To many of us, the settings are an integral part of D&D. I mean, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and Planescape were amazing creations with a host of boxed sets and supplements. Even Forgotten Realms was still pretty cool back then. For those settings alone, 2e was legendary, even if I no longer use 2e's mechanics.
Despite the management problems of TSR during this time I still hold that publishing wise to be D&Ds golden era. More so from it's range of worlds and adventures created (even if 'splat books' became a bit unwieldy). While BECMI is my favourite ruleset - I have a soft spot for 1Ed AD&D and 2ndEd Ad&D - I'm glad 5Ed harkens back to some of these gaming ethos and principles. Thanks so much for a comprehensive video - a great addition to this series.
Thanks for watching, and yeah, I agree in terms of world settings and adventures. The sheer number of really creative settings and products produced during that time benefited the game as a whole, honestly. One only has to see how much of it is still in demand to this very day, either as reprints or requests for 5e conversions.
AD&D 2e is my favorite edition. Ttrpg for 3+ decades since 1984 or so. Now I love to play: Books of D100 Dungeon A Solo Adventuring Game like GM's guide The Lost Tome Extraordinary like Players handbook The Dragons Return like Monster manuel.
Oh how I miss my 2nd ed core books and also those Player's option books. Threw them away as obsolete. Easley covers. Excellent condition. Painful to reminisce. Thankfully I kept FR and Dark Sun books, complete series and some other stuff.
Oh man, I'm so glad I didn't throw my books out, I just wish that I'd kept them in better condition. I'm stuck with the black cover reprints because my original 2nd edition covers are so badly worn they're not really books anymore.
@@rpgcrawler Oh yeah. I didn't end up playing a huge deal in 2nd ed but I think I read and browsed through them a lot. I handled my books like artifacts back then which explains the condition. 😅 I still regard reading and just enjoying my rpg books a big part of my hobby. Too bad I tried to clean up my bookshelf a little too eagerly.
I spent a lot of time in 2E and my two regrets with that edition is TSR dumping the Monk out of the main books and no Random Dungeon Generation appendix as in 1E.
Yeah, those are two glaringly missing spots in the core rules. They tried to address both in later releases in the 2nd edition splatbooks, but IMO never did give them a proper treatment.
I also think 2e was great at its core. I only owned the core three books, Complete Fighters and Thieves guides. I loved 1e modules but the 2e rules were so well organized. So I played 1e modules or dungeon magazine adventures with the 2e ruleset.
I think more than a few people ended up doing the same thing. That was one of 2e's strengths. Even though there were some different mechanics in there, they were interchangeable at the stat level, basically letting you mix and match. 1e modules with 2e rules, or even 1e books (Wilderness/dungeon survival guides w/ 2e stuff) with 2e core.
A very nice recap on 2nd Edition, although i am very saddened by the fact you did not mention my favorite setting: Dragonlance :(. On a whole, people tend to look badly on 2nd Edition, but it is surprising on how many things that edition allowed players to do or experience compared to later editions.
I was going to mention it! And had actually prepped a mention in there, but when I did further research it actually, much like Forgotten Realms, was initially published for 1st edition and just drastically fleshed out during 2nd edition. And it seems that when I took it out of the one section I forgot to add it into the other. Alas, editing woes. I'll definitely be covering it in my upcoming AD&D Setting Series when I get around to doing that one justice. And yeah, second edition gets a lot of flack now, but it was actually very good for a mix of player options + rules to actually cover said options. I just wish I got to run it more often.
I got to DM a 2nd Edition campaign a fairly short while ago and when players from that AD&D group recently wanted to do something in 3.5 that they could do in 2nd Edition my usual answer would be: "Yeah, you could do that in 2nd Edition, but 3rd Edition does not allow it anymore. Its gone with the Edition". Thus "Gone with the Edition" become a new catch phrase among our regular players group because it come up surprisingly often.
