Going Retro

[Glade Riven]

Something in these recent 5e threads got me a thinking...what if, WHAT if...WotC does something a bit more like their own retro clone.

D&D Anniversery Edition, which plays more like AD&D with a few modern concepts tossed in to make it easier for 4e gamers to pick up (and, y'know, clean up some issues; AC instead of THACO, etc). It may not even be a replacement for 4e, but rather a special release - a box set that goes old school, with no real planned suppliments.

I know, I know, now someone is gonna point out that we already have retro clones. But I'm not thinking a clone so much as a feel or style.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Can I point out that AC as a replacement for THACO makes no sense at all?

 

[Stormonu]

I think he means ascending AC and BAB replacing THAC0.

It's an interesting thought, but the real question would be "Where do you stop cleaning up?"

Would you just "fix" AC? What about saves? Would you incorporate the Wilderness Survival Guide/Dungeoneer's Survival Guide or even 2E proficiencies? Would psionics be included? Bards? Would they be "fixed"? What about "clunky" 18/XX Strength? Would thief skills be fixed or customizable ala 2E? Would you keep percentages for those old skills? What about multiclassing and level limits? And on, and on...

Honestly, if I were to attempt such a thing, it's probably end up being pretty close to Castle & Crusades, I think.

 

[Rogue Agent]

Something in these recent 5e threads got me a thinking...what if, WHAT if...WotC does something a bit more like their own retro clone.

It's not going to happen.

(1) The actual retro market is incredibly minuscule compared to the existing D&D and Pathfinder markets. Most of that market is incredibly conservative and you're never going to make any appreciable inroads in picking them up.

(2) 3.5/Pathfinder gamers generally like the fact that 3rd Edition cleaned up AD&D and incorporated most of the house rules people had been playing with for years or decades. That's why they're playing 3.5/Pathfinder instead of a retro clone in the first place.

(3) 4th Edition is a radically different game and a slightly tweaked version of AD&D is not going to appeal to 4E fans.

So you'll lose 4E fans (probably in droves). You almost certainly won't pick up any significant portion of the 3.X market you've already lost. And even if you created an OSR-darling, the conversion numbers would still be minuscule.

From a business standpoint, there's basically no angle from which that looks anything remotely like a good idea.

It may not even be a replacement for 4e, but rather a special release - a box set that goes old school, with no real planned suppliments.

That might happen. There is a market for "original edition" games and Hasbro has been known to release them.

But it probably won't because OD&D is an unplayable historical curiosity. I think every serious gamer should hunt down a copy and read through it because there's a lot of valuable insight to be had from that, but it has basically zero mainstream appeal.

The most likely product you actually might be able to release like that would be the BECMI Basic Set (widely reputed to be the bestselling version of the game in history). But you just released a look-a-like Starter Set for 4th Edition, which would thoroughly muddy your efforts to market the nostalgia product.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

(1) The actual retro market is incredibly minuscule compared to the existing D&D and Pathfinder markets. Most of that market is incredibly conservative and you're never going to make any appreciable inroads in picking them up.

If Zak is being honest about the sales of Vornheim, and there's no reason to believe that he's not, the retro market is actually capable of turning out in pretty large numbers to buy the right products. And given that mainstream RPG sales have dwindled way, way down in recent years, the actual difference between the two markets may not be meaningfully far apart at all.

 

[Glade Riven]

Okay..

1. Look, I've started gaming with 3e, and while I've read the rules for how Thac0 work and had it explained to me, it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

2. I keep hearing on Enworld how everything was better back in the "good old days" from various posters, which does indicate there is a retro market if done right. But forums also have a tendency to concentrate people who like to complain how everything was better from back in the "good old days" and this is usually clouded by nostalgia (no, it is not specific to RPGs).

3. Videogame, books, toys, etc. have fairly lucrative "Collector's Editions" that have a higher price point, and I can see that a few people around here would be more than willing to buy a reprint of AD&D 2nd Ed core with a faux leather cover with rivited corners and an interior with cleaned up typography and art (that doesn't mean that art will be replaced, but a bit digital restoration may be required).

 

[ExploderWizard]

But it probably won't because OD&D is an unplayable historical curiosity. I think every serious gamer should hunt down a copy and read through it because there's a lot of valuable insight to be had from that, but it has basically zero mainstream appeal.

I think people currently running and playing in OD&D campaigns would find this fascinating.

 

[juboke]

1. Look, I've started gaming with 3e, and while I've read the rules for how Thac0 work and had it explained to me, it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense..

THAC0 - AC = roll needed to hit

Examples:

i. an attacker has a THAC0 of 15 and the target has an AC 3: 15 - 3 = 12. The attacker must roll a 12 or more to hit.

ii. an attacker has a THAC0 of 15 and the target has an AC -2: 15 - (-2) = 17. The attacker must roll a 17 or more to hit.

 

[Dragonblade]

THAC0 is very easy. Its the number you need to hit an AC of 0.

In 2e, AC went from 10 to -10. 10 was the worst AC and -10 was the best. If you had a THAC0 of say 15, that meant you could hit an enemy with an AC of 0 on a 15 or higher with a d20.

If the monster you were fighting had an AC of 10, you would need to roll a 5 or higher. If the monster had -10, you would need to roll a 25. Since a 25 is impossible, you need a natural 20. (and technically a +5 sword as well, but since a natural 20 always hits, its enough).

Another way to look at it is a positive enemy AC effectively gave you a bonus to your attack roll, while a negative AC subtracts from it. Likewise, the plus from a magical weapon, or other source, also gave you a bonus to your roll.

So say, you have a THAC0 of 15 and rolled a 13 and are fighting a monster with AC 0, that would be a miss. But if you had a +2 or greater sword, you would add that bonus to your d20 attack roll and now you would hit since you reached the target number of 15.

Generally, when we played 2e way back in the day, we would announce how far over or under THAC0 we were and then the DM would tell us whether we hit or not. That way the AC of the monster was sort of a secret. At least for the first couple of rounds till we did the math ourselves and figured out what rolls were hitting and what were missing.

So if my THAC0 was 15 and I rolled a 17 after all bonuses were applied, then I would announce "I hit 2 above THAC0" or just "2 above". That tells the DM I rolled well enough to hit an AC of -2. Likewise, if I rolled a 10 after all bonuses, I would say I rolled "5 below", telling the DM I can hit an AC 5 or worse. But if the monster had an AC of 4 or better, I would miss.

Make sense?

I think a lot of confusion stems from the terminology used. You need to roll "above" THAC0 to hit a monster with a "negative" AC.

 

[OpsKT]

While I like Castles and Crusades for the BECM feel without THAC0, it's pretty much something I run as a convention game or a pick-up game only. The fact is, it seems to me like it's easier to run long-term games with modern rules because they give you more details to the characters to serve as plot hooks.

I don't really see Wizards doing this as a full game line. At best, maybe some anniversary editions of some old books.