Is the AD&D 1E Revival here to stay?

[Maggan]

Am I right in thinking D&D was never translated into Swedish?

If so, that seems a bit discourteous to me. Although every Swedish person I've ever met has spoken better English than I do, there's no justification for assuming you'll speak it! A market of 100,000 paying customers merits some concessions to their language.

100,000 rules copies in Sweden alone is an amazing statistic. I had no idea that the game was so popular over there.

Ah, I was a bit fuzzy there. D&D was indeed translated. But the dominant RPG never was D&D, it was a BRP-translation called Drakar och Demoner released in 1982. It basically swept across sweden much in the same way D&D swept across america.

When the translation of D&D was finally done in 1987 or maybe even later, the consumers had decided against D&D. For a long while, asking someone if they played "Dungeons&Dragons" was considered an insult in swedish gamer circles.

So in Sweden, the market belonged to the first mover. Still, the number of gamers in Sweden during the 80's was truly staggering. Still today, the dominant RPG sells about 8000 copies or more of each release [EDIT: each release of the core rules, of course].

/M

 

[RFisher]

You know, if I were to choose how to play based on how I played the game in high school... I'm a completely different person now & have a completely different group. I have a completely different understanding of *D&D today than I did then.

Then we had knock-down drag-out fights about whether something was possible in real life or not. We had knock-down drag-outs over rules.† I was arrogant enough to think that if a rule looked stupid to me, it must be stupid, despite the fact that enough people thought it wasn't stupid--thought it was fun--that it made it into print.

†To some extent, I think we just enjoyed arguing then. So, this was actually part of the fun.

These days, we discuss whether something is possible in real life & what the chances of success are. We discuss rules. Then the DM makes a decision, & we all just live with it. If we later decide that was a bad decision, we're happy to do it differently in the future, consistency be damned. The DM isn't "god", but he is currently granted the final word. A small recompense for the responsibility he's accepted.

These days, when a rule looks stupid to me, I recognize that somebody didn't think it was stupid, & so I try to figure out how that could be. I might still house-rule it, but it is to be hoped that better understanding leads to better house-ruling.

If you're going to play like that, why even bothering to have rules? Just ask the DM if you can do something and have him decide the outcome. It would be little more than an interactive story with the DM as storyteller, but if everything is left totally up to DM fiat then thats what it is anyway. I want some structure and some assurance that what is supposed to happen will happen without the DM just deciding that he doesn't want it to.

I'm happy to play w/o rules. On the other hand, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. & just because the DM has final word doesn't mean that only what he wants to happen happens.

I appreciate your position, but I can't imagine gaming in an environment in which I feel I need some sort of protection from the DM.

 

[Umbran]

You don't think WOTC would benefit from a return to the old TSR values?

I ask because I don't see WOTC selling 75,000 copies of their modules.

You might want to give some evidence that "TSR values" were responsible for those sales numbers - as opposed to, say, relative lack of competition from other games and media. Hobbies and entertainment have changed a great deal in the intervening decades, so there should be little confidence that the old model would would particularly well today.

 

[tx7321]

Aaron: "Of course there's still an element of that in any roleplying game with a referee, but the "DM is god and the players are ants" analogy leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. I'm not playing D&D to be totally subject to the DMs whims. "

Just the same, that was always the DMs choice. Of course, I never sat with a DM that just went nuts like that. You could be assured there was a logical and stable setting to play in. The advantage to this gaming philosophy is: the players don't always know exactly what there chances are to do any particular task, sometimes (depending on what your talking about...like getting past a trap) it'll be role petrification, other times a D20, or a D100 or maybe 3D6. Not knowing your chances makes you feel more at risk, a higher sense of immersion, and thus less like your playing a game. (Oh, and it tends to drive away the power player, who typically can't stand not knowing there exact chance to do anyything). The more like reality the better.

As far as ants...yep, its the job of the PCs to explore the antfarm and create the story as they interact with the DMs setting (which he controls).

Aaron: "If you're going to play like that, why even bothering to have rules? Just ask the DM if you can do something and have him decide the outcome."

You still role your outcome in the way I play, you just don't know the "magic number" you need to role to save, hit etc..

 

[dcas]

The D20 STL doesn't allow modification of existing mechanics in the SRD. The broader scope of the OGL was (from my understanding) meant to allow for development of products like Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed or Mongoose's Conan RPGs which provide alternate rules with the same underlying mechanics as D&D. Such products are theoretically competing with the D&D core books but, in actuality, probably enhance the overall market for WotC (especially since aspects of WotC corebooks, splatbooks and setting books can be used with these products).