@Keith Haddad There was the Box-Set named "Tales of the Lance" with a source/campaign book for Ansalon and the lesser known "Time of the Dragon" box with a campaign book for the other fleshed out continent of Taladas (maybe you know it from the SSI game "Dark Queen of Krynn" which played mostly on Taladas". Finally the box-set "Dwarven Kingdoms of Krynn" cast a big light on the, well, dwarven kingdoms. The Box-set Tales of the Lance included the campaign book, a big map of Ansalon, an DM-Screen and showpieces. Finally there was a monster compendium (like mentioned in the video with a 3-holes binder) with the krynnish monsters including the fameous Draconians, how normal Dragons differ from those of the normal source material and other fun things like Wyndlass, Walking Willow, Death Knight, Skeleton Warriors, Fireshadows, Fireminions, Fetch and so forth
They lost me with baatezu and tanarr'i...I never really moved beyond 1st edition and with all the great OSR stuff out there nowadays it feels great to have not bothered much with the later editions.
Honestly, I don't even consider myself an OSR kinda guy, but I still love the older stuff and systems that mimic it. It gives a certain speed and fluidity to play, both mechanically and conceptually, that the newer editions have a hard time even coming close to. 5e does kind of come close-r, but that's not saying a lot. I'd love to run more OSR stuff, but my usual groups tend to gravitate toward newer systems, and given the choice between having motivated players or having sessions feel like pulling teeth, sadly I have to go with what will get my people to show up and play.
I agree... and they didn't even just get rid of elements that could be misconstrued as satanic/occult. They also got rid of things like breasts, half-orcs, assassins, everything in Deities and Demi-Gods, etc. At the time - being 16 - it felt like the vaguely rebellious hobby I enjoyed had been gutted. Plus... again, being 16 at the time, the "you can get it in one of our 500 splat books" approach felt like not only did they neuter something I liked, but they also wanted to charge me more for it.
Got them right on my desk, produced in '95 but published 1997, the same year WotC acquired TSR. Cover states the contact information through Wizards of the Coast, Inc., TSR having become a subsidiary thereof that year. Now, granted it had been in the works prior to the acquisition and was likely just left for WotC to pick up the tab for printing and distribution at that point during the transition. But for organizational purposes, that was the year and the point at which the old TSR was no longer an independent entity. I'm not sure how else one would describe that period in time.
@@rpgcrawler Mate, you just have a late printing. I've got 1995 and 1996 printings on my shelf and there is no reference to WotC. These books came out in the TSR era, it makes no difference if WotC later reprinted them… 2e was massively popular and had many, many reprints.
You're right, had to go look at the history of the printing. There was like a 2 year gap between first print of revised and second print (with some supposedly ghost print between them) that I wasn't accounting for.
@@rpgcrawler The first print is 1995, the second print is 1996 and the third print is 1997. Notably the third print has "second printing 1997" but it is actually the third printing. The difference between the second and third printing is the year (1996 vs 1997) and the addition of WotC info in the third.
That was a mistake on my part, a house rule that had been in so many groups I'd played with that I kind of remembered it as core when writing this. My bad.
@@rpgcrawler I was thinking of including a rule like that too.Thats why i was looking at some ad&d vids.the biggest ajustment one can get is a -2,for higher ground or something.its all balanced so no one can get - on init..Like -2 on init.Anyway thanks for the vid,bro. Peace!
It would really depend on the theme and genre of the game you're playing. If I'm going for simplicity, I generally bar skills and powers. If I'm going for a more classic feel, I'll bar the humanoid's handbook and possibly the psionics handbook. With 2nd edition, I find it's less about what i'm barring and more about what I'm assembling. If I want a particular style of game or genre, I'll start with just the core player's handbook, then add on what else I want to allow from there. For instance, if I wanted a classic fantasy milleu genre, I'd start wit hthe PHB, add the core 'four' handbooks (Fighter's, Thief's, Wizard's, and possibly priests, although that one is a bit squirrelly), then only add additional handbooks after careful review. I personally just allow basically everything not skills and powers or psionics. (Unless I want a specifically skills and powers based game, or explicitly want psionics in the game of course). However, if you go full open on everything, there are a few things to consider. Most important is whether you want to go with the classic combat system or the one in combat and tactics. It's entirely possible to run the classic system but with the proficiencies and additional weapons from combat and tactics, so 'partially barring' certain books is something to consider as well. It just works better if you treat 2e like a menu of options to add up rather than a whole consistent system with things to subtract (like a 3e or a pathfinder).
