With the undisputed spread of D&D to a wider consumer base through 5e, and being one of those newbs, I’ve noticed there don’t seem to be any 1e puritans out there proclaiming a need to show these kids how real D&D is played, let alone unwilling to move on to using the new rulesets. I see a lot more about 3.5, and to a lesser degree AD&D (which I assume is the historical name of 2e) than anything else. You can find games on Roll20 of older editions, but it doesn’t seem to be like other vintage experiences where maybe an old guy will say old songs should only be played on vinyl, or colorized versions of classic films are blasphemy. Even video games have their vintage throwback consoles and downloads, and if Oregon Trail didn’t hate everyone, we’d have a classic version we’d all download and play with our kids.

So I guess what I’m saying is, is this there, but I just don’t see it? Was the original player base so small that no one is really left to defend its honor? I see a lot of you talking about cutting your D&D teeth on “The Red Box” so I know that can’t really be it. Was the original ruleset so unrefined that to go back to it would just reopen thousands of cases of rules law mercifully settled by subsequent editions?

Have any of you had similar thoughts about this game with 45 years of evolution, but no one really defending a “purest form”?

It seems like you're trying to incite an edition war, and that seems counterproductive at best. I loved B/X D&D and even some things about 0e, but yelling about the "purest form" of a game is just a bad look.

Most of the folks (I'm guessing) that say they started with the red box, started with the 2e red box. The number of 1e players is much more limited because of a number of factors - less people, less exposure, lower popularity, satanic panic, whatever.

We (as a collective) understand the beauty of a system that works. There is nothing to really complain about between 1e and 5e.

The ONLY exception being how difficult Tomb of Horrors is, and how hard it should be =)

Wow. That’s not at all where I was going with that question. It was meant as investigation as to why the D&D community seems immune to such edition wars—which I greatly appreciate by the way. Anyone who knows me in real life knows me as incredibly laid back, and I’ve found in the D&D community kindred spirits who tend to save all the drama for in-character play. I was just curious if the reasons D&D seems immune boiled down to the people drawn to the game, or if the game has just gotten better. That’s why I contrasted it with those things that fall into more normal patterns of generational haughtiness.

I’ve already learned how the game evolved with AD&D adding layers of complexity that kinda felt like an expansion on the first game, and then getting more and more combat mechanically weighty, while developing some of the most treasured “new” races and settings. There used to be more restrictions on alignments within class and race. Then 5e was meant to strip it all back and make it more accessible. That much I’ve learned from interacting with you all. I’m not asking what makes one edition better than another, just what makes the community so accepting of each new edition.

But if you think asking the questions opens the community to the infection of the common folk, I’m fine leaving well enough alone.

Quote from Wysperra >>

We (as a collective) understand the beauty of a system that works.

 That rings really true and goes a long way toward answering my questions. Thanks.

Quote from kcbcollier >>

I’m not asking what makes one edition better than another, just what makes the community so accepting of each new edition.

The thing is that the community isn't inherently accepting of new editions. 4e was very divisive because its rules and overall feel were a radical departure from previous editions. The focus was on tactical combat with highly codified rules that left very little up to player/DM interpretation. They were trying to push an online tabletop software as one of the key selling points of the edition (which was why the rules needed to be easy for software to apply), but they weren't able to push that software out in time. The main motivation behind most of their decisions during that time was competing with World of Warcraft. On top of that 3.5 had accumulated an absurd amount of supplements and the rules for 4e weren't backwards compatible so all of that money was wasted.

A significant chunk of players simply kept playing 3.5 or moved on to Pathfinder.

5e was successful for a couple of reasons. It was the first time an edition was designed based mainly on large-scale public playtesting, so WotC was giving players what most of them wanted. They also made a point of showing more diverse characters in their core books to try to drive home that D&D is for everyone. Finally, the success of Twitch and streaming helped show that D&D can be easy to pick up and play, while the game previously had a reputation of having complex rules.

Quote from Conn_Eremon >>

The fact that 5e has mostly avoided that is to its merit, to the merit of its design and marketing teams, and to the merit of the fandom for calming the heck down.