Ah, I misunderstood your post. I thought that you were claiming that the OGL was limited to facilitating support products like modules and supplements.

But I still don't understand why the OGL would allow for competing core books. The OGL business model was supposed to support sales of WOTC core books by allowing other companies to produce modules and supplements. ISTM that allowing other companies to produce core books undermines this model.

 

[Sharn]

I played only a little bit of 1E when I was a small kid, really grew up on 2E, and got back into D&D with 3E. I have to say that I like 3E the best, and the new game system is what has really kept me playing D&D...again. I won't support any old school products like 1E and 2E, but that's not to say they shouldn't be produced by someone for the benefit of others.

 

[Ourph]

But I still don't understand why the OGL would allow for competing core books. The OGL business model was supposed to support sales of WOTC core books by allowing other companies to produce modules and supplements. ISTM that allowing other companies to produce core books undermines this model.

If WotC gives away their core mechanics for free, people who are building competing games have a choice of either 1) making a game with different mechanics which aren't familiar to D&D players or 2) using the D&D core mechanics with different rules that facilitate whatever genre or feel they were attempting to produce. I think the idea behind the OGL is that it's better to have those competitors choosing option 2. It's better for them because they automatically have a huge pool of players to draw from who know their basic core mechanics (i.e. people who already play D&D3e), but it's also better for WotC because every gamer who gets into the hobby playing a game based on the D&D core mechanics is also learning how to play D&D. If he starts out playing Mutants & Masterminds, for example, and then decides he wants to try a little sword and sorcery fantasy he can either pick up D&D (with which he's already familiar because of his previous experience) or he can choose a competing system where he has to learn the rules from the ground up (Tunnels & Trolls for example). Obviously, D&D is still competing with other OGL-based sword and sorcery fantasy games, but since they are the big dogs on the block, the numbers will probably lean in their favor in the end. Plus, there's still the whole idea that you can easily use a D&D setting book or splatbook for your Conan game with little or no problem.

In other words, it's a way to keep the gaming market "D&D-centric" no matter how many competing games spring up.

I'm not sure I agree with the assumptions that go into creating that model, but I do believe that's an accurate paraphrasing of the underlying motive for creating an open license. IMO the OGL has probably helped WotC's competitors more than it has helped WotC, although I don't believe the OGL has seriously hurt WotC either. Everyone I know who plays OGL games plays them as an aside to their D&D3e games, so they're still buying lots of WotC products.

 

[Lanefan]

Actually, 3e doesn't take away any of the mystery - it was 2e that put the THAC0 on the PC's sheet.

The process in 2e:
(Before play):
* Player writes down THAC0 & static modifiers
(In play)
* Player rolls die
* Player adds modifiers
* Player applies formula: AC hit = THAC0 - die total
* Player announces AC hit to DM
* DM announces result

I didn't know this (then again, I never played 2e). So, what you're saying is I should be blaming 2e for this foolishness. OK, I can do that.

Lanefan

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

-snip- The more like reality the better.

See, this is the core of what I *hate* about this gaming philosophy. Not only am I not interested in my GM's idea of reality (which may diverge considerably from my own), I'm not the least bit interested in playing in *reality* at all.

When I'm playing a fantasy RPG, I'm interested in playing sword and sorcery. Its connection to reality is tenuous and grows stronger or weaker as required for dramatic tension. Telling me I can't do something in-genre because it's not realistic (IYHO, of course)? How about NO?

There's only two things I want in an RPG - gameplay and genre emulation. They tend to clash with each other from time to time and I've played games that leaned more one way or the other, but both clash with "realism."

 

[MerricB]

I didn't know this (then again, I never played 2e). So, what you're saying is I should be blaming 2e for this foolishness. OK, I can do that.

2e is notable for how it opened up the rules to the players. In fact, the 2e DMG is fairly bare: almost all the rules are in the PHB. What the 2e DMG had was the treasure & magic item tables and the XP tables. Oh, and the monster THAC0 table.

The stance of "only the DM should know the rules" had been recognised as unsustainable even back in oD&D days. (I seem to remember Tim Kask having a foreword to Eldritch Wizardry saying as much). It's interesting to see the tension between secrets and spoilers...

This was later played out in the early days of Magic: the Gathering, btw. Spoiler lists were not released by Wizards, who thought that the game was best played when people didn't know everything and could be surprised by new cards. (Of course, this was also during the days that they thought that a group would only buy about 5-6 starters and that was it... )

Modern design of both Magic and D&D now accepts that the players will know the rules and quite a few of the options; however, because of the multitude of options, people will still be surprised because (a) they can't remember them all and (b) combinations can be surprising.

Incidentally, don't confuse "options" with "rules".

Cheers!