Quote from: Warthur;689138This is precisely why I like 2E better in actual play! Say what you like about Zeb Cook, but if you read the intros he penned for it it's clear that even though Lorraine Williams had mostly shut down internal playtesting at TSR, Zeb still reached out to get people's feedback about the game through Dragon and in effect crowdsourced a lot of the ideas for the revisions, so he ended up proposing things which resembled what a lot of people were doing at their game tables anyway.

My view of 2E in its initial release was that it was a huge cleanup of AD&D 1st. It wanted to try it but my friends and I already were heavy into GURPS for two years at point. So it never happened.

Quote from: estar;689156Most of AD&D is like that but there is a lot of "Oh hell lets add this because it cool, or I manage to get Gary's ear on a good day." I point to the Grappling, Pummeling, and Overbearing rules as Exhibit A along with certain sections like the whole deal with segments and combat.

Sure, there are rules like this. That's why I used the analogy of the salad bar. To me, the AD&D rules are ADVANCED elements that are intended as a coherent framework when compared to the disjointed, isolated Supplements and articles taken as a whole. There are still issues, things that might not mesh well in a particular game table, and yes, there are definitely elements that were not used in actual play. The DM should be the arbiter and decide which sub-system to apply, and not apply. This is the salad bar I'm referring to.

AD&D 2nd edition's take is different. It sees itself as a uniformed, streamlined set of rules apart from the D&D game first, and has some optional subsystems clearly designated as such (with the clear implication that others not designated as such aren't optional), like the NWPs and the like, added to what is thought of as the core of the Advanced game. To me, that's a completely different way of envisioning the game.

In other words, what Warthur presented as this great evolution of the game with 2E is what breaks parts of its magic, to me.

Quote from: estar;689156In addition there is too much "Oh my god we got all these letters and questions to stop" going on.  I currently view 80% of AD&D as the greatest D&D ever and the remaining 20% as poison pills that setup the major problems for D&D in later years.

These aren't a problem when you consider AD&D as a framework, a set of rules, systems and sub-systems that are predicated on the good judgment of the referee, as opposed to a set of rules to use a toaster oven.

Quote from: estar;689156Having played three volume only OD&D I don't agree that it is the same game as the editions between OD&D + Greyhawk and 2E without skills and Powers. The power curve is a lot flatter, the differences between character are less dramatic.  Three booklet only OD&D campaigns plays out differently than the later edition.

I said as much in my post: whether you apply this or that supplement to the OD&D rules, or for that matter, use the Advanced rules as your starting point itself, the game will play differently. It doesn't change the fact that the Advanced rules are "Advanced", an "Advanced" (and particular, "Gygaxian" for lack of a better word) extension of the OD&D framework, to me.

Quote from: estar;689156Perhaps in the various classic edition but there are some major differences between classic, 3.X, 4e, and now 5e. Although while 5e has its own mix of mechanics that is different than it predecessors I don't see any major compatibility between using older material with 5e and hopefully vice versa. It will be a similar situation to what exist now with Castles & Crusades.

You're talking about the rules' particulars. This is not what I was talking about. I was talking about concepts and thought patterns. I was talking of a paradigm that evolved over time. OD&D is different from AD&D when you consider both separately, but when you consider them both as part of the same evolution of thought processes and ways to envision the game, they suddenly acquire a different dimension and quality, to me.

Quote from: estar;689156They play out the same in the parts where they do overlap. And where they don't the original material can be used as is. To me that is the test that the retro-clones need to pass. If the only thing I have is White Box can I use it to create material or run a campaigns that Old Geezer would recognize as usable with OD&D?

While I can't answer for him, to me it been yes. I can. I have older materal like Tegal Manor that I ran and I can't see any meaningful difference.

I am not Old Geezer. I don't run games like Mike. It's not an indictment of the way he plays the game or whatever: it's just that we're different people with different experiences and points of view on the game. He has his own valuable point of view on the game and contributes to the gaming community in ways he sees best. The fact remains, I'm not Old Geezer. Or Ernie Gygax, or Gary Gygax, for that matter.

What I'm talking about is the way *I* comprehend the game and interpret it for myself.

Quote from: estar;689156However in a literal sense you are right. They are not the same game because the only game that can be the same as OD&D is OD&D. Not just in terms of mechanics. But because it was so poorly presented that a revised edition would make have to make decisions on how to present the ambiguous sections.  So there can never be a true OD&D 2nd edition (in the sense of a book edition).

Like the OD&D Dispel Magic spell I mention before. Is it area effect? Single spell or item? The text can be read both ways.

We've discussed about this before: I think these ambiguities and this need for the referee to take the game in charge and make it his own are a strength of the game, and part of the "lightning in the bottle" I described, as it were. I also think that's what makes AD&D shine - it also requires you to become the referee and interpret the rules in many places. It requires you to decide whether you will use the WP v. AC table, or weapon speeds, or however the Assassination tables apply to the game. That is in essence coming from the same thought process, though the needs of the game and business that TSR was evolved over time. Which is why I consider them to be part of the same paradigm. You can look at them as different games, or as part of the same evolution of thought processes. This is what I'm talking about.

