Contrarian
Explorer
diaglo said:
Yep, they were there. Even had a coupon in the swag bag.
Egor's ebay store, in case anybody needs it: http://stores.ebay.com/Crazy-Egors
Is the AD&D 1E Revival here to stay?
- Thread starter tx7321
- Start date
- Status
Yep, they were there. Even had a coupon in the swag bag.
Egor's ebay store, in case anybody needs it: http://stores.ebay.com/Crazy-Egors
CRGreathouse
Community Supporter
PapersAndPaychecks said:
Drop that question on OGF-l and ask there -- that's where I hear most talk about it.
about the question of how to get today's gamer's to try AD&D...it was simple. I sent out an e-mail that went something like:
"Guys, its the Saturday after Thanksgiving and I am bored to tears. I want to run a game. Problem is, the adventure that I want to run is not for D&D 3.5 and I don't have time to convert it. So..would you be willing to play a game of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition?"
I got six takers. Three of them were high school kids who had never played any form of D&D except 3.x (although one had a mom who played AD&D1 extensively in college). They loved it! There are people out there who just want to game. I think it might actually be easier to get young people who have never played AD&D than people who have and moved on for whatever reason. There was some amusement at some of the "weird" rules (and I laughed along with them), but we had a wonderful time, even if the 12th level halfling thief did get a Daern's Instant Fortress dropped on top of him...
Allen
"Guys, its the Saturday after Thanksgiving and I am bored to tears. I want to run a game. Problem is, the adventure that I want to run is not for D&D 3.5 and I don't have time to convert it. So..would you be willing to play a game of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition?"
I got six takers. Three of them were high school kids who had never played any form of D&D except 3.x (although one had a mom who played AD&D1 extensively in college). They loved it! There are people out there who just want to game. I think it might actually be easier to get young people who have never played AD&D than people who have and moved on for whatever reason. There was some amusement at some of the "weird" rules (and I laughed along with them), but we had a wonderful time, even if the 12th level halfling thief did get a Daern's Instant Fortress dropped on top of him...
Allen
greywulf
First Post
Ant said:
Ant, thanks for the kind words. What you say is true - D&D 3.5e is a blast to play, and I love all the options and rules too (except AoO). Some of my bestest gamer memories come from full-on D&D, and long may it continue.
Sometimes though, we want something simpler, as a break from having to remember stuff. And a little nostalgia thrown in never hurt no-one either !
Myself, I wouldn't trade my D&D Rules Cyclopedia for all the dire rats in Faerun.
Philotomy Jurament
First Post
I did this, too. Prior to switching from 3E, I simplified and cut it down with an eye towards previous editions. It worked, but I ultimately switched to C&C, too. The slimmed down 3E rules met with resistance and there was a tendency to push for adding back what had been removed. Even for me as a DM, I found that the 3E rules had a certain amount of "gravity" that was hard to resist. Oddly, that tendency and sense of "rules entitlement" isn't present when using a different system (i.e. C&C, B/X). I guess making a clean break worked better for us. YMMV.Flexor the Mighty! said:
Treebore
First Post
I initially switched simply because I heard it allowed the use of all editions. Which I found out be true. I was initially moving towards a primarily 2E version fo C&C, but the more I ran it, well I just ultimately kept C&C as the core and just add in the bits and pieces from other edtions I like.
Which means the cool stuff made for something like OSRIC it is something I am "free" to check out, because if I liked it I could easily use it. It also helps that I also fell in love with Mythusmage's module. SHROOMS RULE!!! I'm still trying to figure out why I like it so much. The Shrooms must of struck some kind of primordial chord with me.
As for actually participating in an on-line Con? I would definitely check it out, and it would sure be awesome if it works, no matter what edition of D&D is at the "core" of the Con.
Besides, I hope to participate in TacoJohn's 1E game at next years GenCon. Simply because TacoJohn seems like a cool guy and I think that I would have a blast playing in his game, no matter what rules set he uses. Revisiting the 1E rules set is just going to be a pleasant bonus.
On line can work. I have noticed the C&C games I have played on-line go along much better than the 3E versions I played in or followed. Fewer "mechanics" is much better for on-line gaming IMO. At least for chat and PbP. Now if your talking a video conferencing type of game session, then I think any rules set will work just as well as it does on a normal table top.
Which means the cool stuff made for something like OSRIC it is something I am "free" to check out, because if I liked it I could easily use it. It also helps that I also fell in love with Mythusmage's module. SHROOMS RULE!!! I'm still trying to figure out why I like it so much. The Shrooms must of struck some kind of primordial chord with me.
As for actually participating in an on-line Con? I would definitely check it out, and it would sure be awesome if it works, no matter what edition of D&D is at the "core" of the Con.
Besides, I hope to participate in TacoJohn's 1E game at next years GenCon. Simply because TacoJohn seems like a cool guy and I think that I would have a blast playing in his game, no matter what rules set he uses. Revisiting the 1E rules set is just going to be a pleasant bonus.
On line can work. I have noticed the C&C games I have played on-line go along much better than the 3E versions I played in or followed. Fewer "mechanics" is much better for on-line gaming IMO. At least for chat and PbP. Now if your talking a video conferencing type of game session, then I think any rules set will work just as well as it does on a normal table top.
