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

[Storm Raven]

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.

To YOU it was obvious. But to the average customer walking into the store it was not. To the new gamer it was not. To the guy who wants to try out this "D&D thing" it was not. Not everyone coming to the game knows as much about the history of the development of the D&D game as you or I do. Many do not. Many casual gamers had (and continue to have) no clue about this sort of thing.

Marketing your product so that it is clear to only a small subset of people who have been gaming for decades and built up a knowledge base to understand the history of the devlopment of the game line is poor marketing.

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.

This is the most counterintuitive argument I have seen for a while. If you bought a game labelled Advanced Bunnies and Burrows you wouldn't think "hey there is probably a basic version of the game out there"? You would not then see the game labeled Bunnies and Burrows sitting on the shelf next to the Advanced version and think "well this must be the introductory more basic version of the game"? If you wouldn't that puts you in a small minority, because I know dozens of people who did exactly that.

And the fact that the "history of the game" shows that not to be true is of no consequence to any of these examples. Why? Because the people who were making these decisions in 1983, or 1986, or 1988 or whatever didn't know or care about the development of the game that occurred years before they decided to play D&D.

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.

Yes, because publishing a version of D&D that has proved more profitable than any version of D&D put out in the previous 20 years (and possibly more profitable than any other version of D&D ever) is an indicator of poor decison making.

I'm not sure why you think that they "dumped their D&D customer base" or that they did it to "keep their Magic customer base". I have seen more veteran D&D players attracted by 3e/3.5e than had been playing in years. Most of the current 3e D&D players I know played D&D/AD&D before 3e came out, and happily switched. I know nobody who did not switch. Exactly how is this "dumping their D&D customer base"?

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.

In reality, the differences between OD&D, AD&D1e and AD&D2e are almost trivially slight. Like I said, you get more variation in game mechanics moving between different genres in a game like GURPS than between these different versions. 3e/3.5e is a little more different than those, but still very recognizable as D&D. Saying "only OD&D can be called just D&D" simply exaggerates trivial differences into inordinate significance.

But the more important issue is that in public perception, there is no difference between D&D and AD&D, both are just "D&D" no matter how much you want to rant on concerning their differences. If you aksed the average RPG gamer in 1995 if they played D&D, and they said "yes", nine times out of ten they probably meant that they played AD&D. And didn't even think about the other version, or even think that the distinction was of any importance. In perception "AD&D" was simply "D&D", and calling it "AD&D was just unneccesary and confusing.

Thinking that WotC was trying to "lie" to you because they named their product "D&D" requires that you assume that they would try to mislead people into thinking they were buying a game that had almost no independent recognition in the marketplace. That seems to me to be entirely an unreasonable assumption.

 

[Psion]

The fixed cost is very mininal when you go to POD technology. Because of POD this arguement is no longer a valid one.

I don't think POD technology is all you think it is. It does not nullify fixed costs, and the per-copy investment is higher than traditional printing. Print on demand is not a replacement for traditional printing. Traditional publishers who use POD only use it after a traditional run is exhausted and a new print run would not be profitable, but costs for layout, marketing, and distribution are already taken care of. If POD was a panacea that takes care of all print cost issues, it would be the only method, not an alternate one.

With existing product you have a one time setup cost for it to go POD and that is the end of the fixed cost.

Saying "that's the end of the fixed cost" is redundant. That's the definition of a fixed cost. You'll notice it didn't go away, and you aren't paying attention to fixed costs that have nothing to do with the technology, like layout, distribution, etc.

As far as trusting corporations lets start with Enron and go on from there if you really want to go there. When it comes to corporations and trusting them to make wise decisions that is a censored game.

Did you read what you are replying too? I have a deep distrust of corporations, but I trust them to try to make money. WotC is NOT going to not print old versions just to screw you. They will forego printing of earlier versions if it would cost them money.

 

[Storm Raven]

The correct answer is also not (1) either. They have not determined anything, they have just made a decision and there is no evidence available to any of us that it has anything to do with profitablity and with POD technology it doesnt take much to generate profits on existing products that you no longer have to pay royalties to the author (both Gygax and Arneson are sans royalties at this point).

You assume the correct reason is not (1). But you have no reason for that other than a boatload of conspiracy theories that make no sense. If it would make them money, they would likely put the product on the market. That's what businesses do - they make money. Those who run the businesses try to market products that will sell, and make money by doing so. That they haven't is an indication that they don't believe that doing so will make them money.

You also have no competing theory to the "they don't think it will make money" theory that makes any sense. Until you come up with one, you will be in the same boat as the comic book guy.

You love POD for some reason. Have you noticed that very little is available POD? There is a reason for that. It isn't a panacea for releasing old material on the market. Despite your assumption that it is a road to profit, there are still start up costs, and my guess is that their evaluation of the market leads them to believe that the amount they will make won't even cover those (and I have no rational reason to believe otherwise).

