Col_Pladoh said:
"We" do have some pretty good information regarding sales of OAD&D compared to 3E, although WotC is not trumpeting it, and the former were considerably higher than than the latter from what insiders and purveyors of RPGs ahve told me. As there is no likely difference between the two games in regards to who did and does do what with them, the remainder of your argument is invalid.
The information is not publicly available, nor is it verified. Until that happens, all claims (unfortunately, including those of insiders and purveyors of RPGs) are entirely unreliable - especially since the distribution chain has changed significantly between 1975 and 2007.
The plethoras of rules in new D&D speaks volumes as to your latter assertion, as does the manner in which players approach 3E, memorizing and quoting rules to the DM.
Are you really claiming that players didn't memorize and quote rules to the DM in the "old days"? Maybe not at your personal table, but in my experience, it happened
all the time. The rules-lawyer is a consequence of personality, not system. Are you saying that there were not reams of rules in the "old days"? I'd argue that the volume of rules per page is
less in most of the new products than it was in many earlier edition products, or at the very least they are simpler to use as they aren't a collection of several dozen unique subsystems each with its own set of rules for use.
Here's what I think the real source of your position is: when playing Chainmail/OD&D/AD&D, you were intimately familiar with the system you played with. Your version of the game was
not the one that was published - you had a collection of house rules, personal to you and your players, that you were familiar with and used (I believe you have stated publicly that you didn't play AD&D as written in the published rules). The game seemed, as a result, easy, intuitive, and no one argued about much, because you had already decided how to fill in the gaps and make judgment calls.
When you looked at the 3e rules, they were different. Trying to assess the play style, you assumed all the rules would be used, and people would insist on it. You've heard here and there about people having problems with players quoting rules to the DM and rules-lawyering up a storm. Because you did not grow the system from its roots, and weren't along for the ride over the course of its development, it
seems a lot more complicated. Based on almost no evidence at all, you seem to think that DMs have limited authority now, despite the many times this is contradicted in the 3e books.
However, my experience with older editions of D&D is very different from what I have hypothesized yours was. I came to the system when it was a finished rules set - published for public consumption. The groups I played in tried to use all the rules, because they were tprinted in the books, we supposed, we were clearly meant to use them. The early attempts to play D&D were a mess, and until we started playing using a raft of house rules to cover up the problem areas, arguments and "DM challeneges" abounded (none of which was helped by your now-infamous and probably misunderstood "if you aren't playing by the rules as written, you aren't playing D&D" missive). Much of D&D felt arbitrary and counterintuitive, because we had not seen the system evolve as you had. In many ways, we played D&D
despite the rules, not because of them.
The current system is not really that different in this regard. Playing using
all of the rules is still difficult - although not as much so. But the game states clearly, both in the PHB and the DMG that it is up to the DM to decide how the game will be played, what rules will and won't be used, and what options, choices, and alternatives are available in the campaign.
To you, older D&D feels "organic", and the new edition feels "rulesy". Neither is the case. They are pretty much equally "rulesy", I suspect that it is just your familiarity with one and lack of familiarity with the other than gives you this impression.