Maggen, that was a thoughtful post. You brought up some very interesting points:
"At the moment, there is much talk about OSRIC being the herald of the AD&D 1E goodness,. But before that, C&C was the herald of the change back to the basics of the early D&D/AD&D. And before that Hackmaster was that herald"
I think with OSRIC though there is an important difference. This system is 99% AD&D, Hackmaster was too wacked and commical and C&C is its own thing (not AD&D 1E but more like Gygaxian 2E or something hovering between 1E and 3E).
Osric is also different in that its designed to be used by many publishers (not just 1 as is C&C and HM), and "spinning" will be publisher bias. You will get the hard core 1E late 70s/early 80s style "real deal" from certain publishers (I suspect like ER) and altered stuff from others, but the OSRIC rules will always be AD&D...from what I've read, no one can get any closer.
The marketing efforts of C&C seems to be one of appealing to the broad market (including both 1E players and 3E players). Thats not going to be every OSRIC publishers goal, you'll get more niche development. And with this niche development your going to get competition of who's the most "hard core AD&D 1E", and this will prevent the kind of fuzzy drift your referring to. At least thats how it seems to be developing so far.
I also kind of disagree with your notion that the 1E rules played by different people result in majorly different results. Sure to a degree results are different, but if you stick to the rules as written, there are things that will always carry over (unless you do some major house rule changes): like specialized archetypes (resulting in character balance) and having to use the tables rather then rolling D20. These are big differences between 3E and 1E, and there are many others.
"At the moment, there is much talk about OSRIC being the herald of the AD&D 1E goodness,. But before that, C&C was the herald of the change back to the basics of the early D&D/AD&D. And before that Hackmaster was that herald"
I think with OSRIC though there is an important difference. This system is 99% AD&D, Hackmaster was too wacked and commical and C&C is its own thing (not AD&D 1E but more like Gygaxian 2E or something hovering between 1E and 3E).
Osric is also different in that its designed to be used by many publishers (not just 1 as is C&C and HM), and "spinning" will be publisher bias. You will get the hard core 1E late 70s/early 80s style "real deal" from certain publishers (I suspect like ER) and altered stuff from others, but the OSRIC rules will always be AD&D...from what I've read, no one can get any closer.
The marketing efforts of C&C seems to be one of appealing to the broad market (including both 1E players and 3E players). Thats not going to be every OSRIC publishers goal, you'll get more niche development. And with this niche development your going to get competition of who's the most "hard core AD&D 1E", and this will prevent the kind of fuzzy drift your referring to. At least thats how it seems to be developing so far.
I also kind of disagree with your notion that the 1E rules played by different people result in majorly different results. Sure to a degree results are different, but if you stick to the rules as written, there are things that will always carry over (unless you do some major house rule changes): like specialized archetypes (resulting in character balance) and having to use the tables rather then rolling D20. These are big differences between 3E and 1E, and there are many others.
Last edited:
Philotomy Jurament
First Post
I generally agree with this. Fairly or not, I think the satire/comedy aspect of Hackmaster hurt it as a torch-bearer for "old school goodness." And C&C is certainly it's own thing, even though it has a great deal of old-school feel. OSRIC is definitely the closest to 1E rules (practically identical), and has the "publishing" approach that you mention.tx7321 said:
I don't agree with the contention that C&C "has been rejected" as a system that provides old-school feel, though. Certainly it isn't 1E, and there are those who have rejected it on that basis, but I'd consider it a growing and successful part of the "old-school" market/movement in gaming. While I have my favorites, I see "old school" as embracing multiple related systems that I'd be happy running: OD&D, B/X, BECMI, AD&D, Hackmaster, Basic Fantasy, and C&C. I know the old-school community is (sadly, IMO) fractured on this, though (e.g. there are die-hard 1E fans who refer to 3E gamers as "3-tards" and C&C gamers as "C-tards"). Unfortunate all the way around.
I do think that "old school" is more than just feel and style (or nostaliga), though. All of those elements go into it, but the rules do make a difference, IMO. Where you draw that line is subjective, though.
I agree; I don't think the differences between 1E games with their house rules are significantly greater than the differences between 3E games with their house rules. The fact is that different groups house-rule their chosen system to taste. Some use group initiative, some individual. Different feats allowed. Different classes allowed. Different prestige classes. Action points and optional 3E rules from Unearthed Arcana, et cetera. The variation between groups exists no matter what the system. I know it's there, I just don't see it as very significant.
Last edited:
Maggan
Writer for CY_BORG, Forbidden Lands and Dragonbane
Philotomy Jurament said:
Thank you for your comments (both you and tx7321). I will digest your points, and see if I can make any more contributions to the discussion later.
One thing though. What I meant by "has been rejected" was not that it doesn't provide old school gaming, I meant that it is now not generally seen as the vehicle for recreating AD&D.
For all C&C fans out there, this is not a slam against the system. It's just that C&C from concept to released product to play sessions evolved into something different. Which is why OSRIC is getting that part of the action, so to speak.
IMO and all that.
/M
Last edited:
PapersAndPaychecks
First Post
Treebore said:
I love Pod-Caverns of the Sinister Shroom too, but it's by Mythmere (Matt Finch), not Mythusmage.
- Status
Similar Threads
- Locked
