I've figured it out.

[woodelf]

Only because liking it to comparing PB&J to a hamburger sounds like one is saying that that which is analogous to PB&J is inferior to that which is analogous to a hamburger. I see now that that was not your intent; apples vs oranges is usually what I hear used in this way. Whoa, that's a lot of the word 'that'.0_0

You're just bringing your own prejudices to the table. After all, if either of them is superior in any sort of vaguely-objective way, it's clearly the PB&J. PB&J can be kept at room temperature for several days; a hamburger will go bad in just a few hours. PB&J is perfectly edible after being squished; a hamburger falls apart. PB&J doesn't require access to fire, or the skill to safely use it; hamburger does. PB&J requires no more than one implement (knife or spoon); hamburger requires several (grill or pan, flipping implement, etc.). PB&J has an excellent balance of nutrients, and can keep you going for days; hamburgers have too much fat, not enough simple sugars or nutrients (unless you really pile on the veggies, i suppose). PB&J is much cheaper than hamburger for similar mass or caloric value. PB&J tastes fine chilled, room-temp, or warm; hamburgers taste pretty icky cold. And, lastly, everyone can eat a PB&J, even vegans, so it is a more universally-available food.

So, clearly, when he made that comparison, he was saying that D&D3E is superior in almost every way to AD&D1.

 

[grodog]

Much appreciated. Now I can go back through the thread and find out what everyone's talking about. Thanks, grodog!

De nada

 

[RFisher]

FWIW. My group happily switched to 2e when it came out. We didn't have a long-term campaign, though. Each campaign was a separate thing. (Although, strangely enough, the longest running 2e campaign I was in was set in a long-term campaign world that had been developed under 1e.)

A couple of us moved away, & we quickly switched to other system. For me, at least, it had nothing to do with 2e per se. I'd have probably switched about the same time if 2e had never happened. (Although, I've never only played one system exclusively. So, I'm talking in generalities here.)

One of the other guys from my old group, however, stuck with 2e & happily upgraded to 3e when it arrived.

Yet, there is the fact that the 1e PHB was in demand even after 2e was released. (The last printing of the 1e PHB was after 2e was released. Customers demanded it of the retailers, retailers demanded it of the distributors, so the distributors demanded it from TSR.)

I'm not convinced that there was a clearly, dominant reaction to 2e.

 

[TerraDave]

I knew people who switched, I knew people who played other systems (there where a lot of these in the late 80's early 90's), and I knew people who kept playing AD&D...

I switched, and as the poll indicates I was not alone. As others have noted, the issues with 2ed tended to grow through time as options proliferated and flavour remained stale (or became too hot and spicy with the more exotic campaing settings). I felt 3 ed addressed the former in a big way, and some 3rd party publishers have addressed the later (thanks to the OGL).

I think that a lot of the audience "lost" by 2nd edition was already gone...

 

[TerraDave]

I don't think the theory holds.

Worse, I don't think TSRs data from that era is reliable. I've seen Gary say they lost 40% of their customers on the switch to 2E. I think this is wrong - I think they lost a lot of em them before that - they just didn't realize it.

IMO - and this is purely anecdotal - the so called "customer drop" where TSR lost customers when it moved from 1E to 2E is significantly overstated. I don't trust their data or their presumptions behind it.

All - and I mean ALL of the two dozen+ gamers I knew from the 1st E era had been leaving 1st edition for other game systems before 2E came out.

When it was released, virtually none of the two dozen RPG players I knew at the time bought it, but that had nothing to do with 1st ed or 2nd ed - it had to do with AD&D in general.

With 3E, there were significant changes in the game which removed a lot of the reasons why we left in the first place. And the books were cool looking, reasonably cheap and the OGL wiped out the competition at a stroke. Add in nostalgia...

Result: we came back.

Excelent points worth reposting

A lot of D&Ders in the 80s did not make the switch...to Unearthed Arcana, Oriental Adventures, the Survival Guides (which at point where being sold new for $5)...Or they had already made the switch: to Rolemaster, Runequest, MERP, Champions, D6 Star Wars...Or they stopped playing all together, or never really played with those books they thought looked cool or got as a present.

 

[Henry]

My theory is this: Each Edition has pleased the majority of the previous edition's players at the time it was released, and each one lost a smaller portion of the base due to various reasons. One thing I think made a difference was that the ten years waited between editions was too long - while the majority of us grognards and huge volume-purchasers may have praised TSR/WotC for such a pace, such a pace also means things get stale for the casual players (and hence for the majority of their market). Trying to predict trends from samples at ENWorld or elsewhere is folly, because we are such a skewed eclectic sample (we are the people who enjoy the game enough to make it a major hobby). One thing the ENWorld sample above shows is that the majority of players played what was CURRENT; those who didn't play D&D at the release of 2E played it later, and switched to the current game, whatever it was, when it was released. In fact, I'm guessing (though without any evidence) that a majority of those playiing 3E right now are playing at least in part or whole with the 3.5 rules. We play what's new, and if what's new stays unchanged for more than 5 years, we start leaving it, or at the least dabbling with other games. It's not evil, nor sacrilege - it's matter of fact.

 

[diaglo]

It's not evil, nor sacrilege - it's matter of fact.

i was in agreement with you upto here. and then you lost me.

i completely disagree with you on this point.

 

[Henry]

i was in agreement with you upto here. and then you lost me.

i completely disagree with you on this point.

Tell me you've never gotten tired of a game that you frequently played, even for a little while. Even The Steadfast Diaglo had to have dropped OD&D in the old days for an afternoon bout of Advanced Squad Leader every once in a while.

My point with the last statement is that a majority of players will, after playing their favorite RPG intensively, will leave it for a while, and when they return, it won't necessarily be with the same fervor they first had. If creative juices aren't refreshed, you tire of a thing. For most of us, we tired of the current edition (whatever it was) after a while, and the new edition was the breath of new air. Even for those who found a particular edition and stuck with it over time, they change pace periodically before returning.

 

[The_Universe]

I didn't like 2e! I didn't like it so strenuously that I played D6 Star Wars nearly exclusively until just before 3E came out. Since then, D20 has been my love.

 

[diaglo]

Tell me you've never gotten tired of a game that you frequently played, even for a little while. Even The Steadfast Diaglo had to have dropped OD&D in the old days for an afternoon bout of Advanced Squad Leader every once in a while. .

yes. i played Squad Leader. but that wasn't b/c i was tired of OD&D.

3-4hrs per session; 5 sessions per week; 50 weeks per year; for 10+ years. OD&D mang.