and half-orcs (18/99 max strength). Only male human fighters were capable of 18/00 Strength. Now keep in mind that 18/00 doesn't just mean +3 to hit and +6 to damage. This is the ability to lift 480 pounds above your head in a military press. There are very, very few men in the world who can do this, and no women who can, though there are a few who push beyond 18/50. And the absolute difference in overall muscle mass also likely accounts for why dwarves and half-orcs are locked out of this Strength category as well, since neither are potentially as tall as male humans. (Back in 1e, half-orcs weren't hulking 7' brutes.) Oh, and I think the Strength ranges for the smaller races were constricted, too. Female halflings had a maximum Strength scores of only 14 (that's 170 pounds in a military press by a 3' tall woman, which would be pretty impressive), female gnomes 15, female elves 16, female half-elves, female dwarves, and male halflings at 17. The only thing that I think is truly unrealistic about this is that the upper limits for male gnomes and halflings are too high. These are people the size of children! So while I think all of these limitations are probably unnecessary, I don't think they truly stem from a place of misogyny. If 1e was truly misogynistic, we'd see class restrictions, level restrictions, and ability adjustments based on gender in the PHB, and we don't. If you really want to see what misogyny looks like when it's baked into the foundation of tabletop ruleset, you can always check out Bruce Galloway's "Highest Level of All Fantasy Wargaming" or worse still, F.A.T.A.L. The less said about that one, the better.
You have to get the context of the time. Sure, what you're saying r/e military press is reasoned, but when you couple that with, say, contemporary articles in Dragon, you might see where the mysogyny accusation comes from. Do I think it's strong? No. But it's present.
Nice review! Very thorough and brings back memories. Regarding Dragonlance, at the time I took it as a teaching tool for adding depth, story, and meaning to my home game. The rat you smelled was a problem OF COURSE. But the baseline assumptions of the world and the actual locations that are so well detailed and mapped makes for some great gaming, especially if a game master takes off the plot guard rails, does home brew when needed, and never looks back.
started playing this game again at the end of 2018 after a 35 year break, still great fun! and many ways to play, maybe because where the rules are lacking you can add your own ideas... example 1, not high enough statistics for a class or race = all experience is halved ( halved again if an NPC henchman) example 2, use saving rolls against statistics to provide results for activities
Ability score checks were something that gradually crept in, and then became the base for the proficiency system. You're right, though - I think one of the signs of a good game is not to have a rule for everything, but provide enough rules to give referees a toolbox to work from. A frame that they can use to make rules up on the spot that fit the broader whole.
Those book covers are so iconic. I dare say probably the best out of any edition. Wizard opening doors, how much more perfect can you get for DM guide, it's almost on the nose.
You're thinking of the twins... Every time we played Dragonlance whoever got Raistlin played him evil. Wasn't really beneficial, so we finally made our own characters. Loved the novels, wasn't a fan of the modules either... it was not that much fun. Very tough... no food, no water, no money, lots of evil and difficult encounters... Very, very tough without the aspect of fun. I also love Psionics and the original Bard character. They were both optional, so they were useful in some campaigns and not so much in other.
Well, Tas, too... Psionics was a lot better done in 2nd - it was a tad clunky, but worked at a monster level in ways. The original bard I did like - it was just painful to attain.
Just to note - I only remove comments that are NSFW/spam/off-topic. Which is to say, I haven't had to remove anything. It does look like comments are being removed, though, because I am seeing them in my alerts yet they are not shown here and don't give me any reply option. I'm no particular fan of censorship, so just be assured that it isn't me.
1st edition, for me, is the better version. I notice now that the legend and lore, or whatever it’s called now, seems to have dropped all the old gods. Sign of the times I guess, everyone gets offended
In 5E? There isn't a god book equivalent. A lot of the old Deities & Demigods/Legends & Lore pantheons are given stats in the Player's Handbook - so no, the old gods haven't been dropped.
Well… weapon speed… weapon damage variation (vs S/M and L entities)… even the weapon sizes have been removed in D&D’s more current versions. There are plenty more changes from the AD&D edition to the current 5e edition of today. I consider these D&D changes a blatant dumbing down of the AD&D rule set. I mean really… they removed the ‘ and “ movement distances replacing such with plain “feet”. People of today fail to denote ‘ = feet and “ = inches (of distance)? What about the complete removal of “psionics” in the current D&D iteration?
I completely agree about Unearthed Arcana. A lot of interesting stuff that didn’t all adhere together. I really liked cantrips, but they got ruined later. Wizards should be able to cast those them any time, but cantrips of that era couldn’t do damage; they were just fun little role-playing enhancements, like flavoring a stew or cleaning something. That’s _Prestidigitation_ now, but you have to burn a spell level, and it doesn't last very long, which is dumb.
That Goblin in DL1, no matter how many arrows, sword strokes or spells you hit him with, he always came back. I liked some of the aspects of the DL series, but for me It ended our regular group. We ended up playing Traveller.
I was always a bit leery of aimless, exploratory adventures. As i developed as a DM from B, X, & 1e to 2e, i wrote more story-based adventures-without ever buying any Dragonlance material. It just seemed more true to the genre for the heroes to have a goal they progressed towards.
