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

[Aus_Snow]

Thanks for all the info, PJ.

Primes look a bit more appealing than at first blush, what with PCs having two or three. Anyway, I'll be checking out the C&C site(s).

Cheers.

oh and yeah, /tj

 

[Plane Sailing]

Moderator: I'm sorry to have to drop in with a reminder like this, but please keep it civil, address the discussion and don't make comments about other people.

Thanks guys.

 

[Aaron L]

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

You see, this is the answer I always read from people advocating more DM power. The DM has to be really great, and if not then it just sucks to be you, find another game or start your own.

What about all those people who want to be a DM but aren't that great at it yet? They just get tossed out in the dirt?


I DM. I'm not good, but I like to do it. I want consistent, solid rules with as little stuff for me to make up on the fly as possible. Should I just be SoL because I'm not uberDM?

 

[tx7321]

Aaron: "You see, this is the answer I always read from people advocating more DM power. The DM has to be really great, and if not then it just sucks to be you, find another game or start your own.

What about all those people who want to be a DM but aren't that great at it yet? They just get tossed out in the dirt?"

I think what people are talking about are DMs that are jerks, not inexperianced. Inexperianced DMs can be great. Esp. in 1E when basically all you have to show them are the charts. The rest is intuitive (such as, movement, if a person could realisticaly try to do something or not). New DMs are unpredictable, and their worlds are often fresh and imaginative...which makes for an exciting game...at least in 1E and OD&D). I find DMs aren't given much freedom in 3E/D20 as far as determining saves and combat. It seems the players dominate those elements of the game (each with their open set of rule books), spending as much time harking on their poor DM (thrusting their PC sheet at the poor guy to "prove" their stacks of modifiers) as they do fighting monsters. In some respects the 3E DM has fallen to the role of emasculated story teller, a far cry from the days when DM was the final and only say (as it was his world you were playing in) though he'd normally be open for advice, players accepted his role and never pushed the issue. Read some of the threads people have posted about playing AD&D 1E with Gary Gygax as DM and you'll see what I mean.
The key to a good game is having a DM who is firm and keeps the flow going, and a really good group of people. If you game with a bunch of cry baby rules lawyering,"yeah buts", your in for a long night. My best advice, go find a group of guys who've never played 1E (they can even be 3E players) and DM a game for them. They'll quickly understand the DM is "Ref", and his opinion is the only one that counts (yep, just like in football).

 

[Crimhthan_The_Great]

(off-topic)

Hey there, Crimhthan_The_Great. Your group has played that long? In that many adventures? And held together as friends for all these years?
I am green with envy. And respect. And admiration. Cheers to you and your group!

And my respects to the other Old-Timers here as well, and to their groups.

Yours Sincerely
Edena_of_Neith

Thank you, yes there were 9 in the original group and 5 of us still live close enough to play regularly. The other 4 show up about 4-6 times a year. They all DM there own campaigns. Of the other 4 original local members besides myself, they DM occasionally but prefer to play. As people have moved in and out of the area over the years due to RL reasons the group has flucuated between 5 and 15, with about 50 or so different players total over that time. Currently we have 8 regular players and a few others that show up now and then. Out of the total about half have been the DM at least a few times and about 12 have their own campaigns. We are hoping to reach 3000 game sessions before any of the original group dies of old age in RL or becomes incapable of playing and with a bit of luck we will reach that goal in a little less than 4 more years. I was born in 1940 and all of the original group are about the same age.

To us, the name of the game was Dungeons&Dragons. It didn't really register at first that there were two iterations, BECM D&D and Advanced D&D. We thought that it was the same game, basically.

So we were confused when we bought magazines with D&D adventures that contained rules that weren't what we were used to. We were confused when we bought modules for the "wrong" version of the game. Our parents were confused when they wanted to buy presents .. but I guess that'll never change.

IMO, WotC did the right thing ditching the "Advanced" moniker, focusing on the important part brand wise: "Dungeons&Dragons". And bringing the rules more up to date.



It is not an "alleged" confusion. I've seen it with my own eyes and I've experienced it myself. And as a selling point "new and better" is a more powerful marketing tool than "the same as before".

