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

[Henry]

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.

Two things to keep in mind: 3E also brought a lot of people who USED to play D&D, who had been not playing since the late 1980's, to return to the ranks of active RPG gamers. (The discussions on this have been fairly common over the last 5 years). A lot of these players enjoyed AD&D, but then wanted something with a little more built-in variety mechanically speaking, so moved on to Warhammer, GURPS, Rolemaster, etc. etc. etc. When 3E hit, many of these came back, and some even moved RIGHT back into AD&D or other earlier versions of the Game (I believe poster J-Dawg fits this bill, and he plays all sorts of d20 games now, and another example is a gent by the moniker of WSmith who now frequents Dragonsfoot and plays Basic (BECM) D&D, to name some clear-to-mind examples.

Also, as you mention a LOT of newer gamers came through games like Magic the Gathering, and through Computer RPG's like Baldur's Gate and Everquest. One thing that Wulf Ratbane (fellow poster) made me realize through a 4th Edition speculation thread about two months back, was that "a gamer is a gamer is a gamer," no matter your personal poison of choice, because every new tabletop gamer is a convert to other tabletop games, including possibly 3rd edition D&D, Castles and Crusades, and even AD&D. In my own gaming group, 2 current players came to tabletop gaming by way of (respectively) Magic the Gathering and Computer RPG's. That's two people who WEREN'T RPG gaming five years ago.

Some of those will stay with 3E, or 4E, or whatever comes down the pike; others will want a different experience, and there are your AD&D convert potentials, right there.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Well, I think a lot of people dropped out between 1e and 3e; I think it's been well shown that 2e halved the size of the gaming market. But then 1e had been in decline for years, probably because of the decline in product quality.

I think that there's a lot of mileage left in 1e, which is why I've created what's essentially a First Edition System Reference Document.

 

[ghul]

My C&C AD&D 1e hybrid

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?

<snip>

Hello tx,

Happy to give you an idea of what I mean. I am using the C&C RPG infused with many aspects of the AD&D original game. I use the unified mechanic of C&C, called the SIEGE Engine, which resolves attribute checks, skill checks, racial abilities, saving throws, and just about anything the player dreams up that he'd like to attempt with his character.

I have a handfull of house rules, but here, per your request, are the AD&D 1e rules that I add to my game:

* Character creation rules: Method I + II from the DMG 1e.
* Classes allowed: per 1e Unearthed Arcana (though I do not use level limits)
* multi-classing: demi-humans only, per PHB 1e + UA 1e rules
* dual-classing: humans only, per PHB 1e + UA 1e rules (though I have housed these somewhat)
* Secondary Skills (based on 1e DMG)
* alignment -- follows the 1e Carlos Parlegreco article in Dragon #26
* alignment detection -- based on 1e DMG guidelines
* Acquisition of Cleric and Druid spells: per 1e DMG rules
* Acquisition of Magic-user and Illusionist Spells: per 1e DMG guidelines
* Spell books: per UA guidelines
* missile combat: misses are handled as per 1e rules, DMG
* hexagon grid combat: per 1e DMG rules for front, flank, and rear attacking (that is, when I call for miniature use, which is not all the time).
* THIEF, not rogue.

My game takes place in Greyhawk 576 CY, using the World of Greyhawk boxed set of 1983. Yggsburgh is set at the confluence of the Eery and Neen Rivers, respectively. Right now the adventurers are exploring the _Dark Chateau_ by Rob Kuntz. We have a lot of fun!

--Ghul

 

[grodog]

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.

See my post on page 1, Rhuvein, for my estimates, based on WotC's marketing survey research.

 

[tx7321]

Thanks Ghul. Yes, I'm familiar with C&C now, like I said, its SIEGE Engine is too 3Eish (resolving everything based on consistant and predictable dice throws just like 3E, only in a simpler way). SIEGE is "gamey" (which isn't bad if thats what your aiming for) and needs to go back to the way AD&D handled it (tables and different save methods the GM chooses at will).
If you remove SIEGE from your C&C game its very close to AD&D IMO. But your players will revolt, believe me.

I believe TLG included SIEGE for a reason, first minimize a skills system, then get rid of it all together in a future C&C2. Its a way of converting hard core 3Eers to a new way of thinking. Though, now that OSRIC is out of the bag, I don't think there will be a need for this.

With 4E to be out soon, its more important then ever that all the old edition factions hold together. Its a small pot to begin with, and 4E will likely suck these new converts away and make it smaller (it'll be the shiney new toy).

 

[ghul]

Thanks Ghul. Yes, I'm familiar with C&C now, like I said, its SIEGE Engine is too 3Eish (resolving everything based on consistant and predictable dice throws just like 3E, only in a simpler way). SIEGE is "gamey" (which isn't bad if thats what your aiming for) and needs to go back to the way AD&D handled it (tables and different save methods the GM chooses at will).