@@rpgcrawler I'm going for a classic sword-and-sorcery, dungeon-crawly, revenge/resuce quest sort of campaign. So it definitely sounds like s&p and psionics wont be a good fit
yeah, for something like that I'd just go with the core phb plus maybe a few handbooks.(fighter, thief, wizard. priest is a bit broken) Keep it simple, then expand as the campaign does if you feel it necessary.
They are similar enough that they can be mixed with a bare minimum of adjustment. The main parts they vary in is scaling (2nd edition tends to run to a higher 'top end' of the power scale over time), and in actual mechanics (the 2nd edition combat system being more straightforward overall.) Really, the only problem someone would have mixing or converting between the two is if they get nitpicky.
Do you know all 5 editions rule sets?? I think you might. I have much respect for you. I would love to have the attention/comprehension to accomplish that. I have all the core rulebooks for 1-5. (PHB DMG MM) I collected the books with the intention of learning them all. Although after reviewing I think I have bit off more than I can chew. Which edition do you recommend I start with?? I would eventually like to play, but more so I just went to learn rule systems. It's something that I've always wanted to do since seeing the red box set in the early 80s. To clarify I just want to learn from the players aspect. I don't have any desire to DM.
I have played with/am familiar with all major editions of D&D, although certain ones I've played far more than others. It's actually not too hard, since a lot of concepts run through and through the entire history, and simply sub out resolution systems in later editions. As for which edition I recommend to start with, it depends on your eventual goal. Right now, it would be easiest to find a group to play 5th edition, so if someone were learning with the intent of finding a group and playing, I'd recommend that one simply from the numbers point of view. 3.x is the basis for the Pathfinder RPG, which also has a large number of players, although they are coming out with the 2nd edition of that in August (2019). So that might not be a bad system to familiarize yourself with (or pathfinder directly, which you can find resources online for since most of it is open content). Then again, if you know a group who already plays and are looking to join it, my recommendation would simply be 'whatever version they are playing'. The older editions are mechanically simpler but often written in an obscure manner, and between 2nd edition and 3rd edition there was a major break in terms of rules structure, so while I personally prefer them, learning them may not be as useful depending on your particular situation.
@@rpgcrawler I'm binging on your retrospect playlist. Some good stuff bro. Yeah funny thing is I have alot of Pathfinder merchandise also. Love Paizo. I have the core books and alot of other supplemental literature. Also Pathfinder 2e playtest book. I like pdf but I love a hardback book. The feel is incomparable. I don't have anybody to play with at the moment I would like to get a little bit of rules under my belt and a feel for, before I try. I would pay good money to have your knowledge and understanding of the game. I have all the box sets in form of PDFs. Would any of them a good starting point??? Also the whole thaco controversy really is interesting. For someone who is horrible at math I understand that perfectly well....from the examples that I've seen anyway. I think most of all I would like to learn second edition. Some of the campaign settings from that edition are very interesting. A space theme, an Arabian Nights theme, a Harlequin/medieval theme, a Vampire theme. Grayhawk seems fabulous. I have no idea what Forgotten Realms is all about. Then they have Planescape and Birthright ....wow. Yeah I think second edition, I'm convinced now. . What would be the best for me ......to just pick up the player's handbook at start reading...... or is there a box set that's easy to learn that is specifically for 2nd edition?? Hey thanks for replying to my silly questions. It means alot as some of the RPG cats on YT aren't very sociable. Really thanks
NP, I do try to respond to comments, although I've fallen down on it lately due to time. In terms of boxed sets, there was a starter set for AD&D 2e, though by that time they'd simply branded it back to AD&D (without the 2nd edition tag, even though it is 2nd edition). It came with an audio CD and was called The Complete Starter Set AD&D Game IIRC. It had a very brief version of the player's handbook rules in it. Honestly I'm not sure how well it introduces things because I haven't gone all the way through it. The Audio CD part is honestly kind of overly corny in places too, but I suppose it does introduce things well enough if you don't want to simply read through the player's handbook. I'll have to try to get through it some time to see how it stacks up. And I totally get you on preferring hardback books. It's why my shelves get ever more full, even with stuff that's much cheaper electronically.
