Is the AD&D 1E Revival here to stay?

[KenSeg]

Thanks for the post Crim about your many years of playing in the same group and comments about the DM.

Our group has consisted of myself and my wife along with the DM and his wife with a few assorted other players. We have been playing together for 20 years now and we range from 44 to 54 in age. We hope to still be playing together when we are your age and to love the gaming as much then as ever.

I have played through almost all of the various phases of D&D, from the old blue paper book boxed set to 3.5E. Each version had its good points and bad points and we have house-ruled all versions to fit our own ideas and desires. One overriding principal has been mutual respect for our DM and mutual willingness to be reasonable and logical in rules interpretation. But in the end we give our DM the last word because he is the one who has done the work of crafting the session and providing us the opportunity to enjoy a game together.

-KenSeg
gaming since 1978

 

[Psion]

That's okay by me. We just have to agree to disagree. 3e fixed a lot of things I found not to my liking with BECM D&D and AD&D1st.

Herein lies the rub. You are not alone in this.

3e was extensively playtested and surveyed. It was built, perhaps as much as feasible, on what people wanted.

It just sucks to be in the minority.

 

[XO]

Way Back When...

Thera are other reasons why there might be a "row" over that kind of issue. The DM might be a petty tyrant - which would not be a first, by any means. The DM might be truly incompetent - again, not a first, I'm quite sure.

If a DM is "empowered" by virtue of their using a less consistent rules base, that DM had better be the very model of not only a good DM, but an excellent person in general. Which is not to say this is impossible, just - I suspect - rather rare.

I was the regular DM but one player would occasionally DM for a spell. One of his untenable concepts was the unavoidable kill... He was out to get us, but would redress the situation so a Wish would prevent what was then loss of Con. Out to get us means: a room full of NPCs, many of them assassins, using Xbows, and having Bolts of Slaying JUST our Classes.

I wasn't a very good player for his game, and yes, there were rows, the most memorable had me standing, shouting and storming out. Reason? I give my players an even break... Hard, twisted but loose DMing with an even break. I expect the same.

Anyway... That was 20 years ago... we still play...

 

[Psion]

Seriously, there is a huge difference in the "culture" of players between 1E/OD&D and 3E.
Some of that diff. relates to who WOTC marketed 3E to (Magic players, used to self determination and stacking, and then the 2E players used to backstory and linear plot), but a bigger reason for the difference in "player culture" between 1E and 3E are the actual 3E rules themselves which empower the player and strip the DM of his godlike status. The next time you play 3E, take a look around at your other players and see how involved they are with themselves and their in-depth knowledge of the rules, and see what a weak role the DM really plays. Then watch if the DM trips up, it'll be like watching 6 hyena taking down a tired out gazelle. DMing in 3E is a horrible job on so many levels its not even funny...

What can I say but express that my experience in no way matches this.

The rules baseline of 3e is stable and sensible, and built on common principles. We seldom have rules arguments because of the consistency and solidity of the baseline. And when I have departed from the rules, nobody pounced on me. My "if you can't figure out the rule in a minute, make something up and look it up later" philosophy has never been a source of contention and has handled any rules issue easily.

This is across multiple groups and multiple campaigns.

I find DMing 3e more pleasant and satisfying than any prior edition. And I have played back to BECM and AD&D ("1e").

 

[Crimhthan_The_Great]

And what's this about infringing on your rights to buy stuff? They released a new edition without supporting the old one, that's all. And I really, really think that claiming a "right to buy what I want to buy" is a strange right to claim.