It's a different style of play. Personally, as a referee I prefer to "play the world", which gives player characters a dynamic setting to interact with. What story comes out of it is generally of their making, and evolves as the game goes on. There's really no wrong or right way to play RPGs. I'm just not a fan of rigid storylines for them - but many people do, so all power to 'em!
Thanks for the explaination of AD&D first edition. Do you think that there is a OSR edition that is a AD&D system that you don't have to tweak to make work?
I wouldn't say it's necessary to tweak AD&D to make work - perhaps "tailor to taste", but the system works as-is (games that don't work don't tend to last for over a decade!) However, OSRIC does a reasonable job of reimagining AD&D - you might want to check that out.
With the Fiend Folio using creatures originally appearing in GW’s “Fiend Factory”, which featured fan-based submissions, it seems completely likely that at least some fan-created monsters made it into the Fiend Folio, thus becoming D&D “canon”, as it were! Any info on FF monsters where this might be the case? It would be interesting to know!
Well, quite a few of them... I'm actually tinkering with my old WD scans for compilation into volumes - could be an. opportunity to document those WD monsters that made it into the FF and have later become more ingrained in D&D. There's quite a few that still remain obscure, and some fan-made creatures that were kept over for the FF rather than going through the WD route. Githyanki and Githzerai are a good example of the latter. Perhaps Berbelang are an example of the former, although they've gone in and out of favour across editions.
Well, sort of... I can't help think that there was an element of that, otherwise - why not include the guy in the credits at least somewhere? But the official reason given, to provide a consistent set of rules for tournaments and to consolidate what had come before, does make up the bulk of the work.
I like your take on my favorite rpg - 1st edition+. I loved the barbarian - maybe mostly for that d12! - and he was easy to fit in the game, aside from the magic hating thing. The cavalier was a neat idea, but that damage absorbing armor didn't balance well with the rest of the game, and the fact that most of their powers were based on riding made them too specialized. Bards and psionics, yep, mostly useless, though cool concepts. Did you mention monks? Another class I wanted to use but too wonky and weak at low level. And then there was the thief - a class I really loved in concept but sadly almost useless.
The thief is an interesting one. They can be very useful, but aren't yet the more expansive multitools that they will become in later editions. In 1st Ed, I think the best use of the thief class is as a multiclass option. It's the only class with unlimited advancement for all races, and can add that extra dimension to a character. Especially in a combo like Magic-User/Thief, where the thief element alleviates the magic-user's naff combat abilities a little, but also gives low-level MU/T some abilities to fall back on when their meagre handful of spells for the day are done. Single-classed thieves, if played to their strengths (sneakiness and all that) can be absolutely devastating combatants. It depends on the circumstances, and that's why you probably see them as being weak?
@@WillyMuffinUK Do you think so? In first edition, if you could get a sneak attack in, that was one good hit. d6 hit dice, weak to hit table, weak armor, no spells to make up for it, meant you were a glass cannon with not quite the punch of a magic user. Again, I love the thief, it was my first character, and I love glass cannons. But I couldn't justify one after that, and I only ever recall one other person I knew play one, so it wasn't just me. My favorite character ended up being the Ranger. Got some of the sneaky and limited mega-damage, along with almost all the benefit of a fighter. Now, if they had given the thief the barbarian's doubled dexterity bonus and maybe the ranger's doubled hit dice at first level, I might see them as balanced.
@@TheGiantRobot Thieves are scouts, not toe-to-toe melee combatants. In combat, thieves are best at hiding and sniping and sneaking and backstabbing. To use the backstab, the thief can hide in ambush and the party lures the enemy past the thief and then the party makes a stand and the thief backstabs. The thief can also hide and snipe, using their higher chance to hit with missile weapons due to higher dexterity.
@@SimonAshworthWood Sure, and it's very colorful. But mathematically, if that thief player were instead a fighter, it would do more damage to the enemy and wouldn't be at risk by standing separated from the party. I think they needed to pump up his defense or offense a bit to make it work out.
@@TheGiantRobot That's one reason I think they shine in a multi-class role. But Simon's right - they aren't toe-to-to fighters. That backstab attack needs to be held back until the right moment, until which time they can harry. A psiloi role. They aren't as weak as magic-users, up to 4th-level. But there is good reason why 3E introduced evasion, tighter and more flexible sneak attack rules, etc.
27:24 Try not to be offended...? In the 2020s? What strange ideas you have, sir. You should expect a knock at your door from the Department of Thought Crime.
It seems to me that too many people do not understand the power of the dungeon mastering tips found within the Dragonlance path. Many dungeonmasters are always subtly pushing their players along paths that they have already prepared, so to complain that such tips are given in Dragonlance is just silly. Reading how to do this in an experienced fashion will make someone a better dungeonmaster. Also, the dungeonmaster should be playing his villains as though they are true villains found in movies, comics, and novels. How many villains allow themselves to be slain? They are always finding ways to escape. Recurring villains who always slip through the players' fingers make for a much more satisfying game.