@@rpgcrawler I'll be damn I was looking through some things and found a thin paperback blue booklet titled "Introduction to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook. It's 32 pages. I don't know where the hell I got it but that's the exact same one that you're talkin about. I Googled it and it came to the CDs, just like you said. Yeah this thing's a little light but it'll work for now imma go ahead and read that then go ahead to start in the player's handbook. What's amazing is ....probably about the same time that you were typing that I was actually finding that same one you were talking about.......amazing. Thank you sir.
I like the overall Retrospective but you do realize that 3rd/3.5 had way way way more books published for it than 4e did, right? Why the dig at 4e? 4e had 39 books (not counting setting books or adventures) while 3rd/3.5 had 68 core books (not counting setting books or adventures). You are correct that 2e started the mad craze of splatbooks but that was because of the way TSR was being ran in the 90's (i.e. poorly) and that it was because of the splats that they ended up going belly up when all the bookstores and such sent back overstock for refunds and TSR didn't have the cash on hand to pay them back.
I take digs at 4e not because of the overall books, but the overall system (Which while alright, in my opinion it was the weakest of the D&D releases. Which I'll get into in my 4e retrospective *coming soon*). And in my 3rd edition part of the retrospective I do mention the overall production rate that happened at that time. That being said, it's useful to consider the span of publishing between 3.x and 4e. 3.x had those 68 core books published between the first in July of 2000, while the last one was published in December of 2007, (7 years, 5 months) whereas 4th edition's 39 spanned from June 2008 to May 2012, almost exactly 4 years. 4e's overall release rate ends up being slightly faster due to its extremely short publishing span. Further, the rate of releases was increasing slightly toward the end, although that may be because marketing saw a need to exit the 4e cycle early and shouldn't be taken that the overall release schedule would have continued to increase. One can't really compare just the numbers of books without recognizing that 4e was cut short. I do recognize that TSR was run really, really poorly toward the end. Not only was a fair amount of overstock sent back, but simply looking at my own books from the era, the production quality was taking a bit of a dive as well. Not that WotC is exactly stellar in that regard. (My 5e books are already falling apart).
You know, in a funny way, the trouble that TSR had under the leadership of Lorainne Williams[sp] seems to mirror what's going on with the state of the Star Wars film franchise under Kathleen Kennedy. Both seem to be people who generally don't have an appreciation for the franchise they were put in charge of, or the fans of said products. Because of this, both were headed to a seeming 'death' among paying fans. TSR and Dungeons and Dragons eventually bounced back; only time will tell how things go with Kathleen Kennedy and Star Wars.
2nd Edition for the most part is just 1st Edition minus boobs and demons. 1st/2nd edition was and still in the pinnacle of D&D. Everything since has been impostors, and aside from 3.5 complete garbage. 3.5 is palatable if you're stuck on a deserted island with only those books. On said island 3.0, 4th, and 5th are good for nothing more than kindling.
It's not their fault really. Sure, we can all talk shit, but Congress and a pack of screeching harpies were beating down TSRs doors. Not to mention the people trying to frame them for a murder that was not even a murder. Lame, but necessary.
To many of us, the settings are an integral part of D&D. I mean, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and Planescape were amazing creations with a host of boxed sets and supplements. Even Forgotten Realms was still pretty cool back then. For those settings alone, 2e was legendary, even if I no longer use 2e's mechanics.
How about using these AD&D 2e settings with BX retroclones?
Despite the management problems of TSR during this time I still hold that publishing wise to be D&Ds golden era. More so from it's range of worlds and adventures created (even if 'splat books' became a bit unwieldy). While BECMI is my favourite ruleset - I have a soft spot for 1Ed AD&D and 2ndEd Ad&D - I'm glad 5Ed harkens back to some of these gaming ethos and principles.
