AD&D First Edition inferior?

[Storm Raven]

Now you see why I resort to humor?

Because you have no real points to make and little of value to add?

Your automatic negative response is just as incoherent.

No, my negative response is easy to figure out in this case: your statements concerning the relatively scholarliness of 1e and 3e players are silly and make no sense. That makes them incoherent.

If I'm so incoherent law man why do I always rattle your crop?

Only in your mind do you actually "rattle my crop".

 

[dcas]

So, basically the only concrete evidence we have is that there are 165 Dragonsfoot users and some indeterminate number of Kenzer guys (under 1,551, probably less than half that I'm guessing) who can be called 1e afficionados. That's a reall small potential market, even if you assume that there are nine 1e fans who would buy stuff for every registered user on those sites.

You would be guessing wrong. There is more activity on the HackMaster boards than the Kalamar boards on the Kenzer site. In any case, as I pointed out in my previous post, it really isn't possible to determine the market for 1e from sales of HackMaster. More than a few AD&D fans were turned off by HackMaster, and quite a few HackMaster players have never played AD&D.

AFAIK Kenzer has an exclusive license to the O(A)D&D game. I don't think Wizards could publish anything in this area even if they felt there was a market for it.

 

[GENEWEIGEL]

Because you have no real points to make and little of value to add? [/B]

Well, a compliment!

I can't believe that Storm Raven has admitted that I have contributed a smidgeon of value!

I'll think I'll have to add that to my signature:

STORM RAVEN of Leesburg, Virginia has declared, "(Gene Weigel)(has)[snip]value to add.

RIGHT ON!

 

[Tiefling]

GENEWEIGEL, is this how you relate to people in real life?

 

[GENEWEIGEL]

Why? You willing to sign up for the campaign?

 

[Bryan Vining]

Umm... pardon me, but..

Please express to me your (Bryan) problem with consistent, stream-lined mechanics, greater and more balanced strategies, etc...i have my doubts that anyone is positivly turned off by it.

I don't recall saying that I had a problem with streamlined mechanics or greater and more balanced strategies.

The aspects of 3e which are being argued here are hardly popular amongst only a 'small subset of gamers'.

Agreed, but that wasn't what I was saying. I clearly failed to communicate my point to you. It is as follows: No game system is superior or inferior in and of itself. Such a value judgement has to be made my one or more persons. My feeling is that the most meaningful context in which those judgements are made is within the context of a single gaming group, which is, I think you'll agree, a very small subset of gamers.

Now, is that to say that opinions offered in a more general context (such as this message board) are not meaningful? Of course not. Game designers read these boards, and they are interested in the opinions of gamers (who are their market, after all). However, at the end of the day, I and any other gamer will buy products for the game system that suits their gaming group(s) (or themselves) best.

Theory of game design would be meaningless if it were out of tune with what a lot of gamers like. 3E is streamlined, elegant, and well codified (its highest merit in my opinion, but a bit of a double-edged sword). All of that wouldn't mean squat, though, if it didn't sell. I think we all get that. The thing is, though, that those characterstics and its popularity do not make it inherently "better". It just is. I will reiterate the point that popularity does not equal quality (though the two might be found together).

To illustrate that point, I'll take an example from the music world that most of us can relate to. The Beatles and the Dave Clark Five were tremendously popular in 1964 and 1965. While their music was certainly very good, had it not evolved, the Beatles would today be a better-remembered Dave Clark Five (who, incidentally, were occasionally better sellers of albums than the Beatles in these years). What ultimately made the Beatles one of the unquestionably most influential bands in history was not their popularity in and of itself. It was their experimentation with all sorts of recording tricks and the freedom to do what they wanted with their music without worry that it wouldn't sell. Their popularity carried these new sounds and ideas very far, and it was an essential component in the spread of their influence, but their contribution to music only came about from their popularity tangentially (though their popularity was one of the reasons they quite touring). The Dave Clark Five, OTOH, are little remembered by folks who didn't live in the 60s, even though their popularity was almost as substantial as the Beatles for a few years.

