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

[tx7321]

Moogle: "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?"

Oh, I agree with you 100%. What I'm getting at is this, the more you can taste and see and feel like your really there (like reading a really good book or movie, but your the character doing whatever the hell you want) the better. And that often comes with the fluidity of not knowing whats going on in terms of rules. Just sitting back and rolling the dice when told to.

Thats what I mean by "reality", a situation when you forget your playing a game and your totally "sucked in" doing those incredible and epic things...not unlike the heroes of a movie or adventure novel. The Sword and Sorcery world you play in is your "reality" shared only by you (and the DM and all the other players have theirs' as well). The DM only controls when you role and what you role (the game part), you control what you imagine.

 

[Crimhthan_The_Great]

...that it would be a bad idea for WotC to bring out OD&D and AD&D again, mostly because of the risk of confusing the marketplace (consumers and distributors),...

Oh I agree that at this late date, it would create confusion if they were to go back and try to undue the past mistakes of T$R & WotC, but there should have been no confusion if the old stuff had never been allowed to go out of print. And of course 3rd Ed AD&D should have been left with that name instead of lying to the public and dropping the Advanced part of the name and pretending that it is D&D. 3E and 3.5E are descended from AD&D not D&D and the pretense by WotC that it is otherwise is particulary offensive. This is not to be taken that I am knocking 3E or 3.5E, I am not, but there is no reason to falsely identify them, it is unnecessary.

My memories of the confusion I experienced over the difference between Basic D&D and AD&D makes me cringe. Sure, hard core gamers will tell them apart. But hard core gamers can get their fix without WotC having to reprint the stuff.

Why were you confused? I do not understand what there was to be confused about?

The purpose of reprints is to replace things that are wearing out. I have been playing since 1971 (starting with Chainmail Fantasy). I have worn out several sets of photo copies. If I could buy reprints I would prefer that highly to using photocopies or printouts of pdfs. My group is up over 2700+ game sessions at an average of 14 hours each and counting. We would buy reprints every few years if they were available, while some things can be had cheaply on ebay, other things are quite pricy if you intend to use them.

 

[Crimhthan_The_Great]

And there's the problem right there. What you decide can be done in real life and what I decide can be done in real life can be entirely different. Thus, the players are pretty much beholden to whatever the DM decides is reasonable. Having had far too many rows in game over exactly this sort of thing, I, for one, am very, very happy to see that taken out of the hands of the DM.

The sad thing about this, is that you are serious. I can not imagine playing with a group of people that would disagree with the DMs ruling to the point of it becoming a "row." My group would quickly show the door to a player(s) who would consistenly stoop to wasting valuable playing time arguing about DM rulings. Sounds like a unpleasant group of people that you were playing with. I and the people that I play with don't have time for rules lawyer types that have to have their way all the time to the detriment of the game.

 

[Crimhthan_The_Great]

Can you cite a source of this WotC/Hasbro assertion? (Not that I'm doubting you, I'd just curious about the source.)

In truth, WotC is selling oAD&D & classic D&D. (& even Mythus!) They may be low quality PDFs, but they are selling them. (It's unfortunate that oD&D--except for the supplements--isn't available, though.)

There's also the possibility that the WotC/Kenzer agreement puts some limits on what WotC can do in support of the older editions.

A number of people in posts have stated that they have personally approached WotC/Hasbro and been told such. If I had the time and inclination, I am confident that I could re-find such posted comments. I feel no obligation to provide a link to everything that I post.

I do not count pdfs, since when you print them you essentially only have a photo copy quality anyway. I want to buy the professionally printed and bound product.

 

[Aus_Snow]

The sad thing about this, is that you are serious. I can not imagine playing with a group of people that would disagree with the DMs ruling to the point of it becoming a "row." My group would quickly show the door to a player(s) who would consistenly stoop to wasting valuable playing time arguing about DM rulings. Sounds like a unpleasant group of people that you were playing with. I and the people that I play with don't have time for rules lawyer types that have to have their way all the time to the detriment of the game.

Thera are other reasons why there might be a "row" over that kind of issue. The DM might be a petty tyrant - which would not be a first, by any means. The DM might be truly incompetent - again, not a first, I'm quite sure.