 I remember what it was like in those D&D Next Beta forums. It was wall to wall edition wars for months. Every little change, tweak, or poll was scrutinized under the lens of a person's pet edition and was bloodily fought over endlessly. I'm fairly certain that we're getting a whole lot less of it now because everyone had time to get it all out of their system during the multi-year Beta and, in the end 5e turned out to be a good enough product that, after everyone was worn out, they could all move on, sit down, and play together.

Anecdotal is good for me. This is shaping up to be a neat history lesson for me. I didn’t know that D&D web forums had a history of edition wars. That gives a lot of context to the first reply’s warning that I was baiting edition debates. I knew that Pathfinder came about as an outgrowth of older editions, but I didn’t think about its success being as an alternative to an edition that wasn’t connecting with its base. The more I learn, the more 5e looks like a pretty brilliant step to revitalize a brand.

Original AD&D  is still my favorite, 3.5 was still mostly playable, fifth edition is (in my humble opinion) the second best version of the game.

For clarification purposes and to establish that my opinion may be somewhat of an educated one, I have been playing D&D in one form and another since  I discovered it in 1978.

AD&D was what might be thought of as 1E. Being the new version after basic, etc, it didn't warrant an "edition" number. 2E was when we started to use the "edition" label. At least that's how we thought about tin the north west of England, back in 1980's.

As regards your initial question I would say that there is an astonishingly large amount of AD&D to found in 5E. Lots of AD&D didn't feel like it really represented a moment by moment play that we wanted from out action scenes -  rounds being 1 minute and split into 10 6 second segments. There was nothing wrong with this, as combat was a lot more abstracted. If we wanted the gritty realism we could play CoC or RuneQuest. For example, orcs, in the MM, had 1 hit dice. All monster hit dice back then were a d8. "Monsters" did not get and bonus from stats. An orc hard 1 to 8 HPs and that was that. Until an Imagine or Dragon article expanded a monster for us, that is. Dragons did their HP in damage with their breath weapon, btw (which was exceptionally scary)! After becoming used to 3.5 and pathfinder I struggled with the 5E monster manual at first. But for me personally it married the best of the old AD&D system with the best of the 3.5 system; monster/npc stats were using similar rules as the PCs and are as flexible as I want them to be, while at the same time they do not require the detailed building or attention to rules that you find in 3.5. So in some ways I feel 5E is what 2E should have been.  

You will also find some of the things that 5E is still criticised for were astonishingly bigger deals in AD&D. Being a wizard fan I can't even begin to tell you how hard it is when you get d4 HP, no option to pick an average HP per level and almost no chance offsetting a Con bonus. Say hello to my 1st level Magic User with 2 HPs and can only cast one first level spell a day. You can tell I'm an asset, can't you? But come back when I'm 15th level when everything scales and my fireballs do 15d6 damage, then you will finding all the fighters, thieves and clerics standing round while I deal with almost everything. Not Demi-Liches though! Damn you eyes Tomb of Horrors! Damn you eyes, I say! 

So saying, this can be an attraction. You will have incredible levels of satisfaction if you survive to high level and will feel like you deserve your god-like power. 

The third thing which I personally very much appreciate about 5E is the culture. Obviously we have just seen the opposite of what I am about to write played out in social media, but the inclusivity of 5E, the fact that it's a home to so many people who were completely socially disenfranchised when I was a teen is just wonderful. 

Of course, this is all very much a personal take. A more objective take on why you haven't seen generation wars (and I have, I'm afraid) is that the games are so different (I know, this is contradicting my earlier point) that it is easy to see them as two different game systems and not feel like there is any need to be precious about AD&D. So humans can split-class, non-humans can multi-class? Ok, Gary, not sure what makes you say that, but you're the boss. 

However, if I may add, old school AD&D bards (fighter/theif/druids) need to brought back!! ;-) 

It's also the natural way of things.

