machfront
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
"Let's go dark!"
Posts: 2,147
|
Post by machfront on Aug 28, 2008 4:16:48 GMT -5
Alright, for years all I had was a single Corgi rulebook. When I first got it I was rather unimpressed and it sort of sat around here and there (actually that's a totally different story)... When 7th came out I started reading threads about T&T and pretty soon found the Trollbridge. I kept reading about the wonderful Liz Danforth art. Huh?, says I. All this time I thought that the FBI book was exactly the same as the Corgi, just in a different size. So, I ordered the Summer Special #1 and when I got it I opened the 5.5 book and was very suprised to see how different it was in format and art style. (I used to dislike the Kirby art in the Corgi book but now I love it.) For most T&T fans Liz's art is T&T to them... for me, even though I live in the States, Kirby's art is the T&T feel to me. Anyhow. I took that for granted, but I was recently surprised again. I figured I'd order me a few spares in both Corgi and FBI printings. I got a '83 print of the FBI/Blade in the mail today. Wow. Holy cow-hole that paper is some thick, tough stuff!!! Decades older than my 5.5 and I bet it will outlast the more recent one. The 5.5 printing's feel and look of both the cover and the pages don't hold a candle to the leather armor toughness of the '83 print. Color me surprised. I know, I know... I shouldn't have been, but I was just the same. Now I'm curious. Any other differences in the printing of 5th in minor content, layout or paper quality? Also... I still can't figure out where the cover styles lie insofar as which was which. The tan border was earlier. I've got that much. But there's one that seems to be goldish tan and one that seems to be a more flesh tan, and also another has the little banner in the upper right corner of the cover that says "Newly updated and revised" or some such. I do know that the cover art covering the...umm..cover seems to have started with the '82 or '83 printing. Which is which? Who came first, etc.,etc. Enlighten me.
|
|
machfront
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
"Let's go dark!"
Posts: 2,147
|
Post by machfront on Sept 5, 2008 16:45:29 GMT -5
So nobody able to give me a bit of a breakdown or whatever pieces of info ya have on whatever printings you have. You guys are gonna make me keep buying until I have them all.... aren't you?
|
|
koraq
4th Level Troll
Posts: 355
|
Post by koraq on Sept 5, 2008 18:59:11 GMT -5
It's a cunning plan to ruin you, and have you spend all your money on fifth ed rulebooks! Seriously. I don't have my 5th ed book available, only the 7th, so I can't comment upon it.
|
|
machfront
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
"Let's go dark!"
Posts: 2,147
|
Post by machfront on Sept 5, 2008 19:12:32 GMT -5
Day 6, I was cold and hungry and had just lost out on yet another eBay auction. Haven't seen the sun for days.
Must get more printingss.s......must.....
must....eat....
|
|
|
Post by mahrundl on Sept 6, 2008 15:27:58 GMT -5
My 5th edition is a 1981 printing. It has the 'flesh' tan border, no 'Newly updated and revised' indicator, and the nice thick juicy pages.
I don't currently have access to the Corgi edition that I cut my teeth on, but in terms of content, I don't recall any discrepancies or changes between the two.
I do specifically remember that they had the same numerical errors in the combat examples. 5.5 fixed some of these, but missed others. In the combat example between three delvers and a pair of Ogres, the 1st level Wizard has changed from being a Human with an IQ of 15, to an Elf with an IQ of 25. This means that in the second combat turn, where the Wizard casts a TTYF, the party's combat total should be 10 points higher (112) in 5.5. But the total is 102 in all printings that I've seen.
I'm not casting aspersions (or any other spell) at the writer of the combat examples, by the way. I had to change one of the 7th edition combat examples 4 or 5 times because I kept forgetting some aspect of combat, or using the 5th edition method instead of the new one. The really annoying instance was when Ken pointed out that I'd assumed that the combat hits were distributed evenly amongst the losers in combat, rather than everyone's armour absorbing its full rated damage before anyone took any hits to CON. That necessitated starting again from scratch. And in the end, that method of allocation wasn't even explicitly stated in the released version of the rules (as far as I can see). So yes, I have sympathy for the writer of the original examples.
I haven't done a detailed comparison of the texts to see what else has changed. My understanding is that there shouldn't be many differences between 5th and 5.5th (aside from the obvious addition of new material at the end of 5.5).
|
|
koraq
4th Level Troll
Posts: 355
|
Post by koraq on Sept 10, 2008 11:08:46 GMT -5
What? Are the Armor totals subtracted from the enemy total and *then* distributed between the delvers in 7th ed? I really think that rule set could use an editor of serious qualifications...
|
|
|
Post by mahrundl on Sept 10, 2008 18:10:09 GMT -5
The only thing actually written about it that I can see is on page 73, stage 8 of combat:
"The losers get to soak off some of the hits of damage on their armour if they can."
