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

[Aaron L]

Crimthan, that was an inspired post...you truely are "Great".

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... Part of why I returned to 1E I guess...as the above poster noted....there really isn't any room for the 1E mindset in 3E....the 1E player really was shown the door.

We played 1E right up until 3E came out, then we switched over because of the incredible amount of versatility and customization options for characters in 3E. Apart from being able to make our characters any way we want, we pretty much play 3E the same way we played 1E. We dont argue over the rules, we dont get into fights about them. The DM hasnt lost any power. I've never seen this "DM dis-empowerment" people complain about. What I have seen is a solid, reliable base of rules which everyone can agree on, a solid "physics engine" that doesn't require the DM to make a lot of houserules and spot decisions to cover things nt in the rules.

But we've never had this "DM is god and the players are peons under his thumb" attitude in any of our games, 1E or 3E. I dont think thats in any way a "1E mindset," I think thats just something you've ascribed to it. Were all friends trying to have a good time. We trust the DM to come up with a good scenario and play intriguing NPCs within the bounds of the rules all the rest of us play by. Of course he can bend and break rules when necessary to make for a better story and/or game, but usually isn't required because the rules cover a lot of stuff. I view this as a benefit for the DM, not a penalty, letting him concentrate on making good adventures, not having to make good rules.


When I DM for the group, I'm certainly very glad of the solid rules framework of 3E.

 

[Crimhthan_The_Great]

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.

Get out and go to the stores today, look around. Right now Hasbro is selling every old game you can think of. The idea that it makes sense for D&D to be the one exception to Hasbros business practice with their other products, does not make sense to me. Virtually every other game that I own has perpetual availablity, why would I not expect that with D&D? Why is it a special exception to the rule? I do not believe that there is any valid reason for it to be and no one has ever at any time produced any evidence as to why it should be an exception to the rule and I do not believe that anyone can. Everyone who disagrees with me on this point can only offer their differing opinion, not evidence. So we only have dueling opinions and mine is just as valid as yours. And perhaps I do not have "rights" in the way you are thinking of, that does in no way invalidate the point that I am making. As far as the cost, it seems that no one understands Print on Demand Technology. It is the future of in print product and the sooner that publisher wise up to it the more profit they will make since it eliminates the need to carry an inventory along with everything else it even eliminates the nonsenscial inventory tax which is a healthy boost to profits in and of itself.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

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

Yeah, I agree. And at the time, that's what I thought I wanted, too. I've since changed my mind, though, and found that much of what I thought was silly or broken isn't silly or broken. (See RFisher's "I used to think..." article for an example of another gamer who thinks this way.) I no longer see 3E as fixing what was broken, but fixing something that wasn't broken. Obviously, not everyone agrees.

I still like 3E and think it's a good game. But I consider it substantially different from the older versions (which were much closer to one-another, as others have pointed out). The difference isn't very apparent at low levels, but as the levels rapidly go up, the differences stand out more and more, IMO. I prefer the gameplay of the older versions. YMMV.

It just sucks to be in the minority.

Nah, not really. I'm having some of the best gaming of my life, and that's all that counts, when it comes down to it.

 

[Crimhthan_The_Great]

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.

I was not aware that there were any comments from a moderator being directed my way. I was also not aware that I was not permitted to reply in kind. As far as "toning down the rhetoric, I have already severely self - censored my posts in reply to some pretty nasty comments to the tune of several hundred words, but I will censor even further even though I do not really understand the objection, since I have already made it pretty mild.

 

[Psion]

Get out and go to the stores today, look around. Right now Hasbro is selling every old game you can think of. The idea that it makes sense for D&D to be the one exception to Hasbros business practice with their other products, does not make sense to me.

The following is based on a true story.

We have a game called Electronic Talking Clue. Our family loves it. Great game. Put out by (you guessed it) Hasbro.

My wife and her sister grew up playing this game, and given that this game was such a hit with our family, my wife thought it would be a great Christmas gift.

But alas, she had to come up with another Christmas gift because Electronic Talking Clue could not be found because it is not being made.

This is just one example. Who knows how many other games have come and gone that I never batted an eyelash. At any rate, the point is that just because you don't perceive that Hasbro is allowing other games to lapse out of circulation does not mean it is not happening. It demonstratably is.

 

[tx7321]

Aaron, the DM is God mindset isn't meant to be be license to completely drop the rules and be a jerk to the players (who after all showed up to play a certain game). Its about how this is the DMs world, and he is the final say on anything that happens in it. If he wants to suddenly say your character drops dead of a heart attack, well that happens. Of course, you'll never sit with that DM again.

A DM is no more powerful then a Ref at a football game. All the fans might disagree, but they know all that matters is what he thinks. If he's deemed an unfit "ref" after the game he's not asked back..the same goes with the DM. Like you, our players are all friends, and the DM (well we rotate ours) plays by the rules and is always as nuetral and impartial as possible. The fact that the DM doesn't have to be (as part of the rules) is always there in the back of the mind to keep the players in line (just like football players in a football game).

By taking the preasure off the players into thinking they have to "help" with the rules, they can focus on other things (like there imaginations).