For the life of me I can't understand why the WotC strategy is something to get so worked up over. Since you used bold type and larger font size, and judging from the phrasing of your post, this is something that makes you really upset. So I will bow out of this discussion, because I don't want to write more posts that make you even more upset.
/M

I was a steady paying customer from 1971 up until 3E was published, then I was rudely shown the door by WotC and was told by their actions and decisions that I and my money were no longer welcome. What is not to understand about this????? WotC took the customer base of TSR & T$R and told us in no uncertain terms that we were no longer welcome as customers. And then they wonder why modules (as just one example) sell a fraction of what they did when TSR was at its quaility peak. (As an aside the main reason that sales declined from that point was Loraine Williams and the decline in quality, yeah thats right, the decline in quality is what caused the decline in sales) I and many others have money to spend and they don't want it, have no interest in it. Right now, today, all they need to do to get my business is to have one little web page on their site where I can replace my old worn out copies with brand spanking new ones at a reasonable price through Print On Demand. Yes, I can and do replace some things on eBay, but some are just way to high-priced to justify spending the money. In addition, I would prefer to buy new copies, not used copies.

Sure there was. I know many people who started with "D&D", and then tried to change over to "AD&D" when they had played that a while, thinking that "D&D" was the beginner version of "AD&D". Then they became confused as to why the games didn't mesh perfectly, and why they had even gotten "D&D" to begin with, when they really wanted a pathway to playing "AD&D".

I am totally at a loss as to why and how anyone could have been confused or have thought the things that you are stating above. Everything from before the publication of the Monster Manual in Dec 1977, to the publication of the Players Handbook in June of 1978 to the publication of the Dungeon Masters Guide in August of 1979 made it clear that they were to be two different games. It was completely clear that D&D was for tinkering with and that AD&D was to be standardized, but hey we tinkered with it anyway. I don't understand why you would think you needed a pathway to playing AD&D. If I had never played Monopoly and they published Advanced Monopoly, I can not imagine any reason why anyone would think they needed to buy Monopoly in order to understand and play Advanced Monopoly unless it was marketed as an add on instead of a stand alone game.

No you are just sounding like a wild eyed consipiracy theorist. WotC made their intention and practice of trying to make a version of D&D that would make them as much money as it could, minimizing costs and maximizing revenue.

If they really wanted to do that, they could have cleaned up the mess that Loraine Willaims created, without alienating the existing TSR/T$R customer base, which is what they chose to do. Their decisions did not achieve the goal of minimzing costs and maximizing revenue, unless you truly believe that the only way they could keep their Magic customer base was to dump the D&D customer base, which of course I do not believe.

You can rant all you want. However, it remains entirely true that D&D and AD&D (1e, and 2e), and yes, even 3/3.5e are all just different iterations of the same thing.

This is just so completely false, that it is truly comical. I am not ranting, merely stating the truth, I am truly sorry for you that your beliefs in this matter are at complete variance with reality.

 

[Umbran]

I have no desire to infringe on your rights to buy what you want to buy, I just want you to stop agreeing with those that have infringed on my rights to buy what I want to buy. And no, being able to buy a copy of OD&D for $100 plus on ebay doesn't do it for me, when I should be able to get it print on demand as many copies as I want at $15 or $20 bucks a pop.

You seem to be under the misconception that you somehow have "rights" or entitlement, that the company owes you something for past patronage. That's not the way it works.

You paid a fair market price for a product a long time ago, and the transaction ended there. You did not pay for perpetual availability, and have no "rights" to the product in the future. In general, consumers do not have the right to buy exactly what they want - they have the right to select from what the companies in the market offer, or keep their money in their pockets.

Continued offering of the product does cost the company - and if they don't think sales would cover those costs, they'd be stupid to offer it. Assertions that sales would be high enough simply don't cut it, in a business sense.

 

[Rel]

It just sucks to be in the minority.

I can testify however that it's quite nice to be in the group who had stopped playing D&D entirely in favor of other systems but came back because 3E suited my desires very well.

 

[Rel]

This is just so completely false, that it is truly comical. I am not ranting, merely stating the truth, I am truly sorry for you that your beliefs in this matter are at complete variance with reality.

Crimhthan, welcome to ENWorld. I'm a moderator. Statements like the above, especially when at least two other posts have been made by me and other mods to "tone down the rhetoric", are not acceptable in this thread. Cut it out.