The problem with the DragonLance series is that it is not subtle pushing, and is amplified by the existence of the novels. Sure, many DMs (me included) do subtly guide players along broad plots, but part of the fun of a more open framework than that provided by the DL series is we also get to be guided by the players' actions. An experienced DM allows the world to be shaped by the actions of the players (and is capable of thinking on his feet enough to do so); railroads - except in very few instances - do not allow for that two-way interaction. As for how many villains allowing themselves to be slain - many. And many also find ways to escape. Intelligently playing villains is the absolute key to that. However, if the players actions cut them off, eliminate their ability to escape, or slay them directly - they should be allowed the glory of their ingenuity, rather than it to be overridden by an unimaginative straight-down-the-line script. Players are not actors, nor are they characters in the script/novel/comic written by the DM. My problem with the DL series is that it casts them as exactly that, while I prefer a much more collaborative style of co-operative storymaking (as opposed to storytelling!). Mileage varies as much as play style. I do not agree that playing through the DL series with its "tips" will make you a better DM at all (far from it... perhaps a better script reader), but your mileage obviously varies, and there's nothing wrong with disagreeing within such subjective areas as role-playing games and other creative pursuits.
I've only played 1st and 2nd edition, and have no interest in playing anything put out by WotC. I've heard enough about the other editions though, that I think I made the right decision. The game never needed a "new edition". All it ever needed were some revisions, which is all 'house rules' are. We fixed the game ourselves, with some help from Dragon Magazine 🙂 "Editions" don't really matter though, because every edition of D&D is just D&D with a different set of 'house rules'.
I'm not going to say you're wrong, but unfortunately the economics of RPGs almost requires new editions regularly. So, there's that. However you slice it, though - it's always going to boil down to "play what you enjoy". You might enjoy 1st and 2nd AD&D more - but that doesn't take anything away from the next guy over who prefers 5E, or RuneQuest, or whatever it is he finds fun. 🙂
@@Lightmane It would be. I'd need to have a greater chunk of people to make such a poll worthwhile, though. 1.5k of a very mixed bunch wouldn't give a reasonable result!
I must respectfully disagree with calling differences between males and females 'misogynistic.' All fantasy adheres to the basics of verisimilitude, and then tweaks them. In the same way that gravity mostly exists, large creatures get strength bonuses, and people just can't automatically see through walls, men and women are distinct from one another in fantasy worlds -- just like in reality -- and this is where Str. and Cha. penalties come from. To call them misogynistic is to call biological reality the same and I reject that
Let's be clear: I personally do not call them misogynistic. However, the reality is that many people do, and did at the time. So understand that you are not disagreeing with me, the reporter, but with the sentiment being reported. Truth be told, I don't care either way. The arguments for and against are so far down my list it'll be another 138 years before I address them directly.
@@WillyMuffinUK I understand. It's just something I run into a lot and I tend strongly toward the opposite view to that represented by the staus quo of the past thirty years or so (especially as it has manifested itself in the present!). As for Cha, I was under the impression that female characters had a charisma advantage in the older versions
The ONLY exception I'd take with what was presented is with the idea of different Strength maximums between male and female characters being characterized as misogyny. It's just a bit of realism put into a fantasy game. A realism that many find uncomfortable, but it realistic just the same. If it was really misogyny you'd see differences between male and female in the mental abilities such as intelligence, wisdom, and charisma, which is not the case. Only for strength.
However, those tables are not talking about averages, they're talking about absolutes within a fantasy context. I've no problem with a realistic game using different generation rules to represent gender differences where they exist. But where a system is constructed to generate the same average (dice rolls for male and female Strength are the same), and an arbitrary cap is put into place on an abstraction, it becomes nonsensical. The races with different ability caps do skew their score ranges, via racial adjustment, more or less. But again, there's no differentiation between the genders in those adjustments - the average remains, with an arbitrary cap. Now, I don't believe the rules were written with conscious misogyny, and I do think they were put in there to model exactly what you say - that generally male humans are stronger than female ones. But it is another example of the D&D rules attempting realism within a system that is abstract and does not possess the granularity to reflect what its attempting very well. The grand effect of removing those arbitrary gender ability score caps from the game is... None at all. Which means they're pointless, and probably mean that the strongest women we know of in reality couldn't be reflected within the AD&D RAW.
It's interesting they changed the name from D&D to AD&D to stop paying royalties to the real creator of the game: Dave Arneson. They just took advantage of him, and then they stole the product, until Wizards of the Coast made justice by paying royalties to Dave, and getting rid of TSR. Watch Secrets of Blackmoor to know more.
That does depend which perspective you view... Don't forget, that up until WotC, there never was a time where there was not a game called D&D (without "Advanced") - so it wasn't really a name change. Shenanigans, sure. Lots of documented court action, sure. My own point of view is that, while TSR didn't play particularly fairly with respect to the agreements they had with Arneson, I do believe he got more out of D&D than he put in.
I found it funny that someone must ride a dragon to fight with a lance. The dragons are smarter and have higher fighting modifiers!!! And they're treated like horses and camels! xD They should be ruling the world.
Not really misogynistic if it’s true. Women are weaker than men. Even when they work out. Pretty sure he was just stating facts and not going down the sexist road. Also, it was the 1970s & 80s. I only met a tiny handful of girls that ever wanted anything to do with a “boy’s game” or a “nerd game”. Still mostly outcasts playing at the dinner table with other outcasts.