BTW the concrete rules the DM has to fall back on in 3E, though good intentioned, have weakened the game. On the fly decisions are a huge part of what "old school" feel is all about. "Can I jump over that pit of acid", asks the 1E player. "You can try" says the 1E DM. He then figures out what he thinks the player should role based on what he thinks would be most applicable. Maybe petrification, maybe his dex on a d20, maybe some percentage on 1d100. Its his call, and the player openly excepts his wisdom. Infact, the player says, "I'm taking off all my gear, and remember I'm an experianced thief, and am likely used to this kind of thing". He roles the dice handed to hime (D20, D100 or whatever...not having a good idea of what he has to role, just as low or high as possible) if he fails he doesn't complain about the rules. He roles up another PC.

Now go to 3E. The player says, "here is a pit of acid, its 12 feet across. According to the rules you use my "jump" ability. But I also get these ability and feat bonuses..see it says right here. So, assuming theirs nothing wrong with the floor on the other side, I need to role a 16 (combined) on a D20 to do this. OK DM watch...watch me go.

The DM hasn't even said a damned thing yet..."wow good role". Oddly the player starts thinking of the game as a series of challanges based on odds determined by his tool kit of skills and feats. This I'm sure, appeals to alot of people (esp. the old Magic players), but it drives me nuts. If I wanted to play a video game I'd play a real video game (not a table top version).

 

[RFisher]

I have to say that I like 3E the best, and the new game system is what has really kept me playing D&D...again. I won't support any old school products like 1E and 2E, but that's not to say they shouldn't be produced by someone for the benefit of others.

Yeah. 'Cause you never know if at some point you will find yourself changing your mind, as I did. (^_^)

Thera are other reasons why there might be a "row" over that kind of issue. [...] 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.

Here's a secret: How do you make someone a great DM, no matter what game you're playing? You let them do it. You give them the benefit of the doubt. You learn to roll with their decisions that you disagree with. You give friendly advice & make friendly suggestions. Not only does that person then gain the experience & counsel & confidence to become a better DM, you may find that you can actually have fun when you concentrate on enjoying the DM's world rather than dwelling on your disagreements with it.

Of course--like everything involving people--it's not guaranteed to work. But it's your best chance.

& what do you mean by consistent?

They're less consistent in the sense that they don't conform to a universal mechanic, and have various subsystems that work differently.

Bah! It all comes down to: Determine the chance of success. If it is greater than zero & less than 100%, roll some die that's compatible with the chance of success.

If the devil is in the details, that'll still be the case whether you try to force everything onto a d20 or not. Either you gloss over the details, create long lists of details, or leave it to the DM decide the details. (Or some combination.)

The only real cases of inconsistency I can think of is when there are two ways to resolve the same thing that give different results. Like how I felt when NWPs that seemingly duplicated thief skills appeared. (These days I have a completely different view of thief skills & don't use NWPs.)

Though, I suppose I could find more inconsistencies in a particular game if I just thought about it a bit more: Melee/ranged attacks are resolved differently than grappling, which is different from tripping, which is different from disarming, which is different from overrun. A ranged attack roll is modified by Dex instead of Str. Different weapons have inconsistent crit-threat ranges & crit-mulitpliers. Different weapons use different dice for damage. Resolving damage is inconsistent with resolving attack rolls or skill checks. Attack rolls auto succeed/fail on natural 20/1, but skill checks don't. Attack modifiers & save modifiers are hardwired into each class rather than just being skills. Spell failure due to armor uses d% instead of d20 like (supposedly) everything else. (& yes, I know the reason why, but it remains inconsistent.) Rolling hit points doesn't use a d20 either. In combat, the active player makes the rolls (attack & damage); in spellcasting, the passive player makes the rolls (saves). Modifiers with the same "type" do not stack--except for "Dodge" modifiers.

 

[Crimhthan_The_Great]

The following is based on a true story.

We have a game called Electronic Talking Clue. Our family loves it. Great game. Put out by (you guessed it) Hasbro.

My wife and her sister grew up playing this game, and given that this game was such a hit with our family, my wife thought it would be a great Christmas gift.

But alas, she had to come up with another Christmas gift because Electronic Talking Clue could not be found because it is not being made.

This is just one example. Who knows how many other games have come and gone that I never batted an eyelash. At any rate, the point is that just because you don't perceive that Hasbro is allowing other games to lapse out of circulation does not mean it is not happening. It demonstratably is.

You are missing the point. The point is that they are keeping many many old games in print for one simple reason, it is making them money. If it is working for them on those old games, there is every reason to believe that it would work for them on other old games.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

What's amusing (and impressive) to me is that despite the old versions of D&D being out-of-print, we're still talking about them, playing them, and (recently) buying brand new modules for them.

I don't hold it against WotC for not bringing them back into print. At least they're available as PDFs. (With the notable exception of the OD&D rules -- I do wish WotC would do something about that.) I'd probably pick up some new books if they did bring them back into print, though.

 

[Crimhthan_The_Great]

What's amusing (and impressive) to me is that despite the old versions of D&D being out-of-print, we're still talking about them, playing them, and (recently) buying brand new modules for them.

I don't hold it against WotC for not bringing them back into print. At least they're available as PDFs. (With the notable exception of the OD&D rules -- I do wish WotC would do something about that.) I'd probably pick up some new books if they did bring them back into print, though.

That is where we differ, I do hold it against WotC/Hasbro for not keeping them in print and for not bringing them back into print. (And yes, that is a notable exception to what is available in pdf.) The easy way to make money on OD&D with POD would be to do for OD&D & the supplements what was done for BECMI with the Rules Cyclopedia.
And after all, I am not asking them to stock OD&D or OAD&D on the store shelves, just sell it POD. Mininal sales would recoup the startup costs and after that less taxes it would be pure profit.