First edition PHB had a fellow stealing a gem from a statues eye
First Edition Monster Manual
Second is harder, there were two versions. The originals had white backgrounds. in '95 a revised set was put out w/ black backgrounds. The revised are still 2e, but included some changes that came out in some expansion books that were released after the original printing.
the specific link that follows is AD&D 1st and 2nd edition.
Fantastic page if you are buying stuff by ebay pic.
many people selling on ebay have no clue which edition or what.
AD&D ARCHIVE
http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd1/dd1.htm
Breaking it down:
1e phb (original cover)
http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd1/phb.htm
1e DMG (Original cover)
http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd1/dmg.htm
1e MM (Original Cover)
http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd1/mm-a.htm
Those were all out in the 78-79 era
Now those had different covers that came later...
AS I recall the 1e DMG second cover had a guy in robes between two doors.
PHB was A guy riding a pegasi, as I recall.
2nd ed, and 2nd ed black book (2e revised) the guy has listed on the link below.
http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd1/dd1.htm
2101 Player’s Handbook (2nd Edition)
2159 Player’s Handbook (2nd Edition, revised) "Black Book"
2100 Dungeon Master’s Guide (2nd Edition)
2160 Dungeon Master Guide (2nd Edition, revised) "Black Book"
Monstrous Manual:
http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd1/mm2nd.htm
His main page also (for others curious), This guy rocks the house for collectors pics...the "TSR ARCHIVE"
http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/index.htm
now as to your question about playing it.
I played my 1e campaign I built in 1979 until 2 years ago. When my players urged me to buy into 3.X.
I seriously regret that decision 3000 dollars later. It's too complex, you can't ever learn all the rules, and feats make it really tough to generate an encounter on the fly like you used to be able to.
for 2e, I've got the complete set of 2e revised black books, and also core rule 1.0 and core rule 2.0 on CD rom so that I got all kind of references for my games, via PC, books etc.
I'm building a new 2e campaign from the ground up this month, that I will run via open RPG in may- June, if I can get it finished in time. I put my Spycraft game on hold for a month for the building of this new land.
The guys at gygax gamers.com gave me my own sub forum to show people how.
http://yougamenow.com/ggforums/viewforum.php?f=38
I play in Red Wizard's (member of these forums here) 1e game on open RPG monday nights. Great bunch of guys from these forums here, that follow the game on this thread:
D&D Out of Print Forums:
Does anyone still play 1st edition D&D?
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=991185
Welcome to the fourms. Ask anything you like as to rules, etc, we'll hook you up.
As far as the question on whether it is worth it to buy books from these editions, I would say it was. The books themselves can be found very cheap relative to 3.5 and the time it takes to learn these editions is short, though you can spend a great deal of time in the 1st Ed. DMG if you wish to read it cover to cover, which I recommend for the sheer joy of it (learn about new psychotic behaviors and see a chart on random harlot characteristics).
Actual roleplay in my opinion flows more smoothly in the earlier editions as there are less rules to debate and DMs tend to be accorded greater authority. You wont be at a loss for material, TSR put out a great deal for both editions and a lot of it is very good. You can also interchange the two editions fairly easily as they are not that far apart. It is also possible to adopt "basic" D&D material into either edition and the origional Gazeteers make up perhaps the best campaign world I have yet seen.
Feel free to drop in on our online forum game some Monday night if you would like to see a 1st edition game being run.
Pretty much Etarnon and sblaxman said it all. Though just to knitpick, the origional 1st Edition DMG has an efreet on the cover, not a demon and the second cover of the 1st edition PHB has a mage casting a spell (binding?) on a demon/devil.
I always thought it was a berbalang, but that's just me...
I've printed all my eBooks out, which is vastly different to owning the real thing, but if you wanted a supplement to read or playtest, this is by far the cheapest option for you. I do prefer the original real copy, but, as I've lamented far too often before, shipping from the States is often the deal-breaker for me (especially from eBay sellers).
Let me know if you do go ahead with the Paizo option.
also just wondering out of opinion on how much you guys liked the past editions and if its worth going to all the effort.
Well, we're still playing, so I'd say we liked it quite a bit! I got so much mileage out of my old sets, and with the unfortunate break-up of my 4e group, we've recruited a new group and are rolling back to a 1e/2e amalgam that gave us so many great nights and more than a few marathon weekends!
Yes, I'd say it's very worth it.
I just managed to snag a 1e PHB (revised) & DMG (revised) for £9.50 so the books are out there and they are cheap.
Also woohoo!!!
I just found the 1e PHB
& DMG 
.
