D&D Rubbish? Hmmm...

[Man in the Funny Hat]

So, while 1st Edition was wildly sucessful, I'm really not convinced that this was because of the books - I'm inclined to think there were other factors at work, and that emulating the books themselves is therefore a flawed strategy.

Oh agreed. There were indeed other factors at work and it would be an utter failure to attempt to emulate those books in this day and age. Times have changed, RPG's have evolved. While 1E still has a LOT to recommend it I have no problems pointing out that it does also have significant inadequacies and failures.

As for how it really spread and succeeded that's speculation for anyone (even those who worked at TSR). It was years after I started playing 1E before I ever saw D&D products of any kind in anything other than a hobby store and afaik TSR kept no kind of track of how new players were entering the hobby. I would even guess that MOST people were entering the game by word of mouth. They would only pick up the rule books later and then they were mostly used as reference works and did not actually and because they "knew" the game already would not READ the books start-to-finish (which would explain why so many people - myself included - were so ignorant for so long about how 1E actually worked rather than how they themselves learned to run it or played it).

I agree that TODAY (and in hindsight) they could have done a LOT better. If 1E were released as a new game in todays rpg environment it would fail utterly and would only be remembered as something to be mocked mercilessly (like F.A.T.A.L.?). At the time, and admittedly in part because people just didn't know any better, those elements of unnecessary complexity and quirkiness were appealing to the emerging class of gamers who could then cling to it as something else they knew about and ostensibly understood that others were clueless about - like computer programming. It worked at the time. But then success/failure of ANY game has to be looked at not just by the merits of the rules in and of themselves but by the environment in which it was competing. In the case of AD&D there was no real competition. I mean, RUNEQUEST? Puhleeze...

 

[UnknownAtThisTime]

I agree that TODAY (and in hindsight) they could have done a LOT better. If 1E were released as a new game in todays rpg environment it would fail utterly and would only be remembered as something to be mocked mercilessly

No doubt. and the Model T was garbage when released. Why didn't they use carbon fibre?! And where was the starter motor? So much wrong!

(Not picking on you at all, MitFH. I just find it interesting that we so easily pick apart the efforts of pioneers)

 

[the Jester]

Ideally, the rules should fit on a single page. The 'Castle Ravenloft' boardgame gets close.

That rather depends on your ideals, doesn't it?

As several others have pointed out, some of us like a certain degree of complexity, and "one page is all you need" doesn't even look at that itch, much less actually scratch it.

 

[delericho]

(Not picking on you at all, MitFH. I just find it interesting that we so easily pick apart the efforts of pioneers)

Very true. Nonetheless, I do think it's important for WotC to be very wary as to which lessons they learn from the past. Suggesting that a complex system is the way to go because in the past people seemed to like it because it was complex would seem to me to be one example of an unwise choice, as I've outlined previously.

I never really played 1st Ed, but I did play 2nd extensively. And while I would never go back to that edition, or one like it, there's certainly no denying that I had a huge amount of fun with that system at the time.

That rather depends on your ideals, doesn't it?

As several others have pointed out, some of us like a certain degree of complexity, and "one page is all you need" doesn't even look at that itch, much less actually scratch it.

That might well depend on whether by "the rules should fit one one page" you mean that everything should fit on one page or all "the rules" (but not the full set of all the options) should fit on one page. (Though that latter is still probably over ambitious.)

I mean, if you look at the 4e core rulebooks and rip out everything that isn't strictly a rule (that is, all the classes, all the powers, all the monsters), you're actually left with a pretty lean book. The bulk of it is options rather than rules - which are probably not objectionable to many folk.

(Although you still want to be careful not to drown your newbie players in a sea of options, of course!)

 

[Andor]

Ideally, the rules should fit on a single page.

If by 'the rules' you mean the core resolution mechanic, then I agree with you. And every edition of D&D qualifies.

If by 'the rules' you mean 'everything needed to build a group of characters, and a campaign world to run them in, and to run that campaign.' Then, no.

It could probably be done as an intellectual excercise. A good enough GM and proup of players could probably even have fun at it.

But one page isn't even enough to properly describe ... anything really. Not in enough depth to make it interesting to someone who isn't already invested in the idea.

 

[prosfilaes]

Ideally, the rules should fit on a single page. The 'Castle Ravenloft' boardgame gets close.

Here's e23: GURPS Ultra-Lite and e23: GURPS Lite (Fourth Edition) . The first is basically one page, back and front. It doesn't come close to doing what I want in a game. The second is 32 pages; it's okay, as long as you don't need magic or any other special things. In practice, I don't see single page rules as doing what I need.

Seriously? One page rules systems aren't that hard to draw up. Draw up one for a D&D like system, and if you can make one you're happy with, see if other people are happy.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Mostly he's just stating woefully biased opinion and presenting it as fact - which is pretty much what the internet is for.

For the record, I think you are demonstrating an overused technique...

People state their opinion. In most cases they are not presenting it as An Ultimate Truth, but the fact as they see it. That is pretty much a given.

I frequently see that technique used (sadly a lot on ENworld too ), but I don't think it is of any value, as it is typically apportioning a value judgement to the original speaker without any basis.

It would be much more appropriate to simply say "Mostly I disagree with his opinion". That would convey the truth of your position without dressing up someone elses position in false rags in order to make it easier to dismiss.

Regards,

 

[mmadsen]

Wait a second. How do you make something more realistic without making it more complicated than the D&D Armor Class set-up?

How do you make something more realistic without making it more complicated? Trivially. Because detail and realism are not the same thing.

D&D combat is abstract and unrealistic, Rolemaster combat is detailed -- graphic even -- and unrealistic. GURPS combat is detailed and (fairly) realistic. Many wargames are abstract and realistic.

We could move D&D into this abstract and realistic space any number of ways. For instance, we could make it even less detailed and a bit more realistic by replacing additional hit dice with AC bonuses. Done.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Seriously? One page rules systems aren't that hard to draw up. Draw up one for a D&D like system, and if you can make one you're happy with, see if other people are happy.

When OD&D first came out I read a two page review in a games magazine and was instantly hooked. Trouble was, I couldn't afford the price of the white box set. What was I to do?

I got out a sheet of A5 and made up some rules based upon what I could reverse engineer from the article, drew up a dungeon on graph paper and got some friends round. We had weeks of fun while saving up for my first actual RPG (which was Metamorphosis Alpha as it turns out - cheaper and thus the first I could get to!)

Cheers

 

[mmadsen]

I never really played 1st Ed, but I did play 2nd extensively. And while I would never go back to that edition, or one like it, there's certainly no denying that I had a huge amount of fun with that system at the time.

When OD&D first came out I read a two page review in a games magazine and was instantly hooked. Trouble was, I couldn't afford the price of the white box set. What was I to do?

I got out a sheet of A5 and made up some rules based upon what I could reverse engineer from the article, drew up a dungeon on graph paper and got some friends round. We had weeks of fun while saving up for my first actual RPG (which was Metamorphosis Alpha as it turns out - cheaper and thus the first I could get to!)

These two stories remind me that I had a lot of fun with AD&D -- pared down more or less to Basic D&D, really -- but the system, in retrospect, got in the way; it was the concept that was golden. And the giant lists of monsters, spells, and magic items.