I can't help but wonder--how many AD&D 1e players ARE there out there?

[dcas]

Incidentally, am I right in believing that the OGL cannot be revoked?

The version of the OGL under which the 3.0 and 3.5 SRDs were published is irrevocable ("perpetual"). Of course, a new version of D&D might be released under a different OGL, one that can be revoked, or not released as "open gaming content" at all.

 

[Rothe]

....

That said, the 1e we play has had 25 years worth of modifications done to it...but it's still vaguely recognizable as 1e, I think.

I think that sums it up nicely. What do you mean by 1e AD&D? Some say AD&D is meant to be played by-the-book (or at least pretty much). You changed the rules too much and it's not AD&D. Most AD&D I've seen or played since 1979 has had many house-rules. Most gap fillers but then one person's gap filler is another person's heresy.

Down load numbers are interesting, but I can say I've downloaded a lot of free stuff for games I don't play and will never play. Sales may be a better indication especially the higher the price point of the item.

 

[tx7321]

WOTC and HASBRO won't move 4E to the table unless they KNOW they have an audiance.
3.5 players will switch, hook or by crook. Those that don't may want to try something new. That will be 1. C&C or 2. OSRIC/AD&D1, or leave altogether.

I don't see the majority of people sticking with 3E (except the hard cores), its too based on new releases like "splat books" etc. (and the 4E magnet will suck'em up). Remember I said it first.

Maybe 4E will be simpler then 3E, more like C&C (in speed etc)? Sure less RPG based but easier and quicker to play.

 

[Rhuvein]

Loads

Heh, I love this question and have asked it myself on other forums. Hard to tell, for sure. But there must be some way of getting some ballpark figures. I myself am an online player, so hopefully I count! If I could join a local FtF group, I would.

 

[silver_wizard]

3.5 players will switch, hook or by crook. Those that don't may want to try something new. That will be 1. C&C or 2. OSRIC/AD&D1, or leave altogether.

THIS time, however, I do have a feeling it won't go as smoothly as before, because this time people who don't want to change will have a really viable alternative, the OGL being irrevokable and such.

I don't see the majority of people sticking with 3E (except the hard cores), its too based on new releases like "splat books" etc. (and the 4E magnet will suck'em up).

I don't either, but the percentage of people who will refuse to convert to 4E (or convert and then switch back to 3E) will be higher this time.

Maybe 4E will be simpler then 3E, more like C&C (in speed etc)? Sure less RPG based but easier and quicker to play.

Simplicity is not necessarily synonymous to lack of RP. Like I said in an earlier post, I think 4E will move one more step away from currently OOP editions (which may not be a good thing).

 

[tx7321]

Posted Yesterday by Ghul -Or you can do what I've done: blend the two together. I run a C&C AD&D 1e hybrid. They're lovely together, like Brad and Angelina. No, I didn't just say that...-



Hmmm...mixing C&C with AD&D1 seems odd. Do you mean use AD&D1 rules with C&C modules, or vis versa? Or do you mean changing the C&C core rules to match AD&D1?

C&C just didn't go far enough away from 3E in my opinion. Its the middle ground perhaps, but I'd like to try out the grass on the other side of the fence.

BTW, there are plenty of old AD&D1 modules on PDF to run, many written by Gary Gygax "in the day" late 70s. Read some. You just can't get that from C&C (short, open ended, and sweet).

Honestly, how many here (besides those who gamed in the 80s) ever really gave AD&D1 a shot (say 3 months)? If not, why? I find it odd we'll try any game that comes along but won't go back to the roots (being told to "mix" systems rather then just play it pure...jeeze. Its wierd.

Most posting here came in on 3E. Those that got tired trying to run a battle in under an hour switched to C&C etc. But I understand AD&D1 runs just as fast, but leaves all the D20ism and sillyness behind. "A clean slate" I guess is what I'm looking for.

BUT, to each their own.

 

[grodog]

Most posting here came in on 3E.

Actually, that's not true. About 1/3 of ENWorld's users started playing D&D in 1980 or earlier:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=171146

 

[Henry]

Hmmm...mixing C&C with AD&D1 seems odd. Do you mean use AD&D1 rules with C&C modules, or vis versa? Or do you mean changing the C&C core rules to match AD&D1?

Well, the way I've done it before (several times) is to use the 1E modules, and 1E NPCs and monsters, but only quick-converting the ACs and to-hit numbers over to C&C. It's without a doubt the easiest halfway measure for me to both get new players playing characters, and for me to put almost no prep-work into a quick evening's adventure.

The only thing I CANNOT shake, however, is dumping the "new initiative each round" and returning to cyclic initiative. Even time I start with "roll each round" I find myself unconsciously navigating right back to d20's Inits due to ease of use!

Honestly, how many here (besides those who gamed in the 80s) ever really gave AD&D1 a shot (say 3 months)? If not, why? I find it odd we'll try any game that comes along but won't go back to the roots (being told to "mix" systems rather then just play it pure...jeeze. Its wierd.

It's been discussed here ad infinitum, but the core argument to me seems to boil down to, "the players who are attracted to lots of mechanical options for their PCs just don't find enough of that thrill in the older editions without the DM making lots of customizations." For AD&D fans who grew up with that environment of DM ad-hoc rules control, and player-DM collaboration on unique additional rules for your personal character, then it can be harder to grasp.

 

[tx7321]

It should also be pointed out the folks who brought us 3E also brought us Magic (a non role playing game, but heavy into adding powers etc., so what your saying Henry seems logical.

I imagine WOTC counted on its core Magic players trying out 3E. If thats true, then what they did wasn't a bad thing (bringing non FRPG players into the fold). I know alot of guys that started this way come to think of it.

So, really C&C/OSRIC-AD&D1 are designed for a different kind of player then 3E, they are 2 unique markets (as you pointed out above). I hate math and I'm sure thats why I prefer GMing C&C and AD&D1.

 

[Lanefan]

It should also be pointed out the folks who brought us 3E also brought us Magic (a non role playing game, but heavy into adding powers etc., so what your saying Henry seems logical.

I imagine WOTC counted on its core Magic players trying out 3E. If thats true, then what they did wasn't a bad thing (bringing non FRPG players into the fold). I know alot of guys that started this way come to think of it.

Good point. For us it went the other way; our gaming crew at the time discovered Magic, and the game almost sank as a direct result.

The other thing that carried over from Magic to 3e was this: Magic has a rule for *everything*. The rules file, last I checked, was well over 1 meg in size, text-only! That philosophy filtered into their design of D+D; they tried to clarify the rules and ended up adding lots more as a result, and (also like Magic) they're now busy errata-ing them at every turn. Good for consistency between games, not so good for DM's who like to tinker.

Lanefan