Thanks so much for a comprehensive video - a great addition to this series.
Thanks for watching, and yeah, I agree in terms of world settings and adventures. The sheer number of really creative settings and products produced during that time benefited the game as a whole, honestly. One only has to see how much of it is still in demand to this very day, either as reprints or requests for 5e conversions.
AD&D 2e is my favorite edition. Ttrpg for 3+ decades since 1984 or so. Now I love to play:
Books of D100 Dungeon
A Solo Adventuring Game
like GM's guide
The Lost Tome Extraordinary like
Players handbook
The Dragons Return
like Monster manuel.
I played this edition for 15 years ❤️❤️
I still play it on and off to this day! Alongside newer editions in different groups.
2E is the best version of AD&D. It’s its own thing as well as being very compatible with earlier editions. It’s the best of all worlds.
Oh how I miss my 2nd ed core books and also those Player's option books. Threw them away as obsolete. Easley covers. Excellent condition. Painful to reminisce. Thankfully I kept FR and Dark Sun books, complete series and some other stuff.
Oh man, I'm so glad I didn't throw my books out, I just wish that I'd kept them in better condition. I'm stuck with the black cover reprints because my original 2nd edition covers are so badly worn they're not really books anymore.
@@rpgcrawler Oh yeah. I didn't end up playing a huge deal in 2nd ed but I think I read and browsed through them a lot. I handled my books like artifacts back then which explains the condition. 😅
I still regard reading and just enjoying my rpg books a big part of my hobby. Too bad I tried to clean up my bookshelf a little too eagerly.
I spent a lot of time in 2E and my two regrets with that edition is TSR dumping the Monk out of the main books and no Random Dungeon Generation appendix as in 1E.
Yeah, those are two glaringly missing spots in the core rules. They tried to address both in later releases in the 2nd edition splatbooks, but IMO never did give them a proper treatment.
Laraine. Williams also had control of some sort of intellectual property that could be gamified.
I also think 2e was great at its core. I only owned the core three books, Complete Fighters and Thieves guides. I loved 1e modules but the 2e rules were so well organized. So I played 1e modules or dungeon magazine adventures with the 2e ruleset.
I think more than a few people ended up doing the same thing. That was one of 2e's strengths. Even though there were some different mechanics in there, they were interchangeable at the stat level, basically letting you mix and match. 1e modules with 2e rules, or even 1e books (Wilderness/dungeon survival guides w/ 2e stuff) with 2e core.
Edition 2 is the best !
A very nice recap on 2nd Edition, although i am very saddened by the fact you did not mention my favorite setting: Dragonlance :(. On a whole, people tend to look badly on 2nd Edition, but it is surprising on how many things that edition allowed players to do or experience compared to later editions.
I was going to mention it! And had actually prepped a mention in there, but when I did further research it actually, much like Forgotten Realms, was initially published for 1st edition and just drastically fleshed out during 2nd edition. And it seems that when I took it out of the one section I forgot to add it into the other. Alas, editing woes. I'll definitely be covering it in my upcoming AD&D Setting Series when I get around to doing that one justice.
And yeah, second edition gets a lot of flack now, but it was actually very good for a mix of player options + rules to actually cover said options. I just wish I got to run it more often.
I got to DM a 2nd Edition campaign a fairly short while ago and when players from that AD&D group recently wanted to do something in 3.5 that they could do in 2nd Edition my usual answer would be: "Yeah, you could do that in 2nd Edition, but 3rd Edition does not allow it anymore. Its gone with the Edition". Thus "Gone with the Edition" become a new catch phrase among our regular players group because it come up surprisingly often.
my favourite setting also but was there a good 2e campaign book for DragonLance?
@Keith Haddad
There was the Box-Set named "Tales of the Lance" with a source/campaign book for Ansalon and the lesser known "Time of the Dragon" box with a campaign book for the other fleshed out continent of Taladas (maybe you know it from the SSI game "Dark Queen of Krynn" which played mostly on Taladas". Finally the box-set "Dwarven Kingdoms of Krynn" cast a big light on the, well, dwarven kingdoms.