7.5 has the same text, on page 94. If there's anything else on the subject in 7.5, I haven't read it. But then, my copy only arrived yesterday...
I can say that deducting the total amount of armour worn by the losers before applying hits to CON was Ken's intent, at least at the point where I was writing stuff.
|
|
|
Post by mahrundl on Sept 10, 2008 18:18:12 GMT -5
Addendum: I should say that I prefer the 5th edition way. 7th allows the whole party to get direct benefit from a Warrior's armour doubling, which seems wrong to me. I'd allow a SR for Warriors to take more than their share of the hits, but since the opposition is likely to be targetting their less armoured foes a lot of the time, I wouldn't, as a rule, let it be automatic.
|
|
koraq
4th Level Troll
Posts: 355
|
Post by koraq on Sept 11, 2008 10:39:05 GMT -5
Ken's intent is not alway that clear from the text...
|
|
|
Post by mahrundl on Sept 11, 2008 15:37:08 GMT -5
Ken's intent is not alway that clear from the text... Agreed, with regard to the published text. But he was quite clear, in his e-mails, that the total amount of armour would go toward reducing the damage sustained. Given enough time, I could probably find the e-mail where he told me that, but I don't have time to search right now.
|
|
koraq
4th Level Troll
Posts: 355
|
Post by koraq on Sept 15, 2008 15:01:37 GMT -5
No need. If that was what he said, then I have no problem with that.
|
|
machfront
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
"Let's go dark!"
Posts: 2,147
|
Post by machfront on Sept 15, 2008 20:34:36 GMT -5
Alright. Got an fifth printing, Feburary 1982 today. Sort of unfortunate, as I thought it was the '79 printing, but that's ok.
It has the light tan border, rather than the cover art taking up the whole cover. Other differences between it and my seventh printing, December 1983 are: The "wood grain" look on the back is off-white and very light brown as opposed to by 7th printing's orange and black. No Blade logo and no Blade "ad" on the inside cover, or mention of Blade on title cover. (this is rather obvious, I guess, as Blade hadn't been formed yet, I suppose) The cover is a little slicker, shinier and smoother, especially noticable on the inside of the covers. Most evident with the art on the back inside, where the fifth printing has a reflective quality, the seventh printing is very flat. The covers are ever-so-slightly thinner than the seventh printing. The pages are much thinner than the seventh printing and also feel slightly smoother than the later printing. The dimensions are the same, but the earlier printing is a bit thinner than the later, due to the thinner pages no doubt.
So, far the seventh printing is still in the lead, being a lot more robust and tough. I'll admit a weakness to the through-and-through old-school look to the older cover with it's large tan border and title and "designed by Ken St. Andre" being the only things otherwise on the cover. It may be my imagintion, but it also seems to actually call more attention to the art even though it's smaller. I guess since it isn't so cluttered with "The Complete and Easy Role-Playing Game" and other such all over it.
Well, more stuff as I discover it.....
|
|
machfront
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
"Let's go dark!"
Posts: 2,147
|
Post by machfront on Sept 16, 2008 18:53:25 GMT -5
Observation:
People who are selling something and more than willing to take your money, will go to great lengths to not look at a certain portion of a certain page, even when you tell them exactly what part of what page.
Sometimes, answers are of the kindergarten/global warming cultist variety.
"Which printing of Fifth Edition is this?" Answer? "This is the Fifth Edition."
*sigh*
|
|
machfront
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
"Let's go dark!"
Posts: 2,147
|
Post by machfront on Oct 23, 2008 21:14:02 GMT -5
Ok. I now have most of the printings. I'm missing a first printing and either sixth or fifth...I'll have to look again. In short, while there are no differences in text or pics (of course, it is just a printing after all), there are some odd and somewhat interesting differences. The quality is the most variable. The Dec '83 Seventh Printing is still the meatiest and toughest one. MS&PE's first printing was printed close to the same time by Associated Lithographers so it's stands to reason why those old MSPE books are so tough. I keep meaning to go through all the minutia and I will. Right now though I need to get ready for work, but I just wanted you guys to know I haven't given up on this very.... boring project that's of very little interest to anyone but me.
|
|
unclecranky
5th Level Troll
(mutter...grumble)
Posts: 657
|
Post by unclecranky on Oct 24, 2008 0:20:22 GMT -5
I remember there being a part of the 'personalizing monsters' (2.41) section that essentially went 'after your first party of 20 orcs has died as the result of combat with 2 hobbits armed with daggers'...this was in the first printing, then absent in most of the subsequent ones. And no, it's not boring to me. I just can't afford to go after printings.
|
|