D&D 4E 4E boon or bust for Old School support?

[Treebore]

1E'ers are not TLG's primary market, they want to attract a little bit of everyone.

The ones who would probably benefit most is old gamers like me, who have been heavily invested in every edition, including 3E, and have kept everything. C&C is the easiest "base system" to use for the purpose of using rules from every system D&D has had, and to pull stuff in from Paladium, and any other D20 based system you like. Yeah, you can do the same with 1E and 2E as your "base system", but I would have a lot more than 3/4 of a page of house rule notes.

I actually have more than that, but the rest are my own rules that I would have in any edition of D&D. The 3/4's of a page is actually about skills, feats, class changes, and other rules changes and clarifications.

 

[Valiant]

Treebore, that has always been my impression as well, and is consistant with their published presentation. The Trolls are smart guys, they wouldn't hire who they hire to do their art and layout if they didn't know upfront what they were doing.

I think there biggest base seems to be the guys who progressed from 1E/(on similar FRPGS) to 3E/3.5, and then for whatever reason, looked for a "unifier" game. Perhaps the past bitterness I've seen on these boards between the 1E and C&C camps is the result of this confusion. Once you understand C&C isn't supposed to be AD&D or even cater to AD&Ders (no more then anyone else) it all makes since.
Part of the problem I think arose when the game was hyped.

 

[Treebore]

There are people who seem to think everything has to be "black and white", but most everyone understands what having a "preference" means.

C&C does what I want an RPG to do for me. That definitely doesn't mean everyone is looking for what I am looking for. Nor does it mean I won't play any other edition/version of the game. It just means I'm very unlikely to DM anything other than C&C for my D&D fix.

I had great fun with every version of the game, so why would I refuse to play them again as long as the group looks like a good one? To me games are for fun. As long as I believe I'll have fun I'll play the game.

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

In a way, 3.5 was a sort of "old school revival" with free converted old-school modules and the expedition series. This was helped by Paizo's use of 1e iconic material, giving the entire edition a "back to the dungeon" feel. Obviously, the adventures put out by Necromancer Games and other d20 publishers showed WotC there was a great market for the old flavor.

4e seems to be leaving behind from the old traditions of D&D, much in the same way that 2e did.

I don't think this will negatively affect 3rd party publishers who focus on old-school type products. If anything, it will strengthen them, as they will be the only islands of old school in a sea of new fluff.

Stuff like OSRIC really only appeals to a very small group of gamers dedicated to a very specific edition, and I don't think 4e will hurt that either.

 

[Valiant]

And I think that is a pitty, because I find AD&D and OD&D to be superior to 2E and 3E/3.5 in every way, and that if people tried it out they'd like it better as well.

Treebore, I think the reason C&C hasn't appealed to me is for the very reasons it appeals to you. I found the things brought in by 2E and 3E (with the acception of a few spells) to decrease the fun of the game.

 

[Uder]

For instance, TLG could easily adopt OSRIC if they wanted to (as a side along to C&C; afterall OSRIC = AD&D, C&C does not, its its own hybrid generally seen by most as D20 light, despite its convertability). With Gygax in their pocket they should be all over it (afterall it would be like Coke also owning Pepsi, they'd be competing with themselves. My only guess why they (and others like Goodman and PPP) don't use it is because they don't want to build a brand they don't control (they can't license it afterall).

Check the TLG boards for their previous reactions: Peter Bradley (who, along with Sirlern, reps for TLG whether they want him to or not) shuts down all conversation on OSRIC.

 

[Valiant]

Check the TLG boards for their previous reactions: Peter Bradley (who, along with Sirlern, reps for TLG whether they want them to or not) shuts down all conversation on OSRIC.

It seems they fear OSRIC? Whats up with that I wonder. Shouldn't TLG be supporting OSRIC considering both are building the same base (or trying to). If more people start playing 1E and need modules...wouldn't that be good for TLG?

 

[WayneLigon]

I don't think it'll change the numbers either way for the 'old schoolers'. Most of the people who want to go the 1E route never changed in the beginning. So, the pool will pretty much stay the same regardless of what 4E does.

 

[Uder]

It seems they fear OSRIC? Whats up with that I wonder. Shouldn't TLG be supporting OSRIC considering both are building the same base (or trying to). If more people start playing 1E and need modules...wouldn't that be good for TLG?

I think it's more that they have questions about the legality of OSRIC, and since they are working with EGG, consider giving his work away for free to be somewhat tasteless.

I don't entirely share these views, but I can understand them.

 

[Mythmere1]

Where can one find the information on the Wilderlands stuff (particularly C&C) - I've seen the 3e campaign itself, and it looks pretty cool. While I'm not interested in using the campaign, I'd love to see some old Judges Guild type material done with an old school system.

Frankly, I think that any opposition between OSRIC and C&C is misguided and silly - both in terms of those who bash on C&C and in terms of the way TLG puts a gag order on discussions about OSRIC and OSRIC products. Old school modules are "quality" modules based much more on the creativity than on the tiny lines of numbers that follow the descriptions. And I'm saying this as the "initial author" of OSRIC. I have no problem with the idea of running a module written for C&C.

I think the real divide between modules has to do with the structure (event based vs location based) and the fantasy feel that drives it (Leiber/Vance vs Howard/Moorcock). The quality of the map and its implied flowchart is key, but that also has nothing to do with the rules used.

The C&C and OSRIC "communities" need to unite - and they can - to drive the market for all the 1e compatible resources. It shouldn't matter whether the rules used are C&C or not. I submit that what we're really all about is producing modules with high creativity (in terms of traps, monsters, etc) and good maps and player choices, not choked with stat blocks. That's the real issue.