The Box-set Tales of the Lance included the campaign book, a big map of Ansalon, an DM-Screen and showpieces. Finally there was a monster compendium (like mentioned in the video with a 3-holes binder) with the krynnish monsters including the fameous Draconians, how normal Dragons differ from those of the normal source material and other fun things like Wyndlass, Walking Willow, Death Knight, Skeleton Warriors, Fireshadows, Fireminions, Fetch and so forth
@@AlexJones-ue1ll Just out of curiosity, what kind of things are we talking about here?
They lost me with baatezu and tanarr'i...I never really moved beyond 1st edition and with all the great OSR stuff out there nowadays it feels great to have not bothered much with the later editions.
Honestly, I don't even consider myself an OSR kinda guy, but I still love the older stuff and systems that mimic it. It gives a certain speed and fluidity to play, both mechanically and conceptually, that the newer editions have a hard time even coming close to. 5e does kind of come close-r, but that's not saying a lot.
I'd love to run more OSR stuff, but my usual groups tend to gravitate toward newer systems, and given the choice between having motivated players or having sessions feel like pulling teeth, sadly I have to go with what will get my people to show up and play.
I agree... and they didn't even just get rid of elements that could be misconstrued as satanic/occult. They also got rid of things like breasts, half-orcs, assassins, everything in Deities and Demi-Gods, etc. At the time - being 16 - it felt like the vaguely rebellious hobby I enjoyed had been gutted. Plus... again, being 16 at the time, the "you can get it in one of our 500 splat books" approach felt like not only did they neuter something I liked, but they also wanted to charge me more for it.
The black cover books are NOT from "the time when WotC took over"
Got them right on my desk, produced in '95 but published 1997, the same year WotC acquired TSR. Cover states the contact information through Wizards of the Coast, Inc., TSR having become a subsidiary thereof that year. Now, granted it had been in the works prior to the acquisition and was likely just left for WotC to pick up the tab for printing and distribution at that point during the transition. But for organizational purposes, that was the year and the point at which the old TSR was no longer an independent entity. I'm not sure how else one would describe that period in time.
@@rpgcrawler Mate, you just have a late printing. I've got 1995 and 1996 printings on my shelf and there is no reference to WotC. These books came out in the TSR era, it makes no difference if WotC later reprinted them… 2e was massively popular and had many, many reprints.
You're right, had to go look at the history of the printing. There was like a 2 year gap between first print of revised and second print (with some supposedly ghost print between them) that I wasn't accounting for.
@@rpgcrawler The first print is 1995, the second print is 1996 and the third print is 1997. Notably the third print has "second printing 1997" but it is actually the third printing. The difference between the second and third printing is the year (1996 vs 1997) and the addition of WotC info in the third.
This was Amazing! Thanks!
i dont remember DEX having anything to do with initiative.DEX adjustement was for AC and reaction adjusment for being suprised
That was a mistake on my part, a house rule that had been in so many groups I'd played with that I kind of remembered it as core when writing this. My bad.
@@rpgcrawler I was thinking of including a rule like that too.Thats why i was looking at some ad&d vids.the biggest ajustment one can get is a -2,for higher ground or something.its all balanced so no one can get - on init..Like -2 on init.Anyway thanks for the vid,bro. Peace!
Which 2E books would you recommend barring from the table if I were to start a 2e group?
It would really depend on the theme and genre of the game you're playing. If I'm going for simplicity, I generally bar skills and powers. If I'm going for a more classic feel, I'll bar the humanoid's handbook and possibly the psionics handbook.
With 2nd edition, I find it's less about what i'm barring and more about what I'm assembling. If I want a particular style of game or genre, I'll start with just the core player's handbook, then add on what else I want to allow from there. For instance, if I wanted a classic fantasy milleu genre, I'd start wit hthe PHB, add the core 'four' handbooks (Fighter's, Thief's, Wizard's, and possibly priests, although that one is a bit squirrelly), then only add additional handbooks after careful review.