So, back to D&D. 3E is not higher quality because it is popular. Nor does its popularity necessarily mean that it is higher quality. There is almost certainly a correlation between the popularity of 3E and its quality, but a correlation is not proof of cause. Without a careful survey of who's buying 3E and why, all we have is a correlation, not proof.

I play 3E. I play HackMaster. I play 1E. Each has its merits and demerits. Each has its own distinct flavor. Nothing quite conjures fantasy for me like 1E, but it's rules are less consistent and poorly codified compared to 3E. I love the freedom of 3E, but its flavor is, to me, less wistful and more about ass-kicking. Neither features the richness of information and game mechanical benefits and penalties for role-playing that HackMaster does. For me, its all a matter of taste and mood. So, no, I do not think that 3E is better or superior to 1E. It is different. It is clearer and more consistent. It is better codified. But sometimes, I don't care about those things. Sometimes I want the flavor of 1E. It's just that simple, really.

Anyway, this post is already rather too long, and I've other things I need to be doing.

Cheers,
Bryan

 

[GENEWEIGEL]

Well said, Bryan!


Let's lock this thread up and leave it at that!

 

[Vaxalon]

Re: Umm... pardon me, but..

No game system is superior or inferior in and of itself.

I think you're wrong. I'll postulate an extreme example to illustrate why.

Let's say there's a game out there called "Sod". The game is a fairly standard RPG, except that it prominently features the following rule:

"Whenever a player speaks, the gamemaster should secretly roll one six-sided die, and if it comes up 1, kick the player hard, under the table. If he cries out in pain, strikes back, or otherwise expresses discontent with the attack, then whatever action his character was taking should fail."

This, to me, would be a BAD GAME. The reason for this is that the number of gamers who would find it fun is very, very small, possibly zero. No, it's not Universally bad... but the utility of Sod is very, very low.

On the other hand, let's say you've got a game that is beloved by just about everyone who tries it, called "Kei". It has something to appeal to everyone.

This, to me, would be a GOOD GAME. The reason for this is that even for those who have not played it, there is a good expectation that someone sitting down to try it is going to enjoy it.

So "good" and "bad" can have broad, universal connotations as well as local, personal ones, but in a more statistical context.

What you CAN'T do is assume that your own personal preferences are reflected in the broader gamer community.

 

[Bryan Vining]

Well, Vax, I take your point, but that defines the worth of an RPG in terms of its widespread utility, which may not matter very much to the people playing it.

On a lighter note, I imagine Sod would be tremendously popular in certain adult institutions about the world

 

[Storm Raven]

You would be guessing wrong. There is more activity on the HackMaster boards than the Kalamar boards on the Kenzer site.

You misunderstood, the point was that even if all 1,551 members of the Kalamar boards were 1e fans who would buy stuff, and there were 9 unregistered 1e fans for every one on the Kalmar and Dragonsfoot borads, that would still be a really small market, probably not one worth WotC spending any time catering to when they can sell hundreds of thousands of 3e PHBs instead.

In any case, as I pointed out in my previous post, it really isn't possible to determine the market for 1e from sales of HackMaster. More than a few AD&D fans were turned off by HackMaster, and quite a few HackMaster players have never played AD&D.

It is the closest analogy we have. We work with the evidence we have available.

AFAIK Kenzer has an exclusive license to the O(A)D&D game. I don't think Wizards could publish anything in this area even if they felt there was a market for it.

They have a license from WotC. If WotC wanted to, they could probably revoke the license, most licenses have revocation clauses in them, or must be renewed on a regular basis. If a "huge untapped market" was there, and there was money to be made, they would likely be trying to tap into it. They aren't, which seems like pretty good evidence that the alleged untapped market is not "huge", but is rather "pretty small".