How many 17th-level female paladins have you met in real life? What makes it misogynistic is not in reference to real life, but that it is stated in a fantasy game where you can play elves, gnomes, and wizards. With all that the game depicts that has no bearing on real life, why limit that particular element - female Strength - to real life? Unless your underpinning base is that across all fantasy, across all fantastic worlds, regardless of anything else, women must be weaker than men?
Thank you for this. You’ve shared a lot of D&D history which I never knew. Our local game store owner (Gary Switzer (of Aero Hobbies), Rest the Peace) and some of his D&D group created the “Thief” class and E. Gary Gygax incorporated it into the D&D pantheon. We only play the 1st edition of D&D as we care not for the changes within 5e/later variants.
You're welcome - I'm glad you found it useful.
Thank you for your review.
Advanced D&D 1st edition holds a special place in my heart as I grew up with this rule set
Thank-you - me, too! We played a lot of games back then, but it was certainly AD&D 1st that dragged me through my teens.
I can imagine some groups playing Dragonlance killing a villain who the modules give an obscure death, then when the players encounter that villain again, the players become determined to kill that villain properly, like a vampire, stake through the heart, chop of the head, holy water in its mouth, etc.. "He's alive AGAIN?! This time we'll use disintegration!"
@@SimonAshworthWood Recurring villains - even those who have apparently returned from the dead (I've read a lot of Marvel comics, after all!) isn't the issue and, as you say, can make for some memorable gaming moments. One of my groups packed the severed head of such a recurring villain after what turned out to be their final encounter with her specifically to "make sure she's not coming back this time".
My issue is with that being written on the page as a direction for the DM. To me, RPGs are a two-way storytelling effort between DM and players, with the flow unfolding over time subject to the players' actions and the actions/reactions of the world and the "bad guy" to them. Adventures which play through a story scene by scene - of which DragonLance is an early example - I think reduces and limits the game. Mileage varies, of course, but that's broadly my objection to the DL modules: that they closely follow the novels, and to do so they "force" the players and DM through specific hoops and rings.
I still hold it as the real AD@D, basic was good, it was great, but AD@D was the best ever. Drows, orcs and Goblins were evil, humans, elves dwarfs were good. I played AD@D back in the 70's and 80's.. I lost interest in the D&D universe with the second addition, and then they brought out 3Edition, then 4th edition, then 5th edition, Now I can be a good daemon, who has more power than a God in the original game. I still play the original AD@D game I have all of these books, I have every AD@D book
I still remember being asked to play AD&D in the late summer of 1978! I had just turned 12 and thus began a never-ending quest to adventure rpg style. I also remember as these books came out and we'd be in awe of them, the art, rules and where it all went. I still play, but more so the video game editions, but I still have my core books and drag them out to look over.....so many cool memories wrapped in those pages that led us to adventure. Excellent video and analysis, by the way! Cheers!
Thank you - nostalgia is a heady thing :)
Nice overview. I appreciate your interpretation. I started playing the red and blue box of basic D&D in 1981, bought the Companion box and then moved on to AD&D the same year. I played 2E when it came out and we ran a pathfinder game later on, but I always keep coming back to 1E and I always will. I love me some house rules.
House rules make a game a home :)
Just don't be one of those sods that tries to apply 'em in a tournament!
@@WillyMuffinUK I agree completely.
I really love this "older games" series of yours, looking forward to work through the backlog and see what else is coming in the future.
Thank you :)
In my 2nd ed games we keep the race/sex restrictions. But as the DM, if a player came to me and wanted to play something that went against the restrictions I wouldn't say no. I'd say "sell it to me", make a character backstory that would explain this and this fighting against the norm has to be role played in character. We didn't see the restrictions as the game being "misogynistic", we played this as the norms of the world setting. We used the game restrictions as something to fuel creativity in the players. Removing all race/sex/whatever restrictions doesn't make the game more inclusive, it makes the game more boring from a creative point of view.
I think there's a lot of "mileage varies" in how they are interpreted. Personally, I have a sort of similar process to you - if there's some concept a character really wants to play, and they can justify it within the framework of the campaign, then fine. If it just extends to "because it's kewl" - not good enough.
The male/female divisions also allow reversals of the "human norm" to be true for certain races. This is true, to some extent, for Drow - females tend to have far better stats than males. I don't consider having such separation misogynistic, either. Nor do I consider marked differences between fantasy species as being "racist". The more well-defined these things are (which includes restrictions), the more thought players have to put into their characters, but also the more different they will be from each other. With restrictions removed, and with what appears to be the current mode of thinking among "modern" game designers, everything becomes homogenised, and all you are really doing is replacing "race" with "appearance". Everyone has the same stats and access to abilities, but you're dragonborn so you have more scales than the next guy.
Inclusion is about accommodating all different types of people, not painting everyone with the same brush. Anyway, all a long way of saying I largely agree with you. Although some of my finer thoughts on all of this will have to wait until we reach 3rd and 5th Edition videos!
This is amazing! I've been looking for a detailed breakdown and review like this for a long time! Thank you!
Thank you - I'm glad you found it useful.
I especially enjoyed your input on the overcomplicated aspects of the combat sequence for 1E. As written, it definitely bogged things down and had to be changed for 2E. I'm glad I wasn't the only person who thought this way about it and we certainly didn't follow those rules to the letter.