 

[robertsconley]

Perspective from an old time gamer.

I played AD&D from 1979 to 1985. Ran about a dozen campaigns. Ultimately my players and I grew dissatisfied with AD&D because of the lack of options and the limitations of individual characters. This has mostly to do with the segregation of skills via the class system. I was exposed to Champions in 1984 and was really impressed with the system. It was simple and very flexible. (Yes at one time Champions was simple, but still needed a lot of math). So when I heard of Fantasy Hero I knew I found my next system.

So I got Fantasy Hero and ran three memorable campaigns with from 1985 to 1987. However there were some major balance issues. The johnny one-spell and the physics which still relied too much on the Champion Super-Hero model. The defining moment came when the johnny one spell mage blasted somebody through the outside tavern wall, through the tavern, and out through another wall on the other side. Then the guy still could get up and fight.

So.... Then I found a system called GURPS which wasn't as flexible as Fantasy Hero but was just simpily a better game. And that what I rund from 1987 and continuing to 4th edition today.

But.. When 3.0 came out I was caught like everyone else. To most gamers I knew it looked like AD&D evolved. To me it looked like a simpler version of GURPS. With Feats instead of Advantage, a few more attributes, a smaller skill list, and instead of buying by the point you get new abilities in a single chunck when you level.

And at the time I was ready for a simpler version of GURPS and 3rd Edition fit the bill. So I ran some games in it. I had a good time as my skill in using skill based games like Fantasy Heros and GURPS transfered well over to D&D.

While the release of 3.5 (my attitude is why do I need to buy this?), and 4th Edition GURPS (wow they made this better, and easier) contributed to me returning to GURPS. The main reason was the shear weight of nearly ten years of running GURPS. I had two milk crate full of notes, npcs, and house rules that worked great with my GURPS fantasy campaign. I didn't want to re-create them for 3/3.5 D&D.

The reason you see a lot of 1st edition people coming out of the woodwork. Is because there were a lot of 1st edition people still running things over the year. Plus with the hoopla over the release of 3rd Edition a lot of people who were role-players started playing again. And when the they dug into their own stuff most of that was 1st edition edition.

So now there is a demand for 1st edition product. The internet allowed that demand be heard. The OGL allowed 1st edition work-alike to be created (OSRIC & C&C). So now publishers are finding they can makes some money serving the market.

I think in the long term the 1st Edition Market will around for the next several years shrinking and growing as gamers get disenchanted with more complex system or disenchanted with 1st edition. The key to all this is the fact that the Internet can allow niche markets to exist and be catered too. (see the communities around Harn, Rifts, Warhammer, Hero Games, etc).

Enjoy
Rob Conley

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I have played through almost all of the various phases of D&D, from the old blue paper book boxed set to 3.5E. Each version had its good points and bad points and we have house-ruled all versions to fit our own ideas and desires. One overriding principal has been mutual respect for our DM and mutual willingness to be reasonable and logical in rules interpretation. But in the end we give our DM the last word because he is the one who has done the work of crafting the session and providing us the opportunity to enjoy a game together.

-KenSeg
gaming since 1978

Sounds like a good attitutde, to me. I've also been gaming since 77 or 78 (I can't remember which, for certain), and started with the blue-book boxed set. I own every edition except for 3.5, which I never bought (I stuck with house-ruled 3.0). At that point, I got off the carousel.

I have one current player who has been in my games since 1980, another who started with me in 1987, and another who started in 1992, and yet another who started in 1993 or 94. The rest are newbies, having joined my game sometime after the turn of the millennium.

I've also started gaming with my eldest son (who is 10) and his cousin (who is 12). It's incredible seeing the excitement the boys experience. They really get into it. I gave my son a copy of the Mentzer red-box basic set, and he's run a few adventures (the ruins north of Threshold) as DM, too.