I personally just allow basically everything not skills and powers or psionics. (Unless I want a specifically skills and powers based game, or explicitly want psionics in the game of course).
However, if you go full open on everything, there are a few things to consider. Most important is whether you want to go with the classic combat system or the one in combat and tactics. It's entirely possible to run the classic system but with the proficiencies and additional weapons from combat and tactics, so 'partially barring' certain books is something to consider as well.
It just works better if you treat 2e like a menu of options to add up rather than a whole consistent system with things to subtract (like a 3e or a pathfinder).
@@rpgcrawler I'm going for a classic sword-and-sorcery, dungeon-crawly, revenge/resuce quest sort of campaign. So it definitely sounds like s&p and psionics wont be a good fit
yeah, for something like that I'd just go with the core phb plus maybe a few handbooks.(fighter, thief, wizard. priest is a bit broken) Keep it simple, then expand as the campaign does if you feel it necessary.
I've heard it's possible to mix 1e and 2e together with minimal adjustment. Is this possible? Thanks
They are similar enough that they can be mixed with a bare minimum of adjustment. The main parts they vary in is scaling (2nd edition tends to run to a higher 'top end' of the power scale over time), and in actual mechanics (the 2nd edition combat system being more straightforward overall.) Really, the only problem someone would have mixing or converting between the two is if they get nitpicky.
Yes
Do you know all 5 editions rule sets?? I think you might. I have much respect for you. I would love to have the attention/comprehension to accomplish that. I have all the core rulebooks for 1-5. (PHB DMG MM) I collected the books with the intention of learning them all. Although after reviewing I think I have bit off more than I can chew.
Which edition do you recommend I start with?? I would eventually like to play, but more so I just went to learn rule systems. It's something that I've always wanted to do since seeing the red box set in the early 80s. To clarify I just want to learn from the players aspect. I don't have any desire to DM.
I have played with/am familiar with all major editions of D&D, although certain ones I've played far more than others. It's actually not too hard, since a lot of concepts run through and through the entire history, and simply sub out resolution systems in later editions. As for which edition I recommend to start with, it depends on your eventual goal. Right now, it would be easiest to find a group to play 5th edition, so if someone were learning with the intent of finding a group and playing, I'd recommend that one simply from the numbers point of view. 3.x is the basis for the Pathfinder RPG, which also has a large number of players, although they are coming out with the 2nd edition of that in August (2019). So that might not be a bad system to familiarize yourself with (or pathfinder directly, which you can find resources online for since most of it is open content).
Then again, if you know a group who already plays and are looking to join it, my recommendation would simply be 'whatever version they are playing'.
The older editions are mechanically simpler but often written in an obscure manner, and between 2nd edition and 3rd edition there was a major break in terms of rules structure, so while I personally prefer them, learning them may not be as useful depending on your particular situation.
@@rpgcrawler I'm binging on your retrospect playlist. Some good stuff bro. Yeah funny thing is I have alot of Pathfinder merchandise also. Love Paizo. I have the core books and alot of other supplemental literature. Also Pathfinder 2e playtest book.
I like pdf but I love a hardback book. The feel is incomparable. I don't have anybody to play with at the moment I would like to get a little bit of rules under my belt and a feel for, before I try. I would pay good money to have your knowledge and understanding of the game. I have all the box sets in form of PDFs. Would any of them a good starting point???
Also the whole thaco controversy really is interesting. For someone who is horrible at math I understand that perfectly well....from the examples that I've seen anyway. I think most of all I would like to learn second edition. Some of the campaign settings from that edition are very interesting. A space theme, an Arabian Nights theme, a Harlequin/medieval theme, a Vampire theme. Grayhawk seems fabulous. I have no idea what Forgotten Realms is all about. Then they have Planescape and Birthright ....wow.