Personally, I don't know anyone that played 1st Ed. absolutely as written, and those strange complications in the combat system are among the first that seem to get house-ruled. You are not alone in thinking a rework here was essential for 2nd!
Thanks for uploading the video, I'm about halfway through.
Besides the few usual things, you've done a good job in putting it together.
I'm one of those pre-UA only AD&D players, I feel it didn't add anything but more power.
Again, thank you.
I don't think you're wrong at all in the power regard. There certainly is a power-creep (leap, in some areas) with the UA. I won't profess to be a purist - we did use chunks of it - but it is definitely a book that should state clearly "handle with care, lest this break your campaign".
27:00 I felt a disturbance tremor through twitter, a million voices seething. Love your video by the way, joining my first AD&D game soon and this historical context really helps me understand the rules better.
Thank-you, I'm glad you found it useful! What is this "Twitter" of which you speak? ;)
(Not somewhere I frequent... I get the feeling sometimes that it's the asylum of the Internet, an the inmates took over)
43:41 The only real maximums based on gender were limitations to the exceptional Strength roll. This was back when D&D attempted something resembling a "simulationist" approach, where the ability scores were supposed to represent something concrete outside of their bonuses or penalties. So with these rules, a human female fighter could have a maximum Strength of 18/50, which doesn't just mean +1 to hit and +3 to damage, it means she is capable of lifting 280 pounds above her head in a military press. Not a bench press, a military press, which is is much harder to do. I think the average military press is roughly equal to about two-thirds of what you can bench press. So that's fairly generous, but much more so to the shorter demi-humans, like male gnomes (who could be about equal to human females), male elves and female half-orcs (18/75 strength maximum), male half-elves (18/90 max strength), male dwarves and half-orcs (18/99 max strength). Only male human fighters were capable of 18/00 Strength.
Now keep in mind that 18/00 doesn't just mean +3 to hit and +6 to damage. This is the ability to lift 480 pounds above your head in a military press. There are very, very few men in the world who can do this, and no women who can, though there are a few who push beyond 18/50. And the absolute difference in overall muscle mass also likely accounts for why dwarves and half-orcs are locked out of this Strength category as well, since neither are potentially as tall as male humans. (Back in 1e, half-orcs weren't hulking 7' brutes.)
Oh, and I think the Strength ranges for the smaller races were constricted, too. Female halflings had a maximum Strength scores of only 14 (that's 170 pounds in a military press by a 3' tall woman, which would be pretty impressive), female gnomes 15, female elves 16, female half-elves, female dwarves, and male halflings at 17. The only thing that I think is truly unrealistic about this is that the upper limits for male gnomes and halflings are too high. These are people the size of children!
So while I think all of these limitations are probably unnecessary, I don't think they truly stem from a place of misogyny. If 1e was truly misogynistic, we'd see class restrictions, level restrictions, and ability adjustments based on gender in the PHB, and we don't. If you really want to see what misogyny looks like when it's baked into the foundation of tabletop ruleset, you can always check out Bruce Galloway's "Highest Level of All Fantasy Wargaming" or worse still, F.A.T.A.L. The less said about that one, the better.
You have to get the context of the time. Sure, what you're saying r/e military press is reasoned, but when you couple that with, say, contemporary articles in Dragon, you might see where the mysogyny accusation comes from. Do I think it's strong? No. But it's present.
Thank you for this historical perspective !
I'm glad you enjoyed it!
Nice review! Very thorough and brings back memories. Regarding Dragonlance, at the time I took it as a teaching tool for adding depth, story, and meaning to my home game. The rat you smelled was a problem OF COURSE. But the baseline assumptions of the world and the actual locations that are so well detailed and mapped makes for some great gaming, especially if a game master takes off the plot guard rails, does home brew when needed, and never looks back.
Oh, I thoroughly agree - plunder everything you can get your hands on to make your homebrew setting as good as you can make it :)
started playing this game again at the end of 2018 after a 35 year break, still great fun! and many ways to play, maybe because where the rules are lacking you can add your own ideas...
example 1, not high enough statistics for a class or race = all experience is halved ( halved again if an NPC henchman)
example 2, use saving rolls against statistics to provide results for activities
Ability score checks were something that gradually crept in, and then became the base for the proficiency system. You're right, though - I think one of the signs of a good game is not to have a rule for everything, but provide enough rules to give referees a toolbox to work from. A frame that they can use to make rules up on the spot that fit the broader whole.
Agreed that the DMG is a seminal work that should be read by all RPG gamers.
Those book covers are so iconic. I dare say probably the best out of any edition. Wizard opening doors, how much more perfect can you get for DM guide, it's almost on the nose.
True, but I still hold some sentimental attachment to adventurers battling an efreet :)
You're thinking of the twins... Every time we played Dragonlance whoever got Raistlin played him evil. Wasn't really beneficial, so we finally made our own characters. Loved the novels, wasn't a fan of the modules either... it was not that much fun. Very tough... no food, no water, no money, lots of evil and difficult encounters... Very, very tough without the aspect of fun.
I also love Psionics and the original Bard character. They were both optional, so they were useful in some campaigns and not so much in other.
Well, Tas, too...
Psionics was a lot better done in 2nd - it was a tad clunky, but worked at a monster level in ways. The original bard I did like - it was just painful to attain.