Never have I regretted parting with stuff more than my pre 3e collection.
Last night we went to my brother-in-law's house and ran a quick Old School game with him and his kids. Wow, did that bring back memories! They actually preferred it to the 4e game we ran. The big selling point for them was describing an attack or action without looking at a power card. Same effect, but it encouraged more descriptive narrative. Instead of "I use Brute Strike", it was more along the lines of "I'm going to hit him as hard as I can"*. So it's back to the 1e/2e for us, with a smattering of 3e (some of the spells are better) and a boost from 4e for determining really special effects.
*This would be broken without some kind of restriction, so I advised the player that it would take a lot of energy, and he wouldn't be able to do that again until after a good, long rest, thus replicating the Daily aspect of the 4e power.
Also just wondering out of opinion on how much you guys liked the past editions and if its worth going to all the effort.
Given the chance I'd play "Basic" & 1e AD&D anytime. Overall I prefer 1e AD&D.
3x will suffice.
4e? I'm finding it not really to my liking. If it weren't for the people I play with....
I shudder to think what 5e+ will be like.
So yes, I'll say that a bit of effort tracking down the old books (and coming up with any house-rules you might deem neccecary) is well worth the effort.
Edit: Oops, forgot 2e!
But that's because I don't really differentiate it from 1e. We've always just lumped 1e & 2e together & then house-ruled away any inconsistancies case-by-case. Still, when I'm pulling old school books off the shelf 1e AD&D is what I reach for 99% of the time.....
Much as I enjoyed DMing 4e, it seemed designed to fix a lot of problems that didn't exist in my old games. I never had to contend with power-gamers and optimizers who chose their characters for numbers over personality or who wanted to out-shine everyone else. The closest they'd come to in something like that would be to consider what options their PC would choose based on their personalities to help them survive best. Stormy liked flash and flare, so he'd take the fancier armor even if it was lower on the scale as long as it wasn't dangerously low on the scale. Uffy could have taken a number of options that would have allowed him armor beyond simply his wizard's robes, but Uffy was a very focused individual and his player couldn't picture him splitting his time from his beloved spellcasting with anything else. (He eventually picked up a longsword proficiency, but only after the rest of the party started leaving big, sucking holes in the defensive line and monsters started getting through to him.)
I just started a 2nd game, missed it greatly. Out of my group of 5 players only one has played before and he missed it also the others are missing there feats that made them super powered. The 2nd game is a lot harder. The reason I decided on the the switch was to stop going into the books, and we played one game so far and only the cleric and wizard had to go into a book becuse they need to learn there spells but once they knew them that is it. done. none of my fighters or theif had to go into a book to look up a feat. They miss the mass amounts of damage they used to do. But that much is not need in the older additions as the monsters have far less hp. 4th is just as bad as 3.x with all the powers you need to make index cards so you don't go in the book.
Simpler was better and still is. If any one wants I made a character sheet that can that 2 pages or 1 page back in front that works for 1st or 2nd edtion. it is a pdf. just pm me and i will e-mail it to you.
I am working on makeing it auto fill out much like ssa-x2.coms
I can remember the time spent looking up spell descriptions. Usually, the players knew the gist of the spell, such as how much damage it did in what area, but they'd sometimes have to look up petty details. Is it in a straight line? Is there a saving throw? How long does the effect last?
A long time ago someone had a BBS site up of every Old School compatible spell they could find. It included all of the TSR material and fan-made spells as well. It was awesome. I think he called it the Electronic spellbook or something like that. I think George Bush 1 was in office when it came out, so it was some time ago. It was awesome and we viewed it on an Atari FM/ST. Yeahhhh, that was a loooooooooooooooooooooooooong time ago! I think there's a somewhat newer version somewhere out on the web, but damned if I can find it!
Until recently, I only ever played 1e. Now, although I love the look, feel and memories of the old game, I couldn't really go back.
Every 1e player - even the hardcore children-of-the-70s over at places like DF know that the 1e game is fatally flawed in so many ways - just that some people prefer it, and choose to either run with it, or homebrew patches for it. I can fully appreciate why 4e is definetely not the solution, but to say that it doesn't address the problems of 1e isn't entirely true.
Just some of the problems of 1e (as I saw it) were:
1. The game encouraged (not prevented) what we now call "power gaming" or "optimisation". In 1e, there seemed to be no short-term penalty for having a party full of half-elven FMTs or FMCs.
2. The "original" AD&D 1e game totally underpowered the characters at mid to high level, until this was "fixed" by UA, which totally overpowered them at low levels.