I suggest you consult some people who have actually tired to sell .pdfs on line, or POD products before you rant about how it would solve everything.

 

[Aus_Snow]

No. Never mind. It's best if I just leave uh. . . that, either for a different board, or for good.

 

[Storm Raven]

That is true, but in most of those cases the one for sale is the original one, that I bought back in the 60's or 70's and bought a new copy of in the 90's or since.

Untrue. Many of these games have had their rules modified over time.

 

[Crimhthan_The_Great]

This is the most counterintuitive argument I have seen for a while. If you bought a game labelled Advanced Bunnies and Burrows you wouldn't think "hey there is probably a basic version of the game out there"? You would not then see the game labeled Bunnies and Burrows sitting on the shelf next to the Advanced version and think "well this must be the introductory more basic version of the game"? If you wouldn't that puts you in a small minority, because I know dozens of people who did exactly that.

I disagree completely with you and the facts support my position. There is no point in responding further to the bulk of your post so I will not.

As for you calling my arguement counterintuitive, I acknowledge your difficulty. In the example as you word it above, I would expect any reasonably intelligent person to understand that they are perfectly capable of learning Advanced Bunnies and Burrows without first learning Bunnies and Burrows. While you may choose to buy both or buy Bunnies and Burrows first, there is no logical reason to do so.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Please, try to approach discussions here with an open mind.

There is one very simple reason for the difference - the family board game market is qualitatively and quantitatively different from the RPG market. The board game market is huge, and it spans many economic and cultural divides - lots of different folks buy Clue, Scrabble, and Monopoly. Heck, Monopoly is arguably the most played game in the world, possibly surpassing chess and go. Meanwhile, WotC market research in 1999 suggested only a couple million people total played RPGs on a regular basis.

That's a big difference - what you do in a big, wide open market, with games played as a casual family passtime may not make sense in a small, specific niche market of hobby-gamers. RPG players simply don't approach our games the same way folks approach a game of Clue, and so it makes sense to treat the markets differently.

As far as the cost, it seems that no one understands Print on Demand Technology.

You'd propbably do better around here if you avoid telling folks what they do and don't know. PoD is good. And it may sit well for materials that are not popular enough for mass pre-printings that take up shelf space. But it isn't free.

Neither is simply converting the old product into the proper medium. You're talking about many person-hours of work - at least thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars invested just to make it available. If they don't expect enough sales to cover that investment, selling it doesn't make sense.

Moreover, it has to make as much (or more) profit than other things that they could do with the same money and personnel resources. With limited resources, there is a balancing act to be played between diversification and focus on the most profitable properties and new ideas. I am unsurprised that old editions - a sub-niche of the overall RPG niche - fail to make the cut.

 

[Storm Raven]

It is subtle sometimes. Even in my own 3E group I didn't really "get it" until I DMed and realized...hey, these guys are calculating everything, they're telling me what their chances are to climb a rope, or any number of other tasks, and when I disagree (and maybe I'm wrong) they all start pointing out how this and that skill combined with this and that attribute and feat result in this or that chance...And when they ask to try and do something its always in terms of "can I use this skill or that feat" like every action has a little button they press. hell, thats how I ended up playing 3E for 2 years...thats how long it took before I could put my finger on what was bugging me.

For routine tasks why shoudl this not be the case? Why should I not have a reasonable idea of how good I am at climbing rope? In reality I do, why is in a game that I must somehow operate blind to get a good gaming experience?

And your argument is entirely irrelevant for most of the exciting elements of the game.

"I want to climb the mudslide!"
"Okay, roll a climb check."
"What's the DC?"
"You don't know. I'll let you know if you make it."
"Okay."

This is a much more common exchange in my experience than anything you are talking about. And really, do you want to be bogged down worrying about whether you can do routine tasks like climb a rope or jump over something? Climbing a rope while being chase? That's different, and the circumstances are different, making the DC different (and probably unknown). Jumping over something in combat? Different again, and subject to modifications.

Players don't always know what the DCs of their checks are, or even what the checks are for (when DMing, I have often said "roll a d20" to one, some, or all of the players present for skill checks like Spot or Listen and the like, without even telling them what the check was for). Sure, routine matters they usually will, but that's the nature of the routine matter. Unusual circumstances they almost never know the DC of a check, they just hope to roll high.

In AD&D 1E as DM I say, "OK role your dex to climb this rope", or "role your petrification". The player doesn't start asking why, they just do it (and the way the rules are written in AD&D the DM has that latitude...many situations just aren't covered. That ability of the DM to just make stuff up in there head and call it "rules" bugs the crap out of alot of todays players, but that was the power of the game...and DMing it was brutally fun.

If I want to invent a game on the fly, I'll do that. And it will be a very different game than 1e AD&D. And, to a great extent it was, which is why so many people abandoned the system when they realized that their house rules were as long as the DMG.