1:12:53 treasure hunt must be the inspiration for DCC funnel adventures
It may be - although Treasure Hunt is more about homogeneously selecting class, alignment, etc. than seeing which survives.
Just to note - I only remove comments that are NSFW/spam/off-topic. Which is to say, I haven't had to remove anything. It does look like comments are being removed, though, because I am seeing them in my alerts yet they are not shown here and don't give me any reply option. I'm no particular fan of censorship, so just be assured that it isn't me.
1st edition, for me, is the better version. I notice now that the legend and lore, or whatever it’s called now, seems to have dropped all the old gods. Sign of the times I guess, everyone gets offended
In 5E? There isn't a god book equivalent. A lot of the old Deities & Demigods/Legends & Lore pantheons are given stats in the Player's Handbook - so no, the old gods haven't been dropped.
Well… weapon speed… weapon damage variation (vs S/M and L entities)… even the weapon sizes have been removed in D&D’s more current versions. There are plenty more changes from the AD&D edition to the current 5e edition of today. I consider these D&D changes a blatant dumbing down of the AD&D rule set. I mean really… they removed the ‘ and “ movement distances replacing such with plain “feet”. People of today fail to denote ‘ = feet and “ = inches (of distance)? What about the complete removal of “psionics” in the current D&D iteration?
I completely agree about Unearthed Arcana. A lot of interesting stuff that didn’t all adhere together. I really liked cantrips, but they got ruined later. Wizards should be able to cast those them any time, but cantrips of that era couldn’t do damage; they were just fun little role-playing enhancements, like flavoring a stew or cleaning something. That’s _Prestidigitation_ now, but you have to burn a spell level, and it doesn't last very long, which is dumb.
I agree. Wizards shouldn't have to burn a slot to tie their shoes or make camp food tastier.
Another great review!!!
Thank-you!
I own one of those Red Dragons in the background!
I hope you put it to good use!
Speaking of Appendix N, Jeffro Johnson put out a comprehensive critical survey of those authors in book form, not too long ago.
Do you have a link?
That Goblin in DL1, no matter how many arrows, sword strokes or spells you hit him with, he always came back. I liked some of the aspects of the DL series, but for me It ended our regular group. We ended up playing Traveller.
At least you know a goblin isn't coming back if you drop them into a star :)
I never had a Bard, I started but just kept him as a split class human 7th fighter and thief I just kept advancing in.
That's actually a wiser move than shifting to bard, to be fair.
Great video thanks!
Thank-you!
Damn man nice bookshelf!
Hah - thanks. Decades in the making, and heavily bolstered with screws and brass!
I was always a bit leery of aimless, exploratory adventures. As i developed as a DM from B, X, & 1e to 2e, i wrote more story-based adventures-without ever buying any Dragonlance material. It just seemed more true to the genre for the heroes to have a goal they progressed towards.
It's a different style of play. Personally, as a referee I prefer to "play the world", which gives player characters a dynamic setting to interact with. What story comes out of it is generally of their making, and evolves as the game goes on.
There's really no wrong or right way to play RPGs. I'm just not a fan of rigid storylines for them - but many people do, so all power to 'em!
A mix of both imho is best, some “story” to give players something to work with and exploration to let them decide what to so
The best stories have recurring villains. If or when that character is eventually defeated, the players will enjoy the win that much more.
Absolutely true. There are, though, good and bad ways to make a villain recurring ;)
Awesome video! Many many thanks!
Thank you!
Thanks for the explaination of AD&D first edition. Do you think that there is a OSR edition that is a AD&D system that you don't have to tweak to make work?
I wouldn't say it's necessary to tweak AD&D to make work - perhaps "tailor to taste", but the system works as-is (games that don't work don't tend to last for over a decade!) However, OSRIC does a reasonable job of reimagining AD&D - you might want to check that out.
@@WillyMuffinUKthanks
@@WillyMuffinUK Thanks I downloaded the free pdf of their core rulebook from their website. I'll give it a read.
With the Fiend Folio using creatures originally appearing in GW’s “Fiend Factory”, which featured fan-based submissions, it seems completely likely that at least some fan-created monsters made it into the Fiend Folio, thus becoming D&D “canon”, as it were! Any info on FF monsters where this might be the case? It would be interesting to know!
Well, quite a few of them... I'm actually tinkering with my old WD scans for compilation into volumes - could be an. opportunity to document those WD monsters that made it into the FF and have later become more ingrained in D&D. There's quite a few that still remain obscure, and some fan-made creatures that were kept over for the FF rather than going through the WD route. Githyanki and Githzerai are a good example of the latter. Perhaps Berbelang are an example of the former, although they've gone in and out of favour across editions.
Really interesting talk. thankyou.
Thank you!
Also Gygax did this to screw Arneson over
Well, sort of... I can't help think that there was an element of that, otherwise - why not include the guy in the credits at least somewhere? But the official reason given, to provide a consistent set of rules for tournaments and to consolidate what had come before, does make up the bulk of the work.
