D&D 1E 1E Addition to 5E I would Pay A Premium For

[guachi]

The Blumes switched to cheap binding later. The orange spine ones are weaker.

I bought my orange spine PHB, DMG, and MM in about 1986. It lasted long enough for me to get 2e in 1989 and I rarely used them since. They never fell apart but the cover was far more damaged in the corners than any first printing versions I've ever seen (and now own, thanks to freebies from my BiL).

Despite the cheaper binding, it still wasn't as cheap as my 5e PHB.

 

[Mistwell]

Here is something I would be prepared to pay a premium for.

Today the spine went in my PHB and some pages started to come out. Its early but you can see the crack.

This is on top of my MM falling apart but it is in even worse shape.

I have 3 copies of the 1E PHB one the 6th printing from 1980 and it is in near new condition and you do not get that crack sound when you open it.

The other 2 have the Easley cover but still going strong.

Early AD&D books were stitched because that is what Gygax wanted, later ones form the mid 80's used cheap binding (my OA book has pages falling out).

The only other book I have that is in a bad way s the 1995 PHB I have for 2E and that saw heavy use by teenagers who grabbed it by the open cover and dragged it, moved through several student flats in the late 90's and spent a decade buried in a basement and it is still usable though.

1E will outlast all the other D&Ds because in the event of a nuclear war the 1E PHB will survive or in the event of an asteroid strike or other extinction level event.

I think this is a perfectly valid complaint, and it's irritating WOTC have opted for a lower quality book.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

I think this is a perfectly valid complaint, and it's irritating WOTC have opted for a lower quality book.

It's not lower quality though, there was merely an issue with some of the printings. It happens, they've made reparations to people affected, and further printings have, as far as I'm aware, eliminated the issue.

I have plenty of 1e books and modules that are falling apart. No book, short of being leatherbound, with brass edges, wooden covers, metal hinges, thick parchment and bound by waxed cotton stitching is going to hold up long under heavy use.

 

[aramis erak]

While I would prefer stitched hardcovers, the extra costs for same make it a losing proposition for WOTC.

 

[Shasarak]

I'd kill for a Monstrous Compendium binder like the old days.

That product was awful for my OCD. If they had printed one monster per page then it would have been OK, but they had to cheap out and print two different monsters on front and back of the page so that you can not file the monsters properly.

 

[Sunseeker]

Note everything he posts is negative, he's made threads about positive experiences he's had with 3rd party 5e products or about how he is modding 5e to give it an AD&D feel.

That sounds like political spin on not liking official products and being unsatisfied with the current direction, which have been recurring themes in Zard's posts.

 

[Mistwell]

It's not lower quality though, there was merely an issue with some of the printings. It happens, they've made reparations to people affected, and further printings have, as far as I'm aware, eliminated the issue.

I disagree. In the context of what he was saying, with using stitched books for 1e, it's a lower quality way of printing and binding a book.

 

[Mistwell]

That sounds like political spin on not liking official products and being unsatisfied with the current direction, which have been recurring themes in Zard's posts.

I totally disagree. Zard is not "unsatisfied with the current edition," he's just played this edition more than anyone I've ever heard of. When you play an edition as much as Zard has played this one, you find all the flaws (and the things that work well). He's mentioned lots that works well, it's just that such comments cause no controversy so they don't get any focus. But the flaws he points out, those get focus because they cause controversy. I've found Zard, over two years now, to be pretty darn objective in his analysis of the game. He likes plenty about 5e - it's why he's playing the heck out of it. But if anyone is in a position to find and articulate some flaws about this edition, it's him. You know, given he's putting in the hours to play this game almost like it's his paying job to do it

My group's playstyle tends to be different than Zard's group, but his group's playstyle isn't particularly odd or not representative of a pretty meaningful number of other groups out there. Given that, his observations are usually worth listening to.

 

[Zardnaar]

That sounds like political spin on not liking official products and being unsatisfied with the current direction, which have been recurring themes in Zard's posts.

The official products are mostly very good with the exception of HotDQ.

There could be a few more of them but there is not hence I use 3pp.

Where they have gone wrong with 5E it is often very obvious such as the PHB index (worse than the 2E and 3.5 one), or spell lists and descriptions (worse than 3.5). That is due to a lack of information than 3.5 had for example.

WHat I mean by that is each spell description in 3.5 had a list of what classes could cast it and the spell descriptions had a brief sentence telling you what the spell did. The 5E index often refers you to another section of the index where the 3.5 one just gives you a page number.

5E has great art and people seem to get distracted by that vs having a more functional book.

2/3 books falling apart and SCAG perhaps going the same way is not good. This is the 1st tie it has happened to me for books I have bought brand new myself (some 2nd hand books are in poor condition).

 

[Willie the Duck]

The Blumes switched to cheap binding later. The orange spine ones are weaker.

What years/products are you referring to? All the orange spines? I ask because the Blumes left before Gary did.