I'm on CivFanatics, and people talk a lot about Civ VI, being the latest version. People often talk about Civ V and compare it to VI. Occasionally people will talk about IV. It's rare to hear about I-III at all. People forget about it or just aren't around anymore. I think the same here. 1e is 47 years old  now - even the youngest players are now in their 50s and the older ones are often either enjoying real life, are 6 ft under or just aren't prone to using the Internet so we don't hear from them. I'm sure some are still around, but very few will be posting here, reminiscing. You had a small base anyway, very few are likely to be on D&DB, of whom at least some will prefer later editions, and of those who are left, how many will still be opinionated enough to actually say something?

I haven't been here long, but I get the impression that 4e wasn't popular at all while 5e is. That will help keep dissent down, if you have to go two or three editions and 18 years back to find a contender.

I don't think D&D fantom are special or so who immune to anything, it's just that circumstances have just happened to be in such a way that intergenerational fighting is naturally low. When they bring out 6e, I fully expect those arguments to come full force. I mean, even with the barriers I've mentioned, we still have a couple of people posting about how older editions were better. With 5e being popular and fresh in people's minds? 6e will be controversial.

Quote from kcbcollier >>

I didn’t know that D&D web forums had a history of edition wars. 

WotC used to have their own forums, and after that a "community" system for a few years too. Part of the reasons those got cut is certainly the hostility and complaining that was done, over editions and pretty much anything else. The forums were great otherwise and the complaining was, with ups and downs, a relatively small part of them - but it was a highly visible part, and for new players who first went there to ask questions and talk with likeminded D&D geeks it probably stood out like a sore thumb. The D&D fandom isn't really any less (nor more) argumentative and opinionated than any other. 

If you have a spare 20 mins, look for a video on youtube by DM it All called "Which D&D Edition Should You Play?" it has some good info on the various editions of d&d and which one might be best for you/reasons why you may want to play older editions and modern day versions/updated versions of each edition.

Generally when DnD players are unhappy with a system they go and create a new one (Pathfinder anyone) lol. But I think a mistake some people make on this forum is forgetting that DnD beyond is 5th Edition specific therefore the majority of people who are here and active play 5th edition and therefore are going to be pro the system. That doesn't mean we won't debate the things we don't like but personally I know lots of players who can't stand 5th edition DnD and so they just refuse to play it and therefore come nowhere near DnD beyond. 

I think if you went to a more general open DnD forum and asked this question you would get a lot of people telling you all the reasons why 5th edition should be destroyed, thew books burnt and they refuse to even acknowledge it's existence. Just as if you went to a general TTRPG forum and asked the question lots of roleplayers would tell you that generally DnD is the worst roleplay game ever invented and why would they ever play a game where all you do is dungeon crawl and then go shopping. I know plenty of players, and in fact play other systems with a few of them, who feel this way. Some hate the D20 mechanics, which I understand, it is in my opinion one of the weaker TTRPG mechanics I personally prefer the D10 roll and keep method of games like 7th sea. Others dislike the setting or the way the character creation works, or the magic system. Others just dislike playing in a fantasy world, and I have a couple of friends who just don't like DnD because it has got so big and so has made it harder for the roleplay systems to break through online, another dislikes it because on principle they dislike everything WOTC touches. None of these people will ever be seen on this forum. 

Questions of this format on this forum will always be weighted in favour of the product at hand because this is DnD 5th edition beyond, not, TTRPG beyond. 

Billiard, what are the major differences between 1e and 5e?

Quote from BigLizard >>

Quote from Linklite >>

Billiard, what are the major differences between 1e and 5e?

 If we are talking about 1e B/X and 5e.  Far fewer than you would think in particular if you use modern versions of B/X like old-school essentials.

• Characters die at 0 HP in 1e, there are no death saves hence the game is quite lethal.
• B/X doesn't have sub-classes, but there are more core classes and class combinations.
• The skill system in B/X is more focused on representing a profession covering a multitude of assumed skills, while the skill system in 5e is more focused on specific tasks.  So for example in B/X you have skills like Seafarer, Animal Trainer, Huntsman, while in 5e you have skills like Animal Handling, Survival, Medicine.  There is also a sub-system for adventuring skills like moving silently, finding traps, tracking that certain classes have as a class ability.
• B/X Combat System is based on group actions as opposed to breaking things down to individual character actions.  So in B/X combat execution is sort like everyone moves, everyone shoot ranged weapons, everyone casts spells and then everyone makes melee attacks, as opposed to a sort of one character at a time doing all the stuff they can.
• Saving Throws are setup quite differently and are connected to the class and class level rather then a particular ability score.  Essentially the quality of your saving throws is a class ability and improves with level.