I like your take on my favorite rpg - 1st edition+. I loved the barbarian - maybe mostly for that d12! - and he was easy to fit in the game, aside from the magic hating thing. The cavalier was a neat idea, but that damage absorbing armor didn't balance well with the rest of the game, and the fact that most of their powers were based on riding made them too specialized. Bards and psionics, yep, mostly useless, though cool concepts. Did you mention monks? Another class I wanted to use but too wonky and weak at low level. And then there was the thief - a class I really loved in concept but sadly almost useless.
The thief is an interesting one. They can be very useful, but aren't yet the more expansive multitools that they will become in later editions. In 1st Ed, I think the best use of the thief class is as a multiclass option. It's the only class with unlimited advancement for all races, and can add that extra dimension to a character. Especially in a combo like Magic-User/Thief, where the thief element alleviates the magic-user's naff combat abilities a little, but also gives low-level MU/T some abilities to fall back on when their meagre handful of spells for the day are done.
Single-classed thieves, if played to their strengths (sneakiness and all that) can be absolutely devastating combatants. It depends on the circumstances, and that's why you probably see them as being weak?
@@WillyMuffinUK Do you think so? In first edition, if you could get a sneak attack in, that was one good hit. d6 hit dice, weak to hit table, weak armor, no spells to make up for it, meant you were a glass cannon with not quite the punch of a magic user. Again, I love the thief, it was my first character, and I love glass cannons. But I couldn't justify one after that, and I only ever recall one other person I knew play one, so it wasn't just me. My favorite character ended up being the Ranger. Got some of the sneaky and limited mega-damage, along with almost all the benefit of a fighter. Now, if they had given the thief the barbarian's doubled dexterity bonus and maybe the ranger's doubled hit dice at first level, I might see them as balanced.
@@TheGiantRobot
Thieves are scouts, not toe-to-toe melee combatants.
In combat, thieves are best at hiding and sniping and sneaking and backstabbing.
To use the backstab, the thief can hide in ambush and the party lures the enemy past the thief and then the party makes a stand and the thief backstabs.
The thief can also hide and snipe, using their higher chance to hit with missile weapons due to higher dexterity.
@@SimonAshworthWood Sure, and it's very colorful. But mathematically, if that thief player were instead a fighter, it would do more damage to the enemy and wouldn't be at risk by standing separated from the party. I think they needed to pump up his defense or offense a bit to make it work out.
@@TheGiantRobot That's one reason I think they shine in a multi-class role. But Simon's right - they aren't toe-to-to fighters. That backstab attack needs to be held back until the right moment, until which time they can harry. A psiloi role.
They aren't as weak as magic-users, up to 4th-level. But there is good reason why 3E introduced evasion, tighter and more flexible sneak attack rules, etc.
27:24 Try not to be offended...? In the 2020s? What strange ideas you have, sir. You should expect a knock at your door from the Department of Thought Crime.
Heh... I am a great believer in everybody's right to be offended, and everybody's equal right not to care :)
It seems to me that too many people do not understand the power of the dungeon mastering tips found within the Dragonlance path. Many dungeonmasters are always subtly pushing their players along paths that they have already prepared, so to complain that such tips are given in Dragonlance is just silly. Reading how to do this in an experienced fashion will make someone a better dungeonmaster. Also, the dungeonmaster should be playing his villains as though they are true villains found in movies, comics, and novels. How many villains allow themselves to be slain? They are always finding ways to escape. Recurring villains who always slip through the players' fingers make for a much more satisfying game.
The problem with the DragonLance series is that it is not subtle pushing, and is amplified by the existence of the novels. Sure, many DMs (me included) do subtly guide players along broad plots, but part of the fun of a more open framework than that provided by the DL series is we also get to be guided by the players' actions. An experienced DM allows the world to be shaped by the actions of the players (and is capable of thinking on his feet enough to do so); railroads - except in very few instances - do not allow for that two-way interaction.
As for how many villains allowing themselves to be slain - many. And many also find ways to escape. Intelligently playing villains is the absolute key to that. However, if the players actions cut them off, eliminate their ability to escape, or slay them directly - they should be allowed the glory of their ingenuity, rather than it to be overridden by an unimaginative straight-down-the-line script.
Players are not actors, nor are they characters in the script/novel/comic written by the DM. My problem with the DL series is that it casts them as exactly that, while I prefer a much more collaborative style of co-operative storymaking (as opposed to storytelling!).
Mileage varies as much as play style. I do not agree that playing through the DL series with its "tips" will make you a better DM at all (far from it... perhaps a better script reader), but your mileage obviously varies, and there's nothing wrong with disagreeing within such subjective areas as role-playing games and other creative pursuits.
My response to people offended by OA - who seem to be pretty much restricted to tumblr sjws is GFY.
Personally, it seems to be another case of people getting offended on behalf of other people who aren't offended by it at all.
I've only played 1st and 2nd edition, and have no interest in playing anything put out by WotC. I've heard enough about the other editions though, that I think I made the right decision. The game never needed a "new edition". All it ever needed were some revisions, which is all 'house rules' are. We fixed the game ourselves, with some help from Dragon Magazine 🙂
"Editions" don't really matter though, because every edition of D&D is just D&D with a different set of 'house rules'.
I'm not going to say you're wrong, but unfortunately the economics of RPGs almost requires new editions regularly. So, there's that.