/M

I was 31 when I started with Chainmail in 1971 and lived through BECMI and AD&D so for me there was never any confusion, nor with anyone that I know. When we bought magazines with advertures or modules it was always with the view of converting it and moving the parts that we wanted into our homebrew OD&D or OAD&D campaign. It didn't really matter which form it was in, it wasn't until 2E came along that any significant amount of conversion was required. We don't convert from any d20, it takes too much time, but there is a lot of new material at DF and other places that requires little if any conversion and now with OSRIC and a few other people putting 1E back in print we can hold the modules in our hands again.

I always find it funny, when people claim that WotC brought the rules "up to date". That is an odd way to put it. They made massive rules changes and continued the move from OD&D (rules lite - maximum freedom) to AD&D (rules medium standarized format - some freedom) to 3E (rules heavy - minimal freedom - and weak DM equals monty haul for all). If you mean up to date in terms of making the game a faux medieval version of Marvel Comics superheros where the standard character is a tricked out munchkin that never loses, I will agree with that. And I am fully aware that the video game generation loves to play that kind of game, albeit they have not been exposed to anything else. But if you mean by up to date that they improved the game in anyway from OD&D & AD&D, then I have to disagree in the strongest terms.

I can think of several different directions that WotC could have taken and have claimed "new and better." As it is, truth in advertising ( I know there is no such thing) would require them to say, "We have improved the game, why back in 1974 you could learn in one gaming session and it only took about 5 minutes to create a new character and you could flesh his background out as you played, now it takes months to learn while wading through hundreds of pages of rules and it takes hours to create a character to get ready to play the first time." Again if you like that, I am all in favor of it being sold and you playing it, but I am also in favor of my being able to buy and play what I want to play. I have no desire to infringe on your rights to buy what you want to buy, I just want you to stop agreeing with those that have infringed on my rights to buy what I want to buy. And no, being able to buy a copy of OD&D for $100 plus on ebay doesn't do it for me, when I should be able to get it print on demand as many copies as I want at $15 or $20 bucks a pop. I was a steady paying customer from 1971 up until 3E was published, then I was rudely shown the door by WotC and was told by their actions and decisions that I and my money were no longer welcome.

You see, this is the answer I always read from people advocating more DM power. The DM has to be really great, and if not then it just sucks to be you, find another game or start your own.

What about all those people who want to be a DM but aren't that great at it yet? They just get tossed out in the dirt?


I DM. I'm not good, but I like to do it. I want consistent, solid rules with as little stuff for me to make up on the fly as possible. Should I just be SoL because I'm not uberDM?

Well it really boils down to is this, do you want a game that moves along at a brisk pace where people can depend on a great playing experience, which is what you get in an OD&D or AD&D game, where the players respect the DM and each other and are commited to the game as a regular fun time where personal egos are checked at the door. Now egos are expressed in the roleplaying of the characters, the only game appropriate place for ego.

If you have a weak DM and players who don't respect the authority of the DM, then I would be amazed as to how you could ever have any of the above. I could see how you could have constant chaos that would drive people off, but not how there would be anything to draw people in.

The DM does not have to be GREAT or an uberDM in order to have a good game, but the DM and player have to respect each other and check their egos at the door.

There is a huge difference between being an average DM and being a bad DM. I give anyone who wants to a chance to DM and even some of my oldest players who occasionally DM would freely admit that they are no great shakes as a DM, but we still have a massive amount of fun when they DM because (see my "really boils down to is this" statment above).

Now if you have a Bad DM as in "it makes the game really unpleasant" then yes you should move on. Poor or average DMs can get better and most people can learn to DM, but Bad DMs only get worse, they are the only ones who should get tossed in the dirt. BTW if you have a great DM, he or she has a responsibility to help others become great DMs.

 

[tx7321]

Crimthan, that was an inspired post...you truely are "Great".

