AD&D First Edition inferior?

[diaglo]

However, I find that miniatures are a nice artistic expression for the players, and that using miniatures and a map helps create a common image in the players' minds of the situation at hand.

they also make cheap Xmas, birthday, special occassion gifts for DM and players alike.

nothing says have fun gaming like a nice mini.

well, a set of dice is nice too.

and a new splat book

or hardcover...

or boxed set

or magazine subscription

or well you get the picture.

 

[JeffB]

Tangent alert! Celebrim, I just have to say that you 100% expressed my views on miniatures and RPGs. One thing that helps is to really abstract the characters -- just make little tokens that have the character's (or the player's) names on them, or something like that.

I'd really like a putative 3e lite to have cinematic combat. Or better yet, someone who does a 3e variant with cinematic rather than wargamer combat. Does such a thing exist already?

Absolutely nailed my opinion on mini's as well.

It's the one reason I think I will never be able to fully embrace D20/3E...

the nice thing aboout the original D&D games was that it was more abstract...you could get away with just describing what you want to do rather than having to equate everything in mechanics terms.

That's not the root of the problem though..the rules that is..the problem is the players and/or DM. I find that when all else is said and done, whether one likes 3E or 1E depends on the type of players and DM that are involved. Some folks just plain like having rules, and everything set in stone because over the years too many rules laywers and arguments arose about this or that. Other's prefer rules-lite simply because their players did not worry too much about rules, and would just "go with the flow" ..that's the kind of game I learned how to play....and that's the kind of game I DM..but it seems that style of play is a small minority..I'm more concerned with telling a cool story than running a tactical fight, at least for the vast majority of the time...Any fight's that occur are meant to be a BIG deal! ..they are not real frequent...That's one reason I love Rolemaster..yep..Rolemaster...the skill and class/race system works easy and fast (depending on how many options you decided to use)for everything besides combat, and when there IS a combat....it's detailed and vivid, could go either way at the blink of a hat (thus providing more roleplaying oppurtunities as player's try to avoid combat), and generally is ery exciting....I think in D&D generally(mostly in published products), combat is over empahsized..which kind of "cheapens" the experience..that's the way I see it anyway.

Now THAT was a tangent

 

[GENEWEIGEL]

Sorry, I just can't see the point of it. What rules are you missing that you want so badly? I can't think of a one that doesn't have something better in place today.

Josh D. is satisfied.

Next!



What I'm saying doesn't apply to you specifically. There are people still playing other variants of the game.

And is the RPG industry so backward that they couldn't have several SRD varieties to accomodate these "totally different games"?

I think not.

Josh, what I'm saying will be done. It's just a matter of time. The SRD can even have a interactive timeline website where it modifies the rules to your "era" and year of purchase.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There would be a big call for new products for Classic Advanced as we all know but there are fans of Original Dungeons and Dragons as well.

Heck using the internet as a rules dump for the adventure would work as well to accomodate all the styles for a single adventure.

It would certainly provide a broader market for products.

You, Josh, may not be one of them but I certainly am I must admit!

Any other votes for such a universal idea?

 

[Theuderic]

Gene I must say that I agree with what you said 100%. I too am a fan of "variant" D&D games. And I think there are more of us out there than a lot of people think. I have no beef with 3rd E. I just want people to understand that it's not always the rules that are a factor in your enjoyment of a role playing game.

 

[diaglo]

you got my vote to Gene for a universal SRD.

 

[barsoomcore]

And is the RPG industry so backward that they couldn't have several SRD varieties to accomodate these "totally different games"?

What does being backward have to do with it? It's a question of value.

Ryan Dancey has been pretty clear about the motives of the SRD -- to drive sales of the Player's Handbook. The PHB is the cash cow for D&D. It's what TSR made practically ALL their money on. Everything else a company like WotC does is to drive sales of the PHB.

Hence, the Open Gaming notion and the SRD. To make it easier for third parties to publish the "support" stuff that makes less money, so that more and more people will be encouraged to buy the PHB.

Given that, where's the motivation for WotC to release material for other editions of the game? That will only DISCOURAGE people from buying the 3E PHB. If they can get along with lots of new material for their existing 2E or 1E PHB then why buy the new one? That strategy makes no sense.

There would be a big call for new products for Classic Advanced as we all know but there are fans of Original Dungeons and Dragons as well.

So what? Where's the value to WotC -- given that their primary goal is driving sales of the 3E PHB. What you propose would interfere with that objective and so defeats the purpose of the SRD in the first place.

It would certainly provide a broader market for products.

Again, so what? Why does WotC want a BROADER market? They want a tightly focused market, focused on the 3E PHB. You misunderstand the whole point of the SRD and the Open Gaming movement as created by Ryan Dancey and WotC.

Less products for them to support, more dependence in the market on their primary product, more money for less effort. That's good business.

Making EVERYONE happy -- that's almost always bad business.

 

[Celebrim]

"Making EVERYONE happy -- that's almost always bad business."

And generally impossible.

 

[Theuderic]

Re: Re: Re: Re: AD&D First Edition inferior?

[B3e is much more a thinking mans game than 1e ever was/ I am curious as to what you mean by this. I mean really. What does this mean? I personally think there are so many factors involved that this statemnet doesn't show too much consideration but that's my opinion. Making house rules for example. My gosh there are just soooo many reasons I find this statement to be untrue IMO and unfair IMO.

 

[GENEWEIGEL]

That was what Dancey said then but now that "all the jets are in their boxes and the clouds have all gone to bed" what would he say now?

Your original "sell PHBs strategy" is settled anyway.

Don't forget all markets are dynamic and I'm just stating a huge market is being neglected.

If someone said, "Oh I'm not interested in that I only like the original rules", well they could go online download it at the customer service area and be playing a classic style adventure that night.

It's a sound idea and one that makes total marketing sense.

 

[ced1106]

It may even be more beneficial to multi-class in AD&D than in 3e

Geez, tell me about it. Haven't tried multi-class in 3e, but in 1e, **of course** we multi-classed. A wizard who could fight? Booyeah! A thief with magic abilities? Of course! Humans were only good for Paladins! Demi-humans and multiclasses were sexy and kewl powerz rulz.

In a way, multiclassing was also customization of a character. 3e does this with Skills, Feats -- and now even Abilities. Maybe I'll try multiclassing. I just made an EQ Thief last night, and, boy, would those Warrior weapon and armor proficiencies come in handy...!


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^