1E vs. 2E - Compare & Contrast

[Halaster Blackcloak]

An old gaming buddy of mine was discussing this with me the other day and I thought it would make a decent (hopefully interesting) discussion. We were talking about the differences between 1E and 2E. Not just rules, but the overall game itself.

Instead of trying a structured analysis, I'm just going to give my own overview for each, as I see it.

1st Edition - In 1E there are a lot more "generic" modules (adventures) and most were relatively short (16 pages and smaller sometimes). Bare-bones adventures giving the DM the basic plot and stats for various areas and/or rooms. The DM was expected to really flesh the adventure(s) out. Modules were almost "outline" type adventures in that you got just just the minimum amount of material and info you needed to run it - and not much more!

There really were no "campaign settings" per se. Most of the published modules/adventures (the A series, the G series, etc) were mentioned in passing as occurring somewhere in the World of Greyhawk, but only in a token manner. S1 Tomb of Horrors, for example, says the tomb may be set in the Bright Desert, in the plains of Iuz, on an island in the Nyr Dyv, etc. It also mentions (as most of them do) something like this (from S1):

"The starting information for the module depends on whether you are using the Tomb as an insertion into your own campaign, as a section of The World of Greyhawk fantasy setting, or simply as a one-shot exercise for your players."

Most DMs I knew back in the day, almost to a person, created their own campaign worlds. They had to. There were no real campaign settings until the World of Greyhawk Folio was published. And those were pretty much your only options - create your own campaign setting (world) or play in the World of Greyhawk campaign setting.

The game back then was, in my experience, much more akin to how Gygax and company played - it was more a test of the player and how well he played his character, almost like a chess piece, than any exercise in roleplaying or character development.

Dungeon crawls were for the most part "fantastic", i.e. there was no logical explanation given for why a particular monster appeared on a particular level, nor was there much consideration for the realities or logic of how it survived deep in a dungeon (where does it obtain food, water? where does it dispose of waste? etc.).

Published material consisted mainly of hardcover rules books and paper modules (adventures) that were generic, short, and to the point. There were tons of choices for character classes and races. But no campaign settings, no supplements (non-adventure material such as source books, etc.), no box sets, and so on.

There were almost no major or mega-adventures outside of T1-4 Temple of Elemental Evil and I3-5 Desert of Desolation (the latter being a mere compilation of the series I3, I4, and I5).

2nd Edition - With 2E we saw an explosion of campaign settings, eventually having Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance & Taladas, Ravenloft, Birthright, Planescape, Lankhmar, Arabian Adventures, etc. Most DMs that I knew from that time started picking published settings for their games instead of creating their own worlds. There were still plenty of modules/adventures, but we saw an explosion of major adventure sets, mainly boxed sets, such as Ruins of Undermountain, Myth Drannor, Night Below, Rod of Seven Parts, and so on.

We also saw a huge outpour of supplemental material - the DMGR series of DM sources such as DMGR 1 Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide, DMGR 2 Castle Guide, DMGR3 Arms and Equipment Guide, etc. and the PHBR Series for players - the various class/kit handbooks, etc.

Adventures became more plot-driven, with most adventure modules having a much higher page count than most 1E modules (2-3 times the average page count). Some say the adventures were more "railroaded" in 2E, but I never really felt that way. They did have, later on, much stricter linear aspects to them, which I suppose can be considered "railroad". But I think the difference was that the 2E adventures were simply more detailed and spelled out than the 1E adventure modules. More developed, not as bare-bones, and requiring much less work from the DM (but more reading!).

The focus seemed to shift to character development and roleplaying as opposed to the 1E style. 1E was more a test of the players whereas 2E was more a test of the characters. At least to some degree.

We also saw far more resource (non-adventure) books detailing various areas in the Forgotten Realms, Planescape, Greyhawk, and so on. There were a handful of these for the FR in 1E, but it was mainly a 2E phenomenon.

In 2E there was also fewer choices of races and classes, as they removed the assassin, acrobat, cavalier, barbarian, half-orc, etc from play.

Those are the big differences I saw between the two eras. What do the rest of you think?

[McDeath]

Some of those classes needed severe reworking. Didn't Complete Book of Humanoids anf Giantcraft bring back various races like 1/2 orc and 1/2 ogre. To this day there is no good 1/2 giant (non DS) imho. 1/2 hill, 1/2 stone, 1/2 fire etc). Gets kinds odd but i consider these ok NPCs races not so much PC.

Wyvern a java crpg had full giants as pc races along with naga and more. Btw, not enough historic naga and ophidian could use a update.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Haven't read those in awhile. I don't recall Giantcraft having rules/options for half-giants or ogres. It might be in the Complete Book of Humanoids though. I agree, they seem better as NPC races than PC races. Using them as PCs causes all sorts of problems (such as - good luck finding armor that fits them, or boots, cloaks, gauntlets, etc).

I never had problems with the original classes from 1E, except I thought the acrobat was silly for its own class (or mixed with thief - just let the thief have those skills). I did think the cavalier was way overpowered though, and modified it to fit my games. Everything else I was good with.

[McDeath]

I think only Firbolg, Verberg, Voadkyns could be playable.

Neat notes:
Level Limits For Giant Wizards
Rune Magic
Hill giants -- Not allowed
Stone giants - 6th
Mountain giants - 4th
Frost giants - 4th
Fire giants - 6th
Fog giants - 6th
Cloud giants - 11th
Storm giants - 12th
Firbolgs - Not allowed
Verbeegs - 6th
Voadkyn - 5th

Runecasters
The Runecaster is essentially a subclass of the AD&D wizard.
Ability Requirements: Intelligence: 13 Wisdom: 13
Dexterity: 12
Prime Requisites: Intelligence, Wisdom
Races Allowed: Giant, giant-kin

Level Limits for Runecasters
Hill giants 6*
Mountain giants 6
Frost giants 6
Fire giants 8
Fog giants 13
Cloud giants 13
Storm giants 15
Stone giants 10
Firbolgs 7
Verbeegs 12
Voadkyn no**
Human U***
Elf 15***
Dwarf 12***

*Hill giants aren?t normally Intelligent enough to pass the Ability Requirements.
**Voadkyn left Jotunbrud society before any of them learned how to work the runes.
***Normally impossible, as described above.

Runecasters in Giant Steadings
In any given steading, only about one percent of the population will be runecasters.

Learning Runes
Obviously, a runecaster cannot inscribe a rune he does not know, and learning a new rune is much more difficult than simply memorizing its pattern. Rune magic does not work without a deep understanding of the essential truths and relationships that the pattern of the rune represents.
All 1st-level runecasters automatically know one rune. They may attempt to learn one additional rune each time they advance in level, just as wizards may attempt to learn new spells. To learn a rune, casters must pass a Chance to Learn Spell roll based upon their Intelligence score. (See ?The Nature of Giantkind? for information about generating Intelligence scores for the various giant races.) Runecasters who fail this roll may never make another attempt to learn the particular rune in question; it?s simply beyond their grasp. Note that it is impossible to learn some runes with- out first learning the specified ?prerequisite?.....

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Just a heads up - your post got a duplicate so I deleted the dupe.

I loved rune casting and especially for giants!

Giantcraft was a really awesome accessory. I love giants and so do almost every player I've ever had. I think overall giants were one of the most popular monsters in any of my campaigns. They became a lot more fun using the material from Giantcraft.