3. The magic system sucked. We're supposed to be in the hero business, and yet after a 1st or 2nd level MU had fired off his sleep and/or magic missile, he had to resort to throwing chairs at orcs. In a long day's adventuring, if he used his spell(s) first thing, the MU was basically a casualty waiting to happen for the rest of the day.
4. Parties had to be balanced, meaning minimum character/player numbers. In 4e, you can do ok with a Fighter, thief and cleric, or maybe a fighter, paladin and wizard etc. In 1e, you had to have two fighters, a cleric and a magic user minimum, otherwise you weren't going anywhere.
5. Alignment, like so many things in the 1e books was more a social commentary than a ruleset, and made no sense.
6. The cleric and paladin classes, were fatally flawed. For example - why can clerics turn undead? Why can neutral clerics turn undead? Why can clerics turn undead that have been magically animated? What's the point of turning anyway? After 4th level, if you can't carve your way through a horde of ghouls, you don't deserve to call yourself a D&D party.
Now 4e doesn't solve everything, and it does invent some problems of its own, but it does at least make sense. And once you have played out a few combats on a battlemat or floorplans with proper range and movement rules - going back to 1e combats with figures moving at will around coke cans and pillars made of dice - is just barbaric.
hey i been wanting to buy the older editions of the game and learn about them. so i was just wondering if anyone has some pictures i can see of the two editions PHB, DMG, and MM just so i know which ones to buy. i been trying to look it up my self but i've been getting a lot of diffrent covers. also just wondering out of opinion on how much you guys liked the past editions and if its worth going to all the effort.
I'd recommend 2nd edition over 1st edition as the rules in 1st edition changed pretty radically over the years with the release of ever more rule books. 2nd edition is, in my mind any way, the most balanced and playable version of the game and wasn't completely munchkin like 3rd and 4th are. 2nd Ed basically took the best parts of 1st Ed and then cleaned up the rules to make them consistent and easier to use. Just start with the PHB, DMB, Monsterous Compendium, and the four basic kit books (the others suffered from munchkin creep in order to entice people to keep buying more rule books) and you'll be very happy with the results.
Hi Guys. I am starting to blog ideas for 1st Edition AD&D campaigning here in my profile area. Feel free to pop in and read it over. I should be putting something new up about every two or three days from here forward.
Ed
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhjbPqA_EpQ
LOL, I pulled out the old Moldvay edition and had a one-off group throw together a party made up of each of the seven classes; Fighter, Magic User, Thief, Cleric, Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling. Then we went through the Haunted Keep sample dungeon in the back. Oh man was that a good time! Had to stop now and then to remember "Do you have to roll over or under? Hold on, let me check." Eee! First death for the monsters? Check morale! Fewer than half the monsters left? Check morale! Poison bite! Save or die in 1d4 rounds unless the cleric really likes you!
What fun!
First edition DMG had a red devil/demon w/ a sword First edition PHB had a fellow stealing a gem from a statues eye First Edition Monster Manual Second is harder, there were two versions. The originals had white backgrounds. in '95 a revised set was put out w/ black backgrounds. The revised are still 2e, but included some changes that came out in some expansion books that were released after the original printing.
That's correct for the first printing of first edition from about 1977 to around 1982-83 or there abouts. Then the AD&D became a target of Christian fundamentalists who accused it of being demonic and leading players to committing suicide so TSR changed all the covers. The accussations were completely retarded but when has that ever stopped religious fundamentalists?
As I recall the Fiend Folio was the last book published with the old style covers with Unearthed Arcana being the first book published with the new style covers. Next came revisions for all the main books PHB, DMG, MM, then MM2, Dieties & Demigods was then released with the new style cover (TSR discontinued fiend folio after they got sued for using the Melbornian mythos without permission), then the two survival guides (Wilderness & Dungeuneering)... I think that was it.
Also just wondering out of opinion on how much you guys liked the past editions and if its worth going to all the effort.Given the chance I'd play "Basic" & 1e AD&D anytime. Overall I prefer 1e AD&D.
3x will suffice.
4e? I'm finding it not really to my liking. If it weren't for the people I play with....
I shudder to think what 5e+ will be like.
I've never played 4th and couldn't stand 3rd. Those two just don't seem like AD&D to me. Honestly, I haven't really played in years but if I ever picked it up again I'd insist on 2nd edition. 1st was great and I really loved it but 2nd managed to clean up the rules a bit even while keeping the feel and balance of 1st edition.
3rd and 4th just seem like munchkin's paradise.
Have you ever been to dragonsfoot.org? 1e and 2e heaven, I swear!
i cant wait to touch and feel and look at my treasures and possibly run it when i get the chance!!!