Anyhow, yeah, unless you play 1E or OD&D you might not even see what I'm talking about in 3E. But take it from me, there is a stark difference us 1Eers see between the role of DM between 1st and 3rd editions.

I played 1e AD&D. For over a decade. I know how the system played, and know what sort of DM/Player conflicts it engendered on a regular basis.

That you have a good group is cool. But 3E is written so that if you had a bad group they could rules lawyer the DM to death. In 1E, even if you had those sorts of players, it wouldn't matter, the DM would just say, "well thats that" and as chance would have it, the leader of the little table rebellion would end up with a spiked green tail before the game was over.

over a decade of gaming and DMing with 1e AD&D tells me a much different story. I have been involved in fewer rules arguments of any kind in the five years of playing 3e/3.5e D&D than I would typically have in two or three sessions of 1e AD&D. The "DM Fiat" you think 1e embodied was your presonal spin on the system and nothing more. There is a reason comics like Hackmaster are written the way they are with the players rules-lawyering the DM to death in a parody of 1e AD&D gaming. And it is not because that was rare, or easily dealt with.

 

[Dragonhelm]

C&C Stuff

I thought I'd add in my own experiences and views of C&C to the discussion. Note that I haven't played it as much as others and I house rule it quite a bit.

The main benefit of primes is that assigning primes lets you tweak your character while keeping the system simple. For example, if you want a dexterous fighter, then make Dex prime, and your PC will be very good at Dex-based stuff. It's a broad-stroke short-cut: instead of buying lots of individual skills and feats, you just say "Dex is prime." The end result is pretty much the same, but much simpler. So C&C has a simple system for addressing the complaint that classes make for cookie-cutter PCs. It's obviously not as detailed as the d20 approach, but it works very well, IMO, and the decreased complexity and prep-time is a good trade-off.

Another way of looking at primes is that instead of them lowering your target number, they essentially give you a +6 (?) bonus to various rolls tied to an ability score.

I'm not a huge fan of primes myself, as I feel you might as well have the higher ability score. But then again, I've added a skills system, and primes don't work the best with skills.

If you read the C&C forums, you'll see all sorts of house-ruling and tweaking going on. A lot of "making the game your own."

To me, this is one of C&C's greatest strengths - the ability to house rule to your heart's content. I've seen people use non-weapon proficiencies, or feats, or various other subsystems with their game. It's a sound system as-is, but flexible enough that you can add in the subsystem of your choice. In my last game, I added a variant of 3e's skills that was similar to 3.0's skills.

Yes. I sometimes call C&C a "best of" version of the various editions. (Keeping in mind that's "best of" in my eyes. And keeping in mind that I don't see any system as perfect -- I'm still tweaking things.)

Agreed. I like how it feels old school, yet has the basic unified mechanics of d20.

I think my only beef with the system is how classes don't have a full 20-level progression. It's like AD&D in that all your good stuff, save for spell progression, ends around 12th level. I think I'd prefer if the ability score modifiers followed the 3e modifiers.

Overall, I'm really happy with the system and love how you can use your old AD&D books and new D&D books all in the same game. It's really fun to use.

 

[Crimhthan_The_Great]

You assume the correct reason is not (1). But you have no reason for that other than a boatload of conspiracy theories that make no sense. If it would make them money, they would likely put the product on the market. That's what businesses do - they make money. Those who run the businesses try to market products that will sell, and make money by doing so. That they haven't is an indication that they don't believe that doing so will make them money.

You also have no competing theory to the "they don't think it will make money" theory that makes any sense. Until you come up with one, you will be in the same boat as the comic book guy.

You love POD for some reason. Have you noticed that very little is available POD? There is a reason for that. It isn't a panacea for releasing old material on the market. Despite your assumption that it is a road to profit, there are still start up costs, and my guess is that their evaluation of the market leads them to believe that the amount they will make won't even cover those (and I have no rational reason to believe otherwise).

I suggest you consult some people who have actually tired to sell .pdfs on line, or POD products before you rant about how it would solve everything.

POD and its use is in its infancy. It has just barely gotten started, and it is the future and major publishers will be the last to really adopt it to any extent. I do not have any conspiracy theories, that is an unjustified assumption on your part. However, since as someone else noted above and as has been noted on many different boards many times, WotC will not release OD&D on pdf, although they have released other things. In light of that, to argue that there is no bias against OD&D by WotC is rather amusing.

I also acknowlege your continued insult, above, and it is a shame that the mods will not permit me to give you the response that you so richly deserve.

Sufice it to say that you and Psion are wrong about this whole thing on so many levels that it boggles the imagination. I do not know why you are both so against OD&D and AD&D, while I am not against 3E/3.5E at all, other than I have no deserve to buy it myself.