Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Valiant" data-source="post: 3820344" data-attributes="member: 54792">I think there were 2 changes that occured, one in rules and one in style (art and presentation). I think the big change in rules was UA.&nbsp; and the big change in style really started with Dragon Lance series: 1. in artwork (focusing on character details rather then the mood and general setting, it was stiff realism often posed, and the players could no longer see themselves as the people in the pictures...reduced to spectator rather then partisipant); and 2. the change from story evolution (randomly created as the players wondered around) to &quot;railroading&quot; (where the story is supplied to the DM and the players pretty much follow along its course; this also led to highly linked modules, before that modules were pretty much dropped in as 1 shots).&nbsp; In early 1E the DM was encouraged to supply his own setting (even Greyhawk was bare bones) in late 1E the DM was asked to drop his own stuff and use the &quot;official&quot; published setting (loosing perhaps the most important aspect to the game:&nbsp; The &quot;magic&quot; and spirit found in AD&amp;D/OD&amp;D was largely due to the DMs presentation of his own imaginary world, and the players stumbling around in it, together they made up stories. If you ask me this is the real power of AD&amp;D (and all FRPGs really).&nbsp; Whenever you supply most of the setting&nbsp; and story expect a spiritless and dull game (despite how great the artwork and depictions might be). AD&amp;D is all about &quot;ownership&quot; and individualization.&nbsp; For a publisher its a terrible game because of this (once you have the 3 core books you really never need to buy another product).EDIT- One more thing.&nbsp;&nbsp; Late 1E changes did increase revenue and save the company, but only for a few years (as the target market of buyers became smaller and smaller).&nbsp; Its a fine example of how marketing usually ends up destroying stuff we like.&nbsp; It was the switch from Gary &quot;the guy in the basement&quot; churning out work he loves making a good living to, &quot;corporate big wigs&quot; needing&nbsp; endless profits (ie sales) to cover unreal expenses and overhead (ie. waisting money) and handing it over to marketers (rather then designers) to make it work.&nbsp;&nbsp; It is interesting to think what might have happened if Gygax had retained control of TSR and purposely kept the core rules stable.&nbsp; Would we still have AD&amp;D today (like we have monopoly) unchanged?&nbsp; Or would other &quot;copy cats&quot; have come in and burried Gygax and TSR beating them to the &quot;Dragonlancesque&quot; punch.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Valiant, post: 3820344, member: 54792"] I think there were 2 changes that occured, one in rules and one in style (art and presentation). I think the big change in rules was UA. and the big change in style really started with Dragon Lance series: 1. in artwork (focusing on character details rather then the mood and general setting, it was stiff realism often posed, and the players could no longer see themselves as the people in the pictures...reduced to spectator rather then partisipant); and 2. the change from story evolution (randomly created as the players wondered around) to "railroading" (where the story is supplied to the DM and the players pretty much follow along its course; this also led to highly linked modules, before that modules were pretty much dropped in as 1 shots). In early 1E the DM was encouraged to supply his own setting (even Greyhawk was bare bones) in late 1E the DM was asked to drop his own stuff and use the "official" published setting (loosing perhaps the most important aspect to the game: The "magic" and spirit found in AD&D/OD&D was largely due to the DMs presentation of his own imaginary world, and the players stumbling around in it, together they made up stories. If you ask me this is the real power of AD&D (and all FRPGs really). Whenever you supply most of the setting and story expect a spiritless and dull game (despite how great the artwork and depictions might be). AD&D is all about "ownership" and individualization. For a publisher its a terrible game because of this (once you have the 3 core books you really never need to buy another product). EDIT- One more thing. Late 1E changes did increase revenue and save the company, but only for a few years (as the target market of buyers became smaller and smaller). Its a fine example of how marketing usually ends up destroying stuff we like. It was the switch from Gary "the guy in the basement" churning out work he loves making a good living to, "corporate big wigs" needing endless profits (ie sales) to cover unreal expenses and overhead (ie. waisting money) and handing it over to marketers (rather then designers) to make it work. It is interesting to think what might have happened if Gygax had retained control of TSR and purposely kept the core rules stable. Would we still have AD&D today (like we have monopoly) unchanged? Or would other "copy cats" have come in and burried Gygax and TSR beating them to the "Dragonlancesque" punch. [/QUOTE]

Verification