Seriously, there is a huge difference in the "culture" of players between 1E/OD&D and 3E.
Some of that diff. relates to who WOTC marketed 3E to (Magic players, used to self determination and stacking, and then the 2E players used to backstory and linear plot), but a bigger reason for the difference in "player culture" between 1E and 3E are the actual 3E rules themselves which empower the player and strip the DM of his godlike status. The next time you play 3E, take a look around at your other players and see how involved they are with themselves and their in-depth knowledge of the rules, and see what a weak role the DM really plays. Then watch if the DM trips up, it'll be like watching 6 hyena taking down a tired out gazelle. DMing in 3E is a horrible job on so many levels its not even funny... Part of why I returned to 1E I guess...as the above poster noted....there really isn't any room for the 1E mindset in 3E....the 1E player really was shown the door.

 

[Maggan]

But if you mean by up to date that they improved the game in anyway from OD&D & AD&D, then I have to disagree in the strongest terms.

That's okay by me. We just have to agree to disagree. 3e fixed a lot of things I found not to my liking with BECM D&D and AD&D1st.

I have no desire to infringe on your rights to buy what you want to buy, I just want you to stop agreeing with those that have infringed on my rights to buy what I want to buy.

I don't understand what you are saying. Honestly, you want me to stop agreeing with ... whom? WotC? If I think their strategy is basically sound, why should I stop thinking that?

And what's this about infringing on your rights to buy stuff? They released a new edition without supporting the old one, that's all. And I really, really think that claiming a "right to buy what I want to buy" is a strange right to claim.

For the life of me I can't understand why the WotC strategy is something to get so worked up over. Since you used bold type and larger font size, and judging from the phrasing of your post, this is something that makes you really upset. So I will bow out of this discussion, because I don't want to write more posts that make you even more upset.

/M

 

[Storm Raven]

Are you serious???

Yes, completely.

Surely you can not believe any of what you just said!!! First of all D&D and AD&D are two completely different games, if you do not understand that it completely blows your credibility on anything to do with D&D or AD&D.

Yes, they were. When they were published. However, the "Advanced" moniker was entirely confusing to consumers in 2000 who were unfamiliar with the history of D&D. There is no "Basic", so calling the only version in print the "Advanced" system is just silly.

I understand that they were slightly different rules sets. I understand that because I have copies of both sitting on my bookshelf at home, and have played both. But, they still remain simply variations on a theme. Both D&D. And if you had asked the average consumer in 1985, 1990, 1995, or 2000 to identify the game "D&D", he would likely have identified the one we specifically call "AD&D", and may not have even thought of the other versions at all.

Which makes continuing the designation "AD&D" confusing. Suggesting that WotC was trying to "lie" to the public by trying to "mislead" them into thinking that their game system was heir to a relatively little known variation of their flagship product that had been out of print for years is simply looking to pick a fight. It is an entirely counterintuitive leap to make, and one that makes you look like you just have an axe to grind, and little more.

To say that WotC dropped the "Advanced" because it was confusing is to pretend that the history of D&D and AD&D started when 3E came out. There was nothing confusing about it to any of the millions of people who had already played D&D and/or AD&D

Sure there was. I know many people who started with "D&D", and then tried to change over to "AD&D" when they had played that a while, thinking that "D&D" was the beginner version of "AD&D". Then they became confused as to why the games didn't mesh perfectly, and why they had even gotten "D&D" to begin with, when they really wanted a pathway to playing "AD&D".

and it would have been simple enough to bring any new fans uptodate on this history;

Yes, because marketing a product with a label that requires the consumer to educate themselves on the historical naming parterns games that have out of print for years is always a wise marketing move.

therefore, this "alleged" confusion is a strawman. I am also aware of the mistakes that WotC made in there intention and practice of killing off all that went before 3E, they basically said "play 3E or we don't want your business" and they have certainly done without my business and that of 15 other people that I know personally.

No you are just sounding like a wild eyed consipiracy theorist. WotC made their intention and practice of trying to make a version of D&D that would make them as much money as it could, minimizing costs and maximizing revenue.

To say that AD&D, OD&D etc are just different iterations of the same thing is just not true. In fact it is a bald faced lie, something that no one could ever honestly say. How can you be taken seriously when you utter such rubbish! You are the one without credibility when you ignore the vast differences between the different "D&D" games and deny that they are different games. You can poo poo my opinion all you want to, but don't expect me to think it is anything more that the mutterings a very sick person when you utter such dishonest and deceitful nonsense.