However you slice it, though - it's always going to boil down to "play what you enjoy". You might enjoy 1st and 2nd AD&D more - but that doesn't take anything away from the next guy over who prefers 5E, or RuneQuest, or whatever it is he finds fun. 🙂
@@WillyMuffinUK agreed, but I think more people who've played old school and new school prefer old. I'd like to see a poll. That would be interesting.
@@Lightmane It would be. I'd need to have a greater chunk of people to make such a poll worthwhile, though. 1.5k of a very mixed bunch wouldn't give a reasonable result!
There better be hundreds of hand written pages at that kind of price
15 to 36 level promised book can become a reality
I must respectfully disagree with calling differences between males and females 'misogynistic.' All fantasy adheres to the basics of verisimilitude, and then tweaks them. In the same way that gravity mostly exists, large creatures get strength bonuses, and people just can't automatically see through walls, men and women are distinct from one another in fantasy worlds -- just like in reality -- and this is where Str. and Cha. penalties come from. To call them misogynistic is to call biological reality the same and I reject that
Let's be clear: I personally do not call them misogynistic. However, the reality is that many people do, and did at the time. So understand that you are not disagreeing with me, the reporter, but with the sentiment being reported.
Truth be told, I don't care either way. The arguments for and against are so far down my list it'll be another 138 years before I address them directly.
(By the way - which Cha penalties?)
@@WillyMuffinUK I understand. It's just something I run into a lot and I tend strongly toward the opposite view to that represented by the staus quo of the past thirty years or so (especially as it has manifested itself in the present!). As for Cha, I was under the impression that female characters had a charisma advantage in the older versions
@@flutebasket4294 I get where you're coming from.
As for Cha, no - but I do believe they got one for Comeliness (which I've never used as a stat).
Yes, this seems really interesting and what made D&D great, that it had some type of realism in the fantasy, which added to immersion.
Looking for all five sets basic thru immortals wont pay more than $20 per box
Well done sir!
The ONLY exception I'd take with what was presented is with the idea of different Strength maximums between male and female characters being characterized as misogyny. It's just a bit of realism put into a fantasy game. A realism that many find uncomfortable, but it realistic just the same. If it was really misogyny you'd see differences between male and female in the mental abilities such as intelligence, wisdom, and charisma, which is not the case. Only for strength.
Thank you!
Its not misogynistic to realize that woman on average on not as strong as men.
However, those tables are not talking about averages, they're talking about absolutes within a fantasy context.
I've no problem with a realistic game using different generation rules to represent gender differences where they exist. But where a system is constructed to generate the same average (dice rolls for male and female Strength are the same), and an arbitrary cap is put into place on an abstraction, it becomes nonsensical.
The races with different ability caps do skew their score ranges, via racial adjustment, more or less. But again, there's no differentiation between the genders in those adjustments - the average remains, with an arbitrary cap.
Now, I don't believe the rules were written with conscious misogyny, and I do think they were put in there to model exactly what you say - that generally male humans are stronger than female ones. But it is another example of the D&D rules attempting realism within a system that is abstract and does not possess the granularity to reflect what its attempting very well. The grand effect of removing those arbitrary gender ability score caps from the game is...
None at all.
Which means they're pointless, and probably mean that the strongest women we know of in reality couldn't be reflected within the AD&D RAW.
Brilliant
Thank-you :)
It's interesting they changed the name from D&D to AD&D to stop paying royalties to the real creator of the game: Dave Arneson. They just took advantage of him, and then they stole the product, until Wizards of the Coast made justice by paying royalties to Dave, and getting rid of TSR. Watch Secrets of Blackmoor to know more.
That does depend which perspective you view... Don't forget, that up until WotC, there never was a time where there was not a game called D&D (without "Advanced") - so it wasn't really a name change. Shenanigans, sure. Lots of documented court action, sure.
My own point of view is that, while TSR didn't play particularly fairly with respect to the agreements they had with Arneson, I do believe he got more out of D&D than he put in.
I found it funny that someone must ride a dragon to fight with a lance. The dragons are smarter and have higher fighting modifiers!!! And they're treated like horses and camels! xD They should be ruling the world.
To be fair... if you're talking about DragonLance... essentially, they do!
Could never stand Dragonlance. It reeked of money-sucking product. One of the reasons I left D&D.
Was all of the other D&D product not money-sucking?
@@WillyMuffinUK You sound like my mother's wallet.😄
@@dvosburg1966 🤣
Reprint drive is no good only buy original books
The difference being....?
@@WillyMuffinUK because I said so
@@chrismacnight8100 Ah. How evangelical of you.
@@WillyMuffinUK your life is a junk reprint u trog
Not really misogynistic if it’s true. Women are weaker than men. Even when they work out. Pretty sure he was just stating facts and not going down the sexist road. Also, it was the 1970s & 80s. I only met a tiny handful of girls that ever wanted anything to do with a “boy’s game” or a “nerd game”. Still mostly outcasts playing at the dinner table with other outcasts.
How many 17th-level female paladins have you met in real life?
What makes it misogynistic is not in reference to real life, but that it is stated in a fantasy game where you can play elves, gnomes, and wizards. With all that the game depicts that has no bearing on real life, why limit that particular element - female Strength - to real life?
Unless your underpinning base is that across all fantasy, across all fantastic worlds, regardless of anything else, women must be weaker than men?