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

[Aus_Snow]

Overall, I'm really happy with the system and love how you can use your old AD&D books and new D&D books all in the same game. It's really fun to use.

Argh! Curses!

It's just that now I'm probably going to have to at least check out the PDF, and see if I can't make it suit some peculiar ideas I have in mind. I said I wasn't going to comment further on this game, but. . .

That last bit nearly sold it all in one fell swoop. I would love to be able to *easily*, *freely* mix and match old and new sources. Is it really dead simple and quick, doing that with C&C?

I already use some old with my various takes on the new - and some kinds of sideways material - but to have that kind of freedom of access, all the time. . . what can I say. I'm intrigued.

 

[Psion]

Sufice it to say that you and Psion are wrong about this whole thing on so many levels that it boggles the imagination.

Just FYI, "wrong with wrong sauce on top" type statements tend to be interpreted by the mods as "turning up the rhetoric." If you think we are so wrong, then demonstrate that we are. Lacking that, consider the possibility that we aren't.

I do not know why you are both so against OD&D and AD&D, while I am not against 3E/3.5E at all, other than I have no deserve to buy it myself.

I'm not against OD&D and AD&D. Indeed, one of my most attended to publishers prints with the mantra "first edition feel." I think every edition had its strong points, and I am glad that at least one publisher caters to them. Further, I was in the same spot as you once. I loved (and still do) MegaTraveller, and stuck with it when The New Era came out. I wish I had as much support as you did from third parties for my continued love for my game of choice back then. In fact, I wonder if I would move forward with a 4th edition were it printed any time soon.

But I really consider your arguments about the economic viability to stem from wishful thinking on your part, and consider it extremely likely that WotC knows quite a bit more about the economic reality of their market than you do.

 

[tx7321]

Storm Raven, I guess your experiance with 3E is just different then mine. If by now you haven't discovered any problems in game play with 3E, its probably a great match for you.

Perhaps the differences in opinions between the 1E camp and the 3E camp really always boiled down to personality types. 3E isn't "worse" then 1E, its just different, and in all likelyhood is designed for a different personality type (Magic players maybe?) then 1E.

3E is a slick well thought out system for what it is. And its presentation (in art and feel) really hit the demographic WOTC was aiming for. The only thing that bugged me at the time was WOTC online publicity drive (basically a lie that 3E was a return to 1E) which IMO was an attempt to sell books rather then be honest.

 

[Dragonhelm]

That last bit nearly sold it all in one fell swoop. I would love to be able to *easily*, *freely* mix and match old and new sources. Is it really dead simple and quick, doing that with C&C?

I think so. AD&D material is mostly a matter of switching descending THACO and AC to ascending Base to Hit and AC, which is a breeze. You can convert a module on the fly if you wished. 3e is a little bit tougher to use, but not too terribly bad. I've heard some people say they convert 3e on the fly too.

For example, I was using materials from the old 2e Arms and Equipment Guide as well as converting the d20 Dragonlance module Spectre of Sorrows, all on the fly. I've also adapted some prestige classes along the way. Plus, you can easily adapt your 1e/2e races to C&C.

I already use some old with my various takes on the new - and some kinds of sideways material - but to have that kind of freedom of access, all the time. . . what can I say. I'm intrigued.

Welcome to the crusade!

3E isn't "worse" then 1E, its just different, and in all likelyhood is designed for a different personality type (Magic players maybe?) then 1E.

Also designed for a different demographic. 1e players are all grown up now, and 3e probably is geared more towards college age (taking a guess).

3E is a slick well thought out system for what it is. And its presentation (in art and feel) really hit the demographic WOTC was aiming for. The only thing that bugged me at the time was WOTC online publicity drive (basically a lie that 3E was a return to 1E) which IMO was an attempt to sell books rather then be honest.

There has been a drive to use book names from prior editions to sell new products. That's just marketing. Despite that, I think some great sourcebooks have been produced in the process. Unearthed Arcana is a great example of this.

 

[Psion]

The only thing that bugged me at the time was WOTC online publicity drive (basically a lie that 3E was a return to 1E) which IMO was an attempt to sell books rather then be honest.

If you dig around enough (and have access to the search function), you could probably find quite a few threads lamenting the "back to the dungeon" mentality being demonstrated in 3e and its releases.

 

[Storm Raven]

I disagree completely with you and the facts support my position.

What "facts"? The ones you made up?

There is no point in responding further to the bulk of your post so I will not.

Conceding the implausibility of your arguments early then?

As for you calling my arguement counterintuitive, I acknowledge your difficulty. In the example as you word it above, I would expect any reasonably intelligent person to understand that they are perfectly capable of learning Advanced Bunnies and Burrows without first learning Bunnies and Burrows. While you may choose to buy both or buy Bunnies and Burrows first, there is no logical reason to do so.

You might assume that. And many peopel, of course, have learned AD&D without ever buying or even looking at D&D, but in many cases that was because they didn't even know "D&D" existed.

But that doesn't matter. The question is one of perception, which is a point you simply don't seem to comprehend. The question is not "whether you need to learn D&D to play AD&D". No one has argued that. The question is whether a new or inexperienced consumer of the D&D/AD&D line of products would think that the games represented a "learning stage" and then a "advanced stage" of the game. The simple fact is that my anecdotal experience and WotCs market research showed this to be true. They even talked about this in the portions of the market research they put out.

This, coupled with the fact that the D&D line as a seperate product from the AD&D line had almost no market recognition (indeed, the majority of RPG gamers did, and probably still do, think of them almost interchangeably) makes the assertion that they dropped the "A" in order to create product confusion of the old "D&D" line pretty much downright silly.

You may want to think of the older D&D line as being markedly different (which I think is just wrong, the AD&D and D&D systems are incredibly similar in just about every significant way possible), but the perception people had is that they were not. And marketing is all about perception. AD&D was simply "D&D" in the minds of most of the relevant consumer base. Dropping the "A" was simply a recognition of that reality. They dropped the "A" because it was pointless, unnecessary, and confusing.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Another way of looking at primes is that instead of them lowering your target number, they essentially give you a +6 (?) bonus to various rolls tied to an ability score.

Yep, it's the equivalent of a +6, and quite a few people just adopt that instead of using the 12/18 base target numbers for prime vs. non-prime. I've also seen some people house-rule it to 10/15, instead of 12/18.

I'm not a huge fan of primes myself, as I feel you might as well have the higher ability score. But then again, I've added a skills system, and primes don't work the best with skills.

Yeah, if you're using a skill system, primes lose a great deal of their purpose, IMO.

It's just that now I'm probably going to have to at least check out the PDF, and see if I can't make it suit some peculiar ideas I have in mind.

If you get the PDF, keep in mind that it's a condensed version of the game. I'd recommend checking out the C&C Players Handbook, instead: I don't think it's that much more expensive (especially through Amazon).

That last bit nearly sold it all in one fell swoop. I would love to be able to *easily*, *freely* mix and match old and new sources. Is it really dead simple and quick, doing that with C&C?

Yes, it really is. This was a huge selling point for me, too, because I have tons of material from all the editions. I love being able to run B/X or AD&D modules and just converting on the fly. My wife has pulled out her old 2E Tome of Magic to use with her wizard. Low level 3E material converts without a problem. Higher level 3E stuff can be trickier, but by the time you get to the higher levels it isn't really that big of a deal.

 

[Rel]

Thread closed.