Quote from: estar;689156Personally I prefer the second printing of Core with the d6s for hit points and the version I build the Majestic Wilderlands supplement off of. That and a few other thing that were changed in later printing makes the power curve closer to that of the original book. But it has more of the options I do want for a campaign. (spells, items, etc)

If I was to write a Supplement to the OD&D rules, I would base it on the White Box rules and consider the Supplement as such, with its own specific rules, Men & Magic, Monsters & Treasures, and U&WA sections, in a similar manner you did. I think the Supplement format was great for the game, and if I was to publish some rules that would actually take the game in a different direction, that's the publication path I would likely take.

Quote from: Benoist;689163We've discussed about this before: I think these ambiguities and this need for the referee to take the game in charge and make it his own are a strength of the game, and part of the "lightning in the bottle" I described, as it were.  

My view there is little object difference between OD&D plus supplement to 2E pre Skills & Powers. All the variants or editions are trying to do the same things with the same set of stuff and wind up playing mostly the same at the table.

But the differences (mechanics, presentation, tone, etc)  are very important in terms of creativity. You pointed out several times that this how you view things. And that important because we all rely on a particular way of thinking and doing to make stuff up and run sessions. And for each of us it is different and perhaps even unique in what works.

I get that for you AD&D is an advanced version of OD&D and that you feel it is a salad bar of items that you mix up to make the game you run at your table or use in your writings.

I also hope you realize that it is also NOT necessary either. That given the right circumstances ANY combination of material in your hands would result in a fun and interesting session of tabletop roleplaying. And for everybody reading this that goes for you as well.

Along with creativity where editions make a difference is in terms of communication and in terms of saving work in publishing.

By picking a edition as your foundation a referee makes it easier for the players to act within the game because they understand what rules their characters are to operate under.

For publishing by sticking with a particular edition you making it easy for referees of using that edition to use your material 'as is' saving them time and work.

Creativity, Communication, and How much Work are the only things that I will make a distinction between games and editions for. Outside of that it just doesn't matter.

Quote from: Benoist;689163I am not Old Geezer. I don't run games like Mike. It's not an indictment of the way he plays the game or whatever: it's just that we're different people with different experiences and points of view on the game. He has his own valuable point of view on the game and contributes to the gaming community in ways he sees best. The fact remains, I'm not Old Geezer. Or Ernie Gygax, or Gary Gygax, for that matter.

I am not comparing you to Old Geezer or anybody else. My point is that I were make a adventure/supplement using White Box, and you were to do the same using the three booklet. That Old Geezer or anybody else proficient in OD&D would not know the difference between the two on that basis alone. Yes White Box is a subset of OD&D so my point only pertains to where they overlap. I will add that the overlap is substantial.

Because of that I consider both White Box and OD&D to be the same game because at the table there is no difference in how a session would play out using either.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;689010By the time Seinfeld went off the air in 1998, you couldn't count on finding people at the watercooler talking about the same TV shows.

Even "who killed Laura Palmer" of 1990 was a joke to "who shot J.R. Ewing" in 1980. And does anybody even remember "Jessica Costello"? (And who is "Rosie Larsen", by the way?)

I believe that we all lose a bit by not having common experiences like that anymore. (Like in gaming, having Keeps on the Borderlands.)

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;689184Even "who killed Laura Palmer" of 1990 was a joke to "who shot J.R. Ewing" in 1980. And does anybody even remember "Jessica Costello"? (And who is "Rosie Larsen", by the way?)

I believe that we all lose a bit by not having common experiences like that anymore. (Like in gaming, having Keeps on the Borderlands.)

Yep.  There's a reason why the final episode of MASH was the highest rated episode in television.  It came right at the time when cable was starting to make huge inroads throughout the US, and before FOX launched their fourth major network.

Quote from: estar;689177I also hope you realize that it is also NOT necessary either. That given the right circumstances ANY combination of material in your hands would result in a fun and interesting session of tabletop roleplaying. And for everybody reading this that goes for you as well.

Along with creativity where editions make a difference is in terms of communication and in terms of saving work in publishing.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

I am talking about my appreciation of the OD&D and AD&D game. That's my personal perspective and it doesn't preclude anyone having some other view on the topic, nor way to run a game of their own. Nor does it mean these would be the exclusive materials I'd use in a game, nor that I wouldn't run or play other games, including and not limited to other versions of the D&D game, as well as other role playing games, which I also run.

If you're trying to say something like "well you're a good DM, so anything you'd use would result in a good game anyway" I will disagree, because it's the particular presentation of the OD&D and AD&D rules that makes me think of them the way I do, and I probably wouldn't run the same games if I had not read through them, played them both, and learned from these experiences.

So this distinction I am making is significant for me, my creativity, my adjudication of game situations, and more broadly the way I envision and run my games.

Quote from: estar;689179I am not comparing you to Old Geezer or anybody else. My point is that I were make a adventure/supplement using White Box, and you were to do the same using the three booklet. That Old Geezer or anybody else proficient in OD&D would not know the difference between the two on that basis alone. Yes White Box is a subset of OD&D so my point only pertains to where they overlap. I will add that the overlap is substantial.

Well yes, S&W White Box as a publishing tool accomplishes its function: to enable you to publish game materials compatible with the original game. That's something we agree on.

Quote from: estar;689179Because of that I consider both White Box and OD&D to be the same game because at the table there is no difference in how a session would play out using either.

I think your position is predicated on your knowledge of OD&D in the first place, and you subconsciously fill in the blanks left in S&W which basically makes you consider it'd turn out all the same if you were running them side by side. Well yes. I don't think it'd turn out the same way for someone who's never heard of OD&D before.