"Dear JB" Mailbag #50

I think I can do one more of these before 2026...man, these were nearly one-third of my posts in '25...

Dear JB:

Honestly I just need help trying to decide between AD&D 1e or 2e. I like both games, and different aspects of both. I lean more towards 1e but think 2e is easier to use at the table. 

What are y’all’s preference?

1E or 2E

Dear Questioner:

I prefer first edition AD&D. That is the short answer to your final question.

But you want more than just my "preference;" you want "help trying to decide" between the two editions. I know there are quite a few people out there who, if asked, would simply suggest you combine BOTH editions into one Franken-brew mash-up that you can live with...but I assume you've already considered this option and discarded it, else you'd have no reason to write.

SO...you want me to go all "Edition Wars" in print?

Here's the level truth, friend: beginning with 1E, every edition of D&D was purposefully designed. Regardless of whether I (or anyone else) says otherwise, there are reasons each rule set includes the instructional text it has. And let me further add THIS: when I (or anyone else) tells you that one ruleset works better or best in comparison to other editions, what we mean is "better" or "best" for ME. For MY sensibilities.

Got that? I dislike 2E, but I dislike it because it fundamentally changes aspects of game play in a way that the game then fails to fulfill the promise of what it was in the version I learned, thus failing to meet the expectations that were instilled in me from the game that initially introduced me to Dungeons & Dragons.

These expectations are no small things, and is why D&D gamers tend to be most loyal to whatever edition they first grokked and that first EXCITED them about D&D.  IF (for example) you were first drawn to D&D because it provided you with the means to tell epic stories of heroism (a la 2E) with a more streamlined ruleset, then guess what? 2E may well be your huckleberry, and you'll find 1E's draconian nuance as off-putting as 3E's micro-managed construction set.

What is it that you want from your D&D game? This is the fundamental question you have to ask (and answer) for yourself. You write that you "lean towards 1E?" Why? What is it about first edition that tickles your fancy? Half-orc assassins? Wandering harlots? Obfuscated combat procedures? Random disease and parasite tables?  I mean, sure...what's not to like?

; )

Each edition is designed to meet certain types of play objective. I'm not talking about objectives like "game goals" (finding treasure or creating stories)...I'm talking about the STYLE of play that occurs at the table. Each edition of D&D creates a very different gaming experience when run in the manner in which it was intended. The play of By The Book second edition is DIFFERENT from first edition despite 2E's "backwards compatibility" with 1E materials and surface similarities. Customization of characters (specialist wizards, adjustable skilled rogues, themed clerics, "kits," etc.) focus players on their characters; advancement systems based on profession encourage players to have different priorities IN PLAY. That makes the 2E game VERY UNLIKE first edition AD&D, despite the inclusion of similar spells, monsters, and terminology. It is a different way of playing, not "better" or "worse," but DIFFERENT.

And that difference is going to hold different levels of appeal for different people. For me, it holds little appeal...but I can only speak for myself. Other people have different expectations of play.

SO...it would behoove you to determine what are YOUR priorities and expectations of play. "Easier to use at the table" is a dumb reason for choosing a system...plenty of editions of D&D have simpler systems than 2E if that's the main thing driving you! But the fact of the matter is this: you can get good at ANY edition's system with practice and dedication...or, what some might call TIME and EFFORT. I find first edition AD&D to be quite easy to use at the table (certainly a lot easier than editions that require me to create "battle maps" for every encounter)...but, as I wrote in an earlier post, the process of learning AD&D took a few years.  For me, I'd say it was worth the trouble. Then again, back in the min-80s I had no other choice (there was only ONE version of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons prior to 1989)!

Anyway, reading over this missive, I can guess I'm probably not giving you what you want. Here are what the two editions in question have to offer:

• 1E: cooperative, tactical game play, with a robust rule system that encourages long-term (extended) campaign play and world building with attention to "real world" considerations like economic stresses and political/military movements, while still providing fantasy escapism on an undreamt of scale, supported by system.
• 2E: character customization, prioritization on "story" or "meaning" with focus on the individual, generally of a "good" or "wholesome" nature (I think it's easier to make 1E clean and shiny than it is to make 2E grim and dirty), rewarding groups who are "on the same page," thematically. Unclear how extended game play is supported by system, but short-term thematic play is definitely supported in 2E.

You'll note that neither of these descriptions say anything about "ease of play" at the table. Figure out which one you want to run/play and then learn the rules (which were designed to facilitate their objectives of play). Don't be lazy; the job of being a Dungeon Master entails a lot of work, so you might as well start on the right foot by studying up the system that best delivers the game you want.

Sincerely,

JB