Yeah I think second edition, I'm convinced now. . What would be the best for me ......to just pick up the player's handbook at start reading...... or is there a box set that's easy to learn that is specifically for 2nd edition?? Hey thanks for replying to my silly questions. It means alot as some of the RPG cats on YT aren't very sociable. Really thanks
NP, I do try to respond to comments, although I've fallen down on it lately due to time. In terms of boxed sets, there was a starter set for AD&D 2e, though by that time they'd simply branded it back to AD&D (without the 2nd edition tag, even though it is 2nd edition). It came with an audio CD and was called The Complete Starter Set AD&D Game IIRC. It had a very brief version of the player's handbook rules in it. Honestly I'm not sure how well it introduces things because I haven't gone all the way through it. The Audio CD part is honestly kind of overly corny in places too, but I suppose it does introduce things well enough if you don't want to simply read through the player's handbook. I'll have to try to get through it some time to see how it stacks up.
And I totally get you on preferring hardback books. It's why my shelves get ever more full, even with stuff that's much cheaper electronically.
@@rpgcrawler I'll be damn I was looking through some things and found a thin paperback blue booklet titled "Introduction to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook. It's 32 pages. I don't know where the hell I got it but that's the exact same one that you're talkin about. I Googled it and it came to the CDs, just like you said. Yeah this thing's a little light but it'll work for now imma go ahead and read that then go ahead to start in the player's handbook. What's amazing is ....probably about the same time that you were typing that I was actually finding that same one you were talking about.......amazing. Thank you sir.
The revised version was released 2 years before wotc bought tsr
2E 4 life.
Still running a megadungeon in 2e to this day hah.
Awesome. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
I like the overall Retrospective but you do realize that 3rd/3.5 had way way way more books published for it than 4e did, right? Why the dig at 4e? 4e had 39 books (not counting setting books or adventures) while 3rd/3.5 had 68 core books (not counting setting books or adventures). You are correct that 2e started the mad craze of splatbooks but that was because of the way TSR was being ran in the 90's (i.e. poorly) and that it was because of the splats that they ended up going belly up when all the bookstores and such sent back overstock for refunds and TSR didn't have the cash on hand to pay them back.
I take digs at 4e not because of the overall books, but the overall system (Which while alright, in my opinion it was the weakest of the D&D releases. Which I'll get into in my 4e retrospective *coming soon*). And in my 3rd edition part of the retrospective I do mention the overall production rate that happened at that time.
That being said, it's useful to consider the span of publishing between 3.x and 4e. 3.x had those 68 core books published between the first in July of 2000, while the last one was published in December of 2007, (7 years, 5 months) whereas 4th edition's 39 spanned from June 2008 to May 2012, almost exactly 4 years. 4e's overall release rate ends up being slightly faster due to its extremely short publishing span. Further, the rate of releases was increasing slightly toward the end, although that may be because marketing saw a need to exit the 4e cycle early and shouldn't be taken that the overall release schedule would have continued to increase. One can't really compare just the numbers of books without recognizing that 4e was cut short.
I do recognize that TSR was run really, really poorly toward the end. Not only was a fair amount of overstock sent back, but simply looking at my own books from the era, the production quality was taking a bit of a dive as well. Not that WotC is exactly stellar in that regard. (My 5e books are already falling apart).
You know, in a funny way, the trouble that TSR had under the leadership of Lorainne Williams[sp] seems to mirror what's going on with the state of the Star Wars film franchise under Kathleen Kennedy. Both seem to be people who generally don't have an appreciation for the franchise they were put in charge of, or the fans of said products. Because of this, both were headed to a seeming 'death' among paying fans. TSR and Dungeons and Dragons eventually bounced back; only time will tell how things go with Kathleen Kennedy and Star Wars.
2nd Edition for the most part is just 1st Edition minus boobs and demons.
1st/2nd edition was and still in the pinnacle of D&D. Everything since has been impostors, and aside from 3.5 complete garbage. 3.5 is palatable if you're stuck on a deserted island with only those books. On said island 3.0, 4th, and 5th are good for nothing more than kindling.
I was deeply disappointed with the "sanitization" aspect of this edition.
It's not their fault really. Sure, we can all talk shit, but Congress and a pack of screeching harpies were beating down TSRs doors. Not to mention the people trying to frame them for a murder that was not even a murder. Lame, but necessary.