Hi tx,

Nice to hear from you again. While I very much enjoy the AD&D tables, and would gladly run a game with them, my group is having fun the C&C SIEGE engine, and so am I running it. I must, however, disagree with your assessment of C&C being "too 3eish" as I find it exactly opposite thereof. The system is intuitive, with a core mechanic that applies to all situations, yet variable in that every character has a different set of primary and secondary attributes. Also, the difficulty of any situation (challenge class) is completely determined by the DM, arbitrarily, based on the DM's sense of logic and probablility in the given situation. Thus, the DM holds the power, and no two situations are necessarily alike.

"I want to direct my horse to charge forward and vault over the fence at the end of the corall," says the player of the knight. "Okay," says the DM, "give me a horsemanship check." The player makes the roll, but he has no idea what challenge class number the DM has assigned. He simply informs the DM how much he made or missed his target number by.

If you remove SIEGE from your C&C game its very close to AD&D IMO. But your players will revolt, believe me.

No. My players will do as I tell them because I am the Dungeon Master and my power is absolute. I bend to the will of no one! Unless, of course, one of them would ever like to sit on my side of the screen and spell me, in which case I would expect exactly the same no-nonsense treatment. Revolting players! Bah!

I believe TLG included SIEGE for a reason, first minimize a skills system, then get rid of it all together in a future C&C2. Its a way of converting hard core 3Eers to a new way of thinking.

I'm sorry, but I don't subscribe to such conspiracy theories, your smiley face notwithstanding. I think the Trolls are fellow gamers who are making ends meet and gaining a small piece of the pie due to an honest passion for the game. And I don't think they are out to actively convert folks. "Convert or die!" People will come to C&C on their own if and when they are looking to play something different and with a decent amount of the old-school feel. Some may be 3e players, some may not.

Though, now that OSRIC is out of the bag, I don't think there will be a need for this.

I think OSRIC and C&C can only help one another, as compatibility is high and both appeal to the same demographic.

With 4E to be out soon, its more important then ever that all the old edition factions hold together. Its a small pot to begin with, and 4E will likely suck these new converts away and make it smaller (it'll be the shiney new toy).

Only time will tell. Presently, there seems to be quite a bit of folks who are going back to old-school gaming, or enjoying it for the first time, so I think the future is bright, despite that pen an paper games are challenged by a host of other entertainment forms these days. 4e would have to blow me away to make me spend any $$$ on it.

Take care,
--Ghul

 

[tx7321]

Ghul today -I must, however, disagree with your assessment of C&C being "too 3eish" as I find it exactly opposite thereof. The system is intuitive, with a core mechanic that applies to all situations, yet variable in that every character has a different set of primary and secondary attributes. Also, the difficulty of any situation (challenge class) is completely determined by the DM, arbitrarily, based on the DM's sense of logic and probablility in the given situation. Thus, the DM holds the power, and no two situations are necessarily alike.-

First thanks for your posts, they are insightful.

I think your miss-reading me by your tone. C&C was the game that openned my eyes to simplistic fast combat (I had been a player in AD&D1 but never DMed it, in 3E I started DMing and found it overwhelming). Despite its simplicity, C&C still handles resolutions in a similar way to 3E (SIEGE) this is obvious to me anyway. Think about your example above: in 3E you add up modifiers (which takes time) and the DM still is the only one who knows what chance you have to succeed (just like in C&C). AD&D1, on the other hand, uses tables or the DM scratches his head and out of the blue says, "roll your dex" or "roll your petrification.
Its a system that encourages a role of the dice to determine outcome in any situation, even non-combat (remember bluff and fast talk...I hated those) its the same thing just less complex.

Anyhow don't get me wrong, C&C is great, and might end up being better then AD&D1 and D&D, but I won't know until I try.

Ghul your a lucky man to have players that aren't winey babies. I still haven't gotten my players to download OSRIC. Seriously, I should take your advise.

TLG is going to release a version 2 of C&C. The question is, with OSRIC having little or no difficulty in its legal stance (and it stays that way), will C&C switch?

 

[Odhanan]

AD&D1, on the other hand, uses tables or the DM scratches his head and out of the blue says, "roll your dex" or "roll your petrification.

Well, I do this with 3.X. Honestly, no joke. I feel that lots of the criticism from DMs against 3E comes from them not wanting to just relax and take the power. Instead, these DMs seem sometimes intimidated by their players, sometimes stubborn in taking the RAW as laws one has to abide to at all costs, and so on, so forth. But in the end, they are the ones taking the decision to submit to the system instead of using it, or parts of it, to their advantage.

 

[Mycanid]

Well ... I can't say I have really played much recently. I played a PbP of the Temple of Elemental Evil about a year ago using 1e rules - man was that fun - but nothing much since then.

I do still read many of the modules and books through. Usually for inspiration, nostalgia and just plain enjoyment - many of them are enjoyable reads for me.

 

[the Jester]

I'm gonna start a 1e game, literally, any day now.

Am I just being nostalgic? I don't know. It won't likely become our "alpha" game, but it should be a fun change of pace!