If a DM is "empowered" by virtue of their using a less consistent rules base, that DM had better be the very model of not only a good DM, but an excellent person in general. Which is not to say this is impossible, just - I suspect - rather rare.

What was that about absolute power again?


But by the way, I don't have a stake in 1e/OSRIC/C&C etc., one way or the other. I honestly couldn't care if they became the Next Big Thing, disappeared entirely off the face of the Earth, or something in between (which, OK, is the most likely). I guess that I still don't 'get' what the hoohah is, having been enamoured of 3e/d20 ever since I started playing it, then running it, in '03.

 

[jgbrowning]

What was that about absolute power again?

With absolute power comes an excellent cheese toasty?



joe b.

 

[Aus_Snow]

With absolute power comes an excellent cheese toasty?

Why yes. And there's no telling where that will lead.

I rest my case.

 

[Crimhthan_The_Great]

Thera are other reasons why there might be a "row" over that kind of issue. The DM might be a petty tyrant - which would not be a first, by any means. The DM might be truly incompetent - again, not a first, I'm quite sure.

If a DM is "empowered" by virtue of their using a less consistent rules base, that DM had better be the very model of not only a good DM, but an excellent person in general. Which is not to say this is impossible, just - I suspect - rather rare.

What was that about absolute power again?

If the DM is a petty tyrant, find a different game or start your own. If the DM is incompetent, same answer.

I do not know why you would call either OD&D or OAD&D a "less consistent rules base" that seems to me to be an unwarranted slam against games that you have not played. The DM is "empowered" by the players choosing to play in the DMs campaign and stays "empowered" by being the DM that provides a high quality and quantity of fun. OAD&D and OD&D in particular require a DM that can think on his feet. The pinnacle of DMing is to be able to keep 4-15 players engrossed in a campaign for 14 hours or more with minimal prep time and do it week in and week out for years at a time.

Absolute power would be the ability to force players to stay in your game whether they had any fun or not, so it is really not applicable to any D&D campaign that I have ever heard of.

 

[Aus_Snow]

If the DM is a petty tyrant, find a different game or start your own. If the DM is incompetent, same answer.

I do not know why you would call either OD&D or OAD&D a "less consistent rules base" that seems to me to be an unwarranted slam against games that you have not played. The DM is "empowered" by the players choosing to play in the DMs campaign and stays "empowered" by being the DM that provides a high quality and quantity of fun. OAD&D and OD&D in particular require a DM that can think on his feet. The pinnacle of DMing is to be able to keep 4-15 players engrossed in a campaign for 14 hours or more with minimal prep time.

Absolute power would be the ability to force players to stay in your game whether they had any fun or not, so it is really not applicable to any D&D campaign that I have ever heard of.

*sigh*

I have played - and run - 1e. I've played BECMI.

They are less consistent rules bases (though you'll note that I wasn't actually referring to OD&D at all) - this is something that even most diehard oldschoolers will generally admit, and have no issues with.

It's not universally a value judgement, that's the thing. That you took it that way is. . . well, that's your choice; fair enough. Me personally, I do value consistency in the rules of any game I play (or run, only more so). To others, it's not nearly as important. I get that, and have no issue with that fact.


Re: power and DMs, sometimes there are not a lot of options for some people. They might feel that they have to put up with whatever is inflicted on them (to a point), just in order to game. There have certainly been enough accounts of somewhat similar circumstances on ENWorld just in recent times, for me to assume that it can't be that uncommon.


edit --- though I do agree that the ability to think on one's feet is a fine trait for a DM to possess.

 

[Lanefan]

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).

I've never seen it as unsustainable at all. The players need to know only those rules that apply to them and-or their characters; the DM needs to know the rest. There are a great many things players do not *need* to know (THAC0/BAB being but one) but for some reason do. That was always one of the true attractions in the game for me, at least before I started DM'ing; that I didn't know everything, that there was arcane game knowledge I was not privy to, that everything wasn't laid out on a platter. Then again, I was fortunate in having a competent DM.

Lanefan