Going Retro

[Mercutio01]

The people I played with during the 2E years wrote down a little THAC0 table on our sheets. We'd tell the DM what AC we would be able hit and he told us if we hit or not. It didn't hide monster AC much better than the current system, but you really only had to do the math once, when you created the character.

In some respects, I think the system was a bit better because there were caps on how good your AC could be, but the math was a bit counter-intuitive.

 

[Reynard]

The fact is, it's easier to run long-term games with modern rules because they give you more details to serve as plot hooks.

That's hardly fact. My experience is exactly the opposite. The earlier editions, particularly OD&D and Basic, get out of my way and let me run the game much better. I love PF, but it's a lot harder to run on the fly.

On topic: never underestimate the power of " officialness." Yes, B/X is readily available used, and Labyrinth Lord is great, but WotC could sell tons of "new" B/X sets.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

(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 you build it, they will come. I don't know the numbers that would legitimately compare the people PLAYING older editions and retroclones versus those playing 3E/PF, and those playing 4E. I don't believe ANYBODY really has those numbers. Oh, you can compare SALES but that's not the same as knowing how many people are actually playing what since older editions aren't going to show up in current sales figures and even with 4E you don't have to own and continue to buy tons of materials to continue to play.

As you say though, that market IS conservative. But that doesn't mean they won't go for anything new - it means the game they want to play needs to appreciate and accommodate the STYLE of rules and gameplay that they're after which is a LARGE part of the discontent with newer editions. It's not a blanket disdain of anything new - it's a desire to get back what has been lost.

(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.

Even for those for which that's true it's FAR from being their ONLY reason behind their choice. If I had to guess (and I suppose I do since that's sorta what the thread is about) most people are likely playing 3e/PF largely just because 3E is the version THEY started with.

(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.

I don't think you're seeing/appreciating the larger picture. It's like you refuse to believe that people CAN change editions for some reason - but it happens a fair amount. Certainly it happened on a MASSIVE scale with the change from 1E to 2E, from 2E to 3E, from 3E to 4E and over to Pathfinder. People have drifted around after all these changes, whether back to their originally experienced version of D&D, over to other non-D&D systems, skipped over editions to land on playing a more recent one, etc. I've seen any number of people posting to say they missed 3E altogether and now love 4E. I've seen people who moved back to 3E from 4E, or to retroclones. People moved from 3E to PF and never touched 4E at all. Etc. Etc.

Someday 4E will end - that is to say that for one reason or another WotC will almost certainly cease publishing it/actively supporting it. Or maybe a business model can be found that will allow them to stop pretending that other versions of D&D universally suck or don't exist. People can and do play multiple versions of D&D and can and will drift from one to another as their own preferences - and the gaming market - shift.

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.

See, now this tells me only that YOU have a curiously narrow point of view. "Unplayable historical curiosity"? DUDE... the game you play NOW - regardless of what version of D&D that might be or even IF it's D&D at all - owes its existence to the fact that OD&D was extraordinarily playable and enjoyable leading to so many people expanding on what they could and would do with it. Yes, it's quite... simplistic compared to a "modern" set of RPG rules - but that's hardly the explanation for why it's now such a small portion of what's actually being played.

"Unplayable"? That's really a rather boggling word to be using.

 

[scruffygrognard]

That's hardly fact. My experience is exactly the opposite. The earlier editions, particularly OD&D and Basic, get out of my way and let me run the game much better. I love PF, but it's a lot harder to run on the fly.

I agree. The rule complexity of 3.X ruined it for high-level games (for me and the guys I play with).

As a DM, having to "construct" high-level NPCs was a chore and got in the way of my creativity. As a player and DM, dealing with endless rules and stacking effects got in the way of my good time.

I'd hope to see a future version of D&D with a level of complexity on par with Savage Worlds or Castles & Crusades.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

It's basically another way of approaching BAB, but based around an absolute target number instead of giving a set modifier.

 

[wingsandsword]

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.

Same here. THAC0 makes no sense, at least on the surface, and was a huge impediment to learning the game. Back when I first tried to learn to play D&D was in 1991, with the "Black Box" basic D&D set. My friends and myself opened it and tried to learn. . .and we all gave up because we just couldn't figure out THAC0.

7 years later I found a gaming group in college, playing AD&D 2e, and I still didn't get THAC0. . .I ended up making an elaborate chart for every character of what roll I needed to hit which AC, depending on which weapon my character was using.

The 3.x "roll a d20, add your bonuses, if the sum of the d20 roll and bonuses is over the AC of the target, you hit" is way, way, WAY more intuitive than THAC0 ever was.

 

[TerraDave]

In theory, I think D&D Classic could sell well, as the core audience for the game, including 3E and 4E fans, are 30 something (at least) that remain retro curious and could buy it.

But yes, where do stop the "clean up". How backwards compatible is it? I agree that this would be a major, major sticking point.

 

[Reynard]

It's basically another way of approaching BAB, but based around an absolute target number instead of giving a set modifier.

It's important to note, I think, that THAC0 is a response to "anti-chartism." In AD&D and BD&D (and I assume OD&D) you didn't have an "attack value", you rolled on a matrix that cross referenced your class/level and your opponent's Armor Class. It's a subtle difference, but it illustrate how older versions came at the perspective of PCs and PC abilities differently than newer versions. Saving throws were another one: the power of the opponent or effect didn't determine how difficult it was to overcome; rather, it was the inherent heroism (i.e. level) of the PC that determined how likely one was to shrug off that poisonous bite or dragon fire.

 

[Glade Riven]

Well, thanks to those who explained Thac0 as I now understand it better, but I can honestly say I'm glad it was replaced.

One important thing to keep in mind is whether or not something feels retro/classic verses a rerelease. Hitting the sweet spot can be tricky, though. Hasbro's had experiance with this in their Transformer line - Transformers Energon (from a few years back) had a lot in common with the G1 cartoons, which were terrible but remembered as great. Fans decryed it. Despite a few nitpicks (mainly because Transfandom is one of the angryist fandoms ever), in recent years Transformers has done rather well; the first and third movies were decent (the second would have been probably been decent if not for the writer's strike), and the last couple of cartoon shows appear to be well recieved (Transformers Animated, Prime).

Some of this is about what you think you want isn't necessarelly what you want. Some 2nd Ed. gamers liked 4e when it came out despite not liking 3e, because certain aspects they found had a feel more along the lines of how they played D&D 2e. Part of the issue is that we are trying to distill the esoteric (such as feel) into a workable rule system.

If WotC can recreate that feel (which seems to be where Monte Cook is aiming with his recent articles), that can be a good money maker.

 

[Mercutio01]

G1 cartoons, which were terrible but remembered as great.

This is not a universal truth anymore than personal feelings about D&D editions are universal truths. I happen to like the original cartoons better than any other version.

I recently started in a 1E AD&D PBP game (that sadly died before it had a chance to get started), but just creating the character made much of the nostalgia float away. I can't say the same thing for Transformers, where watching it confirmed that, to me anyway, it's still a better cartoon than much of the crap (again, my opinion) that gets broadcast today (I'm looking at you "Regular Show," "Adventure Time," and "Gumball.")