You can rant all you want. However, it remains entirely true that D&D and AD&D (1e, and 2e), and yes, even 3/3.5e are all just different iterations of the same thing. Even more so with D&D and AD&D (both versions), since their mechanics are so similar, more similar, in fact than say, playing two different GURPS games in two different genres (say, GURPS: Supers, and GURPS: Bunnies and Burrows).

You are starting to sound like the comic book guy here. "It is a bald faced lie!" "How can you be taken seriously when you say such utter rubbish!" and so on. Step back, look at the games with a fresh eye. They are incredibly similar if you don't focus on trivialities. And, to the consuming public, with a few exceptions (such as yourself), they are interchangeable as products.

 

[Storm Raven]

The next time you play 3E, take a look around at your other players and see how involved they are with themselves and their understanding of the rules, and see what a weak role the DM really plays. Then see if the DM rules something wrong, it'll be like watching 6 hyena taking down a tired out gazelle. DMing in 3E is a horrible job on so many levels its not even funny... Part of why I returned to 1E I guess...as there really isn't any room for the 1E mindset in 3E.

This is a problem with players, not the 3e system. I have played in a half dozen 3e/3.5e D&D campaigns and I have never seen this sort of thing happen. I have certainly never seen the "6 hyena taking down a tired gazelle" meme played out, ever. I certainly saw it before 3e came out, but then again I gamed for twenty years before 3e came out, so there was more time to be present at a group made up of immature players who would act like that.

I don't think that sort of behaviour is new for 3e (in my experience, it has been the opposite), and I think it was at least as prevalent in the "olden days" (which is why the Hackmaster comic has so many cases of the players taking the DM to task for deviating from the rules, and people recognize that sort of thing).

 

[tx7321]

Maggen: "Since you used bold type and larger font size, and judging from the phrasing of your post, this is something that makes you really upset. So I will bow out of this discussion, because I don't want to write more posts that make you even more upset."

I hope you do not. I was enjoying reading your posts. Anyhow, everyone has a different style of communication...his is more passionate thats all. So far this thread has stayed out of "edition war" status, and I hope it stays that way.

Storm Raven: "This is a problem with players, not the 3e system. I have played in a half dozen 3e/3.5e D&D campaigns and I have never seen this sort of thing happen."

It is subtle sometimes. Even in my own 3E group I didn't really "get it" until I DMed and realized...hey, these guys are calculating everything, they're telling me what their chances are to climb a rope, or any number of other tasks, and when I disagree (and maybe I'm wrong) they all start pointing out how this and that skill combined with this and that attribute and feat result in this or that chance...And when they ask to try and do something its always in terms of "can I use this skill or that feat" like every action has a little button they press. hell, thats how I ended up playing 3E for 2 years...thats how long it took before I could put my finger on what was bugging me.

In AD&D 1E as DM I say, "OK role your dex to climb this rope", or "role your petrification". The player doesn't start asking why, they just do it (and the way the rules are written in AD&D the DM has that latitude...many situations just aren't covered. That ability of the DM to just make stuff up in there head and call it "rules" bugs the crap out of alot of todays players, but that was the power of the game...and DMing it was brutally fun.

The fact that the 1E players don't know what to expect from their DM, but have a basic idea of what chances they might have creates a "feel" much different from 3E, which has that "video game" feel as you progress up in numbers and press "tumble" or "climb" when you need to. Infact, I often wonder if 3E wasn't an attempt to bring in that huge demographic of Nintendo players used to accumulating powers and pressing buttons.

Anyhow, yeah, unless you play 1E or OD&D you might not even see what I'm talking about in 3E. But take it from me, there is a stark difference us 1Eers see between the role of DM between 1st and 3rd editions.

That you have a good group is cool. But 3E is written so that if you had a bad group they could rules lawyer the DM to death. In 1E, even if you had those sorts of players, it wouldn't matter, the DM would just say, "well thats that" and as chance would have it, the leader of the little table rebellion would end up with a spiked green tail before the game was over.