Those are some of the more core mechanic differences, there are other things too of course but generally, the mechanics either mimic each other or work similar enough that while different really aren't.

There are some conceptual differences as well.

• 1e is designed around the concept of danger avoidance and the absence of "balance" of danger.  For example, monsters are really not worth much XP and fighting monsters, in general, is extremely dangerous and battles aren't designed to be balanced, hence you are encouraged to avoid fighting if you can and its always brave to get into a fight because anyone can die at any time.  The games core is more built around role-playing, exploring, treasure hunting and after 9th level empire building.  Also there is less of a focus on "fight to the death", monsters have morales and will turn and run, so fighting is very fast, violent and deadly.
  
  
• 1e combat resolution is quite different logically.  There is a relatively low hit point count, but high AC so most standard weapons can kill most monsters with one clean shot, but attacks often miss.  A normal human has 4 hit points and that is kind of the measure from which other things are designed.  So for example a Dragon, a very powerful creature has a 30-40 hit points.  AC is a big factor as attack bonuses are equally low, magic resistance is also a big thing.  There is generally less attrition and very few fight last more than 4-5 rounds, its a big fight that goes 7-10 rounds but a long epic fight is like 20-30 minutes, most fights resolve in 5-10 minutes.
  
  
• I think the big one is evolving gameplay.  What the game is about changes over time.  From like 1st to 4th level your sort of treasure hunters and adventurers.  By 5th-7th level, you are doing kind of epic quests for important people.  By the time you hit 9th level you are typically an important person in the world getting involved in politics and dominion management.  At later levels your raising armies and involved in realm vs. realm political and literal war.  These things are also possible to do in 5e, in particular with great 3rd party supplements but in 1e its kind of built into the design of the game if you understand what I mean.  Like you gain class benefits that help you with these higher level things.

Im sure there are lots of detailed things that we could make long lists, but like in the big scheme of things, I think those are sort of the big things most players who never played 1e before notice.

 

 Thanks, I appreciate the explanation! I also curse my autocorrect. It only only ever seems to "correct" what I intend to be as I've written and never the mistakes...

Quote from BogWitchKris >>

Quote from Scarloc_Stormcall >>

Just as if you went to a general TTRPG forum and asked the question lots of roleplayers would tell you that generally DnD is the worst roleplay game ever invented and why would they ever play a game where all you do is dungeon crawl and then go shopping. 

 

Such insufferable rudeness. How can they not see there is so much more variety to the game than that? Sometimes, we go shopping first then dungeon crawl.

 I know I long ago gave up trying to convert the lost and instead decided the only way to save them is the cleansing of being burnt alive :). Especially those who insist that it is far more sophisticated to pretend to be modern day vampires, or mages who worry about a thing called paradox (my personal all time fav system to play as a player, partly because my techno mage managed to create an army of the dead by claiming my biotech firm had created nanites who had the potential to bring the dead back to life). Any magic system that lets you do almost anything is amazing. 

On a serious note I used to be one of those players back in the 90’s and early 2000’s who insisted that DnD was a rubbish game because all you did was dungeon crawl. This was the perception of it, true or otherwise, amongst non players who played grown up games like Apocolypse, call of Cthulhu, warhammer fantasy roleplay legend of the 5 rings, doomtown, and cyberpunk. 

I also remember going to a CCG tournament for legend of the 5 rings, a storyline tournament where every game was tracked and observed because the results really did impact the next release and the story it told. We where a tiny corner in a room full of magic the gathering players, and, as we did to DnD players, we heckled them because magic, had none of the complexity or nuance of L5R :).